jsot the samaritans and early judaism

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

303

EditorsDavid J.A. ClinesPhilip R. Davies

Executive EditorJohn Jarick

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

7General Editors

Thomas L. ThompsonNiels Peter Lemche

Associate EditorsFrederick H. Cryer

Mogens MiillerHakan Ulfgard

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Samaritans and

Early Judaism

A Literary Analysis

Ingrid Hjelm

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 303

Copenhagen International Seminar 7

To Thomas

Copyright © 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

Published bySheffield Academic Press Ltd

Mansion House19KingfieldRoadSheffield SI 19AS

England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Pressand

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britainby Biddies Ltd

Guildford, Surrey

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

ISBN 1-84127-072-5

CONTENTS

Preface 7Abbreviations 8Introduction 11

Chapter 1THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM:SAMARITAN RESEARCH FROM MONTGOMERY TO COGGINS 13

The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position of J.A. Montgomery 13The Original Israelites: The Position of M. Gaster 22A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt 30Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct

Samaritan Community in the Hasmonaean Period:The Positions of H.H. Rowley, G. Holscher,W.F. Albright and M. Smith 33

Taking up Old Ideas: The Positions of P.M. Crossand H.G. Kippenberg 41

Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Positionof R.J. Coggins 48

Chapter 2RADICAL ALTERNATIVES:THE THEORIES OF CROWN AND NODET 52

A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism 53Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position of E. Nodet 61

Chapter 3SAMARITAN LITERATURE 76

The Pentateuch 76Manuscripts 83Translations 85The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch 87

6 The Samaritans and Early Judaism

Samaritan Theological Literature 94Chronicles 97Halakhic Literature 103Commentaries on the Pentateuch 103

Chapter 4SAMARITANS IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND HELLENISTICLITERATURE 104

Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question 104Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question 115The Request for an Identification of Simon the Just and

Ben Sira 50.25-26 125The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are They? 138Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition 146The Levites in Jewish Traditions 152Zadok; pTTC '33 D^H D^HDH and the Levites 158Jews, Conflicts and Reputation 171

Chapter 5SAMARITANS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS 183

General Introduction to Josephus's Works 183Examination of Josephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans 192Josephus's Terminology 216Josephus between Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities 222Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans 226Mount Gerizim, Tell er-Ras 234

Chapter 6SAMARITAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 239

Prophets in Samaritan Tradition 254The Historiography of the 'Postexilic' Period 258

Chapter 7FROM LITERARY TO HISTORICAL REALITY 273

Bibliography 286Index of References 300Index of Authors 315

PREFACE

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

In its earliest form this monograph was an entry in the annual prizeessay competition in Old Testament exegesis at the University ofCopenhagen in 1996. The original essay, Samaritanerne og den antikkej0dedom, was fortunate enough to be awarded a gold medal. The editorsof the Copenhagen International Seminar, Niels Peter Lemche andThomas L. Thompson, recommended that I revise it and publish it inEnglish in their series. For support and assistance in producing theoriginal prize essay and this monograph I would like to thank the fol-lowing: Pere Etienne Nodet of the Ecole Biblique for lending me hisEnglish manuscript of A Search for the Origins of Judaism, which hasbeen a considerable inspiration in my own work; Professor EmanuelTov of the Hebrew University for his hospitality and friendship duringmy stay in Jerusalem; Dr Richard Harper, director of the British School,Dr John Woodhead, vice director at the British School and his wifeKarin, the staff at the school and my fellow residents for their interestand support and my son Andreas for being a courageous and wonderfulcompanion during our stay. Professor Niels Peter Lemche of the Uni-versity of Copenhagen and Lektor Per Bilde of Aarhus University fortheir advice and corrections of earlier drafts of this thesis; ProfessorThomas L. Thompson of the University of Copenhagen for his never-ending encouragement, inspiration and support as well as the revisionof my English. For financial support for research in Jerusalem, I amindebted to the Thora Odlands Fond, Tribute to the Danes throughScholarships Fund and the Copenhagen University Fund. Finally, Iwant to thank every scholar whose works and ideas I have used andexploited, whether it has been with pleasure or annoyance. None hasbeen without its use, as one can never know to whom one is indebted.

Ingrid HjelmCopenhagen

ABBREVIATIONS

ABABD

AFAnBibANET

AnLeedsANRW

AOATASORASTIATLAATRBABASORBHSBJRLBKATBOBRBZAWCBQCISCPJCRINTDDDDIDDSDDSSEncJudErlsr

Anchor BibleDavid Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary(New York: Doubleday, 1992)Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'1-FathAnalecta biblicaJames B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern TextsRelating to the Old Testament (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1950)The Annual of Leeds UniversityHildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstiegund Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und KulturRoms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1972-)Alter Orient und Altes TestamentAmerican Schools of Oriental ResearchAnnual of the Swedish Theological InstituteAmerican Theological Library AssociationAustralian Theological ReviewBiblical ArchaeologistBulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBiblia Hebraica stuttgartensiaBulletin of the John Rylands University Library of ManchesterBiblischer Kommentar: Altes TestamentBibliotheca orientalisBible ReviewBeiheftezurZWCatholic Biblical QuarterlyCorpus inscriptionum semiticarumCorpus Papyrorum JudaicumCompendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum TestamentumDictionary of Deities and Demons in the BibleDiscoveries in the Judaean DesertDead Sea DiscoveriesDead Sea ScrollsEncyclopaedia JudaicaEretz Israel

Abbreviations 9

FGrHist F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker(Leiden, 1923)

HDR Harvard Dissertations in ReligionHen HenochHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualIDBSup IDB, Supplementary VolumeIEJ Israel Exploration JournalJA Journal asiatiqueJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic SocietyJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKS Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.;

Munich: C.H. Beck, 1953-59)LCL Loeb Classical LibraryNKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zur GottingenNovT Novum TestamentumNovTSup Novum Testamentum, SupplementsNTOA Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquusNTS New Testament StudiesOLZ Orientalische LiteraturzeitungOTP James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament PseudepigraphaPEQ Palestine Exploration QuarterlyRB Revue bibliqueREJ Revue des etudes juivesRevQ Revue de QumranSET Studies in Biblical TheologySJLA Studies in Judaism in Late AntiquitySP Samaritan PentateuchSPB Studia postbiblicaSSEA Society for the Study of Egyptian AntiquitiesST Studia theologicaSUNVAO Skrifter utgitt au der Norske Uitenskaps—Akademi i OsloTSK Theologische Studien und KritikenVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements


WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und NeuenTestament

ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche WissenshaftZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen GesellschaftZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-VereinsZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

'When shall we take them back?' This talmudic utterance (Mass. Kut.28) forms the backbone of most of Jewish and Christian discussionsabout Samaritans since Josephus wrote his various origin stories of theSamaritans in the first century of this era. The utterance both impliesthat the Samaritans have left 'us' and that 'we' are the ones to decidewhen 'we' will accept them as part of 'our' community. The forceful-ness of this view on Samaritans, formed by Judaism's self-understand-ing of having developed from the Old Israel's transformation of pasttraditions to become the New Israel, has been determinent for mostscholars' writings about the Samaritans for the past century. Scholarshave worked hard to establish the origin of Samaritans in accord withthese stories, to overcome contradictions and confusion as well as toharmonize Josephus's stories with other stories. Most of these effortshave proven unsuccessful. Whether one places the origin of Samaritan-ism in the eighth-century Assyrian policy of deportation, based on astory of 2 Kings 17, in a fifth-century expulsion of a priest serving atthe temple in Jerusalem, based on a remark in Nehemiah 13, in a fourth-century deceit of the Persian King Darius at the advance of Alexanderthe Great, based on Josephus's Antiochus IV story and the books ofMaccabees, all resolutions have agreed on the worthiness and reliabilityof one or other Jewish story about Samaritan origin and the Samaritancommunity's departure from a Jerusalem centred Judaism. This depar-ture was followed by a final schism, usually dated to the second centuryBCE, based on Josephus's John Hyrcanus story and scholarship's claimfor a development of the Samaritan Pentateuch at that time.

Against this view stands Samaritan self-understanding that theybelong to the Old Israel, have an unbroken chain of high priests and acultic continuation that has kept their heritage unchanged. WhileJudaism argued for the necessity of a new beginning after the Baby-lonian exile, Samaritans insisted that their old tradition be maintained.As Abraham had left the godless world of Haran to go to Shechem, so


Samaritans—in their postexilic return—brought home their old tradi-tion (kept in custody in Nineve) from Haran. The discussion clearlyplaces itself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new andthe old Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jewsfor new beginnings in the Ezra-Nehemiah traditions. Such a newbeginning, however, according to Samaritan understanding, had alreadytaken place in the time of Eli and had proven false.

Each having opted for their own tradition we are left to ask whetherancient 'historiography' is anything but competing stories? Is scholar-ship forever doomed to justify one or another's story? Giving up thepriority of the biblical tradition, based as it is on the false assumptionthat not only the Bible, but also its stories, belong to our origin, wemight, however, be able to establish each tradition in its own right.Competing stories are competing stories belonging to those who wrotethem. Historical reality belongs to the world that created these stories. Itis not necessarily reflected in any simple truth about the past.

Chapter 1

THE TWO-EPISODE PARADIGM: SAMARITAN RESEARCHFROM MONTGOMERY TO COGGINS

The Earliest Jewish Sect: The Position ofJ.A. Montgomery1

Published in 1907 and reprinted with few revisions in 1968, this wasthe first work that, on the basis of the Samaritan sect's own sources,sought to describe the history of the sect and its relation to Judaism,Christianity and Islam in the past and the present. In the previous cen-tury, scholarship had centred around studies of the Samaritan Penta-teuch (SP) and its relationship to the Masoretic Text. Studies of thecopy of the SP brought home by Pietro Delia Valle in the 1620s seemedto support the text of the Septuagint against the various Hebrew texts. Itthereby became important for the anti-Reformation's fight for the estab-lishment of a textus receptus.2

The title of Montgomery's book places it in a Jewish as well as asectarian context. Montgomery's working hypothesis found its inspira-tion in K. Lincke's Samaria und seine Propheten,3 which he judged had'unsuccessfully attempted to establish the theory that the Samaritanswere true descendants of the Northern Israelites in a direct line fromElijah, Elisha, Hosea and the Yahweh-worshipping family of Jehu'.Using 'authoritative' sources from the Christian period (New Testa-ment, Josephus and Talmud), Montgomery concluded that the Samari-tans 'were nothing else than a Jewish sect'. The one essential differencebetween them and Judaism was that 'their cult centres on Gerizim, noton Zion'.4 This denial of any other differences marked the perspectives

1. J.A. Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History,Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr. New York:Ktav, 1968). The 1907 edition is used throughout this work.

2. This question will be dealt with more extensively in Chapter 3.3. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903.4. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 46.


of Montgomery's judgment of Samaritanism's dependency on Judaismand his denial of the fact that postexilic Judaism had as its programmethe rejection of the older cult and the image of the old Israel. Both ofwhich Samaritans claimed to be part of their heritage. It is noteworthythat Montgomery stated without hesitation that the differences in adher-ence to the cult between the North and the South was 'much too exag-gerated' and was based on the fact that it was 'orthodox Judah whowrote the history'.5 At the same time, his own conclusions were basedon these very same 'historians', who considered those who did notbelong or submit to 'orthodox' Judaism to be heretics and schismatics.According to Josephus, in his use of the ideology of 2 Kings 17, theSamaritans were also considered to be of doubtful stock.6

According to Montgomery the origin of the sect should be sought inthe change of political circumstances in Samaria resulting from thedeportations and settlements of foreign peoples, such as recounted in2 Kings 17; Ezra 4.2-9; Isa. 7.8 and in Assyrian Annals. We should notbelieve, however, that these Northerners instituted a spiritualistic andmonotheistic belief that developed into a Samaritan religion, as hap-pened in the 'Jewish church'; or that such a syncretist religion coulddevelop into a 'triumphant monotheism'. This would have demanded aspirituality far beyond what could be ascribed to the Samaritans assuch. When, in spite of that, the northern kingdom developed—at leastregarding a minor remnant—into a faithful Yahwism in spite of theinfluence from foreign peoples, this was due to the support from a more'resistant' Judaic society.7 Because only part of the population had been

5. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 47.6. Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91. Montgomery is here in full accord with E. Schiirer,

Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,1885) (whom he does not refer to), who stated that although Samaritans are ofmixed stock they rightly are to be considered to belong to the Jewish people sincethey have adopted Jewish worship of Yahweh to such an extent that only Gerizimand Jerusalem marks the difference.

7. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54. Evidence for this hypothesis was based on:(1) Hezekiah's passover as told in 2 Chron. 30, which also included the people fromEphraim who caused a delay of the celebration; (2) the capture of Manasseh toBabylon (2 Chron. 33.11); (3) the reform of Josiah (2 Kgs 23), which includes allthe cult places in Samaria; (4) the deputation from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria,which paid the mourners in Jerusalem a visit of condolence after the destruction ofthe temple (Jer. 41.4-6).

1. The Two-Episode Paradigm 15

exiled from Samaria and later from Judaea,8 there remained a core of'old Israelite blood' that joined together under the Judaic crisis in mutu-ally supporting the survival of their common religion. The return fromexile did not break this agreement, for, during the reign of Darius I(521-385 BCE), the return of Zerubbabel had created expectations ofthe coming of the Messiah, which joined Judaean, Samaritan andBabylonian Israelites together in a new enthusiasm powerful enough toovercome old differences.9

Opposition to this enthusiasm was not to be found within Judaismitself and the 'am ha'ares of Ezra 4.4 was not the Samaritans, as wasusually asserted on the basis of Josephus's interpretation. They werenon-Israelite peoples who moved into Judaea during the Babylonianexile.10 The real opponents to the activities of the returnees were thepolitical governors of the Persian province of Aber-Nahara, such as the

8. Comparing biblical references from 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8; Ezra 4.2, 9 andAssyrian Annals 11-17, 20-23, 67, 94, 95, Montgomery made the conclusion thatnot the whole population had been deported and that it was mainly the leaders ofthe people, while the poorer country people remained 'without king, without prince,and without altar, and without sacrifice and without pillar, and without ephod orteraphim' (cf. Hos. 3.4). This remaining group was added to by immigrants fromvarious places in Mesopotamia for around a hundred years (cf. Samaritans, pp. 48-53). For later discussions, see J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relatingto the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968); B. Oded,Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert,1979), who on the basis of a study of 157 Assyrian texts concluded that severaldeportations took place, involving very different numbers of people, having differ-ent purposes and comprising entire regions, cities or families, and were not subse-quently followed by similar migrations. See also Th.L. Thompson, Early History ofthe Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992); Th.L. Thompson, The Bible in His-tory (London: Cape, 1999), pp. 190-99, 210-27; H. Barstad, The Myth of the EmptyLand (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996); L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Cap-tivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology (JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Shef-field Academic Press, 1998).

9. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 62: an expectation which was carried out bythe prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Montgomery here found support in the view ofWellhausen, that Zech. 6.9-13 referred to Zerubbabel, for whom the crown wasdesigned.

10. Reflected in fact in 1 Esd. 3.45 and 4.50, but in sharp contrast to Josephusand later rabbinic tradition that stressed the ideological contrast between North andSouth that the South had remained empty during the exile and had avoided defile-ment by foreign peoples.


Horonite Sanballat 'without doubt belonging to the heathen colonisatorsin Samaria, Tobiah who had close relations to the Judaean aristocracyand priesthood although he was an Ammonite (Ezra 6.17ff.; Neh.13.4ff.) and finally Geshem the Arab (Neh. 2.19; 6.6)'. These were notto be considered to belong to those who had observed the Jewish reli-gion in Samaria. Political privileges given to the Jews caused the envi-ous acts supported and led by these officials.11 According to Mont-gomery, the Bible did not connect these postexilic events, related inEzra and Nehemiah, with the Samaritans. Scholarship's interpretationwas based solely on Josephus, who, elaborating on Neh. 13.28, reportedthat Sanballat, being the father-in-law of Manasseh, grandchild ofEliashib and brother to Jaddua, built a temple on Gerizim to his son-in-law and others following him after they had been expelled from theJudaean temple in Jerusalem.12 In spite of Josephus's novelistic

11. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 65. This view is much later repeated in L.L.Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, I (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1992), p. 121.

12. Although Josephus placed his account in the time of Alexander the Great,scholarly consensus maintained that there was only one event that had been given adifferent context and consequence. In Montgomery's view Josephus was dependenton a Samaritan tradition that combined the legend with Sanballat (Montgomery,Samaritans, pp. 67-69). Among Montgomery's contemporaries the historicity of theAlexander legend was met with a considerable mistrust (cf. H.H. Rowley, 'Sanbal-lat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 [1955-56], pp. 166-98, reprinted in idem,Men of God [London: Thomas Nelson, 1963], pp. 246-76). Rowley here arguedagainst an early view put forward by G. Holscher, Geschichte der israelitischen undjudischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7; Giessen: Alfred Topelmann,1922), p. 172, who, according to Rowley, Men of God, p. 258 n. 2, had previouslyrejected Josephus's account and regarded it as an unhistorical legend originating inJewish-Alexandrian circles.

This view is shared by several scholars as cited by Rowley, Men of God, p. 250n. 1: R. Riietschi, 'Was Josephus von einem Sanballat erzahlt...ist ein sehr unge-schichtliches Erzahlung'; H. Willrich, 'Dass uns ein apokryphes Buch im Auszugevorliegt, ist unzweifelhaft'; A.H. Sayce, 'The whole story seems to be derived fromsome apocryphal Jewish account of the Origin of the Samaritan Temple'; F. Vig-ouroux: 'Le recit de Josephe est plein d'anachronismes et ne saurait etre accepte';G. Holscher, 'Die Ausbildung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen Schullegende, von derJosephus abhangig ist, ervolgte nur wenige Menschenalter vor Josephus... VonTradition iiber mehrere Jahrhunderte fruhere Ereignisse kann damals nicht die Redesein, wie gerade die ganz konfuse, aus blosser willktirlicher Exegese des Nehemia-textes herausgesponnene Alexander-Jaddualegende zeigt'; G.F. Moore, 'The Alex-ander part of the story in Josephus is not embellished legend but pure fiction of a


'historiography', this could still inform us about the reasons for theexpulsion.13

The reform activities of Ezra and Nehemiah had as their goal theformation of a 'church state' in Jerusalem and its immediate neighbour-hood, which was supported religiously and politically by the Babylo-nian golah. Not everyone shared the enthusiasm for their efforts tosecure 'the purity of the holy seed', and it is not difficult to imagine theopposition to these returned 'doctors of the Torah', who, irrespective ofboth their Davidic and high priestly lineage, introduced the priestlycodex.14 The 'am ha'ares gained support from their heathen leaders,who had close relations with aristocratic circles in Jerusalem.15 Whetherthey met with immediate success we are not told. However, 'since(Nehemiah) had to solve the problem afresh' Montgomery concludedthat 'Ezra had failed'. Nehemiah, the successor of Ezra, in office from445-433, was a 'far more strenuous, yet withal more political, ruler'.Leaving aside chronological incompatibilities, Josephus's story aboutManasseh, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite, offered itself as a use-ful solution to Montgomery's reconstruction. He and no one else wasthe person who laid the foundations for the Samaritan sect16 thatemerged out of 'the excommunication from the Jewish church'17 andfound a home in Samaria, in Shechem, 'which was always an opentown to foreigners in ancient times'. Independent of Jewish jurisdiction,

species very familiar in the Hellenistic literature of the Jews... A historian mayproperly decline to admit such testimony as to either fact or date'; E. Sellin, 'Es istklar, dass es sich hier iiberwiegend um eine Legende handelt, die aus Neh. 13:28heraus gewaschen ist'. For the later literature see below. It is noteworthy that mostof these statements occur before the publication of the Elephantine papyri byA.E. Cowley in 1923.

13. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 69.14. Montgomery's statement that the high priests were considered to be 'as sec-

ular-minded as the royalty' seems to be due to simple prejudice. The Hebrew Biblein fact places Ezra in the pre-exilic high priestly lineage (cf. Ezra 7.1-2; 1 Chron.6.1-2).

15. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 64.16. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 68-69 did not give any solution to Josephus's

disagreement with Neh. 13 and the placement of Sanballat's son-in-law in the timeof Alexander the Great, but ascribed this confusion to the incorrectness of ancienthistoriography and to the possibility that Josephus had other sources at hand, that is,1 Esdras and probably some Samaritan traditions that were intended to connectcertain important events to this legendary ruler.

17. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 69.


'a home offered itself through the political favor of the political leadersand officials of that district, who were bent on doing mischief to Jeru-salem and its church'. Here they had most of the holy places fromJewish ancestry and here they found a place to build a temple andestablish a cult. This group later became known as Samaritans or She-chemites, a more correct designation used by Josephus. Their self-des-ignation remained Israelite, and, leaving it to their adversaries to callthemselves 'Jews', they verbally preserved Joseph's priority overJudah.18

Montgomery did not consider this to be a complete schism. In thefollowing centuries, political, religious and family relations nourishedthe Samaritan sect, where a branch of the Jewish high priesthoodreigned. The close agreements of Samaritan and Sadducean theologyalso seemed best explained by close relations between the priests inShechem and Jerusalem, supported by the family ties of the highpriestly lineage. The ultimate and irreversible schism occurred whenJohn Hyrcanus conquered Shechem and Gerizim and destroyed theSamaritan temple in 128 BCE.19 Being only a minor group, the Samari-tan sect did not play any significant role in the Maccabean uprising.According to Josephus, they even denied having any relationship withthe subdued Judaeans in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. A contradic-tion to this statement, found in 2 Mace. 5.22-23's account, that Anti-ochus had placed governors in Jerusalem and on Gerizim, led Mont-gomery to assert that John Hyrcanus's conquest must be understoodwithin a context in which the majority of the Samaritan population con-sisted of heathens who supported the occupation. It was therefore onlynatural that John Hyrcanus, after Judaea's annexation of Ephraim,Lydda and Ramathaim around 145 BCE, extended his reign into thecentral hill areas, 'and not only paid off old scores with the degenerateSyrian kingdom, but also took vengeance on the weakened Samaritansect', whose city and temple he laid waste in 128 BCE.20 This act was

18. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 70.19. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 71: 'We possess no further data concerning the

Palestinian Samaritans until the second century BCE, in the period of the Mac-cabees. But the intervening age was not one that was committed to the rigorism ofEzra and Nehemiah, or of the Chasidim and the Pharisees of the second century.The fortunes of the Jewish Church were chiefly in the control of the high priest-hood, which appears in general to have been utterly worldly-minded.'

20. The Samaritan Chronicle Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l Fath (AF) relates that


followed by the conquest of Samaria in 107 BCE by the sons of JohnHyrcanus, who 'attempted to obliterate even the traces of the city'sexistence' and, by the further capture of Scythopolis, came to dominatethe whole of the northern border of Samaria.

In spite of asserting the opposite, Montgomery was extremely depen-dent on Josephus's various stories about the Samaritans. Although hehad knowledge of parts of Samaritan historiography, he had no trust inits relevance for his own historical conclusions. In fact, he treated thishistoriography as a simple curiosity that, in its distortion of Jewish his-toriography, could not be taken seriously.21 When, however, seekingboth to escape the influence of Josephus22 yet rejecting the contradic-tions to Josephus in, for example, 2 Maccabees, he was left with a his-toriography that found no place at all for Samaritans in the Hasmonaeanperiod. Disappearing in the pagan population as such, they sufferedequally with this population. This construction, however, does not takeinto consideration that it is nowhere stated that this population had suf-fered temple destruction and persecution. It does not consider that thedebate in Josephus before the court of Ptolemy (Ant. 13.74-79) and therequests addressed to Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 12.237-64) deal pre-cisely with the question of the status of Samaritan bene yisrael in rela-tionship to Judaean bene yisrael. Most problematically, it gives noreason for the actions of John Hyrcanus; nor does it explain sufficientlywhat happened to the Jewish sect of Samaritans, which had beenformed by the expulsion of Manasseh from the temple in Jerusalem. Itdoes not create any continuity between postexilic Samaritans and the

John Hyrcanus conquered Samaria without taking Shechem, and later, convinced ofthe legality of the Samaritan cult, sent his offerings and tithes to Gerizim. Thisaccount bears clear allusions to John Hyrcanus's quarrel with the Pharisees, whomhe leaves to join the Sadducees (cf. Ant. 13.288-300). Montgomery considered it tobe 'a plausible hypothesis that the preservation of the northern sect during thisperiod of absolute Jewish control of Samaria was due to the liberalistic policy of theHasmonaeans to use the Samaritans as a counterweight to the Pharisaic rigorists'(Samaritans, p. 80 n. 20).

21. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 76, 80. Should he, however, grant Samaritanliterature some antiquity, such as regarding the 'midrashic components of the bookof Joshua', then its dependency on Jewish sources, from which it borrowed or imi-tated still makes it unusable for Samaritan historiography (see p. 310).

22. So, Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 156, where it is asserted that Josephus'reflects the current Jewish prejudices of his day, and allows us to perceive sometruth only through the contradiction in which he involves himself.


pre-exilic remnant of 'old Israelite blood' who had developed into atrue Yahwism because of the support 'offered to those weak brethrenby the more persistent community of Juda'.23

This basic view, which we now must characterize as a caricature ofthe Samaritans based on an anachronistic understanding of the originsof Judaism, also coloured Montgomery's presentation of Samaritantheology. The Samaritans did not possess any 'intellectual indepen-dence'. The sect 'was content to draw its teachings and stimulus fromthe Jews, even long after the rupture was final'. The Pentateuchformed24 the backbone of Samaritan theology that reached its most fun-damental development in the teachings of the fourth century CE Samari-tan theologian Marka. This development, however, 'celebrated in thetraditions concerning Baba Rabba',25 had but a brief blooming. 'TheSamaritans fell back into the prosaic type characteristic of them, so thattheir theology has become a hard and dry product with little imagina-tion and spiritual afflatus'.26 The same judgment was given of Samari-tan liturgy. Although this is represented, in the British Museum alone,in 12 large quarto volumes, numbering some 2000 pages, consisting ofhymns, litanies, songs of praise, requiems, meditations, midrashichymns composed for the great feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Booths(Kippur), as well as fasting liturgies and haggadic literature, they only'rarely expose any poetic genius, but borrow and imitate Jewish andSyrian-Christian traditions'.27 Only in regard to earnestness and sincer-

23. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 54.24. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 205. Montgomery did not engage himself in

any lengthy discussion of the Pentateuch. The assertion made by Wellhausen thatthe Law must have reached its final form by the time of the exclusion of the priestwho became the leader of the Samaritans about 432 BCE, he found unsubstantiated,since scholarship's knowledge of Jewish and Samaritan relationships for at least200 years was so limited that we could not know for sure whether Samaritansand/or Jews had revised their Scriptures (cf. p. 73). Montgomery's ambiguity, how-ever, found expression in his statement about relations between SP, MT and theLXX: 'all mysteries and theological prepossessions aside, the simplest hypothesis isthat the Samaritan represents an actual early form of the Pentateuch... Indeed it isnot the disagreement that is remarkable so much as the great similarity ot the twotexts. Apart from the few falsifications inserted by the Samaritans, there are nomaterial differences' (p. 289).

25. A third century CE reformer of Samaritan theology, see Chapters 2 and 3.26. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 206.27. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 299.


ity in principles of faith did Montgomery allow the Samaritans a gen-uine religious spirit that 'gives a true dignity to very much that is initself absurd and trivial'.28 Not only Jewish but also Christian theologyinfluenced Samaritan thought. The phraseology is clearly marked bythis influence, and several of the epithets attributed to Jesus can befound in the Samaritan 'belief in Moses, who, however, because ofabsolute monotheism, never can reach a divine status similar to that ofJesus. Moses is the sole prophet, the confidant of God, the son of hishouse, one with whom God talked face to face. He is the end, the limitof all revelation, a very ocean of divine utterance. Coloured by Chris-tian terms, he is 'God's evangelist, the Pure one, the Light on Earthetc.'.29 However, Montgomery's proof of what he calls Christian influ-ence in fact takes most of its epithets from the Old Testament. It is notowing to Christian influence that 'no prophet has ever arisen like Moses,or ever will arise; or that Moses is the absolute prophet, for all thingshidden and revealed were shown him on the holy mount, so that otherprophets are superfluous'. Even the assertion that 'on his account theworld was made' has its first parallel in Jewish thought. The lack ofinterest in sacrificial laws in Samaritan theology gave Montgomery rea-son to conclude that the theology laid greater stress upon the moral sideof the law. Expressed in haggadic form, it marks Samaritan theologywith a tone of spirituality that might have been 'one of those numerousdevelopments of Old Testament religion which were forerunners of thespiritual worship of synagogue and of Christianity'. This places Sama-ritan synagogue worship earlier than the similar Jewish one, 'for theglory of Gerizim fell two centuries before that of Jerusalem' .30

This constant ambiguity in Montgomery's judgment is probablygiven its greatest expression in his description of holy places, of whichJudah can only 'boast of Hebron and Beer Sheba, and of the very mod-ern sanctity of Jebusite Jerusalem', while 'the north was full of sanctu-aries where Yahweh had appeared and where his heroes lived anddied'.31 It is for Montgomery a 'strange outcome that the one-time sepa-

28. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 300.29. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 226.30. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 230.31. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 15-16: 'Straight into the inviting uplands of

Ephraim went the tribes of Israel...their objective was Shechem, the natural capitalof the district (Jos. 1-9). Upon its two holy mountains was performed, and thisaccording to Judaean tradition, the first formal covenant of the people with Yahweh


ratist tribe (Judah) became the church of Israel, while the north has atlast given home to the smallest and most insignificant sect in theworld'.32 The full impact of this statement is not dealt with satisfacto-rily in Montgomery's work. His reader is left to consider whether he infact was so influenced by the nineteenth century's status of the Samari-tan community that, in spite of considerable references to a more wide-spread and a more independent Samaritan religion and society in theOld Testament, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, in the New Testa-ment, in, for that matter also, some of the writings of Josephus and theChurch fathers, he found it impossible to conclude otherwise aboutJudaean-Samaritan controversies in antiquity. In spite of these incon-sistencies, Montgomery's work had a considerable impact on scholarlyopinions of Samaritanism. For decades it forced scholars either to chal-lenge his obvious mistakes or to create more substantial 'evidence' insupport of his historical reconstruction. Of these the latter certainly pre-dominated.33

The Original Israelites: The Position ofM. Caster34

Caster's book forms a response to Montgomery's conclusions. Takingup the same issues and by and large using the same literature, Caster'simplicit criticism of Montgomery's use of sources became a counter-

in their new home (Jos. 8.30ff.; Deut. 27) ...And now again the land was conse-crated by the graves of Joseph and Joshua and Eleazar (Jos. 24.29ff.) and evenaccording to an early tradition the tombs of the twelve patriarchs (Acts 7.16). Thiswas the land of Gideon and Samuel and Saul, of Elijah and Elisha, in a word theland of Israel, whereas the South possessed no better title than its tribal name Juda,a provinicial designation, over against the noble succession of the North.'

32. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 16.33. In fact A.D. Crown, in his presentation of Samaritan studies since Mont-

gomery, could state that although his recent book (A.D. Crown, A Bibliography ofthe Samaritans [ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scarecrow Press,1984]) contained 2806 entries for all texts and writings from the sixteenth centuryuntil 1984 (with an addition of 311 entries for the following two years), it could beconcluded that 'in many of these, Montgomery's book was still the principalreference. In many cases one receives the distinct impression that the scholarswriting this material were "rediscovering" the Samaritans as if there had been nowork done since the days of Montgomery'. Cf. A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],1989), p. xvi.

34. M. Gaster, The Samaritans, Their History, Doctrines and Literature (Lon-don: Oxford University Press, 1925).


weight to the pro-Judaic perspective underlying Montgomery's work.Where Montgomery failed to take seriously the sources he had at hand,Gaster sought to establish a harmonious historiography based on theSP, some Samaritan Chronicles, the Masoretic Pentateuch and the OldTestament Scriptures as well as the body of Jewish literature. The con-clusions of Caster's historiography placed Samaritans in a much moreindependent role. They were not, as in Montgomery's book, the weakhalf, entirely dependent on their stronger brethren in the south, but theycertainly were a people with their own strength and character, a reli-gious and (political?) threat to their southern brethren, who were forcedto fight over centralization of the cult.35

Whereas the Hebrew Bible considered the origin of the Samaritans tohave resulted from the settling of heathen colonies in the northern king-dom after the fall of Samaria (referred to in 2 Kgs 17, Ezra 4 andconfirmed in Josephus, Ant. 9.277-91; 10.184; 11.1-119), Samaritantradition related the origin of the tribe(s) to the settling in 'the holyland'. The Samaritans, in Hebrew D'HQCZJ (Somerim: the keepers [of theLaw]) are presented as descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh alongwith adherents from other tribes. Their list of high priests is traced backto Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron. The original tabernacle waserected on Mount Gerizim by Joshua, where the commandments of theLaw were written (cf. also Deut. 27.2, which in the BHS is namedMount Ebal).36

35. Although Gaster could ascribe to the Samaritans the role of being the origi-nal Israelites, he still considered them to be a Jewish sect, having their backgroundin the same Pentateuch and without any trace of heathen influence: 'The mostminute investigation has failed to indicate a single trace; on the contrary, the resulthas been to fortify still farther, and confirm more strongly, the conviction that theSamaritans are none other than a purely Jewish sect' (Samaritans, p. 41).

36. Implicitly confirmed in Josh. 24.26: 'And Joshua wrote these words in thebook of the Law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak,that was established by the sanctuary of the Lord' (cf. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 8).Gaster did not accept Higher Criticism's attempts to take away the genuineness andantiquity of the chapter (cf. p. 8 n. 2). Gaster's acceptance of the Samaritan claim tobe the original Israelites was later supported by F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, 'Erwag-ungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem (eds.), Die Araber in der Alien Welt, IV(Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967); A. Mikolasek, 'Les Samaritains gardiens de la loicontre les prophetes', Communio Viatorum 12 (1969), pp. 139-48; J. Macdonald,The Samaritan Chronicle No. II: From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107;Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). E. Nodet, Essai sur les origines du juda'isme: de


Disagreements in the priestly families between the older and youngersons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, and Eli's subsequent move of theark to Shilo marked the beginning of the Judaean-Samaritan contro-versies. The schism culminated in David's building of the temple inJerusalem and became manifest during the time of Ezra.37 In order togive a certain authority to his sanctuary, Eli brought with him a copy ofthe Law Ithamar had had in his possession. This copy was later placedin the foundation of Solomon's temple.

According to Gaster, the historicity of these events presented in theSamaritan Chronicle found its confirmation in several cases: (1) In OldTestament historiography, it is not until after the establishment of thetabernacle in Shiloh that Yahweh is named Yahweh Sebaot. (2) Eli'scompanion in his schismatic work is a descendant of Korah (1 Chron.6.18-24), marking the new revolt as a reiteration of the revolt of theancestor against Moses and Aaron (cf. Num. 16). (3) The obscure pas-sages in the David-Saul story, relating Saul's killing of Ahimelekh andthe priests of Nob and David's friendship with Abiathar and Ahimaas,could find its explanation in rival priestly families sympathizing witheither one or the other. (4) The aetiological story in 2 Kings 17 aboutthe removed peoples, which in Josephus bear the name Cuthaeans, hadno impact on and no consequence for later Old Testament literature.With the exception of Ezra 4.1-2, the Samaritans cannot be traced inany biblical text. Ephraim is generally considered to be a legitimateIsraelite tribe, belonging to the 'holy people' in so far as they keep theLaw and accept Zion (cf. Isa. 7.8, 9; 11.11-13; Jer. 23.5-6; 31; Ezek.37.16-19; Zech. 9.13; 10.6). Furthermore, both Hezekiah and Josiahsend embassies to the 'old' Israelite tribes, unaware that these had beenreplaced by heathens.38 The parallel account in the Samaritan Chronicledoes know of drought, famine and attacking wild beasts (so also Lev.26), but such had been caused by the deportation of the priests, whichhad brought an end to the worship. After a petition to the Assyrianrulers, the high priest Serayah returned to rebuild the temple and to re-establish the cult on Mount Gerizim. Contrary to the Jewish version, inthis tradition of the Samaritans, it is Serayah who asks the Jews and

Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version: In Search of the Ori-gins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1997).

37. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 8-9.38. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 9-17.


their leader Zerubbabel to participate in the rebuilding. Since it was notcomme ilfaut for the Jews to act positively to this request, the buildingwas delayed. Not until after negotiations with the Persian king Surdiand proof given of Gerizim's priority over against Jerusalem did therebuilding continue under royal protection. The chronological disagree-ment in placing Serayah as a contemporary of Zerubbabel did not affectCaster's reconstruction.39 This is surprising as his readings of Samaritanas well as biblical material is of a thoroughly historicizing character.Neither is the parallel account in Ezra about the rebuilding of thetemple in Jerusalem considered to be either unhistorical or to conflictwith the Samaritan account. The Ezra story, on the other hand, is seento give evidence for the power of the Samaritans, namely that theycould delay the rebuilding of the temple for years 'while they enjoyedthe privilege of having rebuilt one on Mount Gerizim a long whilebefore'.40

In contrast to Montgomery, the 'am hd'dres and the 'adversaries ofJudah and Benjamin' are certainly the Samaritans. The unsolved ques-tion for Gaster is why the Jews rejected Samaritan support in therebuilding.41 His answer to this question concerns the purifying func-tion of the exile. The returnees from the Babylonian exile were 'chas-tened in heart and wholly changed in their religious outlook. Everytrace of ancient idolatry had been shed and pure monotheism was nowthe outstanding form of their worship and belief. They certainly did nothave intentions of reviving old cult forms nor, by intermingling withother people—not even their former associates from before the exile—want to risk losing what had been gained from the purifying suffering ofthe exile. For that reason, the Jews had to reject the Samaritan offer,avoid any kind of socializing and install the true high priest in theHouse of David. This was the struggle of the prophets Haggai, Zecha-riah and Malachi. Interpreting Satan of Zech. 3.1-2 as representative ofthe Samaritan interests (in his attempt to convince the high priest

39. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 20. It is not clear, however, to me, on what Samaritanmaterial Gaster based his reconstruction. The newer translations of SamaritanChronicles do not present these confusions.

40. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21.41. 'It is however perfectly clear and easy to understand the refusal of the Jews

to accept the invitation of the Samaritans to worship with them on Mount Garizim,but if the Samaritans came and offered to worship in Jerusalem, why should theyhave been refused' (Gaster, Samaritans, p. 21).


Jehoshua that Gerizim/Shechem was the place chosen by God), Gasterplaced this story in the centre of assumed postexilic discussions overcult and belief. Standing the test, Jehoshua's rejection of Satan's temp-tation established his legitimacy as high priest,42 a legitimacy that hadbeen presumably rejected by the Samaritans, who otherwise claimed tohave a correct and direct descendant from the Aaron-Eleazar branch ofthe lineage. The changing of garments in Zech. 3.3-7 illustrates the pro-phet's claim that, although Jehoshua was not the legitimate high priest,he now was the elected high priest.43

Although I agree with Gaster that we find these disputes in the OldTestament and that Zechariah also seeks to legitimize the high priest inJerusalem, I do not think that Zechariah's text bears an implicit rejec-tion of the Samaritan priesthood. The scenario is that of the book ofJob. The fire and the removal of filthy garments are metaphors for'removal of iniquity'. This is clear from v. 4. That this recognition in acontext of cult centralization implies rejection is conjecture and standsin contrast to Gaster's interpretation of Zech. 4.14 that the olive treesreflect a future reunification of the two priestly families. The text assuch seems not to have such a perspective, and we are far better off ifwe consider the two olive trees as symbolic representations of Jehoshuaand Zerubbabel; namely of priesthood and kingship. The legitimacy ofJehoshua is confirmed in 1 Chron. 6.1-15. As son of Yehozadak son ofSerayah he belongs to the lineage of Eleazar-Levi. This is the claimfound also in Samaritan traditions, which, as we have seen, placed Ser-ayah in their high priestly genealogy. The recurrent Old Testamentmotif of conflict of brothers certainly is also representative, and seemsto be so fundamental for the Judaean-Samaritan conflict that we comeacross it over and over again. Of greatest importance is that Ezra is alsoplaced in this genealogy, although he never bore the title of high priest:a title that is, however, remarkably absent in both Ezra and Nehemiah.44

According to Jewish as well as Samaritan tradition, Ezra transcribed theHebrew text into the Aramaic script from the old characters still foundamong the Samaritans. In Gaster's interpretation of the event

42. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 23-24.43. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 23-24.44. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 27: 'as for his title, it is noteworthy that his geneal-

ogy is given, though many links are missing, and that he is described as the safermahir' meaning 'a very high functionary, either equal to the high priest or com-mander of the army'.


there could only have been one reason for such a drastic step; namely tobreak completely and to eliminate the Samaritan text from circulationamong the Jews, to relegate it to a place of inferiority or to declare itspurious as well as incorrect and unreliable, as was often declared in theRabbinic writings, and to wean the people from any contact or any know-ledge of the old script. The new alphabet formed the impassable barrierbetween the two.45

According to Samaritan tradition, Ezra not only transcribed the text, healso falsified it, adding an extra commandment to replace the originalcommandment that the altar should be on Mt Gerizim, and furtherchanged the wording of Deut. 27.4 to Ebal against an original Gerizim.This explains why 'the Levites read the Law to the people under thecommand of Ezra and with the assistance of Nehemiah'.46

Gaster's interpretation of these events is complicated by his attemptsto incorporate what he think is the prophets' 'hope of reunification' bySamaritan submission to Zion and Jerusalem. Not only Zech. 4.14, butalso Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 as well as Hag. 2.11-12, are directedtowards Judaean-Samaritan relations.47 Stretching his argumentationbeyond what in fact is said in these texts, it seems that Gaster, in hisattempt to save the Jewish people from having fallen so deeply intoapostasy that they even intermingled with heathen nations, allocatesmore cases to this argumentation than is dealt with in the texts.48 It is awonder why Gaster did not bring in such texts as 2 Chronicles 30 and

45. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 28.46. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 30: 'This will explain the failure of Ezra's activity

until his work was taken in hand by Nehemiah and carried through owing to theauthority wielded by the latter. The High Priest and his family, the princes of Judah,and all those who lived in amity with the Samaritans unquestionably offered greatopposition and resistance to Ezra's reformative work and were able to thwart it dur-ing the years that Ezra was alone.'

47. See Gaster, Samaritans, p. 29. Gaster considered the Ashodim to be aeuphemism for Samaritans, whom they avoided mentioning.

48. See p. 22: 'The relations between the Samaritans and the returned Jews musthave been of a friendly character at the beginning; after all, they were conscious ofbeing parts of one nation, they practically spoke the same language, worshipped thesame God, followed the same injunctions, and had the same laws. The Jews couldtherefore easily have intermarried with the Samaritans, for it is not to be assumedfrom the records of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, that the Jews had so far forgot-ten themselves as to intermarry with the heathen inhabitants'; p. 29: 'In order there-fore, to carry out his decision, Ezra had first to break the family relations: hence thestern decree of divorce.'


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

Placing the schism in the time of Ezra (dated to the mid-fifth cen-tury), Caster had no need for Josephus's Manasseh legend about thecoming of Alexander the Great. This legend, based on Neh. 13.28 andJosephus's elaboration of it, has no place in Samaritan writing, andManasseh is not placed in the Samaritan list of high priests.49 Theincreased animosity between the two groups, accusations of idol wor-ship, of breaking of the Law, of fraternizing with the occupying power,combined with discussions over cult and belief for centuries, finallycaused the Hasmonaean destruction of the Samaritan temple in the timeof John Hyrcanus50

Also in contrast to Montgomery, Gaster argued for the antiquity of anunchanged Samaritan theology extending back some 3000 years. Anyassertion of borrowing, copying or adapting their theology to the sur-rounding cultures, heathen or Jewish, was left unsubstantiated. As aminority group the Samaritans had to defend themselves againstJudaism's accusations of having falsified the Law. 'They dared not giveup a minute particle of their tradition.'51 That the opposite should be the

49. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 32-34.50. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 35-36: 'There was no love lost between the two

parties, and no sooner did John Hyrcanus obtain practical autonomy for Judea thanhe attacked the Samaritans, destroyed their temple, and annexed those portions oftheir territory which abutted on the northern frontier of Judea.'

51. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 46. Similar, but less radical views were later put for-ward by J. Macdonald, The Theology ofjhe Samaritans (NTL; London: SCM Press,1964), p. 29: 'It has become customary for people to assume that the Samaritanswere always the borrowers and not the lenders. Thus it is usual to claim that when-ever Samaritan Literature presents ideas similar to those of some or other NearEastern religion it was the former that incorporated the ideas of the latter. Such aclaim is far from proved and no clear evidence has been presented up til now insupport of it. Any claim for Samaritan borrowing from Judaism is nonsense, as any-one who has read all the available material must judge. What is true beyond doubtis that both Samaritanism and Judaism developed from a common matrix. Bothpossessed the Law, albeit they were at variance over points of difference in theirrespective texts of it, and both were evolving in an atmosphere wherein many ideasand ideals were being nurtured.' This argument's categorical refusal to considerJewish dependence should not be compared to Macdonald's view that Samaritans'were considerably influenced by the Greek philosophers' (Theology, p. 30), thatgnosticism 'certainly influenced the Samaritans' (pp. 31-32), 'that at least in latertimes, they were closely influenced by the New Testament' (p. 33), and that they


case was for Gaster quite as impossible. Agreements in interpretation ofthe Law expressed in halakhah by both Jews and Samaritans are due toa common Pentateuch (which must have had divine and unchangeablecharacter for both groups long before the development of oral tradi-tions). This can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that Samaritanhalakhah in some instances agrees with the so-called Sadducaean inter-pretation, while in many others it agrees with the so-called Pharisaeaninterpretation. In contrast to Judaism, Samaritanism did not experiencea break from the tradition. In Jewish tradition this was the necessaryconsequence of the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.The Samaritan list of high priests can be dated back to Adam, while theworship on Gerizim is understood never to have ceased as 'they havenever been removed from Mount Gerizim'. Gaster in fact argues hereagainst the Samaritan self-understanding that they had been removedthree times: in the time of Saul, at the exile and finally in the time of theJewish king Simon. These removals, however, caused no break withtradition. The return from the Babylonian exile is a return to the old cultplace, a return to the old code, re-establishing the former cult.52

I do not wish to engage myself in a lengthy discussion about Gaster'spresentation and judgment of Samaritan literature, but some fewremarks must be made. Without direct evidence, admittedly difficult toestablish, Gaster considered the Samaritan texts to be of a considerableantiquity and to have been copied accurately for centuries. The asserteddifferences between the Samaritan, the Masoretic and the SeptuagintPentateuchs were all due to later rewritings of the various texts in bookform. These were 'not invested with the same sacred character as thatwith which the scroll was endowed'.53 Only the scroll was used fordivine service and should remain unblemished. For that reason, theformer judgments of differences should be reconsidered and the dis-cussion about the Samareiticon and the LXX taken up once again. Thisargument of Caster's has been seen for the last 50 years in quite anotherlight. With the finding of the scrolls in the caves of the Judaean desert,Caster's argument fell apart. The establishment of an unchangeabletextus receptus was finally accepted as belonging to a much laterperiod. Gaster's other arguments regarding palaeography, colophons

'did not avoid considerable influence from Islam' (pp. 37-39), since he is herespeaking from both a different perspective and time.

52. See Chapter 6.53. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 103.


and passeq in the Masoretic texts (where they deviated from the Sama-ritan texts) created few interested comments in following decades. Thesame must be said of his arguments about the Samaritans having beenoriginally Israelites and preserving Hebrew in its most archaic form.54

Albeit this argument found its roots in both Jewish and Samaritan tradi-tion, few scholars accepted it as historical. For years to come, the pres-entation of the Samaritans given by Josephus found its way into most ofthe 'historiographies' on both Judaism and Samaritanism.

A Postexilic Political Schism: The Position of A. Alt55

Montgomery and Gaster both operated within what can be called a two-episode paradigm. Placing the origin of either Samaritans or Jews in thefirst episode of separation—whether this be in post- or pre-exilictimes—and a subsequent final schism in the fifth-second century BCE,the division of Jews and Samaritans begged explanation beyond purepolitical circumstances related to the formation of the Jewish state andthe subsequent reign of the Hasmonaeans. The assertion of hostilities inthe intervening period is conjectural. It does not explain steps taken bythe Hasmonaeans or give reason for the hatred arising from such events.This problem forms the background of Alt's judgment of political cir-cumstances in Palestine during Assyrian and Persian times. Historiciz-ing the biblical accounts, Alt reached the conclusion that the schismwas purely political. The building of the temple on Gerizim was anunavoidable consequence of Persian policy, which—with Nehemiah—gave Judaea an independent political role similar to what Samaria hadenjoyed for 300 years.56 The ruling classes in Samaria,57 placed there

54. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 107: 'We thus have here four stages of development:first the old Hebrew writing, then some time afterwards the separating dot, then thetransliteration of the old Hebrew writing into the square associated with the name ofEzra, and lastly the final evolution of the difference between the final and themedial letters. This development of course covers a long period and is probably thework of centuries. The Samaritan scroll shows the period of the separating dot, andthus from the point of view of palaeography has preserved a most archaic formwhich in all its details is entirely independent of any Jewish or other knowninfluence.'

55. A. Alt, 'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS2, pp. 316-37.

56. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 337: 'Das sich die Provinz Samaria auf diesenUmschwung hin auch als Religionsgemeinschaft unabhangig von Jerusalem kon-


first by the Assyrian governors and later by the Babylonian and Persianauthorities, had jurisdiction also over Judaea and its remaining poorlanded population. When the Persians, however, sent home Judaea'sexiled aristocracy58 this population, called 'am ha'ares, fought to remainunder Samaritan rule. Aided by the governor, they appealed to the Per-sian king to stop what they considered to be usurpers of 'government'.The immediate result was favourable to the 'am ha'ares. Judaea waswithout its own governor and the Samaritan jurisdiction had no inten-tion of giving up its influence in this area. It was not until the time ofNehemiah and the establishment of an independent Judaean provincethat the neighbouring provinces were deprived of influence in Judaicpolicy.59 This did not lead to the establishment of two equal regions.

stituerte und durch offiziellen Ausbau der Verehrung Jahwes auf dem Garizim einkultisches Element, das ihr bis dahin gefehlt hatte, in ihren Bestand einfiigte, wardie unausbleibliche Folge.'

57. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 320: 'Nicht minder wichtig fur die Rechtslage undfur das innere Leben der neuen Provinz ist aber zweitens die Ersetzung der depor-tierten bisherigen Oberschicht, die damit fur immer aus der Geschichte Palastinasausscheidet, durch eine neue, die auf dem gleichen Wege der Deportationen ausanderen Teilen des Grossreiches zusammengeholt wird, also weder in sich selbstnoch mit der an ihren Platzen belassenen Untersicht der Provinzialbevolkerungeinen angestammten, nicht erst durch die Massnahmen der assyrische Regierungkiinstlich hergestellten Zusammenhang besitzt'. At the core of Alt's argument liesthe assumption that these people remained unassimilated. Cf. p. 322: 'Es ist daherein griindlicher Irrtum, wenn man sich die Entwicklung der Dinge in der ProvinzSamaria von der Assyrerzeit so vorstellt, als ware da allmahlich ein Ausgleichzwischen der alteinheimischen und der neugefiihrten Bevolkerung eingetreten, undwenn man gar diese angebliche Volkermischung zur Grundlage fur das Verstandnisder spateren samaritanischen Religionsgemeinde machen will, als ware bei ihrerEntstehung eine Religionsmischung mit im Spiel.'

58. Alt argued that the exiled Judaean high society had not been exiled in thetechnical sense of the word, but was only removed for a limited period from itshomeland, and was never replaced by a foreign upper-class group, as had happenedin Samaria (cf. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 326). With the return of this 'exiled' upper-class group, its submission to Samaritan authority created the conflicts described inEzra and Nehemiah. The Samaritan upper class, called 'am ha'ares, were thosewho for political reasons sought to delay the building of the temple in Jerusalem.

59. Alt, 'Rolle Samarias', p. 331: 'hatte es dort von anfang an einen persischenStatthalter gegeben, so miisste er an mehreren Stellen genannt sein, wo man inWirchlichkeit nicht ein Wort von ihm lest, Ex.: Ezra 5:3ff, 4:8, 7:12ff; Neh. 2:7ff.'The mention of former governors in Neh. 5.15 does not necessarily refer to thesame function, and it is possible that it refers to the Samaritan governors (p. 333


Jerusalem kept its priority at least until the end of the Persian period. InSamaria, it was only the central area and Gerizim that had cultic inde-pendence.60 Supporting Alt's assertion of Jerusalem's sovereignty wasthe acceptance of the common Pentateuch, which in Alt's opinion musthave taken place long after Nehemiah. Furthermore, the people fromthe Jewish colony in Elephantine sent their letter to the governors inboth Jerusalem and Samaria, but to the high priest only in Jerusalem(cf. Elephantine pap. 31).

It is characteristic for Alt's presentation that it was not as directed bythe biblical account as might be the immediate impression.61 It is theextra-biblical material, the Assyrian Prism text, that undermines theunderstanding of 2 Kings 17 as historical, and it is the Elephantinepapyri that supports the historicity of Neh. 5.14. With this step, scholar-ship began its move into the paradigm shift in Old Testament research,which in its historical reconstruction sought to place the development ofSamaritanism and Judaism in the postexilic period and to removeentirely connections between 2 Kings 17's dubious 'Samaritans' andEzra's and Nehemiah's 'Adversaries'. Involved in these attempts atreconstruction have been the severe and still-ongoing debates about thehistoricity of the Bible's accounts. This debate tended to divide scholarsinto two groups: one who, comparing the biblical accounts with extra-biblical material, found it difficult to consider the stories of the Biblehistorical, and another group who, seeking to explain the divergences,tried to establish foundations supporting the historicity of the Bible. In

n. 2). This argumentum ex silentio is the unproven part of Alt's assertion thatNehemiah carried out the separation some time before the end of the fifth century,as documented in the Elephantine papyri, which seemed to be the only secureanchor for a dating. Cf. p. 332: 'So bezeugt denn auch fur die Folgezeit (408) einesder jtidisch-aramaischen Dokumente aus der Militarkolonie von Elephantine dieExistens einer besonderen Statthalterei in Juda neben der in Samaria, was zur Vor-aussetzung hat, dass nunmehr das einstige Gebiet des Staaters der Davididen ganzoder wenigstens zu einem wesentlichen Teil aus einer Eingliederung in die Nach-barprovinzen gelost und administrativ verselbstandigt war.'

60. Cf. A. Alt, 'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria',(1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62. The heritage from Josephus is clear here; and it is notdeclared from what the Samaritans had cultic independence.

61. So also in his famous Landnahme hypothesis Alt takes his starting point firstand foremost from the late bronze Iron age transition and only secondarily from thetraditions of Judges (A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina [Leipzig:Reformationsprogramm der Universitat Leipzig, 1925]).


Samaritan studies, this development reached its climax in H.G. Kippen-berg's claim for the historicity of 2 Kings 17, placing this event in acontext entirely unrelated to the events after the exile. The 'Samaritans'involved in both cases were unrelated.62 If it were not for the fact thatJosephus relates these two groups (called Kot>0aioi, Cuthaeans, in hiswritings), Kippenberg's suggestion could easily have solved thehistorical problem. We will return to this below.

The issues regarding the origin of the Samaritans in this formativeperiod of scholarship were not reducible to political developments.They were increasingly related to the broader questions of the originand development of both postexilic and pre-rabbinic Judaism. Centralto these debates have been the questions of the development of thePentateuch and the formation of the Canon. By necessity, this includedreconsiderations of an asserted pre-exilic Deuteronomistic Yahwismcomprising all of Palestine and dating back to a biblically establishedcommon monarchy, which, in the light of new insights gained fromtexts as various as the Elephantine papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls,could be maintained only with great difficult.

Decisive Elements in the Formation of a Distinct SamaritanCommunity in the Hasmonaean Period: The Positions

ofH.H. Rowley, G. Holscher, W.F. Albright and M. Smith

The move towards this paradigm shift is clearly demonstrated in H.H.Rowley's article from 1955,63 rejecting the reconstruction made by C.C.Torrey and G. Holscher. In an attempt to save the reliability of Jose-phus's Alexander legend, they argued either for a placement of theevent in the time of Nehemiah's rule during the reign of Artaxerxes II(405-359 BCE)64 or for the dependency of Josephus on Alexander

62. H.G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-suchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramaischen Periode (Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1971), pp. 92-93.

63. 'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple'.64. C.C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910), repr. W.F. Stinespring, Prolegomena

(Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xxviii; idem, 'Sanballatthe Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89; idem, The Chronicler's History of Israel:Chron.-Ezra-Neh. Restored in its Original Form (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1954), p. xxxi, repeated these former views and totally rehabilitated Jose-phus's story about Alexander's arrangements in Samaria.


Polyhistor, 'who normally is considered to be reliable'.65 Concludingthat we have no knowledge of when the Samaritan temple was built,Rowley did not consider it necessary that the building of the temple hadanything to do with the schism asserted by Josephus. The texts fromElephantine did not display any knowledge of a break between Jeru-salem and Samaria, and the cult centralization from the time of Josiahwas most probably deemed only short-term and not extending into apostexilic period.66

That the Jewish colony in Elephantine did not seem to have anyknowledge of the Pentateuch, the Law, sabbath, feasts, biblical tradi-tions, and so on, was pointed out by A. Cowley as early as 1923: 'so faras we learn from these texts Moses might never have existed, theremight have been no bondage in Egypt, no exodus, no monarchy, noprophets'.67 This led Cowley to assume that the Pentateuch in its laterform was chiefly postexilic, and that the rabbinic tradition's assertion of

65. G. Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiid-ischen Kriege (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904). See note 12 for early references to thisdiscussion. Critical viewers of Josephus's reliability at the time were, for example,R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941), p. 809: 'Jose-phus... gives a purely fictious account of the founding of the Samaritan church';M. Noth, History of Israel (ET; 2nd rev. edn by P.R. Ackroyd; Philadelphia: West-minster Press, 1960), p. 354: 'The whole story is full of legendary details and intro-duces all kinds of figures, such as the governor of Samaria Sanballat, who do notbelong to this historical context.' Rowley had nothing but contempt for Josephus'shistory writing, which he characterized as inaccurate and unrealistic: 'It is curiousto find how little accurate history of the Persian period survived in Jewish tradition,and for chronological purposes in this period Jewish sources are of slight value'(Men of God, p. 257).

66. Rowley here refers to the Samaritan tradition's assertion that the temple atGerizim was restored by Sanballat in the time of Zerubbabel, thus supporting Jose-phus with 200 years' divergence (Men of God, p. 266 n. 2), and further on p. 268 hesays, 'At the end of the fifth century BC the Jewish authorities could be presumed tolook with complacency on the existence of a temple at Elephantine, which couldserve a community there which was cut off from the Jerusalem temple, and it mighthave looked with equal complacency on a temple on Mount Gerizim, either then orlater, since the political tension which had appeared between Jerusalem and Sam-aria more than once in the post-exilic days had made the Samaritans but coldlywelcomed visitors in Jerusalem.'

67. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xxiii.


the loss of the Law which therefore was restored by Ezra (cf. Sank.21b; Suk. 20.3) should be judged trustworthy.68

Rowley did not agree with this, but maintained that the Pentateuchmust have reached its finished form before the time of Ezra, as it was

highly improbable that the Samaritans had borrowed the Pentateuch fromthe Jews after the breach had become complete, and almost certain thatthe whole Pentateuch must have been accepted as the work of Mosesbefore things had reached such a point.69

That the Samaritans should have 'borrowed' and 'accepted' the HebrewPentateuch and at the same time have treated Ezra with the 'greatestbitterness' was for Rowley a contradiction that could not bring thesetraditions together.70 The purpose of Ezra's mission was to bring reli-gious practice into agreement with this Law code, and—given the ref-erence to the finding of it in Jerusalem's temple—declare this place tobe the place for the name of Yahweh. The erection of the Samaritantemple was thus not a result of this reform. This temple, based on thetraditions of the Pentateuch, must have existed long before that time.71

It is reasonable to expect that Rowley had asked whether it in factwas the destruction or the claim implicit in the Deuteronomistic reformfor a centralization of the cult that caused the schism. This would havebrought him closer to the opinions put forward by Holscher and

68. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. xvii.69. Rowley, Men of God, p. 273: 'if Ezra had changed the Pentateuch, so that

the original reading of Deut. 27.4 is Gerizim, as claimed by the Samaritans then itwas not improbable that the Samaritans had older copies.' Asserted also by G.F.Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, I, pp. 25-26: 'In Deut. 27.4, the Jewish texthas "Mount Ebal", where the whole tenor of the context demands "Gerizim", as theSamaritan Hebrew reads; the same change has been made in the Jewish text in Jos.8.30... Shechem-Gerizim was therefore manifestly the place so often spoken of inDeuteronomy where God would put his name; Jerusalem had usurped a precedencenever meant for it. So far as the letter of Scripture went, the Shechemites couldmake out an embarrassingly good case.' Cf. Rowley, Men of God, p. 272 n. 4.

70. Rowley, Men of God, p. 211.71. Rowley, Men of God, p. 275. The non-acceptance of the historical books

was for Rowley easy to understand because of their anti-northern bias. For theProphets and the Psalter, on the contrary, it is difficult to give reason for their dis-missal: 'It seems more likely that the breach had become so deep that a reconcilia-tion was impossible before these books had secured anything like so firm a place asthey had by the time of Ben Sira.'


Albright,72 which had been rejected by Rowley on the grounds that 'it ishard to see why the Samaritans did not accept more than the Pentateuchif that were so'.73

As early as 1922, G. Holscher had argued that the schism was onlyindirectly related to the development of the canon. Jews and Samaritanshad the same Pentateuch. The collection of the prophets should not bedated earlier than the end of the second century BCE, since these and thebiblical historical books display an anti-Ephraimitic tendency, whichhad been unacceptable for the Samaritans. The common opinion thatthe schism should be dated to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and thatJosephus's Alexander legend should reflect an underlying historicalevent was rejected by Holscher on the grounds of 2 Mace. 6.1's men-tion of Gerizim, as well as the dating of the final redaction of the Penta-teuch later than the time of Nehemiah.74 It was only increasing envyand unfriendliness over cult practices, with an excessive eagerness forthe observance of what the Hasmonaeans considered to be the propercult, that had led to the destruction of the Samaritan temple and a finalschism.75

Without joining the discussion about Samaritan acceptance or non-acceptance of Old Testament prophets and Scriptures, religious and

72. They placed the schism in either the second century BCE (cf. Holscher,Geschichte, p. 170) or the first century BCE (cf. W.F. Albright, From the Stone Ageto Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd edn, 1946),p. 336.

73. Rowley, Men of God, p. 269.74. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 172 n. 14.75. Holscher, Geschichte, p. 170: 'Erst die Intoleranz der Hasmonaerzeit hat

den Bruch herbeigefiihrt. Wahrend die Seleukidenmacht im 2. Jhrh. zerbrockelte,gelang es den Hasmonaeren, die jiidische Herrschaft u'ber den grossten Teil Palasti-nas auszudehnen: Jonatan gewann die samarischen Grenzdistrikte, Simon eroberteGazara und Jope, Hyrkan I. Iduma'a, Pera'a und Samaria, Aristobul I. auch Galilaabis an die Grenzen Libanons; Alexander Jannai war am Ende Herr fast ganz Palas-tinas. Dabei trieben diese Hasmonaer eine Million mit Feuer und Schwert; wo siekonnten, vor allem in Iduma'a und Nordgalilaa, zwangen sie die Bevolkerung zurBeschneidung. Diesem orthodoxen Religionseifer fiel auch das Heiligtum auf demGarizim zum Opfer, welches Hyrkan I im Jahre 128 zerstorte. Mit Ausnahme dergrossen hellenistischen Stadte war Palastina seitdem judaisiert; das Programm desDeuteronomiums von der Zentralisation des Kultes in Jerusalem war fiir kurze Zeitverwirklicht'. But already in 63 BCE the Samaritans were liberated by the Romansand from that time on was 'die Sekte der Samariter bei Sichem als eine eigene, vomJudentum losgeloste Religionsgemeinschaft entstanden.'


political circumstances, the reform of Ezra, and so on, W.F. Albrightdated the Judaean-Samaritan schism to the Hasmonaean period. Hebased his assertion on the existence of coins from this period bearingclear impressions of the script of Samaritan scripture. Considering thisto be a revival of the pre-exilic archaic Hebrew script, Albright con-cluded that it was 'presumably then or somewhat later that the entire SPwas retranscribed into the archaizing "Samaritan" script, which symbol-ised the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the "modernists" ofJerusalem'.76 The conquest of Shechem and Samaria between 128 and110 BCE and the Roman takeover in 63 BCE confirmed for Albright hisdating of the schism.77 This scriptural 'evidence' was strongly sup-ported by P.M. Cross, who, on the basis of preliminary work on DSS inthe mid-fifties, concluded that 'the Samaritan Pentateuch, its textualtype, orthographic style, Paleo-Hebrew script, and linguistic usage, alldeveloped in the Maccabean and early Hasmonean periods'.78 Cross,

76. Albright against M. Gaster (and rabbinic tradition), considered the Samari-tan 'retranscription' to be a two-step movement, which must have implied that heexpected the Samaritans to have followed the practice instituted by Ezra.

77. Albright, Stone Age, pp. 265-66: 'Since there is not a single passage in thewhole Pentateuch which can be seriously considered as showing post-exilicinfluence either in form or content, it is likely that the entire Pentateuch was com-piled in substantially its present form before 522 BCE. However, this does not meanthat its form was already fixed according to the standards prevailing in the time ofthe Septuagintal translation (c. 250 BCE) or in that of the Samaritan recension(which Samaritan palaeography practically compels us to place between c. 100 andc. 63 BCE), to say nothing of Masoretic standards more than a millennium later.'The contradictions in this statement certainly have inspired innumerable studies onhow a later excerpt can be prior to itself.

78. P.M. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh', in D.N.Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Gar-den City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69 (65); J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Penta-teuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1968), p. 87, gave Albright and Cross full support: 'its scriptdeveloped from the paleo-hebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthographyof this time; the textual tradition it represents is not only known from this time, butcompleted the development of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.'R. Pummer, 'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61 (51),gave Purvis's statement this comment: 'Whereas many would agree with Purvis inprinciple that the final break must have come then, and that specifically sectarianversion of the SP dates from that time, not everyone considered Purvis' argumentsas conclusive.' References are made to reviews of Purvis's Samaritan Pentateuch:


however, operated within the two-episode paradigm. His studies on thepapyri from Wadi Daliyeh from 1963 and especially 1975 sought tosolve the chronological confusions in Josephus's Alexander story bydata from other sources. Before examining this contribution to the Sam-aritan debate we need to deal with Morton Smith's challenging work,Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament, from1971. Reconsidering the whole question of the image of Judaism priorto the Hasmonaean period and placing Samaritans within that Judaism,Smith removed any reason for sectarian ruptures related to templebuilding projects. With reference to a widespread religious syncretismin Palestine until the second century BCE, he argued that it was fashionrather than conscious religious policy that had brought an end to offer-ings and the replacement of cult places with synagogues, resulting in adecimation of cult places to 'the official cults at Jerusalem and Samariaand perhaps a few holy places in the north, most likely Mt Gerizim' ,79

The 'Samaritan schism' is not to be dated from the erection of thistemple but from the breakdown of relationships between Jerusalemites

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

79. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 184-85.


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

This conclusion Morton Smith based on an assertion of the existenceof two competing parties in postexilic Palestine: a Judaic separatistparty, led by the governor Zerubbabel and the priest Yehoshua son ofYosadak,81 and an assimilation party represented chiefly by priests fromJerusalem who allowed mixed marriages, proselytism, a certain degreeof religious syncretism and more cult places. Between those parties wefind the 'am ha'ares, the remaining pre-exilic syncretist Yahweh wor-shippers, or perhaps apostates or pagans. They were now forced todecide for one or other party.82 Paraphrasing Ezra and Nehemiah withrelated prophets and using parts of Josephus's historiography as reliablesources, Smith asserted that the separatist party gained influence in thefifth century83 but fell behind again in the fourth century when the

80. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 185. M. Smith pointed out that, according toEzra 3.Iff., 4.Iff. and Jer. 41.5, sacrificial worship of Yahweh continued after thedestruction of the Jerusalem temple and prior to its rebuilding. This in fact sepa-rated the temple from the sacrificial cult, which only demanded altars, several ofwhich have been found in and outside of Palestine: Haran, Elephantine, Babylon,Lakish, Gerizim, Tabor, Karmel, Hebron, Mamre, Deir 'Alia, Tell es-Sa-dieyeh,Araq el-Emir, Leontopolis, etc. (cf. pp. 90-98).

81. The separatist party emanated from the pre-exilic Yahweh-alone party(Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 34) with a new programme of realizing the Ezra-Nehemiah reform (cf. pp. 110-11).

82. M. Smith based his analysis on textual evidence relating to the modificationof former customs. See pp. 180-84 (183): 'Since the Judeans and the north Israelitescontinued to worship Yahweh, and since we are told that the cult in the north wassacrificial, the problem which had to be overcome on the Judean side was that ofexplaining away the passages in Deuteronomy which prohibited sacrifice outsideJerusalem. This problem the assimilationist priests had already met when they com-bined the deuteronomic and holiness codes in a single collection, since the holinesscode anticipated (and seems framed to necessitate) sacrifices in every village.Perhaps their harmonistic exegesis simply interpreted Deuteronomy's references tosacrifice at "the" place, which Yahweh would choose as meaning "any" such place,that is, any established shrine ("the" often has the meaning "any" in priestly legaltexts).'

83. In the work of Nehemiah, it finally gained political as well as religiousauthority in Judaea. The Judaeans were from that time on a special people, segre-gated from their neighbours, observing peculiar customs (such as the Sabbath), anddevoted to a Yahweh worship centred around the temple in Jerusalem. Whether the


assimilist party gained power. This was kept until around 180 BCE, onlyinterrupted once by a crisis around 350-330 BCE during the reign ofArtaxerxes III Ochus. His conquest of Jerusalem, probably in the 350s,became a decisive event for the relationship between Judaea andSamaria. The deportation of a mainly pro-Egyptian government and theinstallment of a pro-Persian one in Jerusalem, whose members camemainly from the separatist party, 'may have produced a temporary crisisin relations with the Samaritans and may have contributed to Josephus'serroneous location of the "Samaritan schism" in the period immediatelyfollowing'.84 With Alexander the Great's defeat of Darius in 333 BCE,the assimilist party is seen to have gained power again, which they keptuntil around 180 BCE. The principal achievement of the Jerusalempriesthood

during this century and a half of assimilationist control was to establishtheir corpus of religious law—the Pentateuch—so firmly as the law ofYahweh and the law of the land that its preservation could become thebattle-cry of the Maccabees, and its interpretation the central concern oflater sectarian Judaism... From the Samaritan acceptance of the law tothe Maccabean revolt there is no reliable sign of any lasting and officialbreach. Shechemites and Judeans formed a single religious communityin Ptolemaic Egypt and were treated as a single religious community by

assimilationists liked it or not, they could do nothing but submit to this 'religion of(most) Judeans', called '"Judaism"' (p. 145). This, however, did not lead to anyrealised cult centralisation or to a destruction of a Samaritan temple (which musthave existed from pre-exilic times, Ezra 4.2). This would have required a militaryoccupation, which would have been contrary to the Persian administration's protec-tion of local religious groups (Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 197-98).

84. Smith, Palestinian Parties, pp. 185-86: This accounts for many of theprophecies warning against alliances with Egypt—our present collection of pro-phetic books was probably being put together about this time.' This utterance istypical for Morton Smith's work of combining history and literature (cf. p. 151).Historically there is much in support of such an argumentation, but methodologi-cally it is very difficult to avoid circular arguments that are in constant danger ofcreating both political history and history of literature on unsubstantiated argu-ments. The prophetic warnings discussed by Smith could in fact have been broughtat any time in Israel's ancient history. The lack of historical references to most ofthe events in the Persian and Hellenistic periods until the time of Antiochus Epi-phanes (around 170 BCE) makes it possible to create whatever scenario one thinksfit for the texts and probably also accounts for the scholarly hypothesis that the textswere finally edited in this period, since such an assertion does not bring them in aconflict with later literature, or later events.


the Seleucids until the hellenizing party in Shechem protested. Theirprotest may have been no more representative of Shechemite opinionthan the contemporary acts of the hellenizers in Jerusalem were of Judeanopinion, but representative or not it began an official separation whichwas confirmed by the Shechemites non-participation in the Maccabeanrevolt (the 'Samaritans' who helped the Seleucids probably came frompagan Samaria). From this time on there were two religious commun-ities. The Shechemites presently revised their text of the Pentateuch tojustify their practices, and from that time on there were two official textsof the law.85

This conclusion seems to be one of the great weaknesses in Smith'swork. The assertion of a continuation of the assimilist party in Judaeabut not in Samaria after the period of Artaxerxes III, creating an initialschism in this period, seems to be a necessary hypothesis for Smith'sreconstruction of the establishment of the Pentateuch. For unknownreasons, this is asserted to have originated in the Jerusalemite priest-hood, although its perspective is entirely from outside of Jerusalem.The assertion of a Samaritan acceptance of this Law, which could onlyhappen if 'there was no lasting and official breach', is not substantiated,and, whatever reason the Samaritans might have had to revise this'accepted' Pentateuch, it is not presented in Smith's work. The possibil-ity that it was the separatist party that needed to revise their early edi-tion of the Pentateuch seems not to have occurred to him.

Taking up Old Ideas:The Positions of P.M. Cross and H.G. Kippenberg

The finding of the so-called Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh in 1962brought further confusion regarding the formation of postexilic Jud-aism's relation to Samaritanism. The still unsolved question of thechronological inconsistencies in Josephus's Alexander legend has onlyseemingly found its solution in the reconstruction offered by P.M.

85. Smith, Palestinian Parties, p. 191, here followed the views of Waltke, 'thatthe Samaritan Pentateuch was influenced by the proto-Masoretic text, but later wentthrough a period of corruption' (B. Waltke, Prolegomena to the Samaritan Penta-teuch [HTR, 58; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965], p. 463). 'Thiswould seem a reflection of the two periods, first 198-173, when the massoretic textwas being formed and the upper classes of Jerusalem and Shechem were on goodterms, then the Maccabean period, when Shechem at first was in the hand of theHellenizers, later was at war with the Maccabees, and finally destroyed at 107.'


Cross.86 The finds from a cave in the Jordan valley, north of Jericho,consisted of several, mostly administrative, documents from Samaria,potsherds of a type found in Shechem also, and about 300 skeletons.Some of the documents carried the name of Sanballat and, together withthe Elephantine documents, they bore testimony to Sanballat's ties toSamaria. By way of the so-called papponomy theory,87 Cross sought todemonstrate comparable reliability for the Chronicler, Josephus and thepapyri. However, in spite of possible evidence implicit in the papyri,Cross's reconstruction had the sole purpose of saving the biblical 'evi-dence' and Josephus's elaboration on it. It is somewhat ironic thatCross, in his first article on the subject in 1963, claimed: 'The signifi-cance of the discoveries in the Wadi Daliyeh despite the relatively banalcontent of the papyri, is considerable. Any light on the fourth centuryBC. is highly welcome; one doubts that there is a less known century inPalestine in the entire first millennium.'88 The reconstruction made byCross with Sanballat I-II-III and the associated high priests Yohanan I-

86. P.M. Cross, Jr, 'The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp.110-21; idem, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18.

87. Which he based on his own reconstruction of a king list from an Ammoniteinscription from Tell Siran in the sixth century BCE. See P.M. Cross Jr: 'Notes onthe Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15, andB. Mazar, 'The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38, who placed all refer-ences to Tobiah in one genealogy stretching from 590 BCE (Lachish Ostraca) to 200BCE (Zenon papyri) with an addition of the Tabeel lineage from the eighth centuryBCE, referred to in Isa. 7.6. This reconstruction did not achieve general acceptanceas it relied mostly on the Old Testament and Josephus, and since it had not beenestablished that similarity of names implies the same genealogy (cf. T.C. Eskenazi,'Tobiah', ABD, VI, p. 584-85).

88. In his article from 1975, 'Reconstruction', Cross complained about the lackof progress in research since the discovery of the Elephantine papyri in 1911: 'Ifone compares the review of literature on the date of Ezra's mission by H.H. Rowleyin 1948 ["The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah"] and the review byUlrich Kellermann in 1968 ["Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung", ZAW80 (1968), pp. 55-87] and ["Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz", ZAW 80 (1968), pp.373-85] one comes away disappointed; a generation of research has added at best afew plausible speculations.' To these Cross reckoned J. Morgenstern, 'The Dates ofEzra and Nehemiah', JSS 7 (1962) pp. 1-11, and Smith, Palestinian Parties (p. 252n. 109), who, criticizing Rowley, argued, 'Arguments from personal names are gen-erally worthless because of the frequence of papponomy at this period, and the fre-quency of most of the names concerned'.


II-III and Yaddua I-II-III were not witnessed, as claimed by Cross, byElephantine papyrus 30 and Samaria papyri 5, 8 and 14.89 With a datingof Elephantine papyri to 408 BCE and Samaria papyri to 375-335 BCE,both of which speak of the 'sons of Sanballat', Cross found it necessaryto identify the Sanballat of Elephantine papyrus 30 as number I, whilethe Sanballat of Samaria papyri 5 and 14 had to be number II. Finally,the Sanballat mentioned in Josephus's Alexander story was seen asnumber III.90 As a consequence of this reconstruction, Josephus'saccount of the marriage of the daughter of Sanballat (III) to the Jeru-salemite priest Manasseh, brother to Yaddua (III) had to be a differentincident than that mentioned in Neh. 13.28. This could only be the mar-riage of the daughter of Sanballat (I) to the son of the high priestYoyada (Yaddua I).91 Cross's attempt to save Josephus's mistake by areference to a late composition for the work of the Chronicler in theRabbinic period (as a reason for Josephus's use of 1 Esdras and an

89. Samaria papyrus no. 5 mentions 'Yahu son of [San]ballat, Governor ofSamaria'; no. 8 mentions '[H]nnyh, governor of Samaria'; no. 14 mentions '[Yes]huson of Sanballat and Hanan the prefekt' (cf. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth CenturyB.C.', p. 46).

90. R.W. Klein gave full support to this reconstruction in 'Sanballat', IDBSup,I, pp. 781-82, where he furthermore found it probable that there could have beenseveral priests who married Sanballat's daughters since the schism had not occurredimmediately. G. Widengreen, 'The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of theSamaritan Temple', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and JudeanHistory (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 489-538 (507-509) rejected Cross'sreconstruction for not only having construed the results but also their pre-suppositions. H.G.M. Williamson, 'Sanballat', ABD, V, pp. 973-75 points to theobvious problem, that formerly Rowley ('Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple') andMowinckel (Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift[Oslo: SUNVAO, 1964]) had noted that Josephus did not place his account aboutthe son-in-law of Sanballat in the time of Nehemiah but rather in the time ofAlexander the Great, and that it has not been proven that 'the Sanballat of Josephusproves to be Sanballat the III'. It should be further noticed that Josephus, disagree-ing with the biblical account, leaves out any naming in his Nehemiah account (Ant.11.159-83), and only refers to those included as Ammonites, Moabites and Samari-tans (11.174), which would have been unnecessary if the names could have beenrepeated. The disagreements in Josephus's historigraphy thus had not been over-come with the new finds, as asserted by Cross in 'Reconstruction', p. 5.

91. '...it is clear that he [Josephus] confused Yaddua II and Yaddua III as wellas Sanballat I and Sanballat III with diabolic results for the history of the Restora-tion' ('Reconstruction', p. 6).


independent Nehemiah source) might save the historicity of Nehemiahas such, but it certainly brings it in conflict with Josephus's dating ofNehemiah in the fifth century BCE. In fact, it also removed Cross' needfor a Sanballat III and Yaddua III. Perhaps it was this implicit con-tradiction that made Cross suggest in the same article (p. 18) that

The Memoirs of Nehemiah here briefly summarised must have been ori-ginally composed and circulated in the late fifth century. Toward 400BCE a final editor combined the Nehemiah-memoirs with the Chronic-ler's work (Chron. 2), prefixed a collection of genealogies (1 Chron. 1-9) and otherwise edited the whole.

This collision between two paradigms of research became crucial forCross's conclusions. With a dating of Nehemiah to the time of Arta-xerxes I, about 445 BCE, he needed an extra generation in order to holdthe evidence from Elephantine and Samaria papyri together with thebiblical material. The attempt to save the historicity of the biblicalmaterial provided this material with a superiority over extra-biblicalevidence. In fact it took away any possible historicity of the extra-bibli-cal material. Where one might have expected a revision of the 'evi-dence' from the Bible and from Josephus on the background of newmaterial, the contradictions introduced by this material were smoothedaway in an even more fanciful reconstruction. This certainly was an'upside down' Martin Noth: 'Es geht aber wissenschaftlich nicht darum,ob wir "external evidence" brauchen, sondern ob wir "external evi-dence" haben.'92 Here we had 'external evidence' that in a twisted waycreated two extra Sanballats out of the 'son(s) of Sanballat' mentionedin the papyri. More clearly, this lack of consistency is demonstrated inCross's 1971 article on the subject, where he stated: There can be littledoubt that the erection of the temple of Gerizim as a rival to Zerub-babel's temple in Jerusalem further aggravated the traditional bad rela-tions between Samaritan and Jew.' This assumption was based solelyon Josephus and had, as R.J. Coggins demonstrated a few years later93

no contemporary documentation. When the schism in the second cen-tury was claimed to be a culmination of these circumstances—wit-nessed in archaeology and DSS's documentation of a Samaritan texttype as well as by an independent development of the Samaritan

92. M. Noth, 'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W.Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill,1960), pp. 262-82 (27 I n . 1).

93. R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews.


Pentateuch in this period—we once again were faced with a construedhistoriography's apologetic claiming Judaism's sovereignty:

It is difficult to speak of the Samaritans as a fully separated sect, so longas direct Jewish influence shaped their doctrine and practice, so long asthe biblical text which they used was held in common with the Jews, solong as Jew and Samaritan used a common national style of script.94

Representing a conservative strain of scholarship's problem withincorporating new evidence in already well-established concepts aboutIsrael's and Judaism's history, based mainly on the biblical evidence,Cross demonstrates pretty well the working paradigms of this scholarlyview. The two-paradigm episode established in Samaritan studies,which operated mostly with a 'sudden first separation' related to templeerection and a similar 'sudden second separation' related to templedestruction, based itself on another paradigm related to cult centraliza-tion and a biblical Judaism already as early as the fifth century BCE.This second paradigm, however, was one of conjecture rather than evi-dence,95 and the assumption that a 'sudden first separation' should haveanything to do with cult centralization and for that reason have causedinevitable conflicts and clashes was based on this conjecture. When atthe same time the historicity of this 'sudden first separation' and theasserted temple building had been shown to be improvable, scholarshipwas left with the second part of the first paradigm: the temple destruc-tion and the appearance of a Samaritan text-type and script as secureanchors for a reconstruction. Those anchors, however, began to giveway in the course of DSS studies, and have left the scholarly worldeven more confused about the origins of the Samaritan Pentateuch,giving rise to renewed discussions about 'who changed what' andwhen. The dating of the temple destruction, which seemed well estab-lished, did not undergo any severe criticism in the following decades,although questions of reason and range had not been satisfactorilyanswered. Thus Cross's conclusion that '[tjhis reconstruction of the his-tory of the Samaritans solves many problems' and 'it dissolves themystery of the specifically Jewish character of Samaritanism' onlysatisfied those scholars dealing primarily with questions of Jewish his-tory for whom a paraphrase of Josephus at length was considered to bemethodologically acceptable.

94. Cross, 'Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C.', p. 64.95. As pointed out by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties.


Another representative of the two-episode paradigm was the Germanscholar H.G. Kippenberg, whose quite influential work from 1971,Garizim und Synagoge, sought to remove what might have been left ofconnections between pre-exilic and postexilic Samaritans. This, how-ever, did not relegate the 'Samaritans' of 2 Kings 17 to the unhistorical.In Kippenberg's reconstruction they belonged to another period and hadnothing to do with the later Samaritans.96 Kippenberg's interpretation ofthe first schism follows closely the views put forward by Montgomery.In rejecting the thesis of Alt he concluded that the schism was religiousand not political.97 The reason seemed to have been a prohibition ofmixed marriages in Jerusalem, which also included marriage withSamaritan women (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.312).98 This conclusion seemssomewhat anachronistic, if we are to conclude that the Samaritans ori-ginated as a result of this prohibition, and that faithfulness to Jerusalemincluded an abandonment of former practices, whereby those who couldnot follow these innovations formed their own cult in 'Shechem, lyingdeep in Samaria, once had been the very birthplace of the whole ofIsrael'.99 Echoing the conclusions of Montgomery, Kippenberg assertedthat this did not lead to a final break. Most of the differences could behandled. Both groups still had the same Pentateuch and it was still thepriests from the same lineage who maintained the cult both in Jeru-salem and in Shechem. Once again it is stated that 'it was not until the

96. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 37: 'Fassen wir zusammen. Die—offen vertretene und unterschwellig wirkende—Meinung, nach dem Sturtz des Nord-reiches seien die Israeliten deportiert und Heiden neu angesiedelt worden, ist ein-seitig. Nach den Quellen ist nur ein Teil der Israeliten verschlept worden. Diezuriickgebliebenen Israeliten waren der Zahl nach den neu angesiedelten Heidengewiss iiberlegen. [as argued by Montgomery in 1907]. Dass diese Kolonisten inder autochtonen Israel-Bevolkerung aufgingen, ist warhscheinlich [against Alt].Diese ganze Vorgang, der vielleicht auch zu einem Synkretismus gefiihrt hat(2 Kon 17), fallt zeitlich bis vier Jahrhunderte vor Griindung des Garizim-Kultesund hat mit diesem nichts zu tun.'

97. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59: 'So ist der Garizim-kultnicht als Resultat einer politischen Tat, sondern die Folge einer Verdrangung vonPriestern, die sich nordisraelitischen Traditionen verbunden fiihlten. Es bildete sichalso am Ende des 4. Jh. v. Chr. in Israel ein neues Zentrum von Glauben und Kultheraus.'

98. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 58-59.99. 'dass tief in Samaria liegende Sichem, dass ja schon einmal die Geburts-

statte ganz Israels gewesen war (Josh. 24)'.


time of the Maccabees that Jews and Samaritans divided into twogroups.'100 The reasons were priestly quarrels prior to the Hasmonaeansuccess and the appointment of illegitimate priests in Jerusalem. Thiscalled for a Samaritan independence in the continuation of the highpriestly Eleazar lineage as an opposition to the illegitimate Hasmonaeanpriests in Jerusalem.101 Although it was the Hasmonaeans who brokethe high priestly succession and thereby forced the Samaritans to claimthe legitimate priesthood for themselves—which in Purvis's work wasunderstood to be the Zadokites, common to Samaritans and Jews, andin Kippenberg's the Samaritan Eleazarites opposing the Zadokites—this break somewhat arbitrarily led to the formation of a 'sect' thatmaintained continuity. Not able to give up the well-established idea ofsyncretism in northern Israel and echoing 2 Kings 17, Kippenbergconcluded that it was an increasing Hellenization of the Samaritan com-munity that had become mixed with Sidonians in Shechem that led theJews to destroy their temple and their city.102 Kippenberg's rendering ofthe history thus became as contradictory as Josephus's. What seemed tobe an abolishment of the 2 Kings 17 paradigm of syncretism was in factnothing more than a reuse of a Deuteronomistic theology transferred to

100. 'erst in der Makkabaerzeit Juden und Samaritanen in zwei Gruppentrennten'.

101. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sektescheint sich im wesentlichen im 2. Jh. v. Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurdesie von israelitischen Priestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zado-kiten, Eliden und Leviten die Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3. Jh. v.Chr. scheint die Rivalitat zweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem nochnicht als endgiiltige Antitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2. Jh. v. Chr., alsdie Jerusalemer Hohenpriestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legiti-men Kult. Jetzt, beim Zerbrechen des einst einigen Israels, fiihlen sich die Samar.veranlasst, ihre Hohepriestersukzession darzulegen und ihre Heilige Schrift zu kan-onisieren.' This in fact was the position of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 113-16, who furthermore stressed the importance of political solidification of Judaeancontrol over especially the North as a motivation for John Hyrcanus's attack.

102. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 93: 'Die jiidische Seite ihrerseitsnahm Anstoss an der Hellenisierung des Garizim-Kultes, die wohl nicht nur voneiner Kolonie Sidonier in Sichem, sondern vielleicht auch von diesem oder jenemSamar. gebilligt wurde.' Pummer, 'Samaritan Studies I', rightly criticized this as-sertion in his review of Kippenberg (pp. 53-55): 'it should be underlined that thereis no conclusive evidence regarding the exact point in time or reasons for the finalseparation between Samaritans and Jews.'


the third-second century BCE. This theology ascribed to Israel/Samariathe role of those who first broke the covenant and rightly bore thepunishment for it. Kippenberg's attempt to read Josephus historicallyand correct his 'mistakes' in fact brought him right back into the armsof Montgomery. Historicizing the biblical material loosened it from itsown perspective and deprived it of the inherent myth-making theologythat had claimed that both Samaria and Judaea were emptied by theexilic events, and that Samaria, in contrast to Judaea, did not remainempty and 'undefiled'. This central message of 2 Kings 17 played aconsiderable role in the Jewish self-understanding of 'pure remnant'. InAnt. 10.184, Josephus could state:

Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their placethe nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persiaand Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans becausethey assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But theking of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle anynation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem andthe temple remained deserted [epriuot; 8te|ieivev] for seventy years.

Removing this perspective merely distorts the text, but it does not solvethe historical problems, which certainly have nothing to do with anytraceable historical event, but asks rather for clarification about why theSamaritans are portrayed in this manner in some Jewish literature: aliterature that reached its climax in Josephus's attempts to extirpatethese so-called Cuthaeans. Josephus, in fact, is not representative of anoverall understanding about the Samaritans. New Testament and earlyrabbinic literature still fought to find ways of placing Samaritans withinJudaism. Syncretism played a very limited role in their respective judg-ments. We shall turn to these problems again in Chapters 4 and 5, in anevaluation of the thematic elements involved in the various presenta-tions of Judaean-Samaritan controversies.

Breaking the Two-Episode Paradigm: The Position ofR.J. Coggins

R.J. Coggins's monograph Samaritans and Jews: The Origins ofSama-ritanism Reconsidered from 1975 became epoch-making for Samaritanstudies. Partly abolishing the two-episode paradigm, Coggins's workled to new considerations of Samaritanism in the Roman period and tothe thesis of a very late final break. Reconsidering the various OldTestament readings that were usually ascribed to belong to the


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

103. 2 Kgs 17; Isa. 7.8b; 9.8; 11.10-16; 56-66; Jer. 41.5; Hos. 5; Mic. 1.5-9;6.16; Hag, Zech. 1-8; Ezek. 37.15-28; 40-^8; 2 Chron. 13, Ezra; Neh.; Pss. 78; 87.

104. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 81: 'Indirectly however, the Old Testa-ment evidence is of value in two ways. First it is clear that tension between Northand South in Israel goes back to a very early date. Such tension is a recurrent themeeven in the period of the United Monarchy, and probably goes back at least to thetime of the Judges. It is not our purpose here to explore its origins, but it is clearthat there is some link between the tension and that which later developed betweenJews and Samaritans. It would be wrong to identify them, and suppose that theSamaritans can simply be identified as a continuation of the old Northern King-dom—as we shall see, there is much in Samaritan tradition that militates againstthat—but it would be equally wrong to deny all connection and continuity.'

105. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 161.106. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 97.107. G.E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 181; idem, The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962),pp. 357-66; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 104-108.


Rejecting both Quintus Curtius108 and Josephus, and not at all con-vinced that we know enough about Alexander's placement of troops inSamaria, Coggins suggested a reconsideration of the whole material.This had previously been done also by B. Reicke,109 who had argued foran establishment of the Samaritan community in 380 BCE, when therepercussions of the 'Zionistic reforms of Nehemiah' forced the offi-cials in Samaria and a few aristocrats in Judah to form their own com-munity in Shechem, 'retaining the Torah but no other scriptures'. Thisdating would fit the dating of the Samaria papyri and could further beargued on the basis of finds of Persian material on the spot. AlthoughReicke's reconstruction had 'certain obvious strong points', Cogginsrejected it because of its weaknesses according to an asserted, butundocumented antagonism between Jerusalem and Shechem in therebuilding of the city, inconclusiveness of the finds dating the coins tothe Hellenistic period and the artifacts to the Persian period, and finallybecause the reconstruction as such rests on a schismatic model forwhich we had no evidence.110 What was left for Coggins was Jose-phus's statement that the temple, which John Hyrcanus destroyed, hadbeen built 200 years earlier (Ant. 13.256). Dating the destruction toeither 128 BCE as Josephus did, or to 108 BCE according to the coinsfound on the spot, this would bring us as close as possible to anyknowledge of the formation of a community. Coggins's reference to aconfirmation of John Hyrcanus's destruction in Samaritan Chronicles111

cannot be substantiated. Quite the contrary. According to this literature,it was a King Simon, chronologically placed before Alexander theGreat, who had destroyed the temple. John Hyrcanus's attack on Seb-astia and Nablus did not lead to any cult place destruction.112

Refuting the two-episode paradigm, Coggins suggested that Sama-ritanism developed from Judaism's formative period from the thirdcentury BCE. The context for this development was for Samaritanismwhat it was for other factions and currents of Judaism: disagreementsover cult, belief and society, which resulted in the formation of Jewish

108. Based on J. Warrington in Everyman's Classical Dictionary (London, 2ndedn, 1969), p. 175, who declared Quintos Curtius worthless and R. Marcus in theLoeb Josephus, VI, app. C, esp. pp. 520ff.

109. The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969).110. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 109-15.111. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 114.112. See Chapter 6.


communities outside of Jerusalem: Qumran, Leontopolis, Elephantine,Araq-el-Emir, and so on. The Deuteronomistic cult centralization prob-ably was practised in a less restricted manner than had been assumedearlier, and final breaks did not occur until centuries later. Given thisbackground, the term 'schism' seems to have been misleading, pre-suming an orthodox norm that was not present in Judaism until theChristian era.113 Scholarship's current use of this theme has played anunreasonable role in Old Testament studies as part of an anti-Samaritanpolemic's implicit purpose of demonstrating the apostate character ofSamaritanism:

The simple truth is, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in theHebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chron-icler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan hostility, but that is the most that can be said.114

More than 15 years elapsed before Coggins's work began seriously toinfluence the scholarly world. The idea of a schism was so well estab-lished in the classical views on Samaritanism that in the followingdecade scholars' acceptance of Coggins's ideas had a close parallel inthe considerations of how and when Samaritans broke away from Jud-aism in either Persian or Hellenistic times.115 The abandonment of theexclusion model regarding whether it had been political or religiouscircumstances that had led to a formation of a new Jewish communityin Shechem that we later came to know as the Samaritans, did not occurbefore Judaism's sovereignty and normativity in pre-Christian time wasseriously challenged. This step forms the next chapter of the history ofresearch.

113. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163, is here referring to P.R. Ackroyd,Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1970), p. 185.

114. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 163. It must be noted that Coggins did notreckon with a dating later than 250 BCE for the Chronicler and accepted the OldTestament Scriptures' implicit chronology as historical for their dating.

115. See, e.g., J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft andG.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Phila-delphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98; E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the GreekAge (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 8-12.

Chapter 2

RADICAL ALTERNATIVES:THE THEORIES OF CROWN AND NODET

The establishment of 'Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines' in 1985 marked aturning point in Samaritan studies. In 1984,l the first comprehensivebibliography had been published, and in 1989, a full presentation wasgiven of the standing positions of Samaritan research in the fields ofhistory, literature, language, theology, diaspora studies and archaeol-ogy, all with updated bibliographies.2 With contributions from scholarswho over years had worked intensively with various issues, the bookrepresented an up-to-date work, aiming not so much to give answers toall the questions involved as to stimulate further research. Profiling thepositions of its contributors, it demonstrated the broadness of the schol-arly research,3 which certainly—as pointed out by Crown in his fore-word—'over the last quarter century numbered so many specialisedworks which have so changed the state of our knowledge in numerousareas of Samaritan studies that the field is very different from what itwas in Montgomery's day'.4 These works' concentration on Samaritanliterature gave impetus to current publications of Samaritan texts, trans-lations, commentaries, grammars, encyclopaedia, and so on. Havingestablished the origin of the SP 'securely' in the Hasmonaean period,the insecurity about which political circumstances had led to this step

1. Crown, Bibliography of the Samaritans. The former bibliography of L.A.Mayer from 1964 was shown to be incomplete and certainly also needed an up-dating (L.A. Mayer [ed.], Bibliography of the Samaritans [Abr Nahrain Suppl.;Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964]).

2. Crown, The Samaritans.3. See S. Noja, 'The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.),

The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14.4. Crown, Samaritans, p. xvi; notice Crown's critique of the uncritical use of

Montgomery, Chapter 1.

2. Radical Alternatives: The Theories of Crown and Nodet 53

furthered new evaluations of the Samaritans' own traditions and theirrelation to the asserted priority of Jewish tradition. The intention of thebook was not to synthezise the various insights in a new historiography,but rather to make up for the need of evidence in research.

A.D. Crown's Late Dating for a Distinctive Samaritanism

The tendencies of deconstruction in biblical research, which in the1970s had begun in the studies of Israel's prehistory,5 inevitably cameto include also the postexilic period and the request for a reconsidera-tion of the biblical evidence for Judaism as such.6 This request loosened

5. Taking its departure in a rejection of the historicity of the patriarchal narra-tives, cf. Th.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: W.de Gruyter, 1974); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1975), G. Fohrer, Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen biszu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Meyer, 1977); A.D.H. Mayes, Israel in thePeriod of the Judges (SBTh, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974); J.M. Miller, TheIsraelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84; J.A. Soggin, The Davidicand Solomonic Kingdom', in Hayes and Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History,pp. 332-80; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1976); J.P. Fokkelmann, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum,1975); idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (Assen: Van Gorcum,1981). Contemporary with the critique of historicity went a considerable critique ofthe Documentary Hypothesis and the datings of the biblical material: cf. H.H.Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuch-forschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); R. Rendtdorff, Das Uberliefer-ungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW, 174; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,1977); H. Vorlander, Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Euro-paische Hochschuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1978); E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984); N.P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropologicaland Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37;Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985); N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup,53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); see Th.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israel-ite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 77-126, for an annotated introduction tothis new paradigm and its implications for historical research; and G.W. Ramsey,The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1981), for a summarizedoverview of the implications for biblical science.

6. This, however, did not place Samaritanism in any central position within thelarge number of scholarly works on Judaism published in these decades, e.g., L.H.Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-


the previous fate-determining 'symbiotic character' of Judaean-Samari-tan controversies and paved the way for re-evaluations of the 'sources',leading to quite interesting and challenging new conclusions. A.D.Crown contributed considerably to this new line of ideas in his articlefrom 1991, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samari-tans'.7 According to this article, neither temple building nor its destruc-tion had been decisive for the final schism, which could not be datedearlier than after the Bar Kochba revolt. Prior to the occurrence of therabbinic literature after Judah ha-Nasi, no significant anti-Samaritanpolemic could be found in this literature, and

it was only in the generation after Judah ha-Nasi, following the BarKochba-revolt, that we see the development of anti-Samaritanism in aseries of negative statements by the rabbinical teachers, culminating inthe ruling that the Samaritans are unquestionably to be considered asGentiles.

The development of a heretic Judaism with a specific SamaritanPentateuch in the third century CE, and a spreading of this teaching tosynagogues and midrash schools, together with the establishment of aspecific liturgy and halakhah, led to irreversible schism. Crown basedhis argumentation for this late dating of SP on the negative evidencefrom DSS,8 that none of these texts bear similarities to what had beenfound in Origen's citation of the Samareiticon. That made it pretty safeto conclude an origin after 135 CE.9 The few occurrences of clashes or

sity Press, 1992); G. Boccacini, Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200CE (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991): D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of JewishNationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Had-rian; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175BC-AD 135 (trans, and rev. G. Vermes et al.\ Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87).

7. A.D. Crown, 'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samari-tans', JQR 82 (1991), pp. 17-50.

8. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 49 n. 112: D.N. Freedman and K.A.Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,1985), where the term 'proto-Samaritan' regularly indicates that the text is not theSamaritan Pentateuch. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition (HSM, 30; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986),finds 4Q Paleo Exod M rather close to the Samaritan version but not identical withit. See Chapter 3 in the present study for a discussion of these problems.

9. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 47: 'None of the Paleo-Hebrew texts fromQumran which have similarities to the Samaritan version are at all close to theSamareiticon cited by Origen in his Hexapla.' See further Crown, 'Redating the


events involving Samaria in the New Testament (Jn 4.3-4; Lk. 9.52.)and Josephus (War 2.232-33; Ant. 20.118-38) were exceptions thatwere few enough to become reported.10 By this we are brought to thereforms of Baba Rabba, whom Crown, on the basis of the SamaritanChronicle Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu'1-Fath, dated to the third century CErather than to the usually accepted dating in the fourth century.11 Anincreasing Samaritan activity in this politically rather peaceful periodhad as its purpose the spreading of Samaritan thought and halakhah toall places within and outside of Palestine where Samaritans lived. Handin hand with this went the canonizing and the promulgation of theSamaritan version of the Pentateuch.12 This activity, according toCrown, became decisive for the Judaean-Samaritan relationship: 'AfterBaba, Judaism reached its limit of toleration of Samaritanism because ithad produced a Torah version at variance with that which was acceptedas canonical in Judaea.'13

This reconstruction of events did not free Crown from reckoningSamaritans as a Jewish sect ('i.e. a religious subgroup of a main reli-gion that remains so close in belief and practice that it cannot beregarded as a different religion') that had originated from Judaism, 'andcertainly were Jews before the schism', and this in a more conservativeform regarding circumcision, sabbath, passover ritual, and so on, forwhich Samaritans preserved 'pre-rabbinic' practices (i.e. practices

Schism', n. 109, for a discussion of the characteristics of the 'Samaritan' text inHexapla; J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 81-98 (86), for a dating inthe second century based on 'palaeographical, orthographic and textual evidence'.

10. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 27-28.11. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 44 and n. 96, for Crown's dating of the

Samaritan Chronicle, supported by P. Stenhouse, The Kitabh al-Tarikh of Abu-'IFath (Sidney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1985), and D. Groh, 'Jewsand Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA 51.2(1988), pp. 80-98, who argued for a stable and prosperous period in Palestinearound 250-363 CE: 'The building activities of Rabbi Babba and his followerswould fit well into this period.'

12. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 46.13. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 50, based paradigmatically on Purvis,

'The Samaritans and Judaism', and F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism:The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Judaism, Jewish and Christian Self-definition, II (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 88-114, cf. Crown, 'Redating theSchism', n. 108, and transferred from their dating in the third-second century BCEto the third century CE.


derived directly from the Pentateuch).14 This view on Samaritans char-acterizes important parts of Crown's article, in which he simultaneouslyseeks to balance differences between Samaritans and Jews and de-scribes Samaritans as sectarians and schismatics in constant conflictwith the Jews about the placement of the temple. Thus 'open hostilitiesare rare'15 and probably an exaggeration in Josephus's account, while atthe same time the temple at Gerizim gives reason for 'an increasingdifficulty of the second temple period' and becomes a 'dangerous rival'to the temple in Jerusalem,16 because of its situation and its connectionto the Pentateuch traditions,17 which did not support any claim for aprimacy of the temple in Jerusalem according to cult, architecture andhigh priestly genealogy.18 Crown thus argued that not only had the

14. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 21 and n. 11.15. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 27: The evidence is against the outright

bitterness in the first century between Samaritans and Jews, that is spoken of inJosephus and the later rabbinical sources.'

16. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31: 'the Gerizim temple was almostcertainly seen as a dangerous rival to the Jerusalem temple, since it was proximateto an ancient sacred city, Shechem, and its claims to a Jewish temple were notdependent upon Greek patronage. The temple at Gerizim was evidently a source ofconsiderable friction between Jews and Samaritans even in Egypt, and on occasionin Palestine, we cannot be sure that the friction was continuous in view of thealleged friendship between the Sadducees and the Samaritans.'

17. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 32: 'The Samaritans argued that theirtemple stood on a site made sacred by the sacrificial activities of the Patriarchs andby the fact that the first sacrifice in Canaan (Deut. 27.4) took place thereon, since itwas the Mount of Blessing... If indeed one reads the patriarchal accounts with acritical eye, Bethel and Shechem seem to be the same, or at least proximate, places.The association of Bethel with all the events in the patriarchal accounts linked withBethel, Shechem, Moriah and Gerizim can be made directly from the Torah. TheSeptuagintal reading of Shiloh instead of Shechem (Jos. 24) and the statement inthe Testament of Joseph (2.6) that Joseph was buried in Hebron rather than nearShechem suggests that the Jewish authorities were already troubled by Samaritaninterpretations of the sacred writ in favour of Shechem and Mt Gerizim. There isalso clear evidence from the polemics between Eliezer ben Simeon and theSamaritans over their reading of Gen. 12.6 that by the mid-second century CE theSamaritan claims about Shechem were proving worksome to the tannaim.' SeeChapter 7 of the present study for much earlier 'corrections' of the Pentateuch,which Crown did not include in his argumentation.

18. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 33, referring to Ant. 12.8-10: 'The storythough brief, is most informative. It tells us directly that the Samaritans offeredsacrifices in their temple, and it implies that there was nothing to choose between


destruction caused an increasing Samaritan hostility against the Jewishtemple in the second century BCE, but that it was the loss of both cultplaces that led to open rivalry and to increasingly polemical activityfrom the middle of the second century CE.19 That this argumentationbears a clear imprint of the influence from Josephus, Crown involuntar-ily testified in his reference to Josephus's account about Demetrius'sconcession to Jonathan, including that 'it shall be in the power of theHigh Priest to take care that no one Jew shall have any other temple forworship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54), which for Crown wasa reference to the existence of other temples and Jerusalem's concernabout this, especially in regard to the Gerizim temple.20 What Crown,however, was not aware of is the difficulty of the parallel reference in 1Mace. 10.25-45, which must be the source for Josephus's text, andwhich in this place has a different wording testifying that this specificquestion did not have that kind of actuality in the second-first centuryBCE.21 Apion 2.193 might point to a similar lack of clarification. TheSamaritan woman's question to Jesus in John 4 could indicate that twocentres of worship were regarded possible as legal Jewish shrines andthat a central authority of these centres could be questioned. It is there-fore still open to debate whether the various stories about hostility andrivalry form part of a 'historiography', which sought to legitimize anact that had quite different premises, and might not be at all related todisagreements over cult and practice until a much later period. TheJohanine 'evidence', dating to the beginning of the first century CE and

these and the sacrifices at Jerusalem that would clearly distinguish them from eachother... Josephus's account clearly indicates that the objection to the Gerizimtemple was based not on arguments against its ritual or style but that it was simplyacknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implication, inferior) to that inJerusalem'; p. 35 n. 63: 'From this perspective it does not matter whence Josephusdrew his account and whether it was fanciful. Josephus accepted the view that theGerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which is whatwe should expect of the Samaritans.'

19. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 40: 'we begin to note an increase in thepolemical writings relating to the rivalry, that is from the middle of the secondcentury CE onwards. It is evident that the rivalry was kept within reasonable boundsuntil this period'.

20. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 31 n. 52.21. Which in fact supports Crown's assertion that the discussion gained actual-

ity in the second century CE. See Chapters 5 and 7 below for a debate on the issuesimplied.


Josephus's fight for claiming Jewish priority in his Antiquities from theend of the first century CE, does not document that the so-called sectar-ian writings of the Samaritan Pentateuch have to be dated that late. Therenewal of these discussions after the loss of both temples might nothave anything to do with an establishment of new positions, but may bea matter of convincing argumentation in the context of a pagan audi-ence.22 The negative evidence from the DSS at best only tells us thatSamaritan writings were not included among the texts; and recent dis-cussions have demanded that the various text designations need to bereconsidered.23

In spite of Crown's quite innovative suggestions, we must concludethat in many respects they are tied to the seemingly inescapable ana-chronism that understands rabbinic Judaism as normative already inpre-Christian times. This understanding does not take seriously the sec-tarian aspects of the origin of this Judaism in Ezra-Nehemiah Torahtheology of postexilic times, which in fact forms the backbone of theMishnaic understanding of the oral Torah, and which have led to a con-siderable Ezra veneration in rabbinic thought. I find it necessary toargue that the denial of this development constantly leads to absurdities,which on one hand ascribe Samaritan independence and authenticity,and a religion common with Judaeans, but on the other hand maintain aJewish sovereignty and primacy from which Samaritans originated anddeveloped. Changing the term to 'a pre-rabbinic Jewish sect' does notsolve this problem. On this premise it would be more correct to arguethat it is rabbinic Judaism, which left its foundation in the teaching ofthe fathers,24 if we are to consider this to be the Pentateuch or the Mos-aic code and if the goal had been a preservation of this kind of ortho-doxy.25 That history has confirmed the viability of this Jewish 'sect'implies a risk to historians of bestowing upon it pre-existential author-ity. Using the language of inclusion or exclusion seems to be mis-leading in both cases, and presupposes an established hierarchy, whichin fact is not even present in Josephus's slanderous writings about the

22. See further Chapter 5.23. See Chapter 3.24. Cf. the discussion of the various Jewish sects in Josephus, Ant. 12.10, 292,

296-97; 18.14-15; Life 191.25. As pointed out also by Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance', p. 89, referring to

Samaritan self-understanding. This view forms the central core of Nodet's work,Origins of Judaism.


Samaritans. Giving credit to this insecurity, which in fact seems to havebeen the purpose of Crown's article, it would have been more appropri-ate to speak of variant traditions instead of sects.26 The terms Samaritanand Jew might then designate nothing more than the temple a personbelonged to and not include specific religious obser-vations. Cult cen-tralization as a political issue in the formation of a partly independentJewish state during the Hasmonaeans required a centralization of thepower, which, with king and high priest in one person, seems to haveleft no room for another powerful centre in Sam-aria. Claiming theirlegality of the high priestly lineage, the Samaritans had the means seri-ously to challenge the status of the Hasmonaean priests.27 Could in factthe tradition about the division of the kingdom in the Iron age, whichimplied a decentralization of the cult and an establishment of centres inSamaria and Jerusalem, have led to an inclusion of Samaria in the timeof John Hyrcanus, which by necessity had to imply a destruction of aSamaritan temple that was no less Jewish than that in Jerusalem,28 butwhich, according to tradition, was representative of a fatal schism in aremote past, and certainly stood in opposition to extra-Pentateuchal

26. Suggested also by Purvis, The Samaritans and Judaism', pp. 91-95, aboutcriteria for speaking of variant instead of sect, and the need for a more nuancedview on Judaism and Samaritanism. Purvis warned against an anachronistic under-standing of both.

27. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, argued that with the Hasmonaean uprisingand its development into a war for national independence a need arose for an estab-lishment of national symbols: capital and temple. After the final conquest of Jeru-salem in 141 BCE during Simeon 'the capital and the temple were at the heart of theJewish nation, and the high priesthood was its highest political office' (p. 135).'[From 142-76 BCE] the Temple became the most important symbol of nationalpolitical independence. The high priests were the secular rulers of the nation,without any dependence on foreign rulers' (p. 138). 'The wish for only one religio-political centre is a dominant motif in much of the literature of the period. [Refer-ences are given to Jewish, Samaritan and Greek literature on the previous pages.]At that juncture of their history the Jews well knew that in the past, competitivereligio-political centers had brought about their own national destruction; and in-deed, ten tribes were lost (Ezekiel 23)... For this reason they felt uncomfortablewith other Jewish religious centres such as Leontopolis, Shechem and Araq el-Emir. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was, of course, the main problem'(p. 150).

28. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 35 n. 63: 'Josephus accepted the view thatthe Gerizim temple was in the authentic tradition of the Old Testament, which iswhat we would expect of the Samaritans.'


biblical traditions?29 If this scenario be structurally correct, then itaccounts pretty well for the problems of finding any distinct Samari-tanism before much later. It also accounts, however, for the problems offinding any distinct authoritative Judaism before the fall of the Jewishtemple in 70 CE.

The question of relations between Sadducees and Samaritans thushave to be seen in a new light and cannot be explained by priestly con-tacts alone.30 We need to ask why these contacts were upheld? Werethey based on family relations, such as has been asserted by somescholars, or is it more likely to regard them as being quite natural, giventhe agreements in cult practice and belief?31 We also need to ask what itmeans when Abu'l-Fath's version of John Hyrcanus's quarrel with thePharisees, in the Samaritan Chronicle not only led to his turning of alle-giance to the Sadducees (Josephus, Ant. 11.293-97), but also included areversal of his former behaviour towards the Samaritans, and that heeven asked permission to go on pilgrimage to Gerizim (AF p. 113).32

That the Church Fathers also do not distinguish clearly between Sad-ducees and Samaritans, and Mishnah in some instances simply juxta-poses the two groups, must raise considerations beyond what can be

29. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 96: 'The concept of the twelve tribesrecurs again and again in the documents of the Hasmonaean period, and can also befound in the Jewish literature of the Roman period. The number twelve, signifyingthe completeness of the Jewish nation, is also associated with the settlement of thenation on the most extensive territory the Jews were believed to have possessed inthe past.'

30. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 72, 73, 86-87; Coggins, Samaritans andJews, pp. 157-58; Crown, 'Redating~the Schism', pp. 23-24: 'It is not impossiblethat the Samaritans had a cordial relationship with the Sadducees and that there wassome degree of co-operation between the Jerusalem and Gerizim priests.'

31. Crown here refers to Josephus's description of the Samaritan temple as 'thetemple of the God Most High' and that Josephus's account clearly indicates that theobjection to the Gerizim temple was based not on arguments against its ritual orstyle but that it was simply acknowledged by all to be secondary (and by implica-tion inferior) to that in Jerusalem; see also, 'Redating the Schism', pp. 34-35; E.J.Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 10.

32. Crown, 'Redating the Schism', p. 36 n. 69, referring to J. Bowman, Samar-itan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: PickwickPress, 1977), p. 135. Crown's comment that the Samaritans might still have beenusing the ruins of the temple confuses two traditions. It was only according to Jew-ish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 13.256) that John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple, notto Samaritan tradition as mentioned earlier in Chapter 1.


seen as plainly sectarian groupings. These considerations might findtheir answers in the various groups' self-understanding and their inter-pretation of the common tradition. According to the Samaritan Chron-icle Abu'l-Fath, no Jewish sects are claimed to be Samaritan, even ifthey share the same view on Scriptures as the Sadducees do, or they'rally around the Samaritan temple' and participate in the cult there,such as the Hasidim.33 Regarding the Sadducees, the unsurmountableproblem was their relation to the temple in Jerusalem, and regarding theHasidim it seems to have been their belief. The Pharisees, because oftheir exegesis and lenient attitude towards truth, was the most hatedJewish group in Samaritan tradition (AF p. 111).

Samaritans as Original Israelites? The Position ofE. Nodet

With his quite comprehensive work Essai sur les origines du judaisme:de Josue aux Pharisiens,u E. Nodet revived the discussion about thepossibility that Samaritans should be considered to be original Israel-ites.35 Some of these views had previously been argued by M. Gaster inhis 1924 book and by J. Macdonald in his 1964 book.36 The view

33. Macdonald, Theology, p. 25, identified the Hasidim with the Samaritansbased on an unpublished text of 2 Chronicles, disagreeing with AF, who consideredthem to be connected geographically to the Samaritans.

34. (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. Eng. version (used throughout): In Search of theOrigins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

35. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 12: 'I hope to show that the simplest way totake into account various anomalies and many scattered bits of information is topresuppose, schematically the following: that the Samaritans of Gerizim were themost direct heirs of the ancient Israelites and their cult; that the material in theHexateuch should generally be attributed to them, with the conscious exception ofthe weekly sabbath; that Judaism, dispersed throughout the whole Seleucid Trans-euphrates, was an import from Babylon and was made up of ancestral traditions andmemories of the Kingdom of Judah; that the union between these two, that is to saybetween two quite restricted groups, took place a little before 200 BCE, and wasfollowed by an intense literary activity; that Judaism was given legal status atJerusalem by Antiochus III.'

36. Macdonald, Theology, p. 8: '"Judaist" a term restricted to the period begin-ning with Ezra, has reference to the religion of the post-exilic Judaeans. Judaismthus applies to the religion whose origin is that of Samaritanism, but whose path ofdevelopment from the Babylonian exile was quite different from that of theSamaritans.'


gained only few supporters, but, as shown in the review of Crown'sarticle, it certainly did (and still does) need serious consideration.

The first driving force for Nodet's work was the surprising obser-vation that our history writing methodologically rested on very weakfoundations, and that the insufficiency of the available sources led to aveiling rather than an unveiling of the historical facts. When classicalhistory writing construes a history on 'facts' with a plausibility far lessthan one hundred percent that rests on similar uncertain 'facts', the his-torian is left with a reconstruction that at best is only probable. In otherwords: The progress of this positivistic method of establishing factsbecomes very quickly disastrous.'37 This methodological insufficiencywas especially crucial in the reconstruction of Jewish history from thedestruction of the temple in 587 BCE to the Hasmonaean takeover inabout 150 BCE. The main source for this period was Josephus, and, as itturned out in Nodet's research, he was 'no better informed than we areand we often have the feeling that he is deliberately drawing out ameagre documentation in order to fill up centuries that are especiallyempty'.38 That Eusebius of Caesarea was no more conclusive in hisresults in his work Preparation for the Gospel convinced Nodet of theinadequacy of the method.39

The second driving force in Nodet's work was the question of thestatus of the Bible in Judaism, leading to the chronological and typolog-ical delimitation of the work given in his subtitle From Joshua to theMishnah.40 In the postexilic period, the status of the Bible underwent achange, which, as reflected in rabbinic literature, challenged the teach-ing of the Bible and in several instances made the biblical text inferiorto the oral tradition.41 It probably was this insecurity about the Bible'sauthority that had in the beginning led rabbi Akiba's school to attempt asynthesis of the written and oral Torah. This condition stood in strangecontrast to the attitude toward the Bible represented by Samaritans,

37. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 60.38. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 9, 331.39. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 10.40. 'Joshua was the one who locally established in writing a statute and a law at

the Shechem assembly, while the Mishnah was the ultimate metamorphosis of thetraditions brought from Babylon and mixed in with Judaean influences'; Nodet,Origins of Judaism, p. 12.

41. y. Sank. 11.6: 'The Words of the scribes are more important than those ofthe [written] Torah.'


Sadducees, Philo, Josephus and even the New Testament letter to theHebrews, all of which ascribe to the Pentateuch a central position as asource of law, history and philosophy.42 Josephus's claim of adherenceto Pharisaism and his neglect of those in rabbinic tradition so well-known rabbis Hillel and Shammai, his ignorance of the academy inJamnia, as well as rabbinic tradition's similar ignorance of Josephus,reflected for Nodet a curious relationship, which was best explained bythe rabbinic movement's placement outside of Jerusalem in the ruralregions of Galilee and connected with Babylon.43

The discussions about the keeping of the sabbath clearly illustratedthe implications of this problem. Nodet's main reference to this discus-sion is 1 Mace. 2.41's account that Mattathias in 167 BCE, during Anti-ochus Epiphanes' persecutions, decided that Jews were allowed to beararms in defence on the sabbath. Almost at the same time, according toJosephus, the Samaritans declared that they had recently adopted thesabbath from the Jews and that they were ready to give it up to avoidreprisals.44 Nodet here follows Josephus's description of the Samaritansas those 'Sidonians' living around Shechem and maintaining the cult atGerizim—in fact a very limited group:

who could have been the dissidents, degraded by foreign marriages andlax observances. In fact they constituted a limited group and had under-gone some Jewish influence (Sabbath, Sabbatical year). Yet before theseinfluences, they had been the heirs of the Israelites (Jacob, Joseph).45

Nodet therefore considered this sabbath rule to be rather late.The status of the temple in Jerusalem was another problematic case

that was difficult to fit into classical historiography: 'artificially mag-nified in the story of Alexander, it is astonishingly marginal for

42. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 10: 'the rabbinic tradition, in its oldest layers,shows no sign of a biblical foundation, but only of secondary offshoots from theBible, it can in no way pass for a "religion of the Old Testament".'

43. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 59: This marginal situation implies that therabbinic tradition, although wanting to be heir to the memories of Jerusalem and theTemple, had its origin in fact from the ruling circles of Jerusalem. This wouldexplain perfectly why Josephus ignores them altogether, or even would not want toknow of them. In a similar way, Josephus only discovered Christianity in Rome,when he could not deny it a certain social importance.' Cf. E. Nodet, 'Jesus et JeanBaptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48.

44. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 63-64.45. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381.


Nehemiah as well as for the Pharisees, which does not, however pre-vent strong claims being made about it'. The inauguration of the altaron 25th Kislev in 164 BCE by Judas Maccabaeus had no immediateinstitutional consequences, and it was evident that it was not the templebut the temple institution as such that played the most central roleduring the Maccabaean crisis.46

With these examples the issues of research in Nodet's work is pre-sented: The Maccabaean crisis, the authority of the holy books, thedevelopment of the oral Torah, sabbath, and finally the Samaritans whoseem to appear 'at each moment in the development of ancient Judaism,and that Josephus in particular systematizes their opposition, fromCyrus to the Maccabees'.47

Since the historiography for the period is incoherent, contradictoryand limited to singular events that cannot be brought into any harmo-nious course (the edict of Cyrus, the building of the temple, the reformsof Ezra and Nehemiah, the arrival of Alexander and the decrees ofAntiochus III), it is not possible to create a coherent picture of eventsand developments of early Judaism and its placement in the Persianperiod prior to Alexander the Great by means of classical source analy-sis.48 After Judas Maccabee, information becomes more numerous, andit is evident that conditions regarding the sabbath, temple and Samari-tans have changed. This gave Nodet reason to use Judas Maccabee as achronological reference. He separated him from the other members ofthe Hasmonaean family, since it was clear that he had other interestsand also obtained a different position in the books of Maccabees.49

As a typological reference Nodet used what he calls the Nehemiahmodel/the Nehemiah city, which, removed from its 'historical' context,'designates a community structure defined by a limited and protectedspace, where the Torah—and especially the Sabbath—could be ob-

46. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 62.47. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 62.48. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 38: 'the origins of Judaism, distinct from the

reconstruction of the sanctuary under the patronage of Cyrus and Darius, fit in verypoorly in the Persian period, but are a priori earlier than the arrival of Alexander,since he was impressed with the temple and with the worship there, and since hebestowed upon the Jews privileges, which he refused to the Samaritans. If thisepisode fades away as fictional, however, there is no longer anything which wouldappear to guarantee so ancient a date for these origins.'

49. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 263.


served without any hindrance'.50 The question of the sabbath is hereused as the touchstone in Nodet's research, since the discussions andthe accounts about defence or lack of defence, combined with Jose-phus's obvious uneasiness about stating that the sabbath rule, whichprohibits defence on the sabbath, should belong to the Mosaic tradition,could point to a late fixing, and seems rather to belong to the split inJudaism into various fractions in the third-first century BCE.

The 'results' of Nodet's methodical research led to the establishmentof three distinct Jewish groups, which in different ways determineddevelopment during the Hasmonaean crisis.51 The reform policy ofAntiochus III52 gave the impetus to this development. This reform pol-icy was similar to the well-known reforms presented in Ezra and Nehe-miah. Transformed to this period, where they would fit better, theyinstituted a new law as a synthesis of the Law of Moses with Babylo-nian customs.53 An active policy of restoration was instituted afterAntiochus Ill's takeover in 223 BCE and Jerusalem played a central rolein this restoration. The condition for the city was similar to that de-scribed in Ezra 6.1-12: without high priest, with an unfinished templeand with no authority to receive the decree, which therefore was sent tothe Syrian governor, who had the highest authority economically andreligiously.54 The purpose of the decree was to move observant Jews tocentral places in Palestine where they could serve Seleucid interests as

50. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 62, 87, 379.51. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 263.52. Understood on the basis of Antiochus's decree presented in Josephus, Ant.

12.138-44, which Nodet (pp. 217ff.) considered to be authentic. Cf. E.J. Bickerman,'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935) pp. 4-35, reprinted in E.J.Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980),pp. 44-85, and Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16(1966), pp. 54-70. This stele inscription mentioning Antiochus Ill's fiscal reorgani-zation of Palestine can in no way be connected to Josephus's decrees ascribed toAntiochus III.

53. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 225; see also p. 386: 'In brief, the book ofEzra-Nehemiah, which contains ancient information, not only offers no seriousobstacle to the proposed conclusions, but even makes it possible to clarify the func-tions of these two personages: to Ezra was precisely connected the written Law (allor part of the Pentateuch), with views about all Israel and a dominant high priest-hood governing the Law and the cult, whereas under the name of Nehemiah and hislibrary were gathered together the traditions of the Elders, various writings and aJewish nostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult.'

54. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 218.


'buffer' zones against upheavals without themselves being a threat tothe rulers, since they were not allowed to carry weapons on the sabbath.This model was known from a similar practice, related in Ant. 12.149-50. After the order of Antiochus III, 2000 Jewish families were movedfrom Mesopotamia to Phrygia and Lydia because of an upheaval there.Xeukis, who was in charge of the move, was instructed to make surethat these loyal Jews became properly settled, were free of taxes for tenyears and were allowed to live by the law of their fathers.55 Accordingto Nodet this policy changed the balance of power in Palestine. The'deportation' of these observant Jews to Jerusalem led to confrontationsand splits that definitively formed the agenda for the Maccabaean crisisand also became foundational for the formation of rabbinical Judaism.

Prior to the decree of Antiochus, the returned Jews had formed twomain groups. One group concentrated around the temple in Jerusalem,whose situation is reflected in Ezra 1-6. The other group, called Nehe-miah Jews or Ezra Jews, were Hasidic Jews, 'Men of the Great Assem-bly', who, after their return from Babylonia, instituted the weekly sab-bath, which previously had been connected to the feasts of the newmoon. These Jews began to collect the Pentateuch traditions, probablytogether with the Samaritans, with a late addition of Deuteronomy.56 Atthe core of the sabbath problem lay in fact calendar disagreements. Thelunar calendar governing feasts and sabbaths formed the foundation ofIsraelite religion, such as it is traceable in the Pentateuch prior to the

55. The letter is undated, but is considered to be authentic and belonging to thesame period (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 223).

56. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 281-86, 289, 335, see also p. 92: The Hexa-teuch as a whole can with great difficulty be considered the work of Nehemiah-Judas [2 Mace. 2.13f.], since on the one hand the narrative part superbly ignoresJerusalem and very largely gravitates around Shechem and Mount Gerizim andtherefore applies more to the Samaritans than to Judaea, and on the other hand theBabylonian model of the sabbath, close to that of Nehemiah, does not agree withthe basic biblical ideas. Some of the accounts referred to above indicate besides thatthese same Samaritans, although attached to the Pentateuch, denied that they ob-served the sabbath like the Jews, at least in the time of Antiochus IV, as if theSabbath precept had no further force. In dispensing with the biblical narratives then,it is advisable to examine the legislative sections, especially those dealing with theSabbath: is it possible to picture a Pentateuch without the weekly Sabbath of theCreation?' The result is positive in Nodet's study, giving a Pentateuch without thepriestly redaction, which must have taken place after Nehemiah and before 1 Mace,(cf. pp. 93-121).


priestly redaction, and which is unknown to Ezekiel and Isaiah.57 Withthe introduction of the weekly sabbath—separated from the phases ofthe moon—a cult reform was introduced whose central aim was toremove the fertility cult connected with the moon. As a result, the Jewswere forced to form two distinctive groups: observant Nehemiah Jewsfitting the description of Agarthacides, for whom the sabbath obser-vance was central, and non-observant Jews,58 who had no problems injoining Alexander's army (cf. Ant. 11.339).

The conflicts between these two groups were to some degree solvedby the high priest Simon the Just,59 who seemingly had some success incombining the Babylonian oral Torah with the Pentaeuch in some formand the requirements of the priesthood realizing the decrees of Anti-ochus III. After Simon this unity fell apart again and quarrels about thehigh priestly office led to the formation of three different groups:

57. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 118-21, 99-102 and 380: 'The Sabbath in itsold form, attested in the prophets and in some narratives, referred to the full moonand the associated ceremonies. The Passover, the 14th of a lunar month, was there-fore a Sabbath in this sense. The Mesopotamian sources were likewise acquaintedwith a shabattum, corresponding to the full moon. They were acquainted too with"dangerous days" the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th. Practically, the rhythm of the quar-ters of the moon was close to the weekly sabbath, but with the computation begin-ning over again each month, therefore in dependence of the moon. The weekly sab-bath had at the outset the same rhythm but was freed from that lunar servitude,which implied a change in cult of major significance, since the moon, governinghuman fertility was easy to divinize.'

58. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 90.59. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277, 335. Of Egyptian origin, based on the

name and indirectly testified in 1 Mace. 5.23 and Josephus, Ant. 12.226-27. Seep. 260: 'The simplest hypothesis is therefore to admit that Jason and Onias werereally Lacedaemonian in origin, or more exactly, since their Lagide connections arecertain, that they were Egyptian descendants of Spartan colonists. Moreover, thisdoes not conflict in any way with their having been named or recognized as highpriests by the Seleucids: the governor-high priest of Coele-Syria to whom Antio-chus III had addressed the Charter of Jerusalem was a former Egyptian generalnamed Ptolemy. Likewise, according to 2 Mace. 6.1, Antiochus IV named anAthenian to rededicate to Zeus the sanctuaries of Jerusalem and Gerizim, and thatfunction greatly resembled an appointment as high priest in the official Seleucidroyal cult.' This, of course, is a highly tendentious reading of the implied texts lean-ing heavily on Josephus's interest in exploiting the similarity of names. WithR. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906), weare told that Onias was the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yochanan.


1. High priests of different origins, accepted and supported bythe Seleucid rulers and their friends, of whom Onias, son ofSimon the Just appointed by Antiochus III, is a prototype.These priests tolerated an increasing Hellenizatlon and the tax-ation of temple treasures. Furthermore, in their application forJerusalem's status as a polis, they created an antagonism thatbrought them into open conflict with observant Jews (group 2)who wanted obedience of the Law, and non-observant Jews(group 3) who did not accept that temple treasures be given tothe Seleucid rulers.60

2. More or less observant Jews returned from exile and spread allover the Seleucid empire, but with a minor group settled inJerusalem. Their leader was Judas Maccabaeus together withthe Hasidim. From them we have the connection to the laterPharisees, developing in the period between Jonathan and JohnHyrcanus, who, independently of the high priest and the king,had gained a considerable influence over the people, especiallythose living in the diaspora.61 Nodet separated Judas from theMaccabees, to whom he was artificially connected in 1 Macca-bees, in order to render him priestly status, but whose politicaland religious observances he did not share, especially regard-ing the sabbath62 and the temple.63 That he 'is forgotten' in1 Mace. 14.28-45, the inscription in memory of the formationof the state, and in 16.3, Simon's testament, which only men-tions 'my brother' (sing, and probably Jonathan is meant), to-gether with the 'fact' that he is not appointed high priest, wereNodet's reasons for suggesting this separation.64

3. Israelite priests having no decisive break from their Samaritanorigin. They grasped the power religiously and politically in

60. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 381-82.61. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 334: They were more biblical (and less given

to activism) than Judas Maccabaeus himself, but were very similar to the book of2 Maccabees, with a vision of the Temple as a divine dwelling and with an effica-cious desire to influence the Diaspora, as the festal letters show.'

62. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 63. Judas did not carry weapon on the sab-bath, but fled to the mountains (cf. 2 Mace. 8.25-26; 15.1-2).

63. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 215-16, 237-48.64. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 209, 215-16, 246-48, 381.


Judaea. Their prototypes are Jonathan65 and Simon, sons ofMattathias. Mattathias himself, a priest with Samaritan con-nections, had left Jerusalem because of its decadence, butdreamed about seeing the temple again. From them we havethe connection to the Sadducees,66 who originally connected tothe Samaritans, established themselves in Jerusalem andbecame dominant in the time of Alexander Jannai.67 Claimingto be heirs to the Zadokite priesthood, they are connected withthe books of Chronicles, which established the genealogicalconnection to the Zadokites (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-31) and whosetheological profile match that of the Sadducees according toJosephus's description in Ant. 18.16.68

65. In whose days the holy books came to Jerusalem (cf. 1 Mace. 12.9). Thedisagreement of this text with Josephus, Ant. 13.167, 'although we have no need ofsuch evidence, since our own writings inform us of this', made Nodet assert, 'Oniasas high priest did not possess the "holy books", that is to say he did not have thePentateuch, in which in particular the genealogies were found; or at the very least,he sought other proofs of antiquity than these books, which were perhaps not really"holy" for him.' Cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 259.

66. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 335, 381.67. Which implies a transfer of John Hyrcanus's discussion with the Pharisees

(Ant. 13.289-90) to Alexander Jannai (cf. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 249).68. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 266: 'The difference between Judas and Matta-

thias has become clearer, under the veil of a common armed resistance. The latterhas been recognised as an Aaronite, perhaps a Zadokite, with Samaritan connec-tions. But what results from this is a problem relative to the Book of Chronicles,which described a cult installed in Jerusalem, in which the Davidic monarchy andthe tribe of Levi (priests and Levites) held sway. Moreover, the interpretation of theline of Joarib and Mattathias as Zadokites is based solely on the interpretation ofthe list in 1 Chron. 24.3-31. If it is omitted it is still possible to compare the Saddu-cees with Mattathias and the Samaritans, but their name becomes again inex-plicable. The difficulty may seem artificial, since Chronicles is commonly dated tothe Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period, without any definiterelationship with the decree of Cyrus, or with the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah.But Chronicles is to be dated after the "Law of Moses", which they constantlymention. Jonathan's letter to the Spartans, in which he declared that he had thesacred scriptures at his disposal, which Onias did not have, or did not utilise, showsthat the existence or at least the authority of the Law of Moses (or of the "holybooks") among the circles directing the Temple could not have gone back a goodwhile before the Maccabean crisis.'


The roles of these groups in the Maccabaean crisis and the develop-ment of the rabbinic tradition in the aftermath of that crisis will not bedealt with here. According to Nodet, the origin of the Samaritans is hid-den in the complex pre-history of Israel, which does not form part of hisstudy. They probably are not those from 2 Kings 17's and Josephus'simported Cuthaeans, but relate to a local Yahweh cult centred aroundShechem,69 with strong local traditions connected to Jacob-Israel. Theyfurthermore are connected to the Aaron traditions via Bethel, whichmust be identified with Shechem or a nearby sanctuary whose origin islost.70 At a certain time, not later than Alexander the Great, the Gerizimcult originated with the traditions connected to them.71 From this camethe Hexateuch traditions, the connection to Joshua, the Jacob traditions,which had been written down around 250-200 BCE and were accreditedwith the authorization as the 'Law of Moses' without the weekly sab-bath, interpolated in a later redaction.72 The meeting with the returnedNehemiah Jews led to an acceptance of some of their customs, inter aliathe weekly sabbath (cf. Ant. 12.259). This resulted in a considerable lit-erary activity and probably also in a common Pentateuch, which

69. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 147: 'The people did not intermix with thesubjects of the province as a whole. On the occasion of the visit of Alexander (Ant.11.340), two entirely distinct groups are clearly apparent: the Samaritans in general,and the "dissident" Jews connected with the Gerizim temple. Even if Josephus'spresentation is tendentious, since he always tried to denigrate the Samaritans thereis a certain duality, represented by the two cities of Samaria and Shechem. In otherwords, the petition just studied did not concern all the Samaritans, but only a grouprevolving around Shechem and the unnamed temple.' Nodet here argues against thescholarly tradition that assumes the Sidonians to be a colony, living among theSamaritans, but not connected with those (see below, Chapter 5). Nodet's argumen-tation is bound to his establishment of a history for the development of the weeklysabbath, which would fall apart if the Sidonians in Josephus's writing were not theSamaritans.

70. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 167-82.71. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381.72. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191, 152, 381: 'In addition the Samaritan

Pentateuch has interesting contacts with the Qumran fragments and with the leastrevised forms of the LXX (Philo, New Testament). The Letter of Aristeas whichpresents a Jerusalem high priest ruling over the twelve tribes, conferred authority ona revision, in a more Judean or more balanced sense, of a translation of the Penta-teuch that had been judged to be too "Samaritan". Since Antiochus III, the impor-tance of Judaea had only kept on growing, but the Samaritan text, despite latercorruption, should be regarded as the first heir of the primitive edition.'


became dispersed to the diaspora.73 Because of the Nehemiah Jews'self-assertion as heirs to all Israel, they collided in Jerusalem withanother tradition that was 'cultic, prophetic and perhaps also royal. Thisforms the prehistory of the Maccabaean crisis' in which the Samaritans,in Nodet's presentation, did not participate.74 The role of the Samaritansin Jewish history had ended. Concentrated around the high priestly gov-erned life75 on their wind-swept mountain, they could do nothing butwait for extermination in 107 BCE.

The present reader certainly is left wondering how this peripheralgroup could leave such an imprint on the cult in Jerusalem, that itaccepted its history as part of their own, and seemingly had so greatveneration for this history that changing it had to go via secondaryinterpretations, such as in the book of Jubilees, Testament of Joseph,and so on.76 Nodet's view on the Samaritans as a minor group thatseemed to have contact with other groups in Judaism only for the basisof the establishment of a history of the Pentateuch in our scholarlyworld certainly is an intrinsic weakness of his work. By this he intro-duced a distortion that supports the Jerusalem tradition's own assertionof the existence of a widespread and normative Judaism as early as thethird century BCE.77 The connection to the Hasidic Jews and later theSadducees is so weak that it cannot be seen as more than a workinghypothesis, having no sociological resonance. The question of theirrelation to the cult in Jerusalem before and after Simon the Just is leftunanswered in Nodet's work. The Samaritan account, which cursesKing Simon for having destroyed the temple at Gerizim and which

73. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 191-95, 38.74. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 191.75. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 269: 'An essential element for the Samaritans

was the absolute primacy of the priesthood, in conformity with the Pentateuch, incomplete contrast with pharisaic and then rabbinical Judaism, which was a laydemocracy in which the dominant element was the teaching of tradition by the doc-tors of the Law; among the Samaritans, all religious acts went through the priests,and in particular the seven feasts and the calendar.'

76. See Chapter 7 below.77. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 381: 'If the Samaritans constituted a very

local reality, it was not the same for the Jews, scattered as far as the Tigris. In theprehistory of the Maccabean crisis, the Jerusalem charter granted by Antiochus III(about 200) is of prime importance, since it attempted, in order to ensure theirfidelity, to federate a Jewish population of Babylonian culture scattered throughouthis whole kingdom, by reorienting it on the city and its temple.'


curses Ezra for having forged the Law is not taken into considerationeither. Instead, Ezra's role as promoter and promulgator of the Law ofMoses and his institution of scribal and teaching activities in the wholeof the Seleucid kingdom during Antiochus III are given special atten-tion. If this be the source of the common Pentateuch, such as suggestedby Nodet, it fits badly with the Samaritan view on Ezra.78 Whateverhistorical role this figure might have had, the tradition ascribes to him afar greater role than the promoting of the Pentateuch. Nodet's separa-tion of Ezra and Nehemiah, making Nehemiah the innovator and pre-server of 'the traditions of the Elders, various writings and a Jewishnostalgia for a monarchy having control over the cult', and making Ezrathe promoter of 'the written Law (all or part of the Pentateuch), withviews about all Israel and a dominant high priesthood governing theLaw and the cult' hardly reflect biblical, Samaritan or rabbinic tradition.

The collection of the Masoretic texts is the work of the rabbis. Ezra'smission is first and foremost the promotion of an oral Torah. For thatreason is he placed outside the temple (Neh. 8.4). It is not the priests,but the Levites (metaphorical rabbis) who teach the people (cf. Neh.8.7-9): 'So they read from the Book, from the law of God, with inter-pretation [crib!?]. They gave the sense, so that the people understoodthe reading.' This is well testified in 'Abod. Zar., which makes Simeonthe Just the first high priest in a series of seven generations of teachers.Before the promulgation of the Law, the city and the temple have beenrebuilt, and the Jews from the rural districts have moved into the city.In other words circumstances were in place for a realization of the com-mandments of the Law, so that after the reading of the Law, the confes-sion of sins (Neh. 9) is followed by the cutting of a new covenant: inthis version the signing of a contract (ch. 10)—by which religio-socialreforms instituted by the Law could be declared valid (Neh. 13). Theplacement of Nehemiah after Ezra in biblical tradition has as its purposebringing Ezra into the old tradition and leaving Nehemiah as a guarantythat what the new Ezra brings is not completely different from the oldtradition, but that it (as part of the tradition) is enclosed by it. That thekeeping of the Sabbath and the marriage regulations are made part ofthe old tradition is documented by the references to the Pentateuch(Ezra 9.12; Neh. 8.13-15; 10.31-40; 13.1-2, 10, 25), which guaranteethat they should be kept. The inclusion of Ezra in the tradition at the

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


time when he introduces something new is a common literary techniqueof biblical composition. The circularity designates the wholeness, an-nuls the chronology and, by making the first the latter and the latter thefirst, connects past and present. Rabbinic veneration for Ezra as thefigure who together with 120 Elders form 'the Great Synagogue' thatreturned from exile 'made many new rules and restrictions for the betterobservance of the Law' also fits Nodet's model badly. Ezra's functionas innovator and competitor to Moses (cf. t. Sank. 4.7): 'If Moses hadnot anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah'; (b. Suk. 20a):'He restored and re-established the Torah that had been almost for-gotten' not only brings him into conflict with the Samaritans, but alsowith the Sadducees, who according to Nodet originated from them.79 Asa contrast to this veneration, the work of Nehemiah is given insig-nificant reference in rabbinic tradition, restricted to a few sabbath rules(cf. b. Sab. 123b). That the decree of Antiochus III in Josephus reflectsthe Nehemiah model, which he has not presented previously, neither inhis mention of Ezra (Ant. 11.121-58) or Nehemiah (Ant. 11.159-83),should be the 'caveat', which either accepts Nodet's placement of thereform here or rejects to write history on the premises of Josephus. Theplacement of Simon the Just as the high priest who combined thevarious 'traditions' and thus realized the decree of Antiochus III impliesan impossibility regarding the book of Ben Sira. Ben Sira's ignorance ofEzra and the reforms of Nehemiah, of whom he seems to have knowl-edge of his building of the city wall only (cf. Sir. 49.13)—'The memory

79. Meg. 31b; y. Meg. 4.1.75a: 'He ordained that public readings from the Torahtake place not only on Sabbaths, but also on Mondays and Thursdays'; b. Sank.21b: He also had the Bible rewritten in 'Assyrian characters, leaving the old Heb-rew characters to the Samaritans'; B. Bat. 21b-22a: 'He established schools every-where to fill the existing needs and in the hope that the rivalry between the insti-tutions would redound to the benefit of the pupils'; B. Qam 82a-b, y. Meg. 4.1.75a:'He also enacted the ordinances known as "the ten regulations of Ezra" and togetherwith five of his companions, compiled the Misnah' (tractate Kelim, in A. Jellinek,Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhandlungenaus der altern judischen Literatur [6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann,3rd rev. edn, 1967 (1853)], p. 88). Aside from the book which bears his name, Ezrawrote the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to his own time (B. Bat 15a) andhad a hand in writing the book of Psalms (Song R. 4.19). The rabbis identify himwith the prophet Malachi (Meg. 15a). He is one of the wise men whose piety isespecially extolled by the rabbis (Midr. Jeh. to 105.2), cf. E. Davis, EncJud, VI,p. 1106.


of Nehemiah also is lasting; he raised our fallen walls and set up gatesand bars, and rebuilt ruined houses'—is significant. It can be argued, ofcourse, that the language here must be read metaphorically. The place-ment between v. 12, the temple building activity of Yehoshua benYozadak, and v. 14's praise of Enoch certainly can also give clues tosuch an interpretation. The praise of Simon (son of Onias in Sir. 50)mentions his high priestly performance during the service and does notmention anything about reform activities, unless one reads his buildingactivities metaphorically. It has to be noted that the book of Ben Siradoes not display any special interest in sabbath or marriage laws, andthat the main demand concerning worship is social adjustment and thekeeping of the offering commands (cf. chs. 7 and 35). Of course, therecould be several reasons for that, and it cannot be denied that the case ispolitical: also regarding the praise of the high priest, whoever thisperson is. Considering the book of Ben Sira to belong to anothercontext that does not have knowledge of these reforms would implythat its Jerusalemite orientation is a late insertion.80 The dating of thebook is another important matter. Its implicit dating to 182-132 BCEand a possible late dating to 117 BCE removes it so far from the allegedreforms of Antiochus III that other contexts become possible.

The origin of the Pentateuch in Samaritan tradition and its 'adoption'in Jerusalem is meaningful only if this tradition had first later becomeSamaritan or if both groups had identified themselves with the sameprehistory. If they did not, we must ask why the cult in Jerusalemaccepted the Samaritan version as their own. Interestingly, the biblicaltradition confirms Nodet's hypothesis that the Samaritans were theoriginal heirs to the Pentateuch traditions. It also confirms that the cultmoved from north to south and not the opposite. In the Ezra-Nehemiahtradition it asserts furthermore that this move was necessary, and thatthe break between the pre-exilic old Israel and the postexilic new Israelwas foundational for the survival of the New Israel with its new inter-pretation of the Law. What confuses this scenario, however, is the later

80. Sir. 50.27. The standard translation based on the LXX: 'Ir|oot>c; mo<; £ipa%EA,ea£ap 6 Iepoat>A.euiTr|c;, 'Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach of Jerusalem',conflicts with the Hebrew text: KTO p "ITI^K p "pIOD. R.H. Charles, Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), andP.W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, withNotes (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) both omit Simeon, assertingthis to be an erroneous insertion.


traditions' wish for a correction of the direction of this move. Denyingthe innovative aspects of that move, they claimed heritage to the wholetradition. This is particularly evident in Josephus's claim for Jerusa-lem's sovereignty. The contradictions to this claim is not given satis-factory attention in Nodet's work. Nodet's selective reading of his'sources', which a priori asserts the authenticity of some texts andrejects others as inauthentic, implies the assertion that our texts are his-torical documents directly reflecting reality. Establishing hypothesis onthe background of the veracity of some texts indirectly provides thesetexts' reality-creating activity with an authority that ignores these verytexts' myth-making functions. Such a reading is in constant danger ofleading to circular argumentation and tendentious confirmation of thehypothesis at test. Nodet hereby seems to have fallen victim to his owncriticism of methods. That might be inevitable if we are to engage our-selves in historical reconstruction at all. That such a reading also cangive wonderful new insights and establish new hypotheses is welldemonstrated. It certainly is one of Nodet's greatest achievements thathe brings up the question of the Pentateuch afresh. Its origin and trans-mission raise urgent questions of the primacy and authority of what weare wont to call Judaism.

Chapter 3

SAMARITAN LITERATURE

This chapter offers a brief introduction to most of the literature we call'Samaritan', including DSS texts, from the SP to the latest of theSamaritan Chronicles of the nineteenth century CE.1 Detailed text exam-ination should not be expected here, and readers are advised to seekfurther information in the literature referred to. The historiography ofthe Samaritan Chronicles will be examined in Chapter 6.

The Pentateuch

With the exception of some few references to surviving Samaritans inPalestine in the fourteenth century CE, it was not until the end of thesixteenth century CE that real information about Samaritan communitieswas given by J. Scaliger, who wrote diaries from his travels in Palestineand brought them to the attention of Western scholarship. Scaliger alsocollected some few manuscripts and was in close correspondence withthe Samaritan community in Nablus for years.2 The publication of theseSamaritan manuscripts raised text-critical questions about the original-ity of the biblical manuscripts, and led to the first European publicationof the SP in 1616 by Pietro della Valle. Later, J. Morinus, who alreadyin 16313 had argued that the SP was earlier than the MT, inserted the SPinto his Polyglot, published in Paris in 1645. Morinus's text appeared in

1. See J.P. Rothschild, 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), TheSamaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94, for preser-vation of manuscripts and fragments, a total of about 1800 placed in about 70 lib-raries and private collections.

2. J.J. Scaliger, Opus De Emendatione Temporum (Leyden, 1583; 1598; Gen-eva, 1629).

3. J. Morinus, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pen-tateucheum (Paris, 1631).

3. Samaritan Literature 77

revised form in the London Polyglot, published by B. Walton in 1657,4

which also contained a list, made by Casellus, of the text variants to theMT: 6000 were found, 1900 of which corresponded with the LXX.

This interest in the SP was not entirely scientific. The ideologies, ex-pressed in sola scriptura and ad fontes of the Reformation had chal-lenged the authority of the Catholic Church. For centuries both parts ofthis debate had a major interest in 'excavating' the most original text,a so-called Urtext. The demonstration of a greater correspondence be-tween the SP and the LXX, which also could be proved to harmonizebetter with the Vulgate text than those Hebrew manuscripts the reform-ers claimed to have been Urtexts had the purpose of defending the tra-dition and warding off the critique of church tradition by Lutherans.

The classical work of Gesenius from 18155 sought a revision of theseviews. He assumed that the Samaritan sect came into existence withAlexander the Great's permission for the Samaritans to build a templeon Mt Gerizim. At this time the Samaritan priests, he argued, revisedthe Jewish text to fit this new reality. The correspondence with the LXXcould be explained by assuming a common origin in an Alexandrian-Samaritan recension, which Gesenius considered to oppose a Jewishrecension, and to have had authority among the Jews. The Alexandrian-Samaritan recension was a more popular edition, made for public use,while the Jewish recension, for the sake of its claim to greater respect,had not undergone the same revisions, but had kept its textual prob-lems.6

4. B. Walton (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). ProlegomenonXI: De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomenahave been frequently republished by: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig,1777]; Wrangham [Cambridge, 1828].)

5. W. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle:Springer Verlag, 1815).

6. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum origine, p. 14: the variants comprised:(1) grammatical changes, (2) explanations in the text, (3) assumed changes in orderto remove textual difficulties, (4) changes based on parallel passages, (5) expan-sions based on parallel passages, (6) harmonizing of chronologies, (7) Samaritanwords (including the special use of laryngeals), (8) sectarian readings based onSamaritan theology and cult practice. For these reasons Gesenius did not considerthe SP to be useful for text-critical studies. Gesenius's views are discussed in Pur-vis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 75, and B. Waltke, 'The Samaritan Pentateuch andthe Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the OldTestament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39 (228-32).


These opinions of Gesenius were followed by Z. Frankel, S. Kohnand J. Nutt.7 A. Geiger shared Gesenius's views in principle but wasmore critical in regard to the MT. By introducing much new material, hesought to demonstrate that most of the variants were older than theSamaritan community, and that the Samaritan text should rather beconsidered to be an independent text than a development of any Jewishtext.8

In 1915 these views were further argued by P. Kahle,9 who consid-ered the SP to be very old and to have a greater degree of originality10

than the MT, which had only later been compiled and edited from vari-ous sources. The LXX was similarly based on various translations, whichfirst developed a standard version in the Christian era. Kahle based hisarguments on SP's accords with Jubilees, 1 Enoch, the Assumption ofMoses, Philo, LXX and the New Testament. Scholars like R. Pfeiffer,B. Roberts, F.G. Kenyon, O. Eisfeldt, A. Weiser and E. Wiirtwein allshared Kahle's opinions.11

P.M. Cross, working out more fully a theory put forward by W.F.

7. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zur den Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841); idem,Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik(Leipzig: n. pub., 1851); S. Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versio-nibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n. pub., 1865); J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a SamaritanTar gum: Edited from a Bodleian Ms. with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch ofSamaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London: n. pub., 1874; repr. Giitersloh:C. Bertelsmann, 1980).

8. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Vbersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit vonder innern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857).

9. P. Kahle, 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuktextes', TSK 88(1915), pp. 399-439.

10. Against Gesenius, who could not find more than four authentic readings.11. B.K. Waltke, 'Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD, V, pp. 932-40; R. Pfeiffer, Intro-

duction to the Old Testament; BJ. Roberts, The Old Testament Texts and Versions(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951); idem, review of Purvis, Samaritan Pen-tateuch, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71; F.G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manu-scripts (revised by A.W. Adams, New York: n. pub., 1958); idem, The Text of theGreek Bible (London: Gerald Duckworth, 3rd rev. edn, 1975 [1936]); F.F. Bruce,The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible(London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953); O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964 [1934]); A. Weiser, The OldTestament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961); E. Wiirt-wein, Der Text des Allen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952)(ET: E.F. Rhodes [trans], The Text of the Old Testament [Leiden: SCM Press, 1980]).


Albright,12 revised Kahle's opinions. On the basis of DSS biblicalmanuscripts he concluded that the Pentateuch (and former prophets)had developed from three local text traditions: an Alexandrian LXX, aPalestinian proto-Pentateuch and a Babylonian proto-MT, all originatingin

copies of the Law and Former Prophets, whose literary complexes hadcome into final form in Babylon in the sixth century, and which werethen brought back to Palestine. The tradition concerning the text of Ezramay reflect these circumstances. In any case we must project the 'arche-type' of all surviving local texts of these books roughly to the time of theRestoration.

From these traditions, he argued, the SP emerged from the Palestinianfamily as a rewritten sectarian text 'not earlier than the Hasmoneanera', and the MT could be understood as a text revised by the rabbisaround 100 CE.13 The Palestinian and Alexandrian texts' close relationsin form and orthography were caused by the latter being 'a branch ofthe Old Palestinian family', which broke off in the early fourth cen-tury.14 In contrast to Albright, Cross would not call these textual fami-lies 'recensions', since they were 'the product of natural growth ordevelopment in the process of scribal transmission, not of conscious orcontrolled scribal recension'.15 Thus, Cross (as in the Sanballat ques-tion) seems to be operating within two paradigms: maintaining theparadigm of the antiquity of the Hebrew Bible and merging this para-digm with the evidence from DSS, which in fact does not support thefirst paradigm and gives little evidence for the second, since Cross'sproto-MT of Babylonia does not exist among DSS. This was clearlyunderstood by S. Talmon,16 who could not agree to the theory of asingle Urtext or any development of three distinct local families. Rather,he considered it most likely that various 'primal traditions' had been in

12. W.F. Albright, 'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible',BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33.

13. P.M. Cross, 'The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study ofthe Biblical Text', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History ofthe Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92.

14. Cross, 'Contribution', pp. 290-91.15. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 282 n. 21.16. S. Talmon, Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon

(eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1974), pp. 321-400; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 152.


use at the same time, which 'progressively lost their lease on life andultimately crystalized in a restricted number of Gruppentexte'.ll Also E.Tov warned against an establishment of an Urtext and a too rigidgrouping of texts, which were more likely related to each other 'in anintricate web of agreements, differences and exclusive readings'.18 Tovargued further that the designation 'proto-Samaritan' should be avoidedand replaced by 'pre-Samaritan', since

SP was largely based on a textual tradition that was extant in ancientIsrael the descriptive name 'Samaritan' is almost irrelevant. The contentand typological characteristics of this text were already found in pre-Samaritan texts found in Qumran, that is, in the ancient non-sectariantexts upon one of which SP was based.19

The discussion was related to the debate of Second Temple Judaismbrought forward by the studies of DSS. Many scholars still consideredit possible to place DSS manuscripts within an already established his-tory of Judaism from the third century BCE. With the conviction thatSamaritans had departed from Judaism not later than the first century

17. Talmon, Textual Study of the Bible', p. 327.18. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jeru-

salem Biblical Studies, 3: Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), p. 274; idem, 'A Modern Tex-tual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scroll', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 11-27 addressedthe problem of 'integrating the new knowledge into an old framework, although anew one is actually needed' (p. 13) and since 'there is no evidence for a Masoretictext-type, nor a Septuagint text-type, while there is some legitimacy for the employ-ment of the term "text-type" for the Sam. Pent.' (p. 24) The terminology thusshould not go unchanged but be replaced by the simple term 'texts', indicating that'the MT, LXX and Sam. Pent., which traditionally have been presented as the onlythree textual recensions of the biblical text, represent, in fact, but three of manytexts' (p. 26). See also Tov, 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the JudaeanDesert', JJS 39 (1988), pp. 3-37, for a survey of the various biblical texts found inthe caves and an analysis of the textual differences, thus strengthening the argumentthat 'we should no longer try to fit the Qumran texts into this imaginary framework,created because of the coincidence that the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX werethe only preserved textual sources' (p. 35). This statement was somewhat softenedin Tov's 1992 book (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Philadelphia: FortressPress; Assen: Van Gorcum]), which for its outline speaks of five groups of biblicaltexts without avoiding the already established text-types of the MT, SP and LXX (pp.114-17), in spite of the fact that one of the objectives of the book is 'to drive homethe realization that MT and the biblical text are not identical concepts'. MT is onlyone representative of the complex of sources that reflect the biblical text.

19. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 81.


BCE, it seemed to be quite simple to mark expansionist texts fromQumran written in palaeo-Hebrew as Samaritan, although their contentdid not agree with the SP. The early opinions about 4QpaleoExodm,written in palaeo-Hebrew and with full orthography and text expan-sions, but without any sectarian readings which could be related to theSP, offer clear examples of this tendency.20 Of importance for the rela-tionship between pre-Samaritan and Samaritan texts is the absence ofany so-called sectarian readings in pre-Samaritan texts. The designation'pre-Samaritan' is therefore based on script, expansionism, harmoniza-tion and linguistic features. Expansionism and harmonizing tendencies,which in pre-Samaritan texts do not bear the same characters, however,are found in several other DSS texts and should perhaps more preciselybe labelled expansionist texts. I think it proper to argue against Tov21

that the Samaritans cannot be said to have chosen such a text, but rathercontinued to use the text-type they were accustomed to. This statementof course implies a different view of the Samaritan origins as well as ofwhether texts have been expanded or shortened. It should not go unno-ticed that we do not find any Masoretic texts at Qumran and that someof the texts called proto-Masoretic bear close similarities to so-calledexpansionist texts in a manner hardly to be distinguished from the MTIsaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.22 This in fact was confirmed also by E.Y.Kutscher, who, in his study of IQIsa23 detected a great degree of simi-larity between the IQIsa, LXX and SP. All three text-types intended toremove linguistic and theological ambiguities and seemed more suitedto popular use.

Similarly the palaeo-Hebrew still in use for Samaritan writings can-

20. Thus P. Skehan, 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL74 (1955), pp. 182-87; Skehan changed his opinion a few years later and declaredthat the text was not Samaritan because of its lack of space for sectarian readingsand its compatibility to 4QTest. Cf. P. Skehan, 'Qumran and the Present State ofOld Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text', JBL 78 (1959), pp. 21-25; M.D.McLean, The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic andRoman Period (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982), and J.E. Sanderson,An Exodus Scroll from Qumran, p. 306, who, for text-critical reasons, maintainedthat the text was proto-Sam., although the text had no room for the SP reading ofthe Decalogue.

21. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 100.22. Cross, 'Contribution', p. 289.23. E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah

Scroll (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), p. 77.


not convincingly be argued to give evidence for any Samaritan originand/or related text revision during the Hasmonaean period, as J.D.Purvis has argued,24 since this script never ceased to have been in use.25

The findings of coins from the Hasmonaean period, minted with palaeo-Hebrew, might indicate that for national purposes the square script hadnot reached a status beyond the palaeo-Hebrew. Except for a single coindating to the time of Alexander Jannaeus, all coins with Hebrew text,before and after up to the Bar Kochba revolt, are written in palaeo-Hebrew.26 In addition we do not have any sure knowledge of a devel-opment of specific Samaritan script features before the third century CE,and it cannot be safely said that Samaritans did not also use squarescript for profane purposes.27 Given this wide range of about four hun-dred years of scriptural identification for an origin of a Samaritan com-munity, we end agreeing with Tov's suggestion that 'this dating doesnot necessarily have implications for their Torah. The non-Samaritan(pre-Samaritan) substratum could have been created prior to the estab-lishment of the community or, alternatively, the Samaritan text couldhave been created much later.'28

Lacking in this discussion about whether pre-Samaritan texts are tobe found among DSS is the entire question about what tradition theDSS actually represents. This question has become more pivotal in thepast ten years of scholarship, because of the ongoing breakdown of theEssene hypothesis. Are the DSS sectarian texts of the Essenes, Sad-ducees or Pharisees? Were they brought into the caves in the second orfirst century BCE, or even as late as the first century CE? Do they comefrom one place, as has been suggested: from libraries or a geniza inJerusalem, and either brought to the caves at one or more times,29 or

24. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 86: '[I]ts script developed from the paleo-Hebrew; its orthography is the standard full orthography of this time; the textualtradition it represents is not only known from this time, but completed the devel-opment of its characteristics during the Hasmonean period.'

25. R.S. Hanson, Taleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175(1964), pp. 26-42.

26. A. Kindler, 'Coins and Currency', EncJud, V, pp. 696-72.27. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains and Archaeology', in A.D. Crown

(ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77(136-38).

28. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 83.29. A theory vigorously defended by N. Golb. See reference to his works dis-

cussed in F.H. Cryer and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and


have they been produced at Khirbet Qumran? Are texts written in the'Qumran system' written in Qumran in contrast to 'non-Qumran sys-tem' texts, which had been imported?30 With these questions unan-swered, it is necessary to keep in mind that the SP, with its specificfeatures, could have existed contemporaneously with these text bodies,but not have formed part of them, and should not be expected to befound among DSS. This negative evidence can therefore only be usedwith great caution in the context of Samaritan history.

Manuscripts

Not unlike Masoretic texts, 'original' Samaritan texts of the Pentateuchare not available from before late mediaeval times. Pietro della Valle'smanuscript dates from 1345-46, Von Gall's Exodus E from 1219, andthe famous Abisha scroll from 1149.31 The datings are based on a deci-phering of cryptograms in the texts, giving information about the nameand family as well as the dating of the scribal work. With a single

New Testaments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 101; 194-95, 202-204, 252-55, 292.

30. As suggested by Tov, 'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', pp. 33-36; E. Ulrich,'The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (eds.),Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 103-29,argued for a recognition of the use of 'Qumran-orthography' outside of Qumran asevidence for a 'traditional' versus 'contemporary', or 'conservative' versus 'mod-ernizing'—depending upon whether the scribes continued to copy the Persian periodtexts in the old orthography or modernized them in accord with contemporary prac-tices of the Hasmonean-Roman period (p. 127).

31. Possibly the oldest scroll of the Pentateuch. It is greatly honoured by theSamaritans and kept in custody in the synagogue of Nablus. Gaster, Samaritans,pp. 110-12, advocated a much earlier dating of the scroll. Implicit to the Abishascroll, is that it has been written by Abisha ben Phinehas in the thirteenth year afterthe entrance to Canaan. This made Gaster assume a very early original, eventuallyfrom the time of Ezra, since the cryptogram could not have been changed by latercopyists. The problem of dating the origin of cryptograms in the text (peculiar toSamarian literature) makes Gaster's argument rather hypothetical. P. Kahle, 'TheAbisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanniPedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93, gives an account of theconfusions about the various Abisha copies; he argues that the fragment, publishedby Fr. Perez Castro ('El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 [1953], pp. 119-29; repr. 'DasKryptogramm de Sefer Abischa', VTS1 [1960], pp. 52-60), could have been writtencenturies before the oldest known Pentateuch manuscript. Perez Castro dated thescroll to the twelfth-thirteenth century CE.


exception of a text from the ninth century, most texts date to the four-teenth and fifteenth centuries and represent about 150 more or less frag-mentary texts. Most of the manuscripts come from Damascus, Egypt,Shechem and Sarepta,32 and are now in custody of the Synagogue ofNablus, the John Ryland's Library at Manchester,33 the British Museum,the Bibliotheque Nationale at Michigan State University34 and a fewprivate collections like the Sassoon Collection.35

It has been argued that the Samaritan text had not been copied quiteas carefully as the MT. B.K. Waltke, in his study of texts from the thir-teenth to the sixteenth century, has detected an increasing deviationfrom the MT based on scribal errors.36 This study of course is veryimportant for the evaluation of the published editions of the SP. A.F.von Gall's classical edition, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samari-taner31 suffered from not having respected such developments. Al-though von Gall presented the available manuscripts and also made useof them in his text critical apparatus, he, for unknown reason, chose amanuscript, which had several errors, had been reconstructed on thebasis of the MT and did not contain the Abisha scroll.38

Later editions made by A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Ver-sion of the Pentateuch39 and L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis,40 sought to meet these problems. The former used

32. R.T. Anderson, 'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown(ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96.

33. E. Robertson, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John RylandsLibrary, Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester: n. pub., 1938-62).

34. R.T. Anderson, Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts—TheChamberlain-Warren Collection (ASOR Monographs; Cambridge, MA: AmericanSchools of Oriental Research, 1978).

35. D.S. Sassoon, Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew andSamaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932).

36. B.K. Waltke, Prolegomena, pp. 42-64.37. A.F. von Gall, Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (repr.; Berlin:

Alfred Topelmann, 1966 [1914-18]).38. J. Hempel, 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12

(1934), pp. 254-74.39. A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Versions of the Pentateuch—With

Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 1961-65).

40. L.F. Giron Blanc, Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estu-dios Cardenal Cisneros, 15; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifi-cas, 1976).


a manuscript from the eleventh century for the Tetrateuch and theAbisha scroll for Deuteronomy and had the MT in parallel columns.Blanc's edition was based on MS Add. 1846, written early in the twelfthcentury CE and now kept in the University Library Cambridge. Thisedition records variants from fourteen additional sources.41

Translations

The SP was early translated into Greek, Aramaic and Arabic. As supportfor the understanding of the Hebrew versions as well as a documenta-tion for an early standard text, these translations have considerablevalue for research. The earliest reference to a Greek translation is givenwith Origen's Samareiticon. Only very few fragments have been foundand no clear consensus of whether they actually are Samaritan has yetbeen reached.42 The Giessen fragment, which was acquired in 1910,43

consists of Deuteronomy 24-29, including the so-called Samaritanreadings of Deut. 27.4: Hargerizim instead of Ebal. Other text variantscould support a Samaritan origin, but the manuscript's close agreementwith the Samaritan Targum makes it difficult to see it as stemming fromOrigen's hand. Later text findings44 have not offered more secure evi-dence for an early Greek version of a work by the Samaritans for theSamaritans. Both Tov and Pummer have argued against any assumptionof a text being Samaritan because it has Gerizim in the right place. Sohas Vetus Latina, at least in Codex Lyon. This variant reading is notnecessarily Samaritan,45 but could be an original reading, which waslater changed.46

41. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 84.42. See the discussion in S. Noja, 'The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The

Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12.43. Published in 1911, in P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen

Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911),pp. 167-200.

44. A. Rahlfs, 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Sama-ritanischen Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2 (1911), pp. 263-66; B. Lif-shitz and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975),pp. 368-78; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 148, dates the inscription to thefourth century CE.

45. E. Tov, 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXX?' , RB 78(1971), pp. 355-83.

46. R. Pummer, 'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1(1987), pp. 18-25.


The Samaritan Targums (Sam. Tg.) have become the standard desig-nation for the translation of the SP into Western Aramaic,47 which pos-sibly did take place some time between the end of the first century BCEand the eleventh century CE.48 Because of poor translations of the Heb-rew texts, the Sam. Tg. have not been considered to offer much of inter-est for research on the SP,49 and they have only recently been investi-gated thoroughly by A. Tal. In a huge study, published from 1980 to1983, Tal was able to show that most of the mistakes were linguistic—related to geography and chronology—and were not to any seriousextent theological.50

The Arabic translations date to the tenth century CE. They underwentrevisions in the thirteenth century CE. Harmonizing various manu-scripts, these revisions created text editions, which both linguisticallyand theologically differed from their original texts. Although Arabicbecame an everyday language for many Samaritans in the tenth centuryCE, Hebrew was kept for liturgical purposes and probably prevented ofthese Arabic texts from becoming authorized as a standard version.51

47. See, A. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67, pp. 446-47, for the lin-guistic considerations.

48. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 41, dates the Targum to the timeof Baba Rabba. A. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-57 (754),argues for a dating between the first and fourth century CE based on lingustic con-cords with Defter and Memar Marqah, together with several grascicisms in the text.

49. The first edition published in Paris and London polyglots was, according toP. Kahle, Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Penta-teuchtargum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898), 'the worst known manuscript of theSamaritan Targum'.

50. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 448. In a comparative study of MS, Or. 7562from the British Museum and MSS 3 and 6 from the the Shechem synagogue, Taldemonstrated that MS Or. 7562 reflects Samaritan Aramaic from the pre-Talmudicperiod (the time for the occurrence of the Palestinian Targum), revealing earlierstratas, which are seen also in Tg. Onkelos and Aramaic documents from DSS. MS6 from the Shechem synagogue represents the period for the occurrence of Tal-mudic Arabic, from around fourth century CE and used as a proof text for MS Or.7562. MS 3 is a result of scribal inability in a period where Aramaic no longer wasin use. See, furthermore, the introduction in A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of thePentateuch: A Critical Edition (3 vols.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980-83).

51. H. Shehadeh, 'The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', inA.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),


The Special Features of the Samaritan Pentateuch

The examination of the deviations between the MT of the Pentateuchand its Samaritan counterpart, numbering about 6000, have been dealtwith by other scholars and will not be repeated here in detail, since thisexamination is based on readings of mediaeval texts and not on theirancient Vorlage.52 E. Tov,53 in his examination of such assumed Vor-lagen (named pre-Samaritan texts found among DSS), sought to distin-guish between this 'pre-Samaritan substratum and a second, Samaritanlayer added in the Samaritan Pentateuch'. From his examination, itseemed 'that the Samaritans added but few ideological and phonologi-cal changes to their presumed base text. All other characteristics werealready found in the early texts'. However, attention needs to be givento the inconsistency with which these characteristics occur in the pre-Samaritan texts. Given their rarity it is difficult to make precise state-ments about their implications. The following sections briefly discussTov's results.

Harmonizing AlterationsThese involve alterations to remove contradictions in the text. They arefar from being thorough, but represent a tendency that is more dominantin the SP than in pre-Samaritan texts of DSS. The formalism with whichthese harmonizations are made includes a consistent use of names,which makes the SP reading of, for example, Num. 13.16 impossible:'Moses named Joshua son of Nun Joshua', a name that he is givenalready in the calling in SP Num. 13.8. This reading goes against allother witnesses, including the pre-Samaritan texts, all of which resemblethe Masoretic reading: 'Moses named Hosea son of Nun Joshua.' How-ever, this lectio difficilior of the Samaritan text, I think, should not betoo quickly understood as a harmonization, since it might be argued thatNum. 13.8 in other texts has been harmonized to fit Num. 13.16. Text

pp. 481-516. The article is a summation of the author's dissertation from 1977,The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Prolegomena to a CriticalEdition' (Hebrew).

52. Casellus (1657); Gesenius (1815); Luzatto (1851; repr. 1970 by R. Kirch-heim); Purvis (1968).

53. E. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D.Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),pp. 397-407; idem, Textual Criticism, pp. 80-100.


variants to the SP either suggests a deletion of Nun Joshua or of Joshua,which means that *? K")p should be translated as 'called at' or 'readto'.54

Changes on the Basis of Parallel Texts, Remote or CloseRemote alterations most often relate to harmonizations between theTetrateuch and Deuteronomy, which, because of its status as 'repetitiveTorah', apparently had to correspond, especially in the narrative partsof the book.55 This led to an insertion of Deut. 1.9-18 in the middle ofSP Exod. 18.25, thus repeating the command to Moses about appoint-ing judges on Deuteronomy's terms. According to MT and SP Exod.18.21 these judges should be 'capable men, who fear God, trustworthymen who hate a bribe', but according to Deut. 1.13 be 'men who arewise, understanding and experienced'. The same feature is found in4QpaleoExodm. In fact this 'harmonization' of the Exodus text with thatof Deuteronomy undermines what was said about harmonization in theformer paragraph, since we now have two variant stories about theappointment of judges in the same text, and we thus should expect thequalifications to have been adjusted according to the rules of harmo-nization.

According to Tov other adjustments are found in, for example: Num.10.10 with an addition of Deut. 1.6-8; Num. 12.16 with an addition ofDeut. 1.20-23; Num. 13.33 with an addition of Deut. 1.27-33. Similarfeatures are found in DSS manuscripts without being entirely consistentwith the SP. The number of harmonizations differs in a remarkableway, so that, for example, 4QpaleoExodm has less harmonizations,while 4QNumbhas more than the SP.56 Evidence for this last remark isnot given by Tov since the examples mentioned are also found in theSP.

Tov's five examples of close harmonizations (i.e. alterations based oncontext or related verses) cannot be sufficiently compared to pre-Sama-

54. Cf. the apparatus in von Gall, Der hebrdische Pentateuch (Num. 13.16).Attention must be given to the fact that von Gall in several instances adapted thetext of the Samaritan Pentateuch to the MT.

55. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 86.56. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 98: Exod. 32.10 add. based upon Deut. 9.20; Num

20.13 add. based upon Deut. 3.24-28 and 2.2-6; Num. 21.12 add. based upon Deut2.9, 17-19); Num. 21.20 add. based upon 2.24-25; Num. 27.23 add. based uponDeut. 3.21-22.


ritan manuscripts because of lack of material, and it is only Exod. 8.20'saddition of ~INQ to the heavy swarms of insects that has a known paral-lel in 4QpaleoExodm:

E.g. SP Exod. 8.20 reads IRQ "DD miJ for MT 133 ITII>, an alterationbased on 9.3, 18, 24 and agreeing with Tg. O.J.; 4QpaleoExodm and Vul-gate but against Tg.N.

As can be seen from the two examples below, the agreement with othertext witnesses differs, and nothing can be safely concluded from thesefew examples.

E.g. SP Gen. 7.2. reads TOp31 H3T for MT inp«] 2TK, an alteration basedon Gen. 1.27; 6.19; 7.3, 9 and agreeing with LXX, TG.O.N.J., Syr. Pesh.and Vulgate.

E.g. SP Num. 27.8 reads DHH]! (assign) for MT Dll-niJm (transfer), analteration based on vv. 9, 10, 11 and agreeing with Syr. Pesh. but in con-trast to LXX, Tg. O.J. and Vulgate, all reading the verse as in MT.

Alongside tendencies of harmonization, the Samaritans are believedto have added 'sources for a quotation' in their Scripture. Here againthis is done because of the assumption that

Deuteronomy is expected to 'repeat' the content of the preceeding fourbooks, the technique of inserting verses from Deuteronomy into the ear-lier books can also be described as providing 'source' for a quotation.This technique was also applied to relatively small details in sections thatare not parallel.57

E.g. SP Exod. 20.2 lb containing Deut. 18.18-22, which has been addedin retrospect to give cause for Deut. 18.16. This addition is also found in4Q158andin4QTest.

E.g. SP Exod. 6.9, anticipating the people's murmuring in Exod. 14.12.

E.g. SP Gen. 30.36, which has an addition describing the content ofJacob's dream and thus anticipating Gen. 31.11-13, whereas the MT islacking any reference to the mentioned dream. This reading is attested in4Q364 ( = 4QPP). A similar addition is found in the SP after Gen. 42.16,anticipating Gen. 44.22.

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



27.2-8, which in both instances is supplied with the explanatory remarkthat this 'is facing Gilgal at Elon Moreh facing Shechem'. Of the fourexamples offered by Tov, two do not fall within the expectation ofDeuteronomy's superiority as a reason for the addition. Furthermore,there seems to be a problem in that the additions do not really clarify,and in some instances conflict with, the text of the Deuteronomy. Thearbitrariness of the retrospective language in Deut. 18.16 and 27.1, 8does not match the 'additions' in SP Exodus. Neither does the anticipa-tion of Jacob's dream fit any need for clarification in the MT. It is thus amoot point whether one is correct in assuming that the texts of theTetrateuch have been altered on the background of Deuteronomy. Theexpansionist character of the Samaritan and pre-Samaritan text seemsrather to have given reason for the clarification and removal of con-flicting (Deut. 18.16 [27.2, 8]) or superfluous (e.g. the 'addition' to SPGen. 30.36) material in the Tetrateuch.

Repetition of CommandsAccording to Tov, 'it is characteristic of the style of the biblical narra-tive to relate commands in great detail, while their fulfilment is men-tioned only briefly, with the words "...and he (etc.) did as...'".58 In theSP on the contrary, commands are not only given but also executed inverbatim repetitions of the commands. So when the MT says that theLord demanded so and so and ends with the remark that it had beendone, the SP variant adds the command and might say, 'Moses andAaron went to Pharaoh and said...', with a repetition of what the Lordhad told them to say. These additions are most clearly brought out inExod. 7.18, 29, 8.19 and 9.5, 19, agreeing with 4QpaleoExodm.

Linguistic CorrectionsIt appears that most of the linguistic corrections of the SP were alreadyfound in its pre-Samaritan substratum, since they resemble the harmo-nizing changes described above. Some of them are indeed found in thepre-Samaritan text 4QpaleoExodm.59 Orthographic peculiarities in MThave often been changed in the SP. Pronominal suffixes of third personmasculine singular, which in a few places in the MT is written with n(e.g. Gen. 9.21; 12.8; 13.3; 49.11; Exod. 22.4; 22.26) were almostalways corrected to 1. Similarly the qere form of MT Gen. 3.12, 20 and

58. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 89.59. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 89.


7.2 is in the SP written in the ketib form similar to the writings of4QpaleoExodm (22.26; 31.13), 4QDeutn(5.5) and the proto-Masoreticmanuscript 4QLevc (5.12). The use of matres lectionis has traditionallybeen considered to be more dominant in the SP than in the MT. R. Mac-uch and M. Cohen, however, have independently demonstrated that thisassumption is wrong. They have shown that matres lectionis in fact aremore related to categories of words than to specific texts.60 Some DSSmanuscripts, including 'non-Samaritan' manuscripts as well as suchpre-Samaritan manuscripts as 4QpaleoExodm and 4QDeutn have a highuse of matres lectionis, while other pre-Samaritan manuscripts are writ-ten with a more defective orthography than the SP.

Phonological interchanges of gutturals are common in DSS manu-scripts. In pre-Samaritan texts, this phenomenon relates especially to V/n and is as frequent as in Galilaean Aramaic.61

Unusual (often archaic) forms are replaced by common forms andgrammatical incongruencies are often corrected. Most of these 'correc-tions' are noted in the critical apparatus of BHS.62

Some disagreements are simple scribal errors, such as the frequentreading of ~l in the MT for 1, in the SP. Given this support of the SPspelling in pre-Samaritan texts, one must conclude that the SP readingin these instances is original, contrasting with the often meaninglesstext of the MT, for example, Gen. 14.14; 47.21 and Num. 24.17.

Alterations Related to Content and IdeologyThe question of where to worship form the central part of these alter-ations. Hargarizim, usually in one word, is employed in all instanceswhere Jerusalem is alluded to in the Pentateuch.63

60. R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1969); M. Cohen, The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its Placein the History of Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', BethMiqra 64 (1976), pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew).

61. Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 95-96, offers a few examples with references toMacuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch, and Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Lit-erary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5 vols.;Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew).

62. Which misleadingly has punctuated the Samaritan variant according to theMasoretic tradition!

63. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 95: 'The reading hargarizim in SP is usuallytaken by scholars as tendentious, but since it is also found in Vetus Latina it shouldprobably be taken as an ancient non-sectarian reading.' See also Pummer, 'ARGA-


That Yahweh is to be worshipped on Hargarizim is also stated in theDecalogue of SP Exod. 20.lib and Deut. 5.18b, which has the MT firstcommandment as a headline to the Decalogue. The Samaritan tenthcommandment records Deut. 11.29a; 27.2b-3a, 4a, 5-7 and 11.30 (inthis order). Deut. 27.4, which forms part of the commandments, reads'Gerizim' for MT 'Ebal', in agreement with Vetus Latina, reading 'Gar-zin'. The qualifying note to the placement of Gerizim and Ebal in SPExod. 20.17b and Deut. 5.18b, stressing that this 'is facing Gilgal atElon Moreh facing Shechem', also in SP Deut. 11.30, solves the con-fusion in the MT by the addition DD2) 'TIQ. Interestingly it finds supportin rabbinic literature.64 None of these readings are found in pre-Sama-ritan texts, since the sections are either missing or the text is corrupt.

The often-mentioned SP formulaic rule of writing "IPD, 'chose', in apast form when pertaining to 'the place, Yahweh will choose' (futureform) in MT Deut. 12.5, 11, 14, is not given any further consideration inTov's study.65 It seems to me that the matter is not quite as clear asscholarship has traditionally argued. Since SP Deut. 12.21, 26 and15.20 employs a future form, agreeing with MT, and the SamaritanChronicle Kitab al-Ta'rikh, written by AbuT-Fath (AF pp. 71-76).employs both tenses in its theological discourse about the placement ofthe temple, one has to reconsider the question. The consistent use of thepast form ^"ira (1st person sing.) in MT 2 Chron. 7.12, 16, when Yah-weh—in an answer to Solomon's prayer—decides to 'dwell' in thehouse Solomon has already built, could be witness to a consciousredaction of the MT of Deuteronomy. The underlying ideology inChronicles, however, might not be related to place so much as to cult

RIZIN: Samaritan Provenance?'. The 'Samaritan' reading, without space betweenthe words, occurs also in a Masada fragment written in the 'early' Hebrew script,see S. Talmon, 'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989), pp. 286-87(Hebrew with English summary). However, the Samaritan nature of that fragment iscontested by E. Eshel, 'The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and theSamaritan Temple on ARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew withEnglish summary).

64. Cf. m. Sot. 1.5, dealing with the blessing on Gerizim and the cursing onEbal, and stating that these are in Samaria, 'near by Shechem, beside the oaks ofMoreh, as it is written, Are not they beyond Jordan (there is written, and Abrampassed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the oak of Moreh); as therethe oak of Moreh that is spoken of is at Shechem, so here the oak of Moreh that isspoken of is at Shechem'.



centralization and to the rejection of other 'houses' in Israel.66

Another special feature in the SP compared to the Masoretic Penta-teuch belongs to chronology relating to the first generations in Gene-sis.67 Of interest is the reading of 'the sixth day' in Gen 2.2. agreeingwith LXX, Syr. Pesh and Jubilees but against MT, Tg. O.N.J and Vul-gate, which all read the 'seventh day'. The stay in Egypt in MT Exod.12.40, reckoning 340 years in both the SP and LXX, includes the stay inCanaan in this reckoning, which of course conflicts with the followingverse that relates that after this 430 years' stay in Egypt, the armies ofYahweh went out of Egypt. The SP is also seen to have slight variationsrelated to the synchronic use of words and phenomena that are not seenin the MT.

Summing up, we must conclude that the SP reflects a text type foundin Qumran, which, because of its 'various additions and expansions', islabelled as an expansionist text. This text type is not restricted toSamaritan texts, and the above-mentioned features common to so-calledpre-Samaritan texts and the SP does not convincingly prove that anytexts among the DSS should be labelled 'Samaritan'. The so-called sec-ond stratum of the SP, belonging to ideological variants, is still un-proven, since none of the DSS texts contains the material needed forthat examination. The common assertion that Samaritans expandedtheir texts with harmonizations of various sorts is unfounded, because ithas not been proven that these 'additions' meet any need of clarifica-tion. In some instances they conflict with the text of Deuteronomy thatthey are thought to anticipate. On the premise of lectio difficilior, theSamaritan text should be considered prior to its Masoretic counterpart,while on the premise of lectio brevior it should be considered to belater! Such conflicting premises require a reconsideration of our under-standing of techniques of expansion, and raise further questions aboutwhether we are after all correct in speaking of 'extensive editorial re-writing' of the type of texts to which the SP also belongs.68

66. Cf. Chapter 5 below.67. R. Weiss, Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1981)

(Hebrew), pp. 63-189, cit. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 403 n. 10.68. Tov, 'Protosamaritan Texts', p. 407: 'It is similarly reflected in the proto-

Samaritan texts allowing for extensive editorial rewriting.' Just having receivedEugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), I am pleased to be able to quote his conclusion on the matter: 'Insum, except for their script, the palaeo-Hebrew biblical manuscripts from Qumran


Samaritan Theological Literature

Although the Samaritans recognize only the Pentateuch as their sacredtext, this does not imply that no other literature could be given a certainauthoritative status. How early this happened is difficult to state. Itmight belong to the development of a certain distinctiveness in Samari-tan theology in the third century CE, as suggested by Crown.69 In theSamaritan Chronicle Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu'1-Fath (see p. 000 below)such a reason is given for the rejection of other Jewish Scriptures: theydisrespect the commandment given in Deut. 4.2 and 13.1 (12.32) that'you shall not add to it or take from it'.70 Thus the criticism is intrinsicand independent of the rejected literature's potential pro-Judaean or pro-Samaritan preferences. In the same manner, the Prophets are rejectedbecause 'no prophet like Moses arose in Israel' (Deut. 34.10), judgingthis literature as untruthful and not stemming from God.71 These state-ments form part of a discussion about who is the true Israel in a contextof who made the correct translation of the Pentateuch into Greekrequired by Ptolemy I (Soter) or, according to Josephus, Ant. 1.10 and12.13, Ptolemy Philadelphia. Both Samaritans and Judaeans partici-pated and each made their own version, differing both in content andsize.72

The of ten-stated 'critique' of the Samaritans' rejection of the HebrewBible and of their recognition of only the Pentateuch needs a clarifyingremark. The Samaritan rejection of the Hebrew Bible does not implythat they did not develop their own traditions of chronicles andhalakhah. As Jews did not consider the Pentateuch to give answers toall matters of life, so the Samaritans gave a certain credit to traditionand to the interpretation of the Pentateuch. This is explicit in the Arabic

Cave 4 do not appear to form a group distinguishable from the other biblical scrollsin either physical features, date, orthography, or textual character. Moreover,though certainty is even more elusive for this contrast, there seems to be no greatdistinction in any of those four categories between manuscripts copied outsideQumran (or predating Qumran) and manuscripts copied at Qumran.'

69. Crown,'Redating the Schism'.70. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 136: p. 109 'our copy of the Law, and theirs

as well, would forbid accepting it, as in the verse, "You shall add nothing to it, nortake away from it" which is to say that the law is complete (in itself)'.

71. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 135.72. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, p. 129.


tractate Kitab al-Tabbakh from late mediaeval times, as well as in sev-eral hymns dated to the third to fourth century CE. The passages ofinterest for the discussion are presented and discussed by RuahiridhBoid,73 cleared of earlier misunderstandings by Gaster74 and Halkin.75

What differs between the Samaritan and Jewish understanding is theview of the later traditions as given by God. The oral Torah of rabbini-cal Judaism, considered to have been given to Moses (cf. m. Ab. 1.1)and thus having authority besides and at times beyond the writtenTorah, could never achieve such a status in Samaritan belief. The Penta-teuch alone, written by Moses,76 was the only legitimate Torah. Whatdeveloped from this Torah remained rooted in the Pentateuch. It couldnever replace the Torah as such because it was already inherent in it.Nevertheless, since only Moses understood all the implications of theLaw, it is necessary to have some written halakhic rules deduced fromthe Torah and related to tradition.

Since the Pentateuch embraces life, tradition and theology, all litera-ture, including commentaries, historical books, philosophical books,grammars, midrashim and halakhot, were written purposely to giveinsight into the commandments of the Pentateuch and to offer advice onhow to live in accordance with them. This is clearly seen in MemarMarqah, probably written in the third to fourth century CE. Basedentirely on the Pentateuch it totally lacks contemporary references.

LanguageHebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Arabic were the languages of the Samari-tans. Several texts are thus written in polyglots with Hebrew, Aramaicand Arabic in parallel columns. To offer some help with the reading ofthese texts, a glossary (Ha-Meliz) was made in the tenth to eleventh

73. Ruahiridh Boid (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in theSamaritan Tradition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading andInterpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity(CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 595-99.

74. Gaster, Samaritan Escatology (London: Search, 1932), pp. 55-59.75. A.S. Halkin, 'The Relation of the Samaritans to Saadia Gaon', in Saadia

Anniversary Volume (American Academy for Jewish Research, Text and Studies, 2;New York: n. pub., 1943).

76. Samaritan tradition agrees with Jewish tradition in stating that not onlyMoses but also 6000 Israelites heard God speak from the mountain, when givingthe Decalogue (b. Mak. 23b-24a; Sam. Hymn 16, lines 81-85); Kitab al-Tabbakhhas 600,000 Israelites.


century. It included Hebrew and Aramaic, and in the eleventh to four-teenth centuries it was supplemented in Arabic, as Hebrew was usedonly for ritual purposes at this time. A full manuscript from 1476 is pre-sented by Z. Ben Hayyim. Under the influence of the expansion ofArabic in late mediaeval time superseding the Aramaic, Hebrew cameonce again into use in everyday language.77

Memar Marqah (Tibat Marqah)This is a collection of six books that exhibit great differences in lan-guage and content. In the first five books Memar Marqah offers amidrashic rewriting of the Pentateuch in an epic setting of bene Yis-rael's wandering in the desert up to the death of Moses. The sixth bookis a midrash of the 22 letters of the alphabet, understood to have origi-nated at the time of creation. The language of Memar Marqah is fourthcentury CE Aramaic, with some development into later 'Samaritan'influenced by Arabic.78 The work is considered to have been written bythe great Samaritan theologian Marqah from the third to fourth centuryCE and thought to be the most important early text dealing with Samari-tan theology. J. Macdonald made an English translation of the work in1963.79 Unfortunately, this did not use our best manuscript as its foun-dation and did not recognize many of the text variants, thereby losingmany characteristics of the text.80

Liturgical WorksThe oldest work, called Defter, contains hymns attributed to Marqah'sfather Amram Darah and to his son Nanah. In the ninth century CE newadditions were made, including prayers, confession, advice on liturgical

77. Loewenstamm, 'Samaritans', EncJud, XIV, pp. 752-53.78. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', pp. 462-45.79. J. Macdonald, Memar Marqah, the Teaching of Marqah (BZAW, 84;

Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1963). For earlier editions, see the introduction, pp. xxii-xxiv.

80. Tal, 'Samaritan Literature', p. 463, basing himself on Ben-Hayyim's reviewof Macdonald, Memar Marqah, in BO 23 (1966), pp. 185-91. His opinions weresupported by Boid (Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis', p. 598 n. 11, who doesnot even mention Macdonald's work.


practices and psalms. The edition of Cowley from 1909 is still the stan-dard English version.81

Chronicles^2

Asatir (The Secret of Moses)A work in Aramaic, probably from the eleventh to twelfth century, con-taining haggadic material from the Old Testament and the Pseudepi-grapha. The Samaritans credited the writing of this work to Moses andheld it in great honour. M. Gaster, who was the first to publish it, datedit to around 250-200 BCE.83 According to language and content, Mac-donald argued for a dating in Byzantine times. If any relationship toMemar Marqah could be established, this seems to be the oldest one.84

The latest translation with commentaries was made by Z. Ben Hayyimin 1943^4.85

81. A.E. Cowley, Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909); See Tal,'Samaritan Literature', pp. 450-62, for a detailed examination of the material andCowley's work.

82. I here follow the numbering system of J. Macdonald (Theology, pp. 44-49;Samaritan Chronicle No. H, p. 225) without engaging in the discussion and the cri-tique raised against his system in A.D. Crown, 'The Date and Authenticity of theSamaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964),pp. 79-100; idem, 'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua'(unpublished PhD dissertation; 3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966); idem, 'NewLight on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscriptsin the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281-313 (283), which did not agree with Macdonald in this classification, but regardsthe Samaritan Joshua tradition as the basis of all chronicles. He understands Mac-donald's classification as being 'a description of the finished product and does notindicate the process by which these chronicles were enlarged or composed. Nordoes it show their true relationship'. See also P. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles',in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],1989), pp. 218-65.

83. M. Gaster, The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' to-gether with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of theDeath of Moses (London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1927).

84. Macdonald, Theology of the Samaritans, p. 44.85. Z. Ben Hayyim, 'The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary',

Tarbitz 14 (1943), pp. 104-25, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew).


Sepher ha Yamin or the Samaritan Chronicle No. IIThis work is possibly later than Abu'l Path's Kitab al-Tarikh (seebelow), which it seems to be dependent on. No standard text, like thehistorical books of the Hebrew Bible, was ever attempted. The collec-tions of chronicles belonged to the great families, who to some extentwrote their own versions of history. A comparison of Sepher ha-Yaminmanuscripts with Sepher Yehoshua and Kitab al-Tarikh clearly demon-strates this. Macdonald characterized the work thus:

Sepher ha-Yamin as a title refers to a work which exists in more than oneversion, e.g. 2 Chronicles or the Jos. part of 2 Chronicles. 2 Chroniclesmay have existed originally as a book of Joshua, which is in no way con-nected with Sepher Yehoshua (4 Chron.), but may have contained largetracts of the Masoretic text. 2 Chronicles, as represented by MS HI isbasically a very old chronicle of unknown date, possibly derived from apre-MT version of the biblical text possessed by one or more NorthPalestinian (Samaritan) families. There are several clear indications thatit is fundamentally a substantial excerpt from the biblical text whichcould have been held by northern as well as southern Israelites... To theoriginal text underlying 2 Chronicles as we now know it, was lateradded, perhaps after the fourth century CE reorganisation of life and wor-ship, some of the material in non-biblical classical Hebrew.86

Macdonald used a manuscript from 1616 for his translation, belong-ing to the Danufi family and copied by Tobiah ben Phinehas fromShechem. The language is classical Hebrew with few Aramaisms orArabisms, and the composition, exposing lacunae in the text, reflects alater reworking of older material with insertions of secular sources con-taining heroic material and priestly sources dealing with cult, genealo-gies, facts, figures and names, and being severely anti-David and anti-

86. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. H, pp. 7-8. Not everyone agreed toMacdonald's conclusions about the originality of the manuscript. Pummer, 'Samari-tan Studies, I', refers among others to 'Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge, p. 61 n.4), who calls for "Eine eingehende Priifung von Macdonalds Aufstellungen"; Gese(review of Macdonald's edition in O.L.Z. Ixix, 1974, p. 156) accepts it as "diealtesten von den uns heute zuganglichen erzahlenden Chroniken", whereas Ben-Hayyim (Leshonenu, xxxv, 1970, pp. 292-302) considers it as the most recent one,dating from 1908.' This late dating has also been argued by J.D. Purvis, The Sama-ritans and Judaism', p. 83: 'I have been informed by several members of the Sam-aritan community that the document was put together in the late 19th century. It isessentially a modern forgery of an alleged ancient document.' See also M. Baillet,'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. //', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602.


Solomon.87 The tone is polemical against the MT, and it is generallyaccepted that the chronicle has changed the MT. However, since the MTis no less polemical, one should not too quickly judge the material onthis criterion. The hypothesis of lectio brevior would, in this case, judgethe Samaritan material to be older than the Masoretic material in ques-tions of both content and composition, but younger in questions of spe-cific additions about cult places or geography. This reductive principle,therefore, only partly supports a conservative scholarly view on Sama-ritans as breaking off from Judaism and rewriting their history to fit thenew circumstances. A comparison with the LXX does not reveal anydirect dependency, although a great many of the variants in ST Joshuaare in accord with the LXX, supporting a Shechem/Gerizim traditionclearly disagreeing with the MT.88 The discussion will be raised again inChapter 6 in the presentation of Samaritan historiography. Here it isenough to quote Macdonald: 'But even if the ST is a later work inextenso, it may contain genuinely ancient traditions which antedatesome polemical MT passages.'89

Ha-Tolidah (Genealogy)This text is predominantly written in Hebrew in 1149 by Eleazar benAmram with additions in 1346 by Jacob ben Ismael and a follow-up onthe genealogies in the following centuries. A section of the book is inAramaic, dealing with the question about the height of Mt Gerizim.With an introduction to the calendar system based on Jubilees, the bookenumerates the genealogies from Adam until the entrance into Canaan,together with genealogies of important Samaritan families. A. Neu-bauer's translation is based on a manuscript from 1859 written by Jacobben Harun.90 J. Bowman later published a manuscript that he con-sidered original.91

87. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 8, who bases his divisions oncontent and language.

88. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, pp. 36-37, 208-209.89. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 15.90. A. Neubauer, Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651' (Bodleian Library, Oxford) =

A. Neubauer, 'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470.91. J. Bowman, Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle

Tolidah (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1954).


Sepher YehoshuaThis is usually considered not to be the Old Testament book of Joshua92

but an Arabic work from the thirteenth century CE acquired by Scaligerand translated into Latin with comments by T.G.J. Juynboll in 1848.93

O.T. Crane made an English translation in 1897.94 The book consists oflegendary materials dating from the time of the biblical Joshua until thefourth century CE. The earlier versions cover only the period until thecoming of Alexander the Great. Only after 1513 were additions con-cerning later periods made. M. Gaster published a text in 1908 that heconsidered to be a Hebrew version dating from the exilic/early postex-ilic period.95 Gaster made this suggestion on the basis of linguisticagreements with the last parts of Ezekiel, parallels with Ezra-Nehemiahand Chronicles, and Josephus's agreement with them. The critique ofhis suggestion,96 which argued that the work was part of another chron-icle and written around 1900 by Jacob ben Harun, made Gaster streng-then his arguments. On the basis of J. Kennedy's work on the Paseq,91

Gaster gave a more detailed argumentation in his 1924 book98 for aSamaritan proto-Joshua that was earlier than or contemporary with theMT. The markings of text variants in the MT with a Paseq, agreeingwith the Samaritan text, and the support of the LXX for the Samaritanreading in the same instances, proved the primacy of the Samaritan text

92. The discussion has engaged such scholars as D. Yellin, 'Das Buch Josua derSamaritaner' (Jerusalem: A.M. Lunen, 1902), pp. 138-55 (Hebrew); M. Gaster,'Das Buch Josua in hebraisch-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 209-79; idem, 'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908),pp. 795-809; idem, The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua(1930), pp. 567-99; Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', pp. 79-100, who advocates fora dating before the end of the second century CE; Crown, 'New Light', p. 32.

93. T.G.J. Juynboll, Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulusest Liber Josue. Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annota-tione instruxit (Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848).

94. O.T. Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle (New York: Alden, 1897).95. Gaster, 'Das Buch Josua', pp. 209-79.96. P. Kahle, 'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594

(550-51); D. Yellin, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Year-book 7.7 (1908), pp. 203-204; S. Yahuda, 'Uber die Unechtheit des Samaritan-ischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie des Wissenschafts 39(1908), pp. 887-914; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 220.

97. J. Kennedy, The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly CalledPaseq or Pesiq (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903).

98. Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 134-40.


to Caster's satisfaction. J. Macdonald agreed with Gaster on the vari-ants with the MT, but could not confirm the LXX variants." No furtherconclusions have yet been reached on the matter and may not be possi-ble in further study of the MT. It is necessary that studies of textualvariants of biblical texts among DSS and their presentations in earlyJewish 'historiographies' around the beginning of the common era becompared with Samaritan historiographies. For such purposes it can beuseful to know that Caster's manuscript could be earlier than the ArabicYoshua manuscript that Scaliger had acquired in 1629, as has been sug-gested by A.D. Crown.100

Shalshalah or Shalshalat ha-Kohanim (Chain)This is a current genealogy numbering the high priests from the time ofAdam until the present, beginning with Eleazar ben Phinehas and forthe time being ending with Jacob ben Harun in the twentieth century.

Kitab al-Tarikh (Annales)This work is the great chronicle written by Abu'1-Fath in the fourteenthcentury. An annotated translation was made by P. Stenhouse in 1986.101

According to Stenhouse's foreword this chronicle is believed to be theoldest Samaritan historiography. However, the first safe mention of amanuscript of the work, now known as Ms Bodleian-Hunting don,102 isthe one mentioned in Bernhard's Chronologiae from 1691, almost 50years later than Joannes Hottinger's103 mention of a Samaritan book ofJoshua in his dispute with Morinus. Abu'l-Fath's introduction lists thesources underlying the work: Sepher Yehoshua,104 ha-Tolidah plus threeincomplete chronicles written in Hebrew. These chronicles had beeneither lost or damaged providing Abu'1-Fath his reason for compiling anew chronicle at the request of the high priest Phinehas, who left himhis collection of old chronicles written in Hebrew and Arabic.105 Abu'l-

99. Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 7.100. Crown, 'New Light', pp. 1-32.101. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh; Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', pp. 218-65.102. MS Huntingdon 350 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.103. J.H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Antimorianae: de Pentateucho Samaritano,

ejusque authentia (Tiguri: n. pub., 1644).104. Stenhouse thinks it possible that this is the manuscript Scaliger mentions,

and used for Juynboll's Chronicon from 1848, cf. Kitab al Tarikh, p. iii n. 28.105. AF pp. 1-2. This is the internal indication of page numbers in the chronicle

and does not refer to the page numbers of Stenhouse's book.


Path's introduction, however, seems to be speaking with differentvoices and offers yet another reason for compiling the work. On p. 4:

As to why the slave undertook this task—the reason is that he foundhimself in a particular country, and its ruler asked him about their Chron-icles, and sought them from him; so he compiled the above mentionedChronicle for him, and presented it to him.

By and large, the foreword seems to have some parallels to the fore-words of Ben Sira, 2 Mace. 2.19-32 and the Letter ofAristeas, claimingadherence to the tradition and implying some authorial freedom. P. Sten-house's introduction offers a brief discussion of the historicity and theauthenticity of Abu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles'.

Scholarly tradition has placed itself in two distinctive groups. Onegroup considered the chronicle to build on a very old and genuine tradi-tion (M. Gaster; S. Lowy). Another group considered the chronicle tobe worthless for understanding the tradition's prehistory (J.W. Nutt;E. Vilmar; J.A. Montgomery).106 Stenhouse's own judgment relates toAbu'l-Fath's 'old chronicles', which, if they had really existed, shouldhave led to a new copy and not to a new 'compilation'. Stenhouseregards the origin of the chronicle as related to a growth of hope in theSamaritan community at that time. He agrees with Vilmar that 'theSamaritan community at the time of Abu'1-Fath regarded the return ofthe Radwan (also named Rahuta)107 as imminent, and that the AbishaScroll played an important part in bolstering these expectations. Vilmarconsidered that it was more than coincidence that the codex of the Pen-tateuch (allegedly written by Abisha son of Phinehas, son of Eliezer,son of Aaron in the thirteenth year after the entrance of the Israelitesinto Canaan) should have come to light precisely when it did. Sten-house, however, does not see it necessary to call the chronicle a forgeryas Vilmar had. He rather sees the chronicle as a text produced by neces-sity of circumstances, having as its purpose to salvage 'what was left ofSamaritan traditions'.108

106. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', p. 240.107. The time when God again blesses his people after the time of wrath (danuta),

which began when Eli left Gerizim.108. Stenhouse, 'Samarian Chronicles', p. 263.


Chronicle Adler109

Written in Samaritan Hebrew by Abu-Sakhva ben Asad Hadanfi in1900. It is mainly based on ha-Tolidah and Abu'l-Fath's Ta'rikh andcan hardly be regarded as older.

Halakhic Literature

This consists of several works from late mediaeval time. It is written inArabic with the purpose of arguing against the halakhic literature of theKaraites, the Rabanites and Islamic legal material.110 The aforemen-tioned Kitab al-Tabbakh belongs to this group. It never achieved anddeveloped a systematic form comparable to what is found in Rabbinicliterature. Kitab al-Fara 'id from the thirteenth and fourteenth century isthe most important of these; it includes 613 commandments, of which365 (the days of a year) are prohibitions and 248 (the number of theparts of the body) are prescriptions.111

Commentaries on the Pentateuch

These are all from mediaeval times and written in Middle Arabic. Withthe exception of lexicographic and grammatical material, they exhibittraits of mediaeval thought in philosophy, astronomy, astrology andmedicine.

109. After E.N. Adler and M. Seligsohn, 'Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine',REJ 44 (1902), pp. 118-222; REJ 45 (1902), pp. 70-98, 160, 223-54; REJ 46(1903), pp. 123-46.

110. G. Wedel, 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 468-80 (471).

111. EncJud, XIV, pp. 754-55, offers a list of the various works.

Chapter 4

SAMARITANS IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND HELLENISTIC LITERATURE

Rabbinic Judaism in the Light of the Samaritan Question1

An increasing anti-Samaritan attitude developed in the course of rab-binic discussions in the early centuries of this era. From some of themore nuanced discussions and views put forward in texts from theMishnah to the fourth century CE's Babylonian Talmud, Samaritansunderwent the fate of being not only formally excluded from this self-defined post-biblical Judaism, but eventually were likened to heathens.In the Mishnaic literature, they are termed Cuthaeans, but they are notto be confused with either 'am ha'ares (a different group) or withheathens, who are mentioned separately from both Cuthaeans and 'amha'ares.2 Because of an increasing association of Samaritans as hea-

1. On the basis of the following sources: Mishnajot, Die seeks Ordnungen derMisnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (translated with a commentary by von E.Baneth et al.\ Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927); H. Danby, The Misnah, Translated fromthe Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1991 [1993]); the Talmudic tractate Masseket Kutim, translated byJ. Montgomery from J.W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, Edited from aBodleian Ms., with an Introduction, Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History,Dogma and Literature (London, 1874; repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1980).

2. Toh. 5.8; Ter. 3.9; Dem. 6.1, 3.4: 'If a man brought his wheat to a miller thatwas a Samaritan or to a miller that was an Am-haaretz, its condition (after grinding)remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year produce; but if hebrought it to a miller that was a gentile (after it has been ground) it is accounteddemai-produce. If he gave his produce into the keeping of a Samaritan or an Am-haaretz, its condition remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh YearProduce; but if into the keeping of a gentile, it is accounted like to the gentile's ownproduce (which is not subject to tithes). R. Simeon says: It is accounted demai-pro-duce.' The discussion in fact is about how one can avoid to pay the tithes by grind-ing or depositing one's wheat by one of the groups mentioned. As it can be seen theGentiles ranked lowest.

4. Samaritans in Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic Literature 105

thens, all of these groups come to be commonly called Cuthaeans inTalmudic literature. Prior to this stage, the Misnah as well as the Tal-mud bear the characteristics of necessity. Religious as well as socialcoexistence demanded a clear definition of conditions and a demar-cation of Samaritans from heathens, who generally had been understoodto be different from Samaritans. The literature, without doubt, hasclearly defined opinions of the basic distinctions between rabbinicalJudaism and Samaritanism. The debatable questions do not deal withidentity or theology as such, but concentrate on how these groups, withtheir different opinions, relate to each other in a practical way on aneveryday basis according to food,3 marriage,4 cult practice, religiousfeasts, trade, circumcision, collection of tithes, and so on. These are thequestions that were of greater importance before the fourth century,when Samaritans were still considered to belong to 'the children ofIsrael'. They are comparable in many instances to those regarding Sad-ducees and eagerly discussed by the rabbis Akiba, Meir, Simon benGamaliel and Eliezer. After a final exclusion of the Samaritans by therabbis Ame and Assis5 in the beginning of the fourth century such con-cerns held less importance, and the Samaritan question became relatedto those regarding Jewish relations with heathens.6 In no period, how-ever, does the discussion reach a consistent agreement concerning theSamaritans. While Rabbi Akiba (second century CE) expressed a liberalattitude in his consideration of the Samaritans as 'genuine converts',whose priests are understood to be as legitimate as the Jewish priests,his contemporary Rabbi Ismael considered the Samaritans to be 'lion-converts', designating that they only adhered to Judaism by necessity,and therefore were considered to rank lower than the Jews.7 The

3. Ber. 7.1, which permits a Samaritan to participate in a Jewish cultic mealand Ber. 8.7, which permits a Samaritan participant in a cultic meal to recite theblessing when it is said in toto.

4. b. Qid. 75a, b; m. Nid. 4.1, 2, 7.4; Mass. Kut. 6, 27.5. m. Hul. 6.a.6. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 167.7. b. Qid. 75a-76a; b. Kam. 38b; b. Sank. 85b; b. Hul. 3b; b. Nid. 56b. Mass.

Kut. 27. m. Seb. 8.10, which refers to R. Akiba what R. Eliezer has said: 'Moreoverthey declared before him that R. Eliezer used to say: He that eats the bread of theSamaritans is like one that eats the flesh of swine. He replied: Hold your peace; Iwill not say to you what R. Eliezer has taught concerning this.' R. Akiba was aformer pupil of R. Eliezer (first-second century CE) and he did not want to speakwith disrespect about his teacher, as the continuation in m. Seb. 8.11 clearly shows.


accusation of having been forced to convert is in itself ambiguous,since, during the Hasmonaean period, conquered people had been cir-cumcised by force and forced to 'live by Jewish customs' (cf. Ant.13.257-58; 13.318-19). The problems of acceptance created by this isgiven expression in the various parallels to Genesis 34 (see below), aswell as in Josephus's calling Herod the Great a half- Jew because of hisEdomite origins (Ant. 14.403). The rabbinic accusation against theSamaritans for being 'lion-converts' takes its point of departure from2 Kings 17, which, similar to later rabbinic literature in its search foraetiologies, considers Samaritans to be schismatics from Judaism. Sinceno legitimite accusation for heretical behaviour as such was formulated,the explicit judgment based itself on questions of loyalty rather thantheology, as can be seen from rabbinic, Christian, Jewish (esp. Jose-phus) and Samaritan sources. It is interesting to notice that rabbinic lit-erature, no less than Josephus, has its main interest in clarifying theprinciples for rabbinic Judaism, using the various comparable groups ascounterparts in the discussion. It must therefore be kept in mind thatspecific discussions might not have any reality behind them, but ratherbelong to interpretative activities of the rabbis, which include the inten-tion of making rules for every imaginable situation. This makes ithighly debatable whether questions of heresy and loyalty can be separ-ated or whether 'to confess Jerusalem' implies more than a move of cultplace and relationship. The rabbinical tractate Masseket Kutim (Aboutthe Samaritans), which is a tosefta to the Babylonian Talmud, illu-minates these problems of ambiguity.8 The tractate contains indepen-dent material mixed with Talmudic material and baraita of which somewere originally applied on heathens, but have here likely becomeaddressed to Samaritans.

Masseket KutimIssues related to disagreements over Gerizim, cult and calendar formthe backbone of the tractate. In this respect the question of whether aSamaritan may or may not circumcise a Jew is not explicitly related toquestions of clean/unclean, legitimate/non-legitimate, but to confessionas the formulation 'in... the name of Mount Gerizim' expresses morethan a relationship:

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

text with


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

The parallel Mishnaic discussion on this theme is not quite as dis-tinctive as this of the tractate. The discussion about 'genuine converts',maintained by R. Meir against R. Juda's opinion that 'they are lion con-verts' leads R. Juda to prefer a heathen to a Samaritan, since the formerwould not cryptically include the Jew in his own congregation, as couldbe a risk if a Samaritan performed the circumcision. The underlyingtheological implications might not be so simplistically rejected asMontgomery has done in his treatment of the material: 'It was nottherefore as heretics, or false Israelites, except in minor points that theSamaritans were condemned, but rather as schismatics, who held them-selves aloof from the Institute of God's Kingdom.'9 As said before, therabbinic discussion did not restrict itself to a discussion with those whobecame understood as schismatics. It in fact included a rejection of allJewish, Christian and heathen groups that did not submit themselves tothe theology put forward in 'pre-canonical' Scriptures outside of thePentateuch. With an interpretation of the 'old lost Israel', it created afuture for the new Israel governed, at least from the second century BCEonwards, by the Pharisees and later by their heirs the rabbis. ThusJudaism's self-assertion of being the 'righteous Judaism', implicitlyprovided with the authority of control, expresses itself clearly when it isstated:

Mass. Kut. 28: When shall we take them back? When they renounceMount Gerizim, and confess Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead.From this time forth he that robs a Samaritan shall be as he who robs anIsraelite.10

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

9. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 177.10. It must be noted that Mishnah mentions Gerizim only once (ra. Sot. 7.5),

mentioning the blessing and the curse on Gerizim and Ebal, referring to Josh. 8.33and correcting MT Deut. 11.30, which is brought into accord with the SP (see aboveChapter 3).


the success of the youngest is given further reference in b. Sank. 21b'sstatement that 'the Samaritans/'am ha'ares kept the old law written inHebrew character, while the true Israel with Ezra got the new Lawwritten in "Assyrian" characters'. A mediaeval reference to Ezra's par-ticipation in the exclusion of the Samaritans falls within the line of thissame theme, which with the killing or 'offering of the firstborn' leavesroom for the second or younger in line to take the leading role. Themediaeval text, however, does not leave room for a Samaritan return toJewish beliefs or resurrection, and Judaism's self-assertive role of beingthe final judge reached its highest level. We shall come back to this dis-cussion in the concluding remarks of Chapter 7. Now we will discussthe tractate keeping the theological implications of the above-men-tioned paragraphs 12 and 28 in mind.

Calendar issues as such are especially related to the celebration of thepesach as the following passage shows:

Mass. Kut. 24: 'We do not buy "bread" from a Samaritan baker at theend of the passover until after three bakings, nor from householders untilafter three sabbaths, nor from villagers until after three makings. Whendoes this apply? When they have not celebrated the Feast of Unleaven atthe same time with Israel, or have anticipated it by a day: but if they cel-ebrate the Feast with Israel, or are a day later, their leaven is permitted.R. Simon forbids it (in general), because they do not know how toobserve the feast like Israel' (the text in italic is found also in t. Pes. 2;y. Or. sub. ii, 6).

This calendar disagreement might have an indirect reference in Heze-kiah's double celebration of the pesach (2 Chron. 30.18-23). With theinvitation of 'a multitude of people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issacharand Zebulon...who had not cleansed themselves and did not know thesanctuary's rules of cleanness' both special permission and a doublingof the feast were required for this symbolic ritual of reconciliation. Thedisagreement over the calendar as such is neither in 2 Chronicles, nor isit given special interest in Masseket Kutim, but seems to be an acceptedfact. The use of the lunar calender by both Jews and Samaritans seemsto be of high antiquity, and it is only the calculation of days that bringsup problems. The counting of the omer is not related to this, but is amatter of interpretation of the underlying text of Lev. 23.15 that 'youshall count from the morrow after the sabbath', which is understood bySamaritans and Sadducees to be from the Sunday after the sabbathduring the week of Unleavened Bread, but which the Jews understand


to be the first day of Passover, interpreting 'sabbath' as 'feast day'.The main concern in the text of the tractate is therefore, as in

2 Chronicles, a matter of purity. Indirectly, it is said here as in otherparagraphs of Masseket Kutim that Jews and Samaritans can share foodand meals if Samaritans show no laxity in observing common puritylaws:

Mass. Kut. 15: 'These are the things we may not sell them: carcasses notritually slaughtered, or animals with organic disease; unclean animalsand reptiles; the abortion of an animal; oil into which a mouse has fallen;an animal that is mortally ill, "or a fetus" although Israelites eat themboth, lest the sale lead them into error. And as we do not sell these thingsto them, so we do not buy from them, as it is written (Deut. 14.21): Forthou shalt be a holy people to the Lord thy God. As thou art holy, thoushalt not make another people holier than thyself.'J '

and if food is not prepared in vessels normally used for wine and vine-gar.12 The rabbinic point that the Israelites eat what is forbidden for theSamaritans to eat, according to Lev. 7.24, has, along with the addedconcern about holiness, revealed itself to be a concern of rightousness.If the Samaritans keep their law strictly, the Jews must surpass theSamaritan lawkeeping by not transgressing the Samaritan law in regardto the Samaritans, who, with reference to Deut. 14.21, must be under-stood to have observed the law against the eating of 'anything that diesof itself. The rabbinic commentary on the metaphorical expression'You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk' illustrates this implicitself-understanding: that Samaria is Judaea's mother.13

If we are to take these discussions seriously we must conclude thatrabbinical literature's dealing with these matters of food, meal, trade

11. The parallels in b. Qid. 76a; b. Ber. 47b; b. Git. lOa all refer to R. Simonben Gamaliel, 'Every command the Samaritans keep, they are more scrupulous inobserving than Israel'. See further y. Ket. 21 a; y. Dem. 9, 'a Samaritan is like a fullJew'. Against this, however, we observe m. Nid. 7.4; Mass. Kut. 16: 'This is theprinciple: they are not to be believed in any matter in which they are open to sus-picion'.

12. This law was originally applied to Gentiles (cf. Mass. Kut. 20, 21, 25).13. This interpretation in fact is in line with Maimonides' interpretation that 'the

command is levelled against idolatry and superstition'. See J.H. Hertz (ed.), ThePentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with Commentary, II(5 vols.; London: Humphrey Milford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), adloc. which also presents some of the more traditional views that the prohibition con-cerns dietary matters as such.


and work14 points to a widespread coexistence, and we must be carefulabout considering all Jews and rabbis to be 'Nehemiah-Jews', wholived in ghettos to avoid any contamination. The judgment regardingthe Samaritans ranged from their being heathens to being like Israel asillustrated in Mass. Kut. 1: 'The usage of the Samaritans are in part likethose of the Gentiles, in part like those of Israel, but mostly like Israel.'

However the sole exception from the sharing of meals given in Mass.Kut. 23, 'If a Samaritan priest, when he is unclean, eats and gives of hisfood to an Israelite, it is permitted; if he is clean, the Israelite is for-bidden to eat of his food', is set in the context of a cultic meal, and withMass. Kut. 22 it forms a severe criticism of the legacy of the Samaritanpriesthood:

The priests of Israel may share the priestly dues with the Samaritanpriests in the territory of the latter, because they are thus, as it were, res-cuing the Samaritans from their priests; but not on Israelite territory, lestthey should have a presumption on our priesthood.

What is meant is that an Israelite/Judaean priest can collect tithes inboth territories, and that Samaritan residents probably are to pay theJudaean priest if they live 'on Israelite territory'. If, however, the Sama-ritan priest were allowed to do the same this would give him a recog-nition that would in fact put him on the same footing as the Israelitepriest.

Again, the laws here are dealing with questions of religion, and anypossible problem of staying or travelling in Samaritan areas, is notwithin the focus of the text. In fact this seemed not to have been a prob-lem at all. Several rabbinic stories related to discussions between Jewsand Samaritans 'while the Jew was on his way and had just passedShechem' deny that any such problem ever arose. The obvious meta-phorical use of the expression holds implicit that 'passed Shechem' is apassing of the Shechem tradition and thus undermines any geographicalinterest, similar to Mt. 10.5-6's prohibition against going to Samaria(see the following paragraph).

Explicit criticism of confession, as in the Mishnaic prohibition of

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


Samaritan and heathen participation in the New Year Offering, by notaccepting the payment for it (m, Seq. 1.5), is not mentioned in MasseketKutim 2, which only indirectly brings this prohibition:

We do not accept from them the bird-offerings of men or women havingissues, nor the bird-offerings of women after child-birth, nor sin-offer-ings or guilt-offerings. But we accept from them 'vows and freewillofferings'.

The vows and free will offerings could be given by everyone; they werenot part of the prescribed offering rules. As in Mass. Kut. 22 and 23, anacceptance of any of the prescribed offerings would have implied arecognition and an acceptance, which, as is clearly expressed in m. Seq.1.5, was out of the question:

This is the general rule: All that is vowed and freely offered is to beaccepted from the givers; all that does not come through vow or freewilloffering is not to be accepted from them. And so it is laid down accord-ing to Ezra, as it is said (Ezra 4.3): There is nothing in common betweenyou and us in building of a house to our God [ITS nl]^!1? ^} U^7 $birnX?].

This authoritative voice given to Ezra is given full expression in Pirkede Rabbi Eliezer, c.38:15

Ezra, Zerubbabel and Joshua gathered together the whole congregationinto the temple of the Lord, with 300 priests, 300 trumpets, 300 scrolls ofthe Law, and 300 children, and they blew the trumpets and the Leviteswere singing. And they anathematized, outlawed and excommunicatedthe Samaritans in the name of the Lord, by a writing upon tablets, andwith an anathema of the Upper and Lower Court (i.e. of heaven andearth) as follows: Let no Israelite eat of one morsel of anything that is aSamaritan's; let no Samaritan become a proselyte, and allow them not tohave part in the resurrection of the dead. And they sent this curse to allIsrael that were in Babylon, who also themselves added their anathema.

Although this anathema is late, it well illustrates that, also for rabbinicalliterature, well-known techniques of interpretation that antedate anactual problem and authorize the earlier literature for a specific purpose.

While most of the paragraphs in Masseket Kutim do not include anysuch situation of animosity, a few statements deal with question ofreliability, as in §§17 and 16:

15. A haggadic work from the eigth century CE, also called Baraita de-RabbiEliezer or Haggadah de-Rabbi Eliezer. Translation from Montgomery, Samaritans,p. 194.


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

Gemara considers this principle to apply to rules of sabbath and offer-ing of wine. b. RoS. Has. 2.2 relates that it is no longer possible to usechains of torches to signal the appearance of the new moon, but thatthe messengers 'after the wicked deeds of the Samaritans [DTllDill^p^p&Q], have to go all the way up to bring the message'. Some Sama-ritans probably had given wrong messages and the feast began at awrong time. The purpose of the chain was to signal from Jerusalem viathe mountain hills to Babylonia, so that the feast could be inauguratedat the same time. This accusation in fact was not only related to Kutim.In the same text, b. RoS. HaS. 2.1, the same accusation is directedagainst the Minim QTQn) and Boethusians (D^OirT'O). Any mistrustconcerning weapons, which in m. 'Abod. Zar. 1.5 is applied to Gentilesonly, in b. Gem. 15b comes to include Samaritans: 'lest they may sellthem to the gentiles'. In Mass. Kut. 5 the statement that 'we do not sellthem weapons, nor anything that can do damage to the people' is seenin contrast to Mass. Kut. II,16 'which allows a Samaritaness to deliver aJewess and suckle her son in her quarters'. The prohibition of theJewess for delivering and nursing a Samaritan son clearly takes thisquestion in a different direction, and is much better seen as a dealingwith problems of support and recognition than with questions of trust.Montgomery's wonder that 'it is strange that with all the hostilitybetween the two sects, the Samaritans were not reckoned as enemies ofIsrael by formal legislation, this passage (b. Gem. 15b) showing thatthey came to be legally included among the classes hostile to societyonly by a process of indirection'17 needs a remark. Such a formal legis-

16. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 174.17. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 174.


lation would have demanded the existence of a state, but that was nevera reality during the development of rabbinic thought. Furthermore, itseems improbable that any part of this literature could obtain legalitybeyond the acceptance of its recipients in Jewish societies. We thereforestill have to ask questions about this literature's function as 'world-creating literature',18 which does imply that the inherent ideas and state-ments might never have been actually carried out. E.P. Sanders's veryuseful study on the pharisaic laws' impact on societal life and theauthority of the rabbis severely challenges a literal and restricted read-ing of rabbinic literature presented in studies by scholars like E. Schiirerand J. Jeremias. With their great influence, they have given us a far toonarrow understanding of life and customs in Jewish societies.19

Finally the statement about intermarriage shall be dealt with:

Mass. Kut. 6: We do not give them wives, nor do we take wives fromthem (b. Qid. 75a).

27: Why are the Samaritans forbidden to marry into Israel? Because theyare mingled with the priests of the high places. R. Ismael said: Theywere genuine converts at first. Wherefore were they forbidden? Becauseof their bastards, and because they do not marry the brother's widow.(The text in italic is found also in b. Qid. 75b.)

The prohibition in Masseket Kutim 6 does not contain any accusation ofimpurity as does m. Nid. 4.1, which states, 'The Samaritan women aremenstruous from the cradle. And the Samaritans defile a bed bothbelow and above, because they have connection with menstruouswomen, and the latter sit upon every kind of blood', and m. Nid. 7.4:'The dwelling of the unclean women of the Samaritans defile after themanner of an Ohel, because they bury there their abortions' (Ohel is anunclean place that makes everyone staying there unclean). R. Juda,however, in the same Mishnah article states 'they do not bury'. Thesestatements are in contrast to what we otherwise know about Samaritans'observance of purity laws. It thus seems reasonable to consider the

18. The expression brought by R. Goldenberg, Jewish-Gentile Relations inAntiquity: The Rabbinic Evidence, SBL Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 1996, 'thetexts cannot lead to sociological conclusions' and the judgment of the material mustseek a distinction between the world of the rabbis and the real world.

19. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCMPress; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992), p. 471: '...the genre ofearly rabbinical legal material becomes clear. It does not consist of set rules thatgoverned societies. It consists of debates.'


metaphorical character of the language and the implication that therules about purity/impurity applied on Jewish women are not to betaken into consideration here. Samaritan women are impure par excel-lence and sexual intercourse with any man would render him uncleananytime. The argument in the Mishnaic discussion in fact falls withinthe lines of Masseket Kutim, which the conclusion of m. Nid. 7.4 clearlyshows, when it reckons Samaritans together with Moabites, Egyptians,Edomites and Nethinim, all of whom are peoples a Jew can not marry.Even more clearly is the expression given in m. Qid. 4.3's placement ofSamaritans in a highly improbable context: These are of doubtful stock(i.e. with whom one may not marry): those of unknown parentage(shetuki), foundlings (asufi), and Samaritans (kuti).' The Mishnaic ref-erence to the daughters of the Sadducees as being

like the Samaritans when they undertake to walk in the ways of theirfathers; if they separate themselves to walk in the way of Israel, thenthey are like the Israelites. R. Jose said: They are always like women ofIsrael, until they separate themselves to walk in the way of their fathers'(m. Nid. 4.2)

is expressive of the whole discussion and argumentation against non-pharisaic groups. Montgomery, in his treatment of the question, arguedthat marriages between various Jewish 'castes'20 would break down thebarriers set between them. In fact it would be easier for a Jew to accepta marriage with a proselyte than with a Samaritan, since 'he wouldbecome wholly a Jew, whereas the Samaritan in his pride would feel hehad no spiritual benefit to receive from the alliance'. Further, as a 'sin-ful schismatic' he could infect the 'Jewish church' with his sin.21 Theseconditions become explicit in Mass. Kut. 27, with its reference to cultsyncretism, which is denied, so as to allow an accusation of the childrenbeing bastards (mamzer). The addition 'that they do not marry thebrother's widow' must have been added to save the whole argument,since the law of Levirate marriage of Deut. 25.5-10 is one of the fewinstances where Samaritans maintain an opinion that deviates from theliteral reading of the biblical text. The importance of this 'saving'argument is noted in b. Qid. 75a's excommunication of the Samaritans:

20. Hor. 3.7: The priest is before the Levite, the Levite before the layman, thelayman before the Mamzer (i.e. a bastard, or one of uncertain parentage), the Mam-zer before the Nethin (The descendant of the ancient temple-slaves or hierodules),the Nethin before the proselyte, the proselyte before the freedman.'

21. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 180-81.


'If the Samaritans be genuine converts, nevertheless they have beenexcluded because they practice Yibbam only with the betrothed.'

The final question in Mass. Kut. 28, 'When shall we take them back?'has showed itself to be a much more complicated matter than the givenanswer gives reason to believe. The implied disagreements concerningcult place, confession, calendar and genealogy show that 'confessJerusalem' implies more than a geographical movement. Similarly therejection of Jerusalem is a rejection of rabbinic Judaism and forSadducees and Samaritans implicitly an adherence to the 'ways of thefathers'. This is not so much a Kulturkampf between Israel and thenations. This is a Kulturkampf between the 'written' and the 'oral'Torah. The lack of explicit cult criticism in rabbinic, Jewish and NewTestament literature reveals the embarrassment of the discussion: thatthe Samaritans are not accepted because they do not accept rabbinicJudaism, which they have accused of having moved the cult, changedthe Pentateuch (by its biblical and non-biblical additions) and institutedthe oral Torah. Rabbinic literature's attempts to avoid this discussioncreates a problem that needs explanation. A concession to the actualityof this discussion, bringing up the disagreements of the authority of thePentateuch, would have turned rabbinic Judaism's weapons againstitself. We do not know whether Samaritans and Sadducees in factagreed at some early time to Pharisaic interpretations, but that a calf isyounger than its mother we do know.

Christianity in the Light of the Jewish-Samaritan Question

This concentrates on the New Testament sources for two reasons. First,because the early Church Fathers of the first to second centuries do notadd much to the discussion. Their concentration on clarifying principlesfor Christianity does not include any participation in Jewish contro-versies over cult and scripture as such. Jesus' conversation with theSamaritan woman in John 4 seems to be reflective of a theology thatreplaces both Judaism and Samaritanism with Christianity. Christian-ity's use of the LXX as its foundational source for theological reflectionsuggests that Christianity forms a variation on the rabbinic disputesover the proper interpretation of biblical Judaism. It is a dispute thattakes place within the context of rabbinic-Christian disagreements pre-supposing a common literary heritage, including the Scriptures thatlater became canonized by both these groups. Only when gnosticism


began to influence Christian communities did the Church Fathers makean effort to identify the various Jewish and Samaritan sects. This, how-ever, was often done in so confusing a way that we gain nothing butimplicit information of the difficulties of separating religious groups,when they—from an audience's viewpoint—seem fundamentally tobelong to the same religious sphere.22 Justin Martyr (from Neapolis,second century CE) illustrates this well when he stated:

All the other human races are called Gentiles by the spirit of prophecy;but the Jewish and Samaritan races are called the tribe of Israel and theHouse of Jacob. And the prophecy in which it was predicted that thereshould be more believers, from the Gentiles than from the Jews and theSamaritans, we will produce.

In the following I give a brief comment on some of the New Testa-ment texts that relate explicitly to Samaria and Samaritans and partakein the discussions of 'Christian' relationship to Jews and heathens. TheNew Testament's only reference to Ephraim, Jn 11.54, seems unimpor-tant for this study. No reference is made to Gerizim; Sychar is men-tioned in Jn 4.5; and Shechem in Acts 7.16.

Matthew 10.5-6

These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, 'Go nowhere among theGentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lostsheep of the house of Israel.'

The interpretation of this charge usually states that Jesus accedes to awell-known Jewish anti-Samaritanism.23 The Gospel of Matthew, how-ever, has no allusion to such an animosity, and the only statement thatcan be made on the basis of the text is that it separates various groupsand that the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' are opposed to both hea-thens and Samaritans. The neutrality of the text does not give reason tobelieve that the disciples should avoid going to the Gentiles or theSamaritans because they were considered to be enemies or schismatics.

22. Since this discussion falls outside of the chronological frame of this study Ishall restrict myself to refer to J. Possum's quite extensive article 'Sects and Move-ments', in A.D. Crown (ed.) The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Sie-beck], 1989), pp. 293-389.

23. So also Montgomery, who thought that Jesus here expresses his devotion 'tothe community which he regarded as the one true church' (Montgomery, Samari-tans, p. 162).


The focus of the text lies within the expression 'the lost sheep of thehouse of Israel', and here Samaritans belonged no more than the Can-aanite woman in Mt. 15.22-28.24 Literarily we are dealing with thesame groups we found in rabbinic literature, and theologically Mat-thew's argumentation is addressed to those who, standing within thesame tradition, rejected Jesus' message and ended up killing him. Theyare the 'lost sheep', who need education. Only after the final rejection—not in crucifixion, but in lying about the resurrection (Mt. 28.11-15)—does the gospel bring out the commandment of going to the Gentiles(Mt. 28.16-20).

The parallel accounts in Mark and Luke do not give the prohibitionof Mt. 10.5-6. Luke's possible pro-Samaritan perspective has given rea-son to discuss whether the gospel has a Samaritan provenance orwhether it addressed itself to Samaritan communities. Such a prove-nance would be at variance with Samaritan theology, which does notaccept any other prophet than Moses, and we are probably far better offwhen we understand that Matthew and Luke are engaged in a dialogueabout the Samaritan question, and that Lk. 10.30-37 (the parable of theGood Samaritan) and Lk. 17.11-19 (the cleansing of the ten lepers),together with Lk. 9.51-56, show that the hostile Samaritans form part ofthis dialogue (belonging to Luke's material). Luke's portrait of theSamaritans is not of those rejecting Jesus because he brings the gospel,but because he is on his way to Jerusalem:

When, the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to goto Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went andentered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but thepeople would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem(Lk. 9.51-53).

Jesus' rebuke of the disciples, when they want to destroy the village,must be seen in contrast to his curse of those cities that did not receivethe disciples when they brought the kingdom of God (Lk. 10.13-15).The good Samaritan's act, set in contrast to the priest and the Levite,who might have loved God but had forgotten to be a neighbour, is nomore reflective of pro-Samaritanism than the Samaritan leper's return'to praise God' (Lk.17.15-16). The primary function of these stories isto illustrate the stubbornness of the Jews, and, using the most fitting

24. eiq id npoftam id dKoXco^oia oi%oi) 'Iopar|X is found only in these twoNew Testament texts.


comparable group, they form the strongest accusation. Calling to mindthe story about the Jewish captives whom the Samaritans releasedbecause they were 'brothers' (DTIN) from 2 Chron. 28.11-15, Jesus'parable about the 'good Samaritan' gives a radical answer to the law-yer's question, 'Who is my neighbour?' He is the one who did good toyou; the one who 'clothed the naked, gave them sandals, provided themwith food and drink, anointed them and carried all the feeble on asses'to bring them to their brothers at Jericho (2 Chron. 28.15). What Jesusis asking for is recognition and reconciliation and an ending of thehatred, which, according to Old Testament Scripture, seems to havearisen from the Syro-Ephraimite war. It is not the place here to dealwith the literary and/or historical settings for this episode, but we willreturn to it in several instances throughout the study. Luke's aim, how-ever, is not to return to any past Judaism as such, but a replacement,which in a 'Christian Judaism' disestablishes the borders between 'theway of the Gentiles', 'the town of the Samaritans' and 'the lost sheep ofthe house of Israel' as we see it illustrated in the dispersion of Chris-tianity in Acts 1.8; 8.1; 8.5-29; 9.31; 15.3.

Acts 7.2-53Also Stephen's speech in Acts 7.2-53, based primarily on the Penta-teuch, led to scholarly discussions about a possible Samaritan proven-ance25 furthered by the assertion that the quotations reflected a Samari-tan text tradition.26 Luke's interest in contrasting the old and the newIsrael, symbolized by the father's 'tent of witness' and Solomon's'house of God', can be seen as a contrast of Jerusalem and Gerizim,although neither of them is mentioned. The Samaritan claim for Ger-izim as the true place of worship, however, seems not to fit the perspec-tive of Stephen's speech, which, taking up the problem from 2 Samuel7 and 1 Kings 8 that man cannot build a house for God, forms a harshaccusation not only against the temple but also against the binding ofthe Holy Spirit, and here implicitly against any self-established cult.

25. M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London:Longmans, Green & Co., 1958).

26. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', inJ. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958),pp. 18-32. In Chapter 3 of this study it is demonstrated that the distinction betweenSP and proto-MT cannot be upheld because of the existence of text variants that arenot unequivocally Samaritan or Masoretic.


Long before the establishment of David's cult in Jerusalem, the fathersoffered sacrifice to the idols and 'rejoice in the works of their hands'.Stephen, however, does not speak with any other voice than the voiceof the Old Testament prophets, Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah. ReplacingDamascus in Amos 5.27 with Babylon in Acts 7.43, Stephen addressedhis accusation against Jerusalem's priesthood, not for having built atemple as such, but for not having kept the Law 'delivered by angels'(v. 53). If this looks Samaritan to us, it is because Samaritans formedthe same accusations, so did writers of Dead Sea Scrolls, and we mustnow state that Christianity used the same language—a language inher-ent in the tradition itself.27 It would be hard to argue for a Samaritancontext in the use of Old Testament prophets or the defence of thoseprophets who had 'announced beforehand the coming of the Righteousone'. The quotations from Amos and Isaiah, the most hated prophets inSamaritan tradition, seems unthinkable in this context.28

The character of the speech as a literary discourse based on well-known texts, which are composed in a way as to present the correctchronology and context, reveals the hand of the author as the creativesource of the speech. Any argumentation for a Samaritan provenancemust take into consideration the perspective of the whole material andinclude an examination also of the Gospel of Luke's use of Old Testa-ment material and its relation to the LXX. It is noteworthy that the theo-logical discussions in Kitab al-Tarikh (AF) and Memar Marqah (MM)are based entirely on the Pentateuch. Although these works are later,they might give some information about the context of Samaritandiscussions in Luke's days.

Acts 8.1-25The consequence of Stephen's speech is a dispersion of 'the church'from Jerusalem to the villages of all Judaea and Samaria. Acts 8's storyabout the acts of Simon and Philip in 'a city of Samaria'29 is partly a

27. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 141-42; R.J. Coggins, 'The Samaritansand Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33, where Coggins rejects Albright's premisesof composition, language and content for assuming a Samaritan origin. The articlebrings a good oversight of the scholarly positions.

28. See Chapter 6 below.29. The definite article is missing in some manuscripts, for example, C.D.E.

Ypsilon and Mehrheitstext, but is found in: Sin. A B, pap. 74. Some scholarsbelieve that 'the city' is Shechem and not Samaria/Sebaste.


confirmation of authority and partly a correction of where, from and towhom salvation is directed. Here we have another story that contradictsMt. 10.5-6. In a recognition of the differences between Jews, Samari-tans and heathens it invalidates those in the new context. The salvationcomes not from Samaritans nor from heathens; not even when it seemsthat the power of God can be given to a magician from the city (hisrelationship is not mentioned, cf. 8.9-11), or that Philip is given greatpower to preach, baptize and perform miracles (8.5, 12-13). Only withthe arrival of the apostles from Jerusalem do people receive the HolySpirit (8.15-18), and after the preaching in many Samaritan villages, afurther dispersion both leads to a rejection of the commandment ofgoing 'to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' and to a realization of thecommandment of going 'to the nations'.

The text's geographical connection with the emerging Christianity,and its rejection of Simon, the false teacher, later called Simon theMagician, early in patristic literature led to the assumption that he wasthe eponym of gnosticism, belonging to the Samaritan sect, the Dosi-thaeans. So Justin, Apol. i 25; 56; ii 15, and C. Tryph. 120, which tellsus that almost all the Samaritans believed in him. Justin's treatise onSimony (second century CE) probably forms the backbone of Irenasus'streatment of the sect in Haeresis i, 23 and of Hippolyt's Refutatioomnium haeresium (second-third century CE).30 The Samaritan chron-icle AF pp. 170-71, does not combine Simon with the Dositheans. Thistext relates that he fought the Christians with magi, and furthermoresought help from a Jewish philosopher named Philo in Alexandria. He,however, refused to help with the words, otherwise known from Acts5.39: 'Be at peace. For if this thing comes from God, then no one willbe able to wipe it out.'

John 4.1-42John 4.1-42's participation in the dialogue about Judaean-Samaritanrelationship restores the Old Testament prophecy that 'there shall beone flock and one shepherd' (Jn 10.16; Ezek. 34.17-31; 37.16-28).John's prophecy, however, must not be confused with Ezekiel's andJeremiah's national ideology whose aim it is to unify the two king-doms,31 since the gospel's prophecy is a much more universal messianicexpansion of Yahweh's deeds, which will also include both Samaritans

30. Montgomery, Samaritans, pp. 265-69.31. See Chapter 7.


and Jews. The placement of the Samaritans between Judaea, whichJesus leaves to return to Galilee by passing 'through Samaria', certainlyis not merely geographical information, but a signification of the dif-ferences between Jerusalem as the heir of the Davidic traditions, Sam-aria as the heir of the Mosaic traditions and finally Galilee, from wherethese traditions are given a new orientation. After Jesus' arrival to 'acity of Samaria' (missing in some text variants) called Sychar32 'nearthe field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph', a Samaritan woman comesto the well to draw water. When Jesus asks her to give him somethingto drink, her answer reflects her understanding of Jewish-Samaritanrelationship: 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman ofSamaria?' (v. 9). The text here gives the somewhat arbitrary rational-istic information that 'Jews have no dealings with Samaritans'.33 With-out any earlier text witnesses, we would—given Jesus' theologicalanswer-—still be able to conclude that this is a late interpolation, andthat the Samaritan woman's question is set in the context of 'who hassomething to give to whom?' After a longer dispute between the womanand Jesus about the character of the water and a reference to the heirfrom Jacob, Jesus asks her to bring out her husband. Here the woman isin trouble, because she has no husband. Jesus agrees to that and tells herthat 'you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is notyour husband; this you said truly'.

Convinced that Jesus is a prophet the woman now asks him about theright place to worship: 'on this mountain' or 'in Jerusalem'? 'Ourfathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the

32. Shikar or Shukem in some manuscripts. Situated at the foot of Mt Ebal inthe Shechem valley. It probably became the new centre of the Samaritans afterShechem's destruction in the second century BCE (cf. H.M. Schencke, 'Jacobs-brunnen-Josephsusgrab-Sychar', ZDPV84 [1968], pp. 159-84 [159]).

33. Interesting because rabbinic sources seek to advise how the relationshipshould be dealt with. A possible late redaction is supported by the missing of thesentence in Sin* D abej, but is contradicted by the presence of it in pap. 63, 66, 75,76 rell (second-fifth century CE), cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Grecae,26th edn. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 159 n. 14, refers to the work of J. Lightfootsfrom 1684: 'the verb sunxrasthai (Joh. 4.9) corresponds to the Talmudiq histappeq,which is used by Rabbi Abbahu in the 4th century in admitting that in earlier daysthe Jews had dealings with the Samaritans.' Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 139,prefers the translation 'use together with' which would designate that Jews andSamaritans do not use vessels in common.


place where men ought to worship' (v. 20).34 Jesus' answer is reflectiveof both Judaism and Christianity, because the place where to 'worshipthe Father' in the future, expressed by 'the hour is coming',35 is 'neitheron this mountain nor in Jerusalem' (v. 21). By this a future equivalenceis expressed that does not include the past, since the continuation bearsthe characteristics of well-known Jewish accusations: 'You worshipwhat you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is fromthe Jews' (v. 22). The continuation points to Christanity's abolition ofpast disagreements, which has the ability to include Samaritans in thisprophetic claim for true worship: 'But the hour is coming, and now is,when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Forsuch the Father seeks to worship him' (v. 23).36 The fulfilment we findin v. 39 that 'many Samaritans believed in him because of the woman'stestimony, "He told me all that I ever did'". It is important to recognizethis composition to understand that the story's primary goal is not tojudge between the theology of Samaritans and Jews. This discussion islike an Hegelian thesis/antithesis that allows a new synthesis to sproutfrom the encounter. The setting of the encounter at Jacob's well as sym-bolic for the tradition of the fathers is given expression in v. 12's ques-tion, 'Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, anddrank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?' When Jesus tells thewoman that the water he has to give her for ever will bring her thirst toan end (v. 14), and she therefore asks for some of it, Jesus' answer isnot given straightforwardly, but refers to another inequity: her relationto the Law, symbolized by her five husbands and a rejection of her sixth'husband' (read: law) as not being legal. Thus deprived of both traditionand law, the woman finally sought to attain some clarity about the placeof worship. Jesus' answer leads the woman beyond the question and thedisagreement, which in a reconciliative context have lost theirimportance.

The same view has been brought forward by E.D. Freed in two arti-

34. oi jccrcepet; fiudov ev TOO opei -coma) TipoaeKiJveaav KOI \)u.ei<; ^eyete onev 'lepoaoMuoic; ecmv 6 TOTICK; onov TipoaKvveiv 5ei. Note the missing object inboth sentences.

35. epxeiai (bpa.36. Although this sounds like an Old Testament prophetic saying it is not. No-

where does this expression occur in the Old Testament. Truth, TON, appears severaltimes together with ion, esp. in Psalms and Proverbs, but never with m~l.


cles37 based on J. Bowman,38' A. Spiro,39 and W.A. Meeks.40 The exis-tence of Samaritan place names in the Johannine Gospel, for example,Aenon (Jn. 3.23); Salim (3.23); Sychar (4.5); Ephraim (11.54); 11 ref-erences to the Mosaic tradition; a possible appointment of Jesus as thesuccessor of Moses (Jn 6.30-51) where Moses' bread is set as a contrastto Jesus' bread; Jesus' cancellation of the Mosaic law against adultery(Jn 8.5-11); Moses' testimony about Jesus (Jn 5.46); the healed blindman's discussion with the disciples of Moses (Jn 9.24-34); and finallythe comparison of 'the son of man' with the healing 'serpent in thewilderness' (Jn 3.14-15) becomes an exaltation by the hands of Moses:

Hence the passage compares an action which takes place through Moseswith an action associated with Jesus... Again the main thrust of the pas-sage is that what takes place through Jesus is parallel to, but far superiorto what was enacted by Moses.41

Such a theology would appeal to Jews and Samaritans who bothexpected their messiah, but certainly did not share opinions of the char-acteristics of that messiah. A messiah like Elijah would never have beenaccepted by the Samaritans. It is noteworthy that this question is settledright at the opening of John's gospel by the Baptist's testimony that heis neither Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet (1.19-28). Also noteworthyis John's silence about John the Baptist's connection with Elijah raisedin Mt. 11.13-14, which makes the prophets and the Law42 prophecy that'he is Elijah who is to come', thus forming a contrast also to Lk. 7.29-30's avoidance of this question. Jesus' incorporation of Moses andElijah in the theophany scene is shared by the synoptic gospels (Mt.17.3-13; Mk 9.2-13; Lk. 9.28-36), but only Matthew and Mark bring

37. E.D. Freed, 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968),pp. 580-87; idem, 'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts',NT 12 (1970), pp. 241-56, the last-mentioned work is based on Macdonald, Theol-ogy, and Gaster, Samaritans.

38. J. Bowman, 'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL 40 (1958),pp. 298-308.

39. A. Spiro, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts of theApostles (revised by W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1967), pp. 285-300.

40. W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johanine Chris-tology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden, EJ. Brill, 1967).

41. Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King Moses, cit. in Freed, 'Samaritan Influence', p. 584.42. A few manuscripts do not have KOI 6 vouoq.


the discussion about Elijah's precursor role in the form of John theBaptist. The close connection of this discussion to Jesus' misunderstoodshout as a cry echoing (Ps. 22.2-3) for Elijah in the crucifixion scene(Mt. 27.47; Mk 15.34-35) is made clear by the fact that Elijah does notappear, thus signifying that 'his time is over'.

ConclusionIt has now become clear that the Samaritan question is not an indepen-dent issue for the single evangelist. It partakes in their internal dialogueabout the Christian movement's involvement with both Judaism andSamaritanism. In this dialogue, Matthew represent the severest criticismof Judaism as those 'who are the lost sheep of the House of Israel'.From those and to those, salvation is determined. It is not until the veryrejection of the resurrection that salvation is determined for the nations.The 'anti-Samaritanism' inherent in this criticism is the neglected stateof the Samaritans: they are not the 'chosen people'. Mark does notactively engage himself in this discussion, of which he might not havehad any knowledge. The absence of geographical or ethnic terms rela-ted to the issue could point in that direction.43 Luke both knows andengages himself in the question. He does not share Matthew's 'anti-Samaritan' attitude,44 which to some extent he abolishes, while stillarguing critically against the rabbis. He does not go as far as John doesin his direct criticism of Jewish anti-Samaritanism, explicated in thequestion of whether Jesus is obsessed by a demon (Jn 8.48-59): 'TheJews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samari-tan and have a demon?" '45 Jesus' answer gives the Jews reason to

43. If the gospel is written about 70 CE, the question might not have had anyspecial importance. The testimony of the question's greater importance in Jose-phus's writings of the nineties CE, rather than of the seventies CE, should be kept inmind here (Chapter 5).

44. This does not necessarily involve a dependency on the Gospel of Matthew,but on its views. The conclusion does not imply a statement about the question ofdating, although much can be said in favor of Luke's dependence on Matthew.

45. Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 155, makes connection between Sir. 50.25's'foolish people in Shechem', T. Levi 1: 'From this day will Shechem be called thecity of fools' (TCO/VK; dcruveTCOv) and Jn 8.48: 'Are we not right in saying that youare a Samaritan and have a demon?' all playing with the term 'fool'. That the Jewsconsciously played with this mockery Montgomery found attested in Mt. 5.22's useof (icope ('fool') as a pun on the place name Moreh in the neighbourhood ofShechem paralleling shikkore ('drunkard'; exact Greek uncertain) as a pun on the


decide that he has a demon, but not that he is a Samaritan (v. 52). Thefollowing question about authority, "Are you greater than our fatherAbraham?" 46 (v. 53) echoing Jn 4.12, "Are you greater than our fatherJacob?" expresses that in the Gospel of John Jesus does not only super-sede Moses but also the ancestors of both Samaritans and Jews. Thesetwo stories' equation of Jews and Samaritans not only brings the Sama-ritan woman to exclaim, 'Sir I perceive that you are a prophet' (Jn.4.19), which implies that he is a prophet like Moses,47 but it also bringsthe Jew born blind (immediately after the discussion in Jn 8) to claim,'He is a prophet' (Jn 9.17). Compositionally, the feeding of the crowdwith five loaves and two fishes (Jn 6.1-15) is placed between thesestories. Only the Gospel of John ends this story with the testimony thathe 'is indeed the prophet' (6.14). The story is hereby given a typo-logical function that differs from the synoptic gospels' use of it. Thefive loaves must be understood as representative of the Law of Mosesand the two fishes are the two forms of Judaism, which as interpretedby the true prophet are enough to fill the 12 tribes of Israel (and thenations with the leftovers). As the water in Jacob's well could not stopthe thirst, so the bread from heaven could not hinder that the fatherswho ate died (Jn 6.58). Only in Christ could these necessities becometransformed to living water and living bread.

The Request for an Identification of Simon the Justand Ben Sira 50.25-26

With two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is no nation: those wholive in Seir48 and Philistea, and the foolish people49 that live in Shechem.

place name Sychar. The weakness in Montgomery's argumentation lies in the inter-pretative insecurity, since the Gospel gives no literary evidence for Montgomery'sclaim.

46. lot) naipoq fiuxov is missing in some manuscripts. Could that reflect a wishto avoid a Samaritan terminology? See Freed, 'John's Gospel and Samaritan Con-verts', pp. 247, 242, who, however, is not aware of the apparatus.

47. AF p. 108: Deut. 34.10.48. So the Hebrew text according to H.L. Strack, Spriiche Jesus, des Sohnes

Sirachs (Leipzig: Georg Bohme, 1903); LXX reads ev opei Za|iapeiac;.49. Hebrew ̂ ^a, cf. also Deut. 32.2land Deut. 32.6 ^33 DJJ; in both instances

the allusion is that of a godless people; Sir. 49.5 renders the same wording in theHebrew text, but is usually translated 'foreign people' because of LXX's eGveiDSFDGF

1 26 The Samaritans and Early Judaism

This utterance following the praise of the high priest Simeon ben Yoch-anan in Sir. 50.1-24 has given scholarship difficulties in identifyingboth the people mentioned and especially the circumstances that couldhave brought forward such a statement of hatred. Could it be possiblethat we here have the first genuine testimony of the hatred betweenJews and Samaritans that Josephus so often refers to? Are these Sama-ritans the same Samaritans as in Josephus' s writings? The placement ofthe verses between the doxology and the author's epilogue has givenreason to doubt its genuineness.50 However, since no texts, neitherGreek nor Hebrew, witness any variant readings of the composition assuch, its genuineness cannot be seriously challenged. Coggins's sug-gestion that the placement fulfils the need of drawing a contrast betweenthe glories of Simeon and the wickedness of those here condemned51

can be given further weight if we accept the Hebrew reading of v. 24:'May his love abide upon Simon, and may he keep in him the covenantof Phinehas; may one never be cut off from him; and as for his off-spring, (may it be) as the days of heaven.' Although almost all trans-lators here follow the Greek variant52 they agree with the exegetes inaccepting the Hebrew reading of v. 25 's VIHD for LXX's Eauxxpeiac;,since this is believed to give historical meaning and can also be arguedon the basis of the Vulgate.53 According to this exegesis, vv. 25-26bring a condemnation of the main enemies of Israel:

1. The people of Seir, usually understood to be the Edomites, arecondemned for being enemies since the return from exile. This assertionis based on such texts as Obadiah 11-14; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21; Ezek.25.12-14; 25.3; Mai. 1.2-5; Jdt. 7.8, 18. According to 1 Mace. 5.65-68and Josephus, Ant. 12.353, Hebron and nearby villages were ruled bythe Idumaeans in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. They probably hadconquered this fertile area during the Jewish exile. We probably also

Hebrew: DDBD (verb: 111) TIHB n»r DP IDrK 'B^SOm 't0EH H^p D^a ^BD~nn ^33 •'131 nefrsi; cf. Strack, Spruche Jesus.

LXX: 'Ev Svoiv eGveoiv rcpoocoxSiaev f] \)/vxri iioi), Kai TO TpiTOv DDK eoiive9voq- oi KCtGfpevoi ev opei Eafiapeiat; Kai O\)A.ioTii(i Kai 6 Xaoq 6 (j-copoq 6KaioiKrov ev ZIKI|J,OI<;.

50. G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepi-grapha, p. 511, who consider it to be a late addition inserted at the final redaction ofthe book.

51. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 83.52. 'May he entrust to us his mercy, and may he deliver us in our days.'53. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 86.


should add the accusation of 1 Esd. 4.45 that it was the Edomites whoburned the temple 'when Judaea was laid waste by the Chaldeans' andthat they held illegally 'the villages of the Jews' (1 Esd. 4.50). To thecomplexity of the picture, however, belongs the fact that in Ezekiel'soracles against the nations (chs. 25-37), only Edom and Philistea arementioned together with Ammon, Moab, Tyre, Sidon and Egypt. Sam-aria, on the contrary, both shares a fate with Judaea and takes part in arestoration and re-unification under Davidic rule (cf. Ezek. 37.15-28).Neither does 1 Maccabees nor Josephus speak of any Judaean con-quests of Samaria in the time of Judas Maccabaeus. This conquest,according to Josephus, takes place in the time of John Hyrcanus and hissons some decades later.

2. The Philistines are considered enemies because of their increasingHellenization since the Macedonian takeover.

3. 'But the most hated of all were the people of Shechem, i.e. Samari-tans, as is well known; they were as Smend54 points out, especiallydangerous to their neighbours at this time, because the Seleucidae hadmade common cause with them against the Jews.'55 These views werealso put forward by Di Leila,56 who, paraphrazing Ezra 4.1-24, claimedthe Samaritans to be even more hated than the heathens because of theiropposition to the temple-building activities and their relationship to theSeleucids. Di Leila based himself on Purvis,57 who dated the originaledition of Ben Sira to 180 BCE and the translation to 132 BCE. Purvis,however, did not agree on the Seleucid relationship as a reason for BenSira's remark about 'the foolish people', since neither Samaritan norJewish policy at that time (before the Maccabaean uprising) proved tobe particularly consistent, but rather shifted according to circumstancesand benefits.58 Maintaining the early chronology for Ben Sira, Purvis

54. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, p. 491.55. Thus the opinion maintained by G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley in Charles,

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, based on a reading of 1 Mace. 3.10 and Josephus,Ant. 12.257-64.

56. Skehan and Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558.57. J.D. Purvis, 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965),

pp. 88-94; repr. in idem, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the SamaritanSect (HSM, 2; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29.

58. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123: 'Just as Jerusalem experienced anumber of policy shifts, in pro-Ptolemaic/pro-Syrian policy, so too would Shechemhave undergone a comparable experience with the changing political climate of Pal-estine.'


rather stressed the importance of the utterance's relation with the praiseof the high priest Simeon, son of Onias. This Simeon has, since Zeitlinand Moore,59 been considered to be the famous Simon II whom rab-binic tradition names Simon the Just and whom Josephus erroneouslycalls Simon I.60 The rabbinic tractate Megillat Ta'anit, called the Fastscroll,61 accounts that at the time of this Simon some Samaritans askedpermission from Alexander the Great to build a temple at MountMoriah. The real purpose, however, was to destroy Jerusalem's temple.With the interference of Simon the Just, these plans were thwarted. TheSamaritan attempt turned into its opposite, and, as a punishment,Gerizim was ploughed and sown with 'an undesirable plant'. Since thenthe 21st of Kislev was celebrated as 'the day of Gerizim', a day onwhich fasting and mourning is prohibited. The story builds on the well-known motif 'he was hoist with his own petard'. It has close parallels toJosephus's story about Alexander the Great's meeting with the Jewishhigh priest Jaddua (Ant. 11.297-347) and to the Samaritan chroniclesAbu'1-Fath and Adler, which mention that Jerusalem was attacked at

59. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, p. 123 n. 13: G.F. Moore, 'Simeon, the Righ-teous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams (NewYork: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64; Moore, Judaism, I, pp. 34-36; R. Marcus, The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous)', LCL365, Appendix B, pp. 732-36.

60. That Josephus is mistaken here is argued on the background of the 'testi-mony' given in Ben Sira together with references to Onias, the builder of theEgyptian temple, son of Simeon the Just in various rabbinic passages (t. Sot. 8.6-8;y. Yom. 43c; b. Yom. 39a, b; b. Men. 109b). The list of high priests in the Hellenisticperiod given in m. Ab. makes Simeon the Just the first high priest in a series ofseven generations of teachers of whom Jose ben Joezer, third in line, is datable as acontemporary of Alcimus (161 BCE), Simeon ben Shetah, the fifth in line, is datableas a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, and Hillel and Shammai,seventh in line, is datable to the time of Herod the Great. This should statisticallyplace Simeon the Just around 200 BCE (see LCL 365, Appendix B).

61. H. Lichtenstein, 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-Hellenis-tischen Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-352 (288, 339-40); b. Yom.69a. Lichtenstein places the episode in the time of John Hyrcanus because of thedestruction of the temple at Gerizim. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in theAge of Jesus Christ (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al.\ 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1973-87), I, pp. 114-15, dates the text to early second century CE. It is writ-ten in Aramaic (b. §ab. 13b) and relates that the author was Hananiah ben Hezekiahben Garon. The scroll contains a list of the days on which it was forbidden to fast.Cf. also Jdt. 8.6; m. Ta'an. 2.8; y. Ta'an. 66a; b. RoS. Has. 18b.


the time of King Simon. The story is usually considered to be legendaryand worthless since the chronology is confused. Zeitlin suggested thatthe historical nucleous was about Antiochus III, whom he considered tobe contemporary with Simon the Just. Josephus's remark that the Sama-ritan 'flourishing' led them to suppress the Jews at the time of Onias II,son of Simon I the Just, could have given reason for the anti-Samaritanremark in Sir. 50.25-26.

Purvis62 followed Tcherikover's63 claim that the ruling priestly classof Jerusalem, together with Simon the Just and the wealthy Tobiads,were pro-Seleucid and, in contrast to the Samaritans' pro-Ptolemaicopinions, supported by the Transjordanian Tobiads. The Samaritansaccordingly prospered during the Ptolemaic rule established throughAntiochus Ill's league with Ptolemy, whom he had assigned Coele-syria, Samaria, Judaea and Phoenicia as a dowry to his daughter Cleo-patra (Ant. 12.154-56). Purvis's argumentation for the influence of theTobiads is based on Nehemiah 13 and on Josephus's account about thesuccess of the tax collector Joseph, son of Tobiah and his relations to'friends in Samaria' (Ant. 12.160-227, esp. 168). Further testimony isgiven in Josephus's account about controversies among the priests ofJeru-salem's temple, fostered by the high priest Simon's support forJoseph's sons, who had been treated unfairly when the licence of taxa-tion was given to the youngest son Hyrcanus. Living near Heshbon inTransjordan and protected by Ptolemy Epiphanes, Hyrcanus maintainedhis father's pro-Ptolemaic relations (Ant. 12.228ff.).64

On principle, Coggins agreed with Purvis on the possibility of thisscenario. The weakness of the argument, however, related to inconsis-tences of the Megillat Ta 'anit traditions and the chronological prob-lems, together with Josephus's use of Samareis, which could indicatethat the population of Samaria was intended. Finally, Ben Sira'scharacter as wisdom literature made Coggins more cautious in seekingany historizisation and harmonization of the various sources.65

To this we could add also the uncertainity about the dating of Eccle-siasticus. The assumed inherent date of 180 BCE can easily be dis-missed since the foreword of the text maintains that the translated

62. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 127-28.63. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Athe-

neum, 1975), pp. 81-89.64. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 127-28.65. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 85.


Greek version might differ from the underlying text, as it in fact does inmany instances, according to the old Hebrew fragments found in 1896and among DSS in the 1950s, not to speak of the Syriac and Latin frag-ments. The using of the grandfather as authority for a manuscript is awell-known pseudonymous device and should not be given too muchcredit as an indication of authorial identity. Assuming that the grand-father wrote the book when he was young is another fallacy that cannotbe given any serious support and in fact is implicitly contradicted in theforeword, when it relates that the grandfather acquired considerableproficiency in the reading of the Law, the Prophets and the other books.The stock motif of the teaching of the elders found in such various textsas Egyptian wisdom literature, Greek philosophy and Old Testamentpsalms and sermons (Pss. 44.2; 48.9, 14; Deut. 6.20-25, Qohelet)should be taken into consideration here. The time span between manu-scripts is only one of guessing and projecting, and the only 'certain'date is the dating in the foreword (post 132 BCE).

The Megillat Ta'anit reference raises similar chronological problems.Without any evidence for a dating of this passage, we are left to projectthat the celebration of the 21st Kislev either occurs rather late or hadgone out of use in Josephus's time, since neither 1 Maccabees nor Philoand especially Josephus bring any evidence of knowledge of this cele-bration. This is the more striking since other festival days mentioned inthe scroll are attested in this literature.66

Ben Sira's character as wisdom literature and the difficulties ofaddressing it to any specific form of Judaism led Nodet67 to connect itto the rabbinic mention of Simon the Just in m. Ab. 1.2. Nodet consid-ered this Simon to have functioned as a mediator for the various formsof Judaism that developed in the postexilic period:

Pirke Abot 1.1: 'Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it toJoshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and theprophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They saidthree things: Be deliberate in judgement, raise up many disciples, andmake a fence around the Law.

66. 1 Maccabees: the 23rd of lyyar, the 23rd of Marcheschwan, the 25th ofKislev, the 13th of Adar; Philo: the 22nd Schebat; Josephus: the 15th and 16th ofSiwan, the 2nd and 22nd of Schebat, the 17th and 20th of Adar (source: Lichten-stein, 'Die Fastenrolle' passim).

67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism.


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

The idea of the Great Synagogue as being a single generation prior toSimon the Just formed the backbone of Nodet's interpretation. Thisgeneration that had just returned from exile revised the 'Bible' andinstituted the weekly sabbath, which previously had been connectedwith the phases of the New Moon. They were Hasidic Jews who wereclearly separated from the Judaean Jews and their temple, and who,because of political circumstances, raised new discussions with otherJewish groups, among them also Samaritans. As a result of these dis-cussions, the Pentateuch underwent certain revisions and Deuteronomywas added to it. Simon seemed to be the only person who succeeded incombining this Babylonian oral Torah with the functions of the highpriesthood and thus made real the decrees of Antioch III.70

As an expression of a temple function that does not stand in the tra-dition of the fathers and does not make connections with the foundersof the temple: David, Solomon, Zerubbabel and Jeshua, Simon the Justbecomes a bridge builder to the rabbinic tradition of the Law as the realtemple. Placed in the Moses-Ezra tradition, not mentioned in Pirke

68. Text: iTTQDn; an explanatory note gives that this should be understood:enpon rrn rrms.

69. The discussions about the great synagogue are concerned about whether itwas (1) a synodic institution, as the commentary to m. Ab. 1.1 (Tif. Yis.): 'A body of120 elders, including many prophets, who came up from the exile with Ezra; theysaw that prophecy had come to an end and that restraint was lacking; therefore theymade many new rules and restrictions for the better observance of the law', andb. Meg. 17b; m. Meg. 1.6. y. Meg. 1.5 counts 85 elders (the same as the numberssigning the declaration in Neh. 10.1-28) and more than 30 prophets); (2) a popularassembly whose authority is similar to that of the Greek polis system; (3) a singlegeneration that has become significant in tradition. Tradition has ascribed increas-ing activities to this generation in the writing of the Law. From being only heirs ofthe Law they have become responsible for its formation (cf. Nodet, Origins ofJudaism, pp. 277-86). Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 358-59, gives adetailed description of the history of scholarship on this subject. Taking up thework of A. Kuenen, 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge' (1876; reprint 1894:'Uber die Manner der grossen Synagoge') which rejected the idea of a synodicinstitution or any authoritative institution at all, the hypothesis about Simon the Justas one of its remnants fell apart and Schiirer's conclusion could not admit Simon (IIprobably) as more than a high priest praised for his piety.

70. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 271-77, 335, 381-84.


Abot, but in m. Par. 3.5 (the preparation of the red heifer, cf. Num.19.1-11), he is instituted in a high priestly function that is given only tothe select few. Thus Simeon the Just, third in line, becomes the directheir of the Mosaic tradition and the first in line of the rabbis. Similarlythe third reference to Simon the Just in m. Sot. 13.5-6 when on the dayof atonement he goes into the holiest of holies, is a reference to a highpriestly function which combines law, purification and atonement.

Nodet's assumption of a connection between Ben Sira 50's Simonson of Onias and rabbinic literature's Simon the Just, who should beplaced in the time of Antiochus III, is the well-established assumptionput forward by, for example, G.F. Moore:

The public work for which Simon is here lauded, the repairs on theTemple and the strengthening of its fortifications and those of the city,would fit very well with this date when Jerusalem had recently beentaken and retaken in the struggle between Syria and Egypt.71

It becomes clear, however, that Moore's assumption is not one ofevidence, but one of hypothesis. The acceptance of this hypothesis isbased on tradition rather than on proof, and we must admit that thefoundation for bringing these various traditions together is indeed veryweak. The problem of identifying Simon I or II the Just still remainsunresolved, and for unknown reasons he seems to disappear as soon ashe is mentioned. Thus Josephus's various references in, for example,Ant. 12.43-44 and 12.157-58 refer to his death as a way of giving roomfor the next high priest to take over and become the main character inthe story. Similarly, the mention of Simeon II son of Onias, who is fol-lowed by Onias III in Ant. 12.224-25. It is remarkable that in Josephus'stradition, it is a Jaddua, who meets Alexander (Ant. 11.317, 326-39),Eleazar who corresponds with Ptolemy II Philadelphus about JewishScriptures (Ant. 12.45ff.),72 Onias (III) who brings danger over the

71. Moore, Judaism I, pp. 34-35: 'It is a tempting conjecture that in the storyfrom which Yoma 69 was derived, the king whom Simeon went out to make hispeace with was not originally Alexander, but one of these contending monarchs,most likely Antiochus III.'

72. In 3 Mace. 2.1-24 the Jewish high priest Simeon's prayer for divine inter-vention when Ptolemy IV Philometer (221-205 BCE) plans to enter the sanctuaryleads to Ptolemy's cruel treatment of the Jews, cessation of civil rights and forcedworship of Dionysius. The denial of this leads to an order of deportation of all Jewsto Alexandria. It is only at the prayer by a 'certain Eleazar, famous among thepriests of the country' that Ptolemy regrets his decision, delivers and defends the


people by refusing to pay the taxes to Ptolemy Euergertes (Ant. 12.158-59) and who is the receiver of the letter from Areios, king of the Lace-daemonians (Ant. 12.225-26). It thus becomes more than conspicuousthat Josephus does not mention any high priest in the story about Anti-ochus Ill's war with Ptolemy Philopator and the decrees given to theJews (Ant. 12.129-53). This of course makes it possible to place SimeonII in this period, if one accept Josephus's rather confusing chronology.Placing Simeon I, son of Onias I (successor of Jaddua) in the time ofPtolemy I Soter (367-283 BCE) followed by his brother Eleazar, whobecomes high priest in the time of Ptolemy II (282-246 BCE) becauseof Simeon's son Onias's young age. Eleazar is followed by his uncleManasses. Finally, after his death, Onias II obtains the priesthood in thetime of Ptolemy III Euergertes (246-221 BCE) or perhaps more prob-ably in the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205) and V Epiphanes(205-180), an office he held as long as the Tobiad Joseph, the tax col-lector, was in service (22 years). Only hereafter do we meet Simeon II,son of Onias II, and, in the time of Ptolemy V and Antiochus Ill's sonSeleucus IV Philopator (187-175) (cf. Ant. 12.224) (sic) after the timeof Antiochus III (223-187). Onias III, whose death caused the manycontroversies we meet in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164BCE). This scheme's long time span of nearly 50 years between thedeath of Onias II, who is said to have been in office for 22 years, andOnias III makes it chronologically possible to place Simeon II the Justin the time of Antiochus III. We simply have to ask why Josephus doesnot do this and why none of Antiochus's decrees refers to any highpriest or high priestly office? If Ben Sira's praise of Simeon ben Yocha-nan is a praise of a high priest at that time, it is a wonder why it neverfound its way into Josephus's writings, or is in any way reflected in hislist of high priests in Ant. 20.234. Rabbinic literature's re-use of theJaddua (Simeon)-Alexander story does not make this story more plaus-ible. Quite the contrary! The confusion of names here should warn usabout how legends can be used to make up for the lack of historicalfacts.

Should there, however, be any historical nucleus in the Simeon theJust traditions, these might perhaps more convincingly become appliedto the Hasmonaean Simeon (high priest from 142-135 BCE), son ofMattathias 'son of John, son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib

Jews and attain to them certain privileges. This story certainly disfavours Simeonand honours Eleazar.


from Jerusalem' (1 Mace. 2.1). He is the one also praised for his highpriestly duties in 1 Maccabees 13-14. That rabbinic literature does notmake this connection might be seen in the light of this literature's gen-erally anti-Hasmonaean attitude. This Simeon is surnamed jPDH "plTT pin the Hebrew manuscript of Ben Sira. In its Greek form in the LXX, hisname is written EIJICOV Ovioi) mot; and here called iepeix; 6 iieyaq. It issaid about him that he 'hastened to complete the walls of Jerusalem,and he fortified it on every side' (1 Mace. 13.10) and that he 'built upthe strongholds of Judaea and walled them all around, with high towersand great walls and gates and bolts, and he stored food in the strong-holds' (13.33). 'He strengthened the fortifications of the temple hill andalongside the citadel and he and his men lived there' (13.52b); 'he forti-fied it for the safety of the country and of the city, and built the walls ofJerusalem higher' (14.37); 'he made the sanctuary glorious and addedto the vessels of the sanctuary' (14.15). Against this Sir. 50.1b-2 soundsalmost an echo: 'who in his life repaired the house, and in his time forti-fied the temple. He laid the foundations for the high double walls, thehigh retaining walls for the temple enclosure.' And Josephus in Ant.13.202 states, '[H]e made haste to rebuild the city; and when he hadmade it secure with very high and strong towers.'

In the praise of Simeon in 1 Mace. 14.4-14, it is related how

the land had rest all the days of Simeon. He sought the good of hisnation... They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, andthe trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they talkedtogether of good things... He established peace in the land and Israelrejoiced with great joy.

And in 14.16-24 it is said that the renown of this great high priest andethnarch of the Jews had reached as far as Rome and Sparta and thatthey were pleased to renew their former leagues of friendship.

When the great assembly (1 Mace. 14.28) decides to honour Simeonby making records on bronze tablets and put them upon pillars onMount Zion, they refer to his and his brothers' fight; to the offerings hehas brought; how he withdrew the heathens/foreign people (id e9vr|)(14.36), not only from the country but also from the city of David inJerusalem,73 and fortified the city; and to the renown he had acquired.The declaration is closed by a repetition of the appointment as high

73. Contrary to Judg. 1.21.


priest and ethnarch, supplied with royal privileges and given the chargeof the sanctuary. Thus in 14.35,

The people [6 Xaoq] saw Simeon's faithfulness [TTIV rcicmv] and theglory which he had resolved to win for his nation [TOO e9vei OUTOU], andthey made him their leader [fryoiju.evov] and high priest [dp%iepea],because he had done all these things and because of the justice [8iKcao-cruvriv] and loyalty [ir|v TUOTIV] which he had maintained toward hisnation. He sought in every way to exalt his people [TOV Xaov]... Andtherefore the Jews and their priests have decided that Simeon should betheir leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet shouldarise [eox; TO\> dvaoTfjvai npO(|>fiTr|V KIOTOv].74

That he is not one among several is clearly marked out when in v. 43 itis stated 'that he should be obeyed by all, and that all the contracts inthe country should be written in his name'. This decree must be read onthe basis of 1 Mace. 13.41-42:

In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gentiles wasremoved from Israel, and the people began to write in their documentsand contracts, 'In the first year of Simeon the great high priest and com-mander and leader of the Jews'.

This is no less than being master in one's own house; no longer is itnecessary to legalize documents by writing under Seleucid or Ptolemaicseal. That is the reason for the uniqueness for which he is praised byBen Sira.75 He is not appointed high priest but elected by the people andlegitimated by the people. This might have caused some disagreementsand certainly we know that Simeon's peaceful reign soon becamethreatened by the surrounding enemies, especially the newly conqueredareas, Lydda, Ephraim, Ramathaim, Gazara, Bet Sur, and so on, whichAntiochus VII Sidetes fought hard to reconquer. Geographically and

74. In 4QTest. and in T. Levi 5.2 it is Levi who is appointed. Christianity's his-torisizing use of the Deuteronomic expression, 'until there arise a prophet likeMoses', should not in all instances lead us to the conclusion that Judaism or Sama-ritanism expected such a prophet to arise soon. In 1 Maccabees the titular use of theexpression seems to designate scribal piety rather than eschatology.

75. For the first time in 'postexilic' history it is not a king or a governor whoorders and brings out the rebuilding of the sanctuary. In contrast, the placement ofSimeon in the time of Antiochus III becomes problematic, since the high priestwould not have been given the honour for the rebuilding if this was done in accor-dance with Antiochus's decree.


politically the Seleucid dominion included those living in Shechemalso.

The mention of the great synagogue (cruvaycoyri u€ydA,ri) makes theliterary connection to the rabbinic reference to Simeon the Just andn^tn nO]DH (m. Ab. 1.1). The term's usage outside of rabbinic litera-ture is insignificant. In fact, it occurs only in the text mentioned in1 Mace. 14.28, and in two instances in DSS.76 One in 4Q252 (4QpGena)which in messianic language speaks about the righteous messiah (1.3)and the assembly of men (1.6):

1. There shall not] cease a ruler from the tribe of Judah (rniiT);when there shall be dominion for Israel

2. there will not] be cut off a king in it belonging to (the line of)David (Til1? NOD DtZJV). For the ruler's staff is the royalmandate;

3. the families of Israel are the feet. Until the Messiah of Righ-teousness shall come, the shoot of

4. David (TH HQ^ pf^n ITOD KB Itf) for to him and to hisseed has been given the royal mandate (mn^Q rr"Q) over hispeople for everlasting generations; which

5. has awaited ("IQCZ?) [...the interpreter of?] the Law (mm),with the men of the Community (Tim "£GK) for

6. ...] it is the Assembly of the men of CCHK HODD)77

The second reference is found in 4QpNah frag. 3-4, col. Ill 7, whichrefers to 'the seeker of smooth things', whose community shall die andtheir assembly become cursed (DDOiD rn")D3). It thus seems reasonbleto assume that the references concern a certain constitutive group,which can be dated, and only later was applied to Simeon II in rabbinicliterature.81 Rabbinic animosity against the Hasmonaeans might haveestablished a tradition that avoided praising the Hasmonaean Simeon.

76. J.H. Charlesworth, Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubin-gen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991) refers to this text and to 4QpNah. 3, 7. See,further, J.M. Allegro, 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 15(1956), pp. 174-87. The widespread use of ^Hp in biblical literature seems not to beequivalent to rabbinic rh~ttT] DO]D.

77. The translation is from Allegro, 'Messianic References', pp. 171-76.78. L. Finkelstein, 'The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-gedolah', JBL 59

(1940), pp. 455-69 (456): 'It was quite natural for the Talmudic Sages who tele-scoped the whole Persian period into a single generation (thirty-four years), (S. 'Ol.R., c30, ed. Ratner 7 la; b. 'Abod. Zar. 9a) to identify also the first and the second of


2 Chronicles 28.1-27This text offers a third possibility for identification. As the only biblicaltext, it brings together Shechemites, Edomites and Philistines in a com-mon attack on Judaea. This event's compositional connection withHezekiah's good leadership and high priestly merits in 2 Chron. 29.1-32.33 could have functioned as the literary pattern for Ben Sira 50'spraise of Simeon and the rebuke of 'the foolish people in Shechem'. Inthe Samaritan Chronicle 2 (2 Kgs-2 Chron. §JD*), they refused theinvitation of Hezekiah with the argument that the passover had to becelebrated on Mt Gerizim. The details of the biblical story is somewhatobscure and the information that Zikri (2 Chron. 28.7) from the tribe ofEphraim is a member of the Samaritan Israelites is given only in theSamaritan Chronicle §ID*. This version also relates that the leaders ofthe Samaritan Israelites are those responsible for the return of the cap-tives, in both texts called brethren (DTTN). King Ahaz is attacked notonly from the ten tribes of Israel,79 but also from the Edomites(2 Chron. 29.17) and Philistines (v. 18). The description of the templeservice in Sir. 50.11-24 has close parallels to 2 Chron. 29.30-36. In bothinstances, we are dealing with a new situation that needs to be placed ina cultic context. In both instances, the description is inserted in adescription of royal duties, such as the repair of the temple (Sir. 50.1-2;2 Chron. 29.1, 5-19; 31.11) and the making of the conduit and waterpool (Sir. 50.3; 2 Chron. 32.3-4, 30). It is significant that Hezekiah'sreform of 2 Chronicles is inaugurated by the celebration of the pass-over. With the participation of some few from Ephraim, Manasseh,Issachar and Zebulon, the aim is reconciliation or perhaps more cor-rectly unification, expressed in the words 'that there was a great joy inJerusalem for since the days of Solomon, the son of David king ofIsrael, no such thing had happened in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26). First

these national assemblies. This necessiated placing Simeon the Righteous a centurybefore his time, making him the contemporary of Alexander the Great, and there-fore (according to his chronology) a younger contemporary of Ezra. Hence it cameabout that in the Mishnaic tradition, Simeon the Righteous, whose name was in-extricably associated with the second of the Great Assemblies, is described as "oneof the survivors of the Great Assembly", meaning the first (and for Talmudic sages,the only) Great Assembly.'

79. Samaritan tradition counts eight northern tribes, independent of the Samari-tan Israelites, who are believed to have originated from Joseph's Ephraim and Men-asseh branches. See Chapter 6 below.


thereafter are the cult places torn down throughout all Judah, Benjamin,Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chron. 31.1). The high priest is remarkablyabsent in 2 Chronicle 29's description of the temple rededication. Thepriests maintain the conduct of the offerings and the king's role is(together with the assembly, ^Tfp) to lay his hands on the he-goats(2 Chron. 29.23), a function that is given to Aaron in Lev. 16.21. Thesequence of events in the Chronicler's description of Judaean-Samarianhostilities, which with fatal conclusions for both areas brought in theAssyrians, is in a different context similar to events of the Graeco-Roman period. Thus it is quite appropriate to ask whether Ben Sira'made use' of the Chronicler's material or whether these later events infact gave voice to both versions.

The Foolish People in Shechem: Who Are Theyl

In Prep. Ev. 9.22, Eusebius 'quotes' Alexander Polyhistor's referenceto Theodotius's poem about Levi's and Simeon's attack on Shechem(the Shechem poem). This author who is mentioned also in Josephus'sApion 1.216 is unknown, and it has long been assumed that he was ofSamaritan origin.80 This assumption, which based itself on the poem'sreference to the town of Shechem as 'holy' and to Shechem as beingthe son of Hermes,81 has only recently been challenged by J.J. Collins.82

He established definitely that Theodotus was a militant Jew and that theuse of 'Hermes' must be ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor's transmis-sion of the text, since Theodotius elsewhere consistently wrote 'Emor'(the same as biblical Hamor). The outline of the poem follows closelythe similar story of Genesis 34. Yet it is remarkable that it representssignificant differences. The prelude to the events is more or less thesame as in the Genesis variant. The poem offers a description of thecity, which is declared holy. It is situated between two mountains and it

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

81. Expressing the 'well-known' Hellenization of the Samaritans.82. 'Epic of Theodotus', p. 102.


is surrounded by a wall.83 Jacob arrives at this city after his travels inMesopotamia, his two marriages and the birth of his sons and his pre-cious daughter Dinah. The rape of Dinah at a feast, and of Shechem andhis father's request to Jacob for marriage, is told briefly. Jacob refusesthe request giving the reason that the Shechemites have to be circum-cised and convert to Judaism, since it is stated, 'Hebrews are notallowed to marry a foreigner, but only those of their own race, and thatthe circumcision is commanded by God through Abraham'. Before theevent of the circumcision, however, Simeon and Levi are urged by Godto annihilate the unjust and evil citizens in Shechem. After their killingof Emmor and Shechem, the remaining brothers participate in the mas-sacre in the city. Thus the poem is presented in Eusebius's Praeparatiowith Alexander Polyhistor's commentary, and, in this version, it hasbeen compared with other stories of the same 'event'.

Significant differences in the various parallel accounts84 concern:(1) circumcision; (2) God's intervention; (3) the unjust and evil citizensof the city; (4) Jacob's reaction; and (5) Levi's status after the event.

Jubilees 30.1-6 is in many ways more in accord with the Shechempoem than with the variant story in Genesis 34. There is no perfor-mance of circumcision in Jub. 30.3-4:

then they spoke treacherously with them and defrauded them and seducedthem. And Simeon and Levi entered Shechem suddenly. And they exe-cuted judgment upon all the men of Shechem and killed every man theyfound therein and did not leave in it even one. They killed everyonepainfully because they had polluted Dinah, their sister.

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

83. The dating of this wall, probably built during Alexander the Great's timeand destroyed/dilapidated in the mid-second century BCE, have been influential inthe dating of the poem. Cf. the discussion in Collins, 'Epic of Theodotus'.

84 Cf. also Gen. 34; Jub. 30; T. Levi 7; Jdt. 9.1-6; Jos. Asen. 2.23; Pseudo-Philo 8; Josephus, Ant. 1.337-42.


origin as such. In Gen. 34.15-16's conclusion, circumcision is set as asolution to the ethnicity problem:

If you will become as we are and every male of you be circumcised, thenwe will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters toourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people [DU1?

~W-This solution of the conflict must be seen in connection with Hamor'sand Shechem's offer to Jacob and his sons to dwell freely in the countryand profit from it (Gen. 34.9-12). Hamor and Shechem bring the sameargument to their own countrymen in their persuasion of the act of cir-cumcision, weighing the benefits of being one people (vv. 22-23). Notbefore the third day after the conduct of the circumcision do Simeonand Levi attack the Shechemites and kill every male citizen, includingHamor and Shechem. Having carried Dinah away from the house, theremaining brothers plundered the city.

These acts in Genesis have as their conclusion Jacob's rebuke ofSimeon and Levi for having made him 'odious to the inhabitants of theland, the Canaanites and the Perizzites' (v. 30). Consequently, they arecursed rather than blessed in 'Jacob's blessing' in Gen. 49.5-7, whichdoes not mention 'the evil people'. In Jub. 14.24-25 we are faced withJacob's worry, which is superfluous here, since 'the terror of the lordwas in all the cities which surrounded Shechem and they did not rise upto pursue the sons of Jacob because a dread had fallen upon them'. Thissame text we find in Gen. 35.5, but not until after Jacob has com-manded the people to purify themselves and change their garments andto give to him all the foreign gods 'that are among you', and the ear-rings, which he hides under the oak that is at Shechem. After this Jacobgoes to Luzah in the land of Canaan, where he raises an altar to 'El Bet-'El. In Jubilees, a similar act with foreign gods is supplied with theinformation that also 'the idols which Rachel stole from Laban' were'burned and crushed and destroyed' (Jub. 31.2; cf. also Gen. 31.19, 30-35). Genesis does not give this information, and the reader is left withthe question of whether it was Shechem's gods or whether it wasJacob's own gods that were buried. This doubt could be intentional andmight have as its implicit comment Jacob's answer to Laban: 'Anyonewith whom you find your gods shall not live' (Gen. 31.32). Much later,this unsolved problem still formed part of the Judaean-Samaritandispute. Thus the Talmud relates a dispute taking place in the end of thesecond century CE: On his way to Jerusalem, R. Ismael ben Joseph,


falling into a dispute with a Samaritan at Shechem, accused the Samari-tans of worshipping the idols hidden under Gerizim by Jacob on hisreturn from Haran. Certainly, the rabbi had to run for his life.85 Jose-phus might for the same reasons have found it necessary to state explic-itly that it was the gods Rachel had secretly stolen that Jacob 'hid in theground beneath an oak at Shechem' (Ant. 1.342).

The question of blessing or cursing is combined with the question ofGod's intervention and is given a more central role in the stories thatseek to justify the act. Thus Thodotius's Shechem poem tells that Godinspired Simeon and Levi. The same motif is found in Jub. 30.6. In Jub.30.17, 18-19 and 23, their act is declared 'a righteousness for them...written down on heavenly tablets...as a blessing'. Furthermore, becauseof this act, Levi and his sons are chosen for the priesthood, an electionwhich, in the Pentateuch, is combined with Exodus's 'golden calf story(see further below 'The Levites in Jewish Tradition').

The Testament of Levi brings a reference to the 'event', for theunderstanding of which one needs knowledge of some of the moreelaborated stories. Combining various traditions, the reference mentionsthe circumcision and Jacob's rebuke of his sons' acts. Jacob's opinion,however, is corrected by the statement that his sons acted in accordancewith the will of God. Because of the evil of the Shechemites against thenomads in the time of Abraham, the anger of the lord ultimately cameover them. As in the Shechem poem, the sin has become a conditionand is not entirely related to a single affective act. To Jacob the promiseis given that through him the Canaanites will be exterminated and theirland given to him and his seed: 'because from this day forward Shechemshall be called City of the Senseless (7i6A,i<; dcruveicGv), because as onemight scoff at a fool,86 so we scoffed at them, because by defiling mysister they committed folly in Israel' (T. Levi 7.2).87

The text stands in the same tradition as Genesis 34-37: 'he hadwrought folly in Israel fptnern rta nt2W] by lying with Jacob'sdaughter, for such a thing ought not to be done'. The use of the term

85. I am indebted to Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 168, for this reference toGen.R. c.81; Deut. R. c.3.

86. TOV jicopov; cf. also Sir. 51.26: 6 Xaoq 6 uxopoq.87. Jdt. 5.16 similarly counts the Shechemites among the enemies: 'and they

drove out before them the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Jebusites and theShechemites and all the Gergesites'. The Shechemites here replace Hivvites in otherlists, referring to Hamor in Gen. 34.2 called the prince of the Hivvites.


^33 ('futile/worthless/godless/foolish') has here a clear parallel toTamar's saying to Amnon when he wants her to lie with him, 'Do notdo this wanton folly [HNTn rteirrnK rTOn ^K]. As for me, where couldI carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the wantonfools in Israel frioer:! D^run into], 2 Sam. 13.13. This story seemsto form a variant of the Shechem story containing the same elementsand a similar plot line. Another variant of the theme is given in Judges19-21 's story about the war between the tribe of Benjamin and theremaining tribes. The rape of an Ephraimite's concubine is the provok-ing factor. Three times the expression ^NIC^O n^ 7WV is employed(Judg. 19.23; 20.6, 10). These scanty occurrences of ^33 in all instancesdesignate a serious transgression of God's ordinances. It is foundmostly in texts dealing with sexuality,88 but its deeper meaning isrooted in the question of sacrilege and disobedience, as the usage inJosh. 7.15, Deut. 32.6 and 1 Samuel 25 clearly shows.

Testament of Judah only refers indirectly to the Shechem incident(4.1), and there is no mention of it in Judah's commandment to hischildren to love Levi and accept that the priesthood is superior to thekingship given to Judah (21.1-2).

Judith 9.2-4 is significant for praising Simeon in her address of theprayer to 'O Lord God of my father Simeon'. Simeon is here praised forhaving taken revenge on the foreigners that had defiled the virgin.89

Neither Levi nor the eternal priesthood are mentioned; nor is circumci-sion. The shamelessness of the deceit and zealousness in keeping God'scommandments ('for thou hast said, "This shall not be done"—yet theydid it', v. 2) are the central themes in Judith's version.

In Josephus, Ant. 1.337-42, the incident, as in Theodotus's Shechempoem, takes place during a festival. Dinah's curiosity brings her into thetown where she is raped. In the request for marriage, Jacob becomesuncertain about what to do. Because of the petitioner's rank, he has dif-ficulties in refusing the request although the law against foreign mar-riage makes it necessary to do so. The decision is left to his sons tomake, of whom none but Simeon and Levi take courage to take revengeon and liberate their sister. As in most instances, Josephus here omitsthe circumcision. Another feast sets the stage for the performance of the

88. A. Philips, 'Nebalah—a Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct',VT 25 (1975), pp. 237-41.

89. The Shechem poem, in fact, lends the decisive role to Simeon who produc-ing an oracle, persuades Levi to join him in the act.


killing, while 'the Shechemites were given up to indulgence and festivi-ty'. Jacob is here not at all pleased with the acts of his sons, whichimplicitly (although Josephus is careful here) is said to be in accordwith the will of God (Ant. 1.341). The rape is not given any specialattention in Josephus's story; and there is no mention of the peoplebeing evil or having transgressed the law as in Jubilees, Testament ofLevi and the book of Judith. The reason for the act is the unlawfulnessin committing marriage with a foreigner. Making this the pivotal motif,Josephus demonstrates his principal accusation against the Shechem-ites, 'that they are foreigners'. Since this accusation forms the leitmotifin all of Josephus's Samaritan/Shechemite stories, and since Josephus'sjustification of the act is in accord with Jubilees, the Shechem poem,Testament of Levi and Judith (but goes against MT and SP Genesistraditions), we are bound to consider whether these developments of thevarious traditions are reflective of a historicizing interpretation of Gen-esis 34. This consideration must take into account the possibility thatnot only the secondary stories, but also the story as it is presented in MTGenesis 34 and SP Genesis 34, are reflective of the same event; orwhether Genesis 34 functioned as a 'carte blanche'90 for the destructionof the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus (129-128 BCE) and thelater destruction of Shechem in 109 BCE. Accusations of syncretismand Hellenization laid the 'legal' foundation for the destruction. Theimpact of these accusations has been considerable in ancient as well asmodern historiographies of the Samaritans.91

It is noteworthy that neither the SP nor the Samaritan Targum norMemar Marqah give reason to believe that Genesis 34 in Samaritantradition is seen as reflective of Jewish-Samaritan hostilities in the sec-ond century BCE. If we consider, however, Genesis's conflict resolu-tion, which Simeon and Levi destroyed against Jacob's will, the argu-mentation for any anti-Samaritan polemic in the story falls apart. Thereshould therefore be no reason for non-acceptance of the story as itstands. The variant stories' omission of the circumcision, which in theShechem poem has led to the quite ironic composition that Jacob setsthe condition for the circumcision, while Simeon (and Levi) prevent itfrom being conducted, offers a solution to the justification of the actthat avoids the embarrassing question held implicit in the Old Testament

90. What seems to be meant by Kippenberg's (Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 90,93) 'MagnaCharta'.

91. See Chapter 5 below.


tradition, 'were they brethen'. This, however, is not Genesis's question.Here the story meets the question of syncretism. With the killing of theShechemites, although they had become circumcised, the story raises asevere critique against Judaism's expansionist policy, which in the timeof the Hasmonaeans required all the neighbouring people's submissionto circumcision and Jewish customs, while formerly they had not beenreckoned as belonging to the Jewish race.

A re-reading of the Shechem poem now becomes illustrative. Asmentioned in the introduction, the poem has been preserved by Euse-bius, who quotes Alexander Polyhistor. He, however, has given hiscommentary to the poem, which is thus combined with some of thetraditions of the Genesis story. The quotations from Theodotius's poemgiven by Alexander/Eusebius are as follows:92

1. Thus the land was good and grazed upon by goats and well watered.There was neither a long path for those entering the city from the fieldnor even leafy woods for the weary. Instead, very close by the cityappear two steep mountains, filled with grass and woods. Between thetwo of them a narrow path is cut. On one side the bustling Shechemappears, a sacred town, built under (i.e. the mountain) as a base; therewas a smooth wall around the town; and the wall for defense up aboveran in under the foot of the mountain.

2. O stranger, Jacob came as a shepherd to the broad city of Shechem; andover their kinsmen Hamor was chief with his son Sychem, a verystubborn pair'

3. Jacob came to well-grazed Syria and left behind the broad stream ofthe Euphrates, a turbulent river. For he had come there when he left thesharp rebuke of his own brother. Laban, who was his cousin and thenalone ruled over Syria since he was of [native] blood, graciouslyreceived him into his house. He agreed to and promised the marriage ofhis youngest daughter to him. However, he did not at all aim that thisshould be but, rather, contrived some trick. He sent Leah, who was herolder sister, to the man for his bed. In any case, it did not remain hiddento him; rather, he understood the mischievousness and received theother maiden. He was mated with both, who were his kinsfolk. To him

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


there were born eleven sons who were exceedingly wise in mind and adaughter, Dinah, who had a beautiful form, an admirable frame, and anoble spirit.

4. For this is not allowed to Hebrews to bring sons-in-law or daughtersinto their house from elsewhere but, rather, whoever boasts that he is ofthe same race

5. Once (God) himself, when he led the noble Abraham out of his nativeland from heaven called upon the man all his family to strip off theflesh (i.e. the foreskin), and therefore he accomplished it. The com-mand remains unshaken, since God himself spoke it.

6. For I have indeed learned the word from God, for of old he said that hewould give ten peoples to the children of Abraham.

7. God smote the inhabitants of Shechem, for they did not honor whoevercame to them, whether evil or noble. Nor did they determine rights orlaws throughout the city. Rather, deadly works were their care.

8. Thus then Simeon rushed upon Hamor himself and struck him upon thehead; he seized his throat in his left hand and then let it go still gaspingits last breath, since there was another task to do. At that time Levi,also irresistible in might seized Sychem by the hair; the latter graspedhis knees and raged unspeakably. Levi struck the middle of his collar-bone; the sharp sword entered his inward parts through the chest; andhis life thereupon left his bodily frame.'

In this text, there is no mention of Shechem's love for Dinah, norape, no immediate crime, which needs revenge, no mention of Jacob'sconsiderations and no explicit demand for circumcision. Simeon andLevi kill Hamor and Shechem because they are hostile and do notobserve the laws. The plot line of the text (although some fragmentsmight have been lost) is meaningful. Thus v. 2 refers to a stupidity ofSimeon and Shechem that in v. 7 reaches criminal dimensions. Themention of the virtue of Jacob and his beautiful and wise children is setin contrast, and forms the background for God's promise to Abraham inv. 6. By this, reason is given for the act of Simeon and Levi withoutbringing in any conflict of ethnicity. With a clear justification of thetreatment of those who do not keep the laws, the act becomes a fulfil-ment of God's promise to Abraham: that he will give ten godless peopleto his children (Gen. 15.18-21). This part of the poem might be theSamaritan part, which calls the city holy, inhabited by those people thatwas given in the hand of Abraham. The purpose of Theodotius's poemis to tell how this happened and to give aetiology for the city's name. Itis Alexander Polyhistor's paraphrasing comments that brings up thepossible underlying Jewish-Samaritan conflict. For a more compre-


hensive treatment of this conflict it has now become necessary to exam-ine briefly the traditions related to Shechem, and to the promises ofeternal priesthood given to the Levites.

Shechem in the Old Testament Tradition

The Genesis story, followed by the burial of foreign gods, the buildingof the altar in Luzah (which is given the name 'El Bet-'El) and God'sblessing of Jacob, must be seen as an origin story describing howJacob's children became bene yisrdel. Previous to Genesis 34, we findin Gen. 32.25-32 the story of Jacob's fight with 'God and man' (v. 29),and the consequent recognition of Jacob as Israel, since he had pre-vailed. Jacob's request for the man's name is answered by anotherquestion: 'Why is it that you ask my name?' and God blessed him.When this scene is recalled in Gen. 35.9-15 after Jacob's second arrivalat Bet- 'El the changing of Jacob's name has the addition that he now istold that it is 'El Shadday, who blesses him (v. 11). This scene isrepeated also in Gen. 48.3-4 (and 49.24-26). More interestingly, how-ever, is 2 Kgs 17.34's quite remarkable reference since this text makesa direct connection to Gen. 35.2-4's removal of the foreign gods. Herethe text is concerned with the foreign people placed in Samaria/Bet- 'El(2 Kgs 17.28), who, although they had been taught to fear Yahweh areaccused of worshipping their own gods also:

They do not fear Yahweh, and they do not follow the statutes or the ordi-nances of the law or the commandment which Yahweh commanded thechildren of Jacob, whom he named Israel. Yahweh made a covenant withthem, and commanded them, 'You shall not fear other gods or bowyourselves to them or sacrifice to them' (2 Kgs 17.34-35).

As Shechem became defiled by the burial of the foreign gods in theJacob story, so Bet- 'El becomes defiled when King Josiah, after he hasburned 'all the vessels made for Ba'al, for Asherah and for all the hostof heaven in the fields of Kidron, brings the ashes to Bet-'El' (cf. 2 Kgs23.4). Not only Bet-'El, but all the high places in Judaea's and Sam-aria's cities become defiled (vv. 8, 19-20) and as a result of Josiah'sreform only Jerusalem remains clean.

It thus seem clear that in this (later?) tradition, Shechem is not rec-ognized as the true Israel, in spite of its adherence to the glorious pastof the patriarchs. It was here Abraham met God after he had arrived atCanaan and raised the first Yahweh altar at Elon Moreh (Gen. 12.6-7).


Jacob raised an altar (on the ground he had bought from the sons ofHamor) that he called 'el-'elohe-yisrd'el (Gen. 33.20). Joshua gatheredthe twelve tribes of Israel and asked them to decide whom to serve(Josh. 24.1, 14-24). When the people declared that they had decided toserve Yahweh (vv. 21, 24), they are told to put away the foreign gods(v. 23, "D3n Tl^N). These include the ancestral gods from Mesopotamia("irrcn "ai?) and Egypt (Dnsa) and the Amorite gods C"lQ«n sn^«) ofthe land in which they dwell (vv. 14-15).93 Joshua has already set him-self in opposition to these gods in his declaration: 'Choose this daywhom you will serve...but I and my house will serve Yahweh' (v. 15).Thereafter the covenant is made and written down in DTl'PN n~nn ISO,and a great stone (n^HJ pK) is set up as a witness under the oak in thesanctuary of Yahweh. Here the patriarchal narratives end, the transitionhas taken place, and the past is recalled as a last gestus in the burial ofthe bones of Joseph at Shechem in the same ground as Jacob hadbought from the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, which became theinheritance of bene Ydsef(Josh. 24.32).

These references to Shechem in the Hexateuch stand in sharp contrastto Shechem's status as the faithless city in the later chronology. In thetime of the Judges, this faithless city chooses the kingship to the councilof the Elders (the 70 sons of Jerubba'al). This king, Abimelek, son ofJerubba'al/Gideon and his Shechemite concubine—presented in con-trast to Jerubba'al's legitimate sons (Judg. 8.30-31)—whom the lords ofShechem (DDE' "^lO) appointed at the oak of the 'stone' at Shechem(DD&n H&N 3KQ ]V7R) (Judg. 9.6), they betray after three years' rule(Judg. 9.22ff.). The text gives the impression that this stone, which wasraised as a witness to the people's covenant with Yahweh (Josh. 24.23)becomes a witness to the double faithlessness of the people. They killedhere the legal heirs to the kingship 'upon one stone' (ni~IN pK "7D, vv. 5and 18), after which they elect the illegal king (v. 6), who is said to'serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem' (v. 28).94 This betrayal,

93. This theme about the ancestral gods is missing in the Samaritan Chronicle IIJos. §UA*. Here it is the gods of the land that are set in contrast to Yahweh. Thusthe Old Testament text marks a new beginning that (similar to the reforms of Josiahand of Ezra-Nehemiah) is set in the context of the new Israel's rejection of the past.

94. This might be an overinterpretation of PinK ptf ^tf. However, no doubts canbe raised against the importance of the 'stone' in the election scene (v. 6, p'PN'DU3KQ). This expression is found here only. In Gen. 35.14 it is told that Jacob raised apK fQ^Q at the place where God had spoken with him. The importance of the stone


which is described as the evil of the Shechemites (DDE? ^N niH), God(Elohim) reversed in a fulfilling of Jotham's curse (v. 57), when notonly their temple (El-berith) and its stronghold were set on fire overthem, but also Abimelek was killed by a woman's hand (vv. 46-55).

Similar critique is raised in the traditions related to the time of king-ship. In 1 Kings 12, the people (^KHttT l?np~'pD) declare Jeroboam kingas protest against Rehobeam's harsh treatment. With the Israelite re-nunciation of 'portion' and 'inheritance' in David (12.16), the rebellionof no return is accomplished (vv. 17-19). This, however, is in accordwith the will of Yahweh-elohe-Yisrael (cf. 1 Kgs 11.31-39; 12.15, 24).What is not in accord with the will of Yahweh is the apostasy of thepeople, the erection of the golden calves in Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs12.28-29)95 with the purpose of preventing the people from going tooffer sacrifices in bet-Yahweh in Jerusalem and turn their hearts toRehobeam, n~niT "j^Q (vv. 26-29).96 The promise of a sure house likeDavid's and the allotment of Israel (11.38) are forfeited, and the finalexclusion is waiting right around the corner: '...and he (Yahweh) willroot up Yisrael from this good land which he has given to their fathersand he will scatter them beyond the river (Euphrates)' (1 Kgs 14.14-16).

2 Chronicles' story about the destruction is composed as a parallelstory. In the first story Shishak attacks Rehobeam because of the apos-tasy of the people. When, however, they humbled themselves and rec-ognized that 'Yahweh is righteous' (miT pHK), Yahweh decided not todestroy them (2 Chron. 12.1-8). In contrast to this story, the story about

is described in more detail in Gen. 28.22, Jacob's dream in Bethel, where it is saidthatDTftK rrn rrrr m^Q TiQcn&K nKtn p»m. Cf. also Gen. 31.13, 'I am theGod of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me' (LXX and Targ.Ps.-J., Pal. Targ. read, 'I am God who appeared for you at Bethel').

95. It is here worth noticing that Shechem has lost its religious importance hereand probably only serves as the main capital of the northern kingdom, cf. 1 Kgs12.25,29,33; 13.1.

96. The erection of the calves is not mentioned in 2 Chron. 11.13, where it issaid that 'the priests and the Levites, who were in all Israel presented themselves tohim from all their territories. The Levites had left their common lands and theirholdings and had come to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons hadprevented them from serving as priests of Yahweh, and had appointed his ownpriests for the high places, and for the goat-demons and the calves, he had made.'The underlying irony of the text that Jeroboam erected the golden calves to hinderthe people in going to Rehobeam's Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12.26-27) should not gounnoticed.


Judah's King Abijah's attack on Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13.1-18) is given.In spite of Abijah's mocking speech, which elucidates the people'sapostasy that they follow after Jeroboam's golden calves and havedriven out the priests of Yahweh (i.e. the sons of Aaron and the Lev-ites), the Israelites have no intention of humbling themselves. As aresult, the defeat and slaughter is inevitable: '[T]hus bene-Yisrdel weresubdued at that time and bene-yehuda were strengthened, because theyrelied upon Yahweh the god of their fathers' (DiTrTQN TI^N). This lan-guage has previously been used only against the foreign nations.

The intertextuality of these texts expose an exceedingly well-com-posed structure aiming to demonstrate why and how the cult movedfrom Shechem (Gen. 12.6-7) to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11.13-17 and2 Kgs 23.4-20), and why Jerusalem, in spite of the apostasy of its Jew-ish population, remained the true Israel that did not share Shechem'sfate to become defiled by the presence of foreign gods and peoples. Thereform of Josiah did not remove the uncleanness from Shechem, Bet-'El, Samaria's and Judaea's towns; it rendered the places unfit for theYahweh cult (2 Kgs 23.8, 13, 14, 16, 20). Even the uncleanness fromJerusalem added to this, when Josiah brought the idols from Jerusalemoutside the town to be burned there; and the ashes he brought to Bet-'El(2 Kgs 23.4).97

In addition to this picture, the 'myth of the empty land' (2 Chron.

97. A similar paradigm is found according to other cult places of the Penta-teuch, e.g. Bethel, where Abraham builds the second altar (Gen. 12.8), Jacob meetsGod in a dream and is promised a splendid future in the country (Gen. 28.13), hegoes to Bethel after the events in Shechem and is given another revelation (Gen.35.6). The place is the centre of the people's internal conflict (Judg. 19-21) wherethe people goes to Bethel, where the ark is and where the priest Phinehas, Aaron'sgrandson, is in service, and the people here inquire of Yahweh whether they shouldonce more go against the Benjaminites (Judg. 20.21, 22-23, 26-29; 21.2-4). Jero-boam places one of the golden calves in Bethel (1 Kgs 12.29) and he places prieststhere (1 Kgs 12.32) and the place becomes the centre of the cult after the fall of thenorthern kingdom (2 Kgs 17.28), and it is made unclean with the reform of Josiah(2 Kgs 23.15-18).

Shilo obtains its days of glory during Joshua (Josh. 18-22) and its fall in the timeof Eli's corrupt priesthood and the defilement of the ark (1 Sam. 1-4). It is worthnoticing that the ark never is returned to Shilo, but is kept in custody in the house ofAbinadab in Kirjat-Jearim (1 Sam. 7.1-2) before it ends in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6.1-19) and that the cry of Eli's daughter-in-law (1 Sam. 4.21-22) 'the glory [1132] hasdisappeared from Israel, for the ark of Yahweh is taken' is given fulfilment in themove of the cult to Jerusalem.


36.21) forms a theological metaphor for the purpose of keepingJerusalem free from defilement and creating the foundation for a newbeginning. This beginning takes its departure in creation, not in Gen.1.2's emptiness as creation ex nihilo, but in creation's tohu wa-bohu(irm inn), in its chaotic structures of emptiness and disorder. The cityis deserted: empty because it is filled with horror over the people'sapostasy (Lev. 26.32). It rests (ni"QC?) in one long sabbath rest of 70years (2 Chron. 36.21) because it could not rest 'in your sabbaths whenyou dwelt upon it'.98 The tohu wa-bohu prophecy of Jer. 4.23-27 echoespre-creation's empty chaos with the 'emptiness' of the exile, where theearth was waste and void, the heavens had no light, the mountains werequaking, and all the hills moving to and fro; where there was no man,no birds; where the fruitful land was a desert, its cities laid in ruinsbecause of the divine wrath of Yahweh. Because of this wrath, 'thewhole land shall be a desert [ilQQtD], but I do not completely extermi-nate it [il^^K $b rfpDI], says Yahweh'. This wonderful anti-climax justbefore the destruction of the whole creation takes Jeremiah away frompoetry and back to 'history's' implicit knowledge of the outcome. I 'donot make a full end of you' (as SRV has it here and in Jer. 5.18) is theconclusive comment that sets the stage for Jeremiah's prophecy in thecentre of Leviticus's self-fulfilling prophetic doom: 'If you will notlisten to me.. .if you walk contrary to me.. .if you spurn my statutes.. .ifyour soul abhors my ordinances...if you break my covenant, the...'(ch. 26 passim).

This myth's impact on Jewish self-identification is given full expres-sion in Josephus's description of the deportation under Nebuchadnezzar:

Now when Salmanesses removed the Israelites, he settled in their placethe nation of Cuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persiaand Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans becausethey assumed the name of the country in which they were settled. But theking of Babylonia, when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle anynation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem andthe temple remained deserted [epr||j.o<; Siejieivev] for seventy years (Ant.10.184).

For that reason, the return from exile is not a new conquest story. Thereare no old or foreign gods (or people) to throw away. The cleansing ofthe land and the people is no longer a human affair. The returnees are

98. Cf. also Lev. 26.34, 35, 43, which is the only text using the same form as2 Chron. 36.21 (hophal inf. with suffix of fern. sing, of the root DQ2J).


those purified in exile who are given a paradise to guard. We are thusgiven the story reversed, so to speak, the story about how to keep thisparadise clean, how to keep the idols and the foreigners out of it, out-side the walls, outside the cult. The success of this story in the OldTestament tradition is given preliminarily in the abrupt endings of theEzra and Nehemiah narratives. Here begins the period of the teachers ofwhom Simeon the Just is the first in rabbinic tradition, comparable tothe righteous teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity'steaching Messiah, all of whom have no other story to tell than that ofthe rise and fall of the Jewish nation, the bene-Yisrael in past and pre-sent, presented in their personal singularity as well as their symbolicnational wholeness.

It is within that tradition that we must understand Jacob's pragmaticreaction seeking a peaceful conflict solution in contrast to his sons'militant reactions." In this Jacob tradition of the old Israel, there iscredited no promise of eternal priesthood. The Levites are those who,dispersed among the cities of Israel, are ranked lowest. From heresprouts reinterpretations of this tradition, which in Testament of Levi,Jubilees and parts of the Old Testament became paradigmatic for thezealous Israel, which in the Ezra-Nehemiah model denies 'am ha'aresany participation in the building of the temple; and which raises afence, a wall around the city and the law. The historical reality that isreflected implies a rejection of the Shechemites/Samaritans, who, as'am ha'ares in rabbinic tradition, keep the old law written in Hebrewcharacters while the true Israel100 is given the new law written in Ara-maic by the hand of Ezra. This is the Judaea/Jerusalem alone policythat, with the reform of Josiah, destroys the old cult places and does notinvite people from the outside to participate in the celebration of thepassover (2 Kgs 23.21-23).

In contrast to this tradition, the reforms of Hezekiah in Chroniclesstands as part of the old tradition. Like Jacob, Hezekiah seeks reconcili-ation and celebrates the passover twice. This suggests that he acknow-ledges the calendar disagreements with the northern tribes (those fromEphraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulon, cf. 2 Chron. 30.18-20). Theaim is, as in Gen. 34.22, the unity of the people, expressed in the com-mentary that 'since the time of Solomon, the son of David king of Israel

99. So also Isaac in Gen. 26 and Jacob in Gen. 33.100. b. Sank. 21b: 'He also had the Bible rewritten in "Assyrian" characters,

leaving the old Hebrew characters to the Samaritans.'


there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem' (2 Chron. 30.26), a com-mentary that is missing in the stories about the reform of Josiah, which,in both instances (2 Kgs 23.22; 2 Chron. 35.18.), refers to the pre-mon-archic period.

The Testament of Levi brings both of these traditions together. In car-rying out the circumcision Jacob becomes 'concerned unto sickness'.He certainly could not give his blessings to Simeon and Levi:

When my father heard of this he was angry and sorrowful, because theyhad received circumcision and died, and so he passed us by in his bless-ings. Thus we sinned in doing this contrary to his opinion, and hebecame sick that very day.

In contrast to this in the same text, God's blessing to Levi concerningthe eternal priesthood is based on the very same incident, which, in anapologetic justification, makes up for all the terrible deeds of the past:

they had wanted to do the same thing to Sarah and Rebecca that they didto Dinah, our sister. But the Lord prevented them. They persecutedAbraham when he was a nomad, and they harassed his flocks when theywere pregnant, and they grossly mistreated Eblaen, who had been born inhis house.101

Such an original sin is the background for God's sanction of Levi'saction. Behind this lies the conflict between the old and a new covenant,which, in the underlying religio-political reality, implied an interpreta-tive conflict regarding the acceptance of past traditions.

The Levites in Jewish Traditions

The book of Jubilees tells us that Levi and his sons were chosen for theeternal priesthood because of Levi's zealous act in Shechem. This tra-dition does not form part of the Pentateuch material. Neither does thezealous act of the Levites in Exod. 32.25-29 provide them with this sta-tus, although they are said to have 'ordained themselves for the serviceof Yahweh'.102 The seeming contrast set here between Aaron and the

101. Eblaen is otherwise unknown. The Textual tradition offer a wide range ofvariants (OTP, I, p. 790 n. 6d).

102. IT "]^7D, the filling of the hands, is a euphemism for a consecration cere-mony. Cf. Ezek. 43.26 and 2 Chron. 29.31, HIT1? DDT DPI^G; Sir Lancelot C.L.Brenton, The Septuagint with the Apocrypha, Greek and English (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1980 [1851]), which translates, 'Now ye have consecrated yourselves to


Levites serves quite a different purpose as the composition of Moses'triparte ascent of the Mountain shows (Exod. 19.24, 24.1-14, 34.3). Inhis first ascent Moses is accompanied by Aaron (Exod. 19.24) whoseems to stay with Moses on the mountain. The second time he isaccompanied by Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 of the elders of Israel(Exod. 24.1), and they 'saw 'elohe-yisrdel...and they ate and theydrank' (24.10-11). These companions, however, are not allowed tocome near to Yahweh. The third time nobody is allowed to join Mosesor even come near to the mountain (34.3). Here Moses' role as the righ-teous prophet has reached its climax. At his descent, not only the peoplewere 'afraid to come near to Moses because his face shone', but Aaronparticipated equally in this fear (Exod. 34.30). Noticing that Yahweh'scommandment to Moses to appoint Aaron and his sons as priests (Exod.28.1-2) takes place at the same time as Aaron is collecting gold for thegolden calf (Exod. 32.2-6), and that Aaron (together with Hur) isappointed leader of the Israelites while Moses and Joshua are on themountain (Exod. 24.14), the dethroning of Aaron finds its fulfilment inhis shameful blaming of the people for having led him astray (Exod.32.22-24). Failing to take up the responsibility that was given him, hefurther accentuates the role of Moses as the only spokesman of Yah-weh, who must be obeyed also by Aaron and his sons, who 'did all thethings which Yahweh commanded by Moses' (nKJQ'TS, Lev. 8.36).The three attempts of rebellion in Lev. 10.1-5, 16-20, Num. 12.1-16 andNum. 16.1-17.5 did not change these conditions. Neither did theychange the condition for the Levites, which in fact was the purpose ofthe third rebellion. Ranking even lower than Aaron and his sons (Num.1.48-53; 3.6-9, 32; 4.27-28, 33; 8.22; 18.1-2, 6), they were thoseappointed to guard the tabernacle of the testimony to prevent anyoneuninitiated (i.e. anyone other than Aaron and his sons) from comingnear (Num. 1.47-53; 3.7-10; 18.2-7). As workers and guards of thesanctuary (enpn mDCOQ '•"OB, Num. 3.28, 32), they are set in opposi-tion to Aaron and his sons, who are responsible for the temple service,everything concerning the altar in the Holy of Holies and the bearers ofiniquity (Num. 18.1-3; 6-7). The stressing of this hierarchy is a conse-quence of the Levite rebellion's challenge in Num. 16.1-35:

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


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

Moses' answer clearly illustrates the underlying conflict, the Levites'discontent with their layman position:

'Listen now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that Israel'sGod has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you nearto himself (V^K DDntf mpn1?), to do service in the tabernacle of thelord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; and thathe has brought you near him, and all your brethen the sons of Levi withyou? And would you seek the priesthood (rmD) also?' (Num. 16.8-10).

The answer is somewhat ironic in its recurrent statement that theLevites can come near Yahweh. It was exactly what they claimed theycould not and it is exactly what is stressed after the settling of the con-flict. 'They [the Levites] shall attend you and attend to all duties of thetent; but they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary or tothe altar, lest they and you die' (Num. 18.3). The confirmation ofAaron's position as the head of the house of Levi in the story about thesprouting rod (Num. 17.1-11 (vv. 3, 8) clearly states that in Israel thereis no room for more than one priestly line and that this undivided line issettled in Luzah/Bet-el, cf. 17.8.

The ambiguity about this separation of the Levites from the Aaron-ides is given expression in the various genealogies of the Old Testa-ment. Thus, in Num. 3.1-6, the toledoth of Aaron and Moses are thoseafter Aaron: his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, of whomNadab and Abihu are said to have died in the wilderness of Sinai whenthey offered unholy fire before Yahweh (Lev. 10). Left are Eleazar andIthamar, who are said to have served as priests in their father's lifetime.Of these Eleazar is said to have been chief over the leaders of theLevites and to have oversight of those who had charge of the sanctuary(enpn nna^D notO, Num. 3.32). The related mention of the families ofthe Levites (Num. 3.17-35), the Gershonites, the Kohathites and theMerarites does not include a refererence to Levi nor the line from Kehatto Amram, while in Exod. 4.14; 6.16-25 and Num. 26.57-61 Aaron isexplicitly combined with the genealogy of the Levites. The need for aclarification of Aaron's position in Numbers 17 reinstates him in thisgenealogy.


That we are dealing with purpose-fulfilling genealogies probablybecomes most clear in the way they are presented in the book of Chron-icles. In 1 Chron. 27.17 (16-22) the number of the tribes of Israel is 12,including both Aaron and Levi, but excluding Gad and Asher. They,however, are included in the closely variant genealogical list of 1 Chron.12.25-39, which places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (12.26-28). This is inaccord with 1 Chron. 5.27-41 (RSV 6.1-16), where Aaron is placed in anunbroken genealogy of Levi's Amram line, as the purpose is to demon-strate the unbroken succession of high priests from the Egyptian exodusuntil the Babylonian exile. In contrast to this line,103 the other Leviticalfamilies are listed, representing those who served in the layman func-tions of the temple.

If these genealogies—together with the various hierarchy conflicts inExodus-Numbers—had as their underlying reality competing priestlyfamilies (or perhaps a growing layman movement) who claimed a rightto share in the priestly duties, then this conflict seems to have found itsresolution in Deuteronomy's D^PI D^rDH the Levitical priests,104 whocombine synagogue and temple in their functions.105 In composition,they are not mentioned until after the death of Aaron106 and Eleazar'ssuccession to the priesthood (Deut. 10.6). Their duties after settling inthe promised land are no longer connected with the tent or the desertsanctuary. Conflating the differences between the Levites and thepriests, they share the same duties: the service before Yahweh and theblessing in the name of Yahweh (10.8; 18.5; 21.5), court decisions inaccord with the word of Yahweh (21.5) and the reading of the Law at

103. 1 Chron. 5.49: 'but Aaron and his sons...'104. Deut. 17.9; 18.1; 24.8; 27.9. Translation here is difficult because of the

grammar, which suggests that D^n stands as an apposition to D^HDH.105. This is also characteristic of Ezra and Nehemiah in the appointment of

singers, gatekeepers and temple servants (Ezra 7.7; Neh. 7.1) which deprived theLevites of their servant duties and transferred them to synagogal functions: theteaching of the people (Neh. 8.7, 13). Neh. 9-10, where the confession of thepeople is expressed by the Levites but only mentions priests and prophets (vv. 32and 34), and where the signing of the contract mentions the Levites before thepriests (Neh. 10.1) but enumerates those in the usual way: officials, priests andLevites (Neh. 10.2-28). This must be the rule confirming exception, as in bothbooks the hierachy is clear and unchallenged (cf. Ezra 6.16; 9.1; 10.5; Neh. 10.39;12.47).

106. Who, with the exception of Deut. 9.20, 10.6 is remarkably absent in thebook.


the feast of the booths every seventh year (31.9-13). The blessing ofLevi in Deut. 33.8-11 refers to Aaron's doubt at Meriba and to thezealous act of the Levites in Exod. 32.27-29. Num. 25.1-15's influencehere can be stated by implication only. However, it should not gounnoticed that the Israelite killed by Phinehas is from the tribe ofSimeon and that this tribe is missing in the blessing of the tribes inDeuteronomy 33. Deuteronomy's favourable attitude towards Levites isshared also by the Chronicler, who, in the story about Hezekiah'reform, states that the Levites were more 'upright in heart (DD^ "H2T,2 Chron. 29.34) than the sons of Aaron, the priests (D^HDH pilN ^2,v. 21) in sanctifying themselves'. Nevertheless, the priestly duties givento the Levites are due to necessity (that there were not enough priests)and they are temporarily helping their brethren, until...(cf. 2 Chron.29.34). Maintaining a distinction, the Levites are not allowed to sprinklethe blood, which they hand over to the priests (30.16). The skills theyshowed in the service of Yahweh (30.22) do not lead to any other hier-archic system than that established by David (2 Chron. 31.2-19; cf.1 Chron. 23.28-32) or Moses (Num. 3.5-9).

It becomes clear that Deuteronomy is exceptional in its attitude to theLevites, who elsewhere rank lower than the Aaronides. Furthermore, inEzek. 44.10-31 they are decommissioned from priestly duties. As apunishment, they are (re)instated in 'Levitical' services: overseeing thegates of the temple; keeping charge of the temple107 and ministeringbefore the people. In contrast stand D^rpH D'l'pn pil^ "O?, the righ-teous priests of the Levitical stock: those 'who kept the charge of mysanctuary ptinpQ n~IQ2?Q~nN 1~1Q^] when bene-Yisrdel went astray ofme' (v. 15). They are allowed to come near108 to Yahweh and minister

107. Philo's mention of the Levites gives them a similar status: 'Some of theseare stationed at the doors as gatekeepers at the very entrances some within front ofthe sanctuary to prevent any unlawful person from setting foot thereon, either inten-tionally or unintentionally, some patrol around it by turn in relays by appointmentnight and day, keeping watch and guard at both seasons. Others sweep the porticoesand the open court, convey away the refuse and ensure cleanliness' (Spec. Leg.1.156).

108. 13"lp\ Used also in Ezek. 40.46: pllK'^n HQH nDTQH rnOBQ notO D-3TOTHVb miT"^ "n^nD D^mpn, 'those are the sons of Zadok who alone of the sonsof Levi may come near to Yahweh and minister for him', and 42.13-14: D^ronmiT'1? D'mp ~I2?N, 'the priests who come near to Yahweh'; 43.19: D^n D^ron•^N trmpn -[UK mm an ~I2?N, 'the levitical priests who are of the seed of Zadokcan come near to me'.


to Yahweh (vv. 15-16); they shall teach the people the differencebetween holy and unholy, clean and unclean (v. 23), they shall judge incontroversies (v. 24) and they shall keep Yahweh's laws, statutes,appointed feasts and sabbaths (v. 24). Ezekiel echoes here the tone ofNumbers 18's clarification of the hierarchy as a reaction to the Leviticrebellion in Numbers 16. Here the background is another rebellion,namely the Levites' failure when Israel went astray and followed theiridols and (contrary to Exod. 32) the Levites served these idols (44.10,12; 48.11).

If this accusation refers to the acts of the Levites in the time of Jero-boam, then we must state that it finds no support in Old Testament his-torical books.109 1 Kings 12.31; 13.33 tells that Jeroboam appointedpriests from among the people who were not the Levites. 2 Chronicles13.9 states furthermore that Jeroboam 'had driven out the priests ofYahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites' (priK "•nTIK mns ^HD'HSD^m) and made priests for himself 'like the peoples of other lands'(m:nsn ^UD).110 M. Delcor111 understood this to be a reference to theSamaritan schism since the ritual of ordination follows that of Exodus29, which could mean that the priests mentioned were those 'Jewish'priests who did not belong to the right lineage. In Delcor's interpre-tation m^-iNn snu (2 Chron. 13.9) should not be compared with 1 Kgs12.31 and 13.33's DVTi mupQ, who are the Canaanites mentioned simi-larly in 1 Chron. 5.25 and Num. 14.9. Following the reading of the LXXDelcor interprets m^~)Nn "'QI? as being the same people as 'am ha'aresmentioned in Ezra 4.4, which means that they are those Jews who didnot go into exile, and whose priests did not stand in the right lineageand succession. It must be questioned if Delcor in fact muddles thecase. If 2 Chron. 13.9 refers to the Samaritan problem and succession ofpriests, the Masoretic reading is to be preferred: that Jeroboam actaccording to the practice of the Gentiles. The issue of the text is to

109. G.A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]):refers to Ezek. 7.19, 20.5 and 2 Kgs 23.9. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; Neu-kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1979), in a consideration of Well-hausen's assertion that the polemic has as its purpose to get rid of unemployedpriests after the reform of Josiah in 622 BCE, does not support this assertion andpoints to the argument's stereotypic character.

110. LXX (Syr.): EK TOti Xaou Tfjq yn<;.111. M. Delcor, 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament',

ZAW74 (1961), pp. 281-91.


question this practice112 and to declare those incorrectly appointedpriests to be servants for something which is not Elohim. In contrast tothis practice is set the righteous cult of the Judaeans, which—claimingto belong to the right succession: bene 'aharon we-ha-leviim 'sons ofAaron and Levites'—declare themselves to be <13TTI?K miT mD2?Q-ntfIDIDN D'HQCB, while Jeroboam's people is characterized as having leftthis cult: intf Dnnti? DHK1 (v. 11). 13mK and DDK forms a contrast. Thedebatable question is the problem of who are miT fl~lQ^Q~n^ "HQ27.This, of course, could fit well into Judaean-Samaritan disputes, as wellas in other disputes about the priesthood mentioned frequently in DSS,in 1 and 2 Maccabees and in Josephus. We therefore need a broaderexamination of the issue and especially of the Zadok tradition(s) beforeconclusions can be drawn.

Zadok; pits* m D^n D^HDH and the Levites

According to Ezra 7.1-5, 1 Esd. 8.1, Neh. 10.11-12 and 1 Chron. 9.10-13, Zadok belongs to Aaron's Eleazar genealogy. In these genealogicallists he is placed later than the chronology of the David narrative, wherehe is mentioned as son of Ahitub (2 Sam. 8.17) and father to Ahimaaz(2 Sam. 15.27). This genealogy is found also in 2 Chron. 6.35-38, whichreckons 12 generations from Aaron to Ahimaaz. In contrast to this isthe genealogy in 1 Chron. 5.29-41 (RSV 6.1-16) which reckons 23generations from Aaron to Jehozadak, and, with a doubling of Amariah,Ahitub and Zadok, sets Ahimaaz as son of Zadok in the first part of thelist and Shallum at the end. The references to Zadok clearly place himin the David-Solomon tradition. Together with Abiathar, he serves aspriest under David's rule (cf. 2 Sam. 8.17; 20.25; 1 Kgs 2.4; 1 Chron.18.16; 17.39). He supports David during his fight with Absalom (2 Sam.15.24-29; 17.15) and Solomon during his fight with Adonijah (1 Kgs1.8, 26). He anoints Solomon for the kingship (1 Kgs 1.38-40); and1 Chron. 29.22 relates that Zadok was anointed for the priesthood atthis event. In the bibilical material, Ezekiel is exceptional for his praiseof Zadok, who is mentioned only in the David-Solomon narratives of2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and Chronicles, and in the formerly mentionedgenealogies of Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Chronicles 31.10 is the only

112. Supported by 1 Kgs 12.31 and 13.33 and the criticism of the feast on the15th day in the 8th month. 1 Kgs 12.33 only gives meaning if Jeroboam's cult fallswithin the established Yahweh cult.


reference to a high priest of the house of Zadok (pnirrTO). The con-fusion about the various genealogies, questions of their authenticity andZadok's relation to the established Aaronite lineage have led to severalhypotheses.113 Assumptions of a possible conflict of interests related totwo competing classes of priests, one from the line of Eleazar and theother from the line of Itamar (cf. 1 Chron. 24.3-19), have not beenprovable since we have no Itamar tradition and the references in thebiblical material are insignificant. The possibility of a priestly class,originating from Zadok in Jerusalem and in an established genealogyplaced in the Eleazar-Aaron genealogy, can not be proven historically.Traditionally and literarily, however, this is exactly what is claimed.Eliminating possible competing lists, the biblical tradition asserts thatthe high priest serving in the house of David is of the lineage of Aaronand that this family can trace its pedigree in an unbroken chain of highpriests from the exodus to the exile (Yehoshua b. Yozadak), and in theEzra genealogy further on into the postexilic period. The importance ofthis claim serves the Zadokite interests in a variety of DSS texts' legiti-mation of the true miT motDOTIK '"OB.

The Damascus DocumentTaking up the visions of Ezekiel's new temple, the Damascus document4.1's interpretation of Ezek. 44.15's "notD IBN -p-ra "on D^n D^ron""ETIpQ rnQEJD'DK either includes or excludes the priests and the Levitesin the new covenant. With an insertion of the conjunction 1 CD reckons

113. See the discussion in Schiirer, History of the Jewish People (rev. edn, 1979),II, p. 252 n. 56, and G.W. Ramsey, 'Zadok', ABD, VI, pp. 1033-36. The issuesdealt with in the discussion as presented in Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 163, areas follows: 'The importance of the Zadokite priesthood seems very clear at Jeru-salem, but it was not of levitical origin, its attachment to Aaron is historicallydoubtful, and it is in no way proved that the high priests of the monarchical periodwould have been of Zadokite ancestry: (J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors atJerusalem', JTS NS 19, 1968, pp. 1-18) it was therefore a matter of providing aliterary backing for the post-exilic high priests. On the other hand, if the Levitesbefore Deuteronomy had only been what was left of a category of "resident foreign-ers, they became at that time, and they alone, capable of being chosen for the exer-cise of priesthood at the unique sanctuary; in Deut. 17. 8f., they are called leviticalpriests, and in Deut. 18.6, just Levites. Nevertheless following the reform of Josiah,the high priests had to be Zadokites, at least gradually (Ezek. 40.45f.), and later onthis priesthood was connected to Aaron, became a Levite.' References are made toJ.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18,and Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, pp. 92-93, 150.


three groups of which the sons of Zadok rank highest. Thus the 'priestsare the converts114 of Israel who left the land of Judah; and the Levitesare those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the chosen of Israel,those called by name who stood up at the end of days. Conflating Eze-kiel with the traditions of the Levitical priests of Kings and Chronicles,we are left to consider that the Zadokites are those chosen because theyremained steadfast. As in Ezekiel and for that sake also, Chronicles'description of the reform of Hezekiah, the priests and the Levites didnot disappear after they had either gone astray or been captured. Theywent into the new covenant, though their role had been changed. At thehead of the cult are now the righteous priests, the pT"[2£ ""p whose task itis to re-establish the priestly duties and the rank order of Leviticus andNumbers.

The Manual of Discipline and the Community RuleIn spite of all attempts to understand the Damascus covenant, theManual of Discipline (1QS + parr.) and the Community Rule (IQSa) asexpressions of a Judaism that was led by a priest called Zadok and whothemselves 'sons of Zadok', as being a sectarian group opposing theestablished Judaism at the temple in Jerusalem and the priesthoodthere,115 this hypothesis never succeeded in documenting that this groupwas in fact sectarian in regard to Old Testament Scripture. The variousreferences to Zadok and Aaron and their sons (i.e. the priesthood of thistradition) deviates only from parts of the Old Testament material. Theinterest in cult practice and the establishment of a holy society of priestsis a direct continuation of Old Testament prophetic literature and echoesEzra and Nehemiah's 'holy city'.116 Thus the entering of the covenant

114. Charlesworth's translation (J.H. Charlesworth [ed.], The Dead Sea Scrolls):'The priests are the penitents of Israel who depart(ed) from the land of Judah, "theLevites" who accompany them and the "Sons of Zadok" are the chosen ones ofIsrael, those called by name, who stand in the end of days.' B.Z. Wacholder, 'His-toriography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in F.H. Cryer andTh.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (CIS, 6;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77 (357), suggests that the verbshould be translated 'captives' on the basis of the 'exilic context of CD VI.5'.

115. So, already S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, I (2 vols.; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), who only had the Damascus documentfrom the Cairo geniza at his service.

116. This view has been argued by S. Talmon, 'The Emergence of Jewish Sectar-ianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.O. Miller, P.D. Hanson and S.D.


after the recitation of Israel's sin in the Manual of Discipline (1QS) 1-2, clearly modelled after Nehemiah 9-10 and reckoning priests, Levitesand the people, seems with 1QS 2.18-22 to be a literary trope whichmight not have any reality outside of this text. This is reflected in theimmediate mention of various groups and the lack of references to theLevites in passages where they could be expected to occur. Thus in1QS 5.2, 9 are mentioned sons of righteousness/Zadok, the priests asthose keeping the covenant and as the multitude of men who perseveresteadfastly in the covenant, but the Levites seem to have been forgotten.Similarly, in 1QS 6.8's ranking of the community members, 'the priestswill sit down first, the elders next and the remainder of the people willsit down in order of rank'. Col. 7's mention of punishment rules men-tions only the punishment for having 'spoken angrily against the priestsenrolled in the book'. Col. 8.1's community counsel counts 12 men and3 priests. According to 5.2, 9, these priests are bene sadoq who belong-ing to the 'holiness of Aaron' lead the whole community into this holi-ness (5.6, 21; 8.5-6, 8-9; 9.5-6). That we are here dealing with amanifest prescribing the ideal society is traceable in several instances.Thus 8.4: 'When these things exist in Israel'; namely, the formation of acommunity council consisting of men who are

perfect in everything that has been revealed about all the law to imple-ment truth, justice, judgement, compassionate love and unassumingbehaviour of each person to his fellow to preserve faithfulness on theearth with firm purpose and repentant spirit in order to atone for sin,doing justice, and undergoing trials in order to walk with everyone in themeasure of truth and the regulation of time.

When this has happened, then 'the Community council will be foundedon truth, like an everlasting plantation, a holy house for Israel and thefoundation of the holy of holies for Aaron'. Similar expressions arefound in 8.12ff. and 9.3-9, emphasizing, however, that only the sons ofAaron will have legal authority. Conflating the relations between thepriests and the segregated multitude, who, together, freely volunteer for

McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987),pp. 587-616 (606): 'In the Qumranian's vision of the "Age to come" the politico-social and cultic institutions would be reinstated in accordance with their concepts,customs and codified law. This vision was patterned upon the basically mis-worldlyconception of the Hebrew Bible, or at least of some major strata of that literature,which put a premium on a good life, on family and kinship and on orderly socialstructure.'


this truth (5.7-10; 8.10; 9.3), this distinction should not be stressed toostrongly, since it is the community as such that makes atonement for theearth.

Community Rule (IQSa) more clearly reckons three classes: the sonsof Zadok, who serve as priests, the sons of Aaron, who are in charge oflegal and economical matters, and the sons of Levi, who serve under theconduct of the sons of Aaron—not as guards of the temple but asguards of the community members' 'going in and out' according totheir ranks.117 Here too the division seems more literary than real. Whenin the following passage, IQSa 2.11-17, the entering of those who shalleat and drink with the Messiah whom he shall bless, the priests, theAaronides and the people are numbered but the Levites are missing.The Zadokite preference is clearly spelled out in the Rule of Blessing(!QSb/lQ28b, 3.22):

bless] the sons of Zadok, the priest whom God has chosen to strengthenthe covenant, for [ever, to distribute all his judgements in the midst ofhis people, to teach them in accordance with his commandment... Foryou may he [re]new the covenant of [eternal] priesthood.

We now can conclude that in those texts of the DSS, Aaron and thesons of Aaron are described on two levels. The one is the concretelevel, possibly referring to a group of priests who, together with thecommunity members are JT""Q3 D^p^nDil, those keeping the covenantand "HTH/fT"):^ D^HTinQn, working freely for the community, togetherwith the sons of Zadok, who are the guards of the covenant, HQ2?rr~Qn.118 The other level is the metaphorical level where the eschato-logical expectation is the community's sanctification in Aaron and thecoming of the Messiah from Aaron and Israel (1QS 9.11; CD 12.23).

The impact of this metaphor is demonstrated in rabbinic literature'suse of such concepts as 'disciple of Aaron' or 'doing the work ofAaron' as synonomous with being the true people of God. Indepen-dently of genealogy and proselytism, this allowed laymen to becomerabbis and seekers of the hidden things.119

117. J. Liver, 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RevQ 6(1967), pp. 3-20, reads this as if the Levites 'are to minister as "the chiefs, thejudges, and the officials" and stand under the authority of Zadoks'. The expression,however, seems to be addressed to the community; cf. also cols. 1.27-2.1 and 2.2-3.

118. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok" ', p. 14.119. b. Yom. 71b; cf. M. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and

Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First


Similarly, the Levites are described in at least two strata. One stratumthat is connected with Genesis 34 and Jacob's rebuke and curse (Gen.49), which, according to the prohibition against owing land, leads to adispersion of the Levites among the tribes of Israel in the cities ofrefuge and the Levitical cities.120 This tradition ranks the Levites low:among foreigners, widows and orphans, reduced to the mercy of theirneighbours121 and participating in the people's apostasy. This traditiondoes not unambiguously count Aaron and his sons among the tribe ofLevi.122 The other stratum takes its departure from the blessing andpromise of eternal priesthood given to Levi in Jubilees 30 and Deuter-onomy 33. This tradition clearly places Aaron in the tribe of Levi (cf.Num. 17.18) and the genealogies supporting that. At the core of this tra-dition lies the deed of Aaron's grandson Phinehas in Numbers 25. Hiszealous act for keeping the Israelites free from defilement turned awaythe anger of Yahweh and supplied him and his sons with the eternalpriesthood. The development of this stratum finds its clarification inJewish literature from the second century and later.

Ben SiraIn Sir. 50.23, the praise of Simeon is closed with the following prayer:'May His mercy be with Simeon and may He establish the covenant ofPhinehas with him, which He will not cut off from him and his seed aslong as the days of heaven.'123 This prayer, together with the doxology

Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 561-630 (620). Ben Sira'spraise of the priesthood does not conflict with a praise of he who reads the Law andseeks the hidden meaning of the text (Sir. 39.1-11). It is uncertain whether theHebrew version uses the term m~in03 (39.3; similar to Greek (m6pi><j)a). A variantin Sir. 4.18 employs the form "HDOQ, participle with suffix for 1st sing.

120. Num. 18.20-24; Deut. 10.8; 14.28; Num. 35.6; Jos. 13.14, 33; 20.7.121. Deut. 12.12, 19.122. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 166-67, argued for a later interpolation of the

act of the Levites in Exod. 32 brought together with the mention of Aaron in 32. Ib-6; 17-18 and 35b, which, if removed from the story, gives a more homogeneousnarrative similar to the Deuteronomic variant, which refers only indirectly toAaron's participation in the apostasy (Deut. 9.20).

123. This prayer has—on the basis of the LXX and Cod. Sin.—been translated asa pious wish for God's care for his people. This reading according to Charles, Apoc-rypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Smend, Weisheit des Jesu Sirach, p. 490, was pre-ferred in an effort to avoid anachronistic misunderstandings, which would makeBen Sira contemporary with Simeon. The translation is based on Strack, SprucheJesus.


in ch. 51 (Hebrew version), places Simeon in the Zadokite priesthood.Here, as in Sir. 45.23-24, the promise is juxtaposed to another promiseof kingship given to David, son of Isaj of the tribe of Judah (v. 25). Thementioning of the Levites in Ben Sira is restricted to a harsh commenton the rebellion of 'outsiders' (Dathan, Abiram and Korah: 45.18-19).Stressing that 'no outsider ever shall put on' the priestly robes (des-cribed in vv. 8-12) 'but only his (Aaron of the tribe of Levi, 45.6) sonsand his descendants perpetually' (Sir. 45.13), this conflict seems tohave led to a total rejection of the Levites. No praise of Simeon andLevi, no reference to Aaron's failure or to the dethroning in the deserthave found place in the writings of Ben Sira. Replacing the duties of theLevites in biblical literature, the Aaronide priests in Ben Sira 50 areserving at the altar and sounding the trumpets, while the singers praiseGod with their voices. Ben Sira's predominantly apologetic attitude inits praise for the high priest Simeon, and the priesthood's emanationfrom the house of Aaron, could lead to the assertion that he seeks tolegitimize a priest whose genealogy is not quite clear. This situation isunknown before the Hasmonaean period as far as we know.124 The con-nection to the condemnation of 'the foolish people in Shechem' leads toassert that the high priest mentioned is Simon Maccabee. Seir, Phili-staea and Shechem are condemned because of disagreements related topolitical perspectives. These circumstances certainly should be trace-able in historical 'documents' from the period such as the books of theMaccabees. If, however, the apology is polemical and against the lead-ing priesthood at Jerusalem's temple, then the mentioned Simeon mightbe the unknown Simeon the Just. But why any polemic would occur atsuch a late time is hard to see.

1 and 2 Maccabees^25

The genealogy of the Hasmonaeans, according to 1 Mace. 2.1, placesMattathias, son of John, son of Simeon, in the priestly tribe of Joarib.

124. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, pp. 277, 335, argued that the Oniads were ofEgyptian origin. If that is correct that, of course, would have demanded a legitima-tion of the cult.

125. Discussions about dating (probably in the last quarter of the second centuryBCE) and sources must be searched in relevant literature. L.L. Grabbe, Judaismfrom Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), I, pp. 221-25,gives a useful overview. What is important here in this discussion is that 'it is nowgenerally accepted that 1 Maccabees was to some extent the official version of the


By this he is connected to the Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehas-Zadok-geneal-ogy of 1 Chron. 5.29-41; 24.7; 9.11 and Neh. 11.10-11. In the Old Tes-tament Joarib usually is mentioned together with Jedaiah as thosepriests who went to Babylon together with Jehoshua son of Yozadak(Neh. 12.6, 19). In the organization of the priests in 1 Chronicles 24, thefirst lot fell to Joarib, the second to Jedaiah. Regardless of these gene-alogies' uselessness in a historical reconstruction, they give the impor-tant information that this literary tradition places the Hasmonaeanpriesthood in a 'correct' genealogy. This is given special weight in1 Mace. 2.26's comparison of the zealousness of Mattathias with that ofPhinehas in Num. 25.7-8. In the same chapter, the Testament of Mat-tathias calls Phinehas 'our father', who 'received the covenant of ever-lasting priesthood' (1 Mace. 2.54). This covenant's transference toSimeon is anticipated in the closure of the Testament with the appoint-ment of Simeon as 'your father' (2.65), implicitly superior to Judas,who is appointed leader of the fight (2.66). In the former mentioneddeclaration of independence, Simeon's connection with the priestly lineof Joarib is stated (14.29). The praise of the fathers in 1 Mace. 1.51-61also leaves out any tradition about Levi and Simeon and their 'Leviticalpriesthood'. Neither do we find any references to Levites at all in 1 and2 Maccabees, which is all the more striking as regards the frequency ofstories about temple cleansing procedure, the reinstatement of priests,inauguration of the temple, assembly of the people, appointment of highpriest, and so on, events where one would expect to see the Levitesmentioned, especially in 1 Mace. 3.51; 4.42-43; 14.28, 41, 47; 2 Mace.1.23, 31; 10.1-3.126 So what are these conflicts between various priests

Hasmonaean dynasty and thus an account from the Maccabaean point of view'(p. 223).

126. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society', pp. 561-630, understands this absence ofLevites in 'the basic sources of the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods' as reflect-ing 'the relative decline of the Levites as a social class in the Hellenistic period incontrast to the priests... There is not a single Levite who occupies a significantposition in the life of the period' (p. 597). The decree of Antiochus III (Josephus,Ant. 12.138-44) contrasts this situation, as the Levites here are given privilegesalonside the members of the gerousia (council of the elders) and the priests (p. 598).The mention of the Levites in the Antiochus III document can be argued to fallwithin the same lines of immediacy as seen in some of the DSS. It is interesting,however, to notice that Josephus, who almost entirely restricts his mention ofLevites to his presentation of biblical material, mentions the Levites in the docu-ments of Antiochus III. This could support Nodet's thesis that the documents are


in 1 and 2 Maccabees about? Do they have anything to do with theSamaritan question?

2 Maccabees' rather detailed reference to these conflicts is importantfor the discussion. Although they take place at the temple in Jerusalem,their result incorporates the Seleucid treatment of the 'Jews' on Gerizimas likely. Josephus's claim that these 'Shechemites' (as he calls them)denied any relation to the Jews is not related in 2 Maccabees. The open-ing of the story tells us that this is 'the story of Judas Maccabaeus andhis brothers and of the purification of the great temple and dedication ofthe altar, and further of the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and hisson Eupator'. This is important for an understanding of the fighting par-ticipants' exploitation of political connections. These exploitations aredescribed indirectly only, but if we take into consideration the book'spro-Ptolemaic view (1.1 Ob), the Hasmonaean uprising is primarily afight with the Seleucids and only secondarily a fight for religiousautonomy.

Two families are involved: the high priest Onias III son of Simon IIwith his brother Jesus/Jason and the captain of the temple Simon withhis brothers Menelaus and Lysimachus. It begins with a discussionabout the administration of the city market and it ends in a massacre ofthe city, the defilement of the temple and a transference of the priest-hood to the family of Bilga to whom Simon and Menelaus belong.127

When Simon does not succeed in establishing an agreement about thecity market, he accuses Onias of withholding temple treasures from tax-ation (2 Mace. 3.6; 4.1). This 'slander' certainly contrasts Onias's repu-tation of being pious and honoured even by 'Seleucus king of Asia' (IVPhilopator 187-175), which in 2 Maccabees helps settle the matter in apeaceful way (4.1-7). When the king dies, however, Onias's brotherJason takes advantage of the situation and, promising King AntiochusIV Epiphanes a huge sum of money, he obtains the priesthood throughbribery (4.7-9). Jason introduces Hellenistic customs and leads both thepeople and the priests astray (4.10-15).128 Since it had become custom-

reflecting the Nehemiah model and mine that Josephus is using the Nehemiahmaterial here.

127. LXX reads 'tribe of Benjamin', which probably is incorrect. Bilga is pre-served in Vet. Lat. and Armenian versions, and m. Suk. 5.8 condemns the tribe ofBilga forever from serving at the altar. See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism(repr.; London: Xpress Reprints, 1996 [1981]), p. 270.

128. This Hellenization of Jerusalem seems not have been due to any asserted


ary to buy the priestly office, Menelaus takes advantage of being sentby Jason to the king with 'the money and to complete the records ofessential business' (4.23). Outbidding Jason with three hundred talentsof silver, he obtains the high priesthood 'without any qualification forthe high priesthood, but having the hot temper of a cruel tyrant and therage of a a savage wild beast' (4.25). Menelaus's 'rule' from 172 to 162BCE is marked by cruelty and corruption. With the aid of his brotherLysimachus and also his co-conspirator Andronicus (a general in thearmy of Antiochus), he robs the temple of its treasures and has Oniaskilled in Daphne near Antioch when he objects to the robbery.129 Sum-moned to the king because of these matters, he bribes Ptolemy son ofDorymenes to persuade the king to acquit him of the charges againsthim (4.45-50). Succeeding in doing so, he continues in the office. Jason,however, who had fled to the country of the Ammonites, had not givenup hopes of regaining the priesthood. When false rumours arise thatAntiochus has died in Egypt, he hastens to Jerusalem with a smallarmy, makes a quick assault on the city and forces Menelaus to fly tothe citadel. When Jason, however, continues to slaughter his fellow citi-zens, his fortune is reversed. He is driven back and the result is a miser-able ending. For the city and for the Jews, the event becomes acatastrophe. Antiochus, who thinks that Jason is leading a general up-rising, returns furiously. Aided by Menelaus, he massacres the popu-lation and defiles the temple and (not mentioned in 2 Mace.) withdrawsthe city's polls privileges. In practice, this meant that the city cameunder Seleucid political and religious administration. As a consequenceof this constitutional change he instates governors to afflict the peopleat Jerusalem and at Gerizim. In Jerusalem the governor is a Phrygiannamed Philip. At Gerizim, it is the aforementioned Andronicus.

(Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 147-48) increase of Antiochus's Hell-enizing policy, which can not be supported in general (Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 248-49), but coincides with Antiochus's rule only because of Jason's appointment andhis application for Jerusalem to become a Greek polis (2 Mace. 4.9), a status thatthe city held until 168 BCE. Hellenization, as such, seems not to have caused anygreat concern for the Jewish population, and it was not until Menelaus and his asso-ciates' plundering of the temple treasures that the people rioted (cf. Grabbe,Judaism, pp. 280-81).

129. Who does not fly to Egypt as in Josephus's version (Ant. 12.387), buildingthe temple in Heliopolis. In 2 Mace. 4.33 he flies to Daphne at Antioch where he ismurdered. Jason, however, flies to the Lacedaemonians, but is shipwrecked and iscast ashore in Egypt (2 Mace. 5.9).


Menelaus lorded over 'his fellow citizens worse than the others'. Thisequalization of Gerizim and Jerusalem130 is given further weight whenthe king sends an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake thelaws of God and to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and call it thetemple of Olympian Zeus, as well as to call the one in Gerizim thetemple of Zeus, the friend of strangers, as is appropriate to the peopleliving there.

Contrary to Greek and Latin authors,131 the author of 2 Maccabeeshad knowledge of a Jewish cult at Gerizim, and, contrary to what weare wont to think, this author seems not to be burdened with any knowl-edge of cult centralization, apostate Jews or, and perhaps of greatestimportance, any Hellenization of Samaritans in contrast to Jews. Nor isany assumed anti-Hasmonaean attitude among Samaritans inherent in2 Maccabees. Should 1 Mace. 3.10 imply such polemic, this has notfound its way into the parallel stories of 2 Mace. 5.24. Those responsi-ble for the opposition are the high priests Menelaus (5.23; 13.3-4) andAlcimus (14.3-11).

This rendering is found also in 1 Maccabees, which does not mentionGerizim and does not bring any Menelaus tradition or any stories aboutstruggles among the priests. The high priest Alcimus is mentionedbecause he seeks to obtain the high priesthood together with lawlessand godless men from Israel (cf. 2. Mace. 13.1-8; 1 Mace. 7.5-25; 9.1,54-57). Because he is of the line of Aaron, the Hasidim support him—though in vain—as he betrayed their thrust and had 60 of them killed inone day (1 Mace. 7.12-16). Now a pattern begins to emerge. The un-godly and lawless rulers, leading up to the rule of the Hasmonaeans, arenot Seleucids. They are faithless priests. They exploited political cir-cumstances for personal purposes. After having killed the only piousand legally elected priest (Onias III), no high priest lived up to therequirements and expectations of the office. The accusations do notinvolve genealogy, but conduct. They all are Aaronides rallying aroundthe temple in Jerusalem, but they certainly are not the 'sons of righ-teousness', the bene sadoq. Albeit part of the DSS belongs to a laterperiod, we can state that this is much to the point of their ideology. As

130. 2 Mace. 14.13: 'the main sanctuary' (TOU (leyicyiov tepo-u); perhaps we aredealing with a ranking order.

131. See further below, 'Jews, Conflicts and Reputation'.


pointed out by J. Liver,132 it was not genealogy, 'priestly lineage, butpersonal acts and outlook' that caused the sectarian wrath. Habakkukpesher (IQpHab 8.9-10) certainly gives wonderful illustration of thisdisappointment, when it states that the wicked priest 'was called by thename of truth at the beginning of his coming. However when he ruledover Israel his heart became conceited, he deserted God and betrayedthe laws for the sake of riches'.133 It must not go unnoticed that theaccuser 'whom God has disclosed all the mysteries of the words of hisservants, the prophets' (IQpHab 7.4) is not a priest but a teacher who issaid to be righteous, pl^H miQ.

What is important to remember in this connection is that neither doesJosephus support any assertions of priestly conflicts in the pre-Hasmon-aean and Hasmonaean period which can be related to what scholarshiphas brought forward of 'source material' to prove that these led to theformation of Jewish communities in either Qumran or Samaria.134 InJosephus's writings, the conflicts led to the building of the temple inHeliopolis! Ant. 20.238's vague expression, KaGiatdoiv, which in LCLis translated 'resumed the tradition', gives no certainty about whetherhe is referring to the office or to the lineage. Some hints may lay behindhis statement that the office was vacant for seven years after Jacimus/Alcimus until the appointment of Jonathan in 152 BCE and that Herodappoints priests who are not of 'the family of the Hasmonaens' (20.247).

132. Liver, ' "Sons of Zadok"', p. 29: 'Judean Desert writings moreover, whilstcontaining severe recriminations against the priests of Jerusalem headed by thewicked priest, contain no deprecatory statements on the issue of usurpation of highpriestly authority.'

133. See Chapter 6 for a further discussion about a possible historical back-ground.

134. E.g. E. Qimron, '4QMMT, DID, X, pp. 120-21, who understood the utter-ance in IQpHab as a reaction against the usurpation of the high priesthood. Kippen-berg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 92: 'Die samaritanische Sekte scheint im wesent-lichen im 2Jh.v.Chr. konstituert zu haben. Getragen wurde sie von israelitischenPriestern, die sich als Eleasar-Sohne verstanden und Zadokiten, Eliden und Levitendie Hohepriesterwiirde absprachen. Wahrend des 3Jh.v.Chr.scheint die Rivalitatzweier Priesterschaften in Sichem und in Jerusalem noch nicht als endgiiltigeantitese verstanden worden zu sein. Erst im 2Jh.v.Chr., als die Jerusalemer Hohen-priestersukzession zerbrach, entstand Streit iiber den legitimen Kult. Jetzt beim Zer-brechen des einst einigen Israels, fu'hlen sich die Samar. veranlasst, ihre Hohe-priestesukzession darzulegen und ihre heilige Schrift zu kanonisieren.'


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

135. This tradition must be based on 2 Mace. 14.26, which relates that Alcimusconspired against Nicanor, who had the goodwill of Judas Maccabeus, whom hehad appointed as the successor of Alcimus. This tradition is not related in 1 Mace.9.54-57, which places the death of Judas before Alcimus's decease (cf. 1 Mace.9.17) and does not mention any high priest before the appointment of Jonathan in153-152 BCE (cf. 1 Mace. 10.21).


Jews, Conflicts and Reputation

The first known reference to Jews ('Io\)a8dioi) in Greek literature isfound in the writings of Theophrastus (372-288/7 BCE).136 He stronglydisapproves of the Jewish practice of sacrificing holocausts without eat-ing them. The sacrifice, according to his opinion, serves a mystic pur-pose, taking place at night and ending before dawn. The participants'being philosophers by race converse with each other about the deity,and at night time they make observations of the stars, gazing at themand calling on God by prayer'. The Syrians, 'of whom the Jews consti-tute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old modeof sacrifice'. It is a moot point whether Theophrastus in fact includesthe Jews in this practice. If so, then we must conclude that for Theo-phrastus Jews did not deviate from what he asserted to be the customsof the Syrian population as a whole. The text does not mention temple,sabbath or Samaritans.

While the information about Jews increases and becomes more 'cor-rect' and in accord with biblical scholarship's estimation of Judaismbased on parts of the Old Testament the closer we come to the commonera, the Judaism presented in literature is a Judaism centred aroundJerusalem and displaying considerable deviations in customs comparedto surrounding peoples. This is just the more remarkable since refer-ences to Yahweh in the Iron Age relate to Samaria, Edom Hamat andMidian, and the first certain West Semitic reference to Yahweh is foundon the Mesha stele dating to the eighth century BCE. Yahweh is herenamed the god of the Israelites who held Nebo, situated in north-western Moab. Since Nebo is a border town, it has been conjecturedthat Yahweh was worshipped throughout Samaria as far as its outerborders. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscription's mention of Yahweh Shomronand Yahweh Teman mentions the northern Yahweh with the southern inthe same text, and onomastica from greater Palestine give evidence that

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


Yahweh and El as theophoric elements in personal names are by far themost common divine names used in the region. Not only in the alreadymentioned areas but also in Judaea their representation in the eighth toseventh century is about 80 per cent according to Tigay.137 This doesnot reflect the monotheistic Yahwism of the Bible but represents a poly-theistic Yahwism, mixed with other deities, which in a lot of instancesis hard to separate from other forms of local deity worship.138 The samecan be said of the 'Jewish' population in Elephantine in the fifth centuryBCE, who not only call themselves Jews but also Aramaeans and 'Sido-nians', and the majority of whose names are Yah wist—names at timescontaining Egyptian elements, as well as names of other deities. Ele-phantine pap. 31-33 mention a Yahweh cult outside of Jerusalem, andalthough they do not seem to know how to celebrate the Pesach (cf.pap. 21), some elements known from biblical Judaism are mentioned inthe letter to the governors of Judaea and Samaria concerning the re-building of the destroyed Yahweh temple. This temple was built 'in thedays of old' and avoided destruction during Cambyses' campaign inwhich 'they knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt'. Afterthe destruction, the Jews at Elephantine wore sackcloth, fasted andprayed to Yaho, lord of Heaven for revenge over the commander-in-chief Vidarang, who had conspired with the Egyptian priests to have theJewish temple in Elephantine destroyed. Furthermore, the Jews—sincethe day of the destruction—did not have sexual intercourse, anointthemselves, drink wine or offer meal-offering, incense or burnt offer-ings. A former letter sent to 'the high priest Yohanan and his col-leagues, the priests in Jerusalem and to Ostanes, the brother of Ananiand the nobles of the Jews' was not answered (pap. 31).

The memorandum (pap. 32) from the Judaean governor Bagoas andthe Samaritan governor Delaih, son of Sanballat, advises the Jews inElephantine to 'say before Arsames about the house of offering of theGod of Heaven' asking for the temple to be rebuilt on its site 'as it was

137. J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Lightof Hebrew Inscriptions (HSM, 31; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986).

138. K. van der Toorn et al. (eds.), 'Yahweh', in idem, Dictionary of Deities andDemons (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 171: 'A number of texts suggests that Yahwehwas worshipped in southern Edom and Midian before his cult spread to Palestine.There are two Egyptian texts that mention the name Yahweh. In these texts fromthe 14th and 13th centuries BCE, the name Yahweh is neither connected withIsraelites, nor is his cult located in Palestine.'


before, and the meal offering and incense to be made on its altar as itused to be'.

A fragment of the request for assistance in the rebuilding of thetemple (pap. 33) is usually considered to give evidence for the cult cen-tralization and its placement in Jerusalem, because the request pointsout that 'n[o] sheep, goat or ox are offered there as burnt offering, but(only) incense, meal offering and [drink-offering]'.139

H.L. Ginsberg,140 in a clarifying note to this statement, argues that'the Mazdean Arsames was likely to react more favourably if no men-tion was made of burnt offering, since it involved the profaning of fireby contact with dead bodies'. This, however, seems to be contradictoryto the letter of complaint (pap. 31), which states that

in the month of Tammuz in the 14th year of King Darius (410 BCE),when Arsames departed and went to the king, the priests of the godKhnub, who is in the fortress of Elephantine, conspired with Vidarang,who was commander in chief here, to wipe out the temple of the godYahu from the fortress of Elephantine.

139. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, p. 43, sees the correspondence asreflecting strives in the temple in Jerusalem, represented by Bagoas and his brotherYochanan (cf. Ant. 11.298-99): 'Bagoses habe ein Bruder des Johannes (Johanan),Jesus mit Nahmen, versprochen, ihm das Hohepriesteramt zu verschaffen. Doch beieinem Streit habe Johanan sein Bruder erschlagen (K. Galling, Bagoas 164f. EineGenaue Analyse des Textes bei R. Marcus, Josephus VI. App. B: Josephus on theSamaritan Schism 498ff.). Dieser Johanan war zugleich der Bruder des von Nehe-mia vertriebene Schweigersohns von Sanballat. Die Notiz des Josephus macht alsooffenbar, dass es am Ende des 5Jh. im Jerusalemer Tempel weiter rivalisierendePriestergruppen gab. Wahrend die eine Gruppe schroof an der Einzigkeit des Jeru-salemer Tempels festhielt und jede Koexistens mit Nicht-Juden ablehnte, scheinteine andere Gruppe auf ein Zusammenleben mit anderen Kulten und NichtjudischenPolitikern hingearbeitet zu haben.' This seems to be an over-interpretation of thematerial. The papyri reflect the religious situation in Palestine only indirectly. TheJews in Elephantine are not seeking permission, but support of their rebuilding ofthe temple. The letter presented is not sent to the priesthood in either Jerusalem orGerizim but to Persian officials in Judaea (Bagoas) and in Samaria (Delaiah andShelemiah). The letter sent to the priesthood is lost. We do not know its content orthe reason it has not been answered. However, it is not the priests who advise aboutthe burnt offerings, and we certainly are far better off in following Cowley's con-clusion, cf. Aram. Pap., p. 124: 'Animal sacrifice was not to be offered, whether outof consideration for Persian or Egyptian feeling.' Finally we need to be aware of thematerial's fragmentary character and give credit for the insecurity of the reading.

140. ANET, p. 492.


This Arsames, who was an Egyptian satrap, seems to have been respon-sible for the Jewish garrison there, since in 419, according to pap. 21,King Darius gives him commission to 'authorize a festival of unleav-ened bread for the Jewish garrison'.141 It thus seems unlikely thatArsames would be a person who would not accept holocausts. Since wehave no answer from the Jewish clergy, about whom we only know thatthey did not answer a former letter, it can only be conjectured that thereason should be related to cult centralization and prohibition of offer-ings outside of Jerusalem. The possibility that the Jewish and Samaritangovernors are expressing their own dislikes is incompatible with thePersian policy of religious tolerance, which also seems to have beenauthoritative for the Jewish garrison in Elephantine. According topap. 88, the Egyptians themselves offered burnt offerings, as Strabo'saccount about Heliopolis also clearly shows. It could hardly be theofferings as such that creates the problem. If we, however, turn to Hel-lenistic literature from about 300 BCE and later, we might catch someglimpses of why offerings have anything to do with the rebuilding ofthe temple as well as of why it was destroyed in the first place.

Hecataeus of Abdera (around 300 BCE), whose works are knownfrom Diodorus Sicculus (around 100 BCE) and from Josephus, whodates Hecataeus to be later than the war between Ptolemy and Deme-trius near Gaza in the 117th Olympiad (312 BCE, see Apion 184), isdescribing a Judaism that in several instances is similar to what we findin the Old Testament, although Moses is identified as the one who builtboth Jerusalem and the temple.142 According to Hecataeus, the Jews

141. The text is fairly corrupt and the reading is construed on the basis of itscontent as such and the finding of two ostraca containing the word FIOD.

142. Scholars usually agree on the genuineness of the texts found in DiodorusSicculus, Biblioteca Historica, from where this description of 'the Jews' is taken.On the contrary, the citations of Hecataeus in Josephus, Apion 1.183-204, isaccepted with great reservation (see M. Stern, The Jews in Greek and Latin Litera-ture', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. [eds.], The Jewish People in the First Century, II[CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976], pp. 1101-59). The argumentation is based onthe observance of a more neutral description in Diodorus against Josephus'sideological description, which on one hand agrees pretty well with the respect forJudaism presented in works contemporary with Hecataeus (e.g. Theophrastus,Clearchus and Megastenes), so that 'scholars who argue against the authencity ofsections of Hecataeus in the Against Apion admit that these sections are very sobercompared to the usual Pseudepigraphic works of the day', but on the other hand


were among the foreign people who were driven out of Egypt becauseof a certain pestilence that the Egyptians thought had been caused bythe presence of 'strangers of all sorts dwelling in their midst and prac-tising different rites of religion and sacrifice', and in fact threatening thetraditional observances of the Egyptians. Hecataeus does not mentionany biblical exodus, passing over the red sea, wandering in the desert,conquest or Joshua. The area the greater number were driven into,'which is now called Judaea', was 'at that time utterly uninhabited'.Mentioned are Temple worship, the laws, political institutions, the 12tribes are mentioned and the prohibition against images of the gods,being of the opinion that 'God is not in human form. 'Rather the Heaventhat surrounds the earth [TOV Tiepiexovia TT\V yfjv] is alone divine[Oeov], and rules the universe.' Hecataeus, like Theophrastus beforehim, makes mention of the sacrifices' deviation from 'those of othernations, as does their way of living'. Because of 'their own expulsionfrom Egypt, he [Moses] introduced an asocial and intolerant mode oflife'. Organized as a theocracy in which the priests (men of most refine-ment and with the greatest ability) also are appointed judges, and thehigh priest (dpxiepea) as the supreme head of the nation, who is con-sidered to be the mediator (dyyeXov) of god's messengers (TCOV TOIJ6eo\) Tipooiayumcov), and with the people ranking lowest as those whototally obey the words, which are said to have been given by god toMoses.

There certainly is much here that is recognizable from the 'Ezra-Nehemiah model'. Regardless of the biblical stories' exact historicityon this matter, they have in common the authority behind the Law andthe god to be worshipped. Elephantine pap. 31 asks for support in therebuilding of the destroyed Yahu temple for Ya'u, the lord of Heaven,^Qtf) N""IQ IIT.143 This 'representative' of Persian religious and politicalauthority in Egypt as well, as in other conquered areas, stood underPersian protection and was supportive of the Persian occupation in

seems to be somewhat elaborated especially in its description of the destruction ofheathen altars in Judaea.

143. H. Niehr, Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontextsyrisch-kanaanaischer Religion des l.Jahrtausend v.Chr. (BZAW, 190; Berlin: W.de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 43-60, about the relationship between Baalshamem andElohe hashamayim. The discussion has no importance for this exegesis, which aimsto analyse texts that employ the term and relate to Persian authority.


Egypt also.144 No wonder the Egyptians took advantage of the absenceof the political representative.145

A similar political-religious demonstration of power could be under-lying the Ezra-Nehemiah reform. King Cyrus's edict in Ezra 1.2 openswith the statement that 'Yahweh Elohe ha-Shamayim [TI^K mil1'D'Q&n]146 has given me all the kingdoms of the world and he has

144. G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the PaleolithicPeriod to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),pp. 842-43. Ahlstrom sees Shezbassar (pp. 837-39) and Ezra and Nehemiah(pp. 821-22) as Persian authorities, who did not belong to the local population inJudaea and Jerusalem, but were appointed by the Persian administration. J.M. Halli-gan, in 'Unsolved Mysteries: The Second Temple', a paper given at SBL in Dublin1996, made similar suggestions according to the lists of people and their possibilityof maintaining the building of the temple: Thus this hadru-like corporate body, thebene haggolah, was the land-holding, tax-paying, and no doubt the military-supply-ing group in Achemenid Yehud... Recalling the perspective that Persia engaged inthe strategy of rebuilding temples for the purpose of restoring market-centers it isclear for the moment that renewing cults was not the primary target. Indeed, theprospect of rebuilding an international chain of lucrative market-centers, all underPersian command, was the most attractive prize of the Achemenid conquest.' Cf.J. Blenkinsopp, Temple Society in Achemenid Judah', inP.R. Davies, (ed.), SecondTemple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 22-53: 'As anessential element of the establishment of a viable policy in the province, and againin keeping with the well-attested Achemenid practice, the imperial governmentmandated, rather than permitted, the rebuilding of the temple and financed the pro-ject out of the imperial and satrapy treasury. The result was the emergence, in theearly decades of Achemenid rule, of a semi-autonomous temple-community con-trolled by the dominant stratum of Babylonian immigrants, the bene-haggola ofEzra-Nehemiah.' See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, p. 15, for the existenceof such a colony in Ammonitis, as representative of the Persian government. Cf.also Elephantine pap. 21 for a possible institution of the Jewish passover in Ele-phantine. b. Sank. 21b might refer to this tradition in its statement that 'the Lawwas first given to Israel in Hebrew. In the time of Ezra it was given anew and Israelchose Aramaic. Leaving it to the locals, 'am haaretz. (the idiots) to use Hebrew. R.Hisda called these locals kutim. Some of the Church Fathers knew this tradition.'Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 281 n. 25: 'Origin, ed. Migne, xii, col. 1104; Jerome,Prol. galeat., M. xxviii, 593; Epiphanius, De XII gemmis §63'. That rabbinic tradi-tion ascribes to the Cuthaeans the genuine Law might explain their differences, ifEzra's Aramaic Law was a rewriting of the Pentateuch.

145. Diodorus Siculus 17.49-51 tells that the Egyptians hated the Persians andwelcomed Alexander the Great as liberator.

146. In the following the transliteration will be used so that readers who do notread Hebrew can follow the argument.


charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem which is in Judaea.' Afterhaving overcome the opposition's delaying of the building plans andresumed the work after the intervention of the prophets Haggai andZechariah, during which events there is no mention of >elohe ha-Sdmayim, the connection is established again in the letter to KingDarius, in Ezra 5.11-12, where the Jews call themselves 'servants of'eld $emdyd wear'd (Aramaic) who are 'rebuilding the house that wasbuilt many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished.But because our fathers had angered 'eld $emdya he gave them into thehand of Nebuchadnezzar'. This is the more remarkable since thechapters dealing with the delay of the building activities do not use thisname or refer to the authority represented by it. The resumption of thebuilding is supplied with royal protection and in Ezra 6.6-10 thegovernors Tattenaj, Shetar-Bozenaj and their associates are ordered topay from the royal revenue

young bulls, rams or sheep for burnt offerings to 'eld $emaya: wheat, salt,wine, or oil, as the priests in Jerusalem require—let that be given to themday by day without fail, that they may offer pleasing sacrifices to 'eld$emdya, and pray for the life of the king and his sons (Ezra 6.9-10).

The absence of >elohe ha-Sdmayim in the story about the inauguration ofthe temple in Ezra 6.16-22, which uses the same terminology as in thechapters dealing with the delay of the building activities: bet hd-'elohim, >elohe-yisrd'el, might be understood as a substitution of >eloheha-sdmayim for 'elohe-yisrd'el (Ezra 6.22). Another possibility is tosee Ezra 6.22 as a contrast to 1.2 and a demonstration of the success ofthe rebellious people in Ezra 4.13, who ended up building a house tothe god of Israel.147 Both possibilities are implied in the reforms of

147. Th.M. Bolin, 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian ReligiousPolicy', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995),pp. 127-44 (128), argued that the Jews in Elephantine used a fitting term when theyaddressed matters to Persian authorities and that the equalization between Yahu/Yahweh and the supreme Persian god Ahura Mazda was the same as ElahShamayah in official documents, and had nothing to do with theological considera-tions 'but like Persian policy itself, is to be attributed to matters of political expedi-ency'. The argument conflicts with various conditions; (1) Ezra's and Nehemiah'sconnection with Elohe ha-Shamayim and their incorporation in the biblical mate-rial; (2) Ezra's connection with Torat Moshe in both biblical and rabbinical litera-ture, whose god explicitly is Yahweh and who holds Elohe ha-Shamayim implicit


Ezra. In the first case the new community would demand an educationin the law of 'eld $emdyd in which the priest and the scribe Ezra istrained according to the Persian decree (Ezra 7.12-26, esp. vv. 12, 21)and that seems to be totally unknown to the people, although it isnamed the Law of Moses (n2JQ min) and is given by Yhwh- 'elohe-yisrd'el in the introduction to this decree (Ezra 7.6). In the second case,the religious practice had to be corrected involving considerable repri-sals for those who did not obey (Ezra 10.8).148

Also the god of Nehemiah is >elohe ha-Sdmayim, to whom he praysthree times (Neh. 1.4, 5; 2.4), and to whom he refers in his answer toSanballat, Tobiah and Geshem's questions of whether he had beenrebelling against the king (Neh. 2.20). And he replied to them, 'Eloheha-Shamayim will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise andbuild; but you have no portion or right or memorial in Jerusalem'.Notice here the echo of Ezra 4.3.

These references to 'elohe ha-Mmayim must be read on the back-ground of the few occurrences of the term in the Old Testament and theApocrypha: Gen. 24.3, 7; Jon. 1.9, where he confesses that he is aHebrew, fearing >elohe ha-Mmayim who created the sea and the dryland'; 2 Chron. 36.23; Ps. 136.26: 'el ha-Sdmayim; Greek equivalent inJdt. 5.8; 6.19; 11.7; Tob. 6.18; 7.13; 8.15; 10.11.149

The occurrence of Hecataeus's mention of the strange Jewish peoplein Diodorus Sicculus might not be a matter of simple coincidence.150 In

in, e.g., Gen. 1.1; (3) Hecataeus of Abdera's utterance 'rather the Heaven that sur-rounds the earth is alone divine, and rules the universe'. It thus seems more reason-able to assume that the Yahweh worship became a part of Persian religion in atransformation of Yahweh to the inclusive monotheism of Persian religion, which ishere given local expression. Elephantine could testify to such a process of devel-opment. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Nar-rative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.),The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 107-26.

148. Ahlstrom, Ancient Palestine, pp. 857, 886-88.149. H. Niehr, 'God of Heaven', in Van der Toorn et al. (eds.), Deities and

Demons, pp. 702-705; Niehr, Derhochste Gott, pp. 49-51.150. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 20: 'It is noteworthy that there is a

conspicious difference between the "Jewish chapter" in the fortieth book of Dio-dorus, where the Jews appear as foreigners expelled from Egypt, and the first bookof Diodorus, where a voluntary emigration of Jews, who were originally Egyptians,is implied. Cf. also F. Gr. His. Ilia, p. 50.'


Diodorus's account,151 he exposes the same animosity about the Jewishrace about whom he states that Antiocus Sidetes was exhorted duringthe siege of Jerusalem to storm the city and 'wipe out completely therace of the Jews, since they alone of all nations avoided dealings withany other people and looked upon all men as their enemies'. It is alsostated that the ancestors of the Jews ('Io\)8dioi) had been driven outfrom Egypt 'as men who were impious and detested by the gods'.152

That we are dealing here with propagandistic material can be seen fromthe continuation that relates that the Egyptians gathered all persons whohad white or leprous marks on their bodies and drove them across theborder.

The refugees occupied the territory round about Jerusalem and havingorganized the nation of the Jews had made their hatred of mankind into atradition and on this account had introduced utterly outlandish laws (vo-|iiva TtavTeXcoq e^nAAayueva): not to break bread with any other race,nor to show them any good will at all.

Adding to these accusations, Antiochus Sidetes was also reminded ofhow his predecessor Antiochus Epiphanes, in the innermost sanctuaryof the temple, had found Moses riding on an ass,153 with that book inhis hands that contained the xenophobic laws, and how Antiochus Epi-phanes 'shocked by such hatred directed against all mankind, had sethimself to break down their traditional practices'. Offering swine on thealtar in front of the 'image of the founder,' he ordered 'that their holybooks containing the xenophobic laws should be sprinkled with thebroth of the meat'. Antiochus Sidetes, however, probably found it moreprofitable to exact a double tribute, dismantle the walls and take hos-tages instead of following his friends' pressure 'to make an end of therace completely'. This act, which, in Diodorus Sicculus characterizedhim as 'magnanimous and mild-mannered', in Josephus supplied himwith the surname 'the Just' (Ant. 13.244).

As mentioned above, Jews seem be centred in later texts around Jeru-salem. Agatharcides of Cnidus (around 200 BCE)154 tells that

151. Bibliotheca Historica, 34-35. 1.1-5; (cf. also Josephus, Ant. 13.8.2; 1 Mace.15-16).

152. Diodorus is here influenced by the anti-Jewish literature emanating fromManetho's history work and traceable in Egytian and Greek literature from the thirdcentury BCE (cf. Stern, 'Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', pp. 1111-16).

153. Apion 2.112-14.154. Apion 1.205-11 with a shorter version in Ant. 12.5-7.


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

This led to Ptolemy son of Lagus's155 attack on the city on a sabbathand loss of independence. 'That lesson has taught the whole world,except that nation, the lesson not to resort to dreams and traditional fan-cies about the law, until the difficulties are such as to baffle human rea-son.' This critique of the sabbath observation also becomes a currenttheme and a sort of stock motif in non-Jewish literature in the Romanera. Not only Ptolemy Soter but also Antiochus IV and Pompey are saidto have besieged the city on the sabbath day, taking advantage of theJewish population's lack of defence.

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BCE to the beginning of the first centuryCE) similarly considers the Jews to inhabit Judaea, which previouslywas called Canaan. Strabo of Amasia156 relates that Moses, one of the'Aegyptian' priests, who had held a part of Lower Egypt, led not a fewthoughtful men, who believed in his teaching about the Divine Being toa place 'where the settlement of Jerusalem now is'. It is noteworthy thatalthough Strabo157 mentions Samaria together with Idumea, which afterthe conquest of the Idumaeans (who are said to be Nabataeans) 'joinedthe Judaeans and shared in the same customs with them', he does not

155. If this is correct then we here have a testimony of strict sabbath observationsas early as the end of the fourth century. According to Josephus (Ant. 12.3), Ptol-emy was at that time called Soter, a title he seems to have got between 308-306BCE. However, according to Nodet (Origins of Judaism, Ch. 2), Josephus mighthave altered his quotation of Agatharchides to fit his purpose of demonstrating theantiquity of this sabbath observation, probably not established before the Hasmo-naean period. It is noteworthy that Josephus's conclusion of the attack in Ant. 12.7(based on Aristeas §13) was a deportation of 'many captives both from the h i l lcountry of Judaea and the district round Jerusalem and from Samaria and those onGerizein...to Egypt and settled there'.

156. Strabo's description of Jews is found in Geographia, Books 16 (and 17).His information mostly derives from his knowledge of diaspora Jews, and he prob-ably never visited Palestine. In Historica Hypomnemata, Strabo described the his-tory from Antiochus IV to the execution of Antigonus in the time of Antonius,around 37 BCE. Only fragments of this book have survived, scattered in, e.g., Jose-phus's Antiquities, esp. Books 13 and 14.

157. Geog., 16.2.34-46.


reckon the inhabitants of Samaria, Galilee, Jericho or Philadelphia tobelong to the Jewish stock. They consisted of mixed stocks of peoplefrom 'Aegyptian, Arabian and Phoenician tribes'. In contrast, the Jud-aeans living around the temple in Jerusalem, are said in most reports tobe descendants of Egyptians led by Moses. In Josephus's 'citation' ofStrabo in his account dealing with John Hyrcanus's campaign againstSamaria, Strabo does not mention Jews in Samaria or the existence of acertain Judaism or any temple destruction. Neither does Strabo in hisGeographica refer to Samaritans. The whole of the interior is calledJudaea or Coele Syria and the population is Coele Syrians, Syrians andPhoenicians mixed with Judaeans, Gazaeans and Ashdodites.158

As can be seen from this brief survey, Judaism, in the eyes of its non-Palestinian neighbours, seems not to have been a widespread religiousmovement comprising the whole of Palestine, or to have had a continu-ous history as often is presumed to be presented in the Old Testament,before Josephus wrote his Antiquities and, in Against Apion, made cor-rections to the various erroneous perceptions about Jews and Judaism.If references should be made to a more widespread Judaism, those arerelated to religious practices that the Jews shared with the Syrians,probably in the fifth-fourth century BCE (Theophrastus) or to diasporaJudaism in the second-first century BCE to the first century CE, centredaround Alexandria, Heliopolis, (Damascus) and Cyprus. While theearly Greek authors show a good deal of respect (although mixed withastonishment) for 'Jewish' customs, the accusations of superstition, ass-worshipping, idleness because of the sabbath rules, and so on, increaseremarkably from the second century BCE. It is notable that, while Heca-taeus has knowledge of some of the Pentateuch traditions, it is not untilthe second century BCE that references are given to a monarchicalperiod, and then primarily concerning Solomon, king of Jerusalem, for

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


example, in Menander of Ephesos, Dius, Theophilus159 and Laetus.160

Nicolaus of Damascus is the first non-Jewish writer who refers toDavid.161 This of course is an argument ex silentio since we only havewhat has come down to us and the material seems to suffer some inter-dependency. Lack of references to factional conflicts within Judaism,the building of a Samaritan temple and later destruction of the verysame might be due to lack of literary sources about such events. This'lack', however, is demonstrably confirmed in the writings of Josephus,which not only correct non-Jewish but certainly also Jewish miscon-ceptions. The problems of finding evidence in support of Josephus'scorrections and efforts of placing Samaritans in a heretical context hasbecome crucial for the establishment of a history of the Samaritans.That Josephus gives voice to an anti-Samaritanism of his own day canbe forcefully stated. The ambiguity, however, of second century'splacement of Samaritans within Judaism (Letter of Aristeas; 2 Macca-bees) and outside of Judaism (the Old Testament evidence; Ben Sira;DSS) cannot be solved on the basis of non-Jewish sources in referenceto a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The most that can be said is that this'Nehemiah' Judaism seems to have flourished in the third-secondcentury BCE and that other Judaisms had to submit to it. By and largethis is exactly what all our sources tell us, including Josephus's variousstories about Samaritans, which we now will proceed to examine.

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

Chapter 5

SAMARITANS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

General Introduction to Josephus's Works

Flavius Josephus, or Joseph ben Matthias, his name before he wasadopted into court of the Roman emperor Vespasian after the first Jew-ish-Roman war (66-73/74 CE), was born in 37/38 CE. He was the sonof one of the old priestly families of Jerusalem and probably a descen-dant of the Hasmonaeans from his mother's lineage. According to Jose-phus's own self-description in Life of Josephus, he had made remark-able progress early in his life in the knowledge of Jewish law and Greekliterature. Presenting himself as having consulted the major schools ofJewish thought (Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees), and spending threeyears with the desert hermit Banus (Life 11), he decided to follow thePharisees 'a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greekcall the Stoic school' (Life 12). In 63-64 CE, at the age of 26, he wenton an embassy to Rome. From that time, he seems to have had closeconnections to leading circles of Rome. Back in Palestine he claims hewas forced by his own countrymen to take charge of Jewish troops insouthern Galilee who surrendered to the Romans in 67 CE after the con-quest of Jotapata. Josephus was taken prisoner by Vespasian, whom heaccompanied shortly afterwards in 69-70 CE on a trip to Alexandria.Although Josephus does not mention it, it is quite possible that heacquired some knowledge of Philo's writings in Alexandria, judgingfrom his treatment of the temple (Ant. 3.181-82) and the Law (Apion2.190-219).J After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus settled in Rome,

1. E.M. Smallwood ('Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', inL.H. Feldman and G. Hata [eds.], Josephus, Judaism and Christianity [Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1987], pp. 114-28 [128]), sought to judge the relia-bility of both authors by comparison of common material. The examination doesnot explain the question of dependency. Josephus's assumed dependence on Philo,argued by Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xiii) has been rejected by H.W. Attridge


where he obtained Roman citizenship. He was supported by Flavius,who provided him with a pension. His income was secured throughland in the coastal plain of Judaea, given to him by Titus and Vespas-ian. He was thus free to maintain his literary skills of which Jewish War(75-79 CE), Antiquities of the Jews (93-94 CE) and Against Apion(around 100 CE) are the most substantial products. Life, written some-what after Antiquities, deals mainly with Josephus's behaviour in theGalilaean uprising, supplemented with biographical notes before andafter. Josephus died around 100 CE.

H.W. Attridge2 has given an excellent discussion of the disagree-ments between Josephus's accounts in Life3 and War,4 relating Jose-phus's role as a military leader in the Jewish-Roman war in Galilee.Being interested in defending himself against accusations from the con-temporary historiographer Justus of Tiberias of having acted in a tyran-nical and dishonourable manner in the Galilee, he attempts to portrayhimself as a trustworthy leader of the Jewish people, free of any inten-tion to betray the Galilaeans to the Romans. The 15-20-year time spanbetween these works fully confirms the basic methodological rule ofevery historiographer: namely, that we know the present, but the pastchanges every day. This problem also shows itself, when we comparesome of Josephus's stories in War with variants from his much laterwork, Antiquities, from the early nineties which in 20 books describesthe Jewish 'history' from creation to the year 66 CE. Josephus'sintention to write another history about the war after finishing Anti-quities might have just such apologetic motivation.5

'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second TemplePeriod (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232 (211).

2. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', pp. 187-92.3. Composed as an appendix to Antiquities and probably written shortly after

94 CE as a defence against the critique of Josephus's actions in the Galilee duringthe Jewish war presented in Justus of Tiberias's work. This work is mostly knownthrough Life.

4. Probably written in Rome between 75 and 79 CE and with a possible Ara-maic edition in 70-71 CE, cf. War 1.3, 6. See the discussion in P. Bilde, FlaviusJosephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988),p. 79, who refers to Attridge, Feldman, Hata and Rajak.

5. Readers who have some interest in a different view of the issue and of Jose-phus's assumed apology in Life may consult Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 43-52,108-12.

5. Samaritans in the Writings ofJosephus 185

Jewish WarThis work begins with Antiochus IVth's siege of Jerusalem in 170-169BCE. After a short description of events in the Hasmonaean period, itconcentrates on the Herodian period and the Roman occupation up tothe end of the first Jewish-Roman war in 74 CE. The book was given acertain importance in early Christian circles, because of its handling ofthe destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Books 5 and 6).Favourable to the Roman leaders, especially the emperor's court, Jose-phus placed blame for the war entirely on the Jewish rebels, the Zealotsand the Sicarii, led by John of Gischala (a rival of Josephus in theGalilee) and Simon bar Giora. Conflicting with the Jewish aristocracyas well as with each other, they both caused a severe famine and set thetemple on fire after having plundered it, leaving the Roman soldiers tofinish its destruction and that of the city in order to end the Jewishrebellion.6 It is no wonder that Josephus sought affirmation of his worksfrom the highest authorities on both sides: King Agrippa II and theEmperor Titus,7 stressing that Titus was so anxious that 'my volumesshould be the sole authority from which the world should learn thefacts, that he affixed his own signature to them and gave orders for theirpublication' (Life 363ff.-Apion l.SOff.).

Although Josephus put the blame on the Jewish leaders, he also gavesome afterthought to fate's disfavour, and to divine control, which, intheir own chronology, make things happen according to their destiny, asit happened when the first temple had been destroyed (cf. War 6.435-42; 6.268; 6.288-315). This theme is well known from, for example,2 Mace. 5.11-20 and the New Testament. In this perspective, Josephus'swork also becomes a personal reflection, and the objective history

6. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 196-203. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works',p. 232 n. 76: 'Note the citations of Josephus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History1:1-3:10, where the Jewish historian serves as Eusebius' main source for his ten-dentious anti-Jewish account of the political history of the first century. Eusebiusrelies heavily on the lurid accounts of Jewish suffering from the Jewish War in hisdiscussion of the fall of Jerusalem (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7.3-8.9) in order to illustrate"how the punishment of God followed close after them (scil. the Jews) for theircrime against the Christ of God" (Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 7; cf. 3.7, 1-9).' For references torabbinic self-criticism, see Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 197 n. 23.

7. See, the introduction to War, LCL, pp. xix-xxii, for Josephus's dependencyon sources.


writing that Josephus claimed to strive for (cf. War 1.9-12; 5.20) didnot avoid tragedy's dramatic form or homily's theological reflection.8

Antiquities of the JewsSince most of the material about Samaritans and their position in Juda-ism is to be found in this work, I give a more detailed introduction to itscontent, purpose, sources and transmission. The entire work consists of20 books covering the period from creation to the beginning of the firstJewish-Roman war in 66 CE. It was originally planned together withWar, but was delayed for more than 10 years and finished in the thir-teenth year of the reign of the emperor Domitian when Josephus was56, that is, 93-94 CE (Ant. 20.267). The book's rather abrupt ending in66 CE might be explained by Josephus's plans to 'once more compose arunning account of the war up to the present day' (Ant. 20.258-59).

Although the book is held in esteem by many theologians and seen asevidence for the reliability of biblical and pseudepigraphical literature'shistoriographies, it becomes clear that Josephus, in most parts of hiswork, did not have other sources than those which need verification.The use of Josephus as an authoritative voice does not meet the critiqueof circular argumentation.9 This problem is especially clear in Books10-14, covering the period from the Assyrian conquest of Samaria untilHerod the Great. The 'accounts' are based on the Prophets of the OldTestament (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel), 1 Esdras (Ant. 11.1-158),biblical Ezra (11.159-83, 197-303), the book of Esther with its apo-cryphal Greek additions (11.184-296), an unknown Alexander source(11.297-47); the Letter of Aristeas (12.11-118), 1 Mace. 1.1-9.22(12.337-434; 13.1-61, 80-170, 174-214), an unknown Tobiad source(12.154-236), possibly an unknown John Hyrcanus source (cf. 1 Mace.16.24)10 and a few fragments of other history works: Herodotus, Beros-sos, Agatharcides, Strabo, Polybius and especially Nicolaus of Damas-cus, whom Josephus both used and wrote against,11 together with reuseof material from Jewish War.

8. See, further, Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 73-75.9. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 123-71, for a survey of 'main trends in modern

Josephus research' giving evaluation of the various positions.10. See OTP, p. xxi. Josephus does not mention this source and W. Whiston's

note to Ant. 13.229 must have another foundation11. Cf. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 193.


In this respect, it is remarkable that while the pre-exilic history con-sists of Books 1-10, the postexilic Persian and Hellenistic histories,until the Roman occupation in 63 BCE and the beginning of the reign ofHerod the Great, consist only of Books 11-13, leaving six books for theRoman period until 66 CE. This composition implicitly reveals the dif-ficulty of today's historians. Neither we nor Josephus have sufficientsources for the period from the Babylonian conquest until the Macca-baean revolt. Moreover, neither Josephus nor we have sufficient sourcesfor Josephus's pre-exilic history, and only in glimpses do we get admis-sion to a historical reality behind Josephus's paraphrase of biblical his-tory. As in biblical tradition the Israelites come back from exile asJews; so also in Josephus!

These crucial problems have certainly bothered many scholars,though most of them have not escaped using Josephus as a source. L.L.Grabbe probably comes close to expressing the standard pragmatic atti-tude towards the use ofJosephus when he declares:

If it were not for his writings (sell. Josefus), our knowledge of Jewishhistory—especially in the Greek and Roman periods—would be drasti-cally reduced. So much we know of persons and events central to Jewishhistory comes from Josephus and is available from no other source. Evenwhen other sources refer to the person or event in question, it is stillusually Josephus who tells us the most. This makes his writings invalu-able for much of the history of the Jews over the half millennium fromabout 400 BCE to almost 100 CE. Nevertheless, Josephus is not necessar-ily a simple source to use. One of the most fundamental mistakes madeby students of this period is to take Josephus's account at face value andrepeat it in light paraphrase. To do so ignores the gaps, the biases, thepoor quality of some of his authorities, and the fact that his accounts fre-quently cannot be checked. One of the main reasons Josephus is so valu-able is that his works are extant.12

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

12. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 4.


widely accepted as legendary, central to Jewish history? Is the longstory about the Jewish tax collector Joseph son of Tobias central toJewish history? Are the decrees of Antioch III, of which Josephus givesthree variations, but none fitting what is found on the stelae he raised,13

central to Jewish history? Are the stories about Esther, Daniel and oth-ers living at the Persian court central to Jewish history? I certainlybelieve that all these stories are central to Jewish self-understanding,even in Josephus's time, but not to history.

Grabbe seems to have been aware of this critique inherent to hisintroduction to Josephus, since he, almost contradicting himself fivepages later, states:

Once he had finished with the biblical material, Josephus seems to havebeen at a loss for good sources for a lengthy period of time. The OldTestament literature extends as far as the Persian period, and Josephusfilled out his account of the Persian period with the Greek books of1 Esdras and Esther. Concerning the next two centuries and more, heseems to have had very little information, filling up the space with a fewbits and pieces of valuable material but largely with dubious, legendaryworks. Only when he reached the second century and was able to drawon 1 Maccabees does he seem to have had a reliable, connected sourceagain. This means that most of his account of the Persian period, the con-quest of Alexander, and the Ptolemaic rule of Palestine is of littlevalue.14

Grabbe does not take this judgment as a principle for all of Josephus'swritings, but, placing himself between Moehring's overall scepticismand Rajak's overall acceptance, takes the position of Cohen, arguing fora differentiated judgment and examination of each section of Josephus'shistory on its merits.15

13. Y.H. Landau, 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', IEJ 16 (1966),pp. 54-70.

14. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 9.15. Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 10-11. H.R. Moehring, 'Review of Josephus in

Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill,1969) by S.J.D. Cohen', JJS 31 (1980), pp. 240-42, who rejects Cohen's view thatit is possible to separate facts from fiction in Josephus and reconstruct the history.The same has been argued by Bilde, Flavius Josephus, pp. 98-99: 'Once Josephus'sliterary leanings and professional tendencies have been defined, it is not difficult toseparate his editing, and so to speak, extricate the main source from these layers of"wrappings"', and T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London:Gerald Duckworth, 1983): 'While there are some features which are improbable,

5. Samaritans in the Writings of Josephus 189

Books 1-10 follow and interpret Old Testament Scriptures, dedicat-ing Books 1-4 to Pentateuchal material and a paraphrase of the Law inBook 3 (and 4), interestingly not avoiding the Deuteronomistic repe-tition (Ant. 4.196-301). Books 6-10, mainly based on the biblical his-torical books, fragmentary use of prophetic material, pseudepigraphicalbooks and citations of Jewish and Greek historians, probably knownthrough Alexander Polyhistor (Ant. 1.240) and Nicolaus of Damascus(Ant. 1.94, 108, 159) paraphrase the remainder of biblical chronologyuntil the fall of Jerusalem in 587. Josephus did not simply translate orpresent the biblical texts in their Greek form(s).16 He made an inter-pretation, following the 'rules' for the writing of the LXX. Not limitinghimself to the later canonical Scriptures, he made use of the 'historio-graphy and political constitutions translated from the Hebrew records'(Ant. 1.5) as well as 'our Scripture records', which he promised to 'setforth, each in its place' without 'adding or omitting anything' (Ant.1.17). This concept of 'translation' has close parallels in Ben Sira, 2Maccabees, New Testament and Greek and Aramaic 'translations' ofHebrew Scriptures. It was only the challenge of Christanity's polemicaluse of the LXX that seriously questioned this greatly flexible conceptand required a 'faithful translation', such as Aquila's literal translationof Hebrew biblical texts.17 Thus one might not, using our standards ofsource criticism, really speak of Josephus garbling his sources, which

there are none which are impossible and, as long as what Josephus tells us is pos-sible, we have no right to correct it.'

16. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 211, argues for a use of Greek textsonly and ascribes Semitisms in Josephus's writings to derive from his native lan-guage. Thackeray (LCL, 242 [1930], p. xii) suggested a Semitic source for the Pen-tateuch, Joshua and Judges and a Greek source for historical books from 1 Sam. to1 Mace.

17. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, p. 96, which made this the sixth suggestion forincompatibilities between Josephus's text and the biblical texts. Others have sug-gested that (1) Josephus 'was lying' in Ant. 1.5-17 (Guttmann; Hoffmann; Peter);(2) Josephus employed a well-known literary topos regardless of its content (Att-ridge; S.J.D. Cohen); (3) Josephus used this topos to emphasize his objectivity andimpartiability (van Unnik); (4) Josephus did not distinguish between the oral andwritten Torah or 'Scripture' (Feldman, Goldenberg, Vermes); (5) Josephus adoptedan oriental historiographical tradition, where ancient sacral texts laid the foundationfor the history writing similar to Berossus, Manetho (Rajak); cf. Bilde, FlaviusJosephus, pp. 95-96.


even for the biblical texts, might well have been quite different fromour MT, SP and LXX, if we are to judge from the diversity of DSSmanuscripts, the writings of Eupolemus, and perhaps most illustrativelyJubilees' variant reading of the Pentateuch. Josephus's writings mightwell be seen as a purposeful redaction (cf. Ant. 4.197), aiming at thecreation of a coherent work acceptable to his audience in the Roman-Hellenistic world for the purpose of furthering greater acceptance of theJewish people and its special character by references to its origin inantiquity,18 its international reputation19 and the philosophical characterof its religion. Such purposes are served by Josephus's rhetorical elo-quence, his novelistic sketches of figures like Joseph, Moses, David,Solomon, Herod (among others), and his inserted speeches and docu-ments (cf. Ant. 1.15; 14.186ff., 266, 323; 16.174-78). Both explicitlyand implicitly, it is demonstrated that the 'translated texts from theHebrew Scripture' and 'our documents' are not considered to be quitefit in themselves and that they can raise interest in the Graeco-Romanworld only if they speak with the same tongue and are provided withimplicit guarantees from the great rulers of the world.20 Omission ofreference to circumcision in several instances and to the golden calfepisode in Ant. 3.99 serve these purposes as well.21

In the same manner as Vergil wrote his Roman history in an answerto Homer's Greek history, so Josephus modelled and composed hisstory as a response to the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who inthe time of Augustus wrote the Roman history (Roman Antiquities} in20 books, referring to a glorious past with the purpose of making itknown in the Greek world. Surpassing Dionysius, Josephus carried his

18. Not only earlier than Greek and Roman peoples, but even earlier than theBabylonians and Egyptians, from whom Abraham learned astrology and arithmetic(Ant. 1.166-68).

19. Among others, Alexander the Great, Antiochus III, Julius Caesar andAugustus's respect and admiration for the Jews leading to guarantees of privileges.

20. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 98-101, for a detailed description; Attridge,Josephus and his Works, p. 266, for the reliability of the documents and their trans-mission; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocle-tians (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981 [1976]), pp. 558-60.

21. A further study on Josephus's use of 'translation' as a term meaning 'inter-pretation' in various instances where he defends himself against accusations of notbeing correct (e.g. Ant. 2.347; 9.208 and 214—which frames the 'abbreviated'Jonah story—10.218; Apion 1.53-54) is needed.


story 'pure of that unseemly mythology current among others' (Ant.1.15), past the mythological world of Roman origin to creation.22

TransmissionLike most of the literature on which we base our understanding of anti-quity, we do not find any comprehensive collections of Josephus beforethe ninth-eleventh century CE, and then only in few examples. Apion isbased on a single manuscript from the eleventh century (Codex L), ofwhich 2.52-113 is missing. The eleventh-fourteenth century brought afew more manuscripts. A single Greek fragment from the third century(pap. P. Graec. Vindob. 29810) comprising War 2.576-79, 582-84 hassurvived the ravages of time. We are thus obliged for the Greek editionsto look to the use of Josephus among the writings of the early ChurchFathers: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus,Origin and especially Eusebius, who quotes long passages of Josephus,not always quite verbatim. Hegesippus made a paraphrasing Latinedition of War in the late fourth century, which is of little value forreconstruction in comparison to Cassiodor's Latin edition from 570,comprising all of Josephus's works. Niese's edition from 1885-95,based on mediaeval manuscripts, is accepted as the most trustworthyedition,23 and is used as the basic manuscript for the Loeb ClassicalLibrary's editions from 1930 with several reprints. W. Whiston'sEnglish translation from 1736, also with several reprints, certainly hashad a great impact on scholarship, although it 'is no longer accepted asthe best text. Nor was Whiston the best-equipped translator for the task.The work has many deficiencies'.24 For the French-speaking audience,as well as for studies in rabbinical parallels to Josephus's exposition ofthe Mosaic code, the French edition from 1900, Oeuvres completes deFlavins Josephe, has been very useful.

22. Attridge, 'Josephus and his Works', p. 217. H.St.J. Thackeray, Introductionto Jewish Antiquities (LCL, 242 [1930]), p. ix. For recent discussions on Josephus'sdependency on Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

23. Bilde, Flavins Josephus, pp. 63-64. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, I,pp. 57-61.

24. From the foreword to the 1960 reprint. This study uses and quotes LCL(recent editions). Critical deviations in Whiston's text will be noted.


Examination ofJosephus's Various Descriptions of Samaritans

As mentioned earlier, most ofJosephus's material about Samaritans isto be found in Antiquities. Even important events, such as the destruc-tion of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim, is not given any weight in theparallel account in War. It seems reasonable to ask what urged Josephusto insert small stories about a faction of Judaism, apostate Jews or non-Jews, marked as Cuthaeans, Sidonians, Shechemites, Medes or Persiansin his Jewish 'history' written almost 20 years later. Does Antiquitieshave a rationalized historiography that not only sought to place Judaismin the Graeco-Roman world but also sought to define the correct formof Judaism similar to the discussions in the New Testament, implicitlyrevealing that this question was not entirely settled at the time. Theconsequences of cult centralization brought about by the loss of theJewish temple in Jerusalem may well have enhanced discussions aboutthe proper role of the Jewish temple. As we shall see, this question israised by Josephus both before Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Philo-metor, securing that both the Greek and the Egyptian world had been inagreement on this matter. The aforementioned variant reading of1 Mace. 10.25-45 (see above, Chapter 2), which in Josephus has 'it shallbe in the power of the high priest to take care that no one Jew shall haveany other temple for worship but only that at Jerusalem' (Ant. 13.54),could indicate that he had reason for what seems to be a deliberatechange. The stress on the one temple, found also in Apion 2.193, mightfurther indicate that cult centralization was still questioned, at least bythe non-Jewish world. The different weighting of this matter in Jose-phus's treatment of the temples on Gerizim and in Heliopolis in Warand in Antiquities, together with his use of Heliopolis for settling Sama-ritan matters, is revealing, as the following examination demonstrates.

Antiquities 9.277-21Josephus's portrait of the Samaritans takes its point of departure from2 Kgs 17.24-41 concerning the people removed from Babylon, Cuthah,Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim, who did not know how to worship thegod of the land, and who, according to the Old Testament, have nointention of giving up their own gods, but had introduced a syncretisticreligion, using the temple(s)25 made by the Samaritans (2 Kgs 17.29).

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


When asked to decide which god they will worship, they did not chooseto worship Yahweh alone (as did the Israelites in Josh. 24.21-24), but tofear Yahweh and serve their own gods. It is central in the Old Testa-ment text that they did not know how to worship the god of the land(2 Kgs 17.26-27), and that to worship Yahweh is to keep his ordinances(17.36-38). It is not said that they betrayed Yahweh in a manner similarto the Israelites, causing their removal from the country (17.7-24). Thesituation is the opposite. The Israelites knew how to fear Yahweh, as isclearly said in this paragraph and reiterated in the midrash of the firstcommandment, presented in the closing paragraph (2 Kgs 17.34-41),but they failed to do so. In contrast, the foreigners did not know andobviously were slow to learn, so these foreigners continued to 'fearYahweh' after their own manner, thus breaking the first commandment,repeated thrice in vv. 35, 37 and 38. Indirectly, a critique is given of thepriest 'carried away from Shomeron', who had settled in Bethel (2 Kgs17.28). He must be understood to belong to the same stock as thosewho are claimed to be responsible for the idol worship in the openingparagraph. They did not change at all, since the foreigners continue todo so 'unto this very day', leaving the land as polluted as it was before,anticipating the contrasting fate of Judaea in the time of Nebuchad-nezzar.

Josephus's account of this story in 2 Kings is interpolated in hisHezekiah narrative, using the pious acts of Hezekiah as a contrastingmotif to the impious acts of the Israelites, who did not accept Heze-kiah's invitation to join the celebration of the Feast of UnleavenedBread in Jerusalem. They not only laughed at the king's message, aswritten in the biblical account of 2 Chronicles 30, but, in an elaborationof this narrative, they 'poured scorn upon them (the prophets) andfinally seized them and killed them' (Ant. 9.265). This stock motif thatframes Josephus's views on Samaritans is reiterated several times in hisinterpretation of historical events. It should not escape our notice thathe made purposeful use of this motif in his judgment of Manasseh'scrime, that 'imitating the lawless deeds of the Israelites' he 'killed allthe righteous men among the Hebrews, nor did he spare even theprophets, some of whom he slaughtered daily' (Ant. 10.37-38).

In Josephus's account, we are first surprised to notice that he hasgiven specific status to one group of the removed people, namely theCuthaeans (Ant. 9.279), revealing the language of his own day, butconflicting with the biblical account, which neither speaks of Cuthaeans


nor knows the term elsewhere.26 Probably aware of this problem,Josephus, in accordance with the biblical narrative, mentions that theCuthaeans originally were five tribes who each worshipped their owngod and came from the same Persian region and river valley calledCuthah (Xo\)0d, Ant. 9.288) In Josephus's treatment, the biblical 'lions'have become 'a pestilence' and an oracle advises that worship of theMost High God (TOV jieyioxov 0eov) brings deliverance (aomptov).These are minor changes. It is more important to notice that it was thebringing of 'their own gods' that brought the pestilence. The con-sequences of the oracle is thus changed, for surprisingly we read:

after being instructed in the ordinances and religion of this God, wor-shipped him with great zeal [<|)iAoTiu.a}<;], and were at once freed of thepestilence [A,otu.6v]. These same rites have continued in use even to thisday among those who are called Chuthaioi [Xot>6aioi], Cuthim, in theHebrew tongue, Samaritans [Zau.apeiTca] by the Greeks (Ant. 9.290).

With a single artifice, namely the omission of the mention of religioussyncretism, Josephus succeeded in combining the narrative of 2 Kings17 with the Samaritan question and avoided attacking the practice ofcult and religion (which would be difficult to defend, as we have seenearlier). Questions of ethnicity and relation to the Israelite tribesbecome the central themes of Josephus's narrative. This is furtheremphasized in his introductory remark:

the ten tribes of Israel emigrated from Judea nine hundred and fortyseven years after their forefathers went out of Egypt (Ant. 9.280).

which is to be understood on the assumption that the ten tribes hadnever returned, thus again contrasting the fate of the Judaean tribe(s),(Ant. 10.184-85). His closing remark serves the same purpose:

But they alter their attitude, according to circumstance and, when theysee the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen [ouyyeveic;], on theground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to themthrough their origin from him, but when they see the Jews in trouble,they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor dothese have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselvesto be aliens of another race [dM-oeSveic;] (Ant. 9.291).

This problem of ethnicity forms the central core of Josephus's strugglewith the Judaean-Samaritan relationship. It is repeated almost verbatim

26. See, later in this chapter, my examination of Josephus's terminology.


in Ant. 11.341 and 12.257, and, with the same meaning, in a variantform in 11.85.

Antiquities 11.1-119This variant form has a parallel in Ezra 4.1-6.22. Josephus, however,does not primarily use that text, but rather the apocryphal 1 Esdras,which he interprets by means of biblical Ezra. For our purpose this isnot crucial, since the textual disagreements, related to Josephus's treat-ment of the text, do not involve the narrative plot as such, but variousdesignations for the involved parties. For those, there are no disagree-ments between the biblical Ezra, the apocryphal 1 Esdras and LXX'sEzra, which follows the MT of the Bible. For the sake of clearness, Itake my point of departure from the MT text.

The story concerns the building of the temple in Jerusalem after thereturn from the exile. The problems arise because of the opposition from

1. 'the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin', p^m rmiT "H^(Ezra 4.1);

2. 'the people of the land', fHKrrDi?, 'am ha'ares (Ezra 4.4);3. 'King Artaxerxes' (Ezra 4.23-24),4. 'Rehum, the chancellor and Shimshay, the scribe' (Ezra 4.7, 8,

17, 23);5. 'and the rest of their companions/their associates, the judges,

the governors, the officials, the Persians, the men of Erech, theBabylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites and the restof the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deportedand settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the pro-vince Beyond the River' (Ezra 4.8-10, 17).

All of these are involved in the first attempt to stop the building activi-ties in Ezra 4.1-24.

Later, in chs. 5-6, where the building activities are resumed as aresult of the encouragement of the prophets Iddo and Zechariah, theplot becomes more transparent. Now both 'the adversaries of Judah andBenjamin' and 'the people of the land' have disappeared. Left are theofficials represented by

1. 'Tattenaj, the govenor of the province Beyond the River andShethar-bozenai and their associates, the governors (Ezra 5.3,6; 6.13)

2. 'King Darius' (Ezra 5.6-7; 6.1, 12, 13, 15).


Let us now see what happens to these persons in Josephus's interpre-tation of the narrative, beginning in Ezra 4.1 with the reaction of the'adversaries of Judah and Benjamin':

after hearing the sound of the trumpets, the Samaritans, who were as ithappened, hostile to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin... (Ant. 11.84)

and in the same manner a few verses later:

On hearing this, the Cuthaeans—it is by this name that the Samaritansare called—were indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to requestthe satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus andagain, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the templeand put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busiedthemselves about it (Ant. 11.88).

Why does Josephus mention the Cuthaeans here, since they were nevermentioned in the biblical accounts of Ezra and 1 Esdras, which,together with the LXX, mention

the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamitesand the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deportedand settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyondthe River.

and which in Ezra 4.2 are not given any specific designation, but callthemselves 'we'?

Let us build with you; for we worship God as you do, and we have beensacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria,who brought us here.

With the exception of some confusion about the king's name, whichvaries in the different variations of this text and is in disagreement withbiblical reports on deportations, this text has the same wording as itsparallels in MT, LXX and 1 Esd. 5.66-67 (68-69). In Josephus's account,however, we find the following variations interpolated between theutterances about 'Samaritans' and 'Cuthaeans':

and asked to have a share in the building. 'For we worship God no lessthan they,' they asserted, 'and pray fervently to Him and have been zeal-ous in His service from the time when Salmanasses, the king of Assyria,brought us hither from Cuthia and Media' (Ant. 11.84-85).

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


saries of Judah and Benjamin' in the tradition of 2 Kings 17. First of all,they mention some other people and, secondly, they date them to a dif-ferent time, namely during the reign of Esarhaddon (681-669 BE), orOsnappar, whose identity is questioned and normally is identified withAshurbanipal (640-639 BCE), since in 640-39 he campaigned againstBabylon and Susa. Ezra 4.9-10 might refer to this event.27 Other pos-sibilities are Senaccherib and Shalmanezer whom Josephus chose.

Another interesting feature to be noticed in Josephus's account is theexchange of 'sacrificing to him' for 'pray fervently to Him and havebeen zealous in His service', which have no support in any other text.There could be two reasons for this exchange. First, that offeringsdemand a temple or at least an altar, and according to Josephus's Anti-quities, the Samaritan temple was not built before the time of Alexanderthe Great. Secondly, Josephus might not have thought it proper to tes-tify to offerings being conducted outside of Jerusalem at a time whencult centralization is believed to have dominated. This accords wellwith Josephus's closing remark of the discussion in 11.87, where hestates after the rejection of the Samaritan petition, that 'none but them-selves had been commanded to build the temple, the first time by Cyrusand now by Darius', and continues,

'they would, however allow them to worship there', they said, 'but theonly thing which they might, if they wished, have in common with them,as might all other men, was to come to the sanctuary and revere God'(Ant. 11.87).

Josephus's account continues, following the correspondence of1 Esdras 6-7 and Ezra 5-6. We are now introduced to 'Sisines,28 thegovernor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sarabazanes,29 together with cer-tain others' (Ant. 11.89). Comparable to the biblical account (Ezra 5.3-4), which has a close parallel in 1 Esd. 6.3-4, they go to Jerusalem toask for the 'building licence'. Since the reply to this request is unsatis-factory, they send a letter to King Darius for a confirmation of theexplanation given by the Jews, that they build the temple after the orderof King Cyrus. Also comparable to the accounts in Ezra 5.5 and 1 Esd.6.6, the Jews are not prevented from building during the period ofinvestigation.

27. A.K. Grayson, 'Osnappar', ABD 5, p. 50.28. So 1 Esd. 6.3; Ezra 5.3 reads 'Tattenaj'.29. Ezra 5.3 reads 'Shetar-bozenai'.


In Josephus's elaboration of this story, this 'event' is framed byremarks about contemporary Samaritan activity, which seeks to stop thebuilding activities. Utilizing former material and connecting this eventwith the rejection of participation in the building of the temple we areintroduced to what turns out to be the 'real' troublemakers, exoneratingthe officials for any responsibility for delays or hindrances. We are thustold in Am. 11.88,

On hearing this, the Cuthaeans—it is by this name that the Samaritansare called—were indignant and persuaded the nations in Syria to requestthe satraps, in the same way as they had formerly done under Cyrus andagain, after his reign, under Cambyses, to stop the building of the templeand put hindrances and delays in the way of the Jews as they busiedthemselves about it.

Since the activity of the officials in this account is not a result of Sama-ritan activity, the Samaritans independently write a letter to Darius,accusing

the Jews of fortifying the city and constructing the temple so as toresemble a fortress rather than a sanctuary, and said that what was beingdone would not be to his advantage and, in addition cited the letter ofCambyses in which he had forbidden them to build the temple (Ant.11.97).

No such letter to Darius is mentioned in 1 Esdras or Ezra, and Josephusrefers here to a former incident accounted for in Ant. 11.19-30, elabo-rating Ezra 4.5-7, 11-24 and 1 Esd. 5.63; 2.16, 25:

While they were laying the foundations of the temple and very busilyengaged in building it, the surrounding nations, especially the Cuthaeans,whom the Assyrian king Salmanesses had brought from Persia andMedia and settled in Samaria when he deported the Israelite people,urged the satraps and those in charge to hinder the Jews in the rebuildingof the city and the construction of the temple. And so being corrupted bytheir bribes, they sold their services to the Cuthaeans by showing neglectand indifference toward the Jews in their building (Ant. 11.19).

Hereafter follows the death of Cyrus, who, 'because of his preoccu-pation with other wars, was in ignorance of these matters' and left it un-solved to his son Cambyses. 'The people in Syria, Phoenicia, Amman,Moab and Samaria' wrote to him, calling themselves 'his servants,Rathymos, the recorder of all things that happen, Semelios, the scribe,and the judges of the council in Syria and Phoenicia' (Ant. 11.22). In1 Esdras 18-24 and Ezra 4.12-16 this letter is designed for Artaxerxes.


Interesting to notice in Josephus's rendering of the building narrative,is the developing plot line that allows him, in the first plot, to let theCuthaeans bribe the officials, who must be considered to be related tothe Persian administration, and personally having no interest in anyJudaean-Samaritan conflict of religion. In the second plot the Samari-tans act for themselves. No letter and no answer is presented in Jose-phus's story. In the third plot, however, we are given both letter andanswer.

If we once again return to the second plot, the enquiry from 'Sisines,the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sarabazanes, together withcertain others' (Ant. 11.89) is treated positively by King Darius, similarto what we find in the biblical versions. The answer, however, is not-ably shorter than that of Ezra 6.6-12 and 1 Esdras 27-34:

King Darius to the eparch Sisines and Sarabazanes and their compan-ions, greeting. I have sent you a copy of the letter which I found in thearchives of Cyrus, and it is my will that everything should be done as isstated therein. Farewell (Ant. 11.104).

The sharp tone of the biblical parallels is missing and no implicitobjection to the king's decision is anticipated. This is similar to Ezra6.11-12 and lEsd. 7.32-33.

The building continues with the supervision and assistance of'Sisines and those with him' (Ant. 11.105) and is finished in the ninthyear of Darius.30

Here ends the 'biblical' narratives, leaving open several questionsabout the identity of those who oppose the building. They certainly arenot the high officials of Darius's time. In the third plot of Josephus'snarrative, this insecurity brings a considerable advantage. Envious ofthe Judaean success

the Samaritans inflicted many injuries on the Jews, for they relied ontheir wealth and pretended to be related to the Persians, since they hadcome from their country. And the sums which they had been ordered bythe king to pay to the Jews out of their tribute for the sacrifices, theyrefused to furnish, and they had the eparchs zealously aiding them inthis; and whatever else they could do to injure the Jews either by them-selves or through others, they did not hesitate to try (Ant. 11.114-15).

The stereotype in Josephus's writings of the Samaritans beingCuthaeans is here exchanged with the more imprecise 'related to the

30. Ezra and 1 Esdras read 'the sixth year'.


Persians, since they had come from their country'. This is with goodreason, for the letter that the envoys Zorobabelos and four other leaders,who are sent from the people of Jerusalem to King Darius to accuse theSamaritans, bring back 'to the eparchs of Syria and the council' has thefollowing address:

King Darius to Taganas and Sambabas, the eparchs of the Samaritans,and Sandrakes and Buedon and the rest of their fellow-servants inSamaria (Ant. 11.118).

Josephus has thus encircled the 'real' adversaries, the local administra-tion in Samaria, who is ordered to

furnish them out of the royal treasury, from the tribute of Samaria,everything which they may need for the sacrifices as the priests request(Ant. 11.119).

Faithful to his general tendency, Josephus's elaboration on Darius'sletter of Ezra 6.8 and 1 Esd. 6.29 exchanges 'the province Beyond theRiver' and 'Coelesyria and Phoenicia' for 'Samaria' in a manner simi-lar to what he is doing in his construct of Cyrus's edict in Ant. 11.16.He thus anticipates the conflict to follow. With minor omissions andslight alterations, Josephus once again transforms geographical desig-nations (11.118-19) into an ethnic designation (11.114) connected withthe tradition of 2 Kings 17 and placed in the rabbinical tradition of theCuthaeans.31 This also allows him to leave out any political reasons forthe conflict, presenting the Judaean-Samaritan conflict as one relatedentirely to the question of religious recognition: who is the true Israel,who belongs to it, and where does one pay temple taxes.

Josephus's treatment of the Nehemiah narrative confirms this, sincein this narrative he shows no interest in establishing a Samaritan-Judaean contrast by calling the adversaries of the building of the wallSamaritans. He here employs the terms 'Ammanites, Moabites, Samari-tans and all those living in Coele-Syria' (Ant. 11.174).

Antiquities 11.297-347Josephus's third story dealing with Judaean-Samaritan conflicts isplaced in the time of the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great.

31. A technique also employed by Josephus in his dealing with the text of thebooks of Maccabees, e.g. Ant. 12.287, where Apollonius has become 'the general ofthe Samaritans' against 1 Mace. 10.69 'governor of Coele Syria' and 2 Mace. 3.5'governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia'.


The story has the purpose of answering questions about the Samaritantemple's status in relation to Jerusalem's temple. Alexander is hereused as the authoritative voice of the text. Connected with the story isthe question of who built the Samaritan temple. Thus the focus of thenarrative is not Alexander's victorious campaign or the change of thepolitical situation. They only serve as a framework for the more impor-tant question: Which temple does Alexander accept as the legitimateJewish temple? A similar question is raised in front of Ptolemy IVPhilomethor, using the framework of a court hearing. Possible sourcesfor Josephus's Alexander story are several, none of which can be takenas a basis for his narrative's content but only for its outline. The storybears a clear resemblance to Alexander's alleged visits to other impor-tant shrines.32

The introduction to Josephus's 'account' describes the strife betweenthe high priest Joannes and his brother Jesus, who, supported by thePersian general Bagoses, sought to obtain the office of the high priest-hood. This lead to a deadly quarrel between Joannes and Jesus in thetemple, with fatal consequences for Jesus. As a punishment, Bagosesimposes a tribute on the Jews of 50 drachmae per lamb slaughtered forthe daily offerings for seven years. After Joannes' death his son Jadduabecomes high priest. He has a brother, Manasseh, married to Sanbal-lat's daughter Nikaso, who caused what in Josephus's views must beunderstood as the definitive split between Jews and Samaritans.

Sanballat, 'who was sent by Darius, the last king of Persia,33 intoSamaria', becomes a central figure in Josephus's story. Combining boththe past and the future, he secures that, in spite of Manasseh's departurefrom Jerusalem followed by many of the priests and Levites, the Sama-ritans on Garizim do not represent a new Jewish community, but are thepreviously mentioned Cuthaeans from 2 Kings 17. This is done bydescribing Sanballat as 'a Cuthaean by birth; of which stock were theSamaritans also'. Josephus thus makes certain that he is not confusedwith any other Sanballat than the one mentioned in the book of Nehe-miah. Echoing Ezra 4.15-16 and 1 Esd. 2.22-24, he asserts that thisperson can be related to the 'adversaries' mentioned there:

32. Marcus, Jewish Antiquities; Appendix C, LCL, 326; Grabbe, Judaism,pp. 181-82, 208. Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 895-96.

33. Darius III Codomanus (338-331 BCE).


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

Manasseh became Sanballat's puppet, who first of all had the purposeof securing him allegiance with Jerusalem, and when this eventuallyfailed, giving his daughter's children the dignity of the priesthood. Theallegiance with Jerusalem certainly failed. The elders of Jerusalem didnot consent to the marriage, and since Manasseh would rather divorcehis wife than give up the office of the high priesthood, Sanballat feltobliged to promise him

that he would build a temple similar to that in Jerusalem on Mount Ger-izim—this is the highest of the mountains near Samaria—and undertookto do these things with the consent of King Darius (Ant. 11.310-11).

The role of Sanballat's adversary is given to Jerusalem's high priest,Jaddua. The presentation of him is as follows: When Alexander theGreat went against Sidon and Tyre after he had defeated Darius, heasked for troops and supplies for his army from the Jewish high priestJaddua:

give him the gifts which they had formerly sent as tribute to Darius, thuschoosing the friendship of the Macedonians, for, he said, they wouldnever regret this course. But the high priest replied to the bearers of theletter that he had given his oath to Darius not to take up arms againsthim, and said that he would never violate this oath so long as Dariusremained alive. When Alexander heard this, he was roused to anger, andwhile deciding not to leave Tyre, which was on the point of being taken,threatened that when he had brought it to terms he would march againstthe high priest of the Jews and through him teach all men what people itwas to whom they must keep their oaths (Ant. 11.317-19).

At stake here is allegiance, loyalty and the question of 'to whom theymust keep their oaths'. The situation certainly is dangerous.

Sanballat, who 'was sent by Darius', had no problems in renouncingDarius and giving his loyalty to Alexander. After he had given him hismen, eight thousand subjects, for the siege of Tyre, he

felt confident about his plan and addressed him on the subject, explain-ing that he had a son-in-law, Manasses, who was the brother of Jaddua,the high priest of the Jews and that there were many others of his coun-trymen [6|ioe9voov] with him who now wished to build a temple in theterritory subject to him. It was also an advantage to the king, he said, thatthe power of the Jews should be divided in two, in order that the nation


might not, in the event of revolution, be of one mind and stand togetherand so give trouble to the kings as it had formerly given to the Assyrianrulers. When therefore, Alexander gave his consent, Sanballat broughtall his energy to bear and built the temple, and appointed Manasses highpriest, considering this to be the greatest distinction which his daughter'sdescendants could have (Ant. 11.322-24).

As can be seen from this, according to Josephus, Alexander had notcaused any division of the power of the Jews, nor did the high priest ofJerusalem or for that matter the Levites and priests who followed Man-asseh. They were not guarantees of the legitimate confession or priest-hood, since the dignity of that had been bestowed on Manasseh'sdaughters' children. Josephus thus maintains his former statements thatthe Samaritans are the former Cuthaeans, even though the priests arefrom legitimate Jerusalem stock.

Let's now see how Jaddua solves his problems with Alexander.When Jaddua heard that Alexander was on his way,

he was in an agony of fear, not knowing how he should meet the Mace-donians, whose king was angered by his former disobedience. He there-fore ordered the people to make supplication, and offering sacrifices toGod together with them, besought Him to shield the nation and deliverthem from the dangers that were hanging over them (Ant. 11.326).

Guided by God in a dream, he put on his high-priestly garments andwith the people and the priests went outside the city, leaving the gatesopen, to meet Alexander 'at a certain place called Saphein' (Ea^eiv).34

Alexander,

when he saw the multitude in white garments, the priests at their headclothed in linen, and the high priest in a robe of hyacinth-blue and gold,wearing on his head the mitre with the golden plate on it on which wasinscribed the name of God, he approached alone and prostrated himselfbefore that Name and first greeted the high priest' (Ant. 11.331).

Everyone was astonished. What had happened to Alexander?

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


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

There follows an explanation of how Alexander had once seen the highpriest in a dream in Macedonia, and that it was told him that by bring-ing his army under the divine conduct of 'that God' he should 'defeatDarius and destroy the power of the Persians'. This vision is furtherconfirmed by Alexander's reading of the book of Daniel, which isshown to him in the temple,

in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy theempire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated (Ant.11.337).

Made happy by the good news, Alexander is ready to bestow upon theJews whatever they might desire, so

the high priest asked that they might observe their country's laws [TOIC;TidTptoic; voumq], and in the seventh year be exempt from tribute, hegranted all this. Then they begged that he would permit the Jews inBabylon and Media also to have their own laws [TOI<; i8ioi<; voumq], andhe gladly promised to do as they asked (Ant. 11.338-39).

The danger is averted. The Jewish high priest has been able to 'sur-render' to Alexander through Alexander's surrender to Jaddua's God,and this without renouncing Darius. The story is not finished yet. Wenow have the Samaritans and Jews sketched in contrasting polarity witheach other. But the pivotal question yet remains and is still to be put:Will Alexander consider these two groups to be equal? Is the onetemple as good as the other? Envy and ethnicity are key words here, asthey had been in Josephus's variant treatment of the building of Jeru-salem's temple of the Persian period. The story therefore continues:

And so having regulated these matters at Jerusalem, Alexander marchedoff against the neighbouring cities. But all those peoples to whom hecame received him in a friendly spirit, whereupon the Samaritans [Eap,a-peiTai], whose chief city at that time was Shechem [Zixtua], which laybeside Mount Garizein, and inhabited by apostates from the Jewishnation, seeing that Alexander had so signally honoured the Jews, decided

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


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

Alexander was hardly out of Jerusalem when the Shechemites ap-proached,

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

Note that in contrast to Alexander's entrance into Jerusalem there is noprostration, no adoration, no willingness to go to the temple and nopriestly garments. Here are soldiers and a king who has more importantmatters to deal with. The Shechemites, anxious not to lose the opportu-nity of having the king's favour, petitioned him to remit the tribute ofthe seventh year, the Jubilee year, because they did not sow therein. Heasked them

who they were that made this request. And when they said that they wereHebrews ['EfJpoioi], but were called the Sidonians of Shechem [oi evZiXi|o.oi<; Zi8(6vvoi] he again asked them whether they were Jews ['lov-8oloi]. Then, as they said that they were not, he replied, 'But I havegiven these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return, and havemore exact information from you, I shall do as I think best' (Ant. 1 1.343-44).

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


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

Josephus's argumentation here concentrates on the most central themesof Jewish self-understanding, discussed in a variety of texts from theDSS's Damascus Covenant, Community Rule and Jubilees to Philo andthe Gospels, all dealing with questions of Jewish halakhah. The ques-tioning of circumcision, so central to Paul's writings, is absent in thesetexts, as it is in Josephus. By placing the Shechemites in this obviouslyJewish context, Josephus's ambiguity about the Samaritans has beengiven its clearest expression.

The details in the Alexander story have been dealt with extensively.Questions about Sanballat, Jaddua, Manasseh, Alexander's journeys,his troops in Samaria, Josephus's sources, etc, all are involved here.These, of course, are necessary questions and some answers may throwsome light on what may have happened. They are, however, not themost important questions to ask. It is more important to examine howan author composes and presents the different questions he wants toanswer, as well as to ask the purpose of his story. This story's mainpurpose and function is not to describe the Samaritans. They are beingused as characters in a plot. Josephus's main purpose is to emphasizethe story that Alexander had shown worship to Yahweh in Jerusalem,the same Alexander 'who himself was adored by all others'. One shouldnot forget too quickly how, confronted with Vespasian, Josephus savedhis life by 'prophesying' that Vespasian should become emperor andthat his success was due to the providence of God (War 3.401). TheAlexander story thus serves a very specific function in Josephus's Anti-quities. He aims to demonstrate how the Jewish temple in Jerusalem issuperior to all other temples and to show how Judaism, as it is under-stood by the Jews of Jerusalem, is the true religion for the whole ofhumankind. This is expressed in his description of Alexander, that'when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God accordingto the high priest's direction' (Ant. 11.336). The implicit message to theRoman emperor of Josephus's own time should not be dismissed fromthe interpretation of the text. The paradigmatic theme of Jews beingfavoured by emperors, which is expressed in most of the texts dealingwith the Persian and Ptolemaic period: 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, Esther,


Daniel, Letter of Aristeas, Documents of Antioch III, and others, andwhich is given explicit reference in Ant. 12.115-28, forms the backboneof Josephus's writing on Alexander.

Antiquities 12.237-64Josephus's fourth composition about Samaritans is placed in the time ofthe Hasmonaeans and in the framework of Antiochus TV's treatment ofthe Jews.

The story opens much like the previous one, with a description of thecircumstances in the temple court of Jerusalem. Josephus is dependenton 1 and 2 Maccabees, which, like Josephus's own main perspective,emphasizes that internal quarrels among Jews were responsible for theJewish misfortunes, and that the foreign rulers merely reacted to thissituation. This aspect, however, is undermined in the account in whichAntiochus attacks Jerusalem twice in the 143rd and 145th year of theSeleucid reign (169 and 167 BCE), without any attempt at rebellion, as2 Mace. 5.1-26 has it. This rebellion is placed in Josephus before Anti-ochus's Egyptian campaign. It is combined with the appointment ofOnias/Menelaus, who, supported by the Tobiads, introduced Greek cus-toms (Ant. 12.237-41). Other possibilities are thus at hand for interpret-ing Antiochus's motifs, related to his defeat in Egypt by the Romansupport to Ptolemy Physcon of Alexandria (Ant. 12.242-44) and con-trasting the accounts of 1 Mace. 1.16-20. It is not clearly expressed inJosephus's story, but lack of money and fear for the Romans, for whomthere seem to have been some support in Jerusalem (12.247), are hintedat (12.249). Since Josephus's composition of the story does not giveany reason for Antiochus's harsh treatment of the Jews, but only for theplundering of the temple, the question remains open whether Josephus'sinterest is not merely bound to giving an account of Samaritan reactionto Jewish suffering than to the account of 1 Mace. 1.21-64, from wherehe deletes the theological point 'that they should all be of one peopleand everyone should give up his own customs' (id vourva cruTO'u). Theaccount involving the Samaritans follows immediately after Josephus'sdescription of 'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who didnot obey Antiochus' decrees but 'held their country's customs ofgreater account than their punishment' (Ant. 12.255).

The account has this opening:

But when the Samaritans [oi ZauapelTOi] saw the Jews suffering thesemisfortunes, they would no longer admit they were of their kin or that


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

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

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

It is here noteworthy that Josephus establishes a connection with2 Kings 17 by using the expression 'certain droughts/frequent pesti-lences'. Whether he means the one or the other is not important. Thequestion is related to the rabbinic discussion of whether Samaritans canbe considered to be genuine converts, or whether they are 'lion-con-verts', as discussed already in Chapter 4. Questions about ethnicity donot form part of the discussion here. This question was already settledin the former story and is not taken up again. The focus of this story isthe question of whether those who follow Jewish practices can be calledJews. The answer is ambiguous, as can be seen from the following.

Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but theking's officers, in the belief that we follow the same practices as theythrough kinship with them, are involving us in similar charges, whereaswe are Sidonians by origin, as is evident from our state documents (Ant.12.260).

Josephus's point of departure is, as it was in Ant. 11.341, the hypo-crisy of the Samaritans. In both accounts Josephus's statement is with-out consequence, since both accounts state that they are not Jews,which, in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they infact are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews,whether good or bad. Indirectly, Josephus reveals his (and probably hiscontemporaries') ambivalent opinion of the Samaritans, unwillingly

36. Occurs 10-15 times in Josephus, usually as an administrative term. Themeaning here is probably 'application'. See K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concor-dance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).

37. Variant: 'frequentpestilences'.


admitting their Jewish heritage and their legitimate temple that is dedi-cated to TOXJ jieyiaToi) 0eot>. It is revealing that neither here, nor in11.343-44, do the Sidonians call themselves Samaritans or Cuthaeans.These designations are only employed by Josephus, who also found itnecessary to call them 'Medes and Persians'.38

A further descriptive emphasis on how far the Sidonians are from'the worthiest people and those of noble soul', who did not obey Anti-ochus's decrees but 'held their country's customs of greater accountthan their punishment' (Ant. 12.255), is given by their addressingAnthiochus as 'our benefactor and saviour' and by their explicit denialof any adherence to Jewish customs:

We therefore petition you as our benefactor and saviour to commandApollonius, the governor of the district [|iepi8dpxri], and Nicanor, theroyal agent, not to molest us in any way by attaching to us the charges ofwhich the Jews are guilty, since we are distinct from them both in raceand in customs, and we ask that the temple without a name be known asthat of Zeus Hellenics [Aioq 'EUriviov] (Ant. 12.260-61).39

With this statement, the discussion of the Alexander story is givenexplicit clarification, which the death of Alexander had prevented.

The naming of the temple is a consequence of the previous decreegiven to the Jews in Antiochus's second campaign against Jerusalem(Ant. 12.248-56), in an elaboration on 1 Mace. 1.29-64 and, perhaps,also 2 Mace. 6.1-11: 'He compelled them to give up the worship oftheir own God, and to do reverence to the gods in whom he believed.'According to 2 Mace. 6.1-2, this is a coercive measure that emphasizesthe character of apostasy in Josephus's contrasting portrayal of the Sid-onians, that they petitioned (CC^IOGO) that the temple without a name (TOdvcovujiov iepov) be known (7ipoaayopet>0f|vai) 'as that of Zeus Helle-nics'. The implicit reference to Menelaus and his renegades (12.240-41), and 'those of the people who were impious and of bad character'(12.252) must be kept in mind, as well as the fact that Josephus doesnot mention the naming of the temple in Jerusalem or that the highpriest Jason had asked that Jerusalem become a polls and adopt a Greekconstitution in 175 BCE, a status that the city was to hold until 168 BCE.

The non-naming of the temple falls within Jewish tradition. Because

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

(LCL365, p. 135).


God has no name, a dedication of the temple would be to 'the only god,creator of heaven and earth'. The implicit contrast stressed the Sidonianrelationship, since only Judaism had this practice.40 The naming ofJerusalem's temple in 2 Mace. 6.2 does not change its Jewish orienta-tion, since Zeus Olympus is the Greek name for K'DIZ? if^N ('God ofheaven').41

Could the same be argued for Zeus Hellenius, and why did Josephuschoose this name instead of the 'Dios Xenios' of 2 Maccabees? Severalexplanations have been suggested, but I will confine myself to thesummary given by Rita Egger.42

40. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, p. 94 n. 3. Hengel, Judaism and Hel-lenism, pp. 261-67, gives a detailed overview of the problems involved: 'From thisdiscussion we may conclude that at about the time when Yahweh was identifiedwith Olympian Zeus in Jerusalem, in Greek-educated circles of Jews in Alexandriathere were reflections on the problem of the relationship between the God of Israeland the "Zeus" of the philosophers... For Josephus, as for Aristobolus and for Ps.Aristeas, the God of the philosophers is fundamentally also the God of Israel' (pp.265-66).

41. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabder, pp. 96, 112-13 n. 1.42. R. Egger, Josephus Flavins und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische

Untersuchung zur Identitdtserkldrung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Gottingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. I l l n. 296: 'Der Unterschied des Zeus-Attributeszwischen 2 Makk 6,2 und Ant 12,261 ist nicht dermassen gravierend, dass dieMenschen die die Forderung der Benennung des Garizim-Heiligtum nach Zeusstellten, nicht mit einander identifiziert werden diirften—Wir nennen noch einigeDeutungen der beiden Epitheta, weil diese auf das Vorverstandnis verschiedenerAutoren (beziiglich der Samaritaner) Licht werfen: Geiger (in: Eckstein, Geschichte43 Anm.2) glaubt, Zeus' Beiname "Hellenios" sei von den Samar. gewahlt worden,weil er an "Eljon" erinnere—Schalit, Denkschrift, 114f., bringt dieses Attribut mitdem Wettergott Zeus in Verbindung: Zeus Hellenios sei derjenige gewesen, der aufdem Oros auf Aegina gethront und als Regenbringer gegolten habe. Die Benennungdes Garizim-Tempels stehe also mit der Diirre, die in Ant 12,259 die Sabbat Obser-vanz der "Sidonier" begrunde, "in volliger Ubereinstimmung".—Zum Epitheton"Xenios" vermutet Montgomery, aao. 77 Anm.ll, es "may have been suggested bythe first syllable of Gerizim, ger, i.e. 'stranger'".—Kippenberg 79f betrachtet"Xenios" aufgrund des griechisch-israelitischen Mischkultes auf dem Garizim"warscheinlicher als Zeus Hellenios"—Alon, Origin 355f., meint, der Name"Xenios" passe zu den Bewohnern des Ortes, da sie Fremde in Land seien.—NachPummer, aao.240f, hat Josephus "Xenios" aus polemischen Grilnden, dh. um densynkretischen Charakter der SRG zu unterstreichen, in "Hellenios" verwandelt.'S. Zeitlin (ed.), The Second Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper, 1954): 'TheSurname Xenios, given to the temple on Mount Gerizim which was dedicated to


The explanation possibly has to be based on the character applied to'Dios Xenios'. This god is normally associated with 'Zeus Hekesios' orThilios', god of mercy for the poor, foreigners, and those seeking pro-tection. This was exactly what the Jews expelled from Jerusalem did(cf. Ant. 11.346-47). 2 Maccabees 6.2's additional explanation KaGooc;8T\)y%avov oi TOY TOTCOV oiKOWTec; (which can mean either that thename fitted the people living there, or that the people used to call itsuch) might be alluded to in Josephus's account. A direct reference,however, would have weakened Josephus's description of the Sidoniansof Alexander's time, and raised questions about the authenticity of thepresent account among those readers familiar with 2 Maccabees. Jose-phus therefore chose a neutral form 'Dios Hellenics', which cannot berelated to any particular god. 'The Greek Zeus' could, in a mannersimilar to 'Zeus Olympos', be the god Yahweh, already 'residing' inthe temple. The ambiguity of the naming, with implicit reference toaccusations of Greek orientation and renegade activities is explicitlyspelled out in Antiochus's reply.

The naming, not the name, is essential to Josephus's account. If theJews were forced to accept the naming, it was an inevitable fate, but ifthe Samaritans themselves had asked for the naming and its protection,it was treachery! This point is inherent in Antiochus's reply, whichgives the Sidonians more than they asked for:

King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians in Shechem have submitted amemorial which has been filed. Now since the men sent by them haverepresented to us sitting in council with our friends that they are in noway concerned in the complaints brought against the Jews, but choose tolive in accordance with Greek customs, we acquit them of these charges,and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenics, as theyhave petitioned [iV;i(flKacn.] (Ant. 12.262-63).

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

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


A copy of the letter was sent to Apollonius, 'the district governor, inthe hundred and forty-sixth year, on the eighteenth of the month Heka-tombaion Hyrcanios', which is the month of July 166 BCE.43

It still remains to decide whether these Sidonians can be equated with'later' Samaritans/Shechemites as Josephus does, or whether Josephus,intentionally using a text that speaks of Sidonians living at Shechem,intends to deprive the Samaritans of Jewish adherence, both ethnic andconfessional on the grounds that they had declared themselves to be'distinct from them in both race [yevoq] and custom [eGoc;]' (12.261).As with Josephus's use of biblical material, it is not a question of Jose-phus's sources, but a question of how he used these sources. The inter-polation of the story between Josephus's revision of 1 Maccabees 1 and2 (the account of Mattathias and his sons [cf. Ant. 12.265]) could beseen as an attempt to interpret 2 Mace. 5.23 and 6.1-2, solving both theproblem of 2 Maccabees's lack of reference to internal Jewish conflictsand answering the implicit question about whether Samaritans properlyshared a destiny with the Jews. In contrast to Josephus's perspective,both 1 and 2 Maccabees understand everyone who did not agree to theHasmonaean revolt as enemies of true Judaism, whether they belongedto priestly or to popular circles. The division is cast between 'those whohad continued in the Jewish faith' (2 Mace. 8.3) and those who did not.Some justification of Josephus's view can be found in 1 Mace. 3.8-10.This contrasts Judaea with Samaria, and probably implies that the armyApollonius gathered from Samaria consisted of 'Samaritans' and Gen-tiles. What, however, might be expected, if Josephus had had a clearunderstanding of this text's possible reference to 'his' Samaritans, is aconsistent use of it in his further elaboration of Judas's activities (Ant.12.285-86). In this text, however, he does not contrast Judaeans toSamaritans, but only gives weight to Samaritan animosity implicitly bymaking Apollonius the governor of Samaria. The 'feebleness' of Jose-phus's 'Samaritans' in all of his stories hardly fits a picture of a forcefularmy. Miserable and feckless betrayal seem to be his underlying per-spective. The forcefulness of this view finds expression in Josephus'sterminology, which is hardly accidental and draws heavily on biblicaltraditions' explicit accusations of apostasy and deceit.

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


Antiquities 13.74-79Josephus's fifth story about the Samaritans is set in the Alexandriandiaspora during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 BCE). It iscombined with his account of the building of Onias's temple in Helio-polis (Ant. 13.62-73). The account is anticipated by a summary of whathappened to the descendants of the exiled Jews in Egypt who had beentaken captive from Judaea, Jerusalem, Samaria and Garizein during thereign of Ptolemy I Soter (323-285 BCE; cf. Ant. 12.7, 10). Josephusemphasizes that the Jews 'were determined to keep alive their fathers'way of life and customs'. This created quarrels and fights with theSamaritans (£auapEiia<;)/Sriechemites (ZiKi^uaJv).

Josephus's accounts of the Oniad temple in War and in Antiquities donot agree about whether it was Onias III (War 7.423) or IV (Ant.12.388) who built the temple.

In War, the account opens with a reference to the destruction of aJewish temple in the district of Onias during the reign of Caesar, who,'suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution', hadordered it to be demolished. Antiquities has no such reference. Similarto the Alexander story, the anticipating account in Ant. 12.387-88 con-nects the building of the temple with irregularities in Jerusalem'stemple court that were caused by politically appointed high priests. Thisstory is placed in the time of Antiochus IV and leading to Onias's flightto the Egyptian King Ptolemy for protection. In Egypt, he erected atemple in Heliopolis 'similar to that in Jerusalem'. War 7.427 (cor-recting a previous statement in War 1.33) stresses that the temple 'is notlike [o\)% ojioiov] that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower'.None of these accounts focus on the Samaritan question. However, theexpanded account of the Oniad temple in Ant. 13.62-74 does. One canof course argue that it is only the redactional composition that encour-ages one to believe that these matters are related, since Josephus endsthe Oniad account before bringing up the question about the legitimatetemple.

The following arguments support dependency:

1. The issue of cult centralization is not explicitly discussed inthe accounts of the Oniad temple. It is given implicit referencein Onias's application, that the variety of temples lead to dis-agreements and improper cult practices (Ant. 13.60). Implicitreference is also given in Josephus's commentary to the replyof Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra, that 'they placed the


blame for the sin and transgression against the Law on thehead of Onias' (Ant. 13.69). That this should relate only to thesite's former pagan status, as assumed in the note in LCL 355,p. 261, does fit well the cited letter, but we should not forgetthat in Josephus's biblical tradition, only Jerusalem was leftclean after the Josianic reform.

2. The disputes between the Samaritans and Jews are held 'in thepresence of Ptolemy Philometor', who is given the status ofauthoritative voice.

3. Onias justifies his building of the temple by a reference to theprophet Isaiah, who foretold that '[T]here shall be an altar [inEgypt to the Lord God [ecrcai 0\)oiaair|piov ev AiytmTcpKvpico TOO 6eep]' (Ant. 13.68). Parallel to this, the Jewishspokesman Andronicus demonstrates the sovereignty of Jeru-salem's temple with 'proofs from the Law [EK to\) vouoi)] andby the succession of the high priests [icov 8ia8o%oJv tcavdp%iepecov]' (Ant. 13.78).

The story opens:

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

Josephus employs only the term Zauxxpeiq in this account, which, alongwith the reference to Alexander, bears all the connotations of previousaccounts. From the context, it must be assumed that the discussionrelates to the reading of the Law. Whether both groups refer to the same'codex' is not debated. The suggested 'proofs in accordance with theLaw' are never spelled out by the Samaritan negotiators Sabbaeus andTheodosius, who gave 'Andronicus, the son of Messalamus' permissionto speak first (13.78). Since he successfully persuaded the king todecide 'that the temple at Jerusalem had been built in accordance withthe Laws of Moses', the debate is over. Sabbaeus and Theodosius andtheir party are put to death.44 We are deprived of any justification for

44. Which, according to W. Whiston, The Complete Works of Flavins Josephus(Edinburgh, 1737; repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960-81; Peabody, MA: Hendrick-


the Samaritan claim. In giving us Andronicus's eloquent denial of theimportance of the Samaritan temple, Josephus is not of much help here:

he began with proofs from the Law and the succession of the highpriests, showing how each had become head of the temple by receivingthat office from his father, and that all the kings of Asia had honouredthe temple with dedicatory-offerings and most splendid gifts, while nonehad shown any respect or regard for that on Garizein, as though it werenot in existence (Ant. 13.78).

It is noteworthy that Andronicus's argumentation 'needs' additionalsupport in a reference to the honourable status of the temple, when,chronologically speaking in Josephus's account, the 'Asian' AntiochusIV had just pillaged it. No explicit proofs from the Law are given inJosephus's account: no text reference, no quotations. This makes theproof a question of reputation rather than legality and implicitlyconfirms what we know from the discussions of Josephus's own time,that the Law cannot prove the case.

Antiquities 13.254-78Josephus's final account about the Samaritans relates to the destructionof the Samaritan temple during John Hyrcanus' campaign against theSyrian cities. After the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes, he considered itto be easy to conquer these cities. So after conquering the Nabataeancities of Medaba and Samoga, he attacked

Shechem and Garizein, and the Cuthean nation, which lives near thetemple built after the model of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, whichAlexander permitted his governor Sanaballetes to build for the sake ofhis son-in-law Manasses, the brother of the high priest Jaddua, as wehave related before. Now it was two hundred years later that this templewas laid waste (Ant. 13.255-56).

With this short text, Josephus 'collects' most of his accounts related tothe Samaritans and removes any possible doubt about which templeJohn Hyrcanus had 'laid waste'.45 The description is in itself neutral.

son, 1987) should be normal practice in this type of court case.45. Josephus's language is ambiguous here, since the expression: oi)ve|3r| 8e TOV

vaov TOVTOV epr||aov can mean that the temple 'was deserted', as Whiston's trans-lation has it. This ambiguity of language reflects well Josephus's biblical tradition,which, for instance, in Isa. 24.10, 12 makes the city of emptiness a desert, with bro-ken walls and cries in the streets. In contrast, Josephus's language is crystal clearwhen he relates the order to destruct the Oniad temple, using the verb KaSetpeoo


Should it imply a hidden controversy, or attempt to justify John Hyr-canus's action, that must be sought in the attached story of the subduingof the Idumeans, who are only permitted to 'remain in their country solong as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observethe laws [v6|iioic/voui|iOic;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.257).46 They acceptedthese conditions 'out of attachment to the land of their fathers', and'they have from that time on continued to be Jews'. In Josephus's view,the Idumaeans were ethnically and confessionally Jews, because theyaccepted the terms made by the Jews. Placed in this context, we shouldnot be too confident in Josephus's intentions. Anticipating the destruc-tion in his account of the hearing in Ptolemy Philometor's court, Jose-phus stated that 'the Jews, who were then in Alexandria, were in greatanxiety...for they were resentful that any should seek to destroy [Korca-X\)co]47 this temple which was so ancient and the most celebrated of allthose in the world' (Ant. 13.77).

Josephus 's Terminology

From the examination of Josephus's texts, a certain pattern appears.This is probably related to either the perspective or the sources of theaccount.

The term 'Cuthaeans' appears frequently in texts dealing with thebuilding or the destruction of the temple and is missing in texts dealingwith questions concerning the 'legitimate temple' or with purely politi-cal circumstances. It is noteworthy that the term is employed eighttimes in Antiquities. Only one of these unrelated, namely Ant. 11.20,referring to the related form of 11.19. A remarkable interrelated form isfound in the above-cited text about John Hyrcanus's temple destruction.Instead of the usual combination ZajiapeiTai/XouGaioi, we find the

(cf. War 7.421). However, according to War 7.433-36, the Oniad temple was notdestroyed but stripped of its treasures and closed (cmoKXeito)! That Josephus doesnot relate any temple destruction in his parallel account in War 1.63 must also betaken into consideration. Could it be that the temple was not destroyed, thus agree-ing with Samaritan tradition, as I shall relate in the next chapter?

46. This account has no parallel in War.47. %aXe7t(6c; yap e<j>epov el Tomo tivet; Kmcd'uao'uaiv. Whiston's translation

has 'for they took it very ill that any should take away the reputation of thattemple'; both translations can be defended. Cf. Rengstorf, Concordance: xaA,eJtoo<;(j>epeiv, ' to be (become) displeased (indignant)'; Kaialijco, 'destroy, dethrone', etc.No specific reference to this text is given.


expression %o\)0cdcov yevoq (13.256), which relates to the historicaldescription of Sanballat's building of the temple, but only implicitlycombines this with the Samaritans.

The other six uses of the term Xo\)9aioi have an addition that haseither a geographical (Ant. 9.288; 10.184; 11.19) or ethnic/religiousconnotation (Ant. 9.290), or both (Ant. 11.88; 11.302). These differ-ences, however, should not be overstressed, if we consider Josephus'suse of the term in 9.288 and 290 as typical and interchangeable. By andlarge, the Cuthaeans in Josephus's writings are people who werebrought to Samaria by Shalmanezer, adopted the name of the area aswell as its religion in their own form, and considered themselves to beJews.

The term is employed only in texts drawn from the Bible or frombiblical related texts (2 Kgs 17; Ezra 4-6; Neh. 13.28; 1 Esd. 2.16-30;5.66-7.3). It is noticeably absent in accounts related to Alexander theGreat (with the exception of the description of Sanballat), Ptolemy ISoter, Ptolemy Philometor and Antiochus IV. This is most clearlyexpressed in this description of the Samaritans:

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

No reference is made to 'Cuthaeans' or 'Sanballat', which contrastsstrikingly with the account of the temple destruction.

Etymologically, the term does not seem to have any other back-ground than that of the geographical name Chuthah,48 which in OldTestament Scripture is found in 2 Kings 17 only. It is totally absent inpseudepigraphic literature and is not to be found in any ancient NearEastern texts before its occurence in Josephus and rabbinic literature.49

Thus it is not possible to discuss other reasons for the term's application

48. W. Gesenius, Hebraisches und aramaisches Handwdrterbuch iiber das AlteTestament (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 17th edn, 1962); M. Jastrow, A Dictionary ofthe Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York:Jastrow, 1967); J. Levy, Worterbuch iiber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (4vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963).

49. Cf. Chapter 4 above.


to Samaritans. A later judgment of the Samaritans apparently caused'Cuthaeans' in b. Hul. 6a to be used synonomously with 'pagans', and,in censored text editions, to replace goy, acuiim and ram.50 Targ.Ps.-J.'s use of kutaniim for Sidon in Gen. 10.19 falls within the range ofJosephus's use. The SP or Sam. Targum do not have this variant. Wehave no reason to think that it is a Samaritan self-designation or thatJosephus's usage in War 1.63 is due to any Samaritan source. Nor havewe any reason to believe that the Cuthaean nation, comparable to theSidonians are some non-Samaritans living near Gerizim and sharingtemple and confession with the Samaritans, as has been suggested byRita Egger.51

Sidonians and SamaritansThe combination of these designations are found in two text corpora,Ant. 11.340-47 and 12.257-64, without a concomitant use of Cuthaeans.Josephus uses the Greek forms Zaiiapeiiac; and Eau,apeic; in these textsinterchangeably. A similar use in Ant. 9.290 reflects the arbitrarinesswith which they are used.52 Both terms refer to the inhabitants of thecity of Samaria as well as to the province Samaria. The inhabitants ofSamaria/Sebaste, however, are always termed £au,apei<;. It is contextthat indicates whether the term is to be understood geographically orethno-religiously. In the present texts, there is no doubt that Josephushad an ethno-religious meaning in mind, and, as is clear in the text, heexploited it successfully. Josephus not only called the Sidonians Sama-ritans but also Shechemites, a designation the 'Sidonians' themselvesdid not employ when they are presented as saying that they live inShechem. Moreover, Josephus also calls them Medes and Persians inAnt. 12.257.53

50. Jastrow, Dictionary, ad loci.51. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 294, 301-302, 315-16.52. Concluded also by Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius, p. 172, on the background

of a much larger body of material.53. Which is in itself interesting, compared to the Jewish petition that Alexan-

der 'permit the Jews in Babylon and Media also to have their own laws' (Ant.11.338). In this story, however, the Samaritans are said to claim that they aredescendents of Joseph (Ant. 11.341) and Hebrews called Sidonians of Shechem(Ant. 11.343).


Attempts at a historicizing reading of the two text corpora haveproved unsuccessful. It has not been possible to decide who these Sido-nians are or whether they, as in Josephus's accounts, were equivalent toSamaritans.54 Knowledge of a Sidonian colony in Marissa in the secondcentury BCE55 has encouraged proposals of a similar colony in Shechem,one which did not belong to the Samaritans themselves but which madeuse of their temple.56 Confirmation of this proposal certainly would beinteresting. It would demand a further examination of who these Sama-ritans are who have the temple. They certainly could not be any of thosegroups presented in Josephus! Most probably, they would belong to the'lost tribes of Israel', which Josephus has cast out for good (cf. Ant.10.183; 11.133).

This problem, however, is not important here, since it is Josephus'smetaphorical use of his 'sources' that interests us. Josephus's progres-sive narrowing down of the Samaritans as the population of, first, thewhole of the northern kingdom in the time of Shalmanezer and Ezra, tothe mixed population of renegade Jews in the time of Alexander, to a'Sidonian colony' and finally to 'those living around Mt Gerizim' inMaccabaean time hardly reflects reality. Apart from being controversialin Josephus's own account about the quarrel in front of Ptolemy, itcontradicts what we otherwise know of the Samaritan diaspora of Jose-phus's own time. Based on a reading of Homer, E.J. Bickerman consid-ered, the designation to mean Phoenician, which in the geographical list

54. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 266-81, probably offers the clearest exampleof the impossibility of such a reading and of the difficulties in establishing anyauthenticity for the document. Unaware of the caveat she implicitly brings into herinterpretation of the document, she reached the following conclusion on p. 278: 'dieSidonier hatten von nun an nicht mehr oder nicht mehr ausschliesslich JHWHverehrt: Der Garizin-Tempel ist einige Jahrzehnte spater (129/128) zerstort worden.Der Grund dieser Zerstorung durch Johannes Hyrcanus ist uE. bei den Sidoniernbzw. ihrer Herrschafft iiber diesen Tempel zu zuchen.'

55. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, II (rev. edn 1979), pp. 4-5. Tcheriko-ver, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 453 n. 128: 'The large number of Edomite namesconfronts the scholar with the question whether the Sidonians at Marisa were reallyfrom the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, or whether they were "Canaanites" inthe broad sense of the term.'

56. M. Delcor, 'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des NeuenTestamentes', ZDPV 78 (1962), pp. 35-38; Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge,p. 79; R. Pummer,'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and RomanPeriods', HTR 75 (1982), pp. 177-88.


of Gen. 10.15 is Canaanite, 'since Sidon is Canaan's firstborn andShechem originally a Canaanite town' (sic).51

This explanation fits Josephus's intentions in Ant. 11.340-41, whichcombines Sidonians, Shechemites and apostate Jews. It might alsoexplain interpretations of Genesis 34 in pseudepigraphic and Hellenisticliterature. That the Samaritans themselves should have used the name'Sidonian', and thus have distinguished themselves from the Jews ofJerusalem by asserting a relationship to Melchizedek (who allegedlyshould have 'belonged to the race of Sidon and Canaan'), is an interest-ing but unsupported idea put forward by Bickerman.58 However, if suchwere the case, I think we might expect a more favourable presentationof Canaan than Genesis 9's in the SP.

57. E. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).This hypothesis is put forward by A. Alt (1937^40), see Egger, Josephus Flavins,p. 266. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22. See, further, V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds.),Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1957-64), I, p. 120 n. 5: 'In Palestine the Phoenicians were known either asSidonians or as Canaanites (Hebrew D^WD); inLXX: (|>oiviKri is used sometimes forCanaan (e.g. Exod. 16.35), sometimes for Sidon (e.g. Isa. 23.2).' Cf. for othernumerous instances R. Abel, La geographie de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda,1933-38), I, pp. 254-55 (Exod. 6.15; Josh. 5.1; Mk 7.26): 'En effet, non seulementHomere, mais encore la Bible designeret les Pheniciens sous le nom de Sidonienspour marquer peut-etre qu'ils n'etaient pas tout Canaan. Ne en des temps recules,1'usage se maintenent apres meme que Tyr et conquis 1'hegemonic. Itoba'al, roi deTyr, est appele roi des Sidoniens; Astarte, divinite phenicienne a travailler le boisest attribute aux Sidoniens'; N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land(JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 156: 'In Hos. 12.8 Canaan is onone hand an Ephraimite and on the other a tradesman. Now this is the only evidencein the Old Testament of the identity between Ephraimites and Canaanites. It wastherefore proposed above that Hosea in this place makes use of a foreign ethnicdesignation to disclose the true character of Ephraim, while at the same timeimparting a sociological connotation to this ethnic term.'

58. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age, p. 11: 'By styling themselves "Sido-nians", that is "Canaanites", and therefore autochthonous, the descendants of theAssyrian settlers appropriated the ancient glory of Shechem and trumped both theJews in Jerusalem, the older arrivals in Canaan, as well as the Greeks at Samaria,the more recent arrivals. The Shechemites now asserted, for instance, that Melchi-zedek, king of Salem (in the vicinity of Shechem) and priest of the most high God,who according to the Torah had blessed Abraham and received tithes from thatPatriarch, was one of their people, since he belonged to "the race of Sidon andCanaan". Moreover, proclaiming that Melchizedek had officiated at Gerizim, theyclaimed for their temple an antiquity far surpassing that of Zion.'


Sidonians in biblical tradition are identical with the worst of idolworship that caused the partition of the kingdom, resulting from Yah-weh's punishment of Solomon's worship of 'Ashtoret the goddess ofthe Sidonians, Kemosh the god of Moab and Milkom the god of thechildren of Ammon' (1 Kgs 11.5, 33; 2 Kgs 23.13). In the centre of thisnarrative cycle, thematically designed as 'he walked in all the way ofJeroboam the son of Nebat and in the sins which he made Israel to sin,provoking the Lord the god of Israel to anger by their idols', is the nar-rative about Ahab the son of Omri, who sinned even more by marryingthe daughter of the Sidonian King Etbaal and raising an altar for Baal inSamaria (1 Kgs 16.30-32). The reiteration of this theme in 1 Kgs 15.34;16.2, 19, 26, 31; 22.53 and 2 Kgs 3.3; 10.29; 13.2, 11; 14.24; 15.9, 18,24, 28 relates the narratives to each other and forwards the fate of thenorthern kingdom. It is contrasted to the reforms of Josiah, which, in afinal reiteration of both Solomon's and Jeroboam's sins and the defile-ment of their cult places (2 Kgs 23.13-20), marks every place outside ofthe walls of Jerusalem as unclean. Reiterating the passover of the timeof the judges, Israel's and Judaea's royal pasts are made parenthetical.The intention of the reform is not only the purification of the people,but unification in a pre-monarchic past's hope for a new beginning. Thethematic elements of this cycle are the king's apostasy, erection of cultplaces for foreign gods (further aggravated by the king's marriage intothe families of these foreign gods), the people's deceit when it preferredJeroboam to Rehoboam and the partition of the kingdom. This is notbrought to an end before the foreign gods are thrown out and their cultplaces destroyed, that there be only one temple and one ruler.

Josephus's thematic accord with this narration in his first 'Sidonian'account in Ant. 11.297-347 is striking. Josephus's story also deals withthe question of the people's deceit. Sanballat and his son-in-law did nothesitate to break their oath to Darius. They created a mixed race bymarriage with foreign women. They made a cult place outside of Jeru-salem attributed to a god without a name, who becomes a Greek god inJosephus's second 'Sidonian' account. Finally, they caused a divisionof 'the strength of the Jews'.

It seems reasonable to ask whether Josephus had the biblical traditionin mind. Whether, purposely exploiting the most dominant metaphor ofthe narrative, the Sidonians, who in tradition had become synonomouswith ever-hated 'Canaanites', he sought to place the Samaritans in acontext of Gentiles. Such an assumption finds support in his concomi-


tant use of 'Shechem'. In the biblical tradition Shechem not only bearsthe burden of guilt for the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah, and theresulting rejection in spite of their circumcision, but also the burden ofthe people's deceit in the time of Abimelech, which 'increased idolatry'(Judg. 8.33-9.57). Judges 9 is the only passage in the Hebrew Biblementioning the 'Shechemites', expressed by DDE? '"'PID in Judg. 9.2, 3,6, 7, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 39 and DD& •»{£?]« in 9.57. The closing statementin 9.57 about the evil deeds of the Shechemites (DDE? '{83K nm'^D) mayhave had a forceful effect in Josephus's own time, comparable to whatwe find in a Talmudic commentary on the Testament ofLevi.59 The nar-rative opens (Judg. 8.33) and ends (Judg. 10.6) with remarks aboutapostasy: that the people worshipped D^in (Baals) and Ashtarot(rrnntBU), which, with the exception of this account, only appeartogether in Judg. 2.13, the beginning of the apostasy at the time of theJudges, and in 1 Sam. 7.4 and 12.10, the restoration during Samuel,where the removal of these gods brings peace. Apart from this, mHDS)is only mentioned in the already mentioned cycle, namely 1 Kings 11-2 Kings 23 and in the account of the death of Saul (1 Sam. 31.10). Itseems reasonable to assume that Josephus consciously used the termsSidonians and Shechemites in his discussion about the Samaritans.After the destruction of the temple, they are termed EctjiapeiTai/ EajLia-peiq (cf.Ant. 13.275; 15.292; 17.20, 69, 319, 342; 18.30, 85-89, 167;20.118-36). In none of these accounts do ethnicity and confession playan independent role. Most of these accounts are related to hostility andfraud.

Josephus between Jewish War and Antiquities

Parallel accounts in Antiquities to some of the accounts in War displaya tendency of concern that cannot be explained on the possibility thatJosephus had more exact information at hand when he wrote Antiqui-ties. By text expansion and conscious use of terminology, Josephus'sapologetic interest in contrasting Jew and Samaritan is given greater

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


emphasis in Antiquities than in War, He thus seems to have felt it nec-essary—in an expansion of War 1.64-65—to justify John Hyrcanus'scampaign against Samaria by adding that 'he hated the Samaritans [TOI<;Eauxxpeijaw] as scoundrels because of the injuries which, in obedienceto the kings of Syria, they had done to the people of Marisa, who werecolonists [arcoiKO'uc;] and allies [cru|u,u.dxoi)<;] of the Jews' (Ant. 13.275-76).60

War 2.232-44 //Antiquities 20.118-36In these stories, Josephus tells about Samaritans fighting with Gali-laeans in Ginea, Jewish intervention in the fight and a trial that judgesthe Samaritans responsible for the fight. An analysis of Josephus's ter-minology in the two accounts is enlightening.

War 2.232: Next came a conflict [0i>|j,po?if|] between the Galilaeans [FaXiXaicov]and the Samaritans [Zajiapecov]61.

Ant. 20.118: hatred [e%9pa] arose between the Samaritans [Za|iapeiTCu<;] andthe Jews [rcpoc; louScdoix;].62

War 2.233: Cumanus did not interfere because he had more important affairs onhis hands.

Ant. 20.119: Cumanus, 'having been bribed by the Samaritans, neglected toavenge them' .

War 2.235-36: Cumanus, after the Jewish brigands and rioters had fallen 'uponthe borderers of the toparchy of Acrabatene', massacred the inhabitants andburned down the villages, took with him from Caesarea a troop of cavalryknown as Sebastenians and set off to the assistance of the victims of theseravages.

Ant. 20.122: Cumanus, after the Jews had taken action and had burned andplundered many 'villages of the Samaritans', went out with soldiers fromSebaste and after arming the Samaritans, marched out against the Jews.

War 2.239: 'the leading Samaritans... urged Ummidius Quadratus to punish theauthors of these depredations'.

60. The Greek term designates that the league was related to war and politics. Iffor some reason the people of Marisa (cov Mapior|vo\)<;) is a 'misspelling' of thedistrict of Samaria, as suggested by Ralph Marcus, LCL 365, p. 366, we certainlyhave an interesting mixture of, on the one hand 'Samaritans' being allied to theJews, though they were colonists, and Samaritans (probably of a non-Cuthaeanstock) not being allied to the Jews, but probably being kinsfolk.

61. Notice the equality between the involved parties in this text.62. Josephus' s text more correctly should have been translated that 'Samaritans

had hatred against the Jews'.


Ant. 20.125-27: the 'leaders of the Samaritans met with Ummidius Quadratus,the governor of Syria, who at that time was in Tyre, and accused the Jewsof firing and sacking their villages', and what was even worse of 'the con-tempt that the Jews had shown for the Romans' by not appealing the caseto the Romans, 'as though they did not have the Romans as their gover-nors'.63

War 2.240: the Samaritans had originated the disturbance, and that Cumanusshould carry the whole responsibility for 'refusing to take proceedingsagainst the assassins'.

Ant. 20.127: the Jews accused the Samaritans for being responsible for the strife,and Cumanus for having been bribed by them.

War 2.241: Quadratus 'crucified all the prisoners taken by Cumanus'.64

Ant. 20.129: Quadratus, after his first hearing in Samaria, 'crucified those of theSamaritans and of the Jews who had taken part in the rebellion and whomCumanus had taken prisoner'.

War 2.242-44: 'he [Quadratus] gave another hearing to the Samaritans', where-after 'he sent for 18 Jews, who, as he was informed, had taken part in thecombat, and had them beheaded'.

Ant. 20.130-33: a certain Samaritan informed Quadratus, that the Jews' realintentions was to revolt against Rome. Quadratus, after having put to deathsome of the Jewish leaders, hastened to Jerusalem, fearing a fresh revo-lution, but found the city 'at peace and observing one of the traditional reli-gious festivals'.

War 2.245-46: At the trial Agrippa defended the Jews, while many eminent per-sons supported Cumanus. The result of the hearing is similar to that inAntiquities.

Ant. 20.135: Cumanus and the Samaritans were met with considerable supportby Caesar's freedmen and friends, and that they would have won the case ifnot the emperor's wife Agrippina, urged by Agrippa the Younger, had per-suaded Caesar Claudius to make a hearing and 'punish the instigators ofthe revolt'. This hearing convinced Claudius 'that the Samaritans were thefirst to move in stirring up trouble'. They were accordingly put to death,and the officals Cumanus and Celer disgraced.

This rather neutral way of describing the Samaritan-Jewish relation-ship is reflective of Josephus's other accounts in War. This does not

63. This accusation of the Jews for opportunism in Ant. 20.127 is a free inter-pretation of War 2.237 mentioning the Jewish fear of bringing down the wrath ofthe Romans on Jerusalem.

64. Tacitus, Ann. 12.54, relating of the quarrels between Samaritans and Jews,says that Cumanus crucified the Jews, since they had dared to slay Roman soldiers.


mean, however, that Jews and Samaritans typically were on friendlyterms with each other. They were not, but the overtones that colourmost of Josephus's stories in Antiquities are missing in War. Thus Ant.17.342, concordant with War 2.111, parallels Samaritans and Jews intheir common accusation of Archelaus for brutality and cruelty.

War 3.307-15 relates the sufferings of the Samaritans (Zajiapeic;)during the Roman siege of 'their sacred Mountain called Garizein'.This account is similar to Josephus's account of the suffering of theGalilaeans, and forms part of his account of the siege of Jotapata. Jose-phus mentions the rashness of the Samaritans, that 'the success of theRomans made them ridiculously conceited of their own feebleness, andthey were eagerly contemplating the prospect of revolt'. This led Ves-pasian to capture the mountain and kill those who had not fled or sur-rendered to the number of 11,600. The Samaritans had been offeredsafe conduct, but refused. At a first glance, it could look as if Josephuscriticizes the Samaritans' actions, using this story as a contrast story.However, reading the whole account and taking into consideration hisdescription of the sufferings of the Galilaeans, it is clear that, if anycontrast were intended, it relates to the Samaritans' ability to withstandthe Romans. It seems proper to assume that Josephus brought thesethree accounts together in order to demonstrate the severeness of theresistance that threatened Vespasian, describing how every group didwhat they could to hamstring Roman power.

The closing remark that 'such was the catastrophe which overtookthe Samaritans' is the only place in War (with the exception of 1.562and 592, which are unimporant here) where the term Eaiiapeliai isemployed. A consequent use of Zajiapeiq is found in the remainingtexts. Parallel to this, only few occurrences of £au.apeiiai are found inthe later chapters of Antiquities,65 all of which have polemical overtones(e.g. Ant. 17.69; 18.30; 20.118). The importance of this, however,should not be overstressed since a certain harmonization seems to havedeveloped through the transmission of Josephus's texts. The lack of anUrtext prohibits us from establishing any certainity about the issue.66

The term Eajaapecov eOvoc; is employed only in Ant. 17.20 and 18.85,and relates to the 'Samaritan nation', to those who believe Mt Garizeinto be the most sacred mountain.

65. Egger, Josephus Flavins, pp. 247-48.66. Egger, Josephus Flavins, p. 250.


Concluding Remarks to Josephus's Presentation of Samaritans

As a Jew trained in Jewish thought and living for some months (Oct.66-July 67) in Galilee, Josephus shows surprisingly little knowledge ofJudaean-Samaritan controversies over cult and temple in his accountsin War. The picture is not far from that given in 2 Maccabees, whereJews and Samaritans had fought together against the Seleucid oppres-sion and had suffered equally. In general, the terminology is neutral andthe only occurrence of the term %o\)0aicov yevoq (War 1.63) does nothave the sectarian overtones that characterize the use of the term inAntiquities. As related earlier in War's account of John Hyrcanus'scampaign, Josephus does not tell of any temple destruction, but only ofthe defeat of the Cuthaeans. It is perhaps correct to assume that thetemple was not destroyed but deserted.

While in Rome, Josephus, much later, wrote Antiquities, his storiesabout Samaritan connection with central events in Judaism testify to agreater interest in what subsequently became known as the Jewish-Samaritan schism. Is this due to a better opportunity of using relevantsources in handling a problem that 'later' became so well known thatthe New Testament, Church Fathers and rabbinic literature all takemeasures to handle co-existent problems between Samaritans and Jews?Josephus did have access to Epaphroditus's huge library, and age hadprobably also supplied him with greater knowledge in general. How-ever, Josephus's perspective, which is more interesting to detect thanany possible source, is given its most adequate expression in Apion 1.1when he states,

In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, Ithink, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work theextreme antiquity of our Jewish race, the purity of the original stock, andthe manner in which it established itself in the country which we occupytoday. That history embraces a period of five thousand years and waswritten by me in Greek on the basis of our sacred books.

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


Samaritans as latecomers and as impure, a mixture of five differentpeoples who had later intermarried with various other peoples.

In War, Josephus, as an historian, presented his version of recentJewish history. In Antiquities, serving both the role of a historian and a'rabbi',67 he composed his history on Jewish antiquity in order todemonstrate that legitimate Judaism belongs to Jerusalem. This mes-sage was forcefully given to the Roman leaders, not only to defend thesovereignty of the Jewish temple, but also to demonstrate the loyalty ofthe Jewish leaders to the Romans. Every time such loyalty was ques-tioned, they stood the test, as they had also done in the time of Persianand Greek leadership. After the loss of the Jewish temple in Romantimes, the pivotal questions related to 'where' and 'how' the templekept alive the hopes of Jewish survival in a world that did not look uponJudaism with favour. Josephus's treatments of the Samaritan questionmakes it implicitly clear that Samaritanism and other 'Judaisms'—especially the Jews of Heliopolis—were a threat to Josephus's presenta-tion of a Jerusalem-centred Judaism. The diaspora belonging to suchgroups were not fewer than those of the Jewish diaspora.68 Their theol-ogy could not be argued to be significantly different from that of theJews, with the one exception that they offered their worship to Garizim.As a historian, Josephus could not refuse to mention these communitiesand their temples. They were part of the historical discussion. However,like a rabbi, he could compose his material in a way that would prove tothe reader that these groups were dissidents from what he saw as trueJudaism. He argues implicitly that during the Hellenistic period theyhad left their Jewish foundation and, with it, the laws of their ancestors.He argues that they practise a Judaism that was alien to that ofJerusalem, even though their faith had originally come from Jerusalem.Josephus's sectarianism resembles parts of the Jewish tradition that hadasserted Jerusalem's chronological and ideological priority over itscompetitors. The temple in Jerusalem he claims to be older than othercompeting temples. Although Jerusalem had not avoided being influ-enced by Hellenistic culture, few dissidents supported such a culture:one Manasseh and one Onias, and they—and here Josephus's argumentachieves wholeness and eloquent balance—were eventually transferred

67. Nodet, Origins of Judaism, p. 75, speaks of a 'Pharisaic profile' in Anti-quities.

68. A.D. Crown, 'The Samaritan Diaspora', in idem (ed.), The Samaritans(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217 (201).


to the competing temples, which now are implicitly claimed to be bothyounger than that of Jerusalem and politically based on Greek andPtolemaic authority. It is a wonder that Josephus in War shows no inter-est in mentioning the Samaritan temple. Does it form part of his strat-egy? Is the repeated information about the temple in Heliopolis (War.1.31, 33; 7.422-32) part of the same strategy?

Lack of documentation characterizes all of Josephus's descriptions.Who built the temple in Heliopolis? Was it Onias III during the reign ofPtolemy VI (cf. War 1.33; 7.423) or Onias's son, Onias IV, who did notobtain the office of the high priest in Jerusalem after the death ofMenelaus (162-60 BCE), but rather had fled to Egypt (cf. Ant. 12.387;13.62-73, 285)? Or could it possibly have been Onias's nephew Onias,surnamed Menelaus (Ant. 20.236)? How long did it stand, if, in accor-dance with Josephus's dating in War 7.436, it was demolished after theSicarii's flight to Egypt in the aftermath of the fall of Masada, 343 yearsafter its erection. This would date its erection to around 270 BCE, a dateconflicting with Josephus's own chronology.

Scholarly consensus maintains that it was Onias IV who built thetemple in Tell el-Yehudieh east of the Nile delta, 180 stadies or 24Roman miles north of Memphis.69 The colony was probably a militarycamp serving the Egyptian defence (War 1.190). Findings of Jewishnames on tombstones confirm Jewish presence in the area. Chronologi-cally, most of these are dated about a hundred years later, and are of nohelp for an a quo dating in the third or second century BCE.70 Jewishcamps in Egypt were not unusual. Some might have been similar to Ele-phantine with their own temples, even before Onias was to have builthis temple. Egyptian papyri dating to the third century BCE mention avillage named Samareia in the Fayum near Arsinoe.71 Josephus men-tions that Alexander placed Sanballat's troops in Thebes (Ant. 11.345)and that Ptolemy I Lagos took captives from Judaea and Jerusalem to-gether with captives from the Samaritan and the Gerizim area and set-tled them in Egypt (Ant. 12.7). However, exact figures of how manyJews actually lived in Egypt can be doubted. Philo's mention of a

69. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, pp. 145 n. 33 (32), 146 n. 33.70. CPJ, III, pp. 1451-1530. Neither in inscriptions or in administrative docu-

ments are there found any secure references to Onias and his sons. A doubtful ref-erence is found in the inscriptions CPJ, I-II, 1450, 1455, and in pap. CPJ, I, 132.Most of the datable inscriptions date from 50 BCE to around 50 CE.

71. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 59.


million Jews 'from Kathabathmos near Libya to the Egyptian frontier'is probably a rhetorical exaggeration.72 Strabo does not mention aJewish presence in his description of the temple of Heliopolis north ofBubastus.73 His description of the animal sacrifice in the temples of thearea74 seems to be the background for Josephus's polemical descriptionof the temple in Ant. 13.66-67, 70-71, since it is only in this story thathe mistakes Heliopolis for Leontopolis. Josephus's placement of theJudaean-Samaritan discussion in Alexandria in connection with thisstory is thus even more striking, and it is reasonable to ask whetherJosephus composed his material in a way that would miscredit both theSamaritan and the Oniad temple at the same time.

1. Both temples have their background in high priests excludedfrom Jerusalem. Their questionable characters are made expli-cit. Manasseh, betraying the security of his country, chose themarriage and the relationship with the 'Cuthaeans'. Onias IVwanted to create a name for himself, which was not possiblebecause of circumstances in Jerusalem. War 7.431 tells us thatOnias's dishonest motive was to rival the Jews at Jerusalemand attract the multitude away from them. Both narratives'legendary traits point to functions of folklore and slander,whose main purposes are to entertain, create continuation andpronounce judgment.

2. The use of 'Leontopolis', city of lions, is a message to the edu-cated reader, and especially to the Jewish reader who knew theJewish tradition about the Samaritans' doubtful Jewish adher-ence based on the fear of lions. Josephus's use of this name inhis reference to Heliopolis is no matter of chance, sinceStrabo's mention of the neighbouring cities could well haveled to a different choice. Moreover, Leontopolis is far frombeing close to Heliopolis. It is not probable that the placename should refer to an unknown spot nearby, as has beensuggested by Schiirer.75 It is much more probable that thePhoenician Leontopolis's closeness to Sidon76 creates the con-nection in Josephus's metaphorical use of the name.

72. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 44.73. Geog. 17. 1.27-30.74. Geog. 17.1.19,22,40.75. SchUrer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 146 n. 33.76. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22.


3. The building of the temple in Heliopolis on the heap of ruinsof a former pagan temple is improbable. The problem is notsolved by cleansing the place, as expressed in Onias's applica-tion. The answer of the king most probably reflects the author'sattitude. War 7.420-32 does not contain this correspondence;the polemic against the building limits itself to the critique ofOnias's motive in v. 431, thus 'correcting' vv. 423-25, whichhave Antiochus IV s intolerable religious persecutions as itsmotive.

4. The trial before Ptolemy Philometor deals with the temples inJerusalem and on Gerizim. Placed here, Josephus demonstratesthat the temple in Heliopolis/Leontopolis had no significance.This is probably correct, judging from its absence in Jewish-Alexandrian literature.77 Onias probably did not attract manyJews nor weaken the power of the Jews, but he certainly raisedfor himself a name—in literature! When the judgment deniedthe Samaritan claim, Josephus was able to demonstrate Jeru-salem's sovereignty, and, with his reference to the successionof high priests, he removed any question of the legitimate highpriest in fact being in Heliopolis.

With this, we are thrown back into the question of the function of thetemple in Heliopolis in Josephus's writing. Nobody seems to knowsuch a temple or need it, and it is puzzling why he mentions it at all.Did it exist outside of Josephus's fantasy? The answer can be both yesand no. That temples existed outside of Jerusalem has been proved suf-ficiently in M. Smith's work from 1971.78 M. Hengel furthermore con-siders it probable that 'competitive' temples were erected in Palestineas late as the second century BCE.79 It is surprising that none of these

77. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, p. 278. The assumption that it is men-tioned in the Sib. Or. 5.501, 507 has been rejected by J. Geffcken, Komposition u.Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902), p. 26.

78. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics, p. 93: 'So the cult of Yahweh wasdisseminated from a number of centers known to us—Haran, Elephantine, Baby-lonia, Lachish, Samaria, Gerizim, Tabor, Carmel, Hermon, Hebron, Mamre, Deir'Alia, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, Araq el-Emir, Leontopolis—and probably from others ofwhich we have no record.'

79. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (rev. edn, 1996), p. 274: 'Probably at thesame time as the foundation of Leontopolis, the synagogue at Antioch also took ontemple-like functions to which "the successors of Antiochus IV"—presumably


are mentioned in Josephus's works. Similarly, it is surprising that non-Jewish authors of the second and first century BCE do not mention thatthe Jews only accept one temple in a world that is elsewhere charac-terized by having several. Thus, Onias's temple in Egypt creates nospecial attention as long as the temple in Jerusalem is still standing andconsidered to stand at the centre of Judaism. Therefore, the critique ofOnias in War does not relate to cult but to policy, and the placement ofOnias is more important than any possible question of cult centraliza-tion. By this we might have arrived to the crux interpretum of theHeliopolis stories. Let us therefore put forward another hypothesis.

The legitimate high priest did not go to Gerizim or form a competi-tive community in Judaea. He was much too busy in Egypt, where theplacement followed because of the similarity of the names Onias andOn and tradition's testimony of Jewish settlement in the area.80 It is,however, not Onias who gives the area its name. This was establishedcenturies earlier. The mention of Onias's land in Ant. 14.131 cannot beidentified with Onias's temple activities.81 Unfortunately, Josephus didnot take into consideration the traditions of 2 Maccabees when he wroteWar. It is not improbable that he mistook Onias for Jason, who, accord-ing to 2 Mace. 5.8-10, was shipwrecked on his way to the Lacedaemo-nians and cast ashore in Egypt. Josephus does not mention Jason's fate,but only his rebellion in Ant. 12.237-40, and he seems to have forgottenhim in Ant. 20.235-37. When Josephus later became familiar withOnias's fate (2 Mace. 4.34), he had to transfer the event to his son

Demetrius I Soter, 162-150 BC—bequeathed the bronze vessels taken by Antiochusfrom the temple. Later kings also bequeathed valuable gifts to the growing com-munity, with which "the sanctuary was adorned" (TO iepov e^eXduTip-uvav). Pre-sumably the Ptolemies, like the Seleucids, sought to make 'central sanctuaries' intheir sphere of rule independent of "apostate" Jerusalem, for the use of the Jews. Ofcourse these efforts remained without real success.'

80. Cf. Jer. 43.13: Dn^Q p«3 "ICDK 2JQ2J mi, LXX*: tout; ev Qv; The Hebrewhere clearly echoes the Gk form Heliopolis, "city of Helios" so called from the wor-ship of solar deities peculiar to the city. In Egyptian, the town was called Iwnw"pillar town" a form reflected in Akk. Ana, Coptic On, and Hebrew 'on/'awen (JIN)(Ezek. 30.17), which LXX renders Helioupoleus' (D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', ABD,III, pp. 122-23). Joseph's marriage to Aseneth, daughter of the priest in On, withwhom he begot the sons Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Gen. 41.45, 50; 46.20) and theLXX reading of Exod. 1.11's Helioupoleus for Ramses, could have led tradition toconnect Onias with the place.

81. Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, III, p. 48. Josephus, LCL 365 p. 517.


Onias IV, but now there was no return. Literarily, Onias had built histemple in Heliopolis as a consequence of Antiochus IV's oppression ofthe Jews in Jerusalem. The only thing to do was to deny its importanceand its relationship to true Judaism. When, at the same time, a Judaismthat had lost its centre demanded a clear statement of where this centreneeded to be, Josephus took the opportunity to prove that no centresoutside of Jerusalem could claim legitimacy—even if this had beenplaced in the famous On, which not only testified to the favour of Egyp-tian kings for centuries, but also was the place where famous Greekphilosophers like Solon, Pythagoras and Plato had sought wisdom, andwhere Moses had been priest.82 Josephus's implicit argument accordswith rabbinic literature, which places Onias's temple in a subordinateposition to the temple cult in Jerusalem and denies recognition of itssacrificial rites and its priests, who are given the status of the priestsmentioned in 2 Kgs 23.9: 'Nevertheless the priests of the high placescame not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eatunleavened bread among their brethren', thus they were like them thathave a blemish: they may share and they may eat (of the Holy things)but they may not offer sacrifice.'83 The same judgment was given of theSamaritan priests in Masseket Kutim 23 and 27.

It now seems possible to propose some conclusions about Josephus'shistoriography. The most important events are at best undocumentedand at worst contradicted in other works. Alexander probably never wasin Jerusalem, if we are to believe Diodoros Sicculus, Strabo, Arrian,Curtius Rufus, and others, and the narrative's focus on Jewish-Sama-ritan controversies, similar to what we find in the first century CEMegillat Ta'anit makes it more than doubtful that the story has anyoriginal core of truth regarding events of the fourth century BCE.84 The

82. D.B. Redford, 'Heliopolis', pp. 122-23; D.B. Redford, Pharaonic KingLists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario: SSEA, 1986); Strabo,Geog. 17.1.29. Heliopolis's connection with Moses in Egyptian history-writing(esp. Manetho, see Apion, 1.250, 260-87) and this historiography's consequentclaim that the Jews should be of Egyptian origin is strongly rejected by Josephus(Apion 2.8-32). Josephus's interest in answering such 'accusation' might have beena second reason for his Heliopolis story. Similar to his Alexander story of theSamaritan temple, it establishes an origin tradition for the cult and removes anyquestionable connections with such a 'troublesome' past.

83. m.Men. 13.10.84. See the discussion of Simon the Just in Chapter 4 above.


documents regarding John Hyrcanus seem to have been lost when1 Maccabees was written. The brusque closure of this book after thesummary of his exploits is similar to the often-used phraseology of OldTestament 'historical books', which in like manner refers variously tochronicles that are not employed further.

Archaeological finds are inconclusive. Samaria seems to have beendestroyed by Alexander on his return from Egypt in 331 because ofrebellious activities, and a Macedonian garrison was placed there.85

Some of the survivors possibly moved to Shechem, which seems tohave been re-established as a Macedonian city at this time, only to bedestroyed again in the late third or early second century BCE during thePtolemaic-Seleucid wars.86 Samaria's 300 years' position as provincialcapital in the Assyrian87 and Babylonian Periods, which in the Persianperiod also included Jerusalem until the fifth century, might haveinspired the writing of stories of rivalry in the 'narratives of return',Josephus's Alexander story and the discussion before Ptolemy. TheAssyrian siege, however, did not lead to a complete destruction of thecity. The city walls remained. It was not until the Greek destruction thatthe city lost its governmental importance for a period of about 130years, to be regained in the Seleucid period. Again destroyed in theMaccabaean interim, it regained its status in Roman times. Hellenisticand pagan influence is apparent from the finds of imported pottery andstatues of Hercules, Dionysus, Apollon and Kore. The latter's templewas built partly of remains of an earlier temple from the third centuryBCE, dedicated to Serapis-Isis and attributed to the Dioscuri.88

85. According to Curtius Rufus 4.8, 9-11.86. Re-evaluating the results of G.E. Wright, both E.F. Campbell and I. Magen

have asked for a further consideration of Shechem's relationship to the Hellenisticcity of Lozeh on Gerizim's summit. It might not be quite so certain that Shechemreplaced Samaria's political importance. Cf. E.F. Campbell, 'Shechem', in E. Stern(ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1345-54.

87. Rebuilt 'better than it was before' and populated with 'people from coun-tries which I myself had conquered. I placed an officer of mine as governor'.According to the Sargon II inscription in Khorsabad (cf. ANET, pp. 284-86).

88. N. Avigad, 'Samaria', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land, IV, pp. 1306-10.


Mount Gerizim, Tell er-RasThe possible remains of temple constructions under the so-calledHadrian temple built on Gerizim may date to the fourth-third centuryBCE. No final conclusions have been established and the latest report ofI. Magen has not confirmed the earlier hypothesis that the structuresfrom earlier excavations were in fact a temple, or that it could be datedto the fourth century. Remains of a wall, enclosing a sacred precinctcovering the entire summit, with two large gates on the eastern side anda large number of sheep bones inside, might suggest a temple similar tothat assumed to be in Jerusalem, but no certain remains have beenuncovered so far.89 Discussions of whether Samaritans had a temple atall or perhaps only an altar in front of the tabernacle, which 'dis-appeared' after the betrayal of Eli, have not yet been resolved.90 Findsof coins in the city on top of Gerizim (Khirbet Louza = biblical Luzah)date from the time of Antiochus III (around 200) to the time of JohnHyrcanus. These also give evidence of destruction, as they were hiddenin thick layers of ashes and burned debris. The city thus seems to havebeen built and strengthened under Antiochus III, an event not men-tioned by Josephus, who, supporting his account with reference to Poly-bius of Megalopolis, addresses all of Antiochus's 'documents' to therestoration of the temple and temple cult in Jerusalem (Ant. 12.133-46).The 'genuineness' of this so-called 'charter of Jerusalem' must still bequestioned, in spite of E. Bickerman's analysis, which established itsauthenticity for the majority of scholars.91 As rightly pointed out byBiichler, Josephus's quotation of Polybius preceding Antiochus's letterto Ptolemy does not give any reason to believe the letter has anything todo with circumstances in Jerusalem. The lack of any specific namesallows reference to any place, and it is only 12.141's remark that thetimber is to be brought from 'Judaea itself and from other nations' thatprovides a likely reference to Jerusalem. Biichler's problem with theidentification of city and temple, which would not fit the assumption ofthe fortress placed in Samaria and the temple on Gerizim collapses with

89. I. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', in Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-logical Excavations in the Holy Land, II, pp. 484-92.

90. R. Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Sama-ritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1989), pp. 135-77 (172-73).

91. See the outlines of the discussion as presented in LCL, 365, Appendix D;E. Bickerman, 'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', pp. 4-35.


I. Magen's latest report on Gerizim. It is not necessary, however, toclaim the letter to be a Samaritan forgery of Herodian times, whichascribed to Antiochus III certain grants given to the Samaritan templeon Mt Gerizim. The letter's resemblance to other decrees given by Per-sian, Hellenistic and Roman rulers can be used either to support or toreject its authenticity. Josephus's quotation of Polybius that 'those Jewswho live near the temple of Jerusalem, as it is called', came over to him(Antiochus III), together with Josephus's remark in 12.156 that the'Samaritans [Eauapeiq], who were flourishing, did much mischief tothe Jews by laying waste their land and carrying off slaves' seems topoint to a period of hard conditions for the Judaean Jews (218-198BCE). Whatever role Khirbet Luzah may have played before its destruc-tion, it never found its way into Josephus's narrative. The city nevergained importance afterwards and it was not rebuilt after the Romanoccupation in 63 BCE. Samaria-Sebaste was restored by Gabinius in 57BCE (Ant. 14.87-88; War 1.166). Neapolis, on the northern slope of MtGerizim, replaced ancient Shechem in the time of Herod the Great. Thesite is connected to the summit by a staircase dating to the first centuryBCE, and it still remains to decide whether temple structures dating tothe third century CE can be called 'Samaritan'.92

None of these findings, however, can tell us anything about whether'Samaritans' lived in Gerizim, in Shechem, in Samaria or in its vicinitywho can be separated from the Samaritan population as a whole, orwhether these people maintained a temple cult that in antiquity com-peted with the one in Jerusalem and with other temples in or outside ofPalestine. Specific Samaritan features in architecture, art and burialpractice are rare and difficult to demonstrate before the common era.93

Offerings made to Mt Gerizim on the Delos inscriptions from 250 and150-50 BCE, accordingly, only testify to a religious cult centred onGerizim, whose diaspora members call themselves 'Israelites'. Simi-larly, the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh does not give proof of being speci-fically Samaritan. They only tell us that at a certain time some peoplefrom Samaria, using a variety of names containing not only a Yahwistictheophoric element, but also Edomite, Moabite, Canaanite, Babylonianand Aramaic divine elements, hid in the cave and were attacked there.94

92. Magen, 'Gerizim, Mount', p. 490.93. See Pummer, 'Samaritan Material Remains'.94. For a discussion of a connection between this event and the destruction of

Samaria, see, Ahlstrom, History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 898-901.


There is no evidence that they were part of Josephus's 'Samaritans' inthe Alexander story or of any specific religious group contrasting to theJews of Jerusalem. They might, however, be those who were claimed tobe of mixed stock in the later literary tradition, and who were contrastedto the pure stock of Jews who had returned from Babylon. That argu-ment, however, belongs to ideology and propaganda, not to history.

It therefore is still reasonable to consider whether Josephus createdthe traditions about the Samaritans or whether he refers to alreadyestablished popular descriptions even though these are not known tohave been written earlier. Giving uncritical credit to a variety of stories,he might have tried to compose a chronological framework for opinionsof Samaritans that would include most of this material. Redactionalnotes would establish sufficient coherence and make the stories plausi-ble. However, if Josephus had had exact sources, he probably wouldhave mentioned them, given the controversial character of the theme.Moreover, it should then be possible to confirm at least some of his'information' in earlier or contemporary writings rather than in laterrabbinical sources. The influence of diaspora Judaism, and possible dis-cussions there about relationships between Jews and Samaritans, couldhave led to a greater actuality in Josephus's Antiquities than had beenthe case with War. This could explain that some of his references toSamaritans are connected with conditions in Leontopolis and Alexan-dria. Some confusion and transference of material cannot be excluded.

The necessity of pointing out that biblical related texts are talkingabout Cuthaeans who are consistently called Samaritans seems to be animprovised solution for antedating a problem that is still current. Simi-larly, cult centralization is given greater weight in Antiquities than inWar. Josephus's revealing revision of Demetrius's letter to Jonathan(1 Mace. 10.25-46) in Ant. 13.54, states that those living in the threeSamaritan border areas added to Judaea shall be subject to the ancestrallaws, and 'that it shall be the concern of the high priest that not a singleJew shall have any temple for worship other than that at Jerusalem'.However, 1 Mace. 10.38 states that the areas should be 'so annexed toJudaea that they are considered to be under one ruler and obey no otherauthority but the high priest'. 1 Maccabees shows us that this questionwas unimportant. It might be too far-reaching to assume that the ques-tion gained importance only after the destruction of Jerusalem's temple.On the other hand, one cannot convincingly argue for a thorough-goingcult centralization on the basis of Deut. 12.4's ambiguous reference to


'the place Yahweh will choose'. Deuteronomy's primary goal was notto centralize the cult in Jerusalem, but to further cult control under theauthority of the temple and the priesthood. Deut. 12.4-9 clearly expres-ses this in its prohibition of Yahweh worship like the custom of theforeigners. Yahweh worship should not be upon the high mountains andupon the hills and under every green tree, but it should be in the placeYahweh names as his, that is, in the temple (vv. 5, 11, 26), which is theplace to bring offerings and tithes. This corresponds to Hezekiah's storechambers in 2 Chron. 31.11, which secured the maintenance of thepriests and the Levites. In Deuteronomy, it is not Yahweh's altars thatshould be destroyed, but altars of foreigners (12.2-3). Sennacherib'smockery of Hezekiah and the Jews in Jerusalem relates to the sameproblem. Can one tear down Yahweh's altars and still have Yahweh'sprotection (2 Kgs 18.22; 2 Chron. 32.12)? Only cult places in Judaeaand Jerusalem are spoken of, and the text does not involve cult placesoutside of these areas. We might be dealing with a postexilic reforminstituted by the Persians, as, according to, for example, the Elephantinepapyri, offerings had ended there because of the destruction of thetemple. Ezra 3 explicitly states that the burnt offering is instituted onlyafter the setting of the altar in its place (Ezra 3.3-4). The cult reform isgiven two purposes:

1. It regulates cult practice, as can be seen from the Nehemiahmodel and Hezekiah's reform in 2 Chron. 31.18-20, whichrelates that most of the people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issa-char and Zebulon had not been cleansed properly, whereforethey did not fulfil the demands of holiness. (As was seen alsofrom Onias's application to Ptolemy, Ant. 13.66).

2. It secures taxation for the temples, which before the Hasmon-aean expansion of Judaean borders, were regional, that is,Jerusalem's temple for (Judaea and) Jerusalem, Samaria'stemple for Samaria, Lachish and Beersheba's temples forEdomite areas, Antioch's temple for its area, etc. This partitionraised no problems as long as the temples were governed byPtolemaic and Seleucid rulers. The change of borders andauthority created competition and led to the destruction oftemples. It was only later that this became a theological andnational problem, when the neighbouring peoples refused togive up their own cult places and submit to Jerusalem. Thequestion's relation to political issues is implicit in Demetrius's


offer to Jonathan that the Samaritan areas should shift theirallegiance to the Jewish high priest. This clearly implies thatthey formerly stood under another authority. Who this author-ity is we are not told, but Samaritan tradition refers to bothsecular and priestly authority. Josephus's remark makes itobvious that other authorities than the Jewish high priest werepossible, and also that there were other cult places outside ofJerusalem for Jews. Before drawing a final conclusion, wehave yet another issue to consider. In spite of some problemsof anachronism, Samaritan historiography needs to be given itsvoice in a closer examination.

Chapter 6

SAMARITAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

The presentation and interpretation of Samaritan historiography isbased on the Samaritan Chronicle II, Sepher Ha-Yamin in J. Mac-donald's edition and on the Kitab al-Tarikh from Abul'Fath in P. Sten-house's edition.1

The Samaritan history has close parallels to the similar Jewish historyin the Pentateuch traditions up to the conquest of Palestine after thewandering in the desert. The disagreements between the Samaritan andthe Masoretic Pentateuchs are not related to the history as such, but tospecific features regarding the importance of Shechem and the place-ment of the cult place on Gerizim, as has been demonstrated in Chapter3.

This fundamental disagreement forms the core of the following storyin a manner similar to the importance of Jerusalem in Jewish history.The few questions concerning legal affairs raised in the material aresubordinate to this main question, as is also true of rabbinic discussionsabout Jewish-Samaritan relationship. Belonging to the discussion aboutcult place is the question of the legitimate high priest. In the materialwe find references to mutual accusations that the high priest may notbelong to the correct lineage. Characteristic of both theology and histo-riography is the absence of Heilsgeschichte. The Samaritans did notconsider themselves to be an elected people, who in isolation should

1. See Chapter 3 above for an introduction to these works. Macdonald's Heb-rew text is not vocalized The peculiarity of references are due to Macdonald's versesystem for non-MT (letters with an asterisk) and Stenhouse's pagination (p. x) of thetranslated texts, which does not follow the pagination of the book. Chronicle II ispaginated in accordance with Old Testament parallels, which is misleading becausethe material is in several instances interrupted by independent material. The overallimpression of the chronicle as a rewritten Old Testament text is exaggerated, mak-ing it difficult to read the chronicle on its own terms.


seek their own salvation. They rather considered themselves to be the'light and salt' of the world, obliged to make Moses' ordinances knownto everyone in order to save the world.2

The Samaritan Joshua disagrees considerably with the MasoreticJoshua. It parallels MT Joshua in chs. 1-11; 13.7b-14.5; 15.la; 22.1-6;24.1-27, 32. Added are references to the celebration of the Pesach afterthe first conquest, the building of the temple, an independent account ofthe division of the land,3 the election of the king and several referencesto the importance of Shechem and Gerizim:4

Joshua 8.30 reads Gerizim for Ebal.5 The placement between the con-quest of Aj and the army's overnight in Gilgal, which in MT showssome confusion about the placement of Ebal and Gerizim (cf. alsoDeut. 11.29-32), is here—as in SP Deut. 11.30—supplied with the clar-ifying note that this is close to the 'town of Shechem' fysb jmo }*bxiDD£> TU). In the Samaritan Chronicle, the high priest Eleazar is giventhe leading role of the writing on the stone and the reading of the Law.Following the commandment given in Deut. 27.12-14, the peoplegathers on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, where the words of blessing andcursing are recited. The ark of the covenant carried by the Levites isplaced on Mt Gerizim, and 'the glory of the Lord appeared above the

2. Macdonald, Theology, p. 448.3. Which made Crown, 'Date and Authenticity', suggest a dating for the inde-

pendent Samaritan book of Joshua not later than the end of the second century CE.J. Strange's article from 1993, The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', inA. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (VTSup, 50;Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 136-41, touches upon the same problem related to theconquest in MT Joshua, which includes Transjordan, Galilee and Judah/Benjamin,but not the central hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh. Strange's conclusion thatthe Masoretic book of Joshua is superfluous, when we have the narratives about theconquests in the first chapter of MT Judges, is indirectly supported by the Samaritantradition of Judges. In this tradition the conquests end with the death of Joshua. Thebook opens with Nethanael's victory over Kushan-Risj'atajim (cf. MT Judg. 3.9-10). Gaster, Samaritans, pp. 138-39 argued for the authenticity of the land divisionin the Samaritan tradition, since this division is in accordance with Josephus, Ant.5.80ff. and Ezek. 47.15ff., all of which 'take precisely the same boundaries forPalestine—on the east the Jordan, on the west the sea' and divide the land into por-tions from south to north (ST Jos. §S A*-L*; Josephus, Ant.) or from north to south(Ezekiel).

4. har garizimlhargarizim: both forms are used in Macdonald's text.5. Macdonald's remark that this variant reading is found in the LXX also is not

confirmed in the standard version of the LXX, which all read Gaibal.

6. Samaritan Historiography 241

ark of testimony'. Contrasting this is the absence of the high priest inMT Josh. 8.33-35. The uncertain placement of the ark (between themountain peaks?) and the formal reading of the Law, which avoids thecontext of a cult practice or service are striking, yet fully in agreementwith the overall impression of MT Joshua and Judges that they reflect aninterim between Moses (Aaron) and the House of Eli of 1 Samuel. Theglossary presence of 'Eleazar the priest' together with 'Joshua, son ofNun' in MT Josh. 14.1; 17.4; 19.51; 21.1 (the allotment of land narra-tive) confirms this impression, since Eleazar is not given any role. Allacts are carried out by Joshua.

Joshua 9.27 adds 'the chosen place Mt Gerizim and the congregationliving in the cities, which are close to the chosen place Mt Gerizim'.

Joshua 10.9, 15 Gilgal and Bethel become close to or similar toGerizim.

Joshua 10.43 tells about the return of the army after the conquest ofsouthern Canaan. This is also mentioned in the MT and LXX, but onlyST continues to tell about the Pesach offering (nODH pip) on the cho-sen place Hargerizim, before the arrival at 'the chosen place in Gilgal',and before the continuation of the campaign against the northern Canaan(MT Josh. 11.1-23), which in both versions form the conclusion of theconquests.

The building of the temple in ST Jos. §Q on the top of Mt Gerizim(DT~inn £>N~l ^) follows immediately after the ending of the con-quest. Two different versions recount that a cult place (p£>Q) containingthe holiest (B*-D*) and that a temple (^DH) with the tent of meeting(~lUin ^HN) with the ark (mii?n "pIK), the propitiary and the screen("]DQH fD~l2), as well as all the altars (mrntQn ^D) and all the accoutre-ments of the sanctuary (ID ̂ D1KQ ^D pCBDn '^D) (G*) were erected.AF p. 32 tells that Joshua built a fortress on the mountain to the north ofthe illustrious peak. The stone altar on Mt Gerizim is already erectedafter the conquest of Huta (Aj) (cf. p. 14).

The references to the cities of refuge in ST §S M* (MT Josh. 20.7-8)declares Shechem to be holy.

Joshua 24.1, the setting up of the covenant in Shechem has the addi-tion 'at Mt Gerizim', while 24.25-26 adds 'at the foot of Mt Gerizim'.

In ST, the death of Joshua does not end with an Israel left alone with-out any ruler and with a high priest (Phinehas), as does the Masoretictradition, where Phinehas's narrative role is absent in most parts andepisodes of MT Judges. ST recounts that Joshua casts lots between the


12 princes of Israel. The lot fell on Nethanael, son of Caleb, from thetribe of Judah, who became king over the Israelites. In the same man-ner, there is a formal transfer of the office of the high priest Eleazar tohis son Phinehas four years after the death of Joshua. This event isopened with a cutting of the covenant in Shechem, followed by a wan-dering to Gibea, where Phinehas is clothed in the high priestly gar-ments, and where Eleazar is buried 'in Gibea the town of his son Phine-has, which is opposite the holy mountain, the place the lord has chosen,Mt Gerizim, Bethel'.6

MT Judges' patronage versus chaos narrative 'that in these days therewas no king in Israel and everyone did, what was right in his own eyes'aiming to prepare the reader for the blessings of the kingship, the estab-lishing of order, the joining of the tribes around a central shrine and acentral government has no parallel in ST Judges. Here the good condi-tions established during Joshua and Eleazar continue. Kings elected bythe people in Shechem under the conduct of the high priest do theirroyal duties and are succeeded by other kings similarly elected. Highpriests are all unproblematic successors of their fathers. We find noapostasy, no punishment and no deceitful kings similar to MT's Abi-melech. The language is more neutral than MT Judges, and without theDeuteronomistic categories, 'the Israelites did what was evil in the sightof the Lord', 'the Israelites cried to the Lord', 'the Lord raised up adeliverer', that form the central theme of MT Judges. Statements such as'whenever the judge died, they turned back and behaved worse thantheir fathers' (Judg. 2.19) are totally absent in the first part of STJudges. It is not until the very end of the book, when, after the death ofSamson, Eli's usurpation of the high priesthood leads to the apostasy ofthe people and the cessation of God's favour, that these categories areemployed.

ST Judges follows the chronology of MT Judges, however, in a moresummarised version and with some deletions, and it is only MT Judg.3.12-13, 20-30; 4.2-3, 12-24; 11.12-33 that are presented verbatim or ina close variant that leave out the most legendary traits of the stories.Added are chronological insertions of the high priests, Phinehas, Abisha,

6. This last paragraph, ST Jos. §§U-W, whose central core is the biblical Josh.23.1 and parts of Josh. 24 and 14, is in ST Chron. II separated from the formerchapters of MT Joshua by an insertion of the Shobach Legend. This legend, dealingwith Joshua's war with King Shobach, is judged manifestly late, because of itsmany Arabisms; see Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II, p. 73.


Shishai, Baghi and Uzzi and their priestly duties and cultic services.7

The wars within Israel are finished after Joshua's conquests, and STJudges opens with Nethanael's victory over Cushan-Rishathaim, kingof Mesopotamia (cf. MT Judg. 3.9-10). With the absence of MT Judges17-21 the account of Samson functions as the bridge to the books ofSamuel. This composition is in accord with Josephus, who placed hisversion of Judges 19-21 after the conquests in MT judges (Ant. 5.136),made Eli the successor of Samson and placed the story of Ruth duringhis reign (Ant. 5.318).

The problem with the assumption of ST's dependency on MT is thusgiven a broader perspective, and questions of variant texts gain sig-nificant importance in judging the material. The Samaritan text is not anabbreviated, rewritten MT version. The dominant theme and message inST pronounce that Israel prospered as long as the cult was in place onGerizim and the administration was in Shechem. The counter-messagein MT argues that there was no proper cult and no central adminis-tration. The problem with this kind of polemic, however, is that thereverse should bring order and prosperity. This does not happen. Themovement of ark and cult under David's reign does not solve the prob-lems raised in MT Judges, that it was the lack of a king that allowed thepeople to do 'everyone what was right in his own eyes'. MT Judgesdoes not provide the contrast story it intended to be and we are proba-bly far better off if we understand MT Judges as a negative anticipationof the traditions of the monarchic period, such as has been suggested byGraham Auld.8 Such an interpretation, however, still carries the reverseof the coin as an unsolved problem. Why is it necessary to denounce the

7. This list is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 5.361-62; MT 1 Chron. 5.30-31; Ezra7.4-5; 1 Esd. 8.2. Josephus, however, is the only informant, who explicitly confirmsthe Samaritan tradition that Eli, being of the Ithamar line, usurped the high priest-hood and accordingly broke the Eleazar line until the reign of Solomon. Indirectly,however, the rejection of the house of Eli (1 Kgs 2.27, 35) is given reference in thevarious lists of high priest in the Old Testament, all of which leaves out Eli andform a continuation from Aron to Seraiah using the names of the Eleazar familymembers, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, who, according to Josephus (Ant. 8.11-12),lived as private persons during the interim. Josephus's various references to highpriests 'confirm' the split, which is furthermore testified in his enumeration of highpriests in Ant. 20.229 that the first thirteen high priests until Solomon were descen-dants of Aaron's two sons.

8. The Deuteronomists between History and Theology', International Organi-zation for the Study of Old Testament congress, Oslo, 1998, forthcoming.


past in order to capture the future? The question whether MT Judges is apolemic story against Shechem and against an early Shechem traditionremains. To avoid this context the biblical version made the period aschaotic as possible. The judges fight in vain to keep the people fromworshipping idols. Proper cult places and priests are nearly entirelyabsent. MT Judges 9 and MT 1 Kings 12, the people's election of Abi-melech, and Rehabeam(!) and Jeroboam in Shechem, may implicitlytestify to this tradition, since these kings bear the markers in MT tradi-tion of deceitful kings emanating from Shechem. This is all the moreremarkable as no other stories of the Old Testament relate to appoint-ments of kings in Shechem, given the people the privilege of election(cf. Judg. 9.6; !Kgsl2.1,20).

As mentioned above, the turning point against the good conditions inST comes with Eli's and his supporter's move from Shechem to estab-lish a rival cult in Shiloh. The young Eli, son of Jefunneh, of the lineageof Itamar (ST §JP; KS*), is given the honorary office of chancellor ofthe temple treasures under the leadership of the high priest Uzzi, whoseauthority he challenges. The quarrel results in Eli's departure fromShechem and his erection of a temple and cult in Shiloh. A variant tra-dition involves exclusion, and in a paradigmatic use of Genesis 4, itgives the role of Cain to Eli, as the unsuccessful priest, whose offerGod rejects because it has not been properly salted (cf. Lev. 2.13; ST§LK*, U*). Eli in MT is not given any genealogy, while Jefunneh's sonCaleb is of the tribe of Judah in Num. 13.6. Only in 2 Esdras from theend of the first century CE do Eli and his son Phinehas occur in theAaron-Eleazar genealogy of Ezra, the scribe.

Eli's departure turns the fate of all Israel, which looses its coherenceand splits into three separate groups (ST Judg. §LO*-T*; ST 1 Sam.§BA*-F*: AFp. 42):

1. The Jews, who followed Eli.2. The Josephites, counting Epraim and Manasseh with some few

adherents from other tribes, who followed Uzzi and remainedfaithful to Gerizim.

3. The rest of the people who later deserted Eli because of theapostasy of his sons, and became idol worshippers.

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


during the time of Joshua and ended with the last judge. The priestlyquarrels caused a replacement of this period with a period of God'swrath, Phanutah.9 This period is initiated by an increasing darkness thatmakes the daily services impossible and ends up enveloping the wholehouse. Finally a big cave appears. The high priest Uzzi collects thesacred vestments, gold and silver vessels and places them in the cave.After having sealed up the cave, he marks its place, only to find out thenext day that it has disappeared without any trace. The grief and self-reproach is endless and the prehistory is re-evaluated in the closingelegy (ST 1 Sam. §BG*-§CGG*; AF pp. 42-45). Not before the returnof the Radwan will the hidden objects appear again. The biblicalaccount of the inauguration of Solomon's temple seems to build on asimilar tradition. The time of grace has appeared. Yahweh has left thedarkness and accepted the temple for his name and spirit (2 Chron.5.13-6.2; 7.1-2). It is not possible to decide whether this text has a con-scious anti-Samaritan bias or whether both texts are using similarthemes. It is, however, possible to decide that placement (Mt Mori ah)and acceptance are important to the author of MT Chronicles, thusrevealing conflicts of interest.10

Samaritan self-understanding as a minority group from the descen-dants of Joseph is further testified to in the Samaritan 'books of Samueland Kings'. The Josephites do not participate in Samuel's trial in Mizpa(cf. 1 Sam. 7.6; ST 1 Sam. §GE*). Nor do they follow Jeroboam's cultbut remain faithful to the Law (ST 1 Kgs §EN*-S*). They are not ruledby the kings of northern Israel (who rule over eight tribes of Israel only,cf. ST 1 Kgs §GC*, JA*) and their chronology is the chronology of theSamaritan high priests, who also continue to perform after Saul'sdestruction of city and temple.

9. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 118: 'It is noteworthy that such a view ofworld history as being divided into distinctive epochs is characteristic of much Jew-ish apocalyptic writing (cf. the four world empires of Daniel) and also of Qumranscrolls and the New Testament. Such links may provide a further pointer to the dateof the formative period of Samaritanism.' I would say that this world view, althoughnot explicitly expressed in the Old Testament material, is inherent to all our texts,which speak of God's periods of anger and mercy.

10. The placement of Mt Moriah in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3.1) and Yahweh'sacceptance of the temple in 2 Chron. 7.12 reveals that the question of legality hadnot yet been settled at the redaction of the book.


The Chronicles dealing with Saul's war with the Josephites in ST1 Sam. §IB* and AF p. 47 is interesting:

Samuel, King Saul, Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, gathered together andgave orders for battle to be made against the tribe of Ephraim and thetribe of Manasseh and all their congregations—namely the congregationof the Samaritan Israelites [Dnown ^Rier ^np],11—at Elon Moreh, forthey had refused to have the tribe of Saul the son of Kish over them, andbecause they had not forsaken Mount Gerizim Bethel or gone over toShiloh under Samuel's jurisdiction to sacrifice at Shiloh, as Eli the son ofJefunneh had commanded' (ST 1 Sam. §IB*).

The premises for the declaration of war are both political and reli-gious. The balance of power has shifted radically. It is now the formersecessionist group who set up the terms. And although the Josephitesrefer to kinship: 'Why will you make war on us, when we are brothers'and to cooperation in earlier wars against the Philistines, the attack isinevitable. Two different traditions are brought together in this text ofST 2 Chronicles, but this does not affect the outline of the story that thewar at Elon Moreh, by Shechem, is inevitable in both versions. Thesecond version opens with a discussion between Saul and the SamaritanIsraelites, who refuse to obey Saul because the 'place where Yahwehchose to make his name to dwell is Mount Gerizim Bethel', which issuperior to Shiloh. The war, which takes place during the pilgrimage oftabernacles, results in a destruction of the stone altar on Gerizim, thekilling of the high priest Shishai, son of Uzzi, the slaughtering of theSamaritan community in Elon Moreh, Shechem, Bethel and the town ofLuzah, and a destruction of the houses in the town, which is said to belarge.

The parallel story in MT Samuel is Saul's victory over the Ammonites(1 Sam. 11.1-11), which, placed as an inclusio between the twoelections—in 1 Sam. 10.17-27 in Mispa, and in 11.12-15 in Gilgal—implicitly seeks to answer the question about Saul's authority andstrength (1 Sam. 10.27). The MT of 1 Sam. 11.12-13 does not tellclearly who they are who challenge Saul. This information has to be

11. 'those Israelites who keep the Law', DHQ27, which should not be confusedwith D^inQE?, which is believed to be a gentilicum derived from Shomer/Shomron.D"HQC0 is a Samaritan self-designation after the rejection of Saul and the schismsamong the Israelites (ST 1 Sam. §H E*). Macdonald translates the term 'SamaritanIsraelites'. Gaster, Samaritans, p. 5, variant form: flQNn ^ D'HQtO (keepers of thetruth).


found in Josephus's Ant. 6.82, where they are called 'Saul's country-men (6ux)<|)\)^CGv) and men of their own race (eic Tamou yevoix; amoic;).In both these versions Saul spares the men because of his victory overthe Philistines.

AF p. 48 tells that 'they (Saul and his men) sowed it like all (theother) fields'. This addition corresponds to Megillat Ta'anifs ending ofAlexander's, Antiochus's or Hyrcanus's destruction of the Samaritantemple and must therefore be taken into consideration in judging thematerial.

After the war, the Samaritan community is prohibited from enteringMt Gerizim for 22 years, during which the remaining Samaritans aremore or less outlawed, their cities are occupied by Saul's men and theyend up fleeing to Bashan (ST 1 Sam. §JR*-V*), where, according toanother tradition, they stayed for 48 years. Bashan as homeland for halfof Menasseh's tribe (cf. MT Num. 32.29-32 paralleled in MT Josh.13.29-32) probably implies such a connection. These traditions seem tohave given voice to MT Amos 4.1's prophetic attack on the cows ofBashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria. The feminine plural,based on mD's feminine form, should not lead us to any simple inter-pretation that this text concerns the upper-class women of Samaria.12

Such an interpretation is both misleading and discriminating, and notreflective of the text's continuation, which, from v. 4 on, employs themasculine plural, further testified by the masculine plural DiT]~[N andthe masculine plural 1I2Q2? in 4.1.13 The metaphorical use of the expres-sion is thus the more striking, since the admonition of 5.15 gives hopefor salvation of the remnant of Joseph, rpV rv~lN&. Psalm 68's rejectionof the Mount of Bashan and its inhabitants (vv. 14-23) for the sake ofJerusalem's temple (vv. 25-36) reflects a similarly metaphorical use andintertextual play on the mount of "pQ1?^ (v. 15),14 which was the moun-tain Abimelech entered when he needed firewood for the killing of thepeople in Shechem (Judg. 9.46-49), and brings us right to the centre ofthe voice of conflict. When }2D "in is rejected, its high peaks (D"]]^)

12. As understood by the translators of both the Danish 1992 authorized Bibleand the English RSV of 1952.

13. The expression's metaphorical implications addressing the whole populationwere suggested already in 1975 by Hans Barstad, 'Die Basankuhe in Amos IV 1',VT 25 (1975), pp. 286-307.

14. Its root means darkness, obscurity, gloom, imagery, idolatrous.


look with envy (1̂ 1) at the mountain that Elohim desired for his abode(vv. 16-17). The text's play on Genii's closeness to p215 (being hunch-backed), which in Lev. 21.20 is said to be a disease that disqualifies onefrom serving as an Aaronite priest, should be a warning of the tenden-tiousness of the text and that D1"]]^ might form a contrast to D1~)Q inv. 19.

In the Samaritan tradition, Saul's attack on the Samaritan Israelites isthe sin as a result of which he was killed in the battle with the Philis-tines (ST 1 Sam. §KA*; MT 1 Sam. 31). In the Jewish tradition of theChronicler, the reason for Saul's death is his unfaithfulness towardsYahweh, 'that he did not keep the command of Yahweh and further-more consulted a medium, seeking guidance' (MT 1 Chron. 10.13-14),which has no parallel in 1 Samuel 31 or 2 Samuel 1. This medium,however, in the LXX version of the same paragraph, is understood to beSamuel the prophet, referring to Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (cf.MT 1 Sam. 28.4-25), who calls up Samuel. He confronts Saul with hisformer sin, that he did not 'carry out his fierce wrath against Am'alek'.Therefore he and Israel are given into the hand of the Philistines on thefollowing day. This episode and the accusations against Saul, are mis-sing in the Samaritan Chronicle. Nevertheless, Samuel's role as Saul'smaster, is fully spelled out: 'he did not do anything except at the com-mand of Samuel' (ST 1 Sam §IA*; §JE*; §KA*).16 Josephus, agreeingwith rabbinic tradition, gives another variant of the accusations thatSaul died 'because he disobeyed God's commandments touching theAmalekites, and because he had destroyed the family of Abimelech thehigh priest, and Abimelech himself and the city of the high priests'(Ant. 6.378). Josephus's rendering of this story, based on 1 Samuel 21-22 and missing entirely in the Samaritan Chronicle II, has a sermon-likeaddition (Ant. 6.262-68), which condemns Saul's act that he not only

slaughtered a whole family of high-priestly rank, but furthermore demol-ished the city, which the Deity himself had chosen as the home and nurseof priests and prophet [6. 262]... and strove to leave what was virtually

15. The three words are all hapax legomena in the Old Testament.16. The negative presentation of Samuel that he was a descendant of Korah who

had rebelled against Moses (ST 1 Sam. §DA*), based on the same lineage as pre-sented in MT 1 Chron. 6.21-24 (cf. ST 1 Sam. §DF*), implicitly also brings Saulinto discredit. Josephus gives a clue to this lineage, which is missing in MT 1 Samuelby stating that Samuel was a Levite (Ant. 5.342).


their temple [vctov] destitute [eprmov Kaidaifiaai] of priests and pro-phets (6.268).17

The story's closeness to Saul's destruction of the Samaritan communityin the Samaritan. Chronicle II, with no parallel in the biblical material,suggests that both stories have the same event in mind. ST 1 Sam.§MA*-F*'s summaric note on Saul's hatred for David, David's gather-ing of four hundred men whom 'he led everywhere—plundering andtaking booty in order that he might provide them with bread to eat'—and that 'he was the object of admiration to all king Saul's enemies andfoes' suggests furthermore a common source. The statement that 'ourcongregations too, the community of Samaritan Israelites on MountGerizim Bethel liked David very much', implicitly testifies to the aggra-vation of Saul's animosity against the Samaritan Israelites.

The reason for the election of David by the people, supported also bythe Samaritan Israelites, is not that the kingship is taken away fromSaul, but that the death of Saul left the 'men of Samuel' without gover-nor (ST 1 Sam. §KD*-E*), 'the men of Israel were left without a king'(ST 2 Sam. §AA*).

Here the Samaritan 'historiography' tends to become more incoher-ent. It is said about David that he used to send his offerings and tithes toGerizim and that it is the cessation of this and his subsequent plans ofbuilding the temple at Jerusalem that caused the rise of anger among theSamaritan Israelites, leading to a final break with David. The Samaritanhigh priest at that time, Jair, refers to the common law and the place-ment of the temple at Gerizim. Here, as in the Saul story, it is stressedthat all tribes of Israel still (sic) had the same holy Law (iwnpn mmn)without additions or abbreviations (ST 2 Sam. §BJ*; 1 Sam. §JC*). Outof fear for the high priest, David stops his building activities with theexcuse to the leaders of the people that 'I have shed too much blood'.18

Therefore the assignment to build the temple should be given to Solo-mon (cf. also MT 1 Chron. 22.8-10).

The anointment of David is traditionally performed at holy Shechem(ST 2 Sam. §AB*)—as is the anointment of Saul (ST 1 Sam. §HA*), of

17. Scripture does not mention prophets. Neither does Josephus in his citationsof the biblical material (6.242, 254-61), where the city is called DTron TB (2 Sam.22.19), which is the only occurrence in the Old Testament, paralleled in the LXXand Ant. 6.260.

18. Same wording as in MT, with the exception that in ST the verb is 1st pers.sing.


Solomon (ST 1 Kgs §AB*) and of Rehobeam (ST 1 Kgs BA*)—and itis not before the partition of the kingdom that the Judaean kings areanointed at other places in the Samaritan tradition. The mention ofDavid's escapades, his liaison with Bathsheba, his eating of the show-breads and his disregard of the Law in the story of Tamar and Ammonare not essentially different from what we find in MT, which do notjudge David mildly in these instances. A sharp comment on David'sMoabitic origin as paradigmatic for Eli's supporters' lack of keepingthe Law of Deut. 7.3 against mixed marriages might be seen as a pol-emic against the accusations in MT 2 Kings 17 of Samaritans being ofmixed stock (cf. ST 2 Sam. §DL*-O*). Finally, David's hatred for hisson Absalom and the Israelites who followed him is seen as a repetitionof Saul's hatred for David (ST 2 Sam. §EL*-O*), and the accusationsof David's transgression of the commandment of love for one's brotherand neighbour (cf. Lev 19.17-18) refers to these events (ST 1 Kgs§BE*-I*).

It is noteworthy that Solomon is treated relatively gently in the Sama-ritan Chronicle, and the building of the temple is given a detailedaccount in concordance with MT 2 Chronicles 3-4. The temple does notrival the Samaritan temple on Gerizim to any extent, and the SamaritanIsraelites are allowed to continue their worship there (cf. ST 1 Kgs I-XI§FD*).

After Solomon's death, the Samaritan Israelites join with the Israel-ites who elect Jeroboam, but when Jeroboam deserts the cult inShechem (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII §EL*, which reads Gerizim and Jebis-Jerusalem) and places the golden calves in the towns of Samaria andDan (cf. MT 1 Kgs 12.25-29), the Samaritan Israelites remain faithful toGerizim and form their own community.19 We now have four factionsin the Israelite people (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII §EA*-J*):

1. Joseph's and Phinehas's house on Gerizim, together with somefew adherents from other tribes, especially the tribe of Ben-

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

6. Samaritan Historiography 25 1

jamin (§EP*), forming the Samaritan Israelites,DFSADFDrmn ̂ anDen.

2. The tribe of Judah in Jerusalem20 together with a large numberof adherents from other tribes.

3. A group in Pir'aton (nni)"l2, cf. Judg. 12.15), who worshippedforeign gods, deviated from the Law and were called 'the sectof forsakers' (DsmT^n).

4. The rest of the people who followed Jeroboam son of Nebat,called 'the rebellious' (D~mon).

The unbroken list of Samaritan high priests forms the chronologicalbackbone of the biblical chronology in Kings and Chronicles, withwhich the Samaritan story shares many features. Omri belongs to theSamaritan Israelites and he is responsible for the Josephites' settling onthe mount of Samaria, which got its name from Shemer, the name thatwas successively adopted by the population, Shomronim (1 Kgs XII-XXII §IA*-F*). Jehu abolishes idol worship after the Samaritan highpriest Hilkija had criticized it. We find no relapse in ST 2 Kings-2 Chronicles §CA*-E* as in MT 2 Kgs 10.29ff.

As mentioned earlier (in Chapter 4), the ST Chronicle II's paralleltext to 2 Chron. 28.1-27 is remarkable, partly because the story is toldalmost verbatim and partly because we find that the Samaritan com-munity joins the eight tribes governed by Pekah son of Remalja in thewar with Ahaz and the Jews. MT 2 Chron. 28.7-8 tells that the Ephraim-ite Zichri slew Ma-asei'ah the king's son, Azri'kam the commander ofthe palace and Elka'nah the next in authority to the king, and that theIsraelites took a great number of captives and brought them to Samaria.ST 2 Chron. §ID* tells that Zichri is from the tribe of Ephraim, that hebelongs to the community of the Samaritan Israelites and that it is theleaders of this community that order the prisoners to be sent back, with-out any mention of Oded, who, in Josephus, is made prophet of Samaria.

King Ahaz is not only at war with the Israelites in both texts, but alsowith the Edomites and Philistines. The chronology in ST follows thechronology of MT 2 Chronicles and places the story before the Heze-kiah story as in MT 2 Chron. 29.1-32.33, but after the fall of the north-ern kingdom (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. §H), which MT 2 Chronicles does not

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


mention. The chronology in this Samaritan chronicle, however, is soconfused and repetitive that it is difficult to create any certain coherence.

Hezekiah's invitation to the people of the towns of Samaria and tothe leaders in Shechem is met with contempt and scorn from the eighttribes, and a theological rebuke from the Samaritan Israelites (ST2 Kgs-2 Chron. §JD*). During the reign of Josiah, the prophet Jeremiahis stoned by the people in Judah when he elevates himself as a prophet.Josiah himself is killed in the following battle with Pharaoh Necho (ST2 Kgs-2 Chron. §NE*-H*). That is all we hear about the reform kingsin this Samaritan chronicle.

In MT 2 Kgs, two parallel accounts in 17.5-6 and 18.9-12, which arealso in the Samaritan Chronicle, tells about the deportation of thepeople, but using the material differently. The first account is the tradi-tional one about the deportation during Shalmanezzar, but only count-ing eight tribes of Israel, who like Judah and Benjamin, had sinnedagainst Yahweh by erecting cult places everywhere, worshipping for-eign gods and forsaking the house and mountain of Yahweh's inheri-tance, the chosen place Mt Gerizim (Bethel) in contrast to the SamaritanIsraelites, who remained steadfast in their worship of Yahweh onGerizim (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. §HA-B*, D*-K*).

The second account finds the rest of the eight tribes and the tribe ofJudah carried off to Babylon, while the Samaritan Israelites fromShechem are deported to Haran during the period of the high priestAbkiah (§LE*-§MO*). A mixture of different traditions results in asingle comprehensive deportation of all Israel and subsequent singlecomprehensive return of each to his own place during the time of highpriest Serayah (§ML*-N*).21 The hiding of the holy vessels on Geri-zim, the note in the annals about the hiding place and the handing overof the Abisha Scroll to the Levite priests to guard it because they areexpected soon to return to their lands, are interesting details from thisstory (§LK*-N*), and seem to have become stock motifs in both

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


Jewish and Samaritan tradition.22 This narrative of deportation does notexclude a mention of the deportation during Nebuchadnezzar, whichbroadly follows the outline of MT 2 Kings 24-25.

While ST Joshua and Judges have a very independent tone and seemto tell the story from a Samaritan perspective, it is remarkable thataccording to the tradition, the independence of the Samaritan Israelitesnot only ceased 'historically' with Saul's destruction of the altar onGerizim and the people's exodus to Bashan, but that 'historiographic-ally' the Samaritans seem to have no independent story to tell about theperiod of the monarchies, and that the two tribes of Joseph play onlyminor roles in their historiography.23 This is true also of the biblical'historiography', unless the Samaritan Israelites are understood here tobelong to the northern kingdom as such. The Old Testament terminol-ogy is not at all clear, and it can not be stated with conviction whetherthe Old Testament texts are referring to separate groups when theymention Ephraim and Israel, or whether the simultaneous occurrencesof the two names are due to synonymous parallelism, for example, inHos. 11.8: 'How can I give you up Ephraim, how can I hand you overYisrael'; 2 Chron. 25.7: 'Yahweh is not with Yisrael, (not with) all ofthe sons of Ephraim.' Nor do we know whether the occurrences ofIsrael, Ephraim and Judah in various combinations (as in Hos. 4.15-17;5.5; 6.10-11; 12.1) are due to the same grammatical device, or whetherJer. 7.12-15's comparison of Judah with Israel and the fate of the cult inShiloh, including both Israel's people and the seed of Ephraim, is refer-ring to the whole of the northern kingdom. Some few texts, however,

22. 2 Mace. 1.19-23; 2.4-7; Eupolemus Frg. 4 according to Eusebius, Praep. Ev.9.39.1-5; Josephus, Ant. 18.85-86; 2 Bar. 6.7-9; 4 Bar. 3.10-11; m. Seq. 6.1-2;b. Yom. 53b-54a; cf. I. Kalimi and J.D. Purvis, 'The Hiding of the Temple Vesselsin Jewish and Samaritan Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85. The hidingstories contrast the biblical stories that the vessels were preserved in Babylon andbrought back to Jerusalem (cf. Jer. 21.19-22; 28.1-9; Ezra 1.7-11; 5.13-15; 6.5;2 Chron. 36.9-10; 2 Kgs 24.8-17). The literature mentioned deals with the hiding ofthe temple vessels of Jerusalem's temple only, making it thus the more striking thatonly Josephus gives witness to the Samaritan tradition! The Samaritan use of themotif might therefore not be quite as secondary as suggested by the authors of thisarticle.

23. This might be the reason for AF's lack of any history writing from the reignof Jeroboam to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, when all Israel is exiled andforeign people settled in the country. Critique of the prophets (p. 58) and a list ofthe high priest (p. 59) 'covers' the entire period.


support the Samaritan tradition. The text in Isa. 7.5 (parallel to 2 Chron.28.7-8), mentioning 'Ephraim and the son of Remaliah' as Ezek. 37.16-19 does, where the joining of the people involves Judah and their asso-ciates the Israelites on one hand and Joseph (Ephraim) and theirassociates the Israelites on the other hand, or as 2 Chron. 34.9 does,separating Ephraim and Menasseh from the remnant of Israel as well asfrom Judah and Benjamin and those living in Jerusalem. In the biblicalchronology, this text dates to the time of Josiah and parallels Heze-kiah's invitation in 2 Chron. 30.1 to all Israel and Judah as well asEphraim and Menasseh to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover.These texts, together with the stories about the election of kings inShechem (MT Judg. 9; 1 Kgs 12), confirm a tradition that separatesEphraim (and Menasseh) from the ten tribes, confirming both the Sama-ritan and Josephus's tradition. The interdependency of these traditions,however, is not that easily solved. Josephus's narrowing of the Sama-ritan community, which has its parallel in the Samaritan pre-exilichistory, might also give expression to the Samaritan tradition. Thenecessity of being true descendants of Jacob/Israel and not have beenmixed with foreign people or to have fallen in apostasy as the rest ofIsrael had may have played a role in Samaritan historiography com-parable to Josephus's claim for the origin and purity of the Jewishpeople. The Samaritan Israelites' concentration around Gerizim andShechem could similarly be part of the same ideology, and might in factrelate to a much later period.

Prophets in Samaritan Tradition

Prophets are either ignored24 or held in contempt in the Samaritan lit-erature. Since Moses is the sole and only prophet and the Pentateuch isthe only authoritative scripture, there is no need for other prophets.Those prophets who are mentioned—Elijah (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII§JB*), Elijah and Elisha (§MP*Q*), Elisha (ST 2Kgs-2 Chron. §AA*-E*), Hosea, Joel, Amos (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. §FB*) and Jeremiah (ST2 Kgs-2 Chron. §NE*)—are all called sorcerers and are accused ofusing magic and astrology: 'They called themselves prophets. Theyaddressed words among the whole congregation of Israel [^np ^D

24. G. Fohrer, 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF,in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin:W. de Gruyter, 1968), pp. 127-37 (131-32), offers a list of the 'omissions'.


^"lET] on the authority of Yahweh—which Yahweh did not in factcommand, nor did he speak with them at all' (§MP*Q*). They have nomessages from God but speak their own words and lead the peopleastray.25 Elijah is accused of having eaten the bread out of the mouth ofthe widow and her son with his empty words: 'I shall eat and so willyou two', whereafter the widow's son starved to death. Thereafter Eli-jah, also called Khananiah, flees from King Ahab the son of Omri andhis people to hide himself at the eastern side of the Jordan, but falls intothe water and drowns (ST 1 Kgs XII-XXII §JE*-G*). The intertextualplay on the similarly empty prophesies of Jeremiah's competitor Hana-niah—sharing the name of the prophet Jehu's father, Hanani (MT 1 Kgs16.7)—who is sentenced to death because of his lies, probably under-lies this tradition (cf. MT Jer. 28). AF p. 58 brings a summary of thebiblical account and calls it a lie when the Jews claim that Elijah raisedthe son.

This harsh condemnation of Elijah could be a reaction to rabbinicaland New Testament veneration of Elijah as a new Moses.26 The way theproblem presents itself, however, is not quite so limited if we can judgefrom the few allusions to both a prohibition against prophecy and acondemnation of Elisha in his own literary world. 2 Kgs 3.13-14,Elisha's mocking words to Israel's king: 'What have I to do with you?Go to the prophets of your father and your mother', which in Josephushas become even more ironic with the addition 'since they are the trueprophets' (cf. Ant. 10.34), and even further twisted with Josephus'scontinuation that 'the king begged [edeiio] him to prophesy and savethem'.27 This is not reflective of the answer in the king's mouth of2 Kings, which holds Yahweh responsible for the war and requiresYahweh's prophet to prophesy the outcome. This he only does for thesake of Judah's king Jehoshaphat, who has joined the league againstMoab. Israel's king he 'would not look toward, nor see'. This wholeincident goes unmentioned in the Samaritan Chronicle, which interrupts2 Kgs 3.4-10, 26-27 with the following remark: 'On the eighth day

25. The view on Moses' role as God's messenger, God's Logos, who gave theunchanging Law, lies behind the severeness of the Samaritan critique of the pro-phets (cf. Macdonald, Theology, pp. 204-11).

26. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 124, based on Fohrer, 'IsraelitischenPropheten'.

27. There does not seem to be any textual reason for this change, since the textis not in Chronicles and LXX has the same version as 2 Kgs.


there was very heavy rain and all the men and their beasts drank. Thenthe Israelites smote Moab' (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. §AA*).

The 'omission' in the Samaritan Chronicle is the more striking whencompared to the story about Elisha's role in the Aramean war (MT2 Kgs 8-23), which follows right after the former story, leaving out theElisha stories in 2 Kgs 4.1-6.7.28 The positive role of Elisha in the bib-lical story is turned into a negative in the Samaritan version. He 'is asoothsayer, a sorcerer, a medium and a wizard'. No mention is made ofElisha's wondrous acts for the salvation of Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 6.15-22),which, in the Samaritan version, is due to the Israelites' military skillsas 'they smote the men of Syria' (§AC*). Josephus's unscriptural praiseof the prophet that 'Adados was amazed at the marvel and at the mani-festation of the God of the Israelites and his power, and also at theprophet with whom the deity was so evidently present' (Ant. 9.60) can-not safely be said to form part of the north-south conflict. It mightrather be seen as being representative of Josephus's own aims at recog-nition.

Paralleling this story is the shortened Samaritan version of Elisha'srole during Ben-Hadad's siege of Samaria (cf. MT 2 Kgs 6.14-7.20). ST2 Kgs-2 Chron. §A 24-G* puts the blame for the siege entirely onElisha, 'the soothsayer', who 'with his disciples [VTQ^n]29 flees fromthe king and settles in another land', again leaving out Elisha's acts ofsalvation. In a reference to 'the salvation on the second day' by Yah-weh (ST §AG*) it seems to show its dependency on the biblical narra-tive (2 Kgs 7.1). The manner of dependency, however, might not bequite so easy to establish. The question still remains: Why does the bib-lical version raise the problem of a critique of the prophet and give ananswer to it? Both versions narrate that the king went to Elisha to holdhim responsible for the famine. This seems to be an unnecessary accu-sation in the biblical version, if circumstances outside of the narrativehad not already raised the question and expressed doubts formulated bythe king's captain in MT 2 Kgs 7.2, 17-20.

MT 2 Kings 5.1-8's story about Na'aman's leprosy opens with theIsraelite maidservant's advice to Na'aman to go to the prophet in Sam-aria to get cured. The king of Aram therefore sends Na'aman with aletter to Israel's king, who sees a hidden pretext for conflict behind the

28. Josephus neither has these stories, with the exception of the story about thewidow's jar of oil (Anr. 10.47-50).

29. Ant. 9.68, TOiq |ia6r|Tca<;; MT2 Kgs. 6.32, D'DTn.


request. The conflict, however, is between the prophet and the king,who has no confidence in the prophet's abilities. The prophet Elisha,man of God, takes up the challenge: 'Let him come to me, and he shallknow that there is a prophet in Israel.'

Also MT Amos 7.12 refers to the prophet's rejection from Israel afterhis prophecies against Jerobo'am: 'Amazi'ah [the priest of Bethel] saidto "Amos, seer, go flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there,and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for this is theking's sanctuary [~[^Q~^~IpQ], and it is a temple of the kingdom[rD^QDTrri].'"

MT Ezekiel 12.22-25 adds to the critique:

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

As a consequence of this, Ezekiel is ordered to speak against Israel'sprophets (cf. Ezek. 13.1-23) who prophesy out of their own thoughts,who follow their own spirit, but have seen nothing (!) (cf. 13.1-3), whosee delusive visions and who give lying divinations (v. 9), who say'Peace' when there is no peace (v. 10), and who have prevented thepeople from building up a wall for the house of Israel, that it may standin battle in the day of the Lord. Note the character of the accusations,which are similar to the court hearing in Micah, especially ch. 3's con-demnation of the false prophets, who are held responsible for thedestruction of Jerusalem, for which the only salvation is to listen to theprophet, who is 'filled with the spirit of Yahweh' (Mic. 3.8: also paral-leled in Lam. 2.14).

The critique of the prophets in Samaritan tradition answers a similarcritique in the Jewish tradition, but is oriented against those prophetswhom Jewish tradition claims are true prophets. The only prophet whois mentioned by name but not commented on, and who is not called'prophet', is Jonah son of Amittai (ST 2 Kgs-2 Chron. §FC), who in2 Kgs 14.25-27 bears the responsibility for Jeroboam's expansion ofIsrael's border to Hamath and Arabah, and who does not prophesyagainst Israel to its doom, but for its salvation (cf. the role of Jonah inthe book of Jonah). Finally, attention should be given to the Damascus


covenant CD 7.18 and to its parallel text in 4Q267 frg. 3, 4.6-7, 'are thebooks of the prophets, whose words Israel despised', as a testimony to awell-known tradition of the second-first century BCE.

The Historiography of the Postexilic Period

These narratives are not included in Macdonald's edition of ChronicleII, and has to be sought in Chronicle IV, Kitab al-Tarikh from ch. 18onwards.30

Drought in Canaan offers an occasion for the Persian King Surdi31 tocommand the Samaritan Israelites to go home and worship the god ofthe land. They want to bring home all their brethen and send letters toeveryone to come to Haran for a united return. Since the Israelites donot wish to be under the leadership of anyone who is not 'a prophet likeMoses', the Samaritan high priest is given cause in a second letter togive a sermon. This explains why Moses is the only prophet:

Open up the Law and read it and you will understand that there willnever again be a prophet after Moses. For were there a [hypothetical]prophet who might come after him to do what Moses did, there would beno need for him. For it is said in the Law, 'I have bestowed upon you aperfect law. Neither add to it, nor take away from it, throughout all yourgenerations' (Deut. 4.2).

Not everyone accepted this letter, and a great number remained in exileand never returned. When the Jews arrive at Haran, the disagreement ofwhere to go to worship begins. The request brought by the Jewish rep-resentative Zerubbabel is not unimportant: 'You and your assemblymust do as we tell you: that is, we must go up to Jerusalem, and be allof us, one nation' (p. 70). The Samaritan answer similarly reflects theeverlasting hope, that if the people return to the chosen place of theforefathers, then god might 'be content and take pity on us, and ratifyfor us the covenant of our fathers' (p. 71). The discussion clearly placesitself in an implicitly much broader discussion about the new and theold Israel, with the Samaritans opting for continuity and the Jews for anew beginning. This beginning, however, according to Samaritan

30. As mentioned above in Chapter 3: P. Stenhouse's English translation fromArabic.

31. Usually identified with Darius I (522-486) whose length of reign is said tobe 36 years (AFp. 80): the name probably is spelled backwards, cf. Stenhouse,nn. 306, 375a.


understanding, took place in the time of Eli and proved false. The courthearing in front of King Surdi falls within this discussion. By referenceto the Torah scroll, which had been kept in custody in Niniveh duringthe exile, the Samaritans 'read out the verses', showing that Mt Gerizimis the Qibla. Zerubbabel then produced a scroll that he maintained wasthe scroll of David, and which (he claimed) showed that the threshingfloor in Jerusalem was the Qibla (p. 71). As is typical for this chronicle,a theological reflection answers the question why the chosen place hasto be Gerizim, and why Joshua had erected the altar on Gerizim and noton Ebal (Josh. 8.30), which would have conflicted with the tradition ofcurses from Mt Ebal (cf. Deut. 11.29 and 27.12, pp. 71-76). WhenZerubbabel and his companions are afterwards given permission tospeak, they do not refer to the Law of Moses but rather to their tradi-tion, which says that 'David and Solomon both said that the Qibla isJerusalem'.

Thereupon, the Levite Sanballat accuses the Jews of accepting onlyparts of the Law and, with reference to Deut. 15.19-20,32 of ignoring thequestion of where the priests should bring their offerings before thetemple was built in the time of David and Solomon. When Zerubbabel,in response to this accusation, refers to his Scriptures, which prophesythat Jerusalem should be that place, Sanballat claims that the Jewishbooks are forgeries, deceits and lies, and he asks permission to throwthem into the fire. The ordeal by fire reveals the truth. The scroll of theJews burns immediately, while the scroll of the Samaritans is throwninto the fire three times from whence it returns undamaged three times.Before this, Zerubbabel, however, had first tried hard to escape the test.He took the scroll of the Samaritans

opened it, looked in it and then said, 'I cannot throw it. For my book wasmine alone', but this Book is mine and his, because the one who wrote itis the lord, the Messenger (of God) Moses, upon whom be perfectpeace.'33 (p. 77: my italics)

This wonderful play on a well-known literary motif is given a differentperspective here that places the weight of the narrative on the behaviourof the combatants rather than on the outcome of the test. The explicitreference to the common tradition, which should be given priority overthe particular tradition, gives voice to this underlying theological theme

32. Imperfect clause ace. to SP Deut. 15.20.33. 'Upon whom be perfect peace' follows every time Moses is mentioned.


and to a reversal of Jewish accusations against the Samaritans for hav-ing forged the Pentateuch. The king's anger leads to the execution of 36of the Jews' chiefs and wise men and to the great exaltation of Sanbal-lat, who is not only honoured by the king with gifts, garments, etc. butalso by the tribes. After having paid the ransom for the Torah scroll andsacred vestments, 'they all set out in joy and good spirits and with themwent people from the sons of Benjamin, and the sons of Kohath andGershon and Merari, who had been with Eli in Shiloh' (p. 78). Note thereturn of the 'apostates' both to their tradition and to their home. OnGerizim they constructed the altar, '10 cubits long and 10 cubits wide,and 5 cubits high. The temple building was 35 cubits square. Theymade a candlestick of one gold quintar, and made a table and put theshowbread upon it' (p. 79).

We meet Sanballat again in the narrative about the Jewish return andtheir attempt to rebuild the city and the temple. The event takes placeduring the reign of Anusharwan, 'who ruled the land and put the Hel-lenes to the torch, exacting tribute from such of them as survived'.34

The short narrative is not essentially different from the biblical narra-tive of Ezra-Nehemiah where Sanballat also stops the building activi-ties (Ezra 4.2), and destroys the constructions raised. This much aggra-vated Jewish-Samaritan relationships. Ezra and Zerubbabel are accusedof having forged the holy writ, introduced a new alphabet, removed thereferences to Gerizim and given this new edition to the people, declar-ing, 'This is the Book of God, the authentic truth. Put your faith in itand make copies of this alone' (p. 81).

Later on, King Darius II (423-404) takes care to finish the building ofthe temple and kill a great number of Samaritans (p. 85). No 'biblical'text gives this information. They rather relate that the Samaritans areordered to bring revenues to the Jews.

Presumably during the time of the same King Darius, Simon isappointed as king of the Jews (p. 87).35 After the rebuilding of thetemple in Jerusalem, the cult becomes centralized. King Simon preventsthe Samaritans from going to Mt Gerizim, where he destroys the altarand the temple 'which the high priest Abdal had built' after the return

34. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, n. 376 considers this to have been Cyrus I(537/8-29).

35. Stenhouse, Kitab al Tarikh, nn. 406-407 suggests this to be Simon the Just(142-135 BCE) the Jewish high priest praised by ben Sira. The king would then sub-sequently be Ptolemy Physcon (146-116).


from exile. The Jews stayed on the mountain for 40 days to devastate itand pollute it. In the wake of the following pogroms, the Samaritans setout to avenge themselves by killing a great number of Jews and demol-ishing the Jewish temple and the city walls. However, with aid fromKing Darius the Jews win the battle, the Samaritans are severely beatenand those who survive become dispersed throughout the world: some tothe valley of Kutha, wherefore 'the Jews call them Kuthians, so that thename Samaritan and the name Israelite would fall into disuse' (p. 88).The account in many ways reflects the account of Saul's destruction ofthe Samaritan temple.

King Simon is followed by 'Arqia (Hyrcanus?). During this king'sreign, a peculiar discussion takes place.

At this time a dispute broke out between the sons of Ithamar and the sonsof Manasseh, because the sons of Manasseh had said to the sons of Itha-mar, 'Give us a share in the Beautiful Meadow'. He came to a decisionin this matter, thinking that this would satisfy them but he met with nosuccess. He said to them, 'Mount Gerizim is for you, and for them andfor all Israel; Nablus is exclusively for the house of Ephraim; the beauti-ful Meadow is for all the tribes; and the scroll of the law is for all Israel'(pp. 88-89).

Later Jewish fortune turns, and the nations who had become 'alarmed attheir oppression and deceit' gather against them, destroy city and templeand scatter the Jews among the larger cities. This gives occasion for aSamaritan return and a re-erection of the 12 stones in their places on themountain (p. 89), which now is in place for the reception of Alexanderthe Great.36

The Samaritan Alexander narrative contains some of the themesknown from Josephus's Alexander legend and Megillat Ta'anit, butwith a somewhat different casting. In the Samaritan narrative, it is theSamaritan high priest Hezekiah and the Samaritan community whomeet Alexander outside Nablus when he plans to wipe out the Samari-tans because of their support of Tyre during his siege of the town. As inthe comparable Jewish material, Alexander becomes convinced that theSamaritan high priest is a representative of God's will and that Alexan-der's fortune has been predicted by him (not by way of the book of

36. The placement of the previous narratives related to Simon and 'Arqia seemsto be a chronological error, and if we consider the John mentioned later in p. 112 tobe Alexander Jannai, the following narratives pp. 92-111 form an independentinsertion.


Daniel, of course). Hezekiah brings 'the illustrious Book and the Torah'(p. 92).37

When Alexander wants to build a temple after he had founded theEgyptian city of Alexandria, and to make representations of himself inNablus and in all other places, the Samaritans are in a dilemma.Through divine advice, however, they solve the problem by naming allnew born children after Alexander. When Alexander returns fromEgypt38 he is so satisfied with the arrangement that Hezekiah, the highpriest, is given opportunity to give a theological discourse about theimpossibility of having the emperor's picture or statue set up for adora-tion and to explain why Alexander cannot build a temple on Mt Ger-izim (pp. 94-95).39 The Samaritan narrative is not less legendary thanJosephus's story. Lack of direct anti-Jewish propaganda might, how-ever, suggest another source. It would probably be safer to consider theMegillat Ta 'anit traditions as forming the backbone of this as well asthe stories about temple destruction. The attached discussion about thetemple, however, may suggest an answer to the Jewish claim thatAlexander had built a temple on Gerizim. The Samaritan community'sattachment to Shechem seems to be a fact throughout the Samaritanhistoriography, both before and after Alexander (cf. pp. 79. 89. 92. 100.102V

The lack of Samaritan apology in Josephus's narrative of the discus-sion before the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus is given full compen-sation in this Samaritan Chronicle. The story is combined with theGreek translation of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan deputation is led byAaron and the Jewish by Eleazer. Jews and Samaritans each producetheir own version and the argument seeks to convince the king that theJewish version, which is without any clear reference to the cult place, isillogical, since the Israelites could not have been left without such a

37. Unknown, might be the Abisha Scroll and the Torah Scroll (Stenhouse,Kitab al Tarikh n. 434).

38. In accord with Greek historiography, see Chapter 5.39. The Samaritan temple might in fact have been the one in Shechem, while

Gerizim might have been a cult place without a temple. According to I. Magen'spreliminary reports on the excavation, this seems to be a possibility (see Chapter 5).AF pp. 77. 88 and 89 suggest that there was a temple on Gerizim in Persian timesuntil the destruction by the Jewish King Simon. The Samaritan Chronicle, which,according to Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 129, confirms Alexander's buildingof a Samaritan temple on Gerizim, must be one other than Chronicle II and VI.


decision for so many years after the exodus. The argumentation followsthe lines of the argument given in the court of Darius and adds nothingnew to the Samaritan position. The outcome of the hearing is an orderto make pilgrimage to the place and a curse on everyone who does notsubmit to this, followed by the clarifying remark that the 'Jews had for-bidden pilgrimage to the Mount of Blessing' (pp. 103-11).

Chronologically, this prohibition is combined with the split of theJews into three separate groups, Pharisees, Sadducees and Hasidim.This seems to have taken place shortly before or in the beginning of thereign of John Hyrcanus. The Samaritan Chronicle does not mentionEssenes, which are given such extended comment in Josephus, who(agreeing with Samaritans on the number of sects), for his part, does notmention Hasidim whom we know of from 1 and 2 Maccabees and whoseem to be important supporters of the Hasmonaean revolt.40 The Hasi-dim's attachment to Samaritans dwelling in the villages near the Mountof Blessings with the intention of devoting themselves to worship andfollowing the Samaritan school of thought (AF p. I l l ) certainly wouldhave been in conflict with Josephus's negative attitude towards theSamaritans, if this statement were correct.

Contrary to Josephus's harsh treatment of Sadducees (War 2.166;Ant. 18.16-17), AF states that they got the name because 'they abhorredburdening themselves with any type of injustice'. It is furthermorestated that 'they admitted only the authority of the Torah, and what thewritings point out by way of analogy with it', leading to a rejection ofthe books 'which the sect of the Pharisees promote, preferring to followin the tradition of their ancestors'. On this matter, Josephus is in fullagreement, when, in connection with John Hyrcanus's prohibitionagainst Pharisaic regulations, he states that

the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handeddown by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, forwhich reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group who hold thatonly those regulations should be considered valid which were writtendown (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down byformer generations41 need not be observed (Ant. 13.297).

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

40. 1 Mace. 2.42; 7.13; 2 Mace. 14.6. Josephus's rewriting of the text of1 Mace, is the more striking since he follows this text closely and has made replace-ments for omissions (cf. Ant. 13.278; 34.396).

41. Lit. 'the fathers' tradition' (EK rcapaSooecoc; TCOV Ticrcepcov).


In this Samaritan chronicle, John Hyrcanus did not cause any templedestruction, and the story about the conquest of Samaria and Shechemresembles Josephus's account in War.

The king had previously attacked Sebastia, a Samaritan city, and inflic-ted terrible hardship upon it; and after capturing it he had killed a greatnumber of Samaritans. He then came to Nablus and waged a fierce waragainst it, killing a great number of people from the two sects. But hewas not able to capture it as he had captured Sebastia (AF p. 113).

After John Hyrcanus's fierce discussion with the Pharisees about thehigh priestly office, the rupture and his subsequently attachment to theSadducees, he seeks to restore the Samaritans' rights and the resump-tion of pilgrimages to Shechem. The Samaritans, however, do not wishto see John Hyrcanus on Gerizim:

After John had gone over to the Sadducees and had done what he did tothe Separatists—burnt their books and forbidden the young to receiveinstruction from them—he restored the practice of going on pilgrimageto Nablus to the Mount of Blessing, and firmly held that it was the houseof God. Nevertheless the Samaritans would not consent to his makingthe pilgrimage to it, and were vigilant in preventing him. They held out,by the might of their Lord, against his insistence. When he had aban-doned all hope of having his way, he proceeded to dispatch sacrifice andtithes, votive offerings and pious donations and gifts for it (AF p. 113).42

What lies behind this story? Josephus War 1.67-69 and Ant. 13.288-300 give no information about John Hyrcanus's relation with the Sama-ritans. Neither do his stories about Alexander Jannai. The break withthe Pharisees could have led to abominable circumstances in Jerusalem,and Hyrcanus could have intended to seek support from the Samaritansand perhaps from the Hasidim, who, according to this Samaritan chron-icle 'rallied around the Samaritans all without exception' (p. 111). AnySamaritan reception of John Hyrcanus on Gerizim would, however,have been an acclamation of his high priestly status. On this point,Samaritans did not disagree with the Pharisees, though they had otherreasons.

42. The rabbinical parallel in b. Qid. 66a ascribes this event to Yannai (Alex-ander Yannai, 103-76 BCE). So does Stenhouse, who thinks that the successor ofthe Jewish King Simon named 'Arqiah must be John Hyrcanus, and therefore theking spoken of here, named John, must be Alexander Jannai (see note n. 563). Jose-phus's parallel stories, ascribed to each of the kings, supports the confusion, butonly the John Hyrcanus story explicitly 'dates' the break.


Consideration must be given the function of the story. Typologically,we are dealing with the same sort of story as the one about AntiochusIV's deathbed repentance and conversion to Judaism in 2 Maccabees 9.Similar motifs are presented: a former enemy becomes 'a friend andally', and 'he who laughs last, laughs longest'. The balance of power isresettled. The Samaritans do not live off the mercy of John Hyrcanus,and it is not 'the greatest Jewish hero' who causes the most unhappyevent in Samaritan history. The connection between John Hyrcanus'sattachment to the Sadducees (who in many ways resemble the Samari-tan opinion of the written tradition) and his treatment of the Samaritans,is interesting, and could be due to the Pharisaic outbreak, which mightin fact have been a true civil war between the supporters and the ene-mies of John Hyrcanus and later of his son Alexander Jannai, if we areto believe Josephus.43 If this be correct, we are implicitly told that theopposition to the Samaritans is to be found mainly among the Phariseesat this time, and that it was the religious and political concept of thePharisaic party that gave inspiration to the campaign against the Sama-ritans. Implicitly, it is also said that this concept, among others, was tobe found in the books of the Pharisees, which John Hyrcanus hadbanned. Whatever history lies behind this story, the long-standing con-flict between John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees,which, according to Josephus, has not been brought to an end before therule of Queen Alexandra in 76 BCE (Ant. 13.400-406), certainly couldhave influenced the ruling royal party's attitude towards the Samaritans.

If we include this Samaritan story in the list of stories dealing withthe question of the destruction of the Samaritan temple, we find that wehave a number of possible variant narratives:

1. Stories related to Genesis 34.2. Megillat Ta (anit.3. Josephus's two stories.4. The stories in the Samaritan Chronicles about King Saul, King

Simon, John Hyrcanus and perhaps Alexander Jannai.5. The Old Testament stories of Judges 9; 1 Samuel 22; 2 Kings

23.6. Ben Sira 50's praise of Simeon ben Jochanan and 'the foolish

people in Shechem'.

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


Common to all these stories are attempts at completion of or thedestruction of Shechem, Gerizim, Bethel and Khirbet Luzah. When thistook place and with what motivation cannot be safely decided fromthese stories. That it happened on behalf of and with direct actions ofJews in Jerusalem is shared by all of the stories. The Samaritan Chron-icle does not hide the fact that there existed a long-termed and far-reaching hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and that both groupsmutually exploited this in their fights with the surrounding 'nations'.We find in both Samaritan and Jewish sources indications of an intensi-fication of hostility after the return from the Babylonian exile, and, insome of the sources, this is closely combined with temple-building acti-vities in Jerusalem. Interestingly, no stories argue against temple-building activities in Shechem or on Gerizim, although this is said tohave been destroyed a couple of times. Three stories talk about attemptsto destroy Jerusalem's temple (Megillat Ta'anit; AF p. 81. p. 89).Thematically, we once again find ourselves dealing with the problem-atic presence of past traditions over against present innovations, andtwo groups who claim authority for each of their own. This might be anexample of the never-ending story. It might, however, also be a singlestory spelled out in many variations to give credence to its antiquity andconsequent historicity. Repeated remarks in AF about disagreements inthe Christian era is not necessarily authentic throughout the period. Onthe other hand, it can be stated that no Samaritan stories tell about anycooperation between Samaritans and Jews. The cessation of mutualpersecutions are always due to the interference of foreign rulers. Thefollowing examples can be seen as paradigmatic for this tendency:

AF p. 115 probably said about Cleopatra, the wife of Ptolemy VII,'She was also favourably disposed to the Samaritans. Her son helpedthem in their struggle against the Jews'.

AF p. 124: during Hadrian's siege of Jerusalem, two Samaritanbrothers, called Ephraim and Manasseh (sic), who are Jewish prisoners,reveal for him the tunnel entrances to Jericho and Lydda, and he suc-ceeds in conquering the city. Hadrian rewards the Samaritans, entruststhem with the affairs of the country and puts them over the Jews. OnGerizim, he erected an imposing temple for himself, called Safis. Hekilled an incalculable number of Jews and put the city to the torch.When the Samaritans later make sedition and burn down Hadrian'spagan temple on Gerizim, the Jews declare to Hadrian,


See how the Samaritans return your trust: how they pay you back! Youhad us put to death on their account, and you put them over us; youspared their land and treated them with every kindness; and yet afteryour departure, they burnt down your temple together with all who wereinside it.

This of course leads to Hadrian's campaign against the Samaritans, whoneither abstain from dishonest methods in accusing the Jews of theburning of the temple and of its inhabitants. A reference to the long-standing hostility between Samaritans and Jews, who certainly haveproduced a false charge, easily convinces Hadrian to turn his attack onthe Jews.

With the exception of Josephus and the Samaritan Chronicles, thesources are remarkably silent about these conditions, or only speak ofthem indirectly, as does the biblical literature. 1 and 2 Maccabees speakabout godless men and enemies of the Jewish nation. Are these Samari-tans or are they (as is usually assumed) unfaithful priests and pagansfrom among foreigners? Several texts from the DSS collection speakabout wicked men from Ephraim (e.g. Pesher Nahum, 4Q163 frg. 3-4,5.5, which bases its interpretation of Demetrius's[?] attack on Jerusalemon the book of Nahum, and 4QpPsa = 4Q171, 2.18, which is a pesheron Ps. 37). Both of these texts, however, also speak about the wickedmen of Judah, who seem to be 'those who seek easy interpretations'. Ifthey be not the Pharisees, as the standard scholarly opinion maintains,the texts could in fact be reflective of a Pharisaic view and be addressedrather against Sadducees and Samaritans. This could, for example, fitwell with the situation during the reign of John Hyrcanus after his breakwith the Pharisees or with the reign of Alexander Jannai, which wouldexplain why Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah are all spoken against in asimilar manner.44 Josephus's statement that the Sadducees 'reckon it a

44. 4Q44g's praise of Alexander Jannai does not conflict with the possibilitythat other DSS texts express severe hostility against this king. According to Jose-phus the Pharisee conflict was a twofold conflict beginning with John Hyrcanus andending with Alexander Jannai's deathbed repentance. Securing the power for hiswife Alexandra, Alexander Jannai advised her to 'yield a certain amount of powerto the Pharisees'. They in turn 'recounted the deeds of Alexander, and said that inhim they had lost a just king, and by their eulogies they so greatly moved the people[so] to mourn and lament that they gave him a more splendid burial than had beengiven to any of the kings before him' (Ant. 13.400-406). The substance of thishistorical setting is due to Josephus's argument and does not conflict with any'scholarly constructions imposed upon the texts' that argue for an anti-Jannaeus


virtue to dispute with the teachers of the path of wisdom,45 that theypursue' (Ant. 18.16), might be descriptive of the animosity against'those seeking easy interpretations'. Although they follow the regu-lations set up in the Pentateuch, they are not bound by tradition. Theymay in fact have had much greater freedom in making ad hoc inter-pretations without demonstrating any deviation from the written biblicaltext. The hermeneutic principle for interpretation of both legal andprophetic material in the DSS, however, exposes several changes of thebiblical texts with the purpose of making it fit.46 It seems possible thatthe accusation of making 'easy interpretations' could well be applied toeither group. L.H. Schiffman's excellent book,47 in which he striveshard to demonstrate a Sadducean origin for the scrolls, in fact is muchmore successful in denoting a Pharisaic or early rabbinic traditionunderlying most of the legal material in the scrolls.48 The few excep-tions showing a possible Sadducean association49 might better be seenas a corrective to our excessively dichotomous distinctions betweenSadducees and Pharisees. Supporting a view of Pharisaic origin is thefact that the scrolls are hardly descriptive of how matters are, theydescribe rather how they shall be when an idealized future has becomethe present. The righteous priests of the scrolls are not in the 'lineage ofZadokites' from David's time, whom we and Josephus understand to bethe heirs of the high priestly office in the second century BCE Judaismand called Sadducees. They are the new priesthood, sprouting from therighteous priesthood of the biblical 'David's house of Zadok', and theirorigin is in the lay movement, probably the Levites. This, however is aconstrued: that is a literary 'genealogy' that seeks to legitimate this

bias in the text, such as argued by Greg Doudna, 'Redating the Dead Sea ScrollsFund at Qumran: the Case for 63 BCE' (PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen).

45. TOtx; SiSaoKdloiK; oo<j)ia<;.46. Cf. P.R. Davies, Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox Press, 1998), pp. 157-63.47. L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society of America, 1994).48. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 7, 77, 103, 105, 118-26,

371-74. Schiffman's comparative examination on fate and predestination in thescrolls related to Josephus's descriptions of the Jewish sects (pp. 145-57) does notprove his case, since the views of the scrolls certainly are most reflective of Jose-phus's description of the Pharisaic movement and only with great difficulties can beapplied to either Sadducees or Essenes.

49. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 75, 87.


priesthood. Purification rules and rites make the transformation fromlay to sacred, as shown also in the preparations for Hezekiah's celebra-tion of the pesach (2 Chron. 29.34; 30.17, 22). Pesher Habakkuk'srejection of the 'wicked priest', who failed to stand in the way of truthand betrayed the laws for the sake of riches (8.9-10) and his accusersself-identification as the faithful teacher, the p~l^ mQ (7.4) must betaken into consideration here.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is scroll production assuch. Several Jewish groups might have produced various texts, but weonly have limited knowledge of such practices.50 The only group who isexplicitly said to have produced 'writings' in fact is the Pharisees. Thewritings they produced have been described as interpretative writingson the Tradition of the Fathers' (cf. Ant. 13.292, 296-97; 18.14-15; Life191; AF pp. 111. 113; Mk 7-9, 13).

These factors, together with what we otherwise know about theunderstanding of Judaism as Pharisaism, must be given consideration inour judgment of the origin of the DSS material. The harsh treatment ofthe Sadducees and accusations against them of having amassed wealthand riches at the expense of the poor in collusion with the Hasmon-aeans, the civil war that both led to the killing of a great number ofJews, as well as to the exile for some eight thousand people as dis-cussed above, however polemically and exaggeratedly in Josephus'swritings, all have their counterpart in the scrolls. Although we cannotuse Josephus as a proper source, we cannot totally dismiss the implica-tions of his storytelling. The anachronistic problem of identifying anyJewish group on the basis of descriptions made 100 to 200 years later,depending on the dating of the DSS material, is a stumbling block ofconsiderable dimensions. Conclusions can be drawn only with greatcaution. The representation of several views and hands in the texts may

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


be reflective of more than one coherent group, and the hypothesis of lib-rarian activities in the scrolls must be considered seriously.

The book of Hosea and Pesher Hosea speaks in the same manneragainst Ephraim and Judah in 4Q167 frg. 2: the interpretation to Hos.5.14 'For I will be like a lion (to Ephr)aim (and like a lion cub to thehouse of) Judah. Its interpretation (concerns) the last priest who willstretch out his hand to strike Ephraim (...his ha)nd. Blank [...] Hos.5.15. It is not clear who 'the last priest is', but the extremely difficultinterpretation that considers him to be Alexander Jannai does not fit theperspective of the text. This is clearly written by one who identifieshimself with those who are oppressed and looking for revenge. Thisauthorial perspective could be reflective of the self-understanding of thePharisee, opposed by both Sadducees and Samaritans who are portrayedas those subject to Yahweh's disappointment.

Isaiah 9.20-21 and Pesher Isaiah 4Q163 frg. 4-6.1, which quote Isa.9.20-21, both express a contrast between Ephraim-Manasseh and Judah.The texts do not differ from each other:

No one [forgives] his brother, [he destroys to the right and remains hun-gry, he consumes] to the left and is not replete; [a man eats the flesh ofhis arm. Manasseh against] Ephraim and Ephraim against [Manajsseh;[the two] together [against Judah. And with all this] his wrath is not mol-lified.

The reconstruction of the text seems reasonable, since the previousverses closely resemble the text of the Old Testament. Unfortunately,the interpretation is missing. The all-over impression of the texts fromthe DSS is that those spoken against and considered to be apostates areeither 'those looking for easy interpretations', associates of foreignnations or the foreign nations themselves, and that a proper north-southpolarity is not the focus of the texts. Similar to what we find in a varietyof psalms and prophetic texts of the Old Testament, the 'war' implied iseither intrinsic and thus splitting apart the tribes of Israel, or it isextrinsic and the 12 tribes are joined together in a common war againstthe nations, such as can be seen in the War Scroll (e.g. 1QM 3.14, 5.1).The Temple Scroll, which speaks with the voice of the Pentateuch, simi-larly puts Israel's tribes in a relationship of equation (e.g. 11QT 19-20;24.1-16). Any tendency of antagonism or priority can only be detectedin the order of the tribes.

The Damascus Document (CD 7.11-12; 4Q266 frg. 3, 4.6-7), men


tioning Ephraim's detachment from Judah, probably comes closest toan actualized interpretation of Isa. 7.17:

When the two houses of Israel separated, all the renegades were deliv-ered up to the sword; but those who remained steadfast, escaped to theland of the north. [This refers to] when the two houses of Israel split,Ephraim lorded over Judah,51 and all the backsliders52 were turned overto the sword.53

The interpretation, however, is held in so general and cryptic terms thata proper understanding becomes impossible, and we can only guessabout authorship and addressee on the basis of references to 'the booksof the Law', 'the books of the prophets', 'the princes of Judah, who arethose upon whom the rage will be vented', 'the converts of Israel, wholeft the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus', reverence forDavid, which leads to an abandonment of the whole period from Eleazarand Jehoshua (cf. CD 5.2-5):

However, David had not read the sealed book of the Law which was inthe ark, for it had not been opened in Israel since the day of the death ofEleazar and of Jehoshua, and Joshua and the elders who worshippedAshtaroth had hidden the public (copy) until Zadok's entry into office.

If we associate these things with descriptions of Jewish groups, wemight catch a glimpse of the Pharisees behind the 'books of the law','the books of the prophets' and 'the reverence for David', a glimpse ofperhaps Sadducees, Hasmonaean rulers and others opposed to the Phar-isees behind 'the princes of Judah' and finally a glimpse of Samaritansbehind 'the elders', as it is the entry of Zadok, which brings forth theLaw. If this interpretation is correct, we might (along with some of theDSS material) be placed in a much closer context than is usually con-sidered. Furthermore, 'when the two houses of Israel split' might be amuch more complicated reference than just a north-south conflict. Thatnot only Sadducees, but also Samaritans are said to be living accordingto the 'Way of the Fathers' (m. Nid. 4.2; Ant. 12.10; 13. 297), and thatthis way is the tradition past for those who sought to re-establish thattradition within a new interpretation, seems to reflect a structural

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

52. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 'renegades'.53. inn1? "ntwon *cr:no]n 'TJDI rmrr ^DQ cnst* ~ic (*niphai ptc of 310).


conflict of considerable dimensions, embracing all aspects of societallife.

A thorough evaluation of the Samaritan material can be given only onthe basis of already well-known traditions. As seen from this examina-tion, some of the material seems to cast light on obscure passages andstories that otherwise remain incomprehensible. The main problem withSamaritan historiography is not quite so much detecting ancient sourcesbehind what we now have. The main problem is rather that the 'histori-ography' never reached a level of canonization similar to Jewish 'his-toriography', which was able to preserve a substantially unchanged textover centuries. We cannot safely know whether the Samaritan histori-ography, when it agrees with Josephus against the biblical sources,speaks independently of Josephus, or whether its material is composedin accord with Josephus, or, in a somewhat apologetic way, takes upthemes and stories about Jewish-Samaritan relationships that are alsodebated in Josephus. No entirely independent story seems to have beentold in the chronicles. Stories dealing with Samaritan matters properhave a close resemblance to stories known from other sources: Letter ofAristeas; the book of Esther; 2 Maccabees; Susanna, the LXX, amongothers. The authors of the chronicles show no interest in presenting anational history or in placing Samaritans within such a realm of secularhistory. They did not take part in the Hasmonaean desire for indepen-dence and nationality. In this way, they resemble the Hasidim, whoseprimary goal was religious independence, and who probably withdrewwhen the uprising turned into a political movement for national inde-pendence. Samaritan history is the history of a religious group whosemembers call themselves Israelites (bene Yisrd'el) and Shomerim. Theirmain enemies are not foreign nations but their countrymen and brethrencalled Jews. Such a historiography, of course, is as little reliable at facevalue as the similar Jewish historiography. We cannot simply read such'historiographies' independently of each other. The realities givingthem substance have been interwoven. Treating them as if they wereindependent traditions would be comparable to telling a family sagafrom the perspective of a single one of its members. In future studies,much more work needs to be done. Much more openness and creativityneeds to be invested in comparative studies of what is a common his-tory for the benefit of greater clarity regarding both Samaritanism andJudaism.

Chapter 7

FROM LITERARY TO HISTORICAL REALITY

Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 and 12 each have an account about theactivity in Jerusalem of a certain scribe Ezra, descendant of Aaron. Thisfigure 'later' became of considerable importance to rabbinic Judaism, inwhich, equated with Moses, he marks the re-establishment of the 'for-gotten' tradition. Remarkably, Josephus does not know of this later-to-be-so-famous person, but seems satisfied with paraphrasing the bookthat carries his name, namely 1 Esdras. It seems necessary to look intosources later than Josephus to find 'information' about a person who'lived' in the fifth-fourth century BCE. Such a situation caused G. Gar-bini1 to conclude that 'the figure of Ezra was created by the book of thesame name; he did not have an autonomous existence as a person who,if not historical, was at least legendary before the writing of the book'.Garbini's purpose was not to deny Ezra, but rather the book of Ezra'shistoricity, and, with the help of an understanding of name etymology,transmission, development of tradition and the establishment of stockcharacteristics seek to place himself hermeneutically before the literary'evidence' and, as a result, give a more correct picture of Ezra. Thesources Garbini examined for this 'creation' were 1 Esdras, Ezra, Nehe-miah, the books of Chronicles, 1 Maccabees, the book of Sirach, theDSS, rabbinical literature and Josephus. The examination led Garbini tosuggest that Ezra was a synonym for Alcimus and his reform activitiesaround 159 BCE, which led to the Zadokite emigration from the templein Jerusalem and to their successive establishment of an alternativecommunity in Qumran.2By using literature that belonged chronologic-ally and ideologically to different contexts, but whose intertextualityreflects a high degree of 'sociological' agreement, Garbini established a

1. G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (ET: trans. John Bowden;London: SCM Press, 1988 [1986]), p. 155.

2. Garbini, History and Ideology, pp. 165-69.


new context and a historiography for a previously unknown personnamed Ezra. It is our task to re-examine Garbini's conclusions bymeans of more or less the same sources but with the possibilities thatother methods bring. This task is complicated by the fact that oursources are far from neutral and do not exist independently of eachother. This means that their authors have already created the connec-tions and contexts that we might detect and perhaps also interpret withthe purpose of creating new conclusions, which, however literarilyvalid, nevertheless may be historically incorrect. The limitations of oursources related to the survival and transmission of ancient literature isan insurmountable problem. Other authors have already decided whatshould be told from the past and what perspective be seen underlyingthe narrative. Only coincidences and implicit stories give us access to'the hidden story' behind those already presented. Ignoring this centralhermeneutic problem, much history writing is condemned to paraphrasealready written stories. If Garbini is right in his Ezra hypothesis, it isnot thereby proven that the description of Ezra in 1 Esdras was false forits intended reader, or that the 1 Maccabees' potential 'dialogue' aboutEzra with this tradition's portrayal of Alcimus was correct at the time.Both versions in fact could be false or correct, both then and now. Theproblems of anachronism and circular dependency are not solved byshowing that the portrayal of Ezra fits the portrayal of Alcimus in1 Maccabees; or, for that matter, showing that the 'history' relatingevents in the Hasmonaean period fits the biblical acount from the timeof the Judges to the refom of Josiah. The possibility of exposing ourtexts' sociological realities, and from them create the reality that createdour texts is minimal. Our only chance for knowledge of our texts'content and perspective is not so much dependent on assuming the roleof our text's implicit reader, but rather on assuming the role of itsimplicit author. We need to decode our author's methods. In ourattempt to become 'as clever as' the author, it is today's task to detecthow the ancient author used the story he created to hide the history thatdid not fit his perspective, as well as the message he had chosen to give.Let me give an example.

1 Maccabees, whose literary purpose was to legitimize the Hasmon-aean takeover and usurpation of the high priestly office, has two mainproblems: the Oniads and Alcimus. Alcimus is so obviously a usurperin this story, hardly to be reckoned in the high priestly succession (cf.1 Mace. 7.5, 21) because he did not know how to behave as a high

7. From Literary to Historical Reality 275

priest of the lineage of Aaron (cf. 1 Mace. 7.12-18; 9.54-56). TheOniads, on the contrary, had a hundred-year-old tradition as legitimatehigh priests and a standing that it would be foolish to deny. 1 Macca-bees solves this problem in a most elegant way by bringing Jonathan tocontrast Onias (1 Mace. 12.5-19). The text does not tell us that Onias isof Lacedaemonian origin. This lies only implicitly in the letter fromArius, which possibility Jonathan exposes in his answer: 'Already intime past a letter was sent to Onias, the high priest from Arius, who wasking among you, stating that you are our brethren.' The author of1 Maccabees did not have more to write. From here the story devel-oped. As we can see in 2 Maccabees 5 the author of 1 Maccabees hadreached his goal. Nor in 2 Maccabees is the legitimacy of the Oniadsdenied. It was not the Hasmonaeans who removed the Oniads. Theyremoved themselves, and, as it must be understood, rightly so, becausethey did not belong: so 2 Mace. 5.9-10:

and he who had driven many from their own country into exile died inexile, having embarked to go to the Lacedaemonians in hope of findingprotection because of their kinship. He who had cast out many to lieunburied had no one to mourn for him; he had no funeral of any sort andno place in the tomb of his fathers.

Josephus grasped enthusiastically at this chance of placing the Oniadsin Egypt, as we have already seen demonstrated in his various storiesabout the temple in Heliopolis or Leontopolis. At the same time, itbecame even more urgent to suppress discussion of a possible Hasmon-aean usurpation of the high priesthood. To make the discussion beforePtolemy a discussion between the Oniads and the Hasmonaeans wouldhave both undermined the earlier argument and have been difficult toaccomplish. Therefore, the legislation needed another context, and forthat the Samaritans were suitable. Josephus reached his goal: the pri-macy of Jerusalem and its priests, then and now. Here, however, wefind the critical point, for in Josephus's presentation of the list of highpriests in Ant. 20.235, he confirms indirectly the course of events: Jaci-mus or Alcimus is of the family of Aaron, but not of the family of theOniads (cf. 1 Mace. 7.14, but contra Ant. 12.387, which relates thatLysias appointed a high priest of another house).3 That there is no highpriest for seven years thereafter (Ant. 20.237) keeps the Hasmonaeansapart from any conflict over the high priestly office. It is only Jose-

3. See Chapter 4 above.


phus's mention of the high priests (whom Herod had appointed), thatthey 'were not of the family of the Hasmonaeans', which gives reasonfor the reader to think that these (the Hasmonaeans) were not of thelineage of Aaron, since Josephus, in his initial statement, had declaredthat nobody who was not of the lineage of Aaron could become highpriests.

The question now left open is whether this description has been ableto move into the universe of the author and thereby create the 'correct'story to contrast to the received story's placement of the Oniads inEgypt, with its legitimizing of the high priestly functions of the Has-monaeans. This is unknown on the basis of the available sources. How-ever, it is clear that this possibility is inherent in the texts. So too isNodet's Oniad and Garbini's Ezra theory. It is only further research thatcan lift the veil from some of the hidden histories of the past. Usingthese texts as historical documents, however, has been our greatestmistake. In the form in which they are presented, they have alreadybecome part of the world of story and tradition. Whatever documentarymaterial may have preceded the narratives, we can only know the ver-sions presented. The few 'independent' fragments and archaeologicalremains, interpreted with caution, are of considerable help.

The most central peculiarity involved in our understanding of theSamaritan-Judaean conflict is the existence of a common Pentateuch.As demonstrated by the brief presentation above of the Greek literature,the traditions about the monarchy seem to have become known consid-erably later than the Moses traditions. Moreover Judaism's concentra-tion on Jerusalem becomes more explicit during the second centuryBCE. This reflects well our knowledge of political circumstances, whichin the establishment of a partly independent Jewish state in the middleof the second century BCE, created the basis for a literary delimitationof Judaism's geographical boundaries. That the establishment of thestate also implied an establishment of a more politically oriented highpriestly office seems evident in Demetrius's letter to Jonathan (1 Mace.10.38), the cruvaycoyfj |ieyd^r|'s (14.28) appointment of Simeon in14.35 and 41 as their leader and high priest (fiyo'uuBvov amcov KQIdp%iepea), and finally the declaration that 'all contracts in the countryshould be written in his name' (14.43). Implicit in the offer to add thethree Samaritan border regions to Judaea is that they had earlier submit-ted to another authority. Also implicit in Josephus's discussion of the'right temple' in Ant. 13.74-79 is that none of the temples discussed had


obtained supreme authority and that such authority was indivisible.These circumstances were given vivid expression in much of the litera-ture of the second-first century BCE, as has been shown by Mendels.4

Giving voice to the wish for the development of a single religiouscentre in Jerusalem, the literature became idealistically descriptive ofwhat was not yet created. The literature does not argue defensively for are-establishment of an idealized past that had had a single temple, onepriest-king and a united people in Jerusalem! The literature in factargues on the line of innovation and development from that ideal placein the past, where the people once had its centre, to a new place in thepresent that is in process. The Deuteronomistic literature's elaborationof the Shechem and Bethel traditions is a rejection of that past, implic-itly prior to the establishment of the cult in Jerusalem. In the book ofJubilees, necessary corrections of the very same past are given voice,when Jub. 8.19's 'navel of the earth' (cf. Exod. 15.13; Ezek. 37.12)becomes Mt Zion; and when, in its addition to Gen. 22.14's 'mountainwhere Yahweh shows himself, this is said to be Mt Zion in Jub. 18.13.Yahweh's prohibition of Jacob's plans of building a temple and a wallin Bethel, and of making the place holy for himself and his children(Jub. 32.16-24), both implies that Jacob becomes Israel here (v. 18) andthat this Israel does not belong to Bethel (v. 23): 'Do not build thisplace and do not make an eternal sanctuary, and do not dwell herebecause this is not the place. Go to the house of Abraham, your father.'The text implies that the houses of Jacob and Abraham become united.Jub. 49.18's correction of Deuteronomy 12's implicit question of whereYahweh was worshipped before the building of the temple maintainsthat it had only been until the building of the house of the name ofYahweh that the tabernacle had been set up in the midst of the land.5

The relationship to Haran is another issue of concern. Abraham's con-nection to Haran could not be denied, but any doubts that this relation-ship should imply a connection to the Nabonide reform in Haran, andthat Abraham might have brought his god(s) from there, needed a clearrejection. This was done in the story about Abram's burning of the idolhouse in Ur in which Abram's brother Haran dies (Jub. 12.12). WhenAbram thereafter goes to geographical Haran (Jub. 12.15), it is not oneof Haran's gods but Yahweh who reveals himself and teaches Abram

4. D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, p. 150.5. A similar question in AF p. 76 is answered by reference to Deut. 15.20 and

16.16.


not to make signs from the sun and the moon. Only after the cutting ofthe covenant and the institution of Hebrew as the language of creation(Jub. 12.22-27), does Abram travel to Canaan.6 This 'correction' inNeh. 2.10, 19 led to the apposition added to Sanballat ha-horoni.1 Thisapposition presumably is not only a reference to an abandoned past, butalso to the future past of Samaritan tradition, which not only made 'theSamaritans, the descendants from Phinehas and Joseph' go into exile toHaran (view AF p. 63). but also sought to make a common return fromHaran during the leadership of Sanballat. This attempt did not succeedbecause of disagreements over where to go: Gerizim or Jerusalem (AFpp. 70-78). Once again we are left with the curious problem that MTandJewish tradition reject their past, while Samaritan tradition seeks toconfirm its. This literary technique is in full agreement with OldTestament literature's rejecting the gods of the fathers prior to theacceptance of the covenant at Shechem in Joshua 24. This event is notincluded in Samaritan tradition. Included, however, are the great cyclesof stories dominated by the motif of rejecting the firstborn in order togive room to the youngest. In the Ishmael tradition, he is reckoned asAbraham's illegitimate son; in the Lot tradition, he is a subordinatemember of the family; and finally in the Esau-Jacob tradition, he is thetwin brother and equal. It is this equal but rejected brother, who makesthe connection to Yahweh from Seir, while Jacob is connected exclu-sively to the Samaria and Shechem traditions.8

6. This still valid question even in rabbinic literature is exemplified in the jokepresented in Chapter 4.

7. Josephus either did not understand this word play or his texts did not containthe apposition. It is found only here in the Old Testament; the LXX reads oava-(k$AaT 6 Apcovi and is without apposition in LXX Neh. 4.1 and 6.1, 5, 14. Jose-phus's similar use of 6 xi)00cao<; in Ant. 11.302 has no support. The place name hasnot been identified; suggested are Beth-Horon on the Samaritan Benjamin border inthe vicinity of Ono (cf. Neh. 6.2); the village Huuwara, a little south of Shechem,and finally the Moabite Horonaim paralleling Tobiah, the Ammonite. A possibleconnection to Haran has been rejected on philological grounds (cf. EncJud.). This,however, seems unreasonable, since the reading of the Hebrew text is determinedby its vocalization. According to Gen. 11.31 this is Haran.

8. We are dealing here with a type of literature that is found only in the OldTestament tradition and is unparalleled in Near Eastern literature (cf. D. Irvin,Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient NearEast (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). This literaturereworks the past in typological narrative, which, taking up the past, is able to reject


The move towards Jerusalem is not restricted to non-biblical litera-ture. It also found its expression in several Psalms' and Prophets' wishesfor all people to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of Jacob,and for the Torah to go forth from Zion and the commandments of Yah-weh from Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 2.1-2; Mic. 4.1-2; Joel 3.5); 'for on themountain of Zion and in Jerusalem there will be salvation/ refuge'. Onecould doubt whether the reference to Zion is so exclusively a referenceto Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 1.1 's words against Samaria and Jerusalem(D^lTl jl-iDET1^)- Micah 3.12 states that 'because of you Zion shallbecome plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins andthe mountain of the house [ninn "in], a wooded height'. We usuallyconsider these expressions to be parallelisms, but it is not as obvious aswe are wont to think. When we analyse the Zion utterances in Kingsand Chronicles, we find the interesting fact that in 2 Sam. 5.8; 1 Kgs8.1; 1 Chron. 11.5 and 2 Chron. 5.29 Zion is not the temple but the cityof David, and that in 1 Kgs 8.1 and 2 Chron. 5.2 the ark is carried 'fromthe city of David, the same as Zion' (]VX KTI Til TSD) to the templeduring the celebration of its inauguration. We find the same conditionsin Psalm 2's setting of the king 'on Zion, my holy mountain'; and in Ps.48.2, 12-13's conflation of kingship and divine presence, calling Zion'the city of the great king' that is secured by God's presence. Wepossibly have more texts that support a tradition that does not explicitlycombine Zion with the temple. We have several psalms that speak of'the city, the habitation, the house [etc.] of the Lord' without men-tioning Zion (e.g. Pss. 24; 27; 46; 62; 66; 100; 101; 122). It is not theplace here to examine how Zion became the temple of the Lord, thetemple mount, Jerusalem and the people. We confine ourselves to con-clude that several psalms, lamentations and prophets, including Isaiah,

it. From this comes the dissonance in the various compositions, which are seenparalleled in entire books and collection, that is, the dissonance between the Penta-teuch and the historical books. Cf. also Th.L. Thompson, Origin Tradition ofAncient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 158: The narrativesof this genre all begin with a series of three episodes which together perform speci-fic functions of the chain narrative. They state the theme and frequently give thecontext of the later narrative. They set the mode of resolution for the plot-line, andthey take the first step in the plot-line of a greater story. It is usually the third ofthese episodes which sets the plot of the chain narrative moving and is found toecho through succeeding episodes of the larger narrative.'

9. In the historical books, Zion is only mentioned here (and in 2 Kgs 19.21, 31;quoting Isaiah).


Jeremiah, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Amos and Obadiah10

imply such interpretations. This implicitly holds a strong possibility ofa mixture of mundane and clerical authority. It also can be concludedthat Zion refers to Jerusalem in these texts. If this contain any allusionsto 'the two houses of Israel' (cf. Isa. 8.14), this is based on rhetoricalparallelism, which needed two exodoi for Yahweh's works, similar toJeroboam's new cult, which had needed two centres in exchange forthose left in Shechem and Jerusalem.

The move towards Zion or Jerusalem is not restricted literarily to thereturn from exile, which is given concrete expression. It also comprisesan eschatological salvation and the creation of the kingdom of glory inwhich all people should be gathered (cf. Isa. 2.2-4, Mic. 4.1-3; Zech.2.15), contrasting the rest of the books of Zechariah, Obadiah, Zepha-niah and Joel, which place Zion in opposition to the nations. Jeremiahforms another exception. It does not render the salvation complete untilall the apostates of the house of Israel have returned. Compare with Jer.3.14-16, where the faithless children shall be brought home to Zion, theark of the covenant be forgotten and Jerusalem be called the throne ofYahweh: 'In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israeland together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that Igave your fathers for a heritage' [v. 18]). This unification of the peoplealso forms the central message in Jer. 31.1-33.26, explicated in Jer.31.6: 'For a day will come when the watchers [D'HIS]] will call at themount of Ephraim: "Arise, let us go up to Zion, to Yahweh, our God".'The motif is the same as in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, but the remarkablefeatures of the text is the combining of (D'H^D) Mt Ephraim and Zion.The text expresses the same wish as we also find in the Chronicles'story about Hezekiah's invitation to those in Ephraim and Manasseh.Jeremiah's neutralization of the chronology and the levelling of thefates of north and south in the exile caused by the fall of Jerusalem, andthe glory at the return, stands in the same tradition as what we find inSamaritan literature and opposes the Deuteronomistic and 'Chronic-ler's' chronology, which reckon with separated falls and no return forthe tribes of the north.11

10. The other books of the Prophets, the remaining Old Testament literature,with the exception of the texts mentioned plus Lamentations and Song of Songs, donot use the term 'Zion'.

11. So also Ant. 11.133: 'But the Israelite nation as a whole remained in thecountry [Babylon]. In this way it has come about that there are two tribes in Asia


The return from exile in Ezra and Nehemiah does not share explicitlyin the Old Testament Zion ideology.12 There are no mouths filled withlaughter and no shouts of joy at the wandering to Jerusalem. We mighteither date this tradition to a later period or argue that Ezra and Nehe-miah belong to a different tradition, as do half of the writings of theProphets. With this we can separate Ezra and Nehemiah from 1 Macca-bees, which not only have knowledge of the tradition but also of thefulfilment of its expectations in 1 Maccabees 5's stories about Judas'sand Simeon's return of the Jews from Gilead and the Galilee (cf. v. 54):'So they went up to Mt Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burntofferings, because not one of them had fallen before they returned insafety.' The Zion expectation is hereby given its first concrete fulfil-ment. This contrasts with the book of Sirach, which, with the OldTestament, speaks about the wandering to Zion in futuristic terms (cf.Sir. 36.13-16), and does not 'know' of any Zion tradition in its refer-ences to the temple and the high priest Simeon (Sir. 50.1-24).

We are once more placed in the national ideology of the Maccabaeanperiod. We can conclude that part of the literature mentioned expressesa wish for the inclusion of the northern people in this ideology, whilethe only account of its fulfilment does not include Ephraim. In theSamaritan Chronicle Abu 'l-Fath, the conflict that this national ideologymight have created is placed prior to the return from the Babylonianexile, where Zerubbabel and the Jewish leaders wrote to the Samaritanhigh priest Abdal: 'You and your assembly must do as we tell you: thatis, we must go to Jerusalem and be all of us of one nation' (AF p. 70).Samaritan and Jewish literature agree that the claim is advanced fromJerusalem, not the contrary. Neither in the Masoretic literature nor inJosephus's accounts of the discussion before Ptolemy has it beenexplained theologically why the cult should become established inJerusalem. As demonstrated in the inauguration of Solomon's temple, itis built before it is chosen. It seems reasonable therefore, to ask whetherthe 'demand' that the Samaritans go to Jerusalem is anything more thana pious wish. Does it also contain a political statement that might haveled to the temple destruction, schism, text revision, and so on? BothSamaritan and Jewish literature agree that the temple was destroyed and

and Europe subject to the Romans, while until now there are ten tribes beyond theEuphrates.' This text is not found in either Ezra or 1 Esdras, which is Josephus'ssource.

12. The terminology is not used in these books.


that a text revision took place, with Ezra as the responsible editor. Bothtraditions furthermore have a Simeon tradition that is tied to the templeand whose reputation is sharply contrasted.

The Samaritan Chronicle places the temple destruction in the time ofa certain Jewish king named Simeon, appointed by an unknown kingbefore the arrival of Alexander the Great. It does not relate any destruc-tion to the time of John Hyrcanus. This chronology is contradicted inAF p. 102, which states that Alexander was received in the temple, andin 2 Mace. 6.2 and Ant. 12.257-64, both of which refer to the temple atGerizim in the time of Antiochus IV. The Simeon mentioned in theSamaritan tradition, therefore, cannot be the high priest Simeon II Just,but must be understood to refer to the Hasmonaean Simeon, ruling fromabout 142/143 BCE to 135 BCE. Neither the Samaritan Chronicle norJosephus bring any further information which could settle these matters.Megillat Ta'anifs account of the Samaritan attempt to destroy the Jew-ish temple, however, does. The placement of this account in the time ofAlexander the Great is so incredible that it cannot be taken seriously.Another probable dating in the time of Antiochus III—because of theassertion that it is Simeon the Just who is meant—is contradicted by thefact that no temple destruction took place at that time. Left is the Has-monaean Simeon. The event was not unproblematic, and therefore ithad to be transferred to another context in a remote legendary past.Josephus's reason for placing the event in the time of John Hyrcanus isa consequence of his account of Hyrcanus's conquest of the region ofSamaria in War, with the subsequent expansion of the northern bordersthat was initiated with the transfer of the Samaritan border areas Aph-raim, Lydda and Ramathaim (cf. 1 Mace. 10.30, 38; 11.34; Ant. 13.54,127, 145) in the time of Jonathan and the appointment of Simeon asstrategos over these regions (from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders ofEgypt; cf. 1. Mace. 11.59; Ant. 13.146). Josephus's revision of Deme-trius's document makes sense. It is hereby expressed that it is Demetriuswho sanctions that the Jews should have only one temple. Simeon isfreed of any responsibility regarding the temple destruction, as thiswould have fit badly the reputation he has been given. Hyrcanus's quar-rel with the Pharisees certainly gives reason to put the blame of thedestruction on him.

Therefore it was not the Samaritans who revised their Pentateuch.Why not? Because the Shechem traditions do not conflict with theSamaritan tradition, which rather maintains its coherence with the past,


and because the Samaritans' return from exile departs from Haran.Parts of this tradition conflict with some of the Jewish traditions andtheir conceptions of the New Israel: as an Israel that should gather allthe tribes of Israel to Jerusalem. The question becomes rather how thisliterature is common to both Jerusalem and Shechem, as well as whyJerusalem never created its own origin story independent of the She-chem traditions we now have in the Bible.

The Pentateuch is hardly a new composition. It is part of a post-Babylonian literary tradition. The inclusion of legal materials in thecourse of the Persian period—developments such as that of Darius'spossible establishment of 'the feast of unleavened bread' in Elephan-tine13 and that same Jewish colony's maintenance of a cult of offering—had developed a law code, connected secondarily to the origin and pat-riarchal traditions, as well as to a further legislation of the forms ofproverbs and sayings within the Moses tradition. This developmenttook place early in the Hellenistic period. It is to this development thatthe occurrence of Moses traditions in the Hellenistic literature of thistime, such as Hecateus of Abdera, is due. This also clarifies the absenceof these traditions in papyri from Elephantine. The development of thePentateuch traditions independent of Jerusalem pleads for an originfrom the 'am ha'ares. It is noteworthy here that even Deuteronomy'does not seem to reflect the point of view and ethos of the Jerusalempriesthood'.14 The Samaritan story about the return of the law scroll,which had been placed in Ninive during the exile (in contrast to thestory of Ezra's activities and the Ezra traditions' rejection of a commonbuilding of the temple in Jerusalem) supports this synthesis. The con-fession in Nehemiah 9 does not mention the Jacob tradition. It ratherinserts the tribe of Judah in what is presented as a pre-monarchic gene-alogy going back to Perez in the lists of Nehemiah 3, 7, 10, 11, 12. Thismakes it possible to argue for the existence of a tradition prior to theincorporation of all of the patriarchal traditions, a tradition whose his-torical origin is originally connected to the traditions about the monar-chy. This becomes painfully clear in the nearly total absence of ancestral

13. The letter (pap. 21) sent to the Jewish representatives in Elephantine, advis-ing how to celebrate the Pesach, as ordered by Darius and without any reference toa Mosaic tradition, points to a new institution.

14. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books ofthe Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 215, who is arguing for a Babylonianorientation.


stories in the historical corpora. In the books of Chronicles, the song ofthe Levites of 1 Chronicles 16 and the independent genealogies of thefirst chapters form an outstanding exception. The few allusions to theGod of the patriarchs and to the covenant are in the Elijah and Elishahcycle in 1 and 2 Kings (1 Kgs 18.36; 2 Kgs 13.23). Likewise, the refer-ences to Jacob and the Exodus in 1 Sam. 12.8, and to Jacob's sons in2 Kgs 17.34, implicitly confirm that traditions about the monarchydeveloped independently from the Pentateuch or Hexateuch traditions.Such considerations must lead to a revision of the variant claim of theEzra tradition, that Ezra brought the Law of Moses to Jerusalem. ThisLaw of Moses (ntOQTmn, given by Yahweh God of Israel (^tnGrTTftN)(Ezra 7.6), which Ezra brought to Jerusalem, could well refer to the SPthat had been adopted in Jerusalem to establish identity and legitimacyfor the nationalistic movement of the Maccabees, as well as to legalizethe policy of conquest. Jonathan's mention of the holy books in 1 Mace.12.9, and references to Nehemiah's and Judas's libraries in 2 Mace.2.13-14, could well have such a background. The borrowed traditionswere not unproblematic to the priests in Jerusalem. It is surely littlewonder that the development and authorization of the oral Torah fol-lows quickly the Jewish efforts to insist on the authority of such tradi-tions, to claim ownership of them and to develop an identity beyondthem. The rabbinic tradition about Ezra's text revision not only isreflective of the reinterpretation of the Torah, it marks the paradigmaticshift from the Mosaic Yahwism of t?N""]2T~<':Q to a Judaism of newcovenanters, who now call themselves DmiT (Jews). Challenging therole of Moses as the sole prophet, the insertion of Ezra in the traditionas the receiver of the command to go to Israel from Mt Horeb (4 Ezra2.33) and as the receiver of the (oral) Law (m. Ab. 1.1-5) and the tencommandments (b. b. Kam. 82a) defines the move paradigmaticallywithin the replaced traditions' own claim for authority.

Given the various traditions, it seems now reasonable to concludethat Samaritans and Jews never did form a single state, and that the onlyhistorical effort to establish such a state destroyed its basis. TheSamaritans, no less than Judaeans, were willing to give up their owntraditions as well as their claims to religious and cultural centres. Paral-leling proto-MT revisions, which sought to minimize the importance ofthe Gerizim and Shechem traditions, Samaritans had to argue for theprimacy of these traditions. This 'revision' falls outside of the Penta-


teuch,15 and probably also outside of the main parts of Joshua andJudges. From this, it follows that the language of expulsion and dissi-dence must be silenced. This is a rationalistic afterthought aiming topredate authority for an established Judaism to a time before the forma-tion of the Hasmonaean state, and to demonstrate that this Judaism,emanating from Jerusalem, was indeed the true Judaism, whose rejec-ters were schismatic 'from the cradle'. The temples outside of Jeru-salem did not emerge as a result of this ideology (they were in existencelong before); they were demolished because of it. It is this reality that isreflected in the stories about John Hyrcanus's 'Josianic reform', whichnot only in 2 Kings 23 but also in Josephus's interpretation of eventsleaves no room for competing Judaisms.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, R., La geographic de Palestine (2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1933-38).Ackroyd, P.R., Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, OT, 4; Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1970).—The Chronicler in his Age (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).Ahlstrom, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexan-

der's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).Albright, W.F., From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univer-

sity Press, 1946).—'New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible', BASOR 140 (1955), pp. 27-33.Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann, 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck, The Acts

of the Apostles (AB, 31; Garden City: NY Doubleday, 1958), pp. 18-32.Allegro, J.M., 'Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature', JBL 75 (1956),

pp. 174-76.Alon, G., 'The Origin of the Samaritans in the Halakhic Tradition', in idem, Jews, Judaism

and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the SecondTemple and Talmud (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977),pp.354-73.

Alt, A., Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paldstina (Leipzig: Reformationsprogram derUniversitat Leipzig, 1925).

—'Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums' (1934), KS 2, pp. 316-37.—'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judaa und Samaria' (1935), KS 2, pp. 346-62.Altheim, F., and R. Stiehl, 'Erwagungen zur Samaritanerfrage', in idem, Die Araber in der

Alien Welt, IV (5 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967).Anderson, R.T., Studies in Samaritan Manuscripts and Artifacts: The Chamberlain-War-

ren Collection (Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978).—'Samaritan Pentateuch: General Account', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubin-

gen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 390-96.—The Elusive Samaritan Temple', BA 54.2 (1991), pp. 104-107.Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae ofFlav-

ius Josephus (HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).—'Josephus and his Works', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple

Period (CRINT, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 185-232.Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection

of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).Avigad, N., in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the

Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), IV, pp. 1306-10.Baillet, M., 'Review of Macdonald, Samaritan Chronicle no. II', RB 1 (1970), pp. 592-602.Barstad, H., 'Die Basankiihe in Amos IV 1', VT25 (1975), pp. 286-307.

Bibliography 287

—The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study of the History and Archaeology of Judah duringthe 'Exilic' Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996).

Bartlett, J.R., 'Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem', JTS NS 19 (1968), pp. 1-18.Becking, B., The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1992).Ben Hayyim, Z., The Book of Asatir, with Translations and Commentary', Tarbiz 14

(1943), pp. 104-125, 128, 174-90; 15 (1944), pp. 71-87 (Hebrew).—The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans (5

vols.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957-77) (Hebrew).—'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch1, Bib 52 (1971), p. 255.Bickerman, E.J., Der Gott der Makkabder: Untersuchung iiber Sinn und Ursprung der

makkabdischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Books, 1937). ET The God of theMaccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabaean Revolt (SJLA,32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979).

—'La charte seleucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935), pp. 4-34.—The Jews in the Greek Age (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT

Press, 1988).Blenkinsopp, J., 'Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second

Temple History', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.;London: SCM Press, 1981), II, pp. 1-26.

—'Temple Society in Achemenid Judah', in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies(JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 22-53.

— The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York:Doubleday, 1992).

Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-kirchener Verlag, 1984).

Boccacini, G., Middle Judaism, Jewish Thought, 300 BCE to 200 CE (Minneapolis: FortressPress, 1991).

Boid, Ruahiridh (M.N. Saraf), 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tra-dition', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation ofthe Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen:Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 595-99.

Bolin, Th.M., 'The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy', in D.V.Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElohim (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 127-44.

Bowman, J., Transcript of the Original Text of the Samaritan Chronicle Tolidah (Leeds:University of Leeds, 1954).

—'Contact between Samaritan Sects and Qumran?', VT1 (1957), pp. 184-89.—'The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', BJRL40 (1958), pp. 298-308.—'Is the Samaritan Calendar the Old Zadokite One?', PEQ 91 (1959), pp. 23-37.—'The Importance of Samaritan Researches', AnLeeds 1 (1959), pp. 43-54.—The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationships of Samaritanism, Judaism, and

Early Christianity (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series, 4; Pittsburgh: Pick-wick Press, 1975).

—Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: PickwickPress, 1977).

Brenton, Lancelot C.L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English (repr.; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1851]).


Bruce, F.F., The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of theBible (London: Pickering & Inglish, 1953).

Bull, R.J., 'A Note on Theodotus' Description of Shechem', HTR 60 (1967), pp. 221-57.Campbell, E.F., 'Jewish Shrines of the Hellenistic and Persian Periods', in P.M. Cross

(ed.), Symposia celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1979), pp. 159-67.

Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1913).

—The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1908; Hildesheim: G. Olms, 2nd edn, 1960).

Charlesworth, J.H., Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1991).

Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman& Todd, 1985).

—The Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (2vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994-95).

Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib, 35; Rome: Pontifical BiblicalInstitute Press, 1969).

Cogan, M., 'For We, Like You, Worship your God: 3 Biblical Portrayals of Samaritan Ori-gins', VT 38 (1988), pp. 268-92.

Coggins, R.J., The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins', ASTI6 (1968), pp. 35-48.—'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JSS 14 (1969), pp. 273-75.—Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Black-

well, 1975).—The Samaritans and Acts', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 423-33.Cohen, J.A., A Samaritan Chronicle: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of

the Great Samaritan Reformer Baba Kabbah (SPB, 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981).Cohen, M., The Orthography of the Samaritan Pentateuch: Its Place in the History of

Orthography and its Relation with the MT Orthography', Beth Miqra 64 (1976),pp. 50-70; 66 (1976), pp. 361-91 (Hebrew).

Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).

Collins, J.J., The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans', HTR 73(1980), pp. 91-104.

Cooke, G.A., The Book ofEzechiel (repr.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967 [1936]).Cowley, A.E., Samaritan Liturgy (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909).—Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923; repr.;

Osnabruck: O. Zeller, 1967).Crane, O.T., The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua (New York: Alden, 1890).Cross, P.M., Jr, The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri', BA 26 (1963), pp. 101-21.—'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Dis-

covery and Significance', in D.N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), New Direc-tions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), pp. 41-62.

—'Papyri of the Fourth Century BC from Daliyeh', in idem (eds.), New Directions in Bib-lical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 45-69.

—'Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from tell Siran', BASOR 212 (1973), pp. 12-15.

Bibliography 289

—The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text', in P.M.Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 278-92.

—'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 4-18.Crown, A.D., The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Book of Joshua as Seen in its

Territorial Allotments', PEQ 96 (1964), pp. 79-100.—'A Critical Re-evaluation of the Samaritan Sepher Yehoshua' (unpublished PhD Thesis;

3 vols.; University of Sydney, 1966).—'New Light on the Inter-Relationships of Samaritan Chronicles from Some Manuscripts

in the John Rylands Library', BJRL 54 (1971-72), pp. 1-32; 55 (1972-73), pp. 281-313.

—A Bibliography of the Samaritans (ATLA Bibliography Series, 10; London: The Scare-crow Press, 1984).

—The Samaritan Diaspora', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 195-217.

—'Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82.1-2 (1991),pp. 17-50.

—The Abisha Scroll—3000 years old? Does the Samaritan Community in Hablus Have aTorah Scroll Written by Aaron's Great-Grandson?', BR1.5 (1991), pp. 12-21, 39-40.

Crown, A.D. (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989).Crown, A.D., R. Pummer and A. Tal, A Companion to Samaritan Studies (Tubingen:

J.C.B. Mohr, 1993).Cryer, F.H., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments

(CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).Danby, H., The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Expla-

natory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 [1933]).Davies, G.I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1991).Davies, P.R., In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 148: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1992).—'Scenes from the Early History of Judaism', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph ofElo-

him: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995), pp. 145-84.—Scribes and Schools (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998).Davies, P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).Delcor, M., 'Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament', ZAW 74

(1961), pp. 281-91.—'Vom Sichem der hellenistische Epoche zum Sychar des Neuen Testamentes', ZDPV 78

(1962), pp. 34-48.Demsky, A., 'Pelekh in Nehemiah 3', 7E/33 (1983), pp. 242-44.Dexinger, F., 'Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner', in G. Braiilik (ed.), Studien

zum Pentateuch (Vienna: Akademische Druck, 1974), pp. 111-33.—'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jud-

aism, Jewish and Christian Self-definition (3 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1981), III,pp. 88-114.

Dexinger, F., and R. Pummer (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604; Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992).

Eben Shushan, A., Qonqordantziah khadashah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1995 [Hebrew]).Edelman, D.V. (ed.), The Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).


—The Triumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen: Kok, 1995).Edersheim, A., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, 1883).Egger, R., Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur

Identitatserklarung der Samaritaner (NTOA, 4; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1986).

Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1934; 3rd edn; Gottingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1964).

Eshel, E., The Prayer of Joseph: A Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple onARGARIZIN', Zion 56 (1991), pp. 125-36 (Hebrew with English summary).

Eskenazi, 'The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book', JBL 107(1988), pp. 641-56.

Feldman, L.H., 'Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance',ANRW, II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 763-862.

—Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).Feldman, L.H., and G. Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State

University Press, 1987).Finkelstein, L., 'The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-gedolah', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 455-

69.Fohrer, G., 'Die israelitischen Propheten in der samaritanischen Chronik IF, in M. Black

and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memorandum P. Kahle (BZAW, 103; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,1968), pp. 127-37.

—Geschichte Israels: Von den Anfangen bis zu Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle Mayer,1977).

Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975).—Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (2 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-86).Ford, J. Massingberg, 'Can We Exclude Samaritan Influence from Qumran?', RQ 6 (1967),

pp. 109-29.Possum, J., 'Sects and Movements', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen:

J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 293-389.Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu dem Septuaginta (Leipzig: n. pub., 1841).— Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik

(Leipzig: n. pub., 1851).Freed, E.D., 'Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John', CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 580-87.—'Did John Write his Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts', NT 12 (1970), pp. 241-

56.Freedman, H., Midrash Kabbah, Genesis Translated (London: Soncino Press, 1951).Freedmann, D.N., and K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (ASOR; Win-

ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985).Freudenthal, J., Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste juddischer und

samaritdnischer Geschichtswerke (2 vols.; Hellenistische Studien; Breslau: Skutsch,1875).

Gall, A.F. von, Der hebrdische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann,1966 [1914-18]).

Garbini, G., History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (trans. John Bowden; London: SCMPress, 1988 [1986]).

Gaster, M., 'Das Buch Josua in hebraische-samaritanischer Version', ZDMG 62 (1908),pp. 209-79.

—'On the Newly Discovered Samaritan Book of Joshua', JRAS (1908), pp. 795-809.

Bibliography 291

—The Samaritans, their History, Doctrines and Literature (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1925).

—The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' Together with the Pitron orSamaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses (RoyalAsiatic Society, 26; London: n. pub., 1927).

—The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua (n.p.: n. pub., 1930).—Samaritan Eschatology (London: n. pub., 1932).Geffcken, J., Komposition u. Entstehungszeit d. Oracula Sibbyllina (Leipzig: n. pub., 1902).Geiger, A., Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern

Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Heinauer, 1857).Gesenius, W., De Samaritanorum origine, indole et auctoritate (Halle: Springer Verlag,

1815).—Hebrdisches und aramdisches Worterbuch iiber das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer

Verlag, 17th edn, 1962).Giron Blanc, L.F. Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano-Genesis (Testos y estudios Cardenal

Cisneros, 15; Madrid, 1976).Glaue, P., and A. Rahlfs, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen

Pentateuchs', NKGWPhil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200.Goldenberg, D., The Halakha in Josephus and in the Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative

Study', JQR 67 (1967-77), pp. 30-43.—'Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben Mattatiah', JQR 70 (1980), pp. 178-82.Goldsmith, L., Der babylonischer Talmud (8 vols.; Berlin: Calvary, 1900).Grabbe, L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).Grabbe, L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology

(JSOTSup, 278; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).Groh, D., 'Jews and Christians in Late Roman Palestine: Towards a New Chronology', BA

51.2 (1988), pp. 80-98.Gunn, D.M., The Story of King David (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1976).Guttmann, H., 'Die Darstellung der jiidischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus (Breslau:

Reinhardt Verlag, 1928).Hanson, R.S., 'Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age', BASOR 175 (1964), pp. 26-

42.Hata, G., 'Is the Greek Version of Josephus' "Jewish War" a Translation or a Rewriting of

the First Version?', JQR 66 (1975-76), pp. 89-108.Hayes, J.H., and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press,

1977).Hempel, J., 'Innermassoretische Bestatigungen des Samaritanus', ZAW 12 (1934), pp. 254-

75.Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (repr.; London: XPress Reprints, 1996 [1981]).Hershon, P.I., The Pentateuch according to the Talmud: Genesis with a Talmudic Com-

mentary (London: Samuel Baxter & Sons, 1883).Hertz, J.H. (ed.), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation with

Commentary (5 vols.; London: Humprey Milford, 1964), pp. 21-36.Hoffmann, K., 'Die Ethik des jiidischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus' (unpub-

lished dissertation; Erlangen, 1920).Hoglund, K.G., Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions

of Ezra andNehemia (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992).


Holscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Ex.il bis zum jiidischen Kriege(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904).

—Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen Religion (Die Theologie im Anbriss, 7;Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1922).

Hottinger, J.H., Exercitationes Antimorianae: De Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque authen-tia etc. (Tiguri, 1644).

Huck, A., and H. Greven, Synopsis der drei ersten Evangelien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr,13th edn, 1981).

Hyldahl, N., and Th.L. Thompson (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen:Museum Tusculanum, 1996).

Irvin, D., Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and Ancient NearEast (AOAT, 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978).

Isser, S.J., The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity (SJLA, 17; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1976).

Japhet, S., 'People and Land in the Restoration Period', in G. Strecker (ed.), Das LandIsrael in biblischer Zeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 103-25.

—'Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and ReligiousTendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 66-98 (1983), pp. 218-29.

Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and MidrashicLiterature (New York: Jastrow Publishers, 1967).

Jellenik, A., Beit ha Midrash: Sammlungen kleiner Midrashim und vermischter Abhand-lungen aus der dltern jiidischen Literatur, III (6 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger &Wahrmann, rev. edn, 1967).

Jost, I.M., Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Secten (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1857).Juynboll, T.G.J., Chronicon samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue.

Ex unico codice Scaligeri nunc primum edidit, latine vertit, annotatione instruxit(Leiden: Luchtmans, 1848).

Kahle, P., Textkritische und lexikalische Bemerkungen zum samaritanischen Pentateuch-targum (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898).

—'Zum hebraischen Buch Joshua', ZDMG 62 (1908), pp. 494-594.—'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes', TSK 88 (1915), pp. 399-439.—'The Abisha Scroll of the Samaritans', in F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia loanni

Pedersen (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), pp. 188-93.Kalimi, I., and J.D. Purvis, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan

Literature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85.Kellermann, U., 'Erwagungen zum Ezragesetz', ZAW80 (1968), pp. 373-85.—'Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatierung', ZAWSO (1968), pp. 55-87.Kennedy, J., The Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures, Commonly called Paseq or Pesiq

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903).Kippenberg, H.G., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur

samaritanischen Religion der aramdischen Periode (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971).Knauf, E.A., 'From History to Interpretation', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History

(JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 26-64.Kohn, S., De Pentateucho Samaritano eiusque cum versionibus antiquis nexu (Leipzig: n.

pub., 1865).Kuenen, A., 'Over de mannen der groote Synagoge'; repr. as 'Ober die Manner der grossen

Synagoge', in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg:J.C.B. Mohr, 1894 [1876]), pp. 125-60.

Bibliography 293

Kutscher, E.Y., The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden:E.J. Brill, 1977).

Landau, Y.H., 'A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah', 1EJ 16 (1966), pp. 54-70.Lebram, J.H.C., 'Review of Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', BO 26 (1969), pp. 282-83.Lemche, N.P., Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society

before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985).—The Canaanites and their Land' (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).—'Samfundsopfattelsen i GT og i D0dehavsteksterne', in N. Hyldahl and Th.L. Thompson

(eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1996).Levy, J., Worterbuch liber die Talmudim und die Midrashim (Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-

liche Buchgesellschaft, 1963).Lichtenstein, H., 'Die Fastenrolle, eine Untersuchung zur jiidisch-hellenistischen

Geschichte', HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), pp. 257-342.Lifshitz, B., and J. Schiby, 'Une synagogue samaritaine a Tessalonique', RB 82 (1975),

pp. 368-78.Lincke, K., Samaria und seine Propheten (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1903).Liver, J., 'The "Sons of Zadok, the Priests" in the Dead Sea Sect', RQ6 (1967), pp. 3-20.Macchi, J.D., Les samaritains histoire d'une legende: Israel et la province de Samarie (Le

monde de la Bible, 30; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994).Macdonald, J., Memar Marqah, the Teaching ofMarqah (BZAW, 84; Berlin: W. de Gruy-

ter, 1963).—The Theology of the Samaritans (NTL; London: SCM Press, 1964).—The Samaritan Chronicle No. II from Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW, 107; Berlin:

W. de Gruyter, 1969).Macuch, R., Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969).—Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramdisch (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1982).Magen, I., 'Gerizim Mount', in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land (4 vols.; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), II, pp. 484-92.Martinez, F.G., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).Mayes, A.D.H., Israel in the Period of the Judges (SET, 2.29; London: SCM Press, 1974).Mazar, B., The Tobiads', IEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45, 229-38.McCullough, W.S., The History and the Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to

Herod 550-4 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975).McLean, M.D., The Use and the Development of Paleo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and

Roman Periods (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1982).Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology

(NovTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967).Mendels, D., The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (Tubin-

gen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987).—The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York: Doubleday, 1992).Meyers, E.M., Second Temple Studies in the Light of Recent Archaeology (1994).Mikolasek, A., 'Les samaritains gardiens de la loi contre les prophetes', Comunio Viatorum

12(1969), pp. 139-48.Miller, J.M., The Israelite Occupation of Canaan', in J.M. Hayes and J.H. Miller (eds.),

Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 213-84.Mischnajot, Die sechs Ordnungen der Misnah, Hebrdischer Text mit Punktation (trans, and

ed. E. Baneth et al.; Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1927).


Moehring, H.R., 'Review of Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development asa Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), by S.J.D. Cohen', 7/531 (1980), pp. 240-42.

Montgomery, J.A., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology andLiterature (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1907; repr.; New York: Ktav, 1968).

Moore, G.F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tennaim(2 vols.; repr.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971 [1927]).

—'Simeon, the Righteous', in G.A. Kohut (ed.), Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abra-hams (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), pp. 348-64.

Mor, M., 'The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Sama-ritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 19-31.

Morgenstern, J., 'Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah', JSS1 (1962), pp. 1-11.Morinus, J., Samaritanorum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1621).—Exervitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateucheum (Paris, 1631).Morinus, J. (ed.), The London Polyglott (1657).—The Paris Polyglott (1945).Mowinckel, S., Studien zu dem Buck Ezra-Nehemia II: Die Nehemia-Denkschrift (Oslo:

SUNVAO, 1964).Mulder, J. (ed.), Mikra, Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible

in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988).Neubauer, A., Tolidah, Based on MS Or. 651 (Bodleian Library [Oxford] = A. Neubauer,

'Chronique samaritaine', JA 14 (1869), pp. 385-470.Niehr, H., Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentliche JHWH-Glaube in Kontext syrisch-kanaan-

discher Religion des 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BZAW, 190: Berlin: W. de Gruyter,1990).

Nodet, E., 'Jesus et Jean Baptiste selon Josephe', RB 92 (1985), pp. 321-48.—Essai sur les origines dujudaisme: de Josue aux Pharisiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992); rev. ET:

In Search of the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup, 248;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

Noja, S., The Last Decade in Samaritan Studies', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 802-14.

—The Samareitikon', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [PaulSiebeck], 1989), pp. 408-12.

—'Les etudes samaritaines. 10 studies Concerning Sam. Manuscripts and Religion all Pub-lished between 1985 and 1990', Hen 14.3 (1992), pp. 293-300.

Noth, M., History of Israel (ET; 2nd edn revised by P.R. Ackroyd: Philadelphia: West-minster Press, 1960 [1950]).

—'Der Beitrag der Archaologie zur Geschichte Israels', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.),Congress Volume Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), pp. 262-82.

Nutt, J.W., Fragments of a Samaritan Targum Edited from a Bodleian MS with an Intro-duction Containing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma and Literature (London,1874; repr.; Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1980).

Oded, B., Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden:Reichert, 1979).

Pamment, M., 'Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence in the Fourth Gos-pel?', ZNW73.3-4 (1982), pp. 211-30.

Paul, A., 'Flavius Josephe et les Esseniens', in D. Dimant and V. Rappaport (eds.), TheDead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (1992), pp. 126-39.

Bibliography 295

Perez Castro, F., 'Das Kryptogramm des Sefer Abisha', Congress Volume 1959 (VTSup, 7;Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960), pp. 52-60.

—'El Sefer Abisha', Sefarad 13 (1953), pp. 119-29.Peter, H., Die geschichtliche Literatur iiber die romische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und

ihre Quellen, I (2 vols.; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897).Pfeiffer, R., Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: n. pub., 1941).Philips, A., 'Nebalah—A Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct', VT25 (1975),

pp. 237-41.Pummer, R., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament', NTS 22 (1975), pp. 441-

43.—'Present State of Samaritan Studies I', JSS 21 (1976), pp. 39-61.—'Present State of Samaritan Studies II', JSS 22 (1977), pp. 27-47.—'The Book of Jubilees and the Samaritans', Eglise et Theologie 19 (1979), pp. 147-78.—'Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods', HTR 75 (1982),

pp. 177-88.—'Agarizin: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance', JSJ 18.1 (1987), pp. 18-25.—The Samaritans (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987).—'Samaritan Material Remains', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B.

Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 135-77.—The Samaritans—A Jewish Offshoot or a Pagan Cult?', BR 7.5 (1991).Purvis, J.D., 'Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 88-94;

repr. in J.D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect(HSM, 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 119-29.

—The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans', NT 17 (1975), pp. 161-98.—The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era', in B.

Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation (Festschrift P.M.Cross; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 323-50.

—The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), EarlyJudaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 81-98.

Purvis, J.D., and I. Kalimi, The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and SamaritanLiterature', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 679-85.

Qimron, E., '4QMMT' (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press).Rahlfs, A., 'Bin weiteres Fragment der griechieschen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen

Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 263-66.Rahlfs, A., and P. Glaue, 'Fragmente einer griechischen Ubersetzung des Samaritanischen

Pentateuchs', NKGW Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Part 2 (1911), pp. 167-200.Rajak, T., 'Josephus and the "Archaeology of the Jews" ',JJS 33 (1982), pp. 465-77.—Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983).Ramsey, G.W., The Quest for the Historical Israel (London: SCM Press, 1982).—'Zadok', ABD VI, pp. 1033-36.Redford, D.B., Pharaonic King Lists, Annals, and Daybooks (Publication No. 4; Ontario:

SSEA, 1986).Reicke, B., The New Testament Era (London: SCM Press, 1969).Reinach, Th. (ed. and trans.), Oeuvres completes de Elavius Josephe traduites en franqais

sous la direction de Theodore Reinach (8 vols.; Paris, 1900-1932).Rendtdorff, Das uberliefe rungs geschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 174;

Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977).Rengstorf, K.H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983).


Roberts, B.J., The Old Testament Texts and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press,1951).

—'Review of J.D. Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 569-71.Robertson, E., Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library,

Manchester (2 vols.; Manchester, 1938-62).Rothschild, J.P., 'Samaritan Manuscripts', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen:

J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 771-94.Rowley, H.H., The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah' (1948); repr. in H.H.

Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London:Lutterworth, 1952), pp. 129-60.

—'Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple', BJRL 38 (1955-56), pp. 166-98; repr. in H.H.Rowley, Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London:Thomas Nelson, 1963), pp. 246-76.

—The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History', in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson(eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (Festschrift J. Muilenburg; New York: Harper,1962), pp. 208-22.

Sack, R.H., 'Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in Folklore and History', Mesopotamia 17(1982), pp. 72-77.

Sadaqa, A., and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch—with Par-ticular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: n. pub., 1961-65).

Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977).—Judaism, Practice and Belief: 63 BCE—66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA:

Trinity Press International, 1992).Sanderson, I.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tra-

dition (HSM, 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).Sasoon, D.S., Ohel David: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manu-

scripts in the Sasoon Library (2 vols.; London: n. pub., 1932).Scaliger, J., Opus de Emendatione Temporum (Leiden, 1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629).Schalit, A., The Letter of Antiochus III to Xeukis Regarding the Establishment of Jewish

Military Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia', JQR 50 (1959-60), pp. 289-319 = 'DerBrief des Antiochus III. an Zeukis iiber die Errichtung jiidischer Militarkolonien inPhrygien und Lydien', in Zur Josephus-Vorschung (Wege der Vorschung, 84; Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), pp. 337-66.

—'Die Denkschrift der Samaritaner an Konig Antiochus Epifanes zu Beginne der grossenVervolgung der jiidischen Religion im Jahre 167 v.Chr.', ASTI8 (1972), pp. 131-83.

Schechter, S., Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1910).

Schencke, H.M., 'Jacobsbrunnen—Josephusgrab—-Sychar', ZDPV84 (1968), pp. 159-84.Schiffman, L.H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 1994).Schmid, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuch-

forschung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976).Schmoller, A., Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1973).Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1972).—Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden:

E.J. Brill, 1977).

Bibliography 297

Schiirer, E., Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: H.C.Hinrichs, 1885); (trans, and ed. G. Vermes et al., History of the Jewish People in theAge of Jesus Christ [3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87]).

Shehadeh, H., The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Cross (ed.),The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 481-516.

Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans,Green & Co., 1958).

Skehan, P.W., 'Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran', JBL 74 (1955), pp. 182-87.

Skehan, P.W., and A.A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation, with Notes,Introduction and Commentary (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987).

Smallwood, E.M., The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1976).

—'Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata(eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,1987), pp. 114-28.

Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Georg Reimer Verlag, 1906).Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1971).—'Review of Purvis Samaritan Pentateuch', ATR 53 (1971), pp. 127-29.Smith, S., Babylonian Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London:

Methuen, 1924).Soggin, J.A., 'The Davidic and Solomonic Kingdom', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.),

Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 332-80.Spiro, A., 'Stephen's Samaritan Background', in J. Munck (ed.), The Acts of the Apostles

(rev. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; AB, 31; London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 285-300.Stenhouse, A.P., The Kitab al Tarikh of Abu'l-Fath (Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, Uni-

versity of Sydney, 1985).—'Samaritan Chronicles', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr

[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 218-65.Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Aca-

demy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84).—'Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et

al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum,1976), pp. 561-630.

—'The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al. (eds.), The JewishPeople in the First Century (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 1101-59.

—Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).Strack, H.L., Die Spriiche Jesus' des Sohnes Sirachs (Leipzig: George Bohme, 1903).Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Mid-

rasch (6 vols.; Munich: n. pub., 1926-56).Strack, H.L, and G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: C.H. Beck,

1982).Strange, J., The Book of Joshua, a Hasmonaean Manifesto?', in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen

(eds.), History and Tradition in Israel (SVT, 12; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 136-41.Tal, A., The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv

University Press, 1981).


—'Samaritan Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 413-67.

Talmon, S., Textual Study of the Bible', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran andthe History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974),pp. 321-400.

—The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in P.D.Miller and S.D. Hanson McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 587-616.

—'Fragments of Scrolls from Masada', Erlsr 20 (1989) (Hebrew with English summary),pp. 256-87.

Tappy, R.E., The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. I. Early Iron Age through the NinthCentury BCE (Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1992).

Tcherikover, V.A., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1975).Tcherikover, V.A., and A. Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957).Thompson, Th.L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: W.

de Gruyter, 1974).—Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).—Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The

Fabric of History (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 65-92.—Early History of the Israelite People (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, 2nd edn).—The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian

Period Palestine', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok,1995), pp. 107-26.

—The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999) = TheMythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books,1999).

Thompson, Th.L., and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments(CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Thompson, Th.L., and N. Hyldahl (eds.), D0dehavsteksterne og Bibelen (Copenhagen:Museum Tesculanum, 1996).

Tigay, J.H., You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of HebrewInscriptions (HSM, 31; Atlanta, CA: Scholars Press, 1986).

Toorn, K. van der (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).Torrey, C.C., Ezra Studies (1910); repr. (Prolegomenon; W.F. Stinespring, Library of

Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. xi-xviii.—'Sanballat the Horonite', JBL 47 (1928), pp. 380-89.—The Chronicler's History of Israel: Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original

Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954).Tov, E., 'Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the LXXT,RB 78 (1971), pp. 355-83.—The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies,

3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981).—'A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scroll', HUCA 53 (1982), pp. 11-27.—'Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert', JJS 39 (1988), pp. 3-37.—'Protosamaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Sama-

ritans (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 397-407.—Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: Van Gor-

cum, 1992).

Bibliography 299

Ulrich, E., The Paleo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts', in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman(eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 103-29.

Unnik, W.C. van, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: QuelleMeyer, 1978).

Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press,1975).

Vermes, G., 'A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus', NovT24 (1982), pp. 289-303.Vorlander, H., Die Entstehung des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (Europaische Hoch-

schuleschriften, 23.109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978).Wacholder, B.Z., 'Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and their Enemies', in

Th.L. Thompson and F.H. Cryer (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testa-ments (CIS, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 347-77.

Waltke, B.K., Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch (HTR, 58; dissertation HarvardUniversity Press, 1965).

—The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament', in J.B. Payne (ed.), NewPerspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970), pp. 212-39.

Walton, B. (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols.; London, 1657). Prolegomenon XI: De Sama-ritanis et eorum Pentateucho eiusque versionibus. (The prolegomena have been fre-quently republished: Heidegger [Zurich, 1673]; Dathe [Leipzig, 1777]; Wrangham,Cambridge [1828]).

Wedel, G., 'Halachic Literature', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 484-80.

Weiser, A., The Old Testament, its Formation and Development (New York: n. pub., 1961).Weiss, R., Studies in Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1981 [Hebrew]).Whiston, W., The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (Edinburgh, 1737; repr.; Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson, 1987).Whybray, N., The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).Widengreen, G., The Samaritan Schism and the Construction of the Samaritan Temple', in

J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite andJudean History (London: SCM Press,1977), pp. 489-538.

Williamson, H.G.M., The Historical Value of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities", XI.297-301', 77328 (1977), pp. 49-66.

Willrich, H., Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaische Erhebung (Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1895).

Wright, G.E., The Samaritans at Shechem', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 357-66.—Schechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).Wiirthwein, E., Der Text des Alien Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952);

ET E.F. Rhodes (trans.), The Text of the Old Testament (Leiden: SCM Press, 1980).Yahuda, S., 'Uber die Unechtheit des samaritanischen Josuabuches', Sitzungsberichte der

Berliner Akademie des Wissenschaftes, 39 (1908), pp. 887-914.Yellin, D., 'Das Buch Josua der Samaritaner' (Jerusalem: n. pub., 1902 [Hebrew]),

pp. 138-55.Yellin, D., A.M. Lunca, 'A Book of Joshua or a Sepher Hayamim', Jerusalem Yearbook

7.7 (1908 reprint Hebrew), pp. 203.Zeitlin, S. (ed.), The Second Book ofMacabees (New York: Harper, 1954).Zimmerli, W., Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1969).

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis1.11.21.272.23.12 MT3.20 MT6.197.2 MT7.37.999.2110.1510.19

178150899390908991898922090220218

11. 26-1 2.4 MT 25211.3112.6-712.612.813.314.14MT15.18-2117.522.1424.324.728.2231.11-1331.1331.1931.30-3531.3232.25-323333.2034-37

278146, 1495690, 149909114525227717817814889148140140140146151,252147141

34

34 MT34.234.1434.2235.2-435.535.635.835.9-1535.1135.14-1535.1435.1535.19-2035.2135.2335.2441.4541.5042.1644.2246.2047.21 MT48.3-449.5-749.1149.24-26

Exodus1.11 LXX4.146.156.16-257.18

106, 138,139,220,26514314113915114614014914614614614714714714614714714723123189892319114614090146

23115422015490

7.298.198.209.39.59.9-209.139.199.2412.40 MT14.1215.1316.3519.2422.422.2624.1-1424.124.10-1124.1428.1-2293232.1-632.2-632.1032.17-1832.22-2432.25-2932.27-2932.2932.3534.334.30

Leviticus2.13

909089899016389908993892772201539090153153153153153157157, 16316315388163153152156153163153153

244

Index of References 301

7.248.361010.1-510.16-2016.2119.17-1819.2321.2023.152626.3226.3426.3526.43

Numbers1.47-531.48-533.1-63.5-93.6-93.7-103.17-353.283.324.27-284.338.2210.1012.1-1612.1613.613.813.1613.3314.91616.1-17.516.1-3516.316.8-101717.1-1117.317.817.1818

10915315415315313825011224810824150150150150

153153154156153153154153153, 154153153153881538824487878815724153153154154154154154154163157

18.1-318.1-218.2-718.318.6-718.618.20-2419.1-1120.121.1221.2024.17MT2525.1-1525.7-826.57-6127.927.1027.1127.2332.29-32 MT35.6

Deuteronomy1.6-81.9-181.131.20-231.27-332.2-62.92.17-192.24-253.21-223.24-284.25.186.20-257.39.2010.610.811.411.5-711.29-3211.2911.30

1531531531541531531631328888889116315616515489898988247163

888888888888888888888894, 2589213025088, 155155155, 163929224092, 25992, 107,240, 285

1212.2-312.4-912.412.512.5 MT12.1112.11 MT12.1212.14MT12.1912.2612.3213.114.2114.2815.19-2015.2017.817.918.118.518.618.1618.18-2221.524-2924.825.5-102727.127.2-827.2-327.227.4

27.827.927.12-1427.1231.9-1332.632.213333.8-1133.2134.10

2772372372362379223792163921632379494109163259277159155155155159908915585155114229090922327, 35, 56,85,9290155240259156125, 142125156, 16315615694, 125


Joshua1-111-95.17.158.30

8.33-35 MT8.339.2710.910.1510.4311. 1-23 MT13.7-14.513.141 3.29-32 MT13.331414.1 MT14.1-2715.117.4 MT18-2219.51 MT20.7-8 MT20.721.1 MT22.1-624

24.124.1 MT24.14-2424.21-2424.2324.25-2624.2624.2924.32

Judges1.212.132.193.9-103.9-10 MT3. 12-13 MT

2402122014222, 240,25924110724124124124124124016324716324224124024024114924124116324124046, 56,242, 2781472411471931472412322147, 240

134222242240243242

3.20-30 MT4.2-3 MT4.1 2-24 MT8.30-318.3399MT9.29.39.59.6

9.79.189.209.229.239.249.269.289.33-9.579.399.46-559.46-499.5710.611. 12-33 MT12.1517-21 MT19-2119-21 MT19.2320.620.1020.2120.22-2320.26-2921.2-4

/ Samuel1̂4.21-227.1-27.47.610.17-2710.2711.1-11

242242242147222222, 265244, 254222222147147, 222,244222147, 222222147222222222147222222148247148, 222222242251243142, 149243142142142149149149149

149149149222245246246246

11.12-1511. 12-13 MT12.1021-22222528.4-25 MT3131 MT31.10

2 Samuel15.86.1-1978.1713.1315.24-2915.2717.1520.2522.19

1 Kings1.81.261.38-402.42.272.3588.1ll-2Kgs2311.511.13-3911.3311.381212 MT12.112.1512.1612.17-1912.2012.2412.25-29 MT12.25

246246222248265142248248248222

248279149118158142158158158158249

158158158158243243118279222221148221148148, 254244244148148148244148250148


12.26-2912.26-2712.28-2912.2912.3112.3212.3313.113.3314.14-1615.3416.216.7 MT16.1916.2616.30-3216.3118.3622.53

2 Kings3.33.4-103.13-143.26-274.1-6.75.1-8 MT6.14-7.206.15-226.32 MT7.17.2 MT7.1 7-20 MT8-23 MT10.2910.29 MT13.213.1113.2314.2414.25-2715.915.1815.2415.2817

148148148148, 149157, 158149148, 158148157, 158148221221255221221221221284221

22125525525525625625625625625625625625622125122122128422125722122122122114, 15,23,24, 32, 33,46-49, 70,

17 MT17.5-6 MT17.7-2417.24-4117.26-2717.28

17.2917.34-4317.34-3517.3417.3517.36-3817.3717.3818.9-12 MT18.2219.2119.3123

23.4-2023.423.823.923.13-2023.1323.1423.15-1823.1623.2023.21-2323.2224-25 MT24.8-17

1 Chronicles1-1925.255.27-415.29-415.30-31 MT5.496.1-16

106, 194,200, 201,208,217250252193192193146, 149,193192193146146, 28419319319319325223727927914, 265,285149146, 149149157, 232221149, 221149149149149151152253253

4444157155158, 165243155155, 158

6.1-156.1-26.18-246.21-24 MT9.10-139.1110.13-14 MT11.512.25-3912.26-2812.3212.341617.3918.1622.8-10 MT23.28-322424.3-3124.3-1924.727.16-2227.1729.22

2 Chronicles3^MT3.15.25.13-6.26.35-387.1-27.127.12MT7.16MT11.13-1711.1312.1-81313.1-1813.913.1125.728.1-2728.7-828.7-8 MT28.728.11-15

26172424815816524827915515515515528415815824915616569159165155155158

250245279244158244245929214914814849149157158253137,251254251137118


2 Chronicles (cont.)28.152929.1-32.3329.1-32.3329.129.5-1929.1729.1829.2329.30-3629.3129.3430

30.130.1630.1730.18-2330.18-2030.2230.2631.131.2-1931.1031.1131.18-2032.3-432.1232.3033.1134.935.1836.9-1036.2136.23

Ezra1-61.21.7-113.13.3-44-644.1-6.224.1-244.1-2

118138137

MT 251137137137137138137152156, 26914, 27,193254156269108151156, 269137, 152138156158137, 23723713723713714254152253150178

66176, 1772533923721723195127, 19524

4.1

4.2-94.2

4.34.44.5-74.74.8-104.84.9-104.94.11-244.12-164.134.15-164.174.23-244.235-65.3-45.3

5.55.6-75.65.11-125.13-156.1-126.16.56.6-126.6-106.86.9-106.11-126.126.136.156.16-226.166.227-107.1-57.1-27.4-57.6

39, 195,1961415, 40,196, 260111, 17815, 15719819519531, 19519715198198177201195195195195, 19719731, 195,1971971951951772536519525319917720017719919519519517715517727315817243178, 284

7.77.12-267.127.219.19.121010.510.8

Nehemiah1.41.52.42.72.102.192.2033.194.1 LXX5.145.156.1 LXX6.26.5 LXX6.66. 14 LXX77.188.48.7-98.78.13-158.139-1091010.1-2810.110.2-2810.11-1210.31-4010.391111.10-1112

15517831, 1781781557227155178

1781781783127827817828316278323127827827816278283155273727215572155155, 16172, 28372, 28313115515515872155283165273, 283


12.612.1912.4713

13.1-213.413.1013.2513.28

Psalms224273744.24648.248.948.12-1348.1462666868.14-2368.1568.16-1768.1968.25-367887100101122136.26137.7

Isaiah22.1-22.2-47.57.67.8

7.9

16516515511,17,27,72, 1297216727216, 17, 28,43,217

2792792792671302792791302791302792792472472472482482474949279279279178126

2802792802544014, 15,24,4924

7.178.149.89.20-2111.10-1611.11-1323.224.1024.1256-66

Jeremiah3.14-163.184.23-275.187.12-1521.19-2223.5-62628 MT28.1-930-3131.1-33.2631.641.4-641.543.13

Lamentations2.144.21

Ezekiel7.191 2.22-25 MT13.1-2313.1-313.1020.52325-3725.325.12-1430.1734.17-3137.1237.15-28

27128049270492422021521549

28028015015025325324150255253282802801439,49231

257126

1572572572572571575912712612623112027749, 127

37.16-2837.16-1940-4840.4540.4642.13-1442.15-1642.2342.2443.1943.2644.10-3144.1044.1244.1547.1548.11

Hosea3.44.15-1755.55.145.156.10-118.5-611.812.112.8

Joel3.5

Amos4.1 MT4.4 MT5.155.277.129.14

Obadiah11-14

Jonah

1.9

12024, 25449159156156157157157156152156157157156, 159240157

1525349253270270253250253253220

279

247247247119257250

126

178


SP Deuteronomy11.30 9212.21 9212.26 9215.20 92,259

ST1 KingsAB*BA*BE*-I*EN*-S*

GC*

I-XI FD*

JA*

250

250

250

245

245

250

245

XII-XXII EA*-J*

250

XII-XXII EL* 250XII-XXII IA*-F*

251XII-XXII JB* 254XII-XXII JE*-G*

255XII-XXII MB*Q*

254

ST1 SamuelBA*-F*BG*-CGG*

1 Esdras2.16-30

244245

217

Haggai2.11-12

Zechariah1-82.153.1-23.33.4

27

49280252626

4.146.9-139.1310.6

Malachi1.2-5

26,27152424

126

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH (SP)

SP Exodus6.98.2018.2118.2520.17b20.21

8989888889,9289

SP Genesis7.230.3634

SP Numbers27.8

8989,90143

89

SAMARITAN CHRONICLE (ST)

BJ*DA*DF*DL*-O*GE*HA*HE*IA*IB*JC*JE*JR*-V*KA*KD*-E*MA*-F*

249248248250245249246248246249248247248249249

AA*-E*AC*CA*-E*FB*FCHHA-B*HA-D*HA-K*JD*LE*-MO*LK*-N*ML*-N*MP*Q*NE*NE*-H*

254256251254257251252252252252252252252255254252

ST2 ChroniclesID* 251

57" 2 Kings-2 ChroniclesA 24-G*AA*

256256

ST 2 SamuelAA*AB*EL*-O*

249249250

APOCRYPHA

2.16

2.22-24198201

2.253.45

19815

Micah1.11.5-93.83.1244.1-34.1-26.16

2794925727928028027949


4.454.505.635.66-675.68-696-76.3-46.36.66.297.32-338.18.218-2427-34

Tobit6.187.138.1510.11

Judith5.85.166.197.87.188.69.1-69.2-49.211.7

Ben Sira4.1873536.13-1639.1-1139.345.645.8-1245.1345.18-1945.23-2445.2549.5

12715, 127198196196197197197197200199158243198199

178178178178

178141178126126128139142142178

1637474281163163164164164164164164125

49.1249.1349.1450

50.1-2450.1-250.350.2350.2450.25-26

50.25

50.275151.1-2451.26

1 Maccabees1.1-9.221.16-201.21-641.29-641.51-612.12.262.412.422.542.652.663.8-103.103.514.42-4355.235.545.65-687.5-257.57.12-187.12-167.137.147.219.1

74737474, 132,137126134, 13713716312649, 125,126124, 126,12974164281141

186207207209165134, 16416563263165165165212127, 16816516528167281126168274275168263275274168

9.179.54-579.54-5610.2110.25-4610.25-4510.3010.38

10.6911.3411.5912.5-1912.913-1413.1013.3313.5214.4-1414.1314.1514.16-2414.28-4514.28

14.2914.3514.3614.3714.4114.4314.4715-1616.316.24

2 Maccabees1.101.19-231.231.312.4-72.13-142.132.19-323.53.64.1-7

170168, 17027517023657, 192282236, 276,28220028228227569, 28413413413413413416813413468134, 136,165, 276165135,276134134165, 27627616517968186

16625316516525328466102200166166


4.14.7-94.94.10-154.234.254.344.45-5055.1-265.8-10

Matthew5.228.58.9-118.12-138.15-1810.5-6

11.13-1415.22-2817.3-1327.4728.11-1528.16-20

Mark7-97.269.2-131315.34-35

Luke7.29-309.28-369.51-56

MishnahAb.1.1-51.1

166166167166167167231167275207231

124120120120120110, 116,117, 120123117123124117117

269220123269124

123123117

28495, 131,136

NEW TESTAMENT

9.51-53

9.5210.13-1510.30-3717.11-1917.15-16

John1.19-283.14-153.2344.1-424.3-44.54.94.124.144.194.204.214.22

4.23

4.394.524.53

11755117117117117

12312312357,11512055116,123121122,125122125122122122122122

125125

RABBINIC SOURCES

1.2 1301.6 136

5.466.1-156.146.30-516.5888.5-118.48-598.489.179.24-3410.1611.54

Acts1.85.397.2-537.167.437.538.1-258.18.5-299.3115.3

Ber.7.17.7

123125125123125125123124124125123120116,123

11812011822, 116119119119118118118118

105105

'Abod. Zar.1.5 112

2 Maccabees (cont.) 5.9-105.95.11-205.22-235.235.246.1-116.1-2

6.16.2

27516718518168,21216820949, 209,21236,67209-11,282

8.38.25-26910.1-313.1-813.3-413.514.3-1114.614.2615.1-2

2126826516516816817016826317068


Dem.

3.46.1

Hor.

3.7

Meg.

1.6

Men.

13.10

Nid.4.14.2

7.4

Par.3.5

Qid.4.3

Sebu.8.108.11

$eg.1.56.1-2

So/.7.5

13.5-6

Suk.5.820.3

Ta 'an.2.8

Ter.3.9

104104

114

131

232

105, 113105, 114,271105, 109,112-14

132

114

105105

111253

92, 107,285132

16635

128

104

Toh.5.8

Talmudsb. 'Abod. Zar.9a15b26b-27a

b. B. Bat.15a21b-22a82a-b

b. Ber.47b

b. Gem.15b

b. Git.lOa

b. Hul.3b6ab. Kam.38b82a

b. Mak.23b-24a

b. Meg.15a17b31b

b. Men.109b

b. Nid.56b

b. Qid.66a75a

104

136110107

737373

109

112

109

105105,218

75a-76a75b76a

b. RoS HaS.18b

b. Sab.123b13b21b

85b

b. Sanh.102.1

b. Suk.20a

b. Yom.39a39b53b-54a71b

105105, 113109

128

73128108, 151,176105

222

73

128128253162

Palestinian Talmud105284

95

7313173

128

105

264105, 113,114

y. Dem.9

y. Ket.27a

y. Meg.1.54.1.75a

y. Or.2.6

y. Sanh.11.6

y. Ta'an.66a

y. Yom.43c

109

109

13173

108

62

128

128


Toseftat. Pes.2

t. Sank.4.7

t. Sot.8.6-8

MidrashimDeut. R.3

Ant.1.5-171.51.101.151.941.1081.1591.2401.337-421.3411.3422.3473.181-824.196-3014.1975.805.1365.3185.3425.361-626.826.2426.254-616.262-686.2626.2686.3787.420-227.423-257.431

108

73

128

141

18918994190, 191189189189189139, 142143141190183189190240243243248243247249249248248249248230230230

Gen. R.81

Midr. Teh.105.2

S. '01. R.30

Song R.4.19

141

73

136

73

JOSEPHUS

8.11-128.2149.609.689.2089.2659.277-919.277-219.2799.2889.290

9.29110.3410.37-3810.47-5010.18310.184-8510.184

10.21811.1-15811.1-11911.1611.19

11.2011.2211.84-8511.8411.85

24319025625619019314,23192193194,217194, 217,21819425519325621919423, 48,150,21719018623, 195200198,216,217216198196196195

Other Rabbinic WritingsPesherHabahkuk7.4 2698.9-10

Pirke Abot1.11.2

11.8711.88

11.8911.9711.10411.10511.114-1511.11411.118-1911.11811.11911.121-5811.13311.159-83

11.17411.184-29611.197-30311.29011.293-9711.297-347

11.297-4711.298-9911.30211.30311.310-1111.31211.317-1911.317

269

130131

Gem. b. Nid.57a 112

197196, 198,217197,19919819919919920020020020073219,28043, 73,18643, 20018618619660128, 200,221186173217, 27820220246202132


11.322-2411.326-3911.32611.33111.33311.33611.33711.338-3911.33811.33911.340-4711.340-4111.34011.341

11.34211.343-4411.34311.34511.346-4712.312.5-712.7

12.8-1012.10

12.1312.115-2812.129-5312.133-4612.138-4412.14112.154-23612.154-5612.15612.157-5812.158-5912.160-22712.16812.224-2512.22412.225-2612.226-2712.22812.237-6412.237-4112.237-40

20313220320320420620420421867218205, 22070195, 208,218205205, 209218228206,211180179180,213,2285658,213,2719420713323465, 1652341861292351321331291291321331336712919, 207207231

12.240-4112.242-4412.24712.248-5612.24912.25212.25512.257-64

12.257

12.258-5912.25912.260-6112.26012.26112.262-6312.26512.285-8612.28712.29212.296-9712.337-43412.35312.38512.387-8812.387

12.38812.41412.43-4412.451313.1-6113.8.213.54

13.6013.62-7413.62-7313.66-6713.6613.6813.6913.70-7113.74-79

13.74

209207207209207209207, 209127,218,282195, 208,21820870, 210209208210,2122112122122005858186126170213167, 170,228, 275170,21317013213218018617957, 192,236, 282213213213,22822923721421422919,213,276214,217

13.7713.7813.80-17013.12713.14513.14613.16713.174-21413.20213.22913.24413.254-7813.255-5613.256

13.257-5813.25713.275-7613.27513.27813.28513.288-30013.289-9013.29213.296-9713.29713.29913.318-1913.372-8313.400-4061414.1814.87-8814.26614.32314.40315.29216.174-7817.2017.31917.34217.6918.14-1518.16-1718.1618.3018.85-8918.85-86

216214,2151862822822826918613418617921521550, 60,21710621622322226322819, 26469269269263, 271265106265265, 267180190235190190106222190222, 225222222, 225222, 22558, 26926369, 268225222253


Ant. (cont.)18.8518.16719.3020.118-3820.118-3620.11820.11920.12220.125-2720.12720.12920.130-3320.13520.22620.22920.23420.235-3720.23520.23620.23720.23820.24720.258-5920.26734.9-1234.22-2334.3034.396

Apion1.11.501.53-541.183-2041.205-11

22522222255222, 223223, 225223223224224224224224170243133231275228275169169186186140140140263

226185190174179

1.2161.2501.260-872.8-322.52-1132.112-142.190-2192.193184

Life1112191363

War1-101-41.51.61.9-121.31-321.311.331.63

1.64-651.67-691.671.88-981.1661.1901.5621.5922.111

13823223223219117918357, 192174

18318358, 269185

187, 189189189184186170228228216,218,226223264265265235228225225225

2.1422.1662.232-442.232-332.2322.2332.235-362.2372.2392.2402.2412.242-442.245-462.576-792.582-8433.307-153.40155.206-1066.2686.288-3156.435-427.420-327.4217.422-327.423-257.4237.4277.4317.433-3611-13

26926322355223223223224223224224224224191191189225206185186189185185185185230216228230213,228213229, 230216187

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Pseudepigrapha2 Baruch6.7-9 253

4 Ezra2.33 284

Joseph and Aseneth3 Maccabees2.1-24

4 Baruch3.10-11

132

253

2.23

Jubilees8.1912.12

139

111111

12.1512.22-2714.24-2518.133030.1-630.3-430.630.7-12

277278140111139, 163139139141139


30.12 13930.17 14130.18-19 14130.23 14131.2 14032.16-24 27732.18 27732.23 27749.18 277

Letter ofAristeas12.11-118 186

Pseudo-Philo8 139

Sibylline Oracles5.501 2305.507 230

Testament of Joseph2.6 56

Testament of Judah4.1 14221.1-2 142

Testament ofLevi5.2 1357 124, 1397.2 141

Qumran1QM3.14 2705.1 270

1QS1-2 1612.18-22 1615 1615.2 1615.6 1615.7-10 1625.9 1615.21 1616.8 161

8.18.48.5-68.8-98.108.129.3-99.39.5-69.11

IQSa1.27-2.12.2-32.11-17

IQSb3.22

IQpHab7.48.9-10

4Q1633-44-6.15.5

4Q1672

4Q1712.18

4Q26634.6-7

4Q2673.4.6-7

4QDeut"5.5

161161161161162161161162161162

162162162

162

169169

267270267

270

267

270270

258

91

4QpNahfrag. 3-4

col. 3.7

4QpaleoExod'n22.2631.13

11QT19-2024.1-16

CD4.1 1595.2-57.11-127.1812.23

Baraita

136

9191

270270

271270258162

Masseket Kutim1256111213151620212223

2317242527

28

110111112105, 113112107110109109, 111109109110, 111110, 111,232111108109105, 114,232107, 115

Other Rabbinic WritingsPhilo

4QLevc Omn. Prob. Lib.5.12 91 75-91 269


Spec. Leg.1.156

Vit. Cont.1-90128-3175-8088

156

269269269269269

1.56 1202.15 120

C. Tryph.120 120

Classical AuthorsCurtius Rufus4.8 2334.9-11 233

Christian AuthorsEusebiusHist. Eccl.3.1-93.53.77.3-8.9

Praep. Ev.7.1-208.6.1-99.39.1-511.1-18

IrenaeusHaeresis1.23

JustinApol.1.25

185185185185

269269253269138

120

120

Diodorus Siculus17.49-51 176

Bibliotheca Historica34-35 179

EupolemusFrg. 4 253

StraboGeographica16 18016.2.2 18116.2.22 220, 22916.2.34-46 18017 18017.1.19.22 22917.1.19.40 22917.1.27-30 229

TacitusAnnales12.54 224

PapyriAramaic Papyri124 173

Elephantine papyri21 172, 174,

176, 28330 4331-33 17231 32, 172,

173, 17532 17233 173

Samaria papyri5 438 4314 43

pap. P. Graec. Vindob.29810 191

OthersAssyrian Annals11-17 1520-23 1567 1594 1595 15

Kitab al-Tarikh18 258

5am. Hymn 16lines 81-85 95

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abel, R. 220Ackroyd, P.R. 34,51Adams, A.W. 78Adler, E.N. 103, 128Ahlstrom, G.W. 176, 178, 201, 235Albright, W.F. 36, 37, 79, 118, 123Allegro, J.M. 136Alon, G. 210Alt, A. 30-32,46Altheim, F. 23Anderson, R.T. 84Asad Hadanfi, A.-S. ben 103Attridge, H.W. 183-86, 189-91Avigad, N. 233

Baillet,M. 98Baneth, E. 104Barstad, H. 15Bartlett, J.R. 159Ben-Hayyim, Z. 38,91,96-98Berger, J. 7Bickerman, E.J. 51,60,65,210,219,

220, 234Bilde, P. 184-86, 188-91Black, M. 254Blenkinsopp, J. 176,283Blum,E. 53Boccacini, G. 54Bold, R. 95Bolin, T.M. 177Bowman, J. 60, 99, 123Box, G.H. 126, 127Brenton, L.C.L. 152Bruce, P.P. 78

Campbell, E.F. 233Castro, P. 83

Charles, R.H. 74, 163Charlesworth, J.H. 136,160Cody, A. 159Coggins, R.J. 38, 44, 48-51, 60, 119, 121,

126, 129, 245, 255, 262Cohen, M. 91Cohen, S.J.D. 188, 189Collins, J.J. 138, 139Cooke, G.A. 157Cowley, A.E. 17, 34, 35, 97, 173Crane, O.T. 100Cross, P.M., Jr 37, 38, 42-45, 78, 79, 81Crown, A.D. 22, 52-60, 62, 76, 82, 84,

86,87,94,97, 100, 101, 103, 116,227, 234, 240

Cryer, F.H. 82, 160

Danby, H. 104Davies, P.R. 176,268Davis, E. 73Delcor, M. 157,219Dexinger, F. 55, 58Di Leila, A.A., 74, 127Dimant, D. 83Doudna, G. 268

Edelman, D.V. 177, 178Egger,R. 210,218-20,225Eisfeldt, O. 78Eshel, E. 92Eskenazi, T.C. 42, 127

Path, A. 94,98, 101-103, 128Feldman,L.H. 53, 184, 189Finkelstein, L. 136Fohrer,G. 53,254Fokkelmann, J.P. 53


Possum, J. 116Frankel, Z. 78Freed, E.D. 122, 123, 125Freedman, D.N. 37,54Freudenthal, J. 138Fuks, A. 220

Gall, A.F. von 84, 88Galling, K. 173Garbini, G. 273,274,276Gaster, M. 22-30, 37, 61, 83, 95, 97, 100-

102, 240, 246Geffcken,J. 230Geiger, A. 78Gesenius, W. 77,78,87,217Ginsberg, H.L. 173Giron Blanc, L.F. 84,85Glaue, P. 85Golb, N. 82Goldenberg, R. 113, 189Grabbe, L. 15, 16, 54, 164, 167, 187, 188,

201Grayson, A.K. 194Greenfield, J.C. 37Groh, D. 55Gunn, D.M. 53

Halkin, A.S. 95Halligan, J.M. 176Hanson, P.D. 160Hanson, R.S. 82Harun, J. ben 99Hata, G. 184Hayes, J.H. 43,53Hempel, J. 84Hengel,M. 166, 176,210,230Hershon, P.I. 221Hertz, J.H. 109Holscher, G. 16, 33, 34, 36Hottinger, J.H. 101Hvidberg,F. 83

Irvin, D. 278Ismael, J. ben 99

Jastrow,M. 217,218Jellinek, A. 73Jeremias, J. 113

Juynboll, T.G.J. 100

Kahle, P. 78, 79, 83, 86, 100Kalimi, I. 253Kellermann, U. 42Kennedy, J. 100Kenyon, F.G. 78Kindler, A. 82Kippenberg, H.G. 33, 46-48, 85, 98, 143,

169, 173,210,219Klein, R.W. 43Kohn, S. 78Kohut, G.A. 128Kraft, R. A. 51Kuenen, A. 131Kutscher, E.Y. 81

Landau, Y.H. 65,188Lebram, J.H.C. 38Lemaire, A. 240Lemche,N.P. 7,53,220Levy, T. 217Lichtenstein, H. 128, 130Lifshitz, B. 85Lightfoots, J. 121Lincke, K. 13Liver, J. 162, 169Loewenstamm, A. 86, 96Lowy, S. 102

Macdonald, J. 23, 28, 61, 86, 96-99, 101,123, 239, 240, 242, 246, 255, 258

Macuch, R. 91Magen, I. 233-35,262Mann,C.S. 118, 123Marcus, R. 50, 128,201,223Martinez, F.G. 271Matthews, K.A. 54Mayer, L.A. 52Mayes, A.D.H. 53Mazar, B. 42McBride, S.D. 160McLean, M.D. 81Meeks, W.A. 123Mendels, D. 54, 59, 60, 277Mikolasek, A. 23Miller, J.M. 43, 53, 160Moehring, H.R. 188

Index of Authors 317

Montgomery, J.A. 11, 14-23, 25, 30, 46,48,52,60, 102, 104-107, 111, 112,114, 116, 120, 121,124,125,141,176,210

Moore, G.F. 16, 35, 128, 132Morgenstern, J. 42Morinus, J. 76, 101Mowinckel, S. 43Mulder, M.J. 95Munck, J. 118

Neubauer, A. 99Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 51Niehr, H. 175, 178Nodet, E. 7, 23, 58, 61-72, 75, 130, 131,

159,163,164,180,227Noja, S. 52,85Noth, M. 34,44Nutt, J.W. 78, 102, 104

Oded, B. 15Oesterley, W.O.E. 126, 127Otzen, B. 240

Payne, J.B. 77Pfeiffer, R. 34,78Philips, A. 142Phinehas, T. ben 98Pritchard, J.B. 15Pummer, R. 37, 47, 82, 85, 91, 98, 210,

219,234,235Purvis, J.D. 37, 47, 51, 55, 59, 82, 87, 98,

127-29, 253

Qimron, E. 169

Rahlfs, A. 85Rajak,T. 184, 188, 189Ramsey, G.W. 53, 159Redford, D.B. 232Reicke, B. 50Rendtorff, R. 53Rengstorf, K.H. 208,216Roberts, B.J. 38,78Robertson, E. 84Rothschild, J.P. 76Rowley, H.H. 16, 33-36, 42, 43, 72Ruetschi, R. 16

Sadaqa, A. 84Sadaqa, R. 84Safrai, S. 162, 174Sanders, E.P. 55, 113Sanderson, I.E. 54, 81Sassoon, D.S. 84Sayce, A.H. 16Scalinger, J.J. 76, 100, 101Schecter, S. 160Schencke, H.M. 121Schiby, J. 85Schiffman, L.H. 83,268Schmid, H.H. 53Schiirer, E. 14, 54, 113, 128, 131, 138,

159, 167, 191,219,228,229,231Seligsohn, M. 103Sellin, E. 17Shehadeh, H. 86Simon, M. 118Skehan, P. 81Skehan, P.W. 74Smallwood, E.M. 183, 190Smend, R. 67, 127Smith, M. 38-42,45,230Soggin, J.A. 53Spiro, A. 123Stenhouse, P. 55, 94, 97, 100-102, 239,

258, 260, 262Stern, E. 233Stern, M. 162, 165, 171, 174, 179, 182Stiehl, R. 23Stinespring, W.F. 33Stone, M. 184Strack, H.L. 125, 163Strange, J. 240

Tal,A. 86,96,97Talmon, S. 79, 80, 92, 160Tcherikover, V. 129, 219, 220, 230Thackeray, H.StJ. 183,189,191Thompson, T.L. 7, 15, 53, 82, 160, 178,

252, 279Tigay,J.H. 172Toorn, K. van der 172, 178, 250Torrey, C.C. 33Tov, E. 7,80-83, 85,87-93

Ulrich, E. 83,93


Unnik, W.C. van 189 Wellhausen, J. 15,20,157Whiston, W. 186, 191, 214, 215

VanSeters, J. 53 Whybray, N. 53Vermes, G. 54, 128, 189 Widengreen, G. 43Vigouroux, F. 16 Williamson, H.G.M. 43Vilmar.E. 102 Willrich, H. 16Vorlander.H. 53 Wright, G.E. 49,233

Wiirthwein, E. 78Wacholder, B.Z. 160Waltke.B. 41,77, 84 Yahuda, S. 100Walton, B. 77 Yellin, D. 100Warrington, J. 50 Ypsilon, C.D.E. 119Wedel,G. 103Weiser, A. 78 Zeitlin, S. 128, 129, 210Weiss, R. 93 Zimmerli, W. 157