religions

Article
Theories of the Origin of the Samaritans—Then
and Now
Magnar Kartveit
School of Mission and Theology, VID Specialized University, 4024 Stavanger, Norway; magnar.kartveit@lyse.net




Received: 17 October 2019; Accepted: 25 November 2019; Published: 4 December 2019


Abstract: The article describes the different models for understanding the origin of the Samaritans:
the Samaritans’ own view; Flavius Josephus’ two stories; a model based upon the results of the
excavations of the cities of Samaria and Shechem, plus information from ancient authors; new insights
from the Dead Sea Scrolls; and models based on the results of the Mount Gerizim excavations; and the
Delos inscriptions. Each of these models has its modern followers in scholarship, and their various
adherents are named. A last part of the article is devoted to the state of the question of the origin
of the Samaritans. The presentation is organized according to the sources because the material at
hand has produced different solutions to the pertinent questions. Through quoting the texts and
presenting the results of the excavations, the author gives the reader an opportunity to form her or
his own opinions, both on the different theories and on the origin of the Samaritans.

Keywords: Samaritans; Samaritan origin; Mount Gerizim; Delos; Samaria; Shechem; Josephus; Dead
Sea Scrolls; parable of The Good Samaritan

1. Introduction
A search on the internet for “Samaritans” will lead to an organization in Great Britain and
Ireland—a 24/7 telephone service for people in distress—notably those with suicidal tendencies.
A different search, this time for “Samaritan’s Purse” will direct us to a U.S. relief organization providing
food, medicare etc. in situations of need around the world. A third search will result in information on
a religious group living in Israel and the West Bank today: the Samaritans. What is the connection
between these three entities?
The Samaritans in Israel and the West Bank trace their history to biblical times, to the beginning of
the people of Israel. Bible readers will be familiar with the parable of the “good Samaritan” in Luke
10:25–37, where Jesus tells of the stranger from northern Israel who provided medical and financial
support to a traveler from Jerusalem who had fallen victim to robbers. Jesus’ parable portrays a person
from the Samaritan community as the model of a “neighbour”, in contradistinction to the standard
Jewish definition of a “neighbour”. The latter definition built on the understanding of fellowship
inside the religious community; Jesus brings in a person from outside that community to perform
the duties of a “neighbour”. This parable has provided the name to the two modern organizations,
one specializing in telephone support for the existentially challenged, the other catering to physical
and spiritual needs on a global basis. The parable also has given the name to numerous other charities,
hospitals, welfare systems and more, around the globe. Its success has been formidable.
The New Testament mentions the Samaritans in other texts as well, notably in the narrative of
Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well in John 4. They have a theological discussion,
particularly about the correct place of worship, Jerusalem or “this mountain”, which evidently is
Mount Gerizim just above the valley with Jacob’s well. Luke also tells about the thankful Samaritan
whom Jesus healed from skin disease and who returned to thank him for the healing, Luke 17:11–19.

Religions 2019, 10, 661; doi:10.3390/rel10120661 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2018,
Religions 9, x10,
2019, FOR661PEER REVIEW 2 of 214
of 14

whom Jesus healed from skin disease and who returned to thank him for the healing, Luke 17:11–19.
ActsActs8:4–258:4–25find findthe theapostles
apostles Philip, Peter Peterand andJohn John preaching
preaching thethe gospel
gospel and and healinghealing
people people in
in Samaria.
Samaria.
This mission This mission
is just as is just as successful
successful as that as of that
JesusofinJesus
Johnin4.John 4.
However,However, therethere areare alsoalsodissonances
dissonances in inthisthis
symphony
symphony of ofgoodgood Samaritans
Samaritans andand Christians.
Christians.
Described
Described in inActsActs8, a8, certain
a certain Simon
Simon wants
wantstotobuy buythe thegift
giftofofthetheHoly
HolySpirit,
Spirit,aawish wish fiercely
fiercely rejected by
by Peter.
Peter.Discussed
Discussedininlater laterChurch
Church texts,
texts, SimonSimon became
became the the originator
originator of allofgnostic
all gnostic
and other and other
heresies
heresies
(for early (for Christian
early Christian texts ontexts on the Samaritans
the Samaritans see (Pummer see (Pummer
2002)). When 2002)).JesusWhen sends Jesus thesends
disciples the to
disciples
exorcise to evil
exorcise
spirits evilandspirits
heal and heal diseases,
diseases, he emphatically
he emphatically tells them tells
notthem
to enternot to enteror
gentile gentile or
Samaritan
Samaritan
villages,villages,cf. Matthew cf. Matthew
10:5. Jews 10:5.call
JewsJesus
call Jesus a “Samaritan
a “Samaritan and having
and having a demon”a demon” in John in John8:48.8:48.
Luke
Luke mentions
mentions an incident
an incident where whereJesusJesus
and hisanddisciples
his disciples were denied
were denied lodgings lodgings
on the way on the way to
to Jerusalem,
Jerusalem,
9:51–56. 9:51–56. This diverse This situation
diverse situation
has beenhas been understood
understood to mean that to mean that the
the milieu of milieu
Matthew of Matthew
was against
was theagainst
Samaritans, the Samaritans,
John’s community John’s community
was positive,was andpositive,
Luke plus andActsLukehadplus Acts had
a balanced a balanced
approach to them.
approach
We notetothat them.theWe New note that the simply
Testament New Testament
refers to the simply refers toand
Samaritans, thetheir
Samaritans,
origin was andnot their
theorigin
concern
was ofnot
those theauthors.
concern of those authors.
One One would,
would, logically,
logically, turn
turn totothe
theHebrew
HebrewBible/Old
Bible/OldTestament
Testament for for answers on this this question,
question,and andthe
theonly
onlyplace placewherewherethe theword
word“Samaritans”
“Samaritans”occurs, occurs,is is 22 Kings 17:29. “Samaritans” was was the the translation
translation of
of ‫( הַ שֹּׁ ְמרֹ נִ ים‬hashshomronim)
(hashshomronim) from from KingKing James
James Version
Version (KJV)(KJV) on, on, butbut inin more
more recent
recent translations,
translations, as as in
in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the rendering
the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the rendering is “people of Samaria”. This change in is “people of Samaria”. This change in
translation
translation reflects
reflects thethetendency
tendency to find
to findthetheinhabitants
inhabitants of the
of the area behind
area behind thethe Hebrew
Hebrew word,word,notnot thethe
Samaritans
Samaritans of the
of theNew New Testament
Testament or ortoday’s
today’s group.
group. TheThechange
change also is due
also is due to scholars’
to scholars’ suggestions
suggestions
thatthat
it isit necessary to distinguish between the religious group of the
is necessary to distinguish between the religious group of the Samaritans and the inhabitants of Samaritans and the inhabitants
of the
the area
area Samaria.
Samaria.
Hence, Hence, whenwhen diddid thethe Samaritans
Samaritansoriginate?
originate?When Whencan canwe wespeakspeakof ofsuch
such aa group?
group? The The research
research on
on this
this question
questionhas hasbeenbeenreviewed
reviewedbybyReinhard Reinhard Pummer, James Purvis, Ferdinand
Pummer, James Purvis, Ferdinand Dexinger, Ingrid Dexinger, Ingrid
Hjelm,
Hjelm, and Magnar
and Magnar KartveitKartveit
(Pummer (Pummer 1976,1976,
1977,1977,
1992,1992,
2016;2016;
Purvis Purvis
1986; 1986;
DexingerDexinger1992; 1992;
HjelmHjelm 2000;
2000; Kartveit
Kartveit
2009). 2009). Additionally,
Additionally, most scholarly
most scholarly contributions
contributions contain acontain
chapter awith chapter
research withhistory.
research Thehistory.
overview
Thein overview in the following is organized according to the
the following is organized according to the relevant literary, epigraphic, and archaeological material.relevant literary, epigraphic, and
archaeological
The aim of this material.
paperThe is toaim of this
review paper ison
opinions tothe
review opinions
question of the onorigin
the question of the originnot
of the Samaritans, of to
thediscuss
Samaritans, not to discuss the origin of the Samaritans. The
the origin of the Samaritans. The latter topic would require a different approach. latter topic would require a different
approach.
2. The Samaritan Version
2. The Samaritan Version
The intuitive approach would be to ask the Samaritans themselves about their origin. They have
The intuitive
a story about this, approach
so why would
not startbe tothere?
ask the SuchSamaritans themselves
is the answer in TheaboutKitabtheir origin.by
al-Tarikh TheyAbu’lhave Fath
a story
fromabout 1355: this, so why not start there? Such is the answer in The Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu’l Fath
from 1355: A terrible civil war broke out between Eli son of Yafnı̄, of the line of Ithamar, and the sons of
A terrible
Phinehas, civil war
because Eli broke
son ofout between
Yafnı̄ resolved Eli toson of Yafnī,
usurp the Highof thePriesthood
line of Ithamar, from the anddescendants
the sons of of
Phinehas,
Phinehas. because
He used Eli to
son of Yafnī
offer sacrificeresolved
on the to usurp
altar the High
of stones. He was Priesthood
50 yearsfrom old, the
endowed descendants
with wealthof
Phinehas.
and in charge He used to offer
of the treasurysacrifice
of theon the altar
children ofof stones.
Israel. HeHe was 50 years
continued old, gathering
for a time endowed awith group wealth
around
andhimin charge
to whom of hethesaid,
treasury
“I amofone thetochildren
whom itofisIsrael.
anathema He continued
to serve a for a time
child. I dogathering
not wish (to a group
do) this
around
myself, him andto Iwhom
hope that he said,you “I willamnotone to whom
consent it isThey
to it.” anathema
answered to serve a child.and
as a group I do not “We
said, wishare (toatdo)your
thiscommand,
myself, and and I hope
underthat your you will not consent
obedience: order ustoasit.” youThey
see answered
fit, and weaswill a group and said,Accordingly,
not disobey.” “We are
at your
he made command,
them swear and thatunder theyyour would obedience:
follow him order
in allushis
as purposes.
you see fit, Heandoffered we awill not disobey.”
sacrifice on the altar,
Accordingly,
but withouthe made
salt, as if them
he were swear that they
inattentive. would
When the follow
Great High him Priest
in all Ozzi
his purposes.
learned ofHe this,offered
and found a
sacrifice
that the onsacrifice
the altar, was butnotwithout
accepted, salt,heas if he weredisowned
thoroughly inattentive. him;When
and itthe Great said
is (even) Highthat Priest Ozzi
he rebuked
learned
him. of this, and found
Thereupon he andthat the thegroupsacrifice was not accepted,
that sympathized with him,he thoroughly
rose in revolt disowned
and at him; once and he andit ishis
(even) said that he rebuked him. Thereupon he and the group that
followers and his beasts set off for Shiloh. Thus Israel was split into factions. He sent to their leaders sympathized with him, rose in
revolt
saying andtoatthem, once he and hiswho
“Anyone followers
wouldand likehisto beasts set off for
see wonderful Shiloh.
things, letThus
him Israel
come was to me.” splitThen
into he
factions.
assembled He sent to their
a large group leaders
around saying
him toin them,
Shiloh“Anyone
and builtwho wouldfor
a Temple like to see there;
himself wonderful things,
he constructed
let for
himhimselfcome toa me.” placeThen like the he Temple.
assembled Hea built
largean group
altar,around
omitting him noindetail—it
Shiloh and all built a Temple to
corresponded forthe
himself
original, there;pieceheby constructed
piece. Then,for hehimself
had twoasons, placeHophni
like the and Temple.
Phinehas, Hewho builtrounded
an altar, upomitting
young women no
detail—it all corresponded to the original, piece by piece.
of attractive appearance and brought them into the Tabernacle which had been built by their father.Then, he had two sons, Hophni and
Phinehas, who rounded up young women of attractive appearance and brought them into the
 Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Tabernacle
Religions 2018,which 9, x FORhad PEER been
REVIEW built by their father
Religions 2019, 10, 661 3 of 14
had intercourse with them inside the Tabernacl
ATabernacle
(loyal) faction which onhad Mount beenGerizim;built byan their father
heretical
had
followed
They let them savour the food of the sacrifices and had intercourse with them inside the Tabernacle.intercourse
Eli son with
of Yafnīthem in inside
Shiloh. the Tabernacl
(Stenhouse 1
Then, the children of Israel became three factions: A (loyal) faction onAMount (loyal)
According factiontoon
Gerizim; this
an Mountstory,Gerizim;
heretical the Samaritans an heretica con
followed
faction
faction that followed false gods; and the faction that followed Eli son of Yafnı̄ in Shiloh. (Stenhouse of Eli
Eli, sonpriest of Yafnī
in in
Shiloh. Shiloh.
We (Stenhouse
recognize thi1
1985, pp. 47–48) According to this story,
story evidently builds upon this Biblical text. Ad the Samaritans con
According to this story, the Samaritans constitute the original Israel, faction
and of
Samaritans theEli,from
Jews priest in Shiloh.
the nineties
represent theCE, We recognize
which we find th
story
below).
faction of Eli, priest in Shiloh. We recognize this Eli and his sons from 1 Sam 1–3, so the Samaritan evidently
The builds
description upon
in this
Abu’l Biblical
Fath’s text.
work A
is,
story evidently builds upon this Biblical text. Additionally, it builds upon Samaritans
version a story of the from
of the
circumstances
the origin nineties
of the CE, which
leading to the wetwo findr
below).
the Arabic
Samaritans from the nineties CE, which we find in chapter 11 of the Antiquities by Josephus (quoted The description
Book of Joshua in Abu’l
from Fath’s
1362, work
and in isth
below). The description in Abu’l Fath’s
Religions 2018, 9,work
x FORis, therefore,
PEER version
both of of
them the
REVIEWfictional; it is an apologetic and polemical circumstances
Samaritan leading
manuscripts. to the
Found twoin t
version of the circumstances leading to the two religious communities. theNevertheless,
this Arabic
versionBook of the itoforigin
isJoshua
repeated from 1362,today.
is presented and inAd t
Tabernacle which had been built by their both
in the
father.
in the Arabic Book of Joshua from 1362, and in the New Chronicle/Chronicle Adler from 1899–1900, of them
Delos
They Samaritan
inscriptions
let them savour manuscripts.
from the the
foodsecond Found
of the centu in
sacr
had intercourse
both of them Samaritan manuscripts. Foundwith in thethem inside the
Samaritan museum this
Tabernacle.
below).
on theversion
Then,
There
top ofof the
maythe
Mount origin
children
be,Gerizim, is
ofpresented
of course, Israel became
some today.
traditionthree A
this version of the origin is A (loyal) faction
presented today.on Mount Gerizim;
Additionally, this an in trace.
heretical
to theReligions
self-understanding Delos
factionThe2018, inscriptions
that
main 9,followed
probably xidea
FORisin from
false
the
seen
PEER the
gods;second
Samaritan
REVIEW andchron centu
the fa
followed Eli son of Yafnī in Shiloh. (Stenhousebelow).
spring
in the Delos inscriptions from the second century BCE, where they call themselves “Israelites” (see1985,of There
pp.
Judaism. may
47–48) be,
It is of
the course,
way some
the tradition
Samaritans
below). There may be, of course, According
some tradition to this story,these
behind the Samaritans
descriptions, toconstitute
who trace.
follow
even ifThe
Tabernacle the
it in
may main
theirbe idea
original
which footsteps
had
difficult in the
Israel, Samaritan
and
to(Gaster
been the
built Jews
1925;
by chronrepf
Macd
their
faction of Eli, priest in Shiloh. We recognize spring
this had of
Eli
trace. The main idea in the Samaritan chronicles is that the Samaritans are Israelites, not an off-spring Judaism.
and his
intercourse It
sons is
with the
from way
them1 Samthe
inside Samaritans
1–3, theso the
Tabe S
story evidently builds upon this Biblical 3.
who
text. Flavius
follow
Additionally,
of Judaism. It is the way the Samaritans see the origin, up to this day, and there are scholars who A Josephus
(loyal) in their
it
faction on
builds on the
footsteps upon
MountOrigin
(Gaster
a of
story
Gerizim; the
1925;
of Samar
the
an Mac ori
her
Samaritans
follow in their footsteps (Gaster from the nineties
1925; Macdonald 1964). CE, which we findJosephus in chapterhas
followed Eli11son of the
two ofmainAntiquities
Yafnī in Shiloh.
explanations by Josephu
(Stenho
for th
below). The description in Abu’l Fath’s work 3. Flavius
is, therefore, Josephus
According fictional;on
to the
thisit Origin
is an
story, of the
apologetic
the Sama
Samaritan andre
work Antiquities (Pummer 2009). The first we
3. Flavius Josephus on the version
Origin of of the circumstances
Samaritans leading to the two religious faction of communities.
Eli, priest in Nevertheless,
Shiloh. We it
recogniis re
Josephus
Now thosehas who two were main explanations
settled in Samareia for w t
Josephus has two mainthe Arabic Book
explanations of Joshua
for the origin of from 1362, andwork
the Samaritans, inboth
the
ῖstoryNew
Antiquities
found Chronicle/Chronicle
evidently
in the (Pummerbuilds
large work upon
2009).this Adler
The from
Biblical
first wete1r
Antiquities (Pummer 2009).both The of them
first Samaritan
we read manuscripts.
in chapter 9: Found in the Now
οι], Samaritan
Samaritans
forthose
theywho from
aremuseum the nineties
were
called onthis
settled
by thein top
CE,
name of until
which
Samareia Moun we w
to
this version of the origin is presented
Now those who were settled in Samareia were the “Chouthaioi” [Xoυθα today. Additionally,
below).
calledῖ oι], “Chouthas”; The this
for they arethis self-understanding
description
called is Persia,
by in Abu’l probab
Fath’s
where there wo
this name until today because in they
the Delos inscriptions
were brought fromthe
in from the secondcalled
country century οι],
there“Chouthas”;
were BCE,
version forfive where
of
they the are
ofthis they
circumstances
called
them—brought callbythemselves
is Persia, thisleading
name
its “Israe
ownuntiltogodthet
below). There may be, of course,
where there is a river that has this name. Each of the nations—there were some tradition
called
[custom], behind
the
five Arabic
“Chouthas”;
ofthey these Book
aroused
them—brought descriptions,
of
thisthe Joshua
is Persia,
its even
from
greatestwhere if it
1362,
God to may
thereand
wra b
to trace.
own god to Samareia. By adoring Theasmain
these, was idea
their in the Samaritan
ancestral [custom], chronicles
they both
there
which were
they
aroused is that
ofwere
them
five theof the Samaritans
Samaritan
them—brought
afflicted.
greatest areitsIsraelites,
manuscripts.
Ascertaining
God own godn
no Foun
cure
spring of Judaism. It is the way
to wrath and rage. For he inflicted them with a plague, by which they were the Samaritans
[custom],
that, see
this
if they the
afflicted. they origin,
version
worshiped of
Ascertaining up
the
aroused the to this
origin
the no day,
is and
presented
greatest God,
greatest God tothere
thistoda
wraarw
who follow in their footsteps (Gaster
cure for their calamities, they learned by way of an oracle that, if theydispatched
1925; Macdonald
which in
worshiped the 1964).
Delos
theymessengers
were inscriptions
afflicted.
the greatest toGod, from
Ascertaining
the the
king of theno secondcure
Assyri
this would be [a source of] safety to them. They therefore dispatched he that,had below).
messengersif taken
they to There
worshiped
captive
the king may when be,the
the
of of
he course,
greatest
warred some
God, this
against trad w
t
3. Flavius Josephus on the Origin of the Samaritans to trace. The main idea in the Samaritan
Assyrians and begged him to send them priests from those he had taken dispatched
taught messengers
the ordinances
captive when he warred to the
and king of the
reverence this c
forAssyr
against the Israelites. Upon his Josephus
sending these has two
andmaintheir explanations he had
being taught immediately
for
the thespringtakenofceased.
origin
ordinances Judaism.
captive
of and when
Even
thereverence It is
Samaritans, thewarred
he
now way
thebothnamethe
foundSamar
against
“Chou int
for this God, they worshiped work
himAntiquities
lavishly and (Pummer
the plague 2009).immediately taught
The first Hebrew
weceased.
who
readthe in follow
ordinances
language,
chapter
Even
in
now9:
their
the and
whereas footsteps
name reverence (Gaster
in Greek for they 1925;
this ar
“Chouthaioi” continues to be used Now forthose
thesewho were
nations insettled in Samareia
the Hebrew immediately
turns,
language, were theythesee
whereas ceased.
things
“Chouthaioi”
in Greek Even
going now
wellthe
[Χουθα
they forname “Cho
the Judean
3. Flavius Josephus on the Origin of the S
are called “Samareitai” [Σαµαρε ῖ ται]. Whenever, by turns, they see things Hebrew goinglanguage,
descendants welloffor thewhereas
Josep [Joseph]
Judeans, in and
Greek have they fami ar
they call themselves their relatives, οι],infor they
that areare
they called by this name
descendants turns,
however,
until
of Josep today
[Joseph] they seehave
they
because
Josephus
and things
see hasgoing
that
they
familythings
were
two tieswell
are for
brought
main going the Judean
inbadly
from fo
explanations th
called “Chouthas”;
with them in virtue of that origin. When, however, thisthey
is Persia,
see thatwhere
things descendants
to
there
arethem is
work
goingaand
river ofthat
that
Antiquities
badly Josep
they
for has
them [Joseph]
havethis
(Pummer no
[the name. and
claim have
to
Each
2009). The offami
their loy
the
first
Judeans], they say that theythere were five
owe nothing toof them—brought
them and that theyitshave ownno however,
migrants
god
claim toof they
to Samareia.
Now
their see
anotherthoseBy
loyaltythat things
nation
adoring
whoor were
race. are
[ these, going
settled inbadly
as was theifo
Samar
Instead, they make themselves [custom],
out tothey aroused of
be migrants theanother
greatestnation
God to [ἀtowrath
themand
λλoεθνε ῖ ς].rage.
and that
Butthey For
about have
he no claim
inflicted
these them to their
with loy ap
matters we shall have to speak which in athey
more were afflicted.
suitable placeAscertaining
(Ant. 9.288–291; migrants
no λλοεθνεῖς].
cure
Begg forand of
their
οι], another
But theynation
about
calamities,
for
Spilsbury these
are they
2005). [ἀλλοεθνεῖς].
matters
called learned we
by this byshallButha
way
name oua
The dependence on 2 Kings that, if 1 is evident,
17they worshiped and the greatest
Josephus here God, suitable
Begg
this
explains and
would
called
the place
Spilsbury
be
origin (Ant.
[a the9.288–291;
ofsource
“Chouthas”; 2005).
peopleof]
this inisBegg
safety to and
Persia, them. Spilsbu
where Theyt
Samaria after 721 BCE. Theydispatched
descend from messengers to the king
the five peoples of thebyAssyrians
imported The
The
there
the Assyrian dependence
dependence
andwere begged
king five onthem—brought
on
him
of
Salmanasser 22toKings
Kings
send17 17
them is evident,
11 is evident
priests
its ownf
(Ant. 9.277–278). Through he had taken
singling out onecaptive
of thewhen
names he in
warred
2 Kings in Kuthean/Choutaioi,
in
against
17, Samaria
Samaria
the after
after
Israelites.
[custom], they 721
721
Upon BCE.
BCE.
hehis
aroused laid They
They
sending descend
descend
the greatest theseGod and from
from tt
the ground for the rabbinictaught name the ordinances
for the and The
Samaritans. reverence Salmanasser
for Salmanasser
this God,
story, therefore, also they
which they
becomes(Ant.
(Ant.
worshiped
were 9.277–278).
9.277–278).
an afflicted.
origin Through
Through
himAscertaining
lavishly andsinsin
no t
story for the Samaritans. He immediately
does not state, ceased. Even now
however, the Samaritans
that the Kuthean/Choutaioi,
Kuthean/Choutaioi,
name “Chouthaioi” that, aifmixed
were continues
they he
worshiped laid
he laid
to be
population the
the ground
ground
used
the for
forGod,
for these
greatest the
the r
natrat
from imported expatriates and Hebrew
original language,
inhabitants,whereas
nor that in they
Greek werethey also
also are becomes
becomes
syncretists. called
dispatched an
an originmay
origin
“Samareitai”
Syncretism messengers storybe
story forthe
for theking
the
[Σαμαρεῖται].
to Samaritans.
Samaritans. Whe
of the A
assumed on the basis of this turns,
text they
and of see2 things
Kings going
17:33, well
but itfor
is the aa mixed
not Judeans, mixed
expressed. hethey
had population
population
The call
taken
ideathemselves
captivefrom
of afrommixed imported
imported
their
when relatives,
he warred expatria
expatria
inagatha
descendants of Josep [Joseph] and have syncretists. syncretists.
family taught Syncretism
ties Syncretism
with themmay
the ordinances may
in virtuebe assumed
be
and assumed
of thaton
reverence onorig the
the
for
however, they see that things are going badly expressed.
expressed.
for themThe
immediatelyThe[theideaidea of aa mixed
of
Judeans],
ceased. mixed
they say
Even nowpopulation
population
that
thethey
name is“
is
ow
1 to them and that they have no claim to their Josephus
Josephus
loyalty
Hebrew is
is
or that
that
race. the
the Samaritans
Samaritans
Instead,
language,
2 Kings 17 is a composite text. Vv. 24–42 may be a late, anti-Samaritan polemical text, (Knoppers 2013, pp. 61–62; Kartveit they
whereas were
were
make in opportun
opportuni
themselve
Greek the
2014b). migrants of another nation [ἀλλοεθνεῖς]. But61–62; about
turns, Kartveit 2014b).
these
they matters
see things wegoingshall wellhavefor to speak
the Ju
22 Kings 17
17 is is aa composite
of Joseptext. Vv.
Vv. 24–42 andmay be
11
suitable place (Ant. 9.288–291; Begg and Spilsbury Kings
2005).
descendants composite text.
[Joseph] 24–42 may
have be
61–62; Kartveit 2014b).
The dependence on 2 Kings 171 is evident,however, and Josephus they here see that explains
thingsthe areorigin
goingof bat
in Samaria after 721 BCE. They descend fromtothe them five andpeoples
that they imported
have no by claimthetoAssythe
Salmanasser (Ant. 9.277–278). Through singling migrants outof another
one of nation the names in 2 K
[ἀλλοεθνεῖς].
Kuthean/Choutaioi, he laid the ground for the rabbinic suitablename placefor the9.288–291;
(Ant. Samaritans. BeggTheand story, Sp
1
Religions 2019, 10, 661 4 of 14

population is later than Josephus. What is evidently the idea of Josephus is that the Samaritans
were opportunistic.
A second story on the background of the Samaritans is found in chapter 11 of the Antiquities:
Now the elders of the Hierosolymites, bitterly complaining about the fact that the brother of
Jaddus the high priest, while married to a foreigner, was sharing the high priestly office, were agitating
against him, for they thought that the marriage of this one [Manasses] would become a gangway for
those who would wish to transgress the law concerning cohabitation with women, and that this would
be for them [the Hierosolymites] the beginning of fellowship with foreigners . . . . They, therefore,
kept urging Manasses to be separated from [his] wife—or not to approach the sacrificial altar (Ant.
11.306–308; Spilsbury and Seeman 2017).
When Sanaballet promised not only to preserve the priesthood [for him], but also to procure [for
him] the high priestly power and honor and to appoint [him] governor of all the places over which he
himself was ruling—on condition that he be willing to live with his daughter—and saying that [he]
would build a sanctuary that would be like the one in Hierosolyma on Mount Garizein, which is the
highest of the mountains throughout Samaria, and as he promised that he would do these things with
the consent of Darius the king, Manasses was elated by [these] promises and remained with Sanaballet,
supposing that he would acquire the high priesthood given by Darius; for Sanaballet happened to be
old by now (Ant. 11.310–311; Spilsbury and Seeman 2017).
Josephus describes the father-in-law of Manasses, Sanballat, as a Kuthean (Ant. 11.302), like the
Samaritans. He intended to ask Darius for permission to build the temple when the conflict with
Alexander had been fought to the end, but, contrary to expectations, Darius lost the battle at Issus,
and Sanballat approached the Macedonian victor instead. Alexander’s consent to build a temple in
Samaria changed the situation fundamentally, resulting in a new cult center in the region. This encounter
between the Samarian governor Sanballat and Alexander the Great took place during Alexander’s siege
of Tyre in 332 BCE. Providing one combines the two stories presented by Josephus, a double origin of
the Samaritans emerges: one from Kutha, one from Jerusalem. Supposedly, the people brought in from
Kutha over time intermarried with the alleged migrants from Jerusalem; and it would be logical to
draw the conclusion that a mixed population was the result.
While Josephus builds his depiction of the origin of the Samaritans on 2 Kings 17, he evidently
constructs the narrative of the origin of their temple on Neh 13:28–30a: “And one of the sons of
Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I chased him
away from me. Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the covenant
of the priests and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign” (NRSV). The major
problem with the relationship between Neh 13:28–30a and Ant. 11.310–311 is that the expulsion of
the priest from Jerusalem takes place in different centuries; according to the book of Nehemiah it was
in the fifth century while, according to Josephus, it was in the fourth century. Different solutions to
this conundrum have been suggested by scholars: that there were two expulsions; that Nehemiah is
correct; that Josephus is correct; that both are correct, but in different ways (Dexinger 1992, pp. 105–27;
Kartveit 2009, pp. 71–108; Pummer 2009, pp. 67–80, 103–52; 2016, pp. 54–66).
Josephus has a wide circle of followers over two millennia in his depiction of the origin of the
Samaritans (see below).

4. Did the Samaritans Come from the City of Samaria?

The Samaritan model of their origin (They are the original Israel) and the model presented by
Josephus (They descend from deportees and defectors from Jerusalem) have played a large role in
scholarship. A different approach has been taken by G. Ernest Wright, who uses information in another
group of sources. First, Eusebius in his Chronicle provides this story:
Alexander besieged Tyre and occupied Judah; glorified by the Jews, he sacrificed to God and
honored the High Priest. He set Andromachus as the procurator of the land, whom the inhabitants of
the city of the Samaritans killed; Alexander punished them when he had returned from Egypt, and,
Religions 2019, 10, 661 5 of 14

having occupied the city, he settled Macedonians to live there. (Eusebius, Chronicle, 112th Olympiad;
Karst 1911)
Secondly, Curtius Rufus writes in his biography of Alexander (IV, 8, 9–11):
The sorrow was made greater by the news of the death of Andromachus, to whom he (scil.
Alexander) had given the charge of Syria; the Samaritans had burned him alive. To avenge his murder,
he hastened to the spot with all possible speed, and on his arrival those who had been guilty of such a
great crime were delivered to him. Then he put Menon in place of Andromachus and executed those
who had slain his general. (Rolfe 1946)
Thirdly, Syncellus tells that “He (scil. Alexander) appointed Andromachos to oversee the affairs
of Judaea and the other areas. Because the inhabitants of Samaria killed him, they paid the penalty
when Alexander returned from Egypt. He captured the city of Samaria and settled Macedonians
there” (Adler and Tuffin 2002), and Hieronymus has a similar report on the resettlement of Samaria
(Fotheringham 1905). Syncellus collects material from many sources for his history, so he only can
claim authority insofar as his sources are reliable.
The time of this shift to a Macedonian population (often referred to as “Hellenization”) of the
city of Samaria is 332–331 BCE, and the city involved is supposedly Samaria (later called Sebaste).
Taking the context of events taking place in 296–295 BCE, Eusebius mentions that Alexander’s general
Perdiccas, and not Alexander, re-settled the city of Samaria. The killing of Andromachus and the shift
to a Macedonian populace may, therefore, have been two different events (Kippenberg 1971, p. 46);
but the sources agree that the “Hellenization” of Samaria took place in the late fourth or the beginning
of the third centuries, and Curtius Rufus describes Alexander’s reorganizing of the government of
the city.
This re-foundation with a new population is confirmed indirectly by a find in Wadi Daliyeh
(grid references 189.155), 40 km south-east of the city of Samaria. The remains of 200–300 persons
were found in a cave in 1962, having been suffocated there in the last third of the fourth century BCE.
They had brought with them bullae and documents with slave contracts in Aramaic, written in the city
of Samaria in the previous decades. It seems that this upper-class contingent fled into the desert when
the re-settlement with Macedonians took place, where they were trapped in a cave and suffocated by a
fire lit at the entrance to the cave. The onomasticon of these documents is mainly Yahwistic, testifying
to the Yahwistic profile of the cult in the city of Samaria (Dušek 2007, pp. 486–89).
G. Ernest Wright combines the settlement of the city of Samaria by Macedonians with archaeological
results from Shechem (Tell Balata, not to be confused with Nablus, which was founded in the late first
century CE in Mabartha). Shechem lay desolate from early in the fifth century BCE to the latter part
of the fourth, and its re-population calls for an explanation. G. Ernest Wright excavated Shechem,
and suggested:
It seems to us that the simplest view is provided by taking the Eusebius–Syncellus statement at
face value about Alexander’s destruction of Samaria and turning it over to Macedonians. This would
mean that the Samaritans were forced to establish a new capital, and the logical place was old Shechem,
at a time when Samaritans were so anxious to maintain their claims over against the Jews and Jerusalem
(Wright 1962, p. 365).
This is a possibility, difficult to prove, but Shechem was re-established in this period, and its
history gave it an important status.
This theory should be seen together with Josephus’s explanation for the construction of the temple
in Antiquities chapter 11 (cf. the quotation above): he has Sanballat instituted as satrap (in fact, he was
a governor) of Samaria by Dareios III, and the daughter of this Sanballat married into the family of
high priests of Jerusalem. According to Nehemiah, this was a defilement of the priesthood; according
to Josephus, this constituted a danger of accepting priests who transgressed the laws for marriage
and had intercourse with foreigners. To keep his daughter married, Sanballat defected from the
Persians, approached Alexander, whose authorization he sought, promising to the Macedonian king
that a second temple would split the power (δύναµις) of the Jews, thus facilitating Macedonian rule.
Religions 2019, 10, 661 6 of 14

Josephus generally describes the Samaritans as opportunistic and does not mention the “Hellenization”
of Samaria; it is difficult to assess the motives of Sanballat. The argument for a new sanctuary in the
north fits with Josephus’ portrayal of the Samaritans. Although Josephus does not mention any events
at this time in the city of Samaria—and he may not have been aware of the “Hellenization”—there is
no contradiction between the information in Eusebius, Curtius Rufus and Syncellus on the one hand,
and Josephus’ account on the other. The other sources may describe the historical background to the
revival of settlement in Shechem and the temple building on Mount Gerizim, and Josephus chose to
see it from a different angle. His agenda was to discredit the temple on Mount Gerizim, and this he
obtained by using the sources he had at his disposal.
I find Wright’s theory interesting and it can be combined with information in Josephus.
The northerners of the fifth and fourth centuries worshiped Yahweh in Samaria, and the shift
in population to a Macedonian settlement of the city of Samaria in 332–331 BCE and the concomitant
change in religious adherence could potentially have strengthened the religious position of Jerusalem as
a Yahweh center. However, if Josephus is right about the dating of the temple on Mount Gerizim, then
this new center for worship presented a danger to Jerusalem: Samaria had become pagan, but Mount
Gerizim carried on the Yahweh-worship in the north. A possible strengthening of Jerusalem would
not take place, since there continued to be a Yahweh center in the north, competing with Jerusalem.

5. Qumran: A New Direction in the Search for the Origin

The theories mentioned above work with material known for a long time, and with results from
the twentieth century excavations of Shechem. Accompanying the discovery of the manuscripts in
Qumran, scholars suddenly had new sources in their hands, which changed the course of investigation.
The manuscripts came under professional study in 1947 and new texts turned up until 1955 from
several locations, but it was only in an article in 1955 that scholars dealing with Samaritans saw their
value in connection with the Samaritans.
The 1955 article by Patrick W. Skehan presented what he called “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension
from Qumran”. This article announced that among the Qumran texts there was a scroll of Exodus with
features that were previously only known from the SP: 4QpaleoExodm . One can perceive the author’s
joy of discovery in the presentation of the scroll:
The Exodus scroll . . . has been judged of sufficient interest to make a preliminary notice desirable
in advance of the full edition of the biblical texts from Cave 4 at Khirbet Qumran . . . The recension in
question is the “Samaritan” recension, with all the essential characteristics of that fuller text, including
its repetitious manner of recounting the plague episodes, its borrowings from Deuteronomy and its
transpositions; this is true at almost every point where the extant fragments make verification possible.
(Skehan 1955, p. 182)
The significance of this discovery was enhanced by these observations: “The script cannot by any
stretch of the imagination be called Samaritan . . . Neither is the orthography Samaritan.” Skehan’s
“surprise” was therefore that “the Samaritan recension . . . is shown by this scroll to have been preserved
with a measure of fidelity . . . that compares not unfavourably with the fidelity of transmission of MT
itself . . . ” Taking the assumption that the text in significant respects was the “Samaritan recension”,
he concluded that this recension had been preserved well over the ages. Furthermore, as he surmised
that the recension was Samaritan, but the script and the orthography were not, he cautiously concluded
that a suspended judgement was called for on the question of the scroll’s Samaritan character (Skehan
1955, pp. 182–83).
Skehan, in this article, briefly introduced the scroll and then presented a photograph of one column
containing Exod 32:10–30 (later known as col. XXXVIII) with Hebrew transcription and comments.
Skehan’s overall evaluation of the scroll is twofold:
By way of conclusion, the writer wishes to underline the judgment implicit in what has been said
above: that this new evidence for the antiquity and for the constancy of transmission of the Samaritan
recension of Exodus does not alter the internal evidence for the secondary character of much that
Religions 2019, 10, 661 7 of 14

is proper to that recension, and that the general appraisal of the recension itself remains in outline
substantially what it has been since the time of Gesenius. (Skehan 1955, p. 183)
Skehan referred to Wilhelm Gesenius’ study (Gesenius 1815) but failed to see the significance of
the fact that the “essential characteristics” of the “Samaritan recension” had been found at Qumran.
Maurice Baillet, in 1988, presented a study of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) in the Hebrew, Greek,
Aramaic, and Arabic versions (Baillet 1988, pp. 531–44). Regarding the Hebrew SP he concluded that:
(1) the Samaritan script descends from the pre-exilic Palaeo–Hebrew script; (2) many SP scribal details
are attested at Qumran; (3) the Samaritan pronunciation is partly a vestige of the ancient Palestinian
pronunciation; (4) the Samaritan recension is the daughter of a pre-masoretic recension; (5) the decisive
period for the fixation of the Samaritan text and letters is between the end of the 1st and the 3rd century
CE. During this period the addition of the tenth commandment also took place.
More than any other scholar, Emanuel Tov has worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). He coined
the term “pre-Samaritan” texts among the DSS and has led the discussion on this topic. Recently he
has expressed his views on this question carefully:
The most characteristic readings of the [SP]-group were created by substantial editorial changes
inserted in the earlier text . . . These changes involve additions (duplications) of other Torah verses
(with changes in names and verbal forms) and a few rearrangements but no omissions, following a
strong inclination in [SP] not to alter the divine word. The changes should be considered editorial
rather than harmonizing . . . characteristic of the [SP]-group only . . . Ultimately, the changes reflect
theological concerns. (Tov 2012, p. 80)
One notes his assessment: the major expansions reveal an editorial activity rather than being
harmonizations. Generally, the DSS are not Samaritan (Crawford 2019, pp. 295–96), but there are traits
in some of them that are reminiscent of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
The whole pre-Samaritan group among the DSS is a text type that can be called harmonistic and
with content editing, but inside this group there is one manuscript that most closely resembles the SP:
4QpaleoExodm . It has no expansions with non-Biblical text of the type found in 4QRP, only expansions
copied from the Pentateuch, of the type found in SP. This is not to say that 4QpaleoExodm is a Samaritan
text; concerning this question, the first judgment by Skehan was unfounded. This manuscript probably
did not contain the Samaritan tenth commandment because there is no room for it in column XXI and,
therefore, it was no Samaritan manuscript (Sanderson 1986, p. 317).
It had, however, room for the expansion that mentions a future prophet like Moses, an expansion
in Exod 20:21, extant in the SP. It consists of text from Deut 5:28–29; 18:18–22; 5:30–31. An overall
assessment of the scroll in relation to SP allows for the assumption that 4QpaleoExodm was the ancestor
of the SP, in my opinion, and this assumption will be substantiated in other publications. We find an
important background for the forming of the Samaritan movement in the DSS—a possibility hitherto
not considered enough in modern scholarship—if this is a correct assumption.
When the commandment to build an altar at Mount Gerizim was added, we can speak of a
Samaritan text. The system of quoting existing Pentateuchal text for creating an expansion also was
used in the case of this commandment, and it is probable that it was created at a time when content
editing is visible in the DSS, which means sometime around the turn of the eras. Additional to the
tenth commandment, the SP shows some other significant readings, for example the construction of the
altar on Mount Gerizim instead of on Mount Ebal, Deut 27:4, the special form of the altar law in Exod
20:24, and the past tense of the phrase “the place that the Lord your God has chosen,” found 21 times in
Deuteronomy. Such readings may be old, and it makes sense to locate them in a time and age when the
Samaritan features of the SP emerged. Adrian Schenker has suggested that the reading “the place that
the Lord your God has chosen” is original (Schenker 2008), and Stefan Schorch and Jan Dušek have
accepted this view (Schorch 2011, p. 32; Dušek 2012, p. 90), but Sidnie White Crawford and Raik Heckl
have contested this dating (Crawford 2017, pp. 102–3; Heckl 2016b), and a Samaritan provenance
seems most probable for the reading “has chosen”. Due to the character of the content editing that
shaped the Samaritan tenth commandment and the similar nature of the earlier content editing of
Religions 2019, 10, 661 8 of 14

the pre-Samaritan texts, it is tempting to assume also a similarity in milieu or even scribal schools.
The oldest pre-Samaritan text is from 250 BCE, and the use of the old script is well documented in the
DSS. It is used particularly in manuscripts dealing with Moses.
The pre-Samaritan texts prove that the version of the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans had its
roots in a Jewish collection of Biblical texts. Concerning this, the Samaritans constitute a branch of
Judaism, and one of their roots was in Judaism BCE. An Editio Maior of The Samaritan Pentateuch is
now published by Stefan Schorch, and the volume with Leviticus has appeared (Schorch 2018).

6. The Excavations on Mount Gerizim and the Discovery of Samaritan Inscriptions

Until recently, scholars dated the construction of the cult site on Mount Gerizim on the basis of
Josephus’ account: to the beginning of the Hellenistic age. We now have new material relevant for this
question in the form of results from the excavations on the summit of Mount Gerizim. These went on for
more than 20 years from 1982, done by Yitzhak Magen and his team. The results have added important
evidence for the origins of the Samaritans. Based on coins, pottery, and architecture, the excavator in
2004 assessed the finds as follows:
The sacred precinct, centered around the temple, was built on the highest point on the mountain,
overlooking the central crossroads of Samaria, Mt. Ebal, Shechem (Tell Balatah) and, to the east,
the fertile Sukkar and Dajjan valleys. The excavations revealed two main construction phases: the
precinct and the temple were first built in the fifth century BCE, during the Persian period, and survived
until the end of Ptolemaic rule in the Land of Israel; the Seleucid conquest was followed by the rebuilding
of the sacred precinct and the temple, in the early second century BCE. (Magen et al. 2004, p. 3).
Unfortunately, Magen did not find any traces of the temple or a similar structure dating to any of
the two phases he describes but adduces the hundreds of thousands of burnt animal bones which were
found inside thick layers of ash as circumstantial evidence for an altar or even a temple. Most of the
bones are from goats and sheep, but cattle and pigeons also are represented. The excavators evaluate
this as evidence for the worship of the God of Israel, as the bones come from animals that were deemed
fit for sacrifice in Leviticus. The bones are dated by the Carbon 14-method to the Persian and Hellenistic
times. Similarly, pottery and coins were found which derived from the same times. The earliest coin
dates from 480 BCE, and 68 coins belong to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (preceding the arrival
of Alexander the Great in the Land of Israel). The latest coins are dated to the last part of the second
century BCE, and this is taken as an indication of John Hyrcanus’ destruction of the site, as described
by Josephus (War 1.62–63; Ant. 13.245–256).
During the excavations, 395 inscriptions and fragments of inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic
were found. Additionally, a number of inscriptions in Greek were secured. No images were uncovered.
The Greek inscriptions have not been made available yet, but the Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions
were published in (Magen et al. 2004)2 . The publishers date the inscriptions to the Persian and
Hellenistic periods, and Jan Dušek narrows the time frame down to the first part of the second century
BCE (Dušek 2012). Such a precise dating might be open to discussion, but scholars agree that the
inscriptions come from the time of the city on Mount Gerizim. They were not found in situ, and we lack
precise information on their provenance inside the city. Most of them are fragmentary, but numbers 17,
20, and 147 (text damaged at two places) are intact. These three complete inscriptions are all written in
Aramaic; apart from that, they are all different (Magen et al. 2004).

2 The study of Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme of the Gerzim inscriptions is extensive (De Hemmer Gudme 2013), but she
pays only scant attention to the phrase “in this place”, which is the novelty in the Gerizim inscriptions, and does not occur in
her comparative material.
 inscriptions were published in (Magen et al. 2004) . The publishers date the inscriptions to the Persian
and Hellenistic periods, and Jan Dušek narrows the time frame down to the first part of the second
century BCE (Dušek 2012). Such a precise dating might be open to discussion, but scholars agree that
the inscriptions come from the time of the city on Mount Gerizim. They were not found in situ, and
we lack precise information on their provenance inside the city. Most of them are fragmentary, but
Religions 2019, 10, 661 9 of 14
numbers 17, 20, and 147 (text damaged at two places) are intact. These three complete inscriptions
are all written in Aramaic; apart from that, they are all different (Magen et al. 2004).
Inscription
Inscription number
number 17
17 is
is written
written in
in aa monumental
monumental Aramaic
Aramaic script
script and
andisisfound
foundon
onaalarge
largestone,
stone,
Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
103
103 ××3737××3131cm.
cm.
‫ על נפשה ועל‬number
11Inscription ‫הקרבת מרימ‬ 20‫זי‬uses monumental Aramaic script and was inscribed on a large stone,
broken 2 ‫בניה‬
2 into two parts, together measuring 110 × 34 × 22 cm.
Religions
Religions
11 This This
2018,is
2018,
is9,9,[the
[the
xx FOR
FOR
stone]
stone]
PEER
PEER REVIEW
that
that Miriam
REVIEW Miriam dedicated dedicated for for her her soul soul and and for for 99 of
of 1414
Religions
Religions 2 21 ‫ויהונתנ‬
2018,
2018,
her
her 9,9,xxFOR ‫זבדי‬
children/sons.
children/sons.
FORPEER ‫בר‬
PEER ‫]צל[א‬
REVIEW
REVIEW ‫ח‬ ‫הקרב‬ ‫זי‬ 99 ofof 1414
Religions
Religions Religions
Religions2018,
2018,
2018, 9,x xxFOR
9,9,
Religions 2018,
FOR
2018,
FOR PEER9,9,xxREVIEW
PEER
PEER FORREVIEW
FOR
REVIEW PEER
PEERREVIEW REVIEW 9 99ofof 14 99 ofof 14
of1414 14
‫מרימ וברה‬number
2Inscription
Inscription ‫וישוע בעיה‬
number 20
20 ‫יהוספ‬monumental
uses
uses ‫ברה‬
monumental Aramaic
Aramaic script
script and
and was
was inscribed
inscribed on
on a
a large
large stone,
stone,
Inscription
Inscriptionnumber
Inscription number
number20 20
20uses uses
usesmonumental monumental
monumentalAramaic Aramaic
Aramaicscript script
scriptand and
andwas was
wasinscribedinscribed
inscribedon on
onaaalarge large
largestone, stone,
stone,
broken
broken
Inscription
Inscription 1 This
Inscription into
into
number
number
Inscription is
two
two [thenumber
20 parts,
parts,
20
number stone]
uses
uses 20
together
together that
uses
monumental
monumental
20 uses ’A[ṣl]aḥ,
monumental
measuring
measuring
monumental Aramaic
Aramaic son 110of
110 Zabdi,
Aramaic
×script
34
34 ×××22
×Aramaic
script 22
22and
and and
script
cm.
cm. was
script was Yehonatan,
and was
inscribed
inscribed
and was inscribed
on ona alarge
inscribed largeonon astone,
stone,a large
large stone,
stone,
broken into two parts,
broken into two parts, together measuring 110 ××34 together measuring 110 × 34
34××2222cm. cm.
cm.
broken
brokeninto broken
into two
broken two 2 parts,
his
into
into
parts, son,
two together
two Yehosef
parts,
parts,
together together
measuringand Yeshua‛,
together
measuring measuring
110
measuring110××3434 Ba‛yah,
×110 2222cm.
×110 ××cm.
34Miriam,
34 ××22 22cm. cm. and her son dedicated.
1 11 ‫ויהונתנ‬
‫ויהונתנ‬
‫ויהונתנ‬ ‫זבדי‬
‫זבדי‬
‫זבדי‬ ‫בר‬
‫בר‬
‫בר‬ ‫]צל[א‬
‫]צל[א‬
‫]צל[א‬ ‫ח‬‫ח‬
‫ח‬ ‫הקרב‬
‫הקרב‬
‫הקרב‬ ‫זי‬
‫זי‬‫זי‬
‫ויהונתנ‬
11Inscription ‫זבדי‬Anne ‫בר‬number‫]צל[א‬ ‫הקרב ח‬147 is‫ברהזיזי‬ longer, incisedof the on a large, intactisstone of 202 × 36.5 ×Gudme 55 cm, and it
‫ויהונתנ‬The 2‫ויהונתנ‬
study ‫זבדי‬
of ‫ברח ח‬ ‫]צל[א‬
Katrine ‫יהוספ חזיחזי‬
‫הקרב‬
de Hemmer Gudme Gerzim inscriptions extensive (de Hemmer
22
1 1‫ויהונתנ‬ 112‫זבדי‬
‫זבדי‬2 ‫וברה‬
‫וברה‬
‫בר‬ ‫]צל[אבר‬
‫ויהונתנ‬
‫וברה‬ ‫מרימ‬
‫מרימ‬
‫]צל[א‬
‫מרימ‬‫זבדי‬ ‫בעיה‬
‫בעיה‬
‫הקרב‬
‫בר‬
‫בעיה‬ ‫הקרב‬ ‫וישוע‬
‫וישוע‬
‫]צל[א‬
‫וישוע‬ ‫יהוספ‬
‫יהוספ‬
‫הקרב‬ ‫ברה‬ ‫ברה‬
‫זי‬
stretches 2
2013),2 ‫וברה‬ over
but ‫מרימ‬
she the‫בעיה‬
pays full ‫וישוע‬
only length‫יהוספ‬
scant ‫ברה‬
of
attention the son stone.
to of the Its
phrase script “in is this cursive:
place”, which is the novelty in the Gerizim
22 ‫וברה‬
‫מרימוברה‬ 211 This
‫מרימ‬ ‫וברה‬
‫בעיה‬
This
‫וברה‬
‫בעיה‬ ‫מרימ‬
is‫וישוע‬
is
‫מרימ‬ [the
[the
‫וישוע‬ ‫בעיה‬
‫יהוספ‬
stone]
stone]
‫בעיה‬
‫יהוספ‬ ‫וישוע‬‫ברה‬
‫וישוע‬ that
‫ברה‬ ‫יהוספ‬
that ‫יהוספ‬ ‫ברה‬
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
‫ ברה‬son son Zabdi,
of Zabdi,
Zabdi, and
and Yehonatan,
Yehonatan,
1121.ThisThis
inscriptions, This isisis [the
[the andstone]
[the stone]
stone]
does not that
thatthat
occur’A[ṣl]aḥ,
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
’A[s in. l]ah son
her. ,comparative
son ofof ofZabdi,
Zabdi, and
and and
material. Yehonatan,
Yehonatan,
Yehonatan,
12[the2This isis[the stone] that ’A[ṣl]aḥ, son
1 1This
Thisisis[the
22121his
his
his
This
his
his
son,
son,
stone]
stone]
‫דנה‬ son,
son,
son, ‫באתרא‬ Yehosef
[theYehosef
thatthat
Yehosef
Yehosef
Yehosef
stone] and
and
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
‫אלהא‬ and
and
and ‫קדמ‬
that Yeshua‛,
Yeshua‛,
sonsonof
‫טב‬
Yeshua‛,
Yeshua’, ‫דכרנ‬
’A[ṣl]aḥ,
Yeshua‛, [Ba‛yah,
ofZabdi,Ba‛yah,
Zabdi,
‫ל‬son
Ba‛yah,
Ba‛yah,
Ba’yah, ‫ד]ה‬of ofand
and Zabdi,
Miriam,
Miriam,
‫אבנא‬
Zabdi,
Miriam,
Miriam,
Miriam,
Yehonatan,
Yehonatan,
‫בנוהי‬and
andand
and
and
and
Yehonatan,
‫ועל‬ her
her
her
her ‫עלוהי‬
Yehonatan, son
son‫שמעון‬
son
son
dedicated.
dedicated.
dedicated.
dedicated. ‫די הקרב דליה בר‬
22his
hisson, son, 2 his
Inscription
Yehosef
2 his
Yehosef son,
Inscriptionson, andYehosefnumber
number
Yehosef
and Yeshua‛,
Yeshua‛, and
and 147
147Yeshua‛,
is
Ba‛yah,is
Yeshua‛,
Ba‛yah, longer,
longer, Ba‛yah,
Miriam,
Ba‛yah,
Miriam, incised
incised Miriam,
and
Miriam,
and on
on
herher aa and
large,
sonlarge,
and
son her intact
her son
intact
dedicated.
dedicated. son dedicated.
stone
stone
dedicated. of 202
of 202202 ××× 36.5 36.5
36.5 ×× 55 55
55 cm, cm,
cm, and and
and it itit
Inscription
1 This is [the
Inscription number
number stone] 147
147 isis longer,
that longer,
Delayah, incised
incised sonon on a large,
of aShim‛on,large, intact intactdedicated stone of
stone of for × 36.5 ××and
202himself 55 cm, hisand children/sons,
it
stretches
Inscription
Inscription Inscription
stretches number
Inscription over
over the
number the
thenumber
147 full
full
number length
isislonger, 147
length 147of isof
of
is longer,
the
thestone.
longer,
incised stone.
stone.on incisedIts
incisedaIts
aIts large, on
script
scripton aintact
ais
onintact large,
is cursive:
cursive:
large,
large, stone intact
intact
intact ofof202stone
stone
202××36.5
stone ofof
of 202
202
××55
202 ×××36.5 cm,×and
36.5
cm, ×
×and55
55it cm,
it and
cm, anditit
stretches
[this]
stretches ston[e over
over the147
for] full
good
full longer,
length
length remembranceof incised
longer,
the
the stone. on incised
before
Its large,
script
script God isaiscursive:
cursive:
in stone
this place. 36.5 55 36.5 it
stretchesstretches
stretches overover
stretches
stretchesthe the over
full
over
full
over the
length
length the
the full
full
of
full of length
the the
length
length stone. of
stone.
of
of the
the
Its
the Itsstone.
script
stone.
script
stone. Its
Its
is is
Its script
cursive:
script
cursive:
script isis
is cursive:
cursive:
cursive:
11 ‫דנה‬ ‫דנה‬
‫באתרא דנה‬‫באתרא‬
‫אלהא באתרא‬ ‫אלהא‬
‫קדמ אלהא‬ ‫קדמ‬
‫טב קדמ‬ ‫טב‬ ‫דכרנ‬
‫דכרנ טב‬‫ד]הה לל[[דכרנ‬ ]‫אבנא ד‬‫אבנא‬
‫בנוהי אבנא‬ ‫בנוהי‬
‫ועל בנוהי‬ ‫ועל‬
‫עלוהי ועל‬‫עלוהי‬
‫שמעון עלוהי‬ ‫שמעון‬
‫בר שמעון‬ ‫בר‬
‫דליה בר‬‫דליה‬
‫הקרב דליה‬ ‫הקרב‬
‫די הקרב‬ ‫די‬
11When ‫באתרא דנה‬ we ‫ אלהא‬at
look ‫קדמ‬the ‫אבנא ד]ד]הה לל[[דכרנ‬
‫ טב‬inscriptions at ‫בנוהי‬
large, ‫ועל‬we ‫עלוהי‬ find ‫שמעון‬ that ‫בר‬their ‫דידי הקרב‬
‫ דליה‬onomasticon is almost completely
1 1‫דנהדנה‬‫באתרא‬ 1111‫אלהא‬
‫באתרא‬1This
‫דנה‬
This
This ‫אלהא‬
‫ דנה‬is
This ‫קדמ‬
‫באתרא‬
is
is
‫באתרא‬
is[the ‫טב‬
‫קדמ‬
[the
[the
[the‫אלהא‬ ‫ל]דכרנ‬
‫אלהא‬‫טב‬
stone]
stone]
stone]
‫קדמ‬
‫דכרנ‬ ‫ד[ה‬
‫קדמ‬ [ ‫ל‬‫טב‬
that
that
that ‫אבנא‬
‫ה‬ ‫דכרנ‬
]‫ד‬ ‫בנוהי‬
‫אבנא‬
Delayah,
Delayah,
‫טב‬Delayah, [ ‫ל‬
‫ד]ה ל[דכרנ‬son
Delayah, ‫ועל‬
‫ה‬ ]‫ד‬
‫בנוהי‬‫עלוהי‬
‫אבנא‬
son
son
son ‫אבנא‬‫ועל‬ ‫שמעון‬
of
of‫בנוהי‬
‫עלוהי‬
Shim‛on,‫בר‬
Shim‛on,
‫בנוהי‬
ofShim‛on,
Shim‛on,
‫ועל‬ ‫דליה‬
‫שמעון‬ ‫עלוהי‬
‫עלוהי ועל‬ ‫הקרב‬
‫בר‬ ‫שמעון‬
dedicated
dedicated
dedicated ‫די‬
‫דליה‬
‫ שמעון‬for ‫בר‬
‫הקרב‬
‫בר‬for
for‫דליה‬
for‫דליה‬ ‫די‬ ‫הקרב‬
himself
himself
himself ‫הקרב‬and ‫די‬
and
and
‫ די‬his
and his
his children/sons,
his children/sons,
children/sons,
Yahwistic. 1 stone] that of dedicated himself children/sons,
1 This1isThis [this]
[the[this] 11[the
isstone] This
ston[e
ston[e
This isisAdditionally,
that
stone] [the
for]
for] stone]
good
good
Delayah,
[the
[the that stone]
stone] Delayah, that
remembrance
remembrance
son
thatof
that
“YHWH”
Delayah,
sonShim‛on,
Delayah,
Delayah, ofbefore son
before
before isdedicated
son
Shim‛on,
found
ofGod
God
of Shim‛on,inin
in
Shim‛on,
dedicated
Shim’on, forinscription
this
this dedicated
place.
place.
himself
dedicated
for himself and fornumber
for hishimself
and
383
his and
children/sons,
himself
himself andhis
and
(ahis
children/sons,
fragment).
hischildren/sons,
children/sons,
children/sons,
The places
[this]
[this] ston[e
ston[e for]
for] good
good remembrance
remembrance before God
God in
in this
this place.
place.
[this]
[this]ston[e named
[this]
ston[e for]
[this] for] ston[e (or
good
good
ston[e restored)
for] good
remembrance
for]remembrance
good are
remembrance Shamrayin
before
beforeGod before
God (numbers
ininthis
before God
thisGod place.ininthis
place. 14
this and
place.
place. 15), Shechem (numbers 12, 36, and 39), the
ston[e
When
When we
wefor] look
lookgood atremembrance
at remembrance
the inscriptions
the inscriptions
inscriptions before at large,
at large, God
large, in
we
we this
findplace.
find that
that their their onomasticon
their onomasticon
onomasticon is is almost
is almost completely
almost completely
completely
village When
When of we Ḥaggai
we look
look at(number at the
the inscriptions 3), Awarta at
at large, (number we
we find 8),find that
thatYokmeamtheir onomasticon (number is almost7), The Good Mountain
completely
When
When we When
Yahwistic.
Yahwistic.
we Whenlook
lookat wewe
at the look
Additionally,
Additionally,
thelook atatthe
inscriptions
inscriptions the inscriptions
“YHWH”
the“YHWH”“YHWH”atatlarge,
inscriptions
inscriptions large, is at
iswewe
at large,
found
found
findfindin
large,
large, we
in
in
that
that
we
we find
inscription
inscription
their
their
find
find that their
onomasticon
onomasticon
that
that number
number
their
their onomasticon
onomasticon 383
383
is383
onomasticon isalmost (a
almost iscompletely
almost
fragment).
(a fragment). almostcompletely
fragment).
iscompletely
is almost The
The places
completely
completelyplaces
places
Yahwistic.
Yahwistic.
(number 11), Additionally,
Additionally,
and Mabartha “YHWH” (number is
is found
found
76). Most in inscription
inscription
of these placesnumber
number are383 383
found (a
(a fragment).
on 12, or around The
The places Gerizim.
Mount
Yahwistic.
Yahwistic. Yahwistic.
named
named
Additionally,
Additionally,
Yahwistic. (or
(or Additionally,
restored)
restored)
Additionally, “YHWH”
“YHWH” are
are “YHWH”
Shamrayin
Shamrayin
is is
“YHWH” found
found is
inis found
(numbers
(numbers
in inscription
inscription
found inin 14inscription
14 and
and
number
number 15),
15), number
Shechem
Shechem
383 383 (a (a (numbers
(numbers
fragment).
fragment). (a fragment).
The 12,
The 36,
36,
places
places The
and
and places
39),
39), the
the
Yahwistic.
named
named (or Additionally,
(or restored)
restored) are“YHWH”
are Shamrayin
Shamrayin is (numbers
found
(numbers 1414inscription
in inscription and 15),
and number
15), number
Shechem
Shechem 383 (a 383
(numbers
(numbers (a fragment).
fragment). 12,The
12, 36,places
36, and
and The 39),
39), places
named the
the
named Further,
named
village
village (or
of
ofMountḤaggai
Ḥaggai
restored) Gerizim are
(number
(number had
Shamrayin3),
3), aAwarta“house
Awarta (numbers of
(number
(number sacrifice”
14 and
8),
8), (
15),
Yokmeam
Yokmeam‫דבחא‬ Shechem ‫בית‬, number
(number
(number (numbers 199),
7),
7), 12,
The
The and
36,
Good
Good a
and “sanctuary,”
39),
Mountain
Mountain the (‫מקדש‬,
named(or (or(or restored)
named restored)
village
village restored) of(orḤaggai
of are
Ḥaggai areShamrayin
restored)
are Shamrayin
Shamrayin
(number
(number are Shamrayin (numbers
(numbers
(numbers
3),
3), Awarta
Awarta
14
(numbers
14 andand15),
and
(number
(number 148),
15),
15), Shechem
and
Shechem
Shechem
8), 15), Shechem
Yokmeam
Yokmeam
(numbers
(numbers
(numbers (number
(number
12,12,36,
(numbers
12, 36,The
36,
7),
7),
and
andand
The 39),
12,39), 36,the
39),
Good
Good
the
and
the 39), the
village
Mountain
Mountain of
village
villageofof number
Ḥ
village
(number
(number
Ḥaggai
village ofof 150),
Ḥaggai
11),Ḥaggai
11),
(number and
and and the
(number
Mabartha
Mabartha
(number
3), animal
Awarta 3),
(number
(number
3), bones
Awarta
Awarta
(number 76).
76). found
(number
Most
Most
(number
8), of at
of the
ofthese
Yokmeam 8),
these
these site
Yokmeam
8),(numberplaces
places
Yokmeamprovide
(number are
are foundample
(number
found
(number
7), Theon
onor evidence
7),
or
or The
around
7),around
TheMountain of (number
Good
Mount
Mount
Good sacrifices.
Mountain
Gerizim.
Gerizim.
Mountain
aggai
(number
(number (number
11),
11), and
and 3),
Mabartha
Mabartha Awarta (number
(number
(number 76).
76). 8),Most Yokmeam
Most of these places
places are
are 7),foundThe
found Good
on
on orGood Mountain
around
around Mount
Mount Gerizim.
Gerizim. 11),
aggai(number
(number Further,
Further,
(number
11),
(number andMany 11),
Mount
Mount
3),of
Mabartha
11), and and the
AwartaGerizimelements
Mabartha
Gerizim(number
Mabartha had
(numberhad in
(number
a
76).a these
“house
“house
8),
Most 76).
Yokmeam
ofinscriptions
of
of Most
sacrifice”
sacrifice”
these of these
(number
places (( are
‫דבחא‬
‫דבחא‬
areplaces common
7),‫בית‬,
‫בית‬,
found are
The found
number
number
on Good
or to the
around on
199),
199), period
or
Mountain around
and
and
Mount aa and Mount can
“sanctuary,”
“sanctuary,”
(number
Gerizim. be found
Gerizim.(‫מקדש‬,
(‫מקדש‬, in other
and
Further,
Further, Mabartha Mount
Mount (number
Gerizim
Gerizim had(number
76).
had aaMost
“house
“house of76). these Most
ofsacrifice”
of places
sacrifice” of these (are ‫דבחא‬
(‫דבחא‬ places
found ‫בית‬,number
‫בית‬, are
on
number found
or around on or
199),
199), and
and around
Mount Mount Gerizim.
Gerizim.
aa“sanctuary,”
“sanctuary,” Further,
(‫מקדש‬,
(‫מקדש‬,
11),
Further, Further,
and sacrednumber
numberGerizim
Mabartha
Further,
Mount Mount
sites
150),
150),
(number
Mount in and
and Gerizim
the the
the
Gerizim
had
had Levant.
76). animal
animal
aaanimal
“househad
“houseMost
hadbones a “house
But
bones
abones
of
ofof
“house number
these
sacrifice”
sacrifice”found
found of sacrifice”
ofplaces at 147
((at
sacrifice”the
theare
‫דבחא‬ uses
site(
site
‫בית‬, ‫דבחא‬
provide
‫דבחא‬
(,found
number ‫בית‬,
the phrase
provide ‫בית‬, number
ample
onampleample
or around
number
199), ‫דנה‬
and ‫באתרא‬
199),
evidence
evidence
199), and
, “in
Mount
and of
aa “sanctuary,” a “sanctuary,”
this
sacrifices.
ofasacrifices.
“sanctuary,” sacrifices.
Gerizim. (place.”
“sanctuary,”
(‫מקדש‬, (‫מקדש‬,
This
, , number(‫מקדש‬,phrase is
number
number 150),
150), andand the
the animal bones found
found atat the
the site
site provide
provide ample evidence
evidence ofof sacrifices.
Further,
numberMount number
found
number
150), Many
Many
and
Manyof or150),
Gerizim of
of and
reconstructed
150),
the ofthe the
the
and
animalhad
theelements
the
elements
elements
thea
elementsin
animal
“house
animal
bones in in
inbones
14of
found
inthesethese
these
or
bones sacrifice”
15
at found
theseinscriptionsinscriptions
inscriptions
the at
(‫דבחא‬
inscriptions.
found site
inscriptionsare at the
the
provide ‫בית‬
site
are
are
site ,
arecommonItprovide
common
common
number
reminds
provide
ample
commonto
ample
to
to
199),
ample
evidence
tothe the
the
us and
of
theperiod
evidence
period
period
the a
evidence
of
period and
and of
“sanctuary,”
21 cases
sacrifices.
sacrifices.
andcan of sacrifices.
can
can in be
be found
found
(‫מקדש‬
Deuteronomy
sacrifices.
canbe befound
foundin in
in other
other with the
inother
other
Many and
number sacred
150),
Many sacred
of Many
and
‘centralization the sites
sites
the of
elementsin
inthe
animal the
the elements
Levant.
Levant.
in
command’ bonesthese in
But
But
found thesenumber
number
inscriptions
in(see at inscriptions
the
above), 147
147
site
are
147many uses
uses
provide
common
usesare
are the
the common
phrase
phrase
ample
ofcommonto the
which ‫דנה‬ ‫דנה‬
to‫דנה‬
evidence
period the‫באתרא‬
‫באתרא‬
to ‫באתרא‬
also the period
and
have of ,, “in
“in and
this
this
sacrifices.
can
the be
and can
place.”
place.”
found
phrase be infound
This
“beforeThis
other in
phraseother
phrase
in
God/the is
is
sacred
sacred Many sitesof
sites ininthe the
the elements
Levant.But
Levant. But these
number
number inscriptions
147 uses the
the phrase
phrase ‫דנה‬ ‫באתרא‬ period
,,“in “in this
this can be
place.”
place.” found
Thisphrase
This phrase otherisis Lord”,
sacredMany sacred
found
sitesfound
of in
sacred the sites
or
or
the elements
sites in
reconstructed
reconstructed
Levant.
in thethethe Levant.
inBut these
Levant.
Levant. in
number But
14But
Butor
ininscriptions
14 number
or147 15
15inscriptions.
number
number uses 147
inscriptions.
inscriptions.
are 147
the
147 uses
common uses
phrase
uses It the
reminds
Itreminds
reminds
the
the tophrase
‫דנה‬ the
phrase
phrase‫באתרא‬ us
usof
period‫דנה‬
,of
of“in
‫דנה‬ ‫באתרא‬
the
the
‫באתרא‬
and 21
this ,
21can “in
cases
cases
“inbe
,cases
place.” this
in
in
found
this
this place.”
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy
This
place.”
place.” in This
other
phrase This
This phrase
with
withthe
isphrase
phrase is
the
theis
just
found
found like oror many
reconstructed
reconstructed of the ininGerizim
14
14 or
or 15
15 inscriptions.
inscriptions. ItItThe
reminds Gerizim usus of inscriptions
the
the 21
21 cases inin with
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy these phrases,
with
with theis therefore,
sacred
foundsites orfound
‘centralization
‘centralization
in
reconstructed
found
found
‘centralization
or
the or
or reconstructed
Levant.
reconstructed
reconstructed command’
incommand’
But
14
command’ or in
number
15in
in 14 (seeor
(see 15
147
inscriptions.
14
14(see or
or above),
above),
15
15
above),
inscriptions.
uses It
inscriptions.
inscriptions.many
many
the
many phrase
reminds of
of
It
of It which
which
us ‫דנה‬
reminds
reminds
which of ‫באתרא‬,
also
thealso
also
us21
us of
have
have
“in the
cases
of
have the 21
the
the
this
thein
21 cases
phrase
phrase
place.”
Deuteronomy
cases
phrase
inin Deuteronomy
“before
“before
This
“before phrase
Deuteronomy God/the
God/the
with
God/the is
the with
with
Lord”,
the
Lord”,
Lord”,the
‘centralization command’ (see above), many of which also have the phrase “before God/the Lord”, different
seem to echo Deuteronomy. The editors are probably right in stating that “this phrase has a
found or ‘centralization
just
just likelike
like
reconstructed
‘centralization many
manyin command’
of
of14 the
the Gerizim
Gerizim
orGerizim (see
15 inscriptions. above),
inscriptions.
inscriptions. ofmanyIt
many reminds of
The
The
ofalsowhich
Gerizim
Gerizim
us
which ofalso the
also have
inscriptions
inscriptions
21
have the “before
cases phrase
in with
with “before
these
these
Deuteronomy God/the
phrases,
phrases, Lord”,
therefore,
therefore,
withtherefore,
‘centralization
‘centralization
just
task:
just like tocommand’
many
emphasize
many of (see
command’
command’
of the
the the above),
Gerizim sanctity many
(seeinscriptions.
above),
inscriptions.
of Mt. which
Gerizim The
The Gerizim
Gerizimashave opposedthe phrase
inscriptions
inscriptions tothe that phrase
phrase
with
with “before
God/the
“before
these
of Jerusalem.”
these God/the
Lord”,
God/the
phrases,
phrases, (Magen Lord”,
Lord”,
therefore, et al. 2004, p.
the just
likeseemseem
seem
just‘centralization
many
just like
like
like to
to
of many
echo
echo
command’
the
many
many of
Gerizimof
of the
Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy.the
the Gerizim
(see
Gerizim The
above),
inscriptions.
Gerizim Theinscriptions.
editors
editors
inscriptions.many
inscriptions.The are
are
of
Gerizim The
probably
probably
which
The
The Gerizim
Gerizimalso
inscriptions
Gerizim right
right inscriptions
have in
in stating
stating
the
inscriptions
with
inscriptions phrase
these with
that
thatwith
with these
“this
“this
“before
these
phrases,
these phrases,
phrase
phrase God/the
phrases,
therefore,
phrases, has
has therefore,
a
a different
different
therefore,
therefore,
seem
19). We toto echo
echo Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy.
may compare the The
The editors
editors
phrases are
are
“this probably
probably
mountain” right
right in
in stating
stating
versus that
that
Jerusalem, “this
“this phrase
phrase
and has
has
“the aa different
different
place where one
Lord”,
seem to seem
just task:
task:
echo
seem like to
to
to echo
echoDeuteronomy.
emphasize
emphasize
many
Deuteronomy.
toemphasize of thethe
Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy. the
the
The sanctity
sanctity
Gerizim editors The
The of
ofeditorsMt.
Mt.
inscriptions.
areeditors probably are
Gerizimareprobably
Gerizim The as
right
probably in right
opposed
asGerizim
opposed stating
right in
to
to
in stating
that
that
inscriptions
thatstatingof that
Jerusalem.”
ofJerusalem.”
“this Jerusalem.”
that with “this
phrase “thisthesephrase
has (Magen
(Magen
phrase has
aphrases,
different
has etaal.
et different
aal.
al. 2004,
2004,p.
different p.
p.
task:
task: to to emphasize the sanctity
sanctity ofof Mt. Mt. Gerizim
Gerizim as
as opposed
opposed toto that
that ofof Jerusalem.” (Magen
(Magen etet al. 2004,
2004, p.
should
task: to worship”
emphasize in John
the 4:20, οἱ editors
πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐνversusτῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε
therefore, 19).
19).
seem
task: to emphasize
task:
19).
19). We
We
We Wetoto
to may
may
echo
emphasize
may
may thecompare
emphasize compare
compare
Deuteronomy.
sanctity
compare thesanctity
the of the
the
sanctity
the
the Mt.phrases
sanctity of
phrases
phrases
The
of
Gerizim
phrases ofMt. Mt.Mt. Gerizim
“this
“this
Gerizim
as
“this
“this opposed
Gerizim areas
mountain”
mountain”
mountain”
mountain” as opposed
probably
as opposed
toopposed
that versus
versus
versus ofto
right
to that
that inof
Jerusalem,
Jerusalem,
Jerusalem.”
to that of
Jerusalem,
Jerusalem,
Jerusalem.”
stating
Jerusalem.”
of and
and “the
that
(Magen
Jerusalem.”
and
and “the
(Magen
“the
“the
“this
et(Magen
al. place
place
phrase
2004,
(Magen
place
place
etetal. et 2004,
where
where
al.
p.
where
where 2004,
al. p.
one
one
2004,
one
one p.
has ὅτι
19).
should
should
19). aWedifferent
19).
may
p.
ἐν
We
19).We Ἱεροσολύμοις
may
worship”
worship”
compare
We task:
may may compare
to
compare
the in
compare John
inemphasize
John
phrases ἐστὶν
the
the4:20,
thephrases
4:20, ὁοἱ
οἱ
phrases
“this τόπος
the
phrasesπατέρες
πατέρες“this
sanctity
“this
mountain” ὅπου
“this mountain”
ἡμῶν
ἡμῶν
mountain”προσκυνεῖν
of ἐν
versus
mountain” ἐν
ἐνMt. τῷ
τῷ versus
ὄρει
ὄρει
Gerizim
versus
Jerusalem,
versus
δεῖ.
τούτῳJerusalem,
τούτῳ “theand
προσεκύνησαν·
προσεκύνησαν·
asπροσεκύνησαν·
Jerusalem,
and
Jerusalem, opposed andplace
and “thetowhere
“the
“the place
καὶ
καὶ
that
place
place where
ὑμεῖς
ὑμεῖς
of
onewhere
where one
λέγετε
λέγετεone
should
should worship”
worship” inin John
John 4:20,
4:20, οἱ
οἱ πατέρες
πατέρες ἡμῶν
ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ τῷ ὄρει
ὄρει τούτῳ
τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ
καὶ ὑμεῖς
ὑμεῖς λέγετε
λέγετε
Jerusalem.” should
should worship”ὅτι
ὅτι
should ἐν
ἐν
(Magen Taken worship”
Ἱεροσολύμοις
Ἱεροσολύμοις
in etfrom
John
worship” in John al. in
4:20, the
John
2004, same
ἐστὶν
ἐστὶν
οἱ 4:20,
p.
πατέρες
4:20, ὁὁ
19). period
οἱ
τόπος
τόπος πατέρες
We
οἱ πατέρεςἡμῶν ὅπου
ὅπουcome
may ἐν ἡμῶν two
προσκυνεῖν
προσκυνεῖν
compare
τῷ ὄρει
ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ δεῖ. ἐν inscriptions
τῷ the
τούτῳ ὄρειδεῖ.
δεῖ.
ὄρει τούτῳ
phrases
προσεκύνησαν· on the
προσεκύνησαν·
“this island
mountain”
καὶ of
ὑμεῖς Delos
καὶversusὑμεῖς
λέγετε in the
λέγετε Aegean Sea,
ὅτιὅτι ἐνἹεροσολύμοις
ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν
ἐστὶν ὁὁτόπος
τόπος ὅπουπροσκυνεῖν
ὅπου προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε
Jerusalem, ὅτι
found
ὅτιand
ὅτι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν
ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις
Takenin 1979
Taken
“the
Ἱεροσολύμοις from
from
placeἐστὶν (IJudOrthe
the
where
ὁ sameἐστὶν
same
same
ἐστὶν
τόπος Ione
Ach ὁ τόπος
period
period
ὁ 66 προσκυνεῖν
should
ὅπουτόπος and ὅπου
come
come 67)two
worship”
ὅπου προσκυνεῖν
two
two(Ameling inscriptions
inscriptions
προσκυνεῖν in John
δεῖ. δεῖ.
etδεῖ.al.on
4:20, on2004).
on οἱthe
the They were
island
island
πατέρες of
of
ἡμῶν Delos
Delos commissioned
ἐνinin
inτῷ the
the ὄρειAegean
Aegean bySea,“Israelites”
Sea,
Sea,
Taken
Taken from
from the
the same period
period come
come two inscriptions
inscriptions on the the island
island ofof Delos
Delos in the the Aegean
Aegean Sea,
τούτῳTaken found
whofound
προσεκύνησαν· Taken
from in
send
Taken in 1979
1979
the from
their
from same(IJudOrthe
(IJudOr
καὶ ὑμεῖς
temple
the same
period
same II Ach
Ach
λέγετεperiod
come
tax
period66
66
to and
and
ὅτι
two come
67)
67)
ἐν
“Argarizein”
come two
(Ameling
(Ameling
Ἱεροσολύμοις
inscriptions
two inscriptions
et
(Mount
inscriptions et
on al.
al. 2004).
2004).
ἐστὶν
the on on
islandὁ
Gerizim).
the the
They
They
τόπος
islandofisland
were
wereὅπου
Delos
The
of of in
last
Delos Delos
commissioned
commissioned
προσκυνεῖν
the
editors
in in
Aegean
the the
date
Aegean by
byAegean
δεῖ. “Israelites”
Sea,“Israelites”
these
Sea, Sea,
texts
Sea, to 150–
found
foundTaken
found inin19791979 from (IJudOr
(IJudOr the same IIAchAch66 period
66and and67) come
67)(Ameling two inscriptions
(Ameling etetal. al.2004).
2004). on They
They the were island
werecommissioned of Delos in the
commissioned bybyAegean
“Israelites”
“Israelites”
found Taken found
50
inwhowho
who
in
found
1979from
1979
BCE, in
send
send 1979
the
in(IJudOr
(IJudOr their
1979
but their (IJudOr
same
aI(IJudOrtemple
temple
I Ach
date
Ach period
66in66I Ach
tax
Itax
and tax
Ach
the and 66
to
to
come66
first
67) and
“Argarizein”
“Argarizein”
67)and two
(Ameling
half
(Ameling 67)
67) of (Ameling
inscriptions
(Ameling
the
et al. (Mount
et(Mount et
al. 2004).
second
2004). al.
on
etGerizim).
al. 2004).
Gerizim).
Gerizim).
the
They
2004).
century
They were They
island The
were
They The
also were
last
last
of Delos
commissioned
were
is possible.
commissioned commissioned
editors
editors
commissioned date
date
indate
by the
IJudOrby these
these by
Aegean “Israelites”
texts
texts
“Israelites”
“Israelites” by to
to
“Israelites”
Itexts
Ach 150–
150–
who
67150–starts in this
who send send their
their temple
temple tax toto “Argarizein”
“Argarizein” (Mount
(Mount Gerizim). The
The last
last editors
editors date these
these texts to
to 150–
Sea,
whofoundsend who
50
50
send
who BCE,
BCE,
in
their send 1979
their
sendtempletheir
but
but aa
(IJudOr
temple
their temple
date
date
taxtempletax
toin
in
I the
the
Ach
to tax
tax
“Argarizein” to
first
first
66
“Argarizein”
to “Argarizein”
half
half
and
“Argarizein” of
of
67) the
(Mount the second
(Ameling
(Mount (Mount
second (Mount
Gerizim). century
et
Gerizim). Gerizim).
centuryal. also
2004).
Gerizim).
The Thealso
last lastThe
is
is
They
The last
possible.
possible.
editors
editors were
last editors
date dateIJudOr
IJudOr
editors date
commissioned
these
these date I
I these
Ach
Ach
texts
texts these
to67
67totexts
starts
starts
by
150–50
texts
150– totoin
in150–
this
this
BCE,
150–
way:
50 50BCE,BCE,but butaadate datein inthe thefirst firsthalf halfof ofthe thesecond secondcentury centuryalso alsoisispossible.
possible.IJudOr IJudOrIIAch Ach67 67startsstartsin inthis
this
50 BCE,50
“Israelites” way:
way:
but
but BCE,
who a
a date
datebut
send in
in a date
their
the
the in
temple
first
first the
half
half first
tax
of
of half
the
theto second
secondof
“Argarizein”the
50 BCE, but a date in the first half of the second century also is possible. IJudOr I Ach 67 starts in this
way:
second
century
century century
(Mount
also
also is
is also
Gerizim).
possible.
possible. is possible.
The
IJudOr
IJudOr last IIJudOr
I editors
Ach
Ach 6767 I Ach
date
starts
starts 67these
in in starts
this
this in
way: this
way:
texts
way:to 150–50 way:1
way: BCE,
11 οἱ
οἱ ἐνbut
οἱ
οἱ ἐνἐν
ἐν Δήλῳ
Δήλῳ
Δήλῳ
a dateἸσραελεῖται
ΔήλῳἸσραελεῖται
in the first half
Ἰσραελεῖται
Ἰσραελεῖταιοἱ οἱ
οἱ ἀ-
οἱ of
ἀ-
ἀ-
ἀ-the second century also is possible. IJudOr I Ach 67
starts in this way: 1
12οἱπαρχόμενοι
ἐν Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται εἰς ἱερὸνοἱ Ἀργα- ἀ-
11οἱοἱἐν ἐνΔήλῳ 122οἱ ἐν
παρχόμενοι
παρχόμενοιΔήλῳ
ΔήλῳἸσραελεῖται
Ἰσραελεῖται εἰς
εἰς οἱοἱἱερὸν
ἱερὸν
ἀ-ἀ- Ἀργα- οἱ
Ἀργα-
Ἀργα-οἱἀ-
2123παρχόμενοι
Δήλῳ οἱ ἐνἸσραελεῖται
παρχόμενοι
ριζείν
Ἰσραελεῖται
εἰς
εἰς
... εἰς ἱερὸν Ἀργα- ἱερὸν
ἱερὸν Ἀργα- ἀ-
22παρχόμενοι
παρχόμενοι 2233παρχόμενοι
ριζείν
ριζείν εἰς
παρχόμενοιεἰς ...
...
ἱερὸν
... ἱερὸν Ἀργα-
εἰς
Ἀργα- ἱερὸν Ἀργα-
331ριζείνριζείν......
The Israelites
ριζείν...3...
3 3ριζείν 3
1 11ριζείν
The
The Israelites
ριζείν
The
......
Israelites
Israelites ininin
in DelosDelos
Delos
Delos who
who
who
who se-se-
se-
se-
1 The Israelites in Delos who se-
11The
TheIsraelites 12 22Thend
nd
nd theirtheir
Israelites
their
their
in inDelos temple
temple
temple in
who Delos
tax
tax tax
se- toto
to who
sacredsacred
sacred se- Arga-
Arga- Arga-
212nd
Israelites The
nd Israelites
their Delos
temple
temple in
who Delos
tax
tax se-
to
to who
sacred
sacred se-Arga-
Arga-
22ndndtheir 233temple
nd rizein…
their
rizein…
rizein… tax temple
. .tax totosacred
.temple tax
taxto Arga-sacred
sacredArga-
their 332rizein…
nd
temple
rizein
rizein… their sacred toArga- Arga-
3 rizein…
3 rizein…IJudOr 3 rizein…
IJudOr
IJudOr
IJudOr
3 rizein… III Ach
Ach
Ach 66
66 66 starts
starts
starts thus:
thus:
thus:
IJudOr IIAch Ach66 66starts startsthus: thus:
IJudOr
IJudOrI IAch IJudOr
111
IJudOr
Ach Ἰσραηλῖται
Ἰσραηλῖται
66
Ἰσραηλῖται
66 IIstarts
Ach
starts Ach 66 οἱ
thus:
66οἱ
thus:starts
οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι
ἀπαρχόμενοι thus:
ἀπαρχόμενοι
starts thus: εἰς εἰς
εἰςεἰς ἱερὸν
ἱερὸν ἱερὸν ἅγιον
ἅγιον ἅγιον Ἀρ-
Ἀρ- Ἀρ-
11Ἰσραηλῖται
Ἰσραηλῖταιοἱ οἱἀπαρχόμενοι
ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν
ἱερὸν ἅγιον
ἅγιον Ἀρ-
Ἀρ-
1 1Ἰσραηλῖται
Ἰσραηλῖται 112 22Ἰσραηλῖται
γαριζείν
γαριζείν
οἱ οἱ
Ἰσραηλῖται
γαριζείν ἀπαρχόμενοι ……
ἀπαρχόμενοι οἱοἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι
ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰςεἰς ἱερὸν
ἱερὸν εἰς
εἰς ἱερὸν
ἅγιον
ἅγιον ἱερὸν Ἀρ- ἅγιον
Ἀρ- ἅγιον Ἀρ-
Ἀρ-
222γαριζείν
γαριζείν
γαριζείν … …. .… .
22γαριζείν
γαριζείν 2211γαριζείν
…Israelites
Israelites
γαριζείν
… … …who
who send
send their
their temple
temple tax
taxtax to sacred,
tosacred,
sacred, holy
holyholy Ar-
Ar- Ar-
111Israelites
Israelites
Israelites who
who who send
send send their
their their temple
temple temple tax
tax toto to sacred,
sacred, holy
holy Ar-
Ar-
11Israelites 122Israelites
garizein.
garizein.
whowhosend whotheir send temple their tax temple totosacred, tax
taxto sacred,
holy Ar-Ar-holy holyAr-
Israelites 2212garizein.
Israelites
garizein.
garizein. send who their send temple their taxtemple sacred, to sacred,
holy Ar-
2 2garizein.
garizein. 22garizein.
garizein.
TheThe
The people
peoplebehind
people behind
behindthese these inscriptions
theseinscriptions
inscriptionscall call themselves
callthemselves
themselves“Israelites” “Israelites”
“Israelites”and and
andthis this
thisis is the
isthe oldest
theoldest attestation
oldestattestation
attestation
The The people
people behindbehind these these inscriptions
inscriptions call themselves
call themselves “Israelites” “Israelites” and this is the
and thisoldest
is the attestation
oldest attestation
of
of
Thepeople
The people The
the
the The people
later
later
behind
behindpeople so
so behind
well-known
these
these well-known
behind these
inscriptions
inscriptions these inscriptions
self-designation
self-designation
call
inscriptionscall call
themselves
themselves call themselves
of
of the
the
“Israelites”
“Israelites”
themselves “Israelites”
Samaritans.
Samaritans.
and and
“Israelites” this
this and
The
The
is is the
and thethis
next
next isisinformation
oldest
oldest
this the oldest
information
attestation
attestation
the oldest attestation
of
attestationsome
of some
some
of
ofof thethe
the later
later
later soso so well-known
well-known
well-known self-designation
self-designation
self-designation ofof the the of Samaritans.
Samaritans.
the Samaritans. The next
The next
The information
information
next information of
of some of some
of the
sosolater
consequence so here well-known
is the name self-designation
of the mountain, of the
the Samaritans.
Argarizein, The next information someof some
ofof the
the later consequence
of
later the
consequence well-known
later
well-known so here
here isself-designation
well-known
is the name
self-designation
the name of the the of
self-designation
of mountain,
of the
mountain, the Samaritans. Argarizein,
ofArgarizein,
Samaritans. The
Samaritans.
The aaa contraction
contraction
contraction
next
next information
The next
informationand
and
and transliteration
transliteration
ofof some
information
transliteration of ofof
of the
somethe
the
 3 ριζείν ...
called “Chouthas”; this calledis Persia,
“Chouthas”; wherethis there is Persia,
is a river wherethat there
has this is aname.
river that
Eachhas of the
thisnations—
name. Eac
1 The Israelites in Delos who se-
there were five of them—brought there were fiveitsofown them—brought
god to Samareia. its own By god
adoring these, as By
to Samareia. wasadoring
their ancestral
these, as w
2 nd their temple tax to sacred Arga-
[custom], they aroused [custom],
the greatest they aroused
God to wrath the greatest
and rage. GodFor to wrath
he inflictedand rage.
themFor with
he ainflicted
plague, them by
3 rizein…
which they were afflicted. whichAscertaining
they were afflicted. no cureAscertaining
for their calamities, no curethey for their
learnedcalamities,
by waythey of anlearned
oracle b
IJudOr I Ach 66 starts thus:
that, if they worshiped
Religions 2019, 10, 661 that,theif they
greatest worshiped
God, this thewould
greatest be [a God,source
this of]wouldsafety be to[a10
them.
source
of 14 They
of] safety
therefore to the
1 Ἰσραηλῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀρ-
dispatched messengers dispatched
to the king messengers
of the Assyrians
to the king andof begged
the Assyrians
him to send and them
begged priests
him to fromsend those
them
2 γαριζείν …
he had taken captivehe when
had he taken warredcaptive
against
whenthe heIsraelites.
warred against Upon his the sending
Israelites. these
Upon and histheir
sendingbeingthe
1 Israelites who1send their who
Israelites temple sendtaxtheir
to sacred,
templeholy tax Ar-
to sacred, holy Ar-
taught the ordinances taught
and the reverence
ordinances for this andGod,reverence for this God,
they worshiped himtheylavishly
worshipedand the him plague
lavishl
2 garizein. 2 garizein.
immediately ceased.immediately Even now the ceased.
name Even“Chouthaioi”
now the continues
name “Chouthaioi” to be usedcontinues
for these nations
to be used in the
for th
The people behind Thethese
people Hebrew
inscriptions
behind theselanguage, whereas
callinscriptions
themselvesHebrew in
language,
Greekand
“Israelites”
call themselves they
whereas
thisare called
is the
“Israelites” in and
Greek
oldest “Samareitai”
this they
is the are
attestationoldest called
[Σαμαρεῖται].
“Samareitai”
attestation of Whenever,[Σαμαρεῖτα by
of the later sothe well-known turns, they
self-designation see things
of turns,
thegoing they
well
Samaritans. seefor things
the
The Judeans,
going
next well
they
information
later so well-known self-designation of the Samaritans. The next information of some consequence for
call the Judeans,
themselves
of some they
their call
relatives,
themselvesin that their
they relativ
are
consequence here hereis isthe
thename
name descendants
ofofthe
themountain, of Josep
mountain, descendants
[Joseph]aaand
Argarizein,
Argarizein, of Josep
have family
contraction
contraction [Joseph]
and ties
andwith
andtransliteration have
transliteration themfamily
of
ofthe in Hebrew
the virtue
ties with ofnamethat
themorigin.
in virtue When, of t
Hebrew name ‫הר גריזים‬,, “Mount “Mount however,
Gerizim.”
Gerizim.” theyThissee is
This that
ishowever,
anthings
an are
they
oldSamaritan
old Samaritangoing
seedesignation
that
badly things
for them
designation are
ofof going
the [the
the Judeans],
badly for
mountain,
mountain, they
themsay
developed [the that
Judeans],
into they
a owe theynothing
say that
developed into name,
a name, andandbyby to some
somethem and that
ancient
ancient theytoused
authors
authors have
them
used no
in and claim
ain athat tothey
their
derogatory
derogatory haveloyalty
noWe
sense.
sense. claim
orWe race.
see to
see
thattheir
Instead,
that
thisloyalty
this theyor
Delos make
race.themselves
community Instead, they outmake to beth
Delos community usedused
a correct migrants
a correct
Samaritan of another
Samaritan
name name
for the migrants
nation
for the
mountain, [ of another
mountain, nation
and the oldestand the [ oldest
known known self- for themselves.
self-designation
The participle, ἀ παρχóµενoι, from ἀ πάρχoµαι, “to make (a first) offering,” could refer to the temple
tax, Exod 30:11–16, λλοεθνεῖς].
paid by JewsBut about
to the these
λλοεθνεῖς].
temple matters
inBut we
about
Jerusalem shallthese
have
and, matters
to speak
accordingly, weinshall
bya morehavesuitable
Samaritans to speak place
to Mountin a (Ant.
more 9.288–291;
suitable plac
Gerizim, possibly Begg at and
a time Spilsbury
when the 2005).
Begg
templeand thereSpilsbury 2005).
was operating. These inscriptions were aimed to
honour beneficiariesThe whodependence
had contributed on 2The Kings
to thedependence
171 is evident,
building onSamaritan
of 2 Kings
and Josephus
17synagogues.
1 is evident,
here explains
and Josephus
During the time,
that origin
hereofexplains
the people the o
there was a Jewish in Samaria
presenceafteron the 721 inBCE.
Samaria
island ofThey after
Delos, descend
and721 BCE.
Jewishfromsynagogues
They
the five descendpeoples from
as well. imported
the fiveby peoples
the Assyrian
imported king
by t
Salmanasser
The inscriptions from Mount (Ant. Salmanasser
9.277–278).
Gerizim and from Through
(Ant.
Delos 9.277–278).
singling
witness Through
out one self-consciousness
to a developed singling
of the names out one in of2 Kings
the names 17,
the early secondKuthean/Choutaioi,
Century BCE, rejecting he
Kuthean/Choutaioi,
laid the ground
Jerusalem as a for hethe
place laid
ofrabbinic
the ground
worship name for
(Kartveitforthe
the rabbinic
Samaritans.
2014a). nameThe
Excavations for story,
the Samaritans.
therefore, Th
and inscriptions also becomes
show an origin
a functioning alsostory
becomes
community for thean Samaritans.
origin on
centred story He
Mountfordoes
the Samaritans.
not state,
Gerizim however,
in the He doesthat
second not the
state,
century Samaritans
however,were that th
BCE, with rootsainmixed earlier population
periods. This a from
mixed
is now population
imported
generallyexpatriatesfrom imported
acknowledged andbyoriginal expatriates
scholars inhabitants,
(Magen and original
et al. nor
2004;that inhabitants,
they wereno
Pummer 2016; Knopperssyncretists.2013).
Syncretism syncretists.
may be assumed Syncretism onmay the basis
be assumed
of this text on the andbasis of 2 of
Kingsthis 17:33,
text and butofit2isKingsnot
expressed. The idea expressed. of a mixedThe population
idea of aismixed later than population
Josephus. is later
Whatthan is evidently
Josephus.the What ideais ofevid
7. The Origin of the Samaritans—Then
Josephus is that the Samaritans
Josephusand is Nowwere
that the opportunistic.
Samaritans were opportunistic.
61–62; Kartveit 2014b). 61–62; Kartveit 2014b).
Reviewing1 the material presented in this article, it is probably correct to state that the oldest theory
2 Kings 17 is a composite
1 2 Kings
text. 17
Vv.is24–42
a composite
may betext.
a late,
Vv.anti-Samaritan
24–42 may bepolemical
a late, anti-Samaritan
text, (Knoppers
polemical
2013, pp.
text, (
of the origin of the Samaritans is found in 2 Kings 17:24–41. It is a polemical text from the last centuries
BCE against the Samaritans, stating that they came from the five peoples deported into Samaria by the
Assyrians in the eighth century BCE. Josephus in the first century CE repeats and enlarges this biblical
statement in book 9 of his Antiquities. Found in book 11 he adds the story of the erection of the temple
on Mount Gerizim. The church fathers generally follow Josephus (Pummer 2002). Modern scholars
with theories of this type are listed in (Kartveit 2009, pp. 49–58).
During the late Middle Age, the Samaritans produced their theory of their origin in the chronicles
of the 14. century CE, repeated in later chronicles. As mentioned, Gaster and Macdonald follow them.
Modern study of the question started with James Alan Montgomery’s book from 1906. He did
not adopt the Samaritan version, but still suggested that the roots of Samaritanism must be sought
in the faithful remnant that remained in Samaria after the Assyrian conquest. He thus opened the
idea that there is a continuation from early Israel in the north to the Samaritans. This lead has been
followed by later scholars (Nodet 1997; Hjelm 2000; Diebner 2011). The notion that the Samaritans are
Israelites, descendants of Old Israel, is one of the main theories until today. One recent example: Lee
Martin McDonald, in his 2017 book, devotes a paragraph to “The Samaritan Bible”, found in Chapter
7 dealing with “Scripture among Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Samaritans.” McDonald opens
this paragraph by stating that “Many of the Jews who survived the 721 BCE Assyrian invasion of the
northern tribes of Israel with the capture of Samaria, its capital, subsequently intermarried with the
Assyrians and became known as ‘Samaritans.’ The Jews to the south tended to view them as despised
‘half-breeds’ and rejected their participation in the life of the nation and its temple cultus.” (McDonald
2017, p. 264). The use of “Jews” for the Israelites of the eighth century BCE is not common today,
and the theory of the mixed origin of the Samaritans owes its main impetus to the version presented by
Josephus, even though he portrays them rather as foreigners. Similar statements of a mixed population
with syncretism can be found in Freudenthal (1874, p. 96), Di Lella and Skehan (1987, p. 558), and The
Hodder and Stoughton Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Lockyer 1986).
Modern biblical scholars often have built upon the book of Nehemiah, assuming that it reports
from 445 BCE, and believed that the rejected people of the land were the Samaritans (Mor 1989).
They had not been exiled, and did not qualify for membership in the Jerusalem community.
 Religions 2019, 10, 661 11 of 14

William Foxwell Albright suggested in 1940 that the period after the destruction of the temple
was decisive for the Samaritan group:
If we compare the oldest lapidary examples of Samaritan writing with the coins of the Hasmoneans,
dated between 135 and 37 B.C., a relatively late date for the origin of the Samaritan script as such seems
highly probable. Moreover, since Shechem and Samaria were conquered by the Jews between 128
and 110 B.C. and were lost to the Romans in 63 B.C., it would be only natural to date the final schism
between the sects somewhere in the early first century B.C. It was presumably then or somewhat
later that the entire Samaritan Pentateuch was re-transcribed into the archaizing “Samaritan” script,
which symbolized the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the “modernists” of Jerusalem. (Albright
1940, p. 345, n. 12)
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeological excavations on Mount Gerizim with the
inscriptions found there, and the find of the Delos inscriptions have changed much of the basis for
Albright’s ideas. The SP was ‘re-transcribed’ into an archaizing script in the sense that the later
Samaritan script probably was developed from one of the scripts used in the DSS and in the Mount
Gerizim inscriptions. Albright uses the term “sect”, so often found in earlier and later scholarship,
but eschewed by most scholars today. Moreover, a lack of relevant material from the first century BCE
makes it difficult to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Against the backdrop of what we know of the
cult on Mount Gerizim before the temple, its city, and Shechem were destroyed, the task is to assess
the effects of such dramatic change: did it lead to a period of low activity, or did it boost the group’s
activity? However, Albright’s statement has been quoted and developed by Frank Moore Cross, Jr.
(Cross 1966) and, though the parlance has changed, it still inspires scholars to think in similar terms.
Based on all the material now available, scholars still may consider the destruction of the temple on
Mount Gerizim a “momentous event” (Pummer 2002, p. 2) that shaped the course of history (Knoppers
2013, p. 216; Pummer 2016, pp. 24–25).
James Alan Montgomery used the word “sect” (Montgomery 1906), but an important move away
from this usage is the book by Coggins (Coggins 1975), in which he advocates a model of estrangement
rather than a rupture.
New publications in Biblical studies take the Samaritan question more seriously than what was
the case earlier. The 2007 publication, The Pentateuch as Torah, edited by Gary Knoppers and Bernard
Levinson (Knoppers and Levinson 2007), contains several articles with a new discussion of the situation
(especially the contribution by Christophe Nihan, pp. 187–224). Raik Heckl and Benedikt Hensel,
Religions 2018, 9, x FOR
in 2016, eachPEER REVIEW their own monograph on the Judea/Yehud–Samaria questions 9(Heckl
published of 14 2016a;

Hensel 2016), where they, from different viewpoints, opt for continuous religious development and
Inscription number 20 uses monumental Aramaic script and was inscribed on a large stone,
contacts between Jerusalem and Samaria. During the congress of the International Organization of
broken into two parts, together measuring 110 × 34 × 22 cm.
the Old Testament in Stellenbosch 2016, two sessions dealt with the Samaritans from the angle of
1 ‫ויהונתנ‬
Hebrew ‫זבדי‬Bible
‫]צל[א בר‬
and‫ח‬Samaritan
‫ זי הקרב‬material. The presentations at the conference, plus additional chapters,
‫וברה‬published
2 are ‫( בעיה מרימ‬Kartveit
‫יהוספ וישוע‬and
‫ברה‬Knoppers 2018). A combination of continuity and estrangement dominate
the scholarly
1 This fieldthat
is [the stone] on this question
’A[ṣl]aḥ, son today.
of Zabdi,This
anddevelopment
Yehonatan,seems to continue.
2 his son,The material
Yehosef reviewed
and Yeshua‛,here indicates
Ba‛yah, Miriam,thatand
a theory
her sonondedicated.
the origin of the Samaritans must reckon
with an origin
Inscription numberof their
147 Pentateuch inside aon
is longer, incised Jewish milieu
a large, of the
intact stonelastofthree
202 BCE-centuries,
× 36.5 × 55 cm,with
and aitcity and
stretches a cult
oversite the on
fullMount
lengthGerizim which
of the stone. Its flourished in the early second century BCE, and had a history
script is cursive:
before that time, and in that period the Samaritans had a developed self-consciousness. The initial
1 ‫די הקרב דליה בר שמעון עלוהי ועל בנוהי אבנא ד[ה ל]דכרנ טב קדמ אלהא באתרא דנה‬
construction on the mountain is still a matter of dispute.
1 This is [the stone] that Delayah, son of Shim‛on, dedicated for himself and his children/sons,
When and how did the Samaritans emerge? The answers to these questions depend on which
[this] ston[e for] good remembrance before God in this place.
parts of the material one would prioritize. They were there as a group with some history and standing
When
at thewetimelookofat
thethe
Newinscriptions
Testamentatand
large, we findThe
Josephus. thatformative
their onomasticon is almost
period for them completely
seems to have been the
Yahwistic. Additionally,
preceding centuries. “YHWH” is found in inscription number 383 (a fragment). The places
named (or restored)
Their number are Shamrayin (numbers
and status today may 14 be and 15), around
modest: Shechem 800(numbers 12, 36,
people living on and
Mount39),Gerizim
the and
village ofin Ḥolon near Tel Aviv. However, their name is widely known—even among people who have no idea
aggai (number 3),
of Samaritans Awarta
at the time (number 8), or
of the Bible Yokmeam
today. Their(number
origin 7), Thea Good
is still Mountain
fascinating object(number
for research.
11), and Mabartha (number 76). Most of these places are found on or around Mount Gerizim.,
Further, Mount Gerizim had a “house of sacrifice” (‫ בית דבחא‬, number 199), and a “sanctuary,” (‫מקדש‬
number 150), and the animal bones found at the site provide ample evidence of sacrifices.
Many of the elements in these inscriptions are common to the period and can be found in other
sacred sites in the Levant. But number 147 uses the phrase ‫באתרא דנה‬, “in this place.” This phrase is
found or reconstructed in 14 or 15 inscriptions. It reminds us of the 21 cases in Deuteronomy with
Religions 2019, 10, 661 12 of 14

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
Adler, William, and Paul Tuffin. 2002. The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal
History from the Creation. Translated by William Adler, and Paul Tuffin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Albright, William Foxwell. 1940. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Ameling, Walter, David Noy, Alexander Panayotov, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis.
Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, vol. 3.
Baillet, Maurice. 1988. Les divers états du Pentateuque samaritain. Revue de Qumran 13: 531–45.
Begg, Christopher, and Paul Spilsbury. 2005. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities Books 8–10. Translation and
Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
Coggins, Richard J. 1975. Samaritans and Jews: The Origin of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crawford, Sidnie White. 2017. 2.2.4.5. Deuteronomy. In Textual History of the Bible. Vol. 1B Pentateuch. Former
and Latter Prophets. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 101–5.
Crawford, Sidnie White. 2019. Scribes and Scrolls at Qumran. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. 1966. Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times. HTR
59: 201–11. [CrossRef]
De Hemmer Gudme, Anne Katrine. 2013. Before the God in this Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis
of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim. BZAW 441. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dexinger, Ferdinand. 1992. Der Ursprung der Samaritaner im Spiegel der frühen Quellen. In Die Samaritaner.
Edited by Ferdinand Dexinger and Reinhard Pummer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
pp. 62–140.
Di Lella, Alexander A., and Patrick William Skehan. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes,
Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday.
Diebner, Bernd Jørg. 2011. Seit wann gibt es “jenes Israel”? Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum:
Bernd J. Diebner zum 70. Geburtstag. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel. Münster and Westf: LIT.
Dušek, Jan. 2007. Les Manuscrits Araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie Vers 450–332 av. J.-C. Culture and History of
the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill.
Dušek, Jan. 2012. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus
IV Epiphanes. Culture and History of the Ancient near East. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Fotheringham, John Knight. 1905. The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome’s Version of the Chronicles of Eusebius. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Freudenthal, Jacob. 1874. Hellenistische Studien: Heft I. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen
Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. In Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars
"Fränkelscher Stiftung". Breslau: Grass.
Gaster, Moses. 1925. The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature. London: Oxford University Press.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1815. De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, Indole et Auctoritate: Commentatio Philologico-Critica.
Halae: Rengerianae.
Heckl, Raik. 2016a. Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 104. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Heckl, Raik. 2016b. Überlegungen zu Form und Funktion der Zentralisationsformel im Konzept des
samaritanischen Pentateuch, zugleich ein Plädoyer für die Ursprünglichkeit der masoretischen Lesart.
Zeitschrift für Altorentalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 23: 191–208.
Hensel, Benedikt. 2016. Juda und Samaria. Zum Verhältnis Zweier Nach-Exilischer Jahwismen. Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Lockyer, Herbert. 1986. The Hodder and Stoughton Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Nelson.
Hjelm, Ingrid. 2000. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. JSOT Sup. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Karst, Josef. 1911. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten
drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Kartveit, Magnar. 2009. The origin of the Samaritans. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Religions 2019, 10, 661 13 of 14

Kartveit, Magnar. 2014a. Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of
the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos. JSJ 24: 449–70. [CrossRef]
Kartveit, Magnar. 2014b. The Date of II Reg 1724–41. ZAW 126: 31–44.
Kartveit, Magnar, and Gary Knoppers, eds. 2018. The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans. SJ 104/StSam 10. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Kippenberg, Hans G. 1971. Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtiche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion
der aramäischen Periode. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Knoppers, Gary N. 2013. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Knoppers, Gary, and Bernard Levinson, eds. 2007. The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its
Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Macdonald, John. 1964. The Theology of the Samaritans. New Testament Library. London: SCM Press.
Magen, Yitzhak, Haggai Misgav, and Levana Tsfania. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations: Volume I: The Aramaic,
Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Judea and Samaria Publications. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology-Civil
Administration of Judea and Samaria, Israel Antiquities Authority.
McDonald, Lee Martin. 2017. The Formation of the Biblical Canon. London and New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark,
vol. I.
Montgomery, James Alan. 1906. The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature.
The Bohlen Lectures 1906. New York: Ktav Publishing House.
Mor, Menahem. 1989. I. Samaritan History: 1. The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period. In The Samaritans.
Edited by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 1–18.
Nodet, Etienne. 1997. A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah. JSOT Sup. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Pummer, Reinhard. 1976. The Present State of Samaritan Studies: I. JSS 21: 39–61. [CrossRef]
Pummer, Reinhard. 1977. The Present State of Samaritan Studies: II. JSS 22: 27–47. [CrossRef]
Pummer, Reinhard. 1992. Einführung in den Stand der Samaritanerforschung. In Die Samaritaner. Edited by
Ferdinand Dexinger und Reinhard Pummer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 1–66.
Pummer, Reinhard. 2002. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations, and Commentary.
Texts and studies in Ancient Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Pummer, Reinhard. 2009. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Pummer, Reinhard. 2016. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Purvis, James D. 1986. The Samaritans and Judaism. In Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert
A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 81–98.
Rolfe, John Carew. 1946. Quintus Curtius Rufus: Historia Alexandri Magni Macedonis. Translated by John C. Rolfe,
and Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Sanderson, Judith E. 1986. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. Harvard
Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Schenker, Adrian. 2008. Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible grecque
ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique. In Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint,
Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raja Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. JsJSup
126. Leiden: Brill, pp. 339–52.
Schorch, Stefan. 2011. The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy. In Samaria,
Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. Edited by Jószef Zsengellér. Studia Judaica 66,
Studia Samaritana 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 23–37.
Schorch, Stefan. 2018. The Samaritan Pentateuch: A Critical Editio Maior. Leviticus. Berlin: de Gruyter, vol. 3.
Skehan, Patrick W. 1955. Exodus in the Samaritan recension from Qumran. Journal of Biblical Literature 74: 182–87.
[CrossRef]
Spilsbury, Paul, and Chris Seeman. 2017. Judean Antiquities 11: Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus:
Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
Stenhouse, Paul. 1985. The Kitāb al-tarı̄kh of Abu ‘l-Fath. Translated by Paul Stenhouse. Studies in Judaica. Sydney:
Mandelbaum Trust and University of Sydney.
Religions 2019, 10, 661 14 of 14

Tov, Emanuel. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Wright, G. Ernest. 1962. The Samaritans at Shechem. HTR 55: 357–66. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).