Samaritans - Past and Present, Eds. Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer

Samaritans: Past and Present
Studia Judaica
Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums
Begründet von
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich
Herausgegeben von
Günter Stemberger
Band 53
Studia Samaritana
Herausgegeben von
Magnar Kartveit, Gerald Knoppers
und Stefan Schorch
Band 5
De Gruyter
Samaritans: Past and Present
Current Studies
Edited by
Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer
In collaboration with
Waltraud Winkler
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-019497-5
e-ISBN 978-3-11-021283-9
ISSN 0585-5306
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Samaritans: Past and present : current studies / edited by Menachem Mor

and Friedrich V. Reiterer ; in collaboration with Waltraud Winkler.
p. cm. - (Studia Judaica ; 53) (Studia Samaritana ; 5)
A collection of papers presented at the International Symposium on the
Samaritans and at the annual conference of the Society of Biblical Literature
that took place in Vienna, July 2007.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-019497-5
1. Samaritans - History. 2. Palestine - History - 70-638. 3. Jews -
History - 70-638. I. Mor, Menahem. II. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz.
III. Winkler, Waltraud.
DS129.S35 2010
296.8117-dc22
2010005537
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com

Prefaceȱ
Theȱcollectionȱofȱarticlesȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱoriginatedȱinȱlecturesȱgivenȱinȱ
twoȱmeetingsȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱtheirȱpastȱandȱpresent.ȱ
Theȱ firstȱ wasȱ anȱ internationalȱ symposiumȱ on:ȱ Theȱ Samaritans:ȱ Theȱ
Currentȱ Stateȱ ofȱ Research,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ alsoȱ theȱ sixthȱ Conferenceȱ ofȱ theȱ
Sociétéȱd’EtudesȱSamaritaines.ȱTheȱmeetingȱtookȱplaceȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱ
ofȱHaifa,ȱJulyȱ5Ȭ8,ȱ2004,ȱorganizedȱbyȱMenahemȱMor,ȱDeanȱofȱtheȱFaculȬ
tyȱ ofȱ Humanities,ȱ withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ theȱ academicȱ committeeȱ ofȱ theȱ
meeting:ȱMosheȱFlorentinȱofȱTelȱAvivȱUniversity,ȱandȱUrielȱRappaportȱ
ofȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱHaifa.ȱ ȱ
Theȱ conferenceȱ wasȱ supportedȱ byȱ theȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Humanities,ȱ andȱ
theȱ Centreȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ EretzȬIsraelȱ andȱ itsȱ Yishuvȱ ofȱ Yadȱ Izhakȱ
BenȬZviȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱHaifa.ȱ
Theȱ secondȱ meetingȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ annualȱ Conferenceȱ ofȱ theȱ
SocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature,ȱInternational,ȱthatȱtookȱplaceȱinȱViennaȱ,ȱ
Julyȱ22Ȭ26,ȱ2007,ȱtwoȱsessions,ȱorganizedȱbyȱJózsefȱZsengellér,ȱfromȱtheȱ
Reformedȱ Theologicalȱ Academyȱ atȱ Pápaȱ Hungary,ȱ wereȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ
Samaritanȱ studies.ȱ Duringȱ thisȱ meeting,ȱ inȱ theȱ session:ȱ Politicizationȱ ofȱ
BiblesȱandȱBiblicizationȱofȱPolitics:ȱSomeȱAspects,ȱYairahȱAmitȱofȱTelȱAvivȱ
UniversityȱdealtȱwithȱtopicsȱaboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱmodernȱSamaritansȱinȱ
theȱStateȱofȱIsrael. ȱ
Theȱ openingȱ articleȱ byȱ Reinhardȱ Pummerȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Ottawa),ȱ
“Samaritanismȱ–ȱAȱJewishȱSectȱorȱanȱIndependentȱFormȱofȱYahwism?”,ȱreconȬ
sidersȱoneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱproblemsȱofȱSamaritanȱStudies:ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ
whoȱ areȱ theȱ Samaritans:ȱ Heȱ reviewsȱ theȱ differentȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ theirȱ
origins:ȱ Isȱ Samaritanismȱ aȱ Jewishȱ Sectȱ orȱ anȱ Independentȱ Formȱ ofȱ
Yahwism?ȱAreȱtheyȱtheȱearliestȱ“Jewishȱsect”ȱorȱdidȱtheyȱoriginateȱasȱaȱ
varietyȱ ofȱ secondȱ templeȱ Judaismȱ orȱ asȱ anȱ independentȱ formȱ ofȱ YahȬ
wism?ȱȱ
Ingridȱ Hjelmȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Copenhagen),ȱ “Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ andȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱ inȱ Recentȱ Research”,ȱ questionsȱ theȱ prototypeȱ assumptionsȱ whichȱ
wereȱraisedȱaboutȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱSamariaȱandȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱBasedȱonȱ
literaryȱparadigmsȱofȱdisappearance,ȱreplacement,ȱsectarianȱbehaviourȱ
andȱ removal,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ andȱ religiousȱ rolesȱ playedȱ byȱ theȱ Assyrian,ȱ
Persianȱ andȱ Ptolemaicȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ andȱ itsȱ populationȱ haveȱ
viȱ Preface
implicitlyȱbeenȱconsideredȱinferiorȱtoȱtheȱrolesȱplayedȱbyȱJerusalemȱinȱ
theseȱsameȱperiods.ȱȱ
Twoȱ articlesȱ areȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ findingsȱ ofȱ theȱ papyriȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ
Daliyeh.ȱ Theseȱ wereȱ recentlyȱ republishedȱ withȱ anȱ extensiveȱ commenȬ
taryȱbyȱJanȱDušek,ȱLesȱManucritsȱaramaéenesȱduȱWadiȱDaliyehȱetȱlaȱSamarieȱ
versȱ450Ȭ332ȱav.ȱJ.ȬC.,ȱLeidenȱ2007.ȱȱȱ
Theȱ firstȱ articleȱ handlesȱ someȱ economicȱ issuesȱ arisingȱ fromȱ theȱ
papyri.ȱ Jackȱ Pastorȱ (Oranimȱ College),ȱ “Theȱ Contributionȱ ofȱ theȱ Samariaȱ
PapyriȱfromȱWadiȱDaliyehȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱEconomicsȱinȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod”,ȱ
feelsȱthatȱitȱisȱtoȱbeȱregrettedȱthatȱtheȱcontributionȱofȱtheȱpapyriȱofȱWadiȱ
Daliyehȱinȱregardȱtoȱeconomicȱquestionsȱisȱsoȱpoorȱandȱthatȱtheirȱinputȱ
toȱ theȱ transitionȱ periodȱ fromȱ theȱ Persianȱ toȱ Alexander’sȱ conquestȱ isȱ
minimal.ȱ
OdedȱTammuzȱ(BenȱGurionȱUniversity),ȱinȱhisȱarticleȱ“WillȱtheȱRealȱ
SanballatȱPleaseȱStandȱUp?”,ȱconcentratesȱonȱanȱonomasticȱproblem,ȱtheȱ
multipleȱSanballats.ȱHeȱrejectsȱtheȱinventingȱofȱaȱSanballat,ȱandȱsolvesȱ
thisȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ way.ȱ Heȱ considersȱ thatȱ Sanballatȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ
foundingȱ fatherȱ ofȱ theȱ familyȱ ofȱ governorsȱ inȱ Samariaȱ muchȱ likeȱ hisȱ
contemporariesȱMurasuȱandȱÉȬgiȬbiȱinȱBabylon,ȱorȱtheȱlaterȱTobiadsȱinȱ
Transjordan.ȱ
Oryȱ Amitayȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Haifa),ȱ “Theȱ Useȱ andȱ Abuseȱ ofȱ theȱ ArguȬ
mentumȱ eȱ silentioȱ –ȱ theȱ Caseȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ inȱ Jerusalem”,ȱ writesȱ aboutȱ theȱ
adventȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Greatȱ whichȱ wasȱ aȱ significantȱ occurrenceȱ inȱ
theȱhistoryȱofȱEretzȬIsrael.ȱTheȱactualȱevents,ȱhowever,ȱhaveȱbeenȱmuchȱ
debatedȱ andȱ theȱ narrativeȱ generallyȱ disbelieved.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ thisȱ
doubtȱ liesȱ aȱ deepȱ suspicionȱ ofȱ theȱ veracityȱ ofȱ ourȱ mainȱ source,ȱ JoseȬ
phus,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱlegendaryȱmotifsȱwhichȱheȱ(andȱothers)ȱcombinedȱ
inȱ theirȱ reports.ȱ Heȱ surveysȱ theȱ mythsȱ toldȱ inȱ antiquityȱ aboutȱ AleȬ
xander’sȱvisitȱinȱEretzȬIsrael,ȱandȱsubjectsȱthemȱtoȱhistoricalȱscrutiny.ȱȱ
Józsefȱ Zsengellérȱ (Reformedȱ Theologicalȱ Academy),ȱ “Wasȱ heȱ aȱ Badȱ
Samaritan?ȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ andȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ AntiȬ
SamaritanȱPolemic”,ȱreconsidersȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱtheȱtextȱofȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱ
withȱ itsȱ mixtureȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ sourcesȱ representsȱ literalȱ orȱ
symbolicalȱhostilityȱofȱthemȱbothȱtowardȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
TheȱnextȱgroupȱofȱarticlesȱconcentratesȱonȱsomeȱissuesȱinȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritan’sȱTorah,ȱandȱitsȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱTorah.ȱ
IngridȱHjelmȱ(UniversityȱofȱCopenhagen),ȱ“Samaria,ȱSamaritansȱandȱ
theȱ Compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible”,ȱ presentsȱ anȱ examinationȱ ofȱ superȬ
sessionismȱandȱ competitionȱ overȱ cultȱandȱ beliefȱinherentȱ inȱ narrativesȱ
andȱstructuresȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱBible.ȱWhileȱdiscussionsȱoverȱcultȱplacesȱ
areȱ presentedȱ inȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ extraȬbiblicalȱ sourcesȱ asȱ takingȱ placeȱ inȱ
postȬexilicȱ times,ȱ biblicalȱ narrativesȱ anachronisticallyȱ placeȱ aȱ northȬ
ȱ Preface viiȱȱ
southȱ competitionȱ inȱ aȱ preȬexilicȱ dividedȱ Israel,ȱ mirroredȱ againstȱ theȱ

idealȱIsraelȱofȱDavidȱ(andȱSolomon),ȱinȱwhichȱJerusalemȱplaysȱtheȱroleȱ
asȱ‘theȱplaceȱYahwehȱhasȱchosen’.ȱ
Adrianȱ Schenkerȱ (Freiburgȱ University),ȱ „Textgeschichtlichesȱ zumȱ
SamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱundȱSamareitikon.ȱZurȱTextgeschichteȱdesȱPentaȬ
teuchsȱimȱ2.ȱJh.ȱv.Chr.”,ȱreviewsȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱPentateuchȱ
byȱ comparingȱ itȱ withȱ theȱ changesȱ andȱ differencesȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
TorahȱandȱtheȱSamaritikon.ȱȱ
Stefanȱ Schorchȱ (Kirchlicheȱ Hochschuleȱ Bethel,ȱ Bielefeld,ȱ nowȱ UniȬ
versityȱofȱHalle),ȱ“TheȱLatentȱMasorahȱofȱtheȱSamaritans”,ȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱ
factȱ thatȱ likeȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ developedȱ aȱ Masoreticȱ activity,ȱ
thoughȱ itȱ wasȱ neverȱ nearlyȱ asȱ comprehensiveȱ asȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Masorah.ȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ himȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ thisȱ isȱ mostȱ probablyȱ thatȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritanȱtransmissionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱcenteredȱalwaysȱonȱ
theȱ oralȱ andȱ notȱ theȱ writtenȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ paperȱ triesȱ toȱ answer,ȱ howȱ
thisȱoralȱtraditionȱwasȱupheldȱinȱaȱstableȱway,ȱasȱobviouslyȱitȱwas.ȱ
Mosheȱ (Matthew)ȱ Morgensternȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Haifa),ȱ “ʤʫʸʡʤȱ
:ʤʸʥʺʡ ʺʹʬʥʹʮʤȱTheȱHebrew,ȱAramaicȱandȱArabicȱVersionsȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
Pentateuch”,ȱ considersȱ severalȱ problematicȱ passagesȱ inȱ theȱ Torah,ȱ andȱ
attemptsȱto demonstrateȱhowȱtheȱSamaritanȱversionsȱtackleȱthemȱfromȱ
theȱ linguisticȱ standpoint.ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ interpretationsȱ areȱ comparedȱ
withȱ earlyȱ Jewish exegesisȱ asȱ witnessedȱ inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ andȱ
Rabbinicȱsources. ȱ
ThreeȱarticlesȱconcentrateȱonȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱTalmudicȱLiterȬ
ature,ȱmainlyȱtheȱsmallȱtractateȱKutim.ȱ
MosheȱLaveeȱ(UniversityȱofȱHaifa),ȱ“TheȱSamaritanȱmayȱbeȱincludedȱ–ȱ
AnotherȱlookȱatȱtheȱSamaritanȱinȱTalmudicȱLiterature”,ȱoffersȱanȱinnovativeȱ
discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ rabbinicȱ approachȱ towardsȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱHeȱshowsȱtheȱcrucialȱroleȱofȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱinȱtheȱ
shiftȱ towardsȱ theirȱ definitionȱ asȱ ‘absoluteȱ gentiles’.ȱ Usingȱ rhetoricalȱ
devicesȱ andȱ reworking,ȱ rephrasingȱ andȱ rearrangingȱ earlierȱ texts,ȱ theȱ
Talmudȱprovidedȱaȱbinaryȱconceptualȱframeworkȱinȱwhichȱthereȱisȱnoȱ
placeȱforȱliminalȱgroupsȱinȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱThisȱnewȱframeȬ
workȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ forȱ identityȱ demarcation,ȱ replacingȱ formerȱ
inclusiveȱ perceptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ thenȱ becameȱ dominantȱ inȱ
theȱpostȬTalmudicȱera.ȱ
Andreasȱ Lehnardtȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Mainz),ȱ “Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ andȱ theȱ
Resurrectionȱ ofȱ Dead”,ȱ triesȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ lastȱ wordsȱ ofȱ theȱ tractate,ȱ
linkedȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱwhatȱareȱtheȱconditionsȱforȱacceptingȱSamaritansȱ
intoȱ Judaism.ȱ Heȱ concentratesȱ mostlyȱ onȱ theȱ thirdȱ condition,ȱ theȱ
Samaritans’ȱ confessionȱ ofȱ theȱ Resurrectionȱ ofȱ theȱ dead.ȱ Heȱ challengesȱ
viiiȱ Preface
thisȱ statementȱ withȱ theȱ someȱ supportȱ forȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ believeȱ inȱ
resurrectionȱofȱtheȱdead inȱsourcesȱfromȱthirdȱcenturyȱonwards.ȱ
Emmanuelȱ Friedheimȱ (Barȱ Ilanȱ University),ȱ “Someȱ Notesȱ aboutȱ theȱ
SamaritansȱandȱtheȱRabbinicȱClassȱatȱtheȱCrossroads”,ȱservesȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱ
historicalȱandȱsocialȱchangesȱinȱtheȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱtheȱRabbisȱofȱ
theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ afterȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ tillȱ theȱ
earlyȱ thirdȱ centuryȱ CE,ȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ population.ȱ Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ
secondȱcentury,ȱtheȱrabbinicȱsourcesȱproveȱbeyondȱdoubtȱthatȱtheȱrelaȬ
tionshipsȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱandȱ Samaritansȱ becameȱ veryȱ tenseȱ onceȱagainȱ
andȱfinallyȱledȱtoȱaȱrupture.ȱFriedheimȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱhistoricalȱcausesȱ
ofȱ theȱ strainedȱ breachȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ populationȱ
duringȱ theȱ thirdȱ centuryȱ CE.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ himȱ afterȱ theȱ BarȬKokhbaȱ
revoltȱ theȱ deepȱ Hellenizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ whoȱ finallyȱ adoptedȱ
paganȱ ritualȱ syncretisticȱ cultsȱ visiblyȱ acceleratedȱ theȱ deteriorationȱ inȱ
theȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ theȱ Jewishȱ peopleȱ tillȱ aȱ definitiveȱ separationȱ
betweenȱtheseȱtwoȱethnicalȱgroupsȱoccurred.ȱ
Theȱ firstȱ articleȱ onȱ modernȱ timesȱ isȱ byȱ Haseebȱ Shehadehȱ (UniȬ
versityȱofȱHelsinki),ȱ“AȱCaseȱofȱPalestinianȱArabȱJusticeȱbetweenȱMinorityȱ
andȱ Majority.ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Highȱ Priestȱ Sal¬maȱ b.ȱ adaqaȱ andȱ theȱ Arabȱ
TailorsȱofȱNablusȱinȱtheȱNineteenthȱCentury”.ȱShehadehȱrelatesȱandȱdiscusȬ
sesȱanȱArabicȱshortȱstoryȱthatȱwasȱwrittenȱinȱ1960,ȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
highȱ priestȱ Sal¬maȱ b.ȱ adaqaȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ nineteenȱ centuryȱ inȱ
Nablusȱ withȱ thirtyȱ otherȱ Samaritanȱ families.ȱ Throughȱ theȱ highȱ priestsȱ
relationsȱwithȱtheȱArabȱtailorsȱtheȱstoryȱdescribesȱtheȱatmosphereȱthatȱ
hadȱ developedȱ inȱ Nablus,ȱ andȱ theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
minorityȱandȱtheȱArabȱmajorityȱwhoȱlivedȱinȱtheȱcity.ȱȱ
TwoȱarticlesȱwereȱwrittenȱbyȱtwoȱmembersȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱSamaritanȱ
communityȱ dwellingȱ atȱ Holonȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ majorȱ concentrationȱ ofȱ
SamaritansȱinȱIsraelȱ
Benyamimȱ Tsedakaȱ (A.Bȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ Studies,ȱ Holon),ȱ
“Samaritanȱ Israeliteȱ Familiesȱ andȱ Householdsȱ thatȱ Disappeared”,ȱ isȱ theȱ
directorȱ ofȱ theȱ Instituteȱ andȱ heȱ reviewsȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ hundredȱ
andȱfiftyȱancientȱSamaritanȱIsraeliteȱhouseholdsȱandȱfamilies,ȱbasedȱonȱ
Samaritanȱ sources,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ testimoniesȱ foundȱ inȱ Torahȱ manuȬ
scripts,ȱ codicesȱ andȱ scrolls.ȱ Hisȱ assessmentȱ includesȱ theȱ familiesȱ thatȱ
disappearedȱ sinceȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ occupationȱ throughȱ theȱ ages,ȱ andȱ
thoseȱwhoȱsurvived.ȱȱȱ
Israelȱ Sedakaȱ (Holon),ȱ “Izhakȱ Benȱ Zvi,ȱ Davidȱ BenȬGurionȱ andȱ theȱ
Samaritans”,ȱwritesȱaboutȱtheȱuniqueȱrelationsȱbetweenȱIzhakȱBenȬZvi,ȱ
theȱSecondȱPresidentȱofȱtheȱStateȱofȱIsrael,ȱandȱDavidȱBenȬGurion,ȱtheȱ
legendaryȱ Israeliȱ Primeȱ Ministerȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Benȱ Zviȱ hadȱ
extraordinaryȱ personalȱ contactsȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ Jewishȱ
ȱ Preface ixȱȱ
historianȱandȱethnologistȱheȱalreadyȱinȱ1935ȱpublishedȱaȱbookȱaboutȱtheȱ
Samaritansȱ [Izhakȱ BenȬZvi,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans:ȱ theirȱ History,ȱ
Settlements,ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Literature,ȱ Telȱ Aviv,ȱ Stiebelȱ Press,ȱ 1935;ȱ Forȱ aȱ
newȱ editionȱ see:ȱ Izhakȱ BenȬZvi,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ ed.ȱ byȱ
Shemaryahȱ Talmon,ȱ deputyȱ editor:ȱ Isaiahȱ Gafni,ȱ Jerusalemȱ Yadȱ Izhakȱ
Benȱ Zviȱ 1976,ȱ bothȱ inȱ Hebrew].ȱ BenȬGurionȱ learnedȱ aboutȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱ fromȱ hisȱ friendȱ BenȬZvi,ȱ andȱ heȱ alsoȱ supportedȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ theȱ
SamaritansȱlivingȱinȱIsraelȱ(ForȱmoreȱinformationȱseeȱAmit’sȱArticle).ȱ
Yairahȱ Amitȱ (Telȱ Avivȱ University),ȱ “Theȱ Samaritansȱ –ȱ Biblicalȱ PosiȬ
tionsȱinȱtheȱServiceȱofȱModernȱPolitics”,ȱisȱsearchingȱforȱtheȱdefinitionȱandȱ
identityȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ modernȱ times.ȱ Asȱ anȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ theȱ Sixȱ
Dayȱ Warȱ inȱ 1967,ȱ theȱ majorȱ urbanȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ Shechemȱ
(Nablus)ȱ cameȱ underȱ Israeliȱ rule.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ aroseȱ aboutȱ theȱ rightsȱ
accordingȱtoȱtheȱIsraeliȱ“LawȱofȱReturn”ȱofȱthoseȱSamaritansȱwhoȱchoseȱ
toȱ immigrateȱ toȱ Israelȱ andȱ liveȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Israeliȱ society.ȱ Theȱ
problemȱwasȱsolvedȱbyȱtheȱIsraeliȱSupremeȱCourtȱafterȱalmostȱ30ȱyears.ȱ
Amitȱ describesȱ theȱ differentȱ attitudesȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ biblicalȱ
literature,ȱ andȱ howȱ considerationsȱ takenȱ fromȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ
criticismȱinfluencedȱtheȱCourt’sȱfinalȱdecision.ȱ
Specialȱ thanksȱ toȱ Dr.ȱ Albrechtȱ Döhnert,ȱ theȱ editorialȱ Directorȱ forȱ
Theologyȱ –ȱ Jewishȱ Studiesȱ –ȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ atȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyterȱ
publishingȱ house,ȱ forȱ hisȱ supportȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ
project.ȱȱ
Weȱareȱparticularlyȱindebtedȱtoȱtheȱpatienceȱandȱencouragementȱofȱ
Prof.ȱ Dr.ȱ Friedrichȱ V.ȱ Reitererȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Salzburg),ȱ whoȱ hadȱ
substantiallyȱsupportedȱtheȱfinalȱstepsȱinȱmakingȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱtheȱ
volumeȱ possible.ȱ Thanksȱ areȱ goingȱ toȱ theȱ assistanceȱ ofȱ Mrs.ȱ Waltraudȱ
Winkler,ȱwhoȱdidȱmostȱofȱtheȱ“hard”ȱworkȱandȱbroughtȱthisȱvolumeȱtoȱ
publication.ȱ
Weȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ thankȱ Prof.ȱ Günterȱ Stembergerȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ
Vienna)ȱ forȱ hisȱ supportȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ toȱ continueȱ theȱ seriesȱ “Studiaȱ
Samaritana”ȱ asȱ aȱ subȬseriesȱ ofȱ “Studiaȱ Judaica”,ȱ andȱ Prof.ȱ Magnarȱ
Kartveitȱ (Theȱ Schoolȱ ofȱ Missionȱ andȱ Theology,ȱ Stavangerȱ Norway),ȱ
Prof.ȱ Stefanȱ Schorchȱ (Universityȱ ofȱ Halle)ȱ andȱ Prof.ȱ Geraldȱ Knoppersȱ
(Pennȱ Stateȱ University,ȱ Pa.)ȱ asȱ theȱ newȱ responsibleȱ editorsȱ ofȱ “Studiaȱ
Samaritana”.ȱ Lastȱ butȱ notȱ leastȱ weȱ areȱ indebtedȱ toȱ theȱ helpȱ andȱ
financialȱsupportȱfromȱtheȱSociétéȱd’étudesȱSamaritaines.ȱ
ȱ
Prof.ȱMenahemȱMorȱ(UniversityȱofȱHaifa)ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
ȱ

Contentsȱ
Preface.............................................................................................................. vȱ
I.ȱSamaritan’sȱGeneralȱIssuesȱ
REINHARDȱPUMMERȱȱȱȱ
Samaritanismȱ–ȱAȱJewishȱSectȱorȱanȱIndependentȱFormȱ
ofȱYahwism?.................................................................................................... 1ȱ
INGRIDȱHJELMȱ
Mt.ȱGerizimȱandȱSamaritansȱinȱRecentȱResearch..................................... 25ȱ
II.ȱSamaritansȱEarlyȱHistoryȱ
JACKȱPASTORȱ
TheȱContributionȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyriȱfromȱȱWadiȱDaliyehȱ
toȱtheȱStudyȱofȱEconomicsȱinȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod ..................................... 45ȱ
ODEDȱTAMMUZȱ
WillȱtheȱRealȱSanballatȱPleaseȱStandȱUp? ................................................. 51ȱ
ORYȱAMITAYȱ
TheȱUseȱandȱAbuseȱofȱtheȱArgumentumȱeȱsilentioȱ–ȱȱ
theȱCaseȱofȱAlexanderȱinȱJerusalem........................................................... 59ȱ
ȱ

xiiȱ Contents
JÓZSEFȱZSENGELLÉRȱ
WasȱHeȱaȱBadȱSamaritan? .......................................................................... 73
III.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱBibleȱ
INGRIDȱHJELMȱ
Samaria,ȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱCompositionȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱBible........... 91ȱ
ADRIANȱSCHENKERȱ
TextgeschichtlichesȱzumȱSamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱundȱ
Samareitikonȱ .............................................................................................. 105ȱ
STEFANȱSCHORCHȱ
TheȱLatentȱMasorahȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.................................................... 123ȱ
MATTHEWȱMORGENSTERNȱ
ʤʸʥʺʡ ʺʹʬʥʹʮʤ ʤʫʸʡʤ.ȱTheȱHebrew,ȱAramaicȱandȱArabicȱȱ
VersionsȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱPentateuch..................................................... 133ȱ
IV.ȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱTalmudicȱPeriodȱ
MOSHEȱLAVEEȱ
TheȱSamaritanȱmayȱbeȱincludedȱ–ȱAnotherȱLookȱatȱtheȱSamaritanȱȱ
inȱTalmudicȱLiterature............................................................................... 147ȱ
ANDREASȱLEHNARDTȱ
MassekhetȱKutimȱandȱtheȱResurrectionȱofȱtheȱDead............................. 175ȱ
EMMANUELȱFRIEDHEIMȱ
SomeȱNotesȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱRabbinicȱClassȱatȱtheȱ
Crossroads................................................................................................... 193ȱ
ȱ Contents xiiiȱ
V.ȱSamaritansȱinȱModernȱTimesȱ
HASEEBȱSHEHADEHȱ
AȱCaseȱofȱPalestinianȱArabȱJusticeȱbetweenȱMinorityȱȱ
andȱMajorityȱ............................................................................................... 205ȱ
BENYAMIMȱTSEDAKAȱ
SamaritanȱIsraeliteȱFamiliesȱandȱHouseholdsȱȱthatȱDisappeared........ 221ȱ
ISRAELȱSEDAKAȱȱ
IzhakȱBenȱZvi,ȱDavidȱBenȬGurionȱȱandȱtheȱSamaritans........................ 239ȱ
YAIRAHȱAMITȱ
TheȱSamaritansȱ–ȱBiblicalȱPositionsȱinȱtheȱServiceȱȱȱ
ofȱModernȱPolitics ...................................................................................... 247ȱ
IndexȱofȱCitations ....................................................................................... 267ȱ
IndexȱofȱAuthors ........................................................................................ 273ȱ
IndexȱofȱSubjects......................................................................................... 279ȱ
ȱ

I.ȱSamaritan’sȱGeneralȱIssuesȱ
ȱ

Samaritanismȱ–ȱAȱJewishȱSectȱorȱanȱIndependentȱ
FormȱofȱYahwism?ȱȱ
REINHARDȱPUMMERȱ
Todayȱ Samaritansȱ considerȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ areȱ consideredȱ byȱ others,ȱ

asȱmembersȱofȱanȱindependentȱreligion,ȱalbeitȱoneȱthatȱisȱcloselyȱakinȱtoȱ
Judaismȱ inȱ itsȱ beliefs,ȱ sacredȱ writings,ȱ andȱ practices.ȱ Evenȱ aȱ cursoryȱ
acquaintanceȱ withȱ Samaritanismȱ andȱ Judaismȱ revealsȱ thatȱ thereȱ are,ȱ
andȱ haveȱ beenȱ throughoutȱ history,ȱ numerousȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ
twoȱ religions.ȱ Thisȱ ledȱ toȱ aȱ debateȱ amongȱ scholarsȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ originatedȱ asȱ anȱ offshootȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ asȱ itȱ existedȱ inȱ theȱ
HellenisticȬRomanȱ periodȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ separateȱ Yahwisticȱ communityȱ thatȱ
cameȱintoȱbeingȱlongȱbeforeȱthatȱtime.ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱanȱattemptȱwillȱ
beȱmadeȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱfactorsȱthatȱplayȱaȱroleȱinȱthisȱdebate.ȱ
1.ȱTheȱSamaritansȱasȱaȱJewishȱSectȱ
Oneȱ hundredȱ yearsȱ ago,ȱ Jamesȱ Alanȱ Montgomeryȱ subtitledȱ hisȱ bookȱ
Theȱ Samaritansȱ “Theȱ Earliestȱ Jewishȱ Sect.”ȱ Inȱ Chapterȱ Three,ȱ entitledȱ
“TheȱModernȱSamaritans,”ȱheȱwrites:ȱȱ
“Hereȱ aȱ thesisȱ mustȱ beȱ advancedȱ ofȱ whichȱ theȱ wholeȱ ofȱ theȱ followingȱ workȱ
givesȱproof,ȱandȱtoȱwhichȱallȱmodernȱinvestigatorsȱbearȱtestimony.ȱEvenȱasȱ
theȱSamaritansȱareȱshownȱbyȱanthropologyȱtoȱbeȱHebrewsȱofȱtheȱHebrews,ȱ
soȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ theirȱ religionȱ andȱ mannersȱ demonstratedȱ themȱ toȱ beȱ
nothingȱelseȱthanȱaȱJewishȱsect.”1ȱȱȱ
MontgomeryȱwasȱfollowedȱinȱthisȱcharacterisationȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱbyȱ
otherȱ authors.ȱ Johnȱ Williamȱ Lightley,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ devotedȱ aȱ longȱ
chapterȱtoȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱhisȱbookȱJewishȱSectsȱandȱPartiesȱinȱtheȱTimeȱ
1 MONTGOMERY,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 27.ȱ Onȱ 45,ȱ MONTGOMERYȱ summarizesȱ hisȱ discussionȱ

thus:ȱ“TheȱfactsȱgivenȱinȱthisȱChapterȱabundantlyȱproveȱtheȱthesisȱthat,ȱwhateverȱitsȱ
beginning,ȱSamaritanismȱhasȱbecomeȱandȱisȱaȱJewishȱsect.”ȱ
2 ReinhardȱPummer
ofȱ Jesus.ȱMarcelȱ Simonȱ inȱ hisȱ shortȱ bookȱ Jewishȱ Sectsȱatȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱJesusȱ
notesȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱ“areȱaȱsectȱinȱtheȱmodernȱusageȱofȱtheȱterm”2ȱ
–ȱbutȱthenȱdoesȱnotȱdiscussȱthem.ȱJamesȱD.ȱPurvisȱentitledȱhisȱbookȱonȱ
theȱSamaritanȱPentateuchȱTheȱSamaritanȱPentateuchȱandȱtheȱOriginȱofȱtheȱ
SamaritanȱSect.ȱInȱaȱlaterȱarticle,ȱ“TheȱSamaritanȱProblem:ȱAȱCaseȱStudyȱ
inȱ Jewishȱ Sectarianismȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Era,”ȱ heȱ wroteȱ “Samaritanismȱ
mayȱ ...ȱ beȱ viewedȱ asȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ orȱ asȱ anȱ alternativeȱ formȱ ofȱ
Judaismȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ narrowȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ heritage.”ȱ Heȱ
underlinesȱthatȱ“evenȱthoughȱtheȱSamaritansȱunderstoodȱthemselvesȱtoȱ
beȱaȱcommunityȱdistinctȱfromȱtheȱJews,ȱtheyȱwereȱveryȱmuchȱaȱpartȱofȱ
theȱ milieuȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ sectarianismȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ Period.”3ȱ Shayeȱ J.D.ȱ
CohenȱenumeratesȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱJewishȱsectsȱinȱhisȱbookȱ
Fromȱ theȱ Maccabeesȱ toȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ asȱ doesȱ Lesterȱ Grabbeȱ inȱ hisȱ workȱ
Judaismȱ fromȱ Cyrusȱ toȱ Hadrian.4ȱ Urielȱ Rappaport,ȱ inȱ hisȱ articleȱ “ReflecȬ
tionsȱonȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,”5ȱclearlyȱcomesȱoutȱinȱfavourȱofȱ
designatingȱtheȱSamaritansȱaȱsectȱratherȱthanȱaȱpeople:ȱȱ
“Weȱ can,ȱ therefore,ȱ hardlyȱ seeȱ anyȱ justificationȱ toȱ callȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ aȱ
people.ȱAllȱthatȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱisȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱaȱJewishȱsectȱwhichȱmoreȱorȱ
lessȱinhabitedȱaȱdefiniteȱterritoryȱandȱhadȱaȱculticȱcentreȱofȱtheirȱown.”6ȱȱȱ
Shemaryahuȱ Talmon,ȱ too,ȱ includesȱ Samaritanismȱ inȱ hisȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ
theȱ “Emergenceȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Sectarianismȱ inȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ
Period.”7ȱSimilarly,ȱHansȱGerhardȱKippenbergȱsawȱtheȱoriginȱofȱSamaȬ
ritanismȱ inȱ theȱ dissensionȱ ofȱ certainȱ circlesȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ priestsȱ whoȱ
2ȱȱȱ SIMON,ȱSects,ȱ7.ȱ
3ȱȱȱ PURVIS,ȱProblem,ȱ324ȱ(bothȱquotations).ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱEGGER,ȱ Josephus,ȱ38,ȱ
misunderstoodȱ PURVIS’ȱ argumentȱ inȱ hisȱ bookȱ PURVIS,ȱ Pentateuch,ȱ 95,ȱ whenȱ sheȱ
quotesȱ himȱ asȱ sayingȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ “aȱ perpetuationȱ ofȱ aȱ pureȱ andȱ
uncorruptedȱancientȱIsraeliteȱfaith”.ȱWhatȱPURVIS,ȱPentateuch,ȱ95,ȱdidȱinȱfactȱsayȱis:ȱ
“Samaritanismȱinȱitsȱsectarianȱexpressionȱisȱnoȱmoreȱanȱextensionȱofȱtheȱsyncretisticȱ
Yahwismȱ ofȱ eighthȱ centuryȱ Samariaȱ thanȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ perpetuationȱ ofȱ aȱ pureȱ andȱ
uncorruptedȱancientȱIsraeliteȱfaith”.ȱ
4ȱȱȱ GRABBE,ȱReligion,ȱXIII,ȱexplainsȱwhyȱheȱdidȱnotȱincludeȱthemȱinȱhisȱbookȱ–ȱheȱhadȱtoȱ
omitȱaȱplannedȱchapterȱonȱtheȱSamaritansȱ(andȱotherȱsubjects)ȱdueȱtoȱrestrictionsȱonȱ
theȱlengthȱofȱtheȱbook.ȱ
5ȱȱȱ Alsoȱ inȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱ Juifs,ȱ 956.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ hisȱ ȱ earlierȱ articleȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ
whoseȱHebrewȱtitleȱisȱ ʺʩʨʱʩʰʬʤʤ ʤʴʥʷʺʡ ʭʩʰʥʸʮʥʹʤ ʺʫ,ȱ“TheȱSectȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱ
theȱHellenisticȱPeriod.”ȱ
6ȱȱȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱ Reflections,ȱ 17*;ȱ heȱ believes,ȱ Josephusȱ didȱ notȱ includeȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
amongȱ theȱ Jewishȱ ΅۟ΕνΗΉ΍Ζȱ asȱ “aȱ resultȱ ofȱ hisȱ inimicalȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱinȱlineȱwithȱ2ȱKings,ȱXVII”ȱ(p.ȱ10*).ȱSeeȱalsoȱRAPPAPORT,ȱSamaritans.ȱ
7ȱȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ hisȱ articleȱ ofȱ 1986ȱ whichȱ appearedȱ inȱ severalȱ otherȱ versionsȱ andȱ
publicationsȱ (seeȱ theȱ respectiveȱ entriesȱ inȱ CROWNȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Bibliography,ȱ seeȱ
TALMON).ȱ
ȱ Samaritanismȱ–ȱAȱJewishȱSectȱorȱanȱIndependentȱFormȱofȱYahwism? 3ȱ
migratedȱtoȱShechemȱbecauseȱtheyȱhadȱenteredȱintoȱ“mixed”ȱmarriagesȱ
andȱwereȱforcedȱtoȱleaveȱJerusalem.8ȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ Frankȱ Mooreȱ Cross,ȱ “Samaritanismȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ thatȱ
weȱfindȱitȱinȱtheȱRomanȱAgeȱandȱlaterȱisȱnotȱaȱsurvivalȱofȱoldȱIsraeliteȱ
religion,ȱpureȱorȱsyncretistic,ȱbutȱratherȱisȱessentiallyȱaȱsectarianȱformȱofȱ
Judaism.”9ȱThisȱbecomesȱclear,ȱaccordingȱtoȱCross,ȱfromȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
PentateuchȱwhichȱoriginatedȱinȱtheȱHasmoneanȱperiod,10ȱandȱalsoȱfromȱ
theȱYahwisticȱnamesȱinȱtheȱWadiȱDaliyehȱpapyriȱwhichȱareȱtheȱsameȱasȱ
inȱJudah.11ȱ
SometimesȱauthorsȱexcludeȱtheȱSamaritansȱfromȱtheirȱtreatmentȱofȱ
Jewishȱ sectsȱ evenȱ thoughȱ accordingȱ toȱ theirȱ ownȱ definitionsȱ ofȱ “sect”ȱ
theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ included.ȱ Albertȱ I.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ doesȱ notȱ
includeȱ themȱ inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Theȱ Flourishingȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Sects,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ
declaresȱ thatȱhisȱintentionȱisȱ toȱ coverȱ“theȱ fullȱ rangeȱ ofȱJewishȱgroupsȱ
knownȱfromȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱperiod.”12ȱ HeȱconsidersȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
forerunnersȱofȱsectarianism,ȱbut,ȱheȱwrites,ȱ“onceȱSamaritansȱhadȱerecȬ
tedȱtheirȱownȱTemple,ȱandȱacceptedȱaȱversionȱofȱtheȱBibleȱwhichȱsupȬ
portedȱthatȱaction,ȱtheyȱhadȱgoneȱbeyondȱtheȱreformistȱ/ȱintroversionistȱ
categorization”ȱproposedȱbyȱhim.13ȱȱ
Inȱ viewȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ chorusȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ asked:ȱ Ifȱ SamariȬ
tanismȱ isȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ sectarianȱ formȱ ofȱ Judaism,ȱ whyȱ hasȱ itȱ usuallyȱ notȱ
beenȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ sectsȱ and,ȱ atȱ best,ȱ isȱ conȬ
sideredȱaȱspecialȱcase?ȱThereȱseemȱtoȱbeȱfourȱreasons:ȱ(1)ȱGenerationsȱofȱ
JewsȱandȱChristiansȱ–ȱscholarsȱandȱothersȱ–ȱhaveȱreadȱ2Kingsȱ17ȱthroughȱ
theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ Josephusȱ andȱ datedȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ toȱ theȱ
eighthȱcenturyȱBCEȱandȱseenȱthemȱasȱsemiȬpagansȱorȱasȱaȱmixedȱgroup.ȱ
WeȱnowȱknowȱthatȱJosephusȱretrojectedȱhisȱ(andȱJudaism’s)ȱanimosityȱ
towardsȱtheȱSamaritansȱduringȱtheȱRomanȱperiodȱintoȱtheȱremoteȱpast.ȱ
Moreover,ȱtheȱ(mis)readingȱofȱ2Kgsȱ17ȱwasȱreinforcedȱandȱperpetuatedȱ
byȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ impreciseȱ terminology,ȱ i.e.ȱ byȱ callingȱ allȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ
8ȱȱȱ KIPPENBERG,ȱGarizim,ȱ57Ȭ58.ȱ
9ȱȱȱ CROSS,ȱSamaria,ȱ175.ȱ
10ȱȱȱ CROSS,ȱSamaria,ȱ201.ȱ
11ȱȱȱ CROSS,ȱ Samaria,ȱ 175ȱ n.ȱ 10.ȱ Forȱ hisȱ latestȱ analysisȱ seeȱ CROSS,ȱ Personalȱ Names.ȱ Weȱ
mayȱnowȱaddȱthatȱtheȱnamesȱfoundȱinȱinscriptionsȱonȱMt.ȱGerizimȱareȱalsoȱtheȱsameȱ
asȱ inȱ Judah,ȱ includingȱ namesȱ whichȱ areȱ takenȱ fromȱ nonȬPentateuchalȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ
Bibleȱ(seeȱbelow).ȱ
12ȱȱȱ BAUMGARTEN,ȱFlourishing,ȱ1ȱn.ȱ19.ȱHeȱrepeatsȱthisȱaimȱinȱBAUMGARTEN,ȱJosephus,ȱ2ȱ
n.ȱ5.ȱ
13ȱȱȱ BAUMGARTEN,ȱ Flourishing,ȱ 11ȱ n.ȱ 29;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 25ȱ n.ȱ 73:ȱ “theȱ Samaritansȱ poseȱ aȱ
dilemmaȱforȱconsiderationȱunderȱtheȱrubricȱofȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱ sectarianismȱIȱhaveȱ
proposed,ȱasȱtheirȱstatusȱasȱmembersȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeopleȱisȱdisputed.”ȱ
4 ReinhardȱPummer
Samariaȱ “Samaritans,”ȱ regardlessȱ ofȱ theȱ timeȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ livedȱ andȱ
theȱ formȱ ofȱ religionȱ whichȱ theyȱ practised.ȱ Thisȱ lumpedȱ theȱ laterȱ
adherentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gerizimȱ cultȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ earlierȱ populationȱ ofȱ
Samariaȱ thatȱ hadȱ onlyȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ residenceȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ theȱ
Hasmoneanȱ andȱ Romanȱ periodȱ sectarians.ȱ (2)ȱ Theȱ possessionȱ ofȱ aȱ
templeȱ onȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ madeȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ differentȱ fromȱ otherȱ
Jewishȱ sects.ȱ True,ȱ thereȱ wereȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ temples,ȱ butȱ theyȱ wereȱ
outsideȱ Palestineȱ –ȱ Elephantineȱ andȱ Leontopolis,ȱ althoughȱ Andréȱ
Lemaireȱ thinksȱ thereȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ YHWHȱ templeȱ inȱ Khirbetȱ elȬ
Qômȱ inȱ northernȱ Idumeaȱ inȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCE.14ȱ (3)ȱ Theȱ
Samaritansȱ survivedȱ upȱ toȱ ourȱ timesȱ asȱ aȱ religionȱ distinctȱ fromȱ JudaȬ
ism,ȱwhereasȱallȱotherȱJewishȱsectsȱ(withȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱChristianity,ȱ
ofȱcourse)ȱdisappearedȱafterȱ70ȱCE.ȱ(4)ȱTheȱclaimȱbyȱtheȱSamaritansȱtoȱ
beȱ theȱ originalȱ Israelites.ȱ Althoughȱ scholarshipȱ doesȱ notȱ confirmȱ thisȱ
position,ȱ thisȱ claimȱ neverthelessȱ colouredȱ theȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ 2Kingsȱ 17ȱ andȱ Josephus’ȱ reports,ȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritanȱ viewȱ ofȱ theirȱ originȱ hasȱ inclinedȱ manyȱ toȱ dateȱ theȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ
SamaritanismȱtoȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱdistantȱpastȱthanȱtheȱHasmoneanȱperiod.ȱ
Andȱ thisȱ despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ latterȱ periodȱ wasȱ theȱ oneȱ inȱ whichȱ
Jewishȱ sectsȱ flourished.ȱ Someȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ evenȱ wonderedȱ ifȱ
Samaritanȱ traditionsȱ preservedȱ inȱ lateȱ Samaritanȱ works,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theirȱ
chronicles,ȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ appropriatedȱ andȱ adaptedȱ byȱ theȱ Jewsȱ
ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ otherȱ wayȱ round.15ȱ Butȱ asȱ oneȱ authorȱ whoȱ raisesȱ thisȱ
point,ȱ Lesterȱ Grabbe,ȱ hasȱ emphasized,ȱ itȱ isȱ veryȱ doubtfulȱ thatȱ
“anythingȱofȱhistoricalȱvalueȱ[can]ȱbeȱgleaned”ȱfromȱtheȱaccountsȱinȱtheȱ
Samaritanȱchronicles.ȱ“Mostȱofȱtheȱdataȱknownȱfromȱotherȱsourcesȱareȱ
notȱreflected”ȱinȱthem,ȱandȱtheȱnamesȱofȱSamarianȱgovernorsȱasȱwellȱasȱ
otherȱ namesȱ foundȱ onȱ papyri,ȱ coins,ȱ andȱ sealsȱ areȱ absentȱ fromȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱ accountsȱ or,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Sanballat,ȱ theyȱ tookȱ onȱ aȱ
differentȱidentityȱ–ȱSanballatȱisȱaȱSamaritanȱleviteȱinȱAbĀȱlȬFatH’sȱKit¬bȱ
alȬTarÎkhȱwhoȱisȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱwarnedȱtheȱPersianȱkingȱnotȱtoȱallowȱtheȱ
rebuildingȱ ofȱ Jerusalem.16ȱ Norȱ isȱ thereȱ anyȱ mentionȱ ofȱ orȱ allusionȱ toȱ
eventsȱrecountedȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱNehemiahȱandȱinȱJosephusȱwithȱregardȱ
toȱManasseh.17ȱ
14ȱȱȱ LEMAIRE,ȱTemple,ȱ265Ȭ273;ȱandȱLEMAIRE,ȱOstraca,ȱ416Ȭ417.ȱ
15ȱȱȱ Seeȱ GRABBE,ȱ Pinholes,ȱ 174;ȱ GRABBEȱ adds,ȱ “atȱ thisȱ stageȱ ofȱ studyȱ neitherȱ alternativeȱ
seemsȱimpossible.”ȱ
16ȱȱȱ Seeȱ Ezraȱ 4,6Ȭ7.ȱ Forȱ anȱ Englishȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ pertinentȱ textȱ inȱ AbĀȱ lȬFatH’sȱ
chronicleȱseeȱSTENHOUSE,ȱKit¬bȱalȬTarÎkh,ȱ91Ȭ98.ȱ
17ȱȱȱ GRABBE,ȱPinholes,ȱ173Ȭ174.ȱ
Grabbeȱ hasȱ pointedȱ outȱ thatȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ theȱ
continuationȱ ofȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ religionȱ isȱ Samaritanȱ apologetics;ȱ
conversely,ȱ theȱ contentionȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ Judaismȱ
isȱJewishȱpolemics.18ȱHowever,ȱheȱconcludesȱthatȱatȱtheȱpresentȱstateȱofȱ
researchȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ continuityȱ betweenȱ SamaritaȬ
nismȱandȱtheȱnorthernȱkingdomȱofȱIsrael,ȱ“evenȱthoughȱthatȱpossibilityȱ
remains.”19ȱByȱtheȱlatterȱphraseȱheȱmeansȱthatȱinȱprincipleȱitȱisȱpossibleȱ
thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ appropriatedȱ Samaritanȱ traditionsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ thatȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ appropriatedȱ Jewishȱ traditions,20ȱ butȱ theȱ latenessȱ andȱ
natureȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱchroniclesȱmakeȱitȱdifficult,ȱifȱnotȱimpossible,ȱtoȱ
extractȱhistoricalȱinformationȱfromȱthem.21ȱ
2.ȱSamaritanismȱasȱanȱIndependentȱFormȱofȱYahwismȱ
OtherȱauthorsȱdidȱandȱdoȱmaintainȱthatȱSamaritanismȱisȱaȱcontinuationȱ
ofȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ religion.ȱ Toȱ quoteȱ aȱ recentȱ example,ȱ Andersȱ
Runessonȱ believesȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ wasȱ “fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ anȱ
independentȱformȱofȱYahwism,ȱasȱitȱhasȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱandȱstillȱis.”22ȱ
GaryȱKnoppersȱstates:ȱ“ViewingȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱaȱbreakawayȱJewishȱ
sectȱ isȱ tooȱ simplistic.ȱ Theȱ Yahwisticȱ Samarianȱ communityȱ mustȱ beȱ
grantedȱitsȱownȱhistoricalȱintegrity.”23ȱWithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱPentateuchȱ/ȱ
Hexateuch,ȱheȱbelievesȱthatȱȱ
“bothȱ communitiesȱ [i.e.ȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ Samariansȱ andȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ JudeȬ
ans]ȱ wereȱ drawingȱ fromȱ anȱ overlapping,ȱ albeitȱ notȱ entirelyȱ common,ȱ
reservoirȱofȱtraditionsȱduringȱtheȱlateȱAchaemenidȱera.ȱMoreover,ȱgivenȱtheȱ
earlyȱ periodsȱ depictedȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ andȱ Hexateuch,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ seemȱ
thatȱtheȱSamarians,ȱlikeȱtheȱJudeansȱofȱYehud,ȱdefinedȱthemselves,ȱatȱleastȱ
inȱ part,ȱ byȱ recourseȱ toȱ storiesȱ aboutȱ andȱ measuresȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ longȱ
bygone,ȱancientȱIsrael.”24ȱ
18ȱȱȱ GRABBE,ȱReality,ȱ14Ȭ15.ȱSeeȱalsoȱPURVIS,ȱProblem,ȱ331.ȱ
19ȱȱȱ GRABBE,ȱReality,ȱ16.ȱ
20ȱȱȱ SeeȱalsoȱGRABBE,ȱPinholes,ȱ174.ȱ
21ȱȱȱ GRABBE,ȱReality,ȱ15Ȭ16;ȱandȱGRABBE,ȱPinholes,ȱ173Ȭ174.ȱ
22ȱȱȱ RUNESSON,ȱ Origins,ȱ 394ȱ n.ȱ 497;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 392.ȱ ZSENGELLÉRȱ inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Gerizim,ȱ alsoȱ
emphasizesȱ theȱ northernȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ heirsȱ ofȱ Northernȱ Israeliteȱ
traditions.ȱ
23ȱȱȱ KNOPPERS,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ313.ȱ
24ȱȱȱ KNOPPERS,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ314.ȱ
6 ReinhardȱPummer
TheȱSamaritans’ȱownȱviewȱofȱtheirȱoriginȱisȱthatȱitȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱ
ofȱEli,ȱpriestȱinȱShiloh.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱSamaritanȱchronicles,25ȱEliȱleftȱ
theȱ sanctuaryȱ onȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ andȱ erectedȱ aȱ schismaticȱ sanctuaryȱ inȱ
Shiloh.ȱ Thoseȱ Israelitesȱ whoȱ remainedȱ faithfulȱ toȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ areȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ historicalȱ evidenceȱ toȱ substantiateȱ
thisȱbelief.ȱ
MosesȱGasterȱrealizedȱthis,ȱbutȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱheȱbelievedȱthatȱȱ
“fromȱ aȱ psychologicalȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ itȱ cannotȱ beȱ entirelyȱ disregarded,ȱ
especiallyȱwhenȱitȱgovernsȱtheȱwholeȱhistoricalȱdevelopmentȱandȱexplainsȱ
manyȱ anȱ incidentȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ Bibleȱ toȱ whichȱ hithertoȱ insufficientȱ
attentionȱhasȱbeenȱpaid.ȱThereȱisȱalwaysȱaȱnucleusȱofȱfact,ȱevenȱforȱtheȱmostȱ
fictitiousȱdevelopmentsȱhereafter.”26ȱȱ
Despiteȱ theȱ caveatsȱ expressedȱ byȱ Gasterȱ hereȱ andȱ there,ȱ heȱ describesȱ
theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ alongȱ theȱlinesȱ ofȱ theirȱchronicles.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ
opinion,ȱ theȱ latterȱ helpȱ usȱ understandȱ theȱ oneȬsidedȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ
accounts.27ȱHeȱconsidersȱitȱmostȱimprobableȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱcouldȱ
haveȱ copiedȱ fromȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Bible.28ȱ Inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Samaritanȱ Eschatologyȱ
heȱwrites:ȱȱ
“NowȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱunquestionablyȱtheȱlastȱremnantsȱofȱthoseȱtribesȱ
ofȱ Israelȱ whoȱ hadȱ separatedȱ themselvesȱ fromȱ theȱ Judeans,ȱ andȱ hadȱ occuȬ
piedȱtheȱnorthȱofȱPalestineȱwithȱtheȱcentreȱinȱSichem,ȱtheȱoldȱHolyȱCity.”29ȱȱ
Inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ heȱ states:ȱ “Thereȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱlivingȱinȱSichemȱandȱworshippingȱonȱMountȱGerizimȱforȱatȱleastȱ
3,000ȱ yearsȱ orȱ more”ȱ andȱ theyȱ haveȱ notȱ changedȱ theirȱ beliefsȱ andȱ
practices.30ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ theirȱ Pentateuch,ȱ Gasterȱ believedȱ thatȱ theȱ
SamaritansȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱtakenȱitȱoverȱfromȱtheȱJewsȱȱ
25ȱȱȱ Chaptersȱ 9ȱ andȱ 10ȱ ofȱ theȱ Kit¬bȱ alȬTarÎkhȱ ofȱ AbĀȱ lȬFatHȱ andȱ Chapterȱ 43ȱ ofȱ theȱ
SamaritanȱArabicȱBookȱofȱJoshua.ȱ
26ȱȱȱ GASTER,ȱSamaritans,ȱ6.ȱ
27ȱȱȱ Inȱ GASTER,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 4,ȱ heȱ writes:ȱ “Iȱ willȱ followȱ theȱ leadȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ
presentȱ theirȱ versionȱ ofȱ theirȱ historyȱ withoutȱ therebyȱ assumingȱ thatȱ fullȱ credenceȱ
shouldȱbeȱgivenȱtoȱtheirȱstatementsȱ...ȱbutȱtheyȱareȱtheȱonlyȱonesȱthatȱhaveȱcomeȱtoȱ
lightȱ inȱ connexionȱ withȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ historyȱ ...ȱ Iȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ lightȱ whichȱ theseȱ
Samaritanȱrecordsȱwillȱshedȱwillȱhelpȱtoȱsolveȱmanyȱaȱproblem.”ȱSimilarȱstatementsȱ
byȱGASTERȱareȱfoundȱinȱotherȱsectionsȱofȱhisȱwork.ȱ
30ȱȱȱ GASTER,ȱSamaritans,ȱ45Ȭ46;ȱ“TheȱSamaritansȱdaredȱnotȱgiveȱupȱaȱminuteȱparticleȱofȱ
theirȱ tradition,ȱ ifȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ wishȱ toȱ layȱ themselvesȱ openȱ toȱ theȱ muchȱ graverȱ
chargeȱ thatȱ theyȱ couldȱ notȱ justifyȱ theirȱ claimȱ ofȱ beingȱ theȱ keepersȱ ofȱ theȱ Truthȱ orȱ
observersȱofȱtheȱLawȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱTruth”.ȱSeeȱalsoȱGASTER,ȱSamaritans,ȱ98Ȭ99.ȱ
“atȱsoȱlateȱaȱperiodȱasȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱTempleȱ...ȱEvenȱifȱtheȱtauntȱbeȱ
trueȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ proselyteȱ Kuthaeans,ȱ
theȱ priestsȱ whoȱ cameȱ backȱ soȱ manyȱ centuriesȱ beforeȱ andȱtaughtȱ themȱ theȱ
Lawȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ reȬestablishedȱ theȱ serviceȱ mustȱ haveȱ hadȱ someȱ codeȱ orȱ
someȱ bookȱ uponȱ whichȱ toȱ restȱ theirȱ claimȱ ofȱ beingȱ theȱ lawfulȱ priestsȱ
entrustedȱwithȱtheȱdutyȱofȱcarryingȱoutȱtheȱDivineȱLaw.”31ȱ
Noȱ otherȱ scholarȱ hasȱ acceptedȱ Gaster’sȱ viewȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ historyȱ
exactlyȱ asȱ heȱ heldȱ it.ȱ Onlyȱ Johnȱ Macdonaldȱ believedȱ thatȱ Samaritanȱ
historyȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Eli,ȱ althoughȱ inȱ hisȱ caseȱ too,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ
basisȱ forȱ hisȱ viewsȱ wasȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ ownȱ accountsȱ inȱ theirȱ chronȬ
icles.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ didȱ notȱ change,ȱ
althoughȱ heȱ wasȱ ofȱ theȱ opinionȱ thatȱ theyȱ neverȱ borrowedȱ fromȱ theȱ
Jews.ȱ Samaritanismȱ andȱ Judaismȱ developedȱ ratherȱ fromȱ aȱ commonȱ
matrix.ȱ “Bothȱ possessedȱ theȱ Law,ȱ albeitȱ theyȱ wereȱ atȱ varianceȱ overȱ
pointsȱofȱdifferenceȱinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱtextȱofȱit,ȱandȱbothȱwereȱevolvingȱ
inȱ anȱ atmosphereȱ whereinȱ manyȱ ideasȱ andȱ idealsȱ wereȱ beingȱ nurȬ
tured.”32ȱ
Theȱ thesisȱ “thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ ofȱ Gerizimȱ wereȱ theȱ mostȱ directȱ
heirsȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ Israelitesȱ andȱ theirȱ cult”ȱ wasȱ putȱ forwardȱ byȱ
ÉtienneȱNodetȱinȱhisȱbookȱAȱSearchȱforȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱJudaism:ȱFromȱJoshuaȱ
toȱtheȱMishnah.33ȱHeȱcontinuesȱtheȱaboveȱquoteȱwithȱfurtherȱtheses:ȱȱ
“thatȱtheȱmaterialȱinȱtheȱHexateuchȱshouldȱgenerallyȱbeȱattributedȱtoȱthemȱ
[i.e.ȱ theȱ Samaritans],ȱ withȱ theȱ conspicuousȱ exceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ weeklyȱ
Sabbath;ȱ thatȱ Judaism,ȱ dispersedȱ throughoutȱ theȱ wholeȱ Seleucidȱ TransȬ
euphrates,ȱ wasȱ anȱ importȱ fromȱ Babylonȱ andȱ wasȱ madeȱ upȱ ofȱ ancestralȱ
traditionsȱandȱmemoriesȱofȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱJudah;ȱthatȱtheȱunionȱinȱJudaeaȱ
betweenȱtheseȱtwo,ȱthatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱbetweenȱtwoȱquiteȱrestrictedȱgroups,ȱtookȱ
placeȱ aȱ littleȱ beforeȱ 200ȱ BCE,ȱ andȱ wasȱ followedȱ byȱ anȱ intenseȱ literaryȱ
activityȱ...ȱ“ȱ34ȱȱ
RegardingȱtheȱPentateuch,ȱNodetȱconcludes:ȱȱ
“Theȱ firstȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ asȱ anȱ authoritativeȱ compilationȱ
ableȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱ‘lawȱofȱMoses’ȱisȱtoȱbeȱsituatedȱinȱSamariaȱ(atȱShechem,ȱinȱ
connectionȱwithȱGerizimȱandȱitsȱpriesthood),ȱaȱgenerationȱorȱtwoȱbeforeȱtheȱ
dateȱ thatȱ Samaritanȱ palaeographyȱ callsȱ forȱ it,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ ca.ȱ 250Ȭ200ȱ
BCE.”35ȱȱ
32ȱȱȱ MACDONALD,ȱTheology,ȱ29.ȱ
33ȱȱȱ ThisȱisȱaȱrevisedȱversionȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱFrenchȱEssaiȱsurȱlesȱoriginesȱduȱjudaïsme:ȱdeȱ
JosuéȱauxȱPharisiens.ȱ
34ȱȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ12.ȱ
35ȱȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ191;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱ153.ȱSeeȱalsoȱNODET,ȱCrise,ȱ207Ȭ209.396.ȱ
8 ReinhardȱPummer
Theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ thusȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ originalȱ Israelitesȱ whoȱ
continuedȱtraditionsȱwhichȱderiveȱfromȱJoshuaȱandȱwereȱunconnectedȱ
toȱ Moses.ȱ Onlyȱ whenȱ aȱ layȱ groupȱ arrivedȱ inȱ Judahȱ fromȱ Babylonȱ
bringingȱ withȱ itȱ theȱ weeklyȱ Sabbath,ȱ didȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ reviseȱ theirȱ
scriptureȱ whichȱ thenȱ becameȱ theȱ commonȱ Pentateuch.ȱ Nodetȱ himselfȱ
realizesȱ thatȱ hisȱ hypothesesȱ areȱ Denkanstößeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ answersȱ toȱ
muchȱdebatedȱquestions.36ȱAndȱitȱisȱasȱsuch,ȱfoodȱforȱthought,ȱthatȱtheyȱ
shouldȱbeȱtreated.ȱ
3.ȱYahwismȱinȱtheȱNorthȱandȱYahwismȱinȱtheȱSouthȱ
Inȱ tryingȱ toȱ determineȱ ifȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ aȱ continuationȱ ofȱ northernȱ
Israeliteȱreligionȱitȱmustȱfirstȱbeȱasked:ȱIsȱthereȱanyȱevidenceȱthatȱatȱanyȱ
timeȱ Samarianȱ Israeliteȱ religion,ȱ i.e.ȱ Yahwismȱ inȱ Samaria,ȱ wasȱ
essentiallyȱdifferentȱfromȱYahwismȱinȱJudeaȱbeforeȱtheȱHasmoneanȱandȱ
Romanȱperiods?ȱResearchȱhasȱshownȱthatȱtheȱanswerȱtoȱthisȱquestionȱisȱ
negative.37ȱ Thereȱ isȱ everyȱ indicationȱ thatȱ northernȱ Yahwismȱ didȱ notȱ
differȱfromȱsouthernȱYahwismȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱunitedȱkingdomȱ
andȱtheȱAchaemenidȱrule.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱinȱtheȱPersianȱperiodȱYahwistsȱinȱ
Judeaȱ lookedȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ exile,ȱ andȱ certainȱ leadersȱ ofȱ theȱ
returneesȱ hadȱ theirȱ ownȱ particularȱ viewsȱ asȱ toȱ whoȱ belongsȱ toȱ Israelȱ
andȱwhoȱdoesȱnot,ȱandȱthisȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱforeȱinȱsomeȱofȱtheȱliteratureȱ
thatȱhasȱitsȱrootsȱinȱthisȱperiod.ȱButȱthereȱareȱnoȱindicationsȱthatȱthereȱ
wereȱ fundamentalȱ religiousȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Northȱ andȱ theȱ
South.ȱ
Furthermore,ȱifȱitȱwereȱassumedȱthatȱthereȱwereȱinȱfactȱsubstantialȱ
differencesȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ groups,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ asked:ȱ
whichȱtraitsȱofȱnorthernȱIsraeliteȱreligionȱhasȱSamaritanismȱpreserved?ȱ
Oneȱ hundredȱ yearsȱ agoȱ Karlȱ F.ȱ A.ȱ Linckeȱ claimedȱ thatȱ Yahwismȱ oriȬ
ginallyȱ wasȱ theȱ religionȱ ofȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ Manasseh. 38ȱ Theȱ Northernȱ
tribesȱ were,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ him,ȱ essentiallyȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ Southern,ȱ
soȱ muchȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ raceȬquestionȱ mustȱ beȱ askedȱ aboutȱ Israelȱ andȱ
Judah.39ȱ Butȱ asȱ Emilȱ Schürerȱ saidȱ inȱ hisȱ reviewȱ ofȱ theȱ book,ȱ Lincke’sȱ
36ȱȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ12.ȱ
37ȱȱȱ SeeȱalsoȱCOGGINS,ȱSamaritans,ȱ101Ȭ105;ȱandȱCOGGINS,ȱIssues,ȱ70.ȱ
38ȱȱ ȱLINCKE,ȱSamaria,ȱ5.ȱ
39ȱȱȱ “BisȱzuletztȱstehenȱsichȱSamariterȱundȱJudenȱsoȱfeindlichȱgegenüber,ȱdassȱmanȱnichtȱ
umhinȱkann,ȱbeiȱJosephȱoderȱIsraelȱundȱJudahȱdieȱFrageȱdesȱUnterschiedesȱderȱRasseȱ
zuȱstellen”ȱ(LINCKE,ȱSamaria,ȱ2).ȱ
workȱ readsȱ likeȱ aȱ workȱ ofȱ fictionȱ ratherȱ thanȱ oneȱ ofȱ history.40ȱ Writingȱ
aroundȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ Lincke,ȱ Montgomery,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ
describedȱ howȱ heȱ beganȱ hisȱ inquiriesȱ intoȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ “withȱ aȱ
considerationȱofȱtheȱdifferencesȱwhichȱdistinguishedȱtheȱhistoriesȱofȱtheȱ
twoȱsectionsȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱpeople,ȱIsraelȱandȱJuda,ȱtheȱNorthȱandȱtheȱ
South,”ȱbecauseȱheȱassumedȱthatȱ“theȱSamaritansȱmustȱbeȱtheȱheirsȱofȱ
theȱ peculiarȱ religiousȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ northernȱ Israel.”41ȱ But,ȱ asȱ
mentionedȱ alreadyȱ earlier,ȱ heȱ soonȱ realizedȱ thatȱ “theȱ Samaritansȱ
appearȱasȱnothingȱelseȱthanȱaȱJewishȱsect.”42ȱ
SixtyȱyearsȱafterȱLinckeȱandȱMontgomery,ȱJohnȱMacdonaldȱtriedȱtoȱ
showȱ thatȱ Samaritanȱ theologyȱ doesȱ inȱ factȱ exhibitȱ distinctlyȱ northernȱ
features.43ȱWritingȱinȱtheȱearlyȱnineteenȬsixties,ȱheȱacceptedȱasȱgivenȱtheȱ
theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ asȱ identifiedȱ byȱ theȱ
Documentaryȱ Hypothesisȱ andȱ ascribedȱ certainȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ
beliefsȱtoȱtheȱnorthernȱsource,ȱtheȱElohist.ȱApartȱfromȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱ
Documentaryȱ Hypothesisȱ hasȱ beenȱ rejectedȱ byȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ
contemporaryȱ biblicalȱ scholars,ȱ Macdonald’sȱ ascriptionsȱ wereȱ atȱ bestȱ
tenuousȱevenȱwhenȱheȱfirstȱpublishedȱthem,ȱasȱheȱhimselfȱrecognizedȱtoȱ
someȱextent.44ȱInȱtheȱlateȱnineteenȬsixties,ȱJamesȱPurvisȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱ
SamaritansȱmustȱbeȱaȱJudeanȱsectȱbecauseȱtheyȱexhibitȱnoneȱofȱtheȱ“chaȬ
racteristicȱ elementsȱ ofȱ northernȱ Israeliteȱ religionȱ knownȱ fromȱ biblicalȱ
andȱarchaeologicalȱsources.”45ȱTheseȱelementsȱare,ȱaccordingȱtoȱPurvis,ȱ
“theȱ syncretisticȱ practicesȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Bethelȱ andȱ theȱ openȱ airȱ sancȬ
tuaries,ȱ theȱ curiousȱ typeȱ ofȱ Yahwismȱ representedȱ inȱ theȱ Elephantineȱ
literature,ȱ andȱ theȱ admixtureȱ ofȱ Yahwismȱ andȱ paganismȱ reportedȱ inȱ
2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41.”46ȱȱ
Inȱ theȱ meantime,ȱ researchȱ hasȱ shownȱ thatȱ noneȱ ofȱ theseȱ featuresȱ
canȱbeȱseenȱasȱtypicalȱofȱnorthernȱYahwism,ȱandȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱ
2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41ȱhasȱalsoȱchanged.ȱ
40ȱȱȱ “Derȱ Verfasserȱ muthetȱ unsȱ freilichȱ zu,ȱ seineȱ Dichtungȱ fürȱ Geschichteȱ zuȱ halten”ȱ
(SCHÜRER,ȱ Review,ȱ 708).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ criticismȱ ofȱ LINCKEȱ inȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱ SamaȬ
ritans,ȱ46;ȱandȱFOSSUM,ȱName,ȱ42ȱn.ȱ49.ȱXȱ
41ȱȱȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱSamaritans,ȱ46.ȱ
42ȱȱȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱSamaritans,ȱ46.ȱ
43ȱȱȱ MACDONALD,ȱ Memarȱ Marqa,ȱ 1,ȱ XLIȬXLII;ȱ MACDONALD,ȱ Theology,ȱ especiallyȱ 188Ȭ
198.ȱ
44ȱȱȱ SeeȱtheȱcritiqueȱinȱANDERSONȱ/ȱGILES,ȱTradition,ȱ272Ȭ273.ȱ
45ȱȱȱ PURVIS,ȱSamaritan,ȱ92.ȱ
46ȱȱȱ PURVIS,ȱSamaritan,ȱ92.ȱ
10 ReinhardȱPummer
Itȱ isȱ obviousȱ thatȱ theȱ centralityȱ ofȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ andȱ theȱ latter’sȱ
epithetȱ“Bethel”ȱinȱtheȱSamaritanȱliterature,ȱancientȱandȱmodern,ȱharkȱ
backȱtoȱnorthernȱtraditions.ȱFossumȱfoundȱitȱstrangeȱthatȱMontgomeryȱȱ
“couldȱstateȱthatȱheȱcouldȱnotȱdetectȱNorthernȱtraditionsȱinȱSamaritanism,ȱ
forȱnoȱSouthernerȱwouldȱcallȱtheȱplaceȱofȱworshipȱbyȱtheȱnameȱofȱBethel,ȱtheȱ
centralȱ sanctuaryȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ Kingdomȱ whereȱ paganȱ practicesȱ wereȱ
flourishingȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱhistoricalȱbooksȱandȱtheȱprophets.”47ȱȱ
Butȱratherȱthanȱspeculate,ȱasȱFossumȱdid,ȱaboutȱaȱmovementȱofȱpriestsȱ
“toȱShechemȱfromȱtheȱoldȱsanctuaryȱatȱBethelȱduringȱtheȱdesolationȱofȱ
theȱ latterȱ place,”ȱ whoȱ “couldȱ haveȱ calledȱ theirȱ newȱ shrineȱ withȱ theȱ
nameȱ ofȱ theirȱ formerȱ sanctuary,”48ȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ Bethelȱ
sometimesȱ wasȱ simplyȱ aȱ placeȱ name,ȱ atȱ otherȱ timesȱ itȱ underlinedȱ theȱ
connectionȱofȱMt.ȱGerizimȱwithȱtheȱpatriarchs.49ȱ Theȱtraditionsȱofȱbothȱ
Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ andȱ Bethelȱ occurȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ whichȱ isȱ commonȱ toȱ
JewsȱandȱSamaritans,ȱand,ȱasȱKippenbergȱpointedȱoutȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱ
Joshuahȱ24,ȱShechemȱwasȱtheȱbirthplaceȱofȱallȱIsrael.50ȱMoreover,ȱwhatȱ
couldȱbeȱatȱstakeȱhereȱmayȱbeȱaȱcaseȱofȱ“consciousȱarchaizing,ȱharkingȱ
backȱtoȱtheȱevidenceȱsetȱoutȱinȱtheȱTorah.ȱ...ȱItȱisȱnotȱdifficultȱtoȱenvisageȱ
thatȱ theȱ ‘northern’ȱ traditionȱ isȱ littleȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ consciousȱseekingȱ forȱ
theȱoriginsȱofȱtheȱtrueȱcommunity.”51ȱ
4.ȱTheȱTermȱ“Sect”ȱ
InȱtryingȱtoȱdecideȱwhetherȱSamaritanismȱisȱaȱsectȱofȱJudaismȱorȱaȱformȱ
ofȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ religion,ȱ muchȱ dependsȱ ofȱ courseȱ onȱ theȱ definitionȱ
ofȱ“sect.”ȱAsȱisȱwellȱknown,ȱ“sect”ȱisȱaȱtermȱthatȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱseenȱasȱ
problematicȱ forȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ reasons.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ didȱ itȱ originateȱ inȱ aȱ
Christianȱcontext,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱacquiredȱtheȱconnotationȱofȱdeviationȱfromȱ
theȱ “true”ȱ communityȱ andȱ itsȱ beliefsȱ andȱ practices.52ȱ Ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ
47ȱȱȱ FOSSUM,ȱName,ȱ41ȱ(FOSSUM’Sȱemphasis).ȱ
48ȱȱȱ FOSSUM,ȱName,ȱ41.ȱ
49ȱȱȱ SeeȱKIPPENGERG,ȱGarizim,ȱ188Ȭ200.ȱ
50ȱȱȱ KIPPENBERG,ȱGarizimȱ58.ȱ
51ȱȱ COGGINS,ȱ Issues,ȱ 71;ȱ COGGINS,ȱ Issues,ȱ 70Ȭ71,ȱ writes:ȱ “Abraham’sȱ firstȱ restingȬplaceȱ
uponȱhisȱentryȱintoȱtheȱholyȱlandȱhadȱbeenȱatȱtheȱplaceȱofȱShechemȱ(Genȱ12,6).ȱWeȱ
knowȱthatȱAbrahamȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱinȱtheȱthoughtȱofȱtheȱJudaismȱofȱtheȱlastȱ
centuriesȱ BCE.ȱ Whereȱ moreȱ appropriate,ȱ then,ȱ toȱ maintainȱ theȱ ancientȱ traditionsȱ
thanȱbyȱconsciousȱdevotionȱtoȱhisȱfirstȱplaceȱofȱsettlement?”.ȱ
52ȱȱȱ SeeȱtheȱdiscussionȱinȱDEXINGER,ȱSektenproblematik,ȱ273.ȱ
enumeratedȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper,ȱ Cohen,ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ

Grabbe,ȱandȱRappaportȱmakeȱtheirȱdefinitionsȱofȱ“sect”ȱexplicit.ȱ
Cohen’sȱ definitionȱ reads:ȱ “Aȱ sectȱ isȱ aȱ small,ȱ organizedȱ groupȱ thatȱ
separatesȱ itselfȱ fromȱ aȱ largerȱ religiousȱ bodyȱ andȱ assertsȱ thatȱ itȱ aloneȱ
embodiesȱ theȱ idealsȱ ofȱ theȱ largerȱ groupȱ becauseȱ itȱ aloneȱ understandsȱ
God’sȱwill.”53ȱHeȱemphasizesȱthatȱonceȱaȱsectȱ“growsȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱ
itȱisȱaȱlargeȱbodyȱinȱitsȱownȱright,ȱitȱisȱnoȱlongerȱaȱsectȱbutȱaȱ‘religion’ȱorȱ
aȱ ‘church’.”54ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ though,ȱ heȱ givesȱ asȱ examplesȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ
processȱonlyȱtwoȱJewishȱsectsȱorȱsectȬlikeȱgroups,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱChristianȱsectȱ
whichȱ developedȱ intoȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ theȱ Pharisaicȱ sectȱ whichȱ
developedȱintoȱrabbinicȱJudaism.ȱTheȱSamaritansȱareȱnotȱmentionedȱbyȱ
himȱinȱthisȱcontextȱalthoughȱtheyȱdoȱassertȱthatȱtheyȱaloneȱembodyȱtheȱ
idealsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ religionȱ andȱ theyȱ developedȱ intoȱ aȱ bodyȱ –ȱ possiblyȱ
largeȱinȱantiquityȱ–ȱinȱitsȱownȱright.ȱ
Baumgartenȱdefinesȱsectȱthus:ȱȱ
“aȱ voluntaryȱ associationȱ ofȱ protest,ȱ whichȱ utilizesȱ boundaryȱ markingȱ
mechanismsȱ –ȱ theȱ socialȱ meansȱ ofȱ differentiatingȱ betweenȱ insidersȱ andȱ
outsidersȱ –ȱ toȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ itsȱ ownȱ membersȱ andȱ thoseȱ otherwiseȱ
normallyȱregardedȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱsameȱnationalȱorȱreligiousȱentity.”55ȱȱ
Asȱmentionedȱabove,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱdiscussȱtheȱSamaritansȱbecause,ȱinȱhisȱ
opinion,ȱtheyȱlackedȱtheȱdimensionȱofȱprotestȱafterȱtheyȱhadȱbuiltȱtheirȱ
ownȱtemple.56ȱ
Grabbe,ȱfollowingȱBryanȱWilson,ȱemphasizesȱthatȱheȱusesȱtheȱtermȱ
inȱ aȱ neutralȱ andȱ encompassingȱ senseȱ “toȱ meanȱ aȱ minorityȱ religiousȱ
movement,”ȱ withoutȱ implyingȱ “aȱ ‘church’ȱ asȱ itsȱ counterpart”ȱ orȱ
assumingȱ“thatȱtheȱgroupȱinȱquestionȱrejectsȱtheȱwiderȱsociety.”57ȱ
Rappaportȱ definesȱ sectȱ asȱ aȱ groupȱ whichȱ holdsȱ “certainȱ thingsȱ inȱ
commonȱ(holyȱscripts,ȱtheȱsameȱGod,ȱaȱcommonȱhistoryȱandȱtradition)”ȱ
butȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱotherȱgroupȱonȱcertainȱissuesȱsuchȱasȱȱ
“leadershipȱ (charismaticȱ againstȱ traditional),ȱ cultȱ sites;ȱ observanceȱ ofȱ
certainȱ religiousȱ rules;ȱ attitudesȱ towardsȱ religiousȱ proscriptions,ȱ andȱ
behaviouralȱcustomsȱ(lawsȱofȱpurity,ȱdietaryȱpractices,ȱownershipȱofȱpropȬ
erty,ȱdress,ȱasceticism,ȱlabour).”58ȱȱ
53ȱȱȱ COHEN,ȱMaccabees,ȱ125.ȱ
54ȱȱȱ COHEN,ȱMaccabees,ȱ125.ȱ
55ȱȱȱ BAUMGARTEN,ȱFlourishing,ȱ7.ȱ
56ȱȱȱ BAUMGARTEN,ȱFlourishing,ȱ11ȱn.ȱ29.ȱ
57ȱȱ GRABBE,ȱJudaism,ȱ465.ȱ
58ȱȱȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱReflections,ȱ10*Ȭ11*.ȱ
12 ReinhardȱPummer
Theȱcommonȱcharacteristicȱunderlyingȱtheseȱissuesȱisȱtheȱconvictionȱofȱ
theȱ sectȱ thatȱ “itȱ isȱ theȱ authenticȱ whole.”ȱ Theȱ membersȱ considerȱ
themselvesȱ toȱ beȱ “theȱ authenticȱ entity,ȱ beȱ itȱ aȱ peopleȱ orȱ aȱ religiousȱ orȱ
ideologicalȱ group,ȱ andȱ wouldȱ describeȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ groupȱ asȱ
traitorsȱtoȱtheirȱtrueȱtradition.”59ȱ
Givenȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“sect”ȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱdisputesȱbyȱbothȱsociologistsȱ
andȱhistoriansȱwhoȱhaveȱproposedȱaȱmultitudeȱofȱdefinitions,60ȱitȱisȱnotȱ
surprisingȱthatȱevenȱauthorsȱwhoȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱexplicitly,ȱadmitȱthatȱ
thereȱareȱexceptionsȱtoȱtheirȱownȱdefinitionsȱorȱthatȱthereȱareȱborderlineȱ
cases.ȱButȱtheȱquestionȱhereȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuch,ȱisȱtheȱtermȱsectȱor,ȱforȱthatȱ
matter,ȱ denomination61ȱ appropriateȱ orȱ notȱ forȱ Samaritanismȱ atȱ itsȱ
origin;ȱrather,ȱasȱShayeȱCohenȱnoted,ȱwhatȱisȱimportantȱis:ȱ“Sectȱorȱno,ȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ aȱ distinctiveȱ groupȱ orȱ communityȱ thatȱ graduallyȱ
emergedȱduringȱtheȱsecondȱtempleȱperiod.”62ȱRegardlessȱofȱtheȱspecificȱ
terminology,ȱ then,ȱ theȱ disagreementȱ inȱ theȱ scholarlyȱ literatureȱ isȱ overȱ
theȱ problemȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ backgroundȱ orȱ matrixȱ isȱ fromȱ whichȱ SamaȬ
ritanismȱ evolved:ȱ didȱ Samaritanismȱ originateȱ asȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ secondȱ
templeȱJudaismȱorȱisȱitȱanȱindependentȱformȱofȱYahwism?ȱ
5.ȱNorthȱandȱSouth,ȱtheȱBibleȱandȱJudaismȱ
Whatȱ makesȱ theȱ answerȱ lessȱ thanȱ clearȬcutȱ isȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ
hand,ȱ Samaritanism’sȱ traditionsȱ areȱ focusedȱ onȱ theȱ North,ȱ but,ȱ onȱ theȱ
other,ȱitsȱsacredȱscriptureȱisȱofȱaȱpredominantlyȱsouthernȱorigin,ȱandȱitȱ
sharesȱ withȱ Judaismȱ manyȱ otherȱ features,ȱ althoughȱ theyȱ areȱ docuȬ
mentedȱonlyȱforȱaȱlaterȱtime.ȱ
Asȱbrieflyȱmentionedȱabove,ȱrecentȱresearchȱhasȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ
theȱ religionȱinȱ theȱ Northȱwasȱ notȱ theȱpaganȱ mixtureȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱmadeȱ
outȱ toȱ beȱ byȱ biblicalȱ andȱ earlyȱ Jewishȱ authors,ȱ inȱ particularȱ byȱ
Josephus.ȱ Theȱ Northȱ isȱ denigratedȱ andȱ condemnedȱ byȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ
59ȱȱȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱReflections,ȱ11*.ȱ
60ȱȱȱ SeeȱalsoȱtheȱdiscussionȱinȱBAUMGARTEN,ȱJosephus.ȱ
61ȱȱȱ Seeȱ RUNESSON,ȱ Origin,ȱ 388.394ȱ n.ȱ 496.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ RUNESSON,ȱ Origin,ȱ 394ȱ n.ȱ 497,ȱ
whetherȱ oneȱ usesȱ “sect”ȱ orȱ “denomination,”ȱ thisȱ doesȱ notȱ implyȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ
normativeȱ Judaismȱ fromȱ whichȱ theseȱ movementsȱ separated,ȱ norȱ doesȱ itȱ meanȱ thatȱ
Judaismȱ “canȱ claimȱ aȱ straightȱ historicalȱ developmentȱ backȱ toȱ earliestȱ timesȱ whichȱ
‘Samaritanism’ȱdoesȱnot”.ȱ
62ȱȱȱ COHEN,ȱ Maccabees,ȱ 170Ȭ171.ȱ Similary,ȱ MOR,ȱ Samaria,ȱ 11,ȱ seesȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ aȱ
communityȱwithȱaȱuniqueȱculture,ȱreligion,ȱandȱsocialȱorganization,ȱandȱnotȱasȱaȱsectȱ
orȱaȱpeople.ȱ
Kingsȱ becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱ idolatry.ȱ Inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17ȱ theȱ kingsȱ andȱ theȱ peopleȱ areȱ
depictedȱasȱworshipingȱotherȱgodsȱ(v.7),ȱwalkingȱ“inȱtheȱcustomsȱofȱtheȱ
nationsȱ whomȱ theȱ Lordȱ droveȱ outȱ beforeȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Israel”ȱ (v.8),ȱ
buildingȱ“forȱthemselvesȱhighȱplacesȱatȱallȱtheirȱtowns”ȱ(v.9),ȱsettingȱupȱ
pillarsȱ andȱ sacredȱ polesȱ (v.10),ȱ makingȱ “offeringsȱ onȱ allȱ theȱ highȱ
places”ȱ (v.11),ȱ andȱ servingȱ idolsȱ (v.12).ȱ Itȱ wasȱ theȱ repudiationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Davidicȱ dynastyȱ andȱ theȱ idolatrousȱ cultsȱ institutedȱ byȱ Jeroboamȱ inȱ
Bethelȱ andȱ Danȱ (1Kgsȱ 12Ȭ13)ȱ thatȱ causedȱ Godȱ toȱ rejectȱ theȱ Northȱ andȱ
ledȱtoȱtheȱexileȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱThisȱinȱturnȱlaidȱtheȱgroundȱforȱtheȱnotionȱ
thatȱJudahȱandȱIsraelȱareȱseparateȱfromȱeachȱother.63ȱBothȱinȱ1Kgsȱ12,20ȱ
andȱ2Kgsȱ17,18ȱitȱisȱstated:ȱonlyȱtheȱtribeȱofȱJudahȱfollowedȱtheȱhouseȱofȱ
David.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ Northȱ pursuedȱ foreignȱ cultȱ practices,ȱ itȱ
becameȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ foreignȱ nation.64ȱ Asȱ opposedȱ toȱ thisȱ tendentiousȱ
picture,ȱtheȱhistoricalȱrealityȱasȱrevealedȱbyȱaȱcriticalȱassessmentȱofȱtheȱ
textsȱandȱbyȱarchaeology,ȱwasȱoneȱofȱcontinuityȱofȱIsraeliteȱsettlementȱ
inȱtheȱNorthȱthroughȱtheȱAchaemenidȱandȱHellenisticȱperiods.ȱThatȱtheȱ
inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Northȱ wereȱ notȱ consideredȱ pagansȱ isȱ evidentȱ fromȱ
theȱ attitudeȱ displayedȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ andȱ otherȱ biblicalȱ
books.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ canȱ plausiblyȱ beȱ claimedȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ theȱ
continuationȱ ofȱ theȱ Yahwisticȱ religionȱ ofȱ Samaria.ȱ However,ȱ whatȱ
makesȱsuchȱaȱclaimȱatȱleastȱdoubtful,ȱareȱseveralȱconsiderations.ȱOne,ȱitȱ
63ȱȱȱ Cf.ȱSTAVRAKOPOULOU,ȱBlackballing,ȱ251.ȱSeeȱalsoȱSTAVRAKOPOULOU,ȱKing,ȱ63Ȭ66.ȱ
64ȱȱ Notȱ allȱ scholarsȱ seeȱ itȱ thisȱ way.ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Nations,ȱ 9,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ writes:ȱ “theȱ
Deuteronomistȱactuallyȱcommendsȱtheȱcreationȱofȱtwoȱseparateȱstates”;ȱwithȱregardȱ
toȱ1Kgsȱ11,11Ȭ13ȱandȱ31Ȭ36ȱheȱmaintains:ȱJeroboam,ȱinȱfact,ȱisȱ“providedȱwithȱdivineȱ
legitimationȱ...ȱThereȱisȱnoȱseditionȱonȱhisȱpart;ȱheȱwillȱreceiveȱtheȱtenȱtribesȱdueȱtoȱ
Solomon’sȱmisconduct”ȱ(KNOPPERS,ȱNations,ȱ199);ȱtheȱtenȱtribesȱ“areȱnotȱbeingȱcastȱ
off.ȱYHWHȱhasȱcalledȱaȱnewȱleaderȱwithȱwhomȱheȱhasȱmadeȱcovenant”ȱ(KNOPPERS,ȱ
Nations,ȱ 203).ȱ Thus,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ theȱ Northernȱ Kingdomȱ isȱ legitimateȱ –ȱ
Judahȱ andȱ Israelȱ areȱ endorsedȱ byȱ theȱ Deuteronomistȱ asȱ theȱ “twoȱ nationsȱ underȱ
God.”ȱ LINVILLE,ȱ Israel,ȱ 99Ȭ100,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ inȱ Kings,ȱ “theȱ ‘north’ȱ doesȱ notȱ simplyȱ
representȱ thatȱ whichȱ hasȱ soȱ corruptedȱ itselfȱ andȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ beȱ calledȱ ‘Israel.’ȱ
Rather,ȱitȱremainsȱ‘Israel,’ȱasȱitsȱretentionȱofȱtheȱveryȱnameȱindicates.ȱTheȱ‘north’ȱandȱ
Judahȱareȱeachȱother’sȱalterȱego”.ȱSTAVRAKOPOULOU,ȱKing,ȱ64,ȱrecognizesȱthatȱKingsȱ
emphasizesȱtheȱcloseȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱkingdoms,ȱbutȱsheȱmaintainsȱ
thatȱ“thisȱinterrelationshipȱharboursȱaȱtenseȱideologicalȱnegativity,ȱforȱaȱdistinctȱantiȬ
Northernȱ polemicȱ pervadesȱ Kings”.ȱ Recently,ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Cutheans,ȱ 27Ȭ228,ȱ hasȱ
pointedȱoutȱ thatȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ40ȱpresentsȱaȱcomplexȱsituationȱ–ȱ2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ34aȱ“porȬ
traysȱtheȱresidentsȱofȱtheȱformerȱnorthernȱkingdomȱasȱforeignȱcolonists,ȱbutȱdepictsȱ
theȱ religionȱ adoptedȱ byȱ theȱ colonistsȱ asȱ remarkablyȱ conservativeȱ inȱ nature;”ȱ 2Kgsȱ
17,34bȬ40,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱ“assumesȱethnicȱcontinuity,ȱratherȱthanȱdiscontinuity,ȱ
inȱ theȱ postexilicȱ populationȱ ofȱ Samaria”;ȱ however,ȱ theȱ survivingȱ Israelitesȱ ofȱ theȱ
Northȱ “stubbornlyȱ clingȱ toȱ theirȱ waysȱ andȱ failȱ toȱ worshipȱ Yhwh,ȱ justȱ asȱ theirȱ
ancestorsȱfailedȱtoȱworshipȱYhwh”ȱ(KNOPPERS,ȱCutheans,ȱ238).ȱȱ
14 ReinhardȱPummer
isȱ impossibleȱ toȱ identifyȱ specificȱ northernȱ traitsȱ inȱ Samaritanism.ȱ Thisȱ
problemȱ wasȱ discussedȱ above.ȱ Two,ȱ theȱ sacredȱ scriptureȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ isȱ theȱ sameȱ Pentateuchȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ theȱ Jewsȱ have.ȱ FurȬ
thermore,ȱ theȱ fewȱ remainsȱ leftȱ fromȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ andȱ
Hellenisticȱtimes,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱWadiȱDaliyehȱpapyriȱandȱtheȱinscriptionsȱ
unearthedȱ onȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizim,ȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ Samarianȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ
onomasticaȱwereȱidenticalȱwithȱthoseȱofȱJudeaȱatȱthatȱtime.ȱAndȱfinally,ȱ
Samaritanismȱasȱweȱknowȱit,ȱisȱinȱagreementȱwithȱJudaismȱinȱtheȱbasicȱ
tenetsȱofȱfaithȱandȱreligiousȱpractice.ȱ
Asȱweȱnowȱknow,ȱtheȱSamaritanȱPentateuchȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱversionsȱ
ofȱ theȱ Toraȱ thatȱ circulatedȱ duringȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period.ȱ Aȱ preȬ
Samaritanȱ orȱ harmonisticȱ textȱ wasȱ adaptedȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ toȱ
emphasizeȱtheȱsacrednessȱandȱcentralityȱofȱMt.ȱGerizim.ȱTheȱchangesȱtoȱ
thisȱeffectȱareȱveryȱsmallȱandȱwereȱmadeȱmostȱlikelyȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ/ȱfirstȱ
centuryȱBCE.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱPentateuchȱcontainsȱaȱnumberȱofȱnorthernȱ
traditions,ȱitsȱcompositionȱisȱtoȱbeȱascribedȱtoȱcirclesȱactiveȱinȱtheȱSouth.ȱ
Itȱ isȱ notȱ knownȱ whenȱ andȱ howȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ wasȱ acceptedȱ byȱ theȱ
northernȱYahwists.65ȱ
Theȱ Samarianȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ onomasticaȱ fromȱ theȱ Persianȱ andȱ
Hellenisticȱ timesȱ alsoȱ showȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ differenceȱ toȱ theȱ Jewishȱ
onomastica.ȱ Theȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ papyriȱ fromȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ fourthȱ
centuryȱ BCEȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ theȱ greatȱ majorityȱ ofȱ theȱ wealthyȱ
inhabitantsȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱSamaria,ȱwhoȱleftȱtheȱdocumentsȱbehind,ȱboreȱ
Yahwisticȱ names.66ȱ Aȱ governorȱ (orȱ severalȱ governors)ȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ hadȱ
anȱ Akkadianȱ name,ȱ SinȬuballi‫ډ‬ȱ (Sanballa‫)ډ‬,ȱ butȱ hisȱ (orȱ their)ȱ sonsȱ hadȱ
Yahwisticȱ namesȱ –ȱ Delaiah,ȱ Shelemiah,67ȱ andȱ maybeȱ [Yesh]ua`ȱ /ȱ
[Yesha`]yahuȱ(orȱ[Yad]ua`).68ȱAnotherȱgovernorȱwasȱnamedȱHananiah.69ȱ
65ȱȱȱ SeeȱPUMMER,ȱSamaritans.ȱ
66ȱȱȱ GROPP,ȱWadiȱDaliyeh,ȱ6.ȱSeeȱalsoȱZSENGELLÉR,ȱNames;ȱESHEL,ȱNames,ȱ17Ȭ31;ȱESHEL,ȱ
Rulers,ȱ8Ȭ12;ȱLEMAIRE,ȱJuda,ȱ220Ȭ223;ȱandȱZADOK,ȱProsopography,ȱ781Ȭ785.ȱ
67ȱȱȱ COWLEY,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 30.29//31.28,ȱ 32.1ȱ =ȱ PORTENȱ /ȱ YARDENI,ȱ Textbookȱ 1,ȱ 4.7,29;ȱ 4.8,28;ȱ
4.9,1.ȱSeeȱalsoȱWDSPȱ[WadiȱDaliyahȱSamariaȱPapyri]ȱ3ȱ(Delaiah).ȱTheȱnamesȱappearȱ
alsoȱonȱSamarianȱcoins.ȱForȱDelaiahȱseeȱMESHORERȱ/ȱQEDAR,ȱCoinage,ȱ22;ȱforȱSheleȬ
miahȱseeȱMESHORERȱ/ȱQEDAR,ȱCoinage,ȱ28.ȱ
68 AccordingȱtoȱCROSS,ȱwhoȱwasȱfollowedȱbyȱmanyȱotherȱscholars,ȱthereȱwasȱaȱdynastyȱ
ofȱ governors,ȱ beginningȱ withȱ Sanballatȱ Iȱ inȱ theȱ midȬfifthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ andȱ endingȱ
withȱ Sanballatȱ IIIȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ (proposedȱ byȱ himȱ inȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ
articles,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ latestȱ beingȱ CROSS,ȱ Report,ȱ 19Ȭ20).ȱ However,ȱ notȱ allȱ scholarsȱ
acceptȱ CROSS’ȱ reconstructions.ȱ See,ȱ mostȱ recently,ȱ GRABBE,ȱ Pinholes,ȱ 174Ȭ175;ȱ EDELȬ
MAN,ȱ Origins,ȱ 16.51Ȭ62;ȱ andȱ ESHEL,ȱ Governors.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ caveatsȱ inȱ SCHWARTZ,ȱ
Papyri,ȱ175Ȭ199.ȱDUŠEK,ȱManuscrits,ȱ548Ȭ549,ȱalsoȱarrivesȱatȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱthereȱ
wasȱonlyȱoneȱSanballat,ȱi.e.ȱSanballatȱtheȱHoronite.ȱ
Moreover,ȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ Judeanȱ leadersȱ Sheshbazzarȱ andȱ
Zerubbabelȱ areȱ notȱ Yahwisticȱ namesȱ either,ȱ asȱ hasȱ beenȱ repeatedlyȱ
pointedȱ out.70ȱ Inȱ theȱ thirdȬsecondȱ centuriesȱ BCEȱ someȱ pilgrimsȱ toȱ Mt.ȱ
Gerizimȱ cameȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Samaria,ȱ asȱ isȱ provenȱ byȱ votiveȱ
inscriptionsȱ unearthedȱ onȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizim.71ȱ Theseȱ inscriptionsȱ showȱ thatȱ
inȱtheȱHellenisticȱperiodȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱpersonsȱwhoȱworshipedȱandȱ
madeȱdonationsȱ onȱMt.ȱ Gerizimȱareȱ indistinguishableȱfromȱ theȱ namesȱ
inȱ vogueȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Jerusalem.72ȱ Theyȱ includeȱ theȱ nameȱ
“Yehudah”ȱ /ȱ “Yehud”73ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ biblicalȱ namesȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ takenȱ
fromȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ butȱ fromȱ booksȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱcanon,ȱsuchȱasȱElnathan,74ȱDelaiah,75ȱandȱZabdi.76ȱSuchȱusageȱ
continuesȱinȱmuchȱ laterȱ periods.ȱ Severalȱ highȱ priests,ȱ forȱinstance,ȱ areȱ
namedȱHezekiahȱorȱJonathan.77ȱ
Asȱ toȱ theȱ basicȱ beliefsȱ andȱ practices,ȱ theȱ essentialȱ similaritiesȱ betȬ
weenȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Samaritanismȱ wereȱ alreadyȱ discussedȱ byȱ MontgoȬ
69 CROSS,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 47,ȱ Platesȱ 34Ȭ35;ȱ LAPPȱ /ȱ LAPP,ȱ Discoveries,ȱ Plateȱ 61;ȱ AVIGADȱ /ȱ SASS,ȱ
Corpus,ȱ 176ȱ no.ȱ 419.ȱ Forȱ Hananiahȱ seeȱ WDSPȱ 7.17ȱ andȱ 9.14ȱ andȱ Samarianȱ coinsȱ
(MESHORERȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Coinage,ȱ 23;ȱ LEMAIRE,ȱ Juda,ȱ 222).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ discussionȱ inȱ
ESHEL,ȱGovernors,ȱ226.231Ȭ234,ȱandȱinȱDUŠEK,ȱManuscrits,ȱ211Ȭ212.237.528Ȭ529.ȱ
70ȱ See,ȱforȱinstance,ȱCOGGINS,ȱIssues,ȱ70;ȱ ALBERTZ,ȱReligionsgeschichte,ȱ581ȱn.ȱ25;ȱBENȱ
ZVI,ȱ Inclusion,ȱ 142ȱ n.ȱ 112;ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Revisiting,ȱ 276.ȱ LEMAIRE,ȱ Épigraphie,ȱ 104,ȱ
thinksȱ thatȱ evenȱ ifȱ Sanballatȱ cameȱ fromȱ Harr¬n,ȱ heȱ wasȱ aȱ descendantȱ ofȱ Israelitesȱ
deportedȱ toȱ Assyria,ȱ andȱ Sheshbazzarȱ andȱ Zerubbabelȱ wereȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ BabyȬ
lonianȱ exiles.ȱ Earlier,ȱ LEMAIREȱ notedȱ thatȱ theȱ titleȱ “theȱ Horonite”ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ
Sanballatȱ wasȱ fromȱ BethȬHoronȱ whereȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ exilesȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ
installed (LAPERROUSAZȱ/ȱLEMAIRE,ȱPalestine,ȱ43ȱn.ȱ151).ȱSeeȱalsoȱZADOK,ȱNotes,ȱ569Ȭ
570.ȱEDELMAN,ȱOrigins,ȱ78ȱn.ȱ21,ȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱvocalizationȱofȱSinȬuballi†ȱinȱtheȱ
BookȱofȱNehemiahȱasȱSanballatȱmayȱindicateȱthatȱ“theȱconnectionȱofȱtheȱnameȱwithȱ
theȱdeityȱSinȱwasȱlostȱinȱtheȱJewishȱenvironmentȱandȱtheȱnameȱbecameȱ‘neutral’ȱandȱ
acceptable,ȱespeciallyȱinȱSamerina,ȱwhereȱaȱgovernorȱboreȱit”.ȱ
71ȱ SeeȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ59ȱ(inscriptionȱ14)ȱandȱ60ȱ(inscripȬ
tionsȱ15);ȱseeȱalsoȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ28.ȱ
72 MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ25Ȭ26.85.ȱ
73ȱȱȱ MAGENȱ /ȱ MISGAVȱ /ȱ TSFANIA,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizim,ȱ inscriptionsȱ 43ȱ andȱ 49.ȱ MAGENȱ notesȱ
thatȱ “Yehud(ah)”ȱ wasȱ usedȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ “despiteȱ theirȱ enmityȱ towardȱ Judeaȱ
andȱtheȱJewsȱinȱgeneralȱduringȱtheȱHellenisticȱperiod”ȱ(MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSFANIA,ȱ
MountȱGerizim,ȱ85).ȱ
74ȱȱȱ 2Kgsȱ24,8;ȱJerȱ26,22;ȱJerȱ36,12.25;ȱEzraȱ8,16.ȱ
75ȱȱȱ Ezraȱ2,60;ȱNehȱ6,10;ȱNehȱ7,62;ȱ1Chronȱ3,24.ȱ
76ȱȱȱ Josȱ7,1.17Ȭ18;ȱNehȱ11,17;ȱ1Chronȱ8,19;ȱ1Chronȱ27,27.ȱ
77ȱȱȱ Seeȱ theȱ listsȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ namesȱ fromȱ medievalȱ toȱ modernȱ timesȱ inȱ ROBERTSON,ȱ
Catalogue,ȱ 1,ȱ 404Ȭ412;ȱ 2,ȱ 297Ȭ308;ȱ ROTHSCHILD,ȱ Catalogue,ȱ 159Ȭ167;ȱ PUMMER,ȱ MarȬ
riageȱContracts,ȱ1,ȱ314Ȭ343;ȱ2,ȱ275Ȭ319;ȱCROWN,ȱStudies;ȱandȱCROWN,ȱScribes,ȱ391Ȭ463.ȱ
16 ReinhardȱPummer
mery78ȱ andȱ againȱ byȱ Richardȱ J.ȱ Coggins.79ȱ Theyȱ include:ȱ strictȱ monoȬ
theism;ȱaniconicȱworshipȱofȱGod;ȱSabbathȱobservance;ȱcircumcision;ȱtheȱ
synagogue;ȱ andȱ theȱ celebrationȱ ofȱ feastsȱ asȱ setȱ outȱ inȱ theȱ Pentateuch.ȱ
EvenȱthoughȱourȱinformationȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritanȱcustomsȱcomesȱfromȱ
lateȱ sources,ȱ i.e.ȱ sourcesȱ whichȱ postȬdateȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ sectȱ byȱ
severalȱcenturies,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱevidenceȱthatȱatȱanyȱpointȱinȱtheirȱhistoryȱ
theȱSamaritansȱdeviatedȱfromȱtheseȱprinciples.ȱȱ
ȱ
6.ȱConclusionȱ
Inȱconclusion,ȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱSamaritansȱtheȱpredicamentȱofȱpresentȱdayȱ
scholarsȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱoneȱinȱwhichȱtheȱrabbisȱfoundȱthemselves.ȱForȱ
theȱ rabbis,ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ neitherȱ Jewsȱ norȱ nonȬJews;ȱ theyȱ wereȱ
anȱ interstitialȱ group.80ȱ Asȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritans,ȱ scholarsȱ realizeȱ thatȱ theȱ evidenceȱ speaksȱ stronglyȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ
seeingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ aȱ Jewishȱ sectȱ amongȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ sectsȱ thatȱ
cameȱintoȱbeingȱinȱtheȱlastȱcenturiesȱbeforeȱtheȱturnȱofȱtheȱeras,ȱbutȱtheyȱ
alsoȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ Samaritanismȱ isȱ rootedȱ inȱ northernȱ Yahwismȱ
althoughȱitȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱit81ȱ–ȱtheȱPentateuchȱwhichȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ recognizeȱ asȱ theirȱ scriptureȱ isȱ predominantlyȱ aȱ Judeanȱ
document,ȱbutȱtheȱplaceȱofȱoriginȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱisȱtheȱNorth.ȱMoreȬ
over,ȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ afterȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ hadȱ adoptedȱ andȱ adaptedȱ theȱ
Pentateuch,ȱ Judaismȱ continuedȱ toȱ influenceȱ Samaritanism,ȱ theȱ inȬ
fluenceȱ rangingȱ fromȱ miqvaótȱ andȱ synagoguesȱ toȱ Greekȱ andȱ Arabicȱ
translationsȱofȱtheȱPentateuch,ȱbiblicalȱcommentariesȱandȱotherȱJewishȱ
texts.82ȱ Samaritanismȱ asȱ itȱ manifestsȱ itselfȱ inȱ written,ȱ archaeological,ȱ
andȱethnographicȱsourcesȱfromȱitsȱbeginningsȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱdisplaysȱaȱ
closeȱaffinityȱ–ȱscripturalȱandȱinstitutionalȱ–ȱwithȱJudaismȱasȱitȱexistedȱ
inȱtheȱHasmoneanȱperiodȱandȱlater.ȱConversely,ȱattemptsȱatȱidentifyingȱ
78ȱȱȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱSamaritans,ȱ27Ȭ45.ȱ
79ȱȱȱ COGGINS,ȱJews,ȱ131Ȭ138.ȱ
80ȱȱȱ STERN,ȱIdentity,ȱ100.ȱ
81ȱȱȱ Seeȱ theȱ statementȱ ofȱ COGGINS,ȱ Jews,ȱ 81:ȱ “Itȱ wouldȱ beȱ wrongȱ toȱ ...ȱ supposeȱ thatȱ theȱ
SamaritansȱcanȱsimplyȱbeȱidentifiedȱasȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱoldȱNorthernȱkingdomȱ
...ȱbutȱitȱwouldȱbeȱequallyȱwrongȱtoȱdenyȱallȱconnectionȱandȱcontinuity”.ȱ
82ȱȱȱ Seeȱ PUMMER,ȱ Bible,ȱ 307Ȭ309;ȱ BAILLET,ȱ Commandements;ȱ GASTER,ȱ Gebote;ȱ HALKIN,ȱ
Commandments;ȱ HARAN,ȱ Catalogue;ȱ HARAN,ȱ Song;ȱ LOEWENSTAMM,ȱ Remarks;ȱ NOJA,ȱ
Préceptes;ȱ FLORENTIN,ȱ Hebrew,ȱ 50Ȭ56;ȱ SHEHADEH,ȱ Versions,ȱ 22Ȭ24.ȱ Forȱ theȱ synaȬ
gogues,ȱseeȱPUMMER,ȱSynagogue,ȱ24Ȭ35;ȱPUMMER,ȱSynagogues.ȱ
specificallyȱ northernȱ elementsȱ inȱ Samaritanismȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ

successfulȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ recentȱ research.ȱ Thus,ȱ despiteȱ itsȱ associationȱ
withȱtheȱNorth,ȱSamaritanismȱisȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱaȱJewishȱsect.83ȱ
Aȱ possibleȱ wayȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ dilemmaȱ wasȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Jamesȱ
RichardȱLinville.ȱHeȱwrites:ȱȱ
“TheȱvexingȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱSamaritansȱcomprisedȱaȱsectȱofȱJudaȬ
ismȱ(orȱperhaps,ȱJudahȬism)ȱmightȱbeȱsomewhatȱdisplaced,ȱhowever,ȱifȱitȱisȱ
rephrasedȱasȱaȱquestionȱofȱdifferingȱancientȱperceptionsȱofȱwhatȱandȱwhoȱ
Israelȱ isȱ ...ȱ Couldȱ oneȱ speakȱ ofȱ ‘Judaism’ȱ asȱ aȱ ‘sect’ȱ ofȱ aȱ ratherȱ broadlyȱ
imaginedȱ‘IsraelȬism’?”84ȱȱ
Clearly,ȱ Samaritanism,ȱ likeȱ Judaism,ȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ biblicalȱ
tradition,ȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ selfȬunderstandingȱ asȱ Israelitesȱ isȱ aȱ
centralȱ tenetȱ ofȱ theirȱ faith.ȱ Alreadyȱ inȱ twoȱ secondȬcenturyȱ BCEȱ
dedicatoryȱinscriptions,ȱfoundȱonȱDelos,ȱtheyȱcallȱthemselvesȱ“Israelitesȱ
inȱ Delos.”ȱ Theȱ authorsȱ ofȱ theseȱ inscriptionsȱ wereȱ undoubtedlyȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱ –ȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ theirȱ religiousȱ devotionȱ toȱ whichȱ theyȱ madeȱ
offerings,ȱwasȱ“hallowedȱMt.ȱGerizim.”85ȱ
Toȱ summarize,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ handȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ centerȱ ofȱ venerȬ
ationȱ is,ȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱ forȱ wellȱ overȱ twoȱ thousandȱ yearsȱ now,ȱ Mt.ȱ
Gerizim,ȱandȱtheirȱtraditionsȱasȱtheyȱhaveȱcomeȱdownȱtoȱusȱlookȱbackȱ
toȱtheȱNorth.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱeverythingȱelseȱweȱknowȱaboutȱthemȱ
makesȱthemȱappearȱasȱaȱbranchȱofȱJudaism.ȱAsȱwithȱsoȱmanyȱquestionsȱ
involvingȱreligions,ȱinȱthisȱinstanceȱtoo,ȱneatȱandȱclearȬcutȱdistinctionsȱ
seemȱtoȱbeȱunattainable.ȱLikeȱtheȱancientȱrabbis,ȱweȱmayȱhaveȱtoȱlearnȱ
toȱ liveȱ withȱ thisȱ ambiguityȱ aboutȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ
83ȱȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ COGGINS,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 108:ȱ “Inȱ theȱ largerȱ Samarianȱ
communityȱthereȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱlinksȱwithȱtheȱnationalȱtraditionsȱofȱnorthernȱIsrael.ȱ
Theȱ distinctiveȱ witnessȱ ofȱ Samaritanismȱ seemsȱ toȱ meȱ toȱ reflectȱ toȱ aȱ muchȱ greaterȱ
extentȱoneȱreligiousȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱJudaismȱofȱtheȱlastȱcenturiesȱBCȱandȱtheȱturnȱ
ofȱtheȱeras”.ȱ
84ȱȱȱ LINVILLE,ȱIsrael,ȱ28ȱn.ȱ28.ȱ“JudahȬism”ȱforȱLINVILLEȱmeansȱ“theȱbroadȱsetȱofȱculturalȱ
identifiersȱ thatȱ linkedȱ variousȱ peopleȱ (inȱ variousȱ ways)ȱ toȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ Judah”ȱ
(LINVILLE,ȱ Israel,ȱ 27);ȱ “Judaean”ȱ refersȱ toȱ “people,ȱ places,ȱ orȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ theȱ
specificȱ geographicalȱ area.”ȱ Linvilleȱ hasȱ adoptedȱ andȱ modifiedȱ Philipȱ R.ȱ DAVIES’ȱ
terminologyȱ regardingȱ “Judaism.”ȱ Theȱ latterȱ distinguishesȱ threeȱ stages:ȱ “[1]ȱ aȱ
Judaeanȱ cultureȱ thatȱ hasȱ notȱ yetȱ beenȱ conceptualizedȱ andȱ thatȱ thereforeȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ
‘JudaȬism;’ȱ [2]ȱ ‘JudaȬism,’ȱ whichȱ constitutesȱ theȱ cultureȱ ofȱ Judeaȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ ofȱ
definition,ȱ andȱ finally,ȱ [3]ȱ ‘Judaism’ȱ andȱ ‘Judaisms,’ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ ‘JudaȬism’ȱ
developsȱintoȱsomethingȱmoreȱthanȱ(butȱalsoȱdifferentȱfrom)ȱtheȱ‘culture’ȱofȱJudea”ȱ
(DAVIES,ȱScenes,ȱ153).ȱ
85ȱȱȱ Forȱ aȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ discussionsȱ onȱ theȱ twoȱ inscriptionsȱ (withȱ furtherȱ references)ȱ
seeȱPUMMER,ȱSynagogues,ȱ120Ȭ121.ȱ
18 ReinhardȱPummer
hopeȱthatȱnewȱevidenceȱmayȱcomeȱtoȱlightȱwhichȱwillȱenableȱusȱtoȱbeȱ
moreȱdefinite.ȱȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ALBERTZ,ȱ Rainer,ȱ Religionsgeschichteȱ Israels.ȱ Teilȱ 2:ȱ Vomȱ Exilȱ bisȱ zuȱ denȱ
Makkabäernȱ(GATȱ8/2),ȱGöttingenȱ1992.ȱ
ANDERSON,ȱ Robertȱ T.ȱ /ȱ GILES,ȱ Terry,ȱ Traditionȱ Kept:ȱ Theȱ Literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱPeabody,ȱMAȱ2005.ȱ
AVIGAD,ȱNahmanȱ/ȱSASS,ȱBenjamin,ȱCorpusȱofȱWestȱSemiticȱStampȱSeals,ȱJeruȬ
salemȱ1997.ȱ
BAILLET,ȱ Maurice,ȱ Commandementsȱ etȱ loisȱ (Farâídȱ etȱ Tûrot)ȱ dansȱ quatreȱ
manuscritsȱsamaritains,ȱin:ȱROTHSCHILD,ȱJeanȬPierreȱ/ȱSIXDENIER,ȱGuyȱDomiȬ
niqueȱ (eds.),ȱ Étudesȱ samaritaines:ȱ Pentateuqueȱ etȱ Targum,ȱ exégèseȱ etȱ
philologie,ȱ chroniques:ȱ Actesȱ deȱ laȱ tableȱ ronde:ȱ “Lesȱ manuscritsȱ samaȬ
ritains.ȱProblèmesȱetȱméthodes“ȱ(Paris,ȱInstitutȱdeȱRechercheȱetȱd’Histoireȱ
desȱTextes,ȱ7Ȭ9ȱoctobreȱ1985)ȱ(CollectionȱdeȱlaȱRevueȱdesȱÉtudesȱJuives,ȱ6),ȱ
Louvainȱ1988,ȱ259Ȭ270.ȱ
BAUMGARTEN,ȱAlbertȱI.,ȱTheȱFlourishingȱofȱJewishȱSectsȱinȱtheȱMaccabeanȱEra:ȱ
AnȱInterpretationȱ(JSJ.Sȱ55),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ1997.ȱ
BAUMGARTEN,ȱ Albertȱ I.,ȱ Josephusȱ onȱ Ancientȱ Jewishȱ Groupsȱ fromȱ aȱ Socialȱ
Scientificȱ Perspective,ȱ in:ȱ COHEN,ȱ Shayeȱ J.ȱ /ȱ SCHWARTZ,ȱ Joshuaȱ J.ȱ (eds.),ȱ
Studiesȱ inȱ Josephusȱ andȱ theȱ Varietiesȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Judaism:ȱ Louisȱ H.ȱ
Feldmanȱ Jubileeȱ Volumeȱ (Ancientȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ =ȱ
Arbeitenȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Judentumsȱ undȱ desȱ Urchristentumsȱ
67),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBostonȱ2007,ȱ1Ȭ13.ȱ
BENȱ ZVI,ȱEhud,ȱInclusionȱinȱandȱExclusionȱfromȱIsraelȱasȱConveyedȱbyȱtheȱUseȱ
ofȱtheȱTermȱ‘Israel’ȱinȱPostȬMonarchicȱBiblicalȱTexts,ȱin:ȱHOLLOWAY,ȱStevenȱ
W.ȱ /ȱ HANDY,ȱ Lowellȱ K.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Pitcherȱ isȱ Broken:ȱ Memorialȱ Essaysȱ forȱ
GöstaȱW.ȱAhlströmȱ(JSOT.Sȱ190),ȱSheffieldȱ1995,ȱ95Ȭ149.ȱ
COGGINS,ȱRichardȱJ.,ȱIssuesȱinȱSamaritanism,ȱin:ȱNEUSNER,ȱ Jacobȱ/ȱAVERYȬPECK,ȱ
AlanȱJ.ȱ(eds.),ȱJudaismȱinȱLateȱAntiquity,ȱPartȱ3/1:ȱWhereȱWeȱStand:ȱIssuesȱ
andȱ Debatesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Judaismȱ (HO,ȱ Ersteȱ Abteilung,ȱ Derȱ Naheȱ undȱ
MittlereȱOsten,ȱ40),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBostonȱ/ȱKölnȱ1999,ȱ63Ȭ81.ȱ
COGGINS,ȱ Richardȱ J.,ȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ Jews:ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
Reconsideredȱ(GrowingȱPointsȱinȱTheology),ȱOxfordȱ1975.ȱ
COGGINS,ȱRichardȱJ.,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱandȱNorthernȱIsraeliteȱTradition,ȱin:ȱTAL,ȱ
Abrahamȱ/ȱFLORENTIN,ȱMosheȱ(eds.),ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱFirstȱInternationalȱ
CongressȱofȱtheȱSociétéȱd’ÉtudesȱSamaritaines,ȱTelȱAviv,ȱAprilȱ11Ȭ13,ȱ1988,ȱ
TelȱAvivȱ1991,ȱ99Ȭ108.ȱ
COHEN,ȱShayeȱJ.D.,ȱFromȱtheȱMaccabeesȱtoȱtheȱMishnah,ȱPhiladelphiaȱ1987.ȱ
COWLEY,ȱ Arthurȱ Ernest,ȱ Aramaicȱ Papyriȱ ofȱ theȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ B.C.,ȱ Osnabrückȱ
1967ȱ(Oxfordȱ1923).ȱ
CROSS,ȱ Frankȱ Moore,ȱ Papyriȱ ofȱ theȱ Fourthȱ Centuryȱ B.C.ȱ fromȱ Dâliyeh:ȱ Aȱ
Preliminaryȱ Reportȱ onȱ Theirȱ Discoveryȱ andȱ Significance,ȱ in:ȱ FREEDMAN,ȱ
DavidȱN.ȱ/ȱGREENFIELD,ȱJonasȱC.ȱ(eds.),ȱNewȱDirectionsȱinȱBiblicalȱArchaeoȬ
logy,ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNYȱ1969,ȱ45Ȭ69.ȱ
CROSS,ȱ Frankȱ Moore,ȱ Personalȱ Namesȱ inȱ theȱ Samariaȱ Papyri,ȱ in:ȱ BASORȱ 344ȱ
(2006)ȱ75Ȭ90.ȱ
CROSS,ȱ Frankȱ Moore,ȱ Aȱ Reportȱ onȱ theȱ Samariaȱ Papyri,ȱ in:ȱ EMERTON,ȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ
(ed.),ȱCongressȱVolume:ȱJerusalemȱ1986ȱ(VT.Sȱ40),ȱLeidenȱ1988,ȱ17Ȭ26.ȱ
CROSS,ȱFrankȱMoore,ȱSamariaȱandȱJerusalemȱinȱtheȱEraȱofȱRestoration,ȱin:ȱCROSS,ȱ
FrankȱMoore,ȱFromȱEpicȱtoȱCanon:ȱHistoryȱandȱLiteratureȱinȱAncientȱIsrael,ȱ
Baltimore,ȱMDȱ1998,ȱ173Ȭ202.ȱ
CROWN,ȱAlanȱDavid,ȱSamaritanȱScribesȱandȱManuscriptsȱ(TextsȱandȱStudiesȱinȱ
AncientȱJudaismȱ80),ȱTübingenȱ2001.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ David,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ Scribalȱ Practicesȱ andȱ Manuscriptȱ
History.ȱIV,ȱAnȱIndexȱofȱScribes,ȱWitnesses,ȱOwnersȱandȱOthersȱMentionedȱ
inȱSamaritanȱManuscripts,ȱwithȱaȱKeyȱtoȱtheȱPrincipalȱFamiliesȱTherein,ȱin:ȱ
BJRLȱ68ȱ(1985Ȭ1986)ȱ317Ȭ372.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ Davidȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Aȱ Bibliographyȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ
ThirdȱEdition:ȱRevised,ȱExpanded,ȱandȱAnnotatedȱ(ATLA.BSȱ51),ȱLanham,ȱ
MDȱ/ȱTorontoȱ/ȱOxfordȱ2005.ȱ
DAVIES,ȱPhilipȱR.,ȱScenesȱfromȱtheȱEarlyȱHistoryȱofȱJudaism,ȱin:ȱEDELMAN,ȱDianaȱ
Vikanderȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱTriumphȱofȱElohim:ȱFromȱJahwismsȱtoȱJudaismsȱ(ConȬ
tributionsȱtoȱBiblicalȱExegesisȱandȱTheologyȱ13),ȱKampenȱ1995,ȱ145Ȭ182.ȱȱ
DEXINGER,ȱFerdinand,ȱDieȱSektenproblematikȱimȱJudentum,ȱin:ȱKairosȱ21ȱ(1979)ȱ
273Ȭ287.ȱ
DUŠEK,ȱJan,ȱLesȱmanuscritsȱaraméensȱduȱWadiȱDaliyehȱetȱlaȱSamarieȱversȱ450Ȭ
332ȱ av.ȱ J.ȬC.ȱ (Cultureȱ andȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Nearȱ Eastȱ 30),ȱ Leidenȱ /ȱ
Bostonȱ2007.ȱ
EDELMAN,ȱDiana,ȱTheȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱ“Second”ȱTemple:ȱPersianȱImperialȱPolicyȱ
andȱtheȱRebuildingȱofȱJerusalemȱ(BibleȱWorld),ȱLondonȱ/ȱOakvilleȱ2005.ȱ
EGGER,ȱ Rita,ȱ Josephusȱ Flaviusȱ undȱ dieȱ Samaritaner.ȱ Eineȱ terminologischeȱ
UntersuchungȱzurȱIdentitätsklärungȱderȱSamaritanerȱ(NTOAȱ4),ȱFribourgȱ/ȱ
Göttingenȱ1986.ȱ
ESHEL,ȱ Hanan,ȱ Theȱ Governorsȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Fifthȱ andȱ Fourthȱ Centuriesȱ
B.C.E.,ȱ in:ȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Garyȱ N.ȱ /ȱ ALBERTZ,ȱ Rainerȱ (eds.),ȱ
JudahȱandȱtheȱJudeansȱinȱtheȱFourthȱCenturyȱB.C.E.,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2007,ȱ
223Ȭ234.ȱ
20 ReinhardȱPummer
ESHEL,ȱHanan,ȱIsraeliteȱNamesȱfromȱSamariaȱinȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod,ȱin:ȱDEMSKY,ȱ
Aaronȱ/ȱRAIF,ȱ JosephȱA.ȱ/ȱTABORI,ȱ Josephȱ(eds.),ȱTheseȱareȱtheȱNamesȱ(StuȬ
diesȱinȱJewishȱOnomastics),ȱRamatȱGanȱ1997,ȱ17Ȭ31ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
ESHEL,ȱHanan,ȱTheȱRulersȱofȱSamariaȱduringȱtheȱFifthȱandȱFourthȱCenturyȱBCE,ȱ
in:ȱ LEVINE,ȱ Baruchȱ A.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Frankȱ Mooreȱ Crossȱ Volume,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
1999,ȱ8Ȭ12ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Lateȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrew:ȱ Aȱ Linguisticȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Itsȱ
DifferentȱTypesȱ(SStLLȱ43),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBoston,ȱMAȱ2005.ȱ
FOSSUM,ȱ Jarlȱ E.,ȱ Theȱ Nameȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ Angelȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord:ȱ Samaritanȱ andȱ
Jewishȱ Conceptsȱ ofȱ Intermediationȱ andȱ theȱ Originȱ ofȱ Gnosticismȱ (WUNTȱ
36),ȱTübingenȱ1985.ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Moses,ȱ Dieȱ 613ȱ Geboteȱ undȱ Verboteȱ derȱ Samaritaner.ȱ Inȱ Festschriftȱ
zumȱ 75ȱ jährigenȱ Bestehenȱ desȱ JüdischȬTheologischenȱ Seminarsȱ FraenkelȬ
scherȱStiftung,ȱBd.ȱ2,ȱBreslauȱ1929,ȱ393Ȭ404ȱandȱ35Ȭ67ȱ(Hebrewȱsection).ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Moses,ȱ Theȱ Samaritans:ȱ Theirȱ History,ȱ Doctrinesȱ andȱ Literatureȱ (Theȱ
SchweichȱLecturesȱ1923),ȱLondonȱ/ȱOxfordȱ1925.ȱ
GRABBE,ȱ Lesterȱ L.,ȱ Israelȇsȱ Historicalȱ Realityȱ afterȱ theȱ Exile,ȱ in:ȱ BECKING,ȱ Bobȱ /ȱ
KORPEL,ȱ Marjoȱ Christinaȱ Annetteȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Crisisȱ ofȱ Israeliteȱ Religion:ȱ
TransformationȱofȱReligiousȱTraditionȱinȱExilicȱandȱPostȬExilicȱTimesȱ(OTSȱ
42),ȱLeidenȱ1999,ȱ9Ȭ32.ȱ
GRABBE,ȱ Lesterȱ L.,ȱ Judaicȱ Religionȱ inȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Period:ȱ Beliefȱ andȱ
PracticeȱfromȱtheȱExileȱtoȱYavneh,ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2000.ȱ
GRABBE,ȱLesterȱL.,ȱJudaismȱfromȱCyrusȱtoȱHadrian,ȱMinneapolis,ȱMNȱ1992.ȱ
GRABBE,ȱ Lesterȱ L.,ȱ Pinholesȱ orȱ Pinheadsȱ inȱ theȱ Cameraȱ Obscura?ȱ Theȱ Taskȱ ofȱ
Writingȱ aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Persianȱ Periodȱ Yehud,ȱ in:ȱ Recentiȱ Tendenzeȱ nellaȱ
Riconstruzioneȱ dellaȱ Storiaȱ Anticaȱ d’Israeleȱ (Roma,ȱ 6Ȭ7ȱ marzoȱ 2003),ȱ
Contributiȱ delȱ Centroȱ Linceoȱ Interdisciplinareȱ “Beniaminoȱ Segre”,ȱ 110,ȱ
Romaȱ2005,ȱ157Ȭ182.ȱ
GROPP,ȱ Douglasȱ M.,ȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ II:ȱ Theȱ Samariaȱ Papyriȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ
(DJDȱXXVIII),ȱOxfordȱ2001.ȱ
HALKIN,ȱ Abrahamȱ S.,ȱ Theȱ 613ȱ Commandmentsȱ Amongȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ in:ȱ
LÖWINGER,ȱ Samuelȱ /ȱ SCHEIBER,ȱ Alexanderȱ /ȱ SOMOGYI,ȱ Josephȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ
Ignaceȱ Goldziherȱ Memorialȱ Volume,ȱ Vol.ȱ 2,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1958,ȱ 86Ȭ100ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
HARAN,ȱ Menachem,ȱ Maimonides’ȱ Catalogueȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Preceptsȱ inȱ aȱ SamaȬ
ritanȱPiyyut,ȱin:ȱEIȱ4ȱ(1956)ȱ160Ȭ169ȱ(Hebrew),ȱXIȬXIIȱ(Englishȱsummary).ȱ
HARAN,ȱMenachem,ȱTheȱSongȱofȱtheȱPreceptsȱofȱAaronȱbenȱManir.ȱAȱSamaritanȱ
HymnȱforȱtheȱDayȱofȱAtonementȱonȱtheȱ613ȱPreceptsȱasȱListedȱbyȱMaimoȬ
nides,ȱ Israelȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Sciencesȱ andȱ Humanities,ȱ Proceedingsȱ IV,ȱ 15,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1971,ȱ229Ȭ280ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KIPPENBERG,ȱ Hansȱ Gerhard,ȱ Garizimȱ undȱ Synagoge.ȱ Traditionsgeschichtlicheȱ

Untersuchungenȱ zurȱ samaritanischenȱ Religionȱ derȱ aramäischenȱ Periodeȱ
(RVVȱ30),ȱBerlinȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ1971.ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱGary,ȱCutheansȱorȱChildrenȱofȱJacob?ȱTheȱIssueȱofȱSamaritanȱOriginsȱ
inȱ 2ȱ Kingsȱ 17,ȱ in:ȱ REZETKO,ȱ Robertȱ /ȱ LIM,ȱ Timothyȱ H.ȱ /ȱ AUCKER,ȱ W.ȱ Brianȱ
(eds.),ȱ Reflectionȱ andȱ Refraction:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Historiographyȱ inȱ
HonourȱofȱA.ȱGraemeȱAuldȱ(VT.Sȱ113),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBoston,ȱMAȱ2007,ȱ223Ȭ239.ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱGary,ȱMt.ȱGerizimȱandȱMt.ȱZion:ȱAȱStudyȱinȱtheȱEarlyȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱ
SamaritansȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱin:ȱSRȱ34ȱ(2005)ȱ309Ȭ338.ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱ Gary,ȱ Revisitingȱ theȱ Samarianȱ Questionȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ Period,ȱ in:ȱ
LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ OEMING,ȱ Manfredȱ (eds.),ȱ Judahȱ andȱ theȱ Judeansȱ inȱ theȱ
PersianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2006,ȱ265Ȭ289.ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱGary,ȱTwoȱNationsȱUnderȱGod:ȱTheȱDeuteronomisticȱHistoryȱofȱSoȬ
lomonȱandȱtheȱDualȱMonarchies,ȱVolȱ1:ȱTheȱReignȱofȱSolomonȱandȱtheȱRiseȱ
ofȱJeroboamȱ(HSMȱ52),ȱAtlanta,ȱGAȱ1993.ȱ
LAPERROUSAZ,ȱ ErnestȬMarieȱ /ȱ LEMAIRE,ȱ Andréȱ (eds.),ȱ Laȱ Palestineȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ
Perse,ȱParisȱ1994.ȱ
LAPP,ȱ Paulȱ W.ȱ /ȱ LAPP,ȱ Nancyȱ L.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ WâdÎȱ edȬDâliyehȱ
(AASORȱ41),ȱCambridge,ȱMAȱ1974.ȱ
LEMAIRE,ȱAndré,ȱDasȱAchämenidischeȱJudaȱundȱseineȱNachbarnȱimȱLichteȱderȱ
Epigraphie,ȱ in:ȱ KRATZ,ȱ Reinhardȱ G.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Religionȱ undȱ Religionskontakteȱ
imȱZeitalterȱderȱAchämenidenȱ(VeröffentlichungenȱderȱWissenschaftlichenȱ
GesellschaftȱfürȱTheologieȱ22),ȱGüterslohȱ2002,ȱ210Ȭ230.ȱ
LEMAIRE,ȱAndré,ȱÉpigraphieȱetȱreligionȱenȱPalestineȱàȱl’époqueȱachéménide,ȱin:ȱ
Transeuphratèneȱ22ȱ(2001)ȱ97Ȭ113.ȱ
LEMAIRE,ȱAndré,ȱNewȱAramaicȱOstracaȱfromȱIdumeaȱandȱTheirȱHistoricalȱInterȬ
pretation,ȱ in:ȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ OEMING,ȱ Manfredȱ (eds.),ȱ Judahȱ andȱ theȱ
JudeansȱinȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod,ȱWinona,ȱLake,ȱINȱ2006,ȱ416Ȭ417.ȱ
LEMAIRE,ȱ André,ȱ Nouveauȱ Templeȱ deȱ Yahôȱ (IVeȱ S.ȱ AV.ȱ J.ȬC.),ȱ in:ȱ AUGUSTIN,ȱ
Matthiasȱ/ȱNIEMANN,ȱ HermannȱMichaelȱ(eds.),ȱ“BaselȱundȱBibel”:ȱCollectedȱ
CommunicationsȱtoȱtheȱXVIIthȱCongressȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱOrganizationȱ
forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ Baselȱ 2001ȱ (Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Erforschungȱ
desȱAltenȱTestamentsȱundȱdesȱantikenȱJudentumsȱ51),ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.ȱ2004,ȱ
265Ȭ273.ȱ
LIGHTLEY,ȱJohnȱWilliam,ȱJewishȱSectsȱandȱPartiesȱinȱtheȱTimeȱofȱJesus,ȱLondonȱ
1925.ȱ
LINCKE,ȱKarlȱF.A.,ȱSamariaȱundȱseineȱPropheten,ȱTübingenȱ/ȱLeipzigȱ1903.ȱ
LINVILLE,ȱ Jamesȱ Richard,ȱ Israelȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Kings:ȱ Theȱ Pastȱ asȱ aȱ Projectȱ ofȱ
SocialȱIdentityȱ(JSOT.Sȱ272),ȱSheffieldȱ1998.ȱ
LOEWENSTAMM,ȱAyala,ȱRemarksȱonȱtheȱ613ȱPreceptsȱinȱSamaritanȱExegesis,ȱin:ȱ
Tarbizȱ41ȱ(1972)ȱ306Ȭ312ȱ(Hebrew),ȱIVȱ(Englishȱsummary).ȱ
22 ReinhardȱPummer
MACDONALD,ȱ John,ȱ Memarȱ Marqah:ȱ Theȱ Teachingȱ ofȱ Marqah,ȱ 2ȱ vols.,ȱ (BZAWȱ
83),ȱBerlinȱ1963.ȱ
MACDONALD,ȱJohn,ȱTheȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱ(NTLi),ȱLondonȱ1964.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhakȱ /ȱ MISGAV,ȱ Haggaiȱ /ȱ TSFANIA,ȱ Levana,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ ExcaȬ
vations.ȱVol.ȱ1:ȱTheȱAramaic,ȱHebrewȱandȱSamaritanȱInscriptionsȱ(Judeaȱ&ȱ
SamariaȱPublicationsȱ2),ȱJerusalemȱ2004.ȱ
MESHORER,ȱ Yaàkovȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Shraga,ȱ Samarianȱ Coinageȱ (Numismaticȱ Studiesȱ
andȱResearchesȱ9),ȱJerusalemȱ1999.ȱ
MONTGOMERY,ȱJamesȱAlan,ȱTheȱSamaritans:ȱTheȱEarliestȱJewishȱSect.ȱTheirȱHisȬ
tory,ȱTheologyȱandȱLiterature,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1968ȱ(Philadelphiaȱ1907).ȱ
MOR,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Fromȱ Samariaȱ toȱ Shechem:ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Communityȱ inȱ
Antiquity,ȱJerusalemȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
NODET,ȱÉtienne,ȱLaȱcriseȱmaccabéenne:ȱHistoriographieȱjuiveȱetȱtradtionsȱbibliȬ
quesȱ(Josèpheȱetȱsonȱtempsȱ6),ȱParisȱ2005.ȱ
NODET,ȱ Étienne,ȱ Essaiȱ surȱ lesȱ originesȱ duȱ judaïsme:ȱ deȱ Josuéȱ auxȱ Pharisiens,ȱ
Parisȱ1992.ȱ
NODET,ȱ Étienne,ȱ Aȱ Searchȱ forȱ theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ Judaism:ȱ Fromȱ Joshuaȱ toȱ theȱ
Mishnah,ȱtransl.ȱbyȱEdȱCROWLEYȱ(JSOT.Sȱ248),ȱSheffieldȱ1997.ȱ
NOJA,ȱ Sergio,ȱ Lesȱ préceptesȱ desȱ Samaritainsȱ dansȱ leȱ manuscritȱ Samȱ 10ȱ deȱ laȱ
BibliothèqueȱNationale,ȱin:ȱRBȱ74ȱ(1967)ȱ255Ȭ259.ȱ
PORTEN,ȱBezalelȱ/ȱYARDENI,ȱ Arda,ȱAȱTextbookȱofȱAramaicȱDocumentsȱfromȱAnȬ
cientȱEgypt.ȱVol.ȱ1:ȱLettersȱ(TextsȱandȱStudiesȱforȱStudents),ȱJerusalemȱ1986.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱTheȱGreekȱBibleȱandȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱin:ȱREJȱ157ȱ(1998)ȱ269Ȭ
358.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Howȱ toȱ Tellȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ Synagogueȱ fromȱ aȱ Jewishȱ SynaȬ
gogue,ȱin:ȱBARȱ24,ȱ3ȱ(Mayȱ/ȱJuneȱ1998)ȱ24Ȭ35.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Samaritanȱ Marriageȱ Contractsȱ andȱ Deedsȱ ofȱ Divorce,ȱ 2ȱ
vols.,ȱWiesbadenȱ1997,ȱ1993.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱSamaritanȱSynagoguesȱandȱJewishȱSynagogues:ȱSimilaritiesȱ
andȱDifferences,ȱin:ȱFINE,ȱ Stephenȱ(ed.),ȱJews,ȱChristians,ȱandȱPolytheistsȱinȱ
theȱ Ancientȱ Synagogue:ȱ Culturalȱ Interactionȱ duringȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ
Period,ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ1999,ȱ118Ȭ160.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ Theirȱ Pentateuch,ȱ in:ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Garyȱ
N.ȱ/ȱLEVINSON,ȱBernardȱM.ȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱPentateuchȱasȱTorah:ȱNewȱModelsȱforȱ
Understandingȱ Itsȱ Promulgationȱ andȱ Acceptance,ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ INȱ 2007,ȱ
237Ȭ269.ȱ
PURVIS,ȱ Jamesȱ D.,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ andȱ theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
Sectȱ(HSMȱ2),ȱCambridge,ȱMAȱ1968.ȱ
PURVIS,ȱJamesȱD.,ȱTheȱSamaritanȱProblem:ȱAȱCaseȱStudyȱinȱJewishȱSectarianismȱ
inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Era,ȱ in:ȱ HALPERN,ȱ Baruchȱ /ȱ LEVENSON,ȱ Johnȱ D.ȱ (eds.),ȱ TraȬ
ditionsȱ inȱ Transformation:ȱ Turningȱ Pointsȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Faith,ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ
INȱ1981,ȱ323Ȭ350.ȱ
RAPPAPORT,ȱ Uriel,ȱ Lesȱ juifsȱ etȱ leursȱ voisinsȱ àȱ lȇépoqueȱ perse,ȱ hellénistiqueȱ etȱ
romaine.ȱLȇétranger,ȱleȱtempleȱetȱlaȱloiȱdansȱleȱjudaïsmeȱancien,ȱin:ȱAnnalesȱ
–ȱHistoire,ȱSciencesȱSocialesȱ51.5ȱ(1996)ȱ955Ȭ974.ȱ
RAPPAPORT,ȱ Uriel,ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱSamaritans,ȱin:ȱ BENȬARTZI,ȱ
Yossiȱ/ȱBARTAL,ȱ Israelȱ/ȱREINER,ȱ Elchananȱ(eds.),ȱStudiesȱinȱGeographyȱandȱ
HistoryȱinȱHonourȱofȱYehoshuaȱBenȬArieh,ȱJerusalemȱ1999,ȱ9*Ȭ19*.ȱ
RAPPAPORT,ȱ Uriel,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Period,ȱ in:ȱ Zionȱ 55ȱ (1990)ȱ
373Ȭ396ȱ(Hebrew),ȱXVȱ(Englishȱsummary).ȱ
ROBERTSON,ȱ Edward,ȱ Catalogueȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Manuscriptsȱ inȱ theȱ Johnȱ
RylandsȱLibrary,ȱ2ȱvols.,ȱManchesterȱ1962.ȱ1938.ȱ
ROTHSCHILD,ȱJeanȬPierre,ȱCatalogueȱdesȱmanuscritsȱsamaritains,ȱParisȱ1985.ȱ
RUNESSON,ȱ Anders,ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Synagogue:ȱ Aȱ SocioȬHistoricalȱ Studyȱ
(CB.NTȱ37),ȱStockholmȱ2001.ȱ
SCHÜRER,ȱ Emil,ȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ K.F.A.ȱ LINCKE,ȱ Samariaȱ undȱ seineȱ Propheten,ȱ in:ȱ
ThLZȱ(1903)ȱ708Ȭ710.ȱ
SCHWARTZ,ȱDanielȱR.,ȱOnȱSomeȱPapyriȱandȱJosephus’ȱSourcesȱandȱChronologyȱ
forȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod,ȱin:ȱJSJȱ21ȱ(1990)ȱ175Ȭ199.ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱHaseeb,ȱArabicȱVersionsȱofȱtheȱPentateuch,ȱin:ȱCROWN,ȱAlanȱDavidȱ/ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ Abrahamȱ (eds.),ȱ Aȱ Companionȱ toȱ Samaritanȱ
Studies,ȱTübingenȱ1993,ȱ22Ȭ24.ȱ
SIMON,ȱMarcel,ȱJewishȱSectsȱatȱtheȱTimeȱofȱJesus,ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1967.ȱ
SIMON,ȱMarcel,ȱLesȱsectesȱjuivesȱauȱtempsȱdeȱJésus,ȱParisȱ1960.ȱ
STAVRAKOPOULOU,ȱFrancesca,ȱTheȱBlackballingȱofȱManasseh,ȱin:ȱGRABBE,ȱLesterȱ
L.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Goodȱ Kingsȱ andȱ Badȱ Kingsȱ (Libraryȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ /ȱ Oldȱ
TestamentȱStudiesȱ393ȱ=ȱESHMȱ5),ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2005,ȱ248Ȭ263.ȱ
STAVRAKOPOULOU,ȱ Francesca,ȱ Kingȱ Manassehȱ andȱ Childȱ Sacrifice:ȱ Biblicalȱ
DistortionsȱofȱHistoricalȱRealitiesȱ(BZAWȱ338),ȱBerlinȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
STENHOUSE,ȱ Paul,ȱ Theȱ Kit¬bȱ alȬTarÎkhȱ ofȱ AbĀȱ ´lȬFatHȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Judaicaȱ 1),ȱ
Sydneyȱ1985ȱ(transl.).ȱ
STERN,ȱ Sacha,ȱ Jewishȱ Identityȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Rabbinicȱ Writingsȱ (AGJUȱ 23),ȱ Leidenȱ /ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ/ȱKölnȱ1994.ȱ
TALMON,ȱ Shemaryahu,ȱ Emergenceȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Sectarianismȱ inȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Secondȱ
Templeȱ Period,ȱ in:ȱ MILLER,ȱ Patrickȱ D.ȱ Jr.ȱ /ȱ HANSON,ȱ Paulȱ D.ȱ /ȱ MCBRIDE,ȱ S.ȱ
Deanȱ (eds.),ȱ Ancientȱ Israeliteȱ Religion:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Frankȱ Mooreȱ
Cross,ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1987,ȱ587Ȭ616.ȱ
ZADOK,ȱRan,ȱAȱProsopographyȱofȱSamariaȱandȱEdomȱ/ȱIdumea,ȱin:ȱUgaritȬForȬ
schungenȱ30ȱ(1998)ȱ781Ȭ828.ȱ
ZADOK,ȱRan,ȱSamarianȱNotes,ȱin:ȱBOȱ42ȱ(1985)ȱ567Ȭ572.ȱ
24 ReinhardȱPummer
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱGerizimȱasȱIsrael:ȱNorthernȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ
andȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ /ȱ Garizimȱ alsȱ Israel.ȱ Noordelijkeȱ
Traditieȱ vanȱ hetȱ Oudeȱ Testamentȱ enȱ deȱ Vroegeȱ Geschiedenisȱ vanȱ deȱ
Samaritanenȱ (metȱ eenȱ samenvattingȱ inȱ hetȱ Nederlands)ȱ (Utrechtseȱ
TheologischeȱReeksȱ38),ȱUtrechtȱ1998.ȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱPersonalȱNamesȱinȱtheȱWadiȱedȬDaliyehȱPapyri,ȱin:ȱZAHȱ9ȱ
(1996)ȱ182Ȭ189.ȱ
ȱ

Mt.ȱGerizimȱandȱSamaritansȱinȱRecentȱResearchȱ
INGRIDȱHJELMȱ
Mt.ȱGerizimȱexcavationsȱȱȱȱ
Whenȱ excavationsȱ onȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ resumedȱ afterȱ nearlyȱ twentyȱ years’ȱ
interruption,1ȱtheȱsite’sȱancientȱhistoryȱfromȱtheȱPersianȱandȱHellenisticȱ
periodsȱ wasȱ knownȱ mainlyȱ fromȱ literaryȱ sources.ȱ Earlierȱ excavationsȱ
hadȱ uncoveredȱ theȱ sacredȱ precinctsȱ ofȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ andȱ Romanȱ
periodsȱ onȱ theȱ summitȱ andȱ mistakenlyȱ assignedȱ theȱ stoneȱ podiumȱ
(Bull’sȱ phaseȱ B),ȱ underneathȱ theȱ Romanȱ temple,ȱ toȱ theȱ assumedȱ
HellenisticȱtempleȱbuiltȱbyȱSanballatȱinȱtheȱfourthȱcenturyȱBCE.2ȱAȱreȬ
examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ material,ȱ however,ȱ showedȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ
Hellenisticȱ templeȱ inȱ thisȱ placeȱ (Tellȱ erȬRas)ȱ andȱ thatȱ Bull’sȱ phaseȱ Bȱ
shouldȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱRomanȱtempleȱbuiltȱbyȱAntoniusȱPiusȱinȱ
theȱ midȬsecondȱ centuryȱ CE.ȱ Bull’sȱ phaseȱ A,ȱ whichȱheȱ hadȱ assignedȱ toȱ
Hadrianȱ aroundȱ 130ȱ CE,ȱ belongsȱ toȱ aȱ laterȱ period,ȱ namelyȱ theȱ
rebuildingȱofȱtheȱtempleȱbyȱCaracallaȱandȱJulianȱtheȱApostateȱinȱtheȱ
1ȱȱ Surveysȱ andȱ excavationsȱ haveȱ beenȱ undertakenȱ byȱ Charlesȱ Williamȱ WILSON,ȱ 1866,ȱ
onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ theȱ Surveyȱ ofȱ Westernȱ Palestine.ȱ Inȱ 1930,ȱ A.M.ȱ SCHNEIDER,ȱ Göttingen,ȱ
excavatedȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ church,ȱ whileȱ Yzhakȱ BenȬZviȱ uncoveredȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ
staircaseȱ leadingȱ fromȱ Neapolisȱ toȱ theȱ Romanȱ temple,ȱ whichȱ Adolfȱ REIFENBERG,ȱ
identifiedȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ templeȱ itself,ȱ byȱ aerialȱ photoȱ technique.ȱ Theȱ templeȱ wasȱ
excavatedȱ byȱ Robertȱ J.ȱ BULL,ȱ 1964Ȭ1968,ȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ theȱ Americanȱ Schoolsȱ ofȱ
Orientalȱ Research.ȱ Yitzhak.ȱ MAGEN,ȱ Staffȱ Officerȱ ofȱ Archaeologyȱ inȱ Judeaȱ andȱ
Samariaȱ hasȱ beenȱ excavatingȱ atȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ sinceȱ 1982ȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ anȱ ambitiousȱ
excavationȱ projectȱ inȱ theȱ Samariaȱ regionȱ whichȱ beganȱ inȱ 1979ȱ withȱ extensiveȱ
excavationsȱ inȱ Romanȱ Neapolisȱ andȱ atȱ otherȱ sitesȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ inȱ whichȱ Samaritanȱ
settlementsȱandȱsynagoguesȱwereȱfound.ȱFinalȱreportsȱhaveȱjustȱbegunȱtoȱappearȱinȱ
theȱseriesȱJudeaȱandȱSamariaȱPublicationsȱ(JSP).ȱȱ
2ȱȱ BULLȱ /ȱ WRIGHT,ȱ Temples,ȱ 234Ȭ237;ȱ BULL,ȱ Note,ȱ 221Ȭ227;ȱ BULL,ȱ Excavations,ȱ 58Ȭ72;ȱ
BULL,ȱContext,ȱBAȱ54Ȭ59,ȱRBȱ238Ȭ243;ȱBULL,ȱTellȱerȬRas,ȱ1015Ȭ1022,ȱreprintȱ419Ȭ427.ȱ
26 IngridȱHjelm
thirdȱcentury.3ȱTheȱRomanȱtempleȱandȱtheȱstaircaseȱhaveȱbeenȱdepictedȱ
onȱcoinsȱfromȱNeapolis4ȱandȱareȱmentionedȱinȱearlyȱChristianȱsources5ȱ
andȱSamaritanȱChronicles.6ȱTheȱHellenisticȱstructures,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱ
areȱ locatedȱ beneathȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ slopesȱ nearȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ Maryȱ
Theotokosȱchurch.7ȱ
Atȱtheȱearlyȱstagesȱofȱtheȱexcavationȱitȱwasȱstillȱdiscussedȱwhetherȱ
theȱSamaritansȱeverȱhadȱaȱtempleȱonȱMt.ȱGerizimȱorȱonlyȱaȱcultȱplace,ȱaȱ
foundationȱwithȱhangings,ȱsuchȱasȱrabbinicȱtraditionȱmaintainsȱregardȬ
ingȱ Shiloh.8ȱ Theȱ structuresȱ andȱ theȱ findingsȱ beneathȱ andȱ underneathȱ
theȱByzantineȱMaryȱTheotokosȱchurch,ȱhowever,ȱmadeȱitȱclearȱthatȱtheȱ
Samaritansȱ hadȱ indeedȱ hadȱ aȱ veryȱ largeȱ templeȱ inȱ thisȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ
Hellenisticȱperiod.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱtempleȱrestedȱonȱfoundationsȱthatȱ
hadȱbeenȱenlargedȱtoȱtheȱeastȱandȱtheȱsouthȱinȱtheȱearlyȱsecondȱcenturyȱ
BCEȱfromȱaȱtempleȱbuiltȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱmidȬfifthȱcenturyȱBCE,ȱ‘inȱtheȱ
timeȱ ofȱ Nehemiah’.9ȱ Adjacentȱ toȱ theȱ templeȱ wasȱ aȱ city,ȱ namedȱ Luzah,ȱ
builtȱinȱtheȱearlyȱHellenisticȱperiodȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱ10.000ȱinhabitants,ȱ
mostȱ ofȱ whichȱ servedȱ asȱ templeȱ personnel.ȱ Theȱ cityȱ hadȱ noȱ defensiveȱ
wall,ȱbutȱitsȱouterȱresidentialȱhousesȱformedȱaȱbarrierȱthatȱsufficedȱforȱ
everydayȱsecurity.10ȱȱ
TheȱPersianȱperiodȱprecinctȱwasȱbuiltȱofȱhewnȱfieldstonesȱextractedȱ
fromȱtheȱmountain’sȱexposedȱupperȱstrataȱofȱtheȱrock.ȱTheȱwallsȱwereȱ
builtȱ inȱ straightȱ linesȱ andȱ theȱ precinctȱ hadȱ threeȱ gates:ȱ toȱ theȱ north,ȱ
southȱandȱeast,ȱwhileȱtheȱwesternȱwallȱwasȱwithoutȱaȱgateȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱ
proximityȱ toȱ theȱ Holyȱ ofȱ Holies.11ȱ Theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ precinct,ȱ
measuringȱ98ȱxȱ98ȱmȱ(aboutȱ200ȱcubitsȱtoȱaȱside)ȱandȱtheȱsixȱchamberedȱ
3ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱGerizim,ȱ488Ȭ489;ȱMAGEN,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ91Ȭ147.ȱ
4ȱȱ DuringȱtheȱreignsȱofȱtheȱRomanȱemperorsȱAntoniusȱPiusȱ(138Ȭ161ȱCE)ȱandȱCaracallaȱ
(211Ȭ217ȱCE)ȱandȱlater;ȱcf.ȱMAGEN,ȱGerizim,ȱ487.ȱ
5ȱȱ Damascius’ȱ Vitaȱ Isidori;ȱ Theȱ Pilgrimȱ ofȱ Bordeauxȱ (333ȱ CE)ȱ inȱ Itin.ȱ Burd.ȱ 587,3Ȭ4;ȱ
CCSLȱ 175,13;ȱ Epiphaniusȱ (315Ȭ403ȱ CE)ȱ inȱ Deȱ XIIȱ gemmis,ȱ PGȱ 43,ȱ cols.ȱ 361Ȭ364;ȱ
Procopiusȱ ofȱ Gazaȱ (475Ȭ538ȱ CE)ȱ inȱ Deuteronomiumȱ XI,ȱ 29,ȱ PGȱ 87,ȱ col.ȱ 908;ȱ seeȱ
furtherȱMAGEN,ȱGerizim,ȱ489;ȱPUMMER,ȱAuthors.ȱȱ
6ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Chronicles,ȱ theȱ templeȱ isȱ builtȱ byȱ Hadrian;ȱ cf.ȱ JUYNBOLL,ȱ Bookȱ
(translationȱ CRANE,ȱ Chronicle,ȱ ch.ȱ 47);ȱ ANDERSONȱ /ȱ GILES,ȱ Tradition,ȱ 136;ȱ ADLERȱ /ȱ
SÉLIGSOHN,ȱChronicleȱ(REJȱ45)ȱ82Ȭ83.233Ȭ234;ȱSTENHOUSE,ȱAbuȬl,ȱ123Ȭ127.ȱ
7ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱTown,ȱ91Ȭ101;ȱMAGEN,ȱExcavations,ȱ70Ȭ96.ȱ
8ȱȱ Seeȱfurther,ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ208Ȭ209.ȱ
9ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ117Ȭ118;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ3.ȱȱ
10ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ117;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ3.ȱȱȱ
11ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ6.ȱ
ȱ Mt.ȱGerizimȱandȱSamaritansȱinȱRecentȱResearch 27ȱ
gates,ȱcommonȱthroughoutȱIsraelȱinȱtheȱIronȱIIȱperiod,12ȱresembleȱwhatȱ
isȱ foundȱ inȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ Ezekielȱ andȱ theȱ Templeȱ
Scroll.13ȱ Theȱ templeȱ mightȱ haveȱ resembledȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ
wasȱclaimedȱbyȱJosephus,ȱwho,ȱhowever,ȱassertedȱthatȱitȱwasȱinferiorȱtoȱ
Jerusalem’sȱ templeȱ andȱ hadȱ beenȱ builtȱ inȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ
Great.ȱItȱwas,ȱinȱfact,ȱbuiltȱmoreȱthanȱaȱhundredȱyearsȱearlier.14ȱOnlyȱaȱ
veryȱ tinyȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ Persianȱ periodȱ structuresȱ haveȱ beenȱ
uncoveredȱthusȱfarȱandȱtheȱdatingȱisȱessentiallyȱbasedȱonȱpottery,ȱcoinsȱ
andȱscriptureȱ(Nehȱ13.28).15ȱȱ
Inȱ theȱ rebuildingȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ secondȱ centuryȱ BCE,ȱ
fourȱ chamberedȱ gatesȱ replacedȱ theȱ oldȱ gatesȱ onȱ theȱ northern,ȱ easternȱ
andȱsouthernȱsidesȱandȱtheȱwallsȱwereȱenlarged.ȱOnȱtheȱwesternȱside,ȱaȱ
continuousȱ wallȱ wasȱ builtȱ onȱ theȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ wall.ȱ Aȱ
monumentalȱ staircase,ȱ withȱ aȱ gatehouseȱ atȱ itsȱ bottomȱ andȱ theȱ fourȱ
chamberedȱ gatehouseȱ atȱ itsȱ top,ȱ whichȱ isȱ integralȱ toȱ theȱ wall,ȱ wasȱ
constructedȱonȱtheȱeasternȱside.ȱToȱtheȱnorthȱandȱsouthȱofȱtheȱstaircaseȱ
wereȱ courtyardsȱ supportedȱ byȱ hugeȱ retainingȱ walls,ȱ whichȱ hostedȱ theȱ
manyȱ pilgrimsȱ whoȱ visitedȱ theȱ temple.16ȱ Theȱ sacredȱ precinctȱ andȱ theȱ
publicȱandȱprivateȱresidencesȱwereȱbuiltȱofȱwellȬhewn,ȱbutȱundressed,ȱ
quarriedȱ stones,ȱ coatedȱ withȱ threeȱ layersȱ ofȱ plasterȱ andȱ possiblyȱ
whitewashed.17ȱ
Theȱ cityȱ thatȱ grewȱ upȱ aroundȱ theȱ templeȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ begunȱ toȱ
expandȱ considerablyȱ afterȱ theȱ invasionȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great.ȱ Theȱ
conquestȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Samaria,ȱ aȱ largeȱ influxȱ ofȱ Macedonianȱ troopsȱ
12ȱȱ AHLSTRÖM,ȱHistory,ȱ526,ȱwho,ȱhowever,ȱdatesȱtheȱgateȱtoȱtheȱ10thȱcenturyȱratherȱthanȱ
theȱ 9thȱ centuryȱ debatedȱ byȱ e.g.ȱ USSISHKIN,ȱ Cityȱ Gate,ȱ 1Ȭ18;ȱ USSISHKIN,ȱ Excavations,ȱ
97Ȭ175;ȱ cf.ȱ FRITZ,ȱ Monarchy,ȱ 191Ȭ194;ȱ FINKELSTEINȱ /ȱ SILBERMAN,ȱ Bible,ȱ 140Ȭ142.342:ȱ
‘thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ gateȱ wasȱ usedȱ outsideȱ theȱ borderȱ ofȱ theȱ unitedȱ monarchyȱ andȱ thatȱ
similarȱ gatesȱ wereȱ builtȱ inȱ laterȱ phasesȱ ofȱ theȱ Ironȱ Age,ȱ untilȱ theȱ seventhȱ centuryȱ
BCE.’ȱLEMCHE,ȱHistory,ȱ186:ȱ‘Strangelyȱenough,ȱthisȱbuildingȱactivityȱ[theȱ“stables”ȱ
andȱ theȱ “cityȱ gates”ȱ atȱ Megiddo,ȱ Hazor,ȱ Gezerȱ andȱ elsewhere]ȱ seemsȱ notȱ toȱ haveȱ
madeȱitsȱimprintȱonȱconditionsȱinȱtheȱcapitalȱ–ȱatȱleastȱnotȱinȱtheȱpartsȱofȱJerusalem,ȱ
thatȱ areȱ availableȱ forȱ archaeologicalȱ exploitation.’ȱ Forȱ aȱ refutationȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘lowȱ
chronology’ȱdatingȱofȱtheȱgates,ȱseeȱDEVER,ȱArchaeology,ȱ217Ȭ251;ȱDEVER,ȱHistories,ȱ
65Ȭ94.ȱȱ
14ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ6;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱNAVEH,ȱInscriptions,ȱ10;ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizim,ȱ 117:ȱ ‘inȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ BCE,ȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ
NehemiahȱandȱSanballatȱtheȱfirstȱ[sic],ȱtheȱHoronite’.ȱ
15ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ10Ȭ11.ȱ
16ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ96Ȭ100;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱȱ6Ȭ7.ȱ
28 IngridȱHjelm
andȱ continuousȱ warsȱ andȱ attacksȱ duringȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period18ȱ

probablyȱ causedȱ itsȱ Israeliteȱ populationȱ toȱ leaveȱ theȱ cityȱ andȱ settleȱ onȱ
Mt.ȱ Gerizim.19ȱ Wright’sȱ contentionȱ thatȱ theyȱ settledȱ inȱ Shechem,20ȱ
whichȱwasȱrebuiltȱlateȱinȱtheȱfourthȱcenturyȱafterȱaboutȱ150ȱyears’ȱgapȱ
inȱoccupation,21ȱisȱopenȱtoȱdiscussion.22ȱ OnȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱfiveȱresidentialȱ
quartersȱwithȱstreetsȱandȱalleysȱhaveȱbeenȱexcavatedȱtoȱtheȱnorth,ȱsouthȱ
andȱwestȱofȱtheȱholyȱprecinct.ȱAȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱpublicȱbuildingsȱhaveȱ
beenȱuncoveredȱtoȱtheȱeastȱandȱtoȱtheȱsouth.ȱDefensiveȱfortresses,ȱtowerȱ
andȱcourtyards,ȱsurroundedȱbyȱthickȱretainingȱwalls,ȱwereȱbuiltȱtoȱtheȱ
southeastȱandȱwestȱofȱtheȱprecinct.23ȱBeforeȱitsȱdestructionȱaroundȱ111ȱ
BCE,ȱtheȱcityȱhousedȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱthousandȱpeopleȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱ
manyȱpilgrimsȱwhoȱvisitedȱtheȱtemple.ȱOutsideȱtheȱcityȱitself,ȱtowardsȱ
theȱnorthwest,ȱwasȱfoundȱaȱlargeȱresidentialȱandȱindustrialȱquarter.24ȱ
Theȱfindsȱincludeȱpotteryȱandȱmetalȱware,ȱgreatȱquantitiesȱofȱcoinsȱ
(ca.ȱ 13.000)ȱ datingȱ fromȱ theȱ Persianȱ period25ȱ toȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Johnȱ
Hyrcanusȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ Jannaeus,ȱ andȱ thenȱ fromȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ
(fourthȱ centuryȱ CE)ȱ toȱ theȱ Umayyadȱ period.26ȱ Findsȱ ofȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ
thousandsȱofȱburntȱanimalȱbonesȱofȱoneȬȱtoȱthreeȱyearȱoldȱsheep,ȱgoats,ȱ
cattleȱ (rare)ȱ andȱ pigeons,ȱ areȱ consistentȱ withȱ theȱ distributionȱ ofȱ sacriȬ
ficesȱ mentionedȱ inȱ Leviticusȱ1Ȭ6.27ȱ Noȱ paganȱ objects,ȱnoȱ Greekȱ potteryȱ
withȱmythicalȱdepictionsȱandȱnoȱimagesȱhaveȱbeenȱuncovered.ȱMiqvaotȱ
haveȱ notȱ beenȱ found,ȱ butȱ manyȱ bathtubsȱ wereȱ foundȱ insideȱ privateȱ
residencesȱfromȱtheȱHellenisticȱperiod.28ȱȱ
Aboutȱ 500ȱ stoneȱ inscriptionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ uncovered,ȱ ninetyȱ percentȱ
ofȱwhichȱareȱdedicatory.ȱApartȱfromȱaboutȱaȱ100ȱinscriptionsȱinȱGreek,ȱ
mostȱ ofȱ whichȱ dateȱ fromȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ CE29ȱ andȱ someȱ medievalȱ
inscriptionsȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ script,ȱ allȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ pubȬ
18ȱȱ AVIGAD,ȱSamaria,ȱ1302;ȱMAGEN,ȱSamaria,ȱ1316.ȱ
20ȱȱ WRIGHT,ȱShechem,ȱ355Ȭ370;ȱCAMPBELL,ȱShechem,ȱ1354.ȱ
21ȱȱ CAMPBELL,ȱShechemȱIII,ȱ311.ȱ
22ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱSamaria,ȱ1316.ȱ
23ȱȱ AȱdetailedȱdescriptionȱisȱfoundȱinȱMAGEN,ȱMountȱGerizim.ȱ
24ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ2Ȭ3.ȱ
25ȱȱ Theȱ oldestȱ coinȱ datesȱ toȱ 480ȱ BCE;ȱ 68ȱ toȱ theȱ fifthȱ andȱ fourthȱ centuries,ȱ whileȱ mostȱ
comeȱfromȱ330ȱonwards.ȱ
26ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱNAVEH,ȱInscriptions,ȱ9;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ10.ȱ
27ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱNAVEH,ȱInscriptions;ȱMAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ9.ȱ
29ȱȱ TheȱSamaritanȱsanctuaryȱwasȱreconstructedȱinȱtheȱtimeȱofȱConstantineȱIȱinȱtheȱfourthȱ
centuryȱCEȱandȱdestroyedȱbyȱZenonȱinȱ484,ȱwhoȱbuiltȱaȱchurchȱonȱtheȱsite.ȱ
lishedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ volumeȱ ofȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ Excavations.30ȱ Fromȱ theȱ
publication,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ nonȬGreekȱ inscriptions,ȱ areȱ inȱ
Aramaic,ȱ writtenȱ inȱ lapidaryȱ Aramaicȱ andȱ protoȬJewishȱ scriptȱ (whichȱ
mayȱ haveȱ existedȱ contemporaneously),ȱ whileȱ aȱ fewȱ areȱ inȱ paleoȬHebȬ
rewȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrew.ȱ Allȱ inscriptions,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ threeȱ rollersȱ
foundȱinȱresidentialȱbuildings,ȱwereȱfoundȱinsideȱorȱinȱcloseȱproximityȱ
toȱ theȱ sacredȱ precinctȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period.31ȱ Mostȱ wereȱ thrownȱ
downȱtheȱeasternȱslopeȱeitherȱbyȱSamaritansȱafterȱtheyȱreturnedȱtoȱtheȱ
mountainȱinȱtheȱ4thȱcenturyȱorȱbyȱChristiansȱwhenȱtheyȱbuiltȱtheȱchurchȱ
onȱtheȱspot.ȱOnlyȱoneȱinscriptionȱhasȱbeenȱfoundȱinȱsitu,ȱnamelyȱonȱtheȱ
staircaseȱ leadingȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ periodȱ Samaritanȱ temple.ȱ Theȱ
datingȱisȱuncertainȱbyȱaboutȱ100ȱyears,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnowȱbelievedȱthatȱmostȱ
ofȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ datedȱ toȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ periodȱ (thirdȬ
secondȱ centuryȱ BCE).32ȱ Allȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ foundȱ areȱ engravedȱ onȱ
ashlarsȱorȱstonesȱwithȱmarginalȱdraftingȱorȱfineȱcombȱdressingȱandȱitȱisȱ
tentativelyȱ conjecturedȱ thatȱ theseȱ stonesȱ formedȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ outerȱ sideȱ
ofȱ theȱ innerȱ wallȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ accessibleȱ toȱ pilgrims.33ȱ Theȱ enclosureȱ
wallsȱ wereȱ constructedȱ ofȱ wellȬhewn,ȱ butȱ undressed,ȱ quarriedȱ stones,ȱ
coatedȱwithȱthreeȱlayersȱofȱplaster.ȱNoȱinscriptionȱthatȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱ
writtenȱonȱtheseȱstonesȱhasȱsurvived.ȱTheȱstonesȱofȱtheȱtempleȱwereȱofȱ
smooth,ȱwellȱworkedȱstonesȱofȱnearlyȱuniformȱsizeȱwithȱmasons’ȱmarksȱ
inȱ Aramaicȱ andȱ Greekȱ letters.34ȱ Thereȱ isȱ onlyȱ oneȱ inscriptionȱ onȱ eachȱ
stone.ȱ Theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ workmanshipȱ isȱ highȱ comparedȱ toȱ contemȬ
poraryȱengravingsȱonȱpublicȱbuildingsȱandȱtheȱinscriptionsȱwereȱprobȬ
ablyȱ madeȱ byȱ authorizedȱ scribesȱ withȱ theȱ consentȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ
officials.35ȱTheȱinteriorȱsideȱofȱtheȱwallȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱappropriateȱforȱ
theȱfewȱrefinedȱinscriptionsȱinȱpaleoȬHebrew,ȱcommemoratingȱpriestlyȱ
donations.ȱ
Theȱtextsȱofȱtheȱinscriptions,ȱmostȱofȱwhichȱareȱveryȱincomplete,ȱareȱ
ratherȱ uniform:ȱ ‘thatȱ PNȱ sonȱ ofȱ PNȱ offeredȱ forȱ himself,ȱ hisȱ wifeȱ (PN)ȱ
andȱhisȱchildrenȱ’,ʩʤʥʰʡ ʬʲʥ ʤʺʺʰʠ ʬʲʥ ʤʹʴʰ ʬʲ ʩʰʥʬʴ ʸʡ ʩʰʥʬʴ ʡʸʷʤ ʩʦ ,ȱwithȱ
littleȱvariationȱ(nameȱofȱwifeȱmightȱbeȱadded,ȱorȱnoȱwifeȱmentioned,ȱnoȱ
30ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim.ȱVol.ȱIIȱinȱtheȱseriesȱwasȱpublishedȱinȱ
2008:ȱMAGEN,ȱMountȱGerizimȱExcavations.ȱ
31ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ14.ȱȱ
32ȱȱ MAGENȱ/ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ14.ȱTheȱdatingȱhasȱbeenȱchangedȱsinceȱ
theȱearlierȱpublicationsȱinȱ1997ȱandȱ2000,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱinscriptionsȱwereȱdatedȱfromȱ
theȱ5thȱtoȱtheȱ2ndȱcenturyȱBCE.ȱ
30 IngridȱHjelm
childrenȱmentionedȱetc.).ȱTheȱAramaicȱformȱwithȱinitialȱrelativeȱparticleȱ
ʩʦȱ (‘thatȱ which’)ȱ andȱ theȱ verbȱ ʡʸʷȱ (presentȱ toȱ theȱ deity)ȱ isȱ commonȱ inȱ
officialȱAramaic.36ȱSomeȱinscriptionsȱidentifyȱtheȱdonorȱbyȱaȱplaceȱnameȱ
ʩʰʥʬʴ ʭʥʷʮ ʯʮ:ȱfromȱDaphneȱ(ʩʰʴʣ,ȱno.ȱ26),ȱTuraȱTubaȱ(ʤʡʨ ʤʸʥʨ,ȱno.ȱ11;ȱ=ȱ
Mt.ȱ Gerizim;ȱ cf.ȱ Benȱ Hayyim,ȱ Tibatȱ Marqeh,ȱ 94a,ȱ 224a;37ȱ Florentin,ȱ
Tulidah,ȱ 85,ȱ [fol.ȱ 8a,b];38ȱ Jos.ȱ Ant.ȱ 18.86ȱ [Tirathaba,ȱ whichȱ Josephusȱ
mistookȱforȱaȱnameȱofȱaȱvillageȱatȱtheȱfootȱofȱMtȱGerizim];ȱDan.ȱ2.35,ȱ46ȱ
ʤʸʥʨȱ Aram.:ȱ ‘mountain’),39ȱ Yoqmeamȱ (ʭʲʮʷʩ,ȱ no.ȱ 7),ȱ Kfarȱ Awartaȱ ( ʸʴʫ
ʠʺʸʡʲ,ȱno.ȱ8),ȱKfarȱHaggaiȱ(ʩʢʧ ʸʴʫ,ȱno.ȱ3),ȱShechemȱ(ʭʫʹ,ȱno.ȱ12.,ȱ36,ȱ39),ȱ
Samariaȱ (ʯʩʸʮʹ,ȱ no.ȱ 14,ȱ 15).ȱ Fiveȱ placeȱ namesȱ areȱ notȱ readableȱ (no.ȱ 21,ȱ
34,ȱ40,ȱ76ȱandȱ77).ȱ
Aȱ fewȱ titlesȱ appear:ȱ ‘satrap,ȱ theȱ rulerȱ ofȱ aȱ Persianȱ province’ȱ
(ʠʰʴʸʣʹ[ʧʠ])ȱ orȱ moreȱ likelyȱ ‘governorȱ ofȱ Daphne’ȱ (ʠʰʴʣʸʹȱ no.ȱ 26);ȱ
epimeletesȱ(Gr.ȱforȱmanagerȱorȱcommissioner,ȱno.ȱ34);ȱpriestȱandȱpriestsȱ
(no.ȱ 24Ȭ25,ȱ 382,ȱ [384],ȱ 388Ȭ389),ȱ whoseȱ namesȱ areȱ El‘azarȱ andȱ Pinchasȱ
(ʸʦʲʬʠȱandȱʱʧʰʩʴ ).ȱȱ
Aȱ fewȱ inscriptionsȱ referȱ toȱ femaleȱ donors,ȱ whoȱ offerȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ
themselvesȱ(andȱtheirȱchildren).ȱ
Someȱ fiftyȱ inscriptionsȱ (no.ȱ 147Ȭ199)ȱ haveȱ theȱ addition:ȱ ‘forȱ goodȱ
remembranceȱ beforeȱ Godȱinȱ thisȱ place’,ȱ ʤʰʣ ʠʸʺʠʡ ʠʤʬʠ ʭʣʷ ʡʨ ʯʸʫʣʬ.40ȱ
Mostȱ ofȱ theseȱ inscriptionsȱ areȱ writtenȱ inȱ protoȬJewishȱ script.ȱ Oneȱ inȬ
scriptionȱ(no.ȱ150)ȱhasȱtheȱvariant,ȱ‘[beforeȱA]donaiȱ(ʩʰʣ)ȱinȱtheȱtemple’ȱ
(ʹʣʷʮʡ).ȱ Aȱ closeȱ variantȱ ofȱ theȱ formulaȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ Exod.ȱ 30.16.ȱ Theȱ
nameȱforȱGodȱisȱ‘Eloha’ȱorȱ‘Adonai’,ȱwhileȱtheȱTetragrammatonȱ(YHWH)ȱ
appearsȱonlyȱinȱpaleoȬHebrewȱinscriptions.ȱ‘Shem’ȱorȱ‘Shema’ȱforȱGodȱ
hasȱnotȱbeenȱfound.ȱ
Inȱmostȱinstances,ȱtheȱofferingȱisȱnotȱqualifiedȱandȱitȱisȱconjecturedȱ
thatȱ theȱ donationȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ eitherȱ theȱ stoneȱ ofȱ theȱ inscriptionȱ
itselfȱorȱmonetaryȱ(Exodȱ25.1Ȭ7;ȱLevȱ27).ȱTheȱinscriptionsȱmightȱreflectȱaȱ
situationȱ comparableȱ toȱ thatȱ depictedȱ inȱ Nehemiah,ȱ chapterȱ three,ȱ inȱ
whichȱ severalȱ familiesȱ haveȱ ‘paid’ȱ forȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ variousȱ partsȱ ofȱ
Jerusalem’sȱ wall.ȱ Inscriptionsȱ no.ȱ 147ȱ andȱ 148,ȱ bothȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ longȱ
lintels,ȱhaveȱtheȱaddition:ȱ‘thisȱstone’ȱ(ʤʣ ʠʰʡʠ).ȱInscriptionȱno.ȱ199ȱmenȬ
tionsȱ‘andȱbullsȱall’ȱ(ʬʫ ʯʩʸʴʥ)ȱandȱ‘inȱtheȱhouseȱofȱsacrifice’ȱ(ʠʧʡʣ ʺʩʡʡ).ȱ
36ȱȱ Cf.ȱ theȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ incantationȱ bowls,ȱ foundȱ inȱ Telȱ elȬMaskhutaȱ (Northȱ Arabian)ȱ
andȱtheȱmortuaryȱtextȱfromȱMemphisȱpresentedȱinȱHALLO,ȱContext,ȱ175Ȭ176.185Ȭ187.ȱ
37ȱȱ BENȬHAYYIM,ȱTibåtȱMårqe.ȱ
38ȱȱ FLORENTIN,ȱTulidah.ȱ
Ofȱ aȱ totalȱ ofȱ 144ȱ personsȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ inscriptions,ȱ 89ȱ areȱ
identifiedȱwithȱ55ȱdifferentȱnames.ȱOfȱtheseȱ35ȱareȱHebrew,ȱ13ȱGreek,ȱ4ȱ
Arabic,ȱ1ȱPalmyrean,ȱ1ȱPersianȱandȱ2ȱareȱuncertain.ȱTheȱdistributionȱofȱ
theȱHebrewȱnamesȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱfoundȱinȱJewishȱonomasticaȱofȱtheȱ
postȬexilicȱ period.41ȱ Fiveȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ namesȱ areȱ foundȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ
Wadiȱ elȬDaliyehȱ papyriȱ (375Ȭ334ȱ BCE).42ȱ Theseȱ papyriȱ containȱ aboutȱ 80ȱ
percentȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ names,ȱ andȱ 15Ȭ20ȱ %ȱ Assyrian,ȱ BabyloȬ
nianȱ orȱ Persian,ȱ aȱ fewȱ Edomite,ȱ butȱ hardlyȱ anyȱ Greek.43ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ
however,ȱ isȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ Greekȱ artȱ inȱ theȱ sealsȱ attachedȱ toȱ theȱ Wadiȱ elȬ
Daliyehȱpapyri.ȱMostȱofȱtheseȱexhibitȱaȱmixedȱGrecoȬPersianȱstyleȱknownȱ
fromȱ coinsȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ period.44ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ inscriptionsȱ exhibitȱ
onlyȱ oneȱ Persianȱ [uncertain],ȱ someȱ Arabic,ȱ Nabataeanȱ andȱ Palmyreanȱ
andȱaboutȱ20ȱ%ȱGreekȱnames.ȱTheȱexcavatorsȱseem,ȱtherefore,ȱjustifiedȱ
inȱ suggestingȱ aȱ generalȱ datingȱ ofȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ toȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ
ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ Persianȱ period.ȱ Whetherȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ Gerizimȱ inscripȬ
tionsȱcanȱbeȱdatedȱearlierȱthanȱtheȱHellenisticȱperiodȱandȱwhetherȱthereȱ
are,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ earlierȱ inscriptionsȱ stillȱ hiddenȱ inȱ theȱ groundȱ mustȱ awaitȱ
furtherȱexaminationȱandȱexcavation.ȱ
Theȱ namesȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ priestsȱ Eleazarȱ andȱ Pinhasȱ areȱ notȱ
commonȱinȱSamaritanȱlistsȱofȱHighȱpriests.ȱTheȱfirstȱHighȱpriestsȱEleaȬ
zarȱandȱhisȱsonȱPinhasȱareȱplacedȱbeforeȱtheȱSamaritanȬJudaeanȱschismȱ
inȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Eli.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ Highȱ Priestȱ Eleazarȱ wasȱ inȱ officeȱ forȱ 44ȱ
years,ȱ 158ȱ yearsȱ afterȱ Alexander’sȱ conquest.ȱ Thatȱ wouldȱ placeȱ himȱ
someȱtimeȱafterȱ172ȱBCE.ȱTwoȱotherȱHighȱPriestȱEleazarsȱandȱaȱsecondȱ
Pinhasȱareȱplacedȱinȱtheȱ1 stȬ3rdȱcenturyȱCE.45ȱHowever,ȱtheȱnamesȱfoundȱ
inȱtheȱinscriptionsȱareȱtooȱfragmentaryȱtoȱgiveȱevidenceȱofȱwhetherȱtheyȱ
referȱtoȱtheȱHighȱpriestȱorȱtheȱinstitution.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱSamaritanȱlistsȱ
mightȱnotȱbeȱtrustworthyȱregardingȱsuchȱearlyȱperiods.ȱȱ
TheȱTempleȱonȱGerizimȱinȱContextȱ
Inȱ mostȱ scholarlyȱ realities,ȱ whetherȱ relatedȱ toȱ historicalȱ orȱ biblicalȱ
research,ȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱSamariaȱandȱtheȱSamaritansȱhasȱsufferedȱeitherȱ
throughȱ neglectȱ orȱ distortion.ȱ Basedȱ onȱ literaryȱ paradigmsȱ ofȱ disapȬ
42ȱȱ HJELM,ȱParadigms,ȱ170.ȱȱ
43ȱȱ ZSENGELLÉR,ȱGerizimȱ,ȱ141Ȭ143;ȱLAPPȱ/ȱLAPP,ȱDiscoveries;ȱGROPP,ȱWadiȱDaliyeh.ȱ
44ȱȱ LEITH,ȱWadiȱDaliyeh,ȱ20Ȭ35;ȱBRIANT,ȱCyrus,ȱ715.ȱ
45ȱȱ NEUBAUER,ȱ Chronique,ȱ 40Ȭ43;ȱ ZANGENBERG,ȱ Samareia,ȱ 222Ȭ224;ȱ STENHOUSE,ȱ AbuȬlȱ
ch.ȱLV,ȱ188Ȭ189;ȱFLORENTIN,ȱTulidah,ȱ85.ȱȱ
32 IngridȱHjelm
pearance,ȱ replacement,ȱ sectarianȱ behaviourȱ andȱ removal,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ

andȱ religiousȱ rolesȱ playedȱ byȱ theȱ Assyrian,ȱ Babylonian,ȱ Persian,ȱ
Ptolemaicȱ andȱ Seleucidȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ andȱ itsȱ population,ȱ haveȱ
everȱ beenȱ consideredȱ inferiorȱ toȱ theȱ rolesȱ playedȱ byȱ Judahȱ andȱ
Jerusalemȱ duringȱ theseȱ sameȱ periods.ȱ Recentȱ research,ȱ however,ȱ seriȬ
ouslyȱ questionsȱ theseȱ paradigms.46ȱ Whileȱ Samariaȱ wasȱ notȱ destroyedȱ
andȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ theȱ regionȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ didȱ notȱ sufferȱ
deportationȱatȱtheȱAssyrianȱconquestȱinȱtheȱ720’sȱBCE,ȱJudahȱdidȱsufferȱ
heavyȱ devastationȱ andȱ depopulationȱ inȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ conquestȱ duringȱ
theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Sennacheribȱ someȱ 20ȱ yearsȱ later.ȱ Whileȱ newlyȱ resettledȱ
deporteesȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ inhabitedȱ aȱ ratherȱ limitedȱ areaȱ inȱ theȱ northȬ
easternȱ hillȱ countryȱ ofȱ Manassehȱ (theȱ easternȱ valleysȱ andȱ theȱ triangleȱ
betweenȱ Shechem,ȱ Tellȱ elȬFar’ahȱ Nȱ andȱ Samaria),ȱ theirȱ originȱ andȱ
eventualȱ fateȱ areȱ uncertain.ȱ Zertal’sȱ synthesisȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ andȱ archaeoȬ
logicalȱsourcesȱdoesȱnotȱprovideȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱchronologicallyȱandȱ
geographicallyȱquiteȱdistinctiveȱpeoples,ȱwhomȱheȱarguesȱwereȱbroughtȱ
inȱ duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ Sargon,ȱ Sennacheribȱ andȱ Ashurbanipalȱ fromȱ
Mesopotamia,ȱ theȱ Arabianȱ Peninsulaȱ andȱ Syria,47ȱ shouldȱ beȱ equatedȱ
withȱtheȱlaterȱSamaritans,48ȱwhomȱheȱcallsȱ“Cuthaeans”ȱinȱaȱrecentȱreȬ
assessment.49ȱ Neitherȱ doesȱ itȱ justifyȱ theȱ standardȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ reȬ
mainingȱ fourȬfifthsȱ ofȱ Samaria’sȱ postȱ 720ȱ BCEȱ populationȱ andȱ theȱ
minorityȱ thatȱ sufferedȱ deportationȱ asȱ nonȬexistent.50ȱ Suchȱ simplisticȱ
conclusions,ȱweȱlearnedȱfromȱJosephus,ȱwhoȱbasedȱhimselfȱonȱhearsay,ȱ
traditionȱandȱideology51ȱratherȱthanȱonȱhistoricalȱcriticism.ȱApartȱfromȱ
theȱ veryȱ meagreȱ onomasticȱ evidence,52ȱ almostȱ nothingȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ
cultureȱofȱtheȱregionȱcanȱbeȱattributedȱtoȱanyȱofȱtheȱregionsȱmentionedȱ
inȱtheȱBible.53ȱAssyrianȱsourcesȱdoȱnotȱmentionȱanyȱofȱtheȱpeoplesȱlistedȱ
inȱ2Kgsȱ17,24,ȱbutȱratherȱrelateȱthatȱsomeȱArabianȱtribesȱwereȱbroughtȱ
46ȱȱ AȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱsalientȱpointsȱofȱconsiderationȱregardingȱSamarianȱandȱJudaeanȱ
relationshipsȱisȱofferedȱinȱHJELM,ȱParadigms,ȱ161Ȭ179.ȱ
47ȱȱ ZERTAL,ȱBowl,ȱ82;ȱTADMOR,ȱHistory,ȱ67Ȭ75;ȱDESHAYES,ȱCivilisations.ȱȱȱ
48ȱȱ ZERTAL,ȱBowl,ȱ82.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcritiqueȱofȱZERTAL’SȱhypothesisȱinȱLONDON,ȱReply,ȱ
89Ȭ90.ȱ
49ȱȱ ZERTAL,ȱProvince,ȱ397.ȱ
50ȱȱ SeeȱfurtherȱHJELM,ȱParadigms,ȱ163Ȭ165.ȱ
51ȱȱ Jos.ȱAnt.ȱ9.279,ȱ288;ȱcf.ȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ193Ȭ194;ȱHJELM,ȱJewishȱHistory,ȱ109Ȭ123;ȱ
HJELM,ȱBrothers,ȱ216Ȭ217.ȱ
52ȱȱ LAWSONȱ YONGER,ȱ Repopulation,ȱ 254Ȭ280.ȱ LAWSONȱ YOUNGER’Sȱ attemptȱ atȱ identifiȬ
cationȱofȱ theȱpeoplesȱandȱ theirȱgodsȱ mentionedȱinȱ2Kgsȱ17,ȱdoesȱ notȱgiveȱevidenceȱ
thatȱtheseȱhadȱbeenȱdeportedȱtoȱPalestine.ȱȱ
53ȱȱ STERN,ȱArchaeology,ȱ45;ȱLAWSONȱYONGER,ȱRepopulation,ȱ255.ȱ
toȱ Samariaȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Sargonȱ II.54ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theseȱ haveȱ beenȱ
identifiedȱ withȱ Midianiteȱ tribes.55ȱ Assyrianȱ cityȱ planningȱ andȱ archiȬ
tectureȱ areȱ mostlyȱ restrictedȱ toȱ militaryȱ andȱ administrativeȱ centers.56ȱ
These,ȱ however,ȱ areȱ foundȱ inȱ greatȱ numbersȱ throughoutȱ Palestineȱ
displayingȱconsiderableȱNeoȬAssyrianȱinfluence,57ȱwhich,ȱhowever,ȱdidȱ
notȱalterȱtheȱmaterialȱcultureȱinȱgeneral.ȱ
Epigraphicȱandȱiconographicȱevidenceȱ(theȱMeshaȱstele;ȱtheȱinscripȬ
tionsȱ fromȱ Kuntilletȱ ‘Ajrud58ȱ andȱ Hamath;59ȱ Phylacteries;ȱ coinsȱ andȱ
seals)ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ theȱ highȱ percentageȱ ofȱ personalȱ namesȱ withȱ theȱ
theophoricȱ elementȱ Yahȱ /ȱ Yauȱ (Samariaȱ Ostraca;ȱ Assyrianȱ inscriptionsȱ
andȱ Persianȱ documentsȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ elȬDaliyehȱ andȱ Elephantine)ȱ attestȱ
toȱ aȱ dominantȱ adherenceȱ toȱ Yahwismȱ inȱ theȱ Samariaȱ regionȱ fromȱ theȱ
ninthȱ throughȱ theȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ BCE.60ȱ Notableȱ areȱ iconographicȱ simiȬ
laritiesȱbetweenȱtheȱKuntillatȱ‘Ajrudȱgraffitiȱfromȱtheȱ9Ȭ8thȱcenturyȱBCEȱ
andȱSamarianȱcoinsȱfromȱtheȱPersianȱperiod.61ȱȱ
TheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱregionalȱYahwisticȱcultȱplaceȱshouldȱnotȱsurpriseȱ
us,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ alreadyȱ knowȱ thatȱ theȱ biblicalȱ ideologyȱ ofȱ cultȱ centraliȬ
sationȱ belongsȱ toȱ aȱ laterȱ period.62ȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Persianȱgovernorsȱ inȱSaȬ
maria,ȱ someȱ ofȱ whomȱ wereȱ Sanballatsȱ whoȱ gaveȱ theirȱ sonsȱ Yahwistȱ
names,63ȱ mustȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ entireȱ regionȱ
functionedȱ politicallyȱ andȱ religiouslyȱ independentlyȱ ofȱ Jerusalem,64ȱ
whichȱ hadȱ notȱ yetȱ recoveredȱ fromȱ theȱ devastatingȱ Babylonianȱ blow.ȱ
Judah’sȱ shortȱ flourishingȱ towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ seventhȱ centuryȱBCEȱ
54ȱȱ LAWSONȱYOUNGER,ȱSargonȱ,ȱ293.ȱ
55ȱȱ KNAUF,ȱMidian.ȱ
56ȱȱ ZERTAL,ȱProvince,ȱ386Ȭ395.406.ȱ
57ȱȱ AMIRANȱ/ȱDUNAYEVSKY,ȱBuilding,ȱ25Ȭ32;ȱKAPERA,ȱAsdodȱStele,ȱ87Ȭ99;ȱFRITZ,ȱPaläste,ȱ
63Ȭ74;ȱ BECKING,ȱ Documents,ȱ 76Ȭ89;ȱ REICHȱ /ȱ BRANDL,ȱ Gezer,ȱ 41Ȭ54;ȱ PORATHȱ etȱ al.,ȱ
History;ȱ REICH,ȱ Buildings,ȱ 761Ȭ763;ȱ AHLSTRÖM,ȱ History,ȱ 761Ȭ763;ȱ COGAN,ȱ Plaque,ȱ
155Ȭ161;ȱ STERN,ȱ Gap,ȱ (2000)ȱ 45Ȭ51;ȱ STERN,ȱ Archaeology,ȱ 14Ȭ57;ȱ STERN,ȱ Gap,ȱ (2004)ȱ
273Ȭ277;ȱ BETLYON,ȱ Operations,ȱ 277Ȭ278,ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ e.g.ȱ CROWFOOTȱ /ȱ CROWȬ
FOOTȱ/ȱKENYON,ȱSamariaȬSebaste.ȱȱ
58ȱȱ WEINFELD,ȱKuntilletȱ‘Ajrud,ȱ121Ȭ130.ȱ
59ȱȱ TIGAY,ȱGods;ȱDALLEY,ȱYahweh,ȱ21Ȭ32;ȱ VANȱ DERȱTOORN,ȱAnatȬYahu,ȱ80Ȭ101;ȱTHOMPȬ
SON,ȱBible,ȱ168Ȭ178.ȱ
60ȱȱ VANȱDERȱTOORN,ȱYahweh,ȱ1712Ȭ1730.ȱ
61ȱȱ MESHORERȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Coinage;ȱ MESHORERȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Coins,ȱ 71Ȭ81;ȱ SCHEFFLER,ȱ DisȬ
coveries,ȱ100Ȭ106.ȱ
62ȱȱ SMITH,ȱParties,ȱ82Ȭ98;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ209Ȭ210.ȱ
63ȱȱ CROSS,ȱ Discovery,ȱ 101Ȭ121;ȱ CROSS,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 45Ȭ69;ȱ GROPP,ȱ Wadiȱ Daliyeh,ȱ 6;ȱ GROPP,ȱ
Sanballat,ȱ823Ȭ825;ȱLEITH,ȱWadiȱDaliyeh,ȱ10;ȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ42Ȭ44.ȱ
64ȱȱ MACHINIST,ȱCoins,ȱ365Ȭ380.ȱ
34 IngridȱHjelm
hadȱ beenȱ completelyȱ annulled,ȱ whenȱ ‘theȱ Babyloniansȱ completedȱ theȱ

devastationȱ begunȱ withȱ theȱ Assyrians’ȱ andȱ leftȱ theȱ landȱ ‘virtuallyȱ
depopulated.’65ȱAlsoȱ‘Jerusalemȱandȱitsȱenvironsȱwereȱthoroughlyȱrazedȱ
byȱ theȱ Babylonians,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ anyȱ settlementȱ thereȱ
whatsoeverȱ untilȱ theȱ Persianȱ period.’66ȱ Whetherȱ Judahȱ wasȱ adminisȬ
teredȱfromȱSamariaȱuntilȱtheȱmidȬfifthȱcentury,ȱsuchȱasȱclaimedȱbyȱAlt67ȱ
isȱ stillȱ anȱ openȱ question.68ȱ Theȱ tribalȱ areaȱ ofȱ Benjamin,ȱ northȱ ofȱ JeruȬ
salem,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ onlyȱ minimallyȱ affectedȱ byȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ
conquest.69ȱItȱhadȱaȱshortȱperiodȱofȱflourishingȱandȱfellȱbehindȱagainȱinȱ
theȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱPersianȱperiod.70ȱȱ
Theȱ Jewishȱ repopulationȱ ofȱ Judahȱ wentȱ slowlyȱ and,ȱ byȱ theȱ midȬ
fourthȱcentury,ȱmostȱofȱJudahȱ‘wasȱinhabitedȱbyȱEdomites,ȱnotȱJews.’71ȱ
Althoughȱ Jerusalem’sȱ templeȱ wasȱ inȱ existenceȱ inȱ theȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ
BCE,72ȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ untilȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ periodȱ thatȱ theȱ
cityȱ expandedȱ toȱ aȱ sizeȱ beyondȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ minorȱ templeȱ city.73ȱ Atȱ thatȱ
time,ȱ theȱ templeȱ cityȱ onȱ Gerizimȱ alsoȱ expandedȱ considerably.ȱ Theȱ arȬ
chaeologicallyȱ evidencedȱ enlargementȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ templeȱ inȱ theȱ
timeȱofȱAntiochusȱIIIȱhasȱitsȱparallelȱinȱJosephus’ȱstoryȱaboutȱAntiochusȱ
III’sȱ decreeȱ toȱ rebuildȱ Jerusalem’sȱ templeȱ (Ant.ȱ 12.133Ȭ146).ȱ Callingȱ
Polybiusȱ ofȱ Megalopolisȱ asȱ witness,ȱ Josephusȱ addressesȱ Antiochus’ȱ
‘epistles’ȱtoȱtheȱrestorationȱofȱtheȱtempleȱandȱtempleȱcultȱinȱJerusalemȱ
(Ant.ȱ12.134Ȭ46).74ȱIfȱweȱconsiderȱauthenticȱtheȱcharterȱofȱAntiochusȱIIIȱ
forȱ aȱ restorationȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ andȱ aȱ subsidyȱ ofȱ theȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ
Jerusalem,ȱ theȱ economicalȱ andȱ politicalȱ situationȱ forȱ Judaeaȱ andȱ JeruȬ
salemȱ beforeȱ Antiochusȱ IIIȱ isȱ hardlyȱ betterȱ thanȱ thatȱ describedȱ inȱ theȱ
booksȱofȱEzraȱandȱNehemiah.75ȱȱ
65ȱȱ STERN,ȱGap,ȱ(2004)ȱ274.ȱ
66ȱȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱChanges,ȱ365.ȱ
67ȱȱ ALT,ȱRolle,ȱ316Ȭ337.ȱ
68ȱȱ MACHINIST,ȱCoins,ȱ373;ȱHOGLUND,ȱAdministration,ȱ69Ȭ86.ȱȱ
69ȱȱ MALAMAT,ȱWars,ȱ218Ȭ227;ȱODED,ȱMyth,ȱ66;ȱZORN,ȱTellȱenȬNasbeh,ȱ438.ȱȱ
70ȱȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱChanges,ȱ365;ȱSee,ȱhowever,ȱMAGEN,ȱLand,ȱ78Ȭ84,ȱandȱENG.ȱSummary,ȱxii,ȱ
forȱtheȱoppositeȱopinionȱthatȱsettlementȱactivityȱceasedȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱBenjaminȱinȱtheȱ
BabylonianȱperiodȱandȱincreasedȱmoderatelyȱinȱtheȱearlyȱPersianȱperiod.ȱȱ
71ȱȱ STERN,ȱGap,ȱ(2004)ȱ274.ȱ
72ȱȱ Attestationȱ ofȱ Jerusalem’sȱ priesthoodȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Elephantineȱ (theȱ
LetterȱofȱRecommendationȱfromȱ407ȱBCE;ȱcf.ȱCOWLEY,ȱPapyri;ȱPORTENȱetȱal.,ȱPapyri;ȱ
PORTEN,ȱLetters,ȱ128.ȱȱ
73ȱȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱChanges,ȱ330;ȱSTERN,ȱArchaeology,ȱ581.ȱ
74ȱȱ HJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ234.ȱ
75ȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ216Ȭ225.ȱ
Asȱ Josephusȱ gotȱ itȱ wrongȱ regardingȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
temple,ȱ heȱ neglectedȱ itsȱ enlargementȱ andȱ diminishedȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ bothȱ
theȱ templeȱ cityȱ andȱ theȱ temple.ȱ Theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
temple,ȱJosephusȱargues,ȱhadȱtakenȱplaceȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱreignȱ
ofȱ Johnȱ Hyrcanusȱ (135Ȭ104ȱ BCE),ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ hisȱ reign.ȱ
Fromȱ theȱ coinage,ȱ aȱ datingȱ laterȱ thanȱ 111ȱ BCEȱ isȱ theȱ moreȱ probable.76ȱ
TheȱdurationȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱtempleȱtoȱ‘YahwehȬelȬ‘Eljon’77ȱwasȱnotȱtheȱ
200ȱyearsȱstatedȱbyȱJosephusȱ(Ant.ȱ13.256),ȱbutȱratherȱcloser,ȱandȱmaybeȱ
evenȱfarȱbeyondȱtheȱ343ȱyears,ȱheȱascribesȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱtempleȱ
inȱ Heliopolisȱ /ȱ Leontopolisȱ (Warȱ 7.436),ȱ storiesȱ ofȱ which,ȱ Josephusȱ
minglesȱwithȱstoriesȱaboutȱGerizim.78ȱAsȱexcavationsȱonȱGerizimȱhaveȱ
notȱ beenȱ completed,ȱ earlierȱ structuresȱ mightȱ stillȱ beȱ hiddenȱ inȱ theȱ
ground.ȱIfȱtheȱ‘Persianȱperiod’ȱstructuresȱalreadyȱexcavatedȱwereȱtoȱbeȱ
datedȱinȱtermsȱofȱarchitectureȱalone,ȱoneȱmightȱthinkȱofȱanȱearlierȱageȱ
forȱtheȱGerizimȱtemple.ȱ
Indicationsȱ areȱ strongȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ understandingȱ theȱ Persianȱ andȱ
Hellenisticȱperiodsȱasȱformativeȱperiodsȱforȱmostȱofȱbiblicalȱliterature.79ȱ
Gerizim’sȱ roleȱ mustȱ thereforeȱ beȱ reconsidered.80ȱ Theȱ proximityȱ ofȱ
Bethelȱ toȱ Shechemȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ traditionsȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ andȱ
Samaritanȱ Pentateuch81ȱ mustȱ beȱ reȬevaluatedȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ eviȬ
dence.ȱ Becauseȱ scholarshipȱ hasȱ blurredȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ sinceȱ AlbȬ
right’sȱidentificationȱofȱBethelȱwithȱBeitin,ȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱ
originȱ ofȱ theȱ Hexateuchȱ traditionsȱ hasȱ beenȱ almostȱ totallyȱ neglected.ȱ
Wereȱitȱ notȱ forȱ theȱ silencingȱ ofȱSamaritanȱ historyȱ inȱ biblicalȱandȱearlyȱ
Jewishȱliteratureȱandȱforȱscholarship’sȱanachronisticȱcomprehensionȱofȱ
biblicalȱ traditionsȱ inȱ theirȱ canonicalȱ Masoreticȱ form,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ
Hexateuchȱ couldȱ haveȱ originatedȱ inȱ Jerusalem’sȱ templeȱ andȱ courtȱ
wouldȱseemȱimprobable.82ȱȱ
76ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ117Ȭ118.ȱ
77ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMt.ȱGerizim,ȱ108,ȱ113.ȱ
78ȱȱ HJELM,ȱCultȱCentralisation,ȱ298Ȭ309;ȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ227Ȭ232.ȱ
79ȱȱ THOMPSON,ȱText,ȱ65Ȭ92;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ173Ȭ174.299Ȭ303.ȱ
80ȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ191.ȱ
81ȱȱ CROWN,ȱSchism,ȱ32.ȱ
82ȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ190Ȭ191.ȱ
36 IngridȱHjelm
Bibliographyȱ
ADLER,ȱ Elkanȱ Nathanȱ /ȱ SÉLIGSOHN,ȱ Maxȱ (ed.),ȱ Chronicleȱ Adlerȱ orȱ theȱ Newȱ
Chronicle.ȱ Uneȱ nouvelleȱ chroniqueȱ samaritaine,ȱ in:ȱ REJȱ 44ȱ (1902)ȱ 188Ȭ222;ȱ
45ȱ (1902)ȱ 70Ȭ98.160.223Ȭ254;ȱ 46ȱ (1903)ȱ 123Ȭ146,ȱ [serial]ȱ =ȱ ADLER,ȱ Elkanȱ
Nathanȱ /ȱ SÉLIGSOHN,ȱ Max,ȱ Uneȱ nouvelleȱ chroniqueȱ samaritaineȱ /ȱ Texteȱ
samaritaineȱ transcritȱ etȱ éditéȱ pourȱ leȱ premièreȱ foisȱ avecȱ uneȱ traductionȱ
françaiseȱparȱADLER,ȱElkanȬNathanȱ/ȱSÉLIGSOHN,ȱMax,ȱParisȱ1903.ȱ
AHLSTRÖM,ȱGöstaȱWerner,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱAncientȱPalestine,ȱMinneapolis,ȱMNȱ
1994.ȱ
ALT,ȱAlbrecht,ȱDieȱRolleȱSamariasȱbeiȱderȱEntstehungȱdesȱJudentumsȱ(1934),ȱin:ȱ
ALT,ȱAlbrecht,ȱKleineȱSchriftenȱII,ȱMunichȱ1953,ȱ316Ȭ337.ȱ
AMIRAN,ȱ Ruthȱ /ȱ DUNAYEVSKY,ȱ Immanuel,ȱ Theȱ Assyrianȱ OpenȬCourtȱ Buildingȱ
andȱItsȱPalestinianȱDerivatives,ȱin:ȱBASORȱ149ȱ(1958)ȱ25Ȭ32.ȱ
ANDERSON,ȱ Robertȱ T.ȱ /ȱ GILES,ȱ Terry,ȱ Traditionȱ Kept.ȱ Theȱ Literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱPeabody,ȱMAȱ2005.ȱ
AVIGAD,ȱNahman,ȱSamariaȱ(City),ȱNEAEHLȱIV,ȱ1300Ȭ1310.ȱ
BECKING,ȱBob,ȱTheȱTwoȱNeoȬAssyrianȱDocumentsȱfromȱGezerȱinȱTheirȱHistoriȬ
calȱContext,ȱin:ȱJahrberichtȱExȱOrientȱLuxȱ27ȱ(1983)ȱ76Ȭ89.ȱ
BENȬHAYYIM,ȱZe’ev,ȱTibåtȱMårqe.ȱAȱCollectionȱofȱSamaritanȱMidrashim.ȱEdited,ȱ
TranslatedȱandȱAnnotated,ȱJerusalemȱ1988ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
BETLYON,ȱ Johnȱ W.,ȱ NeoȬBabylonianȱ Operationsȱ Otherȱ Thanȱ Warȱ inȱ Judahȱ andȱ
Jerusalem,ȱ in:ȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ BLENKINSOPP,ȱ Josephȱ (eds.),ȱ Judahȱ andȱ
JudaeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ263Ȭ283.ȱȱ
BRIANT,ȱ Pierre,ȱ Fromȱ Cyrusȱ toȱ Alexander.ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Persianȱ Empire,ȱ
WinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2002.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.,ȱAnȱArchaeologicalȱContextȱforȱUnderstandingȱJohnȱ4,20,ȱin:ȱBAȱ
38ȱ(1975)ȱ54Ȭ59;ȱRBȱ(1975)ȱ238Ȭ243.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.,ȱTheȱExcavationsȱofȱTellȱerȱRasȱonȱMt.ȱGerizimȱ1964ȱandȱ1966,ȱin:ȱ
BAȱ31ȱ(1968)ȱ58Ȭ72.ȱ
BULL,ȱ Robertȱ J.,ȱ Aȱ Noteȱ onȱ Theodotus’ȱ Descriptionȱ ofȱ Shechem,ȱ in:ȱ HTRȱ 60ȱ
(1967)ȱ221Ȭ227.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.,ȱTellȱerȬRasȱ(MountȱGerizim),ȱin:ȱAVIȬYONAH,ȱMichaelȱ/ȱSTERN,ȱ
Ephraimȱ (eds.),ȱ EAEHLȱ IV,ȱ Oxfordȱ 1978,ȱ 1015Ȭ1022;ȱ reprintȱ in:ȱ DEXINGER,ȱ
Ferdinandȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Samaritanerȱ (WdFȱ 604),ȱ
Darmstadtȱ1992,ȱ419Ȭ427.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.ȱ/ȱWRIGHT,ȱGeorgeȱErnest,ȱNewlyȱDiscoveredȱTemplesȱonȱmountȱ
GerizimȱinȱJordan,ȱin:ȱHTRȱ58ȱ(1965)ȱ234Ȭ237.ȱ
CAMPBELL,ȱEdwardȱF.,ȱShechem,ȱin:ȱNEAEHLȱIV,ȱJerusalemȱ1993,ȱ1345Ȭ1354.ȱ
CAMPBELL,ȱ Edwardȱ F.,ȱ Shechemȱ III.ȱ Theȱ Stratigraphyȱ andȱ Architectureȱ ofȱ
Shechemȱ/ȱTellȱBalâtah,ȱBoston,ȱMAȱ2002.ȱ
COGAN,ȱMordechai,ȱAȱLamashtuȱPlaqueȱfromȱtheȱJudaeanȱShephelah,ȱin:ȱIsraelȱ
ExplorationȱJournalȱ45ȱ(1995)ȱ155Ȭ161.ȱ
COWLEY,ȱ Arthurȱ Enest,ȱ Aramaicȱ Papyriȱ ofȱ theȱ Fifthȱ Centuryȱ BC,ȱ Osnabrückȱ
1967ȱ=ȱOxfordȱ1923.ȱ
CROSS,ȱFrankȱMoore,ȱTheȱDiscoveryȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyri,ȱin:ȱBAȱ26ȱ(1963)ȱ101Ȭ
121.ȱ
CROSS,ȱ Frankȱ Moore,ȱ Papyriȱ ofȱ theȱ Fourthȱ Centuryȱ B.C.ȱ fromȱ Daliyeh,ȱ in:ȱ
FREEDMAN,ȱ Davidȱ Noelȱ /ȱ GREENFIELD,ȱ Jonasȱ C.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Newȱ Directionsȱ inȱ
BiblicalȱArchaeology,ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNYȱ1971.ȱ
CROWFOOT,ȱ Johnȱ W.ȱ /ȱ CROWFOOT,ȱ Graceȱ Maryȱ /ȱ KENYON,ȱ Kathleen,ȱ SamariaȬ
SebasteȱIII:ȱTheȱObjects,ȱLondonȱ1957.ȱ
CROWN,ȱAlanȱDavid,ȱRedatingȱtheȱSchismȱbetweenȱtheȱJudaeansȱandȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritans,ȱin:ȱJQRȱ82/1Ȭ2ȱ(1991)ȱ17Ȭ50.ȱ
DALLEY,ȱ Stephanie,ȱ Yahwehȱ inȱ Hamathȱ inȱ theȱ eighthȱ Centuryȱ BC,ȱ in:ȱ VTȱ 40ȱ
(1990)ȱ21Ȭ32.ȱ
DESHAYES,ȱ Jean,ȱ Lesȱ Civilisationsȱ deȱ l’Orientȱ ancienȱ (Collectionȱ lesȱ grandesȱ
CivilisationsȱdirigéeȱparȱR.ȱBloch),ȱParisȱ1969.ȱ
DEVER,ȱ Williamȱ G.,ȱ Archaeologyȱ andȱ theȱ “Ageȱ ofȱ Solomon”:ȱ Aȱ CaseȬStudyȱ inȱ
Archaeologyȱ andȱ Historiography,ȱ in:ȱ HANDY,ȱ Lowellȱ K.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Ageȱ ofȱ
Solomon:ȱ Scholarshipȱ andȱ theȱ Turnȱ ofȱ theȱ Millennium,ȱ Leidenȱ 1997,ȱ 217Ȭ
225.ȱ
DEVER,ȱWilliamȱG.,ȱHistoriesȱandȱNonȬHistoriesȱofȱAncientȱIsrael:ȱTheȱQuestionȱ
ofȱtheȱUnitedȱMonarchy,ȱin:ȱDAY,ȱJohnȱ(ed.),ȱInȱSearchȱofȱPreȬexilicȱIsrael.ȱ
Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Oxfordȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Seminarȱ (JSOTSȱ 406),ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ2004,ȱ65Ȭ94.ȱ
FINKELSTEIN,ȱ Israelȱ /ȱ SILBERMAN,ȱ Neilȱ Asher,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ Unearthed:ȱ ArchaeȬ
ology’sȱ Newȱ Visionȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israelȱ andȱ theȱ Originȱ ofȱ Itsȱ Sacredȱ Texts,ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ2001.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱMoshe,ȱTheȱTulidah:ȱAȱSamaritanȱChronicle.ȱText,ȱTranslationȱandȱ
Commentary,ȱJerusalemȱ1999ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
FRITZ,ȱVolkmar,ȱMonarchyȱandȱUrbanization:ȱAȱNewȱLookȱatȱSolomon’sȱKingȬ
dom,ȱ in:ȱ FRITZ,ȱ Volkmarȱ /ȱ DAVIES,ȱ Philipȱ R.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ AnȬ
cientȱIsraeliteȱStatesȱ(JSOTSȱ228),ȱSheffieldȱ1996,ȱ187Ȭ195.ȱ
FRITZ,ȱVolkmar,ȱDieȱPalästeȱwährendȱderȱassyrischen,ȱbabylonischenȱundȱperȬ
sischenȱVorherrschaftȱinȱPalästine,ȱin:ȱMDOGȱ111ȱ(1979)ȱ63Ȭ74.ȱ
GROPP,ȱ Douglasȱ Marwin,ȱSanballat,ȱ in:ȱ Encyclopaediaȱ ofȱtheȱ DeadȱSeaȱ Scrolls,ȱ
Oxfordȱ2000,ȱ823Ȭ825.ȱ
GROPP,ȱ Douglasȱ Marwin,ȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ II.ȱ Theȱ Samariaȱ Papyriȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ
Daliyehȱ(DJDȱxxviii),ȱOxfordȱ2001.ȱ
HALLO,ȱWilliamȱW.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱContextȱofȱScripture,ȱII.ȱMonumentalȱinscriptionsȱ
fromȱtheȱBiblicalȱworld,ȱLeidenȱ2000.ȱ
38 IngridȱHjelm
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱBrothersȱFightingȱBrothers:ȱJewishȱandȱSamaritanȱEthnocentrismȱ
inȱ Traditionȱ andȱ History,ȱ in:ȱ THOMPSON,ȱ Thomasȱ L.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Jerusalemȱ inȱ
Ancientȱ Historyȱ andȱ Traditionȱ (JSOT.Sȱ 381;ȱ CISȱ 13),ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ
2003,ȱ197Ȭ222.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Cultȱ Centralisationȱ asȱ aȱ Deviceȱ ofȱ Cultȱ Control,ȱ in:ȱ SJOTȱ 13ȱ
(1999/2)ȱ298Ȭ309.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Jerusalem’sȱ Riseȱ toȱ Sovereignty:ȱ Zionȱ andȱ Gerizimȱ inȱ
Competitionȱ(JSOTSȱ404;ȱCISȱ14),ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱChangingȱParadigms:ȱJudaeanȱandȱSamarianȱHistoriesȱinȱLightȱ
ofȱ Recentȱ Research,ȱ in:ȱ MÜLLER,ȱ Mogensȱ /ȱ THOMPSON,ȱ Thomasȱ L.ȱ (eds.),ȱ
HistorieȱogȱKonstruktion.ȱFestskriftȱtilȱNielsȱPeterȱLemcheȱiȱanledningȱafȱ60ȱ
årsȱ fødselsdagenȱ denȱ 6.ȱ septemberȱ 2005ȱ (Forumȱ forȱ Bibelskȱ Eksegeseȱ 14),ȱ
Copenhagenȱ2005,ȱ161Ȭ179.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱSamaritansȱandȱEarlyȱJudaism:ȱaȱliteraryȱanalysis,ȱSheffieldȱ2000.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Josephus’ȱ Jewishȱ History,ȱ in:ȱ A.B.–ȱ Theȱ
SamaritanȱNewsȱ770Ȭ772ȱ(2000)ȱ109Ȭ123.ȱ
HOGLUND,ȱ Kennethȱ G.,ȱ Achemenidȱ Imperialȱ Administrationȱ inȱ SyriaȬPalestineȱ
andȱtheȱMissionsȱofȱEzraȱandȱNehemiahȱ(SBL.DSȱ125);ȱAtlantaȱ1992,ȱ69Ȭ86.ȱ
JUYNBOLL,ȱ Theodoreȱ Williamȱ Johnȱ (ed.),ȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Joshua.ȱ Chroniconȱ samaritaȬ
num,ȱarabiceȱconscriptum,ȱcuiȱtitulusȱestȱLiberȱJosuae.ȱExȱunicoȱcod.ȱScaleȬ
gieri,ȱ Leidenȱ 1848,ȱ trans.ȱ byȱ CRANE,ȱ Oliverȱ Turnbull,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ
Chronicle,ȱorȱtheȱBookȱofȱJoshuaȱtheȱSonȱofȱNun,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1890.ȱ
KAPERA,ȱZdzislawȱJ.,ȱTheȱAsdodȱSteleȱofȱSargonȱII,ȱin:ȱFoliaȱOrientaliaȱ17ȱ(1976)ȱ
87Ȭ99.ȱ
KNAUF,ȱ Ernstȱ Axel,ȱ Midian:ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ Palästinasȱ undȱ
NordarabienȱamȱEndeȱdesȱ2.ȱJahrtausendsȱv.ȱChr.,ȱWiesbadenȱ1988.ȱ
LAPPȱPaulȱW.ȱ/ȱLAPP,ȱNancyȱL.,ȱDiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱWadiȱDalyiehȱ(AASORȱ41),ȱ
Cambridge,ȱMAȱ1974.ȱ
LAWSONȱYONGERȱJr.,ȱKenneth,ȱTheȱRepopulationȱofȱSamariaȱ(2ȱKingsȱ17,24.27Ȭ
31)ȱ inȱ Lightȱ ofȱ Recentȱ Study,ȱ in:ȱ HOFFMEIER,ȱ Jamesȱ K.ȱ /ȱ MILLARD,ȱ Alanȱ
Ralphȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Futureȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Archaeology:ȱ Reassessingȱ
Methodologiesȱ andȱ Assumptions.ȱ Theȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ aȱ Symposiumȱ
Augustȱ12Ȭ14,ȱ2001ȱatȱTrinityȱInternationalȱUniversity,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMIȱ/ȱ
Cambridgeȱ2004,ȱ254Ȭ280.ȱ
LAWSONȱYONGERȱJr.,ȱKenneth,ȱSargonȱIIȱ(2.118);ȱTheȱAnnalsȱ(2118A),ȱlinesȱ120bȬ
123a,ȱ in:ȱ HALLO,ȱ Williamȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ contextȱ ofȱ scripture:ȱ Monumentalȱ
inscriptionsȱfromȱtheȱbiblicalȱworldȱII,ȱLeidenȱ2000.ȱ
LEITH,ȱMaryȱJoanȱW.,ȱWadiȱDaliyehȱI.ȱTheȱWadiȱDaliyehȱSealȱImpressionsȱ(DJDȱ
xxiv),ȱOxfordȱ1997.ȱ
LEMCHE,ȱNielsȱPeter,ȱIsȱItȱStillȱPossibleȱtoȱWriteȱaȱHistoryȱofȱAncientȱIsrael,ȱin:ȱ
SJOTȱ8/2ȱ(1994)ȱ165Ȭ190.ȱ
LIPSCHITS,ȱ Oded,ȱ Demographicȱ Changesȱ inȱ Judahȱ betweenȱ theȱ 7thȱ andȱ theȱ 5thȱ
CenturiesȱBCE,ȱin:ȱLIPSCHITS,ȱOdedȱ/ȱBLENKINSOPP,ȱJosephȱ(eds.).ȱJudahȱandȱ
theȱJudeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriodȱ(ProceedingsȱofȱtheȱConferenceȱ
heldȱatȱTelȱAvivȱUniversity,ȱMayȱ2001),ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ323Ȭ376.ȱ
LONDON,ȱGloria,ȱReplyȱtoȱAdamȱZertal’sȱ“TheȱWedgeȬshapedȱDecoratedȱBowlȱ
andȱtheȱOriginȱofȱtheȱSamaritans”,ȱin:ȱBASORȱ286ȱ(1992)ȱ89Ȭ90.ȱ
MACHINIST,ȱ Peter,ȱ Theȱ Firstȱ Coinsȱ ofȱ Judahȱ andȱ Samaria:ȱ Numismaticsȱ andȱ
Historyȱ inȱ theȱ Achaemenidȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Hellenisticȱ Periods,ȱ in:ȱ SANCISIȬ
WEERDENBURG,ȱ Heleenȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Achaemenidȱ Historyȱ VIII.ȱ Continuityȱ
andȱChange.ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱLastȱAchaemenidȱHistoryȱandȱWorkshop.ȱ
Aprilȱ6Ȭ8,ȱ1990,ȱAnnȱArbor,ȱMIȱ/ȱLeidenȱ1994,ȱ365Ȭ380.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYtzhak,ȱExcavationsȱatȱMtȬGerizimȱ–ȱAȱTempleȱCity,ȱin:ȱQad.ȱ23ȱ(1989)ȱ
70Ȭ96.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Gerizim,ȱ Mount,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ Ephraimȱ (ed.),ȱ NEAEHLȱII,ȱNewȱ
Yorkȱ1993,ȱ484Ȭ492.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Ytzhak,ȱ Theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Benjaminȱ inȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Period,ȱ in:ȱ
ERLICH,ȱ Ze’evȱ H.ȱ /ȱ ESHEL,ȱ Ya’akovȱ (eds.),ȱ Judeaȱ andȱ Samariaȱ Researchȱ
Studies.ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Fourthȱ Annualȱ MeetingȬ1994,ȱ KedumimȬArielȱ
1995ȱ(Hebrew),ȱ75Ȭ102.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYtzhak,ȱMountȱGerizimȱandȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱin:ȱMANNS,ȱFrédéricȱetȱal.ȱ
(eds.),ȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Context:ȱ Monumentsȱ andȱ Documents,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1993,ȱ91Ȭ147.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ Excavationsȱ II:ȱ Aȱ Templeȱ Cityȱ (Judeaȱ andȱ
Samaritanȱ Publicationsȱ 8)ȱ Jerusalemȱ 2008,ȱ Englishȱ translationȱ byȱ LEVIN,ȱ
Edwardȱ/ȱEBERT,ȱCarl.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizimȱ –ȱ Aȱ Templeȱ City,ȱ in:ȱ Qad.ȱ 33/2ȱ (120)ȱ (2000)ȱ 74Ȭ
118.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Samariaȱ (Region).ȱ Hellenisticȱ andȱ RomanȬByzantineȱ Periods,ȱ
in:ȱSTERN,ȱEphraimȱ(ed.),ȱNEAEHLȱIV,ȱ1316Ȭȱ1318.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYitzhak,ȱAȱFortifiedȱTownȱofȱtheȱHellenisticȱPeriodȱonȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ
in:ȱQad.ȱ19ȱ(1986)ȱ91Ȭ101.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhakȱ /ȱ MISGAV,ȱ Haggaiȱ /ȱ TSEFANIA,ȱ Levana,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ ExcaȬ
vationsȱI:ȱTheȱAramaic,ȱHebrewȱandȱSamaritanȱInscriptionsȱ(Judeaȱ&ȱSamaȬ
riaȱ Publicationsȱ 2),ȱ Jerusalemȱ 2004;ȱ Eng.ȱ translationȱ byȱ LEVIN,ȱ Edwardȱ /ȱ
GUGGENHEIMER,ȱMichael,ȱHebrewȱandȱEnglish).ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Ytzhakȱ /ȱ NAVEH,ȱ Joseph,ȱ Aramaicȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Inscriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ
SecondȬCenturyȱBCEȱatȱMountȱGerizim,ȱin:ȱAtiqotȱ32ȱ(1997)ȱ9Ȭ17.ȱ
MALAMAT,ȱAbraham,ȱTheȱLastȱWarsȱofȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱJudah,ȱin:ȱJNESȱ9ȱ(1950)ȱ
218Ȭ227.ȱ
MESHORER,ȱ Ya’akovȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Shraga,ȱ Theȱ Coinageȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Fourthȱ
CenturyȱBCE,ȱJerusalemȱ1991.ȱ
40 IngridȱHjelm
MESHORER,ȱ Ya’akovȱ /ȱ QEDAR,ȱ Shraga,ȱ Theȱ Coinsȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ
Period,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ Ephraimȱ /ȱ ESHEL,ȱ Hananȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Samaritans,ȱ JeruȬ
salemȱ2002,ȱ71Ȭ81ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
NEUBAUER,ȱ Adolf,ȱ Chroniqueȱ samaritaineȱ suiveȱ d’unȱ appendiceȱ contenantȱ deȱ
courtesȱ noticesȱ surȱ quelquesȱ autresȱ ouvragesȱ samaritaines,ȱ in:ȱ JAȱ 14/6ȱ
(1869)ȱ40Ȭ43.ȱ
NODET,ȱ Etienne,ȱ Aȱ Searchȱ forȱ theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ Judaism:ȱ Fromȱ Joshuaȱ toȱ theȱ
Mishnahȱ (JSOT.Sȱ 248),ȱ Sheffieldȱ 1997ȱ (rev.ȱ Eng.ȱ trans.ȱ byȱ CROWLEY,ȱ Ed)ȱ =ȱ
NODET,ȱ Etienne,ȱ Essaiȱ surȱ lesȱ originesȱ duȱ Judaïsme:ȱ deȱ Josueȱ auxȱ
Pharisiens,ȱParisȱ1992.ȱ
ODED,ȱBustanay,ȱWhereȱIsȱtheȱMythȱofȱtheȱEmptyȱLandȱtoȱBeȱFound?,ȱin:ȱLIPȬ
SCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ BLENKINSOPP,ȱ Josephȱ (eds.).ȱ Judahȱ andȱ theȱ Judeansȱ inȱ theȱ
NeoȬBabylonianȱ Periodȱ (Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Conferenceȱ heldȱ atȱ Telȱ Avivȱ
University,ȱMayȱ2001),ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ66.ȱ
PORATH,ȱ Yosephȱetȱal.,ȱTheȱHistoryȱandȱArchaeologyȱofȱEmekȱHefer,ȱTelȱAvivȱ
1985.ȱ
PORTEN,ȱBezalel,ȱAramaicȱLetters,ȱin:ȱHALLO,ȱWilliamȱW.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱContextȱofȱ
Scripture:ȱArchivalȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱbiblicalȱworldȱIII,ȱLeidenȱ2002,ȱ116Ȭ
134.ȱȱ
PORTEN,ȱ Bezalelȱ etȱ al.,ȱ Theȱ Elephantineȱ Papyriȱ inȱ English:ȱ Threeȱ Millenniaȱ ofȱ
Crossȱ Culturalȱ Continuityȱ andȱ Changeȱ (Documentaȱ etȱ Monumentaȱ
OrientisȱAntiquiȱ22),ȱLeidenȱ1996.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱEarlyȱChristianȱAuthorsȱonȱSamaritansȱandȱSamaritanism.ȱ
Text,ȱTranslationsȱandȱCommentary,ȱTübingenȱ2002.ȱ
REICH,ȱ Ronny,ȱ Assyrianȱ Royalȱ Buildingsȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ in:ȱ KEMPINSKI,ȱ
Aharonȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Architectureȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israel,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1992,ȱȱ
761Ȭ763.ȱ
REICH,ȱRonnyȱ/ȱBRANDL,ȱBaruch,ȱGezerȱunderȱAssyrianȱRule,ȱin:ȱPEQȱ117ȱ(1985)ȱ
41Ȭ54.ȱ
SCHEFFLER,ȱ Eben,ȱ Fascinatingȱ Discoveriesȱ fromȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ World,ȱ Pretoriaȱ
2000.ȱ
SMITH,ȱMorton,ȱPalestinianȱPartiesȱandȱPoliticsȱthatȱShapedȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱ
Londonȱ1987.ȱ
STENHOUSE,ȱ Paulȱ (ed.),ȱ AbuȬlȱ Fath’sȱ History.ȱ Theȱ KitDbȱ alȱ 7DU_NKȱ ofȱ $EXOȬ )DWK>:ȱ
TranslatedȱintoȱEnglishȱwithȱNotes,ȱSydneyȱ1985.ȱ
STERN,ȱ Ephraim,ȱ Archaeologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ IIȱ (Theȱ Anchorȱ Bibleȱ
referenceȱlibrary),ȱNewȱYorkȱ2001,ȱ45.ȱ
STERN,ȱEphraim,ȱTheȱBabylonianȱGap:ȱTheȱArchaeologicalȱReality,ȱin:ȱJSOTȱ28.3ȱ
(2004)ȱ273Ȭ277.ȱȱ
STERN,ȱEphraim,ȱTheȱBabylonianȱGap,ȱin:ȱBARȱ26ȱ(2000)ȱ45Ȭ51.ȱ
TADMOR,ȱHayim,ȱOnȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSamariaȱinȱtheȱBiblicalȱPeriod,ȱin:ȱ AVIRAM,ȱ
Josephȱ (ed.),ȱ Eretzȱ Shomron,ȱ Theȱ Thirtiethȱ Archaeologicalȱ Conventionȱ
Septemberȱ1972,ȱJerusalemȱ1973,ȱ67Ȭ75.ȱ
THOMPSON,ȱ Thomasȱ L.,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ inȱ History:ȱ Howȱ Writersȱ Createȱ aȱ Past,ȱ
Londonȱ1999.ȱ
THOMPSON,ȱThomasȱL.,ȱText,ȱContextȱandȱReferentȱinȱIsraeliteȱHistoriography,ȱ
in:ȱ EDELMAN,ȱ Dianaȱ V.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Fabricȱ ofȱ History.ȱ Text,ȱ Artefactȱ andȱ
Israel’sȱPastȱ(JSOTSȱ127),ȱSheffieldȱ1991,ȱ65Ȭ92.ȱȱ
TIGAY,ȱJeffreyȱH.,ȱYouȱShallȱHaveȱNoȱOtherȱGods:ȱIsraeliteȱReligionȱinȱtheȱLightȱ
ofȱHebrewȱInscriptionsȱ(HSMȱ31),ȱAtlantaȱ1986.ȱ
USSISHKIN,ȱ David,ȱ Wasȱ theȱ “Solomonic”ȱ Cityȱ Gateȱ atȱ Megiddoȱ Builtȱ byȱ Kingȱ
Solomon,ȱin:ȱBASORȱ239ȱ(1980)ȱ1Ȭ18.ȱ
USSISHKIN,ȱ David,ȱ Excavationsȱ atȱ Telȱ Lachishȱ 1978Ȭ1983:ȱ Secondȱ Preliminaryȱ
Report,ȱin:ȱTelȱAvivȱ10ȱ(2)ȱ(1983)ȱ97Ȭ175.ȱ
VANȱ DERȱ TOORN,ȱ Karel,ȱ AnatȬYahu,ȱ Someȱ Otherȱ Deities,ȱ andȱ theȱ Jewsȱ ofȱ
Elephantine,ȱin:ȱNumenȱ39ȱ(1992)ȱ80Ȭ101.ȱ
VANȱ DERȱ TOORN,ȱ Karel,ȱ Yahwehȱ ʤʥʤʩ,ȱ in:ȱ VANȱ DERȱ TOORN,ȱ Karelȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ
DictionaryȱofȱDeitiesȱandȱDemonsȱinȱtheȱBible,ȱLeidenȱ1995,ȱ1712Ȭ1730.ȱ
WEINFELD,ȱMoshe,ȱKuntilletȱъA ъ jrudȱInscriptionsȱandȱTheirȱSignięcance,ȱin:ȱStudiȱ
EpigraficiȱeȱLinguisticiȱ1ȱ(1984)ȱ121Ȭ130.ȱ
WRIGHT,ȱ Georgeȱ Ernest,ȱ Shechem,ȱ in:ȱ THOMAS,ȱ Davidȱ Wintonȱ (ed.),ȱ ArchaeoȬ
logyȱandȱOldȱTestamentȱStudy,ȱOxfordȱ1967,ȱ355Ȭ370.ȱ
ZANGENBERG,ȱJürgen,ȱSamareia:ȱAntikeȱQuellenȱzurȱGeschichteȱundȱKulturȱderȱ
SamaritanerȱinȱdeutscherȱÜbersetzungȱ(TANZȱ15),ȱTübingenȱ1994,ȱ222Ȭ224.ȱ
ZERTAL,ȱ Adam,ȱ Theȱ Provinceȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ (Assyrianȱ Samarina)ȱ inȱ theȱ Lateȱ Ironȱ
Ageȱ(IronȱAgeȱIII),ȱin:ȱLIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ/ȱBLENKINSOPP,ȱ Josephȱ(eds.),ȱJudahȱ
andȱJudaeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ377Ȭ412.ȱ
ZERTAL,ȱ Adam,ȱ Theȱ WedgeȬShapedȱ Decoratedȱ Bowlȱ andȱ theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱin:ȱBASORȱ276ȱ(1989)ȱ77Ȭ84.ȱ
ZORN,ȱJeffreyȱR.,ȱTellȱenȬNasbehȱandȱtheȱProblemȱofȱtheȱMaterialȱCultureȱofȱtheȱ
SixthȱCentury’,ȱin:ȱLIPSCHITS,ȱOdedȱ/ȱBLENKINSOPPȱJosephȱ(eds.),ȱJudahȱandȱ
JudaeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ413Ȭ447.ȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱGerizimȱasȱIsrael:ȱNorthernȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ
andȱtheȱEarlyȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱ(UtrechtseȱTheologischeȱReeksȱ38),ȱ
Utrechtȱ1998,ȱ141Ȭ143.ȱȱȱ
ȱ

ȱ

II.ȱSamaritansȱEarlyȱHistoryȱ
ȱ

ȱ
ȱ

TheȱContributionȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyriȱfromȱȱ
WadiȱDaliyehȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱEconomicsȱ
inȱtheȱPersianȱPeriodȱ
JACKȱPASTOR1ȱ
MostȱofȱwhatȱweȱknowȱaboutȱtheȱeconomicȱlifeȱofȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsraelȱinȱ
theȱPersianȱperiodȱweȱlearnedȱfromȱtheȱliteraryȱrecordȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱ
Bible,ȱ fromȱ comparisonsȱ withȱ papyrologicalȱ sourcesȱ fromȱ Elephantineȱ
andȱ fromȱ otherȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ Persianȱ Empire,ȱ fromȱ Aramaicȱ Ostracaȱ
originatingȱinȱvariousȱpartsȱofȱIsrael,ȱbutȱespeciallyȱfromȱIdumaea,ȱfromȱ
ancientȱcoins,ȱandȱfromȱtheȱmaterialȱcultureȱprovidedȱbyȱarchaeology.2ȱȱ
Unfortunatelyȱ veryȱ littleȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ trueȱ substanceȱ aboutȱ theȱ
economicȱlifeȱofȱtheȱperiodȱcanȱbeȱgleanedȱfromȱallȱtheseȱsources.ȱOurȱ
effortsȱ toȱ gainȱ anȱ economicȱ overviewȱ suchȱ asȱ thatȱ whichȱ wouldȱ beȱ
consideredȱ deȱ rigueurȱ byȱ anyȱ historianȱ ofȱ theȱ modernȱ periodȱ areȱ metȱ
withȱdisappointinglyȱspottyȱresults.ȱȱ
Turningȱ firstȱ toȱ theȱ Bibleȱ weȱ haveȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ bitterȱ
conditionsȱinȱtheȱfirstȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱreturn:ȱ
“theȱearningsȱofȱmenȱwereȱnil,ȱandȱprofitsȱfromȱbeastsȱwereȱnothing”ȱ(Zechȱ
8,9Ȭ12)ȱȱ
“Youȱ haveȱ sowedȱ muchȱ andȱ broughtȱ inȱ little,ȱ …heȱ whoȱ earnsȱ anythingȱ
earnsȱitȱforȱaȱleakyȱpurse”ȱ(Hagȱ1,6Ȭ11).ȱȱ
Theseȱ versesȱ provideȱ aȱ bitterȱ description,ȱ butȱ regrettablyȱ alsoȱ aȱ briefȱ
one.ȱ Weȱ areȱ tantalizedȱ byȱ minorȱ vignettesȱ ofȱ theȱ economicȱ situation.ȱ
Theȱ versesȱ relateȱ thatȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ inactionȱ ofȱ theȱ returneesȱ inȱ
buildingȱtheȱTempleȱanew,ȱGodȱpunishedȱtheȱJudeanȱcommunityȱwithȱ
drought,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱleadȱtoȱaȱsheafȱofȱeconomicȱdislocations.ȱȱ
1ȱȱ MyȱthanksȱtoȱProf.ȱMenahemȱMORȱforȱhisȱencouragementȱandȱsuggestions.ȱȱ
2ȱȱ Seeȱ YAMAUCHI,ȱ Persia;ȱ EPH‘ALȱ /ȱ NAVEH,ȱ Ostraca;ȱ DAVIES,ȱ Temple;ȱ HELTZER,ȱ ProȬ
vince;ȱHOGLUND,ȱCultur,ȱ67Ȭ73.ȱ
46 JackȱPastor
Afterȱ aȱ lacunaȱ ofȱ decadesȱ weȱ readȱ aboutȱ aȱ majorȱ socioȬeconomicȱ

crisisȱinȱchapterȱ5ȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱNehemiah.ȱWeȱwillȱhaveȱoccasionȱtoȱ
discussȱthisȱincidentȱlater.ȱȱ
Theȱ Aramaicȱ ostracaȱ areȱ alsoȱ frustratinglyȱ deficientȱ inȱ details.ȱ Inȱ
totalȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ ostraca.3ȱ Theyȱ provideȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ
commodities,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ wheat,ȱ barley,ȱ andȱ wine,ȱ evenȱ straw.ȱ Theyȱ
provideȱ amounts,ȱ soȱ andȱ soȱ manyȱ kors,ȱ seahs,ȱ andȱ qabsȱ ofȱ theȱ variedȱ
commoditiesȱ weȱ haveȱ mentioned.ȱ Regrettablyȱ however,ȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ
provideȱpricesȱforȱtheȱcommoditiesȱnoted.ȱȱ
TheȱsourcesȱfromȱElephantineȱandȱotherȱpartsȱofȱtheȱPersianȱrealmȱ
suchȱ asȱ theȱ Murashuȱ archiveȱ areȱ illustrative,ȱ butȱ areȱ theyȱ informativeȱ
aboutȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel?4ȱ Doesȱ theȱ priceȱ ofȱ aȱ houseȱ inȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ
EgyptȱhaveȱanythingȱtoȱteachȱusȱaboutȱtheȱcostȱofȱaȱhouseȱinȱSamaria,ȱ
orȱ Jerusalem?ȱ Canȱ aȱ ketubahȱ fromȱ fifthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ Syeneȱ indicateȱ
pricesȱinȱwesternȱEretzȬIsrael?ȱȱ
Theȱcoinȱrecordȱhasȱtaughtȱusȱmuchȱaboutȱtheȱtypesȱofȱcoins,ȱtheirȱ
motifs,ȱandȱdevelopment.5ȱWeȱareȱawareȱofȱtheȱmintingȱauthorityȱandȱ
perhapsȱ locality,ȱ butȱ doȱ weȱ knowȱ howȱ muchȱ moneyȱ aȱ familyȱ neededȱ
forȱitsȱsubsistence?ȱ
Finallyȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ recordȱ hasȱ enlightenedȱ usȱ somewhatȱ asȱ
toȱtheȱmaterialȱculture,ȱbutȱitȱraisesȱasȱmanyȱquestionsȱasȱitȱanswers.6ȱȱ
Inȱ short,ȱ weȱ areȱ leftȱ withȱ aȱ veryȱ scatteredȱ pictureȱ ofȱ theȱ economicȱ
lifeȱofȱtheȱperiodȱandȱtheȱsourcesȱleaveȱusȱhopingȱforȱmoreȱinformation.ȱ
Theȱ recentlyȱ publishedȱ documentsȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ wereȱ aȱ
longedȱ forȱ additionȱ toȱ ourȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ economicȱ activityȱ ofȱ theȱ
period.ȱTheyȱhaveȱbeenȱexhaustivelyȱexamined.ȱTheȱresearchȱeffortȱhasȱ
yieldedȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ theȱ legalȱ formulationsȱ ofȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ
BCEȱandȱtheȱstructureȱandȱusageȱofȱtheȱAramaicȱlanguage.ȱTheȱeditorsȱ
ofȱ theȱ twoȱ majorȱ compilationsȱ Douglasȱ Gropp,ȱ andȱ Janȱ Dušekȱ inȱ parȬ
ticular,ȱhaveȱpresentedȱtheȱacademicȱworldȱwithȱformulationsȱthatȱwillȱ
handilyȱ serveȱ toȱ reconstructȱ fragmentsȱ asȱ yetȱ unplaced,ȱ orȱ thatȱ hopeȬ
fullyȱwillȱsoonȱbeȱdiscovered.7ȱYetȱtheseȱlegalȱformulationsȱareȱnotȱjustȱ
boilerȱplateȱdocumentsȱteachingȱusȱhowȱtoȱrecreateȱaȱbindingȱcontractȱ
3ȱȱ EPH‘ALȱ/ȱNAVEH,ȱOstraca,ȱ9.ȱ
4ȱȱ OnȱtheȱMurasuȱarchiveȱseeȱSTOLPER,ȱEntrepreneurs.ȱ
5ȱȱ MESHORERȱ/ȱQEDAR,ȱCoinage.ȱȱ
6ȱȱ STERN,ȱCulture;ȱBETLYON,ȱPeople.ȱȱ
7ȱȱ GROPP,ȱWDSP;ȱBERNSTEINȱet.ȱal.,ȱQumranȱCave;ȱDUŠEK,ȱManuscrits.ȱȱ
ȱ TheȱContributionȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyriȱfromȱȱWadiȱDaliyeh 47ȱ
fromȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ Samariaȱ –ȱ theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ documentsȱ dealingȱ
withȱeconomicȱmatters.8ȱȱ
Inȱ theseȱ documentsȱ peopleȱ areȱ buyingȱ andȱ selling;ȱ amongȱ theȱ
particularsȱmentionedȱthereȱareȱprices,ȱdebts,ȱandȱwares.ȱȱ
Inȱtheȱoverwhelmingȱmajorityȱofȱcasesȱtheȱmerchandiseȱtransactedȱ
isȱ slaves.ȱ TwentyȬfiveȱ papyri,ȱ andȱ additionalȱ assortedȱ fragments,ȱ dealȱ
mostlyȱwithȱtheȱsaleȱofȱslaves.9ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱthese,ȱtheȱsaleȱofȱaȱhouse,ȱ
aȱvineyard,ȱandȱsomeȱroomsȱinȱaȱpublicȱbuildingȱareȱalsoȱmentioned.ȱȱ
Whatȱ canȱ weȱ learnȱ fromȱ thisȱ regrettablyȱ smallȱ peekȱ weȱ haveȱ intoȱ
theȱeconomicȱlifeȱofȱtheȱsocietyȱthatȱproducedȱtheseȱdocuments?ȱIsȱthisȱ
oneȱmoreȱcaseȱofȱrevealingȱoneȱmeasure,ȱonlyȱtoȱhideȱtwo?ȱȱ
Douglasȱ Groppȱ madeȱ theȱ painfulȱ observationȱ thatȱ fromȱ theseȱ
papyriȱweȱcannotȱlearnȱaboutȱtheȱuseȱofȱslaveȱlaborȱorȱtheȱproportionȱofȱ
slaveȱ toȱ freeȱ population.10ȱ Moreoverȱ weȱ cannotȱ learnȱ whoȱ becameȱ aȱ
slave,ȱwhyȱheȱbecameȱaȱslave,ȱandȱwhatȱparticularȱjobsȱtheseȱslavesȱdid.ȱȱ
Nevertheless,ȱbasingȱtheirȱviewȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱlargeȱmajorityȱofȱ
theseȱ papyriȱ indeedȱ dealȱ withȱ slaveȱ sales,ȱ someȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ seenȱ inȱ
theseȱdocumentsȱanȱindicationȱofȱaȱslaveȱtradeȱexistingȱinȱSamaria.ȱȱ
Onȱthisȱpointȱweȱshouldȱpointȱoutȱthatȱtheȱpapyriȱareȱtheȱpersonalȱ
archivesȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ aristocracy.ȱ Noȱ doubtȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ
boughtȱ andȱ soldȱ slaves;ȱ thatȱ atȱ leastȱ isȱ clear.ȱ However,ȱ ifȱ theyȱ hadȱ
engagedȱinȱaȱfullȬscaleȱslaveȱtrade,ȱshouldȱweȱnotȱhaveȱhadȱmanyȱmoreȱ
documentsȱ regardingȱ salesȱ andȱ purchasesȱ ofȱ slaves?ȱ Wouldȱ notȱ eachȱ
individualȱ documentȱ mentionȱ manyȱ moreȱ slaves?ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ theseȱ areȱ
theȱ documentsȱ thatȱ theseȱ refugeesȱ choseȱ toȱ takeȱ withȱ themȱ inȱ theirȱ
flightȱfromȱAlexander’sȱwrath.ȱIfȱtheyȱwereȱsavingȱtheȱrecordsȱofȱtheirȱ
businessȱ transactionsȱ whyȱ wouldȱ theyȱ bringȱ onlyȱ someȱ ofȱ them?ȱ
Furthermore,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theȱ majorȱ buyerȱ inȱ theseȱ documents,ȱ Netiraȱ barȱ
Yehopadani,ȱ wasȱ aȱ slaveȱ trader,ȱ doesȱ oneȱ slaveȱ traderȱ makeȱ aȱ slaveȱ
trade?11ȱȱ
Thisȱ bringsȱ usȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whatȱ canȱ orȱ cannotȱ beȱ learnedȱ
fromȱtheȱpricesȱmentionedȱinȱtheseȱslaveȱconveyances.ȱȱ
Althoughȱ theȱ slaveȱ conveyancesȱ mentionȱ theȱ costȱ ofȱ buyingȱ theȱ
slaves,ȱandȱtheȱfinancialȱpenaltiesȱthatȱsomeoneȱmightȱincurȱforȱfailingȱ
toȱ honorȱ theȱ contract,ȱ Groppȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ veryȱ littleȱ toȱ beȱ
8ȱȱ Theȱdifferencesȱinȱreconstructionȱofȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱcontractsȱareȱnotȱrelevantȱtoȱ
theȱsubjectȱofȱthisȱpaperȱbutȱhaveȱbeenȱnotedȱbyȱKOLLER,ȱReview.ȱ
9ȱȱ GROPP,ȱ WDSP,ȱ 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.1415.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.24.25.26.27,ȱ andȱ GROPP,ȱ
WDSP,ȱ29,ȱfrg.10,ȱ36,ȱfrg.ȱ1.ȱ
10ȱȱ GROPP,ȱWDSP,ȱ6.ȱ
11ȱȱ GROPP,ȱWDSP,ȱ5.8.9.ȱ
48 JackȱPastor
learnedȱaboutȱslaveȱprices,ȱorȱpricesȱinȱgeneral.ȱRegardingȱthisȱpointȱweȱ
holdȱaȱslightlyȱdifferentȱview.12ȱȱ
Theȱtextsȱthatȱtheȱeditorsȱactuallyȱdecipheredȱindicateȱaȱpriceȱrangeȱ
ofȱ aȱ highȱ ofȱ 35ȱ shekelsȱ forȱ oneȱ maleȱ slaveȱ (WDSPȱ 1)ȱ toȱ aȱ lowȱ ofȱ 10ȱ
shekelsȱ forȱ anotherȱ maleȱ slaveȱ (WDSPȱ 3).ȱ Inȱ theȱ midȬgroundȱ betweenȱ
theseȱpricesȱoneȱencountersȱthreeȱmalesȱforȱ1ȱminaȱ(WDSPȱ5),ȱandȱoneȱ
maleȱ andȱ oneȱ femaleȱ forȱ 28ȱ shekelsȱ (WDSPȱ 2).ȱ Justȱ toȱ addȱ aȱ doseȱ ofȱ
comparison,ȱ andȱ confusion,ȱ anȱ ostraconȱ fromȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ
Idumaeaȱhasȱaȱslaveȱgirlȱofferedȱinȱlieuȱofȱtheȱpaymentȱofȱaȱdebt.13ȱSheȱ
isȱworthȱoneȱmaah,ȱwhichȱisȱoneȬtwentyȬfourthȱpartȱofȱaȱshekel.ȱ
Whenȱcomparingȱtheȱpriceȱofȱtheȱhouseȱlistedȱinȱdocumentȱ15ȱtoȱtheȱ
saleȱ priceȱ forȱ allȱ theseȱ slaves,ȱ oneȱ considersȱ theȱ priceȱ ofȱ aȱ slaveȱ asȱ
relativelyȱhighȱ(exceptȱforȱtheȱpoorȱgirlȱfromȱIdumaea).ȱTheȱhouseȱcostsȱ
1ȱminaȱandȱ6ȱshekelsȱ(orȱ56ȱshekels).ȱAccordinglyȱthreeȱslavesȱownedȱinȱ
perpetuityȱ costȱ aboutȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ aȱ house.ȱ Unfortunatelyȱ weȱ don’tȱ
knowȱanythingȱaboutȱtheȱhouse,ȱorȱtheȱslaves.ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱsomeȱslavesȱ
areȱ purchasedȱ byȱ twoȱ ownersȱ andȱ theȱ veryȱ highȱ penaltyȱ forȱ renegingȱ
onȱtheȱdealȱmayȱalsoȱindicateȱtheȱhighȱfinancialȱworthȱofȱaȱslaveȱ(WDSPȱ3).ȱ
Isȱ thereȱ anythingȱ inȱ theseȱ documentsȱ thatȱ canȱ illuminateȱ ourȱ
understandingȱofȱtheȱeconomicȱproblemsȱinȱtheȱPersianȱperiod?ȱȱ
Itȱ isȱ obviousȱ fromȱ theseȱ documentsȱ thatȱ peopleȱ bearingȱ eitherȱ
Samaritanȱ orȱ Judeanȱ namesȱ buyȱ andȱ sellȱ slaves,ȱ andȱ areȱ themselvesȱ
boughtȱandȱsold.ȱInȱallȱcasesȱtheseȱsalesȱareȱoutrightȱandȱinȱperpetuity,ȱ
orȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱloan,ȱtheyȱwillȱbeȱinȱperpetuityȱifȱtheȱloanȱisȱnotȱ
repaid.ȱ Thisȱ situationȱ isȱ inȱ directȱ contradictionȱ toȱ biblicalȱ commandȬ
mentsȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ Levȱ 25.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ slavesȱ areȱ listedȱ withȱ aȱ patroȬ
nymic,ȱ Groppȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ thisȱ indicatesȱ freeȬbornȱ individualsȱ reȬ
ducedȱtoȱslaveryȱbyȱpoverty.14ȱȱ
Aȱ slaveȱ isȱ pledgedȱ inȱ exchangeȱ forȱ theȱ loanȱ ofȱ moneyȱ inȱ threeȱ
differentȱpapyriȱ(10,ȱ12,ȱ27).ȱWeȱshouldȱrememberȱthatȱNetiraȱbarȱYehoȬ
padaniȱ andȱ hisȱ fatherȱ Yehopadaniȱ boughtȱ aȱ totalȱ ofȱ 12ȱ slavesȱ (3+2+7).ȱ
Natiraȱalsoȱgaveȱoutȱaȱloanȱinȱdocumentȱ#17.ȱAndȱinȱdocumentȱ#10ȱheȱ
loanedȱ15ȱshekelsȱagainstȱownershipȱofȱslaveȱinȱperpetuity.ȱȱ
Theseȱ dealsȱ mightȱ beȱ illustrativeȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ
describedȱ inȱ Nehemiahȱ chapterȱ 5,1Ȭ5ȱ whichȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ socioȬecoȬ
nomicȱ crisisȱ inȱ Judahȱ whenȱ “…ȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ greatȱ outcryȱ fromȱ theȱ
peopleȱandȱtheirȱwivesȱagainstȱtheirȱbrotherȱJews”.ȱȱ
13ȱȱ EPH‘ALȱ/ȱNAVEH,ȱOstraca,ȱ#199.ȱ
ȱ TheȱContributionȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyriȱfromȱȱWadiȱDaliyeh 49ȱ
InȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱthisȱoccurrenceȱweȱlearnȱthatȱJewsȱareȱforcedȱtoȱ
pawnȱtheirȱhouses,ȱfields,ȱvineyards,ȱandȱtheirȱchildrenȱinȱorderȱtoȱraiseȱ
moneyȱ forȱ theirȱ needs,ȱ whetherȱ theseȱ needsȱ beȱ moneyȱ forȱ taxes,ȱ orȱ toȱ
purchaseȱfood.ȱTheȱparallelȱnatureȱofȱtheȱtextȱsuggestsȱparallelsȱalsoȱinȱ
value.ȱSelfȬsoldȱslaveryȱasȱaȱmarketableȱcommodityȱjustȱasȱone’sȱhouseȱ
isȱ marketable.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ textȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ slaveryȱ isȱ inȱ
perpetuity.ȱ Nehemiah’sȱ reformsȱ reinforceȱ thisȱ assumption;ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ ifȱ
afterȱ sevenȱ yearsȱ oneȱ wasȱ releasedȱ fromȱ servitude,ȱ Nehemiahȱ wouldȱ
haveȱhadȱnoȱneedȱforȱallȱtheȱdrama.ȱ
Inȱ Nehemiah’sȱ memoirsȱ weȱ learnȱ thatȱ Sanballatȱ theȱ Governorȱ ofȱ
Samaria,ȱ andȱ theȱ grandfatherȱ toȱ theȱ Sanballatȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theseȱ
papyri,ȱ wasȱ hisȱ majorȱ adversary.15ȱ Manyȱ explanationsȱ haveȱ beenȱ putȱ
forthȱforȱthisȱenmity.ȱMayȱIȱsuggestȱoneȱmore;ȱunfortunatelyȱhoweverȱ
becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ ourȱ sources,ȱ thisȱ suggestionȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ inȱ theȱ
wayȱofȱ“foodȱforȱthought”.ȱIsȱitȱpossibleȱthatȱNehemiah’sȱreformȱofȱtheȱ
socialȬeconomicȱ frameworkȱ –ȱ theȱ cancellationȱ ofȱ debts,ȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ
alienatedȱproperty,ȱandȱmostȱofȱall,ȱtheȱenforcementȱofȱtheȱcommandȬ
mentsȱ againstȱ perpetualȱ servitudeȱ wereȱ aȱ precedentȱ consideredȱ danȬ
gerousȱbyȱSanballat?ȱTheȱJudeanȱprecedentȱwasȱobviouslyȱnotȱimitatedȱ
inȱ Samaria,ȱ butȱ veryȱ likelyȱ knownȱ andȱ resentedȱ asȱ challengingȱ theȱ
propertyȱstructureȱofȱtheȱwealthyȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
Inȱsummary,ȱperhapsȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱmoreȱjudiciousȱtoȱentitleȱ
thisȱpaper:ȱTheȱdisappointingȱcontributionȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyriȱtoȱtheȱ
studyȱ ofȱ theȱ economicsȱ ofȱ theȱ Persianȱ period,ȱ neverthelessȱ albeitȱ inȱ
smallȱ measure,ȱ andȱ despiteȱ ourȱ frustration,ȱ theseȱ papyriȱ haveȱ addedȱ
someȱpointsȱtoȱourȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱeconomicȱlifeȱofȱthisȱplaceȱandȱthisȱ
period.ȱȱ
Bibliographyȱ
BERNSTEIN,ȱMosheȱJ.ȱet.ȱal.,ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4ȱMiscellanea,ȱvol.ȱIIȱ(DJDȱ28),ȱOxfordȱ
2001.ȱ
BETLYON,ȱJohnȱW.,ȱAȱPeopleȱTransformed:ȱPalestineȱInȱTheȱPersianȱPeriod,ȱin:ȱ
NearȱEasternȱArchaeologyȱ68:1Ȭ2ȱ(2005).ȱ
15ȱȱ Recentlyȱ DUŠEKȱ hasȱ triedȱ toȱ rejectȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ papponymyȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ identityȱ
andȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ governorsȱ (DUŠEK,ȱ Manuscrits,ȱ 548Ȭ550).ȱ Thisȱ
problemȱisȱnotȱgermaneȱtoȱtheȱissuesȱofȱthisȱpaperȱbutȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱinȱaȱfutureȱ
article.ȱ
50 JackȱPastor
DAVIES,ȱPhilipȱR.ȱ(ed.),ȱSecondȱTempleȱStudies,ȱvol.ȱI.ȱPersianȱPeriod,ȱSheffieldȱ
1991.ȱ
DUŠEK,ȱ Jan,ȱLesȱManuscritsȱarameensȱduȱWadiȱDaliyehȱetȱlaȱSamarieȱversȱ450Ȭ
332ȱavȱJ.ȬC,ȱLeidenȱ2007.ȱ
EPH‘AL,ȱ Israelȱ /ȱ NAVEH,ȱ Joseph,ȱ Aramaicȱ Ostracaȱ ofȱ theȱ Fourthȱ Centuryȱ BCȱ
FromȱIdumaea,ȱTheȱMagnesȱPressȱandȱtheȱIsraelȱExplorationȱSociety,ȱJeruȬ
salem,ȱ1996.ȱ
GROPP,ȱ Douglasȱ Marvin,ȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ II,ȱ Theȱ Samariaȱ Papyriȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ
Daliyeh,ȱOxfordȱ2001ȱ(=ȱWDSP).ȱ
HELTZER,ȱ Michael,ȱ Theȱ Provinceȱ Judahȱ andȱ Jewsȱ inȱ Persianȱ Times,ȱ Telȱ Avivȱ
2008.ȱ
HOGLUND,ȱKennethȱG.,ȱTheȱmaterialȱcultureȱofȱtheȱSeleucidȱperiodȱinȱPalestine:ȱ
socialȱ andȱ economicȱ observations,ȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Studies,ȱ vol.ȱ III,ȱ in:ȱ
Davies,ȱ Philipȱ R.ȱ /ȱ Halligan,ȱ Johnȱ M.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Politics,ȱ Classȱ andȱ
MaterialȱCulture,ȱLondonȱ2002,ȱ67Ȭ73.ȱ
KOLLER,ȱ Aaron,ȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ Janȱ Dušek,ȱ Lesȱ Manuscritsȱ arameensȱ duȱ Wadiȱ
DaliyehȱetȱlaȱSamarieȱversȱ450Ȭ332ȱavȱJ.ȬC,ȱin:ȱReviewȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ
(2009);ȱRecoveredȱ24.8.2009ȱfromȱhttp://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/63196800.ȱ
pdf.ȱ
MESHORER,ȱYa’akovȱ/ȱQedar,ȱShraga,ȱSamarianȱCoinage,ȱTheȱIsraelȱNumismaticȱ
Society,ȱJerusalemȱ1999.ȱ
STERN,ȱEphraim,ȱMaterialȱCultureȱofȱtheȱLandȱofȱtheȱBibleȱinȱtheȱPersianȱperiod,ȱ
538Ȭ332ȱB.C.,ȱWarminsterȱ1982.ȱ
STOLPER,ȱ Matthewȱ W.,ȱ Entrepreneursȱ andȱ Empire:ȱ Theȱ Murasuȱ Archive,ȱ theȱ
MurasuȱFirm,ȱandȱPersianȱRuleȱinȱBabyloniaȱ(UNHAIIȱ54),ȱLeidenȱ1985.ȱ
YAMAUCHI,ȱEdwinȱM.,ȱPersiaȱandȱtheȱBible,ȱBakerȱBookȱHouse,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱ
MIȱ1996.ȱ
ȱȱȱ

WillȱtheȱRealȱSanballatȱPleaseȱStandȱUp?ȱ
ODEDȱTAMMUZȱȱ
Introductionȱ
Thoseȱ accustomedȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ ancientȱ historyȱ noticeȱ aȱ familiarȱ
pattern:ȱ Anȱ eventȱ thatȱ isȱ knownȱ fromȱ oneȱ reliableȱ sourceȱ aloneȱ canȱ
neverȱbeȱsubjectȱtoȱdebate;ȱthereȱareȱnoȱambiguitiesȱandȱthereforeȱthereȱ
isȱ noȱ placeȱ forȱ seriousȱ enquiry.ȱ Addȱ anotherȱ source,ȱ andȱ someȱ disȬ
crepanciesȱinevitablyȱarise;1ȱthirdȱandȱfourthȱsourcesȱwillȱmakeȱusȱmoreȱ
andȱ moreȱ confusedȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ timeȱ weȱ reachȱ theȱ seventhȱ sourceȱ weȱ
knowȱ practicallyȱ nothing.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ stageȱ anyȱ enquiryȱ intoȱ theȱ eventȱ inȱ
questionȱisȱdoomedȱtoȱfail.ȱTenȱorȱelevenȱsourcesȱenableȱtheȱstudentȱtoȱ
beginȱtheȱtediousȱworkȱofȱseparatingȱtheȱstrawȱfromȱtheȱchaffȱbut,ȱalas,ȱ
onlyȱ withȱ limitedȱ success.ȱ Theȱ pictureȱ becomesȱ clearȱ againȱ whenȱ weȱ
haveȱ aboutȱ fourteenȱ sources.ȱ Fromȱ thenȱ onȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ studyȱ theȱ
eventȱatȱhandȱasȱhistorians.2ȱ
Theȱ sadȱ realityȱ isȱ thatȱ historiansȱ ofȱ preȬclassicalȱ periodsȱ rarelyȱ
studyȱ eventsȱ thatȱ areȱ coveredȱ byȱ fourteenȱ orȱ moreȱ independentȱ
sources.ȱTheȱinevitableȱresultȱisȱthatȱtheȱworkȱofȱhistoriansȱwhoȱstudyȱ
theseȱperiodsȱisȱrelativelyȱeasy:ȱthereȱisȱlittleȱroomȱforȱseriousȱenquiryȱ
andȱ gapsȱ areȱ usuallyȱ filledȱ withȱ speculations.ȱ However,ȱ atȱ timesȱ
historiansȱ investigateȱ anȱ eventȱ andȱ findȱ betweenȱ fiveȱ andȱ nineȱ
independentȱ sources.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ eventȱ usuallyȱ posesȱ graveȱ problemsȱ forȱ
thoseȱhistoriansȱwhoȱtryȱtoȱstudyȱit.ȱAtȱfirstȱglanceȱitȱmayȱseemȱthatȱthisȱ
problemȱ cannotȱ beȱ solvedȱ atȱ all.ȱ Butȱ ingeniousȱ historiansȱ devisedȱ aȱ
powerfulȱ toolȱ thatȱ enablesȱ themȱ toȱ clarifyȱ theȱ problemȱ andȱ offerȱ
solutions:ȱtheyȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱsourcesȱdoȱnotȱrelateȱtoȱoneȱsoleȱeventȱ
1ȱȱ Otherwise,ȱtheȱnewȱsourceȱisȱtreatedȱasȱdependantȱonȱtheȱformerȱsource.ȱ
2ȱȱ ThisȱdictumȱwasȱsuggestedȱbyȱD.O.ȱEDZARDȱinȱaȱlectureȱatȱYaleȱUniversityȱinȱ1986.ȱ
EDZARDȱusedȱitȱinȱhisȱphilologicalȱenquiriesȱinȱtheȱEblaiteȱlanguage.ȱInȱmyȱopinion,ȱ
itȱholdsȱtrueȱtoȱanyȱenquiryȱinȱhistory.ȱ
52 OdedȱTammuz
butȱtoȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱseparateȱevents.ȱThereafter,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱsourcesȱ
forȱeachȱofȱtheseȱeventsȱisȱreduced.ȱInsteadȱofȱaȱblurredȱpictureȱofȱoneȱ
event,ȱ theȱ historianȱ isȱ rewardedȱ withȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ clearerȱ picturesȱ ofȱ
separateȱevents.3ȱ
TheȱtoolȱIȱhaveȱjustȱdescribedȱisȱnotȱconfinedȱtoȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱ
eventsȱalone.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱitȱisȱappliedȱwithȱequalȱsuccessȱinȱotherȱ
fieldsȱ ofȱ investigationȱ suchȱ asȱ biography.ȱ Theȱ presentȱ paperȱ isȱ aȱ caseȱ
studyȱinȱsuchȱaȱbiographyȱ–ȱtheȱbiographyȱofȱSanballat,ȱtheȱHoronite.ȱInȱ
thisȱ paperȱ Iȱ surveyȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ Sanballatȱ inȱ modernȱ scholarshipȱ
fromȱ oneȱ personȱ toȱ threeȱ differentȱ peopleȱ andȱ theȱ theoryȱ thatȱ wasȱ
inventedȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ threeȱ differentȱ peopleȱ hadȱ theȱ
sameȱ nameȱ andȱ heldȱ theȱ sameȱ positionȱ inȱ differentȱ times.ȱ Last,ȱ Iȱ askȱ
whoȱ theȱ realȱ Sanballatisȱ andȱ whyȱ weȱ knowȱ moreȱ aboutȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ
inventedȱSanballatsȱthanȱweȱknowȱaboutȱtheȱrealȱone.ȱ
SurveyȱSourcesȱandȱObservationsȱ
“Nehemiah’sȱMemoir”ȱ
PartȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱNehemiahȱisȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱfirstȱperson.ȱThisȱpartȱisȱ
knownȱ asȱ “Nehemiah’sȱ Memoir.”4ȱ Mostȱ scholarsȱ seeȱ thisȱ partȱ asȱ anȱ
authenticȱ memoirȱ andȱ itsȱ authorȱ asȱ aȱ historicalȱ figure.5ȱ Sanballatȱ isȱ
3ȱȱ Theȱ bestȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ thisȱ toolȱ isȱ theȱ scholarlyȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ
Sennacherib’sȱinvasionȱofȱJudahȱinȱ701ȱBCE.ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱindependentȱsourcesȱonȱ
thisȱeventȱ(whichȱisȱalsoȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱaȱneverȬendingȱdebate)ȱisȱapproximatelyȱsix.ȱ
Someȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ Sennacheribȱ invadedȱ Judahȱ twice.ȱ I.e,ȱ BRIGHT,ȱ
History,ȱ296Ȭ308.ȱȱ
4ȱȱ Accordingȱtoȱmostȱscholars,ȱNehemiah’sȱautobiographyȱincludesȱNehȱ1,1Ȭ7,5;ȱ12,27Ȭ
43;ȱ13,4Ȭ31.ȱSomeȱexcludeȱchapterȱ3ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱnotȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱfirstȱperson.ȱ(e.g.ȱ
SMITH,ȱ Parties,ȱ 126).ȱ Othersȱ excludeȱ Nehȱ 12,27Ȭ43ȱ andȱ /ȱ orȱ Neh.ȱ 13,4Ȭ31ȱ asȱ laterȱ
materialȱthatȱwasȱattachedȱtoȱNehemiah’sȱ“memoir.”ȱ
5ȱȱ Amongȱ others:ȱ ROWLEY,ȱ Sanballat,ȱ 249;ȱ SMITH,ȱ Parties,ȱ 126.255ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 1;ȱ MILLERȱ /ȱ
HAYES,ȱ History,ȱ 99.469Ȭ472ȱ (MILLERȱ /ȱ HAYESȱ tookȱ Nehemiah’sȱ storyȱ asȱ historyȱ andȱ
repeatedȱ itȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ words);ȱ WILLIAMSON,ȱ Ezra,ȱ xxiv;ȱ CLINES,ȱ Nehemiah,ȱ 124Ȭ
165;ȱ BLENKINSOPP,ȱ Nehemiah,ȱ 199Ȭ212;ȱ GRABBE,ȱ Gaps,ȱ 91Ȭ96;ȱ FRIED,ȱ Struggle,ȱ 9Ȭ21.ȱ
Amongȱtheȱdissentingȱviewsȱis:ȱCOGGINS,ȱBook,ȱ4:ȱȱ ȱ
Itȱ hasȱ inȱ theȱ pastȱ oftenȱ beenȱ assumed,ȱ almostȱ withoutȱ question,ȱ thatȱ thisȱ [NeheȬ
miah’sȱ memoir]ȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ aȱ “memoir”ȱ writtenȱ byȱ Nehemiahȱ himself.ȱ Butȱ
justȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ nowȱ commonlyȱ acceptedȱ thatȱ theȱ storiesȱ aboutȱ theȱ prophetsȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ
Testamentȱ wereȱ writtenȱ byȱ theirȱ followersȱ ratherȱ thanȱ byȱ theȱ prophetsȱ themselves,ȱ
soȱitȱisȱmoreȱlikelyȱthatȱthisȱwasȱwrittenȱbyȱsomeoneȱelseȱtoȱdoȱhonorȱtoȱNehemiah,ȱ
ratherȱ thanȱ representingȱ hisȱ ownȱ “diary”.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ putȱ intoȱ theȱ firstȱ
personȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱisȱcommonȱforȱsuchȱmaterialȱbothȱinȱtheȱancientȱworldȱandȱtoday.ȱ
ȱ WillȱtheȱRealȱSanballatȱPleaseȱStandȱUp? 53ȱ
describedȱ inȱ Nehemiah’sȱ memoirȱ asȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ ofȱ Nehemiah.ȱ

Accordingȱtoȱthisȱsource,ȱNehemiahȱand,ȱthereforeȱalsoȱSanballat,ȱwereȱ
contemporariesȱofȱArtaxerxes–ȱkingȱofȱPersia.ȱThisȱcreatesȱaȱproblemȱofȱ
datingȱ becauseȱ weȱ knowȱ ofȱ fourȱ Artaxerxeses.ȱ However,ȱ sinceȱ (a)ȱ theȱ
32ndȱyearȱofȱArtaxexes’ȱreignȱisȱmentionedȱinȱNehȱ13,6,ȱandȱ(b)ȱonlyȱtwoȱ
Artaxexesesȱ reignedmoreȱ thanȱ32ȱ years,6ȱ Sanballatȱ couldȱ beȱaȱ contemȬ
poraryȱ ofȱ eitherȱ ofȱ theseȱ kingsȱ (hereafterȱ Sanballatȱ A1ȱ andȱ Sanballatȱ
A2).ȱ
ȱ
Jos.ȱAnt.ȱ11,302Ȭ324ȱ
Accordingȱtoȱthisȱsource,ȱSanballatȱwasȱaȱgovernorȱofȱSamaria.ȱHeȱwasȱ
appointedȱbyȱDariusȱIIIȱandȱdiedȱduringȱAlexander’sȱsiegeȱofȱGazaȱinȱ
332ȱBCE.ȱThisȱSanballatȱcannotȱbeȱtheȱsameȱasȱSanballatȱA1ȱorȱSanballatȱ
A2ȱ becauseȱ theȱ datesȱ doȱ notȱ overlap.ȱ Thereforeȱ aȱ newȱ Sanballatȱ wasȱ
inventedȱ(hereafterȱSanballatȱB).7ȱ
ȱ
TheȱElephantineȱPapyriȱ
TheȱpublicationȱofȱtheȱpapyriȱfromȱElephantineȱprovidedȱnewȱevidenceȱ
aboutȱ Sanballat.ȱ Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ documentsȱ inȱ thatȱ archiveȱ –ȱ aȱ copyȱ ofȱ aȱ
letterȱ sentȱ toȱ Bagoas,ȱ governorȱ ofȱ Judah,ȱ andȱ anȱ earlierȱ draftȱ ofȱ thatȱ
letterȱ–ȱmentionȱanȱearlierȱletterȱsentȱtoȱDelaiahȱandȱShelamiah,ȱsonsȱofȱ
Sanballat,ȱ theȱ governorȱ ofȱSamaria.8ȱ Theseȱ documentsȱ wereȱ writtenȱ inȱ
lateȱ 407ȱ BCE,ȱ andȱ theȱ correspondenceȱ continuedȱ intoȱ earlyȱ 406ȱ BCE.ȱ
Theȱ responseȱ cameȱ fromȱ Bagoasȱ andȱ Delaiahȱ alone.ȱ Thisȱ gaveȱ someȱ
supportȱtoȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱatȱthatȱtimeȱSanballatȱwasȱstillȱaliveȱbutȱ
wasȱoldȱandȱsenileȱandȱcouldȱnoȱlongerȱtakeȱcareȱofȱmatters.ȱSinceȱ(a)ȱ
Nehemiahȱisȱbelievedȱtoȱhaveȱbegunȱhisȱmissionȱinȱaboutȱ445ȱBCE,ȱandȱ
Sanballatȱ (A1)ȱ hadȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ theȱ primeȱ ofȱ hisȱ lifeȱ atȱ thatȱ time,ȱ andȱ (b)ȱ
SanballatȱofȱtheȱElephantineȱpapyriȱisȱoldȱandȱsenileȱca.ȱ40ȱyearsȱlater,ȱ
thereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱinventȱyetȱanotherȱSanballat.9ȱ
DocumentsȱfromȱWadiȱDaliyehȱ
ȱ ȱ
Someȱ scholarsȱ tookȱ Nehemiah’sȱ historicityȱ forȱ grantedȱ andȱ triedȱ toȱ exploreȱ aspectsȱ
inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Nehemiahȱ basedȱ onȱ thatȱ assumption.ȱ I.e.ȱ SALEY,ȱ Date,ȱ 151Ȭ165;ȱ
CLINES,ȱNehemiah;ȱGREEN,ȱDate,ȱ195Ȭ209.ȱ
6ȱȱ ArtaxerxesȱIȱ(ruledȱ464Ȭ424ȱBCE)ȱandȱArtaxerxesȱIIȱ(ruledȱ404Ȭ358ȱBCE).ȱ
7ȱȱ TORREY,ȱEzra,ȱ333Ȭ335.ȱ
8ȱȱ COWLEY,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 30.31ȱ (respectively).ȱ Seeȱ newȱ translationȱ andȱ commentaryȱ inȱ
PORTENȱ/ȱFARBER,ȱPapyri,ȱ139Ȭ144.145Ȭ147ȱno.ȱB20.ȱDelaiahȱappearsȱalsoȱinȱCOWLEY,ȱ
Papyri,ȱ32ȱ(seeȱnewȱtranslationȱandȱcommentaryȱinȱPORTENȱ/ȱFARBER,ȱPapyri,ȱ148Ȭ149ȱ
no.ȱB21).ȱ
9ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱaȱnewȱSanballatȱwasȱsuggested.ȱSeeȱTORREY,ȱSanballat,ȱ380Ȭ386.ȱ
54 OdedȱTammuz
Inȱ1969,ȱF.M.ȱCrossȱpublishedȱaȱpreliminaryȱreportȱonȱaȱgroupȱofȱsealsȱ
andȱfragmentsȱofȱpapyriȱthatȱwereȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱfoundȱinȱaȱcaveȱinȱ
Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ nearȱ Jericho.10ȱ Theȱ nameȱ Sanballatȱ appearsȱ onȱ oneȱ
papyrusȱandȱonȱoneȱseal:ȱ
Papyrusȱ8:[ȱȱȱ]wȱ` brsn´ bl†wHnnsgn´…ȱ
SealȱNo.ȱ5:[ȱȱȱ]yhwbn[ȱȱȱ]/bl† p H tšmr[n]ȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ Cross,ȱ theȱ datesȱ ofȱ thisȱ archiveȱ areȱ 375Ȭ335ȱ BCE.11ȱ Theȱ
inevitableȱ conclusionȱ isȱ thatȱ sometimeȱ betweenȱ 375ȱ BCEȱ andȱ 335ȱ BCEȱ
thereȱwereȱtwoȱdifferentȱpeopleȱofȱhighȱstatusȱinȱSamariaȱthatȱreferredȱ
toȱthemselvesȱasȱ“sonsȱofȱSanballatȱtheȱgovernorȱofȱSamaria.”ȱSinceȱthisȱ
SanballatȱcannotȱbeȱanyȱofȱtheȱformerȱSanballatsȱthatȱweȱhaveȱencounȬ
teredȱ soȱ far,ȱ F.M.ȱ Crossȱ hadȱ noȱ choiceȱ butȱ toȱ inventȱ aȱ newȱ Sanballatȱ
(hereafterȱSanballatȱC).12ȱ
FromȱObservationȱtoȱTheoryȱ
TheȱEmergenceȱofȱPapponymyȱ
Theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Sanballatȱ isȱ aȱ perfectȱ exampleȱ ofȱ Edzard’sȱ rule.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ
sevenȱ sourcesȱ onȱ Sanballat,ȱ thereforeȱ weȱ knowȱ veryȱ littleȱ aboutȱ him.ȱ
TheȱonlyȱfactȱthatȱweȱknowȱaboutȱSanballatȱisȱthatȱheȱwasȱanȱancestorȱ
ofȱaȱdynastyȱofȱgovernorsȱofȱSamaria.ȱHowever,ȱscholarsȱinȱtheirȱquestȱ
toȱknowȱmoreȱaboutȱSanballatȱwereȱtemptedȱtoȱdoȱsoȱbyȱdissectingȱhimȱ
toȱ threeȱ differentȱ Sanballats.ȱ Havingȱ achievedȱ this,ȱ theyȱ createdȱ dataȱ
andȱ embarkedȱ onȱ aȱ searchȱ forȱ aȱ theoryȱ thatȱ canȱ explainȱ newlyȱ foundȱ
data.ȱ Beforeȱ long,ȱ suchȱ aȱ theoryȱ wasȱ developedȱ andȱ published:ȱ theȱ
theoryȱofȱPapponymy.ȱThisȱtheoryȱsuggestsȱthatȱinȱancientȱSamariaȱtheȱ
firstȱbornȱsonȱwasȱnamedȱafterȱhisȱgrandfatherȱfromȱtheȱfather’sȱside.ȱItȱ
wasȱintroducedȱbyȱC.ȱC.ȱTorrey:ȱ
“Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ wellȱ knownȱ lawȱ ofȱ Semiticȱ nomenclature,ȱ theȱ
oldestȱgrandsonȱofȱSanballat,ȱifȱthereȱshouldȱbeȱone,ȱwasȱprettyȱcertainȱ
toȱbearȱtheȱnameȱofȱhisȱgrandfather.”13ȱ
Theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ theȱ Wadiȱ Daliyehȱ sourcesȱ wasȱ perceivedȱ byȱ
someȱasȱtheȱultimateȱvictoryȱofȱtheȱPapponymyȱtheory.ȱCrossȱsuggestedȱ
10ȱȱ CROSS,ȱPapyri,ȱ42Ȭ62.ȱ
11ȱȱ CROSS,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 44ȱ n.ȱ 8,ȱ 19ȱ n.ȱ 9.ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ usuallyȱ doubtȱ paleographicȱ datingȱ asȱ aȱ
matterȱofȱprinciple,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱIȱhaveȱnothingȱbetterȱtoȱrelyȱon.ȱ
12ȱȱ CROSS,ȱPapyri,ȱ21ȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
13ȱȱ TORREY,ȱEzra,ȱ330ȱn.ȱ11.ȱ
aȱlineageȱinȱwhichȱthereȱwasȱaȱSanballatȱeveryȱsecondȱgeneration.14ȱTheȱ
nextȱ stepȱ wasȱ toȱ buildȱ newȱ theoryȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ theȱ Papponymyȱ
theoryȱandȱevenȱthisȱwasȱdone.15ȱ
Theȱ Papponymyȱ theoryȱ hasȱ seriousȱ shortcomings:ȱ anȱ obviousȱ oneȱ
isȱ thatȱ onlyȱ theȱ nameȱ Sanballatȱ recursȱ everyȱ secondȱ generation.ȱ Theȱ
otherȱ knownȱ namesȱ inȱ thatȱ familyȱ occurȱ onlyȱ once.ȱ Anotherȱ
shortcomingȱisȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱeventsȱnarratedȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱNehemiahȱ
(Nehȱ13,28)ȱ–ȱtheȱexpulsionȱofȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱofȱtheȱhighȱpriestȱ
fromȱJerusalemȱonȱaccountȱofȱhavingȱmarriedȱaȱdaughterȱofȱSanballatȱ–ȱ
isȱ repeatedȱ inȱ Josephus’ȱ Antiquitiesȱ (Ant.ȱ 11,302Ȭ324).ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ
storyȱandȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱmainȱfiguresȱareȱalmostȱidentical,ȱtheȱeventȱ
itselfȱ isȱ datedȱ byȱ Josephusȱ toȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great,ȱ soȱ oneȱ
hasȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ Pappomymicȱ systemȱ appliesȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ
nameȱSanballat,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱhighȱpriestsȱinȱJerusalem.ȱ
Moreover,ȱifȱweȱwereȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱbothȱsourcesȱareȱvalid,ȱweȱwouldȱ
haveȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱeventȱofȱexpellingȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱofȱ
theȱhighȱpriestȱinȱJerusalemȱonȱaccountȱofȱhavingȱmarriedȱaȱdaughterȱofȱ
aȱgovernorȱofȱSamariahȱwhoseȱnameȱhappensȱtoȱbeȱSanballat,ȱrepeatedȱ
itselfȱexactlyȱafterȱaboutȱoneȱhundredȱyears.16ȱ
WillȱtheȱRealȱSanballatȱPleaseȱStandȱUp?ȱ
Although,ȱatȱfirstȱglance,ȱtheȱdissectionȱofȱSanballatȱintoȱthreeȱseparateȱ
peopleȱ andȱ theȱ Papponymyȱ theoryȱ seemȱ toȱ manyȱ scholarsȱ aȱ perfectȱ
solutionȱ toȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ Sanballat,ȱ theirȱ shortcomingsȱ compelȱ usȱ toȱ
lookȱforȱaȱmoreȱlogicalȱsolution.ȱThisȱsolutionȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱ
observations:ȱ
TheȱlaterȱtheȱsourcesȱonȱSanballatȱare,ȱtheȱmoreȱvividȱtheȱfigureȱofȱ
Sanballatȱ becomes:ȱ whileȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ sourcesȱ Sanballatȱ playsȱ noȱ
roleȱatȱ all,ȱ inȱ laterȱsourcesȱ –ȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Nehemiahȱorȱ Josephus’ȱAntiȬ
quitiesȱ–ȱheȱisȱpresentedȱasȱaȱrealȱperson.ȱ
Theȱ expressionȱ “sonȱ of…”ȱ thatȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ earlierȱ sourcesȱ mayȱ
alsoȱmeanȱ“descendentȱof,”ȱasȱitȱdoesȱinȱcontemporaryȱNeoȬBabylonianȱ
sources.ȱ
14ȱȱ CROSS,ȱPapyri,ȱ21ȱn.ȱ9.ȱ
15ȱȱ SALEY,ȱDate,ȱ161ȱn.ȱ2.ȱ
16ȱȱ Thisȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ observedȱ byȱ COWLEY:ȱ “Theȱ viewȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ twoȱ Sanballats,ȱ
eachȱgovernorȱofȱSamaria,ȱandȱeachȱwithȱaȱdaughterȱwhoȱmarriedȱtheȱbrotherȱofȱtheȱ
Highȱ Priestȱ atȱ Jerusalemȱ isȱ aȱ solutionȱ tooȱ desperateȱ toȱ beȱ entertained.”ȱ COWLEY,ȱ
Papyriȱ,ȱ110,ȱquotedȱinȱROWLEY,ȱSanballat,ȱ252ȱn.ȱ2,ȱandȱinȱCROSS,ȱPapyri,ȱ55.ȱ
56 OdedȱTammuz
InȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱPersianȱperiodȱaȱnumberȱofȱJewsȱreturnedȱtoȱ
Judah.ȱ Todayȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ peopleȱ whoȱ
returnedȱ toȱ theirȱ homelandsȱ atȱ thatȱ time.ȱ Weȱ knowȱ ofȱ peopleȱ fromȱ
northernȱSyriaȱandȱfromȱEdomȱthatȱalsoȱreturnedȱtoȱtheirȱoldȱhomesȱinȱ
thatȱperiod.17ȱ
AmongȱtheȱleadersȱofȱtheȱreturneesȱtoȱJudah,ȱthereȱwereȱfewȱpeopleȱ
whoȱ boreȱ Babylonianȱ namesȱ suchȱ asȱ Zerubbabelȱ andȱ Sheshbazzar.ȱ Inȱ
laterȱ generationsȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ disappearedȱ andȱ Judeansȱ boreȱ
Yahwisiticȱ namesȱ alone.ȱ Thisȱ shouldȱ beȱ takenȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ
factsȱthatȱ(a)ȱtheȱnameȱSanballatȱisȱeitherȱAssyrianȱorȱBabylonian,18ȱandȱ
(b)ȱtheȱotherȱknownȱnamesȱinȱhisȱdynastyȱareȱYahwisitic.ȱ
Inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Nehemiah,ȱ Sanballatȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ “aȱ Horonite.”ȱ
AccordingȱtoȱmostȱpeopleȱthisȱmeansȱthatȱheȱwasȱfromȱBethȬHoronȱ,ȱaȱ
smallȱtownȱinȱtheȱNorthȬwesternȱpartȱofȱJudah.ȱHowever,ȱlikeȱtheȱotherȱ
opponentsȱ ofȱ Nehemiahȱ theȱ titleȱ assignedȱ toȱ Sanballatȱ mustȱ beȱ eitherȱ
derogatory,ȱlikeȱ“slave”ȱwhichȱwasȱassignedȱtoȱTobiah,ȱorȱoneȱthatȱdeȬ
finesȱ theȱ opponentȱ asȱ aȱ foreigner,ȱ likeȱ “theȱ Ammonite”ȱ whichȱ isȱ
assignedȱagainȱtoȱTobiahȱorȱ“theȱArab”ȱwhichȱisȱassignedȱtoȱGesem,ȱtheȱ
thirdȱofȱtheȱopponents.ȱUnderȱtheseȱcircumstances,ȱdescribingȱSanballatȱ
asȱsomeoneȱfromȱBethȬHoronȱinȱJudahȱwouldȱserveȱnoȱpurpose.ȱAsȱwasȱ
noticedȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱlastȱcentury,ȱ“theȱHoronite”ȱcanȱ
beȱ interpretedȱ muchȱ betterȱ asȱ “theȱ oneȱ fromȱ Harran.”ȱ Harran,ȱ aȱ cityȱ
locatedȱ atȱ theȱ edgeȱ ofȱ theȱ desert,ȱ aȱ littleȱ northȱ toȱ theȱ TurkishȬSyrianȱ
borderȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱcentersȱofȱtheȱcultȱofȱSinȱ(godȱofȱtheȱmoon),ȱ
soȱitȱisȱonlyȱlogicalȱthatȱaȱpersonȱfromȱthereȱwouldȱbeȱnamedȱafterȱtheȱ
godȱofȱthatȱcity.19ȱ
17ȱȱ OnȱreturneesȱtoȱNeirabȱseeȱI.ȱEPH’AL,ȱMinorities,ȱ74Ȭ90.ȱȱ ȱ
AȱtabletȱfoundȱinȱJordanȱcontainsȱaȱtextȱofȱaȱtransactionȱthatȱtookȱplaceȱinȱHarranȱinȱ
theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Persianȱ period.ȱ Sinceȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ sidesȱ inȱ theȱ contractȱ wasȱ
Edomean,ȱitȱstandsȱtoȱreasonȱthatȱthisȱpersonȱreturnedȱhomeȱafterȱhavingȱsignedȱtheȱ
contract.ȱForȱpublicationȱofȱtheȱtextȱseeȱDALLEY,ȱText,ȱ19Ȭ22.ȱ
18ȱȱ CROSS,ȱ Papyri,ȱ 21ȱ n.ȱ 9.ȱ Forȱ aȱ contrastingȱ viewȱ seeȱ TORREY,ȱ Ezra,ȱ 330ȱ n.ȱ 11:ȱ “’SanȬ
ballat’ȱmayȱwellȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱcommonȱname,ȱevenȱaȱgoodȱHebrewȱname.”ȱ
19ȱȱȱ Theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ nameȱ Sanballtȱ isȱ “Sinȱ (theȱ moonȱ God)ȱ gaveȱ life”.ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ
suggestedȱ alreadyȱ byȱ KLOSTERMANNȱ andȱ independentlyȱ byȱ FEIGIN,ȱ Notes,ȱ 58ȱ n.ȱ 2.ȱ
Thisȱ isȱ contraryȱ toȱ theȱ prevailingȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ Sanballatȱ wasȱ fromȱ BethȬHoron.ȱ
Howeverȱitȱisȱinȱaccordȱwithȱtheȱfollowing:ȱȱ ȱ
a)ȱInȱtheȱearlyȱPersianȱperiod,ȱpeopleȱreturnedȱfromȱtheȱcityȱofȱHarranȱtoȱtheirȱplacesȱ
ofȱoriginȱinȱPalestine.ȱSeeȱDALLEY,ȱText,ȱn.ȱ37.ȱȱ ȱ
b)ȱ Harranȱ wasȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ mainȱ centersȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ Sin.ȱ Theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ
nameȱSinȬuballi†ȱȱisȱ“theȱgodȱSinȱgaveȱlife“.ȱ
TheȱcredibilityȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱNehemiahȱcannotȱbeȱtakenȱforȱgranȬ
ted.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ realȱ autobiographyȱ butȱ aȱ literaryȱ workȱ thatȱ hasȱ moreȱ
thanȱoneȱsourceȱinȱit.20ȱThereȱisȱveryȱlittleȱoneȱcanȱmakeȱofȱtheȱstereoȬ
typicȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱopponentsȱthere.ȱ
SoȱwhoȱwasȱSanballat?ȱIȱwouldȱhaveȱlikedȱtoȱspeculateȱthatȱheȱwasȱ
aȱmemberȱofȱanȱIsraeliteȱfamilyȱofȱreturnees;ȱbutȱIȱdoȱnotȱknowȱofȱanyȱ
otherȱdeporteesȱthatȱreturnedȱtoȱtheirȱhomelandȱmoreȱthanȱtwoȱhundȬ
redȱ yearsȱ afterȱ theirȱ forefathersȱ wereȱ deportedȱ fromȱ it.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ thereȬ
foreȱ suggestȱ aȱ lessȱ daringȱ hypothesis:ȱ Sanballatȱ wasȱ aȱ personȱ fromȱ
HarranȱwhoȱwasȱappointedȱasȱgovernorȱofȱSamariaȱandȱbeganȱaȱdynasȬ
tyȱofȱgovernorsȱofȱSamaria.ȱDuringȱtheȱPersianȱperiod,ȱtheȱdescendantsȱ
ofȱSanballatȱbecameȱIsraelitesȱbyȱnameȱandȱidentityȱandȱtheyȱwereȱtheȱ
leadersȱofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱcommunityȱinȱSamaria.ȱ
IȱamȱwellȱawareȱthatȱallȱIȱcanȱofferȱareȱspeculations.ȱIȱcannotȱgoȱanyȱ
furtherȱbecauseȱafterȱallȱweȱdoȱhaveȱsevenȱsourcesȱaboutȱthisȱperson.ȱAtȱ
thisȱ stageȱ theȱ prospectsȱ ofȱ usȱ knowingȱ moreȱ aboutȱ Sanballatȱ areȱ slim.ȱ
Thisȱcanȱhappenȱeitherȱbyȱfindingȱmoreȱsourcesȱaboutȱhimȱorȱprovingȱ
someȱofȱtheȱexistingȱonesȱinvalid,ȱthusȱleavingȱusȱwithȱaȱsmallerȱnumȬ
berȱofȱsources.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
BLENKINSOPP,ȱJoseph,ȱTheȱNehemiahȱAutobiographicalȱMemoir,ȱin:ȱBALENTINE,ȱ
SamuelȱE.ȱ/ȱBARTON,ȱJohnȱ(eds.),ȱLanguage,ȱTheologyȱandȱtheȱBible:ȱEssaysȱ
inȱHonorȱofȱJamesȱBarr,ȱOxfordȱ1994,ȱ199Ȭ212.ȱ
BRIGHT,ȱJohn,ȱTheȱProblemȱofȱSennacherib’sȱCampaignsȱtoȱPalestine,ȱin:ȱBRIGHT,ȱ
Johnȱ(ed.),ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱIsrael,ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1962,ȱ296Ȭ308.ȱ
CLINES,ȱDavidȱJ.A.,ȱNehemiah:ȱTheȱPerilsȱofȱAutobiography,ȱin:ȱCLINES,ȱDavidȱ
J.A.ȱ(ed.),ȱWhatȱDoesȱEveȱDoȱtoȱHelp?,ȱSheffieldȱ1990,ȱ124Ȭ165.ȱ
COGGINS,ȱRichardȱJ.,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱEzraȱandȱNehemiah,ȱCambridgeȱ1976.ȱ
COWLEY,ȱArthurȱE.,ȱAramaicȱPapyriȱofȱtheȱFifthȱCenturyȱB.C.,ȱOxfordȱ1923.ȱ
CROSS,ȱFrankȱM.,ȱPapyriȱofȱtheȱfourthȱcenturyȱB.C.ȱfromȱDaliyeh,ȱin:ȱFREEDMAN,ȱ
DavidȱN.ȱ/ȱGREENFIELD,ȱJonasȱC.ȱ(eds.),ȱNewȱDirectionsȱinȱBiblicalȱArchaeoȬ
logy,ȱGardenȱCity,ȱNYȱ1969,ȱ42Ȭ62.ȱ
DALLEY,ȱ Stephanie,ȱ Aȱ Cuneiformȱ Textȱ fromȱ Tellȱ Tawilan,ȱ in:ȱ Levantȱ 16ȱ (1982)ȱ
19Ȭ22.ȱ

20ȱȱ REINMUTH,ȱBericht.ȱ
58 OdedȱTammuz
EPH’AL,ȱIsrael,ȱTheȱWesternȱMinoritiesȱinȱBabyloniaȱinȱtheȱ6thȬ5thȱCenturiesȱB.C.:ȱ
MaintenanceȱandȱCohesion,ȱin:ȱOrientaliaȱ47ȱ(1978)ȱ74Ȭ90.ȱ
FEIGIN,ȱSamuelȱI.,ȱEtymologicalȱNotesȱII:ȱMMZR,ȱin:ȱAmericanȱJournalȱforȱSemiȬ
ticȱLanguagesȱ43ȱ(1926)ȱ56Ȭ60.ȱ
FRIED,ȱ Lisbethȱ S.,ȱ Theȱ Politicalȱ Struggleȱ ofȱ Fifthȱ Centuryȱ Judah,ȱ in:ȱ TranseuȬ
phrèteneȱ24ȱ(2002)ȱ9Ȭ21.ȱ
GRABBE,ȱLesterȱL.,ȱMindȱtheȱGaps:ȱEzra,ȱNehemiahȱandȱtheȱJudeanȱRestoration,ȱ
in:ȱ SCOTT,ȱ Jamesȱ M.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Restoration:ȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ Jewish,ȱ andȱ ChrisȬ
tianȱperspectives,ȱLeidenȱ2001,ȱ91Ȭ96.ȱ
GREEN,ȱAlbertoȱR.W.,ȱTheȱDateȱofȱNehemiah:ȱAȱReȬExamination,ȱin:ȱAndrewsȱ
UniversityȱSeminaryȱStudiesȱ28ȱ(1990)ȱ195Ȭ209.ȱ
MILLER,ȱJamesȱM.ȱ/ȱHAYES,ȱJohnȱH.,ȱHistoryȱofȱAncientȱIsraelȱandȱJudah,ȱPhilaȬ
delphia,ȱPAȱ1986.ȱ
PORTEN,ȱ Bezalelȱ /ȱ FARBER,ȱ J.ȱ Joel,ȱ Theȱ Elephantineȱ Papyriȱ inȱ English:ȱ Threeȱ
MillenniaȱofȱCrossȱCulturalȱContinuityȱandȱChange,ȱLeidenȱ1996.ȱ
REINMUTH,ȱTitus,ȱDerȱBerichtȱNehemias,ȱGöttingenȱ2002.ȱ
ROWLEY,ȱHaroldȱHenry,ȱSanballatȱandȱtheȱSamaritanȱTemple,ȱin:ȱMenȱofȱGod.ȱ
Studiesȱ inȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Historyȱ andȱ Prophecy,ȱ Londonȱ 1963ȱ (reprintȱ ofȱ
BulletinȱofȱtheȱJohnȱRylandsȱLibrary,ȱ1955Ȭ1956,ȱ166Ȭ198)ȱ249.ȱ
SALEY,ȱRichardȱJ.,ȱTheȱDateȱofȱNehemiahȱReconsidered,ȱin:ȱTUTTLE,ȱG.A.,ȱEssaysȱ
inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Williamȱ Sanfordȱ LaSorȱ (Biblicalȱ andȱ Nearȱ Easternȱ Studies),ȱ
GrandȱRapides,ȱMIȱ1978,ȱ151Ȭ165.ȱ
SMITH,ȱMorton,ȱPalestinianȱPartiesȱandȱPoliticsȱthatȱShapedȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ1971.ȱ
TORREY,ȱCharlesȱC.,ȱEzraȱStudies,ȱChicago,ȱ1910.ȱ
TORREY,ȱCharlesȱC.,ȱSanballatȱ‘theȱHoronoite’,ȱin:ȱJBLȱ47ȱ(1928)ȱ380Ȭ386.ȱ
WILLIAMSON,ȱHughȱG.M.,ȱEzra,ȱNehemiah,ȱWaco,ȱTXȱ1985.ȱȱ
ȱ

TheȱUseȱandȱAbuseȱofȱtheȱArgumentumȱeȱsilentioȱ–ȱ
theȱCaseȱofȱAlexanderȱinȱJerusalemȱ
ORYȱAMITAYȱ
TheȱrelevanceȱtoȱSamaritanȱstudiesȱofȱtheȱvariousȱaccountsȱconcerningȱ
Alexander’sȱrelationsȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱofȱJerusalemȱisȱobviousȱenough.ȱInȱ
threeȱ outȱ ofȱ fourȱ strandsȱ ofȱ thisȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ animosityȱ betweenȱ
Samaritansȱ andȱ Jewsȱ playsȱ aȱ decisiveȱ role.1ȱ Consideringȱ alsoȱ Curtius’ȱ
noticeȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱrebellionȱagainstȱAlexander’sȱnewȱadministration,ȱ
andȱ theȱ famousȱ findsȱ fromȱ Wadiȱ Daliah,ȱ whichȱ dateȱ fromȱ aboutȱ theȱ
sameȱtimeȱandȱveryȱlikelyȱreflectȱsomeȱaspectȱofȱthisȱrebellion,ȱthereȱisȱ
littleȱneedȱforȱfurtherȱexplanationȱwhyȱitȱisȱcrucialȱtoȱgetȱasȱfirmȱaȱgraspȱ
asȱ weȱ canȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ storiesȱ aboutȱ Alexanderȱ andȱ theȱ Jews.2ȱ Asȱ
usualȱinȱearlyȱSamaritanȱhistory,ȱitȱisȱinseparableȱfromȱtheȱJewish.ȱȱ
Inȱ theȱ sixthȱ conferenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Sociétéȱ d’Etudesȱ Samaritaines,ȱ heldȱ inȱ
theȱ summerȱ ofȱ 2004ȱ inȱ Haifaȱ University,ȱ Iȱ hadȱ theȱ pleasureȱ ofȱ preȬ
sentingȱ aȱ paperȱ titledȱ “Gerizimȱ andȱ Zionȱ Betweenȱ Persiaȱ andȱ AleȬ
xander”.ȱInȱit,ȱIȱquestionedȱtheȱmethodologicalȱpremisesȱofȱtheȱcommuȬ
nisȱ opinioȱ regardingȱ Alexander’sȱ visitȱ toȱ Jerusalem,ȱ andȱ offeredȱ anȱ
alternativeȱview,ȱbasedȱonȱaȱpanoramaȱofȱtheȱfourȱdifferentȱtellings.ȱTheȱ
paperȱ wasȱ followedȱ byȱ controversyȱ andȱ debate,ȱ whichȱ clarifiedȱ toȱ meȱ
theȱ needȱ forȱ aȱ detailedȱ reexaminationȱ ofȱ theȱ entireȱ topic.ȱ Givenȱ theȱ
amountȱofȱscholarshipȱalreadyȱdevotedȱtoȱAlexanderȱinȱJerusalem,ȱandȱ
theȱcomplexȱandȱvariegatedȱnatureȱofȱtheȱancientȱsources,ȱitȱisȱperhapsȱ
1 Theseȱare:ȱJosephus,ȱAJȱ11.302Ȭ45;ȱMegillatȱTaȆanitȱonȱKislevȱ21srȱ(=Noamȱ2003:ȱ100Ȭ
103.262Ȭ265;ȱ cf.ȱ Bavliȱ Yomaȱ 69a);ȱ Megillatȱ TaȆanitȱ onȱ Sivanȱ 25thȱ (=Noamȱ 2003:ȱ 70Ȭ77.ȱ
198Ȭ205;ȱcf.ȱinȱBereshitȱRaba,ȱ61.7;ȱBavliȱ Sanhedrinȱ91a).ȱTheȱfourthȱtelling,ȱthatȱofȱtheȱ
monotheisticȱ Alexanderȱ Romanceȱ (e:ȱ chapterȱ 20ȱ =ȱ TRUMPFȱ 1974:ȱ 75Ȭ78;ȱ g:ȱ 2.23Ȭ4ȱ =ȱ
ENGELMANN,ȱ Alexanderroman,ȱ 214Ȭ219),ȱ doesȱ notȱ involveȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ
story.ȱ
2ȱ Curtiusȱ 4.8.9Ȭ10.ȱ Forȱ theȱ Wadiȱ Daliahȱ findsȱ seeȱ theȱ initialȱ publicationȱ byȱ CROSS,ȱ
Discovery;ȱCROSS,ȱPapyri;ȱMOR,ȱSamaria,ȱ60Ȭ62.ȱ
60 OryȱAmitay
notȱ tooȱ surprisingȱ thatȱ whatȱ wasȱ originallyȱ intendedȱ asȱ anȱ articleȱ isȱ
nowȱalreadyȱassumingȱtheȱshapeȱofȱaȱbookȬsizeȱmonograph.3ȱȱ
Myȱ purposeȱ inȱ thisȱ articleȱ isȱ thereforeȱ muchȱ moreȱ limited:ȱ toȱ
addressȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱtenets,ȱonȱwhichȱrestȱtheȱattemptsȱtoȱnegateȱtheȱ
historicityȱ ofȱ Alexander’sȱ visitȱ toȱ Jerusalemȱ –ȱ theȱ argumentȱ fromȱ
silence.ȱTheȱargumentȱisȱsimpleȱenough:ȱnoneȱofȱtheȱsurvivingȱaccountsȱ
ofȱAlexander’sȱcampaignsȱcontainsȱanyȱdescriptionȱofȱnegotiationsȱwithȱ
theȱ Jewsȱ ofȱ Judea,ȱ letȱ aloneȱ aȱ visitȱ toȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ
Josephusȱ (whichȱ hasȱ receivedȱ theȱ lion’sȱ shareȱ ofȱ modernȱ scholars’ȱ
attention)ȱ containsȱ manifestȱ mythicȱ elements,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ someȱ detailsȱ
whichȱ areȱ seeminglyȱ anachronistic,ȱ itsȱ valueȱ asȱ historicalȱ evidenceȱ isȱ
outweighedȱbyȱtheȱsilenceȱofȱtheȱstandardȱAlexanderȬhistories.ȱ
Thisȱ argumentumȱ eȱ silentioȱ isȱ nowȱ asȱ ubiquitousȱ inȱ modernȱ
scholarshipȱ asȱ theȱ opinion,ȱ whichȱ deniesȱ anyȱ historicalȱ valueȱ toȱ theȱ
accountsȱofȱAlexander’sȱvisit.4ȱAccordingȱtoȱNiese’sȱdefinitiveȱhistoryȱofȱ
theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Macedonianȱ states,ȱ Josephus’ȱ storyȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ anȱ
invention.ȱ Thisȱ judgmentȱ heȱ basedȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ onȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ
“alleȱ Alexanderhistorikerȱ schweigenȱ davon,ȱ obwohlȱ dasȱ Ereignisȱ Alexandersȱ
Personȱ betrifft.”5ȱ Inȱ Tcherikover’sȱ essentialȱ bookȱ Hellenisitcȱ Civilizationȱ
andȱtheȱJewsȱtheȱargumentȱfromȱsilenceȱmovesȱfromȱtheȱnotesȱtoȱtheȱtext:ȱȱ
“TheȱGreekȱandȱRomanȱwritersȱwhoȱrelateȱtheȱlifeȱandȱdeedsȱofȱAlexanderȱ
–ȱ Arrian,ȱ Diodorus,ȱ Plutarchȱ andȱ Curtiusȱ –ȱ passȱ overȱ theȱ shortȱ periodȱ
whichȱ Alexanderȱ spentȱ inȱ Palestineȱ inȱ almostȱ completeȱ silence.ȱ […]ȱ Thisȱ
silenceȱreflectsȱhistoricalȱreality.”6ȱ
ThisȱverdictȱreceivedȱfurtherȱsupportȱfromȱMarcus,ȱinȱhisȱappendixȱtoȱ
theȱ Loebȱ translationȱ ofȱ Josephus’ȱ Antiquitates.ȱ Afterȱ professingȱ someȱ
hesitationȱtoȱdenyȱcategoricallyȱtheȱhistoricityȱofȱaȱvisitȱtoȱJerusalem,ȱheȱ
nonethelessȱadducesȱȱ
“theȱstrongȱnegativeȱargumentȱthatȱtheȱoldestȱGreekȱandȱLatinȱsourcesȱdoȱ
notȱmentionȱitȱ[...]ȱasȱweȱmightȱreasonablyȱexpectȱthemȱtoȱdo,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱtheȱ
comparativeȱ unimportanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ toȱ theȱ Greeksȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ
Alexander”.7ȱȱ
3 ForȱsomeȱinterimȱconclusionsȱseeȱAMITAY,ȱStory;ȱAMITAY,ȱShimȆon.ȱ
4ȱ Forȱ aȱ briefȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ debate,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ atȱ oneȱ pointȱ muchȱ moreȱ evenȱ handedȱ
thanȱitȱisȱtoday,ȱseeȱGOLAN,ȱJosephus,ȱ29Ȭ30ȱn.1.ȱ
5ȱ NIESE,ȱGeschichte,ȱ83ȱn.ȱ3.ȱ
6ȱ TCHERIKOVER,ȱCivilization,ȱ41.ȱ
7ȱ MARCUS,ȱ Appendix,ȱ 528.ȱ Theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ MARCUS’ȱ essayȱ onȱ theȱ discussionȱ isȱ
crucial.ȱ Appearingȱ inȱ theȱ Loebȱ translation,ȱ itȱ isȱ oftenȱ theȱ firstȱ (ifȱ notȱ last)ȱ pieceȱ ofȱ
scholarshipȱonȱtheȱtopicȱmetȱbyȱAnglophoneȱstudents.ȱ
ȱ TheȱUseȱandȱAbuseȱofȱtheȱArgumentumȱeȱsilentio 61ȱ
Theȱ sameȱ sentimentȱ isȱ prevalentȱ alsoȱ inȱ postȬWWIIȱ scholarship.ȱ

Momiglianoȱdeclaredȱopenly:ȱȱ
“Iȱ shallȱ sayȱ immediatelyȱ andȱ dogmaticallyȱ thatȱ Iȱ assumeȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ
truthȱ inȱ theȱ visitȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ recordedȱ byȱ anyȱ
respectableȱ ancientȱ sourceȱ onȱ Alexanderȱ andȱ isȱ fullȱ ofȱ detailsȱ whichȱ areȱ
impossible.”8ȱȱ
Goldstein,ȱwhoȱdoesȱacceptȱtheȱhistoricityȱofȱaȱmeetingȱbetweenȱAlexȬ
anderȱandȱsomeȱJewishȱdelegatesȱ(possiblyȱevenȱtheȱHighȬPriest),ȱnoneȬ
thelessȱwrites:ȱ
“Ifȱ anyȱ populationȱ inȱ anyȱ wayȱ refusedȱ toȱ submitȱ toȱ Alexander,ȱ theȱ kingȱ
wasȱquickȱtoȱreact,ȱandȱtheȱhistoriansȱcouldȱhardlyȱpassȱoverȱtheȱmatterȱinȱ
silence.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ survivingȱ paganȱ historiesȱ ofȱ Alexander,ȱ byȱ
Arrian,ȱCurtius,ȱDiodorus,ȱPlutarchȱandȱJustin,ȱsayȱnothingȱofȱanȱencounterȱ
ofȱAlexanderȱwithȱtheȱJews…”9ȱȱ
Finally,ȱandȱmostȱemphatically,ȱGruen:ȱȱ
“Alexander’sȱ visitȱ toȱ Jersualemȱ isȱ outrightȱ fiction.ȱ Theȱ kingȱ neverȱ
approachedȱJerusalem.ȱTheȱhistoricalȱnarrativesȱofȱhisȱmarchȱbreatheȱnotȱaȱ
hintȱofȱanyȱsideȱtripȱtoȱthatȱcityȱ[…]ȱThereȱwasȱcertainlyȱnoȱreasonȱforȱourȱ
Greekȱ sourcesȱ toȱ haveȱ suppressedȱ aȱ visitȱ toȱ theȱ holyȱ city.ȱ Theyȱ regularlyȱ
reportȱ Alexander’sȱ arrivalȱ atȱ keyȱ shrinesȱ andȱ sacredȱ places,ȱ whereȱ heȱ
honoredȱ nativeȱ godsȱ andȱ performedȱ publicȱ actsȱ ofȱ sacrifice.ȱ Jerusalemȱ
wouldȱ fitȱ nicelyȱ intoȱ thatȱ repeatedȱ scenario,ȱ andȱ theȱ Alexanderȱ historiansȱ
couldȱhardlyȱhaveȱmissedȱorȱomittedȱit.ȱTheȱtaleȱisȱaȱfiction.”10ȱ
Ourȱ firstȱ step,ȱ therefore,ȱ inȱ addressingȱdogmaȱ shouldȱ beȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ
cadreȱ ofȱ authors,ȱ whoseȱ resoundingȱ silenceȱ drownsȱ soȱ effectivelyȱ allȱ
existingȱpositiveȱevidence.ȱManyȱcontemporariesȱ–ȱKallisthenes,ȱPtolemy,ȱ
Aristoboulos,ȱ Polykleitos,ȱ Onesikritos,ȱ Nearchos,ȱ Charesȱ –ȱ whoȱ hadȱ
takenȱ partȱ inȱ makingȱ historyȱ duringȱ Alexander’sȱ campaign,ȱ alsoȱ tookȱ
uponȱthemselvesȱtoȱwriteȱit.ȱRegrettably,ȱtheirȱworksȱhaveȱallȱperished.ȱ
TheȱinfluentialȱworkȱofȱKleitarchos,ȱaȱyoungerȱcontemporary,ȱsufferedȱ
aȱsimilarȱfate.ȱTheȱsurvivingȱtexts,ȱwhichȱprovideȱtheȱbackboneȱofȱanyȱ
modernȱ historicalȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Alexander’sȱ lifeȱ andȱ deeds,ȱ areȱ thoseȱ
writtenȱ (inȱ chronologicalȱ order)ȱ byȱ Diodorusȱ ofȱ Sicily,ȱ Curtiusȱ Rufus,ȱ
Plutarch,ȱ Arrianȱ andȱ Justin.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ fourȱ shouldȱ thusȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ
secondaryȱ sourcesȱ atȱ best.ȱ Justin,ȱ whoȱ epitomizedȱ anȱ earlierȱ workȱ byȱ
PompeiusȱTrogus,ȱisȱatȱleastȱtertiary.ȱDiodorus,ȱtheȱearliestȱofȱtheȱfive,ȱ
isȱneverthelessȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱeventsȱwhichȱheȱdescribesȱbyȱatȱleastȱthreeȱ
8 ȱ MOMIGLIANO,ȱFlavius,ȱ443.ȱ
9 ȱ GOLDSTEIN,ȱAlexander,ȱ71.ȱ
10 ȱ GRUEN,ȱHeritage,ȱ195.ȱ
62 OryȱAmitay
centuries.ȱ Curtiusȱ andȱ Arrian,ȱ theȱ mostȱ detailedȱ ofȱ theȱ five,ȱ areȱ evenȱ
later.ȱ Theseȱ facts,ȱ coupledȱ withȱ theȱ distressingȱ lossȱ ofȱ information,ȱ
causedȱbyȱtheȱdisappearanceȱofȱallȱcontemporaryȱeyeȬwitnessȱaccounts,ȱ
shouldȱ beȱ enoughȱ toȱ warrantȱ extremeȱ cautionȱ inȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ
argumentumȱeȱsilentio.ȱAȱcloserȱinspectionȱofȱtheseȱfiveȱsources,ȱandȱofȱ
theȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱconstructȱtheȱrelevantȱpartsȱofȱtheirȱrespectiveȱ
narratives,ȱgivesȱevenȱmoreȱcauseȱforȱalarm.ȱ
Oneȱ necessaryȱ condition,ȱ whichȱ anyȱ sourceȱ mustȱ meetȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ
qualifyȱ asȱ viableȱ supportȱ forȱ anȱ argumentȱ fromȱ silence,ȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ beȱ
detailedȱ enoughȱ toȱ haveȱ includedȱ theȱ specificȱ episodeȱ underȱ investiȬ
gation.ȱ Thus,ȱ aȱ usefulȱ questionȱ wouldȱ be:ȱ whatȱ doȱ theȱ survivingȱ
accountsȱhaveȱtoȱsayȱaboutȱAlexander’sȱactivitiesȱinȱtheȱperiodȱbetweenȱ
theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ affairsȱ inȱ Phoeniciaȱ andȱ hisȱ arrivalȱ inȱ Egypt?ȱ Theȱ
earliestȱofȱourȱsources,ȱDiodorus,ȱrecountsȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱstoryȱratherȱ
briefly:ȱ
“andȱ Alexander,ȱ havingȱ marchedȱ againstȱ Gazaȱ –ȱ garrisonedȱ byȱ theȱ PerȬ
siansȱ –ȱ andȱ besiegedȱ itȱ forȱ twoȱ months,ȱ capturedȱ theȱ cityȱ byȱ force.ȱ Inȱ theȱ
yearȱ whenȱ Aristophanesȱ wasȱ archonȱ inȱ Athens,ȱ Spuriusȱ Postumiusȱ andȱ
Titusȱ Veturiusȱ consulsȱ inȱ Rome,ȱ Kingȱ Alexanderȱ settledȱ theȱ affairsȱ
concerningȱ Gaza,ȱ andȱ sentȱ Amyntasȱ toȱ Macedoniaȱ withȱ tenȱ ships,ȱ havingȱ
orderedȱ toȱ selectȱ fromȱ amongȱ theȱ youthȱ thoseȱ fitȱ forȱ militaryȱ service.ȱ Heȱ
himselfȱwithȱtheȱentireȱforceȱmarchedȱtoȱEgypt,ȱandȱcapturedȱallȱtheȱcitiesȱ
thereȱwithoutȱanyȱrisk.”11ȱȱ
Allȱinȱall,ȱDiodorusȱdevotesȱexactlyȱ75ȱwordsȱtoȱtheȱentireȱsequenceȱofȱ
eventsȱ betweenȱ theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ siegeȱ ofȱ Tyreȱ andȱ Alexander’sȱ
famousȱ adventureȱ atȱ Siwah.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ removeȱ theȱ standardȱ chronologicalȱ
noticeȱforȱtheȱyearȱ331/330,ȱweȱareȱleftȱwithȱmerelyȱ61.ȱ
Yetȱ evenȱ thisȱ shortȱ accountȱ seemsȱ verboseȱ andȱ elaborateȱ inȱ comȬ
parisonȱwithȱJustin’sȱversion:ȱIndeȱRhodumȱAlexanderȱAegyptumȱCiliciamȱ
sineȱcertamineȱrecepit.12ȱ
Asȱstatedȱabove,ȱaȱsourceȱmayȱbeȱusedȱasȱsupportingȱevidenceȱforȱ
anȱ argumentȱ fromȱ silence,ȱ onlyȱ whenȱ itȱ suppliesȱ anȱ amountȱ ofȱ detail,ȱ
whichȱ isȱ substantialȱ enoughȱ toȱ enableȱ oneȱ toȱ argueȱ reasonablyȱ aboutȱ
11ȱȱ Ale,xandroj de. strateu,saj evpi. Ga,zan frouroume,nhn u`po. Persw/n kai. di,mhnon prosedreu,saj
ei=le kata. kra,toj th.n po,linÅ evp’ a;rcontoj d’ Aqh,nhsin Aristofa,nouj evn Rw,mh| katesta,qhsan
u[patoi Spou,rioj Posto,mioj kai. Ti/toj Ouvetou,riojÅ evpi. de. tou/twn Ale,xandroj o` basileu.j
ta. peri. th.n Ga,zan dioikh,saj Amu,ntan me.n meta. de,ka new/n eivj Makedoni,an evxe,pemye° prosȬ
ta,xaj tw/n ne,wn tou.j euvqe,touj evpile,xai pro.j stratei,an° auvto.j de. meta. pa,shj th/j duna,mewj
parh/lqen eivj Ai;gupton kai. pare,lebe pa,saj ta.j evn auvth/| po,leij cwri.j kindu,nwnȱ (17.48.7Ȭ
49.1).
12ȱȱ “ThenceȱAlexanderȱreceivedȱRhodes,ȱEgyptȱandȱCiliciaȱwithoutȱaȱfight”ȱ(11.1.1).
whatȱwasȱnotȱincludedȱinȱit.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱsourcesȱatȱhandȱoughtȱ
toȱtellȱusȱenoughȱaboutȱotherȱeventsȱwhichȱhadȱtakenȱplaceȱduringȱthisȱ
partȱofȱAlexander’sȱcampaign,ȱtoȱjustifyȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱhaveȱ
reportedȱanyȱdealingsȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱofȱJerusalem,ȱhadȱtheyȱoccurred.ȱAȱ
clearȱyardstickȱforȱdeterminingȱsuchȱqualificationȱisȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱ
Gazaȱsiege.ȱAȱprotractedȱandȱdangerousȱengagement,ȱitȱaffordedȱmanyȱ
interestingȱstories:ȱcomplicatedȱandȱcostlyȱmilitaryȱoperations,ȱaȱfailedȱ
assassinationȱ attemptȱ againstȱ Alexander’sȱ person,ȱ aȱ wellȬinterpretedȱ
omen,ȱ twoȱ injuriesȱ sufferedȱ byȱ Alexanderȱ duringȱ theȱ fighting,ȱ andȱ
finallyȱtheȱbrutalȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱPersianȱgarrisonȱcommander,ȱBetisȱ–ȱ
allȱ fascinatingȱ stuff,ȱ wellȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ theȱ usualȱ materialȱ ofȱ theȱ AleȬ
xanderȬhistories.ȱ Yetȱ Diodorusȱ doesȱ awayȱ withȱ twoȱ monthsȱ ofȱ grueȬ
someȱ fightingȱ inȱ aȱ singleȱ sentence,ȱ andȱ Justinȱ makesȱ noȱ mentionȱ ofȱ
themȱ atȱ all.ȱ Whateverȱ mayȱ orȱ mayȱ notȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ betweenȱ
AlexanderȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱnoȱexistingȱtellingȱbreathesȱasȱmuchȱasȱaȱhintȱ
ofȱ aȱ violentȱ interactionȱ whichȱ actuallyȱ tookȱ placeȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ
parties.ȱ Anyȱ sourceȱ whichȱ passesȱ soȱ hastilyȱ overȱ theȱ siegeȱ ofȱ Gazaȱ
cannotȱbeȱusedȱtoȱrefuteȱaȱvisitȱtoȱJerusalemȱeȱsilentio.ȱ
Plutarch’sȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱGazaȱsiegeȱoffersȱusȱslightlyȱmoreȱdetailȱ
thanȱDiodorus’ȱcurtȱremark.ȱDuringȱtheȱsiege,ȱheȱwrites,ȱaȱbirdȱdroppedȱ
aȱclodȱofȱearthȱonȱAlexander,ȱhittingȱhimȱonȱtheȱshoulder,ȱandȱwasȱthenȱ
caughtȱ inȱ theȱ ropesȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ siegeȱ engines.ȱ Theȱ prophetȱ AristanȬ
drosȱ interpretedȱ theȱ eventsȱ toȱ meanȱ thatȱ Alexanderȱ wouldȱ indeedȱ
captureȱ theȱ city,ȱ butȱ beȱ injuredȱ onȱ theȱ veryȱ sameȱ day.ȱ Asȱ usual,ȱ hisȱ
predictionȱ wasȱ successful.13ȱ Theȱ anecdotalȱ natureȱ ofȱ Plutarch’sȱ treatȬ
mentȱ ofȱ theȱ Gazaȱ siegeȱ isȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ hisȱ narrativeȱ forȱ theȱ entireȱ
periodȱinȱquestion.14ȱThisȱincludesȱtwoȱmoreȱanecdotes:ȱoneȱinvolvingȱ
theȱ giftsȱ sentȱ byȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ friendsȱ andȱ familyȱ fromȱ theȱ bootyȱ
capturedȱinȱGaza,ȱtheȱotherȱtellingȱhowȱproperȱhousingȱwasȱfoundȱforȱ
thatȱ famousȱ bitȱ ofȱ readingȱ material,ȱ luggedȱ aroundȱ byȱ Alexanderȱ
throughoutȱ hisȱ campaign,ȱ aȱ recensionȱ ofȱ theȱ Iliadȱ withȱ remarksȱ andȱ
annotationsȱ byȱ Aristotle.ȱ Thisȱ lastȱ episode,ȱ whichȱ dealsȱ withȱ Darius’ȱ
marvelousȱ regalȱ paraphernalia,ȱ willȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ duringȱ theȱ
aftermathȱ ofȱ Issos.ȱ Plutarchȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ postponedȱ itȱ forȱ literaryȱ
reasons:ȱwithȱtheȱmentionȱofȱHomerȱheȱglidesȱtoȱtheȱfoundationȱstoryȱofȱ
Alexandria.ȱAlexander,ȱsoȱPlutarch,ȱwasȱinspiredȱbyȱtheȱpoetȱinȱchoosȬ
ingȱtheȱsiteȱforȱhisȱnewȱfoundation.ȱ
13 ȱ Plutarch,ȱAlex.ȱ25.4Ȭ5ȱ(divisionȱtoȱsectionsȱaccordingȱtoȱZIEGLER,ȱPlutarchus).ȱ
14ȱȱ Plutarch,ȱAlex.ȱ25.4Ȭ26.2.
64 OryȱAmitay
Itȱ isȱ clear,ȱ therefore,ȱ thatȱ whileȱ Plutarchȱ wasȱ impressedȱ enoughȱ
withȱtheȱsiegeȱofȱGazaȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱbirdȱandȱAristandros’ȱ
prediction,ȱthisȱpartȱofȱhisȱnarrativeȱcanȱhardlyȱbeȱusedȱasȱevidenceȱforȱ
theȱargumentȱfromȱsilence.ȱForȱone,ȱtheȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱmaintainȱaȱchroȬ
nologicalȱintegrity,ȱusingȱtheȱflashbackȱmethodȱinȱorderȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱ
Iliad’sȱ casketȱ afterȱ theȱ Gazaȱ siege,ȱ thenȱ jumpingȱ forwardȱ toȱ theȱ founȬ
dationȱ ofȱ Alexandria.ȱ Norȱ wasȱ itȱ everȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ Plutarch’sȱ schemeȱ toȱ
includeȱeveryȱpossibleȱdetailȱofȱtheȱeventsȱwhichȱhadȱoccurredȱduringȱ
theȱcampaign.ȱQuiteȱtheȱopposite,ȱinȱfact.ȱAtȱtheȱveryȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
Alexanderȱ Plutarchȱ offersȱ hisȱ famousȱ apology,ȱ statingȱ thatȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ
multitudeȱofȱtheȱdeedsȱtoȱbeȱtreated,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱimpossibleȱtoȱtellȱallȱofȱ
them,ȱorȱevenȱtoȱgiveȱallȱpossibleȱdetailȱconcerningȱwhatȱisȱtoȱbeȱtold.ȱ
Afterȱ all,ȱ heȱ adds,ȱ “weȱ doȱ notȱ writeȱ histories,ȱ butȱ lives.”15ȱ Withȱ suchȱ
selfȬrecommendation,ȱPlutarch’ȱbiographyȱofȱAlexanderȱisȱhardlyȱsuitȬ
ableȱforȱuseȱinȱtheȱargumentumȱeȱsilentio.ȱȱ
Theȱ onlyȱ survivingȱ writersȱ toȱ haveȱ leftȱ aȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ eventsȱ betȬ
weenȱ Tyreȱ andȱ Egypt,ȱ whichȱ isȱ bothȱ comprehensiveȱ andȱ historicallyȱ
minded,ȱ areȱ Curtiusȱ andȱ Arrian.ȱ Curtius’ȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ eventsȱ afterȱ
Tyreȱ isȱ ratherȱ detailed.ȱ Heȱ devotesȱ timeȱ toȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ exchangeȱ
betweenȱ Dariusȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ (4.5.1Ȭ8),ȱ reportsȱ theȱ accessionȱ ofȱ theȱ
Rhodiansȱandȱtheȱappointmentsȱofȱvariousȱgeneralsȱasȱlocalȱgovernorsȱ
(4.5.Ȭ10),ȱ mentionsȱ theȱ honorsȱ toȱ Alexanderȱ decreedȱ byȱ theȱ Greekȱ
celebratorsȱ atȱ theȱ Isthmiaȱ (4.5.11Ȭ12)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ militaryȱ operationsȱ
undertakenȱ byȱ variousȱ Macedonianȱ commandersȱ inȱ otherȱ theatersȱ ofȱ
warȱ (4.5.13Ȭ22).ȱ Then,ȱ afterȱ aȱ digressionȱ onȱ Persianȱ secrecyȱ explainingȱ
whyȱAlexanderȱcouldȱnotȱobtainȱreliableȱinformationȱonȱDarius’ȱwhereȬ
aboutsȱ(4.6.1Ȭ6),ȱheȱproceedsȱwithȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱGazaȱsiege.ȱThisȱ
partȱofȱtheȱnarrative,ȱtoo,ȱisȱratherȱfull,ȱincludingȱaȱsurveyȱofȱtheȱlandȬ
scape,ȱsomeȱpicturesqueȱscenesȱfromȱtheȱbattlefield,ȱtheȱclodȬdroppingȱ
birdȱ andȱ Aristandros’ȱ prophecy,ȱ theȱ assassinationȱ attemptȱ againstȱ
AlexanderȱbyȱaȱpretendedȱArabȱdeserter,ȱandȱfinallyȱtheȱfallȱofȱtheȱcityȱ
andȱ theȱ epicȱ tortureȱ ofȱ Betis,ȱ commanderȱ ofȱ theȱ localȱ garrison.16ȱ Theȱ
15 ȱ Plutarch,ȱAlex.ȱ1.2.ȱ
16ȱȱ Theȱ garrisonȱ commander’sȱ nameȱ isȱ givenȱ asȱ “Betis”ȱ byȱ Curtius,ȱ “Batis”ȱ byȱ Arrian,ȱ
andȱ asȱ “Babêmêsis”ȱ byȱ Josehpusȱ (AJȱ 11.320,ȱ withȱ MSȱ variance).ȱ Hisȱ fateȱ wasȱ
gruesome.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ tiedȱ byȱ hisȱ anklesȱ toȱ aȱ chariotȱ andȱ draggedȱ aroundȱ theȱ city.ȱ
Alexanderȱ claimedȱ toȱ beȱ imitatingȱ hisȱ ancestorȱ Achillesȱ (Il.ȱ 22.395Ȭ404),ȱ butȱ
surpassedȱ himȱ inȱ cruelty:ȱ Achillesȱ hadȱ abusedȱ Hektor’sȱ body;ȱ Betisȱ wasȱ stillȱ
breathingȱ whenȱ theȱ tortureȱ began.ȱ Theȱ storyȱ isȱ alsoȱ relatedȱ inȱ aȱ lostȱ workȱ byȱ
Hegesiasȱ(3rdȱcenturyȱBC),ȱpreservedȱinȱDionysiusȱofȱHalikarnassos’ȱDeȱComparationeȱ
Verborumȱ 18.124Ȭ126.ȱ Theȱ entireȱ episodeȱ hasȱ beenȱ rejectedȱ byȱ TARNȱ (TARN,ȱ AleȬ
xander,ȱII,ȱ67Ȭ70)ȱ–ȱanotherȱgoodȱexampleȱforȱtheȱabuseȱofȱtheȱargumentumȱeȱsilentioȱ
chapterȱ concludesȱ withȱ Alexander’sȱ ordersȱ toȱ Amyntasȱ toȱ sailȱ offȱ toȱ
Greeceȱ andȱ recruitȱ newȱ troopsȱ (4.6.30Ȭ31).ȱ Arrian’sȱ account,ȱ lessȱ
detailedȱ thanȱ Curtius’,ȱ neverthelessȱ recordsȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ exchangeȱ
withȱ Dariusȱ (2.25.1Ȭ3),ȱ theȱ preparationsȱ ofȱ Betisȱ andȱ aȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ
Gazaȱ (2.25.4Ȭ26.1),ȱ andȱ aȱ detailed,ȱ ifȱ problematic,ȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ
siege,ȱ includingȱ theȱ birdȱ andȱ prophecyȱ anecdoteȱ (2.26.2Ȭ27.7).17ȱ Theȱ
episodeȱconcludesȱwithȱAlexanderȱsellingȱoffȱtheȱwomenȱandȱchildren,ȱ
andȱrepopulatingȱtheȱcityȱwithȱlocalȱtribesmen.ȱȱ
Toȱbeȱsure,ȱCurtiusȱandȱArrianȱbothȱofferȱquiteȱdetailedȱnarratives,ȱ
whichȱ areȱ organizedȱ inȱ chronologicalȱ orderȱ andȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ
principlesȱ ofȱ historicalȱ writing.ȱ Bothȱ are,ȱ toȱ useȱ Momigliano’sȱ defiȬ
nition,ȱ“respectable”ȱhistorians.ȱSinceȱneitherȱsaysȱanythingȱaboutȱJeruȬ
salemȱ orȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ theyȱ seemȱ toȱ offerȱ legitimateȱ supportȱ forȱ anȱ
argumentȱfromȱsilence.ȱYetȱevenȱhereȱoneȱshouldȱexerciseȱextremeȱcauȬ
tion.ȱAȱgoodȱexampleȱwhyȱisȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱincidentȱofȱAndromachosȱ
andȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ story,ȱ asȱ intriguingȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ mysterious,ȱ isȱ
reportedȱ byȱ Curtius:ȱ Andromachos,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ madeȱ prefectȱ ofȱ
KoileȱSyria,ȱwasȱburnedȱaliveȱbyȱSamaritans.ȱAlexander,ȱmuchȱgrievedȱ
atȱtheȱnews,ȱhurriedȱtoȱtheȱsceneȱasȱfastȱasȱheȱcould.ȱTheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱ
crimeȱ wereȱ handedȱ overȱ toȱ himȱ andȱ punishedȱ accordingly.18ȱ Thisȱ
episodeȱ isȱ fascinatingȱ andȱ significantȱ wellȱ beyondȱ theȱ narrowȱ
boundariesȱofȱSamaritansȱstudies:ȱwhateverȱitsȱmotives,ȱthisȱisȱtheȱonlyȱ
reportedȱcaseȱofȱactualȱresistanceȱofferedȱtoȱMacedonianȱoccupationȱinȱ
theȱ vastȱ expanseȱ betweenȱ Kyreneȱ andȱ Gaugamela.ȱ Theȱ modeȱ ofȱ
executionȱ–ȱAndromachosȱwasȱburnedȱalive!ȱ–ȱisȱcertainlyȱanȱattentionȱ
grabber.ȱ Yetȱ theȱ entireȱ incidentȱ isȱ reportedȱ solelyȱ byȱ Curtius.ȱ Arrianȱ
sawȱ noȱ placeȱ forȱ itȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ work.ȱ Whatȱ placeȱ wouldȱ heȱ findȱ forȱ aȱ
routineȱvisitȱtoȱaȱsmallȱtempleȱtown,ȱwhichȱ–ȱtheȱfactȱbearsȱrepetitionȱ–ȱ
didȱnotȱentailȱanyȱviolenceȱatȱall?19ȱȱ
(andȱ otherȱ questionableȱ tacticsȱ ofȱ sourceȬcritique)ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ doȱ awayȱ withȱ anȱ
inconvenientȱ story.ȱ Heȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ PEARSON,ȱ Histories,ȱ 247Ȭ248;ȱ butȱ seeȱ LANEȱ
FOX,ȱAlexander,ȱ193;ȱSCHACHERMEYR,ȱAlexander,ȱ220ȱn.ȱ242;ȱBOSWORTH,ȱConquest,ȱ
68;ȱ O’BRIEN,ȱ Alexander,ȱ 85Ȭ86,ȱ whoȱ rightlyȱ acceptȱ theȱ storyȱ asȱ historical.ȱ Still,ȱ
HAMMOND,ȱGenius,ȱ96,ȱdismissedȱonȱtheȱgroundsȱthatȱtheȱstoryȱdoesȱnotȱagreeȱwithȱ
(hisȱimageȱof)ȱAlexander’sȱcharacter.
17ȱȱ AllȱreferencesȱtoȱArrianȱareȱtoȱtheȱAnabasis.ȱHisȱaccountȱofȱtheȱsiegeȱisȱriddenȱwithȱ
difficultiesȱandȱshowsȱignoranceȱofȱtheȱterrainȱ(BOSWORTH,ȱCommentary,ȱI,ȱ258Ȭ259).
18 ȱ 4.8.9Ȭ10.ȱForȱAndromachos’ȱappointmentȱseeȱ4.5.9,ȱwithȱBOSWORTH,ȱGovernment,ȱ46Ȭ
53,ȱonȱtheȱquestionȱofȱSyria’sȱgovernorsȱinȱtheȱyearsȱ333Ȭ331ȱBC.ȱ
19 ȱ Cf.ȱhisȱownȱcriteriaȱforȱincludingȱmaterialȱinȱhisȱwork: o[ti kai. auvta. avxiafh,ghta, te, moi
e;doxe kai. ouv pa,nth| a;pistaȱ(preface,ȱ§3).ȱInȱparaphrase,ȱoneȱcouldȱsayȱthatȱaȱJerusalemȱ
storyȱmightȱbeȱconsideredȱbyȱhimȱasȱouv pa,nth| avxiafh,ghta.ȱȱȱ
66 OryȱAmitay
Norȱ isȱ thisȱ theȱ onlyȱ incident,ȱ attestedȱ byȱ otherȱ sourcesȱ butȱ passedȱ
overȱ inȱ silenceȱ byȱ Arrian.ȱ Anotherȱ suchȱ caseȱ isȱ Alexander’sȱ meetingȱ
withȱ theȱ envoysȱ ofȱ Kyrene.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Diodorusȱ (17.49.2)ȱ andȱ
Curtiusȱ (4.7.9),ȱ anȱ embassyȱ fromȱ thisȱ cityȱ metȱ Alexanderȱ asȱ heȱ wasȱ
marchingȱwestȱalongȱtheȱMediterraneanȱshore,ȱenȱrouteȱtoȱSiwah.ȱTheȱ
meetingȱ wasȱ amiable.ȱ Theȱ envoysȱ greetedȱ Alexanderȱ warmly,ȱ
presentedȱ himȱ withȱ costlyȱ gifts,ȱ andȱ suedȱ forȱ peaceȱ andȱ friendship.ȱ
Pleasedȱ withȱ theirȱ initiativeȱ andȱ goodȱ sense,ȱ Alexanderȱ grantedȱ themȱ
theirȱwish,ȱandȱmarchedȱon.ȱThisȱincident,ȱtheȱhistoricityȱwhereofȱisȱnotȱ
inȱquestion,ȱhasȱnonethelessȱbeenȱomittedȱbyȱArrian.ȱȱ
Otherȱ eventsȱ duringȱ Alexander’sȱ journeyȱ haveȱ goneȱ unmentionedȱ
byȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ survivingȱ AlexanderȬhistories.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Pausanias,ȱ
Alexanderȱ madeȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ cutȱ aȱ tunnelȱ throughȱ theȱ Corinthianȱ
isthmus.ȱ Uncharacteristically,ȱ heȱ failed.20ȱ Heȱ madeȱ aȱ moreȱ successfulȱ
attemptȱinȱKlazomenai,ȱwhereȱheȱconnectedȱtheȱcity,ȱtillȱthenȱanȱisland,ȱ
toȱ theȱ mainland.21ȱ Theseȱ twoȱ episodes,ȱ whichȱ whillȱ haveȱ involvedȱ
massiveȱ constructionȱ workȱ andȱ considerableȱ expenditure,ȱ remainedȱ
outsideȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ sameȱ authors,ȱ whoseȱ silenceȱ isȱ evokedȱ toȱ
refuteȱtheȱvisitȱtoȱJerusalem.ȱYetȱthereȱisȱnoȱobviousȱreasonȱtoȱquestionȱ
theirȱhistoricity.22ȱ
Theȱargumentȱfromȱsilence,ȱonȱwhichȱtheȱcaseȱagainstȱtheȱhistoricityȱ
ofȱ Alexander’sȱ visitȱ reliesȱ soȱ heavily,ȱ thusȱ appearsȱ toȱ restȱ onȱ wobblyȱ
foundations.ȱTheȱseeminglyȱsolidȱbodyȱofȱevidenceȱbroughtȱinȱsupportȱ
–ȱ theȱ silenceȱ ofȱ fiveȱ independentȱ authorsȱ –ȱ dissolvesȱ underȱ closeȱ
scrutiny.ȱDiodorusȱandȱJustinȱareȱtooȱcursoryȱtoȱbeȱuseful,ȱPlutarchȱtooȱ
anecdotal.ȱEvenȱArrian,ȱaȱrespectableȱandȱthoroughȱhistorian,ȱhasȱbeenȱ
shownȱtoȱomitȱaȱnumberȱofȱstories,ȱatȱleastȱasȱlikelyȱ(orȱevenȱmoreȱso)ȱtoȱ
enterȱtheȱhistoricalȱrecord,ȱasȱanȱinnocuousȱvisitȱtoȱJerusalem.ȱTheȱonlyȱ
historianȱwhoȱisȱdetailedȱenoughȱtoȱbeȱusedȱasȱevidenceȱisȱCurtius.ȱAndȱ
hisȱ work,ȱ letȱ usȱ remember,ȱ isȱ aȱ secondaryȱ source,ȱ writtenȱ someȱ fourȱ
centuriesȱafterȱtheȱeventsȱitȱdescribes.ȱEvenȱhisȱtrueȱidentity,ȱforȱallȱourȱ
20 ȱ Whichȱ failureȱ elicitedȱ fromȱ Pausaniasȱ theȱ remark:ȱ “‘tisȱ hardȱ forȱ aȱ manȱ violentlyȱ toȱ
overpowerȱthingsȱDivine”ȱ(2.1.5).ȱ
21 ȱ Theȱ sourceȱ isȱ againȱ Pausanias,ȱ 7.3.9.ȱ Theȱ projectȱ undertakenȱ atȱ Klazomenaiȱ antiȬ
cipatesȱAlexander’sȱstrategyȱinȱtheȱsiegeȱofȱTyre.ȱOneȱmightȱthusȱexpectȱaȱmentionȱinȱ
eitherȱcontext.ȱ
22 ȱ Whileȱ theseȱ detailsȱ areȱ certainlyȱ absentȱ fromȱ theȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ Diodorus,ȱ Plutarch,ȱ
ArrianȱandȱJustin,ȱtheyȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱincludedȱinȱCurtius’.ȱUntilȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱbooksȱ
ofȱ Curtiusȱ –ȱ whereȱ theseȱ eventsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ narratedȱ –ȱ areȱ found,ȱ thisȱ mustȱ
remainȱanȱopenȱquestion.ȱ
bestȱ efforts,ȱ stillȱ remainsȱ aȱ mystery.23ȱ Hisȱ silenceȱ seemsȱ insufficientȱ toȱ
carryȱtheȱburdenȱlaidȱonȱitȱbyȱmodernȱresearch.ȱ
Furthermoreȱ thereȱ areȱ otherȱ piecesȱ ofȱ evidence,ȱ whichȱ stillȱ meritȱ
ourȱattention.ȱInȱtheȱtwelfthȱbookȱofȱhisȱNaturalȱHistoryȱPlinyȱtheȱElderȱ
writesȱ aboutȱ balsamȱ (54.111Ȭ123).ȱ Thisȱ marvelousȱ plantȱ grewȱ onlyȱ inȱ
Judea,ȱ inȱ twoȱ smallishȱ gardensȱ –ȱ oneȱ ofȱ 20ȱ iugera,ȱ theȱ otherȱ evenȱ
smaller.24ȱ Theȱ mostȱ valuableȱ productȱ madeȱ ofȱ thisȱ plantȱ wasȱ itsȱ resin.ȱ
Thisȱwasȱprocuredȱbyȱmakingȱaȱsmallȱincisionȱinȱtheȱbarkȱofȱtheȱplant,ȱ
fromȱ whichȱ theȱ resinȱ oozedȱ inȱ smallȱ drops.ȱ Theseȱ dropsȱ wereȱ thenȱ
collected,ȱ andȱ storedȱ firstȱ inȱ aȱ hollowȱ horn,ȱ thenȱ inȱ brandȱ newȱ clayȱ
vessels.ȱTheȱprocessȱofȱproductionȱwasȱveryȱslow,ȱandȱitȱisȱàȱproposȱthisȱ
thatȱPlinyȱbringsȱupȱAlexander’sȱname:ȱAlexandroȱMagnoȱresȱibiȱgerenteȱ
totoȱdieȱaestivoȱunamȱconchamȱimpleriȱiustumȱerat.25ȱ
Atȱfirstȱglance,ȱitȱisȱhardȱtoȱknowȱwhatȱtoȱmakeȱofȱPliny’sȱremark.ȱ
Droysen,ȱtheȱfounderȱofȱmodernȱAlexanderȱstudies,ȱtookȱitȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱ
theȱKingȱvisitedȱJerichoȱinȱpersonȱ(andȱevenȱcrossedȱtheȱJordanȱinȱorderȱ
toȱ foundȱ Gerasa).ȱ Hisȱ uneasinessȱ withȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Pliny’sȱ
testimony,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ entireȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ eventsȱ inȱ theȱ EretzȬ
Israeliȱ hinterland,ȱ isȱ nonethelessȱ evidentȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ
insertȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ mainȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Alexander’sȱ campaignȱ (hisȱ vol.ȱ I),ȱ
reservingȱtheȱtopicȱforȱdiscussionȱinȱvol.ȱIIIȱpartȱ2,ȱwhereȱheȱdealsȱwithȱ
cityȱfoundationsȱbyȱAlexanderȱandȱhisȱsuccessors.26ȱ
LaterȱscholarshipȱreversedȱDroysen’sȱverdict,ȱandȱinterpretedȱPliny’ȱ
mentionȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ asȱ nothingȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ chronologicalȱ note,ȱ
statingȱthatȱthisȱwasȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱplant’sȱproductivityȱatȱtheȱtimeȱ
ofȱ Alexander’sȱ campaign.27ȱ Marcus,ȱ whoȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ thoughtȱ thatȱ
thereȱ wasȱ moreȱ toȱ Pliny’sȱ wordsȱ thanȱ mereȱ chronology,ȱ neverthelessȱ
23 ȱ ForȱresearchȱonȱtheȱtimeȱandȱidentityȱofȱCurtiusȱseeȱargumentationȱandȱbibliographyȱ
inȱ ATKINSON,ȱ Commentary,ȱ 19Ȭ73;ȱ BAYNHAM,ȱ Alexander,ȱ 201Ȭ219.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ
uncertaintyȱconcerningȱCurtius’ȱidentityȱremains,ȱitȱisȱatȱleastȱagreedȱthatȱhisȱhistoryȱ
ofȱAlexanderȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱlatterȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ1stȱcenturyȱCE.ȱLinguisticȱconsiderationsȱ
aside,ȱ theseȱ conclusionsȱ relyȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ partȱ onȱ theȱ biasesȱ deducedȱ fromȱ hisȱ
writing.ȱ Itȱ isȱ muchȱ harder,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ toȱ sayȱ anythingȱ aboutȱ anyȱ biasȱ orȱ prejudiceȱ
whichȱmightȱinduceȱhimȱnotȱtoȱincludeȱmaterialȱinȱhisȱwork.ȱȱ
24ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Josephus,ȱ BJȱ 1.138,ȱ 361;ȱ 4.469;ȱ AJȱ 8.174;ȱ 9.7;ȱ 14.54;ȱ 15.96.ȱ Imported,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ
legend,ȱ byȱ theȱ Queenȱ ofȱ Sheba,ȱ theȱ grovesȱ wereȱ laterȱ coveted,ȱ andȱ obtained,ȱ byȱ
KleopatraȱandȱrentedȱbackȱfromȱherȱbyȱHerod.ȱ
25 ȱ “Whenȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Greatȱ wasȱ conductingȱ businessȱ there,ȱ itȱ wasȱ anȱ honestȱ
summerȱday’sȱworkȱtoȱfillȱoneȱconchȬshell”ȱ(§117).ȱȱ
26 ȱ DROYSEN,ȱGeschichte,ȱIIIȱ2,ȱ203.ȱ
27 ȱ WILLRICH,ȱ Juden,ȱ 18;ȱ BUCHLER,ȱ Relation,ȱ 6Ȭ7;ȱ SPAK,ȱ Bericht,ȱ 47ȱ n.ȱ 2;ȱ STONEMAN,ȱ
Traditions,ȱ39.ȱ
68 OryȱAmitay
dismissedȱthemȱasȱunauthentic,ȱbyȱyetȱanotherȱinvocationȱofȱtheȱarguȬ
mentumȱ eȱ silentio.28ȱ Butȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱ thisȱ positionȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ
tenable.ȱ
TheȱpotentialȱimplicationsȱofȱPliny’sȱstatementȱwereȱrealizedȱmoreȱ
fullyȱ byȱ Abel,ȱ whoȱ wroteȱ aboutȱ aȱ reconnaissanceȱ partyȱ ledȱ byȱ AlexȬ
anderȱ orȱ byȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ generals,ȱ whichȱ leftȱ theȱ shoreȱ andȱ actuallyȱ
reachedȱ Jericho.29ȱ Furtherȱ implicationsȱ areȱ inescapable:ȱ didȱ thisȱ
reconnaissanceȱ forceȱ alsoȱ reachȱ Jerusalem?ȱ Nousȱ l’ignorons.30ȱ Aȱ similarȱ
approachȱ isȱ takenȱ byȱ Gutman,ȱ whoȱ acceptsȱ theȱ historicityȱ ofȱ aȱ MaceȬ
donianȱvisitȱtoȱtheȱbalsamȱplantations,ȱbutȱascribesȱitȱtoȱParmenionȱorȱ
toȱoneȱofȱhisȱofficers.ȱSuchȱaȱvisitȱwillȱhaveȱbeenȱmotivatedȱbyȱscientificȱ
curiosity,ȱbutȱalsoȱbyȱtheȱneedȱtoȱassessȱthisȱindustry’sȱprofitability,ȱinȱ
orderȱ toȱ taxȱ it.31ȱ However,ȱ Gutman’sȱ reconstructionȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ aȱ
prioriȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ Alexanderȱ neverȱ venturedȱ intoȱ theȱ EretzȬIsraeliȱ
hinterland,ȱ andȱ Pliny’sȱ textȱ clearlyȱ mentionsȱ Alexander,ȱ notȱ ParȬ
menion.ȱ
Theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ theȱ questionsȱ raisedȱ byȱ modernȱ scholarsȱ conȬ
cerningȱtheȱtestimoniumȱPlinianumȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱatȱhandȱisȱobviousȱ
enough.ȱUnfortunately,ȱtheȱcurrentȱstateȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱdoesȱnotȱallowȱ
aȱ clearȱ verdictȱ oneȱ wayȱ orȱ theȱ other.ȱ Aȱ moreȱ profitableȱ resultȱ canȱ
perhapsȱbeȱgainedȱfromȱaȱdifferentȱquestion:ȱwhatȱcanȱweȱsayȱofȱPliny’sȱ
source(s)?ȱItȱhasȱlongȱbeenȱnoticedȱthatȱhisȱaccountȱofȱtheȱbalsamȱbearsȱ
someȱ strikingȱ resemblancesȱ toȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ plantȱ byȱ
Theophrastos.32ȱForȱexample,ȱweȱreadȱinȱbothȱauthorsȱthatȱtheȱplantȱisȱ
harvestedȱinȱsummer,ȱthatȱaȱconchȬshellȱtakesȱaȱfullȱdayȱtoȱfill,ȱthatȱtheȱ
sapȱisȱworthȱtwiceȱitsȱweightȱinȱsilver,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱplantȱonlyȱgrowsȱinȱ
twoȱ specificȱ gardens,ȱ ofȱ exactlyȱ theȱ sameȱ size.33ȱ Buchlerȱ arguedȱ thatȱ
sinceȱ Plinyȱ literallyȱ copiedȱ Theophrastos’ȱ account,ȱ theȱ insertionȱ ofȱ
28 ȱ MARCUS,ȱAppendix,ȱ521Ȭ522.ȱȱ
29 ȱ Theȱ mainȱ twoȱ centersȱ ofȱ balsamȱ cultivationȱ wereȱ inȱ Jericho,ȱ someȱ 25ȱ kmȱ eastȱ byȱ
northȬeastȱofȱJerusalem,ȱorȱinȱȆEinȬGedi,ȱonȱtheȱshoresȱofȱtheȱDeadȱSea,ȱsomeȱ40ȱkm.ȱ
southȬeastȱ ofȱ theȱ city.ȱ Theȱ formerȱ locationȱ seemsȱ aȱ moreȱ plausibleȱ placeȱ forȱ thisȱ
putativeȱvisit,ȱbothȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱgreaterȱaccessibility,ȱandȱforȱanotherȱreasonȱtoȱbeȱ
discussedȱbelow.ȱ
30 ȱ ABEL,ȱAlexandre,ȱ58.ȱ
31 ȱ GUTMAN,ȱAlexander,ȱ278Ȭ279.ȱ
32 ȱ HistoriaȱPlantarumȱ9.6.1Ȭ4.ȱ
33ȱȱ REINACH,ȱ Textes,ȱ 275ȱ n.ȱ 1,ȱ remarksȱ thatȱ inȱ copyingȱ Theophrastos’ȱ measures,ȱ Plinyȱ
neglectedȱ toȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ Atticȱ plethronȱ andȱ theȱ
Romanȱiugerum.ȱ
Alexander’sȱ nameȱ isȱ merelyȱ aȱ chronologicalȱ marker,ȱ whichȱ cannotȱ beȱ

usedȱasȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱKing’sȱpresenceȱinȱJericho.34ȱ
However,ȱaȱcloseȱinspectionȱrevealsȱthatȱPliny’sȱaccountȱisȱhardlyȱaȱ
copyȱ ofȱ Theophrastos’.ȱ Puttingȱ asideȱ aȱsignificantȱamountȱ ofȱ indepenȬ
dentȱmaterial,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱplantȱinȱRomanȱtimesȱ(whichȱisȱ
obviouslyȱlaterȱandȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱusȱhere),ȱtheȱdifferentȱnamesȱusedȱ
forȱ itsȱ nativeȱ landȱ (“theȱ valleyȱ ofȱ Syriaȱ inȱ Theophrastos’,ȱ “Iudaea”ȱ inȱ
Pliny),ȱandȱtheȱbasicȱdisagreementȱonȱwhetherȱtheȱincisionȱmayȱorȱmayȱ
notȱ beȱ madeȱ withȱ anȱ ironȱ blade,ȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ Pliny’sȱ accountȱ
(especiallyȱtheȱhighlyȱdissimilarȱarrangementȱofȱmaterial)ȱdoesȱnotȱgiveȱ
anyȱindicationȱthatȱhisȱsourceȱwasȱTheophrastosȱinȱparticular.ȱFurtherȬ
more,ȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ hisȱ workȱ Plinyȱ neverȱ hesitatesȱ toȱ creditȱ TheoȬ
phrastosȱwhenȱheȱborrowsȱfromȱhim.35ȱWhyȱshouldȱheȱneglectȱtoȱdoȱsoȱ
here?ȱ Finally,ȱ Plinyȱ datedȱ Theophrastos’ȱ Historiaȱ Plantarumȱ aboutȱ aȱ
decadeȱ afterȱ Alexander’sȱ death.36ȱ Itȱ isȱ highlyȱ unreasonableȱ thatȱ heȱ
shouldȱ addȱ toȱ informationȱ borrowedȱ fromȱ thisȱ workȱ aȱ chronologicalȱ
markerȱrelatingȱtoȱAlexander’sȱlifetime.ȱ
Thus,ȱ sinceȱ bothȱ accountsȱ showȱ suchȱ distinctȱ similarities,ȱ yetȱ
appearȱ toȱ beȱ independentȱ ofȱ eachȱ other,ȱ theȱ logicalȱ inferenceȱ isȱ thatȱ
bothȱderiveȱfromȱaȱcommonȱsource.37ȱWhatȱwillȱthisȱsourceȱhaveȱbeen?ȱ
Theȱ answerȱ seemsȱ toȱ lieȱ inȱ Pliny’sȱ particularȱ choiceȱ ofȱ words:ȱ resȱ ibiȱ
gerente.ȱ Thisȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ resȱ gestaeȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ sourceȱ inȱ
questionȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱnowȱlostȱAlexanderȬhistories.ȱButȱwhichȱone?ȱInȱ
theȱ firstȱ bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Naturalȱ Historyȱ Plinyȱ listsȱ bothȱ theȱ topicsȱ toȱ beȱ
discussedȱinȱeachȱvolume,ȱandȱtheȱauthorsȱusedȱtherein.ȱAmongȱthoseȱ
whoseȱ worksȱ haveȱ beenȱ utilizedȱ forȱ bookȱ 12ȱ weȱ findȱ Kallisthenes,ȱ
Kleitarchos,ȱ Nearchos,ȱ Onesikritos,ȱ Charesȱ andȱ Ptolemy.ȱ Anyȱ attemptȱ
toȱdiscernȱwhoȱisȱtheȱmostȱlikelyȱcandidateȱforȱtheȱbalsamȱstoryȱwouldȱ
entailȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ putativeȱ publicationȱ datesȱ forȱ theȱ variousȱ
authors’ȱ worksȱ onȱ Alexanderȱ –ȱ aȱ discussionȱ which,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ
34 ȱ BUCHLER,ȱRelation,ȱ7.ȱ
35 ȱ Oneȱ typicalȱ exampleȱ isȱ hisȱ famousȱ observationȱ aboutȱ theȱ naturalȱ habitatȱ ofȱ ivy:ȱ
16.62.144.ȱ Cf.ȱ alsoȱ 3.5.57;ȱ 8.43.104,ȱ 8.49.111,ȱ 8.54.128,ȱ 8.69.173,ȱ 8.82.222;ȱ 9.8.28,ȱ
9.83.175;ȱ 10.41.79;ȱ 11.116.281;ȱ 13.30.101;ȱ 15.1.1,ȱ 15.3.10,ȱ 15.40.138;ȱ 17.37.226;ȱ 19.10.32,ȱ
19.48.162;ȱ21.9.13,ȱ21.68.109;ȱ25.5.14,ȱ25.32.69;ȱ26.63.99;ȱ27.40.63.ȱ
36 ȱ Theophrastus,ȱ quiȱ proximusȱ aȱ Magniȱ Alexandriȱ aetateȱ scripsitȱ circaȱ urbisȱ Romaeȱ annumȱ
ccccxxxxȱ (13.30.101,ȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ Hist.Plant.ȱ 5.3.7).ȱ Forȱ otherȱ mentionsȱ ofȱ TheoȬ
phrastos’ȱtimeȱsee:ȱ15.1.1,ȱ16.62.144.ȱ
37 ȱ Theophrastosȱ openlyȱ declaresȱ thatȱ hisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ balsamȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ
another’sȱaccount: Paradei/souj d’ ei;nai/ fasi du/o mo/nouj (9.6.1).ȱ
70 OryȱAmitay
resolved,ȱliesȱwellȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱpaper.38ȱButȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱ
theȱbalsamȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȬgenerationȱhistoriesȱisȱhardlyȱsurprising.ȱ
Alexander,ȱaȱyoungerȱ studentȱ ofȱAristotle,ȱ wasȱ famouslyȱinterestedȱ inȱ
medicine,ȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ expectedȱ toȱ haveȱ shownȱ anȱ interestȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ
qualitiesȱofȱthisȱrareȱandȱmarvelousȱplant.39ȱ
Itȱ isȱ aȱ clichéȱ ofȱ historicalȱ studyȱ thatȱ anȱ argumentumȱ eȱ silentioȱ mayȱ
onlyȱ beȱ resortedȱ toȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ aȱ mostȱ resoundingȱ silence.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ
paperȱIȱhaveȱtriedȱtoȱshowȱthatȱtheȱsilenceȱcitedȱinȱmodernȱscholarship,ȱ
inȱorderȱtoȱattackȱtheȱhistoricityȱofȱJosephus’ȱandȱotherȱstoriesȱaboutȱtheȱ
dealingsȱofȱAlexanderȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱofȱJerusalem,ȱdoesȱnotȱqualify.ȱOfȱ
theȱfiveȱauthors,ȱwhoseȱsilenceȱisȱbroughtȱforthȱasȱevidence,ȱDiodorusȱ
andȱ Justinȱ areȱ tooȱ briefȱ toȱ serveȱ asȱ evidence,ȱ Plutarchȱ tooȱ anecdotal.ȱ
Arrian,ȱalthoughȱaȱmethodicalȱandȱrelativelyȱdetailedȱhistorian,ȱcanȱbeȱ
shownȱtoȱhaveȱomittedȱotherȱstories,ȱwithȱequalȱorȱgreaterȱappeal.ȱTheȱ
onlyȱwriterȱwhoseȱsilenceȱcountsȱisȱCurtius.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱasȱweȱ
haveȱ learnedȱ fromȱ Pliny’sȱ andȱ Theophrastos’ȱ accountsȱ ofȱ theȱ balsamȱ
plant,ȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȬgenerationȱAlexanderȬhistoriesȱdiscussedȱ
theȱpropertiesȱofȱtheȱbalsam.ȱThisȱdiscussion,ȱconnectedȱbyȱPlinyȱwithȱ
Alexander’sȱ actionsȱ inȱ situ,ȱ wasȱ omittedȱ byȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ fiveȱ authorsȱ
mentionedȱabove.40ȱȱ
Ofȱ course,ȱ inȱ andȱ ofȱ itselfȱ thisȱ conclusionȱ hardlyȱ provesȱ thatȱ
Alexanderȱ didȱ visitȱ Jerusalemȱ (orȱ Jericho),ȱ letȱ aloneȱ thatȱ heȱ bowedȱ
downȱ beforeȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ HighȬPriestȱ orȱ sacrificedȱ toȱ Yhwhȱ inȱ hisȱ
temple.ȱ Theȱ survivingȱ accountsȱ ofȱ hisȱ dealingsȱ withȱ Judeanȱ Jewsȱ disȬ
playȱ suchȱ strongȱ mythicalȱ andȱ folkloristicȱ motifsȱ thatȱ takingȱ themȱ atȱ
faceȱvalueȱorȱtreatingȱthemȱasȱstraightforwardȱhistoryȱwouldȱbeȱaȱgraveȱ
methodologicalȱerror.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱjustȱasȱdangerousȱ
methodologicallyȱtoȱinvokeȱtheȱargumentumȱeȱsilentio,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱargueȱ
thatȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱcontainȱanyȱkernelȱofȱtruth.ȱ
38ȱȱ Theȱ terminusȱanteȱquemȱ shouldȱbeȱc.314,ȱtheȱpublicationȱdateȱofȱTheophrastos’ȱwork.ȱ

Kallisthenes,ȱatȱleast,ȱqualifiesȱwithoutȱdifficulty,ȱasȱheȱdiedȱbeforeȱAlexander.ȱȱ
39 ȱ Interestȱinȱmedicineȱandȱhealingȱherbs:ȱPlutarch,ȱAlex.ȱ41;ȱCurtiusȱ9.8.21Ȭ27.ȱȱ
40 ȱ Pliny’sȱtestimonyȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱcredibleȱforȱitsȱcasualȱnatureȱ–ȱheȱcertainlyȱhadȱnoȱ
axeȱtoȱgrindȱhere.ȱIncidentally,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱcorroboratedȱbyȱaȱuniqueȱversion,ȱin:ȱ LÉVI,ȱ
Romance,ȱ 142Ȭ163.237Ȭ235;ȱ DAN,ȱ Alilot,ȱ 136ȱ ch.ȱ 15;ȱ Englishȱ translationȱ andȱ preface:ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Studies,ȱ seeȱ 838ȱ ch.ȱ 16.ȱ Thisȱ versionȱ tellsȱ ofȱ aȱ meetingȱ betweenȱ Alexanderȱ
andȱ aȱ mysteriousȱ oldȱ man,ȱ duringȱ whichȱ Alexanderȱ isȱ shownȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ aȱ deadȱ
king,ȱpreservedȱinȱbalsamȱoilȱfromȱJericho.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ABEL,ȱ Pèreȱ F.ȬM.,ȱ Alexandreȱ leȱ grandȱ enȱ Syrieȱ etȱ enȱ Palestine,ȱ in:ȱ Revueȱ
Bibliqueȱ44ȱ(1935)ȱ44Ȭ61.ȱ
AMITAY,ȱOry,ȱShimȆonȱhaȬkadiqȱinȱHisȱHistoricalȱContexts,ȱin:ȱJJSȱ58ȱ(2007)ȱ236Ȭ
249.ȱ
AMITAY,ȱ Ory,ȱTheȱ Storyȱ ofȱ Gvihaȱ BenȬPsisaȱ andȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great,ȱin:ȱ JSPEȱ
16ȱ(2006)ȱ61Ȭ74.ȱ
ATKINSON,ȱ Johnȱ E.,ȱ Aȱ commentaryȱ onȱ Q.ȱ Curtiusȱ Rufusȇȱ Historiaeȱ Alexandriȱ
Magni,ȱAmsterdamȱ1980.ȱ
BAYNHAM,ȱ Elizabeth,ȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great:ȱ theȱ uniqueȱ historyȱ ofȱ Quintusȱ
Curtius,ȱAnnȱArbor,ȱMIȱ1998.ȱ
BOSWORTH,ȱA.ȱBrian,ȱConquestȱandȱEmpire:ȱTheȱReignȱofȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreat,ȱ
Cambridgeȱ1988.ȱ
BOSWORTH,ȱA.ȱBrian,ȱHistoricalȱCommentaryȱonȱArrian’sȱHistoryȱofȱAlexander,ȱ
2ȱvols.,ȱOxfordȱ1980Ȭ1995.ȱ
BOSWORTH,ȱA.ȱBrian,ȱTheȱGovernmentȱofȱSyriaȱunderȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreat,ȱin:ȱ
CQȱ24ȱ(1974)ȱ46Ȭ64.ȱ
BUCHLER,ȱAdolf,ȱLaȱrelationȱdeȱJosèpheȱconcernantȱAlexandreȱleȱgrand,ȱin:ȱREJȱ
36ȱ(1898)ȱ1Ȭ26.ȱ
CROSS,ȱFrankȱMoore,ȱTheȱDiscoveryȱofȱtheȱSamariaȱPapyri,ȱin:ȱBAȱ26ȱ(1963)ȱ110Ȭ
121.ȱ
CROSS,ȱ Frankȱ Moore,ȱ Theȱ Papyriȱ andȱ Theirȱ Historicalȱ Implications,ȱ in:ȱ Lapp,ȱ
Paulȱ W.ȱ /ȱ Lapp,ȱ Nancyȱ L.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Discoveriesȱ inȱ theȱ WâdÎȱ EdȬDâliyeh,ȱ
Cambridge,ȱMAȱ1974,ȱ17Ȭ29.ȱ
DAN,ȱYosef,ȱ‘AlilotȱAlexanderȱMoqdon,ȱJerusalemȱ1969.ȱȱ
DROYSEN,ȱGustavȱJohann,ȱGeschichteȱdesȱHellenismus,ȱGothaȱ1877.ȱ
ENGELMANN,ȱHelmut,ȱ Derȱ Griechischeȱ Alexanderromanȱ Rezensionȱ G,ȱ Buchȱ II,ȱ
Meinsheimȱa.G.ȱ1963.ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Moses,ȱ Studiesȱ andȱ Textsȱ inȱ Folklore,ȱ Magic,ȱ Medievalȱ Romance,ȱ
HebrewȱApocryphaȱandȱSamaritanȱArchaeology,ȱII,ȱLondon,ȱ1925Ȭ1928.ȱȱ
GOLAN,ȱDavid,ȱJosephus,ȱAlexander’sȱVisitȱtoȱJerusalem,ȱandȱModernȱHistorioȬ
graphy,ȱ in:ȱ RAPPAPORT,ȱ Urielȱ (ed.),ȱ Josephusȱ Flavius:ȱ Historianȱ ofȱ EretzȬ
IsraelȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱandȱRomanȱPeriod,ȱJerusalem1982,ȱ29Ȭ55ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
GOLDSTEIN,ȱJonathanȱA.,ȱAlexanderȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱin:ȱPAAJRȱ54ȱ(1993)ȱ59Ȭ101.ȱ
GRUEN,ȱ Erichȱ S.,ȱ Heritageȱ andȱ Hellenism,ȱ Berkeley,ȱ CAȱ /ȱ Losȱ Angeles,ȱ CAȱ /ȱ
Londonȱ1998.ȱ
GUTMAN,ȱ YehosuȆa,ȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Greatȱ inȱ EretzȬIsrael,ȱ in:ȱ Tarbizȱ 11ȱ (1940)ȱ
271Ȭ294.ȱ
HAMMOND,ȱNicholasȱ Geoffreyȱ Lemprière,ȱ Theȱ Geniusȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great,ȱ
ChapelȱHillȱ1997.ȱ
72 OryȱAmitay
KASHER,ȱAryeh,ȱTheȱJourneyȱofȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreatȱinȱEretzȬIsrael,ȱin:ȱRAPPAȬ
PORT,ȱ Urielȱ &ȱ RONEN,ȱ Yehuditȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Stateȱ ofȱ theȱ Hasmoneans,ȱ JeruȬ
salemȱ/ȱTelȬAvivȱ1993,ȱ13Ȭ35ȱ(Hebrew)ȱ(BetȱMiqraȱ20ȱ[1975]ȱ187Ȭ208).ȱ
LANEȱFOX,ȱRobin,ȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreat,ȱLondonȱ1973.ȱ
LÉVI,ȱIsraelȱ(ed.),ȱRomanceȱ inȱHebrew,ȱTheȱ Seferȱ Toldotȱ Alexander,ȱTehilahȱleȬ
Moshe,ȱLeipzigȱ1896.ȱ
MARCUS,ȱRalph,ȱAppendixȱC,ȱinȱJosephusȱ(JewishȱAntiquitiesȱVI),ȱCambridge,ȱ
MAȱ1937,ȱ512Ȭ532.ȱ
MOMIGLIANO,ȱArnaldo,ȱFlaviusȱJosephusȱandȱAlexander’sȱVisitȱtoȱJerusalem,ȱin:ȱ
Athenaeumȱ57ȱ(1979)ȱ442Ȭ448.ȱ
MOR,ȱMenahem,ȱFromȱSamariaȱtoȱShechem,ȱJerusalemȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
NOAM,ȱ Vered,ȱ Megillatȱ TaȆanit:ȱ Versions,ȱ Interpretation,ȱ History,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
2003.ȱ
NIESE,ȱBenedictus,ȱGeschichteȱderȱgriechischenȱundȱmakedonischenȱStaatenȱseitȱ
derȱSchlachtȱbeiȱChaeronea,ȱDarmstadtȱ1963ȱ(Gothaȱ1893).ȱ
O’BRIEN,ȱ Johnȱ Maxwell,ȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great:ȱ Theȱ Invisibleȱ Enemy,ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ1992.ȱ
PEARSON,ȱ Lionelȱ Ignaciusȱ Cusack,ȱ Theȱ Lostȱ Historiesȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great,ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ1960.ȱ
REINACH,ȱ Theodore,ȱ Textesȱ d’auteursȱ grecsȱ etȱ romainsȱ relatifsȱ auȱ Judaisme,ȱ
Parisȱ1895.ȱ
SCHACHERMEYR,ȱFritz,ȱAlexanderȱderȱGrosse,ȱViennaȱ1973.ȱ
SPAK,ȱIsaac,ȱDerȱBerichtȱdesȱJosephusȱüberȱAlexanderȱdenȱGrossen,ȱKönigsbergȱ
1911.ȱ
STONEMAN,ȱ Richard,ȱ Jewishȱ Traditionsȱ onȱ Alexanderȱ theȱ Great,ȱ in:ȱ StPhiloȱ 61ȱ
(994)ȱ37Ȭ53.ȱ
TARN,ȱWilliamȱWoodthorpe,ȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreat,ȱ2ȱvols.,ȱCambridgeȱ1948.ȱ
TCHERIKOVER,ȱ Victor,ȱ Hellenisticȱ Civilizationȱ andȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ 1959ȱ
(translatedȱbyȱAPPLEBAUM,ȱS.ȱfromȱtheȱ1931ȱHebrewȱedition).ȱ
TRUMPF,ȱJürgen,ȱVitaȱAlexandriȱMagniȱRegisȱMacedonum,ȱLeipzigȱ1974.ȱ
WILLRICH,ȱ Hugo,ȱ Judenȱ undȱ Griechenȱ vorȱ derȱ makkabäischenȱ Erhebung,ȱ
Göttingenȱ1895.ȱ
ZIEGLER,ȱKonrat,ȱPlutarchus:ȱVitaeȱParallelae,ȱII,ȱLeipzigȱ1968.ȱȱȱ

WasȱHeȱaȱBadȱSamaritan?ȱ
AscensioȱIsaiaeȱandȱtheȱEarlyȱJewishȱandȱEarlyȱChristianȱ
AntiȬSamaritanȱPolemicȱ
JÓZSEFȱZSENGELLÉRȱ
AscensioȱIsaiaeȱisȱaȱChristianȱworkȱinȱitsȱpresentȱform.ȱButȱasȱitȱwasȱinȱ
manyȱ casesȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ materials,ȱ thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ anȱ editedȱ andȱ
reworkedȱversionȱofȱaȱpreviousȱJewishȱtext.1ȱScholarsȱmostlyȱagreeȱonȱ
theȱ Jewishȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ fiveȱ chaptersȱ calledȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ
(1,1Ȭ3.12;ȱ 5,1Ȭ16).ȱ Theȱ middleȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ (3,13Ȭ4,22),ȱ theȱ soȱ
calledȱ ‘Testimonyȱ ofȱ Ezechiel’ȱ isȱ alsoȱregardedȱasȱaȱ Christianȱadditionȱ
inȱ thisȱ unit.2ȱ Theȱ entireȱ textȱ wasȱ preservedȱ onlyȱ inȱ Ethiopicȱ thoughȱ
thereȱ remainedȱ Greekȱ andȱ Latinȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ textualȱ tradition.ȱ
Anotherȱ textualȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ sectionȱ ofȱ chaptersȱ 6Ȭ11,ȱ theȱ soȱ calledȱ
‘VisionȱofȱIsaiah’ȱexistsȱinȱLatinȱandȱSlavonicȱtranslations.ȱAȱthirdȱlineȱ
ofȱaȱhardlyȱrewrittenȱtextualȱversionȱisȱrepresentedȱbyȱCopticȱfragmentsȱ
andȱtheȱmanuscriptsȱofȱtheȱsoȱcalledȱGreekȱlegend.3ȱ
TheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱpresentsȱaȱlegendȱofȱtheȱformȱandȱreasonsȱ
ofȱ theȱ martyrianȱ deathȱ ofȱ theȱ prophetȱ Isaiahȱ hasȱ beenȱ takingȱ placeȱ inȱ
theȱ timeȱ ofȱ andȱ wasȱ madeȱ byȱ Manasseh,ȱ kingȱ ofȱ Judah.ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ
chapterȱtheȱstoryȱdescribesȱtheȱprophecyȱofȱIsaiahȱonȱtheȱoccasionȱofȱ
1ȱȱ SeeȱtheȱSybilles,ȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs,ȱJosephȱandȱAseneth.ȱetc.ȱ
2ȱȱ KNIBB,ȱMartyrdom,ȱ143Ȭ176,ȱesp.ȱ143.147Ȭ149ȱn.ȱ21.ȱAccordingȱtoȱNORELLI,ȱAscensio,ȱ
theȱworkȱwouldȱbeȱaȱChristianȱcompositionȱwrittenȱoriginallyȱinȱGreekȱ„byȱaȱgroupȱ
ofȱ Greekȱ prophets”.ȱ Consequentlyȱ theȱ oldestȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ
chaptersȱ 6Ȭ11ȱ ,ȱ andȱ chaptersȱ 1Ȭ5ȱ ȱ wasȱ aȱ laterȱ additionȱ butȱ notȱ laterȱ thanȱ theȱ earlyȱ
secondȱ century.ȱ NORELLI,ȱ Ascensio,ȱ 55,ȱ relatedȱ theȱ Jewishȱ contentȱ ofȱ thisȱ sectionȱ toȱ
theȱ closeȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱ theȱgroupȱ producingȱitȱandȱJewishȱcirclesȱinterestedȱ
inȱmysticism.ȱ
3ȱȱ Textȱ editions:ȱ DILLMANN,ȱ Ascensio;ȱ CHARLES,ȱ Ascension.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ recentȱ andȱ fullȱ
editionȱofȱallȱtheȱversionsȱandȱfragments:ȱBETTIOLOȱetȱal.,ȱAscensio.ȱ
74 JózsefȱZsengellér
Hezekiah’sȱ parainesisȱ toȱ hisȱ sonȱ Manasseh.ȱ Theȱ prophetȱ foretellsȱ thatȱ
Manassehȱ willȱ notȱ acceptȱ theȱ instructionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ fatherȱ andȱ willȱ killȱ
Isaiahȱ byȱ theȱ inspirationȱ ofȱ Beliar.ȱ Theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱ aboutȱ theȱ
fulfilmentȱ ofȱ thisȱ prophecy.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Hezekiah,ȱ Isaiahȱ andȱ
otherȱ prophetsȱ andȱ piousȱ menȱ hadȱ toȱ fleeȱ fromȱ Jerusalemȱ becauseȱ ofȱ
theȱ wickednessȱ ofȱ Manasseh.ȱ Theirȱ hidingȱ placeȱ wasȱ discovered,ȱ beȬ
trayedȱ andȱ accusedȱ byȱ aȱ certainȱ Belkiraȱ fromȱ Samaria.ȱ Isaiahȱ wasȱ
arrestedȱandȱputȱtoȱdeathȱbyȱManassehȱinȱaȱspecialȱway:ȱheȱwasȱsawedȱ
inȱhalf.ȱ
Theȱ storyȱ isȱ situatedȱ inȱ Judah,ȱ mostlyȱ inȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Theȱ listȱ ofȱ
prophetsȱ andȱ piousȱ menȱ contentsȱ onlyȱ Judeanȱ persons.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ
handȱthereȱisȱaȱhintȱtoȱIsraelȱconcerningȱtheȱBookȱofȱtheȱKingsȱofȱJudahȱ
andȱ Israelȱ asȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ otherȱ deedsȱ ofȱ Manasseh.ȱ Furthermoreȱ inȱ
2,10ȱallȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱsummonedȱwithȱIsaiahȱ‘lamentedȱbitterlyȱoverȱtheȱ
goingȱastrayȱofȱIsrael.’4ȱInȱthisȱlastȱcase,ȱhowever,ȱIsraelȱwasȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱ
theȱcommonȱnameȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱGod,ȱlivingȱaloneȱinȱJudahȱafterȱtheȱ
deportationȱofȱtheȱNorth.ȱSoȱtheȱwholeȱnarrativeȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱhadȱ
anyȱ hintsȱ toȱ theȱ Northȱ sinceȱ itȱ isȱ toldȱ toȱ haveȱ happenedȱ afterȱ theȱ
destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Northernȱ kingdomȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ theȱ keyȱ
figureȱofȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱisȱaȱcertainȱmanȱfromȱSamaria.ȱDueȱ
toȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱhisȱpedigreeȱthereȱisȱaȱfiveȱverseȱsectionȱinȱchapterȱ
2,12Ȭ16ȱdealingȱwithȱproblemsȱofȱprophetsȱwithȱNorthernȱkings.ȱAsȱhisȱ
mostȱfamousȱrelativeȱ(hisȱuncle),ȱZedekiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱChanaanah,ȱtheȱ
courtȱ prophetȱ ofȱ Ahab,ȱ kingȱ ofȱ Israelȱ isȱ given.ȱ Heȱ hadȱ aȱ conflictȱ withȱ
Micaiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱImlahȱ(1Kgsȱ22,11Ȭ28).ȱAnotherȱprophetȱofȱthisȱtime,ȱ
ElijahȱfromȱTishbeȱandȱhisȱconflictȱwithȱAhaziah,ȱsonȱofȱAhab,ȱkingȱofȱ
Israelȱ isȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱ (2Kgsȱ 1,1Ȭ18).ȱ Allȱ prophetsȱ andȱ conflictsȱ areȱ
connectedȱtoȱtheȱunfaithfulnessȱandȱunbeliefȱofȱtheȱNorthernȱkingsȱandȱ
Northernȱ people.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theseȱ conflictsȱ wellȱ knownȱ fromȱ theȱ
OldȱTestament,ȱanȱotherwiseȱunknownȱprophecyȱonȱtheȱfallȱofȱSamariaȱ
isȱ alsoȱ includedȱ inȱ thisȱ passageȱ (2,14b).ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ Samariaȱ appearsȱ 6ȱ
timesȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱbutȱonlyȱinȱchaptersȱ2Ȭ3ȱ(2,12;ȱ2,14x2;ȱ3,1;ȱ3,2;ȱ3,3)ȱandȱ
allȱ ofȱ theseȱ casesȱ areȱ connectedȱ toȱ theȱ Samarianȱ originȱ ofȱ Belkiraȱ /ȱ
Bechira.ȱConsequently,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱmessagesȱofȱtheȱwholeȱstoryȱofȱ
Isaiah’sȱmartyrdomȱisȱthatȱevilȱ/ȱbadȱisȱoriginatedȱfromȱtheȱNorthȱrepreȬ
sentedȱbyȱSamariaȱandȱpeopleȱfromȱSamaria.ȱȱ
Thisȱisȱanȱinterestingȱpoint,ȱbecauseȱthereȱisȱnoȱhintȱinȱtheȱcanonicalȱ
writingsȱ toȱ anyȱ suchȱ effectsȱ ofȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ toȱ theȱ situationȱ inȱ
Judah.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textsȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ
4ȱȱ TranslatedȱbyȱKNIBB,ȱMartyrdom,ȱ158.ȱ
ȱ WasȱHeȱaȱBadȱSamaritan? 75ȱ
kingȱ Hezekiah5ȱ Judahȱ remainedȱ theȱ onlyȱ Israeliteȱ stateȱ andȱ Hezekiahȱ
theȱonlyȱking,ȱandȱtheȱprophetsȱofȱtheȱsouthȱtheȱonlyȱprophetsȱofȱIsrael.ȱ
Havingȱ theseȱ detailsȱ inȱ mindȱ ourȱ firstȱ questionȱ arises:ȱ whetherȱ theȱ
emergenceȱofȱtheȱNorthȱandȱpeopleȱfromȱtheȱNorthȱisȱhereȱcomparedȱtoȱ
theȱ previousȱ unfaithfulnessȱ ofȱ theȱ Kingdomȱ ofȱ Israelȱ toȱ YHWHȱ
presentedȱ asȱ theȱ Ursündeȱ ofȱ Jeroboamȱ (1Kgsȱ 12)ȱ –ȱ likeȱ manyȱ laterȱ
prophetsȱ didȱ itȱ –,ȱ orȱ isȱ itȱ aȱ comparisonȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ
situation,ȱ namelyȱ hostilityȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ PreȬSamaritansȱ orȱ
Samaritans?ȱ
Thereȱareȱsomeȱscholarsȱwhoȱwithoutȱanyȱcarefulȱanalysisȱmaintainȱ
anȱantiȬSamaritanȱpolemicȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱlikeȱM.ȱKnibbȱandȱothers,ȱonȱtheȱ
otherȱ handȱ Jamesȱ Purvisȱ drewȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ problematicȱ natureȱ ofȱ
thisȱinterpretation,ȱbutȱjustȱinȱ1993.6ȱ
I.ȱ
Thereȱareȱthreeȱdetailsȱweȱcanȱinvestigateȱtoȱanswerȱthisȱquestion.ȱTheȱ
firstȱ detailȱ isȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ Belkiraȱ /ȱ Bechira,ȱ theȱ secondȱ oneȱ isȱ theȱ
propheciesȱ andȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ prophetsȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ text,ȱ
andȱ theȱ thirdȱ oneȱ isȱ theȱ prophetȱ Isaiahȱ andȱ theȱ elementsȱ ofȱ hisȱ proȬ
phecy.ȱȱȱ
1)ȱWhatȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱaboutȱBelkiraȱ/ȱBechira?ȱFlusserȱinȱhisȱstudyȱonȱ
Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ examinedȱ theȱ formȱ andȱ meaningȱ ofȱ thisȱ name.7ȱ Heȱ
agreedȱwithȱtheȱpreviousȱopinionȱofȱG.ȱH.ȱBoxȱthatȱitsȱoriginalȱHebrewȱ
formȱ couldȱ beȱ (r-ryxb,ȱ ‘theȱ Electȱ ofȱ Evil’.8ȱ Accordingly,ȱ itȱ isȱ underȬ
standableȱwhyȱheȱisȱactingȱbyȱtheȱcommandȱofȱBeliarȱ/ȱSamaelȱasȱ5,15ȱȱ
states:ȱ‘BeliarȱdidȱthisȱtoȱIsaiahȱthroughȱBelkiraȱandȱthroughȱManasseh,ȱ
forȱSamaelȱwasȱveryȱangryȱwithȱIsaiah…’ȱFlusserȱclassifiedȱtheȱnegativeȱ
actorsȱofȱtheȱstoryȱasȱa)ȱtheȱdemonicȱforcesȱofȱtheȱevil:ȱtheyȱareȱBelialȬ
Matanbuqahȱ andȱ SamaelȬMalkhira;ȱ andȱ asȱ b)ȱ theȱ humanȱ forces,ȱ theyȱ
areȱtheȱfalseȱprophetsȱandȱasȱtheirȱheadȱBelkiraȱ/ȱBechira.ȱButȱasȱKnibbȱ
realized,ȱthereȱisȱaȱtendencyȱinȱtheȱtextȱtoȱconfuseȱBelkiraȱ/ȱBechiraȱwithȱ
5ȱȱ Itȱwasȱhisȱ4thȱyearȱaccordingȱtoȱ2Kgsȱ18,9.ȱ
6ȱȱ KNIBB,ȱMartyrdom;ȱPURVIS,ȱPseudepigrapha,ȱ194Ȭ196,ȱesp.ȱ194.ȱȱ
7ȱȱ Theȱ nameȱ occursȱ inȱ differentȱ formsȱ inȱ theȱ variousȱ manuscripts:ȱ Balkira,ȱ Balakira,ȱ
Ibkira,ȱAbkira,ȱIbakira,ȱMalkiraȱorȱinȱtheȱGreekȱtexts:ȱBekheira,ȱMelkheira,ȱBelkheira,ȱ
Belkheiar.ȱCf.ȱFLUSSER,ȱBook,ȱ34Ȭ47,ȱesp.ȱ35ȱn.ȱ15.ȱ
8ȱȱ BOX,ȱ Apocalypse,ȱ xviii.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ opinionȱ ofȱ BEER,ȱ Martyrium,ȱ 119Ȭ127.ȱ Moreȱ
recentȱ studiesȱ supportingȱ thisȱ possibilityȱ areȱ CAQUOT,ȱ Commentaire,ȱ 65Ȭ93,ȱ andȱ
KNIBB,ȱMartyrdom,ȱ151Ȭ152.ȱȱ
Samaelȱ(1,8ȱ)ȱandȱBelialȱ(5,15ȱ).9ȱBelialȱasȱinȱotherȱpseudepigraphaȱandȱ
inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ isȱ theȱ angelȱ ofȱ wickedness,ȱ theȱ headȱ ofȱ theȱ
darkness,ȱtheȱrepresentativeȱofȱSatanȱorȱheȱisȱtheȱSatanȱitselfȱ(5,16ȱ).10ȱInȱ
11,41ȱȱSamaelȱisȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱSatanȱitself.ȱConsequently,ȱifȱBelkiraȱ/ȱ
Bechiraȱ andȱ Samaelȱ andȱ Belialȱ areȱ almostȱ theȱ sameȱ thanȱ Belkiraȱ /ȱ
Bechiraȱ isȱ theȱ humanȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ Satan.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ aspectȱ Belkiraȱ wouldȱ
belongȱ toȱ theȱ demonicȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ storyȱ representingȱ theȱ
negativeȱ poleȱ againstȱ theȱ positiveȱ oneȱ representedȱ byȱ Isaiahȱ whoȱ sawȱ
Godȱ(Isaȱch.ȱ6).ȱThisȱapparentlyȱdualisticȱtheologyȱofȱtheȱtextȱledȱsomeȱ
scholarsȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ qumranicȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiah,ȱ
andȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ theȱ qumranicȱ peshersȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ
figures.ȱ Philonenkoȱ claimedȱ thatȱ Belkiraȱ wouldȱ beȱ Johnȱ Hyrcanusȱ II.,ȱ
oneȱ ofȱ theȱ candidatesȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ Wickedȱ Priestȱ ofȱ theȱ scrolls.11ȱ Withoutȱ
goingȱ tooȱ farȱ inȱ thisȱ questionȱ weȱ canȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ mainȱ dualisticȱ
natureȱofȱtheȱstoryȱwasȱgivenȱbyȱtheȱlaterȱChristianȱredactionȱinsertingȱ
theȱ Belovedȱ Sonȱ asȱ aȱ counterpartȱ ofȱ Belialȱ (ch.ȱ 4).ȱ Theȱ narrativeȱ isȱ
understandableȱ evenȱ ifȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ readȱ theȱ passagesȱ concerningȱ theȱ
demons.ȱInȱthisȱcaseȱBelkiraȱ/ȱBechiraȱwouldȱbeȱaȱnormalȱhumanȱbeing.ȱ
Thisȱisȱtheȱsecondȱaspectȱofȱthisȱfigure.ȱ
Theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ figureȱ Belkiraȱ asȱ aȱ normalȱ humanȱ beingȱ isȱ
reinforcedȱ byȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ hisȱ pedigree.ȱ Heȱ isȱ aȱ manȱ fromȱ aȱ
propheticȱfamilyȱwhoȱfledȱfromȱSamariaȱwhenȱtheȱcityȱwasȱdestroyed.ȱ
Heȱ wentȱ toȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ prophesiedȱ thereȱ butȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ falseȱ
propheciesȱheȱhadȱtoȱescapeȱtoȱBethlehem.ȱHeȱwasȱaȱpropheticȱrivalȱofȱ
IsaiahȱthereforeȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱnaturalȱthatȱheȱtriedȱtoȱaccuseȱIsaiahȱtoȱ
Hezekiahȱ butȱ hisȱ attemptȱ wasȱ inȱ vain.ȱ Theȱ nextȱ king,ȱ Manassehȱ wasȱ
willingȱtoȱhearȱhisȱvoiceȱandȱaccordinglyȱtheyȱputȱIsaiahȱtoȱdeath.ȱThusȱ
heȱwasȱaȱfalseȱprophet.ȱTheȱtextȱmentionedȱseveralȱtimesȱthatȱheȱisȱfromȱ
Samaria,ȱlikeȱ hisȱ father.ȱ Theȱ translationȱ ofȱ 3,3ȱ ȱ givesȱ difficultiesȱtoȱ theȱ
interpreters.ȱ Itȱ describesȱ whatȱ Belkiraȱ didȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ rightȱ afterȱ hisȱ
arrivalȱ fromȱ Samaria:ȱ heȱ pretendedȱ toȱ beȱ different,ȱ butȱ hisȱ falsehoodȱ
cameȱ toȱ lightȱ forȱ Hezekiah.ȱ Thisȱ pretenceȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ 3,3ȱ thatȱ ei0jȱ
9ȱȱ KNIBB,ȱ Martyrdom,ȱ 152,ȱ realizedȱ thisȱ tendencyȱ inȱ 5,4Ȭ9ȱ andȱ claimedȱ thatȱ “…theȱ
Samaritanȱisȱactuallyȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱdevilȱinȱhumanȱform…”.ȱ
10ȱȱ Belialȱ=ȱSatan:ȱ2Corȱ6,15;ȱJubȱ1,20;ȱT.Leviȱ3,3;ȱ1QSȱ1,17;ȱCDȱ4,13.ȱOnȱBelialȱseeȱLEWIS,ȱ
Belial,ȱ654Ȭ656,ȱandȱOTZEN,ȱbeliyya’al,ȱ131Ȭ136.ȱ
11ȱȱ PHILONENKO,ȱMartyre,ȱ1Ȭ10;ȱROST,ȱJudaism,ȱ151.ȱKNIBB,ȱ Martyrdom,ȱ153,ȱrepresentsȱ
theȱ somewhatȱreservedȱopinionȱofȱmostȱofȱtheȱ scholarsȱconcerningȱthisȱconnection.ȱ
Cf.ȱalsoȱnoteȱ16.ȱOnȱtheȱdemonologyȱofȱtheȱscrollsȱseeȱCOLLINS,ȱPowers,ȱ9Ȭ28.ȱ
Samari/an e0n o(dw|~ tou~ patro_j au0tou~ȱ (G2,ȱ theȱ fragmentȱ fromȱ Amherstȱ
papyri)ȱwhichȱisȱaȱcorruptȱtext.ȱThereȱareȱdifferentȱsolutions:12ȱ
–ȱDillmann:ȱ‘necȱambulavitȱinȱviaȱpatrisȱsuiȱSamaritani’ȱ ȱ
–ȱ Charles:ȱ e0n o(dw|~ tou~ Samarei/tou patro_j au0touȱ =ȱ ‘inȱ theȱ waysȱ ofȱ hisȱ
ȱȱȱȱSamaritanȱfather’ȱ ȱ
–ȱ Flemming–Duensing:ȱ ‘erȱ wandelteȱ nichtȱ aufȱ denȱ Wegenȱ seinesȱ Vaters,ȱ
ȱȱȱȱdesȱSamaritaners’ȱ ȱ
–ȱCaquot:ȱ‘Ilȱneȱmarchaitȱpointȱ(auȱdébul)ȱsurȱlesȱtracesȱ(E,ȱLȱduȱSamaritain)ȱȱ
ȱȱȱsonȱpère,’ȱȱ ȱ
–ȱKnibb:ȱ‘heȱdidȱnotȱwalkȱinȱtheȱwaysȱofȱhisȱSamaritanȱfather’ȱ ȱ
–ȱMüller:ȱ‘butȱheȱwalkedȱnotȱinȱtheȱwaysȱofȱhisȱfatherȱofȱSamaria’ȱ ȱ
–ȱNorelli:ȱ‘EȱnonȱcamminavaȱinȱSamariaȱnellaȱviaȱdiȱsuoȱpadre’ȱ ȱ
Thereȱisȱaȱconceptualȱquestion,ȱwhetherȱtheȱexpressionȱisȱconnectedȱtoȱ
theȱ wordȱ ‘Samaritan’ȱ orȱ not?ȱ Earlierȱ scholarsȱ treatedȱ itȱ positivelyȱ butȱ
recentlyȱ aȱ moreȱ cautiousȱ attitudeȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ amongȱ researchers.ȱ Theȱ
Ethiopicȱ andȱ Latinȱ versionsȱ doȱ it,ȱ butȱ noneȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ manuscriptsȱ
hasȱaȱformȱlikeȱthis.ȱIfȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱtextȱisȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱcenturyȱBCȱ
theȱ Greekȱ formȱ usedȱ inȱ 2Kingsȱ 17,29ȱ ofȱ theȱ LXXȱ (Samarei/itai)ȱ couldȱ
haveȱ beenȱ knownȱ forȱ theȱauthor.ȱ Thoughȱ weȱ areȱ notȱ reallyȱ convincedȱ
concerningȱ theȱ goodȱ spellingȱ ofȱ theȱ versionsȱ sinceȱ theȱ wellȱ knownȱ
nameȱofȱtheȱAssyrianȱkingȱShalmaneserȱisȱusedȱinȱtwoȱdifferentȱwrongȱ
formsȱ (2,14ȱ ȱ –ȱ E:ȱ Lebaȱ Naser,ȱ G2ȱ Alnasar;ȱ 3,2ȱ ȱ –ȱ E:ȱ Algarȱ Zagar,ȱ G2:ȱ
Algasar),ȱlikeȱtheȱpersonalȱnamesȱofȱBelialȱ/ȱBeliar,ȱBelkiraȱ/ȱMalkiraȱetc.ȱ
Butȱevenȱifȱthereȱwasȱtheȱwordȱ ynwrmwvȱ inȱtheȱoriginalȱHebrewȱitȱhadȱnoȱ
otherȱ meaningȱ atȱ thisȱ timeȱ thanȱ Samarians,ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ evidentȱ fromȱ textsȱ
whichȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱpreȬSamaritansȱandȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱusedȱaȱmoreȱ
preciseȱ connotationȱ thanȱ peopleȱ livingȱ inȱ Shechem.13ȱ Orȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ
useȱofȱthisȱwordȱforȱtheȱSamaritans!ȱȱȱ
Soȱ thereȱ isȱ anotherȱ conceptualȱ questionȱ concerningȱ thisȱ wholeȱ
clause:ȱ whetherȱ itȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ orȱ not?ȱ Theȱ translationsȱ
agreeȱ onȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ expressionȱ exceptȱ theȱ wordȱ Samarianȱ /ȱ
Samaritan.ȱ Itȱ refersȱ toȱ aȱ mannerȱ ofȱ lifeȱ conductedȱ byȱ theȱ fatherȱ ofȱ
Belkiraȱ /ȱ Bechira.ȱ Aȱ lifestyleȱ Belkiraȱ couldȱ notȱ haveȱ followedȱ inȱ JeruȬ
salemȱ withoutȱ revealingȱ hisȱ badȱ habit.ȱ Thisȱ badȱ habitȱ orȱ strangeȱ
lifestyleȱcouldȱbeȱsimplyȱhisȱlyingȱpracticeȱofȱprophecyȱorȱhisȱdifferentȱ
religiousȱ costumes.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ latterȱ caseȱ weȱ areȱ stillȱ notȱ sureȱ ifȱ itȱ hintsȱ
simplyȱtoȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱnorthernȱandȱsouthernȱpracticeȱofȱ
12ȱȱ DILLMANN,ȱAscensio,ȱ11;ȱCHARLES,ȱAscension,ȱ89ȱn.ȱ13;ȱFLEMMINGȱ/ȱDUENSING,ȱHimȬ
melfahrt,ȱ 454Ȭ468,ȱ esp.ȱ 457;ȱ CAQUOT,ȱ Commentaire,ȱ 81;ȱ KNIBB,ȱ Martyrdom,ȱ 159;ȱ
MÜLLER,ȱAscension,ȱ603Ȭ620,ȱesp.ȱ607;ȱNORELLI,ȱAscensio,ȱ141.ȱ
13ȱȱ Cf.ȱBenȱSiraȱ50,25Ȭ26;ȱ2Maccȱ6,1Ȭ2;ȱȱ
YHWHȱworshipȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱhistoricalȱperiodȱtheȱ
narrativeȱreferredȱto,14ȱorȱitȱhintsȱtoȱtheȱdifferenceȱofȱworshipȱbetweenȱ
theȱ peopleȱlivingȱinȱ theȱNorthȱ andȱ Southȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ writingȱ ofȱ
theȱnarrative.ȱBothȱcasesȱcanȱbeȱimagined.ȱȱ
Summingȱ upȱ Belkira’sȱ featuresȱ weȱ canȱ sayȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ negativeȱ
heroȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiah.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ chargedȱ Isaiahȱ
beforeȱManasseh,ȱandȱheȱwasȱtheȱpersonȱwhoȱdenouncedȱIsaiahȱtoȱtheȱ
kingȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱIsaiahȱwasȱputȱtoȱdeath.ȱItȱisȱmentionedȱonlyȱonceȱ
inȱ theȱ textȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ usedȱ byȱ Beliar.ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ originȱ fromȱ theȱ
North,ȱpreciselyȱfromȱSamaria,ȱandȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱdifferentȱlifestyleȱorȱ
worshipȱ heȱ isȱ differentȱ thanȱ theȱ southernȱ figuresȱ ofȱ theȱ narrative.ȱ
Belkiraȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ outsideȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ passage,ȱ
whichȱseemsȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱhisȱroleȱinȱtheȱbookȱisȱrestrictedȱtoȱtheȱpreȬ
Christianȱ layer.15ȱ Consequentlyȱ inȱ hisȱ figureȱ weȱ couldȱ seeȱ aȱ latentȱ
Jewishȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ polemicȱ likeȱ thatȱ ofȱ Jubileesȱ 30,ȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ
Leviȱ5Ȭ7,ȱJudithȱ9,2Ȭ4.16ȱSoȱBelkiraȱisȱaȱpersonȱfromȱSamaria,ȱandȱisȱusedȱ
orȱpossessedȱbyȱaȱbadȱspirit.ȱIfȱheȱwasȱaȱSamaritan,ȱthanȱheȱwasȱaȱbadȱ
Samaritan.ȱ
2)ȱ Theȱ secondȱ detailȱ toȱ beȱ discussedȱ isȱ theȱ pseudoȬpropheticȱ situȬ
ationȱdescribedȱinȱ2,12Ȭ16ȱ.ȱInȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱtheȱfirstȱmentionȱofȱaȱ
lyingȱspiritȱ(rq,v, x:Wr)ȱoccursȱinȱ1Kingsȱ22,22ȱwhenȱZedekiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱ
Chanaanahȱ opposedȱ Micaiahȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Imlah.ȱ Zedekiahȱ andȱ hisȱ
followersȱwereȱprophetsȱnotȱhavingȱtheȱspiritȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱbutȱtheȱlyingȱ
spirit.17ȱ Belkiraȱ asȱ theȱ nephewȱ ofȱ Zedekiahȱ ownedȱ thisȱ spiritȱ asȱ well.ȱ
Thisȱ isȱ aȱ goodȱ reasonȱ toȱ mentionȱ hisȱ situationȱ here.ȱ Butȱ whyȱ isȱ thisȱ
wholeȱlistȱofȱpropheticȱactivitiesȱrecordedȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱsinceȱitȱdoesȱnotȱ
addȱ anyȱ newȱ lineȱ orȱ informationȱ toȱ theȱ narrative?ȱ Toȱ answerȱ thisȱ
questionȱweȱcanȱcallȱforȱhelpȱtoȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls.ȱȱ
Albeitȱ theȱ mostȱ famousȱ biblicalȱ scrollȱ ofȱ theȱ manuscriptsȱ foundȱ inȱ
theȱ Qumranȱ cavesȱ isȱ theȱ Isaiahȱ scroll,ȱ andȱ albeitȱ theȱ severalȱ existingȱ
peshersȱ onȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Isaiah,ȱ thereȱ wereȱ notȱ anyȱ parabiblicalȱ textsȱ
foundȱ aboutȱ thisȱ importantȱ prophetȱ inȱ theȱ materialȱ ofȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ
14ȱȱ Concerningȱ theȱ differentȱ religiousȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Southȱ andȱ Northȱ seeȱ ALBERTZ,ȱ ReliȬ
gionsgeschichte,ȱ 212Ȭ226.349Ȭ354;ȱ MILLER,ȱ Religion,ȱ 87Ȭ94;ȱ GERSTENBERGER,ȱ TheoloȬ
gien,ȱ131Ȭ165.ȱ
15ȱȱ KARTVEIT,ȱ Martyrdom,ȱ 3.15Ȭ3.28,ȱ alsoȱ excludesȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ connectionsȱ betȬ
weenȱtheȱaccusingȱprophetȱandȱtheȱChristianȱreworkingȱ(3.22Ȭ24).ȱ
16ȱȱ SeeȱtheȱdiscussionsȱofȱPUMMER,ȱPolemik,ȱ224Ȭ242;ȱPUMMER,ȱGenesis,ȱ177Ȭ188;ȱZSENȬ
GELLÉR,ȱGerizim,ȱ165Ȭ167.ȱAȱdifferentȱviewȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱseeȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ138Ȭ
152.ȱ
17ȱȱ wya'ybin>-lK' ypiB. rq,v, x:Wr “aȱlyingȱspiritȱinȱtheȱmouthȱofȱallȱhisȱprophets”ȱ(1Kgsȱ22,22).ȱ
Scrolls.18ȱ Againstȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ anyȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ ourȱ text,ȱ Flusserȱ andȱ
Philonenkoȱ triedȱ toȱ proveȱ theȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ
IsaiahȱandȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱcommunity19ȱorȱatȱleastȱtheȱEssenes.20ȱThoughȱ
weȱ wouldȱ notȱ takeȱ sidesȱ inȱ thisȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ debateȱ butȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ
interestingȱ parallelȱ betweenȱ theȱ soȱ calledȱ ‘pseudoprophetae’ȱ ofȱ theȱ
Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ (2,12.15;ȱ 5,2ȱ ȱ andȱ theȱ falseȱ (rqv)ȱ prophetsȱ ofȱ
4Q339.21ȱ Thisȱ listȱ ofȱ merelyȱ nineȱ linesȱ recountsȱ theȱ prophetsȱ whoȱ
utteredȱ falseȱ propheciesȱ (rqv)ȱ inȱ Israel.22ȱ Theȱ textȱ listsȱ theȱ followingȱ
falseȱ prophets:ȱ Balaamȱ benȱ Beor,ȱ theȱ oldȱ manȱ fromȱ Bethel,ȱ Zedekiahȱ
benȱ Kenȇana,ȱ Ahabȱ benȱ Kolia,ȱ Zedekiahȱ benȱ Maȇaseiah,ȱ Shemaiahȱ theȱ
Nehelami,ȱHananiahȱbenȱȇAzur,ȱtheȱprophetȱfromȱGibeon.ȱTheyȱlivedȱinȱ
differentȱplacesȱandȱinȱdifferentȱperiodsȱofȱIsrael’sȱandȱJudah’sȱhistory.ȱ
Theyȱare,ȱhowever,ȱlinkedȱnotȱonlyȱthroughȱtheirȱfalsehoodȱbutȱalsoȱbyȱ
theirȱignominiousȱend.23ȱȱ
ThoughȱZedekiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱKenȇana,ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱmentionedȱbyȱ
nameȱ inȱ bothȱ lists,ȱ thisȱ groupȱ ofȱ falseȱ prophetsȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ
Isaiahȱ employsȱ theȱ sameȱ typeȱ ofȱ classificationȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ 4Q339.ȱ Onȱ
theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ passageȱ 2,12Ȭ16ȱ ȱ listsȱ similarlyȱ prophetsȱ andȱ proȬ
pheticȱ conflictsȱ fromȱ aȱ differentȱ period,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ fromȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ
Israel.ȱ
Asȱtheȱbasicȱquestionȱwhichȱhasȱtoȱbeȱaskedȱaboutȱ4Q339ȱwas:ȱwhatȱ
wasȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ list?ȱ –ȱ similarelyȱ weȱ canȱ askȱ aboutȱ theȱ
purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ listȬlikeȱ passageȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiah.ȱ First,ȱ itȱ
givesȱaȱpreciseȱdefinitionȱofȱtheȱoriginȱofȱBelkiraȱ/ȱBechira,ȱasȱaȱmemberȱ
ofȱaȱcertainȱfamilyȱofȱfalseȱprophets,ȱandȱreinforcesȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱwasȱ
18ȱȱ Cf.ȱ theȱ richȱ presenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ materialȱ aboutȱ otherȱ propheticȱ figures.ȱ Seeȱ
BROOKE,ȱNarratives,ȱ271Ȭ301.ȱ
19ȱȱ FLUSSER,ȱBook,ȱandȱPHILOMERENKO,ȱMartyre.ȱ
20ȱȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱStories,ȱ33Ȭ87,ȱesp.:ȱTheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiah,ȱ52Ȭ56,ȱesp.ȱ56,ȱremarksȱ
theȱcloseȱsimilaritiesȱofȱtheologyȱandȱtypesȱofȱpersonalities,ȱbutȱconcludes,ȱthat:ȱ‘itȱisȱ
saferȱ simplyȱ toȱ attributeȱ theȱ workȱ toȱ aȱ groupȱ withinȱ theȱ widerȱ orbitȱ ofȱ Esseneȱ
theologyȱandȱselfȬunderstanding.’ȱ
21ȱȱ Text:ȱBROSHIȱ/ȱYARDENI,ȱNetinim,ȱ45Ȭ54;ȱBROSHI,ȱQumranȱCave,ȱ77Ȭ79ȱ(PlateȱXI).ȱThisȱ
tornȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ barelyȱ aȱ fewȱ centimetresȱ inȱ sizeȱ displaysȱ Herodianȱ handwritingȱ
whichȱplacesȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱactualȱwritingȱofȱtheȱtextȱafterȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ
centuryȱBCEȱ–ȱBROSHIȱetȱal.,ȱQumranȱCave,ȱ77ȱ(underȱtheȱtitle:.ȱPalaeography).ȱ
22ȱȱ Althoughȱ theȱ termȱ ‘Israel’ȱ isȱ missingȱ fromȱ theȱ text,ȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ wordȱ probablyȱ toȱ beȱ
addedȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ linesȱ asȱ apartȱ fromȱ Balaamȱ allȱ theȱ falseȱ prophetsȱ
wereȱIsraelitesȱbutȱevenȱhisȱprophecyȱwasȱconnectedȱwithȱIsrael.ȱIsraelȱhereȱdenotesȱ
notȱtheȱNorthernȱKingdomȱbutȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱGod.ȱ
23ȱȱ Inȱthisȱrespectȱthereforeȱthisȱlistȱisȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱpredecessorȱofȱlaterȱmishnasȱ
suchȱ asȱ Mishnaȱ Sanhedrinȱ 10,2ȱ whichȱ alsoȱ mentionsȱ sevenȱ menȱ whoȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ
givenȱaȱshareȱinȱtheȱworldȱtoȱcomeȱ(abh ~lw[).ȱCf.ȱZSENGELLÉR,ȱBalaam.ȱ
alsoȱ aȱ falseȱ prophet:ȱ ‘andȱ heȱ prophesiedȱ lies’ȱ (3,1ȱ ).ȱ Secondȱ itȱ givesȱ aȱ
parallelȱinȱstorytellingȱthatȱdueȱtoȱtheȱactivityȱofȱfalseȱprophetsȱtheȱtrueȱ
prophetsȱsuffer,ȱsometimesȱdie.ȱ
Thisȱ sectionȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ Jewishȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ orȱ theȱ
reworkingȱofȱitsȱtraditions.24ȱTheȱonlyȱquestionableȱpointȱwouldȱbeȱitsȱ
closeȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱNorth,ȱespeciallyȱwithȱSamaria,ȱbutȱinȱthisȱcaseȱIȱ
thinkȱ theseȱ storiesȱ wereȱ usedȱ asȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ commonȱ heritage,ȱ asȱ
naturalȱpiecesȱofȱScriptureȱandȱnotȱwithȱpolemicalȱbias.ȱ
3)ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ detailȱ concerningȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ polemicȱ
againstȱ PreȬSamaritansȱ orȱ Samaritansȱ isȱ theȱ personȱ andȱ prophecyȱ ofȱ
Isaiah.ȱItȱisȱwellȱknownȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱtheologyȱisȱinterestedȱinȱonlyȱ
oneȱ prophetȱ andȱ thatȱ isȱ Moses.ȱ Samaritanȱ religiousȱ andȱ historicalȱ
writingsȱ sometimesȱ butȱ notȱ tooȱ oftenȱ referȱ toȱ differentȱ Judahiteȱ proȬ
phetsȱ butȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ tendencyȱ e.g.ȱ inȱ Sepherȱ Hayamimȱ toȱ anȱ ‘EntproȬ
phetisierung’ȱ asȱ Georgȱ Fohrerȱ pointedȱ out.25ȱ Isaiahȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ thoseȱ
prophetsȱ notȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ literature.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ
literature,ȱhoweverȱheȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱofȱallȱtheȱprophets.ȱ
HeȱformulatesȱtheȱsoȱcalledȱZionȱtheologyȱwhichȱdescribesȱJerusalemȱasȱ
theȱ electedȱ dwellingȱ placeȱ ofȱ YHWHȱ forȱ ever.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ
fundamentalȱpointȱofȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱagainstȱtheȱJews,ȱsinceȱ
theyȱ claimȱ Gerizimȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ electedȱ placeȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Furthermoreȱ theȱ
writerȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ oftenȱ calledȱ theȱ firstȱ
theologianȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ firstȱ unambiguousȱ monotheisticȱ expressions,ȱ
thoughȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱheȱpropheciesȱaboutȱtheȱreturnȱofȱtheȱremnantȱ
toȱZion,ȱwhichȱisȱalsoȱaȱnegativeȱissueȱfromȱaȱSamaritanȱpointȱofȱview.ȱ
Belkiraȱ hadȱ threeȱ chargesȱ againstȱ Isaiah:ȱ a)ȱ Heȱ prophesiedȱ thatȱ
Jerusalemȱ andȱ theȱ citiesȱ ofȱ Judahȱ willȱ beȱ destroyed,ȱ Benjaminȱ willȱ beȱ
exiled,ȱandȱtheȱkingȱwillȱbeȱexiledȱboundȱwithȱhooksȱandȱchainsȱofȱiron,ȱ
b)ȱthatȱheȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱMoses,ȱc)ȱandȱheȱcalledȱJerusalemȱSodomȱandȱ
itsȱleadersȱGomorrah.ȱFromȱourȱpointȱofȱviewȱtheȱsecondȱcritiqueȱisȱtheȱ
mostȱ significantȱ becauseȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ theologyȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ oneȱ
amongȱtheȱcreaturesȱwhoȱcouldȱbeȱgreaterȱthanȱMosesȱ(Deutȱ18,15Ȭ22).ȱ
Thereforeȱ thisȱ statementȱ opposesȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ ideas.ȱ Ifȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ
chargesȱ wereȱ saidȱ byȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ itȱ wasȱ inconsequent,ȱ sinceȱ fromȱ aȱ
Samaritanȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ theȱ firstȱ andȱ thirdȱ chargesȱ areȱ positiveȱ orȱ
indifferentȱ andȱ onlyȱ theȱ secondȱ oneȱ isȱ negativeȱ andȱ aȱ realȱ charge.ȱ Allȱ
theȱmoreȱsoȱsinceȱtheȱfirstȱandȱthirdȱchargesȱareȱtoldȱbyȱprophetsȱinȱtheȱ
24ȱȱ KARTVEIT,ȱMartyrdom,ȱ3.20Ȭ3.25,ȱconnectsȱtheȱnegativeȱattitudeȱtoȱprophetsȱinȱgenerȬ
alȱtoȱanȱantiȬSamaritanȱtrackȱofȱtheȱpreȬChristianȱportion.ȱ
25ȱȱ FOHRER,ȱPropheten,ȱ129Ȭ137.ȱ
biblicalȱ textsȱ (a:ȱ 2Kgsȱ 21,12Ȭ15ȱ andȱ 2Chronȱ 11;ȱ c:ȱ Isaȱ 1,10).ȱ Evenȱ theȱ
secondȱaccusationȱhasȱaȱscripturalȱbasis.ȱInȱIsaȱ6,1ȱweȱreadȱthatȱIsaiahȱ
sawȱ theȱ Lordȱ andȱ remainedȱ alive,ȱ againstȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ Exȱ 33,20,ȱ whereȱ
GodȱspokeȱtoȱMoses:ȱ‘Youȱcanȱnotȱseeȱmyȱface,ȱforȱmanȱshallȱnotȱseeȱmeȱ
andȱ live.’ȱ Theseȱ areȱ theȱ mainȱ subjectsȱ concerningȱ theȱ martyrdomȱ ofȱ
Isaiahȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱrabbinicȱliteratureȱasȱwell.26ȱ Soȱweȱcanȱconcludeȱ
thatȱ theȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ theologicalȱ pointsȱ doȱ notȱ dominateȱ inȱ theȱ
conflictȱbetweenȱBelkiraȱandȱIsaiah.27ȱ
Additionallyȱ toȱ thisȱ questionȱ oneȱ moreȱ interestingȱ detailȱ canȱ beȱ
mentioned.ȱ Inȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ theȱ firstȱ sonȱ ofȱ Isaiah,ȱ Shearȱ Yashubȱ
appearsȱasȱaȱcompanionȱofȱtheȱprophetȱwearingȱtheȱnameȱYosab,ȱbutȱinȱ
theȱSamaritanȱChronicle,ȱSepherȱHayamimȱShearȱYashubȱtogetherȱwithȱ
Isaiah’sȱ otherȱ son,ȱ Maharȱ Shelalȱ Hashȱ Bazȱ areȱ connectedȱ toȱ Manassehȱ
asȱhisȱsons.28ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhandȱthereȱisȱevenȱnoȱhintȱtoȱIsaiahȱandȱhisȱ
martyriousȱdeathȱinȱtheȱManassehȱstoryȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱChronicle.ȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ ourȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theseȱ threeȱ detailsȱ –ȱ theȱ personȱ ofȱ
Belkira,ȱtheȱlistȱofȱfalseȱprophetsȱandȱtheȱpersonȱandȱprophecyȱofȱIsaiahȱ
–ȱweȱcanȱconcludeȱtheȱfollowings.ȱTheȱfirstȱversionȱofȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱ
IsaiahȱsectionȱofȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱwasȱaȱJewishȱcompositionȱinȱaȱperiodȱ
whenȱtrueȱyahwismȱwasȱoppressedȱandȱpeopleȱwhoȱconfessedȱitȱwereȱ
putȱ toȱ death.ȱ Mostȱ scholarsȱ tryȱ toȱ identifyȱ itȱ withȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ
Seleucidȱ oppression.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ isȱ ifȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ Jewishȱ reworking.ȱ
ThisȱwouldȱbeȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱlackȱofȱreferencesȱtoȱSamaria,ȱtoȱBelkiraȱ
andȱ toȱ falseȱ prophetsȱ inȱ theȱ rabbinicȱ discussions.ȱ Withoutȱ theseȱ
elementsȱtheȱstoryȱofȱaȱmartyrȱprophetȱfitsȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱofȱAntiochusȱIVȱ
(theȱ pollutionȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ 168ȱ BC.;ȱ theȱ retreatȱ ofȱ Mattathiasȱ andȱ
Judahȱtoȱtheȱ wilderness:ȱ1Maccȱ2,6.27Ȭ29;ȱ2Maccȱ5,27;ȱandȱtheȱmartyrsȱ
ofȱ2Maccȱ6Ȭ7).ȱTheȱonlyȱproblemȱwithȱthisȱidentificationȱisȱthatȱtheȱbadȱ
rulerȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱ notȱ foreignȱ likeȱ Antiochus.29ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ laterȱ
editorialȱ work,ȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ historicalȱ circumstancesȱ orȱ interpretationȱ
indicatedȱtheȱinsertionȱofȱSamariaȱandȱitsȱpeopleȱlikeȱBelkiraȱandȱfalseȱ
26ȱȱ Cf.ȱbSanhȱ103b;ȱbYebȱ49b;ȱySanhȱ10,2ȱ28c;ȱseeȱalsoȱPesiktaȱRabbatiȱ4,3.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱ VANȱ

RUITEN,ȱBook.ȱbYebamoth,ȱySanhedrinȱandȱPesiktaȱRabbatiȱtreatȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱ
secondȱaccusationȱasȱifȱIsaiahȱwereȱequalȱtoȱMoses,ȱwithȱwhomȱGodȱspokeȱ‘mouthȱtoȱ
mouth’ȱCf.ȱNumȱ12,8.ȱ
27ȱȱ VANȱDENȱHORST,ȱPropaganda,ȱ25Ȭ44,ȱregardsȱBelkira’sȱsecondȱaccusationȱconcerningȱ
Mosesȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ definitiveȱ signȱ forȱ anȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ polemic:ȱ ‘Hereȱ weȱ seeȱ howȱ aȱ
Jewishȱ author,ȱ whoȱ probablyȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ CE,ȱ viewedȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ
TheyȱareȱfollowersȱofȱBeliar,ȱthatȱis,ȱsatanicȱpersons.’ȱ
28ȱȱ 2Kgsȱ –ȱ 2Chronȱ L§ȱ A*ȬC*ȱ cf.ȱ MACDONALD,ȱ Chronicle,ȱ 87.ȱ Onȱ theȱ wholeȱ questionȱ ofȱ
Isaiah’ȱsonsȱandȱtheȱSamaritansȱseeȱmyȱdiscussionȱinȱZSENGELLÉR,ȱÉzsaiás,ȱ131Ȭ140.ȱȱ
29ȱȱ Cf.ȱNICKELSBURG,ȱStories,ȱ54Ȭ55.ȱ
prophets.ȱ Thisȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ opposingȱ situationȱ amongȱ prophetsȱ orȱ
amongȱdifferentȱgroups.ȱFlusserȱtriedȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱsituationȱwithȱtheȱ
oppositionȱ betweenȱ Qumranȱ andȱ Jerusalem,ȱ andȱ identifiedȱ theȱ actorsȱ
likeȱ Isaiahȱ asȱ theȱ Teacherȱ ofȱ theȱ Righteousness;ȱ Manassehȱ asȱ theȱ
WickedȱPriest;ȱBelkiraȱasȱtheȱTeacherȱofȱtheȱLie.30ȱTheȱmainȱproblemȱofȱ
thisȱhypothesisȱisȱthatȱtheȱviolentȱdeathȱofȱIsaiahȱisȱnotȱparalleledȱinȱtheȱ
figureȱofȱtheȱTeacherȱofȱtheȱRighteousness.31ȱThereforeȱaȱmoreȱplausibleȱ
solutionȱ couldȱ beȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Johannesȱ Hyrcanusȱ I.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ timeȱ thereȱ
wasȱanȱoppositionȱbetweenȱtheȱPhariseesȱandȱSadducees.ȱThereȱwasȱaȱ
PhariseeȱcalledȱEleazarȱwhoȱaccusedȱtheȱking,ȱbutȱfromȱtheȱSadduceesȱ
thereȱwasȱaȱcertainȱJohnathanȱwhoȱmadeȱHyrcanusȱbelieveȱthatȱallȱtheȱ
Phariseesȱ wereȱ againstȱ him,ȱ andȱ setȱ Hyrcanusȱ againstȱ theȱ Pharisees.ȱ
Evenȱ theȱ puttingȱ toȱ deathȱ ofȱ Eleazarȱ isȱ mentioned,ȱ thoughȱ weȱareȱ notȱ
informedȱifȱitȱhappenedȱorȱnot.ȱThereȱareȱalsoȱtheȱdifferentȱtheologicalȱ
ideasȱofȱtheȱtwoȱgroups,ȱlikeȱtheȱbeliefȱinȱresurrectionȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱ
interpretedȱasȱtoȱseeȱtheȱLordȱandȱbeȱalive.ȱAccordingȱtoȱJosephusȱthisȱ
eventȱ happenedȱ somewhatȱ afterȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ (byȱ
Hyrcanus).32ȱ
AtȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱsameȱHashmoneanȱrulerȱtheȱGerizimȱtempleȱandȱ
Shechemȱwereȱdestroyed,ȱandȱtheȱreinterpretationȱofȱGenȱ34ȱappeared.ȱ
Consequently,ȱ theȱ reinterpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ couldȱ
haveȱbeenȱcolouredȱevenȱwithȱthisȱlatentȱconnotation.ȱ
Ofȱcourseȱthereȱcouldȱbeȱotherȱsolutionsȱtoȱthisȱproblem,33ȱe.g.ȱifȱtheȱ
Belkiraȱ layerȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ Samariaȱ belongȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ
theȱlaterȱChristianȱeditions.ȱNowȱweȱturnȱtoȱthisȱquestion.ȱ
II.ȱ
ThereȱisȱaȱscholarlyȱconcordȱonȱtheȱChristianȱeditionȱofȱAscensioȱIsaiae.ȱ
Thisȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ totalȱ reworkingȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ becauseȱ additionsȱ
canȱbeȱdetectedȱinȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱtoo.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱpossibleȱthatȱ
moreȱthanȱoneȱeditionȱhasȱtakenȱplace.ȱInȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱtheȱ
BelovedȱSonȱappearsȱandȱafterȱ3,12ȱȱinȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱEzekielȱBelialȱ
30ȱȱ FLUSSER,ȱ Book,ȱ 43Ȭ44.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ identifiedȱ theȱ accusationsȱ ofȱ Belkiraȱ withȱ theȱ theoloȬ
gicalȱconflictsȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱwithȱitsȱadversaries.ȱ
31ȱȱ SeeȱtheȱcritiqueȱofȱNICKELSBURG,ȱStories,ȱ56.ȱ
32ȱȱ TheȱwholeȱstoryȱisȱgivenȱinȱJosephusȱAntiquitiesȱ13:288Ȭ298.ȱ
33ȱȱ KARTVEIT,ȱMartyrdom,ȱsupposesȱalsoȱcontemporaryȱ2ndȱcenturyȱbackgroundȱforȱtheȱ
Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiae,ȱ butȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ antiȬpropheticȱ ideas,ȱ heȱ connectsȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ
canonicalȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
alsoȱ appears.ȱ Theȱ realȱ dualisticȱ natureȱ ofȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ isȱ givenȱ byȱ
thisȱcontrastȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱBelkiraȬBelialȱandȱtheȱBelovedȱSon.ȱIfȱthereȱ
wasȱ noȱ Belkiraȱ andȱ Belialȱ inȱ theȱ preȬChristianȱ layer(s)ȱ thenȱ theȱ
accusationsȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ madeȱ byȱ Manassehȱ (asȱ itȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ theȱ
rabbinicȱtexts)ȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱtheȱinsertionȱofȱtheȱfalseȱprophetȱandȱhisȱ
group,ȱ whichȱ createdȱ twoȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ propheticȱ groupsȱ beingȱ inȱ
oppositionȱasȱpointedȱoutȱbyȱRobertȱHall.34ȱHeȱarguesȱforȱanȱAntiochianȱ
situationȱ andȱ placeȱ ofȱ originȱ inȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Ignatiusȱ ofȱ Antiochȱ atȱ theȱ
endȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ orȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ CE.35ȱ Withoutȱ disȬ
cussingȱ theȱ detailsȱ ofȱ Hall’sȱ analysisȱ weȱ justȱ referȱ toȱ someȱ additionalȱ
possibilitiesȱconcerningȱtheȱappearanceȱandȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱSamarianȱ/ȱ
SamaritanȱBelkira.ȱ
FirstȱofȱallȱweȱhaveȱtoȱargueȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱspecialȱantiȬSamaritanȱ
polemicȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ writings.ȱ Whatȱ weȱ canȱ findȱ isȱ almostȱ
alwaysȱ combinedȱ withȱ aȱ polemicȱ againstȱ Jewishȱ theologicalȱ ideasȱ orȱ
hereticalȱChristianȱideasȱandȱpracticesȱorȱdifferentȱideasȱofȱtheȱgentiles.ȱȱ
1)ȱInȱtheȱNewȱTestament,ȱevenȱifȱthereȱisȱaȱtraceȱofȱsomeȱsympathyȱ
towardsȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ acceptedȱ Jewishȱ stereotypesȱ
accordingȱ toȱ Samaritanȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ disciplesȱ mustȱ notȱ goȱ toȱ theȱ
villagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Jesusȱ didȱ notȱ enterȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Sychar.ȱ Hisȱ
disciplesȱwereȱwonderingȱthatȱheȱspokeȱwithȱaȱSamaritanȱwomenȱ(Johnȱ
4,27).36ȱ Theȱ additionalȱ commentaryȱ ofȱ Johnȱ 4,9ȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ everyȱ dayȱ
relationshipȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Samaritans.37ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ possibleȱ
‘Samaritan’ȱ connectionȱ toȱ aȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ
NewȱTestamentȱisȱJohnȱ8,49.ȱHereȱJesusȱwasȱchargedȱthatȱheȱwouldȱbeȱaȱ
Samaritanȱ andȱ isȱ demonȬpossessed.38ȱ Inȱ theȱ textȱ daimo/nionȱ isȱ usedȱ andȱ
notȱ dia&bolojȱwhichȱisȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱusageȱofȱnamesȱlikeȱBelialȱorȱSamaelȱ
inȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiae.ȱ Butȱ Jesusȱ refusedȱ onlyȱ theȱ secondȱ chargeȱ andȱ
ignoredȱ theȱ firstȱ one.ȱ Thisȱ combinationȱ isȱ uniqueȱ inȱ theȱ NT,ȱ butȱ wellȱ
knownȱinȱtheȱJewishȱandȱinȱtheȱlaterȱChristianȱliterature.ȱSometimesȱtheȱ
rabbisȱ associatedȱ Samaritansȱ withȱ magicȱ (bSotȱ 22a).ȱ Justinȱ Martyrȱ
34ȱȱ HALL,ȱAscension,ȱ289Ȭ306.ȱ
35ȱȱ ThisȱtypeȱofȱapocalypticȱChristianȱpropheticȱpresenceȱinȱAsiaȱMinorȱandȱtheȱroleȱandȱ
editionȱ ofȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiaeȱ isȱ discussedȱ alsoȱ byȱ FRANKFURTER,ȱ Legacy,ȱ 129Ȭ200,ȱ esp.ȱ
133Ȭ142.ȱ
36ȱȱ Cf.ȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱsituationȱinȱDAUBE,ȱNewȱTestament,ȱ373Ȭ374.ȱ
37ȱȱ ‘JewsȱandȱSamaritansȱdoȱnotȱuseȱvesselsȱinȱcommon’ȱ(NEB).ȱȱ
38ȱȱ InȱJohnȱ8,48Ȭ49ȱtheȱJewsȱsaidȱinȱreplyȱtoȱJesus,ȱ‘Areȱweȱnotȱrightȱinȱsayingȱthatȱyouȱ
areȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ andȱ areȱ demonȬpossessed?’ȱ (Samari/thjȱ ei)ȱ su_ kai\ daimo&nion e1xeij)ȱ
Jesusȱ replied,ȱ ‘Iȱ amȱ notȱ demonȬpossessed,ȱ butȱ Iȱ honourȱ myȱ Father,ȱ andȱ youȱ
dishonourȱme.’ȱ
viewedȱ theȱ SamaritanȱsectarianȱleaderȱDositheusȱ whoȱ claimedȱ heȱ wasȱ

theȱSonȱofȱGodȱandȱSimonȱMagusȱwhoȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱGreatȱPowerȱ
asȱ demonȱ possessedȱ (1Apolȱ 26,1,ȱ 4Ȭ5).ȱ Origenȱ reportedȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ
regardedȱthemȱasȱmadȱ(ContraȱCelsum,ȱ6,11).39ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhandȱitȱisȱ
interestingȱthatȱtheȱchurchȱfathersȱcommentingȱthisȱpassageȱofȱJohnȱdoȱ
notȱcombineȱtheȱtwoȱchargesȱasȱaȱunit.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱBelkiraȱthisȱdoubleȱ
chargeȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱutilizedȱduringȱtheȱeditingȱofȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱ
Isaiah.ȱThisȱwayȱheȱbecameȱaȱdemonȱpossessedȱandȱaȱSamaritan.ȱ
2)ȱAnotherȱpossibilityȱforȱaȱSamaritanȱinterpretationȱofȱBelkiraȱcanȱ
beȱfoundȱinȱtheȱearlyȱchurchȱfathersȱdealingȱwithȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱ
sectsȱ amongȱ themȱ theȱ Dositheansȱ andȱ otherȱ Samaritanȱ sects.ȱ Theȱ
followersȱofȱSimonȱMagusȱwereȱalsoȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱSamaritansȱbyȱ
someȱapologists.ȱInȱallȱcasesȱtheseȱSamaritanȱgroupsȱwereȱdescribedȱasȱ
havingȱ someȱ propheticȱ features.40ȱ Consequently,ȱ differentȱ propheticȱ
groups,ȱJewishȱorȱChristiansȱopposingȱtoȱSamaritanȱgroupsȱcouldȱstandȱ
inȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ thisȱ propheticȱ reworkingȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ
Isaiah.41ȱ Havingȱ noȱ specialȱ eventȱ inȱ ourȱ mindȱ correspondingȱ toȱ thisȱ
situationȱthisȱsolutionȱremainsȱonlyȱaȱhypotheticȱpossibility.ȱ
ConcludingȱtheȱChristianȱreworkingȱofȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱweȱ
canȱ argueȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ wholeȱ propheticȱ materialȱ wasȱ addedȱ atȱ thisȱ timeȱ
thenȱaȱsilentȱandȱlatentȱSamaritanȱpolemicȱcanȱbeȱdetectedȱbutȱitȱisȱnotȱ
theȱ dominantȱ wayȱ ofȱ interpretation.ȱ Andȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
readingȱofȱ3,3ȱȱinȱEȱandȱLȱisȱverified.ȱ
Conclusionȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ ourȱ analysisȱ weȱ canȱ reinforceȱ theȱ previousȱ hypothesis,ȱ
thatȱtheȱtextȱofȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱisȱaȱcompositeȱofȱnature,ȱitȱisȱaȱmixtureȱ
ofȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ sources.ȱ Theȱ Jewishȱ partȱ wasȱ reworkedȱ inȱ aȱ
timeȱ whenȱ anȱ earlyȱ andȱ notȱ tooȱ loudȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ Jewishȱ polemicȱ
started.ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ editionȱ orȱ theȱ firstȱ Christianȱ editionȱ hasȱ takenȱ
placeȱ inȱ aȱ periodȱ whenȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ sectsȱ wereȱ rivalsȱ toȱ
theȱChristianȱcommunitiesȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱearlyȱChristianȱapologists.ȱAllȱ
39ȱȱ Cf.ȱtoȱthisȱverseȱBEASLEYȬMURRAY,ȱJohn.ȱ
40ȱȱ Seeȱ CROWN,ȱ Dositheans,ȱ 70Ȭ85;ȱ ISSER,ȱ Dositheans;ȱ PURVIS,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 81Ȭ98,ȱ esp.ȱ
93Ȭ95.ȱ
41ȱȱ ThereȱwereȱSamaritansȱnotȱonlyȱinȱPalestineȱbutȱinȱEgypt,ȱAsiaȱMinor,ȱNorthȱAfrica,ȱ
Italy,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ almostȱ allȱ theȱ mainȱ citiesȱ whereȱ Christianȱ communitiesȱ wereȱ
established.ȱCf.ȱSCHUR,ȱHistory,ȱ54Ȭ55.ȱCROWN,ȱDiaspora,ȱ195Ȭ217,ȱandȱmoreȱrecentlyȱ
CROWN,ȱRedating,ȱ17Ȭ650,ȱesp.ȱ25Ȭ26.ȱ
ofȱ theseȱ circumstancesȱ makeȱ itȱ possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ itsȱ nowadaysȱ
formȱisȱableȱtoȱcontentȱsomeȱantiȬSamaritanȱissues,ȱbutȱnotȱnecessarily.ȱ
Itȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱinterpretedȱinȱthatȱwayȱbutȱnotȱautomatically.ȱ
Theȱ onlyȱ certainȱ thingȱ weȱ canȱ sayȱ is,ȱ ifȱ itȱ wasȱ interpretedȱ asȱ
containingȱ anȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ overtoneȱ andȱ Belkiraȱ hadȱ beenȱ aȱ SamaȬ
ritan,ȱheȱhadȱnotȱbeenȱaȱgood,ȱbutȱaȱbadȱSamaritan,ȱaȱveryȱbadȱone.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ALBERTZ,ȱRainer,ȱReligionsgeschichteȱIsraelsȱinȱalttestamentlicherȱZeitȱ1.ȱ(ATDȱ
8/1),ȱGöttingenȱ1992.ȱ
BEASLEYȬMURRAY,ȱGeorgeȱR.,ȱJohnȱ(WBCȱ36),ȱNashvilleȱ1987,ȱCDȬRomȱEd.ȱ1998.ȱ
BEER,ȱGeorg,ȱDasȱMartyriumȱdesȱProphetenȱJesaja,ȱin:ȱKAUTZSCH,ȱEmilȱ(ed.),ȱDieȱ
ApokryphaȱundȱPseudepigraphaȱdesȱAltenȱTestaments,ȱII.,ȱTübingenȱ1900,ȱ
119Ȭ127.ȱ
BETTIOLO,ȱ Paoloȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.)ȱ Ascensioȱ Isaiae.ȱ Textusȱ (CChr.SAȱ 7),ȱ Turnhoutȱ
1995.ȱȱ
BOX,ȱGeorgeȱH.,ȱTheȱApocalypseȱofȱAbrahamȱandȱtheȱAscensionȱIsaiah,ȱLondonȱ
1919.ȱ
BROOKE,ȱ Georgeȱ J.,ȱ Parabiblicalȱ Propheticȱ Narratives,ȱ in:ȱ FLINT,ȱ Peterȱ W.ȱ /ȱ
VANDERKAM,ȱ Jamesȱ C.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ afterȱ Fiftyȱ Yearsȱ I.,ȱ
Leidenȱ1998,ȱ271Ȭ301.ȱ
BROSHI,ȱMagenȱ/ȱYARDENI,ȱAda.,ȱOnȱNetinimȱandȱFalseȱProphets,ȱin:ȱTarbizȱ62ȱ
(1993)ȱ45Ȭ54ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
BROSHIȱMagenȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.),ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4ȱXIV:ȱParabiblicalȱTextsȱPartȱII.ȱ(DJDȱ
19),ȱOxfordȱ1995,ȱ77Ȭ79ȱ(PlateȱXI).ȱ
CAQUOT,ȱ André,ȱ Brefȱ commentaireȱ duȱ ‘Martyreȱ d’Isaie’,ȱ in:ȱ Semiticaȱ 23ȱ (1973)ȱ
65Ȭ93.ȱȱ
CHARLES,ȱRobertȱH.,ȱTheȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiah,ȱLondonȱ1900.ȱ
COLLINS,ȱ Johnȱ J.,ȱ Powersȱ inȱ Heaven:ȱ God,ȱ Gods,ȱ andȱ Angelsȱ inȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ
Scrolls,ȱin:ȱCOLLINS,ȱJohnȱJ.ȱ/ȱKUGLER,ȱRobertȱA.ȱ(eds.),ȱReligionȱinȱtheȱDeadȱ
SeaȱScrollsȱ(SDSSRL),ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMIȱ/ȱCambridgeȱ2000,ȱ9Ȭ28.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ David,ȱ Dositheans,ȱ Resurrectionȱ andȱ aȱ Messianicȱ Joshua,ȱ in:ȱ
Antichtonȱ1ȱ(1967)ȱ70Ȭ85.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ David,ȱ Redatingȱ theȱ Schismȱ betweenȱ theȱ Judeansȱ andȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱin:ȱJQRȱ82ȱ(1991)ȱ17Ȭ650.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ David,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Diaspora,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ Davidȱ (ed.),ȱ
TheȱSamaritans,ȱTübingenȱ1989,ȱ195Ȭ217.ȱ
DAUBE,ȱDavid,ȱTheȱNewȱTestamentȱandȱRabbinicȱJudaismȱ(JordanȱLecturesȱ2),ȱ
Londonȱ1956,ȱ373Ȭ374.ȱ
DILLMANN,ȱAugust,ȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱAethiopiceȱetȱLatine,ȱLeipzigȱ1877.ȱ
FLEMMING,ȱJensȱ/ȱDUENSING,ȱHugo,ȱDieȱHimmelfahrtȱdesȱJesaja,ȱin:ȱHENNECKE,ȱ
Edgarȱ /ȱ SCHNEEMELCHER,ȱ Wilhelmȱ (eds.),ȱ Neutestamentlicheȱ Apokryphenȱ
(Bdȱ2),ȱTübingenȱ1964,ȱ454Ȭ468.ȱ
FLUSSER,ȱDavid,ȱTheȱApochryphalȱBookȱofȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱandȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱSect,ȱ
in:ȱIEJȱ3ȱ(1953)ȱ34Ȭ47.ȱ
FOHRER,ȱGeorg,ȱDieȱisraelitischenȱProphetenȱinȱderȱsamaritanischenȱChronikȱII,ȱ
in:ȱ BLACK,ȱ Matthewȱ /ȱ FOHRER,ȱ Georgȱ (eds.),ȱ Inȱ Memorandumȱ Paulȱ Kahleȱ
(BZAWȱ103),ȱBerlinȱ1968,ȱ129Ȭ137.ȱ
FRANKFURTER,ȱDavid,ȱTheȱLegacyȱofȱJewishȱApocalypsesȱinȱEarlyȱChristianity:ȱ
RegionalȱTrajectories,ȱin:ȱVANDERKAM,ȱJamesȱC.ȱ/ȱADLER,ȱWilliamȱ(eds.)ȱTheȱ
Jewishȱ Apocalypticȱ Heritageȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ (CRINTȱ III/4),ȱ Assen–
Minneapolis,ȱMIȱ1996,ȱ129Ȭ200.ȱ
GERSTENBERGER,ȱ Erhardȱ S.,ȱ Theologienȱ imȱ Altenȱ Testament.ȱ Pluralitätȱ undȱ
SynkretismusȱalttestamentlichenȱGottesglaubens,ȱStuttgartȱ2001.ȱ
HALL,ȱ Robertȱ G.,ȱ Theȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ Isaiah:ȱ Communityȱ Situation,ȱ Date,ȱ andȱ
PlaceȱinȱEarlyȱChristianity,ȱin:ȱJBLȱ109ȱ(1990)ȱ289Ȭ306.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱandȱEarlyȱJudaism.ȱAȱLiteraryȱAnalysisȱ(JSOTSȱ
303;ȱCISȱ7),ȱSheffieldȱ2000,ȱ138Ȭ152.ȱ
ISSER,ȱStanleyȱJ.,ȱTheȱDositheans:ȱAȱSamaritanȱSectȱinȱLateȱAntiquityȱ(SJLAȱ17),ȱ
Leidenȱ1976.ȱ
KARTVEIT,ȱ Magnar,ȱ Theȱ Martyrdomȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ andȱ theȱ Backgroundȱ ofȱ theȱ
Formationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Group,ȱ in:ȱ MORABITO,ȱ Vittorioȱ /ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ
Davidȱ /ȱ DAVEY,ȱ Lucyȱ (eds.,)ȱ Samaritanȱ Researches.ȱ Vol.ȱ V.ȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ
Judaicaȱ10),ȱSydneyȱ2000,ȱ3.15Ȭ3.28.ȱ
KNIBB,ȱMichaelȱA.,ȱMartyrdomȱandȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiah.ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱandȱ
Introduction,ȱin:ȱCHARLESWORTH,ȱJamesȱH.ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱOldȱTestamentȱPseuȬ
depigrapha,ȱVol.ȱ2,ȱLondonȱ1985,ȱ143Ȭ176.ȱ
LEWIS,ȱTheodoreȱJ.,ȱBelialȱ(ABDȱI),ȱNewȱYorkȱ1992,ȱ654Ȭ656.ȱ
MACDONALD,ȱ John,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Chronicleȱ fromȱ Joshuaȱ toȱ Nebuchadnezzarȱ
(BZAWȱ107),ȱBerlinȱ1969.ȱ
MILLER,ȱ Patrickȱ D.,ȱ Theȱ Religionȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israelȱ (Libraryȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Israel),ȱ
Louisvilleȱ2000.ȱ
MÜLLER,ȱC.ȱDetlefȱG.,ȱTheȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiah,ȱin:ȱHENNECKE,ȱEdgarȱ/ȱSCHNEEȬ
MELCHER,ȱ W.ȱ /ȱWILSON,ȱRobertȱMcL.ȱ(eds.),ȱNewȱTestamentȱApochryphaȱ2,ȱ
Cambridgeȱ1992,ȱ603Ȭ620.ȱ
NICKELSBURG,ȱGeorgeȱW.E.,ȱStoriesȱofȱBiblicalȱandȱEarlyȱPostȬBiblicalȱTimes,ȱin:ȱ
STONE,ȱ Michaelȱ E.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Jewishȱ Writingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Periodȱ
(CRINTȱ2/II),ȱAssenȱ1984,ȱ33Ȭ87,ȱesp.:ȱTheȱMartyrdomȱofȱIsaiahȱ52Ȭ56.ȱ
NORELLI,ȱEnrico,ȱAscensioȱIsaiae.ȱCommentariusȱ(CChr.SAȱ8),ȱTurnhoutȱ1995.ȱ
OTZEN,ȱBenedikt,ȱbeliyya’al,ȱin:ȱTDOTȱII,ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMIȱ1975,ȱ131Ȭ136.ȱ
PHILONENKO,ȱ Marc,ȱ Leȱ Martyreȱ d’Ésaïeȱ etȱ l’histroireȱ deȱ laȱ secteȱ deȱ Qoumrânȱ
(Pseudépigraphesȱ deȱ l’Ancienȱ Testamentȱ etȱ manuscritsȱ deȱ laȱ merȱ Morte),ȱ
Parisȱ1967,ȱ1Ȭ10.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱAntisamaritanischeȱPolemikȱinȱjüdischenȱSchriftenȱausȱderȱ
intertestamentarischenȱZeit,ȱin:ȱBZȱ26ȱ(1982)ȱ224Ȭ242.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱGenesisȱ34ȱinȱJewishȱWritingsȱofȱtheȱHellenisticȱandȱRomanȱ
Periods,ȱin:ȱHTRȱ75ȱ(1982)ȱ177Ȭ188.ȱ
PURVIS,ȱJamesȱD.,ȱPseudepigraphaȱ–ȱOT,ȱandȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱin;ȱCROWN,ȱA.ȱD.ȱ/ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ Abrahamȱ (eds.),ȱ Aȱ Companionȱ toȱ Samaritanȱ
Studies,ȱTübingenȱ1993,ȱ194Ȭ196.ȱ
PURVIS,ȱJamesȱD.,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱandȱJudaism,ȱin:ȱKRAFT,ȱRobertȱA.ȱ/ȱNICKELSȬ
BURG,ȱ Georgeȱ W.E.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ itsȱ Modernȱ Interpreters,ȱ
Philadelphia,ȱPAȱ/ȱAtlanta,ȱGAȱ1986,ȱ81Ȭ98.ȱ
ROST,ȱ Leonhard,ȱ Judaismȱ Outsideȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Canon.ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ
Documents,ȱNashville,ȱTNȱ1976.ȱ
SCHUR,ȱNatan,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱBerlinȱ1989.ȱ
VANȱ DENȱ HORST,ȱ Piet,ȱ AntiȬSamaritanȱ Propagandaȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaism,ȱ in:ȱ VANȱ
DENȱ HORST,ȱ Pietȱ (ed.),ȱ Persuasionȱ andȱ Dissuasionȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianity,ȱ
AncientȱJudaismȱandȱHellenism,ȱLeuvenȱ2003,ȱ25Ȭ44.ȱ
VANȱRUITEN,ȱJacquesȱT.A.G.M.,ȱTheȱCanonicalȱBookȱofȱIsaiahȱinȱtheȱMartyrdomȱ
andȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ Isaiah,ȱ aȱ lectureȱ heldȱ onȱ theȱ DutchȬHungarianȱ ConȬ
ferenceȱonȱAscensioȱIsaiaeȱatȱBudapestȱinȱ2001ȱ(forthcoming).ȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱ József,ȱ Balaamȱ Behindȱ theȱ Scenes.ȱ ‘Anonymȱ Prophecies’ȱ Asȱ Keyȱ
Textsȱ ofȱ Messianicȱ Ideasȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Qumranȱ
Community”ȱ(forthcomming).ȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱÉzsaiásȱésȱazȱ‘intæȱjelek’ȱ(Isaiahȱandȱtheȱ‘warningȱsigns’)ȱin:ȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱAzȱ“igazi”ȱizraelitákȱTanulmányokȱaȱsamaritánusȱközösségȱ
ókoriȱ történelmérælȱ ésȱ irodalmáról,ȱ (Theȱ „True”ȱ Israelites.ȱ Studiesȱ onȱ theȱ
Ancientȱ Historyȱ andȱ Literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans),ȱ (Simeonȱ könyvekȱ 3),ȱ
Pápaȱ2004,ȱ131Ȭ140ȱ(Hungarian).ȱȱ
ZSENGELLÉR,ȱJózsef,ȱGerizimȱasȱIsrael.ȱNorthernȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱ
andȱtheȱEarlyȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱ(UtrechtseȱTheologischeȱReeksȱ38),ȱ
Utrechtȱ1998.ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ

III.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱBibleȱ
ȱ

ȱ

Samaria,ȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱCompositionȱofȱtheȱ
HebrewȱBibleȱ
INGRIDȱHJELMȱ
Whenȱ wasȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ writtenȱ andȱ composed?ȱ Andȱ whenȱ didȱ
SamariansȱbecomeȱSamaritans?ȱTheseȱareȱfundamentalȱquestionsȱtoȱourȱ
topic.ȱȱ
1.ȱ
Itȱ isȱ broadlyȱ agreedȱ thatȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ wasȱ completedȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ
someȱ timeȱ betweenȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ CE.ȱ
Allȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ amongȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ
exceptȱtheȱBookȱofȱEsther,ȱ1ȱChroniclesȱandȱNehemiah.ȱThereȱareȱsomeȱ
doubtsȱ regardingȱ theȱ smallȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Chronicles,ȱ whetherȱ theyȱ
actuallyȱ belongȱ toȱ Chronicles.1ȱ ȱ Howeverȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ otherȱ writingsȱ wereȱ
foundȱthereȱasȱwell,ȱsoȱoneȱcannotȱdepictȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱfromȱDeadȱ
Seaȱ Scrollsȱ alone.ȱ Fromȱ theirȱ quantity,ȱ otherȱ booksȱ suchȱ asȱ Jubilees,ȱ 1ȱ
Enochȱ andȱ theȱ Damascusȱ Covenant,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ hadȱ greatȱ imporȬ
tanceȱtoȱwhateverȱcommunityȱgathered,ȱcopiedȱandȱstoredȱtheseȱnearlyȱ
900ȱmanuscripts.2ȱInȱorderȱtoȱdepictȱaȱHebrewȱTanak,ȱweȱhaveȱtoȱconsultȱ
otherȱsources,ȱofȱwhichȱBenȱSira’sȱPraiseȱofȱtheȱFathersȱinȱchaptersȱ44Ȭ
50ȱ bearsȱ someȱ witness.ȱ Theȱ originȱ ofȱ thisȱ bookȱ hasȱ anȱ adȱ quemȱ inȱ 132ȱ
BCE.3ȱ Otherȱ booksȱ ofȱ importanceȱ forȱ theirȱ implictȱ referencesȱ areȱ JubiȬ
lees,ȱJudith,ȱTobit,ȱvariousȱtestimoniesȱandȱ1ȱandȱ2ȱMaccabees,ȱallȱposȬ
siblyȱdatingȱfromȱsayȱ150ȱBCEȱonwards.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱcenturyȱBCE,ȱweȱ
thusȱseeȱtheȱcontoursȱofȱtheȱTanak,ȱbutȱitȱisȱonlyȱinȱtheȱfirstȱcenturyȱCEȱ
thatȱtheȱnumberȱofȱbooksȱincludedȱhasȱbeenȱfinallyȱestablished.ȱAndȱitȱ
1ȱȱ ABEGGȱ/ȱFLINTȱ/ȱULRICH,ȱDeadȱSea;ȱTOV,ȱTexts.ȱ
2ȱȱ ULRICH,ȱDeadȱSea;ȱFLINTȱ/ȱVANDERKAM,ȱDeadȱSea.ȱȱȱ
3ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ129Ȭ130.ȱ
92 IngridȱHjelm
isȱ onlyȱ fromȱ earlyȱ Medievalȱ timesȱ thatȱ weȱ findȱ editedȱ biblicalȱ texts,ȱ
labelledȱ masoretic,ȱ thatȱ becameȱ somewhatȱ standardisedȱ forȱ liturgicalȱ
andȱscholarlyȱpurposes.4ȱ
2.ȱ
Regardingȱtheȱwritingȱandȱcompositionȱofȱtheȱindividualȱbooks,ȱweȱareȱ
atȱaȱlossȱforȱexactȱknowledge.ȱAȱfewȱmanuscriptsȱfromȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱ
haveȱbeenȱdatedȱasȱearlyȱasȱtheȱthirdȱcenturyȱBCE,ȱbutȱmostȱdateȱfromȱ
theȱfirstȱcentury.ȱȱ
WeȱhaveȱJewishȱandȱSamaritanȱtraditionsȱaboutȱtheȱSeptuagintȱthatȱ
ascribeȱ itsȱ originȱ toȱ theȱ requestȱ ofȱ Ptolemyȱ IIȱ Philadelphus,ȱ whoȱ
reignedȱfromȱ283Ȭ246ȱBCE,ȱtoȱhaveȱaȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱJewishȱLawȱforȱ
hisȱ libraryȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ settleȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Samartianȱ controversies.5ȱ
DemetriusȱtheȱChronographer,ȱwhoȱisȱwidelyȱbelievedȱtoȱhaveȱlivedȱinȱ
theȱtimeȱofȱPtolemyȱtheȱIVȱ(220Ȭ205)ȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱusedȱtheȱSeptuagintȱ
forȱ hisȱ workȱ onȱ Jewishȱ chronologyȱ fromȱ Abrahamȱ toȱ theȱ Exodusȱ
entitledȱ `Concerningȱ theȱ kingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Jews’.ȱ Theȱ fragmentsȱ thatȱ haveȱ
survivedȱalsoȱdiscussȱtheȱexileȱunderȱSenaccheribȱandȱconcludesȱwithȱaȱ
chronologicalȱsummaryȱupȱtoȱPtolemy,ȱtheȱIVȱitȱisȱassumed.ȱHowever,ȱ
itȱhasȱbeenȱquestionedȱwhetherȱtheȱPtolemyȱmentionedȱshould,ȱinȱfact,ȱ
ratherȱbeȱlabelledȱtheȱVIIȱ(145Ȭ144ȱBCE),ȱwhoȱlikewiseȱboreȱtheȱepithetȱ
“Philopator”,ȱ withȱ theȱ additionȱ “Neos”.ȱ Thatȱ wouldȱ dateȱ theȱ workȱ toȱ
theȱ midȬsecondȱ centuryȱ BCEȱ andȱ correspondȱ withȱ itsȱ internalȱ
chronology,ȱ whichȱ theȱ usualȱ datingȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ centuryȱ doesȱ not.ȱ Theȱ
numberȱ IVȱ addedȱ toȱ Ptolemy’sȱ nameȱ derivesȱ fromȱ Clementȱ ofȱ AlexȬ
andria’sȱ retellingȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ Polyhistor’sȱ excerptsȱ ofȱ Demetrius. 6ȱ
ThusȱtheȱSeptuagintȱPentateuchȱmayȱdateȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱratherȱthanȱtheȱ
thirdȱcenturyȱBCE.ȱSimilarȱuncertaintyȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱdatingȱofȱtheȱEpicȱ
Poetsȱ Philoȱandȱ Theodotusȱ andȱ Ezekielȱ theȱ tragedian,ȱ allȱ knownȱfromȱ
AlexanderȱPolyhistorȱand,ȱbyȱtheȱway,ȱsharingȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱJewishȱ
history,ȱnotȱfoundȱinȱScripture,ȱwithȱSamaritanȱChronicles.ȱ
Inȱ theȱ thirdȱ centuryȱ BCE,ȱ Theȱ Egyptianȱ authorȱ Manethoȱ wroteȱ
polemicsȱ againstȱ theȱ Jewsȱ inȱ narrativesȱ thatȱ haveȱ closeȱ parallelsȱ toȱ
Exodus.ȱ Theȱ Babylonianȱ authorȱ Berossusȱ wroteȱ storiesȱ andȱ chronoloȬ
giesȱinȱhisȱBabyloniacaȱthatȱsharesȱsignificantȱcompositionalȱandȱthemaȬ
4ȱȱ HJELM,ȱBible,ȱ112Ȭ116.ȱ
5ȱȱ Forȱreferences,ȱseeȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ216Ȭ222.ȱȱ
6ȱȱ CLANCY,ȱDate,ȱ207Ȭ225.ȱȱ
ȱ Samaria,ȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱCompositionȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱBible 93ȱ
ticȱtraitsȱwithȱGenesis,ȱseveralȱofȱwhichȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱfoundȱinȱancientȱ
Mesopothamianȱ parallels.ȱ Manethoȱ andȱ Berossusȱ haveȱ usuallyȱ beenȱ
regardedȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ dependentȱ onȱ Genesisȱ andȱ Exodus,ȱ ratherȱ
thanȱ theȱ otherȱ wayȱ round.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ insigȬ
nificantȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ booksȱ atȱ suchȱ anȱ earlyȱ time,ȱ thisȱ viewȱ hasȱ
beenȱchallengedȱinȱfavourȱofȱManethoȱandȱBerossusȱbeingȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱ
biblicalȱnarrativesȱasȱweȱhaveȱthem.7ȱ
FromȱtheȱGreekȱauthorsȱHecataeusȱofȱAbderaȱandȱTheophrast,ȱwhoȱ
wroteȱ aroundȱ 300ȱ BCE,ȱ weȱ haveȱ testimoniesȱ aboutȱ Moses,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
andȱtheȱtemple.ȱTheseȱhaveȱbeenȱtransmittedȱbyȱtheȱfirstȱcenturyȱBCEȱ
authorsȱDiodorusȱofȱSicculusȱandȱAlexanderȱPolyhistor,ȱJosephusȱfromȱ
theȱfirstȱcenturyȱCEȱandȱPorphyryȱandȱEusebiusȱfromȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱCE.8ȱ
That’sȱ aboutȱ it,ȱ regardingȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ narrativesȱ inȱ extraȬ
biblicalȱ sources.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ biblicalȱ history,ȱ orȱ shouldȱ weȱ sayȱ historyȱ
thatȱweȱalsoȱseeȱaspectsȱofȱinȱtheȱbiblicalȱbooks,ȱcanȱbeȱtracedȱback,ȱinȱaȱ
varietyȱ ofȱ materialȱ fromȱ allȱ overȱ theȱ Middleȱ East,ȱ fromȱ aboutȱ aȱ
thousandȱ yearsȱ earlier.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ createȱ someȱ contemporabilityȱ inȱ
biblicalȱwritings,ȱscholarsȱhaveȱestablishedȱvariousȱdocumentaryȱhypoȬ
thesesȱ thatȱ basicallyȱ agreeȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ authorȱ wroteȱ inȱ theȱ 11thȬ10thȱ
centuryȱ andȱ theȱ lastȱ authorȱ orȱ redactorȱ inȱ theȱ sixthȱ centuryȱ BCE.ȱ
Duringȱ theseȱ years,ȱadditionalȱ textsȱ wereȱ incorporatedȱ andȱ textsȱwereȱ
emendedȱ toȱ fitȱ theȱ ideologyȱ ofȱ theirȱ time.ȱ So,ȱ itȱ isȱ believed.ȱ Theȱ realȱ
gap,ȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱ payȱ attentionȱ to,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ notȱ betweenȱ eventȱ
andȱnarrative,ȱbutȱbetweenȱscholarlyȱassumptionsȱandȱevidence!ȱ
3.ȱ
Nowȱ toȱ ourȱ nextȱ question:ȱ whenȱ didȱ Samariansȱ becomeȱ Samaritans?ȱ
Josephusȱ isȱ ourȱ earliestȱ witnessȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ Samareitaiȱ beingȱ usedȱ inȱ aȱ
pejorativeȱ wayȱ asȱ aȱ religioȬethnicȱ term.ȱ Josephus,ȱ however,ȱ alsoȱ usesȱ
theȱ termsȱ Samareisȱ andȱ Samareitaiȱ indiscriminately,ȱ toȱ designateȱ theȱ
populationȱofȱtheȱcityȱandȱregionȱofȱSamaria.9ȱTheȱNewȱTestamentȱdoesȱ
notȱshareȱJosephus’ȱantiȬSamaritanȱsentiments.10ȱBenȱSiraȱisȱannoyedȱbyȱ
theȱ peopleȱ livingȱ inȱ Seirȱ /ȱ Samariaȱ (LXX)ȱ andȱ theȱ foolishȱ peopleȱ inȱ
Shechem,ȱwhomȱheȱcallsȱaȱnonȬpeople.ȱ
7ȱȱ GMIRKIN,ȱBerossus.ȱ
8ȱȱ GMIRKIN,ȱBerossus,ȱ34Ȭ71.ȱ
9ȱȱ EGGER,ȱJosephusȱFlavius,ȱ172;ȱHJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ218.ȱ
10ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ115Ȭ125.ȱ
94 IngridȱHjelm
Inȱ theȱ Septuagint,ȱ theȱ Shomronimȱ mentionedȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17,29ȱ areȱ
termedȱSamareitai.ȱTheseȱareȱtheȱpeopleȱtakenȱintoȱcaptivityȱbyȱShalmaȬ
nezerȱandȱreplacedȱbyȱfiveȱdifferentȱpeoples,ȱwhoȱuseȱtheȱtemplesȱbuiltȱ
byȱ theȱ Samareitai.ȱ Inȱ 2Kgsȱ 23,19ȱ theseȱ haveȱ beenȱ builtȱ byȱ theȱ kingsȱ ofȱ
Israel.ȱ Leavingȱ asideȱ thisȱ partȱ ofȱ Kings’ȱ narrative,ȱ Josephusȱ transfersȱ
theȱ termȱ Samareitaiȱ toȱ theȱ newȱ comers,ȱ whomȱ heȱ alsoȱ callsȱ Chuthaioiȱ
(Ant.ȱ 9.288Ȭ290).ȱ Theȱ peopleȱ takenȱ intoȱ captivityȱ andȱ foreverȱ lost,ȱ heȱ
callsȱIsraelitesȱandȱtheȱTenȱTribesȱofȱIsraelȱ(Ant.ȱ9.278Ȭ280).ȱIllogicalȱasȱitȱ
is,ȱ Josephusȱ hasȱ notȱ botheredȱ toȱ replaceȱ hisȱ termsȱ withȱ moreȱ
appropriateȱtermsȱinȱhisȱsecondȱoriginȱstoryȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritansȱsomeȱ
400ȱyearsȱlaterȱduringȱtheȱinvasionȱofȱAlexanderȱtheȱGreat.ȱInȱspiteȱofȱ
themȱ beingȱ characterisedȱ asȱ apostateȱ peoplesȱ andȱ priestsȱ fromȱ theȱ
JewishȱnationȱandȱJerusalem’sȱtempleȱ(Ant.ȱ11.340),ȱheȱneverthelessȱcallsȱ
themȱ bothȱ Chuthaioiȱ andȱ Samareitai.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ justifiedȱ byȱ Sanballat,ȱ
theȱ Satrapȱ sentȱ toȱ Samariaȱ byȱ Dariusȱ theȱ III,ȱ beingȱ ofȱ ’theȱ Chuthaeanȱ
raceȱfromȱwhomȱtheȱSamaritansȱalsoȱareȱdescended’ȱ(Ant.ȱ11.302Ȭ303).ȱ
Theȱ latterȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ conventionalȱ religioȬethnicȱ termȱ forȱ peopleȱ
adheringȱtoȱtheȱYahvistȱcultȱonȱMt.ȱGerizim.ȱHeȱalsoȱcallsȱthemȱShecheȬ
mites,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ liveȱ inȱ Shechem,ȱ whichȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ wasȱ ’theȱ
metropoleȱofȱtheȱSamaritans’ȱ(Ant.ȱ11.340).ȱHeȱcallsȱthemȱSidonians,ȱwhoȱ
claimȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ Hebrews,ȱ butȱ notȱ Jewsȱ (Ant.ȱ 11.343Ȭ344),ȱ andȱ heȱ
callsȱthemȱMedesȱandȱPersians.ȱWeȱthusȱfindȱaȱvarietyȱofȱcodedȱnames,ȱ
reflectingȱtheȱsentimentsȱofȱJosephus’ȱtime.ȱBalancingȱtheȱcase,ȱheȱtwiceȱ
relatesȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ professȱ themselvesȱ asȱ Israelitesȱ whoȱ haveȱ
descendedȱ fromȱ Joseph,ȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ Manassehȱ (Ant.ȱ 9.291;ȱ 11.341),ȱ
wheneverȱitȱbenefitsȱtheirȱcase.11ȱȱ
Itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ Josephusȱ hasȱ combinedȱ variousȱ traditions,ȱ withoutȱ
havingȱ exactȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ Samaritanȱ originsȱ orȱ ethnicȱ andȱ
religiousȱ circumstancesȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ kingdomȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ
becomeȱtheȱAssyrianȱprovinceȱSamerina.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱthatȱmostȱofȱ
itsȱ populationȱ remainedȱ afterȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ conquestȱ andȱ thatȱ onlyȱ
minorȱ groupsȱ ofȱ newcomersȱ wereȱ settledȱ there.12ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱ
thatȱtheȱtempleȱonȱGerizimȱwasȱbuiltȱlongȱbeforeȱAlexander’sȱinvasionȱ
andȱ thatȱ itȱ becameȱ greatlyȱ enlargedȱ towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ
centuryȱ BCE,ȱ atȱ whichȱ timeȱ theȱ templeȱ cityȱ onȱ theȱ mountainȱ housedȱ
moreȱthanȱtenȱthousandȱinhabitants.13ȱ
11ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ216Ȭ222;ȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ27Ȭ39.ȱȱ
12ȱȱ Seeȱfurther,ȱHJELM,ȱMt.ȱGarizim,ȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱ
13ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱ Mt.ȱ Gerizim,ȱ 74Ȭ118;ȱ MAGEN,ȱ MISGAVȱ /ȱ TSEFANIA,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizim;ȱ HJELM,ȱ
Jews,ȱ197Ȭ249.ȱ
4.ȱ
Soȱ whatȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theseȱ survivingȱ Yahvehȱ worshippers,ȱ
Israelites,ȱ whoȱ didȱ notȱ goȱ intoȱ exile,ȱ andȱ whatȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ aȱ
templeȱonȱGerizim,ȱresemblingȱtheȱdesignȱlaidȱoutȱinȱEzekiel14ȱandȱnotȱ
quiteȱsoȱinferiorȱtoȱJerusalem’sȱtempleȱasȱJosephusȱwantedȱhisȱaudienceȱ
toȱ believe?ȱ Canȱ weȱ completelyȱ neglectȱ theirȱ existenceȱ inȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ
productionȱofȱbiblicalȱbooks?ȱȱ
Theȱ Biblicalȱ Booksȱ ofȱ SamuelȬ2ȱ Kings,ȱ EzraȬNehemiah,ȱ Chroniclesȱ
andȱmostȱofȱtheȱProphetsȱshareȱaȱproȬJerusalemȱargumentation,ȱthatȱisȱ
inȱstrikinglyȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱPentateuchȱandȱtheȱBookȱ
ofȱJoshua.ȱInȱtheȱPentateuchȱandȱtheȱJoshuaȱtraditions,ȱsharedȱbyȱbothȱ
SamaritansȱandȱJews,ȱJoshuaȱandȱCalebȱfromȱtheȱtribesȱofȱEphraimȱandȱ
Judahȱ respectivelyȱ areȱ theȱ onlyȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Egyptȱ generationȱ
allowedȱtoȱenterȱtheȱPromisedȱLandȱ(Numȱ14,30).ȱTheirȱcooperationȱisȱ
friendlyȱ (Josȱ 14)ȱ andȱ weȱ seeȱ noneȱ ofȱ theȱ envy,ȱ animosityȱ andȱ
divisiveness,ȱ thatȱ governȱ compositionȱ andȱ narrativesȱ inȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ
JudgesȬ2ȱKings.ȱInȱJudges,ȱtheȱtwelveȱtribes’ȱattemptȱtoȱcoȬoperateȱandȱ
commitȱthemselvesȱtoȱaȱcentralȱleadershipȱturnsȱoutȱalmostȱdisastrousȬ
ly.ȱBecauseȱthereȱwasȱnoȱking,ȱ‘everyoneȱdidȱwhatȱheȱsawȱfitȱinȱhisȱownȱ
eyes’ȱ (Judgȱ 17,6;ȱ 18,1;ȱ 19,1ȱ andȱ 21,25).15ȱ Soȱ aȱ kingshipȱ becomesȱ instiȬ
tutedȱ asȱ theȱ storyȱ movesȱ fromȱ diversityȱ toȱ unity,ȱ fromȱ theȱ twelveȱ
judgesȱ toȱ theȱ oneȱ king.ȱ Kingship,ȱ however,ȱ didȱ notȱ solveȱ theȱ basicȱ
problem:ȱ ‘whoȱ shallȱ rule,ȱ whenȱ thereȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ candidateȱ andȱ
moreȱthanȱoneȱregion?’ȱTheȱfavouringȱpositionȱgivenȱtoȱKingȱSaulȱfromȱ
theȱtribeȱofȱBenjamin,ȱyoungestȱsonȱofȱJacobȱ(Genȱ35,16Ȭ19,ȱ24),ȱandȱtoȱ
DavidȱandȱSolomon,ȱbothȱfromȱtheȱtribeȱofȱJudah,ȱtheȱforthȱsonȱofȱJacobȱ
(Genȱ 29,35;ȱ 35,23;ȱ 46,12;ȱ 49,8),ȱ increasesȱ antagonisms.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ
narrativeȱseeksȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱtheȱDavidicȱkingshipȱfinallyȱ
unitedȱ theȱ tribes,ȱ thisȱ ‘unity’ȱ wasȱ notȱ createdȱ byȱ resolvingȱ formerȱ
disagreements.ȱ Solomon’sȱ peacefulȱ reignȱ fromȱ Danȱ toȱ BeerShebaȱ wasȱ
oneȱ ofȱ exceptionȱ ratherȱ thanȱ normalityȱ (1Kgsȱ5,4Ȭ5),ȱ andȱ everydayȱ lifeȱ
14ȱȱ MAGEN,ȱMISGAVȱ/ȱTSEFANIA,ȱMountȱGerizim,ȱ6.ȱ
15ȱȱ Inȱ Samaritanȱ Chronicles,ȱ theȱ judgesȱ areȱ calledȱ “kings”.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ 13ȱ inȱ numberȱ
includingȱJoshuaȱandȱtheyȱreignȱforȱ260ȱyearsȱtogetherȱwithȱ6ȱhighȱpriests.ȱTheȱgoodȱ
conditionsȱ fromȱ Joshuaȱ andȱ Eleazarȱ continueȱ andȱ weȱ findȱ noȱ accusationsȱ ofȱ
apostasy,ȱnoȱpunishmentȱandȱnoȱdeceitfulȱkingsȱsimilarȱtoȱMT’sȱAbimelech.ȱItȱisȱonlyȱ
afterȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Samson,ȱ weȱ findȱ theȱ deteriorationȱ thatȱ leadsȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ splitȱ
amongȱtheȱtribesȱandȱestablishmentȱofȱotherȱcultȱplaces.ȱSeeȱfurther,ȱHJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ
241Ȭ245;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise.ȱ
96 IngridȱHjelm
didȱnotȱsecureȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱforȱlongȱunderȱshadingȱbranchesȱofȱfigȱ
andȱwine.ȱDispersionȱliesȱinȱwait.ȱȱ
HavingȱmovedȱfromȱtwelveȱtoȱoneȱtribeȱtheȱstoryȱreversesȱparadigȬ
matically.ȱTwoȱfightingȱoverȱtheȱnowȱdividedȱterritoryȱinȱaȱstruggleȱforȱ
theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ trueȱ Israelȱ (1Kgsȱ 12).ȱ Fromȱ Judah,ȱ Rehoboam,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ
Solomon,ȱfightsȱagainstȱIsrael’sȱJeroboam,ȱsonȱofȱNebat,ȱanȱEphraimiteȱ
fromȱtheȱtribeȱofȱJoseph.ȱHeȱisȱsecondȱyoungestȱsonȱofȱJacobȱ(Genȱ30,24;ȱ
46,19;ȱ 49,22),ȱ butȱ givenȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ bornȱ (Genȱ 47,27Ȭ48,4)ȱ andȱ
receivingȱ aȱ variationȱ onȱ theȱ blessingȱ givenȱ toȱ Jacobȱ (Genȱ 27,27Ȭ29;ȱ cf.ȱ
Genȱ 49,22Ȭ26).ȱ Inȱ yetȱ anotherȱ variantȱ ofȱ theȱ EsauȬJacobȱ narrative,ȱ theȱ
blessingȱ alsoȱ comesȱ toȱ includeȱ Joseph’sȱ sonsȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ Manasseh,ȱ
secondȱ bornȱ andȱ firstbornȱ (Genȱ 48,1Ȭ20;ȱ cf.ȱ Deutȱ 33,13Ȭ17).ȱ Theȱ
competitionȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ tribesȱ (Judahȱ andȱ Josephȱ /ȱ Ephraim),ȱ
geographicallyȱplacedȱinȱJudaea16ȱandȱSamaria17ȱ formsȱtheȱthemeȱofȱtheȱ
biblicalȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ andȱ Chronicles,ȱ andȱ liesȱ atȱ theȱ coreȱ ofȱ theȱ
propheticȱ literature’sȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ eachȱ group’sȱ politicalȱ andȱ religiousȱ
behaviour.ȱȱ
Inȱaȱsynchronicȱnarrativeȱsetting,ȱIsrael,ȱitsȱkingshipȱandȱitsȱpeopleȱ
becomeȱ rejectedȱ byȱ Yahwehȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ conductȱ –ȱ theirȱ unfaithȬ
fulnessȱtowardsȱYahwehȱ–,ȱwhileȱJudahȱisȱtemporarilyȱsparedȱbecauseȱ
ofȱ itsȱ faithfulness.ȱ Theȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ “theȱ faithlessȱ Israel”,ȱ whoseȱ kingsȱ
“walkedȱinȱallȱtheȱwaysȱofȱJeroboam,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱNebat,ȱandȱinȱtheȱsinsȱ
whichȱ heȱ madeȱ Israelȱ toȱ sin,ȱ provokingȱ theȱ Lordȱ theȱ Godȱ ofȱ Israelȱ toȱ
angerȱ byȱ theirȱ idols”,ȱ isȱ dramaticallyȱ spelledȱ outȱ andȱ madeȱ paraȬ
digmaticȱ forȱ theȱ narrativeȱ asȱ aȱ whole.18ȱ Apartȱ fromȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ kingȱ
Jehu,ȱwhoȱhasȱfamilyȱtiesȱwithȱtheȱkingsȱofȱJudah,ȱtheȱcharacterisationȱ
of:ȱ ȱ ȱ Israel’sȱ 19ȱ kingsȱ isȱ utterlyȱ negative:ȱ “Heȱ didȱ evilȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ
Yahweh”ʤʥʤʩȱʩʰʩʲʡ ʲʸʤ ʹʲʩʥ.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱhalfȱofȱJudah’sȱkingsȱareȱsaidȱtoȱ
haveȱdoneȱrightȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱYahweh:ȱ ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʩʲʡ ʸʹʩʤ ʹʲʩʥ.ȱBeforeȱtheȱ
cessationȱ ofȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ kingdom,ȱ Judaeanȱ kingsȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ
NorthernȱkingshipȱareȱgivenȱtheȱsameȱjudgmentȱasȱtheȱIsraeliteȱkings:ȱ
ʤʥʤʩȱ ʩʰʩʲʡȱ ʲʸʤȱ ʹʲʩʥ. Theȱ Judaeanȱ kingȱ Ahazȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ significantȱ
exceptionȱasȱtheȱonlyȱJudaeanȱkingȱwhoȱisȱgivenȱaȱnegatedȱformȱofȱtheȱ
16ȱȱ Bibl.:ȱJudahȱ(andȱBenjamin);ȱAss.:ȱyaȬáȬdu,ȱyaȬaȬúȬduȱandȱyaȬkuȬdu;ȱPersian:ȱyehûdȱorȱ
yahûd.ȱ
17ȱȱ Bibl.;ȱ Samariaȱ /ȱ Israel;ȱ althoughȱ neverȱ explicitlyȱ mentionedȱ byȱ tribes,ȱ theȱ idealȱ
NorthernȱKingdomȱincludesȱtheȱremainingȱ10ȱ(11)ȱtribesȱonȱbothȱsidesȱofȱtheȱJordan.ȱ
Geographically,ȱtheȱbordersȱchangeȱaccordingȱtoȱpoliticalȱcircumstancesȱbothȱbeforeȱ
andȱafterȱtheȱAssyrianȱoccupation;ȱMoabiteȱ(MeshaȬstele):ȱIsrael;ȱAssyrian:ȱSirȬiȬlaȬa,ȱ
BîtȱHumri,ȱSamerina;ȱPersian:ȱAbrȬȱNahara,ȱShomron,ȱShamrin.ȱ
18ȱȱ Seeȱfurther,ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱch.ȱ2.ȱ
southernȱ formula:ȱ ʥʩʡʠ ʣʥʣʫ ʥʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʩʲʡ ʸʹʩʤ ʤʹʲʚʠʬʥȱ (2Kgsȱ 16,2).ȱ
Afterȱ theȱ cessationȱ ofȱ theȱ Israeliteȱ kingdom,ȱ theȱ negativeȱ judgmentȱ
formulaȱ reservedȱ forȱ theseȱ kingsȱ andȱ theirȱ associatesȱ isȱ transferredȱ toȱ
theȱJudaeanȱkings,ȱallȱofȱwhomȱ‘didȱevilȱinȱtheȱsightȱofȱYahweh’,ȱexceptȱ
Hezekiahȱ andȱ Josiah,ȱ whoȱ bothȱ didȱ rightȱ accordingȱ toȱ allȱ thatȱ Davidȱ
hadȱ done.ȱ Inȱ sum,ȱ thatȱ givesȱ nineȱ ʸʹʩʤȱ andȱ nineȱ ʲʸʤȱ clausesȱ forȱ theȱ
Judaeanȱkingsȱ(cf.ȱappendixȱ99Ȭ101).ȱȱ
Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ andȱ Judah’sȱ kingsȱ isȱ 19ȱ eachȱ +ȱ Saul,ȱ Davidȱ
andȱ Solomon.ȱ Israel’sȱ kings,ȱ stemmingȱ fromȱ nineȱ differentȱ houses,ȱ
reignȱforȱ240ȱyears,ȱwhileȱJudah’sȱkings,ȱfromȱoneȱhouse,ȱnamelyȱDavid,ȱ
reignȱforȱ390ȱyearsȱorȱ470ȱifȱweȱaddȱDavidȱandȱSolomon.ȱTheȱaverageȱ
lengthȱ ofȱ reignȱ isȱ thusȱ 12,5ȱ yearsȱ forȱ Israelȱ andȱ 20,5ȱ yearsȱ forȱ Judah.ȱ
Onlyȱ Judaeanȱ kingsȱ reachȱ theȱ magicalȱ 40ȱ yearsȱ ofȱ reign.ȱ Bothȱ listsȱ
exposeȱ literarilyȱ structuredȱ lengthȱ ofȱ reignsȱ forȱ individualȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ
groupsȱofȱkingsȱ(appendix).ȱTheseȱstructuresȱplaceȱtheȱreformistȱkingsȱ
Jehuȱ andȱ Jehoashȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ formingȱ bothȱ aȱ compositionalȱ andȱ aȱ
thematicȱcenter.ȱTheyȱelideȱtheȱOmrides,ȱtheȱBa’alȱcultȱandȱrestoreȱtheȱ
Yahwistȱcult.19ȱ
RegardingȱIsraeliteȱkings,ȱtheirȱyearsȱofȱreignȱareȱinȱequalȱnumbersȱ
(exceptȱZimri’sȱ7ȱdays)ȱuntilȱtheȱreignȱofȱJehu.ȱTheȱfirstȱperiodȱ(Saulȱtoȱ
Solomon)ȱ lastsȱ aȱ hundredȱ yearsȱ forȱ 3ȱ kings.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ periodȱ (JeroȬ
boamȱ Iȱ –ȱ Jeroboamȱ II)ȱ lastsȱ 200ȱ yearsȱ plusȱ Zimri’sȱ sevenȱ daysȱ forȱ 12ȱ
kings.ȱ Afterȱ Zechariahȱ andȱ Shallumsȱ sevenȱ monthsȱ ofȱ reign,ȱ theȱ
remainingȱ 4ȱ kingsȱ (MenahemȬHoshea)ȱ reignsȱ forȱ 41ȱ yearsȱ asȱ didȱ JeroȬ
boamȱII.ȱȱ
TheȱnumbersȱforȱJudaeanȱkingsȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱgreaterȱvariationȱbothȱ
beforeȱ andȱ afterȱ Jehoash.ȱ However,ȱ theyȱ areȱ construedȱ withinȱ aȱ fortyȱ
yearȱschemeȱthatȱascribesȱtoȱtheȱbadȱkingsȱ(Saul,ȱRehabeam,ȱAbijam)ȱaȱ
thirdȱlengthȱofȱreignȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱtheȱgoodȱkingsȱ(David,ȱSolomonȱ
andȱAsa),ȱfortyȱyearsȱagainstȱ120ȱyears.20ȱAfterȱAsa,ȱweȱfindȱyetȱanotherȱ
40ȱyearȱperiodȱ(Jehoshapat,ȱJehoram,ȱAhazia,ȱAtaliah).ȱȱ
Theȱ fallȱ ofȱ Israelȱ isȱ contrastedȱ firstȱ toȱ theȱ religiousȱ andȱ politicalȱ
reformsȱ ofȱ theȱ Judaeanȱ kingȱ Hezekiah,ȱ whoȱ isȱ implicitlyȱ claimedȱ toȱ
haveȱ savedȱ hisȱ kingdomȱ fromȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ attackȱ (probablyȱ inȱ 701ȱ
BCE),ȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱfaithfulness.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱcontrastedȱtoȱtheȱreformsȱofȱ
Josiah,ȱ which,ȱ inȱ aȱ finalȱ reiterationȱ ofȱ bothȱ Solomon’sȱ andȱ Jeroboam’sȱ
19ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ52Ȭ54.62Ȭ64.ȱ
20ȱȱ Theȱ 41ȱ yearsȱ enumeratedȱ forȱ Asaȱ mightȱ beȱ historicallyȱ correct,ȱ butȱ ideologicallyȱ
wrong,ȱbecauseȱitȱleadsȱtoȱaȱtotalȱofȱ221ȱyearsȱfromȱDavid’sȱenthronementȱuntilȱtheȱ
deathȱofȱJehoash.ȱTheȱChroniclerȱhasȱsolvedȱtheȱproblemȱbyȱenumeratingȱfortyȱyearsȱ
forȱJehoash’ȱreignȱandȱplaceȱhisȱdeathȱinȱhisȱ41stȱyear;ȱcf.ȱLEMCHE,ȱTestamente,ȱ33Ȭ34.ȱ
98 IngridȱHjelm
sinsȱandȱtheȱdefilementȱofȱtheirȱcultȱplacesȱ(2Kgsȱ23,13Ȭ20),ȱmarkȱeveryȱ
placeȱ outsideȱ theȱ wallsȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ unclean.ȱ Byȱ thisȱ reform,ȱ theȱ
denigrationȱ ofȱ ‘former’ȱ cultȱ placesȱ inȱ Judgesȱ –ȱ 2Kings:ȱ Samaria,ȱ
Shechem,ȱBethel,ȱGilgal,ȱShiloh,ȱNobȱandȱGibeon,21ȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱanȱend,ȱ
whenȱtheseȱplacesȱbecomeȱdestroyedȱandȱtheirȱpriestsȱslaughtered.ȱTheȱ
denigrationȱ servesȱ theȱ promotionȱ ofȱ David’sȱ Jerusalem,ȱ whenȱ alsoȱ
Judaeanȱ cultȱ placesȱ becomeȱ defiledȱ andȱ theirȱ priestsȱ transferredȱ toȱ
Jerusalem.ȱTheȱintentionȱofȱtheȱreformȱisȱnotȱunification,ȱbutȱaȱselectionȱ
betweenȱalternatives.22ȱȱ
5.ȱ
Whileȱ discussionsȱ overȱ cultȱ placesȱ areȱ presentedȱ inȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ extraȬ
biblicalȱ sourcesȱ asȱ havingȱ takenȱ placeȱ inȱ postȬexilicȱ times,23ȱ biblicalȱ
narrativesȱanachronisticallyȱplaceȱtheȱnorthȬsouthȱcompetitionȱinȱaȱpreȬ
exilicȱ dividedȱ Israel,ȱ mirroredȱ againstȱ theȱ idealȱ Israelȱ ofȱ Davidȱ (andȱ
Solomon),ȱinȱwhichȱJerusalemȱplaysȱtheȱroleȱasȱ‘theȱplaceȱYahwehȱhasȱ
chosen’.ȱTheȱdoubleȱmovementȱcreatedȱthereby;ȱnamelyȱtheȱmonarchicȱ
establishmentȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ theȱ electedȱ cultȱ place,ȱ whereȱ theȱ arkȱ
finallyȱfoundȱrest,ȱandȱtheȱchallengeȱtoȱitsȱstatus,ȱwhichȱinȱtheȱbiblicalȱ
northȬsouthȱ competitionȱ hasȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ confirmingȱ Yahweh’sȱ
choice,ȱareȱtheȱparameters,ȱwhichȱplaceȱJerusalemȱinȱaȱmythicȱchronoȬ
spatialȱcenter.ȱJerusalemȱthusȱbecomesȱtheȱfallen,ȱbutȱraisedȱJerusalem,ȱ
whileȱ Samariaȱ /ȱ Israelȱ isȱ foreverȱ goneȱ andȱ replacedȱ byȱ otherȱ peoples.ȱ
TheȱdestructionȱofȱSamaria,ȱhowever,ȱneverȱtookȱplaceȱinȱrealȱhistory24ȱ
andȱitsȱpeoplesȱwereȱneverȱentirelyȱdisplaced.25ȱȱȱ
TheȱcompetitionȱbetweenȱtheȱancientȱkingdomsȱofȱIsraelȱandȱJudahȱ
thatȱ theȱ Bibleȱ purportsȱ isȱ aȱ narratologicalȱ contestȱ inspiredȱ byȱ theȱ realȱ
competitionȱ forȱ sovereigntyȱ thatȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ Persianȱ andȱ Hellenisticȱ
times.ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ competition,ȱ bothȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ Jewsȱ claimedȱ toȱ
21ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJudaism,ȱ146Ȭ149;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ195Ȭ210.299.ȱ
22ȱȱ HJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ80Ȭ83.ȱ
23ȱȱ MENDELS,ȱLand;ȱMENDELS,ȱRise;ȱGOLDSTEIN,ȱAuthors,ȱ69Ȭ96;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRiseȱ
210Ȭ214.258Ȭ293.ȱ
24ȱȱ BECKING,ȱFall;ȱAVIGAD,ȱSamaria,ȱ1300Ȭ1310;ȱTAPPY,ȱArchaeology,ȱ345Ȭ441;ȱKNOPPERS,ȱ
Search,ȱ165.ȱ
25ȱȱ ODED,ȱ Massȱ Deportations,ȱ 26Ȭ32.116Ȭ135;ȱ NA’AMAN,ȱ Population,ȱ 104Ȭ124;ȱ STERN,ȱ
Archaeology,ȱ130Ȭ131;ȱKNOPPERS,ȱSearch,ȱ154Ȭ157.ȱ
ȱ FINKELSTEINȱ/ȱSILBERMAN,ȱBible,ȱ221Ȭ222;ȱZERTAL,ȱProvince,ȱ385;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱ
Rise,ȱ38Ȭ40;ȱHJELM,ȱParadigms,ȱ161Ȭ179.ȱ
possessȱ theȱ chosenȱ place.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theyȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ cooperatedȱ
toȱproduceȱaȱcommonȱtraditionȱthatȱweȱfindȱinȱtheȱPentateuchȱ/ȱHexaȬ
teuch,ȱ beforeȱ theirȱ finalȱ separation.26ȱ Theȱ nonȬcentralisticȱ aspectsȱ asȱ
wellȱ asȱ ambiguitiesȱ aboutȱ halachicȱ rulesȱ andȱ theȱ exactȱ meaningȱ aboutȱ
theȱ chosenȱ placeȱ orȱ places,ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ Deuteronomyȱ 12,27ȱ challengeȱ
traditionalȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ Pentateuch’sȱ originȱ inȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Inȱ
bothȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ forms,ȱ itȱ isȱ suitedȱ toȱ fitȱ moreȱ thanȱ
oneȱopinion.28ȱȱ
Appendixȱ
Israels’ȱroyalȱhousesȱȱ
ȱ
20ȱyearsȱ Saulȱ ȱ
40ȱyearsȱ Davidȱ ȱ
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
40ȱyearsȱ Solomonȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
22ȱyearsȱ JeroboamȱIȱ Coup:ȱ rebellion;ȱ litt.:ȱ raisedȱ hisȱ handȱ
againstȱtheȱking: ʪʬʮʡ ʣʩ ʭʸʩ;ȱ1Kgsȱ11,26Ȭ
14,20ȱ
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
2ȱyearsȱ Nadabȱ ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,25Ȭ31ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
24ȱyearsȱ Baashaȱ Coup:ȱ conspiredȱ aginstȱ himȱ (theȱ king):ȱȱ
ʥʩʬʲ ʸʹʷʩ;ȱ1Kgsȱ15,27Ȭ16,7ȱ
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
2ȱyearsȱ Elahȱ 1Kgsȱ16,8Ȭ14ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
7ȱdaysȱ Zimriȱ Coup:ȱʥʩʬʲ ʸʹʷʩ;ȱ1Kgsȱ16,9Ȭ20ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
12ȱyearsȱ Omriȱȱȱ Coup:theȱpeopleȱappointȱOmriȱking:
ʪʬʮʩ;ȱ1Kgsȱ16,16Ȭ28
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
22ȱyearsȱ Ahabȱ 1Kgsȱ16,29Ȭ22,40ȱ
26ȱȱ NODET,ȱSearch,ȱ191Ȭ195.281Ȭ289.ȱ
27ȱȱ HALPERN,ȱCentralisation,ȱ20Ȭ38;ȱHJELM,ȱJerusalem’sȱRise,ȱ239.312.ȱ
28ȱȱ BÓID,ȱPrinciples.ȱ
100 IngridȱHjelm
2ȱyearsȱȱ Ahaziahȱ sonȱofȱAhabȱ1Kgsȱ22,52Ȭ2Kgsȱ1,18ȱ

12ȱyearsȱȱ Jehoramȱ sonȱofȱAhabȱ2Kgsȱ3,1Ȭ9,26ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
28ȱyearsȱȱ Jehuȱ Coup:ȱʸʹʷʺʩ;ȱ2Kgsȱ9,14ȱ(9,1Ȭ10,36)ȱ
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
17ȱyearsȱȱ Jehoahazȱ 2Kgsȱ13,1Ȭ9ȱ
16ȱyearsȱȱ Jehoashȱ 2Kgsȱ13,10Ȭ13ȱ
41ȱyearsȱȱ JeroboamȱIIȱ 2Kgsȱ14,23Ȭ29ȱ
6ȱmonthsȱ Zechariahȱ 2Kgsȱ15,8Ȭ12ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
1ȱmonthȱȱȱ Shallumȱ Coup:ȱʥʩʬʲ ʸʹʷʩ;ȱ2Kgsȱ15,10Ȭ15ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
10ȱyearsȱȱ Menahemȱȱ Coup:ȱconspiracy:ȱʸʹʷ;ȱ2Kgsȱ15,14Ȭ22ȱ
ȱ |ȱ ȱ
2ȱyearsȱȱ Pekahiahȱ 2Kgsȱ15,23Ȭ26ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
20ȱyearsȱȱ Pekahȱ Coup:ȱʥʩʬʲ ʸʹʷʩ;ȱ2Kgsȱ15,25Ȭ31ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ
9ȱyearsȱȱ Hosheaȱ Coup: ȱʸʹʷ ʸʹʷʩ;ȱ2Kgsȱ15,30;ȱ17,1Ȭ6ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
Judah’sȱroyalȱhouse(s);ȱjudgment:ȱͲʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʩʲʡ ʲʸʤ ʹʲʩʥ/+ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʩʲʡ ʸʹʩʤ ʹʲʩʥ ȱ

(20ȱyearsȱ Saul)ȱ (Ȭ)ȱ implicitȱjudgementȱ
40ȱyearsȱ Davidȱ ȱ (+)ȱ implicitȱjudgementȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
40ȱyearsȱ Solomonȱ (+)/Ȭȱ 1Kgsȱ 3,3;ȱ 11,6Ȭ7,ȱ implicitȱ andȱ
explicitȱjudgementȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
17ȱyearsȱ Rehabeamȱ Ȭȱ 1Kgsȱ12,1Ȭ25;ȱ14,21Ȭ31ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
3ȱyearsȱ Abijamȱȱ (ȱȬ)ȱ 1Kgsȱ 15,1Ȭ8,ȱ implicitȱ judgeȬ
mentȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
41ȱyearsȱ Asaȱ +ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,9Ȭ14ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
25ȱyearsȱ Jehoshaphatȱ +ȱ peaceȱ treatyȱ withȱ Omri;ȱ 1Kgsȱ
22,1Ȭ51ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
8ȱyearsȱ Jehoramȱ Ȭȱ marriedȱ intoȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ
Omri;ȱ2Kgsȱ8,16Ȭ24ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ
1ȱyearȱ ȱ Ahaziahȱ Ȭȱ marriedȱ intoȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ

Omri;ȱ2Kgsȱ8,25Ȭ9,29ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
6ȱyearsȱ Ataliahȱ (Ȭ)ȱ daughterȱorȱsisterȱofȱOmri;ȱtheȱ
motherȱofȱAhaziahȱandȱgrandȬ
motherȱ ofȱ Ahaziah’sȱ sonȱ
Jehoash;ȱ 2Kgsȱ 11,1Ȭ20,ȱ implicitȱ
judgementȱ
ȱ
40ȱyearsȱ Jehoashȱ +ȱ 2Kgsȱ12,1Ȭ22ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
29ȱyearsȱ Amaziahȱ +ȱ 2Kgsȱ14,1Ȭ22ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
52ȱyearsȱ Azariahȱ +ȱ alsoȱcalledȱUzziah;ȱ2Kgsȱ15,1Ȭ7ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
16ȱyearsȱ Jothamȱ ȱ +ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,32Ȭ38ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
16ȱyearsȱ Ahazȱ (Ȭ)ȱ 2Kgsȱ16,1Ȭ20,ȱvariantȱformulaȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
29ȱyearsȱ Hezekiahȱ +ȱ 2Kgsȱ18,1Ȭ20,21ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
55yearsȱ Manassehȱ Ȭȱ 2Kgsȱ21,1Ȭ17ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
2ȱyearsȱ Amonȱ Ȭȱ 2Kgsȱ21,19Ȭ26ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
31ȱyearsȱ Josiahȱ ȱ +ȱ 2Kgsȱ22Ȭ23,30ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
3ȱmonthsȱ Jehoahazȱ Ȭȱ sonȱ ofȱ Josiah,ȱ dethronedȱ byȱ
PharaohȱNecho;ȱ2Kgsȱ23,31Ȭ35ȱ
11ȱyearsȱ Jehoiachimȱ Ȭȱ (Eliakim)ȱ sonȱ ofȱ Josiah;ȱ enȬ
thronedȱ byȱ Pharaohȱ Necho;ȱȱ
2Kgsȱ23,34Ȭ24,7ȱ
|ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
3ȱmonthsȱ Jehoiachinȱ Ȭȱ exiledȱ byȱ Nebuchadnezzar;ȱ
2Kgsȱ24,8Ȭ17;ȱ25,27Ȭ30ȱ
11ȱyearsȱ Zedekiahȱ Ȭȱ (Mattaniah)ȱ sonȱ ofȱ Josiah;ȱ enȬ
thronedȱ andȱ thenȱ exiledȱ byȱ
Nebuchadnezzar;ȱ 2Kgsȱ 24,17Ȭ
25,7ȱ
102 IngridȱHjelm
Bibliographyȱ
ABEGG,ȱMartinȱ/ȱFLINT,ȱPeterȱW.ȱ/ȱULRICH,ȱEugene,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱBible:ȱ
Theȱ Oldestȱ Knownȱ Bible.ȱ Translatedȱ Forȱ theȱ Firstȱ Timeȱ intoȱ English,ȱ Sanȱ
Fransisco,ȱCAȱ1999.ȱ
AVIGAD,ȱ Nahman,ȱ Samariaȱ (City),ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ Ephraimȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Newȱ EncyȬ
clopaediaȱ ofȱ Archaeologicalȱ Excavationsȱ inȱ theȱ Holyȱ Landȱ (4ȱ vols.),ȱ IV,ȱ
BECKING,ȱ Bob,ȱ Theȱ Fallȱ ofȱ Samaria:ȱ anȱ Historicalȱ andȱ Archaeologicalȱ Study,ȱ
Leidenȱ1992.ȱ
BÓID,ȱIanȱRuairidhȱM.,ȱPrinciplesȱofȱSamaritanȱHalachah,ȱLeidenȱ1989.ȱ
CLANCY,ȱFrank,ȱTheȱDateȱofȱtheȱLXX,ȱin:ȱSJOT,ȱ16/2ȱ(2002)ȱ207Ȭ225.ȱ
EGGER,ȱ Rita,ȱ Josephusȱ Flaviusȱ undȱ dieȱ Samaritaner:ȱ eineȱ Terminologischeȱ
Untersuchungȱ zurȱ Identitätserklärungȱ derȱ Samaritanerȱ (NTOA,ȱ 4),ȱ FreiȬ
burgȱ1986.ȱ
FINKELSTEIN,ȱ Israelȱ /ȱ SILBERMAN,ȱ Neilȱ Asher,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ Unearthed:ȱ ArchaeoloȬ
gy’sȱNewȱVisionȱofȱAncientȱIsraelȱandȱtheȱOriginȱofȱItsȱSacredȱTexts,ȱNewȱ
Yorkȱ2001.ȱ
FLINT,ȱPeterȱW.ȱ/ȱVANDERKAM,ȱJamesȱC.ȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱAfterȱFiftyȱ
Years:ȱAȱComprehensiveȱAssessmentȱ(2ȱvols.),ȱLeidenȱ1998Ȭ1999.ȱ
GMIRKIN,ȱ Russellȱ E.,ȱ Berossusȱ andȱ Genesis,ȱ Manethoȱ andȱ Exodus.ȱ Hellenisticȱ
Historiesȱ andȱ theȱ Dateȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ (JSOTS,ȱ 433;ȱ CIS,ȱ 15),ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ
NewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
GOLDSTEIN,ȱ Jonathanȱ A.,ȱ Howȱ theȱ Authorsȱ ofȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Maccabeesȱ Treatedȱ theȱ
‘Messianicȱ Promises’,ȱ in:ȱ NEUSNER,ȱ Jacobȱ /ȱ GREEN,ȱ Williamȱ S.ȱ /ȱ FRERICHS,ȱ
Ernestȱ S.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Judaismȱ andȱ theirȱ Messiahsȱ atȱ theȱ Turnȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ
Era,ȱCambridgeȱ1987,ȱ69Ȭ96.ȱ
HALPERN,ȱBaruch,ȱTheȱCentralisationȱFormulaȱinȱDeuteronomy,ȱin:ȱVTȱ31ȱ(1981)ȱ20Ȭ38.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Whoseȱ Bibleȱ Isȱ Itȱ Anyway?ȱ Ancientȱ Authors,ȱ Medievalȱ ManuȬ
scriptsȱandȱModernȱPerceptions,ȱin:ȱSJOTȱ18/1ȱ(2004)ȱ108Ȭ134.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Jerusalem’sȱ Riseȱ toȱ Sovereignty.ȱ Zionȱ andȱ Gerizimȱ inȱ CompeȬ
titionȱ(JSOTS,ȱ404;ȱCIS,ȱ14),ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱMt.ȱGerizimȱandȱSamaritansȱinȱRecentȱResearchȱ(inȱthisȱvolume).ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱChangingȱParadigms:ȱJudaeanȱandȱSamarianȱHistoriesȱinȱLightȱ
ofȱ Recentȱ Research,ȱ in:ȱ MÜLLER,ȱ Mogensȱ /ȱ THOMPSON,ȱ Thomasȱ L.ȱ (eds.),ȱ
HistorieȱogȱKonstruktion.ȱFestskriftȱtilȱNielsȱPeterȱLemcheȱiȱanledningȱafȱ60ȱ
årsȱ fødselsdagenȱ denȱ 6.ȱ septemberȱ 2005ȱ (Forumȱ forȱ Bibelskȱ Eksegeseȱ 14),ȱ
Copenhagenȱ2005,ȱ161Ȭ179.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱandȱEarlyȱJudaism.ȱAȱLiteraryȱAnalysisȱ(CopenȬ
hagenȱInternationalȱSeriesȱ7;ȱJSOTSup.,ȱ303),ȱSheffieldȱ2000.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱWhatȱdoȱSamaritansȱandȱJewsȱhaveȱinȱCommon?:ȱRecentȱTrendsȱ
inȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱin:ȱCBRȱ3.1ȱ(2004)ȱ197Ȭ249.ȱ
HJELM,ȱ Ingrid,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Josephus’ȱ Jewishȱ History,ȱ in:ȱ SHEHADEH,ȱ
Haseebȱ /ȱ TAWA,ȱ Habibȱ (eds.),ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Fifthȱ Internationalȱ ConȬ
gressȱofȱtheȱSociétéȱd’ÉtudesȱSamaritaines.ȱHelsinki,ȱAugustȱ1Ȭ4,ȱ2000,ȱParisȱ
2005,ȱ27Ȭ39.ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱGaryȱN.,ȱInȱSearchȱofȱPostȬExilicȱIsrael:ȱSamariaȱAfterȱtheȱFallȱofȱtheȱ
Northernȱ Kingdom,ȱ in:ȱ DAY,ȱ Johnȱ (ed.),ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ PreȬExilicȱ Israel.ȱ
ProceedingsȱofȱtheȱOxfordȱOldȱTestamentȱSeminarȱ(JSOTS,ȱ406),ȱLondonȱ/ȱ
LEMCHE,ȱ Nielsȱ Peter,ȱ Prægnantȱ tidȱ iȱ Detȱ Gamleȱ Testamente,ȱ in:ȱ HALLBÄCK,ȱ
Geertȱ/ȱLEMCHE,ȱNielsȱPeterȱ(eds.),ȱ”Tiden”ȱiȱbibelskȱbelysningȱ(Forumȱforȱ
bibelskȱeksegeseȱ11),ȱCopenhagenȱ2001,ȱ29Ȭ47.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYitzhak,ȱMt.ȱGerizimȱȬȱAȱTempleȱCity,ȱin:ȱQadmoniotȱ33/2ȱ(120)ȱ(2000)ȱ74Ȭ118.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhakȱ /ȱ MISGAV,ȱ Haggaiȱ /ȱ TSEFANIA,ȱ Levana,ȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ ExcaȬ
vationsȱ I:ȱ Theȱ Aramaic,ȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ Inscriptionsȱ (Judeaȱ &ȱ
Samariaȱ Publications,ȱ 2),ȱ Jerusalemȱ 2004;ȱ Englishȱ translationȱ byȱ LEVINȱ
Edwardȱ/ȱGUGGENHEIMER,ȱMichaelȱ(HebrewȱandȱEnglish).ȱ
MENDELS,ȱDoron,ȱTheȱLandȱofȱIsraelȱasȱaȱPoliticalȱConceptȱinȱHasmoneanȱLitȬ
erature,ȱTübingenȱ1987.ȱ
MENDELS,ȱDoron,ȱTheȱRiseȱandȱFallȱofȱJewishȱNationalism,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1992.ȱ
NA’AMAN,ȱNadav,ȱPopulationȱChangesȱinȱPalestineȱFollowingȱAssyrianȱDeporȬ
tations,ȱin:ȱTelȱAvivȱ20/1ȱ(1993)ȱ104Ȭ124.ȱ
NODET,ȱEtienne,ȱAȱSearchȱforȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱJudaism:ȱFromȱJoshuaȱtoȱtheȱMishȬ
nahȱ (JSOTSȱ 248),ȱ Sheffieldȱ 1997;ȱ revisedȱ Englishȱ translationȱ byȱ CROWLEY,ȱ
Ed,ȱ in:ȱ NODET,ȱ Etienneȱ (ed.),ȱ Essaiȱ surȱ lesȱ originesȱ duȱ Judaïsme:ȱ deȱ Josueȱ
auxȱPharisiens,ȱParisȱ1992.ȱ
ODED,ȱ Bustenay,ȱ Massȱ Deportationsȱ andȱ Deporteesȱ inȱ theȱ NeoȬAssyrianȱ
Empire,ȱWiesbadenȱ1979.ȱ
STERN,ȱ Ephraim,ȱ Archaeologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ II.ȱ Theȱ Assyrian,ȱ
BabylonianȱandȱPersianȱPeriodsȱ(732Ȭ332ȱB.C.E.)ȱ(ABRL),ȱNewȱYorkȱ2001.ȱ
TAPPY,ȱRonȱE.,ȱTheȱArchaeologyȱofȱIsraeliteȱSamariaȱIȱ(HSS,ȱ50),ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2001.ȱ
TOV,ȱEmanuelȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱTextsȱFromȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesert:ȱIndicesȱandȱanȱIntroȬ
ductionȱtoȱtheȱDiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesertȱSeriesȱ(Discoveriesȱinȱtheȱ
JudaeanȱDesertȱxxxix),ȱOxfordȱ2002.ȱ
ULRICH,ȱ Eugene,ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ andȱ theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ Grandȱ
Rapids,ȱMIȱ1999.ȱ
ZERTAL,ȱ Adam,ȱ Theȱ Provinceȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ (Assyrianȱ Samarina)ȱ inȱ theȱ Lateȱ Ironȱ
Ageȱ(IronȱAgeȱIII),ȱin:ȱLIPSCHITS,ȱOdedȱ/ȱBLENKINSOPP,ȱJosephȱ(eds.),ȱJudahȱ
andȱ Judaeansȱ inȱ theȱ NeoȬBabylonianȱ Period,ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ INȱ 2003,ȱ 377Ȭ
412.ȱȱȱ

TextgeschichtlichesȱzumȱSamaritanischenȱ
PentateuchȱundȱSamareitikonȱȱ
ZurȱTextgeschichteȱdesȱPentateuchsȱimȱ2.ȱJh.ȱv.Chr.ȱȱ
ADRIANȱSCHENKERȱȱ
1.ȱSamaritanischeȱoderȱprotoȬmassoretischeȱKorrekturen?ȱȱ
DerȱsamaritanischeȱPentateuchȱwirdȱseitȱdenȱHandschriftenfundenȱvonȱ
QumranȱamȱTotenȱMeerȱalsȱeineȱTextgestaltȱaufgefasst,ȱdieȱzwarȱeinigeȱ
spezifischeȱ samaritanischeȱ Lesartenȱ aufweist,ȱ insbesondereȱ amȱ Endeȱ
desȱ Dekalogs,ȱ imȱ Anschlussȱ anȱ Exȱ 20,17ȱ =ȱ Dtȱ 5,22,ȱ derenȱ Grundlageȱ
aberȱ einemȱ vorsamaritanischen,ȱ inȱ Qumranȱ gutȱ bezeugtenȱ Textȱ entȬ
spricht1.ȱDieȱNaturȱoderȱdieȱEigenartȱdiesesȱvorsamaritanischenȱTextesȱ
kannȱmanȱamȱbestenȱinȱderȱExodusȬHandschriftȱ4QpalaeoExodmȱbeobȬ
achten,ȱvonȱwelcherȱgroßeȱTeileȱinȱ44ȱSpaltenȱerhaltenȱsind,ȱdieȱvonȱExȱ
6ȱ bisȱ Exȱ 37ȱ reichen2.ȱ Aberȱ esȱ gibtȱ weitereȱ Zeugenȱ diesesȱ vorsamaȬ
ritanischenȱTextesȱderȱTora3.ȱȱ
Dieȱspezifischen,ȱsog.ȱ„ideologischen“ȱLesartenȱderȱsamaritanischenȱ
ToraȱsindȱinȱQumranȱnichtȱbelegtȱundȱgaltenȱdaherȱalsȱReflexeȱderȱvollȱ
ausgebildetenȱ samaritanischenȱ Glaubenslehre,ȱ mithinȱ alsȱ sekundär.ȱ
Klassischȱ istȱ dasȱ Urteilȱ vonȱ Wilhelmȱ Geseniusȱ inȱ seinerȱ bisȱ heuteȱ
einflussreichenȱUntersuchungȱdesȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchsȱzuȱdenȱ
ZusätzenȱamȱEndeȱdesȱDekalogsȱundȱzumȱBergȱGarizimȱinȱDtȱ27,4:ȱ
1ȱ TOV,ȱCriticism,ȱ84Ȭ85.94.ȱ
2ȱ SANDERSON,ȱScroll;ȱSKEHANȱ/ȱULRICHȱ/ANDERSON,ȱQumran,ȱ53Ȭ130ȱTafelnȱVIIȬXXXIII.ȱȱ
3ȱȱ TOV,ȱCriticismȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ1)ȱ97Ȭ100;ȱTOV,ȱHandschriften,ȱ18Ȭ19;ȱTOV,ȱScriptures,ȱ833;ȱ
MARGAIN,ȱSamaritain,ȱ769Ȭ770.ȱ
106 AdrianȱSchenker
ȱ„...ȱ deniqueȱ ponimusȱ famosissimamȱ illamȱ textusȱ hebraeiȱ adulterationem,ȱ

quaeȱ estȱ Deut.ȱ 27,4ȱ (cf.ȱ pericopasȱ postȱ Exod.ȱ 20,17ȱ etȱ Deut.ȱ 5,21ȱ inȱ codiceȱ
samaritanoȱinsertas),ȱeoȱconsilioȱsusceptam,ȱutȱcultuiȱSamaritanorumȱdomestiȬ
coȱinȱmonteȱGarizimȱinstitutoȱcolorȱquaeraturȱetȱauctoritas“4.ȱ
Esȱ warȱ aberȱ schonȱ zuȱ Gesenius’ȱ Zeitȱ eineȱ nichtȱ vonȱ allenȱ Forschernȱ
geteilteȱ Ansicht.ȱ Soȱ hatteȱ Benjaminȱ Kennicott,ȱ derȱ berühmteȱ HerausȬ
geberȱderȱerstenȱhebräischenȱBibelȱmitȱkritischemȱApparatȱzumȱKonsoȬ
nantentext,ȱ dieȱ gegenteiligeȱ Ansichtȱ vertreten,ȱ derȱ Garizimȱ seiȱ inȱ Dtȱ
27,4ȱdieȱursprünglicheȱLesart,ȱwelcheȱimȱmassoretischenȱPentateuchȱzuȱ
Ebalȱ abgeändertȱ wordenȱ sei5.ȱ Dasȱ Hauptargumentȱ fürȱ denȱ samaritaȬ
nischenȱ Ursprungȱ derȱ Lesartȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ warȱ dasȱ völligeȱ Fehlenȱ
derselbenȱinȱderȱGesamtheitȱderȱnichtȬsamaritanischenȱTextzeugenȱderȱ
Bibel.ȱ Kennicottȱ vermochteȱ trotzȱ seinenȱ Bemühungenȱ demȱ Gewichtȱ
dieserȱ Tatsacheȱ nichtsȱ wirklichȱ Triftigesȱ entgegenzusetzen.ȱ Erȱ kannteȱ
nochȱ nichtȱ dieȱ HeptateuchȬHandschriftȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latinaȱ ausȱ Lyon,ȱ dieȱ
1881ȱ undȱ 1900ȱ vonȱ Ulysseȱ Robertȱ veröffentlichtȱ wurde6.ȱ Dieseȱ lateiȬ
nischeȱHandschrift,ȱeineȱUnzialeȱausȱderȱ2.ȱHälfteȱdesȱ6.ȱJh.,ȱwurdeȱinȱ
Lyonȱ oderȱ inȱ derȱ Nachbarschaftȱ geschrieben7.ȱ Sieȱ enthältȱ einenȱ euroȬ
päischenȱ Textȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latina.ȱ Einȱ direkterȱ Kontaktȱ zwischenȱ demȱ
gallischen,ȱ lateinischsprachigenȱ Kopistenȱ dieserȱ Handschriftȱ undȱ derȱ
hebräischȬȱ undȱ aramäischsprachigenȱ Gemeindeȱ derȱ Samaritanerȱ imȱ
VorderenȱOrientȱistȱwohlȱausgeschlossen.ȱDieȱVetusȱLatinaȱwurdeȱwahrȬ
scheinlichȱumȱ200ȱn.Chr.ȱinȱNordafrikaȱalsȱeineȱlateinischeȱGesamtüberȬ
setzungȱderȱgriechischenȱBibelȱderȱSeptuagintaȱgeschaffen,ȱvonȱwoȱsieȱ
nachȱItalien,ȱGallienȱundȱSpanienȱgebrachtȱwurde8.ȱDaȱwarȱsieȱwieȱauchȱ
imȱ Ursprungslandȱ Nordafrikaȱ Veränderungenȱ ausgesetzt,ȱ weilȱ sieȱ
sprachlichȱretuschiertȱundȱgriechischenȱBibelhandschriftenȱangeglichenȱ
wurde.ȱInȱdiesenȱLändernȱsindȱKontakteȱderȱchristlichenȱHerausgeberȱ
undȱ Schreiberȱ lateinischerȱ Spracheȱ mitȱ Samaritanernȱ aramäischȬheȬ
bräischerȱSpracheȱnichtȱleichtȱdenkbar.ȱDieȱVulgataȱliestȱinȱDtȱ27,4ȱEbalȱ
wieȱdieȱmassoretischeȱBibel.ȱDerȱlateinischeȱKopistȱdesȱLyonerȱHeptaȬ
4ȱȱ GESENIUS,ȱ Pentateuchi,ȱ 61ȱ (inȱ Übersetzung:ȱ „...ȱ endlichȱ führenȱ wirȱ dieȱ berühmtesteȱ
Verfälschungȱ desȱ hebräischenȱ Textesȱ an.ȱ Sieȱ stehtȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,4.ȱ Zuȱ dieserȱ vergleicheȱ
manȱ dieȱ hinterȱ Exȱ 20,17ȱ undȱ Dtȱ 5,21ȱ inȱ denȱ samaritanischenȱ Textȱ eingeführtenȱ
Passagen.ȱ Dieseȱ Textänderungȱ [Dtȱ 27,4]ȱ wurdeȱ zuȱ demȱ Zweckeȱ eingetragen,ȱ umȱ
demȱ aufȱ ihremȱ eigenenȱ Bergeȱ Garizimȱ eingerichtetenȱ Kultȱ derȱ Samaritanerȱ denȱ
AnscheinȱderȱBerechtigungȱzuȱverleihen“).ȱȱ
5ȱȱ KENNICOTT,ȱState,ȱ1Ȭ102,ȱbes.ȱ28Ȭ29.ȱ
6ȱȱ ROBERT,ȱPentateuchi;ȱROBERT,ȱHeptateuchi,ȱ30ȱ(inȱMonteȱGarizin).ȱ
7ȱȱ GRYSON,ȱHandschriften,ȱ159Ȭ160.ȱ
8ȱȱ BOGAERT,ȱBibles,ȱ514Ȭ517.ȱ
ȱ TextgeschichtlichesȱzumȱSamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱundȱSamareitikon 107ȱ
teuchȱwarȱauchȱnichtȱdurchȱdenȱParalleltextȱvonȱJosuaȱ8,30ȱbeeinflusst,ȱ
dennȱ dortȱ heißtȱ derȱ Bergȱ „Ebal“,ȱ nichtȱ Garizim9,ȱ obschonȱ dasȱ
VerhältnisȱdieserȱbeidenȱAbschnitteȱdasȱvonȱBefehlȱ(Dtȱ27)ȱundȱBefehlsȬ
ausführungȱ(Josȱ8)ȱist.ȱDieȱDifferenzȱzwischenȱbeidenȱStellenȱimȱLugduȬ
nensis:ȱGarizimȱinȱDtȱ27,4ȱundȱEbalȱinȱJosȱ8,30,ȱistȱdaherȱtextkritischȱvielȱ
eherȱ ursprünglichȱ alsȱdieȱAngleichungȱderȱ beidenȱ Stellenȱ inȱderȱFormȱ
„Ebal“ȱimȱmassoretischenȱTextȱundȱinȱderȱSeptuaginta.ȱȱ
DieȱVetusȱLatinaȱistȱeinȱZeugeȱderȱSeptuaginta,ȱdaȱsieȱdieȱlateinischeȱ
Übersetzungȱ derselbenȱ darstellt.ȱ Innerhalbȱ derȱ Textzeugenȱ derȱ
SeptuagintaȱbelegtȱdieȱVetusȱLatinaȱvonȱLyonȱinȱDtȱ27,4ȱalleinȱdieȱLesartȱ
„BergȱGarizim“.ȱAusȱzweiȱGründenȱdürfteȱsieȱtrotzdemȱderȱursprüngȬ
lichenȱLesartȱderȱSeptuagintaȱentsprechen.ȱErstensȱistȱsieȱimȱVergleichȱ
mitȱ Josȱ 8,30ȱ dieȱ nichtȱ angeglicheneȱ Textform,ȱ undȱ zweitensȱ decktȱ sieȱ
sichȱ mitȱ derȱ Lesartȱ desȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuch,ȱ vonȱ demȱ sieȱ allerȱ
Wahrscheinlichkeitȱnachȱunabhängigȱist.ȱDieȱursprünglicheȱSeptuaginȬ
taȱ stammtȱ ausȱ demȱ 3.ȱ Jh.ȱ v.Chr.,ȱ wieȱ allgemeinȱ angenommenȱ wird10.ȱ
Darausȱ folgt,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ wohlȱ imȱ 3.ȱ Jh.ȱ inȱ derȱ
VorlageȱdesȱSeptuagintaübersetzersȱstand.ȱ
ZweiȱvoneinanderȱunabhängigeȱZeugen,ȱderȱsamaritanischeȱPentaȬ
teuchȱundȱdieȱursprünglicheȱSeptuaginta,ȱvonȱdenenȱletztereȱauchȱkeinȱ
theologischesȱ (oderȱ wennȱ manȱ lieberȱ will:ȱ ideologisches)ȱ Interesseȱ amȱ
Garizimȱ hatte,ȱ bildenȱ einȱ sehrȱ starkesȱ Argumentȱ zugunstenȱ derȱ UrȬ
sprünglichkeitȱderȱLesartȱ„BergȱGarizim“ȱinȱDtȱ27,4.ȱAusȱdiesemȱGrundȱ
betrachtenȱEmanuelȱTovȱundȱCarmelȱMcCarthyȱdieseȱLesartȱvorsichtigȱ
alsȱursprünglicherȱalsȱjeneȱderȱmassoretischenȱTextform11.ȱȱ
Vielleichtȱ istȱ übrigensȱ inȱ Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ 19ȱ einȱ weiteresȱ SeptuaȬ
gintaȬZeugnisȱ mitȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ enthalten,ȱ aberȱ diesesȱ istȱ wohlȱ
samaritanischerȱHerkunft12.ȱDiesȱwirdȱsogleichȱimȱfolgendenȱAbschnittȱ
deutlichȱwerden.ȱȱ
9ȱȱ SCHENKER,ȱSeptante,ȱ142Ȭ144.ȱ
10ȱȱ DINES,ȱSeptuagint,ȱ41Ȭ42;ȱBOGAERTȱ/ȱBOTTE,ȱSeptante,ȱ538Ȭ539;ȱJELLICOE,ȱSeptuagint,ȱ
55.ȱ–ȱDieȱkritischeȱAusgabeȱvonȱWEVERS,ȱDeuteronomium,ȱadȱloc.,ȱzitiertȱdieȱLesartȱ
desȱ Lugdunensisȱ imȱ Apparat,ȱ hältȱ aberȱ anȱ derȱ Lesartȱ „Ebal“ȱ alsȱ derȱ ursprünglichenȱ
SeptuagintaȬLesartȱ fest.ȱ DOGNIEZȱ /ȱ HARL,ȱ Bible,ȱ 280,ȱ erwähnenȱ denȱ Lugdunensisȱ
nichtȱundȱerklären,ȱderȱsamaritanischeȱPentateuchȱhabeȱEbalȱdurchȱGarizimȱersetzt.ȱȱ
11ȱȱ TOV,ȱCriticismȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ1)ȱ95,ȱAnm.ȱ67;ȱMCCARTHY,ȱDeuteronomy,ȱ75.122*Ȭ123*.ȱ
12ȱȱ GLAUEȱ/ȱ RAHLFS,ȱFragmente,ȱ29Ȭ68;ȱTOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessen,ȱ355Ȭ383ȱ=ȱTOV,ȱBibleȱ,ȱ459Ȭ475ȱ
(hierȱnachȱRBȱzitiert);ȱRAHLFS,ȱVerzeichnis,ȱ131Ȭ133ȱ(derȱPapyrusȱstammtȱausȱdemȱ5.ȱ
od.ȱ 6.ȱ Jh.ȱ undȱ trägtȱ dieȱ Nr.ȱ 884ȱ desȱ Verzeichnissesȱ vonȱ Rahlfs).ȱ Nachȱ demȱ LugduȬ
nensisȱ stehtȱ inȱ monteȱ garzin,ȱ dasȱ demȱ griech.ȱ Ausdruckȱ πΑȱ ϷΕΉ΍ȱ ̆.ȱ entspricht,ȱ
währendȱinȱPap.ȱGiessenȱdasȱhebräischeȱharȱtransliteriertȱist.ȱDieȱgriechischeȱVorlageȱ
warȱ hierȱ einȱ transliterierterȱ Name,ȱ wohlȱ inȱ einemȱ Wortȱ (h)argarizim.ȱ TOV,ȱ Pap.ȱ
Alsȱ Ergebnisȱ seiȱ festgehalten,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ desȱ samaritanischenȱ

Pentateuchsȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,4ȱ derȱ ursprünglichenȱ Textgestaltȱ
entspricht,ȱ währendȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ „Bergȱ Ebal“ȱ imȱ MTȱ eineȱ theologischeȱ
Korrekturȱ darstellt.ȱ Dieȱ Übereinstimmungȱ zwischenȱ demȱ samaritaȬ
nischenȱPentateuchȱundȱderȱursprünglichenȱSeptuaginta,ȱdieȱanȱdieserȱ
Stelleȱ nurȱ nochȱ inȱ einemȱ Textzeugen,ȱ nämlichȱ inȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latinaȱ
erhaltenȱist,ȱführtȱzuȱdiesemȱSchluss.ȱȱ
2.ȱDerȱPapyrusȱGiessenȱ19ȱundȱdasȱSamareitikonȱȱ
InȱderȱBibliaȱHebraicaȱQuintaȱhatȱdieȱHerausgeberinȱdesȱBuchesȱDeuteroȬ
nomium,ȱ Carmelȱ McCarthy,ȱ alsȱ LXXȬZeugenȱ eineȱ griechischeȱ HandȬ
schriftȱ alsȱ Textzeugenȱ fürȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ angeführt13.ȱ Sieȱ
beziehtȱsichȱaufȱdenȱPapyrusȱGiessenȱ1914.ȱDiesesȱPapyrusblattȱstammtȱ
ausȱ derȱ Näheȱ vonȱ Antinoopolisȱ undȱ istȱ aufȱ Grundȱ derȱ Palaeographieȱ
insȱ5.ȱJh.ȱn.Chr.ȱ(Glaue)ȱoderȱ6.ȱJh.ȱ(Rahlfs)ȱzuȱdatieren.ȱEsȱistȱamȱEndeȱ
desȱ Zweitenȱ Weltkriegesȱ zerstörtȱ worden.ȱ Esȱ sindȱ jedochȱ Fotografienȱ
vonȱ Peterȱ Glaueȱ undȱ Alfredȱ Rahlfsȱ vorhanden.ȱ McCarthyȱ betrachtetȱ
denȱPapyrusȱalsȱTextzeugenȱderȱLXX.ȱInȱdieserȱAnnahmeȱfolgtȱsieȱEmaȬ
nuelȱTov,ȱderȱdiesesȱBlattȱ1971ȱnochȱeinmalȱeingehendȱuntersuchtȱhat,ȱ
Giessen,ȱ 373ȱ Anm.ȱ 20,ȱ räumtȱ ein,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ Zeugenȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,12ȱ harȱ
Gerizimȱ nichtȱ transliteriertȱ haben,ȱ währendȱ derȱ Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ auchȱ hierȱ dieȱ
transliterierteȱFormȱbietet.ȱ—ȱTOV,ȱ Bible,ȱunterscheidetȱ sichȱ vonȱ TOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessen:ȱ
leichtȱ gekürzteȱ Fassung,ȱ veränderteȱ Formulierungenȱ undȱ dreiȱ wichtigeȱ UnterȬ
schiede:ȱ1.ȱPap.ȱGiessenȱ19,4ȱrecto,ȱZ.ȱ18ȱ(=ȱZ.ȱ4ȱdesȱFragments)ȱlautetȱΉ]Δ΍ ΅Δ:ȱTOV,ȱ
Bible,ȱ 462,ȱ aberȱ Ή]Δ΍ ar:ȱ TOV,ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessen,ȱ 359.ȱ Nachȱ derȱ Fotografieȱ beiȱ GLAUEȱ /ȱ
RAHLFSȱundȱTOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessen,ȱ(nichtȱreproduziertȱinȱTOV,ȱ Bible)ȱistȱdieȱLektüreȱ΅Εȱ
sozusagenȱsicher.ȱDamitȱgibtȱesȱdenȱNamenȱ΅Εȱ·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱoderȱ΅Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱzweimalȱinȱ
Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ (Dtȱ 27,4,12);ȱ 2.ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ 19,2ȱ verso,ȱ linkeȱ Hälfte,ȱ Z.ȱ 13ȱ ΗΙΑΉΘΓΙ:ȱ
TOV,ȱ Bible,ȱ 461,ȱ aberȱ ΗΙΑΉΘΓΙΖ:ȱ TOV,ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessen,ȱ 358ȱ =ȱ Fotografieȱ beiȱ GLAUEȱ /ȱ
RAHLFS.ȱΗΙΑΉΘΓΙΖȱistȱklarȱdieȱrichtigeȱLesart.ȱ3.ȱTOV,ȱBible,ȱ459,ȱfügtȱeinenȱAusdruckȱ
ein,ȱderȱinȱTOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessen,ȱfehlte:ȱ„...ȱrevision(s),ȱpossiblyȱofȱSamaritanȱorigin...“,ȱ
i.e.ȱTOVȱerachtetȱesȱalsȱmöglich,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱumȱeinenȱsamaritanischenȱRevisorȱderȱ
LXXȱhandelt,ȱobwohlȱinȱseinerȱKonklusionȱ(TOV,ȱ Bible,ȱ473Ȭ474;ȱTOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessen,ȱ
376Ȭ377)ȱ steht:ȱ „(Theȱ viewȱ that)ȱ P.ȱ G(iessen)ȱ representsȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ
LXX...ȱ isȱ moreȱ problematicalȱ (thanȱ theȱ viewȱ that)ȱ P.ȱ G(iessen)ȱ isȱ aȱ revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ
LXX,ȱandȱnotȱaȱSamaritanȱdocument“ȱ(HervorhebeungȱA.S.).ȱȱ
ȱ TOV,ȱ Bible,ȱ hältȱ dieȱ Deutungȱ desȱ Textesȱ vonȱ Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ alsȱ samaritanischeȱ
RezensionȱfürȱeherȱmöglichȱalsȱimȱJahrȱ1971.ȱDieseȱAkzentverschiebungȱwurdeȱwohlȱ
durchȱReinhardȱPUMMER,ȱSamareitikon,ȱveranlasst,ȱsieheȱAnm.ȱ21.ȱ
13ȱȱ SieheȱAnm.ȱ11.ȱȱ
14ȱ SieheȱAnm.ȱ12.ȱ
nachdemȱ esȱ Glaueȱ undȱ Rahlfsȱ 1911ȱ zumȱ erstenȱ Malȱ veröffentlichtȱ
hatten15.ȱInȱdieserȱErstveröffentlichungȱhattenȱdieȱbeidenȱGelehrtenȱdasȱ
Blattȱ alsȱ Teilȱ desȱ Samareitikonȱ betrachtet,ȱ dasȱ heißtȱ derȱ verlorenenȱ
griechischenȱ Übersetzungȱ desȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchs,ȱ dieȱ
Origenesȱ erwähnt16,ȱ undȱ vonȱ derȱ umȱ 43ȱ Randlesartenȱ inȱ LXXȬHandȬ
schriftenȱerhaltenȱsind17.ȱTovȱbestrittȱdieseȱIdentifikationȱdesȱGiessenerȱ
Papyrusȱ mitȱ demȱ insȱ Griechischeȱ übersetztenȱ Pentateuchȱ (demȱ SamaȬ
reitikonȱoderȱSamaritikon).ȱEsȱhandleȱsichȱvielmehrȱumȱeinenȱLXXȬText,ȱ
derȱrezensiertȱwurde.ȱEsȱseiȱwegenȱUnterschiedenȱzwischenȱdemȱhebȬ
räischenȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱundȱdemȱGiessenerȱPapyrusȱeherȱ
unwahrscheinlich,ȱ dassȱ esȱ eineȱ samaritanischeȱ Rezensionȱ sei18.ȱ Ihmȱ
schlossȱ sichȱ Detlefȱ Fraenkelȱ anȱ undȱ gabȱ demȱ Giessenerȱ Papyrusȱ eineȱ
NummerȱunterȱdenȱTextzeugenȱderȱSeptuaginta19.ȱAndersȱB.K.ȱWaltke,ȱ
derȱdasȱPapyrusȬBlattȱfürȱeinenȱZeugenȱdesȱSamareitikonȱhält20.ȱȱ
Dasȱ Hauptargumentȱ vonȱ Glaueȱ undȱ Rahlfsȱ warȱ dieȱ transliterierteȱ
Lesartȱ argarizinȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,4ȱ undȱ 27,12ȱ gewesen,ȱ seiȱ esȱ alsȱ einȱ Wortȱ geȬ
schrieben,ȱ seiȱ esȱ inȱzweiȱWörtern.ȱ (Derȱ Papyrusȱlässtȱ inȱ diesemȱPunktȱ
wohlȱkeineȱsichereȱEntscheidungȱzu.)ȱȱ
Nebenȱ diesenȱ beidenȱ Stellenȱ wirdȱ derȱ Garizimȱ nochȱ inȱ Josȱ 8,33ȱ
(LXXȱAusgabeȱBrookeȬMcLean,ȱCambridge:ȱJosȱ9,6;ȱAusgabeȱRahlfsȱJosȱ
9,2d)ȱundȱRiȱ9,7ȱerwähnt.ȱInȱderȱmassoretischenȱBibelȱkommtȱderȱNameȱ
Garizimȱ nurȱ anȱ diesenȱ vierȱ Stellenȱ vor.ȱ Erȱ istȱ immerȱ mitȱ har,ȱ Bergȱ
verbunden:ȱ harȱ Gerizim.ȱ Dieȱ LXXȱ überträgtȱ mitȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“,ȱ o;roȢ
15ȱȱ SieheȱAnm.ȱ12.ȱȱ
16ȱȱ FIELD,ȱOrigenis,ȱlxxxiiȬlxxxivȱ=ȱNORTON,ȱField’sȱProlegomena,ȱ154Ȭ156;ȱWASSERSTEIN,ȱ
Samareitikon,ȱ209Ȭ210.ȱ
17ȱȱ TOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessenȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12)ȱ355.ȱ
18ȱȱ TOV,ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ (wieȱ Anm.ȱ 12)ȱ 374Ȭ377.ȱ Hauptargumentȱ istȱ Deutȱ 27,22.23.24,ȱ woȱ
Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ dreimalȱ (inȱ einerȱ gleichenȱ Formel!)ȱ gegenȱ denȱ samaritantischenȱ
Pentateuchȱ mitȱ demȱ MTȱ übereinstimmt.ȱ Eineȱ samaritanischeȱ Rezensionȱ hätteȱ dieȱ
Übereinstimmungȱ mitȱ demȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchȱ hergestellt.ȱ Dasȱ Argumentȱ
istȱnichtȱeindeutig.ȱDieȱFormelȱwirdȱinȱDtȱ27,15Ȭ26ȱ12xȱwiederholt.ȱEsȱhandeltȱsichȱ
daherȱ umȱ eineȱ einzige,ȱ nichtȱ umȱ dreiȱ Varianten.ȱ MTȱ hatȱ immerȱ denȱ Singular,ȱ
samaritanischerȱ Pentateuchȱ undȱ LXXȱ immerȱ denȱ Plural,ȱ aberȱ LXXȱ mitȱ zahlreichenȱ
Zeugen,ȱ dieȱ denȱ Singularȱ bieten.ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ kannȱ hierȱ eineȱ Vorlageȱ mitȱ Singularȱ
gelesenȱ haben.ȱ Inȱ Dtȱ 24,15ȱ (Artikelȱ vorȱ „Väter“),ȱ 24,19ȱ (Genetivȱ „deinesȱ Ackers“ȱ
stattȱ„inȱdeinemȱAcker“);ȱ27,24ȱ(griechischerȱArtikelȱvorȱdemȱPartizipȱΘϾΔΘΝΑȱohneȱ
Entsprechungȱ imȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuch)ȱ usw.ȱ hatȱ derȱ Rezensentȱ ebenfallsȱ
seinenȱ vorliegendenȱ griechischenȱ Textȱ übernommen,ȱ ohneȱ ihnȱ vollständigȱ anȱ denȱ
samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchȱ anzugleichen.ȱ Keineȱ Rezensionȱ istȱ überallȱ undȱ immerȱ
konsequent.ȱ
19ȱȱ SieheȱobenȱAnm.ȱ12.ȱEsȱistȱdieȱNr.ȱ884.ȱȱ
20ȱȱ SoȱWALTKE,ȱPentateuch,ȱ935,ȱwieȱschonȱWALTKE,ȱSamaritanȱPentateuch,ȱ212Ȭ240.ȱ
Garizi,n.ȱ Sieȱ transliteriertȱ dieseȱ Wendungȱ nirgends,ȱ wederȱ inȱ einem,ȱ

nochȱinȱzweiȱWörtern.ȱDieȱVetusȱLatinaȱliestȱinȱÜbereinstimmungȱdamitȱ
inȱDtȱ27,4ȱundȱ27,12ȱmonsȱGarizin21.ȱDieȱTransliterierungȱimpliziertȱwohlȱ
dasȱ Verständnisȱ derȱ ganzenȱ Wendungȱ alsȱ einȱ einzigesȱ Toponym.ȱ Dieȱ
transliterierteȱLesartȱargarizinȱimȱGiessenerȱPapyrusȱentsprichtȱdemgeȬ
mäßȱnichtȱderȱSeptuagintaȱinȱDeuteronomiumȱundȱJosua.ȱ2Makkȱ5,23;ȱ
6,2ȱ bietetȱ denȱ Namenȱ inȱ Umschrift.ȱ Aberȱ 2Makkabäerȱ istȱ keineȱ ÜberȬ
setzungȱausȱdemȱHebräischen,ȱsondernȱeinȱgriechischȱverfasstesȱBuch,ȱ
dasȱ nichtsȱ überȱ dieȱ Übersetzungsweiseȱ derȱ LXXȱ inȱ derȱ hebräischenȱ
Bibelȱ erkennenȱ lässt.ȱ Dieȱ Umschriftȱ a`rgarizi,nȱ müsste,ȱ wennȱ dieserȱ
Papyrusȱ nachȱ Tovsȱ Ansichtȱ eineȱ SeptuagintaȬRezensionȱ darstellenȱ
sollte,ȱ aufȱ dasȱ Kontoȱ desȱ Revisorsȱ gebuchtȱ werden22.ȱ Dieserȱ Umstandȱ
machtȱ dieȱ Wahrscheinlichkeitȱ groß,ȱ dassȱ derȱ demgemäßȱ imȱ Giessenerȱ
Blattȱ anzunehmendeȱ Revisorȱ selbstȱ einȱ Samaritanerȱ war,ȱ weilȱ dieȱ
Samaritanerȱ dieȱ Wendungȱ harȱ Gerizimȱ alsȱ einȱ Wort,ȱ dasȱ heißtȱ alsȱ einȱ
einzigesȱToponymȱzuȱschreibenȱpflegten23.ȱ
Zurȱ Begründungȱ seinerȱ Auffassung,ȱ dassȱ dasȱ Giessenerȱ PapyrusȬ
blattȱ eineȱ nichtȬsamaritanischeȱ Rezensionȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ enthalte,ȱ
verweistȱ Tovȱ mitȱ Rechtȱ aufȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latinaȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,424.ȱ
Dieseȱ istȱ sicherȱ nichtȱ samaritanischȱ undȱ beweistȱ daherȱ mitȱ hohemȱ
Wahrscheinlichkeitsgrad,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ „Bergȱ Garizim“ȱ ursprüngȬ
21ȱȱ PUMMER,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Α,ȱ25,ȱbehauptet,ȱinȱHsȱ127ȱ(Moskau,ȱSynodalbibliothek,ȱ1.ȱHälfteȱ
10.ȱJh.)ȱsteheȱdieȱTranskription.ȱDasȱscheintȱaberȱnichtȱzuzutreffen,ȱdennȱdortȱlautetȱ
dieȱLesartȱevn o;rei gargarizeƭn.ȱ(IchȱdankeȱHerrnȱDr.ȱLucianoȱBOSSINA,ȱderȱdieȱLesartȱ
fürȱmichȱinȱderȱHsȱkontrolliertȱhat.)ȱDieȱWiederholungȱderȱdreiȱerstenȱBuchstabenȱistȱ
eherȱ alsȱ Dittographieȱ zuȱ beurteilen,ȱ dennȱ eineȱ Dubletteȱ o;roȢ garizi,n a`rgarizi,nȱ
(WendungȱderȱLXXȱplusȱtransliterierteȱForm)ȱistȱwohlȱkaumȱanzunehmen.ȱInȱ2Makkȱ
5,23;ȱ6,2ȱfindetȱsichȱdieȱtransliterierteȱFormȱa`rgarizi,n,ȱKAPPELERȱ /ȱHANHART,ȱMaccaȬ
baeorum,ȱ 69Ȭ70.ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Samareitikon,ȱ 393Ȭ397,ȱ folgtȱ TOVȱ inȱ derȱ Beurteilungȱ desȱ
Pap.ȱGiessen,ȱaberȱmitȱwichtigenȱErgänzungen:ȱdasȱSamareitikonȱistȱkeineȱÜbersetȬ
zungȱ desȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchtargums;ȱ esȱ kannȱ sehrȱ wohlȱ dieȱ Übersetzungȱ
desȱ samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchsȱ seinȱ undȱ vorȱ allem:ȱ esȱ kannȱ eineȱ samaritanischeȱ
RezensionȱderȱLXXȱsein,ȱS.ȱ414Ȭ5,ȱ417:ȱ„…whileȱthereȱisȱnoȱconclusiveȱproofȱthatȱtheȱ
Fragmentsȱ (i.e.ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessen)ȱ areȱ Samaritan,ȱ theȱ apparentȱ counterȬpoints,ȱ onȱ theȱ
otherȱ hand,ȱ doȱ notȱ excludeȱ Samaritanȱ provenance“ȱ (Hervorhebungȱ A.S.).ȱ Meinesȱ
Erachtensȱ istȱ derȱ transliterierteȱ Nameȱ inȱ einerȱ LXXȬRezensionȱ argarizinȱ einȱ Beweisȱ
fürȱdenȱsamaritanischenȱUrsprung.ȱ
22ȱȱ TOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessenȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12),ȱ363Ȭ372.ȱ
23ȱȱ GLAUEȱ /ȱ RAHLFS,ȱFragmenteȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12)ȱ47Ȭ48,ȱrelativierendȱPUMMER,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱ
(wieȱ Anm.ȱ 21)ȱ 25:ȱ dieȱ Schreibweiseȱ inȱ einemȱ Wortȱ istȱ einȱ Indikator,ȱ aberȱ keinȱ
absoluterȱBeweisȱsamaritanischerȱHerkunft.ȱAberȱdieȱTatsacheȱbleibtȱbestehen,ȱdassȱ
esȱ inȱ derȱ eigentlichenȱ LXXȱ (dasȱ heißtȱ inȱ derȱ griechischenȱ Übersetzungȱ derȱ
hebräischenȱBibel)ȱkeinȱZeugnisȱfürȱdieȱUmschriftȱa`rgarizi,nȱoderȱa]r garizi,nȱgibt.ȱ
24ȱȱ TOV,ȱPap.ȱGiessenȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12),ȱ373Ȭ375.ȱ
licherȱ istȱ alsȱ dieȱ massoretischeȱ mitȱ demȱ „Bergȱ Ebal“.ȱ Dochȱ unterȬ
scheidetȱsichȱdieȱVetusȱLatinaȱvomȱGiessenerȱBruchstückȱdarin,ȱdassȱsieȱ
denȱ Ausdruckȱ „Berg“ȱ übersetztȱ undȱ nurȱ dasȱ Toponymȱ Garizimȱ
transliteriert,ȱwährendȱderȱPapyrusȱdasȱWortȱ„Berg“ȱalsȱBestandteilȱdesȱ
Ortsnamensȱ verstehtȱ undȱ daherȱ beideȱ Wörter,ȱ harȱ undȱ Gerizimȱ transȬ
kribiert:ȱargarizin.ȱDasȱistȱinȱderȱSeptuagintaȱnieȱderȱFall!ȱȱ
DeshalbȱliegtȱderȱSchlussȱtrotzȱTovȱundȱPummer25ȱnahe,ȱdassȱdieserȱ
Ausdruckȱ mitȱ Glaueȱ undȱ Rahlfsȱ alsȱ Signaturȱ einerȱ samaritanischenȱ
Handȱzuȱbetrachtenȱist.ȱAberȱistȱesȱdieȱHandȱdesȱÜbersetzersȱdesȱSamaȬ
reitikon,ȱwieȱGlaueȱundȱRahlfsȱglauben,ȱoderȱeinesȱRevisorsȱderȱSeptuaȬ
ginta,ȱ wieȱ Tovȱ annimmt?ȱ Vielleichtȱ istȱ dieȱ Alternativeȱ falschȱ gestellt26.ȱ
Rezensionenȱ sindȱ vonȱ Übersetzungenȱ nichtȱ durchȱ eineȱ klareȱ undȱ
eindeutigeȱ Scheidelinieȱ getrennt.ȱ Theodotionȱ oderȱ dieȱ Quintaȱ (inȱ denȱ
Psalmen,ȱz.B.ȱinȱdenȱMercatischenȱFragmenten)ȱwürdeȱmanȱalsȱRezenȬ
sionenȱbezeichnenȱkönnen,ȱweilȱsieȱinȱWortschatzȱundȱSatzbauȱzuȱdreiȱ
ViertelnȱundȱmehrȱmitȱderȱSeptuagintaȱübereinstimmen.ȱWieȱistȱesȱmitȱ
SymmachusȱundȱAquila?ȱDerȱWortschatzȱundȱdieȱSyntaxȱdieserȱbeidenȱ
Bibeltexteȱ sindȱ zuȱ mehrȱ alsȱ 50%ȱ vonȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ verschieden.ȱ
Dennochȱ istȱ esȱ unverkennbar,ȱ dassȱ beideȱ dieȱ Septuagintaȱ nebenȱ demȱ
protomassoretischenȱ Textȱ vorȱ Augenȱ haben,ȱ wennȱ sieȱ übersetzen.ȱ Inȱ
ihremȱ Fallȱ wirdȱ manȱ eherȱ vonȱ Übersetzungȱ alsȱ vonȱ Rezensionȱ spreȬ
chen.ȱȱ
Esȱ istȱ nichtȱ bekannt,ȱ wannȱ dasȱ Samareitikonȱ übertragenȱ wurde.ȱ
DochȱistȱdieȱVermutungȱgewissȱnichtȱabwegig,ȱdassȱdiesȱerstȱnachȱderȱ
Übersetzungȱ derȱ Toraȱ imȱ 3.ȱ Jh.ȱ v.Chr.ȱ inȱ Alexandrienȱ geschah.ȱ Esȱ istȱ
ebenfallsȱvernünftigȱanzunehmen,ȱdieseȱjüdischeȱÜbertragungȱhabeȱdieȱ
samaritanischeȱ angeregt.ȱ Dannȱ wirdȱ manȱ nichtȱ fehlgehenȱ inȱ derȱ
weiterenȱ Annahme,ȱ dassȱ derȱ samaritanischeȱ Übersetzerȱ dieȱ griechischeȱ
ÜbertragungȱderȱToraȱkonsultierte,ȱwährendȱerȱseinenȱsamaritanischenȱ
PentateuchȱausȱdemȱHebräischenȱübertrug.ȱErȱwäreȱnachȱalledemȱwieȱ
Symmachusȱ oderȱ Theodotionȱ gleichzeitigȱ einȱ Rezensentȱ alsȱ auchȱ einȱ
Übersetzer.ȱDennȱnachȱderȱSeptuagintaȬÜbertragungȱgabȱesȱwohlȱkeineȱ
griechischeȱ Übersetzungȱ derȱ Bibelȱ mehr,ȱ dieȱ nichtȱ mitȱ beständigemȱ
Blickȱaufȱsieȱgeschaffenȱwordenȱwäre.ȱ
DieȱTranskriptionȱdesȱNamensȱargarizinȱbeweistȱnunȱaber,ȱdassȱderȱ
Rezensentȱ undȱ Übersetzerȱ einȱ Samaritanerȱ war.ȱ Nimmtȱ manȱ an,ȱ erȱ
25ȱȱ PUMMER,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ21),ȱ23Ȭ24.ȱ
26ȱȱ GLAUEȱ /ȱ RAHLFS,ȱFragmenteȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12,)ȱbetonenȱemphatischȱmehrmals,ȱdassȱesȱ
sichȱ keinesfallsȱ umȱ eineȱ Rezensionȱ einesȱ Septuagintatextes,ȱ sondernȱ umȱ eineȱ selbȬ
ständigeȱÜbersetzungȱhandelt,ȱunerachtetȱderȱnichtȱzuȱleugnendenȱKontakteȱmitȱderȱ
Septuaginta,ȱGLAUEȱ/ȱRAHLFS,ȱFragmente,ȱ56Ȭ57.ȱ
habeȱ denȱ Septuagintatextȱ inȱ Dtȱ 27,4ȱ rezensiert,ȱ soȱ hatȱ erȱ dieȱ ausȱ zweiȱ
WörternȱbestehendeȱWendungȱderȱSeptuaginta,ȱ„Berg“ȱundȱ„Garizim“ȱ
(oderȱ eventuellȱ „Ebal“ȱ inȱ seinerȱ griechischenȱ Vorlage)ȱ inȱ einȱ einzigesȱ
Toponymȱargarizinȱumgewandelt,ȱseiȱesȱinȱzweiȱWörtern,ȱseiȱesȱinȱeinemȱ
einzigenȱ Wort,ȱ wasȱ dasȱ Wahrscheinlichereȱ ist.ȱ Nimmtȱ manȱ jedochȱ an,ȱ
derȱAutorȱhabeȱDtȱ27,4ȱausȱderȱhebräischenȱsamaritanischenȱToraȱüberȬ
tragen,ȱsoȱhatȱerȱharȱGerizimȱalsȱToponymȱaufgefasst,ȱdasȱerȱnichtȱüberȬ
setzte,ȱ sondernȱ transkribierte.ȱ Inȱ beidenȱ Fällenȱ istȱ dieȱ Lösungȱ nurȱ
vonseitenȱeinesȱSamaritanersȱeinleuchtend.ȱȱ
Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ 19ȱ stammtȱ demgemäßȱ vonȱ einemȱ Samaritaner,ȱ
gleichvielȱobȱmanȱdieȱÜbereinstimmungȱmitȱderȱLXXȱalsȱsoȱgewichtigȱ
einstuft,ȱ dassȱ er,ȱ ähnlichȱ wieȱ z.B.ȱ Theodotionȱ oderȱ dieȱ Quintaȱ imȱ
Psalter,ȱ dieȱ SeptuagintaȬVorlageȱ nurȱ sparsamȱ retuschiertȱ hat,ȱ oderȱ obȱ
manȱihnȱtrotzȱmanchenȱvonȱderȱLXXȱübernommenenȱWiedergabenȱalsȱ
eineȱselbständigeȱÜbersetzung,ȱähnlichȱwieȱz.B.ȱSymmachus,ȱbetrachtet.ȱ
Alsȱ samaritanischenȱ Textȱ sollteȱ manȱ ihnȱ jedochȱ vielleichtȱ besserȱ nichtȱ
unterȱdieȱeigentlichenȱTextzeugenȱderȱSeptuagintaȱeinreihen,ȱwieȱmanȱ
esȱjaȱauchȱmitȱTheodotionȱoderȱderȱQuintaȱnichtȱmacht.ȱȱ
Dieseȱ Sichtȱ desȱ Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ 19ȱ wirdȱ allenȱ vonȱ Glaue,ȱ Rahlfsȱ
undȱ Tovȱ beobachtetenȱ Phänomenenȱ amȱ ehestenȱ gerecht27,ȱ undȱ entȬ
sprichtȱ einerȱ griechischenȱ Übertragungȱ desȱ Pentateuch,ȱ dieȱ nachȱ derȱ
alexandrinischenȱÜbertragungȱgeschaffenȱwurde,ȱaufȱdieȱsieȱsichȱwohlȱ
stützte,ȱ aberȱ inȱ großerȱ Freiheit,ȱ wieȱ esȱ beiȱ Theodotion,ȱ derȱ Quinta,ȱ
SymmachusȱundȱAquilaȱinȱverschiedenemȱGradeȱzuȱbeobachtenȱist.ȱȱ
AlsȱErgebnisȱseiȱfestgehalten,ȱdassȱderȱGiessenerȱPapyrusȱ19ȱinȱDtȱ
27,4ȱ keineȱ vonȱ derȱ samaritanischenȱ Überlieferungȱ desȱ Textesȱ unabȬ
hängigeȱ Lesartȱ bietet,ȱ andersȱ alsȱ esȱ beiȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latinaȱ derȱ Fallȱ ist.ȱ
Fernerȱistȱfestzustellen,ȱdassȱdieserȱPapyrusȱdemȱSamareitikonȱsehrȱwohlȱ
entsprechenȱ kann,ȱ obschonȱ erȱ vonȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ beeinflusstȱ istȱ undȱ
stellenweiseȱ Charakteristikaȱ einerȱ Rezensionȱ derselbenȱ trägt.ȱ Dasȱ erȬ
klärtȱ sichȱ dadurch,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ erstmaligeȱ griechischeȱ Übertragungȱ derȱ
samaritanischenȱToraȱnichtȱvonȱnullȱausging,ȱsondernȱdieȱschonȱbesteȬ
hendeȱ jüdischeȱ Übersetzungȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ zuȱ Rateȱ zog,ȱ ohneȱ sieȱ
einfachȱ abzuschreiben.ȱ Manȱ kannȱ dasȱ Samareitikonȱ sowohlȱ eineȱ samaȬ
27ȱȱ SoȱerklärenȱsichȱjeneȱStellenȱimȱGiessenerȱPapyrus,ȱdieȱsichȱwederȱmitȱallenȱnochȱmitȱ
einemȱ Teilȱ derȱ SeptuagintaȬTextzeugenȱ deckenȱ undȱ dennochȱ nichtȱ alsȱ AngleiȬ
chungenȱanȱdenȱ MTȱoderȱanȱdenȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱerklärenȱlassen,ȱTOV,ȱ
Pap.ȱGiessenȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ12)ȱ368Ȭ372;ȱaberȱTOVȱhatȱnichtȱalleȱsolcheȱfürȱdenȱPapyrusȱ
spezifischenȱ Lesartenȱ verzeichnet;ȱ esȱ kommenȱ hinzuȱ Dtȱ 27,4ȱ cri,ein, cristh,rionȱ fürȱ
shîd,ȱ Verbȱ u.ȱ Nomen;ȱ 27,5ȱ parafe,reinȱ fürȱ nûfȱ hif;ȱ 25,7ȱ evboulh,qh;ȱ 24,19,21ȱ o[tanȱ undȱ
andereȱmehr.ȱ
ritanischeȱ Bearbeitungȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ alsȱ auchȱ eineȱ vonȱ derȱ SeptuaȬ
gintaȱbeeinflussteȱÜbersetzungȱderȱsamaritanischenȱToraȱnennen.ȱȱ
3.ȱEineȱandereȱsogenannteȱsamaritanischeȱKorrekturȱimȱ
LichteȱderȱursprünglichenȱSeptuagintaȱ
Jeanȱ Margainȱ hatȱ inȱ seinemȱ großenȱ Artikelȱ überȱ denȱ samaritanischenȱ
PentateuchȱimȱDictionnaireȱdeȱlaȱBibleȱSupplément28ȱdieȱVermutungȱausȬ
gesprochen,ȱdieȱWendung,ȱderȱGottȱIsraelsȱwerdeȱeinenȱOrtȱfürȱseinenȱ
Namenȱerwählen,ȱseiȱwieȱdieȱmassoretischeȱLesartȱinȱDtȱ27,4ȱebenfallsȱ
eineȱprotoȬmassoretischeȱKorrektur.ȱInȱderȱTatȱentsprichtȱihrȱimȱsamaȬ
ritanischenȱ Pentateuchȱ eineȱ Formulierung,ȱ dieȱ dasȱ Verbȱ imȱ Perfektȱ
liest:ȱ derȱ Gottȱ Israelsȱ hatȱ denȱ Ortȱ fürȱ seinenȱ Namenȱ bereitsȱ erwählt29.ȱ
Dieȱ Wendungȱ kommtȱ imȱ Deuteronomiumȱ einundzwanzigmalȱ vor30.ȱ
DieȱsamaritanischeȱUrheberschaftȱderȱKorrekturȱwirdȱdamitȱbegründet,ȱ
dassȱGottȱSichemȱinȱGenȱ12,6Ȭ7;ȱ33,18Ȭ20ȱbereitsȱerwähltȱhatte,ȱwährendȱ
Jerusalemȱ zuȱ demȱ Zeitpunkt,ȱ daȱ Israelȱ jenseitsȱ desȱ Jordansȱ inȱ denȱ
GefildenȱMoabsȱvorȱdemȱEinzugȱinsȱgelobteȱLandȱstand,ȱnochȱgarȱnichtȱ
alsȱ Stätteȱ desȱ einzigenȱ israelitischenȱ Heiligtumsȱ erwähltȱ war.ȱ Deshalbȱ
konnteȱ Moseȱ damalsȱ denȱ Namenȱ Jerusalemȱ nochȱ garȱ nichtȱ alsȱ dieȱ
künftigeȱStätteȱdesȱHeiligtumsȱnennen,ȱundȱinfolgedessenȱlagȱdieȱWahlȱ
derȱStätteȱfürȱdasȱeinzigeȱHeiligtumȱnochȱinȱderȱZukunft.ȱȱ
Wieȱ beiȱ denȱ meistenȱ textkritischenȱ Argumentenȱ sollteȱ nichtȱ überȬ
sehenȱ werden,ȱ dassȱ dasȱ Argumentȱ ebensoȱ gutȱ auchȱ inȱ dieȱ andereȱ
Richtungȱ gewendetȱ werdenȱ kann:ȱ weilȱ dasȱ Perfektȱ aufȱ eineȱ schonȱ
gescheheneȱ Wahlȱ desȱ Heiligtumsȱ zurückȱ verweist,ȱ dasȱ inȱ diesemȱ Fallȱ
jedenfallsȱnichtȱinȱJerusalemȱliegenȱkann,ȱdaȱderȱPentateuchȱdieseȱStadtȱ
nieȱ alsȱ denȱ vonȱ Gottȱ bestimmtenȱ Ortȱ vonȱ Israelsȱ künftigemȱ Tempelȱ
bezeichnet,ȱ habenȱ judäischeȱ Kreiseȱ dieȱ Vergangenheitȱ desȱ Verbumsȱ
„erwählte“ȱinȱdieȱZukunftȱumgewandelt:ȱ„erȱwirdȱerwählen“.ȱDennȱsoȱ
schufenȱsieȱRaumȱfürȱdieȱnochȱnichtȱgetroffene,ȱerstȱinȱ2Samȱ24ȱbevorȬ
stehendeȱ Wahlȱ Jerusalemsȱ alsȱ Stätteȱ desȱ Heiligtums.ȱ Dieȱ beidenȱ
28ȱȱ MARGAIN,ȱSamaritainȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ3),ȱ770.ȱ
29ȱȱ Dieserȱ Unterschiedȱ wirdȱ fastȱ allgemeinȱ alsȱ samaritanischeȱ theologischeȱ Korrekturȱ
interpretiert,ȱsoȱTAL,ȱLiterature,ȱ438;ȱTOV,ȱPentateuch,ȱ182;ȱTOV,ȱCriticismȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ
1)ȱ95;ȱMCCARTHY,ȱReadings,ȱ124;ȱMCCARTHY,ȱDeuteronomyȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ11)ȱ84*Ȭ85*;ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ21)ȱ25,ȱundȱandereȱmehr.ȱȱ
30ȱȱ DieȱFormelȱwurdeȱohneȱDiskussionȱderȱVarianteȱimȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱvonȱ
DEȱVAUX,ȱLieu,ȱ219Ȭ228;ȱRICHTER,ȱHistory,ȱinȱihremȱreligionsgeschichtlichenȱKontextȱ
untersucht.ȱ
Argumenteȱ wiegenȱ gleichȱ schwer,ȱ undȱ keinesȱ istȱ wahrscheinlicherȱ alsȱ

dasȱ andere.ȱ Dieȱ Entscheidungȱ könnteȱ nurȱ vonȱ außenȱ kommen,ȱ wennȱ
solideȱTextzeugenȱdieȱeineȱoderȱdieȱandereȱLesartȱalsȱursprünglichȱoderȱ
alsȱsekundärȱerweisen.ȱȱ
SolcheȱTextzeugenȱgibtȱesȱnunȱüberraschenderweise.ȱReinhardȱPumȬ
merȱhatteȱsieȱ1987ȱflüchtigȱundȱunklarȱangedeutet31.ȱErȱnannteȱfürȱvierȱ
derȱ einundzwanzigȱ Stellenȱ mitȱ derȱ Erwählungȱ desȱ Heiligtumsȱ einenȱ
Zeugenȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latinaȱ undȱ fürȱ eineȱ denȱ bohairischenȱ Pentateuch.ȱ
DieseȱAngabeȱhatteȱerȱinȱderȱneuenȱGöttingerȱAusgabeȱdesȱDeuteronoȬ
miumsȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ vonȱ Johnȱ Williamȱ Weversȱ gefunden32.ȱ Inȱ
WirklichkeitȱhatȱWeversȱausȱunerklärlichenȱGründenȱnichtȱdieȱGesamtȬ
heitȱ derȱ SeptuagintaȬVariantenȱ fürȱ dasȱ Verbȱ imȱ Präteritum,ȱ wieȱ esȱ imȱ
samaritanischenȱ Pentateuchȱ steht,ȱ inȱ seinemȱ Apparatȱ verzeichnet:ȱ „erȱ
hatȱerwählt“33.ȱHierȱsindȱalleȱStellen:ȱerstensȱgriechischeȱZeugenȱmitȱdemȱ
VerbȱimȱPräteritum:ȱ12,5;ȱ14,23(22);ȱ14,24(23);ȱ14,25(24)ȱinȱHsȱm;ȱ16,2ȱinȱ
Hsȱ 16.ȱ Zweitensȱ Zeugenȱ derȱ Vetusȱ Latina,ȱ dieȱ alsȱ lateinischeȱ ÜberȬ
setzungȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ einȱ Zeugeȱ derselbenȱ ist:ȱ 16,2;ȱ 16,7ȱ inȱ Hsȱ
Lugdunensisȱ 100;ȱ 17,10ȱ Zitatȱ beiȱ Luciferȱ vonȱ Cagliari,ȱ Deȱ Sanctoȱ AthaȬ
nasioȱ(fehltȱimȱApparatȱvonȱWevers).ȱDrittensȱbohairischeȱLesarten,ȱdieȱ
ebenfallsȱ derȱ altenȱ griechischenȱ Bibelȱ entsprechen,ȱ weilȱ derȱ koptischeȱ
Pentateuchȱ eineȱ Übersetzungȱ desȱ griechischenȱ Pentateuchsȱ ist:ȱ 12,5;ȱ
12,11ȱ(fehltȱinȱ denȱApparatenȱ vonȱ BrookeȬMcLeanȱundȱ Wevers);ȱ 12,14ȱ
(nichtȱinȱallenȱbohairischenȱTextzeugen);ȱ12,21;ȱ12,26ȱ(fehltȱbeiȱBrookeȬ
McLeanȱ undȱ Wevers);ȱ 14,23(22)ȱ (bezeugtȱ inȱ denȱ bestenȱ Hss;ȱ fehltȱ beiȱ
BrookeȬMcLeanȱ undȱ Wevers);ȱ 14,24(23)ȱ (fehltȱ beiȱ BrookeȬMcLeanȱ undȱ
Wevers);ȱ14,25(24)ȱ(fehltȱbeiȱBrookeȬMcLeanȱundȱWevers);ȱ16,7ȱ(besterȱ
koptischerȱ Text!ȱ Fehltȱ beiȱ BrookeȬMcLeanȱ undȱ Wevers);ȱ 17,8ȱ (einȱ Teilȱ
derȱ Hss;ȱ fehltȱ beiȱ Wevers);ȱ 17,10ȱ (fehltȱ beiȱ BrookeȬMcLeanȱ undȱ
Wevers).ȱȱ
Anȱ siebenȱ Stellenȱ findenȱ sichȱ fürȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ somitȱ jeweilsȱ zweiȱ
Zeugen:ȱ 12,5;ȱ 14,24(23);ȱ 14,24(23);ȱ 14,25(24);ȱ 16,2;ȱ 16,7;ȱ 17,10:ȱ jeȱ eineȱ
griechischeȱHandschriftȱundȱeinȱkoptischerȱoderȱlateinischerȱZeuge.ȱAnȱ
fünfȱ Stellenȱ bietetȱ einȱ einzigerȱ Zeugeȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ „(Gott)ȱ wählteȱ (einenȱ
OrtȱfürȱseinenȱNamen)ȱinȱderȱVergangenheit:ȱ12,11;ȱ12,14;ȱ12,21;ȱ12,26;ȱ
17,8.ȱAnȱinsgesamtȱzwölfȱStellenȱvonȱeinundzwanzigȱistȱdemgemäßȱdieȱ
LesartȱdesȱVerbsȱinȱderȱVergangenheitȱbezeugt.ȱȱ
31ȱȱ PUMMER,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Αȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ21)ȱ25.ȱ
32ȱȱ WEVERS,ȱDeuteronomium.ȱ
33ȱȱ DerȱdetaillierteȱNachweisȱbeiȱSCHENKER,ȱSeigneur.ȱ
Esȱ istȱ nunȱ textkritischȱ sehrȱ wahrscheinlich,ȱ dassȱ dieseȱ Lesartȱ derȱ
ursprünglichenȱ griechischenȱ Bibelȱ entspricht.ȱ Dafürȱ sprechenȱ dreiȱ
Gründe.ȱȱ
Erstensȱ handeltȱ esȱ sichȱ umȱ eineȱ formelhafteȱ Wendung,ȱ beiȱ derȱ
KopistenȱbesondersȱleichtȱzurȱVereinheitlichungȱneigen.ȱInȱallenȱdiesenȱ
griechischen,ȱlateinischenȱundȱkoptischenȱZeugenȱstehtȱinȱderȱeinundȬ
zwanzigmalȱwiederholtenȱFormelȱnebenȱdenȱvereinzeltenȱLesartenȱmitȱ
demȱVerbȱinȱderȱVergangenheitȱeineȱMehrzahlȱvonȱVerbenȱimȱFuturum.ȱ
Dasȱ Verbȱ imȱ Präteritumȱ stelltȱ demgemäßȱ dieȱ isoliertereȱ undȱ damitȱ
schwierigereȱFormȱdar.ȱȱ
ZweitensȱhatȱderȱDruckȱderȱAnpassungȱanȱdieȱmassoretischeȱBibelȱ
inȱderȱGeschichteȱdesȱgriechischenȱBibeltextesȱeineȱgroßeȱRolleȱgespielt.ȱ
DieȱLesartȱmitȱFuturumȱhatteȱdaherȱdenȱVorteilȱderȱIdentitätȱmitȱdemȱ
massoretischenȱText.ȱȱ
Drittensȱ istȱ esȱ eherȱ unwahrscheinlich,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ griechischenȱ undȱ
erstȱ rechtȱ dieȱ lateinischenȱundȱ koptischenȱ Schreiberȱvonȱ Samaritanernȱ
beeinflusstȱwaren.ȱDieȱgriechischen,ȱlateinischenȱundȱkoptischenȱKopisȬ
tenȱ habenȱ sichȱ ebenfallsȱ nichtȱ gegenseitigȱ kontaminiert.ȱ Dafürȱ istȱ dieȱ
Streuungȱ derȱ Lesartȱ mitȱ demȱ Verbȱ imȱ Futurumȱ zuȱ groß.ȱ Esȱ kannȱ sichȱ
gleichfallsȱ nichtȱ umȱ einenȱ zufälligen,ȱ punktuellenȱ Schreibfehlerȱ hanȬ
deln,ȱweilȱesȱderȱStellenȱundȱderȱverschiedenenȱZeugenȱzuȱvieleȱsind.ȱȱ
Schließlichȱmussȱhinzugefügtȱwerden,ȱdassȱinȱNehȱ1,9ȱdieseȱdeuteȬ
ronomischeȱFormelȱinȱKombinationȱmitȱDtȱ30,4ȱzitiertȱwird,ȱwobeiȱdasȱ
VerbȱimȱPräteritumȱsteht.ȱDiesesȱabgelegeneȱZitatȱhatȱsicherȱnichtȱdenȱ
samaritanischenȱPentateuchȱbeeinflusst,ȱundȱesȱistȱganzȱunwahrscheinȬ
lich,ȱ dassȱ esȱ dieȱ zwölfȱ griechischen,ȱ lateinischenȱ undȱ koptischenȱ
Lesartenȱ imȱ Deuteronomiumȱ mitȱ demȱ Verbȱ inȱ derȱ Vergangenheitȱ
verursachtȱ hätte.ȱ Hierȱ dasȱ Zitatȱ inȱ einemȱ Gebetȱ Nehemiasȱ ausȱ dessenȱ
gleichnamigenȱBuch:ȱȱ
„ErinnereȱdichȱdochȱdesȱWorts,ȱdasȱduȱMose,ȱdeinemȱDienerȱaufgetragenȱ
hast,ȱ alsȱduȱ sprachst:ȱ Handeltȱ ihrȱ treulos,ȱ werdeȱ ichȱ selbstȱ euchȱ unterȱ dieȱ
Völkerȱ zerstreuen!ȱ Kehrtȱ ihrȱ aberȱ zurückȱ zuȱ mir...:ȱ Wärenȱ eureȱ
VersprengtenȱamȱEndeȱdesȱHimmels,ȱwürdeȱichȱsieȱ...ȱanȱdieȱStätteȱbringen,ȱ
dieȱichȱerwähltȱhabe,ȱumȱmeinenȱNamenȱdortȱwohnenȱzuȱlassen“ȱ(Nehȱ1,8Ȭ9ȱ
inȱderȱÜbersetzungȱderȱNeuenȱZürcherȱBibel).ȱȱ
DieserȱPassusȱzeigt,ȱdassȱauchȱderȱmassoretischeȱTextȱ(MT)ȱdieȱVorstelȬ
lungȱ kennt,ȱ Gottȱ habeȱ dieȱ Stätteȱ seinesȱ Heiligtumsȱ bereitsȱ zurȱ Zeitȱ
Mosesȱerwähltȱgehabt.ȱȱ
Dieȱ Lesartenȱ mitȱ demȱ Verbȱ inȱ derȱ Vergangenheitȱ inȱ derȱ deuteroȬ
nomischenȱFormelȱvonȱGottesȱErwählungȱdesȱheiligenȱOrtesȱentsprichtȱ
nachȱ alledemȱ derȱ ursprünglichenȱ Septuaginta.ȱ Inȱ ihrȱ sindȱ dieȱ Lesartenȱ
mitȱ demȱ Verbȱ imȱ Futurumȱ alsȱ sekundäreȱ Angleichungȱ anȱ denȱ MTȱ zuȱ
erklären.ȱSomitȱistȱdieȱLesartȱkeineȱspezifische,ȱsamaritanischeȱKorrekȬ
turȱ desȱ ursprünglichenȱ Textes,ȱ daȱ dieselbeȱ Wendungȱ inȱ derȱ nichtȬ
samaritanischenȱ griechischenȱ Bibelȱ vorliegt.ȱ Esȱ verhältȱ sichȱ vielmehrȱ
umgekehrt.ȱ Weilȱ dieȱ ursprünglicheȱ LXXȱ undȱ derȱ samaritanischeȱ Textȱ
zusammengehen,ȱ istȱ esȱ höchstȱ wahrscheinlich,ȱ dassȱ sieȱ dieȱ ursprüngȬ
licheȱLesartȱbewahren.ȱDennȱdieȱgriechischenȱÜbersetzerȱdesȱDeuteroȬ
nomiumsȱhattenȱkeinȱerkennbaresȱInteresseȱdaran,ȱdasȱPräteritumȱdesȱ
Verbsȱ mitȱ einemȱ Futurumȱ zuȱ vertauschen.ȱ Wohlȱ aberȱ istȱ esȱ leichtȱ zuȱ
verstehen,ȱwarumȱdieȱHerausgeberȱdesȱprotomassoretischenȱTextesȱdasȱ
Futurumȱ anȱ Stelleȱ desȱ Präteritumsȱ setzten.ȱ Sieȱ vermiedenȱ damitȱ dieȱ
Interpretation,ȱ dieȱ vonȱ Gottȱ gewählteȱ heiligeȱ Stätteȱ seiȱ derȱ Garizim,ȱ
wasȱ Stellenȱ wieȱ Dtȱ 11,29;ȱ 27,4;ȱ Josȱ 8,33ȱ jaȱ naheȱ legenȱ konnten,ȱ undȱ
gleichzeitigȱ schufenȱ sieȱ soȱ Raumȱ fürȱ eineȱ nochȱ nichtȱ erfolgteȱ BestimȬ
mungȱ derȱ heiligenȱ Stätte,ȱ nämlichȱ Jerusalem,ȱ dieȱ JHWHȱ jaȱ erstȱ vielȱ
späterȱ undȱ erstȱ langeȱ nachȱ Moseȱ unterȱ Königȱ Davidȱ (2Samȱ 24)ȱ
erwählenȱsollte.ȱEsȱistȱderȱprotoȬmassoretischeȱText,ȱinȱwelchemȱdasȱurȬ
sprünglicheȱPräteritumȱdesȱVerbsȱinȱeinȱFuturumȱverwandeltȱwurde34.ȱȱ
4.ȱEineȱFolgerungȱundȱeineȱDatierungȱȱ
AnȱzweiȱStellen,ȱDtȱ27,4ȱundȱinȱderȱdeuteronomischenȱFormelȱvonȱderȱ
ErwählungȱderȱheiligenȱStätteȱfürȱdieȱEinwohnungȱdesȱNamensȱGottes,ȱ
erschienȱeineȱsamaritanischeȱLesartȱalsȱursprünglich,ȱwährendȱsichȱdieȱ
entsprechendeȱ massoretischeȱ Lesartȱ alsȱ theologischeȱ (oderȱ wennȱ manȱ
will:ȱideologische)ȱKorrekturȱerwies.ȱDerȱNachweisȱließȱsichȱaufȱGrundȱ
vonȱ vereinzeltenȱ Textzeugenȱ führen,ȱ welcheȱ höchstwahrscheinlichȱ dieȱ
ursprünglicheȱ Septuagintaȱ bewahrtȱ haben,ȱ währendȱ derȱ Hauptharstȱ
derȱZeugenȱeineȱnachȱdemȱMTȱrezensierteȱFormȱderȱgriechischenȱBibelȱ
widerspiegelt.ȱEsȱsindȱeinzelneȱTextzeugenȱausȱRandgebietenȱderȱÜberȬ
lieferungȱderȱgriechischenȱBibelȱ(dasȱkoptischȱsprechendeȱÄgyptenȱundȱ
derȱ lateinischeȱ Westen),ȱ dieȱ vonȱ denȱ Rezensionenȱ unberührtȱ blieben,ȱ
welcheȱ dieȱ Septuagintaȱ inȱ denȱ Zentrenȱ ihrerȱ Überlieferungȱ undȱ VerȬ
breitungȱdurchȱAnpassungȱanȱdenȱMTȱmodernisiertȱhaben.ȱDieseȱaltenȱ
Zeugenȱsindȱzufälligȱübriggeblieben.ȱDaherȱistȱesȱkeineȱverwegeneȱundȱ
wildeȱ Vermutung,ȱ wennȱ fürȱ eineȱ dritteȱ samaritanischeȱ Lesartȱ imȱ gleiȬ
chenȱ Zusammenhangȱ derȱ vonȱ Gottȱ erwähltenȱ heiligenȱ Stätteȱ angeȬ
nommenȱwird,ȱsieȱkönnteȱdasȱUrsprünglicheȱbewahrtȱhaben.ȱEsȱhandeltȱ
34ȱȱ Esȱseiȱnachgetragen,ȱdassȱkeineȱQumranȬHsȱdieȱhierȱbesprocheneȱFormelȱunversehrtȱ
bewahrtȱhat,ȱSCHENKER,ȱSeigneurȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ33).ȱ
sichȱ umȱ denȱ Ausdruckȱ „Sichemȱ gegenüber“ȱ inȱ Dtȱ 11,30,ȱ derȱ imȱ MTȱ
nichtȱvorliegt,ȱsondernȱnurȱimȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱbelegtȱist.ȱErȱ
schafftȱ dieȱ Gleichungȱ zwischenȱ demȱ Altarȱ aufȱ demȱ Garizimȱ (Dtȱ 27,4ȱ
undȱ 11,29)ȱ undȱ demȱ Altar,ȱ denȱ Abrahamȱ undȱ Jakobȱ nachȱ Genȱ 12,6Ȭ7;ȱ
33,18Ȭ20ȱ beiȱ denȱ Terebinthenȱ vonȱ Morehȱ errichteten.ȱ Dennȱ dasȱ TopoȬ
nymȱ ȱ ev lônȱ morehȱ (Genȱ 12,6),ȱ bzw.ȱ imȱ Pluralȱ ȱ ev lôneyȱ morehȱ (Dtȱ 11,30)ȱ
findetȱsichȱnurȱanȱdiesenȱbeidenȱStellenȱinȱderȱgesamtenȱBibel.ȱȱ
ImȱMTȱevoziertȱdieserȱOrtȱnichtȱdenȱAltarȱaufȱdemȱGarizimȱ(Dtȱ27,4ȱ
MT),ȱ sondernȱ nurȱ denȱ Segenȱ undȱ Fluchȱ aufȱ Garizimȱ undȱ Ebal.ȱ Dennȱ
derȱ Altarȱ aufȱ demȱ Ebalȱ warȱ fürȱ eineȱ einmaligeȱ Liturgieȱ bestimmt,ȱ
woraufȱ erȱ zuȱ bestehenȱ aufhörte.ȱ Dieȱ Erwähnungȱ derȱ Terebinthenȱ vonȱ
Morehȱ spieltȱ daherȱ imȱ MTȱ nichtȱ aufȱ Abrahamsȱ undȱ Jakobsȱ Altarȱ an,ȱ
sondernȱ nurȱ aufȱ dieȱ Lokalisierungȱ derȱ beidenȱ Bergeȱ westlichȱ desȱ
JordansȱundȱwestlichȱvonȱGilgal.ȱImȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchȱdageȬ
genȱ legtȱ dieȱ Wendungȱ „gegenüberȱ vonȱ Sichem“ȱ inȱ Verbindungȱ mitȱ
demȱ Altarȱ aufȱ demȱ Garizimȱ denȱ Bezugȱ aufȱ diesesȱ Heiligtumȱ aufȱ demȱ
Bergȱ nahe.ȱ Diesesȱ Heiligtumȱ aufȱ demȱ Bergȱ liegtȱ nichtȱ inȱ Sichem,ȱ
sondernȱderȱStadtȱgegenüber.ȱManȱkannȱdaherȱdenȱAusdruckȱ„Sichemȱ
gegenüber“ȱ alsȱ einenȱ samaritanischen,ȱ tendenziösenȱ oderȱ ideologiȬ
schenȱÜberschussȱerklären35.ȱAberȱesȱlässtȱsichȱwieȱimmerȱebensoȱgutȱinȱ
derȱ umgekehrtenȱ Richtungȱ argumentieren.ȱ Derȱ Ausdruckȱ „nebenȱ denȱ
Terbinthenȱ vonȱ Moreh,ȱ Sichemȱ gegenüber“ȱ mussȱ einenȱ bestimmten,ȱ
konkretenȱ Platz,ȱ nichtȱ eineȱ ganzeȱ Landschaftȱ bezeichnen!36ȱ Wasȱ aberȱ
kannȱeinȱsolcherȱungenannterȱOrtȱanderesȱseinȱalsȱeineȱheiligeȱStätteȱbeiȱ
Sichem?ȱ Daherȱ hätteȱ manȱ imȱ MTȱ dieȱ Wendungȱ „gegenüberȱ Sichem“ȱ
entfernt,ȱ umȱ dieȱ Vorstellungȱ einesȱ heiligenȱ Ortesȱ beiȱ Sichemȱ abzuȬ
wenden.ȱȱ
Daȱ hierȱ keinȱ andererȱ Textzeugeȱ mitȱ demȱ samaritanischenȱ PentaȬ
teuchȱzusammengeht,ȱmussȱesȱbeiȱderȱVermutungȱbleiben,ȱesȱkönnteȱinȱ
Dtȱ11,30ȱwieȱinȱDtȱ27,4ȱundȱinȱderȱFormelȱmitȱderȱErwählungȱdesȱOrtesȱ
fürȱ denȱ Namenȱ Gottesȱ auchȱ eineȱ protoȬmassoretischeȱ korrigierendeȱ
HandȱamȱWerkȱgewesenȱsein.ȱȱ
DerȱsamaritanischeȱPentateuchȱfolgtȱimȱTabernakelȬKapitelȱ(Exȱ35Ȭ
40)ȱ demȱ MT,ȱ währendȱ dieȱ ursprünglicheȱ Septuaginta,ȱ dieȱ inȱ einemȱ
altlateinischenȱ Zeugenȱ erhaltenȱ ist,ȱ eineȱ wenigerȱ anȱ Exȱ 25Ȭ31ȱ angeȬ
glicheneȱ undȱ daherȱ wohlȱ ursprünglichereȱ Fassungȱ desȱ Textesȱ aufȬ
35ȱȱ MCCARTHY,ȱDeuteronomyȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ11)ȱ83*.ȱ
36ȱȱ Einigeȱ Targumeȱ undȱ dieȱ Vulgataȱ bemühenȱ sich,ȱ demȱ Versendeȱ denȱ Sinnȱ einerȱ
Gegend,ȱ einesȱ Geländesȱ anstattȱ einesȱ Ortesȱ abzugewinnen,ȱ MCCARTHY,ȱ DeuteroȬ
nomyȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ11)ȱ83*Ȭ84*.ȱ
weist37,ȱundȱinȱDtȱ32,7Ȭ8ȱgehtȱerȱmitȱderȱtheologischenȱKorrekturȱdesȱMTȱ
zusammen38.ȱEbensoȱfolgtȱerȱderȱangeglichenenȱAnordnungȱderȱGeboteȱ
aufȱderȱ2.ȱTafelȱdesȱDekalogs,ȱdieȱsichȱimȱMTȱfindet,ȱwährendȱdieȱdortȱ
zwischenȱExodusȱundȱDeuteronomiumȱundȱmitȱdemȱMTȱdifferierende,ȱ
nichtȱangeglicheneȱGebotsfolgeȱinȱderȱSeptuagintaȱwahrscheinlichȱälterȱ
ist39.ȱȱ
Ausȱ diesenȱ Beobachtungenȱ ergibtȱ sichȱ einȱ Hinweisȱ aufȱ dieȱ Datieȱ
rungȱdesȱsamaritanischenȱPentateuchs.ȱErȱwurdeȱinȱseinerȱspezifischenȱ
TextgestaltȱnachȱderȱÜbersetzungȱderȱToraȱinsȱGriechischeȱimȱ2.ȱDrittelȱ
desȱ 3.ȱ Jh.ȱ v.Chr.ȱ festgelegt,ȱ daȱ erȱ dieserȱ Toraȱ gegenüberȱ Moderȱ
nisierungenȱ aufweist,ȱ dieȱ sichȱ ebensoȱ imȱ protoȬmassoretischenȱ undȱ
massoretischenȱ Textȱ finden.ȱ Anderseitsȱ fehlenȱ inȱ ihmȱ andereȱ protoȬ
massoretischeȱ Lesarten.ȱ Manȱ wirdȱ nichtȱ fehlgehenȱ inȱ derȱ Annahme,ȱ
seinȱTextȱseiȱimȱ2.ȱJh.ȱvorȱunsererȱZeitrechnungȱfestgelegtȱworden,ȱundȱ
zwarȱ —ȱ dasȱ istȱ wohlȱ wichtigȱ festzustellenȱ —ȱ mitȱ mehrerenȱ Anleihenȱ
vonȱ Veränderungenȱ oderȱ Modernisierungenȱ desȱ protoȬmassoretischenȱ
Textes,ȱ dieȱ ebenfallsȱ imȱ gleichenȱ 2.ȱ Jh.ȱ inȱ denȱ Pentateuchȱ eingeführtȱ
wurden.ȱ
5.ȱVierȱErgebnisseȱȱ
Inȱ Zusammenfassungȱ kannȱ Folgendesȱ inȱ chronologischerȱ Anordnungȱ

festgehaltenȱwerden:ȱerstensȱwurdenȱinȱzweiȱFällenȱsogenannteȱsamaȬ
ritanischeȱideologischeȱoderȱtheologischeȱKorrekturenȱalsȱprotoȬmassoȬ
retischeȱ Veränderungenȱ desȱ Textesȱ derȱ Toraȱ wahrscheinlichȱ gemacht.ȱ
Derȱ Grund,ȱ derȱ zuȱ dieserȱ Folgerungȱ führt,ȱ istȱ textkritischerȱ Art.ȱ Dieȱ
Übereinstimmungȱ zwischenȱ samaritanischemȱ Pentateuchȱ undȱ ältester,ȱ
nichtȱsamaritanischerȱSeptuagintaȱistȱentscheidend.ȱȱ
Zweitensȱ weisenȱ dieȱ beidenȱ hierȱ besprochenenȱ unkorrigiertenȱ
LesartenȱdesȱSamaritanusȱundȱderȱursprünglichenȱSeptuagintaȱaufȱeineȱ
diskrete,ȱ aberȱ unüberhörbareȱ Erwähnungȱ desȱ GarizimȬHeiligtumsȱ imȱ
ältestenȱerreichbarenȱDeuteronomiumstextȱhin.ȱDiesȱstärktȱdieȱAuffasȬ
sung,ȱ dasȱ Deuteronomiumȱ seiȱ ursprünglichȱ inȱ EfraimȬIsraelȱ beheiȬ
matet.ȱȱ
DrittensȱwurdeȱderȱursprünglicheȱTextȱdesȱDeuteronomiumsȱnachȱ
derȱ Übertragungȱ derȱ Toraȱ insȱ Griechischeȱ imȱ 3.ȱ Jh.ȱ anȱ gewissenȱ
37ȱȱ BOGAERT,ȱImportance;ȱBOGAERT,ȱConstructionȱ,ȱ62Ȭ76.ȱȱ
38ȱȱ MCCARTHY,ȱDeuteronomyȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ11)ȱ140Ȭ141.ȱ
39ȱȱ SCHENKER,ȱReihenfolge,ȱ52Ȭ66.ȱ
Punktenȱtheologischȱverändert.ȱDieseȱpunktuellenȱKorrekturenȱgeschaȬ
henȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ imȱ 2.ȱ Jh.ȱ v.Chr.ȱ Einigeȱ vonȱ ihnenȱ habenȱ dieȱ SamaȬ
ritanerȱinȱihreȱToraȱübernommen.ȱȱ
Viertensȱ kannȱ derȱ heuteȱ verloreneȱ Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ 19ȱ sehrȱ wohlȱ
demȱ Samaritikonȱ (oderȱ Samareitikon)ȱ entsprechen.ȱ Dafürȱ sprichtȱ dieȱ
Transliterierungȱ desȱ Wortesȱ har,ȱ Berg,ȱ imȱ Toponymȱ harȬGerizim,ȱ Bergȱ
Garizim.ȱ Dennȱ dasȱentsprichtȱ nichtȱ derȱSeptuaginta,ȱdieȱharȱ übersetzt,ȱ
nichtȱ transkribiert.ȱ Dieȱ vielenȱ Berührungenȱ zwischenȱ demȱ Textȱ desȱ
Papyrusȱ Giessenȱ undȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ erklärenȱ sichȱ inȱ analogerȱ Weiseȱ
wieȱdieȱvielenȱBerührungenȱzwischenȱTheodotionȱundȱderȱSeptuaginta.ȱ
Einȱ Übersetzerȱ derȱ Bibelȱ warȱ damalsȱ einȱ Rezensent,ȱ derȱ dieȱ schonȱ
bestehendeȱ Übersetzungȱ derȱ Septuagintaȱ seinerȱ Neuübertragungȱ
zugrundeȱ legteȱ undȱ nurȱ dortȱ veränderndȱ inȱ sieȱ eingriff,ȱ woȱ ihmȱ dieȱ
altenȱ Übersetzungȱ unzulänglichȱ erschien,ȱ währendȱ erȱ dasȱ andereȱ
unverändertȱ inȱ seineȱ neueȱ Übersetzungȱ aufnahm.ȱ Soȱ istȱ derȱ samariȬ
tanischeȱÜbersetzerȱfastȱsicherȱebenfallsȱvorgegangen,ȱalsȱerȱseineȱToraȱ
insȱGriechischeȱübertrug,ȱwährendȱerȱdasȱandereȱunverändertȱausȱderȱ
LXXȱinȱseineȱneueȱÜbersetzungȱaufnahm.ȱȱ
Bibliographieȱ
BOGAERT,ȱ PierreȬMaurice,ȱ Laȱ constructionȱ deȱ laȱ Tenteȱ (Exodȱ 36Ȭ40)ȱ dansȱ leȱ
Monacensisȱdeȱlaȱplusȱancienneȱversionȱlatine:ȱl’autelȱd’orȱetȱHébreuxȱ9,4,ȱ
in:ȱ SCHENKER,ȱ Adrianȱ /ȱ HUGO,ȱ Philippeȱ (eds.),ȱ L’enfanceȱ deȱ laȱ Bibleȱ
hébraïque.ȱ L’histoireȱ duȱ texteȱ deȱ l’Ancienȱ Testamentȱ àȱ laȱ lumièreȱ desȱ
recherchesȱrécentesȱ(MoBiȱ54),ȱGenèveȱ2005,ȱ62Ȭ76.ȱ
BOGAERT,ȱPierreȬMaurice,ȱLesȱbiblesȱd’Augustin,ȱin:ȱRThLȱ37ȱ(2006)ȱ513Ȭ531.ȱ
BOGAERT,ȱ PierreȬMaurice,ȱ L’importanceȱ deȱ laȱ Septanteȱ duȱ Monacensisȱ deȱ laȱ
Vetusȱ Latinaȱ pourȱ l’exégèseȱ duȱ livreȱ deȱ l’Exodeȱ (chap.ȱ 35Ȭ40),ȱ in:ȱ
VERVENNE,ȱMarcȱ(ed.),ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱExodus.ȱRedactionȬReceptionȬ
Interpretationȱ(BETLȱ126),ȱLeuvenȱ1996.ȱ
BOGAERT,ȱPierreȬMauriceȱ/ȱBOTTE,ȱBernard,ȱSeptanteȱetȱversionsȱgrecquesȱ(DBSȱ
XII),ȱParisȱ1993,ȱ538Ȭ539.ȱ
DEȱVAUX,ȱRoland,ȱLeȱlieuȱqueȱYahvéȱaȱchoisiȱpourȱyȱétablirȱsonȱnom,ȱinȱ:ȱMAAS,ȱ
Fritzȱ (ed.),ȱ Dasȱ ferneȱ undȱ dasȱ naheȱ Wort.ȱ FSȱ Leonhardȱ Rostȱ (BZAWȱ 105),ȱ
Berlinȱ1967,ȱ219Ȭ228.ȱ
DINES,ȱJenniferȱM.,ȱTheȱSeptuagint,ȱLondonȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
DOGNIEZȱ Cécileȱ /ȱ HARL,ȱ Marguerite,ȱ Laȱ Bibleȱ d’Alexandrie.ȱ Leȱ Deutéronome,ȱ
Parisȱ1992.ȱ
FIELD,ȱ Fridericus,ȱ Origenisȱ Hexaplorumȱ quaeȱ supersunt,ȱ t.ȱ 1,ȱ Oxfordȱ 1875ȱ =ȱ
EnglishȱtranslationȱNORTON,ȱGerardȱJames,ȱFrederickȱField’sȱProlegomenaȱ
toȱOrigenisȱHexaplorumȱquaeȱsupersuntȱ(CRBȱ62),ȱParisȱ2005,ȱ154Ȭ156.ȱ
GESENIUS,ȱ Gulielmus,ȱ Deȱ Pentateuchiȱ Samaritaniȱ origine,ȱ indoleȱ etȱ auctoritateȱ
commentatioȱphilologicoȬcritica,ȱHalleȱ1815.ȱ
GLAUEȱ Paulȱ /ȱ RAHLFS,ȱ Alfred,ȱ Fragmenteȱ einerȱ griechischenȱ Übersetzungȱ desȱ
Pentateuchsȱ(MSUȱI),ȱBerlinȱ1909Ȭ1915,ȱ29Ȭ68.ȱ
GRYSON,ȱ Roger,ȱ Altlateinischeȱ Handschriften.ȱ Manuscritsȱ Vieuxȱ Latins.ȱ RéperȬ
toireȱ descriptif,ȱ Premièreȱ partie:ȱ Mssȱ 1Ȭ275ȱ (Vetusȱ Latinaȱ 1/2A),ȱ Freiburgȱ
1999,ȱ159Ȭ160.ȱ
JELLICOE,ȱSidney,ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱandȱModernȱStudy,ȱOxfordȱ1968.ȱ
KAPPELER,ȱWernerȱ/ȱHANHART,ȱRobert,ȱMaccabaeorumȱliberȱIIȱ(Septuagintaȱ9,2),ȱ
Göttingenȱ21976.ȱ
KENNICOTT,ȱ Benjamin,ȱ Theȱ Stateȱ ofȱ theȱ Printedȱ Hebrewȱ Textȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ
TestamentȱConsidered.ȱDissertationȱtheȱSecond,ȱOxfordȱ1759,ȱ1Ȭ102.ȱ
MARGAIN,ȱJean,ȱSamaritainȱ(Pentateuque),ȱin:ȱDBSȱ11,ȱParisȱ1991,ȱ762Ȭ773.ȱ
MCCARTHY,ȱ Carmel,ȱ Deuteronomy,ȱ in:ȱ Bibliaȱ Hebraicaȱ Quinta,ȱ Stuttgartȱ 2007,ȱ
75.122*Ȭ123*.ȱ
MCCARTHY,ȱ Carmel,ȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ Readingsȱ inȱ Deuteronomy,ȱ in:ȱ
MCCARTHY,ȱ Carmelȱ /ȱ HEALEY,ȱ Johnȱ F.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Biblicalȱ andȱ Nearȱ Easternȱ
Essays.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Kevinȱ J.ȱ Cathcartȱ (JSOT.SSȱ 375),ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱ̄Ε·΅Ε΍Ί΍Α;ȱaȱCriterionȱforȱSamaritanȱProvenance?ȱin:ȱJSJȱ18ȱ
(1987)ȱ18Ȭ25.ȱȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Theȱ Samareitikonȱ Revisited,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Newȱ
SamaritanȱStudies.ȱEssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱG.D.ȱSixdenier,ȱSidneyȱ1996,ȱ381Ȭ455.ȱ
RAHLFS,ȱ Alfred,ȱ Verzeichnisȱ derȱ griechischenȱ Handschriftenȱ desȱ Altenȱ TestaȬ
ments,ȱBd.ȱI,ȱ1ȱDieȱÜberlieferungȱbisȱzumȱVIII.ȱJahrhundert,ȱbearbeitetȱvonȱ
Detlefȱ Fraenkelȱ (Septuagintaȱ Vetusȱ Testamentumȱ Graecum,ȱ SupplemenȬ
tum),ȱGöttingenȱ2004,ȱ131Ȭ133.ȱ
RICHTER,ȱ Sandraȱ L.,ȱ Theȱ Deuteronomisticȱ Historyȱ andȱ theȱ Nameȱ Theologyȱ
leshakkenȱshemôȱshamȱinȱtheȱBibleȱandȱinȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱEastȱ(BZAWȱ318),ȱ
Berlinȱ/ȱNewȱ/ȱYorkȱ2002.ȱ
ROBERT,ȱ Ulysse,ȱ Heptateuchiȱ partisȱ posteriorisȱ versioȱ Latinaȱ antiquissimaȱ eȱ
codiceȱLugdunensi,ȱLyonȱ1900.ȱ
ROBERT,ȱ Ulysse,ȱ Pentateuchiȱ versioȱ Latinaȱ antiquissimaȱ eȱ codiceȱ Lugdunensi,ȱ
Parisȱ1881.ȱȱ
SANDERSON,ȱJudithȱE.,ȱAnȱExodusȱScrollȱFromȱQumran.ȱ4QPaleoExodmȱandȱtheȱ
SamaritanȱTraditionȱ(HSM=HSStȱ30),ȱAtlanta,ȱGAȱ1986.ȱ
SCHENKER,ȱ Adrian,ȱ Dieȱ Reihenfolgeȱ derȱ Geboteȱ aufȱ derȱ zweitenȱ Tafel.ȱ Zurȱ
SystematikȱdesȱDekalogs,ȱin:ȱȱSCHENKER,ȱAdrian,ȱRechtȱundȱKultȱimȱAltenȱ
Testament.ȱAchtzehnȱStudienȱ(OBOȱ172),ȱFribourgȱ/ȱGöttingenȱ2000,ȱ52Ȭ66.ȱ
SCHENKER,ȱAdrian,ȱLeȱSeigneurȱchoisiraȬtȬilȱleȱlieuȱdeȱsonȱnomȱouȱl’aȬtȬilȱchoisi?ȱ
Uneȱ célèbreȱ différenceȱ entreȱ leȱ texteȱ masorétiqueȱ etȱ samaritainȱ duȱ
DeutéronomeȱàȱlaȱlumièreȱdeȱlaȱBibleȱgrecqueȱancienne,ȱin:ȱVOJTILA,ȱAnsiȱ/ȱ
JOKIRANTA,ȱ Juttaȱ (eds.),ȱ Scriptureȱ inȱ Transition,ȱ FSȱ Raijaȱ Sollamo,ȱ Leidenȱ /ȱ
Boston,ȱMAȱ2008,ȱ339Ȭ351.ȱ
SCHENKER,ȱ Adrian,ȱ Septanteȱ etȱ texteȱ massorétiqueȱ dansȱ l’histoireȱ laȱ plusȱ anȬ
cienneȱduȱtexteȱdeȱ1ȱRoisȱ2Ȭ14ȱ(CRBȱ48),ȱParisȱ2000,ȱ142Ȭ144.ȱ
SKEHAN,ȱPatrickȱW.ȱ/ȱULRICH,ȱEugeneȱ/ȱSANDERSON,ȱJudithȱE.,ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4,ȱ
IVȱPalaeoȬHebrewȱandȱGreekȱBiblicalȱManuscriptsȱ(DJDȱIX),ȱOxfordȱ1992,ȱ
53Ȭ130,ȱTafelnȱVIIȬXXXIII.ȱ
TAL,ȱAbraham,ȱSamaritanȱLiterature,ȱin:ȱCROWN,ȱAlanȱD.,ȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱ
Tübingenȱ1989,ȱ413Ȭ467.ȱ
TOV,ȱEmanuel,ȱDieȱbiblischenȱHandschriftenȱausȱderȱWüsteȱJuda,ȱin:ȱDAHMEN,ȱ
Ulrichȱ /ȱ LANGE,ȱ Arminȱ /ȱ LICHTENBERGER,ȱ Hermannȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Textfundeȱ
vomȱTotenȱMeerȱundȱderȱTextȱderȱHebräischenȱBibel,ȱNeukirchenȱ2000,ȱ1Ȭ
34ȱ(1988ȱenglisch).ȱ
TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Pap.ȱ Giessenȱ 13,ȱ 19,ȱ 22,ȱ 26:ȱ aȱ Revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ LXX?,ȱ in:ȱ RBȱ 78ȱ
(1971)ȱ355Ȭ383.ȱȱ
TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ Bible.ȱ Collectedȱ Essaysȱ onȱ theȱ SepȬ
tuagintȱ (VT.Sȱ 72),ȱ Leidenȱ /ȱ Bostonȱ /ȱ Kölnȱ 1999,ȱ 459Ȭ475ȱ (=ȱ TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ
Pap.ȱGiessenȱ13,ȱ19,ȱ22,ȱ26:ȱaȱRevisionȱofȱtheȱLXX?,ȱin:ȱRBȱ78ȱ[1971]ȱ355Ȭ383).ȱ
TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Pentateuch,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ
Abrahamȱ(eds.),ȱAȱCompanionȱtoȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱTübingenȱ1993,ȱ177Ȭ183.ȱ
TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Scriptures:ȱ Texts,ȱ in:ȱ SCHIFFMAN,ȱ Laurenceȱ H.ȱ /ȱ VANDERKAM,ȱ
JamesȱC.ȱ(eds.),ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls,ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱOxfordȱ2000,ȱ
832Ȭ836.ȱ
TOV,ȱ Emmanuel,ȱ Textualȱ Criticismȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible.ȱ Secondȱ Revisedȱ
Edition,ȱMinneapolis,ȱMNȱ2001.ȱ
WALTKE,ȱ Bruceȱ K.,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ andȱ theȱ Textȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ TestaȬ
ment,ȱ in:ȱ PAYNE,ȱ J.ȱ Bartonȱ (ed.),ȱ Newȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ
Waco,ȱTXȱ1970,ȱ212Ȭ240.ȱ
WALTKE,ȱBruceȱK.,ȱSamaritanȱPentateuch,ȱin:ȱABDȱV,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1992,ȱ935Ȭ940.ȱ
WASSERSTEIN,ȱ Jacob,ȱ Samareitikon,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ /ȱ
TAL,ȱ Abrahamȱ (eds.),ȱAȱ Companionȱ toȱ Samaritanȱ Studies,ȱTübingenȱ 1993,ȱ
209Ȭ210.ȱ
WEVERS,ȱJohnȱWilliam,ȱDeuteronomiumȱ(Septuaginta.ȱVetusȱTestamentumȱ
GraecumȱIII,ȱ2),ȱGöttingenȱ1977.ȱȱ

TheȱLatentȱMasorahȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
STEFANȱSCHORCHȱȱ
Itȱ isȱ wellȱ knownȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ haveȱ aȱ veryȱ stableȱ readingȬtraȬ
ditionȱofȱtheȱTorah1.ȱBothȱtextualȱandȱlinguisticȱobservationsȱledȱtoȱtheȱ
conclusionȱ thatȱ thisȱ oralȱ readingȬtraditionȱ originatesȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ 2ndȱ
centuryȱBCE.2ȱButȱhowȱdidȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱmanageȱtoȱhandȱ
downȱ itsȱ readingȬtraditionȱ inȱ theȱ reliableȱ wayȱ itȱ obviouslyȱ did?ȱ Whyȱ
didȱ theȱ readingȬtraditionȱ notȱ undergoȱ majorȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ
theȱlongȱperiodȱofȱmoreȱthanȱ2000ȱyears?ȱThisȱenigmaȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱ
myȱfollowingȱconsiderations.ȱ
Withinȱ theȱ Jewishȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ pivotalȱ stabilizerȱ ofȱ theȱ transmisȬ
sionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱisȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱtheȱ“Masorah”,ȱwhichȱwasȱdevelȬ
opedȱbyȱtheȱ“Masoretes”ȱsinceȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱCEȱandȱaimsȱatȱtheȱpreserȬ
vationȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱaȱwholeȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱitsȱdifferentȱparts,ȱlikeȱexterȬ
nalȱ shape,ȱ stockȱ ofȱ wordsȱ andȱ verses,ȱ punctuation,ȱ spelling,ȱ vocaliȬ
zationȱetc.3ȱAsȱaȱmatterȱofȱfact,ȱtheȱMasoreticȱactivityȱwasȱnotȱanȱactȱofȱ
traditionȬmaking,ȱbutȱofȱtraditionȬkeeping.ȱ
LikeȱtheȱJews,ȱtheȱSamaritansȱdevelopedȱaȱMasoreticȱactivity,ȱtoo,4ȱ
evenȱ ifȱ itȱ wasȱ neverȱ nearlyȱ asȱ comprehensiveȱ asȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Masorah,ȱ
mostȱ probablyȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ theȱ
Torahȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ centeredȱ alwaysȱ onȱ theȱ oralȱ andȱ notȱ theȱ
writtenȱtradition,ȱasȱBenȬHayyimȱdescribes:ȱ
“Theȱ Samaritanȱ textȱ [sc.ȱ ofȱ theȱ Torah]ȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ Jewishȱ textȱ
regardingȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ itsȱ transmission.ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ theȱ Jewishȱ textȱ isȱ scruȬ
tinizedȱandȱhandedȱdownȱwithȱgreatȱaccuratenessȱinȱallȱitsȱsigns,ȱandȱeveryȱ
1ȱȱ PartsȱofȱtheȱpresentȱpaperȱareȱanȱEnglishȱversionȱofȱtheȱchapterȱȱ„DieȱlatenteȱMasoraȱ
derȱsamaritanischenȱLesetradition”,ȱcf.ȱSCHORCH,ȱVokale,ȱ61Ȭ75.ȱ
2ȱȱ BENȬHAYYIM,ȱ Grammar,ȱ 335;ȱ SCHORCH,ȱ Vokale,ȱ 39Ȭ61;ȱ SCHORCH,ȱ Origin,ȱ 13Ȭ15;ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱFormation,ȱ10Ȭ17.ȱ
3ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱʤʸʥʱʮ;ȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ34;ȱTOV,ȱText,ȱ16Ȭ64.ȱ
4ȱȱ Seeȱ e.g.ȱ GASTER,ȱ Massoretisches;ȱ KAHLE,ȱ Lesezeichen;ȱ CROWN,ȱ Habits;ȱ CROWN,ȱ
Writing.ȱ
124 StefanȱSchorch
singleȱcaseȱofȱpleneȬȱorȱdefectiveȱspellingȱisȱcounted.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱtextȱisȱ
different:ȱ Theȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ manuscriptsȱ whichȱ weȱ knowȱ ofȱ displayȱ manyȱ
variationsȱ inȱ spelling,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ transmissionȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ
focusedȱonȱtheȱbiblicalȱsayingȱ[Deutȱ31,19]ȱ‘ʭʫʬ ʥʡʺʫ’ȱ[‘writeȱforȱyourselves’],ȱ
butȱonȱ‘ʭʤʩʴʡ ʤʮʩʹ ʬʠʸʹʩ ʩʰʡ ʺʠ ʥʣʮʬʥ’ȱ[‘teachȱitȱtoȱtheȱsonsȱofȱIsrael;ȱputȱitȱonȱ
theirȱ lips’].ȱ Therefore,ȱ althoughȱ thereȱ areȱ differencesȱ inȱ spellingȱ inȱ theȱ
manuscriptsȱ[…],ȱtheȱreadingȱisȱalwaysȱtheȱsame.”5ȱȱ
Thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ essentialȱ oralityȱ leadsȱ usȱ backȱ toȱ ourȱ initialȱ question,ȱ
howȱthisȱoralȱtraditionȱwasȱupheldȱinȱtheȱstableȱwayȱitȱobviouslyȱwas.ȱȱ
Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ thisȱ questionȱ findsȱ itsȱ answerȱ inȱ aȱ
phenomenonȱ whichȱ wasȱ detectedȱ andȱ describedȱ byȱ Shlomoȱ Morag.ȱ
Moragȱ successfullyȱ proofedȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ MasorahȬlikeȱ frameworksȱ
withinȱtheȱoralȱtraditionȱofȱpostȬBiblicalȱtextsȱ(especiallyȱtheȱreadingȱofȱ
theȱ Mishna)ȱ amongȱ variousȱ Jewishȱ communities.ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ
Masorahȱ ofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ tradition,ȱ thisȱMasorahȱ hadȱnotȱ beenȱ laidȱ downȱ
inȱscript,ȱbutȱbecameȱanȱintrinsicȱelementȱofȱtheȱoralȱtraditionȱitself:ȱ
“…aȱ featureȱ which,ȱ althoughȱ neverȱ formulatedȱ inȱ writing,ȱ disclosesȱ aȱ netȱ
ofȱfunctionsȱwhichȱbearȱresemblanceȱtoȱtheȱBiblicalȱMasorah.ȱTheȱresembȬ
lanceȱliesȱmainlyȱinȱthatȱtheȱaforementionedȱfeatureȱisȱhighlyȱsignificantȱinȱ
maintainingȱandȱpassingȱoverȱfromȱgenerationȱtoȱanotherȱtheȱtraditionallyȱ
correctȱreadingȱofȱpostȬbiblicalȱHebrewȱtexts.”6ȱ
Theȱ phenomenonȱ wasȱ labeledȱ “latentȱ Masorah”ȱ byȱ Morag,ȱ whoȱ desȬ
cribedȱtheȱfollowingȱfeaturesȱasȱitsȱmainȱcharacteristics:ȱ
Theȱrespectiveȱoralȱtraditionȱcontainsȱlinguisticȱformsȱwhichȱdifferȱfromȱ
whatȱ shouldȱ beȱ expectedȱ butȱ areȱ neverthelessȱ completelyȱ explainableȱ
withinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱhistoricalȱlinguistics.7ȱ
Theȱrespectiveȱoralȱtraditionȱattestsȱinȱmanyȱinstancesȱaȱphenomenon,ȱ
whichȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱMasoreticȱdistinctionȱofȱKˬtÎbȱandȱQˬr¾.8ȱ
Focusingȱ ourȱ interestȱ nowȱ onȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȬtraditionȱ ofȱ theȱ
Torah,ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱthisȱtraditionȱdisplaysȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱtwoȱfeaturesȱ
listedȱ byȱ Moragȱ (seeȱ below,ȱ 1.Ȭ2.),ȱ butȱ severalȱ additionalȱ Masoreticȱ
features,ȱwhichȱareȱnotȱincludedȱinȱhisȱlistȱ(3.Ȭ5.),ȱi.e.:ȱȱ
1)ȱ Theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ parallelȱ formsȱ goingȱ backȱ toȱ differentȱ historicalȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱpointsȱofȱdeparture.ȱ
2)ȱTheȱpartialȱindependenceȱofȱKˬtÎbȱandȱQˬr¾.ȱ
5ȱȱ BENȬHAYYIMȱ inȱ hisȱ prefaceȱ toȱ theȱ synopticȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ andȱ Masoreticȱ
versionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱbyȱAbrahamȱandȱRatzonȱTSEDAKA.ȱTheȱoriginalȱisȱinȱHebrew.ȱ
6ȱȱ MORAG,ȱMasorah,ȱ333.ȱ
7ȱȱ MORAG,ȱMasorah,ȱ334Ȭ342.ȱ
8ȱȱ MORAG,ȱMasorah,ȱ342.ȱ
ȱ TheȱLatentȱMasorahȱofȱtheȱSamaritans 125ȱ
3)ȱTheȱmarkingȱofȱnominaȱsacra.ȱ
4)ȱConcurringȱtraditionsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱpunctuation.ȱ
5)ȱ Concurringȱ traditionsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ vocalizationȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱreading.ȱ
Onȱaccountȱofȱtheseȱfeatures,ȱtheȱriddleȱofȱtheȱveryȱconservativeȱnatureȱ
ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȬtraditionȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ solved:ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱ readingȬtraditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Torahȱ wasȱ preservedȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ
existenceȱofȱaȱ“latentȱMasorah”.ȱ
Inȱtheȱfollowing,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱeachȱofȱtheȱfiveȱpointsȱlistedȱabove.ȱ
1.ȱTheȱexistenceȱofȱparallelȱformsȱgoingȱbackȱtoȱdifferentȱ
historicalȱformsȱofȱdepartureȱ
Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ parallelȱ formsȱ comprisedȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȬ
traditionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱisȱhigh.ȱAsȱaȱrule,ȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheseȱparallelȱ
formsȱ isȱ notȱ explainableȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ synchronȱ linguistics,ȱ butȱ theyȱ
reflectȱ differentȱ historicalȱ basicȱ forms.ȱ Anȱ exampleȱ isȱ theȱ imperfectȱ ofȱ
verbaȱ primaeȱ laryngalis,ȱ whichȱ isȱ attestedȱ withȱ andȱ withoutȱ doublingȱ
ofȱ theȱ secondȱ radical,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ theȱ parallelȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ patternȱ
y¬zabȱversusȱy¬zzabȱ(=ȱʡʦʲʩ):ȱ
–ȱ ʪʡʦʲʩȱy¬z¬bakȱ[Deutȱ31,6.8]ȱȱȱvs.ȱȱ ʡʦʲʩȱy¬zzabȱ[Genȱ2,24]ȱ
–ȱ ʨʡʧʺȱt¬bbatҚȱ[Deutȱ24,20]ȱ ȱȱȱvs.ȱȱ ʬʡʧʺȱt¬baȱ[Exodȱ22,25;ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDeutȱ24,17]ȱ
AsȱBenȬHayyimȱhasȱshown,ȱtheȱformȱwithȱsimpleȱconsonantȱgoesȱbackȱ
toȱaȱbasicȱformȱwithȱsecondaryȱvowelȱbetweenȱtheȱfirstȱandȱtheȱsecondȱ
radicalȱ (*yacazab),ȱ whileȱ theȱ formȱ withȱ doubleȱ consonantȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ
theȱbasicȱformȱwithoutȱsecondaryȱvowelȱ(*yaczab)ȱresultingȱinȱtheȱassiȬ
milationȱofȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱradical.9ȱȱ
2.ȱTheȱpartialȱindependenceȱofȱKˬtÎbȱandȱQˬr¾ȱ
Theȱ secondȱ featureȱ ofȱ aȱ latentȱ Masorah,ȱ theȱ partialȱ independenceȱ ofȱ
KˬtÎbȱandȱQˬr¾,ȱisȱwellȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱSamaritanȱscribesȱcanȱ
switchȱ freelyȱ betweenȱ scriptioȱ plenaȱ andȱ scriptioȱ defectiva,ȱ ratherȱ ledȱ byȱ
theirȱoralȱreadingȬtraditionȱthanȱbyȱtheȱmanuscriptȱtheyȱactuallyȱcopy.10ȱ
9ȱȱ BENȬHAYYIM,ȱGrammar,ȱ122ȱ§ȱ2.2.1.1.7.ȱ
10ȱȱ Seeȱaboveȱatȱnoteȱ5.ȱȱ
126 StefanȱSchorch
Moreover,ȱ theȱ Tetragrammatonȱ ʤʥʤʩȱ isȱ regularlyȱ readȱ š¾ma,ȱ attestingȱ

againȱtheȱindependenceȱofȱtheȱoralȱreadingȬtraditionȱversusȱtheȱwrittenȱ
tradition.11ȱ Aȱ furtherȱ exampleȱ isȱ theȱ wordȱ ʺʕ ʩʑ˟ʑʰʍʥȱ inȱ Genȱ 24,8:ȱ Whileȱ allȱ
theȱSamaritanȱmanuscriptsȱknownȱtoȱmeȱcontainȱtheȱreadingȱ ʺʩʷʰʥ,ȱtheȱ
readingȱfollowedȱbyȱmostȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱisȱn¾qutta.12ȱ
3.ȱTheȱmarkingȱofȱnominaȱsacraȱ
Asȱ isȱ wellȱ knownȱ fromȱ theȱ Qumranȱ founds,ȱ theȱ graphicalȱ markingȱ ofȱ
nominaȱ sacraȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ differentȱ scriptȱ orȱ additionalȱ signsȱ wasȱ aȱ
widespreadȱ phenomenonȱ inȱ Jewishȱ antiquity.13ȱ Inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ
Masoreticalȱ tradition,ȱ thisȱ habitȱ hasȱ beenȱ continuedȱ inȱ severalȱ ways:ȱ
Someȱ Tiberianȱ manuscriptsȱ haveȱ aȱ noticeȱ inȱ theirȱ Masorahȱ parvaȱ
indicatingȱ whetherȱ theȱ nounȱ ʭʩʤʬʠȱ atȱ aȱ certainȱ placeȱ hasȱ theȱ meaningȱ
“god”ȱ orȱ “idol”,ȱ whichȱ means,ȱ whetherȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ nomenȱ sacrumȱ orȱ not.ȱ
Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Masorah,ȱ everyȱ singleȱ ʭʩʤʬʠȱ getsȱ aȱ Rafeȱ
whenȱitȱshouldȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱnomenȱsacrum,ȱbutȱaȱDageshȱifȱnot.14ȱȱ
Aȱsimilarȱattemptȱtoȱmakeȱaȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱcommonȱ
useȱofȱaȱcertainȱwordȱandȱitsȱuseȱasȱaȱnomenȱsacrumȱisȱfamiliarȱtoȱtheȱ
SamaritanȱreadingȬtraditionȱasȱwell.15ȱAsȱisȱwellȱknown,ȱtheȱwordȱ ʩʰʣʠȱ
isȱ pronouncedȱ ¬d¬niȱ whenȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ godȱ ofȱ Israelȱ (seeȱ below,ȱ
exampleȱ1),ȱbutȱ¬danni,ȱwhenȱreferringȱtoȱmenȱ(2)ȱorȱwhenȱusedȱbyȱnonȬ
Israelitesȱ(3):ȱȱȱȱȱ
1)ȱ(JhwhȱadressedȱbyȱanȱIsraelite):ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱʩʰʣʠ ʩʡ ʤʥʤʩ ʬʠ ʤʹʮ ʸʮʠʩʥȱ–ȱ“ThenȱMosesȱsaidȱtoȱtheȱLord:ȱOȱmyȱLordȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ[¬d¬ni]…”ȱ(Exodȱ4,10)ȱ ȱ
2)ȱ(Manȱadressed:)ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱʩʰʣʠ ʥʰʲʮʹ–ȱ“Hearȱus,ȱmyȱLordȱ[¬danni]!”ȱ(Genȱ23,6)ȱ ȱ
3)ȱ(JhwhȱadressedȱbyȱNonȬIsraelite:)ȱȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱʩʰʣʠ ʸʮʠʩʥ–ȱ“Andȱheȱsaid:ȱmyȱLordȱ[¬danni]!”ȱ(Genȱ20,4)ȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱSimilarly,ȱtheȱreadingȱofȱtheȱwordȱʭʩʹʰʠȱmakesȱaȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ“men”ȱ(¾n¬šˬm)ȱandȱ“heavenlyȱmessengers”ȱ(¾nĀšˬm):ȱ
11ȱȱ SeeȱBENȬHAYYIM,ȱSamaritans,ȱandȱTSEDAKA,ȱIsraelites.ȱ
12ȱȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ aȱ parallelȱ traditionȱ readingȱ n¾qitta,ȱ seeȱ SCHORCH,ȱ
Vokale,ȱ68.ȱ
13ȱȱ SeeȱSKEHAN,ȱName.ȱ
14ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ48Ȭ49ȱ§ȱ87.ȱ
15ȱȱ SeeȱSCHORCH,ȱKorrekturen,ȱ18,ȱandȱcompareȱFLORENTIN,ȱStudies.ȱ
1)ȱ(ʭʩʹʰʠȱasȱ“men”):ȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱʭʩʹʰʠ ʤʲʸʴ ʥʩʬʲ ʥʶʩʥ–ȱ “Soȱ Pharaoȱ commandedȱ hisȱ menȱ (¾n¬šˬm)ȱ
ȱȱȱconcerningȱhim.”ȱ(Genȱ12,20)ȱ ȱ
2)ȱ(ʭʩʹʰʠȱasȱ“heavenlyȱmessenger”):ȱȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱʥʩʬʲ ʭʩʡʶʰ ʭʩʹʰʠ ʤʹʬʹ ʤʰʤʥȱ–ȱ“Andȱbehold,ȱthreeȱheavenlyȱmessengersȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ(¾nĀšˬm)ȱwereȱstandingȱbyȱhim.”ȱ(Genȱ18,2)ȱ ȱ
Inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ tendenciesȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Masorahȱ describedȱ
above,ȱthisȱdistinctionȱshouldȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱphenomenonȱbelongingȱ
toȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ Masoreticalȱ activity.ȱ Theȱ fact,ȱ illustratedȱ byȱ theȱ
examplesȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȬ
traditionȱ isȱ thereforeȱ aȱ furtherȱ indicationȱ forȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ aȱ latentȱ
Masorah.ȱ
4.ȱConcurringȱtraditionsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱpunctuationȱ
Oneȱ fieldȱ ofȱMasoreticȱactivityȱ wasȱ theȱ subdivisionȱofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ textȱ

intoȱ versesȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ punctuationȱ andȱ accentsȱ (especiallyȱ SillĀqȱ andȱ
Sçpȱp¬sĀq).16ȱSimilarly,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱmanuscriptsȱuseȱaȱdoubleȱ
dotȱtoȱmarkȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱverse.17ȱSometimesȱsubdivisionsȱareȱmarkedȱbyȱ
furtherȱ accents,18ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ inȱ anyȱ caseȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ oralȱ readingȬ
tradition.ȱȱ
Itȱisȱnoteworthy,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱreadingȱdoesȱnotȱinȱeveryȱplaceȱ
correspondsȱtoȱtheȱmanuscriptȱtradition.ȱAnȱimportantȱexampleȱmayȱbeȱ
foundȱinȱExodȱ19,24:19ȱ
(23ȱ Mosesȱ saidȱ toȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ “Theȱ peopleȱ areȱ notȱ permittedȱ toȱ comeȱ upȱ toȱ
Mountȱ Sinai;ȱ forȱ youȱ yourselfȱ warnedȱ us,ȱ saying,ȱ ‘Setȱ limitsȱ aroundȱ theȱ
mountainȱandȱkeepȱitȱholy.’”)ȱ
24ȱAndȱtheȱLordȱsaidȱtoȱhim:ȱ ʤʥʤʩ ʥʩʬʠ ʸʮʠʩʥ 24ȱ
Goȱdownȱandȱcomeȱup, ʺʩʬʲʤʥ ʣʸ ʪʬ
youȱandȱAaronȱwithȱyouȱ(,) ʪʮʲ ʯʥʸʤʠʥ ʤʺʠ
andȱtheȱpriestsȱ(ȱ:ȱ)ȱandȱtheȱpeople – ʭʲʤʥ ( : )ȱʭʩʰʤʫʤʥȱ
theyȱshallȱnotȱbreakȱthrough,ȱ ʥʱʸʤʩ ʬʠ
16ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ176Ȭ177ȱ§ȱ207.ȱ
17ȱȱ SeeȱVONȱGALL,ȱPentateuch,ȱLXIIȬLXIII.ȱ
18ȱȱ AȱSamaritanȬarabicȱtreatiseȱonȱtheseȱreadingȱsignsȱfromȱtheȱ10thȱcenturyȱCEȱhasȱbeenȱ
publishedȱandȱtranslatedȱintoȱHebrewȱbyȱBENȬHAYYIMȱ(ʩʸʣʱ ʸʡʣʡ ʤʺʸʣ ʯʡʠ ʩʬʬʫ”ȱ
“ʤʺʸʷʮ)ȱinȱhisȱLOTȱII,ȱ338Ȭ373,ȱandȱcompareȱVONȱGALL,ȱPentateuch,ȱLXIII.ȱ
19ȱȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrewȱ textȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ms.ȱ 6ȱ ofȱ theȱ Nablusȱ synagoge,ȱ editedȱ byȱ TAL,ȱ
Pentateuch.ȱ
128 StefanȱSchorch
toȱcomeȱupȱtoȱtheȱLord,ȱ ʤʥʤʩ ʬʠ ʺʥʬʲʬ

otherwiseȱheȱwillȱbreakȱoutȱagainstȱthem. ʭʡ ʵʸʴʩ ʯʴ
ȱ
Inȱ thisȱ verseȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȬtraditionȱ isȱ divided:ȱ Whileȱ theȱ
membersȱofȱtheȱpriestlyȱfamiliesȱreadȱaȱfullȱstopȱafterȱ ʭʩʰʤʫʤʥȱ“andȱtheȱ
priests”,ȱtheȱremainingȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱhasȱtheȱfullȱstopȱafterȱʪʮʲȱ
“withȱyou”,ȱbeginningȱaȱnewȱsectionȱwithȱ ʭʩʰʤʫʤʥȱ“andȱtheȱpriests”ȱ(inȱ
accordanceȱwithȱtheȱAtnahȱinȱtheȱTiberianȱMasorah).20ȱTheȱphenomenonȱ
thatȱtheȱtraditionȱisȱsplittedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱverseȱdivisionȱisȱwellȱknownȱ
fromȱtheȱJewishȱMasorah,ȱwhereȱitȱisȱlabeledȱwithȱtheȱterminusȱPisq¬ȱbeȬ
æms̞acȱ p¬sĀq.21ȱ Theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ concurringȱ verseȱ divisionȱ inȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱ readingȬtraditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Torahȱ displaysȱaȱ largeȱ similarityȱ toȱ
thatȱ phenomenonȱ and,ȱ beingȱ withoutȱ anyȱ writtenȱ record,ȱ shouldȱ
thereforeȱ beȱ takenȱ asȱ aȱ furtherȱ indicationȱ forȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ aȱ latentȱ
Masorah.ȱȱ
Withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ exampleȱ citedȱ aboveȱ yetȱ furtherȱ observationsȱ
seemȱ important:ȱ Theȱ twoȱ differentȱ kindsȱ ofȱ verseȱ divisionȱ areȱ closelyȱ
connectedȱ withȱ theȱ twoȱ differentȱ groupsȱ readingȱ andȱ handingȱ downȱ
theȱtext:ȱTheȱreadingȱtransmittedȱamongȱtheȱpriestsȱobviouslyȱtouchesȱaȱ
pivotalȱ pointȱ ofȱ priestlyȱ identity:ȱ Theȱpriestlyȱ forefathersȱ ofȱ theȱdesertȱ
generationȱ wentȱ togetherȱ withȱ Moseȱ andȱ Aaronȱ forȱ offeringȱ onȱ theȱ
mountain,ȱ whileȱ laymenȱ wereȱ excluded.ȱ Theȱ readingȱ handedȱ downȱ
amongȱ nonȬpriestlyȱ families,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ side,ȱ seesȱ bothȱ commonȱ
peopleȱ andȱ priestsȱ excludedȱ fromȱ goingȱ withȱ Moseȱ andȱ Aaron.ȱ Itȱ
claims,ȱ therefore,ȱ anȱ equalȱ statusȱ forȱ bothȱ groupsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ
revelationȱ ofȱ theȱ Torahȱ andȱ deniesȱ theȱ priestsȱ anyȱ superiorityȱ inȱ thatȱ
field.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ obviousȱ thatȱ theȱ laymenȱ whoȱ handȱ downȱ thisȱ readingȱ
seeȱtheirȱidentityȱexpressedȱinȱthisȱway.ȱSinceȱbothȱwaysȱofȱpunctuationȱ
correspondȱtoȱtheȱrespectiveȱgroupȱidentities,ȱneitherȱgroupȱwillȱleaveȱ
theirȱ traditionȱ but,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ willȱ evenȱ stickȱ toȱ itȱ moreȱ firmly.ȱ
Mostȱ paradoxically,ȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ parallelȱ existenceȱ ofȱ twoȱ variantȱ
20ȱȱ TheȱstrongȱimpactȱofȱtheȱpriestlyȱreadingȬtraditionȱisȱwellȱdemonstratedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱ
thatȱ itȱ enteredȱ theȱ manuscriptȱ tradition.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ isȱ attestedȱ inȱ numerousȱ ancientȱ
manuscripts:ȱ13ȱ outȱofȱ theȱ23ȱmanuscriptsȱrecordedȱinȱ theȱapparatusȱadȱloc.ȱofȱ VONȱ
GALL’sȱeditionȱcontainȱtheȱfullȱstopȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱpriestlyȱreading,ȱandȱtheȱsameȱisȱ
trueȱforȱtheȱtextȱofȱTAL’sȱeditionȱ(Ms.ȱ6ȱofȱtheȱNablusȱsynagogue).ȱAmongȱtheȱmodȬ
ernȱSamaritanȱeditions,ȱthatȱofȱIsraelȱSEDAKAȱfollowsȱtheȱpriestlyȱreading,ȱwhileȱtheȱ
editionȱofȱAbrahamȱundȱRatzonȱTSEDAKAȱcontainsȱtheȱfollowingȱpunctuation: ʸʮʠʩʥ
.ʭʡ ʵʸʴʩ ʯʴ ,ʤʥʤʩ ʬʠ ʺʥʬʲʬ ʥʱʸʤʩ ʬʠ ʭʲʤʥ ʭʩʰʤʫʤʥ ,ʪʮʲ ʯʸʤʠʥ ʤʺʠ [!] ʺʩʬʲʥ ,ʣʸ ʪʬ ,ʤʥʤʩ ʥʩʬʠ.ȱ
21ȱȱ SeeȱTOV,ȱText,ȱ42Ȭ43.ȱ
readingsȱ doesȱ notȱ weakenȱ theȱ traditionȱ asȱ aȱ whole,ȱ butȱ strengthensȱ itȱ
andȱthusȱfulfillsȱtheȱgeneralȱfunctionȱtheȱMasorahȱusuallyȱisȱdevotedȱto.ȱ
5.ȱConcurringȱtraditionsȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱvocalizationȱȱ
ofȱcertainȱwordsȱ
Thisȱparadoxȱleadsȱtoȱaȱfurtherȱpointȱwhichȱshouldȱbeȱseenȱwithinȱtheȱ
frameworkȱ ofȱ latentȱ Masorah:ȱ Theȱ aforeȱ mentionedȱ differenceȱ withȱ
regardȱtoȱtheȱpunctuationȱofȱExodȱ19,24ȱisȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱtheȱonlyȱreadȬ
ingȱaboutȱwhichȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱisȱdivided.ȱRather,ȱthereȱisȱaȱ
wholeȱ stockȱ ofȱ wordsȱ fromȱ theȱ Torahȱ whichȱ areȱ pronouncedȱ inȱ difȬ
ferentȱways.ȱ
BenȬHayyimȱ providedȱ aȱ shortȱ listȱ ofȱ 13ȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ hisȱ
severalȱ informants,22ȱ butȱ thisȱ listȱ canȱ easilyȱ beȱ expandedȱ toȱ atȱ leastȱ 31ȱ
cases.23ȱ Withinȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ community,ȱ theseȱ differencesȱ areȱ aȱ
subjectȱofȱdiscussionȱandȱevenȱofȱquarrel.24ȱȱ
Amongȱ theseȱ 31ȱ differences,ȱ theȱ followingȱ subȬcategoriesȱ mayȱ beȱ
discerned:ȱ Theȱ biggestȱ group,ȱ comprisingȱ 12ȱ cases,ȱ consistsȱ ofȱ differȬ
encesȱ inȱ morphologyȱ withoutȱ anyȱ semanticȱ implicationȱ (e.g.ȱ no.ȱ 2:ȱ
n¾quttaȱvs.ȱn¾qittaȱ–ȱGenȱ24,8).ȱTheȱsecondȱbiggestȱgroupȱofȱ11ȱcasesȱconȬ
sistsȱ ofȱ purelyȱ phonologicalȱ differencesȱ (e.g.ȱ kenȱ vs.ȱ kan).ȱ Inȱ oneȱ case,ȱ
theȱ differenceȱ isȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ verbalȱ valenceȱ (alr¬’otȱ itȱ vs.ȱ alr¬’otȱ atȱ –ȱ
Genȱ44,26),ȱagainȱnotȱinvolvingȱaȱdifferentȱmeaning.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱ
aȱsemanticalȱdifferenceȱisȱinvolvedȱinȱ7ȱofȱtheȱ31ȱcasesȱ(e.g.ȱʭʩʸʡʢʤȱ¬g¬b¬rˬmȱ
vs.ȱagg¬b¬rˬmȱ–ȱExodȱ10,11).ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnote,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheseȱ
differencesȱ areȱ notȱ simplyȱ dividedȱ betweenȱ twoȱ clearȱ definedȱ parties,ȱ
butȱareȱeachȱtimeȱfollowedȱbyȱdifferentȱreaders.ȱȱ
Inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theseȱ differences,ȱ however,ȱ theirȱ limitedȱ numberȱ andȱ
contentȱwillȱneverȱendangerȱtheȱidealȱofȱaȱuniformȱreadingȬtradition.ȱOfȱ
course,ȱ everyȱ singleȱ familyȱ regardsȱ theirȱ traditionȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ trustȬ
worthy,ȱtheyȱwillȱinsistȱonȱitȱandȱtheyȱwillȱdefendȱitȱagainstȱconcurringȱ
variants.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thisȱ situationȱ ofȱ concurrenceȱ andȱ socialȱ controlȱ whichȱ
makesȱ peopleȱ stickȱ moreȱ firmlyȱ toȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ toldȱ themȱ byȱ theirȱ
fatherȱorȱtheirȱteacher.ȱButȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱthisȱconstantȱchallengeȱtoȱ
everyȱsingleȱreaderȱstrengthensȱtheȱtraditionȱasȱaȱwholeȱandȱuniformityȱ
remainsȱ theȱ commonȱ ideal,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ inȱ practiceȱ everyoneȱ isȱ veryȱ wellȱ
22ȱȱ BENȬHAYYIM,ȱLOTȱIV,ȱ555Ȭ556.ȱ
23ȱȱ SeeȱSCHORCH,ȱVokale,ȱ67Ȭ73.ȱ
24ȱȱ SeeȱTSEDAKA,ȱWords.ȱ
130 StefanȱSchorch
awareȱ ofȱ theȱ differences.ȱ Thus,ȱ ironically,ȱ theȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ readingȱ
differencesȱresultsȱinȱaȱstrongerȱtradition.ȱȱ
ThisȱagainȱhasȱnumerousȱparallelsȱinȱtheȱJewishȱMasorah:ȱAsȱisȱwellȱ
known,ȱ theȱ Masoretesȱ deliberatelyȱ collectedȱ andȱ transmittedȱ listsȱ ofȱ
differentȱkindȱofȱvariants,25ȱe.g.ȱtheȱMasoreticȱlistsȱofȱh̞illĀpÎmȱbetweenȱ
theȱ Babylonianȱ andȱ theȱ Palestinianȱ traditionȱ (Medinh̞¬’¾ȱ vs.ȱ Macarb¬’¾26)ȱ
orȱbetweenȱtheȱtraditionsȱofȱBenȱAsherȱandȱBenȱNaphtali.27ȱ
Moreover,ȱthereȱisȱaȱcloseȱparallelȱbetweenȱtheȱparallelȱtraditionȱofȱ
differentȱvariantsȱandȱtheȱMasoreticȱphenomenonȱofȱsebÎrÎn.ȱSebÎrÎnȱreferȱ
toȱ differencesȱ inȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ textusȱ receptus,ȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ
transmittedȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱanȱacceptableȱreading,ȱ
butȱtoȱtheȱcontrary,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱthem:ȱ
“Theȱnoteȱsevirinȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱthatȱtheȱconsonantalȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱindicateȱ
theȱ formȱ toȱ beȱ read,ȱ orȱ thatȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ inȱ anyȱ wayȱ inȱ doubt.ȱ Itȱ presentsȱ aȱ
readingȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱavoidȱaȱdifficultyȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱbutȱtheȱpurposeȱisȱtoȱ
warnȱ thatȱ thisȱ readingȱ isȱ notȱ correct.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thusȱ givenȱ asȱ aȱ supportȱ forȱ theȱ
receivedȱreading.”28ȱȱ
Asȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ differencesȱ discussedȱ above,ȱ theȱ
Masoreticȱ sebÎrÎnȱ serveȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ guardingȱ theȱ traditionȱ throughȱ
transmittingȱ aȱ secondȱ reading.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ why,ȱ inȱ myȱ eyes,ȱ theȱ parallelȱ
transmissionȱofȱdifferentȱreadingsȱinȱtheȱSamaritanȱtraditionȱshouldȱbeȱ
regardedȱasȱaȱMasoreticȱphenomenon,ȱtoo.ȱ
ȱ
Comingȱtoȱaȱconclusion,ȱweȱmayȱsay,ȱtherefore,ȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱoralȱ
readingȬtraditionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱdisplaysȱseveralȱfeaturesȱwhichȱdoȱpointȱ
toȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱanȱinherentȱlatentȱMasorah.ȱItȱisȱthisȱMasorahȱwhichȱ
makesȱtheȱtraditionȱthatȱstableȱitȱobviouslyȱis.ȱȱ
TheȱfollowingȱMasoreticȱfeaturesȱmayȱbeȱsingledȱout:ȱ
ƺ Theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ parallelȱ formsȱ goingȱ backȱ toȱ differentȱ historicalȱ
pointsȱofȱdeparture.ȱ
ƺ TheȱpartialȱindependenceȱofȱKˬtÎbȱandȱQˬr¾.ȱ
ƺ Theȱmarkingȱofȱnominaȱsacra.ȱ
ƺ Concurringȱtraditionsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱpunctuation,ȱcorrespondingȱtoȱ
theȱJewishȱPisq¬ȱbeȬæmc a cȱp¬sĀq.ȱ
25ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ73ȱ§ȱ124.ȱ
26ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ139Ȭ141ȱ§§ȱ153Ȭ154,ȱandȱcompareȱTOV,ȱText,ȱ20.ȱ
27ȱȱ SeeȱYEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ141Ȭ144ȱ§§ȱ155Ȭ157.ȱ
28ȱȱ YEIVIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ63.ȱ
ƺ Concurringȱ traditionsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ vocalisationȱ ofȱ certainȱ

wordsȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱJewish hҚillĀpÎmȬȱandȱsebÎrÎnȬtradition.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
BENȬHAYYIM,ȱZeev,ȱAȱgrammarȱofȱSamaritanȱHebrew:ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱrecitationȱofȱ
theȱ lawȱ inȱ comparisonȱ withȱ theȱ Tiberianȱ andȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ traditionsȱ (Aȱ
revisedȱeditionȱinȱEnglishȱwithȱassistanceȱfromȱAbrahamȱTAL),ȱJerusalemȱ/ȱȱ
WinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2000.ȱ
BENȬHAYYIM,ȱ Zeev,ȱ ?ʥʩʺʥʩʺʥʠʡ ʭʹʤ ʺʠ ʭʩʰʥʸʮʥʹʤ ʭʩʢʥʤʤȱ (“Doȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
pronounceȱtheȱnameȱofȱGod?”,ȱinȱHebrew)ȱin:ȱErIsȱ3ȱ(1954),ȱ147Ȭ154.ȱ
BENȬHAYYIM,ȱ Zeev,ȱLOTȱ=ȱBENȬHAYYIM,ȱZeev,ȱTheȱLiteraryȱandȱOralȱTraditionȱ
ofȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ Amongstȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ (5ȱ volumes),ȱ Jerusalemȱ
1957Ȭ1977.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.,ȱ Columnarȱ writingȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Masorah,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ
AlanȱD.,ȱSamaritanȱscribesȱandȱmanuscriptsȱ(TSAJ;ȱ80),ȱTübingenȱ2001,ȱ488Ȭ
516.ȱ
CROWN,ȱAlanȱD.,ȱSamaritanȱscribalȱhabitsȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱMasorahȱandȱtheȱ
Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls,ȱ in:ȱ PAUL,ȱ Shalomȱ M.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Emanuel:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ
HebrewȱBible,ȱSeptuagintȱandȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱinȱHonorȱofȱEmanuelȱTovȱ
(VT.S;ȱ94),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBostonȱ2003,ȱ159Ȭ177.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ morphologyȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrewȱ (inȱ
Hebrew),ȱin:ȱLeš.ȱLIXȱ(1996),ȱ217Ȭ241.ȱ
GALL,ȱ AugustȱFreiherrȱvonȱ(Hg.),ȱDerȱsamaritanischeȱPentateuchȱderȱSamaritaȬ
ner.ȱErsterȱTeil:ȱProlegomenaȱundȱGenesis,ȱGießenȱ1914Ȭ1918.ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Moses,ȱ Massoretischesȱ imȱ Samaritanischen,ȱ in:ȱ BEZOLD,ȱ Carlȱ (ed.),ȱ
OrientalischeȱStudienȱTheodorȱNöldekeȱzumȱsiebzigstenȱGeburtstag,ȱBandȱ
1,ȱGieΆenȱ1906,ȱ513Ȭ536.ȱ
KAHLE,ȱPaul,ȱDieȱLesezeichenȱbeiȱdenȱSamaritanern,ȱin:ȱKAHLE,ȱPaul,ȱOperaȱMiȬ
nora:ȱFestgabeȱzumȱ21.ȱJanuarȱ1956,ȱLeidenȱ1956,ȱ167Ȭ179.ȱ
MORAG,ȱ Shelomo,ȱ «Latentȱ Masorah»ȱ inȱ oralȱ languageȱ traditions,ȱ in:ȱ Sef.ȱ 46ȱ
(1986)ȱ333Ȭ344.ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱ Stefan,ȱ Dieȱ (sogenannten)ȱ antiȬpolytheistischenȱ Korrekturenȱ imȱ
samaritanischenȱ Pentateuch.ȱ Mitteilungenȱ undȱ Beiträgeȱ derȱ ForschungsȬ
stelleȱJudentum,ȱin:ȱTheologischeȱFakultätȱLeipzigȱ15/16ȱ(1999)ȱ4Ȭ21.ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱ Stefan,ȱDieȱVokaleȱdesȱGesetzes:ȱDieȱsamaritanischeȱLesetraditionȱalsȱ
TextzeuginȱderȱTora,ȱI:ȱGenesisȱ(BZAWȱ339),ȱBerlinȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱStefan,ȱLaȱformationȱdeȱlaȱcommunautéȱsamaritaineȱauȱ2eȱsiècleȱavantȱ
J.ȬChr.ȱ etȱ laȱ cultureȱ deȱ lectureȱ duȱ Judaïsme,ȱ in:ȱ HIMBAZA,ȱ Innocentȱ /ȱ
132 StefanȱSchorch
SCHENKER,ȱAdrianȱ(ed.),ȱUnȱcarrefourȱdansȱlȇhistoireȱdeȱlaȱBible:ȱDuȱtexteȱàȱ
laȱthéologieȱauȱIIeȱsiècleȱavantȱJ.ȬC.ȱ(OBOȱ233),ȱFribourgȱ2007,ȱ5Ȭ20.ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱ Stefan,ȱ Theȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ community,ȱ in:ȱ Linguisticȱ andȱ
OrientalȱStudiesȱfromȱPoznanȱ7ȱ(2005)ȱ7Ȭ16.ȱ
SKEHAN,ȱ PatrickȱW.,ȱTheȱdivineȱnameȱatȱQumran,ȱinȱtheȱMasadaȱscroll,ȱandȱinȱ
theȱSeptuagint,ȱin:ȱBIOSCSȱ13ȱ(1980)ȱ14Ȭ44.ȱ
TAL,ȱ Abraham,ȱTheȱSamaritanȱPentateuch:ȱeditedȱaccordingȱtoȱMsȱ6ȱ(C)ȱofȱtheȱ
Shekhemȱ Synagogueȱ (Textsȱ andȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ languageȱ andȱ
relatedȱsubjectsȱVIII),ȱTelȱAvivȱ1994.ȱ
TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Derȱ Textȱ derȱ Hebräischenȱ Bibel,ȱ in:ȱ Handbuchȱ derȱ Textkritik,ȱ
Stuttgartȱ1997.ȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱ Abrahamȱ/ȱ TSEDAKA,ȱ Ratzonȱ(ed.),ȱJewishȱversionȱ/ȱSamaritanȱversionȱ
ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ withȱ particularȱ stressȱ onȱ theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ bothȱ
texts,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1961Ȭ1965.ȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱ Benyamim,ȱ Howȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Israelitesȱ pronounceȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ
God?,ȱin:ȱA.B.ȬTheȱSamaritanȱNewsȱ756Ȭ757ȱ(2000)ȱ95Ȭ96.ȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱBenyamim,ȱWordsȱinȱcontentionȱinȱtheȱreadingȱofȱtheȱlawȱandȱprayersȱ
amongȱ theȱ IsraeliteȬSamaritansȱ today,ȱ in:ȱ RAINER,ȱ Voigtȱ (Hg.),ȱ Undȱ dasȱ
Lebenȱ istȱ siegreich!ȱ /ȱ Andȱ Lifeȱ isȱ Victoriousȱ /ȱ Mandäischeȱ undȱ samaritaȬ
nischeȱ Literaturȱ /ȱ Mandeanȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ Literatures,ȱ Imȱ Gedenkenȱ anȱ
RudolfȱMacuchȱ/ȱInȱMemoryȱofȱRudolfȱMacuchȱ(1919Ȭ1993)ȱ(Mandäistischeȱ
Forschungen;ȱ1),ȱWiesbadenȱ2008,ȱȱ247Ȭ253.ȱ
SEDAKA,ȱIsrael,ȱSamaritanischeȱToraȱ(Hebrew),ȱHolon,ȱ2000.ȱ
YEIVIN,ȱIsrael,ȱ,ȱin:ȱEJȱV,ȱJerusalemȱ1967Ȭ1972,ȱ130Ȭ159.ȱȱ
YEIVIN,ȱ Israel,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ Tiberianȱ Masorah,ȱ translatedȱ andȱ editedȱ byȱ
REVELL,ȱErnestȱJohnȱ(MasoreticȱStudiesȱ5),ȱChico,ȱCAȱ1980.ȱȱȱ

:ʤʸʥʺʡ ʺʹʬʥʹʮʤ ʤʫʸʡʤȱ

TheȱHebrew,ȱAramaicȱandȱArabicȱVersionsȱ
ofȱtheȱSamaritanȱPentateuch1ȱ
MATTHEWȱMORGENSTERNȱ
Althoughȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ andȱ postȬbiblicalȱ

Samaritanȱ literatureȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ scholarlyȱ scrutinyȱ forȱ
severalȱcenturies,ȱandȱglossariesȱofȱSamaritanȱliteraryȱworksȱhaveȱbeenȱ
availableȱ forȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ hundredȱ years,ȱ weȱ stillȱ doȱ notȱ possessȱ aȱ
comprehensiveȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ biblicalȱ exegesis.ȱ Beyondȱ theȱ
modernȱ biblicalȱ commentariesȱ thatȱ takeȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ versionȱ intoȱ
account,ȱseveralȱ studiesȱdealȱspecificallyȱ withȱ biblicalȱ philologyȱinȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱtradition.ȱImportantȱnotesȱonȱtheȱSamaritanȱinterpretationȱofȱ
individualȱ biblicalȱ wordsȱ andȱ passagesȱ areȱ foundȱ throughoutȱ Z.ȱ BenȬ
Íayyim’sȱ magnumȱ opus,ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Oralȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ SamariȬ
tans,ȱ whichȱ coversȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ philologicalȱ topicsȱ ofȱ anȱ exegeticalȱ
andȱlexicographicalȱnature.2ȱParticularlyȱsignificantȱisȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱ
theȱ 14thȱ centuryȱ trilingualȱ (HebrewȬAramaicȬArabic)ȱ dictionary,ȱ HaȬ
Melic.3ȱȱ
Aȱ majorȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ fieldȱ isȱ Abrahamȱ Tal’sȱ recentlyȱ pubȬ
lishedȱDictionaryȱofȱSamaritanȱAramaic,ȱwhichȱincludesȱaȱlargeȱnumberȱ
ofȱ lexemesȱ fromȱ theȱ pseudoȬAramaicȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ writtenȱ inȱ
Samaritanȱ NeoȬHebrew,ȱ Shomronit,ȱ andȱ showsȱ howȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textȱ
wasȱ interpretedȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ period.4ȱ ȱ Mosheȱ Florentin’sȱ recentlyȱ pubȬ
lishedȱstudyȱonȱtheȱSamaritanȱneoȬHebrewȱofȱtheȱ14thȱcenturyȱonwardsȱ
nowȱ providesȱ usȱ withȱ aȱ primaryȱ orientationȱ forȱ thisȱ laterȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ
language,ȱ andȱ includesȱ manyȱ additionalȱ observationsȱ relatingȱ toȱ theȱ
1ȱȱ Iȱ wishȱ toȱ thankȱ Prof.ȱ Mosheȱ FLORENTINȱ ofȱ Telȱ Avivȱ Universityȱ whoȱ generouslyȱ
agreedȱtoȱreadȱtheȱdraftȱofȱtheȱpublishedȱversionȱofȱthisȱlecture.ȱTheȱversionȱprintedȱ
hereȱhasȱbenefittedȱconsiderablyȱfromȱhisȱhelpfulȱcommentsȱandȱsuggestions.ȱȱ
2ȱȱ BENȬ ÍAYYIM,ȱLiterary.ȱȱ
3ȱȱ OnȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱworkȱseeȱWATAD,ȱCompiler,ȱ477Ȭ490.ȱ
4ȱȱ TAL,ȱDictionary.ȱȱ
134 MatthewȱMorgenstern
Samaritanȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ text.5ȱ Stefanȱ Schorchȱ hasȱ disȬ
cussedȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Genesisȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ
theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȱ tradition,ȱ whileȱ comparingȱ thisȱ traditionȱ withȱ
otherȱearlyȱJewishȱinterpretations.6ȱ
Inȱ tryingȱ toȱ establishȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ understandingȱ ofȱ individualȱ
wordsȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ weȱ mustȱ askȱ ourselvesȱ toȱ whatȱ
extentȱ canȱ weȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ interpretationȱ tradition?ȱ Lowyȱ
suggestedȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ biblicalȱ interpretationȱ characterisedȱ byȱ anȱ
innateȱconservatism,ȱandȱthatȱ“althoughȱitȱwasȱindeedȱguidedȱbyȱrulesȱ
(orȱ ‘exegeticalȱ principles’),ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ systemȱ remainedȱ essentiallyȱ
staticȱasȱcomparedȱwithȱallȱothers”.7ȱȱHowever,ȱthisȱassumptionȱisȱnotȱ
supportedȱ byȱ theȱ evidence.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ Halachah,ȱ Bóidȱ
hasȱ suggested,ȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ itsȱ innateȱ conservatism,ȱ thisȱ uniformityȱ isȱ aȱ
lateȱ developmentȱ andȱ thatȱ inȱ itsȱ formativeȱ stages,ȱ Samaritanȱ interpreȬ
tationȱ –ȱ likeȱitsȱ Jewishȱ counterpartȱ –ȱ wasȱ moreȱ diverse.8ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ
earliestȱ knownȱ commentary,ȱ coveringȱ Genesisȱ 1Ȭ25,ȱ wasȱ shownȱ byȱ
Loewenstammȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ reworkingȱ ofȱ aȱ commentaryȱ byȱ theȱ
KaraiteȱscholarȱYeshuahȱb.ȱYehudah,ȱthisȱreworkingȱinȱitselfȱisȱevidenceȱ
ofȱ anȱ ongoingȱ interestȱ intoȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ text.9ȱ Otherȱ
commentariesȱ wereȱ writtenȱ inȱ Arabicȱ inȱ theȱ laterȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ andȱ
attestȱtoȱtheȱongoingȱactivityȱofȱinterpretingȱtheȱbiblicalȱtext.10ȱ
InȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱsystematicȱSamaritanȱcommentariesȱonȱtheȱTorahȱ
fromȱtheȱearlyȱperiodȱandȱfewȱexplicitȱSamaritanȱlexicalȱtools,ȱtoȱwhatȱ
extentȱcanȱweȱemployȱtheȱdifferentȱrecensionsȱofȱtheȱAramaicȱTargumȱ
andȱotherȱindirectȱwitnessesȱtoȱreconstructȱtheȱinterpretationȱhistoryȱofȱ
theȱtext,ȱandȱthusȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱprimaryȱlexicalȱvalueȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱ
wordsȱ thatȱ laterȱ foundȱ theirȱ wayȱ intoȱ theȱ mediaevalȱ Samaritanȱ
literature?ȱ Thisȱ weightyȱ questionȱ demandsȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ answerȱ
thatȱ goesȱ farȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ article,ȱ whichȱ willȱ byȱ necessityȱ
concentrateȱ onȱ selectedȱ examplesȱ drawnȱ fromȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȱ
5ȱȱ FLORENTIN,ȱHebrew.ȱȱ
6ȱȱ SCHORCH,ȱVokale.ȱ
7ȱȱ LOWY,ȱPrinciples,ȱ3.ȱ
8ȱȱ BÓID,ȱAuthority,ȱ595Ȭ633,ȱandȱhisȱassessmentȱofȱLOWY’Sȱworkȱonȱ633.ȱȱ
9ȱȱ SeeȱnowȱLOEWENSTAMM,ȱKaraite,ȱ159Ȭ206ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
10ȱȱ Seeȱ LOEWENSTAMM,ȱ Karaite,ȱ 144.ȱ Forȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ interpretativeȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱtradition,ȱseeȱFLORENTIN,ȱ ʭʤʩʺʥʸʫʮ ʱʮʧ ʩʬʫ,ȱ189Ȭ203.ȱAsȱFLORENTINȱnotes,ȱ
aȱ lateȱ Samaritanȱ commentary,ȱ ϦϴΘϛήΒϟ΍ Ρήηȱ (Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Twoȱ Blessingsȱ [ofȱ
Jacobȱ andȱ Moses])ȱ supportsȱ anȱ interpretationȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ Targumȱ
againstȱthatȱfoundȱinȱSamaritanȱreadingȱtraditionȱandȱtheȱArabicȱtranslation.ȱȱ
ȱ ʤʸʥʺʡ ʺʹʬʥʹʮʤ ʤʫʸʡʤ 135ȱ
tradition,ȱtheȱSamaritanȱTargumȱandȱtheȱArabicȱtranslationsȱemployedȱ
byȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱfollowingȱtheȱMuslimȱconquest.ȱȱȱ
Theȱ drawingȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ fromȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Targumȱ hasȱ beenȱ
greatlyȱ facilitatedȱ byȱ theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ Tal’sȱ criticalȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ
texts.11ȱThanksȱtoȱTal’sȱwork,ȱitȱisȱnowȱpossibleȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱhistoricalȱ
developmentȱofȱtheȱTargumȱtextȱfromȱthatȱofȱtheȱearlierȱmanuscriptsȱ–ȱ
particularlyȱexemplifiedȱbyȱtheȱremarkableȱBritishȱMuseumȱmanuscriptȱ
Orȱ 7562ȱ (MSȱ Jȱ ofȱ Tal’sȱ edition)ȱ –ȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ laterȱ ones,ȱ exemplifiedȱ
particularlyȱbyȱtheȱShekhemȱSynagogueȱManuscriptȱNoȱ3ȱ(MSȱAȱofȱTal’sȱ
edition).ȱ Inȱ theȱ thirdȱ volumeȱ ofȱ hisȱ edition,ȱ Talȱ hasȱ diligentlyȱ characȬ
terisedȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ changesȱ thatȱ wereȱ introducedȱ intoȱ theȱ textȱ overȱ
time.ȱWhileȱmanyȱareȱofȱaȱpurelyȱlinguisticȱnature,ȱothersȱaffectȱtheȱexeȬ
geticalȱnatureȱofȱtheȱTargum.ȱInȱparticular,ȱTalȱhasȱrecordedȱnumerousȱ
examplesȱinȱwhichȱtheȱearlierȱTargumȱtraditionȱdistinguishesȱbetweenȱ
differentȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ aȱ Hebrewȱ lexemeȱ whileȱ theȱ laterȱ traditionȱ
mechanicallyȱrendersȱthemȱwithȱaȱsingleȱAramaicȱtranslationȱirrespecȬ
tiveȱofȱtheȱcontextualȱsense.12ȱAsȱTalȱhasȱsuggested,ȱwhileȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱ
changesȱ mayȱ beȱ explainedȱ asȱ reflectingȱ theȱ semanticȱ driftȱ ofȱ theȱ
Aramaicȱlanguage,ȱothersȱsuggestȱaȱdeteriorationȱofȱtheȱTargumicȱtradiȬ
tionȱ asȱ Aramaicȱ ceasedȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ andȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ translationȱ
playedȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ secondaryȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ religiousȱ life.ȱ
Theȱ exegeticalȱ deteriorationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Targumȱ wouldȱ beȱ
paralleledȱ byȱ theȱ linguisticȱ deteriorationȱ attestedȱ inȱ theseȱ manuscriptsȱ
thatȱTalȱhasȱsimilarlyȱdescribedȱinȱhisȱintroduction.13ȱ
1.ȱʪʫʸʲ
Letȱusȱbeginȱwithȱanȱexampleȱofȱthisȱphenomenonȱthatȱisȱnotȱdiscussedȱ
inȱ Tal’sȱ introduction,ȱ butȱ nicelyȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ decisiveȱ valueȱ ofȱ
criticalȱ editionsȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ interpretativeȱ history.ȱ Theȱ formȱ ʪʫʸʲȱ
appearsȱinȱtheȱTorahȱsomeȱ25ȱtimes,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱexamplesȱbeingȱfoundȱ
inȱ Levȱ 27.ȱ Theȱ ancientȱ translationsȱ areȱ inȱ agreementȱ thatȱ thisȱ wordȱ
meansȱ‘assessment’,ȱ‘evaluation’,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱkaphȱhasȱlostȱsenseȱ
ofȱaȱsecondȱpersonȱsingularȱsuffixedȱpronoun.ȱTargumȱOnkelosȱtransȬ
lates,ȱforȱexample,ȱ 'ʤʬ ʺʥʹʕʴʰ ʪʕ ˗ʍ ʸʍ ʲʓ ˎʍ ȱinȱLevȱ27,2ȱwithȱtheȱAramaicȱ ʯʔʱʸ˒ʴˎ
'ʤ ʭʣʷ ʠʕʺʹʴʔʕ ʰ,ȱ whileȱ translatingȱ freelyȱ otherȱ examplesȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ
11ȱȱ TAL,ȱTargum.ȱ
12ȱȱ TAL,ȱTargum,ȱ3,ȱ59Ȭ66.ȱ
chapterȱ withȱ theȱ appropriateȱ pronominalȱ suffix,ȱ e.g.ȱ ʤʩʰʱʸʥʴ,ȱ ʤʰʱʸʥʴ.ȱ

Targumȱ Neofitiȱ translatesȱ inȱ allȱ placesȱ ʤʩʥʬʩʲ,ȱ presumablyȱ toȱ beȱ vocalȬ
izedȱ ʤʕʩ˒˘ʩʑʲ,ȱ ‘theȱ value’.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ proofsȱ broughtȱ byȱ theȱ mediaevalȱ
Jewishȱscholarsȱforȱtheȱfactȱthatȱʪʫʸʲȱisȱaȱfrozenȱnominalȱformȱisȱtheȱfactȱ
thatȱ itȱ canȱ takeȱ theȱ definiteȱ article,ȱ asȱ foundȱ inȱ MTȱ Levȱ 27,23:ȱ ʪʕ ˗ʍ ʸʍ ʲʓ ʤʕ .14ȱ
Theȱorthographyȱ ʪʫʸʲʤȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱsameȱpositionȱinȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
version,ȱ whereȱ itȱ isȱ readȱ ‘¬šrkåk,ȱ andȱ thusȱ standsȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ ‘årkåkȱ
withȱaȱshortȱfirstȱå,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱpronunciationȱofȱtheȱformȱwithoutȱtheȱ
definiteȱarticle.15ȱ
HowȱdoȱtheȱSamaritanȱversionsȱrelateȱtoȱthisȱform?ȱTheȱfirstȱthingȱ
weȱmayȱnoteȱisȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱkaphȱisȱreadȱȬåk,ȱi.e.ȱasȱaȱpronominalȱform,ȱ
evenȱthoughȱthisȱformȱhasȱlostȱitsȱmeaning.16ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱthisȱwordȱ
differsȱfromȱtheȱformȱ ʤʫʠʡȱ(Genȱ10,30;17ȱGenȱ13,10;ȱGenȱ25,18).ȱAsȱBenȬ
Íayyimȱ demonstrated,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ pronunciationȱ ofȱ ʤʫʠʡȱ b¬škaȱ reȬ
tainsȱ theȱ historicalȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ 2ȱ m.s.ȱ pronounȱ Ȭka,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ
standardȱ Samaritanȱ Ȭåk,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ itsȱ interpretationȱ asȱ aȱ 2ȱ m.s.ȱ
pronominalȱsuffixȱwasȱknownȱbyȱtheȱancientȱtranslators.18ȱ
Howȱ isȱ thisȱ termȱ treatedȱ inȱ theȱ translations?ȱ Inȱ hisȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ
trilingualȱ Samaritanȱ dictionary,ȱ BenȬÍayyimȱ notedȱ thatȱ whileȱ theȱ
Arabicȱcolumnȱtranslatesȱ ʪʫʸʲȱwithȱArabicȱ ʭʩʥʷʺȱ‘evaluation’,ȱtheȱAraȬ
maicȱ columnȱ rendersȱ theȱ formȱ ʪʮʠʩʹ.19ȱ Theȱ laterȱ Arabicȱ translationȱ
wouldȱappearȱtoȱmoreȱaccuratelyȱrenderȱtheȱcontextualȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱ
Hebrewȱ thanȱ Aramaicȱ column,ȱ whichȱ isȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱ redundantȱ
kaphȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrew.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ BenȬÍayyimȱ commented,ȱ theȱ situaȬ
tionȱ isȱ complicatedȱ byȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ anȱ alternativeȱ readingȱ inȱ theȱ
Aramaicȱversions,ȱnamelyȱʭʠʩʹȱwithoutȱtheȱpronoun.ȱ
Nowȱthatȱweȱhaveȱcriticalȱeditionsȱofȱallȱofȱtheseȱtexts,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱ
toȱ placeȱ theseȱ dataȱ intoȱ aȱ textȬhistoricalȱ framework.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ presentedȱ
hereȱ severalȱ examplesȱ ofȱ ʪʫʸʲȱ andȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ translationsȱ inȱ theȱ
differentȱmanuscriptsȱofȱtheȱAramaicȱandȱArabicȱversions.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
14ȱȱ SeeȱtheȱvariousȱviewsȱsummarisedȱbyȱAbrahamȱibnȱEzraȱadȱLevȱ27,2.ȱȱ
15ȱȱ BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiterary,ȱIV,ȱ217.ȱ
16ȱȱ BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiteraryȱ,ȱV,ȱ§3.2ȱn.ȱ6ȱ=ȱBENȬÍAYYIM,ȱGrammarȱ,ȱ228ȱn.ȱ6.ȱȱ
17ȱȱ TheȱSamaritanȱreadingȱofȱGenȱ10,19ȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱMasoreticȱversion.ȱ
18ȱȱ BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱ Studies,ȱ 60ȱ n.ȱ 72Ȭ74.ȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ isȱ confirmedȱ byȱ theȱ manusȬ
criptsȱofȱtheȱAramaicȱtargum.ȱȱ
19ȱȱ BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiteraryȱ,ȱII,ȱȱ553.ȱ
Verses Levȱ5,15ȱ Levȱ27,2ȱ Levȱ27,3 Levȱ27,23ȱ
Manuscript20
Shekhem ʳʱʫ ʪʫʸʲʡ ʪʫʸʲʡ ʸʫʦʤ ʪʫʸʲ ʺʥʱʫʮ
SynagogueMSȱ6ȱ ʺʥʹʴʰ ʪʫʸʲʤ
(C)
Readingtradition b¬šrkåkȱk¬šsˬf b¬šrkåkȱ azzåkår maksotȱ
nafšot ‘¬šrkåk
J ʳʱʫ ʭʠʩʹʡ ʭʠʩʹʡ ʤʸʫʣ ʭʠʩʹ ʯʠʩʰʮ

ʯʤʹʴʰ ʤʮʠʩʹ
emendedto
ʳʱʫ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ
A ʳʱʫ ʤʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹ ʯʠʩʰʮ
ʯʤʹʴʰ ʤʸʫʣ ʤʮʠʩʹ
Mȱ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠ[ʩʹʡ] ʪʮ[ʠʩʹ] ʯʠʩʰʮ
ʤʸʫʣ ʪʮʠʩʹ
E ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹ ʯʠʩʰʮ
ʤʸʫʣ ʤʮʠʩʹ
C ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹ ʯʠʩʰʮ
ʤʸʫʣ ʤʮʠʩʹ
B ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹʡ ʪʮʠʩʹ ʩʮʥʫʱ
ʤʸʫʣ ʪʮʠʩʹ
OldArabic Ϣϫ΍έΩ ϪϤϴϘΑ αϮϔϧ ϢϳϮϘΘΑ ήϛάϠϟ ϢϳϮϘΘϟ΍ ϢϳϮϘΘϟ΍ ρΎδϗ΍
AbĀSa‘Îd ϦϴϟΎϘΜϣ ΔϤϴϘΑ αϮϔϧ ϢϳϮϘΘΑ ή˴ϛάϟ΍ ϢϳϮϘΗ ϢϳϮϘΘϟ΍ ρΎδϗ΍
Fromȱ thisȱ tableȱ weȱ canȱ clearlyȱ seeȱ theȱ variantȱ translationȱ processesȱ atȱ
work.ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ Targumȱ traditionȱ preservedȱ inȱ manuscriptȱ Jȱ transȬ
latesȱwithoutȱtheȱpronominalȱsuffix,ȱexceptȱinȱoneȱplaceȱwhereȱtheȱtextȱ
hasȱ beenȱ alteredȱ byȱ aȱ laterȱ scribe,ȱ whileȱ theȱ lessȱ conservativeȱ Targumȱ
traditionȱ ignoresȱ theȱ contextualȱ meaningȱ andȱ translatesȱ mechanically.ȱ
Thisȱ phenomenonȱ evenȱ affectsȱ MSȱ C,ȱ whichȱ isȱ generallyȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱ
earlyȱ Targumȱ tradition.21ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ Arabicȱ translationȱ isȱ
20ȱȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ orthographicȱ textȱ isȱ drawnȱ fromȱ TAL,ȱ Pentateuch,ȱ whileȱ theȱ readingȱ
traditionȱisȱaccordingȱtoȱBENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiterary,ȱIV.ȱTheȱTargumȱwitnessesȱareȱtakenȱ
fromȱTAL,ȱTargum,ȱandȱtheȱArabicȱtranslationsȱfromȱSHEHADEH,ȱTranslation.ȱȱȱ
moreȱfaithfulȱrequiredȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcontext,ȱandȱconsistentlyȱignoresȱ
theȱkaphȱpronounȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱword.ȱȱ
2.ȱʸʫʰ/ʩʸʫ
LetȱusȱnowȱconsiderȱaȱfeatureȱthatȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱnotedȱinȱTal’sȱstudyȱofȱ
theȱlaterȱTargumȱtradition.ȱTheȱlaterȱtraditionȱsometimesȱshowsȱslavishȱ
adherenceȱtoȱtheȱSamaritanȱreadingȱtradition,ȱevenȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱofȱtheȱ
writtenȱtext.ȱȱ
Theȱphraseȱʭʺʠʮ ʥʸʩʫʺ ʭʩʮ ʭʢȱappearsȱtwiceȱinȱtheȱSamaritanȱversionȱ
ofȱ theȱ Torah,ȱ onceȱ inȱ Deutȱ 2,6ȱ andȱ onceȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ version’sȱ
‘expansion’ȱ atȱ Numȱ 20,13.ȱ Atȱ bothȱ pointsȱ theȱ readingȱ traditionȱ readsȱ
wgamȱ memȱ takkÎruȱ miyy¾timma.22ȱ Theȱ geminationȱ ofȱ theȱ kaphȱ inȱ takkÎruȱ
suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ traditionȱ derivesȱ ʥʸʩʫʺȱ fromȱ theȱ rootȱ ʸʫʰȱ
ratherȱthanȱ ʩʸʫ.ȱThisȱalternativeȱformȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱTiberianȱtraditionȱ
inȱ theȱ formȱ ʤʕʸ˗ʍ ʠʓ ȱ inȱ Hoseaȱ 3,2,ȱ whichȱ theȱ mediaevalȱ Jewishȱ commenȬ
tatorsȱagreeȱmeansȱ‘ʩʺʩʰʷ’,ȱIȱacquired.ȱȱ
Allȱ theȱ manuscriptsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Targumȱ translateȱ ʯʥʰʡʦʺȱ ‘youȱ
shallȱ buy’,ȱ withȱ theȱ exceptionȱ ofȱ MSȱ N,ȱ whichȱ translatesȱ inȱ bothȱ
instancesȱ ʯʥʮʫʧʺ.ȱ Inȱ theȱ context,ȱ thisȱ readingȱ makesȱ noȱ senseȱ whatȬ
soeverȱ andȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ aȱ mechanicalȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ
homonymȱ takkÎru,ȱ ‘youȱ shallȱ recognise’,ȱ whichȱ isȱ foundȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ
theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ (Exodȱ 18,25ȱadditions;ȱ Deutȱ 1,17)23.ȱ TheȱOldȱ
Arabicȱ translationȱ readsȱ ϮϋΎΘΒΗ,ȱ orȱ theȱ classicalȱ formȱ ϥϮϋΎΘΒΗȱ ‘youȱ shallȱ
buy’,ȱ withȱ variantsȱ ofȱ ϥϭήΘθΗȱ ‘youȱ shallȱ buy’ȱ andȱ ϭέΎΘϤΗ ’youȱ shallȱ proȬ
videȱ(forȱyourselves)’.24ȱȱ
Inȱ thisȱ caseȱ other,ȱ theȱ earlyȱ Samaritanȱ versionsȱ agreeȱ thatȱ theȱ
meaningȱ ofȱ ʥʸʩʫʺȱ inȱ theseȱ versesȱ isȱ ‘toȱ acquire’,ȱ aȱ meaningȱ thatȱ isȱ alsoȱ
requiredȱ byȱ theȱ context.ȱ Onlyȱ oneȱ manuscriptȱ translates,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ
theȱ homophone,ȱ withȱ theȱ meaningȱ ‘toȱ recognise’.ȱ Hereȱ again,ȱ weȱ seeȱ
thatȱoneȱofȱtheȱlaterȱmanuscriptsȱhasȱmechanicallyȱfollowedȱtheȱBiblicalȱ
textȱ irrespectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ context.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ readingȱ
tradition,ȱ withȱ itsȱ homophonesȱ takkÎruȱ ‘showȱ favour’ȱ andȱ ‘buy’,ȱ hasȱ
probablyȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱinterchangeȱinȱMSȱNȱofȱtheȱTargum.ȱ
22ȱȱ ReadingȱtakenȱfromȱBENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiterary,ȱIV.ȱ
23ȱȱ BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱLiterary,ȱIV,ȱ181.ȱȱ
24ȱȱ SHEHADEH,ȱTranslation,ȱVolumeȱTwo.ȱ
3.ȱʥʧʠ
Weȱ shallȱ nowȱ considerȱ anȱ exampleȱ forȱ whichȱ theȱ earlyȱ traditionȱ hasȱ
beenȱpreviouslyȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱscholarlyȱliterature,ȱthoughȱnotȱinȱthisȱ
regard.ȱInȱGenȱ41,2,ȱandȱonceȱagainȱinȱverseȱ18,ȱweȱfindȱtheȱaccountȱofȱ
Pharaoh’sȱdream,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱisȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱsevenȱcowsȱascendȱfromȱ
theȱ Nile,ȱ ʥʧʠʡ ʤʰʩʲʸʺʥ,ȱ wt¬šrÎyyinnaȱ b¬’u.ȱ Theȱ modernȱ interpretersȱ agreeȱ
thatȱʥʧʠȱisȱanȱEgyptianȱwordȱmeaningȱ‘sedge’,ȱ‘marshȱplant’.25ȱ
ȱ
Verse Genȱ41,2 Genȱ41,18
Manuscript
Shekhem ʥʧʠʡ ʤʰʩʲʸʺʥ ʥʧʡ ʤʰʲʩʸʺʥ
SynagogueȱMSȱ6ȱ
(C)
Readingtradition wt¬šrÎyyinnaȱb¬’u wt¬šrÎyyinnaȱb¬’u
J ʥʮʩʬʺʡ ʯʩʩʰʩʲʸʥ ʥʮʩʬʺʡ ʯʩʩʰʩʲʸʥ

V ʥʮʩʬʠʡ ʯʩʲʸʥ ʥʮʩʬʠʡ ʯʠʩʲʸʥ
Cȱ ʥʧʠʡ ʯʠʩʲʸʥ ʥʧʠʡ ʯʠʩʲʸʥ
N ʥʧʠʡ ʯʩʩʰʲʩʸʡ ----
A ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ

M :m2ȱ;ʥʧʠʡ :M1)ʯʩʺʠȱʯʩʲʸʥȱ ;ȱʥʮʩʬʺʡ=*m1)ȱʯʩʺʠȱʯʩʲʸʥȱ
.(ʨʸʷʡ :*m1ȱ;ʤʸʴʠʡ .(ʤʥʧʠʡ=*m2
B ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ
Arabicȱtranslations ρή˵Ϙϟ΍ ϲϓ ρή˵Ϙϟ΍ ϲϓ
Talȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ readingȱ ʥʮʩʬʺʡ,ȱ anȱ Aramaicȱ wordȱ meaningȱ
‘fraternity’ȱorȱ‘brotherhood’,ȱwhichȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱconservativeȱJȱmanuȬ
script,ȱ reflectsȱ aȱ midrashicȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ text,ȱ andȱ hasȱ
citedȱ anȱ interestingȱ parallelȱ fromȱ Genesisȱ Rabba.26ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ whenȱ weȱ
lookȱatȱtheȱtranslationsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱvariousȱmanuscriptsȱofȱtheȱtransȬ
lation,ȱ noneȱ ofȱ theȱ Targumsȱ translateȱ ʥʧʠȱ withȱ whatȱ weȱ wouldȱ todayȱ
regardȱasȱaȱliteralȱtranslation.ȱTheȱearlyȱmanuscriptsȱpresentȱtheȱreadȬ
25ȱȱ LAMBDIN,ȱLoanȱWords,ȱ146.ȱOnȱtheȱpreciseȱidentificationȱofȱthisȱplant,ȱseeȱbelow.ȱ
26ȱȱ TAL,ȱTargum,ȱIII,ȱ52Ȭ53.ȱ
ingȱʥʮʩʬʺʡ,ȱ‘inȱfraternity’.ȱWeȱmayȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱVaticanȱManuscript’sȱ
ʥʮʩʬʠʡȱ hereȱ representsȱ aȱ misreadingȱ ofȱ theȱ ʥʮʩʬʺ,ȱ stemmingȱ fromȱ theȱ
graphicȱ similarlyȱ ofȱ alephȱ andȱ tawȱ inȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ script.ȱ Theȱ laterȱ
versions,ȱ whileȱ rejectingȱ thisȱ ‘midrashic’ȱ explanation,ȱ alsoȱ offerȱ whatȱ
weȱ wouldȱ regardȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬcontextualȱ translation.ȱ Sinceȱ inȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱ readingȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ pharyngealȱ isȱ completelyȱ lostȱ inȱ thisȱ
position,ȱtheȱwordȱ ʥʧʠʡȱhasȱmergedȱwithȱtheȱverbȱʥʠʡ,ȱ‘theyȱcame’.ȱȱTheȱ
laterȱ Samaritanȱ translationsȱ readȱ wordsȱ ʥʧʠʡ ʤʰʩʲʸʺʥȱ asȱ thoughȱ theyȱ
wereȱbothȱfeminineȱpluralȱverbsȱandȱasyndeticȱconstruction,ȱ‘theyȱpasȬ
tured,ȱcame’,ȱorȱperhapsȱ‘theyȱwentȱonȱpasturing’.27ȱ
OnlyȱinȱaȱmarginalȱnoteȱtoȱMSȱMȱandȱinȱtheȱArabicȱtranslationȱweȱ
doȱ finallyȱ findȱ aȱ contextualȱ translationȱ toȱ theȱ word,ȱ i.e.ȱ qur†,ȱ whichȱ isȱ
nowȱidentifiedȱwithȱtrifoliumȱalexandrinum.ȱItȱisȱsignificantȱthatȱtheȱmarȬ
ginalȱnoteȱisȱaȱlinguisticȱborrowingȱintoȱAramaicȱfromȱtheȱArabic.Whileȱ
thisȱ interpretationȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ preciselyȱ lexicalȱ equivalentȱ ofȱ ʥʧʠȱ asȱ
determinedȱbyȱmodernȱresearchers,ȱitȱcertainlyȱrepresentsȱtheȱnameȱofȱ
aȱ cropȱ widelyȱ employedȱ asȱ fodderȱ inȱ Egypt.28ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ
translationȱ isȱ exactlyȱ thatȱ employedȱ inȱ Sa‘adiah’sȱ translationȱ atȱ thisȱ
point.29ȱ ItȱseemsȱprobablyȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱArabicȱversion’sȱinterpreȬ
tationȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ textȱ followsȱ Sa‘adiah’sȱ tafsir.ȱ Theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ
Sa‘adiah’sȱ translationȱ onȱ theȱ earlyȱ Arabicȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
Pentateuchȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ positedȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ communityȱ inȱ theȱ
MiddleȱAges,ȱandȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱconfirmedȱbyȱmodernȱscholarship.30ȱ
27ȱȱ Takingȱ theȱ verbȱ ʩ"ʺʠȱ toȱ beȱ employedȱ adverbially.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ spellingȱ ʯʩʺʠȱ couldȱ
theoreticallyȱbeȱtakenȱasȱaȱf.pl.ȱparticiple,ȱitȱseemsȱbetterȱtoȱregardȱitȱasȱaȱ3ȱf.s.ȱperfectȱ
‘theyȱ came’.ȱ Forȱ theȱ 3ȱ f.s.ȱ morphemeȱ ʯʩȱ –ȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ sources,ȱ seeȱ FLORENTIN,ȱ
Characteristics,ȱ15Ȭ17.ȱTheȱformȱʯʩʺʠȱisȱalsoȱattestedȱinȱMSȱAȱinȱExodȱ2,16.ȱ
28ȱȱ Anȱ investigationȱ intoȱ theȱ preciseȱ equivalenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ translationȱ isȱ hinderedȱ byȱ theȱ
identificationȱofȱʥʧʠȱandȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱArabicȱwordȱρή˵Ϙϟ΍ȱinȱSa‘adiah’sȱdays.ȱThisȱ
latterȱissueȱisȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtrifoliumȱalexandrinumȱandȱtheȱdatingȱofȱitsȱ
arrivalȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ whichȱ isȱ apparentlyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ someȱ debateȱ amongstȱ scholarsȱ inȱ
theȱ field.ȱ Forȱ aȱ summary,ȱ seeȱ BADRȱ /ȱ ELȬSHAZLYȱ /ȱ WATSON,ȱ Origin,ȱ 21Ȭ31;ȱ forȱ theȱ
varyingȱopinionsȱregardingȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱcloverȱandȱitsȱcultivationȱinȱEgypt,ȱseeȱ22.ȱ
29ȱȱ Regrettably,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱthatȱanyȱofȱtheȱPreȬSaadianicȱArabicȱtranslationsȱtoȱthisȱ
verbȱsurvive,ȱandȱIȱhaveȱnotȱfoundȱitȱinȱtheȱglossariesȱpublishedȱtoȱdate.ȱHowever,ȱ
thereȱ isȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theȱ subsequentȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ Sa‘adiah’sȱ translationȱ inȱ theȱ
Jewishȱlexicographicalȱtradition.ȱSeeȱBLAU,ȱInstances,ȱ27.ȱ
30ȱȱ ForȱtheȱSamaritan’sȱview,ȱseeȱSHEHADEH,ȱTranslation,ȱ492Ȭ499.ȱDr.ȱTamarȱZEWI,ȱwhoȱisȱ
currentlyȱ preparingȱ aȱ studyȱ ofȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ manuscriptȱ containingȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ
versionȱ ofȱ Sa‘adiah’sȱ Tafsir,ȱ informsȱ meȱ thatȱ inȱ herȱ opinionȱ theȱ Arabicȱ versionsȱ
publishedȱ byȱ SHEHADEHȱ allȱ containȱ numerousȱ examplesȱ ofȱ vocabularyȱ elementsȱ
sharedȱ withȱ SA‘ADIAH’Sȱ translation.ȱ Inȱ herȱ opinion,ȱ theseȱ reflectȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ
SA‘ADIAH’SȱTafsirȱinȱtheȱearlyȱSamaritanȱArabicȱtranslations.ȱȱ
Toȱsummarise:ȱtheȱAramaicȱtranslationȱtraditionȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱofȱ
theȱ wordȱ ʥʧʠȱ meaningȱ ‘sedge’.ȱ Twoȱ alternativeȱ translationsȱ areȱ preȬ
sentedȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ Samaritanȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ thatȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ
moreȱconservativeȱmanuscripts,ȱnamely:ȱ‘brotherhood’.ȱTheȱlaterȱmanuȬ
scriptsȱfollowȱtheȱreadingȱtraditionȱandȱpresentȱanȱinterpretationȱthatȱisȱ
basedȱ uponȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ anyȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ verbȱ b¬’uȱ andȱ theȱ
nounȱ ¬’uȱ withȱ prepositionalȱ prefixȱ bȬ,ȱ isȱ ‘coming’.ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ Arabicȱ
translationȱ containsȱ aȱ contextualȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ word,ȱ andȱ thisȱ interȬ
pretationȱisȱapparentlyȱborrowedȱfromȱtheȱJewishȱtradition.ȱȱ
Preliminaryȱconclusionsȱ
Theȱconclusionsȱpresentedȱhereȱmustȱbeȱregardedȱasȱpreliminary,ȱsinceȱ
withinȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ aȱ briefȱ conferenceȱ paperȱ itȱ notȱ possibleȱ toȱ
discussȱtheseȱissuesȱinȱanythingȱapproachingȱaȱcomprehensiveȱmanner.ȱ
Forȱ that,ȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ undertakeȱ aȱ broadȱ studyȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ
exegesisȱ whichȱ willȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ allȱ stagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
targum,ȱ theȱ Arabicȱ translations,ȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ biblicalȱ interpretationsȱ
embeddedȱ inȱ otherȱ literaryȱ worksȱ suchȱ asȱ TÎbåtȱ Mårqe,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
liturgicalȱpoetry,ȱandȱSamaritanȱworksȱonȱreligiousȱlaw.31ȱToȱdateȱthereȱ
noȱ suchȱ accountȱ exists,ȱ 32ȱ andȱ notȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ hasȱ beenȱ
published.33ȱHowever,ȱtheȱworkȱofȱexaminingȱtheȱcriticalȱeditionsȱofȱtheȱ
bibleȱtranslationsȱcanȱnowȱbeȱundertakenȱsinceȱcriticalȱeditionsȱofȱbothȱ
theȱAramaicȱandȱArabicȱversionsȱareȱnowȱavailable.ȱ
Theȱexamplesȱpresentedȱinȱthisȱpaperȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱrelationshipȱ
betweenȱtheȱearlyȱTargum,ȱtheȱlateȱTargumȱandȱtheȱArabicȱtranslationsȱ
isȱnotȱoneȱofȱaȱlinearȱdevelopment.ȱTheȱtranslationsȱofȱʪʫʸʲȱfoundȱinȱtheȱ
earlyȱ Targumȱ andȱ theȱ Arabicȱ versionsȱ overlookȱ theȱ finalȱ kaphȱ andȱ
provideȱaȱcontextuallyȱacceptableȱinterpretation,ȱinȱcontradistinctionȱtoȱ
theȱlateȱTargumȱmanuscriptsȱwhichȱagainȱmechanicallyȱrenderȱtheȱfinalȱ
kaphȱ asȱ aȱ pronominalȱ suffixȱ irrespectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ contextualȱ needs.ȱ
Similarly,ȱtheȱearlyȱTargumȱandȱtheȱArabicȱprovideȱrenderingsȱthatȱareȱ
contextuallyȱsupported,ȱwhileȱtheȱmechanicalȱtranslationȱofȱʥʸʩʫʺȱfoundȱ
inȱMSȱNȱprovidesȱaȱreadingȱthatȱisȱcontextuallyȱnonsensical.ȱ
Finally,ȱ weȱ sawȱ thatȱ eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ strataȱ offersȱ aȱ differentȱ interȬ
pretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ ʥʧʠʡ,ȱ andȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ Arabicȱ
31ȱȱ Forȱ“embedded”ȱbiblicalȱexegesisȱcompareȱFLORENTIN,ȱMidrashim,ȱ527Ȭ541.ȱ
32ȱȱ Asȱmentionedȱabove,ȱLOWY’Sȱintroductionȱisȱbasedȱuponȱerroneousȱassumptions.ȱȱ
33ȱȱ AȱnewȱeditionȱofȱtheȱliturgicalȱmaterialsȱisȱbeingȱpreparedȱbyȱProf.ȱM.ȱFLORENTIN.ȱȱ
translationȱ hasȱ beenȱ influencedȱ byȱ Sa‘adiahȱ Gaon’sȱ tafsir.ȱ However,ȱ

whileȱtheȱearlyȱTargumȱoffersȱaȱmidrashicȱinterpretation,ȱtheȱlaterȱTarȬ
gumȱprovidesȱaȱmoreȱmechanicalȱtranslationȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱoralȱtradiȬ
tion.ȱ Thisȱ mechanicalȱ translationȱ mayȱ justȱ aboutȱ beȱ justifiedȱ contexȬ
tually,ȱbutȱlosesȱtheȱwordȱʥʧʠȱasȱanȱindependentȱlexeme.ȱȱ
TheseȱexamplesȱappearȱtoȱconfirmȱTal’sȱcharacterisationȱofȱtheȱlateȱ
Targumȱtraditionȱasȱoneȱthatȱhasȱundergoneȱdeterioration.ȱWhileȱTal’sȱ
examplesȱ illustrateȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ inȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ
lexicographyȱandȱgrammar,ȱweȱmayȱextendȱhisȱconclusionsȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱ
ofȱbiblicalȱphilology.ȱTheȱlateȱTargumȱtraditionȱnoȱlongerȱprovidesȱaȱtrueȱ
interpretationȱofȱtheȱbiblicalȱtextȱ–ȱevenȱoneȱbasedȱuponȱMidrashicȱprinȬ
ciplesȱ–ȱbutȱinsteadȱsometimesȱsubstitutesȱnonȬcontextualȱrenderingsȱofȱ
individualȱwordsȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱcontemporaryȱreadingȱtradition,ȱevenȱ
ifȱthisȱrenderingȱisȱgroundedȱinȱaȱhomophoneȱthatȱisȱnotȱsuitedȱtoȱtheȱ
textȱatȱhand.ȱ
Howȱ canȱ thisȱ strangeȱ phenomenonȱ beȱ explained?ȱ Weȱ mayȱ tentaȬ
tivelyȱsuggestȱthatȱwhenȱtheȱAramaicȱtranslationȱceasedȱtoȱbeȱanȱinteȬ
gralȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ learningȱ tradition,ȱ presumablyȱ asȱ Aramaicȱ
ceasedȱtoȱbeȱspokenȱandȱunderstoodȱbyȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunity,ȱtheȱ
Targumȱ degeneratedȱ andȱ becameȱ eȱ ofȱ anȱ exerciseȱ inȱ renderingȱ thanȱ aȱ
realȱ translation.ȱ However,ȱ Samaritanȱ interestȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ philologyȱ didȱ
notȱwane,ȱandȱasȱtheȱAramaicȱtraditionȱdrewȱtoȱitsȱendȱinȱtheȱ10 thȬ11thȱ
centuries,ȱtheȱArabicȱworksȱtookȱtheirȱplaceȱasȱtheȱprimaryȱmediumȱofȱ
biblicalȱexegesis.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
BADR,ȱ Abdelfattahȱ /ȱ ELȬSHAZLY,ȱ Hanaaȱ H.ȱ /ȱ WATSON,ȱ Lindaȱ E.,ȱ Originȱ andȱ
Ancestryȱ ofȱ Egyptianȱ Cloverȱ (Trifoliumȱ alexandrinumȱ L.)ȱ asȱ revealedȱ byȱ
AFLPȱmarkers,ȱin:ȱGeneticȱResourcesȱandȱCropȱEvolutionȱ55ȱ(2008)ȱ21Ȭ31.ȱ
BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱ Zeev,ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Oralȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ
amongstȱtheȱSamaritansȱ,ȱ5ȱvols.,ȱJerusalemȱ1957.ȱȱ
BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱZeev,ȱAȱGrammarȱofȱSamaritanȱHebrew,ȱJerusalemȱ2000.ȱ
BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱZeev,ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱTraditionsȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱLanguage,ȱMadridȱ/ȱ
Barcelonaȱ1954.ȱ
BENȬÍAYYIM,ȱ Zeev,ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Oralȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ
amongȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱ5ȱvols.,ȱJerusalemȱ1957Ȭ1977.ȱ
BLAU,ȱ Joshua,ȱ Someȱ Instancesȱ Reflectingȱ theȱ Influenceȱ ofȱ Saadyaȱ Gaon’sȱ Bibleȱ
Translationȱ onȱ Laterȱ JudeoȬArabicȱ Writings’,ȱ in:ȱ DÁN,ȱ Robertȱ (ed.),ȱ OcciȬ
dentȱandȱOrient;ȱaȱTributeȱtoȱtheȱMemoryȱofȱAlexanderȱScheiber,ȱBudapestȱ/ȱ
Leidenȱ1988.ȱ
BÓID,ȱIainȱRuairidhȱMacȱMhanainn,ȱUseȱAuthorityȱandȱExegesisȱofȱMikraȱinȱtheȱ
SamaritanȱTradition,ȱin:ȱMikraȱ(CompendiaȱRerumȱludaicarumȱadȱNovumȱ
Testamentum,ȱsectionȱtwo,ȱvol.ȱ1),ȱAssenȱ1988,ȱ595Ȭ633.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Characteristicsȱ ofȱ theȱ verbalȱ Systemȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ Aramaicȱ
accordingȱtoȱtheȱSamaritanȱTargum,ȱM.A.ȱthesis,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1982ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Embeddedȱ Midrashimȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ Piyyutim,ȱ in:ȱ JQRȱ 96ȱ
(2006)ȱ527Ȭ541.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Lateȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrew.ȱ Aȱ Linguisticȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ itsȱ
DifferentȱTypes,ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBoston,ȱMAȱ2005.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱMoshe,ȱ §£´²¥¨ «¨¡ £¦¥ȱasȱReflectedȱinȱSamaritanȱTraditions,ȱin:ȱ
Leshonenuȱ63ȱ(2000Ȭ2001)ȱ189Ȭ203ȱ(Hebrew)ȱ
LAMBDIN,ȱ Thomas,ȱ Egyptianȱ Loanȱ Wordsȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament,ȱ in:ȱ JAOSȱ 73ȱ
(1953)ȱ146.ȱ
LOEWENSTAMM,ȱAyalah,ȱKaraiteȱandȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱJerusalemȱ2008.ȱ
LOWY,ȱSimeon,ȱTheȱPrinciplesȱofȱSamaritanȱBibleȱExegesis,ȱLeidenȱ1977.ȱ
SCHORCH,ȱStefan,ȱDieȱVokaleȱdesȱGesetzes:ȱDieȱsamaritanischeȱLesetraditionȱalsȱ
TextzeuginȱderȱTora.ȱBandȱ1:ȱGenesisȱ(BZAWȱ339),ȱBerlinȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱ Haseeb,ȱ Theȱ Arabicȱ Translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuch,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1989.ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱ Haseeb,ȱ Theȱ Arabicȱ Translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuch,ȱ
VolumeȱTwo:ȱLeviticus,ȱNumbers,ȱDeuteronomy,ȱJerusalemȱ2002.ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱ Haseeb,ȱ Theȱ Arabicȱ Translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuch,ȱ in:ȱ
Crown,ȱAlanȱDavidȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱTübingenȱ1989.ȱ
TAL,ȱ Abraham,ȱ Aȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ Aramaicȱ (Handbookȱ ofȱ Orientalȱ
Studies:ȱSectionȱ1,ȱAncientȱNearȱEast),ȱLeidenȱ/ȱBostonȱ/ȱCologneȱ2000.)ȱ
TAL,ȱAbraham,ȱTheȱSamaritanȱPentateuchȱeditedȱaccordingȱtoȱMSȱ6ȱ(C)ȱofȱtheȱ
ShekhemȱSynagogue,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1994.ȱȱ
TAL,ȱ Abraham,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Targumȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuch,ȱ 3ȱ vols.,ȱ Telȱ Avivȱ
1980Ȭ1983.ȱ
WATAD,ȱAli,ȱWhoȱwasȱtheȱCompilerȱofȱtheȱHaȬMelizȱSamaritanȱHebrewȬArabicȱ
Dictionary?,ȱin:ȱHOFFMAN,ȱYairȱ(ed.),ȱStudiesȱinȱJudaicaȱ(Te‘udaȱ16Ȭ17),ȱTelȱ
Avivȱ1991,ȱ477Ȭ490.ȱȱȱ

ȱ

IV.ȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱTalmudicȱPeriodȱ

ȱ
ȱ

TheȱSamaritanȱmayȱbeȱincludedȱ–ȱAnotherȱLookȱatȱ
theȱSamaritanȱinȱTalmudicȱLiteratureȱ
MOSHEȱLAVEEȱ
Theȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ halakhicȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wasȱ identifiedȱ byȱ
scholars,ȱ describedȱ andȱ discussedȱ forȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ century.ȱ Explicitȱ
Talmudicȱstatementsȱtestifyȱtoȱthatȱshift,ȱandȱitȱisȱwellȱdemonstratedȱinȱ
manyȱHalakhicȱissues.ȱTheȱgeneralȱpictureȱisȱthatȱofȱaȱcertainȱambiguityȱ
towardsȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ documentedȱ inȱ everyȱ literaryȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ
sages,ȱasȱreflexivelyȱacknowledgedȱinȱtheȱTalmud:ȱ‘theȱlawsȱregardingȱ
Samaritansȱ …ȱ areȱ uprootedȱ [=disconnected],ȱ andȱ oneȱ cannotȱ deduceȱ
fromȱoneȱlawȱtoȱtheȱother’ȱ(BavliȱMKȱ12a).ȱYet,ȱearlierȱmaterialsȱtendȱtoȱ
beȱmoreȱinclusive,ȱandȱtheȱlaterȱ–ȱmoreȱexclusive.ȱFormerȱstudiesȱhaveȱ
offeredȱ variousȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ andȱ explanationȱ forȱ theȱ changeȱ ofȱ
halakhicȱapproach.ȱSomeȱofȱthemȱalsoȱtriedȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱintermingledȱ
situationȱinȱtheȱvariousȱworks.1ȱ
Theȱ aimȱ ofȱ thisȱ articleȱ isȱ toȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavliȱ inȱ theȱ
constructionȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱofȱchangeȱofȱHalakhicȱstatusȱofȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritans.ȱ Iȱ willȱ presentȱ delicateȱ butȱ meaningfulȱ differencesȱ inȱ theȱ repreȬ
sentationȱofȱSamaritansȱinȱvariousȱrabbinicȱsources.ȱMyȱgoalȱisȱtoȱshowȱ
theȱ riseȱ ofȱ aȱ conceptualȱ framework,ȱ supportingȱ aȱ binaryȱ andȱ polarȱ
modelȱofȱidentity,ȱinȱwhichȱthereȱisȱnoȱplaceȱforȱquasiȬJewishȱidentities.ȱ
Theȱ conceptualȱ developmentsȱ playedȱ aȱ significantȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ gradualȱ
andȱprolongedȱprocessȱofȱhalakhicȱexclusionȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
1ȱȱ See:ȱMONTGOMERY,ȱSamaritans;ȱELIZUR,ȱSamaritans,ȱ393Ȭ414ȱ(=ȱHERSHKOVITZ,ȱSamaȬ
ritans,ȱ 71Ȭ105).ȱ Theȱ articleȱ containsȱ pioneeringȱ observations,ȱ supportedȱ byȱ myȱ
followingȱpaper.ȱSCHIFFMAN,ȱSamaritans,ȱ323Ȭ350,ȱandȱn.ȱ2.6ȱ(theȱdifferentȱmethodsȱ
offeredȱ belowȱ ledȱ toȱ differentȱ conclusionȱ thanȱ thoseȱ offeredȱ inȱ thisȱ paper);ȱ LIEBERȬ
MAN,ȱ Inscription,ȱ 54Ȭ63;ȱ OPPENHEIMER,ȱ Viewȱ (274),ȱ 3Ȭ5ȱ andȱ (275),ȱ 4Ȭ8.ȱ SAFRAIȱ
presentedȱ recentlyȱ aȱ relevantȱ paperȱ (SAFRAI,ȱ Attitude)ȱ andȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ weȱ shareȱ
someȱ ofȱ theȱ observationsȱ suggestedȱ below.ȱ Forȱ otherȱ studies,ȱ lessȱ focusedȱ onȱ theȱ
changeȱinȱrabbinicȱview,ȱsee:ȱGEDALIAHU,ȱOrigin,ȱ354Ȭ373.ȱ
148 MosheȱLavee
TheȱuniqueȱBabylonianȱdevelopmentsȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
tendȱ toȱ beȱ theoreticalȱ andȱ disconnectedȱ fromȱ actualȱ historicalȱ relationȱ
withȱ Samaritans.2ȱ Theyȱ reflectȱ anȱ internalȱ deliberation,ȱ occupiedȱ withȱ
selfȬdefinitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ group.ȱ Theyȱ functionȱ asȱ anȱ identityȱ conȬ
structionȱ mechanism,ȱ usingȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ forȱ demarȬ
cationȱ ofȱ boundaries.ȱ Theȱ liminalȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ madeȱ themȱ
anȱ availableȱ testȱ caseȱ forȱ theȱ examinationȱ ofȱ boundaries,ȱ asȱ theyȱ wereȱ
notȱ perceivedȱ asȱ partȱ andȱ parcelȱ ofȱ theȱ ethnicȱ group,ȱ yetȱ wereȱ notȱ
consideredȱasȱcompleteȱstrangers,ȱasȱtheȱultimateȱother,ȱtheȱgentile.ȱȱ
Theȱ methodȱ offeredȱ hereȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ meansȱ byȱ whichȱ theȱ
rhetoricȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱexpressesȱitsȱconceptualȱframework.ȱRecentȱstuȬ
diesȱhaveȱpointedȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱlaterȱlayersȱofȱtheȱTalmud.ȱ
Myȱ approachȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ laterȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ shouldȱ notȱ onlyȱ beȱ
heardȱ byȱ identifyingȱ lateȱ comments,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ byȱ pointingȱ toȱ theȱ
lecturingȱ voiceȱ orȱ theȱ organizingȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmud.ȱ Thisȱ voiceȱ isȱ
locatedȱinȱtheȱstructureȱofȱSugiot;ȱinȱtheȱhiddenȱassumptionsȱandȱtheirȱ
presentationȱasȱobvious,ȱandȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱinȱtheȱrephrasingȱofȱearlierȱ
materials.3ȱ Iȱhopeȱtoȱestablishȱthatȱthisȱvoiceȱisȱalsoȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱ
creationȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ chronologicalȱ image,ȱ projectingȱ laterȱ andȱ gradualȱ
developmentsȱ onȱ earlierȱ foundationalȱ daysȱ andȱ events,ȱ andȱ ascribingȱ
themȱtoȱTannaiticȱAuthorities.ȱȱ
2ȱȱ SeeȱforȱexampleȱtheȱtheoreticalȱcategoryȱHaverȱSamaritanȱ(BavliȱBer.ȱ47bȱdiscussedȱ
below;ȱBavliȱGit.ȱ10aȱandȱmore).ȱȱ
3ȱȱ Iȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱclarifyȱthatȱmyȱmethodȱdepartsȱfromȱ‘theȱdocumentaryȱapproach’ȱtoȱ
rabbinicȱ literatureȱ inȱ variousȱ ways.ȱ Whileȱ Iȱ doȱ offerȱ anȱ effortȱ toȱ depictȱ theȱ uniqueȱ
voiceȱdocumentedȱinȱtheȱBavli,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱascribeȱthisȱvoiceȱtoȱanȱintentionalȱredactor,ȱ
ratherȱtoȱtheȱconglomeratedȱaffectȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱlatestȱgenerationsȱinvlovedȱinȱ
itsȱ creation,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ distinctȱ culturalȱ milieuȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ generationsȱ hasȱ
worked.ȱ Secondly,ȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ uniqueȱ voiceȱ offeredȱ hereȱ isȱ notȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ
surveyȱofȱtheȱworkȱitselfȱasȱaȱcloseȱunit,ȱseperatedȱfromȱotherȱrabbinicȱsources,ȱratherȱ
onȱ theȱ contraryȱ itȱ isȱ foundedȱ onȱ comparativeȱ readingsȱ ofȱ sources.ȱ Lastly,ȱ whileȱ
pointingȱtoȱtheȱprocessȱandȱdevelopmentsȱofȱtheȱlongȱduré,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱexcludeȱorȱrejectȱ
theȱscholarlyȱaspirationȱtoȱofferȱaȱmoreȱdetailedȱdatingȱofȱtheȱprocess.ȱActually,ȱtheȱ
identificationȱ ofȱ theȱ literaryȱ andȱ conceptualȱ developmentsȱ offeredȱ inȱ thisȱ paperȱ
shouldȱ serveȱ historiansȱ onȱ theirȱ effortsȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ authenticityȱ andȱ datingȱ ofȱ
variousȱviews.ȱInvestingȱourȱeffortsȱinȱidentifyingȱtheȱuniqueȱviewsȱandȱvoicesȱinȱtheȱ
Bavliȱ willȱ leadȱ us,ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ elimination,ȱ toȱ supportȱ theȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ theȱ
historicalȱ developmentsȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Itȱ willȱ enableȱ usȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ pictureȱ
describedȱinȱPalestinianȱsources,ȱwithoutȱbeingȱbiasedȱbyȱlateȱtheoreticalȱBabylonianȱ
deliberations.
ȱ TheȱSamaritanȱmayȱbeȱincluded 149ȱ
PartȱIȱ–ȱAȱCaseȱStudy:ȱIncludingȱSamaritanȱinȱtheȱȱ
BlessingȱafterȱMealȱ
Weȱ shallȱ startȱ ourȱ discussionȱ withȱ aȱ caseȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ
Samaritansȱinȱ‘Zimmun’ȱ–ȱtheȱjointȱactȱofȱblessingȱafterȱmeal.ȱTheȱissueȱ
inȱquestionȱplaysȱaȱroleȱinȱrabbinicȱselfȬdefinition,ȱasȱsharedȱmeals,ȱandȱ
communalȱ liturgicalȱ activitiesȱ areȱ importantȱ componentsȱ ofȱ socialȱ
cohesion.ȱ Byȱ includingȱ orȱ excludingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ fromȱ thatȱ certainȱ
liturgicalȱ activityȱ theȱ Sagesȱ didȱ notȱ onlyȱ defineȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱJewishȱidentity.ȱȱ
1.ȱTheȱMishnahȱ
Theȱ Mishnahȱ inȱ tractateȱ Brachotȱ (7,1)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ “aȱ Samaritanȱ mayȱ beȱ
included”ȱ inȱ Zimmun,ȱ theȱ jointȱ blessingȱ afterȱ mealȱ performedȱ byȱ atȱ
leastȱ threeȱ people.ȱ Thisȱ lawȱ assumesȱ aȱ commonȱ activityȱ ofȱ Jewsȱ andȱ
Samaritansȱ(havingȱmealsȱtogether),ȱandȱpermitsȱtheirȱcollaborationȱforȱ
aȱliturgicalȱactivity.ȱNotȱonlyȱitȱimpliesȱanȱactualȱsocialȱcontact,ȱbutȱalsoȱ
sharedȱcodesȱofȱpracticeȱandȱbelieves.4ȱȱ
Theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ alsoȱ playsȱ aȱ roleȱ inȱ constructingȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ identity.ȱ Theȱ Mishnahȱ presentsȱ twoȱ listsȱ ofȱ foodȱ andȱ
persons.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ listȱ containsȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ foodȱ andȱ personsȱ thatȱ areȱ
permittedȱ toȱ blessȱ uponȱ orȱ with,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ listȱ prohibitedȱ otherȱ
categoriesȱofȱfoodȱandȱexcludedȱpersons.ȱTheȱlistsȱareȱinverseȱoneȱtoȱtheȱ
other,ȱ offeringȱ aȱ parallelȱ prohibitedȱ typeȱ ofȱ foodȱ (orȱ excludedȱ person)ȱ
againstȱ eachȱ permittedȱ foodȱ (orȱ includedȱ person).ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ
inclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ inȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ permittedȱ items,ȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ
excludedȱtheȱNonȬJewȱ(ʩʥʢ),ȱandȱbyȱthatȱproducedȱaȱclearȱstatementȱofȱ
distinguishing,ȱ ifȱ notȱ evenȱ negatingȱ andȱ contrastingȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ
NonȬJews.ȱȱ
AnalyzingȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱMishnahȱmightȱleadȱtoȱanȱevenȱmoreȱ
radicalȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱSamaritansȱofferedȱbyȱit.ȱTheȱ
commonȱaspectȱofȱtheȱprohibitedȱfoodȱcategoriesȱinȱtheȱMishnahȱisȱthatȱ
theyȱ wereȱ supposedȱ toȱ beȱ seperatedȱ forȱ priestsȱ orȱ forȱ theȱ temple.ȱ Itȱ isȱ
4ȱȱ Partialȱ permitȱ ofȱ sharedȱ mealsȱ byȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ priestsȱ inȱ Tos.ȱ Dem.ȱ 3,3ȱ
attestȱtoȱsharedȱmealsȱonȱotherȱoccasions.ȱWithȱregardȱtoȱotherȱliturgicalȱactivitiesȱIȱ
doubtȱwhetherȱtheȱsourcesȱteachȱusȱthatȱJewsȱandȱSamaritansȱprayedȱtogether.ȱTheȱ
prohibitionȱtoȱsayȱAmenȱafterȱSamaritansȱinȱTos.ȱBer.ȱ3,26ȱisȱprobablyȱaȱtransferȱ ofȱ
theȱtextȱfromȱitsȱoriginalȱcontext,ȱtheȱblessingȱafterȱmeal,ȱandȱshouldȱnotȱteachȱusȱonȱ
theȱpracticeȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱAmidah.ȱȱ
150 MosheȱLavee
possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ wasȱ designedȱ toȱ followȱ thisȱ coherentȱ
principal,ȱapplicableȱbothȱforȱtheȱfoodȱtypesȱandȱtheȱpersonȱcategories.ȱ
InȱsuchȱaȱcaseȱtheȱpermissionȱtoȱblessȱwithȱaȱSamaritanȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
assessmentȱ ofȱ theȱ validityȱ ofȱ theȱ foodȱ heȱ eats.ȱ Ifȱ soȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ asȬ
sumedȱthatȱSamaritansȱareȱconsideredȱasȱseparatingȱTerumahȱproperly.ȱ
Itȱ mightȱ evenȱ suggestȱ thatȱ aȱ Terumahȱ thatȱ wasȱ seperatedȱ byȱ aȱ SamaȬ
ritanȱ forȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ priestȱ wasȱ consideredȱ byȱ theȱ sagesȱ asȱ aȱ validȱ
Terumah,ȱandȱhintȱatȱaȱradicalȱapprovalȱofȱSamaritanȱcult.5ȱȱ
2.ȱTheȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱ(Ber.ȱ47b)ȱ
TheȱBavli’sȱdiscussionsȱwereȱheldȱinȱaȱgeographicalȱandȱchronologicalȱ
distanceȱfromȱtheȱhistoricalȱrealityȱofȱMishnaicȱdays,ȱandȱprobablyȱwithȱ
noȱ dailyȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ group.ȱ Accordinglyȱ theyȱ hadȱ aȱ
certainȱ theoreticalȱ dimension,ȱ andȱ theȱ differentȱ viewsȱ presentedȱ inȱ
themȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱschematicȱmodelsȱofȱidentity,ȱorȱasȱremarksȱonȱtheȱ
natureȱofȱidentity.ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱreadingȱofȱtheȱtalmudicȱdiscussionȱIȱ
willȱcommentȱonȱtheȱconceptualȱmodelsȱimpliedȱinȱit.ȱȱ
TheȱdiscussionȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱMishnaicȱlegislation,ȱ
byȱ introducingȱ anȱ externalȱ tannaiticȱ sourceȱ thatȱ prohibitedȱ theȱ
performanceȱofȱ Zimmunȱwithȱ anȱ ‘AmȬHaaretz’.6ȱ Itȱ asksȱ howȱ canȱitȱ beȱ
thatȱtheȱSamaritanȱhasȱanȱallegedlyȱbetterȱstatusȱthanȱanȱ‘AmȬHaaretz’?ȱ
Theȱ anonymousȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ presentedȱ theȱ question,ȱ andȱ
structuresȱ theȱ Sugiaȱ aroundȱ it.ȱ Thisȱ voiceȱ isȱ puzzledȱ aboutȱ theȱ
foundationȱofȱtheȱMishnaicȱruling.ȱItsȱhiddenȱassumptionsȱare:ȱ[1]ȱTheȱ
affiliationȱ ofȱ anyȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ distinctȱ Jewishȱ groupȱ shouldȱ beȱ
strongerȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ anyȱ oneȱ whoȱ isȱ notȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ [2]ȱ
Samaritans,ȱ areȱ notȱ partȱ ofȱ thatȱ group.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ contrastedȱ
SamaritansȱwithȱnonȬJews,ȱtheȱTalmudȱcontrastedȱthemȱwithȱJews.ȱTheȱ
questionȱ reflectsȱ theȱ basicȱ intuitionȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȱ compositorsȱ ofȱ ourȱ
Talmudicȱdiscussion.7ȱItȱsuggestsȱaȱbinaryȱmodel,ȱinȱwhichȱaffiliationȱorȱ
5ȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Tos.ȱ Ber.ȱ 3,26,ȱ andȱ LIEBERMAN,ȱ Tosephta,ȱ 352.ȱ Hintsȱ forȱ aȱ legitimacyȱ ofȱ
Samaritan’sȱ cultȱ (inȱ contrastȱ toȱ itsȱ prevailingȱ rejection)ȱ areȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ otherȱ
rabbinicȱandȱsecondȱtempleȱsources,ȱandȱIȱintendȱtoȱpresentȱthemȱinȱanotherȱpaper.ȱ
6ȱȱ Theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ AmȬHaaretzȱ isȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ Talmudicȱ sectionȱ (Ber.ȱ
47b).ȱ Forȱ theȱ uniqeȱ attributesȱ ofȱ AmȬHaaretzȱ developedȱ inȱ theȱ Bavliȱ seeȱ WALD,ȱ
Pesahim,ȱ235Ȭ237.ȱ
7 ȱȱ Aȱ similarȱ questionȱ wasȱ raisedȱ byȱ YONAHȱ inȱ Yerushalmiȱ Dem.ȱ 3,4ȱ 23cȱ aboutȱ theȱ
faithfulnessȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱlegalȱstatusȱofȱfruitsȱthatȱwereȱkeptȱbyȱ
him.ȱTheȱmainȱdifferenceȱisȱtheȱstatusȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱhiddenȱassumptionȱinȱeachȱofȱtheȱ
belongingȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱgroupȱoverrideȱanyȱotherȱaspectsȱofȱone’sȱlife.ȱ
Participationȱinȱ aȱ liturgicalȱ activityȱ isȱ conditionedȱ byȱ belongingȱ toȱ theȱ
definedȱgroup.ȱInȱsuchȱaȱmodelȱSamaritansȱareȱsupposeȱtoȱbeȱexcludedȱ
asȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ nonȬJews.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ notȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ groupȱ
(whetherȱitȱisȱdefinedȱasȱaȱnation,ȱanȱethnos,ȱaȱreligiousȱgroup,ȱetc).ȱWeȱ
shallȱcallȱthisȱmodelȱ‘theȱaffiliationȱmodel’.ȱ
TwoȱanswersȱareȱsuggestedȱtoȱtheȱTalmud’sȱquestion:ȱAccordingȱtoȱ
Abaye’sȱ answer,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ includedȱ isȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ
‘Haver’.ȱThisȱanswerȱimaginesȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱasȱdividedȱinȱ
theȱsameȱmannerȱasȱtheȱJewishȱone,ȱnamelyȱtwoȱgroups:ȱ‘Haver’,ȱthoseȱ
whoȱ practiceȱ aȱ certainȱ normativeȱ behavior,ȱ andȱ ‘AmȬHaaretz’,ȱ thoseȱ
whoȱ doȱ notȱ practiceȱ it.8ȱ Inȱ certainȱ situations,ȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ commonȱ
componentȱ inȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ aȱ Haverȱ Jewȱ andȱ aȱ Haverȱ Samaritanȱ
enablesȱthemȱtoȱinteractȱtogether,ȱasȱifȱtheyȱbelongȱtoȱoneȱgroup.ȱThisȱ
viewȱ impliesȱ aȱ complexȱ thinkingȱ onȱ identity,ȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ subtletyȱ ofȱ
actualȱ socialȱ structures:ȱ Aȱ personȱ normallyȱ functionsȱ inȱ severalȱ diffeȬ
rentȱ identityȱ circles.9ȱ Soȱ hereȱ aȱ Haverȱ Jewȱ findsȱ himselfȱ inȱ anȱ overȬ
lappingȱ areaȱ whichȱ includesȱ aȱ Haverȱ Samaritan.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ thisȱ simulȬ
taneousȱ functioningȱ ofȱ variousȱ circlesȱ ofȱ identity,ȱ one’sȱ belongingȱ canȱ
notȱbeȱdictatedȱonlyȱaccordingȱtoȱoneȱcriteriaȱofȱaffiliation.ȱInȱthisȱcaseȱ
theȱbehavioralȱcriteria,ȱnamelyȱtheȱcommonȱpractice,ȱisȱstrongerȱthanȱtheȱ
ethnicȱorȱsectorialȱdivision.ȱȱ
Ravaȱ suggestedȱ anotherȱ solution:ȱ ‘oneȱ whoȱ isȱ meticulousȱ onȱ
tithing’,ȱ theȱ biblicalȱ systemȱ ofȱ taxesȱ relatedȱ toȱ food,ȱ ‘heȱ mayȱ beȱ incluȬ
ded’.ȱAccordingȱtoȱhisȱanswer,ȱtakingȱpartȱinȱZimmunȱisȱaȱfunctionȱofȱaȱ
person’sȱ normativeȱ behaviourȱ withȱ hisȱ food.ȱ Whoeverȱ treatsȱ hisȱ foodȱ
properlyȱ mayȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ Zimmun,ȱ thusȱ bothȱ aȱ Jewȱ andȱ aȱ
SamaritanȱthatȱperformedȱtheȱcommandmentsȱofȱtithingȱmayȱbeȱincludȬ
ed.ȱRava’sȱexplanationȱisȱalsoȱaȱsharpȱliteraryȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱMishnah.ȱ
Asȱ Iȱ demonstratedȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ includesȱ bothȱ foodȱ typesȱ andȱ
personȱcategories.ȱRavaȱsuppliesȱanȱexplanationȱthatȱunifiesȱtheȱMishȬ
nahȱunderȱoneȱcriteria:ȱTheȱvalidityȱofȱfood,ȱandȱthusȱofȱpersonsȱwhoseȱ
foodȱ isȱ valid.ȱ Includingȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ orȱ aȱ nonȬJewȱ inȱ theȱ blessingȱ isȱ aȱ
functionȱofȱtheirȱcodeȱofȱpractice.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱisȱjudgedȱaccordingȱtoȱ
hisȱbehavior,ȱifȱheȱdoesȱasȱtheȱJewsȱdoȱ–ȱheȱisȱincluded.ȱHalakhicȱloyaltyȱ
Talmuds.ȱInȱtheȱBavliȱitȱisȱtheȱorganizingȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱInȱtheȱYerushalmiȱitȱisȱaȱ
certainȱAmora.ȱȱ
8ȱȱ ThisȱisȱprobablyȱanȱimaginedȱstructureȱofȱtheȱJewishȱsociety,ȱorȱtheȱoneȱthatȱcertainȱ
Sagesȱwishedȱtoȱestablish.ȱ
9ȱȱ Forȱ anȱ implicationȱ ofȱ thisȱ conceptȱ inȱ anotherȱ topicȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Identityȱ seeȱ SAGIȱ /ȱ
ZOHAR,ȱCircles.
152 MosheȱLavee
inȱtheȱrelevantȱareaȱisȱtheȱonlyȱcriteriaȱandȱthusȱtheȱdefinitiveȱfactor.10ȱ
Samaritansȱ andȱ Jewsȱ mayȱ shareȱ activitiesȱ whereȱ theȱ relevantȱ codeȱ ofȱ
practiceȱisȱtheȱsame.ȱRava’sȱsolutionȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱexplainedȱasȱreflectingȱ
aȱ radicalȱ view:ȱ itȱ hintsȱ atȱ anȱ essentialȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ socialȱ divisionȱ asȱ aȱ
criterionȱ forȱ takingȱ partȱ inȱ liturgicalȱ activity.ȱ Similarȱ tendenciesȱ areȱ
expressedȱbyȱRavaȱinȱotherȱissues,ȱwhereȱheȱclaimsȱinȱfavourȱofȱjudgingȱ
peopleȱ accordingȱ toȱ theirȱ actsȱ andȱ notȱ accordingȱ toȱ theirȱ affiliations,ȱ
teachingȱ thatȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ caseȱ inȱ whichȱ Ravaȱ appliesȱ hisȱ consistentȱ apȬ
proachȱtoȱtheȱSamaritans.11ȱ
Theȱ significantȱ differenceȱ withinȱ theȱ Talmudicȱ textsȱ liesȱ betweenȱ
theȱ affiliationȱ modelȱ impliedȱ inȱ theȱ questionȱ andȱ aȱ ‘Halakhicȱ criteriaȱ
model’ȱ whichȱ underlinesȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ andȱ isȱ stillȱ defendedȱ byȱ Ravaȱ
andȱAbaye.ȱTheȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱtheseȱmodelsȱwillȱserveȱusȱinȱtheȱ
analyzingȱofȱotherȱTalmudicȱmaterials.ȱȱ
WhichȱofȱtheȱtwoȱmodelsȱwasȱfavoredȱbyȱtheȱTalmud?ȱAnȱanswerȱ
forȱsuchȱaȱquestionȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱoversimplified,ȱandȱshouldȱbeȱgivenȱ
fromȱaȱcertainȱframework.ȱOurȱSugia,ȱasȱaȱtypicalȱtalmudicȱdiscussion,ȱ
producesȱ noȱ singleȱ voice.ȱ Itȱ representsȱ aȱ collectiveȱ picture,ȱ inȱ whichȱ
earlyȱsourcesȱareȱexplainedȱbyȱvariousȱlateȱauthorities,ȱandȱallȱareȱinterȬ
wovenȱ intoȱ aȱ dialecticȱ frameworkȱ thatȱ offersȱ noȱ preferredȱ conclusion.ȱ
GivenȱthatȱstyleȱofȱtheȱTalmud,ȱandȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱgradualȱ
evolutionȱofȱitsȱtext,ȱanyȱattemptȱtoȱclaimȱforȱtheȱintentionȱofȱaȱredactorȱ
wouldȱbeȱtooȱambitious.ȱYet,ȱoneȱcanȱspeakȱ(andȱshouldȱspeak)ȱaboutȱ
theȱ potentialȱ tendenciesȱ impliedȱ by,ȱ ifȱ notȱ evenȱ createdȱ andȱ activatedȱ
byȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theseȱ tendenciesȱ canȱ beȱ detectedȱ byȱ
examiningȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱtextȱinȱlaterȱdays,ȱasȱitȱwasȱperceivedȱbyȱ
postȱ Talmudicȱ generations.ȱ Inȱ ourȱ caseȱ weȱ haveȱ twoȱ different,ȱ maybeȱ
evenȱ contrastingȱ messages.ȱ Theȱ exclusiveȱ modelȱ offeredȱ inȱ theȱ
question,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ theȱ contrastedȱ effortȱ toȱ justifyȱ theȱ
MishaicȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱinȱtheȱamoraicȱanswersȱonȱtheȱotherȱ
hand.ȱWhichȱpartȱofȱtheȱTalmudicȱdiscourseȱhadȱaȱstrongerȱinfluence?ȱ
IsȱitȱtheȱdelicateȱandȱcomplicatedȱanswersȱofȱAbayeȱandȱRavaȱ(andȱtheȱ
Mishnaicȱ modelȱ defendedȱ byȱ them),ȱ orȱ maybeȱ theȱ clearȱ distinctiveȱ
10ȱȱ SuchȱaȱviewȱisȱalsoȱhiddenȱinȱAbaye’sȱanswerȱsinceȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱHaverȱSamaritanȱ
impliesȱatȱhisȱcodeȱofȱpractice.
11ȱȱ Orȱ theȱ Talmudȱ constructsȱ Ravaȱ asȱ theȱ holderȱ ofȱ thisȱ view.ȱ Fewȱ examples:ȱ Meatȱ
slaughteredȱbyȱaȱSamaritanȱisȱKosher,ȱonlyȱifȱtheȱSamaritanȱhimselfȱisȱwillingȱtoȱeatȱ
fromȱit,ȱaȱsignȱforȱanȱappropriateȱconductȱofȱtheȱslaughteringȱ(BavliȱHul.ȱ4aȬb,ȱwillȱbeȱ
discussedȱ laterȱ on).ȱ Forȱ aȱ similarȱ conceptȱ expressedȱ byȱ theȱ limitationȱ ofȱ theȱ
permissionȱ toȱ cheatȱ theȱ taxȱ collectors,ȱ onlyȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ unfaithfulȱ seeȱ KRECHMERȬ
RAZIEL,ȱTaxȱCollectors,ȱ33Ȭ53.
anonymousȱ voiceȱ organizingȱ theȱ discussion?ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ

implicitȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱquestionȱisȱmuchȱstrongerȱthanȱthatȱofȱtheȱansȬ
wers.ȱTheȱexclusivenessȱlaysȱinȱtheȱhiddenȱassumption,ȱandȱasȱsuchȱitȱisȱ
presentedȱ asȱ theȱ obviousȱ andȱ acceptedȱ viewȱ andȱ gainsȱ suchȱ statusȱ
hereafter.ȱ Indeed,ȱ laterȱ generationsȱ decipheredȱ theȱ messageȱ hiddenȱ inȱ
theȱauthoritativeȱvalueȱattachedȱtoȱit.ȱWhatȱtheȱTalmud’sȱquestionȱpreȬ
sentedȱ asȱ obviousȱ becameȱ theȱ prevailingȱ view:ȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ notȱ
perceivedȱasȱJews.ȱȱ
3.ȱPostȱTalmudicȱLiteratureȱ
ThisȱisȱshownȱthroughȱaȱglimpseȱatȱpostȬTalmudicȱHalakhicȱliterature.ȱ
Theȱhiddenȱassumptionsȱofȱtheȱquestionȱbecameȱtheȱfoundationȱofȱlaterȱ
Halakha:ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ excluded,ȱ butȱ theȱ AmȬHaaretzȱ Jewȱ mayȱ
beȱincluded.ȱTheȱphrasingȱofȱtheȱlawȱteachesȱthatȱmedievalȱauthoritiesȱ
recognizedȱtheȱchangeȱthatȱhasȱoccurredȱandȱwereȱawareȱofȱit:ȱ‘‘Thoseȱ
wordsȱ(theȱmishnahicȱpermission)ȱareȱrelevantȱforȱtheirȱtimes,ȱbutȱnowȱ
theyȱareȱcompletelyȱgentiles,ȱandȱmayȱnotȱbeȱincludedȱ(inȱZimmun)”.12ȱ
Inȱ 14thȱ centuryȱ R.ȱ Asher,ȱ addedȱ ‘todayȱ noȱ oneȱ refrainsȱ fromȱ Zimmunȱ
withȱanȱAmȬHaaretz’.13ȱSayingȱsoȱheȱreflectedȱtheȱcompleteȱfulfillmentȱ
andȱrealizationȱofȱwhatȱwasȱpresentedȱasȱobviousȱinȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱ
Talmud,ȱ theȱ dominantȱ voiceȱ ofȱ laterȱ rabbinicȱ thought,ȱ becameȱ theȱ
dominantȱandȱdecisiveȱtendencyȱofȱlaterȱJewishȱlaw.
PostȬtalmudicȱ authoritiesȱ emphasizedȱ thatȱ theirȱ excludingȱ legisȬ
lationȱwasȱonlyȱapplicableȱ‘inȱourȱtimes’.ȱTheyȱrecognizeȱtheȱdifferenceȱ
betweenȱ theirȱ lawȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudicȱ period,ȱ thusȱ reflectingȱ
awarenessȱ toȱ theȱ lateȱ changeȱ andȱ developmentȱ ofȱ attitudeȱ toȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱWhileȱIȱquoteȱhereȱtheȱusageȱofȱthisȱexpressionȱbyȱAlfasi,ȱofȱ
theȱ 11thȱ century,ȱ itȱ isȱ assumedȱ itȱ reflectsȱ anȱ earlierȱ Gaonicȱ legislation.ȱ
Similarȱ wordingȱ isȱ usedȱ inȱ otherȱ Gaonicȱ rulesȱ onȱ issuesȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ
12ȱȱ ALFASI,ȱ Halakhot,ȱ 35b.ȱ Otherȱ authoritiesȱ rejectedȱ theȱ inclusivityȱ byȱ disregardingȱ itȱ
(Hildesheimer,ȱ Sefer,ȱ 108Ȭ110);ȱ Maimonidesȱ Mishnehȱ Torah,ȱ Ber.ȱ Ch.ȱ 1ȱ andȱ hisȱ
commentaryȱ toȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ Ber.ȱ 7,1.ȱ LIEBERMANȱ alreadyȱ commentedȱ onȱ MaimoȬ
nidesȱ consistencyȱ here.ȱ Compareȱ alsoȱ Mishnehȱ Torah,ȱ Shab.ȱ 2,3ȱ toȱ Bavliȱ Yomaȱ 84bȱ
andȱ Tosephtaȱ Shab.ȱ 15,15.ȱ Maimonidesȱ declaredȱ hisȱ positionȱ inȱ theȱ commentaryȱ toȱ
theȱMishnahȱBer.ȱ8,8.ȱSeeȱalsoȱinȱLIEBERMAN,ȱTosephta,ȱ518ȱn.ȱ29.
13ȱȱ ASHER,ȱ Rabbenu,ȱ31b.ȱThisȱviewȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱtracedȱtoȱearlierȱmedievalȱifȱnotȱGaonicȱ
discussions.ȱSeeȱTosafotȱBer.ȱ47bȱlemmaȱ“AmarȱRavȱHuna”.ȱ
154 MosheȱLavee
identity,ȱ asȱ legislationȱ regardingȱ theȱ conversionȱ procedure,ȱ whereȱ weȱ

alsoȱfindȱaȱchangeȱtowardsȱstricterȱboundariesȱofȱidentity.14ȱȱ
4.ȱTheȱrhetoricȱofȱexclusion:ȱȱ
TheȱYerushalmiȱasȱanȱintermediateȱphaseȱ
Theȱ sourcesȱ presentedȱ soȱ farȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ extremeȱ endsȱ ofȱ theȱ
evolutionȱ ofȱ Halakhicȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ sourceȱ
discussed,ȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ offeredȱ inclusion,ȱ theȱ latest,ȱ theȱ anonymousȱ
lecturingȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ offeredȱ exclusion,ȱ andȱ becameȱ theȱ preȬ
vailingȱ viewȱ inȱ laterȱ generations.ȱ Yet,ȱ theȱ Bavli’sȱ discussionȱ wasȱ notȱ
createdȱ inȱ aȱ vacuum.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ avoidsȱ quotationȱ ofȱ anyȱ Palestinianȱ
authorities,ȱ butȱ surelyȱ reflectsȱ certainȱ continuityȱ withȱ tendenciesȱ andȱ
developmentsȱ alreadyȱ documentedȱ inȱ theȱ postȱ Mishnaicȱ Palestinianȱ
rabbinicȱ works,ȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ andȱ theȱ Tosefta.ȱ Iȱ shallȱ nowȱ discussȱ
someȱofȱtheȱrelevantȱsourcesȱinȱtheseȱworks,ȱinȱanȱeffortȱtoȱtellȱtheȱinnoȬ
vativeȱcomponentȱofȱtheȱBavli’sȱlateȱvoiceȱfromȱtheȱelementsȱreflectingȱ
earlierȱPalestinianȱdevelopments.ȱȱ
Theȱ Yerushalmiȱ explainsȱ theȱ Mishnaicȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ byȱ
quotingȱanȱexternalȱTanaiticȱdisputeȱbetweenȱR.ȱShimonȱB.ȱGamlielȱandȱ
Rabbi,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ asȱ aȱ Jewȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ NonȬJew.ȱ (Tos.ȱ Ter.ȱ
4,12;ȱ 4,14).ȱ Byȱ doingȱ soȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ impliesȱ theȱ inclusionȱ inȱ ZimȬ
munȱ followsȱ RSBGȱ viewȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ asȱ aȱ Jew,ȱ while,ȱ preȬ
sumably,ȱRabbiȱwouldȱnotȱacceptȱthisȱview,ȱandȱwillȱprohibitȱcommonȱ
Zimmunȱ withȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ veryȱ usageȱ ofȱ thisȱ dichotomyȱ languageȱ
(ʩʥʢȱ /ȱ ʬʠʸʹʩ)ȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ similarȱ toȱ whatȱ Iȱ haveȱ earlierȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ
affiliationȱ model.ȱ Aȱ personȱ shouldȱ beȱ eitherȱ aȱ Jewȱ orȱ aȱ Gentile,ȱ andȱ
thereȱisȱnoȱplaceȱforȱmarginalȱgroupsȱlocatedȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱnoȱman’sȱlandȱ
inȱbetweenȱtheȱsocialȱboundariesȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱgroups.ȱOneȱmayȱdeduceȱ
thatȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ clearȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ nonȬJews,ȱ andȱ
itsȱ implicationsȱ forȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ
createdȱ inȱ Tanaiticȱ days.ȱ Later,ȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ onlyȱ addsȱ theȱ actualȱ
implementationȱofȱtheȱconceptȱinȱtheȱminorȱquestionȱofȱZimmun.ȱThusȱ
theȱ anonymousȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavliȱ simplyȱ tookȱ forȱ grantedȱ whatȱ wasȱ
alreadyȱrootedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱandȱthirdȱcenturiesȱinȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsrael,ȱ
andȱquotedȱinȱtheȱYerushalmi.ȱ
14ȱȱ Seeȱ LAVEE,ȱ Convert,ȱ 239ȱ andȱ n.ȱ 54.ȱ Toȱ theȱ sourcesȱ Iȱ haveȱ listedȱ thereȱ weȱ mayȱ addȱ
nowȱNatronaiȱresponsaȱ(BRODY,ȱTeshovot,ȱ121),ȱ“atȱthisȱtimeȱaȱfreedȱslaveȱthatȱwasȱ
circumcisedȱbutȱnotȱimmersed…”.ȱ
Yet,ȱthereȱareȱsomeȱcracksȱinȱthisȱpicture.ȱFirstly,ȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱ
Bavli,ȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ isȱ notȱ challengingȱ theȱ inclusivenessȱ ofȱ theȱ
Mishnah,ȱratherȱdefendingȱitȱbyȱanotherȱTanaiticȱsource.ȱSecondlyȱthereȱ
areȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱbothȱTalmuds,ȱinȱregardȱtoȱtheȱcontentȱ
andȱfunctionȱofȱTanaiticȱsourcesȱquotedȱinȱtheȱSugia:ȱ
ȱ
Bavli Yerushalmi
TheȱTanaiticȱ AnȱAmȬHaaretzȱisȱnotȱ AȱSamaritanȱisȱlikeȱaȱ
sourceȱquotedȱ included nonȱȬJewȱ/ȱaȱJewȱ(inȱ
allȱrespects)15ȱ
Theȱimpliedȱ AȱSamaritanȱmayȱnotȱbeȱ AȱSamaritanȱmayȱbeȱ
Tanaiticȱview included /ȱmayȱnotȱbeȱ
included
Theȱfunctionȱofȱ AȱChallengeȱtoȱtheȱ Aȱsupportȱtoȱtheȱ
theȱTanaiticȱ Mishnah Mishnah
sourceȱȱ
Conclusionȱ TheȱSamaritanȱisȱnotȱasȱaȱ Thereȱareȱdisputedȱ
JewȱaccordingȱtoȱTanaiticȱ viewsȱaboutȱtheȱ
sources;ȱourȱMishnahȱisȱinȱ questionȱinȱTanaiticȱ
contrastȱwithȱTanaiticȱ sources;ȱourȱ
views,ȱyetȱitȱisȱsupportedȱ Mishnahȱcanȱbeȱ
byȱconsiderationsȱofferedȱ supportedȱbyȱanȱ
byȱlaterȱBabylonianȱ inclusiveȱTannaiticȱ
Ammoraim. view.16ȱ
ȱ
ItȱisȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱthatȱconstitutesȱtheȱkeyȱdifferences.ȱTheȱ
Bavliȱsilencedȱtheȱinclusiveȱtannaiticȱvoice.ȱTheȱYerushalmiȱpresentsȱaȱ
situationȱ ofȱ dispute,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ inclusiveȱ voiceȱ mayȱ beȱ supported.ȱ
Onlyȱ hereȱ theȱ viewȱ isȱ offeredȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ likeȱ aȱ Jewȱ inȱ allȱ
aspects.ȱSuchȱaȱviewȱhadȱnoȱplaceȱinȱtheȱBavli.ȱByȱquotingȱtheȱdisputeȱ
andȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ exclusiveȱ viewȱ offeredȱ byȱ Rabbi,ȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ
15ȱȱ Asȱwillȱbeȱshownȱlater,ȱthisȱidiomȱisȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱTanaiticȱsourceȱasȱpresentedȱ
inȱtheȱTosefta.ȱ
16ȱȱ Oneȱ mayȱ pointȱ toȱ someȱ considerationsȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ exclusiveȱ Halakhicȱ decisionȱ onȱ
theȱbasisȱofȱtheȱYerushalmi’sȱdiscussion,ȱasȱtheȱinclusiveȱviewȱwhichȱisȱpresentedȱinȱ
theȱanonymousȱauthorotativeȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱMishnahȱisȱnowȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱviewȱofȱaȱ
certainȱ sageȱ (RSBG),ȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ hisȱ moreȱ authorotatveȱ son,ȱ Rabbi,ȱ
expressesȱ theȱ inclusiveȱ view.ȱ However,ȱ suchȱ calculationsȱ areȱ typicalȱ toȱ laterȱ
Halakhicȱ mechanisms,ȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ onlyȱ assessedȱ byȱ aȱ widerȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ
questionȱ ofȱ Halakhicȱ tendenciesȱ hintedȱ byȱ theȱ structureȱ andȱ organizationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Yerushalmi.ȱ
156 MosheȱLavee
promotesȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ liminalȱ andȱ controversialȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱ
Butȱ muchȱ moreȱ importantȱ thanȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ question,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ
tannaiticȱ disputeȱ betweenȱ Rabbiȱ andȱ RSBGȱ wasȱ meantȱ toȱ reflectȱ aȱ
principalȱ dichotomyȱ model,ȱ placingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ eitherȱ withinȱ orȱ
outsideȱ theȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ group.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ shouldȱ beȱ
addressedȱbothȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱearlierȱstagesȱofȱitsȱtransmissionȱ(theȱ
Tosefta),ȱandȱtoȱtheȱYerushalmi.ȱLetȱmeȱnowȱexamineȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱ
disputeȱinȱtheȱToseftaȱandȱitsȱotherȱusesȱinȱtheȱYerushalmi.ȱ
5.ȱTheȱbirthȱofȱgeneralization:ȱfromȱToseftaȱtoȱYerushalmiȱ
Theȱdisputeȱ‘aȱSamaritanȱisȱlikeȱaȱJewȱ/ȱaȱnonȬJew’ȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱ
Tosefta,ȱandȱscholarsȱdebatedȱwhetherȱitȱreflectsȱaȱgeneralȱdisputeȱaboutȱ
theȱstatusȱofȱSamaritansȱorȱnot.17ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱviewȱthatȱtheȱdisputeȱ
representsȱ aȱ generalȱ claim,ȱ Rabbiȱ andȱ R.ȱ Shimonȱ B.ȱ Gamlielȱ wereȱ
percievedȱasȱrepresentingȱtheȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱchangeȱinȱtheȱ
statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ whichȱ occurredȱ inȱ Tanaaiticȱ days.18ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ
likeȱtoȱargueȱinȱfavorȱofȱtheȱotherȱpossibility,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱoriginalȱuseȱ
ofȱtheȱwordsȱ ʬʠʸʹʩʫ / ʩʥʢʫȱinȱtheȱToseftaȱshouldȱbeȱlimited,ȱandȱreadȱinȱ
theȱ followingȱ manner:ȱ inȱ theȱ legislationȱ nowȱ discussed,ȱ theȱ lawȱ
regardingȱ toȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ lawȱ regardingȱ toȱ aȱ Jewȱ /ȱ aȱ
nonȬJew.19ȱȱ
Theȱ commonȱ syntaxȱ ofȱ otherȱ Tannaiticȱ statementsȱ inȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ
supportsȱsuchȱreading.ȱTheȱdisputeȱisȱpresentedȱasȱpartȱofȱaȱsequenceȱ
ofȱ 3ȱ laws:ȱ Theȱ statusȱ ofȱ fruitsȱ ofȱ nonȬJewsȱ isȱ thatȱ Terumahȱ wasȱ
seperatedȱ fromȱ them;ȱ Theȱ fruitsȱ ofȱ anȱ Israeliteȱ whoȱ isȱ suspiciousȱ (i.eȱ
17ȱȱ ToseftaȱDem.ȱ4,12ȱandȱ4,14.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱsecondȱappearanceȱisȱaȱduplication,ȱ
sinceȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱwhatȱtheȱstatementȱ‘likeȱaȱnonȬJew’ȱrefersȱto.ȱ
18ȱȱ ELIZUR,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 397:ȱ “theȱ twoȱ edgesȱ ofȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Halachahȱ withȱ
regardȱtoȱtheȱSamaritans”.ȱSeeȱalsoȱSCHIFFMAN,ȱSamaritans,ȱ326Ȭ327,ȱwhoȱbasedȱhisȱ
wordsȱ onȱ LIEBERMAN,ȱ inȱ hisȱ longȱ commentaryȱ toȱ Ter.ȱ 4,14,ȱ 352,ȱ lineȱ 62.ȱ LIBERMANȱ
alludesȱtoȱtheȱpositiveȱgeneralizationȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱRSBGȱ‘TheȱSamaritansȱareȱevenȱ
stricterȱthanȱIsraelȱwithȱregardȱtoȱeveryȱcommandmentȱthatȱisȱheldȱbyȱthem’ȱ(TosȱPesȱ
2,3ȱ andȱ prallels).ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ necessaryȱ toȱ claimȱ thatȱ LIBERMANȱ meantȱ thatȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ
generalȱclaim,ȱbutȱratherȱthatȱRSBGȱinȱToseftaȱTer.ȱshouldȱbeȱinterpretȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱ
theȱviewȱquotedȱinȱToseftaȱPes.ȱThus,ȱasȱtighingȱisȱaȱcommnamentȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
held,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ theyȱ areȱ faithfulȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ it.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ readingȱ explainsȱ ourȱ
MishnahȱaccordingȱtoȱRSBGȱinȱaȱmannerȱthatȱfitsȱtheȱHalakhicȱcriteriaȱmodel,ȱwhichȱ
isȱtheȱoneȱpresentedȱbyȱRavaȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱSugia.ȱ
19ȱȱ AȱsimilarȱreadingȱtoȱmineȱwasȱrecentlyȱpresentedȱbyȱSAFRAI,ȱAttitude.
thatȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ meticulousȱ withȱ tithing);ȱ andȱ theȱ disputeȱ aboutȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱInȱthisȱcontextȱtheȱwordsȱ ʩʥʢʫȱ/ȱ ʬʠʸʹʩʫȱ referȱtoȱtheȱtwoȱlawsȱ
mentionedȱbefore,ȱaccordingȱtoȱRabbiȱtheȱfruitsȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱareȱlikeȱ
thatȱofȱaȱnonȬJewȱwhichȱwasȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱfirstȱclause,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ
RSBGȱitȱisȱlikeȱthatȱofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱ(thusȱtheȱSamaritan,ȱlikeȱtheȱIsraeliteȱ
isȱsubjectȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ personalȱfaithfulness).ȱSuchȱaȱ disputeȱ
canȱonlyȱbeȱpresentedȱafterȱlawsȱinȱwhichȱrulingȱaboutȱaȱJewȱandȱaȱnonȬ
Jewȱ isȱ different,ȱ andȱ offersȱ aȱ localȱ claim,ȱ focusingȱ onȱ theȱ definedȱ
Halakhicȱ issue.ȱ Thisȱ linguisticȱ styleȱ isȱ wellȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ otherȱ
placesȱinȱtheȱToseftah:ȱȱ
‘Aȱpoorȱ(Jew)ȱisȱfaithfulȱifȱheȱ said…ȱbutȱheȱisȱnotȱfaithfulȱifȱheȱsaid…ȱtheȱ
poorȱmenȱamongȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱlikeȱtheȱpoorȱmenȱamongȱtheȱJews,ȱbutȱ
theȱpoorȱmenȱamongȱnonȬJewsȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱtrustedȱinȱeveryȱmatter’ȱ(Tos.ȱ
Peaȱ4,1)ȱ
Theȱparallelȱcontrastingȱphrasesȱ‘likeȱpoorȱ…ȱJews’ȱandȱ‘shouldȱnotȱbeȱ
trustedȱinȱeveryȱmatter’ȱprovesȱthatȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱexpressionȱ‘areȱ
likeȱ poorȱ …ȱ Jews’ȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ halakhicȱ issueȱ discussedȱ here.ȱ
Actuallyȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ veryȱ sameȱ questionȱ ofȱ faithfulnessȱ inȱ whichȱ suchȱ
languageȱisȱusedȱinȱToseftaȱTerumot.ȱȱ
Thereȱ isȱ anotherȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ Tosefta,ȱ
Terumotȱsupportsȱmyȱreading.ȱTheȱdisputeȱofȱRSBGȱandȱRabbiȱisȱgivenȱ
inȱaȱsetȱofȱlawsȱphrasedȱ‘…ȱtheȱwordsȱofȱRabbi.ȱRSBGȱsays…’ȱItȱisȱclearȱ
thatȱallȱtheȱotherȱwereȱspecificȱhalakhicȱmattersȱandȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱ
toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ thisȱ oneȱ wasȱ originallyȱ aȱ generalȱ disputeȱ whichȱ wasȱ
broughtȱtoȱtheȱToseftaȱandȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱconcreteȱmatter.20ȱ
Thus,ȱ inȱ myȱ view,ȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ didȱ notȱ offerȱ anȱ encompassingȱ
generalizationȱregardingȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱYet,ȱweȱhaveȱtoȱexamineȱhowȱ
theȱdisputeȱwasȱunderstoodȱinȱlaterȱcenturies.ȱWereȱmodernȱhistoriansȱ
theȱ firstȱ toȱ perceiveȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ generalȱ statementȱ aboutȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱ orȱ wasȱ itȱ takenȱ asȱ suchȱ alreadyȱ byȱ theȱ redactorsȱ ofȱ theȱ
Yerushalmi?ȱ Someȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ usageȱ andȱ wordingȱ ofȱ theȱ dispute,ȱ
whenȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱYerishalmi,ȱimplyȱindeedȱatȱtheȱlater:ȱȱ
1)ȱTheȱrecurrentȱuseȱofȱtheȱdisputeȱ
SimilarȱinterpretiveȱactsȱtoȱthatȱofferedȱhereȱbyȱtheȱYerushalmiȱappearsȱ
inȱ fewȱ moreȱ instances.ȱ Viewsȱ regardingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ explainedȱ
20ȱȱ Anotherȱconsiderationȱisȱtheȱinclusiveȱ natureȱofȱ Mishnaicȱstatements.ȱIfȱoneȱwouldȱ

acceptȱ aȱ generalȱ claimȱ ofȱ Rabbiȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ asȱ NonȬJews,ȱ itȱ isȱ
surprisingȱtoȱfindȱsoȱmanyȱinclusiveȱMishnaicȱlaws.ȱThisȱallegedlyȱcontradictionȱcanȱ
beȱ answeredȱ inȱ manyȱ ways,ȱ asȱ noȱ oneȱ asureȱ usȱ thatȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ shouldȱ feflectsȱ
Rabbi’sȱownȱview.
158 MosheȱLavee
byȱtheȱdichotomyȱ‘asȱaȱJewȱ/ȱasȱaȱnonȬJew’.21ȱByȱdoingȱsoȱtheȱYerushalȬ
miȱ attachedȱ aȱ generalȱ meaningȱ toȱ theȱ tanaiticȱ dispute.ȱ Nowȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ
perceivedȱasȱaȱprincipalȱdisputeȱaboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱ
2)ȱAȱgentleȱbutȱmeaningfulȱrephrasingȱofȱtheȱBaraitaȱ
Itȱisȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱrecurrentȱuse,ȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱwordingȱwhichȱimpliesȱtoȱ
theȱnewȱconceptualȱframework,ȱandȱtheȱmove,ȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱYerushalȬ
mi,ȱfromȱtheȱHalakhicȱcriteriaȱmodel,ȱjudgingȱSamaritansȱaccordingȱtoȱ
theirȱ practicesȱ (orȱ theirȱ practicesȱ asȱ imaginedȱ byȱ theȱ Rabbis),ȱ toȱ theȱ
affiliationȱorientedȱmodel,ȱthatȱledȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱmarkingȱofȱSamaritansȱasȱ
nonȬJews:ȱ
Rabiȱ states:ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ likeȱ aȱ nonȬJew.ȱ Rabbanȱ Shimonȱ b.ȱ Gamlielȱ
states:ȱtheȱSamaritanȱisȱlikeȱaȱJewȱinȱallȱrespects.’ȱȱ
JustȱasȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱtheȱYerushalmiȱappliedȱtheȱTanaiticȱtextȱinȱmanyȱ
cases,ȱtheyȱtransmittedȱaȱslightlyȱdifferentȱtextȱthatȱreflectsȱtheȱtendencyȱ
toȱchargeȱthisȱdisputeȱwithȱtheȱvalueȱofȱaȱprincipalȱandȱcomprehensiveȱ
debateȱ aboutȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ
developmentsȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱrephrasingȱofȱtheȱtanaiticȱtext,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ
relevanceȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱonlyȱtheȱinclusiveȱviewȱisȱdefinedȱasȱvalidȱ‘inȱ
allȱrespects’.ȱTheȱveryȱconceptȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱshouldȱbeȱcomparedȱ
toȱ aȱ Jewȱ (orȱ toȱ aȱ nonȬJew)ȱ inȱ allȱ aspectsȱ representedȱ theȱ innovativeȱ
conceptȱ ofȱ binaryȱ identity,ȱ andȱ pavedȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ
SamaritanȱasȱaȱnonȬJewȱinȱallȱrespect.ȱ
Butȱ thereȱ isȱ stillȱ oneȱ moreȱ argumentȱ supportingȱ theȱ otherȱ possiȬ
bility,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱevenȱinȱtheȱYerushalmiȱweȱcanȱhearȱtheȱechosȱ
ofȱanȱearlierȱuseȱofȱtheȱdisputeȱasȱcarryingȱonlyȱtheȱspecificȱmeaningȱofȱ
itsȱ originalȱ usageȱ inȱ theȱ Tosefta,ȱ andȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ generalȱ dispute.ȱ Asȱ weȱ
noticedȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ mainȱ concernȱ ofȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ wasȱ theȱ validityȱ ofȱ
food,ȱandȱpersonsȱwereȱdiscussedȱonlyȱasȱanȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱvalidityȱ
ofȱtheirȱfoodȱcustoms;ȱIȱalsoȱclaimedȱthatȱtheȱoriginalȱmeaningȱofȱRabbiȱ/ȱ
RSBGȱ disputeȱ inȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ dealtȱ withȱ theȱ faithfulnessȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ
regardingȱ tithing,ȱi.eȱ regardingȱ theirȱ food.ȱ Itȱ isȱ possible,ȱ thus,ȱ thatȱ theȱ
earliestȱ quoteȱ ofȱ theȱ disputeȱ asȱ anȱ explanationȱ forȱ ourȱ Mishnahȱ inȱ
Yerushalmiȱ Ber.ȱ onlyȱ intendedȱ toȱ bringȱ thisȱ specificȱ meaningȱ intoȱ theȱ
discussion:ȱ theyȱ mayȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ Zimmun,ȱ becauseȱ theirȱ foodȱ isȱ
permitted,ȱ asȱ claimedȱ byȱ Rabbiȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ likeȱ Jewsȱ inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ
i.e.ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ suspiciousȱ aboutȱ tithingȱ (orȱ atȱ leastȱ aboutȱ theȱ sepaȬ
rationȱofȱTerumah).ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱspeculativeȱisȱthisȱoffer,ȱIȱwouldȱsugȬ
gestȱ toȱ reconstructȱ hereȱ anȱ earlierȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ Sugia,ȱ noȱ longerȱ docuȬ
mented,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱdispute,ȱalbeitȱtheȱlanguageȱ‘likeȱaȱJewȱ/ȱ
21ȱȱ YerushalmiȱDem.ȱ4,3ȱ23c;ȱSheq.ȱ1,5ȱ46b;ȱKet.ȱ3,1ȱ27a.
likeȱaȱ nonȬJew’ȱ didȱ notȱ pretendȱ toȱ offerȱ aȱ generalization.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ stageȱ
wasȱ onlyȱ possibleȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ wasȱ quotedȱ accurately,ȱ
withoutȱtheȱadditionȱ‘inȱallȱrespects’.ȱItȱisȱonlyȱfromȱourȱlaterȱperspecȬ
tive,ȱtakingȱintoȱconsiderationȱthisȱnewȱwordingȱofȱtheȱBaraita,ȱandȱtheȱ
otherȱ instancesȱ whereȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ usedȱ theȱ disputeȱ inȱ aȱ generalȱ
context,ȱthatȱtheȱYerushalmiȱSugiaȱisȱinterpretedȱasȱofferingȱtheȱbinaricȱ
affiliationȱmodel,ȱandȱtheȱwordsȱ‘likeȱaȱJewȱ/ȱaȱnonȬJew’ȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱ
generalizations.22ȱȱ
TheȱinclusionȱofȱSamaritansȱinȱZimmunȱ–ȱSummaryȱ
LetȱmeȱconcludeȱtheȱfindingsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱZimmun:ȱȱ
1)ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ sourceȱ (Theȱ Mishnah)ȱ offeredȱ aȱ relativelyȱ positiveȱ andȱ
inclusiveȱ view.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ reflectsȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ
relatedȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱgroup,ȱandȱthusȱsubjectȱtoȱadȬhocȱexaminationȱinȱ
variousȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ andȱ commualȱ life.ȱ Ifȱ theirȱ conductȱ inȱ theȱ
discussedȱ fieldȱ wasȱ appropriateȱ (accordingȱ toȱ rabbinicȱ criteriaȱ andȱ
judgement)ȱtheyȱwereȱincluded.ȱ
2)ȱ Theȱ Toseftaȱ isȱ probablyȱ stillȱ workingȱ withinȱ thisȱ framework,ȱ andȱ
documentedȱ contradictingȱ views,ȱ whichȱ areȱ basedȱ onȱ divergentȱ
assessmentsȱofȱSamaritans’ȱpractice.ȱYet,ȱtheȱwordingȱandȱstyleȱalreadyȱ
hintȱ atȱ theȱ futureȱ developments,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ discussedȱ
underȱ anȱ affiliationȱ orientedȱ model.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ binaricȱ model,ȱ definingȱ
whetherȱ theyȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ Jewishȱ groupȱ orȱ not.ȱ Theȱ moveȱ toȱ suchȱ
definitiveȱ languageȱ pavedȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ theȱ muchȱ laterȱ definitionȱ ofȱ
SamaritansȱasȱfullyȱnonȬJews.ȱ
3)ȱTheȱaffiliationȱmodelȱisȱprobablyȱtheȱoneȱusedȱinȱtheȱYerushalmi,ȱyetȱ
itȱ isȱ importantȱ thatȱ theȱ inclusiveȱ viewȱ isȱ stillȱ supportedȱ inȱ thisȱ work,ȱ
andȱIȱwasȱable,ȱhesitantly,ȱtoȱofferȱaȱreconstructionȱofȱaȱformerȱstageȱofȱ
theȱPalestinianȱSugia,ȱwhichȱstillȱadhereȱtoȱtheȱearlierȱTanaiticȱmodel.ȱȱ
4)ȱTheȱinnovativeȱaspectȱofȱtheȱBavliȱlaysȱnotȱinȱtheȱviewsȱofferedȱinȱit,ȱ
butȱ ratherȱ inȱ theȱ statusȱ attachedȱ toȱ themȱ throughȱ itsȱ rhetoricalȱ meansȱ
22ȱȱ IȱwouldȱalsoȱlikeȱtoȱpointȱtoȱaȱlateȱandȱcorruptȱversionȱofȱtheȱBarayta,ȱfoundȱinȱaȱlateȱ
variantȱofȱtheȱYerushalmi,ȱcitedȱinȱMidrashȱShmuel,ȱ13,9,88.ȱTheȱdisputeȱpresentedȱ
thereȱ isȱ whetherȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ gentile,ȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ gentileȱ inȱ allȱ
respects.ȱItȱisȱclearlyȱaȱmistake,ȱnotȱonlyȱsinceȱitȱdeviatesȱfromȱallȱotherȱ(andȱearlier)ȱ
sources,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ asȱ itȱ contradictsȱ otherȱ materialsȱ quotedȱ there.ȱ Yet,ȱ asȱ aȱ mistakeȱ itȱ
hasȱaȱsymbolicȱvalue,ȱandȱifȱitȱisȱaȱFreudianȱslipȱofȱaȱscribeȱitȱteachesȱusȱinadvertentlyȱ
thatȱ theȱ negativeȱ viewȱ towardȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ becameȱ dominant.ȱ Someone,ȱ duringȱ
theȱlongȱtransmissionȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱcouldȱnotȱevenȱciteȱtheȱviewȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱisȱ
asȱaȱJew.ȱ
160 MosheȱLavee
andȱ literaryȱ devices.ȱ Theȱ affiliationȱ modelȱ isȱ usedȱ forȱ framingȱ theȱ
discussion;ȱ theȱ exclusiveȱ viewȱ isȱ presentedȱ asȱ theȱ obvious,ȱ andȱ theȱ
inclusiveȱviewȱisȱwipedȱunderȱtheȱcarpet.ȱTheȱBavliȱalsoȱoffersȱaȱcertainȱ
chronologicalȱ image,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ affiliationȱ modelȱ andȱ theȱ
Halakhicȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ NonȬJewsȱ alreadyȱ prevailedȱ inȱ
Tanaiticȱtimes.ȱȱ
TheȱpictureȱpresentedȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱthisȱsingleȱSugiaȱisȱimportant,ȱasȱIȱ
findȱitȱindicativeȱtoȱdevelopmentsȱdocumentedȱinȱotherȱdiscussions.ȱItȱ
offersȱ aȱ newȱ pictureȱ ofȱ theȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ Samaritans,ȱ asȱ aȱ
gradual,ȱ prolongedȱ andȱ complexȱ process.ȱ Theȱ Yerushalmiȱ hintsȱ atȱ aȱ
moveȱtowardsȱaȱnewȱdiscourse,ȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱgroupȱidentity,ȱbutȱtheȱ
absoluteȱexclusiveȱimplicationsȱofȱthisȱdiscourseȱareȱnotȱrecordedȱinȱit.ȱ
Theȱ Bavli,ȱ whileȱ stillȱ preservingȱ amoriteȱ justificationȱ forȱ theȱ Tanaiticȱ
model,ȱ isȱ aȱ representativeȱ ofȱ theȱ influenceȱ andȱ successȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ
affiliationȱ discourse.ȱ Onlyȱ postȱ Talmudicȱ legislationȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ
fullȱrealizationȱofȱthisȱmodel.ȱ
PartȱIIȱ–ȱInitialȱOverviewȱofȱtheȱBavli’sȱConceptualȱ
FrameworkȱforȱSamaritansȱ
Theȱ modelsȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ essayȱ mayȱ supportȱ usȱ inȱ
portrayingȱtheȱwiderȱpicture.ȱTheȱambivalenceȱtowardsȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
isȱdocumentedȱinȱallȱrabbinicȱworks.ȱInȱeachȱofȱthemȱweȱmayȱfindȱlawsȱ
inȱ whichȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ included,ȱ andȱ lawsȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ
excluded.ȱYet,ȱwhenȱcomparingȱtheȱvariousȱworksȱweȱcanȱnoticeȱbothȱ
theȱ quantitativeȱ andȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ changes.ȱ Theȱ quantitativeȱ change,ȱ
wasȱ recentlyȱ summarizedȱ andȱ presentedȱ byȱ Safrai:23ȱ Theȱ laterȱ isȱ theȱ
dateȱ ofȱ theȱ finalȱ redactionȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ rabbinicȱ work,ȱ theȱ largerȱ isȱ theȱ
numberȱofȱlawsȱorȱareasȱofȱwhichȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱexcluded.24ȱThisȱisȱ
mainlyȱ discernableȱ inȱ someȱ casesȱ inȱ whichȱ earlierȱ workȱ documentedȱ
inclusiveȱlaws,ȱwhileȱtheȱlaterȱareȱexclusive.ȱȱ
Theȱ qualitativeȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ changeȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ
frameworkȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ discussed.ȱ Itȱ isȱ discernableȱ inȱ
twoȱ areas:ȱ inȱ theȱ moveȱ fromȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ criteriaȱ modelȱ toȱ theȱ
23ȱȱ SeeȱSAFRAI,ȱAttitude.ȱThisȱconclusionȱisȱstronglyȱsupportedȱbyȱmyȱsurveyȱofȱrabbinicȱ
sources,ȱwhichȱIȱcanȱnotȱpresentȱhereȱinȱfullȱdetails.
24ȱȱ Thisȱ commentȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ Toseftaȱ andȱ bothȱ Talmuds.ȱ Theȱ corpusȱ ofȱ
tanaiticȱMidrashȱhardlyȱcointainsȱanyȱrefrencesȱtoȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱandȱwhenȱitȱdoes,ȱ
itȱisȱmostlyȱnegativeȱandȱexclusive.ȱȱ
affiliationȱ orientedȱ one,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ inȱ aȱ reflectiveȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ
change,ȱnamelyȱinȱestablishingȱaȱfoundationalȱstoryȱaboutȱtheȱchange,ȱ
whenȱandȱhowȱitȱhappened.ȱ
Inȱ bothȱ aspectsȱ theȱ Bavliȱ presentsȱ theȱ mostȱ exclusiveȱ picture.ȱ Inȱ
termsȱofȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱchangeȱtheȱBavliȱoffersȱtheȱnarrativeȱ
thatȱlaterȱbecameȱtheȱfoundationalȱstory,ȱclaimingȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱ
decreedȱ asȱ ‘absoluteȱ nonȬJews’ȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ revelationȱ thatȱ theyȱ
practicedȱidolatry.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱtheȱmoveȱtowardsȱtheȱaffiliationȱorientedȱ
model,ȱ theȱ Bavliȱ elaboratedȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱgeneralizationsȱ thatȱ definesȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ asȱ nonȬJews,ȱ andȱ madeȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ validityȱ theirȱ
conversionȱintoȱaȱcentralȱone.ȱȱ
1.ȱTheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱchangeȱ
Examiningȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ changeȱ inȱ Talmudicȱ sources,ȱ weȱ
shouldȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱMishnahȱspeaksȱaboutȱtheȱdeteriorationȱ(ʬʥʷʬʷ)ȱofȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ lightingȱ ofȱ beacons.ȱ Weȱ
neitherȱknowȱwhatȱwasȱtheȱnatureȱofȱthisȱqilqul,ȱnorȱwhetherȱitȱhasȱanyȱ
implicationsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ discussedȱ procedure,ȱ namelyȱ publiȬ
cizingȱ theȱ decisionȱ regardingȱ theȱ newȱ moon.ȱ Itȱ mightȱ beȱ aȱ politicalȱ
change,ȱ orȱ simplyȱ theȱ separationȱ fromȱ theȱ Jewsȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ
calendar,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ issueȱ discussedȱ byȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ (RHȱ 2,2).ȱ
However,ȱtheȱimportantȱaspectȱofȱtheȱMishnahȱforȱthisȱstudy,ȱisȱthatȱitȱ
didȱnotȱpresentȱaȱchangeȱofȱlawsȱregardingȱtheȱSamaritansȱthemselves,ȱ
norȱasȱaȱchangeȱofȱtheirȱstatus.ȱȱ
SuchȱaȱchangeȱisȱexactlyȱtheȱnewȱperspectiveȱofferedȱinȱtheȱToseftaȱ
(Dem.ȱ5,24),ȱwhereȱtheȱdeteriorationȱofȱSamaritansȱisȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱ
contextȱofȱtithing.ȱHereȱandȱinȱotherȱplacesȱtheȱToseftaȱtendȱtoȱcorrelateȱ
theȱchangeȱwithȱgeographic,ȱdemographicȱandȱeconomicalȱconcerns.25ȱItȱ
isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ changesȱ rootedȱ inȱ suchȱ processȱ wereȱ onlyȱ laterȱ
reinterpretedȱasȱreflectingȱessentialȱshiftȱinȱtheirȱperception.ȱ
Theȱ Yerushalmiȱ suppliesȱaȱ muchȱ widerȱ perspectiveȱofȱ theȱ change,ȱ
andȱ evenȱ offerȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ aȱ reactionȱ byȱ Samaritans:ȱ ‘Yourȱ fathersȱ
wouldȱ useȱ ourȱ [commodities],ȱ whyȱ doȱ youȱ avoidȱ usingȱ ourȱ [commoȬ
dities]?’ȱ (Yerushalmiȱ AZȱ 5,4ȱ 44d).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ discussionȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ
presentsȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ qilqulȱ inȱ aȱ muchȱ widerȱ context,ȱ andȱ offersȱ fewȱ
explanationsȱforȱtheȱcausesȱofȱtheȱchange,ȱincludingȱtheȱextremeȱoption,ȱ
25ȱȱ Seeȱ Toseftaȱ Dem.ȱ 1,11,ȱ whereȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ theȱ changeȱ isȱ theȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ geoȬ
graphicȱsourceȱofȱproductsȱsoldȱbyȱSamaritans,ȱandȱnotȱnecessarilyȱinȱtheirȱpractice.ȱ
162 MosheȱLavee
accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theyȱ pourȱ libationȱ wineȱ forȱ idolatrousȱ causes.ȱ 26ȱ
However,ȱitȱwasȱonlyȱtheȱBavliȱthatȱpresentedȱaȱnewȱauthoritativeȱandȱ
chronologicalȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ change,ȱ constructingȱ aȱ certainȱ narrative,ȱ
claimingȱthat:ȱȱ
1)ȱ Theȱ changeȱ wasȱ ofȱ revolutionaryȱ natureȱ andȱ notȱ anȱ evolutionaryȱ
one,ȱandȱoccurredȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱcertainȱevent.ȱ
2)ȱItȱwasȱdecidedȱbyȱaȱpatriarchalȱlegalȱinstance,ȱprobablyȱinȱtheȱendȱofȱ
Tanaiticȱperiod.ȱȱ
3)ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱbackdatedȱ toȱ anȱ evenȱ earlierȱ stageȱinȱ Tanaiticȱ daysȱ(evenȱ
thoughȱitȱwasȱnotȱacceptedȱimmediately).ȱ
Theȱ innovativeȱ aspectȱ inȱ theȱ Bavliȱ laysȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ itsȱ arguȬ
mentsȱratherȱinȱitsȱrhetoric.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱshowȱinȱtheȱcomparisonȱbelow,ȱtheȱ
buildingȱ blocksȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavli’sȱ discussionȱ canȱ beȱ tracedȱ toȱ earlierȱ sourȬ
ces,ȱbutȱitȱisȱtheȱspecificȱwayȱofȱpresentationȱthatȱappliesȱhigherȱdegreeȱ
ofȱauthorityȱtoȱtheȱmostȱexclusiveȱtradition,ȱdefiningȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱ
idolȱworshipersȱandȱthusȱasȱnonȬJews.ȱȱ
Beforeȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ detailedȱ comparisonȱ weȱ shouldȱ noticeȱ theȱ
constructionȱ ofȱ authoritativeȱ andȱ chronologicalȱ image.ȱ Letȱ meȱ presentȱ
fewȱexamplesȱforȱit:ȱ
a) TheȱdecreeȱofȱR.ȱGamlielȱandȱhisȱcourt.ȱ
ItȱisȱinȱtheȱBavli,ȱandȱonlyȱinȱit,ȱthatȱaȱtraditionȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱR.ȱ
Gamlielȱ (probablyȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Rabbi)ȱ andȱ hisȱ courtȱ madeȱ aȱ decreeȱ
excludingȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ styleȱ ofȱ relatedȱ traditionsȱ alreadyȱ
identifiedȱ asȱ aȱ Babylonianȱ construction.27ȱ Inȱ earlierȱ sourcesȱ aȱ decreeȱ
wasȱonlyȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtithingȱ(seeȱToseftaȱDem.ȱ5,24).ȱȱ
b) Presentingȱexclusiveȱviewsȱasȱtanaiticȱ
Thisȱexampleȱfitsȱanotherȱchronologyȱrelatedȱphenomenonȱweȱnoticedȱ
inȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱtheȱessay,ȱwhereȱtheȱTalmudȱorganizedȱmaterialsȱinȱaȱ
mannerȱ theyȱ createdȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ theȱ Mishnaicȱ inclusiveȱ viewȱ isȱ
26ȱȱ SeeȱinȱtheȱcomparisonȱtoȱtheȱBavliȱpresentedȱbelow.ȱOneȱshouldȱalsoȱnoticeȱthatȱtheȱ
qilqul isȱasȱwellȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱidolȱworshippingȱ(ToseftaȱAZȱ6,7).ȱWhenȱtheȱverbȱ
wasȱ usedȱ inȱ reagardȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ itȱ maintainsȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ
tithingȱpractices.ȱYet,ȱitsȱuseȱinȱtheȱYerushalmiȱhere,ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱlibationȱwine,ȱ
enablesȱ alsoȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ idolworshippingȱ (thoughȱ Iȱ assumeȱ thisȱ isȱ anȱ
extremeȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱYerushalmi,ȱinspiredȱbyȱtheȱBavli).ȱȱ
27ȱȱ SeeȱROSENFELD,ȱSignificance,ȱ149Ȭ165.ȱROSENFELDȱdemonstratesȱhowȱtheȱBavliȱrepreȬ
sentsȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱYavneȱasȱtheȱperiodȱfromȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱtempleȱtoȱBarȱ
Kochbaȱrebellion,ȱwhileȱearlierȱsourcesȱreferȱtoȱitȱinȱaȱmoreȱspecificȱmeaningȱasȱtheȱ
courtȱofȱR.ȱGAMLIEL.ȱInȱmyȱview,ȱtheȱchangeȱheȱhasȱpointedȱtoȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱprocessȱofȱ
developingȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ thisȱ periodȱ asȱ aȱ foundationalȱ one.ȱ Thisȱ foundationȱ imageȱ
stemsȱbehindȱtheȱexpressionȱ‘R.ȱGAMLIELȱandȱhisȱcourt’ȱinȱtheȱBavli’sȱtextȱdiscussedȱ
here.ȱ
challengedȱ byȱ another,ȱ equallyȱ authoritative,ȱ tanaiticȱ view.ȱ Similarȱ

stepsȱareȱdocumentedȱinȱotherȱdiscussions.ȱAȱniceȱexampleȱisȱfoundȱinȱ
anotherȱpartȱofȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱslaughtering.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱexplicitlyȱ
inclusiveȱ tanaiticȱ materials,ȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ discussionȱ offersȱ emendaȬ
tionȱ toȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ allegedlyȱ tanaiticȱ materialsȱ whichȱ areȱ
exclusiveȱ andȱ limitȱ slaughteringȱ byȱ Samaritans.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ theȱ Bavliȱ
promotedȱtheȱexclusiveȱview,ȱitȱalsoȱreflectsȱaȱperceptionȱofȱthisȱviewȱasȱ
anchoredȱinȱearlierȱsources.28ȱȱ
c) R.ȱMeir’sȱdecreeȱ
AnotherȱexpressionȱofȱthatȱchronologicalȱimageȱisȱtheȱroleȱofȱR.ȱMeirȱinȱ
theȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritans.ȱ Aȱ storyȱ attributingȱ theȱ decreeȱ toȱ himȱ isȱ
foundȱinȱtheȱYerushalmiȱonlyȱwithȱtheȱnameȱofȱhisȱstudent,ȱR.ȱShimonȱ
b.ȱElazar,ȱthusȱenablingȱaȱlaterȱdate.29ȱ
d) Theȱdisputeȱaboutȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱpastȱconversion.ȱ
Alreadyȱ60ȱyearsȱagoȱElizurȱhasȱshownȱthatȱtheȱBavliȱpresentedȱtheȱdisȬ
puteȱregardingȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱtheȱSamaritans’ȱpastȱconversionȱasȱbasedȱ
onȱ tanaiticȱ authorities,ȱ whileȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ itȱ isȱ documentedȱ asȱ
amoraiticȱ views.30ȱ Thisȱ changeȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ chronological,ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ inteȬ
gratedȱwithȱtheȱhigherȱimportanceȱgrantedȱtoȱtheȱdisputeȱinȱtheȱBavli,ȱ
whereȱ theȱ falseȱ conversionȱ becomesȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱasȱnonȬJews.ȱ
2.ȱTowardsȱtheȱaffiliationȱmodel:ȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱnonȬJewsȱ
Theȱ moveȱ toȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ nonȬJewsȱ isȱ reflectedȱ inȱ
theȱBavliȱinȱvariousȱways:ȱinȱtheȱdeclarativeȱlevel,ȱinȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱ
itsȱnarrative,ȱinȱtheȱhiddenȱconceptualȱframeworkȱandȱinȱitsȱrhetoric.ȱInȱ
theȱ declarativeȱ levelȱ theȱ Bavliȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ
28ȱȱ CompareȱToseftaȱHul.ȱ1,1ȱtoȱBavliȱHul.ȱ3aȬ5a.ȱAgain,ȱRavaȱandȱAbayeȱareȱinvolvedȱ
inȱtheȱeffortȱtoȱjustifyȱ(andȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtoȱlimit)ȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱ
whileȱtheȱlaterȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱimpliesȱatȱtheirȱdefiniteȱexclusion.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱ
theȱ Baraytasȱ limitingȱ thisȱ ruleȱ inȱ supportȱ ofȱ Abayeȱ andȱ Ravaȱ areȱ Babylonian.ȱ Itȱ
deviatesȱ fromȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ andȱ Todefta,ȱ followsȱ Rava’sȱ ammendationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Mishnah,ȱandȱtheȱviewsȱreflectedȱinȱitȱfitȱtheȱshapingȱofȱtheȱimgaeȱofȱSamaritansȱinȱ
theȱBavliȱasȱdepictedȱinȱthisȱpaper.ȱForȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱBabylonianȱBaraitas,ȱandȱ
especiallyȱ thoseȱ showingȱ completeȱ accordanceȱ withȱ Amoriteȱ viewsȱ andȱ presentedȱ
withȱtheȱterminonlgyȱ‘Itȱwasȱalsoȱtaught’ȱ (ʩʫʤ ʩʮʰ ʠʩʰʺ). SeeȱFRIEDMANN,ȱTalmud,ȱ8ȱn.ȱ
9.ȱJACOBS,ȱThought,ȱ42Ȭ54;ȱHAUPTMAN,ȱDevelopment.ȱSeeȱalsoȱEPSTEIN,ȱIntroduction,ȱ
664Ȭ665.
29ȱȱ CompareȱBavliȱHul.ȱ6aȱtoȱYerushalmiȱAZȱ5,4ȱ44d.
30ȱȱ CompareȱBavliȱQid.ȱ75bȱtoȱYerushalmiȱYeb.ȱ7,6ȱ8b.ȱSeeȱELIZUR,ȱSamaritans,ȱ398Ȭ399.ȱ
164 MosheȱLavee
definedȱ asȱ ‘absoluteȱ nonȬJews’ȱ (Hul.ȱ 6a).ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ theȱ
decisivenessȱofȱthisȱexpressionȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱtheȱcommonȱuseȱofȱtheȱ
disputeȱ ‘asȱ aȱ Jewȱ /ȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬJew’ȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmi.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ recogȬ
nizedȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ aȱ uniqueȱ group,ȱ standingȱ forȱ
itself,ȱsomewhereȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱnonȬJews,ȱandȱwishȱ
toȱdefineȱwhetherȱcertainȱlawsȱregardingȱthem,ȱfollowsȱthoseȱofȱJewsȱorȱ
ofȱnonȬJews.ȱȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱnotȱdeclaredȱasȱ‘absolute’ȱnonȬJews.ȱ
Jews.ȱȱ
ȱ
TheȱNarrative:ȱIdolworshipȱ
Inȱtermsȱofȱtheȱnarrative,ȱtheȱBavliȱoffersȱtheȱstoryȱascribingȱidolatrousȱ
practicesȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ changeȱ ofȱ rabbinicȱ
attitudeȱ towardsȱ them.ȱ Alsoȱ hereȱ weȱ canȱ noticeȱ someȱ meaningfulȱ
differences,ȱ whenȱ comparingȱ itȱ toȱ itsȱ parallelȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmi.ȱ Inȱ
orderȱ toȱ doȱ so,ȱ Iȱ shouldȱ firstȱ presentȱ theȱ buildingȱ blocksȱ ofȱ bothȱ disȬ
cussions:31ȱ
ȱ
BavliȱHullinȱ5bȬ6aȱ YerushalmiȱAZȱ5,4ȱ44dȱȱȱ
Theȱcontext:ȱSlaughteringȱbyȱ Theȱcontext:ȱTheȱstatusȱofȱtheirȱwineȱ
Samaritansȱ
R.ȱGamilelȱandȱhisȱcourtȱmadeȱaȱ ȱ
decreeȱexcludingȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱ
Theyȱdidȱsoȱbecauseȱ ȱ
AnȱeventȱinȱwhichȱR.ȱShimonȱb.ȱ R.ȱShimonȱb.ȱElazarȱwasȱwarnedȱ
Elazarȱwasȱwarnedȱregardingȱtheirȱ regardingȱSamaritan’sȱwine.ȱȱ
wine,ȱandȱconsequentlyȱR.ȱMeirȱ
decreedȱtoȱexcludeȱthem.ȱȱȱ
ȱ AbahuȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱR.ȱHiyya,ȱR.ȱ
AmiȱandȱR.ȱAssiȱprohibitedȱ
Samaritans’ȱwine.ȱ
Heȱdidȱsoȱbecauseȱ Theyȱdidȱsoȱbecauseȱ
ȱ (1)ȱaȱcaseȱinȱwhichȱaȱnonȬJewȱwhoȱ
wasȱsuspectedȱregardingȱhisȱwineȱ
wasȱseenȱinȱaȱSamaritanȱarea.32ȱ
31ȱȱ TheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱchartȱareȱparaphrasesȱofȱtheȱTalmud’sȱtexts.
32ȱȱ AȱdirectȱParallelȱtoȱtheȱBavliȱisȱofferedȱinȱYerushalmi;ȱaȱsimilarȱeventȱisȱdocumented,ȱ
butȱonlyȱR.ȱELAZARȱisȱmentioned,ȱandȱnotȱR.ȱMEIRȱ(seeȱabove).
ȱ (2)ȱorȱanȱeventȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ
Samaritansȱprobablyȱusedȱwineȱofȱ
nonȬJewsȱ
ȱ (3)ȱorȱanȱeventȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ
Samaritansȱwereȱforcedȱbyȱtheȱ
Romansȱtoȱpourȱlibationȱwineȱ
Theyȱfoundȱanȱimageȱofȱaȱdoveȱinȱ (4)ȱorȱbecauseȱtheyȱhaveȱaȱkindȱofȱ
MountȱGerizim,ȱandȱtheyȱ aȱdoveȱandȱtheyȱpourȱlibationȱwineȱ
worshipedȱit,ȱ forȱit.ȱȱ
Anotherȱtraditionȱregardingȱ ȱ
libationȱwineȱinȱwhichȱAmoraimȱ
areȱinvolvedȱ(Yitzhakȱb.ȱYosi,33ȱ
Abahu,ȱR.ȱAmiȱandȱR.ȱAssi),ȱ
endedȱwithȱtheȱdeclarationȱofȱ
Samaritansȱasȱ‘absoluteȱnonȬJews’.ȱ
TheȱfirstȱeventȱinȱTanaiticȱdaysȱ ȱ
includeȱaȱdecreeȱthatȱwasȱnotȱ
acceptedȱ(or:ȱtransmittedȱtoȱtheȱ
followingȱgenerations),ȱandȱtheȱ
secondȱAmoraiticȱdecreeȱwasȱ
accepted.ȱ
ȱ
Lookingȱatȱthisȱstructureȱweȱcanȱnoteȱtheȱdifferentȱcontextȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ
storiesȱ areȱ presented.ȱ Theȱ Yerushalmiȱ dealtȱ withȱ aȱ specificȱ issue,ȱ
namelyȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theirȱ wine,34ȱ whileȱ theȱ Bavliȱ placedȱ theȱ storiesȱ
dealingȱwithȱtheȱspecificȱissueȱinȱaȱnarrativeȱaboutȱtheȱidentityȱofȱSamaȬ
ritans.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ doneȱ byȱ theȱ declarativeȱ dimensionȱ onlyȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ
Bavli:ȱ‘andȱtheyȱdeclareȱthemȱtoȱbeȱabsoluteȱgentiles’,ȱandȱbyȱbringingȱ
traditionsȱ aboutȱ libationȱ wineȱ asȱ theȱ sourceȱ forȱ aȱ decreeȱ againstȱ theȱ
validityȱofȱslaughteringȱbyȱSamaritans.ȱInȱdoingȱsoȱtheȱTalmudȱreflectsȱ
itsȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ theseȱ traditionsȱ asȱ definingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ nonȬ
Jews.ȱ Theȱ hiddenȱ assumptionsȱ underlyingȱ theȱ redactionȱ ofȱ theȱ mateȬ
rialsȱ revealȱ theȱ Bavli’sȱ conceptualȱ framework,ȱ andȱ implementȱ theȱ fullȱ
exclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritans:ȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ issueȱ regardingȱ libationȱ wine,ȱ
33ȱȱ AsȱinȱMSȱVaticanȱ122.
34ȱȱ Indeed,ȱ tanaiticȱ sourcesȱ impliesȱ thatȱ Samaritans’ȱ wineȱ wasȱ notȱ conisderedȱ libationȱ
wine.ȱ Mishnahȱ Dem.ȱ 7,4ȱ ~ȱ Toseftaȱ Dem.ȱ 8,7ȱ discussesȱ tithingȱ ofȱ wineȱ takenȱ fromȱ
withoutȱ raisingȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ libation.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ hiddenȱ assumptionȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ
wineȱofȱSamaritansȱisȱnotȱconsideredȱlibationȱwine.ȱThisȱtextȱwasȱalsoȱpreservedȱinȱ
BavliȱSukkaȱ23b.
166 MosheȱLavee
thanȱtheyȱareȱnotȱJews,ȱifȱtheyȱareȱnotȱJews,ȱthanȱslaughteringȱbyȱthemȱ
isȱalsoȱnotȱvalid.ȱ35ȱ
Theȱmostȱimportantȱdifferenceȱlaysȱinȱtheȱexplanationsȱsuppliedȱforȱ
theȱbanȱofȱtheirȱwine,ȱandȱtheȱauthorityȱgrantedȱtoȱoneȱofȱthemȱbyȱtheȱ
rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavli.ȱ Theȱ Yerushalmiȱ offersȱ fourȱ explanations,ȱ inȱ aȱ
growingȱ degreeȱ ofȱ severity:ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ suspectedȱ forȱ usingȱ
wineȱ ofȱ nonȬJewsȱ (yetȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ consideredȱ nonȬJews);ȱ Theȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱwereȱforcedȱbyȱtheȱRomansȱtoȱpourȱoutȱwineȱforȱIdolatryȱ(yetȱitȱisȱ
notȱtheirȱindigenousȱpractice);ȱandȱlastly:ȱTheyȱpourȱlibationȱwineȱforȱaȱ
doveȱ figure,ȱ thusȱ theyȱ areȱ idolatrous.ȱ Theseȱ fourȱ explanationsȱ areȱ
presentedȱtogether,ȱinȱaȱmannerȱthatȱunderminesȱtheirȱvalidity,ȱasȱifȱtheȱ
Yerushalmiȱ says:ȱ ‘someȱ sayȱ so,ȱ someȱ sayȱ so,ȱ andȱ otherȱ sayȱ so.ȱ Weȱ doȱ
notȱreallyȱknow’.36ȱGivenȱthatȱelsewhereȱasȱwellȱasȱearlierȱinȱthisȱSugiaȱ
theȱ Yerushalmiȱ presentedȱ theȱ changeȱ asȱ relatedȱ toȱ demographicalȱ
changes,ȱitȱisȱquiteȱclearȱtoȱtheȱreaderȱthatȱtheȱexplanationsȱareȱsuggesȬ
tedȱpostȬfactumȱtoȱtheȱchangeȱofȱtheȱlaw.37ȱȱ
Inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ that,ȱ theȱ Bavliȱ offersȱ aȱ discourseȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ
changeȱ isȱ relatedȱ toȱ oneȱ specificȱ event,ȱ andȱ fromȱ theȱ variousȱ explanaȬ
tionsȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmi,ȱ itȱ onlyȱ bringsȱ theȱ lastȱ one,ȱ theȱ idolȱ
worshipȱ case.ȱ Thusȱ theȱ mostȱ extremeȱ representationȱ isȱ offeredȱ asȱ theȱ
onlyȱ reasonȱ forȱ theirȱ exclusion.ȱ Itȱ includesȱ aȱ minor,ȱ butȱ significantȱ
changeȱofȱtheȱverbȱdescribingȱtheirȱact:ȱ‘worship’ȱinȱtheȱBavli,ȱinsteadȱofȱ
‘pouring’ȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmi.ȱ Thisȱ alsoȱ reflectsȱ theȱ shiftȱ inȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ
theȱstory.ȱInȱtheȱYerushalmiȱitȱdealtȱwithȱaȱspecificȱsin,ȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱ
Halakhicȱissueȱdiscussed.ȱInȱtheȱBavliȱtheȱstoryȱwasȱgrantedȱaȱnewȱroleȱ
asȱaȱfoundationalȱstory,ȱjustifyingȱtheȱfullȱexclusionȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱ
andȱtheirȱdefinitionȱasȱnonȬJews.ȱIndeed,ȱasȱsuchȱthisȱstoryȱwasȱusedȱbyȱ
medievalȱJewishȱscholars.ȱAgainȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱconstitutesȱ
laterȱJewishȱperceptions!38ȱ
35ȱȱ AsȱshownȱbyȱSAGIȱ/ȱZOHAR,ȱCircles.ȱTheȱstatusȱofȱwineȱservedȱasȱaȱkeyȱforȱidentityȱ
definitionȱinȱHalakhicȱliterature.ȱTheȱrelationȱbetweenȱourȱtwoȱsugiotȱdemonstratesȱ
theȱevolutionȱofȱthisȱprincipalȱstatus.ȱȱ
36ȱȱ Theȱ firstȱ explanationȱ fitsȱ theȱ tendencyȱ wellȱ documentedȱ inȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ andȱ YeruȬ
shalmi,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ isȱ
relatedȱ toȱ theȱ suspectȱ thatȱ theyȱ supplyȱ productsȱ ofȱ nonȬJews,ȱ andȱ asȱ suchȱ itȱ isȱ
probablyȱtheȱmostȱauthenticȱoneȱ (thoughȱtheȱYerushalmiȱdoesȱnotȱ grantȱitȱwithȱanyȱ
degreeȱofȱhigherȱauthenticity).
37ȱȱ AndȱaȱsimilarȱsenseȱisȱcreatedȱbyȱtheȱYerushalmi’sȱquotationȱofȱtheȱSamartiansȱquesȬ
tionȱaboutȱtheȱchange,ȱseeȱbelow.ȱ
38ȱȱ CautiouslyȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱraiseȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱparallelȱtraditionȱdocumentedȱ
inȱtheȱYerushalmiȱisȱaȱlateȱadditionȱbasedȱonȱaȱtraditionȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱpresentedȱinȱ
theȱBavli,ȱandȱcanȱnotȱbeȱtakenȱasȱanȱauthenticȱPalestinianȱAmoriteȱviews.ȱInȱsomeȱ
Theȱsealȱofȱauthorityȱisȱgrantedȱtoȱthisȱstoryȱalsoȱthroughȱtheȱaspectȱ
ofȱtheȱchronologicalȱimage.ȱThisȱisȱdoneȱfirstlyȱbyȱascribingȱtheȱdecreeȱ
toȱ R.ȱ Meir,ȱ earlierȱ presented.39ȱ Itȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ fascinatingȱ toȱ seeȱ howȱ
theȱstructureȱofȱtheȱBavliȱpromotedȱthisȱimage.ȱInȱtheȱchartȱaboveȱyouȱ
canȱnoticeȱthatȱtheȱorderȱofȱtheȱtextȱisȱslightlyȱdifferent.ȱBothȱTalmudsȱ
presentȱ twoȱ differentȱ traditionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ changeȱ ofȱ lawȱ regardingȱ
libationȱwineȱ(Tanaiticȱ–ȱR.ȱElazarȱb.ȱShimonȱandȱAmoraiticȱR.ȱAbahu).ȱ
InȱtheȱYerushalmiȱtheȱdoveȱstoryȱisȱpresentedȱasȱanȱexplanationȱtoȱtheȱ
Amoriticȱ tradition,ȱ inȱ theȱ Bavliȱ asȱ anȱ explanationȱ toȱ theȱ Tanaiticȱ one.ȱ
Theȱ lateȱ Babylonianȱ commentȱ harmonizingȱ theȱ twoȱ traditionsȱ byȱ
claimingȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ decreeȱ wasȱ notȱ acceptedȱ andȱ onlyȱ theȱ laterȱ oneȱ
wasȱdoesȱnotȱchangeȱtheȱimageȱpromotedȱbyȱit.ȱItȱisȱaȱniceȱexampleȱforȱ
theȱBavli’sȱeffortȱtoȱpresentȱtheȱdataȱwhichȱmightȱsupportȱtheȱconceptȱ
ofȱ gradualȱ change,ȱ inȱ aȱ frameworkȱ thatȱ onlyȱ recognizesȱ oneȱ authoriȬ
tativeȱchange.ȱȱ
ȱ
Theȱconceputal:ȱNonȬJewsȱdueȱtoȱfalseȱconversionȱ
Onȱtheȱconceptualȱlevelȱweȱshouldȱrecognizeȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱuseȱ
ofȱ theȱ viewsȱ aboutȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ conversionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ
justificationsȱofȱexclusiveȱandȱinclusiveȱviews.ȱElizurȱalreadyȱnotedȱtheȱ
textualȱdevelopmentsȱdocumentedȱinȱthisȱrealm: 40ȱ
1)ȱ Theȱ Bavliȱ usesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theirȱ conversionȱ( ʩʸʢ / ʺʥʩʸʠ ʩʸʢ ʭʩʺʥʫ
ʺʮʠ)ȱtoȱexplainȱexclusiveȱandȱinclusiveȱviews.ȱThusȱtheȱdisputeȱhasȱtheȱ
sameȱroleȱasȱtheȱdisputeȱ(likeȱaȱnonȬJewȱ/ȱlikeȱaȱJew)ȱinȱtheȱYerushalmi.ȱ
(ʬʠʸʹʩʫ ʩʺʥʫ / ʩʥʢʫ ʩʺʥʫ).41ȱInȱtheȱYerushlamiȱtheȱquestionȱofȱconversionȱisȱ
onlyȱraisedȱwhenȱdiscussingȱmarriageȱprohibitions.ȱȱ
otherȱ cases ʩʲʡʣ ʺʩʠȱ or ʭʩʸʮʥʠ ʹʩ inȱ Palstinianȱ Midrashicȱ literatureȱ fitsȱ parallelȱ (butȱ
different)ȱtraditionsȱinȱtheȱBavli.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱphenomenonȱandȱitsȱdatingȱisȱstillȱtoȱ
beȱstudied,ȱbeforeȱofferingȱsuchȱanȱideaȱinȱanyȱdegreeȱofȱcertainty.ȱȱ
39ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ reasonableȱ thatȱ theȱ R.ȱ MEIRȱ wasȱ insertedȱ toȱ theȱ Bavli’sȱ version,ȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ
assumptionȱthatȱtheȱeventȱincludedȱaȱdecreeȱbyȱaȱhigherȱauthorityȱthanȱR.ȱELAZAR,ȱ
andȱintroducingȱintoȱtheȱtextȱtheȱcommonȱknowledgeȱthatȱR.ȱMEIRȱisȱhisȱteacher.ȱTheȱ
earlierȱaccountȱ(documentedȱinȱtheȱYerushalmi)ȱwasȱretoldȱinȱtheȱBavli.ȱItsȱlanguageȱ
isȱthatȱofȱlaterȱBabylonianȱnarratives,ȱitȱresemblesȱtheȱAmoraicȱstoryȱlaterȱpresented,ȱ
andȱ thusȱ itȱ alsoȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ Bavliȱ confalatedȱ twoȱ differentȱ traditionsȱ inȱ theȱ
Yerushalmiȱ andȱ rephrasedȱ themȱ inȱ aȱ similarȱ manner.ȱ Weȱ alsoȱ haveȱ casesȱ inȱ whichȱ
wordsȱareȱtransmittedȱbyȱR.ȱELAZARȱinȱoneȱsource,ȱandȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱR.ȱMEIRȱinȱitsȱ
parallel,ȱ soȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ authenticȱ Bavliȱ transmissionȱ canȱ notȱ beȱ fullyȱ rejectedȱ
hereȱ(seeȱAVDRNȱversionȱBȱch.ȱ39ȱandȱcompareȱitȱtoȱversionȱAȱch.ȱ29).
40ȱȱ Seeȱn.ȱ30.
41ȱȱ SeeȱBavliȱBKȱ38a;ȱNid.ȱ56b;ȱSan.ȱ85b.ȱAnȱexceptionȱisȱNid.ȱ44a,ȱwhereȱtheȱdivisionȱ(asȱ
aȱ Jewȱ /ȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬJewȱ isȱ offered,ȱ yetȱ asȱ twoȱ lateȱ Halakhicȱ traditions,ȱ andȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ
quotationȱofȱtheȱTanniticȱdispute.ȱ
168 MosheȱLavee
2)ȱTheȱBavliȱpresentedȱtheȱdebateȱasȱrootedȱinȱviewsȱofȱearlyȱTanaimȱ(R.ȱ
Akiva,ȱR.ȱYishmaelȱandȱR.ȱEliezer),ȱwhileȱtheȱparallelȱdiscussionȱinȱtheȱ
YerushalmiȱattributesȱthemȱtoȱAmoraimȱ(R.ȱYohananȱandȱothers).ȱȱ
Elizurȱ concludedȱ thatȱ theȱ Bavliȱ simplyȱ coinedȱ oneȱ Palestinianȱ debateȱ
(ʬʠʸʹʩʫ / ʩʥʢʫ)ȱinȱtheȱtermsȱofȱanotherȱPalestinianȱdisputeȱ(ʺʮʠ ʩʸʢ / ʺʥʩʸʠ ʩʸʢ).ȱ
Itȱseemsȱthatȱheȱunderestimatedȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱhisȱfindings.ȱFirstly,ȱ
theȱYerushalmiȱraisesȱtheȱissueȱofȱconversionȱonlyȱinȱaȱrealmȱinȱwhichȱitȱ
isȱ Halakhiclyȱ relevant.42ȱ Thusȱ theȱ tanaiticȱ criteriaȱ modelȱ isȱ preserved,ȱ
andȱtheȱpotentialȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱdisputeȱasȱidentityȱdemarcationȱisȱnotȱ
realized.ȱ Theȱ Bavliȱ reflectsȱ aȱ newȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ conversionȱ proceȬ
dure.ȱFalseȱconversionȱinvalidatedȱtheȱstatusȱofȱaȱpersonȱandȱneitherȱheȱ
norȱhisȱoffspringȱareȱJews.ȱȱ
Secondly,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ explainsȱ thatȱ aȱ certainȱ Tanaȱ ruledȱ
againstȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱSamaritansȱfollowingȱtheȱviewȱthatȱaȱSamaritanȱ
isȱ likeȱ aȱ nonȬJew,ȱ itȱ presentsȱ theȱ followingȱ identityȱ structure:ȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ areȱ anȱ uniqueȱ identityȱ classification,ȱ andȱ theȱ Halakhahȱ inȱ
regardȱ toȱ themȱ (orȱ onlyȱ inȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ discussedȱ issue)ȱ isȱ similarȱ toȱ
theȱ lawȱ regardingȱ nonȬJews.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ clearȬcutȱ claimȱ aboutȱ theirȱ
identityȱinȱ thisȱframework.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱwhenȱ theȱ Bavliȱ explainsȱ thatȱ aȱ
certainȱTanaȱruledȱagainstȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱSamaritansȱasȱheȱholdsȱthatȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ falseȱ converts,ȱ itȱ meansȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ Jewish.ȱ
Whatȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ minorȱ changeȱ ofȱ presentationȱ reflectsȱ theȱ moveȱ
towardsȱ aȱ newȱ conceptualȱ framework,ȱ inȱ whichȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ placeȱ forȱ
quasiȬJewishȱ identityȱ groups.ȱ Oneȱ hasȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ decisionȱ whetherȱ
SamaritansȱareȱJewsȱorȱnot.ȱThisȱnewȱconceptualȱframework,ȱreflectedȱ
inȱtheȱBavli,ȱisȱsealingȱtheȱprocessȱofȱtheȱexclusionȱofȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
Onceȱ again,ȱ theȱ fullȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ isȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ
rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavli,ȱ inȱ theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ materials,ȱ theirȱ structuringȱ andȱ
presentation.ȱ
ȱ
Theȱhiddenȱassumptionsȱrevealedȱ
Inȱ theȱ mainȱ sugiaȱ discussingȱ theȱ topicȱ (Qid.ȱ 75),ȱ theȱ Bavliȱ revealsȱ itsȱ
perceptionȱofȱfalseȱconversionȱasȱdefiningȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱnonȬJews.ȱ
Theȱ Talmudȱ explainsȱ thatȱ R.ȱ Elazarȱ prohibitedȱ theirȱ marriageȱ asȱ heȱ
followedȱR.ȱYishmael’sȱviewȱthatȱtheyȱareȱlionȱconvertsȱtogetherȱwithȱR.ȱ
Akiva’sȱviewȱthatȱtheȱoffspringȱofȱaȱnonȬJewȱandȱaȱJewessȱisȱaȱMamzer.ȱ
TheȱconflationȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱTanaiticȱviewsȱexposedȱtheȱhiddenȱassumpȬ
42ȱȱ ButȱseeȱYerushalmiȱSheq.ȱ1,4ȱ46bȱwhereȱtheyȱareȱidentifiedȱasȱconverts.ȱHoweverȱthisȱ
isȱdoneȱasȱanȱexplanationȱforȱtheirȱinclusion.ȱȱ
tion:ȱAsȱlionȱconvertsȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱnotȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱJews.43ȱInȱ
theȱYerushalmiȱonlyȱtheȱfirstȱexplanationȱisȱofferedȱ(lionȱconverts),ȱandȱ
thenȱ itȱ isȱ rejectedȱ byȱ theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ someoneȱ whoȱ wasȱ laterȱ
convertedȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱheavenȱisȱaccepted,ȱimplyingȱthatȱSamartians,ȱ
evenȱ ifȱ consideredȱ lionȱ converts,ȱ areȱ Jews.ȱ Onlyȱ atȱ thatȱ stageȱ theȱ
YerushalmiȱraisedȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱoffspringȱofȱaȱnonȬJewȱ
andȱ aȱ Jewess.ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ hiddenȱ assumptionȱ hereȱ itȱ isȱ thatȱ nonȬJewsȱ
wereȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ Samaritanȱ community,ȱ butȱ notȱ thatȱ contempoȬ
raryȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ consideredȱ asȱ nonȬJews.44ȱ Theȱ correlationȱ ofȱ falseȱ
conversionȱwithȱtheȱstatusȱofȱnonȬJewsȱisȱonlyȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱBavli.ȱ
ȱ
Recurrenceȱ
Earlierȱ Iȱ claimedȱ thatȱ theȱ recurrentȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ disputeȱ ‘asȱ aȱ Jewȱ /ȱ asȱ aȱ
nonȬJew’ȱinȱtheȱYerushalmiȱreflected,ȱasȱwellȱasȱconstituted,ȱitsȱstatusȱasȱ
aȱgeneralȱdispute.ȱSimilarlyȱtheȱrecurrentȱuseȱofȱtheȱconversionȱcriteriaȱ
inȱ theȱ Bavliȱ reflectsȱ itsȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ discourseȱ aboutȱ theȱ
Samaritans.ȱȱ
Theseȱ twoȱ aspectsȱ joinȱ theȱ elementȱ ofȱ theȱ chronologicalȱ imageȱ
presentedȱ above,ȱ andȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ preferȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱ theirȱ
conversionȱ wasȱ false.ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ inȱ someȱ casesȱ whereȱ theȱ Bavliȱ
explainsȱ tanaiticȱ viewsȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ
trueȱconverts,ȱtheȱshiftȱtowardsȱtheȱconceptualȱframeworkȱthatȱleadȱtoȱ
theirȱ definitionȱ asȱ nonȬJewsȱ isȱ achieved.45ȱ Inȱ theseȱ casesȱ theȱ Bavliȱ
explainsȱtanaiticȱviewsȱbyȱconflatingȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
asȱ trueȱ converts,ȱ withȱ theȱ classicalȱ tanaiticȱ approach,ȱ examiningȱ theirȱ
practiceȱinȱtheȱdiscussedȱfield.ȱThisȱconstructionȱenablesȱtheȱTalmudȱtoȱ
supportȱtheȱpolarȱperceptionȱofȱidentity,ȱinȱwhichȱthereȱisȱonlyȱplaceȱforȱ
JewsȱorȱNonȬJews.ȱȱ
Itȱisȱimportantȱtoȱemphasizeȱonceȱagain,ȱthatȱtheȱprocessesȱpresenȬ
tedȱ hereȱ wereȱ notȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ absoluteȱ suppressionȱ andȱ rejectionȱ
43ȱȱ Theȱ hiddenȱ assumptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavliȱ hereȱ isȱ evenȱ goingȱ againstȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ viewȱ
aboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱlionȱconvertsȱinȱYebȱ24a.ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱprobablyȱsimplyȱanotherȱ
exampleȱforȱtheȱprocessȱofȱthickeningȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱJewishȱidentityȱpresentedȱinȱ
thisȱ article.ȱ Thereȱ anȱ earlyȱ Amoraȱ ruledȱ thatȱ aȱ lionȱ convertȱ isȱ validȱ (postȬfactum),ȱ
here,ȱtheȱlateȱorganizingȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱsimplyȱintroducesȱtheȱexclusiveȱlawȱasȱ
obvious.ȱ
44ȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Yerushalmiȱ Ket.ȱ 3,1ȱ 27a,ȱ whereȱ thisȱ isȱ presentedȱ asȱ aȱ criterionȱ forȱ theirȱ
status,ȱwithȱnoȱrefernceȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheirȱconversion,ȱandȱinȱanȱeffortȱtoȱminiȬ
mizeȱtheȱviewȱthatȱtheyȱareȱconsideredȱasȱnonȬJews.ȱ
45ȱȱ CompareȱBavliȱBKȱ38a,ȱwhereȱtheȱviewȱofȱfalseȱconversionȱprevailsȱtoȱBavliȱSan.ȱ85b,ȱ
whereȱ tanaiticȱ viewsȱ areȱ explainedȱ asȱ assumingȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ trueȱ
converts.
170 MosheȱLavee
ofȱtheȱformerȱconceptualȱframework.ȱTheȱTanaiticȱconcept,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ
whichȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ judgedȱ inȱ anyȱ mannerȱ accordingȱ toȱ theirȱ
practicesȱ isȱ stillȱ preserved,ȱ andȱ evenȱ beingȱ heldȱ orȱ defendedȱ byȱ laterȱ
Babylonianȱ Amoraim.ȱ Theȱ innovativeȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavliȱ laysȱ inȱ itsȱ
rhetoric,ȱinȱtheȱlecturingȱvoice,ȱinȱtheȱstructuringȱofȱtheȱSugiot,ȱandȱtheȱ
presentationȱofȱsources.ȱItȱisȱinȱthisȱlayerȱofȱtheȱtextȱwhereȱweȱfindȱtheȱ
identificationȱofȱSamaritansȱasȱnonȬJews,ȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱobviousȱandȱ
explicitȱview.ȱ
ThereȱisȱanotherȱaspectȱofȱtheȱBavli’sȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱinȱ
whichȱsimilarȱprocessesȱareȱdocumented,ȱandȱthisȱisȱtheirȱperceptionȱasȱ
observingȱ theȱ writtenȱ lawȱ ratherȱ toȱ theȱ oralȱ one.ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ thisȱ
aspectȱinȱaȱseparateȱpaper.ȱ
Conclusionȱȱ
Firstly,ȱ weȱ shouldȱ acknowledgeȱ thatȱ rabbinicȱ sourcesȱ supplyȱ usȱ withȱ
informationȱaboutȱtheȱHalakhicȱstatusȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱwhichȱisȱonlyȱ
oneȱ componentȱ inȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ bothȱ groups.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ groupsȱ knewȱ
warsȱ evenȱ beforeȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ Halakhicȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
beganȱ(asȱtheȱeventsȱinȱ51ȱCEȱaroundȱPassȬoverȱpilgrimage),46ȱandȱwereȱ
perceivedȱasȱoneȱgroupȱevenȱmuchȱlaterȱ(asȱinȱtheȱlateȱtitleȱ‘Theȱheadȱofȱ
theȱ Jews,ȱ Karaaite,ȱ Rabbinicȱ andȱ Samaritans’ȱ usedȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ
millennium).47ȱItȱisȱnotȱjustifiedȱtoȱseeȱtheȱsurveyȱofȱHalakhicȱsourcesȱasȱ
givingȱ theȱ fullȱ pictureȱ ofȱ theȱ separationȱ ofȱ bothȱ groups.ȱ Theȱ pictureȱ
suppliedȱ byȱ rabbinicȱ sourcesȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ gradualȱ development,ȱ whichȱ
reflectsȱ theȱ moveȱ towardsȱ aȱ newȱ rabbinicȱ frameworkȱ forȱ Jewishȱ idenȬ
tity.ȱ Theȱ newȱ frameworkȱ hasȱ aȱ binaryȱ orȱ polarȱ nature,ȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ
personȱcanȱeitherȱbeȱaȱJewȱorȱaȱNonȬJew.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱplaceȱforȱblurredȱ
identitiesȱ inȱ thisȱ picture.ȱ Theȱ entranceȱ gateȱ forȱ theȱ Jewishȱ group,ȱ
conversion,ȱisȱwellȱdefinedȱandȱsupervised,ȱandȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱdemarȬ
cationȱofȱidentity.ȱȱ
Theȱ implementationȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ frameworkȱ wasȱ veryȱ gradual.ȱ Inȱ
earlierȱ timesȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ perceivedȱ asȱ aȱ uniqueȱ group,ȱ whoȱ
shareȱsomeȱpracticesȱwithȱJews,ȱandȱthusȱmightȱbeȱaȱpartȱofȱJewishȱactiȬ
vities,ȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theirȱ practices.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ mixedȱ
pictureȱ alreadyȱ documentedȱ inȱ theȱ Mishnah.ȱ Laterȱ on,ȱ probablyȱ toȬ
46ȱȱ Seeȱ Josephus,ȱ Ant.ȱ 20.118Ȭ136,ȱ warȱ 2.232Ȭ246.ȱ MOR,ȱ Samaria,ȱ 150Ȭ159;ȱ FELDMAN,ȱ
JosephusȇȱAttitude,ȱ23Ȭ45;ȱMAGEN,ȱSamaritans,ȱ213Ȭ217.
47ȱȱ SeeȱSELA,ȱHead,ȱ254Ȭ267.ȱ
wardsȱtheȱendȱofȱTanaiticȱperiodȱthereȱwasȱanȱincreaseȱofȱissuesȱaboutȱ
whichȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱsuspectedȱasȱnotȱbeingȱmeticulousȱabout.ȱItȱ
isȱ impliedȱ thatȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ thisȱ changeȱ haveȱ someȱ socioȬeconomic,ȱ
geographicalȱ andȱ demographicȱ reasons.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ didȱ notȱ repreȬ
sentȱanȱessentialȱchangeȱofȱtheirȱperception.ȱInȱthisȱearlyȱstageȱofȱdeveȬ
lopmentȱaȱnewȱdefinitiveȱlanguageȱwasȱfirstlyȱintroduced,ȱbutȱinȱaȱveryȱ
limitedȱ way.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ inȱ Amoriteȱ daysȱ thatȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ classifyȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ accordingȱ toȱ clearȬcutȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ identityȱ appeared,ȱ asȱ
wellȱasȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱchangeȱthatȱhasȱoccurred.ȱThisȱtendencyȱcameȱ
toȱitsȱripeȱformȱonlyȱinȱtheȱdeliberationsȱofȱtheȱBabylonianȱsages.ȱInȱtheȱ
endȱ ofȱ thisȱ processȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ picturedȱ asȱ idolaters,ȱ andȱ
foundationalȱstoriesȱaboutȱthemȱandȱaboutȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱtheirȱconverȬ
sionȱ becameȱ common;ȱ theyȱ wereȱ excludedȱ fromȱ Halakhicȱ issuesȱ inȱ
whichȱtheyȱwereȱincludedȱinȱearlierȱdays.ȱȱ
Theȱ pictureȱ thatȱ Iȱ haveȱ offeredȱ hereȱ intendsȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ theȱ
rabbinicȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱSamaritansȱ shouldȱ beȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱwiderȱ
contextȱ ofȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ identityȱ byȱ theȱ sagesȱ ofȱ Lateȱ
Antiquityȱandȱtheirȱsuccessors.ȱOtherȱliminalȱgroups,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱGodȱ
Fearers,ȱdisappearedȱfromȱtheȱsocialȱlandscapeȱasȱshapedȱbyȱtheȱBabyȬ
lonianȱrabbis,ȱandȱsimilarȱprocessesȱtoȱthoseȱpicturedȱhereȱareȱfoundȱinȱ
rabbinicȱdiscussionsȱaboutȱotherȱaspectsȱofȱJewishȱIdentity. 48ȱ
MyȱmainȱargumentȱisȱthatȱconceptualȱdevelopmentsȱplayȱaȱsignifiȬ
acantȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ historicalȱ developments.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ notȱ oneȱ singleȱ discoȬ
veryȱ thatȱ droveȱ theȱ rabbisȱ toȱ banȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ asȱ offeredȱ byȱ someȱ
Talmudicȱ accounts,ȱ neitherȱ certainȱ politicalȱ events,ȱ asȱ heldȱ byȱ someȱ
modernȱscholars.ȱPoliticalȱdevelopmentsȱandȱanecdotalȱcasesȱalsoȱtookȱ
aȱroleȱinȱtheȱprocess.ȱYet,ȱtheȱprocessȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱunderstoodȱifȱtakingȱ
intoȱ considerationȱ alsoȱ theȱ developmentsȱ inȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ identityȱ
demarcationȱ andȱ selfȱ definition.ȱ Theyȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ ripeningȱ ofȱ aȱ binaric,ȱ
polarȱ modelȱ ofȱ identity,ȱ withȱ wellȱ definedȱ boundaries.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ modelȱ
thereȱwasȱnoȱplaceȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱquasiȬJewishȱidentity.ȱȱ
Bibliogaphyȱ
ALFASI,ȱR.ȱIsaac,ȱHalakhot,ȱTractateȱBerachot,ȱVilnaȱ1911.ȱȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedaliahu,ȱ Theȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ Tradition,ȱ in:ȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedaliahu,ȱ Jews,ȱ Judaismȱ andȱ theȱ Classicalȱ World,ȱJerusalemȱ 1977,ȱ
354Ȭ373.ȱ
48 ȱ SeeȱLAVEE,ȱSarah,ȱandȱmyȱforthcomingȱpublication:ȱTheȱtractateȱofȱconversion.ȱȱ
172 MosheȱLavee
ASHERȱ b.ȱ Yehiel,ȱ Rabbenuȱ Asher,ȱ Addendumȱ toȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Talmud,ȱ
TractateȱBerachot,ȱVilnaȱ1880.ȱ
BRODY,ȱ Robert,ȱ Teshovotȱ Ravȱ Natronaiȱ Barȱ Hilaiȱ Gaon,ȱ Vol.ȱ 1,ȱ Jerusalemȱ /ȱ
Cleveland,ȱOHȱ1994.ȱ
ELIZUR,ȱ Yehudah,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Tanaiticȱ words,ȱ in:ȱ Israelȱ andȱ theȱ Bible:ȱ
StudiesȱinȱGeography,ȱHisotryȱandȱBiblicalȱThought,ȱRamatȱGan,ȱ1999,ȱ393Ȭȱ
414ȱ [=ȱ HERSHKOVITZ,ȱ Yehudah,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Tanaiticȱ words,ȱ in:ȱ
Yavnehȱ2ȱ(1940)ȱ71Ȭ105].ȱ
EPSTEIN,ȱYaakovȱNahum,ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱMishnaicȱText,ȱJerusalemȱ2000.ȱȱ
FELDMAN,ȱ Louisȱ H.,ȱ Josephusȇȱ Attitudeȱ towardȱ theȱ Samaritans:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ
Ambivalence,ȱ in:ȱ MOR,ȱ Menachem,ȱ Jewishȱ Sects,ȱ Religiousȱ Movements,ȱ
andȱPoliticalȱPartiesȱ–ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱThirdȱAnnualȱSymposiumȱofȱtheȱ
PhilipȱM.ȱ&ȱEthelȱKlutznickȱChairȱinȱJewishȱCivilization,ȱOmaha,ȱNEȱ1992,ȱ
23Ȭ45.ȱ
FRIEDMANN,ȱShamma,ȱTalmudȱArukhȱBTȱBavaȱMezi’aȱVI,ȱCriticalȱEditionȱwithȱ
ComprehensiveȱCommentaryȱ–ȱTextȱ(JTS),ȱNewȱYorkȱ/ȱJerusalemȱ1996.ȱ
HAUPTMAN,ȱ Judith,ȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ Sugya:ȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ
TannaiticȱandȱAmoraicȱsources,ȱLanham,ȱMDȱ1988.ȱ
HILDESHEIMER,ȱEzriel,ȱSeferȱHalachotȱGedolot,ȱJerusalemȱ1971,ȱVol.ȱaȱ108Ȭ110.ȱ
JACOBS,ȱLouis,ȱRabbinicȱThoughtȱinȱtheȱTalmud,ȱLondonȱ2005.ȱ
KRECHMERȬRAZIEL,ȱ Yoel,ȱ Onȱ Taxȱ Collectorsȱ andȱ Thieves,ȱ Gentilesȱ andȱ Others,ȱ
in:ȱMishlavȱ38ȱ(2003)ȱ33Ȭ53ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
LAVEE,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Aȱ Convertȱ isȱ Likeȱ aȱ Newbornȱ Childȱ –ȱ Theȱ Conceptȱ andȱ itsȱ
ImplicationsȱinȱRabbinicȱLiterature,ȱBenȱGurionȱ2003ȱ(Diss.).ȱ
LAVEEE,ȱ Moshe,ȱ “Sarahȱ wouldȱ haveȱ suckledȱ sons”ȱ –ȱ Divertingȱ Tendenciesȱ
TowardȱnonȬJewsȱinȱtheȱversionsȱofȱoneȱMidrashicȱNarrative,ȱin:ȱ EHRLICH,ȱ
Uriȱ(ed.),ȱAlȱPiȱHaȬBe’er:ȱJubileeȱVolumeȱforȱProf.ȱG.J.ȱBlidstein,ȱBeerȬShevaȱ
2008,ȱ269Ȭ291.ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱSaul,ȱTheȱHalakhicȱInscriptionȱfromȱtheȱBetȱSheanȱValley,ȱin:ȱTarbizȱ
45ȱ(1975)ȱ54Ȭ63.ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱSaul,ȱTosephtaȱKiȬphshuta,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1956Ȭ1988.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yizhak,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ RomanȬByantineȱ Period,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ
Ephraimȱ/ȱESHEL,ȱHananȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱJerusalemȱ2002,ȱ213Ȭ217.
MONTGOMERY,ȱJamesȱA.,ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱTheȱEarliesȱJewishȱSect,ȱtheirȱHistory,ȱ
TheologyȱandȱLiterature,ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1907.ȱȱ
MOR,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Fromȱ Samariaȱ toȱ Shechem,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Communitȱ inȱ
Antiquity,ȱJerusalemȱ2003,ȱ150Ȭ159.ȱ
OPPENHEIMER,ȱA’haron,ȱTheȱViewȱofȱtheȱSagesȱregardingȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱin:ȱA.ȱ
B.ȱTheȱSamaritansȱNewsȱ274ȱ(1981)ȱ3Ȭȱ5;ȱ275ȱ(1981)ȱ4Ȭ8.ȱ
ROSENFELD,ȱ BenȬZion,ȱ Theȱ Changingȱ Significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Nameȱ ‘Yavne’ȱ inȱ
Rabbinicȱ Tradition,ȱ in:ȱ GAFNI,ȱ Isaiahȱ /ȱ OPPENHEIMER,ȱ Aharonȱ /ȱ STERNS,ȱ
Menahemȱ(eds.),ȱJewsȱandȱJudaismȱinȱtheȱSecondȱTemple,ȱMishnaȱandȱTalȬ
mudȱPeriodȱ–ȱStudiesȱinȱHonorȱofȱShmuelȱSafrai,ȱJerusalemȱ1993,ȱ149Ȭ165.ȱ
SAFRAIȱZe’ev,ȱTheȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱHalakhahȱtowardsȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱTheȱdaysȱ
ofȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ andȱ theȱ Talmud,ȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ 14thȱ congressȱ ofȱ theȱ
WorldȱUnionȱofȱJewishȱStudies,ȱAugustȱ2005ȱ(congressȱpaper).ȱ
SAGI,ȱ Aviȱ /ȱ ZOHAR,ȱ Zvi,ȱ Circlesȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Identity,ȱ aȱ studyȱ inȱ Halakhicȱ LiteraȬ
ture,ȱTelȱAvivȱ2000ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
SCHIFFMAN,ȱ Lawrenceȱ Harvey,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Tannaiticȱ Halakhah,ȱ in:ȱ JQRȱ
75,ȱ4ȱ(1985)ȱ323Ȭ350.ȱ
SELA,ȱShulamit,ȱTheȱHeadȱofȱtheȱRabbanite,ȱKaraiteȱandȱSamaritanȱJews,ȱOnȱtheȱ
HistoryȱofȱaȱTitle,ȱin:ȱBulletinȱofȱtheȱSchoolȱofȱOrientalȱandȱAfricanȱStudiesȱ
57ȱ(1994)ȱ254Ȭ267.ȱ
WALD,ȱStephenȱG.,ȱBTȱPesahimȱIIIȱ–ȱCriticalȱeditionȱwithȱComprehensiveȱComȬ
mentary,ȱNewȱYorkȱ/ȱJerusalemȱ2000,ȱ235Ȭ237.ȱȱȱ

ȱ

MassekhetȱKutimȱandȱtheȱResurrectionȱofȱtheȱDeadȱ
ANDREASȱLEHNARDTȱ
Introductionȱ
TheȱquestionȱwhenȱSamaritansȱstartedȱtoȱbelieveȱinȱtheȱresurrectionȱofȱ
theȱ deadȱ isȱ stillȱ forȱ scholarsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ unsolvedȱ problems.1ȱ NotȬ
withstandingȱ researchȱ carriedȱ outȱ intoȱ notionsȱ ofȱ resurrectionȱ inȱ
Ancientȱ Judaism2,ȱ thereȱ existsȱ onlyȱ aȱ consensusȱ thatȱ beliefȱ inȱ resurȬ
rectionȱ developedȱ inȱ aȱ lateȱ phaseȱ ofȱ Samaritanism3,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ
subsequentȱtoȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱtemplesȱonȱMountȱGarizimȱandȱofȱ
Jerusalemȱ(70ȱCE),ȱi.e.ȱinȱtheȱRabbinicȱperiodȱorȱevenȱlater.ȱInȱadditionȱ
toȱ theȱ nowȱ recognisedȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ sourcesȱ atȱ ourȱ disposalȱ
doȱ notȱ permitȱ a.)ȱ anȱ investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ eschaȬ
tologyȱ inȱ generalȱ orȱ b.)ȱ theȱ determinationȱ ofȱ theȱ startingȱ pointȱ forȱ theȱ
developingȱaȱbeliefȱinȱresurrectionȱinȱparticular4,ȱweȱshouldȱrecallȱthatȱ
noȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ fewȱ nonȬSamaritanȱ sourcesȱ –ȱ e.g.,ȱ thoseȱ textsȱ writtenȱ
andȱ transmittedȱ byȱ Christians,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ churchȱ fathersȱ Origenȱ
andȱEpiphaniusȱ–ȱtextsȱrecentlyȱcollectedȱunderȱoneȱcoverȱbyȱReinhardȱ
1ȱȱ Forȱanȱintroductionȱcf.ȱDEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱespeciallyȱ281Ȭ283.ȱ
2ȱȱ Cf.,ȱe.g.,ȱ AVERYȬPECKȱ/ȱNEUSNER,ȱDeath.ȱForȱolderȱliteratureȱonȱresurrectionȱinȱ AnȬ
cientȱ Judaismȱ cf.ȱ LEHNARDT,ȱ Bibliographie,ȱ 54.ȱ Onȱ resurrectionȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱ fromȱ
cavesȱatȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱseeȱLICHTENBERGER,ȱAuferstehung,ȱ79Ȭ94.ȱ
3ȱȱ Cf.ȱDEXINGER,ȱEschatology,ȱespeciallyȱ88:ȱ“Thisȱincludesȱtheȱbeliefȱinȱresurrectionȱatȱ
aȱlaterȱstageȱofȱSamaritanism.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱDEXINGER,ȱLife,ȱ9Ȭ10.ȱ
4ȱȱ Cf.ȱ BENȬHAYYIM,ȱ Tibåtȱ Mårqe,ȱ 26Ȭ27.ȱ Althoughȱ scholarsȱ believedȱ thatȱ Memarȱ Mårqeȱ
speaksȱ ofȱ resurrection.ȱ Seeȱ MACDONALD,ȱ Memarȱ Marqah,ȱ 70,ȱ andȱ KIPPENBERG,ȱ
Garizim,ȱ 289,ȱ theseȱ passagesȱ doȱ notȱ dateȱ fromȱ fourthȱ orȱ thirdȱ centuryȱ asȱ doȱ theȱ
oldestȱ layersȱ ofȱ theȱ work,ȱ butȱ areȱ accordingȱ toȱ BENȬHAYYIMȱ laterȱ interpolations.ȱ
Furthermoreȱ theȱ interpretationȱ providedȱ byȱ MACDONALDȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ misinterȬ
pretation.ȱSee,ȱhowever,ȱalsoȱDEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱ283.ȱ
176 AndreasȱLehnardt
Pummer5ȱ –ȱ seemȱ toȱ reflectȱ withȱ anyȱ clarityȱ theȱ oftenȱ recognizedȱ nonȬ
believeȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ inȱ earlyȱ times.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ
Pummerȱhasȱpointedȱout:ȱ“TheȱtimeȱwhenȱtheȱSamaritansȱadoptedȱtheȱ
beliefȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ isȱ unknown.”6ȱ Furthermore,ȱ heȱ assumesȱ thatȱ
acceptanceȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ resurrectionȱ wasȱ likelyȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ “aȱ
gradualȱprocess”ȱlastingȱdownȱtoȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury.ȱ
SomeȱimportantȱsourcesȱthatȱmightȱshedȱlightȱonȱwhenȱSamaritansȱ
startedȱ toȱ believeȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ haveȱ notȱ asȱ yetȱ beenȱ researchedȱ
sufficiently7:ȱIȱamȱreferringȱtoȱRabbinicȱliterature,ȱi.e.ȱtheȱclassicalȱtextsȱ
gatheredȱinȱtheȱTalmudȱandȱMidrash;ȱalso,ȱtoȱwritingsȱcollectedȱinȱlaterȱ
worksȱ fromȱ theȱ postȬTalmudicȱ orȱ Geonicȱ periods.ȱ Inȱ myȱ paperȱ Iȱ willȱ
thereforeȱfocusȱonȱsomeȱalreadyȱwellȱknownȱRabbinicȱtexts,ȱespeciallyȱaȱ
famousȱ passageȱ fromȱ Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ II,8,8ȱ butȱ alsoȱ onȱ someȱ earlierȱ
andȱlaterȱtexts.ȱInȱMassekhetȱKutimȱweȱread:ȱ
Whenȱshallȱweȱ[sc.ȱtheȱRabbinicȱJews]ȱreceiveȱthemȱ[sc.ȱtheȱKutim]ȱ(ʩʺʮʩʠʮȱ
ʭʺʥʠȱ ʯʩʬʡʷʮ)?ȱ Whenȱ theyȱ renounceȱ Mountȱ Garizimȱ andȱ acknowledgeȱ
Jerusalemȱandȱtheȱresurrectionȱofȱtheȱdeadȱ(ʭʩʺʮʤȱ ʺʩʩʧʺ).ȱThereuponȱ(ʪʬʩʠʥȱ
ʯʠʫʮ),ȱheȱthatȱrobsȱ(ʬʦʥʢʤ)ȱaȱKutiȱshallȱbeȱasȱoneȱwhoȱrobsȱanȱIsraelite.ȱ
WhetherȱtheȱlackȱofȱinterestȱinȱthisȱpassageȱandȱinȱRabbinicȱtraditionsȱ
relatingȱ toȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ generalȱ isȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ aȱ
generationȱofȱscholarsȱengagedȱinȱSamaritanȱstudiesȱwereȱwellȱtrainedȱ
inȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ andȱ Christianȱ literature,ȱ butȱ notȱ inȱ thatȱ ofȱ
Rabbinicȱsources,ȱremainsȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱagainstȱtheȱbackgroundȱofȱaȱ
broaderȱenquiryȱaboutȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱresearch.9ȱYetȱIȱcannotȱrefrainȱfromȱ
remindingȱ youȱ thatȱ thereȱ existsȱ alreadyȱ aȱ vastȱ amountȱ ofȱ scholarlyȱ
literatureȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Rabbinicȱ literature,ȱ –ȱ letȱ meȱ
simplyȱ mentionȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ almostȱ forgottenȱ Hungarianȱ scholarȱ
Israelȱ Taglichtȱ (1862Ȭ1943),ȱ whoȱ wroteȱ theȱ firstȱ significantȱ monographȱ
onȱKutimȱaccordingȱtoȱTalmudicȱsourcesȱinȱGerman,ȱpublishedȱ1888ȱinȱ
Berlin.10ȱ
Taglichtȱ wasȱ aȱ Rabbi,ȱ bornȱ inȱ Berzna,ȱ nowȱ partȱ ofȱ Ukraine,ȱ whoȱ
studiedȱ inȱ Vienna.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ occupationȱ ofȱ Austriaȱ heȱ wasȱ humiliatedȱ
andȱ beatenȱ byȱ theȱ Nazis;ȱ sadly,ȱ heȱ isȱ bestȱ knownȱ forȱ aȱ photoȱ ofȱ himȱ
5ȱȱ PUMMER,ȱ Authors,ȱ esp.ȱ 47Ȭ49;ȱ cf.ȱ alsoȱ 58.62.71Ȭ75ȱ (forȱ Origen),ȱ andȱ 149.156ȱ (forȱ
EpiphaniusȱofȱSalamis);ȱforȱPhilasterȱseeȱ211.ȱȱȱ
6ȱȱ Cf.ȱPUMMER,ȱAuthors,ȱ50.ȱ
7ȱȱ Cf.,ȱe.g.,ȱCROWN,ȱBibliography.ȱAndȱseeȱalsoȱLEHNARDT,ȱSamaritans,ȱ140ȱnoteȱ9.ȱ
8ȱȱ Cf.ȱHIGGER,ȱTreatise,ȱʦʱȱ46.ȱ
9ȱȱ Cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 175Ȭ176.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ MACDONALD,ȱ Theology,ȱ 372Ȭ
376.ȱ
10ȱȱ TAGLICHT,ȱKuthäer.ȱ
ȱ MassekhetȱKutimȱandȱtheȱResurrectionȱofȱtheȱDead 177ȱ
carryingȱaȱplacardȱwithȱtheȱwordsȱ“IȱamȱaȱJew”.ȱHeȱwasȱfinallyȱallowedȱ
toȱ emigrateȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ foreignȱ pressure.ȱ Heȱ diedȱ atȱ Cambridge,ȱ
England,ȱ withoutȱ havingȱ publishedȱ againȱ onȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Rabbinicȱ
literature.11ȱȱ
MostȱofȱtheȱscholarlyȱliteratureȱonȱSamaritansȱinȱRabbinicȱliteratureȱ
inȱ theȱ followingȱ yearsȱ wasȱ writtenȱ inȱ Hebrew.12ȱ Perhapsȱ itȱ isȱ forȱ thisȱ
reasonȱthatȱtheȱevidenceȱhereȱfromȱRabbinicȱliteratureȱhasȱbeenȱratherȱ
neglectedȱ inȱ recentȱ publicationsȱ onȱ Samaritansȱ thatȱ haveȱ appearedȱ inȱ
westernȱlanguages.13ȱFurthermore,ȱsomeȱissuesȱandȱproblemsȱdiscussedȱ
inȱ theseȱ Hebrewȱ studiesȱ wereȱ neglectedȱ byȱ scholarsȱ writingȱ inȱ otherȱ
languages;ȱ orȱ elseȱ theyȱ concentratedȱ onlyȱ onȱ Samaritanȱ traditionsȱ likeȱ
thoseȱfoundȱinȱAbu’lȱFathȱorȱinȱtheȱMarqaȱcorpus.14ȱThisȱholdsȱtrueȱalsoȱ
forȱ theȱ questionȱ underȱ enquiry,ȱ asȱ toȱ whenȱ Samaritansȱ startedȱ toȱ
believeȱinȱresurrectionȱ–ȱaȱproblemȱhighlightedȱmoreȱoftenȱbyȱChristianȱ
theologians,ȱ butȱ notȱ ofȱ greatȱ interest,ȱ forȱ allȱ Iȱ know,ȱ forȱ scholarsȱ ofȱ
Jewishȱ background,ȱ attractedȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ toȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱorȱtoȱtheirȱhalakhicȱstatus.15ȱ
Althoughȱ theȱ Lutheranȱ theologianȱ andȱ famousȱ lexicographerȱ WilȬ
helmȱ Geseniusȱ (1786Ȭ1842)ȱ triedȱ toȱ solveȱ theȱ “resurrectionȱ riddle”ȱ byȱ
hintingȱatȱaȱpossibleȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱRabbisȱandȱ/ȱorȱtheȱChristianȱchurchȱ
fathers16,ȱ andȱ althoughȱ theȱ questionȱ wasȱ raisedȱ timeȱ andȱ againȱ byȱ
Christianȱ scholarsȱ tryingȱ toȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ eschatologyȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans;ȱtheȱproblemȱifȱandȱwhenȱtheȱSamaritansȱstartedȱtoȱbelieveȱ
inȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ theȱ deadȱ hasȱ remainedȱ primarilyȱ oneȱ ofȱ
methodology,ȱwhichȱmeansȱweȱhaveȱtoȱask:ȱWhatȱareȱtheȱrightȱsourcesȱ
11ȱȱ Unfortunately,ȱ CROWNȱ /ȱ PUMMERȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ Companion,ȱ doesȱ notȱ includeȱ hisȱ name,ȱ
althoughȱ otherȱ scholarsȱ wereȱ listedȱ andȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ isȱ oftenȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ
enclosedȱ bibliographies.ȱ Seeȱ onȱ himȱ BERMANN,ȱ Taglicht,ȱ 701.ȱ Inȱ aȱ certainȱ wayȱ
TAGLICHTȱwasȱfollowedȱbyȱGASTER,ȱEschatology,ȱ43Ȭ53.ȱ
12ȱȱ Cf.ȱ GAFNI,ȱ HaȬyahasim;ȱ HEINEMANN,ȱ Polemics,ȱ 23Ȭ35ȱ =ȱ HEINEMANN,ȱ Aggadah,ȱ 91Ȭ
102;ȱ HERSHKOVITZ,ȱ HaȬKutim,ȱ 71Ȭ105.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ ALON,ȱ Origin.ȱ Weȱ canȱ neglectȱ hereȱ
theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ Rabbinicȱ textsȱ inȱ Germanȱ translationȱ publishedȱ byȱ BILLERBECKȱ /ȱ
STRACK,ȱ Kommentar,ȱ 538Ȭ560.ȱ Thisȱ methodologicalȱ notȱ upȬtoȬdateȱ workȱ wasȱ oftenȱ
citedȱbyȱscholarsȱwhenȱreferringȱtoȱRabbinicȱsources.ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱKIPPENBERG,ȱGarizim,ȱ
137Ȭ139,ȱwhoȱstronglyȱreliedȱonȱBILLERBECK.ȱ
13ȱȱ Cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ ZANGENBERG,ȱ Samareia,ȱ 92Ȭ94.ȱ Theȱ usefulȱ Germanȱ anthologyȱ editedȱ byȱ
DEXINGERȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Samaritaner,ȱ includesȱ atȱ leastȱ twoȱ originallyȱ Hebrewȱ writtenȱ
articlesȱinȱtranslation,ȱbutȱnoneȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱRabbinicȱliterature.ȱ
14ȱȱȱ ISSER,ȱJudaism,ȱ143Ȭ146.ȱ
15ȱȱ TheȱmostȱdetailedȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtehiyyatȱhaȬmetimȱatȱtheȱSamaritansȱisȱ
foundȱ inȱ theȱ unpublishedȱ MAȬthesisȱ byȱ Isaiahȱ GAFNI,ȱ HaȬyahasim,ȱ 85Ȭ88.ȱ Thisȱ
HebrewȱUniversityȱJerusalemȱthesisȱwasȱadvisedȱbyȱShmuelȱSAFRAI.ȱ
16ȱȱ Cf.ȱGESENIUS,ȱSamaritana,ȱ94.ȱHeȱwasȱcitedȱbyȱKIRCHHEIM,ȱKarme,ȱ18.ȱ
toȱ consult?ȱ Whatȱ areȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ sourcesȱ sayingȱ andȱ theȱ Rabbinicȱ
textsȱreflecting?ȱAȱhistoricalȱrealityȱorȱaȱmereȱpolemic?ȱAreȱtheȱRabbinicȱ
textsȱ inȱ generalȱ orȱ atȱ leastȱ Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ mirroringȱ theȱ startingȱ
pointȱ ofȱ aȱ developmentȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ eschatologyȱ “inȱ twoȱ phases”ȱ
(Dexinger)ȱculminatingȱinȱanȱalignmentȱinȱattitudesȱ(“Angleichung”17ȱ–ȱ
asȱ Zangenbergȱ hasȱ assumed)?ȱ Orȱ isȱ itȱ impossibleȱ toȱ interpretȱ themȱ asȱ
witnessesȱtoȱaȱhistoricallyȱdiscernibleȱdevelopment,ȱbecauseȱtheȱRabbiȬ
nicȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ Samaritansȱ wasȱ ratherȱ ambivalentȱ andȱ changedȱ
fromȱtimeȱtoȱtime?ȱWasȱitȱinȱtheȱendȱ–ȱasȱKippenbergȱandȱothersȱhaveȱ
suggested18ȱ –ȱ onlyȱ aȱ faultyȱ attributionȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȬ
wiseȱ wellȬattestedȱ Sadduceanȱ disbeliefȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ thatȱ ledȱ toȱ thisȱ
traditionȱbeingȱestablished?19ȱOrȱareȱtheȱRabbinicȱtextsȱonlyȱreferringȱtoȱ
aȱ smallerȱ groupȱ withinȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ people,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Dositheans,ȱ
whichȱwereȱknownȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱsomeȱofȱtheȱChurchȱfathersȱbutȱatȱleastȱ
alsoȱ toȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ Halakhotȱ Gedolotȱ –ȱ aȱ Geonicȱ workȱ withȱ aȱ
complexȱtextualȱhistory?20ȱ
InȱthisȱpresentationȱIȱwillȱfocus,ȱasȱIȱsaidȱearlier,ȱonȱjustȱaȱfewȱRabȬ
binicȱ texts.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ citedȱ questionȱ andȱ answerȱ fromȱ MasȬ
sekhetȱKutim,ȱweȱhaveȱfirstȱofȱallȱtoȱclarifyȱitsȱproposedȱdating:ȱIsȱtheȱ
soȬcalledȱ smallerȱ Tractateȱ Kutimȱ aȱ Tannaiticȱ writing,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ
roughlyȱspeakingȱfromȱtheȱ2ndȱtoȱ3rdȱcenturyȱCE,ȱorȱisȱitȱaȱpostȬTalmudicȱ
composition,ȱprobablyȱ redactedȱ inȱ Geonicȱ timesȱ only?ȱ Inȱ aȱ nextȱstepȱ Iȱ
willȱanalyseȱsomeȱRabbinicȱpassagesȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱhitherȬ
toȱacceptedȱdatingȱofȱourȱpassage.ȱFinally,ȱIȱwillȱdrawȱsomeȱconclusionsȱ
onȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱanalysedȱdata.ȱ
17ȱȱ Cf.ȱZANGENBERG,ȱSamareia,ȱ131.ȱ
18ȱȱȱ Cf.ȱKIPPENBERG,ȱGarizim,ȱ142ȱnoteȱ260.ȱ
19ȱȱȱ Thisȱ beingȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ textualȱ conflationsȱ inȱ theȱ manuscripts.ȱ Seeȱ belowȱ theȱ
textȱfromȱb.Sanȱ90bȱandȱtheȱnoteȱbelowȱthereon.ȱ
20ȱȱ Cf.ȱ HILDESHEIMER,ȱ Halakhot,ȱ 443.ȱ Seeȱ onȱ thisȱ hypothesesȱ alreadyȱ GAFNI,ȱ HAȬyahaȬ
sim,ȱ87,ȱwhoȱpointsȱtoȱaȱcommentaryȱbyȱLURIA,ȱPirqe,ȱ91a).ȱHeȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱ
theȱfirstȱoneȱwhoȱmentionsȱthisȱsource.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱnoteȱbyȱLIEBERMAN,ȱShkiin,ȱ25,ȱ
whoȱrefersȱinȱadditionȱtoȱthatȱtoȱFRIEDLANDER,ȱTehilat,ȱ58,ȱaȱjudeoȬarabicȱcommenȬ
taryȱ ofȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ songsȱ whoȱ hintsȱ atȱ theȱ Rabbinicȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ someȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱwhoȱdidȱnotȱbelieveȱinȱresurrection.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱBÜCHLER,ȱDosithéens,ȱ40Ȭ41.ȱ–ȱOnȱ
theȱtextualȱsituationȱofȱHalakhotȱGedolotȱcf.ȱBRODY,ȱGeonim,ȱ223Ȭ224.ȱ
1.ȱTheȱsoȬcalledȱsmallerȱtractatesȱofȱtheȱTalmudȱ
Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ “shevaȱ massekhtotȱ qetanotȱ

Yerushalmiot”,ȱtheȱsevenȱsmallerȱtractatesȱcalledȱYerushalmiotȱ(whichȱ
meansȱ“fromȱPalestine”).21ȱTheseȱsmallerȱtractatesȱwereȱfirstȱpublishedȱ
inȱ 1851ȱ byȱ theȱ Frankfurtȱ scholarȱ Raphaelȱ Kirchheimȱ (1804Ȭ1889)22ȱ andȱ
againȱ inȱ theȱ classicalȱ printingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Vilniusȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ
Bavliȱ (1880Ȭ1886).ȱ Theȱ definitiveȱ editionȱ basedȱ onȱ manuscriptsȱ andȱ
accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ briefȱ commentaryȱ andȱ aȱ readableȱ translationȱ wasȱ
broughtȱoutȱbyȱMichaelȱHiggerȱinȱ1930.23ȱ SinceȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimporȬ
tantȱmanuscriptsȱofȱtheseȱtractatesȱwasȱlostȱinȱII.ȱWorldȱWar,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ
chanceȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ andȱ betterȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ mightȱ
conceivablyȱ existȱ someȱ indirectȱ witnessesȱ inȱ medievalȱ Rabbinicȱ literaȬ
ture,ȱasȱyetȱunidentified.ȱ
Theȱ dateȱ ofȱ compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ containedȱ inȱ theseȱ sevenȱ
tractatesȱandȱtheȱdateȱofȱredactionȱofȱtheȱtreatisesȱcannotȱbeȱdiscussedȱ
inȱ detailȱ withoutȱ referenceȱ toȱ methodology.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ datesȱ evaluatedȱ
andȱ proposedȱ inȱ scholarlyȱ literatureȱ rangeȱ fromȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ
CE.24ȱtoȱtheȱpostȬTalmudicȱera,ȱthereȱareȱinevitablyȱdifferencesȱofȱopinȬ
ionȱ aboutȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ materialȱ reworkedȱ inȱ theseȱ tractatesȱ andȱ theirȱ
relationshipȱ toȱ otherȱ Rabbinicalȱ literaryȱ corpora,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Mishna,ȱ
Tosefta,ȱ Talmudȱ Yerushalmiȱ andȱ theȱ Bavli.ȱ Whileȱ forȱ someȱ scholarsȱ
Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ isȱ aȱ “Toseftaȱ toȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Talmud”25,ȱ othersȱ
argueȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱkindȱofȱ“extraneousȱMishna”ȱorȱ“Baraita”ȱnotȱincludedȱ
inȱ theȱ sixȱ ordersȱ ofȱ theȱ Mishna,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ redactedȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ
Tannaiticȱperiod.26ȱ FollowingȱHigger’sȱeditionȱandȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱsomeȱ
parallelsȱ inȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ shortȬcommentary,ȱ mostȱ scholarsȱ adoptedȱ hisȱ
viewȱ thatȱ theȱ smallerȱ treatisesȱ areȱ “theȱ firstȱ postȬMishnaicȱ compendiaȱ
regulatingȱspecificȱJewishȱpractices.”27ȱȱ
21ȱȱ Onȱtheȱfollowingȱcf.ȱinȱmoreȱdetailȱLEHNARDT,ȱTalmudȬTraktat,ȱ111Ȭ123.ȱOnȱtheȱtermȱ
„Yerushalmiot”ȱ asȱ aȱ generalȱ designationȱ forȱ aȱ textȱ ofȱ Palestinianȱ originȱ see,ȱ e.g.,ȱ
SCHOLEM,ȱUrsprung,ȱ35ȱnoteȱ64.ȱȱ
22ȱȱ KIRCHHEIM,ȱLibri,ȱ31Ȭ37.ȱ
23ȱȱ Cf.ȱHIGGER,ȱTreatises,ȱʦʱȬʠʱ,ȱ42Ȭ46.ȱ
24ȱȱ Cf.ȱ KIPPENBERG,ȱ Garizim,ȱ 138ȱ (2ndȱ century);ȱ seeȱ onȱ this,ȱ however,ȱ EGGER,ȱ Josephus,ȱ
183ȱnoteȱ540.ȱ
25ȱȱ SeeȱHJELM,ȱSamaritans,ȱ106.ȱ
26ȱȱ Cf.ȱ LERNER,ȱ Tractates,ȱ 401.ȱ Aȱ similarȱ opinionȱ wasȱ proposedȱ byȱ GULKOWITSCH,ȱ
Talmudtraktat,ȱ48.ȱSeeȱalsoȱPUMMER,ȱMassekhetȱKutim,ȱ156.ȱ
27ȱȱ Cf.ȱHIGGER,ȱTreatises,ȱ5.ȱ
Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ triedȱ toȱ makeȱ evidentȱ inȱaȱfreshȱ analysisȱofȱ theȱ materialȱ
includedȱinȱtheȱtractateȱandȱbasedȱonȱaȱreȬevaluationȱofȱtheȱorderȱandȱ
structureȱ ofȱ theȱ sentences,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ makeȱ twoȱ pointsȱ here.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ
thatȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ externalȱ reasonsȱ forȱ aȱ proposedȱ
dating,ȱ andȱ thenȱ internalȱ arguments.ȱ Thisȱ means,ȱ startingȱ byȱ conȬ
sideringȱ theȱ textualȱ situationȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ manuscripts,ȱ citationsȱ andȱ
transmissionȱ ofȱ sentencesȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ otherȱ tractatesȱ andȱ theirȱ
proposedȱ datingȱ andȱ relationȱ toȱ otherȱ literaryȱ strataȱ ofȱ Rabbinicȱ
literature.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ pointȱ isȱ thatȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ takeȱ intoȱ considerationȱ
internalȱ arguments,ȱ whichȱ meansȱ theȱ recognisableȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ
Samaritansȱinȱtheȱtractateȱinȱquestionȱcomparedȱwithȱattitudesȱinȱotherȱ
Rabbinicȱwritings.ȱ
LetȱmeȱbrieflyȱsummariseȱtheȱconclusionsȱIȱdrewȱfromȱtheȱlengthyȱ
examinationȱ ofȱ Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ undertakenȱ withȱ theseȱ methodoloȬ
gicalȱthoughtsȱinȱmind:ȱȱ
Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ opinionȱ favouredȱ byȱ someȱ scholarsȱ Iȱ thinkȱ thatȱ
MassekhetȱKutimȱisȱnotȱonlyȱaȱ“thematicȱcollectionȱofȱBaraitot”ȱ(asȱalȬ
readyȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Lazarȱ Gulkowitsch).ȱ Ratherȱ itȱ consistsȱ ofȱ MishnaȬ
yotȱandȱBaraitotȱfromȱunknownȱorigin28ȱandȱage,ȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱmaterialȱ
whichȱcanȱbestȱbeȱexplainedȱbyȱcomparisonȱwithȱolderȱtextsȱorȱatȱleastȱ
knownȱtextsȱknownȱtoȱbeȱrevisions.ȱRulesȱandȱprohibitionsȱreferringȱinȱ
theȱ parallelsȱ toȱ allȱ kindȱ ofȱ nonȬJewsȱ (goyim),ȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ transȬ
ferredȱtoȱSamaritans.ȱSomeȱsentencesȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱremovedȱfromȱ
theȱcontextsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱwereȱoriginallyȱtransmitted,ȱandȱthenȱhaveȱ
beenȱreformulated.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱthat,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱoftenȱtheȱwordȱgoyȱ
orȱgoyimȱforȱnonȬJewsȱwasȱsimplyȱreplacedȱbyȱtheȱwordȱKutiȱorȱKutim.ȱ
Inȱ additionȱ toȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ literaryȱ transferenceȱ ofȱ seeminglyȱ olderȱ
halakhot,ȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ greaterȱ strictnessȱ isȱ detectableȱ inȱ theȱ treatise.ȱ
Rulesȱexpressedȱmoreȱuniversallyȱinȱtheȱparallelsȱareȱreformulatedȱwithȱ
regardȱtoȱKutimȱonly.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱsomeȱparallelsȱareȱoriginallyȱ
composedȱinȱmoreȱdetail,ȱwhileȱtheȱredactorȱofȱMassekhetȱKutimȱshorȬ
tensȱtheȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱparallelsȱ(cf.ȱII,4).ȱȱ
Thereforeȱ anyȱ attemptȱ toȱ dateȱ theȱ tractateȱ asȱ aȱ literaryȱ entityȱ
becauseȱofȱitsȱapparentlyȱmoreȱconciliatoryȱattitudeȱtowardsȱtheȱSamaȬ
28ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱmyȱanalysisȱthereȱareȱeightȱsentencesȱfromȱMishnaȱandȱToseftaȱwhichȱ
haveȱanȱalmostȱliteralȱparallelȱinȱMassekhetȱKutim.ȱI,2ȱ=ȱmSheqȱ1,5;ȱI,4ȱ=ȱmAZȱ1,6;ȱI,5ȱ
=ȱtAZȱ2,4;ȱI,8ȱ=ȱmAZȱ2,1;ȱI,9ȱ=ȱtAZȱ3,13;ȱI,10ȱ=ȱtAZȱ3,1;ȱI,13ȱ=ȱmȱNidȱ7,5;ȱII,2ȱ=ȱtBQȱ4,3;ȱ
II,4ȱ =ȱ tDemȱ 3,3.ȱ Oneȱ parallelȱ isȱ foundȱ onlyȱ inȱ aȱ Baraitaȱ transmittedȱ inȱ theȱ Talmudȱ
Yerushalmi,ȱ yAZȱ 5,4ȱ (44d)ȱ equalsȱ roughlyȱ II,6.ȱ Seeȱ onȱ thisȱ andȱ furtherȱ seeminglyȱ
parallelȱsentencesȱmyȱarticleȱfromȱFrankfurterȱJudaistischeȱBeiträge.ȱ
ritansȱ–ȱasȱsupposedȱforȱexampleȱbyȱGünterȱStemberger29ȱ–ȱwouldȱseemȱ
problematic.ȱEvenȱifȱsomeȱsentencesȱreflectȱaȱmoreȱambiguousȱviewȱofȱ
theȱ Kutim,ȱ theȱ redactorȱ ofȱ theȱ treatiseȱ isȱ clearlyȱ tryingȱ toȱ emphasizingȱ
thatȱSamaritans,ȱregardlessȱofȱtheirȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱPentateuchalȱlawsȱ
andȱadherenceȱtoȱcertainȱcustomsȱcannotȱbeȱdeemedȱtoȱbeȱJews.ȱ
Furthermore,ȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱmostȱparallelsȱrevealsȱthat,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱ
handȱ theȱ redactorȱ ofȱ theȱ treatiseȱ adoptedȱ materialȱ standingȱ inȱ clearȱ
contrastȱ toȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ Mishna.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ heȱ acceptedȱ
HalakhotȱwhichȱagreeȱwithȱtheȱMishna,ȱwhereasȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱagreeȱwithȱ
Baraitotȱ transmittedȱ inȱ theȱ Tosefta.ȱ Moreover,ȱ someȱHalakhotȱ seemȱ toȱ
disagreeȱ withȱ theȱ Mishna’sȱ andȱ Tosefta’sȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ Samaritansȱ
areȱ toȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ Jews.ȱ Theȱ treatiseȱ seemsȱ toȱ favourȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ
Rabbiȱ Yehudaȱ theȱ Prince,ȱ theȱ allegedȱ redactorȱ ofȱ theȱ Mishna,ȱ whoȱ
maintainedȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱnonȬJews.30ȱ
Theȱaimȱofȱtheȱredactorȱorȱcollectorȱofȱtheȱhalakhotȱinȱourȱtractateȱ
thereforeȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱanȱattemptȱonȱhisȱpartȱtoȱcorrectȱ
theȱMishna’sȱpointȱofȱviewȱinȱfavourȱofȱaȱmoreȱlenientȱoneȱasȱreflected,ȱ
e.g.,ȱinȱtheȱTosefta.ȱTheȱintentionȱofȱtheȱtractateȱredactor,ȱIȱwouldȱargue,ȱ
wasȱ toȱ bringȱ intoȱ line,ȱ toȱ orderȱ andȱ adjust,ȱ someȱ partlyȱ orȱ ostensiblyȱ
contradictoryȱrulesȱandȱlawsȱreferringȱtoȱcontactȱwithȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
TheȱoverallȱattitudeȱofȱMassekhetȱKutimȱonȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱaimȱ
ofȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ decreesȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ beȱ consideredȱ againstȱ theȱ
backgroundȱofȱtheȱtendenciesȱinȱtheȱotherȱsmallerȱtractatesȱ–ȱespeciallyȱ
theȱ twoȱ otherȱ dealingȱ withȱ otherȱ groupsȱ withȱ anȱ ambiguousȱ statusȱ inȱ
Halakhaȱsuchȱasȱslavesȱ(Ȇavadim)ȱandȱproselytesȱ(gerim).ȱ
Whatȱ areȱ theseȱ resultsȱ implyȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ ourȱ initialȱ query?ȱ Letȱ
meȱfirstȱdrawȱyourȱattentionȱtoȱsomeȱwellȬknownȱtextsȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱ
placeȱ Samaritanȱ nonȬbeliefȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ other,ȱ
perhapsȱ earlierȱ Rabbinicalȱ writings.ȱ Methodologicallyȱ Iȱ shallȱ presentȱ
thisȱ materialȱ accordingȱ theȱ writingsȱ inȱ whichȱ itȱ occursȱ andȱ theirȱ
assumedȱ chronologicalȱ order.ȱ Thisȱ willȱ allowȱ meȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ theȱ
historicalȱdevelopmentȱbehindȱtheseȱtexts,ȱoftenȱsomethingȱneglectedȱinȱ
otherȱstudiesȱonȱRabbinicȱliterature.31ȱ
29ȱȱ Cf.ȱSTEMBERGER,ȱEinleitung,ȱ230.ȱ
30ȱȱ Cf.ȱonȱthisȱremarkableȱdifferenceȱSCHIFFMAN,ȱSamaritans,ȱ339.ȱ
31ȱȱ Forȱthisȱmethodologicalȱapproachȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱSTEMBERGER,ȱReaktionen,ȱ207.ȱ
2.ȱMassekhetȱKutimȱII,8ȱ
Theȱ seeminglyȱ oldestȱ accountȱ oftenȱ mentionedȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ
RabbinicȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱdisbeliefȱinȱresurrectionȱisȱfoundȱ
inȱSifreȱBamidbar,ȱaȱhalakhicȱMidrashȱredactedȱ(moreȱorȱless)ȱinȱtheȱ3rdȱ
orȱ4thȱcenturyȱCEȱinȱPalestine.ȱThereȱweȱlearnȱinȱanȱclarificationȱofȱNumȱ
15,31,ȱ whichȱisȱ transmittedȱ inȱ aȱsayingȱ ascribedȱ toȱRabbiȱShimónȱ benȱ
Eleázar,ȱ aȱ celebratedȱ Tannaȱ ofȱ theȱ fourthȱ generationȱ frequentlyȱ
mentionedȱinȱcontroversiesȱwithȱKutim,ȱtheȱfollowing32:ȱ
SifreȱBamidbarȱshelahȱ11233ȱȱ
SaidȱRabbiȱShimónȱbenȱEleázar:ȱ“OnȱtheȱfollowingȱbasisȱIȱprovedȱthatȱtheȱ
booksȱofȱtheȱKutimȱ[ʭʩʺʥʫȱ ʩʸʴʱ]ȱareȱforgeries,ȱforȱtheyȱmaintainedȱthatȱtheȱ
deadȱdoȱnotȱliveȱ[ʭʩʩʧȱʭʩʺʮȱʯʩʠ].ȱȱ
Iȱsaidȱtoȱthem:ȱLo,ȱScriptureȱsays,ȱ“...ȱthatȱpersonȱshallȱbeȱutterlyȱcutȱoff;ȱhisȱ
iniquityȱshallȱbeȱuponȱhimȱ[ʤʡȱʤʔʰʥʲ].”ȱ(Numȱ15,31)ȱ
Forȱscriptureȱsays:ȱHisȱiniquityȱshallȱbeȱuponȱhim,ȱonlyȱsoȱasȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱitȱ
isȱdestinedȱtoȱgiveȱaȱfullȱaccountingȱofȱitselfȱonȱtheȱdayȱofȱjudgement.ȱ
Thisȱ sectionȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ anȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ lastȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ verseȱ
fromȱtheȱbookȱofȱNumbers.ȱItȱderivesȱfromȱtheȱunusualȱphraseȱ ʤʡȱ ʤʔʰʥʲ,ȱ
“uponȱ him”,ȱ thatȱ sinsȱ willȱ beȱ punishedȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ toȱ come.ȱ
However,ȱasȱwasȱpointedȱoutȱalreadyȱbyȱRaphaelȱKirchheim34,ȱandȱlaterȱ
alsoȱbyȱIsraelȱTaglicht35,ȱthisȱstrangeȱexplanationȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱbasedȱonȱaȱ
misunderstanding,ȱbecauseȱitȱhasȱmixedȱupȱbeliefȱinȱresurrectionȱwithȱ
beliefȱ inȱ rewardȱ andȱ punishment.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ ʤʡȱ ʤʔʰʥʲ,ȱ “uponȱ him”,ȱ
clearlyȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱsinsȱofȱtheȱindividualȱclingȱtoȱhimȱevenȱ
afterȱ death,ȱ i.e.ȱ inȱ theȱ Worldȱ toȱ Come.ȱ Theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ rewardȱ andȱ
punishment,ȱ however,ȱ seemsȱ neverȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ deniedȱ byȱ SamariȬ
tans.36ȱ Interestingly,ȱ thisȱ passageȱ isȱ notȱ mentionedȱ byȱ Ferdinandȱ
DexingerȱinȱhisȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱsomeȱrelevantȱpassagesȱfromȱRabbiȬ
nicȱliteratureȱreferringȱtoȱSamaritanȱdisbeliefȱinȱresurrection.37ȱ–ȱConseȬ
quently,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ Midrashȱ fromȱ theȱ Tannaiticȱ periodȱ pointsȱ toȱ anȱ
exegeticalȱ differenceȱ inȱ opinionȱ betweenȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ theȱ Rabbis,ȱ
32ȱȱ Cf.ȱKONOVITZ,ȱSymposia,ȱ117Ȭ156.ȱ
33ȱȱ HOROVITZ,ȱSiphre,ȱ122,ȱlinesȱ4Ȭ6;ȱcf.ȱNEUSNER,ȱSifré,ȱ171.ȱ–ȱInterestinglyȱenough,ȱthisȱ
textȱisȱnotȱmentionedȱbyȱDEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱ282.ȱ
34ȱȱ Cf.ȱKIRCHHEIM,ȱKarmeȱShomron,ȱ18.ȱ
35ȱȱ Cf.ȱTAGLICHT,ȱKuthäer,ȱ31.ȱ
36ȱȱ Cf.ȱ DEXINGER,ȱ Samaritanȱ Eschatology,ȱ 286Ȭ287;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ GASTER,ȱ Eschatology,ȱ 51;ȱ
MACDONALD,ȱTheology,ȱ380Ȭ382.ȱ
37ȱȱ DEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱ282.ȱ
resultingȱ inȱ anȱ oftenȱ attestedȱ accusationȱ ofȱ forgeryȱ ofȱ scriptures38,ȱ itȱ
cannotȱ beȱ citedȱ asȱ anȱ earlyȱ referenceȱ toȱ Samaritanȱ disbeliefȱ inȱ resurȬ
rection.39ȱ
Additionally,ȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ keepȱ inȱ mindȱ thatȱ theȱ Vaticanȱ 32ȱ manuȬ
scriptȱofȱtheȱSifreȱcontainsȱhereȱtheȱreadingȱ ʭʩʰʩʮȱ ʩʸʴʱ.ȱThisȱreferenceȱtoȱ
minimȱmightȱitselfȱbeȱaȱreflectionȱofȱhowȱtheȱtermȱisȱusedȱinȱtheȱBavli,ȱ
whereȱitȱoftenȱinsertedȱinȱplaceȱofȱtheȱwordȱKuti,ȱSamaritan.40ȱHowever,ȱ
Codexȱ Vaticanȱ 32ȱ ofȱ theȱ Sifreȱ is,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ catalogueȱ ofȱ manuȬ
scriptsȱofȱhalakhicȱMidrashimȱeditedȱbyȱMenahemȱKahanaȱinȱ1990,ȱ“theȱ
bestȱ manuscriptȱ ofȱ theȱ Sifre”.41ȱ Furthermore,ȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ keepȱ inȱ mindȱ
thatȱKutimȱareȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱhalakhicȱMidrashimȱonlyȱrarely.42ȱTheȱ
onlyȱparallelȱtextȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmud,ȱandȱweȱwillȱdealȱ
withȱitȱbelow.ȱ
Anotherȱ oftenȱ citedȱ passageȱ onȱ resurrectionȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ
amoraicȱorȱ(moreȱeven)ȱpostȬtalmudicȱMidrashȱQoheletȱRabbaȱ5,10ȱ(15d).43ȱ
Theȱ issueȱ isȱ raisedȱ hereȱ atȱ lengthȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ time.ȱ Theȱ contextȱ isȱ aȱ
highlyȱliteraryȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱdialogueȱbetweenȱtheȱlegendaryȱTanna,ȱ
RabbiȱMe’ir,ȱandȱanȱanonymousȱKuti:ȱ
AȱKutiȱaskedȱRabbiȱMe’ir:ȱ“Doȱtheȱdeadȱliveȱagain”ȱ[ʠʩʩʺʮȱʯʩʩʧ]?ȱȱ
Heȱanswered:ȱ“Yes”.ȱ
Heȱthenȱasked:ȱ“[Doȱtheyȱcomeȱbackȱtoȱlife]ȱsecretlyȱorȱinȱpublic?”ȱ[ʠʩʱʤʸʴʡȱ
ʥʠȱʩʠʹʧʡ]ȱ
Heȱanswered:ȱ“Inȱpublic.”ȱ
38ȱȱ Cf.,ȱe.g.ȱFINKELSTEIN,ȱSifre,ȱ123.ȱ
39ȱȱ ContraȱGAFNI,ȱHaȬyahasim,ȱ85;ȱseeȱalsoȱZANGENBERG,ȱSamareia,ȱ130.ȱ
40ȱȱ Cf.ȱonȱthisȱphenomenonȱPOPPER,ȱCensorship,ȱ59.ȱ
41ȱȱ Seeȱ KAHANA,ȱ Manuscripts,ȱ 90.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ MARGULIES,ȱ Midrashȱ (aȱ Limitedȱ Facsimileȱ
Editionȱ ofȱ 160ȱ Copies,ȱ byȱ Specialȱ Permissionȱ ofȱ theȱ Vaticanȱ Library,ȱ withȱ anȱ
IntroductionȱandȱPageȱIndexȱ[introduction]).ȱ
42ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Mekhiltaȱ Parashatȱ Mishpatimȱ Neziqinȱ 12;ȱ Sifreȱ Devarimȱ Haázinuȱ 26;ȱ Sifreȱ
Re’eȱ4.ȱ
43ȱȱ ForȱanȱapproximateȱdateȱofȱcompositionȱofȱMidrashȱQoheletȱRabbaȱcf.ȱSTEMBERGER,ȱ
Einleitung,ȱ311Ȭ312;ȱHIRSHMAN,ȱMidrash,ȱ58Ȭ60.ȱSinceȱnoȱscholarlyȱeditionȱofȱQoheȬ
letȱRabbaȱisȱextentȱyet,ȱmyȱtranslationȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱWilnaȱtext.ȱForȱanotherȱtransȬ
lationȱcf.ȱCOHEN,ȱEcclesiastes,ȱ145Ȭ146.ȱForȱaȱGermanȱtranslationȱcf.ȱWÜNSCHE,ȱMidȬ
rasch,ȱ76Ȭ77;ȱZANGENBERG,ȱSamareia,ȱ130Ȭ131.ȱ
“Howȱcanȱyouȱproveȱitȱtoȱme?ȱheȱasked,ȱtoȱwhichȱRabbiȱMe’irȱreplied:ȱ“Notȱ
fromȱ scriptureȱ norȱ fromȱ theȱ Mishnaȱ butȱ fromȱ derekhȱ eretz,ȱ everydayȱ lifeȱ
[ʵʸʠȱʪʸʣʮ]44,ȱIȱwillȱanswerȱyou.ȱ
Thereȱ wasȱ aȱ trustworthyȱ manȱ inȱ ourȱ cityȱ withȱ whomȱ everyoneȱ depositedȱ
[money]ȱ secretlyȱ andȱ heȱ restoredȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ ownersȱ inȱ public.ȱ Somebodyȱ
cameȱ andȱ depositedȱ itȱ withȱ himȱ inȱ public;ȱ soȱ howȱ shouldȱ heȱ restoreȱ itȱ toȱ
him,ȱinȱsecretȱorȱpublicly?ȱWillȱheȱnotȱdoȱitȱpublicly?”ȱ
“Certainly,”ȱ[ʯʩʠ]ȱwasȱtheȱreply.ȱȱ
Thenȱ saidȱ Rabbiȱ Me’irȱ toȱ him,ȱ “Letȱ yourȱ earsȱ hearȱ whatȱ yourȱ lipsȱ speak.ȱ
Menȱdepositȱaȱwhiteȱdropȱ[inȱsecret]ȱwithȱtheirȱwives,ȱandȱtheȱHolyȱOne,ȱ
blessedȱ beȱ He,ȱ restoresȱ thatȱ dropȱ publiclyȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ beautifulȱ andȱ
perfectȱcreature.ȱ
Howȱmuchȱmoreȱwillȱaȱdeadȱpersonȱwhoȱdepartsȱ[fromȱtheȱworld]ȱpubliclyȱ
returnȱpublicly?ȱAsȱheȱdepartsȱwithȱloudȱcriesȱsoȱwillȱheȱreturnȱwithȱloudȱ
cries.”45ȱ
Certainlyȱthisȱremarkableȱpassageȱremindsȱusȱofȱmanyȱotherȱdialoguesȱ
ofȱthisȱkindȱinȱRabbinicȱliterature.ȱAndȱmostȱscholarsȱthereforeȱwouldȱ
agreeȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ hereȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ fictitiousȱ (orȱ legendary)ȱ dialogueȱ
beforeȱ usȱ whichȱ triesȱ toȱ mockȱ theȱ interlocutorȱ byȱ demonstratingȱ aȱ
betterȱ understanding.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ theȱ Samaritan’sȱ disputant,ȱ Rabbiȱ
Me’ir,ȱ doesȱ notȱ argueȱ fromȱ scriptureȱ (Tora)ȱ butȱ refersȱ toȱ derekhȱ eretz,ȱ
“manners”ȱ orȱ “everyȱ dayȱ life”ȱ –ȱ anȱ argumentȱ whichȱ certainlyȱ cannotȱ
haveȱbeenȱveryȱconvincingȱforȱsomeoneȱwhoȱdeniesȱthereȱisȱanyȱproofȱ
ofȱresurrectionȱinȱtheȱPentateuchȱandȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱacceptȱtheȱwritingsȱ
ofȱtheȱprophets,ȱtheȱnevi’im.ȱTheȱproofȱfromȱ“everydayȱlife”ȱtransmittedȱ
inȱtheȱnameȱofȱRabbiȱMe’irȱthereforeȱreflectsȱhowȱgreatȱtheȱdifficultiesȱ
mustȱhaveȱbeenȱevenȱinȱAmoraicȱtimesȱtoȱconvinceȱSamaritans,ȱwhoseȱ
rejectionȱ ofȱ thisȱ beliefȱ clearlyȱ knownȱ andȱ whoseȱ statusȱ thereforeȱ mustȱ
alreadyȱhaveȱbeenȱclarified.ȱ
Remarkably,ȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ sufficedȱ forȱ laterȱ
readersȱ ofȱ thisȱ midrashȱ either,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ redactorȱ ofȱQoheletȱ Rabbaȱ alȬ
readyȱ addedȱ anotherȱ “proof”ȱ citingȱ aȱ dictumȱ pronouncedȱ byȱ Rabbiȱ
YonatanȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱRabbiȱYonatanȱofȱBetȱGuvrinȱ(Eleutheropolis),ȱaȱ
secondȱgenerationȱAmora46:ȱȱȱȱ
44ȱȱ BILLERBECKȱ/ȱ STRACK,ȱKommentar,ȱ551,ȱtranslatesȱ“ausȱeinemȱVorgangȱdesȱgewöhnȬ

lichenȱ Lebens”.ȱ Onȱ differentȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ theȱ expressionȱ derekhȱ eretzȱ inȱ Rabbinicȱ
literatureȱseeȱSAFRAI,ȱTerm,ȱ147Ȭ162.ȱ
45ȱȱ Forȱthisȱideaȱseeȱalsoȱb.Berȱ15bȱandȱb.Sanȱ92a.ȱ
46ȱȱ SeeȱonȱthisȱpersonageȱBACHER,ȱAmoräer,ȱ592Ȭ594.ȱ
Itȱ isȱ written:ȱ Theȱ graveȱ andȱ theȱ barrenȱ wombȱ [~x;r"î rc,[oáw> lAav.]ȱ (Provȱ 30,16)ȱ –ȱ
whatȱhasȱoneȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱother?ȱInȱtruthȱasȱtheȱbarrenȱwombȱyieldsȱ[theȱ
child]ȱwithȱloudȱcries,ȱsoȱwillȱtheȱShe’olȱyieldȱ[theȱdead]ȱwithȱloudȱcries.ȱ
Thisȱ “proof”ȱ ofȱ resurrection,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ verseȱ fromȱ theȱ
thirdȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ aȱ citationȱ fromȱ proverbs,ȱ mishleȱ –ȱ aȱ
proofȱ thatȱ definitelyȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ convincedȱ anyȱ Samaritan.ȱ ObȬ
viously,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ accountȱ thereforeȱ mustȱ beȱ adjudgedȱ aȱ literaryȱ ficȬ
tion.ȱTheȱinterestȱofȱthisȱpartȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱclarificationȱofȱinnerȬ
Rabbinicȱ discussions.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ frameȱ ofȱ interest,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ isȱ
portrayedȱ asȱ imaginaryȱ typeȱ whoseȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ
botherȱtheȱrabbisȱovermuch.ȱIndirectly,ȱthough,ȱitȱreflectsȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱ
textsȱinȱtheȱToraȱthatȱofferȱcompellingȱproof.ȱFurthermore,ȱitȱrevealsȱaȱ
growingȱdisrespectȱforȱtheȱbeliefȱofȱtheȱKutim.ȱ
Itȱdoesȱnotȱundulyȱsurpriseȱthereforeȱthatȱtheȱlongestȱdescriptionȱofȱ
aȱdisputeȱonȱresurrectionȱwithȱaȱSamaritanȱagainȱrefersȱtoȱNumȱ15,31ȱ–ȱ
theȱsameȱverseȱjustȱdealtȱwithȱinȱSifreȱBamidbar.ȱThisȱpassageȱisȱfoundȱinȱ
theȱBavli,ȱtractateȱSanhedrinȱ90b,ȱandȱitȱisȱcertainlyȱtheȱlatestȱredactedȱ
sourceȱthatȱmustȱbeȱanalysedȱwithinȱtheȱcompassȱofȱthisȱinvestigation.ȱ
Someȱ scholars,ȱ Billerbeckȱ forȱ example,ȱ haveȱ consideredȱ b.Sanhedrinȱ
90bȱtoȱbeȱaȱ“version”ȱofȱtheȱsameȱtraditionȱconveyedȱinȱSifreȱBamidbar.47ȱ
However,ȱifȱweȱlookȱmoreȱcloselyȱatȱtheȱtext,ȱweȱfindȱmanyȱdifferences,ȱ
oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ beingȱ thatȱ theȱ Bavliȱ speaksȱ notȱ onlyȱ ofȱ rewardȱ andȱ
punishmentȱbutȱexplicitlyȱofȱresurrection.ȱInȱtheȱSanhedrinȱweȱread:ȱ
b.Sanȱ90bȱ[MunichȱManuscript;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱMsȱFlorenceȱ9]ȱ
Itȱhasȱbeenȱtaughtȱ[inȱaȱBaraita]ȱ[ʠʩʰʺ]:ȱRabbiȱEli’ezer,ȱsonȱofȱRabbiȱYose48,ȱ
said:ȱ Inȱ thisȱ matterȱ Iȱ refutedȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Kutim49ȱ [ʭʩʺʥʫȱ ʩʸʴʱ],ȱ whoȱ
maintainedȱthatȱresurrectionȱisȱnotȱdeducibleȱfromȱtheȱTorah.ȱ
Iȱ saidȱ toȱ them:ȱ Youȱ haveȱ falsifiedȱ yourȱ Torah50,ȱ yetȱ itȱ hasȱ availedȱ youȱ
nothingȱȱ
[ʭʥʬʫȱ ʭʫʩʣʩʡȱ ʭʺʩʬʲʤȱ ʠʬ].ȱForȱyouȱmaintainȱthatȱresurrectionȱisȱnotȱaȱdoctrineȱ
fromȱtheȱTorah,ȱbutȱitȱisȱwritten:ȱ[Becauseȱheȱhathȱdespisedȱtheȱwordȱofȱtheȱ
47ȱȱ Cf.ȱBILLERBECKȱ/ȱSTRACK,ȱKommentar,ȱ552.ȱ
48ȱȱ TheȱsecondȱcenturyȱTannaȱisȱmeant.ȱ
49ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ readingȱ inȱ theȱ Munichȱ Manuscriptȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavli;ȱ someȱ printsȱ haveȱ „sifreȱ
tzeduqim“,ȱ andȱ thereȱ existsȱ alsoȱ theȱ variaȱ lectioȱ „sifreȱ Minim“.ȱ Cf.ȱ RABBINOVICZ,ȱ
Sefer,ȱ125a.ȱ
50ȱȱ Theȱ wordsȱ “toȱ them”,ȱ ʭʤʬ,ȱ Dtnȱ 11,9,ȱ fromȱ whichȱ Rabbanȱ Gamli’elȱ deducedȱ theȱ
resurrectionȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱleftȱoutȱfromȱtheȱSamaritanȱTora.ȱCf.ȱBiblicaȱHebraicaȱ
Stuttgartensia,ȱandȱalsoȱtheȱTargumȱhasȱanȱemendationȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ
Lord,ȱandȱhathȱbrokenȱhisȱcommandment,]ȱthatȱsoulȱshallȱutterlyȱbeȱcutȱoffȱ
[ʺʸʫʺȱʺʸʫʤ;ȱhikkaretȱtikkaret];ȱhisȱiniquityȱshallȱuponȱhimȱ(Numȱ15,31).ȱȱ
Now,ȱ[seeingȱthat]ȱheȱshallȱutterlyȱbeȱcutȱoffȱinȱthisȱworld,ȱwhenȱshallȱhisȱ
iniquityȱbeȱuponȱhim?ȱSurelyȱinȱtheȱnextȱworld!ȱȱ
RavȱPapaȱsaidȱtoȱAbaye:ȱCouldȱheȱnotȱhaveȱdeducedȱbothȱ[ʥʤʩʩʸʺȱ ʥʤʬȱ ʠʮʩʬʥ]ȱ
[thisȱworldȱandȱtheȱnext]ȱfromȱheȱshallȱbeȱutterlyȱcutȱoff?ȱ–ȱ
Theyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ replied:ȱ Theȱ Torahȱ employedȱ humanȱ phraseologyȱ
[ʭʣʠȱʩʰʡȱʯʥʹʬʫȱʤʸʥʺȱʤʸʡʣ].ȱ(whichȱmeans:ȱoneȱmightȱnotȱdrawȱanythingȱfromȱ
theȱdoublingȱhikkaretȱtikkaret).ȱ
Itȱisȱclearȱfromȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱ“BavliȬstyled”ȱBaraitaȱthatȱweȱhaveȱaȱ
highlyȱliteraryȱaccountȱbeforeȱus.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱaboveȱcitedȱpassageȱ
fromȱ Sifre,ȱ weȱ learnȱ explicitlyȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ thatȱ
resurrectionȱ isȱ notȱ deducibleȱ fromȱ theȱ Pentateuch.ȱ Theȱ doctrineȱ ofȱ
rewardȱ andȱ punishmentȱ isȱ notȱ mentioned.ȱ Butȱ againȱ theȱ “standard”ȱ
accusationȱofȱforgeryȱisȱraised.ȱ
IfȱweȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱdateȱofȱredactionȱofȱthisȱtextȱcanȱȬȱaccordingȱ
toȱStembergerȱandȱothersȱȬȱbeȱfixedȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcenturyȱ
CE,ȱevenȱifȱitȱcontainsȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱpersonȱwhoȱlivedȱmuchȱearlier,ȱitȱ
perhapsȱ reflectsȱ aȱ growingȱ needȱ toȱ refuteȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ opinionȱ thatȱ
theȱToraȱdoesȱnotȱspeakȱofȱresurrectionȱatȱall.ȱIȱassumeȱthatȱsuchȱaȱneed,ȱ
ifȱ thereȱ wasȱ one,ȱ aroseȱ fromȱ theȱ growingȱ influenceȱ ofȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ
fixedȱ rabbinicȱ Biblicalȱ textȱ –ȱ especiallyȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ textusȱ masoreticusȱ
theȱ likesȱ ofȱ whichȱ becameȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ widespreadȱ fromȱ theȱ sixthȱ
centuryȱ onwards,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ Eretzȱ Yisra’elȱ butȱ alsoȱ inȱ Babylonia.51ȱ Inȱ
orderȱtoȱstrengthenȱtheȱreadingȱandȱexegesisȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱtextȱofȱtheȱ
rabbisȱ(orȱpreȬMasorets),ȱwhichȱdiffersȱsoȱgreatlyȱfromȱotherȱversionsȱofȱ
theȱBible,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱSamaritanusȱorȱotherȱpreȬmasoreticȱPalestinianȱverȬ
sionsȱ(Septuagint,ȱAquilaȱandȱSymmachus),ȱcentralȱissuesȱofȱbeliefȱlikeȱ
resurrectionȱ cameȱ toȱ beȱ highlightedȱ increasinglyȱ inȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ deȬ
batesȱ ofȱ theȱ bateȱ midrashȱ orȱ yeshivotȱ –ȱ whetherȱ inȱ Palestineȱ orȱ inȱ BabyȬ
lonia.ȱȱ
Moreover,ȱ theseȱ theoreticalȱ schoolȱ debatesȱ mightȱ haveȱ formedȱ theȱ
backgroundȱtooȱforȱanotherȱfamousȱpassageȱfromȱtheȱsameȱBavliȱtracȬ
tate.ȱFollowingȱaȱpossibleȱtextualȱemendationȱb.Sanȱ90bȱnowȱcontainsȱaȱ
questionȱ byȱ “theȱ Patriarchȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans”52,ȱ whoȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ haveȱ
51ȱȱ SeeȱonȱthisȱpageȱKELLEYȱ/ȱMYNATTȱ/ȱCRAWFORD,ȱMasora,ȱ18Ȭ20.ȱ
52ȱȱ Insteadȱofȱ ʠʺʫʬʮȱʠʸʨʴʬʷȱ“QueenȱCleopatra”ȱweȱshouldȱreadȱ ʩʠʺʥʫʣȱʠʷʩʸʨʴȱ“Patriachȱ
ofȱ theȱ Samaritans”;ȱ thisȱ emendationȱ wasȱ proposedȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ byȱ BACHER,ȱ
Rabbi,ȱ188.ȱSeeȱalsoȱBACHER,ȱTannaiten,ȱ68ȱnoteȱ2.ȱItȱwasȱacceptedȱbyȱBILLERBECKȱ/ȱ
STRACK,ȱKommentar,ȱ552,ȱandȱDEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱ282.ȱ
askedȱ Rabbiȱ Me’ir:ȱ “Iȱ knowȱ thatȱ theȱ deadȱ willȱ reviveȱ forȱ itȱ isȱ written:ȱ
Andȱ theyȱ shallȱ blossomȱ forthȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ likeȱ theȱ grassȱ ofȱ theȱ earthȱ (Psȱ
72,16).”ȱAsȱwasȱrightlyȱpointedȱoutȱbyȱDexinger53,ȱputtingȱaȱquotationȱ
fromȱaȱPsalmȱinȱtheȱmouthȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱcanȱhardlyȱconvinceȱsinceȱtheȱ
PsalmsȱdonotȱconstituteȱBiblicalȱproofȱforȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
Inȱ myȱ view,ȱ whatȱ weȱ haveȱ hereȱ againȱ isȱ aȱ literaryȱ orȱ fictionalȱ
discourse.ȱByȱshichȱIȱmeanȱthatȱb.Sanȱ90bȱdoesȱnotȱreflectȱrealityȱbutȱtheȱ
rabbinicȱ mindȱ –ȱ aȱ frameȱ ofȱ mindȱ whichȱ mightȱ resultȱ fromȱ aȱ changedȱ
attitudeȱtowardsȱtheȱcitedȱpassagesȱfromȱtheȱTanakhȱandȱtheirȱexegesis.ȱ
Aȱ hardenedȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ provingȱ theȱ correctnessȱ ofȱ beliefȱ inȱ
resurrectionȱonȱgroundsȱofȱaȱverseȱfromȱtheȱToraȱcanȱbeȱsupposedȱforȱ
theȱ Rabbis,ȱ onceȱ theȱ pertinentȱ Biblicalȱ textsȱ hadȱ beenȱ establishedȱ andȱ
widelyȱacceptedȱbyȱ(atȱleast)ȱtheȱ6thȱorȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ7thȱcentury.ȱ
Rabbinicȱ debateȱ aboutȱ Samaritanȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ resurrectionȱ mustȱ thereȬ
foreȱ haveȱ startedȱ beforeȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ textȱ wasȱ absolutelyȱ fixed,ȱ i.e.ȱ atȱ aȱ
timeȱwhenȱitȱwasȱbeingȱsubjectedȱtoȱincreasinglyȱdetailedȱinterpretationȱ
andȱdiscussion.ȱThisȱfitsȱwellȱtoȱtheȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱafterȱtheȱredactionȱofȱ
theȱ Talmudȱ Yerushalmi,ȱ todayȱ etȱ atȱ fromȱ 350ȱ CE.ȱ upȱ toȱ 400ȱ CE.54ȱ Theȱ
Palestinianȱ Talmudȱ itselfȱ stillȱ containsȱ someȱ nonȬȱ orȱ preȬMasoreticȱ
Biblicalȱ quotations.ȱ Afterwards,ȱ itȱ seems,ȱ Biblicalȱ quotationsȱ inȱ
Rabbinicȱwritingsȱstartȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱaccurateȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱ
standardȱtexts.ȱ
ConcludingȱConsiderationsȱ
Letȱ meȱ concludeȱ theseȱ necessarilyȱ incompleteȱ observationsȱ onȱ theȱ

possibleȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱandȱfictionalȱdisputesȱwithȱSamaȬ
ritansȱ onȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ resurrectionȱ byȱ remarkingȱ onȱ theȱ citedȱ passageȱ
fromȱ Massekhetȱ Kutim.ȱ Thereȱ weȱ learnȱ alsoȱ aboutȱ anotherȱ importantȱ
itemȱ ofȱ disputeȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Samaritans:ȱ Iȱ amȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ
necessityȱacceptingȱtheȱholinessȱofȱJerusalemȱinsteadȱofȱHarȱGarizim,ȱtheȱ
holyȱmountainȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱnearȱNablus.ȱȱ
Inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ behindȱ thisȱ demandȱ weȱ canȱ discernȱ anȱ olderȱ andȱ
politicallyȱ moreȱ relevantȱ controversyȱ betweenȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ Jews.ȱ
Theȱquestionȱofȱresurrection,ȱinȱcontrast,ȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱaddedȱlaterȱ
forȱexegeticalȱreasons,ȱnotȱ necessarilyȱbecauseȱSamaritansȱorȱatȱleastȱaȱ
sectȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ insistedȱ onȱ theirȱ nonȬbeliefȱ inȱ resurrectionȱ –ȱ aȱ
53ȱȱ Cf.ȱDEXINGER,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology,ȱ282.ȱ
54ȱȱ Cf.,ȱe.g,ȱtheȱquotationȱofȱDeuteronomyȱ6,20ȱinȱyPesahimȱ10,4Ȭ5ȱ(37d,17).ȱ
criterion,ȱinȱanyȱcase,ȱirrelevantȱforȱtheirȱacceptanceȱasȱJews,ȱasȱcanȱbeȱ
learnedȱfromȱtheȱcomparisonȱwithȱSadduceansȱinȱearlierȱtimes.ȱAsȱwasȱ
pointedȱoutȱbyȱMenachemȱMor55,ȱtheȱJewishnessȱofȱtheȱSadduceanȱsectȱ
wasȱ neverȱ questionedȱ byȱ theȱ Phariseesȱ orȱ laterȱ byȱ theȱ Rabbis,ȱ onȱ
groundsȱthatȱtheyȱdeniedȱtheȱresurrectionȱofȱtheȱdead.ȱ
Thereforeȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ resurrectionȱ mightȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ soȱ imporȬ
tantȱ forȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ itȱ wasȱ forȱ rabbinicȱ Jewsȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ TalȬ
mudicȱ period,ȱ especiallyȱ afterȱ asȱ aȱ definiteȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ textȱ
hadȱ beenȱ canonisedȱ andȱ gainedȱ currency.ȱ Ifȱ thisȱ wasȱ so,ȱ theȱ ratherȱ
literaryȱ referenceȱ toȱ tehiyyatȱ haȬmetim,ȱ theȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ theȱ dead,ȱ atȱ
theȱ endȱ ofȱ Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ canȱ bestȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ pointingȱ toȱ aȱ
ratherȱ lateȱ dateȱ ofȱ compositionȱ forȱ thisȱ apparentlyȱ earlyȱ “Tannaitic”ȱ
textȱ–ȱperhapsȱnotȱonlyȱafterȱtheȱfinalȱbreachȱwithȱtheȱSamaritans56ȱbutȱ
moreȱ preciselyȱ afterȱ theȱ redactionȱ ofȱ theȱ Bavli,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ earliestȱ
conceivableȱ timeȱ wouldȱ beȱ afterȱ theȱ redactionȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ YeruȬ
shalmi.57ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedalya,ȱ Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ Tradition,ȱ in:ȱ
Alon,ȱ Gedalya,ȱ Jews,ȱ Judaismȱ andȱ theȱ Classicalȱ World.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Jewishȱ
Historyȱ inȱ theȱ Timesȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ andȱ Talmud,ȱ translatedȱ fromȱ
theȱ Hebrewȱ byȱ ABRAMS,ȱ Israel,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1977,ȱ 354Ȭ373ȱ (firstȱ publishedȱinȱ
HebrewȱinȱTarbizȱ18ȱ[1947]ȱandȱreprintedȱinȱhisȱMehqarimȱbeȬToledotȱYisra’elȱ
biȬymeȱ baytȱ sheniȱ uȬviȬtqufatȱ haȬMishnaȱ weȬhaȬTalmud,ȱ Vol.ȱ II,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
31983,ȱ1Ȭ14.ȱȱ
AVERYȬPECK,ȱ Alanȱ J.ȱ /ȱ NEUSNER,ȱ Jacobȱ (eds.),ȱ Death,ȱ LifeȬAfterȬDeath,ȱ ResurȬ

rectionȱandȱtheȱWorldȬtoȬComeȱinȱtheȱJudaismsȱofȱAntiquity,ȱLeidenȱ2000.ȱ
BACHER,ȱ Wilhelm,ȱ Dieȱ Agadaȱ derȱ palästinensischenȱ Amoräer,ȱ Vol.ȱ III,ȱ
Hildesheimȱ1992ȱ(Strassburgȱ1899)ȱ592Ȭ594.ȱ
BACHER,ȱWilhelm,ȱDieȱAgadaȱderȱTannaiten,ȱVol.ȱI,ȱStraßburgȱ1903.ȱ
BACHER,ȱ Wilhelm,ȱ Rabbiȱ Meirȱ andȱ ‘Cleopatra’,ȱ in:ȱ Jewishȱ Quarterlyȱ Reviewȱ 2ȱ
(1890)ȱ188.ȱ
BENȬHAYYIM,ȱZeev,ȱTibåtȱMårqe.ȱAȱCollectionȱofȱSamaritanȱMidrashim.ȱEdited,ȱ
TranslatedȱandȱAnnotated,ȱJerusalemȱ1988ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
55ȱȱ ThisȱhasȱbeenȱemphazisedȱbyȱMOR,ȱSamaria,ȱ237Ȭ238.ȱȱ
56ȱȱ SeeȱonȱthisȱLEHNARDT,ȱTalmudȬTraktat,ȱ123,ȱandȱcf.ȱonȱthisȱPUMMER,ȱRabbis,ȱ31Ȭ40.ȱ
57ȱȱ Forȱ furtherȱ evidenceȱ seeȱ LEHNARDT,ȱ Massekhetȱ Tefillin,ȱ 29Ȭ72;ȱ LEHNARDT,ȱ MasȬ
sekhetȱMezuza,ȱ46Ȭ54.ȱ
BERMANN,ȱ Mortonȱ Mayer,ȱ Taglicht,ȱ in:ȱ Encyclopediaȱ Judaicaȱ 15,ȱ Jerusalemȱ

1971.ȱ
BILLERBECK,ȱPaulȱ/ȱSTRACK,ȱ Hermannȱ(eds.),ȱKommentarȱzumȱNeuenȱTestamentȱ
ausȱTalmudȱundȱMidrasch,ȱVol.ȱI:ȱDasȱEvangeliumȱnachȱMatthäus,ȱMunichȱ
101994.ȱ
BRODY,ȱRobert,ȱTheȱGeonimȱofȱBabyloniaȱandȱtheȱShapingȱofȱMedievalȱJewishȱ
Culture,ȱNewȱHaven,ȱCTȱ/ȱLondonȱ1998.ȱ
BÜCHLER,ȱ Alphons,ȱ Lesȱ Dosithéensȱ dansȱ leȱ Midrasch.ȱ L’interditȱ prononcéȱ
contreȱ lesȱ Samaritainsȱ dasȱ lesȱ Pirkéȱ diȱ R.ȱ Éliézer,ȱ XXXVIIIȱ etȱ Tanhouma,ȱ
ʡʹʩʥ,ȱ§ȱ3,ȱin:ȱRevueȱdesȱÉtudesȱJuivesȱ42ȱ(1901)ȱ50Ȭ71.ȱ
COHEN,ȱ Abraham,ȱ Ecclesiastes,ȱ in:ȱ FREEDMAN,ȱ Harryȱ /ȱ SIMON,ȱ Mauriceȱ (eds.),ȱ
MidrashȱRabbah.ȱTranslatedȱunderȱ...,ȱLondonȱ1951.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.,ȱ Aȱ Bibliographyȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ Secondȱ Editionȱ (ATLAȱ
BibliographyȱSeriesȱ32),ȱMetuchen,ȱNJȱ/ȱLondonȱ1993.ȱ
DEXINGER,ȱFerdinand,ȱEschatology,ȱin:ȱCROWN,ȱAlanȱD./ȱPUMMER,ȱReinhardȱ/ȱTAL,ȱ
Abrahamȱ(eds.),ȱCompanionȱtoȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱTübingenȱ1993,ȱ86Ȭ90.ȱ
DEXINGER,ȱFerdinand,ȱAfterȱLife,ȱin:ȱCROWN,ȱAlanȱD.ȱ/ȱPUMMER,ȱReinhardȱ/ȱTAL,ȱ
Abrahamȱ(eds.),ȱAȱCompanionȱtoȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱTübingenȱ1993,ȱ9Ȭ10.ȱ
DEXINGER,ȱ Ferdinand,ȱ Samaritanȱ Eschatology,ȱ in:ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ
Samaritans,ȱTübingenȱ1989,ȱ266Ȭ292.ȱ
DEXINGER,ȱ Ferdinandȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Samaritaner,ȱ Wegeȱ derȱ
Forschungȱ604,ȱDarmstadtȱ1992.ȱ
EGGER,ȱ Rita,ȱ Josephusȱ Flaviusȱ undȱ dieȱ Samaritaner.ȱ Eineȱ terminologischeȱ UnȬ
tersuchungȱ zurȱ Identitätsklärungȱ derȱ Samaritanerȱ (NTOAȱ 4),ȱ Fribourgȱ /ȱ
Göttingenȱ1986.ȱ
FINKELSTEIN,ȱ Louis,ȱ Siphreȱ adȱ Deuteronomiumȱ (Corpusȱ Tannaiticumȱ 2,3.2),ȱ
Berlinȱ1939ȱ(1969).ȱȱ
FRIEDLANDER,ȱMichael,ȱ„TehilatȱperushȱshirȱhaȬshirim“,ȱin:ȱFSȱzumȱachtzigstenȱ
GeburtstageȱMoritzȱSteinschneiders,ȱLeipzigȱ1869,ȱ49Ȭ59ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
GAFNI,ȱYeshayahu,ȱHaȬyahasimȱbeynȱhaȬYehudimȱweȬhaȬshomronimȱbiȬtqufatȱ
haȬMishnaȱ weȬhaȬTalmud,ȱ unpublishedȱ M.A.ȬThesis,ȱ Hebrewȱ University,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1969ȱ(Hebrew).ȱȱ
GASTER,ȱMoses,ȱSamaritanȱEschatology.ȱTheȱBeliefȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱImmorȬ
tality,ȱ Resurrection,ȱ Futureȱ Punishmentȱ andȱ Reward,ȱ Theȱ Tahebȱ andȱ theȱ
SecondȱKingdom,ȱTranslatedȱfromȱHithertoȱIneditedȱManuscript,ȱLeicesterȱ
1932,ȱ43Ȭ53.ȱ
GESENIUS,ȱWilhelm,ȱCarminaȱSamaritanaȱeȱcodicibusȱLondinensibusȱetȱGothanisȱ
edititȱ etȱ interpretationeȱ Latinaȱ cumȱ commentarioȱ illustravit,ȱ Anecdotaȱ
Orientalia,ȱLeipzigȱ1824.ȱȱ
GULKOWITSCH,ȱ Lazar,ȱ Derȱ kleineȱ Talmudtraktatȱ überȱ dieȱ Samaritaner,ȱ in:ȱ

Angelos.ȱ Archivȱ fürȱ neutestamentlicheȱ Zeitgeschichteȱ undȱ Kulturkundeȱ 1ȱ
(1925)ȱ46Ȭ56.ȱ
HEINEMANN,ȱJoseph,ȱAntiȬSamaritanȱPolemicsȱinȱtheȱAggadah,ȱin:ȱProceedingsȱ
ofȱ theȱ Worldȱ Congressȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Studiesȱ III,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1977,ȱ 23Ȭ35ȱ =ȱ
Heinemann,ȱJoseph,ȱAggadahȱandȱitsȱDevelopment,ȱJerusalemȱ1974,ȱ91Ȭ102ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
HERSHKOVITZ,ȱY.,ȱHaȬKutimȱbeȬdivreȱhaȬTanna’im,ȱin:ȱYavneȱ2ȱ(1940)ȱ71Ȭ105.ȱ
HIGGER,ȱ Michaelȱ (ed.),ȱ Sevenȱ Minorȱ Treatises.ȱ Seferȱ Torah;ȱ Mezuzah,ȱ Tefillin;ȱ
Zizit,ȱȆAbadim;ȱKutim;ȱGerim.ȱandȱTreatiseȱSoferimȱII,ȱEditedȱfromȱManuȬ
scriptȱ withȱ anȱ Introduction,ȱ Notes,ȱ Variantsȱ andȱ Translation,ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ
1930ȱ(1971).ȱ
HILDESHEIMERȱ,ȱEsrielȱ(ed.),ȱHalakhotȱGedolot,ȱBerlinȱ1888.ȱ
HIRSHMAN,ȱ Marcȱ G.,ȱ Midrashȱ Qoheletȱ Rabba,ȱ Chaptersȱ 1Ȭ4,ȱ Dissertationȱ JTSȱ
NewȱYork,ȱAnnȱArbor,ȱMIȱ1982.ȱ
HJELM,ȱIngrid,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱandȱEarlyȱJudaism.ȱAȱLiteraryȱAnalysisȱ(JSOT.Sȱ
303;ȱCopenhagenȱInternationalȱSeminarȱ7),ȱSheffieldȱ2000.ȱ
HOROVITZ,ȱ Hayyimȱ Shaulȱ (ed.),ȱ Siphreȱ d’beȱ Rab:ȱ Siphreȱ adȱ Numerosȱ adjectoȱ
Siphreȱzuttaȱ(CorpusȱTannaiticumȱ3),ȱLeipzigȱ1917ȱ(1966).ȱ
ISSER,ȱStanleyȱJ.,ȱTheȱDositheans.ȱAȱSamaritanȱSectȱinȱLateȱAntiquityȱ(SJLAȱ17),ȱ
KAHANA,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Manuscriptsȱ ofȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ Midrashim.ȱ Anȱ Annotatedȱ
Catalogue,ȱJerusalemȱ1995ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KELLEY,ȱPageȱH.ȱ/ȱMYNATT,ȱDanielȱS.ȱ/ȱCRAWFORD,ȱTimothyȱG.,ȱDieȱMasoraȱderȱ
Biblicaȱ Hebraicaȱ Stuttgartensia.ȱ Einführungȱ undȱ kommentiertesȱ Glossar,ȱ
Stuttgartȱ2003.ȱ
KIPPENBERG,ȱ Hansȱ G.,ȱ Garizimȱ undȱ Synagoge.ȱ Traditionsgeschichtlicheȱ UnterȬ
suchungenȱ zurȱ samaritanischenȱ Religionȱ derȱ aramäischenȱ Periodeȱ (ReliȬ
gionsgeschichtlicheȱVersucheȱundȱVorarbeitenȱ30),ȱBerlinȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ1971.ȱ
KIRCHHEIM,ȱRaphael,ȱKarmeȱShomron.ȱPetihaȱleȬMassekhetȱKutim:ȱIntroductioȱ
inȱlibrumȱ„deȱSamaritanis“,ȱquaeȱilliusȱhaeresisȱhistoriam,ȱtheologiam,ȱritusȱ
etȱ literarumȱ monumentaȱ tractat.ȱ Additaȱ estȱ epistolaȱ clarissimiȱ doctissiȬ
miqueȱS.ȱD.ȱLuzzatoȱdeȱscripturaȱSamaritana,ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.ȱ1851ȱ(1970).ȱ
KIRCHHEIM,ȱRaphael,ȱSeptemȱlibriȱTalmudiciȱparviȱHierosolymitani,ȱquosȱnuncȱ
primumȱ secundumȱ M’sȱ bibliotecaȱ carissimiȱ Carmolii,ȱ ediditȱ inȱ eosqueȱ
commentarium,ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.ȱ1851.ȱ
KONOVITZ,ȱIsrael,ȱTannaiticȱSymposia.ȱCompleteȱCollectedȱSayings,ȱinȱHalakahȱ
andȱ Aggadah,ȱ inȱ theȱ Talmudicȱ andȱ Midrashicȱ Literature.ȱ Topicallyȱ ArȬ
ranged,ȱVol.ȱIV,ȱJerusalemȱ1969,ȱ117Ȭ156ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
LEHNARDT,ȱAndreas,ȱBibliographieȱzuȱdenȱJüdischenȱSchriftenȱausȱhellenistischȬ
römischerȱ Zeitȱ (Jüdischeȱ Schriftenȱ ausȱ hellenistischȬrömischerȱ Zeitȱ
SupplementaȱVI/2),ȱGüterslohȱ1999.ȱ
LEHNARDT,ȱ Andreas,ȱ Massekhetȱ Mezuzaȱ –ȱ derȱ kleineȱ talmudischeȱ Traktatȱ vonȱ
derȱTürpfostenkapsel,ȱin:ȱJud.ȱ63ȱ(2007)ȱ46Ȭ54.ȱ
LEHNARDT,ȱ Andreas,ȱ Massekhetȱ Tefillinȱ –ȱ Beobachtungenȱ zurȱ literarischenȱ
GeneseȱeinesȱkleinenȱTalmudȬTraktates,ȱin:ȱHERRMANN,ȱKlausȱ/ȱSCHLÜTER,ȱ
Margareteȱ /ȱ VELTRI,ȱ Giuseppeȱ (eds.),ȱ Jewishȱ Studiesȱ Betweenȱ theȱ DisciȬ
plinesȱ–ȱJudaistikȱzwischenȱdenȱDisziplinen,ȱLondonȱ/ȱBostonȱ2003,ȱMAȱ29Ȭ
72.ȱ
LEHNARDT,ȱ Andreas,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ (Kutim)ȱ inȱ theȱ Talmudȱ Yerushalmi:ȱ
Constructsȱofȱ‘RabbinicȱMind’ȱorȱReflectionsȱofȱSocialȱReality?,ȱin:ȱSCHÄFER,ȱ
Peterȱ(ed.),ȱTheȱTalmudȱYerushalmiȱandȱGraecoȬRomanȱCultureȱIIIȱ(Textsȱ
andȱStudiesȱinȱAncientȱJudaismȱ93),ȱTübingenȱ2002,ȱ139Ȭ160.ȱ
LEHNARDT,ȱ Andreas,ȱ Dasȱ außerkanonischeȱ TalmudȬTraktatȱ Kutimȱ (SamariȬ
taner)ȱinȱderȱinnerrabbinischenȱÜberlieferung,ȱin:ȱFJBȱ26ȱ(1999)ȱ111Ȭ123.ȱ
LERNER,ȱ Meronȱ B.,ȱ Theȱ Externalȱ Tractates,ȱ in:ȱ Safrai,ȱ Shmuelȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ LiteraȬ
tureȱ ofȱ theȱ Sagesȱ I.ȱ Corpusȱ Rerumȱ Iudaicarumȱ adȱ Novumȱ Testamentumȱ
II/3,ȱAssenȱ/ȱMaastrichtȱ/ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1987,ȱ367Ȭ404.ȱ
LICHTENBERGER,ȱHermann,ȱAuferstehungȱinȱdenȱQumranfunden,ȱin:ȱAVEMARIE,ȱ
Friedrichȱ /ȱ LICHTENBERGER,ȱ Hermannȱ (eds.),ȱ Auferstehungȱ –ȱ Resurrection,ȱ
Tübingenȱ2001,ȱ79Ȭȱ94.ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱSaul,ȱShkiin.ȱAȱFewȱWordsȱonȱSomeȱJewishȱLegends,ȱCustomsȱandȱ
Literaryȱ Sourcesȱ Foundȱ inȱ Karaiteȱ andȱ Christianȱ Works,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 21992ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
LURIA,ȱDavid,ȱin:ȱPirqeȱdeȬRabbiȱEliézer,ȱWarshawȱ1852.ȱ
MACDONALD,ȱ John,ȱ Memarȱ Marqah.ȱ Theȱ Teachingȱ ofȱ Marqahȱ IIȱ (Beihefteȱ zurȱ
ZeitschriftȱfürȱAlttestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱ84),ȱBerlinȱ1963.ȱ
MACDONALD,ȱJohn,ȱTheȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱLondonȱ1964.ȱ
MARGULIES,ȱMordecaiȱ(ed.),ȱMidrashȱLeviticusȱRabbah.ȱSifreȱNumbersȱDeuteroȬ
nomy,ȱCodexȱVaticanȱ32ȱ(Vat.ȱEbr.ȱ32),ȱJerusalemȱ1972.ȱ
MONTGOMERY,ȱ Jamesȱ A.,ȱ Theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ Earliestȱ Jewishȱ Sect.ȱ Theirȱ HisȬ
tory,ȱTheology,ȱandȱLiterature,ȱIntroductionȱbyȱ Halkin,ȱAbrahamȱSalomom,ȱ
TheȱBohlenȱLecturesȱforȱ1906,ȱPhiladelphia,ȱPAȱ1907,ȱ175Ȭ176.ȱ
MOR,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Fromȱ Samariaȱ toȱ Shechem.ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Communityȱ inȱ
Antiquity,ȱJerusalemȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
NEUSNER,ȱ Jacob,ȱ Judaismȱ inȱ Lateȱ Antiquityȱ 2ȱ (Handbookȱ ofȱ Orientalȱ Studies.ȱ
Sectionȱ1,ȱTheȱNearȱandȱMiddleȱEastȱ17),ȱLeidenȱ1994.ȱ
NEUSNER,ȱJacob,ȱSifréȱtoȱNumbers.ȱAnȱAmericanȱTranslationȱandȱExplanation,ȱ
Vol.ȱ 2:ȱ Sifréȱ toȱ Numbersȱ 59Ȭ115ȱ (Brownȱ Judaicȱ Studiesȱ 119),ȱ Atlanta,ȱ GAȱ
1986.ȱ
POPPER,ȱWilliam,ȱTheȱCensorshipȱofȱHebrewȱBooks,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1969.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱEarlyȱChristianȱAuthorsȱonȱSamaritansȱandȱSamaritanism.ȱ
Texts,ȱ Translationsȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ (Textsȱ andȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ JudaȬ
ismȱ92),ȱTübingenȱ2002.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱMassekhetȱKutim,ȱin:ȱCROWN,ȱAlanȱD.ȱ/ȱPUMMER,ȱReinhardȱ/ȱ
TAL,ȱAvrahamȱ(eds.),ȱAȱCompanionȱtoȱSamaritanȱStudies,ȱTübingenȱ1993.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱReinhard,ȱTheȱRabbisȱandȱSamaritanȱCircumcision,ȱin:ȱDACY,ȱMarianȬ
neȱ /ȱ DOWLING,ȱ Jenniferȱ /ȱ FAIGAN,ȱ Suzanneȱ (ed.),ȱ Feastsȱ andȱ Fasts.ȱ Aȱ FestȬ
schriftȱinȱHonourȱofȱAlanȱDavidȱCrown,ȱSydneyȱ2005,ȱ31Ȭ40.ȱ
RABBINOVICZ,ȱ Raphaelȱ Nathanȱ Nata,ȱ Seferȱ Diqduqeȱ Soferim,ȱ Bd.ȱ X,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
2002ȱ(Munichȱ1869).ȱ
SAFRAI,ȱ Samuel,ȱ Theȱ Termȱ derekhȱ eretz,ȱ in:ȱ Tarbizȱ 60ȱ (1990/91)ȱ 147Ȭ162ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
SCHIFFMAN,ȱ Lawrenceȱ H.,ȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Tannaiticȱ Halakha,ȱ in:ȱ JQRȱ 75ȱ (1985)ȱ
323Ȭ350.ȱ
SCHOLEM,ȱGershom,ȱUrsprungȱundȱAnfängeȱderȱKabbalaȱ(SJȱ3),ȱBerlinȱ1962.ȱ
STEMBERGER,ȱGünter,ȱEinleitungȱinȱTalmudȱundȱMidrasch,ȱMunichȱ81992.ȱ
STEMBERGER,ȱGünter,ȱReaktionenȱaufȱdieȱTempelzerstörungȱinȱderȱRabbinischenȱ
Literatur,ȱin:ȱ Hahn,ȱJohannesȱ(ed.),ȱZerstörungenȱdesȱJerusalemerȱTempelsȱ
(WUNTȱ147),ȱTübingenȱ2002,ȱ207Ȭ236.ȱ
TAGLICHT,ȱ Israel,ȱ Dieȱ Kuthäerȱ alsȱ Beobachterȱ desȱ Gesetzesȱ nachȱ talmudischenȱ
Quellenȱ nebstȱ Berücksichtigungȱ derȱ samaritanischenȱ Correspondenzȱ undȱ
Liturgie,ȱDissertationȱErlangen,ȱBerlinȱ1888.ȱ
WÜNSCHE,ȱAugust,ȱDerȱMidraschȱKohelet,ȱBibliothecaȱRabbinicaȱI,ȱHildesheimȱ/ȱ
Zürichȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ1993)ȱ(Leipzigȱ1880).ȱ
ZANGENBERG,ȱJürgen,ȱSamareia.ȱAntikeȱQuellenȱzurȱGeschichteȱundȱKulturȱderȱ
SamaritanerȱinȱdeutscherȱÜbersetzungȱ(TANZȱ15),ȱTübingenȱ1994.ȱȱȱ
ȱ

SomeȱNotesȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱRabbinicȱ
ClassȱatȱtheȱCrossroadsȱ
EMMANUELȱFRIEDHEIMȱ
Relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Jewsȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ steadilyȱ worsened,ȱ

becomingȱ everȱ moreȱ complicated,ȱ throughoutȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ
period.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ fragmentaryȱ andȱ scatteredȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ extantȱ
sources,ȱtheyȱneverthelessȱenableȱusȱtoȱreconstruct,ȱtoȱaȱcertainȱdegree,ȱ
theȱ reciprocalȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ communities.ȱ Theȱ
relationsȱbetweenȱtheȱJewsȱandȱtheȱSamaritansȱduringȱthisȱperiodȱwereȱ
generallyȱ chargedȱ andȱ infusedȱ withȱ hatredȱ forȱ theȱ opposingȱ group.ȱ
Thisȱenmityȱwasȱalreadyȱexpressed,ȱforȱexample,ȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
Hellenisticȱ periodȱ duringȱ theȱ conquestȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ byȱ
AlexanderȱtheȱGreatȱinȱ331ȱBCE,1ȱandȱtheseȱrelationsȱbecameȱevenȱmoreȱ
problematicȱ duringȱ theȱ Hasmoneanȱ period,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Jewsȱ conqueredȱ
extensiveȱ portionsȱ ofȱ Samaria.ȱ Inȱ 128Ȭ127ȱ BCEȱ Johnȱ Hyrcanusȱ Iȱ
conqueredȱtheȱcityȱofȱShechemȱandȱMountȱGerizimȱandȱdestroyedȱtheȱ
Samaritanȱtemple.2ȱOnlyȱinȱtheȱtimeȱofȱHerodȱ(37Ȭ4ȱBCE)ȱdoȱweȱhearȱofȱ
certainȱ concessionsȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ grantedȱ byȱ theȱ Romanȱ vassal,ȱ
probablyȱ resultingȱ fromȱ theȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theȱ Hasmoneansȱ thatȱ thisȱ
rulerȱ sharedȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Theȱ politicalȱ andȱ militaryȱ actionsȱ
takenȱagainstȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱalsoȱimpressedȱinȱtheȱconsciousnessȱ
ofȱ Jewishȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ periodȱ authors.ȱ Benȱ Siraȱ representativelyȱ
declares:ȱ “Withȱ twoȱ nationsȱ myȱ soulȱ isȱ vexed,ȱ andȱ theȱ thirdȱ isȱ noȱ
nation;ȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ Seir,ȱ andȱ theȱ Philistines,ȱ andȱ theȱ foolishȱ
1ȱȱȱ Josephus,ȱ Antiquities,ȱ 11,ȱ 317Ȭ345;ȱ NOAM,ȱ Megillat,ȱ 100Ȭ101;ȱ BTȱ Yoma,ȱ 69a;ȱ BTȱ
Tamid,ȱ 27b;ȱ HAPARCHI,ȱ Kaftor,ȱ 74Ȭ75.ȱ Aȱ lateȱ Samaritanȱ chronicleȱ confirmsȱ thisȱ
statement,ȱ cf.ȱ ADLERȱ /ȱ SELIGSOHN,ȱ Chronique,ȱ 223Ȭ254;ȱ CROSS,ȱ Aspects,ȱ 201Ȭ211.ȱ
ArchaeologicalȱexcavationsȱprovedȱthatȱtheȱSamaritanȱtempleȱonȱMtȱGarizimȱalreadyȱ
existedȱ inȱ 5thȱ centuryȱ BCE,ȱ inȱ theȱ Persianȱ periodȱ see:ȱ MAGEN,ȱ Mt.ȱ Garizim,ȱ 74Ȭ118,ȱ
contra:ȱESHEL,ȱPrayer,ȱ125Ȭ136;ȱESHEL,ȱWâdiȱEdȬDâliyeh,ȱ359Ȭ365.ȱ
2ȱȱ 1Macc.ȱ 10,30.38;ȱ Josephus,ȱ War,ȱ 1,ȱ 2,ȱ 7;ȱ SAFRAI,ȱ Shechem,ȱ 83.ȱ Contraȱ SCHÜRER,ȱ
History,ȱ161.ȱȱ
194 EmmanuelȱFriedheim
peopleȱ thatȱ liveȱ inȱ Shechem.“3ȱ Anotherȱ apocryphalȱ composition,ȱ Theȱ

TestamentȱofȱLevi,ȱrefersȱtoȱShechemȱasȱ“theȱcityȱofȱtheȱfoolish.ȱ“4ȱTheȱ
NewȱTestamentȱsimilarlyȱreflectsȱtheȱinimicalȱstateȱofȱJewishȬSamaritanȱ
relations;5ȱFlaviusȱJosephusȱchargesȱtheȱSamaritansȱwithȱhypocrisy,ȱandȱ
observesȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱGreeksȱknowȱthemȱasȱ“̕΅ΐ΅ΕΉϧΘ΅΍,“ theȱJewsȱ
callȱthemȱbyȱtheȱdenigratoryȱepithet “̙ΓΙΌ΅ϧΓ΍,“6ȱasȱtoȱsayȱthat,ȱdespiteȱ
theȱcenturiesȬlongȱSamaritanȱsettlementȱinȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsrael,ȱtheyȱareȱ
stillȱ aȱ foreignȱ elementȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ thatȱ originatedȱ inȱ Cuth.ȱ Generallyȱ
speaking,ȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱalienatedȱfromȱtheȱJewishȱpeopleȱduringȱ
theȱSecondȱTempleȱperiod.7ȱ
Theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ communitiesȱ apparentlyȱ improvedȱ
somewhatȱ followingȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ Templeȱ inȱ 70ȱ CE,ȱ inȱ
consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ harshȱ attitudeȱ adoptedȱ byȱ theȱ Romansȱ toȱ bothȱ
ethnicȱgroups.ȱThus,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱbanȱagainstȱcircumcisionȱ(beforeȱ
orȱ afterȱ theȱ BarȬKokhbaȱ rebellion)ȱ wasȱ appliedȱ toȱ bothȱ Jewsȱ andȱ
Samaritans;8ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ asȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Jeanȱ Justerȱ haveȱ
exhaustivelyȱdemonstratedȱinȱtheȱfirstȱquarterȱofȱtheȱtwentiethȱcentury,ȱ
theȱ Jewsȱ enjoyedȱ aȱ privilegedȱ statusȱ underȱ Romanȱ law,ȱ whileȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ part,ȱ wereȱ notȱ grantedȱ theȱ sameȱ privileges.9ȱ
Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ asȱ regardsȱ religiousȱ prohibitions,ȱ Romanȱ lawȱ regardedȱ
theȱSamaritansȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱJews,ȱbutȱdidȱnotȱequateȱtheȱtwoȱgroupsȱ
inȱitsȱgrantingȱofȱprivileges.ȱThisȱfact,ȱcoupledȱwithȱtheȱdisappearanceȱ
ofȱ theȱ twoȱ rivalȱ templesȱ (oneȱ onȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ onȱ theȱ
Templeȱ Mount),ȱ thatȱ hadȱ beenȱ aȱ perpetualȱ focalȱ pointȱ ofȱ dissensionȱ
betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ ethnicȱ groups,ȱ providedȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ withȱ anȱ
incentiveȱ toȱ drawȱ closerȱ toȱ theȱ Jews.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ revolts,ȱ
thatȱ paralleledȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Greatȱ Revoltȱ inȱ 66ȱ CEȱ andȱ theȱ Barȱ Kokhbaȱ
rebellionȱ inȱ 132ȱ probablyȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ forgingȱ ofȱ anȱ alliance,ȱ sealedȱ inȱ
3ȱȱ Sirȱ 50,25Ȭ26;ȱ SMEND,ȱ Weisheit,ȱ 490Ȭ491;ȱ BEENTJES,ȱ Book,ȱ 90: ʩʹʴʰ ʤʶʷ ʭʩʥʢ ʩʰʹʡ"
"ʭʫʹʡ ʸʣʤ ʬʡʰ ʩʥʢʥ ʺʹʬʴʥ ʸʩʲʹ ʩʡʹʥʩ ,ʭʲ ʥʰʰʩʠ ʺʩʹʩʬʹʤʥȱ
4ȱȱ TestamentȱofȱLevi,ȱ7,ȱ2ȱin:ȱPHILONENKO,ȱBible,ȱ842.ȱ
5 ȱȱ Seeȱforȱinstanceȱ:ȱLuke,ȱ9,ȱ51Ȭ53;ȱJohn,ȱ4,ȱ9.ȱ
6ȱȱ Josephus,ȱ Antiquities,ȱ11,ȱ341;ȱ9,ȱ290;ȱ12,ȱ257Ȭ264.ȱSometimes,ȱJosephus’ȱrelationȱ toȬ
wardsȱtheȱSamaritansȱisȱmoreȱnuanced,ȱseeȱFELDMAN,ȱJosephus’ȱAttitude,ȱ114Ȭ136.ȱ
7ȱȱ SeeȱneverthelessȱALON,ȱJews,ȱ562.ȱ
8ȱȱ Origen,ȱ Contraȱ Celsum,ȱ 2,ȱ 13ȱ (ed.ȱ KOETSCHAU,ȱ I,ȱ 142);ȱ GASTER,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 37;ȱ
MONTGOMERY,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 90Ȭ92;ȱ ALON,ȱ Jews,ȱ 25;ȱ HADASȬLEBEL,ȱ Jérusalem,ȱ 185;ȱ
MOR,ȱSamaria,ȱ186.ȱContraȱMANTEL,ȱCauses,ȱ235.ȱ
9ȱȱ JUSTER,ȱ Juifs,ȱ 213Ȭ290.338Ȭ390;ȱ etȱ al.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ juridicalȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱwhoȱdidȱnotȱbenefitȱtheȱsameȱmeasures,ȱsee,ȱRABELLO,ȱSamaritans,ȱ481.ȱȱ
ȱ SomeȱNotesȱaboutȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱRabbinicȱClassȱatȱtheȱCrossroads 195ȱ
blood,ȱ betweenȱ theȱ Jewsȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ againstȱ Rome,ȱ theirȱ newȱ
commonȱenemy.10ȱ
ThereȱareȱreportsȱfromȱtheȱYavnehȱgenerationȱ(70Ȭ132ȱCE)ȱ–ȱandȱtoȱ
someȱextent,ȱafterȱtheȱBarȱKokhbaȱrevolt,ȱasȱwellȱ–ȱofȱessentiallyȱcorrectȱ
relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Rabbisȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Firstly,ȱ theȱ Rabbisȱ
speakȱ moreȱ frequentlyȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ aȱ factȱ thatȱ
ensuedȱ fromȱ Samaritanȱ expansion,ȱ mainlyȱ afterȱ 135ȱ CE,ȱ beyondȱ theȱ
geographicalȱboundsȱofȱSamaria.11ȱThisȱheightenedȱlevelȱofȱreferenceȱisȱ
expressed,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ theȱ fascinatingȱ statementȱ byȱ R.ȱ Abbahuȱ
(fourthȱcenturyȱCE)ȱthatȱ“Thirteenȱtownsȱwereȱ[permanently]ȱsettledȱbyȱ
Cutheansȱduringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱpersecutionsȱ[i.e.,ȱsomeȱprohibitionsȱagainstȱ
theȱ observanceȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ issuedȱ towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Barȱ Kokhbaȱ
uprising].ȱ“12ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱfromȱthatȱtimeȱonȱSamaritansȱwouldȱliveȱinȱ
Jewishȱ settlementsȱ ledȱ toȱ anȱ intensificationȱ ofȱ neighbourlyȱ relationsȱ
betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ ethnicȱ groups.ȱ Indeed,ȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ halakhotȱ highlightȱ
theȱ correctȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ theȱ Jewsȱ duringȱ thisȱ
period.ȱThus,ȱforȱexample,ȱaȱJewȱmayȱtakeȱlodgingsȱwithȱaȱSamaritan;13ȱ
benefitȱ mayȱ beȱ derivedȱ fromȱ fruitsȱ grownȱ byȱ aȱ Samaritan;14ȱ theȱ
testimonyȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱisȱvalidȱinȱcivilȱlaw,15ȱandȱespeciallyȱinȱdivorceȱ
proceedings;16ȱsomeȱofȱtheȱRabbisȱconsideredȱtheȱSamaritansȱtoȱbeȱ“trueȱ
converts“ȱ (ʺʮʠ ʩʸʢ);17ȱ aȱ Jewȱmayȱfulfillȱ hisȱ obligationȱ toȱ eatȱ matzahȱ onȱ
Pesahȱ withȱ theȱ unleavenedȱ breadȱ ofȱ Samaritans.18ȱ Asȱ aȱ generalȱ rule,ȱ
dishesȱ preparedȱ byȱ Cutheansȱ mayȱ beȱ consumedȱ byȱ Jews.ȱ Moreover,ȱ
someȱSamaritansȱareȱmoreȱpunctiliousȱinȱtheirȱobservanceȱofȱtheȱcomȬ
10ȱȱ KIRCHEIM,ȱ Introductioȱ 10Ȭ12;ȱ MONTGOMERY,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 189;ȱ ALON,ȱ Jews,ȱ 24Ȭ26;ȱ
GASTER,ȱSamaritans,ȱ37.ȱJosephusȱnotesȱthatȱSextusȱVettulenusȱCerealisȱkilledȱ11,600ȱ
SamaritansȱwhoȱroseȱupȱagainstȱRomeȱinȱtheȱMountȱGerizimȱareaȱduringȱtheȱcourseȱ
ofȱ theȱ Greatȱ Revolt,ȱ see:ȱ Josephus,ȱ War,ȱ 3.7.32.ȱ Josephusȱ presentsȱ thisȱ rebellionȱ asȱ
independent,ȱbut,ȱaȱcorrelationȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱrevoltȱisȱnotȱunlikely.ȱConcerningȱtheȱ
probableȱparticipationȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱBarȱKokhbaȱrevoltȱorȱparallelȱtoȱthisȱ
rebellionȱ againstȱ Rome,ȱ see:ȱ MOR,ȱ BarȬKochbaȱ Revolt,ȱ 171Ȭ181,ȱ esp.ȱ 181.ȱ Contraȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱSamaritans,ȱ730:ȱ“TheȱSamaritanȱtempleȱwas…ȱrebuiltȱbyȱtheȱRomansȱasȱaȱ
rewardȱ forȱ theȱ aidȱ givenȱ toȱ themȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ duringȱ theȱ BarȬKokhbaȱ
rebellion.”ȱ
11ȱȱ COGGINS,ȱSamaritans,ȱ93Ȭ99.138Ȭ148;ȱSAFRAI,ȱHistory,ȱ127Ȭ157.ȱ
12ȱ PTȱYevamotȱ8:3ȱ(9d);ȱPTȱKidushinȱ4:1ȱ(55d).ȱSeeȱalso:ȱPTȱAbodahȱZarah,ȱ5:ȱ4ȱ(44d);ȱ
Deut.ȱRabba,ȱ2:ȱ33.ȱ
13ȱȱ BTȱMoedȱQatan,ȱ9b.ȱ
14ȱȱ ToseftaȱDemai,ȱ4,27ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ83);ȱToseftaȱDemai,ȱ4,ȱ24ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ82).ȱȱ
15ȱȱ ToseftaȱGittin,ȱ1,4ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ246Ȭ247);ȱBTȱBabaȱQamma¸38b.ȱ
16ȱȱ MishnaȱGittin,ȱ1,5;ȱToseftaȱGittin,ȱ1,4ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ246Ȭ247);ȱPTȱGittin,ȱ1:ȱ4ȱ(43d).ȱ
17ȱȱ BTȱBabaȱQamma,ȱ38b;ȱBTȱSanhedrin,ȱ85b;ȱBTȱHulin,ȱ3b;ȱBTȱNida,ȱ56b.ȱ
18ȱȱȱ ToseftaȱPasseha,ȱ2ȱ(1)ȱ3ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ145).ȱ
mandmentsȱthanȱtheȱJewsȱthemselves,ȱasȱisȱattestedȱbyȱRabbanȱSimeonȱ
benȱGamalielȱII:ȱ“TheȱCutheansȱareȱconsiderablyȱmoreȱpunctiliousȱthanȱ
Israelȱregardingȱeveryȱcommandmentȱthatȱtheyȱobserve.ȱ“19ȱ
Asȱ opposed,ȱ however,ȱ toȱ thisȱ positiveȱ attitudeȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ
theȱ Rabbinicȱ literatureȱ alsoȱ containsȱ manyȱ harshȱ statements,ȱ fromȱ theȱ
second,ȱ and,ȱ especially,ȱ theȱ thirdȱ centuries,ȱ thatȱ areȱ criticalȱ ofȱ thisȱ
group.ȱTheȱTannaim,ȱtheȱsagesȱofȱtheȱMishnah,ȱimposedȱaȱtaxȱmeantȱtoȱ
preventȱ SamaritanȬJewishȱ intermarriage;20ȱ Torahȱ scrolls,ȱ tefilin,ȱ andȱ
mezuzotȱ writtenȱ byȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ scribeȱ areȱ regardedȱ asȱ unfitȱ byȱ theȱ
Jewishȱ halakhah.21ȱ Theȱ Talmudicȱ sourcesȱ alsoȱ prominentlyȱ featureȱ
dialoguesȱ betweenȱ Jewishȱ sagesȱ andȱ Samaritans.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theseȱ
conversationsȱconsistȱofȱtheologicalȱdebatesȱconcerningȱtheȱresurrectionȱ
ofȱ theȱ dead;22ȱ onȱ theȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans;23ȱ andȱ regardingȱ theȱ
religiousȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Shechemȱ inȱ comparisonȱ withȱ JeruȬ
salem.24ȱ Thisȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ society’sȱ increasingȱ disparagementȱ
ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ reachedȱ itsȱ climaxȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ
century,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Rabbisȱ viewedȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ withȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ
criticalȱ eye.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ Amoraim,ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
blasphemeȱ andȱ revileȱ theȱ Jews.25ȱ Theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ Amoraȱ R.ȱ Ahaȱ
(thirdȱ centuryȱ CE),ȱ accusesȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ ofȱ beingȱ ungrateful;26ȱ oneȱ
whoȱ eatsȱ meatȱ fromȱ animalsȱ rituallyȱ slaughteredȱ byȱ Samaritans,ȱ isȱ asȱ
oneȱ whoȱ eatsȱ pork;27ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ amongȱ theȱ peopleȱ whoȱ areȱ
19ȱȱȱ ToseftaȱPasseha,ȱ2ȱ(1)ȱ3ȱ(ed.ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱ145);ȱPTȱPessahim,ȱ1,ȱ1ȱ(27b);ȱBTȱBerakhot,ȱ
47b;ȱBTȱGittin,ȱ10a;ȱBTȱKidushin,ȱ76a;ȱBTȱHulin,ȱ4a.ȱ
20ȱȱȱ BTȱBabaȱQamma,ȱ38b.ȱ
21ȱȱȱ MidrashȱTannaimȱonȱDeut.,ȱ6,ȱ9ȱ(ed.ȱHOFFMANN,ȱ28).ȱ
22ȱȱȱ Eccl.ȱ Rabba.,ȱ 5,ȱ 10;ȱ Sifreȱ onȱ Nmbs.,ȱ 112ȱ (ed.ȱ HOROWITZ,ȱ 122);ȱ Pesiktaȱ Rabbati,ȱ Iȱ
(excursus)ȱ(ed.ȱFRIEDMANN,ȱ193);ȱBTȱSanhedrin,ȱ90b.ȱConcerningȱthisȱlastȱsourceȱseeȱ
theȱfollowingȱinterpretations:ȱBACHER,ȱRabbi,ȱ188;ȱKLEIN,ȱSamaria,ȱ134.ȱIncidentally,ȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ haveȱ frequentlyȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ withȱ theȱ Sadducees,ȱ alsoȱ byȱ theȱ
ChurchȱFathers,ȱsuchȱasȱOrigen,ȱIn.ȱMath.,ȱXXII,ȱ23Ȭ32ȱ[ed.ȱJ.P.MIGNE,ȱvol.ȱ13,ȱ1561Ȭ
1564)ȱandȱEpiphanius,ȱPana.,ȱ9,ȱ2,ȱ3ȱ[GCS,ȱ25,ȱ198]ȱandȱespeciallyȱinȱregardȱtoȱtheirȱ
hereticalȱ beliefȱ concerningȱ theȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ theȱ dead,ȱ cf.ȱ GASTER,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ
78.88;ȱTHOMSON,ȱSamaritans,ȱ187.197.201;ȱAVIȬYONAH,ȱDays,ȱ258ȱn.ȱ32.ȱ
23ȱȱȱ Gen.ȱRabba,ȱ94ȱ(ed.ȱTHEODORȬALBECK,ȱ1178Ȭ1179);ȱALON,ȱOrigin;ȱ354Ȭ373.ȱ
24ȱȱȱ SifreiȱDeut.,ȱ56ȱ(ed.ȱFINKELSTEIN,ȱ123);ȱBTȱSotaȱ33b;ȱPTȱSota,ȱ7,ȱ3ȱ(21c).ȱCompareȱwith:ȱ
PTȱ Abodahȱ Zarah,ȱ 5,ȱ 4ȱ (44d);ȱ Gen.ȱ Rabba,ȱ 32,ȱ 10;ȱ Deut.ȱ Rabbaȱ Ekevȱ (ed.ȱ LIEBERȬȱ
MAN,ȱ79).ȱ
25ȱȱȱȱ PTȱSanhedrin,ȱ7,8ȱ(25b).ȱ
26ȱȱȱ MidrashȱTannaimȱonȱDeut.,ȱ33,ȱ6ȱ(ed.ȱHOFFMANN,ȱ213).ȱ
27ȱȱȱ MishnaȱShevi’it,ȱ8,ȱ10;ȱPirkeiȱdeȬRabbiȱEliezer,ȱ37ȱ(ed.ȱHIGGER,ȱ214);ȱEliahouȱZutta,ȱ1ȱ
(ed.ȱFRIEDMANN,ȱ169).ȱ
destinedȱ forȱ Gehennom;28ȱ accordingȱ toȱ R.ȱ Johananȱ (diedȱ 279ȱ CE),ȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱsufferȱfromȱabsoluteȱimpurity.29ȱ
Whatȱ wereȱ theȱ historicalȱ reasonsȱ responsibleȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ
deteriorationȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱSamaritansȱandȱJews?ȱ
Theȱ progressiveȱ Hellenizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ beginningȱ inȱ theȱ
secondȱcenturyȱCE,ȱandȱtheȱsyncretismȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱintegrationȱ
ofȱtheȱSamaritanȱreligionȱwithȱtheȱneighbouringȱpaganȱritesȱprovide,ȱtoȱ
ourȱmind,ȱtheȱmostȱlikelyȱexplanationȱforȱtheȱrenewedȱalienationȱofȱtheȱ
JewsȱfromȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱTheȱhistoricalȬculturalȱresearchȱofȱtheȱcityȱofȱ
ShechemȬNeapolisȱ finelyȱ illustratesȱ thisȱ hypothesis.30ȱ Theȱ secondȬcenȬ
turyȱ Christianȱ philosopherȱ Justinȱ Martyrȱ relatesȱ thatȱ theȱ educationȱ heȱ
receivedȱ asȱ aȱ youthȱ inȱ Shechemȱ wasȱ ofȱ aȱ whollyȱ paganȱ nature.31ȱ Heȱ
claimsȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ neverȱ evenȱ heardȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ whileȱ inȱ Shechem.32ȱ
Incidentally,ȱ heȱ makesȱ noȱ mentionȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ hisȱ writings.33ȱ
Theȱ numerousȱ archaeologicalȱ remainsȱ uncoveredȱ inȱ theȱ cityȱ –ȱ theȱ
theater,ȱaȱRomanȱmosaic,ȱaȱmausoleum,ȱtheȱhippodromeȱ–ȱattestȱtoȱtheȱ
exclusivelyȱ Romanȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ city,ȱ andȱ duringȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Hadrianȱ
(117Ȭ138ȱCE)ȱtheȱOlympianȱriteȱofȱZeusȱwasȱobservedȱatȱTellȱerȬRasȱonȱ
Mountȱ Gerizim,ȱ asȱ isȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ aȱ dedicatoryȱ inscriptionȱ thatȱ
wasȱ discoveredȱ atȱ theȱ site.34ȱ Theȱ Neoplatonistȱ philosopherȱ Damasciusȱ
(458Ȭ533ȱCE)ȱcitesȱtheȱtestimonyȱbyȱMarinusȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱriteȱtoȱ
Zeusȱ Hypsistosȱ (=ȱ theȱ mightiest)ȱ atȱ Mountȱ Gerizim.35ȱ Severalȱ scholarsȱ
considerȱ thisȱ deityȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ fusionȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ Zeusȱ andȱ theȱ JewishȬ
Samaritanȱ “Godȱ Mostȱ High.“36ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ seem,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ thisȱ wasȱ
theȱ Olympicȱ Zeus,ȱ asȱ isȱ provenȱ fromȱ theȱ epigraphicȱ findsȱ onȱ Mountȱ
GerizimȱthatȱwereȱsyncreticallyȱidentifiedȱwithȱtheȱancientȱSyrianȱBaal,ȱ
28ȱȱȱ OtzarȱHamidrashim,ȱ1ȱ(ed.ȱEISENSTEIN,ȱ162).ȱ
29ȱȱȱ YalkoutȱShimoniȱonȱGen.,ȱ28ȱ(SALONIQUEȱed.,ȱ1527).ȱ
30ȱȱȱ Forȱ Archaeologicalȱ remainsȱ attestingȱ theȱ growingȱ Hellenization,ȱ inȱ theȱ broadestȱ
senseȱofȱtheȱterm,ȱinȱNeapolisȱinȱtheȱfirstȱcenturiesȱCE,ȱseeȱforȱexample:ȱSCHREIBER,ȱ
Dreifussbasis,ȱ 136Ȭ139;ȱ DAUPHIN,ȱ Pavement,ȱ 11Ȭ33;ȱ MAGEN,ȱ Theater,ȱ 269.277;ȱ
MAGEN,ȱMausoleum,ȱ88.ȱȱ
31ȱȱȱ BARNARD,ȱJustin,ȱ5.ȱ
32ȱȱȱ BURCHARD,ȱNeapolis,ȱ33.ȱ
33ȱȱȱȱ SAFRAI,ȱShechem,ȱ87.ȱ
34ȱȱȱ BULLȱ/ȱWRIGHT,ȱTemples,ȱ234Ȭ237;ȱBULL,ȱExcavation,ȱ58Ȭ72;ȱBULLȱ/ȱCAMPBELL,ȱExcaȬ
vations,ȱ4Ȭ41;ȱMAGEN,ȱMountȱGarizim,ȱ123Ȭ124.ȱȱ
35ȱȱ DamasciusȱapudȱPhotius,ȱBibliotheca,ȱ242ȱ(ed.ȱHENRY,ȱVI,ȱ36);ȱKIPPENBERG,ȱGarizim,ȱ
99Ȭ100;ȱSTERN,ȱAuthors,ȱ674Ȭ675.ȱ
36ȱȱȱȱ CUMONT,ȱ Religions,ȱ 59;ȱ MESHORER,ȱ Cults,ȱ 93.95.ȱ Seeȱ however,ȱ ROBERTSȱ /ȱ SKEATȱ /ȱ
NOCK,ȱ Gild,ȱ 64.67:ȱ “Weȱ mayȱ inferȱ thatȱ Jewishȱ influence…ȱ wasȱ notȱ allȱ important”;ȱ
DREWȬBEARȱ/ȱNAOUR,ȱDivinités,ȱ2032Ȭ2034.ȱȱ
whoȱisȱoftenȱalsoȱnamedȱHypsistos,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱGodȱMostȱHigh,ȱasȱwasȱ
shownȱ notablyȱ byȱ Sébastienȱ Ronzevalleȱ andȱ Henriȱ Seyrig.37ȱ Ifȱ thisȱ isȱ
correct,ȱthenȱtheȱSamaritanȱriteȱpracticedȱatȱMountȱGerizimȱhadȱbecomeȱ
exclusivelyȱpaganȱwhenȱtheȱGreekȱriteȱofȱZeusȱmergedȱwithȱthatȱofȱanȱ
ancientȱ Easternȱ god:ȱ theȱ Syrianȱ Hadadȱ andȱ /ȱ orȱ theȱ Phoenicianȱ BaalȬ
shamin,ȱwhoȱwereȱworshipedȱprimarilyȱonȱhilltops.38ȱByȱtheȱlateȱthirdȬ
earlyȱ fourthȱ centuries,ȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ Amoraimȱ alreadyȱ classifiedȱ
theȱSamaritansȱasȱfullȬfledgedȱidolaters.ȱTheȱRabbisȱspokeȱofȱtheȱdoveȬ
worshipȱ conductedȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ onȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ asȱ aȱ paganȱ
rite:ȱ“TheyȱfoundȱtheȱfigureȱofȱaȱdoveȱatȱtheȱsummitȱofȱMountȱGerizimȱ
andȱtheyȱworshippedȱit.ȱ“39ȱTheȱdovecotesȱappearingȱonȱtheȱcityȱcoinsȱ
ofȱ Neapolisȱ fromȱ thatȱ periodȱ wereȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ Syrianȱ goddessȱ
Atargatis,40ȱ theȱ secondȱ componentȱ ofȱ theȱ Syrianȱ triadȱ thatȱ wasȱ theȱ
objectȱ ofȱ localȱ worship.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ ofȱ theȱ
Yavnehȱgeneration,ȱwhoȱcarefullyȱobservedȱmanyȱcommandments,ȱandȱ
thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ CE,ȱ whoȱ wereȱ regardedȱ asȱ idolaters,ȱ isȱ
summarizedȱinȱtellingȱfashionȱbyȱR.ȱAbbahu,ȱaȱresidentȱofȱCaesarea,ȱinȱ
responseȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱquestionȱaddressedȱtoȱhimȱbyȱtheȱSamaritanȱ
inhabitantsȱofȱhisȱcity:ȱ“Yourȱforefathersȱusedȱtoȱbuyȱsuppliesȱfromȱus,ȱ
whyȱ doȱ youȱ notȱ purchaseȱ suppliesȱ fromȱ us?ȱ Heȱ replied:ȱ Yourȱ foreȬ
fathersȱdidȱnotȱcorruptȱtheirȱactions,ȱyouȱhaveȱspoiledȱyourȱactions.“41ȱ
Accordingly,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ withȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Christians,ȱ theȱ ameiȱ haȬ
aretz,ȱandȱJewishȱidolaters,ȱallȱofȱwhomȱwereȱoriginallyȱanȱintegralȱpartȱ
ofȱtheȱJewishȱpeople,ȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱneverȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱactualȱ
Jews.ȱ Everȱ sinceȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ period,ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ gravitatedȱ inȱ
theȱshadowȱofȱtheȱJewishȱsociety,ȱwithȱvaryingȱdegreesȱofȱaffinity.ȱForȱ
decadesȱnationalȱstrugglesȱandȱtheȱdisagreementȱregardingȱtheȱlocationȱ
ofȱtheȱtempleȱtoȱtheȱoneȱGodȱwereȱtheȱmainȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱcontroversyȱ
betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ groups.ȱ After,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ Greatȱ Revoltȱ untilȱ theȱ
lateȱstagesȱofȱtheȱBarȱKokhbaȱrebellion,ȱtheȱjointȱstruggleȱagainstȱRomeȱ
ledȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ rapprochement,ȱ aȱ sortȱ ofȱ temporaryȱ modusȱ vivendi,ȱ
thatȱresultedȱinȱfertileȱandȱamicableȱcooperation,ȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱtheirȱ
religiousȱ differencesȱ tendedȱ toȱ disappear.ȱ Paradoxically,ȱ inȱ thisȱ sameȱ
periodȱ (theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ CE),ȱ theȱ Rabbisȱ areȱ resoluteȱ inȱ theirȱ
repudiationȱofȱtheȱJewishȱChristiansȱandȱtheȱameiȱhaȬaretz,ȱsinceȱtheseȱ
37ȱȱȱ RONZEVALLE,ȱMélanges,ȱ404Ȭ407;ȱSEYRIG,ȱInscriptions,ȱ317Ȭ318ȱ=ȱSEYRIG,ȱ Antiquités,ȱ

33Ȭ54;ȱGIEBEN,ȱSupplementum,ȱ480ȱnoȱ1576.ȱȱȱȱ
38ȱȱȱ CLERMONTȬGANNEAU,ȱResearches,ȱ165;ȱÉLIADE,ȱTraité,ȱ92Ȭ94.ȱ
39ȱȱȱ BTȱHullin,ȱ6a;ȱPTȱ‘AbodahȱZarah,ȱ5,ȱ4ȱ(44d).ȱ
40ȱȱȱ MESHORER,ȱCityȬCoins,ȱ52ȱnoȱ148;ȱMESHORER,ȱCityȬCoins,ȱ92.ȱ
41ȱȱȱ PTȱ‘AbodahȱZarahȱ5:4ȱ(44d).ȱLIEBERMAN,ȱMartyrs,ȱ405Ȭ407.ȱ
strataȱ threatenedȱ theȱ veryȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Rabbinicȱ world,ȱ thatȱ
representedȱtheȱnewȱpostȬDestructionȱleadershipȱstratum,ȱoneȱthatȱwasȱ
undoubtedlyȱundergoingȱaȱformativeȱprocess.ȱInȱtheȱthirdȱcentury,ȱtheȱ
standingȱ ofȱ theȱ Rabbisȱ wasȱ muchȱ stable,ȱ andȱ theȱ Rabbinicȱ leadershipȱ
couldȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱaȱportionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱwhoȱhadȱformerlyȱbeenȱ
atȱ oddsȱ withȱ it,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ ameiȱ haȬaretz.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ time,ȱ asȱ well,ȱ theȱ
Rabbisȱ partȱ waysȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ formerȱ endeavorȱ toȱ
welcomeȱ differentȱ groupsȱ withinȱ Jewishȱ societyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ uniteȱ itȱ
underȱ theirȱ authority.ȱ Thisȱ seemingȱ paradox,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ merelyȱ aȱ
historicalȱ coincidence.ȱ Theȱ Jewsȱ wouldȱ almostȱ certainlyȱ haveȱ retainedȱ
theirȱ closeȱ relationsȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ ifȱ theȱ latterȱ hadȱ onlyȱ ridȱ
themselvesȱ ofȱ theirȱ idolatrousȱ rites.ȱ Samaritanȱ paganism,ȱ thatȱ wasȱ anȱ
indirectȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ widespreadȱ geographicalȱ distributionȱ ofȱ
theȱ Samaritanȱ settlementsȱ beyondȱ theȱ boundsȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ andȱ theȱ
continuingȱdisintegrationȱofȱtheirȱsocialȱcohesiveness,ȱledȱtheȱRabbisȱtoȱ
finallyȱ resolveȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishnessȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans.ȱ Thisȱ
controversyȱ wasȱ decidedȱ andȱ finallyȱ putȱ toȱ restȱ inȱ theȱ fourthȱ century,ȱ
whenȱtheȱJewsȱregardedȱtheȱSamaritansȱasȱwhollyȱGentile.ȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ADLER,ȱElkanȱN.ȱ/ȱSELIGSOHN,ȱMax,ȱUneȱnouvelleȱchroniqueȱsamaritaine,ȱin:ȱREJȱ
45ȱ(1902)ȱ70Ȭ98.223Ȭ254.ȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedalia,ȱ Theȱ Jewsȱ inȱ theirȱ Landȱ inȱ theȱ Talmudicȱ Ageȱ (70Ȭ640ȱ CE),ȱ II,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1984.ȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedalia,ȱ Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ Halakhicȱ Tradition,ȱ in:ȱ
ALON,ȱGedalia,ȱJews,ȱJudaismȱandȱtheȱClassicalȱWorldȱ–ȱStudiesȱinȱJewishȱ
Historyȱ inȱ theȱ Timesȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ andȱ Talmud,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1977,ȱ
354Ȭ373.ȱ
AVIȬYONAH,ȱ Michael,ȱ Inȱ theȱ Daysȱ ofȱ Romeȱ andȱ Byzantion,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1975ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
BACHER,ȱWilhelm,ȱRabbiȱMeirȱandȱ‘Cleopatra’,ȱin:ȱJQRȱ2ȱ(1890)ȱ188.ȱ
BARNARD,ȱ Leslieȱ William,ȱ Justinȱ Martyrȱ –ȱ Hisȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Thought,ȱ Cambridgeȱ
1967.ȱ
BEENTJES,ȱPancratiusȱCornelis,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱBenȱSiraȱinȱHebrewȱ–ȱAȱTextȱEditionȱ
ofȱ Allȱ Extantȱ Hebrewȱ Manuscriptsȱ andȱ aȱ Synopsisȱ ofȱ allȱ Parallelȱ Hebrewȱ
BenȱSiraȱTexts,ȱLeidenȱ/ȱNewȱYorkȱ/ȱKölnȱ1997.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.,ȱTheȱExcavationȱofȱTellȱerȱrasȱonȱMtȱGerizim,ȱin:ȱBAȱ31ȱ(1968)ȱ
58Ȭ72.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.ȱ/ȱCAMPBELL,ȱE.F.,ȱTheȱExcavationsȱofȱTellȱerȱRâsȱonȱMtȱGerizim,ȱ
in:ȱBASORȱ190ȱ(1968)ȱ4Ȭ41.ȱ
BULL,ȱRobertȱJ.ȱ/ȱWRIGHT,ȱG.ȱErnest,ȱNewlyȱDiscoveredȱTemplesȱonȱMtȱGerizimȱ
inȱJordan,ȱin:ȱHTRȱ58ȱ(1965)ȱ234Ȭ237.ȱ
BURCHARD,ȱ Christoph,ȱ Neapolis,ȱ in:ȱ ZIEGLER,ȱ Konratȱ /ȱ SONTHEIMER,ȱ Waltherȱ
(eds.),ȱ Derȱ kleineȱ Paulyȱ –ȱ Lexiconȱ derȱ Antikeȱ aufȱ derȱ Grundlageȱ vonȱ
Pauly’sȱRealencyclopädieȱderȱclassischenȱAltertumwissenschaft,ȱIV,ȱMünchenȱ
1972,ȱ33.ȱ
CLERMONTȬGanneau,ȱ Charles,ȱ Archaeologicalȱ Researchesȱ inȱ Palestine,ȱ II,ȱ
Londonȱ1896.ȱ
COGGINS,ȱRichardȱJames,ȱSamaritansȱandȱJews,ȱOxfordȱ1975.ȱ
CROSS,ȱFrankȱMoore,ȱAspectsȱofȱȱSamaritanȱandȱJewishȱHistoryȱinȱLateȱPersianȱ
andȱHellenisticȱTimes,ȱin:ȱHTRȱ59ȱ(1966)ȱ201Ȭ211.ȱ
CUMONT,ȱFranz,ȱLesȱreligionsȱorientalesȱdansȱleȱpaganismeȱromain,ȱParisȱ41963.ȱ
DAUPHIN,ȱClaudine,ȱAȱRomanȱMosaicȱPavementȱfromȱNablus,ȱin:ȱIEJȱ29ȱ(1979)ȱ
11Ȭ33.ȱ
DREWȬBEAR,ȱ Thomasȱ /ȱ NAOUR,ȱ Charles,ȱ Divinitésȱ deȱ Phrygie,ȱ in:ȱ HAASE,ȱ
Wolfgangȱ /ȱ TEMPORINI,ȱ Hildegardȱ (eds.),ȱ Aufstiegȱ undȱ Niedergangȱ derȱ
römischenȱWelt,ȱII,ȱ18.ȱ3,ȱBerlinȱ–ȱNewȱYorkȱ1990,ȱ1907Ȭ2044.ȱ
EISENSTEIN,ȱJudahȱDavidȱ(ed.),ȱOtzarȱHamidrashim,ȱJerusalemȱ1937ȱ(Hebrew).ȱȱ
ÉLIADE,ȱMircea,ȱTraitéȱd’histoireȱdesȱReligions,ȱParisȱ31994.ȱ
ESHEL,ȱ Hanan,ȱ Theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Joseph,ȱ aȱ Papyrusȱ fromȱ Masadaȱ onȱ Samaritanȱ
Templeȱon$5*$5,=,1’,ȱin:ȱZionȱ56ȱ(1991)ȱ125Ȭ136ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
ESHEL,ȱ Hanan,ȱ Wâdiȱ EdȬDâliyehȱ Papyrusȱ 14ȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Temple,ȱ in:ȱ
Zionȱ61ȱ(1996)ȱ359Ȭ365ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
FELDMAN,ȱ Louisȱ H.,ȱ Josephus’ȱ Attitudeȱ towardsȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ –ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ
Ambivalence,ȱ in:ȱ FELDMAN,ȱ Louisȱ H.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hellenisticȱ Judaism,ȱ
FINKELSTEIN,ȱLouisȱ(ed.),ȱSifreȱonȱDeuteronomy,ȱNewȱYorkȱ/ȱJerusalemȱ1993ȱ(=ȱ
Berlinȱ1939)ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
FRIEDMANN,ȱM.ȱ(ed.),ȱPesiktaȱRabbati,ȱJerusalemȱ1990ȱ(=ȱWienȱ1880)ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
GASTER,ȱ Moses,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ –ȱ Theirȱ History,ȱ Doctrinesȱ andȱ Literature,ȱ
Londonȱ1925.ȱ
GIEBEN,ȱJ.C.ȱ(ed.),ȱSupplementumȱepigraphicumȱGraecum,ȱvol.ȱ38,ȱAmsterdamȱ
1988.ȱ
HADASȬLEBEL,ȱMireille,ȱJérusalemȱcontreȱRome,ȱParisȱ2003ȱ(1990).ȱ
HAPARCHI,ȱ Ashtori,ȱ Kaftorȱ VeȬPerach,ȱ V,ȱ Vol.ȱ I,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1997ȱ (Hebrew)ȱ (=ȱ
Veniceȱ1349).ȱ
HENRY,ȱRenéȱ(ed.),ȱDamasciusȱapudȱPhotius,ȱBibliotheca,ȱVol.ȱ6,ȱParisȱ1971.ȱ
HIGGER,ȱ Michaelȱ(ed.),ȱPirkeiȱdeȬRabbiȱEliezer,ȱin:ȱHoreb,ȱDevotedȱtoȱResearchȱ
inȱJewishȱHistoryȱandȱLiterature,ȱ10ȱ(1948)ȱ(Hebrew).ȱȱ
HOFFMANN,ȱ Davidȱ Zviȱ (ed.),ȱ Midrashȱ Tannaim,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1982ȱ (=ȱ Berlinȱ 1909)ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
HOROWITZ,ȱ Haimȱ Saulȱ (ed.),ȱ Sifreȱ D’beȱ Rab,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 1992ȱ (=ȱ Leipzigȱ 1917)ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
JUSTER,ȱ Jean,ȱ Lesȱ Juifsȱ dansȱ l’empireȱ romainȱ –ȱ Leurȱ conditionȱ juridique,ȱ
économiqueȱetȱsociale,ȱI,ȱParisȱ1914.ȱ
KIPPENBERG,ȱHansȱGerhard,ȱGarizimȱundȱSynagogue,ȱBerlinȱ–ȱNewȱYorkȱ1971.ȱ
KIRCHEIM,ȱ Raphael,ȱ Introductioȱ inȱ librumȱ Talmudicumȱ “deȱ Samaritanis”,ȱ
Frankfurtȱa.M.ȱ1912ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KLEIN,ȱ Samuel,ȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Timeȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmud,ȱ in:ȱ Lunz’sȱ Jerusalem,ȱ 10ȱ
(1924)ȱ133Ȭ160ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KOETSCHAU,ȱPaulȱ(ed.),ȱOrigen,ȱContraȱCelsum,ȱI,ȱLeipzigȱ1899.ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱSaul,ȱTheȱMartyrsȱofȱCaesarea,ȱin:ȱAIPhȱ7ȱ(1944)ȱ394Ȭ446.ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱ Saulȱ (ed.),ȱ Midrashȱ Debarimȱ Rabbahȱ (Oxfordȱ ms.ȱ No.ȱ 147),ȱ
Jerusalemȱ21992ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
LIEBERMAN,ȱSaul,ȱTheȱToseftaȱAccordingȱtoȱCodexȱVienna,ȱwithȱVariantsȱfromȱ
Codexȱ Erfurt,ȱ Genizahȱ Mss.ȱ andȱ Editioȱ Princepsȱ (Veniceȱ 1521)ȱ togetherȱ
withȱ Referencesȱ toȱ Parallelȱ Passagesȱ inȱ Talmudicȱ Literature,ȱ Jerusalemȱ
21992ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Theȱ Westernȱ Mausoleumȱ atȱ Neapolis,ȱ in:ȱ ErIsȱ –ȱ ArchaeoȬ
logical,ȱHistoricalȱandȱGeographicalȱStudies,ȱ19ȱ(1987)ȱ72Ȭ91ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
MAGEN,ȱ Yitzhak,ȱ Mountȱ Garizimȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ in:ȱ MANNS,ȱ Frédéricȱ /ȱ
ALLIATA,ȱ Eugenioȱ (eds.),ȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Contextȱ –ȱ Monumentsȱ andȱ
Documents,ȱJerusalemȱ1993,ȱ91Ȭ148.ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYitzhak,ȱMt.ȱGarizimȱ–ȱAȱTempleȱCity,ȱin:ȱQadmoniot,ȱ33/2ȱ(120)ȱ(2000)ȱ
74Ȭ118ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
MAGEN,ȱYitzhak,ȱTheȱRomanȱTheaterȱinȱSchechem,ȱin:ȱSCHILLER,ȱEliȱ(ed.),ȱZeevȱ
Vilnai’sȱJubileeȱVolumeȱ–ȱEssaysȱonȱtheȱHistory,ȱArchaeologyȱandȱLoreȱofȱ
theȱHolyȱLandȱPresentedȱtoȱZeevȱVilnai,ȱJerusalemȱ1984,ȱ269Ȭ277ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
MANTEL,ȱHugo,ȱTheȱCausesȱofȱtheȱBarȱKokhbaȱRevolt,ȱin:ȱJQRȱ58ȱ(1968)ȱ224Ȭ242.ȱ
MESHORER,ȱYaakov,ȱCityȬCoinsȱofȱEretzȬIsraelȱandȱtheȱDecapolisȱinȱtheȱRomanȱ
Period,ȱJerusalemȱ1985.ȱ
MESHORER,ȱYaakov,ȱOnȱThreeȱInterestingȱCultsȱatȱNeapolisȱinȱSamaria,ȱin:ȱErIsȱ
19ȱ(1987)ȱ93Ȭ95ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
MIGNE,ȱJaquesȬPaulȱ(ed.),ȱOrigen,ȱContraȱCelsum,ȱParisȱ1866.ȱ
MONTGOMERY,ȱ Jamesȱ A.,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ –ȱ Theȱ Earliestȱ Jewishȱ Sect,ȱ theirȱ HisȬ
tory,ȱTheologyȱandȱLiterature,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1968.ȱ
MOR,ȱMenahem,ȱTheȱBarȬKochbaȱRevoltȱ–ȱItsȱExtentȱandȱEffect,ȱJerusalemȱ1991ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
MOR,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Fromȱ Samariaȱ toȱ Shechemȱ –ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Communityȱ inȱ
Antiquity,ȱJerusalemȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱȱ
NOAM,ȱVered,ȱMegillatȱTa’anitȱ–ȱVersions,ȱInterpretation,ȱHistoryȱwithȱaȱCritiȬ
calȱEdition,ȱJerusalemȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
PHILONENKO,ȱMarc,ȱLaȱBibleȱ–ȱÉcritsȱintertestamentaires,ȱParisȱ1987.ȱ
RABELLO,ȱ Alfredoȱ Mordechai,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Romanȱ Law,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ EphȬ
raimȱ /ȱ ESHEL,ȱ Hananȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Samaritans,ȱ Jerusalemȱ 2002,ȱ 481Ȭ495ȱ
(Hebrew).ȱ
ROBERTS,ȱ Colinȱ /ȱ SKEAT,ȱ Theodoreȱ C.ȱ /ȱ NOCK,ȱ Arthurȱ Darby,ȱ Theȱ Gildȱ ofȱ Zeusȱ
Hypsistos,ȱin:ȱHTRȱ29ȱ(1936)ȱ39Ȭ87ȱ(88).ȱ
RONZEVALLE,ȱSébastien,ȱMélangesȱIIIȱ–ȱQuelquesȱmonumentsȱdeȱGebeilȬByblosȱ
etȱdeȱsesȱenvirons,ȱin:ȱRBȱ12ȱ(1903)ȱ404Ȭ407.ȱ
SAFRAI,ȱ Zeev,ȱ Theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Settlementȱ inȱ Samariaȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ andȱ
ByzantineȱPeriods,ȱin:ȱSAFRAI,ȱZeevȱ/ȱDAR,ȱShimonȱ(eds.),ȱShomronȱStudies,ȱ
TelȱAvivȱ1986,ȱ127Ȭ181ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
SAFRAI,ȱZeev,ȱShechemȱinȱtheȱDaysȱofȱtheȱMishnahȱandȱTalmudȱ–ȱ63ȱBCEȱȬȱ637ȱ
CE,ȱin:ȱSAFRAI,ȱZeevȱ/ȱDAR,ȱShimonȱ(eds.),ȱShomronȱStudies,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1986,ȱ
83Ȭ126ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
SCHREIBER,ȱTheodor,ȱDieȱDreifussbasisȱvonȱNabulus,ȱin:ȱZDPVȱ7ȱ(1884)ȱ136Ȭ139.ȱ
SCHÜRER,ȱEmil,ȱTheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱJewishȱPeopleȱinȱtheȱAgeȱofȱJesusȬChrist,ȱII,ȱ
in:ȱ VERMES,ȱ Gezaȱ /ȱ MILLAR,ȱ Fergusȱ /ȱ BLACK,ȱ Matthewȱ (eds.),ȱ Edinburghȱ
1979,ȱ161ȱ(rev.ed.).ȱ
SEYRIG,ȱHenri,ȱInscriptions,ȱin:ȱSyriaȱ20ȱ(1939)ȱ317Ȭ318.ȱȱ
SEYRIG,ȱHenri,ȱAntiquitésȱsyriennesȱ3,ȱParisȱ1946,ȱ33Ȭ54.ȱȱ
SMEND,ȱRudolf,ȱDieȱWeisheitȱdesȱJesusȱSirach,ȱBerlinȱ1906.ȱ
STERN,ȱ Menahem,ȱ Greekȱ andȱ Latinȱ Authorsȱ onȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Judaism,ȱ II,ȱ Fromȱ
TacitusȱtoȱSimplicius,ȱJerusalemȱ1980.ȱ
THEODOR,ȱ Juliusȱ /ȱ ALBECK,ȱ Chanochȱ (eds.)ȱ Midrashȱ Bereshitȱ Rabbaȱ –ȱ Criticalȱ
EditionȱwithȱNotesȱandȱCommentary,ȱJerusalemȱ21996ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
THOMSON,ȱJohnȱEbenezerȱHoneyman,ȱTheȱSamaritansȱ–ȱTheirȱTestimonyȱtoȱtheȱ
ReligionȱofȱIsrael,ȱLondonȱ1919.ȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱBenjamim,ȱSamaritans,ȱin:ȱEJȱ14ȱ(1973)ȱ730.ȱȱ
YALKOUT,ȱShimoni,ȱ(SaloniqueȱEdition,ȱ1527).ȱȱȱ

V.ȱSamaritansȱinȱModernȱTimesȱ
ȱ

ȱ
ȱ

AȱCaseȱofȱPalestinianȱArabȱJusticeȱbetweenȱ
MinorityȱandȱMajorityȱ
TheȱSamaritanȱHighȱPriestȱSal¬maȱb.ȱadaqaȱandȱtheȱArabȱ
TailorsȱofȱNablusȱinȱtheȱNineteenthȱCenturyȱ
HASEEBȱSHEHADEHȱ
Theȱ followingȱ Arabicȱ shortȱ storyȱ aboutȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ highȱ priestȱ
Sal¬maȱ b.ȱ Ghaz¬lȱ b.ȱ IsH¬qȱ b.ȱ adaqaȱ (Shalmiaȱ b.ȱ Óabiaȱ b.ȱ Isaacȱ b.ȱ
Abrahamȱb.Tsedaka)ȱwasȱwrittenȱbyȱtheȱlateȱhighȱpriestȱYa`qĀbȱb.ȱÙzziȱ
inȱ 1960.1ȱ Sal¬maȱ (1784Ȭ1855)ȱ actuallyȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ highȱ priestȱ betweenȱ
theȱyearsȱ1799ȱandȱ1826ȱandȱallȱhighȱpriestsȱwhoȱfollowedȱhimȱwereȱhisȱ
offspring.2ȱAfterȱtheȱdeathȱofȱGhaz¬l,ȱhisȱfather,ȱinȱ1787,ȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
livedȱ aboutȱ twelveȱ yearsȱ withoutȱ aȱ highȱ priestȱ becauseȱ theȱ onlyȱ heir,ȱ
hisȱsonȱSal¬ma,ȱwasȱtooȱyoungȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱofficeȱofȱhighȱpriesthood.3ȱAtȱ
theȱ ageȱ ofȱ nine,ȱ theȱ 20thȱ ofȱ Jum¬daȱ alȬ%khiraȱ 1208ȱ A.ȱ H.,ȱ 23ȱ Januaryȱ
1793ȱ CEȱ theȱ orphanedȱ Sal¬maȱ startedȱ toȱ copyȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Torah.ȱ
Unfortunately,ȱ onlyȱ oneȱ folioȱ ofȱ thatȱ Torahȱ hasȱ survivedȱ inȱ Firkovichȱ
SamȱIIȱBȱ55ȱatȱtheȱNationalȱLibraryȱofȱRussiaȱinȱSt.ȱPetersburg.ȱ4ȱȱ
1ȱ AByȱ SHAFH´,ȱ Book.ȱ Aȱ copyȱ ofȱ thisȱ handȬwrittenȱ bookȱ includingȱ 351ȱ pagesȱ (theȱ
author’sȱ paginationȱ isȱ inaccurate)ȱ isȱ preservedȱ underȱ theȱ numberȱ 7036ȱ inȱ theȱ Yadȱ
BenȬZviȱ Library,ȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Aȱ briefȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ 98ȱ Samaritanȱ manuscriptsȱ
preparedȱ byȱ theȱ presentȱ writerȱ inȱ 1981ȱ andȱ inȱ 1997ȱ isȱ availableȱ atȱ theȱ Yadȱ BenȬZviȱ
Library.ȱBENȬZVIȱaskedȱtheȱpriestȱtoȱwriteȱthisȱbook,ȱseeȱA.ȱB.ȱSamaritanȱNews, 763Ȭ
765,ȱ1.6.ȱ2000,ȱ53.ȱTheȱlateȱpriestȱbenȱÙzziȱwasȱamongȱtheȱfirstȱSamaritansȱofȱNablusȱ
thatȱIȱhadȱtheȱprivilegeȱtoȱlearnȱtoȱknowȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1960s.ȱ
2 ȱȱ KAHLE,ȱSamaritaner,ȱ89Ȭ103;ȱSHAVITȱ/ȱGOLDSTEINȱ/ȱBEÉR,ȱPersonalities,ȱ494;ȱPUMMER,ȱ
Contracts,ȱ 152Ȭ153.ȱ Noȱ mentionȱ ofȱ thisȱ highȱ priestȱ inȱ CROWNȱ /ȱ PUMMERȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ
Companion.ȱ
3ȱ Cf.ȱTSEDAKA,ȱLegends,ȱ48Ȭ50.ȱ
4ȱȱ Onȱ1ȱversoȱaȱcolophonȱinȱArabicȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱcommonȱwordsȱ“ϞΠϨϟ΍ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ ϥΎϛ
... Ϊϴόδϟ΍“ȱ ‘Itȱ wasȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ happyȱ offspringȱ ...’.ȱ Thisȱ folio,ȱ 20.7ȱ xȱ 16ȱ cm,ȱ
writtenȱspaceȱ15ȱxȱ11ȱcmȱincludesȱ22ȱlines,ȱGenȱ1,1Ȭ8.ȱOnȱtheȱSamaritansȱduringȱthatȱ
periodȱseeȱSCHUR,ȱHistory,ȱ139Ȭ191.ȱȱ
206 HaseebȱShehadeh
Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ approximatelyȱ thirtyȱ

SamaritanȱfamiliesȱlivedȱinȱalȬKhaÃraȱarea,ȱreferredȱtoȱinȱtheȱTorahȱbyȱ
theȱpatriarchȱJacobȱasȱÍlqtȱalȬSmrh5.ȱ TheȱgovernorȱofȱNablusȱwasȱfirstlyȱ
MĀsaȱ Bekȱ Āq¬n,ȱ followedȱ byȱ MaHmĀdȱ Bekȱ Àbdȱ alȬH¬dÎ6.ȱ Theȱ taxȱ
collectorȱinȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱwasȱ ÀbdȱÍannĀnaȱb.ȱadaqaȱalȬ
DanfÎ.ȱ Sal¬maȱ hadȱ fairlyȱ goodȱ relationsȱ withȱ theȱ governorsȱ ofȱ theȱ
districtȱ ofȱ Nablusȱ especiallyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ astrologyȱ
(tangÎm)ȱandȱofȱwritingȱamuletsȱ(bi†¬q¬t).ȱThisȱknowledgeȱofȱpredictingȱ
theȱfutureȱofȱpeopleȱbyȱwatchingȱtheȱstarsȱisȱexpressedȱinȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ
legendsȱcollectedȱbyȱRatsonȱTsedaka.ȱȱ
Sal¬ma’s son,ȱ Ìmr¬nȱ (1809Ȭ1874),ȱ wasȱ theȱ highȱ priestȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ 1826Ȭ18597ȱ only,ȱ although,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ
theȱSamaritanȱhalakhah,ȱaȱhighȱpriestȱremainsȱinȱhisȱofficeȱuntilȱheȱdies.ȱ
Sal¬ma,ȱknownȱoftenȱasȱSal¬maȱalȬK¬hinȱorȱalȬL¬wÎȱSal¬ma,ȱcorresponȬ
dedȱ forȱ almostȱ twoȱ decadesȱ withȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ orientalistȱ Sylvestreȱ
deȱ Sacyȱ (1758Ȭ1838)ȱ inȱ Arabicȱ andȱ Samaritanȱ NeoȬHebrewȱ (theȱ soȬ
calledȱ Shomronit).ȱ Itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ thisȱ successfulȱ termȱ Samaritanȱ
NeoȬHebrew wasȱcoinedȱbyȱourȱdearȱfriend,ȱtheȱlateȱProfessorȱMacuch.8ȱ
Sal¬ma’sȱcorrespondence,ȱsignificantȱinȱvariousȱrespects,ȱwasȱpublishedȱ
andȱtranslatedȱintoȱFrenchȱbyȱDeȱSacy,ȱtheȱpioneerȱofȱSamaritanȱArabicȱ
studiesȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ era.9ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ Sal¬maȱ metȱ withȱ someȱ EuroȬ
peanȱ travellersȱ whoȱ visitedȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ communityȱ inȱ Nablusȱ andȱ
theyȱleftȱusȱaȱpositiveȱpictureȱofȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱthisȱhighȱpriest.10ȱȱ
Sal¬maȱcomposedȱprayersȱinȱSamaritanȱNeoȬHebrewȱandȱseveralȱofȱ
theseȱprayersȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱCowley.11ȱHeȱalsoȱwroteȱ
poetryȱinȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱMiddleȱArabic,ȱandȱaȱfewȱexamplesȱareȱknownȱ
5ȱȱ Genȱ33,19,ȱreadȱ‘Hlqtȱhsdh’ȱseeȱDEȱSACYȱmentionedȱinȱnoteȱ9,ȱp.ȱ53.ȱABUȱSHAFH´,ȱBook,ȱ
27,ȱwritesȱϯΪθϫȱΔϘϠΣȱandȱknownȱtodayȱbyȱtheȱnameȱ‘alȬkha Ãraȱmosque’,ȱtheȱlocationȱ
ofȱJacob’sȱmourning.ȱTodayȱtheseȱtwoȱHebrewȱwordsȱareȱpronouncedȱålqåt ašš¬di.
6ȱ Aȱsketchȱonȱtheȱmiddleȱ19thȱcenturyȱSamaritansȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱin,ȱROGERS,ȱLife,ȱ276Ȭ
306,ȱandȱaboutȱMaHmĀd ÀbdȱalȬH¬dÎ,ȱtheȱgovernorȱofȱNablus,ȱseeȱtheȱindex,ȱ414.ȱ
7ȱȱ SeeȱSHEHADEH,ȱPoem,ȱA.B.,ȱ144Ȭ155;ȱStudiaȱOrientalia,ȱ191Ȭ206.ȱ
8ȱȱ SeeȱMACUCH,ȱLanguages,ȱ533.534.540;ȱFLORENTIN,ȱShomronit.ȱ
9ȱȱ DEȱSACY,ȱCorrespondence,ȱ1Ȭ235.ȱ
10ȱȱ SCHUR,ȱHistory,ȱ162Ȭ163;ȱDEXINGER,ȱTaheb, 84Ȭ93.ȱ
11ȱ COWLEY,ȱLiturgy,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱxxxiii.ȱxcviii,ȱSolomonȱb. Óabia,ȱpriest.ȱAtȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ
manuscriptȱ Bod.ȱ Opp.ȱ Add.40ȱ 99ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ poemȱ byȱ Sal¬maȱ startingȱ withȱ ʭʤʸʡʠ
ʭʩʰʮʠʰʤȱʹʸʠ ʧʸʺ ʯʡ (AbrahamȱtheȱsonȱofȱTerahȱtheȱoriginȱofȱtheȱfaithful)ȱandȱitȱisȱnotȱ
ȱ
includedȱinȱCOWLEY’Sȱcollection.ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ AȱCaseȱofȱPalestinianȱArabȱJusticeȱbetweenȱMinorityȱandȱMajority 207ȱ
toȱ us.12ȱ Therefore,ȱ hisȱ nameȱ shouldȱ beȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ Samaritanȱ
poetsȱinȱArabicȱpreparedȱbyȱtheȱpresentȱwriterȱsomeȱyearsȱago.13ȱȱ
Sal¬ma’sȱ marriageȱ withȱ icȱ ShelaH AbȬSakuwwaȱ haȬDanfiȱ (Wardaȱ
¬liHȱ Murg¬nȱ alȬDanafÎ)ȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ 1805,ȱ asȱ recordedȱ ofȱ inȱ theirȱ
ketubbaȱ(kit¬bȱalȬàrÎs14),ȱFirkovichȱSamȱXȱ66ȱinȱtheȱNationalȱLibraryȱofȱ
Russiaȱ inȱ St.ȱ Petersburg.15ȱ Theȱ coupleȱ hadȱ threeȱ sons,ȱ Ìmr¬n,ȱ H¬rĀnȱ
andȱIsH¬q.ȱSal¬ma’sȱmother,ȱHadiyya,ȱtheȱsisterȱofȱGhaz¬lȱb.ȱSurĀr,ȱwasȱ
fromȱ Gaza.ȱ Inȱ lightȱ ofȱ hisȱ correspondence,ȱ itȱ isȱ evidentȱ thatȱ forȱ twoȱ
decades,ȱ fromȱ 1788ȱ untilȱ 1808,ȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ
celebrateȱ theirȱ Passoverȱ onȱ Mountȱ K¬rÎzÎm16ȱ (=ȱ Gerizim).ȱ Sal¬maȱ didȱ
notȱ knowȱ anythingȱ aboutȱ theȱ Karaites.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ convincedȱ thatȱ thereȱ
wereȱSamaritansȱinȱEuropeȱandȱfirmlyȱrejectedȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱsellingȱ
Samaritanȱmanuscripts.ȱHeȱusedȱtheȱtermsȱ“alȬrayyisȱalȬgalÎl;ȱim¬mȱalȬ
sumarah,ȱ kan¬yis”ȱ forȱ “theȱ highȱ priestȱ (veneratedȱ headȱ /ȱ chief);ȱ theȱ
highȱ priestȱ (theȱ priestȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans);ȱ synagogues”ȱ respectively.17ȱ
Sal¬maȱ wasȱ theȱ lastȱ highȱ priestȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ theȱ old,ȱ dark,ȱ andȱ dampȱ
priestlyȱ houseȱ whichȱ wasȱ dividedȱ intoȱ threeȱ parts.18ȱ Inȱ theȱ pastȱ thatȱ
houseȱwasȱknownȱbyȱtheȱnameȱhaš-šem,ȱthatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱtheȱNameȱofȱGodȱ
becauseȱ holyȱ parchmentsȱ includingȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Godȱ wereȱ preservedȱ
thereȱ inȱ aȱ smallȱ closet.ȱ Laterȱ thoseȱ parchmentsȱ wereȱ placedȱinȱaȱsmallȱ
12 See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ manuscriptȱ FIRKOVICH,ȱ Samȱ IXȱ 12,ȱ 7bȱ andȱ Samȱ XIII,ȱ 58ȱ inȱ theȱ
NationalȱLibraryȱofȱRussiaȱinȱSt.ȱPetersburg,ȱmanuscriptȱNo.ȱ7023ȱinȱtheȱYadȱBenȬZviȱ
LibraryȱinȱJerusalem,ȱTSEDAKA,ȱKitabȱalȬTasabich, 145Ȭ147.ȱ
13ȱȱ SHEHADEH,ȱ Liturgy,ȱ 282,ȱ andȱ hisȱ placeȱ shouldȱ beȱ no.ȱ 33ȱ andȱ hisȱ grandsonȱ Sal¬maȱ
movesȱtoȱno.ȱ34,ȱetc.ȱ
14ȱȱ ThisȱisȱtheȱArabicȱtermȱgivenȱbyȱJacobȱb.ȱÙzzi,ȱseeȱABUȱSHAFH´,ȱBook,ȱ250.ȱȱ
15ȱȱ Cf.ȱnowȱPUMMER,ȱContracts,ȱI,ȱ100.152Ȭ153ȱ(153ȱlineȱ6ȱreadsȱ1809ȱinsteadȱofȱ1909),ȱII,ȱ
130Ȭ132.ȱȱ
16ȱȱȱ ϢϳΰϳέΎϛȱ Seeȱ DEȱ SACY,ȱ Correspondence,ȱ inȱ noteȱ 9,ȱ pagesȱ 57(5ȱ occurrences).58.62.63.ȱ ήϫ
ϢϳΰϳήΟȱisȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱtoo,ȱseeȱ63.ȱTheȱvariantȱϡΰϳήϛȱέ΍ȱ(Arȱkryzm,ȱtwoȱseparateȱwords)ȱ
isȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱSamaritanȱArabicȱliterature.ȱItȱisȱincludedȱinȱaȱcolophonȱwrittenȱbyȱ
Jacobȱ b.ȱ Aaronȱ b.ȱ Shalmiaȱ b.ȱ Óabiaȱ b.ȱ Isaacȱ b.ȱ Abrahamȱ inȱ 1854.ȱ Seeȱ manuscriptȱ
FIRKOVICHȱSamȱIIȱBȱ164ȱinȱtheȱNationalȱLibraryȱofȱRussiaȱinȱSt.ȱPetersburg.ȱ‘Mountȱ
Gerizim’ȱ asȱ twoȱ separateȱ wordsȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ scriptȱ isȱ alsoȱ toȱ beȱ found.ȱ Itȱ isȱ inȱ aȱ
manuscriptȱofȱtwoȱfolios,ȱmanuscriptȱFIRKOVICHȱSamȱXIVȱ42ȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ1667.ȱ
17ȱȱ DEȱSACY,ȱCorrespondence,ȱ59.60.61.65.132.ȱTheȱwordȱkanÎsaȱforȱsynagogueȱisȱcommonȱ
inȱSamaritanȱusage,ȱseeȱtheȱoneȱpageȱmanuscriptȱFIRKOVICHȱSamȱXIVȱ17ȱdatedȱ1769ȱ
inȱ theȱ Nationalȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ Russiaȱ inȱ St.ȱ Petersburg.ȱ Theȱ termsȱ ‘alȬHabrȱ alȬkabÎr,ȱ
kan¬ís,ȱkahanaȱ íÛ¬m,ȱk¬hinȱa`Ûam,ȱalȬHabrȱalȬaÛam’ȱareȱusedȱbyȱAByȱSHAFH´, Book,ȱ
12.14.15.ȱ16.ȱ
18ȱȱ SeeȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱT¬rÎkhȱHay¬tÎ,ȱ5.ȱ
goldenȱ boxȱ inȱ aȱ metalȱ closetȱ togetherȱ withȱ otherȱ oldȱ booksȱ inȱ theȱ
synagogue.19ȱ
Ya`qĀbȱ b.ȱ ShafÎqȱ (Ùzzi)ȱ b.ȱ Ya`qĀbȱ b.ȱ H¬rĀnȱ b.ȱ Sal¬maȱ b.ȱ Ghaz¬lȱ
(afterwards,ȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´)ȱ wasȱ bornȱ inȱ 1899ȱ andȱ diedȱ onȱ theȱ 26thȱ ofȱ
Januaryȱ 1987.20ȱ Ourȱ friend,ȱ theȱ lateȱ Professorȱ Macuchȱ metȱ himȱ inȱ
Nablusȱinȱ1968ȱandȱdescribedȱhimȱasȱ“criticalȱmindedȱSamaritan”ȱandȱ
“openȱmindedȱperson”.21ȱAbuȱShafÎ´ȱservedȱasȱhighȱpriestȱfromȱtheȱ20thȱ
ofȱOctoberȱ1984ȱuntilȱhisȱdeath.ȱHisȱparentsȱdiedȱwhenȱheȱwasȱyoung;ȱ
theȱfatherȱdiedȱinȱ1905/1906ȱatȱtheȱageȱofȱthirtyȱfive.ȱHisȱmotherȱ ÀzÎza,ȱ
theȱdaughterȱofȱMurg¬nȱb.ȱSal¬maȱ¬lȱAl†Îf,ȱdiedȱinȱ1915/1916ȱatȱtheȱageȱ
ofȱthirty.ȱThisȱsmallȱfamilyȱofȱfourȱmembersȱusedȱtoȱliveȱinȱaȱ3.5ȱxȱ2ȱmȱ
room.ȱ Theȱ children,ȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´ȱ andȱ hisȱ youngerȱ sister,ȱ MunÎra,ȱ wereȱ
raisedȱ forȱ tenȱ yearsȱ underȱ theȱ auspicesȱ ofȱ theirȱ mother,ȱ theirȱ grandȬ
fatherȱ Jacobȱ b.ȱ Aaronȱ theȱ Leviteȱ (1840Ȭ1916)ȱ andȱ theirȱ paternalȱ uncleȱ
AbĀȱ alȬÍasanȱ b.ȱ Ya`qĀbȱ (1883Ȭ1959).ȱ Itȱ isȱ worthȱ mentioningȱ thatȱ AbĀȱ
ShafÎ´’sȱ father,ȱ aȱ booksellerȱ inȱ Palestine,ȱ visitedȱ Londonȱ withȱ threeȱ
Samaritansȱ inȱ 1903.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ IsH¬qȱ b.ȱ Ìmr¬n,ȱ N¬gÎȱ b.ȱ KhaÃrȱ andȱ
ShelabÎȱb.ȱYa`qĀbȱb.ȱAl†Îf.ȱTheȱmainȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱthreeȱmonthȱtripȱ
wereȱ toȱ sellȱ Samaritanȱ manuscripts,ȱ toȱ collectȱ donationsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ
assistȱ poorȱ Samaritanȱ familiesȱ andȱ forȱ openingȱ aȱ school.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ
manuscriptsȱsoldȱtoȱaȱBritishȱladyȱnamedȱMrs.ȱ/ȱMissȱFeenȱ/ȱFien22ȱwasȱaȱ
smallȱ oldȱ parchment,ȱ aȱ Finasiyyeȱ datingȱ backȱ toȱ preȬIslamicȱ times!ȱ Atȱ
thatȱtimeȱthereȱwereȱstillȱfourȱscrollsȱamongȱwhichȱtheȱfamousȱoneȱbyȱ
Avisha`ȱ b.ȱ PinHas,ȱ wereȱ housedȱ inȱ theȱ threeȱ orȱ fourȱ woodȱ andȱ metalȱ
cabinetsȱ inȱ theȱ synagogueȱ inȱ Nablus.ȱ Thatȱ synagogue,ȱ builtȱ inȱ theȱ
thirteenthȱcentury,ȱhadȱroomȱforȱsixtyȱworshippers.ȱEachȱheadȱofȱthreeȱ
priestlyȱfamiliesȱheldȱoneȱofȱtheȱthreeȱkeysȱforȱtheȱthreeȱbigȱlocksȱofȱtheȱ
ironȱ bigȱ gateȱ ofȱ theȱ synagogue.ȱ Thisȱ meantȱ thatȱ theȱ threeȱ represenȬ
tativesȱshouldȱbeȱpresentȱtoȱopenȱorȱlockȱtheȱsynagogue.ȱ
Abuȱ ShafÎ´ȱ receivedȱ hisȱ basicȱ education,ȱ religiousȱ andȱ secular,ȱ inȱ
threeȱ differentȱ systems.ȱ First,ȱ hisȱ demandingȱ religionȱ teachersȱ wereȱ
19 AByȱ SHAFH´,ȱ T¬rÎkhȱ Hay¬tÎ,ȱ 6ȱ lineȱ 3.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ haȬshemȱ isȱ writtenȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ andȱ
squareȱHebrewȱscripts.ȱ
20ȱȱ Iȱ drewȱ heavilyȱ onȱ AByȱ SHAFH´,ȱ WaciyyatÎ,ȱ foundȱ inȱ twoȱ versionsȱ andȱ AByȱ SHAFH´,ȱ
Book,ȱwhichȱareȱatȱmyȱdisposalȱ(approximately,ȱ930ȱhandȬwrittenȱpages).ȱMyȱthanksȱ
areȱdueȱtoȱtheȱlateȱhighȱpriestȱwhoȱallowedȱmeȱtoȱproduceȱcopiesȱofȱhisȱworksȱinȱtheȱ
1970s.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱdirectȱmentionȱofȱtheȱyearȱinȱwhichȱtheȱpriestȱwasȱborn.ȱTheȱoneȱ
adaptedȱtoȱ1899ȱisȱtheȱmostȱreasonable.ȱȱ
21ȱȱ MACUCH,ȱImportance,ȱ14.15.ȱ
22ȱȱ AByȱSHAFI´, T¬rÎkhȱHay¬tÎ,ȱ10.ȱTheȱauthorȱmentionsȱthatȱsheȱwasȱaȱmissionaryȱnunȱinȱ
PalestineȱandȱknewȱArabicȱwell.ȱ
Sal¬maȱ b. Ìmr¬nȱ andȱ Ibr¬hÎmȱ b.ȱ KhaÃr.ȱ Theȱ Torahȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ prayersȱ
fromȱ M¬rqeȱ Durranȱ wereȱ taught.ȱ Secondly,ȱ heȱ attendedȱ aȱ Protestantȱ
missionaryȱschoolȱwhereȱheȱwasȱsupposedȱtoȱlearnȱmainlyȱArabicȱandȱ
English.ȱ Theȱ old,ȱ liberalȱ andȱ modestȱ teacherȱ AbĀȱ N¬dirȱ wasȱ notȱ
successful.ȱ Thirdly,ȱ theȱ schoolȱ ofȱ E.ȱ K.ȱ Warrenȱ foundedȱ inȱ 1912ȱ wasȱ
consideredȱaȱgoodȱplaceȱforȱAbĀȱShafÎ´ȱtoȱlearnȱvariousȱsubjectsȱsuchȱasȱ
English,ȱ arithmetic,ȱ history,ȱ geographyȱ andȱ religion,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ
basicsȱ ofȱ cantillation.ȱ Thatȱ schoolȱ wasȱ inȱ twoȱ bigȱ housesȱ inȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritans’ȱquarter,ȱoneȱforȱboysȱandȱtheȱotherȱforȱgirls.ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱ
pupilsȱinȱeachȱhouseȱwasȱaboutȱseventy,ȱdistributedȱintoȱthreeȱclasses.ȱ
Theȱageȱofȱtheȱpupilsȱvariedȱbetweenȱfiveȱtoȱtwentyȱyears.ȱYet,ȱitȱshouldȱ
beȱ emphasisedȱ thatȱ theȱ majorȱ partȱ ofȱ learningȱ andȱ educationȱ wasȱ
achievedȱbyȱAbĀȱShafÎ´ȱhimself.ȱHeȱtaughtȱhimselfȱbothȱHebrewȱ(calledȱ
inȱ oneȱ place,ȱ theȱ Jewishȱ language)ȱ andȱ English,ȱ andȱ wasȱ fondȱ ofȱ
readingȱ books.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ youth,ȱ history,ȱ loveȱ stories,ȱandȱ novelsȱattractedȱ
him,ȱbutȱlaterȱheȱturnedȱtoȱscientificȱandȱphilosophicalȱworks.ȱȱ
Inȱ1937ȱAbĀȱShafÎ´ȱmarriedȱ Àf¬fȱ(Yafa)23ȱtheȱdaughterȱofȱGhaz¬lȱb.ȱ
KhaÃrȱ theȱ priestȱ (1924Ȭ1998)ȱ andȱ theyȱ hadȱ tenȱ children,ȱ fiveȱ sonsȱ andȱ
fiveȱ daughters.24ȱ Theȱ gapȱ inȱ educationȱ andȱ inȱ ageȱ betweenȱ theȱ newȱ
coupleȱ wasȱ great.ȱ Theȱ elderȱ sonȱ wasȱ ShafÎqȱ (Ùzzi)ȱ andȱ soȱ theȱ highȱ
priestȱwasȱknownȱbyȱtheȱKunyaȱAbĀȱShafÎ´ inȱcolloquialȱArabic.ȱHeȱtriedȱ
toȱ moveȱ fromȱ Nablusȱ toȱ Íolonȱ nearȱ Telȱ Avivȱ inȱ 1961.ȱ Thisȱ hiddenȱ
desireȱ wasȱ hintedȱ atȱ inȱ hisȱ writtenȱ andȱ recordedȱ testament,ȱ approxiȬ
matelyȱ twoȱ decadesȱ later.25ȱ Heȱ declaredȱ thatȱ heȱ wishedȱ toȱ moveȱ toȱ
ÍolonȱinȱorderȱtoȱserveȱasȱKohenȱandȱifȱitȱwasȱneededȱevenȱtoȱliveȱinȱaȱ
tent.ȱ Thisȱ aspirationȱ wasȱ notȱ realized,ȱ asȱ heȱ confessed,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ
interferenceȱofȱhisȱcousin,ȱtheȱpriestȱadaqa.ȱTheȱrealȱreasonȱbehindȱtheȱ
denialȱofȱtheȱrequestȱofȱtheȱpriestȱtoȱmoveȱtoȱIsraelȱisȱdifferent.ȱAnyoneȱ
whoȱ readsȱ theȱ biographyȱ ofȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´ȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ inevitableȱ conȬ
clusionȱ thatȱ theȱ Israeliȱ authoritiesȱ neededȱ himȱ toȱ stayȱ inȱ Nablusȱ andȱ
continueȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱinformation.ȱHeȱvisitedȱIsraelȱafterȱ
theȱwarȱofȱ1967,ȱmetȱtheȱpresidentȱandȱtheȱprimeȱministerȱofȱIsraelȱandȱ
Dr.ȱ Z.ȱ Benȱ Íayyim.ȱ Abuȱ ShafÎ´ȱ workedȱ hardȱ forȱ theȱ Jewishȱ Agencyȱ
23ȱȱ TheȱnameȱinȱArabicȱmeansȱ‘virtuous,ȱrighteous’ȱandȱinȱHebrewȱ‘beautiful’.ȱ
24ȱ SeeȱA.ȱB.ȱSamaritanȱNews,ȱ715Ȭ717,ȱ31.7.1998,ȱ15.ȱTheȱboysȱareȱShafÎq,ȱMu`În, ÀzÎz,ȱ
Ghaz¬lȱandȱMuáyyad.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱmentionȱofȱtheȱdaughtersȱinȱtheȱtestamentȱbutȱinȱ
otherȱplaces.ȱTheyȱareȱÀzÎza,ȱAmal,ȱSal¬m,ȱIbtis¬mȱandȱRag¬´.ȱ
25ȱȱ Thisȱ testamentȱ hasȱ severalȱ versionsȱ byȱ theȱ passageȱ ofȱ years.ȱ Theȱ oneȱ inȱ myȱ posȬ
sessionȱconsistsȱofȱthirtyȱpagesȱandȱitȱwasȱwrittenȱwhenȱtheȱpriestȱwasȱeightyȱyearsȱ
old.ȱAnyȱspecialȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱpriestȱwithoutȱaȱreferenceȱmeansȱthatȱtheyȱareȱ
basedȱonȱthisȱtestament.ȱ
moreȱthanȱeighteenȱyears,ȱtherebyȱendangeringȱhisȱlife.ȱInȱadditionȱheȱ
wroteȱ forȱ theȱ newspapers,ȱ theȱ Palestineȱ Postȱ andȱ Davarȱ forȱ moreȱ thanȱ
eighteenȱyears,ȱandȱforȱHaȬAretzȱforȱtwentyȬoneȱyears.ȱHisȱattemptsȱtoȱ
getȱ adequateȱ compensationȱ wereȱ inȱ vain.26ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ heȱ andȱ
hisȱfamilyȱsucceededȱinȱgettingȱIsraeliȱidentityȱcardsȱandȱnewȱimmigrantȱ
certificates.ȱȱ
AbĀȱShafÎ´ȱwasȱcourageous,ȱopenȱminded,ȱliberal,ȱfrank,ȱdiplomaticȱ
andȱmodest.ȱItȱisȱreallyȱrare,ȱinȱmyȱopinion,ȱtoȱfindȱanȱoldȱmanȱlivingȱinȱ
aȱtraditionalȱmiddleȱeasternȱsocietyȱsayingȱtoȱhisȱwifeȱHabÎbatÎȱor HabÎbti,ȱ
letȱ aloneȱ puttingȱ itȱ downȱ inȱ writing.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ heȱ includedȱ aȱ smallȱ
chapterȱ entitledȱ ‘Myȱ Loveȱ Story’ȱ whichȱ hadȱ lastedȱ sevenȱ yearsȱ andȱ
wereȱtheȱsweetestȱyearsȱofȱhisȱlife.ȱThisȱlongȱstoryȱdidȱnotȱendȱwithȱhisȱ
marriageȱwithȱtheȱdaughterȱofȱhisȱmaternalȱuncle.ȱYet,ȱwhileȱmentionȬ
ingȱtheȱnamesȱofȱhisȱfiveȱsons,ȱoneȱbyȱone,ȱheȱrefrainedȱfromȱmentionȬ
ingȱtheȱnamesȱofȱhisȱfiveȱdaughtersȱandȱtheȱnameȱofȱhisȱwife.ȱȱ
AbĀȱShafÎ´ȱwasȱactiveȱinȱvariousȱfields.ȱSocially,ȱheȱhadȱgoodȱrelaȬ
tionsȱ withȱ Jewish,ȱ Muslim,ȱ Christian,ȱ andȱ Druzeȱ dignitariesȱ suchȱ asȱ
YitsHakȱ BenȬZvi,ȱ Dr.ȱ Yisraélȱ b.ȱ Zeévȱ (Wolfson),ȱ Mosheȱ Shertuk,ȱ
MenaHemȱ Kapeliouk,ȱ Akramȱ Z`¾tir,ȱ Dr.ȱ MuHammadȱ AmÎn,ȱ Íasanȱ alȬ
K¬tib,ȱ Fatherȱ Zakariyy¬,ȱ theȱ headȱ ofȱ Latinȱ monasteryȱ inȱ Nablus,ȱ andȱ
Dr.ȱ AHmadȱ Íamza.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ amongȱ aȱ smallȱ Samaritanȱ delegation,ȱ
adaqaȱ b.ȱ IsH¬q,ȱ N¬gÎȱ KhaÃrȱ andȱ Àbdȱ Ibr¬hÎm,ȱ whichȱ metȱ theȱ
Jordanianȱ kingȱ Óal¬lȱ inȱ 1951.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ hisȱ connectionsȱ withȱ
someȱofȱhisȱrelativesȱwereȱnotȱfreeȱfromȱrancour,ȱenvyȱandȱjealousy.ȱȱ
HeȱwroteȱsomeȱhandȬwrittenȱbooksȱinȱArabic,ȱcopiedȱmanyȱmanuȬ
scripts27,ȱ correspondedȱ withȱ YitsHakȱ benȱ Zviȱ (1883Ȭ1963),28ȱ theȱ secondȱ
presidentȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ wasȱ aȱ correspondentȱ andȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ ofȱ
informationȱ inȱ Nablusȱ forȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ newspapersȱ Doárȱ HayȬYom,ȱ
26ȱȱ SeeȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱT¬rÎkhȱHay¬tÎ,ȱ171:ȱ‘ϲϓȱΖϠϤϋȱϰΘϟ΍ȱΕϮϨΨδϟ΍ ‘‘ȱϦϣȱϪΘϤϴϗȱΖϧΎϛȱΎϤϬϣȱ˱ΎπϳϮόΗȱάΧ΍ȱϥ΍ Ϟϣ΁ ΖϨϛ

ςγϮΒϟ΍ ϰ
˷ ΘϔϴΤλ ϊϣ ϲϠϤϋ ˯ΎϘϟ Ϛϟάϛ ˬϚϟΫ ϞϴΒγ ϲϓ ϲδϔϨΑ ΕήσΎΧϭ ϱΪϬΟ ΔϳΎϏ ΖϟάΑϭ Ύ˱ ϣΎϋ ήθϋ ΔϴϧΎϤΜϟ΍ ˯ΎϫίȱϪΘϣΪΧ
.ϚϟΫ Ϧϣ ϝϮσ΍ ΓΪϣ ʸʡʣ έΎΑ΍Ωϭ ȱ
27ȱȱ Suchȱ asȱ theȱ followingȱ manuscripts:ȱ MSȱ Samȱ 1ȱ inȱ Seminarȱ fürȱ Semitistikȱ undȱ AraȬ
bistikȱ inȱ Berlin,ȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ Torahȱ withȱ Tiberianȱ vocalisationȱ fromȱ 1944;ȱ theȱ Yadȱ
BenȬZviȱLibraryȱinȱJerusalem,ȱMSSȱnos.ȱ7015,ȱ7029,ȱ7034,ȱ7055,ȱ7061,ȱ7084,ȱ7090.ȱAbĀȱ
ShafÎ´ȱ usedȱ toȱ copyȱ manuscriptsȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ livlihood.ȱ Heȱ hadȱ niceȱ handwritingȱ
andȱ people,ȱ especiallyȱ foreigners,ȱ cameȱ andȱ boughtȱ whatȱ ‘hisȱ penȱ hasȱ bled’ȱ
(yaštarĀnȱmaȱyanzifuhuȱqalamÎ’).ȱInȱadditionȱheȱworkedȱfiveȱyearsȱasȱaȱscribeȱforȱhisȱ
cousin,ȱ theȱ highȱ priest,ȱ Ìmr¬nȱ b.ȱ IsH¬qȱ (1889Ȭ1980),ȱ andȱ copiedȱ overȱ thirtyȱ manuȬ
scripts.ȱ
28ȱ SeeȱMOSCATI,ȱCorrespondence,ȱ365Ȭ374.ȱNeedlessȱtoȱsay,ȱthisȱcorrespondenceȱneedsȱ
stillȱfurtherȱresearchȱandȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱsomeȱsamplesȱpreservedȱinȱtheȱYadȱbenȬ
ZviȱLibraryȱandȱinȱtheȱCentralȱZionistȱArchivesȱinȱJerusalemȱwouldȱbeȱrequired.ȱȱ
Davar, Haaretzȱ andȱ theȱ Englishȱ oneȱ Palestine Post.ȱ Hisȱ reportsȱ aboutȱ
aggression,ȱ fightsȱ andȱ robberies,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ writtenȱ inȱ Arabic,ȱ wereȱ
translatedȱ intoȱ Hebrewȱ byȱ theȱ Jewishȱ journalistȱ M.ȱ Kapeliuk.ȱ Thoseȱ
reports,ȱ atȱ leastȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ wereȱ notȱ published.ȱ Hisȱ workȱ inȱ
journalismȱ causedȱ himȱ politicalȱ hardshipsȱ particularlyȱ duringȱ theȱ
generalȱ strikeȱ inȱ 1936ȱ andȱ theȱ peasants’ȱ revoltȱ inȱ 1938.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ heȱ
engagedȱinȱseveralȱoccupationsȱsuchȱasȱpalmistry,ȱdistillingȱandȱsellingȱ
arrack29,ȱ andȱ commerce.ȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´ȱ putȱ itȱ clearlyȱ –ȱ theȱ jobȱ ofȱ highȱ
priesthoodȱ sinceȱ hisȱ grandfather’sȱ timeȱ isȱ equalȱ toȱ nothingȱ andȱ itsȱ
holderȱwillȱstarveȱifȱheȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱanotherȱoccupation.30ȱȱ
Amongȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´’sȱ books,ȱ mentionȱ shouldȱ beȱ madeȱ ofȱ Theȱ Bookȱ
onȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ Myȱ Testamentȱ andȱ theȱ Storyȱ ofȱ myȱ Life,ȱ Aȱ Partialȱ
ArabicȱTranslationȱofȱYitsH akȱBenȬZvi’sȱSeferȱHaš-ȱšhomronim,ȱandȱtheȱ
SamaritanȱSacrificeȱofȱPassoverȱinȱHebrewȱpublishedȱinȱ1934.31ȱAȱshortȱ
treatiseȱ dealingȱ withȱ Samaritanȱ scholarsȱ andȱ theirȱ Arabicȱ writingsȱ isȱ
includedȱinȱtheȱBook of the Samaritans,ȱthoughȱitȱisȱavailableȱseparately.32ȱ
AbĀȱShafÎ´ȱtranslatedȱmanuscriptsȱfromȱArabicȱintoȱHebrewȱincludingȱaȱ
pamphletȱ entitledȱ “Whoȱ areȱ theȱ Samaritans”ȱ whichȱ wasȱ publishedȱ inȱ
Íolonȱinȱ1965ȱbyȱIbr¬hÎmȱadaqa,ȱtheȱhusbandȱofȱoneȱofȱtheȱdaughtersȱ
ofȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´.ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ especiallyȱ thatȱ AbĀȱ ShafÎ´ȱ hasȱ
translatedȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Pentateuchȱ intoȱ Arabicȱ andȱ hasȱ pointedȱ outȱ
theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ translationsȱ ofȱ AbĀȱ Sa`Îdȱ (thirteenthȱ cenȬ
tury),ȱRabȱSaàdiaȱGaonȱ(882Ȭ942)ȱandȱtheȱwellȬknownȱSeptuagint.ȱThisȱ
work,ȱwhichȱtookȱthreeȱyearsȱ(1935Ȭ1938),ȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱYitsHakȱBenȬZviȱ
whoȱfailedȱtoȱfindȱanȱadequateȱpurchaserȱforȱit.33ȱTheȱpriestȱdecidedȱtoȱ
29ȱ Calledȱbyȱhimȱ‘aȱdespicableȱprofession’ȱ(mihnaȱmardĀla).ȱTheȱusualȱwordȱforȱarrackȱ
isȱkhamr (wine).ȱ
30ȱȱ SeeȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱT¬rÎkhȱHay¬tÎ,ȱ4.ȱȱ
31ȱȱ Theȱfirstȱbookȱisȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱfirstȱnote.ȱThisȱworkȱwasȱtranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱMANI,ȱ
theȱ Hebrewȱ teacherȱ inȱ Nablus,ȱ intoȱ Hebrew.ȱ Thisȱ typewrittenȱ translationȱ ofȱ 263ȱ
pagesȱ isȱ foundȱ underȱ theȱ no.ȱ 7043ȱ inȱ theȱ Yadȱ BenȬZviȱ Library.ȱ Theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ
secondȱbookȱofȱAByȱSHAFH´ȱis:ȱϲΗΎϴΣ ΦϳέΎΗϭ ϲΘϴλϭ .ȱTheȱpartialȱtranslationȱofȱ61ȱpagesȱisȱ
foundȱinȱManuscriptȱNo.ȱ7088ȱinȱtheȱYadȱBenȬZviȱLibraryȱinȱJerusalem.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱ
mostȱ ofȱ theȱ booksȱ usedȱ byȱ BENȬZVIȱ forȱ writingȱ hisȱ bookȱ Seferȱ haȬShomronimȱ wereȱ
boughtȱfromȱAByȱSHAFH´.ȱ
32ȱȱ YadȱBenȬZviȱLibraryȱManuscriptȱno.ȱ7033.ȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱ Kadmoniyyot,ȱ 321Ȭ327. BENȬ
ZVIȱY.ȱandȱBENȬZEÉVȱwereȱfriendsȱwithȱtheȱpriest,ȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱtheyȱaskedȱandȱurgedȱ
himȱtoȱwriteȱtheȱtwoȱArabicȱworksȱthatȱareȱavailableȱtoȱusȱnow.ȱBenȬZeévȱpromisedȱ
toȱ translateȱ AByȱ SHAFH´’sȱ biographyȱ intoȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Englishȱ andȱ publishȱ themȱ
together.ȱThisȱdesireȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱrealised.ȱ
33ȱȱ AByȱSHAFH´,ȱWaciyyatÎ,ȱ175:ȱϊϣȱϪϴΑήόϟ΍ȱϪϐϠϟ΍ȱϰϟ΍ȱϪΜϳΪΣȱΔϤΟήΗȱέΎϔγ΍ȱΔδϤΨϟ΍ȱΔϳήϣΎδϟ΍ȱϩ΍έϮΘϟ΍ȱΖϤΟήΗȱΎϤϛ
ϑϼΘΧ΍ϭȱϕήϓȱϞϜϟȱΕήη΍ϭȱϪϓϭήόϤϟ΍ȱΔϴϨϴόΒδϟ΍ϭȱϪϳΪόγȱΏήϠϟȱϪϳΩϮϬϴϟ΍ϭȱΪϴόγȱϮΑϻȱϪϳήϣΎδϟ΍ȱϪϤΟήΘϟ΍ȱϦϴΑȱΕΎϗϭήϔϟ΍ȱΔψΣϼϣȱȱ
ȱȱϲϠϋȱέΎηΎϓȱϲΑΎλȱϦΑȱϥϭΩϷ΍ȱϲϘϳΪλȱϰϠϋȱϢϬΘοήϋȱΪϗϭȱˮ Ε΍ϮϨγȱΔΛϼΘϟ΍ȱ˯ΎϫίȱϞϤόϟ΍ȱ΍άϫȱϲϨϗήϐΘγ΍ȱΪϗϭȱϪϨϴόϣȱΕ΍έΎη΄Αȱȱ
ȱ
sellȱ thisȱ translationȱ becauseȱ heȱ neededȱ moneyȱ forȱ hisȱ marriage.ȱ Myȱ
continuousȱattemptsȱsinceȱtheȱ1970sȱtoȱfindȱanyȱtracesȱofȱsuchȱaȱtransȬ
lationȱhaveȱbeenȱfruitless.ȱȱ
AbĀȱShafÎ´ȱproducedȱcopiesȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱTorahȱandȱtheȱDeftarȱ
(collectionȱ ofȱ prayers)ȱ withȱ vocalizationȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ teachȱ hisȱ childrenȱ
andȱ toȱ preserveȱ theȱ traditionalȱ oralȱ pronunciation.ȱ Heȱ claimedȱ thatȱ
someȱ ‘ignorant,ȱ fanaticȱ andȱ reactionaryȱ persons’ȱ forbadeȱ suchȱ anȱ
action.ȱ Theirȱ argumentȱ wasȱ thatȱ theseȱ signsȱ ofȱ vowelsȱ areȱ consideredȱ
anȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ holyȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ Torahȱ (Deutȱ 4,2;ȱ 13,1).34ȱ Theȱ priestȱ
Jacobȱ resistedȱ theȱ temptationȱ toȱ sellȱ oldȱ manuscriptsȱ forȱ anyȱ sumsȱ ofȱ
moneyȱ(abaytuȱanȱabÎàȱalȬkh¬lidaȱbiȬlȬf¬nÎ).35ȱȱ
TheȱlifeȱofȱAbuȱShafÎ´ wasȱhardȱandȱheȱdescribedȱitȱmoreȱthanȱonceȱ
asȱaȱtragedyȱ(ma´s¬).ȱAsȱaȱfatherȱheȱdidȱnotȱderiveȱmuchȱpleasureȱfromȱ
theȱ intellectualȱ achievementsȱ ofȱ hisȱ sonsȱ andȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ rationalȱ
peopleȱshould,ȱinȱfact,ȱgiveȱaȱbanquetȱwhenȱsomebodyȱpassesȱaway.ȱAsȱ
forȱhimself,ȱheȱdesiredȱthatȱhisȱcoffinȱbeȱmadeȱofȱstrongȱwoodȱpaintedȱ
greenȱ andȱ theȱ graveȱ oughtȱ toȱ beȱ twoȱ andȱ halfȱ metresȱ deepȱ andȱ oneȱ
metreȱ wide.ȱ Plantingȱ flowersȱ andȱ especiallyȱ rosesȱ besideȱ theȱ graveȱ
wouldȱ beȱ appreciated.ȱ Heȱ didȱ notȱ likeȱ mourningȱ andȱ wearingȱ blackȱ
clothesȱ(l¬ȱuHibbȱalȬHid¬dȱwaȬl¬ȱlibsȱalȬsaw¬d).ȱTherefore,ȱheȱbeseechedȱ
hisȱwife,ȱhisȱdaughtersȱandȱhisȱgrandchildrenȱnotȱtoȱmournȱoverȱthirtyȱ
days.ȱȱ
InȱtheȱfollowingȱisȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱHighȱPriestȱSal¬maȱb.ȱGhaz¬lȱb.ȱ
IsH¬qȱ b.ȱ Ibr¬hÎmȱ b.ȱ adaqaȱ andȱ theȱ Arabȱ tailorsȱ ofȱ Nablusȱ duringȱ theȱ
firstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱnineteenthȱcentury.ȱItȱisȱpresentedȱasȱitȱappearedȱinȱAbĀȱ
ShafÎ´’sȱ handȬwrittenȱ bookȱ onȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ 1960.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ
modificationȱIȱ madeȱ isȱ theȱ additionȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ dotsȱ onȱ theȱ t¬´ marbĀ†aȱ
whichȱ wereȱmissingȱ inȱseveralȱ cases.ȱ Theȱ storyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱsomeȱ
interestȱ forȱ Palestinianȱ dialectologyȱ hadȱ itȱ beenȱ writtenȱ inȱ theȱ spokenȱ
ArabicȱofȱNablus.ȱTheȱstrokeȱ/ȱdenotesȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱpageȱandȱtheȱbeginȬ
ningȱofȱanother.36ȱTheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱfollowsȱtheȱArabicȱtext.ȱ
ȱȱϪϨϜϟϭȱαϭήόϟΎΑȱϲϟȱϙέΎΑϭȱΔϐϟΎΑȱϩϭΎϔΤΑȱϲϨϠΒϘΘγ΍ȱϪΒΘϜϣȱϲϓȱϪΗέίȱΎϤϟϭȱ. ϢϬΑȱϪϳ΃έȱϯήϴϟȱϩΪϨϋȱΎϬΘϗϭȱϢϬΘϛήΘϓȱϩΪϨϋȱϢϬ΋ΎϘΑΎΑȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ. ϲϟȱΎϬΟήΧ΃ȱΪϗϭȱϲΘϤΟήΘϟȱ˳ήΘθϣȱϲϟȱΪΠϳȱϥ΍ȱϊτΘδϳȱϢϟȱϪϧϷȱϪϔγ΍ȱϯΪΑ΍ȱȱ
ȱ
InȱAByȱSHAFH´,ȱBook,ȱthereȱisȱaȱshortȱchapterȱonȱ201Ȭ206ȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱdifferencesȱ
betweenȱtheȱSamaritanȱPentateuchȱandȱtheȱMasoreticȱPentateuch.ȱ
34 AByȱSHAFH´,ȱBook,ȱ124ȱ(inȱfactȱitȱshouldȱbeȱ224;ȱCf.ȱMACUCH,ȱImportance,ȱ14Ȭ15.ȱ
35ȱ Literallyȱ‘toȱsellȱtheȱeternalȱforȱtheȱtemporal’.ȱ
36ȱȱ AByȱSHAFH´,ȱBook,ȱ183Ȭ186.ȱ
ΔΑϮΘϜϣ ήϴϐϟ΍ κμϘϟ΍

ϦϴσΎϴΨϟ΍ϭ ϝ΍ΰϏ ϦΑ Δϣϼγ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍
ȱ
ΎϫϮόϤγ ϦϤϣϭ ΎϬϧϮψϔΤϳ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϩ΍Ϯϓ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϫΎϨϠϘϧϭ ΖΒΘϛ ϥ΍ ϖΒδϳ Ϣϟϭ ΪϬόϟ΍ ΓΪϴόΑ ήϴϏ ΔϴϘϴϘΣ Δμϗ ϩάϫϭ
ϪΗϻΎμΗ΍ϭ ϪΘσΎδΑϭ ϪϋέϮΑ Δϣϼγ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ήϬΘη΍ Ϊϗϭ . ΎϬϴϠΗ ϲΘϟ΍ Δ˷μϘϟ΍ ϊϣ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ΍άϫ Ϧϋ ΎϬϠϘϨϧ ϢϬ΋ΎΑ΁ Ϧϣ
ϪΑήϘϓ . ϝ΍ΰϏ ϪϴΑ΍ Ϧϋ ϩΎϘϠΗ ϱάϟ΍ ϢϴΠϨΘϟ΍ ϢϠϋ ϦϘΘϳ Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϥΎϛϭ . ϩΪϴΑ Ύϣ ΔϠϗϭ ϩήϘϔΑ ήϬΘη΍ ΎϤϛ . ΔϴΣϭήϟ΍
ϪΗΎϴΣ έϮϣ΍ ϲϓ ˯ϲθϟ΍ ξόΑ ϩϭΪϋΎγϭ ϢϬϴϟ΍ ΪϠΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϥϮϤϜΤϳ Ϧϳάϟ΍ Ώήόϟ΍ ΎϬΟϭϭ ϡΎϜΣ ξόΑ Ϛϟάϟ
ΔϤΟήΗϭ ϩΪϟ΍ϭ ΓΎϴΣ ΔϤΟήΗ ϲϓ Ϫϴϟ΍ ΓέΎηϷ΍ ΖϘΒγ ϰΘϟ΍ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ Δϣϼγ Ϯϫ ΍άϫ . ΓήϴΒϜϟ΍ ϪΘϠ΋Ύϋ ΔηΎϋ΍ϭ
Δϳϭ΍ΰϐϟ΍ ΔϳΪϫ ϪΘΟϭί Ϧϣ ΓΰϏ Ϧϣ ϪϋϮΟέ ΪόΑ Ϫϟ Ϊϟϭ ϝ΍ΰϏ ϦϫΎϜϠϟ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ϦΑϷ΍ Ϯϫϭ . Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϪΗΎϴΣ
Ϧϣ ΓΪΣ΍ϮΑ ϪΠϳϭΰΗ Ϧϣ βϠΑΎϧ ϲϓ ϥϮϳήϣΎδϟ΍ ϊϨΘϣ΍ ϡϮϳ . ϪϘϳΪλ έϭήδϟ΍ 37 ϦΑ ϝ΍ΰϏ ΖΧ΍ ΔϳήϣΎδϟ΍
Ϧϣ ΓΪϣ ΓΰϏ ϲϓ ϡΎϗ΍ϭ ϢϫΪϨϋ Ϧϣ ϞΣήϓ . ϢϬϨϣ ϦϳάϔϨΘϤϟ΍ ξόΑ ϊϣ Ϫϟ ϊϗϭ 38 ΎϓϼΨϟ ήψϧ 39 ϢϬΗΎϨΑ
ΪόΑ ϻ΍ ϪϋϮΟήΑ ΍ϮΤϤδϳ Ϣϟϭ ϢϬΗΎϨΑ ΓήϴΧ Ϧϣ 40 ϩϮΟϭί΍ϭ ΎϬϴϓ ϦϴϳήϣΎδϟ΍ ϞΒ˶ϗ Ϧϣ Ύ˱ϣήϜϣ ΍˱ίΰόϣ Ϧϣΰϟ΍
ϥΎϛϭ . ϪϘΤΑ ϢϬϨϣ έΪΑ Ύϣ ϰϠϋ ϢϬϔγ΍ϭ ϢϬϣΪϧ ΍ϭήϬχ΍ Ϧϳάϟ΍ βϠΑΎϧ ˯ΎϬΟϭ Ϧϣ Ϊϴϛ΍ ΐϨσϭ ΪϳΪη ΡΎΤϟ΍
Ϫϧϻ ϞΑ ΎϬϨδΤϳ Ϫϧϻ βϴϟ ΔσΎϴΨϟ΍ ϑήΘΣ΍ Ϊ˷ Σ ϰμϗ΍ ϰϟ΍ Ύ˱ϋέϭϭ Ύ˱ϨϳΪΘϣ ΔϳΎϐϠϟ Ύ˱τϴδΑ Δϣϼγ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍
Ϫϟ ϞΧΩ ϻ Ϋ΍ ϪϟΎϴϋ ϰϠϋ 41 ΎϬϘϔϨϴϟ ΩϮϘϨϟ΍ ξόΑ ϰϠϋ ϝϮμΤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϪϨϜϤϳ ϱάϟ΍ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ϞϤόϟ΍ / ΎϬϴϓ ϯ΃έ
Ύ˱όο΍ϮΘϣ ΎΗϮϧΎΣ έΎΠΌΘγΎΑ ϢϬπόΑ ϩΪϋΎγ Ϊϗϭ ϪΗΪϋΎδϣ ϰϠϋ ΍˱έΩΎϗ ήϘϔϟ΍ ΔόϗΪϤϟ΍ ϪΘϔ΋Ύσ Ϧϣ ΍˱ΪΣ΍ ϻϭ
. βϠΑΎϧ ϲϓ ϦϴσΎϴΨϟ΍ ( ΔϟΎϛϭ ) ϕϮγ ϲϓ ΍˱ήϴϐλϭ ΍˱ΪΟ
ϪϧϮϛ Ϧϣ ϢϏήϟΎΑϭ Ϊϴϫί ή˳ Ο΄Α ˯ΎτδΒϟ΍ ϦϴϳϭήϘϠϟ ΰϴΑΎϨϘϟ΍ ΔσΎϴΧ ϲϓ Ϧϣΰϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ύ˱ΣΩέ ϞϐΘη΍ϭ
Ϧϣ Ϫϧ΍ήϴΟ ϩΪδΤϓ . ϩΪϨϋ ϻ΍ Ύ˱ΒϳήϘΗ ϥϮτϴΨϳ ϻ ΍ϮϠόΟϭ ϪϴϠϋ ΍ϮϠΒϗ΍ ΪϘϓ ΔόϨμϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϲϓ ΍˱ήϫΎϣ ήϴϏ ϥΎϛ
ϪΑ ωΎϘϳϻ΍ ΍ϭέήϘϓ ϢϬΑ ϝ
˶ ΎΒϳ Ϣϟ ϪϨϜϟϭ ϩϭΩΪϫϭ ΓήΟϷ΍ ϊϓήϳ ϥ΍ Ϫϴϟ΍ ΍ϮΒϠσϭ ϩϮϫήϛϭ Ώήόϟ΍ ϥϮσΎϴΨϟ΍
ήόθϳ ϻ ΚϴΤΑ ϪϧΎϛΩ ϲϓ Ϫϟ ΍Ϯ˷γΩ ϢΛ . ϥΎϗϮσ ϚΑ ϰγϮϣ έΎΒΠϟ΍ βϠΑΎϧ ϢϛΎΤϟ ϩήϣ΍ ϊϓέϭ ΔϗήδϟΎΑ ϪϣΎϬΗ΍ϭ
ϥΎϗϮσ ϚΑ ϰγϮϣ ϞΑΎϗϭ ϢϬϨϣ ΍˱Ϊϓϭ ΐϫΫ ϢΛ . ϢϬϨ΋ΎΑί Ϧϣ Ϣϫ ΎϬϧϮϗήδϳ ΍ϮϧΎϛ ϰΘϟ΍ εΎϤϘϟ΍ ϊτϗ ξόΑ
ϢϬόϴϤΟ ΍ϭΪϬηϭ . ϢϬϟΎϣ Ϟ ˷ ΤΘδϳϭ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ ϝΎϣ ϕήδϳ ϱάϟ΍ ϯήϣΎδϟ΍ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ΍άϫ ήϣ΍ ϪϴϠϋ ΍Ϯοήϋϭ
. ϚϟΫ ϰϠϋ ΍ϮϤδϗ΍ϭ ϥϮϟϮϘϳ Ύϣ ΔΤλ ϰϠϋ ϪϣΎϣ΍
ϦϴϜδϤϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϥϭΪδΤΗ ϢϜϧ΍ ϢϬϟ ϝΎϗϭ ϝϮϘϟ΍ ϢϬϟ φϠϏ΍ϭ ΔϠϫϭ ϝϭϷ 42 Ϫϓήόϳ ϱάϟ΍ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϢϬϗΪμϳ Ϣϟϭ
ϥ΍ ϻ΍ ϚϴϠϋ ΎϤϓ ΎϨϗΪμΗ ϻ ΖϨϛ ϥ΍ ΎϧΪϴγ Ύϳ : ΍ϮϟΎϘϓ . ΔϬΒη Ϟϛ Ϧϋ ΪϴόΑϭ ωέϭϭ ςϴδΑ Ϯϫϭ ϩϮϤϠψΗϭ
ΔϗϭήδϤϟ΍ ϊτϘϟ΍ ξόΑ ΎϬΑ ΪΟϮϳ Ϫϧ΍ Ϧϣ ϦϳΪϛ΄Θϣ ΎϨϧΎϓ ϪϧΎϛΩ ϲϓ ΚΤΒϳ Ϧϣ ϙΪϨϋ Ϧϣϭ ϙϮΗ Ϧϣ ϞγήΗ
ȈϚϟάϛ Ϯϫϭ " ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϢϬϟ ϝΎϘϓ . ΎϨϴϠϋ ΎϧΪϴγ Ϫοήϔϳ ϱάϟ΍ ˯΍ΰΠϟ΍ ϦϳΪόΘδϣ ϦΤϧ / ά˳ ΋ΪϨόϓ ΎϨϟϮϗ ϖϘΤΘϳ Ϣϟ ΍ΫΎϓ
ϰΘϟ΍ ΔϗϭήδϤϟ΍ ϊτϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ύ˱Όϴη ϪΑ ΍ϭΪΟϭ ΍ΫΎϓ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮϧΎΣ ΍ϮθΘϔϳϭ ΍ϮΒϫάϳ ϥ΍ ϪϟΎΟέ ξόΑ ήϣ΃ ϢΛ
ϩϮΠϋΰϳ ϻϭ ϩϭήπΤϳ ϼϓ Ύ˱Όϴη ΍ϭΪΠϳ Ϣϟ ΍Ϋ΍ϭ . ϥΎϛΪϟ΍ ΐΣΎλ ϊϣ ΎϫϭήπΤϳ ϥ΍ ϢϬϴϠόϓ ϥϮσΎϴΨϟ΍ ΎϫήϛΫ
ϰϠϋ ΍ϭήΜϋ ΎϤϟϭ ΍ϮΜΤΒϳ ˯ϲη ϱ ˷ ΃ ϰϠϋϭ ΍ϭήπΣ ΍ΫΎϤϟ ϱέΪϳ Ϣϟ ϱάϟ΍ Δϣϼγ ϥΎϛΩ ΍ϮθΘϓϭ ˯ϻΆϫ ΐϫάϓ
΍ϭΪΟϭ 43 Ύϣ ϊϣ ΍ϮϠλϭ ΎϤϟϭ . Ϟόϔϓ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϢϬϘϓ΍ήϳ ϥ΍ ϪϨϣ ΍ϮΒϠσ ϢϬϳΪϳΎΑ ϥϮϜΘθϤϟ΍ ΎϬόοϭ ϱάϟ΍ ϊτϘϟ΍
37ȱȱ Addedȱbelowȱtheȱline.ȱȱ
38ȱȱ Thisȱphenomenonȱofȱhavingȱtheȱalifȱofȱtheȱaccusativeȱcaseȱprecededȱbyȱaȱprepositionȱ
whichȱ governsȱ theȱ genitiveȱ isȱ commonȱ inȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ AByȱ SHAFH´ȱ [Ourȱ
programȱcannotȱarrangeȱtheȱfootnotesȱinȱtheȱcorrectȱSemiticȱorder].ȱ
39ȱȱ FirstȱheȱwroteȱϦϬΗΎϨΑȱandȱthenȱcorrected.ȱȱ
40ȱȱ Originallyȱwithoutȱaȱdiacriticalȱpointȱonȱtheȱthirdȱletter.ȱȱ
41ȱȱ OriginallyȱΎϬϘϨϴϟ.ȱ
42ȱȱ Theseȱtwoȱwordsȱwereȱaddedȱaboveȱtheȱline.ȱ
43ȱȱ Itȱwasȱaddedȱaboveȱtheȱline.ȱ
. ΎϬΑ ϢϠϋ ϱ΃ Ϫϟ ϥϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ήϜϧ΄ϓ ΔϘϴϘΤϟΎΑ ϪΛΪΤϳ ϥ΍ Ϫϟ΄γϭ ϪϴϠϋ ϖϔη΍ ϱάϟ΍ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ΪϴΑ ςϘγ
ϩΪϳ ϊϓήϓ ϪϴϠϋ ήϜϨϳϭ ΏάϜϳ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ϥ΍ Ϧ ˷ χϭ ϦϴσΎϴΨϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϠϴΣ ΎϬϧ΍ ϪϟΎΒΑ ήτΨϳ Ϣϟ ϱάϟ΍ ϚϴΒϟ΍ υΎΘϏΎϓ
ΖϧΎϛϭ ς΋ΎΤϟΎΑ ϚϴΒϟ΍ Ϊϳ ΖϣΪτλ΍ϭ ΔΑήπϟ΍ Ϧϋ Δϣϼγ ΩΎΤϓ [ Ύ˱ ϴΣ ϲϘΑϭ ΍˱ΪΣ΍ ϊϔμϳ Ϣϟϭ ] Ϫόϔμϳ ϲϜϟ
Ϧϣ ϖϔΘδϳ ϥ΍ ϞΒϗϭ . ϢϟϷ΍ ΓΪη Ϧϣ ϪϴϠϋ Ύ˱ϴθϐϣ ΎϫΪόΑ ϝΎϣ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϰΘΣ έ΍ΪϘϤϟ΍ ΍άϬΑ ΓΪϳΪη 44 ΔΑήπϟ΍
ϞΘϘΗ ϥ΍ ϞΒϗ ϦϴϜδϤϟ΍ ΎϬϳ΍ ϚδϔϨΑ Ξϧ΍ Ϫϟ ϝΎϗϭ ϩΪϳ Ϧϣ Δϣϼγ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ΩΎΘϗ΍ Ϊϗ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ΓϮΧ΍ ΪΣ΍ ϥΎϛ Ϫ΋ΎϤϏ΍
Ϧϣ ϱέΪϳ ϻϭ ΓΎΠϨϟΎΑ ϕΪμϳ ϻ Ϯϫϭ έ΍ήϔϟΎΑ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ Ϋϼϓ ϪΘοέΎόϣ Ϧϣ α΍ήΤϟ΍ ϊϨϣϭ ΏΎΒϟ΍ Ϫϟ ΢Θϓϭ
ϩάϫ ϞΜϤϟ Ϊ˷ όϤϟ΍ ΔσϼΑ ΖΤΗ ϱάϟ΍ Ώ΍Ωήδϟ΍ ϞΧ΍Ω ϲϓ 45 ΄ΒΘΧ΍ ϪΘϴΑ ϰϟ΍ Ϟλϭ ΎϤϟϭ . ˯ϼΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϩ˴˯ΎΟ Ϧϳ΍
ΪΟϭ / Ϫ΋ΎϤϏ΍ Ϧϣ ϕΎϔΘγ΍ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϱάϟ΍ . ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϝϮγέ ϩΎϓ΍ϭ ϰΘΣ Ϫϴϓ Ύ˱ΌΒΘΨϣ Ϟ ˷ χϭ ϞϳϮσ Ϊϣ΍ άϨϣ έϮϣϻ΍
ϪϤϟ΍ ϒϴϔΨΗ ΍ϮϟϭΎΣ Ύ˱ΜΒϋϭ ˯ΎΒσϷ΍ϭ ϥϮϟΪόϤϟ΍ ήπΣϭ ϊτΘδϳ ϢϠϓ ΎϬϛήΤϳ ϥ΍ ϝϭΎΣϭ ΍˱ΪΟ ϪϤϟΆΗ ϩΪϳ ϥ΍
ϪϨϣ ϡΪϘΘϓ ( ϩϮϠΘϗ Ϊϗ ΍ϮϧϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ϰθΧ Ϊϗϭ ) ϪΑ ΍ϮϠόϓ ΍ΫΎϣϭ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϝΎδϓ . ϩΪϳ ϚϳήΤΗ Ϧϣ ϪϨϴϜϤΗ ϭ΍
έάΘόϳϭ ϩΪϨϋ ϰϟ΍ ΐϫάϳ ϥ΍ ϩΎΟέϭ . ϚϟΫ ϰϠϋ ϚΑ ϰγϮϣ ϩήϜθϓ ϪΘϴΒϟ ϪϠλϭ΍ϭ ϪΟήΧ΍ Ϊϗ Ϫϧ΍ ϪϤϬϓ΍ϭ ϪϴΧ΍
ϦϳϷ ΪόΑϭ ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ έ΍Ω ϰϟ΍ ϚϴΒϟ΍ ϖϴϘη ωήγΎϓ ϩΪϴϔϳ ϥ΍ ϊϴτΘδϳ ϩήϴϏ ΍˱ΪΣ΍ ϻ ϥ΍ ΪϘΘόϳ ϪϧϷ ϪΑ ϪϴΗ΄ϳϭ Ϫϟ
ϩΪϳ ϰϠϋ Ϫϟ Ν˷ήΤ˵ϳ ϥ΍ ϩΎΟέϭ ϚΑ ϰγϮϣ Ϫϟ έάΘϋ΍ Ϟλϭ ΎϣΪϨϋϭ . Ϫόϣ ϪΑΎΤτλΎΑ ϞΒϗϭ ϪϴϠϋ ϩϭήϬχ΍ Ύϣ
ϝΎϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΓήϴΒϛ ΔΤϔϨΑ ϚϟΫ ϰϠϋ Δϣϼγ ˯ϰϓϮϛϭ Ϊϴϟ΍ ΖϛήΤΗϭ ϢϟϷ΍ ϝ΍ίϭ Δϣϼγ Ϟόϔϓ ( ϮϋΪϳϭ ϲϠμϳ )
ϊτϘϟ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ή˷ γ Δϓήόϣ ϰϠϋ ΍˱έΩΎϗ ήϴϏ Ϟχ ϪϨϜϟϭ ϪΘ΋΍ήΒΑ ΪϘΘϋ΍ϭ ϪϴϠϋ Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϊϠΧϭ ϪΘϴΒϟ Ύϳ΍ΪϬϟ΍ϭ
ήϣϷ΍ ΔϴϠΠΑ ϢϬπόΑ ή͉ ϗΎϓ Ύμόϟ΍ ΖΤΗ ϢϬόοϭϭ ϥϮϜΘθϤϟ΍ ϥϮσΎϴΨϟ΍ ήπΣ΍ ϰΘΣ ϪΗϮϧΎΣ ϲϓ ΔϗϭήδϤϟ΍
ϢϬϣήϏϭ . Ϣϫ΍Ϊϳ ΖΒδϛ ΎϤΑ ϢϬ΋΍ΰΟ ΍ϮϟΎϨϓ ϢϬϨ΋ΎΑί Ϧϣ ΎϫϮϗήγ ϰΘϟ΍ ϊτϘϟ΍ ΍Ϯόοϭ Ϧϳάϟ΍ Ϣϫ ϢϬϧ΄Α ϑήΘϋ΍ϭ
. ϦϫΎϜϟ΍ ΎϫΎτϋ΍ ΩϮϘϨϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϴϤϜΑ
ϩ΍ . Ε΍ΪϋΎδϤϟΎΑ ϩΪϤϳ Ϫϟ Ύ˱ϨΘϤϣ ϪΗΎϴΣ ΔϴϘΑ Ϟχϭ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Translation:ȱ
TheȱUnwrittenȱStoriesȱ
TheȱPriestȱSal¬maȱb.ȱGhaz¬lȱandȱtheȱTailorsȱ
ȱ
Thisȱ isȱ aȱ trueȱ storyȱ ofȱ aȱ recentȱ period.ȱ Itȱ hadȱ notȱ beenȱ writtenȱ downȱ
beforeȱweȱtranscribedȱitȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱheardȱitȱfromȱtheirȱparentsȱ
andȱknewȱit.ȱWeȱpresentȱitȱhere,ȱasȱwellȱas,ȱtheȱfollowingȱoneȱasȱpartȱofȱ
theȱ storiesȱ ofȱ thisȱ priest.46ȱ Theȱ priestȱ Sal¬maȱ wasȱ renownedȱ forȱ hisȱ
piety,ȱ simplicityȱ andȱ spiritualȱ contacts,ȱ as wellȱ asȱ forȱ hisȱ povertyȱ andȱ
lackȱofȱmeans.ȱHeȱwasȱskilledȱinȱtheȱscienceȱofȱastrologyȱwhichȱheȱhadȱ
learnedȱ fromȱ hisȱ fatherȱ Ghaz¬l.ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ heȱ wasȱ closeȱ toȱ Arabȱ
governorsȱ andȱ leadersȱ whoȱ ruledȱ thisȱ townȱ [Nablus]ȱ andȱ whoȱ helpedȱ
himȱaȱlittleȱtoȱmeetȱtheȱneedsȱofȱdailyȱlifeȱandȱsupportȱhisȱlargeȱfamily.ȱ
44ȱȱ Itȱwasȱaddedȱaboveȱtheȱline.ȱȱ
45ȱ Originallyȱ˯ΎΒΘΧ΍.ȱ
46ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ entitledȱ ‘Theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Sal¬maȱ alȬk¬hinȱ withȱ Íusain Àbdȱ alȬH¬dÎ’,ȱ seeȱ AByȱ
SHAFH´,ȱ Book,ȱ 187Ȭ196.ȱ Twoȱ otherȱ storiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ aboutȱ Sal¬maȱ areȱ includedȱ inȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱLegends,ȱ49Ȭ56.ȱȱ
ThisȱisȱSal¬maȱtheȱpriestȱwhoȱwasȱmentionedȱaboveȱinȱtheȱsurveyȱofȱ
hisȱfather’sȱandȱhisȱlife.47ȱHeȱwasȱtheȱonlyȱsonȱofȱtheȱpriestȱGhaz¬lȱandȱ
hisȱwifeȱHadiyyaȱ(orȱHadiyye)ȱtheȱSamaritanȱfromȱGazaȱandȱtheȱsisterȱ
ofȱ Ghaz¬lȱ b.ȱ alȬSurĀr,ȱ hisȱ friend.ȱ Theȱ childȱ wasȱ bornȱ afterȱ theȱ familyȱ
returnedȱfromȱGazaȱ[toȱNablus].ȱAtȱthatȱtimeȱtheȱSamaritansȱofȱNablusȱ
refrainedȱ fromȱ givingȱ inȱ marriageȱ oneȱ ofȱ theirȱ daughtersȱ becauseȱ ofȱ aȱ
disputeȱ betweenȱ himȱ andȱ someȱ influentialȱ Samaritans.ȱ Consequently,ȱ
heȱmovedȱtoȱGazaȱandȱlivedȱthereȱforȱaȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱwithȱrespectȱandȱ
honourȱamongȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱTheyȱgaveȱhimȱtheȱbestȱofȱtheirȱdaughȬ
tersȱ inȱ marriageȱ andȱ didȱ notȱ letȱ himȱ goȱ backȱ untilȱ strongȱ urgingȱ andȱ
insistenceȱ ofȱ theȱ notablesȱ ofȱ Nablusȱ whoȱ expressedȱ theirȱ regretȱ andȱ
sorrowȱforȱwhatȱtheyȱhadȱdoneȱagainstȱhim.ȱ
Theȱ priestȱ Sal¬maȱ wasȱ extremelyȱ simple,ȱ religiousȱ andȱ pious.ȱ Heȱ
practisedȱ tailoringȱ asȱ aȱ professionȱ notȱ becauseȱ heȱ masteredȱ itȱ butȱ
becauseȱheȱregardedȱitȱtheȱonlyȱoccupationȱthroughȱwhichȱitȱwouldȱbeȱ
possibleȱtoȱearnȱsomeȱmoneyȱtoȱsupportȱ[literally:ȱspendȱon]ȱhisȱfamily,ȱ
especiallyȱ becauseȱ heȱ hadȱ noȱ otherȱ incomeȱ andȱ noȱ oneȱ amongȱ hisȱ
impoverishedȱcommunityȱwasȱableȱtoȱhelpȱhim.ȱYet,ȱsomeȱofȱthemȱdidȱ
helpȱhimȱinȱrentingȱaȱveryȱmodestȱandȱsmallȱshopȱinȱtheȱbazaarȱonȱtheȱ
streetȱ[wak¬la,ȱguild?] 48ȱofȱtheȱtailorsȱinȱNablus.ȱȱ
Heȱ workedȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ periodȱ makingȱ qan¬bÎzȱ (traditionalȱ men’sȱ
robes)ȱforȱsimpleȱvillagersȱforȱaȱsmallȱfee.ȱInȱspiteȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheȱwasȱ
notȱskilledȱinȱthisȱprofession,ȱpeopleȱchoseȱhimȱasȱtheirȱtailor,ȱcausingȱ
envyȱamongȱhisȱneighbouringȱArabȱtailors,ȱwhoȱhatedȱhimȱandȱaskedȱ
himȱtoȱraiseȱhisȱfeesȱandȱevenȱthreatenedȱhim.ȱSinceȱheȱdidȱnotȱpayȱanyȱ
attentionȱ toȱ them,ȱ theyȱ decidedȱ toȱ harmȱ himȱ byȱ accusingȱ himȱ ofȱ
stealingȱ andȱ complainingȱ toȱ theȱ governorȱ ofȱ Nablus,ȱ theȱ oppressorȱ
MĀsaȱBeyȱÓĀq¬n.ȱToȱmakeȱtheȱcharge,ȱtheyȱsecretlyȱplacedȱinȱhisȱshopȱ
someȱ piecesȱ ofȱ clothȱ thatȱ theyȱ accustomedȱ toȱ stealȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ
clients.ȱ Thenȱ aȱ delegationȱ fromȱ themȱ wentȱ andȱ metȱ MĀsaȱ Beyȱ ÓĀq¬n.ȱ
Theyȱ presentedȱ toȱ himȱ theȱ matterȱ ofȱ thisȱ Samaritanȱ priestȱ whoȱ stealsȱ
theȱ propertyȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ consideringȱ suchȱ actionȱ asȱ lawful.ȱ Theyȱ allȱ
testifiedȱ andȱ sworeȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ governorȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ tellingȱ theȱ
truth.ȱȱ
TheȱBeyȱwhoȱknewȱtheȱpriestȱdidȱnotȱbelieveȱthemȱatȱfirstȱsightȱandȱ
rebukedȱ themȱ harshly.ȱ Heȱ saidȱ toȱ them:ȱ Youȱ envyȱ thisȱ poorȱ andȱ
humbleȱ personȱ andȱ treatȱ himȱ unjustly.ȱ Heȱ isȱ simple,ȱ piousȱ andȱ aboveȱ
47ȱȱ SeeȱTSEDAKA,ȱLegends,ȱ65Ȭ66.ȱOneȱlineȱisȱdevotedȱtoȱGhaz¬lȱandȱfourȱlinesȱtoȱhisȱsonȱ
Sal¬ma.ȱThatȱisȱwhyȱrenderedȱtargamatȱHay¬tȱwhichȱmeansȱbiographyȱorȱsurvey.ȱȱ
48ȱȱ Theȱexactȱmeaningȱisȱunclear.ȱȱ
anyȱsuspicion.ȱTheyȱanswered:ȱOurȱlord,ȱifȱyouȱdoȱnotȱbelieveȱusȱyouȱ
canȱ immediatelyȱ send49ȱ someȱ ofȱ yourȱ menȱ toȱ searchȱ hisȱ shop.ȱ Weȱ areȱ
sureȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ stolenȱ goodsȱ [pieces]ȱ inȱ it.ȱ Ifȱ ourȱ statementȱ
turnsȱoutȱtoȱbeȱfalseȱthenȱweȱwouldȱbeȱreadyȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱpunishmentȱ
thatȱourȱlordȱimposesȱonȱus.ȱTheȱBeyȱagreedȱandȱcommandedȱsomeȱofȱ
hisȱ menȱ toȱ goȱ andȱ searchȱtheȱ priest’sȱ shop.ȱ Heȱ instructedȱ themȱ thatȱ ifȱ
theyȱfoundȱanyȱstolenȱgoodsȱasȱchargedȱbyȱtheȱtailorsȱtheyȱbringȱbothȱ
theȱ stolenȱ goodsȱ andȱ theȱ ownerȱ ofȱ theȱ shop.ȱ Ifȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ findȱ
anythingȱ theyȱ shouldȱ notȱ bringȱ theȱ priestȱ andȱ botherȱ him.ȱ Theyȱ wentȱ
andȱ searchedȱ Sal¬ma’sȱ shopȱ thoughȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ knowȱ whyȱ theyȱ cameȱ
andȱwhatȱtheyȱwereȱlookingȱfor.ȱWhenȱtheyȱfoundȱtheȱstolenȱpiecesȱthatȱ
theȱ complainantsȱ themselvesȱ hadȱ putȱ there,ȱ theyȱ askedȱ himȱ toȱ
accompanyȱthemȱtoȱtheȱBeyȱandȱheȱdid.ȱWhenȱtheyȱarrivedȱbeforeȱtheȱ
Beyȱwithȱwhatȱtheyȱfound,ȱtheȱpriestȱstoodȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱBey.ȱTheȱBey,ȱ
feelingȱpityȱforȱtheȱpriest,ȱaskedȱhimȱtoȱtellȱtheȱtruth.ȱTheȱpriestȱdeniedȱ
havingȱ anyȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ stolenȱ goods.ȱ Theȱ Bey,ȱ whoȱ didȱ notȱ
suspectȱ thatȱ theȱ chargeȱ wasȱ aȱ trickȱ byȱ theȱ tailors,ȱ becameȱ furiousȱ andȱ
thoughtȱthatȱtheȱpriestȱwasȱlyingȱandȱrefusesȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱtruth.ȱ
Soȱheȱraisedȱhisȱhandȱtoȱslapȱhimȱ[nobodyȱheȱslappedȱremainedȱalive]ȱ
butȱ Sal¬maȱ movedȱ asideȱ fromȱ theȱ blow.ȱ Theȱ Bey’sȱ handȱ hitȱ theȱ wall.ȱ
TheȱblowȱwasȱsoȱhardȱthatȱtheȱBeyȱfaintedȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱintenseȱpain.ȱ
Beforeȱ heȱ regainedȱ consciousnessȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ brothersȱ ledȱ theȱ priestȱ
Sal¬maȱbyȱtheȱhandȱandȱsaidȱtoȱhim:ȱGoȱawayȱandȱsaveȱyourself,ȱyouȱ
poorȱ man,ȱ beforeȱ youȱ getȱ killed.ȱ Heȱ openedȱ theȱ doorȱ forȱ himȱ andȱ
orderedȱ theȱ guardsȱ toȱ letȱ himȱ go.ȱ Theȱ priestȱ tookȱ toȱ hisȱ heelsȱ notȱ
believingȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ safe.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ didȱ notȱ knowȱ eitherȱ whatȱ wasȱ theȱ
sourceȱ ofȱ thisȱ misfortune.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ arrivedȱ homeȱ heȱ hidȱ inȱ theȱ cellarȱ
belowȱaȱfloorȱtileȱandȱhadȱbeenȱintendedȱforȱsuchȱpurposesȱforȱaȱlongȱ
time.ȱHeȱremainedȱinȱhidingȱuntilȱaȱBey’sȱmessengerȱshowedȱup.ȱWhenȱ
theȱBeyȱregainedȱconsciousnessȱheȱfeltȱaȱgreatȱpainȱinȱhisȱhand.ȱHeȱtriedȱ
toȱmoveȱhisȱhandȱbutȱcouldȱnot.ȱOrthopaedicȱtherapistsȱandȱphysiciansȱ
triedȱtoȱcureȱhimȱbutȱtheirȱattemptsȱtoȱmitigateȱtheȱpainȱorȱenableȱhimȱ
toȱmoveȱhisȱhandȱwereȱinȱvain.ȱThenȱtheȱBeyȱaskedȱaboutȱtheȱpriestȱandȱ
whatȱtheyȱdidȱtoȱhim.ȱ(Heȱfearedȱthatȱtheyȱmightȱhaveȱkilledȱhim).ȱHisȱ
brotherȱcameȱcloseȱtoȱhimȱandȱinformedȱhimȱthatȱheȱtookȱtheȱpriestȱtoȱ
hisȱhome.ȱMĀsaȱBeyȱthankedȱhimȱforȱdoingȱthatȱandȱrequestedȱhimȱtoȱ
goȱandȱapologizeȱtoȱtheȱpriestȱandȱfetchȱhim,ȱbelievingȱthatȱnoȱoneȱelseȱ
couldȱ helpȱ him.ȱ Theȱ Bey’sȱ brotherȱ hurriedȱ toȱ theȱ priest’sȱ houseȱ andȱ
afterȱ someȱ difficultyȱ theȱ priestȱ showedȱ upȱ andȱ agreedȱ toȱ accompanyȱ
49ȱȱ Theȱliteralȱtranslationȱisȱ‘thenȱyouȱhaveȱto...’ȱandȱthisȱisȱunreasonableȱhere.ȱ
him.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ arrived,ȱ theȱ Beyȱ apologisedȱ toȱ himȱ andȱ askedȱ himȱ toȱ
appealȱtoȱGodȱandȱprayȱforȱhealing.ȱSal¬maȱdidȱandȱtheȱpainȱvanishedȱ
andȱtheȱhandȱwasȱhealed.ȱSal¬maȱwasȱhonouredȱandȱrewardedȱwithȱaȱ
largeȱ sumȱ ofȱ moneyȱ andȱ giftsȱ forȱ hisȱ familyȱ andȱ anȱ outfitȱ forȱ him.ȱ
Thoughȱ theȱ Beyȱ believedȱ inȱ Sal¬ma’sȱ innocence,ȱ heȱ couldȱ notȱ underȬ
standȱ howȱ theȱ stolenȱ piecesȱ cameȱ toȱ theȱ shop.ȱ Yetȱ whenȱ theȱ Beyȱ
broughtȱtheȱtailorsȱwhoȱhadȱcomplainedȱandȱstartedȱbeatingȱthemȱwithȱ
stick50ȱsomeȱofȱthemȱunveiledȱtheȱtruthȱandȱconfessedȱthatȱtheyȱthemȬ
selvesȱ hadȱ placedȱ theȱ piecesȱ thatȱ theyȱ hadȱ stolenȱ fromȱ theirȱ clientsȱ inȱ
theȱ shop.ȱ Theyȱ receivedȱ punishmentȱ whichȱ theyȱ hadȱ broughtȱ uponȱ
themselves,ȱ andȱ theyȱ paidȱ aȱ fineȱ whichȱ wasȱ givenȱ toȱ theȱ priest.ȱ Afterȱ
thatȱ theȱ Beyȱ remainedȱ gratefulȱ toȱ theȱ priestȱ andȱ extendedȱ toȱ himȱ aȱ
helpingȱhand.ȱEND.ȱ
Finally,ȱitȱisȱperhapsȱnotȱsuperfluousȱtoȱmentionȱthatȱtheȱlastȱHighȱ
Priest,ȱ theȱ lateȱ Cohenȱ Sallumȱ Benȱ Ìmr¬nȱ (Shalomȱ benȱ Àmram,ȱ 1923Ȭ
2004),ȱ wasȱ aȱ memberȱ inȱ theȱ Palestinianȱ parliament.ȱ Theȱ newȱ highȱ
priest,ȱ Elàzarȱ Tsedakaȱ benȱ Isaacȱ benȱ Àmramȱ (Àbdȱ alȬMu`Înȱ adaqa,ȱ
1927Ȭ)ȱ andȱ allȱ hisȱ community,ȱ Israeliesȱ andȱ Palestinians,ȱ speakersȱ ofȱ
Arabicȱ andȱ Hebrewȱ willȱ be,ȱ asȱ anyȱ minorityȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ andȱ inȱ
particularȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ East,ȱ theȱ firstȱ onesȱ toȱ welcomeȱ real,ȱ justȱ andȱ
comprehensiveȱpeaceȱbetweenȱIsraelȱandȱtheȱPalestinianȱauthorityȱandȱ
theȱ Arabȱ World.ȱ Shallȱ weȱ witnessȱ justice,ȱ peaceȱ andȱ securityȱ inȱ theȱ
HolyȱLand?ȱȱ
Bibliographyȱ
A.ȱ B.ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ NewsȬWeekly.ȱ Publishedȱ inȱ Holonȱ (Israel)ȱ sinceȱ 1969ȱ byȱ
theȱ editors:ȱ Benyamimȱ TSEDAKAȱ andȱ Yefetȱ b.Ratsonȱ TSEDAKA.ȱ P.ȱ O.ȱ Boxȱ
1029,ȱHolonȱ58ȱ110,ȱIsrael.ȱ
AByȱSHAFH´, Ya`qĀbȱb.ȱÙzziȱ(theȱpriestȱJacobȱtheȱSamaritan),ȱBook:ȱ
ϢϬΒΘϛϢϬϴϧΎϣ΁ϭϢϬΗΎϴϨϣ΃.ΔϴϓΎϘΜϟ΍ϭΔϴϋΎϤΘΟϷ΍ϢϬΘϟΎΣϭ.ϢϬϟ΍ϮΣ΍ϭϢϬγϮϘσϭϢϬΗ΍ΩΎϋϭϢϬΨϳέΎΗˬϦϴϳήϣΎδϟ΍ΏΎΘϛ

ϢϫήϴσΎγ΍ξόΑϊϣϪΑϮΘϜϣήΒϐϟ΍ϭΔΑϮΘϜϤϟ΍ ϢϬμμϗϭ
ȱNablusȱ1960.ȱ
AByȱSHAFH´, Ya`qĀbȱb.ȱÙzziȱ(theȱpriestȱJacobȱtheȱSamaritan),ȱKadmoniyyot:ȱȱ
ȱȱ,4ȱ‘‘ʺʱʰʫ’’ȱʪʥʺʮȱʺʣʧʥʩʮȱʤʠʶʥʤȱ.ʺʩʡʸʲʤȱʯʥʹʬʡȱʭʤʩʮʫʧȱʩʸʥʡʧʥȱʭʩʰʥʸʮʥʹʤȱʩʰʥʮʣʷȱȱ
ȱȱ.321Ȭ327ȱ‘ȱʮʲȱʡʩʡʠȱʬʺȱ,ȱʨȱ’’ȱʶʸʺȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱNotesȱandȱadditionsȱbyȱBENȬZVIȱYitsHakȱand BENȬZEÉVȱIsrael.ȱ
50ȱȱ Literallyȱ‘heȱputȱthemȱunderȱtheȱrod’.ȱ
AByȱSHAFH´, T¬rÎkhȱHay¬tÎ,ȱNablusȱ1975.ȱ
AByȱSHAFH´, WaciyyatƯȱwaȬtƗrikh HayƗt, Nablusȱ1974.ȱȱ
COWLEY,ȱArthurȱErnest,ȱTheȱSamaritanȱLiturgy,ȱIȬII,ȱOxfordȱ1909.ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ /ȱ PUMMER,ȱ Reinhardȱ /ȱ TAL,ȱ Abrahamȱ (eds.),ȱ Aȱ Companionȱ toȱ
SamaritanȱStudies,ȱTübingenȱ1993.ȱ
DEȱ SACY,ȱ Sylvestre,ȱ Correspondenceȱ desȱ Samaritainsȱ deȱ Naplouseȱ pendantȱ lesȱ
annéesȱ 1808ȱ etȱ suiv,ȱ in:ȱ Noticesȱ etȱ Extraitsȱ desȱ Manuscritsȱ deȱ laȱ BiblioȬ
thèqueȱdeȱRoiȱetȱautresȱBibliothèquesȱ12ȱ(1831)ȱ1Ȭ235.ȱ
DEXINGER,ȱ Ferdinand,ȱ Derȱ Taheb.ȱ Dieȱ “messianische”ȱ Gestaltȱ beiȱ denȱ SamariȬ
tanern.ȱHabilitationsschrift,ȱWienȱ1978.ȱ
FLORENTIN,ȱMoshe,ȱ“Shomronit“:ȱAȱGrammaticalȱDescriptionȱandȱLexicalȱChaȬ
racterizationȱ Thesisȱ Submittedȱ toȱ theȱ Senateȱ ofȱ Telȱ Avivȱ Universityȱ 1989,ȱ
TelȱAvivȱ1989ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KAHLE,ȱPaul,ȱDieȱSamaritanerȱimȱJahreȱ1909,ȱin:ȱPalästinajahrbuchȱ26ȱ(1930)ȱ89Ȭ
103.ȱ
MACUCH,ȱRudolf,ȱTheȱImportanceȱofȱSamaritanȱTraditionȱforȱtheȱHermeneuticsȱ
ofȱ theȱ Pentateuch,ȱ in:ȱ TAL,ȱ Abrahamȱ /ȱ FLORENTIN,ȱ Mosheȱ (eds.),ȱ ProceedȬ
ingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Firstȱ Internationalȱ Congressȱ ofȱ theȱ Sociétéȱ d’Étudesȱ SamariȬ
taines,ȱTelȱAviv,ȱAprilȱ11Ȭ13,ȱ1988,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1991,ȱ14Ȭ15.ȱ
MACUCH,ȱ Rudolf,ȱ Samaritanȱ Languages:ȱ Samaritanȱ Hebrew,ȱ Samaritanȱ
Aramaic,ȱ in:ȱ Crown,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ (Tübingenȱ 1989)ȱ 533Ȭ
540.ȱ
PUMMER,ȱ Reinhard,ȱ Samaritanȱ Marriageȱ Contractsȱ andȱ Deedsȱ ofȱ Divorce,ȱ IȬII,ȱ
Wiesbadenȱ1993.ȱ1997.ȱ
ROGERS,ȱ Maryȱ Eliza,ȱ Domesticȱ Lifeȱ inȱ Palestine,ȱ Londonȱ /ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ 1989ȱ
(1862).ȱ
SCHUR,ȱNathan, HistoryȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱFrankfurtȱu.a.ȱ1989.ȱ
SHAVIT,ȱYaacovȱ/ȱGOLDSTEIN,ȱYaakovȱ/ȱBEÉR,ȱHaimȱ(eds.),ȱPersonalitiesȱinȱEretzȬ
Israelȱ1799Ȭ1948.ȱAȱBiographicalȱDictionary,ȱTelȱAvivȱ1983ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱ Haseeb,ȱ Theȱ Samaritanȱ Arabicȱ Liturgy,ȱ in:ȱ MORABITO,ȱ Vittorioȱ /ȱ
CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ /ȱ DAVEY,ȱ Lucyȱ (eds.),ȱ Samaritanȱ Researchesȱ Volumeȱ V.ȱ
Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Congressȱ ofȱ theȱ SESȱ (Milanȱ Julyȱ 8Ȭ12ȱ 1996)ȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ
SpecialȱICANASȱCongressȱ(BudapestȱJulyȱȱ7Ȭ11ȱ1997),ȱSydneyȱ2000,ȱ282.ȱ
SHEHADEH,ȱ Haseeb,ȱ Aȱ Poemȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Highȱ Priestȱ Ìmr¬nȱ benȱ Sal¬maȱ
AgainstȱMub¬rakȱalȬMufarragÎȱWhoȱBecameȱaȱConvertȱtoȱIslamȱinȱ1841,ȱin:ȱ
A.B.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱNewsȱ779Ȭ782,ȱ15.2.2001,ȱ155Ȭ144;ȱin:ȱStudiaȱOrientalia,ȱ
Helsinkiȱ(2003),ȱ191Ȭ206.ȱ
STEINDLERȱ MOSCATI,ȱ Gabriella,ȱ Theȱ Correspondenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
andȱ Yizhaqȱ benȬZvi,ȱ Newȱ Evidenceȱ forȱ theirȱ Culturalȱ andȱ Politicalȱ RelaȬ
tionship,ȱ in:ȱ MORABITO,ȱ Vittorioȱ /ȱ CROWN,ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ /ȱ DAVEY,ȱ Lucyȱ (eds.),ȱ
Samaritanȱ Researchesȱ Volumeȱ V.ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Congressȱ ofȱ theȱ SESȱ
(MilanȱJulyȱ8Ȭ12ȱ1996)ȱSpecialȱSectionȱofȱtheȱICANASȱCongressȱ(Budapestȱ
Julyȱ7Ȭ11ȱ1997),ȱSydneyȱ2000,ȱ365Ȭ374.ȱȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱ Ratsonȱ (ed.),ȱ Kitabȱ alȬTasabichȱ (sic!)ȱ (Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Commendations)ȱ
theȱ Bestȱ Wishes,ȱ Commendationsȱ andȱ Supplicationsȱ toȱ God,ȱ Writtenȱ byȱ
Samaritanȱ Writersȱ betweenȱ 10thȬ20thȱ Centuriesȱ A.ȱ D.ȱ Beȱ Copiedȱ inȱ Oldȱ
Hebrewȱ andȱ fromȱ Arabic,ȱ transliteratedȱ intoȱ Oldȱ Hebrewȱ Letters,ȱ Holonȱ
1970,ȱ145Ȭ147.ȱ
TSEDAKA,ȱ Ratson,ȱ Samaritanȱ Legends.ȱ Twelveȱ Legendsȱ fromȱ Oralȱ Traditionȱ
Edited,ȱ Annotatedȱ andȱ Accompaniedȱ byȱ anȱ Appendix:ȱ Samaritanȱ FolkȬ
Traditions:ȱSelectiveȱBibliographyȬbyȱDr.ȱDovȱNoy,ȱHaifaȱ1965ȱ(Hebrew).ȱȱȱ
ȱ

ȱ
ȱ
ȱ

SamaritanȱIsraeliteȱFamiliesȱandȱHouseholdsȱȱ
thatȱDisappeared
BENYAMIMȱTSEDAKA
Prefaceȱ
Inȱ theȱ ancientȱ handwrittenȱ copiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Torah,ȱ prayerȱ books,ȱ scrollsȱ
andȱcoveredȱbooks,ȱthousandsȱofȱpiecesȱofȱtestimoniesȱattestingȱtoȱtheȱ
existenceȱ ofȱ manyȱ tensȱ ofȱ familiesȱ andȱ householdsȱ comprisingȱ altoȬ
getherȱaȱgreatȱpartȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱpeopleȱhaveȱbeenȱfound.ȱFamiliesȱ
andȱhouseholdsȱareȱaȱveryȱancientȱelementȱofȱtheȱPeopleȱofȱIsrael.ȱTheyȱ
beganȱ toȱ consolidateȱ inȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ exile,ȱ andȱ wereȱ countedȱ inȱ theȱ
censusȱthatȱwasȱheldȱbeforeȱtheȱPeopleȱofȱIsraelȱenteredȱitsȱlandȱagain.ȱ
Originally,ȱhouseholds usedȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱafterȱtheȱtribeȱtheyȱhadȱcomeȱ
from,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Reh’ooben1,ȱ Shehmoon,ȱ Libiȱ andȱ soȱ
on.ȱ Eachȱ tribeȱ usedȱ toȱ beȱ dividedȱ intoȱ severalȱ householdsȱ calledȱ afterȱ
tribeȱmembers,ȱbutȱtheyȱstillȱhadȱsomethingȱinȱcommon,ȱsoȱtheyȱcouldȱ
presentȱcertainȱfamiliesȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱShehmoon’sȱtribe,ȱforȱexample.ȱ
Thisȱtribalȱconsolidationȱwasȱtypicalȱofȱallȱtheȱfirstȱdefinedȱhouseholdsȱ
whichȱgatheredȱtheȱIsraeliteȬSamaritanȱpeople,ȱstartingȱatȱtheȱByzantineȱ
period,ȱgoingȱthroughȱtheȱMoslemȱandȱCrusadeȱperiodsȱandȱendingȱupȱ
withȱcurrentȱdays.ȱFromȱtimeȱtoȱtime,ȱthereȱappearedȱprominentȱfiguresȱ
amongȱthoseȱfamiliesȱwhoȱcreatedȱaȱgroupȱthemselves,ȱorȱwhoseȱsonsȱ
preferredȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱafterȱtheirȱcommonȱancestor.
Letȱusȱuseȱfirstȱanȱexampleȱfromȱnowadaysȱ[inȱorderȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱ
fullȱ Samaritanȱ namesȱ showȱ theirȱ bearer’sȱ detailedȱ origin].ȱ Aȱ typicalȱ
nameȱ [amongȱ theȱ Samaritans]ȱ mayȱ be,ȱ Faaraasȱ Sidqaahȱ Assaafaariȱ ofȱ
Baaniȱ[sonsȱof]ȱMaanaasheȱBanȱYoosefȱ–ȱaȱmanȱnamedȱFaaraasȱpresentsȱ
1ȱȱ Note:ȱ Allȱ namesȱ areȱ presentedȱ belowȱ byȱ theirȱ pronunciationȱ inȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ
SamaritanȱHebrew.ȱ
222 BenyamimȱTsedaka
himselfȱasȱofȱtheȱSidqaahȱfamily.ȱSidqaahȱisȱaȱnameȱwhichȱwasȱdecidedȱ
uponȱinȱtheȱ20thȱcentury.ȱThatȱfamilyȱisȱaȱbranchȱofȱtheȱSaafaarȱhouseȬ
hold,ȱ whoseȱ nameȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ itsȱ ancientȱ ancestor,ȱ Saafaar,ȱ whoȱ
livedȱinȱtheȱ14thȱcenturyȱCE,ȱwasȱaȱmemberȱofȱaȱhousehold,ȱBaaniȱ[i.e.,ȱ
descendantsȱof]ȱMaanaasheȱtribe.ȱThus,ȱtheȱidentityȱofȱhisȱhouseholdȱisȱ
notȱclear,ȱbutȱitȱwasȱoneȱofȱseveralȱhouseholdsȱwhichȱgatheredȱwithinȱ
theȱ Maanaasheȱ tribe:ȱ suchȱ as,ȱ Saafaar,ȱ Kaarkaar,ȱ Zaarod,ȱ Shaalem,ȱ
Zaabaad,ȱSurek,ȱ‘AanaanȱandȱMaanuȱ–ȱaccordingȱtoȱSamaritanȱsources.
Iȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱfootstepsȱofȱapproximatelyȱoneȱhundredȱ
andȱ fiftyȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ Samaritanȱ householdsȱ andȱ familiesȱ
mentionedȱ inȱ Samaritanȱ sources,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ testimoniesȱ foundȱ inȱ
Torahȱmanuscripts,ȱcodicesȱandȱscrolls,ȱandȱinȱprayerȱbooks,ȱasȱwellȱasȱ
inȱchronicles.ȱTheirȱvastȱmajorityȱdisappearedȱfromȱtheȱhistoricalȱstageȱ
dueȱtoȱaȱslaughter,ȱconversionȱintoȱanotherȱreligionȱorȱbiologicalȱreducȬ
tion.ȱ Fourȱ ofȱ themȱ existȱ toȱ thisȱ day.ȱ Theȱ familiesȱ thatȱ disappearedȱ areȱ
dividedȱintoȱ3ȱdifferentȱgroups:ȱfamiliesȱthatȱwereȱestablishedȱbetweenȱ
theȱ 4thȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ 7thȱ century,ȱ thatȱis,ȱ duringȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ occuȬ
pation;ȱfamiliesȱthatȱwereȱestablishedȱduringȱtheȱMoslemȱperiod,ȱbeforeȱ
theȱ 11thȱ centuryȱ CE;ȱ andȱ familiesȱ weȱ foundȱ inȱ laterȱ testimonies.ȱ Ofȱ
course,ȱtheȱmoreȱuniqueȱfamilyȱunitsȱareȱtheȱtribesȱwhichȱthoseȱfamiliesȱ
areȱ partȱ of,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Libiȱ [Levi],ȱ Ifremȱ [Ephraim],ȱ Maanaasheȱ [MenaȬ
sheh],ȱandȱBinyaamemȱ[Binyamin]ȱtribes.
1.ȱLibi’sȱPriests
Theȱ Libiȱ descendantsȱ areȱ dividedȱ intoȱ threeȱ differentȱ groups:ȱ FeenahȬ
seanȱ Rabbans,ȱ Itaamaareanȱ priests,ȱ andȱ Libiȱ descendantsȱ whoȱ wereȱ
fromȱotherȱpriestlyȱfamilies.ȱTheȱRabbans,ȱfromȱwhomȱthereȱcameȱtheȱ
HighȱPriestsȱofȱFeenahsȱ[Phinehas]ȱdescendants,ȱusedȱtoȱliveȱthroughȬ
outȱ historyȱ inȱ Shechemȱ [laterȱ calledȱ Nablus],ȱ Damascus,ȱ Egypt,ȱ andȱ
differentȱ villages.ȱ Theȱ priestsȱ areȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Itaamaar,ȱ fromȱ
whomȱthereȱcameȱtheȱtranslatorsȱfromȱHebrewȱtoȱAramaicȱduringȱtheȱ
cultȱ atȱ theȱ synagogue,ȱ andȱ theȱ prayer organizersȱ inȱ synagoguesȱ orȱ
pilgrimageȱ journeys.ȱ Theyȱ settledȱ inȱ Damascusȱ andȱ Nablus.ȱ Theȱ Libiȱ
priestsȱ[whoȱareȱalsoȱreferredȱtoȱasȱ“Ca’enaȱArra’a“,ȱmeaningȱ“differentȱ
priests“,ȱonesȱwhoȱareȱnotȱAaron’sȱdescendants]ȱwhoȱcameȱfromȱotherȱ
families,ȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ Nablus,ȱ Damascus,ȱ Cairo,ȱ Zriffin,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ
‘Awarteh.ȱ“Ca’eniȱAaben=Aabaantaa“ȱ[Theȱ“Stone“ȱPriests,ȱwhoȱservedȱ
inȱ Shechemȱ area].ȱ Theȱ Shammeshȱ familyȱ ofȱ priestsȱ ofȱ theȱ Cairoȱ
SamaritanȱCommunityȱwasȱveryȱactiveȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱfromȱtheȱ11thȱ
centuryȱCEȱtillȱtheȱ16thȱcentury.
ȱ SamaritanȱIsraeliteȱFamiliesȱandȱHouseholdsȱthatȱDisappeared 223ȱ
Perhapsȱ thereȱ wereȱ foundȱ amongȱ themȱ certainȱ Libiȱ descendantsȱ

whoȱ cameȱ fromȱ Elisaafaanȱ banȱ ‘Azzil’sȱ household.ȱ Thisȱ probablyȱ
causedȱtheȱconfusionȱamongȱthemȱandȱtheȱcurrentȱpriestȱfamily,ȱwhichȱ
cameȱfromȱtheȱItaamaarȱb.ȱAahrronȱhousehold,ȱwhichȱwasȱmistakenlyȱ
associatedȱwithȱtheȱ‘Azzilȱdescendants.ȱThisȱisȱcertainlyȱbasedȱuponȱourȱ
testimonies,ȱ butȱ theȱ Libiȱ descendantsȱ mustȱ haveȱ livedȱ inȱ manyȱ otherȱ
sitesȱ too,ȱ forȱ duringȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ period,ȱ Baabaaȱ Raabbaaȱ spreadȱ hisȱ
leadingȱpriestsȱamongȱallȱtheȱSamaritanȱsettlements.
2.ȱTheȱAncientȱMaanaasheȱDescendants
Theȱ ancientȱ Maanaasheȱ descendantsȱ usedȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ manyȱ differentȱ
places.ȱBetweenȱtheȱ4thȱandȱ8thȱcenturiesȱCEȱtheirȱprominentȱhouseholdsȱ
wereȱ Saafaarȱ andȱ Kaarkaar,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ calledȱ afterȱ theirȱ ancientȱ
ancestors.ȱ Thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ moreȱ piecesȱ ofȱ testimoniesȱ ofȱ theȱ
Maanaasheȱdescendantȱhouseholds’ȱexistenceȱfromȱtheȱMoslemȱperiod.ȱ
However,ȱduringȱtheȱlastȱquarterȱofȱtheȱ8thȱcenturyȱCE,ȱaȱterribleȱplagueȱ
spread,ȱ becomingȱ epidemicȱ inȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ center.ȱ Entireȱ
familiesȱdiedȱfromȱthatȱdisease.ȱOtherȱfamiliesȱleftȱtheȱNablusȱareaȱandȱ
fledȱ toȱ differentȱ Mediterraneanȱ townsȱ nearȱ theȱ coast.ȱ Fortunately,ȱ theȱ
liberalȱ Chalif,ȱ Harunȱ ElRashidȱ [786Ȭ809ȱ CE],ȱ whoȱ wasȱ famousȱ forȱ hisȱ
tolerantȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ hisȱ occupiedȱ lands,ȱ ordered,ȱ afterȱ theȱ epidemicȱ
wasȱover,ȱtoȱenableȱtheȱepidemicȱrefugeesȱtoȱgoȱbackȱtoȱtheirȱlands.ȱHeȱ
evenȱreducedȱtheȱlandȱtaxesȱandȱpricesȱinȱorderȱtoȱtemptȱthemȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱ
Onlyȱlandsȱthatȱwereȱnotȱdemandedȱbyȱtheirȱformerȱownersȱwereȱtakenȱ
overȱbyȱtheȱChalifȱandȱthenȱheȱpopulatedȱthemȱasȱheȱwished.
Thus,ȱ Samaritanȱ familiesȱ andȱ householdsȱ returnedȱ toȱ theirȱ ownȱ
landsȱ andȱ villages.ȱ Theyȱ includedȱ twentyȱ Maanaasheanȱ familiesȱ andȱ
households.ȱ Fiveȱ ofȱ thoseȱ familiesȱ settledȱ permanentlyȱ inȱ theȱ north,ȱ
fromȱ theȱ Litannyȱ Riverȱ toȱ Sidonȱ [bothȱ partȱ ofȱ currentȱ Lebaneseȱ terriȬ
tory].ȱ Thoseȱ familiesȱ are:ȱ Shaalem,ȱ ElNchas,ȱ ‘Abbas,ȱ Baaduwwaaȱ andȱ
Mitwayyiah.ȱ Thoseȱ familiesȱ wereȱ gatheredȱ underȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ
Shaafaatȱ b.ȱ Saabu,ȱ aȱ descendantȱ ofȱ Maakerȱ b.ȱ Maanaashe,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ
appointedȱ byȱ Baabaaȱ Rabbaȱ asȱ aȱ regionȱ governor.ȱ Mitwayyahȱ wasȱ aȱ
descendantȱofȱMagged,ȱaȱmanȱwhoȱlivedȱinȱtheȱ7thȱcentury.ȱAmongȱtheȱ
Maggedȱ familyȱ members,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ prominent,ȱ charismaticȱ manȱ
namedȱ Mitwayyahȱ b.ȱ Rebaȱ b.ȱ Saadok.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ founderȱ ofȱ theȱ
Mitwayyahȱfamily.ȱSomeȱofȱthoseȱfamilyȱmembersȱlivedȱinȱDamascus,ȱ
andȱothersȱlivedȱinȱNablus.ȱPartȱofȱthatȱfamilyȱhasȱconvertedȱintoȱIslamȱ
andȱ isȱ nowadaysȱ called,ȱ Darȱ Ya’aish.ȱ Theȱ Maggedȱ familyȱ membersȱ
wereȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ largerȱ householdȱ calledȱ Zaaraad.ȱ Theȱ Maggedȱ andȱ
Zaaraadȱ descendantsȱ continuedȱ toȱ associateȱ themselvesȱ withȱ theirȱ

ancestorsȱevenȱasȱtheyȱdevelopedȱintoȱnewȱfamiliesȱandȱhouseholds.ȱAtȱ
theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ 8thȱ century,ȱ theȱ Zaaraadȱ descendantsȱ cameȱ backȱ fromȱ
Geraarȱ[Ashqelon]ȱandȱsettledȱinȱNablusȱand theȱvillageȱofȱ‘Askaar.
Asȱ forȱ theȱ Baaduwwaaȱ descendants,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ aȱ familyȱ whichȱ
belongedȱ inȱ theȱ Shaalemȱ largerȱ household.ȱ Theyȱ andȱ theirȱ ancestorsȱ
usedȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ theȱ northȱ ofȱ theȱ land.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ Arabȱ occupationȱ
period,ȱtheyȱmovedȱtoȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱcountry.ȱInȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ
10thȱcenturyȱCEȱtheyȱlivedȱinȱ‘Akkaȱ[Acre].ȱLaterȱtheyȱmovedȱtoȱKiriatȱ
Hassarin,ȱ eastwardsȱ fromȱ Nablus.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ famousȱ familyȱ ofȱ theȱ
Shaalemȱ householdȱ isȱ Garnaka.ȱ Itsȱ name,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ aȱ RomanȬGreekȱ
origin,ȱ provesȱ howȱ ancientȱ itsȱ rootsȱ are.ȱ Thisȱ family,ȱ whichȱ probablyȱ
usedȱ toȱ liveȱ originallyȱ inȱ Alexandriaȱ area,ȱ movedȱ toȱ Cairoȱ inȱ theȱ 8thȱ
centuryȱCE.
InȱtheȱNablusȱarea,ȱthereȱsettledȱ4ȱmoreȱfamiliesȱwhichȱcameȱfromȱ
theȱ Maanaasheȱ tribe:ȱ Maanuhȱ descendants,ȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ villageȱ
BeitȱBizzin,ȱ10ȱkilometersȱwestwardsȱfromȱNablusȱ[aȱpartȱofȱthatȱfamilyȱ
livedȱ inȱ Kiriatȱ Kuza,ȱ locatedȱ 7ȱ kilometersȱ southwardsȱ fromȱ Nablus];ȱ
Surekȱ descendants,ȱ whoȱ settledȱ inȱ Kiriatȱ ‘Asfehȱ [nowadaysȱ knownȱ asȱ
KufarȱKaddum];ȱ‘Ananȱdescendants,ȱwhoȱlivedȱinȱKufarȱKallil;ȱandȱBeitȱ
Bizzinȱ andȱ Zaabaadȱ descendants,ȱ whoȱ wereȱ spreadȱ intoȱ sixȱ places:ȱ
Ashqelon,ȱ Nablus,ȱ Aalonȱ Mura,ȱ Kiriatȱ Maahneeȱ [locatedȱ onȱ theȱ southȱ
easternȱ sideȱ ofȱ Mountȱ Gerizim],ȱ Kiriatȱ Iraatahȱ [nowadaysȱ knownȱ asȱ
Chuwwara]ȱandȱKufarȱ‘Askaar.ȱOutȱofȱallȱthoseȱtwentyȱfamilies,ȱwhichȱ
wereȱ includedȱ amongȱ Maanaashe’sȱ descendants,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ Saafaarȱ faȬ
milyȱsurvivedȱuntilȱnowadays.
3.ȱTheȱAncientȱIfremȱDescendants
Amongȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Ifremȱ tribe,ȱ weȱ identifiedȱ fourȱ primalȱ
families:ȱ HaShutaala’ai,ȱ HaBakaari,ȱ HaTaahmmiȱ andȱ Ha’Edni.ȱ HowȬ
ever,ȱonlyȱtwoȱfamiliesȱsurvivedȱuntilȱnowadays,ȱnamelyȱtheȱDenuftaiȱ
andȱMaarhibȱfamilies.ȱTheȱrestȱofȱthoseȱhouseholdsȱareȱgone.ȱOutȱofȱallȱ
thoseȱ families,ȱ weȱ haveȱ identifiedȱ theȱ followingȱ associationȱ ofȱ
householdsȱandȱtheirȱareaȱofȱsettlement:
AbȬza’utaaȱ descendants,ȱ whoȱ originallyȱ cameȱ fromȱ Zaahrȱ desȬ
cendants,ȱsettledȱinȱGazaȱandȱAshqelon.ȱAbiȱHannibboshȱdescendants,ȱ
whoȱ alsoȱ cameȱ fromȱ theȱ Zaahrȱ descendantsȱ originallyȱ settledȱ inȱ Gazaȱ
andȱ Ashqelon.ȱ Baaniȱ Abraahm,ȱ aȱ familyȱ whichȱ originallyȱ cameȱ from
theȱShootaalahȱdescendants,ȱsettledȱinȱNaabaȱ[Nevo],ȱDamascus,ȱGaza,ȱ
Ba’alȱ Beckȱ [inȱ Lebanon],ȱ Egypt,ȱ andȱ theȱ southernȱ sea.ȱ Aantaalȱ desȬ
cendants,ȱ aȱ familyȱ whichȱ originallyȱ descendedȱ ofȱ Eden,ȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ
north,ȱ onȱ theȱ Lebaneseȱ mountains,ȱ inȱ Ashqelonȱ and Gaza.ȱ Baaniȱ
Galgaal,ȱ whoȱ originallyȱ descendedȱ ofȱ Baaniȱ Musaaf,ȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ
Galilee,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ Ashqelon.ȱ BaaniȱHazzaki,ȱaȱ familyȱ whichȱ originallyȱ
descendedȱ ofȱ Baaniȱ Shootaalah,ȱ probablyȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ
country.ȱ Asȱ forȱ Baaniȱ Hakkerob,ȱ aȱ familyȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Maazenȱ
family,ȱtheyȱlivedȱinȱtheȱsouthȱofȱtheȱlandȱandȱinȱEgypt.ȱBaaniȱHassureeȱ
livedȱinȱtheȱnorthȱofȱtheȱcountry,ȱonȱtheȱCarmelȱMountain,ȱinȱZorȱandȱ
Nablus.ȱ Baaniȱ Hattikwiȱ settledȱ inȱ Ramleh,ȱ Zriffin,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ ‘Akka.ȱ
Baaniȱ Zaahrȱ settledȱ inȱ manyȱ places,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ Nablusȱ andȱ DamasȬ
cus.ȱBaaniȱChabibȱsettledȱinȱRoshȱHanikra,ȱZorȱandȱKfarȱMeron.ȱBaaniȱ
‘Aduȱlivedȱ onȱ Mountȱ Carmelȱandȱinȱ ‘Akka.ȱBaaniȱHa’ufaaniȱ descendȬ
antsȱ settled atȱ theȱ southernȱ coast,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ Egypt.ȱ Baaniȱ ‘Aalaabaaȱ
descendantsȱ livedȱ inȱ Egyptȱ andȱ Damascus.ȱ Baaniȱ Talphayyaaȱ desȬ
cendantsȱprobablyȱlivedȱinȱtheȱsouthernȱpartȱofȱtheȱland.ȱBaaniȱYaataraȱ
descendantsȱ settledȱ inȱ Nablusȱ andȱ Damascus.ȱ Baaniȱ Musaafȱ wasȱ
spreadȱ intoȱ manyȱ differentȱ places.ȱ Baaniȱ MuraȬNooftaȱ descendantsȱ
settledȱinȱEgypt.ȱAsȱforȱMooriyyaȱdescendants,ȱtheyȱpartiallyȱsettledȱinȱ
Egypt.ȱBaaniȱMaazenȱlivedȱinȱAshqelonȱandȱCairo.ȱBaaniȱMaalaȱsettledȱ
inȱtheȱsouth.ȱBaaniȱMaalekȱdescendantsȱsettledȱinȱthe north,ȱincludingȱ
theȱ Galileeȱ area,ȱ Lebanon,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ Ashqelon.ȱ Baaniȱ Maaruthȱ
descendantsȱsettledȱinȱtheȱnorthȱofȱtheȱland.ȱBaaniȱNaaboonaaȱprobablyȱ
livedȱinȱDamascus.ȱBaaniȱNoonaaȱsettledȱinȱtheȱNablusȱareaȱandȱinȱtheȱ
northernȱpartȱofȱSamaria.ȱBaaniȱNa’im,ȱwhoȱwereȱoriginallyȱdescendantsȱ
ofȱ theȱ Shootaalah,ȱ settledȱ inȱ Naabaȱ [Nevo],ȱ Damascus,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ theȱ
LebaneseȱcityȱofȱBa’alȬBeck.ȱBaaniȱNiftaaleeȱsettledȱinȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱ
land.ȱ Baaniȱ ‘AbdȬAllaȱ settledȱ in theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ land,ȱ too.ȱ Baaniȱ
‘Abdaaȱ livedȱ inȱ Egypt.ȱ Baaniȱ ‘Ablalȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ north.ȱ Baaniȱ Eden,ȱ
descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Musaafȱ family,ȱ settledȱ inȱ manyȱ differentȱ places.ȱ
Baaniȱ ‘Asimaȱ livedȱinȱ Ashqelon.ȱ BaaniȱFammaiȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ fromȱ
theȱeasternȱside ofȱMountȱGerizimȱtoȱtheȱJordanȱriver.ȱBaaniȱShaamaahȱ
settledȱ inȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ landȱ andȱ inȱ Damascus,ȱ Nablusȱ andȱ
elsewhereȱandȱinȱEgypt.ȱBaaniȱSarfataiȱlivedȱinȱZriffin.ȱBaaniȱKabbaasaȱ
settledȱinȱDamascusȱandȱNablus.ȱBaaniȱKumisȱlivedȱinȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱ
land.
However,ȱ theȱ Denuftaiȱ familiesȱ wereȱ different,ȱ forȱ theyȱ mostlyȱ
concentratedȱinȱDamascus;ȱtheȱMaarhibȱfamilyȱdevelopedȱfromȱZriffin.ȱ
Afterȱ theȱ massiveȱ massacreȱ inȱ theȱ yearȱ 1625ȱ inȱ Damascus,ȱ onlyȱ oneȱ
Denuftaiȱ familyȱ survived.ȱ Thatȱ familyȱ escapedȱ toȱ Nablus.ȱ Itȱ laterȱ
dividedȱ intoȱ fourȱ descendantȱ families:ȱ Hasatriȱ =ȱ Hassudiȱ [Sirawi],ȱ
‘Mshallema,ȱ Shalabiȱ andȱ Alteif.ȱ Theȱ Maarhibȱ familyȱ hadȱ branchesȱ inȱ
Zriffinȱ andȱ Gaza.ȱ Itsȱ surviversȱ arrivedȱ atȱ Nablusȱ inȱ theȱ 16thȱ andȱ 17thȱ
centuriesȱ CE.ȱ Thatȱ familyȱ dividedȱ in theȱ 19thȱ centuryȱ intoȱ twoȱ desȬ
cendantȱfamilies,ȱMaarhibȱandȱYe’usha.
4.ȱTheȱAncientȱBinyaamemȱdescendants
BesidesȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱtheȱMaanaasheȱandȱIfremȱtribes,ȱaccordingȱ
toȱ theseȱ sources,ȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Israelitesȱ wereȱ originallyȱ desȬ
cendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Binyaamemȱ tribe.ȱ Thatȱ tribeȱ partiallyȱ joinedȱ theȱ Ifremȱ
descendantsȱdueȱtoȱtheȱlocationȱofȱBinyaamem’sȱterritory,ȱbetweenȱthatȱ
ofȱ Ye’oodah’sȱ [Judah]ȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ Ifrem.ȱ Aȱ partȱ ofȱ thatȱ tribeȱ settledȱ inȱ
Ye’oodah’sȱterritory.ȱTheȱfollowingȱquotationȱisȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱTulidahȱ
Book,ȱ editedȱ inȱ Damascusȱ 1nȱ 1149:ȱ “Allȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Gazaȱ cameȱ
fromȱBinyaamem’sȱtribe,ȱexceptȱforȱoneȱman,ȱwhoȱcameȱfromȱIfrem.“
Theȱ mostȱ remarkableȱ characterȱ amongȱ Baaniȱ Binyaamemȱ wasȱ
Mataanaȱ b.ȱ Ba’eyȱ b.ȱ Mashaȱ fromȱ Baaniȱ Maa’orȱ b.ȱ Roomemȱ Abiȱ Baaniȱ
Maattaanaaȱ Haggadolȱ [theȱ great]ȱ fromȱ Baaniȱ Baalahȱ b.ȱ Binyaamem.ȱ
Alreadyȱinȱthisȱsingleȱparagraph,ȱoneȱcanȱidentifyȱthreeȱfamiliesȱrelated
toȱtheȱBinyaamemȱtribe,ȱwhoȱdevelopedȱoneȱfromȱanother:ȱtheȱfirstȱoneȱ
wasȱ Baaniȱ Balah,ȱ fromȱ whomȱ thereȱ descendedȱ Baaniȱ Maa’or,ȱ fromȱ
whomȱ cameȱ Baaniȱ Maattaana,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ entitledȱ “Theȱ Great“ȱ [HagȬ
gadol].ȱ
Theȱ mostȱ prominentȱ figureȱ amongȱ Baaniȱ Ma’orȱ wasȱ mentionedȱ
fartherȱdownȱtheȱtextȱofȱTulidah:
“Yoosef,ȱsonȱofȱMitfaasyyaȱb.ȱElefȱb.ȱGillogȱfromȱBaaniȱMaa’orȱb.ȱRoomem,ȱ
ourȱ entireȱ community’sȱ ancestorȱ –ȱ outȱ ofȱ allȱ thoseȱ remarkableȱ men,ȱ thereȱ
cameȱ aȱ gentlemanȱ calledȱ AbȬGillugaa,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ aforeȱ mentionedȱ gentleȬ
men’sȱdescendants,ȱandȱhelpedȱtheȱSamaritansȱallȱhisȱlife,ȱprovidingȱthemȱ
withȱfood,ȱclothes,ȱgoldȱandȱsilver.“
AbȬGillugaȱ wasȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ community.ȱ Heȱ startedȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ
householdsȱ whichȱ gatheredȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ Binyaamemȱ descendants.ȱ
AbȬGillugaaȱlivedȱinȱtheȱ12thȱcenturyȱCE.ȱHeȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱrichestȱmenȱ
inȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱinȱ‘Akka.ȱHeȱpaidȱwithȱhisȱownȱmoneyȱtoȱ
releaseȱ500ȱSamaritanȱmenȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱtakenȱunderȱcaptivityȱduringȱ
theȱ Mongoleans’ȱ invasionȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ inȱ 1137.ȱ Hisȱ familyȱ
linageȱ wasȱ theȱ following:ȱ AbȬGilluga,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ AbȬHisdaa,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ AbiȬ
Hesaadayya,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ AbȬHisdaa,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ AbȬNibbusha,ȱ sonȱ ofȱ MitfaaȬ
sayyaȱsonȱofȱAbraahm.
TheȱsixȱgenerationsȱbeforeȱAbȬGillugaaȱgoȱbackȱtoȱtheȱ10thȱcenturyȱ
andȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ otherȱ piecesȱ ofȱ testimoniesȱ concerningȱ Abraahmȱ b.ȱ
Ye’usha,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ aȱ sonȱ namedȱ Yesaahq,ȱ alsoȱ knownȱ asȱ Maattaana.ȱ
Maattaanaȱ movedȱ fromȱ hisȱ village,ȱ Mardanȱ [Mardah],ȱ located nearȱ
Nablus,ȱtoȱliveȱwithȱhisȱbrother,ȱaȱBinyaamemȱdescendant,ȱinȱGaza.ȱAsȱ
aforementioned,ȱ beforeȱ thisȱ Maattaana,ȱ thereȱ livedȱ anotherȱ man,ȱ theȱ
originalȱ Maattaana,ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Ba’eyȱ b.ȱ Mashaȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Baaniȱ
Maa’orȱȱb.ȱRoomem.ȱFromȱthoseȱMaa’orȱdescendants,ȱthereȱdevelopedȱ
theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ householdsȱ weȱ knowȱ fromȱ Binyamemȱ tribe:ȱ Theȱ
descendantsȱ ofȱ ‘Aalaab,ȱ Sahla,ȱ Metaar,ȱ Shaalah,ȱ Nagedaa,ȱ Inaa,ȱ GadȬ
doonȱandȱYe’usha.
Theȱ ancientȱ Baalahȱ descendantsȱ livedȱ inȱ Gaza,ȱ Mardanȱ villageȱ
[nowadaysȱ knownȱ asȱ Mardah,ȱ locatedȱ 10ȱ kilometersȱ southȬwestwardsȱ
fromȱNablus],ȱKiriatȱGiyya,ȱJaffa,ȱ‘Akka,ȱNablusȱandȱKufarȱSabaȱ[Kfarȱ
Saba].ȱBaaniȱ‘Aalaabȱsettledȱinȱtheȱnorth,ȱincludingȱtheȱSyrianȱterritoryȱ
andȱ Caesaria.ȱ Baaniȱ Ye’ushaȱ livedȱ inȱ Kiriatȱ Giyyaȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ south.ȱ
BaaniMa’orȱ livedȱ inȱ ‘Akka,ȱ Kefarȱ Mardan,ȱ Gaza,ȱ Kiriatȱ Giyya,ȱ Jaffa,ȱ
Nablusȱ andȱ Qariatȱ Eburtaȱ [Now:ȱ ‘Awarteh].ȱ Baaniȱ Metaarȱ livedȱ inȱ
Gaza,ȱ Jaffa,ȱ Ramleh,ȱ Caesariaȱ andȱ Damascus.ȱ Baaniȱ Maattaanaȱ desȬ
cendantsȱsettledȱinȱKufarȱMardan,ȱGaza,ȱ‘AkkaȱandȱonȱMountȱCarmel.ȱ
BaaniȱNegedaȱlivedȱinȱ‘AkkaȱandȱonȱMountȱCarmel.ȱBaaniȱSahlaȱlivedȱ
nearȱ Caesaria.ȱ Baaniȱ Inaaȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ Caesariaȱ area.ȱ Baaniȱ Qaahlaaȱ
livedȱinȱtheȱnorth,ȱinȱ‘Akkaȱand inȱNablus,ȱEburta,ȱtheȱcoastȱstripȱandȱ
onȱMountȱCarmel,ȱinȱRamlehȱandȱinȱCaesaria.ȱBaaniȱRoomemȱlivedȱinȱ
Kiriatȱ Giyyaa,ȱ Kfarȱ Mardan,ȱ Gaza,ȱ Jaffa,ȱ ‘Akka,ȱ Nablusȱ andȱ Kefarȱ
Eburta.ȱAsȱforȱBaaniȱShaalah,ȱtheyȱsettledȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱCaesaria.
5.ȱTheȱLastȱDescendantsȱofȱBinyamem
TheȱlastȱdescendantsȱofȱBinyaamem’sȱtribeȱamongȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱ
theȱmembersȱofȱtheȱMetaarȱfamily,ȱwhichȱlivedȱinȱGazaȱstripȱuntilȱtheȱ
18thȱ centuryȱ CE.ȱ Towardsȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ thatȱ century,ȱ theȱ Highȱ Priest,ȱ
Taabyaaȱ b.ȱ Yesaahqȱ b.ȱ Abraahmȱ broughtȱ themȱ along toȱ Nablusȱ [heȱ
servedȱasȱaȱHighȱPriestȱbetweenȱtheȱyearsȱ1752Ȭ1787],ȱonȱhisȱreturnȱfromȱ
hisȱexileȱinȱGaza.ȱThoseȱwereȱ‘AbedȱElaȱHammatariȱandȱhisȱwife.ȱThoseȱ
twoȱlivedȱinȱtheȱHighȱPriest’sȱhouseȱinȱNablus.ȱTheyȱhadȱaȱsonȱcalledȱ
Josephȱ [whoȱ wasȱ calledȱ byȱ the nicknameȱ “Tashtash“],ȱ whoȱ laterȱ hadȱ
twoȱ sonsȱ namedȱ Abraahmȱ andȱ Binyaamem.ȱ Abraahmȱ gaveȱ birthȱ toȱ
Shaalah,ȱ whoȱ diedȱ withoutȱ anyȱ kids.ȱ Binyaamemȱ gaveȱ birthȱ toȱ
Itaamaar,ȱwhoȱdiedȱveryȱyoung,ȱandȱhadȱtwoȱdaughters,ȱWasilehȱandȱ
Wafiqa.ȱTheȱfirstȱdaughterȱmarriedȱherȱcousin,ȱShalaah;ȱtheyȱbothȱdiedȱ
withoutȱ anyȱ children.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ daughter,ȱ Wafiqa,ȱ marriedȱ atȱ firstȱ
Abraahmȱb.ȱSa’edȱHammaarhibiȱinȱ1898,ȱwhoȱdiedȱwhenȱsheȱwasȱonlyȱ
19.ȱ Sheȱ gotȱ marriedȱ againȱ toȱ Abraahmȱ b.ȱ ‘AbedȬHaanoonaaȱ Hasatriȱ
Hadinfiȱinȱ1903.ȱThenȱsheȱgaveȱbirthȱtoȱtheȱsonsȱ‘AbedȱHaanoonaaȱandȱ
Shaalomȱ andȱ aȱ daughterȱ calledȱ Nahla.ȱ Wafiqa,ȱ theȱ lastȱ descendantȱ ofȱ
BaaniȱBinyamem,ȱdiedȱinȱHolonȱinȱ1967ȱatȱtheȱageȱofȱ84.
6.ȱHouseholdsȱwithȱNoȱTribalȱIdentification
Itȱisȱtrueȱthatȱthereȱwereȱhouseholdsȱofȱwhichȱtribalȱoriginȱwasȱknown.ȱ
However,ȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱ areȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ householdsȱ inȱ theȱ sources,ȱ
whichȱ areȱ notȱ identifiedȱ withȱ anyȱ particularȱ tribeȱ whatsoever.ȱ Forȱ
instance,ȱinȱtheȱfirstȱmilleniumȱCEȱthereȱisȱmentionedȱBaaniȱToobayya,ȱ
whoȱlivedȱinȱtheȱvillageȱDaagonȱ[probablyȱwhatȱisȱnowȱknownȱasȱBeitȱ
Daganȱ nearȱ Nablus].ȱ Theȱ Tulidahȱ mentionedȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ certainȱ
households,ȱ someȱ ofȱ whichȱ haveȱ aȱ nameȱ thatȱ showsȱ aȱ connectionȱ toȱ
someȱ ancientȱ ancestors.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theirȱ namesȱ showȱ whereȱ theyȱ origiȬ
nallyȱcameȱfromȱorȱwhereȱtheyȱlived.ȱForȱexample,ȱBaaniȱKaakaaiȱlivedȱ
inȱ Bethȱ Furikȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ onȱ itsȱ easternȱ side.ȱ Baaniȱ
Tutaaiȱ probablyȱ livedȱ inȱ Umȱ Tutȱ locatedȱ nearȱ Gaza.ȱ Baaniȱ Shimtaai,ȱ
Kaayaatin,ȱ Koomtaai,ȱ Bahloolaai,ȱ Nashlaai,ȱ Saabbaanaai,ȱ Raabaakaai,ȱ
Saamuqaaiȱ andȱ Kaakoolaaiȱ –ȱ theirȱ Aramaicȱ possessiveȱ endingȱ showsȱ
howȱ ancientȱ thoseȱ householdsȱ are,ȱ thoughȱ mostȱ ofȱ theirȱ placesȱ ofȱ
settlementȱareȱunknown.
TheȱTulidahȱmentionsȱfourȱhouseholdȱgroupsȱwithoutȱtribalȱidentiȬ
ficationȱinȱ theȱ 8thȱ andȱ9thȱ centuries:ȱ Baaniȱ Hammaanser,ȱ partȱ ofȱ whomȱ
settledȱinȱEgypt,ȱanotherȱpartȱinȱAshqelonȱandȱsomeȱinȱCaesaria.ȱTheirȱ
descendantsȱ wereȱ Baaniȱ Sadeq,ȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ southȱ andȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ
Baaniȱ Saabaal,ȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ Caesaria,ȱ Baaniȱ Sidkaahȱ [notȱ today’sȱ
household]ȱwhoȱlivedȱinȱAshqelonȱandȱBaaniȱGira,ȱwhoȱlivedȱmostlyȱinȱ
Gaza.
Theȱ secondȱ groupȱ areȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Baaniȱ Sa’id,ȱ whoȱ settledȱ inȱ
Damascus,ȱ Nablusȱ andȱ Cairo.ȱ Theyȱ developedȱ toȱ beȱ sixȱ households:ȱ
Baaniȱ Naabah,ȱ who,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theirȱ descendants,ȱ Baaniȱ Figmaah,ȱ
livedȱ inȱ Damascus,ȱ Nablusȱ andȱ Naabaȱ [Nevo];ȱ Baaniȱ Mebarȱ descenȬ
dants,ȱwhoȱlaterȱdevelopedȱintoȱtheȱShaabooraiȱandȱHashamiȱ[i.e.:ȱ“theȱ
Damascusian“]ȱdescendants.ȱTheȱlastȱhouseholdȱareȱBaaniȱMabȱdescenȬ
dants,ȱwhoȱsettledȱinȱEgypt.
Theȱ thirdȱ groupȱ consistsȱ ofȱ Baaniȱ Naakon,ȱ whoȱ livedȱ inȱ Kiriatȱ
‘Asfehȱ [today’sȱ Kedumim,ȱ locatedȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ Nablus,ȱ 10ȱ kmȱ fromȱ
theȱwest]ȱandȱBeitȱBizzinȱonȱtheȱroadȱfromȱKfarȬSabaȱtoȱNablus.
TheȱfourthȱgroupȱareȱBaaniȱIqbonȱdescendants,ȱwhoȱlivedȱonȱtheȱsouthȱ
coast.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ testimoniesȱ forȱ allȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ families’ȱ exisȬ
tenceȱwithoutȱanyȱtribalȱidentificationȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱfirstȱmilleniumȱCE.
InȱtheȱTulidahȱandȱinȱdifferentȱmanuscripts,ȱthereȱareȱtestimoniesȱofȱ
theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ someȱ moreȱ householdsȱ withoutȱ anyȱ tribalȱ identifiȬ
cation.ȱ Theirȱ sonsȱ mostlyȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ townsȱ ofȱ Nablus,ȱ Ashqelon,ȱ
Damascus,ȱ Cairo,ȱ Gazaȱ andȱ ‘Awarteh.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ householdȱ thatȱ wasȱ
mentionedȱareȱtheȱBaaniȱToobayyaȱdescendantsȱinȱNablus,ȱduringȱtheȱ
11thȱ century.ȱ Baaniȱ Edenȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ town.ȱ Theȱ Moonesȱ familyȱ
wasȱfoundȱinȱDamascusȱandȱCairo.ȱInȱaddition,ȱduringȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱ
theȱsecondȱmillenium,ȱthereȱalsoȱlived theȱNesaannaȱfamily.ȱInȱNablusȱ
andȱDamascus,ȱthereȱwereȱBaaniȱRaamaahȱdescendants.ȱSomeȱofȱthemȱ
alsoȱ settledȱ inȱ Cairo.ȱ Inȱ Nablus,ȱ thereȱ livedȱ theȱ Aanserȱ familyȱ alongȱ
withȱ theȱ Shamteimaȱ family.ȱ Inȱ Damascus,ȱ thereȱ livedȱ Baaniȱ Saabaa,ȱ
Baaniȱ Hakkabaȱ descendants.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ themȱ alsoȱ livedȱ inȱ ‘Awarteh.ȱ
BaaniȱSigiaanaa,ȱsomeȱofȱthemȱlivedȱinȱCairo,ȱtoo,ȱBaaniȱKidma,ȱBaaniȱ
‘AdȬShem,ȱ Baaniȱ Sefet,ȱ Baaniȱ Zaahbaa,ȱ Baaniȱ Kinaaȱ [someȱ ofȱ whomȱ
alsoȱ livedȱ inȱ ‘Awarteh,]ȱ Baaniȱ Haansheyya’em,ȱ Baaniȱ Saa’edaa,ȱ Baaniȱ
‘AraamtaȱandȱBaaniȱMaqru.ȱInȱEgypt,ȱthereȱsettledȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱ
Baaniȱ Ha’anashe,ȱ Baaniȱ Fuka,ȱ Baaniȱ Hattenek,ȱ Baaniȱ Allefȱ [Priestlyȱ
family],ȱ Baaniȱ Mimaaraȱ andȱ Baaniȱ Ilkaneh.ȱ Inȱ Ashqelonȱ thereȱ livedȱ
BaaniȱGira.ȱThoseȱhouseholds’ȱmobility,ȱatȱleastȱpartially,ȱcausedȱthemȱ
toȱspreadȱaroundȱseveralȱSamaritanȱcentersȱandȱsites.
Inȱadditionȱtoȱthoseȱhouseholdsȱandȱfamilies,ȱweȱidentifiedȱcertainȱ
familyȱnamesȱwhichȱareȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱnamesȱofȱfamousȱwriters,ȱlawȱ
preachers,ȱpoets,ȱinterpretersȱandȱastronomers.
WeȱalsoȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱlistȱidentifiedȱnamesȱderivedȱfromȱArabicȱlikeȱ
Elbazzini,ȱ Eldustan,ȱ Eldwek,ȱ Elhariri,ȱ Elsaafaawi,ȱ ‘Azzanaiȱ [Priestlyȱ
family]ȱandȱsoȱon.
7.ȱ142ȱHouseholdsȱinȱ45ȱRegions,ȱCities,ȱȱ
TownsȱandȱVillages
Weȱ haveȱ foundȱ 45ȱ differentȱ placesȱ fromȱ Southernȱ Syriaȱ toȱ Northernȱ
Egyptȱ whereȱ theyȱ livedȱ andȱ flourished,ȱ andȱ thenȱ wereȱ destroyedȱ orȱ
convertedȱintoȱotherȱreligions:
Akkaȱ [Acre]ȱ –ȱ ‘Adu,ȱ Baaduwwaa,ȱ Baalah,ȱ Hassuri,ȱ Hattikwi,ȱ Maa’or,ȱ
Maattaanaa,ȱNegeda,ȱQaahlaa,ȱRoomem
‘Askaarȱ–ȱZaabad,ȱZaarad
Alexandriaȱ–ȱGaarnaqaa,ȱShaalem
AalonȱMuraȱ–ȱȱZaabaad
Ashdodȱ[Today]ȱ–ȱHadinfi
Ashqelonȱ[Gerar]ȱ–ȱAbȱZaa’utaa,ȱAantaal,ȱ‘Asimaah,ȱEden,ȱGalgaal,ȱGiraa,ȱ
Hammaanser,ȱMaazen,ȱMaalek,ȱMusaaf,ȱȱSidkaah,ȱZaabaad,ȱZaaraad
‘Awarteh=Eburtaȱ –ȱ H’Akkaba,ȱ Qaahlaa,ȱ qinaa,ȱ Libi,ȱ Ma’or,ȱ Phinass,ȱ
Roomem
Ba’alȱBeckȱ–ȱAbraahm,ȱNa’im
BeitȱBizzinȱ–ȱ‘Aanaan,ȱMaanuh,ȱNaakon.
BeitȱFurikȱ–ȱMaarhib,ȱQaakaai
Biniaminaȱ[Today]ȱ–ȱSidqah
Caesariaȱcityȱandȱitsȱareaȱ–ȱ‘aAlaab,ȱHammaanser,ȱ‘Inaa,ȱMetaar,ȱQaahlaa,ȱ
Saabaal,ȱSahla,ȱShaalah
Cairoȱ –ȱ ‘Abda,ȱ Abraahm,ȱ ‘AdȬShem,ȱ ‘Aalaaba,ȱ Allef[Priestlyȱ family],ȱ
‘Araamta,ȱ Ca’enaȱ Arra’aa,ȱ Fooqa,ȱ Gaarnaaqa,ȱ Haa’anashe,ȱ Haa’ufaani,ȱ
Hakkerob,ȱ Hammaanser,ȱ Hammisri,ȱ Haansheyya’em,ȱ Hattenek,ȱ Ilkaneh,ȱ
Libiȱ [Priestlyȱ Family],ȱ Maazen,ȱ Mab,ȱ Maqru,ȱ Mimaaraa ,Moones,ȱ Muraȱ
Nuftaa,ȱMooryyah,ȱNesaannaa,ȱQidma,ȱQinaa,ȱRaamaah,ȱSaa’edaa,ȱSaadeq,ȱ
Shammesh,ȱSefet,ȱShaalem,ȱShaamaah,ȱShammesh[Priestlyȱfamily],ȱSigiana,ȱ
Zahba
CarmelȱMountainȱ–‘Adu,ȱHassuri,ȱMaattaanaa,ȱNegedaa,ȱQaahlaa,ȱSa’id
Centerȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israelȱ –ȱ ‘Abdallaa,ȱȱ Hazzaaki,ȱ Niftaali,ȱ Qoomis,ȱ
Shaamah,ȱShootaalah.
CoastȱStripȱ–ȱQaahlaa.
Daagon=BeitȱDaganȱ–ȱToobayyah.
Damascusȱ –Abraahm,ȱ ‘Aalaabaa,ȱ Baaniȱ Maanaashe,ȱ Denuftai,ȱ Figmaah,ȱ
Ha’abtaa’ey,ȱ H’aqqabaa,ȱ Hashshami,ȱ Libiȱ [Priestlyȱ family],ȱ Marooth,ȱ
Mebaar,ȱ Metaar,ȱ Mitwayyah,ȱ Moones,ȱ Na’im,ȱ Naabah,ȱ Phinaasȱ Harraban,ȱ
Qabbaasa,ȱ Raamaah,ȱ Sa’id,ȱ Saabaa,ȱ Shaaboorai,ȱ Shaamaah,ȱ Yaataaraa,ȱ
Zaahr.
EasternȱsideȱofȱMountȱGerizimȱtoȱtheȱJordanȱRiverȱ–ȱFammaai.
Galileeȱ–ȱGalgaal,ȱMaalek,ȱMarooth,ȱMusaf.
Gazaȱ–ȱAbȱZaa’utaa,ȱAbraahm,ȱAhnthal,ȱ‘Aazzenai[Priestlyȱfamily]ȱBaalah,ȱ
Ca’enaȱ Arra’aa,ȱ Eden,ȱ Galgaal,ȱ Giraa,ȱ Ha’ufaani,ȱ Hattikwi,ȱ Libi[Priestlyȱ
family],ȱMaa’or,ȱMaalek,ȱMaattaanaa,ȱMetaar,ȱMusaf,ȱNa’im,ȱRoomem
Givatȱ‘Adaȱ[Today]ȱ–ȱSidqah
Holonȱ[Today]ȱ–ȱHa’abtaa’ey,ȱHadinfi,ȱHammaarhibi,ȱSidqah,ȱYe’ushah
Jaffaȱ–ȱBaalah,ȱMaa’or,ȱMetaar,ȱRomem
KufarȱKallilȱ–ȱ‘Aanaan
KufarȱMaronȱ–ȱChabib
KufarȱSabaȱ–ȱBaalah
Mardan=Mardahȱ–ȱBaalah,ȱMaa’or,ȱMaattaana,ȱRoomemȱ
Matanȱ[Toda]ȱȬȱSidqa
Nabaȱ[Nevo]ȱ–ȱAbraahm,ȱNhaba,ȱNa’im
Nablusȱ [Shechem]ȱ –ȱ ‘Aanaan,ȱ Aanser,ȱ Baalah,ȱ Baaniȱ Maanaashe,ȱ Ca’enaȱ
Arra’aa[Priests],ȱ Denuftai,ȱ Eden,ȱ Figmaah,ȱ Ha’abta’ey[Priests],ȱ Hassuri,ȱ
Libi[Priests],ȱ Ma’or,ȱ Manuh,ȱ Marib,ȱ Mitwayya,ȱ Naba,ȱ Nuna,ȱ
Phinaas[Priests],ȱ Qabbaasaa,ȱ Qaahlaa,ȱȱ Raamaah,ȱ Roomem,ȱ Sa’id,ȱ
Saafaar=Sidqah,ȱ Shaamaah,ȱ Shamteima,ȱ Soorek,ȱ Toobayya,ȱ Yaataaraa,ȱ
Zaabaad,ȱZaahr,ȱZaaraad.
Northȱ ofȱ theȱ land,ȱ lebaneseȱ border,ȱ fromȱ theȱ Litannyȱ Riverȱ toȱ Zidonȱ andȱ
Southernȱ Syriaȱ –ȱ ’Abbas,ȱ ‘Ablaal,ȱ Aden,ȱ ‘Aalaab,ȱ Antaal,ȱ Baaduwwaa,ȱ
Eden,ȱ ElNchas,ȱ Hassuri,ȱ Magged,ȱ Malek,ȱ Marooth,ȱ Mitwayya,ȱ Qaahlaa,ȱ
Shaalem,ȱZaaraad
NorthȱSamariaȱregionȱ–ȱNoonaa
Qariaatȱ‘Assfehȱ–ȱNaakon,ȱSoorek.
QariaatȱGiyyaȱ–ȱBaalah,ȱMaa’or,ȱRoomem,ȱYe’usha
QariaatȱHassarinȱ–ȱBaadoowwaa,ȱCa’eniȱAaben[Priestlyȱfamily[
QariaatȱIraataaȱ–ȱZaabaad
QariaatȱKuzaȱ–ȱMaanooh
QariaatȱLuzaȱ[Today]ȱ–ȱHa’abtaa’ey,ȱHadinfi,ȱMaarhib,ȱSidqah
QariaatȱMahneeȱ–Zabad
Ramlehȱ–ȱHattikwi,ȱMetaar,ȱQaahlaa
RoshȱHanikraȱ–ȱChabib
Southernȱ Coastȱ –ȱ Abraahm,ȱ Hakkerob,ȱ Ha’ufaani,ȱ Iqbon,ȱ Maazen,ȱ Maala,ȱ
Saadeq,ȱTalphayya,ȱȱYe’usha
UmȬTutȱ[NearȱGaza]ȱ–ȱTutaai
Zorȱ–ȱChabib,ȱHassuri
Zriffinȱ–ȱHansheyya’em,ȱHattikwi,ȱLibi[Priests],ȱMaarhib,ȱPhinaas[Priests],ȱ
Saarfaataai.
8.ȱ142ȱHouseholdsȱ[Onlyȱfourȱsurvivedȱtillȱnowadays]
Toȱconclude,ȱweȱincludeȱhereȱaȱfullȱlistȱofȱnamesȱofȱfamiliesȱandȱhouseȬ
holdsȱ mentionedȱ inȱ historicalȱ sourcesȱ andȱ manuscriptsȱ ofȱ Torahȱ andȱ
prayerȱbooks.ȱThisȱlistȱisȱopenȱtoȱadditionȱofȱhouseholdȱnames,ȱshouldȱ
anybodyȱfindȱanyȱmoreȱbasedȱuponȱreadingȱtheȱcontemporaryȱrecordȬ
ingsȱ[theȱperiodȱspecifiedȱnextȱtoȱeachȱnameȱisȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱtimeȱtheȱ
nameȱwasȱmentionedȱinȱSamaritanȱsources,ȱbeforeȱeveryȱnameȱweȱhaveȱ
toȱaddȱtheȱwordȱ“Baani“=ȱSonsȱof]:ȱNote:ȱInȱpronunciationȱinsideȱeachȱ
word,ȱ doubleȱ a[aa]ȱ representsȱ Kamatzȱ andȱ singleȱ a[a]ȱ representsȱ
Patach.ȱ Theȱ signȱ [‘]ȱ atȱ theȱ beginingȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ representsȱ theȱ SephaȬ
radicȱpronunciationȱofȱtheȱletterȱ‘Aayeen[
Aa’ansheȱ[AlRaaisi],ȱEgypt,ȱtheȱ13thȱcentury
AabiȱHannibbosh,ȱ8thȱcentury
AbȬZaa’hutaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Abraahm,ȱ8thȱcentury
Aden,ȱ11thȱcentury
Akfet,ȱ15thȱcentury
Allef,ȱ12thȱcentury
Antaalȱ[Anataly,ȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱMoslemȱoccupation]
‘Aalaab,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
‘Aalaabaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
‘Aanaan,ȱ8thȱcentury
‘Aaraamtaa,ȱ16thȱcentury
‘Abbas,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam.
‘AbdȱAllaȱb.ȱJoseph,ȱbeginningȱofȱ2ndȱmillenium
‘Abdaa¸8thȱcentury
‘Ablaal,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
‘Abtaa’ey,ȱfamilyȱofȱPriestsȱandȱHighȱPriestsȱsinceȱ1624ȱCEȱtillȱnowadays.ȱ
Thisȱfamilyȱisȱdividedȱintoȱthreeȱbranches:ȱtheȱYaqob,ȱPhinaasȱandȱYesaahqȱ
branches.
‘AdȬShem,ȱ14thȱcentury
‘Adu,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
‘Asimaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
‘Azzaanai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Baaduwwaa,ȱ13thȱcentury
Baalah,ȱtheȱ4thȱcentury
Bahlulaai,ȱbeginningȱofȱMoslemȱoccupation
Ca’enaȱArra’ah,ȱpriestsȱwhoȱareȱnotȱAaron’sȱdescendants,ȱuntilȱtheȱ15thȱ[?]ȱ
centuryȱ
Caa’eneeȱAabenȱ–ȱ4thȱcentury
Chabib=Ubab,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Denuftaiȱ–ȱDinfi,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱMoslemȱoccupationȱ–ȱanȱexistingȱfamily,ȱ
whichȱ dividedȱ inȱ theȱ 18thȱ centuryȱ intoȱ 4ȱ groups:ȱ Hasatriȱ [alsoȱ knownȱ asȱ
SirrawiȱorȱSassoni],ȱAlteif,ȱ‘Mshallemaȱ[oneȱpersonȱleftȱtoday]ȱandȱShalabiȱ
[theȱpersonȱinȱthisȱfamilyȱdiedȱrecently].
Eden,ȱ8thȱcentury
El’uskeri,ȱ12thȱcentury
Elbazzini,ȱRabbansȱfromȱtheȱBazinȱfamily,ȱtheȱ14thȱcentury.
Eldustan,ȱaȱfamilyȱofȱpoetsȱfromȱtheȱ6thȱcentury
Eldwik,ȱtheȱ13thȱcentury
Elhariri,ȱuntilȱtheȱ18thȱcentury
Elisafanȱb.ȱ‘AzzillȱHaLlibem,ȱuntilȱtheȱ15thȱcentury?
Elmaarrahibi,ȱuntilȱtheȱ16thȱcentury
Elnachas,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱMoslemȱoccupation
Elsaafaawi,ȱuntilȱtheȱ19thȱcentury
Famaai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Figmaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Fooqa,ȱtillȱtheȱ17thȱcentury
Gaddoon,ȱ8thȱcentury
Galgaal,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslamȱperiod
Garaankaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Gerariȱ[Al’asqalani]ȱAlyoosfi,ȱAshqelon,ȱtheȱ12thȱcentury
Giraa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hakkerob,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hammaanser,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hammisriȱ[Elmaasri],ȱuntilȱtheȱ16thȱcentury
Hansheyya’em,ȱtillȱtheȱ16thȱcentury
Haqqaba,ȱ15thȱcentury
Hashshaabor,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hashshabooraai,ȱ13thȱcentury
Hashshamesh,ȱCairoȱleadingȱpriests,ȱuntilȱtheȱ17thȱcentury
Hashshami,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hassuri,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Hattenek,ȱtheȱ13thȱcentury
Hattikwi,ȱ8thȱcentury
Ha’ufaani,ȱ8thȱcentury
Hazzaaki,ȱ8thȱcentury
Ifrem,ȱwhoseȱleadersȱwereȱonȱexileȱinȱAssyria
Ikaaraa,ȱtheȱ8thȱcentury
Ilkaneh,ȱ13thȱcentury
Inaa,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Iqbon,ȱ8thȱcentury
Itaamaar,ȱpriestlyȱfamilyȱinȱtheȱdaysȱofȱBaabaaȱRabba,ȱ4thȱcentury
Karkaar,ȱ8thȱcentury
LibiȱAzzanaai,ȱ11thȱcentury
Maab,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maala,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maalek,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Maanaashe,ȱofȱwhomȱtheȱleadersȱwereȱsentȱtoȱExileȱinȱAssyria
Maanuh,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maa’or,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maarhibȱ[Almufargi]ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱsecondȱmilleniumȱ–ȱanȱexistingȱ
family,ȱwhichȱdividedȱinȱtheȱ18thȱcenturyȱintoȱMaribȱandȱYe’usha
Maashe,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maattaanaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maa’urta,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Maazen,ȱ8thȱcentury
Magged,ȱ8thȱcentury
Maqru,ȱ15thȱcentury
Marooth,ȱ8thȱcentury
Mebaar,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Melah,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Metaarȱ[AlMatari],ȱtillȱtheȱ19thȱcentury
Mimaaraa,ȱEgypt,ȱ13thȱcentury
Mitwayya=Ya’aish,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Moones,ȱtillȱtheȱ16thȱcentury
Mootaai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Munshy,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
MurahȬNuftah,ȱ8thȱcentury
Muriyya,ȱ8thȱcentury
Musaf,ȱ8thȱcentury
Naaba,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Naaboonaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Naakon,ȱ8thȱcentury
Nagdaa,ȱ8thȱcentury
Na’im,ȱ8thȱcentury
Nashlaai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Nesaanna,ȱ11thȱcentury
Niftaali,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Noonaa,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Phinassȱ Harrabbanem,ȱ Highȱ Priestsȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ fromȱ Aharonȱ timesȱ
tillȱ1624ȱCE
Qaahlaa,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Qaaiaatin,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Qaakaai,ȱShakuniȱBeitȱFurik,ȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Qaakoolaai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Qabbaasaa,ȱ4thȱcentury
Qidma,ȱ14thȱcentury
Qinaa,ȱ15thȱcentury
Qoomis,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱsecondȱmillenium
Raabaaqaai,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Raamah,ȱtillȱtheȱ18thȱcentury
Roomem,ȱtheȱbeginningȱ11thȱcentury
Saabaa,ȱ13thȱcentury
Saabaal,ȱ8thȱcentury
Saabenaai,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Saa’edaa,ȱ15thȱcentury
Saafaarȱ[AlSaabaachi],ȱ8thȱcenturyȱ–ȱstillȱexistsȱuntilȱnowadays,ȱincludingȱaȱ
branchȱ ofȱ AbȬZa’utaȱ [Darȱ SrurȬȱ family,ȱ outȱ ofȱ whichȱ developedȱ theȱ Sidkaȱ
HasSaafaariȱ family,ȱ aȱ nameȱ whichȱ beganȱ toȱ beȱ usedȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ 20thȱ
century.ȱTheȱSidqahȱfamilyȱnowadaysȱdividesȱintoȱ3ȱbranches:ȱMarib,ȱUbabȱ
andȱShalmah.
Saarfaataaiȱ[Alsaaraafaandi],ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Sahla,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Sa’id,ȱ8thȱcentury
Sammookaai,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Shaafaat,ȱ8thȱcentury
Shaalah,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Shaalem,ȱ8thȱcentury
Shaamaah,ȱ8thȱcentury
Shammesh,ȱ11thȱcentury,ȱfamilyȱofȱtheȱpriestsȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱCommunityȱ
inȱCairo,ȱEgypt
Shamtimma,ȱ15thȱcentury
Shimtaai,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Shootaalah,ȱ8thȱcentury
Sigyaanaa,ȱ15thȱcentury
Soorek,ȱ8thȱcentury
Talfayya,ȱ11thȱcentury
Toobayya,ȱEarlyȱIslamȱperiod
Tootaai,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Yaatraanaaȱ[Yatara]ȱorȱElKattari,ȱuntilȱtheȱ15thȱ[?]ȱcentury
Ye’usha,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Zaabaad,ȱ8thȱcentury
Zaahbaa,ȱ11thȱcentury
ZaahrȱRabba,ȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱIslam
Zaaraad,ȱ8thȱcentury
Zaarod,ȱ8thȱcenturyȱȱȱ
ȱ

ȱ

IzhakȱBenȱZvi,ȱDavidȱBenȬGurionȱȱ
andȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
ISRAELȱSEDAKA1ȱ
Inȱhisȱmemoirsȱ–ȱEssaysȱandȱReminiscencesȱ–ȱIzhakȱBenȱZviȱtellsȱofȱhisȱ
firstȱencountersȱwithȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunity.ȱTheseȱstartedȱatȱaboutȱ
1908,ȱ whenȱ heȱ firstȱ metȱ theȱ elderȱ Abrahamȱ sonȱ ofȱ Marhivȱ Zedakaȱ
Hazafriȱ(myȱownȱgrandfather).ȱ
BenȱZviȱrentedȱaȱroomȱinȱAbrahamȇsȱhouseȱinȱJaffa,ȱaimingȱtoȱlearnȱ
ArabicȱsoȱthatȱheȱcanȱreinforceȱhisȱtiesȱtoȱtheȱMiddleȱEasternȱJewry.ȱAtȱ
theȱ sameȱ timeȱ heȱ alsoȱ gotȱ acquaintedȱ withȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ aȱ Samaritanȱ
family,ȱ throughȱ whichȱ heȱ metȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ communityȱ inȱ Shechem.ȱ
Everyȱ morningȱ heȱ awakenedȱ toȱ theȱ voiceȱ ofȱ Abrahamȱ sonȱ ofȱ Marhiv,ȱ
whoȱ usedȱ toȱ riseȱ atȱ dawnȱ forȱ theȱ morningȱ prayer.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ prayersȱ
wereȱover,ȱAbrahamȱusedȱtoȱcomeȱintoȱtheȱgreatȱhallȱwhereȱtheȱentireȱ
familyȱ gathered,ȱ andȱ where,ȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ prayersȱ andȱ theȱ morningȱ
meal,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ startȱ studying.ȱ Itȱ isȱ fromȱ himȱ thatȱ Benȱ Zviȱ learnedȱ
bothȱSamaritanȱHebrewȱandȱArabic,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱbecameȱfluentȱenoughȱ
toȱspeakȱwithinȱ3ȱmonths.ȱArabicȱenabledȱhimȱtoȱconverseȱwithȱMiddleȱ
EasternȱJews,ȱYemeniteȱJewsȱandȱArabs.ȱ
Inȱhisȱbook,ȱBenȱZviȱadds:ȱTheȱacquaintanceȱwithȱAbrahamȱȱ
”allowedȱ meȱ toȱ enterȱ thisȱ smallȱ sect,ȱ theȱ mostȱ unhappyȱ ofȱ theȱ sectsȱ ofȱ
Israel,ȱ aȱsectȱ thatȱ ledȱ aȱseparatedȱ existenceȱ forȱ millenniaȱ andȱ trodȱitsȱownȱ
way.ȱ Itȱ hadȱ withstoodȱ theȱ mockeryȱ andȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ itsȱ neighborsȱ inȱ
Shechem,ȱ neverȱ givingȱ upȱ itsȱ religion,ȱ languageȱ andȱ religiousȱ practices,ȱ
andȱ mostȱ importantȱ –ȱ neverȱ relinquishingȱ itsȱ holdȱ onȱ itsȱ landȱ andȱ sacredȱ
mount.ȱ Toȱ thisȱ dayȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ haveȱ neverȱ leftȱ Shechemȱ andȱ mountȱ
Garizim.“ȱ
Onȱ hisȱ firstȱ visitȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ quarterȱ inȱ Shechem,ȱ Benȱ Zviȱ wasȱ
greatlyȱmovedȱbyȱtheȱdignityȱandȱnobilityȱofȱtheȱthenȱofficiatingȱHighȱ
Priest,ȱYaakovȱsonȱofȱAharon,ȱandȱinȱhisȱbookȱheȱadds,ȱȱ
1ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱauthorȱtheȱspellingȱisȱSEDAKA.ȱ
240 IsraelȱSedaka
“Iȱ inquireȱ toȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ andȱ admireȱ ourȱ remoteȱ tribe,ȱ
dwellingȱ amongȱ theȱ hillsȱ ofȱ Shechem.ȱ Howȱ wondrousȱ isȱ theȱ fateȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritans…ȱ Howȱ impressiveȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ thisȱ small,ȱ meagerȱ tribe,ȱ
persistingȱagainstȱtheȱentireȱworldȱforȱthousandsȱofȱyears.“ȱ
Benȱ Zviȱ stoodȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ synagogueȱ inȱ Shechem,ȱ facingȱ theȱ Holyȱ
ArkȱlookingȱuponȱMountȱGarizim,ȱandȱsawȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱtheȱScrollȱ
ofȱ theȱ Law,ȱ writtenȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ Hebrewȱ writingȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Lawȱ
wasȱ givenȱ toȱ theȱ Tribesȱ ofȱ Israelȱ onȱ Mountȱ Sinai,ȱ andȱ listenedȱ toȱ theȱ
Highȱ Priest’sȱ explanations.ȱ Duringȱ Passover,ȱ whenȱ heȱ climbedȱ Mountȱ
GarizimȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱPassoverȱsacrifice,ȱBenȱZviȱsaidȱthatȱinȱhisȱmindȱ
heȱcouldȱseeȱtheȱPassoverȱsacrificeȱasȱitȱwasȱcelebratedȱonȱtheȱTempleȱ
Mount.ȱ
Theseȱ twoȱ earliestȱ encountersȱ withȱ theȱHighȱ PriestȱYaakov,ȱsonȱofȱ
Aharon,ȱ andȱ elderȱ Abrahamȱ sonȱ ofȱ Marhivȱ Zedakaȱ formedȱ theȱ founȬ
dationȱandȱsourceȱforȱtheȱmutual,ȱfirmȱtiesȱbetweenȱIzhakȱBenȱZviȱandȱ
theȱSamaritanȱcommunity,ȱaȱsolidȱandȱprofoundȱfoundationȱthatȱgrewȱ
deepȱrootsȱandȱyieldedȱfruit.ȱAȱfoundationȱfromȱwhichȱgrewȱtheȱextraȬ
ordinary,ȱrareȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtribesȱofȱEphraimȱandȱManassehȱ
andȱ aȱ descendantȱ ofȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ Judah,ȱ whoseȱ deeds,ȱ integrityȱ andȱ
beliefȱinȱjusticeȱsinglesȱhimȱoutȱasȱperhapsȱtheȱfirstȱJewȱtoȱwinȱtheȱtrustȱ
andȱloveȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱ
Judahȱ andȱ Israelȱ hadȱ partedȱ waysȱ whenȱ kingȱ Davidȱ choseȱ JeruȬ
salemȱforȱaȱreligiousȱcenter,ȱandȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱinȱSecondȱTempleȱtimes,ȱ
throughȱ religiousȱ andȱ nationalȱ struggles.ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Judaeanȱ
Diasporaȱreturnedȱtoȱitsȱancientȱhomeland,ȱitȱwasȱbutȱnaturalȱforȱthemȱ
toȱ seekȱ outȱ theȱ lastȱ remainingȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Whatȱ
theyȱfoundȱwasȱaȱweakenedȱtribe,ȱstrugglingȱtoȱsurviveȱandȱyetȱfirmȱofȱ
faithȱ andȱ strongȱ ofȱ spirit.ȱ Andȱ History,ȱ whichȱ worksȱ inȱ mysteriousȱ
ways,ȱbroughtȱaboutȱthisȱmovingȱandȱlifeȬgivingȱencounterȱbetweenȱȱ
Izhakȱ Benȱ Zvi,ȱ symbolizingȱ aȱ descendantȱ ofȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ Judahȱ
returningȱ toȱ rebuildȱ andȱ reȬsettleȱ hisȱ ancientȱ homeland,ȱ andȱ aȱ
descendantȱofȱtheȱLeviteȱtribeȱ–ȱHighȱPriestȱYaakovȱsonȱofȱAharon,ȱandȱ
aȱ descendantȱ ofȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ Joseph,ȱ elderȱ Abrahamȱ sonȱ ofȱ Marhivȱ
Zedakaȱ Hazfari.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ theȱ “remnantȱ thatȱ areȱ escapedȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ
handȱ ofȱ theȱ kingsȱ ofȱ Assyria“ȱ asȱ 2ȱ Chroniclesȱ 30,6ȱ tellsȱ us,ȱ andȱ haveȱ
survivedȱ forȱ someȱ 2700ȱ years.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ supremeȱ historicȱ encounterȱ
betweenȱ Josephȱ andȱ Judah,ȱ andȱ aȱ proofȱ ofȱ theȱ eternalȱ existenceȱofȱ theȱ
peopleȱofȱIsrael.ȱ
Thisȱtime,ȱhowever,ȱdespiteȱhisȱfaithȱinȱJerusalemȱandȱhisȱstruggleȱ
forȱ it,ȱ andȱ unlikeȱ Hezekiahȱ kingȱ ofȱ Judah,ȱ Izhakȱ Benȱ Zviȱ doesȱ notȱ
attemptȱ toȱ convinceȱ theȱ remainingȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Josephȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ
Jerusalem.ȱ Heȱ knowsȱ thatȱ everȱ sinceȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ Moses,ȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ
ȱ IzhakȱBenȱZvi,ȱDavidȱBenȬGurionȱandȱtheȱSamaritans 241ȱ
dwellingȱ inȱ Samariaȱ haveȱ centeredȱ theirȱ faithȱ inȱ Shechemȱ andȱ Mountȱ
Garizim.ȱ Andȱ inȱ theȱ depthȱ ofȱ hisȱ soulȱ heȱ hadȱ learnedȱ toȱ understandȱ
andȱ valueȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ historicalȱ truthȱ –ȱ theȱ sameȱ truthȱ eachȱ
Samaritanȱ pronouncesȱ inȱ hisȱ dailyȱ prayer:ȱ “andȱ Mountȱ Gerizimȱ aȱ
templeȱofȱtheȱLordȱeveryȱdayȱofȱourȱlives.ȱ“ȱ
Theȱ Samaritanȱ communityȱ hadȱ indeedȱ dwindled,ȱ soȱ muchȱ thatȱ
scholarsȱ couldȱ alreadyȱ visualizeȱ theȱ entireȱ nationȱ comingȱ toȱ anȱ end.ȱ
NotȱsoȱBenȱZvi,ȱwhoȱsawȱthenȱtheȱeternityȱofȱtheȱnationȱofȱIsraelȱinȱallȱ
itsȱ glory.ȱ Whatȱ peopleȱ orȱ nationȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ wasȱ reducedȱ toȱ aȱ fewȱ
dozen,ȱlivingȱinȱtheȱconfinesȱofȱaȱnarrow,ȱdarkȱghetto,ȱandȱstillȱlivedȱon,ȱ
inȱtheȱfirmȱandȱunshakenȱbeliefȱthatȱtheyȱareȱtheȱchosenȱpeople,ȱchosenȱ
aboveȱallȱnations?ȱ
WhatȱBenȱZviȱfeltȱforȱthemȱwereȱloveȱandȱadmirationȱ–ȱtheȱloveȱofȱaȱ
descendantȱofȱtheȱtribeȱofȱJudah,ȱperhapsȱevenȱBenjamin,ȱtoȱtheȱsonsȱofȱ
hisȱ brotherȱ Joseph,ȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ Manasseh.ȱ Love,ȱ
respectȱandȱwonderȱ–ȱwhichȱIȱmyselfȱalwaysȱsawȱandȱfeltȱinȱourȱmanyȱ
encounters.ȱ
Benȱ Zviȱ tookȱ uponȱ himselfȱ toȱ carryȱ outȱ aȱ thoroughȱ andȱ compreȬ
hensiveȱstudyȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱtheirȱfaith,ȱliteratureȱandȱsettlements.ȱ
Hisȱstudiesȱstriveȱtoȱproveȱbothȱtheirȱphysicalȱandȱspiritualȱexistenceȱinȱ
Israel’sȱ townsȱ andȱ villagesȱ throughoutȱ theȱ country’sȱ history,ȱ andȱ toȱ
proveȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱevenȱwhenȱtheȱcountryȱ
wasȱ bereftȱ almostȱ entirelyȱ ofȱ itsȱ Jewishȱ sons.ȱ Weȱ seeȱ thisȱ inȱ hisȱ booksȱ
“Theȱ Samaritans”ȱandȱ“Eretzȱ Israelȱ andȱ itsȱ Settlementȱ underȱ Ottomanȱ
Rule.“ȱ
Onȱ appearingȱ beforeȱ theȱ AngloȬAmericanȱ commissionȱ investigatȬ
ingȱtheȱmatterȱofȱPalestineȱinȱ1945/1946,ȱtheȱArabȱrepresentativesȱraisedȱ
theȱ Samaritanȱ issue.ȱ Whenȱ claimingȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ haveȱ noȱ needȱ ofȱ aȱ
stateȱ ofȱ theirȱ own,ȱ Palestinianȱ representativeȱ Onyȱ Abdȱ elȬHadyȱ saidȱ
“Letȱ theȱ Jewsȱ liveȱ withȱ usȱ inȱ peace,ȱ asȱ doȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Nablusȱ
(Shechem).“ȱ Inȱ replyȱ toȱ theȱ Arabȱ representativeȇsȱ suggestion,ȱ Benȱ Zviȱ
retorted,ȱȱ
“Historicalȱtruthȱ doesȱ notȱ bearȱ outȱ theȱ Arabȱ claimsȱ asȱ toȱtheȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ
Jewsȱ inȱ Arabȱ countries.ȱ Atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ Arabȱ conquestȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ
numberedȱ approximatelyȱ 135,000ȱ individuals.ȱ Someȱ 1300ȱ yearsȱ laterȱ theirȱ
numberȱhasȱbeenȱreducedȱtoȱ200ȱpeopleȱinȱShechemȱandȱsomeȱ60ȱpeopleȱinȱ
TelȱAviv.“ȱȱ
Toȱ thisȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ addȱ thatȱinȱ1918,ȱ whenȱ Palestineȱ wasȱ takenȱ byȱ
theȱBritish,ȱthereȱwereȱonlyȱ145ȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱcountry.ȱTheȱBritishȱ
occupationȱandȱtheȱfoundationȱofȱtheȱstateȱofȱIsraelȱhaveȱincreasedȱthisȱ
numberȱ toȱ 675ȱ individualsȱ –ȱ anȱ increaseȱ ofȱ 465ȱ %ȱ overȱ aȱ periodȱ ofȱ 85ȱ
years,ȱsinceȱ1918.ȱȱ
242 IsraelȱSedaka
BenȱZvi,ȱwhileȱconductingȱthisȱexhaustiveȱstudy,ȱvisitedȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritanȱ communityȱ inȱ Jaffa,ȱ andȱ inȱ Shechem,ȱ mainlyȱ onȱ highȱ daysȱ andȱ
holidays.ȱ Inȱ 1933ȱ heȱ participatedȱ inȱ theȱ researchȱ carriedȱ outȱ byȱ theȱ
ItalianȱgeneticȱstudyȱexpeditionȱheadedȱbyȱProf.ȱGena.ȱInȱ1935ȱheȱpubȬ
lishedȱhisȱbook,ȱ“TheȱSamaritans“,ȱpublishedȱagainȱinȱaȱrevisedȱeditionȱ
afterȱhisȱdeath.ȱInȱtheȱintroductionȱtoȱtheȱbookȱBenȱZviȱwrites:ȱȱ
“Weȱ shouldȱ rememberȱ thatȱ thisȱ tinyȱ communityȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ toȱ haveȱ
preservedȱ aȱ specialȱ versionȱ ofȱ ourȱ holyȱ writingsȱ andȱ chronicles,ȱ aȱ versionȱ
thatȱ contradictsȱ atȱ placesȱ ourȱ traditionalȱ text.ȱ Theȱ importantȱ pointȱ hereȱ isȱ
notȱwhetherȱtheirȱversionȱisȱrightȱorȱwrongȱ–ȱbutȱratherȱthatȱthisȱversionȱisȱ
anȱ independentȱ sourceȱ preservedȱ byȱ theȱ mostȱ ancientȱ Israeliteȱ sect.ȱ Thisȱ
sourceȱcontainsȱpointsȱthatȱareȱinvaluableȱtoȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱourȱownȱ
text,ȱandȱtheȱdifferencesȱandȱarguableȱpointsȱbetweenȱtheȱvariousȱreligiousȱ
streamsȱthatȱhadȱformedȱduringȱourȱnationȇsȱlongȱhistory.”ȱ
Toȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ Benȱ Zviȱ wasȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ mereȱ scholarȱ andȱ
historian.ȱInȱhisȱpositionȱinȱtheȱJewishȱAgency,ȱasȱheadȱofȱtheȱNationalȱ
Council,ȱ andȱ finallyȱ asȱ Israel’sȱ secondȱ president,ȱ Benȱ Zviȱ hadȱ beenȱ aȱ
steadyȱ andȱ loyalȱ friendȱ toȱ thisȱ community,ȱ whoȱ regardedȱ himȱ asȱ theȱ
rightȱ andȱ fittingȱ addressȱ toȱ itsȱ complaintsȱ –ȱ individualȱ andȱ generalȱ
alikeȱ–ȱtoȱallȱofȱwhichȱheȱlentȱaȱwillingȱear.ȱTheȱriftȱformedȱinȱtheȱcomȬ
unityȱfollowingȱ1948ȱheȱfoundȱextremelyȱpainful.ȱ
Whenȱ heȱ wishedȱ toȱ communicateȱ withȱ myȱ uncle,ȱ Yefetȱ Zedaka,ȱ
whoȱ wasȱ headȱ ofȱ theȱ Jaffaȱ communityȱ butȱ movedȱ toȱ Shechemȱ whenȱ
warȱbrokeȱout,ȱBenȱZviȱsentȱhisȱletterȱtoȱtheȱprincipalȱofȱmyȱsecondaryȱ
school,ȱGimnasiyaȱHerzeliah,ȱwhoȱgaveȱitȱtoȱmeȱtoȱdeliverȱtoȱmyȱfather,ȱ
Gamaliel.ȱ Everȱ sinceȱ thatȱ occasionȱ myȱ relationsȱ withȱ Izhakȱ Benȱ Zviȱ
grewȱ closer,ȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ community,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ duringȱ hisȱ
termȱ asȱ president.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Sixties,ȱ whenȱ Iȱ servedȱ asȱ secretaryȱ toȱ theȱ
Samaritanȱ community,ȱ theȱ priestsȱ inȱ Mountȱ Garizim,ȱ headedȱ byȱ theȱ
Highȱ Priest,ȱ appointedȱ meȱ toȱ askȱ presidentȱ Benȱ Zviȱ aboutȱ theȱ possiȬ
bilityȱ ofȱ financialȱ assistanceȱ thatȱ wouldȱ enableȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ toȱ
purchaseȱlandȱonȱMountȱGarizim.ȱTheȱidea,ȱalthoughȱagreeableȱtoȱBenȱ
Zvi,ȱwasȱrejectedȱbecauseȱofȱpossibleȱpoliticalȱimplications.ȱȱ
Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ atȱ theȱ requestȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ committeeȱ inȱ
Holon,ȱ theȱ Mayorȱ ofȱ Jerusalem,ȱ Teddyȱ Kollek,ȱ gaveȱ theȱ communityȱ aȱ
donationȱonȱbehalfȱofȱMeirȱWeisgal,ȱheadȱofȱtheȱWeizmanȱFoundation,ȱ
aimedȱ toȱ buildȱ theȱ newȱ synagogueȱ onȱ Mountȱ Garizim.ȱ Theȱ donationȱ
wasȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱHighȱPriestȱAmram,ȱsonȱofȱIsaac.ȱThusȱIzhakȱBenȱZviȱ
managedȱtoȱmaintainȱaȱsteadyȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱpriesthoodȱinȱShechem,ȱ
andȱtoȱmakeȱsureȱtheȱcommunityȱthereȱreceivedȱmaterialȱandȱfinancialȱ
aid,ȱoccasionallyȱthroughȱtheȱJoint.ȱ
InȱIsraelȱheȱassistedȱinȱmovingȱtheȱcommunityȱtoȱaȱsingleȱplaceȱandȱ
inȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ neighborhoodȱ inȱ Holon.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ theȱ
oneȱ whoȱ plantedȱ theȱ foundationȱ stoneȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ synagogueȱ inȱ
Holon,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱoneȱwho,ȱdespiteȱillȱhealthȱandȱonlyȱtwoȱmonthsȱ
priorȱtoȱhisȱdeath,ȱopenedȱthatȱsameȱsynagogue.ȱThisȱhadȱbeenȱhisȱlastȱ
publicȱ appearance,ȱ whereȱ heȱ calledȱ forȱ aȱ reunionȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ andȱ
Judaea,ȱsinceȱallȱtheȱtribesȱofȱIsraelȱareȱbutȱoneȱnation.ȱ
Inȱ oneȱ ofȱ ourȱ meetingsȱ duringȱ hisȱ termȱ asȱ president,ȱ whileȱ disȬ
cussingȱ historicalȱ andȱ archaeologicalȱ matters,ȱ heȱ askedȱ meȱ toȱ inviteȱ
Prof.ȱ(thenȱDr.)ȱZeevȱBenȱHaimȱtoȱseeȱhim.ȱIȱgladlyȱfulfilledȱhisȱrequest,ȱ
andȱ Benȱ Haimȱ wasȱ delightedȱ toȱ attend.ȱ Whileȱ discussingȱ variousȱ
Samaritanȱthemes,ȱIzhakȱBenȱZviȱaskedȱBenȱHaim,ȱ“pleaseȱtranslateȱtheȱ
Speechȱ ofȱ Markaȱ fromȱ Aramaicȱ toȱ Hebrew.“ȱ Benȱ Haimȱ responded,ȱ
“YourȱExcellency,ȱitȱisȱnotȱanȱeasyȱmatterȱandȱisȱstillȱbeyondȱme.ȱHowȬ
ever,ȱIȱdoȱhopeȱtoȱtranslateȱtheȱSpeechȱofȱMarkaȱasȱsoonȱasȱpossible,ȱatȱ
yourȱrequest.”ȱAndȱindeed,ȱsomeȱ28ȱyearsȱlater,ȱinȱ1988,ȱProf.ȱBenȱHaimȱ
publishedȱtheȱHebrewȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱSpeechȱofȱMarka.ȱ
Inȱ 1954,ȱ theȱ Zionistȱ Federationȱ heldȱ itsȱ firstȱ everȱ conferenceȱ inȱ
Israel.ȱInȱhisȱopeningȱspeech,ȱPrimeȱMinisterȱBenȱGurionȱnotedȱtheȱfactȱ
thatȱtheȱconferenceȱtakesȱplaceȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱJerusalem,ȱchosenȱbyȱ
kingȱ Davidȱ asȱ religiousȱ centerȱ forȱ theȱ nation.ȱ Asȱ aȱ youngȱ student,ȱ Iȱ
wroteȱtoȱhimȱandȱnotedȱthatȱIsraelȱhadȱaȱreligiousȱcenterȱ400ȱyearsȱpriorȱ
toȱ kingȱ David,ȱ thatȱ centerȱ beingȱ inȱ Samariaȱ ratherȱ thanȱ Judaea.ȱ Twoȱ
daysȱlaterȱIȱreceivedȱaȱreplyȱsignedȱbyȱtheȱpremier,ȱwhereȱheȱwroteȱthatȱ
althoughȱ heȱ himselfȱ wasȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ controversyȱ betweenȱ Israelȱ andȱ
Judah,ȱ concerningȱ Mountȱ Garizimȱ andȱ Jerusalem,ȱ itȱ wasȱ historyȱ thatȱ
determinedȱthatȱJerusalemȱservesȱasȱaȱnationalȱcenter.ȱȱ
Benȱ Gurionȱ wasȱ veryȱ muchȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritans,ȱ ofȱ whomȱ heȱ
hadȱ heardȱ aȱ lotȱ fromȱ hisȱ friendȱ Izhakȱ Benȱ Zvi.ȱ He,ȱ too,ȱ thoughtȱ veryȱ
highlyȱofȱtheȱhistory,ȱfaithȱandȱprinciplesȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunity.ȱ
Inȱ 1959,ȱ theȱ Israeliȱ Bibleȱ Societyȱ metȱ inȱ theȱ homeȱ ofȱ Davidȱ Benȱ
Gurion.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ 14ȱ meetingsȱ dealingȱ withȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Joshuaȱ wasȱ
alsoȱaȱlectureȱdeliveredȱbyȱpresidentȱBenȱZvi,ȱonȱtheȱSamaritanȱversionȱ
ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Joshua.ȱ Althoughȱ inȱ hisȱ lectureȱ heȱ spokeȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱwithȱgreatȱsympathyȱandȱappreciation,ȱinȱseveralȱpointsȱheȱ
emphasizedȱ theȱ Jewishȱ pointȱ ofȱ view.ȱAtȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ lectureȱDavidȱ
Benȱ Gurionȱ requestedȱ permissionȱ toȱ speak,ȱ andȱ Iȱ herebyȱ quoteȱ aȱ
summationȱofȱhisȱspeech,ȱasȱpublishedȱinȱtheȱbookȱ“Studiesȱinȱtheȱbookȱ
ofȱJoshua“ȱpublishedȱbyȱKiryatȱSeferȱPublications,ȱJerusalemȱ1960:ȱ
ThisȱisȱwhatȱDavidȱBenȱGurionȱsaidȱtoȱIzhakȱBenȱZvi:ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
244 IsraelȱSedaka
“Iȇdȱlikeȱtoȱaskȱaȱfewȱquestions:ȱ
a) OnȱwhatȱdidȱyouȱbaseȱyourȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱchangedȱtheȱ
Pentateuchȱ text?ȱ Whatȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ theirȱ versionȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ correctȱ one?ȱ
Theȱfactȱisȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱlivedȱinȱthisȱcountryȱcontinuously,ȱandȱifȱ
thereȱ isȱ anyȱ doubtȱ concerningȱ theirȱ origins,ȱ canȱ anyoneȱ tellȱ meȱ
whatȱisȱtheȱbiologicalȱoriginȱofȱtheȱJewsȱlivingȱhere?ȱ
b) Asȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ “inȱ theȱ placeȱ whichȱ heȱ shallȱ choose“ȱ versusȱ
“theȱplaceȱwhichȱheȱchose“ȱoneȱshouldȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱBibleȱmentionsȱ
onlyȱoneȱchosenȱmountȱ–ȱMountȱGarizim.ȱTheȱmountȱinȱJerusalemȱ
isȱneverȱmentioned.ȱ
c) BenȱGurionȱgoesȱon:ȱWhenȱAbrahamȱcameȱtoȱtheȱlandȱofȱIsrael,ȱtheȱ
firstȱ placeȱ thatȱ isȱ mentionedȱ isȱ Shechem.ȱ Doesȱ thisȱ haveȱ noȱ
historicalȱorȱtraditionalȱsignificance?ȱ
d) WhenȱAbrahamȱwasȱtoldȱtoȱsacrificeȱhisȱson,ȱheȱwasȱsentȱnotȱtoȱtheȱ
mountȱofȱMoriah,ȱbutȱratherȱtoȱtheȱlandȱofȱMoriahȱ…ȱuponȱoneȱofȱ
theȱmountains.ȱConceivably,ȱAbrahamȱwouldȱhaveȱchosenȱaȱfamilȬ
arȱplaceȱ–ȱandȱShechemȱwasȱaȱfamiliarȱplace,ȱasȱheȱhadȱtwiceȱbuiltȱ
anȱ altarȱ there.ȱ Theȱ mountȱ ofȱ Moriahȱ isȱ neverȱ mentioned,ȱ andȱ
JerusalemȱisȱabsentȱinȱtheȱPentateuchȱandȱisȱmentionedȱonlyȱinȱtheȱ
daysȱofȱKingȱDavid.ȱ
e) Why,ȱ therefore,ȱ claimȱ itȱ isȱ they,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ us,ȱ whoȱ changedȱ theȱ
text?ȱ Whyȱ notȱ acceptȱ theirȱ version,ȱ confirmedȱ byȱ ourȱ Torah,ȱ thatȱ
theȱ mountȱ ofȱ theȱ Blessingȱ isȱ Mountȱ Garizim?ȱ Shechemȱ isȱ alsoȱ
mentionedȱ inȱ Joshua,ȱ asȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ covenantȱ betweenȱ Israelȱ
andȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Howȱ doȱ weȱ knowȱ itȱ isȱ theyȱ whoȱ areȱ wrongȱ inȱ thisȱ
matter?ȱ Kingȱ Davidȱ indeedȱ choseȱ Jerusalemȱ forȱ hisȱ capital,ȱ butȱ
untilȱhisȱdaysȱJerusalemȱplaysȱnoȱpartȱinȱourȱhistory.”ȱ
ȱ
AȱfewȱdaysȱafterȱtheȱJuneȱ6thȱwar,ȱinȱmyȱthenȱcapacityȱasȱtheȱsecretaryȬ
generalȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱinȱIsrael,ȱIȱintroducedȱtheȱleadingȱ
SamaritanȱpriestsȱinȱShechem,ȱheadedȱbyȱtheȱHighȱPriestȱAmramȱsonȱofȱ
Isaac,ȱtoȱtheȱthenȱheadsȱofȱstate:ȱpresidentȱZalmanȱShazar,ȱprimeȱminisȬ
terȱ Levyȱ Eshkolȱ andȱ ministerȱ inȱ chargeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ affairsȱ Zerahȱ
Verhaftig.ȱTheȱhighlightȱofȱthisȱencounter,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱtheȱunplannedȱ
meetingȱ withȱ Davidȱ Benȱ Gurionȱ inȱ hisȱ Telȱ Avivȱ house.ȱ Theȱ meetingȱ
wasȱsuffusedȱwithȱintenseȱhappinessȱandȱlove,ȱasȱthoughȱfaithfullyȱandȱ
hopefullyȱlookedȱanticipatedȱforȱdecades.ȱInȱitȱthoseȱpresentȱdiscussedȱ
theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ itsȱ historyȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ cenȬ
tury,ȱandȱinȱparticularȱsinceȱtheȱinceptionȱofȱtheȱIsraeliȱstate.ȱ
Addendumȱ–ȱtheȱPentateuchȱdoesȱnotȱmentionȱtheȱexactȱlocationȱofȱ
MountȱSinai,ȱwhereȱtheȱTabletsȱofȱtheȱLawȱwereȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱ
Israel.ȱTheȱlocationȱofȱMountȱGarizim,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱisȱpinpointedȱ
withȱsevenȱgeographicalȱlandmarksȱ–ȱDeuteronomyȱ11,30ȱ–ȱ“[Are]ȱtheyȱ
notȱonȱtheȱotherȱsideȱJordan,ȱbyȱtheȱwayȱwhereȱtheȱsunȱgoethȱdown,ȱinȱ
theȱlandȱofȱtheȱCanaanites,ȱwhichȱdwellȱinȱtheȱchampaignȱoverȱagainstȱ
Gilgal,ȱ besideȱ theȱ plainsȱ ofȱ Moreh,ȱ oppositeȱ Shechem?“ȱ Inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ
versionȱofȱtheȱtextȱthereȱareȱonlyȱsixȱlandmarks,ȱasȱ“oppositeȱShechem”ȱ
isȱmissing.ȱInȱtheȱJerusalemȱTalmud,ȱhowever,ȱinȱSotahȱchapterȱ7,ȱRabbiȱ
Elazarȱ Barȱ Shimonȱ saysȱ toȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ scribesȱ thatȱ theȱ wordsȱ
“oppositeȱShechem“ȱwereȱadded,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱwellȱknownȱthatȱtheȱmountȱ
isȱindeedȱoppositeȱShechem.ȱThus,ȱtheȱTalmudȱconfirmsȱtheȱlandmarkȱ
missingȱfromȱtheȱJewishȱtextȱofȱtheȱPentateuch.ȱȱȱ
ȱ

ȱ

TheȱSamaritansȱ–ȱBiblicalȱPositionsȱinȱtheȱServiceȱȱ
ofȱModernȱPolitics1ȱ
YAIRAHȱAMITȱ
Theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ articleȱ isȱ toȱ showȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ modernȱ
positionsȱ regardingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Israeliȱ societyȱ –ȱ
thatȱ is,ȱ inȱ theȱ Stateȱ ofȱ Israelȱ –ȱ areȱ influencedȱ byȱ biblicalȱ positionsȱ andȱ
theirȱinterpretationȱthroughoutȱtheȱgenerations.ȱ
Toȱaccomplishȱthis,ȱtheȱdiscussionȱisȱdividedȱintoȱtwoȱparts:ȱinȱtheȱ
firstȱ–ȱIȱdescribeȱandȱanalyzeȱtheȱbiblicalȱsources,ȱtheirȱbackgroundȱandȱ
theȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱhaveȱbeenȱinterpreted;ȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ–ȱIȱpresentȱ
theȱ modernȱ problem,ȱ howȱ itȱ wasȱ solvedȱ andȱ whichȱ sourcesȱ wereȱ
actuallyȱmostȱinfluential.ȱ
1.ȱTheȱPositionsȱinȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ
Thereȱareȱthreeȱkeyȱsourcesȱinȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱpositionsȱ
towardsȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ biblicalȱ literature.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ twoȱ areȱ directȱ
andȱ unequivocal,ȱ whileȱ theȱ thirdȱ isȱ inexplicitȱ andȱ thereforeȱ servesȱ
extreme,ȱcontradictoryȱinterpretations.ȱ
1.1ȱ2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41ȱ
Theȱ main,ȱ detailedȱ andȱ structuredȱ textȱ thatȱ depictsȱ theȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ theȱ
BibleȱtowardsȱtheȱSamaritansȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41.ȱThisȱtextȱsugȬ
gestsȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱwereȱdescendantsȱofȱnationsȱexiledȱfromȱtheirȱ
countriesȱ byȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Assyria,ȱ whoȱ settledȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ citiesȱ ofȱ
Samariaȱ(2Kgsȱ17,24).ȱThereȱtheyȱreplacedȱtheȱIsraeliteȱinhabitants,ȱwhoȱ
1ȱȱȱ Anȱ earlier,ȱ shorterȱ andȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ versionȱ ofȱ thisȱ articleȱ willȱ beȱ publishedȱ inȱ
AMIT,ȱSamaritans.ȱ
248 YairahȱAmit
hadȱ beenȱ exiledȱ toȱ otherȱ landsȱ inȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ empire.2ȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ
descriptionȱreflectsȱtheȱAssyrianȱpolicyȱofȱexchangingȱsegmentsȱofȱtheȱ
conqueredȱpopulationsȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtwoȬwayȱdeportations,3ȱitȱgivesȱtheȱ
impressionȱ thatȱ theȱ landȱ wasȱ emptiedȱ ofȱ itsȱ Israeliteȱ populationȱ andȱ
filledȱwithȱimmigrantsȱfromȱotherȱcountries.4ȱȱ
Itȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“ʭʩʰʸʮʹʤ“ȱ(=ȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱSamariaȱ
whoȱareȱtheȱSamariansȱorȱtheȱSamaritans)5ȱ–ȱwhichȱappearsȱonlyȱonceȱ
inȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ hereȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17,29ȱ –ȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ originalȱ Israeliteȱ
inhabitantsȱ ofȱ northernȱ Israel,ȱ notȱ toȱ theȱ newȱ populationȱ whichȱ wasȱ
broughtȱ inȱ byȱ theȱ Assyrians.6ȱ Theȱ termȱ “Samaritans“,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ
laterȱbecomeȱtheȱusualȱdesignationȱofȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱnorth,7ȱandȱ
whichȱIȱuseȱinȱtheȱtitleȱandȱthroughoutȱthisȱarticle,ȱwasȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱ
nameȱ ofȱ theȱ kingdomȱ andȱ itsȱ capitalȱ Samariaȱ (seeȱ 1Kgsȱ 16,23Ȭ24).ȱ
Nevertheless,ȱ laterȱ Samaritanȱ traditionȱ interpretsȱ itȱ asȱ derivingȱ fromȱ
theȱverbȱshȬmȬrȱ–ȱthatȱis,ȱtoȱkeepȱorȱpreserveȱ–ȱindicatingȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱ
theȱ originalȱ preserversȱ ofȱ theȱ Torah.8ȱ Noȱ wonder,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ inȱ thisȱ
polemicȱtheȱSagesȱavoidedȱtheȱtermȱSamaritans,ȱandȱgaveȱthemȱepithetsȱ
thatȱexpressedȱtheirȱnegativeȱattitude,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱtextȱinȱ2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ
41:ȱ “Cuthites“ȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,24),ȱ “Lionȱ proselytes“ȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,25Ȭ26),ȱ andȱ
“heretics“ȱ(2Kgsȱ17,29Ȭ41).9ȱȱ
Fromȱ chapterȱ 17ȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ weȱ understandȱ thatȱ afterȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ
conquestȱofȱSamariaȱinȱ720ȱBCE,ȱtheȱcountryȱwasȱemptiedȱofȱitsȱIsraeliteȱ
population,ȱasȱisȱdescribedȱinȱ2Kgsȱ17,6ȱandȱ2Kgsȱ17,23b:ȱ
“InȱtheȱninthȱyearȱofȱHoshea,ȱtheȱkingȱofȱAssyriaȱcapturedȱSamaria.ȱHeȱdeȬ
portedȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ toȱ Assyriaȱ andȱ settledȱ themȱ inȱ Halah,ȱ atȱ theȱ [River]ȱ
2 ȱȱ Seeȱ2Kgsȱ17,6.23.27Ȭ28.ȱ
3 ȱȱ OnȱtheȱAssyrianȱpolicy,ȱseeȱODED,ȱMassȱDeportations.ȱ
4 ȱȱ SeeȱODED,ȱMyth,ȱ55Ȭ74,ȱesp.ȱ59.ȱ
5 ȱȱ Thereȱ isȱ greatȱ confusionȱ inȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ thisȱ term,ȱ butȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ placeȱ toȱ
discussȱit.ȱ
6 ȱȱ COGANȱ/ȱTADMOR,ȱKings,ȱ211.ȱForȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ“Samarian(s)”ȱinȱAssyrianȱ
documents,ȱ seeȱ EPH’AL,ȱ Samaritan(s)ȱ (1991).ȱ Forȱ aȱ revisedȱ andȱ updatedȱ Hebrewȱ
versionȱofȱthisȱarticle,ȱseeȱEPH’AL,ȱSamaritansȱ(2002).ȱ
7ȱȱȱ Asideȱ fromȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ reference,ȱ theȱ termȱ appearsȱ onlyȱ inȱ postȬbiblicalȱ
materials,ȱ asȱ forȱ example:ȱ Josephusȱ (Antiq.ȱ XI:297Ȭ347;ȱ XII:257Ȭ264ȱ andȱ moreȱ ),ȱ theȱ
NewȱTestamentȱ (Matthewȱ10,5;ȱLukeȱ9,52ȱandȱ more),ȱBenȱSiraȱ(50,37Ȭ38),ȱtheȱSagesȱ
(b.ȱ Berakotȱ 47b;ȱ b.ȱ Sanhedrinȱ 63b;ȱ andȱ more),ȱ andȱ others. Seeȱ alsoȱ TALMON,ȱ
Traditionsȱ(2002),ȱ7Ȭ9,ȱforȱadditionalȱoccurrences.ȱȱ
8 ȱȱ OnȱtheȱSamaritans’ȱtradition,ȱseeȱTALMON,ȱTraditionsȱ(2002),ȱ9;ȱandȱseeȱbelowȱinȱtheȱ
appendixȱofȱthisȱarticle,ȱ14Ȭ17.ȱ
9 ȱȱ OnȱtheȱnamesȱusedȱbyȱtheȱSages,ȱseeȱalsoȱb.ȱQiddushinȱ75b.ȱ
ȱ TheȱSamaritans 249ȱ
Habor,ȱatȱtheȱRiverȱGozan,ȱandȱinȱtheȱtownsȱofȱMediaȱ[...]ȱSoȱtheȱIsraelitesȱ
wereȱdeportedȱfromȱtheirȱlandȱtoȱAssyria,ȱasȱisȱstillȱtheȱcase.ȱ“10ȱȱ
Inȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ “theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Assyriaȱ broughtȱ [exiles]ȱ fromȱ
Babylon,ȱCuthah,ȱAvva,ȱHamath,ȱandȱSepharvaim,ȱandȱheȱsettledȱthemȱ
inȱtheȱtownsȱofȱSamariaȱinȱplaceȱofȱtheȱIsraelite;ȱtheyȱtookȱpossessionȱofȱ
Samariaȱandȱdweltȱinȱitsȱtowns“ȱ(2Kgsȱ17,24).ȱThisȱtextȱgoesȱonȱtoȱsayȱ
thatȱ“whenȱtheyȱfirstȱsettledȱthere,ȱ“theseȱnewcomers”ȱdidȱnotȱworshipȱ
theȱLord,“ȱandȱonlyȱafterȱbeingȱattackedȱbyȱlionsȱdidȱtheyȱaskȱtoȱlearnȱ
“theȱrulesȱofȱtheȱGodȱofȱtheȱland.“ȱThenȱtheȱkingȱofȱAssyriaȱorderedȱanȱ
Israeliteȱ priestȱ toȱ beȱ broughtȱ backȱ fromȱ exileȱ toȱ teachȱ theȱ newȱ settlersȱ
“howȱ toȱ worshipȱ theȱ Lord“ȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,25Ȭ28).ȱ Theȱ resultȱ wasȱ aȱ syncreȬ
tismȱ ofȱ faithȱ andȱ cult:ȱ “Theyȱ worshipedȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ whileȱ servingȱ theirȱ
ownȱgodsȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱnationsȱfromȱwhichȱtheyȱhadȱ
beenȱ deported“ȱ –ȱ whichȱmeansȱ thatȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ worshipȱ theȱ Lordȱ inȱ
theȱ properȱ mannerȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,29Ȭ33).ȱ Theȱ textȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ notȱ onlyȱ
“Toȱ thisȱ dayȱ theyȱ followȱ theirȱ formerȱ practices”ȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,34),ȱ butȱ thatȱ
“Toȱ thisȱ dayȱ theirȱ childrenȱ andȱ theirȱ children’sȱ childrenȱ doȱ asȱ theirȱ
ancestorsȱdid“ȱ(2Kgsȱ17,41). 11ȱȱ
Anȱimportantȱquestionȱthatȱthisȱtextȱraisesȱisȱwhetherȱtheȱnorthernȱ
populationȱofȱSamariaȱwasȱcomposedȱofȱonlyȱimmigrants,ȱbecauseȱtheȱ
landȱ wasȱ emptiedȱ ofȱ itsȱ originalȱ citizens,ȱ orȱ ofȱ immigrantsȱ thatȱ wereȱ
broughtȱ toȱ Samariaȱ andȱ joinedȱ theȱ remainingȱ Israelites,ȱ whomȱ theȱ
Assyriansȱ didȱ notȱ exile?ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ isȱ thisȱ textȱ tendentiousȱ inȱ
reflectingȱ anȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ position,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ northernȱ
populationȱ isȱ notȱ suitableȱ forȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ templeȱ
worship,ȱorȱisȱthisȱtextȱobjectiveȱinȱreflectingȱwhatȱhappenedȱinȱhistory.ȱ
Manyȱscholarsȱareȱconvincedȱthatȱthisȱtextȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱcomposedȱ
andȱ addedȱ asȱ aȱ deuteronomisticȱ polemicȱ againstȱ theȱ northernȱ popuȬ
lation,ȱ butȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ editedȱ byȱ laterȱ redactorsȱ reflectingȱ theȱ Judahiteȱ
positionȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱdebateȱduringȱtheȱPersianȱPeriod.12ȱThisȱdebateȱ
concernsȱtheȱnortherners’ȱrightsȱ–ȱorȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱexact,ȱlackȱofȱrightsȱ–ȱtoȱ
takeȱpartȱinȱtheȱJerusalemȱcult,ȱwhichȱwasȱrenewedȱbyȱtheȱexiledȱJudaȬ
hitesȱ whoȱ hadȱ returnedȱ fromȱ Babylon.13ȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ
10 ȱȱ Compareȱ withȱ 2Kgsȱ 18,11.ȱ Allȱ citationsȱ areȱ takenȱ fromȱ theȱ newȱ JPSȱ Translationȱ
(1985).ȱȱ
11 ȱ Onȱ theȱroleȱofȱ theȱeditorȱinȱ thisȱ unitȱseeȱ AMIT,ȱBook,ȱ9,ȱandȱthereȱ noteȱ13.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ
TALMON,ȱTraditionsȱ(2002),ȱ12ȱnoteȱ22.ȱȱ
12 ȱ ForȱexampleȱseeȱGRAY,ȱKings,ȱ651Ȭ656.ȱAccordingȱtoȱTALMON,ȱTraditionsȱ(2002),ȱ23Ȭ
27,ȱ thisȱ unitȱ reflectsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ latestȱ stagesȱ inȱ theȱ editingȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ
namelyȱafterȱtheȱreturnȱtoȱZion.ȱ
13 ȱ SeeȱEzraȱ1Ȭ6ȱandȱparagraphȱ1.2ȱbelow.ȱ
250 YairahȱAmit
socialȱ andȱ politicalȱ reasonsȱ forȱ theȱ northernȱ population’sȱ wishȱ toȱ joinȱ
theȱJerusalemȱcult,ȱbutȱtheseȱareȱnotȱmentioned.ȱAȱreaderȱisȱimpressedȱ
byȱ theȱ desireȱ ofȱ theȱ writersȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17,29Ȭ41ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ
Bookȱ ofȱ Ezraȱ chapterȱ 4,ȱ whoȱ reflectȱ theȱ atmosphereȱ ofȱ theȱ returningȱ
exiles,ȱ toȱ maintainȱ theirȱ religiousȱ distinction,ȱ probablyȱ afterȱ theirȱ
experiencesȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱexile.ȱȱ
1.2ȱEzraȱ4,1Ȭ5ȱandȱEzraȱ6Ȭ23ȱ
Althoughȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Ezra,ȱ ourȱ secondȱ source,ȱ isȱ notȱ identicalȱ toȱ theȱ
textȱofȱ2Kgsȱ17,ȱitȱoffersȱaȱcomplementaryȱandȱsupportingȱviewȱofȱtheȱ
northernȱ populationȱasȱaȱmixedȱ alienȱgroup,ȱ broughtȱ intoȱ theȱ countryȱ
byȱtheȱAssyrians.ȱHowever,ȱtheseȱnewcomers,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱadoptingȱtheȱ
religionȱ ofȱ theȱ localȱ Israelites,ȱ wereȱ differentiatedȱ fromȱ theȱ Judahitesȱ
andȱBenjaminitesȱwhoȱreturnedȱfromȱtheȱBabylonianȱexile.ȱȱ
TheȱfirstȱtextȱinȱEzraȱ(4,1Ȭ5)ȱcallsȱtheȱSamaritansȱ“theȱadversariesȱofȱ
Judahȱ andȱ Benjamin“,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ “returnedȱ exiles“ȱ (Ezraȱ 4,1)ȱ
andȱ describesȱ themȱ asȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wishȱ toȱ takeȱ partȱ inȱ buildingȱ theȱ
templeȱinȱJerusalem,ȱarguingȱ“sinceȱweȱtooȱworshipȱyourȱGod,ȱhavingȱ
offeredȱsacrificesȱtoȱHimȱsinceȱtheȱtimeȱofȱKingȱEsarhaddonȱofȱAssyria,ȱ
whoȱ broughtȱ usȱ here“ȱ (Ezraȱ 4,2).ȱ Butȱ theȱ “returnedȱ exiles“,ȱ ledȱ byȱ
Zerubbabel,ȱ theȱ priestȱ Jeshua,ȱ andȱ theȱ chiefsȱ ofȱ theȱ clans,ȱ rejectedȱ theȱ
Samaritans’ȱoffer,ȱsaying:ȱ“ItȱisȱnotȱforȱyouȱandȱusȱtoȱbuildȱaȱHouseȱtoȱ
ourȱGod“ȱ(Ezraȱ4,3).ȱTheȱresultȱofȱthisȱconflictȱwasȱthatȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱ
theȱJerusalemȱtempleȱwasȱdelayedȱuntilȱtheȱreignȱofȱDarius.ȱȱ
AȱsimilarȱdisputeȱconcernedȱtheȱfortificationȱofȱJerusalemȱthatȱtookȱ
placeȱinȱtheȱreignsȱofȱtheȱPersianȱkingsȱAhasuerusȱandȱArtaxerxes.ȱThisȱ
disputeȱledȱtoȱaȱmaliciousȱletterȱtoȱArtaxerxes,ȱdescribedȱinȱEzraȱ4,6Ȭ23.ȱ
Thisȱ letterȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thoseȱ whoȱ opposedȱ theȱ residentsȱ ofȱ
Jerusalemȱ andȱ Judahȱ areȱ identifiedȱ withȱ theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ
immigrantsȱfromȱtheȱAssyrianȱempire,ȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱbroughtȱoverȱbyȱ
Osnappar,ȱwhoȱisȱAssurȬbanipalȱ(Ezraȱ4,9Ȭ10).ȱ
ȱ
1.3ȱTheȱBookȱofȱChroniclesȱ
Thereȱisȱoneȱmoreȱbiblicalȱsourceȱonȱthisȱsubject,ȱourȱthirdȱtext,ȱwhichȱ
notȱ allȱ scholarsȱ mention,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chronicles.14ȱ Thisȱ bookȱ
hasȱ itsȱ ownȱ uniqueȱ approachȱ toȱ manyȱ issuesȱ thatȱ engagedȱ biblicalȱ
historians,ȱincludingȱtheȱoneȱatȱstake.ȱȱ
1.3.1ȱTheȱExileȱofȱtheȱNorthernȱKingdomȱȱ
AccordingȱtoȱtheȱChroniclerȱ–ȱdataȱ
TheȱChroniclerȱgivesȱaȱdifferentȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱfateȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱ
Israeliteȱ kingdom.ȱ Itȱ avoidsȱ anȱ explicitȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ theȱ
northernȱ kingdomȱ andȱ theȱ deportationȱ ofȱ itsȱ inhabitants.ȱ Theȱ fallȱ andȱ
deportationȱ areȱ referredȱ toȱ partiallyȱ andȱ marginallyȱ inȱ theȱ genealogyȱ
thatȱ opensȱ theȱ bookȱ (1Chrȱ 5,23Ȭ26),ȱ butȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ historicalȱ sequenceȱ
andȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ correctȱ chronologicalȱ place.15ȱ Moreover,ȱ whenȱ theseȱ
genealogicalȱlistsȱmentionȱtheȱexilingȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱtribes,ȱtheyȱrelateȱ
onlyȱ toȱ theȱ twoȬandȬaȱ halfȱ easternȱ tribesȱ –ȱ theȱ Reubenite,ȱ theȱ Gaditeȱ
andȱ halfȱ ofȱ Manasseh.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ description,ȱ theȱ
deportationȱ wasȱ carriedȱ outȱ byȱ Pulȱ andȱ byȱ TilgathȬpilneser,ȱ kingsȱ ofȱ
Assyria.16ȱ
Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱChronicler’sȱhistoricalȱsequenceȱshowsȱthatȱ
duringȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ theȱ Judahiteȱ kingsȱ Hezekiahȱ andȱ Josiahȱ notȱ onlyȱ
wereȱmostȱofȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱwesternȱpartȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱkingȬ
domȱstillȱlivingȱinȱtheirȱland,ȱbutȱthatȱtheȱreligiousȱreformsȱcarriedȱoutȱ
byȱtheseȱkingsȱincludedȱallȱofȱIsrael.ȱUnderȱHezekiahȱtheȱcallȱtoȱcomeȱ
andȱ keepȱ theȱ Passoverȱ forȱ theȱ Lordȱ Godȱ ofȱ Israelȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ
encompassedȱallȱIsraelȱandȱJudah,ȱasȱweȱcanȱsurmiseȱfromȱ2Chrȱ30,1Ȭ11:ȱȱ
“[...]ȱ fromȱ BeerȬshebaȱ toȱ Dan....ȱ theȱ remnantȱ ofȱ youȱ [Israel]ȱ whoȱ escapedȱ
fromȱ theȱ handȱ ofȱ theȱ kingsȱ ofȱ Assyria...ȱ theȱ couriersȱ passedȱ fromȱ townȱ toȱ
townȱinȱtheȱlandȱofȱEphraimȱandȱManassehȱtillȱtheyȱreachedȱZebulun…ȱSomeȱofȱ
theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Asherȱ andȱ Manassehȱ andȱ Zebulun,ȱ however,ȱ wereȱ contrite,ȱ andȱ
cameȱtoȱJerusalem.ȱ“ȱȱ
14 ȱ ButȱseeȱCOGAN,ȱPolemic,ȱ30,ȱandȱthereȱnoteȱ10.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱCOGAN,ȱGod.ȱ
15 ȱ Aȱfullȱdiscussionȱonȱthisȱsubject,ȱseeȱinȱJAPHET,ȱIdeology,ȱ308Ȭ334.ȱ
16 ȱ Seeȱ JAPHET,ȱ Chronicles,ȱ 142,ȱ whoȱ thinksȱ thatȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ usesȱ theȱ twoȱ namesȱ ofȱ
oneȱ king;ȱ KNOPPERS,ȱ Chronicles,ȱ 381,ȱ thinksȱ tooȱ thatȱ theȱ w¬wȱ isȱ explicatory,ȱ butȱ heȱ
doesȱnotȱdenyȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱtwoȱdifferentȱpeople.ȱ
252 YairahȱAmit
Underȱ Josiah,ȱ too,ȱ theȱ reformȱ encompassedȱ notȱ onlyȱ Judahȱ andȱ JeruȬ
salem,ȱ butȱ “theȱ townsȱ ofȱ Manassehȱ andȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ Simeon,ȱ asȱ farȱ asȱ
Naphtali…ȱ throughoutȱ theȱ landȱ ofȱ Israel.“ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ silverȱ whichȱ
wasȱthenȱbrought,ȱinȱtheȱdaysȱofȱJosiah,ȱtoȱrepairȱtheȱhouseȱofȱGodȱwasȱ
collectedȱ “fromȱ Manassehȱ andȱ Ephraimȱ andȱ fromȱ allȱ theȱ remnantȱ ofȱ Israelȱ
andȱ fromȱ allȱ Judahȱ andȱ Benjaminȱ andȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ Jerusalem“ȱ
(2Chrȱ34,3Ȭ9;ȱseeȱalsoȱ2Chrȱ23,33ȱthere;ȱandȱ2Chrȱ35,18;ȱemphasisȱmine,ȱ
Y.A.).ȱȱ
1.3.2ȱTheȱInterpretationsȱȱ
Thisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Chronicler,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ matchȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ
secondȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ andȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 4,ȱ promptedȱ twoȱ different,ȱ evenȱ
contradictory,ȱinterpretations.ȱȱ
Theȱfirstȱwasȱpioneeredȱatȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱ20thȱcenturyȱbyȱTorreyȱinȱ
hisȱ Ezraȱ Studies17ȱ andȱ continuedȱ mostȱ prominentlyȱ byȱ Nothȱ inȱ hisȱ
ÜberlieferungsgeschichlicheȱStudienȱ(1943).18ȱAccordingȱtoȱthemȱtheȱaimȱofȱ
theȱ entireȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chronicles,ȱ wasȱ toȱ presentȱ anȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ posiȬ
tion,ȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ divineȱ electionȱ ofȱ Judah,ȱ andȱ theȱ legitimacyȱ ofȱ
theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Davidȱ andȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ Jerusalem,ȱ andȱ thusȱ rejectȱ theȱ
legitimacyȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱȱ
Theȱsecondȱinterpretation,ȱwhichȱwasȱproposedȱinȱ1969ȱbyȱGrintzȱinȱ
hisȱHebrewȱbookȱtitled:ȱTheȱOriginsȱofȱGenerations,19ȱandȱwhoseȱleadingȱ
proponentȱ isȱ Japhetȱ inȱ herȱ doctoralȱ thesisȱ Theȱ Ideologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ
ChroniclesȱandȱItsȱPlaceȱinȱBiblicalȱThought,ȱwhichȱwasȱsubmittedȱinȱ1973ȱ
andȱ wasȱ publishedȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ asȱ aȱ bookȱ inȱ 1977.20ȱ Theseȱ scholarsȱ
suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ Chronicler’sȱ descriptionȱ wasȱ intendedȱ toȱ presentȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ asȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ tribesȱ ofȱ westernȱ Israel,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ
whomȱ wereȱ neverȱ exiled,ȱ andȱ thusȱ theyȱ areȱ theȱ brothersȱ ofȱ theȱ
JudahitesȱandȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱnation.ȱȱ
Theȱ interpretationȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Torreyȱ andȱ Nothȱ andȱ theirȱ
followersȱ continuesȱ andȱ completesȱ theȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Kingsȱ
17 ȱ TORREY,ȱEzra,ȱ154Ȭ155.208Ȭ213.ȱ
18 ȱ NOTH,ȱ History,ȱ 100Ȭ106.ȱ Butȱ seeȱ theȱ criticismȱ ofȱ WILLIAMSON,ȱ Chronicles,ȱ 24:ȱ
“Duringȱ theȱ centralȱ decadesȱ ofȱ thisȱ century,ȱ theȱ Chronicler’sȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ
debateȱ wasȱ misunderstood.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ portrayedȱ asȱ adoptingȱ anȱ antiȬSamaritanȱ
stance…ȱ Thisȱ misunderstandingȱ hasȱ beenȱ dramaticallyȱ reversedȱ duringȱ theȱ pastȱ
decade,ȱhowever.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱbibliographyȱheȱlists.ȱ
19 GRINTZ,ȱStudies,ȱ275Ȭ277.ȱTheȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱtitleȱisȱmine.ȱ
20 ȱ ForȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱJAPHET,ȱIdeology.ȱ
andȱEzra,ȱwhichȱexpressedȱhostilityȱandȱsuperiorityȱtowardsȱtheȱpeopleȱ
ofȱ theȱ north.21ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Grintzȱ andȱ Japhetȱ andȱ
theirȱfollowersȱsuggestsȱanȱattitudeȱofȱconciliationȱandȱtolerance,ȱaȱcallȱ
toȱendȱhostilityȱandȱsuperiorityȱandȱtoȱuniteȱtheȱwholeȱwesternȱIsraeliteȱ
nationȱaroundȱtheȱworshipȱofȱtheȱLordȱinȱtheȱJerusalemȱtemple,ȱunderȱ
theȱleadershipȱofȱtheȱHouseȱofȱDavid.22ȱ
Theseȱ twoȱ differentȱ andȱ evenȱ oppositeȱ approachesȱ raiseȱ theȱ quesȬ
tion:ȱisȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱdecideȱobjectivelyȱbetweenȱthemȱandȱpreferȱoneȱofȱ
them?ȱ
1.3.3ȱTheȱAssyrianȱInformationȱRegardingȱtheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱExileȱȱ
Itȱ seemsȱ toȱ meȱ thatȱ theȱ decisiveȱ factorȱ inȱ preferringȱ objectivelyȱ oneȱ ofȱ
theseȱ twoȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chronicles’ȱ attitudeȱ isȱ theȱ
informationȱ weȱ learnȱ fromȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ inscriptionsȱ thatȱ describeȱ theȱ
scopeȱ ofȱ theȱIsraeliteȱ deportation.ȱ Theseȱ inscriptionsȱ tellȱ usȱ moreȱthanȱ
onceȱthatȱtheȱnumberȱofȱinhabitantsȱexiledȱfromȱSamariaȱbyȱSargonȱtheȱ
secondȱwasȱ27,290.23ȱȱ
Theȱ Assyrianȱ monarchsȱ wereȱ notȱ knownȱ forȱ theirȱ modesty;ȱ
therefore,ȱifȱtheyȱwereȱsatisfiedȱwithȱthisȱnumberȱofȱexiles,ȱweȱhaveȱnoȱ
reasonȱtoȱquestionȱit.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱifȱthisȱnumberȱisȱrealistic,ȱorȱcloseȱ
toȱ realistic,ȱ weȱ canȱ deduceȱ fromȱ itȱ thatȱ notȱ allȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ ofȱ wesȬ
ternȬnorthernȱIsraelȱwereȱdeported,ȱandȱmanyȱremainedȱlivingȱinȱtheirȱ
landȱandȱdidȱwhatȱtheyȱwereȱexpectedȱtoȱdo,ȱwhichȱmeansȱfeedingȱtheȱ
Assyrianȱ warȱ machineȱ byȱ payingȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ taxes.ȱ Thisȱ
conclusionȱ agreesȱ withȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ policyȱ ofȱ deportation,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ
toȱtransferȱtheȱsocialȱelitesȱandȱthoseȱindividualsȱwithȱskillsȱneededȱbyȱ
theȱempire,ȱandȱtoȱleaveȱtheȱhumbleȱmassesȱinȱtheirȱcountries.24ȱItȱalsoȱ
agreesȱwithȱtheȱBabylonianȱpolicy,ȱwhichȱfollowedȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱthatȱ
ofȱtheirȱAssyrianȱpredecessors,ȱandȱleftȱinȱJudahȱ“theȱpoorestȱpeopleȱinȱ
theȱland“,ȱ“toȱbeȱvinedressersȱandȱfieldȱhands“ȱ(2Kgsȱ24,14Ȭ16;ȱ25,12.22Ȭ
24).25ȱȱ
AlthoughȱtheȱAssyrianȱevidenceȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱobjective,ȱandȱhasȱitsȱ
ownȱliteraryȱandȱideologicalȱaims,ȱitȱisȱunreasonableȱthatȱitsȱauthorȱinȱ
21ȱȱ AnȱexampleȱofȱaȱlaterȱfollowerȱisȱGARSIEL,ȱBook.ȱ
22 ȱ AnȱexampleȱofȱaȱlaterȱfollowerȱisȱCOGAN,ȱGod;ȱCOGAN,ȱPolemic.ȱȱȱ
23 ȱ PRITCHARD,ȱTexts,ȱ284Ȭ285;ȱCOGANȱ /ȱ TADMOR,ȱKings,ȱ200,ȱandȱ seeȱ theȱbibliographyȱ
there.ȱ
24 ȱ SeeȱODED,ȱMassȱDeportations;ȱODED,ȱKings.
25 ȱ SeeȱVANDERHOOFT,ȱStrategies.
254 YairahȱAmit
thisȱ caseȱ mentionedȱ aȱ reducedȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ deportees.ȱ

Therefore,ȱ itȱ teachesȱ usȱ toȱ regardȱ theȱ differentȱ biblicalȱ textsȱ Iȱ haveȱ
quotedȱ asȱ tendentiousȱ sourcesȱ whichȱ exaggerateȱ whateverȱ suitsȱ theirȱ
purposes,ȱandȱcolorȱtheȱhistoricalȱrecordȱaccordingly.ȱThus,ȱitȱstrengthȬ
ensȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱtheȱdescriptionȱinȱ2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41ȱandȱitsȱsuppleȬ
mentsȱ inȱ Ezraȱ 4ȱ –ȱ bothȱ ofȱ whichȱ implyȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ massȱ deporȬ
tationȱ–ȱwasȱaȱpolemicalȱone.ȱItsȱpurposeȱwasȱtoȱdepictȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
asȱaliens,ȱasȱpeopleȱwhoȱcouldȱnotȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱgeneticallyȱpartȱofȱIsrael,ȱ
andȱ didȱ notȱ deserveȱ toȱ beȱ included.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ
evidenceȱ shedsȱ aȱ positiveȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ Chronicles,ȱ whichȱ isȱ
usuallyȱcriticizedȱasȱtendentiousȱandȱhistoricallyȱunreliable,26ȱregardingȱ
theȱ“remnantȱofȱIsrael“ȱwhoȱstayedȱonȱitsȱlandȱinȱtheȱnorth,ȱsuggestingȱ
thatȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ itȱ mightȱ beȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ trustworthyȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ
hintsȱatȱtheȱidentityȱofȱmostȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱpeople.27ȱ
TheȱAssyrianȱevidence,ȱinȱfact,ȱsupportsȱtheȱsecondȱinterpretationȱ–ȱ
namely,ȱ thatȱ theȱ Chroniclerȱ didȱ notȱ seekȱ toȱ alienateȱ theȱ northernȱ
population,ȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱbut,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱwantedȱtoȱbringȱthemȱ
closer,ȱbecauseȱheȱthoughtȱthatȱmanyȱofȱthemȱwereȱpartȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱ
Israel.ȱ Theȱ Chroniclerȱ isȱ doingȱ thisȱ notȱ byȱ declarativeȱ means,ȱ butȱ byȱ
usingȱ indirectȱ meansȱ suchȱ asȱ plots,ȱ charactersȱ andȱ more,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ
achieveȱhisȱpurposeȱ–ȱaȱhistoricalȱdepictionȱthatȱemphasizesȱtheȱcontiȬ
nuityȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱnorthernȱIsrael,ȱwhoȱareȱallȱJacob’sȱdescendants,ȱ
inȱ theirȱ land,ȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel.28ȱ Thereforeȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ stateȱ theȱ
following.ȱ
– TheȱChroniclerȱignoresȱtheȱdepictionȱofȱKingsȱandȱEzra.ȱ
– Onȱoneȱhand,ȱheȱenablesȱusȱtoȱknowȱthatȱheȱisȱconsciousȱofȱtheȱexileȱ
ofȱtheȱnorthernȱIsraelitesȱbyȱincludingȱtheȱgenealogicalȱlistȱinȱ1Chrȱ
5,23Ȭ26,ȱ andȱ byȱ usingȱ theȱ phrasingȱ “theȱ remnantȱ ofȱ youȱ whoȱ
escapedȱfromȱtheȱhandȱofȱtheȱkingsȱofȱAssyria“ȱinȱ2Chrȱ30,6.ȱOnȱtheȱ
otherȱ hand,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ hisȱ goals,ȱ heȱ reducesȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ
theȱexileȱtoȱtwoȱandȱaȱhalfȱtribesȱandȱlimitsȱitȱtoȱtheȱeasternȱpartȱofȱ
theȱJordan.ȱȱ
– HeȱpresentsȱtheȱnorthernȱinhabitantsȱinȱtheȱreignsȱofȱHezekiahȱandȱ
Josiahȱasȱdescendantsȱofȱtheȱtenȱtribes.ȱȱ
26 ȱ SeeȱJAPHET,ȱReliability;ȱJAPHET,ȱBook.
27 ȱ ByȱnoȱmeansȱamȱIȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱChroniclerȱisȱreliableȱinȱallȱitsȱ
detailsȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ andȱ inȱ otherȱ cases.ȱ Asȱ toȱ historicalȱ reliability,ȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ checkȱ
everyȱdetailȱindividuallyȱandȱnotȱapplyȱaȱgeneralȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ
28 ȱ OnȱtheȱproȬSamaritanȱhiddenȱpolemicȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱseeȱAMIT,ȱPolemics,ȱ
210Ȭ216.
– Nevertheless,ȱ heȱ isȱ certainlyȱ awareȱ ofȱ anȱ alienȱ populationȱ livingȱ
duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Hezekiahȱ (2Chrȱ 30,25),ȱ butȱ heȱ viewsȱ themȱ asȱ
proselytesȱ whoȱ comeȱ fromȱ aroundȱ theȱ countryȱ toȱ takeȱ partȱ inȱ theȱ
PassoverȱsacrificeȱinȱJerusalem.ȱȱ
1.4ȱConclusionȱ
Anȱ attemptȱ toȱ reconstructȱ theȱ historyȱ underlyingȱ thisȱ issueȱ requiresȱ
thatȱweȱconsiderȱallȱtheȱsources,ȱbothȱwithinȱandȱexternalȱtoȱtheȱBible,ȱ
withȱ theirȱ limitationsȱ andȱ agendas.ȱ Havingȱ consideredȱ theȱ differentȱ
sources,ȱwithȱtheirȱreliableȱandȱunreliableȱelements,ȱitȱseemsȱreasonableȱ
thatȱ inȱ realityȱ theȱ northernȱ populationȱ wasȱ mixed,ȱ containingȱ bothȱ
Israelitesȱ andȱ alienȱ deporteesȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ broughtȱ there.ȱ However,ȱ
weȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ theȱ exactȱ ratio,ȱ andȱ cannotȱ determineȱ exactlyȱ whatȱ
percentageȱ ofȱ theȱ populationȱ wereȱ theȱ 27,290ȱ whoȱ wereȱ exiled,ȱ andȱ
howȱ manyȱ moreȱ exilesȱ fromȱ elsewhereȱ wereȱ broughtȱ inȱ duringȱ theȱ
reignsȱofȱEsarhaddonȱandȱOsnapparȱ(Ezraȱ4,1.10).ȱThisȱunclearȱpictureȱ
isȱ aȱ goodȱ reasonȱ forȱ creatingȱ differentȱ versionsȱ ofȱ historiesȱ andȱ forȱ
interpretingȱthemȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱcircumstances,ȱneeds,ȱandȱideologiesȱ
ofȱtheȱvariousȱauthorsȱandȱinterpreters.ȱ
2.ȱBiblicalȱPositionsȱinȱtheȱServiceȱofȱModernȱPoliticsȱ
Aȱratherȱsimilarȱdebate,ȱprobablyȱalsoȱnotȱfreeȱofȱbias,ȱtookȱplaceȱinȱourȱ
time,ȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱwhoȱcameȱtoȱliveȱinȱtheȱ
StateȱofȱIsrael.ȱ
2.1ȱAfterȱtheȱEstablishmentȱofȱtheȱStateȱȱ
BeforeȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱtheȱState,ȱIzhakȱBenȬZviȱ(whoȱwouldȱsubseȬ
quentlyȱ becomeȱ Israel’sȱ secondȱ president)ȱ studiedȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ andȱ
wroteȱfavorablyȱaboutȱthem.29ȱDueȱtoȱhisȱefforts,ȱtheȱIsraeliȱgovernmentȱ
determinedȱ inȱ 1949ȱ thatȱ thoseȱ Samaritansȱ whoȱ leftȱ JordanianȬruledȱ
NablusȱandȱcameȱtoȱliveȱinȱIsrael,ȱhadȱtheȱsameȱstatusȱasȱanyȱJewȱwhoȱ
immigratedȱtoȱIsraelȱfromȱoneȱofȱtheȱArabȱstates.30ȱȱ
29ȱȱȱ BENȬZVI,ȱBook.ȱSeeȱespeciallyȱtheȱeditor’sȱpreface,ȱBENȬZVI,ȱBook,ȱvȬvi.ȱȱȱȱȱ
30 ȱȱ CORINALDI,ȱEnigma,ȱ132Ȭ135.ȱ
256 YairahȱAmit
Thisȱ meantȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ wereȱ coveredȱ byȱ theȱ 1950ȱ Lawȱ ofȱ
Returnȱ(hokȱhashevuth)ȱwhichȱstatesȱthatȱeveryȱJewȱisȱentitledȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱ
Israel,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wishȱ toȱ remainȱ becomeȱ newȱ citizensȱ entitledȱ toȱ
whatȱareȱknownȱasȱ“ImmigrantȱAbsorptionȱBenefits.ȱ“ȱThusȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritansȱ whoȱ settledȱ inȱ theȱ Stateȱ ofȱ Israelȱ wereȱ givenȱ immigrantȱ rightsȱ
andȱwereȱclassifiedȱinȱtheȱpopulationȱregistryȱasȱ“SamaritanȱJews.ȱ“ȱ
2.2ȱ1992ȱ–ȱ1994ȱ
Inȱ1992,ȱfollowingȱanȱamendmentȱtoȱtheȱLawȱofȱReturnȱofȱ1970ȱ(Clauseȱ
4B),ȱtheȱgovernmentȱchangedȱitsȱposition,ȱdeclaringȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱ
didȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱstatusȱofȱpeopleȱbornȱtoȱaȱJewishȱmother,ȱbutȱwereȱinȱ
realityȱmembersȱofȱaȱdifferentȱreligion,ȱwhichȱmeantȱthatȱinȱtheȱfutureȱ
Samaritansȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱentitledȱtoȱimmigrantȱrights.ȱThisȱamendmentȱ
wasȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ politicalȱ changes:ȱ “Shas,“ȱ anȱ ultraȬOrthodoxȱ (haredi)ȱ
partyȱjoinedȱtheȱcoalitionȱandȱtheirȱrepresentativesȱwereȱresponsibleȱforȱ
theȱ Ministryȱ ofȱ Interiorȱ Affairs,ȱ withȱ Aryeȱ Deriȱ asȱ theȱ Interiorȱ MinisȬ
ter.31ȱ
Theȱ Samaritansȱ petitionedȱ theȱ Highȱ Courtȱ ofȱ Justice,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱ
theirȱdescentȱfromȱtheȱtribesȱofȱEphraimȱandȱManasseh,ȱasȱtheirȱtradiȬ
tionȱasserts,ȱmeansȱthatȱtheyȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱnation,ȱevenȱthoughȱ
theyȱ doȱ notȱ descendȱ fromȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ Judah.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ whileȱ theyȱ
doȱnotȱfollowȱtheȱrabbinicȱtraditionȱthey,ȱlikeȱtheȱKaraites,ȱshouldȱnotȱ
beȱexcludedȱfromȱtheȱJewishȱnation.ȱ
Theȱ Samaritans’ȱ attorney,ȱ Michaelȱ Corinaldi,ȱ soughtȱ theȱ adviceȱ ofȱ
twoȱacademicȱexperts:ȱProfessorȱShemaryahuȱTalmon,ȱaȱbiblicalȱscholarȱ
ofȱtheȱHebrewȱUniversityȱinȱJerusalem,ȱandȱProfessorȱMenachemȱMorȱ
(thenȱ seniorȱ lecturer),ȱ aȱ scholarȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ historyȱ atȱ Haifaȱ Universityȱ
andȱ anȱ expertȱ onȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ community.ȱ Bothȱ hadȱ researchedȱ theȱ
historyȱandȱtheȱliteratureȱofȱtheȱSamaritans.ȱButȱsinceȱtheȱexpertsȱwereȱ
chosenȱ byȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ representative,ȱ itȱ isȱ quiteȱ clearȱ thatȱ theyȱ
soughtȱforȱexpertsȱwhoȱwereȱknownȱforȱtheirȱproȬSamaritanȱapproach.ȱ
31 ȱ Aȱdetailedȱreportȱofȱtheȱwholeȱepisodeȱappearedȱin:ȱA.B.ȱTheȱSamaritanȱNews,ȱNo.ȱ
629,ȱ15ȱFebruaryȱ1995,ȱ21Ȭ37.ȱ
2.3ȱMor’sȱDocumentȱ–ȱDecemberȱ22,ȱ1993ȱ
Inȱ hisȱ letterȱ toȱ Corinaldi,ȱ Morȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱ1993ȱwasȱnoȱdifferentȱfromȱwhatȱitȱhadȱbeenȱinȱ
1949,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱ toȱ pinpointȱ anyȱ event,ȱ onȱ theirȱ side,ȱ thatȱ
couldȱ justifyȱ changingȱ theȱ statusȱ fromȱ whatȱ itȱ hadȱ beenȱ inȱ 1949.ȱ Heȱ
summarizesȱhisȱletterȱwithȱtheȱstatement,ȱthatȱaccordingȱtoȱhisȱopinionȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ whoȱ areȱ dividedȱ betweenȱ Shechemȱ (disputedȱ terriȬ
tories)ȱ andȱ Holonȱ (nearȱ Telȱ Aviv)ȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ asȱ Jewsȱ inȱ everyȱ
respect,ȱandȱthereforeȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱJewsȱunderȱtheȱrubricȱofȱtheȱLawȱofȱ
Return.ȱ Althoughȱ hisȱ letterȱ endsȱ withȱ theȱ promiseȱ toȱ sendȱ aȱ detailedȱ
documentȱ thatȱ willȱ proveȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ areȱ Jews,ȱ thisȱ
documentȱ wasȱ superfluous,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ Courtȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ convincedȱ
ofȱit,ȱandȱthereȱwasȱnoȱneedȱforȱthisȱdocument.ȱȱ
2.4ȱTalmon’sȱDocumentȱ–ȱJanuaryȱ3,ȱ1994ȱ
Talmon’sȱdocumentȱhighlightsȱtheȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱtheȱ
remnantsȱofȱtheȱtribesȱofȱIsrael,ȱprimarilyȱbyȱdiscountingȱtheȱhistoricalȱ
validityȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17,24Ȭ41.32ȱ Heȱ mentionsȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Ezra,ȱ
whichȱagreesȱwithȱKings,ȱbutȱtotallyȱignoresȱChronicles.ȱBeforeȱIȱshowȱ
theȱ advantagesȱ ofȱ hisȱ choices,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ documentȱ
itself.ȱ
2.4.1ȱTheȱDevelopmentȱofȱHisȱArgumentȱȱ
Talmonȱ opensȱ withȱ theȱ Samaritans’ȱ ownȱ positionȱ aboutȱ beingȱ

descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Joseph.ȱ Thenȱ heȱ bringsȱ theȱ detailedȱ
contradictoryȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Kings,ȱ whichȱ describesȱ themȱ asȱ
theȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ foreigners.ȱ Hereȱ heȱ adds,ȱ “Someȱ ofȱ theȱ recentȱ
researchersȱ acceptȱ thisȱ traditionȱ asȱ historicalȱ evidence.ȱ “ȱ Butȱ thenȱ heȱ
dismissesȱtheȱstatementȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱKings,ȱregardingȱotherȱcommenȬ
tators,ȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱtheȱnarrativeȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱKingsȱȱ
“isȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ asȱ historicallyȱ accurate,ȱ butȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ
belongingȱtoȱtheȱgenreȱofȱ‘miraculousȱlegends’ȱwhereinȱlionsȱareȱemissariesȱ
32 ȱ TALMON,ȱ Samaritans.ȱ TALMON’Sȱ documentȱ isȱ includedȱ inȱ CORINALDI,ȱ Enigma,ȱ 235Ȭ
237,ȱasȱsupplementȱ8.ȱSeeȱitsȱtranslationȱinȱtheȱappendixȱofȱthisȱarticle,ȱ261Ȭ264.ȱ
258 YairahȱAmit
throughȱwhichȱGodȱactsȱ–ȱaȱrepeatedȱmotifȱinȱtheȱpropheticȱstories,ȱsuchȱasȱ
1Kgsȱ13;ȱ20,35Ȭ36;ȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱ“ȱȱ
Inȱtheȱcontinuationȱheȱidentifiesȱhimselfȱwithȱȱ
“thoseȱwhoȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱpolemicȱstyleȱisȱsoȱevidentȱinȱchapterȱ17ȱofȱ2Kgs,ȱ
andȱ theȱ thriceȬrepeatedȱ statementȱ thatȱ allȱ ofȱ thisȱ holdsȱ ‘toȱ thisȱ day’ȱ (1Kgsȱ
23,34Ȭ41)ȱ reflectȱ theȱ escalatedȱ polemicȱ betweenȱ theȱ returneesȱ toȱ Zionȱ andȱ
thoseȱ livingȱ inȱ northernȱ Israelȱ whoȱ hadȱ neverȱ beenȱ exiled.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ theȱ
‘adversariesȱofȱJudahȱandȱBenjamin’ȱreferredȱtoȱbyȱtheȱBookȱofȱEzra.“ȱȱ
Thusȱ Talmonȱ notȱ onlyȱ questionsȱ theȱ historicityȱ ofȱ theȱ sourceȱ inȱ Kingsȱ
byȱincludingȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱitȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱ“genreȱofȱ‘miraculousȱ
legends’“,ȱbutȱheȱevenȱemphasizesȱtheȱlinkȱbetweenȱ2Kgsȱ17ȱandȱEzraȱ4ȱ
andȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱofȱEzraȱ4ȱamendedȱtheȱstoryȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱ
Kings,ȱ becauseȱ “[theȱ editor]ȱ wantedȱ toȱ presentȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ leftȱ inȱ theȱ
northernȱpartȱofȱIsraelȱafterȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱkingdomȱofȱIsraelȱ
andȱofȱSamaria,ȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱpartȱofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱnation.“ȱToȱshowȱthatȱ
theȱnorthernȱinhabitantsȱworshippedȱtheȱLord,ȱheȱstressesȱthatȱneitherȱ
theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ inȱ Kingsȱ norȱ ofȱ theȱ oneȱ inȱ Ezraȱ accusedȱ theȱ
northernersȱ ofȱ followingȱ “anotherȱ religion.“33ȱ Talmonȱ endsȱ hisȱ expertȱ
opinionȱ byȱ quotingȱ someȱ sayingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Sagesȱ thatȱ leadȱ toȱ oneȱ conȬ
clusion:ȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱ“aȱbranchȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱIsrael.ȱ“34ȱȱ
2.4.2ȱIsȱTalmonȱObjective?ȱȱ
Talmonȇsȱopinionȱmayȱnotȱbeȱanȱobjectiveȱanalysisȱeither.ȱWhileȱtheȱtextȱ
inȱ Ezraȱ doesȱ describeȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ asȱ worshippingȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ thatȱ isȱ
notȱtheȱcaseȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱKings.ȱThereȱtheȱpeopleȱthatȱtheȱAssyriansȱ
deportedȱ toȱ theȱ kingdomȱ ofȱ Israelȱ areȱ describedȱ asȱ continuingȱ toȱ fearȱ
theȱ godsȱ theyȱ hadȱ broughtȱ withȱ them,ȱ andȱ asȱ creatingȱ aȱ newȱ syncreȬ
tisticȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ means:ȱ aȱ differentȱ religion.ȱ However,ȱ Talmonȱ
preferredȱtoȱignoreȱthisȱevidence.ȱȱ
HisȱsuggestionȱthatȱtheȱtextȱofȱKingsȱwasȱeditedȱbyȱtheȱlateȱauthorȱ
ofȱ Ezraȱ discountsȱ theȱ reliabilityȱ ofȱ Kings.ȱ Moreover,ȱhisȱ cherryȬpickedȱ
statementsȱ fromȱ theȱ Sages,ȱ whichȱ displayȱ onlyȱ positiveȱ attitudesȱ
towardsȱtheȱCuthites,ȱenabledȱhimȱtoȱreachȱaȱoneȬsided,ȱproȬSamaritanȱ
conclusion.ȱȱ
Interestingly,ȱTalmon,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱscholarsȱtoȱ
discussȱ widelyȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theȱ
33ȱȱ Seeȱappendix,ȱ263ȱbelow.ȱ
34ȱȱ Seeȱapppendix,ȱ263Ȭ264ȱbelow. ȱ
problematicȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ originsȱ asȱ describedȱ inȱ biblicalȱ
literature.35ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱheȱignoredȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱ
Chronicles,ȱ asȱ heȱ hadȱ doneȱ earlierȱ inȱ hisȱ articleȱ fromȱ 1973,ȱ “Biblicalȱ
Traditionsȱ onȱ theȱ Beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȇȱ Histoy“.ȱ However,ȱ afterȱ
moreȱthanȱthirtyȱyears,ȱinȱhisȱexpertȱopinion,ȱTalmonȱusedȱneitherȱtheȱ
evidenceȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱalthoughȱthisȱsourceȱcouldȱsupportȱ
hisȱ approach,ȱ norȱ theȱ numericalȱ informationȱ ofȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ inscripȬ
tions.ȱ Itȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱ heȱ omittedȱ thisȱ materialȱ purposelyȱ
andȱhisȱmotivesȱcouldȱbeȱsurmisedȱasȱfollows.ȱ
Perhapsȱ heȱ preferredȱ notȱ toȱ baseȱ hisȱ argumentȱ onȱ moreȱ materialsȱ
thatȱmightȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱunreliable,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱAssyrianȱannalsȱandȱ
displayȱinscriptions,ȱorȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱwhoseȱhistoricalȱvalidiȬ
tyȱ isȱ generallyȱ discounted.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ thatȱ Talmonȱ didȱ notȱ
baseȱ hisȱ expertȱ opinionȱ onȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ evidenceȱ becauseȱ whileȱ itȱ
showsȱ thatȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ populationȱ wasȱ notȱ deportedȱ butȱ remainedȱ inȱ
theirȱ country,ȱ itȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ theȱ geneticȱ problem,ȱ sinceȱ anȱ alienȱ
populationȱwasȱbroughtȱinȱunderȱAssyrianȱpolicy.ȱTalmonȱknewȱwhatȱ
theȱ reactionȱ toȱ thisȱ mightȱ beȱ ofȱ someȱ politiciansȱ whoȱ wereȱ soȱ proȬ
activelyȱantiȬSamaritanȱinȱtheȱ1990s.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱthis,ȱheȱpreferredȱtoȱ
avoidȱconfusionȱandȱnotȱtoȱmentionȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱwhichȱmostȱ
Bibleȱreadersȱsimplyȱdoȱnotȱknow.ȱItȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱthatȱheȱthereforeȱ
mentionedȱonlyȱtheȱcomplementaryȱsourcesȱofȱ2Kgsȱ17ȱandȱEzraȱ4ȱandȱ
emphasizedȱthatȱtheseȱknownȱandȱacceptedȱtestimoniesȱareȱunreliable,ȱ
andȱ thusȱ heȱ createdȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ theȱ positiveȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ
Sagesȱ wasȱ theȱ decisiveȱ andȱ authoritativeȱ elementȱ inȱ thisȱ case. 36ȱ Givenȱ
thatȱ theȱ Sagesȱ decidedȱ thatȱ theȱ Cuthitesȱ wereȱ notȱ foreigners,ȱ Talmonȱ
advisedȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱfollowȱinȱtheirȱfootsteps.ȱThisȱsolution,ȱwhichȱgaveȱ
theȱ Sagesȱ theȱ lastȱ word,ȱ wasȱ aȱ veryȱ sophisticatedȱ one,ȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ
difficultȱevenȱforȱtheȱantiȬSamaritanȱgroupȱtoȱobjectȱtoȱthemȱstrongly.ȱȱȱ
2.5ȱPoliticalȱStatementȱ
Thereȱ isȱ noȱ doubtȱ thatȱ Talmon’sȱ choiceȱ ofȱ sourcesȱ fromȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ
fromȱ theȱ Sages’ȱ literatureȱ andȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ inȱ theȱ responseȱ heȱ
submittedȱleadȱtoȱaȱpoliticalȱratherȱthanȱaȱscholarlyȱopinionȱ–ȱshowingȱ
thatȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱpartȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱIsrael.ȱInȱthis,ȱTalmonȱ
35 ȱ TALMON,ȱTraditionsȱ(1973),ȱ27Ȭ28.ȱ
36 ȱ Onȱ variousȱ opinionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Sagesȱ throughoutȱ Jewishȱ history,ȱ seeȱ ALON,ȱ Origin;ȱ
CORINALDI,ȱEnigma,ȱ127Ȭ131.ȱButȱseeȱTALMON,ȱSamaritans,ȱ237.ȱ
260 YairahȱAmit
wasȱ followingȱ theȱ approachȱ ofȱ Izhakȱ BenȬZviȱ andȱ theȱ Israeliȱ
governmentȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ daysȱ ofȱ theȱ State,ȱ whoȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ SamaȬ
ritansȱtheȱLawȱofȱReturnȱandȱcategorizedȱthemȱasȱJews.ȱInȱsoȱdoingȱheȱ
opposedȱtheȱpoliticalȱmotivationȱofȱanȱextremistȱpoliticalȱgroupȱwhichȱ
suddenly,ȱinȱ1992,ȱtriedȱtoȱtakeȱfromȱtheȱSamaritansȱtheseȱrights.ȱȱ
Asȱaȱresultȱofȱtheȱ1994ȱlegalȱdecision,ȱwhichȱisȱvalidȱtoȱthisȱday,ȱtheȱ
IsraeliȱgovernmentȱpolicyȱofȱapplyingȱtheȱRightȱofȱReturnȱtoȱtheȱSamaȬ
ritansȱadheresȱtoȱtheȱinterpretationȱoutlinedȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱChronicles,ȱ
namely,ȱtoȱregardȱtheȱSamaritanȱcommunityȱasȱaȱJewishȱcomponentȱofȱ
Israeliȱsociety.ȱ
Conclusionȱ
Todayȱthereȱareȱsomeȱ600ȱSamaritansȱinȱtheȱStateȱofȱIsrael,ȱrepresentingȱ
theȱ majorityȱofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ community.ȱ Integrationȱ inȱ Israelȱ andȱ itsȱ
modernȱ wayȱ ofȱ lifeȱ threatensȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ communityȱ withȱ assimiȬ
lationȱintoȱtheȱgeneralȱIsraeliȱmilieuȱandȱwithȱlossȱofȱitsȱuniqueȱidentity,ȱ
preservedȱ underȱ incrediblyȱ difficultȱ conditionsȱ duringȱ moreȱ thanȱ twoȱ
thousandȱ years.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ integrationȱ fulfillsȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ
theȱ Chroniclerȱ inȱ hisȱ proȬSamaritanȱ leaning,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ toȱ depictȱ theȱ
SamaritansȱasȱhavingȱbeenȱpartȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱIsraelȱsinceȱtimeȱimmeȬ
morial.ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Appendixȱ
Expertȱ Opinionȱ –ȱ Professorȱ Shemaryahuȱ Talmonȱ inȱ theȱ Matterȱ ofȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ(1994):ȱȱ
ȱ
Jerusalem,ȱMt.ȱScopus,ȱ3ȱJanuaryȱ1994ȱ
20ȱbTevetȱ5754ȱ
ȱ
ProfessorȱShemaryahuȱTalmonȱ
DepartmentȱofȱBible,ȱHebrewȱUniversityȱ
ȱ
To:ȱMinistryȱofȱtheȱInterior,ȱPopulationȱRegistryȱ
24ȱHillelȱStreet,ȱJerusalemȱ91023ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Re:ȱTheȱSamaritansȱ–ȱExpertȱOpinionȱ
ȱ
Theȱ Samaritansȱ considerȱ themselvesȱ descendantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ
Joseph.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theirȱ familiesȱ attributeȱ theirȱ originsȱ toȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ
Ephraim,ȱandȱothersȱtoȱManasseh.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheirȱpriestsȱclaimȱtheyȱ
areȱ directȱ descendentsȱ ofȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ Leviȱ andȱ theȱ familyȱ ofȱ Aaron.ȱ
Theyȱ giveȱ canonicalȱ statusȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ Pentateuch,ȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ theȱ
Prophetsȱ andȱ Writings.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ recognizeȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ theȱ
Templeȱ Mountȱ asȱ holy;ȱ ratherȱ theyȱ considerȱ asȱ holyȱ Mountȱ Garizim,ȱ
whichȱ isȱ theȱ mountainȱ ofȱ blessingȱ (Turȱ Brikha)ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Torahȱ
(Deutȱ11,29;ȱ28,11).ȱInȱtheirȱversionȱofȱtheȱPentateuch,ȱMountȱGarizimȱisȱ
“theȱsiteȱthatȱtheȱLord,ȱyourȱGod,ȱchoseȱ[MasoreticȱText:ȱwillȱchoose]ȱ…ȱ
toȱ establishȱ Hisȱ nameȱ there”ȱ (Deutȱ 12,5)ȱ andȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ wereȱ
commandedȱ toȱ buildȱ thereȱ [Masoreticȱ Text:ȱ onȱ Mountȱ Ebal;ȱ seeȱ Joshȱ
8,30Ȭ35]ȱaȱstoneȱaltarȱafterȱcrossingȱtheȱJordanȱ(Deutȱ27,1Ȭ8).ȱInȱfact,ȱinȱ
theȱ archaeologicalȱ excavationsȱ onȱ theȱ mountȱ remnantsȱ ofȱ aȱ sacredȱ
structureȱ andȱ ofȱ inscriptionsȱ fromȱ theȱ SecondȬTempleȱ periodȱ wereȱ
foundȱ inȱ theȱ pastȱ fewȱ years.ȱ Theȱ inscriptionsȱ areȱ writtenȱ inȱ earlyȱ
Hebrewȱscriptȱ(da’aóȱscriptȱinȱtheȱSagesȱliterature,ȱorȱra’aó,ȱorȱlibuna’ah)ȱ
asȱwellȱasȱinȱtheȱAssyrianȱ(square)ȱscript,ȱandȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱpriestsȱ
whoȱperhapsȱservedȱinȱthoseȱtimesȱareȱmentionedȱthere.ȱȱ
ResearchersȱwhoȱspecializeȱinȱJewishȱhistoryȱdoȱnotȱagreeȱaboutȱtheȱ
originsȱofȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱtheirȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱancientȱpeopleȱofȱ
Israel.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ accountȱ inȱ 2Kgsȱ 17,21Ȭ41,ȱ
becauseȱ afterȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Assyriaȱ conqueredȱ Samaria,ȱ heȱ exiledȱ theȱ
262 YairahȱAmit
remnantsȱ ofȱ Ephraimȱ “toȱ thisȱ day”ȱ (2Kgsȱ 17,23ȱ andȱ compareȱ 2Kgsȱ
18,11),ȱandȱbroughtȱpeopleȱfromȱ“Babylon,ȱCuthah,ȱAvva,ȱHamathȱandȱ
Sepharvaim,ȱ andȱ settledȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ townsȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ inȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ
Israelites;ȱ theyȱ tookȱ possessionȱ ofȱ Samariaȱ andȱ dweltȱ inȱ itsȱ towns.ȱ
Whenȱ theyȱ firstȱ settledȱ there,ȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ worshipȱ theȱ Lord;ȱ soȱ theȱ
Lordȱsentȱlionsȱagainstȱthemȱwhichȱkilledȱsomeȱofȱthem”ȱ(2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ
25).ȱ Thenȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Assyriaȱ issuedȱ aȱ commandȱ saying,ȱ “Sendȱ thereȱ
oneȱ ofȱ theȱ priestsȱ whomȱ youȱ haveȱ deported.”ȱ Theȱ sameȱ priestȱ willȱ
serveȱinȱBethel,ȱwhereȱJeroboamȱsonȱofȱNebatȱhadȱestablishedȱtheȱcultȱ
placeȱ (1Kgsȱ 12,26Ȭ30;ȱ 13,32):ȱ “Heȱ [theȱ priest]ȱ taughtȱ themȱ howȱ toȱ
worshipȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ (1Kgsȱ 12,25Ȭ28).ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ syncretismȱ developedȱ
amongȱthoseȱwhoȱsettledȱinȱSamaria:ȱ“TheyȱworshipedȱtheȱLord,ȱwhileȱ
servingȱ theirȱ ownȱ godsȱ […]ȱ Toȱ thisȱ day,ȱ theirȱ childrenȱ andȱ theirȱ
children’sȱ childrenȱ doȱ asȱ theirȱ ancestorsȱ did”ȱ (1Kgsȱ 12,31Ȭ41).ȱ Thisȱ
narrativeȱ wasȱ theȱ reasonȱ thatȱ theȱ Sagesȱ usuallyȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ
Samaritansȱ asȱ “Cuthites”ȱ (Heb.ȱ Cuthim)ȱ orȱ “lionȱ converts“ȱ (Heb.ȱ gereyȱ
arayot),ȱandȱsometimesȱtheyȱuseȱtheȱtermȱhereticsȱ(Heb.ȱminim)ȱasȱwell.ȱȱ
Someȱ ofȱ theȱ recentȱ researchersȱ acceptȱ thisȱ traditionȱ asȱ historicalȱ
evidence,ȱ andȱ theyȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ
communityȱareȱnoneȱotherȱthanȱtheȱdescendantsȱofȱthoseȱsameȱforeignȱ
peoplesȱ whomȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Assyriaȱ broughtȱ toȱ settleȱ inȱ Samaria.ȱ
However,ȱthereȱareȱothersȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱtheȱforegoingȱisȱnotȱtoȱbeȱ
takenȱasȱhistoricallyȱaccurate,ȱbutȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱ
genreȱ ofȱ “miraculousȱ legends”ȱ whereinȱ lionsȱ areȱ emissariesȱ throughȱ
whichȱGodȱactsȱ–ȱaȱrepeatedȱmotifȱinȱtheȱpropheticȱstories,ȱsuchȱasȱ1Kgsȱ
13;ȱ 20,35Ȭ36;ȱ andȱ soȱ forth.ȱ Thenȱ thereȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ
polemicȱstyleȱsoȱevidentȱinȱchapterȱ17ȱofȱ2Kgs,ȱandȱtheȱthriceȬrepeatedȱ
statementȱthatȱallȱofȱthisȱholdsȱ“toȱthisȱday”ȱ(1Kgsȱ23,34Ȭ41)ȱreflectȱtheȱ
escalatedȱ polemicȱ betweenȱ theȱ returneesȱ toȱ Zionȱ andȱ thoseȱ livingȱ inȱ
northernȱIsraelȱwhoȱhadȱneverȱbeenȱexiled.ȱTheseȱareȱtheȱ“adversariesȱ
ofȱJudahȱandȱBenjamin”ȱreferredȱtoȱbyȱtheȱBookȱofȱEzra.ȱTheyȱaskedȱtoȱ
participateȱ inȱ theȱ rebuildingȱ ofȱ theȱ Temple,ȱ butȱ wereȱ rejectedȱ byȱ
Zerubbabel,ȱJeshuaȱtheȱPriest,ȱandȱtheȱleadersȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱ(Ezraȱ4,1Ȭ3).ȱ
Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ thisȱ episodeȱ inȱ Ezraȱ –ȱ whoȱ hasȱ theȱ
returneesȱ sayingȱ “Letȱ usȱ buildȱ withȱ you,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ tooȱ worshipȱ yourȱ
God,ȱ havingȱ offeredȱ sacrificesȱ toȱ Himȱ sinceȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Kingȱ
EsarhaddonȱofȱAssyria,ȱwhoȱbroughtȱusȱhere”ȱ(Ezraȱ4,1,2)ȱ–ȱisȱtheȱsameȱ
oneȱwhoȱreworkedȱtheȱaforementionedȱepisodeȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱKingsȱforȱ
aȱ purpose.ȱ Heȱ wantedȱ toȱ presentȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ leftȱ inȱ theȱ northernȱ
partȱofȱIsraelȱafterȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱkingdomȱofȱIsraelȱandȱ
ofȱSamaria,ȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱpartȱofȱtheȱIsraeliteȱnation.ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱ
emphasizedȱ thatȱ thisȱ authorȱ didȱ notȱ accuseȱ theȱ “adversariesȱ ofȱ Judahȱ
andȱBenjamin”ȱofȱbelongingȱtoȱ“anotherȱreligion.”ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱauthorȱofȱ
theȱnarrativeȱinȱKingsȱdoesȱnotȱevenȱimplyȱthis.ȱBothȱbooksȱclaimȱonlyȱ
thatȱ theȱ “worshipȱ ofȱ God”ȱ whichȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ engagedȱ inȱ afterȱ
Samaria’sȱ destructionȱ andȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ returnȱ toȱ Zion,ȱ
underwentȱaȱchangeȱfromȱtheȱ“worshipȱofȱGod”ȱthatȱwasȱcharacteristicȱ
ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Judahȱ andȱ Benjaminȱ whoȱ returnedȱ fromȱ theȱ
Babylonianȱexile.ȱ
Theȱ nameȱ “Shomronim”ȱ appearsȱ onlyȱ onceȱ inȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ Itȱ isȱ usedȱ
onlyȱ inȱ thatȱ particularȱ episodeȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Kings.ȱ Weȱ cannotȱ beȱ
certainȱagainstȱwhomȱthisȱtermȱisȱinvokedȱ–ȱagainstȱtheȱtribesȱofȱIsraelȱ
whoȱ settledȱ inȱ Samariaȱ beforeȱ theirȱ exile,ȱ orȱ againstȱ theȱ peoplesȱ whoȱ
wereȱ settledȱ thereȱ afterȱ theirȱ ownȱ exile.ȱ Inȱ anyȱ caseȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ
nameȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱlandȱ(andȱcity)ȱcalledȱSamariaȱ(Heb.ȱ
Shomron).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ callȱ themselvesȱ
“Shamarin”ȱusingȱthisȱAramaicȱterm.ȱTheyȱpreferȱthisȱtermȱbecauseȱtheyȱ
feelȱ itȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ theȱ trueȱ keepersȱ andȱ observersȱ ofȱ Torahȱ
lawȱorȱtheȱSabbathȱ(Heb.ȱshomreyȱTorahȱoȱhaShabbatȱalȱhaemet).ȱItȱappearsȱ
thatȱ theȱ rabbinicalȱ Sagesȱ knewȱ thisȱ meaning,ȱ andȱ forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ theyȱ
avoidedȱ callingȱ theȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ “Shomronim“ȱ inȱ orderȱ
notȱtoȱconfirmȱtheirȱmeaning.ȱRather,ȱtheȱSagesȱtermedȱthemȱCuthitesȱ
(Heb.ȱ Cuthim),ȱ “lionȱ converts“ȱ (Heb.ȱ gereyȱ arayotȱ meaningȱ thoseȱ whoȱ
convertedȱ fromȱ fearȱ ofȱ lions),ȱ orȱ simplyȱ hereticsȱ (Heb.ȱ minim).ȱ Thisȱ
assumptionȱ isȱ substantiatedȱ byȱ “oneȱ elder”ȱ whoȱ testifiedȱ aboutȱ theȱ
settlersȱinȱShechemȱthatȱ“thereȱareȱnoȱTorahȱobserversȱhere”ȱ(b.ȱHullinȱ
2a).ȱȱ
TheȱSagesȱruleȱthatȱtheȱCuthitesȱ/ȱSamaritansȱareȱnotȱtoȱbeȱclassifiedȱ
underȱ theȱ rubricȱ ofȱ idolȱ worshipers:ȱ “Theȱ waysȱ ofȱ theȱ Cuthitesȱ areȱ
sometimesȱ likeȱ idolaters,ȱ sometimesȱ likeȱ Jews.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ themȱ areȱ likeȱ
Jews”ȱ(TractateȱCuthimȱ1,1).ȱSometimesȱthereȱisȱsuspicionȱthatȱtheyȱareȱ
notȱstrictȱaboutȱtheȱlawsȱofȱritualȱimpurityȱandȱpurityȱ(tumaȱandȱtahara),ȱ
andȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ wellȬversedȱ inȱ theȱ preceptsȱ (mitzvot);ȱ butȱ theȱ
Sagesȱ admitȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ Sabbathȱ observersȱ (Mishnahȱ Nedarimȱ 3,10).ȱ
Aproposȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtithes,ȱRavȱandȱAbayeȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱaȱ
knowledgeableȱ Cuthiteȱ (CutiȬhaver)ȱ andȱ anȱ ignorantȱ Cuthiteȱ (Kutiȱ amȬ
ha’aretz).ȱ Rabbiȱ Shimonȱ benȱ Gamalielȱ praisesȱ them:ȱ “Withȱ respectȱ toȱ
everyȱpreceptȱthatȱtheȱCuthitesȱdoȱkeep,ȱtheyȱareȱmoreȱparticularȱaboutȱ
itȱthanȱareȱtheȱJews”ȱ(b.ȱBerakhotȱ47b;ȱGittinȱ10a;ȱKiddushinȱ76a).ȱȱ
FromȱtheȱforegoingȱweȱseeȱthatȱtheȱrabbinicȱSagesȱdidȱnotȱconsiderȱ
theȱ Samaritansȱ toȱ belongȱ toȱ anotherȱ religion,ȱ butȱ wereȱ inȱ theirȱ eyesȱ aȱ
branchȱ ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ ofȱ Israelȱ who,ȱ forȱ variousȱ historicȱ reasons,ȱ
developedȱinȱaȱdirectionȱthatȱwasȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱrabbinicȱtraditionȱ
untilȱtheyȱbrokeȱawayȱcompletelyȱfromȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱIsraelȱ(Heb.ȱ
264 YairahȱAmit
KnessetȱIsrael).ȱTheȱspecialȱrelationshipȱofȱthisȱcommunityȱ[notȱaȱsect]ȱtoȱ
KnessetȱIsraelȱinȱtheȱrabbinicȱtraditionȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱTempleȱperiodȱ
andȱafterȱitsȱdestructionȱisȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱSamaritansȱareȱ
theȱ onlyȱ Jewishȱ groupȱ toȱ whichȱ aȱ specialȱ tractateȱ ofȱ theȱ Talmudȱ isȱ
dedicated.ȱTractateȱCuthimȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱminorȱtractatesȱofȱtheȱTalmud.ȱ
TheȱmainȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱSamaritansȱandȱKnessetȱIsraelȱare:ȱinȱ
theȱtextȱofȱtheirȱTorahȱwhichȱisȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱtraditionalȱJewishȱtextȱ
ofȱtheȱTorah;ȱinȱtheȱprinciplesȱunderlyingȱtheirȱbeliefs;ȱand,ȱasȱweȱnotedȱ
above,ȱinȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱattributeȱholinessȱtoȱMountȱGarizimȱandȱdoȱ
notȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ holinessȱ ofȱ Jerusalemȱ andȱ theȱ Templeȱ Mount.ȱ
Therefore,ȱ theȱ Sagesȱ madeȱ theȱ abrogationȱ ofȱ theseȱ aȱ conditionȱ forȱ
acceptingȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ intoȱ theȱ Jewishȱ people:ȱ “Whenȱ willȱ theyȱ beȱ
accepted?ȱWhenȱtheyȱrejectȱMountȱGarizimȱandȱacceptȱJerusalem,ȱandȱ
whenȱ theyȱ acceptȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ resuscitationȱ ofȱ theȱ deceasedȱ (tehiyatȱ
hameitim)”ȱ(TractateȱCuthimȱ2).ȱȱ
Bibliographyȱ
ALON,ȱ Gedalia,ȱ Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ inȱ Halachicȱ Tradition,ȱ in:ȱ Tarbizȱ
18ȱ(1947)ȱ146Ȭ156ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
AMIT,ȱ Yairah,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Judges:ȱ Theȱ Artȱ ofȱ Editing,ȱ Leidenȱ 1999ȱ (Hebrewȱ
1992).ȱ
AMIT,ȱYairah,ȱHiddenȱPolemicsȱinȱBiblicalȱNarrative,ȱTelȱAvivȱ2003ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
AMIT,ȱ Yairah,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ Ȭȱ Biblicalȱ Considerationsȱ inȱ theȱ Solutionȱ ofȱ aȱ
Politicalȱ Problem,ȱ in:ȱ BOER,ȱ Rolandȱ (ed.),ȱ Secularismȱ andȱ Biblicalȱ Studies,ȱ
Londonȱ/ȱOakville,ȱCTȱ(forthcoming).ȱ
BENȬZVI,ȱIzhak,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱtheȱSamaritans,ȱJerusalemȱ1970ȱ(1935)ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
COGAN,ȱ Mordechai,ȱ Forȱ we,ȱ likeȱ you,ȱ Worshipȱ yourȱ God:ȱ Threeȱ Biblicalȱ PorȬ
trayalsȱofȱSamaritanȱOrigins,ȱin:ȱVTȱ38ȱ(1988)ȱ286Ȭ292.ȱ
COGAN,ȱ Mordechai,ȱ Theȱ Earlyȱ Biblicalȱ Polemicȱ concerningȱ theȱ Residentsȱ ofȱ
Samaria,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ Ephraimȱ /ȱ ESHEL,ȱ Hananȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Samaritans,ȱ JeruȬ
salemȱ2002,ȱ28Ȭ33ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
COGAN,ȱMordechaiȱ/ȱTADMOR,ȱHayim,ȱIIȱKingsȱ(AB),ȱNewȱYorkȱ1988.ȱ
CORINALDI,ȱ Michael,ȱ Theȱ Enigmaȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Identityȱ –ȱ Theȱ Lawȱ ofȱ Return:ȱ
TheoryȱandȱPractice,ȱIsraelȱ2001ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
EPH’AL,ȱ Israel,ȱ Theȱ ‘Samaritans’ȱ inȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ Sources,ȱ in:ȱ STERN,ȱ Ephraimȱ /ȱ
ESHEL,ȱHananȱ(eds.),ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱJerusalemȱ2002,ȱ34Ȭ44ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
EPH’AL,ȱ Israel,ȱ Theȱ ‘Samaritan(s)’ȱ inȱ theȱ Assyrianȱ Sources,ȱ in:ȱ COGAN,ȱ MordeȬ
chaiȱ /ȱ EPH’AL,ȱ Israelȱ (eds.),ȱ Ahȱ Assyria…ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Assyrianȱ Historyȱ andȱ
Ancientȱ Nearȱ Easternȱ Historiographyȱ Presentedȱ toȱ H.ȱ Tadmor,ȱ Jerusalemȱ

1991,ȱ36Ȭ45.ȱ
GARSIEL,ȱ Moshe,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ asȱ aȱ Hiddenȱ Polemicȱ withȱ theȱ
Samaritans,ȱin:ȱBeitȱMikraȱ151ȱ(1997)ȱ293Ȭ314ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
GRAY,ȱJohn,ȱIȱ&ȱIIȱKings:ȱAȱCommentary,ȱLondonȱ1970ȱ(1964).ȱ
GRINTZ,ȱ Yehoshuaȱ Meir,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Biblicalȱ Ethnologyȱ andȱ History,ȱ
Jerusalemȱ1969ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
JAPHET,ȱSara,ȱIȱ&ȱIIȱChronicles:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(OTL),ȱLouisville,ȱKYȱ1993.ȱ
JAPHET,ȱSara,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱChronicles:ȱAȱHistory,ȱin:ȱJAPHET,ȱSaraȱ(ed),ȱShnatonȱ
–ȱAnȱannualȱforȱBiblicalȱandȱAncientȱNearȱEasternȱStudiesȱXIV,ȱJerusalemȱ
2004,ȱ101Ȭ117ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
JAPHET,ȱ Sara,ȱ Theȱ Ideologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ andȱ Itsȱ Placeȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ
Though,ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.ȱ1989ȱ(Hebrewȱ1977).ȱ
JAPHET,ȱ Sara,ȱ Theȱ reliabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Chroniclesȱ –ȱ Theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ
Problemȱ andȱ Itsȱ Significanceȱ withinȱ Biblicalȱ Studies,ȱ in:ȱ ROFÉ,ȱ Alexanderȱ /ȱ
ZAKOVITCH,ȱYair,ȱIsacȱLeoȱSeeligmannȱVolume:ȱEssaysȱonȱtheȱBibleȱandȱtheȱ
AncientȱWorld,ȱVolumeȱI,ȱJerusalemȱ1983,ȱ327Ȭ346ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
KNOPPERS,ȱGaryȱN.,ȱIȱChroniclesȱ1Ȭ9ȱ(AB),ȱNewȱYorkȱ2004.ȱ
NOTH,ȱ Martin,ȱ Theȱ Chronicler’sȱ Historyȱ (JSOTSSȱ 50),ȱ Sheffieldȱ 1987ȱ (Germanȱ
1943).ȱ
ODED,ȱBustenai,ȱIIȱKingsȱ17:ȱBetweenȱHistoryȱandȱPolemic,ȱin:ȱJewishȱHistoryȱ2ȱ
(1987)ȱ37Ȭ50.ȱ
ODED,ȱBustenai,ȱMassȱDeportationsȱandȱDeporteesȱinȱtheȱNeoȬAssyrianȱEmpire,ȱ
Wiesbadenȱ1979.ȱ
ODED,ȱBustenai,ȱWhereȱIsȱtheȱ‘MythȱofȱtheȱEmptyȱLand’ȱToȱBeȱFound?ȱHistoryȱ
versusȱ Myth,ȱ in:ȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ BLENKINSOPP,ȱ Josephȱ (eds.),ȱ Judahȱ andȱ
theȱJudeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱINȱ2003,ȱ55Ȭ74.ȱ
PRITCHARD,ȱJamesȱB.ȱ(ed.),ȱAncientȱNearȱEasternȱTextsȱRelatingȱtoȱtheȱOldȱTesȬ
tament,ȱPrinceton,ȱNJȱ1955.ȱ
TALMON,ȱ Shemaryahu,ȱ Theȱ Samaritansȱ –ȱ Expertȱ Opinion,ȱ in:ȱ CORINALDI,ȱ
Michael,ȱTheȱEnigmaȱofȱJewishȱIdentityȱ–ȱTheȱLawȱofȱReturn:ȱTheoryȱandȱ
Practice,ȱIsraelȱ2001,ȱ235Ȭ237ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
TALMON,ȱShemaryahu,ȱBiblicalȱTraditionsȱonȱSamaritanȱHistory,ȱin:ȱSTERN,ȱEphȬ
raimȱ/ȱESHEL,ȱHananȱ(eds.)ȱTheȱSamaritans,ȱJerusalemȱ2002,ȱ7Ȭ27ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
TALMON,ȱShemaryahu,ȱBiblicalȱTraditionsȱonȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱtheȱSamaritans’ȱ
History,ȱEretzȱShomron,ȱTheȱThirtiethȱArchaeologicalȱConvention,ȱSeptemȬ
berȱ1972,ȱJerusalemȱ1973,ȱ19Ȭ33ȱ(Hebrew).ȱ
TORREY,ȱCharlesȱCutler,ȱEzraȱStudies,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1970ȱ(1910).ȱ
VANDERHOOFT,ȱ David,ȱ Babylonianȱ Strategiesȱ ofȱ Imperialȱ Controlȱ inȱ theȱ West:ȱ
Royalȱ Practiceȱ andȱ Rhetoric,ȱ in:ȱ LIPSCHITS,ȱ Odedȱ /ȱ BLENKINSOPP,ȱ Josephȱ
266 YairahȱAmit
(eds.),ȱJudahȱandȱtheȱJudeansȱinȱtheȱNeoȬBabylonianȱPeriod,ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱ
INȱ2003,ȱ235Ȭ262.ȱ
WILLIAMSON,ȱ Hughȱ Godfreyȱ Maturin,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Chroniclesȱ (NCBC),ȱ Grandȱ
Rapids,ȱMIȱ/ȱLondonȱ1982.ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ

IndexȱofȱCitationsȱȱ
OldȱTestamentȱ
ȱ
Genȱ1Ȭ25........................134ȱ Genȱ49,8...........................95ȱ Numȱ20,13....................138ȱ
Genȱ2,24 ........................125ȱ Genȱ49,22.........................96ȱ ȱ
Genȱ10,19......................136ȱ Genȱ49,22Ȭ26...................96ȱ Deutȱ1,17.......................138ȱ
Genȱ10,30......................136ȱ ȱ Deutȱ2,6.........................138ȱ
Genȱ12,6 ........................117ȱ Exodȱ2,16.......................140ȱ Deutȱ5,21 ...................106ȱ
Genȱ12,6Ȭ7.............113.ȱ117ȱ Exodȱ4,10.......................126ȱ Deutȱ5,22.......................105ȱ
Genȱ12,20......................127ȱ Exodȱ6Ȭ37 ......................105ȱ Deutȱ6,20.......................187ȱ
Genȱ13,10......................136ȱ Exodȱ10,11.....................129ȱ Deutȱ11,29.... 116Ȭ117.ȱ261ȱ
Genȱ18,2 ........................127ȱ Exodȱ18,25.....................138ȱ Deutȱ11,30.............117.ȱ245ȱ
Genȱ20,4 ........................126ȱ Exodȱ19,24............127.ȱ129ȱ Deutȱ12,5...............114.ȱ261ȱ
Genȱ23,6 ........................126ȱ Exodȱ20,17............105.ȱ106ȱ Deutȱ12,11.....................114ȱ
Genȱ24.............................. 95ȱ Exodȱ22,25.....................125ȱ Deutȱ12,14.....................114ȱ
Genȱ24,8 ................126.ȱ129ȱ Exodȱ25,1Ȭ7.....................30ȱ Deutȱ12,21.....................114ȱ
Genȱ25,18......................136ȱ Exodȱ25Ȭ31....................117ȱ Deutȱ12,26.....................114ȱ
Genȱ27,27Ȭ29 .................. 96ȱ Exodȱ33,20.......................81ȱ Deutȱ14,23(22) .............114ȱ
Genȱ29,35........................ 95ȱ Exodȱ35Ȭ40....................117ȱ Deutȱ14,24(23) .............114ȱ
Genȱ30,24........................ 96ȱ ȱ Deutȱ14,25(24) .............114ȱ
Genȱ33,18Ȭ20........113.ȱ117ȱ Levȱ1Ȭ6..............................28ȱ Deutȱ16,2.......................114ȱ
Genȱ34.............................. 82ȱ Levȱ5,15..........................137ȱ Deutȱ16,7.......................114ȱ
Genȱ35,16Ȭ19 .................. 95ȱ Levȱ25...............................48ȱ Deutȱ17,8.......................114ȱ
Genȱ35,23........................ 95ȱ Levȱ27......................30.ȱ135ȱ Deutȱ17,10.....................114ȱ
Genȱ41,2 ........................139ȱ Levȱ27,2..................135Ȭ137ȱ Deutȱ18,15Ȭ22................. 80ȱ
Genȱ41,18......................139ȱ Levȱ27,3..........................137ȱ Deutȱ24,15 .................109ȱ
Genȱ44,26......................129ȱ Levȱ27,23................136Ȭ137ȱ Deutȱ24,17.....................125ȱ
Genȱ46,12........................ 95ȱ ȱ Deutȱ24,19 ...........109.ȱ112ȱ
Genȱ46,19........................ 96ȱ Numȱ12,8 ........................81ȱ Deutȱ24,20.....................125ȱ
Genȱ47,27Ȭ48,41............. 96ȱ Numȱ14,30......................95ȱ Deutȱ24,21.....................112ȱ
Genȱ48,1Ȭ20..................... 96ȱ Numȱ15,31...182.ȱ185Ȭ186ȱ Deutȱ25,7.......................112ȱ
268ȱ IndexȱofȱCitations
Deutȱ27..........................107ȱ 1Kgsȱ5,4Ȭ5........................95ȱ 2Kgsȱ9,14.......................100ȱ

Deutȱ27,1Ȭ8...................261ȱ 1Kgsȱ11,6Ȭ7....................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ11,1Ȭ20.................101ȱ
Deutȱ27,4..............105Ȭ110.ȱ 1Kgsȱ11,11Ȭ13.................13ȱ 2Kgsȱ12,1Ȭ22.................101ȱ
ȱ ........... 112Ȭ113.ȱ116Ȭ117ȱ 1Kgsȱ11,26Ȭ14,20............99ȱ 2Kgsȱ13,1Ȭ9...................100ȱ
Deutȱ27,5.......................112ȱ 1Kgsȱ12 ..................... 75.ȱ96ȱ 2Kgsȱ13,10Ȭ13...............100ȱ
Deutȱ27,12.............108Ȭ110ȱ 1Kgsȱ12,1Ȭ25 .................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ14,1Ȭ22.................101ȱ
Deutȱ27,15Ȭ26 ..........109ȱ 1Kgsȱ12Ȭ13.......................13ȱ 2Kgsȱ14,23Ȭ29...............100ȱ
Deutȱ27,22...................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ12,20.......................13ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,1Ȭ7...................101ȱ
Deutȱ27,23.....................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ12,25Ȭ28...............262ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,8Ȭ12.................100ȱ
Deutȱ27,24.....................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ12,26Ȭ30...............262ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,10Ȭ15...............100ȱ
Deutȱ28,11.....................261ȱ 1Kgsȱ12,31Ȭ41...............262ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,14Ȭ22...............100ȱ
Deutȱ30,4.......................115ȱ 1Kgsȱ13 .................258.ȱ262ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,23Ȭ26...............100ȱ
Deutȱ31,6.......................125ȱ 1Kgsȱ13,32.....................262ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,25Ȭ31...............100ȱ
Deutȱ31,8.......................125ȱ 1Kgsȱ14,21Ȭ31...............100ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,30.....................100ȱ
Deutȱ31,19.....................124ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,1Ȭ8....................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ15,32Ȭ38...............101ȱ
Deutȱ32,7Ȭ8.................118ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,9Ȭ14 .................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ16,1Ȭ20.................101ȱ
Deutȱ33,13Ȭ17................. 96ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,25Ȭ31.................99ȱ 2Kgsȱ16,2......................... 97ȱ
ȱ 1Kgsȱ15,27Ȭ16,7..............99ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,1Ȭ6...................100ȱ
Josȱ7,1.17Ȭ18.................... 15ȱ 1Kgsȱ16,8Ȭ14 ...................99ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,6.......................248ȱ
Josȱ8,30...........................107ȱ 1Kgsȱ16,9Ȭ20 ...................99ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,7......................... 13ȱ
Josȱ8,30Ȭ35.....................261ȱ 1Kgsȱ16,16Ȭ28.................99ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,8......................... 13ȱ
Josȱ8,33...................109.ȱ116ȱ 1Kgsȱ16,23Ȭ24...............248ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,9......................... 13ȱ
Josȱ9,2d ..........................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ16,29Ȭ22,40............99ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,10....................... 13ȱ
Josȱ9,6.............................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ20,35Ȭ36......258.ȱ262ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,11....................... 13ȱ
Josȱ14................................ 95ȱ 1Kgsȱ22,1Ȭ51 .................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,12....................... 13ȱ
Josȱ24................................ 10ȱ 1Kgsȱ22,11Ȭ28.................74ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,18....................... 13ȱ
ȱ 1Kgsȱ22,22.......................78ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,21Ȭ41...............261ȱ
Judgȱ9,7 .........................109ȱ 1Kgsȱ22,52Ȭ2Kgsȱ1,18..100ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,23.............248.ȱ262ȱ
Judgȱ17,6......................... 95ȱ 1Kgsȱ23,34Ȭ41......258.ȱ262ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,23b..................248ȱ
Judgȱ18,1......................... 95ȱ 1Kgsȱ31Ȭ36.......................13ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24.......32.ȱ247Ȭ249ȱ
Judgȱ19,1......................... 95ȱ ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ25...............262ȱ
Judgȱ21,25....................... 95ȱ 2Kgsȱ1,1Ȭ18......................74ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ34a............... 13ȱ
ȱ 2Kgsȱ3,1Ȭ9,26 ................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ40................. 13ȱ
2Samȱ24.................113.ȱ116ȱ 2Kgsȱ8,16Ȭ24 .................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,24Ȭ41......................ȱ
ȱ 2Kgsȱ8,25Ȭ9,29..............100ȱ ........9.ȱ247Ȭ248.ȱ254.ȱ257ȱ
1Kgsȱ3,3.........................100ȱ 2Kgsȱ9,1Ȭ10,36..............100ȱ 2Kgsȱ17,25Ȭ26...............248ȱ
IndexȱofȱCitations 269ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,25Ȭ28...............249ȱ Hosȱ3,2...........................138ȱ Nehȱ13,6.......................... 53ȱ

2Kgsȱ17,27Ȭ28...............248ȱ ȱ Nehȱ13,28..................27.ȱ55ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,29........ 77.ȱ94.ȱ248ȱ Hagȱ1,6Ȭ11.......................45ȱ ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,29Ȭ33...............249ȱ ȱ 1Chrȱ3,24......................... 15ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,29Ȭ41.......248.ȱ250ȱ Zechȱ8,9Ȭ12......................45ȱ 1Chrȱ5,23Ȭ26.........251.ȱ254ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,34.....................249ȱ ȱ 1Chrȱ8,19......................... 15ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,34bȬ40.............. 13ȱ Psȱ72,16 ..........................187ȱ 1Chrȱ27,27....................... 15ȱ
2Kgsȱ17,41.....................249ȱ ȱ ȱ
2Kgsȱ18,1Ȭ20,21............101ȱ Provȱ30,16......................185ȱ 2Chrȱ11............................ 81ȱ
2Kgsȱ18,9......................... 75ȱ ȱ 2Chrȱ23..........................252ȱ
2Kgsȱ18,11.............249.ȱ262ȱ Ezraȱ1Ȭ6..........................249ȱ 2Chrȱ23,33.....................252ȱ
2Kgsȱ21,1Ȭ17.................101ȱ Ezraȱ2,60..........................15ȱ 2Chrȱ30,1Ȭ11.................251ȱ
2Kgsȱ21,12Ȭ15................. 81ȱ Ezraȱ4.... 250.ȱ252.ȱ258Ȭ259ȱ 2Chrȱ30,6...............240.ȱ254ȱ
2Kgsȱ21,19Ȭ26...............101ȱ Ezraȱ4,1......... 250.ȱ255.ȱ262ȱ 2Chrȱ30,25.....................255ȱ
2Kgsȱ22Ȭ23,30...............101ȱ Ezraȱ4,1Ȭ3.......................262ȱ 2Chrȱ34,3Ȭ9...................252ȱ
2Kgsȱ23,13Ȭ20................. 98ȱ Ezraȱ4,1Ȭ5.......................250ȱ 2Chrȱ35,18.....................252ȱ
2Kgsȱ23,19....................... 94ȱ Ezraȱ4,2..................250.ȱ262ȱ ȱ
2Kgsȱ23,31Ȭ35...............101ȱ Ezraȱ4,3...........................250ȱ Jdtȱ9,2Ȭ4............................ 78ȱ
2Kgsȱ23,34Ȭ24,7............101ȱ Ezraȱ4,6Ȭ7...........................4ȱ ȱ
2Kgsȱ24,8......................... 15ȱ Ezraȱ4,6Ȭ23.....................250ȱ 1Maccȱ2,6........................ 81ȱ
2Kgsȱ24,8Ȭ17.................101ȱ Ezraȱ4,9Ȭ10.....................250ȱ 1Maccȱ2,27Ȭ29................ 81ȱ
2Kgsȱ24,14Ȭ16...............253ȱ Ezraȱ4,10........................255ȱ 1Maccȱ10,30..................193ȱ
2Kgsȱ24,17Ȭ25,7............101ȱ Ezraȱ8,16..........................15ȱ 1Maccȱ10,38..................193ȱ
2Kgsȱ25,12.....................253ȱ ȱ ȱ
2Kgsȱ25,22Ȭ24...............253ȱ Nehȱ1,1Ȭ7,5......................52ȱ 2Maccȱ5,23....................110ȱ
2Kgsȱ25,27Ȭ30...............101ȱ Nehȱ1,8Ȭ9.......................115ȱ 2Maccȱ5,27...................... 81ȱ
ȱ Nehȱ1,9...........................115ȱ 2Maccȱ6,1Ȭ2..................... 77ȱ
Isaȱ1,10............................. 81ȱ Nehȱ5,1Ȭ5.........................48ȱ 2Maccȱ6,2......................110ȱ
Isaȱ6................................... 76ȱ Nehȱ6,10...........................15ȱ 2Maccȱ6Ȭ7........................ 81ȱ
Isaȱ6,1 ............................... 81ȱ Nehȱ7,62...........................15ȱ ȱ
ȱ Nehȱ11,17 ........................15ȱ Sirȱ50,25Ȭ26 .............77.ȱ194ȱ
Jerȱ26,22........................... 15ȱ Nehȱ12,27Ȭ43...................52ȱ Sirȱ50,37Ȭ38 ...................248ȱ
Jerȱ36,12.25...................... 15ȱ Nehȱ13,4Ȭ31.....................52ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
NewȱTestament
ȱ
Mattȱ10,5.......................248ȱ Johnȱ4,9 ...................83.ȱ194ȱ Johnȱ8,49..........................83ȱ
Mattȱ22,23Ȭ32...............196ȱ Johnȱ4,27..........................83ȱ 2Corȱ6,15.........................76ȱ
Lukeȱ9,51Ȭ53.................194ȱ Johnȱ8,48Ȭ49 ....................83ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
OldȱTestamentȱPseudepigrapha
ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ1,1Ȭ3.12 ....... 73ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,1.......... 74.ȱ80ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ5,15........75Ȭȱ76ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ1Ȭ5................ 73ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,2.......... 74.ȱ77ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ5,16.............. 76ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ1,8 ................ 76ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,3....74.ȱ76.ȱ84ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ6Ȭ11.............. 73ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2Ȭ3................ 74ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,12...............83ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ11,41............ 76ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,10.............. 74ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,13Ȭ4,22......73ȱ ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,12........74.ȱ79ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,15Ȭ28.........78ȱ Jubȱ1,20............................ 76ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,12Ȭ16 ....... 74.ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ3,22Ȭ24.........78ȱ Jubȱ30............................... 78ȱ
ȱ .................................78Ȭ79ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ4....................76ȱ ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,14........74.ȱ77ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ5,1Ȭ16...........73ȱ T.ȱLeviȱ3,3........................ 76ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,14b............ 74ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ5,2.................79ȱ T.ȱLeviȱ5Ȭ7....................... 78ȱ
Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ2,15.............. 79ȱ Ascen.ȱIsa.ȱ5,4Ȭ9.............76ȱ T.ȱLeviȱ7,ȱ2.....................194ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
DeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱ
ȱ
1QSȱ1,17 .......................... 76ȱ 4Q339...............................79ȱ CDȱ4,13............................ 76ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Josephus
ȱ
A.J.ȱ8.174.......................... 67ȱ Ant.ȱ9.278Ȭ280 ................94ȱ Ant.ȱ11.302Ȭ303.............. 94ȱ
A.J.ȱ9.7.............................. 67ȱ Ant.ȱ9.279 ........................32ȱ Ant.ȱ11.302Ȭ324.............. 55ȱ
A.J.ȱ11.302Ȭ345............... 59ȱ Ant.ȱ9.288 ........................32ȱ Ant.ȱ11.317Ȭ345............193ȱ
A.J.ȱ11.320....................... 64ȱ Ant.ȱ9.288Ȭ290 ................94ȱ Ant.ȱ11.340...................... 94ȱ
A.J.ȱ14.54.......................... 67ȱ Ant.ȱ9.290 ......................194ȱ Ant.ȱ11.341..............94.ȱ194ȱ
A.J.ȱ15.96.......................... 67ȱ Ant.ȱ9.291 ........................94ȱ Ant.ȱ11.343Ȭ344.............. 94ȱ
ȱ Ant.ȱ11.297Ȭ347............248ȱ Ant.ȱ12.257Ȭ264....194.ȱ248ȱ
IndexȱofȱCitations 271ȱ
Ant.ȱ13.288Ȭ298.............. 82ȱ B.J.ȱ1.138...........................67ȱ B.J.ȱ2.232Ȭ246 ................170ȱ

Ant.ȱ20.118Ȭ136............170ȱ B.J.ȱ1.361...........................67ȱ B.J.ȱ4.469 .......................... 67ȱ
ȱ ȱ
ȱ
RabbinicȱSources
y.Abod.Zar.ȱ5,4ȱ(44d).......ȱ b.Hul.ȱ5bȬ6a..................164ȱ t.Demaiȱ3,3....................149ȱ

ȱȱ161.ȱ163Ȭ164.ȱ195Ȭ196.ȱ198ȱ b.Hul.ȱ6a.......163Ȭ164.ȱ198ȱ t.Demaiȱ4,12 .................156ȱ
y.Demaiȱ4,3ȱ23c...150.ȱ158ȱ b.Nid.ȱ44a......................167ȱ t.Demaiȱ4,14. ................156ȱ
y.Demaiȱ7,4..................165ȱ b.Nid.ȱ56b.............167.ȱ195ȱ t.Demaiȱ4,ȱ24 ................195ȱ
y.Git.ȱ1,4ȱ(43d) .............195ȱ b.Qidd.ȱ75......................168ȱ t.Demaiȱ4,ȱ27 ................195ȱ
y.Ketub.ȱ3,1ȱ27a...158.ȱ169ȱ b.Qidd.ȱ75b..........163.ȱ248ȱ t.Demaiȱ5,24 .........161Ȭ162ȱ
y.Pesah.ȱ10,4Ȭ5.............187ȱ b.Qidd.ȱ76a ..........196.ȱ263ȱ t.Demaiȱ8,7....................165ȱ
y.Pesah.ȱ37d,17............187ȱ b.RošȱHaš.ȱ2,2...............161ȱ t.Git.ȱ1,4..........................195ȱ
y.Qidd.ȱ4,1ȱ(55d)ȱ.......ȱ195ȱ b.ȱŠabb.ȱ2,3.....................153ȱ t.ȱHul.ȱ1,1.......................163ȱ
y.Sanh.ȱ7,8ȱ(25b)..........196ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ10,2.....................79ȱ t.Peȇahȱ4,1 ......................157ȱ
y.Sanh.10,2ȱ28c.............. 81ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ63b....................248ȱ t.Pesah.ȱ1,1ȱ(27b)..........196ȱ
y.Šeqal.ȱ1,4ȱ46b............168ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ85b.. 167.ȱ169.ȱ195ȱ t.Pesah.ȱ2ȱ(1)ȱ3 ..............195ȱ
y.Šeqal.ȱ1,5ȱ46b............158ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ90b...185Ȭ187.ȱ196ȱ t.Pesah.ȱ2,3 ....................156ȱ
y.Sotahȱ7........................245ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ91a......................59ȱ t.ȱŠabb.ȱ15,15.................153ȱ
y.Yebam.ȱ7,6ȱ8b...........163ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ92a....................184ȱ t.Ter.ȱ4,12.......................154ȱ
y.Yebam.ȱ8,3ȱ(9d)........195ȱ b.Sanh.ȱ103b....................81ȱ t.Ter.ȱ4,14.............. 154.ȱ156ȱ
ȱ b.Šeb.ȱ8,10......................196ȱ ȱ
b.ȱB.ȱQam.ȱ38a......167.ȱ169ȱ b.Sotahȱ7,3ȱ(21c)...........196ȱ EliahouȱZuttaȱ1 ...........196ȱ
b.B.ȱQam.ȱ38b......195Ȭ196ȱ b.Sotahȱ22a......................84ȱ Kutimȱ1,1 ......................263ȱ
b.Ber.ȱ7,1................149.ȱ153ȱ b.Sotahȱ33b....................196ȱ Kutimȱ2..........................264ȱ
bȱBer.ȱ8,8........................153ȱ b.Sukkahȱ23b................165ȱ Mas.ȱQet.ȱ12a ...............147ȱ
b.Ber.ȱ15b ......................184ȱ b.Tamidȱ27b .................193ȱ Pesiq.ȱRab.ȱI..................196ȱ
b.Ber.ȱ47b ............ȱ148.ȱ150.ȱ b.Yebam.ȱ24a................169ȱ Pesiq.ȱRab.ȱ4,3................81ȱ
...................ȱ196.ȱ248.ȱ263ȱ b.Yebam.ȱ49b..................81ȱ PirqeȱR.ȱEl.ȱ37...............196ȱ
b.Git.ȱ1,5 ........................195ȱ b.Yomaȱ69a............59.ȱ193ȱ Rab.ȱ61,7..........................59ȱ
b.Git.ȱ10a......148.ȱ196.ȱ263ȱ b.Yomaȱ84b...................153ȱ SifreȱNumȱ112ȱ ..............79ȱ
b.Hul.ȱ2a........................263ȱ ȱ SifreȱDeutȱ56.................196ȱ
b.Hul.ȱ3aȬ5a..................163ȱ t.Abod.Zar.ȱ6,7.............162ȱ Yal.ȱShimoniȱGenȱ28..197ȱ
b.Hul.ȱ3b .......................195ȱ t.Ber.ȱ3,26 ..............149.ȱ150ȱ Gen.ȱRabbaȱ32,ȱ10.......196ȱ
b.Hul.ȱ4a........................196ȱ t.Ber.ȱ47b........................153ȱ Gen.ȱRabbaȱ94 .............196ȱ
b.Hul.ȱ4aȬb....................152ȱ t.Demaiȱ1,11..................161ȱ Deut.ȱRabbaȱEkev ......196ȱ
MidrashȱTannaimȱonȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Eccl.ȱRabbaȱ5,10...........196ȱ OtzarȱHamidrashimȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Deutȱ6,9.....................196ȱ Eccl.ȱRabbaȱ5,10(15d).183ȱ 1Panȱ9,2,3..................196ȱ
MidrashȱTannaimȱonȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ MishnahȱNedarimȱ3,10.....ȱ
Deutȱ33,ȱ6..................196ȱ ......................................263ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
GreekȱandȱLatinȱAuthorsȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱArrianȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱHomerȱ Nat.ȱ15.1.1.......................69ȱ
Anab.ȱ2.25.1Ȭ3................ 65ȱ Il.ȱ22.395Ȭ404...................64ȱ Nat.ȱ15.3.10.....................69ȱ
Anab.ȱ2.25.4Ȭ26.1........... 65ȱ ȱȱ Nat.ȱ15.40.138.................69ȱ
Anab.ȱ2.26.2Ȭ27.7........... 65ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱJustinȱ Nat.ȱ16.62.144.................69ȱ
ȱ 1Apol.ȱ26,1,ȱ4Ȭ5 ..............84ȱ Nat.ȱ17.37.226.................69ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱCurtiusȱ ȱ Nat.ȱ19.10.32...................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.5.1Ȭ8. 64ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOrigenȱ Nat.ȱ19.48.162.................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.5.9.... 65ȱ Cels.ȱ2,13........................194ȱ Nat.ȱ21.9.13.....................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.5.10.. 64ȱ Cels.ȱ6,11..........................84ȱ Nat.ȱ21.68.109.................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.5.11Ȭ12ȱ ȱ ȱ Nat.ȱ25.5.14.....................69ȱ
....................................... 64ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPausaniasȱ Nat.ȱ25.32.69...................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.5.13Ȭ22ȱ ȱ Descr.ȱ7.3.9......................66ȱ Nat.ȱ26.63.99...................69ȱ
....................................... 64ȱ ȱ Nat.ȱ27.40.63...................69ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.6.1Ȭ6. 64ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlinyȱ Nat.ȱ54.111Ȭ123..............67ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.6.30Ȭ31ȱ ȱ Nat.ȱ2.1.5..........................66ȱ ȱ
....................................... 65ȱ Nat.ȱ3.5.57........................69ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlutarchȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.7.9.... 66ȱ Nat.ȱ8.43.104...................69ȱ Alex.ȱ1.2...........................64ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱ4.8.9Ȭ10ȱȱȱ ȱ Nat.ȱ8.49.111...................69ȱ Alex.ȱ25.4Ȭ5.....................63ȱ
.................................59.ȱ65ȱ Nat.ȱ8.54.128...................69ȱ Alex.ȱ25.4Ȭ26.2................63ȱ
Hist.Alex.Mag.ȱȱ9.8.21Ȭ27 ȱ Nat.ȱ8.69.173...................69ȱ Alex.ȱ41............................70ȱ
....................................... 70ȱ Nat.ȱ8.82.222...................69ȱ ȱȱ
ȱ Nat.ȱ9.8.28........................69ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheophrastusȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDiodorusȱ Nat.ȱ9.83.175...................69ȱ Hist.ȱplant.ȱ9.6.1.............69ȱ
Chr.ȱȱ17.49.2.................... 66ȱ Nat.ȱ10.41.79...................69ȱ Hist.ȱplant.ȱ9.6.1Ȭ4.........68ȱ
ȱ Nat.ȱ11.116.281...............69ȱ Hist.ȱplant.ȱ15.1.1 ..........69ȱ
ȱ Nat.ȱ13.30.101.................69ȱ Hist.ȱplant.ȱ16.62.144....69ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthorsȱ
Abegg...............................................................91ȱ Beer ................................................................... 75ȱ

Abel...................................................................68ȱ BenȬÍayyim.........................30.ȱ123Ȭ128.ȱ133.ȱ
AbĀȱShafÎ´ .............................................205Ȭ214ȱ ȱ.................................................... 136Ȭ138.ȱ175ȱ
Adler.........................................................26.ȱ193ȱ BenȬZvi .................................................................ȱ
Ahlström ...................................................27.ȱ33ȱ ȱ...............iii.ȱ15.ȱ205.ȱ211.ȱ239Ȭ243.ȱ255.ȱ260ȱ
Albeck ............................................................196ȱ Bermann........................................................177ȱ
Albertz........................................................15.ȱ78ȱ Bernstein.......................................................... 46ȱ
Alfasi...............................................................153ȱ Betlyon.......................................................33.ȱ46ȱ
Alon .......................................177.ȱ194Ȭ196.ȱ259ȱ Bettiolo............................................................. 73ȱ
Alt......................................................................34ȱ Billerbeck...................................... 177.ȱ184Ȭ186ȱ
Amiran.............................................................33ȱ Blau.................................................................140ȱ
Amit..................................... v.ȱix.ȱ247Ȭ248.ȱ254ȱ Blenkinsopp................................................... 52ȱ
Amitay..................................................vi.ȱ59Ȭ60ȱ Bogaert.......................................... 106Ȭ107.ȱ118ȱ
Anderson............................................ 9.ȱ26.ȱ105ȱ Bóid...........................................................98.ȱ134ȱ
Asher ..............................................................153ȱ Bosworth......................................................... 65ȱ
Atkinson..........................................................67ȱ Botte................................................................107ȱ
AveryȬPeck...................................................175ȱ Box..................................................................... 75ȱ
Avigad ................................................ 15.ȱ28.ȱ98ȱ Brandl............................................................... 33ȱ
AviȬYonah.....................................................196ȱ Briant................................................................ 31ȱ
ȱ Bright................................................................ 52ȱ
Bacher............................................184.ȱ186.ȱ196ȱ Brody......................................................154.ȱ178ȱ
Badr.................................................................140ȱ Brooke.............................................................. 79ȱ
Baillet................................................................16ȱ Broshi................................................................ 79ȱ
Barnard..........................................................197ȱ Buchler........................................................67Ȭ69ȱ
Baumgarten..........................................3.ȱ11Ȭ12ȱ Büchler...........................................................178ȱ
Baynham.........................................................67ȱ Bull............................................................25.ȱ197ȱ
Beér ................................................................205ȱ Burchard........................................................197ȱ
BeasleyȬMurray.............................................84ȱ ȱ
Becking.......................................................33.ȱ98ȱ Campbell.................................................28.ȱ197ȱ
Beentjes ..........................................................194ȱ Caquot........................................................75.ȱ77ȱ
ȱ
274ȱ IndexȱofȱAuthors
Charles .......................................................73.ȱ77ȱ Edelman....................................................14Ȭ15ȱ

Clancy...............................................................92ȱ Edzard........................................................51.ȱ54ȱ
ClermontȬGanneau....................................198ȱ Egger ....................................................2.ȱ93.ȱ179ȱ
Clines.......................................................... 52Ȭ53ȱ Eisenstein ......................................................197ȱ
Cogan..................................... 33.ȱ248.ȱ251.ȱ253ȱ Éliade..............................................................198ȱ
Coggins.............................8.ȱ10.ȱ15Ȭ17.ȱ52.ȱ195ȱ Elizur.............................................147.ȱ156.ȱ163ȱ
Cohen.............................................2.ȱ11Ȭ12.ȱ183ȱ ElȬShazly........................................................140ȱ
Collins...............................................................76ȱ Engelmann..................................................... 59ȱ
Corinaldi.......................................255Ȭ257.ȱ259ȱ Eph‘al ....................................45Ȭ46.ȱ48.ȱ56.ȱ248ȱ
Cowley................................. 14.ȱ34.ȱ53.ȱ55.ȱ206ȱ Epstein ...........................................................163ȱ
Crawford.......................................................186ȱ Eshel....................................................14Ȭ15.ȱ193ȱ
Cross........................... 3.ȱ14.ȱ33.ȱ54Ȭ56.ȱ58.ȱ193ȱ ȱ
Crowfoot .........................................................33ȱ Farber ............................................................... 53ȱ
Crown ........... 2.ȱ15.ȱ35.ȱ84.ȱ123.ȱ176Ȭ177.ȱ205ȱ Feigin................................................................ 56ȱ
Cumont..........................................................197ȱ Feldman.................................................170.ȱ194ȱ
ȱ Field ................................................................109ȱ
Dalley .........................................................33.ȱ56ȱ Finkelstein................................27.ȱ98.ȱ183.ȱ196ȱ
Dan..............................................................70.ȱ95ȱ Firkovich ...............................................205.ȱ207ȱ
Daube...............................................................83ȱ Flemming........................................................ 77ȱ
Dauphin.........................................................197ȱ Flint................................................................... 91ȱ
Davies.........................................................17.ȱ45ȱ Florentin ...............................................................ȱ
deȱSacy ...................................................206Ȭ207ȱ ȱ....v.ȱ16.ȱ30Ȭ31.ȱ126.ȱ133Ȭ134.ȱ140Ȭ141.ȱ206ȱ
deȱVaux..........................................................113ȱ Flusser..................................................75.ȱ79Ȭ82ȱ
Deshayes .........................................................32ȱ Fohrer............................................................... 80ȱ
Dever................................................................27ȱ Fossum..........................................................9Ȭ10ȱ
Dexinger...............................................................ȱ Frankfurter...................................................... 83ȱ
.............10.ȱ175.ȱ177Ȭ178.ȱ182.ȱ186Ȭ187.ȱ206ȱ Fried.................................................................. 52ȱ
Dillmann....................................................73.ȱ77ȱ Friedheim..............................................viii.ȱ193ȱ
Dines...............................................................107ȱ Friedlander...................................................178ȱ
Dogniez..........................................................107ȱ Friedmann............................................163.ȱ196ȱ
DrewȬBear.....................................................197ȱ Fritz.............................................................27.ȱ33ȱ
Droysen ...........................................................67ȱ ȱ
Duensing.........................................................77ȱ Gafni.............................................. 177Ȭ178.ȱ183ȱ
Dunayevsky...................................................33ȱ Gall..................................................................127ȱ
Dušek .............................................vi.ȱ15.ȱ46.ȱ49ȱ Garsiel ............................................................253ȱ
ȱ Gaster.....v.ȱ16.ȱ30Ȭ31.ȱ126.ȱ133Ȭ134.ȱ194Ȭ196ȱ
IndexȱofȱAuthors 275ȱ
Gedaliahu......................................................147ȱ Hirshman......................................................183ȱ
Gerstenberger ................................................78ȱ Hjelm......... vȬvi.ȱ25Ȭ26.ȱ31Ȭ35.ȱ78.ȱ91Ȭ98.ȱ179ȱ
Gesenius.......................................105Ȭ106.ȱ177ȱ Hoffmann .....................................................196ȱ
Gieben............................................................198ȱ Hoglund.......................................................... 34ȱ
Giles ..............................................................8.ȱ26ȱ Horovitzȱ=ȱHorowitz.........................182.ȱ196ȱ
Glaue .....................................107Ȭ108.ȱ110Ȭ111ȱ ȱ
Gmirkin ...........................................................93ȱ Isser...........................................................84.ȱ177ȱ
Golan................................................................60ȱ ȱ
Goldstein..........................................61.ȱ98.ȱ205ȱ Jacobs..............................................................163ȱ
Grabbe..................................... 2.ȱ4Ȭ5.ȱ11.ȱ14.ȱ52ȱ Japhet............................................. 251Ȭ252.ȱ254ȱ
Gray ................................................................249ȱ Jellicoe.............................................................107ȱ
Green................................................................53ȱ Juster...............................................................194ȱ
Grintz......................................................252Ȭ253ȱ ȱ
Gropp......................................14.ȱ31.ȱ33.ȱ46Ȭ48ȱ Kahana...........................................................183ȱ
Gruen................................................................61ȱ Kahle.......................................................123.ȱ205ȱ
Gryson............................................................106ȱ Kapera.............................................................. 33ȱ
Gulkowitsch.........................................179Ȭ180ȱ Kappeler........................................................110ȱ
Gutman............................................................68ȱ Kartveit................................................78.ȱ80.ȱ82ȱ
ȱ Kelley..............................................................186ȱ
HadasȬLebel.................................................194ȱ Kennicott.......................................................106ȱ
Halkin...............................................................16ȱ Kenyon ............................................................ 33ȱ
Hall....................................................................83ȱ Kippenberg............2Ȭ3.ȱ10.ȱ175.ȱ177Ȭ178.ȱ197ȱ
Hallo .................................................................30ȱ Kirchheim............................177Ȭ178.ȱ182.ȱ195ȱ
Halpern............................................................99ȱ Klein................................................................196ȱ
Hammond......................................................65ȱ Klostermann .................................................. 56ȱ
Hanhart..........................................................110ȱ Knauf................................................................ 33ȱ
Haparchi........................................................193ȱ Knibb...........................................................73Ȭ77ȱ
Haran................................................................16ȱ Knoppers................................5.ȱ13.ȱ15.ȱ98.ȱ251ȱ
Harl .................................................................107ȱ Koetschau .....................................................194ȱ
Hauptman ....................................................163ȱ Konovitz........................................................182ȱ
Hayes................................................................52ȱ KrechmerȬRaziel.........................................152ȱ
Heinemann...................................................177ȱ ȱ
Henry .............................................................197ȱ Lambdin........................................................139ȱ
Hershkovitz......................................... 147.ȱ177ȱ LaneȱFox.......................................................... 65ȱ
Higger ...........................................176.ȱ178.ȱ196ȱ Laperrousaz ................................................... 15ȱ
Hildesheimer ...............................................178ȱ Lapp............................................................15.ȱ31ȱ
Lavee.......................................vii.ȱ147.ȱ154.ȱ171ȱ Misgav .....................................15.ȱ26Ȭ31.ȱ94Ȭ95ȱ

LawsonȱYonger.............................................32ȱ Momigliano..............................................61.ȱ65ȱ
Lehnardt........................vii.ȱ175Ȭ176.ȱ178.ȱ188ȱ Montgomery.. 1.ȱ9Ȭ10.ȱ16.ȱ147.ȱ176.ȱ194Ȭ195ȱ
Leith............................................................31.ȱ33ȱ Mor ........................................................................ȱ
Lemaire..................................................4.ȱ14Ȭ15ȱ ȱv.ȱix.ȱ12.ȱ45.ȱ58.ȱ170.ȱ188.ȱ194Ȭ195.256Ȭ257ȱ
Lemche.......................................................27.ȱ97ȱ Morag.............................................................124ȱ
Lerner.............................................................179ȱ Morgenstern.......................................... vii.ȱ133ȱ
Lévi....................................................................70ȱ Moscati...........................................................210ȱ
Lewis ................................................................76ȱ Müller............................................................... 77ȱ
Lichtenberger...............................................175ȱ Mynatt............................................................186ȱ
Lieberman............................................................ȱ ȱ
ȱ .........147.ȱ150.ȱ153.ȱ156.ȱ178.ȱ195Ȭ196.ȱ198ȱ Na’aman.......................................................... 98ȱ
Lightley.............................................................. 1ȱ Naour.............................................................197ȱ
Lincke..............................................................8Ȭ9ȱ Naveh.......................................27Ȭ28.ȱ45Ȭ46.ȱ48ȱ
Linville........................................................13.ȱ17ȱ Neubauer........................................................ 31ȱ
Lipschits...........................................................34ȱ Neusner.................................................175.ȱ182ȱ
Loewenstamm.......................................16.ȱ134ȱ Nickelsburg........................................78.ȱ81Ȭ82ȱ
London.....................................................32.ȱ208ȱ Niese................................................................. 60ȱ
Lowy...................................................... 134.ȱ141ȱ Noam .............................................................193ȱ
Luria................................................................178ȱ Nock...............................................................197ȱ
ȱ Nodet............................................ 7Ȭ8.ȱ34Ȭ35.ȱ99ȱ
Macdonald.....................7.ȱ8.ȱ81.ȱ175Ȭ176.ȱ182ȱ Noja................................................................... 16ȱ
Machinist.........................................................33ȱ Norelli ........................................................73.ȱ77ȱ
Macuch .........................................206.ȱ208.ȱ212ȱ Norton............................................................109ȱ
Magen ..15.ȱ25Ȭ31.ȱ34Ȭ35.ȱ94Ȭ95.ȱ170.ȱ193.ȱ197ȱ Noth................................................................252ȱ
Malamat ..........................................................34ȱ ȱ
Mani................................................................211ȱ O’Brien............................................................. 65ȱ
Mantel ............................................................194ȱ Oded..........................................34.ȱ98.ȱ248.ȱ253ȱ
Marcus .................................................60.ȱ67Ȭ68ȱ Oppenheimer ..............................................147ȱ
Margain ................................................ 105.ȱ113ȱ Otzen................................................................ 76ȱ
Margulies ......................................................183ȱ ȱ
McCarthy.............................107.ȱ113.ȱ117Ȭ118ȱ Pastor...........................................................vi.ȱ45ȱ
Mendels...........................................................98ȱ Pearson ............................................................ 65ȱ
Meshorer......................14Ȭ15.ȱ33.ȱ46.ȱ197Ȭ198ȱ Philomerenko................................................ 79ȱ
Migne .............................................................196ȱ Philonenko..............................................76.ȱ194ȱ
Miller ..........................................................52.ȱ78ȱ Popper............................................................183ȱ
IndexȱofȱAuthors 277ȱ
Porath...............................................................33ȱ Scheffler........................................................... 33ȱ

Porten.................................................. 14.ȱ34.ȱ53ȱ Schenker..............vii.ȱȱ105.ȱ107.ȱ114.ȱ116.ȱ118ȱ
Pritchard........................................................253ȱ Schiffman.....................................147.ȱ156.ȱ181ȱ
Pummer................ vii.ȱ1Ȭ2.ȱ14Ȭ17.ȱ26.ȱ78.ȱ108.ȱȱ Schneider......................................................... 25ȱ
ȱ ..110Ȭ111.ȱ113Ȭ114.ȱ176Ȭ178.ȱ188.ȱ205.ȱ207ȱ Scholem.........................................................179ȱ
Purvis.............................................2.ȱ5.ȱ8.ȱ75.ȱ84ȱ Schorch ......................... vii.ȱ123.ȱ126.ȱ128.ȱ134ȱ
ȱ Schreiber........................................................197ȱ
Qedar..............................................14Ȭ15.ȱ33.ȱ46ȱ Schur.........................................................84.ȱ206ȱ
ȱ Schürer.......................................................8.ȱ193ȱ
Rabbinovicz..................................................185ȱ Schwartz.......................................................... 14ȱ
Rabello............................................................194ȱ Sedaka........................................... viii.ȱ128.ȱ239ȱ
Rahlfs.....................................107Ȭ108.ȱ110Ȭ111ȱ Sela..................................................................170ȱ
Rappaport...................................................2.ȱ11ȱ Seligsohn.................................................26.ȱ193ȱ
Reich .................................................................33ȱ Seyrig..............................................................198ȱ
Reifenberg.......................................................25ȱ Shavit..............................................................205ȱ
Reinach ............................................................68ȱ Shehadeh....... viii.ȱ16.ȱ137Ȭ138.ȱ140.ȱ205Ȭ207ȱ
Reinmuth ........................................................57ȱ Silberman..................................................27.ȱ98ȱ
Richter............................................................113ȱ Simon ..................................................................2ȱ
Robert.............................................................106ȱ Skeat................................................................197ȱ
Roberts...........................................................197ȱ Skehan....................................................105.ȱ126ȱ
Robertson........................................................15ȱ Smend............................................................194ȱ
Rogers.............................................................206ȱ Smith ..........................................................33.ȱ52ȱ
Ronzevalle.....................................................198ȱ Spak.................................................................. 67ȱ
Rosenfeld.......................................................162ȱ Stavrakopoulou ............................................ 13ȱ
Rost....................................................................76ȱ Stemberger...................................181.ȱ183.ȱ186ȱ
Rothschild.......................................................15ȱ Stenhouse..............................................4.ȱ26.ȱ31ȱ
Rowley.......................................................52.ȱ55ȱ Stern.................................16.ȱ32Ȭ34.ȱ46.ȱ98.ȱ197ȱ
Runesson.....................................................5.ȱ12ȱ Stoneman........................................................ 67ȱ
ȱ Strack............................................. 177.ȱ184Ȭ186ȱ
Safrai...147.ȱ156.ȱ160.ȱ177.ȱ184.ȱ193.ȱ195.ȱ197ȱ ȱ
Sagi......................................................... 151.ȱ166ȱ Tadmor...........................................32.ȱ248.ȱ253ȱ
Saley............................................................53.ȱ55ȱ Taglicht......................................... 176Ȭ177.ȱ182ȱ
Salonique.......................................................197ȱ Tal...................................................................113.ȱȱ
Sanderson......................................................105ȱ ȱ.. 127Ȭ128.ȱ133.ȱ135.ȱ137Ȭ138.ȱ142.177.ȱ205ȱ
Sass....................................................................15ȱ Talmon................ix.ȱ2.ȱ248Ȭ249.ȱ256Ȭ258.ȱ261ȱ
Schachermeyr................................................65ȱ Tammuz....................................................vi.ȱȱ51ȱ
Tappy...............................................................98ȱ Wasserstein...................................................109ȱ
Tarn...................................................................64ȱ Watad.............................................................133ȱ
Tcherikover.....................................................60ȱ Watson...........................................................140ȱ
Thompson.................................................33.ȱ35ȱ Weinfeld.......................................................... 33ȱ
Thomson .......................................................196ȱ Wevers...................................................107.ȱ114ȱ
Tigay.................................................................33ȱ Williamson .............................................52.ȱ252ȱ
Torrey.......................................... 53Ȭ54.ȱ56.ȱ252ȱ Willrich ............................................................ 67ȱ
Tov ................................105.ȱ107Ȭ123.ȱ128.ȱ130ȱ Wilson.............................................................. 25ȱ
Trumpf.............................................................59ȱ Wright............................................... 25.ȱ28.ȱ197ȱ
Tsedaka..........................................................viii.ȱȱ Wünsche .......................................................183ȱ
124.ȱ126.ȱ128Ȭ129.ȱ195.ȱ205Ȭ207.ȱ214Ȭ215.ȱ221ȱ ȱ
Tsefania....................................15.ȱ26Ȭ31.ȱ94Ȭ95ȱ Yamauchi........................................................ 45ȱ
ȱ Yardeni ......................................................14.ȱ79ȱ
Ulrich........................................................91.ȱ105ȱ Yeivin ....................................123.ȱ126Ȭ127.ȱ130ȱ
Ussishkin.........................................................27ȱ Yonah.............................................................150ȱ
ȱ ȱ
vanȱdenȱHorst................................................81ȱ Zadok..........................................................14Ȭ15ȱ
vanȱderȱToorn................................................33ȱ Zangenberg...........................31.ȱ177Ȭ178.ȱ183ȱ
vanȱRuiten.......................................................81ȱ Zertal ....................................................32Ȭ33.ȱ98ȱ
Vanderhooft.................................................253ȱ Ziegler.............................................................. 63ȱ
Vanderkam.....................................................91ȱ Zohar......................................................151.ȱ166ȱ
vonȱGall..................................................127Ȭ128ȱ Zorn.................................................................. 34ȱ
ȱ Zsengellér...........vȬvi.ȱ5.ȱ14.ȱ31.ȱ73.ȱ78Ȭ79.ȱ81ȱ
Wald ...............................................................150ȱ
Waltke............................................................109ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ
1Chronicles.....................................................91ȱ Aden...............................................................232ȱ
2Chronicles.....................................................91ȱ ‘AdȬShem......................................................232ȱ
1Enoch..............................................................91ȱ ‘Adu................................................................232ȱ
2Kings.............................................................252ȱ adversariesȱofȱJudahȱandȱBenjamin......262ȱ
1/2Maccabees.................................................91ȱ Ahasuerus.....................................................250ȱ
ȱȱȱ Akfet...............................................................232ȱ
Aa’anshe........................................................232ȱ Akka...............................................................229ȱ
AabiȱHannibbosh .......................................232ȱ Alexanderȱ(theȱGreat)................27.ȱ59Ȭ70.ȱ94ȱ
‘Aalaab...........................................................232ȱ AlexanderȱJannaeus..................................... 28ȱ
ȱ‘Aalaabaa......................................................232ȱ AlexanderȱPolyhistor .............................92Ȭ93ȱ
AalonȱMura..................................................229ȱ Alexandria....................................................229ȱ
‘Aanaan..........................................................232ȱ alienȱdeportees.............................................255ȱ
‘Aaraamtaa...................................................232ȱ alȬKhaÃra......................................................206ȱ
Aaron..............................................................128ȱ Allef.................................................................232ȱ
Abahu.............................................................165ȱ ameiȱhaȬaretz........................................198Ȭ199ȱ
Abaye ............................................151Ȭ152.ȱ163ȱ AmericanȱJewishȱJointȱDistributionȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
‘Abbas.............................................................232ȱ ȱCommittee................................................242ȱ
‘AbdȱAllaȱb.ȱJoseph.....................................232ȱ AmȬhaaretz .........................150Ȭ151.ȱ153.ȱ155ȱ
‘Abdaa............................................................232ȱ Amramȱb.ȱIsaac,ȱSamaritanȱHighȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
‘AbdȱÍannĀna...............................................206ȱ Priest...........................................................244ȱ
‘Ablaal............................................................232ȱ Amram,ȱb.ȱIsaac,ȱSamaritanȱHighȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Abraahm.......................................................232ȱ Priest...........................................................242ȱ
Abraham.................................................92.ȱ244ȱ Andromachos................................................ 65ȱ
Abrahamȱb.ȱMarhivȱZedakaȱHazafri,ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ AngloȬAmericanȱcommission................241ȱ
Samaritanȱelder .......................................239ȱ Antaal.............................................................232ȱ
‘Abtaa’ey........................................................232ȱ Antiochia......................................................... 83ȱ
AbĀlȬFath........................................... 4.ȱ40.ȱ177ȱ AntiochusȱIII................................................... 34ȱ
AbȬZaa’hutaa...............................................232ȱ AntiochusȱIV.................................................. 81ȱ
accents............................................................127ȱ antiȬSamaritan............................249.ȱ252.ȱ259ȱ
Achemenid.....................................................38ȱ antiȬSamaritanȱpolemic............73.ȱ75.ȱ78.ȱ83ȱ
ȱ
280ȱ IndexȱofȱSubjects
antiȬSamaritanȱsentiments .........................93ȱ Ba’alȱBeck......................................................230ȱ

AntoniusȱPius .......................................... 25Ȭ26ȱ Ba’alȱcult .......................................................... 97ȱ
Aquila............................................111Ȭ112.ȱ186ȱ Baaduwwaa.................................................233ȱ
Arȱkryzm.......................................................207ȱ Baal..................................................................197ȱ
ArabianȱPeninsula........................................32ȱ Baalah.............................................................233ȱ
Arabianȱtribes.................................................32ȱ BaalȬshamin..................................................198ȱ
Arabic......................................31.ȱ211Ȭ212.ȱ217ȱ Babylon..................................................249.ȱ262ȱ
Aramaic..................................................... 30Ȭ31ȱ Babylonia ......................................................186ȱ
Aramaicȱostraca.............................................46ȱ Babylonianȱconquest................................... 34ȱ
archaeological ................................................46ȱ Babylonianȱexile..................................250.ȱ263ȱ
Aristoboulos...................................................61ȱ BabylonianȱMasorah.................................126ȱ
arrack..............................................................211ȱ Babylonianȱpolicy.......................................253ȱ
Arrian.......................................60Ȭ62.ȱ64Ȭ66.ȱ70ȱ BabylonianȱTalmud...........................179.ȱ183ȱ
Artaxerxes.....................................................250ȱ kings,ȱbad........................................................ 97ȱ
Ashdod..........................................................229ȱ Bahlulaai........................................................233ȱ
Ashqelon.......................................................230ȱ balsam.........................................................67Ȭ70ȱ
Ashurbanipal.................................................32ȱ BarȱKokhba.................................. 194Ȭ195.ȱ198ȱ
‘Asimaa..........................................................232ȱ Baraita ........................................... 179.ȱ185Ȭ186ȱ
‘Askaar...........................................................229ȱ Baraitot...................................................180Ȭ181ȱ
AssurȬbanipalȱ=ȱȱOsnappar........................25ȱ bateȱmidrash ................................................186ȱ
Assyria ..........................................247.ȱ249.ȱ251ȱ Bavli.......................................183.ȱ185Ȭ186.ȱ188ȱ
Assyrian.................96.ȱ248.ȱ250.ȱ253Ȭ254.ȱ261ȱ BeerSheba........................................................ 95ȱ
Assyrianȱannals...........................................259ȱ BeitȱBizzin .....................................................230ȱ
Assyrianȱconquest........................................32ȱ BeitȱFurik.......................................................230ȱ
Assyrianȱevidence ......................................259ȱ Beliar.....................................................74.ȱ77Ȭ78ȱ
Assyrianȱinscriptions.................................259ȱ Beliarȱ/ȱSamael ............................................... 75ȱ
Assyrianȱmonarchs....................................253ȱ Belkiraȱ/ȱBechira.................................74Ȭ77.ȱ79ȱ
Assyrianȱpolicy...........................248.ȱ253.ȱ259ȱ BenȱAsher......................................................130ȱ
Assyrianȱwarȱmachine..............................253ȱ BenȱGurion,ȱDavid.............................243Ȭ244ȱ
Assyrians......................................248Ȭ250.ȱ258ȱ BenȱNaphtali................................................130ȱ
Atargatis ........................................................198ȱ BenȱSira......................................................91.ȱ93ȱ
Atnah..............................................................128ȱ BenȱGurion,ȱDavid.....................................239ȱ
‘Awartehȱ=ȱEburta......................................230ȱ BenȱÍayyimȱZeev.......................................243ȱ
AwnyȱAbdȱelȬHady...................................241ȱ Benjamin ........34.ȱ95.ȱ241.ȱ250.ȱ252.ȱ258.ȱ263ȱ
‘Azzaanai.......................................................233ȱ Benjaminites.................................................250ȱ
ȱ BergȱEbal .......................................................111ȱ
IndexȱofȱSubjects 281ȱ
BergȱGarizim...............................105Ȭ110.ȱ119ȱ cultȱcentralisation.......................................... 33ȱ

Berossus..................................................... 92Ȭ93ȱ cultȱplace.......................................................... 98ȱ
Bethel.............................................9.ȱ35.ȱ98.ȱ262ȱ Cuthah...................................................249.ȱ262ȱ
Betis............................................................. 63Ȭ65ȱ Cutheans........................................32.ȱ195Ȭ196ȱ
bi†¬q¬t............................................................206ȱ Cuthim/Kutim,ȱtractate.............................264ȱ
bohairischerȱPentateuch ...........................114ȱ Cuthite(s)......................248.ȱ258Ȭ259.ȱ262Ȭ263ȱ
book ........................................................208Ȭ212ȱ ȱ
Byzantine.............................................25Ȭ26.ȱ28ȱ Daagonȱ=ȱBeitȱDagan.................................230ȱ
ȱ Dagesh...........................................................126ȱ
Ca’enaȱArra’ah.............................................233ȱ Damascius ....................................................197ȱ
Caa’eneeȱAaben ..........................................233ȱ Damascus................................................91.ȱ230ȱ
Caesariaȱcityȱandȱitsȱarea ..........................230ȱ Darius.......................................................64.ȱ250ȱ
Cairo ...............................................................230ȱ DariusȱtheȱIII................................................... 94ȱ
Caleb.................................................................95ȱ David.........................95.ȱ97Ȭ100.ȱ240.ȱ243Ȭ244ȱ
calendar .........................................................161ȱ Davidicȱkingship .......................................... 95ȱ
cancellationȱofȱdebts.....................................49ȱ DeadȱSeaȱScrolls................................76.ȱ91Ȭ92ȱ
Caracalla..........................................................26ȱ defectiveȱspelling........................................124ȱ
CarmelȱMountain.......................................230ȱ Delos................................................................. 17ȱ
CenterȱofȱtheȱLandȱofȱIsrael......................230ȱ DemetriusȱtheȱChronographer................. 92ȱ
CentralisationȱFormula.............................102ȱ demographicalȱchanges ...........................166ȱ
Chabibȱ=ȱUbab.............................................233ȱ demon.............................................................. 75ȱ
Chares.........................................................61.ȱ69ȱ denigration ..................................................... 98ȱ
Christianȱscholars........................................177ȱ denomination................................................ 12ȱ
Christianȱtheologians.................................177ȱ Denuftai.........................................................233ȱ
chronicles........................................................... 4ȱ deportation.............................................32.ȱ251ȱ
Chronicles,ȱbookȱofȱȱ..........................................ȱ deportees.......................................................254ȱ
.................................95Ȭ96.ȱ251Ȭ254.ȱ259Ȭ260ȱ derekhȱeretz..................................................184ȱ
Chuthaioi.........................................................94ȱ destructionȱofȱSamaria................................ 98ȱ
citiesȱofȱSamaria...........................................247ȱ destructionȱofȱtheȱSamaritanȱtemple....... 35ȱ
cityȱofȱSamaria................................................27ȱ destructionȱofȱtheȱtemples........................175ȱ
ClementȱofȱAlexandria................................92ȱ Deuteronomium.........................................118ȱ
coastȱstrip.......................................................230ȱ dialogue.........................................................184ȱ
coins..................................................... 28.ȱ33.ȱ46ȱ Diodorus ................................ 60Ȭ63.ȱ66.ȱ70.ȱ93ȱ
conversion.............................................169Ȭ171ȱ Dositheans...................................................... 84ȱ
Corinthianȱisthmus ......................................66ȱ Dositheus ........................................................ 84ȱ
covenant ..................................................91.ȱ244ȱ doveȱinȱMountȱGerizim............................165ȱ
crisis.............................................................46.ȱ48ȱ drought............................................................ 45ȱ
dualistic......................................................76.ȱ83ȱ Ezechiel,ȱtestimonyȱof.................................. 73ȱ

ȱ Ezekiel........................................................27.ȱ95ȱ
earlyȱChristianȱsources................................26ȱ Ezekielȱtheȱtragedian................................... 92ȱ
EasternȱsideȱofȱMountȱGerizimȱtoȱtheȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ezra...........................................................34.ȱ254ȱ
Jordan.........................................................230ȱ Ezra,ȱbookȱof........................250.ȱ257Ȭ258.ȱ262ȱ
Ebal.........................................106Ȭ108.ȱ112.ȱ117ȱ EzraȬNehemiah............................................. 95ȱ
Eden................................................................233ȱ ȱ
Edomite ...........................................................31ȱ fallȱofȱIsrael...................................................... 97ȱ
Edomites..........................................................34ȱ falseȱconversion.......................... 163.ȱ167Ȭ169ȱ
El‘azar...............................................................30ȱ falseȱprophet................................................... 75ȱ
El’uskeri.........................................................233ȱ Famaai............................................................233ȱ
Elazar......................................................163Ȭ164ȱ Feen/Fien,ȱMrs.ȱ/ȱMiss ...............................208ȱ
Elbazzini........................................................233ȱ Figmaa...........................................................233ȱ
Eldustan.........................................................233ȱ FlaviusȱJosephus.........................................194ȱ
Eldwik............................................................233ȱ food................................................................... 49ȱ
Eleazar..............................................................31ȱ Fooqa..............................................................233ȱ
Elephantine....................................................... 4ȱ fourȱchamberedȱgates.................................. 27ȱ
Elephantineȱpapyri.......................................53ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Elhariri............................................................233ȱ Gaddoon.......................................................233ȱ
Eli......................................................................... 6ȱ Gadite.............................................................251ȱ
Elijah .................................................................74ȱ Galgaal...........................................................233ȱ
Elisafanȱb.ȱ‘AzzillȱHaLlibem....................233ȱ Galilee.............................................................230ȱ
Elmaarrahibi.................................................233ȱ Gamaliel ........................................................263ȱ
Elnachas.........................................................233ȱ Gamaliel,ȱSamaritanȱelder........................242ȱ
Elsaafaawi.....................................................233ȱ Gaonicȱlegislation .......................................153ȱ
Ephraim.....................................................94.ȱ96ȱ Garaankaa.....................................................233ȱ
Ephraim,ȱtribe......................................240Ȭ241ȱ Garizim..................................................239Ȭ244ȱ
Epiphanius....................................................175ȱ gates.................................................................. 26ȱ
EretzȱYisra’el.................................................186ȱ Gaza....................................................62Ȭ65.ȱ230ȱ
Esarhaddon,ȱkingȱofȱAssyria.......... 250.ȱ262ȱ Genesis............................................................. 93ȱ
EsauȬJacobȱnarrative....................................96ȱ Geonicȱperiods ............................................176ȱ
Eshkol,ȱLevy.................................................244ȱ Geonicȱtimes.................................................178ȱ
Esther,ȱbookȱofȱ..............................................91ȱ Gerari..............................................................233ȱ
everyȱdayȱlife................................................184ȱ Gerizim......................................................80.ȱ82ȱ
exile ................................................253Ȭ254.ȱ263ȱ Gezer ................................................................ 27ȱ
exodus........................................................ 92Ȭ93ȱ Gibeon.............................................................. 98ȱ
Gilgal ................................................................98ȱ Herzeliah,ȱGimnasiya ...............................242ȱ

Giraa ...............................................................233ȱ Hexateuch.................................................35.ȱ99ȱ
Givatȱ‘Ada.....................................................230ȱ Hezekiah....................74Ȭ76.ȱ97.ȱ251.ȱ254Ȭ255ȱ
Gozan.............................................................249ȱ Hezekiah,ȱkingȱofȱJudah...........................240ȱ
Greek................................................................31ȱ HighȬPriest................................................61.ȱ70ȱ
Greekȱpottery.................................................28ȱ Hlqtȱhsdh......................................................206ȱ
ȱ Holonȱ(city).................................. 230.ȱ242Ȭ243ȱ
Ha’ufaani.......................................................234ȱ house ...........................................................47Ȭ49ȱ
Habor..............................................................249ȱ houseȱofȱDavid....................................252Ȭ253ȱ
Hadad ............................................................198ȱ houseȱofȱsacrifice........................................... 30ȱ
Hadrian..........................................................197ȱ hҚillĀpÎm.................................................130Ȭ131ȱ
Hakkerob ......................................................233ȱ ȱ
Halah..............................................................248ȱ idolatrous............................ 162.ȱ164.ȱ166.ȱ199ȱ
halakhicȱMidrash................................182Ȭ183ȱ idolworship..................................................164ȱ
HalakhotȱGedolot.......................................178ȱ idolȱworshipers ...........................................162ȱ
Hamath............................................................33ȱ Idumaea .......................................................... 48ȱ
Hammaanser...............................................234ȱ Ifrem ...............................................................234ȱ
Hammisri......................................................234ȱ Ikaaraa............................................................234ȱ
Hansheyya’em ............................................234ȱ Iliad ..............................................................63Ȭ64ȱ
Haqqaba........................................................234ȱ Ilkaneh ...........................................................234ȱ
HarȱGarizim .................................................187ȱ Inaa..................................................................234ȱ
Hashshaabor................................................234ȱ inscriptions ...................................15.ȱ28Ȭ31.ȱ33ȱ
Hashshabooraai..........................................234ȱ Iqbon...............................................................234ȱ
Hashshamesh..............................................234ȱ IronȱII................................................................ 27ȱ
Hashshami....................................................234ȱ Isaiah............................................... 73Ȭ76.ȱ78Ȭ84ȱ
haššem ...........................................................207ȱ Israel............................................................74.ȱ79ȱ
Hassuri...........................................................234ȱ Israel,ȱstate.............................................239Ȭ243ȱ
Hattenek........................................................234ȱ IsraeliȱBibleȱSociety.....................................243ȱ
Hattikwi.........................................................234ȱ Israeli,ȱstate....................................................244ȱ
Haver..............................................................151ȱ Israeliteȱdeportation...................................253ȱ
Hazor................................................................27ȱ Israeliteȱkingdom.....................................96Ȭ97ȱ
Hazzaaki........................................................234ȱ Israelites......................................................94Ȭ95ȱ
HecataeusȱofȱAbdera...................................93ȱ Itaamaar.........................................................234ȱ
Heliopolis........................................................35ȱ ȱ
Hellenistic............................................25Ȭ26.ȱ31ȱ Jacob.................................................................. 96ȱ
Hellenisticȱperiod(s).............28Ȭ29.ȱ31.ȱ34Ȭ35ȱ Jacobȱb.ȱAaron..............................................208ȱ
heretics ...................................................262Ȭ263ȱ Jaffa ................................................230.ȱ239.ȱ242ȱ
Jehoash............................................ 97.ȱ100Ȭ101ȱ kanÎsa .............................................................207ȱ

Jehu .....................................................96Ȭ97.ȱ100ȱ K¬rÎzÎm..........................................................207ȱ
Jericho......................................................... 67Ȭ70ȱ Karkaar..........................................................234ȱ
Jeroboam ............................ 96Ȭ97.ȱ99Ȭ100.ȱ262ȱ KˬtÎb........................................................124.ȱ130ȱ
Jerusalemȱ..ȱ34Ȭ35.ȱ59Ȭ61.ȱ63.ȱ65Ȭ66.ȱ68.ȱ70.ȱ KfarȱAwarta ................................................... 30ȱ
74.ȱ 76Ȭ77.ȱ 80.ȱ 82.ȱ 93Ȭ95.ȱ 98Ȭ99.ȱ 113.ȱ 116.ȱ kingȱofȱAssyria................... 248.ȱ249.ȱ261.ȱ262ȱ
175Ȭ176.ȱ187.ȱ240.ȱ242Ȭ244.ȱ249Ȭ250.ȱ252Ȭ kings .......................................................254.ȱ258ȱ
.....................................................253.ȱ261.ȱ264ȱ Kings,ȱbookȱof.............249.ȱ257Ȭ258.ȱ262Ȭ263ȱ
Jerusalem’sȱtemple.......................................34ȱ KingsȱandȱEzra,ȱbooksȱof..........................253ȱ
Jeshua .............................................................262ȱ kings,ȱbad........................................................ 97ȱ
Jesus ..................................................................83ȱ kings,ȱgood..................................................... 97ȱ
JewishȱAgency.............................................242ȱ kingsȱofȱAssyria...................................251.ȱ254ȱ
JewishȱChristians ........................................198ȱ kingsȱofȱIsrael................................................. 94ȱ
JewishȱGreatȱRevolt....................................194ȱ kit¬bȱalȬàrÎs..................................................207ȱ
JewishȱNationalism....................................103ȱ Klazomenai .................................................... 66ȱ
Jews....................................48Ȭ49.ȱ181.ȱ187Ȭ188ȱ Kleitarchos................................................61.ȱ69ȱ
John/JohannesȱHyrcanusȱ(I.) ........ 28.ȱ35.ȱ82ȱ Kollek,ȱTeddy,ȱMajorȱofȱJerusalem........242ȱ
JohnȱHyrcanusȱII...........................................76ȱ kosherȱslaughtering...................................152ȱ
Joseph...............................................................94ȱ KufarȱKallil ...................................................230ȱ
Joseph,ȱtribe ..................................................240ȱ KufarȱMaron................................................231ȱ
Josephus........... 3.ȱ32.ȱ34Ȭ35.ȱ60.ȱ70.ȱ82.ȱ93Ȭ95ȱ Kuntilletȱ‘Ajrud............................................. 33ȱ
Joshua...............................................................95ȱ Kuti ................................................176.ȱ180.ȱ183ȱ
Joshua,ȱbookȱof ............................. 95.ȱ243Ȭ244ȱ Kutim....................................176.ȱ180Ȭ183.ȱ185ȱ
Josiah....................................... 97.ȱ101.ȱ252.ȱ254ȱ Kyrene.............................................................. 65ȱ
Jubilees.............................................................91ȱ ȱ
Judaea.......................................................96.ȱ243ȱ LandȱofȱIsrael ..............................194.ȱ196.ȱ198ȱ
Judah...................33Ȭ34.ȱ48.ȱ73Ȭ75.ȱ79Ȭ81.ȱ250.ȱ lapidaryȱAramaic.......................................... 29ȱ
ȱ ............................................252Ȭ253.ȱ258.ȱ263ȱ LawȱofȱReturn............................. 256Ȭ257.ȱ260ȱ
Judah,ȱtribe...................................240Ȭ241.ȱ243ȱ legalȱformulations......................................... 46ȱ
Judahite(s).............................................249Ȭ252ȱ Leontopolis.................................................4.ȱ35ȱ
Judean ........................................................ 48Ȭ49ȱ Levi,ȱtestamentȱof........................................194ȱ
judges .........................................................95.ȱ98ȱ libationȱwine................................162.ȱ165.ȱ167ȱ
judgmentȱformula ........................................97ȱ Libi ..................................................................234ȱ
Judith................................................................91ȱ lionȱconverts................................ 169.ȱ262Ȭ263ȱ
Justinȱ(Martyr) ..............61Ȭ63.ȱ66.ȱ70.ȱ84.ȱ197ȱ Lionȱproselytes............................................248ȱ
Kallisthenes...............................................61.ȱ69ȱ liturgicalȱactivity......................... 149.ȱ151Ȭ152ȱ
loan....................................................................48ȱ MassekhetȱKutim......175.ȱ178Ȭ182.ȱ187Ȭ188ȱ
lowȱchronology .............................................27ȱ massoretischeȱText.....................................115ȱ
LuciferȱvonȱCagliari ...................................114ȱ Matan.............................................................231ȱ
Luzah................................................................26ȱ Mebaar...........................................................235ȱ
ȱ Medes............................................................... 94ȱ
Maa’or............................................................234ȱ Media .............................................................249ȱ
Maa’urta........................................................235ȱ MedinhҚ¬’¾......................................................130ȱ
Maab...............................................................234ȱ Megiddo.......................................................... 27ȱ
Maala..............................................................234ȱ Melah .............................................................235ȱ
Maalek............................................................234ȱ MercatischenȱFragmente..........................111ȱ
Maanaashe....................................................234ȱ Meshaȱstele..................................................... 33ȱ
Maanuh .........................................................234ȱ Mesopotamia................................................. 32ȱ
Maarhib .........................................................234ȱ Metaar............................................................235ȱ
Maashe...........................................................234ȱ Micaiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱImlah........................... 74ȱ
Maattaanaa...................................................235ȱ Midianiteȱtribes ............................................. 33ȱ
Maazen ..........................................................235ȱ midrash.........................................176.ȱ182.ȱ184ȱ
Macarb¬’¾.......................................................130ȱ Mimaaraa......................................................235ȱ
Magged..........................................................235ȱ Miqvaot ........................................................... 28ȱ
MaHmĀdȱBekȱÀbdȱalȬH¬dÎ...................206ȱ Mishna(h).............................124.ȱ181Ȭ184.ȱ196ȱ
Maimonides .................................................153ȱ Mitwayya=Ya’aish.....................................235ȱ
Manasseh.............................................................ȱ Moabite............................................................ 96ȱ
..............4.ȱ73Ȭ76.ȱ78.ȱ81Ȭ83.ȱ94.ȱ96.ȱ101.ȱ251ȱ Moones..........................................................235ȱ
Manasseh,ȱtribe....................................240Ȭ241ȱ Mootaai..........................................................235ȱ
Manetho .................................................... 92Ȭ93ȱ Moriah ...........................................................244ȱ
manners.........................................................184ȱ Mose(s)................................80Ȭ81.ȱ93.ȱ128.ȱ240ȱ
Maqru.............................................................235ȱ MountȱGarizim..................175Ȭ176.ȱ261.ȱ264ȱ
Mardanȱ=ȱMardah......................................231ȱ Mt.ȱGerizim.......................4.ȱ25Ȭ26.ȱ28.ȱ30.ȱ94ȱ
Marooth.........................................................235ȱ Munshy.........................................................235ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
MurahȬNuftah.............................................235ȱ
Marqa.............................................................177ȱ
Murashuȱarchive .......................................... 46ȱ
marriageȱprohibitions................................167ȱ
Muriyya.........................................................235ȱ
martyrdomȱofȱIsaiah.........................................ȱ
MĀsaȱBekȱĀq¬n.........................................206ȱ
.............................73Ȭ74.ȱ76.ȱ78Ȭ79.ȱ81Ȭ82.ȱ84ȱ
Musaf .............................................................235ȱ
MaryȱTheotokosȱchurch.............................26ȱ
ȱ
masorahȱ...............................123Ȭ125.ȱ127Ȭ130ȱ
Na’im..............................................................235ȱ
masorahȱparva.............................................126ȱ
Naaba.............................................................235ȱ
masoretic .........................................................35ȱ
Naaboonaa...................................................235ȱ
Naakon ..........................................................235ȱ ȱ
Naba ...............................................................231ȱ OlympicȱZeus..............................................197ȱ
Nablus...........................................231.ȱ241.ȱ255ȱ Omrides........................................................... 97ȱ
Nagdaa ..........................................................235ȱ Onesikritos................................................61.ȱ69ȱ
narrative...........................................................96ȱ onomastica...................................................... 14ȱ
narratives.........................................................98ȱ orality..............................................................124ȱ
Nashlaai.........................................................235ȱ Origen.............................................84.ȱ109.ȱ175ȱ
Neapolis.................................................197Ȭ198ȱ originȱofȱSamaritanism...................................2ȱ
Nearchos....................................................61.ȱ69ȱ originalȱIsraelites..............................................4ȱ
Nehemia(h)..................................4.ȱ34.ȱ91.ȱ115ȱ Osnapparȱ=ȱAssurȬbanipal ......................250ȱ
Nehemiah,ȱbookȱof................................. 55Ȭ57ȱ ostracon ........................................................... 48ȱ
Nehemiah’sȱmemoir.............................. 52Ȭ53ȱ ȱ
Nesaanna.......................................................235ȱ paleoȬHebrew................................................ 29ȱ
NetiraȱbarȱYehopadani ......................... 47Ȭ48ȱ Palestine.........................................................186ȱ
NewȱTestament.............................................83ȱ Palestinianȱdialectology............................212ȱ
Niftaali............................................................235ȱ PalestinianȱTalmud....................................187ȱ
Nob ...................................................................98ȱ Palmyrean....................................................... 31ȱ
nominaȱsacra...............................125Ȭ126.ȱ130ȱ Papponymy ..............................................54Ȭ55ȱ
NonȬJewsȱ.............................................................ȱ papyri..........................................................47Ȭ49ȱ
............ 149Ȭ151.ȱ154.ȱ156Ȭ165.167Ȭ170.ȱ180ȱ PapyrusȱGiessenȱ19...........107Ȭ108.ȱ112.ȱ119ȱ
Noonaa ..........................................................235ȱ Parmenion...................................................... 68ȱ
North..............................................74Ȭ75.ȱ78.ȱ80ȱ Passoverȱsacrifice........................................240ȱ
Lebaneseȱborderȱ.........................................231ȱ patronymic..................................................... 48ȱ
NorthȱSamariaȱregion................................231ȱ Pausanias ........................................................ 66ȱ
northernȱinhabitants ......................... 254.ȱ258ȱ Pentateuch..... 95.ȱ99.ȱ184.ȱ186.ȱ244Ȭ245.ȱ261ȱ
northernȱIsrael............248.ȱ253Ȭ254.ȱ258.ȱ262ȱ Pentateuchalȱlaws.......................................181ȱ
northernȱIsraeliteȱkingdom......................251ȱ peopleȱofȱSamaria.......................................248ȱ
northernȱIsraelites.......................................254ȱ Persian.....................25.ȱ30Ȭ31.ȱ35.ȱ96.ȱ249Ȭ250ȱ
northernȱkingdom...................5.ȱ74.ȱ251.ȱ258ȱ Persianȱgovernors......................................... 33ȱ
northernȱkingdomȱofȱIsrael......................262ȱ Persianȱperiod.............................. 26Ȭ28.ȱ31Ȭ35ȱ
northernȱpeople...........................................254ȱ Persians............................................................ 94ȱ
northernȱpopulation .................250.ȱ254Ȭ255ȱ pesher.........................................................76.ȱ78ȱ
northernȱtribes .............................................251ȱ Pharisees.......................................................... 82ȱ
northernȱYahwism......................................... 8ȱ Philo.................................................................. 92ȱ
northerners .......................................... 249.ȱ258ȱ PhinassȱHarrabbanem..............................235ȱ
northȬsouthȱcompetition.............................98ȱ Phylacteries..................................................... 33ȱ
Pinchas.............................................................30ȱ QariaatȱKuza................................................231ȱ
Pinhas...............................................................31ȱ QariaatȱLuza.................................................231ȱ
Pisq¬ȱbeȬæmsҚacȱp¬sĀq................................128ȱ QariaatȱMahnee ..........................................231ȱ
pleneȱspelling...............................................124ȱ Qˬr¾ ........................................................124.ȱ130ȱ
PlinyȱtheȱElder ...............................................67ȱ Qidma............................................................236ȱ
Plutarch..........................................60Ȭ64.ȱ66.ȱ70ȱ qilqul...............................................................161ȱ
Polykleitos.......................................................61ȱ Qinaa..............................................................236ȱ
PompeiusȱTrogus .........................................61ȱ QoheletȱRabba.............................................184ȱ
PopulationȱChanges ..................................103ȱ Qoomis ..........................................................236ȱ
preȬSamaritan ..........................................14.ȱ75ȱ Quinta....................................................111Ȭ112ȱ
prices.................................................................47ȱ Qumran............................. 76.ȱ78.ȱ82.ȱ105.ȱ126ȱ
priestȱJeshua .................................................250ȱ ȱ
priests..................................................... 128.ȱ149ȱ R.ȱAbbahu....................................167.ȱ195.ȱ198ȱ
proȬJerusalemȱargumentation ..................95ȱ R.ȱAha.............................................................196ȱ
promisedȱLand..............................................95ȱ R.ȱAkiva.........................................................168ȱ
prophet(s)................................73Ȭ76.ȱ78Ȭ83.ȱ95ȱ R.ȱAmi....................................................164Ȭ165ȱ
prophetic .........................................................78ȱ R.ȱAsher.........................................................153ȱ
proȬSamaritan.............................256.ȱ258.ȱ260ȱ R.ȱAssi.....................................................164Ȭ165ȱ
proselytes ......................................................181ȱ R.ȱElazar.........................................................168ȱ
protoȬJewishȱscript .......................................29ȱ R.ȱElazarȱb.ȱShimon....................................167ȱ
protoȬmassoretischeȱKorrektur..... 105.ȱ113ȱ R.ȱEliezer........................................................168ȱ
protoȬmassoretischerȱText........................116ȱ R.ȱGamliel......................................................162ȱ
Ptolemaic.........................................................32ȱ R.ȱHiyya.........................................................164ȱ
Ptolemy............................................... 61.ȱ69.ȱ92ȱ R.ȱJohanan.....................................................197ȱ
PtolemyȱII.ȱPhiladelphus............................92ȱ R.ȱMeir/ȱMe’ir.....163Ȭ164.ȱ167.ȱ183Ȭ184.ȱ187ȱ
publicȱbuilding ..............................................47ȱ R.ȱShimon/ȱSimeonȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
punctuation.................................125.ȱ127Ȭ130ȱ ȱb.ȱGamliel/Gamaliel..............ȱ154.ȱ156.ȱ196ȱ
ȱ R.ȱYishmael...................................................168ȱ
Qaahlaa..........................................................235ȱ R.ȱYohanan...................................................168ȱ
Qaaiaatin .......................................................235ȱ Raabaaqaai....................................................236ȱ
Qaakaai..........................................................236ȱ Raamah..........................................................236ȱ
Qaakoolaai....................................................236ȱ RabbiȱShimónȱbenȱEleázar....................182ȱ
Qabbaasaa.....................................................236ȱ RabbiȱYonatanȱofȱBetȱGuvrinȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Qariaatȱ‘Assfeh............................................231ȱ (Eleutheropolis).......................................184ȱ
QariaatȱGiyya...............................................231ȱ Rabbinicȱliterature.............177.ȱ179Ȭ182.ȱ184ȱ
QariaatȱHassarin.........................................231ȱ rabbi(s) ..................................................................ȱ
QariaatȱIraataa .............................................231ȱ ȱ....16.ȱ156Ȭ158.ȱ162.ȱ171.ȱ177.ȱ182.ȱ185Ȭ188ȱ
Rafe .................................................................126ȱ Samaria..........74.ȱ76Ȭ78.ȱ80Ȭ82.ȱ93Ȭ94.ȱ96.ȱ98.ȱ

Ramleh...........................................................231ȱ 193.ȱ195.ȱ199.ȱ241.ȱ243.ȱ248Ȭ249.ȱ253.ȱ258.ȱȱ
Rava...............................................151Ȭ152.ȱ163ȱ .............................................................261Ȭȱ263ȱ
reform.......................................................98.ȱ252ȱ SamariaȱOstraca............................................ 33ȱ
regionȱofȱSamaria..........................................32ȱ Samarian(s)ȱ/ȱSamaritan(s)ȱ.....26.ȱ29.ȱ31Ȭ32.ȱ
Rehoboam.......................................................96ȱ ȱ..............74Ȭ75.ȱ77Ȭ78.ȱ80.ȱȱ83Ȭ85.ȱ93Ȭ95.ȱ98.ȱ
resurrection..........................175Ȭ178.ȱ181Ȭ188ȱ ȱ..................175Ȭ178.ȱ180Ȭ188.ȱ247Ȭ248.ȱ250.ȱ
returnȱtoȱZion...............................................263ȱ ȱ.................................................... 252.ȱ254Ȭ264ȱ
returnedȱexiles .............................................250ȱ SamaritanȱChronicles............................26.ȱ92ȱ
returnees........................................................262ȱ Samaritanȱeschatology..............................175ȱ
returneesȱtoȱZion.........................................262ȱ SamaritanȱHebrew....................................... 29ȱ
returningȱexiles............................................250ȱ SamaritanȱInscriptions..............................103ȱ
Reuben...........................................................251ȱ SamaritanȱJews............................................256ȱ
Romanȱlaw....................................................194ȱ SamaritanȱNeoȬHebrew...........................206ȱ
Romanȱtemple......................................... 25Ȭ26ȱ Samaritanȱorigins.......................................... 94ȱ
Roman(s)........................................25.ȱ194.ȱ197ȱ SamaritanȱPentateuch...........................3.ȱ211ȱ
Roomem........................................................236ȱ Samaritanȱrejectionȱofȱresurrection .......187ȱ
RoshȱHanikra...............................................231ȱ Samaritanȱsettlements................................. 25ȱ
ȱ Samaritanȱtemple ...................................29.ȱ35ȱ
Sa’id.................................................................236ȱ Samaritanȱtradition....................................248ȱ
Saa’edaa.........................................................236ȱ samaritanischerȱPentateuch ............105.ȱ117ȱ
Saabaa.............................................................236ȱ samaritanischeȱtheologischeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
Saabaal ...........................................................236ȱ Korrekturen............................................118ȱ
Saarfaataai.....................................................236ȱ samaritanischerȱPentateuch ............107Ȭ108ȱ
sacredȱprecinct...............................................29ȱ Samaritans,ȱcf.ȱSamarian(s)ȱȱ
sacrifices...........................................................28ȱ Samaritans’ȱtradition.................................248ȱ
Sadducean.....................................................178ȱ Samaritanus .................................................186ȱ
Sadduceanȱsect............................................188ȱ Samerina.......................................................... 94ȱ
Sadduceans...................................................188ȱ Sammookaai................................................236ȱ
Sadducees .......................................................82ȱ SamuelȬ2ȱKings............................................. 95ȱ
Sahla................................................................236ȱ Sanballat.............................4.ȱ33.ȱ49.ȱ51Ȭ57.ȱ94ȱ
Sal¬maȱalȬK¬hin..........................................206ȱ Sargon......................................................32.ȱ253ȱ
Sal¬maȱb.ȱadaqa........................................205ȱ Satan................................................................. 76ȱ
Samareis...........................................................93ȱ Saul................................................95.ȱ97.ȱ99Ȭ100ȱ
Samareitai........................................................94ȱ Schism.............................................................. 37ȱ
Samareitikon......105.ȱ108Ȭ109.ȱ111Ȭ112.ȱ119ȱ scriptioȱdefectiva.........................................125ȱ
scriptioȱplena................................................125ȱ icȱShelaH.......................................................207ȱ
s bÎrÎn......................................................130Ȭ131ȱ
e
sixȱchamberedȱgates..................................... 27ȱ
Sect....................................................................... 1ȱ slaughtering .........................................163Ȭ166ȱ
Seir.....................................................................93ȱ slaughtering,ȱkosher..................................152ȱ
Seleucid............................................................32ȱ slaveȱgirl........................................................... 48ȱ
Senaccherib/ȱSennacherib.....................32.ȱ92ȱ slaveȱtrade....................................................... 47ȱ
SepherȱHayamim ................................... 80Ȭ81ȱ slaves ..................................................47Ȭ48.ȱ181ȱ
Septuagint/Septuaginta ...................................ȱ tractates,ȱsmaller..........................................179ȱ
................92.ȱ94.ȱ106Ȭ107.ȱ109Ȭ114.ȱ116Ȭ119ȱ Soorek.............................................................237ȱ
Septuaginta,ȱursprüngliche ............................ȱ sçpȱp¬sĀq......................................................127ȱ
............................................108.ȱȱ115Ȭ116.ȱ118ȱ southernȱCoast.............................................231ȱ
Shaafaat..........................................................236ȱ southernȱYahwism..........................................8ȱ
Shaalah...........................................................236ȱ sovereignty..................................................... 98ȱ
Shaalem .........................................................236ȱ spelling...........................................................124ȱ
Shaamaah......................................................236ȱ Symmachus................................. 111Ȭ112.ȱ186ȱ
Shalmanezer...................................................94ȱ syncretism....................................197.ȱ249.ȱ262ȱ
Shammesh....................................................236ȱ syncretisticȱreligion.....................................258ȱ
Shamtimma..................................................236ȱ Syria.................................................................. 32ȱ
Shazar,ȱZalman............................................244ȱ ȱ
Shechem .....................................................3.ȱ28.ȱȱ Talfayya.........................................................237ȱ
30.ȱ32.ȱ35.ȱ77.ȱ82.ȱ94.ȱ98.ȱ242.ȱ245.ȱ257.ȱ263ȱ Talmud..................................................176.ȱ179ȱ
Shechemȱ=ȱNablusȱ....................239Ȭ242.ȱ244ȱ TalmudȱBavli ...............................................179ȱ
Shechemites....................................................94ȱ TalmudȱYerushalmi ..................................187ȱ
Shem.................................................................30ȱ Tanak................................................................ 91ȱ
Shema...............................................................30ȱ Tannaim........................................................196ȱ
Shiloh......................................................6.ȱ26.ȱ98ȱ taxes.................................................................. 49ȱ
Shimtaai.........................................................236ȱ tehiyyatȱhaȬmetim,ȱtheȱresurrectionȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Shomronim.....................................................94ȱ ofȱtheȱdead ................................................188ȱ
Shootaalah.....................................................236ȱ TelȱAviv.................................................241.ȱ244ȱ
Sichem............................................................117ȱ TellȱerȬRas................................................25.ȱ197ȱ
Sidonians.........................................................94ȱ temple .........................4.ȱ26Ȭ30.ȱ45.ȱ94Ȭ95.ȱ149ȱ
sifre......................................................... 183.ȱ186ȱ templeȱcity.................................................34.ȱ94ȱ
sifreȱBamidbar..................................... 182.ȱ185ȱ tenȱtribesȱofȱȱIsrael......................................... 94ȱ
Sigyaanaa......................................................236ȱ terminology.......................................................3ȱ
sillĀq................................................................127ȱ terumah........................................150.ȱ156.ȱ158ȱ
SimonȱMagus.................................................84ȱ testament/Testament.........................209.ȱ211ȱ
Sinai........................................................ 240.ȱ244ȱ
testamentȱofȱLevi.........................................194ȱ WadiȱDaliah................................................... 59ȱ

testimonyȱofȱEzechiel...................................73ȱ WadiȱDaliyeh....................................................3ȱ
Tetragrammaton...................................30.ȱ126ȱ WadiȱDaliyehȱII............................................. 37ȱ
textȱofȱKings..................................................258ȱ WadiȱelȬDaliyehȱpapyri.............................. 31ȱ
textusȱmasoreticus......................................186ȱ wak¬la............................................................215ȱ
Theodotion ..................................111Ȭ112.ȱ119ȱ Weisgal,ȱMeir...............................................242ȱ
Theodotus.......................................................92ȱ WeizmanȱFoundation...............................242ȱ
theologischeȱKorrektur.................... 116.ȱ118ȱ worldȱtoȱcome..............................................182ȱ
theophoric.......................................................33ȱ ȱ
Theophrastos/Theophrast..............69Ȭ70.ȱ93ȱ Yaakovȱb.ȱAharon,ȱSamaritanȱHighȱPriestȱ
TibatȱMarqe(h).......................................30.ȱ243ȱ ..............................................................239Ȭ240ȱ
TilgathȬpileser..............................................251ȱ Yaatraanaa....................................................237ȱ
tithing ............................151.ȱ157Ȭ158.ȱ161Ȭ162ȱ YadȱBenȬZvi .................................................205ȱ
Tobit..................................................................91ȱ Yahvistȱcult..................................................... 94ȱ
Toobayya.......................................................237ȱ YahwehȬelȬ‘Eljon .......................................... 35ȱ
Tootaai............................................................237ȱ Yahwism......................................................... 33ȱ
tora(h)...123Ȭ125.ȱ128Ȭ130.ȱ184Ȭ186.ȱ263Ȭ264ȱ Yahwistȱcult.................................................... 97ȱ
tosefta..................................................... 179.ȱ181ȱ Yahwisticȱcultȱplace ..................................... 33ȱ
tractateȱCuthim/Kutim..............................264ȱ Yavneh...................................................195.ȱ198ȱ
tractates,ȱsmaller..........................................179ȱ Ye’usha ..........................................................237ȱ
tradition,ȱcommon........................................99ȱ Yehopadani.................................................... 48ȱ
tribeȱofȱJudah................................................256ȱ Yerushalmi.........154Ȭ161.ȱ163Ȭ169.ȱ179.ȱ188ȱ
Tsedaka,ȱYefet,ȱSamaritanȱelder.............242ȱ yeshivot .........................................................186ȱ
Tulidah.......................................................30.ȱ37ȱ Yhwh................................................................ 70ȱ
TuraȱTuba........................................................30ȱ YitshakȱbenȱZvi ...........................................210ȱ
twoȬwayȱdeportations...............................248ȱ Yitzhakȱb.ȱYosi.............................................165ȱ
ȱ ȱ
UmȬTut..........................................................231ȱ Zaabaad.........................................................237ȱ
unfaithfulness ................................................96ȱ Zaahbaa.........................................................237ȱ
unitedȱmonarchy..........................................37ȱ ZaahrȱRabba.................................................237ȱ
Verhaftig,ȱZerah..........................................244ȱ Zaaraad..........................................................237ȱ
VetusȱLatina.................106Ȭ108.ȱ110Ȭ112.ȱ114ȱ Zaarod............................................................237ȱ
vineyard...........................................................47ȱ Zedekiah,ȱtheȱsonȱofȱChanaanah.......74.ȱ78ȱ
vineyards.........................................................49ȱ Zerubbabel ...........................................250.ȱ262ȱ
vocalisation/vocalization.........125.ȱ129.ȱ210ȱ ZeusȱHypsistos............................................197ȱ
ȱ ȱ
Zimmun ...............................149Ȭ154.ȱ158Ȭ159ȱ ZionistȱFederation ......................................243ȱ

Zionȱtheology.................................................80ȱ Zor...................................................................231
ȱ

Samaritans - Past and Present, Eds. Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Samaritans - Past and Present, Eds. Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer

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

Samaritans - Past and Present, Eds. Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samaritans: Past and Present

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Samaritans: Past and present : current studies / edited by Menachem Mor

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

southȱ competitionȱ inȱ aȱ preȬexilicȱ dividedȱ Israel,ȱ mirroredȱ againstȱ theȱ

IndexȱofȱCitations ....................................................................................... 267ȱ

IndexȱofȱAuthors ........................................................................................ 273ȱ

Todayȱ Samaritansȱ considerȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ areȱ consideredȱ byȱ others,ȱ

1 MONTGOMERY,ȱ Samaritans,ȱ 27.ȱ Onȱ 45,ȱ MONTGOMERYȱ summarizesȱ hisȱ discussionȱ

enumeratedȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper,ȱ Cohen,ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ

specificallyȱ northernȱ elementsȱ inȱ Samaritanismȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ

KIPPENBERG,ȱ Hansȱ Gerhard,ȱ Garizimȱ undȱ Synagoge.ȱ Traditionsgeschichtlicheȱ

andȱ continuousȱ warsȱ andȱ attacksȱ duringȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period18ȱ

pearance,ȱ replacement,ȱ sectarianȱ behaviourȱ andȱ removal,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ

hadȱ beenȱ completelyȱ annulled,ȱ whenȱ ‘theȱ Babyloniansȱ completedȱ theȱ

Afterȱ aȱ lacunaȱ ofȱ decadesȱ weȱ readȱ aboutȱ aȱ majorȱ socioȬeconomicȱ

describedȱ inȱ Nehemiah’sȱ memoirȱ asȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ ofȱ Nehemiah.ȱ

Theȱ sameȱ sentimentȱ isȱ prevalentȱ alsoȱ inȱ postȬWWIIȱ scholarship.ȱ

Alexander’sȱ nameȱ isȱ merelyȱ aȱ chronologicalȱ marker,ȱ whichȱ cannotȱ beȱ

38ȱȱ Theȱ terminusȱanteȱquemȱ shouldȱbeȱc.314,ȱtheȱpublicationȱdateȱofȱTheophrastos’ȱwork.ȱ

26ȱȱ Cf.ȱbSanhȱ103b;ȱbYebȱ49b;ȱySanhȱ10,2ȱ28c;ȱseeȱalsoȱPesiktaȱRabbatiȱ4,3.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱ VANȱ

viewedȱ theȱ SamaritanȱsectarianȱleaderȱDositheusȱ whoȱ claimedȱ heȱ wasȱ

2ȱyearsȱȱ Ahaziahȱ sonȱofȱAhabȱ1Kgsȱ22,52Ȭ2Kgsȱ1,18ȱ

1ȱyearȱ ȱ Ahaziahȱ Ȭȱ marriedȱ intoȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ

ȱ„...ȱ deniqueȱ ponimusȱ famosissimamȱ illamȱ textusȱ hebraeiȱ adulterationem,ȱ

Alsȱ Ergebnisȱ seiȱ festgehalten,ȱ dassȱ dieȱ Lesartȱ desȱ samaritanischenȱ

Garizi,n.ȱ Sieȱ transliteriertȱ dieseȱ Wendungȱ nirgends,ȱ wederȱ inȱ einem,ȱ

Argumenteȱ wiegenȱ gleichȱ schwer,ȱ undȱ keinesȱ istȱ wahrscheinlicherȱ alsȱ

Inȱ Zusammenfassungȱ kannȱ Folgendesȱ inȱ chronologischerȱ Anordnungȱ

Moreover,ȱ theȱ Tetragrammatonȱ ʤʥʤʩȱ isȱ regularlyȱ readȱ š¾ma,ȱ attestingȱ

Oneȱ fieldȱ ofȱMasoreticȱactivityȱ wasȱ theȱ subdivisionȱofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ textȱ

toȱcomeȱupȱtoȱtheȱLord,ȱ ʤʥʤʩ ʬʠ ʺʥʬʲʬ

ƺ Concurringȱ traditionsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ vocalisationȱ ofȱ certainȱ

:ʤʸʥʺʡ ʺʹʬʥʹʮʤ ʤʫʸʡʤȱ

Althoughȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ Pentateuchȱ andȱ postȬbiblicalȱ

chapterȱ withȱ theȱ appropriateȱ pronominalȱ suffix,ȱ e.g.ȱ ʤʩʰʱʸʥʴ,ȱ ʤʰʱʸʥʴ.ȱ

Verses Levȱ5,15ȱ Levȱ27,2ȱ Levȱ27,3 Levȱ27,23ȱ

J ʳʱʫ ʭʠʩʹʡ ʭʠʩʹʡ ʤʸʫʣ ʭʠʩʹ ʯʠʩʰʮ

AbĀSa‘Îd ϦϴϟΎϘΜϣ ΔϤϴϘΑ αϮϔϧ ϢϳϮϘΘΑ ή˴ϛάϟ΍ ϢϳϮϘΗ ϢϳϮϘΘϟ΍ ρΎδϗ΍

J ʥʮʩʬʺʡ ʯʩʩʰʩʲʸʥ ʥʮʩʬʺʡ ʯʩʩʰʩʲʸʥ

N ʥʧʠʡ ʯʩʩʰʲʩʸʡ ----

A ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ

B ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ ʯʩʺʠ ʯʩʲʸʥ

Arabicȱtranslations ρή˵Ϙϟ΍ ϲϓ ρή˵Ϙϟ΍ ϲϓ

translationȱ hasȱ beenȱ influencedȱ byȱ Sa‘adiahȱ Gaon’sȱ tafsir.ȱ However,ȱ

anonymousȱ voiceȱ organizingȱ theȱ discussion?ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ

identity,ȱ asȱ legislationȱ regardingȱ theȱ conversionȱ procedure,ȱ whereȱ weȱ

20ȱȱ Anotherȱconsiderationȱisȱtheȱinclusiveȱ natureȱofȱ Mishnaicȱstatements.ȱIfȱoneȱwouldȱ

challengedȱ byȱ another,ȱ equallyȱ authoritative,ȱ tanaiticȱ view.ȱ Similarȱ

Massekhetȱ Kutimȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ “shevaȱ massekhtotȱ qetanotȱ

44ȱȱ BILLERBECKȱ/ȱ STRACK,ȱKommentar,ȱ551,ȱtranslatesȱ“ausȱeinemȱVorgangȱdesȱgewöhnȬ

Letȱ meȱ concludeȱ theseȱ necessarilyȱ incompleteȱ observationsȱ onȱ theȱ

AVERYȬPECK,ȱ Alanȱ J.ȱ /ȱ NEUSNER,ȱ Jacobȱ (eds.),ȱ Death,ȱ LifeȬAfterȬDeath,ȱ ResurȬ

BERMANN,ȱ Mortonȱ Mayer,ȱ Taglicht,ȱ in:ȱ Encyclopediaȱ Judaicaȱ 15,ȱ Jerusalemȱ

GULKOWITSCH,ȱ Lazar,ȱ Derȱ kleineȱ Talmudtraktatȱ überȱ dieȱ Samaritaner,ȱ in:ȱ

Relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Jewsȱ andȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ steadilyȱ worsened,ȱ

peopleȱ thatȱ liveȱ inȱ Shechem.“3ȱ Anotherȱ apocryphalȱ composition,ȱ Theȱ