•YALE-^MVEISSinnf-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF

Biblical Literature Library
Professor C. F- Kent

^ ~**#i.\

The Vale of Shechem from the West.

THE BOHLEN LECTURES FOR 1906

THE
SAMARITANS The Earliest Jewish Sect
Their History, Theology
and Literature

BY
JAMES ALAN MONTGOMERY, Ph.D.
Professor in Old Testament Literature and Language,
Philadelphia Divinity School

1907
THE JOHN C. WINSTON CO.
PHILADELPHIA

OA50 N\766s

Copyright 1907
BY
The John C. Winstok Co.

Set up and electrotyped
January 1907
Published February 1907

TO MY WIFE
WHO FOR MY SAKE HAS BORNE THE
BURDEN AND HEAT OF THE DAY

THE JOHN BOHLEN LECTURESHIP.

John Bohlen, who died in Philadelphia on the 26th day
of April, 1874, bequeathed to trustees a fund of One Hun
dred Thousand Dollars, to be distributed to religious and
charitable objects in accordance with the well-known wishes
of the testator.
By a deed of trust, executed June 2, 1875, the trustees,
under the will of Mr. Bohlen, transferred and paid over
to " The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the
Church of the Holy Trinity, Philadelphia," in trust, a sum
of money for certain designated purposes, out of which fund
the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars was set apart for the en
dowment of The John Bohlen Lectureship, upon the
following terms and conditions :
" The money shall be invested in good substantial and
safe securities, and held in trust for a fund to be called
The John Bohlen Lectureship, and the income shall be ap
plied annually to the payment of a qualified person, whether
clergyman or layman, for the delivery and publication of at
least one hundred copies of two or more lecture sermons.
These lectures shall be delivered at such time and place, in
the city of Philadelphia, as the persons nominated to ap
point the lecturer shall from time to time determine, giving
at least six months' notice to the person appointed to deliver
the same when the same may conveniently be done, and in
no case selecting the same person as lecturer a second time
within a period of five years. The payment shall be made
to said lecturer, after the lectures have been printed and re-
vii

viii THE JOHN BOHLEN LECTURESHIP
ceived by the trustees, of all the income for the year de
rived from said fund, after defraying the expense of print
ing the lectures and the other incidental expenses attending
the same.
" The subject of such lectures shall be such as is within
the terms set forth in the will of the Rev. John Bampton,
for the delivery of what are known as the ' Bampton Lec
tures,' at Oxford, or any other subject distinctively con
nected with or relating to the Christian Religion.
" The lecturer shall be appointed annually in the month
of May, or as soon thereafter as can conveniently be done,
by the persons who for the time being shall hold the offices
of Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese
in which is the Church of the Holy Trinity ; the Rector of
said Church; the Professor of Biblical Learning, the Pro
fessor of Systematic Divinity, and the Professor of Ec
clesiastical History, in the Divinity School of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in Philadelphia.
" In case either of said offices are vacant, the others may
nominate the lecturer."
Under this trust, the Rev. James A. Montgomery, Ph. D.,
was appointed to deliver the lectures for the year 1906.

PREFACE.
The following work has grown out of the author's desire
to gain an answer for the question : Who are the Samar
itans? He publishes it in the expectation that the same
question may be of interest to the intelligent public, while
withal he hopes that the collection of material here pre
sented may be of use to the scholarly world.
In large part this work is a digest of the labors of many
scholars for over three centuries ; in so far it is the result of
painstaking investigation in a widely scattered and recondite
literature. At the same time, while he has made no pre
tence at original hypotheses, the author believes that he pre
sents ampler treatment of the subject as a whole than has
yet been attempted. The difficult problem of the origin of
the Samaritan sect has been here discussed in the light of
modern criticism as a preliminary to the subsequent history.
Their own Chronicles have been carefully explored for his
torical data, illustrating or adding to the foreign sources
which up to within fifty years have been almost the sole
means of information. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim
references have been collated, and a digested treatment of
the Talmudic references is offered. The Samaritan the
ology has been treated formally and at some length, with a
full apparatus of citations to the literature, especially the
Liturgy, the theological importance of which has hardly yet
been recognized. The Chapter on the Literature seemed a
necessary supplement, although it can give only an outline
of the results of the many specialists who have worked in
this field. In fact, Samaritan study still lies in the primary
stage of manuscript investigation, and the student who has

x PREFACE
not access to the original material must recognize that at
best he can be only an encyclopaedist in the subject.
It is hoped that the constant references to the literature,
and especially the Bibliography at the end of the volume,
will be of use to students. The history of Samaritana gives
many instances where first-rate scholars have entirely ig
nored the labors of other specialists in the same lines.
My thanks are due to Professors Hilprecht, Jastrow, and
Clay, of the University of Pennsylvania, for their great and
unfailing kindness to me in my course for the Doctorate in
Philosophy, the first Chapters of the present work contain
ing the material presented as my thesis for the degree. I
have also to express my deep sense of obligation to the
Committee of the Bohlen Lectureship, for the dignity they
have conferred upon me in appointing me as Lecturer on
that honorable foundation. To my friends, Prof. W. Max
Miiller and the Rev. Dr. Julius H. Greenstone, my thanks
are due for much kind assistance, and I am deeply indebted
to Newcomb B. Thompson, Esq., for his critical reading of
both MS and proof.
James A. Montgomery.
Philadelphia Divinity School.
July 28, 1906.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page
I. The Re-Discovery of the Samaritans  i
II. The Land of Samaria and the City of Shechem . . 13
III. The Modern Samaritans  24
IV. The Origin of the Samaritan Sect  46
1. To the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 b. c  46
2. From the Fall of Jerusalem to the Beginning of the
Greek Age  57
V. The Samaritans Under the Hellenic Empire . . . 75
VI. The Samaritans Under the Roman Emb-ire . ... 82
1. To the Destruction of Jerusalem, a. d. 70 . . . 82
2. From the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Christian-
ization of the Empire  89
3. From the Reign of Constantine to the Rise of Islam q8
VII. The Samaritans Under Islam  125
VIII. The Geographical Distribution of the Samaritans . . 143
1. The Samaritans at Home  143
2. The Samaritans in Diaspora  148
IX. The Samaritans in the Apocryphal Literature, the New
Testament, and Josephus  154
X. The Samaritans in the Talmuds and Other Rabbinic
Literature  165
XI. The Talmudic Booklet, Masseket Kutim  196
XII. The Theology of the Samaritans  204
1. Introductory  204
2. The Samaritan Creed  207
3. The Belief in God; Angels, Creation, etc. . . . 207
4. Moses; the Patriarchs, Priests, Prophets .... 225
5. The Law  232
6. Gerizim  234
7. Eschatology  239
xi

xii TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page
XIII. The Samaritan Sects ; Gnosticism  252 ,
1. The Samaritan Sects  252/
2. Simon Magus ; Gnosticism, Kabbalism .... 265/
XIV. The Languages and Literature of the Samaritans . . 270
1. The Hebrew Language  270
2. The Aramaic Language  270
3. The Arabic Language  272
4. The Samaritan Script  272
5. The Samaritan Hellenistic Literature  283
6. The Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch  286
7. The Targum  290
8. The Arabic Translations of the Pentateuch . . . 293
9. Commentaries and other Religious Treatises . . 294
10. The Liturgy  297
11. The Chronicles  300
12. Scientific Works  311
13. Resume of the Literary Activity of the Samaritans 313
Additional Notes  317
A. The Name " Samaria "  317
B. The Names of the Samaritans  318
C. The Fire-Purifications of the Samaritans .... 319
D. The Alleged Dove-Cult of the Samaritans . . . 320
Bibliography  322
Index of Biblical References .  347
Index of Talmudic Citations  350
Index of Literary References to the Samaritans  351
General Index  352

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE
The Vale of Shechem  Frontispiece
Fountain in the Vale of Shechem  13
Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal  17
A Group of Samaritans  24
Mount Gerizim  34
Coins of Neapolis  89
An Old Church in Shechem  98
Joseph's Tomb  107
Jacob esh-Shelaby and General Wilson  141
Jacob's Well  154
The Sacred Pentateuch Codex  286
Page of Watson Codex II  288
Page of the Barberini Triglot  291
plates 1. The Shechem Decalogue 
2. The Shechem Inscription of the Ten Words of Creation .
3. The Leeds Fragment of a Decalogue Inscription ....
4. The First Emmaus Inscription 
5. The Second Emmaus Inscription 
6. The Third Emmaus Inscription 
7. Damascus House-Inscription (Sobernheim, Abb. 8) . .
8. Bronze Tablet (do. 15, 16)  following 272
9. Damascus House-Inscription (do Abb. 11.) 
10. " " " (Musil, II.) 
11. " " " ( do. VI.) 
12. " " " ( do. VIII.) . . following 280
13. Comparative Table of the Samaritan Alphabet  278
maps. Shechem-Nablus and Vicinity  1
The Ruins on Mount Gerizim  at end of volume
xiii

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS.
Abu'l Fath: Vilmar, Abulfathi annates Samaritani.
AJ: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews; BJ: do. Jewish War.
Baedeker: K. Baedeker, Pal'dstina und Syrien; ed. 5, 1900.
BR: E. Robinson, Biblical Researches, Boston, 1841, LBR: do. Later
Biblical Researches, Boston, 1856.
BS: M. Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana.
Chron. Adler: E. N. Adler, Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine (cited
according to the separate imprint of 1893).
Chron. Neub.: A. Neubauer, Chronique samaritaine, in Journal asi-
atique, 1869.
CS: W. Gesenius, Carmina Samaritana.
DB: Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible.
DVJ: (Heidenheim's) Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fiir englisch-theo-
logische Forschung und Kritik, 1861-1871.
EB: Encyclopedia Biblica.
GJV: E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, etc. ; ed. 3.
HG: G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land; ed. 7, 1901.
Hist. Sam.: T. Juynboll, Commentarii in historiam gentis Samaritana.
JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature.
JE: Jewish Encyclopedia.
JQR: Jewish Quarterly Review.
JZW: Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft und Leben.
KAT: E. Schrader, Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament; ed. 3,
1902.
Lib. Jos. : T. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum — Liber Josuce.
Marka: the text of Marka given by Heidenheim, BS, iii (cited accord
ing to the MS pagination given in margin).
MGWJ: (Frankel's) Monatsschrtft fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judenthums.
N. et E: de Sacy, Correspondence des Samaritains de Naplouse, in No
tices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque du Roi, vol.
xii, 1831.
PEFQS: Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement.
PSBA: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology; TSBA:
Transactions, etc.
RE: Herzog and Plitt, Real-Encyklopadie fur protestantische Theolo
gie; ed. 2 (unless otherwise indicated).
REJ: Revue des etudes juives.
REJud: Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums.
Repertorium: (Eichhorn's) Repertorium fiir biblische und morgen-
liindische Litteratur.
Sam. Targ.: J. W. Nutt, Fragments of a Samaritan Targum — With
an Introduction.
Sam. Theol.: W. Gesenius, De Samaritanorum theologia — commen-
tatio.
SBOT: P. Haupt, Sacred Books of the Old Testament.
SWPM: Conder and Kitchener, Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs,
vol. ii : Samaria.
ZATW: Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
ZDPV: Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins.

And he was a Samaritan." (St. Luke, ij, 16.)

THE SAMARITANS

Map of Shechem-Nablus and Vicinity.
(From K. Baedeker, Paldstina und Syrien. By permission.)

THE SAMARITANS. CHAPTER I.
THE RE-DISCOVERY OF THE SAMARITANS.
The existence of a peculiar sect native to Samaria, the
central region of Palestine, is first noticed in the Old Testa
ment, 2 Ki. 17, where they are called the Samaritans.1
This record narrates that the land of the northern King
dom of Israel, having been denuded of its population by the
Assyrian conqueror after the fall of the capital, the city of
Samaria, in 722 B.C., was repopulated by heathen colonies
transferred thither from distant parts of the empire. The
deities of the respective colonies are then named, and the
narrative proceeds to relate how upon the outbreak of a
plague of lions the newcomers bethought themselves, in true
primitive fashion, of the claims of the neglected god of the
land ; in consequence of their distress they sought, with the
patronage of the Assyrian King, to learn the way of the
God of Israel, and added his worship to their respective
cults,, the result being an eclectic form of religion, abhorrent
indeed to Yahwe and to all who found in him the One True
God. After a lapse of two centuries the people of Samaria ap
pear again as the opponents of the restored Jewish state, and
especially as objecting to the re-building of the temple at
Jerusalem.2 The history of the Jews as continued by the
Books of Maccabees and the works of Josephus, abounds in
references to the Samaritan sect, whose members always
1 For the names of the Samaritans, see Additional Note B.
2 Esra-N ehemia, passim. 1

2 THE SAMARITANS
appear as the arch-enemies of Israel. The historians of the
Pagan empire of Rome give some data bearing upon the
sect, while the Byzantine chronicles and edicts of the IVth,
Vth, and Vlth Centuries have much to report upon the ob
noxious and rebellious nature of the people.
To the man of average information the sect is mostly, if
not solely, known, through the contact which Jesus several
times had with the Samaritans and from his parable of the
Good Samaritan. It is characteristic of the Christ's gentle
ness that these evangelical accounts alone, to popular knowl
edge, redeem the ill-fame of that sect. He himself even
was given the opprobrious epithet of " Samaritan." A
chapter in the Acts of the Apostles, and then, particularly in
their comments upon Biblical passages, the Church Fathers,
throw some light upon the relations of the Samaritans with
Judaism and Christianity.
Many references to the sect are found in the Talmuds,
Midrashim, and other Jewish literature, and there is a small
tractate bound up in the Babylonian Talmud which treats of
the Samaritans. But the Talmud still remains a wilderness
to general Christian knowledge, and the Jews have felt,
until very recent times, but little interest in digesting the
information at their hand concerning " the foolish people
who dwell at Shechem " (Ecclus. 50, 25), — which city has
been from the beginning the headquarters of the sect.
Thus it came about that when the dark veil of Islam sep
arated the East from the West, the Samaritan sect, despised
and abominated by Jew and Christian alike, fell into deep
oblivion so far as the western world was concerned. Those
intelligent observers, the Arabic geographers, historians and
philosophers, recorded valuable notices of the Samaritans ;3
the Jewish traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, brought home
some exact information concerning them.4 But mediaeval
3 See below, p. i34ff.
4 See below, p. 136.

RE-DISCOVERY 3
Europe was too sunk in barbarism to have its curiosity
awakened; even the Crusaders utterly ignored the Samar
itans, although the sacred city of the sect, which since the
Roman period bore the name of Neapolis, was one of the
gay centres of those marauders. Among the many travel
lers who in the spirit of adventure visited the Orient, after
Islam had recovered its own again, only two before the
XVIIth Century seem to have noticed the Samaritans,
Wilhelm von Boldensele, of Lower Saxony, in 13335 and
the author of the more or less romantic work ascribed to
John Mandeville, composed between 1357 and 1371, and
widely read in many editions and languages.6 What the
entertaining Sir John has to say about the Samaritans —
how that they are a distinct sect and wear a red turban —
is very accurate, but probably it was all taken as one of his
"traveller's tales." The Samaritans became to Christen
dom as real, or as unreal, as the Lost Ten Tribes who dwell
beyond the fabled river Sambation.
The dense darkness was at last penetrated by the genius
and the will of " the greatest scholar of modern times,"
Joseph Scaliger. In 1 583 was published his immortal work
De emendatione temporum, in which he asserted the rights
of the Orient to its place in universal history, and the value
of all oriental chronicles for the scientific historian. It was
evidently this magnum opus which determined the author to
explore the Samaritans, for in conjunction with it he set
agencies in motion which in the following year, 1584,
brought him from the Samaritan colony in Cairo two cal-
5 See his Hodceporicon ad Terram Sanctam, in Canisius, Thesaurus
monumentorum, ed. Basnage, iv, 353. See ZDMG xvi, 710.
6 On authorship and bibliography, see the articles on "Mandeville"
in Encyclopedia Britannica and Dictionary of National Biography. The
passage is found in Halliwell's edition, The Voyage and Travaille of
Sir John Maundeville, London, 1839, P- 108. Kootwyk (Cotovicus),
who travelled in Palestine in 1598, refers to the Samaritans as a sect
of the Jews ; see his Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum et Syriacum, Ant
werp, 1619, p. 342.

4 THE SAMARITANS
endars, and a copy of the Samaritan Book of Joshua.''
The great scholar's appetite was now whetted for the pos
session of a copy of the edition of the Pentateuch, which he
heard the sect possessed. His ambition was not rewarded,
because the Samaritans refused the boon of their holy Law
to an alien. But his search had its fruit in two epistles of
the date 1590, one from a Samaritan of Gaza, the other
from Egypt, and these documents were the beginning of an
extensive correspondence with European scholars, which for
nearly 250 years was almost the sole source of information
concerning the contemporary condition of the Samaritans.8
The next European to gain undying merit for himself in
investigating the Samaritans was the great traveller Pietro
della Valle, who is also immortal and of special interest
to present-day scholarship as the first to acquaint the west
ern world with the Persian cuneiform inscriptions, which
have at last given the key to the decipherment of the lit
erature of Babylonia and Assyria.9 Upon the commission
of Achille Harlay de Sancy, the French ambassador at Con
stantinople, that he procure a copy of the Samaritan Penta
teuch, della Valle made the Samaritans a special quest of
his travels, and in 1616 visited their communities at Cairo,
Gaza, Shechem (the modern Nablus), and Damascus, in
which latter city he at last succeeded in his search. It may
be worth while to repeat part of his quaint description of
the visit made one summer day to the Samaritan community
housed in the suburbs of Damascus. " One morning," he
7 For Scaliger's work, which in the later editions published the cal
endar material — the first appearance of a Samaritan document in
print — see Chap. XIV, note 80, and Bibliography.
8 These letters, which were called out by the efforts of Scaliger's
friend de Peiresc, never reached him, as he died before they arrived at
their destination. A Latin translation was published by Morin in
Simon, Antiquitates ecclesice orientalis, 1682, p. 119. The text with
translation and notes, was finally published by de Sacy in Eichhorn's
Repertorium, xiii (1783), 257- For the history of Scaliger's efforts, see
Juynboll, Lib. Jos. 1.
9 See Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, i, 16

RE-DISCOVERY 5
writes, " I was consoled for all the discomforts brought me
by that illness by being taken by Father Michael and by a
Hebrew, my friend and interpreter, to see outside the city
in the gardens certain small houses which were there, be
longing to the Hebrew Samaritans, beside the pleasure
which I had in seeing those gardens, and those houses,
which within were most gay, in spite of making a very poor
appearance without, all filled with pictures painted in minia
ture, with their Samaritan letters engraved in gold, and so
also their synagogues." He then proceeds to describe his
inspection of the Samaritan books, he being the first Chris
tian scholar, so far as we know, to become acquainted with
them since the Roman rule, even as he was the first modern
Christian to come into intimate intercourse with the sect.10
Della Valle was able to purchase two copies of the Samar
itan Hebrew Pentateuch, a copy of the Targum or Aramaic
translation of the same, and some other books. The dis
covery of these literary treasures set all learned Europe
agog, for they became an additional apple of discord in the
wordy and voluminous strife between Catholic and Prot
estant theologians as to the text of the Scriptures and the
Church's authority in defining her Canon and its text.11
Once again the Samaritans played their historic part as
disturbers of the peace, but now in the distant academies
of Europe.
At the end of the same century three travellers visited the
Samaritans, the first of whom, Huntington, gave renewed
stimulus to the interest awakened in the sect. The two
others wrote brief descriptions of the Samaritans at Nablus ;
one of them was Henry Maundrell, the predecessor of Hunt-
10 For the editions of della Valle's Viaggi, see Bibliography. The
above passage appears in the XHIth Letter, "from Aleppo." I owe
my translation to the kind assistance of E. H. M. For the recent dis
coveries of house inscriptions like those described by della Valle, see
below, p. 277. , . ,. . _, VT,r
11 For these MSS and the resulting discussion, see Chapter XIV,
§§ 6, 7-

6 THE SAMARITANS
ington in the chaplaincy at Aleppo, in 1697, the other the
Frenchman, A. Morison, in 1698. These seem to have been
almost the last direct observations upon the Samaritans
until the visits of European travellers in the XlXth Cen
tury.12 But the laurels in the quest after the strange sect fell to
Robert Huntington, later Bishop of the diocese of Raphoe
of the Church of Ireland (d. 1701). When chaplain at the
English " factory " in Aleppo, he undertook a visit to Jeru
salem in 1 67 1, and on the way visited Nablus.13 The
Samaritans were astonished at his interest in them and at
his acquaintance with their literature and script, and they
assumed that the Israelites in England, of whom the clergy
man spoke, were their brothers. By nursing their self-
deception he obtained a copy of their Pentateuch, and soon
afterwards, at Jerusalem, received from them an epistle ad
dressed to their " Brethren in England." Before an answer
arrived, the Samaritans addressed to him another letter
written at Gaza in 1674. The first epistle came into the
hands of Thomas Marshall of Oxford (rector of Lincoln
College, 1 672-1 685), who in 1675 addressed a Hebrew
epistle to the Samaritans, which informed them that the
writers were of the race of Japheth; its substance was a
pious attempt to proselytize the sect for the Christian
Messiah. Huntington forwarded this letter, accompanied
by one from himself inquiring concerning the alleged dove-
cult of the Samaritans.
The latter immediately replied, in 1675, with a curt re
sponse to Huntington, expressing their surprise at his in
quiries and their amazement at the lack of information con
cerning the Brethren in England. The earlier correspon-
12 Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem at Easter 1697,
Oxford, 1703, etc.; the reference is under date of March 24. A. Mor
ison, Relation historique d'un voyage au Mont Sinai et a Jerusalem,'
Toulouse, 1704, p. 234.
13 See T. Smith, R. Huntingtoni Epistolas, 1704.

RE-DISCOVERY 7
dence had been couched in Hebrew, the mother-tongue of
the sect, and written in the peculiar Samaritan script; this
letter was in Arabic, the vernacular in Palestine. The reply
was accompanied by two epistles, addressed to the Brethren
in England, the one in Arabic, the other in Hebrew. An
other Arabic epistle for the English Brethren was addressed
to Huntington in 1688.14 Huntington's deceit was an un
fortunate one, for it established in the Samaritan mind a
well-founded suspicion against the Europeans.
In the same decade with the epistles last mentioned falls
the correspondence between Job Ludolf, the Amsterdam
scholar, and the Samaritans. He availed himself of the
services of an itinerant Jew, who was acquainted with the
Samaritans, to forward them a Hebrew letter. In the fol
lowing year, 1685, the Samaritans replied with two epistles,
containing largely duplicate matter. Ludolf again replied,
and in 1691 received a third letter, of date 1689.15 A lull
14 For the correspondence since Huntington's time, the fullest author
ity is de Sacy, who has also edited most of the Samaritan epistles.
See his invaluable Correspondence des Samaritains de Naplouse, in
Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque du Roi, xii
(1831), p. 1. The preface gives an account of the Samaritans and the
correspondence ; the body of the article, almost all the epistles, along
with translations, except those to Scaliger and Ludolf. All the Hunt
ington correspondence, with the exception of Huntington's letter con
cerning the dove-cult, is found in Nos. xvii-xxiii. Of the Epistle of
1672 the English scholar, Edward Bernard, gave a translation in Lu
dolf, Epistola Samaritana Sichemitarum ad J. Ludolf., Zeiz, 1688, p.
26; in N. et E. it is No. xvii. The Epistle of 1674 appeared in German
translation by Schnurrer in Eichhorn's Repertorium, ix, 8, and with
text and translation in N. et E. xviii ; the Epistle from Marshall, in
like forms, in Repert, ix, n, and N. et E., No. xix; the Arabic Epistle
of 1675 in Repert. ix, 16, and N. et E. xx ; the Arabic Epistle to the
Samaritans in England of the same date, and the fragment which has
alone been preserved of the fellow Hebrew Epistle, in Repert. ix, 22,
55, and N. et E. xxi, xxii ; that of 1688, in Repert. ix, 36, and N. et E.
xxiii. 15 The first two of these Epistles appeared in Ludolf, Epistola Sama
ritana; Sichemitarum ad J. Ludolf, 1688 (bound up with Cellarius, Col
lectanea historic Samaritana, of same date). The third Epistle was
not published in full until the appearance of Bruns, Epistola Sam.
Sichemit. tertia ad J. Ludolf, 1781, which work was republished in
Repert. xiii, 277. Cellarius had published some extracts from it in his
Historia gentis et religionis Samaritana, 1699.

8 THE SAMARITANS
then fell upon this learned intercourse, until it was taken
up by the French savants of the XlXth Century.16 But the
new information had the effect of stimulating some of the
encyclopaedic scholars of the XVIIth Century, the great
lexicographer Castellus, that prince of archaeologists Re-
land, Cellarius, and others, to the accumulation of all the
material concerning the strange sect; but we must pass
over the labors of many indefatigable scholars and travel
lers of this earlier period of research. One note recorded
by Kennicott17 is worthy of citation because of its reference
to an attempt to acquire the sacred Nablus codex. Kenni
cott relates that word had been received from Mr. John Us-
gate in 1734; that "he had been at Naplose, the preceding
February; that several families of the Samaritans then re
sided there ; that they had still their old MS. of the Penta
teuch, some passages of which were so effaced as to be
scarce legible; and that he had made proposals and hoped
soon to agree with them for the purchase of it; of which
he would send Mr. Swinton notice. But no such notice has
been since received; the purchase being probably prevented
by the unfortunate death of Mr. Usgate, who was after
wards cut to pieces by a party of Persians."
The next stage in these epistolary relations, and the one
yielding the most scientific results, was under the auspices
of the First Empire; the initiative was taken by the distin
guished Henri Gregoire, Bishop of Blois, revolutionary, sen
ator of the Empire, and author of the Histoire des secies
religieuses, with the aid of de Sacy, the illustrious Arabist,
10 However, Samaritan Epistles seem to have found their way to
Europe in the interim. Heidenheim has published in his DVJ 1, 78, the
Schreiben Meshalmah ben Ab Sechuah's an die Samaritaner, appar
ently addressed to coreligionists in Europe. It is subsequent to the
failure of the highpriesthood in 1623. In 1790 the Samaritans ad
dressed a letter to the Brethren in France, which, found again in Hol
land, was published by Hamaker, in Aanmerkingen over de Samari-
ianen, 1834. This Epistle I have not seen.
17 State of the Printed Hebrew Text, Diss. II, 541.

RE-DISCOVERY 9
who was the writer of most of the French documents, and
became the editor of all the correspondence. After some
futile applications to French consuls in Syria, Consul-gen
eral Corancez at Aleppo addressed a letter containing cate
gorical questions to the Samaritans, and this drew from
them, in 1808, a full and direct reply. But the answer only
provoked further questions, and these were drawn up by
Gregoire and de Sacy in a memoir containing sixteen ques
tions. Direct answers thereto were received in a long He
brew letter, accompanied by a short one in Arabic, of date
1 810. Ten years later, in 1820, there reached de Sacy an
Arabic letter, accompanied with a table of contemporary
astronomical observations, and also a Hebrew epistle ad
dressed to the Brethren in Europe. Finally in 1826 there
arrived a Hebrew epistle addressed to the Samaritans in
Paris.18 These Samaritan epistles, dating from Scaliger to de
Sacy, are most valuable in the information they give upon
the theology and the contemporary condition of the Samar
itans. The latter answered the questions addressed to them
with great intelligence and frankness, while the sincerity
of the information is the more evident because many of
the letters were addressed to the assumed Brethren in
Europe. Further, in the scholarly study of the sect it was
these epistles which constituted, alongside of the Penta-
teuchal codices, almost the sole knowledge scholars pos-
18 For all this correspondence of the French savants, see N. et E.;
the letters are given under Nos. iv-xvi ; xxiv-xxv. There is also to
be noted an epistle obtained by Kautzsch, of date 1884, from the Sa
maritan highpriest, published in ZDPV viii, 149. It contains answers
to questions concerning the numbers of the community, their inner
legal relations, and the Taeb or Messiah, giving an interesting definition
of the latter term; see below, p. 246. A Samaritan letter addressed to
the author appears in Rosenberg, Lehrbuch d. sam. Sprache, 1901.
There exists a petition addressed to the government of Louis Philippe,
in 1842; see below, p. 141. A letter of the Samaritans to the English
government of date 1875 is in the British Museum, catalogued as Or.
1381. Almkvist has published a congratulatory Epistle to King Oscar
(see Bibliography).

10 THE SAMARITANS
sessed on the subject, until the opening up of more exten
sive and immediate information in later years of the XlXth
Century. But there was a more direct way of learning about the
modern Samaritans than by their literature and epistles,
namely through the close study of the sect in its home by
trained orientalists. The few earlier travellers had noted
only things which lay upon the surface. Edward Robin
son, who visited Shechem in 1838 and 1852, left scholarly
accounts of his brief sojourns there.19 But Heinrich Peter-
mann, the distinguished orientalist, was the first to take the
pains to devote considerable time to a visit to the Samari
tans. In 1853 he spent two months among the people,
making there, despite many difficulties, a systematic study
of all that he could learn.20 He had already in the spring
attended the Samaritan Passover, his party, which included
the English consul Finn, and the German scholar and con
sul Rosen, being the first modern Europeans to witness that
ancient rite, which in the Jewish Church had ceased for
1800 years.21 In the same year with Petermann the French
abbe Barges visited the Samaritans,22 and since that time
the ancient sect has been an objective both of curious tour
ists and of well-trained scholars. Among the latter may
be named Rosen, John Mills, Hammond, Dean Stanley,
Firkovitch, Warren, Conder, and the Americans Trumbull
and Huxley.23 We may record here the visit of a fugitive
Samaritan to the west; in 1855 Jacob esh-Shelaby went to
London, having with difficulty escaped assassination by the
Muslims at home, and interested many philanthropic Eng-
10 BR iii, 96; LBR, 128.
20 Petermann, Reisen im Orient, i, chap. vii.
21 Ibid., 233.
22 See his Samaritains de Naplouse, 1855.
23 See the Bibliography. I have not attempted there to record the
visits of all travellers to Nablus, but only, as a rule, the accounts of
those who have attended the Samaritan Passover.

RE-DISCOVERY II
lishmen — among them Lord Shaftesbury — in his people's
cause, for which he made some extensive collections.24
Further, in consequence of the renewed interest of the
western world in the sect at Nablus, and through the open
ing up of the treasures of the Orient in the last century,
scholarship has become enriched with a great quantity and
variety of Samaritan manuscripts, which have manifolded
our means of studying the history and the genius of the
sect. Partly by infiltration from unknown sources, partly
by direct purchase, this literary material has been slowly
flowing into European libraries, and it proves the Samari
tans to have been by no means ignorant of letters. Be
side many texts of the Hebrew Pentateuch and its Targum,
we have extensive theological treatises and Midrashim, com
mentaries which show some exegetical skill, chronicles
whose defect is their chronology, grammatical and scientific
works, and, most important of all for studying the spirit of
the Samaritan religion, tomes of their liturgy. The chief
collection of this material is found in the British Museum,25
which is now rivalled, in quantity at least, by the Royal Li
brary at St. Petersburg, containing the treasures found by
the great Karaite scholar Abraham Firkovitch.26 Along
side of these should be named the Bodleian Library at Ox
ford,27 and then the libraries in Cambridge,28 at Ley-
den,29 Paris,30 Rome, Berlin, and Gotha. Pieces of the
literature are to be found in many other collections, private
24 See Consul Rogers, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, etc., 1855.
Shelaby's coreligionists charged that he kept the money for himself,
and when he returned, he had to retire to Jerusalem.
25 Margoliouth, Descriptive List, 1893, and Catalogue, 1899. (For
these catalogues, see Bibliography.)
26 Harkavy, Catalog. Cf. the digest of the collection given by Har-
kavy in Nutt, Samaritan Targum, Appendix i.
27 See the Catalogues of Nicoll and Pusey, 1835, and Neubauer, 1866.
28 Wright and Schiller-Szinnessy's Appendix to the Trinity College
Catalogue. 29 De Jong, Catalogus Codicum- Orientalium bibliotheca academia
regia Lugdun.-Batav., 1862.
30 Zotenberg, Catalogues, 1866 ; Steinschneider, Supplement, 1903.

12 THE SAMARITANS
as well as public. This extensive material has by no means
as yet been worked out, although it has engaged the inter
est of many Semitists, some of them, the peers of the schol
ars of the XVIIth Century, such as Gesenius, Juynboll,
Kuenen, Noldeke, Geiger, Kohn, Neubauer, Heidenheim,
Clermont-Ganneau, Cowley, and many others, the long list
of whom shows that Samaritana evoke the attention of
specialists in many different lines. It may be said that we
now possess enough material to recover the history and de
pict the character of the Samaritans so far as literature can
give the means, until the archaeologist's spade shall turn up
in Palestinian soil ancient monuments which can make rev
elations concerning the darkest age of Samaritan history,
that of its beginnings.

Fountain in the Vale of Shechem.

CHAPTER II.
THE LAND OF SAMARIA AND THE CITY OF
SHECHEM.
4 8' &p' ?7)i< ayaO-fj re ko\ alyivofios KaX iSpufX'/j •
oiSe fiev io-Kev dS&s SoXixv ttoXiv eltratfriKiaffai
aypiOev, oiSe jroTe dpla Xax^vevra iroveixnv,
ii avTrjs de fiaX &yxl Hi' ovpea (paher' epvuva
wofijs re Trk-qBovTa Kal ffkys ¦ tu>v Se fiecrtiyi)
drpairirbs TeT^Tjr', apai.il y\v(/>is, evff' erepwOi
yij dicpri SiW/jwz' Karatpaiyerat, lepbv &<ttv
vepBev i-irb pHr-q SeSatjixivov • ap.(fil Be reixos
\iocov, v-irtapetav d' iiroSedpofiev alirvOey epKos.
(Description of the Vale of Shechem. by the Hellenistic poet Theo-
dotus, in Eusebius, Prap. Evang. ix, 22, with Ludwich's emendations.)
The central district of Palestine is Samaria, one of the
three divisions of the Holy Land well known to all students
of the New Testament. But the name Samaria as applied
to the district is comparatively recent; it is the Hellenized
form of Shomeron, the capital which Omri founded in the
IXth Century B.C.,1 and the name of the city was extended
to the district only towards the end of the following cen
tury, when the Assyrian advance cut off from Northern Is
rael Galilee and Across-Jordan, and reduced the once proud
kingdom of Israel to a dependent province named after its
one important city.2 The older name of the land is Mount
Ephraim, or more correctly the Highland of Ephraim.3 It
is the northern section of the rugged upland region, whose
1 1 Ki. 16, 24. See Additional Note A.
* Amos uses the word only of the city, but Hosea, writing after the
land had become an Assyrian dependency (739 B. C), always — six
times — of the land.
3 Highland (har) of Ephraim, Jos. 17, 15 ; also once the Highland of
the Amorite, Dt. 1, 7, and later the Highland of Israel, Jos. 11, 16.
13

14 THE SAMARITANS
southern part bore the corresponding name of the Highland
of Juda,4 the two sections being connected by a narrow neck
of land, from which deep wadies descend eastward and
westward, forbidding communication across the border ex
cept by that rocky ridge.5 And alike and unlike, connected
and separated, have been the two lands since the beginning,
as well in politics and religion as by nature. The reader of
the Old Testament recalls that ancient monument of Hebrew
literature, the Song of Debora, in whose count of the tribes
Juda is missing, while he knows how the ancient separate-
ness of North and South was perpetuated by the fateful
schism under King Rehoboam, which caused the Judaite
historians to look upon the North as schismatic and ren
egade. In the history of Judaism, Southern Israel's pre
cipitate of the people of Moses and David, Samaria appears
almost as a blank upon the map, and the student of the New
Testament likewise knows how, while the Gospel history is
enacted on Judaean and Galilaaan soil, and even in half-
heathen Persea, it refers to Samaria only in episodes.
Jesus himself, like any Jewish rabbi, was an unwelcome
guest in Samaria; it was an epoch in his Church's life when
it established itself in that hostile region. The absence of
information concerning Samaria and its people in the his
torical sources that are generally accessible to both Jew and
Christian, naturally prompts the question: Who were the
Samaritans ?
But if left stranded by subsequent historical develop
ments, and ignored by orthodoxy, the people of Samaria
may claim the privileges of both nature and early history.
In marked contrast with rocky and barren Juda, Samaria
is a verdant hill-country, in which the traveller marks a
constant succession of smiling valleys.6 Even the eastern
* Highland of Juda, Jos. n, 21, etc., cf. Lu. I, 39.
5 See G. A. Smith's brilliant chapters upon the comparison of Juda
and Samaria, HG xii, xvi, xvii.
6 Buhl, Geographie des alien Palaestina, 21 ; HG 324.

SAMARIA AND SHECHEM 1 5
slopes, which in their southerly prolongation end in the
waste and precipitous Wilderness of Juda, are gradual in
their fall and contain many a fertile spot.7 Unlike Juda
too, Samaria is rendered accessible by the valleys east and
north and west, which keep the land in easy communication
with the world beyond. This comparative openness of the
district may have contributed to the depravement of Israel's
religion and morals, through the ready contact with the
Mediterranean highway, heathenish Galilee, Tyre and its
seductive Baal- worship, Damascus and its luxuries (Am.
3, 12). It was Juda's geographical isolation which con
tributed to its final spiritual development and the preserva
tion of its sacred fruit. But withal this catholicity of the
northern land has given a richness to its history and liter
ature which we miss in the South. Except for the episode
of David and Solomon, the North occupies the stage of his
tory until the city Samaria's fall; there was the seat of the
early prophetic guilds, with their seething life, pregnant of
weal and woe for Israel's religion. The contrast may be
most clearly marked in the comparison between the one writ
ing prophet of the North, Hosea, and his southern contem
porary Amos. Both insist equally on the exclusive claims
of Yahwe and his righteousness, but it is the former who
preaches the long-suffering love of God, with a depth of
passion and a variety of imagination, which outbid the
colder South. And the divine Heart never lost its sym
pathy for the North : " Go," speaks the Voice to Jeremia,
" Go, and proclaim these words unto the North : Return,
Backslider Israel, says Yahwe!" (Jer. 3, 12).
And along with the charms of nature and the correspond
ing endowment of a richer, more passionate character in the
people of the land, is associated the privilege of history.
Straight into the inviting uplands of Ephraim went the
tribes of Israel, or such as were associated under the leader-
T Robinson, LBR, 296 ; Buhl, op. cit. 22.

1 6 THE SAMARITANS
ship of Joseph; their objective was Shechem, the natural
capital of the district (Jos. 1-9). Upon its two holy
mountains was performed, and this according to Judaaan
tradition, the first formal covenant of the people with Yahwe
in their new home (Jos. 8, 30ft; Dt. 27). In Israel's mem
ories or legends of the past, Mount Ephraim was the land
frequented by Abraham and beloved of Jacob, and many a
site might be pointed out where Yahwe had appeared to his
favorite's. And now again the land was consecrated by
the graves of Joseph and Joshua and Eleazar (Jos. 24, 2gtl),
even according to an early tradition by the tombs of all the
Twelve Patriarchs (Acts, 7, 16). This was the land of
Gideon and Samuel and Saul, of Elija and Elisha, in a
word the land of Israel, whereas the South possessed no
better title than its tribal name Juda, a provincial designa
tion, over against the noble succession of the North. If
holy places were counted, Juda could boast only of Hebron
and Beersheba, and of the very modern sanctity of Jebusite
Jerusalem, but the North was full of sanctuaries where
Yahwe had appeared and where his heroes lived and died.
Strange outcome that the one-time separatist tribe became
the Church of Israel, while the North has at last given home
to the smallest and most insignificant sect in the world !
But only in one place is the modern remnant of that an
cient sect to be found, in historic Shechem, once the capital
of the tribes of Israel,8 the sanctuary of their Covenant-
God;9 and thither they have drawn back to die in the first
home of national Israel. In Shechem and its neighborhood
is the quintessence of the natural charms and historic tradi
tions of the land of Samaria. As the traveller from Jeru
salem pushes his journey northwards along the barren ridge
which connects Juda with Samaria, at last his eye, wearied
8 Add to previous references, 1 Ki. 12, 1, 25.
9 It contained the sanctuary of Baal-berith, or El-berith Ju o 4 a.6
i. e., the God of Covenant. ' ¦*•**>

Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.

SAMARIA AND SHECHEM 17
with stony ledges is refreshed, hard by the village of Kuza,
with the view of a long and broadening valley, rich in sea
son with waving grain. Eight miles or more the fair sight
stretches before him to the north, and in direct alignment
beyond appears the snowy peak of distant Hermon. Into
this plain, al-Machna, he descends, and on the left there
begins to loom up a pair of promontory-like mountains,
which, as he approaches them, reveal a narrow vale nestled
between their steep slopes. Under the eastern front of the
first of the mountains, Gerizim, he makes his way, and,
whether Jew or Gentile, doubtless pauses to rest at Jacob's
Well, where once Jesus as he sat, held converse with a
Samaritan woman in words which alone would immortalize
her sect. From this point he gains a full view of the vale
of Shechem stretching to the west, and turns in thither be
tween the heights of Gerizim and its northern mate Ebal,
by the road which from immemorial times has connected
northern and southern Palestine. For a mile and a half he
proceeds into the narrowing valley, through fields of grain
and olive orchards, with the walls of his destination lying
before him — ancient Shechem, the modern Nablus.10
Travellers rival one another in describing the charms of
Shechem and its vale.11 Its climate is attractive, the moun
tains warding off the chill winds of the north and the hot
blasts of the south. The abundant waters of the valley,
springing from Gerizim's side temper the dry air of Pales
tine, which here, for one spot at least, is enriched with the
10 Nablus, properly Nabulus (as Abu'l Fida points it), is the Arabic
corruption of Neapolis, the name — more fully Flavia Neapolis —
which Vespasian gave to the new city with which he replaced the elder
Shechem ; see below, p. 89. This is said to be the only case in Pales
tine where the Arabic nomenclature has preserved a Greek place-name,
in lieu of its Semitic predecessor.
11 It is impossible to enumerate the descriptions travellers have
written; for a few, see the Bibliography. For brief objective descrip
tions of the town and its sights and inhabitants, we may note Baede
ker, 246; JE, s. v. Samaritans. For the topography, consult Rosen,
ZDMG xiv, 634; Guerin, Samarie, i, cc. xxii-xxviii, and SWPM ii.
2

1 8 THE SAMARITANS
atmospheric effects which only humidity can give. The
water and the warmth of the narrow valley, which in one
place is only ioo yards wide, nurse a luxuriant vegetation,
both in grain crops and in orchards; no place in Palestine
would be more fitting for Jotham's Parable of the Trees
(Ju. 9, 7ff). The more picturesque descriptions tell of the
myriads of birds singing amidst the trees, among them
the bulbul's voice being heard.12 The streets of the city
are cooled with the water-channels that run through them,
from the fifteen springs that are found in the town and
from others outside.13 Above the town lie green fields and
orchards, while higher up again the more genuine Palestin
ian scenery reappears in the steep and stony heights of the
two mountains, a contrast which must make the oriental
Neapolitan more than ever content with the beautiful valley
in which his lot is cast. " Little Damascus " the town has
been fondly called,14 and such an epithet, the Prophet of
Islam being witness, is the highest compliment an oriental
can pay. At all events to the senses of the wearied traveller
it must appear as a veritable Garden of the Lord, while
the thriftiness of the town is a welcome relief to one who
is accustomed to the ruins and desolation of the ancient
cities of Palestine.
Shechem is not only at the heart of Samaria, but is also
the junction of the natural routes traversing this hill-coun
try. Through it runs the ancient highway connecting Juda
and Galilee, on the line of which the Romans built one of
their noble roads. Its springs feed the Wady ash-Shair,
which runs northwest, giving the natural road to the an
cient city of Samaria, and finally to Ccesarea and the cities of
i2 For impartiality's sake, I should refer to Mills, who gives a much
more prosaic account of Nablus' charms : Three Months' Residence at
Nablus, 29.
13 Rosen gives a list of these springs, /. c.
"Mukaddasi, quoted by Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems
5n.

SAMARIA AND SHECHEM 19
the northern Maritime Plain. Just east of Shechem is the
watershed between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and
the Wady Fara here affords easy access to the latter valley,
while the great plain of al-Machna is the natural confluence
for many roads from all directions. Shechem's commer
cial importance in modern times is signified by the fact that
it is the junction of two telegraph lines from the west, one
coming up from Joppa, the other over the western heights
from Galilee, meeting here, and thence running across
the Jordan to as-Salt.
The early existence of Shechem is proved by the tradi
tions concerning Abraham (Gen. 12, 6) and Jacob (Gen.
34), and also by two extra-Biblical references of the lid
Millennium B.C. Knudtzon now reads the name in a Tell-
Amarna tablet,15 and a reference to it and its holy mountain
is found in the Papyrus Anastasi I. : " the mount of She
chem " (Sakama).10 The Old Testament is witness to its
importance in Israel's history, at least before the rise of the
new capital Samaria, which eclipsed it, until with Samaria's
decay in the Hid and IVth Centuries A.C., Shechem again
outstripped the rival and recovered its position as the chief
city of the district.
In this connection reference may be made to the question
whether Shechem always occupied its present site, for in the
Orient the identity of name does not involve continuance
in the same locality. Nothing in the Old Testament dis
proves the identity of old Shechem with Nablus, and the
scene of Jotham's parable capitally suits the present site of
the city. However it is to be observed that Josephus and
15 Knudtzon, in Beitrdge sur Assyriologie, 1899, p. 112, to Tablet B.
199 (Winckler, 185), lines 21-24. He reads : " Lapaya and Shechem
(mat Shakmi) have given (pay ?) to the Chabiri." See Steuernagel,
Einwanderung der israelitischen Stdmme, 120, who connects the passage
with the transactions in Gen. 34.
18 W. Max Miiller, Asien u. Europa, 394; Sayce, Patriarchal Pales
tine, 211. The date of these Travels of a Mohar is about 1300 B. G

20 THE SAMARITANS
Pliny assign Vespasian's foundation of Neapolis to a place
originally called Mabartha.17 Shechem may then have lain
more to the east, and if it is to be placed on the watershed
already described, its name, " shoulder," can be explained.
This distinction between the elder Shechem and the " New-
City " of Vespasian is borne out by Patristic authorities and
also by archaeology. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux (circa
333) writes as follows: " Civitas Neapoli. Ibi est Aga-
zar en (Gerizim)  Inde ad pedem montis ipsius, locus
est cui nomen est Sichem. Ibi positum est monumentum
ubi positus est Joseph, in villa quam dedit ei Jacob pater
ejus  Inde passus mille, locus est cui nomen Sechar,
unde descendit mulier Samaritana ad eundem locum."
Eusebius writes (Onom. s. v. St>xe/a) : " Sychem and
Sikima, which is Salem, Jacob's city, now deserted." The
Mosaic Map of Madaba likewise distinguishes between
Neapolis and Sychem. The archaeological evidence ob
tained by the English Survey may also be quoted here:18
" The ruins of Nablus extend for a distance east of the mod
ern town. Vaults were excavated in digging the founda
tions of the barracks [about half-way towards Jacob's
Well], and persons in the city claim to have title-deeds of
buildings and shops in the same direction. A long mound
with traces of a rude wall exists between Balata and 'As
kar, and there is a tesselated pavement just east of Joseph's
tomb, in which neighborhood ruins are mentioned in the
fourteenth century, and were supposed to be those of an
cient Thebez (Marino Sanuto)."
In this connection rises the question concerning the iden
tity of the city Sychar of Jn. 4, 5, which it has now become
the fashion to identify with the Ain Askar lying 1250
17 BJ viii, 4, 1 : Mabartha, so Niese, var. Mabortha ; Pliny, Hist, nat.
v, 14, Mamortha. This name is doubtless to be explained, with
Schwarz, Exercitationes historico-critica in utrumque Sam. Pent., 25,
as representing the Aramaic Ma'abarta, i. e., Pass.
™SWPM 206; cf. Rosen, ZDMG xiv, 639.

SAMARIA AND SHECHEM 21
meters NE of Jacob's Well. As we have seen, the Bor
deaux Pilgrim distinguishes a Sychar apart from Shechem
and Neapolis. Also Eusebius, treating of Sychar, says that
it is " before Neapolis, near the place which Jacob gave to
Joseph, his son." On the other hand Jerome knows noth
ing of a place Sychar, and insists that it is a mistake for
Shechem, which he also identifies with Neapolis.19 These
IVth Century authorities therefore by no means agree. It
is to be observed that the elder Shechem once lay as close
to Jacob's Well as does Ain Askar, so that the Samaritan
woman could easily have come to draw water at the
former place. Further, the Fourth Gospel describes Sychar
as a Polis, and there is absolutely no evidence for the exis
tence of a city Sychar. As to the dispute between Jerome
and the opposing authorities, inasmuch as Jerome takes
pains to make denial of the existence of a Sychar, it may
be argued that he is right, and his opponents were rather
depending upon some tradition originated in support of the
Gospel text. Finally, while it is quite possible that Askar
is an Arabic corruption of Sychar, nevertheless in its simple
meaning of 'askar as a camp, may it not be the later Arabic
translation of machna, the name of the plain, which itself
in Hebrew means a camp?20 Ain Askar would then be
the Well of Al-Machna. It appears to the present writer
that a strong case can still be made out for the identification
of Sychar with Shechem, on the supposition, with Jerome,
of a text-corruption in the text of St. John, — Sux*/*, a
variant of Six*/" . having accidentally become 2i>x<v . The
reception of Jesus in the home-city of the Samaritans would
be no more strange than the hospitality accorded to Simon
Magus or to the Jerusalem Apostles (Acts, 8).21
19 Epitaphium Paula; Quastiones in Gen. ad xlviii, 22 ; Onom. lxvi,
20 (in Migne, respectively: xx, 888; xxiii, 1055; 965).
2» I find that Conder has already suggested this etymology ; PEFQS
1876, p. 197.
21 G. A. Smith sums up the case for the identification of Sychar with

22 THE SAMARITANS
Nablus itself is a long narrow town, about two-thirds
of a mile in extent, surrounded by a dilapidated wall. In
strategics the town has always been weak, as it lies in the
hollow of an indefensible valley, and its walls could never
have amounted to much more than police barricades. In
deed the history of the town shows that it never was strong
enough to necessitate regular siege, its conquerors always
easily pouring into its undefended bounds. This natural
weakness was one of the calamities of Northern Israel,
which was finally forced to leave its ancient capital for the
new city of Samaria, whereas Shechem's southern rival
Jerusalem again and again stood the siege of invaders
when the rest of the land had fallen to the foe. Neverthe
less Shechem has survived, in that way peculiar to oriental
life, whereby a city is re-born like the phcenix out of the
fire of destruction, and it contains within its walls the only
fragment of the Hebrew race which has survived by un
broken succession on Palestinian soil.
In its structures the town does not differ from other ori
ental towns. It contains five mosques, four of which were
originally Crusaders' churches, one of them going back to
a foundation of Justinian's. The great arched bazaar which
occupies a section of the principal street is said to be the
finest in Palestine, and even to rival those of the largest
cities of the Turkish empire. The shops are well-furnished
with a great variety of commodities, while the productive
power of the community finds vent in extensive manufac
tures of woolens and soap, the latter product being famous
all over Syria.
The population of Nablus numbers about 24,ooo.22 The
Askar, in HG c. xviii. Cheyne has a good review of the data in EB
s. v. Sychar, and concludes with the view above preferred, insisting on
the purely Arabic character of 'askar. The earlier students of the
question, such as Robinson and Guerin, rejected the identification of
Sychar and Askar.
22 These and the following are Baedeker's figures, ed. 1900. The town

SAMARIA AND SHECHEM 23
great majority are Muslims, the remainder consisting of
about 700 Christians,23 152 Samaritans (in 1901), and a
number of Jews.24 The town and district are under a
local Mutesellim, who is subordinate to the governor of
Jerusalem; with his Diwan, or council, are associated rep
resentatives of the Greeks, the Samaritans (including the
Jews), and the Protestants, as according to Ottoman rule
each community must have its responsible spokesman.
As in many another earthly paradise, so in Nablus,
" only man is vile." No town in Palestine has so bad a
reputation for the ill-disposition and violence of its citizens,
and the Ottoman government handles the local elements
only with greatest delicacy. Since the day of Lapaya, the
marauder of the Tell-Amarna period, Shechem has been
the scene of violence and murder. Here occurred the one
blot upon the peaceful scutcheon of the patriarchs (Gen.
34) ; here the headstrong Abimelek made himself king, and
fell into feud with the rebellious citizens (Ju. 9) ; here the
tie with the Davidic dynasty was snapped, and the secession
baptized in blood (1 Ki. 12), while its priests became noto
rious for murderous violence (Hos. 6, 9). It would be
impossible to enumerate the conflicts which have taken place
at Shechem between Samaritan and Jew, Samaritan and
Roman, Samaritan and Christian; and when Islam con
quered the region, although the turbulence of the Samari
tans was then cowed forever, the Arabs too fell subject
to the atmosphere of the place, and the town and its dis
trict have been notorious for the lawlessness which the in
habitants have shown toward the Ottoman rule.
seems to have grown considerably since Petermann's visit, when the
calculations given to him by the residents varied between 12,000 and
20,000. 23 Mostly of the Greek Church, but some of the Latin Rite, along
with 150 Protestants.
24 Baedeker says merely "some Jews." According to Petermann
they numbered some 200. The Jews did not return to Shechem until
the third decade of the last century, under the Egyptian regime.

CHAPTER III.
THE MODERN SAMARITANS.
In the southwestern quarter of their ancient city, close
to the path which leads to the holy place on Gerizim's top,
is the Ghetto of the Samaritans.1 They live crowded to
gether, being quite segregated from the Muslim population,
not only out of desire of separation but as well for fear of
their violent neighbors. According to statistics of 19012
they number 152 souls, and the doom which confronts the
community is presented in the proportion of males and
females, the former numbering 97, the latter only 55. They
do not marry outside of their own body, the Jews, the only
race with whom they might intermingle, of course refus
ing such alliances. The people call themselves by the an
cient geographical appellative, Samerim, which they inter
pret however as meaning " the Observers," i.e. of the Law.3
Concerning the ethnology of the Samaritans, Robinson
makes this observation : " The physiognomy of those we
saw was not Jewish; nor indeed did we remark in it any
peculiar character, as distinguished from that of other na-
1 Called Charat as-Samira, the Quarter of the Samaritans, although
incorrectly, not being a proper city-quarter. The name also appears as
Charat as-Samara, SWPM 204. Rosen vocalizes it as Sumereh.
2 Reference is here made to the valuable statistics and anthropological
tables presented by H. M. Huxley in JE x, 674, the materials for which
were collected by the American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in
1899-1900. (The publication of the full material by Huxley is prom
ised for an early date as Part V.) The figures given by travellers in
the XlXth Century are discrepant ; Robinson estimated them in 1838 at
150, BR iii, 106; Petermann, in 1853, at 122 (Reisen, i, 265) ; Mills, in
1855, at 150 {Nablus, 179) ; Rogers, in the same year, at 197 'Notices,
16). SWPM gives 135 for the year 1875, 160 for 1881.
3 See Additional Note B. 24

Pal. Ex. Fund.

A Group of Samaritans.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 25
tives of the country." 4 But this judgment has been con
troverted by almost all other visitors to Shechem, who
remark upon the distinctiveness of the Samaritan type, and
bear witness with some surprise to its comparative nobility
among the races of Palestine; the representatives of the
priesthood, the only educated ones, have called forth much
admiration for their intelligence of expression and dignity
of bearing. The Rev. John Mills, who lived among them
for three months, also paying them a second visit, and
who seems to have been a very intelligent observer, writes
as follows of the race :5 " I had seen individuals, among
Arabs and Jews, of as noble aspect as any one of them;
but as a community, there is nothing in Palestine to com
pare with them. A straight and high forehead, full brow,
large and rather almond-shaped eye, aquiline nose, some
what large mouth, and well-formed chin, are their chief
physiological characteristics ; and, with few exceptions, they
are tall and of lofty bearing. They seem to be all of one
type, and bear an unmistakable family likeness. In this
they differ from the Jews, who have assimilated in physical
as well as in moral qualities to the nations among whom
they have long dwelt."
These impressions of travellers are corroborated by the
exact figures and scientific observations that are reported
in the article in the Jewish Encyclopcedia, above cited. I
refer the reader to the tables contained there, and quote
here only the summary, as follows :
" The general type of physiognomy of the Samaritans
is distinctly Jewish, the nose markedly so. Von Luschan
derives the Jews from ' the Hittites, the Aryan Amorites,
and the Semitic nomads.' The Samaritans may be traced
to the same origin. The 'Amorites were men of great
stature ' and to them Von Luschan traces the blonds of
*BR iii, 106.
" Op. cit. 180 ; cf. 182, 184.

26 THE SAMARITANS
the modern Jews. With still greater certainty the tall stat
ure and the presence of a blond type among the Samari
tans may be referred to the same source.6 The cephalic
index, much lower than that of the modern Jews, may be
accounted for by a former direct influence of the Semitic
nomads, now represented by the Bedouins, whose cephalic
index according to measurement of 114 males, is 76.3-7
The Samaritans have thus preserved the ancient type in its
purity; and they are to-day the sole, though degenerate,
representatives of the ancient Hebrews."
The principal employment of the Samaritans is petty
trading, a few of them being engaged in manufacture, es
pecially of woolens ; none of them are agriculturists. Their
past history shows that their forte has lain, like that of
their Jewish relatives, in finance, and they appear to have
maintained an honorable reputation in the handling of
moneys, for down into the past century individuals of their
number have regularly acted as the fiscal agents of the local
government. Travellers vary in their impressions concern
ing the virtues of the Samaritans; many are disgusted by
their participation in the everlasting oriental demand for
bakhsheesh, " the one Arabic word the traveller never for
gets," as a French scholar has said. But while ready to
drive hard bargains for fees and manuscripts, and equal to
deceit in imposing upon the credulous tourist, no charges of
commercial dishonesty or faithlessness have been laid
against them. The retention of their sacred volume of the
Law of Moses against the captivating attempts that have
been made for its purchase by European scholars, is demon
stration that they can put principle before Mammon. Some
travellers speak very warmly concerning the social traits of
the perishing community. The violence and extortion from
6 Earlier in the same article it is shown that the Samaritans are the
tallest people in Syria. Also the figures given for pigmentation reveal
"a distinct blond type noticeable in the race."
7 That of the Samaritans is 78.1, of the modern Jews, 82.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 27
which the people of Nablus have suffered in the XlXth
Century have reduced the Samaritans to a condition of
poverty. The Samaritans have adopted the Arabic vernacular to
such an extent that only the few learned ones among them
carry on the tradition of the Hebrew and Aramaic which
were the earlier tongues of the people.8 Every Samaritan
man possesses two names, one of which is generally com
posed of names taken from the Pentateuch, especially from
its heroes, while the other is drawn from the common
Arabic nomenclature for persons. Despite the assimilations
with the Muslim population into which the Samaritans have
drifted, their political masters have taken pains to keep
them conscious of their inferior position. Following the
principles of the caliph Omar, who required distinguishing
costumes for unbelievers, an Abbaside caliph ordered that
the Samaritans should appear in public with a red turban
on the head, a regulation which has been more or less strin
gently enforced, according to the temper of the govern
ment.9 Their native costume, especially on gala occasions,
is white. We come now to the consideration of the inner life of the
Samaritans as a religious community, and this phrase means,
it must be remembered, for an oriental sect practically the
whole of the community's life. Here a thesis must be
advanced of which the whole of the following work gives
proof, and to which all modern investigators bear testimony.
Even as the Samaritans are shown by anthropology to be
Hebrews of the Hebrews, so the study of their religion and
manners demonstrates them to be nothing else than a Jewish
sect. This is not the traditional view concerning their
origin, nor is it as yet generally known to the lay mind.
8 For the languages, see Chap. XIV.
9 Not as Petermann, op. cit. 274, says, a " Mamluk Sultan," but the
Abbaside Mutawakkil; see below, p. 129.

28 THE SAMARITANS
Samaritanism is still commonly looked upon as a mixed
religion containing elements of Judaism and ancient hea
thenism, and although the compound is not supposed to have
been analyzed, it is considered to be full of theological
heresies and moral corruption.
Subsequent chapters will expand and substantiate the
points at present only summarily given. This chapter will
treat only of the customs of the Samaritans as they have
lain under the observation of Europeans for over three cen
turies. But their religion may be summed up in these few
words. It is a monotheism identical with that of Judaism,
whose very terms they use throughout, while it bitterly
opposes any attempt to associate with God other deities,
as in polytheism, or to find in him any distinctions, as in
Christianity. It is a spiritual religion, which not only re
jects any representation of Deity, but even eschews, after
the letter of the Second Commandment, all pictorial de
signs.10 It is moreover an ethical religion which has flow
ered in just such virtues and which is circumscribed by
just such limitations as mark what is known as orthodox
Judaism. We will now consider those points of the life of
the Samaritan community which come under the eye of the
observer, and mark, as we proceed, wherein they agree
with, and wherein they differ from, the forms of Judaism,
leaving to subsequent Chapters the history of the sect and
the formal presentation of its theology.11
The intelligent visitor to Nablus naturally soon takes his
way to the Samaritan quarter, and discovers their syna
gogue, which is called after the same name used by the
10 Petermann, op. cit. 282, relates that on the visit of the highpriest
to his room, the latter requested him to turn the face of some hanging
portraits to the wall.
11 The facts in the following pages are drawn from the statements of
the travellers already cited, from the Samaritan correspondence with
Europeans, and in some cases from other Samaritan literature. In
moot questions or points of particular interest, reference is made to
the authorities, all of whom are listed in the Bibliography.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 29
Jews for their places of worship, Kemsat as-Samira, the
Samaritan Synagogue. It is also commonly called among
themselves Bit Allah, the house of God.12 This is a plain
building, of no great antiquity.13 It contains a room whose
greatest length is yj ft-, 5 in. ; on its right hand and run
ning for about two-thirds of the length of the main portion
is an extension with a raised floor. On the left is a cur
tained recess, about 4V4 ft. sq. There is no adornment,
and light is admitted only by a glazed circular aperture in
the roof.
Entrance is had upon application to the highpriest, —
Kohen hag-Gadol, he is called in Hebrew, or in good
Arabic, the Imam. He is of the blood of Levi, the direct
Aaronic line having failed, according to Samaritan testi
mony in the XVIIth Century, although this fact it has be
come the fiction to deny.14 With him is associated a Le-
vitical relative, the Shammash, or minister, who performs
most of the service, but the priest is required for the bless
ing. This great man, who always appears in robes of white,
is not too dignified to demand of the visitor a large bakh-
sheesh for the privilege of inspecting the synagogue. The
terms of the bargain having been arranged, the stranger de
sires to look upon the sacred roll of the Law of Moses, the
greatest treasure of the Samaritans. This is contained in
the recess already mentioned, which is called the mugbach,
or altar, even as the Jews call the synagogal ark contain
ing the scroll the heikal, or temple. The recess has an im
portant function in the services, as it corresponds to the
12 Mills, op. cit. 222.
13 The Samaritans claim that the neighboring mosque, Chizn Ya qub,
was originally their synagogue, which was confiscated about 1300; see
below, pp. 134, 273. The present synagogue contains an inscription
recording the restoration of the building A. D. 171 1, and asserting that
it had been built 320 years before. The inscription is given by Rosen,
ZDMG xiv, 624.
14 See p. 139.

30 THE SAMARITANS
michrab of the Muslim mosque, that is, the niche which in
dicates the qibla, or direction of prayer — for the Muslim
towards Mecca, for the Samaritan towards Gerizim; the
whole congregation face this point in their devotions in the
synagogue. The recess contains a plain chest, which holds
rolls of the Law of Moses, unimportant copies of which are
shown to the ignorant tourist, but amongst them the great
est treasure of all, a codex which, it is claimed, was written
by Abishua, the great-grandson of Aaron.15 How old this
roll is cannot be ascertained, for it is never submitted to
examination, only a section being exposed to view at a
time. But its sacredness in the eyes of the Samaritans and
its appearance of relative antiquity naturally arouse the
ambition of scholars for its acquisition, or at least for its
inspection, a wish that may never be gratified until the
community has perished. The exhibition of one of the
rolls, although not of that sacred codex, is an important
part of the Sabbath service. At the proper point, the min
ister brings forth the roll, and presents it to the congrega
tion, opened at the Aaronic blessing, Num. 6, 24-27, which
passage is then kissed by the worshippers.16
It has been said that these rolls contain the Law of
Moses. They are indeed codices of the Hebrew Penta
teuch, containing a somewhat variant text, with a few in
tentional alterations made in support of the peculiar tenet
of the Samaritans concerning the holiness of Gerizim,17
along with many textual variants, and written in the Samar
itan script, an alphabet derived from the Phoenician and
more antique than the Hebrew square character.18 The
Law of Moses is the Samaritan Bible, and herein is the
first great difference between this sect and the Jews, who
« See Chap. XIV, § 6.
16 Hence in many copies of the Law this and other sacred passages
are found blurred to illegibility by the contact of the faithful.
17 See Chap. XII, § 6.
« See Chap. XIV, § 4.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS

31

include in their Scriptures, although on a lower plane than
the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa.
The services in the synagogue are said to be decorous,
although the rendering of the service and the music sound
barbarous to European ears. The Samaritans once pos
sessed an extensive liturgy,19 much of which in its written
form is now lost to them, and is probably to be found only
in European libraries. The portions that are still u&ed are
always recited from memory, and concern the chief solemni
ties of life, the feasts and fasts, birth, marriage and death.
But probably the Samaritan memory has retained but a
small part of its one-time liturgical wealth. As the lan
guage of all their offices is in either Hebrew or Aramaic,
tongues for centuries lost to vernacular usage, and as in
the last half of the XlXth Century there has been a sad
decline in the learning of the priesthood, the majority of
the people know nothing of what is said in the services, and
the ministers themselves have often only a superficial knowl
edge of the words they use. The Law, it may be said, is
read through once in a year, thus differing from the Jew
ish arrangement which distributes its sections over three
years. The lections are begun with the month Tishri.20
There is also a rude kind of music, with a number of vari
ous airs, for which the Samaritans claim a high tradition.21
We have seen that the Samaritans possess three of the
great institutes of Judaism, the synagogue, the Law of
Moses, the priesthood, the last of which has only a tradi
tional survival amongst the Jews. The highpriest is the
theocratic head of the community, he is the authority both
spiritual and secular; after the rule of the old Jewish state
and of the early Christian Church, believers dare not go
19 See Chap. XIV, § 10.
20 For the order of lections, see Cowley, JQR vii, 134. The lectional
divisions are called qacm.
21 Grove (Nabloos) and Mills, op. cit. 230, seem to be the only ones
who have noticed the music.

32 THE SAMARITANS
to law against one another before infidels.22 The priests
also combine both the sacerdotal and the teaching functions ;
the sect has never developed the difference between the
priests and the doctors of the Law to the extent which
marks Judaism, and in modern times the former possess
all the learning of the community, although the literature
shows that in earlier days laymen were also masters in
theology.23 The old Nazirite rule is still observed by the
priests, that no razor shall touch their head ; 24 they are
specially careful about defilement, and avoid contact with a
dead body. They always wash before handling the rolls of
Scripture. The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They
are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of
Benjamin, but this traditional branch of the people, which,
the Chronicles assert, was established in Gaza in earlier
days, seems to have disappeared.25 There exists a strong
aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this
petty community, and some are very proud over their own
pedigree and the great men it has produced. In the serv
ices the laymen also wear white robes, and have some an-
tiphonal parts to recite, either from memory or with the
use of books. They do not use the Tephillin, the frontlets
or phylacteries of the Jews, nor the fringes, nor the Mezu-
zot, or prayer-boxes for the door-posts. The reason given
by them for the non-use of the Tephillin is such a one as
a Christian would give, that the law is to be spiritually
observed. The priest wears at the reading of the Law a
talith, but without fringes.26 The women are not admitted
22 See the Samaritan Epistle to Kautzsch, ZDPV viii, 149.
23 Abu'l Fath, 129, speaks of the Wise Men, adding that " the priests
as a body are not called Wise Men."
24 There seems to be a reference to the Nazirite profession in Chron.
Neub. 459.
25 See p. 149.
28 See N. et E., 123, 218; Mills, op. cit. 192. The former passage
seems to indicate the use of some kind of fringes, but the custom was
denied by the priest at Mills' visit.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 33
to the synagogue, even as the rule is amongst the oriental
Jews to this day. They, as well as the men, have a morn
ing prayer to recite, in this differing from Jewish custom.
They also follow the ancient custom of keeping their hair,27
which they never shave off, as do the Muslim and Jewish
women upon marriage. There is no Minyan, or minimum
of ten persons, as in the Jewish law, for the observance of
a service. Mention has already been made of services on the Sab
bath. This cardinal Jewish institution is observed by the
Samaritans with like solemnity to the Jews, but with far
greater rigor, for the former have never developed that
casuistry, which Jesus so often attacked, whereby the ex
plicit directions of the Law could be circumvented. They
stay strictly within doors on the Sabbath, except to go to
the synagogue, and have none of the Jewish fiction of the
Erub, whereby several houses or a whole street could be
artificially designated as a single tenement ; nor is there any
" Sabbath-day's journey." They follow strictly the injunc
tions of Exodus not to light a fire on the Sabbath, nor may
they procure the service of Gentiles for this convenience,
as in Judaism; nor may they use any contrivances to keep
their food warm, which must all be cooked the day before.
It is thus seen that they are purists and literalists, and
closely resemble, in their lack of a tradition of the elders
which mitigates the rigor of the Law, the Sadducees, with
whom, as we shall later see, they are historically connected.
From the weekly Sabbath we naturally pass to the sacred
year of the Samaritans. The Samaritan year is of the same
nature and has the same months as that of the Jews, the
secular or economic year beginning in the autumn, with
Tishri, the ecclesiastical year in the spring, with Nisan.
The months have 29 or 30 days, and a second Adar is in
tercalated when necessary to avoid the variation of the lunar
27 Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 2ff.
3

34 THE SAMARITANS
year from the solar, which would result in the gradual re
cession of the sacred seasons through the year. The times
of the new moons and of the beginning of the two kinds
of year are calculated by the priests in advance for a short
period, and the results used to be announced to the scattered
communities. The Samaritans appear never to have
adopted the Metonic Cycle, by which, in the IVth Century,
the Jews finally regulated their year, but still depend upon
empirical observation. As late as 1820 such a table was
drawn up and sent to the supposed brethren in Europe.28
The Samaritan Passover and other feasts therefore do not
necessarily coincide in date with those of the Jews.
The Samaritans celebrate the seven sacred seasons ap
pointed in the calendar of the Law, Lev. 23. Three of
them, those which in ancient times were the chief feasts,
namely, Passover, Pentecost and Booths, are always cele
brated on Mount Gerizim, unless, as often has happened,
even for terms of years, they are prevented by Muslim
fanaticism; in such case the solemnities, including the Pass
over sacrifice, are celebrated in the town.29 We must ac
cordingly make a diversion to observe Mount Gerizim and
the sanctity which it holds in Samaritan eyes.
The article of faith in Gerizim is the great differentiating
tenet between the Samaritans and the Jews ; if they yield this
heresy, teaches a Talmudic tractate, they can be readmitted
to the true Israel.30 Doubtless since prehistoric times both
the mountains of Shechem, Ebal and Gerizim, were counted
amongst the most holy of "the highplaces " of Palestine;
as we have seen the Egyptian traveller of the XHIth Cen
tury B. C, makes an allusion to one of them.31 Of the
28 See quite fully on this subject, Mills, op. cit. 240. See further
Chap. XIV, § 12.
29 For the interruption of the visits to Gerizim, see p. 141 ; for the
celebration of the Passover in Shechem, A'', et E. 72.
3° See Chap. XII, §§ 2, 6; Chap. XL
81 See above, p. 19.

Mount Gerizim.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 35
two Ebal is the higher (3076 ft. above the sea), and the
more commanding in its noble prospect, while Gerizim has
an altitude of only 2848 ft.32 According to Hebrew tra
dition, upon the conquest of the land, these two mountains
formed the amphitheatre for the great convocation of all
Israel,, when the curses were recited from Ebal, and the
blessings from Gerizim (Dt. 27; Jos. 8, 3off). The com-
minations alone are given in the story of the rite, a fact
which gives greater prominence to Ebal; this was felt by
the Samaritans doubtless because of Jewish taunts, and
they deliberately altered the text in Dt. 27, 4, so that the
stones of Jordan and the altar should be reared on Geri
zim.33 There can be no doubt, despite the assent of such
a scholar as Kennicott, that the Samaritan reading is a
falsification. But the reason why Ebal was chosen for the
curses, which appear as the more important part of the
ceremony, was simply due to the fact that it lay on the
north, the side of ill-omen. Gerizim then would be the
auspicious one of the pair for worship, and the Samaritans
have in all probability preserved the ancient tradition con
cerning the relative religious worth of the two.34 On
Ebal's top only ruins of a very rude construction, a great
enclosure 90 ft. sq., have been discovered,35 while the ruins
on Gerizim are much more extensive and of considerable
architectural importance.
The easiest path from Nablus to Gerizim's top is one
which leads from the Samaritan quarter up a defile ; follow
ing this the traveller, after nearly an hour's climb, reaches
the eastern summit of Gerizim, upon or near which are
32 The Samaritans deny the greater height of Ebal, in fact hold that
Gerizim is the highest of all mountains.
33 See Chap. XII, § 6, for this falsification, and also for the Samari
tan legends connected with Gerizim.
34 This superstition as to points of the compass would be enhanced
by the comparative bleakness of Ebal's southern slope, seared by the
sun's heat; it is also more difficult of access.
™SWPM 186.

36 THE SAMARITANS
found all the sites and ruins of interest. At the northern
and eastern end of the natural platform lie the remains of
what once was a massive and noble structure. The history
of the building is a story common to the holy places of the
Orient. One compartment of the enclosure is now used as
a Muslim mosque; the octagonal building situated in the
midst is doubtless the Church of the Virgin Mary erected
by the emperor Zeno, which succeeded a Roman temple,
while this heathen structure was preceded by the Samaritan
temple, destroyed by John Hyrcanus in the Hd Century
B. C, and built according to tradition by Sanballat the re
puted founder of the sect in the time of Alexander the Great.
And behind the history of these respective fanes stretches
the succession of primitive cults, of Yahwe and of Baal
and of many another deity, back into the beginnings of
history. But it is only probability that leads the archaeolo
gist to find here the site of the Samaritan temple; no local
tradition corroborates it, and the Samaritans ignore it.36
On the west side of these ruins are the Twelve Stones,
which according to Samaritan tradition are the stones
Joshua brought from the Jordan and set up in this place,
Jos. 4. These seem to be the remains of an upper tier of
stones forming the edge of some ancient platform. At a
distance of 240 ft. to the south of the ancient temple lies the
holiest spot in Samaritan eyes ; this is a platform of natural
rock, about 48x36 ft. In its southern end is a hollow, like
the depressions which are found in many of the Syrian
rock-altars, designed doubtless for the collection of the sac
rificial blood. At the northwestern end is a cistern lined
with primitive masonry, which may have been a natural
cave. To the Samaritans this stone, the Sakhra,37 is
36 See, for the ruins and holy sites on Gerizim, C. W. Wilson, Ebal
and Gerizim, in PEFQS, 1873, p. 66 (with plan), containing the results
of explorations made by Wilson and Lieut. Anderson in 1866; Guerin,
Samarie, i, c. xxv; SWPM 187.
37 The priests are sometimes designated as Priests of the Stone • see
JBL 1906, pp. 34, 36.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 37
the Holy of Holies, which a member of the community
approaches only with bared feet; the tradition is that the
temple was built over the cave. This stony projection with
its cave and pool for blood reminds us at once of the cor
responding Sakhra, or holy stone, and cave which have
been the immemorial sanctuary on Mount Zion. In the
south-eastern quarter of the top of Gerizim, according to
tradition, was the site of Abraham's sacrifice on Moria,
while the seven steps leading down into a neighboring trench
are those by which Adam descended when he was expelled
from Paradise. For almost every sacred incident from the
beginning of history to its consummation is connected by
Samaritan credulity with the top of Gerizim.38
Strangely enough it is not at these sites consecrated by
tradition that the Samaritan celebrates his holiest rite, the
Passover. But the celebration takes place at a point which
is reached by the path above described about ten minutes
before arriving at the top of the mountain. There is noth
ing distinctive about the spot, which is surrounded by di
lapidated stone walls and contains some sunken trenches.
Probably it has been the malice of the Muslims that has
driven the sect to this insignificant piece of land. We read
in a Chronicle how a benefactor from amongst them in the
middle of the XVIIIth Century bought from the Muslims
a piece of ground on the mountain,39 and we may suppose
that this is the lot which the Samaritans still use in lieu
of the holier sites from which they have been debarred.
It is within this enclosure that the Samaritans celebrate
their only sacrifice, the Passover, and here alone in the world
is that historic rite of Israel maintained.40 No wonder
38 For lists of the other holy places as claimed by the Samaritans in
the neighborhood of Shechem, see SWPM 2i8f ; Conder, PEFQS 1876,
p. 192.
39 See p. 139.
40 The family Passover of the Jews is only a symbolic rite, not a
sacrifice.

38 THE SAMARITANS
then that both lovers of the Bible history and students of
antiquity have eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity
to witness the survival of this decaying ceremony, so laden
with historic memories. Petermann first, and many ob
servers since have witnessed the Samaritan Passover, and
the reader is recommended to turn to their easily accessible
descriptions for graphic accounts of the ceremony.41 Here
only an outline of the function can be given.
The solemnity is a veritable Haj, or pilgrim-feast. The
whole community proceeds to the place of sacrifice on Mount
Gerizim, allowing abundance of time for the preparations.
The tents are pitched, and all eagerly await the appointed
hour, which occurs at sunset,42 — for so the Samaritans in
terpret the phrase " between the evenings," Ex. 12, 6.43 A
number of lambs have been carefully selected from those
born in the preceding Tishri, and of these so many as will
suffice for the worshippers are destined for the sacrifice,
generally from five to seven, although others are at hand in
case anyone of them is ritually unfit. Some hours before
the sacrifice two fires are started in the trenches above de
scribed; in one of them a caldron is heated for boiling the
water necessary to fleece the lambs, in the other a mass of
fuel is kindled to make the oven for roasting the lambs.
All these preparations are in the hands of young men (cf.
41 For descriptions of the Passover by eye-witnesses, see the Bib
liography under the titles: Curtiss, Grove, Macewen, Mills, Moulton,
Petermann, E. T. Rogers, Stafford, Stanley, Thomson, Trumbull, War
ren, Wilson. The notice by the young American scholar, Moulton, is
based upon particularly critical observation.
42 Variations in this appointment, however, are caused by the inci
dence of the Sabbath. If the 14th Nisan is a Sabbath, the feast takes
place the day before, in which case the functions must be proceeded
with at earlier hours so that all may be over before the advent of the
Sabbath ; if the_ feast falls on Sunday, the preparations may not begin
until Saturday is past, the days being measured of course from sunset
to sunset.
43 The Samaritan use here agrees with the Sadducaean as against that
of the Pharisees, according to whom the sacrifice should be made be
tween 3 and 6 p. m.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 39
Ex. 24, 5), who sometimes are clad in blue robes.44 Coin
cident with the starting of the fire the service begins, and
this is kept up until the lambs are put into the oven; it
consists in the reading of the Passover lections from Exo
dus, and ancient Passover hymns. A certain number of
representative men render the antiphons. In the service
all turn towards the Kibla, the top of Gerizim. At sunset
the sacrifice takes place, not on an altar but in a ditch; the
throats of the lambs are deftly cut by a young man, not by
the priest.45 The ritual inspection then takes place, the
sinews of the legs are withdrawn (Gen. 32, 32), the offal
removed, and the lambs fleeced by aid of the hot water. The
lambs are then spitted with a long stick run through their
length,46 and are conveyed to the heated oven, over which
they are laid, the spits protruding on either side, while above
them is laid a thick covering of turf to seal the oven. The
process of roasting takes three or four hours, during which
time the worshippers may rest, the service being mostly
intermitted. When it is deemed the proper time, the lambs
are withdrawn, and present a blackened and repulsive as
pect. A short service then ensues, the congregation now
appearing with their loins girt up and their staves in their
hands (Ex. 12, 11), and when the service is over, veritably
" eat in haste," for they fall ravenously upon the coal-like
pieces of flesh, devouring it and taking platters-full to the
women and children, who remain in the tents. When all
the flesh is consumed, the bones, scraps, wool, are carefully
44 So Mills saw them, op. cit. 253, although others witness to white
robes, in which the community appear. For the use of blue in sacred
vestments, see the Samaritan Epistle, -V. et E. 123.
45 Petermann saw individuals applying the blood to their faces, and
parents streaking it on their children ; Moulton, the most recent ob
server, saw nothing of this, and learned that this rite had been omitted
for some years for fear of the Muslims.
46 The statement of Justin Martyr, a native of Neapolis, that the
Passover lamb was trussed on a cross-shaped spit does not, as is usually
noted in this connection, refer to the Samaritan sacrifice, but explicitly
to the Passover at Jerusalem; C. Tryphon. c. 40.

40 THE SAMARITANS
gathered up, and thrown into the still smouldering fire,
until all is consumed, " so that none of it remain till the
morrow." After the meal ablutions take place, and the
ceremony is concluded with further prayers and chants.
According to the prescriptions of Num. g, the " Second
Passover " is allowed.
In close connection with the Passover is the feast of Un-
leaven, or Massot, which is reckoned as the second sacred
feast, being distinguished from the Passover, although coin
cident with it, according to the language of the Law. On
the 13th of the month a careful search is made for all
leaven, which is scrupulously removed, and from the 14th
day till the 21st no leaven may be eaten. The 21st is the
great day of this feast, and on it they make pilgrimage to
Gerizim, reading through the book of Deuteronomy on the
way and at the village Makkada, where they finally halt.
The ensuing Pentecostal period, which is measured not
after the Jewish method from the second day of Unleavened
Bread, but literally according to Lev. 23,i5f from the mor
row of the Sabbath in that week,47 is an especially holy
portion of the year; on the third day before Pentecost is
celebrated the third great feast, that of the Stay of Moses
upon Sinai, that is of the beginning of the Lawgiver's so
journ in the holy mount. On this day the whole Law is
read.48 The fourth feast is that of Weeks, or Pentecost, which is
reckoned as above stated. It is celebrated by pilgrimage
to Gerizim, where the whole Law is again read. Its primi
tive character as a harvest feast is particularly observed,
with regard to Dt. i6,gil. The fifth feast is that of Trum-
47 This was also the method of the Boethusians and is still that of
the Karaite sect.
48 This feast does not appear in the lists given in the Epistles, e. g.,
N. et E. 76, 157, 176; in these lists it is difficult to discover how the
seven feasts that are claimed are actually counted ; probably the 8th
day of Weeks is reckoned the seventh feast.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 41
pets, the New Year's day, falling on the first day of the
seventh ecclesiastical month. But the Samaritans do not re
gard this so much as a New Year's festival as rather the
beginning of the great penitential season of the year.49 The
sixth holy season is the solemn fast of the Day of Atone
ment, the Jewish Kippur.50 The day is most strictly ob
served; none, man, woman nor child, is allowed to eat,
drink, sleep, or converse for the whole day ; all adult males
must spend the whole day in the synagogue, except, accord
ing to Mills' narrative, for a solemn excursion to the tombs
of certain of the prophets. The service consists in the read
ing of the whole Pentateuch, and in the singing of special
hymns, which are by far the most spiritual of all in the
liturgy, dwelling as they do most earnestly upon the need of
repentance, and likening the fast to the great final " Day
of Recompense and Vengeance." Towards the conclusion
of the service occurs the most solemn event of the year, the
exhibition of the ancient roll of Abishua, which occurs only
on this occasion. More than usual ritual solemnity accom
panies the rite; the priests are clothed in light-green satin
dresses, and upon emerging from the recess with the roll
are covered with a talith. Before the exposed roll the con
gregation repeatedly prostrate themselves, then press for
ward to touch, kiss, caress it, the cynosure of all eyes.51
This solemn day makes the month the holiest of all to the
mind of the Samaritans.
The feast of Booths completes the circuit of the seven
seasons, and is observed in close accord with the Pentateuch-
al regulations, the booths being erected in the courts of
the houses. Each day of the first seven they make pilgrim-
49 Cf. BS ii, 96, line 14. Herein doubtless ancient Semitic usage is
followed; cf. the first month of the Muslim year, Muharram.
50 Called Kippurim, as amongst the Jews.
51 The only eye-witness of this celebration I know of is Grove,
in Galton's Vacation Tourists. Azazel, the " scapegoat," is known cor
rectly enough — only, as a demon. See below, p. 219.

42 THE SAMARITANS
age to Gerizim, and abstain from all work throughout the
week ; the eighth day, " the last, great day of the feast "
(Jn. 7,37), is sabbatically observed in the synagogue.
Among the minor days are to be reckoned the New Moon
feasts, which are observed in the afternoon of the day fol
lowing the appearance of the young moon.52
We turn now to the observation of the functions of
domestic life, every detail of which is also consecrated by
religion. In connection with birth the laws of purification
are scrupulously regarded. The male child is always cir
cumcised on the eighth day, no postponement being allowed
as in the Jewish rite. The priest generally performs the
operation, and at home ;53 the cruel act of " tearing " per
formed by the Jews is not observed. The naming of the
child takes place at the same time. The redemption of the
firstborn, formerly practised, is now omitted because of the
poverty of the community.54 There is no initiation into the
community like that in Judaism which makes a boy Bar
Miswa, a child of the Law ; the child's accountability begins
with his " knowing good and evil." Marriage takes place
early, with boys in the 15th or 16th year, with girls in the
1 2th; celibacy is abominated in this declining community.
Divorce takes place at the pleasure of the husband, who
gives a bill of divorce, according to Dt. 245s5 but because
of the paucity of females, if for no better reason, such
separation rarely occurs to-day. Polygamy is allowed only
52 See Mills, op. cit. 238. The same authority also refers to a cele
bration of Purim, which is held, not as bv the Jews on the 13th Adar,
but on the last three Sabbaths of the preceding month, the mission of
Moses to deliver the Israelites being the object of commemoration.
The Samaritans interpret the word Purim in the sense "rejoicings"
(the root pa'ar ?). Petermann, op. cit. 290, describes the two tithing
days, the Summot. Also for the order of the seasons and their serv
ices, see Cowley, JQR vii, 128.
63 It was once performed before the community ; see the anecdote of
Bishop Germanus, p. 101.
54 Mills, op. cit. 191.
55 N. et E. 122.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS 43
in the case of the barrenness of the wife, when a second wife
may be taken, but a third is not allowed. The Samaritans
strikingly differ from the Jews in the interpretation of the
law of the levirate marriage, according to Dt. 25,5!?. They
regard as the " husband's brother " the coreligionist who
lives in the husband's house, and whose duty it is to marry
his widow, if childless; if he refuses, the contemptuous
ceremony of Chalisa follows theoretically, but is never now
practised.56 The law of prohibited degrees is strictly fol
lowed, and the marriage with a niece is prohibited.57
The Levitical laws of defilement are scrupulously regard
ed, both in respect to all natural defilements, and in the puri
fications required before participation in the rites of the
community. Large ablutions of water are used, and in
earlier days fire was employed as a purifying agent.58 The
early Samaritan sects developed the notion of " baptisms "
to a great extent, and have probably affected the orthodox
community. According to the Epistle of 1672 the lustral
water made with ashes of a red heifer was still used, but
this had been given up by the age of the Epistle of 1810.59
Upon death the corpse is carefully and ceremoniously
washed; it is not forbidden to the Samaritans, as has been
frequently stated, to handle their dead, except in the case
of the highpriest. Candles are burnt at the head and foot
of the corpse before burial. Coffins are used — an excep
tion in modern Palestinian custom. The mourning cere
monies last until the following Sabbath, the community
going each day to the tomb, where they read and pray. On
the Sabbath the community again visit the tomb, where they
partake of a meal, while further appropriate services are
66 N. et E. 123 ; Petermann, op. cit. 280. Earlier there was a dif
ferent interpretation of "brother's wife"; see p. 184.
67 N. et E. 179. Marriage with a niece was a bar to the priesthood
in the early Catholic Church; see Apostolical Canons, No. xix (Fulton,
Index canonum, 87).
»8 See Additional Note C.
«2V. et E. 178, 127.

44 THE SAMARITANS
held in the synagogue. The Samaritans appear to-day to
make a point of forgetting their dead, and have no subse
quent commemorations, except their visits to the tombs of
the Patriarchs. However the liturgy contains requiem
hymns. They are said to share with the Jews the custom
of burning combustible articles at Joseph's tomb.
Finally a word remains to be said concerning the ethical
quality of the Samaritan religion, for the elaborate system
of cult and custom which envelopes the sect might be con
sidered to tend to the deadening of all true religion. But
both their literature and the reports of travellers who have
spent any time with them show that the Samaritans have
developed a spiritual appreciation of the essentials of re
ligion, which finds utterance in phrases frequently equal to
the best in Judaism and Christianity. The practical cessa
tion of sacrifice has led the Samaritans, as in the Jewish
synagogue, to replace the primacy of the rite with the wor
ship of the heart ; so we read of " the altar of prayer," and
" the altar of conversion," " tears of blood " — i. e. in place
of bloody libations, — " drink-offerings of song."60 Much
is said about the circumcision of the heart, and prayer must
be made from " the heart and soul." The sense of sin is
strong, appearing especially in the liturgy for Kippur, when
a call to real repentance is made ; God alone can forgive sin
(although the saints have certain merit), and no rites of
religion replace true conversion and God's merciful forgive
ness. Many expressions are akin to those in Christian
usage, as the " being clothed with faith " (cf. Eph. 6, nff) ;
" the bread of forgiveness " ; " the clothing of atonement "
(cf. the clothing with Christ's righteousness).61 The Sa
maritans have not developed the hardness of Rabbinic ex
egesis, and they have given large play to allegorizing, which
80 BS ii, 154. line 17; p. 202, line 1; p. xlii. Cf. Hosea's "calves of
the lips," 14, 2.
el BS ii, p. xlii ; 197, v. 24.

THE MODERN SAMARITANS

45

with all its absurdities often contributes a poetic touch to
their hymns. At the same time their exegesis is frequently
rational and spiritual, as in their interpretation of the front
lets between the eyes, or in finding, after the example of
Jesus, a proof of immortality in the verse, " I am the God
of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob."62
The facts given in this Chapter abundantly prove the
thesis that, whatever its beginnings, Samaritanism has be
come and is a Jewish sect. The history of its origin must
now be taken up.
62 So Mills relates, op. cit. 219.

CHAPTER IV.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITAN SECT.
§ I. TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM, 586 B. C.
When the present writer took up the study of the origin
of the Samaritans, he naturally began with a consideration
of the differences which distinguished the histories of the
two sections of the Hebrew people, Israel and Juda, the
North and the South. It seemed antecedently probable that
the Samaritans must be the heirs of the peculiar religious
characteristics of northern Israel; they would be the lineal
successors of the church of Elija, Elisha and Hosea, and
of those Yahwe-enthusiasts, the family of Jehu.1 But the
results obtained in this field of investigation are entirely
negative. When at last we come upon definite information
concerning the Samaritans, of the kind that gives some de
scription of them, — and these authorities belong to the
Christian era, the New Testament, Josephus, the Talmud —
the Samaritans appear as nothing else than a Jewish sect.
The one essential difference between them and Judaism
is that their cult centres on Gerizim, not on Zion; minor
differences there are, but almost all of these can be shown
to represent elder stages of Judaism and often to corre
spond with the tenets which distinguished the conservative
Sadducees from the progressive and finally triumphant
Pharisees. It is not necessary then to ascend into hoary antiquity to
1This theory has been attempted, but unsuccessfully, by Lincke,
Samaria und seine Propheten. 46

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B. C. 47
ascertain what ancient cults upon Gerizim may have given
a peculiar coloring to the worship still connected with it by
the Samaritans ; between the rise of that sect and antiquity
has entered the cleft of Jewish monotheism and iconoclasm.
Nor is it necessary — interesting as the task would be —
to expatiate here upon the original differences between the
North and the South in the matter of religion. These
differences have been too much exaggerated ; northern Israel
has been condemned because orthodox Juda has written the
history. But a comparison need only be made between the
two great prophets who preached the fall of their respective
states, Hosea and Jeremia, in order to make it clear that
while in both kingdoms there was a spiritual remnant, in
carnated in those respective prophets and their partisans,
religious and moral degeneracy marked the South at the end
of the Vllth Century B. C. as luridly as it stains the pages
of the last days of the northern kingdom a century before.2
In the providence of God Juda was given a respite of a
century and a quarter beyond the fall of Samaria before her
own ruin came; her spiritual fruit had greater time to
ripen, and became crystallized in the Deuteronomic reform,
so that when the stroke fell there was a spiritual germ with
vitality enough to withstand uprooting and transportation.
We have to add to these considerations the more benevolent
conditions of the exile under Nebuchadrezzar, and the au
spicious political circumstances of Cyrus's conquest, in or
der to understand the perpetuation of Juda's community
and its final restoration to its native seat. These factors
of history, simply fortuitous as they appear to some, prov
idential as they prove themselves to other minds, help
us to understand why of the two " Sisters," Israel and
Juda, " one was taken and the other left," and why Juda's
church finally dominated in the ancient Holy Land.
2 See Jeremia, passim, and especially 3, 6ff, for Yahwe's change of
heart towards Israel.

48 THE SAMARITANS
The period in which we must look for data concerning the
origin of the Samaritan sect is a lengthy one. It extends
from the time, about 722 B. C, to which the description
given by 2 Ki. 17 of religious conditions in Samaria after
the Assyrian conquest assumes to belong, down to the age
of Alexander the Great, in whose reign the Jewish his
torian Josephus places the rise of the Samaritan sect and
the building of its temple on Gerizim. Yet the data bear
ing upon our subject for these four centuries are most
scanty and meagre, while most of them are involved in
disputes of Old Testament criticism which are kaleidoscopic
in their variety and show no sign of speedy settlement.
We will observe first the classic passage 2 Ki. 17, which,
more than any other document, has controlled the tradi
tional theories concerning the Samaritans.
The pertinent data in this chapter are as follows. After
a three years' siege the capital of the Northern Kingdom,
the city of Samaria, fell to the Assyrian king, who de
ported Israel, and settled them in various specified places,
both in Assyria proper and in Media (v. 1-6, cf. 18, 9-1 1).3
But the land denuded of its inhabitants required new citi
zens, so we learn that " the king of Assyria brought men
from Babylon, and from Kutha, and from Awwa, and from
Hamath and Sepharwaim, and placed them in the cities of
Samaria in place of the children of Israel; and they pos
sessed Samaria and dwelt in the cities thereof" (v. 24).
But the newcomers " feared not Yahwe," that is, did not
worship him, because as strangers they knew not the cult
of the native god ; " therefore Yahwe sent lions among
them, which killed some of them." The settlers thereupon
prayed the king of Assyria's assistance, and he responded
3 The problem of these " Lost Ten Tribes " does not concern us here.
A tradition concerning their maintenance of relations with the Jews is
preserved in the Book of Tobit; Tobit is of the tribe of Naphtali, de
scended from an Israelite taken captive by Shalmaneser, 1, 2, and hav
ing social relations with Israelites in Media.

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B. C. 49
to their implied desire by sending back to Samaria some
of the deported priests,4 who should teach the people " the
custom of the god of the land." So the priestly deputation
returned to their native home, and settled at Bethel, where
they taught the foreigners the way of Yahwe (v. 25-28).
The following section, v. 29-33, is evidently drawn from
another tradition, for it contains a different story concern
ing the origin of the priests amongst the new colonists.5
On the one hand, each of the imported races set up its own
cult, and established its peculiar deities, which are re
spectively named; and on the other hand, they worshipped
Yahwe, overcoming sacerdotal deficiency by making priests
for the native cult out of their own number,6 and these
continued the rites of Yahwe along with the new cults of
the foreign deities in " the houses of the highplaces "
throughout the land. And so " they worshipped Yahwe
and yet served their own gods." The picture here offered
represents the land of Samaria as wholly inhabited by for
eign colonists, who have adopted a syncretistic religion,
compounded of their ancestral cults and of that native deity
Yahwe, whose worship superstition caused them to accept.
Let us now turn to the Assyrian accounts of the fall of
the city and its results. Sargon (722-705), the Assyrian
king who captured the city, and not Shalmaneser as the con-
4 The text fluctuates between the singular and the plural as to the
number of the returned priests. With Josephus and several modern
critics, e. g., Stade in SBOT ad loc, I prefer the plural, supposing
that " one " was inserted to minimize the amount of sacerdotal " suc
cession." A legend of the Syriac Church has it that its version of the
Old Testament is due, at least in part, to this priest from Assyria,
whose name is variously given as Asya, Ezra, Uria, etc.: see Bar-
Hebraus, pref. to Horr. my St.; Hist, dyn., ed. Pococke, p. 100. For
the Rabbinic traditions concerning the names of the priests, see below,
p. 254.
5 See Stade, SBOT ad loc. N. B. the parallelism of the participial
constructions in vv. 29 and 33-
6 This is a repetition of the tradition concerning Jeroboam's priests,
1 Ki. 12, 31.
4

50 THE SAMARITANS
text of the Biblical passages leads us to infer, has left a
fairly detailed account :7
L. ii. " Samaria I besieged and conquered  12
 13  14  (with the help of Shamash?)
who gave me my strength  15  27,290 people
I took into captivity, 50 chariots for my military use I re
moved  16  I renewed, made it higher than
before; people out of all lands, my captives of war, I
settled there ; my officer I made governor over them, tribute
and taxes like the Assyrians I laid upon them."
A parallel but briefer account relates :8
L. 23. " Samaria I besieged, and conquered. 24. I
took into captivity 27,290 of those who dwelt there, and
removed 50 chariots. The rest I let keep their property
(?). I set my officer over them and laid upon them the
tribute of the former king."
According to Sargon then no complete deportation took
place; he removed only some 27,000 natives, mostly with
out doubt from the capital, whereas we learn from a passage
of contemporary content, 2 Ki. I5,i9f, that the land con
tained some 60,000 well-to-do landed proprietors.9 It may
be believed that amongst the exiles were found all the
priests that the conquerors could capture, for these were the
mainstay of the fanatical opposition of the petty Syrian
states against the Assyrian empire.10 But the bulk of the
Israelites still remained behind, in the condition propheti
cally described by the prophet Hosea, " without king, and
without prince, and without altar, and without sacrifice, and
without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim " (3,4).
Moreover it is most improbable that the five peoples men
tioned in 2 Ki. 17 as imported into the land at this time
7 Annals, 11-17. (I refer for these passages to Schrader, Keilin-
schriftliche Bibliothek, ii.)
8 The so-called Prunkinschrift , 23-24.
9 See Buhl, Die sozialen Verhaltnisse Israels, 52.
10 Cf. KAT 95.

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B.C. 5 1
were actually introduced then. Apart from the general
phrase " people of all the lands " Sargon names only one
people as settled at this time in Hatti-land, i. e. Syria,
namely the Tumuna, possibly an eastern Aramaean tribe.11
In truth, the data of 2 Ki. 17 have focussed events which
were spread over a good part of a century, and actually
summarize the historic fact that several importations and
deportations of citizens occurred under Assyrian rule.
These events we must briefly review. In 721 broke out
the serious revolt of Ilubidi of Hamath, in which, strange
as it appears, Samaria took part.12 We learn at the same
time of an importation of people from Urartu into Hatti-
land, and may suppose that Samaria received some share
of punishment.
With the year 715 Sargon began his campaigns against
the Medes. For the following year, 714,13 the conqueror re
cords the colonization in Samaria of the tribes Tamud,
Ibadidi, Marsimani, Haiapa, the distant Arbai (Arabians?),
whom he describes as people of the desert, hitherto inde
pendent and even unknown. Now the settlement in Sa
maria of these wild tribes may have been in compensation
for the Median deportation of Israelites claimed by 2 Ki.
17, which deportation is to be included among the peo
ple of the lands transported into Media as a result of
Sargon's conquests in that region.14
After a lapse of several decades we read, in a much later
Biblical passage, Ezra, 4,2, of the colonization in Samaria
effected by Esarhaddon. The gloss in Is. 7,8 : " and with
in 65 years shall Ephraim be broken in pieces so that it shall
11 Annals, 20-23 ; see Winckler's revised translation, Alttestament-
liche Untersuchungen, 105.
12 Annals, 23S.
13 Annals, 94ff.
14 Annals, 67S; Prunkinschrift, sgff. This combination of data has
been suggested by Winckler.

52 THE SAMARITANS
not be a people," may have reference to some chastisement
of the land undertaken by the monarch named.15
Finally Ezra, 4,gi, gives a list of peoples settled in Sa
maria by Asenappar, who is now unanimously identified
with Asshurbanapal.16 The list of peoples as given by the
Massoretic text of this passage is a mass of barbarous
names, but is now generally interpreted as follows :17 " The
Persian judges, the Persian secretaries (?), the people of
Erech, the Babylonians, the Shushanites, that is, the Elam-
ites," In accordance therefore with this passage, which
purports to be a document of the age of Artaxerxes I., the
colonists settled in Samaria included both Persian officials,
and Mesopotamians from Babylon and Erech, along with
Elamites from the old Elamitic capital Susa. With this
reference to colonies settled in Samaria by Asshurbanapal
from Babylon and Erech, we have doubtless to associate
the reference to the colonies from Babylon and Kutha in
2 Ki. 17, for which deportation there would be no place
in Sargon's history, although it could well have been part
of Asshurbanapal's chastisement of Babylonia for its partic
ipation in the civil war raised by Shamash-shum-ukin.18
16 I see no reason to change the name, with Josephus, AJ xi, 4, 3,
to Shalmaneser, or with Winckler {op. cit. g8ff) to Asshurbanapal,
to make it agree with Ezra, 4, 10. The two passages are critically
distinct. If a change has to be made, Sargon is the easiest makeshift.
io The identification was first proposed by Bosanquet in G. Smith,
History of Asshurbanipal, 364. For the proper vocalization of the
first syllable, see the texts of Baer and Ginsburg; for the Persian
origin of the last consonant, see Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums,
29. 17 1 follow Meyer, op. cit. 35, and on the " Tarpelites," Marquart,
Fundamente israelitischer u. jiidischer Geschichte, 64, who proposes
a corruption of the Assyrian dupsharru, tablet-writer.
18 1 can only briefly refer to Winckler's notable essay, op. cit. 98,
with its drastic criticism of the narrative of colonization in 2 Ki. 17,
a piece of criticism which has been largely adopted. He holds that
v. 24 originally read : Babylon, Kutha, Sippar, but that the latter word
was confused with the Sepharwaim, i. e., the Syrian Sibrain, of 2 Ki.
18, 34, which confusion dragged into our passage the two other cities
mentioned in the latter passage, Hamath and Iwwa. Against this
plausible critical theory is to be placed the fact that four out of the five

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B. C. 53
There was thus more than one deportation of the in
habitants of Samaria, along with several colonizations in the
land to replace the citizens who had been lost by captivity
and the calamities of war. Still, there is no reason to think
that these movements absolutely changed the character of
the citizens of Samaria.19 The conditions there must have
been parallel to those in Juda after the fall of Jerusalem.
From what we read on the surface of the Biblical records,
we are led to suppose that all the Jews were transported
to Babylon, the remainder perishing, and that those of
the Return were the sole progenitors of the subsequent
Jewish church. But it is now recognized that the poorer
classes of the country and villages largely remained behind,
some of them amalgamating with and being lost in the
peoples who entered the depopulated territory, others being
finally saved to Judaism through the religious intensity of
the Gola, the returned exiles.20 In like manner it is to be
presumed that a very considerable remnant of Israel re
mained in Samaria. Yet possessing neither spiritual nor
secular heads, they must have been both politically and
religiously a weak community.21 Without doubt many of
them — how large a proportion there is no means of judg-
deities named in 2 Ki. 17 for the Syrian cities can be connected with"
the Syrian pantheon. Adrammelek, a corruption for Adad-melek, and
Anammelek, for Anu-melek, are syncretisms of the Assyrian deities
Adad and Anu (who were son and father in the Assyrian pantheon)
with the widespread Syrian deity Melek. Tartak is Atargatis. (For
the origin of the latter word, see Baethgen, Beitrdge, 68.) Ashima
has now been proved to be a Syrian and Hamathite goddess ; see Ad
ditional Note D. This verisimilitude in the names of the Syrian deities
increases the probability of the historical worth of the statement con
cerning those Syrian cities as contributing colonies to Samaria.
19 So Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniels, 177.
20 Indeed some scholars now go to the extreme of arguing that there
was no Return under Cyrus, that the Jews left behind in Juda were the
continuators of the Hebrew commonwealth.
21 Jeremia ignores the existence of this remnant in Samaria, and
regards all Ephraim as in captivity, c. 3. But in like fashion he looks
upon the remnant in Juda as utterly worthless, " bad figs," not to be
accounted for, c. 24. For other references in Jer. to the restoration of
Northern Israel, see c. 31 ; 33. 7-

54 THE SAMARITANS
ing — amalgamated with the new settlers, and syncretized
with them in religion, thus giving a basis to 2 Ki. 17 and
to the later Jewish tradition that all the Samaritans were
idolaters. Yet we must believe that some few thousands
of the succession of Elija and Hosea, " that had not bowed
the knee to Baal," must have remained faithful. However
there is nothing definite to show for any spiritual power in
this remnant. Certainly we may not hold that there arose
in the North a spiritual and monotheistic institution like the
Jewish Church, which pursued its parallel but independent
course, and which finally resulted in the spiritual religion of
Samaritanism. Nor can we argue that original Samaritan-
ism was a syncretism of heathenism and Yahwism, out
of which the latter element finally emerged triumphant,
establishing a pure monotheism for the northern sect. This
would assume a greater spiritual marvel in Samaritanism
than in the development of the Jewish religion, and none
who knows much about the Samaritans would assign to
them any extraordinary religious genius. But the key to
the problem of the continuance in the North of a remnant
of Israel true to Yahwism and able to resist the tempta
tions offered by aliens, must be found in the support of
fered to those weak brethren by the more persistent com
munity of Juda.
This hypothesis, likely in itself, is borne out by some
facts. Hosea, the last northern prophet, condemned the
northern political constitution (8,4), even if his Messianic
references lie under critical suspicion.22 The fall of the
state must have turned the minds of sincere Yahwe-wor-
shippers in the North to the Davidic commonwealth of the
South. On the other hand Juda would have prospected
the possibility of the ultimate re-incorporation of Joseph in
22 See Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. clix. But the prophet who con
demned the house of Jehu (1, 4), could have been bold enough to
cherish the hope of re-union with Juda.

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B. C. 55
its kingdom. A tradition to this effect is contained in 2 Ch.
30, in the narrative of Hezekia's great Passover.23 King
Hezekia invites all Israel to take part in the Passover which
he intends to celebrate in connection with his religious re
forms. He sends his invitation through Ephraim and
Manasse and into Lower Galilee. The messengers are said
to have met with ridicule in Mount Ephraim, yet one state
ment declares that " certain men of Asher and Manasse and
Zebulun " responded (v. 11), another that " many of Eph
raim and Manasse, Issachar and Zebulun," participated (v.
18). The Passover was also postponed to the second month
(v. 2), probably for the convenience of the northerners.24
This religious interest of Hezekia in the northern Israelites
was also part of his political policy, for we know from Sen
nacherib 25 that he attempted the unsuccessful role of con
queror and dictator in South Syria. Further, if the Chron
icler's report about Manasse's imprisonment in Babylon,
2 Ch. 33,11, be accepted as history, we may suppose that he
took advantage of the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin, 652-
648, to regain the old northern Israelite land. Probably
the importation of Babylonian colonists into Samaria at
this time26 was accompanied with the exile of rebellious
citizens of the land.
The next information we possess concerning Samaria
comes from the period of the melee of the nations, when
the Assyrian empire was fast crumbling to pieces. Josia,
the martyr-king of Juda, played the same part as did such
greater men as Nabopolassar and Necho; he attempted, if
not foreign conquest, at least the recovery of Israel's an
cient territory to his crown. It is in the light of this claim
23 The writer does not accept the position of the dominating body
of critics who find in the Chronicler's statements only reflections of
contemporary history; he is inclined to let this tradition speak for
itself. 24 The season in the North is a little later ; cf. I Kt. 12, 33.
25 Prism, ii, ogff.
26 See above, p. 52.

56 THE SAMARITANS
and probably even of possession of the Ephraimitish high
lands in part, that we may explain Josia's foolhardy at
tempt to stem Necho' s march through the historic land of
Israel as he pressed on his way toward Nineve, falling
himself in battle at Megiddo, in the Valley of Esdraelon.27
This royal reformer, according to 2 Ki. 23, extended his
reform into Samaria. Bethel is particularly named as the
scene of his most violent iconoclasm (v. I5ff), and all the
northern sanctuaries are said to have been destroyed;
Bethel, it may be recalled, was the seat of the syncretistic
cult established by the colonists (2 Ki. 17,28). The vio
lence exercised against the highplaces of the North was a
counterpart of the destruction of the Judasan highplaces;
we may not argue from the terms of the narrative that there
was no genuine old-fashioned Yahwism left in Samaria.
Juda's dominance in Samaria lasted for less than two dec
ades, but we are justified in assuming for this period some
rapprochement between the faithful of Joseph and of Juda,
which augured greater possibilities in the future.
The hypothesis that a considerable number of northern
Israelites adapted themselves to the religious hegemony of
Jerusalem is substantiated by an anecdote belonging to the
time of the fall of Jerusalem in 586. From Jer. 41,4ft: we
learn that after Ishmael's assassination of the Babylonian
governor of the Jewish remnant, the Jew Gedalia, " there
came men from Shechem, from Shilo,28 and from Samaria,
eighty in number, with their beards shaven, and their
clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with meal-offerings
and frankincense in their hands, to bring them to the
house of Yahwe." This must refer to the ruined temple
27Winckler, Forschungen, ii, 289, KAT 105, follows Herodotus, ii,
159, who makes Magdolos the scene of the battle ; this place Winckler
identifies with the later Stratonis Purgos, which name he considers to
represent a Semitic Migdal Ashtoreth.
28 Graf prefers the Salem of Gr. B ; but see Giesebrecht, ad loc.

ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO 586 B. C. 57
at Jerusalem,29 while the mourning of the party seems to
relate to the desolation of the Holy City. This reference
to a considerable body of northern Israelites expressing a
sympathetic interest in the fate of Jerusalem at such troub
lous times, is only incidentally recorded, but may have rep
resented the sentiment of many in Samaria.30
§ 2. FROM THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE BEGINNING
OF THE GREEK AGE.
In the preceding pages evidence has been offered for the
hypothesis that after the fall of the northern state those of
its citizens who remained faithful to its ancestral tradi
tions turned for help to Juda, whose holy city and dynasty
Yahwe had wonderfully preserved in the Assyrian wars,
thereby setting his seal of approval upon the southern insti
tutions. On the other hand both political and religious
ambition incited the Judaite state to reassert its claims over
the northern territory which was once part of its dominion.
We now come to the most difficult field of the whole of
our historical quest, the age in which we must look for the
definite separation of the Samaritan community. This is
the " Dark Age " of Jewish history, covering the Exile, the
Return, with its several stages, and the remaining obscure
period until the fall of the Persian empire. There have
survived many prophetic books and fragments belonging to
this age; its history is set forth in the Book of Ezra-
Nehemia. But nowhere, in the eyes of Biblical criticism,
does so much uncertainty lie concerning the worth and
meaning of the historical data as with regard to this latter
29 Sacrifices were offered after the Return in the ruined temple, Hag.
I, 4; 2, 14. The Mishna allows the possibility, Eduyot, viii, 6.
30 Some scholars, Giesebrecht, ad loc, and Cheyne, Jewish Religious
Life, 26, take this house of Yahwe to be the ancient sanctuary at Mizpa.
But apart from the difficulty of allowing a Jewish writer so to speak
of a " highplace," it is most unlikely that after Josia's iconoclasm such
a highplace should still have existed upon Judsan soil.

58 THE SAMARITANS
book; and nowhere is there such confusion and conflict of
critical theories attempting to reconstruct the actual history,
as amongst the studies of this period. It would be im
possible here even to describe all the different reconstruc
tions that have been attempted, much less to criticize them.
However, fortunately many of the Jewish problems can be
left to one side, while only certain leading facts need be
set forth, concerning which there exists the minimum of
critical dispute.
In the first place, while it is popularly assumed that the
adversaries of the Jews in their pious attempts to restore
Jerusalem were the Samaritan sectaries, it is to be observed
that this supposition rests upon a very few statements, all
of a doubtful nature. In general the adversaries of the
Jews appear to be the political chiefs of the Persian province
of Abar-Nahara, i. e. Syria, as in Ezra, 5-6, or more par
ticularly the Persian officials and Babylonian colonists in
Samaria, as in 4,7ff, and as in the case of Sanballat, of
Bethhoron on the Samaritan border,31 who had behind him
the support of what is generally translated " the army of
Samaria," a phrase which may mean " the aristocrats of
Samaria." 32 How far the same Sanballat made friends
with those of the Jewish type of religion in Samaria who
dissented from the Jerusalem Church, will be considered
later. But he appears as an entirely secular and worldly-
minded noble. Two other passages have been especially
referred to the Samaritan heretics, Ezra, 3,3, and 4,iff.
The former passage reads : " They set the altar upon its
base, for fear was upon them because of the peoples of the
lands." The Hebrew actually makes still worse sense, and
the critics have arrived at no approved emendation.33 In
31 1 see absolutely no reason with Winckler to explain " the Horon-
ite" from the Moabite Horonaim, or with Kamphausen, from Harran.
82 I owe this suggestion to my friend Prof. W. Max Muller.
83 See Guthe-Batten, SBOT ad loc; Bertholet, Esra u. Nehemiah,
ad loc; Torrey, Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-N ehemiah,

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 59
any case the peoples of the lands could refer to many others
than the Samaritan sect. The other passage, 4, iff, relates
how " the adversaries of Benjamin and Juda " proffered
their help to Zerubbabel and his fellows in the re-building
of the temple, saying, " Let us build with you ; for we seek
your God as you do, and sacrifice unto him since the days
of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us hither."
Their offer is proudly scorned by the Jews. But the pas
sage has been subjected to unsparing criticism since
Schrader's essay upon it,34 and it is unreasonable to con
struct much history upon so doubtful a passage.
The explanation of the opposition to the Jewish restora
tion on the part of the Persian officials, from the satrap of
the province down to the local bureaucracy of Samaria, is
to be explained simply as on the score of political envy
against the privileges received or assumed by the Jews.
We know little about the constitution of the province of
Abar-Nahara,35 but we may suppose that with the fall of
Jerusalem, the land of Juda came more or less under the
control of the officials in Samaria, whose dominion fluctu
ated according to the greater or less independence that the
restored Jewish community was able to gain from the Great
King. The hostility to the new Juda was, in a word, of a
political, not a religious character.
We have next to consider tjie changed social conditions of
Palestine. The new complexion of the population of Sa
maria, due to the Assyrian captivities and colonizations,
has already been noticed. A like process went on in Juda
Giessen, 1896, p. 13, who discusses the passage at some length. Gratz,
quoted by Torrey, actually reads, " All the peoples of the lands were
coming to them and helped them," — the very reverse of the usual
interpretation !
34 Dauer des zweiten Tempelbaues, Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1867,
p. 460. Kuenen took a somewhat milder view, Hist.-Krit. Onderz.2
i, 505, and Bertholet defends the passage, ad loc.
35 See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, III, i, 136; Holscher, Pal
dstina, 1.

60 THE SAMARITANS
from the day of Jehoiakim's revolt against Nebuchadrezzar.
There was no importation of new settlers from distant
parts, as in Samaria; this was unnecessary, for the dis
tricts left vacant by the Jews in the wars with Babylon
and finally with the captivity of a great part of their num
ber, were rapidly filled up by the Edomites and Arabians
pressing in from the south, while it is probable that Trans-
Jordanic tribes like the Ammonites crossed the fords of
Jordan and settled on Israelitish soil. These newcomers
were designated as " the peoples of the lands," as we find in
Ezra-N ehemia. The intruders took the lion's share of an
cient Juda, so that the district which the Jews occupied in
Nehemia's time consisted of not much more than Juda and
its suburbs, lying between Jericho and Mizpa on the north,
and Beth-Sur on the south.36 In this district to which the
Gola, or returning exiles, came back, remained those of the
Jews who had not the good fortune of enjoying the Baby
lonian captivity. Thus before the return of the exiles,
Juda was in like social condition to Samaria; it was domi
nated by alien peoples, but also contained a considerable
element of the old Israelite blood.
It is to be observed that the irruption of the peoples of
the lands pushed the centre of gravity of the Judaean ele
ment to the north, toward Samaria. So we find that the
seat of Gedalia, the governor of the Jewish remnant after
the fall of the capital, was at Mizpa to the north of Jerusa
lem, Jer. 41,1. Now it can hardly be denied that their com
mon misfortunes must have brought together the unfor
tunate remnants of Joseph and Juda ; distress made friends
of those who had been so long sundered by sectional jeal
ousies. It is to be held then that the gloomy period of
the Exile, and also of the following century, until Jewish
rigorism expelled all doubtful elements, tended toward the
38 See Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, 105, and map at end of
volume.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 6l
amalgamation of the Israelites both in Mount Juda and
Mount Ephraim who in any way maintained their ancient
religious traditions and political hopes. Both Judaism and
Samaritanism go back to a common foundation in the cir
cumstances of the age of the Exile in the Vlth Century.37
There existed then upon Palestinian soil in the century
of the Exile the two distinct factors of the imported or
immigrant Gentile races and the remnants of the Hebrew
race scattered throughout the highlands of Juda and Eph
raim. A third factor has now to be considered, namely
the reaction upon conditions at home exerted by the Jewish
exiles in Babylonia. It is to the efforts of the exiled com
munity that the resuscitation of Palestinian Israel is due.
According to Ezra-N ehemia there were two distinct epochs
when this influence was exerted.38
The first of these periods is that which followed Cyrus's
edict of emancipation of the Jews, issued soon after his
capture of Babylon in 539. According to Ezra, c. 1-3, a
large number of Jews took immediate advantage of the
king's edict and returned to Jerusalem, under the leadership
of Sheshbazzar, probably a Davidic scion.39 Little was
accomplished by this advance-guard. But the climax of the
patriotic agitation of this period did not come until the
reign of Darius, in 520. The political leader of this move-
37 Observe that Jeremia's bright hopes for the future equally in
cluded the land of Ephraim, c. 31. For the authenticity of this passage,
see Duhm, ad loc.
38 1 follow the broad outlines of the Biblical narrative. Despite
Kosters' argument {Die Herstellung Israels, tr. from the Dutch)
against any return of the Gola in the Vlth Century, I believe that this
is vouched for by the presence of Davidic princes, Shesh-bazzar and
Zerubbabel, in Jerusalem. If Kosters' theory is accepted, it only en
hances our estimate of the vitality and spiritual capacity of the rem
nant in Juda. As for the Babylonian influence in the middle of the
Vth Century, Nehemia is a sure historical figure, while the question
of the actual relations of Ezra to the governor does not materially
affect our present study.
39 Following the identification by Howorth, Meyer, and others, with
Shenazzar, 1 Ch. 3, 18.

62 THE SAMARITANS
ment was Zerubbabel, the Davidide, and the stimulus to the
intense agitation which arose in Jerusalem was due to the
prophets Haggai and Zecharia.40 So far as we can judge,
the agitation was Messianic, nationalistic; it appears that
Zerubbabel was the hope of the Jews, patriots or fanatics,
whichever we call them. He is the Messianic " Branch "
(Zech. 3,8) ; he and the high-priest Joshua are " the two
Anointed Ones," i.e. Messiahs (4, 14) ; if we follow Well-
hausen's brilliant emendations in 6,9ff, the crown was in
tended for Zerubbabel's head. The agitation produced the
result desired by Haggai : the temple was built. How much
farther the frenzy went we do not know ; Sellin has argued
for an assumption of Messianic claims on Zerubbabel's part
which was violently suppressed by the power of the Persian
empire.41 At all events the furore did not abide for long;
within five years, 516-5, the dark veil again settles down
upon Juda, and it is not lifted until the age of Ezra and
Nehemia. This first attempt at a restoration may be definitely de
scribed as political; and it possessed the liberalism which
inspires politicians but is ignored by ecclesiastics. Conse
quently its aim would have been to include the diverse ele
ments of Palestine, not to exclude any, least of all members
of Israel. It appears that some of the non-Israelite races to
the south which had pressed into Juda after the fall of Je
rusalem, such as the Calibbites and Jerahmeelites, were
assimilated in this period to the Jewish community.42 We
have to assume then that the anticipations awakened by
Zerubbabel welded still more closely the separated ele-
40 Hag.; Zech. 1-8; Ezra, 5-6.
41 Sellin, Serubbabel, 1898; Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der
jiidischen Gemeinde, 1901.
42 Meyer, op. cit. 114. Bertholet, in his valuable work, Die Stellung
der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, 123, holds that those
who returned in 538 held aloof from the local elements, as is shown
by the care concerning the family registers, Ezra, 2, but that a far freer
disposition toward the homeborn came in with the agitation of 520.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 63
ments of Israel, and that the Judaean, Samaritan, and
Babylonian Israelites forgot old differences in the new
enthusiasm. This then was another of those periods of uni
fication which bound together Juda and Samaria.
But our sources fail us, from 515, for the results of this
movement. We must pass on to the next chapter in the
history as described by Ezra-Nehemia, which now intro
duces to us the figures of the two men whose names are
given to that book. The first agitation had 'failed; the
Jews at home were in great distress, the walls of Jerusalem
were in ruins (Neh. 1,3). The secular ideas of Messianism
had proved a failure, the Jews of Palestine had shown
themselves incapable of establishing the desired restoration.
The ecclesiastics and theologians of Babylonia next took
up the forlorn cause; they utterly eschewed politics, ex
cept to gain the Persian king's favor. Their aim was to
institute a religious community at Jerusalem with suffi
cient circuit of territory to establish " a state of the Church,"
over which the ecclesiastical administration could exercise
the civil control necessary for its jurisdiction, for religion
could not be conceived of except as a civil institution. , The
guiding-strings of the new administration were to be in
the hands of the Gola in Babylonia, for this body alone pos
sessed, in its own conceit at least, and probably actually,
the spiritual capacity for the fresh undertaking; moreover
it controlled the financial means and the political influence
which were prerequisite conditions of success.43 As a
corollary, the remnant in Juda would have to submit to all
the conditions laid down by the spiritual lords in Mesopo
tamia ; the most essential of these requirements and the one
which would prove the most onerous was that which regu
lated the purity of the holy seed.
43 Ezra's expedition, if its historicity and the Biblical date, 458, be
accepted, followed the revolt in Egypt of Inarus in 460, and was com
missioned by the royal policy to offset the disaffection in the south
west.

64 THE SAMARITANS
The restoration of the Judaean church as proposed by
the Babylonian Diaspora and effectively undertaken by
Ezra and Nehemia was ecclesiastical; it was a proposition
not of the family of David, nor of the highpriests, for these
were likely to be as secular-minded as royalty, but of the
doctors of the Tora, whose schools flourished in the new
home and produced as their piece de resistance the Law, or
at least its first draft in the Priest Code. We can imagine
the opposition to this policy produced in the minds of the
people in Judaea, the Am-ha-arec or Boors, as they were
contemptuously called by the Babylonian exiles.44 The
majority in any church is worldly-minded, does not easily
or for long acquiesce in Puritanism. But now the social
liberties of the Palestinians were to be restricted, their
franchise in the community reduced to little or nothing.
Rebellion to the Babylonian policy, feud between the ele
ments of the community, excommunication of the dissatis
fied, — these were the results of the second restoration.
How far " the Law of the Lord which was in the hand
of Ezra the scribe " met with success we cannot judge, but
that ecclesiastic evidently failed in the matter nearest to
his heart. He attacked with burning zeal the practice of in
termarriage with the peoples of the lands, requiring that all
such unions should be ruthlessly broken. The people seem
to have sullenly allowed the appointment of a commission
to settle the grievous matter. And then the history abruptly
concludes (Ezra, 9-10). As Nehemia had to solve the
problem afresh, we must conclude that Ezra failed. The
ties of humanity outwitted the priest.
Ezra's successor, the governor Nehemia (445-433), was
a far more strenuous yet withal more politic ruler. Backed
44 The term, which was once simply a social one, " the country-
people," may have largely obtained its sinister meaning through con
fusion with the other, " the peoples of the lands," designating the Gen
tile colonists; the various texts and versions of Ezra-Nehemia evince
this confusion in the varying use of the singular and plural.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 65
by the king's commission and the support of his brothers in
Babylonia, and relying upon his own strength and con
science, he did not first consult with the dissenting people
he came to govern; he acted and ordered, and things were
done; those who disobeyed found it wise to leave his
jurisdiction, otherwise they were punished or banished.
Rigorous as he was, he seems to have proceeded with
greater caution in the matter of the mixed marriages, only
forbidding such unions in the future (Neh. 10). But the
cleft made between the factions of the native Jews by Ezra's
course was not healed by the governor. Further he had to
encounter the united opposition of the peoples of the lands
and their ambitious chieftains, who, along with the self-
seeking Persian bureaucracy, had everything to lose if a
considerable slice of territory and the fair city of Jerusalem
were to be excluded from their control and become an
aggressive and arrogant imperium in imperio.
We learn the names of three of these antagonistic poli
ticians, and hear much of their ways and wiles. There is
Sanballat the Horonite, doubtless of the Gentile colonists in
Samaria; Tobia, who was closely allied to the Judaean
aristocracy and priesthood (6,i7ff ; 13,4ft) , although him
self an Ammonite (2,10) ; and Gashmu the Arabian (2,19;
6,6). These gentry dared not oppose the Persian gov
ernor openly; they had resort to ridicule (4, iff), or at
tempts at intrigue and assassination (6, iff, ioff). But
their chief engine for undoing Nehemia's work was the en
couragement of the laxer party of the community which
opposed the new order of the day. They became the more
or less open heads of the revolt which was simmering
against the administration. It was not difficult to find al
lies; apart from the easily persuaded Am-ha-areq, the Hoi
Polloi, they had their long-standing connections with the
Jewish nobles and priests, in his disruption of which rela
tions Nehemia appeared to the easy-going ones as a meddle-
5

66 THE SAMARITANS
some innovator. These worldly-minded Jewish aristocrats
had doubtless no intention of breaking with the governor,
although they hoped to make his position impossible. But
those arch-intriguers, particularly the cunning Sanballat,
led them farther than they expected. For politics is often
the major factor in schism and heresy.
We now come to the climax of the story. Nehemia
briefly relates the following anecdote (i3,28f) : "And one
of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib [i. e. the high
priest], the son-in-law of Sanballat, — him I chased from
me. Remember them, O God, because of the defilement of
the priesthood and of the covenant of the priesthood and
the Levites." That is, Sanballat, probably taking advan
tage of Nehemia's absence (13,6), had formed the bold
plan of allying himself with the hierarchy through a union
of his daughter with a possible heir to the highpriesthood
itself. Sacrilegious as the attempt appeared in Nehemia's
eyes, it is but one instance of the countless ambitions which
since the days of David to its cessation sullied that high
office; Nehemia, not the popular sentiment, expelled the
unworthy priestling.
The Old Testament vouchsafes nothing more about this
scandal, and in no way connects it with the Samaritan
schism. Our authority for such an identification is found
solely in Josephus, whose story may be summarized as
follows.45 The highpriest Eliashib's great-grandson Jaddua finally
succeeded to the highpriesthood, and his brother Manasse
gained as wife Nikaso, the daughter of one Sanballat.
This man had been sent into Samaria by the last Darius
(i. e. Codomannus), and was a Kuthite of the same stock
as the Samaritans themselves. Sanballat arranged this
marriage, recognizing the political importance of Jerusalem,
and hoping by the union to gain the goodwill of the Jews.
45 A J xi, 7, 2 ; c. 8.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 67
But the marriage brought upon Manasse the odium of the
Jews, who gave him the choice between abdicating his
priestly rights and the divorce of his wife. Manasse laid
the case before his father-in-law; the latter promised to
procure for him the dignity of highpriest and the succession
to himself in the governorship of Samaria, also undertaking
to build for him a temple upon Gerizim, as soon as the
permission of Darius could be secured. Meanwhile many
of the priests and Levites in Jerusalem seceded to Manasse,
and Sanballat gave them lands in Samaria. The intriguer
waited for the outcome of Darius's expedition against the
conquering Alexander, and when the former was defeated
at Issus, he renounced his liege-lord, and upon Alexander's
entrance into Palestine, hastened to the conqueror with
the offer of his troops, and gained from him as recompense
the boon of building a temple on Gerizim. This construc
tion Sanballat hastily accomplished, but died within nine
months, at a good old age. Further dealings of Alexander
with the Samaritans are then related.
Josephus thus gives some very exact details concerning
the origin of the schism. The recusant priest is named
Manasse,46 and his wife's name is also given ; Sanballat se
cures the Jewish priest as his daughter's husband, and
builds for him a temple on Gerizim. But the cardinal dis
crepancy lies in this that the date is of the age of Alexander
the Great (332), a round century since our encounter with
Sanballat in Nehemia's autobiography !
Despite this discrepancy, the identity of the two stories
has been generally accepted.47 There could hardly have
46 It is the tradition of this name that suggested the Massoretic
change of Moses into Manasse in Ju. 18, 30; see Moore, ad loc
47 E. g. by Wellhausen, Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte4, 180.
However, especially by reason of the exigency felt by some critics for
a later dating of the codification of the Pentateuch than the age of
Nehemia, several recent discussions accept Josephus's date and hold
that Josephus has unwarrantably combined with this history the story
of the highpriest's grandson in Neh. See Steuernagel, Einleitung in

68 THE SAMARITANS
been two Sanballats in succeeding centuries, each of whom
married his daughter to a member of the highpriestly fam
ily, an offence in each case visited with excommunication.
In our piecing of the two. stories together, we find a very
brief statement from Nehemia's pen of an event which
belonged to his immediate cognizance, while Josephus adds
to this some details, and contributes the important key to
the story that the Samaritan schism grew out of the affair.
Two pertinent questions may be asked. First : Why did
not Nehemia narrate the fatal sequel ? But then how many
important things are omitted in the Scripture history ! And
further the consummation of the schism may not have
ensued for years after. The other question is, Why did
Josephus err so sadly in his dates ? The answer to this is,
in the first place, that Josephus, like all Jewish literature of
antiquity, is absolutely irresponsible in Persian history and
chronology, and as the Ezra books name no Persian king
between Artaxerxes I. and the last Darius, he ignored the
suppression of a century which he was perpetrating.48 In
the second place the story of the origin of the Samaritan
schism has been drawn into the great vortex of the Alexan
der Legend. The age of the Conqueror is the one bright
point in the reminiscences of the ancient world, and was a
shining mark for the art of legend-manufacture. Just as
the Jews had their legend concerning Alexander's favor to
Jerusalem, so the Samaritans told their fables concerning
his connection with their sect and temple; probably in this
point Josephus was depending upon some Samaritan tradi-
das Pentateuch, 276, and Bertholet's review in Theologische Literatur-
zeitung, 1901, Sp. 188. Holscher, op. cit. 37, takes the ground that the
datum in Neh. has nothing to do with the Samaritan schism, while
Josephus's story is an unhistorical Midrash on that passage, the schism
taking place later in the Greek period.
48 Josephus's arrangement of Persian history can be observed in the
way in which he constructs the Persian dynasty from the Greek
Esdras; thus as the latter names as the second Persian monarch
Artaxerxes, Josephus identifies him with Cambyses.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 69
tion, which he, or rather the legend-cycle which he followed,
brought into connection with the history of Sanballat.49 It
may be argued that the rejection of part of Josephus's story
condemns it all ; but there is generally some fact in fiction,
and it is safer for criticism to save whatever is possible out
of the ruins.
If this combination of the passage in Nehemia and the
story given by Josephus be allowed, there still remain many
questions for the answers to which no data exist, so that
only a speculative reconstruction is possible. The mal
contents in the Jewish community in Palestine were now
reinforced by a serious defection in the hierarchy ; moreover
they had the powerful assistance of political magnates who
were ready to manipulate religious feud for private ends.
From the dependence which the separated faction ever after
wards exhibited upon the spiritual primacy of Jerusalem,
it appears that the crystallization of the dissenters into an
independent sect Was due rather to their excommunication by
the Jewish church than to their own will. But driven out
and held aloof by Nehemia's strong will and policy, as long
as this continued the ^policy of subsequent administrations,
the separatists were forced for religion's sake as well as
for self-preservation to establish an organization with an
independent cult. While the party had its followers in
49 Another Jewish tradition has it that the famous Simon the Just
{circa 200) was the contemporary of Alexander; i. e., Josephus's line
of legend took for its hero the last Biblical highpriest, while another
line took the most famous priest in the Greek period. Josippon ben
Gorion makes the highpriest Onias his contemporary. It is impos
sible to discuss here the" Jewish chapter in the Alexander Romance.
The argument for its historical worthlessness is well summed up by
Niese, Griechische Geschichte, i, 83. On the other side see Heinichsen,
Das Verhdltniss der Juden zu Alexander dem Grossen, Theol. Studien
und Kritiken, 1871, p. 458; Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, 85. The
Samaritan chronicles draw all their material on the subject from
Jewish legend, and have absolutely no independent historical informa
tion; only the history is more terribly mixed up than in the Jewish
stories, for Sanballat and Zerubbabel appear as adversaries before
Nebuchadrezzar, Lib. Jos. 45. According to Chron. Neub. 438, the
Samaritan highpriest at this time was Hezekia.

70 THE SAMARITANS
Jerusalem and throughout Juda, the erection of a new
sanctuary on Judaean soil was impracticable, even impossi
ble, as long as the Jews stood well in the royal favor. The
land of Samaria however was independent of all Jewish
jurisdiction ; here a home offered itself through the political
favor of the political leaders and officials of that district,
who were bent on doing mischief to Jerusalem and its
church. Here too, if Jerusalem was out of the question,
could be found a fitting sanctuary, for Samaria possessed
most of the traditional sacred sites of Israel's history.
Bethel lay too near Jerusalem. But Shechem, always an
open town to foreigners in ancient times, offered itself, per
haps contained many of the dissident faction. Its ancient
and sacred highplace again became an Israelitish sanctuary,
the centre of the cult of the new sect. The people came
generally to be known as Samaritans, or by a more appro
priate geographical designation used by Josephus, as
Shechemites. In their own conceit they called themselves
Israel, leaving the name Jews to their opponents, thus
perpetuating in word at least the ancient primacy of Joseph
over Juda.50
With regard to the Samaritan temple, it is now very
generally considered that there is a distinct Biblical refer
ence to it in the Deutero- or rather Trito-Isaia. The pas
sage in question is Is. 66, i : " Thus says Yahwe : Heaven
is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What manner
of house will you build me, and what place shall be my
rest ? " The would-be builders of this house of Yahwe
are then associated with the participants in the abominable
cults which are described in 65, iff, and would be the same
as the bastard-brood of 57, 31! Accordingly the original
Samaritan temple was one devoted to polytheism and va
rious obscene rituals. Despite the assent that has been
50 See Additional Note B.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 71
gained for this view,51 I must hold to the interpretation that
is as old as St. Stephen, and which is still maintained by
Wellhausen,52 that the passage, 66, iff, is a prophetic flight
concerning spiritual worship which has its parallels in the
Prophets and the Psalms, the full fruitage coming in Chris
tianity. Against the prevailing exegesis it is to be noted
that the prophet belongs to those who are excommunicated
(v. 5), not to the triumphant party which cast out the
Shechemites.53 It has been suggested by Bertholet54 that the formation
of the new sect really cleared the air for Judaism, and
created a safety-valve against the danger to which the
latter lay exposed in the admission of aliens. As for the
relations between the two communities after the separation,
it is not necessary to hold that the schism from the be
ginning excluded social and religious intercourse. We pos
sess no further data concerning the Palestinian Samaritans
until the lid Century B. C, in the period of the Maccabees.
But the intervening age was not one that was committed
to the rigorism of Ezra and Nehemia, or of the Chasidim
and Pharisees of the lid Century. The fortunes of the
Jewish Church were chiefly in the control of the highpriest
hood, which appears in general to have been utterly worldly-
minded.55 After all, a branch of the Jewish highpriesthood reigned
in the Samaritan sect, and, as what cannot be cured must
51 First suggested by Duhm, and since more or less positively ac
cepted by such scholars as Meyer, Cheyne, Kittel, Marti.
52 Acts, 7, 48ff; Wellhausen, op. cit. 165. See also Kleinert, Die
Profeten Israels, 160 : " Das Wagnis Duhms, wider den klaren Wort-
laut," etc.
53 If Duhm's view is correct, an explanation is required for the transi
tion of the idolatrous Samaritan community into a sect imitative of
Judaism, a phenomenon, which, as already remarked, would be a
spiritual marvel.
64 Stellung, 176.
65 N. B. the scandalous histories of the priesthood narrated by Jo
sephus A J xi, 7 ; xii, 4, and the utterly Pagan character of the hierarchy
in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

^2 THE SAMARITANS
be endured, family ties doubtless kept communication open
and easy. We may compare the parallel phenomenon of the
erection by a scion of the priesthood of another rival temple,
that at Leontopolis in Egypt, which does not seem to have
provoked any extreme exasperation.56 The close relation
ship in theology and practice of the Samaritans with the
later Sadducees, who were the party of the hierarchy, can
best be explained by the supposition of the maintenance of
intercourse between the priests of Jerusalem and of Shech
em. In addition to this worldly-minded party there was
also the spiritually noble " Broad Church " section in the
Jewish community, which, following the cue of much pro
phetic teaching, insisted more on the catholicity of the
ideal Israel than on its necessary rigorism. The spirit of
this school of thought inspired Deutero-Isaia; it produced
the prophetical romance of Jona, while the Book of Ruth
is now attributed to it by many scholars.57 A more prosaic
yet equally ethical offshoot of the same school was the
Wisdom literature. With the triumph of Pharisaism in the
Jewish Church this party was suppressed, most of its writ
ings condemned. But enough of its product remains to
warrant us in speculating upon the possible affiliations be
tween the liberal tendencies in Judaism and the schismatic
yet monotheistic and ethically earnest sect of the Samari
tans. In more than one party of Judaism for various
reasons the Shechemites must have received comfort and
so have found the door kept open with the mother-church.
For from all we know of Samaritanism there can be no
doubt that it remained under the steady influence of Ju
daism, and that this spiritual patronage was so strong and
so necessary that even after the complete excommunication
58 Josephus, AJ xiii, 3. Many scholars refer the favorable comment
of Is. 19, 19, to this Egyptian temple. The event belongs to the early
part of the lid Century.
67 In this period was established the proselytizing propaganda of
Judaism; see Bertholet, op. cit. 178.

THEIR ORIGIN IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD 73
of the schismatics in the Hid and IVth Christian centuries
Rabbinism still infiltrated into Samaria. The proofs and
fruits of this spiritual connection are found in the Samaritan
possession of the Jewish priesthood, of the First Canon of
the Jewish Scriptures, of most of those tenets that marked
earlier, Sadducaean Judaism in distinction from the Phar
isaic development. Because of the persistence of its orig
inal type, largely contributed to by its continuance through
out the centuries in its original habitat, the Samaritan sect
stands as a monument of early Judaism. Its value in
this historical regard has not yet been appreciated by
scholarship. The light thrown upon the date of the codification of
the Law is a moot point in Pentateuchal criticism. It is
argued that the Law must have reached its final form by
the time of the exclusion of the priest who became the
leader of the Samaritans, circa 432. 58 Other scholars think
that the data bearing upon the origin of the Samaritan
sect are too frail to control our Pentateuchal chronology.59
In any case we know too little of the relations between the
Jews and the Samaritans for at least 200 years to say
that the Pentateuch could not have been further revised af
ter the schism, on the ground that the Samaritan copy
would give a much older and different text. It is possible
that further revisions at Jerusalem, as in the case of Ex.
35-40, were readily accepted by the spiritually dependent
community at Shechem. But with the Jewish promulga
tion of the Second Canon, that of the Prophets, about
200, a definitive break must have separated the two sects on
the question as to the extent of Scripture. The northern
community could not accept the Second Canon with its
pronounced proclivities for Juda, David, and Jerusalem.60
68 So Wellhausen, op. cit. 180; Carpenter, Pentateuch1, i, 179.
59 Kautzsch, RE2, xiii, 344 ; Steuernagel, Einleitung, 276.
60 There are doubtless many Biblical passages which, if we had the
key, would throw light upon the relations of Jews and Samaritans

74 THE SAMARITANS
between Nehemia's ag-e and 200 B. C. But in their present state they
give room only for speculation. Reference may here be made to
Holscher, op. cit. 30, " Die Juden nach Nehemia," who argues that the
Book of Judith in its geographical data assumes the Jewish control of
Samaria in the late Persian period, and that the symbolic act, in Zech.
11, 14, of breaking the staff to portend the breaking of the brotherhood
between Juda and Israel, refers to the schism. Holscher would date
this event about 300, but the date of Deutero-Zecharia is too obscure
to be the basis of chronology. In 1 Ch. 9, 3, there is an obscure refer
ence to people of Ephraim and Manasse resident in Jerusalem, a
family of Shilonites being specified, v. 5. These were doubtless north
ern Israelites who persisted in devotion to the Jewish sanctuary. To
the Chronicler the northern territory is never Samaria, but always the
land of Ephraim, ii, 25, 7, or of Ephraim and M'anasse, ii, 30, 1. If
such Psalms as Ps. 80 are to be attributed to the Post-exilic age, some
interesting problems present themselves. Cheyne has interpreted the
" libations of blood " in Ps. 16 of the superstitious practices of the
Samaritans, but there is no proof for this against them (see his
Jewish Religious Life, 29). In Ps. 60, 8-14 {Ps. 108, 8-14) scholars
from Theodore of Mopsuestia down to Cheyne and Duhm have found
a reference to John Hyrcanus's capture of Shechem in the words : " I
will divide Shechem, mete out the valley of Succoth " ; but the friendly
reference to Manasse and Ephraim in the following verse militates
against this historical interpretation. I may take opportunity here to
note the excellent characterization of the Samaritan schism in Stade's
most recent work, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, § 147.

CHAPTER V.
THE SAMARITANS UNDER THE HELLENIC
EMPIRE.1
At the end of the last Chapter probable references to the
relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Hel
lenic age have been anticipated. When we turn now to
the political history of Samaria under Hellenism, we find
few further data concerning the sect until the age of the
Maccabees. It is true that the land of Samaria figures con
stantly in the wars of Alexander and of the Diadochi.
Its capital Samaria rebelled against the conqueror and re
ceived exemplary punishment;2 Eusebius also reports that
the city was rebuilt by Perdiccas and subsequently, in 296-5,
was again destroyed by Demetrius Poliorcetes.3 But these
facts throw no light upon the Samaritan sect, although it
may be presumed that it sorely suffered under the harryings
of the land, and that its members, men of the hardy Hebrew
blood, were often found among the rebels.
Josephus describes the calamities brought upon Syria and
upon Juda in particular by the wars of the first Ptolemy,
and records that this monarch carried off many captives
from the hill-country of Juda, and the places about Jeru
salem, and Mount Gerizim.4 The result of these Ptolemaic
1 See Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 93 ; Schiirer, GJV i ; Appel, Quastiones
de rebus Samaritanorum, c. i.
2Quintus Curtius, Hist, iv, 5. 8; Eusebius, Chron. ed. Schoene, ii,
114. The statement is rejected by Niese, Griechische Geschichte, i,
88, n. 3.
3 Niese also denies this latter datum.; op. cit. i, 355, n. 6. It may be
long, however, to the famous Syrian campaign of 311.
4 AJ xii, 1. Despite the doubts of Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies,
43, Josephus is corroborated by Diodorus, Hist, xix, 86, who reports
75

76 THE SAMARITANS
wars and conquests was the connection made between Egypt
and the Jews and Samaritans, which brought many of both
sects, partly as captives, partly as willing immigrants, to
the flourishing land of the Ptolemies and its new metropolis,
Alexandria. Josephus also reports that Alexander levied
Samaritan troops for service in Egypt.5 We have thus to
date from this period the beginning of the Samaritan Dias
pora in Egypt, which enjoyed in the new home a like his
tory, on a minor scale, to that of the great Jewish colony.
The historical data for this Samaritan Disapora are given
in a subsequent Chapter.6 Both Jewish and Samaritan rec
ords contain accounts of the quarrels which arose in Egypt
between the two sects. Josephus, after describing their
common emigration to that land,7 narrates the contentions
arising between them as to the proper destination of the
sacrifices, whether Jerusalem or Gerizim; probably the re
mittance of the royal temple-gifts was the cause of dispute.
Josephus also gives a legend concerning a disputation be
tween the rival sects held before Ptolemy Philometor (.182-
146).8 The spokesman for the Jews was Andronicus ben-
Meshullam, the advocates of the Samaritans Sabbasus and
Theodosius.9 The former, who spoke first, argued so con
vincingly that the king accepted the Jewish plea, and put
the Samaritan orators to death. A similar story, evidently
borrowed from the Jewish legend, only with fortunes of
that after the battle of Gaza (312) the Egyptian ruler captured -the
strongholds of South Syria. Abu'l Fath, p. 93, tells of this Ptolemy
that he sent one Urudus to seize the temple treasures at Shechem, but
that he desisted upon being shown a charter from Alexander the Great
ordering those funds to be expended for the priests, widows and or
phans. Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 98, has rightly identified Urudus with
Alexander's brother, Arrhidaeus; see further Clermont-Ganneau, in
Journal des Savants, 1904, Jan., p. 37.
» AJ xi, 8, 7.
« Chapter VIII, § 2.
7 AJ xii, 1.
8 AJ xiii, 3, 4.
"Traditional heresiarchs of the Samaritans; see' Chapter XIII, § I.

UNDER THE HELLENIC EMPIRE

77

course reversed, is told by the Samaritan writers.10 Doubt
less such theological disputes were frequently carried on in
Egypt> and at times, as when property rights were con
cerned, the secular courts must have been appealed to.
As for their native land, the Samaritan sect did not pos
sess the numbers and influence enjoyed by the Jews in Juda,
and were little able to oppose the Hellenization of Samaria.
This tendency was working rapidly enough in Juda, but
must have been far more extensive in the North. Hence
it is especially necessary from this time on to draw the dis
tinction between the religious sect of the Samaritans, a com
paratively small and scattered body, and the citizens of the
land, mostly Pagan, those who were civilly Samaritans.
The term Samaritan does not necessarily refer to the sub
ject of our present study.
The Samaritan sect at last comes forth into the clear
light of day in the Maccabaean period, for which we possess
the abundant Jewish sources. The Samaritans played no
part in the brilliant war for liberty fought by their Jewish
brothers against Antiochus Epiphanes. But of their posi
tion toward this struggle we have no certain knowledge.
That the mad passion of Antiochus, " the Evident God,"
affected the northern sect appears from the statement of
2 Mac. 6, 2 that the tyrant established not only the cult of
Zeus Olympios in Jerusalem, but also that of Zeus Xenios,
the Hospitable Zeus, on Mount Gerizim.11 Josephus gives
10 Abu' I Path, 94; Chron. Adler, 38. Here the Ptolemy is a com
position of Philadelphus and Philometer, as Levi points out, ad loc;
he procured translations into the Greek from the learned men of both
sects, Eleazar (he of the Aristeas-legend) representing the Jews, and
Aaron with Symmachus and Theodotion (the authors of the Greek
versions!), the Samaritans; the king's observation of the discrepan
cies between the two texts of the Law causes him to inquire further,
and the Samaritans succeed in convincing him that they are the legiti
mate body.
11 According to the usual rendering this epithet was given because
of the hospitable character of the natives. _ (Could the epithet have
been suggested by the first syllable of Gerizim, ger, i. e., stranger?)

78 THE SAMARITANS
a much more extensive story.12 He relates that the She-
chemites, i.e., the Samaritan sect, under the name of Sidon-
ians,13 sent a petition to Antiochus, in which, after denying
all relationship with the Jews except in the matter of the
observance of certain religious customs of the land, they
asked the king to allow them to name their temple, " which
at present has no name," after Zeus Hellenios. This boon
the king granted. On the other hand an obscure state
ment of 2 Mac. 5, 23 relates that Antiochus placed a gov
ernor " in Gerizim," the fact being recorded in connection
with the account of the officials sent to suppress the Jews.14
From this it would appear that the king expected resistance
from the Samaritans, so that Josephus's story appears some
what gratuitous.15 That the Samaritans took no part in
the immortal struggle of the Maccabees is without doubt a
fact; probably they bowed before the storm in silence if
not with acquiescence. It must be borne in mind that the
trouble which came upon the Jews was contributed to by
their own factions, and that Antiochus's innovations were
a response to the Hellenizing party which had control in
Judaea. Nor could we expect that the northern sect would
have gone to the assistance of the Jews. But this point is
clear that the Samaritans preserved their faith through these
troublous times.
But Willrich, Judaica, 139, comparing Josephus's narrative, is probably
right in translating eriyxavov by "they obtained their request."
12 AJ xii, 5, 5.
13 See Additional Note B.
14 It is uncertain whether " in Gerizim " refers to a citadel on the
mountain, in which case it would be the predecessor of the fortifica
tions constructed there by Christian emperors; or whether it means
the district of Shechem in general.
16 On Josephus's attitude towards the Samaritans, see Chapter IX.
De Sacy correctly remarks,_ TV", et E. 3: " II est meme certain que si
le culte des idoles eut ete etabli alors parmi les Samaritains, ils n'au-
roient en rien a apprehender de la fureur d'Antiochus, et n'auroient pas
craint de se voir confondus avec les Juifs." That the Samaritans were
in opposition to Epiphanes is the view also of the Jewish scholar
Appel, op. cit. 38.

UNDER THE HELLENIC EMPIRE jg
In the early part of the Maccabaean wars for independ
ence the land of Samaria appears to have been generally
avoided by the Jewish armies; it contained the Gentile
stronghold of Samaria, while all the classes of the popula
tion were antagonistic. Only in the southern districts,
where the Jews seem to have settled in the course of their
notable expansion, was any part of the land favorable to
the new Jewish state. Finally after the conclusion of terms
with the Syrian king Demetrius II, three cantons of Samari
tan territory were formally annexed to Judasa, Ephraim,
Lydda and Ramathaim, circa 145. This considerable ac
quisition pushed the boundary of Judaea far into the interior
of Samaria, the limit of Borkeos, which Josephus describes
as the boundary in his day, marking probably the extent of
the annexation.16
With Judaea's outposts now thrust far up into the ancient
territory of Joseph, the second generation of the Hasmo-
naean house found itself strong enough to invade the re
mainder of Samaritan soil, and not only to pay off old
scores with the degenerate Syrian kingdom, but also to
take vengeance on the weakened Samaritan sect. In the
year 128 John Hyrcanus captured Shechem and Mount
Gerizim, and subdued the Kuthaean sect, — so Josephus re
lates,17 adding the comment that now their temple was dev
astated after an existence of 200 years. " The Day of
Gerizim " commemorated in the Jewish Fast-Roll, the date
being Kislew 2 1 , is to be connected with this signal triumph
of militant Judaism over its competitor.18 This success
16 For the limits between Judasa and Samaria, see Chapter VIII, § 1,
and for the annexation of the three cantons, see below, p. 144. To
this event is due the legend of Pseudo-HecatKus, quoted by Josephus,
C. Ap. ii, 4, that Alexander gave the Jews the land of Samaria free of
tribute. 17 AJ xiii, 9, 1 ; BJ i, 2, 6.
18 The Fast-Roll, or Megillat Taanit, is given by Derenbourg, His-
toire de la Palestine, 439; Dalman, Aramaische Dialektproben, 1. The
former scholar, pp. 41, 72, hesitates concerning the reference of the

80 THE SAMARITANS
against the Samaritan sect was later followed up by the
conquest of the Pagan capital. An expedition under Hyr
canus' s sons Antigonus and Aristobulus captured the city
of Samaria after a year's siege, and attempted to obliterate
even the traces of the city's existence; this happened not
long before 107.19 The conquest was completed by the cap
ture of Scythopolis, which dominated the northern border
of Samaria.20
Once again the drama of Jewish history operated on Sa
maritan soil. About the year 88 Alexander Jannaeus met
the forces of Demetrius III, supported by the rebellious
Pharisaic party, in the neighborhood of Shechem, and was
there routed.21 In Josephus's narrative of Alexander's later
conquests, after the abatement of the civil strife, the land of
Samaria is omitted, so that it is to be inferred that the
district still lay under Jewish control. This supposition
is confirmed by the fact that when Pompey subjugated the
Jews, in the year 63, he greatly reduced their territory;
the city of Samaria was specifically detached and annexed
celebration ; the glossator to the Megillat refers the anniversary to the
visit of Alexander to the Jews and Samaritans.
19 AJ xiii, 10, 1-3 ; BJ i, 2, 7 ; Schiirer, GJV i, 267.
20 Abu'l Fath gives more than usual information about this period,
p. 102. He relates Hyrcanus's capture of Samaria, but denies that he
took Shechem. There is also a confused recollection of the attempted
interference in the war by Ptolemy Lathyrus, which was opposed by
his mother, Cleopatra, as Josephus relates ; but she is confused with
the last Cleopatra. (See Vilmar, Abul Fath, p. lxiii ; Juynboll, Hist.
Sam. no.) But the chronicle's most original contribution to the his
tory is that Hyrcanus at the end of his life became persuaded of the
legitimacy of the Samaritan cult, and sent to Gerizim tithes and sac
rifice, p. 105. This is an evident allusion to the desertion of Hyrcanus
by the Pharisaic party and his alliance with the Sadducees. The legend
bears a correct recollection of the ancient affinity between the latter
party and the Samaritans, and it is a plausible hypothesis that the
preservation of the northern sect during this period of absolute Jewish
control of Samaria was due to the liberalistic policy of the Hasmonae-
ans to use the Samaritans as a counterweight to the Pharisaic rigor-
ists. Thus it may be inferred that the despised northerners played
their part in the fatal internecine strife which now began to rage in the
south to Juda's undoing.
21 AJ xiii, 14, 1-2 ; BJ i, 4, 4.

UNDER THE HELLENIC EMPIRE 8 1
to the new Syrian province.22 This liberation of Samaria,
which, it appears, had arisen from its ashes, involved the
release of the greater part of the district from the Jewish
usurpation. From this time forth the Samaritan sect is
forever free of the hated domination of the sister-sect.
22 AJ xiv, 4, 4 ; BJ i, 7, 7.
6

CHAPTER VI. *
THE SAMARITANS UNDER THE ROMAN
EMPIRE.
§ I. TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, A. D. 7O.1
The resuscitation of the district of Samaria came with
the strong arm of Roman force and law. The ravages of
the contending Hellenistic armies now ceased, and the am
bitions of the Jewish state were brought under control ; the
inhabitants of the land enjoyed the fruits of an unknown
peace, and those who clung to the faith of Gerizim could
pursue the liberties of Roman subjects in the matter of re
ligion without fear of molestation from the fanaticism of the
stronger sect in the South. The ancient rivalry was still
maintained, and when Jews and Samaritans met in town
or on country road it blazed out in acts of violence, wherein
either party gave and took. But the political value of
Samaria was appreciated by Rome, and especially by the
astute Herod, for it offered a sure foothold against the tur
bulence of the Jews; its majority of pagan citizens despised
the Jews, while the Shechemites hated them.
Most of the history of this period revolves around the
capital city Samaria, whose ancient glories were once more
restored. Rebuilt by an early governor of Syria, Gabinius
( 57-55 ),2 it became the favorite seat of king Herod. His
interest in the fair land to the north seems to have been
early excited, for Josephus informs us that upon his father's
1 See the authorities named at the beginning of the previous Chapter.
2 AJ xiv, 5, 3 ; BJ i, 8, 4. For the name " Gabinians " assumed by
the citizens, see Cedrenus, i, 323, ed. Bekker.
82

UNDER ROMAN RULE TO A. D. 70 83
death that diplomatic politician " cheered up Samaria and
stopped its factions,"3 and so we are not surprised that in
his contest with the Hasmonaean Antigonus the city of Sa
maria was arrayed on his side.4 His cunning handling of
Augustus after the battle of Actium brought him, along with
the recognition of his monarchy, the boon of Samaria,5 and
thus that district fell once more under the sway of a king
of the Jews. But the circumstances of the new relation
were now favorable to the North. Herod proceeded to re
build and beautify the capital, paying homage to Caesar
by calling it Sebaste, i.e. Augusta, at the same time erecting
a temple in the emperor's honor.6 But Herod's purpose
was not merely an aesthetic one, although he enjoyed him
self in the gay city of his creation as he never did in
sombre Jerusalem. Josephus correctly gives the reason for
this new and elaborate foundation, that " it should be a
stronghold to keep the land and Jerusalem in awe, from
which latter place Samaria was but a day's journey." With
this city of his choice much of the tragedy of his life was
enacted. Here he married Mariamne, in its neighborhood
after her execution he tried to drown his grief in the pleas
ures of the chase, and here at the end of his life his and
Mariamne's sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, were exe
cuted. A Samaritan lady was one of his wives. If then
it was a king of Jerusalem who reigned over the district,
he was nevertheless a king in Samaria, and his favor and
presence must have contributed not a little to the well-
being of his Samaritan subjects, Israelites as well as Pa
gans.7 In the disturbances which broke out after Herod's death,
3 A J xiv, n, 14-
4 AJ xiv, 15, 12 ; BJ i, 17, 5-
5 AJ xv, 7, 3 ; BJ i, 20, 3.
6 AJ xv, 8, 5; BJ i, 21, 2; Strabo, Geog. ed Kramer, xvi, 2, 34.
7 Abu'l Fath, 116, records that he slew many Samaritans as well as
Jews. For the Samaritan tradition of the Samaritan wife, see below,
Chap. VI, note 39-

84 THE SAMARITANS
Samaria remained loyal to the interests of the empire; Varus
is said to have spared it,8 and subsequently upon the division
of the kingdom among Herod's sons, the district, which
now fell along with Judaea to the tetrarchy of Archelaus,
met its reward in having one-quarter of its taxes remitted.9
Finally when Archelaus was dispossessed (A. D. 6), Judaea
and Samaria were united in a province of the third class,
subordinate to the proconsulate province of Syria.10 The
seat of the new procuratorship was Caesarea, itself one of
Herod's foundations, so that now the political centre lay to
the extreme northwest, a condition favorable to the Samari
tans. Notwithstanding the union of the lands of Juda and
Samaria, the distinction between their boundaries was still
preserved, the Jews having recovered, probably in Herod's
time, the Samaritan cantons that were cut off by Pompey.1 1
King Herod, only half Jew as he was, had been a buffer
between the mighty empire and the Judaean state with its
acute sensibilities. But with the passing of his diplomatic
management, the index of doom now began to point towards
the well-nigh inevitable catastrophe of the great Jewish re
volt, the threatening clouds being only for a short while
riven by the reign of Herod Agrippa (41-44). One mani
festation of these symptoms was the recrudescence of the
hostility of Jew and Samaritan, in which conflict the weaker
sect, probably encouraged by the favor of the political mas
ters, even appears as the aggressor. Josephus narrates two
ugly incidents of this perpetual quarrel. In the adminis
tration of the first procurator Coponius (6-9), the Samari
tans gained access on a certain Passover to the porches of
the temple in Jerusalem, and scattered about dead men's
8 A J xvii, 10, 9; BJ ii, 5, 1.
9 AJ xvii, n, 4; BJ ii, 6, 3; cf. Nicolaus Dam., in Muller, Fragm.
hist. Grac iii, 351.
10 Schiirer, GJV i, 454. This province included the land of Samaria,
for Pilate governed the latter land as well.
11 For Josephus's description of these boundaries, see below, p. 145.

UNDER ROMAN RULE TO A. D. 70 85
bones; since this outrage, Josephus adds, the Jews forbade
that sect admission to their feasts, from which they had not
hitherto been excluded.12 But a far more serious disturb
ance occurred in the days of the procurator Cumanus
(A. D. 52 ).13 At one of the festal seasons the Samaritans
attacked and slaughtered a troop of Galilaean pilgrims at
En-gannim, on the border between Galilee and Samaria.
In consequence, the Galilaeans armed themselves, and in
conjunction with robber bands raided many Samaritan vil
lages, which forced Cumanus to appear in the field with a
large body of troops and repress the disturbers of the peace
with a strong hand. The Samaritans, as the injured party,
further appealed their case to Quadratus, governor of Syria,
who came and held hearings both at Samaria and Lydda,
the adjudication being in favor of the plaintiffs. Finally
he ordered the chiefs of the two parties to go to Rome and
lay the case before the emperor Claudius. Here the Samari
tans had the influence of Cumanus, whom Josephus charges
with having been corrupted by the Samaritans ; but the Jews
were backed by the still more powerful influence of the
younger Agrippa, who gained Queen Agrippina's ear, and
thus procured the emperor's verdict in favor of the Jews;
he condemned the Samaritans to death, along with Celer a
Roman knight who was involved, and banished Cumanus.
One other occurrence affecting the Samaritans is narrated
by Josephus.14 A certain Samaritan fanatic summoned his
coreligionists to assemble on Mount Gerizim, where he
would show them the sacred vessels which lay hidden there.
The crowd gathered armed at a place called Tirathana;15
12 AJ xviii, 2, 2. For this religious fellowship between the two sects,
cf. Chapter X. A like story is told by the Samaritans, how two Sa
maritans in the reign of Hadrian (is Herod meant, the two names being
confused in other places?) substituted mice for the doves a Jewish
pilgrim was bringing up to the temple; Lib. Jos. xlvii; Abu'l Fath, 113.
13 AJ xx, 6; BJ ii, 12, 3.
14 AJ xviii, 4, 1-2.
15 For its location, see p. 146.

86 THE SAMARITANS
but the governor Pilate prevented their ascending the holy
mountain by dispatching a large force, which slew many,
capturing some who were subsequently executed, and dis
persing the rest. The Samaritan magistracy thereupon ap
pealed to Vitellius the governor of Syria against this un
called-for barbarity, and the upshot of the complaint was
the recall of Pilate (A. D. 36 ).16 These several instances
prove that the Samaritan sect possessed considerable influ
ence with the imperial administration.
The tragedy which terminated the life of the Jewish
state involved as well the northern sect. The land of Sa
maria suffered equally with the other districts adjacent to
Judaea from the raids of maddened Jewish bands which
swarmed throughout Palestine to take the last reckoning
with the heathen world. At the beginning of the Jewish
war (A. D. 66), Samaria-Sebaste shared the fate of many
a neighboring city, and was burnt to the ground,17 and in
general we have to suppose that the fires which raged in
Judaea, Peraea and Galilee seared the valleys of Samaria,
and involved its inhabitants, however involuntarily, in the
horrors of that war of Armageddon.
There is one incident of this calamitous time which is
significant of the Samaritan spirit in that age. The mad
fury of the Jews infected the Samaritans with its contagion,
and dragged a large body of them, deceived by apocalyptic
frenzy, to a like destruction with the Jews. The abstract
of Josephus's narrative is as follows :18 A large number
of Samaritans assembled on Gerizim, despising the suc
cesses of the Romans, and ready for a fray with them.
Vespasian found it necessary to nip this uprising in the
bud, and sent his captain Cerealis with 600 horse and 3,000
infantry to dislodge the rebels. So strong were the latter
18 For the legend of the hidden vessels, and for Samaritan Messian
ism, of which this event was a manifestation, see Chap. XII, SS 6. 7.
17 BJ ii, 18, 1.
18 BJ iii, 7, 32. It is recorded amidst the events of the year 67.

UNDER ROMAN RULE TO A. D. 70 87
and so well intrenched in their superior position, that the
Romans could not attack them. But nature came to the
former's aid; there is no water on the mountain, and it be
ing midsummer, thirst destroyed some of the besieged reb
els, and drove others to yield themselves, so that Cerealis
felt able to make assault. Surrounding them, he first of
fered amnesty; but the horde was animated by the stiff-
necked obstinacy of ancient Israel, and Cerealis proceeded to
the slaughter, mowing down 11,600 people. No further in
formation is had concerning this unique uprising ; that it did
not involve the whole Samaritan sect, is certain, because
there was no necessity for the Romans to proceed against
any of the Samaritan towns. We must suppose that the
more fanatical ones of the sect, filled with Messianic en
thusiasm, were infected with the madness of the Jewish co
religionists ; fortunately the community as a whole was
saved from the destruction which befell political Judaism.
The round century between the beginning of Herod's
grace to the land of Samaria down to the fall of the Judaean
state was the happiest age, we may assume, that the Samari
tan sect has experienced in its long history. The land
enjoyed the favor first of Herod and then, in general, of
his official successors; its value was recognized, from the
days of Herod to those of Vespasian, as affording a sure
foothold against the tumultuous Jews. For the one time
in history since the Persian period, when the enemies of
Juda in Samaria persecuted the renascent Jewish state, the
Samaritan community played a prominent and influential
part in politics, often turning to its advantage the favorable
prepossessions of the administration. Accordingly we
greatly desiderate more exact information concerning the
sect in this auspicious age. We learn of a Council (fiovXrj)
of the Samaritans,19 doubtless of the same pattern as the
19 AJ xviii, 4, 2. But Schiirer, GJV ii, 152, interprets this of the
council of the district. For the functions of the Boule, see ibid., p. 176.

88 THE SAMARITANS
Jewish Sanhedrin, and accorded much the same rights over
the spiritual and social life of its community. The reten
tion of the ancient boundaries between Juda and Samaria
indicates the perpetuation of an ecclesiastical territorial
jurisdiction for the Samaritans. The Talmud makes pro
vision for Jews living in Samaria who had to pay tithes to
the Samaritan hierarchy.20 As for the political adminis
tration, Josephus asserts that there were garrisons placed
throughout the land,21 and that also upon extraordinary
occasions the government called out the native element and
armed them as a militia, as in the case of the conflict be
tween the Samaritans and the Jews under Cumanus.22 The
franchises of the Samaritans may not have been as exten
sive as those of the Jews, but it would appear that while
the empire made no confusion between the two sects, their
privileges were much the same. Samaritanism was with
out doubt a religio licita, with a recognized ecclesiastical
territory. No answer can be given to the query concerning the con
dition of the cult upon Gerizim; the historical evidence has
only the negative result that since Hyrcanus's destruction
of the Samaritan temple there is no testimony to its re
building. Juynboll argues 23 that Herod could not have
rebuilt the temple for fear of the Jews; that no record
exists of any such bounty on his part would support this
theory. Yet it seems strange that the Samaritans in this
Age of Favor did not resume their cult with fitting sur
roundings. We may well think that when the Samaritan
woman argued with Jesus concerning the sanctity of " this
mountain," she pointed to some edifice crowning the sum
mit {Jn. 4)-24
20 See below, p. 183.
21 BJ iii, 7, 32.
22 AJ xx, 6, 1.
2SHist. Sam. 113.
24 There is little later evidence for the reconstruction of the Samari-

A Coin of " Flavia Neapolis.'7
Of the reign of Volusian, whose head appears on the reverse.
Through courtesy of the British Museum.

A Medal of " Flavia Neapolis of Palestinian Syria."
The reverse bears the legend, in Greek, " Antoninus, Augustus, Pius, Emper
or, Caesar." Gerizim is here represented, and in the foreground probably the
temple of Jupiter with the stairs leading down to Neapolis (referred to by the
Bordeaux Pilgrim: ibi ascenduntur usque ad summum montem gradus num.
CCC). In the background above appears probably the Pagan sanctuary which
once crowned Gerizim's top. This medal is in the Museum of the Royal
Library, Paris, and is reproduced from a cut in Barges, Les Samaritains.

FROM A. D. 70 TO CONSTANTINE 89
§2. FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHRIS-
TIANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE.25
One permanent result of interest to the sect of the Samari
tans came from Vespasian's presence in the land. It is rea
sonably certain that this emperor built the modern Shechem,
the elder city having lain farther to the east ; his foundation
he called Neapolis, " New-City," or more fully and as it ap
pears on the coins, Flavia Neapolis, after the conqueror's
family-name.26 From its calamity in the Jewish War the
city of Samaria never recovered; in the IVth Century it
was no longer one of the important cities of Palestine, and
soon fell to the rank of a village.27 Neapolis rapidly
forged ahead of the old capital, and is spoken of in the IVth
Century as one of the greatest cities in Palestine.28 This
new creation brought wealth and prestige to the centre
of the Samaritan sect, which by the IVth Century seems to
have entirely abandoned the elder Shechem ; but the change
was fraught with danger to that community, for the coloni
zation of a Pagan metropolis in their midst contributed
to the fanatical exasperation of the Samaritans against the
Romans, which ultimately brought upon them the same ruin
that had befallen Jerusalem.
After the age of the great Jewish War there exists a
tan temple; see note 102. For the Samaritan traditions concerning its
site, see Chap. III. Epiphanius, Hares, lxxx, 1 (Migne, xlii, 757), de
scribes a synagogue (Proseuche) at Shechem that was open to the
heavens. This may have been the House of God in which the Samari
tans performed their sacrifices when restrained from Gerizim. For
the passage, see Schiirer, GJV ii, 447. On the temple, cf. Chap. VI,
note 102.
25 Add to authorities previously mentioned, Gratz, Geschichte der
Juden, iv.
, 26 For the original location of Shechem, see above, p. 19. The fact
that Vespasian founded Neapolis is not directly affirmed by ancient
authorities, but is now generally accepted. See Valesius to Eusebius,
Hist, eccles. iv, 12; Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 118; Schiirer, GJV i, 650.
27 GJV ii, 153.
28 Ammianus Marcellinus, xiv, 8, 11 {GJV i, 650). For the coins of
the city, see Eckhel, Doctrina nummorum, iii, 434; Mionnet, Descrip-

90 THE SAMARITANS
long lacuna in Samaritan history, extending to the reign
of Hadrian, (i 17-138). When the sect reappears it, too,
is involved in the great conflict between State and Church
which began with the fall of Jerusalem and terminated in
the triumph of Christianity. According to Spartianus the
outbreak of the war of Bar-Kokeba (132-135) was due to
Hadrian's prohibition of circumcision to the Jews.29 The
worth of this statement has been much disputed; it is cer
tain, however that Hadrian interdicted castration, under
which head circumcision might be included, while there is
some slight evidence that circumcision was prohibited to the
Arabians. If now, with Schiirer,30 the motive assigned to
the outbreak by Spartianus is to be accepted, we are in a po
sition to explain how it is that from this time on the Samar
itans were involved in the disasters of the Jews. Prac
tising Jewish rites which now fell under the ban of the em
pire, the former came to suffer under the legal penalties
which fell upon the latter. And so it is that Hadrian's
memory is bitterly preserved by the Samaritan chronicles as
the first Pagan ruler who persecuted the Samaritan religion.
Nevertheless reliable Samaritan data concerning the Ha-
drianic period are most scanty, and at the same time intoler
ably mixed up with prosaic romancings.31 In the first place
there is a recollection of the siege of Jerusalem by Hadrian;
tion des medailles antiques, v, 500, 515 ; Supplem. viii, 346. Head,
Historia numorum, 678, thus briefly describes the coinage: "There
are two principal types — (a) representation of Mount Gerizim with
two summits, on one of which is the temple of Zeus, approached by a
flight of steps, — and on the other a small edifice or altar of somewhat
uncertain form ; (0) simulacrum of a goddess resembling the Ephesian
Artemis standing between two humped bulls; she usually holds in one
hand a whip, and in the other ears of corn. Among the other types
are Serapis, Asklepios, Apollo, etc." The coins of the imperial city
are found from Titus to Maximinus, and of the imperial colony from
Philip I. to Volusian, the colony having been established by Septimius
Severus. 29 Vita Hadriani, 14.
30 GJV i, 674, where a full discussion of the question is to be found
«Lf'&. Jos. c. xlvii; Abu'l Fath, 113-117; Chron. Adler, 44-48.

FROM A. D. 70 TO CONSTANTINE 91
in this the Samaritan chronicles are opposed to the view
which now largely prevails that Bar-Kokeba did not hold
Jerusalem.32 Subsequently, according to the Samaritan
chronicles, Hadrian appeared at Neapolis. He brought
thither the great bronze gates of the Jerusalem temple, and
affixed them to the temple he built upon Gerizim.33 After
his departure, the Samaritans purified with fire the places
he had defiled,34 which action gave opportunity to the Jews
to bring malicious accusation against them; thereupon he
gave orders to " kill every circumcised man," and also in
terdicted " ablutions and sabbaths and feasts." In these
traditions of the imperial visit to Shechem there is con
siderable historic deposit, especially in regard to Hadrian's
application of his prohibition of circumcision to the Samari
tans. It is also on record that this emperor built a temple
to the Most High Jupiter on Gerizim above Neapolis.35
32 See Schiirer, GJV i, 685. The Samaritan chronicles introduce a
long story concerning two Samaritan youths, Ephraim and Manasse
(notice the artificial names!), who, having been imprisoned in Jerusa
lem for playing a sacrilegious trick upon a Jew (see above, note 12),
assisted Hadrian to capture the city. With this story may be com
pared the Jewish tradition that the Samaritans acted hostilely towards
the Jews in their desire to rebuild the temple at this time {Bereshit
Rabba. lxiv; text and translation given in Derenbourg, Histoire de la
Palestine, 416). But it may be questioned whether this reference to
a siege of Jerusalem and the hostility evinced by the Samaritans to
the Jews do not rather refer to the siege by Vespasian and Titus,
which later tradition has confounded with Hadrian's operations. The
Samaritan legend has also the malicious story that after his capture
of the city, Hadrian pressed into the Temple and there found images,
whereupon he convicted the highpriest of practising idolatry. This
doubtless has reference to the cherubim, etc., and probably the Samari
tans, with their far plainer cult, often found fault with the Jews for
their more ornate ritual. The legend is the counterblast, of course, to
that of the Jews that the Samaritans worshipped a bird, and what not,
on Mount Gerizim. There is also a Rabbinic tradition concerning the
part played by the Samaritans in the fall of Bar-Kokeba's fortress of
Bettar; see Derenbourg, op. cit. 433.
33 For a further reference to these gates, see below, p. 108.
34 For this practice, see Additional Note C.
85 Dio Cassius, xv, 12 ; the Neapolitan Marinus, quoted by Damas-
cius, in Photius, Bibliotheca, Geneva, 1611, iossf. The coins of Neapo
lis represent this temple.

92 THE SAMARITANS
The erection of this new Pagan fane excited the passions
of the Samaritans, and the consequent excesses brought upon
them the emperor's chastisement. The Chronicle Adler as
cribes the outrage only to " some foolish people of the
Samaritans."36 One other grievous calamity is ascribed to the days of
Hadrian, the destruction of the sacred books of the Samari
tans.37 From this catastrophe, it is stated, were saved only
the book of the Law and that of the succession of the priests.
It is true that Abu'l Fath38 ascribes a like calamity to the
reign of Commodus, fifty years later, and because of the
chronological distortion of the Samaritan data it is impos
sible to make sure of the exact date. That however some
such calamity occurred in this century is corroborated by
the fact that only since then do we find in the Samaritan
chronicles anything like independent data. That before
this period Samaritan culture possessed its literature is in
dubitable, so that we can best ascribe the almost utter ab
sence of original knowledge of the history before Hadrian
to the destruction wrought by the Romans for the rebel
liousness of the sect.39
86 Clermont-Ganneau, in a review of Adler and Seligsohn's Une
Nouvelle Chronique Samaritaine {Journal des Savants, ii, 34), has
made some interesting archaeological notes upon the Samaritan chroni
cles, some of which may be pertinently referred to here. He would
hold it possible that the bronze gates carried off to Samaria by Hadrian
are the gates of Nicanor (cf. his Recueil d'Archeologie orientate, v,
334). Clermont-Ganneau also maintains that the object of the cult
established by Hadrian on Gerizim was Serapis, Jupiter Serapis appear
ing frequently on the coins of Neapolis ; in this view he opposes that
of Adler and Seligsohn, who think of Jupiter Sospes (compare above,
P- 77), and Juynboll {Lib. Jos. 334), who would correct the text to
make it read Casar. The Samaritan reading is uncertain: Lib Jos.
saqaras, Abu'l Fath, sapis, sipas ; Chron. Adler, sapis. In comment
upon the prohibition of lustral baths, it is to be noted that a similar
interdict was issued by the emperor Verus in the same century against
the purifications of Jewish women; see Gratz, op. cit. iv, 208.
37 Lib. Jos. xlvii, end.
38 P. 120, 10; cf. p. 118, 17.
39 The Samaritan chronicles state that Hadrian had a Samaritan
wife on whose account he made an edict that no Jew should dwell in

FROM A. D. 70 TO CONSTANTINE 93
For the Antonines, Abu'l Fath records an Antoninus,
who was " a friend of the Samaritans, and studied the Law
both Hebrew and Targum, and acted according to its pre
scriptions; he lavished his generosity upon the world, and
gave gold and silver to the poor, and never ceased reading
the Law night and day. And the Samaritans were in his
time in the same condition as they enjoyed in the days of
Joshua."-40 Now it was Antoninus Pius (138-161) who
gained the gratitude of the Jews for removing the imperial
ban that lay against their practice of circumcision.41 But
if a statement made by Origen applies to this' earlier period
as well, then the Samaritans were not included in the fran
chise of the Jews. That Father in rebutting Celsus' s argu
ment that the Samaritans were persecuted as well as the
Christians remarks :42 " But it is said that Samaritans as
well are persecuted for their religion. To this we answer
as follows : As murderers, [sicarii, i.e. with reference to
the Cornelian law De sicariis, which punished those who
practised castration or circumcision with death], on ac
count of circumcision, because they mutilate contrary to the
established laws which allow it to the Jews alone, — there
fore they are put to death." The Samaritan tradition there
fore appears to be but a replica of the Jewish cycle of legend
which made Antoninus not only a friend of Jewish rabbis
but even a convert and a diligent student of the Law.43
The next reign recorded by the chronicles is that of Com-
Shechem: Abu'l Fath, 118, 5; Chron. Neub., 439; Chron. Adler, 48; the
latter draws the inference that " Hadrian greatly loved the Samari
tans " ! Evidently there exists a confusion in the Samaritan reminis
cence between the similar names of Hadrian and Herod, the latter of
which kings married a Samaritan, though doubtless Gentile, lady; see
Josephus, AJ xvii, 1, 3 ; BJ i, 28, 4.
40 Abu'l Fath, 117; Chron. Adler, 48.
41 The new law is given by Modestinus, Digest, xlviii, 8, 11, pr.
(quoted by Schiirer, GJV i, 677).
42 C. Celsum, ii, 13.
43 For the Jewish romance concerning Antoninos ben Severos, or
Severos ben Antoninos, see Ginzberg in JE, s. v. Antoninus in the
Talmud.

94 THE SAMARITANS
modus (180—92), of whom a lively and bitter memory is
cherished. It is chronicled that in his day the Samaritans
were worse off than under Hadrian ; he instituted bitter per
secutions, forbidding the reading of the Law, closing the
schools, destroying the scholars, compelling the use of pork,
so that the knowledge of the Law well-nigh perished.44
But although Commodus's cruel nature is notorious, yet
nothing is known of any ill treatment on his part of the
Israelites, so that the reference may rather belong to the
successor of Marcus Aurelius, Verus Commodus.45
For the reign of Commodus's first permanent successor,
Septimius Severus ( 193-21 1), secular history offers a few
data bearing upon our investigation. Syria, including
Palestine, took part with Severus's rival, Niger Pescennius,
upon whose overthrow the conqueror meted out special pun
ishment to Neapolis ; " he took away the right of citizenship
from the people of Neapolis in Palestine, because they had
for a long time been in arms for Niger's cause."46 Subse
quently he established the city as a colony, a change which
may have involved the banishment of many of the original
citizens.47 Jerome also notes in his chronology for the fifth
year of this emperor a war between the Jews and the
Samaritans (Judaicum et Samaritanum bellum motum) ;
Abu'l Faraj, who places the event in the first year of the
reign, describes it as a great war, a battle being fought in
which many were killed on both sides.48 Subsequently
however the emperor " remitted the penalties which the
Palestinians had incurred on account of Niger," and he es
tablished " many laws for the Palestinians." But apart
44 Abu'l Fath, 1 18-122; Chron. Adler, 80.
45 For his treatment of the Jews, see Gratz, op. cit. iv, 207.
46 Spartianus, Severus, 9.
47 Ulpian, Corp. juris digest 1, 15, 1, § 7. Gratz has " Sebaste,"
op. cit. iv, 226.
48 Abu'l Faraj (Gregory Bar-Hebraus), Historia dynastiantm, ed.
Pococke, p. 125 (tr. 79). Dio Cassius, lxxiv, 2, tells a romantic story
of one " Claudius, a bandit, who had overrun Judaea and Palestine."

FROM A. D. 70 TO CONSTANTINE 95
from this restoration to civil rights, the emperor took action
in 202 toward repressing the Jews and the Christians, the
rapid growth of the latter dismaying the administration.49
As the proof of Jewish membership and conversion was
circumcision, the Samaritans must have been included under
the same proscription.
Abu'l Fath preserves a fairly accurate reflection of this
reign.50 Severus is described as offering the highpriest
Akbun official honor if he will worship the idols and the
imperial statute ; Akbun refusing, the emperor's advisers de
mand the destruction of the community. To this Severus
objects on the ground that they worship the greatest God
of all, and that it will do no good to force them. The
officials then obtain the right of espionage over the Samari
tans to hinder them from circumcision and purifications,51
and also to refuse the privilege to rear altars in their midst.
There is added the note that the emperor laid upon the com
munity a tax for the observance of the Sabbath; this may
have been nothing else than some case of local official ex
tortion. The next reign recorded by the Samaritan chroniclers is
that of Alexander Severus (222-235 ).52 But the local
historians seem to have utterly missed the mark concern
ing this ruler. He is depicted as worse than Commodus;
he placed a price upon the heads of Samaritans,53 syna
gogues and schools were destroyed, doctors of the Law and
youths were slain. Yet above all the emperors Alexander
Severus is noted for his humanity and liberality.54 We are
accordingly forced to look for some other object of the
49 Spartianus, Severus, cc. 14, 17.
50 P. 123.
61 Cf. above, note 36.
52 Abu'l Fath, 124; Chron. Adler, 50.
58 This appears to be the meaning of Abu'l Fath, 124, line 12, and
the parallel in Chron. Adler; see the editor's note to latter.
54 He introduced both Abraham and Jesus into his pantheon, and
was accustomed often to quote the Golden Rule of Hillel (not the form

96 THE SAMARITANS
Samaritan denunciation. Juynboll suggests Heliogabulus
(218-222) ;65 yet this blasphemous monarch had an eclectic
interest in all cults, while his concubine Severina was favor
ably disposed to Christianity. But there may be suggested
the identification with Caracalla (211-217), who styled
himself Alexander in admiration of the great conqueror, by
which name he was known upon medals.56 He spent much
of his time in the Orient, where his chosen surname may
have come into common use, and then later have been con
fused with that of the noble and far more famous Alexander
Severus. One important event of the reign of Alexander Severus
is recorded by the Samaritan chroniclers, the rise of the
Sassanide kingdom of Persia.57 To this occurrence is at
tached the story of an embassy sent to the new Persian king
to supplicate favor for the Samaritans; by their witty wis
dom they gain his favor. This story has its parallel in a
later incident;58 in general the Samaritans appear as abet
tors cf the Sassanian attacks against the empire.
For the remainder of the Pagan empire the Samaritans
record but three emperors. Of these it is stated that Gor-
dianus (238-244) gave permission to the Jews to rebuild
the temple at Jerusalem, but that their efforts were frus
trated by a mighty storm,59 — a replica of the Christian
legend assigned to Julian's reign. Philip the Arab (244-
given by Christ, as often erroneously repeated) : Quod tibi fieri non
vis, alteri ne feceris ; Lampridius, Alexander Severus, cc. 29, 51. He
is also said to have been a patron of Origen.
65 Op. cit. 139. According to Lampridius, Heliogabalus, 3, this em
peror desired to centralize the cults of the Jews and Samaritans and
also of the Christians at his temple on the Palatine.
56 See Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, i,
138. 57 Abu'l Fath, 122; Chron. Adler, 50. These place the event in the
10th year of Commodus, but the former (122, line 8) also dates it at
545 years from Alexander the Great, whicji is correct within two years.
58 See p. 117.
59 Abu'l Fath, 139.

FROM A. D. 70 TO CONSTANTINE 97
249) is mentioned.60 Finally Decius (249-252), is re
corded as even worse than Severus, and a story is told of
the cruel martyrdom by his deputy Rakus of a Samaritan
woman who refused to> worship the idols.61
This deficiency of information in the Samaritan sources
is eked out by one datum from Jewish tradition. A Tal
mudic passage relates that " when Diocletian the king came
hither, he decreed that all the peoples should offer libation,
except the Jews; and the Samaritans offered libations."61"
This statement, so far as we can judge, must be a libel,
but it is doubtless true that while the Jews, through their in
fluence and ancient prestige, obtained exemption from the
drastic laws of revived heathenism, which were especially
directed against the Christians, the Samaritans did not share
the like good fortune.62
Such is an enumeration of the data of Samaritan history
for the age between 70 and 323 A. C. Further than this
we can only picture in imagination the calamities which
racked the falling empire, and which in particular brought
havoc and desolation to Palestine ; rival emperors, insurgent
governors, the wars with Parthians and Sassanians, all
heaped their evils upon the devoted land, while within its
borders the general civic disorder gave scope, under the
cover of repressive laws, to the exactions of wilful and cove
tous officials, who treated the Samaritan sect, so outlandish
to Pagan eyes, with even more despite than they did the
rest of their unfortunate subjects. The community was
more than decimated, its riches looted, its culture almost
60 Abu'l Fath, 145 ; Chron. Adler K 61. For the rigor of the law against
Samaritan circumcision, in this reign, as we saw above, Origen is wit
ness C. Celsum ii, 13, which was composed under this monarch; Euse
bius, Hist, eccles. vi, cc. 34, 36.
61 Abu'l Fath 148; Chron. Adler, 63.
6l3-Ab. Zara Jer. 44d. Cf. Gratz, op. cit. iv, 302.
62 Is Decius in the Samaritan chronicles an error (simple enough in
the Arabic script) for Diocletian? At the same time Decius, who was
the first systematic persecutor of the Christians, may have included the
Samaritans in his proscriptions.
7

98 THE SAMARITANS
exterminated, as indeed the Samaritans record. It pos
sessed no friends in the outside world apart from the mem
bers of scattered synagogues and banking-houses, but these
never seem to have been able to give much support to the
home-church ; Judaism could survive even if not a Jew was
left in the Holy Land, for the vast and well-organized
Diaspora in Mesopotamia gave that church a powerful back
ing in trouble and a sure place of refuge. But the Samari
tans possessed no like material and political advantages.
Only the obstinacy of their religion saved them through
these and the succeeding centuries of chaos, and in view
of this persistence we dare not deny them credit for a true
religious faith. With the Christianization of the empire,
when at last the related church of the Nazarenes, with whom
they had shared the Pagan persecutions, came to the as
cendancy, we might expect the Shechemites to find respite
under the rule of the followers of the Prince of Peace. But
a worse fate pursued them under Christian dominion than
under Pagan. Whatever rights had been theirs, the be
quest of the ancient humanity of Rome, were now with
drawn to satisfy the persecuting spirit of triumphant Chris
tendom, which had absorbed from Paganism the lesson, op
posite to its Master's, to treat like with like, and to bruise
the broken reed.
§3. FROM THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE TO THE RISE OF
ISLAM.63
For this period we possess, in comparison with the meagre
records of other ages, an extensive amount of information
for the Samaritan sect. Except for the last three genera
tions of the Pagan empire, which were marked by religious
persecutions, Rome in general had troubled herself little, ex
cept on political grounds, over the religion of her subjects.
63 Cf. especially the works of Juynboll, Gratz, and Appel, as above.

Pal. Ex Fund.

An Old Church in Shechem.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 99
But with the ascendancy of the Christian Church, religion
became one of the chief factors in the politics and history of
the empire. Christian fanaticism at once began to exhibit
itself, partly in the mutual persecutions of Christian sects,
partly in the persecution and legal ostracism of all who did
not bear the name of Christ. Among these the Pagans
were the chief objects of the jealousy of militant Christen
dom, but the sects so nearly related to Christianity, the
Jews and the Samaritans, who worshipped the same One
God, suffered the more intense spite of the Church. More
over, as the conscious successors of the Jewish Church, the
malevolence of the Christians followed the traditions of
Judaism in the despite of the Samaritans, so that the latter
suffered a twofold share of persecution. Accordingly we
find many laws which, for the first time in Roman juris
prudence, name the Samaritans, while the Christian annal
ists have abundant occasion to mention the sect. On the
other hand, the Samaritan records are fuller and more cor
rect for this than any other period; the race has preserved
the bitter memory that its undoing came at the hands not
of Pagan or Arab but of the Christian. On a small scale
the story of the fanatical desperation which centuries earlier
had destroyed the Jewish nation was now re-enacted in
Samaria, and the Christian dominion in Palestine stands
branded with cruel oppressions of the despised sect and with
the responsibility for ruthless and brutal revolts raised by
the latter. For these three centuries Samaritan history
shares in the horrors of the fall of the Roman empire in the
Orient, and the only relief in the cruel story is found in the
brief renascence of the sect which occurred in the IVth
Century. The age of Constantine (d. 337) was one of true tolera
tion. That great statesman cared more for the unity of his
empire than for the strife of sects which only involved civil
commotion and ruin. Several of his laws give privileges

IOO THE SAMARITANS
to the Jews, in which the Samaritans may have been in
cluded. Thus the patriarchs and elders of the former, like
the Christian clergy, were exempted from all public func
tions.64 At the same time the emperor found it necessary
to repress the aggressive violence of the Jews against per
verts, and an early law " gives notice to the Jews and their
elders and patriarchs that in case anyone escapes from their
barbarous sect and reverences the Religion of God, if any
Jew dare, after the promulgation of this law, to attack such
a one with stones or by any other kind of mad violence, — a
proceeding which has come to our cognizance — he is to be
promptly burnt to death, being cremated along with his
abettors. If any from the people attaches himself to their
nefarious sect and attends their conventicles, he with them
is to pay the fitting penalty."65 Another law more explicitly
confiscates the property of converts to Judaism;66 another
forbids Jews taking slaves from other cults under penalty
of the emancipation of the slave, and if a Jewish master cir
cumcise a slave, he is to be put to death.67 These restrictive
prescriptions seem to be renewals of the earlier ban against
Judaism, and without doubt included the Samaritans in their
implication. But the sectarian strife which broke out upon the council
of Nicsea (325), as well as the exasperation of Paganism,
so sharpened Christian fanaticism that persecution became
more and more the order of the day. Constantius (d. 361 ),
who had his hands full enough with the quarrels of Catholics
and Arians, promulgated an edict forbidding on peril of
death the marriage of Christian women with Jews.68 For
this reign there is also evidence concerning the relations of
64 Codex Theodosianus, Lib. xvi, Tit. 8, c. 2, anno 330; in the edition
of Ritter-Gothofred, Leipzig, 1736-1743, vol. vi, 240. This important
Title is called De Judais, Samaritanis, et Ccelicolis {ib. p. 234).
^Ibid., c. 1; an. 315.
™Ibid., c. 7.
67 Ibid., xvi, 9, c. 2 (Ritter, vi, 271).
es Ibid., xvi, 8, c. 6.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 101
Samaritans with the Jews. In 339 the latter raised a revolt
at Sepphoris in Galilee, whence they are said to have " de
stroyed many Greeks and Samaritans " ; that is, the raids
were carried into Samaria, or the outlying settlements of
Samaritans on the coast or in Peraea.69
To the reign of Constantius, the ruler of the eastern por
tion of the empire (337-361), in association with his
brother, the emperor Constans, is to be assigned one anec
dote in the Samaritan chronicles. According to this tradi
tion70 the emperor Decius was followed by Tahus, who pro
hibited the reading of the Law and the observance of the
rites, his prefect in Samaria being a certain Garman. The
anecdote proceeds to relate that the highpriest Nathanael
was in a quandary how to circumcise his eldest son, the later
famous Baba Rabba, for the Samaritans seem to have had
the custom of performing the rite before the community.
At last he resolved to have it performed in a cave outside
of the town, and so gave the child to a servant to carry
him thither in a basket, while the party was to follow im
mediately. The servant was met by the prefect and ac
costed with the words : " Do what thou intendest and fear
not," and upon her return, he again addressed her : " Bring
him up in peace, my child." The highpriest learned that
the prefect was aware of his illegal action, and full of fear
plucked up the courage to approach him with a bribe. The
latter refused it, and promised on oath to make no report
to the emperor. In consequence of this benevolence it be
came the custom of the Samaritans, whenever they had
occasion to circumcise a child in a cave, to pray that " God
have mercy on Garman, the Roman prefect ! "
Now there was a bishop of Neapolis by the name of Ger-
manus, who was present at the councils of Ancyra and Neo-
69 Socrates, Hist, eccles., ii, 33 ; Theophanes, Chronographia, 61 ;
Cedrenus, 524 (the two latter in the Corpus scriptorum historia Byzan-
tina). 70 Lib. Jos. xlix; Abu'l Fath, 150; Chron. Adler, 63.

102 THE SAMARITANS
Cassarea (314), and of Nicsea (325 ).71 The title given
the governor, qasts, means, in both Arabic and Syriac
(qashshis), an ecclesiastical dignitary, as well as governor.
The official in the Samaritan tradition is therefore no other
than Germanus, the Christian bishop of Neapolis, and the
emperor Tahus doubtless Constantius. We may assume
that the stringency of official measures against the Samari
tan religion depended much upon the zeal of the ecclesi
astics ; in this case we have a rare and noble instance of the
Christian charity of a bishop of that age to the enemies of
his Church. The story also states that watchers were
appointed to keep the Samaritans from circumcision ; that is,
the old law of Hadrian was now again set in force against
the Samaritans.72
This anecdote is of important chronological value, for it
serves to give the date for an episode which the Samaritans
look back upon as one of the most glorious in their history.
This is the story of their great hero, Baba Rabba, who when
a child was the unconscious object of the clemency of good
bishop Germanus. Despite the arrangement of the Samari
tan chronicles, which assign Baba Rabba to the Hid Cen
tury, specifically to the reigns of Severus and Philip, all the
sure data refer his life to the mddle of the IVth Century;
probably he flourished under the eastern co-emperor Con
stantius.73 It is unnecessary to enter into the details of the largely
71 See Reland, Palastina, 1009.
72 To Juynboll, Lib. Jos. 151, belongs the credit of recognizing the
historic circumstances of this anecdote.
73 The history is given at greatest length in Abu'l Fath, 129-146; in
briefer abstract in Chron. Adler, 51-62; also in Chron. Neub. 440-442;
Lib. Jos. xlviii-1. The chronology is fixed by the references to Ger
manus and Constantius (Tahus), while the exact date is given accord
ing to several eras in Chron. Adler, S7f, according to which Baba
"appeared" in the 655th year from Alexander, i. e., A. D. 319, and in
the 308th year after Jesus Christ. His activity is said to have begun
in his 40th year. The name Baba Rabba, " the Great Gate," was doubt
less a title of religious significance.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 103
exuberant and absurd story of the hero. The residuum
of solid facts seems to be as follows : Baba Rabba was the
eldest son of the highpriest, and instituted a great relig
ious revival and reformation. His supporters seem to have
been the laity, for he favored the laymen to the prejudice
of the priests, establishing a college of Seven Wise Men,
only three of whom were priests, while laymen seem to have
been set in charge of the synagogues. He reconstituted the
priestly line, whose pedigree had been lost. He recovered
what he could of the holy books, and restored the worship of
the community, also building eight stone synagogues. The
land was divided for administrative purposes into twelve
districts.74 The oldest stratum of the story reports that
Baba Rabba announced that he did not intend any political
revolution in his reformation; 75 but the story develops into
extravagant accounts of his successes against the enemies
of the Samaritans, in which figures are used in truly oriental
style. To give credit to the annalist, Abu'l Fath declares
that he is not responsible for part of the impossible story.76
There is an account of a successful fray with the Roman
tax-gatherers, and also of an encounter with Arab invaders,
who seem to have been cooperating with the Persian king.
At the end of his life the hero was compelled to go to Con
stantinople, where he was held in most honorable captivity
until his death. In connection with this heroic story we also
learn that Marka the great theologian of the Samaritans
flourished about the same time, a generation or two later
than Baba Rabba, and this connection gives us further val
uable corroboration of the fact that in this century Samari
tanism enjoyed a renascence.77
There is no external reference to this episode of Baba
Rabba, but without doubt place can be found for it in the
74 For these districts, see below, p. 150.
75 Abu'l Fath, 133.
76 P. J-39-
77 See below, p. 294.

104 THE SAMARITANS
history of the IVth Century. The period of sectarian strife
under the sons of Constantine offered an opportunity for the
recrudescence of the oriental sects. The follower of those
princes, the Pagan but infinitely nobler Julian, in his con
flict with the Church showed his favors to the Jews, and the
Samaritans may be considered to have shared in his grace.
Valens (364-368), the co-emperor with Valentinian I. in
the Orient, caused a reaction not only of the Arians but
also of the other religions of the empire, and Cedrenus
mentions that in his eighth year he conferred honors on
the Jews.78 There is a Samaritan reminiscence of this
emperor in the story of an appeal made by the children
of a highpriest concerning their patrimony to the " king
Balsamis." 79 These reigns accordingly gave a welcome
breathing-space to the eastern sects, and in this period we
find a place for the Samaritan memories of the glorious
age of Baba Rabba. Yet another corroboration may be
established in Abu'l Fath's report of the war waged between
" the king of Mosul," i. e., Persia, and Rome at this time,
referring perhaps to the Persian invasion in 353,80 and
again in the note of the Ishmaelite invasion of Palestine,
which is affirmed by external authorities.81 We possess
therefore in the Samaritan annals some fairly correct his
torical traditions for this period. To the stimulus of the
reform and rejuvenation of the sect under Baba Rabba we
have to ascribe much of the self-assertive and pugnacious
patriotism which the Samaritans displayed during the re
mainder of the Byzantine age.
Despite his partizan zeal, the empire gained in Theodosius
I. (379-395) a ruler filled with the spirit of Roman law.
78 Cedrenus, 544.
79 Abu'l Fath, 164. The Arabic form comes through the Greek, Bales.
80 Ammianus, xiv, 3; so Appel suggests, p. 74. Or is it a reference
to Julian's disastrous campaign?
81 Abu'l Fath, i36f; cf. Sozomenus, vi, 38; Socrates, iv, 36; Theo-
phanes, i, 92, 100.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 105
Accordingly his attention was frequently drawn to the Jews
in regard both to their peculiar afflictions at the hand of
officials and populace, and also to their exceptional rights
over against the common law of the empire. He stoutly
defended the Jews against the oppression of governors, as
in the case of the capital condemnation of a certain Hesych-
ius of consular rank, who had seized the papers of the
Jewish patriarch,82 and gave strict injunctions to restrain
the interference of mobs with the rights and property of
that race, also disallowing the inequitable municipal exac
tions often levied upon them, for instance, in the regulation
of the prices of their wares.83 In a certain particular he
maintained their ecclesiastical autonomy and discipline by
protecting their right of excommunication.84 In one of his
edicts Theodosius includes by name the Samaritans — the
first mention of them in Roman edicts that has been pre
served. The law reads thus : " It is recognized that the
community of the Jews and of the Samaritans cannot be
summoned for navicular duty [i. e., the obligation of
furnishing ships for the state], for the duty which appears
to be enjoined on the whole body can obligate no person in
particular ; hence on the one hand those who are poor and
engaged in petty business ought not to have to perform the
duty of contributing ships to the state, so on the other hand,
those, who having the means can be chosen from these
bodies, ought not to be immune to the aforesaid func
tion."85 The intent of the edict is evidently this, to relieve
82 Jerome, De optima genere interpretandi, ad Pamachium; ed Migne,
xxii, 570. This letter may not be genuine.
S3Cod. Theodos. xvi, 8, cc. 9, 10, 12 (Ritter, vi, 245ff).
siIbid., c. 8.
S5Ibid., xiii, 5, c. 18, an. 390 (Ritter, v, 84): Judseorum corpus ac
Samaritanorum ad naviculariam functionem non jure vocari cognosci-
tur; quidquid enim universo corpori videtur indici, nullam specialiter
potest obligare personam ; unde sicut inopes vilibusque commerciis
occupati naviculariae translationis munus obire non debent, ita idoneos
facultatibus, qui ex his corporibus deligi poterunt, ad prsedictam func
tionem haberi non oportet immunes.

106 THE SAMARITANS
synagogal communities of the navicular duty, which other
wise would lie upon the poor as well as the rich of those
bodies, and to require that duty of those individual mem
bers whose wealth rendered them liable. We observe here
the effort of the imperial lawyer to ignore the semi-
autonomous ecclesiastical communities with their ancient
separate privileges and responsibilities, and, on the other
hand, to place all their members on the same footing with
other citizens.86 This law is of peculiar interest because of
its explicit reference to the Samaritans ; we have also to in
fer that all the legislation applying to the Jews was gen
erally construed as covering the smaller sect. The law in
question is addressed to the governor of Alexandria, where
there was an extensive Samaritan community.
Of Theodosius's equitable disposition Abu'l Fath reports
what is doubtless a true reminiscence.87 The Romans came
to Neapolis to keep the Samaritans from worshipping on
Gerizim, but God put it in the heart of king Theodosius
(Tahadis) to drive off the disturbers. The anecdote is
placed in the midst of accounts of frays between Samaritans
and Christians, which seem therefore to have been checked
by the strong hand of the government.
But a far more grievous difficulty now assailed the
Samaritans than any which arose from the law. Samaria
had now become holy ground to the Christians as well as
to the Shechemites, and with the advent of the Church to
empire there arose the fanatical question as to the posses
sion of the sacred sites, most of which the Christians pro
ceeded to claim. On one memorable occasion the land had
been trodden by the feet of Christ, and Christian devotion
promptly addressed itself to the well by Sychar, where Jesus
taught the Samaritan woman, and which was also hoary
86 Gratz, op. cit. iv, 387, has misunderstood the implication of this
law, and is uncertain whether it is favorable or otherwise to the com
munities concerned.
87 P. 169.

Joseph's Tomb.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 107
with patriarchal tradition as Jacob's Well — one of the few
spots in Palestine which we can exactly identify with
Christ's movements. In the IVth Century the sacred Well
came into Christian possession, and Jerome, writing about
404, records how the venerable lady Paula visited the
church that was built about Jacob's Well; this possession
was maintained by the Christians down into Muslim
times.88 There was yet another holy site not far off from the Well
which also claimed the interest of Christians. This was the
Tomb of Joseph, which, according to Jewish tradition,
attested for the Ist Century A. C, was the sepulchre of the
Twelve Patriarchs or Sons of Jacob.89 Jerome reports
that Paula, after visiting Jacob's Well, "turned aside and
saw the tombs of the Twelve Patriarchs." Of the conflicts
which broke out over the possessions of this site the Samari
tan chronicles preserve some interesting reminiscences,90
these annals being only acquainted with the tradition con
cerning Joseph, not with that of the Twelve. They report,
in Abu'l Fath, just before the mention of Theodosius, that
the Christians came and attempted to carry off Joseph's
bones in order to transport them to their own cities. Their
undertaking was frustrated by miracles, including a won
drous light and cloud, and finally they contented themselves
with building over the spot a church. This was destroyed
by the Samaritans, and the community bought itself off
from punishment only through payment of a fine. There
upon they made the tomb inaccessible for all time. In
matter of fact no ancient remains are found on the spot,
88 Jerome, Epitaphium Paula, ed. Migne, xxii, 888. The pilgrims
Antoninus Martyr (of Plaisance), Arnulf, Willibald, mention the
church. The . Samaritans appear now to have lost all sense of the
sanctity of the spot, although acquainted with the tradition. For these
references see Reland, op. cit. 1008; Robinson, BR iii, no; and Guerin,
op. cit. i, 380, who gives the references in full.
89 Acts, 7, 16; see J. Lightfoot, ad loc, and commentaries.
90 Abu'l Fath, 169 ; Chron. Adler, 74.

108 THE SAMARITANS
the present structure covering the site being quite mod
ern.91 In this connection may be mentioned yet another anec
dote which may be placed in the IVth Century.92 The
highpriest built a large synagogue, and furnished it with
the gates which had decorated Hadrian's temple on Gerizim,
and which that monarch had brought from Jerusalem.93
For this theft he was called into account by " king Saqa-
fatus," with whom he finally settled by a heavy payment.
What is meant by the barbarous name has not been made
out.94 It may be conjectured that this event took place
shortly after the fall of Paganism, when the Samaritans
ventured to spoil the heathen shrines for their own
advantage.95 The evil conditions of the Israelite sects increased in the
Vth Century. For the bloody persecutions of the Jews,
which were led by the clergy and followed with desperate
uprisings on the part of the victims, reference may be made
to the general histories.98 The western emperor Honorius
(395-423) had occasion to include the Samaritans in an
edict concerning the Jews : " The Jews and Samaritans,
who flatter themselves to have the privileges of being royal
agents [informers], are to be deprived of all such service."97
Equally with Honorius his second colleague in the East,
91 Baedeker, 225.
92 Abu'l Fath, 166 ; Chron. Adler, 72. For a discussion see Clermont-
Ganneau, Journal des Savants, ii, 43.
93 See above, p. 91.
94Vilmar, Abu'l _ Fath, p. lxxiii, thinks of ivlaKovos, Clermont-
Ganneau rejects this identification. I would suggest avKo<pavrqs, i. c.,
the imperial informer, the role which was taken by the Agens in rebus.
The word occurs in Rabbinic; see Jastrow, Dictionary, s. v. *|pD-
95 The Samaritan building is said to have been a synagogue, but this
may have been an attempt to rebuild the Samaritan temple.
96 E. g. Gratz, op. cit. iv, 389.
97 Cod. Theodos. xvi, 8, c. 16, an. 404 (Ritter vi, 254) : Iudseos et
Samaritanos, qui sibi agentium in rebus privilegio blandiuntur, omni
militia privandos esse censemus. However the administration of Ar-
cadius, the co-emperor in the East was very favorable to the Jews;
Gratz, op. cit. iv, 387.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 109
Theodosius II. (408-450), was intent upon the Christian-
ization of the empire. It is significant that in his reign the
patriarchate of the Jews, which in the person of the last
Gamaliel had received high honors from the imperial court,
being given the dignity of a prefecture, was finally abol
ished.98 But passing over the legislation which names
only the Jews, we will notice those edicts in which the Sa
maritans are specified.
For the year 426 a law is preserved which guards the
interests of the Jewish and Samaritan converts to the Chris
tian faith ; in such cases " no child of Jews or Samaritans
is to be disinherited by parents or grandparents, or receive
less by testament than if the testator had died intestate."99
A still more severe edict followed thirteen years later,
in which all former disabilities of the opponents of the
Catholic faith are reaffirmed, peculiar advantages abolished,
and new disabilities imposed. In the first chapter of the
Hid Novella to the Theodosian Code (439), addressed
against " Jews, Samaritans, Pagans, and all kinds of Here
tics,"100 the emperor abrogates all earlier laws admitting
Jews and Samaritans to civic honors, and prohibits spe
cifically their receiving the function of Defensor, a kind of
gentlemanly office with the power of restraining the rapaci
ties of governors in the larger cities. The reason assigned
is the fear lest these sectarians might injure or insult the
Christians and their clergy. It is further forbidden to con-
98 See Gratz, op. cit. iv, 389, and Note 22. This patriarch lost his
honors through arrogance (415), and the empire terminated the succes
sion upon his death, circa 425. The emperor's wife Eudoxia was an
especially zealous patroness of the sacred sites of Palestine.
aaCod. Theodos. xvi, 8> c. 28 (Ritter, vi, 267).
100 See Ritter's edition of the Novelise of Theodosius, at end of vol.
vi, p. 9. The form of this phrase still survives in the Third Collect of
the Anglican Church for Good Friday, "Jews, Turks, Infidels, and
Heretics." The same phrase appears in the first section: Iudaeos Sa-
maritas Paganos et cetera haereticorum genera portentorum.. For the
last word, cf. Jerome's expression portenta nomina, used of certain
sects; Ad Gal. ii, pref. (Migne xxvi, 382).

HO THE SAMARITANS
struct new synagogues, or rebuild old ones, except that
dilapidated edifices might be propped up. The conversion
of slave or freeman is made a capital crime and entails con
fiscation of all property, while attempts' upon the faith of
Christians may involve the same penalty. Those who have
honors may no longer enjoy them, any further building of
synagogues will inure to the profit of the Church, and all
the members of the sects shall relapse into the condition of
the meanest inhabitants of the empire. Withal they are
not to be released from any of the burdens of the state, as
in the matter of all imposts or military duty, lest such
exemption should be to their advantage. Only they may
not be employed as apparitors or jailors, lest they have
opportunities to ill-treat Christian prisoners. This is the
fullest imperial law we possess concerning the Jews and
Samaritans, and its provisions implied the repression of
those sects; later laws could only advance to complete out
lawry. The great conflict that was brewing between the empire
and the Samaritans first came to a head under the emperor
Zeno (474-491). The oppression of this cruel and
degraded ruler fanned the flames of revolt in the provinces,
and the civil war started by Ulus (484) produced a bloody
revolt which particularly devastated Palestine. In 486 there
was an uprising of the Jews in Antioch, which was sup
pressed by their almost entire extermination within that
city. After the overthrow of Illus's army, the Samaritans
themselves arose and proceeded to a bloody massacre of the
Christians (484), some exact details of which are preserved
in the Greek chronicles.101 While the Christians of Neapolis
were celebrating Whitsun, the Samaritans attacked them,
and cut off the fingers of the bishop Terebinthus, who was
officiating at the altar. The Samaritans thereupon named
101 Chronicon Paschale, to year 484 ; Procopius, De adiUciis, v, 7
(placing the event in the year 490).

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 1 1 1
as king a certain Justa, or Justasa, a Samaritan leader of
the banditti that infested the land. The successful rebels
with their king then proceeded to Caesarea, which itself
was the seat of a large Samaritan community; here they
destroyed many Christians and burnt down the church of
St. Procopius, while Justa celebrated a triumph in correct
style with the games of the circus. But the governor of
Palestine, Asclepiades, and Rheges, an imperial general,
advanced against him and overthrew him. Meanwhile the
unfortunate Terebinthus had fled to the emperor Zeno and
persuaded him to vengeance against the Samaritans. The
latter were expelled from Gerizim, and on its summit a
church was built in honor of the Virgin, the first Christian
sanctuary on that site. About the old Samaritan temple a
stockade was established, and a strong guard placed in
Neapolis.102 Procopius adds that the people, though sorely
angered and distressed, had to submit.
For these events the Samaritan chronicles have unusually
full information, although the chronology is confused, the
affair of Justa being assigned to Marcian's reign.103 The
outbreak, it is reported, was due to the attempt of the Chris
tians to remove the bones of the highpriests Eleazar,
Ithamar and Phineas, a case like that earlier enacted about
Joseph's tomb. The governor of Caesarea took part with
the Christians, but wishing to avoid too much bloodshed,
proposed a duel of champions. On the Christian side was
a great giant accompanied by a dog of demon-like powers,
but the Samaritan champion, Justia, slew the beast, and the
Christians were routed. From that time none has at-
102 This reference to the temple on Gerizim is, in addition to the
parallel reference of the Samaritan chronicle, given immediately below,
the only testimony to the rebuilding of the temple destroyed by John
Hyrcanus. But on the other side is to be placed the testimony of Pro
copius, in the following century : " They never built any temple there,
but revered in their worship its summit as the holiest place of all " ;
Ds (Fu. ITlCll S" V 7
103 Abu'l 'Fath, 169-172; Chron. Adler, 74-76.

112 THE SAMARITANS
tempted to enter the tombs of the patriarchs. Then upon
Zeno's arrival in the land, he brought the Samaritans under
the jurisdiction of the Christian courts.104 He forbade
their burning, charring, or destroying anything with fire;
this prescription must have reference in part to the peculiar
fire-purifications prevalent amongst the Samaritans.105 He
then attempted their conversion, ordering them to adore the
cross, and killed seventy of their chiefs at the "Colonnade."
The holy places of the community were confiscated, the
synagogue of Akbun he turned into a monastery.106 Upon
his visit to the synagogue of Baba Rabba he was surprised
at the absence of images. Next he demanded the sale of
the holy mount, but the Samaritans, while politely acknowl
edging his power, refused to enter into a bargain; there
upon he seized the temple, its precincts, and the pools of
water alongside. The temple he enlarged and turned into
a Christian church, surmounted with a large white dome,
wherein a light burned at night — which could be seen
as far as Constantinople and Rome! He also constructed
a tomb in front of the temple, so that when the Samaritans
turned towards Gerizim, they would have to face the tomb.
As for the body which it contained, Abu'l Fath records two
versions of the story: one that he buried there a child of
his, the other that he himself was buried there.
In addition to these independent data, there are several
interesting correspondences between the Byzantine histo
rians and the Samaritan chronicles, as in the name of the
Samaritan leader, the connection of Caesarea with the his-
104 This statement is important for our knowledge of the legal status
of the community at Neapolis.
105 See Additional Note C.
108 Chron. Adler has: "he made it a house for the saints, 0>B>np;
Abu'l Fath: "he put in it a clergy-house, and made in front of it a
place for unveiled (i. e. shameless) women." I suggest that this re
markable allusion is to a nunnery, with an obscepe play upon the sense
of qedoshim according to the primitive technical meaning of qedesha
as a religious prostitute, e. g. Dt. 23, 18.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 113
tory, the confiscation of the synagogues in the town and of
the holy site on Gerizim, and the replacement of the Samari
tan temple there with a Christian church.107
The loss of their holy places, the abrogation of their pecu
liar rights, the contumely of the Christians, and the exac
tions of the corrupt imperial administration, only the more
exasperated the wretched Samaritan community, but to its
miserable undoing. In the troublous days of Anastasius
(491-518), the same kind of fanaticism that exhibited itself
in the days of Pilate was repeated by a mob of Samaritans,
who, headed by a woman, scaled the sacred hill, surprised
and massacred the garrison, and seized the church of St.
Mary. But Procopius, governor of Palestine, was soon
able to suppress the uprising, and its leaders were slain.108
The reign of the most orthodox Justinian (527-565)
brought renewed and final disaster upon the Samaritan
sect. The memory of the catastrophe seems to have been
obliterated in the mind of the latter by the frightful
disorders of a bloody uprising and the well-nigh complete
extermination of the local sect by the imperial reprisals ; at
all events no information of this period is to be gained from
the Samaritan chronicles. On the other hand the Byzan
tine annalists and Cyril of Scythopolis have preserved vari
ous data, which afford a general view of the events, while
the laws of Justinian reflect the brutal history in a passion
less legal code.
The tragedy seems to have received its impulse from
an edict of Justinian found under the title De Hcereticis et
107 The evidence of the Samaritan records concerning the site of the
temple and of the church of St. Mary which replaced it has not been
appreciated by students. There are several points of archaeological
interest in Abu'l Fath's story, as in the reference to the dome of the
church and the pools confiscated by Zeno, the locality of which can still
be identified. See Guerin, op. cit. i, c. xxv, who, however, makes no
use of the Samaritan evidence.
ios Procopius, De adificiis, v, 7.
8

1 14 THE SAMARITANS
Manichms et Samaritis, issued in 527. 109 In this law all
the earlier disabilities of Pagans ("Greeks"), Jews, and
Samaritans were confirmed. This edict was immediately
followed by a new law,110 providing that Orthodox children
of members of those sects may not be cut off by testament,
while the next law in prohibits the same classes from hold
ing councils, elections, or ecclesiastical offices, and from
possessing directly or indirectly any real estate. It is to be
noticed that in these edicts the Samaritans still appear on
the same footing with the Jews.
The Samaritans were in noble company ; in 529 the uni
versity of Athens was closed by imperial order, such was
the logical consequence of the laws de Hcereticis. But the
fanatical sects of the empire did not submit to suppression
as tamely as did the philosophers of Greece, for Procopius,
the contemporary historian and one time governor of Syria,
tells how, upon the enactment of these repressive edicts,
immediately " the whole Roman dominion was filled with
murder and flying fugitives," and the same narrator then
proceeds to detail the story of the Samaritan rebellion
which was thus incited.112
The great uprising took place in the middle of the year
529.113 It extended over the whole of Samaria, from
109 Codex Justinianus, i, 5, c. 12. Reference for these edicts is made
to Kriiger, Codex Justinianus, Berlin, 1877.
110 Ibid., c. 13.
111 Ibid., c. 14.
112 For the history of this revolt reference has been made for most of
the authorities to the Corpus scriptorum historia Byzantina, Bonn;
viz. Procopius, Historia arcana, c. 11; De adiiiciis Justiniani, v, 7 ;
John Malalas, 445 ; Cedrenus,^ i, 646 ; Theophanes, 274 ; Chronicon
Paschale, 619. The account given by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus in his
Life of St. Saba is quoted in part by Reland, op. cit. 674, and is to be
found in Cotelerius, Ecclesia Graca monumenta, iii, 340. Eutychius,
Annates, ed. M'igne, cxi, 1070, assigns the details of this uprising to
that of " the 21st year," referring to the one in 556; see below. Cf. also
Abu'l Faraj, Historia dynastiarum, ed. Pococke, p. 147 (tr. 92) ; Chron-
icum Syriacum, ed. Bruns-Kirsch, 83.
113 The month is variously given: May, by Cyril; June by Malalas
and Theophanes. The former date may refer to events at Scythopolis,
the latter to those at Gesarea. For the date see Appel, op. cit. 84.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 1 15
Scythopolis in the east to Caesarea on the coast. Many
places were burnt in the neighborhood of the former city,
according to Malalas, while Procopius, who is interested in
" his city," reports the indignation excited amongst the
Samaritans of Caesarea by the repressive legislation di
rected against heretics. By reason of an obscure statement
of Malalas, it has been argued that the Jews took part in
the uprising against the Christians : Tapers yevofievr)*
IBviKVfs <rvii.B,a.X6vT<DV yap ru>v 5a/iapeiT(Dv jxera^i) XpioTiai/tov koX lov-
Salsov; with this understanding of the history Theophanes
and Cedrenus, who are subsequent to the genuine Malalas
at least,114 agree, stating that it was an uprising of "Jews
and Samaritans." But as Gratz points out,115 the obscure
Greek of Malalas indicates that the Samaritans attacked
both Christians and Jews. At all events, as from this
moment the legislation of Justinian begins sharply to dis
tinguish between the two Israelitish sects, it cannot well
be held that the Jews participated in the desperate attempt
of their rivals. Procopius adds that the indignation of the
Samaritans caused the majority to pervert to the Mani-
chaeans and " Polytheists " — an obscure statement, as both
the Manichaeans and Samaritans were in the same boat.
Probably the underlying fact is that the two sects made com
mon cause in this rebellion.
But the center of Samaritan resistance lay naturally in
the highlands of Samaria, and here " the rustics " elevated
a certain Samaritan bandit, Julian, son of Sabar, as their
emperor.116 At Neapolis, according to Cyril, the bishop
114 See below, Note 133.
115 Op. cit. iv, Note 6.
116 This action repeats the history of Justa, as above, p. m. Malalas
adds here the anecdote that Julian entered Neapolis escorted by a
crowd of followers and attended the games; the victor in the first
event, Niceas, proving to be a Christian, the upstart king had him
slain to avoid the evil omen. But, in the first place there was no
theatre at Neapolis, whereas that of Herod at Caesarea, with its quin
quennial games in honor of Caesar, was famous ; and further the story
is suspiciously like the anecdote concerning Justa. It is also most

Il6 THE SAMARITANS
Sammon (or Ammon) was slain along with many presby
ters, and the rebels prevailed to the extent of making the
highways impassable to Christians. It became imperatively
necessary that the administration should interfere; the em
peror punished with death the governor Bassus, who had
not forestalled the insurrection (so Malalas), and sent duke
Theodore to suppress it ; he was accompanied, according to
Procopius, by the (new) governor of Palestine, whose name
is given by Cyril as John.117 With the forces was asso
ciated the Saracenic phylarch. The rebels maintained
themselves "for a long time" (so Procopius), but were
finally routed and dispersed, losing, the same historian
asserts, 100,000 men, which figure is reduced by Malalas
to 20,000. Julian was captured, and his head sent to the
emperor (Malalas and Cedrenus). The fugitives hid them
selves in the hills and caves, especially on Gerizim, or fled
into the Trachonitis. The Arab phylarch obtained for his
spoil 20,000 captives, who were sold to distant parts of the
world. Cyril tells how the aged and holy Saba of Scythopolis
proceeded to Constantinople to obtain satisfaction and pro
tection for the Christians. He found opposition at court
however. The Samaritan atrocities at Scythopolis had been
repaid in kind by the Christians, who had murdered along
with other victims a gentleman named Sylvanus, a protector
of the Samaritans. The latter's son, Count Arsenius, ac
cordingly laid a counter-petition before the emperor, and
even gained the favor of the empress Theodora. But Saba
finally prevailed. The taxes were remitted because of the
depredations that had been wrought, the churches were
ordered to be rebuilt, and reference is made to edicts of
unlikely that the bandit entered Caesarea in view of Procopius's silence
concerning such an event. The tale is evidently a reminiscence of the
earlier history.
117 But the Paschal Chronicle here names Irenaeus the Pentadian,
who also appears in Malalas as the new governor.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 1 17
outlawry against the Samaritans, which will be noticed
below. The new governor then pursued a severe persecu
tion of the Samaritans.
Procopius, in De cediUciis, v, 7, gives an account of
Justinian's building operations on Gerizim and in Shechem.
The emperor reared outside of the old stockade erected by
Zeno an impregnable wall.118 He also rebuilt five churches
which had been destroyed on Gerizim.119
Theophanes and Malalas recount an interesting sequel to
the story of this desperate uprising.120 A deputation was
sent to the Persian king from the Samaritans offering to de
liver to him the land of Palestine, and to furnish him the aid
of 50,000 Samaritan and Jewish troops;121 thereupon the
monarch rejected the terms of peace which had been brought
at that time by a Roman embassy, his covetousness for the
rich spoils of Jerusalem being excited by the Samaritan
offer.122 But the plot was discovered by the arrest of the
deputation, consisting of five Samaritans, upon their return
from the east. The incident has its counterpart in the
assistance actually given by the Jews to Chosroes II. in his
conquest of Palestine in the early part of the next century.
The Samaritan story of the relations between the Sassanide
dynasty and the Samaritans in the Hid Century, is prob
ably a reminiscence of frequent conspiracies with the Per
sians, in which all non-Christian inhabitants of Syria took
part.123 118 The remains of this wall are still to be seen ; Guerin, op. cit.
i, 426.
119 So the context, and not as Robinson, BR iii, 124, " in the city
itself." 120 Theophanes, 274 ; Malalas, 455. Malalas, however, narrates the
incident in connection with the later uprising of the Samaritans in
Justinian's reign, for which see below, p. 121. According to Malalas,
the Persian monarch concerned is Choades, i. e., Chobad : according
to Theophanes, Chosroes I. The change^of throne from the former to
the latter monarch occurred in 531.
121 Malalas has it that 50,000 fled into Persia.
122 The embassy was led by Hermogenes, according to Theophanes ;
by Rufinus, according to Malalas.
123 See above, p. 96.

118 THE SAMARITANS
The new legislation provoked by the desperation of the
Samaritans is amply revealed in fresh laws of Justinian.
The 17th Chapter of the Title De Hcereticis et Manichceis
et Samaritis, " Concerning the Samaritans,"124 belongs to
the year of the Samaritan uprising, 529.125 In it the impe
rial legislation took prompt steps toward the outlawry of the
obnoxious sect. This Chapter provides, for the first time,
that their synagogues are to be destroyed, while their
rebuilding is penalized; the Samaritans may have no heirs
but Orthodox persons ; nor may they donate property, which
in such a case is to be confiscated, the bishops as well as the
governors being charged with the execution of this pro
vision. The next edict126 repeats the former provisions
concerning synagogues, testaments, and civic honors, and
further inquires into the pretensions made by Samaritans
of conversion to Christianity, the genuineness of which is
to be ascertained by examining whether they educate their
wives and children in the Christian faith. The children of
mixed marriages must be brought up in Orthodoxy. This
edict includes with the Samaritans the Manichaeans, Bor-
borites, Montanists, Taskogrudi, Ophites, and Pagans in
general, but the Jews are not mentioned. With the des
perate revolt of 529 the Jews and the Samaritans had
finally parted company in the eyes of the imperial legislation.
The inquisition into the genuineness of Samaritan con
versions is illustrated by a statement of the Paschal Chroni
cle,127 which shows that vigilance had to be exercised over
the cowed but pertinacious sect. " Some of them in fright
attached themselves under stress to Christianity, and were
accepted and baptized. And to this day they play a double
part. On the one hand in the case of severity on the part
of the governors, making a false appearance with secret
124 Cod. Justinian, i, 5, c. 17 (ed. Kriiger, p. 82).
125 Cf. the date of the parallel Latin edict, ibid. c. 19
i26 Ibid., c. 18.
127 Chron. Pasch. 619.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 1 19
purpose and of evil intention, they declare themselves to be
Christians; but in the case where governors are avaricious,
the Samaritans act as hating Christianity and as ignorant
of it, persuading the governors to let them Samaritize by
bribes."128 The repressive legislation was continued in an edict of
531, by which Heretics and Jews may not bear witness in
cases where Orthodox persons are concerned. Amongst
themselves however that right is allowed, exception being
made however against " the Manichaeans, Borborites, Pa
gans, and the Samaritans, and those who are not unlike
the latter, namely Montanists, Taskodrugi, and Ophites."
To these sects all judicial rights whatsoever are interdicted,
the only exception being in the matter of wills, contracts,
etc., where the public good might be hampered by this
strict provision.129 This law is interesting for its assimila
tion of the Samaritans with the extreme Christian sects.130
In a Novella of 537 Justinian again repeats the provisions
of the edict of Theodosius II., to the effect that Jews, Sa
maritans and Pagans are not free from curial responsibility,
although they may enjoy no curial privileges.131
But the crushing blows which the law and the arm of the
state had inflicted upon the Samaritans produced the de
sired results. Procopius testifies132 that a majority of the
Samaritans became Christian converts, although that their
ready-made faith was often hypocritical has been already
128 Procopius, Hist, arcana, c. 27, sub. tin., tells of a certain Faustina,
who, forced into Christianity and becoming proconsul of Palestine,
nevertheless used his powers to oppress the Christians; he was con
victed upon the charges brought against him by ecclesiastics, but
bribed the emperor Justinian, and so avoided the penalty.
120 Cod. Justinian, i, 5, c. 21.
130 The term, " Manichaeans and Samaritans " was used as a by
word of reproach between the factions of Constantinople in Justinian's
reign ; Theophanes, i, 280.
131 Novella, xiv; cf. above, p. no. Reference for the Novelise is
made to Osenbriiggen's edition of the Corpus juris civilis, Leipzig,
1854, vol. iii.
132 Historia arcana, c. n.

120 THE SAMARITANS
noticed. The backbone of revolt now seemed broken, and
Justinian was doubtless too acute a statesman to enjoy
the presence in his realm of a race of absolute outlaws, so
that when an appeal for clemency was made to him by
Sergius, bishop of Caesarea, in which city the Samaritans
had been both numerous and financially potent, he retracted
some of the extreme prescriptions against the sect. His
new regulations and the reasons therefor are set forth in
full in the CXXIXth Novella, De Samaritis, and are in ab
stract as follows :
In the Preface he magnanimously asserts that " there is
no delinquency of his subjects which his clemency cannot
heal," and that he follows the principle of tempering " the
justice of wrath with the reasons of mercy." He refers
to the unique arrogance of the Samaritans in their re
bellion, and sums up the earlier edicts outlawing them from
all rights of testament and alienation of property. Never
theless, he observes, the keenness of the law has not been
carried out in practice, for he has not permitted the state-
treasury to derive any advantage from those penal statutes.
Pie then proceeds, in Chapter i, to relate how Sergius,
pleading that the Samaritans had greatly improved, and
vouching for their future loyalty, had induced him to make
changes in their legal status. He extends to them the
usual testamentary rights and the laws applying to intes
tates, and also the powers of contract and donation. But
in Chapter 2, he asserts he will not put Christian heirs upon
the same footing as those who have remained Samaritans;
in case of intestate property, it can be claimed only by
Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, according to the 3d
Chapter, to offer chance of repentance, if any who have been
excluded from inheritance turn to the true faith, they shall
receive their due share, though without the usufruct of the
time elapsed. But a testator may not devise more than a
sixth of his property to unbelievers, and yet the like chance

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 121
of repentance and resulting profit shall be open to these
latter. The 4th Chapter prohibits the treasury receiving
any advantage from the older laws, and makes the present
law retroactive in this respect.
But Justinian's earlier severity rather than the clemency
of his later days was approved by the results. The sore
of the race had advanced too far for " his clemency to
heal." , The desperate sect arose in yet another insurrec
tion, recorded for the year 556.133 To condense our au
thorities, in July of that year, the Samaritans of Caesarea
revolted, attacked and killed many of the Christians, and
burnt churches. They slew the eparch Stephen in the prae-
torium, and plundered his property; his wife fled and ap
pealed to the emperor, who sent as governor Amantius
(Theophanes), or Adamantius (Cedrenus), and summary
vengeance was taken upon the Samaritans.
There is yet further evidence for the obstinate unruliness
of the Samaritans, which again brought upon them the ven
geance of the empire. In a letter of a certain Simeon, the
author complained to the emperor Justin II. (565-578) con
cerning the outrages committed by a settlement of Samari
tans at the foot of Mt. Carmel upon the Christian churches
and especially upon the holy images.134 The rebelliousness
133 fhe authorities are Malalas, 455 ; Cedrenus, i, 675 ; Theophanes,
i> 355- As the scene is Caesarea, Robinson holds, BR iii, 125, that
probably the story belongs to the events of 529. (As we have seen,
Malalas and Eutychius are confused between the two uprisings.) But
as Juynboll remarks, Hist. Sam., 162, the details of this fresh insur
rection differ from those of the earlier date, to which argument it
may be added that it is strange that Procopius did not relate these out
rages in connection with the history of the events of 529. There are
to be sure some cases of confusion in the story of Malalas, as in plac
ing the narrative of the conspiracy with the Persian king in connection
with the second insurrection, and in his entanglement of the stories of
Justa and Julian. Malalas should be, as a contemporary, a first rate
witness, but in matter of fact the xviiith book of his history, bearing
on Justinian's reign, is of doubtful authenticity; see Bury in Gibbon,
op. cit. iv, 518.
134 This letter is a document laid before the Second_ Council of
Nicaea (787), in the Iconoclastic controversy, and is contained in Har-

122 THE SAMARITANS
of the Samaritans, instanced in such outrages, seems to
have been the cause of the reversal of the former imperial
clemency, and Justin II. issued an edict, the CXLIVth No
vella (572), in which he indignantly deprives them of all
privileges, and except in one particular wholly outlaws them.
In the Preface the emperor refers to his father's benevo
lence, which has been so ill rewarded by the sect. In the
ist Chapter he deprives them of all testamentary and con
tractual rights, confiscating to the public treasury all prop
erty for which there are no Orthodox heirs. In the 2d
Chapter he makes an exception in the case of peasant hold
ings. The rustics may make testamentary and other dis
position of their property to their coreligionists, in order
that the taxable value of the land may not be decreased
through the outlawry of the farming population. In case
of failure of heirs to the farmer-tenant the proprietor of
the land must take it up and satisfy the public treasury for
its taxes.135 The law then forbids to the Samaritans all
military and civil service, the rights of legal advocacy, of
legal education, and of the instruction of youth. If upon
simulated conversion the Samaritans are found to be keep
ing the Sabbath or other like institutions, their property is
to be confiscated, and themselves exiled. Also to insure
genuine conversion, none is to be received to baptism ex
cept after a two years' catechumenate under good teachers
and with a course of Bible instruction. Children however
may be admitted without this preparation. The Samari
tans may not possess Christian slaves, and if they hold any,
douin, Acta Conciliorum, iv, 290 (cf. p. 781) ; see Juynboll, op. cit.
163. The author has been confused with Simon Stylites. The senti
ment of the Council was that the Samaritans were the worst kind of
heretics because they destroyed images !
135 This provision is illustrated by a statement of Procopius, Hist.
arcana, c. n, to the effect that the Christian proprietors in Samaria
suffered great losses upon the rebellion of 529 through the obligation
laid on them of making good the taxes, when the -peasant tenants had
been so largely exterminated and the value of the estates correspond
ingly diminished.

UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE 123
these become ipso facto free ; a Samaritan slave obtains his
freedom if he accepts Christianity.
Thus, with the avoidance of actual extermination, the
imperial legislation had reached the extreme in the outlawry
of the Samaritan sect. But one legal right was preserved
to a portion of the race; to avoid the impoverishment of
the land, the rustic population still maintained some prop
erty rights. But every inducement, even of bribery and tor
ture, was offered for perversion to Christianity; all offices
of honor, all opportunities of culture, were closed to the
wretched people. It is a credit to the firmness of the sect
that it alone out of the innumerable petty " heresies " of
the Roman empire has survived to the present day, while
the cause of its intellectual degeneracy is to be ascribed to
the Christian empire, unable as the latter was to blot it
out. According to Procopius's remark, only a minority re
mained true to the ancestral faith; many must have fled to
the Persian kingdom, which was now threatening the east
ern borders, and we have seen how these sectarians as
sisted in further embroiling Rome with its oriental rival.
As for those who remained at home, only the peasant life
was legally open to them.
For the half century succeeding Justin II. down to
the Arabic conquest of Palestine, the imperial chronicles
report nothing about the Samaritans; the latter have pre
served but one reminiscence of the age when Syria was
the debatable ground between the Greek empire and Per
sia. The Chronicle Neubauer states136 that twenty years
before the Arabic conquest " Chosroes king of Assyria
crucified a great number of Samaritans," and that two
years later Arqali, king of Rome, seized the land of Canaan.
The former event is to be connected with Chosroes II. 's
conquest of Palestine in 614; as the Jews gave him hearty
assistance, it may be supposed that the Samaritans were
136 Chron. Neub., 445; cf. Chron. Adler, 79.

124 THE SAMARITANS
found in the opposition, and so suffered the ill-treatment
recorded. Arqali is the emperor Heraclius, who recon
quered Syria in 622. With this fragment of information
our knowledge of the Roman dominion over the Samaritans
comes to an end.

CHAPTER VII.
THE SAMARITANS UNDER ISLAM.
For this period of Samaritan history we have as native
sources the Chronicle Neubauer, the supplements to Abu'l
Fath, and the Chronicle Adler. The first-named chronicle
contains for the most part genealogical material offering
but few connections with general history and chronology.
The supplements to Abu'l Fath bring the history down
only as far as the Xth Century.1 The Chronicle Adler,
while containing a fairly good skeleton of imperial history,
which it has borrowed from Arabic historians, gives, apart
from the matter found in the earlier chronicles and cer
tain details concerning some personalities, almost no inde
pendent historical information until the XVIIth Century.
The references in the Muslim historians are very few, giv
ing valuable notes on the Samaritan religion, but throw
ing almost no light on their secular history. For the one
period when the western world might have left some record
of this Palestinian sect, namely the age of the Crusades,
we find that the Christian chronicles absolutely ignore the
subject of our study. One or two references sum up the
information to be derived from mediaeval Judaism. With
the re-discovery of the Samaritans by Scaliger at the
1 See Vilmar, pp. v, lxxxv, and in general, below, Chapter XIV, § n.
A supplement common to Vilmar's codices A and C brings down the
history, although in many cases with nothing more than the names of
the caliphs, to Harun ar-Rashid, while A contains a list of the high
priests to 1853. A second supplement to C pursues the history to the
end of the reign of the caliph Radhi, A. D. 940, but the text of this
portion is so corrupt that the editor gives only a synopsis of its
contents, p. lxxx et seq. 125

126 THE SAMARITANS
end of the XVIth Century, they emerge again into con
temporary notice, and their Epistles and then the inquiries
and actual visits of occidental scholars acquaint us more
and more with their later history, until at last Petermann's
famous sojourn amidst the declining sect in 1853 finally
opened up a thorough acquaintance with them on the part
of the western world. But in these last days we can
hardly speak of a history in connection with that almost
petrified fragment of ancient religion. In the following
brief sketch I confine myself to the data concerning the
Samaritans, without attempting a survey of the history
of Palestine.
Abu'l Fath dramatically concludes his Chronicle with
a story, belonging to a wide cycle of Muslim legend,2
narrating how three astrologers, a Jew, a Christian, and
a Samaritan — a certain Zohar Sarmasa — became sensi
ble through their art of the passing of the world-empire
into Mohammed's hands. They simultaneously visited him,
and the Samaritan was able to show how his sacred books
foretold the new prophet. The Jew and the Christian per
verted to the new faith, but the Samaritan remained faith
ful, and Mohammed finally granted him a charter bestow
ing complete immunity in faith and possessions upon the
Samaritans,3 a legend which is immediately belied by the
subsequent history. The Samaritans received for their ob
stinate rejection of Islam the same bitter persecutions that
befell the Jews, and we can hardly doubt that the major
part of the sect fell away under the iron hand and the at
tractive advantages of the new faith, so that the sect was
gradually reduced to a few small fragments scattered over
Syria and Egypt.
With the Muslim victory at Yarmuth, 634, the fate of
Palestine was settled, and the Arabic historians include
2 See Lidzbarski, De propheticis qua dicuntur legendis Arabicis.
3 Abu'l Fath, 172; Chron. Neub., 443; Chron. Adler, 76.

UNDER ISLAM 127
Nablus among the places which soon thereafter fell to the
conquerors.4 Upon this conquest, so the Chronicle Abu'l
Fath states, the people of the seaboard towns, Caesarea,
Arsuf, Maiumas (the port of Gaza), Joppa, Lydda, Ash-
kelon, and Gaza, deposited their goods with the highpriest
and " fled to the east and never returned hither." This is
evidently an authentic account of the flight of the wealthy
Samaritans of the coast towns before the certain advance
of the Muslims. Where the fugitives found refuge in the
east we cannot surmise, but it is to be remembered that
they would have had no hope of a welcome in the Byzan
tine empire which had so bitterly persecuted the sect. The
same source also gives an account of the capture of Caesarea,
which fell at last in 640; the Samaritan community in that
city must have sadly suffered from the vengeance of the
conquerors. No memories of the age of the Umayyad caliphs are
preserved except that of the great earthquake in Marwan
II.'s reign.5 The bloody wars between this dynasty and the
Abbasides are noted, and under Mansur (754-775), the
second of the new dynasty, occurred the destruction by
order of the local governor, Abd al-Wahhab Abu Shindi, of
the tomb of Zeno upon Gerizim.6 Subsequently an assault
made by certain people upon the Christian convent in the
same locality, involving the murder of the monks, brought
upon the Samaritans the wrath of the governor, who put
to death the head man of the Samaritans.7 Under the next
caliph Mahdi there was taken a census of the Samaritan
community, a function which had been long omitted.8 The
Chronicle Abu'l Fath proceeds to give a long account of
the various calamities which, in consequence of the civil
4 Abu'l Fida, Annates, ed. Adler, i, 229.
5 Abu'l Fath, 181; Chron. Adler, 84 (cf. editor's note).
6 See above, p. 112.
7 Abu'l Fath, 181; Chron. Adler, 85.
8 Abu'l Fath, 182.

128 THE SAMARITANS
war between Hadi and Harun ar-Rashid (786) afflicted
the Samaritans, including a sample of an unnatural crime
and a fearful dearth of provisions.9 But at last God averted
his wrath, all the natural disorders, regarded by the chroni
cler as due to his people's sin, were abated, these happy
times coming in under the caliphate of Harun ar-Rashid.10
Our authority for the period following this caliph is,
as noted above, the supplement peculiar to the codex C
of Abu'l Fath, as epitomized by Vilmar.11 The sum of
the chronicle is as follows. The wrath of the Abbaside
caliphs fell upon all who dissented from Islam, and the
Samaritans were so cruelly affected that a great part of
them went into exile, while others apostatized. In the war
that followed Harun's death (809), between his sons, Pal
estinian rebels destroyed the Samaritan towns Zaita, Salem,
and Arsuf, and variously oppressed the sect. After the
death of Amin, the first of the brothers, a governor of
Nablus was killed by the Muslims for showing favor to the
Samaritans. The land was filled with corpses; a daughter
of the highpriest committed fornication, but condemnation
was not passed upon her. But at last with the restoration
of the divine favor the Samaritans resumed their sacred
rites upon Gerizim. Under the caliph Maamun (813-833),
his famous general Abdallah ibn Tahir, the governor of
Mesopotamia and Syria, brought quiet to the distressed
land and gave the Samaritans a breathing space. With Ab-
dallah's departure into Egypt the rebel Ibn Farasa cruelly
attempted to force the Samaritans into Islam, and many
submitted; at last the caliph suppressed the rebellion. Fi
nally Maamun inaugurated the policy of destroying the
castles through the land to prevent them from falling into
the hands of rebels, and amongst them the fort constructed
aIbid., 184.
"Ibid., 185.
"P. lxxx.

UNDER ISLAM \2g
by Zeno on Gerizim. The caliph himself oppressed the land
with heavy imposts which were cruelly exacted by his gov
ernor. In the reign of the succeeding caliph, Mutasim,
heretical sects of Islam seized and destroyed Nablus, and
burnt the synagogues of the Samaritans and Dositheans.
The rebels were finally overwhelmed, but the Samaritans
were brought to great straits under the heavy imposts, al
though none of the people yielded to apostasy. It is also
recorded that two of the Samaritan chiefs rebuilt the syna
gogue which had been destroyed in the wars. At the end
of the same caliphate a rebel, Abu Harb (who also cap
tured Jerusalem), took Nablus and scattered the inhabitants,
the chief priest being wounded and transported to Hebron
where he died. The next caliph Wathik finally allayed
the rebellion, and the Samaritans returned to their abodes.
But both this monarch and his brother and successor Muta-
wakkil were so bitterly opposed to all dissenters, that the
sufferings of the Samaritans in no wise decreased; under
the second of these despots the sacred tomb of a former
highpriest Nathanael was destroyed, the law regulating the
color of the garments worn in the different religions was
introduced, and the Samaritans were prohibited from exer
cising the offices of their religion.12 After this Yusuf ibn
Dasi, " sultan of Palestine," is recorded as allowing the
Samaritans access to Gerizim but forbidding it to the
Dositheans. But there followed storms of most frightful
evils, and many abandoned their native religion.13 The last
caliph named is Radhi, 934-940, who was helpless to re
strain the warring governors of Palestine ; a rebel, Abu Ta-
fach, cruelly oppressed the Samaritans. With Radhi's reign
the real power passed into the hands of the " Amir of
Amirs," or mayor-of-the-palace, and the Abbaside power
12 This action is parallel to the destruction by the same monarch of
the newly built Christian churches in Bagdad.
13 The reference may be to the Carmathian revolt, which began in
the last quarter of the IXth Century.
9

130 THE SAMARITANS
was at end. Such is the conclusion of the last supplement
to Codex C of Abu'l Fath.
It is evident that some authentic notes have been pre
served by this supplement. But it is an unprofitable story
except for the almost unintermittent picture it gives of the
misfortunes of the miserable sect, persecuted by both ortho
dox and heretical parties of Islam, and harried by the wars
which swept over the debatable land of Palestine.
To take up such scanty data of the Samaritan chronicles
as we possess after the failure of the supplements to Abu'l
Fath, we find some references to the favor shown the
Samaritans by the Fatimide caliphs of Egypt, Muizz and
Aziz, the former of whom conquered Syria in 970, while the
latter (975-996) is said to have shown distinguished honor
to a Samaritan ha-Takwi b. Isaac, who was his governor of
Palestine, with his seat at Sepphoris.14 Under the next
Fatimide caliph, that magnificent impostor Hakim (996-
1020), without doubt the Samaritans suffered under the
earlier drastic edicts which renewed the ancient laws against
the Christians and Samaritans; but later, we may suppose,
the sect enjoyed the liberal terms of the remission of his
former severity against dissenters. Juynboll thinks that
there are numerous traces of Samaritan polemic against the
sect of the Druzes.1 5 Shortly after this reign the Chronicle
Neubauer (I. c.) mentions a certain Ab-Chasdiya, a Samari
tan, who was an official " inquisitor of all Palestine," with
headquarters first at Caesarea and then at Acco.
For the age of the Crusades, when East and West came
to know each other once more, we have most meagre infor
mation concerning the Samaritans. Almost all that the
14 Chron. Neub., 446; Chron. Adler, 92. Ha-Takwi's son also served
the same monarch in a like capacity at Ramie, Chron. Neub., 448;
Chron. Adler, 93.
15 Juynboll, Lib. Jos., 117, with references to de Sacy's studies of
the Druzes. Chron. Neub., p. 447, mentions the same Hakim along
with an obscure reference to the fate of a governor he sent to rule
Palestine.

UNDER ISLAM 131
Chronicle Adler has to say (p. 94 ff) concerning the in
vasion of the Seljuk Turks and the holy wars which the
Europeans waged for the recovery of Palestine, is drawn
from foreign sources.16 On the other hand, the Crusaders,
despite the fact that their armies went the length and
breadth of the Holy Land and that for extensive terms of
years their rule was established on its sacred soil, have left
no record of the Samaritans. Nablus played an important
part in the internal history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem;
it was strongly fortified by the Franks, it became a sort of
royal residence for the court, especially for the strong-
minded women who troubled the Christian regime and
found the oriental Naples a convenient locality for their fac
tions.17 In 1 120 a great ecclesiastical council was held at
Nablus with the hopeless purpose of reforming the Crusad
ers.18 But still there is no mention of the Samaritans, who,
if they were noticed at all by the haughty Crusaders, were
doubtless reckoned a sect of the Jews. It remains there
fore for us only to note the part Nablus played or rather
suffered in those troublous times ; the chronicle of calamities
will contribute to the explanation of the diminution in popu
lation and wealth of its ancient sect.
The first reference to Samaria in the Christian chronicles
is to the effect that chieftains from the mountains of that
land came in to the conquerors of Jerusalem, which fell in
16 In the Epistle of 1808 the Samaritans record a tradition that 600
years before the Franks carried off with them the Samaritans of
Ashkelon and Caesarea {N. et E. 75). Some historical truth may be
contained in this notice. It was this tradition which animated the
pathetic inquiries of the sect after their coreligionists in Europe. In
Abu'l Fath, 132, there is reference to a synagogue built by Baba Rabba
which lasted until the dominion of the Franks — " God curse them ! "
17 The index to Rohricht, Geschichte d. Konigreichs Jerusalem, s. v.
" Neapolis," exhibits the intimate relations of Nablus with the Crusad
ing kingdom. King Baldwin built a turris Neapolitana {op. cit., 120),
and later there is mention of two citadels.
18 William of Tyre, xii, 13 ; the acts are published by Mansi, Concil.
xxi, 261. It is generally denied that Neapolis became an episcopal see ;
but see Barges, Les Samaritains, 94.

132 THE SAMARITANS
1099, bringing presents and inviting the invaders to take
possession of their territory, an offer which was immediately
accepted, as its conquest was already planned.19 We may
incline to the supposition that among these adherents to
the new order were hardy Samaritans who welcomed the
overthrow of Islam, now that centuries had cast into ob
livion the ancient hatred for the Christians. In n 13
Nablus was laid waste by the Saracens.20 In 1137 Baza-
wash, a governor of Damascus, surprised and murdered al
most all the citizens of Nablus.21 This event must be iden
tified with one recorded in the Samaritan chronicles,22 ac
cording to which in or before 1137 (as can be calculated
from the terms of the highpriests) a certain Bazuga Zeidna
(variants exist) took 500 Samaritans captive at Shechem
and transported them to Damascus, whence they were re
deemed by a generous Samaritan citizen of Acco, and so
returned to Gaza.
The Samaritan town, with all its holy places and relics
so sacred to the Christians, reverted to Muslim rule under
Saladin. In 1184, after the latter's withdrawal from Ke-
rak, it was taken and ravaged by him, with the exception
of its two citadels.23 After the fateful battle of Hattin in
1 187, Nablus was again wasted by Saladin's troops.24 It
remained in Muslim hands during the brief triumph of
Frederick II. in the Holy Land (1229).25 In 1242 the
"William of Tyre, ix, 20; Wilken, Geschichte d. Kreuzziige, ii,
36. According to Sybel. Geschichte d. ersten Kreuzzuges, 443, Nablus
was one of the few cities which composed Godfrey's actual kingdom.
William of Tyre is quoted by Robinson as describing Neapolis as
" urbem opulentam."
^ 20 Foulcher, c. xli (in Guizot, Collections des memoires relatifs a
I'histoire de France, xvii, 41) ; Wilken, op. cit. 374.
21 William of Tyre, xiv, 27 ; Rohricht, op. cit. 205.
22 Chron. Neub., 448; Chron. Adler, 95.
23 Baha ad-Din, Saladini vita, c. xxviii ; Abu'l Fida, ad an. H., 580.
The Crusading chronicles seem to deny that the city was injured,
Rohricht, op. cit. 409.
24 Baha ad-Din, c. xxxiv; Abu'l Fida, ad an. H. 583.
25 Rohricht, op. cit. 786.

UNDER ISLAM 1 33
city was taken by the Christians, who burnt the city and
killed all Muslims who would not pervert to the faith of
Christ.26 In 1244 upon the frightful invasion of the Kha-
rezmians (Khwarizmians) the city was taken by the Egyp
tian allies of the invaders after the battle of Gaza.27 With
this event we may equate the notice of the Samaritan
chronicles to the effect that in the pontificate of the priest
who died in 1253, an insolent people came from the east,
took the land of Canaan, killed a great number of people at
Shechem, and carried off many men, women and children,
along with the heir to the priesthood, to Damascus, where
they were redeemed by their coreligionists in that city, al
though only a small number actually returned.28 Or, dis
regarding the Samaritan dates, the invasion may be iden
tified with that of Hulagu's Mongols in 1259, when Nablus
fell into the hands of those hordes.29
We now come to the period of the triumph of the Egyp
tian Mamluks in Syria, which, beginning with the over
throw of the Mongol hordes at En-Jalut in 1260, reached
its zenith in the destruction of the Christian power through
out Syria. Baibars, the fifth Mamluk Sultan (1260-1277),
waged a relentless war of many campaigns against the
Christians of the Holy Land, and destroyed their sacred
places. Along with Nazareth and Tabor, Shechem also
fell under his fanatical fury, and we learn of his deportation
of the Christian citizens of the city to Damascus in 1261.30
Under him and his successors the land was frightfully rav
aged, brigands were rampant, and all social conditions were
destroyed.31 One after another the Christian strong-
26 Wilken, op. cit. vi, 626; Rohricht, op. cit. 854 (on Makrizi's au
thority). 27 Wilken, op. cit. vi, 646; Rohricht, op. cit. 866 (depending upon
Makrizi) ; A. Miiller, Der Islam, ii, i66ff.
28 Chron. Neub. 451; Chron. Adler, 99.
29 Rohricht, op. cit. 910; so Adler in his note.
30 Rohricht, op. cit. 917.
31 Wilken, op. cit. vii, 461, 464.

134 THE SAMARITANS
holds of Caesarea, Arsuf, Ramie, Joppa, Antioch, fell to
Baibars; his great successor, Kalaun, took Tripolis in 1289,
and the crowning triumph was gained by the fall of Acco
to Ashraf (Khalil) in 1291 ; this overwhelming calamity
for the Christians was followed up by the immediate sub
mission of Beirut, Tyre, Sidon, indeed of all the Christian
citadels. We have here to realize that these sieges, fol
lowed by awful massacres, and as in the case of Caesarea,
even by the destruction of the cities, involved the wealthy
Samaritan colonies settled in them. Probably the original
communities were annihilated, subsequent times of peace
bringing back for commercial purposes the small colonies
which we later find in those places. Only Damascus and
Egypt were left as places offering security from the fright
ful anarchy of the age. The Chronicle Adler has some
brief notes (p. 99) upon the conquests of these monarchs,
naming Baibars, and referring to a sultan of Egypt, who
took Antioch, Tripolis, Beirut — who would therefore be
a composition of Kalaun and Ashraf. Then the Muslims,
the chronicler proceeds to relate, came to Nablus, expelled
the Christians and destroyed their churches. Further they
took away from the Samaritans their venerable " Syna
gogue of the Field," the present Chizn Yakub, and demol
ished all their other edifices, so that the sect was greatly
afflicted. No more special information concerning the for
tunes of Nablus are preserved for the period of the Mamluk
dominion in Egypt (to 15 16), except that for the age of
Othman I. (circa 1300) we read (Chron. Adler, 100), of a
governor ("caliph") Yarok at Shechem, who was killed
by his enemies, whereupon the Samaritans recovered their
confiscated synagogue; but the Muslims soon reasserted
themselves, and turned the sacred place into a mosque.
Before proceeding to the modern history of the Samari
tans, we may observe here the information concerning them
given by the mediaeval Arabic historians and geographers.

UNDER ISLAM 1 35
The bulk of the longer sections upon the subject is devoted
to legendary history of the sect drawn mostly from Jewish
sources, although Makrizi seems to have followed the Sa
maritan legends ; but the Arabs add nothing to our knowl
edge of the early history. Their notes on the religion of
the Samaritans are valuable for purposes of chronology,
but do not otherwise substantially enlarge our information ;
this material, with special reference to the Dosithean sect,
is treated elsewhere.32 In many cases the information
seems to have been borrowed with indifferent care, and at
times the sect is even ignored in the description of Nablus.
Yakubi (writing in 891) says that Nablus contains
Arabs, foreigners and Samaritans.33 The distinguished
historian Masudi, writing in 943, says in his Meadows of
Gold34 that " the Samaritans inhabit the districts of Pales
tine and the Jordan, such as the well-known city  ,35
which is between Ramie and Tiberias, and other places,
and finally the city of Nablus ; but the most part of them live
in the latter city. They have a mountain called Tur-berik ;36
the Samaritans pray upon this mountain," etc. Istakhri
writes (95 1)37 that Nablus is the city of the Samaritans
and they possess no other cities on the face of the earth.
The source of his information is made clear in the next sen
tence — " the people of Jerusalem say so."38 Al-Biruni (d.
32 See Chap. XIII, § 1.
33 Quoted by Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 511. This
work gives, pp. 511-514, full quotations from the Arabic geographers
who treat of Nablus.
34 See de Sacy, Chrestomathie arabe,\, 342.
35 De Sacy gives two readings, b'ara, and b'ary, and translates
" comme Ara." Can Gaza be intended ?
36 The Samaritan name for Gerizim, now called Jebel et-Tur, " the
Mount of the Hill."
37 Le Strange, ibid.
38 Ibn Chaukal (978) repeats Istakhri, and Mukaddasi, although, or
perhaps, because he was Jerusalem-born, ignores the Samaritans in his
mention of Nablus. Also Ibn Batuta omits mention of the Samaritans,
although he visited Nablus in 1326.

136 THE SAMARITANS
1048) says39 that most of the Samaritans are found in
Nablus, and that most of their synagogues are there.
In the Xllth Century Shahrastani (d. 1 153), in his treat
ment of the Samaritans in his Book of the Religions,*0
says that they are people who inhabit al-Mukaddasi (i. e.
the name of Jerusalem, which the Samaritans apparently
stole), and some cities of Egypt. Idrisi (1154) repeats
Istakhri.41 Ali of Herat (1173) says42 that the Samaritans
are very numerous at Nablus. Yakut, writing in 1225,43
notes that Nablus is inhabited by the Samaritans, who live in
this place alone, and go elsewhere only for the purpose of
trade or advantage. He also observes that they call their
town al-Quds (cf. Shahrastani, above). Dimashki (circa
1300) gives an interesting account44 of Nablus, its beauty
and commerce, and describing the sacrifices of the Samari
tans he says that " there are the two mountains, Jabal Zaita
[the Mount of Olives] , to which the Samaritans make their
pilgrimage." Further he adds, " In no other city are there
as many Samaritans as there are here, for in all the other
cities of Palestine together there are not of the Samaritans a
thousand souls." This is interesting testimony, coming from
a Damascene writer, at a time when we know the Damascus
colony existed. Finally Makrizi adds to the notice that
most of the Samaritans live in Nablus, the information that
they are also found in large numbers in the towns of Syria.45
To these Arabic notices is to be added the information
gained by a few mediaeval Jewish travellers. The first of
these is the famous Benjamin of Tudela who visited Pales-
39 Quoted by Makrizi ; see de Sacy op. cit. 305.
40 Cureton's text, i, 170; Haarbriicker's translation, i, 257. Abu'l Fida
adds nothing to what he draws from Shahrastani.
41 Le Strange, /. c But in another place he refers to a Samaritan
colony in the Red Sea; see below, p. 151.
42 Le Strange, /. c.
43 Ibid.
"Ibid. 45 De Sacy, op. cit. i, 304.

UNDER ISLAM Itf
tine in 1 163. He found at Caesarea 200 Kuthim; "these
are the Jews of Shomron, who are called Samaritans."46
At Nablus, " where there are no Jews," the Samaritans
number about one thousand.47 At New Ashkelon the same
traveller found 300 of the sect, and in Damascus 400, who,
he remarks, live in peace with the Karaites there, number
ing 100, although the two sects do not intermarry.48
An account of the Samaritans in Egypt is given by a
Jew, Meshullam b. Menahem, who made a journey to Jeru
salem in 1480.49 According to this traveller he found in
Egypt, presumably at Cairo, along with 800 Jewish and
100 Karaite families, 50 Samaritan families ("heads of
houses "). He gives a notice of their worship on Gerizim,
quite at second-hand, of course, observing that they are idol
aters, and set up a golden dove on their holy mount. In
Egypt they possessed a synagogue. The whole Israelitish
community, he adds, is under the full jurisdiction of a Jew
ish rabbi. A few years later Obadiah of Bertinoro also
found fifty Samaritan families at Cairo, employed in finan
cial business and as agents for the government, so that the
community was a rich one.50
46 1 cite from M. N. Adler,' The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela,
in JQR, Oct. 1904, I34f.
47 Such is the reading adopted by the editor just mentioned upon
overwhelming authority of the MSS. The reading that has passed
into current use is " one hundred." But this latter figure is much too
small, when compared with the information from other contemporary
sources, and the new reading relieves a considerable difficulty. Benja
min proceeds to give a brief, accurate account of the Samaritan ritual
and practices, and notes their loss of the three gutturals, He, Cheth,
Ayin, on which he allegorizes. The same dialecticism is noticed by
Isaac Helo in his Itinerary of Jerusalem, 1334 (see Carmoly, Itine-
raires de la Terre Sainte, 252), and also by Makrizi.
*8JQR Jan. 1905, 297, 299.
49 The pertinent portion of the MS, which is at Florence, is published
by Heidenheim, DVJ iii, 354.
50Neubauer, Zwei Briefe Obadiah's, in Jahrb. f.d. Geschichte d.
Juden, iii (1863), 198, 229, (referred to by Nutt, Sam. Targ. 27).
This civil combination of Jews and Samaritans has its parallel in
Shechem, where Petermann found that the Samaritan highpriest was
the responsible chief of the combined communities; Reisen, i, 226.

138 THE SAMARITANS
We thus see that the mediaeval notices of the Sama
ritans throw very little light upon their actual condition.
In Benjamin of Tudela's day there were about 1000 of the
sect in the mother-city, and he enumerates 700 more in
other South-Syrian cities. About 1300 Dimashki estimates
that there are not more than 1000 Samaritans in Palestine
outside of Nablus. Of the number of the community in
Egypt for the earlier part of the period, we have no infor
mation. We dp not know when the colony in Damascus
was established, but from 1 137 on we learn of violent depor
tations thither which doubtless swelled the local community,
while the literary activity of the Damascene Diaspora from
the XHth Century on is abundant evidence that the Sama
ritans shared in the prosperity of the city which Nureddin
and Saladin raised to an imperial metropolis, and whose
glories lasted until the time of Timurlane; in this disaster
the Samaritans must have been equally involved, although
the colony survived the disaster. Further, in the opulent
trading towns of the coast small but commercially influen
tial communities existed, which probably avoided all public
display of their religion; but they prospered in worldly af
fairs, that recompense which fortune so often renders to the
small and despised sect. There is every reason to believe
that during these troublous times, when Palestine was har
ried by the wars of the Crusades and by the many invasions
which depopulated the land, the settlements of the Diaspora,
and especially that at Damascus, fostered in every way the
mother community, which otherwise would have perished.
We find the direct line of the highpriestly family often liv
ing in Damascus. In one case, the heir to the pontificate
came up from Damascus to assume his dignity (1205) ; in
Note may be made here of an early but only recently published Arabic
work — that of Ibn Chazm of Spain (994-1064), who wrote On Jew
ish Sects, and treats of the Samaritans. But he gives no data of im
portance except that " the Samaritans may not go out of Palestine."
See Poznanski, JQR xvi, 765.

UNDER ISLAM 1 39
another (1538), a large number of Samaritans returned
from Damascus conducting to Nablus the highpriest and his
son ; and we even find the highpriest remaining in the Syrian
capital (1584).151
To carry on our story into modern times we find that
the Samaritan Chronicles contribute, outside of family an
nals, nothing to our knowledge of the history between the
beginning of the XlVth Century and the XVIIth Century.
But in 1623-4 occurred an ominous event in the ecclesias
tical life of the sect. The direct succession from Aaron
failed, and since that time priests of the tribe of Levi, of the
house of Uzziel son of Kohath, have officiated at the sacred
rites.52 The correspondence with the Europeans, which be
gan in 1590, reveals no political details of the sect, except
their persecution by the " Ishmaelites " and their poverty,
for which they persistently ask the alms of their coreligion
ists in Europe.
For the first notice of Ottoman rule over the Samaritans
we learn of oppressions and confiscations of lands, especially
of springs, occurring in the reign of Mohammed IV. ( 1648-
1687). 53 In the following century, under Machmud I.
(1730- 1 754), the Samaritans purchased from the Muslims
a piece of ground on Gerizim for their sacred rites;54 we
may assume that this was one incident in the long history
51 Chron. Neub. 451, 465, 454.
62 The exact date is given by Chron. Neub. 465, as A. H. 1033.
From the Epistles to Scaliger we know that the Aaronic line still
existed in 1590. The failure of the succession is indirectly admitted
in the Epistle of 1672 (de Sacy, N. et E. 179), and directly in the
Epistle of 1675 (of which only a fragment is preserved), wherein it
is prayed that the Europeans send them a priest of the race of
Phineas {N. et E. 219). But this fact has been conveniently oblit
erated in the memory of the modern Samaritans ; the Levitical priest
who acknowledged his descent from Uzziel to de Sacy in 1820 {N.
et E. 152), gave a full Aaronic pedigree for himself in his Arabic
memorial to the French government in 1842 (Barges, Les Samari-
tains, 73).
53 Chron. Adler, 106.
54 Op. cit. 108.

140 THE SAMARITANS
of the attempts of the sect to retain its holy ground and of
their masters to keep them out of it or to make them pay
for the privilege, which in a few years would be annulled,
whereupon the struggle began again. In this case the pur
chase is said to have been made by a benevolent member
of the community, and doubtless the persistence of the sect
into modern times is directly due to the charm of gold,
which the Samaritans, few as they were, knew how to
amass. A local edict of 1772 enforced several restrictive
and shameful regulations against the sect.55
It is pitiful to record the fact that the XlXth Century
brought upon the Samaritans troubles, along with the threat
of violent extinction, such as they had not experienced since
the wars of the Crusaders and the Mamluks. We learn that
for 25 years preceding 1810 the sect was restrained from
its worship on the holy mount,56 but it was able to renew
its sacred functions by 1820.57 For this period we have
the graphic memoir of the Samaritan refugee, Jacob esh-
Shelaby,58 who records in detail the wretched plight of the
Samaritans. Because of the notoriously violent character
of the Muslim population of Nablus, it has been the custom
of the Ottoman government to appoint as Mutesellim or
governor only a native Arab, who is nominated from one
of four rival families. In the bloody struggles which now
took place among these factions the Samaritans were be
tween the upper and nether millstone, and their sorry condi
tion was aggravated by the Syrian wars of Mohammed AH
of Egypt, with or against whom the rival parties took sides.
That remarkable man's son and general, Ibrahim, took
Nablus by the sword in 1832, but found it impossible to re
press the defiant Arabs. According to the Chronicle Adler,
the Samaritans shared in the relief which Egyptian rule
66 Mills, Nablus, 279.
<>« N. et E. 126.
57 Ibid., 157, 161.
68 In Rogers, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, 1855.

Pal. Ex. Fund.

Jacob esh-Si-ielaby and General Wilson

UNDER ISLAM 141
brought to the inhabitants of Syria, a statement corrobo
rated by Shelaby's notice that in 1832 the sect again renewed
its pilgrimage to Gerizim. In 1841 a conspiracy was
formed to murder all the Samaritans; their enemies were
not appeased with the gift of the Samaritan wealth, and
Shelaby gives credit to the chief rabbi of the Jewish com
munity in Jerusalem for issuing a certificate that " the
Samaritan people is a branch of the Children of Israel, who
acknowledge the truth of the Tora." This generous testi
monial satisfied the fanatical Muslims, because it showed
that the Samaritans had a right to Islam's protection ex
tended to the " Peoples of the Book."59 The persecutions
induced the community to address an appeal in 1842 to the
French government, composed in a Hebrew and an Arabic
document ; but for purposes of state, Louis Philippe did not
even publish the documents, and they were not brought to
light until some years later.60 According to Barges, who
visited Nablus in 1853, the Samaritans said they had been
restrained from Gerizim for 80 years; this is of course an
exaggeration, though it represented the truth for recent
years. Petermann, who visited the Samaritans in the same
year, did not receive any such information, and himself at
tended the Passover on Gerizim. In 1854 the British gov
ernment was induced by an appeal of the Samaritans to
make representations on their behalf to the Porte, and the
bearer of this document, the Jacob above-mentioned,
brought with him also an appeal to the British public, the re
sult of which was the arousing of the interest of such men
as the Earl of Shaftesbury and the collection of funds for
the oppressed sect. Through the friendly notice of Euro
pean governments, especially of England and its consuls at
'Jerusalem, the Samaritans have been preserved from the
59 Ibid., 29.
60 The documents were published in Les annates de philosophie
chretienne, 1853, and the Hebrew document by Barges, op. cit. 64;
cf. p. 37.

142 THE SAMARITANS
violent annihilation that threatened them. But the wealth
they possessed is gone, and they have become a community
of alms-seekers, forced to sell their sacred manuscripts for
subsistence.61 61 For the bloody commotions which vexed Palestine in the last
century, see Macalister and Masterman, A History of the Doings of
the Fellahin, etc., PEFQS 1905, Oct. et seq. This work also frequently
refers to Finn, Stirring Times, which throws much light upon the
local troubles.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE
SAMARITANS.
§ I. THE SAMARITANS AT HOME.1
In Chapter II. we observed that the land of Samaria as
a geographical entity was identical with the Highlands of
Ephraim. It is bounded on the north by the valley of
Esdraelon, to which also belongs the plain of Dothan, with
its deep inset into the hill-country. On the east is the Ghor,
or valley of the Jordan, the plain of Beth-shean having been
distinguished from the land of Ephraim politically as well
as geographically from earliest times.2 On the west the
line of the lowlands marked the political boundary, the Phoe
nicians and Philistines being in possession of the coast, while
Mount Carmel, though a spur of the Samaritan hill-coun
try, was cut off politically by the highways which crossed
it. Only on the south was there an uncertain border. There
a long neck of highland connects Mount Ephraim with
Mount Juda, cleft on either side by deep wadies, but withal
presenting no one strategic line of boundary. G. A. Smith
has graphically discussed this debatable frontier,3 and points
1 See Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 37 ; Neubauer, La geographie du Talmud,
1868, p. 168; Schiirer, GJV, §§ 23, 24; E. Meyer, Entstehung des
Judenthums, 1896, p. 105 ; Smith, HG cc. xii, xvii ; Holscher, Palds
tina in der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit, 1903 ; Conder, Samar
itan Topography, PEFQS 1876, p. 182 (with extensive treatment of
the geographical references in the Book of Joshua and the Chronicle
Neubauer) .
2 See 1 Sam. 31, 10. It received a Scythian colony in the Vllth
Century, and later became a member of the Decapolis.
3 Op. cit. c. xiii. 143

144 THE SAMARITANS
out that there were three possible lines, each of which be
came effective according to the comparative strength of the
two political divisions of Israel. Our present interest in
this question begins with the Post-exilic age.
As Meyer points out, those who worked on the walls of
Jerusalem, according to the list in Neh. 3, were not settled
farther north than Gibeon and the uncertain Meronot.4 Ac
cording to Neh. 11, 25ff the Jews had pushed in the same
age towards Joppa as far as Ono, Hadid, Lydda, a note
disputed by Meyer and Holscher, who hold that this datum
represents the geography of the Chronicler; at all events
Sanballat hailed from Beth-horon, and Ono in the Shephela
belonged to his sphere of influence (6, 3). Thus in the
first part of the Post-exilic period the district of Samaria
lay close up under Jerusalem. But the powerful Jewish ex
pansion began to drive back this northern boundary, as we
learn from the Chronicler and from the colonization of ex
tensive districts in the south of Samaria, witnessed to in the
lid Century B. C.5
In the Maccabaean age the northerly expansion of Juda
ism received the political endorsement of the Syrian king
dom ; the three considerable cantons of Aphairema, — proba
bly the city of Ephraim (Jn. 11, 54), — Lydda, and Rama-
thaim, perhaps the modern Beit Rima, NE of Lydda —
were formally annexed to Judaea.6 This large acquisition
of territory pushed the Jewish boundary far into the interior
of Samaria, the place of Borkeos which Josephus notes as
4 Op. cit. 105 ; cf. Holscher, op. cit. 26.
5 Holscher holds, op. cit. 30, that in the late Persian age Juda ac
tually controlled Samaria, adducing the Book of Judith, the traditions
of which belong to the age of Ochus, while its action is laid in Sama
ria. (Cf. Torrey's identification of Bethulia with Shechem, JAOS
xx, 160; also such passages as Zech. 11, 4ff. Cf. the story of Joseph's
administration as tax-farmer over Samaria, Josephus, AJ xii, 4.)
6 See above, p. 79. For the data, see 1 Mac. 11, 2off: Josephus,
AJ xiii, 4, 9. Cf. Schiirer, GJV i, 233, and, for the due appreciation
of the extent of the annexed territory, Holscher, op. cit. 74.

AT HOME 145
the boundary in his day doubtless marking the extent of
that annexation.
For the Ist Christian Century we gain more definite de
tails of the boundaries of Samaria, which are described with
much exactness by Josephus. Samaria lies, says that his
torian,7 " between Judaea and Galilee ; it begins at a village
that is in the Great Plain, called Ginaia, and ends at the
Akrabene toparchy." A little farther on he adds that on
the boundary between Samaria and Judaea lies the so-called
village Anuath-Borkeos.8 Now Ginaia is the En-gannim
of the Old Testament, the modern Jenin, lying on the south
ern slope of Esdraelon.9 Akrabene, or Akrabatta, is the
modern Akrabe, 8 mi. SE of Shechem. Borkeos is now
generally identified with Berkit to the WSW of Akrabe,
in the Wady Ishar; Anuath has not yet been located.10
These data place the frontier for Josephus's age along the
line of the Wady Ishar, which, as Smith observes, is the
northernmost of the possible natural boundaries between
Judaea and Samaria. The Jewish boundary had thus ad
vanced to within seven miles of Shechem and included the
greater part of the ancient land of the tribe of Ephraim.11
Moreover the western boundary of Samaria was thrust back,
as we have seen, by the loss of the canton of Ramathaim,
while the Jewish expansion to the -northwest included the
important cities of Modin, Lydda, Ono, Hadid, and
stretched as far as Antipatris.12
7 BJ iii, 3, 4-5. It is uncertain just what was the relation of the
city of Samaria to this district; Holscher, op cit. 97, following Mar-
quardt, considers it to have been a member of the Decapolis.
8 Conder has a different translation, PEFQS 1876, p. 67.
9 It also appears as a border town in Gittin, vii, 6. The Gemara
ad loc. also names Kefar Outhenai as on the border. Josephus nar
rates a bloody fight as occurring here between Samaritans and Jewish
pilgrims, AJ xx, 6, 1.
10 The English Survey Map follows Conder's translation in widely
separating Anuath and Borkeos.
11 Mount Sartaba was also in the hands of the Jews ; Rosh-ha-
Shana, ii, 2.
12 See Neubauer, op. cit. 86.
10

146 THE SAMARITANS
Thus by the Ist Century political Samaria had very much
shrunk from its original equivalence with the Highlands of
Ephraim. Between En-gannim and the Wady Ishar is a
distance of 25 miles, between the Jordan and Sharon about
32 miles; but from this limited territory we must exclude
the Jordan valley and a considerable Jewish territory in the
southwest. Within this circumscribed region we have no means of
ascertaining how numerous or widespread the Samaritans
were. There is nothing to show that they were found in
the one Hellenistic city of the district, Samaria-Sebaste.
Their metropolis was Shechem-Neapolis, and in this city
and the villages of its neighborhood must have lain their
centre of population. The Talmud throws very little light
upon the localities of the Samaritan sect.13 We learn from
it of two places with the name of Fondeka, i.e. " Inn,"
namely that of Ammuda, and that of Tibta towards Kefar-
saba, i.e. Antipatris. There are still two localities with the
same component to be found in Samaria : Fendakumia
(Pentacomia), 4 mi. N of Samaria, and Fonduk, 7 mi. SW.
We also learn of several Samaritan villages lying on the
Jewish border : " The wine of Kador is prohibited because
of the proximity of Kefar-Pagesh ; that of Borgata be
cause of Birat-Sariqa ; that of En-Kushit (i.e. the Samari
tan Spring, or Spring of the Samaritaness), because of
Kefar-Shalem."14 Borgata is doubtless the Borkeos of Jo
sephus ; Salem can hardly be the town east of Shechem, but
rather the Salem on the Jordan, which Josephus places 8
mi. S of Beth-shean.
The few other places connected with the Samaritans by
Josephus and others are Tirathana, near Gerizim ;15 Gittaim,
13 Ibid., 172.
14 Aboda Zara Jer. 44d. The Babylonian parallel, Ab. Z. 31a, has
the following variants : Ogdor, Parshai, En-Kushi. Cf. Masseket Ku-
tim, 25, which reads Pansha for Pagesh.
15 AJ' xviii, 4, 1: probably the modern Tire, 4 mi. SW of Shechem;
Buhl, Geographic, 200, 203.

AT HOME 147
the birthplace of Simon Magus;16 and Sychar, Jn. 4, 5,
generally identified with the modern Askar.17
There remains for investigation the abundant geograph
ical material contained in the Samaritan Chronicles, espe
cially that of the Chronicle Neubauer. Unfortunately,
partly because of the corrupt tradition of the text, and partly
because the genealogical lists give no means of identifying
the localities, our results must be very incomplete. It will
be worth while however, although an exhaustive list is by
no means pretended, to learn from some of the places that
may be identified the extent of the Samaritan settlements.18
In the close neighborhood of Shechem we find mention of
Salem, also apparently called Great Salem; Elon More;
Askar; 4 mi. N, Tira-luza, i. e. Tulluza; 8 mi. E, Dabarin,
if the modern Ain ad-Dabbur ; to the south we can recognize
Awurta; Bet-porik, i. e. Pherka; Akrabatta; within 10 mi.
SW, Yasuf, Marda, Timnat-heres, Zaita (there is another
Zaita to the W) ; Kurawa (to be placed here, and not at foot
of Sartaba) ; to the W, Tul-karam, Kuryat-Hajja (8 mi.),
Sarafin (9 mi.), Afra-Piraton, — either the Piraton to the
west, or the Ophra-Ferata, 6 mi. SW of Shechem. In
Bit-jan we may identify En-gannim. One of Baba Rabba's
Wise Men " had his limit from the Great Meadow," i.e. the
Great Plain of Josephus, the modern Merj ibn Amir.19
Taking these data as an average, we find that the Samari
tans in their native land were centred about Shechem within
16 See Chap. XIII, note.
17 For the discussion of this problem, see above, p. 20. There is
nothing to show that the Talmudic En-Socher was a Samaritan
locality; but see Neubauer, op. cit. 170.
18 Conder in his article Samaritan Topography has treated these
geographical references at length. The following identifications,
which were worked out before I saw Conder's study, and which I let
stand for what they may be worth, concern only the seats of the
Samaritans. "Abu'l Fath, 130. Kefar-sabbala, ibid., may be Kefar-saba, i. e.
Antipatris.

148 THE SAMARITANS
a radius of eight or ten miles ; the remainder of their terri
tory was probably largely occupied by Jews and Pagans.

§ 2. THE SAMARITANS IN DIASPORA

20

The commercial tendencies of the Samaritans early gave
them an impulse westward to the opulent cities of the coast,
especially to the metropolis Caesarea, and to the towns of
Philistia; the early rise of the Egyptian colony must have
made the latter district a well-used thoroughfare for them.
Accordingly we find that in the early centuries of our era
the Samaritans pushed southwest into the flourishing region
of the one-time territory of Dan ; this movement must have
been subsequent to the destruction of the Jewish state, which
left the Samaritans a free foot in their expansion. Horon
is referred to in the Chronicles as a Samaritan locality, and
the inscriptions at Emmaus-Nicopolis reveal their presence
in that place.21 We learn of them at Lydda at the time of
the Muslim conquest,22 and later in the Fatimide capital
of Palestine, Ramie, they formed an appreciable part of
the population, while its suburb, Beit-Dagon, was a Samari
tan town.23 On the coast we find them at Akko; at Cae
sarea, where they were numerous enough to carry on bloody
feuds with Jews and Christians;24 at Arsuf; Joppa; Ashke
lon; Gaza and its port Maiumas. Gaza remained the chief
20 Cf. the data from Jewish and Arabian sources given in Chapter
VI ; also Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems, 1890.
21 See Chap. XIV, § 4. A remark of R. Abbahu, in Yebamot Jer.
gd : " Thirteen cities reverted to the Samaritans in the days of persecu
tion," may refer to this Samaritan expansion. Frankel, EinUuss der
paldstinensischen Exegese, 245, refers the note to the Hadrianic per
secution ; but see Appel, op. cit. 60 ; Taglicht, op. cit. 19.
22 See the list of towns in Abu'l Fath, 179.
23 So the early geographers, Yakubi and Mukaddasi ; Le Strange,
op. cit. 403, 405. Clermont Ganneau, in his Archaological Researches,
ii, 490, notes that the Life of Peter the Iberian {Petrus der Ibcrer,
59, 114), of the Vth Century, records that the town of Yebna, the Bib
lical Jabneel-Jamnia, was inhabited exclusively by Samaritans.
24 See Chap. VI, § 3. According to both Samaritan and Byzantine
notices Samaritan settlements existed on Mt. Carmel.

IN DIASPORA 149
coastwise locality of the sect after the destruction of the
more northerly cities in the wars of the Crusades.25 Epis
tles in the Scaliger and Huntington correspondence were
written at Gaza, and the Chronicle Neubauer refers to Sa
maritans settled there in the XVIIIth Century. These colo
nists, the same chronicle reports, were of the tribe of Ben
jamin. There is also frequent mention of members of the
sect at Gerar.
The narrative of the uprising under Justinian in 529 is
witness to the extensive settlement of Samaritans in and
about Scythopolis. From that point the Samaritans could
easily pass the fords of Jordan into Peraea, and so Euse
bius notes, in his Onomasticon, a Samaritan town, Thersila,
or Tharsila, in this region,26 which seems, to have been a
frequent place of refuge for fugitives and the ascetic sects
of the community. We have already noted references to
the Damascene colony, which was several times fed by
forcible deportations, and whose size and wealth are re
ported by Benjamin Tudela and de la Valle, while as we
have seen, it became a second home for the sect.27 But
its members spread still farther north through Syria; at
Tyre (at least in the case of the distinguished theolo
gian Abu'l Chasan, "the Tyrian"); at Baal-bek,28 at
Kefar Sima (near Beirut),29 and at Tripoli, Plamath,
25 Two Samaritan inscriptions have been found at Gaza, along with
the probable remains of a synagogue; see Chap. XIV, § 4. The
presence of the sect in that city about 300 may be testified' to by
the prayer made just before his death by the martyr Paul of Gaza at
Caesarea, in behalf of the Samaritans along with other unbelievers;
Eusebius, Mart. Palast. viii, 9.
28 See Thomsen, ZDPV xxvi, 97, and for its location the accompany
ing map by Guthe.
27 P. 138. See also Chap. XIV, § 4, for the Damascene inscriptions
bearing witness to the wealth of the Samaritan colony.
28 Chron. Neub. 461. The Samaritan scholar Muhadhdhib (d. 1227)
was vizier to a sultan of Baal-bek; Wiistenfeld, Gesch. d. arabisch.
Aerzte, 121.
29 1 find I am unable to verify my note on this datum.

150 THE SAMARITANS
and Aleppo.30 There is even evidence of their presence in
Babylonia, in the IVth Century.31
There may be noticed here, for what it is worth, the in
teresting tradition of a diocesan organization of the Samari
tans in Palestine established by Baba Rabba in the IVth
Century.32 A priest was placed at the head of each of the
districts or dioceses, which numbered twelve, if we include
the " archdiocese " of Shechem, which belonged to the high
priest. We may suppose that these were administrative,
particularly tithing districts, originating with the intention
of incorporating more closely into the community the scat
tered bodies of Samaritans. The districts are :
i) From Luza (Telluza) to Galilee on the sea.
2) A district to Tiberias.
3) The country E of Gerizim to the Jordan.
4) From Kefar-Chalul to the Place of Justice (i.e. some
governmental centre, not further defined).
5) From Horon to Philistia.
6) From Gaza to the River of Egypt.
7) From " Good-Mountain " to Caesarea.
8) From the border of Carmel to Akko.
9) From Mount Naker to Tyre.
10) From the river Lita (Litany) to Sidon and the
gulf(?). 11) From the mountain country of Galilee to the river
(the upper Jordan?), to Lebanon, and all the villages about
that mountain.
It will be noticed that these districts are listed according
to the points of the compass, beginning with the east.
30 See the Liturgy for the Dead, DVJ i, 417, which belongs to the
time when the Damascene colony was important.
31 Gittin, 45a; see Frankel, Einffuss 251.
32 Chron. Neub. 440, and Abu'l Fath, 134; the text of the latter is
defective and corrupt. In most cases the Hebrew personal names in
the latter have pure Arabic names attached to them, indicating per
haps the purpose of a later scribe to bring the hierarchy up to date.
Conder gives the list in PEFQS 1876, p. 194.

IN DIASPORA 151
Proofs for the early origin of this document are found in
the presence of only Hebrew names in the earlier text, and
in the omission of reference to Damascus. It is to be ob
served that Peraea and Judaea are not included, so that the
scheme is not a merely ideal allotment of the Holy Land
among the true Israel. That the Diaspora was found in
Galilee is proved by references to the colonies at Safed and
Hazor (Hazorim) in the Arabic period.33
We have already noted the reports of Josephus and the
Samaritan traditions concerning the Diaspora in Egypt.34
The sect seems to have experienced like fortunes to the
Jews in the Hellenic period, being drafted to the Greek
cities in the Nile valley by deportation or as mercenaries,
and also being attracted thither by the advantages of com
merce. There are papyrus references to an Egyptian vil
lage named Samaria in the Hid Century B. C.35 From an
Epistle of 1808 we learn that the Samaritans had ceased to
exist in Egypt for a hundred years;36 but the colony must
have failed much earlier, for in 1616 de la Valle found at
Cairo a synagogue with only seven families, and Hunting
ton, in the latter part of the same century learned on the
spot that but one of the sect, an old man, still survived.37
A curious note appears in the geographer Idrisi (Xllth
Century), who, in describing the islands in the upper part
of the Red Sea, says 38 that " the one called Samiri is in
habited by a race of Samaritan Jews. They can be recog
nized as such because when one wishes to injure another,
the latter says to him: 'Do not touch me (la misas).'
They descend from the Jews who worshipped the golden
calf at the time of Moses." This incorporates a frequent
33 DVJ i, 417.
34 See p. 75.
35 See Schiirer, GJV iii, 24.
36 N. et E. 69. For some mediaeval references, see above, p. 137.
37 Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 45, referring to the xxxiiid Epistle of Hunt
ington. 88 Clima, ii, § 5 ; tr. Jaubert, i, 135.

152 THE SAMARITANS
Muslim reference to the Samaritans.39 Such an immigra
tion to the far south is not improbable in view of the ex
tensive Jewish Diaspora in Arabia.
There is much significant evidence to the effect that the
Samaritans in pursuit of trade were scattered over the west
ern world. Their inscriptions have been found at Athens.40
Members of the sect were extensively engaged in banking
at Constantinople, where " Samaritan " was synonymous
with " accountant."41 The repressive edicts of the Chris
tian emperors can best be understood as directed especially
against the Samaritans who were spread over the empire
engaged in trade and banking, thus provoking the jealousy
of fanatical Christians. Indeed we learn by chance that
about A. D. 500 there existed a Samaritan community in
Rome. Cassiodorus Senator has preserved a letter of the
emperor Theodoric calling attention to a complaint made by
" the people of the Samaritan superstition," who have had
the effrontery to declare that the Church had appropriated
a building which was once a synagogue of theirs, and to
demand their rights.42 The capital may not have been the
only place in the western world where the hardy sect pos
sessed its synagogue.
But the fearful persecutions the Samaritans have sus
tained have nearly accomplished their purpose. According
to the Epistle of 1808 the Samaritans were to be found only
at Nablus and Joppa, and then numbered 30 families and
39 E. g. Koran, xx. 97. (The Koranic legend has it that "the Samar
itan" made the golden calf.) The Samaritan fear of contact with
aliens is a characteristic of the sect. Biruni reports that they were
called the La-Mesasiyye, " the Touch-me-nots " ; de Sacy, Chrest.
arabe, i, 305, 340. This scholar also calls attention to the poet Muta-
nabbi's reference to this Samaritan characteristic ; Calcutta ed., 331 ;
de Bohlen, Comm. de Motenabbio, 116.
40 Corpus inscript. Attic, nos. 2891-2893.
41 Edict ix, of Justinian, c. 2 ; Osenbriigger, Corpus juris civilis, iii,
696, and ed. Bekker, Pt. ii, vol. ii, p. 1158: rov ye iiroypafpe'tiis ods
'Zap.apeiras Ka\ov<ri.
42 Cassiodorus Senator, Varia, iii, 45 {Migne, lxix, 600).

IN DIASPORA 153
about 200 souls, equally divided between the two towns.43
To-day they are to be found only in their ancient holy
city, numbering, as we have seen above,44 152 souls of
whom nearly two-thirds are males.
To sum up these facts, we may judge that the Samari
tans enjoyed their greatest expansion in numbers and im
portance under the Roman empire. But their fortunes be
gan to diminish through the persecutions of the Christian
establishment, and Islam, at first favorable, ultimately only
aggravated the downward course of the fortunes of the sect.
In the first centuries of the present millennium, according to
the few figures we possess, the Samaritans could have num
bered only a few thousands in Syria, and in many of the
places where we find them located the communities consisted
probably of not more than the personelle and families of a
few banking-houses. With this paucity in numbers for a
millennium and more, the existence of the sect stands as an
additional proof of the stiff -neckedness, or to use a modern
term, of the " staying powers " of the blood of Israel.
43 JV. et E. 69.
44 P. 24.

CHAPTER IX.
THE SAMARITANS IN THE APOCRYPHAL LIT
ERATURE, THE NEW TESTAMENT,
AND JOSEPHUS.
In the preceding Chapters we have examined the secular
history of the Samaritans; it is a story redolent of friction
and conflicts between them and the Jews since the beginning
of the schism. The obscurity concerning the origin of the
northern sect has been made evident in Chapter IV; how
ever in the Hellenic period the cleft between the two sects
had established itself, a fact demonstrated by John Hyr-
canus's capture of Shechem as a hostile city. But it re
mains now, apart from external politics, to investigate the
actual spiritual relations between the Jews and the Samari
tans in the three or four centuries respectively before and
after the beginning of the Christian era. For this study
the Samaritan literature is almost absolutely worthless so
far as direct references are concerned, for none of it except
the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch can be dated with
certainty earlier than the IVth Century A. C. We are
therefore thrown back upon the Judaistic literature exclu
sively, the examination of which will show what the Jews,
" the enemies themselves being judges," thought in that
period concerning the Samaritans.
There appear to be but two references to that sect in the
early non-canonical literature of the Jews.1 The one is
Ecclus. 50, 25f : " With two races is my soul vexed; and
the third is no nation: with the dwellers of Seir and
1 For reference to certain Hellenistic literature, see Chap. XIV, § 5.
154

<

4**:-.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 155
Philistia, and with the foolish race that sojourns in She
chem." It is to be noticed that the tone of the writer is
one of contempt towards the Samaritans. The identical
contemptuous attitude appears in the apocryphal Testament
of Levi, c. 7 : " From this day will Shechem be called the
City of Fools" (™a« aovviriav) .2 This epithet of fool as
applied to the northern sectarian is further witnessed to
in the New Testament. In Jn. 8, 48 the Jews are repre
sented as saying to Jesus : " Do we not well say, Thou
art a Samaritan and hast a devil ? " In what sense was
Jesus called a Samaritan? The answer has not been satis
factorily given. Commentators variously hold that the epi
thet refers to Jesus' heresy, to his not being a genuine son
of Abraham (cf. v. 39ff), or to his hostility to the Jews.
But the context leads much rather to the inference that
" Samaritan " means here " fool." This comes out clearly
in the subsequent conversation, v. 5 iff : " Verily, verily I say
unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
The Jews said to him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.
Abraham is dead, and the prophets, and thou sayest," etc.
That is, their argument lies against the utter absurdity of
Jesus' words. There are thus three distinct references
from as many quarters in which the epithet " fool " appears
as a byword of common application to the Samaritans. The
origin of the epithet is most probably the contempt felt by
the Jews for the absurd pretensions of their rivals. That
the term was an extreme one, but nevertheless was used by
the Jews among themselves, is shown by Mt. 5, 22.3
2 See Kautzsch, Apokryphen, ii, 467. The date of the Jewish basis
of the Testaments is uncertain; Schnapp, ibid., 460, inclines to the Ist
Century A. C.
3 It must be left an open question whether there was also a parano-
masia between the Hebrew nabal, fool, and nabel, fading, which oc
curs in the denunciation of Ephraim in Is. 28, 1. The same root is
used for various other unpleasant connotations, e. g. corpse, or that
which is morally corrupt. This paranomasia would be parallel to. that
which has been suggested (first, I believe, by Reland, Dissertationes

156 THE SAMARITANS
Before studying the scattered New Testament references
to Samaria, it may be convenient to examine the attitude
held towards them by the great Jewish historian of the Ist
Century, Josephus, who has abundant opportunity to refer
to the Samaritans. These appear in his pages under that
name, and also as Kuthseans and Shechemites. As Jo
sephus was a well-informed man in contemporary affairs,
and also as he had friends in Samaria,4 he might be taken
as a reliable authority. But unfortunately he no more than
reflects the current Jewish prejudices of his day, and allows
us to perceive some of the truth only through the contradic
tions in which he involves himself. In his account of the
fall of Northern Israel, he adds to the letter of the Biblical
narrative that " all " of the people of the Northern kingdom
were deported.5 This must have been the prevailing vulgar
opinion in Judaism, and indeed has at least the negative
support of the Biblical account. He also draws the infer
ence, so plausible to the reader of Ezra-Nehemia, that it
was the Samaritan sectarians who interfered throughout
with the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple.6 He
charges that the Samaritans affected to be Jews when it
suited their advantage, and otherwise claimed to be Sidoni-
ans.7 But an intimation of another side of the question
crops out. He tells us in one place that " Shechem is in
habited by apostates of the Jewish nation," and that the
Samaritans profess to be Hebrews, although not Jews.8
And he adds that this apostate community was increased by
miscellanea, i, 140) between the shikkore, drunkards, of the same pass
age and Sychar, as an abusive epithet for Shechem, Jn. 4, 5. I would
suggest that in the epithet " fool " there is a play upon the place More,
in the neighborhood of Shechem. The Greek t>.<»p6s, " fool ", was
adopted by the late Hebrew in the same sense ; see Jastrow, Diction
ary, p. 749, and cf. M t. 5, 22, and commentators ad loc.
iLife, 52.
5 AJ ix, 14, 3; cf. x, 9, 7.
6 AJ xi, cc. 2, 4; c. 5, 8.
7 See Additional Note B.
8 AJ xi, 8, 6.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT l$J
Jews who had eaten unclean things, broken the Sabbath, or
committed like offences, and who fled to Shechem.9 Jo
sephus thus admits, however unwillingly and unconsciously
that the Samaritans were Israelites, and that they were
nearly enough related to the Jews to be an asylum for the
discontented or excommunicates of the Jewish Church.
The worthy historian is a good example of the ambiguity
which affects the whole Jewish attitude toward the sect.
The New Testament has not been sufficiently applied for
the understanding of the Jewish treatment of the Samari
tans, and the commentators have largely failed in the treat
ment of the several pertinent passages to apprehend the
status of the Samaritans according to the Jewish mind of
the Ist Century. But the volume throws considerable light
upon our quest. Jesus himself twice met with Samaritan
discourtesy, twice used the Samaritans to point a moral,
twice referred to the Samaritans in defining the scope of his
Gospel, and once had the epithet " Samaritan " coarsely
applied to himself.10 And in the subsequent history, the
action of his Church in regard to the evangelization of Sa
maria is instructive for our study.
In Jn. 4 occurs the story of Jesus' conversation with the
woman of Sychar by Jacob's Well, a meeting which resulted
in his sojourn in the town for two days, when many
Samaritans came to believe in him.11 The scene in which
the Samaritan woman at first churlishly refused the wearied
9 Ibid., § 7. He also knows that Samaritans were up to his own day
admitted into the temple precincts; xviii, 2, 2.
10 See above, p. 155.
11 The author accepts this story as authentic, and as one of the many
instances in which the evangelist appears true to local conditions and
color. The mere reference to the Samaritan belief in a Messiah adds
corroboration to the anecdote. The city Sychar I take to be Shechem ;
see above, p. 20. It may be noted here that the Roman martyrology
celebrates March 20 as the anniversary of the Samaritan woman
" Photina," who is said to have suffered martyrdom along with her
sons Joseph and Victor.

158 THE SAMARITANS
Jew a cup of cold water is the classic instance of the mutual
hatred of the two sects.
Again, Luke 9, 5 iff describes a journey Jesus took up
to Jerusalem, apparently by the route through Samaria. On
this occasion " he sent messengers before him, and they
entered into a village of Samaritans, so as to make ready
for him; and they would not receive him, because he was
evidently going to Jerusalem." This village may have been
Ginaia, the ancient En-gannim and modern Jenin, doubt
less the scene of frequent conflicts between the Samaritans
and Jewish pilgrims, one bloody instance of which is re
corded by Josephus.12 In response to this inhospitality the
Jewish feeling of the disciples blazes forth in the spirit of
Elija : " Sir, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from
heaven and destroy them?" But Jesus' own mind is re
vealed by the rebuke he administers to his followers. The
party then went into another village where they were more
hospitably received.13
It is to be observed that in both of these passages nar
rating the transit of Jews through Samaria, it is taken as
a matter of course that Jesus and his disciples lodged in
Samaritan villages and purchased Samaritan food. To be
sure, the coarse and yet natural inhospitality of the Samari
tans toward the Jews broke out on both occasions. With
these facts the comment of the Fourth Gospel : " For the
Jews have no dealings with (cmyxpOvrai) the Samaritans " (4,
7), as generally interpreted, disagrees, for in the next breath
the evangelist tells how the disciples had gone into the town
12 See above, p. 85.
13 The possible identification with Ginaia presupposes, with most
modern commentators, that Luke gives the story out of historical
connection, inasmuch as the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, with
which the evangelist connects the incident, was by way of the Trans-
Jordanic route. If the incident be rightly connected with Jesus' final
journey,— so for example by Godet — then the Samaritan village may
have lain in the plain of Scythopolis, or even across Jordan; see Chap.
VIII. This would easily explain how the party found "another kind
of village", eripav /coi/iijv, in the close neighborhood.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 159
to buy food. But there are grave doubts as to the genuine
ness of the clause, which is omitted in the Alexandrine Co
dex, the Codex Bezse, and in the Italic MSS a, b, e; it is
rejected by Tischendorf, and bracketed by Westcott-Hort
and Nestle. The probabilities favor the view that it is a
gloss representing the actual conditions of a later age. If
it is to be preserved, then either the author is guilty of an
inexact expression, or else the verb requires some different
translation than the one generally given to it.14 But the
evangelical narratives show that the Jews in that period
exercised considerable liberty in entering Samaritan mar
kets and accepting Samaritan hospitality, a liberty that was
the greater when we recall that there were few foods which
could not easily be rendered unlawful. Indeed, as the fol
lowing Chapter will show, this liberty was preserved both
in theory and practice well down into the Talmudic age.
Also the common statement that the Jews avoided Samaria
as an unclean land and therefore preferred the Peraean
route, cannot be maintained.15 For in addition to these
Gospel narratives, there is the distinct testimony of Jo
sephus that it was the custom of the Galilaean pilgrims to go
through Samaria,16 a liberty followed into late times by the
Jewish rabbis. Finally, there is the explicit Rabbinic dic
tum that " the land of Samaria is clean."17 Jesus how
ever seems generally to have gone up to Jerusalem by way
of Peraea, and the Fourth Evangelist takes occasion to ex
plain the deviation from his usual custom by the statement
14 J. Lightfoot, ad loc. {Works, 1684, ii, 538), seems to be the only
commentator who recognizes, quite apart from the textual argument,
the difficulty of the clause. The verb ovyxpaaBai corresponds to the
Talmudic histappeq, which is used by R. Abbahu in the IVth Century
in admitting that in earlier days the Jews had dealings with the Samar
itans ; see below, p. 192.
15 E.g. Smith, HG 256 ; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, ed. 8, New York, i, 394. In another passage Edersheim cor
rects himself, p. 400.
18 AJ xx, 6, 1.
17 See Chap. X, note 27.

160 THE SAMARITANS
that " he had to pass through Samaria," the necessity ap
pearing from the context to be his desire to get quickly
away from the hostility of the Judaean authorities.18 The
Jews naturally took the eastern route to avoid the un
pleasantness of the journey through Samaria.
The Gospel of Luke, whose interest in " the lost sheep
of the house of Israel " is characteristic, also gives the story
of the healing of ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan,
17, 11-19. Jesus responds to their request that he compas
sionate them by bidding them go and show themselves to
the priests. In thus holding them to the Levitical law, he
included the Samaritan with the rest as an Israelite, and
the inferred acceptability of the Samaritan as a subject of
the Jewish laws of purification at the temple, is in entire
accord with the Talmudic spirit; Josephus himself records
the permitted participation of Samaritans at the temple
feasts.19 The story proceeds to tell how on the way to the
priests the lepers were cleansed, but only one of them turned
back to thank his benefactor, and " he was a Samaritan."
Jesus responds : " Were there not ten cleansed, but where
are the nine ? None has returned to give glory to God save
this stranger."20 The gratitude of the Samaritan was made
to point a moral to the Jews even as was the faith of a
heathen centurion upon another occasion, Mt. 8, 5ff.
From this episode we pass naturally to the Parable of
18 I cannot enter into the discussion concerning the place of Jesus'
baptizing, Jn. 3, 22f. There is no reason to adopt Robinson's sugges
tion, LBR 333, supported by Stevens, JBL 1883, p. 128, and hypothet
ical^ adopted by the map of the Survey of Western Palestine; that
Salim and Aenon are in the neighborhood of Shechem ; the suggestion
contradicts all that we know of the fields of labor of John Baptist and
Jesus. 19 See above, note 9.
2° 'KK\oyevt]s. This word is used in the Greek to translate ben-
nekar, e. g. Gen. 17, 27; Ex. 12, 43. In Ecclus. 45, 13, it refers to a
member of another tribe within Israel, translating zar. Its sense then
is weaker than dX\60u\os, which was used of Gentiles alone, especially
of the Philistines. As will be shown below, Jesus maintained the
actual distinction between Jew and Samaritan.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 161
the Good Samaritan, Luke, 10, 25ff, which in its fame is
equalled only by the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The
parable has been somewhat stretched by exegetes so as to
make it appear that Jesus allowed no difference between
Jew and Samaritan, and was indeed inclined to find Samari
tans better people than the Jews. This is a fallacy of mod
ern interpretation which would make out of Jesus nothing
else than a modern liberal. But the story is merely an
answer to the lawyer's question, " Who is my neighbor ? "
A good Pagan would have served as an example, but the
Samaritan was nearer home, while the motive of religious
disgust at the bloody and unclean body of the man who fell
among thieves could only come into play if an Israelite
were the hero. It has been generally overlooked that
Jesus' postulate of the possibility of high virtue in the
Samaritans is paralleled by the saying of Rabbi Simon ben
Gamaliel, frequently quoted and allowed by the Talmud:
" Every law which the Samaritans have accepted, they are
more punctilious in observing than the Jews."21 The Tal
mud also gives an anecdote of an act of courtesy towards
a Jewish rabbi on the part of the Samaritans.22 In fact
the argument of Jesus was all the stronger to his hearers
because of their recognition of the possible virtues of the
Samaritans; they could not retort to him that he was in
venting an imaginary good Samaritan.
The dogmatic position of Jesus toward the Samaritans is
positively stated in his conversation with the Samaritan
woman. The latter enters into a theological argument with
the mysterious stranger : " Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and
thou sayest that the place to worship is in Jerusalem. Jesus
says to her: Woman, believe me that the time is coming
when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye
21 See below, p. 170.
22 See below, p. 193.

1 62 THE SAMARITANS
worship the Father. Ye worship what ye know not, we
worship what we know; for salvation is of the Jews."
This theological depreciation of the Samaritans is exactly
that of the Jewish Church, although deprived of all malice.
The assertion of the peculiar privilege of the Jews was
also the doctrine of the Christian Church, which followed
its Master, being abundantly expressed by the broadest-
minded apostle, Paul, e.g. Rom. 3, iff. Nor did Jesus
respect the institutions of Samaritanism; the cleansed Sa
maritan he bade go with his Jewish fellows to the priests
at Jerusalem. Further, throughout his ministry Jesus care
fully distinguished between Jew and Samaritan. In his
commission to his disciples he commanded them : " Go not
into the way of Gentiles, and enter no city of Samaritans,
but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"
Mt. 10, 51. And this restriction against that sect he him
self carefully observed; only in the case of the favorable
reception accidentally accorded him at Shechem did he give
himself out to the Samaritans ; but this is as evident an
exception to his custom as was the healing of the Phoenician
woman's daughter on the borders of Tyre, Mk. 7, 24ft; Mt.
15, 2lff.22a
To the present writer's understanding of Jesus' character
and purpose, the limitation of his work to orthodox Judaism
was with the deliberate practical intention of devoting him
self exclusively in his lifetime to the community which he
regarded as the one true Church. But it would be errone
ous to gather from Mt. 10, 5f, that Jesus put the Samaritans
on the same plane with the Gentiles; if so, he would have
stood below the level of Judaism, which recognized the
Israelitish character of that sect. His mind concerning the
Samaritans appears in one of his final instructions to his
22a There is absolutely no reason to hold with Godet that in Lu. 9,
5iff Jesus was attempting a mission in northern Samaria so as to exer
cise his disciples in the more catholic ideas of his Gospel.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 163
disciples. In Acts, 1, 8, he is recorded as saying to them:
" Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and all Judaea
and Samaria and to the end of the earth." Here Samaria
is distinguished as apart from Jewry, but equally apart
from the rest of the world. Its Lord's injunction the
Apostolic Church followed as soon as the opportunity came.
According to Acts, 8, 1, upon the persecution following
Stephen's death " all were scattered into the lands of Judaea
and Samaria, except the Apostles." Then in v. 5ff is given
the history of the deacon Philip's evangelistic labors in a
city of Samaria, doubtless Shechem ;23 he was well received
by the people because of his miracles and teachings. There
upon the Apostles in Jerusalem sent down Peter and John
as their commissioners to the Samaritan city, who laid their
hands upon the converts that they might receive the Holy
Spirit. It appears that according to this history the admis
sion of the Samaritans was regarded as a step forward,
and so required the formal cognizance of the mother-church.
But in general this action of the Church in freely and easily
admitting the Samaritans to fellowship in the Gospel was
in full accord with the better Jewish view, which never was
able to deny that the Samaritans were Israelites. It is to
be noticed that no outpouring of the Spirit in advance is
recorded, as in the case of the admission of Cornelius and
his family, to give divine endorsement to an extraordinary
innovation. The history includes the story of Simon
Magus and closes with a reference to the evangelization of
23 Gr: els (rr/c) vo\iv Tijs Zap-aplas. The article tv* appears in Cod.
Sin., A, B, 31, 40, and is adopted by Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort,
Nestle. On its face " the city of Samaria " can only mean, as Wendt
says ad loc, the chief city of the land, which would be Samaria-Se-
baste. But as the whole narrative evidently deals with the Samaritan
sect, with which Sebaste had no connection, being a thoroughly Gentile
city, doubtless the original tradition meant Shechem, which was the
only Polis of the sect. The Syriac has therefore "the city of the
Samaritans." In general, the author of Acts seems ignorant of the
place referred to, and may have indulged in the confusion, which ap
pears in later literature, between Sebaste and Shechem.

1 64 THE SAMARITANS
many Samaritan villages.24 Of these new converts Acts
offers but little further information ; the Church in Samaria
is referred to again in 9, 31 and 15, 3.
To sum up the witness of the New Testament: the Sa
maritan appears as an Israelite, but one whose religion is in
the condition of ignorance and whose institutions are irreg
ular. But there is no question over his right as an Israelite
to admission to the Kingdom of Heaven. This witness,
which is also that of the earlier strata of the Talmud, is
truer than the prejudiced opinion of Josephus. As evi
dence for the Ist Century the New Testament is thus a
valuable auxiliary to the testimony of the Talmud, to the
consideration of which we shall proceed in the next Chapter.
In Chapters XII. and XIII. the most important of the
Patristic references to the Samaritans will be reviewed.
Those authorities correctly regard the race as a Jewish
sect, or rather as one of the initial heresies of the True
Religion. Here may be noticed a passage from Justin
Martyr (lid Century), a Neapolitan by birth, in which he
closely associates the Jews and Samaritans as branches of
the Chosen People. The reference is as follows :25 " All
the other human races are called Gentiles by the Spirit of
prophecy; but the Jewish and Samaritan races are called
the tribe of Israel and the house of Jacob. And the proph
ecy in which it was predicted that there should be more
believers from the Gentiles than from the Jews and the
Samaritans, we will produce."
24 For Simon, see Chap. XIII, § 2.
25 First Apology, c. 53. Justin does not display any exact informa
tion concerning the Samaritan sect. His references to them belong
almost entirely to his reports of the Simonian heresy, into which he
asserts almost the whole community fell — an erroneous statement,
doubtless based on Acts 8, 10.

CHAPTER X.
THE SAMARITANS IN THE TALMUDS AND
OTHER RABBINIC LITERATURE.1
Our chief sources for this Chapter are the Talmuds of
Babylon and Jerusalem and their auxiliary collections of
Toseftas (i.e. Additions). Foremost in this material stands
the Masseket Kutim, or Tractate on the Samaritans, of
which a description and translation with notes appear in
the next Chapter. Also the Midrashim, especially the great
commentary on Genesis, Bereshit Rabba, present much Hag-
gadic material. The mediaeval Jewish literature contains
almost no first-hand information on the subject.
Indeed so hazy did this later Jewish mind become over
the Samaritans that provisions concerning the Gentiles came
to include as a matter of course the Samaritans. Later, upon
the arbitrary exercise of the Christian censor's power over
the printed editions of the Talmud, " Kuthim " was easily
1The most convenient survey of this subject is the article of Ham
burger in his REJud. ii, s. v. Samaritaner. An abundant and critical
collection of material is found in Kirchheim Septem libri Talmudici
parvi Hierosolymitani, and Introductio in librum Talmudicum " de
Samaritanis" {Karme Shomeron) ; both Frankfurt, 1851 (in Hebrew).
Taglicht has given a brief dissertation, Die Kuthder als Beobachter
des Gesetzes nach talmudischen Quellen, Berlin, 1888. See also Geiger,
Urschrift, passim; Frankel, Ueber den EinAuss der pal'dstinensichcn
Exegese, 244; Nutt, Samaritan Targum; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah,
vol. i, bk. iii, c. vii. Wreschner, in Samaritanische Traditionen, Berlin,
1888, treats especially of points of comparison with the Karaites. The
Works of John Lightfoot, London, 1684, is a thesaurus of references
on the present subject. For the Tosefta I refer to M. S. Zucker-
mandel, Tosefta, 1881. The references to the Jerusalem Talmud are
made according to the Krotoschin edition, 1866. For references to
Masseket Kutim, cf. Chapter XI. 165

1 66 THE SAMARITANS
used as a substitute for " Goyim," Gentiles, or the sharper
expression, " Worshippers of stars and constellations,"
terms which often included the Christians. Hence in any
Talmudic mention of the Kuthim it is necessary to scru
tinize both text and context to ascertain whether the word
is used in its primary or secondary sense. Elder MSS
often show that the reading " Kuthim " is not original.2
Our investigation of the political relations between the
Samaritans and the Jews has revealed to us the lay mind of
the latter concerning the former as exhibited in the New
Testament and Josephus. We now proceed to ascertain the
status of the Samaritans before the law of the Jewish
Church; our special field of investigation is therefore the
Corpus of that law, the Talmud. Fortunately this great
wilderness of material submits itself in large part to chro
nological discrimination. It is now generally recognized
that its basis, the Mishna, was completed by the end of the
Hd Century A. C, while the commentary thereon, the
Gemara, was not finally redacted, at least in the case of the
Babylonian Talmud, until the Vlth Century. Moreover as
the decisions of the rabbis are generally referred to their
authors, whose dates are in most cases well known, we are
able to follow the development of Jewish opinion on the
Samaritans for the first four centuries of the Christian era.
It may be here noted that it is proper to take up this dis
cussion before approaching the subject of the Samaritan
2 The following is a list of the Mishnaic passages in which " Kutim "
refers to the Samaritans: Berakot, vii, i; viii, 8; Demai, iii, 4; v, 9;
vi, 1 ; vii, 4 ; Shebiit, viii, 10 ; Teruma, iii, 9 ; Shekalim, i, 5 ; Rosh ha-
Shana, ii, 2; Ketubot, iii, 1; Nedarim, iii, 10; Gittin, i, 5; Kiddushin,
iv, 3; Ohalot, xvii, 3; Tohorot, v, 8; Nidda, iv, 1, 2; vii, 3, 4, 5.
Schurer's list, GJV ii, 15, note 43, includes Pea, ii, 7, where nokrim,
" foreigners," is to be read, and Challa, v, 7, where Kushim, " Egyp
tians," is to be read. To his list Shebiit, viii, 10, is to be added. See
Rabbinovicz, Varia lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum,
1867, and the critical text of L. Goldschmidt, Der babylonische Talmud,
1896. Taglicht notices some of the textual uncertainties concerning
" Kutim ", op. cit. 7.

IN THE TALMUD 1 67
theology, because sure data in the Samaritan literature do
not go back of the IVth Century.
At the same time many uncertainties remain after the
most exhaustive criticism. Contemporary doctors of the
Law hotly dispute over the status of the Samaritans, and
changes of opinions on the part of rabbis are recorded. In
many cases there are contradictory reports of the same Hala-
kot, or decisions. Further, at least for any student who is
not a thorough-going Talmudist, it is often difficult to in
terpret the opinions and decisions reported, from lack of a
full knowledge of the circumstances and legal questions in
which they are involved. But one fact stands out clear and
sure: we have to do in the Talmudic treatment of the Sa
maritans with a historic process. Far down into the period
of the Amoraim (i.e. the formulators of the Gemara), Juda
ism was still making up its mind concerning the adverse
sect. We can, most fortunately, follow the growth of opin
ion from the discussions of Akiba and Meir, Simon b. Gam
aliel and Eliezer, in the first half of the lid Century, when
the Samaritans were a lively subject of debate, down to
the days of Rabbis Ame and Assi, about 300 A. C, when
those scholars finally decreed the excommunication of the
sectarians, after which time we find only sporadic opinions
in variance with the position of the great majority. Ac
cordingly it is advisable to pursue the subject as closely as
possible upon chronological lines, and it is first in place to
ascertain those points wherein the Jewish doctors were of
one mind concerning the Samaritans, at least for the period
of the Tannaim, whose decisions finally fixed the Mishna
at the end of the lid Century.
We have already observed the unneighborly and fre
quently hostile attitude obtaining between the Jews and the
Samaritans throughout the age of their common existence
upon Palestinian soil. It may then cause surprise that to
the testimony for this popular attitude of the Jews toward s

1 68 THE SAMARITANS
the Samaritans — repaid by the latter in kind — the letter
of the Talmud is often flatly contradictory. This phenom
enon is not due to a spirit of charity, for ecclesiastical law
is never charitable. But the reason for the fact is simple;
law is conservative, based on the precedents of past history.
It is the easy business of Christian preacher or Jewish Hag-
gadist to stir up the prejudices of the people against the
adversaries of the church; but the law assumes a different
position even towards the object of its hostile animadver
sion. The schismatic or heretic, though outlawed, may still
possess some rights according to the constitutional law of
the mother-church. Hence it is that the Talmudic opinions
and decisions, far more than popular tradition and vulgar
brawls, bear witness to the actual historical relations origin
ally existing between Jews and Samaritans. When we find
the doctors of the lid Century wrestling over this problem,
we have good evidence, otherwise almost wholly absent, that
in the preceding centuries the Samaritan had a quasi-stand
ing within the Jewish Church, which only the widening of
the breach and the slow development of law could at last
annul. Accordingly Talmudic authority throws desiderated
light upon the most obscure ages of Samaritan history.
To approach now the Talmudic appreciation of Samari
tanism, we find that no fault was found in the earlier ages
with respect to the cardinal tenet of the soleness and spirit
uality of the God of Israel. The one early exception, for
the end of the lid Century, is the anecdote concerning R.
Ishmael b. Joseph, who, falling into dispute with a Samari
tan at Shechem on his way towards Jerusalem, accused the
Samaritans of worshipping the idols hidden under Gerizim
by Jacob on his return from Haran (Gen. 35, 4).3 But,
as Taglicht remarks, this was only " eine neckische Ant-
3 Aboda Zara Jer. 44A; also Bereshit Rabba, c. 81; Debarim Rabba,
c. 3. The rabbi escaped death only by flight.

IN THE TALMUD 169
wort."4 The first instance known to me of the Jewish as
persion of the Samaritans for the dove-cult belongs to the
middle of the IVth Century.5 But against these calum
nies we possess the positive, if genuine, utterance of a
Tosefta :6 " One may rent his house to a Samaritan, and
have no fear that the latter will bring idols into it."
Again, the Samaritans are never denied entire devotion
to the Law of Moses. The many slight textual differences
in their edition were generally unnoticed, and even the
falsifications introduced in the Pentateuch do not appear to
have been a prime source of strife. I know of but one case
of reference to such a falsification, and this is of an unim
portant nature, while it is doubtless a materially correct
gloss.7 The Samaritan rejection of the rest of the Jewish
canon nowhere appears charged against the sect as a heresy.
To be sure, Judaism assigned an infinite superiority to the
Law over against the rest of the Old Testament, the latter
being for long recognized as Kabbala or tradition.
Moreover the Samaritans possessed not only the letter
of the Law but also the Jewish spirit of its practical appli
cation. The Pentateuch was to them as to the Jews the
book of life, the all-sufficient code of right living. Their
faithfulness in this respect called forth the generous ap
plause of one of the lid Century patriarchs, R. Simon b.
4 Op. cit. 22.
6 R. Nachman b. Isaac, in Cholin, 6a. See Additional Note D. Ob
serve the Samaritan reproach against the Jews for their imagery in
the temple ; Chapter VI, note 32.
6 Tos. Ab. Z. 2, 9 ; but Zuckermandel places this clause in his mar
ginal apparatus.
7 This is the case of the introduction of " Shechem " after " the
oaks of More" in Dt. 11, 30. In Sifre to the passage, this addition is
reprobated, according to a Jewish view that another Ebal and Gerizim
were meant, a view adopted by Jerome in his Onomasticon, s. w.
Gebal, Golgol {Migne, xxiii, 946). Yet in Sota, 33b, it is allowed that
the addition makes no difference. See Frankel, op. cit. 243; Geiger,
op. cit. 81. In one case the grammar of the Samaritan exegesis is con
demned, namely in their ignoring of the he locale, as in their interpre
tation of Pmnn, in Dt. 25, 5, which they translated as "the one with
out"; Yebam. Jer. 3a; Kiddushm, 76a.

170 THE SAMARITANS
Gamaliel (d. circa 165), the father of Juda ha-Nasi, who
was the editor of the Mishna. His dictum is : " Every
command the Samaritans keep, they are more scrupulous in
observing than Israel."8 A parallel to this catholic-minded
assertion is another to the effect that " a Samaritan is like a
full Jew."9 Another prescription found in the Mishna, of
more restrictive character and negative in expression, reads :
" This is the rule : Whatever they are suspected in, they
are not to be believed in."10
In regard to the two great institutes of Israel which are
its most evident marks of differentiation from the rest of the
world, namely circumcision and the Sabbath, there is no
question in the Jewish law concerning the scrupulousness of
the Samaritans.11 Indeed in these two respects the latter
held more strictly to the letter of the Law, rigorously ob
serving circumcision on the eighth day, and avoiding such
sabbatic legal fictions as the Erub.12 The latter omission
was a heresy in the eyes of the Pharisees, but it may have
been just this literalism of practice which provoked the
laudatory opinion expressed by Simon b. Gamaliel. As for
circumcision, there is a Boraita (i.e. an extraneous Mishna
not found amongst the received Mishnas) of R. Juda, a
contemporary of R. Meir, in the middle of the lid Century,
which forbids the circumcision of a Jew by a Samaritan on
the ground that the latter circumcised " in the name of
Mount Gerizim," which seems to mean simply, " with the
8 This saying is frequently quoted, e. g. Kidd. 76a ; Berakot, 47b ;
Gittin, 10a. This Patriarch was very conservative in his opinions; see
Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, iv, 187.
8 Ketubot Jer. 27a; Demai Jer. 9.
10 Nidda, vii, 4; Mass. Kut. 16. In the Gemara, 57a, the principle is
applied to sabbatic limits and libation wine.
11 Mass. Kut. 10. A Mishna, Nedarim, iii, 10, reads : " He who vows
not to derive any benefit from those who keep the Sabbath, has no
benefit from Israelites or Samaritans."
12 /. e. the constitution of extended artificial precincts, whereby sev
eral houses could be considered as one, and their inmates as of the
same household.

IN THE TALMUD IJl
intention of attaching the person to the community of Geri
zim."13 But R. Meir opposed R. Juda, on the ground that
the Samaritan was a genuine convert, and it is this favorable
opinion of Meir's which is preserved in Masseket Kutim}*
Juda in fact preferred a Gentile as the officiant. The rise
of this narrower opinion was evidently due to practical rea
sons. The Samaritan might easily boast that the child he
circumcised was thereby initiated into his own community.
It was an incongruity that a member of the rival sect could
perform the rite of admission into the community, whereas
the Gentile would not pretend to more than the physical
function. We may compare the theoretically inconsistent
yet practically logical requirement by the Roman Catholic
Church of the re-baptism of Protestants.
As for the feasts and fasts and other occasions of worship,
the Talmud has in general no condemnation of the Samari
tans; that in an earlier age they were once admitted to the
precincts of the temple in Jerusalem without much question
is evident from Josephus.15 The Passover, with its scrupu
lous concern over the removal of leaven well before the
opening of the sacred week, offered a severe criterion of the
straitness of all who claimed to be of Israel. Yet the pre
vailing dictum concerning Samaritan usage in this respect
is expressed in the following Boraita : " The unleaven of
the Samaritans is allowed, and one discharges his duty with
it at the Passover."16 On the other hand — and this illus
trates the difference of opinion — that maxim was contra
dicted by R. Eliezer, Akiba's opponent upon the Samaritan
problem, in a dictum which accompanies the one just cited :
the Samaritans " are not scrupulous over the fine points of
the Law." Also in the prayer of Benediction after a com-
13 Cf. the use of " the Name " in the Christian baptismal formula.
14 Ab. Z. 26b-27a; Menachot, 42a; Mass. Kut. 12. For Meir's posi
tion see further below.
15 See Chap. IX, note 9.
"Kidd. 76a; Choi. 4a; Gitt. 10a; Mass. Kut. 24; etc.

172 THE SAMARITANS
mon meal, which required the presence of at least three of
the faithful, the slave and the Samaritan could be included,
the Samaritan being thus distinguished from the Am-ha-
areg, or unlearned man.17 Also the pronouncing of the
Benediction by a Samaritan was so far acknowledged that
a Jew could say Amen to it, however with the condition that
the former should be heard throughout — evidently from
fear lest out of malice or ignorance he might invalidate the
worship.18 As to the ethics of the Samaritans, the very few Talmudic
references are most honorable to their memory. They were
acquitted of practising incest,19 which included all unions
within the prohibited degrees, and also of the bestiality
ascribed to the Gentiles.20 But leaving the ethical field,
which rarely divides religious sects, we pass to the sphere
of technical cleanliness in food and hygiene and habitat. In
the first of these articles, we observe that the Samaritan
slaughter of meat was regarded as kosher, i.e. ritually cor
rect, except that, lest the Jew be deceived by a malicious
Samaritan, the seller is required to put into his mouth an
olive-quantum of the meat, or the string of birds which he
has to sell.21 Indeed in some respects the Samaritans were
stricter than the Jews, for the latter permitted the eating
of koskos, i.e. flesh of an animal mortally ill when slain, or a
fcetus, both of which were forsworn by the Samaritans;
accordingly, the Jews forbade the sale of such articles to
the other sect.22 Their wine appears to have been accepted
without scruple, except in the case of its origin from cer-
17 Berak. vii, I. But there was further discussion on the eligibility
of the Samaritan in the Gemara, 47b ; see below, p. 179.
18 Berak. viii, 8. In the reference in the same Mishna to the spices
of the Kuthim, Goldschmidt reads goyim, " Gentiles."
19 Gift. Jer. 43c.
29 Ab. Z. 15b; Mass. Kut. 4; 13.
21 Choi. 3b seq.; Mass. Kut. 17.
22 Mass. Kut. 15. See there the reason why the Jews did not pur
chase such things from the Samaritans.

IN THE TALMUD 1 73
tain localities, down to R. Meir's time. This freedom was
finally changed by Meir's decree against all Samaritan wine
except that which was sealed and so escaped defilement.23
In the matter of hygiene and cleanliness of habitation
and soil, the Samaritan usage was in general acceptable to
the Jews. Thus the Samaritans were careful with regard
to the laws of menstruation, according to a majority opin
ion recorded in a Mishna.24 They were to be trusted con
cerning the burial of abortions,25 and concerning the mark
ing of graves, although the corollary of the Bet-peras was
not observed by them.26 Hence we find the explicit state
ment that " the land of the Kuthim is clean, the gatherings
of their waters are clean, their dwellings are clean, their
roads are clean."27 As was observed in the preceding
Chapter, this point has been generally overlooked in the
question concerning Samaria as a land of thoroughfare for
Jewish travellers, and illustrates more than one passage in
the New Testament.
The Samaritans were considered rightly to observe the
Mosaic provisions concerning the consecration of the first
born of beasts, and the state of " uncircumcision " of a tree
in its first three years.28 Also they practised Chalisa and
divorce in correct form.29 Likewise they had the proper
28 Ab. Z. 31b; Mass. Kut. 25. For the proscribed localities, see
above, p. 146.
24 Nidda, vii, 3 ; R. Meir expressed a contrary opinion. But accord
ing to Baba Kamma, 38b, this was the opinion of R. Juda, Meir's op
ponent. 25 For primitive Palestinian use in this matter see the note in
PEFQS 1906, p. 64.
26 Nidda, vii, 5; Mass. Kut. 16 (see note there).
27 Ab. Z. Jer. 44d; cf. Tos. Mikwaot, 6, 1. Taglicht notes to the
latter reference, op. cit. 7, that the passage in Chagiga, 25a, where wine
brought from Galilee is declared unclean because it has touched the
district of the Kuthim, should read for this word, according to the
MSS, " Persians ", i. e. with reference to the Gentiles of Galilee. For
the idea of the purity of the Holy Land see Bertholet, Die Stellung der
Israeliten zu den Fremden, 304.
28 Nidda, vii, 5.
M Mass. Kut. 14. Chalisa is the custom of "loosing the shoe", Dt.
25, sff.

174 THE SAMARITANS
observance of the gleaning laws, the tithe for the poor in
its year, while their poor were to be trusted in their state
ments on these matters.30
The earlier rules concerning intercourse with the Samari
tans were most liberal. In utter contrast to dealings with
the Gentiles, the Jew might " go in private with them," i.e.
he need not be afraid of having his throat cut, and might
also commit a child to them to learn letters for a trade.31
Also according to a Tosefta, contradicted however by Mas
seket Kutim, " an Israelitess might deliver a Samaritaness
and suckle her son," and vice versa.32 We thus learn that in
those places where both sects were found, there existed very
intimate intercourse between them in many most important
matters of life. With reference to affairs of ordinary
commerce, the relevant dictum, Masseket Kutim, 7, says
that " we lend and borrow with them on usury," but there is
some argument for turning this into a negative, in which
case the Samaritans would be in the category of brothers.33
Also the prohibition of Aboda Zara, i, 5, against selling
weapons to the Gentiles is applied in the Gemara, 15b, to the
Samaritans, but on the ground lest these may sell them
again to the Gentiles. It seems strange that, with all the
hostility between the two sects, the Samaritans were not
reckoned as enemies of Israel by formal legislation, this
passage showing that they came to be legally included
among the classes hostile to society only by a process of
indirection. With regard to the status of the Samaritan before the
law of torts, we possess this Halaka of Masseket Kutim, 18:
" The Samaritan is on the same footing with the Israelite
in respect to all damages laid down in the Law." It would
seem that this is an undoubtedly ancient Tosefta. The
80 Tos. Pea, 4, 1 ; Mass. Kut. 8.
31 Ab. Z. 15b; Mass. Kut. 13 (which see ad loc).
32 Tos. Ab. Z. 3, 1 ; Mass. Kut. 11.
33 See ad loc

IN THE TALMUD 175
same Halaka proceeds, quoting from the Mishna,34 and pre
scribes the same penalties against members of either sect
for manslaughter committed upon one another. It is to be
observed that in the Mishnaic passage the Ger-toshab, or
alien resident,35 is not included in this prescription of equal
ity. The Talmud however states one exception to this
equality before the criminal law. If an Israelite's ox gore
a Samaritan's ox, it goes clear, while an offending Samari
tan ox, if that is its first offence, renders the owner liable
for half the damage, but if the second offence, obligates him
for the full value. This was the opinion of the majority,
but R. Meir held that the Samaritan ox was in either case
chargeable for the damage at the highest appraisement.36
Comparing the opinion of the majority with the Mishna to
this Gemara,37 we find that the guiltlessness of the Jewish
beast was the same as in the case of the damage done to a
Gentile's ox, while the offending Samaritan beast incurred
the liability of only half the damage instead of the full cost,
for which the Gentile ox would be liable. In this respect
therefore the Jewish law of torts gave the Samaritan a mid
way position between Jew and Gentile. There is no evident
reason for this exception ; perhaps the law for beasts under
went change easier than that for persons. R. Meir's harsher
opinion is not intelligible, except on the ground of his
change of opinion toward the Samaritans, which is other
wise testified to. The Gemara proceeds to discuss why that
rabbi, who regarded the Samaritans as genuine converts,
placed them under this disability.
We turn now to the consideration of the major differences
between the two sects. These differentia are briefly summed
up in the last Halaka of Masseket Kutim: " When shall we
take them back? When they renounce Mount Gerizim and
SiMakkot, ii, 4. See note to Mass. Kut. 18.
35 For this definition, see Schiirer GJV iii, 126; Bertholet, op. cit. 325.
38 Baba Kamma, 38b; Mass. Kut. 19.
37 B. Kam. iii, 2.

176 THE SAMARITANS
confess Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead," — as a
modern would put it, one difference in cult, and one in
theology. The latter difference testifies to the position of
the Samaritans in eschatology, wherein they but preserved
the original Jewish doctrine. But the contradiction with
respect to the proper place of the cult is the origo mali, the
chief article of the Samaritan heresy. These people had
formed a separate community which worshipped elsewhere
than in Jerusalem. In a word, if we may use the terms of
Christian theology, the fault of the Samaritan sect was not
that of heresy but rather of schism. And all who know
ecclesiastical history recognize that the latter is practically
regarded by ecclesiastics as almost worse than the former,
for it strikes at the idea of the church. In a word, the most
important prescriptions laid down by the Jewish Church
against the Samaritans proceed from the judgment of them
as schismatics rather than as heretics.
That not heresy but schism was the fault of the Samar
itans in the mind of the Jewish Church comes out in the
great discussions held in the Hd Century concerning their
status as converts to the religion of Israel. It was hotly
debated whether they were " genuine converts " (ge-re
emet), or "lion-converts" (gere ariyot). The latter ex
pression arose from the story in 2 Ki. 17, 25ft, according to
which the Samaritans might be placed in the category of
those who through fear, force, or unworthy inducements,
were persuaded to enter Israel.38 An extended discussion
upon the true character of the Kuthite converts — they are
never otherwise regarded than as aliens in blood — is found
in Kiddushin, 75a — 76a. Here R. Ishmael, who in general
appears as an antagonist of Akiba (belonging to the " gen
eration " preceding him), held that the Samaritans were
38 See Weber, Judische Theologie, 74; Bertholet, op. cit. 341. Other
references to lion-converts, apart from the one given in the text, are
B. Kam. 38b ; Sanhedrin, 85b ; Choi. 3b ; Nidda, 56b.

IN THE TALMUD 1 77
lion-converts, Akiba that they were genuine converts; R.
Eliezer agreed with Ishmael. Also, according to Baba
Kamma, 38b, R. Meir, although as we shall see, his mind
underwent a change in another respect and he was equal to
drawing nice distinctions against the Samaritans, neverthe
less held with Akiba. The dispute was not allayed till at
least the IVth Century. The composition between the two
views was probably obtained by charging the change to the
Samaritans themselves; in the words of R. Simon b.
Eleazar, circa 200, " the Samaritans have long since be
come corrupted."39
Doubtless the discussion as between " lion-converts " and
" genuine converts " was an ancient one. At the same time
we are not to think that the latter opinion was suddenly in
vented by Akiba ; in all probability it had good standing long
before his day. For while the reproach of being converts
from fear must be as ancient as the Biblical tradition in 2 Ki.
17, we have to remember that enforced conversion was by no
means despised in early Judaism. The Hasmonaean princes
practiced the proselytism of neighboring races by force of
arms, and slaves seem to have been bought with the purpose
of circumcising them.40 That the Samaritans were recog
nized as converts in some sense of the word was an honored
tradition which the Jewish law only slowly surrendered. It
was not therefore as heretics, or false Israelites, except in
minor points, that the Samaritans were condemned, but
rather as schismatics, who held themselves aloof from the
institute of God's Kingdom.
Accordingly we have to regard the Samaritans as a separ
atist sect of Judaism, holding an ambiguous position in the
eyes of the latter church, and one which had to be nicely
balanced by the lawyers. The existence of such sectarian-
39 Ab. Z. Jer. 44d. I confess here that as between the Eleazar and
the Eliezer who were Akiba's contemporaries the Talmudic text ap
pears to me indefinite.
40 Josephus, AJ xiii, 9, 1 ; Bertholet, op. cit. 238, 254.
12

178 THE SAMARITANS
ism partly within and partly without the borders of
Judaism, while subsequently rendered almost impossible by
Talmudic law, has nevertheless more than one parallel in the
earlier and far more catholic Judaism. We may think of
the Essenes ; of Jewish Hellenism, with its variant Canon, —
not to speak of the extreme development in the temple at
Leontopolis ; of the Sadducees, who were gradually pressed
to the wall by the Pharisees for observances resem
bling those of the Samaritans ; and then there was the Am-
ha-arec the Boor, who was the Pariah of Judaism, standing
in the lowest rank of all. But when Essenes and Pharisees
had disappeared, and the Hellenizers had gone over into
Christianity or else been driven back into Pharisaic rigor,
precedent for the peculiar status of the Samaritans failed,
and the law was finally forced to excommunicate them in
full. In practice, far down in the Talmudic age, the sect was
regarded as a sort of Mittelding between Gentiles and Jews ;
the world was divided into " Jews, Samaritans and Gen
tiles."41 The distinction would be somewhat like that which
is made in modern Christendom. A Christian map of the
religions of the world distinguishes by its colors between the
Catholic and the Protestant faiths as well as between these
and the other religions. And yet the Christian mind would
always place the great divisions of Christendom in one cate
gory as over against all the other. religious systems.
A word may here be said as to the comparative worth of
the Samaritan and the Am-ha-arec before the Talmudic
law. In general, and as we saw above in the case of the
saying of the Amen after the Benediction, the Samaritan
stands above the Am-ha-arec.42 The distinction is dis-
41 Cf. Acts, i, 8; Dcmai, vi, 1; Tohorot, v, 8.
42 In Demai, iii, 4, the presumption concerning the millers of the
Samaritans and of the Am-ha-are^ is the same, and opposite to the
presumption against the Gentile miller.

IN THE TALMUD 179
cussed in the Gemara of Berakot.iS Here R. Abaye (c.
300) holds that the Samaritan so privileged must be a Cha-
ber, i.e. a " Fellow " in the Law, and so opposed to the
Boor ; this position seems to recognize that there were some
of the sect who were learned in the Law.44 But R. Raba
held that the privilege obtained even if the Samaritan were
an Am-ha-arec, a position which would in general rate all
Samaritans above the Jewish Am-ha-arec.
To take up now the discussion of the principal points in
which Judaism condemned the Samaritans, there is none
more important and significant than its attitude towards
their women. In general the latter are looked upon as foul
in all sexual matters. A Mishna teaches :45 " The Samar
itan women are menstruous from the cradle. And the
Samaritans defile a bed both below and above, because they
have connection with menstruous women, and the latter sit
upon every kind of blood." And another Mishna recites :
" The dwelling of the unclean women of the Samaritans de
file after the manner of an Ohel, because they bury there
their abortions."46 (At the same time, as noted above, the
Samaritans were regarded as scrupulous in certain cognate
matters.47) Consequently we are not surprised to find that
marriages with Samaritan women were forbidden, a prohibi
tion which Masseket Kutim extends against the men.48
This treatment of Samaritan women is strange in more
than one respect. Whatever direct knowledge we possess of
the Samaritans shows that they were peculiarly scrupulous
. about the laws of defilement. Again it seems like a most
43 47b.
44 The Samaritan Liturgy shows the use of the word Chaber in this
sense; e. g. BS ii, 72, bottom.
45 Nidda, iv, 1.
48 Nidda, vii, 4. An Ohel is a precinct which is unclean and so
renders anyone entering it unclean. The same Mishna also contains
an opinion of R. Juda {c 150) to the effect that " they do not bury,"
etc. 47 P. 173. Cf. Mass. Kut. 11.
48 Kidd, 75a; Mass. Kut. 6; 27 (where see the reasons advanced).

180 THE SAMARITANS
anomalous ban of outlawry against these " converts " that
intermarriage with them was prohibited, and their social
habits condemned. But we have to remember that from the
beginnings of Judaism there existed two opposing views
concerning marriage with proselytes.49 On the one hand
there were the classic examples of intermarriage with for
eigners, as in the case of Moses and David's own ancestor
Boaz.50 Along with this position went the Jewish propa
ganda, which, taking its cue from Deutero-Isaia, bade fair
to break down the ties of blood.51 On the other hand was
the rigorous position, which appears after the Return in the
scrupulousness concerning the family registers. There was
precedent therefore for the Samaritans to be treated as con
verts in one of two opposite ways.
Moreover we must recognize another fact, largely over
looked in the consideration of ancient Judaism; that is, the
existence of recognized castes, between which marriage was
prohibited. We have observed how the Am-ha-arec, was
the Pariah ; but there were also several other grades, which
are thus listed in a Talmudic passage :52 " The priest is be
fore the Levite, the Levite before the layman, the layman be
fore the Mamzer [i. e. a bastard, or one of uncertain parent
age], the Mamzer before the Nethin [the descendant of the
ancient temple-slaves or hierodules], the Nethin before the
proselyte, the proselyte before the freedman." As all these
distinctions were perpetuated by blood, it was a matter of
morale to avoid breaking down their barriers through inter
marriage. Now the Samaritans, even if admitted to be " genuine
49 For this interesting question, see Weber, op. cit. 77, 294 ; Bertholet,
op. cit. 255, and §§ 7, 8.
50 Whether or not, as many now hold, Ruth is a tractate of the Vth
Century supporting the liberal idea of marriage, at all events its in
corporation in the Canon is witness to the power of liberal ideas at a
late date.
51Yebamot, 47b: "The proselyte is like the Israelite in all things."
S2Horayot, iii, 7.

IN THE TALMUD 181
converts," are treated by the Talmud as an Israelite caste of
much the same nature as the Mamzerim; they are of un
certain origin. The reason for this attitude toward the sect
appears in full in the argument given in Kiddushin, 75a,53
where they are treated in the same way as the Mamzerim.
In like terms a Mishna fixes the status of the Samaritans in
respect to Jewish marriage : " These are the people of un
certain condition [i. e. with whom one may not marry] :
those of unknown parentage, foundlings, and Samaritans."54
The Gemara likewise classes the sect amongst those peoples
intermarriage with whom is forbidden to the priesthood,
namely, the Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, Edomites and
Nethinim.55 If the regulation of Dt. 23, 3ff were followed,
the Samaritans could not hope for connubium with the Jews
until the tenth generation, or practically indefinitely, and this
application is actually made in Kiddushin, 75a.
Now it suited the policy of the Jewish Church to deny
connubium with the Samaritans, for, that policy governed
such regulations, is shown by the distinctions made in Dt.
23, 3ff . The Samaritans were sinful schismatics ; social re
lationship with them meant the infection of their sin in the
body politic. Intermarriage with Gentile proselytes was far
less dangerous, for the Gentile became wholly a Jew, where
as the Samaritan in his pride would feel he had no spiritual
benefit to receive from the alliance. It is, I believe, on ac
count of this policy, which was based on most practical
grounds, that the Jewish law aspersed the Samaritan
women ; by rendering these odious to the religious sense they
attempted an effective barrier against intermarriage with
that schismatic and Pariah-like sect.
In regard to matters of the sanctuary and the priesthood,
53 Cf. Mass. Kut. 27.
5iKidd. iv, 3; B. Kam. 38b.
55 Nidda, 74b. Also in the criminal law concerning seduction the
Samaritaness is placed in the same class with the bastard or Nethin
woman ; Ketub. iii, 1 ; B. Kam. 38b.

1 82 THE SAMARITANS
so far as participation in the Jewish institutions would have
given the Samaritans any prescriptive claim thereon, the
general rule was their exclusion; they were placed on the
same footing with the Gentiles. The most extensive regula
tion on the subject is found in Shekalim,56 in the prescrip
tion concerning those who had the privilege of paying the
ecclesiastical poll-tax of the shekel. This Mishna orders :
" Although they say, the shekel poll-tax is not to be levied
upon women and slaves and children, yet if they pay, it is to
be received from them. If idolaters or Samaritans pay, we
do not accept it from them. Nor do we accept from them
bird-offerings of men or women affected with gonorrhoea,
or those of women in childbirth, or of women who are in the
condition of sin or under ritual penalty. But vows and
offerings may be accepted from them. This is the rule : All
that is vowed and freely offered is to be accepted from the
givers ; all that does not come through vow or freewill offer
ing is not to be accepted from them. And so it is laid down
according to Ezra, as it is said [Ezra 4, 3] : There is noth
ing in common between you and us in the building of a house
to our God." The temple-tax was the privilege of the faith
ful alone, and to allow its payment by the Samaritans
would have been an acknowledgment of their full rights in
the community; it was essential to exclude them from any
legal claim upon the privileges of Jerusalem.
But this exclusion from the payment of the temple-tax did
not prohibit them from rendering the voluntary gifts of
"vows" and "freewill offerings" (Nedarim, Nedabot),
which were readily accepted from them even as from Gen
tiles, according to the Mishna above quoted. Also they
could, like the Gentiles, present the tithes and priest's offer
ing (Teruma), and make " dedications." (Kaddishin).57 As
56 i, 5 ; Mass. Kut. 2.
67 Teruma, iii, 9.

IN THE TALMUD 1 83
for tithes, they are said to offer them rightly.58 The contri
bution of tithes and the priest's offering may be understood
as of Samaritans dwelling upon Jewish soil, where these
taxes were regarded as civil taxes, levied on all land-owners
alike. In this connection we may also recall Josephus's note
that down into his century the Samaritans frequented the
temple feasts.59
Concerning the legitimacy of the tithes raised by the
Samaritans in their own territory and applied to their own
priesthood, contradiction exists in the Jewish regulations.
According to Masseket Kutim, g, " their produce is forbid
den, as in the case of Gentiles," — i. e. it was not tithed, and
was therefore forbidden to the Israelite. This is illustrated
by Demai, vii, 4, where there is a prescription for the proper
tithing of wine purchased from the Samaritans. But a To
sefta60 holds that while merchandise in any place is uncertain
(demai) as to its tithing, yet the produce brought in by the
Samaritans is undisputed. This opposition seems to be a
contradiction between earlier and later views. The latter
would be the logical position of Judaism, as tithes applied to
an outlaw clergy would not suit any strict sacerdotal theory.
On the other hand, especially in earlier ages, when the Jews
and the Samaritans were often closely intermingled on Pa
lestinian soil, it may have been argued that the tithes having
been rightly set aside, the food would not be affected by the
actual destination. of the tithes, while there are also patent
practical reasons why a purchaser would not wish to pay a
double tax. Indeed in another case we find a letting down
of rigorous barriers for expediency's sake; according to
Masseket Kutim, 22, "" the priests of Israel may share the
tithes with Samaritan priests in the territory of the latter,
because they are thus, as it were, rescuing the Samaritans
68 Berak, 47b.
69 See above, Chap. IX, note g.
60 Tos. Demai, 3, 3.

184 THE SAMARITANS
from their own priests." The same reason expressed in
practical terms would be, " Half a loaf is better than none at
all." But the same Halaka continues : " But not on Israelit
ish territory, lest the Samaritans should have a presumption
on our priesthood." Naturally on Jewish soil the full tithes
would be demanded for Jerusalem; it would be a private
matter for alien residents if they sent a further tithe to
Gerizim. It also appears from another dictum of Masseket
Kutim, 23, that the intention in tithing, quite apart from the
ultimate destination, was respected by Jewish law; an Is
raelite was forbidden to eat the food of a Samaritan priest,
except when' the latter was unclean, and so could not eat of
the sacred offerings. The corollary is that the tithes and
other sacerdotal dues of the Samaritans were taboo to the
Jewish layman, i. e. they were proper tithes. This earlier
attitude of Judaism helps to explain the Gospel narratives, in
which the Jews appear as freely buying in the Samaritan
markets. We thus see that Jewish sacerdotal principles
were not drawn absolutely against the sect.
It is not difficult to understand a provision of Masseket
Kutim, 5, which proceeds to apply to the Samaritans certain
Talmudic inhibitions directed by the Talmud against the
Gentiles :61 " We do not give them possession of immovable
property ; we do not sell them sheep for shearing, nor crops
that are to be harvested, nor standing timber; but we may
sell them cattle for slaughter." It was. the policy of the
Jewish Church to prevent the alienation of any part of the
Holy Land in its control, and to bar to others any shadow
of a claim thereto ; yet the application to the Samaritans was
only slowly made.
There remain to be noted some miscellaneous variations in
the observance of the Law for which the Talmud condemns
the Samaritans. The most important of these is the practice
of levirate marriage, Dt. 25, 5ff, in which point the sect had
«M&. Z. i, 7; 20b.

IN THE TALMUD 185
certainly abandoned the letter of Moses. In modern times
they understand by the brother a co-religionist who lives in
the same house,62 but in Talmudic days they appear to have
explained the brother's widow as referring to the woman
whose betrothed had died, not of the widowed wife. This
aberration is announced as the chief ground for the excom
munication of the Samaritans in the lengthy argument con
cerning them in Kiddushin, 75a, seq.: If the Samaritans be
genuine converts, nevertheless they have been excluded be
cause they practice Yibbam only with the betrothed.
In the matter of legal papers the Samaritans seem to have
had a different, perhaps a simpler usage than the Jews, and
so were excluded as witnesses; the exceptions were in the
matter of divorce-writs and emancipation-papers. The rel
evant Mishna reads :63 " Every legal paper which is sub
scribed to by a Samaritan witness is rejected, except papers
of divorce and emancipation. There was a case which was
brought before R. Gamaliel at Kefar-outhenai ; he declared
as valid a woman's divorce-paper, whose witnesses were
Samaritans." The Gemara following contains a discussion
over this precedent, whether it is lawful for all the witnesses
to be Samaritans. Also Masseket Kutim, T4, admits their
legal nicety in divorce by stating that " the Samaritan prac
tices the Get, and may be trusted to bring a Get from a for
eign city to an Israelite." This latter permission therefore
classes the Samaritans with the Jews, as heathens and slaves
were excluded from that function.64 To be sure there were
reasons of public utility in allowing the Samaritans to be
witnesses in such necessary legal matters, just as the Roman
government upon its outlawry of the Samaritans permitted
62 See above, p. 43.
e3Gitt. i, 5.
64 For the reasons and the law on this general point, see Amram,
The Jewish Law of Divorce 177 (Philadelphia, 1896). The Get is the
divorce-writ.

1 86 THE SAMARITANS
them to act as witnesses so that the public business might not
be impeded.65
Under this head may be included the charge that the
Samaritans were not scrupulous in the matter of betrothal.66
We may presume that the Samaritan form or use of the mar
riage contract, the Ketuba, was different from that of the
Jews. The whole marriage law of the Jews, especially in
respect to betrothal and marriage, was in so great a flux in
the Talmudic age, that it is not strange if the Samaritans
had variant usages. Further, these people, in company with
Sadducees, Gentiles, slaves, women, children and apostates,
are excluded from the preparation of Bible manuscripts,
Tephillin and Mezuzot.67 It is patent why they might not
prepare copies of the Scriptures; as for the other articles,
they, like the Sadducees, have never accepted the literal in
terpretation of Dt. 6, 8f.68
Finally, there remains one cardinal point of doctrine, al
ready referred to, wherein the Samaritans differed from
Pharisaism. The sect did not believe in the resurrection of
the dead. The specific authorities on the Jewish side for
this fact of early Samaritanism are Siphre to Num. 15, 31 ;
Sanhedrin, 90b ; Masseket Kutim, 28 ; it is also witnessed to
by many Christian writers.69
But this last difference is one which distinguished not only
Jew and Samaritan, but also within Judaism itself Pharisee
and Sadducee. Moreover the difference is but one of sever
al in which we find Sadducee and Samaritan agreeing as
against the Pharisee. It is pertinent therefore to take up
here the question of the agreements between the great con
servative party of Judaism and the northern sect.70
85 See above, p. 119.
66 Kidd, 76a, which also condemns their conduct of divorce.
67 Menachot, 42b.
68 See above, p. 32.
69 See below, p. 250. For the passage in Siphre, see Geiger, op. cit.
128. 70 Cf. Nutt, op. cit. 31; Wreschner, op. cit. p. vii. The latter work

IN THE TALMUD 187
Both Sadducees and Samaritans denied the resurrection
of the body, — not, it must be noted, the immortality of the
soul.71 It is not true, as alleged by Patristic writers, that the
Sadducees, like the Samaritans, denied the later portions of
the Canon ;72 but they appear to have assumed a depreciating
position towards the later strata, which contain proofs for
the resurrection of the dead, and it is to be noticed that Jesus
in his argument with them appealed to a Pentateuchal pas
sage. Both Sadducees and Samaritans clung to the literal
interpretation of the Sabbath observance, denying the fiction
of the Erub, and so invalidating it. Both agreed as against
the Pharisees in the rigorous fulfillment of the law concern
ing the use of a carcase, Lev. 7, 24-73 Neither believed in,
and therefore were forbidden to prepare, Tephillin and Me
zuzot.74 In one point the Sadducees may have agreed with
the Samaritans in annulling a doubtless Biblical prescription,
that of the levirate marriage ; at least this may appear from
the sarcastic question put to Jesus concerning the future pos
session of the woman whom seven brothers took to wife, Mt.
22, 23ff.75
is concerned at length with the relations of Samaritans, Sadducees
and Karaites. For elder literature, especially Geiger, see Wreschner,
p. vii, note 4. I have not attempted to enter upon the recondite prob
lem of the relation of the Samaritans and Karaites, which latter sect
preserved or restored many elements of original Sadduceeism. Jewish
scholars differ upon this point. Against Geiger, Wreschner would find
Samaritanism largely dependent upon Karaitism ; his arguments seem
to be based mostly upon minute points of ritual. For a return to
Geiger's position, see S. Rappoport, La liturgie samaritaine.
71 For the Sadducees, e. g. Sank. 90b; Mt. 22, 23ft.
72 See Schiirer, GJV ii, 411, who gives full quotations,
73 For the Sadducaean use, e. g. Choi. 44b. The Samaritans re
quired that the animal should have been slaughtered.
74 See above, p. 186.
75 This heresy was really not of much account. In the Mishnaic age
the old law was largely abridged, and the Jewish lawyers confessed it
to be more honored in the breach than the observance, Bekorot, i, 7.
The question later arose, which was the more honorable, the assump
tion of such a marriage, or the suffering of the shameful rite of
Chalisa. See Hamburger, op. cit. i, 928 ; Edersheim, op. cit. ii, 400.
Modern Judaism has completely abrogated this survival of primitive
marriage.

1 88 THE SAMARITANS
The Talmudic thought concerning the likeness of the
Samaritans to the Sadducees is strikingly expressed in a
Mishna :78 " As for Sadducee women, when they undertake
to walk in the ways of their fathers, then they are like the
Samaritan women; if they separate themselves to walk in
the way of Israel, then they are like Israelites. R. Jose
said : They are always like women of Israel, until they sep
arate themselves to walk in the way of their fathers." Thus
is expressed for the Sadducees much the same accusation
that was brought against the Samaritans, that their women
are unclean from the cradle. And equally in both cases, no
serious specification of uncleanliness is charged against
either party ; indeed the Sadducees stuck closer to the script
ural text in this matter than did the Pharisees.77 But the
above opinion must have been due to the Pharisaic desire to
prevent social intercourse and especially connubium with the
Sadducees, even as in like terms the Samaritans were ostra
cized. This close relationship of Sadducees and Samaritans
in doctrine and practice, and the Pharisaic assignment of
both to much the same category, arouse interesting questions
concerning the historical connections that may once have
existed between the two bodies. At all events we recognize
that the Samaritans largely preserved more primitive beliefs
and usages than the Pharisees, and so give valuable testi
mony to the character of early Judaism.78
We come now to the difficult question of the final drawing
of proscriptive lines against the Samaritans, a process which
began in the middle of the Hd Century and which came to its
rigorous conclusion about A. D. 300 with the complete ex
communication of the sect. It has been held that the Hadri-
76 Nidda, iv, 2.
77 Gemara to above Mishna ; cf. Hamburger, op. cit. ii, 1047.
78 It should be noted that by the Mishnaic age the problems of the
law concerning both Sadducees and Samaritans had become largely
theoretical, and this condition only increased in the subsequent cen
turies.

IN THE TALMUD 189
anic persecutions drove the Samaritans into the denial of
their faith, and that " the corruption of their ways " which
ensued compelled Judaism to outlaw them. On the other
hand the favor shown to the Samaritans by such influential
men as Akiba, Meir, and Simon b. Gamaliel, in the lid
Century has induced scholars to postulate for this age a
closer rapprochement between the two communities;79 ac
cording to this view the Samaritans would have taken part
with the Jews in their rising against Rome. The subsequent
excommunication would then be a return to the earlier posi
tion. But I believe that the discussions of the Hd Century
were not so much due to any historical events as to the logic
al working out of the principles of Pharisaism. After the
fall of Jerusalem, and still more after the destruction of the
political hopes of the Jews in Hadrian's reign, Pharisaism
won its final victory by being enabled to pursue its course
undisturbed. Judaism now became a close religious com
munity. The worldly party of the Sadducees had disap
peared. There was no room any longer for castes like the
Am-ha-arec,. Proselytes, if any dared the terrors of the
imperial laws, became Jews wholly. The old discussions
about the different strata of the church still remained, but
these were largely theoretical, even as were the laws concern
ing sacrifice. Judaism came more and more to be centred in
Babylonia, and the problems of Palestinian soil were re
lieved. Hence with respect to the Samaritans, we find the
law drawing its logical conclusions; this schismatic sect
could no longer be tolerated. Some Jewish leaders like
Akiba may, on liberal political grounds, have favored the
Samaritans; but this tendency was suppressed by the fatal
result of Bar-Kokeba's insurrection, as a result of which even
that hero lost caste in later tradition.80 Conservative law
yers, on principle like Meir, or from sluggishness like Simon
79 E. g. Hamburger, op. cit. ii, 1069.
80 He was known later as Bar-Koziba, the Deceiver.

190 THE SAMARITANS
b. Gamaliel, held by earlier precedents, or only slowly
changed their minds. But this change of attitude developed
very cautiously, and it is a wonder that so much law that is
favorable to the Samaritans is preserved not only in the
Mishna but also in the Gemara. That many earlier Halakot
were excluded from the Talmud, being preserved in the
Tosefta or deposited in Masseket Kutim, shows that while a
severe criticism of the Samaritans had already set in by the
lid Century, it was not able to enforce itself throughout.
We have noted above Akiba's liberal attitude toward the
Samaritans ; his opinion is given that " the Samaritans are
genuine converts, and the priests with whom they are defiled
are legal priests."81 There is also a Mishna which relates
the following anecdote :82 " Again they said to him [R.
Akiba] : R. Eliezer used to say: He who eats of a morsel
of the Samaritans is like one who eats swine's flesh. He
said to them : Be silent ; I will not say to you what R.
Eliezer said in this matter." This curt reply is an irritated
denial of Eliezer's aspersion on the Samaritans.83
The position of R. Meir, the younger contemporary^ of
Akiba is contradictorily given in the Talmudic discussions;
according to some he held that the Samaritans were genuine
converts, according to others that they were not.84 But the
composition of these two views is doubtless to be found in
the postulation of a change of opinion on Meir's part. Thus
it is stated in Masseket Kutim, 25, that " R. Meir said: All
their wine is allowed except that which is open in the mar
ket." But the following Talmudic anecdote shows how the
slKidd. 75b; cf. above, p. 177.
82 Shebiit, viii, 10.
83 Eliezer's position is much mitigated, if with Kirchheim {Intro-
ductio, 22; Septem libri, 35), on the authority of parallel passages
(Gemara to Sheb. Jer. 19; Tos. Pea, 2) "leaven" is to be read in
place of " morsel." The reference is then to the Samaritan lack of
scrupulosity concerning leaven, not all foods.
84 Cf. Choi. 6a and B. Kam. 38b.

IN THE TALMUD 191
same teacher came to change his opinion.85 " R. Meir sent
a disciple, R. Simon b. Eleazar, to buy wine of Samaritans.
A certain old man met him, who said to him : Put a knife to
thy throat, if thou art a man given to appetite [Pr. 23, 2].
R. Simon b. Gamaliel went and reported these words to R.
Meir, and he uttered an opinion against the Samaritans."
A similar anecdote is told of the much later R. Abbahu (c.
300), whose disciple being sent to buy Samaritan wine, was
accosted by an old man with the words, " There are no keep
ers of the Law here ! " In consequence RR. Ame and Assi
persisted until they placed the Samaritans in the full status
of Gentiles.86 " The old man " of these anecdotes is a fre
quent figure in the Talmud ; he is a sort of oracle, probably
representing popular opinion, which was often accepted by
the learned. The reason given for Meir's position is that
" he took into consideration the possibility of the rarer
cases," i. e. he laid a general embargo on the wine, although
it might be unclean only in the minority of instances. This
decision affected only exposed wine, and so the use of all
Samaritan wine was not interdicted until a much later
period. Meir's more rigorous opinion is also expressed in
his judgment concerning the goring Samaritan ox,87 and the
prohibition of Samaritan circumcision of a Jew.88 Juda ha-
Nasi, the compiler of the Mishna, followed suit to this rigor
ism, and even gave vent to the dictum that " the Samaritans
are like Gentiles," an opinion not in agreement with his
great work.89
85 Choi. 6a; cf. Ab. Z. Jer. 44d.
86 Choi. 6a. For the law concerning Samaritan wine, see Mass. Kut.
25- 87 See above, p. 175.
88 Ab. Z. 26b, seq. {Menach. 42a). At least such is Hamburger's
interpretation of this difficult passage, op. cit. ii, 1070. But according
to Mass. Kut. 12, it is Meir who holds the liberal opinion against R.
Juda. For Meir in general on this subject, see Hamburger, /. c, and
Appel, op. cit. 65.
89 Ketub. Jer. 27a; Berak. Jer. 11b; Demai Jer. 25d.

192 THE SAMARITANS
These arguments concerning Samaritan wine are paral
lelled by the long discussion concerning the lawfulness of
Samaritan slaughter in Cholin, 3b-6a. As we saw above,90
the earlier view allowed the meat if the purchaser tested the
good faith of the Samaritan vendor. But the question was
taken up again in the school of the patriarch Gamaliel III.
(c. 250), and the majority forbade Samaritan meat, for the
same reason as that which influenced Meir in his treatment
of wine. But a strong minority seems to have stood by the
earlier tolerance; it is reported that R. Yochanan (c. 275),
who is regarded by many as the founder of the Palestinian
Talmud, and R. Assi (c. 300), who later excommunicated
the Samaritans, ate their meat. It must be remembered that
these discussions over the lawfulness of foods were of seri
ous import, for their results affected the social relations of
the two sects.
Such are the discussions and decisions of the Tannaim of
the lid Century, and their followers in the Hid. The crisis
resulted about the close of the latter century. The Talmud
charges the Samaritans with having offered libations to
heathen deities in Diocletian's reign.91 In the same period,
in connection with the anecdote concerning Abbahu and
Samaritan wine, above narrated, RR. Ame and Assi did
not cease their efforts until they had excommunicated the
sect.92 Of the same Abbahu, who at his home in Caesarea
must have had considerable intimacy with the Samaritans,
an anecdote is told which closes the drama of excommunica
tion with a touch of pathos. The Samaritans said to Ab
bahu : " Your fathers had intercourse with us ; why do ye
not do the same? " He said to them: " Your fathers did
not corrupt their ways, but ye have corrupted your ways." 93
90 P. 172.
°iAb. Z. Jer. 44A.
92 Choi. 6a.
93 Megilla, 28a; cf. Ab. Z. Jer. 44d. Taglicht, op. cit. 23, referring
to Ab. Z. Jer. 44d, shows that the position of Abbahu was not as pro-

IN THE TALMUD 1 93
The Samaritans had not in matter of fact corrupted their
ways, but the schism had hopelessly deepened, and Pharisa
ism proceeded to its logical verdict against the hated sect.
It will be of interest to note here some further examples
taken from Rabbinic literature of the Jewish attitude toward
the Samaritans as exhibited in maxims and anecdotes.
There are indeed some exceptions to the general story of
mutual unkindness ; thus R. Abaye lost an ass, and asked it
back, and the Samaritans returned it out of respect for
him.94 But popular life and language were generally
harsher than the law. The term " Samaritan " was a term
of contempt, as it had been in Jesus' day ; this is exemplified
in the following saying : " It is the tradition : Whoever
teaches Scripture and Mishna only and does not minister
to the disciples of the wise men, him R. Eleazar holds for
an Am-ha-arec, R. Samuel b. Nachmani for a Boor, R.
Yannai for a Samaritan."95 Again : " Three things make
a man transgress against his own mind and the mind of
God; these are, an evil spirit, the Samaritans, and the rules
of poverty."96
History recounts the constant feuds between the two sects,
which seem to have been ever ready for mutual friction. A
Mishna relates 9T how in former times fire-signals were used
for conveying notice of the new-moon to Babylonia by way
of the Mount of Olives, Mount Sartaba, Agruppina, and the
Hauran, but that the Samaritans made mischief through in-
nounced as that of RR. Ame and Assi; that rabbi refused to follow
certain deductions, whose corollary would be the prohibition of Sa
maritan wine and water.
94 Gitt. 45a. The same passage contains a parallel story of R.
Chasda, whose slave ran away to Samaritans, but the latter refused to
return him, appealing to Dt. 23, 16.
95 Sota, 22b. Cf. the saying of Jesus, Mt. 18, 17.
98 At least this is the reading given by Lightfoot, op. cit. i, 600, for
a dictum in Erubin, 41b. But I can find no authority for " Samaritans,"
in place of which all accessible texts read " Gentiles " or " Worshippers
of Stars." Lightfoot's reading, however, is plausible.
97 Rosh ha-Shana, ii, 2.
13

194 THE SAMARITANS
terfering by false signals, so that messengers had to be sub
stituted. While we generally hear only of Samaritan
violence, the Jews could retort in kind, as when in a certain
year of Release they plundered a Samaritan market.98
Numerous are the wordy debates which are narrated, often
occurring at Shechem itself, through which the rabbis passed
on their way to Jerusalem, and sometimes the bold stranger
barely escaped with his life for aspersions on the Kuthite
religion.99 The Samaritans retorted with the ugly epithet
of Bet Kilkalta, Cursed House, for Jerusalem, while Gerizim
was the House of God, the Blessed Mount (tur berik). The
" stupid " Samaritans seem not always to have been equal to
the sharp wit of their opponents. " R. Meir once asked a
Samaritan what his origin was. He replied, From Joseph.
Not so, Meir replied, but from Issachar, because it is
written [Gen. 46, 13] : The sons of Issachar, Tola, Phuwa,
Job, Shimron, — from whom the Samaritans are derived !
The Samaritan went to the patriarch, and repeated the
strange saying of Meir. By thy life, said the patriarch,
he has counted thee out of Joseph, but has not advanced
thee to descent from Issachar! "10°
Finally, the excommunication of the Samaritans was
thrown back by Haggadic lore into the authoritative age of
Ezra and the Great Congregation:101 "Ezra, Zerubbabel
and Joshua gathered together the whole congregation into
the temple of the Lord, with 300 priests, 300 trumpets, 300
scrolls of the Law, and 300 children, and they blew the
trumpets and the Levites were singing. And they anathe
matized, outlawed and excommunicated the Samaritans in
the name of the Lord, by a writing written upon tablets,
98 Tos. Ohalot, 18, 16. So Taglicht, p. 24, but Zuckermandel reads
Goyim. 99 Bereshit Rabba, cc. 81, 32, etc.
100 Bereshit R. c. 94.
101 Tanchuma, § Wayyesheb, 2 (Lublin, 1893 — not in Buber's edi
tion) ; Pirke R. Eliezer, c. 38.

IN THE TALMUD 195
and with an anathema both of the Upper and Lower Court
[i. e., of heaven and earth] as follows : Let no Israelite eat
of one morsel of anything that is a Samaritan's; let no
Samaritan become a proselyte, and allow them not to have
part in the resurrection of the dead. And they sent this
curse to all Israel that were in Babylon, who also themselves
added their anathema."
The great Maimonides set his seal upon this verdict for
later Judaism : " By reason of idolatry, separation from
them was established, and their slaughter was prohib
ited." 102
102 Quoted by Taglicht, pp. cit. 25. The Samaritans retorted by
cursing Maimonides; VJD iv, 191.

CHAPTER XI.
THE TALMUDIC BOOKLET, MASSEKET KUTIM.
At the end of the IVth Seder, or Series, of the Babylonian
Talmud, along with a number of extra-Talmudical tract
ates, are found the " Seven Jerusalemite Booklets," the
sixth of which is entitled Masseket Kutim, i. e., De Samari-
tanis. The classic edition of these seven tractates is that of
Raphael Kirchheim, Septem libri Talmudici Hierosolymi-
tani, Frankfurt, 1851 (in Hebrew), edited from the MS. of
Eliakim Carmoly, and provided with a sagacious commen
tary.1 The sixth tractate is an interesting collection of
dicta, some of which are found in the Talmudic literature,
some of which are independent Boraitas, and some Tal
mudic opinions referring to the Gentiles, but now applied to
the Samaritans.
The translation herewith appended is intended to afford
an easy oversight of the strata of the treatise. In plain type
are given such dicta as are not found in the Talmudic litera
ture. Small capitals indicate identity with Talmudic
passages ; this type is used also where the exact wording of
the source does not appear. In italics are given those Tal
mudic dicta which in their original meaning referred to the
Gentiles alone; most of these come from Aboda Zara.
This critical discrimination offers an insight into the
process of the Jewish legislation concerning the Samaritans.
Most of the independent Halakot are favorable to them, e.g.
1 An excellent English translation, with some notes, is given in Nutt,
Samaritan Targum, p. 168. In general, see Hamburger, REJud.
'Supplementband, 9S ; Strack, RE xviii, 328, and Einleitung in den
Talmud, 1900, p. 46; Schiirer, GJV i, 137.
196

MASSEKET KUTIM 197
Nos. 1, 5, 8, 28, and so may be presumed to be discarded
Boraitas. On the other hand, the Halakot which have been
bodily applied to the Samaritans from the law concerning
the Gentiles, testify to the later practical identification of the
two classes.
The supplementary notes are to be credited almost entirely
to the full apparatus of Kirchheim. Where he corrects the
received text, I have indicated such corrections with quota
tion marks. I have further carefully digested the Halakot
with the material given in the preceding Chapter. The
numbering of the Halakot is my own.
MASSEKET KUTIM.
Section I.
1. The usages of the Samaritans are in part like those of
the Gentiles, in part like those of Israel, but mostly
like Israel.
2. We do not accept from them the bird-offerings
of men or women having issues, nor the bird-
offerings of women after child-birth, nor sin-
offerings or guilt-offerings. but we accept
from them " vows and freewill-offerings."
Shek. i, 5. The quoted words are restored from the Mishna.
See above, p. 182. Cf. Lev. 12; 15.
3. We do not give them possession of immovable prop
erty, we do not sell them sheep for shearing, or crops
that are to be harvested, or standing timber; but we
muy sell them " cattle " for slaughter.
The first clause is from the Mishna, Ab. Z. i, 7, those follow
ing are the gist of the discussion in the Gemara, 20b. See
above, p. 184.
4. We do not sell them large cattle, even if they are
maimed, nor ass-foals, nor calves; but we may

198 THE SAMARITANS
sell them that which is maimed so it cannot be
healed.
Ab. Z. i, 5. This Mishna is directed against the unnatural
crimes charged to the Gentiles, of which the discussion in the
Gemara, 15b, fully acquits the Samaritans. The transference
of this prohibition to the Samaritans is contradicted in 15b,
where it is forbidden to sell only a maimed beast to the Sa
maritans.
5. We DO NOT SELL THEM WEAPONS, NOR ANYTHING
THAT CAN DO DAMAGE TO PEOPLE.
Ab. Z. i, 5, applied in 15b to the Samaritans because they
might sell to the Gentiles. The same rule includes all Jews
who might make misuse of weapons. See above, p. 174.
6. We do not give them wives, nor do we take wives
FROM THEM.
Kidd. 75a. See above, p. 179.
7. But we (do not?) lend or borrow on usury with them.
The text places the Samaritans on the same footing with
Gentiles. But Kirchheim, following Geiger, argues that " not "
should be inserted, referring to the exception made against the
Samaritans of Caesarea, with whom, because of their perver
sion, the laws of usury obtained; Ab. Z. Jer. 44d. N. B. the
adversative "but." See above, p. 174.
8. We give them the gleanings and the forgotten sheaf
and the corner of the field ; and they have the custom
of the forgotten sheaf and the corner, and so may be
relied upon concerning the gleanings and the for
gotten sheaf and the corner in the proper time, and
also concerning the tithe for the poor in its year.
Cf. Lev. 23, 22: Dt. 24, 19: 26, 12. The '"reliability" of the
Samaritans was of importance, because the gleanings were not
tithable. Hence Tosefta Pea, 4, 1, has it : " The poor of the
Samaritans are like the poor of Israel."
9. But their produce is forbidden as untithed, as in the
case of the Gentiles.
For the contradiction of this dictum with Tos. Demai, 3, 3,
see above, p. 183.
10. They invalidate the Erub even as the Gentiles.
See above, pp. 170, 187.

MASSEKET KUTIM 199
11. A Jewess may not deliver a Samaritaness, nor suckle
her son; but a Samaritaness may deliver a Jewess
and suckle her son in her [the Jewish woman's]
quarters.
Ab. Z. ii, 2. As Kirchheim's note shows, the application of
this prohibition to the Samaritans brings the Jewish commen
tators much trouble, because not only was private intercourse
with the Samaritans allowed, but also Tos. Ab. Z. 3, 1, con
tains just the opposite dictum. See above, p. 174.
12. An Israelite may circumcise a Samaritan, and a
Samaritan an Israelite. R. Juda says: A
Samaritan is not to circumcise an Israelite
because he circumcises him in nothing else
than the name of mount gerizim.
Ab. Z. 26b-27a. For this vexed question see above, pp. 170, 191.
13. We may lodge a beast in a Samaritan inn, or
hire a Samaritan to go behind our cattle, or
hand over our cattle to a samaritan herds
MAN. We commit a boy k to a Samaritan to
teach him a trade. We associate and converse
with them anywhere, which is not the case with
the Gentiles.
Ab. Z. 15b. See above, p. 174. Kirchheim approves a sug
gestion that for mesapperim, " converse," " mishtapperim," " have
one's hair cut," should be read, comparing Ab. Z. Jer. 7b:
" An Israelite who has his hair cut by a Gentile must look in
a mirror, but if by a Samaritan he need not look into a mir
ror." The innuendo of the precaution is to the effect that the
barber may cut his throat !
14. A Samaritan suffers the Chalisa from his sister-in-law,
and gives a divorce-writ to his wife. He may be
relied upon to bring a divorce-writ from a foreign
city to an Israelite.
See above, pp. 173, 185.
15. These are the things we may not sell them : carcasses
not ritually slaughtered, or animals with organic dis-

200 THE SAMARITANS
ease ; unclean animals and reptiles ; the abortion of an
animal ; oil into which a mouse has fallen ; an animal
that is mortally ill, " or a foetus," although Israelites
eat them both, lest the sale lead them into error.
And as we do not sell these things to them, so we do
not buy them from them, as it is written [Dt. 14,
21] : For thou shalt be a holy people to the Lord
thy God. As thou art holy, thou shalt not make an
other people holier than thyself.
Kirchheim reads for the unintelligible shemen 18BJtt>, she-
men shel seripha, i. e., the (holy) illuminating oil, which if de
filed could be used by the Jews {Teruma, xi, 10), though ap
parently not by the Samaritans. For the principle at the end,
cf. Pesachim, 5ob~5ia: "As for things which are allowed but
which are prohibited by others, thou mayest not permit them
in the presence of such people." In this passage the Samaritans
are adduced as an example, the reason given for their scrupu
losity being that "they confound one thing with another"; see
the correct reading in Jastrow, Dictionary, 1028a.
16. A Samaritan may be relied upon to say whether
or not there is a tomb [in a field], or whether
AN ANIMAL HAS HAD ITS FIRSTBORN OR NOT. THE
Samaritan is to be relied upon concerning a tree
whether it is four years old or is still unclean, and
concerning gravestones, but not with regard
to the cleanliness of overhanging boughs or
protruding boughs; nor concerning the land of
Gentiles, nor concerning the bet-peras, because
they are open to suspicion in all these things.
This is the principle: they are not to be be
lieved IN any matter in which they are open
to suspicion.
See Nidda, vii, 4, and the Gemara following, 57a. For the
uncircumcised tree, cf. Lev. 19, 23. " Overhanging boughs," etc.,
make precincts that can harbor uncleanliness. Bet-peras is an
area of land rendered unclean by the presence of bones.

MASSEKET KUTIM 201

Section II.
17. We do not buy meat from a Samaritan except
that of which he himself eats, nor strings of
birds unless he first puts them into his mouth.
We do not buy offhand what he would give to
Israelites, for they have been suspected of giving
Israelites flesh of ritually unclean carcasses.
Choi. 3b seq. See above, p. 172.
18. The Samaritan is on the same footing with the Israel
ite in respect to all damages laid down in the law.
The Israelite who slays a Samaritan, or a
Samaritan who slays an Israelite, if UNINTEN
TIONALLY, IS T0 GO INTO EXILE [i. C, to 3. city of
refuge] ; if intentionally, he is to be slain.
Makkot, ii, 4, reads : " Everyone is to go to a city of refuge
for slaying an Israelite, and an Israelite is to go tO' a city of
refuge for slaying anyone. The alien resident (Ger-toshab) is
excepted ; he does not go to a city of refuge except for slaying
an alien resident." A following Boraita, 8b, has it that " a
slave or a Gentile goes to a city of refuge or receives lashes
on account of an Israelite, and an Israelite the same on account
of a Gentile or slave." But with Kirchheim, for " Gentile " in
this Boraita should be read " Samaritan," inasmuch as the
Mishna and its ' Gemara treat the Gentile separately under the
head of the Ger-toshab.
19. If the ox of an Israelite gore the ox of a Samar
itan, it goes free. But in the case of the ox
of a Samaritan, if it is its first offence, it is
to pay half the damage; if a subsequent of
fence, the full damage. r. meir says: the
ox of a Samaritan which gores the ox of an
Israelite, whether it be the first offence ok
the second, is to pay the full damage and at
the highest appraisement.
B. Kamma, 38b; see above, p. 175.

202 THE SAMARITANS
20. Their cheeses are allowed. R. Simon b. Eleazar says :
To wit, the cheeses of householders, but those of
dealers are forbidden.
For " dealers " Kirchheim would read, on the strength of his
MS, "villagers," kepharim.
21. Their pots and presses in which they are accus
tomed TO MAKE WINE AND VINEGAR ARE FORBIDDEN.
This law applies to the Gentiles in Ab. Z. ii, 6. But Ab. Z,
Jer. 44d, expands it so as to include the Samaritans : " The
cooked foods of the Samaritans are allowed. This law he (R.
Eleazar) announced concerning a food which they do not pre
pare with wine or vinegar."
22. The priests of Israel may share the priestly dues
with the Samaritan priests in the territory of the lat
ter, because they are thus, as it were, rescuing the
Samaritans from their priests; but not on Israelite
territory, lest they should have a presumption on our
priesthood.See above, p. 183.
23. If a Samaritan priest, when he is unclean, eats and
gives of his food to an Israelite, it is permitted ; if he
is clean, the Israelite is forbidden to eat of his food.
See above, p. 184.
24. We DO NOT BUY " BREAD " FROM A SAMARITAN BAKER
at the end of the passover until after three
bakings, nor from householders until after
three Sabbaths, nor from villagers until
after three makings. When does this apply?
When they have not celebrated the Feast of Un-
leaven at the same time with Israel, or have
anticipated it by a day; but if they celebrate the
feast with Israel, or are a day later, their leaven is
permitted. R. Simon forbids it [in general], because
they do not know how to observe the feast like Israel.
Kirchheim compares Tos. Pesach. 2, and Orla Jer. sub., ii, 6,

MASSEKET KUTIM 203
which, with other variations, read " leaven." For the Samaritan
observance of the laws of leaven, see above, p. 171. Observe
that the restrictions announced here against Samaritan leaven
are dependent upon the variation of the Samaritan calendar from
the Jewish.
25. Formerly they said : The wine of Kador is for
bidden because of [the proximity of] Kephar
Pansha. This they changed to the effect
that wherever the people are suspected of
mingling with the gentiles, wine that is open
is forbidden, that which is sealed is allowed.
R. Meir said : All their wine is allowed except
that which is open, if it is in the market. But the
WISE MEN SAID: THAT WHICH IS OPEN IN ANY
PLACE IS PROHIBITED, THAT WHICH IS SEALED IS
allowed; that which is bored INTO and then
SEALED IS AS THOUGH SEALED.
Ab. Z. 31b ; Ab Zar. Jer. 44d. (For the places see Chapter
VIII, § 1.) The opinion of R. Meir is in contradiction of that
assigned to him in Choi. 6a. See for the general subject and
the ambiguity of Meir's position, p. 190.
26. Their jars if new are permitted, if old are prohibited.
Ab. Z. ii, 4; 33a.
27. Why are the Samaritans forbidden to marry into
Israel ? Because they are mingled with the priests of
the high places. R. Ishmael said : They were gen
uine converts at first. Wherefore were they
FORBIDDEN? BECAUSE OF THEIR BASTARDS, AND
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MARRY THE BROTHER'S
WIDOW.
Kidd. 75b, where Ishmael appears only with the opinion that
the Samaritans are lion-converts. See above, p. 176.
28. When shall we take them back ? When they renounce
Mount Gerizim, and confess Jerusalem and the resur
rection of the dead. From this time forth he that
robs a Samaritan shall be as he who robs an Israelite.
For the Jewish condemnation of Samaritan eschatology, see
above, p. 186.

CHAPTER XII.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE SAMARITANS.1
§ I. INTRODUCTORY.
It is proposed in the present Chapter to give a digest of
the Samaritan theology. Such a presentation is exposed to
the scientific criticism that it avoids the historical processes
of the development of doctrines. But the writer would
meet this criticism by his intention to note carefully the
more important changes in the theology, while withal he
submits that to do full chronological justice to the subject a
whole volume based upon many exhaustive investigations
would be required. However, he has reached the opinion
that Samaritanism had practically attained its ripeness by
the IVth Century A. C, when, in the teachings of its great
theologian Marka, all the elements of its doctrine are found
at hand. Karaitism may subsequently have influenced prac
tice, and Islam has largely affected theological expression,
while it cast the doctrine of God into a more Deistic mould
and affected especially the eschatology. But in general we
are not doing violence to historic method in regarding Sa
maritan theology from its first literary monuments in the
1 For the literature, besides the works of the earlier scholars, as
Reland and Cellarius (consult Bibliography), see especially Gesenius,
De Samaritanorum theologia; de Sacy in the introduction to his edition
of the Epistles in N. et E.; Petermann, Reisen im Orient, i, 269; RE
ed. 1, s. v. Samaritaner; Kautzsch in the 2d and 3d editions of the same;
Heidenheim, in introductions to his Bibliotheca Samaritana, and nu
merous articles in DVJ; Nutt, Samaritan Targum; Hamburger, in
REJud. ii, s. v. Samaritaner; Cowley, Some Remarks on Samaritan
Literature and Religion, JQR viii, 562.
204

THEOLOGY 205
IVth Century down to our own time as a whole which may
be systematically digested.
Also we can, from external if not sure internal evidence,
trace Samaritan doctrine farther back than the IVth Cen
tury. The Jewish notices of the sect, which have been
studied in the three preceding Chapters, throw invaluable
light upon its theology. So far as we can learn from these
extraneous sources the general outlines of Samaritanism
were already fixed in the Ist and lid Centuries. Therefore
while we possess, apart from the Pentateuch and some few
Hellenistic fragments, no literature that can be surely as
signed to an earlier date than Marka, we must infer that
the greater part of the theology as we have it is the precipi
tate of the age at or before the beginning of the Christian
era. The chief exception would lie in eschatology. And
if the contention, now generally accepted even by Jewish
scholars be correct, that the Samaritans are but a Jewish
sect, then we must hold that their theology has developed
in a straight and consistent course ever since the schism
from Judaism. This development has gone along on the
whole pari passu with the theology of the latter religion.
No intellectual independence is to be found in our sect; it
was content to draw its teachings and stimulus from the
Jews, even long after the rupture was final. Nevertheless,
it possessed a certain patriotic hardiness which enabled it to
preserve its own characteristic, and in many cases to main
tain the elder and more conservative position as against
progressive Pharisaism. And that Samaritanism is a wit
ness to earlier phases of Jewish thought than later Jewish
orthodoxy is evident in several points, but most of all in the
eschatology. While the doctrine of this department is
voiced in liturgical pieces which may all or in large part
date from the Islamic period, nevertheless in great part it
represents the fluctuating eschatological notions which were
in the air in the centuries just before and after the begin-

206 THE SAMARITANS
ning of our era. Our subject therefore takes us back to the
original womb of Judaism from which the sect sprang.
To make a rough historic division of Samaritan theology,
we may divide it into the age before Marka (the IVth Cen
tury) , and that subsequent to him. The latter again may be
subdivided by the point where Islamic influences begin to
evince themselves; this epoch may be dated about the end
of the Ist Millennium.2 With Marka and his age, celebrated
in the traditions concerning Baba Rabba, we have evidence
of a positive intellectual development of theology. There is
the sudden appearance of extensive Haggadic literature,
while a certain manifestation of Rabbinism comes to the
front, testified to by Baba Rabba's appointment of lay doc
tors to the despite of the priests. This development is the
reflex of the processes in Judaism which were finding im
mortal expression in Talmud and Haggada. The influence
of Islam does not, as already observed, contribute much
materially to Samaritan theology, but nevertheless it gives a
turning-point which is valuable at least for purposes of
chronology. In the following exposition I have made use chiefly of the
Samaritan Epistles to European scholars, and of the Lit
urgy. In any sect it is the prayers and hymns which most
truly represent its actual religion. The later works, the the
ological treatises and commentaries, do not add much to the
general knowledge of our subject. With reference to the
subsequent development of theology, it may be said that the
bloom of Haggadic thought which is most exuberant in
Marka does not maintain its hold on the sect. The Samari
tans fell back into the prosaic type characteristic of them, so
that their theology has become a hard and dry product with
little imagination and spiritual afflatus. I trust the full
apparatus of references will give credence to my statements
and also that they may be of use to scholarly readers.
2 See Chapter XIV on the literature of the Samaritans.

THEIR CREED 207

§ 2. the samaritan creed.
We say: My faith is in thee, Yhwh; and in
Moses son of Amram, thy Servant; and in the Holy
Law ; and in Mount Gerizim Beth-El ; and in the Day
of Vengeance and Recompense.3
Such is the Samaritan confession of faith, constantly ap
pearing in the literature. It takes its place alongside of the
Christian Creed, and of Islam's confession, " There is no
God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet." The state
ment is parallel to the latter religion's six articles of faith,
which consist in belief in God, in his angels, his scriptures,
his prophets, the resurrection and Day of Judgment, and in
God's absolute decree.4 The first three points of the Sa
maritan creed are identical with the cardinal beliefs of Ju
daism, while the fourth is the cause of schism between the
two communities. These first four points sometimes ap
pear by themselves,5 the fifth article concerning the Latter
Things being a later addition to the Samaritan theology.
In the discussion of our theme we cannot do better than
follow the formal scheme of this creed.
§ 3. the belief in god; angels, creation, etc.
(i.) THE ONE GOD.
The doctrine of the oneness, the uniqueness, and the spir
ituality of God is the supreme theme of Samaritan theology,
and he is the sole object of all worship. The character of
the Samaritan notion of God may be appreciated from the
following passage of a hymn : e
3Ep. to the Brethren in England, 1672, N. et E. 173 (tr. 181) ; 1 Ep.
to Ludolf, Ludolf, Ep. Sam. 8; Epistle of Mashalma, DVJ i, 100; BS
ii, No. xxiv.
4 Sale, Koran, Prelim. Disc. § 4.
B BS ii, No. xl ; N. et E. 179, 223.
6 Gesenius, CS 100.

208 THE SAMARITANS
There is nothing like him or as he is ;
There is neither likeness nor body.
None knows who he is but he himself,
None is his creator or his fellow.
He fills the whole world,
Yet there is no chancing upon him.
He appears from every side and quarter,
But no place contains him.
Hidden yet withal manifest, he sees
And knows everything hidden.
Hidden nor appearing to sight,
Nothing is before him and after him nothing.
The doctrine of the unity of God is based upon the for
mula of the Shema, " Hear, O Israel, Yhwh thy God is
one Yhwh,"7 but it is generally expressed in the terms of
Islam, " There is no God but God." This is the beginning
and end, the constant refrain of all piety. The doctrine
appears aggressively in the polemic against the Christian be
lief in distinctions within the Godhead, and Gnostic ideas
of emanation. The polemic is constantly expressed in such
language as the following : " O Being of unity, who hast
no fellow, no second, nor colleague." The last term, shateph
corresponds to the Arabic sharik, which with its collateral
forms is frequently used in the Koran in the prohibitions
against " associating " anything with God.8 In another
hymn the opening stanzas evidently antagonize Christian
Trinitarianism :9 " God is the one without plurality, the
first before all that was made in plurality, the Head so that
naught arose from plurality. He is found for what he is,
another comes not in the count. There is no place sufficient
7 There is evidence of the use of the Shema, BS ii, 191, bott.
8 CS No. ii, 10. Shoteph is used in Talmudic literature in like way.
The Arabic equivalent appears in Lib. Jos.
aBS ii, No. xxiii.

IDEA OF GOD 209
for him that plurality may be comprehended therein. He
is Yhwh, and is not to be inwardly distinguished (Tr»"0.
. . . There is known no second who has wrought with
him. . . . He has no instruments and no hands, no
equal and hypostatization (iT70) . "
The latter term is evidently the hypostatized Midda, or
Attribute, of Jewish Gnosticism. The Samaritan literature
is fairly free of such Gnostic notions ; however Marka made
extensive excursions in that direction, while there are later
echoes of his language. Thus Marka represents God's
Grace and Goodness as standing at the right and left of
Moses.10 The idea of the Glory, Kabod, of God, does ap
pear constantly as a hypostatization, especially in connec
tion with the theophany on Sinai. It is identified by Marka
with the Angel which was to lead Israel through the
desert.11 This notion of the Kabod comes from primitive
Judaism, appearing first in Ezekiel.12 There is also con
stant reference to the Shekina, or manifest Residing of God
over Gerizim; this has been withdrawn from mortal eye
during the Age of Disfavor.13 The Word of Yhwh ap
pears a few times in the Samaritan Pentateuch after the
example of the Jewish Targum, e. g. Num. 22, 20; 23, 4, 5,
16; but the hypostatized Memra appears scantily or never
in the literature. God is said to have spoken and created
by his Word, but it is especially taught that this Word has
no existence by itself. There is no development of a Logos-
doctrine. An echo of Jewish Wisdom literature is found
when it is said that " God created the heavens by his wis
dom,"14 but no further development of this notion appears.
"Marka, 15a.
11 BS iii, 101.
12 Eze. 1, seq.; Weber, Jiidische Theologie, 161.
13 BS ii, 124, bott. ; N. et E. 212.
™BS ii, No! xiv, Beth. Cf. Prov. 3, 19-
14

2IO THE SAMARITANS
The Spirit of God receives scant attention, the references
to it being based almost entirely on Num. n, 28ff.15
We thus find some interesting points of connection with
early Jewish Gnosticism, but withal little positive develop
ment in the way of hypostatization; Marka's trend, doubt
less dependent upon incipient Kabbalism, was not pursued
by the unimaginative Samaritan mind, which was influenced
much more by the hard Deism of Islam. Despite the tra
ditions and opinions concerning Simon Magus, there is little
to show that Samaritanism was ever Gnostically minded.16
Later theology, as we have noticed, denied all hypostatiza
tion, while even such Scriptural passages as suggested this
notion were often emended. Thus the four places in the
Pentateuch where Elohim, God, is construed with a plural
verb are corrected in the Samaritan to the singular num
ber : Gen. 20, 13 ; 31, 53 ; 35, 7 ; Ex. 22, 9. The rendering
of " the Sons of God " in the Targum of Gen. 6, 4 follows
the Targum Onkelos in offering " sons of rulers." In Gen.
48, 16 of the Samaritan Hebrew, Mal'ak, the Angel, is
turned into Melek, the King, so as to give all glory to God.
God's essence is pure spirit. Contrary to much Old Tes
tament phraseology, and especially to apocalyptic Judaism,
which located God in the highest, — the third or seventh
heaven, — the Samaritan generally can find no local place
for him. This spiritual notion receives noble expression
in a verse published by Gesenius :17 " The abode which I
shall have is the place of thy power ; no ocean is there, nor
sea [cf. Rev. 21,1], nor the very heavens themselves." In
his relation to creation, God " fills the world."18 Most
particularly does the Samaritan theology dwell upon the
15 E.g. BS ii, 116; No. xcviii, stanzas, ii, iii. In Marka, 38a, the
Holy Spirit is classed with the Cloud and Fire, but in 73a the Glory
takes its place.
18 See Chap. XIII, § 2.
« CS iii, 13.
lsIbid. iv, 5. But according to a hymn, quoted by Heidenheim,
DVJ iv, 549, God built his temple in the highest heaven.

IDEA OF GOD 211
incorporeality and impassibility of God, surpassing Juda
ism in this respect.. The earliest evidence of this tendency
is the Samaritan Pentateuch with its Targum, which latter
exceeds even the Jewish Targumists in the avoidance of
original anthropomorphisms. A comparison of the Samari
tan Targum with both Onkelos and the Greek in the locus
classicus, Ex. 24, iof, shows how far the former went in
this direction. In v. 10 by a slight textual change the see
ing of God becomes " they feared God," and in v. 11 the
having the vision of God becomes " they were assembled
with God." This quite outdoes Onkelos, who has it that
" they saw God's glory," and the Greek, " they saw the place
where God was." This anti-anthropomorphic tendency is
carried to a still greater extreme in Abu Said's Arabic trans
lation, in which some 600 cases of such revision are found.19
But in the extra-Biblical literature this trend of doctrine
becomes absolute. It is continuously taught that God per
ceives and acts without the aid of parts or senses. " He
sees with the eye of wisdom, but he sees not with eyes;
•seeing what is in the world, seeing but he sees not."20 And
so he hears without ears,21 he made and sustains the world
without a hand.22 He speaks without mouth or voice, and
there is no more body to the utterance than in the line of
writing which may be rubbed off a tablet.23 Even the
mystic " Be " of creation is uttered without a word. He
suffered no toil in his work of creation, for " he worked
without fatigue and rested without weariness."24 This has
reference to the divine Sabbath, and is of course good Jew
ish doctrine since Philo. Finally " he never grows old for
19 Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, 59. Further for the
Targumic use, see Kohn, Zur Sprache, etc., 179.
29 BS ii, No. xvii, st. 1.
21 Ibid. No. xxii, st. 2.
22 CS ii, 9-
23 Ibid, ii, 5; 7- „ . „_ . ,
24 Petermann, Gramm. Sam. App. 23 ; 06 1,0.

212 THE SAMARITANS
he has no want.25 The one standing exception to this rule
is the constant reference to the writing of the Tables of the
Law by the finger of God; here the effective anthropo
morphism of Scripture and the reverence for the Law are
too strong for the otherwise spiritualizing Samaritan the
ology. In respect to God's moral nature, he is absolutely holy
and pure and righteous ; the latter quality is especially taught
in connection with the doctrine of the Day of Judgment,
which shall be a time of awful apprehensions on the part of
saints as well as of sinners. But the quality that receives
the crowning emphasis is that of God's love to his people;
he appears pre-eminently as the Gracious and Merciful God,
in terms taken from Ex. 34, 6ff, and after the fashion of
the standing title in the opening of the Suras of the Koran.
To give one example of this characterization of God, he is
" the treasury of love." 26 It is pathetic to observe how in
its litanies and hymns the petty, persecuted sect has cher
ished its faith in the mercy of God, a love which seemed the
more intense because of its limitation to that small commu
nity; it is marvellous how that wretched people has clung
so passionately to this faith, which history has but little
confirmed. On the other hand, quite in line with the severe avoidance
of everything approaching anthropomorphism, the doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, which was first developed in
Judaism and later made the cornerstone of religion by
Jesus, is ignored and even contradicted by the Samaritan
faith. God appears as Father only in the few passages of
the Pentateuch where his paternity for Israel is asserted,
25 BS ii, No. xxii, st. 2. Per contra, " the Ancient of Days," Dan.
7, 13, and the current Kabbalistic terms, " the Ancient," " the Most
Hoary"; see Hamburger, REJud. ii. s. v. Kabbala. The expression,
"the Ancient," however, appears in a XlVth Century Midrash, DVJ
iv, 209.
28 BS ii, 174, v. 5-

IDEA OF GOD 213'
e.g., Ex. 4, 22. In this matter Samaritanism adheres to the
elder Sadducaean theology, a stage which was overcome by
the more intense personal religion of the Pharisees. Under
the influence of Islam this tendency went still farther to the
extreme. Abu Said paraphrases all such Biblical passages;
for example in the one just cited he translates " my first
born son " as " my own people.27
As for the divine names, God is generally expressed by
El, Ela, the Biblical Elohim appearing more rarely, as a
rule for the sake of rhyme, — either through Islamic influ
ence or from caution against its plural significance. But
the great name of revelation, Yhwh, appears constantly
throughout the literature, without any trace of that fear at
even the writing of it which characterizes Judaism. The
pronunciation of the name has come to be avoided by utter
ing in its stead KDtt> (pronounced Shemma), " the Name,"
corresponding to the Jewish use of DBTI, e. g., Lev. 24,
n.28 Yet the pronunciation itself has survived in
Samaritanism, whereas long lost in the Jewish Church.29
It appears from the Liturgy that the name was still used in
the priestly blessing till a late date.30 As is well known,
Theodoret, of the Vth Century, gives the Samaritan pro
nunciation as 'laj3e, or laBai-31 In another place I have
shown that the tradition of the right pronunciation has sur
vived amongst the Samaritans to our own day, namely as
Yahwa.32 As for the Jews so also for the Samaritans, Yhwh is
the grand mystery of revelation, and the revelation of mys-
27 See Gesenius, Pent. Sam. 59, n. 202.
28 This fact gave rise to Aben Ezra's statement (Introduction to
Commentary on Esther) that the Samaritans taught that Ashima
(2 Ki. 17, 30) made the world.
29 According to tradition, since the days of the highpriest Simon the
Just, Yoma, 39b.
30 BS ii, 117, v. 26.
31 Quasi, in Exodum, xv (ed. Migne, lxxx, 244) : Tape,- Hareticarum
fabularum compendium, v, 3 (Migne, Ixxxiii, 460) : 'lafJai.
32 Notes from the Samaritan, JBL 1906, p. 49.

214 THE SAMARITANS
tery, the clue to all the secrets of God. It is the great, the
glorious, the hidden Name,33 and there has been no day
like that on which it was revealed to Moses.34 It becomes
then the duty of the illuminated to penetrate the mystery of
the Name, which is accordingly subjected to processes of
Gematria.35 However, there is no attempt to make any
magical use of the formula, such as appears in certain
phases of Judaism.36
Of the other Biblical names, Adonai and Shaddai are in
frequent use. But especially favorite is the employment of
the " I am that I am," or simply, " I am." With this may
be compared the use of the same phrases in the Kabbala;
however, the Samaritans do not appear to have indulged in
the developed Gnostic and metaphysical interpretations
found in the Kabbalistic literature.
The frigid monotheism of the Samaritan theology is re
lieved and enriched by an exceedingly large vocabulary of
epithets describing the uniqueness of God. In his nature
he is the absolutely Existent, the First, and the Endless, and
the Unlimited, the One before the world and the creatures.
He is the infinite God, and Tohu-wa-Bohu (Gen. i, 2), i. e.,
the original essence or source of all things, by which idea
the Samaritan doctrine overcame the notion, latent in the
Scriptural verse, of the independent existence of matter;
elsewhere he is also called the Creator of Tohu-wa-Bohu.
He is frequently termed the Root, as the origin of all. He
is Creator, King, King of kings, King of the worlds;
God of gods, and Lord of lords; King of our spirits, God
of the spirits. He is Might, the Mighty One — an exceed
ingly frequent epithet ; he is Great, Strong, Able, Enduring ;
Victor, Redeemer, the Rock and Stone of Israel, the Living
One and the Wise. But the epithets manipulated by Sa-
33 E.g. BS ii, p. 57, v. 4; No. xvi, Beth; p. 117 v. 26.
34 BS ii, No. xvii, st. 1.
35 E.g. ibid.
36 See Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonai, 49.

IDEA OF GOD 215
maritan piety would be more than tiresome in their full
enumeration; it may suffice to refer the curious to two
Hymns published by Heidenheim, each consisting of twen
ty-two verses, in alphabetic acrostic, and each verse con
taining four epithets beginning with the cue-letter of the

The Existent One, filS'yp, a most constant epithet.
Heidenheim, BS ii, p. xxxvii, would find in this expression
the influence of Simon Magus, who called himself iardis,
the Standing One, which equals the Hebrew word, a parti
ciple of Dip- But the term appears of God in Philo, e. g.
De nom. mut. 1052, and rather bears witness to the in
fluence of Hellenism upon the Samaritan theology. The
same adjective is also used of the finite creation as that
which " is."— The First, >NDp; Endless, *| ID Kb2', Limit
less, Dinn 1^ tibl- — Before the world, the creatures,
fttaty 'Dp, mm iKBp  The Infinite God, DB« ba, BS ii,
p. 208, v. 15,=° atrepavros, Cf. the Kabbalistic ]'«, non
existence, the Greek rb p.^ 8c. But the Samaritans did
not go as far as the Kabbala in attempting to express the
Absolute One, and confined themselves to Scriptural lan
guage. — Tohu wa-Bohu, BS ii, p. 21, v. 22. Creator of
Tohu wa-Bohu, Marka, 23b.— The Root, ipi)?, ip«, e. g.
BS ii, 208, v. 15 ; Marka, 6b, to which see Heidenheim's
note. The Simonians spoke of God as plga/ia tuv ohoiv. —
— God of Gods, Lord of Lords, Lib. Jos. xxix ; cf. 1 Tim.
6, 15; Rev. 17, 14. Also Judge of Gods, CS v, 4; cf. Ps.
82. — King, God of the Spirits, CS iv, 13; BS ii. p. 212, v.
12; cf. Nu. 16, 22; Enoch, 39, 12.— The Might, rr)>n;cf.
Mk. 14, 62; Vita Adami, 28; Acts, 8, 10, where Simon
Magus uses it of himself. Cf. Bousset, Religion des
Judenthums, 310. — The Mighty One, etc., rrJi'n, b\13,
11U, irbW. —Victor, nyiSJ, Redeemer, b^X- —God also
appears, in agreement with Rabbinic use, as fiJiyo libit,
BS ii, No. lxx, 11; cf. BHlpn pya bK, ibid. No. xcviii,
part 5, 1. 3- (2.) THE ANGELS.
Reland, the great archaeologist of the XVIIth Century,
vigorously maintained the thesis that the Samaritans pos
sessed no belief in angels.38 Some external references and
37 BS ii, Nos. ci, cii.
38 Reland, De Samaritanis, 7, 9; cf. Hottinger, Smegma orientate,
1658, p. 491; Enneas disseriationum philol. theol. 1662, p. 18. See on
the other side, Juynboll, Lib. Jos. 122.

2l6 THE SAMARITANS
the denial of the doctrine by the party of the Sadducees
(e.g., Acts, 23, 8), supported this contention. But the far
wider range of literature at the command of modern schol
arship has effectually disposed of this thesis, except so far
as it may hold for earlier Samaritanism,39 and an account
of Samaritan angelology might make a considerable chapter.
In the Samaritan Hebrew literature the prevailing name
for the angels is the Pentateuchal term Mal'akim, as an
equivalent for which Sheliach, " deputy," is found. There
is frequent use of " Host," or " Hosts " ; the " Spirits " are
rarely mentioned. In the Aramaic literature the most com
mon term is " Powers," which also appear as " Potencies,"
" Exalted Ones," and " the Celestial Folk," or " the Church
Above " ; also as " Foundations," and the " Plenitude of
Deity." These beings are numberless.
rr'JB', deputy, BS ii, p. 164, v. 19 (also Rabbinic).—
B'Bbti (sa!t=) nu, ibid. p. 77, He 5. — funn, spirits,
in "God of the Spirits," ibid. p. 212, v. 12; cf. Enoch, 15,
4ff, and Greek to Num. 16, 22; so Heb. 1, 14. — Cherubim,
BS ii, p. 66, v. 21. — Powers, l'J'n, as in Dan. 4, 32,
K'Btt" bT\, = dwd/iets, e. g. Eph. 1, 21. — Potencies, ]"\fU-
— The two Cherubim, i. e. of the Ark, BS ii, p. 66,
Lamed, v. 21. — Exalted Ones, >kdji, ibid. p. 191, v. 23. —
Celestial Folk, »«^y Dj?, ibid. 191, v. 11; cf. Berak, 16b,
fityn bw ,t';bs- Cf. Koran, 37, 8; 38, 69.— The Church
Above, ty1? Dj?pT fKM3, BS ii, p. 138, st. 7. Cf. Heb. 12,
22f. — Foundations, nHD>, BS ii, p. 138, st. 10.— "Pleni
tude," "initio mnp, CS iii, 8; see Gesenius's note compar
ing the Mandaic use of mniK for angels. — Angels with
out number, CS iii, 8; so the Jewish doctrine, Weber,
op. cit. 169.
The Angels or Powers hold an intermediate place be
tween God and man. With reference to their relation to
Deity, the figure of the Angel in the Pentateuch offered a
theological difficulty, yet also a means of escape from the
anthropomorphic dilemma. We have seen above, that to
avoid the former obstacle, MaTak was changed to Melek.40
39Epiphanius witnesses to the denial of the belief, Hares, ix, 13.
40 P. 210. In Marka, 29a, 33b, "the Ruler," or "the Glory" is sub
stituted.

ANGELOLOGY 2iy
On the other hand " angels " is used in place of the Biblical
Elohim, where it has a polytheistic flavor. Thus in the
Targum to Gen. 3, 5, the Serpent says, " Ye shall be like
angels," a paraphrase like that in Targum Onkelos, and
probably in this sense the expression " God of gods and
Lord of lords " was used. In the hymns the exchange is
sometimes deliberately made, as in the phrase, " a sweet-
smelling savor to Yhwh/' where in place of " God "
" Spirits " is substituted.41
In regard to the origin of the heavenly spirits, our litera
ture is in general indefinite. In reply to de Sacy's question
whether the Samaritans believed in angels, the curt reply
was : " We believe in the holy angels who are in the
heavens."42 Indeed the modern Samaritans appear to
have fallen into indifference towards this theologumenon.
From a frequently recurring phrase, " Powers and crea
tures,"43 it might appear that the former were regarded as
uncreated; de Sacy is inclined to think that the Samaritans
regarded them as emanations of Deity.44 This is indeed a
view which appeared in early Christianity, and in general it
is to be observed that except in formal theology the question
of the origin of the angels is naturally ignored. However,
a passage in a hymn shows that the angels were regarded
as created beings. The reference reads as follows :45 " O
God, our God, who wast before every creature, who made
and began and finished the world by himself; in Bereshit
[i. e., at the very beginning] mighty creatures he created;
in wisdom they grew up, in perfection and with no defect."
Further, in a passage already cited,46 " creatures " is doubt
less used of one kind of celestial beings, as the extract tells
41 BS ii, 116, v. 27.
42 N. et E. 106 (121).
43 .E.g. CS iv, 8; BS ii, 138, st. 10.
4iSam. Theol. 21.
45 BS ii, 181, v. iff.
48 BS ii, 138, v. 10.

2l8 THE SAMARITANS
how they and the " Foundations " came down upon Mount
Sinai. St. Paul also uses ktIocs in the same way, of
spiritual beings, Rom. 8, 39. From the passage quoted
above, it would appear that angels were created on the
first,47 not the second day, as the Rabbinic theology came
to teach, while of the later Jewish doctrine that the angels
were an emanation from the fire under the throne of God
there is scarcely a trace.48
As in the earlier Jewish theology, the angels are con
ceived of as closely related to or identified with the stars;
so in the expression, " the heavens and their powers."49
Thus at the revelation on Sinai, along with the angels ap
pear " the winds and the waters and the fires and the
material elements," as spiritual existences.50
There are a few references to a hierarchy amongst the
angels. These are represented as sitting in ranks at the
theophany upon Sinai,51 and Heidenheim has published a
hymn in which the angels who wait upon God in his heav
enly temple are divided into classes, some of whom attend
to the morning and evening oblations, while others of
higher rank perform the divine commissions in the universe,
receiving their orders through an angelic porter.52 Four
47 So Marka, 148b.
48 Bereshit Rabba, c. 78, Weber, op. cit. § 34, Bousset, op. cit. 316.
According to Heidenheim {BS iii, pp. xviii, xxv) the doctrine of ema
nation appears in Marka, 105, 106, — a passage which he has not pub
lished. The earlier Jewish doctrine taught that the angels were created
on the first day; see Jubilees, ii, 2. Judaism subsequently transferred
their creation to the second day so as to avoid the idea that they
assisted God in his work. But Samaritanism retained the elder notion.
49 BS ii, 19, st. 11. It is not clear whether in the description of the
stars of the seventh heaven, ibid. No. xiv, Beth, they are regarded as
animate. so The identification of the angels with the stars, as in the interpreta
tion of " the Lord of Hosts," is very ancient in Israel. The elemental
spirits, belonging to the four elements, and even to every kind of crea
ture, appear constantly from the Benedicite and the Book of Enoch
down; cf. Enoch, 60, nff; Jub. 2, 2; Gal. 4, 3, 9; Col. 2, 8, 20. See
Bousset, op. cit. 317.
51 BS ii, No. xix, He.
™DVJ iv, 551-

ANGELOLOGY 219
angels are given names and special functions, to wit, those
who attended the ark of the child Moses, Kabbala, Penuel,
Anusa and Zilpa, the first two also appearing as " Helpers "
of Moses.53 With the exception of the historical refer
ences to the Serpent in Eden,54 there are but few allusions
to evil spirits in the literature.55 But Petermann learned
orally that the Samaritans considered as devils Azazel,
Belial, Jasara (the hornet, Ex. 23, 28), and also ranked in
the same class the Cainites and the Nephilim.56 We thus
observe that Samaritanism by no means followed the ex
treme Jewish development of angelology and diabolology,
and has been able to withstand the doctrines of Islam in
this field. Kabbala, yblD is represented as God's minister, in the
ninth heaven, BS ii, p. 26, v. 20f. This being has some
mystical connection with Deity : " K is the secret of his
Name," p. 85, v. 13. (According to Heidenheim, BS iii,
p. xxv, he appears in Marka, vi, 260b [unpublished] as
identical with God.) His function seems to be like that
of the Rabbinic Metatron; see Weber, op. cit. § 37. The
etymology of the word is entirely obscure. May it be a
personification of Qabbala, the secret doctrine of God?
Such a theory supposes a confusion between initial Kaph
and Qoph, which is possible if the word were borrowed
orally.— Penuel, *7KUB (cf. Gen. 32, 30), is the Angel of
the Presence, Jub. i, 27, 29; Test. Levi, 3, 18; T. Juda, 25
(Is. 63, 9). His place is generally taken in Judaism by
Gabriel, Lu. 1, 19. — Anusa, S1D13N, appears in the Kabba-
listic literature as a form of Enoch (Enosh), who was the
Demiurge, the Prince of the Presence, and even identified
with God himself. — Zilpa, HB^t, I cannot trace further. —
According to Petermann, /. c, the priest gave him as the
names of the four great angels, Fanuel, Anusa, Kabbala,
Nasi, whom the priest assumed to find in Gen. 32, 31, Ex.
14, 25, Nu. 4, 20, and Ex. 17, 15. respectively.
63 BS ii, 29, v. 6; p. 205, v. 18.
54 .E.g. ibid. 112, Samek, v. 21.
65 Cf. Lib. Jos. c. xxiii, according to which the reading of the Law
has a magical effect against the spirits.
66 Reis en, i, 283. Also Cowley notes, without further reference, that
"there is a destroying angel Mehablah, who corresponds somewhat to
Satan " ; JQR viii, 571.

220 THE SAMARITANS
As for the functions of the angels, they are such as
usually appear in Jewish and Christian theology. In gen
eral they are spoken of as " the Hidden Powers," 57 but
their manifestation has been vouchsafed to the Patriarchs
and at the great moments of revelation. The principle is
laid down that " they are present only at the times of temp
tation." 58 But the supreme moment of the revelation of
the heavenly powers was the awful scene on Mount Sinai.
According to almost every one of the Midrashic hymns
which repeat the story of that momentous event, all spirit
ual essences appear as summoned to witness and add
dignity to the scene, all Powers and Creatures, the spirits
of all the elements, the lightnings and thunders, the stars
and their constellations ; in serried ranks this Church Above
assembles, while below gather the tribes of Israel, the angels
themselves glorying in the giving of the Law.
The passage summarized is found in BS ii, No. xix,
p. 77, He. Cf. p. 45, Mem, Samek; p. in, Nun; No.
xxxiv; CS iii, 8; iv, 8; etc. This Midrashic treatment,
based on Dt. 33, 2, is parallel to that of the Jewish litera
ture (see Weber, op. cit. § 57; cf. Heb. 12, i8ff), with
some original details. Moses appears more exalted than
in the Jewish Midrash, for here the angels do him rever
ence. The Samaritan doctrine also holds an independent
position in one important point ; it does not allow that
the angels had anything to do with the mediation of the
law to Moses. " God spoke with all Israel, speaking with
out an interpreter (repeater)," »an» {BS ii, 139, st. 16).
Samaritanism insists on the immediate gift of the Law
written by God's finger to Moses, in contrast to the Jew
ish dogma that angels were the mediators , Jub. 1, 27-c. 2 ;
Philo, De Somniis, 642 M; Josephus, AJ xv, 5, 3; Gal.
3, 19; etc.
This revelation of the Hidden Powers is unique, but
nevertheless the heavenly spirits still have communion with
the Faithful on earth, and will take their part in the deter-
« E.g. CS iv, 11.
58 BS ii, 7, No. v. Marka, 2a, has a like phrase, but uses it in a
different sense. The former passage proceeds to enumerate their ap
pearances to the saints down to the giving of the Law.

ANGELOLOGY 221
mination of the future fate of men. Like the saints, they
will possess at the Last Day some intercessory power with
God, but the wicked need expect no favor from them.59
Gerizim is " the tabernacle of God's angels," 80 where they
" taste and kiss " the sacrifices,61 and at the Passover the
two Cherubim and the angels are present, hovering about.62
The Hosts attend the priestly blessing, and they attend the
faithful in their prayers.63 At the Day of Judgment when
the scales are set, they shall appear as assessors, and acquit
each one of the righteous, as they ask concerning every
event of the latter's lives.64 In all these notions of the angels
we find concepts that are rooted in the Old Testament and
which flowered richly in Judaism and Christianity. But
on the whole the Samaritan conception has remained sim
pler and soberer ; in this the earlier Sadduceeism is evident.
There is no trace of a belief in guardian angels.
(3.) CREATION.
According to Samaritan dogma God has revealed him
self in two grand acts, namely the creation of the universe
and the giving of the Law. Hence most of the Midrashic
hymns begin with an extensive description of the creation,
based upon the narrative in Gen. i.65 The Samaritan doc
trine teaches strictly that God was the creator of all things.
This absolute theology represents an earlier stage of Jewish
doctrine, before oriental dualism and the Greek distinction
69 BS ii, 191, v. 12. Cf Job, 33, 23.
80 N. et E. 63 {77).
alBS ii, 116, v. 27.
B2Ibid. 66, Lamed. Cf. the Christian idea in connection with the
Eucharist. es Ibid. 117, v. 27; no. Hi.
84 BS ii, 94. The idea of the Scales is taken from Islam; e. g.
Koran, xxi, 48; see Tisdall, The Sources of the Qur'an, 198.
65 Comparison may be made with the great ancient Eucharistic
Prayer, which relates the drama of human redemption, beginning with
creation.

222 THE SAMARITANS
between matter and spirit had rendered possible even in
Jewish monotheism the notion that anything could have in
dependent existence apart from God. It is in contradiction
to such dubious theology that the Samaritan doctrines hold
that God created the Tohu-wa-Bohu, and even that he is
Tohu-wa-Bohu.66 A frequent expression is that God created " from that
which is not," e. g. BS ii, 164, v. 3 ; CS i, 4; Sam. Theol.
19. (Gesenius renders the phrase, ex eo ubi nihil, but isn
is the pronoun " that.") For the earlier Jewish doctrine
of absolute creation see 2 Mac. 7, 28; for the later notion
of independence of things in origin and condition, see
Weber, op. cit. § 43, and for like philosophy, Wisdom, 11,
17-
Marka almost alone, as we have seen, enters into Gnostic
speculations; according to him the angels were emanations
from the Glory. The same theologian teaches that " the
Law came forth from the fire " of God, and that the two
Tables " were separated from the lamp (face?) of his knowl
edge."67 One might find in this theologian almost a pan
theistic conception ; he describes God as one " from whom
all is and to whom all returns ; "68 also a Hymn speaks of
God " making all things go forth from himself."69 But
we may not push such a criticism too far; Paul also taught
that " of him and through him and unto him are all
things," Rom. 11, 36, while the return of all to Deity is a
common doctrine of the Koran. Samaritan theology in
general draws the sharpest line between God and his crea
tures.70 88 See above, p. 215.
87 Marka, 68b; cf. Weber, op. cit. § 42. Also Moses' staff and the
four Caves were created in the Six Days, 5b, 77b; cf. Pirke Abot, v, 9,
and Taylor, ad loc Cf. above, note 48.
68 144a.
69 CS iii, 16.
70 There is no notion of the opposition to his purposes on the part
of the angels as held by some Rabbinic literature; see Weber, op. cit.
§ 43-

CREATION 221
The mystic means of creation was the command, " Be,"
Which is the object of adoring wonder to the devout Sa
maritan. In dependence upon Jewish exegesis, ten crea
tive words were spoken, the first of which was found in
Gen. i, i, when Tohu-wa-Bohu and the angels were cre
ated.71 Marka also holds the later Jewish notion of the
" renewal " of the worlds, i. e., of several creations
(Toledot) before the present world was made.72 The uni
verse is divided, as in the simpler Jewish conception, into
two worlds, the upper and the lower, or, more frequently,
into the Things Concealed and the Things Manifested.
As for the heavenly regions, references are found to both
seven heavens and to nine. In a passage giving the former
number, the sun is assigned to the highest heaven.73 In the
passage describing the nine heavens, each of the first eight
possesses its own firmament and stars, while in the ninth
is "the Holy Abode, and Kabbala its minister."74 This
number, which approximates the ten heavens of Kabbalism,
appears also in the Acts of St. Thomas, where Paradise is
placed in the eighth.75 The hymns give lengthy descrip
tions of the heavenly bodies, in long discourses compounded
of pseudo-science and mysticism; of course, astronomical
observations played a large part in ecclesiastical thought
because of their importance in regulating the ecclesiastical
calendar, being created indeed " for omens and seasons "
(Gen. i, 14). 76 The day of creation was the first Nisan.77
The knowledge of the elements of matter went no further
than the four principles of fire, wind, water, and earth.78
71 Pirke Abot, v, 1 ; see pp. 218, 274.
72 Marka, 151b; cf. Weber, I. c
73 BS ii, No. xviii, Waw; DVJ iv, 552.
74 BS ii, No. xiv, Beth.
75Thilo, Acta S. Thoma, 27; 47 (cited by Heidenheim). For ten
heavens, cf. also JE i, 591.
78 For the calendar, see Chap. XIV, § 12.
77 Marka, 30a. The Jewish doctors disagreed as between Nisan and
Tishri. 78 E.g. Marka, 43b.

224 THE SAMARITANS
Great interest is displayed in Adam, who in his original
estate appears as the ideal man. He was made out of the
dust of Gerizim, differing from the beasts by walking
upright. Marka tells how he was formed of fire and water,
or fire and dust, by God's own hand, being also com
pounded of the Holy Spirit and soul. A<fine passage tells
how he came to adore the one creator of all things. He
was placed in the Garden of Eden, where he remained a
year in felicity. After his fall, he went off by himself for
a hundred years, in which time " he begat children without
form or shape," i. e., the demons or Jinn of the corre
sponding Jewish and Islamic legends. But then he re
pented and God took him back into favor, so that he came
to rank as one of the heroes of the true religion, being,
along with Abel, Enosh, Enoch and Noah, one of the origi
nal worshippers of God on Gerizim. There is, however,
an entire absence of all Kabbalistic lore concerning Adam
Kadmon. Comparatively little is made of the fall of Adam
in the hymns, somewhat more in Marka. The Biblical text
is closely adhered to, and there is no development of dia-
bolology in connection with the Serpent.
See especially the opening stanzas of BS ii, Nos. xxi, c.
For Marka, see 58b, 68b. — For the antediluvian patriarchs
as true worshippers, ibid. 69b, 70b, 180b. — Almost no legen
dary lore appears concerning Enoch, except a reference to
the flight of his sons, which is drawn from the legend of
the Wars of Enoch, ibid. 157a, and cf. Heidenheim's
note. — For Enosh, compare the reference above to the
angel Anusa, p. 219. An extensive apocryphal literature
ascribed to the patriarchs seems to have been known to
the Samaritans, — e. g. a Book of Adam, or Book of Signs,
a Book of Wars, but there is no reference to the Book of
Enoch, although Enoch legends are found ; see Heiden
heim, DVJ iv, 213, 350, 189. — The absence of expansion of
doctrine concerning the Fall represents the earlier Jewish
position; cf. Baldensperger, Die messian.apokalyptischen
Hoffnungen d. Judenthums, i, 220. — Gesenius quotes a
verse alluding to man as the Microcosm, CS 100.

BELIEF IN MOSES 225
§ 4. MOSES ; THE PATRIARCHS, PRIESTS, PROPHETS.
The Samaritan Bible is the Pentateuch; this means to
Samaritan belief that Moses was the sole medium of God's
revelation. Accordingly the absoluteness of the Law and
the Lawgiver is never tempered as it is with the Jews, who
range alongside of the Tora, although on an inferior plane,
the Prophets and Hagiographa. It was impossible for the
Samaritan to look forward with a Jeremia to a time when
a new Law should be written in men's hearts, or with a
Joel to an outpouring of the Spirit which should discount
the revelation of the past. In the Samaritan sect Moses
takes a place parallel to that enjoyed by Mohammed in
Islam : " Moses is the Prophet of God," and there is none
other like him. But the Samaritan doctrine even surpasses
Islam in reverence for its prophet. For while Muslim ortho
doxy thinks of the Arabian prophet with rational sober
ness, the Samaritan advances the great Lawgiver to a posi
tion where he becomes an object of faith. He is rather
like the Christ of Christianity, one whose origin is often
held to be mysterious, who now lives to make intercession
for his brethren, who will appear effectually for the saints
at the last day ; the Messiah himself will be but an inferior
replica of that absolute Prophet.
It would take well-nigh as long to enumerate the epi
thets accumulated in Moses' honor as those applied to Deity.
As it is true that almost every hymn begins with the praise
of the Creator, so it is likewise true that the hero of the
second act of the Midrashic drama is always and at great
length Moses. He is, according to Biblical terms, the Con
fidant of God, the Son of his House, with whom God talked
face to face ; he is also the end, the limit of all revelation, a
very ocean of divine utterance.79 In language which has
79 See Gesenius's discussion of these epithets, Sam. Theol. 24. " The
son of his house," properly "slave," is used honorably, and seems to
antagonize such an argument as appears in Heb. 3.
15

226 THE SAMARITANS
doubtless been affected by Christianity, he is God's Evan
gelist,80 the Pure One, the Light on earth,81 the Light of
the world,82 and all others are liars.83 As in Christian
dogma he undid the work of the Devil,84 and the saint dies
in the faith of Moses.85 His name alone may be associated
with that of God; " We begin our discourse," says an
Epistle, " with the name of God and conclude with the
mention of Moses."86 No prophet has ever arisen like
Moses, or ever will arise.87 He is the absolute prophet, for
all things hidden and revealed were shown him on the holy
mount, so that other prophets are superfluous.88 On his
account the world was made,89 prayer is offered through the
merits of Moses,90 his prayers for the faithful will be
granted by God in the Day of Judgment.91
The Midrashic treatment of the history of Moses is very
extensive, particularly with regard to his experiences be
ginning at the Burning Bush. For his earlier life there is
not as much of amplification of the story as appears in
the Jewish Haggada, which glorifies Moses as the greatest
and most learned among the Egyptians.92 There is given
80 BS ii, 93, v. 37.
81 Marka, 75b, seq.
82 BS ii, No. xiv, Dalet; Kaph.
83 Ibid. No. xiv, Lamed.
84 Ibid. No. lxix, v. 17. The same notion appears in Judaism; see
Weber, op. cit. 273.
86 BS ii, No. cxxi, v. 17.
88 N. et E. 52 (64).
87 This despite Dt. 18, i8ff, but the doctrine is based on the Samari
tan reading, Hebrew and Targum, of Dt. 34, 8 : "no prophet .shall
arise " ; cf. SC vii, 1 ; Marka, 143a.
88 E. g. BS ii, No. xv, Samek; Marka, 143b: "He knows Bereshit
and the Day of Vengeance," i. e. the beginning and end of things.
89 Marka, 67b ; a like notion exists in Judaism.
90 See below, p. 231.
91 CS vii, 30.
92 His birth on the 7th day of the 7th month is asserted in corre
spondence with -Jewish legend, BS ii, No. xv, He. His staff was handed
him out of the fire of God, Marka, 5b; cf. the Jewish legend, Pirke
Abot, v, 9. For his wisdom (cf. Acts, 7, 22) an ampler treatment is
found in the Legends of Moses, published by Leitner in DVJ iv, 184.

BELIEF IN MOSES 227
a pretty infancy legend which speaks of the four guardian
angels in charge of the child Moses, when he lay in the
ark.93 But the Samaritan imagination follows the Jewish
lead in letting itself out in the glorification of the experi
ences of Moses upon the holy mount. Not satisfied with
the Biblical accounts of the visions vouchsafed to him,
there is grandiose enlargement upon the prophet's fellow
ship with the angels. He entered into heaven itself, and
there sat on a great white throne, while he wrote the Scrip
tures ; by the glory of the angels was he nourished, of their
food he ate, at their table he sat, with their bread he satis
fied his hunger, in their bath he bathed, and in their tent
he dwelt.94 In heaven he figures as greater than the angels,
for these all sing the praises of the Lawgiver, as they call
upon him to read the Law : " O Priest, begin and read !
.... Each says to the other: See and hear, O com
rade! What is this but the voice of the Glory? Opened
to him is heaven's door. And every constellation and its
stars listen, and the two stars [sun and moon] are in vision
to Moses, while each says to him, O Lord and Master! "95
One Scriptural passage referring to God is even applied to
Moses: "He (Moses) ascended into the firmament of
Levi, and appeared, and came forth from Sinai, and light
ened from Seir, whose appearance was like sapphire-
enamel."96 There is constant reference to the transfigura
tion of Moses' face, after Ex. 34, and especially to the horn
of light with which he was clad, v. 29; this is the same
exegesis as appears in Aquila and the Vulgate (comuta).97
But the most interesting development of dogma concern
ing Moses is found in the doctrine of his pre-existence.
93 BS ii, No. xiv, Chet ; see above, p. 219.
94 Marka, 156b.
95 BS ii, No. xix, He.
96 BS ii, 205, v. 15 ; cf. Dt. 33, 2 ; Ex. 24, 10.
97 Horn of Light, BS ii, No. xi, 14 ; No. c, v. 15 ; etc. It appeared in
Egypt, ibid. p. 107, v. 27.

228 THE SAMARITANS
This theologumenon, which however is infrequent, appears
in the various phases common to such conceptions. At
times the pre-existence is only ideal or deterministic;98
Moses was the end of creation, therefore he possessed an
ideal being before his historical manifestation : " We had
been expecting his advent since the ages that are past."99
His prophethood had ideal pre-existence, and in the fulness
of time clothed him like a garment; so in a stanza quoted
by Gesenius :100 " Prophecy was his, a crown from the
days of creation; the prophethood of Moses, which was
worthy of him, clothed him." Moreover the doctrine ap
proaches that of a real pre-existence ; he is " the man in
whom the Spirit of God was established since creation ; the
eyes of God were upon him with the generations of the
days and years."101 Further, the connection between the
pre-existent state and that in the flesh was mediated by a
species of metempsychosis, the sacred germ of divine light
being transmitted through his forbears until it fully incar
nated itself in the prophet. " He walked in the knowledge
of Yhwh ; from the day of the creation of Adam his
spirituality was in this child, and his grandeur was in the
world. And he set him as a drop of light, passing from
generation to generation [distillation to distillation], and
then he descended into Jochebed's womb, and was placed
within her."102 This doctrine is nothing else than a replica
of the Islamic legend of " the Light of Mohammed."103
It is in accordance with this notion that Moses is called, in
Christian terms, " Light from Light."104 His pre-exist
ence is more definitely stated in the epithet used of him,
" the Star of Creation whom God created from the Six
88 Cf. Baldensperger, op. cit. 86.
99 BS ii, No. xv, Yod ; this is a reminiscence, or parallel, of Mi. 5, I.
100 Sam. Theol. 27.
101 BS ii, No. xcviii, st. ii.
"2BS ii, No. xv, He; cf. DVJ iv, 547.
i°3Tisdall, op. cit. 246.
"iDVJ ii, 99.

BELIEF IN MOSES 229
Days." However despite this divine emanation of the germ
of Moses, he appears as a created being, and is frequently
spoken of as " the quintessence of creation."105 In one
passage, as read by Heidenheim,106 Moses is thus ad
dressed: " Art thou not, O Moses, Prince of the (divine)
Form, Tabernacle of the Shekina of God?" Here Moses
appears in the form of the Prince of the Presence, and the
embodiment of God's glory, much like the Jewish Metatron.
But this is most exceptional, while the text is uncertain ; in
general even Moses' pre-existence originated in the Days of
Creation. A lengthy Midrash describes the death of Moses,
but his decease is a natural one, although attended by glori
ous circumstances ; there is no doctrine of the assumption of
Moses.107 Logically therefore Samaritanism has no room for other
prophets than Moses; the fortunate canonization of the
Prophets allowed Judaism to cherish Moses as the first of
a long line of successors, but to the Samaritans he was also
the end of prophecy. Frequent reference is made to proph
ets, but the thought seems to be confined to the incident in
Num. 11, where Eldad, Medad and the Seventy Elders
are seized with the Spirit of God; these inspired men are
much honored by the Samaritans, who profess to have
their tombs. Also in one passage the author of a hymn
asserts that he himself is " a scion of the prophets and can
not lie,"108 but this assumption of inspiration is unique, at
least in the literature.
Aaron also takes a very subordinate position. He is only
the moon to Moses' sun, while the latter is Priest as well
105 E. g. BS ii, No. xv, Chet, v. 10. So, in connection with the Bib
lical njttn, Gesenius, CS 68, understands J?B7, a word often used
of Moses and Israel. I would suggest that it may mean " first fruits,"
like the Talmudic dema'; cf. Jer. 2, 3 ; Ja. 1, 18.
106 DVJ ii, 88; Zur Logoslehre der Samaritaner, ibid. iv. 126.
107 See Munk,'jD<?.j Samaritaners Marqah Erzahlung iiber den Tod
Moses', and his remarks, p. 3.
108 BS ii, No. xx, Chet.

230 THE SAMARITANS
as Prophet.109 Aaron appears at length in the Midrashic
treatment of the first chapters of Exodus, but he fades
away in the light of Moses' glory upon the mount. His
successors, Eleazar and Phineas, receive frequent notice,
the latter especially, because of the Biblical statement con
cerning his inheritance in the land of Samaria, Jos. 24, 33.
These three priests are counted among the Meritorious
Ones. Extreme care was taken with the preservation of
the priestly line, and the chronicles are arranged under the
successive highpriests whose line is given from the begin
ning.110 Their sacerdotal rights were fully preserved, and
only when the highpriestly line failed in the XVIIth Cen
tury, did others of the tribe of Levi dare to assume their
functions. In general the control of the community has
lain in the hands of the priesthood, has not been usurped
by lay doctors. Despite this fact, Moses has triumphed
over Aaron, probably because of the enforced spiritualiza-
tion of the Samaritan religion during its long sufferings of
persecution since the days of John Hyrcanus. The Sa
maritan theology is not interested in the treatment of the
sacrificial laws of the Pentateuch, as Judaism has been,
which expounded those ordinances long after they were
obsolete. To the contrary, we find in Samaritanism a
greater stress laid upon the moral side of the Law, which is
treated more after the way of Haggada than of Halaka.
Hence a certain tone of spirituality, however ethically genu
ine it may be, marks Samaritan theology, so that it appears
in a way as one of those numerous developments of Old
Testament religion which were forerunners of the spiritual
worship of synagogue and of Christianity. This stage may
have been reached earlier than in Judaism, for the glory of
Gerizim fell two centuries before that of Jerusalem.
109 Ibid. No. xix, He.
110 But the frequently incomplete and often contradictory genealogies
allow us no dependence upon the authenticity of the lists for earlier
times, at least before the age of Baba Rabba.

BELIEF IN MOSES 2$\
It is in consequence of this rigor of doctrine concerning
Moses that the other great hero of revelation, Abraham,
enjoys no such elevation as is given him in Jewish Hag-
gada. In this literature that patriarch becomes a close sec
ond to Moses, so that like the latter, " for his sake the world
was created," while the spiritual superiority assigned to
Abraham by Paul as the type of true believers had its close
anticipations in the Jewish apocryphal literature.111 There
are traces of the Jewish legends of Nimrod's enmity to
wards Abraham;112 Marka enlarges upon the sacrifice of
Isaac, which according to Samaritan tradition occurred on
Gerizim. We have already in the preceding Section
touched upon the antediluvian patriarchs, whose histories
are also all connected with Gerizim.
The patriarchs and other early saints play a considerable
part in Samaritanism through the doctrine of their merits.
They are the Guiltless Ones, or with reference to the no
tion of zekut, the Meritorious Ones.113 These are pri
marily Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.114 This number is also
enlarged so as to obtain the mystical seven, but the list
varies. Sometimes it includes with those three Joseph,
Aaron, Eleazar and Phineas, to whom Moses may also be
added.115 This doctrine of the merits of the Fathers takes
the same place in Samaritan doctrines as the corresponding
teachings in Judaism, and the later extravagant develop
ment of the merits of the saints in Christianity. Thus a
hymn for Kippur reads :116 " Let us stand in prayer be-
111 Bereshit R. c. 2; cf. cc. 48, 12. See in general, Weber, op. cit.
§ 56; Bousset, op. cit. 178.
112 E.g. BS ii, 191, v. 17; Marka, 47b. According to BS ii, No. xcviii,
st. i, "Abraham's merits gained for him Paradise." The Legends of
Moses, cited above, contains a mass of patriarchal traditions.
113 See Rappoport, Liturgie samaritaine, 20.
114 E.g. BS ii, No. ii : " our Fathers."
115 BS ii, No. xcviii, st. vi, p. 190, middle. Judaism likewise singled
out three or seven saints, — the three patriarchs, with Moses, Aaron
Miriam, Benjamin; see Hamburger, REJud i, 38.
118 BS ii, No. xvi, p. 52, st. 16. Cf. N. et E. 181. Here and generally

232 THE SAMARITANS
fore Yhwh the Giver, and pray and say: 0 Lord
Yhwh, turn from thy hot anger, and be appeased for the
sake of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and for the merit
of thy servant Moses." This notion is also connected with
the Scriptural passages referring to Abraham's and Moses'
intercessory powers with God ; the prayers they offered still
have virtue for Israel. They are also present intercessors;
thus it is prayed that the son of Terah " may intercede for
us,"117 and Moses' prayers will be efficacious at the Day of
Judgment.118 There may also be noticed here the doctrine of the Seven
Covenants, frequently referred to in the Epistles. These
are respectively: the covenant with Noah in the bow; with
Abraham in circumcision ; with Moses in the Sabbath ; the
Tables ; the Passover ; the Covenant of Salt, based on Num.
1 8, 19; and the Covenant of Priesthood with Phineas, Num.
25, I2f.119 § 5. THE LAW.
We have already observed the absolute uniqueness which
Samaritanism ascribes to the Tora. On the whole the doc
trine in details goes pari passu, with that of Judaism.
In general it is taught that the Law came forth from
the very essence of God, was detached from the fire of
deity. Here, if anywhere, we come upon a clear notion of
emanation ; no origin is too divine for the Law. " The
Tables had lain hidden in the midst of the fire " ; " they
shone like gleaming lightning " ; " they were inscribed with
a finger of devouring fire."120 "They are a fragment of
the hidden world, increasing wisdom for all genera-
'amal, opus, equals the Jewish zekut, " merit." Also segila is used of
the "treasury" of merits, e.g. BS ii, No. xv, Waw. For the Jewish
doctrine, see Weber, op. cit. § 63.
117 BS ii, p. 98, top.
"8 CS vii, 30.
119 N. et E. 119; cf. p. 74. On p. 159 only six are named.
"° Sam. Theol. 28.

THE LAW 233
tions;"121 "the Law is a spark from God's vesture."122
And thus Marka:123 "The Law came out of the fire;"
" the Tables were sundered from the divine essence." The
Tables are not however from eternity, for " they contain
the will of God which he decreed in those Six Days."124
That is, they were separated from the divine glory in the
creative week, and remained hidden in the divine fire until
the day of revelation. The same was widespread Jewish
doctrine, according to which the Tables were of divinely
mystical substance, fiery and translucent.125 Only it is to
be observed that there is none of the indefinitely long and
so practically eternal pre-existence claimed for the Law
which is found in some Jewish teaching; nor is there any
of the personification of the Law which early developed in
connection with the Jewish ideas of Wisdom and the
Word.126 Samaritanism does not halt at anthropomorphism in its
description of the giving of the Tables, and here it has the
authority of the Scriptures. God himself wrote the Tables
and gave them to Moses with his own hand ; 12T in this may
be contained a protest against the Jewish doctrine of the
mediation of the Law by the hands of angels.128 The
scene of the divine legislation is depicted with all the
solemnities and terrors which appear in the Jewish Mid-
rashim. All things seen and unseen were present; all
angels in their ranks, the stars and the constellations, even
121 CS iv, 17.
122 CS iii, 4.
123 68b.
124 CS iv, 18.
125 E.g. Pseudo-Ionathan and Targum Jer. to Ex. 19, i6ff; 20, 2ff;
Rashi to Dt. 33, 3. Cf. Gesenius, Sam. Theol. 28; CS 80.
126 See Weber, op. cit. § 4.
127 E. g. BS ii, 112, v. 23, at top; p. 138, v. 1; No. xxxn, v. 4: "thy
autograph." 128 See above, p. 220.

234 THE SAMARITANS
the dead with the living; the whole universe trembled be
fore this divine revelation.
In another place is given a description of the sanctity the
Samaritans ascribe to the rolls of Scripture, and especially
to the archetypal copy of Abishua;129 no wonder then that
they prostrate themselves at its exhibition and sing a
Gloria.130 By the Samaritans the Law has been found to
be " the Book of Life," or even " Life " itself,131 even as
the Old Testament has been to the Jews and both Testa
ments to Christendom.132 § 6. GERIZIM.
The fourth article of faith of the Samaritans, the one
which differentiated them toto ccelo from the Jews, is based
upon what must be acknowledged to be the root falsehood
of the Samaritan religion. It is true that for neither sect
did the common authority of the Pentateuch offer any de
termination of God's sanctuary in the Promised Land.
The Samaritans had the advantage in the fact that the early
centres of Israel's religion were in the Highlands of Eph
raim, at Bethel or Shilo, while Dt. 27 provided for a sol
emn covenant to be enacted on the two mountains of
Shechem. But Shechem seems to have early lost its pres
tige, and Bethel became the chief sanctuary of the Northern
Kingdom. Yet in the matter of true ritual succession the
South had the advantage in at last securing the Ark of the
Covenant and in consecrating therewith the new high-place
at Jerusalem. And, if our understanding of the history be
correct, after the Exile the remnant of Northern Israel
129 See Chap. XIV, § 6.
130 BS ii, p. xxxvi, seq; see above, p. 41.
131 BS ii, No. xxx ; No. xxxvi, v. 7.
132 According to Lib. Jos. xxiii, the reading of the Law possesses a
magical influence against _ evil spirits, the evil-eye, incantations, etc.
But in general Samaritanism is remarkably free from such supersti
tious notions.

GERIZIM 235
largely gave in its adherence to the sanctity of Zion. It
was the northern schism after the Exile which again turned
the mind of the Samaritans to the choice of a local sanctu
ary, and they chose Gerizim for reasons which have already
been specified in the IVth Chapter. But this was in the
nature of an afterthought; the succession of sanctity had
for centuries been broken. And the Samaritans in their
choice of Gerizim confessed the weakness of their position
by taking recourse to the natural weapon of the weaker
party, namely the lie. They felt themselves compelled to
falsify the Biblical text. This theological emendation was
simply made by changing the " Ebal " of Dt. 27, 4, to
" Gerizim " ; it was then on Gerizim that the first altar of
God for the Twelve Tribes was built.133
The Samaritans having thus invented Mosaic authority
for the sanctity of Gerizim, proceeded to dignify the moun
tain with every epithet of honor, and to identify it with
every possible transaction of sacred history. For them
Gerizim is the Blessed Mount, the Eternal Hill.134 It is
133 The great critic Kennicott was among the defenders of the
Samaritan reading, in his Second Dissertation. But Verschuir, Dis-
sertationes philol-exegetica, No. iii (1773), demonstrated at length the
falsity of the Samaritan position. The points of the argument would
include: (1) the unanimous witness of the versions to the Massoretic
text; (2) the point of the great ceremony is the curse, the altar there
fore should be connected with the place of cursing; (3) the Jews
would have no reason to alter the text, as Ebal and Gerizim are indif
ferent to them, and they allowed that the latter was the mount of
blessing. As against Lightfoot, who argues that the absence of Tal
mudic reference to this corruption proves the late origin of the change,
Gesenius rightly holds that the details of textual comparison were of
little concern to the Jews, -Pent. Sam. 61. The modern Samaritans
deny the report that they offer sacrifices on Ebal, N. et E. 122. In
this connection the Samaritans also make the following changes in the
text. At the end of Dt. 11, 30, "before Shechem" is added; this
against an early view which attempted to find a Gerizim and Ebal near
the Jordanic Gilgai, although the Jewish disputant in Sota, 33b ad
mitted that by " the oaks of More " Shechem was meant. And then
to make self-assurance doubly sure, the Samaritan adds after Ex. 20,
17, and Dt. 5, 21, a long pericope, consisting substantially of Dt. 27,
2-8, and 11, 30.
13iTur berik; e. g. Lib. Jos. xxi, — with reference to Dt. 27, 12. The

236 THE SAMARITANS
"the House of God (Beth-el), the Mount of Inheritance
and of the Abode (Shekina), the great and chosen
Place;"135 "the House of the powerful God, the Taber
nacle of his angels, the Place of the presence of his
majesty, the Place destined for sacrifices."136 Like Jeru
salem for the ancient Jew and Mecca for the Muslim,
Gerizim is the Kibla of the Samaritan, the place toward
which he prays.137
The standing name of the holy mount is " Gerizim-
Bethel-Luza." The first epithet is used in the sense that
Gerizim is the veritable Bethel of patriarchal history.
Hence we find no reference to the historical Bethel. Ac
cording to Samaritan tradition, upon the schism under Eli
the renegades set up their worship at Shilo,138 and the calf-
cult of Jeroboam, also an apostate from the true Israel, was
located at Samaria.139 While the geography of this identi
fication is sadly in error, nevertheless the use of beth-el is
the retention of a primitive term for a sanctuary, used by
the Jews also of Jerusalem. A corroboration for this iden
tification was the existence of a town upon Gerizim named
Luza, which accounts for the second epithet above, and was
naturally identified with the Luz-Bethel of Gen. 28, 19.140
Eternal Hill, e. g. N. et E. 165 (177); BS ii, 66, top; based on the
Samaritan reading of the singular in Dt. 33, 15. But Mills, who gives
a list of thirteen epithets for Gerizim taken down from the highpriest
with their interpretations (Nablus, 268), gives as the present explana
tion of the term, "mountain of the world" (har 'olam). This is an
interesting survival of a very ancient idea, appearing in connection with
the Babylonian temples and also in Biblical ideas concerning Jerusa
lem, e. g. Is. 2, iff.
135 N. et E. 212 (217) ; cf. BS ii, No. xxiv.
136 N. et E. 63 (77).
™ Ibid. 164 (176); see Chap. III.
138 Lib. Jos. xliii.
139 Abu'l Fath, 53.
140 Where the Samaritan Hebrew reads " Luza." This place Luza is
testified to by Jerome in his Onomasticon (Migne, xiii, 954). For the
ruins of Luza, see Guerin, Samarie, i, 433 ; Conder, Tent Work in
Palestine, 63, identifying the place with the present spot of sacrifice.
But in PEFQS 1876, p. 191, Conder is by no means certain as to the

GERIZIM 237
But the connection of the Patriarchs with Gerizim was
not confined to the history of Jacob. As the Jews identi
fied the Mount Moria of the sacrifice of Isaac with Zion, so
the Samaritan tradition connected it with Gerizim through
the etymological correspondence of Moria with More in the
neighborhood of Shechem ; this identification is then cor
roborated by making Melchizedek king of the Salem which
is to the east of Shechem. The Samaritans still point out
the place where Isaac was offered.141
At the end of the 3d Section we referred to the tradi
tions connecting the worship of the antediluvian Patri
archs with Gerizim. But further, it was the sanctuary of
God from the beginning; it is the holy place which God
"chose" at the very first.142 Hence it is given the name
Har Qadim, the First Mount, by which Marka understands
its appearance, along with the Garden of Eden, before the
rest of the dry ground, although in another place it implies
for him Gerizim's pre-existence before the rest of crea
tion.143 Here Adam was made, " created out of the dust
of Mount Safra."144 The latter name for Gerizim is very
common,145 and Gesenius is right in connecting the tradi-
identification. Dean Stanley held that this locality was the Luz of
Ju. 1, 26.
141 This identification for Moria appears in the Samaritan Hebrew
of Gen. 22, 2, where rnB stands for n'lBfl The place Salem, to
the east of Shechem, is also the Samaritan interpretation of abw in
Gen. 33, 18 (cf. Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate), and this was further
identified with Melchizedek's city, so that yet another notable episode
of Abraham's life v/as located in the neighborhood of Gerizim; see
VJD iv, 187. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, note to chap, vi.) accepted
the Samaritan identification of Moria, but he has not been generally
followed by other scholars. However, there has been recently a re
vival of Stanley's position ; see Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hex.3, 19 ;
v. Gall, Altisr. Kultusstdtten, in; E. Meyer, Die Israeliten, 260.
142 BS ii, No. xcix, st. vi ; Marka, 72b. The Sam.-Hebrew reads the
perfect bachar, " chose," for the imperfect in Dt. 12, 14.
143 Marka, 68a; 71b. He also associates it with miqqedem, "on the
east," Gen. 12, 8, where Abraham built an altar.
144 CS xii, 18.
145 E.g. BS ii, No. xxiii, Chet : " the congregation of S."

238 THE SAMARITANS
tion with the similar one of Islam concerning Mount
Cafra in the neighborhood of Mecca. But here again their
peculiar geographical exegesis comes to the help of the Sa
maritans. The Har Qadim (or Qedem) is "the mount of
the east," Har Haqqedem, which is named Sephar in Gen.
x, 30. 146 Thus the Muslim legend is adapted to Samari
tan geography — unless we may hold that the reverse pro
cess has actually taken place.
It also appears that the Samaritans made Gerizim, as the
Mount of the World, the site of the Garden of Eden, an
identification which has its roots in the antique idea set
forth in Eze. 28, i3ff, where the Mount of God and Eden
are identical. There is a legend in the Book of Joshua,
xxi, s. fin., of a river descending out of Gerizim in the Age
of Grace, while Marka speaks of " the concealed river Eu
phrates."147 This notion of a mystical river connected
with the sanctuary mount has also its antique parallel in
the Old Testament, in regard to Jerusalem, Eze. 47 ; Zech.
14; Ps. 46. The river is "concealed" against the future,
when it and the Garden of Eden will be restored to view.
Here again local geography comes to the aid of exegesis.
The Wady Fara descends east from Gerizim, and this name
in its original form was probably identical with the Bib
lical word for Euphrates, Perat.148 Also, as is instanced
by a Jewish Midrashic passage, the Samaritans held that
Gerizim was not overflowed by the waters of the flood.149
Again in the latter days it is to be the site of Paradise;
when all other things shall have been destroyed, " the
Eternal Hill shall be left in the midst of the Garden."150
But even in the present unhappy age the Presence of God
148 Cf. Mills, op. cit. 270.
147 Marka, 76a.
148 Cf. the probable confusion of a local stream Perat with the Eu
phrates in the exegesis of Jer. 13 ; see Giesebrecht, ad loc
149 Bereshit R. c. xxxii.
150 BS ii, 93, v. 21.

GERIZIM 239
and the angels still dwell upon Gerizim, although unseen.
The holy Tabernacle has disappeared, but it is only " ex
alted,"151 existing in some mystical fashion above the
mount; but it will return with the Ark and all the sacred
paraphernalia of worship to perfect the ritual of the saints
in the Age of Grace.152 A somewhat different form of the
legend, and one which has its Jewish counterpart, is that
the Ark is preserved in a cave on Mount Gerizim;153 this
doctrine can be traced back to the Ist Century, for Jo
sephus records the enthusiast who led the Samaritans up
the mountain, promising to reveal to them the holy ves
sels.154 § 7. ESCHATOLOGY.155
It has been observed above in connection with the Sa
maritan Creed that the eschatological tenets of the faith
are of later and secondary origin. The elder Samaritans
doubtless held to the primitive notion, exhibited almost
throughout the Jewish Scriptures/ that the dead went to
Sheol, herein agreeing with Sadducaean doctrine as against
Pharisaism. However the dogma of the resurrection ap
pears already in full bloom in Marka in the IVth Century.
Also in the development of Messianism the Samaritans
lagged behind and largely imitated Judaism, nor did their
151 AT. et E. 114 (126) : "we weep over the tabernacle and its exalta
tion." 152 £ g B$ ;;; j^o. xxiii Pe seqq.
153 Marka, 77b. For the Jewish legend, see 2 Mac 2. According to
Marka there were four graves or caves preserved since the third day
of creation: those of Machpela, Gerizim, Hor and Nebo. (Cf. Pirke
Abot, v, 9.) The sacred cave on Gerizim has been referred to above,
P- 36.
154 AJ xviii, 4, 1-2. The tombs of many of the patriarchal worthies
are to be found, according to Samaritan tradition, on or near Gerizim.
155 In addition to the bibliography given at the beginning of the Chap
ter, see Friedrich, De Christologia Samaritanorum, 1821 ; Cowley, The
Samaritan Doctrine of the Messiah, in Expositor, 1895, p. 161. The
present Section was practically completed before the author saw the last-
named article, which has, however, given him some important sug
gestions.

240 THE SAMARITANS
Messianic ideas ever play the same capital part as in the
other faith. The references to this doctrine are compara
tively few and generally vague, and it comes ultimately
to be more a pious belief than a positive dogma. In gen
eral, Samaritan eschatology represents the primitive stages
of Jewish doctrine.
The first development in the doctrine of the Latter
Things sprang out of the ancient Israelitish theologumenon
of the Day of Yahwe, which appears as early as Amos.
The like and even sadder experiences of the Samaritan
sect required that they should develop, after the pattern
of Judaism, the doctrine of an ultimate theodicy, when
at last the sufferings of the church should be compen
sated. Hence the Samaritans look forward with eager
hopes to what they generally term the Day of Vengeance,
or the Day of Vengeance and Recompense, D'JB'l Dpi DT1.
It is also called the Last Day, and the Great Day.156
This doctrine was anterior to that of the resurrection; the
community was to be vindicated, not the individual, ac
cording to earlier thought. As for the home of the future
justified and glorious community, this is universally found
on Gerizim, a belief parallel to the early Jewish notions,
which made Jerusalem the centre of all eschatological ex
pectations. When subsequently the doctrine of the resur
rection was added to this more ancient dogma, the notion
of the earthly Paradise does not seem to have been much
disturbed. The resurrection would restore the blessed
dead to transfigured Gerizim; hence it is the pious belief
that burial on Gerizim is especially efficacious for an easy
transit into the new condition. The Samaritans appear not
to have advanced as a body to notions of a Paradise in some
mystical portion of the earth or in a celestial region, as
in the apocalyptic developments of Jewish thought. Here
108 The Last Day, BS ii, 65, Kaph, v. 3 ; the Great Day, BS ii, 92,
v. 30. Cf. Joel, 2, 31 ; Mai. 4, 5.

ESCHATOLOGY 24 1
again we find them retaining the position held by earlier
Judaism. The Day of Vengeance and Recompense is the grand
objective of the Samaritan philosophy of history which lies
at the base of all the chronicles. According to this inter
pretation of human events, the world's whole history is
divided into four ages. Preceding these seons there was
the age of Adam's perfection, when all things were good
as God had made them. But with Adam's fall began the
rotation of certain cycles of God's providence. First there
came the days of Panuta, an Age of Disfavor, which lasted
till the revelation on Mount Sinai. With Moses the
world was regenerated, so far at least as the holy people
were concerned, and the Age of Grace, the days of Ridh-
wan, was ushered in. This continued for 260 years, dur
ing which time the theocracy was duly and rightly gov
erned by God's vice-gerents, the kings and priests, the two
classes working harmoniously together. But this happy
age was terminated by the evil priest Eli, Samson being
the last king of the old order. Then originated the schism
of the Jews, while the working of the evil continued in
the further schism of Jeroboam, whom with his cult the
Samaritans disown. God's presence was no longer visible
on Gerizim, the holy vessels were hidden away, the ene
mies of Israel interrupted the sacred cult, and the calami
ties began under which the church has ever since suffered.
This is the second Age of Disfavor, the present Panuta,
in which God has turned away his face from his people.
However communion with God is still maintained through
the succession of the true highpriesthood and the sacri
fices on Gerizim, and the people's hope looks forward to
the early return of God's favor. Then at last the second
and great Ridhwan is to come, and in it God's Israel
shall enjoy perpetual peace and felicity, while their ene
mies are suppressed. This happy age will be introduced
16

242 THE SAMARITANS
by the advent of the Messiah upon the 6oooth year from
creation, beginning the last day of the divine week of
human history. The fortunes to be expected in that last
millennium will be treated below in connection with the
doctrine of the Messiah. But we may observe here that
the dates which appear in the Samaritan chronicles pos
sess more than mundane significance; they are the figures
of the divine chronology, and the faithful can calculate
thereby the days to the end. But the irony of millennial
belief has befallen the Samaritans even as it has pursued
every eschatological speculation since the Book of Daniel.
In the XVIth Century the Samaritans confessed in the
Ist Epistle to Scaliger that God alone knows the day of
Messiah. In the year 1808 the Samaritan correspondents
of the Europeans dated their letter with the year of cre
ation 6246. With the Samaritans then as with Jew and
Christian, millenarian doctrine has had its bloom ; only the
words of the old faith are kept, ghosts of what once was
really believed in.
For the above philosophy of history, see Lib. Jos. and
Abu'l Fath. For the Ages and their calculation, see es
pecially Vilmar, Abu'l Fathi annates, p. xxx, and the chro
nological table, p. lxxxiv. The Messiah's reign is to last
no years from A. M. 6000, so that the date of the second
Panuta, which is 3050, is midway between creation and the
end of Messiah's kingdom. The epochs of Alexander's
death and of the Hegira also have cardinal places in this
scheme, the former being placed 1050 years after the date
of Panuta, the latter just 2000 years from the same period.
The three days of Panuta are those, respectively, of schism
and strife, of the Greek dominion, and of Islam (op. cit.
p. Iii). — "The Age of Grace": the day offinim, refresh
ment, or 11ST , favor; in Arabic: the days of ridhd, or
ridhwdn, favor. — " The Age of Disfavor " : panuta, from
the Hebrew root pana, means the turning away of God's
face, inclusive probably of the thought of Israel's defection.
See Juynboll, Lib. Jos. 126; Vilmar, I. c; Kohn, Zur
Sprache, 47ff; Cowley, op. cit. 169. Also "the Days of
Wrath and Error." — For the Jewish doctrine of 6000 years
before Messiah's advent, see Bousset, op. cit. 234; Schiirer,
GJV ii, 530. The Samaritan division of the period is dif
ferent from the Jewish, which follows the fortunes of the

ESCHATOLOGY 243
temple. — Up to a late period the millennial hope appears
to have assigned exact dates for the Messianic advent.
According to Petermann, Reisen, i, 283, the year 1858 had
been fixed upon.
While doubtless the Samaritan notion of the Messiah
is a borrowed accretion of faith, nevertheless we can trace
it back to a fairly early period. For the lid Century A. C.
Justin Martyr bears witness to it.157 For the Ist Century
we have as probable testimony the anecdote of the enthu
siast who asserted the power to discover the hidden ves
sels, perhaps a Messianic claimant himself; also possibly
the story of Simon Magus (Acts 8), who claimed to be
" the Great Power of God," although this assumption out
bids all we know of Samaritan Messianism. But most
instructive for this century is the remark of the Samaritan
woman to Jesus : " I know that Messiah is coming ; when
he comes he will tell us all things" (Jn. 4, 25). This
whole narrative is, to the present writer's mind, a witness
to the acquaintance of the Fourth Gospel with Palestinian
conditions. The Samaritan notion, as it appears in the
literature, makes of the Messiah only a second Moses, one
whose function it will be to reveal what is hidden; he is
primarily the prophet that shall come like Moses (Dt. 18),
and so we can understand the comparatively ready ac
ceptance of Jesus by the woman's coreligionists, because
he appeared to them as a " prophet " (v. 19).158
With this Samaritan Messiah it is natural to attempt to
find some connection in the enigmatic Messiah-ben- Joseph,
or M.-ben-Ephraim, who appears in later Jewish literature.
His function was to be that of precursor of the Messiah-
ben-David, and his particular duty to collect and lead home
the scattered Ten Tribes. He will captain the hosts of
Israel against the forces of Gog and Magog in their on
slaught upon the Holy Land, and will fall in battle against
157 /. Apol. 53.
158 See also for the same position, Cowley, op. cit. 171.

244 THE SAMARITANS
them; then will appear the victorious Messiah of David's
seed.159 Bousset is inclined to hold that this doctrine is
an adaptation by Judaism of the Samaritan Messiah. But
certainly this could not have been done of intention; to
the contrary the latter would have been ranked in the cate
gory of Anti-Christ. Rather, with Dalman and Schiirer,
this Jewish figure must be regarded as an artifice of exe
gesis to explain such passages as Dt. 33, 17; Zech. 12, 17,
and in general to meet the Christian doctrine of the suffer
ing Messiah. On the other hand, as we shall see, the
Samaritan Messiah dies, but by natural death, in accord
ance with the primary stage of Jewish Messianism.160
The Samaritan doctrine of the Messiah was doubtless
stimulated by the Jewish theology at an early period, being
subsequently corroborated to the mind of the sect by its
adaptable exegesis of the Pentateuch and its interpretation
of the history of the age of the Judges. Hence we find
Joshua given the title of " the King " in the Book of
Joshua, passim, while the Judges are also all kings.161
Accordingly the regal function of the Messiah has its pro
totype in that earlier royal succession. Proof texts for
this kingly line may have been found in Dt. 33, 17 and
especially v. 5 : " There was a king in Jeshurun." How
ever these Pentateuchal allusions to the regency of the
House of Joseph, from which indeed the Messiah was to
descend, are too scanty and indefinite to have provided a
sufficient foothold for an original notion of the Messiah
on Samaritan soil; the kingly quality of their Christ was
but a faint reflection of the Jewish expectations of the
glories of the Son of David. A prophet after the manner
of Moses (Dt. 18) was what the Samaritans desired in
159 See Hamburger, REJud ii, j. v. Messias Sohn Joseph; Dalman,
Der leidende und sterbende Messias der Synagoge, 1 ; Schiirer, GJV
ii, 535, note (with extensive bibliography) ; Bousset, op. cit. 211, 218.
160 E. g. Jer. 33, 17; Ps. 45.
181 Lib. Jos. xxxix.

ESCHATOLOGY 245
their Messiah; this notion accordingly limited the Samari
tan ideas. He was to be a Revealer of hidden or lost
truths like the one the Samaritan woman had in mind,
and inasmuch as there could be no greater prophet than
Moses nor one equal to him, the Messiah is an entirely
inferior personage.162 Accordingly, in contrast with the
developed Jewish doctrine of the Messiah, such as was
abroad since the Danielic prophecy of the Son of Man,163
the Samaritan Messiah never attains the character of a
divine personality. He always remains human and the
thought concerning him moves in a prosaic plane.
Inquiry concerning the Messiah has been one of the
chief points of the European correspondence with the Sa
maritans. The Epistles show that the word Messiah was
known ; thus the Hid Epistle to Ludolf says : " The Mes
siah has not yet arisen." In the Epistle to the Brethren
in England, 1675, the correspondents content themselves
with the remark : " the first name of that prophet will be
M." Also in another passage of the Epistle it is said:
" We know his name in accord with what the rabbis
say."164 But the Samaritans, while acquainted with " Messiah,"
have their own peculiar term for that personage, and herein
182 Cowley, op. cit. 165, rightly corrects the theory held by Juynboll,
Merx, Hilgenfeld (the one which I had adopted), that one form of the
Messianic expectation looked for the re-incarnation of Moses (Merx:
of Moses or Joshua). But there is no proof for this theory. Only
the bishop Eulogius (in Photius, Bibliotheca, Geneva, 1591, col. 883)
states that some of the Samaritans expected the Messiah to be Joshua
son of Nun. But it may be questioned if the bishop was not mistaken
in understanding the likeness of the Messiah to King Joshua as an
identity. The Samaritan name for the Messiah, the Restorer (see be
low), might, after the analogy of Elija who appears in the same role
in Malachi, have suggested the return of the great prophet, a fairly
common notion in Judaism. Still no evidence of this notion appears
in Samaritanism.
183 E.g. Jn. 7, 27.
184 N. cl E. 115 (127). A Samaritan guide told Robinson that the
Messiah was known by the Arabic title el-Muhdi, i. e. the Mahdi,
BR iii, 100.

246 THE SAMARITANS
exhibit an independence of Judaism, or at least the sur
vival of a more primitive strain of thought. His proper
title is Ta'eb, used with or without the article ha-. Noth
ing in Samaritan literature has produced a greater variety
of explanations than this same term. Cellarius says :
" There is need of an CEdipus for the interpretation of this
name," and he has been justified by the labors scholars
have spent thereupon. For the history of its interpreta
tion, which includes suggestions of Arabic and Persian
origin, reference may be made to a note by Gesenius.165
It is this scholar who is now generally credited with having
reached the proper solution, which is as follows :166
The word is the participle of the root ill"), the Samari
tan Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew ills', " return," " do
again," " restore," the latter form also appearing rarely
in the Epistles as intJ> . Through the Samaritan indiffer
ence in the use of gutturals, the participle also appears
spelt inn but without influencing the pronunciation.107
The root is used, as in the Hebrew religious language, of
the change of heart, or repentance, of man or God;168
hence Taeb has been interpreted by some as the Penitent
One, who vicariously meets God's demand. But, with
Gesenius, it is to be understood in the active voice, as in the
Biblical miB» iltSS " make restoration," so that the Samari
tan Messiah is the Restorer. And this is in fact the inter
pretation that is given by the Samaritans themselves, as
thus in one of their most recent Epistles, that to
Kautzsch :169 " This word inn means the one who con-
185 Sam Theol. 43, n. 105.
"aIbid. 44; adopted by de Sacy, AT. et E. 29; Cowley, op. cit. 164;
etc. 167 Q{ Petermann, Gramm. Sam. 44. It appears that the word is
vulgarly pronounced ha-Tab, or ha-Shab.
188 E.g. BS ii, No. xiv, Taw; CS iii, 22 (here correct Gesenius's in
terpretation according to de Sacy, N. et E. 29).
169 ZDPV viii, 152L The highpriest defined the word to Barges as
" le Restaurateur"; Les Samaritains de Naplouse, 91.

ESCHATOLOGY 247
verts the people." Heidenheim connects the connotation
of the term with the Panuta : the Restorer is to counteract
the turning away of God's favor.170 But a more historical
and substantial suggestion has been made by Bousset,171
who aligns the term with an early Jewish notion of the
Messiah, which makes of him the Restorer. This idea ap
pears, at least verbally, concerning Elija in Mai. 4,5f, ac
cording to which passage this Messianic personage is to
" turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the
heart of the children to their fathers," i.e. restore the per
verted relations of society. With this may also be com
pared the Messianic " times of restoration," Acts, 3, 21. 172
In this idea of a Restorer we have a characteristic mark
of Samaritanism, whose genius harked back to the past
far more than that of Judaism, for the larger hope of the
Canon of the Prophets led the way for the Jewish belief
that the future could be more glorious and even of another
character than the past. Doubtless the term Taeb also in
cluded the connotations of the divine and human repent
ance.173 As the Samaritans were shut up to the Pentateuch, they
were forced to find therein their Messianic proof-texts. A
Samaritan Epistle174 gives a collection of such texts,
namely: Gen. 15, 17: "a smoking and a burning lamp";
Gen. 40, 10: "to him shall the people submit themselves "
(with appropriation of Juda's blessing!); Num. 24, 17:
"He shall destroy all the children of Seth;" Dt. 18, 17:
" Thy God shall raise up to thee a prophet like unto me,
170 BS iii, p. xxviii.
171 Op. cit. 219.
172 Bousset also adduces Testament Lew, 18. The notion is very
ancient; cf. Is. n, iff. .
173 In BS ii, 89, v. 33, Nu. 24, 5. 1S rendered : How goodly are
thy tents, O Taeb" (for "Jacob"). This is evidently a play upon the
root of "Jacob." . .
174 Of year 1675; N. et E. No. xxi. Compare Cowley, op. cit. 167,
for a larger list of proofs from a hymn of the XVth Century.

248 THE SAMARITANS
unto him shall ye hearken." To these references may be
added, besides Num. 24, 5, already cited, ibid. v. 7 : " His
king shall be higher than Gog " ( following a Rabbinic in
terpretation), while "the star out of Jacob," v. 17, is also
adduced as a Messianic symbol.175
As for the identity of the Taeb, he was to come of the
house of Joseph, the first " king " of Israel, and inherit
that leader's royal qualities.176 For the doctrine of the
manifestation and work of the Taeb we may refer to the
lengthy Midrash on the subject appearing in a hymn pub
lished at length by Heidenheim.177 The outline of the
passage is as follows :
The advent of Taeb shall be in peace and his star shall
shine in the heavens. When he has reached adult life,
Yhwh will call him, teach him his laws, give him a
scripture, and invest him with prophecy. He shall dwell
upon the Holy Hill. Then shall be revealed the Taber
nacle with all its furnishings, and the ancient ritual will
be restored in the full ministrations of the priesthood.
Israel shall dwell in safety and security, and perform its
solemn feasts in peace,178 and the Taeb shall have a per
petual kingdom until the latter day. Confession of his
175 See BS ii, 89, No. xx, vv. 33, 35. For the star (also " star of thy
prophet," and "star of grace"), ibid. p. 88, He, v. 10; p. 92, v. 17;
p. 96, v. 32 ; p. 72, v. 24. Cf. Mt. 2, 2 ; Test. Levi, 18. Moses is called
the Star of Creation, BS ii, 104, v. 18. It may be observed that the
Samaritans have an original exegesis of " Shilo " in Gen. 49, 10, inter
preting it in malo sensu of Solomon; so also Abu Said's Arabic ver
sion. 170 For Eulogius's statement that Messiah is to be Joshua himself,
see above, note 162. It would appear from Marka, 195a, that Taeb
would not be greater than Joseph : " There is no king like Joseph,
even as there is no prophet like Moses."
177 BS ii, No. xx, He, seq. The passage was published and treated,
with ignorance of Heidenheim, by Merx in the Proceedings of the
Eighth International Congress of Orientalists, of the year 1889, i, 2,
p. 119, and by Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo
logie, xxxvii, 233. A partial translation, based upon an amended text,
is given by Cowley, op. cit. 162.
178 Cf. Jer. 23, 6; Nah. 1, 15.

ESCHATOLOGY 249
majesty shall be made, after the fashion and in the lan
guage of Balaam, by a representative of the heathen. No
worldwide dominion is predicated of the Taeb, his func
tion is solely for Israel. The hymn then (stanza Zayin)
briefly refers to his death in peace, when he shall come
to his tomb and be gathered to his fathers. (According to
Petermann179 he shall reign no years, i.e. the age of
Joshua (Jos. 34, 29), and less than that of Moses; accord
ing to an Epistle 1S0 he will be buried alongside of Joseph. )
But " the star of Taeb " will shine perpetually over his
tomb as the continued sign of the divine grace. Israel
shall continue to increase most marvellously, and the saints
shall enjoy all prosperity.
It is thus the chief function of the Taeb to introduce the
Millennium, which, as our Midrash proceeds to relate, is to
be disturbed by the grand final conflict between God and
the forces of evil. Here we have the replica of the Jew
ish and Christian notions of Gog and Magog and of Anti
christ. The happy condition above described shall last for
many days. But at last God's wrath will wax hot against
the Gentiles, for the earth will again corrupt itself, as in
the days of the Flood. Then will come the Day of Ven
geance, the Great Day, accompanied with cosmic cata
clysms. " The light of the sun shall grow pale at the be
ginning of every month, and the moon and the stars shall
not give their light. Every high place shall be overthrown,
and the valleys and hills, with quaking at the Day of Ven
geance, its glory and its majesty." 181 The earth and all its
natural features will be overturned. All things will be
wiped out (stanza Chet), man and beast, rivers and moun
tains, and only the Eternal Hill will be left in the midst
of the Garden, i.e. Paradise, for the residence of the saints.
179 Reisen, i, 284.
180 The Arabic Epistle to the English Brethren, 1675 ; N. et E. 209.
181 1 follow Cowley's translation. Cf. Is. 2, 7ff; Joel, 3. Cowley
calls attention to the likeness to Mt. 24, 29, 37, 39.

250 THE SAMARITANS
It appears that all die from fear of the righteous God.
Then comes the resurrection and the judgment. Among
the risen ones appears Moses who acts as an intercessor
for his people. God then holds the session of his court,
in which the angels act as inquisitors of good and evil, and
the merits of the respective souls are weighed in the
Scales.182 Israel will be divided into two classes, the good
and the bad, the former passing into the Garden of Eden,
the latter into the Fire. — Such is the outline of a formal
presentation of the events of the Latter Days. As with
all eschatology, so in Samaritanism there were doubtless
many various views of the end of the world. Thus Marka
makes the advent of the Messiah a time of woe to the
Gentiles, and regards his coming as contemporaneous with
the resurrection.183 We also note in correspondence with
the assertion of Jn. 4, 42 concerning the Samaritan expec
tation of the Taeb as the Saviour of the world, that an
Epistle teaches that all peoples will make submission to the
Prophet of the Last Days and believe in him.184
We have already touched upon the Samaritan attitude
towards the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; as
we have seen above, the sect originally held to the old-
fashioned Sadducsean position, and on this score were con
sidered heretics by Rabbinic Judaism. The Church Fathers
find frequent occasion to notice this heresy.185 But such
information is only partially exact for the IVth Century and
afterwards, being due to tradition or else to the survival
of the elder view among some of the Samaritans,186 for
in Marka the doctrine of the resurrection appears in full
182 See above, note 64.
183 Marka, 65a.
184 N. et E. 205.
185 E.g. Origen, Comm. in Mt xxii, 23 (Migne, xiii, 1564); Horn.
xxv, ad Num. (M. xii, 763) ; Epiphanius, Hares, ix, 1 ; Philastrius,
Hares, vii ; etc.
180 A Dosithean sect denied the resurrection; see Chapter XIII, § I.

ESCHATOLOGY 251
force, and we may hold that from his age at least this
became an orthodox tenet. In self-defence against the at
tractive eschatologies of Judaism and Christianity, Samari
tanism had to formulate some theology concerning the fu
ture; subsequently Islam gave further strength to the
dogma. In course of time the idea of the individual resur
rection has taken the place of the notion of the resurrection
of the community, and on the whole this belief is phrased
in just such terms as are used in other religions. Truly
ethical notions are connected with the fears and hopes of
the life after death; not the Israelite as such but only the
good Israelites can attain felicity, and the thought of death
is often made the theme of solemn admonition.187 We
also find at times the elder notion adhered to, once common
in Judaism and Christianity, that only the good shall ex
perience the resurrection.188 As we have observed, Para
dise is conceived of as earthly, being located on Gerizim,
although no further sensuous ideas are connected with it,
as in Islam. In one passage at least appears a more spirit
ual and mystical faith : " My future abode is the seat of
thy dominion, where is neither sea nor ocean nor heaven
itself."189 In general Samaritanism is sober in its concep
tions of the after life and rarely shares in the exuberant
imaginings on the subject which mark Judaism and Chris
tianity; herein we see the ancient Sadducasan strain sur
viving. This antique heritage is also preserved in the
name given to the cemetery by the Samaritans; it is called
the House of the Dead, not, as with the Jews, the House
of the Living, — a significant contrast.190
187 E.g. BS ii, No. cxx, a hymn on death and repentance; No.
cxxi, a requiem hymn. Prayers for the dead appear in the latter, v.
20 seq.
188 CS vii, 10.
189 CS iii, 13.
190 Mills, op. cit. 206.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE SAMARITAN SECTS; GNOSTICISM.
§ I. THE SAMARITAN SECTS.1
Extensive testimony is given by the Samaritan Chron
icles, especially by Abu'l Fath, to the existence of sects
since an early period; to this information much can be
added from Patristic and Muslim sources. It is the more
unfortunate that the data concerning these sects are meagre
and confused, because these phenomena exhibit the oper
ation of external forces affecting Samaritanism.
The arch-heresy of the Samaritans according to all ac
counts is that of the Dositheans. But before taking up
this sect, it is advisable first of all to look at the others
which are grouped along with it by the Christian author
ities. First, the Jewish-born Hegesippus, of the lid Cen
tury, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, enumerates the
Dositheans, the Gorothenians and the Masbothseans, to
each of which he assigns an eponymous founder.2 The
Syrian Epiphanius is the next Christian writer to list the
Samaritan sects, which he makes four in number, namely
the Essenes, the Sebuseans, the Gorothenians, and the Dosi-
1 For the literature, see inter al., Juynboll, Lib. Jos. no; Nutt, Sa
maritan Targum, 46; Appel, De rebus Samaritanorum, 90 (a brief
essay: De Dositheo et Dositheanis). For the Rabbinic references, see
S. Krauss, Dosithee et les Dositheens, REJ xlii, 1901, p. 27 ; A. Biichler,
Les Dositheens dans le Midrasch, REJ xlii, 220 ; xliii. 50, who con
siderably criticizes Krauss's credence to the historic reliability of the
Rabbinic material.
2 Eusebius, Historia ecclesia, iv, 22. " Gorothenians " is variously
vocalized, though the tradition of the consonants is fairly certain.
Nicetas has Sorothenians, Thcs. orthod. fidei, i, 35 ; see Heinichen,
Eusebius, ad loc 252

THE SECTS 253
theans.3 It would be natural then to identify the Mas-
bothasans with the Sebuaeans.4 Of the Sebuasans Epi-
phanius reports that out of hostility to the Jews and to
avoid friction with them this sect observed the Passover in
the month Tishri, so that their feast of Tabernacles fell
about the Jewish Passover. The name has been variously
explained, but the best interpretation is that of Juynboll,
who deduces it from the Hebrew yiitS*, " hebdomad," and
makes it refer to the Passover celebration in the seventh
month.5 There is a single reference to this sect in Abu'l
Fath, 131, where the Subua'i appear as opposed to Baba
Rabba and as having their own ecclesiastical organization.
Of the Gorothenians nothing further is known than Epi-
phanius's information that they agreed with the Dositheans
in observing the orthodox calendar as against the Sebu
aeans.6 As for the same authority's mention of the Essenes,
all he tells us is that they were orthodox Samaritans, and
in the disputes of the sects sided with the party who hap
pened to be in the -neighborhood of their respective com
munities. Some evidence will appear below of Essene in
fluences in Samaria.
Of the Dositheans we possess much more extensive in
formation, but all of a confused and contradictory char
acter, and coming from every source, Samaritan, Jewish,
Patristic, and Arabic. It is a question whether there is
3 Hares, i, 10; cf. his Respons. ad epistol. Acacii et Pauli. Epipha-
nius is followed by Theodoret, Hares, i. 1 ; John of Damascus, in
Cotelerius, Eccles. Grac monum. i, 282; Nicetas, /. c
4 If the former is an independent sect, we have only the definition
offered by Isidor Hispalensis, Etymologia, viii, 4, according to whom
they held that Christ ordered them to sabbatize in all things — the sect
thus appearing as a Christian body. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, 1868, vii, 135, identifies them with the Basmothaeans of the
Apostolic Constitutions, vi, 1, 6.
5 Lib. Jos. 112. This etymology is supported by the Arabic form
given in the next sentence of the text. For other explanations, see
Ntitt, op. cit. 47.
6 Heidenheim would find a geographical origin for the name, BS 11,
p. xxxviii.

254

THE SAMARITANS

not more than one sectary of the name Dositheus, while the
age of the origin of the respective sects is uncertain. The
following variant traditions have to be examined.
(i) There appear a Dostai and a Sabbai as the priests
sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria.7 (2) Sabbasus
and Theodosius appear in the legend reported by Josephus,
AJ xiii, 3, 4, concerning a dispute carried on before Ptol
emy Philometor between the Jews and the Samaritans, the
advocates of the latter being those two men.8 (3) Ac
cording to Abu'l Fath,9 there arose in the time of Alex
ander a sect called Dustan, for which name an obscure
etymology is offered.10 These people held for impure a
fountain into which dead vermin had fallen; altered the
time for reckoning the purification of women; forbade the
eating of eggs except those which were found inside a
properly slaughtered fowl; considered dead snakes as un
clean, as also cemeteries, and held anyone whose shadow
fell upon a grave as impure for seven days. They re
jected the formula, " Blessed be our. God forever," and
substituted " Elohim " for " Yhwh ; " they held that God
was to be worshipped in the land Zuwaila (?), until he is
worshipped (again) on Gerizim; they altered the calendar
by giving thirty days to each month, and rejected the sea
sons of fast and mortification. Like the Jews, they counted
Pentecost from the day after the Passover. A priest
might enter an infected house as long as he did not speak;
if there was a question whether the impurity of a house
extended to the adjoining tenement, the case was decided
by watching whether a clean or an unclean bird first lighted
upon the latter. On the Sabbath they ate and drank only
7 Tanchuma, sect. Wayyesheb, § 2; Yalkut, ii, 234; Pirke Eliezer,
c. 38, sub fin. A variant for Sabbai is Zecharia.
8 See above, p. 76. Theodosius and Dositheus are interchangeable
forms ; cf. the Biblical Jehoiachin and Conia.
9 P. 82 ; cf. Chron. Adler, 37.
10 The word is identical with " Dositheans " ; for an attempt to ex
plain the Arabic etymology, see de Sacy, Chrestomathie arabe, i, 335.

THE SECTS 255
from earthen vessels, not from those of metal — as they
might be tempted to purify the latter on the Sabbath,
whereas clay vessels cannot be purified; food and water
were provided for cattle on the day before the Sabbath
so as to last over the latter day. They separated from the
Samaritans and had their own synagogues. They had for
highpriest a certain Zara, a man of profound learning and
son of the Samaritan highpriest, who had been excommu
nicated for his conduct with a woman of bad character.
(4) Turning now to Patristic authorities, we learn of
a Dositheus who was an early Samaritan heresiarch, and,
with some authorities, the father of all heresy. Hippolytus,
a scholar of Origen, began his Book of Heresies with the
Dositheans; the same position is taken by the Pseudo-
Tertullianic Adversus omnes hcereses, 1, which work is
probably based upon the lost book of Hippolytus, and
which makes Dositheus the root of the Samaritan heresy,
" the first to reject the prophets." Philaster also follows
suit, saying that Dositheus was a Jew who denied the
resurrection, being followed by Sadok, the founder of the
Sadducees. The Clementine Recognitions, i, 54, gives like
priority to Dositheus.11
(5) Another class of Patristic references places Dosi
theus in the Ist Century A. C, and generally in some sort
of relation with Simon Magus. Hegesippus puts him im
mediately after Simon.12 Origen makes several references
to this heretic; he assigns him to the Ist Century, after
the time of Christ, and alleges that he made himself out
to be the Messiah promised by Moses, thus being in the
same category with the pretenders Judas and Theudas. Of
this sect Origen reports that only thirty remained in his
day. They rejected the Jewish notion of sabbatic limits,
11 For Hippolytus, see Photius, Bibliotheca, cxxi; Philaster, De
hares, 4 ; Jerome, Adv. Lucifer. 23, quotes Pseudo-Tertullian.
12 See note 2.

256 THE SAMARITANS
and required that one should remain in the same condition
throughout the Sabbath.13 Jerome follows Hegesippus in
placing Dositheus after Simon.14 Subsequently this tradi
tion is developed so as to make him the teacher of Simon,
as in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, according to which
the latter usurped his master's place.15
(6) Finally, according to a second report of Abu'l
Fath, there is the sect founded by one Dusis in the age of
Baba Rabba, the IVth Century, of which sect that chron
icler gives a long description.16 Dusis, son of Fufil
(Philip ?), who seems to be assigned an Egyptian origin,
came in danger of his life for adultery committed with a
Jewess in a Jewish district. He obtained pardon however
by undertaking to go to Samaria, there to found a new
sect. He arrived at the town Askar, and associated him
self with a sage named Yachdu, whom he led into some
extreme literal interpretations of the Scriptures. But Dusis
played his friend false by conniving at a charge of fornica
tion against him, and so had to flee the land, settling at
Shuwaika (the Biblical Soco, SW of Jerusalem). Here
he composed many books, and upon leaving the place
counselled his landlady that none should read them until
lie had first washed in the well which was close by. Then
he departed, went to Anabata, where he entered a mountain
cave; here he died of hunger, and his body was devoured
by dogs. Meanwhile search for him was still prosecuted,
and the highpriest's nephew Levi, a very pious young man,
with a party of men, finally came upon his tracks at Shu-
13 Adv. Celsum, i, 57; vi, 11; In Matt. comm. c. 33; Horn. 25 in
Luc; In Joan xii, 27; De princ. iv, 17; Philokaha, i, 17.
14 Adv. Lucifer. 8. But for another report, see above, note 11.
15 Clem. Recog. ii, 8; cf. Horn, ii, 24. Dositheus had a fixed college
of thirty disciples.
"Abu'l Fath, 151; cf. Chron. Neub. 442, where he is called Dustis,
son of Falfuli; also Chron. Adler, 64. Abu'l Fath's narrative follows
immediately upon that concerning Simon Magus, a connection remind
ing us of some Patristic arrangements.

THE SECTS 257
waika. The woman told them of Dusis' writings and his
injunctions concerning them. Evidently out of fear, the
party resolved to descend into the well, with the pretext
that it could do no harm. But when the first who bathed
emerged from the pool, he cried : " My faith is in thee
and in Dusis thy servant ! " Each of the men had the like
experience, until at last Levi, angered at this manifesta
tion, also dared to make the descent; but on emerging he
too uttered the like confession : " My faith is in thee,
Yhwh, and in Dusis thy prophet!" Then they read
the books of Dusis and found he had changed the greater
part of the Law. At the following Passover Levi, who
was called upon to read, made use of one of Dusis' read
ings, and upon being rebuked defied the Samaritans for
their unbelief, whereupon he met a martyr's death. His
followers removed to a city near Jerusalem, where they
founded a sect, having as chief objects of its cult the wri
tings of Dusis and palm-leaves stained with Levi's blood,
which might be seen only by those who had first fasted
seven days and nights. As for their customs, they cut off
their hair, and made all their prayers in water, hiding
their bodies in the bath by plashing the water over them.
They greatly honored the Sabbath, observing feasts on that
day only, • and if they travelled at all on the Sabbath,
they did not take their hands out of their garments. They
believed the dead would rise again soon, and when one of
their number died, they girded him, and put a stick in his
hand and shoes on his feet, for the reason that " when we
rise, we shall rise in haste." They also believed that as
the dead man rose from the tomb, so should he enter Para
dise. From this party of Dusis went forth many sects —
which will be noticed below.
With this history the account Epiphanius, Hceres. i, 13,
gives of the Dositheans largely agrees. According to that
authority, the Dositheans confess the resurrection, abstain
17

258 THE SAMARITANS
from animal food, practise either celibacy or else sexual
abstinence after the death of the wife,17 and in general
are devoted to ascetic habits. They are also scrupulous
in avoiding contact with other people. As for the founder
Dositheus, he was a very learned Jew who, disappointed of
his ambitions in his own church, went over to the Samari
tans and founded his sect among them. Finally he retired
to a cave, and there died of voluntary starvation, his body
being afterwards eaten by worms and flies. Also the ref
erences to the Dositheans left by Origen, as noted under
(5), evidently refer to this same sect; he remarks their
strictness as to travelling on the Sabbath, De princ. iv, 17,
their possession of some books of Dositheus, and the belief
in certain fables about him, how that he had not tasted
death but was still alive, In Joan, xiii, 2y.
Of the Dosithean sect which denied the resurrection (No.
4) we have evidence late into the Arabic period. Photius
has preserved an account of a dispute held by Eulogius,
bishop of Alexandria, probably about 600 A.C.,18 with two
parties of Samaritans ; one of these followed " a certain
Dosthes or Dositheos," and claimed him as the prophet
foretold by Moses; he denied the resurrection, held that
the world is incorruptible, and had composed many writ
ings. The other party believed in Joshua as the prophet,
and, it may be inferred, accepted the resurrection.19 The
bishop delivered a lengthy written argument against the
sects, epitomized by Photius, and a council summoned by
him passed a decree, which doubtless contributed to the
repression of the Samaritans in Egypt.
From the beginning of the Arabic period down to the
17 Either thus, or " after procreating children," the text being uncer
tain; see Oehler, Corpus Haresiologicum, ad. loc
18 Photius, Bibliotheca, no ccxxx, ed. Stephan, Geneva, 1611, col.
883. The text places the bishop in reign of emperor Marcian, but there
is reason to correct this to the reign of Mauricius, 582-603 ; see Krauss,
op. cit. 39.
19 For this belief in Joshua, see Chap. XII, note 162.

THE SECTS 259
middle of the IXth Century, we have the testimony of the
supplements to Codex C of Abu'l Fath20 to violent feuds
between the Dositheans and the orthodox Samaritans.
Later we possess the evidence of Arabic writers to the
Dositheans. First, Masudi (d. 956) speaks of two sects
among the Samaritans, the Kushan and the Dustan, " one
of which teaches that the world is eternal."21 The great
writer on religions, Shahrastani (d. 1153) is our next in
formant : the two sects of the Samaritans are the Dustaniya
and the Kushaniya, and their chief point of difference is
that the former deny a future life, teaching that recom
pense comes in this world, while the latter believe in a
world hereafter.22 Abu'l Fida (d. 1331) repeats Shah
rastani' s notice,23 while Makrizi quotes Masudi.24 Accord
ing to the Epistle of 1810 there were then no Dositheans
in existence.25
The terms given for the two sect? by the Arab writers
require examination, namely Dustanians and Kushanians,
as also the epithet applied to the former, who are called
al-Alfaniya, by Shahrastani, or al-Faniya, by Abu'l Fida.
The former authority explains Kushaniya as " the truthful
ones," and Alfaniya as " the liars." Juynboll's suggestion
that the former term is a corruption for " qushtaniya," from
the Aramaic fitfp ," truth," is a happy one, and better than
de Sacy's theory that it stands for " Kuthim," for the
Samaritans never use that name of themselves. For the
other word with its doubtful reading, various etymologies
have been offered. Juynboll takes it from the root, Ify,
20 Epitomized by Vilmar, Abu'l Fath; see pp. lxxx, lxxxii, lxxxiii.
21 De Sacy, Chrestomathie arabe, i, 342. The dogma specified is that
noticed by Eulogius.
22 Ed. Cureton, i, 170 ; Haarbriicker's translation, i, 258 ; see de Sacy,
op. cit. i, 363.
23 Fleischer, Abu'l-feda historia ante-Islamitica, 160 ; see de Sacy,
op. cit. i, 344.
24 De Sacy, op. cit. i, 113, 3°5-
25 N. et E. 127.

260 THE SAMARITANS
" injure one's rights " ; Vilmar, accepting al faniya, under
stands it as " millenarian." As the name is probably an
opprobrious epithet given by the stronger party, Juynboll's
etymology is preferable, unless, as I would suggest, faniya
is to be connected with panuta, i.e. the Dositheans are the
sect of the Aversion.26
As to the origin of the Dosithean sect Shahrastani gives
the following information : " There arose among the Sa
maritans a man called al-Ilfan, who claimed prophethood
and believed that he was the one Moses had promised,
the star of whom, it is written, should shine with
the light of the moon. His appearance took place about
ioo years before Christ." This description agrees very
closely with that of the heresiarch with whose sect Eulo-
gius contended, while the date corresponds to that given
by some Patristic authorities concerning their Dositheus.
With traditions referring wildly to a space of time rang
ing from Alexander the Great to the IVth Century A.C.,
what definite results as to chronology and personality can
we gain from these contradictory reports concerning a here
siarch Dositheus or Dusis, and a sect of Dositheans or
Dustan? To begin with, we can at once reduce our six
categories to a smaller number. As for (i) and (2),
their traditions of a Sabbai and Dositheus, or Theodosius,
are probably mere reminiscences of two early sects the
Sebuseans and Dositheans. At the utmost there may be
some truth in the tradition that Dositheus opposed the
Jews in Egypt, as Josephus relates. As for Sabbseus, he
may be nothing more than an eponymous invention for
the origin of the Sebuseans.27 At all events Josephus gives
us a date, the first Christian Century, before which the
rise of the Sebuseans and one Dosithean sect must have
26 For these various theories, see de Sacy, op. cit. i, 341 ; Juynboll,
Lib. Jos. 112; Vilmar, op. cit. p. lxxii; Nutt, op. cit. 49.
27 See the beginning of the Chapter.

THE SECTS 26l
taken place. The two categories (1) and (2) may then
be identified with (3), the first mention in Abu'l Fath of
a Dosithean sect, the one which arose in the age of Alex
ander. But Abu'l Fath records at great length another sect of
practically the same name (6). The Patristic data in (4)
and (5) have then to be aligned with one or the other of
the two named by Abu'l Fath, if we would attempt to
reduce the six categories to two. This simplifies the case
better than the views of Nutt and Krauss, who find three
heresiarchs named Dositheus.28 Can we go further and
reduce these two to one? Such is the natural aim of the
critical scholar, and it is the argument of Appel.29 This
scholar's reasons would lie in the many general resem
blances between the two sects recorded by Abu'l Fath.
Similar aspersions are made against the life and character
of the respective heresiarchs; both are rigoristic sects, and
follow some Jewish usages. The rejection of the formula,
" Blessed be God forever," by the first sect, is claimed by
Appel to be their denial of the Samaritan-Sadducsean form
ula, and he assumes their adoption of the Pharisaic form,
" Blessed be God forever and ever," which would be a con
fession of, the resurrection.30 Both sects then would possess
the same eschatological tenets.
But plausible as Appel's hypothesis is, I am not able to
accept it in the place of the one that I had already reached
before reading his essay — namely that there were two
Dosithean sects. As we have seen, according to a series
of Patristic references one sect of Dositheans denied the
resurrection, and so are placed in connection with the Sad
ducees. The later evidence from Eulogius down to the
Islamic authorities knows only of one sect, namely the one
28 Nutt, op. cit. 48; Krauss, op. cit. 36.
29 L. c.
30 Referring to Berakot, Mishna, c. 9, sub fin., for the Sadducaeans.

262 THE SAMARITANS
which rejected that doctrine.31 The one argument against
this solid line of testimony is the rejection by the first sect,
as recorded by Abu'l Fath, of the formula, " Blessed be
God forever ; " but this omission may have been intended
to deny more pronouncedly than before the disbelief in
resurrection. As for the rigorism predicated of the two
sects, it is to be observed that this feature is common to all
sects, and is not remarkable in Samaritanism, which itself
was literalistic and rigorous in an old-fashioned way.
That there were two sects would appear from the state
ment of the well-informed Origen, that of the Dositheans
he describes there were only thirty survivors in his day,
whereas there is evidence of another Dosithean sect of
size and importance far down into the Arabic period, flour
ishing in Egypt as well as in Palestine. It may be argued
that it is unlikely that there were two sects of the same
name; but it is not impossible that two heresiarchs bore
the very common Samaritan name of Nathanael-Dosi-
theus.32 There is also this distinction evident in the two
reports of Abu'l Fath, that the second sect was distinctly
an enthusiastic body, possessing apocryphal writings, as
cetic customs, etc., thus differing from the first.
The most probable reconstruction of these data will then
be the assumption of two sects founded by and named
after different Dosithei. The first of these would have
arisen, following the note of Josephus and one line of Pa
tristic tradition, before the Christian era, perhaps in Egypt.
It was a reforming sect, harking back to a greater liter-
31 Appel has not, in his confessedly brief thesis, treated the Arabic
evidence. 32 Beside the many Nathanaels appearing in the highpriestly line,
there is the Hellenistic poet Theodotus. Observe also the obscure
reference in an Epistle, N. et E. 112 (121), to "the Targum of Nathan-
ael" (see below, p. 292.) A Dustan is also a liturgical composer;
Cowley, JE x, 673. For the great frequency of the name in Judaism,
see Krauss, op. cit. 32 ; Biichler, op. cit. xliii, 224. N. B. the proba
bility that the legend of Simon Magus is based upon two historical
Simons (Salmond, Diet, of Christ. Biog., s. v.).

THE SECTS 263
alism of interpretation, at the same time coming under the
influence of Judaism ; however it continued the ancient Sa
maritan doctrine of the denial of the resurrection. Subse
quently with the general Samaritan acceptance of that doc
trine, by the IVth Century, this faction became the minority
and were forced into the condition of a heterodox sect; it
survived however into the lid Millennium. But the other
sect is very different in spirit and practice. It is to be
counted among the many enthusiastic and absurd cults
which had their rise about the beginning of our era. It
was ascetic and encratitic; the ritual bath was an accom
paniment of all devotion; certain mystical books, among
them those of " the Sons of the Prophets," were included
in their scriptures, while there was the Messianic devotion to
the founder of their faith, along with the cult of a martyr
of their sect. They were ardent resurrectionists of a very
materialistic order of belief, and were awaiting the end
of all things with millenarian expectations. We can proba
bly even identify the influences producing this sect. Sev
eral points of practice connect them with the mysterious
community of the Essenes, namely, not only their frequent
baptisms, but also their scrupulousness in hiding their
bodies when in the bath, which is to be compared with the
Essene rule of wearing a loincloth when bathing, while
further the fear of contact with others — amongst the Es
senes even with those of a lower caste in the order — is
common to both. The vegetarianism of the Dositheans also
agrees with Jerome's report of the like practice among the
Essenes, although this notice is now generally invalidated
by criticism.33 Some element of truth therefore is found in
Epiphanius's statement making the Essenes a Samaritan
sect.34 The rise of this body may then be placed about the
33 For these practices of the Essenes, see Schiirer, GJV ii, 567.
34 Some Morning Hymns open with very poetical apostrophes to the
sun ; BS ii, Nos. xlvi, xciii. May this phenomenon have Essene origin ?

264 THE SAMARITANS
beginning of our era, a date which would agree with the
Patristic references collocating Dositheus with Simon;
Abu'l Fath's assignment of its origin to Baba Rabba's age
is a post-dating common to Samaritan chronology. This
sect had evidently, from Origen's note, a short-lived exis
tence, as it was already moribund in his day. It doubt
less was a product of the influences which induced the
Samaritan adoption of the doctrine of the resurrection, and
in this respect secured a triumph over its like-named rival.
We may notice here the account Abu'l Fath gives of a
number of similar enthusiastic sects which, he says, sprang
from the party we have just described.35 The first was the
sect of the Be'unai, or Ab'unai, which followed an an
chorite life. Of a sect founded by one Ansama, or Antami,
nothing particular is told. The next sect, which taught
that all laws were abolished, were called the Kilatai or
Katitai. Accepting the latter reading, which has double
authority, we may connect the word with Encratite, and
suppose the sect to have been libertine in character, the
contempt of the flesh passing over into license, a phenome
non marked in many Christian sects.36 Another sect, the
Sadukai, had a " mystic " faith. Yet another took to itself
the name of " the Proud and Humble ; " they went and
lived in the desert across Jordan; we naturally compare
the " Afflicted Ones " of the Old Testament, and the Chris
tian Ebionites. The next sectarian recorded is Shalih ibn
Tirun ibn Nin, or Sakta ben Tabrin; his Arabic name as
signs him to the age of Islam. He was an extremist in
departing from the ancient customs, even giving up the
ascent of Gerizim, and having Puritanic traits like those
of the Karaites. The sect of the Sons of Josadak, or
35 Abu'l Fath, 159. Cf. Chron. Adler, 70, which is much briefer and
with a different order of sects.
38 Clement notes a sect of Entychitse, a branch of the Simonians,
Stromata, vii, 17. They appear as Eutychetae in Theodoret, Hares.
i, 1.

THE SECTS 265
Sadok, was more orthodox, but made some ritual innova
tions. A certain Aulian founded a sect which appears to
have had a communistic basis. Finally there was the sect
of the Faskutai, which proceeded to the extreme in daring
fleshly passion, until at last they all passed over into the
worst lasciviousness. May this name be connected with
the Greek physikos, or psychikos? The sect would then
be another specimen of encratitic delusion. Samaritanism
thus experienced the variegated religious influences of the
first centuries of the Christian era, and we have to assume
for it in its small sphere a life of inner sectarian turmoil,
very unlike the hard and fast orthodoxy into which it has
long since settled down.
§ 2. simon magus; gnosticism; kabbalism.
Many of the early Christian writers assert that Simon
Magus (Acts, 8) , was one of the earliest heresiarchs, if not
the first, that disturbed the peace of the Church. In fact
an extensive romance has been spun about that mysterious
personage, appearing especially in the apocryphal Clemen
tine literature. To the student of the New Testament and
Patristics the inquiry into the relation of Simon to Samari
tanism would appear to be of prime importance. In the
following pages the Samaritan data on Simon will be col
lected and their relation to Christian references noted,
along with the consideration of his assumed influence on
the Samaritan sect; but the results will prove disappointing
to the student who desires more light on that arch-here-
siarch. In Acts, 8, Simon appears as a sorcerer and an impostor
whom his dupes acknowledge as " the so-called Great Power
of God." Justin Martyr, himself a citizen of Neapolis-
Shechem, although not a Samaritan, is the next to give
details concerning Simon's life and character. He was

266 THE SAMARITANS
born at Gittai in Samaria ;37 almost all the Samaritans and
many of other nations believed in him, and he was accom
panied by a woman, a former prostitute named Helena,
whom he declared to be his " first conception," hvom. vpoirij.
Justin himself says that he had written a special treatise
against the Simonian heresy, and it is thought probable
that this work is the basis of Irenseus's treatment
of the sect. This Father gives an ampler account of
Simon's doctrine, which has become a perfect example of
full-blown Gnosticism. Other features of the heresy are
given in Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies, with spe
cial stress upon its immoral features. Later there is the
development of the romance of Simon with its caricature of
St. Paul, found in the Pseudo-Clementines, which has been
so thoroughly exploited by the school of F. C. Baur.38
In the Samaritan Chronicles " Simon the Sorcerer " ap
pears only as a wonder-worker and as an opponent of the
Christians.39 His birthplace was 'Alin (Abu'l Fath) or
Tablin (Chron. Adler) . A long anecdote is given recount
ing how his magic worked the death of an innocent man,
whom he later restored to life. He then went to Armiya,
or Armina, evidently Rome, — this in correspondence with
the Christian tradition, which is as ancient as Justin. He
had encounters with the Christians, whom, according to
Chron. Adler, he overcame with his magic. He then went
37 The word appears in our Patristic references as TirSav, Tittuv,
After the analogy of the Greek representation of place-names, this
probably stands for the Hebrew Gittaim; cf. 2 Sam. 4, 3; Neh. 11, 33.
Place-names compounded with gath were common in Palestine, and
there is no tradition of the exact location of Simon's birthplace. Rob
inson may be correct in identifying it with Kuryet-Jit, 7 mi. W. of
Nablus, on the road to Joppa; LBR 134.
38 The references in Justin are found in Apol. i, 26; 56; ii, 15; C.
Tryph. 120 ; in Irenaeus, in his Hareses, i, 23. For an admirable dis
cussion of the subject, see Salmond in the Diet, of Christ. Biog., s. v.
Simon Magus. Justin does not appear to be well acquainted with the
Samaritan sect; cf. Chap. IX, sub fin.
39 Abu'l Fath, 157; Chron. Adler, 67. The MSS give both the
Hebrew and the Greek forms of the name, Sim'on and Simon.

GNOSTICISM 267
to the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, and asked his help
to destroy the Christians; but Philo bade him let the
thought alone, for " if this thing be from God, none will
be able to exterminate it " (cf. Acts, 5, 39). Finally Simon
returned to his birthplace and died there, being buried " in
the valley over against the house of the disciple who first
testified to the Messiah, whose name was Stephen."40 The
age of Simon is placed by the chroniclers in the IVth
Century ; but the story of his connection with Philo evinces
a truer chronological tradition. To sum up, the Samaritan
version of the Simon legend is very scanty, being based
on the Christian romance, and yet embracing some inde
pendent details drawn probably from a Palestinian form of
the story. It possesses no information concerning Simon's
doctrines. Finally the question arises as to the Samaritan origin of
the Gnostic heresies which defiled " the virginity " of the
early Church. According to the Fathers and especially the
heresiologues, the first heretics, or amongst the first, were
Dositheus and Simon, and the latter 's disciple Menander,41
the last two being Gnostics. Palestine had long been the
meeting-place and crucible of the religions of East and
West, and no region was better fitted to be the peculiar
home of syncretism than Samaria. Lying next door to
Judaea, it was susceptible to the attractions of the Jewish
religion, and likewise had ample opportunity to affect both
Judaism and its daughter Christianity. Yet there is little
or no proof for the hypothesis that the Samaritan religion
was responsible for these processes of amalgamation, or
40 According to early Christian tradition Stephen was buried by
Gamaliel in his own tomb at Kaphar-gamala (or Kaphar-Gamaliel?),
20 miles from Jerusalem, the remains being removed to Jerusalem in
415 ; see Cave, Lives of the Fathers, " Life of St. Stephen."
41 See the Patristic references in the preceding Section. For Menan
der, see Justin, /. Apol. 26, 56. Another disciple of Simon was Cleo-
bius, Apostolic Constitutions, vi, 16.

268 THE SAMARITANS
became the mother of Gnosticism. So far as we have been
able to sound the obscure ages of Samaritan religion, even
according to the hostile Jewish evidence, we can find no
syncretistic features therein, no native tendency to Gnosti
cism. Simon Magus appears not as a type of Samaritan
ism, but only as an incident; doubtless there is exaggera
tion concerning the universality of his influence upon the
Samaritans, as recorded in Acts and by Justin. From
what we learn of his doctrine in these two sources, he
probably found his following rather amongst the Hellenistic
population of Samaria, than in the Samaritan sect. His
claim to be the Great Power of God represents nothing
we find in Samaritan doctrine, whose Messianism was of
a very primitive type. Further, he left behind no influ
ence, either upon Samaritan religion or upon its historical
traditions. Samaritanism was touched by like influences
on the circumference, as appears from the sects described
above, but the latter seem to have been of small importance
and to have separated, from the orthodox community, and
so were soon lost. Whatever may be the worth of the tra
dition of the syncretistic origin of the Samaritan sect found
in 2 Ki. 17, the Samaritans by the Ist Century A.C., had
been for centuries nothing else than a Jewish sect.
It is true that, as we saw in the Chapter on Samaritan
theology, there are considerable traces of an incipient Gnos
tic speculation, as in the childish inquiries into the origin
of certain mystic things like the Book of the Law, or of
such a personage as Moses. But, as abundantly appeared
in that Chapter, all these speculations have their parallel
in orthodox Judaism. Critical comparison and chronology
indicate that in such developments the Samaritans were
borrowing from the far stronger-minded Jewish theology;
there is no original phenomenon of the kind in the former
sect. In fact in these developments of Samaritanism, ap
pearing especially in Marka, we have nothing else than a

GNOSTICISM 269
faint reflex of that process in Judaism which is a form of
Gnosticism, and to which the technical name of Kabbalism
had best be given. This tendency appeared already in New
Testament times, and was serious enough to require the
attention of the Epistle to the Colossians; it constantly
manifests itself in the Talmud, still more in the Midrashim,
while the later Kabbala worked out the process into a
logical philosophy. Yet Samaritanism, while a debtor in
part to Jewish Kabbalism, never went the whole length;
for such speculations its dry, unimaginative genius seems
to have been unfitted. In a word Samaritanism cannot be
held responsible for Simon Magus, or for the Gnostic de
velopments of which the Christian heresiologues have made
him the archetype.42
42 The chief advocate of an extensive Gnosticism, even veritable
Simonianism, as existing in Samaritan literature, is that assiduous
scholar Heidenheim ; see especially BS ii, p. xxxv. But he advances
no proofs for anything but what is found in incipient Jewish Kab
balism. He takes the frequent divine epithet D'pp as representing
the Simonian expression terras, Clem. Horn, ii, 22 ; yet the term is used
by Philo, De nom. mut. 1052. The Glory is only an ancient Jewish
theologumenon, equivalent to the Shekina. We may also cite such
Kabbalistic phrases as " the Line," by which God created the world,
and "the treasury of knowledge"; BS ii, 57, v. 6; 85, v. 12. Some
other like instances are given above, Chapter XII, § 3. But no theory
of a developed Gnosticism or Kabbalism can be built on these meagre
data. Reference may be made to Cowley's pertinent remarks on the
subject, JQR viii, 571.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE OF THE
SAMARITANS.1
§ I. THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.
The native tongue of the Samaritans was the Hebrew,
the great monument of their use of this language being
their text of the Pentateuch. But Hebrew met with the
same fate in Samaria as in the Jewish territories of Pales
tine; it early succumbed to the predominance of the Ara
maic, whose intrusion as the vernacular took place some
centuries before the Christian era. Except as a sacred
language Hebrew suffered a long eclipse, until, with the
passing of the Aramaic before the new tongue of Islam,
the use of Hebrew again revived, so that the literature of
the lid Christian Millennium, when not written in Arabic,
was composed in Hebrew. The latter is the language used,
along with the Arabic, in "the correspondence with Euro
pean scholars. Even as in Jewish literature, the Samari
tans preserved some classical sense in their use of their
sacred tongue; thus the idiom of the waw-consecutive ap
pears.2 But in general the Hebrew has become thoroughly
debased under the influences of Aramaic and Arabic.
§ 2. THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE.
Toward the end of the last pre-Christian Millennium
the West-Aramaic became the vernacular in Palestine.
1 See especially Nutt, Sam. Targ. 77; Kautzsch, RE s. v. Samari
taner; Cowley, JE s. v. Samaritans.
2 E. g. BS ii, § 2. 270

LANGUAGES 271
The form which it adopted in Samaria can hardly be called
a distinct dialect, so closely is it related to' the neighboring
dialectical varieties, especially that of the Jews of Galilee.
It shows a somewhat larger use of Hebraisms and Greek
words than its neighbors. Its principal monument is the
Samaritan Targum, or rather Targums, of the Pentateuch.
Unfortunately this Targumic literature has become so de
based in its text by transmission for centuries through
scribes who were ignorant of Aramaic, that it is no longer
a reliable witness to the Samaritan dialect, unless subjected
to exhaustive philological criticism. As Kautzsch says,
Kohn has convincingly proved that " the usual assumption
of peculiar (so-called ' Kuthsean ') roots and words in the
Samaritan Aramaic, rests merely upon the wholly untrust
worthy corruption of the Targum MSS." Hence the at
tempts of scholars since Castellus' day to connect the pe
culiarities of this dialect with the tradition of the origin of
the Samaritan sect from Assyrian colonists fall to the
ground. No satisfactory lexicon of this Samaritan Ara
maic dialect has been compiled, although one is promised by
Vollers ; the lexical attempts and the grammars are recorded
in the foot-note. Aramaic composition lasted as late as the
Xlth Century, when Hebrew began to supersede it, ap
parently entirely replacing it by the XlVth Century. The
Targums went out of use, although the memory of them is
retained in the Epistles. Petermann says :3 " The Samari
tan translation has almost entirely fallen out of use."4
3 Reisen i, 285.
4 See, for the true characterization of the dialect, Kohn, Zur Sprache,
Litteratur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, 99 ; cf. p. 206 ; Kautzsch,
Grammatik d. Biblisch-Aramdischen, 13. For a comparative list of
forms and words in the Palestinian dialects, see Dalman, Grammatik
der jiidisch-paldstinischen Aramaisch, 33 ; according to the compara
tive tables there presented, the Samaritan almost always agrees with
the Galilaean dialect as against the Judaean. Grammars have been pub
lished by the following scholars : Crinesius, Ravis, Morinus, Hilleger,
Cellarius, Otho, Masclef, Stohr, Uhlemann, Nicholls, Petermann,
Rosenberg. Of these, Morinus, Hilleger, Cellarius, Otho, Uhlemann,

272 THE SAMARITANS
§ 3. THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.
With Islam's conquest of Syria in the decade following
Mohammed's death, the potent Arabic displaced the local
Aramaic dialects, with the exception of remote districts or
where the native tongues survived as ecclesiastical lan
guages. In general the Samaritan Arabic is of a provin
cial, vulgar type, containing many Hebraisms and Arama-
isms. The literary elegance of the classical literature of
the Arabs had its influence however, and a superior ideal
was followed in the Arabic translations of the Pentateuch,
and in purpose at least, by the chronicler Abu'l Fath.
§ 4. THE SAMARITAN SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS.
The script employed by the Samaritans not only for
Hebrew and Aramaic but also often for Arabic, differs
from the Jewish square character, and, as representing a
much earlier type of the so-called Phoenician character, is
an object of interest to the epigraphist.
Fortunately a few early monuments are preserved which
show an alphabet of much more antique form than that
used in Samaritan MSS, the great majority of which date
from the Xlllth Century and onwards, although a few
bear earlier datings.5 The most considerable of these monu-
Petermann give glossaries. The only lexicon is that of Castellus in
his Lexicon heptaglotton, published when only the Targum was known.
(For the titles of these works, see Bibliography.) In his Grammar
Petermann has given most valuable transliterations representing the
modern Samaritan pronunciation, and on the same basis attempted a
philological study of the Hebrew entitled, Versuch einer hebriiischen
Formenlehre nach der Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner (criticism
by Noldeke in Gbttinger Gelehrte Nachrichten, 1868, p. 485). For the
Samaritan grammarians' views of the pronunciation, see Noldeke,
Ueber einige sam.-arab. Schriften.
5 The St. Petersburg Codex No. 4 is dated 717 B. C, and the Wat
son Codex II. (see Bibliography) bears the early date of 655, although
this profession of so high an antiquity has aroused general skepticism.
The bulk of the great Barberini Triglot has the date 1227. On the
dating of Samaritan MSS, see Gottheil, JBL 1906, p. 29.

" H

"^A'/^'/'i

'¦ "If- - r'"-*- , ->:¦'"¦ \
t,,'/s**£ '-rfV-i'-^'J'i .¦'.¦JS--.1-
•v. i fyi s *ZkZ}j ('/¦¦ is :.;££. ji ||

1

Ii§i«t^> .<;y.
Pal. Ex. Fund. Plate i. The Shechem Decalogue Inscription,
iW^^X <\}£Xcn/hs:C\rfiPk:rt '\'H-)£h1'*<? *
frhtW.iSM'*.^ X-.l iy >k'Tfnc:Vhf'^Oi:rH'\/rl
* "* ^x-.Ziw^^' x--i a Xttftr.Bjf/iy*.
/*rwqu'/y:.3/W<\^'.K-:q a KM*:** Q/KAS
'^k1" V J: afl/^^A rqiaA^/zy.rwcxx^
* l;*:\3*y :in<i-
^««\ :^"-\ :*i<x* :K*wj
From Lidzbarski.
Plate 2. The Shechem Inscription of the Ten Words of
Creation.
Plate 3. The Leeds Fragment of a Decalogue Inscription.

QS^lsSW

'.©£,

From Lidzbarski. Plate 4. The First Emmaus Inscription.

^

gBRw'

Plate 5. The Second Emmaus Inscription.

,<#><

^

W

Plate 6. The Third Emmaus Inscription.

Plate 7 (Sobernheim, Abb. 8.)
¦ J? : BI (non-Biblical) : "IBK1 : H' : DttO
: SPI : "JJ? = PI' : 1 (£*. 12, 13) : i ¦ 3 : PI' : 1
(ZLtr. 12, 23) : "? : 1 : ?k : lb ¦ an : ' : 1
Translations of the text signified by abbreviations : " And I
will pass over you and there shall be no plague amongst you. And
Yhwh will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to
plague you."

mn-
-narj
nw
nrorD mni -raw

Plate 8. Bronze Tablet (Sobernheim, Abb. 15, 16).
Obverse: "The Existent ( nonp), Yhwh, None Like God, One."
Reverse : " Yhwh, Great, Victorious Yhwh, his Name " (to be
read i»e> ?).

SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 273
ments are two inscriptions which hail from Nablus and
from the one-time synagogue of the Samaritans, but which
is now the Muslim mosque Chizn Yakub (" the weeping
of Jacob," i.e. for Joseph), also called al-Chadhra, "the
mosque of the green (tree)," and according to Samaritan
tradition " the portion of the field " which Jacob pur
chased (Gen. 33, 18). One of these inscriptions is built
in the east wall of the minaret of the present mosque, and
contains the Decalogue in abbreviated form.6 A repro
duction from a photograph is herewith given (Plate 1),
along with the translation, as follows :
1  thy God 
2  Thou shalt not take the name of Yhwh
3. thy God in vain. Keep the day
4. of the Sabbath to sanctify it. Honor thy father
5. and thy mother. Thou shalt not murder. Thou
shalt not commit adultery.
6. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not witness against
thy brother
7. falsely. Thou shalt not covet the house
8. of thy neighbor. (Thou shalt not covet thy neigh
bor's wife.)
9. And thou shalt build there (an altar to Yhwh thy
God).7
10. Arise Yhwh, return Yhwh.8
6 The first transcript of it was made by the German consul Schultz,
and his narrative and copy of the inscription were edited by Rodiger
in the Hallesche Allgem. Literatur-Zeitung, 1845, p. 658. It was
treated independently by Blau with notes from another copy by Blau
in ZDMG xiii, 275, with plate, and with notes by Rodiger, and again
by Rosen on the basis of his own far more correct transcript, ZDMG
xiv, 622, with plate, and with supplementary remarks by Rodiger, p. 632.
See Rosen's article for full account of the provenance of the inscrip
tion. For the Decalogue in the Liturgy, see Heidenheim, DVJ iii, 486.
7 This line from Dt. 27, 5, being part of the long pericope introduced
by the Sam. Pent, after the Decalogue, which itself was regarded as
the Xth Commandment. For a MS thus numbering the X Command
ments, see Rosen, I. c
8 Num. 10, 35-36. The above text is conflate from Ex. and Dt.
18

274 THE SAMARITANS
The second inscription, which is in almost perfect con
dition, was found in the ruins about the above-named
mosque and sold to Jacob esh-Shelaby; it was first pub
lished by Rosen.9 The accompanying Plate (No. 2) repro
duces the inscription ; the following is the translation, which
shows that we have here the Ten Words of Creation.
1. In the beginning God created. And said
2. God, Let there be light. And God said,
3. Let there be a firmament. And God said, Let be
collected
4. the waters. And God said, Bring forth (grass)
5. the earth. And God said, Let there be
6. lights. And God said, Let swarm
7. the waters. And God said, Bring forth
8. the earth. And God said, Let us make
9. man. And God said, Behold I have given you.
10. And God saw all that
11. he had made, and behold it was very good. And he
said, I
12. am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham
13. and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
14. [margin] Yhwh, Yhwh, a God mer(ciful and)
gracious, the Existent, Yhwh.
It may be observed that this grouping of the Ten Words of
Creation is very common in Samaritan literature, and also
has its Rabbinic parallels.10
Yet another inscription, greatly mutilated, is now in the
9 In the article cited above, ZDMG xiv, 622, a plate being given.
Transliteration and facsimile may also be found in Lidzbarski, Handb.
d. nordsem. Epigraphik, 440, and Plate xxi.
10 See Heidenheim, DVJ i, 563. According to Pirke Abot, v, 1, " by
ten words the world was created." There was a difference of opinion
as to which was the tenth word, both the Samaritan and the Rabbinic
parallels having " he said " only nine times. The more common
opinion was that the first word was contained in the introductory
statement of creation. See Taylor, ad loc.

SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 275
Library of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society.11
The fragment (see Plate 3) is the lower right-hand quar
ter of a Decalogue inscription, being like that found at
Nablus, but differing in the last line. The last six com
mandments can be traced; then, in the last line but one,
appears " an altar unto," thus helping us to fill out the
lacuna in line 9 of the Nablus inscription. Of the last
line only ntPD M1? n is visible, but it may be supplied
from Dt. 33, 4, so that the inscription once read : " Moses
commanded unto us a law, an inheritance for the assembly
of Jacob."
As to the date of these inscriptions we may argue with
Rosen that they are anterior to the disruption of the Sa
maritan community by Justinian ; but epigraphy is not in a
position to be more specific.12
But other epigraphic material of an earlier date has
been discovered at al-Amwas, the ancient Emmaus-Nicopo-
lis. The first of these inscriptions, discovered by Clermont-
Ganneau in 1 88 1, contains only nine characters of the
alphabet, and reads: D^J^I UW 1111: "Blessed be the
Name even (and) forever" (see Plate 4). This is gen
erally spoken of as a Samaritan inscription; it is however
much more archaic than any other Samaritan inscrip
tions we possess, while the words " and forever " are remi
niscent of the Pharisaic formula of benediction, " forever
and ever," which was eschewed by the Samaritans.13
Two other inscriptions however have been found by La
grange at Emmaus, which are doubtless of Samaritan
origin as they bear the genuine Samaritan type, while their
collocation of Scripture texts is parallel to the phenomenon
11 Published by Wright in PSBA vi, 1883, Nov. p. 25, with plate.
It was given to the Rev. Joseph Hammond by the Samaritan high
priest in the sixties.
12 For the XVIIIth Century inscription in the present synagogue,
see Chap. Ill, note 13.
13 For this inscription, see the Bibliography under Clermont-Gan
neau. Lidzbarski gives a copy of it, Plate xxi.

276 THE SAMARITANS
of the Damascus inscriptions to be noticed below. The
first of these inscriptions, which we may call the second
Emmaus inscription, was found in 1890. 14 A copy of it is
here given ( Plate 5 ); it is to be transcribed and translated
as follows: mm nnn'jBn nnij nirp
irpru mm iqb>
mm Tna «a
jnty 'wo p«
"Yhwh is a hero in war [£*¦. 15, 315], Yhwh: is his
name. Yhwh, thou hast conducted him [cf. Ex. 15, 13] :
Come thou blessed of Yhwh [Gen. 24, 31 ; cf. Ps. 118, 26;
Mk. 11, 9, etc.] : There is none like the God of Jeshurun
[Dt. 33, 26]." There appears to be reference to some
historic event, the hero of which is addressed in almost
Messianic terms.
The third Emmaus inscription was found by Lagrange in
1896. 16 The inscription (Plate 6) is legible enough to
allow us to make out the following Biblical text:
nnan ty mm nosi
x:tf rptynn jrp x^i
which is found in Ex. 12, 23 : " Yhwh will pass over
the door: And will not allow the destroyer to enter."17
At the more distant Gaza Clermont-Ganneau has re
ported that he saw in a private residence in 1874 a Sa-
14 For Lagrange's first report, see Bibliography. His final readings
are found in Revue biblique, ii (1893), 114.
15 The change from B"K , "man," is the reading of the Samaritan
Hebrew, ad loc. For the same anti-anthropomorphic tendency,' cf.
Ps. 24, 8. This was a favorite Samaritan text : see the Damascene in
scriptions given by Sobernheim (No. I), and Musil (No. IV).
16 Reported by him to de Vogue, who published it with plate and
notes in Revue biblique, v (1896), 433; de Vogue's transcription is
given here in Plate 6.
17 N. B. the loss of the guttural in the next to the last word — in
good Samaritan fashion. This Paschal text also appears in the Da
mascene inscriptions; Sobernheim, No. Ill, and Musil, No. I.

SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 277
maritan inscription of nineteen short lines, engraved on a
long marble block; unfortunately he failed to obtain a
transcription or a satisfactory photograph. According to
his recollection it was liturgical in character.18
A second Gaza inscription, first reported by Abel,19 is
also a fragment of the Decalogue, giving the opening words,
Ex. 20, 2-4a (Dt. 5, 6-8a), breaking off at " likeness." It
is prefaced with mm DtSO , which indicates an origin in
the age of Islam.
In this connection reference may be made to the inscrip
tions found in houses in Damascus, once belonging to
wealthy Samaritan families. Ten such inscriptions from
one house were discovered and published by Sobernheim.20
More recently Musil has published, although with ignorance
of Sobernheim's discovery, seven similar inscriptions,
copies of which were forwarded to him from Damascus.21
These inscriptions are almost wholly composed of Biblical
quotations combined in a very abbreviated form, the initial
letter of a word being often all that is given. From some
of the texts they appear to have been intended for private
tenements, and with the purpose of fulfilling the command
in Dt. 6, 8f. Those published by Sobernheim are exe
cuted with great elegance. Some of these inscriptions as
published by Sobernheim and Musil are reproduced here
(Plates 7-12), including a small bronze tablet inscribed
on both sides (Plate 8).
In the accompanying Plate (Plate 13), the Samaritan
alphabet is presented in variant forms, and also in com
parison with selected types of its forbears in the Phoenician
alphabet. In Columns II-V, I give various early types of
18 Clermont-Ganneau, Archaological Researches, 1896, ii, 430.
19 Published by Clermont-Ganneau, Inscription samaritaine de Gaza,
Revue biblique, 1906, p. 84, with plate.
20 Samaritanische Inschriften aus Damascus, MDPV viii, 70, with
plates of the inscriptions, and plan of the house.
21 Sieben samaritanische Inschriften aus Damaskus, Vienna, 1903.

278 THE SAMARITANS
related alphabets, using the nomenclature of Lidzbarski, on
whose Tables I depend for the forms ; the Vth Column offers
a few Aramaic forms which are suggestive of certain Samar
itan developments. In Cols. VI-VIII appear monumental
Samaritan types, those respectively of the first Emmaus in
scription (if this may be considered Samaritan), of the
Nablus inscription of the Ten Words, and of the Leeds in
scription, again with dependence upon Lidzbarski's repro
ductions. In Cols. IX-XIII are found Samaritan man-
uscriptal types, viz. : No. IX, from the evidently early Tar
gum published by Nutt, the facsimile given by him being-
made use of; No. X, the majuscule characters of the earlier
portion of Liber Josuae (dated 1362); Col. XI is drawn
from Plate XII of Wright's Oriental Series, in the publi
cations of the London Palseographical Society, being a
Biblical MS dated 1362; Cols. XII and XIII are cursive
types, drawn from the Gotha MSS, whose forms are re
produced by Gesenius in his Carmina Samaritana, and from
the minuscule types of the latter part of Liber Josuae,
whose date is 15 13. These cursive forms are of interest
as they exhibit some primitive and independent character
istics. The type of Col. XI is most representative of the
dominating form of Samaritan chirography. In Col. XIV
are given the printed types used by Petermann (in free
hand reproduction).
The Samaritan alphabet is predominantly of the Early
Hebrew type, but with some peculiar developments. The
Cade has been made to stand upright on its legs, as is also
the case with Yod. Waw and Zayin have developed their
own forms, which however can easily be traced back to the
Early Hebrew. Similarity to Middle Phoenician appears
in Yod and Qoph. For Tet an Aramaic form is the near
est equivalent. Samaritan has gone its own way in devel
oping a box-like figure for Samek out of the original criss
cross character, with whorls that are lineally descended

Plate 13. Comparative Table for the Samaritan Alphabet

HebrevSquar I

Early Related Alphabet;

Monumental Samaritan

; Samaritan MSS

VuWarPrinted Type
XIV

Mesha-
Stone
« EaVly Early Middle
Phoen Hebrew Phoen Aramai
II III IV v

Nablus
First 'Ten Leeds
Emmaus Words"
VI VII VIII

Lb Jos Gotha Lib. Jo;
Nutt's Ma>se B.ble MS5 Minu5c
Targum MS
IX X XI XII XUI

X

£

F*

#

**

^X

A>

->

A-

SV

¦y-

A

n

$

33

39

$

3

3

S

^

s

Z?

9

9

:

1

11

A

-5
'A
^
"S
7
"7
A
4^
^q
^
^
^
^
^
sr
^
5
n
3
^
^\
A
^
^
^
*\
^
^r
^
i
y
fff
n
5
\
A
T
^
•*
'7"'
1:
f
zx
x$
t-/7j
^
^
7
/a
tf
¦^
^
n
bi
0
ft
^
^
^
^2*
<&
,25
•^
E[
a
®
C/B
*>£
V
^7
O
%
<£
^
^
*
z-
-V
/7T
///
/?/
ni
/>r
m
/>?
<?/
/7T
5
y
Vj>
y?
y
D
y
t/
^
z
tf
>
^
b
t
U
<
6
2
<!
2
2
Z
<r
<?
i
n
7
7^
y
y
iy
a
r;
^
3
r
-^
^
i
7
»
1
J)
a
3
6
b
^2
7
>
D
^>
\
>3
^
^
?
^3.
$
^
y
o
<]«
o
o
V
V
V
V
C7
V
V
V
£
1
J
?
H
^
3
2
>>
)
^
S
K
»fc
V
-Dl
*n
-TT)
*7/
/#7
*7/
yTT
P
f
f
?*
P"
V
V
V
,1
V
?
"1
1
1<?
<^
¦s
q
R
A
^
^
7
3
^
u;
w
w
J
U/
UJ
LU
t*j
*"
+"
**<
UJ
xa
ft
X
X
A
/AMW
x><
X
A
<\
/v
r/
/V
A
SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 279
from early forms. The Early Hebrew type has apparently
been affected by Phoenician influence, and also has asserted
its independence in retaining many early characteristics. It
is to be noticed that the types of the Nablus and Leeds in
scriptions in part preserve the ancient inclination to the left,
in part have attained a square, upright character; the He
brew alphabet is also followed or imitated in the turning
of the tail of several of the characters square around to the
left, i.e. 3. 3> D. 1> S . The same assimilation between
characters has taken place as in the Hebrew square-letter,
necessitating the use of diacritical lines, as for instance in
T and 1» 3 and 2. In fi one of the cross-pieces has
been deliberately broken, and its parts set out of alignment,
perhaps in artificial imitation of X . In the cursive script
of the MSS we find an eccentric development of whorls and
knots, with neither beauty nor usefulness, the result being
an exaggerated " Gothic " type, which has arisen from the
effort, paralleled in Judaism, to produce a conventional ec
clesiastical script. A slight carelessness on the part of the
scribes, often unskilled in the language they copied, easily
produces great confusion between many pairs of letters, e.g.
land "V n and 1, 3 and a. JJandp .22
A great diversity in the form of the characters exists in
the MSS. Unfortunately the conventional European
printed type, which came into vogue with the Polyglots and
was continued by Petermann, has created an outlandish
style of its own, being a caricature rejected by the Samari
tans themselves. De Sacy considerably bettered things with
the type in his edition of the Samaritan Epistles in Notes et
Extraits, and this again has been improved upon by the
fonts of the Journal asiatique. The following remarks
by Euting may be of interest for the history of the sub
ject: "Die samaritanischen Schrifttabellen bei Berger, Is.
Taylor, The Alphabet, i. 242!! sind werthlos, ebenso die
22 See Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 185.

280 THE SAMARITANS
von mir in Gesenius-Kautzsch Grammatik, 25. Auflage.
Brauchbare Alphabettabellen sind nur in Gesenius Carmina
und in der semitischen Schrifttafel von mir, die Bickell's
" Outlines of Hebrew Grammar " (Lpz. 1877) beigegeben
war."23 The difference between the Samaritan script and the
Aramaic type adopted by the Jews was claimed by the Sa
maritans as a proof of their own priority, and became a
serious subject of. discussion in the polemics of the two
sects. Both the Jews and the Samaritans speak of the
elder script which the Samaritans preserved as the " He
brew script." The closeness of the Samaritan to the old
Hebrew writing is shown by an experience which Nach-
manides, of the XHIth Century reports : " The Lord
blessed me so that I came to Acco, and I found there in the
hands of the elders of the city a silver coin engraved like
a seal; on the one side there was the like of an almond
wand, and on the other the like of a flask (vase). And
on the margin of the two sides there was an engraved writ
ing, very clear indeed. And they showed the writing to the
Kuthim, and they read it at once, for it was the Hebrew
writing which was left to the Kuthim, as it is said in San
hedrin. And they read on the one side, ' The shekel of
shekels,' and on the other, ' Jerusalem the holy.' "24
How the change of script was effected in the Jewish
Church is explained in the locus classicus of the Babylonian
Talmud, Sanhedrin, 21b: "Mar Zutra (early in Vth
Cent.) — according to others Mar Ukba (middle of Hid
Cent. ) , — said : At first the law was given to Israel in He
brew script and in the holy tongue. It was again given to
them in the days of Ezra in the Assyrian (i.e. Syrian)
23 In his notes, p. 8, to Almkvist, Ein samaritanischer Brief.
24 Quoted by Lidzbarski, op. cit. 92, in the Hebrew text from de
Rossi, Meor Enaim (Wilna, 1866), p. 450. The coin was a shekel of
the first Jewish revolt. The interpretation of the obverse is wrong;
it reads, " shekel of Israel."

1* ' ' fifk ¦ it,-
.'.¦...,¦.¦¦¦¦..¦, ;, .'¦¦. „?fiy. '
.... | ,-_ (S.f* #- - jg g' | -' ,-^

/ ,%V*

Plate 9 (Sobernheim, Abb. ii.)
: pa ¦ a ¦ Dm : -pB'D : r«l : "ion1? : n« : 1131
"And he will bless thy food and thy water and will remove dis
ease from thy midst." (Ex. 23, 25.)

Plate io (Musil, II).
: m : > : tf'l : IT : 1213'
: N : 3B : IT : ' : 'l '¦ "?« : 3B
1 : JTOtt' : IBK ¦- iv '¦ 21? '1
The abbreviation of the priestly blessing, Num. 6, 24-26, followed
by Amen, and the introduction to the Shema : " Hear, Israel.

Plate ii (Musil, VI).
From the Samaritan-Hebrew text of Dt. 28, «

Plate 12 (Musil, VII).
From the Samaritan-Hebrew text of Dt. 28, io, plus, at the end,
•is" : 3, i. e., DIN "73, " all men."

SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 281
script and in the Aramaic tongue. Israel chose for them
selves the Assyrian script and the holy tongue, and they
left to the ' Idiots ' the Hebrew script and the Aramaic
tongue. Who are the Idiots? R. Chasda (c. 300) said:
The Kuthim. What is the Hebrew script? R. Chasda
said, The " libonaa " (n«:u^. var. iNJ-D^) script."25
We need not further pursue the Jewish traditions ex
cept so far as they characterize the differences between the
two scripts. In the passage quoted above the Rabbis called
the Samaritan script " Libonsean." Another description is
given in the passages referred to above, by a word variously
vocalized, viz. ra'ag, ro'ag, ra'ug,, while the Aruch gives the
variant da'ag. The root J*}?") signifies " to break " and
would capitally characterize the " splinter-like," angular
style of the earlier script; this may be the sense of the
passive formations ra'ug, and ro'ag, the term subsequently
coming to be interpreted in malo sensu, — " when they
sinned it was changed into breaking," even as rp*ttt5>N.
" Assyrian," was interpreted in bono sensu, as " blessed,"
"WlK» . The root of the variant YV^ means " to prick,"
and might be used of the work of an iron stylus operated
upon stone.
As to the choice between the two roots fJH and }*J?T >
a Patristic passage adduced by Hoffmann appears to cast
the die,26 viz: Hie igitur Esdras [i.e. the assumed Ezra
who brought the Law to the Samaritans] quem diximus,
25 The same story appears in Megil. Jer. i, 71b ; Sota Jer. vii, 21c.
One opinion was that the Law itself was given in the Syrian script,
so greatly were the Rabbis concerned over their form of the text.
The patristic writers have the same tradition: Origen, ed. Migne, xii,
col. 1 104; Jerome, Prol. galeat., M. xxviii, 593 ; on Ezek. 9, 4, M. xxv,
88 (noticing the antique cruciform Taw of the Samaritans) ; Epipha-
nius, De XII gemmis, § 63, M. xliii, 356 (to be quoted below )._ Bux-
torf (Diss, de litt. Heb. antiq.) has collected later Jewish traditions to
the effect that the Samaritan Law and script were obtained through the
Jewish priests sent by the king of Assyria.
2S Epiphanius, De XII gemmis, § 63, Migne, Patrol. Gr. xlui, 356
(existing only in a Latin version).

282 THE SAMARITANS
ascendens Hierosolymam, Pentateuchum tantummodo, id
est quinque libros Moysi, detulit eis Veteris Testamenti
libros scriptos secundum formam quam dedit Dominus in
monte Sina; quam formam Hebraei deession [var. dession]
vocant, quod interpretatur insculptum; nunc enim non
eadem sunt elementa litterarum quibus Hebraei utuntur,
librique eorum non sunt scripti iuxta veterem formam, quaa
tunc in tabulis lapideis constat insculpta. Haec igitur for
ma, quam nunc tenent Iudaei, vocatur Somahirenus. Sa-
maritani servant dessenon quae forma fuit olim, ut diximus,
in tabulis impressa lapideis. At Esdra [the Jewish Ezra]
ascendens a Babylone, volensque discernere Israel a re-
liquis gentibus, ut genus Abrahae non videretur esse per-
mixtum cum habitatoribus terrae, qui tenent quidem Legem,
non tamen et Prophetas, immutavit pristinam formam re-
linquens deessenon, propter quod ea forma a Samaritanis
praeoccupata iam fuerat, ut per hoc Abrahae semen dis-
tingueretur a nationibus reliquis.
Hoffmann would read deessenon in all three instances,
understanding the last two syllables as a Greek adjectival
ending, -tjvov, equivalent to -wov. The first two syllables
then would represent the Talmudic variant da'ag. Ac
cordingly this independent Greek authority corroborates the
less attested Rabbinic reading, and must be allowed to de
cide the question between the two. The da'ag character is
then the ancient chiselled type, as distinguished from the
flowing cursive of the Hebrew square character. The more
common variant ra'ac arose through an easy confusion of
letters, and may have been preferred because of the asper
sion which it suggested against the Samaritan script.
Upon the adjective " Libonaean," the final word has not
yet been spoken. It has been explained by Geiger as " the
well-balanced form of writing," but, as Hoffmann remarks,
this would apply far more pertinently to the Hebrew square
character. The form is apparently gentilic, and hence it

SCRIPT AND INSCRIPTIONS 283
has been explained as "Libanian," i.e. of Lebanon, or as
representing the Ephraimitish town Lebona, the modern
Lubban, — so Hoffmann, who suggests that this may have
been the seat of a Samaritan school. Most recently, and
very reasonably, Halevy has argued that it is a corruption
for n^WS " Neapolitan," i.e. of Shechem-Neapolis.27
In Tanchuma (Wayyesheb, § 2), and Pirke Eliezer, c.
38, sub Un., the ancient script preserved by the Samaritans
is called Jlp'HtaU, i.e. notaricum, a notary's or stenog
rapher's script. The earlier alphabet was much better fit
ted for rapid writing than the square character, and may
have survived in business use comparatively late.
Finally there may be noted here the bit of Jewish humor
over the enclosed form of the antique Ayin : " If anyone
says the Law was given in ra'ag, the letter Ayin was a mir
acle " — on the basis of the legend that the writing of the
Law on both sides of the tables of stone meant that the
letters were cut through the tables, in which case the core
of the round or triangular Ayin would have been wholly
detached from the rest of the stone.28
§ 5. THE SAMARITAN HELLENISTIC LITERATURE.
With the spread of Hellenism over the Orient the Greek
became, and remained for nearly a millennium, a second
language in the mouth of the Samaritans. It was used
by them as by the Jews not only for international inter
course, but also as a literary vehicle for placing them
selves in a dignified historical and literary light before the
27 For an excellent apparatus of references to the terms discussed
above, see Jastrow, Dictionary, s. vv., and, for extensive quotation from
Rabbinic sources, Lightfoot, on Mt. 5, 18. For discussions of the
terms, see Hupfeld, Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen alttest. Textge-
schichte, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, i (1830), especially
p 289ff- G Hoffman, Lexicalisches, ZATW 1 (1881), p. 3341 »» 53;
Geiger, JZW v, 115; Halevy, Melanges de critique et d'histoire, 1883,
No. xv.
23Megil. Jer. 71c.

284 THE SAMARITANS
eyes of Greek culture, and also doubtless as a means of
polemic against the Jews; this must have been the case
especially in Egypt. Samaria with its thoroughly Pagan
capital Sebaste and through its physical openness to for
eign influences, doubtless even more than Judaea accommo
dated itself to the use of the new tongue.
Only scanty fragments and references throw light upon
the Hellenistic literature of the Samaritans. The few
historical excerpts have been preserved by Josephus, Clem
ent of Alexandria, and especially by Eusebius ; they all hail
from the historical work Concerning the Jews, composed
by Alexander Polyhistor, a Roman historian who flourished
about 50 B. C.28a Of one of these authorities of Alex
ander, Eupolemus, Eusebius has preserved extensive ex
tracts (Praep. evang. ix, 17, 18, 26, 30-34, 39). Of
these, sections 17 and 18 give a Midrash on Abraham's
life, in which Gerizim appears as opos vif/iorov, " the
Mount of the Most High." Hence it has been argued that
Eupolemus was a Samaritan. But as the other fragments
are distinctly Jewish, while Eupolemus may be identified
with Judas Maccabee's ambassador to Rome (1 Mac. 8,
17; 2 Mac. 4, 11), it is more reasonable to hold with Freu-
denthal and Schiirer that sections 17 and 18 are from the
hand of an unknown Samaritan writer.29 Freudenthal also
thinks that the Cleodemus-Malchus, quoted by Josephus
(AJ i, 15), and from him by Eusebius (Praep. evang. ix,
20), was a Samaritan; but as Schiirer judges, the passage
could easily hail from a Jewish hand.30
Fragments amounting to 47 hexameter lines have been
preserved by Eusebius from an epic poem in Homeric style
composed by a certain Theodotus, who, because of his de-
28* Schiirer, GJV iii, 346.
29 GJV iii, 351, 358, and there the literature. The texts of these
Samaritan historians may be found in C. Muller, Frag. hist. Grvc. iii,
207 seqq.
30 GJV iii, 357-

HELLENISTIC LITERATURE 285
scription of the beauty and sacredness of Shechem, which
he calls " sacred city," has generally been assumed to be a
Samaritan.31 Of interest to textual criticism is the question whether
a Samaritan Greek version of the Pentateuch ever ex
isted, the query being prompted by Origen's references in
his Hexapla to to ^aimpeiriKov. This is generally under
stood by critics as referring to the Samaritan Hebrew
Pentateuch, which, however, is also termed to t&v Sajua-
purav 'Ef3paiKov. But Kohn especially has argued for the
existence of an independent Greek version, on the ground
of the correspondence of the readings reported by Origen
with the Samaritan Targum.32
Outside of our sect Samaritan Hellenism produced some
notable men. Justin Martyr was a native of Neapolis.
According to Epiphanius, Symmachus, one of the Greek
translators of the Old Testament, was a Samaritan, who,
accepting Jewish circumcision, made his version in an
tagonism to those current among the Samaritans; but Eu
sebius and Jerome know of him only as an Ebionite.33
The philosopher Marinus, who succeeded the Neo-Platon-
ist Proclus at Athens in 485, came from Neapolis, as Da-
31 The fragments are preserved by Eusebius, Prap. evang. ix, 22 ;
see Schiirer, GJV iii, 372, and add to the bibliography there, Ludwich,
De Theodoti carmine Graco-Iudaico commentatio, Konigsberg, 1899 (a
university programme), giving a revised text. Ludwich is not inclined
to think that the poem comes from a Samaritan hand ; Eusebius says
that Theodotus's work was " Concerning the Jews." Ewald, History
of Israel, v, 262, argues that Sibylline Oracles, xi, 239-242, is of Sa
maritan origin. For extract from Theodotus, see above, p. 13.
32 For the references to the Samaritikon, see Field, Origenis Hexapla,
i, p. lxxxii ; there are 43 such references, and four more probably from
the same source. For Kohn's views, see his De Pentateucho Samari-
tano, 1865 ; Samareitikon und Septuaginta, in Monatsschrift fiir Ge-
sehichte u.' Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1893, pp. 1, 49; cf. ZDMG
xlvii (1893), 650. Konig approves Kohn's position, DB extra vol. 71.
Against Kohn, see Geiger, ZDMG xix, 611.
33 Epiphanius, De mens, et pond. § 15; see Swete, Introduction to the
Old Testament in Greek, 49. For a Samaritan reference to Sym
machus, see Chap. V, note 10.

286 THE SAMARITANS
mascius records, quoting the philosopher as speaking of
Mount Gerizim, on which " there was a most holy temple
of Highest Zeus, and there Abraham, the first of the an
cient Jews, was consecrated."34 Also the sophist Siricius
hailed from Samaria.35
§ 6. THE SAMARITAN HEBREW PENTATEUCH.
Probably the greatest stimulus ever given to the textual
criticism of the Old Testament was the discovery, early in
the XVHth Century, of the existence of codices of the He
brew Pentateuch, belonging to the Samaritans and written
in their peculiar script, and in antiquity vying with or ex
celling the Jewish manuscripts; furthermore they pre
sented a distinctly different text.
The possession by the Samaritans of the Law of Moses
is throughout assumed and acknowledged by the Talmud
and early Jewish writers, although these authorities claimed
that the Samaritan Law contained forgeries, the most im
portant of which references have been cited in Chapter X.
The Patristic writers likewise had cognizance of the Sa
maritan text, and the early Christian critics from Origen
down make frequent reference to it, using it without preju
dice for the Jewish text, the latest Greek reference to it
being found in George Syncellus (c. 800 ).36 Then with
the decay of learning, all remembrance of the Samaritan
Pentateuch faded away, the Jews who could best have pre
served the tradition being doubtless glad to ignore it.
But in 1616 Pietro della Valle, in his oriental journey,
purchased a copy of this unknown text from Samaritans
at Damascus, and forwarded it to Europe, where it came
34 Damascius, in Photius, Bibliotheca, 1055.
35 Reland, Palastina, 1005.
36 Origen, Hexapla, ad Num. 13, 1; Jerome, Prol. gal.; on Gal. 3, 10;
Cyril of Alexandria (adduced by Migne to latter passage of Jerome) ;
George Syncellus, Chronographia, 83 (ed. Bonn, p. 156): "the He
brews acknowledge it to be the earliest" (cf. the same, p. 166).

Pal. Ex. Fund.

The Sacred Pentateuch Codex

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 287
into the possession of the library of the Oratorians at Paris.
Its publication however was long deferred, until at last it
appeared, very badly edited, under the hand of Morinus,
in the Paris Polyglot (1645). It was published again in
the London Polyglot (1657) by Walton, "only the most
glaring typographical blunders having been corrected, but
a much more complete and exact list of variations was ap
pended, the Latin version to some extent amended, and the
deviations of the Targum from the Pentateuch noted."37
Forthwith this text entered into all discussions. Kennicott
carefully noted the variants of the Samaritan MSS in his
great apparatus to the Hebrew Bible. Strangely enough
no satisfactory edition of this text has as yet been pub
lished, although two are now promised.38
The codices of the Samaritan Pentateuch in European
libraries have very much increased over the sixteen copies
known to Kennicott, and some are to be found in private
hands in America. But the codex that excites the greatest
interest is the sacrosanct text preserved by the Samaritans
as the palladium of their religion. It claims to have been
written by the great-grandson of Aaron, as is set forth in
the Tarikh between the columns of Dt. 5, 6ff, as follows :
" I Abishua, son of Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron,
— may Yhwh's favor and glory be theirs — wrote the holy
book in the gate of the tabernacle on Mount Gerizim in
the 13th year after that the Israelites ruled the land of
Canaan in its borders round about. I make known
Yhwh." The claim is preposterous, but how old the
copy is, has not been ascertained, as so far it has been im-
37 Nutt, Sam. Targ. 103.
38 The text appears in Blayney. Pentateuchus Samaritanus, 1790;
Lee, Biblia sacra polyglotta, 1831, et seq. A new edition is projected
by the (English) Text and Translation Society, under the editorship
of Ginsburg; and another by v. Gall,— see his prospectus, ZATW 1906,
p. 293. For the MSS in Europe, see BS i, p. xix, and v. Gall, /. c.

288 THE SAMARITANS
possible for scholars to make a thorough examination
of it.39
The publication of the Samaritan Pentateuch at once
kindled a great strife in European theological circles. The
Protestants and Catholics were already arrayed against
each other over the question of the authentic text of the
Scriptures, the former going almost to the Jewish extreme
in upholding the authority of the Massoretic text, the lat
ter taking every occasion to discredit it to the advantage
of their ecclesiastically approved versions, the Vulgate and
Septuagint. Capellus, who had already taken positions
against the Massoretic text, proved that the Samaritan
script was older than the Hebrew. Morinus, the French
Oratorian, who edited the Samaritan Pentateuch for the
Paris Polyglot, warmly espoused its text, bringing down
upon himself the severe opposition of de Muis and Hot-
tinger. In the middle of the next century the Catholic
Houbigant was met by the Protestant Ravius, and Poncet
by Michaelis; the great English scholar Kennicott was
warmly inclined to the Samaritan readings. Finally Gesen
ius took up the question in an entirely dispassionate way,
and carefully analyzed all the variations between the two
rival texts ; he believed he could reduce the valid important
variants to a very small number, four in fact (Gen. 4, 6; 14,
14; 22, 13; 49, 14). The argument has never since been
taken up in such extensive detail, students of the Pentateuch
39 This Tarikh is frequently quoted by the Samaritan literature ; e.g.
N. et E. 169, (179) ; DVJ i, 99. For an account of the codex, first
seen and described by Huntington, see Rosen, Alte Handschriften des
samaritanischen Pentateuchs, ZDMG xviii, 582 (with plates), on the
authority of two visitors to Nablus, Levisohn and Kraus, who were
so fortunate as to obtain a good view of the ancient codex and to ac
quire a rough tracing. A photograph of a part has also been secured
by the Palestine Exploration Fund. Also see Mills, Nablus, 308. A
high antiquity is claimed for many other MSS; see Rosen, /. c; but
this is often due to a misunderstanding of the cryptogramic way of
writing the date; see Cowley, PEFQS 1904, p. 344; JQR 1904, p. 483;
Gottheil, in JBL, 1906, p. 29.

A Page of Watson Codex II.
Containing the Samaritan-Hebrew of Dt. 2, 22b-32. This MS
claims the date 35 of the Hegira.
Through courtesy of the owner, the Rev. W. Scott Watson of West New
York, N. J. (See Bibliography.)

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 289
since Gesenius spending their energies empirically upon the
separate readings. It must be said that present scholarship
is inclined to give far greater credence to the Samaritan
than Gesenius allowed, and to make its testimony weigh
very heavily when in agreement with other versions, espe
cially the Greek.40
As to the relation of the Samaritan to the Massoretic, and
its origin, the most different views have been held, varying
all the way from the extreme Catholic position that the
Samaritan was to be preferred to that which would make it
dependent upon the Septuagint. All mysteries and the
ological preposessions aside, the simplest hypothesis is that
the Samaritan represents an actual early form of the Penta
teuchal text. When we recall that the orthodox Jews of
Alexandria produced a translation that varies from our
present Massoretic text, we cannot be surprised that the
heterodox Samaritans, who long before the origin of the
Septuagint possessed their own textual tradition, have pre
served a variant text. Indeed it is not the disagreement
that is remarkable so much as the great similarity of the
two texts. Apart from the few falsifications inserted by
the Samaritans, there are no material differences, such for
instance as would give the historian a different view of the
40 For a review of the earlier discussions, see Wolf, Bibliotheca
Hebraica (1721), iii, 421. Nutt op. cit. 86, gives a lively account, with
dependence upon G. W. Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterkldrung, 1804. Of
the earlier works we may notice, Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiastica
in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, 1631 ; Hottinger, Exercita
tiones anti-Moriniana, 1644; Capellus, Diatriba de veris et antiquis
Hebraorum Uteris, 1645 ; Critica sacra, iii, c. 20 ; Walton, Prolegomenon
xi, to London Polyglot; Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament,
i, c. 12; Kennicott, Dissertation the Second. Gesenius' work is entitled
De Pentateuchi -Samaritani origine, etc., 1815. Frankel, Eintluss der
pal'dstinensichen Exegese, 237, takes a still more severe position than
Gesenius. Further, see Kohn, De Pentateucho Samaritano, and most
recently Konig in DB, extra vol. s. v. Samaritan Pentateuch. Eich
horn, Einleitung in das alte Testament, §§ 378-390 (ed. 4) contains an
excellent apparatus of material, and Ezra Abbot in his article in
Smith's Bible Dictionary presents an extensive synopsis of Samaritan
variants. 19

290 THE SAMARITANS
age to which the composition belongs, or of the history
which it relates; the variations will never be more than of
interest to the textual scholar, illustrative to him of the
origin and processes of various text-traditions.41
§ 7. THE TARGUM.
Samaritanism, like the sister sect, felt the need of ren
dering its Bible into the Aramaic vernacular, and there
arose a Targumic literature, which remains as the most
interesting monument of the Samaritan dialect. But the
Targumic text exhibits such gross blunders of translation,
and has so frightfully suffered through transmission at the
hands of uneducated scribes ignorant of the language, that
it has been the puzzle of scholars ever since its existence was
made known to the western world. To this day no satis
factory edition of the Targum exists.
The first MS to come into the hands of a European was
that now in the Vatican library, which was purchased by
Pietro della Valle along with copies of the Hebrew Penta
teuch; it has the date 15 14. A much earlier text is the
Barberini Triglot, presented to Cardinal Barberini by de
Peiresc, who bought it at Damascus in 1631, and it is still
to be found in the Barberini library. The bulk of the
MS is dated 1227; the last portion, from Dt. 11, 29, hails
from the year 1476. Numerous Targumic fragments are
also to be found in European libraries, some of which
may be of earlier date than the MSS described.
The della Valle MS was used in the Paris and London
Polyglots, undergoing some emendations in the latter.
This has remained the only published text until our own
times. Petermann, whose work was completed by Vollers,
has now published a sumptuous edition of the Targum upon
41 For the bearing of the Samaritan Pentateuch upon the question
of the date of the Samaritan schism, see above, p. 73.

( _ r^ *?aaia. "Ateafr *s
j,* ^va*^ '*.**'•&'<* ¦•vsrv
« jWfS^1 -ra^cvvo-^ ^A**/.1*^ **
f/tf^/^-A iiww ^^A/is-ja
H <(f c^£J3^n; -s^y-^^ ¦^ftT'AW
<*4 aa tve-v Vs^**
;^ a~* awia^'Vs-.a
^^;3?-^ov ¦^'*'-"'*?A*>r'=*; «V
* c Aa ¦**&/&** -a"4 ¦"*
S*t^.^r AX/-*?**/"1- '.Q*^*-?? *^
*C A^f- A"^»^*j^p7^ /*-"* -5L
' /TSJtJ-W ij^^t it*" T
3 -^ iv-wi^Ainii'V*1"'^''*

-^^ «"1A "^t^^-a: -<^\?£f
<&>$ ¦iosi-2. £ «<^A3 '-V-^? *^
" ^ *5 v*Vr-^ Sf*H-£ff*S> JO
ii /*>¦ Sf^yt*s*sc---rt7*is*--27"s'rr jq
hfz*Tt-*i. ¦ 'iitmi&s frtGi/^or a
wa/#- ^a a^'WO(t'iE>rr>'rf
JWfAa -'W^a ^<vwo^V-^^
a**- 3^ 'f*^i*s%^**^9 ^
- a^ -^wx/tw ****«*•**/*¦ •*-
a-2- <?/>* ;6"2Aa"*VT'3 tne^f?-
i*/#- A>* iia-r*'-*^
/?-3 -A.-C ' *£}-&,-2-^y-iff a

-a. -? ... ,'«'V*ai^ -**w*«tf ¦>¦$
-v«a ^ -^a^ -s^vAa A*y/*-# **
" ^^ *W ¦»%* **A**w--y **
*l ;a-WT^i5K7 &swn 'itfc? a
¦*<£ 4Vf^a^'»'t-4«£r*atii^
kit/* *#na -*^i/fta "w*wa
-n?A /ft3'i»v3;4a«7'/^ij-^cf-'-?-
<=*<? AX] ¦Eva^-v** it*-"^
a*tj&f> "o&fp£ D^'tw ¦%¦ /*¦
a *f -4**- • «.*i^ a-v^-.^- *<
a/y aa^ *»-)?«?")» v>7a.*p
/>•/<• *4 ¦ai2A/*-A'A- A,'*'^"*^
vw-^ /^ ^ ¦*-Ato^ a^r*w.**-
,^-2 'A1*'/*- ^*?

y

«S C7 o,j3 '^^i^jj. - ^va i3
«i — ' •^r*-" -r"3a ¦i^js^7-w"

3*^ "S^'-T JPt''*<'7? qWPGWfl '
3*C -P«»-^ i-A^A^ ij^r^A a
ii"« o-w '^>wa ii-^^Aa
^^~ *^.v*'/* -^tJ 3***?^">f -3
3^-«rc.v-2*^tva t xt+wrt-a,
tth Q*-*/sf-/>?ri- i«;vTAa -^
itf/<^t*»''ya ' j>*w-A>fi '^tAwy*
^^vfe-w^tw ta-«-< A-^oAa

/?/&¦ o?w4? sQ&fifs* -jW7A a
^ /, ^.a-, v^-^-V*- ^^A3 A«/#-

Page of the Barberini Triglot (a. d. 1227.)
O". 47, ib — na in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic (from right to
left respectively). From Oriental Series, Plate lxxxix of Paten-
graphical Society's Facsimiles.

THE TARGUM 29 1
the basis of MSS obtained by him at Nablus, collated with
the Polyglot texts. But this edition suffers through arbi
trary editing and the lack of any critical description of the
MSS used. Heidenheim has more recently put forth an
edition of Genesis, collating for this purpose, for the first
time, the Barberini Triglot, which, however, does not come
to assistance until Gen. 34, 25. 42
Since the day of the great lexicographer Castellus the
Targum has been the basis of the wildest theories concern
ing the lexical nature of the Samaritan dialect, theories
which have their excuse when we take into account the tra
ditions concerning the origin of the Samaritans and also
the horrible condition of the texts. All strange words were
regarded as " Kuthsean roots," and they were explained
from every language under the sun, not only Persian and
Coptic, but also from Welsh in the west to Annamese in the
42 For the Barberini MS, see de Peiresc in Antiquitates ecclesia
orientalis, London, 1682, Ep. xxxvi, 179. It is described by Hwiid,
Specimen inedita versionis Arabico-Samaritana Pentateuchi, Rome,
1780; de Rossi, Specimen varr. lectionum  Appendix de celeberrimo
Samaritana tritaplo, Rome, 1782; de Sacy, in Memoires de I' Academie
des Inscriptions, xlix, 3; and by others — see Heidenheim, introduction
to BS i. A page, Gen. 47, 11, has been beautifully reproduced in the
Palaeographical Society's Facsimiles of Manuscripts, etc., in the vol.
Oriental Series, edited by W. Wright, London, 1875, Plate lxxxix.
(The same volume contains two other plates of Samaritan MSS :
Nos. xii and xxviii.) The Barberini Triglot contains the Hebrew,
Arabic, and Targum, in parallel columns, all in Samaritan script. The
Vatican MS is described by Assemani, Bibliotheca Vaticana catalogus,
i, 1, p. 464. The published editions of the Targum, or fragments,
apart from the Polyglots (in the Paris Polyglot by Morinus, in the
London Polyglot by Castellus) are: Petermann- Vollers, Pentateuchus
Samaritanus (a misleading name!), Berlin, 1872-1891 ; Nutt, Frag
ments of a Samaritan Targum, 1874 (with facsimile) ; Briill, Das
samaritanische Targum, 1875 ; Kohn, Die Petersburger Fragmente des
samaritanischen Targum, 1876; Heidenheim, Die samaritanische Pen
tateuch-Version: Die Genesis, 1884, in BS i (cf. Kohn, Zur neuesten
Litteratur iiber die Samaritaner, ZDMG xxxix, 165); Kahle, Frag
mente des samaritanischen Pentateuchtargums, 1902. For criticism
of the Petermann edition, see especially Kohn, Zur Sprache, part ii. ;
and his review of the whole work in ZDMG xlvii (1893), 626; and
in general see Kahle, Textcritische und lexicalische Bemerkungen, 1893.
For an admirable presentation of the facts, see Nutt, Sam. Targ. 107.

292 THE SAMARITANS
east! It has been the merit particularly of Kohn to break
down these philological absurdities and at the same time
to help demolish the historical tradition.43 This scholar
has reduced the number of obscurities to a minimum, which
he thinks may be safely assigned to text corruptions. He
has very fully treated the question of the relation of the
Targum to the Septuagint, to Onkelos, and to Abu Said,
or his predecessors, from the Xlth Century on, for there
are correspondences with the Greek, Rabbinic, and Arabic
versions. For the Greek connection, we find the presence
of many Greek words; the dependence upon Onkelos has
been supported or considered likely by scholars from Hot-
tinger down to Noldeke, while Frankel has even maintained
an origin in the age of Islam.44 But Kohn explains all
these later correspondences upon the theory of glosses and
interpolations entering the text at the hand of wilful or
ignorant scribes, the Targum having undergone constant
revision, until it fell into desuetude. Its history then would
be parallel to that of the Jewish Targums.
As for the age of the origin of the Samaritan Targum
we may hold that it was contemporary with the Jewish Tar
gums, which are now supposed to hail from the Hid and
IVth Centuries.45 A Samaritan Epistle contains a refer
ence to " the Targum of Nathanael," as doubtless the text
is to be translated.46 Cowley suggests identifying this Na
thanael with the father of Baba Rabba, c. 300 ;47 this hy
pothesis would agree with the probabilities as to the date,
43 See above, § 2.
44 See Kohn, Zur Sprache, 116, 124: Frankel in V erhandlungen der
ersten Versammlung deutscher u. ausldndischer Orientalisten, 10.
45 GJV i, 149.
4GiV. et E. 106 (121): bt< iriJ Dinn JO (not, "the Targum which
God gave"). According to Winer, De versionis Pent. Sam. indole
diss., 9, the Samaritan tradition places Nathanael in the Ist Century.
47 JE x, 677. It may be questioned whether, just as Symmachus ap
pears as a Samaritan hero, Nathanael is not a reminiscence of Theo
dotion, the other Jewish or Ebionite Hellenic translator of the Old
Testament.

THE TARGUM 293
although the history of " Onkelos " warns us from laying
too much stress upon the personal tradition. The Targum
then would be a product of that age of literary revival
which followed the cessation of Roman persecution of the
Hebrew sects and preceded the persecutions by the Chris
tian empire.
§ 8. THE ARABIC TRANSLATIONS OF THE PENTATEUCH.
The Samaritan Arabic versions of the Pentateuch were
stimulated by the elegant version of the Jewish Arabist
Saadya, who died in 942. These translations have come to
bear the name of Abu Said, who lived in the XHIth Cen
tury. But criticism has shown that various translations or
recensions have been made, starting possibly from Abu'l
Chasan of Tyre, who flourished in the Xlth Century, and
passing through the hands of a certain Abu'l Barakat.
Such are the results arrived at by the recent investigations
of Kahle and Bloch. Several problems however remain
unsolved, as for instance the relation of the Arabic version
to the Targum and Saadya. No complete edition of the
Samaritan textus receptus has as yet been published, though
Kuenen has edited the first three books of the Law. It
appears that many important MSS have never yet been col
lated, such as the Barberini Triglot and the English codices.
As has been noticed above in the account of the theology
of the Samaritans, the Arabic version is characterized by
the painful avoidance of all anthropomorphisms ; the trans
lation is said to be " careful, and close to the Hebrew."48
48 Hwiid, Specimen, etc., describes the Arabic text of the Triglot ;
cf. also the literature on this codex in note 42 above. The Leyden
MS is described, with excerpts, by van Vloten, Specimen philologicum,
1803. Juynboll published a Commentatio de versione Arabic o-Samari-
tana, in Orientalia, ii, 1846, and his pupil Kuenen, upon his suggestion,
edited Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, from the Leyden MS and two from
the Paris Library, in 1851-4. Bloch has published a portion of Deuter
onomy in his Die samaritanisch-arabische Pentateuchiibersetzung, Deut.

294 THE SAMARITANS
§ 9- COMMENTARIES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS TREATISES.
The great theologian of the Samaritans is Marka, who
has left behind extensive and important remains. His
sect claims that he is the eldest of its writers,49 but he is
now generally identified with the Marka who was son of a
certain Amram- Tuta (or Tuta b. Amram), who was depu
ty of one of the districts into which Baba Rabba divided
his land.50 Accordingly he would have lived in the latter
part of the IVth Century. This datum agrees with the
probability that the theological development which he led
began in that notable period of the revival of Samaritanism.
His name is, with Baneth, to be explained as a form of the
Latin Marcus, while he seems to have had as his native
name Moses, the change of name being explained by the
tradition that he was named Moses by an angel at his birth,
but that his people refused him the right to use the name, for
which Marka was substituted as having the same gematriac
value.51 That an older literature preceded him is shown
by his quotation from earlier writers.
His great work is a large Midrashic volume treating of
various portions and subjects of the Pentateuch. It is com
posed of six books, divided into these four parts (so
Baneth) : (i) " The Book of Miracles," treating of Moses'
Song; (2) an explanation of Dt. 27, 9-26; (3) do. of Dt.
31, 30-32, 43, on the death of Moses; (4) " a Book dealing
with the 22 Letters, the Elements of the Hebrew Lan
guage," being an explanation of the use of the letters in
i-xi, with a valuable description of the MSS ; see Kahle's criticism in
Zeitschraft f. heb. Bibliographic, vi, 1902, p. 6. The latter has edited
an extract (Ex. 4, 20-26) in his Arabische Bibelubersetzungen, 1904.
In general see Cowley's summary of the question, JE x, 677.
49 Petermann, Reisen, i, 236.
50 Chron. Neub. 441; Abu'l Fath, 133; Chron. Adler, 63. See above,
pp. 103, 150.
61 Petermann, /. c

COMMENTARIES 295
the Law, — a Haggadic treatment which has its parallels in
Rabbinic literature.
This work is composed in Aramaic, and is rendered most
difficult for the modern student by its illogical vaporings as
well as by the sad state of the MS. In his theology
Marka is the most Kabbalistically inclined of all the Sa
maritan writers, and he has evidently drawn his Haggadic
material from every apocryphal quarter of the Jews and
even from more distant religions, as that of the Mandseans.
The Samaritan lack of genius and logic is capitally dis
played in this writer of whom the sect boasts as its great
theologian. A large number of liturgical pieces are also
extant under his name, and some which are ascribed to
a certain Moses are believed by Baneth to come from his
hand.52 A fragment of an Arabic commentary, of date of 1053,
has been in small part published by Neubauer ; the fragment
covers Gen. 1-28, 10. This editor speaks slightingly of its
value, but it is given a higher appreciation by Cowley.53
It is interesting for its quotations from the Jewish Bible
and the Mishna.
The most extensive and most truly exegetical commen
tary among the Samaritans is that of Ibrahim ibn Yakub.
The author lived in the XVth Century, according to
Klumel, but Hanover thinks, not before the XVIth. The
52 The MS of Marka's commentary is in the Berlin Library. Three
books, with extracts from the others, have been edited by Heidenheim
in BS iii, along with extensive prefaces, dealing especially with the
theology. Baneth has edited the last portion of the work in his Des
Samaritaners Marqah an die 22 Buchstaben  ankniipfende Abhand-
lung, 1888, with preface and notes. Munk has published the " Death
of Moses," Des Samaritaners Marqa Erzdhlung iiber den Tod Mosis,
1890 ; Emmerich, the " Book of Miracles," in Das Siegeslied, etc., 1897 ;
and Hildesheimer, the same, Marqah's Buch der Wunder, 1898. For
the liturgical material of Marka, see BS ii, and articles by Heidenheim
in DVJ. The Pessach-Haggadah, published by Kohn, is also a com
position by Marka. . . . . .
5S Neubauer, Un commentaire samaritam mconnu, 1873, giving the
text of the preface ; Cowley, JQR vii, 132.

296 THE SAMARITANS
work treats the first four books of the Pentateuch, and em
braces 3288 manuscript quarto pages. It differs from
Marka in containing but a minimum of Haggadic material
and is predominantly Halachic.54
An anonymous commentary on Genesis of the XVIIth
Century exists in the Bodleian Library.55 In 1753 Gazal
ibn Abu(l) Sarur wrote a commentary on Genesis and
Exodus, called the " The Dissipater of Darkness from the
Secrets." Little is known and very little has been published of the
other theological literature of the Samaritans. In 1041
Yusuf ibn Salama composed the Kitab al-Kafi, " a kind of
Samaritan Shulchan Aruch."56 The Kitab at-Tabbach,
" Book of Cooks," by Abu'l Chasan of Tyre, of the Xlth
Century, is a polemic against the Jews. The same author
wrote the Kitab al-Ma'ad, on the future life, and the Kitab
at-Tauba, on repentance. In the Xllth Century Munajja
ibn Sadaka composed the Kitab al-Khilaf, on the differ
ences between the Jews and the Samaritans.57 His son
Sadaka, a physician in Damascus, and author of medical
treatises, also wrote theological books.58 Gazal ibn Duwaik
wrote on the story of Balak and the restoration of the
kingdom. Other authors that may be named are Salich ibn
Sarur ibn Sadaka, Abu'l Faraj ibn Ischak (an abridgment
5i Small sections of the commentary have been published by Klumel,
Mischpatim. Ein samaritanisch-arabischer Commentar zu Ex. 21-
22, 15 von Ibrahim Ibn Jakub, 1902 (the portion concerning the civil
law) ; Hanover, Das Festgesetz der Samaritaner nach Ibrahim ibn
Ja'kub (to Lev. 23) ; also, I believe, by Drabkin, Fragmenta com-
mentarii ad Pentateuchum Samaritani- Arabici sex, 1875. See these
authors' introductions. For other commentaries reference may be
made to Steinschneider, Die arabische Literatur der Juden, 324.
55 Schnurfer has edited Gen. 49 in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xvi, 154.
oe See Colin, Die Zaraath-Gesetze der Bibel nach dem Kitab al-Kafi
des Jusuf ibn Salamah, 1899.
57 See Wreschner, Samaritanische Traditionen, for the author, his
other works, and a discussion of his relations to the Karaites, upon
whom he reveals a great dependence.
58 Wreschner, op. cit. p. xix ; Nutt, Sam. Targ., 139.

COMMENTARIES 297
of the laws of Moses), and Isma'il ar-Rumaichi (on the
praise of Moses). Haggadic material appears in Heiden-
heim's Vierteljahrsschrift; e. g. Leitner, Legenden Mosis,
iv, 185.59 § IO. THE LITURGY.
Apart from the Samaritan Pentateuch with its textual
importance, and the Targum with its philological problems,
by far the most interesting field of Samaritan literature is
the Liturgy. It is strange that this department of research
has been comparatively neglected. The pioneer Gesenius
was the first to edit a group of Samaritan hymns ; Heiden
heim has gained the honorable merit of publishing what is,
up to present writing, the largest collection of Samaritan
liturgical pieces, some 123 in all; the English scholar Cow
ley now promises an early volume on this subject, which
doubtless will present a text to replace the unreliable edit
ing of Heidenheim, withal providing the much-needed com
mentary to the material.60 What has been so far published
gives no idea of the character and arrangement of the
Liturgy as a whole, and for the following brief review I am
indebted to the descriptions given by Heidenheim and es
pecially by Cowley.
The text of the Samaritan Liturgy in the British Mu
seum fills twelve large quarto volumes, of 2000 pages;
59 1 have followed above Nutt, op. cit. 131ft; Cowley, JE x, 680;
comparing also Geiger, ZDMG xx, 143, and Steinschneider, op. .cit.
3if>ff- 60 Gesenius, Carmina Samaritana, 1824 (he observes, p. 1, the at
tention paid to this subject by Castellus and Marshall) ; Heiden
heim, several liturgical pieces in his VJD, and finally in BS ii, 1885;
Petermann, texts in Appendix to his Grammatik ; Merx, Carmina Sa
maritana, 1882; also publication of separate hymns by Geiger, Kohn,
Rappoport, et al. (see Bibliography). For a description of this liter
ature, see Heidenheim BS ii, Einleitung; Cowley, The Samaritan
Liturgy and Reading of the Law, JQR vii, 121 ; JE x, 628 ; Rappoport,
La liturgie samaritaine, 1900. Also see Margoliouth, An Ancient
MS of the Samaritan Liturgy, ZDMG li, 499.

298 THE SAMARITANS
much more material is also found in other libraries of Eu
rope. One branch of this material is composed of Biblical
florilegia, or catenae of verses from the Scriptures, gen
erally bound together by some clue of thought or word;
another branch consists of prayers, largely in prose; yet
another embraces Shirot, or hymns, which extend from
brief ascriptions of praise to God to long-drawn-out Mid
rashic compilations composed for recital on the great feasts
and fasts and the Sabbath. Provision is made for litur
gical response between minister and congregation. No sac
rificial formulas appear to have been preserved; offices for
circumcision and marriage exist, but have not been pub
lished. Cowley, the only scholar who has given a scientific and
chronological account of the material, divides the liturgical
cycle into five divisions, as follows : ( 1 ) the Defter ( through
the Arabic from Sapeipa, i.e. "the Book"); (2) the
services for the first month, Passover, etc.; (3) for the
Pentecostal period; (4) for the seventh month, the Day of
Atonement, and Booths: (5) for circumcision, marriage
and burial. The Defter comprises compositions, prayers
and hymns, written by Marka and the contemporaneous
Amram Dara, and is the eldest stratum of the Liturgy ; this
material is composed in the Samaritan Aramaic. Amram's
work, making what is called the Durran, is chiefly in prose ;
Marka gave himself out in poetry, if his hymns in alpha
betic acrostic may be so termed. These productions are
for a variety of occasions, and the same book also in
cludes some prayers for daily use and for the Sabbath.
Altogether this early compilation of IVth Century compo
sitions has set the norm for the whole Samaritan Liturgy.
Cowley establishes two subsequent epochs of liturgical
development. The first is the Xlth Century when compo
sitions of Abu'l Chasan of Tyre and his son Ab Geluga
were added to the Defter. Their language is still Aramaic.

THE LITURGY 299
The second liturgical revival occurred in the XlVth Cen
tury under the stimulus of the highpriest Phineas b. Joseph,
the patron of Abu'l Fath. The liturgical language had
now become Hebrew. Composition in this field has con
tinued down to our own age, but with steady debasement.
To consider briefly the published hymns, most of them
have their stanzas arranged according to alphabetic acrostic.
Those of the later period rhyme the verses of a stanza
upon the same syllable, as in Arabic poetry. To fit his
Procrustean mould both at the beginning and end of the
verse, the writer does not hesitate to distort his words.
The theology and general contents of these hymns have
been touched upon in Chapter XII. We find litanies and
praise-songs, hymns for the Sabbath and the morning; re
sponsive forms used at the exhibition of the law; requiem
hymns, meditations over death and the Day of Judgment,
warnings to the sinners.
Of greatest interest are the long Midrashic hymns com
posed for the Passover, Pentecost, Booths, Kippur, the
most notable of which for religious feeling and expression
are those for the two great seasons in the seventh month.
The hymn regularly begins with the story of creation; it
may go off into a long astronomical excursus; the lives of
the Patriarchs may be touched upon; but it always comes
at last to the legislation on Sinai; the final stanzas are
then devoted to the encouragement of saints and the rebuke
of sinners. In all this material poetic genius is rarely
found; there is occasionally a bit of literary imagination,
as in " Abishua's Dream " ; some of the Morning Hymns
seem to be a little kindled with the rising sun. But as the
poetical form is borrowed and artificial, so also the idea of
writing poetry seems to have been in imitation of the Jew
ish and Syrian-Christian churches, and the Samaritans
simply followed suit by casting their tiresome legends into
the moulds of a mechanical poetry, subsequently modelled

300 THE SAMARITANS
after the Arabic. One characteristic cannot be denied this
literature ; it is full of moral earnestness and of sincerity to
the principles of the faith, and this genuine religious spirit
gives a true dignity to very much that is in itself absurd
and trivial. § II. THE CHRONICLES.
Four Samaritan Chronicles have been published by Euro
pean scholars ; they are as follows :
( i ) A Hebrew work called the Taulida, the equivalent of
the Hebrew Toledot, " genealogy," or " history." Its full
title is "The History (taulida) which has taken place be
tween the Samaritans and the Jews (Rabbanites), and the
Memorials of the Samaritans extending down to the Pres
ent." The text has been published and translated by Neu
bauer and by Heidenheim; having been discovered by the
former scholar, it may for distinction be called the Chronicle
Neubauer.61 The basis and major part of this composition was a
manuscript prepared by Eleazar, a son of the highpriest
Amram, written in 1149. It begins with a brief astro
nomical calculation, and then takes up 1;he history from
Adam to the writer's own time. His work has been con
tinued by his descendant Jacob b. Ishmael, who prefaces it
with a calculation of the Jubilees which have occurred since
the conquest of Canaan, down to the year of the con-
tinuator's writing, 1346. He has added a little to the
61 A. Neubauer, Chronique samaritaine, JA 1869, p. 385 ; Heidenheim,
Die samaritanische Chronik des Hohenpriesters Elasar, DVJ iv, 347.
Heidenheim is all unconscious of Neubauer's earlier publication. The
MS is in the Bodleian Library, and Neubauer collated it with a private
MS which he does not further describe. The references in this work
are to the pages of Neubauer's translation. The Hebrew text is ac
companied with an Arabic translation, whose readings are frequently
cited by Neubauer. According to Conder, PEFQS, 1876, p. 187, the
original text is at Nablus, and each high priest adds to it the events
of his pontificate.

THE CHRONICLES 30 1
chronicle, which then was expanded by other hands and is
brought down to 1856. The work is not much more than
a list of the highpriests and of the chief Samaritan families
with their locations, some scanty and brief references to
external history being introduced.
(2) The Book of Joshua. This is an Arabic work writ
ten in Samaritan characters; the greater part of the MS (to
the middle of c. xlvi) belongs to the date 1362, the bal
ance, written in much poorer script, to 1513. It has been
published by Juynboll in text, and translation, along with
ample commentary.62
The work is actually a Midrash, not a chronicle, and so
differs from the curt annalistic form of the other chronicles.
It begins (cc. 1-8) with an account of the last days of
Moses, including the story of Balaam and the war with
Midian. Chap. 9 takes up the proper story of Joshua,
which is an extensive Midrash based upon the Hebrew
Joshua. There follows (cc. 26-37) the apocryphal story
of Shaubak, a Persian king, who attacked Israel with the
aid of the Giants and with diabolic wiles, which were frus
trated by Nabich who had been appointed king of Trans-
Jordan (the Nobach of Num. 32, 42). There follows a de
scription of the Golden Age of the Divine Favor down to
62 Juynboll, Chronicum Samaritanum, .... cui titulus est Liber
Josua, 1846. (This chronicle was earlier treated by Reland in his
Dissertations, and by Hottinger in Exerc anti-Morin., and Smegma
orientate.) The results of Juynboll's exhaustive criticism and com
mentary for the most part- still stand. The MS he used is that of
Scaliger, procured by that scholar from Egyptian Samaritans, and
now deposited in the Leyden library. Another MS, of date 1502, and
in the British Museum, is noted by Nutt, Sam. Targ. 119. Also Adler,
in his account of his obtaining the chronicle which he has published,
speaks of a MS of this work which he attempted to purchase from
the Samaritans. But the Book of Joshua does not seem to have had
wide vogue in Samaria, nor is it mentioned by any early authorities —
a fact which induced Hengstenberg to deny that it was an early work
(Authentic d. Pentateuches, i, 41)- Kirchheim has given a Hebrew
translation in his Karme Shomron, and an English translation has been
published by O. T. Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle or The Book of
Joshua, 1890.

302 THE SAMARITANS
the death of Samson, cc. 38-40. The causes of the Age of
Disfavor are then narrated, the ringleaders of the schism
from the true Israel being the house of Eli, and Samuel.
In c. 45 is given the " history of Nebuchadrezzar, king of
Mosul." That king, after destroying Jerusalem (the ac
count in Kings is briefly followed), also harries and depopu
lates Samaria, exiling the Samaritans and replacing them
with Persian colonists. But the land loses its power of
production; its fruits are fair without but rotten within.
The king learns that the cause of this calamity is the failure
of the proper rites of the God of the Samaritans, and he
allows the whole people to return. The Jews accompany
them, but refuse to take part ir the worship on Gerizim,
desiring to rebuild Jerusalem. The case is appealed to the
king, and the books of the two sects are presented in argu
ment. The Samaritan king Sanballat suggests the ordeal
of fire ; he casts the Jewish Scriptures, presented in evidence
by Zerubbabel, into the flames, and they are destroyed.
The latter begs off from thus ill-treating the holy Law of
the Samaritans, but submitting to the king, casts it into the
flame three times, and it comes forth unharmed.63 C. 46
is the history of Alexander the Great ; it includes a parallel
to the Jewish story of the appearance of the highpriest to
Alexander in a dream, and the conqueror's subsequent gra-
ciousness ; Alexander's visit to the land of darkness ; the le
gend of his ascending car; the story of the evasion of his
command to erect his statue by the Samaritans naming their
children after him. The history of Hadrian, c. 47, con
taining the story of Ephraim and Manasse, has been re
ferred to in Chap. VI, § 2. CC. 48-50 give the history of
Akbun, his son Nathanael, and his grandson Baba Rabba,
63 The Samaritans professed to have this identical " Fire-tried Manu
script"; see Rosen, ZDMG xviii, 586, and for its subsequent fortunes,
Conder, Tent Work, i, 54.

THE CHRONICLES 303
the data of which have already been made use of in Chapter
VI, § 3.
Juynboll's results are in brief as follows: The basis of
the work is cc. 9-25, which, as the title to c. 9 shows, is
the original Book of Joshua. The Egyptian origin of the
work is rendered probable by its use of the Septuagint nar
rative in many places, and as well by the non-use of the
Seleucidan era, which appears in native Samaritan writings.
The original, according to the statement of the compiler in
the opening words of c. 1, was composed in the Hebrew
language, by which doubtless is to be understood the Sa
maritan Aramaic dialect. This early composition belongs
then to that extensive class of literature dealing with
Moses, the Exodus, and the early history of Israel, which
had its beginnings early in the Alexandrian age; Aristo-
bulus of the age of Ptolemy Philometor was a prolific com
poser of such writings, and in addition there may be re
called the extensive Moses legends, fragments of which
have been preserved, and also the dramatic compositions
composed by the Jewish poets Philo and Ezekiel, and the
Samaritan Theodotus, who has been noticed above.64
In addition to this early Hellenistic composition which
has been preserved only in free rendering in the present
Arabic form, Juynboll assumes three other Arabic sources
which have also been used by the compiler, one of these
being the basis of the first eight chapters, the other two
being used in the last part of the work ; the legends incor
porated in these documents would also doubtless go back
to early Jewish or Hellenistic sources. Thus the Balaam
episode in cc. 3, 4 is probably drawn from " the Books
of Balaam" mentioned in c. 41, and these compositions
are to be connected with the considerable literature
which, it would appear, grew up about the false prophet's
64 Consult in general Schiirer, GJV iii, esp. pp. 219, 287, 384.

304 THE SAMARITANS
name.65 The legend of Shaubak, in which the Israelitish
hero Nabich appears in a more distinguished light than
Joshua, evidently goes back to some early independent
source, — we may conjecture from some Trans- Jordanic lit
erature which extolled the local history.66
The legends incorporated in the last part of the book,
from c. 47 on, are all parallel to, in most cases drawn from,
Jewish material. In general it is to be noticed that the
legends for the Biblical period are entirely taken from
the Old Testament literature, although not at first hand,
as appears in the confusion concerning the period of Nebu
chadrezzar. Also the official annals of the priesthood
have been used, but not in so annalistic a way as in the
other chronicles.
Juynboll regards the present Book of Joshua as the com
pilation of one hand. But it is probably preferable to agree
with Vilmar in regarding cc. 47 et seqq. (beginning with
the story of Nebuchadrezzar) as a later supplement. In
Abul Fath's reference to our book, 67 he speaks of a manu
script containing " the Book of Joshua and other ma
terial." That is, this supplementary material was already
added to the book, but regarded as distinct; also the same
chronicler reports that he drew his story of Baba Rabba's
nephew Levi from an old Hebrew narrative, which he gives
for what it is worth. It thus appears that this supplement
65 Juynboll, p. 81; notice the reff. to Origen, Horn, xiii, in lib. Num;
C. Cels. i, 59.
66 No trace of this story appears independently in the Jewish liter
ature, but Samuel Shullam, the Jewish editor of Juchasin (1556), ap
pended an abstract of the Samaritan legend to his edition, remarking:
" I happened to see (this) in the annals of the Samaritans, who de
livered what they saw in a certain commentary (Midrash) of the
Jews." We cannot tell on what authority the latter part of this asser
tion is made. This would' be the only instance where later Judaism
has borrowed from Samaritan literature. See Juynboll, 81, 263.
67 See below, p. 306. The historian Masudi (writing 943) in referring
to the Samaritan story of the Exile does not appear to be acquainted
with the Book of Joshua; de Sacy, Chrest. arabe, i, 343.

THE CHRONICLES 305
was not yet added, but was known to Abu'l Fath in its ori
ginal form.68
The compilation then is a mass of legends drawn from
many sources, much of which material may be traced back
to the beginning of the present era and perhaps earlier.
As for the age of the compilation, which Juynboll assigns
to one hand, that scholar argues with great acuteness that
the compiler lived in the first half of the Xlllth Century,69
and that he was of priestly race and Egyptian habitat.
The chronicler Abu'l Fath used the book in the century
following, and the Arabic historian Makrizi, in the XVth
Century, appears to have been acquainted with it.
(3) The Chronicle of Abu'l Fath. This is the most suc
cessful attempt among the Samaritans to produce a
chronicle with some aim at literary form. The author
writes in a vulgar Arabic, is unfitted as a critic, and very dis
proportionate in his use of his material. Withal there is
a pathetic interest in his undertaking, which intended to re
cover the history of his people in a day when the traditions
of the sect seemed in danger of disappearing, and he evi
dently made an honest effort to procure all reliable written
material that was at command. The text has been pub
lished by Vilmar, and partly published and translated by
Payne Smith.70 The author belonged to the distinguished
Danafite family — to be connected probably with the vil
lage Defne, E of Nablus: He gives an interesting intro
duction telling how he came to write his book ; he executed
68 See Vilmar, Abu'l Fath, p. lxvii. The reference in Abu'l Fath is
p. 139, 1. 5. Notice that c. 47 is entitled, "The history of Nebuchad
rezzar, which is found in books," — i.e. evidently a supplementary ad
dition. 69 P. 97.
70 Vilmar, Abulfathi annates Samaritani, 1865; Payne-Smith, The
Samaritan Chronicle of Abu'l Fatch, DVJ ii, 303. 43 1 (for the sus
pension of this work see the Bibliography). Fath should properly be
transliterated fatch, the ch to be pronounced independently of the pre
ceding t.
20

306 THE SAMARITANS
the work " only for the reason that he v/as in a certain
country, and the ruler of it asked him about their chronicles,
and requested him to compile for him this chronicle." This
request he bore in mind when he visited the highpriest
Phineas in Nablus in 1352, and the latter commanded him
to compile such a history. He delayed the work, however,
for three years, when he again visited Nablus, and then
asked the highpriest to provide him with the materials for
his undertaking. He tells us that he omitted much that
was wearisome, and honestly followed his authorities ; " I
have aimed at what was true and sincere, and endeavored
to compile an authentic narrative."
He then gives a list of his authorities ; they are : ( 1 )
the Book of the Province ( qit' al-baladf), in Arabic script
and language; (2) the Chronicle of the Book of the Prov
ince (tarikh, etc.), in Hebrew script but Arabic in lan
guage; (3) a chronicle with which is bound up the Book of
Joshua, along with other material, in the Arabic script and
language; (4) three defective chronicles, "in my own pos
session," which were brought to him from Damascus; (5)
" a genealogy (salsalat) copied by the hand of our lord the
highpriest aforesaid, in (from ?) the writing of the high
priest Eleazar aforesaid, wherein is recorded the origin of
the Samaritans;" (6) some fasciculi. The chronicle of
Sadaka, however, he would not use, because, while he ac
knowledged its literary excellence, it was not corroborated
by genuinely historical authorities.
Abu'l Fath has made large use of the Book of Joshua,
and a comparison of his work with the Toleda of Eleazar
(Chronicle Neubauer) shows his dependence upon that
work as well. It is not apparent which of the sources he
names was this earlier chronicle; it may have been the
Salsalat which he connects with Eleazar the highpriest.71
71 Payne-Smith has ignored the reference to Eleazar in his trans
lation. I cannot make sense out of the passage except by supposing

THE CHRONICLES 307
Abu'l Fath begins with Adam, and carries down his work
as far as the commencement of the Muslim empire, or more
exactly to the year 756, with which date he concludes. At
least so Vilmar, doubtless rightly, judges, holding that the
subsequent additions, which appear in only two of the four
MSS, are the work of subsequent composers. The other
two MSS jointly continue the story into the time of the
first Abbasides. Each of these is further continued with its
peculiar supplements, the latest belonging to the year
I^S3-72 Abu'l Fath lays special stress in his chronology
upon the exposition of the well-known theory of the Sa
maritans concerning the ages of the world.
(4) Yet another Toleda exists which from its discoverer
and editor we may call the Chronicle Adler.'13 The lan
guage is Hebrew, with some Samaritan words, and with
two liturgical pieces in the Samaritan dialect, a hymn of
Baba Rabba and one of Marka. The work is arranged
under the years of the world and according to the succes
sion of the patriarchs and highpriests, coming down to the
year 1899. It is much more expansive than the earlier
Toleda, drawing most largely from Abu'l Fath, so far as
that goes, and also containing some independent material.74
that the contemporary highpriest had made his copy "from" (cor
recting " in ") the writing of Eleazar, who then might be the author
of the Toleda, although the latter does not appear to have been high
priest, only the younger son of one. Vilmar, p. xxix, thinks that
Eleazar the son of Aaron is meant and that the work is the genealogy
of the " Book of the Highpriests " mentioned in Lib. Jos. c. 47, sub tin.
We do not know who is the Sadaka, the author of the chronicle
Abu'l Fath rejects; he may be the theologian, the son of Munajja,
mentioned above. It appears from his phraseology that Abu'l Fath
also made direct use of the Jewish Scriptures ; see Vilmar, p. xcviii.
72 See Chap. VII, note 1.
73 The text appears in Adler and Seligsohn, Une nouvelle chronique
samaritaine, REJ 1902-3, and in reprint, with some change in the
preface, in 1903. A translation accompanies the text, with excellent
brief notes, some from the hand of Israel Levi, especially bearing upon
the correspondences with the other chronicles. The editors have used
a copy made to order from a Nablus MS.
74 For some valuable notes on the new data of this chronicle, see

308 THE SAMARITANS
It is evidently later throughout than the other chronicles
registered above. The references to foreign events in its
history of modern times show that the Samaritans have
learned to take an interest in things apart from their own
concerns. From the above brief study of the extant chronicles it is
evident that a considerable literature both of annalistic and
of Midrashic character stood at the disposal of the Sa
maritan historians. Abu'l Fath has described the sources
which he made use of, and they were of considerable extent.
Two of these can be identified with the first Toleda and the
Book of Joshua, but the others are still unknown to us.
The two " Books of the Province " are probably nothing
else than registers of the families in their respective settle
ments, the material which largely lies at the base of the first
Toleda. Another authority was a genealogical list. The
Book of Joshua, c. 47, sub. fin., mentions in a list of the Sa
maritan literature, most of which it asserts was lost in the
Hadrianic persecution, a Book of the Highpriests; Annals
containing the birth-dates and the ages of the priests; and
also a book containing the lives of the priests — which was
preserved. Among the MSS which Adler tried to pur
chase at Nablus was a Chronicle, qidvi "HIT* and a Book
of Inheritances, rwiT» "1SD. 75 probably a domesday book,
of the same nature as the " Books of the Province." Fur
ther, as to these sources, it is to be remarked that they all
must have been in the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic tongues,
for by the Hd Millennium all knowledge of Greek and Latin
had doubtless perished from the Samaritans; whatever
sources of Hellenistic origin underlie our chronicles, were
Clermont-Ganneau, Journal des Savants, 1904, p. 34. The chronicle
was compiled in 1900. A slightly variant text, and older by a few
years, of this chronicle is noted by Macler, Note sur une nouvelle
manuscrit d'une chronique samaritaine , REJ 1905.
70 In introduction to his Nouvelle chronique.

THE CHRONICLES 309
mediated to the authors through versions in the native
vernaculars. For the purpose of a brief analysis of the sources of the
chronicles it is logical to- divide them into those of native
and those of foreign origin. Of the native sources doubt
less the most reliable were the official priestly genealogies,
which the Samaritans proudly trace back in direct suc
cession to Eleazar son of Aaron. But when we recall that
in the far more historically-minded Jewish church the rec
ord of their highpriests has been only partially and often
contradictorily preserved by Josephus and Christian chro-
nographers, there is no antecedent reason why we should
place confidence in the names and successions of the Sa
maritan genealogy, at least before the IVth Christian Cen
tury, since which age the Samaritan chronicles become
more trustworthy as to native memorials. That the suc
cession is defective is shown by the long chronological
gaps which actually exist between the ages of men who
are supposed to have succeeded one another ; in some cases it
appears that the Jewish lists have been copied.76 When in
later days the priesthood had become the sole school of
learning, we find that their official lists assumed more of
an annalistic character, noting important events even in
foreign history, as we observe in the latter part of the
Chronicle Adler. But we cannot detect any such native
notices of general historical character in the early Toledot;
all such information seems to have been worked up by the
subsequent compilers, who made use of the genealogies as
a skeleton, into which they arbitrarily fitted material drawn
from foreign sources.
76 Since the time of Scaliger these lists have been of interest to
historians. But the records in the several chronicles differ; there
is discrepancy in Abu'l Fath between the list followed in his chronicle
and that appended at the end of the work. Heidenheim gives a com-
oarative table of the lists in the first Toleda and in Abu'l Fath in
VID iv 387 Attention may here be called to the list of highpriests

310 THE SAMARITANS
What has been said concerning the Midrashic compo
nents of the Book of Joshua is sufficient to show the un-
historic character of that material; much of it comes down
from the Hellenistic period, but has no independent au
thority for the history of the Samaritans, as it is almost
entirely borrowed or imitated from Jewish legends.
As to foreign sources, our chroniclers follow the ex
ample of the chronographers in inserting notices of events
of universal history: thus they observe the rise of sects,
like Judaism and Christianity, make mention of contem
porary philosophers like Ptolemy. But these references,
as Vilmar judges,77 do not depend upon original Samar
itan chronicles or traditions, but ignorantly and ineptly
borrow from various late chronicles of the Jews, Chris
tians, and Moslems. Josephus b. Gorion seems to have
been the medium of much of the Jewish history, and in part
Eutychius was relied upon. Only for the period of the
Samaritan revival in the IVth and Vth Centuries does there
appear to be any genuine native tradition, although even
here the chronology is sadly confused, showing that only
certain brief stretches of history were preserved by tradi
tion. For the ages of Islam in which we no longer have
the guidance of Abu'l Fath, the chronicles are vague and
intermittent, as evinced in the Chapter devoted above to
the Islamic period.
If then the historian comes to the Samaritan chronicles
with any large expectations, he is bound to be disap
pointed. They throw almost no light on universal history,
add nothing to our scanty knowledge of the beginnings of
the Samaritans and of the first six centuries of their exist
ence, at the best but illuminate the cruel history of the
Byzantine period, and give much insipid gossip on events of
from the time of Mohammed to 1853 in the supplement to Codex
A of Abu'l Fath, given by Vilmar, p. lxxviii.
77 I refer to his excellent treatment of Abu'l Fath's sources, p. lxxxv.

THE CHRONICLES 31 1
generally small importance. The Samaritans are certainly
at the extreme of the oriental lack of historic sense, and
the study of their annals provokes us to name them in the
language of the Sirachide, " the foolish people that dwell at
Shechem." Yet the remains of Samaritan literature in
other fields must make us hesitate to condemn them too
severely. We have to remember that between the period
of their bloom and the date of the first extant known
chronicle lie some six centuries. What of their earlier his
torical material has been lost, we do not know ; it is possible
that future finds may improve our opinion of their histor
ical ability. The insipid traditions of the ignorant and
debased community have preserved just such legends as
please the ecclesiastical appetite of a provincial sect,
whose life was intentionally lived apart from the world.
Indeed we must bear in mind that what we possess are
ecclesiastical annals, framed upon a theological scheme of
history, and with the desire to edify ; hence we have not to
expect history in our sense of the word. When at last the
keen Arabic spirit of historical research infected the Sa
maritans, so worthy and honest a chronicler as Abu'l Fath
had little more to build upon than a residuum of inane
tradition. §12. SCIENTIFIC WORKS.
Following the example of Jewish scholars, the Samar
itans felt the necessity of philological study, especially for
the conservation of their sacred language. Hence Abu
Said, probably the same as the translator of the Pentateuch,
wrote his Canons of the Scripture, to correct certain mis
pronunciations of its language. The largest grammatical
work is that of Abu Ischak Ibrahim ibn Faraj (surnamed
"the Sun of the Sages"), of the Xllth Century. The
work, called the Tautia, a technical Arabic name, embraces
164 MS pages, but is incomplete and disproportionate in

312 THE SAMARITANS
its treatment. These two books show a slight dependence
upon the Jewish grammarians. An abstract of the sec
ond work exists, in the Leyden MS that contains both, com
posed by Eleazar ben Phineas, who died in 1387.78 Two
MSS of lexical character exist; one is at Christ's College,
Cambridge, composed by a Phineas, who was either the
father or the successor of the aforesaid Eleazar, the other,
which is at Paris, being a dictionary of the Hebrew of the
Pentateuch, with the Arabic and Samaritan arranged along
therewith in parallel columns. The two are said to corre
spond closely. Their MS dates are 1774 and 1476.79
The exigencies of the church year required sufficient
astronomical science to calculate the calendar in advance
for a certain term ; this was necessary in order to bring the
ancient lunar year into agreement with the solar year,
which latter governed the course of the Hebrew sacred
seasons. It was, as in the Jewish church, the duty of the
priesthood to make such calculations and to publish the re
sults among their coreligionists. As a rule these calen
dars appear to have been sent out semi-annually. In their
European correspondence the Samaritans exhibited a pain
ful anxiety in stating their reckonings to their " Brethren "
and in inquiring after the calendar of the latter. Several
such calendars have been published, and much material of
the same kind'exists in MS form.80
In the sphere of physical science the Samaritans pro-
78 See Noldeke's description of these works in Ueber einige samari-
tanisch-arabische Schriften, die hebridische Sprache betreffend,, 1862,
containing text and translation of Abu Said's treatise. Geiger has
published extracts of Ibrahim's work in ZDMG xvii, 723. Comp.
Nutt, Sam. Targ. 148.
79 See Nutt, Sam. Targ. 150. Harkavy, ibid. 161, states that the
lacunas in the Paris lexicon may now be filled out from MSS in St.
Petersburg. 80 Tables have been published by 'Scaliger, De emendatione temporum,
657 (ed. 1629) ; de Sacy, N. et E. 135 (153) 5 Heidenheim, BS iii,
Beilagen, vi-viii. Cf. N. et E., 34; BS iii, p. xxxvi; Nutt, Sam.
Targ. 145. For the MS material, see Journal asiatique, xiv, 467;
Harkavy, in Nutt, 162; JE x, 680.

SCIENTIFIC WORKS 313
duced several physicians of note whose works find a place
in Arabic literature. One of these was Sadaka ibn Mu-
najja ibn Sadaka, mentioned above, who wrote a commen
tary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates. Another was Mu-
hadhdhib ad-Din Yusuf ibn Abu Said ibn Kalaf. The
latter had a nephew Abu'l Chasan ibn Gazal ibn Abu Said,
who wrote on many subjects connected with natural his
tory and was famous for his great library; he accepted
Islam. Also Muwaffik ad-Din, another physician, wrote a
commentary on the Canon of Avicenna. All these writers
flourished in the XHIth Century, and some of them are
known to have been connected with Damascus and its
court.81 § 13. RESUME OF THE LITERARY ACTIVITY OF THE SA
MARITANS.
The earliest literary monument of the Samaritans is
their edition of the Pentateuch. In view of the frequent
agreements with the Greek version and from the intrinsic
excellence of many of the readings, we cannot doubt that
it exhibits evidence of a comparatively early text. When
we read in the Talmud of the Samaritan falsifications in
the Law, it would seem that these had been long estab
lished, and accordingly we may judge that the Samaritan
Pentateuch in its original form well antedates the formula
tion of a final text on the part of the Jewish church in
Jerusalem. The Samaritan edition then goes back at least
to the time of the pre-Christian centuries, when, as the
Greek text shows, for example in the last chapters of Ex
odus, the text of the Law was still in flux.
This monument, important as it is to scholarship, is
81 See Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 56 ; Nutt, Sam. Targ. 138, and the refer
ences in these places, especially Wiistenfeld, Geschichte d. arabischen
Aerzte, 121. A number of medical fragments are said to be contained
in the' St. Petersburg collection; see Harkavy, in Nutt, 163.

314 THE SAMARITANS
however no indication of any literary activity on the part
of the Samaritans in the first centuries of their community's
existence, as the work was borrowed from the Jews, and
the activity amounted to falsification. For other traces of
pre-Christian theological literature we look in vain, al
though it cannot be denied that at the basis of much of the
liturgy lies material which goes back at least to the begin
ning of our era; this is rendered probable by the corre
spondences traced in a former Chapter between the primi
tive Samaritan theology and the doctrines of early Juda
ism, especially in the fields of eschatology and Messianism.
The literary activity of the Samaritans may be divided
into three periods, each of which was controlled and stimu
lated by external conditions. These are namely, the Greek,
the Aramaic, and the Arabic periods.
A. THE GREEK PERIOD.
The first stimulus to a Samaritan literature appears to
have been on Egyptian soil, where the necessity of apology
toward Jews and Gentiles gave origin to a literature which
was a reflex of the contemporary Jewish writings of the
same character. Under Section 5 above have been indi
cated the slight traces we possess of a Hellenistic litera
ture; to this is to be added that Midrashic material, doubt
less of Egyptian Aramaic origin, which, as we have seen,
underlay the original Book of Joshua. We may conceive
that this activity of the Egyptian Diaspora was looked
upon askance by the home-church, even as in Judaism, and
that Samaria was little affected by the efforts of the ex
iled litterateurs.
B. THE ARAMAIC PERIOD.
So far as we are able to give any chronology, this period
had its beginnings with the renascence which took place
in the IVth Century, the age which is indissolubly con-

LITERARY SURVEY 315
nected in Samaritan tradition with the fame of Baba
Rabba. The movement was one that followed after, and
was a close parallel to, the Rabbinic activity which re
sulted in the Targums and Talmuds. To this period, and
as its greatest monument, we have to assign the Samar
itan Targum; vernacular Semitism was again raising its
head against Hellenic influence, and asserted to itself the
right of translating into the vernacular the obsolete He
brew of the Scriptures. As contemporary of the great Sa
maritan reformer, Marka also appears in the IVth Cen
tury, and he remains the most prolific and influential writer,
both in theology and in liturgical composition. The Ara
maic period lasted down towards the Xlth Century, when
at last we find the Arabic influence in the ascendant.
C. THE ARABIC PERIOD.
The conquests of Islam disorganized the life of the Sa
maritan community and diminished whatever strength and
spirit it possessed, so that it was long before the new em
pire exerted any beneficial effects upon the intellectual ac
tivity of the sect. But in the Xlth Century Abu'l Chasan
of Tyre, while writing hymns in the Aramaic, which seems
to have been already obsolete, took the first steps towards
the rendering of the Law in the language of the con
querors, and also, along with other writers, composed trea
tises upon the native laws. In the following century ap
peared the grammatical work of Ibrahim ibn Faraj, and
the theological compositions of such men as Munajja. In
the Xlllth Century was published Abu Said's classical and
authoritative Arabic version of the Scriptures. The ex
tensive Midrashic Book of Joshua was compiled about the
same time. In the XlVth Century, which Cowley con
siders the age of " a sort of renascence of Samaritan lit
erature," we have the only real historical work coming
from a Samaritan, that of Abu'l Fath, and also the bios-

316 THE SAMARITANS
soming of a rich liturgical activity, which has continued to
our own time but with accelerating degeneracy. As late as
the XVIIIth Century theological literature flourished; we
may instance the commentary of Gazal ibn Abu(l) Sarur.
Since that time no important work has appeared, a cessa
tion which is symptomatic of the moribund condition of the
community. In the Arabic period the priestly family at Nablus was
a school of learning, at least of that very conservative or
der which perpetuates meagre annals; it was also the home
of liturgical composition. But the real intellectual centres
of the sect were in Egypt and at Damascus. While the
Toledas are of native origin, the Book of Joshua hails from
Egypt ; the version ascribed to Abu Said also seems to have
been of Egyptian origin.82 To Damascus doubtless be
longed the grammarian Ibrahim ibn Faraj, at least his
scholastic connections would assign him to that city;
there also flourished Munajja and the several physician-
theologians. This famous centre of Islamic culture be
came the centre of Samaritan science, as Egypt had been
of the Midrashic literature of the sect.
82 Juynboll, Orientalia, ii, 116; Bloch, Sam. -arab. Pentateuchuber-
setzung, 16.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
A. THE NAME " SAMARIA."
The Assyrian form of Shomeron, ynoVf- is Samerina,
appearing first in Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions (Layard,
66, 18) ; the Aramaic is Shamerain, the Greek ~Za.ixa.pia
"tafiapeia. The relation of the Hebrew form to those given
by foreign sources has not yet been explained. The
Hebrew o in the first syllable is certainly secondary, the
foreign renderings preserving the original vowel a. As
for the final syllable, both -ain and -on (also -un) are fre
quent terminations in Palestinian place-names, and the two
suffixes may be understood as original alternatives of the
name. Or -on may have arisen from -an, the latter by dis
traction also undergoing a parallel change into -ain, -en.
Winckler has suggested that -on (= -un) and -ain are re
lated to one another as case-endings.
As for the foundation of the city, it must be assumed
that the hill of Shemer was an ancient settlement, and that
Omri bought from the clan inhabiting it the land he re
quired for his buildings and fortifications; see Stade, Der
Name der Stadt Samariens und seine Herkunft, ZATW
v, 165. Compare David's transaction with Arauna the
Jebusite, 2 Sam. 24. Shemer seems to have been a wide
spread clan-name, appearing as a clan of the tribe of Levi,
1 Ch. 6, 31, and of Benjamin, 8, 12, while Shimron is a
family of Issachar, Gen. 46, 13, etc., and a town in Zebu
lun, Jos. 11, 1, etc. This is vocalized in Jos. 12, 20 by
Cod. A. as Samron (cf. 19, 15), which would be the same
as the original form of Omri's foundation. Thus more
than one town " Samaria " existed on the early map, while
317

318 THE SAMARITANS
a number of places with the same root are found in the
Old Testament and on the modern map, e.g. Shamir, the
modern Sumrk, in Juda. The name then is more probably
a derivation from a widespread tribe-name, than a local
designation, as G. A. Smith suggests, rendering Shomeron
as Wartburg, Watch Tower (HG 346). The Greek form
recognizes the unessential and variable character of the last
syllable in the Hebrew word. Only in some MSS to 1 Ki.
16, 24 and 2 Esdras 4, 10, do we find the Massoretic form
imitated. B. TH"E NAMES OF THE SAMARITANS.
The Samaritans usurp for themselves the theocratic name
of Israel. They allow themselves to be called Samaritans
only with a play upon the word. The word they use is
Samerim, not the Old Testament Shomeronim, 2 Ki. 17,
29, which they never employ. Doubtless the word is the
ancient gentilic for the place of Shemer; cf. the origin of
Ha/xapela from the latter, not from Shomeron. Samerim
is the Samaritan equivalent of the Hebrew shomerim, " ob
servers," and it is in this sense the Samaritans use the
word of themselves ; thus, " We observe the holy Law and
are called Observers," N. et E. 163 (175), or because they
" observe " the Sabbath, ibid. This interpretation is an
cient. There is a reference to it in the Jewish antagonist's
assertion that " there are no keepers of the Law here "
(Choi. 6a; above, p. 191), and possibly in 2 Chron. 13, 11.
It is frequently alluded to in the Fathers; e.g. Origen,
Homil. in Ezech. ix, 1 (Migne xiii, 73) ; Eusebius, Chron.
ii, ann. 1270; Jerome, Epitaph. Paulce, 6 (M. xxii, 887);
Epiphanius, Hceres, i, 9 ; etc.
Perhaps because of this interpretation the Jews rarely
call their rivals Samaritans; exceptions are found in Aboda
Zara Jer. 44d; Bereshit R. c. 32, etc. But they apply to
them the opprobrious term Kuthim, as though they were

ADDITIONAL NOTES 319
identical with the colony imported from Babylon. No sat
isfactory explanation has been given for the choice of this
special name; the Kuthites may have been the most im
portant colony, Sanballat may have been of Kuthite origin
(so Josephus), etc. The Samaritan explanation of this
Jewish epithet is that their ancestors, returning from exile,
came into a certain valley named Kutha (Abu'l Fath, 81).
The name preferred by Josephus for the sect is, very ap
propriately, Shechemites. In this connection may be dis
cussed the name which Josephus alleges was used by the
Samaritans of themselves in the time of the Antiochian
persecution, AJ xii, 5, 5, — that of Sidonians. Michaelis
would derive the connection from an assumed Kutha near
Sidon (Juynboll, Hist. Sam. 35). I would suggest that
the name arose from the attempt of Pagan Samaritans or
renegade members of the sect to dissociate themselves from
the unpopular Israelites, by connecting Samaria with the
Phoenician Ci\xrmrs. (Cumur, Simirra; perhaps modern Su-
mura), appearing in Gen. 10, 18 in the gentilic Qemari and
in the Greek thereto as Sa/tapcibs.
C. THE FIRE-PURIFICATIONS OF THE SAMARITANS.
In Lib. Jos., c. xlvii, sub fin., the plea is made to Hadrian
that the Samaritans " are accustomed to kindle a fire wher
ever a stranger has passed." An interesting illustration
of this is given by Clermont-Ganneau (Journal des savants,
ii, 41), who adduces the following quotation from An-
tonin de Plaisance, circa 600 A. C. (Gelzer, Itinera Hiero-
solymitana, 164) : Descendentes per campestria, ciuitates
uel uicos Samaritanorum ; et per plateas, unde transuimus
siue nos siue Iudaei, cum paleias (sic) vestigia nostra in-
cendentes; tanta illis est execratio utrisque. A reference
to the same custom is doubtless contained in the imperial
prohibition against the Samaritans burning or destroying
anything with fire, cited above, p. 112. This is the most

320 THE SAMARITANS
unique custom the Samaritans possess, and I cannot trace its
origin except to the universal idea of the purifying power
of fire; cf. Is. 4, 4; Mt. 3, 11. According to Biruni
(de Sacy, Chrest. arabe, i, 305) the Samaritan religion is
a compound of Judaism and Magism ; the latter imputation
may refer to these fire-practices, but probably better to the
legend of Simon Magus. Taglicht adduces (Die Kuthder,
8) a Talmudic passage, Taanit, 5b, where the Kutim are
called fire-worshippers, but he holds that the context de
mands Q«n3, " the people of Kittim."
D. THE ALLEGED DOVE-CULT OF THE SAMARITANS.
The leading question in the early investigation of the
Samaritans concerned the ancient allegation of the Jews
that the Samaritans worshipped a dove on Gerizim.
Huntington's inquiry on this point was regarded as an in
sult by the Samaritans ; upon the beginning of the de Sacy
correspondence Jewish informants still made the same
charge against the sect (N. et E. nos. 1 and ii; see in
general de Sacy's introduction to the volume, and Fried
rich, De Christologia Samaritanorum; Appendicula de co-
lumba dea Samaritanorum). The accusation is now gen
erally regarded as a sheer calumny, and the question has
become one chiefly of archaeological interest:' What could
have been the origin of the charge?
The Talmudic assertion of the accusation belongs to the
IVth Century (see above, p. 169). In the interpretation
given by Sanhedrin, 63b, of the deities worshipped by the
colonists of 2 Ki. 17, no reference to the dove is found,
although the deities are all zoologically explained. The
Fathers are entirely silent on this score. The only point
in Samaritan tradition which is in the least degree perti
nent is the legend, Lib.Jos. c. 1, concerning a brazen bird
placed by the Romans on Gerizim, which on the approach
of a Samaritan cried ibri, i.e. " Hebrew," thus warning the

ADDITIONAL NOTES 32 1
guards. But this is a tradition concerning some mechan
ical oracle, of a kind witnessed to for antiquity. Reland,
in his dissertation De monte Garizim, has carefully exam
ined all the evidence concerning the ancient dove-cult.
Selden, De dis Syris, syntag. ii, c. 3, sub Un., made the
happy suggestion that the cult must have been that of the
goddess Semiramis; cf. Diodorus Sic, ii, 20; Lucian, Dc
dea Syria, c. 14; also Tibullus i, 8: Alba Palaestino sacra
columba. Ronzevalle has recently followed up Seidell's
theory with a very interesting identification. In his ar
ticle, Inscription bilingue de Deir el-Qala'a, in Revue arche-
ologique, 1893, p. 29, he has put forth much evidence for
the existence of a goddess, Sima or Shima, whom he iden
tifies on the one hand with Semiramis, on the other hand
with the Ashima of 2 Ki. 17. He suggests therefore that
the Jewish accusation against the Samaritans may go back
to the actual cult of the Hamathite deity Semiramis, under
the form of a dove, practised by the Hamathite colony in
Samaria. On the other hand this cult may have been in
troduced much later, in the age of Hadrian or subsequent
syncretizing emperors. But to sum up, there is nothing to
show for the legend that the Samaritan sect itself ever
worshipped the dove. ADDENDUM.
To p. 19. W. Max Miiller thinks it probable that
Shechem (Skmm) should be read in the narrative of a
Syrian campaign of Usertesen III. of the XHth Dynasty;
see Orientalistische Litter atur-Zeitung, 1903, col. 448.
21

SAMARITAN BIBLIOGRAPHY.
(This list is necessarily confined, with some few excep
tions, to books and articles dealing particularly with Samari
tan subjects. General works, Histories, Introductions, etc.,
have been cited above in proper place.)
Abbot, Ezra : In Smith's Bible Dictionary, Amer. ed.
1872-3, s. v. Samaritan Pentateuch.
Adler, E. N. and Seligsohn, M. : Une nouvelle chro
nique samaritaine. — REJ 1902, Apn-1903, Jan.; in
extract, Paris, 1903.
Almkvist, H. : Ein samaritanischer Brief an Konig
Oscar. In Skrifter utgifna af k. human. Vetens-
kapssamfundet i Upsala, vol. v, No. 2. Upsala, 1897.
(With facsimile, and an alphabetic table by Euting.)
Appel, M. : Qucestiones de rebus Samaritanorum sub im
perio Romano peractis. Breslau, 1874.
Baneth, H. : Des Samaritaners Marqah an die 22 Buch-
staben den Grundstock der hebrdischen Sprache
anknupfende Abhandlung. Heft i. Berlin, 1888.
Barges, J. J. L. : Les Samaritains de Naplouse. Episode
d'une pelerinage dans les lieux saints. Paris, 1855.
(Appeared originally in Revue de V Orient, i (1855),
81.)
 Notice sur deux fragments d'un Pentateuqe hebreu-
samaritain. Paris, 1865. (Noticed by Vilmar,
ZDMG xxi, 288.)
Barton, W. E. : The Samaritan Pentateuch. — Biblio-
theca Sacra, lx (1903), 601. (With a list of the
MSS at Nablus.) 322

BIBLIOGRAPHY 323
 History and Religion of the Samaritans. By
Jacob, son of Amram, High Priest of the Samaritans
at Shechem. — Bibliotheca Sacra, lxxvi (1906), 385.
(To be continued; written by present highpriest in
1885.)
(Bengers, T.) : Samaritan and Syriack Alphabets with
a Praxis to each. London, 1814.
Berens, B. : Gentis Samaritana historiam et ceremonias
proponit. Halle, 1694.
Bernard, E; : Excerpta. In Acta eruditorum Lipsien-
sium, 1 69 1. (Chronological summary of Abu'l Fath,
and table of highpriests. Bernard gave the transla
tion of the Epistle of 1672 appearing in Ludolf, Epis-
tolce Samaritance.)
Bjornstahl, J. J.: Ueber eine samaritanische Triglotte
in der Barberinischen Bibliothek. — Eichhorn's Reper
torium, iii (1778), 84.
Blau, O. : Der Dekalog in einer samaritanischen Inschrift
aus dem Tempel des Garizim. — ZDMG xiii (1859),
275. (With notes by Rodiger.)
Blayney, B. : Pentateuchus Hebrceo-Samaritanus. Ox
ford, 1790.
Bloch, J. S. : Die samaritanisch-arabische Pentateuch-
ubersetzung Deut. i-xi nach Handschriften und Noten.
Berlin, 1901.
Bowring, J. : Samaria and the Samaritans. London,
i837- *
Bruell, A. : Das samaritanische Targum sum Penta
teuch. With Kritische Studien iiber samaritanische
Manuscript-Fragmente des samaritanischen Targums
in Oxford. Frankfurt, 1875.
 Zur Geschichte und Literatur der Samaritaner.
Frankfurt, 1876.
Bruns, P. J. : Epistola samaritana Sichemitarum tertia

324 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ad Iobum Ludolfum. Helmstadt, 1781. Republished
in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xiii (1783), 277.
Ueber die Samariter. In Staudlin's Beytrdge sur

Philosophie und Geschichte der Religion und Sitten-
lehre, i, 78. Lubeck, 1797.
Buechler, A. : Les Dositheens dans le Midrasch. — REJ
xlii, 220; xliii, 50.
Burton, H. : Christ and the Samaritans. — Expositor,
1877, p. 186.
Capellus, L. : Diatriba de veris et antiquis Hebrceorum
Uteris. 1645.
Castellus, E. : (editor of the Samaritan Targum in the
London Polyglot, with Animadversiones, vol. vi.)
 Lexicon heptaglotton, etc. Cum omnium gram-
maticis. London, 1669.
Cellarius (Zeller), C. : Horoe samaritance, hoc est, ex-
cerpta Pentateuchi Samaritance versionis . . . etiam
Grammatica Samaritana. Zeitz, 1682; 2d ed. 1705.
¦  Collectanea historia Samaritance quibus prceter res
geographicas, tarn politia hujus gentis, quam religio
et res litter aria explicantur. Zeitz, 1688; also in Ugo-
lini, Thesaurus, xxii.
 Historia gentis et religionis Samaritance. Halle,
l6"' Exercitatio, gentis Samaritance historiam et cceri-

monias, post ejusdem auctoris collectanea histories Sa
maritance, rnagis illustrans. Halle, 1707. (An edi
tion of Cellarius's works was published by Walch,
Leipzig, 1 712.)
Clermont-Ganneau, C. : Extrait d'une lettre de M. C.
G  relative aux resultats de ses excursions; in
Comptes rendus des premiers resultats de ses excur
sions. In Comptes rendus de I' Academic des Inscrip
tions et Belles Lettres. Ser. iv. vol. ix (1881), 186.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 325
 Rapports sur une mission en Palestine et en Phe-
nicie entreprise en 1881. In Archives des missions sci-
entifiques et litteraires. Ser. iii. vol. ix (1882), 292;
vol. xi (1885), 211 (with plate). (These three ar
ticles report the first Emmaus inscription.)
— Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine. — Journal des
Savants, ii (1904), 34. (Review of Adler and Selig-
sohn.) Inscription samaritaine de Gasa, etc. — Revue bib

lique, 1906, p. 84.
Cohn, N. : Die Zaraath-Gesetze der Bibel nach dem
Kitab al-Kafi des Jusuf Ibn Salamah. Frankfurt,
1899.
Conder, C. R. : Samaritan Topography. — PEFQS 1876,
p. 182.
 Samaritan Customs. — Ibid. 1887, p. 233.
 and Kitchener, H. H. : Survey of Western
Palestine Memoirs. Vol. ii. Samaria. London, 1882.
Cowley, A. E. : The Samaritan Liturgy, and Reading
of the Law. — JQR vii (1894), 121.
 The Samaritan Doctrine of the Messiah. — Expos
itor, 1895, p. 161.
 Some Remarks on Samaritan Literature and Reli
gion. — JQR viii (1896), 562.
 in Encyclopedia Biblica, s. vv. Samaria, Samari
tans (1903).
 Description of Four Samaritan Manuscripts Be
longing to the Palestine Exploration Fund. — PEFQS
1904, p. 67.
 Samaritana. I. Samaritan Dealings with the Jews
based on Samaritan Fragments from Cairo Genizas.
II. An Alleged (early) Copy of the Samaritan Penta
teuch.— JQR xvi (1904), 474-
 /I Supposed Early Copy of the Samaritan Penta-

326 BIBLIOGRAPHY
teuch. — PEFQS 1904, p. 394. (On the same MS as
the previous article.)
In JE (1905), s. v. Samaritans.

Crane, O. T. : The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of
Joshua. New York, 1890 (Alden, pub.).
| Crinesius, C. : Lingua Samaritica ex Scriptura sacra
Udeliter eruta. Altdorf (undated).
Curtiss, S. I. : in Primitive Semitic Religion To-day.
Chicago, 1902. App. F. : The Samaritan Passover.
(Description by an educated Syrian of the Passover
in 1900.)
Deutsch, E. : in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Eng. ed., s. v.
Samaritan Pentateuch.
Drabkin : Fragmenta commentarii ad Pentateuchum
Samaritano-Arabici sex. Breslau, 1875.
Dresde, F. W. : De usu Pentateuchi Samaritani ad
emendandam lectionem Hebr. 1783.
Eckstein : Geschichte und Bedeutung der Stadt Sichem.
Berlin, 1886.
Emmerich, L. : Das Siegeslied, eine Schrifterkldrung des
Samaritaners Marqah. Berlin, 1897.
Euting, J. : Epigraphische Miscellen. In Sitzungsbe-
richte der Preussischen Akademie, 1885, p. 679 (treat
ing of Emmaus inscription).
Falconer, R. A. : Is 2d Peter a Genuine Epistle to the
Churches of Samaria? — Expositor, 1902, p. 459.
Freudenthal, J. : Alexander Polyhistor und die von
ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer und samaritanischer
Geschichtswerke. Breslau, 1875.
Friedrich, G. C. : Discussionum de christologia Samari
tanorum liber. Accedit appendicula de columba dea
Samaritanorum. Leipzig, 1821.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 327
Fuerst, J. : Zur Differens zwischen Juden und Samari-
tanern. — ZDMG xxxv (1881), 132.
von Gall, A. : Ankilndigung einer neuen Ausgabe des
hebrdischen Pentateuchs der Samaritaner. — ZATW
xxvi (1906), 293.
Garratt (Canon): The Samaritan Pentateuch. — Journ.
Trans, of Victoria Institute, xxxvi, 197.
Gaster, M. : A Samaritan Scroll of the Hebrew Penta
teuch. — PSBA xxii (1900), 240.
 The Hebrew Illuminated Letters of the IXth and
Xth Centuries, and a Samaritan Scroll of the Xlth
Century. 8 Plates in gold and colors. 1901.
Geiger, A. : Zur Theologie und Schrifterkldrung der Sa
maritaner. — ZDMG xii (1858), 132.
 Neuere Mittheilungen iiber die Samaritaner. —
ZDMG xvi (1862), 714 (criticism of DVJ i) ; xviii,
590; 813 (with revised text and translation of Prayer
of Ab-Gelugah) ; xix, 601; xx, 143; xxi, 169 (text
and translation of Litany of Marka) ; xxii, 528.
 Die hebrdische Grammatik bei den Samaritanern. —
ZDMG xvii (1863), 718.
¦  Samaritanische Lesarten in der Halachah. — JZW
iv, 42.
— — - (Interpretation of " Libonsean.") — JZW v, 115.
Die gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Samarita

nern und Juden. — ZDMG xx ( 1866), 527.
Gesenius, W. : De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole
et auctoritate commentatio philologica-critica. Halle,
l8l5-
 De Samaritanorum theologia ex fontibus ineditis
commentatio. Halle, 1823.
 Carmina Samaritana e codicibus Londinensibus et
Gothanis (Anecdota orientalia, fasc. i). Leipzig,
1824.

328 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gottheil, R. : Syriac and Assyrian. — Hebraica, iii
(1887), 187.
 The Method of Dating Samaritan Manuscripts. —
JBL xxv (1906), 29.
Grimm, J. : Die Samariter und ihre Stellung in der
Welt geschichte. Munich, 1854.
Grove, G. : Nabloos and the Samaritans, in F. Galton,
Vacation Tourists, p. 336. London, 1862.
Gruenbaum, M. : Zu Awarta. — ZDPV vi (1883), 195.
 Nachtrdgliches su Nabulus und Garizim. — ZDPV
vii (1884), 131.
Guerin, M. V. : Description geographique, historique
et archeologique de la Palestine: 2me partie, Samarie.
Paris, 1875.
Halevy, J. : Melanges de critique et d'histoire. Paris,
1883. (No. xv on " Libonaean.")
Hall, I. H. : On a Manuscript Fragment of the Sa
maritan Pentateuch. — JAOS xi (1885), Proc. p. lxix.
Hamaker, H. : Aanmerkingen over de Samaritanen, en
hunne Briefwisslung mit eenige Europesche Geleer-
den: ter Gelegenheid von eenen nog onbekenden Sa-
maritaanschen .Brief. In Ar chief von Kerkelijke
Geschiedenis, v. Amsterdam, 1834.
Hamburger, J. : In REJud vols, i, ii, s. v. Samaritaner.
Hammond : The Samaritan Passover of the Year 1861. —
Journ. Trans, of Victoria Institute, xxxvi, 213.
Hanover, S. : Das Festgesets der Samaritaner nach Ibra
him ibn Jakub. Edition und Uebersetzung seines
Komm<entars zu Lev. 23. Berlin, 1904.
Harkavy, A. J.: The Collection of Samaritan MSS
at St. Petersburg. Appendix to Nutt, Sam. Targ.,
1874.
 Catalog der hebrdischen und samaritanischen
Handschriften der kais. dffentl. Bibliothek in St.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

329

Petersburg. Vol. ii. Die samaritanischen Penta-
teuchhandschriften. Theil i. St. Petersburg, 1875.
(In Russian.)
Heidenheim, M. : Untersuchung uber die Samaritaner. —
DVJ 1,9; 374.
 Schreiben Meschalmah ben Ab Sechuah's an die
Samaritaner. — DVJ i, 78.
 Die Literatur der Samaritaner. — DVJ i, 279; 421.
 Eine samaritanische Hymne. — DVJ i, 290.
 Ueber den Gebrauch von \i~\W und "HIM. — DVJ
i, 406.
 Fragmente des Pentateuchs in der samaritanischen
Liturgie. Genesis. — DVJ i, 563.
Der Traum des Priesters Abischa. — DVJ ii, 81.

(Cf. Petermann, Gramm., Chrestom. 24.)
 Gebet Ab Gelugah's. — DVJ ii, 213.
 Appendix zu Gesenius' Carmina Samaritana.
— DVJ ii, 460.
 Die Litanei Markas. — DVJ ii, 472.
 Nachrichten iiber die Samaritaner aus einem hand-
schriftlichen Reisejournale aus dem 15. Jahrhundert. —
DVJ iii, 354-
 Samaritanische Passahlieder. — DVJ iii, 357; 475.
 Wer war Symmachus? — DVJ iii, 463.
 Der Dekalog in der samaritanischen Liturgie. —
DVJ iii, 486.
 Des Hohenpriesters Pinchas Gebet fur die samari
tanische N eumondsf eier . — D VJ iii, 488.
 Samaritanische Festhymnen. — DVJ iv, no. (In
cluding the Midrash des Priesters Abraham, and the
Midrash des Priesters Tobiahs.)
 Zur Logoslehre der Samaritaner. — DVJ iv, 126.
 Bemerkungen zu den Legenden Mosis. — DVJ iv,
212. (Notes to Leitner's translation.)

330 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Gebete der samaritanischen Hohenpriester Markah
und Amram. — DVJ iv, 237.
 Erkldrungen schwieriger Stellen des samarita
nischen Targums. — DVJ iv, 247.
 Die samaritanische Chronik des Hohenpriester s
Elasar aus dem 11. Jahrhundert, ubersetzt und er
klart. — DVJ iv, 347. (The same as the Chronicle
Neubauer, published two years earlier, and unknown
to Heidenheim. A Beilage gives a comparison of the
highpriestly tables in this chronicle and in Abu'l Fath.)
 Gebete des Flohenpriesters Amram. — DVJ iv, 390.
(Three hymns with text and translation.)
 Zur samaritanischen Angelologie und Astrologie.
Ein samaritanische s Gebet. — DVJ iv, 544.
 Bibliotheca Samaritana: i. Die samaritanische
Pentateuch-Version. Die Genesis . . . unter Benutz-
ung der barberinischen Triglotte. Leipzig, 1884. ii.
Die samaritanische Liturgie. Leipzig, 1885. iii.
Der Commentar Marqah's des Samaritaners.
Weimar, 1896.
Ueber die Wichtigkeit der samaritanischen Litera

tur. In V erhandlungen der 2(). Versammlung
deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner in Zurich, 1887.
Leipzig, 1888; p. 148.
Hessey, J. A. : In Smith's Bible Dictionary, Eng. ed.,
s. v. Samaria.
Hildesheimer, M. : Marqah's Buch der Wunder nach
einer Berliner Handschrift. Berlin, 1898.
Hilgenfeld, A. : Der Taheb der Samariter, nach einer
neu auf gefundenen Urkunde. — Zeitschr. f. Wissen-
schaftl. Theologie, xxxvii (1894), 233. (With Nach-
trag, ibid. 1895, p. 156, acknowledging Heidenheim's
priority in publication of the hymn. )
Hilliger, J. W. : Summarium lingucc Aramcece i.e. Chal-
dceo-Syrosamaritance. Leipzig, 171 1 (?).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 33 1
Hoffmann, G. : Lexicalisches. pjn nrD und ins
nwia^ — zatw i (1881), p. 334. jtfo, rn^.iMd.
ii, S3-
Hottinger, J. H. : Exercitationes anti-M oriniance de
Pentateucho Samaritano. Zurich, 1644.
 Smegma orientale. Heidelberg, 1658. (P. 437,
discussion of Book of Joshua.)
Dissertationum theologico-philologicarum fascicu

lus iii: De translationibus Bibliorum in varias linguas
vernaculas. Zurich, 1660.
Houbigant, C. F. : Biblia Hebraica. Paris, 1753; 2d
ed., Frankfurt, 1774. (Containing Samaritan vari
ants. )
Hug, J. L. : Beitrage zur Geschichte des samaritanischen
Pentateuchs. — Freyburger Zeitschrift, 1834, No. vii.
Hupfeld, H. : . Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen alttestamentl.
Textgeschichte. — Theol. Studien und Kritiken, i
(1830), 247. (P. 289 for the Rabbinic names for the
Samaritan and Jewish scripts.)
Huxley, H. M. : in JE x, 1674. (On Samaritan an
thropology. )
Hwiid, A. C. : Specimen ineditce versionis Arabico-Sa-
maritance Pentateuchi e codice manuscripto Bibliothecce
Barberince. Rome, 1780.
Jastrow, M., Jr.: On Assyrian and Samaritan. — JAOS
xiii, Proc. p. cxlvi.
Juynboll, T. G. J. : Commentatio de versione Arabico-
Samaritana et de scholiis quo? codicibus Parisiensibus
no. 2 et 4 adscripta sunt. In Orientalia, ii, 115.
Amsterdam, 1846.
 Commentarii in historiam gentis Samaritance.
Leyden, 1846.
 Chronicon Samaritanum, arabice conscriptum, cui
titulus est Liber Josuce. Leyden, 1848.

332 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kahle, P. : Textcritische und lexicalische Bemerkungen
sum samaritanischen Pentateuchtargum. Leipzig,
1898.
 Fragmente des samaritanischen Pentateuchtargums,
herausgegeben und erldutert. — Zeitschrift f. Assyri-
ologie, xvi (1902), No. 1; xvii, No. 1.
 Die arabischen Bibeliibersetzungen. Texte mit

Glossar und Liter aturubersicht. Leipzig, 1904. (With
specimen of the Samaritan- Arabic Pentateuch, p. 25.)
Kautzsch, E. : in Riehm's Handworterbuch des bibl.
Alter thums, 1884, s. v. Samaritaner.
 in RE2 xiii (1884), .y. v. Samaritaner.
 in RE3 xvii (1906), ditto.
 Ein Brief des Hohenpriesters der Samaritaner
Ja'kub ibn Harun. — ZDPV viii (1885), 149.
Kennicott, S. : The State of the Printed Hebrew Text
of the Old Testament Considered: Dissertation the
Second, wherein the Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch
is vindicated, etc. Oxford, 1759.
 Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum. Oxford, 1776-
1780. (Giving Samaritan variants. Also see Disser-
tatio generalis, at end.)
Kirchheim, R. : Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hiero-
solymitani, quos nunc primum secundum M's e biblio-
theca clarissimi Carmolii edidit in eosque comment-
arium composuit. Frankfurt, 185 1. (In Hebrew,
and with Hebrew title-page.)
 Introductio in librum Talmudicum " de Samari-
tanis." Frankfurt, 1851. (In Hebrew with Hebrew
title-page: Karme Shomron, Contains historical
sketch of the Samaritans, with a letter of Luzzato on
the Samaritan script, a Hebrew translation of the Book
of Joshua, a reproduction of Gesenius's Carmina Sa
maritana, with independent notes, etc.)
Klumel, M. : Mischpatim. Ein samaritanisch-arabisch-

BIBLIOGRAPHY 333
er Commentar zu Ex. 21-22, 15 von Ibrahim ibn
Jakub. Berlin, 1902.
Knobel, A.: Zur Geschichte der Samaritaner. 1846.
Koenig, E. : in DB Extra Vol. 68, .?. v. Samaritan Pen
tateuch.
Kohn, S. : Beitrdge sur samaritanischen Pentateuch-
Uebersetsung und Lexicographic — MGWJ, 1856-
1857-
 De Pentateucho Samaritano ejusque cum versio-
nibus antiquis nexo dissertatio inauguralis. Leipzig,
1865.
 Samaritanische Studien, Breslau, 1868. (En
larged from the articles in MGWJ, 1856-7.)
 Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samari
taner. i. Aus einer Pessach-Haggadah der Samari
taner. ii. Das Samaritanische Targum. iii. Die
Petersburger Fragmente des samaritanischen Targum.
In Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
Leipzig, 1876. (Reviewed by Noldeke, ZDMG xxx,
343-)
 Zur neuesten Litteratur iiber die Samaritaner. —
ZLWGxxxix (1885), 165.
 Die samaritanische Pentateuchiibersetzung nach
der Ausgabe von Petermann und V oilers. — ZDMG
xlvii (1893), 626.
Samareitikon und Septuaginta. — MGWJ xxxviii

(1894), pp. 1, 49.
Krauss, S. : Dosithee et les Dositheens. — REJ xlii
(1900,27.
Kuenen, A. : Geneseos libri cap. xxxiv priora ex Ara-
bica Pentateuchi Samaritani versione. Leyden, 185 1.
(Dissertation for doctorate.)
 Liber Geneseos secundum Arabicam Pentateuchi
Samaritani versionem. Leyden, 185 1. Libri Exodi
et Levitici, etc. Leyden, 1854.

334 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lagrange, M. J. : Decouverte d'une inscription en char-
acteres samaritains a Amouas. — Revue illustree de la
Terre Sainte, 1890, p. 339. U inscription samaritaine
d' Amouas. Ibid. 1891, p. 83. (Announcement of
Lagrange's first Emmaus inscription.)
 Inscription samaritaine d'Amwas. — Revue biblique,
ii (1893), 114.
Lee, S. : Samaritan Hebrew text in Biblia Sacra Poly-
glotta. London, 1831.
Leitner : Die samaritanischen Legenden Mosis. Aus
der arab. Handschrift des Britischen Museums iiber-
setzt. — DVJ iv, 185.
Levysohn: (Russian translation, and facsimile, with in
troduction, of a Nablus MS of Ex. 20. Noticed by
Abbot, Smith's Bible Diet, iv, 2812.)
Lincke, K. : Samaria und seine Propheten. Tubingen,
1903.
Loewe, (E. ?) : Correspondence from Nablus, in All
gemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, iii (1839), Nos. 36,
39, 46, 47, 50, 56.
Loewy, A. : The Samaritans in Talmudical Writings. —
PSBA, 1879, Dec. p. n.
 An Account given by a Samaritan, in A. D. 1713,
of the Ancient Copy of the Pentateuch at Nablus. —
Ibid. p. 13. (Being a certification of a formal inspec
tion of the sacred codex.)
le Long- Bibliotheca Sacra. Paris, 1723. (P. 541,
translation of Kuenen's MS C of Arabic Pentateuch.)
Ludolf, J. : Epistolce Samaritance Sichemitarum ad
Jobum Ludolfum. Cum ejusdem Latina versione et
annotationibus. Accedit versio Latina persimilium
literarum a Sichemitis haud ita pridem ad Anglos
datarum. Zeitz, 1688.
(Ludovici, C. H.) : Targum Shomroni de Sepher Bere
shit. Halle, 1758. (Hebrew title. Contains Gen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 335
1-18 of the Sam. Pentateuch from the London Poly
glot, cc. 1-3 in Samaritan script.)
Ludwich, A. : De Theodoti carmine Grceco-Iudaico com
mentatio. Konigsberg, 1899.
Macewen: (a visit to the Samaritan Passover.) — Good
Words, 1894, p. 50.
Macler, F. : Note sur une nouvelle manuscript d'une
chronique samaritaine. — REJ 1905, p. 76.
Margoliouth, G. : Descriptive List of the Hebrew and
Samaritan MSS of the British Museum. London,
1893.
 An Ancient MS of the Samaritan Liturgy. —
ZDMG li (1897), 499.
 Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan MSS in
the British Museum. Part I. London, 1899.
An Early Copy of the Samaritan Hebrew Penta

teuch. — JQR xv (1903), 632.
Masclef, F. : Grammatica Hebraica. Accessunt tres
grammaticce, Chaldaica, Syriaca et Samaritana. 2d ed.
Paris, 1743.
Mazade, C. : Dissertation sur V origine, I'dge et I'etat
critique du Pentateuque samaritain. Geneva, 1830.
Merx, A. J. : Carmina Samaritana e codice Gothano. In
Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei; iii, 1, p. 550;
2, p. 161. Rome, 1887.
 Ein samaritanische s Fragment Uber den Ta'eb oder
Messias. In Actes du Huitieme Congres Interna
tional des Orientalistes tenu en 1889 a Stockholm et
a Christiania: lime par tie, section i, p. 119. Leyden,
i893-
 Samaritanisch. In Bansch-Drugulin, Marksteine
aus der Weltlitteratur. Leipzig, 1902. (Portion of
Passover liturgy, with transcription and interpreta
tion.)

336 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Millius, S. : De caussis odii Judceos inter atque Samari-
tanos. Leyden, 1743. (No. xiv. of Dissertationes
selectee. )
Mills, J. : Three Months Residence at Nablus, and an
Account of the Modern Samaritans. London, 1864.
(With account of the Passover.)
Montgomery, J. A. : Notes from the Samaritan. — JBL
xxv (1906), 49.
 Were the Samaritans Worthy or Unworthy? —
Sunday School Times, 1906, p. 383.
Moore, G. F. : On a Fragment of the Samaritan Penta
teuch in the Library of the Andover Theological Semi
nary. — JAOS xiv (1890), Proc. p. xxxv. (This MS
has since been removed.)
Morinus, J. : (in edition of the LXX, Paris, 1628, read
ings of the Samaritan Pentateuch.)
 Exercitationes ecclesiastics in utrumque Samari
tanorum Pentateuchum. De illorum religione et mori-
bus, etc. Paris, 1631.
 (Editor of Samaritan Pentateuch in Paris Poly
glot, 1645. But for the date, see v. Gall, ZATW*
1906, p. 293.)
 Opuscula Hebrceo-Samaritica. With Grammatica
Samaritana, and Lexicon Samaritanum. Paris, 1657.
translation of Samaritan Epistles to Scaliger,

posthumously published in R. Simon, Antiquitates ec-
clesice orientalis. London, 1682.)
Moulton, W. J. : The Samaritan Passover. — JBL xxii
(1903), 187.
 Das samaritanische Passahfest. — ZDPV xvii
(1904), 194.
de Muis, S. : Assertatio veritatis Hebraicce adversus J.
Morini Exercitationes. 163 1.
 Assertatio altera. 1634.
 Castigatio animadversionum Morini. 1639.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 337
Munk, E. : Des Samaritaners Marqah Ersdhlung uber
den Tod Mosis. Konigsberg, 1890.
Musil, A. : Sieben samaritanische Inschriften aus Da-
maskus. In Sitsungsberichte der kaiserl. Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Wien, cxlvii, i. Vienna, 1903.
Nestle, E. : Zu den samaritanischen Typen. — ZDMG
lvii (1903), 568.
Neubauer, A. : Chronique samaritaine, suivie d'un Ap-
pendice contenant de courts notices sur quelques autres
ouvrages samaritains. — Journal asiatique, 1869, 385.
(Reprinted in 1873 as extract No. 14.)
 Un commentaire samaritain inconnu (Genese i a
xxvii, 10). — Journal asiatique, 1873, 341. (Also in
reprint along with the preceding article.)
Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS in the Bodleian Li

brary and in the College Libraries of Oxford, in
cluding MSS in other Languages which are written
with Hebrew characters, .... and a few Samaritan
MSS. Oxford, 1886.
Neumann, W. : Studien iiber swei Blatter aus einer alten
samaritanischen Pentateuchhandschrift. In Abhand
lungen aus dem Jahrbuch der Leo-Gesellschaft, 1896.
Vienna, 1896. (Reviewed Am. Journ. Sem. Lang.,
xiii, 317.)
Nicholls, G. J. : A Grammar of the Samaritan Lan
guage, with Extracts and Vocabulary. London, 1858.
Nicoll, A. : Notitia codicis Samaritano-Arabici in Bib-
lioth. Bodl. adservati Pentateuchum complectentis.
Oxford, 1 81 7.
 and Pusey, W. : Bibliothecce Bodleiance codicum
manuscriptorum orientalium catalogus. Oxford, 1821-
l835- . .
Noeldeke, T. : Ueber einige samaritamsch-arabische
Schriften, die hebrdische Sprache betreffend. — Got-
22

338 BIBLIOGRAPHY
linger Gelehrte Nachrichten, Nos. 17, 20. 1862.
(Also in separate imprint.)
Nutt, J. W. : Fragments of a Samaritan Targum edited
from a Bodleian MS. With an introduction, contain
ing a Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and Liter
ature. London, 1874. (With an Appendix by Har
kavy. )
Otho, G. : Synopsis institutionum Samaritanorum, Rab-
binicarum, Atthiopicarum, et Persicarum. Frankfurt,
1702; 2d ed. 1717; 3d ed. 1735.
 Palcestra linguarum orientalium. Frankfurt, 1702.
(Gen. 1-4 is given in the Samaritan Hebrew and Sa
maritan Targum, the latter with Latin translation, and
a Samaritan glossary. The texts of the London Poly
glot are used.)
Paulus, H. E. G. : Commentatio critica exhibens e Bib-
liotheca Oxon Bodl. specimina versionum Pentateuchi
septem Arabicarum. 1789.'
 Zur Geschichte des samaritisch-arabischen Penta-
teuchs. In his Neues Repertorium, Jena, 1791.
Payne-Smith, R. : The Samaritan Chronicle of Abu'l
Fatch, the Arabic text from the MS in the Bodleian
Library with a literal English translation. — DVJ ii,
303, 431. (The publication was abandoned upon the
discovery that Vilmar published the whole text in that
year, 1865; see DVJ iv, 347.)
Petermann, J. H. : in RE1 s. v. Samaritaner (i860).
 Reisen im Orient, vol. i, Leipzig, i860. (P. 233,
Samaritan Passover ; p. 260, stay at Nablus. )
 Versuch einer hebrdischen Formenlehre nach der
Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner nebst einer dar-
nach gebildeten Transcription der Genesis. In Ab
handlungen f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes, v, No. 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Leipzig, 1868. (Reviewed by Noldeke, ZDMG xvii,
718.)
 Pentateuchus Samaritanus ad ftdem librorum Mss.
apud Nablusianos repertorum. Berlin, 1872-1891.
Genesis (1872) and Exodus (1882), by Petermann;
the remaining books were completed by K. Vol-
lers : Leviticus, 1883 ; Numbers, 1885 ; Deuteronomy,
1891. (This work gives the Samaritan Targum.)
Brevis linguae Samaritance grammatica, litteratura,

chrestomathia, cum glossario. (Porta Linguarum
Orientalium.) Carlsruhe and Leipzig, 1873.
Pick, B. : Horce Samaritance; Collection of Various Read
ings of the Samaritan Pentateuch Compared with
the Hebrew and other Ancient Versions.— Bibliotheca
Sacra, xxxiii (1876), 264; 533; xxxiv, 79; xxxv, 76;
309-
Plumptre, E. H. : The Samaritan Element in the Gos
pels and Acts. — Expositor, 1878, p. 22.
(Poncet, M.) : Nouveaux eclairecissements sur I' origine
et le Pentateuque des Samaritains. Paris, 1760.
Rappoport, S. : La liturgie samaritaine. Office du soir
des fetes. (Texte samaritain et traduction arabe.)
Precede d'une etude sur la liturgie samaritaine. Paris,
1900. (The preface alone has appeared.)
 Deux hymnes samaritains. — Journal asiatique,
1900, p. 289.
Ravis, C. : A Discourse of the Oriental Tongues, vis.
Ebrew, Samaritane, etc., together with a Grammar of
the said Tongues. London, 1649.
Reland, H. : Dissertationes: iii. De Monte Garisim; vii.
De Samaritanis. In Dissertationes miscellanea,
Utrecht, 1706; 2d ed. 1713. Also in Ugolini, Thesau
rus, vii; xxii.
 Dissertationes quatuor de nummis quibusdam vete-

340 BIBLIOGRAPHY
rum Hebrceorum qui ab inscriptarum literarum forma
Samaritani appellantur. Utrecht, 1706. (With a let
ter from J. B. Ott. A fifth dissertation published
under title : De nummis .... dissertationes quin-
que, Utrecht, 1709. These reprinted, with a sixth dis
sertation by R., and others by J. Harduin, J. Gagner,
in Ugolini, Thesaurus, (xxviii.)
Palsestina, vol. ii, s. v. Sichem, Utrecht, 1714;

2d ed. 1716.
Roediger, E. : (in Hallesche Allgemeine Literatur-Zeit-
ung, 1845, P- 658, giving Consul E. G. Schultz's
report of discovery of the Nablus Decalogue inscrip
tion, with plates.)
 Schlussbemerkung iiber die samaritanischen In
schriften. — ZDMG xiv (i860), 632. (See also
Blau. )
Rogers, E. T. : Notices of the Modern Samaritans, illus
trated by Incidents in the Life of Jacob esh-Shelaby,
Gathered from Him and Translated. London, 1855.
Rogers (Miss), E. T. : Domestic Life in Palestine.
(With account of her brother Consul Rogers' attend
ance at Samaritan Passover in 1862.)
Rosen, G. : Ueber samaritanische Inschriften. — ZDMG
xiv (i860), 622. (With plates of the Nablus inscrip
tions of the Decalogue and the Ten Words.)
 Ueber Nablus und Umgegend. — ZDMG xiv
(i860), 634. (With excellent map.)
Alte Handschriften des samaritanischen Pentateuch.

— ZDMG xviii (1864), 582. (With plates.)
Rosenberg, J. : Lehrbuch der samaritanischen Sprache
und Literatur. Vienna, 1901. (Reviewed by
Schwally, Theol. Lit.-Zeit. 1902, No. 9.)
de Rossi, J. J. : Specimen variorum lectionum sacri textus.
Appendix de celeberrimo Samaritano tritaplo sacri tex
tus (p. 165). Rome, 1782.

BIBLIOGRAPHY '341
de Sacy, S. : Litterce Samaritanorum ad Iosephum Scali-
gerum datce ex autographis Parisinis. In Eichhorn's
Repertorium, xiii (1783), 257.
 Commentarium de versione Samaritana Arabica
librorum Mosis. In Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibli-
othek, x, 1. Leipzig, 1800.
 Memoire sur I'etat actuel des Samaritains. In An
nates des voyages et de la geographie, 1812. Ex
panded in the prefatory treatise in N. et E. xii. Trans
lated into German in Wachler's Neue Theologische
Nachrichten, Oct. 1813, and in Staudlin and Tzschir-
ner's Archiv f. alte und neue Kirchengeschichte, i, 3,
Leipzig, 1 8 14.
 Chrestomathie arabe. Paris, 1806. (With ex
tract from Makrizi's History of Egypt, including an
important section upon the Samaritans.)
 Memoire sur la version arabe des livres de Mo'ise a
I'usage des Samaritains et sur les manuscrits de cette
version. In Memoires de I' Academie des Inscriptions
et des Belles Lettres, xlix, 1. Paris, 1808. (En
larged from Commentarium above.)
Correspondance des Samaritains de Naplouse, pen

dant les annees 1808 et suivant. In Notices et Extraits
des MSS de la Bibliotheque du Roi, xii, 1. Paris,
1 83 1. (For contents, see above, Chap. I, notes 14, 18.)
St. Clair, G. : The Samaritans. I. Their Number. II.
The Ancient Copy of the Law. — PEFQS 1888, p. 50.
Sampey, J. R. : The Samaritans. — Biblical World, 1899,
p. 188.
a San Aquilino, A. : Pentateuchi Hebrceo-Samaritani
prcestantia in illustrando et emendando textu maso-
rethico. Heidelberg, 1783.
Scaliger, J. J. : V)e emendatione temporum. Leyden,
1583; 1598; Geneva, 1629, etc.
Schnurrer, C. F. : Samaritanischer Briefwechsel. In

342 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Eichhorn's Repertorium, ix ( 1781 ) , 1. (For contents,
see above, Chap. I, note 14.)
 Probe eines samaritanischen biblischen Commen-
tars, uber 1 B. Mos. xlix. — Repertorium, xvi (1785),
154-
 (In Paulus' Memorabilien, ii, 54, extract of Abu'l
Fath, 60-76, Vilmar's pagination ; do. in Paulus' Neues
Repertorium, i, pp. 93-108.)
(Translation of the Samaritan Epistles of 1808, in

Mines de I'Orient, i. Vienna, 1811.)
Schulz, J. C. : De implacabili Judceorum ceque ac Chris-
tianorum in Samaritas odio commentatio. Witten
berg, 1756.
Schwarz, F. J. : Exercitationes historico-criticce in
utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum. Wittenberg,
1756.
Simon, R. : Antiquitates ecclesice orientalis. London,
1682. (Contains the Samaritan Epistles to Scaliger,
and the correspondence between Morinus and P. della
Valle.)
 Concerning the Carraites and Samaritans, written
in French and translated into English (by Simon Ock-
ley). In L. di Modena, History of the Present Jews,
1707.
Skinner, J. : Notes on a Newly Acquired Samaritan
Manuscript. — JQR iv (1902), 26.
Smith, W. Robertson : in Encyclopaedia Britannica,9
s. vv. Samaria, Samaritans.
Sobernheim, M. : Samaritanische Inschriften aus Da
mascus. — MDPV viii (1902), 70.
Spiro, J. : Etude sur le peuple samaritain. — Revue chre-
tienne, v (1897), 263.
Spoer, H. H. : Description of the Case of the Roll of a
Samaritan Pentateuch. — JAOS xxvii (1906), 105.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 343
Stade, B. : Der Name der Stadt Samariens und seine
Herkunft.— ZATW v (1885), 165.
Stafford, R. G. : The Samaritan Passover. — PEFQS
1903, p. 90.
Stanley, A. P. : The Samaritan Passover. Appendix
iii to The Jewish Church, vol. i. (Recorded for the
year 1862.)
Steinschneider, M. : Die arabische Literatur der Juden.
Frankfurt, 1902. (For Samaritan Arabic literature,
see p. 3i9ff.)
 Supplement aux catalogues des Mss hebreux et
samaritains de la Bibl. Imperiale. — Zeitschrift f. hebr.
Bibliographic, vi (1902). Reprinted Frankfurt, 1903.
Stoehr, H. : Theoria et praxis linguarum sacrarum, sc.
Samaritana, Hebr. et Syr., earumque harmonia.
Augsburg, 1796.
Taglicht, I. : Die Kuthder als Beobachter des Gesetses
nach talmudischen Quellen nebst Berucksichtigung der
samaritanischen Correspondens und Liturgie. Berlin,
1888.
Thomson, J. E. H. : The Samaritans. — Expository Times,
xi (1900), p. 375. (For the year 1898.)
 The Samaritan Passover. — PEFQS 1902, p. 82.
Trumbull, H. C. : in Oriental Social Life; p. 371 : The
Samaritan Passover. Philadelphia, 1894.
Tychsen, O. G. : Disputatio historico-philologico-critica
de Pentateucho Ebrceo-Samaritano. Biitzow, 1765.
 Die Undchtheit der judischen Miinsen mit hebrdi-
schen und samaritanischen Buchstaben. Rostock,
1779.
 Untersuchung ob R. Saadjah Haggaon Verfasser
der arabischen Uebersetsung des Pentateuchs in den
Polyglotten sey. — Eichhorn's Repertorium, xi (1782),
82.

344 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Uhlemann, F. : Institutiones lingua Samaritana ex anti-
quissimis monumentis eruta et digesta, quibus ac-
cedit chrestomathia Samaritana cum glossario. Leip
zig, 1837.
della Valle, P.: Viaggi. Rome, 1650. A German
translation, Reisebeschreibung, Geneva, 1674; English
translation, The Travels of Pietro della Valle in India,
by Havers; republished by the Hakluyt Society, Lon
don, 1892. The Italian has also appeared at Brighton,
England, 1843.
Verschuir, J. H. : Dissertationes philologicce exegeticce.
(No. iii. on the Ebal-Gerizim question.)
Vilmar, E. : Notizen zum Briefwechsel der Samari
taner. — ZDMG xvii (1863), 375.
 Abulfathi annales Samaritani. Gotha, 1865.
van Vloten, W. : Specimen philologicum quod continet
descriptionem cod. MS. Bibliotheca Lugduno-Batava,
partemque inde excerptam versionis Samaritano-Ara-
bica Pentateuchi Mosaici. Leyden, 1803.
Vogelstein, H. : Shechem and Bethel. — JQR iv (1892),
'513-
de Vogue, M. : Nouvelle inscription samaritaine d'Am-
was. — Revue biblique, v (1896), 433. (Announcing
Lagrange's second Emmaus inscription.)
Vollers, K. : see Petermann.
 Katalog der islamischen, christlich-orientalischen,
judischen und samaritanischen Hss. der Universitdts-
Bibliothek zu Leipzig, mit einem Beitrag von J. Lei-
poldt. 1906.
Walton, B. : Biblia Polyglotta. London, 1657. Pro
legomenon xi : De Samaritanis et eorum Pentateucho
eiusque versionibus. (The Prolegomena have been
frequently re-published: by Heidegger, Zurich, 1673;
Dathe, Leipzig, 1777; Wrangham, Cambridge, 1828.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY 345
Warren, C. : Underground Jerusalem. London, 1876.
(Chap. X describes visit to the Samaritans and their
Passover.)
Watson, W. S. : A Critical Copy of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, written in A. D. 1232. — Hebraica, ix,
216; x, 122. (Collation with Blayney's text. Cf.
Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1893, p. 656.)
 A Samaritan Manuscript of the Hebrew Pentateuch
written in A. H. 35. — JAOS xx ( 1899) , 173. ( Prob
ably identical with the one described by Rosen,
ZDMG xviii, 586.)
Wilson, C. W. : Ebal and Gerizim. — PEFQS 1876, p.
66. (With plan of ruins on Gerizim.)
Wilson, J.: Lands of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1843. (ii,
688, a facsimile of a Samaritan Ketuba.)
Winer, G. B. : De versionis Pentateuchi Samaritani in
dole dissertatio critic o-exegetica. Leipzig, 181 7.
 in his Realworterbuch (ed. 3, 1848), s. v. Samari
taner.
Wreschner, L. : Samaritanische Traditionen mitgeteilt
und nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung unter-
sucht. Berlin, 1888.
Wright, William: (Editor of Oriental Series, London,
1875, of Palaeographical Society's Facsimiles of Manu
scripts and Inscriptions. Plates xii, xxviii, lxxxix, re
produce Samaritan MSS.)
 ( Note on Samaritan tablet in the Leeds Philosoph
ical and Literary Society Library. With reproduction.
PSBA vi (1883), Nov. p. 25.)
Wright, W. Aldis: Communication sur un manuscrit
contenant un fragment du Thargoum samaritain.
— Journal asiatique, 1870, p. 525.
 and Schiller-Szinnessy: A descriptive List of
the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish Manuscripts in
the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, by E. H.

346 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Palmer, with an Appendix containing a Catalogue of
the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the same
Library (by W. and S.-S.). Cambridge, 1870.
Yung, R. : Toledot Adam (in Hebrew). The Hexaglot
Pentateuch, with the Corresponding Samaritan, Chal
daic, Syriac and Arabic. (Edinburgh ?)
Zachariae, J. F. : De Samaritanis eorumque templo in
monte Garizim. Jena, 1723.
Zotenberg, H. : Catalogue des MSS hebreux et samari
tains de la Bibliotheque Imperiale. Paris, 1866.
An Account of the Samaritans in a Letter to J. ... M.
.... 1714.
Annates de philosophie chretienne, Nov. 1853. (Contains
the Samaritan memorials in Hebrew and Arabic ad
dressed to the French government in 1842, with trans
lation.)
Note on the Newly Discovered Samaritan Stone. — PEFQS
1873, p. 118.
The Samaritan Stone at Gasa. — Ibid., 157.
II Pentateucho Samaritano e I'autenticita dei libri mo-
saici. — Arc. di litt. bibl. ed or. v (1883), No. 12, p.
350-
It may be noticed here as a curiosity that on the Com
mencement Programme of Harvard College for 1771 (July,
17) appears "A Dialogue in the Samaritan language."
Nothing is now known concerning the title or nature of the
dialogue, nor the name of the students concerned. In the
previous year a Chaldaic dialogue was given. These efforts
were the result of the impetus given by the foundation of
the Hancock Professorship of Hebrew in 1764.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES.

OLD TESTAMENT PAGE
Genesis. i. 1  223
— iff  274
— 2  2I4f
iv. 6  288
x. 18  319
— 30  238
xii. 6  19
— 8  237
xiv. 14  288
xx. 13  210
xxii. 2  237
— 13  288
xxviii. 19  236
xxxi. 53  210
xxxii. 32  39
xxxiii. 18  237, 273
xxxiv  19. 23
xxxv. 4.  168
— 7  210
xlvi. 13  195
xlviii. 16  210
xlix. 10  248
_ 14  288
Exodus. iii. 6.....'  45
xii. 6  38
— 11  39
— 23  276
xx. 2ff {Dt. 5, 6ff) 23s, 273, 277
xxii. 9  2I0
xxiv. iof  2I1
xxxiv. 6ff  212
_ 29  227
xxxv. — xl  73
Leviticus. xxiii  34ff
Numbers. vi. 24ff  •"• 30
ix. gff  «- 4°

PAGE
x. 3Sf  273
xi  229
xviii. 19 ; xxv. I2f  232
xxiv. 7  248
Deuteronomy. i- 7  13
v. 21  235
vi. 8f  186, 277
xi. 30  235
xii. 4  237
xviii. IS  243ft
xxiii. 3ff  181
xxiv. iff  42
xxv. 5ff  43. 184
xxvii  16, 35
— 5  23S, 273
xxxiii. 15  236
Joshua. iv  36
viii. 30ft  16, 35
xi. 16  13
xii. 20  317
xxiv. 29ff  16
— 33  23°
Judges. ix  23
— 4, 46  16
— 7ff  18
xviii. 30  67
I. Samuel.
xxxi. 10  143
I. Kings.
xii  23
-.31  49
xvi. 24  13, 3i8
II. Kings.
xv. i9f  SO
xvii  1. 48ff
— 29  318
347

348

BIBLICAL INDEX

PAGE
xviii. 34  52
xxiii  56
I. Chronicles.
ix. 3. 5  74
II. Chronicles.
xxx. xxxiii. 11  55
Ezra. i-iii  61
"i- 3  58
iv. 1  59
— 2  51
— 3  182
— 9f  52
ix-x  64
Nehemia.
iii  144
iv. 2  58
vi. 3  144
x  65
xi. 25ff  144
xiii. 28f  66
Psalms. xvi  74
xlvi  238
lx. 8-14 ; lxxx  74
lxxxii  215
Proverbs. iii. 19  209
Isaia. ii. iff  236
vii. 8  51
xix. 9  72
xxviii. 1  155
lvii. 3ff; lxv. iff; lxvi. iff.. 7of
Jeremia. iii  S3
iii. 6ff  15, 47
xiii  238
xxxi. xxxiii. 7  53
xii. 4fr  56, 60
Ezekiel. xxviii. I3ff ; xlvii  238

PAGE
Daniel. iv. 32  216
Hosea. iii- 4  50
vi. 9  23
viu. 4  54
Joel.
ii. 31  240
Zecharia. xi. 14  74
xiv  238
Malachi. iv. sf  240, 247
APOCRYPHA
II. Esdras.
iv. 10  318
Ecclesiasticus.
1- 25f  154
I. Maccabees.
xi. 2off  144
II. Maccabees.
v. 23  78
vi. 2  "j-j
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew.
x. 5f  162
xxiv. 29ff  249
Mark.
xiv. 62  215
Luke.
ix. siff  158, 162
x. 25ff  161
xvii. nff  160
John.
iii. 22f  160
iv  157
— S  2of, 156

BIBLICAL INDEX 349
PAGE PAGE
iv. 7  158 Galatians.
— I9ff  161 iii. 19  220
— 25  243
— 42  250 Ephesians.
viii. 48  155 i. 21  216
xi. 54  144 I. Timothy.
Acts. vi. 15  215
i.,.8  163, 178
iii. 21  247 Hebrews.
vii. 16  107 i. 14; xii. 22f  216
— 48ff  71
viii. iff  163, 265ft Revelation.
— 10  215 xvii. 14  215
ix. 31 ; xv. 3  164 xxi. 1  210
Romans. viii. 39  218

INDEX OF TALMUDIC CITATIONS REFERRING
TO THE SAMARITANS.

Under each Tractate are given the references: (i) to the Mishna;
(2) to the Babylonian Gemara; (3) to the Jerusalem Gemara; (4)
to the Tosefta. Doubtful references to the Samaritans are inter
rogated.

page
Aboda Zara, 15. .172, 174, 198, 199
 26  171, 191, 199, 203
 31  173. 203
 Jer. 7  199
 44 
168, 173, 177, 191, 192, 198
202, 203, 318
 Tos. iii. 9  169
 ¦ iii. 1  174, 199
Baba Kamma, 38 
175. 177, 181, 190, 201
Berakot, vii. 1  166, 172
 viii. 8  166, 172
•  47  170, 172, 179, 183
 Jer. 11  191
Cholin, 3-6 
169, 171, 172, 190, 191, 192, 318
Demai, iii. 4  166, 178
 v. 9  166
 vi. 1  166, 178
 vii. 4  166,183
 Jer. 9  170
 25  191
 Tos. iii. 3  183, 198
Erubin, 41 (?)  193
Gittin, i. S  166, 185
 10  170,171
 45  150, 193
— Jer. 43  172
Ketubot, iii. 1  166, 181
 Jer. 27  170, 191
Kiddushin, iv. 3  166, 181
 75-76 
169, 170, 171, 177, 179, 181
185, 186, 190, 198, 203

Kutim, page
Chap. XI; Chap. X, passim.
Makkot, 8  201
Megilla, Jer. 71  281, 283
Menachot, 42  171, 187
Mikwaot, Tos. vi. 1  173
Nedarim, iii. 10  166, 170
Nidda, iv. 1  166, 179
 2  166, 188
 vii. 3  166, 170, 173
 4  166, 179, 200
 5  166, 173
 57  170
 74  181
Ohalot, xvii. 3  166
 Tos. xviii. 16  194
Orla, Jer., Gem. to ii. 6  203
Pea, ii. 7 (?)  166
 Tos. 2  191
 iv. 1  174, 198
Pesachim, 50 seq."  200
 Tos. 2  203
Rosh ha-Shana, ii. 2... 166, 193
Sanhedrin, 21  280
 63  320
 90  186
Shebiit, viii. 10  166, 190
Shekalim, i. 5  166, 182, 197
Sota, 22  193
Sota, 33  169, 235
 Jer. 21  281
Taanit, 5 (?)  320
Teruma, iii. 9  166, 182
Tohorot, v. 8  166, 178
Yebamot, 47  180
 Jer. 3  169

350

BRIEF INDEX OF LITERARY REFERENCES TO
THE SAMARITANS IN ANCIENT AND
MEDLEVAL LITERATURE.
(Exclusive of Biblical, Talmudic and Samaritan Sources.)

JEWISH. page
Benjamin of Tudela  136
Bereshit Rabba 
91, 168, 194, 238, 318
Debarim Rabba  168
Josephus  75-8i, 82-
88, 144, 145, 156ft, 243, 254, 319
Megillat Taanit  79
Meshullam b. Menahem  137
Nachmanides  280
Obadia of Bertinoro  137
Pirke R. Eliezer  194. 254, 283
Sifre  169, 186
Tanchuma  194, 254, 283
Testament of Levi  IS5
Yalkut  254
PAGAN.
Lampridius  96
CHRISTIAN.
Acts of 2d Nicene Council.. . 121
Apostolic Constitutions  267
Bar-Hebrceus {Abu'l Faraj) 49, 94, 114
von Boldensele  3
Cassiodorus Senator  152
Cedrenus  101, 114. 121
Chronicon Paschale. .110, 114, 118
Clementine Homilies  256
Clementine Recognitions. .255, 256
Codex Justinianus 
114, 118, 119, IS2
 Novella  H9. 120, 122
Codex Theodosianus. 105, 108, 109
 Novella  109
Cotovicus  3
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus  114
Epiphanius  89,
216, 250, 253, 257, 281, 285, 318 351

PAGE
Eulogius  245, 258
Eusebius  252, 318
Eutychius  114
George Syncellus  286
Hegesippus  252, 255
Hippolytus  255
Irenceus  266
Jerome. .94, 255, 256, 281, 286, 318
John of Damascus. . .164, 266, 267
Malalas  114, 117,121
Mandeville  3
Nicetas  252
Origen  93 97,
250, 256, 258, 281, 285, 286, 318
Peter the Iberian, Life of. . . . 148
Philaster  250, 255
Procopius 
no, in, 113, 114, 117, 119, 122
Socrates  101
Tertullian {pseudo-)  255
Theodoret  213,253
Theophanes 
101, 114, 117, 119, 121
MUSLIM.
Abu'l Fida  17, 259
Ali of Herat  136
al-Biruni  136, 152, 320
Dimashki  136
Ibn Chaukal  13s
Ibn Chazm  138
Idrisi  136, 151
Istakhri  135
Makrizi  136, 259, 305
Masudi  135, 259, 304
Mohammed {Koran)  152
Mukaddasi  18, 148
Mutanabbi  152
Shahrastani  136, 259f
Yakubi  135, 148
Yakut  136

GENERAL INDEX.

A PAGE
Aaron  229
Abar-Nahara  59
Abbahu, R  192
Abbaside dynasty  127ft
Abdallah ibn Tahir  128
Abel  224
Ab Geluga  298
Abimelek  23
Abishua, see Codex of
Abraham  19, 37, 231
Abu Ischak Ibrahim ibn
Faraj  311
Abu'l Barakat  293
Abu'l Chasan of Tyre  293, 298
Abu'l Chasan ibn Gazal  313
Abu'l Faraj ibn Ischak  296
Abu'l Fath  305ff
Abu Said  293, 311
Adam  37, 224, 237
Adrammelek, Anammelek. ... 53
Ages of the World  241?
Akiba, R  i8gff
Akko,' Samaritans at  148
Akrabatta  145, 147
Aleppo, Samaritans at  149
Alexander the Great. .67ff, 76, 302
Alexander Jannaeus  80
Alexander Polyhistor  284
Alexander Severus  95
Alfaniya  259
Alphabet, Samaritan  277
Ame, Assi, RR  191
al-Amwas, see Emmaus
Am-ha-arec.  60, 64, 178
Anastasius  113
Angels  215ft
Antiochus Epiphanes  77f
Antipatris  145, 147
Antoninus Pius  93
Anuath  145
Anusa (angel)  i. 219 352

PAGE
Aphairema (and see Eph
raim, city)  144
Arabic, language, versions... 272, 293, 315
Aramaic, language 
270, 291, 303, 314
Arrhidaeus, Philip  y6
Arsuf, Samaritans at 
127, 128, 148
Asenappar  52
Ashima  53, 213, 321
Ashkelon, Samaritans at 
127, 137, 148
Askar, Ain-  2of
Asshurbanapal  52
Athens, Samaritans at  152
Atonement, Day of  41
Awurta  147
Azazel  219
B
Baal-bek, Samaritans at  149
Baba Rabba  ioiff
Babylonia, Samaritans in  150
Baibars  133
Barberini Triglot  290, 293
Barges, J  10
Bar-Kokeba  90, 189
Beit-Dagon  148
Belial (demon)  219
Benediction, prayer of  171
Benjamin, tribe  32, 149
Benjamin of Tudela...2, 136, 138
Bethel  49, 56, 236
Beth-horon  144, 148
Beth-shean  143
Bethulia  144
Bet-Kilkalta  194
Betrothal  186
Boethusians  40
von Boldensele, W  3

GENERAL INDEX

353

PAGE
Booths, Feast of  41
Bordeaux Pilgrim  20, 135
Borkeos  79, 1441, 146
Boule, Samaritan  87
Burial customs  43

Csesarea  84,
in, ns, 121, 127, 134, 137, 148
Cairo, Samaritans at  4, 151
Calendar, Samaritan. .. .3, 33, 312
Caracalla  96
Carmel, Samaritans on 
121, 143, 148
Castellus, E  8
Cellarius, C  8
Chaber  179
Chalisa  43, 173
Charat as-Samara  24
Cherubim  216, 221
Chizn Yakub (synagogue) 29, 134, 273
Chosroes II  123
Chronicles, Samaritan  300ft
Chronicle Abu'l Fath... 125, 305ft
Chronicle Adler  125, 307
Chronicle Neubauer ....125, 30of
Christian Church and Samari
tans  98ff, iooff, n8ff, 163
Church of St. Mary on Geri
zim  36, 113
Circumcision.. .42, 90, 93, 102, 170
Cleobius  267
Cleodemus-Malchus  284
Cleopatra  80
Codex of Abishua 
8, 29, 41, 234, 287
Coins of Neapolis  89
Colonists in Samaria  49ff
Commodus  93
Constans  101
Constantine the Great  99
Constantius  100
Coponius  84
Cotovicus  3
Covenants, the Seven  232
Creation  22iff
Creed, Samaritan  207
Crusades  I3iff
Cumanus  85

PAGE
Cyril of Scythopolis  113
Cyrus  61
D
Da'ac  28if
Dabarin  147
Damascus, Samaritans at. . . .
4, 136, 138, 149, 277, 313, 316
Darius  61
Darius Codomannus  66
Day of Gerizim  79
Decius  g6f
Defilement, laws of  43, 173
Defne  305
Demetrius III  80
Demetrius Poliorcetes  75
Deportation of Israel  48ff
Diaspora of Samaritans.... I48ff
Diocletian  97
Divorce  42, 173, 185
Dositheus, Dositheans  2528:
Dove-cult  6, 169, 320
Druzes  130
Dusis  255
Dustan, Dustaniya  254, 259
E
Ebal  17, 34f, 235
Eden, Garden of  224, 238
Egypt, Samaritans in 
4, 7Sff, i36f, 151, 316
Eldad, Medad  229
Eleazar  23of
Eleazar b. Amram  300, 306
Eleazar b. Phineas  312
Eli  236
Elon More (and see More) . 147
Emmaus, Samaritans at. .148, 275f
En-gannim  85, 145, 147, 158
En-Kushit  146
Enoch  224
Enosh  219, 224
En-socher  147
Ephraim, city  79, 144
Ephraim, Highland of  13
Epistles, Samaritan  4ft
Erub  33, 170, 187
Esarhaddon  51, 59
Eschatolopy  239

354

GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
Essenes  252, 263
Euphrates (on Gerizim)  238
Eupolemus  284
Exegesis, Samaritan  44
Ezra  63f
Ezra-Nehemia, Book  57^
F
Fall, doctrine of  224
Falsifications of Pentateuch . .
169, 235
Fara, Wady  19, 238
Fatimide Caliphs  130
Finn, E. T  10
Fire-purifications  3r9
Firkovitch, A  iof
Flood  238
Fondeka of Ammuda, of
Tibta  146
Foods as Kosher. . . 172, 185, i9off
France  8, 141
G
Gabinius, Gabinians  82
Gashmu  65
Gaza, Samaritans at 
4, 127, 148, 276f
Gazal ibn Abu(l) Sarur  296
Gazal ibn Duwaik  296
Galilee, Samaritans in  150
Gerar, Samaritans at  149
Gerizim 
17, 19, 34ff, 85, 86, 91, 106,
in, 117, I35ff, 176, 234ff, 240
Germanus, bishop  loif
Gibeon,  •  144
Ginaia, see En-gannim.
Gittai, Gittaim  146, 266
Gleaning laws  174
Gnosticism  209ff, 267ft
God, doctrine of  207ff
God, names of  2i3ff
Gola  61, 63
Good Friday Collect  109
Gordian  96
Gorothenians  252f
Grammatical works  311
Great Britain  141
Great Congregation, the  194

PAGE
Great Plain  147
Gregoire, H  8f
H
Hadid  i44f
Hadrian  9off
Haggai  62
Hakim  130
Hamath  48, 149
Har Kadim  237f
Harun ar-Rashid  127
Hazor, Samaritans at  151
Heaven  223, 251
Hebrew language  270
Heliogabalus  96
Hellenistic literature 
283, 303, 314
Heraclius  123
Herod the Great  82ff, 92
Hezekia  55
Highpriest (and see Priest)
29, 31, 66ff, 71, 139, 309
Honorius  107
Horon, see Beth-horon
Hosea  15
Huntington, R  6
Hymns   2986:
Hypostatizations  209
I
Ibrahim ibn Yakub  295
Inscriptions  29, 272ft
Isaac  231, 237
Ishar, Wady  145
Islam and the Samaritans.. 1258
Isma'il ar-Rumaichi  297
J
Jacob  231
Jacob's Well. .17, 21, 79f, 107, 157
Jamnia, Samaritans at  148
Jasara (demon)  219
Jesus and the Samaritans.. I57ff
Jews, attitude towards Sa
maritans  53, 61,
62, 71, 76, 82ff, 154, 158, i6sff
Joppa, Samaritans at 
127, 148, 152

GENERAL INDEX

355

PAGE
Joseph  231
Joseph, tribe  32
Joseph's Tomb  44, 107
Josephus  68, is6f
Josephus b. Gorion  310
Joshua  244, 248
Joshua, Samaritan Book of
3» 301 ff
Josia  55f
Juda ha-Nasi  191
Judith, Book  74, 144
Julian, emperor  96, 104
Julian, son of Sabar  115
Justa, Justasa  no
Justin II  121, I22ff
Justin Martyr  164
Justinian  H3ff
K
Kabbala (angel)  219,223
Kabbalism  2ioff, 269
Kabod  209
Kaddishin  182
Kador  146
Kalaun  134
Kefar-Outhenai  14S
Kefar-Pagesh  146
Kefar-Saba  147
Kefar-Shalem  146
Kefar-Sima, Samaritans at. . 149
Karaites  40, 137, 187,296
Kharezmians  133
Kibla  30, 236
Kippur  41
Kurawa  147
Kuryat-Hajja  147
Kushaniya  259
Kutha  48, 52
Kuthim  161, 196, 318
L
Lapaya  23
Law, the  29ff, 222, 232ft
Leontopolis, temple at  72
Levirate marriage  43, 185, 187
Libonasan  28if
Libraries  n
Lion-converts  176
Liturgy  297ff

PAGE
Ludolf, J  7
Luza  236
Lydda, Samaritans at 
79, 127, I44f, 148
M
Maamun  128
Mabartha  20
Machmud 1  139
al-Machna  17, 21
Madaba, mosaic map of  20
Mahdi, caliph  127
Maimonides  195
Maiumas  127, 148
Mamluk dynasty  I33f
Manasse, king  55
Manasse, schismatic priest.. 66f
Mandeville, J  3
Marcian  in
Marda  147
Marinus  285
Marka  103, 294ft
Marriage  42, I79ff
Marshall, T  6
Masbothasans  252
Maundrell, H  5
Medical science  313
Mehableh (demon)  219
Meir, R  189ft
Memra, the  209
Menander  267
Meronot  144
Messiah, doctrine of  242ft
Messiah-ben-Joseph  243f
Mezuzot  32, 186
Microcosm  224
Midrashim, Jewish  165
Millennium  242, 249
Mizpa  60
Modin  145
Mohammed  126
Mohammed IV  139
Mohammed (Mehemet) Ali.. 140
Mongols  133
More (and see Elon-More) . . 237
Moria  37, 237
Morison, A  6
Moses  22Sff
Mountain of the World  236
Muhadhdhib ad-Din  149, 313

356

GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
Munajja ibn Sadaka  296
Music, Samaritan  31
Mutasim  129
Mutawakkil  129
Muwaffik ad-Din  313
N
Nabich  301, 304
Nablus (and see Shechem,
Neapolis)  4, 131ft, I35ff, 153
Nablus, description  22ft
Nablus, name  17
Nachmanides  280
Nathanael (Dositheus). . .262, 292
Nazirite rule  32
Neapolis (and see Shechem,
Nablus)  17, 20, 89ft
Nebuchadrezzar  302
Nedabot, Nedarim  182
Nehemia  64ft
New Moon Feast  42
New Testament, Samaritans
in  I56ff
New Year's Day  4of
Nicsea, 2d Council of  121
Nicanor, Gates of  gif, 108
Niger Pescennius  94
Nikaso  66
Noah  224
0
Ono  I44f
Ophra-Ferata  147
Othman 1  134
P
Panuta, Age of  24if
Papyrus Anastasi 1  19
Parable of Good Samaritan . . 160
Passover  10, 37ff, 171
Patriarchs, Tombs of the
Twelve  16, 107
Paul of Gaza  149
Paula  107
de Peiresc  ,  4,290
Pentateuch, date of  67, 73
Pentateuch, Samaritan He
brew  4f, 3of, 286ff, 313
Penuel (angel)  219

PAGE
People of the Book  141
Perasa, Samaritans in  149
Perdiccas  75
Persecutions of Samaritans..
90ff, g8ff, I39ff, 152
Petermann, J. H  10
Pherka  147
Philip Arabs  96
Phineas  23of
Phineas ibn Joseph  299, 306
Pilate  86
Piraton  147
Polygamy  42
Polyglots, the Paris and Lon
don  287, 290
Pompey  80
Pre-existence of Moses.... 227ft
Priests, Priesthood (and see
Highpriest) 
49, 139, i8iff, 190, 230
Proselytes  i77ff
Ptolemy Lagi  7Sf
Ptolemy Lathyrus  80
Purim, Samaritan  42
R
Ra'ac  28if
Radhi  125, 129
Ramathaim  79, 144
Ramie  148
Redemption of first born.... 42
Red Sea island, Samaritans
on  151
Reland, H  8
Resurrection, doctrine of....
176, 186, 239, 250, 263
Ridhwan, Age of  24if
Robinson, E  ¦  10
Roman law in re Samaritans goff, I04ff
Rome, Samaritans in  152
Rosen, G  10
S
Saadya  293
Saba of Scythopolis  116
Sabbseus  76, 254
Sabbath  33, 170
de Sacy, S  7ft

GENERAL INDEX

357

PAGE
Sadaka ibn Munajja. 296, 307, 313
Sadducees  72, i86ff
Safed, Samaritans at  151
Safra, Mount, near Mecca... 237
Sakhra, the, on Gerizim  36f
Saladin  132
Salich ibn Sadaka  296
Salem  128, I46f, 237
Salim  160
Samaria, city 
48, Si, 75ff, 80, 82ft, 86, 89
Samaria, land, 13!!, 75ff, 83f, 143ft
Samaria, Samaritans, names, 31 7f
Samaria, village in Egypt.... 151
Samaritan Woman, the  157
Samaritans, modern. .. .24ff, 152ft
Samaritikon  285
Sammon, bishop  116
Sanballat  58, 65, 66ff, 302
de Sancy, A  4
Sargon  49ff
Sartaba, Mount  145, 193
Sassanian Kingdom  96, 117
Scaliger, J. J  3
Script, Samaritan  272ft
Scythopolis (and see Beih-
shean)  115, 149
Sebaste (and see Samaria,
city)  83
Sebuasans  252ft
Second Passover  40
Sects  252ff
Sephar  238
Sepharwaim  48, 52
Septimius Severus  94
Serapis  92
Shalmaneser IV  49
Shaubak  301, 304
Shechem (and see Neapolis,
Nablus) 
4, i6ff, igff, 70, 79f, 89, 146, 194, 32i
Shechem, site  I9ff
Shekina  209
esh-Shelaby, Jacob  10, I3g
Shema, the  207
Sheshbazzar  61
Shilo  248

PAGE
Simon b. Gamaliel  189ft
Simon Magus  163, 254, 265ft
Siricius  285
Spirit of God  210, 229
Spirits, evil  219
Stay of Moses, Feast of  40
Sychar  2of
Symmachus  77, 285
Synagogue, Samaritan. . .28ff, 89
T
Tabernacle  239
Taeb (and see Messiah) .... 246ft
Talith  32
Talmud  165ft
Targum  5, 29off
Tartak  53
Tell-Amarna tablets  19
Temple, Samaritan 
36, 67, 88, m, ii2f
Ten Words of Creation  274
Tephillin  32, 186
Terebinthus, bishop  no
Teruma  182
Theodosius (Dositheus)  76
Theodosius I  I04ff
Theodosius II  iogff
Theodotus  13, 284
Theodotion  77, 292
Theology, Samaritan  204ft
Thersila  I4g
Tirathana  85, 146
Tithes  174, 183
Tobia the Ammonite  65
Tobit, Book  48
Tripoli, Samaritans at  149
Tul-Karam  147
Tulluza  147
Tur-berik  135, ig4, 235
Twelve Stones, the  36
Tyre, Samaritans at  I4g
U
Umayyad dynasty  127
Unleaven, Feast of  40
Usertesen III  321
Usgate, J  8

358

GENERAL INDEX

V PAGE
Valens  104
della Valle, P  4, 286, 290
Verus Commodus  94
Vespasian  86, 89
Vitellius  86
W
Wathik  I2g
Weeks, Feast of  40
Women, Samaritan. .32, I7gff, 178
Word of God  209
Y
Yarmuth, battle of  126

PAGE
Yasuf  147
Yebna  148
Yhwh  213
Yibbam  185
Yusuf ibn Salama  296
Z
Zaita  128, 147
Zecharia  62
Zeno  noff
Zerubbabel  62, 302
Zeus Hellenios  78
Zeus Xenios  77
Zilpa (angel)  219
Zohar Sarmasa  126

SO VI 30

Plan of the Ruins on Mo'
Prepared by C. W. Wilson for the Palestine Explor;

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03230 6889