( lies rebuttal series ) the ( samaritan ) error in the qur'an

8/14/2019 ( Lies Rebuttal Series ) the ( Samaritan ) Error in the Qur'An

1/27


2/27

2

Relying heavily on a single (prolific) Christian orientalist, the missionaries also state

that the Qur'an, according to Surah 20, says the Israelites were led astray by a

"Samaritan" - yet the Samaritan people did not exist until many centuries later. Whatevidence is presented to support these claims? Can the presuppositions of the

Christian missionaries be taken seriously in the light of contemporary Samaritan

scholarship? This paper proposes to examine the origin of the Samaritans as suggested

by the Christian missionaries.

2. The "Samaritan" Error

The "Samaritan" error in the Qur'an can be traced to Judeo-Christian attitudes

provided by aprima facie consideration of the Old Testament material. Even after the

advent of critical biblical scholarship, it was supposed that the picture of the

Samaritans as a people of mixed race and religion, as provided in II Kings 17, was for

all intent and purposes an accurate one. A prime example comes from the 1898

edition of James Hastings'A Dictionary Of The Bible. In the article "Samaria,

Territory Of" by C. W. Wilson, the description of the Samaritans is given as:

In 2 K 17:29 these colonists are termed 'Samaritans.' Josephus says... that they were called

Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin... and he regarded the Samaritans of

his day as their descendents. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods, an act

which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of God of the land.[1]

Descriptions of Samaritans worshipping an admixture of gods owe a great deal to

later day Jewish polemics, in particular, that arising from Josephus'Antiquities as

well as from the Old Testament itself. It is not surprising that the views concerning

the Samaritans origins also positively influenced in a different way the anti-Islamic

polemics in the West in the beginning of the 20th century CE. For example, while

discussing the mention ofal-Samiri in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens stated that:

"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have

made the Jews worship the golden calf..."[2]

That these claims have literally pullulated amongst the Christian missionaries is

something of an understatement. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:

The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a

Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after

the events recorded in Exodus.[3]

Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:


3/27

3

The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by

a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the

Exodus, when the idol was crafted. [4]

Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:

As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most

Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the

Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern

tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden

calf incident.[5]

Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the

Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri

in the Qur'an. Archer says:

Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger,

foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer("watchman") - in a valiant effort to

avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th

century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.![6]

Similar claims were also made by Abdallah Abd al-Fadi,[7] Robert Morey,[8] Daniel

Ali and Robert Spencer.[9]

Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of argument concerning al-Samiri in

the Qur'an. He says:

At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-

Smir). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection

with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In

the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an

20. 85-95).[10]

According to Newman, the mention ofal-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of

Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and transferring "Jewish teachings

about Samaritans to a single person."[11]

Except for Jomier and Newman, almost all these claims can be traced back, whether

directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall the fountainhead of all Christian polemic

against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the

"Samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather

derisively,


4/27


5/27

5

Before we go into the historical background of II Kings 17, a background relating to

the events leading to sacking and exile of Israel in the 8th century BCE is necessary.

About two centuries earlier a united Israel had reached its peak under the leadershipof Saul, David and Solomon. However, after Solomon's death, a civil war broke out

and the former united kingdom split into two kingdoms: Judah in the south with

Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel in the north whose capital was eventually

established in Samaria. The two kingdoms struggled for nearly two centuries before

Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The account in II Kings 17 implies

that the Samaritans descended from peoples deported by the Assyrians from other

parts of the vast empire during the mid-8th century BCE. The Assyrian ruler brought

people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the

towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. Eventually the term "Cuthean", that ispeople of Cuthah, sometimes also referred collectively to denote new settlers, became

the Jews' name for Samaritans and a word of contempt for these genetically and

religiously impure people. This name was also adopted by Josephus in hisJewish

Antiquities in his polemics against the Samaritans. Thus, according to the Jewish

version of history, the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or

inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. The question

now is whether there is any truth in this version of the history.

SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS?

As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II

Kings 17. The verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim

or shomeronim appears and is usually translated into English as

"Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew text below).

But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which

the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)

The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated with the worship of

idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by this name at all. They

call themselves shamerin , that is "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah.[13]

The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and

the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II

which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the


6/27

6

founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants

of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14]

Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearlymaintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the

"inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or

"observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line

of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is

ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago

James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:

.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret

however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law. [15]

Similarly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:

... the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather

than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."[16]

TheEncyclopaedia Judaica under the entry "Samaritans" says:

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name

Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans.

The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves

Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long

forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean

inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin

of the word Shomronim is to be found).[17]

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries, the use of the term shomronim in II Kings

17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans because this word means

"inhabitants of Samaria". Now that the issue of the names that differentiates the

Samaritans from the inhabitants of Samaria is dealt with, let us now move to the claim

of the missionaries which says that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emergedafter the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of foreigners in

the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

II KINGS 17:18-24 - A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OR A HISTORICAL

ABSURDITY?

The narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 relates that the population of Israel in its totality

was deported and exchanged to an alien population. However, the archaeological

evidence shows that this narrative is incorrect. Estimates of the population in Israel


7/27

7

show that in the Middle Bronze Age II [2000 - 1550 BCE] it was approximately

140,000 and in the Iron Age [1200 - 586 BCE],[18] during the period of divided

monarchy, the population of northern kingdom of Israel reached nearly 600,000.[19] Asurvey of Judea, Samaria and the Golan carried out in 1967-1968 suggests a total of

560,000.[20] On the other hand, Roland de Vaux estimated the total population during

this time to be around 800,000.[21]

The Assyrian ruler Sargon II was responsible for defeating the northern kingdom of

Israel and sending them into exile. An Assyrian inscription from the time of Sargon II

records that he deported 27,290 prisoners from Samaria,[22] suggesting a depopulation

of the order of nearly 5% of Israel's population.[23] Hence 95% of the population

remained. Also it can be claimed that the Assyrian kings in their royal inscriptionstended to exaggerate the number of exiles, as they considered a larger number to show

the extent of their power and might.[24] If we accept this, then the total number of

people exiled would be further reduced. We are essentially left with most of the

population intact. Obviously there is a serious historical problem here with II Kings

17:18-24. Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible

concerning the claim of the Samaritans' origins, A. D. Crown says:

This is aprima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province

until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be

viewed with caution.

[25]

A similar observation was made by Coggins about 30 years ago. Using the estimate of

Roland de Vaux of 800,000 people in the northern kingdom of Israel and the

inscription from the time of Sargon II, he says:

If this is at all accurate it would imply the deportation of between 3 and 4% of the population.

Not much stress can be placed on the actual wording of the Assyrian annals, but they would

suggest - and the circumstances of a siege would bear out - that the majority of the deportees

would have been the inhabitants of Samaria itself, no doubt including many who had gone there

as refugees during the siege.[26]

Such discrepancies were also mentioned by Frank Cross[27] and The Interpreter's

Dictionary Of The Bible.[28]

Coggins and others have suggested that most of the affected people would have been

from the upper class, as they would be readily identifiable as potential leaders of

resistance.[29] In place of those exiled, the settlers brought in would not have enjoyed

the majority, as the native Israelites continued to enjoy being the overwhelming

majority of the population. Clearly, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that


8/27

8

the population of Israel in its totality was deported by the Assyrians and exchanged to

an alien population is unsupported by the archaeological evidence.

How do the Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule?

According to their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to "the

community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of

Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the rest of

the tribes of Israel" who "did not deviate from the way of the holy law, nor did they

worship other gods. They did not behave as the nations did, and did not forsake the

chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but they continued to worship the Lord their

God...".[30] As Coggins pointed out, even if this idealization is discounted in the

Samaritan Chronicles, it is clear that the "religious features of later Samaritanismshow no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between native Israelites

and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country".[31]

Unlike the claim of the Christian missionaries, there is nothing to suggest in the

Samaritan Chronicles that they adopted a syncretism between the religion of the

Jews and their own polytheistic background. On the contrary, the Chronicles clearly

affirm their monotheism during the Assyrian rule. It must be emphasized that the

Samaritans' devotion to the Torah was already recognized from the fact that it alone

constituted their canon of Scripture. This is further emphasized by the word shamerin

- the keepers of the Torah. This very name implies a group which maintained the

traditional ways and was suspicious of change.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE MISSIONARY VIEWS

The Christian missionaries and apologists have had some difficulty in coming to

terms with Samaritan scholarship. Although this is partly due to basic errors in

comprehension, more seriously, it is primarily due to the fact that contemporary

scholarship including the archaeological evidence undermines the veracity of the

biblical account. Recognising these basic problems of method, the missionaries haveattempted to synthesise their views on the Samaritans into one coherent account;

resultantly we are left with nothing more than a mishmash of interpretations with little

validity. For instance, consider the Christian missionary Andrew Vargo's "three views

" of the Samaritan origins:

The Jewish view. The Samaritans are the descendants of the colonists that King Shalmaneser, of

Assyria, brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign regions after he conquered

Samaria in 722 B.C.. King Shalmaneser then deported the native population according to II

Kings 17.


9/27


10/27

10

The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to

interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem

priests) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.[33]

Writing in 2002, Anderson and Giles in their bookThe Keepers: An Introduction To

The History And Culture Of The Samaritans say that II Kings 17 cannot be

considered an objective account of Samaritan history:

The Cutheans are simply the inhabitants of the north, not the Samaritan sect. Sargon's

deportation of the indigenous Israelite population probably affected primarily the aristocracy

within the city of Samaria. The people groups brought into the region replacing the deportees

remained a minority. The invectives of the 2 Kings account address this select few and not the

general population, and certainly not a religious sect [i.e., the Samaritans] that had, according

to the bulk of evidence, not yet attained a sense of self-awareness.

...

It is generally recognized that the account in 2 Kings 17 is not objective and unbiased history.

The purpose of 2 Kings 17, as well as other passages in the Hebrew Bible (particularly in

Chronicles and Ezra), is to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals.[34]

After examining the evidence, Anderson and Giles conclude that the Samaritans did

exist during the time of Assyrian invasion, not as a separate sect but as a part of the

northern kingdom of Israel. In other words, Samaritans did not emerge after the exile

of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon

II after 722 BCE.

After doing a detailed discussion on the alleged presence of the Samaritans in II Kings

17, Coggins concluded that:

The simple truth is, as it is hoped that the first main part of the study has shown, that there is

no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work

of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan

hostility, but that is most that can be said. [35]

TheNew Bible Dictionary under the entry "Samaritans" says:

... Samaritans are mentioned only in 2 Ki. 17:29, a passage which describes the syncretistic

religion of those peoples whom the king of Assyria transported to the N kingdom of Israel to

replace the exiled native population after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BC).

Several reasons argue strongly against the identification, favoured by Josephus and many

others since, of this group with the Samaritans as they are more widely known from the NT...,

some of whose descendents survive to the present day in two small communities at Nablus and

Holon: (i) the word used (hamrnm) seems merely to mean 'inhabitants of (the city or


11/27

11

province of) Samaria (mrn)', and this fits the context of 2 Ki. 17 best; (ii) there is no

evidence that the later Samaritans inhabited Samaria. The earliest certain references to them,

by contrast, all points clearly to their residence at Shechem..., whilst one of the Josephus'

sources refers to them as 'Shechemites'...; (iii) nothing whatever that is known of later

Samaritan religion and practice suggests the pagan influence of 2 Ki. 17 or Ezr. 4.[36]

It is worthwhile adding that modern biblical scholarship has recognized that

antagonism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed for many centuries

which goes back to the period of the united monarchy. The account in II Kings 17 was

written from a southern viewpoint and was quick to highlight the primacy of

Jerusalem over any potential rivals. Independence from Jerusalem, an identifying

characteristic of Samaritanism, draws unqualified criticism in the Hebrew Bible.[37]

Modern Samaritan scholarship also realizes that there was no sudden break thatseparated Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the rift developed over a long period of time

with certain events causing more hostility than others.[38] Perhaps it was after John

Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim in 2nd century BCE, the two

communities went separate ways.

To summarize, modern scholarship conclusively refutes the claim of Samaritan

origins based on II Kings 17. The Christian missionary and apologist views, including

Vargo's "Jewish view" and the views of his unknown and unnamed "modern

scholars", can now be safely discarded.

4. What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Origins?

As we have seen from our discussion on II Kings 17, until the middle of the 20th

century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race

people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE.

Scholarship has moved ahead since then and in recent years research based on the

study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins.

TheEncyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") summarizes both past and the

present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:

Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated

from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of

Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the

decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration

of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the

Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest

Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-

Samaritan materials.


12/27

12

According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes,

Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood

descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously

occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other

Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to

Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this

was the 'schism' par excellence.[39]

Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of

Joseph:

The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except

those of the tribe of Benjamin, but th is traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles

assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an

aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very

proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.[40]

Clearly, if the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants,

then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses. However, the Samaritan

Chronicles, just like the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Kings, are

late compilations.[41] Moreover, as observed earlier, the literature of both the Jews and

Samaritans have their own inherent bias in them. They were written from their own

point of view and thus exhibit to varying degrees a polemicizing of the events.[42]

Nevertheless there are some indications that the Rabbis were aware of the Samaritans'

ancient origins and conceded that they were of genuine Israelite stock. An interesting

narration is found in Genesis Rabbah, part of which involves Rabbi Meir discussing

the plausibility of the Samaritan claim to have a continuous ancestral link to the tribe

of Joseph. The discussion proceeds as follows:

R. Meir met a Samaritan and asked him: 'Whence are you descended?' 'From Joseph,' he

replied. 'That is not so,' he said. 'Then from whom?' 'From Issachar,' he told him. 'How do you

know this?' he countered. - Because it is written, AND THE SONS OF ISSACHAR: TOLA, AND

PUVAH, AND IOB, AND SHIMRON - the last name referring to the Samaritans.' [43]

Although disputing the Samaritan version of the account, Rabbi Meir concurs with

their claim to be of genuine Israelite origin. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, the

Samaritans can in fact trace their lineage to a time that precedes the advent of Moses.

The problem of establishing the authenticity of the claims of the Jews and Samaritans

concerning the origins of the latter is not as insurmountable as it seems. We have

already seen that II Kings 17 has nothing to do with the Samaritan origins. On the

other hand, the Samaritans claim that they have continuously occupied their ancient


13/27


14/27

14

after the fall of Samaria and after the latest Assyrian settlements the old tribal names

were still in use and no new, foreign ones had superseded them. It has to be assumed

therefore that the old inhabitants were mostly still residing in their old homes and hadnot been displaced by new settlers.

This conclusion is strengthened by the attitude of Jeremiah. He is reported to have

said in chapter 31 that Ephraim is still enjoying the love of God and prophesises its

complete restoration jointly with Judah. Nowhere does he allude to Ephraim's having

been supplanted by newcomers. The same goes for Ezekiel. He speaks in the same

terms of Ephraim as of Judah. There, too, is no allusion to a strange people having

displaced the original settlers.[45]

We lack information of what passed in Samaria during the time of the Babylonian

rule. However, even in Judah no new settlers were brought in instead of those exiled

to Babylon. The Babylonians do not seem to have taken over the Assyrian concept of

replacing local populations by others - or might have lacked the power and resources

to do so. Thus it does not seem likely that there were any further settlements in

Samaria after those of Assurbanipal. If the old tribal framework was basically intact

after the time of this last important Assyrian ruler, the resident Israelite population,

with a slight admixture of foreign settlers in the main towns, cannot have changed its

composition till the time of Persian rule and the initial Jewish return from Babylonian

exile. After making this detailed argument, Schur concludes by saying:

Our conclusion is therefore that the Samaritan tradition is generally correct in claiming direct

descent from the Ten Tribes of Israel.

This conclusion can be checked now also by archeological evidence. Except for the destruction of

the towns sacked by the Assyrians, such as Samaria and Shechem, other places, where

occupation was continuous, show no trace of a different material culture intervening in the later

Assyrian period. In the 1967/8 survey ceramic remains of 81 sites were also examined in the

province of Samaria, and no differences of nuances could be discovered between the Assyrian

period on the one hand and the Persian on the other. The same results were obtained in the

1978/9 survey of the Dotan region, in the exploration of western Samaria and by further

archeological excavations of the last 15 years in Samaria. [46]

Nearly similar conclusions were also reached by Frank Cross concerning the

uninterrupted existence of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh before and after the

Assyrian invasion, although he considers that the earliest form of Samaritanism to be

an old Israelite religion.

Accordingly, the later Jewish tradition comes to call the Samaritans en blocKutians (kwtym), or

sardonically, "lion-proselytes" in light of the anecdote in 2 Kings 17:25-28. For their part, the


15/27

15

Samaritans of the later times claimed to be the remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh, authentic

Israelites who alone preserve the ancient faith and service of the god of Israel unsullied by

Judaean innovations.

In fact, neither of these two polemical positions can stand close critical scrutiny. On the other

hand, there are very strong arguments to support the conclusion that the bulk of the men of

Ephraim and Manasseh remained in the land; on the other hand, there is equally strong

evidence... that Samaritanism in the form we find it in the Roman Age and later is not a survival

of old Israelite religion, pure or syncretistic, but rather is essentially a sectarian form of

Judaism.[47]

Thus, it can be said the Samaritan tradition is correct in claiming direct descent from

tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Since the Samaritans trace their origins from the

time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence during the time ofMoses. However, it is not known from the Samaritan Chronicles or the Hebrew

Bible as to when the label shamerin was first used by the Samaritans to identify

themselves as a distinct group. The Qur'an suggests that this label was already in

place during the time of Moses.

The claims of the Samaritans about their Israelite origins were partially corroborated

by a recent study involving genetics which we will now turn to.

5. A Genetic Perspective

The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They

number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus,

near their holy site of Mount Gerizim.[48] The Samaritans, according to their origins,

are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv

families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Cohanim). As

for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house

descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions

devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the

tribe of Levi.[49]

Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous

marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but

also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans

are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-

Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that around 84%

of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient

recorded for any population.[50] This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic

character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations.


16/27

16

Before we go into the issue of genetics, let us first clarify some terms used. A

haplotype is the genetic constitution of an individual chromosome and is a contraction

of the phrase "haploid genotype". A haplogroup is a large group of haplotypes. Inhuman genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome

haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be

used to define genetic populations. Both these haplogroups have their distinct

advantages. The Y-chromosome has the advantage of being passed solely along the

patrilineal line (i.e., only via father), while mtDNA is passed solely on the matrilineal

line (i.e., only via mother). Hence these haplogroups can be used to study the lineage

especially of those groups/sects who marry within their own groups/sects.

The haplogroups were used to study cohanim who are descended from Aaron.According to biblical tradition, after the Jewish exodus from Egypt, Moses' brother

Aaron was selected as the first cohen. The designation was bestowed upon his sons,

providing the basis for a firmly entrenched Jewish tradition in which a male cohen

bestows the status upon his children. A daughter of a cohen can become a priest, but

she cannot pass on the honour. The Y-chromosome passes solely from father to son,

akin to the cohen status. If all modern cohanim were indeed descendants of Aaron, or

a relative of him, their Y-chromosomes should have an ancient common origin.

Skorecki and his colleagues have found that the cohanim indeed have some Y-

chromosome features distinct from other Jews, implying that the cohanim do share

some common ancestry.[51] This shared genetic material comes from an ancestor who

lived several thousand years ago, roughly the time estimated for the beginning of the

Jewish priesthood. This led to the development of a set of Y-chromosomal markers

called the "Cohen modal haplotype" that might have been shared by Aaron. A similar

study was used to support the claim of the Lemba clan, an endogamous group from

southern Africa, that they were a tribe of Jews. One of the Lemba clans carries a

particular Y-chromosome which is "Cohen modal haplotype," at a very high

frequency, which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish

priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of

Judaic origin.[52]

What about the Samaritans? As we have noted earlier, the Samaritans have the highest

inbreeding coefficient as they have an endogamous marriage system that is practised

not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage.

The Samaritans claim that they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from

Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. If this is true, it should be reflected in their Y-

chromosome haplogroup and it should have close relationship with the "Cohen modal

haplotype". This is precisely what has been observed. Shen et al. concluded from Y-


17/27

17

chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mtDNA

analysis shows descent from the foreign women. This effectively has validated both

local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:

Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish

patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-

inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom

of Israel.[53]

Furthermore, the authors say:

This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture... [T]he data ...

indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do

those of the Samaritans and the ir longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However,

this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of

Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low

mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the

Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male

Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan... Based on the close relationship of the

Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we

speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original

Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern

kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other

conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in

line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but alsorecord the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with

people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome

lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages..., while their mitochondrial lineages are closest

to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences... Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in

each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13

microsatellite loci..., underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture

that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.[54]

It is worthwhile adding that this scientific study only establishes the common ancestry

of Jews and Samaritans patrilineages; it can't say when the split between them

happened, although the authors of this study have speculatedthat it could havehappened during the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. We now know that

this is not true as modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source

for the origins of Samaritan and clearly not in "line with biblical texts" as Shen et al.

have claimed. Despite this error, the scientific study clearly establishes the common

ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. As for the mitochondrial lineages of

Samaritans, a different historical explanation needs to be sought.

Vargo did not like this evidence and he tried to dismiss it by saying:


18/27


19/27

19

In other words, the conclusion of this study is that the origins of an endogamous

community of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancestor in the cohen or

the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. This study establishes acommon ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans, the mixed descent of Samaritans

which could be due to marriages with foreign women and corroborates the Samaritan

claims of Israelite origins.

6. Conclusions

Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans

originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian

conquest (722 BCE). In a similar vein, the Christian missionaries and apologists have

claimed that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the

northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after

722 BCE. Based solely on the evidence of II Kings 17, the missionaries and

apologists claim the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as

"the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) during the time of Moses is a historical

contradiction.

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries and apologists, specialists in Samaritan

studies have noted that the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing

about the origins of the Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria"and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which

the Samaritans use for themselves. Furthermore, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24

claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by Assyrians and

exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by archaeology. This historical

discrepancy severely undermines the veracity of the biblical claim concerning

Samaritan origins. Consequently, modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings

17 as a source for the origins of Samaritans.

In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of theSamaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the

publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan

version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle

reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim

and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood

descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry

of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going

back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and

foreign origins of the Samaritans.


20/27

20

The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their

history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content

themselves with repeating the claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately,Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans or the

extant archaeological evidence; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make

claims contrary to recent historical investigation. As we observed in this study, the

Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan"

(Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is consistent with modern investigations into the origins of

the Samaritan sect.

And Allah knows best!

Related Articles

For the 'source' of the Qur'anic verses dealing with the al-Samiri, please see the

article:

To Moo Or Not To Moo, That Is The Question!

References & Notes

[1] C. W. Wilson, "Samaria, Territory Of" in J. Hastings,A Dictionary Of The

Bible, 2004 (Reprint of 1898), Volume IV, Part 1, University Press of the Pacific:

Honolulu (Hawaii), p. 376. A similar description of the Samaritans is given by J. H.

Thayer in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament Coded With

Strong's Concordance Numbers, 2005 (7th Printing), Hendrickson Publishers Inc.:

Peabody (MA), p. 568.

[2] H. Lammens (Translated from French by Sir E. Denison Ross),Islam: Beliefs

and Institutions, 1929, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, p. 39.

[3] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh,Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988,

Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 209; Also see S. Masood, The Bible And

The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle, UK, p. 86.

[4] E. M. Caner & E. F. Caner, Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look At Muslim Life

And Beliefs, 2002, Kregal Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 90.


21/27


22/27

22

[17] "Samaritans" inEncyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, Encyclopaedia

Judaica Jerusalem, col. 728.

[18] M. Broshi & R. Gophna, "Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements

And Population",Bulletin Of The American School Of Oriental Research, 1986,

Volume 261, pp. 73-90, especially pp. 86-87.

[19] Y. Shiloh, "The Population Of Iron Age Palestine In The Light Of A Sample

Analysis Of Urban Plans, Areas, And Population Density",Bulletin Of The

American School Of Oriental Research, 1980, Volume 239, pp. 25-35, especially p.

32.

[20] A. D. Crown, "Samaritan Judaism" in J. Neusner, A. J. Avery-Peck & W. S.

Green (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia Of Judaism, 2004, Volume V, Supplement Two,

Brill: Leiden, p. 2243.

[21] R. de Vaux,Ancient Israel: Its Life And Institutions, 1997, Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids) and Dove Bookseller (Livonia), p. 66.

[22] J. B. Pritchard (Ed.), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology Of Texts And

Pictures, 1958, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 195. The inscription reads:

I besieged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na), led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it.

For the complete transcription of the inscription and its translation see H. Tadmor,

"The Campaigns Of Sargon II Of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study",

Journal Of Cuneiform Studies, 1958, Volume 12, pp. 33-40. The actual number of

prisoners appears to be either 27,280 or 27,290.

[23] This figure is reached by taking into account the estimated population to be

560,000 and the depopulation of 27,290 people from Samaria after the conquest of

northern kingdom of Israel by Sargon II.

[24] I. J. Gelb, "Prisoners Of War In Early Mesopotamia",Journal Of Near

Eastern Studies, 1973, Volume 32, p. 72.

[25] A. D. Crown, "Samaritan Judaism" in J. Neusner, A. J. Avery-Peck & W. S.

Green (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia Of Judaism, 2004, Volume V, Supplement Two,

op. cit., p. 2243.


23/27


24/27

24

consisted of two distinct elements living side by side - viz., (a) the remnant of the native

Israelites; and (b) the foreign colonists. For tendentious reasons, however, the Jewish version

ignores the former; the Samaritan version the latter.

[29] R. J. Coggins, Samaritans And Jews: The Origins Of Samaritanism

Reconsidered, 1975, op. cit., p. 18; Also see R. T. Anderson & T. Giles, The

Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans, 2002,

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), pp. 15-16; "Samaritans", The Jewish

Encyclopedia, 1905, Volume XI, Funk and Wagnalls Company: London & New

York, p. 670.

[30] J. Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (Or Sepher Ha-Yamim) From

Joshua To Nebuchadnezzar, 1969, op. cit., II Kings - II Chronicles, H, H*-J*, p. 178.


Reconsidered, 1975, op. cit., p. 18.

[32] "Anti-Samaritan Polemics" in A. D. Crown, R. Pummer & A. Tal (Eds.),A

Companion To Samaritan Studies, 1993, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tbingen, p.

18.

[33] L. L. Grabbe, "Betwixt And Between: The Samaritans In The HasmoneanPeriod" in P. R. Davies & J. M. Halligan (Eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies

In Political, Class And Material Culture, 2002, Journal For The Study Of The Old

Testament Supplement Series - 340, Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield (UK), p.

215.

[34] R. T. Anderson & T. Giles, The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And

Culture Of The Samaritans, 2002, op. cit., pp. 15-17.


Reconsidered, 1975, op. cit., p. 163. Also see pp. 9-10 where Coggins says:.

We have already that the word hamernm occurs only at 2 Kings 17:29, and that its natural

meaning is 'inhabitants of Samaria'.... there are no unambiguous references to the Samaritans

in the Hebrew Old Testament, and part of the support for this argument is the very fact that

none of the terms descriptive of the later Samaritan community are found there.

[36] "Samaritans" in J. D. Douglas (Organizing Editor),New Bible Dictionary,

1984, Second Edition, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester (UK) and Tyndale House

Publishers, Inc.: Wheaton (IL), p. 1062.


25/27

25

[37] R. T. Anderson & T. Giles, The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And

Culture Of The Samaritans, 2002, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

[38] J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch And The Origin Of The Samaritan

Sect, 1968, Harvard University Press: Cambridge (MA), pp. 7-8; R. Pummer, The

Samaritans, 1987, E. J. Brill: Leiden, p. 3; N. Schur,History Of The Samaritans,

1989, Beitrge Zur Erforschung Des Alten Testaments Und Des Antiken Judentums -

Volume 18, Verlag Peter Lang GmbH: Frankfurt am Main, p. 32; R. J. Coggins,

"Issues In Samaritanism" in J. Neusner & A. J. Avery-Peck,Judaism In Late

Antiquity - Where We Stand: Issues & Debates In Ancient Judaism , 1999, Volume

I, Part 3, Brill: Leiden, pp. 68-69; R. T. Anderson & T. Giles, The Keepers: An

Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans, 2002, op. cit., p. 16.

[39] "Samaritans" inEncyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, op. cit., col. 727.

[40] J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History,

Theology And Literature, 1907, op. cit., p. 32.

[41] For a recent discussion on the Samaritan Chronicles see L. L. Grabbe, "Betwixt

And Between: The Samaritans In The Hasmonean Period" in P. R. Davies & J. M.

Halligan (Eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies In Political, Class And

Material Culture, 2002, op. cit., pp. 209-210.

[42] For example, see P. W. Van Der Horst, "Anti-Samaritan Propaganda In Early

Judaism", in P. W. Van Der Horst, M. J. J. Menken, J. F. M. Smit & G. Van Oyen

(Eds.), Persuasion And Dissuasion In Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism And

Hellenism, 2003, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan: Leuven, pp. 25-44.

[43] Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (Trans.),Midrash Rabbah: Genesis II, 1939, Soncino

Press: London, XCIV.7, pp. 873-874. It must be emphasized that Genesis Rabbah was

redacted after the advent of Islam. However, this post-Islamic redaction would have

no bearing on our argument on the Samaritan origins.

[44] N. Schur,History Of The Samaritans, 1989, op. cit., pp. 21-23. We have edited

Schur's argument slightly.

[45] M. Gaster, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines And Literature, 1925,

The Schweich Lectures - 1923, Oxford University Press, p. 12.

[46] N. Schur,History Of The Samaritans, 1989, op. cit., p. 23.


26/27

26

[47] F. M. Cross, From Epic To Canon: History And Literature In Ancient Israel,

1998, op. cit., p. 175.

[48] R. Pummer, The Samaritans, 1987, op. cit., p. 1.

[49] I. Ben-Zvi, The Exiled And The Redeemed: The Strange Jewish 'Tribes' Of

The Orient, 1958, Valentine. Mitchell: London, pp. 123-124.

[50] B. Bonne-Tamir, A. Nystuen, E. Seroussi, H. Kalinsky, A. E. Kwitek-Black, M.

Korostishevsky, A. Adato, V. C. Sheffield, "Usher Syndrome In The Samaritans:

Strengths And Limitations Of Using Inbred Isolated Populations To Identify

Genes Causing Recessive Disorders",American Journal Of Physical

Anthropology, 1997, Volume 104, pp. 193-200.

[51] K. Skorecki, S. Selig, S. Blazer, R. Bradman, N. Bradman, P. J. Waburton, M.

Ismajlowicz, M. F. Hammer, "Y Chromosomes Of Jewish Priests",Nature, 1997,

Volume 385, p. 32; M. G. Thomas, K. Skorecki, H. Ben-Ami, T. Parfitt, N. Bradman,

D. B. Goldstein, "Origins Of Old Testament Priests",Nature, 1998, Volume 394,

pp. 138-40.

[52] M. G. Thomas, T. Parfitt, D. A. Weiss, K. Skorecki, J. F. Wilson, M. le Roux, N.

Bradman, D. B. Goldstein, "Y Chromosomes Traveling South: The Cohen ModalHaplotype And The Origins Of The Lemba - The "Black Jews Of Southern

Africa"",American Journal Of Human Genetics, 2000, Volume 66, No. 2, pp. 674-

686.

[53] P. Shen, T. Lavi, T. Kivisild, V. Chou, D. Sengun, D. Gefel, I. Shpirer, E. Woolf,

J. Hillel, M. W. Feldman, and P. J. Oefner, "Reconstruction Of Patrilineages And

Matrilineages Of Samaritans And Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome

And Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation",Human Mutation, 2004, Volume

24, p. 248.

[54] ibid., pp. 257-258.

[55] A. Nebel, D. Filon, B. Brinkmann, P. P. Majumder, M. Faerman & A.

Oppenheim, "The Y Chromosome Pool Of Jews As Part Of The Genetic

Landscape Of The Middle East",American Journal of Human Genetics, 2001,

Volume 69, No. 5, p. 1100 and p. 1103.


27/27

Collected And Organized By Abu Ali Al-Maghribi

com.gmail@allah2Submitter

Skype:Abuali-almaghribi

( lies rebuttal series ) the ( samaritan ) error in the qur'an

Documents