(studia judaica 66_ studia samaritana 6) józsef zsengellér-samaria, samarians, samaritans_ studies...

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans

Studia JudaicaForschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums

Begründet vonErnst Ludwig Ehrlich

Herausgegeben vonGünter Stemberger

Band 66

Studia Samaritana

Herausgegeben vonMagnar Kartveit, Gerald Knoppers

und Stefan Schorch

Band 6

De Gruyter

Samaria, Samarians, SamaritansStudies on Bible, History and Linguistics

Edited byJozsef Zsengeller

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-026804-1

e-ISBN 978-3-11-026820-1

ISSN 0585-5306

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Societe d’etudes samaritaines. International Congress (6th : 2008 : Papa,Hungary)

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans : studies on Bible, history and linguistics /Jozsef Zsengeller.

p. cm. - (Studia Judaica Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Juden-tums ; Bd. 66) (Studia Samaritana ; Bd. 6)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN 978-3-11-026804-1 (hardcover 23 15,5 : alk. paper)1. Samaritans - Congresses. 2. Bible. O.T. - Criticism, interpretation,

etc, Jewish - Congresses. I. Zsengeller, Jozsef. II. Title.BM905.S63 2008296.8117-dc23

2011032628

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet

at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Printed on acid-free paper

Printed in Germany

www.degruyter.com

In memoriam G. D. Sixdenier

Preface

The last decade witnessed the loss of several scholars in the community of Samaritan studies: the death of Ferdinand Dexinger in 2003, of Sergio Noja Noseda in 2008, of Hanan Eshel, and of Alan D. Crown in 2010. In the year of the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines (SES) Papa Conference (2008), Father Dom Guy Sixdenier passed away. He was the founder and the engine of our Society in its early years. This book is dedicated to the memory of his work and life.

During the last twenty-five years, Samaritan studies began to receive the recognition they deserve in the field of biblical, historical and linguistic research. The foundation of the SES, its four-yearly series of conferences, Samaritan sections in international scholarly meetings (SBL, EABS, ICANAS), and the restarting of the Studia Samaritana subseries in the Studia Judaica series of the publisher de Gruyter, all signal the importance of this area of academic research. Despite these facts and in spite of the new wave of publications (monographs, handbooks, and articles) during the last 20-25 years, many biblical scholars still seem unaware of the recent contributions made by those in the field of Samaritan studies.

Although maybe less significant than the Dead Sea discoveries, Samaritan topics permeate more areas of biblical studies. The question of the Samaritan Pentateuch has a serious impact on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The pre-Samaritan text-type among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the dating and isolation of Samaritan features of the Samaritan Pentateuch provide fresh and important data for gaining a better understanding of the composition of the Torah /Pentateuch. New reconstructions of the early history of the Samaritans have a great effect on the history of the Jewish people in the Persian and Hellenistic period. As a distinct group in the centuries arotmd the htrn of the Common Era in Palestine, Samaritans played an important role in the social and religious formation of early Judaism and early Christianity. Living for centuries tmder Islamic rule, Samaritans provide a good example of linguistic, culh1ral and religious developments experienced by ethnic and religious groups in Islamic contexts. Hopefully our efforts, which are also manifested in the present volume, will succeed and provide fruitful ideas for other areas of academic research.

viii Preface

The papers in this volume were presented at the sixth international conference of the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines held at the Reformed Theological Academy of Papa, Htmgary in July 17-25, 2008. This meeting was organized by the Shime'on Centre for the Study of Hellenistic and Roman Age Judaism and Christianity.

The editor expresses gratitude to Prof. G<ibor Vladar, Rector of the Reformed Theological Academy of Papa, and his administrative staff for kindly providing their support for the conference. The conference would not have been possible without the help and support of the staff, the students, and my colleague, Prof. Dr. Geza Xeravits, secretary of the Shime' on Centre.

Special thanks are due to Edina Kekk, who kindly prepared the indexes. I am also indebted to Mr. Jeffrey Rop, who improved the English of the non-native writers' articles.

I would like to thank Dr. Albrecht Dehnert, the editorial Director for Theology - Jewish Studies - Religious Studies at de Gruyter publishing house, the editors of the sub-series Studia Samaritana who supported the edition of this vohune, and the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines for their financial support of the editorial work.

Prof ]6zsef Zsengeller (Caspar Karoli Reformed University, Budapest)

List of Contributors

Shimon DAR: Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Israel)

Jan DUSEK: Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic)

Moshe FLORENTJN: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)

Ingrid HJELM: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

Haroutyun S. JAMGOTCHIAN Institute of Oriental Studies, Yerevan (Armenia)

Magnar KARTVEIT: School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger (Norway)

Gary N. KNOPPERS: Pennsylvania State University (USA)

Menahem MoR: University of Haifa (Israel)

Etienne NODET: Ecole Biblique Et Archeologique Fran~aise, Jerusalem (Israel)

Stefan ScHORCH: Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany)

Haseeb SHEHADEH: University of Helsinki (Finnland)

Paul STE HOUSE: Sydney (Australia)

Abrah am TAL: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)

Habib TAWA: Paris (France)

Thomas L. THOMPSON: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

Benyamim TSEDAKA: A-B Institute for Samaritan Studies, Holon (Israel)

Gerhard W EDEL: Free University of Berlin (Germany)

J6zsef ZSENGELLER: Caspar Karoli Reformed University,Budapest (HLmgary)

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Contributors ... ..... ....... ..... ... ...... .. ... .... ........ ... .... ........ .. .. ... ......... .. ix

I. Memorial HABIBTAWA

Equisse Biographique du Pere Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier ........ 1

II. Bible THOMASL.THOMPSON Genesis 4 and the Pentateuch's Reiterative Discourse: Some Samaritan Themes ............. ........................................................... 9

STEFAN ScHORCH

The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy .......................................................................... ............... 23

GARY N. KNOPPERS

Did Jacob Become Judah?: The Configuration of Israel's Restoration in Deutero-Isaiah ............................................................. .. 39

III. History AN DUSEK

Administration of Samaria in the Hellenistic period ......................... . 71

MENAI-IEM MOR

The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors - Again ................................................................................ 89

MAGNAR l<ARTVEIT

Josephus on the Samaritans- his Tendenz and Purpose ........ .. ......... 109

ETIENNE NODET

Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews ....... ... ......... .. .... ......... .. .. .. ......... 121

xii Contents

INGRID HJELM Samaritans. History and Tradition in Relationship to Jews, Christians and Muslims: Problems in Writing a Monograph .......... 173

IV. Linguistics ABRAHAM TAL "Hebrew Language" and "Holy Language" Between Judea and Samaria ......................................................................................... 187

MOSHE FLORENTIN An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type F ATII:IA ........................ 203

BENYAMIM TSEDAKA: Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading of the Israelite Samaritans in Comparison Its Significant Attributes ............................................... 217

V. Artifacts and Texts SHIMON DAR The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima ............................................... 225

J6ZSEF ZSENGELLER An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht ........ .... ........ .... ........ .. . 237

VI. Arabica PAUL STENHOUSE Reflections in a Samaritan Belief in an After-life. Text-proofs for 'The Appointed Day' in Sam. Ms. BL Or10370 .. .. ............ .. .......... 245

GERHARD WEDEL Abft 1-tfasan CU?-$ftri and his Inclinations to Mu'tazilite Theology .. 261

HAROUTYUN S. JAMGOTCH1AN A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories ? ...... .............. ............ 287

H ASEEB SHEHADEH: The Samaritan High Priest 'Imram ben Salama and his Poem against Mubarak al Mufarragi, Who Became a Convert to Islam in 1841 .................................................................. 293

Indexes ................................................................................................. 311

I. Memorial

Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier

HABIB TAWA

Le 1er octobre 1917 naissait à Blandy, près de l'antique ville de Melun (Sud-Est de Paris), Guy Sixdenier. Son père, Gaston Sixdenier, origi-naire du Jura, s'était installé en 1911 comme notaire à Blandy. L'année suivante il y épousait la fille d'un entrepreneur des travaux publics : Lucienne Grare et achetait une charge de commissaire-priseur. De la profession de son père Gaston, le jeune Guy conserva un goût sûr pour les belles oeuvres. Il en gardera aussi un attachement à ses racines ju-rassiennes. Sa mère, de lointaine ascendance picarde, lui transmit son amour de la musique, son sens aigu du devoir et sa piété profonde.

C’est dans cette atmosphère, imprégnée des valeurs traditionnelles de la France catholique, que le jeune Guy suivit, comme son frère aîné‚ et sa sœur, une scolarité harmonieuse dans une institution religieuse. Elle s'acheva sans peine par le baccalauréat de philosophie, en 1935.

A la recherche du sens ultime des choses, il consacra deux années à suivre les cours de philosophie de l’Institut Catholique de Paris. Ses réflexions le conduisirent à entrer au séminaire, en 1937. Deux ans plus tard, à la veille de la guerre, il devint novice chez les bénédictins. Une voie contemplative semblait alors se dessiner pour lui.

Mais le destin en décida autrement; car à peine mobilisé, il était nommé officier, après une préparation militaire supérieure. Le lieute-nant Sixdenier était chargé de former des unités de tirailleurs sénéga-lais. Ce contact, avec des wolofs et des maures au service de la France, fut le premier de ceux qu'il aura avec l’Afrique noire et l'Islam.

La “drôle de guerre” terminée, démobilisé, il réintégra son couvent, en fin 1940. Quatre ans plus tard, le 29 Juin 1944, il prononçait ses vœux définitifs. Il était ordonné moine sous le nom de Dominique. Ainsi s'ex-primaient clairement les options de base qui orienteront sa vie : la com-binaison du travail incessant et de la prière qui caractérisent les bénédictins; le choix d’une vie tournée vers le monde à l’instar de Saint Dominique, son patron; et, l’érudition de haut niveau, qui est valorisée, tant par les dominicains que par les bénédictins. Il se trouvait comblé.

2 H. Tawa

A peine était-il devenu moine, que ses supérieurs lui demandaient de former des novices. En dépit de cette lourde charge, il s’inscrivit aux cours de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Anciennes et de l’Ecole Prati-que des Hautes Etudes. Il y suivit une formation de grec attique et bib-lique car il maîtrisait déjà le latin depuis le séminaire. Mais il concentra surtout son effort et ses intérêts sur les études sémitiques. De 1944 à 1947, il fut successivement diplômé d’hébreu, de syriaque et d’araméen biblique. Sa préférence linguistique allait à l’hébreu et au syriaque, à travers lesquels il découvrira les autres langues sémitiques. Il noua à l’ELOA les premiers liens qui, au fil des années, permettront au "Père Sixdenier" de devenir, grâce à l’étendue de ses contacts et à leur diver-sité, l’un des hommes-clés parmi les plus introduits dans le milieu des sémitisants, français puis internationaux.

Ses supérieurs ayant apprécié ses qualités pédagogiques l’envoyèrent alors comme professeur au monastère de Wisques, dans le Pas de Calais. Il y forma, durant deux années académiques (1947-48 et 1948-49), des universitaires, à l’étude de la littérature du christianisme primitif et à l’histoire des origines chrétiennes. Il en profita pour tra-duire des textes grecs inédits de Saint Grégoire de Nysse. Son en-seignement lui inspira la publication, en 1948 dans le ”bulletin du Cange,” de sa première note érudite ”sur l'emploi par la vulgate du mot firmamentum.” Il y met en parallèle les Bibles latine et hébraïque.

En 1949 l’ordre bénédictin cherchait des volontaires pour fonder un monastère au Maroc. Et le voilà parti à Séfrou, à une quinzaine de ki-lomètres au sud de Fez, avec cinq de ses confrères. Dans cette région à la limite des populations arabes et berbères, il découvrit que : ”l’on parle au marché quatre langues : l’arabe, le berbère, l’hébreu et le français". Car les 6.000 juifs de Séfrou constituaient le quart de la population de cette petite ville. Il apprit alors l’arabe, avec un marocain francophone, et vécut, jusqu’en 1951, une riche expérience. Elle s’acheva par le rat-tachement de son monastère à une institution plus traditionnelle. Là aussi il profita de sa présence pour enseigner l’exégèse du Nouveau Testament au grand séminaire de Rabat.

On lui proposa alors des fonctions à Rome. Sans hésiter, il s’installa sur les bords du Tibre, en 1951. Rattaché à l'Académie Pontificale Saint Jérôme, il y reçut pendant un an une rigoureuse formation à la critique textuelle. Il remplit alors la fonction de secrétaire de l’édition de la Bible latine. Il découvrit bien vite les subtilités de la vie vaticane et résumera ses dix huit ans passés dans la ville éternelle par cette phrase lapidaire : ”Je suis un vieux romain.” Et il est vrai qu’il y a beaucoup appris et s’y est fait de nombreuses et solides amitiés.

Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier 3

Pour l'heure il était attaché à l’étude critique des variantes de la ”Vetus Latina.” Il y établit des notes très érudites et exhaustives, com-parant le texte adopté aux versions divergentes dont on dispose avec les autres versions anciennes de la Bible. Sa connaissance des langues sémitiques faisait en cela merveille. Elle fut aussi mise à contribution lorsqu'il édita, avec Francesco Vattiani, le texte quadrilingue du Sira-cide (ou Ecclésiastique). Cette édition met en parallèle les textes latin, grec, syriaque et hébreu. Ce dernier, qui avait été découvert à la fin du XIX° siècle parmi les fonds de la Geniza de la synagogue Ben ’Ezra du Vieux-Caire, aiguisa son intérêt pour les manuscrits perdus de la Bible. N’était-il pas comme son grand modèle Saint Jérôme à la recherche d'une "veritas hebraica" ? N’avait-t-il pas constat‚ que le texte de la ”Ve-tus” avait longtemps fluctué avant d'être fixé (au VII° siècle pour cer-taines parties) ? Il en était d’ailleurs tellement convaincu qu’il parvint à faire admettre la nécessité de restituer au Siracide, de la Vetus Latina, tout un chapitre qui lui manquait. Désormais le texte canonique com-portera 52 chapitres, au lieu des 51 antérieurement recensés.

Ce travail sur les sources le conduisit à s'intéresser à la Bible sama-ritaine, dont il étudia le mode de transmission. En 1955, il chargeait deux collègues, voyageant en Terre Sainte, de lui ramener la cantilla-tion traditionnelle de la Bible, par les prêtres samaritains. L’année sui-vante il en reçut l'enregistrement cantillé des trois premiers chapitres de la Genèse, à la fois en hébreu et en araméen. Il examina aussi les techniques des scribes samaritains et en proposa une classification. Il identifia ainsi un certain ”scribe lambda.” Ses recherches lui ouvrirent, en 1960, les portes de la Société Asiatique dont le Journal publia cette année là son article ”Paléographie samaritaine.”

En 1969, son travail achevé il rentra à l'abbaye Sainte-Marie, de la rue de la Source à Paris; celle où il avait prononcé ses voeux. Il en a fait un lieu de rencontre privilégié pour les sémitisants français et étrang-ers. Son sens de l'hospitalité et sa courtoisie, jointes à son art d'établir, par petites touches, des passerelles entre des personnes venues d’horizons différents, si ce n'est divergents, lui ont permis de rassemb-ler des spécialistes, parfois isolés par l’exigence de leurs travaux ou la spécificité de leur domaine de recherche.

Pendant les premières années qui suivent son retour à Paris, il con-tinue ses travaux de paléographie. Il écume les grandes bibliothèques : Nationale, Mazarine, archives des jésuites à Chantilly. Il y étudie les manuscrits, analyse les écritures et compare les textes.

Ainsi analyse-t-il, en 1969, ”le III° Livre d’Esdras et la Vulgate de Stuttgart,” dans le T.LXXI de la Revue d’Etudes Anciennes. Il publie aussi une note sur des fragments latins de Jérémie, dans le T.XXIV de

4 H. Tawa

Scriptorium, en 1970. Il donne le compte rendu d’un ouvrage sur le psautier de Ruffin, dans la ”Rivista di storia della filosofia religiosa.” Il identifie aussi, dans le fonds slavon des manuscrits du mont Sinaï ori-ginaires d'Ohrid, un psautier latin à la graphie singulière. Il le date entre le IX° et le XII° siècle, dans le N° XLI de Scriptorium, en 1987.

Il n’abandonne pas non plus son intérêt pour les études sémitiques. Là aussi il publie divers articles. Ainsi, en 1986, paraît dans le n° 3-4 du Journal Asiatique son article sur le texte syriaque de la stèle nestorienne de Si Ngan Fou.

Son expérience lui a appris que certains trésors dorment encore, perdus dans des bibliothèques ou stockés, si ce n'est oubliés, dans des dépôts insalubres. Il constate que certains courants marginaux ou hétérodoxes du christianisme et du judaïsme sont parfois porteurs de trésors dont il n'apprécient pas toujours eux mêmes l'importance. Il estime qu'il faut sauver ces textes et ces traditions inappréciables de la disparition. C’est dans cet esprit qu’il s’intéresse aux samaritains, aux qaraïtes et aux textes de l’ancien orient chrétien. C’est ainsi que s’expliquent les fondations successives de sociétés savantes dont il est à la fois l’animateur, le bienfaiteur et le héraut : Société d’Etudes Samari-taines SES en 1985, Société des Amis des Manuscrits et des Etudes Ka-raites SAMEK en 1987, Hautes Etudes du Clergé sur les Textes de l’Orient Religieux HECTOR en 1988. Il aide aussi à la fondation de l’Association Française pour l’Etude du Judaïsme Ethiopien AFEJE en 1992.

Par une forme de pudeur, probablement un peu ironique, il ne sera jamais que le secrétaire adjoint de ces sociétés qu’il soutient … bout de bras !

La première et jusqu'ici la plus vivante de ces associations naît d'une rencontre. Poursuivant ses recherches sur le texte biblique, il avait commencé une traduction de quelques chapitres du targum sa-maritain. Quelle ne fut sa surprise de découvrir, en 1980, que l'édition critique de Von Gall, qu’il pensait compléter, était déjà en voie de l'être. Abraham Tal venait d’éditer le premier tome de son ”Samaritan Tar-gum of the Pentateuch” (qu'il achèvera en 1983). Aussitôt Sixdenier en publie une recension, dans le n° 1-2 du Journal Asiatique de 1983. Il y montre, avec la sûreté de jugement que lui donne sa familiarité avec le sujet, à la fois l’intérêt exceptionnel et les limites de cette édition. Mais, l’enthousiasme qu'il y exprime est si manifeste, qu'une amitié est alors rapidement née ! Il complétera sa présentation par un autre article éru-dit et rigoureux, paru dans le n° 3-4 du Journal Asiatique de 1984: ”La langue du Targum samaritain, observation sur son évolution.”

Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier 5

Lors du séjour de Tal à Paris, en 1983, le projet d’une ”table ronde” voit le jour. Avec Jean-Pierre Rothschild et Jean Margain, ils la réunissent tous les quatre, en 1985, à l’Institut d’Histoire des Textes de Paris. Dans le même mouvement ils fondent la Société d’Etudes Sama-ritaine, sous la présidence d’André Caquot. Le renom des 25 membres fondateurs, ajouté aux efforts incessants et à la diplomatie du Père Six-denier, ont fait le reste. L’atmosphère, d’amitié et de mutuelle estime des initiateurs, s’est communiquée aux membres fondateurs. Elle est devenue aujourd'hui un trait caractéristique de la SES.

Les congrès internationaux se sont alors enchaînés: Tel Aviv 1988, Oxford 1990, Paris 1992, bientôt Milan 1996. Ils manifestent la vitalité de la SES, dynamisée par son animateur. La publication des actes, tant de la table ronde que de chacun de ces congrès, en a élargi l'auditoire. Les oeuvres collectives, éditées avec la collaboration de nombreux membres (The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown, 1989; A Companion to the Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, Abraham Tal, 1993; Die Samaritaner, ed. Ferdinand Dexinger et Reinhard Pum-mer,1992) ont soudé leur amitié à leur science. A cela il faut ajouter, depuis une décennie (83-94), au moins une dizaine d’ouvrages et de nombreux articles, de samaritanistes, généralement membres de la SES. Il faut aussi rappeler le projet, déjà largement engagé, d'une ”Hexapla Samaritaine;” il permettra d'éditer, en parallèle au texte massorétique, plus de six versions différentes du Pentateuque samaritain.

Tant dans ses communications, présentées lors des réunions de sa-maritanistes, que dans sa collaboration aux ouvrages collectifs, la présence de Sixdenier a été multiforme. Ouvrant sur un prologue et présentant la numismatique samaritaine (in The Samaritans), ou rédi-geant des biographies de samaritanistes de la Renaissance (in A Compa-nion ..), le père Sixdenier a aussi bien étudié les ”Relation des samari-tains avec leurs voisins du Nord” (Tel Aviv) que les ”variantes” du Targum de l’Exode (Table Ronde). Il a de surcroît publié diverses rela-tions critiques sur des ouvrages de samaritanistes (Journal for the Study of Judaism et autres). Ceci sans compter les textes qu’il a rédigé avec d'autres et sous leur nom.

Quant à la SAMEK, elle aussi s’est formée à l’ombre d’une amitié; celle qui a lié durant plus de trente ans, Dom Sixdenier au qaraïte et savant qaraïtologue Simon Szyszman. Tant la Bibliothèque Nationale que la Société Asiatique, avaient été pour eux des lieux d’échanges fructueux. En 1981, Sixdenier consacrait une longue relation, dans le Journal Asiatique, à l’ouvrage fondamental de Szyszman : ”Le Ka-raisme.”

6 H. Tawa

Sixdenier, avait déjà abordé le qaraïsme, lors de son édition du Si-racide, ainsi que dans son étude des traditions prophétiques du ju-daïsme intertestamentaire. Sa rencontre avec Szyszman lui a permis de mesurer l’intérêt que présente l’éclairage donné aux courants mas-sorétiques, aux doctrines sadducéennes et, plus largement, aux cou-rants judéo-israélites étrangers au rabbanisme. Ces perspectives, révélées par la qaraïtologie, en montrent l’intérêt. C’est dans ce sens que la SAMEK vise à étudier et à comprendre l’histoire et l’esprit du qaraïsme et celui de ses prédécesseurs.

La SAMEK a été fondée, en 1987 par Guy Sixdenier, sous la prési-dence de Charles Perrot, avec Henri Cazelles, Victor Escroignart, qui y représentait Simon Szyszman, et Habib Tawa. Elle a réuni deux congrès internationaux, en Sorbonne en 1990 et au Collège de France en 1992, dans une atmosphère chaleureuse et amicale. Les actes de ces congrès seront publiés dans le courant de cette année. Là aussi, la publication d’ouvrages et d'articles de membres de la SAMEK est venue s’ajouter, depuis 1987, à la publication des actes des deux congrès. Les recherches entreprises laissent espérer pour la SAMEK un développement compa-rable à celui de la SES.

Tous ces travaux illustrent la fécondité de l’oeuvre déjà accomplie. Ils concrétisent souvent les intuitions prémonitoires que révèlent par exemple ses ”Remarques sur la paléographie samaritaine” de 1960, où on peut lire: ”On peut conclure en souhaitant aux études samaritaines, paléographiques ou autres, une coordination plus active et plus efficace entre les professeurs, les revues et les instituts qui s’y consacrent, et qui grâce à Dieu, ne connaissent pas de rivalité, mais qui n’ont guère, non plus, jusqu'ici dépassé les relations de simple courtoisie.”

Ces quelques remarques laissent pressentir l’ampleur encore plus grande des perspective ouvertes par l’action infatigable de celui qui affirme modestement n’être “qu’un pauvre bénédictin” et dont l’un des rôles clés aura été d’être le ferment qui a fait lever la pâte .. .

Peut-être n'est-ce que sa paraphrase de l’homélie sur les béatitudes !

n. Bible

Genesis 4 and the Pentateuch’s Reiterative Discourse: Some Samaritan Themes

THOMAS L. THOMPSON

The Plot Line

Several of the central, interconnected themes of the garden story, such as the innocence of Adam and Eve’s unrecognized nakedness and the disobedience in the face of a test, with its associated challenge to divine hegemony, are taken up again in the immediately following story of Cain and Abel. In this allegory on the first murderer, the “creature” Cain, challenges his creator’s and divine patron’s choice in accepting his brother’s offering, but not Cain’s own which had been produced from the cursed soil brought from the garden (Gen 3:23!).1 Moreover, in a subtle reiteration of the motif of mankind created in the image of God, the garden pair, who had assumed a divine identity in their search for a knowledge reserved to the divine (Gen 3:6.22), Cain, in his story, will also see himself in God’s image and assume a divine role for himself. This motif; namely the implicit challenge of assuming the di-vine image, had entered the Cain story already in its opening lines, with Eve’s proud and hardly pious realization that she had created a man with Yahweh. Adam had called her havah, “‘mother’ of all that live”2 (Gen 3:20). Reiterating this divine epithet, Eve stands with Yah-weh: having created a man (Gen 4:1b). In contrast, Sara humbly offers the etiology for her son: “God has created laughter for me” (Gen 21:6a). As the story turns to Cain, he takes what Eve had claimed was hers to give, and marks their shared hubris complete. At the closure of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy will finally turn against such pretension, declaring that it is Yahweh’s and only Yahweh’s prerogative to “kill and make living; to wound and to heal. No other is a God with him” (Deut 32:39).

1 See PFOH, Genesis 4; THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 229. 2 Sum. ama Accad. Awa: “mother.”

10 T. L. Thompson

The Cain story’s brief, etiological discourse on Abel’s fragile, un-protected life offers a very delicately crafted scene in which the rejected one hangs his head in anger at Yahweh’s response to his offering (Gen 4:5-7). The cause of Cain’s anger, however—Yahweh’s rejection—is never discussed. Yahweh is not to be tested. He is a God whose essence is to do what he will do (Ex 3:14; cf. Ex 33:19-20)! What is good or not good is what is good or not good “in his eyes” (Gen 1:4.10.12.18.21. 25.31; cf. 1Sam 3:18).3 The contrast does not distinguish between what might be in fact good or not good, but rather separates a human from a divine perspective,4 marking the greater plotline of the Pentateuch with one of the central themes of classical tragedy.5 Neither Cain nor his offering is acceptable. Yahweh’s question to Cain: “Why are you an-gry?” is entirely rhetorical. Rather than waiting for an answer, he puts Cain to the test. Like Eve before him (Gen 2:16-17), Cain is given a sin-gular, fate-determining choice. Eve has the choice of taking or not tak-ing the knowledge of good and evil. All the fruit of the trees in the gar-den, can she eat, save one. So Cain can always hold his head high by doing the good. He must master the “wrong that lies before his door” (Gen 4:7). Cain is, with Eve, created in the image of his divine patron and, like Eve, he will choose what he sees to be good (Gen 3:6). Howev-er, Yahweh’s role suggests an element of progression as our stories are set firmly together in the Pentateuch’s larger narrative. Although once-innocent Eve hardly knew the basis of her test, the wary reader might notice that the Cain story’s “sinful error,” lying in wait at the door, veils the crawling snake of the garden story’s curse (Gen 3:4b). After the flood, when Yahweh and his narrative turn towards a new begin-ning, good Noah, who walked with God, is also given a choice, reiterat-ing Eve’s. Noah may eat all the meat he chooses, save that which has the blood still in it, thereby—and for the first time—marking the dis-tinction between God and his image through cult and covenant.6 To Noah, the necessity of the choice is explained as Yahweh seeks to miti-gate and channel the violence; the life is in the blood (Gen 9:3-4).

Cain’s story moves quickly and its language is choice and simple, bearing well the story’s parable. Cain’s head no longer hangs; hubris replaces anger as Cain, himself, becomes the sin lying before his door. He “rose up,” “attacked” and killed his brother, Abel (Gen 4:8), taking 3 THOMPSON, He is Yahweh, 246-263. For a discussion of this motif in the Cain story,

see THOMPSON, Creating the Past, 11-17. 4 On fluctuating, but parallel motifs for “evil” and “wrong”, compare Gen 3:15 with

Job 29:17 and Ps 72:4c; further, THOMPSON, Job 29, 127-130. 5 PFOH, Genesis 4; THOMPSON, Bible in History, 308. 6 On covenant and divine patronage, see now PFOH, Emergence.

Gen 4 and the Pentateuch’s Reiterative Discourse 11

as his own the divine power over life and death. Once Abel is dead, the story finds time for reflection by having Yahweh ask the obvious, a strategy that echoes the transition of the garden story’s discovery of nakedness to Yahweh’s calling to Adam, who hides, fearful in his knowledge: “Where are you (Gen 3:10)?” The Cain story’s reiteration has Yahweh ask a similarly simple and exposing question: “Where is Abel, your brother (Gen 4:9)?” Cain’s answer is commonly read both as, rhetorically, contrary to fact, and as an assertion of arrogance: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”—indeed, as a refusal to answer Yahweh’s question. However, we must consider the greater plot line: does Cain know what it is to kill a man? Though he has chosen lurking evil, does he know what it is? Does he know where his brother has gone? If, however, we continue to hold our plot-line parallel to the gar-den tale and not least the garden narrative’s theme of anthropogenesis, the first part of Cain’s answer, asserting his ignorance, echoes the inno-cent Adam, fearful of his nakedness: “I don’t know.” Abel was there talking with him (Gen 4:8a), but, now, is no more! How, could Cain answer otherwise? And so Cain opens his story’s centre with a counter-question that is deeply his own. Reiterating Adam’s failure in the role as “servant and keeper” of the garden of delight (Gen 2:15), Cain the “servant of the ground,” asks about his brother, the keeper of sheep: “Am I my brother’s shomer?” “Am I the shepherd?” The irony is im-pressive, given Yahweh’s acknowledged preference for that shepherd and his meat. It was not Cain, but Abel who was mankind’s shepherd! The tragedy of his death becomes now for the first time clear to his brother; who now is rather among the lost sheep of this world: those who suffer the fate that threatened the Israelites of Numbers 27:17. Cain’s fearful “Am I my brother’s keeper?” reflects self-awareness and incapacity—a desparate humility. If Cain is not his brother’s keeper, who, then, is mankind’s shomer? That is the question that is proposed at the heart of the Cain story.

Such a compassionate reading of the Cain story seems supported by what follows. As with Yahweh’s answering question in Genesis 3:11: “Who told you that you were naked?” Yahweh’s response to Cain is introduced with a similarly rhetorical interrogative: “What is it you have done?” The question, however, implies not merely that Yahweh knows the ramifications of what Cain has done, as the similar question to Adam had, but it is also implied that Cain does not know! In Genesis 3, Yahweh’s retribution is expressed in his curse of the land on which Adam was dependent (Gen 3:17-19). In Cain’s narrative, however, that cursed, wilderness earth swallows what Cain had spilled: the blood of Abel. The voice of his brother’s blood cries to Yahweh from she’ol. In-

12 T. L. Thompson

tensifying the garden story’s curse of Adam, the land, now, in this rei-teration will no longer yield its produce (Gen 4:12). The story again progresses. Adam and Eve’s fate as exiles from the garden (Gen 3:23-24) is intensified in Cain’s more desperate fate as wandering fugitive (Gen 4:12b). His fate is in the land of Nod—East of Eden—exiled both from god and land, anxious prey to any who might wish to kill him (Gen 4:13-14). Unlike the very passive figure of Adam in the scene of the garden story’s three-fold curse, Cain protests his fate in a scene that bears more than merely the ironic comedy of the murderer fearing for his life. In Yahweh’s compassionate answer, the tragic fate of mankind as sheep without a shepherd is resolved. With now this second failure, Yahweh takes up himself the role of mankind’s shomer. The mark of Yahweh’s patronage protects Cain from any who might wish to kill him (Gen 4:15). It marks Cain with Yahweh’s patronage. Cain becomes untouchable. His life is protected with the threat of retribution from Yahweh’s vengeance.7

Murder, Revenge and Blood Guilt

There are several major themes of the Pentateuch anchored in the story of Cain, which need to be discussed in detail, in order to appreciate the full impact of the Cain story’s implications. Among the most important we might mention are the theme of the cursed land and its curse, which brings exile and estrangement, as well as the paired-figures of Adam as “servant and keeper” of the garden and his shepherd-son, Abel, whose death opens the rich thematic problem of sheep without a shepherd. Most dominating is the plot-creating motif of brothers fighting brothers along with its major sub-theme of the younger son supplanting the elder, which is so clearly illustrated in Seth’s displacement of Cain in the bridge narrative that links the Cain story to Adam’s toledoth. These interrelated themes are in turn reiterated throughout the Pentateuch and feed its never-ending allegory about Samaria and Jerusalem.8 There are also lighter references to major themes that are primarily played out in other contexts such as the motif of sin threatening at the door, who must be mastered: a clear echo of the myth of the Apophis dragon and the one who breaks his jaw with a king’s shepherd-like virtue (Job 29,17).9 This is more than can be dealt with in this brief paper and,

7 PFOH, Genesis 4. 8 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise,169-253; HJELM, Brothers Fighting, 197-222. 9 THOMPSON, Job 29, 127-132.


therefore, I must limit myself to the thematic opposition between re-venge and reconciliation that dominates the implied discourse between the Pentateuch and the ancient Near Eastern theme of murder and blood guilt.

The ancient Near Eastern paired themes of blood-guilt and reconcil-iation, evoked by Lamech’s divinely competitive song of vengeance (Gen 4:23-24), moves the narrative significantly forward in support of Yahweh’s regret that he had created mankind, with which the flood story begins (Gen 6:5). After the flood, the “solution” to murder offered by Yahweh’s commandment, legislating vengeance in Genesis 9:5-6, hardly evokes a reader’s confidence in Yahweh’s new, post-flood world. It not only ignores Lamech’s pride and the uninhibited evil of the human heart (Gen 8:21), but this new test of mankind: “All can be eaten, except . . .,” pointedly echoes the first failed test of the garden story (Gen 9:3; cf. Gen 2:16-17). An implicit variation on Orphic and Pythagorean horror of blood sacrifice functions as opening to Leviticus’ theology of forgiveness and reconciliation, presented as commentary to blood sacrifice (esp. Lev 17:10-11; cf. Lev 8:15). Yahweh adds to his prohibition: “The life of the meat is in the blood and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.” The utopian vegetarianism of the creation’s failure is superseded by cultic functions of atonement and reconciliation.

The confluence in Genesis 9’s story of new beginnings, maintaining echoes of Cain’s pre-flood violence, supports the figure of Yahweh and his bow, the sign of his covenant (Gen 9:12-17), a mimesis of the horror with which the Greek god Ares and his bow were notoriously attri-buted, marking humanity’s new dominance over the world with He-brew variants of Ares’ two sons, Phoibos and Deimos: “Fear” and “Ter-ror” (Gen 9:2).10 With such a vision of mankind, created in the image of God, in place, one well sees the Exodus “covenant code”-discourse on murder in Exodus 21 (Ex 21:12-14), with its close variant in Deuteron-omy’s plan for cities of refuge in the promised land (Deut 19:1-13), as directed towards reconciliation. Similarly, and in accord with Leviticus 4’s related concerns for the unintentional sinner (Lev 4:1-21), the cove-nant with Noah is also marked with overtones of forgiveness and re-conciliation (Gen 9:9-11), initiating a new effort to resolve the violence that had moved Yahweh to destroy his creation in the flood. Both Ex-odus and Deuteronomy present a place of refuge for one who has committed unintended manslaughter, which, in the mitigating phrase

10 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 236-237.

14 T. L. Thompson

of Exodus 21:13, “God had allowed to happen.” In Numbers, the com-munity is, moreover, instructed to save the one guilty of unintentional manslaughter and bring him to the place of refuge. He is finally recon-ciled with the community at the death of the anointed high-priest (Num 35:10-34).11 All reject the use of the place of refuge in cases of intentional murder and all reiterate in one manner or another Genesis 9’s assertion of the death penalty. Deuteronomy 19:13, in fact, explicitly advises against showing mercy to one who, like Cain, has spilled inno-cent blood. Is this demand for retribution and revenge to be read as a legislative solution, specifically superseding the failure of Yahweh’s compassionate response to Cain’s fear? However much it is consonant with the principle of “a life for a life and an eye for an eye”, which closes this pericope (Deut 19:21), it hardly deals with Lamech’s over-trumping Yahweh’s vengeance. It opposes Yahweh’s mercy to the murderer as much as it undermines the righteousness of his seven-fold vengeance. Such problems call for a wider exegesis.

The interrelated discourse on murder, revenge and blood guilt is well-known in ancient narrative literature. One of the earliest of such stories takes up these themes as a political and philosophical problem, much as the Pentateuch does. “The Proclamation of Telipinu,” which comes to us in both Old Hittite and Accadian versions from as early as the 13th century, BCE,12 is told in the 1st person voice. Telipinu begins his story with a brief account of the reigns of the first seven kings of Hattusa, beginning in the distant past. The first king, Labarna (early 17th century BCE), ruled with a united family supporting him. His sons ruled seven cities “and the great cities made progress.” The second king, Hattusili, also ruled with a united family with similar success. However, corruption came, greed and conspiracy, and “they began to shed blood.” The third king, Mursili, also begins his reign in harmony and success. His cupbearer, Hantili, however, conspires with his son-in-law Zidanta to kill Musili “and sheds his blood.” Hantili then wor-ries like Cain (Gen 4:13-14): “Will I be protected… and so the gods pro-tected him.” The story continues, with expanding conspiracies and murders within the royal family. “When Hantili grew old, Zidanta ruthlessly murders both Hantili’s son and his grandsons to become the fourth king. In response, the gods seek revenge and cause Zidanta’s son Ammuna to hate and kill his father and he thereby becomes king him-self. The gods, however, demand revenge and strike the land with fa-

11 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 294-295. 12 HOFFNER, Propaganda, 49-62; VAN DEN HOUT, Proclamation, 194-198. For an earlier

discussion of this narrative, see THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 168-169.


mine, causing the land itself to turn against Ammuna. Seven cities (rebel) and his troops are defeated. When Ammuna is old, Retribution brings Huzziya, the head of his bodyguard, to send his son to kill the crown prince and the whole of the king’s family so that Huzziya might become king. When the author of our story, Telipinu, marries Huz-ziya’s sister, the king and his five brothers plot to kill him. Uncovering the plot and successfully seizing power, Telipinu declares: “They did evil to me, but I [will not do] evil to them.” Instead, he gives the would-be murderers houses, food and drink and declares that no one may do them harm (cf. 2 Kings 6:21-23). Nevertheless, Telipinu’s commanders, unknown to the king, have both Huzziya and his 5 brothers murdered. When, however, the royal council condemns three of the conspirators to death, Telipinu overturns the judgment. Instead of killing them, he takes their weapons and (with an uncertain text) turns them into a mus-ical instrument.13 Finally, disgusted by the excess of bloodshed in Hat-tusa, Telipinu makes a decree, which bans any killing of a member of the royal family and sets the order of succession to the throne. Telepi-nu’s successor may no longer kill any member of the family. If the king does plan such a murder, his council is to show him this tablet, forbid-ding it. The death penalty is set for regicide, but the murderer is not to be killed secretly nor is his family to be killed. Anyone who sins against this decree, even a prince, must pay with his own life, but his family will not be harmed and his property will not be confiscated.

The common ground in the political philosophy and social thinking associated with Telipinu’s and Cain’s stories is broader than this single issue. An entire range of thematic elements are shared. Among these, are a story of origins; a setting in the distant past; the killing of rela-tives; spilling of blood; blood-guilt; revenge; uncontrollable violence and evil; the gods curse of the land; rebellion of the land after it has been cursed with famine; a murderer’s fear of being killed; gods pro-tecting the murderer; a logic of retribution; the reversal of a divine judgment and the effort to restrict punishment to the guilty. As soon as one goes beyond Genesis to other thematically related biblical narra-tives, the common ground between this Hittite story and biblical narra-tive expands considerably.

Telipinu’s decision to spare his would-be assassins is an act of re-conciling mercy, ending violence and establishing peace. The decree, condemning on the one hand one who is guilty of killing a member of the royal family and protecting the innocent on the other, is intended to 13 The commonly accepted translation of the uncertain reading by FORRER, Boghazköi

Texte, 42 n8, a “yoke” is apparently influenced unduly by Isaiah; see VAN DEN HOUT, Proclamation, 196 n46..

16 T. L. Thompson

prevent the cycle of violence that revenge and blood-guilt foster. Al-though the Pentateuch’s development of this discourse follows the same pattern, from mercy to law, as the Telipinu story does—condemning the one alone who does evil and protecting the innocent—the biblical discussion is spread over a much larger narrative and is maintained, with the inclusion of other themes, throughout the Penta-teuch. Yahweh’s original decision to use vengeance to protect Cain creates the problem. His “solution” is ridiculed with open irony by the song of Lamech. Yahweh’s vengeance invites even greater violence much as the gods’ demand in Telipinu’s story for vengeance, use of famine as punishment and encouragement of civil war fostered further assassination and bloodshed. A law-giving resolution to the problem is delayed in Genesis, as humanity’s penchant for violence causes Yah-weh to regret his creation and send a flood which he then in turn also comes to regret (Gen 8:21). This development is most interesting as it takes up a plot line that shares motifs with the flood story in the Gil-gamesh epic, particularly in the scene in which the goddess Ninurta scolds Enlil for sending the flood in a three-fold voicing of her regret for the flood: “Instead of your bringing on the flood, would that a lion had risen up to diminish mankind; instead of your bringing on a flood, would that a famine for the land to undergo; instead of your bringing on the flood, would that a pestilence had risen up for mankind to un-dergo!” Ninurta’s 3-fold lesser punishments are drawn out in biblical narrative between Yahweh’s covenant promise to Noah to “remember his covenant with mankind when he sees his bow in the skies, so that never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all creation” (Gen 9:15-17) on the one hand and the long-delayed threefold choice he gives to David at the close of 2 Samuels between “three years of famine in the land, three months of flight, with the enemy in close pursuit or three days of pestilence in your land” (2 Sam 24:11-14) on the other. In both Noah’s and David’s narrative, the ultimate pedagogical goal of this motif as expressed in Ninurta’s scolding counsel in the Gilgamesh story is maintained: “How could you, unreasoning, have brought on the deluge? Impose punishment on the sinner for his sin: on the transgres-sor for his transgression”14—a formulation of principle, which receives quite precise reiteration as one of the specific prescriptions of Deute-ronomy: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children for their parents; each one may be put to death only for his own sin” (Deut 24:16).

14 Both quotations from Gilgamesh follow the translation of FOSTER, Gilgamesh, 460b.


After the flood, the regretful Yahweh searches for his solution to his creation by moving towards this conclusion in Deuteronomy with a covenant’s new beginning (Gen 9:12-17) and a plot-line that carry us to the story of Yahweh’s rejection of the wilderness generation in Num 14 and its recollection in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:34-36). Among the texts outside the Pentateuch we might profitably consider—which take up such issues as violence, blood-guilt and revenge and resolve them on principles of justice—are Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s commentaries on the proverb, “the fathers eat sour grapes and their sons’ teeth are set on edge” (cf. Lam 5:7). Jeremiah is both brief and straightforward: clearly pedagogical in his interpretation: “Everyone will die for his own wrongdoing; he who eats the sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge” (Jer 31:30). Ezekiel’s commentary not only doubly reiterates Deu-teronomy’s principle: “It is the person who sins that will die; a son will not bear the responsibility of his father’s guilt, nor a father his son’s. The righteous will have his own righteousness placed to his account and the wicked person his own wickedness” (Ezek 18:20). He is also more comprehensive, considering the implicit claim to the justice of an innocent and righteous son of a sinful father and draws the important further principle that, when a sinner converts from the wrong he has done, he too shall live (Ezek 18:21-32), a conclusion, fostering mercy and forgiveness, which is not only echoed in Isaiah (cf. Ezek 18:27 and Isa 55:7) and the Psalter (Ps 130:3-4), but clearly accommodates Yah-weh’s mercy to Cain.

There are also two narratives in 2 Kings that deal with this theme and bring us even closer to the principle of love of one’s enemy, which brings an end to violence in the biblical narrative and is comparable to Telipinu’s kindness to his would-be assassins. The first is one of the parables of Elisha. In answer to his prayer, Yahweh blinds a terrifying troop of Aramean cavalry that the prophet might lead them helpless into Samaria. There they stand before the king, who would kill them. Elisha counsels, however, mercy to prisoners. A feast is prepared and, having been given food and drink, the enemy soldiers are allowed to return home. A closing commentary—that this brought an end to Ara-mean raids into Israel—interprets the story (2 Kings 6:18-23). A parallel story, set also in Samaria, is found in 2 Chronicles 28, in which the sol-diers of Israel, having killed 120,000 Judeans in battle, take 200,000 women and children captive. The prophet Oded upbraids them both for the massacre carried out in hatred and for intending to force their kin into slavery. Immediately the men of Samaria gave the prisoners clothing, sandals, food and drink and anointed them. Those who couldn’t walk, they put on donkeys and led them all back to Jericho (2

18 T. L. Thompson

Chron 28:6-15). Rather than the love of one’s enemy, 2 Chronicles’ par-able illustrates specific commands of the torah; particularly, the prohi-bition in Leviticus against hating your brother, with its associated command to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:17-18). The second tale in Kings deals more specifically with the themes of regicide and blood-guilt. When King Joash was assassinated by his own men (2 Kings 12:20-22) and his son Amasiah came to power, Amasiah kills those who had killed his father, but—the narrator explains—he does not kill their sons, for “in the book of Moses’ torah,” it is commanded that fathers should not suffer for the sins of their sons, nor sons for the sins of their fathers. One must suffer death only for one’s own crime”, citing Deuteronomy directly (2 K 14:5-7; Deut 24:16). Again the narra-tive turns us back to the Pentateuch’s discourse, which both Jeremiah and Ezekiel had held implicit.

The Pentateuch’s treatment of these themes centers in two parallel stories—in Exodus and in Numbers—which reiterate the flood story’s figure of Yahweh, regretting his creation (Gen 6,5-7). In the first narra-tive, Yahweh’s regret expresses his anger over the golden calf which Aaron and the people made in the wilderness (Ex 32:1-24; Deut 9,8-21), a narrative which is pointedly reiterated in 1 Kings’ supersessionist story of Jeroboam’s calves set up at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:26-33) and is very central to the theme of “brothers fighting brothers.”15 Ex-odus’ brief story takes up the metaphor of Yahweh as shepherd, angry at Israel’s rebellious stubbornness, rejecting the path he would have them follow. As in Genesis’ flood story, Yahweh once again regrets his creation and decides to destroy all before him. Rather than Israel, he will make a new beginning and create yet another great people from Moses (Ex 32:7-10). Moses’ response to Yahweh’s threat is told in two variations. In the first Moses argues against the plan by appealing to Yahweh’s reputation. If he were to do what he threatens, the nations will mock him. Yahweh listens to him and, as in the flood story, regrets once again the evil he would do (Ex 32:11-14). With this closure of the debate, Israel’s fate is delayed and the theme of murmuring and rebel-lion continues throughout the wilderness journey into Numbers. The variant resolution of the story, however, brings Yahweh immediately into agreement with Deuteronomy 24:16. Moses takes on the role of shepherd, protecting the people with his own life, bringing the debate over vengeance and the innocent directly into the story. Moses goes to the mountain to argue with Yahweh. If he will not forgive the people, he must blot out Moses’ name from his book as well. Yahweh listens to

15 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise, 66-70.


his argument and closes the story with a vengeance-ending decree: Only one who has sinned against him will he blot out from his book (Ex 32:32-35).

In the parallel story of Numbers, the people are frightened by the terrifying reports about the Nephilim from the scouts, returning from the Valley of Eshcol. With rivers flowing with milk and honey and grape clusters demanding two men to bear, it is a valley defended by giants. Fearing for the fate of their wives and children, the people murmur against Moses and Aaron for having led them out of Egypt only to die in battle (Num 13:25-14,4). Although Caleb and Joshua en-courage obedience to Yahweh, the people will have new leaders to lead them back to Egypt. When the people threaten to stone them, an angry Yahweh appears in his kavod and will strike them with plague. Again, he will make an even greater people from Moses (Num 14:10-12). Once again Moses disagrees and debates with Yahweh about the people’s fate. If Yahweh does kill the people with a single blow, the Egyptians and the inhabitants of the land will gossip that Yahweh was not able to bring the people into the land. Yahweh, Moses argues, should rather show himself in his greatness and true to his own claims: “long-suffering, ever faithful, one who forgives sin and rebellion, but does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Num 14:18). This far, Moses’ argument brings the discussion to a reaffirmation of Yahweh’s justice, the point where the discourse closes in Deuteronomy. It is a difficult argument, however, on which to rest his case in Exodus and Numbers, as, in terms of their story, Moses needs to argue for mercy rather than justice. His plea—like Cain’s—is on behalf of the guilty. And so he continues: “Yahweh is one who punishes children for their fathers’ guilt to the third and fourth generation, but he does not destroy them entirely” (just so, the covenant-ethic which Yahweh had learned in the flood story). Now Moses’ plea is in order: “As you have put up with this people ever since Egypt, so forgive them their guilt now to accord with your great constancy.” Yahweh’s response is interesting and just as considered. Again regretting the excess of his anger,16 he presents a self-understanding that departs significantly with Moses’ sense of the covenant. The “forgiveness” Moses wished is integrated with Deute-ronomy’s principle of justice as Yahweh becomes the protecting shepherd of the innocent (Num 14:20). The guilty—the generation of the wilderness—die in the wilderness (Num 14:21-35) and the scouts who spread false reports are killed by plague (Num 14:36-38). The story

16 On this interesting trope, see now GUILLAUME / SCHUNCK, Job’s Intercession, 457-

472.

20 T. L. Thompson

bears the parable that only the guilty will be punished. The innocent children and grandchildren are protected by Yahweh. The generations to come, those for whose sake the lost generation had disobeyed Yah-weh, theirs is the promised-land.

My tentative conclusion about Genesis 4 and the discourse on mur-der and blood-guilt that it introduces is that the discourse does not close within the Pentateuch: neither here in Numbers, nor in Deutero-nomy 24:16. Punishment of the guilty is not sufficient in the Penta-teuch’s own terms. The extended discourse as it now stands can be traced thematically by way of such stories as the parable of Elisha in Samaria in 2 Kings 6:8-23, showing how love of your enemy can bring an end to war. Even more is the Pentateuch’s narrative directly devel-oped by 2 Kings, as in the decision of Amasiah, within the narrative line drawn between 2 Kings 12:19-21and14:1-6. His father Joash having been assassinated in a conspiracy carried out by his own servants, Amasiah comes to the throne and, as soon as he had consolidated him-self in power, puts to death those who had murdered his father. The potential cycle of revenge, however, is closed as Amasiah spares the assassins’ children and directly points to Deuteronomy’s law for his reason: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor child-ren for their parents; each one is to be put to death only for his own sin (2 Kings 14:6). That this closure of bloodguilt brings Kings a substantial step further towards its goal of Yahweh’s mercy for the sinner, which Solomon had sketched in his prayer in 1 Kings 6:46-53, and which marks this theme, springing from the Cain story, as a substantial aspect of the narrative strategy of Kings.

Cain’s allegory closes with a call to a boundless vengeance surpass-ing even Yahweh’s. It is sung by Cain’s grandson, Lamech (Gen 4:23-24) and helps form a somewhat eclectic bridge between the Cain story and the following genealogy of Genesis 5. Lamech’s mockery is both supersessionist challenge and pointed commentary to Yahweh’s asser-tion of his own role as avenging shepherd. It reiterates the ironic chal-lenge of a humanity created in the image of God: “If Yahweh’s revenge for Cain is 7-fold, Lamech’s revenge will be 77-fold! One must wonder whether the seven-fold revenge is Yahweh’s and the seventy-fold man-kind’s greater revenge; for the Bible has three stories of revenge and blood-guilt, involving the killing of 70 or 7. The motifs of Yahweh’s 7- and Lamech’s 77-fold revenge seems to be alluded to, together with the related themes of blood guilt, civil war and regicide, in each of these stories. In revenge for their failure to support his troops, Gideon, for example, having been taunted by the 77 elders of Succoth for his failure to capture Zebah and Zalmunnah, takes his revenge after his success by


beating them with briars and thorns, pulling down the tower of Penuel and executing the men of the town (Judges 8:14-17). When, however Gideon dies and is succeeded by his 70 sons, one, Abimelek, slaughters his brothers, but a single one survives, Jotam. Jotam’s curse on the murderer of his brothers leads to civil war and a massacre of the city of Shechem (Judges 9:1-57; par. Gen 34:1-30). In a closely parallel narra-tive, also echoing elements of Genesis 34, Yahweh’s avenging Messiah, Jehu, kills Ahab’s 70 sons and murders all of the Ba’al priests of Sama-ria (2 Kings 10:1-29). Finally, it is necessary to mention 1-2 Samuel’s elaborate maintenance of David’s innocence in blood-guilt in the disas-ter that overtakes Saul, Jonathan and Abner, a narrative of revenge, blood-guilt and civil war that does not end until David brings an end to the famine in Jerusalem sent by Yahweh because of Saul’s massacre of the Gibeonites, who demand in retribution a 7-fold divine vengeance over Saul’s house (2 Sam 21:1-14). It is here that the David story finally embraces themes of reconciliation. On the other hand, even within the Pentateuch, the discourse on Cain that begins in the distinction be-tween innocence and guilt, moves into yet other, interesting, directions. Having taken its departure from Yahweh’s arbitrary acceptance of Abel’s offering and rejection of Cain’s (Gen 4:5), this theme is used to expose not only the Janus-faced character of monotheism, bringing both good and evil to men—a figure of Yahweh which plays such a central role in the plot-line of Exodus-Numbers. In this role, he deter-mines both blessing and curse, a figure already latent in the garden story’s divine “knowledge of good and evil” and is an ever implicit attribute of the royal figure of the shepherd, with his watchful crook, bringing protection and comfort to the sheep; yet, this crook can also be his punishing staff, bringing retribution.17 This role brings us back to the issue of Yahweh’s arbitrariness, with which the Cain story begins and which is captured so powerfully in Exodus with Yahweh’s answer to Moses’ prayer that Yahweh be with Israel: “I will show mercy to whom I wish and I will reconcile myself with whom I will (Ex 33:19-20).18

17 PFOH, Genesis 4. 18 See on this, THOMPSON, I Guds billede, in Dansk Teologiske Tidsskrift (forthcoming).

22 T. L. Thompson

Bibliography

FORRER, Emil. Die Boghazköi Texte in Umschrift, Band II, Leipzig 1926. FOSTER, Benjamin R., Gilgamesh, in: HALLO, William W. / LAWSON YOUNGER,

Kenneth. (eds.), The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden 1997, 458-460.

GUILLAUME Philippe / SCHUNCK, Michael, Job’s Intercession: Antidote to Divine Folly, in Biblica 88 (2007) 457-472.

HALLO, William W., The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden 1997.

HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competi-tion, (CIS 14) London 2004, 169-253.

HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers: Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism in Tradition and History, in: THOMPSON Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, London 2003, 197-222.

HOFFNER, Harry A., Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Histori-ogaphy, in: GOEDICKE Hans / ROBERTS, Jimmy Jack M. (eds.), Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore 1975, 49-62.

VAN DEN HOUT, Piet J., The Proclamation of Telipinu, in HALLO, William W. (ed.), The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Bib-lical World, Leiden 1997, 194-198.

PFOH, Emanuel, Genesis 4 Revisited: Some Remarks on Divine Patronage, in SJOT 23 (2009) 38-45.

PFOH, Emanuel, The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives, Copenhagen International Seminar, Lon-don 2009.

THOMPSON, Thomas L., ‘He is Yahweh; He Does What is Right in His Own Eyes: The Old Testament as a Theological Discipline, II’, in: FATUM Lone / MÜLLER, Mogens (eds.), Tro og Historie: Festskrift til Nils Hyldahl (FBE, 7) Copenhagen 1996, 246-263.

THOMPSON, Thomas L., Creating the Past: Biblical Narrative as Interpretive Discourse, in: Collegium Biblicum Årsskrift (1998) 7-23.

THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Lon-don 1999.

THOMPSON, Thomas L., Job 29: Biography or Parable, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. / TRONIER, Henrik (eds.), Frelsens Biografisering, (Forum for Bibelsk Ek-segese 13) København 2004, 115-135

THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Messiah Myth: The Ancient Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, New York / London, 2005.

The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy

STEFAN SCHORCH

Since 1953, when Albrecht Alt’s famous essay “Die Heimat des Deute-ronomiums” was published, the question about the historical origin of Deuteronomy became an important issue in the research on the He-brew Bible.1 Pointing especially to conceptual parallels between Deute-ronomy and the Book of Hosea, Alt argued that Deuteronomy was not composed in Judah or in Jerusalem, but in the North. Although this suggestion has been followed by important experts of Deuteronomy,2 Alt’s theory is today far from being generally accepted among Old Tes-tament scholars. One of the main reasons for this situation seems to be one weak point: Alt’s study offers no explanation for how the idea of cult centralization, which is so prominently expressed in Deuteronomy (especially in chapters 12, 14, and 16), fits in the geographical context of Israel. Therefore, this issue seems to be worth reconsideration, and this will be the main focus of the following article.

The idea of cult centralization appears for the first time in Deut 12:5:3

You shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes (המקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיכם מכל שבטיכם) as his habitation to put his name there. You shall go there…

This or similar formulae appear in the Book of Deuteronomy no less than 22 times. From the perspective of the received Masoretic text as a whole, the chosen place is clearly identified within the so-called Deute- 1 ALT, Heimat. 2 The most important predecessor of Albrecht ALT was Adam C. WELCH, Code of

Deuteronomy. Among those who found strong Northern traditions in Deuteronomy are especially Gerhard von RAD (see his Deuteronomium-Studien, 149, as well as his commentary Das 5. Buch Mose, 18), and Moshe WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1-11,44‒57.

3 The English translation of Biblical passages is generally quoted from the New Re-vised Standard Version (1989).

24 S. Schorch

ronomistic history. Accordingly, the chosen place is Jerusalem, as ex-pressed in the extant narrative for the first time in 1 Kgs 8:16 (LXX//2 Chr 6:5‒6):4

Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel (לא בחרתי בעיר מכל שבטי ישראל) in which to build a house, so that my name might be there, and I chose no one as ruler over my people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem in order that my name may be there (ואבחר בירושלם להיות שמי שם), and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.

This verse, together with eight similar references in the Book of Kings, creates a link between the promise ר in the text of (”he will choose“) יבחDeuteronomy and the fulfillment (בחר and I chose”), which not“ ‒ ואonly entered both Jewish and Christian tradition, but subsequently became widely accepted within critical scholarship. Accordingly, most reconstructions of the literary and religious history of ancient Israel regard the demand for the centralization of worship as originating in Jerusalem, and as referring to Jerusalem from the very beginning.

Regarding the literary history of this link, it seems quite clear that the passages in the Book of Kings are linguistically and contextually dependent on the centralization formula in Deuteronomy and not the reverse, as can be learned especially from the analysis of the Hebrew formula in Deuteronomy לשכן שמו שם “to cause his name to dwell there.”5 Sandra Richter convincingly demonstrated that this Deutero-nomic formula is based on the Akkadian formula šuma šakānu, which literally means “to place the name.”6 Without knowledge of its source, the Hebrew translation of this formula in Deuteronomy seems to have been difficult to understand for the contemporary authors and readers of Biblical Hebrew, and it was therefore changed into the more intellig-ible להיות שמו שם “to be his name there”7 by the text of the Book of Kings, while the original difficult phrase לשכן שמו שם is totally absent in this composition. Thus, the respective text in the Book of Kings is secondary to that in Deuteronomy.

On the other hand, it is generally acknowledged that Deuteronomy cannot be seen only in connection with the so-called Deuteronomistic history, but has to be taken as a literary composition on its own. Most 4 According to Sarah Japhet, the text of Chronicles is here preferable to the parallel

version in 1 Kgs 8:16, see JAPHET, Chronicles, 588. 5 Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2.6.11; 26:2. 6 RICHTER, Deuteronomistic History. 7 1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Kgs 23:27.

The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy 25

obviously, therefore, as the Deuteronomistic identification of the cho-sen place as Jerusalem is realized only outside the limits of the text of Deuteronomy, it cannot be taken for granted as valid for the Book of Deuteronomy itself, but we should look which identification is pro-vided within the literary borders of this literary composition. However, if we confine our search for hints about the identification of the chosen place to the text of Deuteronomy in its present state, the situation is much more complicated. Within these literary limits and generally speaking, two ways for explaining the centralization formula seem possible and have indeed been suggested as explanations:

1.) The centralization formula originally has a distributive meaning, referring to different places, i.e. “wherever the LORD your God will choose to put his name there.” 2.) The centralization formula refers to only one, single place.

The first way, the distributive “wherever,” seems indeed not impossi-ble from the perspective of Hebrew linguistics, although it would imp-ly that the author of Deuteronomy was either not a skilled Hebrew writer or deliberately chose an ambiguous expression, since instead of writing במקום he could have written בכל מקום (“in every place”), thus arriving at a doubtless distributive meaning, as for instance in the altar law of Exod 20:24: בכל מקום אשר אזכיר את שמי – “in every place where I cause my name to be remembered.” Moreover, looking on the concep-tual implications of this understanding, the distributive meaning seems excluded both in terms of space as well as of time. That the formula aims at the synchronic existence of a number of chosen places, as Ba-ruch Halpern suggested,8 seems to make no sense due to the Deutero-nomic concept of secular slaughter and in light of the fact that Deute-ronomy presupposes the way to the holy place might be a long one (e.g. Deut 26:1‒3). The alternative, i.e. that the author of Deuteronomy might have had in mind several successive chosen places, favored for instance by Gerhard von Rad,9 seems to be equally difficult due to the Deuteronomic concept that Israel’s entry into the chosen land is the end of wandering and the beginning of a period of general rest.10

8 HALPERN, Centralization formula. 9 See RAD, Das 5. Buch Mose, 67. 10 See Deut 12:10: “When you cross over the Jordan and live in the land that the LORD

your God is allotting to you, and when he gives you rest from your enemies all

26 S. Schorch

Therefore, the centralization formula should be taken as referring to only one single place. Regarding the question, to which concrete place the Book of Deuteronomy refers, the text seems to provide a clear iden-tification in 27:4‒8, although the Jerusalem-focused exegesis of genera-tions of scholars mostly ignored that the latter text is a clear response to the demand for centralization as expressed in Deut 12.

The relevant passage, focusing on the centralization demand, al-ready starts in Deut 11:31, as the literary structure and a Qitza-sign in the Samaritan Pentateuch indicate:11

When you cross the Jordan to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and when you occupy it and live in it, you must dili-gently observe all the statutes and ordinances that I am setting before you today. These are the statutes and ordinances that you must diligently ob-serve in the land… (Deut 11:31‒12:1)

The following passage starts in the 2nd person plural ( בד תאבדון את כל א…המקומות “You must demolish completely all the places…”, vv. 2‒12),

continuing in the singular from v. 13 onwards ( ר לך מ …הש ‒ “Take care…”). Due to the change in number and the presence of several doublets, the text is generally believed to be the result of a diachronic literary development.12 For our present question, however, the recon-struction of subsequent literary stages within Deut 12 is irrelevant inso-far as Deut 27 clearly refers to the text as whole, a conclusion which is based on the observation that Deut 27:6‒7 uses the singular, like Deut 12:13‒18, but follows the sequence of the plural passage 12:4‒7.

The following synopsis exhibits the several parallels in structure and wording between Deut 11:31‒12:18 and Deut 27:2‒7:

Deut 11:31–12:18 Deut 27

11:31 When you cross the Jordan ,(כי אתם עברים)

On the day that you cross over the Jordan (תעברו)

27:2

to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you…

into the land that the LORD your God is giving you…

around so that you live in safety”. An analysis of the concept of “rest” and its history was provided by RAD, Es ist noch eine Ruhe, 101‒108.

11 ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 223. 12 See ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 221‒222.


12:2–3 (demolition of cult places) –

12:4–5 …you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his name there.

So when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall cover them with plaster. And you shall build an altar there to the LORD your God, an altar of stones…

27:4–

6a

12:6 There you shall bring your burnt offerings (עלתיכם),

Then offer up burnt offer-ings on it (והעלית עולת) to the LORD your God,

27:6b

and your sacrifices (וזבחיכם), make sacrifices of well-being (וזבחת שלמים)

27:7

your tithes and your dona-tions, your votive gifts, your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks.

–

12:7 And you shall eat (ואכלתם) there in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your households together,

and eat them (ואכלת) there,

rejoicing (ושמחתם)… rejoicing (ושמחת) before the LORD your God…

28 S. Schorch

The synopsis demonstrates that Deut 27:4‒5 indeed identifies the “place that the LORD your God will choose” (Deut 12:5) as the place of the torah-stones and the altar.13

We have to realize, however, that the Masoretic reading in Deut -on Mount Ebal” is almost certainly a secondary ideologi“ בהר עיבל 27:4cal correction, as opposed to the text-historically original בהר גריזים “on Mount Gerizim”, which is preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch14 and the Old Latin (Vetus Latina).15 According to the original text of the Book of Deuteronomy, therefore, this altar is to be built on Mount Gerizim, which is the mountain of the blessings according to the framing pas-sages Deut 11:29 and 27:12‒13. Having made this observation, we may approach the problem of the context and the aim of this identification.

As a starting point, we should note that the Deuteronomic designa-tion of Mount Gerizim as the chosen place seems to exclude Jerusalem as the chosen place, since there is only one. Eckart Otto tried to avoid this problem through explaining Deut 27 as a late addition to the text, when Deuteronomy already was part of the Torah and, therefore, the altar on Mount Gerizim could be seen as covered by the altar law of Exod 20:24, allowing for several places.16 Similarly, Christophe Nihan suggested explaining the altar law of Deut 27 as being composed from the outset with close and specific reference to Exod 20:

[I]n order to preserve the legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple […] the men-tion of the Gerizim sanctuary in Deuteronomy 27 was deliberately pre-sented as corresponding to the regulation found in the altar law of Exod 20:24‒26 […] and not to the Deuteronomistic law of centralization in Deu-teronomy 12.17

Both authors, however, seem to have overlooked that Deut 27 was from the beginning written with reference to the centralization demand of Deut 12, and this latter text, unlike and against Ex 20:24, exhibits the

13 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “Only in Deut. xii and xxvii are places dedi-

cated by the order of the Lord; in all other Biblical passages they are sanctified by His (or His angel’s) epiphany.”

14 In the Samaritan tradition, although not confined to it, “Har Garizim” is always written as one word only ‒ רגריזיםה , compare PUMMER, ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ.

15 See SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 106‒107, and compare already TOV, Textual Criticism, 95 n. 67.

16 OTTO, Deuteronomium, 230‒231. That Deut 27 is a late addition was already Alt’s conviction, see ALT, Heimat, 274 n. 1.

17 NIHAN, Torah, 223.


concept of only one legitimate cultic place. Their solution, therefore, is not satisfying.

While these latter suggestions focused on the text and its develop-ment, other authors took the historical circumstances as their point of departure. According to Heinz-Josef Fabry, Deut 27:4‒8 was inserted by a late Judean author, who aimed for a gesture of national reconciliation with the proto-Samaritans and their cultic places.18 This theory seems to be excluded by similar reasons like Nihan’s and Otto’s. Due to its lite-rary connections with Deut 12, Deut 27 does not designate the altar on Mount Gerizim as one possible cultic place among others, but as the one and only legitimate cultic place, delegitimizing all other cultic places, including Jerusalem. This makes reconciliation a rather improbable motif.

A different attitude was taken by Nadav Na’aman, who regarded the passages relating to Shechem in Deuteronomy (Deut 11:26‒30; 27:4‒10) and the Book of Joshua (Jos 8:30‒35; 24) as the insertion of “a late, possibly Ephraimite scribe who sought to […] reinforce the idea of Shechem as the chosen place,” after doubts arose whether the first tem-ple of Jerusalem could be the chosen place, following its destruction in 587 BCE.19 Na’aman’s suggestion, however, apart from being rather speculative at several points, like the origin and textual development of Deuteronomy or the intellectual history of Judah, leads to the funda-mental problem how a single Ephramite scribe could expand the gen-eral textual tradition with several passages which must have been ra-ther difficult to accept for his Judean colleagues. Moreover, since the transmission of texts in the Ancient Near East generally took place in a collective context, not in an individual one,20 Na’aman’s suggestion seems to overestimate the possible influence of a single scribe. Thus, his suggestion is rather improbable, too, and we will have to look for a different historical setting of Deut 27.

The only context within which the literary ambitions of Deut 27:4‒8 are entirely understandable seems to be the cult on Mount Gerizim, with the author of the text being a follower of the Gerizim cult, and one may even be inclined to say: a proto-Samaritan. Thus, if we come back to our initial question regarding the origin of Deuteronomy, the altar law of Deut 27 becomes a new point of departure for approaching this problem and solving it. Against Albrecht Alt, who spoke only of Deut

18 FABRY, Altarbau. 19 NA’AMAN, Law of the Altar, 158. 20 Compare CARR, Writing.

30 S. Schorch

12‒26 when he suggested a Northern origin of Deuteronomy,21 chapter 27 is obviously of Northern origin, too. And most obviously, the inclu-sion of this chapter must have occurred before Deuteronomy became accepted in Judah.22 This occurred most probably during the 7th century BCE, since at least some of the core ideas of Deuteronomy seem to have been known in Judah in the late 7th century.23 Given this observation, the most probable explanation for Deuteronomy’s southward journey seems to be the Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century BCE, when large parts of the Northern elite flew to the South.24 In an important study of Ancient Hebrew paleography, Johannes Renz demonstrated that after the Assyrian invasion of the North, the Northern writing tradition of Hebrew was continued in Judah.25 This fact seems to be due to the integration of the Northern scribal elite into the scribal culture of Judah. Therefore, it not only goes without any doubt that Deuteronomy entered the literal culture of Judah, but we even know at least one poss-ible way on which Deuteronomy might have travelled from the North to the South.

We may imagine that the strong Deuteronomic references to the Gerizim cult must have posed a serious challenge to Judeans. There-fore, we will have to answer the question why and how Deuteronomy was adopted in the South.

One factor certainly was the integration of Northern scribes within Judean scribal culture already mentioned. Additionally, however, two further points should be reminded:

1.) One of the major issues the Book of Deuteronomy deals with is

the composition and publishing of texts, as for instance expressed in the following instance:

You shall write on the stones all the words of this torah very clearly. (Deut 27:8)

21 See above, note 16. 22 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “We can infer that concepts like the central

sanctuary for all Israel and dedication by divine word originated in Shechem […].” 23 This seems especially true for the tradition related to the so-called Josianic reform as

well as for the idea of textualization, which originates in Deuteronomy, see SCHAPER, Tora als Text, and, in the same volume, SCHNIEDEWIND, The textualization of torah.

24 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “the author of Deut. xii 8‒12 was either a Shechemite refugee who found asylum at the court of Jerusalem after the Assyrian conquest of Ephraim, or one of his native disciples.”

25 RENZ, Schrift und Schreibertradition.


The identification of the writing on the stones as “this torah” (התורה הזאת) means that the Book of Deuteronomy itself contains a reflection on its textual character.26 According to Deut 27, the torah which was written down by Moses is the very same which the actual reader holds in his hands. Therefore, Deuteronomy’s quest for authority is not voiced by an anonymous author, but by the present reader’s copy itself. It is the authority of the “book within the book”, in Jean-Pierre Sonnet’s famous formulation.27 As far as we know, this kind of authority claim is an invention of Deuteronomy,28 and it certainly helped prevent the book from being put aside and forgotten, as well as its acceptance among its new readers.29

2.) The transfer of Deuteronomy to the South certainly involved its de-contextualization, i.e. the book was taken out of its original histori-cal, geographical and sociological contexts. This de-contextualization must have meant that the book was open for re-contextualization, i.e. in Judah, Deuteronomy could be and had to be connected to a new set-ting. Proceeding from this latter general observation, we now have to look for the hermeneutical strategies of connecting Deuteronomy to the new Judean context.

Generally speaking, this new orientation was carried out through

joining Deuteronomy with the Books of Samuel and Kings in general, and the centralization formula, with the concepts of Jerusalem being the one chosen place with the Davidic dynasty as its rulers, in particu-lar. Regarding this latter connection, the link is created by the word I have chosen” in 1 Kgs 8:16, corresponding to the Deuteronomic“ ואבחרformula יהוה יבחר “the Lord will choose.”30

However, yet another text-critical issue has to be dealt with, as the verbal form in the future יבחר is not the only reading, and the Samaritan Pentateuch preserves instead the reading בחר “he has chosen.” Regard-ing these variant readings, a broad scholarly consensus views the Sa-maritan reading as a late ideological correction from the supposed orig-inal reading יבחר, serving the needs of the Samaritan community. Most prominently, this judgment entered Emanuel Tov’s important hand-

26 See SCHAPER, Tora als Text. 27 SONNET, Book within the Book. 28 See SCHAPER, Tora als Text. 29 Thus, it seems, that the claim of scriptural authority originates in the North of Israel.

Jer 8:8 (עט שקר סופרים) even demonstrates that some circles in Judah were opposing it, compare SCHNIEDEWIND, The textualization of torah.

30 See above, p. 23‒24.

32 S. Schorch

book on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible as a paradigmatic case of textual correction out of ideological reasons.31 However, Adrian Schenker has pointed out in two recent articles that the reading בחר is not only found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, but is attested by some Greek Septuagint manuscripts, too, as well as by the Coptic and the Latin secondary translations of the Old Greek text of the Pentateuch.32 This indicates that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek translation of Deuteronomy read בחר, and in terms of textual criticism בחר is therefore certainly the original reading, while the Masoretic reading יבחר is sec-ondary, being an ideological and maybe even an anti-Samaritan correc-tion.

Nevertheless, the Judean readership seems to have had no difficul-ty seeing a reference to Jerusalem even in the original and uncorrected This can .יבחר that is, before the text was deliberately changed into ;בחרbe learned from Neh 1:8‒9:33

Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are un-der the farthest skies, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place at which I have chosen to establish my name’ ( כן י לש ת ר ח ר ב ש קום א המם י ש מ ת־ש ”.(א

This free paraphrase of Deut 30:1‒4 and the centralization formula clearly contextualizes the latter within the life time of Moses and links it to Jerusalem. It presupposes, therefore, that the election of Jerusalem already happened before Moses, implying a concept of Jerusalem’s pre-destination as the chosen place. This view probably draws on old local traditions according to which Jerusalem was the seat of El, the highest God, and of the heavenly assembly of the Gods.34 Thus, the concept of Jerusalem’s pre-destination as the chosen place seems to have provided the first possibility for understanding Deuteronomy as referring to Jerusalem, even before the change from בחר to יבחר was carried out.

However, the concept of Jerusalem’s predestination is the basis for only one of the literary strategies which have been applied in the con-

31 TOV, Textual Criticism, 94‒95. 32 See SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 113‒116, and SCHENKER, Le Seigneur. 33 Compare SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 115. 34 Compare Ps 48:3, where Mount Zion is equated with Tzafon, the Northern seat of the

assembly of the Gods: “beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King.” ‒ שוש נוף היפ ץל־ה כ מ יון אר י הר־צ ת כ פון יר ית צ ר ק

לך ב מ ר .


text of the Judean re-reading of Deuteronomy. Yet a second strategy is attested, proceeding from the concept of the succession of several cho-sen places. This view is clearly expressed in Ps 78:60‒68:

[60] He abandoned his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among mortals […] [67] He rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; [68] but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves. (ר אהב ש יון א ת־הר צ ה א בט יהוד ת־ש (ויבחר א

According to this view, there already were chosen places before Jerusa-lem was chosen, but their election faded away. For 2 Kgs 23:27 and Jer 7:14.16 the concept of succession even opens up the possibility that the election of Jerusalem disappear, too. Thus, just as the other places be-fore, Jerusalem may lose its special status as the chosen place:

The LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there ( י ת ר ר־בח ש זאת א ת־העיר ה י א ת אס ומם י ש מ י יהיה ש ת ר ר אמ ש ית א ב ת־ה ם וא ל ת־ירוש (Kgs 23:27 2) .(א

Following this succession theory, Judeans could accept that Mount Gerizim was one of the chosen places of the past, while Jerusalem was the chosen place of the present and the future.

That these Judean re-readings of Deuteronomy had some textual difficulties, both in the original text of the centralization formula, which contained the reading “the place which the LORD has chosen” ( המקום and in the localization of the altar at Mount Gerizim (Deut ,(אשר בחר יהוה27:4), was, it seems, only realized in the late Second temple period, within the context of a changing scribal culture which shifted its atten-tion from the textual deep-structure to the textual surface, and in con-nection with an ongoing discussion about the exact determination of the chosen place.35 Moreover, there is enough evidence preserved to date the textual corrections from בחר to יבחר in the centralization formu-la, and from הר גריזים to הר עיבל in Deut 27:4, which was carried out in the textual tradition which was the historical basis for the Masoretic text.

As mentioned above, the Old Greek translation of Deuteronomy, dating to the 3rd century BCE, exhibits the unchanged text of Deuteron-omy, i.e. the verbal form in the perfect “he has chosen” in the centrali-zation formula, and the reading Gerizim in Deut 27:4. The halachic text

35 See below.

34 S. Schorch

from Qumran 4QMMT, dating to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, still attests the centralization formula with the perfect reading בחר:

]…ישראל [כי ירושלים היאה מחנה הקדש והיא המקום שבחר בו מכל שבטי ] …[ ‒ “For Jerusalem is the holy camp. It is the place that He chose from all the tribes of [Israel …]”36

The Temple scroll, on the other hand, dating to the second half of the 2nd century BCE, contains the verb in the future:

-You are to eat those before Me annual“ ‒ לפני תאוכלנו שנה כשנה במקום אשר אבחרly in the place that I shall choose.” (11Q19 52:9)

and rejoice before Me in the place“ ‒ ושמחתה לפני במקום אשר אבחר לשום שמי עליוthat I will choose to establish My name” (11Q19 52:16)

-in the place where I shall choose to estab“ ‒ מן המקום אשר אבחר לשכין שמי עליוlish My name” (11Q19 56:5)

to the place where I will choose to establish My“ ‒ אל המקום אשר אבחר לשכן שמיname” (11Q19 60:13‒14)

Thus, the textual change from “he has chosen” (בחר) to “he will chose” seems to have taken place in the period between 4QMMT and the (יבחר)Temple Scroll, i.e. around the middle of the 2nd century BCE.

Yet a further question should be considered: If the verb בחר was left

unchanged until the middle of the 2nd century BCE, why was it cor-rected into יבחר in the 2nd century BCE?

A number of textual witnesses attest that in the 2nd century BCE, under the rule of the Hasmoneans, the location of the chosen place became an important question. On the one hand side, the exact halachic status of Jerusalem seems to have needed clarification. Thus, 4QMMT shows that discussions about the status of Jerusalem took place in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, proceeding from certain textual tensions between the centralization formula in Deuteronomy and the reference to the centralization formula in the Book of Kings. The centralization formula speaks about a place for making offerings, namely a sanctuary, but Jerusalem is a city. Therefore, the question yet to be answered was that of the exact relation between sanctuary and city. The oldest evi-dence that this question became an issue can already be detected in 36 4Q394 f8 iv:9‒11; compare KRATZ, The place which He has chosen, 72‒73.


Chronicles. According to 2 Chr 3:1, for instance, the chosen place ap-pears to be not Jerusalem in general, but rather specifically the place where the temple is to be built, i.e. Mount Moriya and the threshing floor of Arauna:

Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Mo-riah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had designated, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

However, in spite of instances like this, Chronicles exhibits no syste-matic tendency to deal with that question. In 4QMMT, conversely, the exact location of the chosen place became an explicit issue: 4QMMT solves the problem by declaring both the temple as well as the city of Jerusalem as chosen, holy places, but attributing to the temple a higher measure of sanctity than to the city.37 Thus, 4QMMT clearly shows that an increasing interest in the exegesis of the centralization law and the location of the chosen place was at stake.

On the other hand, the attitude towards the proto-Samaritan Geri-zim-followers changed dramatically for the worse, reaching its peak with John Hyrcanus’ destruction of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (128 BCE) and the city of Shechem (106 BCE).38 Thus, the textual changes from בחר to יבחר in the centralization formula and from “Geri-zim” to “Ebal” in Deut 27:4 seem to have taken place within the con-texts of an intensified exegetical interest in the centralization formula and the total delegitimation of Mount Gerizim and the proto-Samaritan claims of its sanctity.

Like the Jews, the (proto-)Samaritans, too, introduced some textual interpolations in order to strengthen their position. The most substan-tial of them is the addition of the passage concerning the veneration of Mount Gerizim after the Ten Commandments.39

We may conclude, therefore, as follows: “Die Heimat des Deutero-nomiums” seems to have been the Northern Kingdom, as was already suggested by Albrecht Alt, although Alt didn’t realize Deuteronomy’s focus on Mount Gerizim. In spite of this focus, however, Deuteronomy was adopted in the South, too, where it arrived most probably through the hands of refugees who flew from the North after the Assyrian con-quest. The fact that Deuteronomy was understood as the textual proof for the geographical and historical claims of both the followers of

37 Compare KRATZ, The place which He has chosen. 38 See SCHORCH, La formation, 5‒10. 39 See DEXINGER, Garizimgebot.

36 S. Schorch

Mount Gerizim and Mount Zion seems to have been one of the major factors which made Deuteronomy one of the most read Hebrew books in the Hellenistic and Roman age, a fact which is at least suggested by the number of manuscripts of the different literary compositions pre-served in the Judean desert.

Bibliography

ALT, Albrecht, Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: IDEM, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2. Band, München 19784, 250‒275.

CARR, David M., Writing in the tablet of the heart: origins of scripture and lite-rature, New York 2005.

DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner, in: BRAULIK, Georg (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag. Wien 1977, 111‒134.

FABRY, Heinz-Josef, Der Altarbau der Samaritaner ‒ ein Produkt der Text- und Literargeschichte?, in: DAHMEN, Ulrich / LANGE, Armin / LICHTENBERGER, Hermann (eds.), Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebrä-ischen Bibel. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 35–52.

HALPERN, Baruch, The centralization formula in Deuteronomy, in VT 31(1981) 20‒38.

JAPHET, Sara, I & II Chronicles: a Commentary (The Old Testament Library), Louisville, Kentucky 1993.

KRATZ, Reinhard Gregor, “The place which He has chosen”: The identification of the cult place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT, in Meghillot V-VI (2007) 57–80.

NA’AMAN, Nadav, The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy, in: MCKENZIE, Steven L. / RÖMER, Thomas (eds.), Rethinking the foundation: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (BZAW; 294), Berlin / New York 2000, 141–161.

NIHAN, Christophe L., The Torah between Samaria and Judah : Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understand-ing Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake, IN 2007, 187‒223.

OTTO, Eckart, Das Deuteronomium zwischen Tetrateuch und Hexateuch, in: IDEM, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Li-teraturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deutero-nomiumrahmens (FAT; 30), Tübingen 2000, 156‒233.

PUMMER, Reinhard, ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: a criterion for Samaritan provenance? in JSJ 18 (1987) 18‒25.

RAD, Gerhard von, Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes: Eine biblische Begriffsuntersuchung, in: IDEM Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, München 1958, 101‒108.


RAD, Gerhard von, Deuteronomium-Studien, in: IDEM, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II (hg. Rudolf Smend), München 1973, 109‒153.

RAD, Gerhard von, Das 5. Buch Mose ‒ Deuteronomium (ATD 8), Göttingen 19834.

RENZ, Johannes, Schrift und Schreibertradition: eine paläographische Studie zum kulturgeschichtlichen Verhältnis von israelitischem Nordreich und Südreich (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 23), Wiesbaden 1997.

ROFÉ, Alexander, The Strata of the Law About the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement, in: Con-gress Volume ‒ Uppsala 1971 (VT.S 22), Leiden 1972, 221‒226.

RICHTER, Sandra L., The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318), Berlin / New York 2002.

SCHAPER, Joachim, Tora als Text im Deuteronomium, in: MORENZ, Ludwig / SCHORCH, Stefan (eds.), Was ist ein Text? – Ägyptologische, altorientalisti-sche und alttestamentliche Perspektiven (BZAW 362), Berlin / New York 2007, 49‒63.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?: l’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique, in: VOITILA, Anssi / JOKIRANTA, Jutta (eds.), Scripture in tran-sition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Ho-nour of Raija Sollamo, Leiden / Boston 2008, 339‒351.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon, in: MOR, Menahem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samari-tans: Past and Present: Current Studies, Berlin / New York 2010, 105‒121.

SCHNIEDEWIND, William M., The textualization of torah in Jeremiah 8:8, in: MO-RENZ, Ludwig / SCHORCH, Stefan (eds.), Was ist ein Text? – Ägyptologische, altorientalistische und alttestamentliche Perspektiven (BZAW 362), Berlin / New York 2007, 93‒107.

SCHORCH, Stefan, La formation de la communauté samaritaine au 2e siècle avant J.-Chr. et la culture de lecture du Judaïsme, in: HIMBAZA, Innocent / SCHENKER, Adrian (eds.), Un carrefour dans l'historie de la Bible: Du texte à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C. (OBO; 233), Fribourg / Göttingen 2007, 5–20.

SONNET, Jean-Pierre, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Bibli-cal interpretation series 14), Leiden / New York / Köln 1997.

TOV, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis / Assen / Maastricht 1992.

WEINFELD, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York et al. 1991.

WELCH, Adam C., The Code of Deuteronomy: a New Theory of its Origin, London 1924.

Did Jacob Become Judah?: The Configuration of Israel’s Restoration in Deutero-Isaiah

GARY N. KNOPPERS

In one of the restoration oracles of Second Isaiah (48:19-20), the poet proclaims:

Go forth from Babylon, run from the Chaldeans. Proclaim with a loud voice, make this heard, Send it forth to the ends of the earth. Say, “Yhwh has redeemed (גאל) his servant Jacob!”

The prophetic speech is full of hope, boldly announcing that the era of Jacob’s servitude is over (cf. Isa 49:26; 60:16).1 Against the backdrop of the demise of the Babylonian empire, the oracle proclaims that Yhwh has decided to ransom his people. But to whom does the prophecy refer? Who is Jacob? Does the oracle refer to all those people, who might identify with the patriarch, who lived many centuries earlier, or does it refer to those specific Yahwists, who suffered under Babylonian rule (wherever they might be found)? Perhaps the meaning is yet more specific. Might the oracle refer to Judah under the name of Jacob? In this interpretation, Judah has become heir to the larger legacy of Israel. Or does the term refer to a particular group within Judah, for instance, the Babylonian exiles? In such a view, very common in contemporary scholarship, Jacob is code for those Judeans, who had been deported to Babylon at the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth century BCE. One commentator has written with the tumultuous developments in the sixth-fifth centuries BCE in view, “What now is Israel?”2

1 An earlier version of this paper was read at the Sixth International meeting of the

Société d’Études Samaritaines, Pápa, Hungary, 20–25 July 2008. Thanks go out to the participants for their very good comments and questions. I would especially like to thank József Zsengellér for his kind hospitality and generosity in hosting this confe-rence.

2 WILLIAMSON, Israel, 142.

40 G. N. Knoppers

In this essay, I would like to revisit the issue of Israelite identity in Second Isaiah and contest some of the more narrow interpretations of Jacob/Israel, at least as those interpretations are applied to all texts wi-thin this particular corpus (Isaiah 34-35, 40–55).3 I shall argue that the broader connotations of Israel are retained in some contexts within Second Isaiah, even though the authors formulate a strikingly diverse array of images for Israel’s restoration. I shall begin by contextualizing the debate about Israelite identity in the setting of the Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid, and early Hellenistic periods. If one understands the later disputes about the nature of Israel, as debated by different writers resi-ding in postmonarchic Judah, one may gain a better grasp of the earlier discussions that occurred during the Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid eras.

1. Two Distinct Concepts of Israel in Postmonarchic Judean Literature

In dealing with the two main Judean historiographical writings dating to the late Achaemenid or early Hellenistic period – Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah – one is confronted with two fundamentally different conceptions of the people of Israel.4 In Ezra and in some of the editorial sections of Nehemiah, Israel appears delimited as the běnê ha-gôlâ, “the children of the exile” (Ezra 4:1; 6:19-20; 8:35; 10:7, 16; cf. běnê gālûtâ᾽ in Ezra 6:16), hā῾ōlîm miššěbî ha-gôlâ, "the ones who came up from the cap-tivity of the exile;" Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), and ha-gôlâ, "the exile(s)" (Ezra

3 For the sake of this study, Deutero-Isaiah basically encompasses Isaiah (34-35) 40-55

and Trito-Isaiah encompasses Isaiah 56-66. Admittedly, the compositional history of Isaiah 40-66 is complex and there is no consensus as to how, when, where, and by whom the materials in Isaiah 40-66 were written and how these materials relate to the earlier chapters in the book. See DUHM, Jesaia, 13-15; BEGRICH, Deuterojesaja, 1–91; HERMISSON, Einheit und Komplexität, 287–312; BEUKEN, Isaianic Legacy, 48–64; idem, Isaiah, 204–221; STECK, TritoJesajah, 403-406; idem, Studien, 217–228; WIL-LIAMSON, Book Called Isaiah; SMITH, Rhetoric; KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 5-38; SOMMER, Prophet, 187–198; SCHMID – STECK, Restoration, 41–81; BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40-55; idem, Isaiah 56-66. If, as some contend, the material in Isaiah 34-35, 40-55 is to be viewed as a completely distinct composition over against the material earlier in the book, rather than being a gradual continuation of the prophetic oracles found in Isaiah 1-33, this would not materially affect the overall argument sketched here.

4 Perhaps 1 Esdras (Esdras α) should be added to this list, because it develops aspects of the end of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35–36) and an earlier version of Ezra (1–10*), yet also goes its own way, BÖHLER, Die heilige Stadt.

Did Jacob become Judah? 41

1:11; 9:4; 10:6; Neh 7:6), and so forth.5 Over against the exiles stand “the people(s) of the land(s)” (῾am-hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽ărāșôt; Ezra 3:3, 4:4; 9:1, 2, 11, 14; 10:2; 11; cf. Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29, 31, 32).6

The terminology differs somewhat in the so-called Nehemiah me-moir.7 Within the first-person narratives of Nehemiah, the people with whom Nehemiah identifies are described as ha-yĕhûdîm, “the Judeans” (Neh 2:16; 3:33, 34; 4:6; 5:1, 17; 6:6; 13:23) and hā῾am, kol-hā῾am, hā῾am hā᾽ēlleh, “(all) the/this (Judean) people” (e.g., Neh 3:38; 4:7, 16; 5:1, 13, 15, 18, 19; 7:4; cf. 13:1).8 References to yĕhûdâ, “Judah” (Neh 4:4; 13:12), the house of Judah (Neh 4:10), and the children of Judah (Neh 13:16) also occur. The focus upon the territory of Judah, as opposed to a larger territory of Israel, is telling.9 Apart from the allusions in the opening verses of Nehemiah (1:2, 3) to those who remained from the captivity (šĕbî), references to the Judean captivity do not appear elsewhere in the Nehemiah memoir.10 In the Nehemiah materials, the protagonists con-sist of Nehemiah and his allies among the Judeans, while the antago-nists mainly consist of those who resist Nehemiah’s mission – ha-gôyîm, “the nations” (Neh 5:8, 9, 17; 6:6, 16; 13:26), that is, the Samarians, Ash-

5 Also relevant are the references to the "assembly of the exile" (qĕhal ha-gôlâ) in Ezra

10:8, 12-16 and the "assembly of God" (qĕhal hā᾽ĕlōhîm) in Neh 13:1. In the last instan-ce, the writers are quoting from Deut 23:4-7. There are a number of instances, espe-cially in Ezra (primarily in the lists and letters) in which the term Israel signifies the laypeople as opposed to the priests, Levites, gatekeepers, and so forth (e.g., Ezra 2:2,70 [//Neh 7:7,73]; 6:16; 7:7, 10, 13; 9:5; 10:25; Neh 2:10). The two meanings are not mutually exclusive, because the laity comprises a subset of the returnees.

6 Occasionally, there are hints of the survival of the concept of a larger entity (e.g., Ezra 6:17, 21), but such occurrences are rare.

7 The two concepts are linked, however, in the present text of Neh 7:1-5. The desire to increase the Judean population of Jerusalem leads Nehemiah to examine an old list (7:6-72) of returnees (//Ezra 2:1-70). The complex editorial history of the Nehemiah memoir cannot be discussed here. See the disparate analyses of BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah, 46-47; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxiv-xxviii; ALBERTZ, Religion, 437–460; REINMUTH, Bericht Nehemias; WRIGHT, Rebuilding Identity.

8 The usage is also common elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 2:2, 70; 3:1, 11, 13; 8:15, 36; 10:1, 9, 11, 13; Neh 7:4, 5, 7, 72; 8:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16; 9:10; 10:15, 29, 35; 11:1, 24; 12:30, 38).

9 The concern with a linkage between ethnic and cultic purity is also prominent in certain parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, OLYAN, Rites and Rank; idem, Purity Ideology, 1–16; ALBERTZ, Kultische Konzepte, 13–32.

10 The first-person Nehemiah narratives may thus be contrasted with the material in Ezra 1-6 (Ezra 3:8), the parallel lists of returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 (Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), and the Ezra materials (e.g., Ezra 8:35; 9:7; Neh 8:17). There is a refe-rence by Nehemiah to the šibyâ (Neh 3:36), but this represents what Nehemiah wis-hes for Sanballat, Tobiah, and their followers.

42 G. N. Knoppers

dodites, Arabs, Moabites, and Ammonites.11 Especially prominent in the Nehemiah narratives are certain leaders of these peoples – Sanballat of Samaria, Tobiah of Ammon, and Geshem/Gashmu the Arab.12 In short, the Ezra and Nehemiah materials evince some differences in terminology that relate primarily to the protagonists portrayed in the story. Nevertheless, both present some similar conceptions about the identities of those who belong and do not belong to the main group under discussion. In both cases, the Samarians, those people living to the north of Yehud, are depicted as belonging to a larger collection of peoples, who are unrelated to the Judeans and who constitute Judah’s adversaries.

The authors of Chronicles present a fundamentally different con-ception of Israelite identity. For them, the people of Israel constitute a comprehensive, albeit complex and segmented corporate entity, consis-ting of twelve (or more) tribes. The sodalities persist over time in spite of changes in national political and administrative structures.13 These geographically-dispersed sodalities are genetically related to each other, because they all stem ultimately from a common forbearer (1 Chr 2:1-2). Indeed, the work plays on the different nuances of the name Israel – the patriarch Israel, the united kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon, the northern kingdom, the southern kingdom, the people of God, the future community of God’s people, and so forth. There are references in Chronicles to “the peoples” (hā῾ammîm) and to “the peop-les of the lands (῾ammê hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽ărāșôt), but such expressions refer to non-Israelite entities (e.g., 1 Chr 5:25; 16:8, 24, 26; 2 Chr 6:33; 7:20; 13:9; 32:13, 19).14 To complicate matters further, the internal deve-lopment of the tribe of Judah is itself rather involved (1 Chr 2:3–4:23). The lineages of this tribe include a variety of cases of intermarriage between Judahites, including Davidic Judahites, and women from a variety of other peoples (e.g., Canaanite, Moabite, Egyptian, and Ge-shurite). The Judahite lineages do not contain any words of censure or

11 The references to ᾽ō/ôyēb, “enemy” (Neh 4:9; 5:9; 6:1, 16; cf. 9:28) and șār, “adversary”

(Neh 4:5; cf. Ezra 4:1; Neh 9:27), are also relevant, because Nehemiah equates the na-tions with his foes.

12 Nevertheless, Nehemiah also faced determined opposition from members of his own elite, who were prepared to support him on certain issues, but actively resisted his leadership on others, KNOPPERS, Nehemiah, 305–331.

13 JAPHET, People and Land, 103–125; eadem, Ideology; eadem, Rivers; WILLIAMSON, Israel; WILLI, Juda; KNOPPERS, I Chronicles 1-9; KLEIN, 1 Chronicles.

14 In a few cases, the expression, “the people of the land,” refers (as it does in the paral-lel passages in Kings from which the writers of Chronicles draw) to the landed gent-ry of Judah (2 Chr 23:20, 21; 26:21; 33:25; 36:1).


disapproval of such links to other peoples.15 Chronicles thus provides evidence of diversity within the postmonarchic Judean community with respect to the issue of intermarriage.

The Chronistic depiction of those who live to the north of Judah during the monarchy is particularly fascinating. There are important changes alluded to in the history of northern Israel, but the writers never waver in their insistence that the inhabitants of the areas north of Judah are bona fide Israelites. Like the authors of Kings, the writers of Chronicles acknowledge the destruction and havoc caused by the Assy-rian conquests, but the authors of Chronicles posit continuous inhabita-tion of the land by remnants of the northern tribes, in spite of the Assy-rian deportations. There is no empty land in the depiction of northern Israel’s history.16 Nor is there a record of Assyrian-sponsored immig-rants settling in the former northern kingdom. The social structure of the people remains intact. Those who reside in Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, and Naphtali during the late Judean monarchy are Ephraimites, Manassites, Asherites, and Naphtalites (2 Chr 30:1-17; 34:3-7).

In comparison with the carefully-demarcated stance advanced by the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah, the writers of Chronicles present a more nuanced, complex, and somewhat conciliatory attitude toward the North. Some of Judah’s best monarchs, such as Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:1-9) and Josiah (2 Chr 35:1-19), make important overtures toward their nor-thern kin. In the brief Chronistic depiction of postexilic Jerusalem, the writers assert that not only Judeans and Benjaminites settled in this town, but also Manassites and Ephraimites (1 Chr 9:3).17 This is a very important consideration in assessing how different postmonarchic wri-ters construed the rebuilding of the Judean homeland community. In most reconstructions of Persian period Judah, the witness of Ezra-Nehemiah is (understandably) given pride of place, but this discrepan-cy between the witness of Ezra-Nehemiah and that of Chronicles is often neglected. In the context of the Chronistic genealogical introduc-tion to the people of Israel, the Persian-period town of Jerusalem ap-pears as a mixed community, housing both northern and southern re-sidents.

15 KNOPPERS, Intermarriage, 15-30. 16 With the exception of the Trans-Jordanian tribes, which are exiled during the Assy-

rian conquests (1 Chr 5:23-26), KNOPPERS, I Chronicles 1-9, 375–400. 17 Hence, some of the social diversity evident within the genealogies pertaining to

Israel’s past is also evident in Persian-period Jerusalem. Reflecting the interests of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, the parallel text in Neh 11:4 simply states: “in Jerusa-lem resided some of the descendants of Judah and some of the descendants of Ben-jamin.“

44 G. N. Knoppers

The contrasts between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah should not be drawn too far. The two works share some important ideological tenets. Among them are the centrality of Jerusalem, the exclusive status of the Jerusalem temple, the importance of bloodlines, and the pivotal status of Judah, Benjamin, the priests, and the Levites to the larger body politic. In the course of history, Israel’s normative cultic institutions all come to be located in the South.18 In both works, the people of Israel (however Israel may be defined) reside within the land and outside the land in foreign locales.19 In this respect, Israel is an international entity in both of these late writings.

Nevertheless, in Chronicles a pan-Israel theme characterizes both the genealogies and the narrative sections of the work. Each sodality, whatever its geographical location, plays an integral role within the larger Israelite people. Indeed, the discrepancy between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah concerning the identity of Israel is especially striking in light of the many tenets these two works share. How does one explain such a strong difference of opinion among literary works that both date to the same general period? It may be said that of the two perspectives, the notion of Israelite identity being exclusively bound to the experien-ce of the Judahite exile is the more atypical view. Most earlier biblical authors, including those responsible for the formation of the Penta-teuch, embraced a large, rather than a narrow, understanding of Israel. The book of Kings contains a series of very negative comments on the fall of the northern monarchy, the deportations of its inhabitants, and the importation of foreign settlers into the former northern kingdom (2 Kings 17). Nevertheless, the authors of Kings do not speak of Judah, the southern kingdom, as Israel. In Kings Israel may refer to a multi-tribal entity, the united kingdom, the northern region of the nation, the nor-thern kingdom, or the exiled northerners (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11), but the term Israel is never used to refer to either the southern kingdom or the

18 The normative (or, at least major) Israelite political institution—the Davidic dynas-

ty—also stems from Judah, hence the writers of Chronicles, unlike the writers of Kings, do not recount the independent history of the northern monarchy. In the view of the Chronistic writers, the creation of an independent northern monarchy was an affront to God (2 Chr 13:4-12), KNOPPERS, Rehoboam, 423–440; idem, Battling against Yahweh, 511–532. Nevertheless, in spite of the northern secession, Israel remains a segmented society encompassing both northern and southern tribes. For this reason, Chronicles includes almost all of the northern-southern contacts narrated in Kings, as well as many northern-southern contacts that are not narrated in Kings, JAPHET, Ideology, 291–300; WILLIAMSON, Israel, 97–131. The continuation of the Davidic dy-nasty is, however, not an interest of the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah, KNOPPERS, I Chronicles 1-9, 80–100.

19 KNOPPERS, Ethnicity, 147–171.


Judahite exiles.20 The writers of Kings, as well as the writers of the other books in the Deuteronomistic History (or the Former Prophets), embra-ce a comprehensive understanding of the Israelite people.

If so, the question arises as to whether the stance of Ezra-Nehemiah is completely unique and unprecedented or whether earlier writers also advanced a predominantly or exclusively Judean understanding of national identity. Most major shifts in usage do not arise de novo, but are anticipated to a lesser or greater extent by usage in earlier works. This is an important issue that I would like to pursue in this study. There have been some, who have thought that the attitude toward the Samarians in Ezra-Nehemiah was anticipated to a greater or lesser ex-tent in earlier prophetic writings. In this theory, one sees an important shift in and subsequently a gradual narrowing of Israelite identity in prophetic works dealing with the late monarchic age, the Judahite exile, and the Achaemenid era. My focus in addressing this issue will be limi-ted to the major prophetic works of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah. The first two will be dealt with rather briefly, but the work of Second Isaiah presents a rather complex case that requires more detailed analysis.21

2. The Future of Israel in Ezekiel and Jeremiah

Some find important parallels between the book of Ezra and Ezekiel in that both depict a diarchy, privilege the Judahite exiles, promote Jeru-salem and its temple, and maintain a distinction between priests and Levites. Nevertheless, the writers of Ezekiel emphasize a broad notion of national identity. This stress is especially clear in the last third of the book, dealing with the reconstruction of national institutions and the geo-political structure of Israel itself.22 An expansive understanding of corporate identity is evident in those texts depicting the future re-gathering of the people (39:25-29; cf. 28:24-26; 29:21), the ecological

20 HJELM (Jerusalem’s Rise, 30-92, 117-118) points out that the writers of Kings use the

expression, “Yhwh, the God of Israel,” with reference to events in the southern kingdom after the fall of the northern kingdom (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:5; 19:15, 20). Yhwh may be “the God of David” (2 Kgs 20:5), but Yhwh is also the God of the body poli-tic. The use of the epithet, “Yhwh the God of Israel,” ties the deity Hezekiah wors-hips to a broader corporate entity. Judahites, no less than their northern counter-parts, are beholden to the God of Israel. See also, LINVILLE, Israel.

21 The situation in Third Isaiah may be deemed to be even more complex and will have to await study in another context.

22 LEVENSON, Theology; TUELL, The Law of the Temple.

46 G. N. Knoppers

restoration of the mountains of Israel (36:1-15), the revivification of the Israelite people in the Valley of Dry Bones (37:1-14), the resetting of tribal boundaries (47:13-23), and the normalization of equal geographi-cal tribal allotments, albeit at strikingly different locations from their distribution in earlier texts (48:1-35). The strong sense of national iden-tity is also apparent in the recurrence of phrases, such as, כל־בית ישראל “all the house of Israel” (5:4; 12:10; 20:40; 37:11 [16]; 39:25; 45:6) and

כלה ישראל all of the house of Israel, all of it” (11:15; 36:10).23“ ,כל־בת There is, of course, a Jerusalem-centered perspective evident in this

work and the redefined national polity is led by a Davidic 34:23) נשיא-31; 45:8, 16). Moreover, the prophecy of the two sticks (37:15-28) pre-supposes a traditional ethnic and political distinction between Ephraim and Judah. Yet, this division is to be overcome by Yhwh himself as he refashions these two nations (שני גוים) and two kingdoms (שתי ממלכות) into a single nation (37:22 ;גוי אחד).24 It is also important to observe that this work is Jerusalem-centered, but not Judah centered.25 In the alloca-tion of land to the various tribes (48:8-22), Jerusalem and its temple are near the center, but the tribal territory of Judah is separated from the sanctuary.26 Judah is resituated north of the tribe of Levi north of Jeru-salem, while Benjamin is resituated to the south of Jerusalem (48:7, 23). In sum, there are some striking ways in which the writers of Ezra may be indebted to the prophetic work of Ezekiel, but there are also notable differences between them.27 One of the most striking of these pertains to the identity of Israel. Ezekiel’s new Israel consists of a reconfigured, highly-unified twelve-tribe arrangement, whereas Ezra’s Israel consists of the Judahite exiles and their descendants.

If there is a contrast to be drawn between Ezekiel and Ezra concer-ning the nature of corporate identity, similar things may be said about the relationship between Jeremiah and Ezra. The restoration prophecies

23 ZIMMERLI, Israel, 75-90; idem, Ezekiel 2, 563-565. 24 See also LUST, Exile, 99–122. On the difficult and much-contested question of natio-

nality in antiquity, see GOODBLATT, Elements. 25 ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 564. 26 For these and other reasons, some earlier commentators thought that Ezekiel was a

northerner; see GASTER, Samaritans, 11–15, 138–140; SMITH, Prophet Ezekiel, 55–71. Gaster and Smith also thought that the original temple site of Ezekiel was not Jerusa-lem, but rather Shechem or Mt. Gerizim. SMITH opined that Ezekiel directed his mes-sage (originally) to a northern Israelite community, Prophet Ezekiel, 67, 71. Reading certain passages in Ezekiel and other books in a Judean-Samari(t)an context has a long history in biblical studies, MONTGOMERY, Samaritans; HJELM, Samaritans and Early Judaism.

27 For the sake of this discussion, I am focusing on the whole. There is, e.g., diversity within the work concerning the exiles themselves, ROM-SHILONI, Ezekiel, 1-45.


in the book of Jeremiah advance a comprehensive vision of God’s peop-le.28 In the so-called book of consolation, Yhwh announces that he is “restoring the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his dwel-lings” (30:18). Ephraim is described as Yhwh’s firstborn (Jer 31:9) and as Yhwh’s precious son (31:20 ;בן יקיר). In an oracle to be proclaimed far and wide to the nations, we are told that:

The One who scatters Israel will gather them And guard him like a shepherd of his flock For Yhwh has ransomed (פדה) Jacob, And redeemed (גאל) him from the hand of one stronger than he.

Rachel’s inconsolable weeping for her children is met with an assuran-ce from Yhwh that her children will return from the land of the enemy (31:15-17).29 The writers of this section acknowledge the divisions bet-ween North and South, but envision Yhwh as overcoming such divisi-ons by reinstating Rachel’s surviving offspring. Like the authors of Ezekiel’s restoration program, these writers formulate a Jerusalem-centered vision of their people, but the contours of that entity are wide-ranging, embracing both Ephraim and Judah.

3. The Redefinition(s) of Israel in the Book of Isaiah

If the works of Ezekiel and Jeremiah both promote strong, albeit varied, notions of pan-Israelite solidarity, the situation is considerably more complex in the book of Isaiah. For many scholars, the real transition in the meaning of the term Israel is evident in the cumulative growth of this particular prophetic book.30 The long process of writing, rewriting, and editing that culminated in the formation of this literary work is thought to provide clues about the changing meaning of the term Israel and its eventual application to Judah. So, for instance, Kratz writes that the compositional process of this book bears witness to the transforma-tion of the name both in the history of Israel and in the literary history of Isaiah.31

28 SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 154–185. 29 Referring to Joseph (Gen 30:22-24) and Benjamin (35:16-18; 41:51-52). Joseph’s sons

(and Rachel’s grandsons) Ephraim and Manasseh are also likely in view. 30 See, e.g., ROST, Propheten, 91–94; DANELL, Studies, 186–189, 261–264; HØGENHAVEN,

Gott, 17; WILLIAMSON, Concept, 144–159; and KRATZ, Israel, 105. 31 KRATZ, Israel, 103.

48 G. N. Knoppers

In one dominant reading of the work, Israel is increasingly cons-trued in narrower and narrower terms. In his important study on the history of Judean-Samaritan relations, Coggins opines that Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah did not propound a broad vision of Israelite identity. Quite the contrary, Coggins could find no reference at all to the northern tribes in Isaiah 40-55.32 If Deutero-Isaiah was a universalist (which Coggins regards as a debatable point), he applies this universa-lism only to the exiled community in Babylon. The parade example Coggins cites is MT Isa 48:1: “Hear this O house of Jacob, who are cal-led by the name of Israel, and who came forth from the waters of Ju-dah.” But it must be said that the citation raises as many questions as it initially appears to answer. The precise import of the declaration of Isa 48:1 is unclear.33 The text seems to focus on those descendants of Ja-cob/Israel, who stem from Judah (or, perhaps, “from the loins (ממעי) of Judah,” 1QIsa).34 Does the text limit Israelites to Judahites or does it imply that only those Judahites, who come out of the waters of Judah are called (or can be called) by the name Israel?35 If so, to what do the waters of Judah refer?36 Perhaps a better example might be Isa 59:20: “He [Yhwh] will come as redeemer to Zion, to those turning back from sin in Jacob.”37 In this text Jacob stands parallel with Zion. Jacob is asso-ciated with the location of Zion.38

In any case, when the writers of Deutero-Isaiah speak of Israel, the remnant of Israel, or of Israel’s return from exile, the assumption is that Israel designates Judah, the Babylonian Judean exiles, or some subset thereof. With respect to Trito-Isaiah, a further set of distinctions comes into view. If the title Israel is applied to the Babylonian exiles in Deute-

32 COGGINS, Samaritans, 36–37. 33 Pace DANELL, Studies, 262 34 Similar variants between the MT and 1QIsa occur in Isa 39:7. For the use of “bowels”

-elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah with reference to Israel, see Isa 48:19. If the Qum (מעים)ran text of Isa 48:1 contains the older reading (BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 281–284), the reference is to the patriarch Judah, rather than to the geo-political region of Judah.

35 For the former interpretation, see DANELL, Studies, 262; ROST, Propheten, 92. For the latter interpretation, which levels out certain geographical and political disparities, see KRATZ, Israel, 123. Even if one wishes, for the sake of argument, to understand as Isa 48:1 as identifying Judah with Jacob/Israel, it does not necessarily follow that the other tribes or regions traditionally associated with Israel are no longer being regar-ded as Israelite in character. The force of Isa 48:1 is to link Judah to historic Israel. The text does not address the fate of Ephraim.

36 KOOLE (Isaiah III, 1, 556) provides a history of interpretive options. 37 But this text is, of course, found in Third Isaiah. 38 Even so, the lemma does not address, explicitly at least, the fate of northern Israeli-

tes. It presents a Jerusalem-centered view of Jacob.


ro-Isaiah, it can be further restricted in Trito-Isaiah “to a faithful indivi-dual or group within the community.”39 By the time of Trito-Isaiah, “Israel” can refer to individuals or groups both within the Diaspora and within Palestine.40 If this is the case, how does one locate such shifts historically? The dates in which such transformations toward more restrictive (or different) meanings occur differ widely in scholarly reconstructions. Some see the shift as beginning to happen early, as soon as the Syro-Ephraimite war,41 while others date the shift as late as Hasmonean times.42 Many scholars locate the main impetus toward change as occurring in the aftermath of the northern kingdom’s demise. Among the stimuli cited for such a transition in meaning are the focus on the southern kingdom following the fall of the northern kingdom, developments in seventh century Judah, the impact of the Judean de-portations, the later series of migrations from the Diaspora to Judah, and the struggles of the postmonarchic Palestinian community.43

4. Transition in Meaning or Different Meanings? Israel in Second Isaiah

The points scholars have made about the changing nature of Israel in the book of Isaiah carry much weight. But should one immediately associate such shifts in meaning as univocally signaling a transition from open toward restrictive definitions? Perhaps not. Even with refe-rence to the different meanings of Israel in the book of Isaiah, there are complications. The work does not speak with one voice about the re-constitution of Jacob/Israel.44 In the analysis of Kratz, ‘“Israel’ does not represent primarily a historical, but rather a theological entity.”45 He argues that in many instances the term designates the people of God (or Israel) as a whole.46 When both Israel and Judah fall victim to foreign

39 WILLIAMSON, Concept, 147. 40 WILLIAMSON, Concept, 150. See also AHLSTRÖM, Israelites, 110–118. 41 Most notably, Rost, Propheten, 48. 42 E.g., THOMPSON, Mythic Past. 43 DANELL (Studies, 186–89) does not think that Isaiah called Judah Israel before the fall

of the northern kingdom, while AHLSTRÖM (Israelites, 104–110) and KRATZ situate the beginning of the transition in seventh-century Judah, Israel, 114.

44 See SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 110–181 (and the references listed there). 45 KRATZ, Israel, 111. By “theological,” Kratz means the people of God or Israel as a

whole, rather than a political (the northern tribes/kingdom or the southern tri-bes/kingdom) designation (KRATZ, Israel, 117).

46 KRATZ, Israel, 117. Cf. ZOBEL, yiśrā᾽ēl, 417 (with reference to Isa 44:5; 48:1).

50 G. N. Knoppers

conquests and deportations, they become “fellow sufferers–the one people of the one God.”47 In the view of some commentators, the be-ginning and end of the book have been shaped and edited as a frame to highlight important issues that relate to the question of the people’s identity.48 Both Kratz and Williamson call attention to the opening lines of the book (Isa 1:1-3), which they believe belongs to one of the latest, if not the latest, layers of the work.49

1:1 The vision (חזון) of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw (חזה) concerning Judah and Jerusalem in reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2. Hear O heavens and listen O earth, For Yhwh has spoken: “Children I have reared and raised, but they have rebelled against me. 3. An ox knows its owner, and an ass its feeding trough; Israel does not know, My people show no understanding.”

Given that subsequent chapters deal with both Judah and northern Israel, Kratz and Williamson contend that Israel in these verses refers to the people of God or to Israel as a larger corporate entity. Indeed, Yhwh’s reference to “my children” (Isa 1:2) would seem to point to a broad, rather than a narrow, concept of Israel. The usage of “Israel” in this particular context is, therefore, quite important. The first chapter may have been shaped or added to the book to serve as an introduction to the whole.50

In what follows, I would like to support and extend such an open-ended and nuanced way of reading certain texts in Second Isaiah. I would agree with earlier scholars that one finds a striking diversity of views within the book of Isaiah and that this diversity provides some important clues to understanding the changing meanings of Israel in the history of Judean lore. I would also maintain however, that certain problematic assumptions about the course of northern Israelite and southern Judahite history have unduly affected scholarly theories about

47 KRATZ, Israel, 125–126 (with reference to Isa 5:1-7; 6:9-10). 48 FOHRER, Jesaja 1, 148–166; SWEENEY, Isaiah, 20–24. Note, however, the cautions

expressed by SOMMER, Allusions and Illusions, 178–183. 49 WILLIAMSON (Book Called Isaiah, 153-154) and others note the similar (earlier?)

introduction at the beginning of Isa 2:1, “The word (הדבר), which Isaiah son of Amoz saw (חזה) concerning Judah and Jerusalem.”

50 WILLIAMSON, Isaiah 1-5, 9-11.


the meaning of texts mentioning Israel/Jacob in Deutero-Isaiah. One common presupposition of biblical scholars has been that the Assyrian conquests and deportations effectively brought an end to the Israelite population in northern Israel. Following the storyline of 2 Kings 17, many have supposed that the area of northern Israel was radically transformed in demography, culture, and religion in the late eighth century. After the arrival of state-sponsored foreign settlers in the for-mer northern kingdom, the focus of attention shifted to the kingdom of Judah and eventually Judahite writers began to apply the name Israel to the Judahite people or to the people of Yhwh as a whole. In other words, the narrowing or reapplication of meaning is thought to res-pond to and reflect ongoing historical developments.

But the assumption that the story of (northern) Israel ends with the Assyrian bi-directional deportations is problematic on a number of different counts. The material evidence does not support such a simp-listic conclusion. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the majori-ty of those who survived the Assyrian onslaughts in Samaria were Is-raelites.51 In spite of some destruction, serious losses, and limited bi-directional deportations, the preponderance of those who survived the tumultuous events of the late eighth century in the areas of Megiddo and Samaria were Israelite.52 This means that the story of northern Is-rael continued, albeit in altered circumstances. There is thus no good reason to assume that most Judahite writers living in the South thought that there no longer were any Yahwists residing in the areas of Eph-raim and Manasseh or that the only northern Israelites to be attested were all dislocated by the Assyrians. In spite of the assertions of those Judean scribes responsible for composing certain sections in 2 Kings 17, there is no clear reason to think that most members of the Judean elite believed that any surviving Israelites in northern Israel had all become contaminated by alien blood.53

To complicate matters, one needs to envision a historical set of cir-cumstances affecting Judeans in the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries BCE that involves more than simply a Jerusalem-Babylon axis. During the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic eras, Judeans could not only be found in Judah and in Babylon, but also in Egypt (e.g., 2 Kgs

51 MACCHI, Samaritains, 73–133; ZSENGELLÉR, Gerizim, 95–176; KNOPPERS, Search, 15–

30; idem, Mt. Zion; idem, Revisiting, 265–289. 52 The regions of Galilee and the northern Trans-Jordan are another matter. There, the

uni-directional deportations of Tiglath-pileser III seem to have resulted in the severe depopulation of a number of different areas formerly belonging to the Aramean and Israelite kingdoms, KNOPPERS, Search, 160–170.

53 MACCHI, Controversies théologiques, 85–93; KNOPPERS, Cutheans, 223–239.

52 G. N. Knoppers

25:22-26; Jer 37:1-43:13) and in other parts of Syria-Palestine.54 In dea-ling with texts in Second Isaiah, one should not presume that because these texts often speak of Jerusalem, Judah, the towns of Judah, the aftermath of the Babylonian exile, and Cyrus as Yhwh’s designated messiah, the references to Jacob and Israel in these texts must all some-how refer to Judah, the Babylonian Judean expatriates, or to some group among the Babylonian Judean expatriates.55 The older theory assumes what it needs to prove. One may argue, in fact, that even in Second Isaiah, which presents a number of different images for the reconstitution of God’s people, there are occasions in which Jacob/Israel relates to the people as a whole and not simply to Judah, the homeland community in Judah, or to a particular group, such as the Babylonian deportees.

My argument is not that somehow Second Isaiah is not concerned with the renaissance of Jerusalem, Zion, and Judah (it certainly is), but rather that indications of broader notions of Israelite identity may be found in certain portions of this work. Some texts may reapply the term Israel to Judah (or to a certain group within Judah), but others affirm a larger and more complex understanding of Israel. It should prove use-ful to take a close look at some relevant passages.56

Isa 43:1-7

1. But now, thus says Yhwh, the One who creates you, O Jacob, who fashions you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you (גאלתיך), I have called you out by name, to me you belong. 2. When you pass through waters I am with you . . . . 3. For I Yhwh am your God,57

54 On the Egyptian question, reference is often made (and appropriately so) to the

Jewish colony at Elephantine (PORTEN, Archives), but reference may also be made to Judeans residing in certain areas of the Delta, HOLLADAY, Judeans, 405–437.

55 DANELL (Studies, 262) acknowledges this possibility, but contends that other passa-ges speaking of Jerusalem, Zion, and the towns of Judah (e.g., Isa 40:9; 44:26) show that the prophet only has the Judean exiles in mind.

56 Such a broad view is also very much in evidence in the prophecy of Isa 11:10-16, which speaks of a renewed Davidic kingdom ruling both northern and southern sec-tions of Israel. Because the authorship and date of this important text are much de-bated (it does not seem to belong to Second Isaiah), it will be left out of this discussi-on. LAATO (Servant, 116–117) and SOMMER (Prophet, 246–248) contend that it was written before the time of Deutero-Isaiah, but others date it later.

57 So the MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsag, and the LXX. 1QIsaa lacks כי.


The Holy One of Israel, your deliverer (מושיעך). I have given Egypt as your ransom (כפרך), Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you; 4. Because you are precious in my eyes, you are honored and I, I have loved you, I shall give man in exchange for you, and peoples in your stead. 5. Fear not for I am with you; from the east, I shall bring your seed, from the west, I shall gather you. 6. I shall say to the north: “Give (back),” and to the south: “Do not hold back; bring my sons from afar, and my daughters from the ends of the earth, 7. all who are called by my name (ארהנק בשמי ,(כל for my glory I have created them, formed them, indeed made them.”

Isaiah 43:1-7 is one of several passages in Second Isaiah that announce the regathering of God’s people back to the land.58 The oracle of rene-wal follows one of reproach (Isa 42:18-25).59 Divine punishment does not lead to ultimate destruction, but rather to a decisive divine inter-vention in the history of Israel in which Yhwh acts decisively as a divi-ne kinsman to redeem (גאל) his people.60 The Creator willingly pays an exorbitant ransom to retrieve his people from far-off places and lead them back to the land. The addresses of the highly allusive lines in Isaiah 43 are commonly considered to be limited to the Babylonian Judean exiles. Those formerly outcast to Babylon would certainly be part of the picture (43:14), but is the hopeful message simply limited to this group? Or are the Babylonian deportees major beneficiaries of a larger and more comprehensive divine action?

58 For CHILDS, Isa 43:1-7 are part of a larger unit extending from 42:14–43:21, Isaiah,

327-37. But BLENKINSOPP (Isaiah 40-55, 220) situates Isa 43:1-7 at the beginning of a new section extending through 44:8. A text speaking of the despoiling and plunde-ring of the people (42:18-24) gives way to a new message of deliverance. See also BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 155-160. Sommer contends that Isa 43:5-9 is a reprediction, a case in which Deutero-Isaiah repeats and recasts a positive prophecy of Jeremiah (31:7-9), Allusions and Illusions, 171.

59 Hence, WESTERMANN, types 43:1-7 an “oracle of salvation,” Isaiah 40-66, 115. SCHOORS divides the piece into two separate but related oracles, Saviour, 67–77. The issue need not detain us here.

60 The usage is no accident, but forms part of a larger pattern in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 22, 24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8) and Trito-Isaiah. On the use of the metaphor elsewhere, see Exod 6:6; 15:13; Jer 31:11; 50:34; Hos 13:14; Mic 4:10; Ps 74:2; 77:16; 78:35; 106:10; 107:2.

54 G. N. Knoppers

There are some good reasons to believe that a highly restrictive de-signation may not be warranted by the text. To begin with, the addres-see of the divine oracle is Jacob/Israel. The very choice of terminology points to the people as a whole, rather than to some part thereof.61 If, as most commentators agree, the poet is alluding to the rebirth and re-creation of Israel, the referent would seem to be the people in general, because the older traditions upon which the poet draws (e.g., those in the Pentateuch) depict the birth of the people as a corporate entity and not the birth of a particular tribe (שבט) or clan (משפחה) within that larger entity.62 The reference to Jacob’s seed (זרע) points to a genealogically comprehensive, rather than a genealogically constrictive, designation.63

Second, the poet does not make qualitative or quantitative distinc-tions. He does not speak, for example, of a remnant of the people or distinguish between “bad figs and good figs” (Jer 24). Instead, he speaks of the whole. Third, the final lines speak of Yhwh gathering the descendants of Jacob/Israel from all four directions of the compass and not simply from any one particular area. The scope is comprehensive, “to the ends of the earth” (v. 6).64 If the writer had only the Babylonian deportees in mind, one would think that he would speak of only the east or the north, rather than of all four directions.65

Fourth, in the progression of the poem one can discern a stress on the fullness of Yhwh’s initiative. When he initially speaks to Ja-cob/Israel, the God of Israel (Yhwh) assures his redeemed that “I have called (you) out by your name קראתי בשמך , you belong to me” (43:1).66 At the conclusion of the piece, this promise is slightly modified and intensified. Yhwh summons the north and the south to give back “all who are called by my name” (ארהנק בשמי v. 7). If the poet had a very ;כל

61 ZOBEL recognizes the issue, stating that “Jacob” (ya῾aqōb, 203) can mean the people

of the exile (Second Isaiah) or the postexilic community (Third Isaiah). He acknow-ledges a problem in that “Jacob” can refer to the entire nation or to parts thereof. In the end, he adopts the traditional (restrictive) scholarly stance.

62 The connections with the promises to the ancestors are stressed in the treatment of LAATO, Servant.

63 The text may be compared with Isa 44:3; 48:19; 54:3; 61:9; 65:23. 64 Hence, CHILDS speaks of “a return of the scattered diaspora” (Isaiah, 335). Cf. Isa

56:8; 60:4ff. 65 So also KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 297. If one wishes to make a case that this text somehow

refers to a loyal Judean remnant, such a remnant would have to be actively drawn from all four directions of the compass (cf. Isa 49:12; Zeph 3:10; Obad 20), BLENKIN-SOPP, Isaiah 40-55, 222.

66 So the MT. The Versions make the direct object explicit (= קראתיך בשמך). Cf. Gen 28:13-15; 32:10, 28.


narrow understanding of those who could possibly be affected by the dramatic divine action, it is unlikely that he would be so inclusive.

Isa 45:22-25

22. Turn to me and be delivered, all the ends of the earth. For I am God (ל ,(אand there is no other. 23. By myself have I sworn, from my mouth has righteousness gone forth, speech and it will not return, for to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear.”67 24. Only in Yhwh will it surely be said,68 are righteousness and strength; To him will come69 and be ashamed, all who were incensed against him.70 25. In Yhwh all the seed of Israel (זרע־כל ישראל ), will win vindication and glory.

These lines are part of a longer poem addressed to the “survivors of the nations” (Isa 45:20-25), summoning them to acknowledge God’s sove-reignty, bow before him, and employ his name in oaths.71 The singular nature of the godhead is associated in this poem with a singular divine action on behalf of “all the seed of Israel” against all those who raged against him. The reference to the personal name of Israel’s God by the “survivors of the nations” (פליטי הגוים) is particularly striking (Isa 45:20).72 In any case, what does it mean for “all of the seed of Israel”

67 So the MT, 4QIsab. The LXX and 1QIsaa preface “and.” 68 Reading לו יאמר for MT לי אמר (cf. LXX, Syr., and1QIsaa). So also CLIFFORD, Fair Spo-

ken, 124. 69 The MT has the sg. (יבוא), but many Heb mss, 1QIsaa, and the Versions have the pl.

.(יבואו)70 Cf. Isa 41:11, GOLDINGAY – PAYNE, Isaiah 40-55, 165. 71 So BLENKINSOPP (Isaiah 40-55, 260–263). Some define the unit as Isa 45:18-25

(SCHOORS, Saviour, 233–238; Koole, Isaiah III, 1, 473; CHILDS, Isaiah, 355). In the view of CHILDS, the poem of vv. 18-25 is part of a larger unit consisting of Isa 44:24–45:25, Isaiah, 344–356.

72 CLIFFORD, Fair Spoken, 124–127. See also Isa 2:2-4; 42:5-12; 60:1-7.

56 G. N. Knoppers

זרע־כל ישראל) ) to win vindication and glory?73 A cultic connection with Jerusalem and Zion may be likely, but why would the poet limit the group of beneficiaries only to Judeans (or even more narrowly, either to exiled Judeans or to homeland Judeans), when he is summoning the ends of the earth to acknowledge Yhwh’s power?74 The poet does not speak of the seed of Judah or even of all the seed of Judah, but rather of “all the seed of Israel.”75 Certainly, displaced Judeans and homeland Judeans would benefit from the actualization of divine speech and the broad-based acknowledgement of divine justice, but does not the use of the adjective כל (“all”) underscore the participation of all the stock of Israel in the coming divine victory?76

Isa 46:3-4

3. Listen to me, O House of Jacob, All that are left of the House of Israel (כל־שארית בית ישראל), those who have been carried since birth, those borne since leaving the womb. 4. To old age, I am He, To dotage, I, I shall carry. I, I have acted and I, I shall bear, I, I shall carry and I shall bring to safety.

This excerpt is part of a larger poem (46:1-13), which contains an exten-ded comparison between the Babylonian deities Bel (Marduk) and his son Nabu, on the one hand, and Yhwh, the God of Israel, on the other

73 A similar phrase is used in v. 19, “seed of Jacob.” Cf. “You are Israel my ser-

vant/Jacob whom I have chosen/seed of Abraham my friend” (Isa 41:8). Cf. Isa 43:5; 44:3, 18; 54:3.

74 On the expression אפסי־ארץ, see also Isa 40:28; 41:5, 9. The range of geographical expressions in Second Isaiah led some older commentators to speculate that the ho-me of Second Isaiah was not in Babylon or in Judah, but in some other location, such as Phoenicia or Egypt. BARSTAD provides a helpful survey, Babylonian Captivity, 23–32.

75 Some even think that Israel and Jacob as corporate entities carry slightly different nuances in this material—more national (Jacob) as opposed to more inclusive (Is-rael). See BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 251 (with further references).

76 Indeed, some would see in the divine summons to “the ends of the earth” a procla-mation that transcends ethnic, national, or geographical borders (CHILDS, Isaiah, 356; KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 500–501). This may be so, but the oracle itself focuses attention upon a particular ethnos (Israel) and its future vindication.


hand.77 The fact that the images of Bel and Nabu bow and stoop is quite ominous for the deities they represent (Isa 46:1-2).78 Bel and Nabu will no longer be carried (נשא) in processional splendor, but will be reduced to booty, carried (עמס) into captivity as a burden (משא) by weary pack animals, who are unable to deliver (מלט) the burden (46:1-2 ;משא). By contrast, Yhwh will carry (נשא) and bear (סבל) “the house of Jacob” and deliver (מלט) them, just as he has borne (עמס) them from the time of birth. The reference to “all of the remnant of Israel” (בית ישראל כל־שארית) explicitly acknowledges the major loss of life in the people’s past, but nevertheless reassures the prophet’s audience that Yhwh is concerned with all those Israelites, who have managed to survive the ravages of history.

Part and parcel of Yhwh’s unique status, as presented in this pro-phecy, is his ability to achieve that which he speaks (vv. 9-11). His deli-verance will not tarry. There is no doubt that a deliberate contrast bet-ween Babylon and Zion is intended, because the poem concludes with the assertion, “I have set my deliverance in Zion / to Israel (I have gi-ven) my glory” (v. 13).79 The issue is, however, whether this Judean author can only be speaking of the Babylonian deportees or some sub-set thereof, when he refers to the house of Jacob.80 When Yhwh refers to his bearing “all who are left of the house of Israel” (46:3) since the time that Jacob left the womb, it does not seem convincing to maintain that the text in reality can only designate a small portion of those who would identify with Jacob/Israel. The traditional interpretation presup-poses that the author believed all of the northern Israelites had either been extirpated or scattered to oblivion and thus were out of the Judean writer’s frame of consciousness.81 Similarly, if the references to the

77 For CHILDS, the verses are part of a larger unit extending from 46:1–47:15, Isaiah,

356–367. Cf. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40-55, 263–270. 78 SCHAUDIG explores the allusions to and the reuse of Neo-Babylonian processional

imagery, Bēl Bows, 557–572. 79 On the frequent references to Zion, see CLEMENTS, Zion, 3–17; KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1,

41–43. 80 The associations between the people, identified as the “house of Jacob,” and the

eponymous ancestor would be important, because of the importance given to conti-nuity with the ancestors. Connections with the patriarchs and matriarchs carried po-tential implications for the present and future. SCHMID (Erzväter, 266–270) observes that the divinely elected patriarch is an important theological concept that focuses attention on the (re)formation of Israel as the people of God. The promised future is presented, in part, as the repetition of positive beginnings made during difficult cir-cumstances in the ancestral age. If so, the promise underscores, in this context, the possibilities for a new beginning in the ongoing story of Yhwh’s people.

81 Or that the author cared only about the Babylonian exiles.

58 G. N. Knoppers

“house of Jacob” and “all that are left of the house of Israel” are code for a small Judean group, a tiny remnant of the whole people, it must be conceded that the language used is remarkably open-ended. It seems more plausible to hold that the suggestive and open-ended fra-me of reference is deliberate. If the text is specifically meant for the Judean expatriates residing in Babylon, the text reassures them of Yhwh’s good intentions by situating their deliverance in the context of a broader divine action on behalf of “all the remnant of the house of Israel” (Isa 46:3).

Isa 49:1-6

1. Listen O coastlands to me, pay attention, O peoples from afar. As for Yhwh, he called me from the womb, from my mother’s body, he pronounced my name. 2. He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand, he hid me; he made me a sharpened arrow,82 in his quiver, he concealed me. 3. He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in you I shall be glorified.” 4. As for me, I thought: “In vain have I labored,83 for waste and nothing have I expended my strength; yet, my cause lies with Yhwh, and my reward is with my God.” 5. And now, says Yhwh, the one who forms me from the womb to be his servant, to restore Jacob to himself, that Israel might be gathered to him,84 and I have been honored in the eyes of Yhwh, my God has been my strength,85 6. He said to me, “It is too little for you to be my servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the survivors of Israel. I shall make you a light of the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.”86

82 1QIsaa explicates, “like a sharpened arrow.” We read with the MT and 4QIsad. 83 So 1QIsaa, which lacks the initial ו of the MT and 4QIsad (ואני). 84 Reading לו (so the qere, some Heb. mss, 1QIsaa, the LXX; Aquila, Eth.). The ketiv and

4QIsad have לא. 85 Although some commentators (and BHS) would reposition this clause (“my God

who has been my strength”) at the end of v. 4, it is not necessary to do so.


In this poem, one of the so-called servant songs, Israel receives a pro-phetic call as a witness to the nations.87 Within the larger section of Isaiah (49-55) of which the poem of Isaiah 49:1-13 marks a new begin-ning, certain themes receive special emphasis, while others disappear. Within these chapters, Babylon, the cult of images, and Cyrus are no longer mentioned, but Zion is mentioned more often (than in Isaiah 40-48). As a number of commentators have stressed, election terminology in ancient Near Eastern royal oracles has been applied to Yhwh’s cho-sen people in some passages of Second Isaiah.88 In the context of Isaiah 49, the language of election is applied to Yhwh’s chosen servant. There is, of course, an ongoing debate whether the servant designates the prophet, the remnant of the people in a prophetic role, the people of Israel, the prophet and the people of Israel together, or some represen-tative group within the group as a whole. These issues are legitimate, but do not have to be revisited here. The issue that needs to be pursued in this context is the nature of the servant’s assignment.

In referring to the servant’s earlier mission, Yhwh declares that it is too little a task for the servant “to establish the tribes of Jacob” (להקים 89.(ונצירי ישראל להשיב) ”and “to restore the survivors of Israel (את־שבטי יעקבThe prophetic call is extended so that the servant will become “a light of the nations” and so that Yhwh’s salvation might reach “the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6; cf. Isa 42:1-4; 51:4-5). Within its literary context, the original call seems to be broadly configured. The servant is not asked to establish only one particular tribe of Jacob or some small part thereof, but rather the “tribes of Jacob.”90 An inclusive pan-Israelite perspective is in view.91 The servant will become a blessing to the nations. To put matters somewhat differently, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the servant’s original charge was simply to focus on one small portion of the larger Israelite people. The reference to the “tribes of Jacob” by definition includes more than the Judeans or the Judean exiles. If the writer had a very limited perspective, it would be odd to leap from that highly restrictive charge to an international mandate.

86 Thus 1QIsaa. The MT and the LXX have the sg. 87 Cf. 40:28-31; DUHM, Jesaja, 14–15, 367–370. 88 CLIFFORD, Fair Spoken, 9–67, 150–155; KRATZ, Kyros, 110–112; idem, “Israel,” 106. 89 Reading with the ketiv (נצירי), rather than the qere (נצורי). Cf. Isa 11:10-12. 90 KOOLE (Isaiah III, 2, 17) observes that Isa 49:6 is the last time Israel appears parallel

to Jacob in the book of Isaiah. The term Israel does not occur in Isa 49:8–55:13, except in titles of God, ROST, Propheten, 92n. BEENTJES discusses the citation of Isa 49:6 as a reprediction in Sir 36:11, Relations, 158–159.

60 G. N. Knoppers

6. Conclusions

In discussing this limited group of texts from Second Isaiah, I do not wish to deny either that the Judean authors of these texts saw Judah (or one group within Judah) as especially favored by the deity or the pos-sibility that such a group was chosen by God to serve as a catalyst for the renewal of the whole. The critical question is what constitutes the whole? Does Jacob/Israel consist of the Judean exiles, Judah itself, or some other social group within Judah or does Jacob/Israel sometimes carry broader connotations? I have argued that the latter possibility should not be excluded in the interpretation of these highly suggestive oracles. That some of these writers envision the group in question as revitalizing not only the house of Jacob, but also having a positive func-tion to play in the interaction with other peoples may also indicate that a broad, rather than a narrow, understanding of Israelite identity is in view.

To return to the issues raised at the beginning of this essay, there are good reasons to doubt a historical progression over the course of the centuries that involves simply broader definitions of Israelite identi-ty in the Neo-Babylonian period becoming much more narrow definiti-ons of Israelite identity in the Achaemenid period. Rather, one should think of the coexistence of a number of overlapping and competing understandings of Israelite identity. To be sure, one important histori-cal trajectory leads to characterizations of Israel (among the Judean elite) that center on Judah itself, the Judean exiles, or some other group within Judah. But such a trajectory should not be privileged as repre-senting the complete historical picture. Alongside such a narrow trajec-tory, there is another that begins to define Israelite identity (or Judean identity) along religious lines (e.g., Israel as the people of God) and not simply on the basis of genealogy. Yet another trajectory retains tradi-tional definitions of Israelite identity as encapsulating surviving des-cendants of all the Israelite tribes.

In this respect, the restoration programs of Jeremiah and Ezekiel should not be construed simply as fossils surviving from an earlier age. The prophecies within these books may hearken back to older utopian ideals, but they also transform those ideals in new and surprising ways. Within the context of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenis-tic periods, these works functioned as living documents and not simply as frozen relics of bygone eras. The textual histories of both these works, as witnessed by the discrepancies in the length of the respective

91 See also recently, GOLDINGAY – PAYNE, Isaiah 40-55, 165-66.


works in the MT and the LXX, testify to a continuing process by which a variety of additions were made to older, shorter texts.92 This means, among other things, that these literary works continued to attract the interest of scribes (and their patrons), who preserved, copied, and augmented these writings. If so, it is unlikely that the major tenets of these writings, especially as these tenets involved notions of corporate identity, failed to capture the imagination of any adherents.93 Indeed, the perspective on pan-Israelite identity found in Chronicles demons-trates that the inclusive view promoted in Ezekiel and Jeremiah and in other important writings, such as the books of the Pentateuch, persisted in later times.94 Newer writings, such as Chronicles, may put their own twist on pan-Israelite identity, but they perpetuate and develop older models. One implication of this evidence drawn from older prophetic works and newer writings, such as Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, is that a variety of notions of Israelite identity coexisted in postmonarchic times.

When considering the meaning of the hopeful passages we have discussed in Second Isaiah, it may be helpful to keep the historical con-texts of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods in mind. At this time, there were Samarians and Judeans situated in the land living under foreign rule, as well as Samarians and Judeans dispersed at various locales in other lands.95 The mention of the “tribes of Jacob” (Isa 49:6) need not signify, therefore, wishful thinking for the resurrec-tion of defunct or extinct groups, but rather an acknowledgment of complicated demographic realities.96 That these authors stemmed, as far as we know, from the south (Judah), demonstrates that at least some Judeans continued to embrace a comprehensive definition of their people. Given the nature of the Diaspora, the international tenor of the Achaemenid and Hellenistic ages, and the absence of full-scale political

92 JANZEN, Studies; TOV, Septuagint Translations; HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2, 2–24; ZIM-

MERLI, Ezekiel 1, 1–77; TOV, Textual Criticism, 319–327, 333–334. 93 BEN ZVI, Inclusion, 95–149; Scatolini Apóstolo, Elusiveness, 1–27. 94 See section 1. above. 95 ZADOK discusses the onomastic evidence, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy;

idem, Foreigners, 431-447; idem, Prosopography, 781-828; idem, Earliest Diaspora. 96 The ethnic complexity of the diasporic situation is evident in the witness of epigra-

phy. The late third/early second century BCE Samaritan inscription discovered on the Aegean island of Delos mentions Mt. Gerizim and employs the term "Israelites" to refer to the Samaritans, BRUNEAU, Israélites, 465–504; WHITE, Delos Synagogue, 133–160. For northern Israelites living in Assyria and Egypt during earlier times, see, for instance, Amos 7:11; Hos 8:13; 9:3; 11:5; 12:2.

62 G. N. Knoppers

autonomy for subject peoples, debates about identity were inevitable. In many respects, the debates begun in antiquity continue to this day.97

Bibliography

AHLSTRÖM, Gösta W., Who were the Israelites? Winona Lake, IN 1986. ALBERTZ, Rainer, Ethnische und kultische Konzepte in der Politik Nehemias, in:

F.-L. HOSSFELD, Frank-Lothar / SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Ludger (eds.), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments – Festschrift Erich Zenger (Her-ders biblische Studien 44), Freiburg 2004, 13–32.

ALBERTZ, Rainer, A History of Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL), Louisville 1994.

BALTZER, Klaus, Deutero-Isaiah (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001. BARSTAD, Hans M., The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah (Instituttet

for sammenlignende kulturforskning B/CII), Oslo 1997. BEENTJES, Pancratius C., Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah, in:

VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989, 155-159.

BEGRICH, Joachim, Studien zu Deuterojesaja (BWANT 4/25), Stuttgart 1938. BEN ZVI, Ehud, Inclusion and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of

the Term Israel in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts, in: HOLLOWAY, Steven Winford / HANDY, Lowell K. (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Es-says for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOTSup 190), Sheffield 1995, 95–149.

BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isa. 56:9–57:13 – An Example of the Isaianic Legacy of Trito-Isaiah, in: VAN HENTEN, Jan Willem et al. (eds.), Tradition and Rein-terpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C. H. Lebram (StPB 36), Leiden 1986, 48–64.

BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah, in: EMERTON, John A. (ed.), Congress Volume: Leu-ven, 1989 (VTSup 43), Leiden 1991, 204–221.

BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isaiah, Volume 2, part 2: Isaiah 28-39 (HCOT), Leuven 2000.

BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL), Philadelphia 1988. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Isaiah 1-39 (AB 19), New York 2000. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Isaiah 40-55 (AB 19A), New York 2002. BÖHLER, Dieter, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzep-

tionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158), Göttingen 1997.

97 See, for instance, Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, and the references listed there.


BRUNEAU, Philippe, Les Israélites de Délos et la juivierìe délienne, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982) 465–504.

CHILDS, Brevard S., Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 2001. CLEMENTS, Ronald Ernest, Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central

Isaianic Quest, in: VAN RUITEN, Jacques / VERVENNE, Marc (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken (BETL 127), Leuven 1997, 3–17.

CLIFFORD, Richard J., Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah, New York 1984.

COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-sidered, Atlanta 1975.

COHEN, Shaye J.D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncer-tainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31), Berkeley 1999.

DANELL, Gustav Adolf, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, Upp-sala 1946.

DUHM, Bernhard, Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; GHAT III; Abteilung, Die prophetischen Bücher 1), Göttingen: 1914.

FOHRER, Georg, Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfang der Verkündigung Jesajas, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, 1949-1965 (BZAW 99), Berlin 1967, 148–166.

GASTER, Moses, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature, Lon-don 1925.

GOLDINGAY, John – PAYNE, David, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (ICC), 2 vols., London 2006.

GOODBLATT, David M., Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge 2006.

HERMISSON, Hans-Jürgen, Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas: Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40-55 in: VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures unité et comp-lexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989, 287–312

HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans and Early Judaism (JSOTSup 303; Copenhagen International Seminar 7), Sheffield 2000.

HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competiti-on (JSOTSup 404), London 2004.

HØGENHAVEN, Jesper, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur bibli-schen Theologie (Acta theologica Danica 24), Leiden 1988.

HOLLADAY, John S., Judeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the Late Seventh to Sixth Centuries, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / HIRSCH, Antoine (eds.), Egypt, Is-rael, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honour of Donald B. Redford (Probleme der Ägyptologie 20), Leiden 2004, 405–437.

HOLLADAY, William L., Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1986. HOLLADAY, William L., Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1989.

64 G. N. Knoppers

DE HOOP, Raymond, The Interpretation of Isaiah 56:1-9: Comfort or Criticism? JBL 127 (2008) 671–695.

JANZEN, J. Gerald, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6), Cambridge, MA 1973.

JAPHET, Sara, People and Land in the Restoration Period, in: STRECKER, Georg (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, Göttingen 1983, 103–125.

JAPHET, Sara, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt am Main 1989.

JAPHET, Sara, I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville 1993. JAPHET, Sara, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, Winona

Lake, IN 2006. KLEIN, Ralph W., 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2006. KNOPPERS, Gary N., Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim? JBL 109 (1990)

423–440. KNOPPERS, Gary N., “Battling against Yahweh”: Israel's War against Judah in 2

Chr 13:2-20, RB 100 (1993) 511–532. KNOPPERS, Gary N., Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in

the Genealogy of Judah, JBL 120 (2001) 15–30. KNOPPERS, Gary N., I Chronicles 1-9 (AB 12), New York 2004. KNOPPERS, Gary N., I Chronicles 10-29 (AB 12A), New York 2004. KNOPPERS, Gary N., In Search of Postexilic Israel: Samaria after the Fall of the

Northern Kingdom, in: DAY, John (ed.), In Search of Preexilic Israel (JSOTSup 406), Edinburgh 2004, 150–180.

KNOPPERS, Gary N., What has Mt. Zion to do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the Early Relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Pe-riod, SR 34 (2005) 307–336.

KNOPPERS, Gary N., Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / OEMING Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN 2006, 265–289.

KNOPPERS, Gary N., Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan Origins in 2 Kings 17, in: REZETKO, Robert et al. (eds.), Reflection and Ref-raction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VTSup 113), Leiden 2007, 223–239.

KNOPPERS, Gary N., Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within? in: LIPSCHITS, Oded et al. (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Cen-tury, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 305–331.

KNOPPERS, Gary N., Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra,” in: KNOP-

PERS, Gary N. / RISTAU, Kenneth A. (eds.), Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, Winona Lake, IN 2009, 147–171.

KOOLE, Jan L., Isaiah III, Volume 1: Isaiah 40-48 (HCOT), Kampen 1997.


KOOLE, Jan L., Isaiah III, Volume 2: Isaiah 49-55 (HCOT), Leuven 1998. KRATZ, Reinhard G., Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: redaktionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40-55 (FAT 1), Tü-bingen 1991.

KRATZ, Reinhard G., Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1f. und das Jere-miabuch, ZAW 106 (1994) 243–261.

KRATZ, Reinhard G., Israel in the Book of Isaiah, JSOT 31 (2006) 103–128. LAATO, Antti, The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exi-

lic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40-55 (ConBOT 35), Stockholm 1992. LEVENSON, Jon Douglas, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-

48 (HSM 10), Missoula, MT 1976. LINVILLE, James Richard, Israel in the Book of Kings (JSOTSup 272), Sheffield

1998. LUST, Johan, Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel, in:

AUWERS Jean-Marie / WÉNIN André. (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bib-le: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144), Leuven 1999, 99–122.

MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les controversies théologiques dans le judaïsme de l’époque postexilique: L’example de 2 Rois 17,24-41, Transeu 5 (1992) 85–93.

MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les Samaritains: histoire d'une légende: Israël et la pro-vince de Samarie (Le Monde de la Bible 30), Geneva 1994.

MONTGOMERY, James M., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect (The Bohlen Lectures 1906), Philadelphia 1907.

OLYAN, Saul M., Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult, Princeton 2000.

OLYAN, Saul M., Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community, JSJ 35 (2004) 1–16.

REINMUTH, Titus, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditions-geschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias (OBO 183), Göttingen 2002.

ROM-SHILONI, Dalit, Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Theology, HUCA 76 (2005) 1–45.

ROST, Leonhard, Israel bei den Propheten (BWANT 4/19), Stuttgart 1937. ROTHSTEIN, Johann Wilhelm, Juden und Samaritaner die grundlegende Schei-

dung von Judentum und Heidentum: eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jüdischen Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhun-dert (BWAT 3), Leipzig 1908.

SCATOLINI APÓSTOLO, Silvio Sergio, On the Elusiveness and Malleability of “Is-rael,” JHS 6 (2006) 1–27.

SCHAUDIG, Hanspeter “Bēl Bows, Nabû Stoops!” The Prophecy of Isaiah xlvi 1-2 as a Reflection of Babylonian “Processional Omens,” VT 58 (2008) 557–572.

66 G. N. Knoppers

SCHMID, Konrad, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Re-daktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996.

SCHMID, Konrad, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Be-gründung der Ürsprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Al-ten Testaments (WMANT 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999.

SCHMID, Konrad – STECK, Odil H., Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament, in: SCOTT, James M. (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72), Leiden 2001, 41–81.

SCHOORS, Antoon, I am God your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. xl-lv (VTSup 24), Leiden 1973.

SMITH, James, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: A New Interpretation, London 1931.

SMITH, Paul Allen, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56-66 (VTSup 62), Leiden 1995.

SOMMER, Benjamin D., Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition in: MELUGIN, Roy F. –SWEENEY, Marvin A. (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup 214), Sheffield 1996, 156–186.

SOMMER, Benjamin D., A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66. Stanford 1998.

STECK, Odil H., TritoJesaja im Jesajabuch, in: VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures unité et comp-lexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989, 403–406.

STECK, Odil H., Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203), Berlin 1991. STECK, Odil H., Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja

(FAT 4), Tübingen 1992. SWEENEY, Marvin A., Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaia-

nic Tradition (BZAW 171), Berlin 1988. THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of

Israel. New York 1999. TOV, Emanuel, The Septuagint Translations of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discus-

sion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8 (HSM 8), Missoula, MT 1976.

TOV, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.), Assen 2001. TUELL, Steven Shawn, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM 49), Atlan-

ta 1992. WESTERMANN, Claus, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1969. WHITE, L. Michael, The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the

Graeco-Roman Diaspora, HTR 80 (1987)133–160.


WILLI, Thomas, Juda - Jehud - Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Juden-tums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12), Tübingen 1995.

WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge 1977. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16), Waco 1985. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., The Concept of Israel in Transition, in: CLEMENTS,

Ronald E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1989, 141-160. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in

Composition and Redaction. Oxford 1994. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27,

Volume 1: Isaiah 1-5 (ICC), London 2006. WRIGHT, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest

Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin 2004. ZADOK, Ran, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography

(OLA 28), Leuven 1988. ZADOK, Ran, Foreigners and Linguistic Material in Mesopotamia and Egypt, in:

VAN LERBERGHE, Karel – SCHOORS, Antoon (eds.), Immigration and Emig-ration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński (OLA 65), Leuven 1995, 431–447.

ZADOK, Ran, A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea, UF 30 (1998) 781–828.

ZADOK, Ran, The Earliest Diaspora: Israelites and Judeans in Pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia (Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute 151), Tel Aviv 2002.

ZIMMERLI, Walter, Israel im Buche Ezechiel, VT 58 (1958) 75–90. ZIMMERLI, Walter, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1979. ZIMMERLI, Walter, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1983. ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, Stammesspruch und Geschichte. Die Angaben der Stam-

messprüche von Gen 49, Dtn 33 und Jdc 5 über die politischen und kulti-schen Zustände im damaligen "Israel" (BZAW 95), Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965.

ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, יעקוב /יעקב; ya aqōb /ya aqôb, TDOT 6 (1990) 185–208. ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, ל א ר yiśrā ;יש ēl, TDOT 6 (1990) 397–420. ZSENGELLÉR, József, Gerizim as Israel: Northern Tradition of the Old Testament

and the Early History of the Samaritans (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 38), Utrecht: University of Utrecht.

III. History

Administration of Samaria in the Hellenistic Period1

JAN DUŠEK

Introduction

The history of Samaria in the Hellenistic period was studied in the last few decades by several authors. We list among them the studies of R. J. Coggins, M. Mor, U. Rappaport, A. Kasher, A. D. Crown, P. W. van der Horst and H. Eshel.2 New elements for the study of the history of Hel-lenistic Palestine were recently published.

After the chronological delimitation of the concerned period, we summarize the political situation and context of the province of Sama-ria in the Hellenistic period, under Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule. Then we focus on evidence of the military presence in Samaria, the role of the Tobiad family in Samaria, on information furnished by inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and, finally, on religious institutions. The purpose of this article is not exhaustive analysis of all quoted theories. A more complex study of the history of Samaria in the Hellenistic period is being prepared by the author and this text represents a preliminary overview of the question.3

1 This study is the result of a research activity which is part of the grant project GAČR

401/07/P454 “Critical analysis of the new epigraphic evidence related to the history of the province of Samaria from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE,” which has provided financial support for its editing.

2 COGGINS, Samaritans, 74-81; MOR, Samaritan History, 1-18; RAPPAPORT, Samaritans, 281-288; RAPPAPORT, Les Juifs et leurs voisins, 955-974; KASHER, Samaritans, 153-165; CROWN, Samaritan Diaspora, 166-183; VAN DER HORST, Samaritanism and Hellenism, 184-191; ESHEL, Development, 192-209.

3 This article represents author’s position presented in July 2008 at the seventh confe-rence of the Société d’études samaritaines in Pápa, Hungary. In 2010, still before the publication of the present text, the author finished the above mentioned project con-cerning Samaria in Hellenistic period. Further work on this topic between 2008 and 2010 compelled the author to modify some of his opinions held in summer 2008. The up-to-date position will be published in Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions

72 J. Dušek

1. Chronological Delimitation

The period concerned by this study extends to more than two centuries, from 331 to the end of the 2nd century BCE, and is defined by two major military destructions in Samaria which had important consequences for the history of this region. The first is represented by two transitions of the army of Alexander the Great in Palestine in 332 and 331 BCE: on the way back from Egypt, Alexander punished the citizens of the city of Samaria for the murder of his governor over Syria, Andromachus, as recorded by Quintus Curtius, Eusebius, Jerome and George Syncellus.4

The end of the period with which this article is concerned is marked by the destruction of all the important places in Samaria, which, according to Flavius Josephus, was done by army of John Hyr-canus at the end of the 2nd century BCE. He destroyed the city of Sama-ria, Shechem and the temple as well as the surrounding city on top of Mt. Gerizim.5 This information is confirmed – with some chronological modifications – by archaeological excavations. John Hyrcanus de-stroyed Mt. Gerizim in 112/111 BCE,6 the city of Samaria in 108 BCE7 and Shechem in 107 BCE.8

2. Political Context of Samaria

During the Persian period, Samaria was an untroubled region belong-ing to the huge 5th satrapy of Transeuphrates. The situation radically changed after Alexander’s conquest and especially after his death, when his empire was split between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III the Great and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East) Leiden – Boston: Brill, forthcoming.

4 Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander IV, VIII:9-11; Eusebius, Chronicon (MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca,. 489; Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik (ed. J. KARST; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1911), 197; Jerome, Eusebius Werke VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus/Hieronymi Chronicon (ed. R. HELM and U. TREU; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984), 123; George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (ed. A. A. MOSSHAMMER, Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 314:6-13.

5 Josephus, Ant 13.254-56, 275-81; War 1.62-66. 6 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 13. 7 AVIGAD, Samaria, 1307. 8 CAMPBELL, Shechem, 1354.

Administration of Samaria in the Hellenistic Period 73

In the Hellenistic period, the region of Samaria was part of the ad-ministrative unit of (Koi,lh) Suri,a kai, Foini,kh which became, in fact, a border zone between the different military and political forces.9

2.1 Ptolemaic rule

First, let’s discuss evidence concerning the history of Samaria in the Ptolemaic period, during the 3rd century BCE.

After the destructions done by the army of Alexander in 331 BCE, the city of Samaria was destroyed once again, according to Diodorus Siculus, along with the ports of Akko, Iope and Gaza, by the Ptolemaic army in 312 BCE during the return of Ptolemy I to Egypt.10 According to the Letter of Aristeas and Flavius Josephus, Ptolemy I deported many captives from the district of Jerusalem, Samaria and Gerizim to Egypt.11 Ptolemy I regained a certain eminence in Syria after 301 BCE and rein-forced this position towards 288-286 BCE, thanks to the occupation of the two Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon.12 The city of Samaria was destroyed once again by Demetrius in 296 BCE.13

We are especially informed about the territories in Ptolemaic pos-sessions in Syria by the archive of Zenon from Caunos. A part of his archive – the so called “Syrian folder” – concerns his journeys in the south of Levant between the years 261 and 252 BCE. This part of the archive concerning Syria was analyzed and published by Xavier Du-rand.14

After 261, when Zenon arrived in Syria, the region was already Pto-lemaic and the border between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empire was established. After 301 BCE, the border lay on the river Eleutheros (Nahr el-Kebir), between Tripolis and Arados.15 This border existed until the end of the 3rd century BCE, but during this time it was transgressed several times by Ptolemaic as well as Seleucid parties.

According to the analysis of Durand, the archive of Zenon shows some kind of map of the Ptolemaic possessions in Syria: the regions mentioned in his papyri are situated in Transjordan, in Hauran, Galilee, Idumea, Phoenicia, etc. This “map” shows important roads in Syria as 9 Cf. Berlin, Between Large Forces, 2-51. 10 Diodorus Siculus XIX:93, 7. 11 Letter of Aristeas 13; Ant 12.7. 12 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 107-109. 13 Eusebius, Chronicon, Olympiad 121, year 1 (MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca. 496). 14 DURAND, Grecs. 15 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 154.

74 J. Dušek

well as primary cities. But Durand points out that the centre of this map is empty: Samaria and Judea are never mentioned in the Zenon archive, and Durand concludes that these two regions probably didn’t have an important position in the economy of Palestine under Ptole-maic rule.16

This seems to be confirmed by results of the archaeological survey done by Adam Zertal in the Shechem syncline in the Manasseh Hills: compared to the Persian period, he records an important abandonment of rural settlements during the Hellenistic period, especially in the Do-than valley.17 Zertal assigns this abandonment to activity of Alexan-der’s army during his return from Egypt in 331 BCE.18 A similar aban-donment is recorded by Zertal in the eastern valleys of the Manasseh hills between the Shechem syncline and the Jordan valley.19 Other sur-veys in the region of Samaria manifest different results: Israel Finkels-tein records that the Hellenistic period represented a time of prosperity in southern Samaria.20

During his travels, Zenon meets many officials of the Ptolemaic administration in the regions around Samaria: Toubias and his staff in Transjordan (klhrou/coi of Toubias), dikasth,j /judge, a certain royal agent, grammateu,j /scribe, an oivkono,moj from Pelousion, a kwmomisqwth,j /collector of taxes in a village, a iereu,j /priest from Ioppe, Theodotos who was a[rcwn of Sidon, the agents of revenues, Démétrios who was avntigrafeu,j /controller in the nomo,j of Prosopite, or a u[parcoj. None of these officials is explicitly attested as belonging to the administration of Samaria.

According to Durand, the mission of Zenon in Palestine between 261-252 BCE is to be interpreted in the context of the end of the second Syrian War in Palestine and the stabilization of the Ptolemaic positions in the region, after the retreat of the Ptolemaic army from the Seleucid possessions near Antiochia.21 A piece of evidence for the stabilization of the Ptolemaic administration is one of the two prosta,gmata recorded on

16 DURAND, Grecs, 271-272. 17 ZERTAL, Manasseh Hill Country, 60-61. 18 Perhaps we shall not exclude the possibility that this abandonment was also result of

the military conflicts between Ptolemies and Seleucids at the end of the 4th century and in the 3rd century, during the Syrian wars.

19 ZERTAL, Manasseh Hill Country, 92-93. 20 FINKELSTEIN, Samarian Hills, 1313-1314. 21 The hoard of 58 golden Ptolemaic coins discovered in Hüseyinli (9 km far from the

city of Antiochia) indicates the probable presence of Ptolemaic army in the Seleucid territory during the 2nd Syrian war, towards 259/8 BCE. DAVESNE / YENISOGANCI,, Ptolémées, 23-36.


the famous Vienna papyrus (C.Ord.Ptol. 21-22) from 260 BCE, concern-ing the declaration of the fiscal system in Syria and Phoenicia.22

The administrative organization of Syria in the Ptolemaic period was already well analyzed. Let’s mention as example, four studies writ-ten by Michael Avi-Yonah,23 Roger Bagnall,24 Jack Pastor25 and by Mau-rice Sartre.26

The owner of the land is the king and the land was administrated in Syria by the dioikhth,j from Egypt. The archives of Zenon attest the name of dioikhth,j Apollonios. The structure of the administrative sys-tem in Syria and Phoenicia is recorded in the Vienna papyrus from 260 BCE. The territory is divided into u`pa,rceiai. Each uparce,ia has its oivk-ono,moj – an official of finances. The lower administrative level is represented by the kwma,rchj, the official on the level of villages. The tax farmers (memisqwme,noi) are responsible for collecting the right amount of the taxes in the villages (kw,mh). An official charged with collecting taxes in a village, kwmomisqwth,j, is attested in the Ptolemaic Syria in texts be-longing to the Zenon archive.27

According to Shimon Appelbaum, in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid period a considerable part of Samaria was a royal domain (basilikh, gh/).28 Pastor attributes to Judea, under the Ptolemaic rule, the status of cw,ra basilikh,.29

2.2 Seleucid rule

The time of Seleucid rule in Palestine, the 2nd century, was also a period of conflicts for Samaria, especially between Seleucid and Hasmonaean powers.

In the beginning of the Seleucid rule in Palestine, Syria and Phoeni-cia were still called Suri,a kai, Foini,kh in the Seleucid inscription from Hefzibah (l. 14).30 Later, in 178 BCE, it is called Koi,lh Suri,a kai, Foini,kh

22 LIEBESNY, Erlass, 257-288; Lenger, 37-45 (no. 21-22). 23 AVI-YONAH, Holy Land, 32-41. 24 BAGNALL, Administration, 11-24. 25 PASTOR, Land, 21-40. 26 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 153-164. 27 PSI 6, 554, col. II, 13; 258 BCE. 28 APPELBAUM, Settlement Pattern, 257, 259-260. 29 PASTOR argues that Judea was considered by the Ptolemaic Crown as cw/ra basilikh,

(Land, 21-40, 42). 30 LANDAU, Greek Inscription, 54-70; FISCHER, Seleukideninschrift, 131-138; BERTRAND,

Inscription, 167-174.

76 J. Dušek

in a letter from Seleukos IV to Heliodoros (line 24)31 and in the books of Maccabees.32

We are informed about some officials in Palestine by the Hefzibah inscription containing documents from the period between 201-195 BCE:33 Ptolemaios, strategos and chief-priest (strathgo,j kai, avrciereu,j) in Syria and Phoinike, Kleon and Heliodoros the dioikhtai,, the oivkono,moj, “the commanders of garrisons” (froura,rcoi) and “those in charge of the places” (oi evpi, tw/n to,pwn tetagme,noi).34

The books of Maccabees refer to Lysias, appointed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes over the king’s affairs from Euphrates to the borders of Egypt,35 and the governors with the title Koi,lhj Suri,aj kai, Foini,khj strathgo,j Apollonius son of Tharseos,36 Apollonios, son of Menes-theos,37 and Ptolemaios.38

The official name of Samaria under Seleucid rule is attested in the books of Maccabees. The province is called Samari/tij39 or cw,ra Samarei,aj.40 The city of Samaria (Sama,reia) is mentioned in 1 Macc 3,10. Judea had perhaps a different status and is called gh/ Iouda41 or Ioudai,a:42 the status of Judea was discussed by Pastor and he concludes that Ju-dea was considered by the Seleucids as a land of a nation (evqnoj).43 Samari/tij under Seleucids was probably divided in nomoi,: three of these nomoi,, Efraim, Lod and Ramataim, were added from Samaria to Judea in 145 BCE.44 This text of 1 Macc 11,34 is interesting, because it states not only that these three nomoi, were added from Samari/tij to Ioudai,a, but also that the revenues of these three nomoi, belonged to the king, and after their annexation to Judea they belonged to those who sacrifice in Jerusalem.45 31 COTTON / WÖRRLE, Seleukos , 191-203. 32 1 Macc 10:69 (Koile-Syria), 2 Macc 3:5; 4,4; 8:8; 10:11. 33 See the new reading of the dates mentioned in COTTON / WÖRRLE, Seleukos, 194. 34 See a detailed analysis by TAYLOR, Seleucid Rule, 108-168. 35 1 Macc 3:32. 36 2 Macc 3:5. 37 2 Macc 4:4. Cf. also 1 Macc 4:4. 38 2 Macc 8:8. 39 1 Macc 10:30; 11:34. 40 1 Macc 10:38. 41 1 Macc 10:33.37; 14:4 42 1 Macc 10:38; 11:34; 2 Macc 5:11.23; 14:2. 43 PASTOR, Land, 42-44. 44 1 Macc 10:30; 1 Macc 11:28.30ff. Cf. 1 Macc 11:57. See ALT, Geschichte, 346-362. 45 Some territories could be also owned by the high royal officials: for example the

Hefzibah inscription attests a hereditary property of some villages (kw/mai) by Ptol-emaios, strategos and chief-priest.


The importance of Samari/tij seems to decline with the increase of the Maccabaean movement. One of the signs of this decline is the trans-fer of three nomoi, of Samaria under the jurisdiction of Judea. The other sign of increasing Hasmonaean power in Samaria was the Hasmonean colonization of the western part of Samaria in the period between 145 and last decades of the 2nd century BCE. This Hasmonaean colonization of western Samaria was, according to Appelbaum, Dar and Zeev Safrai, a part of the Hasmonaean plan of encirclement of Samaria in the second half of the 2nd century BCE.46 The Hasmonaean colonizers per-haps used for this purpose the Hellenistic field towers in western Sa-maria built in the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE. Dar discovered approximately 1,200 of these towers.47

The decline of Hellenistic Samari/tij was completed by the destruc-tion of the cities of Samaria and Shechem and of the city and temple on Mt. Gerizim, done by John Hyrcanus at the end of the 2nd century BCE.

3. Army and Fortifications in Samaria

The existence of חיל שמרון “army of Samaria” is already attested in the middle of the 5th century BCE in the book of Nehemiah.48 The military presence in Samaria seems to have been important, especially in the Hellenistic period, because of its position near the border between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. The city of Samaria was already transformed to a seat of the Greek army by the end of 4th century BCE by Alexander or later by Perdikkas, as Eusebius, Jerome and George Syncellus attest.49

The Greek army was not only present in the city of Samaria, but al-so in other areas of the province. During the survey of the south of Sa-maria, Dar discovered fortified military farms from the Hellenistic pe-riod, which probably belonged to the ex-officers of the Greek army.50 The Hellenistic fortification system of western Samaria was very effi-cient. According to Dar, “when the entire deployment was operating

46 DAR, Landscape, 121, 258; APPELBAUM / DAR / SAFRAI, Towers, 91-100. 47 DAR, Landscape, 88-125; APPELBAUM / DAR / SAFRAI, Towers. 48 Neh 3:34. 49 Eusebius, Chronicon (MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca,. 489; Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik

(ed. J. Karst; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1911), 197 and 199; Jerome, Eusebius Werke VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus/Hieronymi Chronicon (ed. R. Helm and U. Treu; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984), 123 and 127-28; George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (ed. A. A. Mosshammer, Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 314:6-13 and 17-20.

50 DAR, Landscape, 12-16, 260.

78 J. Dušek

under one command, western Samaria became a well-fortified zone, equally able to withstand local raids and external enemies”.51

During the Hellenistic period, Shechem, and especially the city of Samaria, were protected by strong fortifications.52 In the 2nd century, the city of Samaria seems to have been a seat of the Seleucid army: accord-ing to 1 Macc 3,10 Apollonios commanded the army from Samaria (avpo. Samarei,aj du,namij). This unit probably belonged to the Seleucid army of Syria (du,namij Suri,aj) mentioned several times in the 1st book of Macca-bees.53

4. Tobiads and Samaria

The family of Tobiads seems to have played an important role in Pales-tine in Persian as well as in Hellenistic periods, under the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, until the 2nd century BCE. The Tobiads also played a role in the history of Samaria. Close relations between the governor of Samaria, Sanballat, and Tobiah the Ammonite servant, are already at-tested in the 5th century.54

The traditional seat of the family of Tobiads was in Transjordan. Under the Ptolemaic rule, Toubias, chief of the kleruchs (klhrou/coi) of Ammanitis, is attested in the Zenon archive around the middle of the 3rd century BCE.55

The site of Araq el-Emir seems to have already belonged to the To-biads in the 3rd century.56 A hoard of Ptolemaic coins was discovered in Araq el-Emir in 1993. According to the preliminary publication by Christian Augé, the hoard was probably collected in 243/2, or some short time after, under Ptolemy III, and contains Ptolemaic coins issued between 295 and 242 BCE.57 The hoard was, according to Augé, proba-bly constituted in Palestine or in Transjordan, and hidden towards the end of the 3rd Syrian war, probably in relation to the activity of Joseph the Tobiad. The presence of the hoard in Araq el-Emir shows that this region was under the same Ptolemaic financial regime as the Cisjordan: the hoard contained coins issued in the Syrian and Phoenician Ptole- 51 DAR, Landscape, 223-224. 52 CAMPBELL, Shechem, 1353-1354; AVIGAD, Samaria ,1306-1307. 53 1 Macc 3:13; 3:41; 7:39. 54 Neh 2:10.19; 3:35; 4:1; 6:1.12.14.17.19; 13:4.7.8. 55 P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59003; P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59005; P. Lond. 7, 1930; P. Cairo Zen. 5, 59802;

P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59075; P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59076; P. Lond. 7, 2152 (?). 56 WILL Le témoignage, 35. 57 AUGE, Note, 483-486.


maic monetary workshops in Tyre, Sidon, Gaza, Ptolemais, Ioppe, and some of them were from Cyprus.

The chronology of the Tobiad family and of the site of Araq el-Emir has been discussed and it is impossible to analyze all hypotheses in this paper.58 An interesting chronology was presented by Fawzi Zayadine: he dates the activity of Joseph the Tobiad as a tax collector to the last quarter of the 3rd century BCE.59 Flavius Josephus attests that Joseph the Tobiad collected taxes in Syria, Phoenicia and Samaria during 22 years (Ant 12.224), which correspond, according the chronology of Zayadine, to the time between 222 and the definitive conquest of Syria by Antio-chus III between 200 and 198 BCE.

The inhabitants of Samaria seem to have supported Joseph the To-biad in the purchase of the right to collect taxes, and Samaria became a part of the territory under fiscal responsibility of Joseph the Tobiad. According to the evidence of Flavius Josephus, friends in Samaria helped Joseph the Tobiad to acquire the office of tax collector by lend-ing him money in order to buy the right to collect taxes (Ant. 12.168). Joseph paid for the right to collect taxes from Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea and Samaria for the sum of 16,000 talents (Ant 12.175) – the sum seems to be exaggerated by Flavius Josephus.60

According to the chronology proposed by Zayadine, the collection of taxes was inherited – at least in Tranjordan – by Hyrcanus, son of Joseph the Tobiad, after 210/9 BCE. Hyrcanus constructed the ba/rij ivscura, “fortified residence” (Qasr el-Abd) in Araq el-Emir.61

In the final decades of Ptolemaic rule in Palestine, the region of Sa-maria was again a place of military conflict between Ptolemies and Seleucids. The region was for a short time occupied by the army of Antiochus III during the 4th Syrian war (219-217 BCE). Polybius records in Historiae that Antiochus III got possession of Rabatammana (in 218 BCE) and sent a military unit of 5,000 soldiers to the district of Samaria (kata, Sama,reian to,pouj) to protect the conquered territory.62 For which political power did Joseph the Tobiad collect taxes during the 4th Syrian war, during the period of the occupation of Samaria by the Seleucid

58 Let’s mention some recent publications: MAZAR, Tobiads,, 137-147 and 229-238; JI,

New Look, 417-440; GERA, Judaea, 36-58; SCHWARTZ, Josephus, 47-61; FUKS, Josephus, 354-356; Schwartz, Once Again, 146-51; ROSENBERG, Qasr al-Abd, 157-75; ROSENBERG, New Element, 85-92; EDELMAN, Seeing double, 570-584.

59 ZAYADINE, Campagne, 68-84; ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 5-23. 60 CAVAIGNAC, Population, 117. 61 Ant 12.230-234. Concerning the archaeological excavations in Araq el-Emir: LAPP,

Excavations; WILL / LARCHÉ, ‘Iraq al Amir. 62 Polybius, Historiae V, 71:11-12.

80 J. Dušek

army? According to Edward T. Newell, the mint in Tyre produced sil-ver tetradrachms for Antiochus III during the 4th Syrian war (219-217 BCE).63 We cannot exclude that, at least during the 4th Syrian war, taxes from Samaria were collected for the Seleucids. An answer to this ques-tion might perhaps be furnished by a future publication cataloguing the coins of Antiochus III, minted in the 3rd and 2nd centuries and dis-covered on Mt. Gerizim.64

A similar problem also remains following the Seleucid annexation of Palestine in the 5th Syrian war after 198 BCE. Zayadine argues that Hyrcanus, from the Tobiad family, continued to collect taxes for Ptole-mies even after 198 BCE, when the territory was under Seleucid rule.65 The reason for this would be the conclusion of a dotal agreement be-tween Antiochus III and Ptolemaios V.66 This dotal agreement was con-cluded because of the marriage of the daughter of Antiochus III with Ptolemaios V: its purpose was the commitment of the taxes from the former Ptolemaic possessions by the Seleucids to the Ptolemies.67 Zaya-dine argues that this dotal agreement was respected during the life of Antiochus III, between 196 and 187 BCE.68 According to this interpreta-tion, Joseph the Tobiad bought the right to collect taxes from Syria and Phoenicia from the Ptolemaic king a second time, in 196 BCE,69 and that he perhaps had given this right to his son, Hyrcanus.

If it is true that Hyrcanus the Tobiad collected taxes on behalf of the Ptolemies in the territory de facto conquered and belonging to the Seleu-cids in the period between 196 and 187 BCE, we must ask about the monetary authority: whose coins were used in these territories, Seleu-cid or Ptolemaic? Georges Le Rider and François de Callataÿ have demonstrated that the Seleucid administration allowed the use of for-eign coins in their kingdom, but the monetary system in the Ptolemaic kingdom was closed and the use of coins other than Ptolemaic was forbidden.70 Actually, the monetary situation in the region of Syria and Phoenicia seems to have been exceptional during this period, because coins of both kingdoms were in circulation.

63 NEWELL, Coinage, 200-201. 64 A preliminary information about this discovery was published by MAGEN, Mt.

Gerizim, 74-118, especially 114. 65 ZAYADINE, Campagne, 83; ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 15-17; ZAYADINE, Grand

domaine, 275. 66 Ant 12.154-155; Polybius, Historiae XXVIII:20, 9; Appian, Roman Hisroty: Syrian War 5. 67 CUQ, Condition, 146. 68 ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 15-17. 69 Ant 12.155ff. 70 LE RIDER / DE CALLATAŸ, Séleucides, 103 and 166-168.


New light is shed on the monetary system in Syria and Phoenicia after the Seleucid conquest in the 5th Syrian war by the research of Ar-thur Houghton and Catharine Lorber: in the beginning of the 2nd cen-tury BCE, after the Seleucid conquest, the use of Ptolemaic silver coins were maintained for financial reasons in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.71 Ptolemaic silver was used for local transactions and could not be ex-ported. Seleucid bronze coins of Antiochus III were used along with the Ptolemaic silver coins, for ordinary transactions. The fact that Ptolemaic silver coins were used together with the Seleucid bronze coins after the Seleucid conquest indicates that the story about the dotal agreement may have a historical base. Thus it is possible that Hyrcan the Tobiad would have collected – according to the chronology of F. Zayadine – taxes on Seleucid territory and those taxes would have been collected for the Ptolemies in Ptolemaic silver coins.

5. Mt. Gerizim Inscriptions: an Evidence for Fiscal Districts?

Yitzhak Magen and his colleagues published in 2004 a corpus of in-scriptions discovered on Mt. Gerizim.72 In this publication, Magen pub-lished 395 inscriptions in Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and Samaritan script. Most of these inscriptions are in Aramaic script, monumental or cur-sive. This Aramaic group consists of stereotyped dedicatory formulae which inform us about the persons who sacrificed in the Temple of Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period.73 The inscriptions are dated by the editors to 3rd-2nd century BCE.74

An irruption of activity on Mt. Gerizim seems to date to the time of the reign of Antiochus III in Syria and Palestine. This period seems to be confirmed by the numismatic finds by Magen’s team in the vicinity of the Gerizim temple. In a preliminary report, Magen published a short summary concerning discovered coins from the Hellenistic pe-riod.75 These finds show that the main period of activity of this temple was under Seleucids, and especially under Antiochus III. The team of Magen discovered only 417 coins from the whole Ptolemaic period. This number sharply contrasts with the number of 3,500 discovered 71 HOUGHTON / LORBER, Antiochus, 44-58. 72 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim. 73 The formulae have very often the following form: “that X, son of Y, offered for him-

self, his wife and his sons”, sometimes followed by sentence “for good remembrance before God in this place” (MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 16-19).

74 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA , Mount Gerizim, 41. 75 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim, 114.

82 J. Dušek

Seleucid coins. 1,500 of these coins were issued under Antiochus III in 3rd – 2nd centuries BCE.

The tax collector in Samaria and other regions, in the last decades of the 3rd century was Joseph the Tobiad. He was succeeded in this func-tion – at least in Transjordan – in 210/209 BCE by his son Hyrcanus the Tobiad, who was also active under Seleucid rule in the 2nd century, until his suicide (probably 169 BCE).76 Thus Mt. Gerizim, as well as the villages in Samaria, whence people came to the temple on Mt. Gerizim, was under the responsibility of the Tobiad family.

The Vienna papyrus, as well as the Zenon archive, attests that the basic administrative unit for the collection of taxes in the Ptolemaic Palestine was a village (kw,mh).77 The Aramaic equivalent for the Greek word kw,mh is כפר. The Aramaic group of inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim contains several references to the villages and other regions in Samaria. Some people mentioned in the Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions come from כפר חגי (Gerizim, no. 3), and from [רתא]כפר עב (Gerizim, no. 8). Oth-er people come from יקמעם (Gerizim, no. 7), from שכם – the city of She-chem (Gerizim, no. 12, 36?, 39?), from ןישמר – the city of Samaria (Geri-zim, no. 14 and 15), and from the region of א .(Gerizim, no. 11) טורא ט[ב]These villages and places probably belonged to the fiscal district under the responsibility of Joseph and Hyrcanus from the Tobiad family.78

We suppose that the reference to Samaria in inscriptions no. 14 and 15 from Mt. Gerizim concerns the city of Samaria and not the whole region. It is more probable that the inscription refers to one particular place (city of Samaria) within the region of Samaria: the other inscrip-tions also mention one particular place in the region. The names of provinces are not mentioned in preserved inscriptions. Thus it is prob-able that some people worshipping Yahweh lived not only in Shechem, but also in the Greek city of Samaria.

The Aramaic inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim seem to also mention two officials acting in Hellenistic Samaria: inscription no. 26 perhaps mentions שר דפנא “chief of Daphna.” שר is perhaps an Aramaic equiva-lent of the kwma,rchj attested in one of the two Ptolemaic prostagmata related to Palestine.79 Inscription no. 34 seems to mention an evpimelhth,j from Shechem or from Samaria.

76 Ant 12.236. 77 C.Ord.Ptol. 21-22; PSI 6, 554, col. II, 13. 78 One village called Kafar Salam is attested in 1 Macc 7:31. 79 C. Ord. Ptol. 21,13.


6. Religious Institutions in Hellenistic Samaria

A Seleucid official, who served first as an official in the Ptolemaic ad-ministration, Ptolemaios, son of Thraseas, has the title strategos and chief-priest (strathgo,j kai, avrciereu,j) of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.80 This title is attested in the Hefzibah inscription, lines 10-11.18.20-21.27-28.81 Joan E. Taylor analyzed the use of this double title, concluding that Ptolemaios was probably an “administrative” chief-priest of all cults in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and the sanctuaries were under his respon-sibility.82

Ptolemaios, son of Thrassos, was possibly succeeded in the function of high-priest in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia in 178 BCE by Olympio-doros, mentioned in the letter written by Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.83

At least two temples existed in Samaria in the Ptolemaic period.

The first was the temple of the Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim. This temple seems to have been founded by Sanballat, governor of Samaria, in the last decades of the 5th century BCE and was later rebuilt and enlarged in the Hellenistic period.84 The dating of some archaeological remains by Magen to the Persian period is supported by the discovery of 68 coins from the Persian period, from 5th and 4th centuries BCE.85 The temple itself is called in the inscriptions published by Magen as מקדש in Aramaic (Mt. Gerizim, no. 150,3), and new, in Greek in the 2nd book of Maccabees (2 Macc 6,2).

2 Macc 5,22 informs that Antiochus IV Epiphanes appointed An-dronikos as evpista,thj on Mt. Gerizim.

Five inscriptions from the walls of the sacred precincts of Mt. Geri-zim temple mention priests:86 four of them concern the priest Pinhas,87 who was even possibly the high-priest.88 According to Flavius Jose-phus, the first high-priest serving in the temple on Mt. Gerizim be-longed to the Zadokite family of high priests from the temple of Jerusa-

80 Cf. a similar title proposed by Sanballat to Manasses in the story preserved by

Flavius Josephus in Ant 11.310. 81 LANDAU, Greek Inscription; FISCHER, Seleukideninschrift; BERTRAND, L’inscription. 82 TAYLOR, Seleucid Rule, 124. 83 COTTON, Seleukos, 197. 84 Ant 11.310-311.324; MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 1-9; DUŠEK, Manu-

scrits, 538-548 and 603-604. 85 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim, 114. 86 Nos. 24, 25, 382, 388, 389. 87 Nos. 24, 25, 384, 389. 88 No. 384.

84 J. Dušek

lem. Manasseh, from the Zadokite family from Jerusalem, married Ni-kaso, the daughter of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, at the end of the 5th century BCE.89 Sanballat, his father-in-law, appointed him high-priest in the temple on Mt. Gerizim.90 Flavius Josephus does not inform us about his possibly high-priest descendants. The Samaritan chronicles consider the high-priest family from Samaria as descending from Aa-ron, nevertheless their evidence is used with caution. In the opinion of John Bowman, the high-priests from Samaria had their origin in the Zadokite family in Jerusalem.91 Nevertheless, Lester L. Grabbe is hesi-tant about this interpretation.92

The people who sacrificed in the temple on Mt. Gerizim were from the city of Samaria, from Shechem and from other places in the region of Samaria.93 Their names were Hebrew, Greek and also Arabic.94

We don’t know if the temple on Mt. Gerizim disposed of the right of asylum. But it cannot be ruled out. Marie-Therèse Lenger published several Ptolemaic prostagmata from Egypt in which the Ptolemaic kings grant the right of asylum to different temples.95 The Jerusalem temple also seems to dispose of the right of asylum in the case of debts under Demetrios I (1 Macc 10,43).

Another temple in Samaritis probably stood in the city of Samaria in

the 3rd century BCE and was dedicated to Sarapis and Isis. The only evidence proving the existence of this temple is the Greek Ptolemaic inscription discovered in the city of Samaria: HGHSANDROS XENARCIS KAITAPAIDIA SARAPIISI “Hegesandros, Xenarchis and the children to Sarapis Isis”.96 This Greek dedicatory formula is similar to the Ara-maic formulae from Mt. Gerizim. In an article published in 2001, Jodi Magness argued that the cult of Isis and Sarapis was established in the city of Samaria during the Ptolemaic period and the inscription was associated with a temple or shrine, which probably stood in the vicinity of the later temple of Kore.97 The cult of Isis and Sarapis was replaced by the cult of Kore in the city of Samaria – according to Magness – by the second century BCE. 89 Ant 11.302-03.306-11. 90 Ant 11.324. 91 BOWMAN, Ezekiel, 1-14. 92 GRABBE, Josephus, 238-242. 93 See § 5. 94 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 25-27. 95 LENGER, Corpus des Ordonnances, 185-197. 96 CROWFOOT / CROWFOOT / KENYON, Samaria-Sebaste III, 37, no. 13. 97 MAGNESS, Cults of Isis.


In the context of the cult of Sarapis, let’s evoke one letter from the Zenon archive98 from the 12th of February 257 BCE. This letter was ad-dressed by Zoilos to Apollonios, the Ptolemaic dioikhth,j in charge of Syria and Phoenicia. In this letter, Zoilos describes his dream, in which he was ordered by the god Sarapis to ask the dioikhth,j Apollonios to build for him a temple and appoint a priest in it. This temple might be built in the Greek quarter, near the harbor, in an unspecified city. It is not sure that this letter belongs to the “Syrian folder” of the Zenon arc-hive. It is even impossible to know if the temple was actually built. Nevertheless, this letter remains an interesting confirmation of the spread of the cult of Sarapis in the middle of the 3rd century BCE – the cult attested also in Samaria in the Ptolemaic period.

Bibliography

ALT, Albrecht, Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria, in: IDEM, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2. Band, München 1950, 346-362.

APPELBAUM, Shimon, The Settlement Pattern of Western Samaria from Hellenis-tic to Byzantine Times: A Historical Commentary, in: DAR, Shimon, Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E. – 636 C.E.; With a historical commentary by Shimon Appelbaum, II vols. (BAR International Series 308i-ii), Oxford 1986, 255-269,

APPELBAUM, Shimon / DAR, Shimon / SAFRAI, Zeev, The Towers of Samaria, in: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978) 91-100.

AUGÉ, Christian, Note sur le trésor de monnaies ptolémaïques de ‘Irāq al-Amīr, in: Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45 (2001) 483-486.

AVI-YONAH, Michael, The Holy Land From the Persian Period to the Arab Con-quest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography, Grand Rapids MI 1966.

AVIGAD, Naaman, Samaria (City), in: STERN Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclo-pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem 1993, 1300-1310.

BAGNALL, Roger S., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 4.), Leiden 1976.

BERLIN, Andrea M., Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period, in: Biblical Archaeologist 60 (1997) 2-51.

BERTRAND, Jean-Marie, Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah, in: Zeitschrift für Papyro-logie und Epigraphik 46 (1982) 167-174.

98 P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59034.

86 J. Dušek

BOWMAN, John, Ezekiel and the Zadokite Priesthood, in: Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 16 (1955-1956) 1-14.

CAMPBELL, Edward F., Shechem, in: STERN Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclope-dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem 1993, 1345-1354.

CAVAIGNAC, Eugène, Population et capital dans le monde méditerranéen antique, Strasbourg-Paris 1923.

COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews. The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-sidered, Oxford 1975.

COTTON, Hannah M. / WÖRRLE, Michael, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel, in: Zeitschrift für Papyro-logie und Epigraphik 159 (2007) 191-203.

CROWFOOT, John W. / CROWFOOT, Grace M. / KENYON, Kathleen M. (et al. eds.), Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London 1957.

CUQ, Édouard, La condition juridique de la Coelé-Syrie au temps de Ptolémée V Épiphane, in: Syria 8 (1927) 143-162.

DAR, Shimon, Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E. – 636 C.E (With a historical commentary by Shimon Appel-baum, 2 vols. BAR International Series 308 i-ii), Oxford 1986.

DAVESNE, Alain / YENISOGANCI, Veli, Les Ptolémées en Séleucide: le trésor d’Hüseyinli, in: Revue numismatique 34 (1992) 23-36.

DURAND, Xavier, Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ. Le dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261-252). (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38), Paris 2003.

DUSEK, Jan. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av. J.-C. (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 30), Leiden-Boston 2007.

EDELMAN, Diana. Seeing double: Tobiah the Ammonite as an Encrypted Char-acter, in Revue biblique 113 (2006) 570-584.

FINKELSTEIN, Israel, The Southern Samarian Hills Survey, in: STERN Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem 1993, 1313-1314.

FINKIELSZTEJN, Gérald. L’économie et le roi au Levant Sud d’après les sources archéologiques et textuelles, in: CHANKOWSKI, Véronique / DUYRAT, Frédérique (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Topoi Suppléments 6), Lyon 2004, 241-265.

FISCHER, Thomas, Zur Seleukideninschrift von Hefzibah, in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979) 131-138.

FUKS, Gideon, Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note, in: Journal of Jew-ish Studies 52 (2001) 354-356


GERA, Dov, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 8.), Leiden / New York / Köln 1998.

GRABBE, Lester L., Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987) 231-246.

HOUGHTON, Arthur / LORBER, Catharine, Antiochus III in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, in: Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000-2002) 44-58.

JI, Chang-Ho. C., A New Look at the Tobiads in ‘Iraq al-Amir, in: Liber annuus Studii biblici franciscani 48 (1998) 417-440.

LANDAU, Yohanan H., A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah, in: Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966) 54-70.

LAPP, Nancy L., (ed.), The Excavations at Araq el-Emir, Vol. 1. (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 47), Cambridge 1984.

LE RIDER, Georges / DE CALLATAŸ, François, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées. L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand, Paris 2006.

LENGER, Marie-Therèse, Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (Mémoires de la classes des letters 64.2), Brussels 1964,

LIEBESNY, Herbert, Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phönikien (PER Inv. Nr. 24.552 gr.), in: Aegyptus 16 (1936) 257-288.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 33/120 (2000) 74-118.

MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excava-tions. Vol. 1: the Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea & Samaria Publications 2.), Jerusalem 2004.

MAGNESS, Jodi, The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, in: Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001) 157-177.

MAZAR, Benjamin, The Tobiads, in: Israel Exploration Journal 7 (1957) 137-147, 229-238.

MIGNE, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 19, Paris 1857. MOR, Menahem, Samaritan History: 1. The Persian, Hellenistic and Has-

monaean Period, in: Crown. Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18.

NEWELL, Edward Theodore, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. (Numismatic Studies 4), New York 1941.

PASTOR, Jack, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London / New York 1997.

RAPPAPORT, Uriel, The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period, in: CROWN, Alan D. / Davey, Lucy, (eds.), Essays in Honor of G. P. Sixdenier: New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’Études Samaritaines III and IV. Sydney 1995, 281-288.

RAPPAPORT, Uriel, Les Juifs et leurs voisins à l’époque perse, hellénistique et romaine, in: Annales 51 (1996) 955-974.

88 J. Dušek

ROSENBERG, Stephen G., Qasr al-Abd: A Mausoleum of the Tobiad Family? in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19-20 (2001-2002) 157-175.

ROSENBERG, Stephen G., A New Element in the Dating of the Tobyah Inscrip-tions at Airaq al-Amir in Jordan, in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Ar-chaeological Society 24 (2006) 85-92.

SARTRE, Maurice, D’Alexandre à Zénobie. Histoire du Levant antique IVe siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C., Paris 2001.

SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century? in: GOODMAN, M. (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 1998, 47-61.

SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks, in: Journal of Jewish Studies 53 (2002) 146-151.

STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002. TAYLOR, Joan E., Seleucid Rule in Palestine, (PhD. Dissertation) Duke

University 1979. WILL, Ernest, Le témoignage de Fl. Josèphe, Antiquités XII, 4, 1, §§ 229-36, in:

WILL, Ernest / LARCHE, François (et al. eds.), ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132.), Paris 1991, 25-35.

ZAYADINE, Fawzi, La campagne d’Antiochos III le Grand en 219-217 et le siège de Rabbatamana, in: Revue biblique 97 (1990) 68-84.

ZAYADINE, Fawzi, Les Tobiades en Transjordanie et à Jérusalem, in WILL, Ernest / LARCHE, François, et al., ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132), Paris, 1991, 5-23.

ZAYADINE, Fawzi, Le grand domaine des Tobiades en Jordanie et la politique économique des Lagides et des Séleucides, in: CHANKOWSKI, Véronique / DUYRAT, Frédérique (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Topoi Suppléments 6), Lyon 2004, 267-290.

ZERTAL, Adam, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Vol. 1: The Shechem Syn-cline (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 21.1.), Leiden / Boston 2004.

ZERTAL, Adam, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Vol. II: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 21.2), Leiden / Boston 2008.

The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors – Again

MENAHEM MOR

Recently Jan Dušek published a significant and detailed book, based on his dissertation supervised by Andre Lemaire.1 In addition to a full publication of the Wadi Daliyah Papyri in French, Dušek reviewed all of the possible reconstructions of the Samaritan Governors offered by various scholars in the last half century. He also deals with their histor-ical interpretations and implications for the understanding of the histo-ry of the Samarian province.

Though Dušek ignores many Hebrew publications on the subject, after examining his rich volume, I realized that the topic of the Samari-tan Governors has approached a dead-end! And only new findings can reopen the discussion on this topic!

That being the case, why do we need another lecture on the Samari-tan Governors? Particularly when it was recently criticized that it is only interesting for the history of research, but rather unimportant for questions regarding Samaritan history and the establishment of a Sa-maritan cult place on Gerizim in either the second or the fourth century BCE.2 The trigger for this lecture was two "most recent" articles, which chal-lenged directly and indirectly the issues related to the Samaritan Go-vernors and the date of the building of the Samaritan temple, that were published in a new collection entitled: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E.3 The essays in this volume originated in an international conference: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. held at the University of Münster, 12-15 August 2005.

I. Magen, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, pp. 157-211. 1 DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméeens, 157-211.157-211. 2 HJELM, What do Samaritans and Jews have in Common?, 20. 3 LIPSCHITS / KNOPPERS / ALBERTZ, Judah and the Judeans.

90 M. Mor

II. Eshel, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., pp. 223-234. This is Hanan Eshel's last article in a se-ries on this subject.4 These two publications raise some new questions about major issues in the history of the Samaritans during the Persian Period, which are the dating of the Samaritan temple and the Samaritan Governors, and the-refore it is worthwhile reconsidering these issues once again.

I.

Since 1982, Yitzhak Magen, staff officer of archaeology of Judaea and Samaria, has been publishing a series of reports and interpretations about his excavations on Mount Gerizim. In the year 2000, he published in Hebrew a summary of 18 years of excavating the Mountain.5 This was followed by a volume published in 2004 with Haggai Misgav and Levana Tsfania.6 His latest publication was the above-mentioned article which appeared in 2007.7

Magen in general discounts the historical value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, Book 11, and mainly his description of the building of the Samaritan temple. Until the year 2000, in every report about Mt. Geri-zim, he changed his interpretation regarding the existence of a Samari-tan Temple on the Mountain of Blessing, going from a complete denial of its existence to the assumption of two Samaritan Temples, one at Samaria, built in the fourth century BCE, and the second constructed on Mount Gerizim in the second century BCE. Alternatively, he suggested the existence of only a Samaritan sacred precinct on Mt.Gerizim.

However, since the article of the year 2000, on the basis of archaeo-logical evidence, he constantly dates the first phase of the temple and the surrounding precinct, to the mid-fifth century BCE. He ascribes the building to Sanballat I, the Horonite, governor of Samaria, who built the temple in 445 BCE, parallel with the days of Nehemiah the gover-nor of Judaea (Neh 2:1-10).8

4 Hanan Eshel of blessed memory, passed away untimely, on April 8, 2010 in Jerusa-

lem. 5 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City. 6 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations. 7 Shortly after delivering this lecture, two more volumes were published by Yitzhak

Magen: MAGEN, The Samaritans, and: MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations. 8 The year in which Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem was 445 and not 444 BCE! In

parenthesis, I should like to note that already in 1921, without having recourse to la-

The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors – Again 91

According to Magen, the fact that it was Sanballat I who had built the temple shows that the construction was not done impetuously, but with deliberate intent. The choice of Mt. Gerizim and Shechem derives from the sanctity of the mountain, and in fact Mt. Gerizim and She-chem are an indivisible pair just as Mt. Moriah and Jerusalem. The temple was in use during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods until its destruction by John Hyrcanus I.9

In the final paragraph of the article Magen claims:

We do not know on which historical sources Josephus relied when he wro-te the history of the Samaritan people in the Persian and Hellenistic pe-riods. The archaeological testimonies from Mt. Gerizim demonstrate that he erred in describing the historical facts.10

The above historical conclusions are based on the Mt.Gerizim excavati-ons, centred on the following archaeological findings:

1. Inscriptions11 2. Pottery12 3. Coins13 4. Carbon 14 testing.14

We shall briefly review and evaluate Magen's assumptions based on the archaeological evidence:

1. Inscriptions

In the introduction to the Inscriptions volume, Magen reports that:

Some four hundred inscription fragments in Neo-Hebrew and Aramaic (lapidary and proto Jewish) script inscribed on building and paving stones, that were found inside the city's Hellenistic period sacred precinct. Scores of Greek inscriptions were uncovered as well, some from the Hellenistic period, but most dating from the reconstruction of the Samaritan sanctuary in the reign of Constantine I in the fourth century CE; some also dated

ter archaeological findings, Edward Meyer claimed that it was Sanballat the Horoni-te who had built the temple. See: MEYER, Ursprung und Anfange, 9, note 2.

9 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 183-189; MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Geri-zim Excavations, 10-12.

10 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 193. 11 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 166-169 and MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount

Gerizim Excavations. 12 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 177-179. 13 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 179-180. 14 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 180-183; MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations,

169.

92 M. Mor

from the time of the subsequent Byzantine Church. Also found were a few inscriptions in the Samaritan script, whose style dates them to the medieval period.15

He describes the nature of the inscriptions as dedication or votive in-scriptions in which the donors asks for blessing.16 And in conclusion he argues:

We believe that most of the early inscriptions should be dated to the Helle-nistic period (third –second centuries BCE), although some may belong to the earliest period of the sacred precinct (fifth-fourth centuries BCE).17

In any case, how can we use these inscriptions in our discussion, if ac-cording to Magen most of the inscriptions should probably be ascribed to the Samaritan sanctuary of the Hellenistic period during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE? It is just possible that some of them were from a more ancient sanctuary dating back to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.

Another difficulty is seen in the Aramaic and neo-Hebraic inscrip-tions that were brought together in this impressive collection, regar-ding whether they can serve as evidence for the construction of a temp-le on Mount Gerizim during the days of Sanballat I. As Magen himself notes with regard to these inscriptions:

In addition, since the Mt. Gerizim inscriptions were not found in situ, no time frame could be determined for the use of the various scripts. All the inscriptions date from the Hellenistic period (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), a ti-me in which, with a few exceptions, the lapidary style is not known to have been in use.18

If so, how can evidence from the 3rd and 2nd centuries serve as proof for the early existence of the temple?

2. The Pottery

According to Magen, almost all the ceramic finds from the Persian pe-riod were discovered in the sacred precinct and should be dated to the period between the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE, namely, before the conquest of Alexander the Great.19 15 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 13. 16 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 16 17 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 14 18 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, pp. 12, 41 19 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 177-179.


The dating of the ceramics is, for Magen, sufficient proof for the da-ting of the building of the temple to the beginning of the fifth century BCE!

Although can we definitely date the pottery, do we have the tools to date exactly the different types of ceramics between 445 and 332? Is Alexander’s conquest a chronological division between the Persian and the Hellenistic periods?

3. The Coins:

During the twenty-three seasons of excavations on Mt. Gerizim more than 14,000 coins were found. However, only 72 coins are dated to the Persian period.20 According to Magen:

The fifth century which is at the center of the debate concerning the exis-tence of a temple on Mount Gerizim, is well represented; there is no doubt that the early coins faithfully attest the existence of the sacred precinct in the fifth century BCE.

On the other hand he continues:

The first half of the fourth century is also significantly represented in the discoveries at Mount Gerizim.21

How and why would the extensive pottery and coins from Mount Ge-rizim, dating to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE prior to the expedition of Alexander the Great to the Land of Israel, with the date of the earliest coin being 480 BCE, constitute proof that the temple was erected during Nehemiah’s time? The most that can be learnt from this is that Mount Gerizim, the “mountain of blessing,” continued to be considered for centuries as a sacred site.22

20 See MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 179. Three coins cannot be identified. The

earliest coin is a drachma from Cyprus dated ca. 480 BCE (fig. 27/1). 21 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 179-180 . MAGEN, Mt Garizim: A Temple City,

168-169. It includes: A Phoenician coin, Samaritan coins from ca. 375-332; 18 coins from Sidon dated ca. 370-358; 5 Persian coins from Sidon assigned a general dating of the fourth century. A Persian coin minted from Sidon of Euagoras II dated to ca. 345-342. 4 Persian coins of Mazdi from Sidon dated to ca. 343-333. A Persian coin, an Attic standard, from Tyre dated to ca. 332-275. 18 Persian coins from Sidon dated to the first half of the 4th century. A Phoenician coin from Byblos dated to the fourth century. 18 Samaritan coins dated to the fourth century.

22 For a detailed discussion of this issue, see: MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 93-94.

94 M. Mor

4. Carbon-14 Testing:

In the recent article he devotes a long paragraph accompanied by a chart about the Carbon-14 testing. He listed 10 samples of charred wood and 1 of bones found at the site. His conclusion is that in addition to the pottery, coins, the C-14 testing proves:

with a great degree of certainty – that the first phase of the precinct was built in the fifth century BCE.23

He adds that:

Relying solely on C-14 dating, the first phase of the precinct came to an end ca. 200 B.C.E., when the construction of the precinct's second phase began (during the reign of Antiochus III).24

However, being an ignoramus on the subject of Carbon-14 testing, I consulted two experts: Dr. Elesasbeta Boaretto of the Weizmann Insti-tute, who tested some of the cases in the chart, and Prof. Shariel Shalev, a meteorologist from the University of Haifa. Both clarified to me some of the details of Carbon-14 testing in general and the results from Mt. Gerizim in particular. 1. Only the calibrated dates should be examined. 2. The dates that have more than one option should not be considered! Apparently, the calibrated curve created a situation in which, in the same zone, there is more than one possible overlap, and therefore it is advisable to refer to the calibrated dates that have only one option of calibration. 3. The dates in tests number: 3, 5, 8, 10 are of charcoal that can be earlier than the archaeological layer in which it was found, but cannot be later than the layer! 4. The burnt bone, number 11, has the same limitations, assuming that its life span is shorter. Nevertheless, the large space between the calib-rated dates points to a calibrated zone that is relatively flat, and there-fore it is preferable not to use this date.

Therefore, if we consider tests number: 3, 5, 8, and 10, all are dated later than the mid 5th century BCE. In the range of years in these examples, my proposed dating, the mid 4th century BCE for the buil-

23 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 180. 24 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 180; MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations,

169.


ding of the Samaritan temple, is even more appropriate than the date suggested by Magen. Magen is very consistent when it comes to his evaluation of Josephus’ description about the Samaritans in Jewish Antiquities 11. He rejects the historicity of the account in Book 11, and particularly the events and dates related to the erection of the Samaritan Temple.

If this is the case, how can you reject the whole story and still use some of its details to create a similar story dated to the days of Nehe-miah? The Biblical evidence in Neh 13:28:

One of the sons of Joiada son of the High priest Eliashib was a son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite, I drove him away from me.

The biblical verse mentions three names: Joiada, Eliashib, Sanballat the Horonite, the names of the bride and groom are missing. Magen, in trying to use details mentioned by Josephus, made up a name for the groom: Ephraim instead of Menasseh! He took details from Josephus description in Book 11 and transfers them to the sole biblical verse. Does the verse mention a relocation of priests from Jerusalem to Mt. Gerizim?

Magen believes that it is indicated in the Elephantine papyri that the sons of Sanballat "might have served as priests on Mt. Gerizim".25

However, the Elephantine letters made a clear distinction between religious leaders and secular political leaders; Yohanan is referred to as the High Priest in the Jerusalemite Temple, and at the same time Bagoi and Sanballat are entitled Pe’ah. Furthermore, if we accept Josephus’ account of the relations between Alexander and the Jews and Samari-tans, the Jewish negotiator was the High Priest, while the Samaritan was the political figure Sanballat.

Towards the end of the article Magen tries to resolve Josephus‘ „er-rors,“ including his dating of the construction of the Samaritan temple. He argues that Josephus erred between the construction of the temple on Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period, the 5th century BCE and the foun-ding of the city on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period following the destruction of Samaria in the 4th century.26

But how do we reconcile this assumption with Magen’s earlier re-marks?

In 1986, Magen in his first publication: „A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on Mount Gerizim,“27 and four years later in an artic- 25 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 182. 26 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 192. 27 MAGEN, A Fortified Town, 101.

96 M. Mor

le: „Mount Gerizim –A Temple City,“28 argued that, around the Samari-tan precinct, a large city covering 350 dunams was built on Mt. Geri-zim. Based on hundreds of coins, he dates the Hellenistic city to the 2nd century BCE, during the days of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (217-187 BCE). He finds a comparable occurrence in the massive building in the upper city of Jerusalem, described by Josephus in Jewish Antiqui-ties 13.133-144.

In addition to the critique mentioned above, the new date for the erec-tion of the temple according to the estimation of Magen has raised a few more general questions that should be discussed in depth:

1. What motivated Sanballat I to build the Samaritan temple preci-sely in the year 445 BCE? The reliance of Magen on the words of Ne-hemiah to his adversaries: Sanballat the Horonite, Geshem the Arabian, and Tobias the Ammonite, are not convincing. Nehemiah certainly rejected them and told them during his construction of the wall around Jerusalem: “… but you have no share or right or memorial in Jerusa-lem” (Neh. 2:20). But Magen’s statement afterwards, that Nehemiah’s reply left them without any cultic site, does not conform to the critical facts. Is this the first time they were rejected? Already in 538 BCE, when the first group of people returned to Zion, those who were called the “opponents of Judah and Benjamin” and “the people of the land” (Ezra 4: 1, 4) were rejected by the Jewish leadership with the words:

You do not have the same purpose as we do in building a house for our God, for we alone shall build [a house] for Yahweh God of Israel (Ezra 4:3).

Moreover, where was the cultic center for the Samaritans from 538 to 445 BCE, the year in which the temple was constructed by Sanballat I according to Magen’s proposal? One can even go further and ask: Whe-re did they worship God between the year 720 when Samaria was con-quered by the Assyrians and the year 445 BCE? But the main question regarding Magen’s dating is whether it was at this date that the histori-cal opportunity was created to erect the Samaritan temple.

2. Was it Artaxerxes I who granted Sanballat the permission to erect the temple on Mount Gerizim? Nehemiah needed the agreement and permit of that same king in order to go to Jerusalem and rebuild it:

28 MAGEN, Mount Gerizim –A Temple City, 70.96.


As I answered the king and if your servant has found favor in your sight, then send me to Judah, to the City of the graves of my fathers, that I may rebuild it (Neh 2:5).29

The rebuilding of the Temple following the Edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1: 1-4; 6:3-5) and the permit granted during the reign of Darius I (Ezra 6: 6-12) clearly demonstrate that without permission of the central government it would not have been possible to erect the Temple in Jerusalem. Fur-thermore, there are several scholars who claim that not only would the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem have been impossible without Persian consent, but that the main reason for its erection was to satisfy the administrative requirements of the Persians.30

3. Why was the temple erected on Mount Gerizim? Magen was right in saying: “Sanballat did, indeed, possess a site whose sanctity was confirmed by the Pentateuch itself, and to which not even the Ju-deans could object.”31 But his claim that: “The sanctity of Mt. Gerizim and the city of Shechem were deeply entrenched in the religious tradi-tion of the north, just as Mt. Moriah was the sacred mountain of Jerusa-lem in Judea”32 is an unfounded claim. In the year 445 BCE it was not yet possible to pair Mount Gerizim with the city of Shechem because at that time the urban center of the Samaritan population was in the city of Samaria and not in Shechem.

4. We shall not resume here the continuing discussion on the lists of Samaritan leaders during the Persian period, but will only note that in a review of these lists, ever since the articles by Cross and others that followed, the conclusion was that there were at least three Sanballats during the Persian period.33 Josephus mentions at least two Sanballats.

29 All the translations from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are from: MYERS, Ezra,

Nehemiah. 30 See BEDFORD, Temple Restoration, 183-299. Chapter 4 is devoted to the various

factors behind the erection of the Temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Darius I, and pages 185-230 are devoted to “Temple Rebuilding as a Judean Initiative.” For the main studies of this approach, see: MEYERS/ MEYERS, Haggai Zechariah; MEYERS/ MEYERS, Zechariah 9-14; WEINBERG, Citizen-Temple Community. Following the pub-lication of Bedford’s book, see: TROTTER, Second Jerusalem Temple. See also: EDEL-MAN, Origins of the 'Second' Temple, 344-349. However, Edelman dates the building of the Samaritan temple to the days of Nehemiah.

31 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 13. See also: NA’AMAN, Population Changes.

32 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 10. 33 See: WRIGHT, Rebuilding Identiry, 257-269.

98 M. Mor

Can we assume that he confused the Sanballat of Nehemiah’s time with the Sanballat of the period of Darius III and Alexander the Great?34

5. The main argument against Magen’s dating of the temple to the days of Nehemiah and Sanballat I is an argumentum e silentio. The silence regarding the Samaritan temple in the Book of Nehemiah is a resounding example! Sanballat, Tobias and Geshem, the three adversa-ries of Nehemiah, are given a central place in the memoirs of Nehe-miah, and the political and ideological differences between them and Nehemiah are extensively described (Neh 2:10, 19-20; 3:32-35; 4:1-2; 6:1-19; 13:4-9), including the marriage of Sanballat’s daughter to the son of the high priest in Jerusalem and their expulsion from the city as a result of this (Neh 13:28). Can it be assumed that the author of Nehemiah’s memoirs would have ignored the existence of the Samaritan temple built by the enemy of Nehemiah? Would he have passed over in comp-lete silence the construction of a temple that would be considered by Nehemiah to be an illegal temple? Actually, from the summary of the excavations and the historical intro-duction, two outstanding contributions are made to the history of the temple. The important one is that on Mount Gerizim there was a sacred sanctuary in the center of which stood a temple, and the other is that the temple was built during the Persian period. Beyond this, the archaeological finds do not support any exact date for the erection of the temple.

In order to strengthen our supposition regarding the erection of the Samaritan temple in the later stages of Persian rule over the Land of Israel, I shall find support once again in the Yedania letter from the Yeb (Elephantine) papyri that was mentioned above. As I noted there, the letter of 407 BCE was a plea made by the leaders of Yeb after the dest-ruction of their temple to Bagohi, the governor of Yehud and to Delaiah and Shelamiah the sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria. In this letter they request assistance in restoring their ruined temple, and note the fact that three years earlier, in 410 BCE, they had addressed their re-quest to Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem, but he had not answered them at all. Therefore, if in the year 410 BCE there had been a temple on Mount Gerizim, would not the leaders of Yeb have addressed their request to the high priest on Mount Gerizim, just as they did to the high priest in Jerusalem? Does not the application to Delaiah and She-

34 For latest review of these issues see DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméeens.


lamiah indirectly indicate that the Samaritan temple had not yet been built?35

The Samaritan temple existed for over two hundred years and was used by the Samaritans as their religious centre. Its destruction in the year 111 BCE caused an ideological-religious transformation among the Samaritans. Not only did they never try to rebuild their temple, but even denied the existence of the temple in the past. Instead, they turned the whole of Mount Gerizim into a “sacred sanctuary.”36

II.

Hanan Eshel in the final footnote of his article, note 66, wrote the follo-wing:

In 2005, M. Mor published an essay that defends Cross’s reconstruction: “The Samaritan Shrine: A Solvable Enigma!“ in Samaritan, Hebrew and Ara-maic Studies (ed. M. Bar Asher and M. Florentin, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005) 41-58 [Hebrew]. This essay was written before the official publication of the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh documents (Gropp, “Samaria Papyri“) and before the second volume of Meshorer and Qedar (Samarian Coinage) was relea-sed. Thus a retort here to Mor's claims seems unnecessary (my emphasis).

To begin with, for bibliographical accuracy, it should be mentioned that my article was also published in English in the proceedings of a confe-rence held at Helsinki Finland in 2000, which was published in 2005.37 In addition, it should be mentioned that Eshel’s article had already been published in 1999 in Hebrew, in the volume honoring Prof. Frank M. Cross.38 I had compared the Hebrew version of 1999, with the Eng-lish one of 2007, and besides some minor changes such as citing coins from the 2nd edition of Meshorer-Qedar, the two articles are identical.

However, in the concluding remarks of my Hebrew version that Eshel argued about, I added a final section entitled: Addition, in which I listed two works that, because of their later publication, I was unable to consult for the article: 35 COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30-32; “If it please our lord, take thought of that

Temple to rebuild (it) since they do not let us rebuild it … Let a letter be sent from you to them about the Temple of YHW the God to rebuild it in Elephantine the fort-ress as it was formerly built.” Reinhard Kratz has recently dealt with the temple in Yeb. See: KRATZ, Second Temple of Jeb.

36 TSEDAKA, History of the Israelite-Samaritans, 16-17. 37 MOR, Putting the Puzzle together. 38 ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.

100 M. Mor

a) Meshorer, Ya'akov and Qedar Shraga published a new edition of the collection of Samarian Coins in 1999.39 As mentioned above I did not use this edition for my article, however, I used the first version of their collection of 1991.40 Besides this, I also compared the two editions, and found that the major difference was another numbering of the coins as well as some coins that were added to the second version.

b) The entire volume of Qadmoniot, which was devoted to the exca-vations on Mt. Gerizim, and particularly Magen's report of 2000.41 Eshel, in note 66, instead of pointing out this omission, replaced it with Gropp's work, criticizing me for not using the „official“ publication of the papyri published by Gropp in the DJD Series,42 although I had used Gropp's dissertation, which was the basis for the DJD edition.43

Furthermore, Eshel himself in his Hebrew article did not use the corpus published by Gropp, nor the 1999 edition of the Samarian coins published by Meshorer-Qedar. However, comparing the two editions by Meshorer-Qedar, the major question is whether the second edition is essentially different from the first one, and if it can be considered a major contribution to the issue of the Samaritan governors.

In my paper, to which Eshel deliberately avoided giving any res-ponse, I extensively criticized three articles written by him. In these articles he wanted to prove the unreliability of Josephus Jewish Antiqui-ties, Book 11 regarding the Samaritan governors and the date of the building of the Samaritan temple. The three articles are:

1. Wadi–ed Daliya Papyrus 14 and the Samaritan Temple.44 2. Israelite Names from Samaria in the Persian Period.45 3. The Rulers of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.46

I shall not repeat my major arguments against Eshel’s assumptions in the above articles. I reported my claims at length in my articles. To make my points clearer I shall just briefly mention a few of them: 1. In order to discredit Josephus’ dating of the building of the Samari-tan temple in the mid-fourth century BCE, Eshel used Papyrus 14, is-

39 MESHORER / QEDAR, Samarian coinage. 40 MESHORER / QEDAR, Coinage of Samaria. 41 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City. 42 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II. 43 Ph.D Thesis, Harvard University, 1986. This is a publication of nine papyri, which

are bills of sale of slaves. GROPP, Samaria Papyri. 44 ESHEL, Wadi -ed Daliya Papyrus 14. 45 See ESHEL, Israelite Names. 46 ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.


sued in Samaria. Based on the word: nishka= lishka= לשכה(=chamber) in the Papyrus he concluded that:

In Wadi Daliyah may be seen proof of the existence of a temple in the city of Samaria at the end of the Persian period, before the Macedonian con-quest.47

However, Gropp, who is the „official“ publisher of the Papyri, in DJD Plate XVI, Papyrus 14, entitled it: „Deed of Consignment of Public Rooms“ (DJD Plate XVI), and he did not include the reading of the re-mains of this document in the official edition. He finds this papyrus as „…a clear instance of a conveyance of Chambers in a public building.“48

Rejection of the assumption that, in Papyrus 14 the nishka sold is part of a temple, calls for equal dismissal of the supposition that the papyrus proves the existence of a temple in the city of Samaria prior to the conquest of the Land of Israel by Alexander the Great.49 2. In articles 2-3, Eshel used some Wadi Daliyah papyri to reject Jose-phus' description of the building of the Samaritan Temple and to set up another list of Samaritan Governors.

Papyrus 1 is a bill of a sale of a slave in the presence of the Samari-tan Governor, dated to 19 March 335 BCE. However the name of the governor in line 11 is not preserved.

In 1986 Douglas Gropp, in his dissertation,50 restored line 11 and in-cluded in the lacuna the name of the Samaritan governor: Yeshu’a son of Sanballat. Eshel adopted Gropp’s completion and gave it an histori-cal interpretation. Since Papyrus 1 is the latest of the Wadi Daliyah papyri, this means that, according to Eshel, the last Samaritan governor was Yeshu’a son of Sanballat II, and not Sanballat III.51

This reconstruction allowed Eshel to reject the reliability of Jose-phus’ account in Jewish Antiquities 11. In his view, Sanballat, whose name appears throughout the narratives of Alexander the Great, is Josephus’ invention, and therefore this section is of insignificant histo-rical value. All the events that preceded the establishment of the Sama-ritan temple are part of Josephus’ anti-Samaritan polemic.

47 ESHEL, Wadi -ed Daliya Papyrus 14, 364-365. 48 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II, 5. 49 ESHEL, Governors of Samaria, 224 note 8. Surprisingly, Eshel in ESHEL, Governors of

Samaria still refers to his ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria. and argues “on the importance of this Document.“ However, reading this assumption with the results from the Mt Ge-rizim excavation in the background is astonishing.

50 GROPP, Samaria Papyri. 51 See ESHEL, Samaritans , 40-42; ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.

102 M. Mor

Already in my lecture at the Helsinki Conference of 2000, I doubted the value of Gropp’s completion of the lacuna in Papyrus 1, which had provided the grounds for Eshel’s reconstruction of the governors of Samaria.

Indeed in DJD volume 28, Gropp himself completed line 11 diffe-rently, and in the comments he wrote: „There is apparently enough room for only two witnesses to be listed in what remains of line 11“,52 and he did not mention any names.

If Eshel’s reconstruction of the Samaritan governors is based on an incorrect completion,53 his conclusions are necessarily questionable. Accordingly, the matter of Josephus’ reliability in Jewish Antiquities 11 deserves a different approach. Since 1975, when I published my MA Thesis,54 I adopted the conclusi-ons made by Cross, the leading scholar of the Wadi Daliyah papyri, in his portrayal of the end of the Persian rule in Eretz Israel.55 He has dis-cussed this papyrus on several occasions, and although he does not suggest a completion to the lacuna in line 11, he directs his readers instead to Papyrus 7, line 17 where it is stated, “before [H]ananyah governor of Samaria.”56

Ever since his first article in 1963, he has been arguing that the Pa-pyri contain the names of three governors in Samaria: Sanballat, who was the father of the other two, Hanayah, governor in 354,57 and Yes-hu’a / Yesha’yahu/ Yadu’a, whose name appears on the “Sanballat bul-la.”58 Yeshu’a/Yadu’a preceded his brother Hananyah or Hanan, accor-ding to evidence that a certain Hanan was the deputy when Yeshu’a was governor.59

52 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II, 43. 53 In ESHEL, Governors of Samaria, 233 note 64 he remarks: “However, he did not

include this reconstruction in the official published volume.“ 54 MOR, Samaritans and Jews. 55 See Cross’s various articles on the Wadi Daliyah papyri: CROSS,, Discovery; CROSS,

Aspects; CROSS, Papyri; CROSS, Papyri and their Historical Implications; CROSS, Re-construction; CROSS, Samaria and Jerusalem.

56 See CROSS, Samaria Papyrus, Pl. 2; CROSS, Report on the Samaria Papyri, on page 22 there is a photograph of a reconstruction of Papyrus 1, but it is printed upside-down! See also ARATA MANTOVANI, I papiri di Samaria.

57 See Papyrus 7, line 17. 58 On the bullae from Wadi Daliyah see: LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I. On the Sanballat bulla

see: CROSS, Papyri, 47, and LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I, 3 note 2. 59 See Papyrus 11, in which “Hanan the סגנא = deputy” is mentioned.


The reconstruction by Cross and others of the dynasty of the Sama-ritan governors60 and the lineage of the high priests in Judah61 has sol-ved a large number of the chronological problems arising from Jose-phus’ accounts. The existence of Sanballat III, who held office at the time of the conquest of Eretz Israel by Alexander the Great, sheds a different light on Josephus’ description. The Judaean-Samaritan-Macedonian relationship is also illuminated from a fresh angle. The death of Sanballat III shortly after the completion of the building of the Samaritan temple imperiled for the first time the continued existence of the Samaritan leadership. The appointment of the Macedonian Andro-machus as governor of the region impelled the Samaritan aristocracy to rise against Macedonian rule; they burned Andromachus alive.62 Flee-ing to escape Alexander’s wrath, they took refuge in a cave in Wadi Daliyah, where the papyri under discussion were discovered.

Eshel tried to invalidate Cross and my reconstruction of the Samari-tan Governors, arguing on one hand that, for his list of governors, Cross did not use the Samarian coins dated to the 4th century BCE. And on the other hand, he rejected my lists because I did not use the 1999 edition of Meshorer and Qedar. What coins is he considering? Which coins did Cross overlook when he asserted that Sanballat III was the last Samaritan governor of Samaria? As for myself, since I did use the first volume of Meshorer-Qedar to support Cross’ reconstruction, I was blamed for not using the second edition: Samarian Coinage.

As I have argued elsewhere, and as others have argued, the Samari-tan temple on Mount Gerizim, whose founding is described by Jose-phus, was built in the interim between the fall of the Persian kingdom and the conquest of Eretz Israel by Alexander the Great. The temple stood intact until the time of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean ruler, who burnt it down in 107 BCE because it was a major point of discord bet-ween Judah and Samaria.

60 See Appendix 2. Since the publication of the papyri various attempts have been

made to reconstruct the succession of governors of the province of Samaria. In this article we deal only with the disagreement of Eshel’s reconstruction with that of Cross. We note here only the leading studies on this subject: WIDENGREN, Persian Period; SALEY, Date of Nehemiah; GRABBE, Josephus and the Reconstruction; WIL-LIAMSON, Governors of Judah; CROWN, Another Look at Samaritan Origins. For a penetrating critique on the contribution of the Wadi Daliyah papyri to this recons-truction see: SCHWARTZ, On Some Papyri.

61 In his various articles Cross also deals with the dynasty of high priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. For criticism of this reconstruction see MOR, High Priests in Judah. See also VANDERKAM, Jewish High Priests.

62 See: Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander the Great, IV 8: 34, 9-11. See also: STERN, Greek and Latin Authors, 447-449.

104 M. Mor

In the last 45 years of research concerning the Samaritans in the Persian period, major progress has been made mainly through rich archaeological excavations. The excavations at Wadi ed Daliyah,63 She-chem,64 and especially on Mount Gerizim, revealed very rich material.

There is now a consensus about the existence of a Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim and disagreement about the dates of its erection. Scho-lars are still debating about the Samaritan administration in the Persian period. There are those who argue for one Sanballat, some prefer two, and others are convinced of the leadership of at least three Sanballats.

The recent state of research about the Samaritan governors during the Persian period has reached a dead end. The existing written sources and archaeological material have been exhausted and only fresh evi-dence can contribute new avenues to solve the difficulties we have discussed in this paper.

63 LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I. 64 MAGEN, Flavius Neapolis.


Appendix 1: Eshel’s reconstruction

Governor (phh)

Official (sgn’) Date Source

Sanballat I Mid-5th c BCE

Book of Nehemiah Papyrus YB, Cowley 30

Dalayah Turn of 5th-4th c BCE

Papyrus YB, Cowley 30-32) Samaritan coin no. 49 (?)

Shalmayah Early 4th c BCE

Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30) Samaritan coins (still un-published)

Hananyah Siton/Asiton First half of 4th c BCE

Wadi Daliyah documents 7, 8, 9, Samaritan coins 29, 30

Sanballat II “Aqabiyah Second half of 4th c BCE

Wadi Daliyah, bulla; Do-cuments 5 (?) 11; Samaritan coins 41-45

Yeshu’a/ Yesh’yah

Hanan Second half of 4th c BCE

Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Do-cuments 1, 11

Appendix 2: Cross’s reconstruction

Governor = peha Date Source Sanballat I Mid-5th c BCE Book of Nehemiah; Papyrus YYB

(Cowley 30) Dalayah Turn of 5th-4th

c BCE Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30-32)

Shalmayah (his brother)

Beginning of 4th c BCE

Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30)

Sanballat II Second half of 4th c BCE

Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Documents 5 (?), 11

Yeshu’a/ Yadu’a/ Yesha’–yahu

First half of 4th c BCE

Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Documents 1, 11

Hananyah (his brother)

Mid-4th c BCE Wadi Daliyah, Document 7

Sanballat III Second half of 4th c BCE

Antiquities 11.30-345

106 M. Mor

Bibliography

ARATA MANTOVANI, Piera, I papiri di Samaria (1 SP), in: Riv. Bib. 40 (1992) 87-89.

BEDFORD, Peter R., Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65), Leiden 2001.

COWLEY, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923. CROSS, Frank M., A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, in: JBL 94 (1975)

4-18 [= Interpretation 29 (1975) 187-203]. CROSS, Frank M., A Report on the Samaria Papyri, in: EMERTON, James A. (ed.),

Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986, (VTSup 40), Leiden 1988, 17-26. CROSS, Frank M., Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in the late Persian

and Hellenistic Times, in: HTR 59 (1966) 201-211. CROSS, Frank M., Papyri and their Historical Implications, in: LAPP, Paul / LAPP,

Nancy (eds.), Discoveries in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Cambridge MA 1974, 17-29.

CROSS, Frank M., Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C., in: FREEDMAN, David N. / GREENFIELD, Jonas. C. (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, Gar-den City NY 1969, 450-469.

CROSS, Frank M., Samaria and Jerusalem, in: TADMOR Haim (ed.), The Restora-tion: The Persian Period, Jerusalem 1983, 81-94 (Hebrew).

CROSS, Frank M., Samaria Papyrus: An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 B.C.E. Found in Wadi Daliyeh, in: Eretz Israel 18 (1985) 7*-17*.

CROSS, Frank M., The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri, BA 26 (1963) 110-120. CROWN, Alan D., Another Look at Samaritan Origins, CROWN, Alan, D. / DAVEY,

Lucy (eds.), New Samaritan Studies (Studeis in Judaica 5), Sindey 1995, 13-155.

DUŠEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméeens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarievers 450-332 av.J.-C., Leiden 2007.

EDELMAN, Diana, The Origins of the ’Second’ Temple, Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, London 2005.

ESHEL, Hanan, Israelite Names from Samaria in the Persian Period, in DEMSKY, Aaron et al. (eds.), These are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, Ramat Gan 1997, 17-31 (Hebrew).

ESHEL, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 223-234.

ESHEL, Hanan, The Rulers of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E, Eretz Israel (Frank Moore Cross Volume) 26 (1999) 8-12 (Hebrew).

ESHEL, Hanan, The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Ori-gins of Samaritanism, (Ph.D Thesis, Hebrew University) Jerusalem 1994 (Hebrew).

ESHEL, Hanan, Wadi –ed Daliya Papyrus 14 and the Samaritan Temple, in: Zion 61 (1996) 359-365 (Hebrew).

GRABBE, Lester L., Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, in: JBL 106 (1987) 231-246.


GROPP, Douglas M. / BERNSTEIN, Moshe, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, Qumran cave 4, XXVIII, Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD, 28), Oxford 2001.

GROPP, Douglas Marvin, The Samaria Papyri from the Wādî ed-Dāliyeh, 1986, (Publishsed Microfiche. Ann Arbor, Mich. University Microfilms Interna-tional, 1986).

HJELM, Ingrid, What do Samaritans and Jews have in Common? Recent Trends in Samaritan Studies, in: Currents in Biblical Research 3 (2004) 9-62.

KRATZ, Reinhard G., The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 247-264.

LIETH, Mary Joan Winn, Wadi Daliyeh I. The Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions, Oxford 1997.

LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007.

MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excavati-ons, Vol. I, The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on Mount Gerizim, in: Qadmoniot 19 (1986) 91-101 (Hebrew).

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Flavius Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period (Judea and Samaria Publications 5), Jerusalem 2005 (Hebrew)

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 23 (1990) 70-96 (Hebrew).

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim Excavations: A Temple City, Israel Antiquities Authority (Judea and Samaria Publications 8), Jerusalem 2008.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City, a Summary of 18 Seasons,“ in: Qadmoniot 33 (2000) 74-118. (Hebrew).

MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 157-211.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, (Judea and Samaria Publications 7), Jerusalem 2008.

MESHORER, Ya’aḳov / QEDAR, Shraga, Samarian Coinage, Jerusalem 1999. MESHORER, Ya’aḳov / QEDAR, Shraga, The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth

Century BCE, Jerusalem 1991. MEYER, Eduard, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, Berlin 1921. MEYERS, Carol L. / MEYERS, Éric M., Haggai Zechariah 1-8 (Anchor Bible 25),

Garden City 1987. MEYERS, Carol L. / MEYERS, Éric M., Zechariah 9-14: A new translation with

introduction and commentary (Anchor Bible 25), Garden City 1993. MOR, Menahem, From Samaria to Shechem, The Samaritan Community in

Antiquity, Jerusalem 2003 (in Hebrew).

108 M. Mor

MOR, Menahem, Putting the Puzzle together: Papyri, Inscriptions, Coins and Josephus in Relation to Samaritan History in the Persian Period, in: SHEA-DEH, Haseeb / TAWA, Habib / PUMMER, Reinhard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Societe d' Etudes Samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1-4, 2000, Paris 2005, 41-54.

MOR, Menahem, Samaritans and Jews during the Persian, Hellenistic and Has-monean Periods, (MA Thesis, University of Haifa) Haifa 1975 (Hebrew).

MOR, Menahem, The High Priests in Judah in the Persian Period, in: Beit Mikra (1978) 57-67.

MYERS, Jacob M., Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Anchor Bible 14), Garden City 1965.

Na’aman, Nadav, Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations, in: Tel Aviv 20 (1993) 104-124.

SALEY, Richard J., The Date of Nehemiah Reconsidered, in: TUTTLE, Gary, A. (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William San-ford LaSor, Grand Rapids MI 1978, 151-165.

SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., On Some Papyri and Josephus’ sources and chronology for the Persian Period, in: JSJ 21 (1990) 175-199.

STERN, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1., Jeru-salem 1974.

TROTTER, James M., Was the Second Jerusalem Temple a Persian Project, in: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15 (2001) 276-294.

TSEDAKA, Benyamim, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans, Ho-lon 2001.

VANDERKAM, James C., Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?, in: ANDERSON, Gary / OLYAN, Saul (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, Sheffield 1991, 67-91.

WEINBERG, Joel, The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup 151), Sheffield 1992. WIDENGREN, Geo, The Persian Period, in: HAYES, John H. / MILLER, J. Maxwell

(eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977, 489-538. WILLIAMSON, Hugh. G.M., The Governors of Judah under the Persians, in: Tyn-

dale Bulletin 93 (1988) 59-82. WRIGHT, Jacob L., Rebuilding Identiry: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest

Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin 2005.

Josephus on the Samaritans – his Tendenz and purpose

MAGNAR KARTVEIT

“There can be little doubt of Josephus’ prejudice against the Samari-tans. In this, he reflects the general Jewish attitude of bitterness and contempt, as seen in rabbinic writings,” Louis Feldman wrote in 1989.1 Doubt was raised, however, by Rita Egger in her dissertation from 1986: she found that Josephus cannot be termed an anti-Samaritan au-thor.2 So, who is right? Was Josephus anti-Samaritan or not?

The Tendenz of Josephus can be described as in Steve Mason’s Jose-phus and the New Testament.3 Josephus wished to repudiate accusations against the Jews and to portray them as e.g. literate, cultured and bene-volent. According to Mason, the main project in War and Antiquitites was to present the Jews in a favourable light in order to counter the accusations levelled against them by Roman and Greek authors. War was written while the victor over the Jewish people was still Emperor in Rome, and under his patronage. Josephus’ idea is that only a part of the Jewish people rebelled against Rome, and the Romans acted as God’s agents in punishing them. Conditions were almost intolerable under the later governors, so one can understand the rebel instincts, but the wiser leaders tried to keep the peace. The Jews had been able to defend themselves heroically under the Maccabees, as the figure of Hyrcanus showed. In Antiquities the antiquity of the Jews and their respectable origin is a major issue.

If one considers the general framework, the Samaritans are used by Josephus as a group that forms a negative counterpart to the loyal Jews,

1 FELDMAN, Critical Bibliography, 420. 2 EGGER, Josephus Flavius, 311. She notes, however, a certain Ambivalenz, cf. 73, note

176, referring to Ant. 9.291; 12.257; 11.340f. Cf. in general the important review by NODET, Egger, 288-294.

3 MASON, Josephus, 55-121.

110 M. Kartveit

an example of people who try to exploit the ruling powers and who are justly punished for that.4

Opportunism

The most conspicuous trait in Josephus’ picture of the Samaritans is their opportunism—if we may use an anachronistic term for his por-trayal of them.5 This is emphasized three times in the form of com-ments on the stories of their origin and constitutes his Tendenz. The first occurrence of this allegation comes in connection with Josephus’ retell-ing of 2 Kgs 17:

[The Chouthaioi brought to Samaria their own gods and worshipped them and thereby] provoked the Most high God to anger and wrath…And so they sent some elders to the king of the Assyrians and asked him to send priests…and after being instructed in the laws and worship of this God, they worshipped him with great zeal…They continue to practice these same customs even to this day, those who are called Chouthaioi in the He-brew language, and Samareitai [Samarei/tai] in the Greek; those who alter-natively [pro.j metabolh.n] call themselves their relatives whenever they see things going well for the Jews – as if they were descendants of Joseph and had family ties with them in virtue of that origin, when, however, they see that things are going badly for them [i.e. for the Jews], they say that they are not at all close to them and that they have no claim to their loyalty or race – instead, they make themselves out to be migrants of another nation [metoi,kouj avlloeqnei/j]. Ant 9.288-291.6

The crucial sentence here is crw,menoi, te toi/j auvtoi/j e;ti kai. nu/n e;qesi diatelou/sin, “they continue to practice these same customs even to this day.” Scholars have tried to find out which “customs” Josephus here refers to, but this approach might be a cul de sac. In the following sen-tence Josephus goes on to speak of the opportunism of the Samaritans in terms of their changing claims of ethnicity, not in terms of their reli-gion, be it syncretism as in 2 Kgs 17:33 or the lack of worship of Yah-weh, as in 2 Kgs 17:34. It seems therefore to be an adequate understand-ing of Ant 9.288-291 that Josephus speaks of “customs” = opportunism through this whole section, in the case of religion in the past, and in the case of claims of ethnicity in the present. The Samaritans saw how the 4 AVIOZ, Josephus, 9-17, is also discussing the tendency of Josephus—in this case in

connection with a well-known biblical text. 5 HANHART, Ältesten Traditionen,106-115. 6 Author’s translation.

Josephus on the Samaritans 111

wind blew, and set sails accordingly. The “customs” would simply mean their way of behaviour, their opportunism. They changed their behaviour, and only one thing is consistent with them: their opportu-nism. On this understanding, Josephus claims that they showed their opportunism in turning towards the Most High God at the time of the plague, and at present in pretending to descend from Joseph when this is beneficial to them, but professing to be sojourners and foreigners unrelated to the Jews when they profit from this. The translation cho-sen here is supported by the following sentences, which describe the Samaritans as changing their claim for kinship according to circums-tance.

The second time this description of them is found in connection with the retelling of Neh 13 and the establishment of the Samaritan temple at the time of Alexander the Great:

For such is the nature of the Samaritans [eivsi.n ga.r oi Samarei/j toiou/toi th.n fu,sin], as we have already shown somewhere above. When the Jews are in difficulties, they deny that they have any kinship with them, thereby in-deed admitting the truth, but whenever they see some splendid bit of good fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at the connection with them, saying that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. Ant 11.341.

The account stresses the opportunism of the Samaritans, to the extent that they deliberately use different names for themselves:

[Alexander] inquired who they were that made this request [to remit the tribute in the seventh year]. And, when they said that they were Hebrews but were called the Sidonians of Shechem, he again asked them whether they were Jews. Then, as they said they were not, he replied, “But I have given these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return and have more exact information from you, I shall do as I shall think best.” With these words, he sent the Shechemites away. Ant 11.343f.

The term “Sidonians” reoccurs in connection with Antiochus Epipha-nes in Ant 12.257-264, and Josephus might have done this in order to create an impression that the Samaritans use whatever they can for obtaining what they want from the different rulers. The allegation of opportunism also resurfaces:

But when the Samaritans saw the Jews suffering these misfortunes, they would no longer admit that they were their kin [suggenei=j autw=n] or that the temple on Garizein was that of the Most Great God [tou= megi/stou qeou/], the-reby acting in accordance with their nature [th/| fu,sei poiou/ntej avko,louqa], as

112 M. Kartveit

we have shown; they also said they were colonists [a;poikoi] from the Medes and Persians, and they are, in fact, colonists from these peoples. Ant 12.257.7

As an historian, Josephus interprets his material and finds system and pattern. In the case of the Samaritans one of the patterns is that they were opportunists. The opportunism of the Samaritans shows itself mainly in the way they depict their origin, according to Josephus. In addition, it also showed itself in the way that they changed their relig-ion, depending on the plague that befell them. Admittedly, this was the result of a divine oracle, so what might seem a religious pragmatism was in fact divine plan. But the pattern on the human level as far as the Samaritans were concerned was visible already here, and it was re-peated several times in connection with their origin. Josephus thus makes two allegations at the same time: they profess ancestry depend-ing on the situation, and this reveals a deeper phenomenon, their op-portunism. He has a biblical source for the first instance of the oppor-tunism, the religious one, and this he can spin into a larger yarn.

Josephus provides three stories on the origin of the Samaritans:

they were brought in from the east; they were expelled from Jerusalem; and they were Sidonians.

The First Story: An Eastern Origin

The full version of the story is told only once, in Ant 9.278f., 287-291, where Josephus expounds 2 Kgs 17, and this forms the basis for the short repetitions later in Ant. Four times the same story is told, even with the same king, Salmanassar, mentioned three times, Ant 9.278f.288-291; 10.184; 11.19, 302-347; 12.257-264. This ‘myth’ is thus consistently told by Josephus.

The basic story is found in Ant 9.278f.: kai. metasth,saj a;lla e;qnh avpo. Cou,qou to,pou tino,j e;sti ga.r evn th/| Persi,di potamo.j tou/tV e;cwn tou;noma katw,|kisen eivj th.n Sama,reian kai. th.n tw/n VIsrahlitw/n cw,ran “Moving other nations from a certain river called the Chouthas—for there is a river in the country of the Persians bearing this name—he settled them in Samareia and the country of the Israelites.”8 This story is repeated in

7 Translations of Ant. 11.341, 343f; 12.257 quoted from MARCUS, Jospehus, 365. 8 Translated by BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus, 200.


Ant 10.184, only with additional information on the derivation of the name ‘Samaritans’ from the name of the landscape ‘Samaria’:

Once Salmanasses had then deported the Israelites, he settled in their place the nation of Chouthaites [to. tw/n Couqai,wn e;qnoj], who previously were in the interior of Persia and Media. Thereafter, however, they were called the Samareians [Samarei/j] getting this name from the country in which they were settled. Ant. 10.184.9

This text uses the Greek word Samarei/j and not Samarei/tai as in book 9, but in both cases they are identified as Chuthaeans. The new informa-tion here is that the name Samarei/j was adopted “because they as-sumed the name of the country in which they were settled.” Josephus interprets the name as a gentilicum formed from a geographical name.

At the time of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in the sixth century Josephus again recaptures the story:

While they [those who came to Jerusalem from the land of their captivity] were laying the foundations of the temple and very busily engaged in building it, the surrounding nations, especially the Chuthaeans, whom the Assyrian king Salmanesses had brought from Persia and Media and settled in Samaria when he deported the Israelite people, urged the satraps… Ant 11.19.10

The Israelites were deported from Samaria and the Samaritans were imported there from Chutha/Persia. They were opportunistic in rela-tion to their kinship with the Jews.

2 Kgs 17:29 refers to the שמרונים, LXX: Samarei/tai. Josephus adopts Samarei/tai in Ant 9.290, and adds Couqai/oi as the corresponding He-brew term. He then is able to use the whole biblical chapter as an ex-planation for the origin of the Samaritans. In 2 Kgs 17:24 Chutha is one of the place-names for the origin of the people deported by the Assyr-ian king into the northern kingdom after 722 BCE, and Josephus uses Couqai/oi throughout Ant 9.278f., 288-291. Samarei/tai as used by Jose-phus most likely comes from the LXX rendering of רוניםשמ . All the more conspicuous is his Hebrew name for the Samarei/tai as Couqai/oi, which is neither a translation nor a transliteration of שמרונים, but perhaps an adaptation of oi a;ndrej Couq, 2 Kgs 17:30 LXX. It seems that a Jewish expression of his day made it natural to use Couqai/oi, and that the He-brew name שמרונים for the Samaritans belongs to a later age. He thus

9 Translated by BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus. 10 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus 323.

114 M. Kartveit

adopted a polemical Hebrew term for this group and transliterated it, rather than a translation or transliteration of the more neutral שמרונים. Couqai/oi had a basis in 2 Kgs 17:30, and the application of this chapter to the Samaritans is clear in Ant 9.278f., 288-291, so indirectly he laid the foundation for the later use of שמרונים as a name for the Samaritans.

Compared with the biblical account of 2 Kgs 17, the story in Ant 9.278f., 288-291 has several characteristics. 2 Kgs 17:6 says that the As-syrian king “carried the Israelites away to Assyria,” but Josephus’ ex-pression is that he “transported the entire population to Media and Persia,” Ant 9.278. The MT also does not specify that the entire leaders-hip was exterminated, but this is his version, perhaps in order to create a parallel to 2 Kgs 25:18-21 and Ant 10.149.11 The effect of these claims in Ant 9 is that there can be no connection between the old Israelite population of the north and the Samaritans.

The deportees are all Chuthaeans, from Chutha in Persia or from Chutha, the river in Persia,12 even though 2 Kgs 17 mentions five diffe-rent peoples. Josephus interprets these as five peoples within the cate-gory of Chuthaeans. This means that the population replacing old Is-rael are all Chuthaeans = Samaritans.

The Second Story: Origin from Jerusalem and Construction of the Temple

Given that the Samaritans were deported from the east into Samaria, they receive a new element through the expulsion of the priest Manas-seh and his followers from Jerusalem. This is how the cult on Mount Gerizim came into existence. Josephus presupposes that the Samaritans existed at this time. Manasseh was married to Nicaso, the daughter of “Sanaballetēs – he had been sent to Samaria as satrap by Darius, the last king, and was of the Cuthean race from whom the Samaritans also are descended”, Ant 11.302.13 Still, the marriage of a Jerusalemite priest to a Samaritan woman causes what amounts to a second story of the origin of the Samaritans, Ant 11.302-347.

Josephus may have understood the whole incident to be modelled upon the brief remark in Neh 13:28, and the time of the incident was provided by Neh 12:22. If this is correct, Josephus expounds Neh 13:28, and dates it according to Neh 12:22. In this way he makes the construc-

11 BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus, 200. n. 1084. 12 This is the understanding in the translation of BEGG / SPILSBURY, op. cit., 200. 13 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus, 461.


tion of the temple on Gerizim taking place in the time of Darius, the last king, and dependent upon the Greek king Alexander. This would have a negative ring to Roman ears in the days of Josephus; the point of lo-cating the story to the days of Alexander has an anti-Samaritan pur-pose. Josephus tacitly corrected the Biblical chronology on occasions when he thought it appropriate.14 Thus, Josephus creates his second story by literary means, and it is futile to search for a Sanballat III. As J. Dušek has shown, there is no evidence in the Wadi Daliyeh bullae for a governor with this name at the time of the last Persian king.15

The expression ‘Shechemites’ is central to Ant 11.302-347. H.G. Kippenberg supposes a Shechemite source in Ant 11.302-347, which would be a Samaritan source, but this is unlikely in view of the par-lance earlier in Antiquities.16 The expression Sikimi/tai occurs in Ant 5.240f., 243, 247, 248, 250f., where Josephus deals with the rebellious kingdom in the North under Abimelech, and the Shechemites. Here, the MT of Jud 9:2, 6,7,18,20,23,24,25,26,39 has בעלי שכם, or אנשי שכם, and the LXX has oi a;ndrej Sikimwn/Sucem. Josephus changes to Sikimi/tai, thereby creating a link to his contemporaries in Shechem. There are thus negative associations to the name ‘Shechemites’ from early on. This expression can not reveal a Samaritan source, since it is negatively laden from the beginning. Josephus has a broad retelling of the Dinah story in Gen 34, and here also the name Sikimi/tai occurs, Ant 1.337-340. Josephus introduces us to the Shechemites by retelling Gen 34 at the beginning of Antiquities, then they appear at the time of Abimelech, and he further mentions that the rebellion of Jeroboam against Jerusalem and the son of Solomon took place in Si,kima, Ant 8.212, 225. The later Samaritans are branded by the use of the name Sikimi/tai for them. Josephus follows a practice that can be found in a series of renderings of Gen 34 from the second century BCE.

It would seem that Josephus through this parlance admits that the Samaritans had a connection to the original inhabitants of the city, and this runs counter to his first story: they are immigrants. The underlying idea might be that the city conferred her characteristics to her later in-habitants, irrespective of there being a direct descendancy. Josephus is not consistent in this matter, as he offers three stories of origin, so a genealogical connection would not have been necessary for him. The expression Sikimi/tai was negatively charged from books 1 and 5 of Antiquities, and this fits his purpose.

14 MARCUS, Josephus, Appendix B, 510f. 15 DUSEK, Les manuscrits araméens. 16 KIPPENBERG, Garizim und Synagoge, 50-57.

116 M. Kartveit

Scholars are today often inclined to believe this second explanation for the origin of the Samaritans, combined with the archaeological evi-dence from Tell Balata and the Wadi Daliyeh papyri, even if they real-ize the polemical nature of much of what Josephus writes.17 Many scholars accept the account by Josephus and try to understand the problems of the short period of nine months for the construction of the temple.18

However, the question is whether Josephus here provides accurate history, or embellishes a biblical remark in order to deliver another blow at the Samaritans. He gives as the background for this story of the temple building on Mount Gerizim Manasseh’s ambitions and his mi-xed marriage, and as the result that “whenever anyone was accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites, saying that he had been unjustly expelled,” Ant 11.347.19 A temple built for an ambitious priest living in a mixed marriage in violation of the law attracts unclean people from Jerusalem. This is the Tendenz of his story, and we should be cautious when we extract historical informati-on from it.

The Third Story: Sidonians

The third story about the origin is found twice. First, it is embedded in the second story in the way that the Samaritans—by Josephus here introduced as Shechemites—request remission for taxes in the seventh year and Alexander asks who they are.

And, when they said that they were Hebrews but were called the Sidonians of Shechem, he again asked them whether they were Jews. Then, as they said they were not, he replied, “But I have given these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return and have more exact information from you, I shall do as I shall think best.” With these words, he sent the Shechemites away. Ant 11.344.20

At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, this origin “myth”: Sidonians of Shechem, is repeated. Immediately after the passage where Josephus asserts that they are colonists from Media and Persia (Ant 12.257), we 17 KIPPENBERG, Garizim und Synagoge, 52.57-59. 18 FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 537-539. 19 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus, 483. 20 Translation by MARCUS, Jospehus, 481.


read how the Samaritans tried to alienate themselves from the Jews and pretend to be related to the Greeks:

Accordingly, they sent envoys to Antiochus with a letter in which they made the following statements. “To King Antiochus Theos Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians in Shechem. Our forefathers because of cer-tain droughts in their country, and following a certain ancient superstition, made it a custom to observe the day which is called he Sabbath by the Jews, and they erected a temple without a name on the mountain called Garizein, and there offered the appropriate sacrifices. Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king’s officers, in the belief that we follow the same practices as they through kinship with them, are involving us in similar charges, whereas we are Sidonians by origin, as is evident from our state documents…we are distinct from them [the Jews] both in race and in customs (hmw/n kai. tw/| ge,nei kai. toi/j e;qesin avllotri,wn u`parco,ntwn), and we ask that the temple without a name (avnw,numon iero.n) be known as that of Zeus Hellenios (Dio.j ~Ellhni,ou),…” To this petition of the Samarians [Samare,wn] the king wrote the following reply. “King Antio-chus to Nicanor. The Sidonians in Shechem have submitted a memorial which has been filed. Since …they are in no way concerned in the com-plaints brought against the Jews, but choose to live in accordance with Greek customs (avlla. toi/j ~Ellhnikoi/j e;qesin airou/ntai crw,menoi zh/n), we aquit them of these charges, and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenios, as they have petitioned.” Ant. 12.258-263.21

Elias Bickermann and Jonathan Goldstein claim that the documents in Ant. 12.258-264 are genuine.22 In the words of Goldstein: “Bickerman solved most of the problems of these documents and proved them au-thentic.”23

The simpler understanding of the “Sidonians”-story is that the Sa-maritans are portrayed by Josephus as opportunistic, even to the extent that they professed themselves Sidonians if they considered this oppor-tune. R. Coggins remarked that “Sidonians” may have had a negative ring to it at the time of Josephus. “Sidon” occurs in the HB in the list of peoples in Gen 10:15.19; 1 Chr 1:13 as the son of Canaan; and further in the oracles against nations in Isa 23:2. 4.12; Jer 47:4; Ezek 27:8; 28:21f; Joel 4:4; Zech 9:2; and in the text on the cup of God’s wrath in Jer 25:22. The simplest understanding of the phrase the “Sidonians of Shechem” is to assume that MT negative sentiments attached to the expression are alluded to by Josephus. As “Sidon” was the son of “Canaan,” it was not

21 Translation by MARCUS, Jospehus, 133-137. 22 BICKERMANN, Un document; GOLDSTEIN, Petition of the Samaritans, 523-539. 23 Op. cit., 524.

118 M. Kartveit

difficult to create the combination “Sidonians of Shechem.” By this combination, the Samaritans were acknowledged as descendants of the Canaanites, according to the list of nations, but forming a group which had negative associations in the HB and could be connected to Greeek customs and therefore seemed suspect in the eyes of the Romans.

Josephus’ emphasis on the “Sidonians” comes on top of his allega-tions that the Samaritans were Chuthaeans, and also apostates from Jerusalem. The three theories are hardly compatible. Taken together, these three origin “myths” are confusing. The first and third compete with each other, while the second may be combined with either of them. When Josephus presents three different explanations of the ori-gin it does not mean that they strengthen each other, but on the con-trary they weaken each other. Polemics + polemics does not add up to truth, but shows that whatever was available was used. There will be facts behind this material, but they are not identical with it. Often, scho-lars have taken the first to be the true story of the origin, and more late-ly scholars have concentrated on the second. Josephus has been taken at face value by Jews and Christians, and even by the Samaritans, when in their chronicles they modeled their own origin myth on Josephus.

Conclusions

A few methodological points can be made after this survey of some of the material.

First, to read Josephus with a priori definitions may distort the ma-terial. We must listen to the voice of Josephus on its own terms. Over-simplifying the case, one could say that we have to read Josephus as if we never heard of the Samaritans before, but knew his background and audience, his Tendenz and intentions.

Secondly, reading Josephus directly as history is not adequate, and ignores his overall plan and intentions. An attention to his Tendenz and his readers’ presuppositions is necessary before addressing history. Only after the literary work is done can one approch the historical questions.

Thirdly, we cannot be confident that Josephus will answer all our questions. He may be überfragt, but then we have to respect his terri-tory, not insist on our own.

Fourthly, to delineate his sources on the basis of his parlance has proven to be difficult. Similarly, his different designations for groups are not used according to modern definitions. Trying to find clearly defined groups behind each designation has been a cul de sac.


The temple on Mount Gerizim is not termed illegitimate, but its origin is highly dubious. Its destruction at the hands of one of Josephus’ heroes, Hyrcanus, functions as an act of piety and valour, War 1, 62f; Ant 13.254-256. Its short, 200-year existence may be sup-posed to be due to this unlawful origin and an unclean priesthood. Josephus would not give a high age for the temple of a group he dis-likes, and he attributes the license to build the temple to an enemy of Rome—Alexander the Greek—and its destruction to his hero—John Hyrcanus. If the temple was in fact from an earlier age than that of Alexander, it existed at the time of the Wadi Daliyeh-papyri and bullae, and one element in the CROSS-theory would be unfounded, namely that the temple was constructed by disenfranchised nobility from Samaria after the hellenization of that city at the hands of Alexander. The tem-ple may have been founded at a time when there was a Yahweh-temple in Samaria.

Josephus used 2 Kgs 17, Ezra 4 and Neh 12; 13 polemically and for

his purposes. His use of Neh 12; 13 implied that Jews living in mixed marriages joined the Cutheans, Ant 11.302f, opening up for the allega-tion that they were a mixed race. The use of 2 Kgs 17 in Ant 9 created the possibility that 2 Kgs 17:33 also spoke of the Samaritans: they had a mixed religion. This polemical use of Scripture might have had their origin in the attitude of the priests in Jerusalem.

Indirectly, Josephus testifies to a significant group of Samaritans, existing in his age, and probably much earlier. He presupposes that there were Samaritans in Egypt shortly after Alexander, and that they had lived in Samaria from early on. He does not criticize them for ha-ving a distinct Torah, or halakhah; it seems that they were Jewish in these respects. A distinct group with the later characteristics had not emerged at the time of Josephus, but there were people living in Sama-ria, around Mount Gerizim and focusing on this mountain, with a tra-dition that there had been a temple there. The limits around this group were not yet fixed, but they were committed to Mount Gerizim—enough to maintain hostility to Jerusalem.

Josephus used the expression “The Most High God” for the god of the Samaritan temple. This may render the divine name in a way ap-propriate to both Jews and Romans. The temple was ”unnamed,” but still dedicated to the supreme God. As the inscriptions from Gerizim were made by Yahweh-worshippers, and the name YHWH has been found on the mountain, the sanctuary there probably was dedicated to this Deity. Indirectly, Josephus allows for this.

120 M. Kartveit

Bibliography

AVIOZ, Michael, Josephus’ Retelling of Nathan’s Oracle (2 Sam 7), in: SJOT 20 (2006) 9-17.

BEGG, Christopher T. / SPILSBURY, Paul (eds.), Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, vol. 5 (Judean Antiquities 8-10), Leiden 2005.

BICKERMANN, Elias, Un document relatif à la persecution d’Antiochos IV Épiphanes, in: RHR 115 (1937) 188-223 = Studies, II, 105-35;

DUSEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av. J.-C., (CHANE 30) Leiden 2007.

EGGER, Rita, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner (NTOA 4), Friebourg 1986. FELDMAN, Louis H., A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus, in: FELDMAN,

Louis H. / HATA Göhei (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History, Leiden 1989, 330-448.

FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Berlin 1984. GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A. The Petition of the Samaritans and the Reply of Antio-

chus IV as Preserved by Josephus at AJ xii 5.5.258-64, in: IDEM II Macca-bees (AB 41A), Garden City 1983, 523-539.

HANHART, Rudolf,, Zu den ältesten Traditionen über das samaritanische Schisma, in: Eretz Israel 16 (1982) 106-115.

KIPPENBERG, Hans G., Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-suchungen zur samaritanische Religion der aramäischen Periode, Berlin 1971.

MARCUS, Ralph, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books 9-11 (Loeb Classical Li-brary No. 326), London 1937.

MASON, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament (2. ed.), Peabody Mass 2003. NODET, Étienne, Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, in: RB 95

(1988) 288-294.

Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews

ETIENNE NODET

Introduction

This study aims at showing that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the early Israelites, and not a downgraded Jewish sect as old Judean traditions and many modern scholars claim.

Three literary facts prompt an investigation and show the intrica-cies of the problem. First, there is a contradiction within Josephus’ sta-tements: in his paraphrase of the biblical account of the origins of the Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-41), he says that they have remained faithful to the worship of God “until this very day”(Ant 9.290), but much later, after the building of a temple on Mount Gerizim at the end of the Persian period, he holds that the religion of the Shechemites is just a kind of weakening Judaism (Ant 11.346). Second, Ben Sirach states that the wicked people (עם נבל) who dwell around Shechem are not even a nation (Sir 50:26), but the context is a praise of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and the high priest Simon son of Onias, who had rebuilt or repaired the temple of Jerusalem; mo-reover, according to 2 Macc 5:22 and 6:1-3, both temples were deemed to belong to “our nation”. Third, when John Hyrcanus invaded the region of Samaria, he persecuted the Samaritans instead of trying to bring them back to a decent Judaism, and destroyed their rival temple.

The Gerizim temple seems to have been a major issue for the Jews regarding the significance of the Samaritans of Shechem. This is all the more interesting because, besides the pious account in 2 Chron 3-6, neither Solomon’s temple nor the one envisioned by Ezekiel nor the work of the returnees with Zerubbabel and Haggai match the rules stated by Moses. Moreover, we learn from Ezra 3:1-6 that the whole sacrificial worship according to Moses’ laws could be performed on the restored altar, without any temple (house). It could be objected that there is one exception: on the Day of Atonement, the tenth of the se-venth month, the high priest has to enter the holy place (Lev 16:1-3), so a temple is needed. However, in the story of Ezra’s proclaiming the law of Moses to the returnees in the seventh month, there is no room for

122 E. Nodet

such a day: the people are busy studying, preparing and celebrating the Feast of Booths according to the law of Moses, that is, until the 22nd day, and then, on the 24th day of that month, comes a penitential celebration (Neh 8:13-9:1), so that the Day of Atonement is skipped over. In other words, the rationale of a temple is indeed an issue.

In such a literary context, the recent discoveries on Mount Gerizim are of groundbreaking importance. We will proceed in four steps.

1. The Gerizim Temple and its significance in the Persian period. 2. Jews and Samaritans in Hellenistic times. 3. The Jerusalem temple and the meaning of King Solomon’s works. 4. The Pentateuch was common to all; what does it say about She-chem ?

The stress will be on literary analyses; the two latter parts are biblical, while the two former involve additional sources (Josephus, archeology).

I. The Gerizim Temple: A Challenge?

Josephus relates that by the end of the Persian Period, Sanballat built a temple similar to that of Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim, and he stresses that this was the beginning of a dissident faction of less observant Jews. However, this statement does not square with other things that he says elsewhere as well as with external sources, as recent excavations there have unearthed a Yahwist precinct built in the 5th century BCE or ear-lier, which is devoid of syncretist features.1 The dating is secured through coins. In fact, there are two major levels: the upper one is a Hellenistic temple from the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, that is, after the end of the Lagid period in Coele-Syria, when, after several wars, Antiochus III (223-187) ended up conquering it. The earlier level is a large sanctuary built as a stronghold, where a huge amount of ani-mal bones has been unearthed, but without a shrine. Thus, there were one or more altars, but no cella. Interesting Aramaic inscriptions come from this level, such as “In front of God,” “In front of Yhwh;” one Heb-rew inscription in Aramaic letters reads “What Joseph offered for his wife and sons in front of Yhwh in the precinct;” the Tetragram in Paleo-Hebrew letters can be seen engraved on a stone. Many pottery shards have been collected, including some Attic stoneware from the 5th centu-ry, but no cultic figurine or image. This Persian building seems to have been in use for more than two centuries, before and after Alexander’s campaign (332).

1 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase.

Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews 123

These discoveries, which display a strong Aramaic influence with Hebrew traces, will allow a reassessment of some known literary sour-ces: 1. By the time of Zerubbabel, the Samaritans did not have a temple; 2. Josephus states that the Gerizim temple was built under Darius III (339-331); 3. During the Maccabean crisis, the Samaritans were not yet separated, but something was cropping up. Later in this essay, the meaning of the biblical temple will be dealt with, as well as the passage on the origins of the Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722.

Modern scholars distinguish between “Samaritan,” related to the Yahwist worship of Mount Gerizim and the Shechemites, and “Sama-rian” for everything connected with the city of Samaria, founded by king Omri in the 9th century, and the region around it. The rationale of the distinction is the conviction, popularized by Josephus, that the Mt. Gerizim worship has always been a late Jewish dissidence, unconnec-ted to the ancient kingdom of Israel around the city of Samaria. But if we can show that the Samaritans were ancient Israelites, such a distinc-tion becomes useless.2

1. A Problem by the Time of the Return from Exile

According to Ezra 3:1-6 the high priest Yeshua and Zerubbabel, when they arrived at Jerusalem with a sizable crowd of returnees, rebuilt the altar in its previous place and launched the whole cycle of annual burnt offerings, starting with the Feast of Booths, as it is written in the law of Moses, “although the foundations of the temple (חיכל, oi=koj) of Yhwh were not yet laid.” This worship matches the prescriptions given in Num 28-29, which obviously do not necessitate a temple. One may object that according to Lev 16:1-8 the rite of the Day of Atonement (Kippur) implies the existence of the Holy Place (or the tent of Meeting); however, the annual atonement rite described in Ex 30:10 is performed solely with the altar. This issue is discussed below.

We may observe that erecting an altar of unhewn stones (see Ex 20:25) is not a big task, as can be seen from the patriarchs’ stories, or from the restoration of the altar of burnt offering by Judas Maccabeus in 164 (1 Mac 4:44-52). In the following, the word “temple” will only be used for the closed shrine (בית, nao,j), and “sanctuary” for an open sac- 2 Extensive use has been made here of PUMMER, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, who

concludes that Josephus is not very consistent; he mainly despises the Samaritans as being of doubtful Israelite origin, and he follows their sources when they state that their religion is either true Yahwism, or a kind of downgraded Judaism.

124 E. Nodet

red place, which may include altars and other devices3 (מקדש, see Jos 24:26).

The commandment to build a temple in the promised land does not appear in the Pentateuch, even if 2 Chron 1:3 is careful to show that Solomon’s temple is the heir of the tabernacle in the wilderness. In fact, the order to build a temple comes from Cyrus4 (Ezra 1:1-3 and 6:3-5). According to Ezra 3:7-13, the construction begins, but the wording, with cedar trees from Lebanon, Phoenician workers, Levites and songs according to the directions of David, refers to Solomon’s time as disp-layed in 2 Chronicles. This can hardly be taken at face value, since the allusions to Solomon disappear in the next section (Ezra 4:1-3): the “ad-versaries of Judah and Benjamin,” after hearing that a temple to the God of Israel is being built in Jerusalem, approach Zerubbabel and Yeshua with the request to join the builders, saying: “We worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him5 ever since the days of Esar-Haddon, king of Assyria, who let us go up (המעלה) here.” But Zerubbabel and Yeshua refuse, explaining that Cyrus, king of Per-sia has commanded only them to do the job. They mention neither Mo-ses nor Solomon.

This meeting includes interesting details. First, the phrase “adver-saries of Judah and Benjamin” alludes to the rivalry between the two kingdoms after the secession of the North until the fall of Samaria in 1-2 Kings, and refers to the northern tribes of Israel, which are called “Samaritans” in 2 Kings 17:29 (שמרנים/Samari/tai, the only occurrence of the word). In contrast, for Josephus, the Samaritans, also called Ku-theans, are first the Assyrian settlers; he never connects them with Om-ri’s capital (Ant 10.184). In his paraphrase, Josephus calls the visitors “Samaritans,”6 but with his later meaning of descendants of the settlers (Ant 11.84-87).

Second, these enemies do worship God in the same way as Yeshua, that is, they perform the same sacrifices. They do not say that they des-cend from the settlers brought in by the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:24

3 In Hebrew מקדש, a sacred area, see Ex 15:17; 25:8; Jos 24:26 and below § III.3. 4 The relationship between the two versions of the decree has puzzled scholars, see

WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 6-9. 5 Following Qeré ולו with versions, and not Ketib ולא, which would mean “and not us

sacrificing since the days of A.”, an awkward sentence construction. 6 WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 49, mentions after others this interpretation. MOR,

Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period, refuses after many others to view them as Samaritans, for he accepts Josephus’ statement that they were dissident Jews who appeared at the end of the Persian Period following the Manasse-Nikaso affair (see § 2 below).


after the deportation by Sargon II in 722, but they use the verb “let (ויבאgo up” which is typical of the pilgrimages or the entry into the promi-sed land. Cyrus’ proclamation reads (Ezra 1:3): “Whoever is among you of all his people, let him go up to Jerusalem.” Moreover, the king who let them go up is not Shalmanezer (see below § III.2), but king Esar-Haddon (681-669), a son of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37). In other words, the enemies pretend to be Israelites who were sent back home many years before Zerubbabel.7 They worship God in the same way but they have no temple.

Third, the claim of the enemies has a literary follow-up. After its completion, the dedication of the temple includes sacrifices for the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17), and eventually Passover is celebrated with a remarkable conclusion (v. 22): “For Yhwh had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the temple of God.” Again, the wording of the whole inauguration is typi-cal of 1-2 Chronicles,8 but the king referred to should be Darius, king of Persia. “Assyria” should not be viewed as a sloppy mistake, but as a coded message that now the Jerusalem temple is the only one for all of Israel, including any ancient returnees. In other words, the new temple is akin to Solomon’s.

Fourth, this beautiful conclusion – one temple for all the tribes – does not satisfactorily explain the dismissal of the visitors. Zerubbabel’s argument is Cyrus’ order, which allows him to avoid any reference to Solomon. But behind this lie other considerations.

In the general context of Ezra-Nehemiah, we can see that the retur-nees profess very specific tenets, which seem to be difficult to reconcile with the customs of local Israelites. Above all, the lengthy list of the returned exiles (Ezra 2) focuses on genealogy: the people have to be Jews by birth, including priests and Levites. Some are not allowed to join, for they cannot prove their descent (v. 59-62). Circumcision is not mentioned. Thus, the true Israel is the “holy race” (Ezra 9:2) saved from Babylon, and not the “people of the land.” Such a view is held by the Prophets, too (Jer 24:1-13; Ezek 3:6-11), but with another perspective: the hope of return, not its effectiveness.

The newcomers do have special customs, which can be summari-zed around two points: a discovery of the Pentateuch in Jerusalem and non-biblical laws. According to Neh 8:1-18, Ezra proclaims the law of Moses in Jerusalem to the returnees after they have settled. This occurs

7 Jer 41:4-5 mentions Israelites that came from Shechem, Silo and Samaria to worship

Yhwh in Jerusalem. 8 See NODET, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire.

126 E. Nodet

on the first day of the seventh month, then from the second day on the people study it and learn that they have to build booths in order to dwell in them for eight days, starting on the 14th. These booths domina-te over everything, including the courts of the temple, and no sacrifice is mentioned. This Feast of Booths is deemed to be a new feature, since it is stated that “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day the sons of Israel had not done so” (v. 17). Such a reference skips over the whole period of the Judges and Kings and suggests a new beginning, as if the returnees, that is the true sons of Israel, were just arriving from Egypt. The rite itself has something to do with the prescriptions of Lev 23:39-43, which combine a feast of the ingathering at the end of the Year (see Ex 23:16) and the commandment to dwell in booths as a memorial of the journey through the wilderness.

Two points should be stressed. First, the people discover a major precept of Scripture (Lev), which was not alluded to at the time of Zer-ubbabel’s Feast of Booths according to Ezra 3:1-7, when the sacrificial cult was restored. Second, the Day of Atonement9 does not appear in this story, this all the more so since a penitential day occurs instead on the 23rd of the same month (Neh 9:1). The Day of Atonement is briefly described in Lev 23:26-32 and Num 29:7-11, with a fast, rest and sacrifi-ces, but Lev 16 expounds the ritual on a much larger scale in connection with the temple, as we said above. So we may wonder whether in the law of Moses proclaimed by Ezra the book of Leviticus is identical with the one we know.10 Another possibility could be that the story aims at introducing to the promised land a custom that was not known there, but only in the Diaspora. A clue to this can be found in an interesting difference between Philo and Josephus. The former underlines the im-portance of the booths in every place for the feast and separates them from the sacrifices in Jerusalem (Spec. leg. 1:189 and 2:204-213), while the latter, a priest from Jerusalem, ignores the booths as a family rite: in

9 The inauguration of Solomon’s temple overlaps the feast of the Booths in the 7th

month (LXX 1 Reg 8:65-66 et 2 Chron 7:8-10; the MT has been reworked in order to separate them), and the day of Atonement is absent there (1 Reg 8:4), as in the ritual of the temple of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 45:18-20).

10 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 217-220, observes that the ritual lacks details; however, there are ancient parallels that seem to exclude a late introduction of that day. Other explana-tions have been voiced. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1061-1063, admits some redaction his-tory and concludes that the rite of Lev 16:2-28 was first the story of an urgent clean-sing, which was transformed in pre-exilic times into a yearly atonement day (v. 29-34). LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, gives a status questionis, observes that there is no consensus, and surmises that it is because modern studies, focusing upon the narra-tives, neglect the literary and legal structure of Leviticus; he concludes that Lev 16 is the core of the book. So does GANE, Cult and Character.


Ant 3.244-247, when he paraphrases Lev 23:39-43, he explains that Mo-ses had told the Israelites to pitch tents in the desert, of course without any ingathering, and to make an eight-day pilgrimage feast when they have entered their homeland, without booths or tents.

Later, just before Nehemiah’s second trip, it is reported that a por-tion of the book of Moses was read to the people, and immediately “they separated from Israel all that was mixed” (Neh 13:1-3 ויבדילו כל evcwri,sqhsan pa/j evpi,miktoj), with the typical words of separation (see ,ערבGen 1:4 f.; Lev 20:24). The plain meaning is the separation from the people of mixed descent, but the passage quoted is Deut 23:4-6, which envisions those who shall not enter the assembly of Yhwh: the only nations permanently excluded are Ammon and Moab; even the Edomi-tes and Egyptians are accepted after several generations. So the conclu-sion drawn by the people runs far beyond the quotation. The authority of the written book covers a precept which is not exactly Biblical. Again, circumcision is not mentioned. From earlier stories, we learn that the opponents to Nehemiah include Sanballat the Samaritan, To-biah the Ammonite as well as prominent people of Judah, a prophetess and some prophets (Neh 6:14-18). In the sequel, Nehemiah himself, whose credentials are not indicated, expels other people from Jerusa-lem, including a son of the high priest Jehoiada who has married a daughter of Sanballat (Neh 13:28). It really seems that Israelites were expelled, and we shall see on other grounds that this was so.

Other stories and customs indicate that the link with Moses’ laws was loose. In Neh 5:1-13, during his tenure as governor, Nehemiah has to solve a problem of economic oppression among the Jews, but he ignores the laws of the sabbatical year, which correct this kind of prob-lem and are later stated in the covenant rules (Neh 10:31). In Neh 13:15-22, the core of the Sabbath commandment is to close the gates of the city in order to prevent any trade. This very form of the precept is in-cluded in the community covenant given in Neh 10:31-40, as well as others which do not match the written laws of Moses.

As for Ezra’s mission, it can be divided into two parts. First, with the approval of king Artaxerxes, he brings from Babylon a large group of exiles (Ezra 7-8). Second, he discovers that “the people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land,” so that he proceeds to put away the foreign wives (Ezra 9-10). We just saw that Nehemiah acts to the same effect. Now the trespassers, who are termed “the exile” (הגולה), include some sons of the high priest Yeshua the son of Jozadak, priests, Levites, temple atten-dants and other people. So they belong to the people who came from Babylon before Ezra. The latter’s authority is given in an odd way (Ezra

128 E. Nodet

7:1-5): his short genealogy promotes him as a kind of high priest, son of Seraya, but we learn from a longer list11 given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 that Seraya, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Jozadak or the grandfather of Yeshua. So Ezra, as a substitute or brother of Joza-dak, is set one generation before Yeshua and Zerubbabel. Again, this literary feature is not a mere mistake, but a device to put Ezra and the people he brought along with him above Zerubbabel and his returned people, and to state that he is the true heir of the pre-exilic period. The-re were two waves of migrants, or more accurately, two parties. In fact, when Nehemiah has rebuilt the walls, he sees that the city is large, but the people within it are few. Then he discovers the genealogies of those who have come first, and quotes the very list of Ezra 2.

This overall perspective of the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah has contaminated the general narrative from the beginning. Zerubbabel and Yeshua did worship according to the laws of Moses. Moreover, what has been said above regarding the long list of returned exiles fol-lows the views of Nehemiah, but this is not satisfactory, for it includes the sons of Solomon’s slaves and the nethinim, whose descent can hard-ly be Israelite. The purpose of the list is not to select only Jews, but to make sure that the people permitted to go to Jerusalem are the descen-dants of actual exiles from Israel, of whatever period. This gives ano-ther clue for the hypothesis that the “foreign” wives were just local Israelites and not daughters of “Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusi-tes” (referring to Deut 7:1), who were hardly available in the Persian period.

To sum up, so far we can identify three Israelite parties during the Persian period. The first one was called “the people of the land,” so-mewhat related to the ancient northern tribes. The second one, laun-ched by Cyrus, was a first wave of returned exiles, who eventually built the temple; they had some intercourse with the local Israelites. Later on came a third party of Babylonian reformers who did reform,12 but they stayed at some distance from the temple, albeit urging its proper func-tioning. Claiming to be the true Israel, they were adamant about sepa-ration (walls and gates, foreign wives) and enforced customs that were not quite biblical. This reminds one of the later Pharisee, whose Ara-maic name means “separated”13: they had strong Babylonian connecti-ons, insisted on genealogy and followed “oral” traditions.

11 Its length is artificial, for it has been obtained by repeating the same names, see

NODET, La crise maccabéenne 243-253. Josephus has better data (Ant 10.152-153). 12 See JAPHET, Periodization between History and Ideology. 13 See NODET, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians.


These first remarks pose some biblical problems and leave aside both chronology and the meaning of the temple: according to Ezra 5:1-2, the building of the temple was prompted by prophets, when Yeshua and Zerubbabel were somewhat idle in this respect.

2. Ezra, Nehemiah, Josephus. the Israelite Parties

For his biblical paraphrase (Ant 11.183), Josephus did not know the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Instead of the latter, his source knows Nehemiah only as a builder, not as a reformer, which matches the short praise of Sir 49:13 (Ezra is not mentioned). As for the former, his source is akin to 1 Esdras (or Esdras A’14 of Rahlfs). This Greek text is parallel to Ezra, with some omissions, changes of order or wording, and three major additions: first, 1 Esd 1 is an independent translation of 2 Chron 35-36, a passage which runs from Josiah’s Passover through a prophecy of Jeremiah’s announcing seventy years of exile; second, Zer-ubbabel, who appears by the time of Cyrus in Ezra 3, is introduced as the winner of a contest between king Darius’ pages (1 Esd 3:1-4:46); third, Neh 8:1-13a is added at the end, that is Ezra’s proclamation of Moses’ law, but without the Feast of Booths (v. 13b-17). Josephus did not know 1 Esd 115 and had a longer form of the third addition, since he mentions the Feast of Booths.

Josephus reworks the chronology. 1 Esdras gives the succession of the Persian kings as Cyrus-Artaxerxes-Darius,16 under whom the temp-le is completed. According to the Greek historians this Darius cannot be earlier than Darius II (423-404), successor of Artaxerxes I (464-424). Josephus, who knows these historians, replaces Artaxerxes with Cyrus’ son Cambyses (530–522) in order to make sure that Darius is Darius I (521-486). So the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah is adequately fulfil-led, and the succession of the high priests makes sense, since Yeshua is the son of Jozadak, the high priest deported in 587. In fact, most mo-dern scholars follow Josephus for this chronology.

From Ezra 3:2 through 5:2, Zerubbabel and Yeshua seem to have had a very long career , under Cyrus, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Artaxerxes and Darius, that is more than one hundred years. However, their posi-tion is not quite clear, for according to Ezra 1:7-8, Cyrus consigned the 14 On the reasons to believe that 1 Esdras reflects an earlier version of Ezra, see SCHEN-

KER, La Relation d’Esdras; BÖHLER, On the Relationship. 15 See NODET, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe, LX. 16 Ezra 4:6 adds Xerxes (486-465) between Cyrus and Artaxerxes, but this does not

affect the discussion here.

130 E. Nodet

temple vessels to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, but immediately after this, Zerubbabel appears as a kind of governor of Judah under Cyrus (Ezra 3:1). Many commentators have concluded that the same man had both names.17 Later on, in the second year of Darius, the pro-phets Haggai and Zechariah urged Zerubbabel and Yeshua to start the construction (Ezra 5:1-2; Hag 1). By the time of the dedication of the temple, they have disappeared, while the involvement of the prophets has not weakened. Interestingly, the works are completed according to the “decree of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes the king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). The wording suggests that the first two ones were charac-ters of the past. The context indicates that this Artaxerxes was not the first one, an opponent to the rebuilding of Jerusalem18 (Ezra 4:17-22), but Artaxerxes II (404-358), son of Darius II. This would mean that the inauguration took place in the 4th century.19 All this indicates that Zer-ubbabel and Yeshua provide a literary continuity from Cyrus through Darius II, and maybe later, but their direct involvement in the temple building was not outstanding, to say the least.

As a matter of fact, their views were far removed from what we read in the books of these prophets. According to Hag 2:2-9, in the se-cond year of Darius, Haggai receives a revelation from God to be han-ded over to Zerubbabel and Yeshua: they have to build the temple, for everything is about to be shaken, so that the treasures of all the nations will come and the temple will be filled with a splendor greater than the former one. After these events, Zerubbabel will be the (eschatological) chosen one (v. 23). Zerubbabel is supplied with a Davidic descent by secondary witnesses (1 Chron 3:19; in 1 Esdras 5:4, followed by Jose-phus; Mt 1:12), but not by the prophets.

Jozadak and other high priests are operating around an altar, while the temple, as the dwelling place of God or of God's name, has to be a radiant center. Such a broad perspective can already be found in Solo-mon’s dedication of his temple (1 Kings 8:38 LXX20). In the same way, the vision of Zech 2:12 in the same second year of Darius announces

17 Since TORREY, Ezra Studies. 18 See GARBINI, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, 53-60. 19 Ag. Ap. 1:197-199 quotes Hecateus of Abdera, who describes a walled sanctuary that

includes an altar of unhewn stones and a building with an incense altar and a cand-lestick, both in gold. Hecateus knew the beginnings of the Lagid period in Egypt. He would witness the Jerusalem temple before the repairs under Antiochus III, but the genuineness of the passage is controversial, see STERN, Greek and Latin Authors, I:22-24.

20 The MT restricts it to Israel, but this is a gloss, see SCHENKER, Septante et texte mas-sorétique, 139.


that after a disaster “many nations shall join themselves to Yhwh,” who has roused himself from his holy dwelling. Yeshua is restored in his splendor (3:5-7). An oracle says that a man called “branch,” somehow connected with “Zerubbabel,” is to build the temple of Yhwh (4:8; 6:12-13). These eschatological visions, linked to the temple, have a much broader scope than the sacrificial worship, which is costly (Zech 14:21): “And there shall no longer be a trader in the temple of Yhwh on that day.” The intervening of the foreign king Cyrus is viewed in Is 45:1-7 as the very beginning of a universal recognition of the only God. The dif-ference from the Zerubbabel narrative of Ezra 3 is blatant. It squares with the difference between temple and altar.

Incidentally, the genealogies of 1 Chron 5 and Ezra 7 are definitely of symbolic value, but they cannot be taken as accurate, which permits us not to give Yeshua too high a chronology. As for the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah, who are both related to an Artaxerxes favorable to the Jews, they – or more probably the party they represent – should be put under Artaxerxes II (404-358), not far from the completion of the temp-le.

This section allows us to refine the definition of the three Israelite parties during the Persian period, because of the prophets and the low involvement of Zerubbabel in the temple building. To the first, called “the people of the land,” should be joined the first returnees at the time of Cyrus or probably later; they do have intercourse and sacrifice upon altars like the ones on mount Gerizim. The second one, let us say under Darius II, can be called “prophetic;” its action resulted in the building of a temple, hence the later fame of Jerusalem, supposed to be the only dwelling place of God. The third party, represented by Ezra and Ne-hemiah, came later (Artaxerxes II) and launched reforms.

3. The Gerizim Temple. Josephus

The only ancient source on the building of the Gerizim temple is Jose-phus (Ant 11.302-347), but his account is difficult, for it combines seve-ral discrepant sources and has obvious legendary aspects. It is framed by some pieces of general history under Darius III and Alexander. It is convenient to divide it into two blocks. The first follows in three parts.

1. (§ 302-303) The high priest Jaddua son of Johanan (son of Jehoia-da) has a brother Manasseh who married Nikaso, a daughter of Sanbal-lat, a Samaritan satrap of Samaria. Manasseh agreed, for he wanted to get closer to Jerusalem and its fame. This happened around the time of the murder of Philip, the father of Alexander, in 336 (§ 304-305).

132 E. Nodet

2. (§ 306-308) The elders of Jerusalem, eventually joined by the high priest, object to this marriage, arguing that the misfortunes and exile were caused by such unions.

3. (§ 309-312) Then Manasseh approaches Sanballat, who, with the consent of King Darius, begins to build a temple like the one in Jerusa-lem for him on Mt. Gerizim. Manasseh hoped soon to be appointed high priest, for Sanballat was aging. Helped by Sanballat, many priests and Jews who had married in the same way join Manasseh.

Some comments are appropriate. The “elders,” who oblige Sanbal-lat to alter his plans, are reformers, since many have married Samaritan women without being faulted. The allusion to the exile suggests that this new party of “elders” has come from Babylonia recently. We saw above that Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of Sanballat, who was a son of the high priest Jehoiada; this is a different tradition of the same event, with a discrepancy of one generation. So Nehemiah, in his se-cond trip to Jerusalem, belongs to the party of the elders, who argue similarly to him, when he expels the foreign wives. He says that in spite of his wisdom, Solomon was led to idolatry by foreign wives, which was the very beginning of the fall of his kingdom (Neh 13:26; see 1 Kings 11:1-13). These foreigners are just Samaritans or local Israelites. Now the change in Sanballat's project is significant: first to get closer to the fame of Jerusalem, then to build a parallel temple. The fame is lin-ked to the temple, not to the altars that had been extant for a long time , as shown by the recent excavations.

From a literary point of view, this story implies that the reformers showed up some time after the completion of the temple, which mat-ches the conclusions in the previous section.

The second block, which is introduced by Alexander’s victory over Darius at Issus in 333 (§ 313-317a), is more complex, for what concerns the Gerizim splits into two narrative threads that can hardly be reconci-led.

1. (§ 317b-320): Alexander, besieging Tyre, sends to the high priest of Jerusalem for help, but the latter refuses out of faithfulness to Darius.

2. (§ 321-325): Sanballat abandons Darius, goes to Tyre with eight thousand men and submits to Alexander. He explains that he wants to build a temple in order to divide the power of the Jews. With Alexan-der’s consent, he builds it in nine months and dies by the time Alexan-der, after taking Tyre and Gaza, heads to Jerusalem to punish the high priest for his refusal.

3. (§ 326-339): The legend of Alexander coming to Jerusalem, chan-ging his mind miraculously after seeing the high priest of God, and


granting favors to the Jews in Judea, Babylon and Media. Many Jews join him on his way to Egypt.

4. (§ 340-345): Hearing of the favors granted to the Jews, the Samari-tans come and meet him to receive the same treatment, proclaiming themselves to be Jews and inviting him to see their temple. Alexander, who never heard of them, asks who they are; being told that they are Hebrews but not Jews, he refuses, but takes Sanballat’s soldiers to settle them in Egypt.

5. (§ 346-357): After Alexander’s death, the Gerizim temple remai-ned and attracted Jews expelled from Jerusalem for violating the laws.

From the side of the Samaritans, there are two stories, with a kind of bridge formed by Sanballat’s soldiers. In the first story with Sanbal-lat, the Samaritans are somehow Jews with more lenient laws if we follow the previous block and the conclusion here; their temple is new. In the second one, without Sanballat, the Samaritans are not Jews but are faithful to the laws, and their temple was extant before Alexander’s arrival. One may observe that the Gerizim temple is built in a very short time span, and that Sanballat’s death happens at the right time.

Now if we remove Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem as being legenda-ry, the sum total of the story around two points is clear. First, Alexan-der has taken some Samaritans or Hebrews to settle them in Egypt but has not touched their laws. Second, the Gerizim construction remains connected with Sanballat, but not with Alexander. If this is the case, the first block above indicates that it has been done with the consent of a King Darius, but the chronological frame given by Josephus, the end of the Persian period, is quite artificial, for the event is linked to the action of the party of the “elders,” which above was put under one Artaxer-xes.

Regarding Alexander’s campaign, ancient sources21 do speak of Samaria, but not of Jerusalem. On his way to Egypt, he actually besie-ged Tyre and then Gaza, and at some point his general Parmenion ap-pointed one Andromachus commander in Coele-Syria. But the latter was assassinated by the Samaritans. When Alexander returned from Egypt in 331, he punished the offenders and settled Macedonian colo-nists in Samaria. Josephus’ account implies some kind of meeting bet-ween Alexander’s staff and the Samaritans, but ignores these facts; however, the discovery in 1962 of some two hundred skeletons in a cave in the Wadi Daliyeh22 (southern Samaria) with papyri and coins

21 See SCHÜRER / VERMES, History of the Jewish People, 160. 22 See the major study of DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh.

134 E. Nodet

dating to the end of the Persian period seem to witness to a harsh pu-nishment.

By the time of Alexander, we clearly see two parties. The more an-cient is Israelite in the proper sense, with priests and two temples. It is the outcome of three phases: early Israelite worship on altars, building of the Jerusalem temple (prophets), copying it on Mt. Gerizim. The more recent is the party of the “elders” in Jerusalem, which strives to promote a pure Judaism. It has been related to Ezra and Nehemiah. In Ant 11.140-145, Josephus paraphrases the expulsion of the foreign wi-ves by Ezra (Ezra 9:1-2; 1 Esd 8:65-67) with the same allusion to the cause of the disasters. Ezra acts after a denunciation of intermarriage23 by “the officers” (שרים, hgou,menoi), in whom we can recognize the “el-ders.” Josephus does not see a relationship between this and the Nikaso story, for since he closely follows his source, he understands that the matter is plainly due to foreign wives and concludes that Ezra’s reform remained fixed for the future. This indicates that even for him all the “foreign wives” around the Nikaso affair were Samaritan.

4. High Priests, Sanballat, Chronology

The succession of the Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period is not very clear. The main lists are given somewhat independently of each other in Neh 12:10-11 and Ant 11.297 and differ as regardsone name (Jonathan/Johanan); some fragments appear elsewhere. Within Neh 12 we note some discrepancies; rather than plain sloppiness, they could be a sign that the high priests are not too important in a book whose major character is Nehemiah, a layman.

23 Contrarily to his source, Josephus only speaks of the purity of the priests, but this

was a major issue for him and his time (Ag. Ap. 1:30-31), see SCHWARTZ, Doing like Jews.


Neh 12:10 f. Neh 12:22 Neh 12:23 Neh 13:28 Ezra 10:6 Ant 11.297 f.

Yeshua (Yeshua) Joiakim (Joiakim) Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Joiada Joiada Johanan Joiada Johanan Joiada Jonathan Johanan (Manasseh) Johanan

+Joshua Jaddua Jaddua Jaddua

+Manasseh

The Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period. Josephus, who is very careful about this succession, states that Jozadak was in charge by the time of the deportation (Ant 10.150), and that Jad-dua’s tenure extended until Alexander’s arrival, that is six generations in some 255 years. This is not impossible,24 but other considerations have to be introduced.

The study of the story of Alexander has shown that the constructi-on of the Gerizim temple, linked to Sanballat, was completed under a King Darius. As for the legend of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and his greeting the high priest Jaddua, it cannot be conclusive. But there are other clues. The main one is that the high priest Johanan was in charge in 410, under Darius II, for he is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri.25 So Jaddua must definitely be severed from the time of Alexander. A confirmation can be found in the same Elephantine document: it is a letter to Bagohi, the governor of Judea, and Josephus reports a very strange event during the tenure of both Johanan and Bagohi (Bagoas), but under one Artaxerxes; either Josephus confused the kings or the episode happened after Darius’ death under his successor Artaxerxes II (404-358).

Other clues entail problems. Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of Sanballat, one of his permanent enemies, under one Artaxerxes, but according to Josephus, this son-in-law, whose name was Manasseh was expelled by the “elders” under the last Darius. The same Elephantine document mentions Sanballat (line 28) as governor of Samaria and his sons Delayah and Shelemyah; some commentators have surmised that Sanballat was already dead and that one of these sons was his succes-sor. In any case, he was in charge under Darius II and perhaps before.

24 So concludes VANDERKAM, From Yeshua to Caiaphas. 25 COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30-31, 108-122.

136 E. Nodet

The Wadi Daliyeh documents mention a governor Sanballat in charge at the beginning of the 4th century. All these data cannot be reconciled without some assumptions.

Persian Kings

Josephus

Early

Synthesis26

(Elephantine)

Further

Synthesis27

(W. Daliyeh)

Dušek

(Elephantine,

W. Daliyeh)

A New

Proposal

(altar/–temple)

Cambyses 529

Darius I 521

Samaritans

Jerusalem

temple

(altars)

Xerxes 486 Ezra

Samaritans

Nehemiah

Artaxerxes I

464

(Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat I,

Nehemiah,

Nikaso I,

Gerizim

Sanballat,

Nehemiah

Nehemiah I

(governor)

Darius II 423 Sanballat I,

(Nehemiah)

Sanballat,

Nikaso,

Gerizim

Prophets

Jerusalem

temple

Sanballat

Johanan

Artaxerxes II

404

(Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat II Bagohi

“Elders”

Ezra-Neh II

Gerizim temple

Artaxerxes III

358

Bagohi Sanballat II Jaddua

Darius III 338 Sanballat,

Nikaso,

Nikaso,

Gerizim

Sanballat III

Nikaso II

Alexander 333 Gerizim Onias

Some views on Sanballat

– Josephus, who wants to stress the continuity with the pre-exilic period, locates Ezra and Nehemiah under Xerxes, after the completion of the Jerusalem temple under Darius I. But after this, he has only Esther to fill up the period until the Bagohi story.

26 Taken up by ESHEL, Governors of Samaria. 27 CROSS, The Papyri and their Historical Implications.


– After the discovery of Elephantine, it is clear that Sanballat under Darius II could not be identical with the one of Josephus, hence a first doubling by papponymy, in order to maintain the succession of the high priests (according to Josephus).

– The papyri from the W. Daliyeh mention Sanballat somewhere in between, hence a tripling by papponymy, in order to save both the Jerusalem temple under Darius I and the succession of the high priests.

– Then a new synthesis was suggested, based solely on archaeolo-gical evidence (documents, excavations). Josephus and Ezra-Nehemiah are discarded as unreliable, so that only one Sanballat survives. Howe-ver, the link between Sanballat and the Gerizim temple is not very clear.

– This new suggestion embraces both the antiquity of the Samari-tans and the later fame of Jerusalem by introducing for the cult a dis-tinction between the altar, that is the Pentateuch requirement, and the temple as God’s dwelling place, a later feature which appeared first in Jerusalem and was copied on Mt. Gerizim. This way, the general outli-ne of Josephus’ non-biblical accounts, but not his chronology, makes sense in connection with the action of the “elders” and Sanballat’s pro-jects. As we shall see below, the man Nehemiah has to be split into the builder (Sir 49, Josephus) and the reformer, who is akin to the “elders.”

5. Ezra, Nehemiah. The Characters and the Books

But more has to be said on the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, for they inclu-de much more than the reformers.28 For political reasons Artaxerxes I was opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem but not of the temple (Ezra 4:17-23); the conclusion says that work on the temple ceased, but this is a redactional wrapping, since it is actually supposed to have begun under Cyrus. So the Artaxerxes who sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusa-lem (Neh 2:6) can hardly have been the same king; it seems that he should have been Artaxerxes II, under whom the construction of the temple was completed. However, he was working in Jerusalem by the time of the high priest Elyashib, father or grandfather of Johanan, the high priest in charge by the time of Darius II. Therefore, he was actually sent by Artaxerxes I, who changed his mind. This is not impossible, since in his letter to the local officials he tells them to decree that the city not be rebuilt until he himself has issued a decree. Now, according to Neh 5:14, Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judah from the 20th

28 See ESKENAZI, In an Age of Prose.

138 E. Nodet

to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, and later obtained a leave for his second trip (13:6). As for Ezra, in King Artaxerxes' seventh year, he was sent (Ezra 7:8) with the mission to enforce the laws of his God everywhere, and there is a list of priests and Levites of different periods (Neh 12:12-26), which concludes: “These were in the days of Joiakim son of Yeshua son of Jozadak and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest scribe.” So they must have been contemporaneous.

But such a conclusion is unlikely. If we take an overview of the book of Nehemiah, we obtain a clear picture: after Nehemiah as gover-nor has rebuilt Jerusalem and restored some social order, Ezra pro-claims the law of Moses, then follows a covenant, and at the end, after various lists, Nehemiah comes back to enforce the new regulations; the city walls symbolize the separation demanded by the law. But such an outline is a construct, since according to the dates given, they cannot have been contemporaneous. Scholars have tried to put Ezra before Nehemiah under the same Artaxerxes,29 or Nehemiah before Ezra un-der two different kings,30 but neither solution works properly, for in each case, the historians must omit some passages in their syntheses in order to avoid contradictions.31 Now if we look at Nehemiah’s second trip, as a reformer, it displays at least two strange features: first he ob-tains a leave from the king, with no special mission or authority; howe-ver, he vigorously realizes his reforms without any opposition. Second, the king is named “Artaxerxes king of Babylon,” instead of “Persia,” a significant anachronism. Thus, in spite of the fact that the story is writ-ten as memoirs in the first person32 (see 2 Macc 2:13), this is just a piece of literature, built upon some facts or traditions, which aims at showing that the reforms were successful.

The above discussion of the passages from Josephus has shown that the party of the “elders”, to which belongs Nehemiah as reformer, ap-peared after the completion of the Jerusalem temple, that is under Ar-taxerxes II. So Nehemiah's second trip could easily be put under “Arta-xerxes,” giving a sense that he still had the authority of a governor. So we may call this reformer “Nehemiah II.” Incidentally, as regards the redaction history, it should be remembered that Josephus did not know of Nehemiah as a reformer. As for Ezra, who acts only as a reformer, he

29 Thus DE VAUX, Israël and CROSS, A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, with

three Sanballats. 30 Since VAN HOONACKER, Néhémie et Esdras; see the review of WIDENGREN, The

Persian Period, 504 f. 31 STERN, The Persian Empire, 74; ACKROYD, The Jewish Community in Palestine, 138

n. 2 and 148. 32 See WRIGHT, Rebuilding Identity.


is aptly put under the same Artaxerxes, and there is a minor clue to this effect: according to Ezra 9:6 Ezra, after making a covenant with the people, withdrew to “the chamber (לשכת) of Johanan son of Elyashib,” where he spent the night fasting and praying. This was not a private house, and he had no meeting with anyone. This chamber seems to have been named after a late high priest, who was in office under Dar-ius II.

The actual Nehemiah was a governor and a builder, while the re-former is a kind of impersonation with his memoirs. We may ask whe-ther Ezra, a reformer who wrote memoirs in the first person, was a similar fiction. In the praise of the Fathers in Ecclesiasticus Sirach, Ne-hemiah is given one line as the restorer of the walls and the gates and the houses, but not as a reformer, and Ezra the reformer is ignored (Sir 49:13). In the sequel, Simon son of Onias is praised for having repaired the temple (50:1-2). The author addresses his wisdom book to anyone who fears God (1:1-14), as the translator stresses in his prologue. All this forms a pattern in striking contrast with the mindset of the refor-mers, who in some way are not deemed to be “Fathers.”

Over against this, the book of Nehemiah conveys the impression of an overall acceptance of the reforms.33 However, we can see that a struggle between parties has been smoothed over, for some significant traces have been left. Nehemiah is a layman from Babylon who wants the worship to be performed properly, but the temple is never his main concern. He focuses on the walls. Once they are repaired and the doors set up, gatekeepers, singers and Levites are appointed at the gates (Neh 7:1-2; 13:22); the walls are solemnly dedicated, with two groups in pro-cession visiting the gates and reaching the temple at the end to offer sacrifices. But if we follow the movement on a map, it appears that the enclosure of the dedicated walls does not include the temple itself. A separate district has been created, with all the signs of a holy place.

This should not be surprising, as the construction work of Nehe-miah splits into two different pictures. He is officially sent by Artaxer-xes, who grants him every kind of help, but when he comes to Jerusa-lem, he first hides for three days and then secretly, by night, inspects some dilapidated walls and gates within the same small area of the later dedication (Neh 2:8-16). In the sequel he recovers his position as governor and launches the work (2:17-18), but again the construction is run at two levels: on the one hand, the high priest Elyashib presides over an overall overhaul of the walls and gates, having recruited wor-kers from almost everywhere in Judea, but Nehemiah himself is not

33 See WRIGHT, A New Model.

140 E. Nodet

mentioned (Neh 3). On the other hand, Nehemiah and his followers finished the wall in fifty-to days (6:15), in spite of opponents who for-ced him to organize a defense system day and night (4:10-23). In fact, there were two kinds of opponents: from outside the city, Sanballat, Tobiah and others are very vocal from the outset, after Nehemiah has received his mission (2:10); from the inside, we hear of prominent Jews, a prophetess and some prophets (Neh 6:16-19), who join the first group. Thus, in the book Nehemiah the reformer has put on the garments of the governor, so that the general outline is consistent, but behind this, we see that the party of the Babylonian reformers has set up a special protected area of reformed people. There is no reason to separate Elyashib’s work from the governor Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I, but the reform party surged up later.

The Books of Chronicles display a set of views that can be summa-rized in a couple of tenets: the law of Moses is cited everywhere; the Jerusalem temple, which to a large extent reproduces Moses’ sanctuary in the wilderness, is the cultic center of all the tribes of Israel; the wors-hip is organized according to David’s regulations; at the end, Cyrus’ decree is quoted, with an invitation to whoever belongs to all the peop-le of the God of heaven to go up to Jerusalem. The ideology is that men are rewarded according to their deeds, or that they build their own fate, as shown by the reworking of the story of Josiah: his unexpected death (2 Kgs 23:29-30) is now the result of his stubborn refusal to obey God (2 Chr 35:20-25). Many scholars have thought that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written by the “Chronicler,”34 but all this has no-thing to do with the goals of the reformers, who focus upon a narrow Israel. However, a layer of these views has surfaced in Ezra 3 and 6 – let us call it a final editing –, when the temple construction begins in a liturgical manner (3:10-13), and when the worship is set up according to the rules written in the “book of Moses,” that is Chronicles, with its references to the law of Moses; sacrifices are made for the twelve tribes. In the book of Nehemiah the same layer is to be detected in the liturgi-cal inauguration of the walls, and maybe in the various genealogies of priests, Levites and other people given at random places.

6. Conclusion

The starting point of this study was the similarity between Zerubba-bel's and Yeshua's worship without a temple Yeshuawhen they arrived

34 Until the study of JAPHET, The Supposed Common Authorship.


in Jerusalem (Ezra 3:1-6), and what has been discovered of the Samari-tan sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim without a temple, dating from the 5th cen-tury or earlier. This has prompted a study of Josephus on the Samari-tans and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Josephus is not very accurate and the stories he reports are always suspect as regards legen-dary or biased reworking, but instead of focusing upon unreliable events, we have considered that they have been remembered and transmitted through patterns of thinking that were provided by some-times conflicting institutions and customs.

Ezra and Nehemiah are very complex books with a difficult redac-tional history. They efficiently resist any easy narrative or historical interpretation, in spite of many references to Persian kings. We have looked for traces of institutions and customs, but also believe that unli-ke Josephus’ works, these books have been carefully written, which means that any discrepancy or strange wording is not a mistake but a kind of “signal” inviting further scrutiny – very biblically: the stories always have an aspect of broken history, as if they were sloppily writ-ten.

The discoveries of Elephantine, Wadi Daliyeh and Mt. Gerizim ha-ve provided additional clues and refinement for dating. Together with the literary sources, they have allowed us to follow the scholars who accept one Sanballat only, the powerful Samaritan governor in charge during the reigns of Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and perhaps Artaxerxes II. The implication has been to discard to a large extent the historical au-thority of the canonical books and to have a very cautious approach to Josephus because of his lack of critical discernment. Then, after dealing with some of their “signals,” it has been necessary to distinguish bet-ween the historical Nehemiah, a builder, and a symbolic reformer to whom his authority is attributed (called Nehemiah II)

Some conclusions have emerged. – We have shown the usefulness of the distinction drawn between

the altar upon which all sacrifices can be performed according to the law of Moses, and the temple as the dwelling place of God, demanded by foreign kings (from Cyrus to Darius II) and the prophets, with a flavor of universal monotheism. Erected first in Jerusalem around the end of the 5th century, it was copied on Mt. Gerizim some time later.

– Three Israelite parties have been identified. The first one, the most traditional, is represented at various periods by Zerubbabel, Yeshua and Sanballat. They had parallel sanctuaries without temples at Jerusa-lem and Mt. Gerizim. They are local Israelites as well as returned exiles. Incidentally, the numerous “Jewish” colonies in Egypt, including Ele-phantine, belong to this party, and should be called Israelite. The se-

142 E. Nodet

cond one, represented by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, promo-ted the building of a temple, with due respect for the high priests. The third party, represented by Josephus’ “elders” as well as Ezra and Ne-hemiah II, was of Babylonian origin and wanted reforms, including of the high priesthood; it could not accept the Samaritans. A tiny thing to begin with, it succeeded in erecting a separate, walled area. It eventual-ly overshadowed the other ones in Judea, which were merged in some way, for the later Hasmonean state as well as the Pharisees were the outcome of this trend. By the time of the Samaritans, only the first party was extant: they had neither prophets nor reformers, at least not with the same significance.

– The succession of the high priest in Jerusalem is quite clear at the beginning of the Persian period, but there is a gap at the end. We may surmise that some of them moved to Egypt because of the reform party; in any case, the very name of the first priest of the Hellenistic period after Alexander, Onias, indicates an Egyptian connection, as we shall see below. It may well be that the legend of Alexander bowing down before a Jerusalem high priest reflects the latter's help in this respect, but no evidence is available and it is doubtful that he actually created a Jewish quarter in Alexandria, in spite of a seemingly clear reference in an edict of Claudius issued in 42 CE (Ant 19.279-285).

These conclusions involve some biblical problems35 of which the most conspicuous is a permanent Judean or Jewish bias.36 For the pre-sent study, three should be considered, besides the peculiar features of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles: first, the significance of Solomon’s temple, for the Persian restoration hardly mentions it, if we accept the literary layer of the “Chronicler;” second, the position and authority of Deuteronomy, which the returned exiles seem to have discovered in Jerusalem (Neh 13:1-3), and which demands only one “chosen place;” third, the possibility of a sacrificial cult without a temple renews the question of the origin and authority of the chapter on the Day of Ato-nement37 (Lev 16).

35 In this respect, it is useful for any text to draw a distinction between redaction and

religious or legal authority, see KNOPPERS / LEVINSON, The Pentateuch as Torah, 1-19.

36 The issue is clearly defined by NIHAN, The Torah between Samaria and Judah. 37 In this respect, the proposal of Mary DOUGLAS (Leviticus as Literature) is suggestive:

considering that the only two pieces of narrative are transgressions with major con-sequences (Lev 8-10 and 24:10-22), she sees them as representing the veils that di-vided the temple into three parts. This view has been criticized (see the review of LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, 220-228), but one of its merits is to include the “chosen place” of Deut in the Holy of Holies (see Lev 26-27).


In order to shed some more light upon the Persian period,38 the next step will be a discussion of the adjacent periods; we will consider first the Hellenistic period, to see how the relationship between Samaritans and Jews developed, and then some pre-exilic features around the sig-nificance of the Solomon temple.

II. Jews and Samaritans in the 2nd Century. The Onias Temple

By the time of the Maccabean crisis, two full-scale temples were extant, Jerusalem and Gerizim. The author of 2 Macc 5:22-6:3 does not find fault with this. For him, after the fall of Onias, the best high priest, the Hasmonean high priesthood and state are unimportant,39 for he states that since Judas Maccabeus’ victory over Nikanor in 161, Jerusalem has been in the possession of the Hebrews (15:37), while we learn from 1 Macc 13:51 that the independence of Jerusalem did not happen before 142, with Simon son of Mattathias. The book is in fact a foundation narrative for the commemoration of this victory on the 13th of Adar, defined as “the day before Mordechai’s day.” This reference to the feast of Purim, which is not given in the parallel story in 1 Macc 7:49, is quite interesting, for the book of Esther reports a persecution of the Jews in Susa followed by a providential salvation on the spot, without any allusion to a homeland (Judea, Jerusalem). Passover, as the beginning or end of a liberation toward a promised land, is ignored, since Esther proclaims a three-day fast on the 13th of the first month,40 while Passo-ver falls on the 14th. The author of 2 Maccabees has the perspective of a pilgrim. For him, the presence of God in the temple matters much more than the altar and sacrifices.

The origin of the new Hasmonean dynasty was Judas Maccabeus, an heir of the reformers of the third party,41 who could not accept any Hellenization. The Samaritans had to deal with this, as we can see in two episodes, one in 166 during the Jewish uprising, the other around 150 in Alexandria, with a contest as regards the right temple. 38 VELÁZQUEZ, The Persian Period, poses goods questions, but still focuses upon Judah. 39 See Robert DORAN, Temple Propaganda. The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees,

Washington, CBA, 1981, p. 84-90. 40 N. L. COLLINS, “Did Esther Fast on the 15th Nisan ? An Extended Comment on

Esther 3:12”, RB 100 (1993), p. 533-561, strives to maintain that Esther did celebrate Passover, by introducing calendar discrepancies; but this is impossible, for the only reference is the actual moon, as clearly seen by b.Meg 15a.

41 See NODET, La crise maccabéenne, 212-242.

144 E. Nodet

1. The Samaritans’ Distrust

Josephus introduces and quotes a petition (supplique) by the Samari-tans to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king (175-164), at the time when Judas Maccabeus set up his rebellion (Ant 12.258-264).

To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians,42 who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent droughtss43 in their country, and following a certain ancient superstition, made it a cus-tom to observe of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sab-bath. And when they had erected a temple (iero,n) without a name at the mountain called Gerizim, and there offered the proper sacrifices. Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king’s offi-cers, believing that through kinship with them we practice as they do, ma-ke us liable to the same accusations, although we are originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech you, our bene-factor and savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nikanor, the procurator of your affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused of, since we are aliens from their nation and from their customs ((e;qesin); but let the temple without a name be called that of Jupiter Hellenius. When this is do-ne, we shall be no longer disturbed, and shall be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to you.

Antiochus’ acceptance is also quoted, with a date corresponding to summer 166, and we can surmise that the petition was issued that same year. The authenticity of this letter has been established by E. Bicker-man,44 but many scholars find it difficult to understand, for it seems to be a plain statement of apostasy, as stressed by Josephus himself in his introduction. But this cannot be reconciled with other documents that witness to the faithfulness of the Samaritans. In fact, it is a fine piece of diplomacy, carefully worded. The key to understanding it is the inten-ded meaning of “Jews.” By underlining their ancient local origin, the Samaritans point to the opposite for the Jews. This becomes clear if we consider the two Jewish parties in Jerusalem: a more ancient one (in-cluding the prophetic trend) akin to the Samaritans, and newcomers,

42 By metaphor, Sidon became the whole of Phoenicia, so that the Phoenicians were

named Sidonians, see Iliad 6:290, 23:743; Odyssea 4:84. On coins minted by Antio-chus IV Epiphanes, Tyre is named “metropolis of the Sidonians”. The king of Sidon had the title “king of the Sidonians of Sidon.” A Marissa inscription mentions Sido-nians. See APICELLA, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique.

43 Variant: “because of frequent pestilences.” 44 BICKERMAN, Un document relatif.


Ezra-like returnees from Babylonia, who brought along specific cus-toms and rejected any kinship with local Israelites. The petition is care-ful to avoid any Israelite or Hebrew identity, as well as circumcision or Moses’ laws.

As for the rededication to Zeus of the anonymous temple, it is a minor concession. Herodotus (2.52), followed by Strabo, reports that by his time there were only some primitive small tribes left that were worshiping anonymous gods. He does not mention the Phoenician anonymous divinities, for they were always given Greek names. The inhabitants of Tyre used the Greek name for their protector Herakles, but at home he was invoked as “Master of Tyre” or “King.” Zeus and Herakles were just the Greek names of Baal shamen and Melqart.45 Ho-wever, a new name could sometimes come along with a new cult. For instance, Menander of Ephesus, an historian of the 2nd century BCE, reports that king Hiram I of Tyre altered the sanctuaries on a broad scale: he joined the island where a temple of Zeus stood to the city, and demolished the previous Phoenician temples in order to build new ones to Herakles and Astarte and worship them properly. (Ag. Ap. 1:118-119).

In other words, a mere Hellenization of the anonymous God at Ge-rizim was not the sign of a new cult, for there is no allusion to any change of the priests or the buildings, all the more so since it is not qui-te clear whether they used their closed temple for purposes of worship. In his carefully worded reply, Antiochus seems to understand that the Samaritans were suggesting a full-scale Hellenization (§ 264): “Since they choose to live in accordance with the Greek customs ((e;qesin), we acquit them of these charges and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenios.” This fine wording amounts to saying that for political purposes, the king accepts the distinction between Jews and Samaritans.

2. A Conflict in Alexandria. The Onias Temple

The second story, cited and then reported by Josephus (Ant 12.10 et 13:74-79), is a quarrel between Jews and Samaritans that happened in Alexandria at the time of king Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-146). The contest was around who had the only correct temple (iero,n) according

45 See BONNET, Melqart.

146 E. Nodet

to the laws of Moses.46 The plaintiffs requested a judgment by the king in his council and demanded that the losers be put to death. The names of the defenders of both parties are given. Josephus only gives an outli-ne of the speech of the Jews. They invoked the fame of their temple among the kings of Asia and the succession of the high priests, each one receiving the office from his father. Nothing is said of the argu-ments of the Samaritans, but they lost. A significant detail is that the Jews were afraid and resentful that anyone should seek to destroy the temple of Jerusalem. Such a fear indicates that the contest was launched by the Samaritans.

The quarrel has to be put in perspective. Almost nothing is known of an explicit presence of Samaritans in Egypt,47 but there were many Israelites. Let us consider first the Jewish arguments. The succession of the high priests since Aaron was a pet topic of Josephus’ and he had more pieces of information than what we can extract from the canonical books (see Ant 5.361-2 and 10.152-3), while no reliable source exists on the side of the Samaritans. As for the fame of the temple,48 it was a fact known by ancient historians and somehow related to the aim of the prophets. However, this has nothing to do with the laws of Moses, whereas these could definitely favor the Samaritans: first, there is no mention of Jerusalem,49 but Shechem is well known ever since Abra-ham (Gen 12:6); Jacob bought a plot of land there and built an altar (Gen 33:19-20, see Jn 4:5-6). Moreover upon their entry into Canaan, the sons of Israel are ordered to put a blessing on Mt. Gerizim and a curse on Mt. Ebal (Deut 11:29), which is done later with Joshua (Jos 8:30-35). The “chosen place” of the legal part that follows (Deut 12:5 etc.) sug-gests a place in the vicinity of Shechem, but no name is given, nor any

46 The contest implies that both parties had the same text (Greek and/or Hebrew), as

supposed by the Letter of Aristeas (§ 30 and 311). As for the actual texts, there are so-me 1900 contacts (mostly minor) of LXX-Samaritan against the MT. See ANDERSON, Samaritan Pentateuch.

47 See VAN DER HORST, Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity; PUMMER, Samaritans in Egypt,. These studies mainly rely upon proper names, but it should be stressed that any Israelite name can be either Samaritan or Jewish.

48 The Hellenistic writers know only of the Jews and ignore “Israelites” as well as “Samaritans,” which is probably due to this fame. In Ant 11.133 Josephus ventures another explanation: only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are subject to the Ro-mans (in Asia and Europe) while the ten others never returned to their homeland; there are countless myriads of them beyond the Euphrates.

49 In Gen 14:18 Melchizedek is מלך שלם (LXX basileu.j Salhm). Josephus transcribes Soluma and states the place was later called ~Ieroso,luma “Jerusalem, Holy Solyma”) by adding the Greek prefix iero- (Ant 1.180; Ag. Ap. 1.174). PHILO, Leg. alleg. 3.82, translates “roi de paix,” without a place name.


indication for a sanctuary. But even if we admit that the original phrase was in the past tense (50,בחר God “has chosen”) and not in the future, as in the MT and LXX (יבחר “will choose”), there is a discontinuity bet-ween Deut 11 and 12: the “chosen place” and the priests-Levites who teach appear only in the legal block51 (Deut 12-26) inserted in the long discourse of Moses, which culminates with the arrival at Ebal and Geri-zim. Josephus himself, in paraphrasing this passage, does not venture to give a name. He speaks of the “city in which they shall establish the temple” (Ant 4.203). Even rabbinic tradition displays some flexibility: the place can be changed “if a prophet so decides,”52 (Sifré Num 70 on Deut 12:13-14). Anyhow, there should be only one “chosen place,” and the quarrel must have been grounded upon Deuteronomy.

In any case, the arguments adduced should be considered to be in-conclusive, and the victory of the Jews must have depended on political considerations. The context provides some clues. A first idea is given by two letters sent by the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt, ur-ging them to pay due attention to the temple of Jerusalem and to celeb-rate its dedication53 (2 Macc 1:1-10). The second letter, dated 124, quotes a previous one of 142, which apparently did not have the expected re-sults. These dates are interesting: in 142 the high priest Simon (144-134) was recognized by Rome (1 Macc 15:15-24), which means that the yo-ung Hasmonean state began to be taken seriously. The Romans were interested in having a kind of buffer between Egypt and Syria. The second letter was sent at the time of John Hyrcanus,54 Simon’s son (134-

50 See SCHENKER, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il, who concludes from ancient translations

that the Samaritan reading is more original (Neh 1:9 quoting Deut 30:24 as an indi-rect witness). The other form is Judean, and is meant to prepare God’s revelation to Solomon (1 Kgs 8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel to build a house, that my name might be there, but I chose David…” (See below § III.1). DE VAUX, Le lieu que Yahwé, thinks that the anonymous place refers to Jerusalem, for he quotes an El-Amarna letter from a king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh, who “has put his name upon the land of Jerusalem. He cannot abandon the land of Jerusalem”; so Jerusalem was a place where a name dwelt.

51 Deut 27 harmonizes the legal block with the speech that surrounds it. In Deut 27:9 and Moses spoke (sing.) and the priests-Levites”, the last two“ וידבר משה והכהנים הלוםwords are a gloss, see DRIVER, Commentary on Deuteronomy, XLVI-XLVII and 298.

52 The reference is probably the altar built by Elijah on Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). 53 Its authenticity has been shown by BICKERMANN, Ein jüdischer Festbrief. See NISULA,

Time Has Passed. 54 In his prolog, the translator of Ecclesiasticus says that he found the Hebrew original

in Egypt, “in the 38th year of the late king Evergetes.” This king was Ptolemy VII (170-114); so the book was found in 132, but the prologue was written after Ptole-my’s death. Si 50:26 scorns the people dwelling around Shechem. The wording re-

148 E. Nodet

103), when he was still a vassal tightly controlled by Syria. These letters indicate that the Egyptian Jews had been reluctant to accept the Has-monean rule.

The fear of the Jews as regards the contest had a very simple cause. The Jerusalem temple had been badly weakened by the Maccabean crisis, but its symbolic value still stood. For themselves, they had the temple of Onias, in Heliopolis.

Just before the quarrel, Josephus gives an account of the foundation of this temple (Ant 13.62-73). The two passages are unrelated, but they are inserted between the death of king Demetrius I of Syria en 150 (13:61) and the marriage of Alexander Balas with the daughter of King Ptolemy VI of Egypt, which took place the same year at Ptolemais-Akko (13:80-82). This Alexander returned from exile in 152, and pre-tended to be the legitimate heir to the throne of Syria. With Rome’s approval, he challenged Demetrius, who was waging a war against Egypt. His death caused a political upheaval, with some consequences for Judea. On his arrival, Alexander had appointed Jonathan son of Mattathias high priest of Jerusalem because of his military skills, but upon hearing of this, Demetrius had sought to seduce him with some favors. (1 Macc 10:6.25-45). Jonathan’s position was quite precarious, since he was appointed for political reasons only, and the high pries-thood of Jerusalem had been vacant ever since the death of Alkimus in 159 (1 Macc 9:54-57) after a three-year tenure (1 Macc 7:1-9). Jonathan managed to get invited to the wedding in Ptolemais, bringing along expensive gifts to both sovereigns, who welcomed him. This was a major promotion for himself and especially for the temple, which had become quite insignificant before this development, all the more so since it was outside of direct Egyptian influence. This was the Judean context of the quarrel, which should be dated some time before Jona-than’s elevation.

As for the Onias temple, it should be noted first that in his summa-ry of the high priestly dynasties, Josephus mentions the gap of seven years between Alkimus and Jonathan. He concedes that Alkimus was a priest of Aaronide stock, but he did not belong to the traditional dynas-ty of high priests. When he was appointed, the heir of the legitimate dynasty, King Ptolemy VI, had already granted Onias the right to build a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem in the district of Heliopolis, as

calls Deut 32:21 on the enemy threatening Israel. Si 50:1-5 has praised the work of the high priest Simon the Righteous, who repaired the temple around 200. It is hard to ascertain the genuineness of the text (see KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus, but the picture given fits very well the views of an Egyptian Jew of that time, just before the destruc-tion of the Gerizim temple.


well as the dignity of high priest (Ant 20.235-237). So during Alkimus’ life, there were two Jewish high priests: one in Jerusalem under Syrian dominion, and another in Egypt of a much more famous descent. After Alkimus’ death, Onias was the only one in charge. The appointment of Jonathan in 152 cannot have been a major event, but his recognition in 150 was. After this date, the Onias temple fades out, till a short revival after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.

Josephus gives some details about the works of Onias in Egypt. In his first account (War 7:423-432), he says that Onias “son of Simon, one of the high priests of Jerusalem” ran away to escape the persecutions of Antiochus IV and approached King Ptolemy. He told him that if he allowed him to build a temple, the whole of the Jewish nation would come over to him. Josephus comments that Onias acted out of rivalry against Jerusalem. Ptolemy accepted out of his hatred for Antiochus, who had twice attempted to invade his kingdom (in 169 and 168, see 2 Macc 5:1-14). He adds that Josephus knew a prophecy of Isaiah to this effect. Of course, this cannot be true, but the prophecy, which belongs to a very peaceful chapter, has significant variant readings (Isa 19:18.21).

In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Ca-naan […] One of the cities will be called the City of Destruction (הרס, an-cient versions and 1 Q Isaa הרס “sun,” LXX asedek ”justice”) […] They will make sacrifices, they will perform vows.

Ancient translations testify to the 1 QIsaa reading. It is most probably original and definitely refers to Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun,” but the variants are instructive. The Heliopolis settlement was or will be a disaster for the MT,55 while it is held in high esteem for the LXX, which wants to suggest a Hebrew original. The prophecy can hardly have been extant by the time of Onias, but there were some Israelite traditi-ons attached to that place. The wife of Joseph, son of Jacob, was a daughter of Potiphera, a priest of On (Gen 41:45 און MT, LXX “Heliopo-lis”). According to Ex 1:11, the Israelites in Egypt had to build the store-cities of Pitom and Ramses; the LXX adds a third one, transcribed Wn and translated `Hli,ou po,lij, which indicates a previous Hebrew word 56.הון or maybe און

55 The Targum combines both readings: “the city of the temple of the sun, due to be

destroyed,” and a similar saying is given in b.Men 110a. 56 Manetho, a priest of Heliopolis, states that a priest of the Osiris cult in that city gave

the Jews a constitution and took the name of Moses (Ag. Ap. 1.250).

150 E. Nodet

Rabbinic tradition knows the Onias temple57 (בית חוים), and connects it to the same prophecy, for the same commandments can be performed there: it is permitted under certain conditions to make sacrifices, and to fulfill the nazir vows (mMen 13:10), at least when this is not possible in Jerusalem (bMeg 10a). However, another passage states that the holi-ness of Jerusalem cannot be removed, even if the temple is not functio-ning (mMeg 1:11). The underlying controversy indicates that the questi-on was discussed. Josephus says that after the fall of Massada (73 or 74), the importance of the Onias temple was renewed. It became a kind of Zealot meeting point. Some unrest spread in Egypt, so much so that Vespasian himself ordered the governor of Alexandria to demolish it (War 7:421).

In the passage cited above, just before the quarrel, Josephus gives another account of the Onias foundation, which is parallel to the pre-vious one but with additional details. Young Onias was already in Egypt when he heard that Judea was ravaged by the Macedonian kings. He sent a request to Ptolemy, in which he explains that the Jews have many sanctuaries in Egypt (plh/qoj tw/n ierw/n) and disagree about the form of worship, and he begs that a temple (nao,n) be built in the likeness of that of Jerusalem, in order to restore harmony among the Egyptian Jews. Then Onias built the temple and found priests and Levi-tes to minister there.

Both stories have the same chronology: the temple would have been requested and built by the time of Antiochus IV, who died in 164. In his final summary of the high priests, Josephus mentions it by the time of Alkimus’ appointment in 162. Before this, he has said that the high priest Onias son of Simon (see Sir 50:1) has been supplanted by his brother Jason in 175, at the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV, and eventually murdered in 170 (Ant 12.237, see 2 Macc 4:8-40). By this time his son Onias had fled into Egypt, removing a high priestly legitimacy.

To sum up, the center of Judaism was in Egypt for several years. Obviously, the campaign and dedication of Judas Maccabeus (166-164) had no meaning for Onias, all the more so since there was a high priest in Jerusalem during the whole crisis, Menelaus (171-163), who had supplanted Jason by paying more for the office. Such a context sheds some light upon the contest with the Samaritans: they saw an opportu-nity for the Gerizim temple to prevail. In this respect, a later event is meaningful: when the Seleucid power was weakened by a fratricidal

57 The name could be Yahwist: combining “Hon” and “Yhwh” would give חוניהו and

then a shorter form חוניו (as in m.Men 13:10), or חוניה. The latter form could be trans-cribed “Honiyah,” hence “Onias” by Hellenization.


war between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus58 around 113 (see Ant 13.327), John Hyrcanus saw an opportunity to ex-pand his realm (Ant 13.254-6): southwards he annexed Idumea and circumcised its inhabitants, and northwards he conquered Samaria, Shechem and other cities; he did not have to circumcise the Samaritans, but he was careful to destroy the Gerizim temple in order to avoid any further contest as well as to keep convincing the Egyptian Jews of his legitimacy. The second letter to them about the Jerusalem temple had been sent less than fifteen years previously.

III. Solomon, Shechem, Jacob, Joshua

The Persian cultic realities are impressive, and the problem now is to assess to what extent they have inherited or altered the previous state of affairs. Three topics will be considered: Solomon and his temple, the story of the origins of the Samaritans, and the major blessings in the Pentateuch as regards their views of the tribes.

1. Salomon, his Ambiguity and his Temple

According to 1 Chron 17:1-15, David could not build the temple, but he prepared everything so that his successor would have an easy task. After having bought the threshing floor of Arauna-Ornan, he said (1 Chron 22:5): “My son Solomon is young59 and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for Yhwh must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and glory throughout all lands.” The fame depends on the “hou-se” (temple). He had received from God the plan for everything (1 Chron 28:11-19). The word for “plan” (תבנית) recalls the command-ments given to Moses in the wilderness (Ex 25:9): “According to all that I show you concerning the pattern (תבנית) of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.” When the work proceeds, various de-tails show that the temple resembles the tabernacle. For the dedication, Solomon performs sacrifices according to the laws of Moses with priests and Levites as ordered by David (2 Chron 8:13). This is somew-hat exaggerated, for he is not a priest. Later on, Kings Hezechiah and Josiah reform the cult, and the priests and Levites take their posts “ac-

58 See BARAG, New Evidence; FINKELSZTEJN, More Evidence. 59 Some mss. of 1 Kings 2:12 LXX, as well as b.Tem 14a and Jerome, Epistula 72, say that

he was 12 when he became king. According to Josephus, he was 14 (Ant 8.211).

152 E. Nodet

cording to the law of Moses” (2 Chron 30:16; 35:16), and the same is said of the restoration of the temple with Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:18). In one word, all the cultic implementations follow Moses’ rule, directly or through some additional revelations to David.

This is a major reshaping of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, which give quite another picture. According to 2 Sam 24:20-25, David did buy Arauna’s threshing floor, but there is no link to the ark of the covenant that Da-vid has brought in before (2 Sam 6:17), and he does not prepare any-thing for the temple to be built. Later, Solomon went and offered sacri-fices at Gabaon, and did the same in front of the ark when he came back to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:4-15). In this and during the construction, he hardly follows any of David’s regulations. In fact, the choice of Solo-mon as David’s heir is not very clear, for he is the youngest son (1 Kgs 1:13). Recent studies suggest that at a former stage in the story, the en-visioned heir was Adoniah, the oldest of Solomon’s surviving sons60 (see 1 Kgs 2:22).

So the story of Solomon is significant. According to 1 Kings 5:1.14, he reigned over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt, and people from everywhere came to hear his outstanding wis-dom. This means that the promises made to Abraham and Moses had been fulfilled. Then he endeavored to build a temple in seven years with the help of king Hiram of Tyre, and a palace for himself in thirteen years. Almost everything has been said about the historicity of this story.61 From a literary point of view, the main element is that the temp-le has nothing to do with Moses’ laws. This is made plain from the de-dication speech of Solomon himself, who quotes God’s words (1 Kgs 8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out from Egypt, I have chosen no city from any tribe of Israel in which to build a house that my name might be there,62 and I chose David to be over my people Israel.” Then he said that such a project was David’s idea, but God told him that it would be done by his son (see 2 Sam 7:14-16).

Thus, work on the temple begins only after the power and fame of Solomon are well established. More precisely, it starts when King Hi-ram sends his servants to Solomon, who then asks for building mate-rials. But 1 Kings 5:15 has two different forms:

60 See VEIOLA, Die ewige Dynastie; LANGLAMET, Pour ou contre Salomon?; MCKENZIE,

Yedidyah. 61 See the review of HUROWITZ, Yhwh’s Exalted House. RÖMER, Salomon d’après les

deutéronomistes. 62 LXX (B) adds a gloss “and I chose Jerusalem for my name to be there” (deleted by

Orig. and Luc.).


– The MT says that Hiram sent his servants because he had heard of Solomon’ anointing: (וישלח ...) את עבדיו אל שלמה כי שמע כי אותו משחו למלך תחת .אביהו

– The LXX (B, followed by Luc.; Origenes restores according to the MT) states that Hiram sent them to anoint Solomon:

(…) tou.j pai/daj auvtou/ cri/sai to.n Salwmwn avnti. Dauid tou/ pa,troj auv-tou.

The shorter form of the LXX could be explained away by the omis-sion of כי שמע by homoioteleuton, but even so the sentence would be-come: Hiram sent “his servants to Solomon for they anointed him.” This is not clear, since it can be understood in two opposite ways: either “for he had been anointed” (by Jerusalemites) or “for his servants had anointed him” (previously), a strange statement. Thus, the LXX testifies to another Hebrew version (וישלח) אל שלמה למשחו למלך. As for the mea-ning in the narrative, the LXX is more difficult, since Solomon has al-ready been anointed by Zadok (1 Kgs 1:34). Moreover, it would make of Solomon a vassal of king Hiram. However, if we follow the MT, no-thing is said of the purpose of the Tyrian visitors, but immediately after this visit and unconnected with it, Solomon sends to Hiram, asking for cedar and cypress logs. Then, in his subsequent reply, Hiram accepts and asks for food. Therefore, the LXX should be preferred.63

Hiram’s backing, with an anointing or not, was the starting point for the building process. But his influence had already surfaced in ano-ther context. After David had conquered Jerusalem-Jebus and settled in the stronghold, it is stated that he went on and became great. Then Hiram, king of Tyre, sent him messengers, workers and materials, and they built a house for him. The conclusion is remarkable (2 Sam 5:12): “So David knew that Yhwh had established him as king over Israel.” In other words, Hiram’s acknowledgment and help are viewed as signs from God after he became great. This is the same pattern as the relati-onship between Hiram and Solomon, and both passages shed some light on one another.

Of course, we may have historical concerns and ask what prompted Hiram to do that, what was the price of his help, what did Hiram think of the Philistines, David’s permanent foes, and so on. Above all we may wonder how the same Hiram could have been a friend of both David and Solomon from the beginning of their reigns: David was 30 years old when he conquered Jerusalem, and when he died at 70, Solomon was only 12, according to a tradition. The gap between the two appea-rances of Hiram is in some way bridged in 1 Chron 22:4, when building

63 See SCHENKER, Septante et texte massorétique, 140.

154 E. Nodet

material is sent to David from Tyre and Sidon. But such questions miss the point, because what matters is the literary device: the legitimacy of David as a king and of Solomon as his heir comes from a foreign king, and not from anything connected to Israelite tradition or to the laws of Moses. Or conversely, Solomon’s legitimacy gets attached to David’s,64 for Tyrian chronicles indicate that Hiram of Tyre became king eight years before Solomon;65 by that time, David has been reigning for some twenty-five years, which cannot be reconciled with Hiram’s early help. The main point to be underlined here is that a foreign influence – here Phoenician – was instrumental in launching the construction of the temple.66 This provides an interesting context to the fact that after So-lomon’s death all Israel convened at Shechem, even before the later schism. Jerusalem was not yet the obvious capital.67

On the relationship between King Hiram68 and Solomon, more sto-ries are reported. According to 1 Kings 9:26, Solomon built a fleet of ships at Etzion Geber, and Hiram sent seamen to help Solomon’s ser-vants, and they brought gold from Ophir; 1 Kings 10:22 gives further details, but Hiram’s fleet seems to have been more important and his men more competent.

A somewhat obscure passage (1 Kgs 9:10-14) reports that during the building process (or maybe after it) Hiram had supplied Solomon with gold and wood “as much as he desired.” Then Solomon offered Hiram twenty cities in Galilee, but the latter refused and eventually gave Solomon a large amount of gold. Some rationale is missing, and 2 Chron 8:2 blurs the problem by stating that “Solomon built the cities Hiram had given him and settled the sons of Israel there.” The sentence is clear, but somewhat unexplained.

64 CAQUOT /DE ROBERT, Les livres de Samuel, 404, are content with attributing 2 Sam

5:12 to the Zadokite redactor (as well as 7:1-3, which mentions David’s cedar house. 65 According to these documents, Solomon would have begun the work in the 12th year

of Hiram of Tyre (Ag. Ap. 1:106 s.; the 11th in Ant 8.62), that is, 240 years after the foundation of Tyre and 143 years before that of Carthage ; it was also the 4th year of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 6:1). For Carthage , the date is known approximately to have been between 814 and 825. Solomon’s reign would thus have begun between 963 and 974.

66 Phoenician (or Cananean) names are used for the months of the dates connected to the temple (construction: Ziv, Bul, 1 Kgs 6:37-38; inauguration: Ethanim, 1 Kgs 8:2), see KALIMI, Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 115.

67 SKA, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord, observes that El-Amarna letters mention kings in Shechem and Jerusalem centuries before David, and concludes that a united kingdom under David and Solomon was at best shaky.

68 1 Kings 7:13 mentions a bronze worker from Tyre named Hiram (2 ,חירם Chron 2:13 .(חירום


Fortunately, Josephus has preserved a document that gives both the context and meaning. In Against Apion 1:106-116, he quotes the Tyrian archives and an historian, Dius. It is said that Hiram was busy in public works, and had timber cut down for the construction of temples. Solo-mon, the sovereign of Jerusalem, sent him riddles and asked for others from him. The one who failed to solve them had to pay a fine to the other. First Hiram failed and so spent a large part of his wealth. Then he was helped by one Abdemon of Tyre, so that in turn Solomon failed and eventually paid back more than he had received. From this we understand better the gold Hiram sent to Solomon and the cities the latter had to present when he was short of money. The biblical account omits that Solomon’s wisdom did have some limitations.

To sum up, it would be far-fetched to conclude that Solomon was a kind of Phoenician king or vassal.69 For the present study, the point to be stressed is the peculiar origin of the temple. For Solomon, and for Zerubbabel as well it started through the impulse of a foreign king.70 In another context, when king Antiochus III subdued Judea around 200, his first decision was to restore the Jerusalem temple and to provide for its cult in order to secure the Jewish fidelity to Syria71 (Ant 12.138-144), but the decree quoted by Josephus has the form of a letter to the local governor, and no Jewish authority is named.

However, this kind of external pressure developed into a sign of Is-raelite monotheism. In the dedication rite, Solomon says in his prayer (1 Kgs 8:27): “But will God indeed dwell with men72 on the earth?” Later, the prophets would insist on the importance of the temple as an eschatological meeting point for all the nations, but it is significant that the high priests are not prominent in the whole narrative of 1-2 Kings. The tentative genealogical lists given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 or Ezra 7:1-5 do not fill up the gap. As for the hope for a future king, the reference is always David, who never had a temple.

Anyhow, when it exists, the temple becomes a major symbol of power and fame.73 This was the background of a struggle between Jews and Samaritans that occurred in the 2nd century BCE.

69 The LXX credits Solomon with some Dionisian features, current in Ptolemaic Egypt,

see LEFÈBVRE, Salomon et Bacchus. 70 This differs from a pattern more current in the ancient world, see LUNDQUIST, The

Legitimizing Role of the Temple. 71 BICKERMAN, Une proclamation séleucide. 72 These two words are missing in 1 Kings 8:27 MT, but are testified to by LXX and

1 Chron 6:18. 73 As witnessed by ancient non-Hebrew sources, see. HAYWARD, Jewish Temple.

156 E. Nodet

2. The Yahwist Cult in Samaria after the Kingdom of Israel

Some inscriptions from the 8th cent. have been found at Kuntillet el-Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom that mention “Yhwh and his Ashera” in connection with the city of Samaria.74 They have interesting implicati-ons, but the study here will be limited to the biblical accounts of the arrival of the Assyrian colonists in Samaria after the fall of the northern kingdom (Israel) and the deportation of its inhabitants in 722?

There are two accounts.75 The shorter one (2 Kgs 18:9-12) tells us that in the fourth year of king Hezekiah of Jerusalem, Shalmanezer king of Assyria besieged Samaria, took it after three years and carried Israel away captive to Assyria. The reason given is that they had trans-gressed God’s covenant and Moses’ commandments. Nothing is said of any foreigner placed in the cities of Samaria; so there is no more Israeli-te worship in the Northern kingdom. The context is Hezekiah’s reign and the campaign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, against the cities of Judah ten years later; they were saved providentially, and no deporta-tion took place. In other words, the Northern kingdom deserved its fate.

The longer account (2 Kgs 17:1-41) first tells of the fall and deporta-tion, then expands the remarks on the sins of Israel since Jeroboam: God who had brought them from Egypt had warned them by all the prophets. Judah’s sin is included, so that “Yhwh rejected (וימאס) all the race of Israel.” We may note that the shorter account does not mention the exodus from Egypt, while the longer one ignores Moses as lawgi-ver.

Then follows the relation of the subsequent events, in three parts. 1. (v. 24-28) The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cu-

tha, Ava, Hamath und Sepharvaim76 in Samaria to replace the sons of Israel. The first two names were preserved by Josephus and rabbinic traditions, and the three others appear in Sennacherib’s campaign (2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The settlers were attacked by lions because they

74 MESHEL, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. LEMAIRE, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? MCCAR-

TER, Aspects of the Religion. 75 As for which of them is earlier, scholarly opinions differ, see the review of Jean-

MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 47-72. 76 Babylon and Cutha were well known among the Judean exiles. The three others

were probably in Syria; they are mentioned in the story of Sennacherib’s campaign (2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The gods worshipped by the five nations, besides Nergal, are Canaanite, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.


did not worship Yhwh. Then the king sent an Israelite priest (or some priests) to Bethel, who taught them the ritual of the God of the land.

2. (v. 29-33 and 41) Concerning the gods and rites the five nations introduced into the high places built by the “Samaritans” (or ancient Israelites), which were not removed. Thus, they used to worship both their gods and Yhwh. With the exception of Nergal, these gods are Canaanite, which suggests some redactional activity.77 Verse 41 speaks again of “these nations” which worshiped both Yhwh and their idols “to this day”: this is a concluding sentence, which picks up what was said previously and places it over and beyond the third part below on the “sons of Jacob”.78 The conclusion stands alone, but the context has a bearing on its meaning.

3. (v. 34-40) On the Israelites, sons of Jacob who were brought from Egypt by God and somewhat mixed up with the five nations “until this day”. God had made a covenant with them and given them the com-mandment not to worship any other god. At this point we have variant readings of major significance: the MT (and Targ., Vulg.) says that they were not faithful; contrary to this, the LXX states that they actually were (the Luc. recension mixes up both), but they receive the warning to resist idolatry. The difference can be seen in v. 34 and 40:

v. 34 הם עשים auvtoi. evpoi,oun (כמשפטם from) kata. to. kri,ma auvtw/n כמשפטים הראשנים

fobou/ntai (הינם from) .auvtoi אינם יראים את יהוה .kai. auvtoi. poiou/sin kata. ta. dikaiw,mata auvtw/n ואנים עשים כחקתם.

MT: They do according to their first ordinances; they do not fear Yhwh and they do not do according to their statutes (given to Jacob’s sons). LXX: They do according to their ordinance; they fear and they do accor-ding to their statutes.

v. 40 ולא שמעו כי אם kai. ouvk avkou,sesqe (from ולא תשמעו) evpi. tw/| kri,mati auvtw/n כמשפטם הראשון o] auvtoi. poiou/sin הם עשים

MT: And they did not obey, but according to their first ordinance they do. LXX: And you shall not obey their ordinance, that they do.

77 See MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66. 78 This classical division is accepted, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.

158 E. Nodet

For the MT the sons of Jacob still practice the former rituals, that is, what they did before the covenant with Israel, a difficult statement. For the LXX, from which the Hebrew source differs only by some letters, they are faithful and urged to remain so. The passage between the two verses expounds the covenant in a typically Deuteronomistic style and stands without difficulties in both versions, for it does not depend on fidelity .

In order to identify the original form, we cannot deal with the con-tent without begging the question, since no other document is availab-le. Direct textual criticism gives no clear result, since the text from which the LXX worked is lost, all the moreso since for 1-2 Kings the Old Greek version is very different from the MT. However, Josephus provides a clue (Ant 9.289-290): briefly paraphrasing 2 Kings 17, he says that the five nations had brought along their gods and worshipped them “in accordance with their ancestral customs” (kaqw.j h=n pa,trion auvtoi/j). Then, after Israelite priests had been sent back from Assyria, they worshiped the God of Israel with great zeal, and “these very rites (e;qh) have continued in use even to this very day.” So they are faithful to the Israelite laws.79 Josephus follows closely its source here, for what he says does not match his later statements about the religion of the Samaritans. He has read the three parts as one account, mixing up the foreign nations and the sons of Jacob, so that he is able to explain af-terwards how the Samaritans can pretend either to be kinsmen of the Jews because of their descent from Joseph or to belong to another race. Josephus dislikes them, but here he cannot help saying that they are faithful to that way. In other words, he read 2 Kings 17:34-40 as it is in the LXX.

If Josephus were following the LXX, as is commonly held,80 his tes-timony would be worthless, but it can be shown that for 1-2 Kings he never saw the LXX as we have it81: first, his plain statement in Ant 1.12 and elsewhere is that he “translated” a Hebrew Bible. Second, he trans-cribes the proper names independently of the LXX. Here are some ca-ses: for King Hiram of Tyre (חירום or חירם), Ant 8.50 has Ei;rwmoj, against Ce$i%ram of the LXX; for King Ben-Hadad of Damascus (מן הדד) Ant 8.363 has :Adadoj, against LXX ui`o.j Ader (from הדר); for Queen Athaliah (עתליה or עתליהו), Ant 9.140 f. reads VOqli,a, against LXX Goqolia. Third, he never

79 Because of the mainstream opinion that the Samaritans are Jewish dissidents, EGGER,

Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, 48-50, thinks that Ant 9.289-290 should be discarded.

80 At least under the “proto-lucianic” form for the historical books, see MEZ, Die Bibel des Josephus; THACKERAY, Josephus, 77-80.

81 See NODET, Flavius Josèphe, XXVI-XLIX.


follows the general content of the LXX when it differs broadly from the MT; however, he sometimes follows its order, the most obvious case being the succession of chapters 21 and 20 of 1 Kings, but this does not imply that he saw a Greek text. Moreover, Josephus’ Hebrew Bible was an official copy, taken by Titus from the temple archive in 70.82

In conclusion, the LXX form of v. 34 & 40 should be preferred as reflecting a more original Hebrew.83 So the whole story of 2 Kings 17:24-41 indicates, under a somewhat blurring redactional effect, that after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel there were two kinds of people in Samaria: some imported nations with mixed cult at Bethel and in some ancient high places, and local Israelites of old, faithful to the laws given to the sons of Jacob. In fact, it is well known from Assy-rian sources that only a part of the population was deported. Inciden-tally, we have observed that the MT version is difficult to understand because of the reference to a worship by the sons of Jacob before the covenant with Yhwh. However, in the literary context, this previous cult is distorted in order to refer to the customs imported by the pagan immigrants, so that the difference between them and the local Israelites (Samaritans) is bound to disappear.

Now we can attempt a comparison of the two accounts of the fall of Samaria, for their differences are significant. The shorter one mentions Moses and ignores any sequel to the deportation, so that no Israelite cult is left in the north. In contrast, the longer one duly restored states that something has survived, but without the name of Moses as the lawgiver. The reference character is Jacob-Israel, and the only named place is not Samaria but Bethel. So two very different views are disp-layed: the shorter account well reflects a Judean point of view, which states that the Samaritans are downgraded Jews of mixed origin; this reasonably squares with Josephus’ account of the foundation of the Gerizim temple, as well as with the careful editing of the MT. The lon-ger story (LXX, Josephus) witnesses more to a northern view, but it is difficult to relate it clearly to the Gerizim sanctuary of the Persian pe-riod. Anyhow, two points emerge: the traditional Israelite cult has no contact with the city of Samaria, and the allusions to Bethel and Jacob lead us to consider the city of Shechem.84 In the footsteps of Abraham, Jacob came there after his meeting with Esau, then he built an altar, which he named “El the God of Israel” (Gen 33:18-20). After Solomon’s death, the Israelites met there and not in Jerusalem to make his son 82 See NODET, Josephus and the Pentateuch. 83 Against most commentators, even HJELM, Brothers Fighting Brothers. 84 Still today the Samaritans speak of “Mt. Gerizim-Bethel”, and the area is named Luz

or Luza (Gen 28:19; 35:6; 48:3).

160 E. Nodet

king. The “chosen place” for the name of God cannot be far away from there. So we have to examine some biblical traditions relative to She-chem and the tribes issued from Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.

3. Joshua and Shechem

Joshua, son of Nun, is a character from the northern kingdom, whose grave is in the hill country of Ephraim (Josh 24:29-31; Judg 2:9). He has two faces. The more conspicuous is the servant and successor of Moses (Num 11:28; 27:18-21; Deut 1:38). He is first heard of at the time of the war against Amalek in the wilderness (Ex 17:9-14). From those who went out from Egypt, he is the only one, with Caleb, who enters Ca-naan (Num 14:6). He presides over the conquest, with a clear mission given by Moses (Jos 1:1-5). But the second face is a lawgiver’s: he recei-ves a revelation similar to the one to Moses at Mt. Horeb (Josh 5:13-15), and later he gives the tribes of Israel “a statute and ordinances” at She-chem (Josh 24:25).

The account of his conquest is oversimplified, but it includes a strange passage: for the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh (the half who crossed the Jordan river), the sons of Joseph complain to Joshua that they are too numerous for a small estate. Then they are given the hill country and told to clear ground for themselves and drive out the Canaanites, in spite of their being strong and having iron chariots85 (Josh 17:16-18). So Joshua does nothing for them, which suggests a kind of Israelite presence before him. An obvious objection is that all the Israelites come from outside, for at their arrival they perform a cultic action at Gerizim and Ebal (Josh 8:30-35), fulfilling the precepts of Deut 27:2-26 without any opposition. But the passage is a literary addition, which splits apart an account of events in Benjamin,86 and whose func-tion is to neutralize any hint pointing to the presence of Israelites before Joshua.

85 The notice is given again (Josh 17:14-15) with a wording that indicates that the sons

of Joseph have just arrived. Just before his final blessing, Jacob gives Joseph שכם אחד “one Shechem” (so the LXX; or “one shoulder”) above his brothers (Gen 48:22), see § 4 below. DE VAUX, 583-584, observes that the excavations in the main sites have shown no evidence of an overall destruction at the supposed time of the conquest. YOUNGER, Rhetorical Structuring, does not deal with this lack of evidence.

86 The LXX puts the passage after Josh 9:2, which improves nothing, and Josephus (Ant 5.68-69) at the end of the conquest. This is more logical, but he may have edited the order of his source.


Joshua’s second face becomes obvious in the story of the Shechem covenant. At the end of his life, Joshua summons all Israel and utters a legacy speech, in which he urges the people to remain faithful to the laws of Moses, warning that otherwise disasters will occur (Josh 23:1-16). The effect of the discourse is given later (Judg 2:6-9): that generati-on was faithful, unlike the following ones. Between these two parts of the same account other passages are inserted. The first one is a conven-tion of all the tribes of Israel at Shechem87 (Josh 24:1-2888). Joshua gives a speech (v. 2-13), mentioning Abraham, Jacob, the exodus from Egypt with Moses and Aaron, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Balaam affair and God’s victory over the nations of Canaan. Here Moses is no lawgi-ver. Then (v. 14-15) Joshua urges the people to serve Yhwh and put away the gods they used to worship beyond the River (Euphrates) and in Egypt. Then, unexpectedly, he allows them to choose whom they want to worship: these foreign gods, the local ones,89 or Yhwh; he adds that he himself and his family have chosen Yhwh. When the people declare they choose Yhwh (v. 17-22.24), he warns them to remove the other gods that lie among them (v. 23). And here is the conclusion (v. 25-26):

Joshua made a covenant (ברית) with them and made for them a statute and an ordinance (חק ומשפט, no,mon kai. kri,sin) in Shechem. He wrote these words in the book of the law (תורה) of God. He took a large stone and set it up the-re under the oak in the sanctuary90 (מקדש) of Yhwh.

This is not in agreement with Joshua’s previous speech. The account is difficult, for it mixes up two different narrative threads: first, the speech addresses the tribes, reminding them of the history from Abra-ham to the conquest (v. 2b-13), but without a lawgiver; then the people agree and due warnings are voiced (v. 17-21a); broadly speaking, this is in keeping with the former speech. But the second thread is different: Joshua invites newcomers to join and worship Yhwh. This is just optio-nal, and there is no reason to surmise that these immigrants are organi-

87 The LXX has Shlw “Silo,” most probably because the ark was there then (Josh 18:1),

but Josephus reads Shechem (Ant 5.114). 88 For a good survey of scholarship on this passage, see ZSENGELLÉR, Gerizim as Israel,

68-86, who concludes that this was an ancient tradition, poorly inserted within the Deuteronomistic redaction.

89 There is some affinity with Gen 35:2-4, where Jacob demands that his family remove any foreign god, see SOGGIN, Zwei umstrittene Stellen. However, the parallel is so-mewhat shaky, for Jacob leaves no choice.

90 That is a cultic open area, see HARAN, Temples and Temple Service, 48-57.

162 E. Nodet

zed in twelve tribes.91 Upon their acceptance (v. 14-16), Joshua made a covenant with them and gave them written laws, with the understan-ding that they must avoid any syncretism. So the Yahwist congregation gets widened. We may observe that circumcision is not mentioned, which matches the situation of the Shechemites at Jacob’s arrival (Gen 34:15-24).

The variant of the account given in the Samaritan book of Joshua92 is helpful, for it corresponds exactly to the second thread, with tiny differences: v. 2b-13 and 17-21a are omitted93, so that Joshua stands as the only Yahwist in front of newcomers who do not have any earlier history with Yhwh, and he becomes their lawgiver. He seems already to have a “book of the law of God” that was extant previously.

Such a position of Joshua in Shechem fits in the overall outline of the conquest of Canaan (Josh 1-11), in which the region of Samaria (Ephraim and half Manasseh) is not conquered, while other territories in the north and south have to be seized for the newcomers. So it ap-pears that Joshua is quite similar to the priests who update the colonists in Bethel about worshiping Yhwh (2 Kgs 17:28), but their cult eventual-ly turns syncretistic, for they serve Yhwh without leaving their pre-vious gods. These priests did have the laws that Yhwh had ordered the sons of Jacob after their exit from Egypt, with due warning against the foreign gods. This corresponds to the first thread defined above, which strictly concerns the sons of Jacob, also known as the twelve tribes.

We may conclude that there was a tradition of an exclusive Yhwh-cult at Shechem, to be located in the sanctuary with an oak in the Jos-hua account. It was linked to a migration from Egypt, but not with Mo-ses. This tradition diffuses in two occasions, when traditional Israelites are confronted with pagan newcomers. Bethel and Shechem have to be viewed as twin places.

Archeology does not yet allow a clear relationship between this sanctuary and the Persian constructions on the Gerizim beyond the likeliness of their having covered previous facilities. However, some details point to a special significance of the Shechem area. The Joshua 91 Such is the conclusion of DE VAUX, Histoire, 613, but he concludes that the newco-

mers have the same origin as Joshua; in v. 14 he thinks that they all came from the East, and not from Egypt.

92 It is the first part of a Chronicle, which runs through the ages, see GASTER, Das Buch Josua; MACDONALD, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II . COGGINS, Samaritans and Jews. This version has some affinities with Josephus’ source for his paraphrase, see NODET, Flavius Josèphe, 1995, XIII.

93 These verses are replaced by Deut 4:34, which mentions the exodus from Egypt. Verses from Deuteronomy are inserted in several places in the Samaritan Penta-teuch, as well as in some Qumran fragments.


sanctuary had an oak, which suggests a parallel with the “oak of Mo-reh” (מורה) or “oak of the teacher” where Abram first arrived and had a revelation (Gen 12:6; see Deut 11:30). Not far away from Shechem, Judg 9:37 mentions the “navel of the land” (טבור הארץ) and the “oak of the diviners.” More than this can hardly be ventured.

4. The Prophecies of Jacob and Moses on Joseph and Judah

The Pentateuch, common to the Samaritans and Jews, includes, beyond the narratives and laws, some prophecies on the tribes. In his final bles-sing of his sons (Gen 49:1-27), Jacob relies partly upon some future events, partly upon the previous stories, and the name of God only appears in a prayer inserted in the middle (v. 8). For most of his sons, he is rather negative: the firstborn Reuben is condemned because of his sin related in Gen 35:22; Simeon and Levi are promised to oblivion (v. 5-7), because of the Dina affair (Gen 34), and so on. In contrast, the sayings on Judah and Joseph are outstanding: Judah will win over his foes and be praised by his brothers, and “the scepter shall not depart from him… until Shiloh comes” (v. 8-12); the name “Shiloh,” perhaps corrupted, has been understood as having Messianic overtones.94 Some imagery elements in the passage may allude to previous accounts; for instance, Judah the lion may refer to the wild beast which allegedly devoured Joseph (37:33), the scepter could allude to the staff he pled-ged to Tamar (38:18), “washing his garments in the blood of grapes” (v. 12) could hint at Joseph’s tunic dipped in blood (37:31). This is possible, but these seem to be free allusions framed into a different pattern, for the passage as a whole is definitely positive.

As for Joseph, the text of his blessing is lengthy but difficult, with many differences between MT, Sam and LXX. Here it suffices to make some observations: he is a fruitful bough; he has suffered, God has helped him, he receives blessings, he is nazir (consecrated) among his brothers. Of course, this may refer to Joseph’s story, viewed as provi-dential (Gen 50:20); Judah helped to save him, albeit unwillingly (Gen 37:26). The elevation of Joseph could be a permanent position, for he has previously received “one Shechem (or ‘shoulder’, שכם) above his brothers” (Gen 48:22), but his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are not mentioned.

94 The MT word שילה (שלה in some mss and Sam.) is un clear. It has been read שלו by the

LXX and Syr. “until the coming of the one to whom it belongs.” Targ. Onkelos ren-ders “till the Messiah comes.”

164 E. Nodet

According to an agreed opinion95 Jacob’s will has been first incor-porated into the J document, but there is no consensus about the histo-rical context. The predictions on Judah could point to a composition close to the time of David and Solomon, but it has been objected that nothing is said about the foreign origins (Egypt, Moses’ era) or the Ben-jaminite kingship of Saul, so that the passage reflects better the period of the Judges. It is held that it antedates the song of Deborah (Judg 5), which alludes to Sinai (v. 5) but does not mention Judah. In fact, the historical circumstances are hard to ascertain, for in the absence of hard evidence, they depend on many assumptions. However, a literary con-text can be envisioned if we consider three points which connect it with Shechem: first, the importance of this place in the traditions about Jacob and the prominence given to Joseph; second, the strictly local traditi-ons, with no mention either of Abraham’s origin or of the fact that the whole family of Jacob was in Egypt, where he died after having pro-nounced his will; third, the burial of Joseph’s bones in Jacob’s field at Shechem is mentioned immediately after Joshua’s appearance as a local lawgiver.

As for any historical context, we have to look for a time with a She-chemite Yahwism without Levites (including Moses and Aaron) and accepting Judah as ruler for a time, for he eventually went down: unli-ke Samaria, Shechem had its stability, while the kingdom of Judah was wiped out until the decree of Cyrus, the master of the world. Without disregarding the antiquity of the poem as a whole, a clue to a much later editing is provided by v. 5 MT (LXX and Vulg. are different) on Simeon and Levi: “Their מכרת are tools of violence.” The difficult word has elicited many hypotheses, but the most obvious one is the traditio-nal rabbinic explanation as “sword”, viewing מכרה as a transcription from the Greek96 ma,caira “sword” (Rashi, quoting Gen Rabba a. l.). For a literary context, the end of the prophecy on Judah may provide a clue, for it states “and to him the obedience of the nations”; besides a tradi-tional messianic interpretation (LXX, Targums) it may be an idealizati-on of Solomon’s reign.

In Deuteronomy, Moses’ blessings over the tribes are placed bet-

ween two stanzas of a hymn (Deut 33:1-5 and 26-29). The order of the tribes has been arranged in a concentric pattern with,97 Joseph in the middle; his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are named, but Simeon is mis- 95 See the review by WENHAM, Genesis, 477-479. 96 The underlying assumption is that all the languages are rooted in Hebrew, the pri-

meval one before the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1), see Banitt, Rashi Interpreter, 12-19. 97 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.


sing, so that the number twelve is maintained. As for the content, the main features are: first, the blessing of Joseph is long and quite similar to the one in Gen 49, with some phrases in common, including “he is nazir among his brothers.” Second, Judah is given a short notice, which includes a prayer to God: “Bring him to his people.98 Third, Levi is gi-ven major prominence: he was tested in the wilderness (Massah and Meribah) and he separated himself from his family, so that he became entitled to teach Israel the laws and to perform the cult. To sum up, the comparison with Jacob’s will shows a reversal of the fates of Judah and Levi, while Joseph is stable.

The dating of Moses’ blessing has been discussed at length,99 but some literary remarks are relevant in order to give a context to these features. It is clear that the speaker is Moses, as the promotion of Levi suggests, but the latter’s new responsibility is connected to some events before entering Canaan, while Joseph still represents the local traditi-ons, unaffected by Moses and Levi. In other words, Israel still has two roots: one local and one imported; this fits the twofold profile of Jos-hua, both a local lawgiver and Moses’ heir. As for Judah, he seems to have gone astray. Now, if we forget about the Judean historiography of the divided monarchy and take the opposite point of view, that is from the Northern kingdom, it is clear that Judah is guilty of being somew-hat outside of Israel.

Now if we put together Jacob’s will and Moses’ blessing, which are parts of the same Pentateuch, we obtain a balanced statement: without Moses or Levi, Judah is strong, but with Moses and the Levites, Judah is out of place and should come back to his people. Some simple clues can be ventured: Judah’s strength without Moses matches the story of Solomon, his power and his temple, as seen above. As for Judah having gone astray, far away from his nation, a good context is provided by the returnees from exile (or the “elders” in the Manasseh affair), the peculiar Jews who do not want a relationship with local Israelites.

IV. Conclusion

In order to show that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the ancient Israelites, some reassessments have been necessary.

1. There were two kinds of Jewish returnees from exile. The more ancient renewed the cult, but did not hurry to rebuild a temple; they

98 The LXX is different (with many variants): “Come to his people.” 99 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.

166 E. Nodet

were not very different from the local Israelites. The more recent, repre-sented by Ezra and Nehemiah, akin to the later Pharisees, were apart in some points: they relied upon genealogy; they brought along some non-biblical customs; they did not accept relations with local Israelites (from Judea or Samaria), and strove to cleanse “foreign marriages” and to reform the cult. As a result, there were divisions within Jerusalem.

2. The Pentateuch was rooted among these local Israelites, inclu-ding the Samaritans. The account in 2 Kings 17, understood according to the LXX and Josephus, shows that besides the people imported from Assyria, there were true sons of Jacob, faithful to a covenant with Yhwh. Moses is not named, but this covenant may be connected with Joshua as a local legislator at Shechem. In other words, there was a Samaritan Yahwism before the appearance of an authoritative Penta-teuch in which Moses is or became the most prominent character.

3. The temple is a peculiar feature, which – unlike an altar – has no-thing to do either with Moses or with Joshua son of Nun. Since Solo-mon, it has two aspects: from outside, it is prompted by a foreign po-wer, as a control tool of the ethnos; this was the meaning of Cyrus’ decree, renewed by Darius – and much later by Antiochus III. From inside, it is or perhaps becomes a symbol of identity and fame. At some point, the Samaritans copied the Jerusalem temple, with Persian appro-val. By the time of Judean weakness, in the sequel of the Maccabean crisis, the Samaritans made an attempt to promote their own temple, but they failed, and it was eventually destroyed. In fact, it never was an essential feature.

4. The hope for a renewed temple after a disaster became a prophe-tic theme, devoid of the need of an actual high priest or king, as can be seen in 2 Maccabees. Typically, 2 Chron 36:21 gives a summary of Je-remiah's prophecy as an exile of 70 years, but it cannot be taken at its face value.

5. The Samaritans did have their own chronicles, somehow parallel to the Judean “Former Prophets,” but have nothing that would corres-pond to the “Later Prophets,” or even to the story of Elijah, a northern prophet. Thus, as a conclusion, we may ask why their Bible is so short.

Rabbinic tradition has preserved some traces of the local preceden-ce of the Samaritans. According to b.Sanh 21b, Israel first received the law of Moses in Hebrew letters (כתב עברי, paleo-Hebrew), then by the time of Ezra it was given anew in Aramaic letters (כתב אשורי), while the ancient script was left to the people of Flavia Neapolis (Nablus), the new name of Shechem, which was rebuilt after 70. This piece of infor-mation is anachronistic, for both scripts were in use in Judea until the Hasmonean era, but it witnesses to a feeling that the Samaritans were


in former times the local Israelites, while the Jews imported novelties from Babylonia. In the 2nd century, the ethnarch Simon b. Gamaliel said in a controversy on Samaritan unleavened bread (t.Pes 1:15): “For every precept that the Samaritans observe, they are more meticulous than Israel,” that is “than the Jews.” He praises their biblical accuracy, which has not been matched by the “oral laws” of the Pharisees and rabbis.

Bibliography

ACKROYD, Peter R., The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period, in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 130-161.

ANDERSON, Robert T., Samaritan Pentateuch: A General Account, in: CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 390-412.

APICELLA, Catherine, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique: quelques problèmes mé-connus, in: SARTRE, Maurice (ed.), La Syrie hellénistique (Topoi, Suppl. 4), Paris 2003, 125-147.

BANITT, Menahem, Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter, Tel Aviv 1986. BARAG, Dan, New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I, in: Israel

Numismatic Journal 12 (1992-1993) 1-12. BICKERMAN, Elias J., Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochus IV Épipha-

neææ, in: RHR 115 (1937) 188-223. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Chris-tian History II, Leiden 1980, 105-135.

BICKERMAN, Elias J., Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusa-lem, in: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II, Leiden 1980, 86-104.

BICKERMANN, Elias J., Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr., in: ZNTW 32 (1933) 239-241. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II (AGAJU, 9), Leiden 1980, 136-158.

BÖHLER, Dieter, On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism. The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX), in: SCHENKER, Adrian, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, Atlanta 2003, 35-50.

BONNET, Corinne, Melqart, cultes et mythes de l'Héraclès tyrien en Méditerra-née (Studia Phoenicia 8), Leuven 1988.

CAQUOT, André / DE ROBERT, Philippe, Les livres de Samuel (Commentaires de l’AT 6), Genève 1994.

CHRISTENSEN, Duane L., Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (Word Biblical Commentary 6B), Nashville 2002.

COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-sidered, Oxford 1975.

COWLEY, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C., Oxford 1923. CROSS, Frank M., A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, in: JBL 94

(1975) 4-18.

168 E. Nodet

CROSS, Frank M., The Papyri and their Historical Implications, in: LAPP, Paul W / LAPP, Nancy L. (eds.), Discoveries in the Wadi Ed-Daliyeh (Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 41), New Haven 1974, 17-29.

DE VAUX, Roland, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Vol. I., Paris 1971. DE VAUX, Roland, Israël, in: DBS 4 (1949), col. 764-769. DE VAUX, Roland, Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y établir son nom, in: MAASS,

Fritz (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, 219-228.

DOUGLAS, Mary, Leviticus as Literature, Oxford 1999. DRIVER, Samuel R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy,

Edinburgh 1896. DUŠEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-

332 av. J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 20), Leiden – Boston 2007.

EGGER, Rita, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Un-tersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 4), Freiburg (CH) / Göttingen 1986.

ESHEL, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 223-234.

ESKENAZI, Tamara Cohn, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 36), Atlanta 1988.

FINKELSZTEJN, Gerald, More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps, in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 16 (1998) 33-63.

GANE, Roy, Cult and Character. Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy, Winona Lake 2005.

GARBINI, Giovanni, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese (Studi biblici 129), Brescia 2001.

GASTER, Moses, Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension, in: ZDMG 62 (1908) 209-279 and 494-549.

HARAN, Menahem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Winona 1985.

HARTLEY, John E., Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4), Dallas 1992. HAYWARD, C. Robert, The Jewish Temple. A non-Biblical Sourcebook, London /

New York 1996. HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers. Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism

in History and Tradition, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in An-cient History and Tradition (JSOT Suppl. 381), London / New York 2003, 197-222.

HUROWITZ, Victor A., Yhwh’s Exalted House. Aspects of the Design and Sym-bolism of Solomon’s Temple, in DAY John (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, London 2005, 63-110.

JAPHET, Sara, Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded /OEMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 491-508.


JAPHET, Sarah, The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew, in: VT 18 (1968) 330-371.

KALIMI, Isaac, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona Lake 2005.

KEARNS, Conleth, Ecclesiasticus, in: A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London 1969, 541-562 (§ 441-443).

KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake 2007.

LANGLAMET, François, Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois I-II, in: RB 83 (1976) 321-379 and 481-528

LEFÈBVRE, Philippe, Salomon et Bacchus, in: COX, Claude E. (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leu-ven 1989, Atlanta 1991, 313-323.

LEMAIRE, André, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? Startling New Inscrip-tions from Two Different Sites Reopen the Debate About the Meaning of Asherah, in: BAR 10/6 (1984) 2-51.

LUCIANI, Didier, Sainteté et pardon. Structure littéraire du Lévitique (BETL 185), Leuven 2005.

LUNDQUIST, John M., The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State, in: SBL Seminar Papers 1982, Chico 1982, 271-297.

MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les Samaritains. Histoire d’une légende, Genève 1994, 47-72.

MACDONALD, John, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher ha-Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW 107), Berlin 1969.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. E., Winona Lake 2007, 157-212.

MCCARTER, P. Kyle, Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data”, in: MILLER Patrick D. et al., Ancient Israelite Religi-on, Philadelphia 1987, 137-155.

MCKENZIE, Steven, Yedidyah, in: LICHERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bruxelles 2008, 87-97.

MESHEL, Ze’ev, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre From the Time of the Ju-daean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, Jerusalem 1978.

MEZ, Adam, Die Bibel des Josephus, untersucht für Buch V-VII der Archäolo-gie, Basel 1894.

MILGROM, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16 (Anchor Bible 3), New York 1991. MOR, Menahem, “The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period”, in: CROWN,

Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18. NIHAN, Christophe, The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Geri-

zim in Deuteronomy and Joshua, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Ber-nard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake 2007, 187-223.

170 E. Nodet

NISULA, Timo, ’Time Has Passed Since You Sent Your Letter.’ Letter Phraseolo-gy in 1 and 2 Maccabees, in: JSP 14 (2005) 201-222.

NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres IV et V, Paris 1995. NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres VIII et IX, Paris

2005. NODET, Étienne, Josephus and the Pentateuch, in: JSJ 28 (1997) 154-194. NODET, Étienne, La crise maccabéenne, Paris 2005. NODET, Étienne, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe. Livres X-XI, Paris 2010. NODET, Étienne, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire, in: RB 114 (2007) 499-

534. NODET, Étienne, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, in: HOLMÉN, Tom /

PORTER, Stanley E., Handbook of the Study of the Historical Jesus, Leiden 2010, 1495-1544.

PUMMER, Reihard, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 129), Tübingen 2009.

PUMMER, Reinhard, The Samaritans in Egypt, in: AMPHOUX, Christian-Bernard et al., Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du Texte Biblique 4), Lausanne 1998, 213-232.

RÖMER, Thomas, Salomon d’après les deutéronomistes: un roi ambigu, in: LICH-TERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en ques-tion. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bru-xelles 2008, 98-130.

SCHENKER, Adrian, La Relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-Néhémie, in: NORTON, Gerard J., Tradition of the Text, Fribourg 1991, 218-248.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi ? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique, in: VOITILA, Anssi / JOKIRANTA, Jutta M. (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJ Supplements 126), Leiden 2008, 339-351.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Septante et texte massorétique dans l'histoire la plus an-cienne du texte de 1 Rois 2-14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48), Paris 2000.

SCHÜRER, Emil / VERMES, Geza et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135): A New English Version, Edinburgh 1979.

SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Doing like Jews or becoming a Jew ? Josephus on Women Converts to Judaism, in: FREY, Jörg / SCHWARTZ Daniel R. / GRIPENTROG, Stephanie, Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden / Boston 2007, 93-110.

SKA, Jean-Louis, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord: Fact or Fiction?, in: LICHERT, Clauded / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bruxelles 2008, 36-56.

SOGGIN, Jan Alberto, Zwei umstrittene Stellen aus dem Überlieferungskreis um Schechem, in: ZAW 73 (1961) 78-87.

STERN, Ephraim, The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period, in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis


(ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Pe-riod, Cambridge 1984, 70-87.

STERN, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 Vols. Jeru-salem 1974-1984.

THACKERAY, Henry St. J., Josephus, The Man and the Historian (Strook Lectures 1928), New York 19672, 77-80.

TORREY, Charles C., Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910. VAN DER HORST, Pieter W., The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity, in: Idem,

Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity, Göttingen 1990, 136-148. VAN HOONACKER, Albin, Néhémie et Esdras, une nouvelle hypothèse sur la

chronologie et la Restauration juive, in: Le Muséon 9 (1890) 151-184, 315-317, 389-401.

VANDERKAM, James C., From Yeshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis / Assen 2004.

VEIOLA, Timo, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975.

VELÁZQUEZ , Efraín II, The Persian Period and the Origins of Israel: Beyond the ‘Myths,’ in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY Paul J. Jr. (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 61-78.

WENHAM, Gordon J., Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary 2) Dallas 1994. WIDENGREN, Geo, The Persian Period, in: HAYES, John H. / MILLER, J. Maxwell ,

Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G. M., Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary 16),

Waco 1985. WRIGHT, Jacob L., A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, in:

LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 333-348.

WRIGHT, Jacob L., Rebuilding Identity. The Nehemiah-Memoirs and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin 2004.

YOUNGER, K. Lawson Jr., The Rhetorical Structuring of the Joshua Conquest Narratives, in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY, Paul J. Jr. (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Re-search Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 3-32.

ZSENGELLÉR, József, Gerizim as Israel (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 38), Ut-recht 1998.

Samaritans. History and Tradition in Relationship to Jews, Christians and Muslims: Problems in

Writing a Monograph

INGRID HJELM

The first part of the title of this lecture is an English translation of a planned monograph in Danish about Samaritan history and tradition. The book will consist of eleven chapters of which chapters 1-5 will deal with theories of origin, history and demography, religion and cult, and the history and role of Mt. Gerizim. Having given a portrait of the Sa-maritans past and present in these first chapters, chapters 6-8 will focus on literary traditions and biblical parallels, Samaritans in light of recent information about the ancient history of Palestine and a chapter length discussion about the importance of Samaritan history and tradition for biblical studies. This discussion has become most important in light of recent excavations that have fostered a huge amount of new knowledge of the development of Palestine, and especially about the status of Israel/Shomron and Judah in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The book concludes with chapters on Jewish and Samaritan relationships in antiquity: their cooperation, animosity and attempts at demarcation, on Samaritans and Christianity and, finally, on Jewish, Islamic, Christian and Samaritan legal discussions in medieval times.

The book is planned as a textbook for students at seminaries and universities and well educated lay people as well. It opens with an in-troduction that will discuss epistemological issues pertaining to history writing. This is especially important with a subject that is so thoroughly informed with tradition. Where does history end and tradition begin, or where does tradition end and history begin? The distinction is not easy as tradition also belongs to history, past and present. People be-come the stories they tell.1 These affect the way we compose ancient histories: timescale, geography, sociology, political circumstances etc. A classical example is the periodization between Iron I-II, III and the Exi-le, which refers to the Babylonian exile, although several exiles took

1 WHITELAM, Invention, ch. 3-4.

174 I. Hjelm

place in Palestine from the 9th to the 3rd century BCE. Nevertheless, to many biblical scholars, the exile is a watershed that separates pre-exilic from post-exilic literature, language, archaeology, sociology etc. What timescale and watersheds do we have regarding Samaritan history? When should we begin our history? I have dealt with these last questi-ons in several publications.2 Here we will take a look at recent works on histories of biblical Israel, Israel, Judah and Palestine. The changing paradigms for these histories and the history of the literature that be-came a product of these ancient regions also affect conclusions about Samaritan history and tradition.

When I first formulated a topic for this conference, I was working on two projects: writing an application for research funds for the book just mentioned and writing a review of Megan Bishop Moores book: Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel.3 The history Moore had in mind was the biblical history and its correction and con-firmation by extra biblical sources. The histories analyzed by Moore have been written by biblical scholars and theologians who, in different ways, have approached tensions between history and biblical tradition in their inventions of Israel’s past, whether it is seen as mythical or real. Pressing issues in scholarship of the 20th century have been the reliabili-ty of certain parts, narratives and aspects of biblical history. What had begun in an analysis of biblical sources and various documentary hy-potheses of the Pentateuch in the 19th century, led to intense source critical analyses of Noth’s Deuteronomistic History (especially in Ge-rman scholarship) since its publication in 1943.4 Accompanying these efforts at separating and differentiating sources brought together in a continuous narrative, archaeology, epigraphy and written sources which have come to light, have complicated matters in a way that has undermined confidence in the possibilities of writing any history that might give more than just a hint of what really happened.

Such analyses, archaeological achievements and considerations ha-ve resulted in a dismissal of the historicity of the Patriarchs, Moses, Joshua’s conquest, kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon, and an in-creasing skepticism about the remaining narratives in the Hebrew Bib-le, their time scale, geography, sociology, political circumstances and cultic behavior.

2 HJELM, Samaritans; HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise; HJELM, What do Samaritans, 9-62;

HJELM, Brothers Fighting, 197-222; HJELM, Samaritans in Josephus, 27-39. 3 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice; HJELM, Review of Moore. 4 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien; For recent works on Noth’s thesis, see,

DE PURY / RÖMER / MACCHI, Israel Constructs its History; SHEARING / MCKENZIE, Those Elusive Deuteronomists; RÖMER, The So-called Deuteronomistic History.

Samaritans. History and Tradition 175

From seeing biblical tradition as a continuous narrative that had been updated concurrently to the history it told, biblical narratives have been loosened from this explicit chronology and setting, and da-ted at a distance from the events narrated. In other words, biblical tra-dition has undergone a transformation from historical sources to histo-rical narratives. It has become ‘fictional historiography’ in John Van Seters’ inversion of Otto Eissfeldt’s theory of ‘fictionalised history,’5 or it has become invention and creation with very little historical nucleus according to Thomas Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, Philip Davies and others.6

Reflective of these considerations are titles and composition of his-tories of ancient Israel that focus on the biblical, historical or ancient Israel. Thus, Miller and Hayes’ A History of Ancient Israel and Judah,7

begins with the period of the Judges as the Bible’s earliest historical kernel. Soggin’s A History of Israel from the Beginning to the Bar Kochva Revolt8 has the united monarchy under David and Solomon as his star-ting point. Gösta Ahlström’s The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest9 attempts a balance from Joshua onwards, without too much synthesizing of sources. However, when he begins using Kings and Prophets, the biblical material takes center stage. Thomas Thompson’s Early History of the Israelite People10 rather deconstructs any history told and attempts opening up avenues to the literary and intellectual matrices of biblical tradition.

Countering these works, we find recent assessments of Israel’s bib-lical past in works of Kenneth Kitchen, William Dever, Ferdinand Deist, Iain Provan, Philips Long and Tremper Longman III,11 who advocate a general trust in the Bible as a historical document from the Patriarchs onwards and reject modern opinions about the biblical books as literary and theological documents. It stands to reason that these scholars in general are quite skeptical of recent achievements in related fields.

Seeking to mediate between these positions, Megan Bishop Moore advocates an idealist, one might say modern, confidence, that an objec-tive comprehensive history of Israel’s past can and should be written,

5 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise, 19-21. 6 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 106-107 7 MILLER / HAYES, History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 8 SOGGIN, History of Israel. 9 AHLSTRÖM, History of Ancient Palestine. 10 THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People. 11 KITCHEN, On the Reliability; DEVER, What Did the Biblical Writers Know; DEVER,

Who Were the Israelites; DEIST, Contingency; DEIST, Material Culture; PROVAN / LONG / LONGMAN, Biblical History of Israel.

176 I. Hjelm

but that this history should be composed in such a way that ‘whatever relevant information that is available is made known and nothing po-tentially relevant is omitted, while keeping the distinction between evidence and interpretation as clear as possible.’12 Rather than the scep-ticism advocated by several scholars, Moore advocates, with Deist and Philips Long, that “qualified correspondent truth” is a more appropria-te ‘truth-standard for the history of Israel at this time.’13 She also advo-cates that a comprehensive history should and can be written. Moore herself does not give an example of the result of such a, dare I say, “bo-gus” epistemology, in which, however, we are all in danger of being trapped.

At this point, I will give attention to a recent history of Israel by the Italian Assyriologist Mario Liverani, because it implicitly offers an answer to Moore’s position, but in a far more sophisticated way than the works of Deist and Philips Long. In Liverani’s Israel’s History and the History of Israel, translated and published in 2005 from its Italian origi-nal in 2003,14 he far surpasses Van Seters’ hypothesis of a late Yahwist, responsible for the non-Priestly material in the Tetrateuch.15 This stra-tum encompasses the primeval history, the Patriarchs and the life of Moses and was the work of a Judaean scholar living among the exiles in Babylonia.16 Van Seters dates J to around ca 540 BCE and later than D (ca 625) and DtrH (Grundschrift), but earlier than P’s modifying additi-ons (ca 400).17 Liverani’s book is divided into 2 parts with an introduc-tion and an epilogue. Part I-II is entitled: ‘A normal History’ and ‘An Invented History’, respectively. His ‘Normal History’ covers the period from the 12th century Late Bronze/Iron Age transition until the end of the Babylonian empire. However, his introduction, his imprinting, deals with Palestine in the Late Bronze Age; that is 14th and 15th centuries with no obvious change or transition in his history writing to part one, which begins in general analyses of Palestine and gradually focuses more intensely on Israelite matters as the story moves towards the divi-sion of the otherwise non-historical Davidic kingdom and the historic

12 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 144. 13 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 183. 14 LIVERANI, Israel’s History. 15 P is usually ascribed to Exod 25-31, 35-40, Leviticus; Num 1-10, 15, 18-20, 26-30, 34-36

+ variously to minor narrative and genealogical sections in Genesis-Numbers. It is considered to be the youngest layer of the Pentateuch. VAN SETERS, Joshua 24; VAN SETERS, Prologue to History; VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses; VAN SETERS, Is There Evidence; VAN SETERS, Law Book for the Diaspora.

16 VAN SETERS, Life of Moses, 468. 17 VAN SETERS, Pentateuch, 14.


fate of Israel and Judah, such as told in biblical narratives and partly confirmed by extra biblical sources. Methodologically, Liverani moves from having founded his history of Palestine in extra biblical sources and material to basing his entire histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah on the Books of Kings of the Hebrew Bible; that is, modern com-pilations of masoretic texts. His reason for doing so, although implicitly claimed to be epistemological, is, however, a matter of conviction; na-mely, that it is only in the period of the ‘divided’ kingdoms that the authors had ‘reliable official documentation at their disposal: palace archives, royal inscriptions and chronicles.’18 With these documents, they wrote the various annals referred to in Kings, brought these to Babylon and, influenced by Babylonian Chronicle writing, formed the synchronistic history of the kingdoms in a ‘scanty yet precise way, chronologically well related in detail and without using legendary ma-terial (apart from the clearly demarcated prophetic cycles of Elijah and Elisha).’19 On form critical grounds, one must agree with Liverani that the parallels with Babylonian chronicles are substantial enough to as-sert a literary a quo in the Babylonian period.20 However, and Liverani must know that, form does not yield or guarantee reliability per se, and an early a quo dating does not contradict the possible later ad quem, suggested by other scholars.

Part II, Liverani’s ‘Invented History’ is basically an attempt at pla-cing the returning Jews within frameworks of Ezra, Nehemiah and contemporary Prophets and at aligning these books with what is known about the Persian Empire. Also here, Liverani shows a great deal of confidence in the biblical books. The term ‘invention’ does not relate to the history of the Jews in the Persian period, but to their crea-tions, namely the books they wrote about their prehistory from creation to the end of the Solomonic kingdom. This means that the invention of the Israelite people, with their tribal divisions, the exodus, wandering in the desert, covenants and Law, settlement in the Promised Land, period of Judges and the early kingdom down to the division of that kingdom, all are paradigmatic of political, social, cultic and literary circumstances from the late neo-Assyrian to well into the Persian pe-riod, rather than any earlier periods narrated in Genesis to 2 Samuel.

Liverani’s attempt at ‘referring literary texts to the time in which they were written and not the period they speak about’21 is both insigh-

18 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 228. 19 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 228. 20 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 229-230. 21 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, xvi.

178 I. Hjelm

tful and stimulating. He might be the first historian who has attempted a comprehensive History of Israel that seeks to incorporate some recons-truction of its literary history based on recent ‘critical deconstructions of the Biblical text.’22 However, already in 1971, Morton Smith’s Palesti-nian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament became very in-fluential in deconstructing old paradigms leading to speculations about a much later dating of canonical books.23 The process became highly influenced by evidence gained from publications of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which forced scholars to rethink processes of canonization of Biblical texts and entities. The existence of multiple text variants from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE have undermined the status of the Masoretic text as normative before Medieval times.24 In short, did any of the texts used by Liverani exist in the 7th-5th century BCE? Strangely enough, this research is completely absent in Liverani’s book, although much has been written on the subject. The deconstruction models outlined in Liverani’s book represent, in fact, only one aspect of debates about biblical texts. A close forerunner of Liverani’s book is Thomas Thompson’s The Bible in History. How Writers Create a Past, from 1999.25 While Liverani’s book is sociological and chrono-historical, Thompson’s book is oriented towards intellectual and literary forms in the ancient worlds of scribes and audience.

Another aspect that has not made its way into Liverani’s book is re-cent archaeological achievements regarding the Persian and Hellenistic periods.26 Especially the last ten years have produced new results re-garding the number and size of settlements in Judaea and the very slow growth of Jerusalem, which makes it unlikely that a considerable temp-le, let alone a city wall had been built as told in Ezra and Nehemiah.27 The political, demographic and economic power to carry out major building projects was not at hand before well into the Hellenistic pe-riod, and there is no precedence for walled cities in central Palestine in the Persian period.28 Theories about a fortified Jerusalem are entirely

22 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, xvi. 23 SMITH, Palestinian Parties. 24 HJELM, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? 25 THOMPSON, The Bible in History. 26 OFER, All the Hill Country; BARSTAD, After the “Myth of the Empty Land”; CARTER,

Emergence of Yehud; CARTER, Ideology and Archaeology; LIPSCHITS / OEMING, Judah and the Judaeans; LIPSCHITS / KNOPPERS / ALBERTZ, Judah and the Judeans; LIPSCHITS, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem.

27 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem. 28 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem, 510.


based on Nehemiah and have no archaeological basis.29 From the Ele-phantine archive, Jerusalem’s temple seems to have been in place at the end of the 5th century, but it was only in the 2nd to 1st century BCE that it gained in size and importance. Whether this should be ascribed to Hasmonaean or Herodian activity or whether one should rather think of the restoration of the temple undertaken by Antiochus III, such as told by Josephus (Ant 12.138-144), demands further research. Similarly the growth of Judah went much slower than has been estimated earlier and the “province’s” political role seems to have been subordinate to the political role played by Samaria up to the 4th century BCE.

Jerusalem was not the only place for Yahweh worship in Persian period Palestine. The Samarian/Samaritan temple on Gerizim was in place from early in the 5th century according to the coinage found there, and it gained in size (and importance) in the 3rd-2nd century BCE.30 The structure of the precinct, measuring 96 x 98 m and the six chambered gates, (to the north, the south and the east), common throughout Israel in the Iron II, resembles descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel and the Temple Scroll. The cult carried out at the site is testified in finds of hundreds of thousands of burnt animal bones of three- to one year old sheep, goats, cattle (rare), and pigeons, consistent with the distribution of sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 1-6.31 These were concentrated in four areas of the Persian period complex. Small finds from the Persian period include silver jewellery, a silver ring with the insignia “Yahweh is one” (yhwh ’ḥd), a copper snake and metal implements.32 No pagan objects, no Greek pottery with mythical depictions and no images have been uncovered. Thus the Samaritan temple and community did not arise in the late 4th century as claimed by Josephus, but was in existence more than a century earlier; that is, the time in which the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah depict the Samaritans as adversaries of the returning Jews. Leaving aside the polemics in these books and looking at the evi-dence, we find a cultural continuity between Samaria and Yehud in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This consists of language (Aramaic and Hebrew), similar scripts, archaized seal impressions inscribed in paleo-

29 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem, 509. 30 NAVEH / MAGEN, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions; MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim; MAGEN /

MISGAV / TSEFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations I; MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase; MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations II; HJELM, Changing Paradigms; HJELM, Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans.

31 NAVEH / MAGEN, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions. MAGEN / MISGAV / TSEFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 9.

32 KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion.

180 I. Hjelm

Hebrew, a significant overlap in personal names and a predominance of Yahwistic personal names.33

In the rebuilding of the temple in the early second century BCE, four chambered gates replaced the old gates on the northern, eastern and southern sides and the walls were enlarged. On the western side, a continuous wall was built on the foundations of the early wall. A monumental staircase, with a gatehouse at its bottom and the four chambered gatehouse at its top, which is integral to the wall, was con-structed on the eastern side. To the north and south of the staircase were courtyards supported by huge retaining walls. The city that grew up around the temple had already begun to expand considerably after the invasion of Alexander the Great. On Mt. Gerizim, five residential quarters with streets and alleys have been excavated to the north, south and west of the holy precinct. A great number of public buildings have been uncovered to the east and to the south. Defensive fortresses, tower and courtyards surrounded by thick retaining walls, were built to the southeast and west of the precinct. Before its destruction around 110 BCE, the city housed more than ten thousand people in addition to the many pilgrims who visited the temple. Outside the city itself, towards the northwest, was found a large residential and industrial quarter.34

Incorporating new insights in one’s analysis is a slow process be-cause it demands a rethinking of several foundations. One is the Jerusa-lem orientation that pervades the scholarly world to such an extent that even the biblical books that have no Jerusalem orientation (Genesis-Joshua) have been brought under the same umbrella as Samuel-2 Kings, Ezra- Nehemiah and Chronicles. In doing so, scholars are able to retain the paradigm about Babylonian influence in exile, which became postexilic practice with the returning Jews. However, Babylonian reli-gious and legal practice could have greatly influenced Israelite and Judaean customs, whether in Palestine or exile, from as early as the 7th century. Linked to the aforementioned paradigm is the paradigm about the cessation of the Israelite population with the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. A myth of an almost empty land that became filled with foreig-ners, who forced the remaining religious establishment to seek refuge in Jerusalem, and, having brought their traditions with them, these became incorporated in Judaean scripture. Such popular paradigms, unfounded and contradicted by evidence,35 try to answer more than they can. They are simple explanations of the very complex problem of 33 KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion, 11; see also KNOPPERS, Revisiting the Samari-

tan Question, 273-279. 34 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 1-10. 35 KNOPPERS, In Search of Post-Exilic Israel, 162-165.


the formation of Scripture, which did not end with the biblical figure of Ezra around 400 BCE. Neither did runaway priests bring a Jewish Pen-tateuch to Gerizim, where they later transformed its messages to fit the new situation. We simply have to look for other scenarios and most likely for models of cooperation between Samaritans and Jews.36 Unfor-tunately, new evidence does not make our tasks easier. The uncertainty in knowing our present, but having a past that changes every day, is a condition we cannot overcome. However, it makes it meaningful to continue to investigate past events, so let’s do so and learn as much as we can together.

Bibliography

AHLSTRÖM, Gösta W. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (EDELMAN Diana V. ed., JSOTS 146), Shef-field 1993.

BARSTAD, Hans M., After the “Myth of the Empty Land”: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah, in: LIPSCHITS Oded / BLENKINSOPP, Jo-seph (eds.), Judah and Judaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake 2003, 3-20.

CARTER Charles E., The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294), Sheffield 1999.

CARTER Charles E., Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period: Excavating Text and Tell, in: LIPSCHITS Oded / BLENKINSOPP, Joseph (eds.), Judah and Judaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake 2003, 301-322.

DEVER, William G., What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell us about the Reality of Ancient Israel? Grand Rapids 2001.

DEVER, William G., Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come from? Grand Rapids 2003.

DEIST, Ferdinand E., Contingency, Continuity and Integrity in Historical Un-derstanding: An Old Testament Perspective, in: Scriptura 11 (1993) 99-115.

DEIST, Ferdinand E., The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction (The Biblical Seminar 70), Sheffield 2000.

FINKELSTEIN, Israel, Jerusalem in the Persian (and early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah, in: JSOT 32/4 (2008) 501-520.

36 NODET, Search for the Origins of Judaism, 176-195; KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt.

Zion, 12, 28-31.

182 I. Hjelm

HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis (JSOTSup 303, CIS 7), Sheffield 2000.

HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers: Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism in Tradition and History, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in An-cient History and Tradition (CIS 13, JSOTSup 381), London / New York, 197-222; (Arabic in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. / JAYYUSI, Salma Khadra (eds.), Al-Quds, The Ancient City of Jerusalem between Tradition and History, Beirut 2003, 275-306.

HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competi-tion (JSOTSup 404, CIS 14), London / New York 2004.

HJELM, Ingrid, What do Samaritans and Jews Have in Common? Recent Trends in Samaritan Studies, in: Currents in Biblical Research 3.1 (2004) 9-62.

HJELM, Ingrid, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? Ancient Authors, Medieval Manu-scripts and Modern Perceptions, in: SJOT 18/1 (2004) 108-134.

HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans in Josephus’ Jewish History, in: SHEHADEH, Has-seeb / TAWA, Habib (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines. Helsinki, August 1-4, 2000. Studies in Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger, Paris 2005, 27-39.

HJELM, Ingrid, Changing Paradigms: Judaean and Samarian Histories in Light of Recent Research, in: MÜLLER, Max / THOMPSON, Thomas L. (eds.), Histo-rie og Konstruktion. Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche i anledning af 60 års fødselsdagen den 6. september 2005 (Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 14) Co-penhagen 2005, 161-179.

HJELM, Ingrid, Review of Megan Bishop Moore, Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-ment Studies 435), London / New York 2006, in: SJOT 22/1 (2008) 150-154, and in: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008) 579-580 (abbreviated ver-sion).

HJELM, Ingrid, Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research, in: MOR, Mena-hem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies (Studia Judaica 53, Studia Samaritana 5), Berlin 2010, 25-41.

KITCHEN, Kenneth A., On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids / Cambridge 2003.

KNOPPERS, Garry N.‚ In Search of Post-Exilic Israel: Samaria After the Fall of the Northern Kingdom, in: DAY John (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel. Pro-ceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 406), London / New York 2004, 150-180.

KNOPPERS, Garry N., Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion: A Study in the Early History of the Samaritans and Jews, in: Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 34/3-4 (2005) 309-337.


KNOPPERS, Garry N., Revisiting the Samaritan Question in the Persian Period, in: LIPSCHITS Oded / OEMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 265-289.

LIPSCHITS, Oded, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, Winona Lake 2005. LIPSCHITS Oded / OEMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Per-

sian Period, Winona Lake 2006. LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Garry N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the

Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona Lake 2007. LIVERANI, Mario, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London 2005 (orig:

Oltre la Bibbia: Storia Antica di Israele, Roma-Bari 2003). MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 33/2 (120) 2000,

74-118 (Hebrew). MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple, in:

LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Garry N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona Lake 2007, 157-212.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim Excavations II: A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8), Jerusalem 2008 (English and Hebrew).

MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excava-tions I: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea & Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem (English and Hebrew).

MILLER, J. Maxwell / HAYES, John H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia 1986.

MOORE, Megan Bishop, Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Series 435), London / New York 2006.

NOTH, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Halle 1943.

NAVEH, Joseph / MAGEN, Yitzhak, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions of the Second Century BCE at Mount Gerizim, in: Atiqot 32 (1997) 9-17.

NODET, Etienne, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mish-nah (JSOTSup 248), Sheffield 1997 ( orig.: Essai sur les origines du Ju-daïsme: de Josue aux Pharisiens, Paris 1992).

OFER, Avi, “All the Hill Country of Judah”: From a Settlement Fringe to a Pros-perous Monarchy, in: FINKELSTEIN, Israel / NA’AMAN, Nadav (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, Jerusalem 1994, 92-121.

PROVAN, Ian.W. / LONG V. Philips / LONGMAN Tremper III., A Biblical History of Israel, Louisville 2003.

DE PURY, Albert / RÖMER, Thomas / MACCHI, Jean-Daniel (eds.) Israel Cons-tructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306), Sheffield 2000 (first published as Israël construit son histoi-

184 I. Hjelm

re. L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes [Le Monde de la Bible 34, Geneva 1996]).

RÖMER, Thomas, The So-called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Histo-rical, and Literary Introduction, London / New York 2007.

SHEARING Linda S., / MCKENZIE, Steven L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuterono-mists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268), Sheffield 1999.

SMITH, Morton, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York 1971.

SOGGIN, J. Alberto, A History of Israel: From the Beginning to the Bar Kochba Revolt, AD 135, London 1984 (orig: Storia d’Israele, dale origini alla rivolta di Bar-Kochba, 135 d.C., Brescia 1984; 2nd rev. ed., An introduction to the History of Judah, London 1993, orig: Introduzione alla Storia d’Israele e di Guida, Brescia 1993; 3rd. rev. ed., Brescia 1998; Eng. trans., London 1999).

THOMPSON, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE 8), Leiden 1992.

THOMPSON, Thomas L. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Lon-don 1999 / 2000 (= The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, New York 1999 / 2000).

VAN SETERS, John, Joshua 24 & the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament, in: Barrick W. Boyd / Spencer, John R. (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström (JSOTS 31), Sheffield 1984, 139-158.

VAN SETERS, John, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992.

VAN SETERS, John, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen 1994.

VAN SETERS, John, The Pentateuch, in: MCKENZIE Steven / GRAHAM, Matt Patrick (eds.), The Hebrew Bible Today. An introduction to Critical Issues, Louis-ville 1998, 3-49.

VAN SETERS, John, Is There Evidence of a Dtr Redaction in the Sinai Pericope (Exodus 19-24, 32-34), in SHEARING, Linda S. / MCKENZIE, Steven L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTS 268), Sheffield 1999, 160-170.

VAN SETERS, John, A Law Book for the Diaspora. Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford 2003.

WHITELAM, Keith, The Invention of Ancient Israel. The Silencing of Palestinian History, London 1996.

IV. Linguistics

”Hebrew Language“ and ”Holy Language“ between Judea and Samaria

ABRAHAM TAL

As is well-known, the language in which Biblical literature was handed down to future generations is never called “Hebrew” within that cor-pus. No allusion is made to the name of the language of the “Heb-rews,” male or female ( העבריות ,העברים Ex 2:6-7). Nor are we informed about the name of the language spoken in “the Land of the Hebrews” ( העברים ארץ Gen 40:15). Therefore, we do not know what the inhabitants of the land called it. It is probably the language that Isaiah called שפת in his florid style (19:18), although it is doubtful whether is this ,כנעןmore than a figure of speech.1 A more specific name is יהודית. In 2 Kgs 18:26, 28 (= Isa 36:11, 13), the emissaries of Hezekiah, king of Judah, ask Rabshakeh, the Assyrian general, to refrain from speaking to them -so that the common people would not understand his demorali ,יהודיתzing speech. Apparently, this refers to the language of Judah alone; one would doubt whether this includes the speakers that populated the northern kingdom too, who would have had a pronounced aversion to such a name. Nevertheless, Amos, the Judahite prophet, found no diffi-culty in making speeches in Samaria “in the days of Jeroboam... king of Israel!” The same term is used by Nehemiah (13:24) when he complains about the mixed marriages of many Judahites, which result in children “who do not know to speak יהודית [Judahite].”2 This is of course the name which he grants to the language spoken in the territory under his rule, namely Judah. No doubt, this name could not be accepted in the territory of Samaria, with the governor of which Nehemiah had nume-

1 This did not deter Ibn Ezra from claiming, “from this we learn that the Canaanites

used to speak in the Holy Language.” is apparently a derogative name for the ,יהודית the language he opposes to ,אשדודית 2

language spoken by these offspring of the unwanted foreign wives. It is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the following וכלשון עם ועם, “and the language of various peoples.” The Septuagint ignores the entire expression, while the Vulgate associates it to אשדודית, as other spoken languages, not without a preceding insertion loquebatur, in order to clarify matters.

188 A. Tal

rous unfriendly encounters (Neh 2:10-19, etc.). The Bible itself never lets us know what the language of its literary pieces is called, although it calls other languages by name: ארמית is mentioned in the speech of the emissaries of Hezekiah, as well as in Daniel (2:4), and in Ezra (4:7).

It is only in the period that we are used to call “post-Biblical” that the name “Hebrew” is used for the language spoken within the boun-daries of Eretz Israel. Naturally, this does not imply that the name did not exist before this period. The first echo of the name is embedded into the preface of the Greek Book of Ben-Sira, where the author’s grandson (2nd century B.C.E.), who made the translation, complains about the difficulties in rendering into Greek “what is said ebrai?sti,.”3 The con-temporary Letter of Aristeas speaks about the king’s desire to have trans-lated into Greek the Law evk tw/n par´ umw/n legome,nwn ebrai?kw/n gram-ma,twn (§ 38). The Book of Jubilees 12:26-7 reports about God’s speech to Moses, saying that He taught Abraham th.n ebrai<da glw/ssan.4 The ad-verbial expression ebrai?sti, occurs in many somewhat later literary pie-ces composed in the Roman periods, such as Philo’s references to e`brai/wj glw/ssa in his De Sobrietate § 45 and De Confusione Linguarum § 68.5 So is Josephus’ account of Rabshakeh’s speech held ebrai?œsti, “be-

3 The discovery of the Ben Sira fragments in the Cairo Geniza generated an ardent

dispute over the question whether they represent the original that underlies the Greek translation or not. Their striking resemblance to the fragments from Masada solved the problem. See HURWITZ, Linguistic Status, 72-73. For a detailed discussion of the translator’s use of the term ebrai?œsti,, and the distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic at its time, see SCHORCH, Pre-eminence.

4 According to the Greek version quoted by SYNCELLUS, Georgius Syncellus, 185. The Ethiopian version is somewhat different but mentions Hebrew too. An indirect testimony is provided by the medieval ספר הזכרונות by Yerahmiel b. Shelomo. In a chapter largely dependent on the Testament of Naphtali, the division of the languages is narrated, mentioning that after the Tower of Babylon affair, God sent the angels to teach the seventy nations seventy languages, while לשון עברי remained for Shem and Eber and Abraham their descendant. (YASSIF, The Book of Memory, 146. To be sure, this segment does not exist in the Greek version of the Testament of Naphtali).

5 Philo, vol. III, LCL, Cambridge, Mass., 1940, 466; ibid., vol. IV, 47, respectively. His testimony is somewhat blurred by his statement made in De Vita Mosis 2:26-27 that the Torah was originally written “in Chaldean” (glw,ssh| caldai?kh|/) before being translated into Greek, ibid., vol. VI, 1935, 460, 462. For a detailed study of Philo’s use of the term Chaldean when referring to Hebrew, see WONG, Philo’s use of Chaldaioi. The interpretation of eJbraiœsti/ is the subject of an endless dispute. Assuming that Hebrew was no longer in colloquial use after the Exile, many scholars took it as expressing Aramaic. Place names ending in a in the Gospels, such as Golgoqa, Gabbaqa, Beqzaqa (John 5:2; 19:13,17 respectively) apparently support this view, since the ending a allegedly represents the final Aramaic article. Mary Magdalene's “Aramaic” exclamation rabbouni, “my Master,” at the sight of Jesus (John 20:16), etc.,

“Hebrew Language” and “Holy Language” between Judea and Samaria 189

cause he mastered this language” (Ant 10.8), and of Nehemiah who reports hearing two people speaking ebrai?œsti, to each other (Ant 11.159). The same term occurs in many other places, such as the Gospel according to John, which relates that Pilate sat on the judgement seat at a place named Liqo,strwton, (which) ebrai?œsti, (is named) Gabbaqa (19:13). Paul addresses the crowd in Jerusalem in th/| ebrai<di diale,ktw| (Acts 21:40; 22:2). The Testament of Solomon 14:7 tells about “the great angel who abides in the second heaven and is called ebraiœ?sti, Bazaza,q (= Beel-zebul).”6

The name עברית (and its variant עברי) for Hebrew associated with speech is not widespread in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature. I found in the data-base of the Academy of the Hebrew Language only 41 occurrences in the older Rabbinic sources from the beginning of the Common Era to the end of the seventh century. עברית appears mainly in precepts referring to writing of deeds, contracts, and even in scrolls. For example in the Mishnah: גט שכתבו עברית ועדיו יוונים, “a writ of divorce writ-ten עברית with its witnesses [signing in] Greek” (Gittin 9:8, quoted in Talmud Yerushalmi Gittin 50c; Talmud Bavli Gittin 19b; 87b). תרגום Likewise in the .(Yadayim 4:5) ”עברית a Targum written„ ,שכתבו עבריתTosefta: מגילה כתובה עברית, “a scroll written עברית” (Megillah 3:13, quoted in Yerushalmi Megillah 74d); משנין את השטר מעברית ליוונית, “a deed may be changed [from] עברית to Greek” (Megillah 3:13). The Talmud Bavli enumerates writings that one is permitted to desecrate Shabbat in order to save from fire: היו כתובים גיפטית, מדית, עברית, ועילמית יונית ... מצילין אותן מפני Elamitic, or ,עברית ,if they are written in Egyptian, Median“ ,הדליקהGreek..., they may be saved from a fire” (Shabbat 115a). Many of the forty cases are mere repetitions in younger sources of passages quoted or simply re-written from the older ones. Rarely is עברית used in context of speech. The 3rd century Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael claims that one of the factors that led to the liberation of the Children of Israel from Egypt was the fact that they never abandoned their language and continued to speak עברית in the Egyptian environment: ומנין שלא חלפו לשונם שנ' מי שמך שהיו מכן מדברים עברית Wherefrom (do we know) that they“ ,לאיש שר ושפט.

as well as similar “quotations” of direct speech, have been put forward in favor of this thesis. This argumentation, however, has been refuted by many scholars. For example the vocalization בון ,in Hebrew documents is discussed by YALON, Reasons ר162, and WIEDER, Form Rabbun, 214-217 (both in Hebrew). Such is also the imperative evffaqa,, “be opened” in Mark 7:34, which gave raise to a long dispute over its nature between EMERTON, Did Jesus speak Hebrew? and RABINOWITZ, Ephphata. The argument continued in the seventies and was examined by MORAG, evffaqa,. As the matter is far beyond the scope of this article, I direct the reader to the learned account given by PENNER, What Language. See also POIRIER, Narrative Role.

6 Quoted from MCCOWN, Testament of Solomon.

190 A. Tal

did not change their language? It is written: ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us?’ (Ex 2:14); Therefrom that they were speaking עברית” (sec. Pasha 8).7 This aggadah is repeated again and again in various later compositions. In a similar context עברית occurs in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yohai: בזכות [ישראל] שהיו מדברים עברית, “by the merit of [Israel], because they were speaking עברית” (sect. Mishpatim).8 Sifre Devarim §343 says: ייי מסיני בא זה לשון עברי, “the Lord came from Sinai (Deut 33:2) – this is [in the] Hebrew language” (in contrast with the following parallel verb ואתה, “and he came,” which is characterized as Aramaic).9 Most famous is the dictum of R. Jonathan of Bet ,לשון ארמיGuvrin who, attributing functions to the four important languages of his time, reserves Hebrew for speech: ארבעה לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם

לדיבור עברי לאילייא סורסי לקרב רומי לזמר לעז הן ואילו , “Four languages are sui-table for the world to use them. They are: Laaz (= Greek) for song, Ro-man for battle, Syriac for elegy, Hebrew for speech” (Talmud Yerus-halmi, Megillah 71b [ch. I, 8]. Notwithstanding its importance in the eyes of the rabbis, the term עברית remains infrequent in their literature.

More frequent is the appellation לשון הקודש, “holy language,” whose occurrences in the same chronologically defined Rabbinic literature number around 80. Although this term occurs in imitative texts too, it is far more widely used than the preceding one, perhaps because of its appreciative connotation. One may assume that its origin lies in its attribution to the language in which the Holy Writ is transmitted, whe-refrom it spread to the nickname of Hebrew in general.10 The oldest Tannaitic document, the Mishnah, specifies that certain formulae are pronounced in לשון הקודש. For example, Yevamot 12:6 says that the rite of the Halisa was performed in לשון הקודש (cf. Mishnah Sotah 7:4). Ho-

7 HOROVITZ / RABIN Mechilta d'Rabbi Ismael, 15. 8 EPSTEIN MELAMED, Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b. Jochai, 160. 9 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 395. 10 The Aramaic correspondent occurs once in the Pseudo-Jonatan Targum בלישן קודשה

שירויא מן עלמא ביה דאיתבריא ממללין הוו , “they were speaking in the holy language, in which the world was created from the beginning” (Gen 11:1). Obviously, this is an Aramaic adaptation of a midrash about the primeval language, related to the Tower of Babylon. E.g., Tanhuma: שהלשון הראשון היו מדברים בלשון הקודש ובו בלשון נברא העולם, “that the first language that they (i. e., the builders of the tower) spoke was the holy language, in which the world was created” (editio princeps, Constantinople 1523). The matter is treated by RUBIN, The Language of the Creation. The amplified expression לישן בית קודשא occurs elsewhere in the Palestinian Targum in all its versions. The various opinions about its origin and meaning are detailed in SHINAN, The Embroidered Targum, 113-115. The author believes that, as far as the Targum is concerned, לישן בית קודשא is the prototype of לישן קודשא. See the article mentioned below, note 13.


wever, the same term is used not only to qualify quotations from the Holy Writ or other formulae, but also to designate spoken Hebrew. Thus, according to the 3rd century Sifre on Deuteronomy §46 the father of a boy is required to speak לשון הקודש with his son as soon as he starts speaking: 11 כשהתינוק מתחיל לדבר אביו מדבר עמו בלשון הקודש. A famous saying of R. Meir in the same composition (§333) says: כל הדר בארץ ישראל וקורא

הבא העולם בן הוא ירה הקדש בלשון ומדבר וערבית שחרית שמע קרית “anyone who lives in the Land of Israel, and recites the creed ( ישראל שמע ) morning and evening and speaks לשון הקודש, will inherit the world to come.”12

The oldest record of the term לשון הקודש came to light recently in a fragment discovered in the fourth cave in Qumran (4Q464), and pub-lished by Esther Eshel and Michael E. Stone.13 A segment of document says:

הואה כיא עולם עד [...] 7 הקודש לשון רא[...] 8 ברורה שפה עמים אל]אהפך אז כי... [ 9

One cannot fail to notice the fact that this is the first manifestation known so far of the term לשון הקודש in a non-rabbinic source. From its proximity to the quotation from Zephaniah 3:9, כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה

אחד שכם לעבדו יהוה בשם כלם ראלק ברורה , the authors inferred that the frag-ment belongs to the eschatological genre, meaning that at the “end of the days” people will speak the “holy language,” i.e., the primeval lan-guage. For, obviously, שפה ברורה is interpreted as the “chosen langua-ge.”14 This is how Targum Jonathan to the Prophets renders the verse:

חד כתף קדמוהי למפלח דיוי בשמא כולהון לצלאה בחיר חד ממלל עממיא על אשני בכין ארי , 11 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 104. 12 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 383. The opposite of לשון הקודש in Talmud Yerushalmi is לשון

i. e., the language of commoners. E.g. jSanhedrin 25d [ch. VII, 10] defines the ,הדיוטdifference between מסית, “one who instigates (to idolatry),“ and מדיח, “one who leads astray,” in terms of the languages they use for preaching, according to their audience: מסית אומר בלשון הקודש ומדיח אומר בלשון הדיוט, “a מסית is one who speaks in the Holy Language, and a ומדיח in the language of commoners” (referring to Sanhedrin 7:10). The Talmud Bavli exhibits the dichotomy between לשון קודש and לשון חול, “secular language”: דברים של חול מותר לאומרן בלשון קודש של קודש אסור לאומרן בלשון חול, “Secular matters may be uttered in the holy language, whereas sacred matters must not be uttered in secular language'”(bShabbat 40b).

13 ESHEL / STONE, Exposition on the Patriarchs. See also ESHEL / STONE, Holy Language. 14 There is a wide consensus among modern translations of this passage: “At that time

I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord.” (RSV, NRSV, JPS, etc). Yet, the root ברר bears the meaning “choice,” especially in the book of Chronicles, see BDB s.v. Iברר.

192 A. Tal

“for at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a selected speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord.” Jerome translates the verse in similar terms: reddam populis labium electum, and so does the Peshitta: אהפך על עממא ספתא גביתא. Actually, the root ברר in the Second Commonwealth period bears the sense of “choosing.” Thus, for example, 1 Chron 16:41 relates about the the chosen ones “that have been designated by names,” when ,ברוריםthe Chronicler refers to chosen people, using the language of Num 1:17: -designated by names.” Similarly, the Damascus Cove“ ,אשר נקבו בשמותnant mentions וזה סרך לשפטי העדה עד עשרה אנשים ברורים מן העדה, “this is the rule for the judges of the community, they shall be ten men in all cho-sen from the community” (10:4-5),15 and the Temple Scroll states: וכל

אלהים יראי אמת אנשי יהיו יבור אשר םהברורי , “and all the chosen whom he has selected shall be men of truth, God fearing” (57:7-8).16 The Mishna too uses the verb in the sense of “choice,” i.e., איזו היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו אדם, “what is the straight way that a person should choose for himself” (Avot 2:1); הכהן בורר לו את היפה, “the priest selects the better of them for himself” (Bekh 2:6), etc.

Notwithstanding its Jewish appearance, the term לשון הקודש is by no means alien to Samaritan literature, which expresses the beliefs of the community. Here is an example taken from a hymn composed by the 10th century poet טביה בן יצחק Tabya ban Yēʼṣåq.17

הקדש האל היכול הגדול השם זה יתרבי...

בלש הך והארץ שמים היה ביהוה האש הוא והאור ועפר והמים והרוח האור ורמש דשאו עץ כל עלמה קם מהם נפש וכל עוף וכל בהמה וכל חיה וכל הקדש בלשן יאמר והדמה בצלם ואדם בקדש נאדרי כמוך מי יהוה באלים כמוך מי

Exalted be this Great Name /... / By YHWH heaven and earth came into be-ing, as He desired / and so (were) the Light and the Wind and the Water / and the Dust and the Light, which is the Fire / from them the world came into being: every tree and grass and creeping creature / and every living being and every beast / and every bird and every soul. / And Man in the image and likeness says in the Holy Language: ‘Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in holiness?’ (Ex 15:11).

15 BROSHI, Damascus Document, 29. 16 QIMRON, Temple Scroll, 83. 17 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 132-133.


This is a segment of a hymn, written by Tabya for the first day of the month of Nissan (if it falls on a Sabbath), which extols the glory of God in the context of the Song of the Sea. Each of its four strophes ends with a quotation from the Torah, which has a certain relevance to Passover. The strophe under scrutiny has verse 11 in Exodus 15, and the expres-sion לשון הקודש (liššon aqqådəš) plays the role of an introductory formula of a Torah quotation. Evidently, it differs from the Qumran fragment, where the term does occurs in a clear eschatological environment.

Another poem composed for similar circumstances by the 14th cen-tury priest יוסף הרבן Yūsəf aråbbån says:18

ארש למועדים דו טבו מה הפסח מועד אש צלי קרבן ומיכל ופסח ומועד שבת וברגש בשמח יאכלהו ומרורים מצות על

הקדש בלשן פמו ויפתח איש כל ויקום קדש עם אה יומה תנים במימר שירתה ויחתם

How good is the feast of Pessah, for it is the foundation of all the feasts: / Shabbat and the Passover feast and the eating of the offering, roasted over the fire, / with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it (Ex 12:8), in joy and excitement. / And every man raises and opens his mouth in the Holy Language, / and finishes the Song (of the Sea) saying: ‘O, that you re-peat the day, O Holy people.’19

Yūsəf does not quote the Song of the Sea explicitly like Tabya, but he rather refers to it: “let everyone raise and open his mouth in liššon aqqådəš (and recite the Song)“ and ends with the saying, “repeat the day, O holy people!"

A later poet, namely אברהים אלעיה Ibrāhim alʽAyya, (18th century) uses the same expression for Hebrew as introductory formula of the glori-fying verse from the Song of the Sea:20

נקש תשבחן שופר הארץ על השמים כימי ירש דאתה דבוקה דחייה מרון לך הקדש בלשן אמרים ישובו ולך כלה בקדש נאדרי כמוך מי יהוה איליםב כמוך מי

As long as the heavens are above the earth (Deut 11:21), a horn of praises blasts / for You, the master of the living creatures, the deliverer. For you

18 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 135. 19 The common formula of blessing is תנים יומה מאה שנה, ”O that you repeat the day

hundred years.” See BEN-HAYYIM, Samaritan Poems, 353. 20 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 786.

194 A. Tal

possess / all,21 and to you they will return saying in the Holy Language: / ‘Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in ho-liness?’

The great personality of the 14th century, the priest פינחס הרבן Fī‘nås arråbbån, famous for his cultural activity,22 wrote in a prayer for Passo-ver, in which he used, along with לשון הקדש liššon aqqådəš, another term to designate the Hebrew, העברי לשן (liššon åʼibri):23

קריב נפושה כי / ויטיב ירוח יהוה לך / והקריב אלהיך ליהוה פסח ועשית / האביב חדש את שמור וישיב העולם בו יהוה הב / האביב לחדש הו כי / אביב העברי בלשן / האביב חדש שם יהוה קרא אקריב יהוה קרבן ובו / האנשים כל דמע יד על / שם בני עמו יהוה הוציא בו / חדשים לכל אב

נקריב הזה הירחי וחדש / השמש חדש הו כי / הקדש בלשן האביב חדש / בקדש הנאדרי קראו

Observe the month of Abib / and offer a passover sacrifice to the Lord your God (Deut 16:1) / The Lord will grant you ample space and will deal well with you / For the relief is near. The Lord called the name of the month of Abib / in the Hebrew Language Abib / for to the month of Abib / the Lord has given the world and estab-lished it. It is the father of all the months / in which the Lord brought out his people, the children of Shem (from Egypt), through the choicest of all men (= Mo-ses) / and in it he offered a sacrifice to the Lord. Recite ‘majestic in holiness’ / (in) the month of Abib in the Holy Language / for it is the month of the sun / and in the month of the moon we shall offer sacrifices.24

Although לשון הקדש liššon aqqådəš does not function here as an explicit introductory formula, it undoubtedly refers to the Song of the Sea. On the other hand, Fī'nås introduced an innovation: לשון העברי liššon åʼibri, which soon became popular and was used in several variations by other poets.25

21 I translated ירש as “possess” (originally “inherit”) following the suggestion of my

colleague and friend, Professor Moshe Florentin (e-mail message). According to his research, the verb ירש is frequently employed in the liturgy in this sense, when associated with God (COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 101, 216, 264, 403, etc.).

22 CROWN, The Samaritans, 430, 673; COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 124. 23 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 191-192. 24 The author's excessive resort to licentia poetica combined with his docile compliance

with rhyme and rhythm produced a decadent piece, linguistically erroneous, hard to understand and strenuous to translate.

25 Since the expression is used in the latest Samaritan literature, one may wonder whether it was borrowed from Jewish literature. Borrowings from Jewish writings are manifest in Samaritan compositions, such as their Aramaic Targum (see TAL,


In a poem for the Day of Atonement עבדאל בן שלמה (ʽAbəd El ban Šalame) writes:26

ולזרעו אדםל עיבת הדעת עץ דעת תדעו מאשר להם אתשרשר מה

במקראו ונשרי לזה נדכר וטרם מוצאו מטרם מנה הוה מה נדכר בוראו בין דמע הוה והיך עדן גן מן

וישבחו עבודה יהלל עבראותה בלשון ושרה

You required from Adam and his offspring awareness of (the interdiction of eating from) the tree of knowledge. / What happened to them, as far as you know, / before we recall that and begin to read it, / let us recall what (Adam) was before being banished / from the Garden of Eden, and how he was the choicest before27 his Creator / (when) he begun to praise his Maker and to eulogize Him in liššon ibråʼūtå.

In his prolix Neo-Samaritan Hebrew, the author relates Adam's praises to God before being banished from Eden. One perceives a notable neo-logism in his לשון עבראותה (liššon ibråʼūtå), an aramaizing form of liššon åʼibri. The poet describes Adam praising God before eating from the Tree of Knowledge. He emphasizes that the appraisal was said in the Hebrew language. One may conclude that the poet expresses the belief prevalent within his community that the primeval language was Heb-rew. This belief was quite popular in Jewish circles too from time im-memorial. The rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah, sect. 18, states clearly: “Inasmuch as [the Torah] was given in the holy language (לשון הקודש), so the world was created in the holy language.“28 Discussing the escha-tological prophecy of Zephaniah, the medieval Midrash collection Tan-huma (sect. Noah) maintains that Hebrew was the primeval language, which God “confused” because of human arrogance. But in the world to come, Hebrew will regain its status as the universal language.29

Samaritan Targum, 30-31). Likewise, the oldest version of their Arabic translation of the Pentateuch is based mainly on Saadia's Tafsir (KOHN, Zur Sprache, 125; SHEHADEH, Arabic Translation, 88f.). A self evident example is the adaptation of one of Saadia's prayers to Samaritan beliefs (BEN-HAYYIM, A baqasha).

26 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 521. 27 Abbreviated from בין ידי, “before,” frequent Arabic loan: بين .يدي See TAL, Samaritan

Targum, 71-72. 28 This is a homily on לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לקחה זאת, “she shall be called woman, for from

man was she taken” (Gen 2:23). In order to prove the primordiality of Hebrew it resorts to the popular etymology connecting אשה with איש, which in fact belong to different roots. THEODOR / ALBECK, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 164.

היה הקודש שבו נברא העולם ...לעולם 29 שערבב הקב"ה את לשונם ...מה היה אותו הלשון שהיו מדברים בו לשון

196 A. Tal

A remarkably similar eschatology is exhibited in a poem for the Day of Atonement by of a contemporary of ʽAbəd El, the priest אבישע Abiša the son of Fīn’ås arråbbån, grandson of Yūsəf aråbbån. Resembling the view of Tanhuma but going one step further, Abiša places Hebrew in the status of the language of the Last Days. In a long poem for the Day of Atonement, Abiša makes a survey, starting with the Creation, continuing with the principal events in the course of human history and ending with the Ta‘eb, the Redeemer, who will bring the “Day of Revenge and Recompense.”30 Then, the Tabernacle will be rebuilt and the priests will renew their service:31

יראתו מן ןהאמ בטח ישראל וישכן קרבנותו ויקריב בשלם מועדיו ויעבד

יכפתו העמים וכל תתחדש והשמחות עבראותו לשן ויתגלי הערבים לשן ויבלל

Israel will dwell in safety (Deut 38:28), the steadfast in its faith / and he will keep the feasts in peace and make his offerings / and joy will be renewed, and all the nations will be subdued / and the language of the Arabs will be confused and the liššon ibråʼūta will be revealed [= reinstated].

The environment in which the Samaritans lived and in which their rennaissance took place in the 14th century was Arabic-speaking. The Samaritan community itself is clearly Arabic-speaking and Arabic-writing as well. Abiša knows that this situation is not going to change in the near future. He expresses his longing for the end of the days, when Hebrew will regain its status of universal language, as it was in the days before the Tower of Babylon, when humanity became multilin-gual. He gives voice to his feelings regarding the deplorable state of the Samaritans under Arab rule in a rather blunt way using the verb בלל, which calls up an association with the wicked generation of the Tower of Babylon.32 The term used is again the Aramaic shaped לשן עבראותה.

וגו אהפך אז כי שנאמר לעבדו אחד כתף שוין כולן הבא , “that God confused their language and nobody understood his fellow's language. What was that language that they were speaking? It was the holy language', in which the world was created... In the world to come all [creatures] will equally worship Him, for it is said: ‘At that time I shall change...” BUBER, Midrash Tanchuma, 56. For the occurrence of a similar homily in early medieval liturgical poetry, see the evidence provided by the articles quoted above, in note 13.

ושלם נקם 30 .cf ,(Deut 32:35) לי נקם ושלם is the Samaritan counterpart of the masoretic ליום LXX evn h`me,ra| evkdikh,sewj avntapodw,sw.

31 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 513. For a description of the personality of the Ta'eb, the Samaritan redeemer, and his role in “the end of the days,” see DEXINGER, Der Taheb.

32 This generation, hostilely named מגדלאי, “the people of the Tower,” is harshly


The re-birth of Hebrew is for Abiša the hallmark of a global process of the nations' admittance of the true faith, which he describes in the co-lors of Isaiah‘s prophecy (of which he is probably unaware). The nati-ons33 will acknowledge their mistake:

לעדתו יימר מנון כל והערלים והגוים דתו הקשט הו וזה שקר בו אנן מה כל

קורתו צל תחת ונבוא אליו נלך (?!) בנו קומו ותורתו ובמשה בו ויאמנו וייתו

And the nations and the uncircumcised, each one of them will say to its community: / ‘Everything in which we are is untrue, and this is the true faith. / Arise, let us go to it and come under the shelter of its roof (Gen 19:8).’ / And they will come and believe in Moses and his law.

Needless to say, Jews are not going to evade the universal conversion to Samaritanism. They too will acknowledge their error and abandon their law, given to them by Ezra, the father of the Jewish heresy. Abiša is blunt when he refers to them:

בדתו נבוא זה יימרו (!) היהודהים בבישאתו דכתב ודבריו עזרה ארור

And the Jews will say: ‘let us join this faith / cursed be Ezra and his words, which he has written in his evilness.’34

Abiša returns to this subject in another poem for the Day of Atone-ment,35 in which he states clearly that Hebrew has a central role in the global conversion due to occur when the rū:tå (the period of divine grace) will return, after the long period of disgrace, the fanūtå.36

כשית דיומיה רחותה על הא כיתב בה ועינינו פנותה ראינו ...כריתית ספר לה יכתב אלה אתריח אן

...עבראית לשן ויקום ערבי שפתי תבלל קוממית אתכם ואוליך עולכם מטות ואשברה

condemned in Samaritan sources. See for example BEN-HAYYIM, תיבת מרקה, Book IV, §64.

33 The גוים, “nations,“ probably refers to the circumcised Arabs, as opposed to the following ערלים, uncircumcised Christians.

34 According to the Samaritans, the Jewish Torah was written by Ezra, not by Moses under divine inspiration.

35 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 506. 36 For these terms see DEXINGER, Pnwt; and DEXINGER, Rḥwth.

198 A. Tal

Behold, against the rū:tå with its good days / we have seen the fanūtå, and our eyes wept. / If God wants He will write her a bill of divorce (Deut 24:1)... / The Arabic language will (then) be confused (= annihilated) and Hebrew Language will arise... / ‘and I shall break the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect’ (Lev 26:13).

Abiša's motif of Hebrew re-birth appears in a poem of an 18th century poet, משלמה Mešallama, for the Shabbat that falls on the Sukkot week. He too, expresses his request for the coming of the Redeemer, who will establish joy and happiness, marked by the revival of Hebrew and the abandonment of Arabic:

יחמול לון ובטובו ידיון בין הברכה ויצוה תבטל לא אמן ומהם ביומיון חדותה ויסגי ויגדל ויתעצם ביומיון תהבה ויקים יבלל הערבים ולשן העברים לשן ויתגלי

And (God) will ordain the blessing before them and in his goodness will have pity for them, / and will increase joy in their days and Amen (= mani-festation of faith) will not cease, / and will bring about the Redeemer in their days, and (he?) will gather strength an grow / and the language of the Hebrews will be revealed (= reinstated) and the language of the Arabs will be confused (= annihilated).

Obviously, he is speaking about his own community‘s redemption from actual oppression, symbolized by Arabic speech.

In the 19th century, Šalama ban Tabya writes about the prevalence of Hebrew in the world to come. When this takes place, the Jews will abandon their heresy and return to the bosom of 37:ישראל השמרים

באבותה לבבך את אלהיך יהוה ומל ...שליחותה משה כות נביו לך ישלח ארעותה כל קדש הרגריזים ויעבר ...ארהותה אבני טמרים דבה הארץ ויחפר ...קשיטותה הו זה ויימר התורה באדה ויכתב ...עבראותה לשון ויקום

עדתה נבוא זה יימרו והיהודים בעשותה עמן עשה ומה ודברו עזרה ארור עדתה הקשט וזה שקר בה דאנן מה כל

‘God will circumcise your heart’ (Deut 30:6). In His will / he will send you a prophet like Moses the messenger... / he will pass to Mount Gerizim, the

37 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 363-364.


holiest of all the lands / and he will dig the land where the stones of the law (Deut 27:2-4) are hidden... / and he will write the Torah with his own hand and say: this is the truth... and the Hebrew language will arise. / And the Jews will say ‘we shall enter this congregation; / cursed be Ezra and what he did to us in his deeds.’ / All in what we are is falsehood, but this is the congregation of truth.

The Jews not only will acknowledge their straying, but they will even curse Ezra for inducing them into errancy and join the “congregation of truth.”

However, the denomination לשון הקדש is not reserved exclusively for quotations from the Tora or for eschatological visions. In a poem writ-ten by Yusef, the great grandfather of Marhib38 we read:

אקדש ולשני אטהר פממי הקדש בלשן ואתפחר וארנן נגש דלערפלה נהיר נורו למן אש לגו ודרס משעיר דזרח

Let me purify my mouth and purge my tongue / and sing and glorify in the Holy Language / the one who his light is kindling, who approached the darkness (Ex 20:21) / who dawned from Se‘ir (Deut 33:2) and trod on the fi-re (refers to Ex 3:3-6).39

From the text of the poem it is obvious that the term לשן הקדש designates here the late medieval Neo-Samaritan Hebrew, clearly not a formula introducing quotations from the Torah.

In a similar environment, the term לשון עברי is employed. Saʽd Alla ban Sadaqa, the 14th century poet, praises Moses, “the choicest of all flesh,” in a poem dedicated to a groom at his wedding:40

נשרי בו דאנן מקום ובכל אנה שלום נקרי כלנו פממינן נגלג אן חיינן ימי כל טובינן טובינן הגבר זה גלגי העברי בלשן ונימר גבירי משה דו בבשר כמו לית הרם הגביר

Let all of us declare: ‘peace here41 and wherever we are dwelling / happy we are, happy we are all the days of our lives if we praise with our mouths

38 According to the genealogical data given in COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, XLVIII. 39 Published by BEN-HAYYIM, Samaritan Poems. 40 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 825. 41 For אנה as the adverbial particle of place see FLORENTIN, Late Samaritan Hebrew,

256-257; TAL, Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, 211.

200 A. Tal

/ and say in the Hebrew Language the praises of this man (Ex 32:1) / the elevated noble man, like whom there is none in mankind, Moses my mas-ter.’

We have seen that, notwithstanding their long lasting rivalry, Samari-tans and Jews have not only common traditions, but some traces of common hopes and even common terminology.

Bibliography

BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, A baqasha of R. Saadia Gaon – A Samaritan Prayer, in: JSAI 9 (1987) 1-38.

BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, Samaritan Poems for Joyous Occasions, in: Tarbiz 10 (1939) 353 (in Hebrew).

BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, Samaritan Poems for Joyous occasions, in: Tarbiz 10 (1939) 359-360 (in Hebrew).

BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, תיבת מרקה, A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim, Jerusalem 1988 (in Hebrew).

BROSHI, Magen, The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem 1992. BUBER, Salomon (ed.), Midrash Tanchuma, Vilna 1885 (in Hebrew). COLSON Francis. H. / WHITAKER George H. (eds.), Philo, vol. III. (Loeb Classical

Library 247), Cambridge, Mass., 1940. COWLEY, Arthur E., The Samaritan Liturgy, vols. I-II, Oxford 1909. CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989. DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Der Taheb, ein "messianischer" Heilsbringer der

Samaritaner, Salzburg 1986. DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Pnwt, in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL,

Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 186. DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Rḥwth (rū:ta), in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard /

TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 202-204.

EMERTON, John A., Did Jesus speak Hebrew?, in JThS 12 (1961), 189-202. EPSTEIN Jacob Nahum / MELAMED, Ezra Zion (eds.), Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b.

Jochai, fragmenta in Geniza Cairensi reperta digessit apparatu critico... J. N. Epstein, defuncti editoris opus absolvit et edendum curavit E. Z. Melamed, Jerusalem 1955.

ESHEL, Esther / STONE, Michael E., An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b), in: Le Muséon 105 (1992) 243-264.

ESHEL, Esther / STONE, Michael E., The Holy Language at the End of the Days in Light of a New Fragment Found at Qumran, in: Tarbiz 62 (1993) 169-177 (in Hebrew).

FINKELSTEIN Louis (ed.), Siphre ad Deuteronomium H. S. Horovitzii schedis usus cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, Berlin 1939.

FLORENTIN, Moshe, Late Samaritan Hebrew, a Linguistic Analysis of its Different Types, Leiden / Boston 2005.


HOROVITZ, H. Saul / RABIN, Israel A. (eds.), Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus edidit H. S. Horovitz, defuncti editoris opus exornavit et absolvit I. A. Rabin, Frankfurt am Main 1931.

HURWITZ, A., The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects. in: MURAOKA, Takamitsu / ELWOLDE, John. F. (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, Leiden / New York / Köln 1997, 72-73.

KOHN, Samuel, Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, Leipzig 1878;

MCCOWN, Chester Charlton, The Testament of Solomon, Leipzig 1922. MORAG, S. evffaqa, (Mark VII.34): Certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic?, in: JSS 17

(1972) 198-202. PENNER, Ken, What Language. did Paul speak in Acts 21-22? Ancient Names for

Hebrew and Aramaic? paper delivered at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies Annual Meeting, May 30, 2003 (http://www.purl.org/net/-kmpenner/).

POIRIER, John C., The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts, in: Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (2003) 107-116.

POIRIER, John C., The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts, in: Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (2003) 107-116.

QIMRON, Elisha, The Temple Scroll, A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions, Beer Sheva / Jerusalem 1996.

RABINOWITZ, Isaak, Ephphata, in: ZNW 53 (1962) 229-238. RUBIN, Milka The Language of the Creation or the Primordial Language: A

Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, in: JSS 49 (1998) 306-333. SCHORCH, Stefan, The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging

Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism, in: XERAVITS Géza G. / ZSENGELLÉR, József (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, etc., Leiden / Boston 2008, 43-54.

SHEHADEH, Hasseeb, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Prolegomena to a Critical Edition (unpublished doctoral dissertation) Jerusalem 1977.

SHINAN, Avigdor, The Embroidered Targum. The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1992 (in Hebrew).

SYNCELLUS, Georgius / NICEFORUS, Constantinopolitanus, Georgius Syncellus et Niceforus, ex recensione Guilielmi Dindorfii, Vol. I, Bonn 1829.

TAL, Abraham, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, Leiden / Boston 2000. TAL, Abraham, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, Vol. 3, Tel Aviv 1983. THEODOR, Julius / ALBECK, Chanoch (eds.), Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Critical

Edition with Noted and Commentary, Jerusalem 1965 (reprint). Wieder, Naphtali, The Form Rabbun in Hebrew Sources, in: Leshonenu 27-28

(1963-64) 214-217 WONG, C. K., Philo’s use of Chaldaioi, in: The Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992)

1-14. Yalon, Hanokh, Reasons for Mishnah vocalization, in: Leshonenu 24 (1960) 157-

166. YASSIF, Eli, The Book of Memory, that is The Chronicles of Jerahme'el, a Critical

Edition, Tel Aviv 2001.

An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type FATI HA

MOSHE FLORENTIN

During their funeral ceremonies in the present day, the Samaritans recite a few liturgical compositions – portions of the Pentateuch (espe-cially the Song of Moses, Deut. 32) and two poems1. These two poems were published by A. E. Cowley in the section عداة الكره (“The Mourning Book“) which he presented at the end of his Samaritan Liturgy2. One is nobody lives for ever but God with his“ לית ממן לעלם אלא אלה לגדלהgreatness.“3 The other piece is a short blessing which reads as follows:

אדוני יהוה אשאלך ברחמיך ובך ובשמך ובכבודך ובאדונינן אברהם ויצחק ויעקב ויוסף ואדונן משה ואהרן ואלעזר ואיתמר ופינחס ויהושע וכלב והמלאכים הקדושים

אן תשים זה המקרא יבוא מפניך והשבעים הזקנים וקדוש הרגריזים בית אל דמבני فالن ابن فالنמנחה שלוחה רצון ורחמים ורתו יטלל על רוח עבדך הקדושה

او אדני יהוה ברחמיך רחמו فالن דמבני فالن בת فالن وان كانت امراه يقال فالنه סלח לה ולכל קהל ישראל הסגודיםاو רוחה בגן עדן וסלח לו اوרחמה ואשכן רוחו

. אמן . אמן. אמן משה הנאמןלהרגריזים בית אל אמן בעמל

Lord God, I ask you – with the merit of your mercies and you and your name and your honor and our masters Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jo-seph and our master Moses and Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamar and Phi-nehas and Joshua and Caleb and the holy angels and the seventy elders and holy Mount Gerizim Beth-el – that you accept this reading as a sent of-fering before your holiness and send favor and mercy and pity to shield the spirit of your servant … Lord God, in your mercies have mercy on him (or: her) and put his (or: her) spirit in Paradise and forgive him (or: her) and to all the congregation of Israel who worship Mount Gerizim Beth-el Amen, in the merit of Moses the faithful, Amen, Amen, Amen.4

1 On the Samaritan rites of funeral and mourning see, the Samaritan periodical ב"א ,

issue number 828-829, published in 14 February 2003. 2 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy. 3 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 852. 4 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 855.

204 M. Florentin

The Samaritans call this short blessing FATHA. However, this blessing has nothing to do with the kind of poem named FATIHA, which are found in the “Book of Mourning“ mentioned above. These poems themselves which are no longer recited, and other evidence found in the titles of these poems, prove that in the past the Samaritan mourning ceremonies were much more abundant with liturgical poems.

One poem of the type FATIHA is found in The Samaritan Liturgy, and it begins with the following stanzas:

Human being, remember death בן אדם זכר מותה And look at the end ואתבונן לאחריתה Renew for yourself repentance חדד לך תאותה Before you go to the Day of Judgment קדם תלך לחשבניה And renew for you yourself penance וחדש לך תשובה And leave all abomination ועזב כל תועבה Life is like an ark חייה הך תיבה And death is like the sea והמות הך ימיה

The poem concludes with these words:

And turn back to your creator ועזר לברואך Before your soul is gone קדם תלך רוחך And expel your wrong and your vanity שקרך ושואךוגרש And walk in the way of the good ones ואלך דרך טביה And see the faithful righteous וראה להזכאים הנאמנים And the prophets and the priests והנביים והכהנים And the faithful righteous והצדיקים והמימנים Who walked in these ways כה הלכו בזאת שביליה And happy is he who dies וטוב למן ימות When he believes in the great faith על רב אימנות Of the prophet that none is like him נבי לית לו דמות The most holy of all prophets 5קדש כל נבייה

The central motif of this poem is common to most of the poems found in Samaritan collections for funeral and mourning: demand from the sinner to repent so that he will emerge innocent on the Day of Judg-ment.

5 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 856.

An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type FATI HA 205

The name of the poet and when he lived is not mentioned. From its late Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew and from the rigid rhyming one may conclude that it was not composed before the fourteenth century6.

At present we know some fifteen additional Samaritan poems of the kind FATIHA, found in a Samaritan manuscript containing a total of 56 poems.7 One of these is presented below. However, before addu-cing the Aramaic source of the poem, along with my English translati-on, some general words about this kind of poem and about this particu-lar instance are required.

It is quite plausible that the name FATIHA (פאתחה) was given after the name of the first Sura in the Quran. Indeed, unlike the Samaritans who read the FATIHA in certain points during the funeral and mourn-ing ceremonies, the Muslims read their فاتحة during every holy ceremo-ny or circumstance. Yet, the wording and ideas found in the Arabic فاتحة have much in common with those found in the Samaritan FATIHA. Especially notable is the verse الدين م و ي ك ـال Master of the Day of" مJudgment" which is identified with יום דיני mentioned in our poem (line 140). By that I do not claim that the Samaritans were influenced by the ideas and wording of the Arabic Sura, but only that they adopted its name. Note that another Samaritan poem, the TAWHID, is no doubt named after an Arabic Sura8.

Out of the fifteen poems included in the collection, five have an Arabic rubric, فاتحه (fātiḥa), while the rubrics of the other ten are written in Hebrew – פאתחה מקום (fātiḥa maqom). It seems that the term מקום (liter-ally: ”place“), which occurs only in the rubrics of the fātiḥa poems, re-fers to their musical characteristics, and is probable a Hebrew vestige of the term مقام (maqām) known from Arabic poetry.

Since the rubrics do not contain names of poets and since the poems themselves do not mention any chronologically identifiable event, we can date our poem only according to its language and structure. The late Samaritan Aramaic of the poem and the rigid rhyming attests that it was not composed before the 11th century9.

*

6 On criteria for dating Samaritan poems see my article: FLORENTIN, Criteria. 7 They are all presented in my book "Samaritan Elegies" (in press). I have dealt with

several poems found in that manuscript in my articles: FLORENTIN, Tawḥīd, and FLORENTIN, Embedded Midrashim.

8 See FLORENTIN, Tawḥīd, 168. 9 See FLORENTIN, Criteria.

206 M. Florentin

The rubric of the poem – תתמר על כהן – says that it is to be recited when the deceased is a priest.

Before presenting the poem, I will describe briefly its content, lan-guage and structure.

The Content of the Poem

The poem can be divided into two parts: the larger, main part contains 31 stanzas, each with four lines (verses), while the second part contains six stanzas. The content of both parts is clear and well-organized.

The first two stanzas praise the eternal God, who has created all out of nothing. The next 14 stanzas mention through allusions, and accord-ing to chronological order, the patriarchs of the nation, who notwith-standing their greatness passed away. Since the poem is recited on the occasion of the death of a priest, a considerable part of this section, eight stanzas, are devoted to the description, partly legendary, of the charac-ter and death of Aaron the priest, brother of Moses. The third stanza is devoted to Adam, of whom it is said ”everyone except him knew that his life has an end” (lines 11-12). The fourth stanza deals with Abraham about whom it was said ”you shall go to your fathers in peace” (Gen 15:15; lines 15-16). The fifth stanza speaks about Isaac who is alluded to by the words “Oh, son without blemish”10. The sixth stanza mentions Jacob ”the vower” (since he made a vow, Gen 28:20), and he also said: ”How awesome is this place!” (Gen 28:17; line 24). The seventh stanza is devoted to Joseph, who was ”hated by his brothers” and about him it is written explicitly ”and Joseph dreamed a dream” (Gen 37:5; line 48). The eighth stanza is devoted to Moses, who, as usual in Samaritan lite-rature, is entitled, ”the unique of all human kind.”

The next eight stanzas of the section which deals with the pa-triarchs of the nation are devoted to Aaron the priest. The ninth stanza mentions the order of God to Moses to come up with Aaron to Mount Hor. The tenth stanza begins the legendary part of the poem: Moses approaches Aaron and reminds him the verse: ”for dust you are” (Gen 3:19; line 39). In the eleventh stanza Moses informs Aaron that ”Eleazar will take your place after you” (lines 43-44). The twelfth stanza tells

10 This hints at the famous legendary Midrash, according to which Isaac asked from his

father during ”the binding” (Aqeda): “Father, bind my hands well, lest at the moment of my distress I shall jerk and confuse you, and your offering would be rendered disqualified, and we will be thrust into the pit of destruction in the world to come” (see FLORENTIN, Embedded Midrashim).


about the climbing of Moses, Aaron and Eleazar up to the mountain “in the command of the ‘Eternal Potent’” (line 48). The thirteenth stanza describes how Aaron takes off his clothes and they are passed “from a loved one to another loved one” (line 52). The fourteenth stanza tells that Moses bowed down and kissed his brother. In the fifteenth stanza Moses salutes Aaron and tells him that they will meet later in the resur-rection of the dead (line 60). The sixteenth stanza concludes the story of Aaron: “the one killed Aaron” (line 61), and the whole congregation ”wept for Aaron thirty days” (Num 20:29; lines 63-64).

The seventeenth stanza reminds the listeners and the readers that in spite of the death, which he imposes on all his creatures, God is “merci-ful and gracious” (Ex 34:6; line 68).

The next section of the poem contains five stanzas which are dedi-cated to the deceased priest. The eighteenth stanza announces that the next stanzas will deal with the priest who is ”honored by people and God” (lines 71-72). The nineteenth stanza entitles the priest with the common honorific titles such as "the savior and the knowledgeable" (line 73). The twentieth stanza adds that he “followed the will of his master” (line 79). The twenty-first stanza tells that the late priest was “perfect and upright, and jealous for the good deeds” (lines 81-82). The twenty-second stanza adds that he was the ”keeper of the law,” and therefore ”who can estimate his glory?” (lines 87-88).

The twenty-third stanza stands between the praises of the priest and the praises of God which are told in the following stanzas. It is said in this stanza: ”let God forgive his sin and guilt” (lines 89-90).

The main part of the poem is concluded by seven stanzas which again praise God. In the twenty-fourth stanza the poet approaches God: ”Oh, the one who creates every image, fill us with peace” (lines 94-95). Each of the next seven stanzas, from the twenty-fifth to the thirtieth, contains verse from the Song of Moses (Deut 32).

In the thirty-first stanza, which is the last stanza of the main part, the poet demands that the congregation praise God: ”let us glorify him and worship him” (line 121-122).

At the end of the poem there is a common blessing, which is not part of the poem itself: ”blessed is our God for ever and blessed is his name forever."

As in many of the poems of the type FATIHA, this one has an addi-tion. This part consists of six stanzas. Its rhyming proves that, while it is set apart by the aforementioned blessing, it is part of the whole poem.

The first starts with the blessing ”just is the right God” based on Deut 32:4, which characterized the addition which appears, with simi-lar phrasing, in other poems of this type. The other five stanzas, as the

208 M. Florentin

last stanzas of the main part of the poem, are based on verses from the Song of Moses.

The final blessing of the poem is ”great is God for ever and great is his name.”

The Language

As mentioned above, the poem is written in a late Samaritan Aramaic, which was in use until the end of the 11th century11. It is distinguished both by Hebrew influence (in grammar and lexicon) and by use of Aramaic words which are found only in late Samaritan compositions. Important grammatical Hebrew features are the use of the definite ar-ticle, e.g. בגדי הקדש (“the holy garments,” line 51), הנביא הצעום (“the fast-ing prophet,” line 92), אלהים הקדום (“the ancient God,” line 108); and the pronominal suffix –ו (instead of the Aramaic –ה ), e.g. בו (“in it,” lines 98, Hebrew .(his name,” line 119“) שמו ,(and his hand,” line 112“) וידו ,(103words which are not found in ancient Samaritan Aramaic texts are: אדון ,(pure and perfect,” line 120“) טהור שלום ,(joyfully,” line 119“) באשמחו .(before,” line 132“) פני ,(master of all human beings,” line 126“) כל הבשרAramaic words which occur in late Samaritan texts are: ברנש (“man,” line 7), לתלימה (“to his brother”, line 53). A grammatical feature which is typical to late Samaritan Aramaic texts is the absence of ן"נו in the 3rd pl. masc. morpheme of the imperfect, e.g. יאמנו (instead of יאמנון, “they be-lieve,” line 103), ישבחו (instead of ישבחון, “they praise,” line 118).

The Rhyming

Each of the 37 stanzas of the poem consists of four lines. Each stanza has its own rhyme, while the rhyme of the fourth line is common to the whole poem; thus the scheme of the rhyme is aaaa ccca ddda.12

11 See FLORENTIN, Late Samaritan Hebrew, 18. 12 See FLORENTIN, Criteria.


The Poem

In the name of God FATIHA MAQOM

The master has created everything, ברא מר כל כלום Creatures out of nothing; בריאות מלא כלום God does not resemble anything אל לא דמי לכלום Nothing is like him לית שיאם לה כלום

5 One, alone, eternal אחד יחידי תמיד

He was in the past and will be in the future עם דהבה ועם דעתיד A man who does not proclaim his name ברנש דבה לא מסיד Exploits himself לקנומה טלום Our father was informed אבונן אתודע

10 What was known to his children13 מד לבניו מודע Everybody after him knew כל בר מנה ידע That there is an end to his life דעביד לחייו סכום The father of he him prayed14 אבואה דאשתדל Was informed during the pray אתמר לה מן שדל 15 ”You shall go עוד אתה תבוא אל

To your fathers in peace”15 אבותך בשלום The good son arrived hardly16 בר טב נדי בחמר He rested when it was said: אנשם אן דאתמר “And to your dust you shall return“17 לעפרך שוב אתמר

20 Oh, son without blemish18 אה ברה דלית בה מום Death has sentenced the vower גבה מותה נדור Who dwelt in the cave עד במערתה ידור He saw a ladder and said: עזיו סלם אמור “How awesome is this place!“19 מה נורא המקום

13 The idea of this stanza is this: Since Adam had not seen a death, he should have been

told by God that he will die. 14 It was Isaac who prayed (In the Jewish Targumim to Gen 24:63 לשוח is rendered by

Thus, the father of him who prayed is Abraham. According to Gen .(to pray) למצלאה15:12 he was informed during his dream after the Covenant between the Pieces.

15 Gen 15:15. 16 Does the verse hint to the late pregnancy of Sarah? 17 19 According to Gen 3:19. 18 See note 10.

210 M. Florentin

25 The dream of him who was hated20 חלומה דאסתנה The dream was told by Moses חלמה משה תנה About which it was said: בדילה אתנה ”And Joseph dreamed a dream” שה חלוםויחלם מ And he21 is unique of all human beings ויחידאי כל אנשה 30 He has what is absent in all human beings בה מד לית באנשה The whole kind of human beings כל מין האדם Is abased, and Moses is exalted! כבת מך ומשה רום The mighty22 told him אודעה גיבורה About the "selected" and ”chosen” בדיל קטפה ובחורה 35 That he will climb up to Mountain Hor יסק לטור טורה Which is located on the border of the land of Edom דעל תחת ארע אדום Aaron lived enough אהרן אחי מיסתה Listen to this thing: משמע הדה מלתה ”For dust you are” הלא עפר אתה 40 This is the sentence of the ancient judge פשרון קעים קדום My brother, know that your place אחי דע דאתרך Is given to your follower למן מבתרך After you, Eleazar אלעזר בתרך Will stand at your place על אתרך יקום 45 On Mount Hor climbed up טור טורה סלק לה Moses whose greatness is exalted משה דאסתקף גדלה And Aaron and his inheritor23 רן וירותה דלהואה In the command of the 'Eternal Potent' ברשות יכול קעום It is nice to see the father24 יהי מעמי לארש 50 Taking off his garments and the son dressing מן משלח ונוף לבש

19 Gen 28:17. 20 Gen 28:17: “And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren; and they

hated him yet the more.“ 21 Moses. 22 The mighty one is God who told Moses to climb up the mountain: “And the LORD

said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom, Aaron shall be gathered to his people“ (Num 20:23-24).

23 Eleazar. 24 Aaron: “Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor; and strip

Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son“ (Num 20:25-26).


The holy garments בגדי הקדש From beloved to beloved מן רעום לרעום

He hugged his brother גפף לתלימה And fell on his face ואנפל על צלמה

55 And blessed him on behalf of himself ואפשט לה משמה A great and huge peace blessing שלם רב ועצום To you from me a blessing of peace is sent עליך מני שלם A peace for ever שלם עד לעלם And till the occurrence of the Day of Vengeance ועד זימון יום נקם 60 The day in which we shall all resurrected יומה דבה נקום

The only one killed Aaron יחידאה לאהרן אמית And when it was known that he died ואן אתודע דו מית It was said: “they wept אתמר ויבכו את For Aaron thirty days”25 אהרן שלשים יום

65 And the justice is to the eternal one וזכותה לקעימה The master of earth and heaven מר מכה ורומה Who created the world דגלה לעלמה He is ”a God merciful and gracious”26 הו אל חנון ורחום Let us first praise קרית גלוג אקר 70 The son of him who is honored בדיל נוף מן דאתוקר The honored priest כהנה דו מוקר

By every human being27 and God ביד כל סכום וקעום

The one who knows, the clever, ידעוה ומבוננה He reached all his wills28 אמטה כל חשבנה

75 I will announce his glory גלוגה אתנה That he was worshipper and one who fasts דהוה צלאה וצעום We should praise him לבי דנגלג בה He reached the will of his heart דאמטה רחיות לבה

25 Num 20:29. 26 Ex 34:6. The poet changed the order of the words because of the rhyme. 27 On the word סכום which means “human being“ see my article: FLORENTIN, Aramaic

Words. 28 Since it is the priest who calculates the Samaritan calendar, it is possible that the

word חשבנה refers to this calculation, the regular name of which is חשבן קשטה (“the true reckoning“).

212 M. Florentin

And followed the will of his master וענה ריחות רבה 80 And therefore his remembrance will rise ה בכן ירוםודכר He was perfect and upright, הוה תמים וכני And jealous for the good deeds ולטבאתה קני And he submitted the bad things ולבישאתה כני And he was perfect and merciful והוה תמים ורעום 85 The inheritor of wisdom ירותה דחכמתה And the reciter of the prayer ופרוטה דצלותה And the keeper of the law ושמור ארהותה Who can estimate his glory? גלוגה מן ישום Let God forgive לה קעימה] לח[יס 90 His sin and guilt מן חטאה ואשמה In the merit of the prophet of the world בנביה דעלמה The fasting prophet הנבי הצעום Oh, the maker of mankind אה צעורה דאדם

Oh, the creator of every image אה בריו כל צלם 95 fill us with peace אמליתן בשלם In which we shall stay every day נשרי בכל יום "For I will proclaim the name of the LORD"29 נקרי] וה[אלא בשם יה Happy is he who reads in it טובי מי בו יקרי Since he is my might and my rock כי הו עזי וצורי 100 The one who gives every thing יהוב לכל כלום “And ascribe greatness to our God“ והבו רבו לאלהנו For every greatness is his דלה כל רבינו Happy are those who believe in him טובי מי בו יאמנו And woe to any exploiter ואוי לכל טלום 105 “The Rock, His work is perfect“30 צעורה דשלם פיאלה The Rock is perfect in his work הצור תמים בפעלה Truth is in his saying קשטה במללה God the ancient אלהים הקדום

29 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:3. 30 Deut 32:4: the Samaritan Targum and than after the Hebrew verse (according to the

Samaritan version).


“For all his ways are justice“31 דין> האלא כל ח 110 And he is just more than any judgment ויזדכי מכל דין

And he executes true justice ויעבד קשט בדין And therefore his hand is lifted up וידו בכן תרום “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity“32 שקר> ול> אל מי Hates any lie סני לכל שקר

115 Happy is he who is honored טובי מן דמתוקר In the name “A God merciful“33 אל רחום> בשם יה

“Just and praise is he“34 קשיט ומשבחו Happy is he who praises טובי מי ישבחו His name joyfully לשמו באשמחו 120 In a pure and perfect heart בלב טהור שלום We all praise him כהלן נרבנה And we all worship him וכהלן נסגד לה Give him what he himself owns הבו לה מדלה Oh, who is gathered here אה מן דאכה קעום 125 Blessed is our God for ever and blessed ו> ל> א> בר > Is his name for ever35 לע> ש <

Section II

Just is the right God36 יזדכי אל ישר Master of all human beings אדון כל הבשר The maker of every member צעור לכל אבר 130 And the one who knows every hidden thing ולכל כסי חכום “See now that I“37 חזו כדו דאני Last in my reign מורך בשלטני

31 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4: הלא כל אורחיו דין. In the manuscript < is a sign for

abbreviated word. 32 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4: אל מהימן ולית שקר. 33 Ex 34:6. 34 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4. Note that the Samaritan Targum interpreted

ר"שי derived from the root ,וישרו as (“and right is he“) וישר הוא , “praise“. .ברוך אלהנו לעולם וברוך שמו לעולם 3536 According to Deut 32:4: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is

he.“ 37 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:39.

214 M. Florentin

I proclaim: “I, even I“38 קראי אני אני Before and after the whole world פני ואחר כל יקום 135 “And there is no god with me“39 ולית אלהין עמי And who is the one who can stand against me? ומנו דיקום קמי None is like me מדמי ליתו לי And who is the one who can estimate my greatness?40 ומנו לגדלי ישום “I kill and I make alive“41 אנה מחיי וממית 140 And nothing is not like my greatness ולית לגדלי דמית Since I am the source of “at the beginning“ בראשיתכי מני And in my Day of Judgment I shall repent וביום דיני נחום “There is none that can deliver out of my hand“ לית מן אדי מפשר And who can be saved from me? ומן מני יפשר 145 My lover is delivered רעומי מפשר And vengeance shall be taken on him who hates me וסני בנקמי קעום For I lift up my hand to heaven42 האלא תלית לשומיה With mercy ברחמים And I say the words: ואמרתי מליה 150 „I live for ever“ חי אנכי לעולם Great is God for ever 43>לע> רב חי And great is his name ורב שמה

38 Deut 32:39. 39 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:39. 40 The poet probably followed the 4th century Amram Dare: מן ישום מה הו חילך (“who can

estimate your strength?,“ BEN-HAYYIM, Literary and Oral Tradition, 57). 41 According to the Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:39: אני ממית ומוחי. The poet changed

the order of the words because of the rhyme. 42 The whole verse is based on the Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:40: “For I lift up my

hand to heaven, and swear, As I live for ever.“ >לע> חי 43 .God for ever = חילה לעולם =


Bibliography

BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, Vol. III/2., Jerusalem 1977.

COWLEY, Arthur E., The Samaritan Liturgy, vols. I-II, Oxford 1909. FLORENTIN, Moshe, Criteria for Dating Anonymous Samaritan Aramaic

piyyutim, in: Leshonenu 65 (2003) 279-302. FLORENTIN, Moshe, Late Samaritan Hebrew – A Linguistic Analysis of its Dif-

ferent Types, Leiden 2005. FLORENTIN, Moshe, Embedded Midrashim in Samaritan Piyyutim, in: Jewish

Quarterly Review 96 (2006) 525-539. FLORENTIN, Moshe, Tawḥīd – The Language and Structure of Unknown Samari-

tan Poems, in: Hebrew Union College Annual 77 (2006) 167-178. FLORENTIN, Moshe, The Aramaic Words Skwm and Q‘wm and the Hebrew

Word Mt Meaning ‘Mortal‘ in: Leshonenu 70 (2008) 303-312.

Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading of the Israelite Samaritans in

Comparison to Its Significant Attributes

BENYAMIM TSEDAKA

Introduction

The reading of the Pentateuch among the Israelite Samaritans has a very special way. Therefore it is necessary to delve into the practice of the different pronunciations of the words, and to distinguish between the different nuances of the pronunciations. These differences were created in order to emphasize the diverse significances of the same written words.

It is hard to determine what came first, meaning or pronunciation. Maybe the translation and the commentary of the Israelite Samaritan sages and authors were adjusted to the given pronunciation; or on the contrary pronunciation was adjusted to the philosophy, commentary and translation of the written and pronounced word.

Z. Ben-Hayyim, the greatest scholar of Samaritan studies in our times (may he live long), has distinguished between the different pro-nunciations of the words in the oral readings in his monumental edi-tion of the Samaritan version of the Torah in phonetic transcription. Thanks to his work, it is possible to follow all variances, although he did not describe the different significant attributes. His disciples, A. Tal and H. Shehadeh, discussed some of them. I. Tsedaka has discussed the forms “Sham”= שם and ”Shem”= שם.

Great Samaritan sages, such as the commentators Abū l-Hasan as-Sūrī, Sadaqa al-Hākim, and his son Munajah (all three from the 12th-13th centuries), discussed the main words, but not all the words. So the present study is the first attempt to list most of the words that are pro-nounced another way in different passages during the Torah reading by the Israelite Samaritans. Pronunciation helps to make distinctions between the different significant attributes that the Samaritans gave to the same written word.

218 B. Tsedaka

Examples of Different Pronunciations

We can divide these significant attributes according to their distinc-tions:

1. Distinction in the pronunciation of the word between the Almighty to the human

2. Distinction between The Almighty to His Angels

3. Distinction between male to female

4. Distinction between a positive name to a negative name

5. Distinction between eating kosher meat to tainted meat

6. Distinction between Moses to another human

7. Distinction between Angels to humans

8. Distinction between direct speech to a preposition word

9. Distinction between a first-born human to the first-born beast belonging to a human, to be offered to the Almighty

10. Distinction between holiness to the worship of idols

11. Distinction between other words

12. Distinction between Mount Gerizim to other mountains

There are also examples of different pronunciations of the same words that in our view developed from a misunderstanding of the written text. We will offer a few examples of them:

13. Distinctions developed from a misunderstanding of the written text

Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading 219

Let us note the examples and the different significant attributes influ-enced by its pronunciation, and from these we will study the depth of the Samaritan commentary and its directions.

Note: The quotation of each word presented here for the first time is written in the Torah of the Israelite Samaritan version.

1. Distinction in the pronunciation of the word between the Almighty and the human

1a אדני Aadaanee my Lord Gen 15:2 ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה

1a אדני adannee my master Gen 23:6 שמענו אדני נשיא אלהים

1b דבר dabber command Gen 15:1 אברם יהוה אל היה דבר

1b דבר debaar concerns Gen 12:17 דבר שרי אשת אברם על

1c לשכן alshakken to dwell Deut 12:11 בחר יהוה היה המקום אשרי שמו שם את לשכןאלהיכם בו

1c לשכן lishkaan to dwell Deut 14:23 לפני יהוה אלהיך וואכלת שמו שם את לשכן יהוה אלהיך בחר במקום אשר

1d יראו yirraaoo be seen Ex 23:15 ולא־יראו פני ריקם

1d יראו yerehoo they will see Gen 12:12 יראו אתך והיה כי

2. Distinction between The Almighty and His Angels

2a- אדני aadaanee my Lord Gen 15:2 ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה

2a-אדני adannee my Master Gen 18:27 אדני נא הואלתי לדבר אל הנה

220 B. Tsedaka

3. Distinction between male and female

3a- ךאת ootaak you Gen 7:1 אתך ראיתי צדיק התבה כי אל

3a- אתך ootek you Gen 12:12 יראו אתך המצרים והיה כי

3b- אתך ittaak with you Gen 6:19 ת אתך זכר ונקבהולהחי

3b- אתך ittek with you Gen. 20:16 כחתוכל ונהלכל אשר אתך ואת ו

4. Distinction between an ordinary name to a negative name

4a- שם sham name Gen. 3:20 ויקרא האדם שם אשתו חוה

4a- שם shem name Gen. 11:4 הארץ פני כל נפוץ על ונעשה־לנו שם פן

5. Distinction between eating kosher meat to tainted meat

5a- תאכל taaookel will eat Gen 2:16 הגן אכל תאכל מכל עץ

5a- תאכל taakkel will eat Lev 17:15 נפש אשר תאכל נבלה ה וכל

6. Distinction between Moses to another human

6a- המיתו aamitoo to stan him Ex 4:24 ויבקש המיתו

6a- להמיתו limeetoo to kill him Gen 37:18 ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו

6b- בנה binnaah her heart Ex 4:25 ערלת בנה את ותכרת

6b- בנה benah her son Gen 21:10 בנה האמה הזאת ואת את גרש

Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading 221

7. Distinction between Angels and humans

7a- אנשים enooshemn angels Gen 18:2 שים נצבים עליוווהנה שלשה אנ

7a- אנשים enaashem men Gen 12:20 יצו עליו פרעה אנשים

8. Distinction between direct speech to a preposition word

8a- את it the Gen 1:1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

8a- את at from, with Gen 4:1 קין חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את והאדם ידע את

9. Distinction between a first-born human to the first-born beast belonging

9a- בכר baakor first born Gen 25:13 ת אור ישמעאל נבובכ

9a- בכור bikkor first born Deut15:19 בכור צאנך את ולא תגז

10. Distinction between holiness to the worship of idols

10a- קדש qaadesh holy Ex 3:5 איקדש ה אדמת

10a- שיקד kedesh prostitute Deut 23:18 ש מבני ישראלייה קדחי ולא

11. Distinction between other words

11a- חטאת 'aataat sin-offering Ex 29:14 איחטאת ה

11a- חטאת etaat sin Gen 4:7 ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ

11b- חלב eleb beast's fat Gen 45:18 הארץחלב את

11b- חלב 'aalaab milk Ex 3:8 ארץ זבת חלב

222 B. Tsedaka

11c- קבה qabah stomach Deut 18:3 ע והלחים והקבהוונתן לכהן הזר

11c- קבה qaabbaa brothel Num 25:8 הקבה ישראל אל איש יויבא אחר

12. Distinction between Gerizim Mountain to other mountains

12a- רזיםהר ג aahrgaarizem Mt. Gerizim Deut 11:29 ונתתה את זיםיהרגר הברכה על

12c- הר aar mountain of Gen 10:30 ויהי מושבם ממשא באכה ספרה הר הקדם

13. Distinctions caused by different reasons: misunderstanding, colecism, mistake

13a- ואהבת waabtaa and love Lev 19:18 ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יהוה

13a- ואהבת wa'ibtaa and love Lev 19:18 ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יהוה

13a- ואהבת wa'ibtaa and love Lev 19:34 גרים ואהבת לו כמוך כי

13b- ארה ehraa curse Num 22:6 העם הזה לי את נא ארה ועתה לכה

13b- ארה aaraa curse Num 23:7 לי יעקב לכה ארה

13c- תרע tarr'ah shall dislike Deut 28:54 תרע עינו

13c- תרע tirr'ah shall dislike Deut 28:56 תרע עינה

Note: Mistake in this regard could contain cases through the past gen-erations, when one of the elders or the leading figures of the prayer hall would make a mistake while reading and then refuse to correct it for reasons of honor, prestige or crookedness, and his successors and sup-porters repeated this mistake generation after generation till the present. This is interesting material for research, but it does not change the fact that the form has been created by mistake.

V. Artifacts and Texts

The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima

SHIMON DAR

The cosmopolitan metropolis of Caesarea was an important maritime city and the centre of Roman and Byzantine administration. Its popula-tion was composed of several ethnic and religious groups: pagans as well as Jews, Christians and Samaritans who split from the main Jewish nation. The Jewish community in Caesarea is well attested by archaeo-logy and written sources, but the Samaritans, who comprised an impor-tant part of the city in Late Roman and Byzantine periods, are elusive to archaeological studies.

The leading scholars estimate that at its peak the population of Cae-sarea and its vicinity was no more than 50,000 inhabitants, including 15,000 Jews and nearly the same number of Samaritans.1

According to Ben-Zvi, the Jewish population of Palestine had reser-vations concerning Caesarea Maritima, considering it a rival of Jerusa-lem, whereas the Samaritans favored the city and chose it and its vicini-ty to be a leading settlement centre after the rebellions against Rome and until the Arab conquest.2

Opinions vary concerning the arrival of the Samaritans to Caesarea. Some scholars claim that the first settlers were brought by king Herod, the founder of the new city.3 Others argue that the Samaritans estab-lished themselves in the city and settled in the Sharon plain only after the Bar-Kochba revolt (132-136 CE) especially in the 3rd century CE,.4

In the excavations in Caesarea's Stadium directed by Yoseph Porat, pottery from Samaria was discovered. According to the excavator the pottery reached the city through Samaritans who were invited by King Herod to take part in the construction of the city.5

1 HOLUM, Identity, 163-164; 169-171. 2 BEN-ZVI The Book of the Samaritans, 98-193. 3 LEVINE, Caesarea, 227. 4 PUMMER, Samaritanism in Caeserea; PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 40-41 5 Personal communication in 2010.

226 S. Dar

According to the Jerusalem Talmud, Samaritans were the largest ethnic religious community in the city. The Jews together with the gen-tiles outnumbered them (jDemai, 2:1, 22c).

The Samaritans were involved in the city's administration and served in the Roman security forces.6

The Jewish leaders of the Late Roman Caesarea community, headed by Rabbi Abbahu, accused the Samaritans of idolatry (Avoda Zara) and adaptation of Hellenic manners. But the background of the accusations is not clear, and could stem from the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt and its severe territorial implications for the Jews.7

There are scholars who believe that some of the Samaritans, like the Jews, were influenced by Hellenism in its early phases, and communi-cated in the Greek language instead of Hebrew8.

Another possible reason for the dispute between the two sister communities could stem from economic and commercial rivalry be-tween Jews and Samaritans. Caesarea was an international maritime centre, and the leading families of the different communities were en-gaged in lucrative commerce. Hence the possible rivalry between them. The wine trade seems to be a corner stone of the rivalry.9 But other Talmudic sources point to the cooperation between Jews and Samari-tans concerning monetary transactions, land renting and mutual stor-ing of agricultural produce.10

Urbanization of Roman Palestine following immigration from the countryside to the cities, affected not only Caesarea, but also its rural vicinity. Archaeology and written sources attest to the growing Samari-tan community in the Sharon plain, replacing the weakened Jewish community.11 According to the tradition in the Tulida, the Samaritan leader Baba Rabba nominated two prominent men to be the leaders of the Samaritan community in Caesarea: Yoseph son of Shutelah and Aharon son of Aharon.12 Baba Rabba was active in the second half of the 3rd century, or the beginning of the 4th century CE.13 It seems that the Samaritan community in Caesarea flourished until the unrest and

6 jAvoda Zara 1:2, 39c; DAN, City in Eretz Israel, 135. 7 MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 183; HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements,

112-113. 8 VAN DER HORST, Samaritans and Hellenism, 184. 9 HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements, 91-92. 10 LEVINE, Caesarea, 48-56; PUMMER, Samaritanism in Caeserea, 199-200. 11 HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements, 113-119). 12 FLORENTIN, Tulida, 90. 13 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 41.

The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima 227

the revolts of the 5th and 6th centuries CE, which nearly annihilated the Samaritans in Palestine, including Caesarea.14

Leah Di Segni is of the opinion that the 484 CE events in Caesarea were not a real political revolt, but a local struggle between the “Greens“ and the “Blues“ faction fans of the Caesarea Hippodrome.15

Many scholars believe that the background of the Samaritan revolts was the anti Samaritan legislation of the Byzantine Christian emperors of the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Justinian (527-565) in particular viewed the Samaritans and Jews as enemies of Christianity.16

The Archaeological Evidence

The abundance of historical sources attesting the existence of the Sama-ritan community in Caesarea contradicts the material evidence. Only the last generation of scholars tried to define “Samaritan Archaeology“ in Eretz-Israel.17 Their efforts were part of the Ethnic Archaeology trend of the Eighties and Nineties of the 20th century.

Archaeological evidence from the excavations and surveys in Cae-sarea Maritima and its vicinity attests to pagan, Jewish and Christian remnants, but it is very problematic regarding the Samaritan communi-ty. Until today, no Samaritan synagogue or public building has been discovered, and not a single funerary inscription mentioning specifical-ly a Samaritan by name has been found.18

Long ago the inscriptions on the stelae discovered in the Caesarea cemeteries were considered as belonging to the Jewish community,19 but we may assume that some of them belong to Samaritans.

After two generations of surveys and excavations in Caesarea very few remains can be attributed to the Samaritan community.20

In the last generation, scholars defined a distinct group of oil lamps, together with a certain type of stone sarcophagi as belonging to the Samaritans.21 Oil lamps and sarcophagi were discovered in the city and

14 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 245-304; MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 221-222,

225-226. 15 DI SEGNI, Samaritan Revolts, 468-480. 16 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 257, 281-304. 17 PUMMER, Samaritan Material Remains, 135-177. 18 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 19. 19 KLEIN, Sefer Hayishuv, 150. 20 HOLUM / RABAN, Caesarea. 21 SUSSMAN, Samaritan Oil Lamps, 339-371; BARKAY, Samaritan Sarcophagi, 310-338.

228 S. Dar

vicinity but not in defined areas. A small number of amulets with typi-cal Samaritan formulae were also found at Caesarea.22

Three invocations of the type “God is One” are attributed to the Samaritan community in Caesarea, but the same invocation was used in Palestine by the Jews and Christians too.23

What are the reasons for this anomaly? We propose several possi-bilities:

1. Only in the Late Roman period did the Samaritans feel the necessity to adopt national and identity symbols.

2. Until today, very few residential areas have been excavated in Caesarea.

3. Instead of a proper synagogue, the Samaritans performed their religious rituals in private halls, not yet discovered by archaeologists.

4. The Roman and Byzantine authorities did not grant the Samaritan Community the right to build public buildings, not recognizing them as a separate and lawful religion.

5. Could it be that Samaritans prayed in the Jewish Synago-gue?

There are more questions than answers, but the situation until today in Caesarea Maritima is clear: a paucity of archaeological material culture which could be attributed to the historical Samaritan community in the city.

We may conclude with the remarks of the leading Caesarea scho-lars, Profs. Lehmann and Holum:

Sharing iconography (e.g. the menorah) and nomenclature with the Jews, Caesarea’s Samaritans tend to lose themselves epigraphically among the Jews.24

22 REICH, Amulets, 289-309. 23 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 128-129. 24 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 19.

The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima 229

Bibliography

BARKAY Rachel, Samaritan Sarcophagi, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 310-338 (He-brew).

BEN-ZVI, Itzhak, Sefer Hashomronim (The Book of Samaritans), Jerusalem 1970 (Hebrew).

DAN Yaron, The City in Eretz-Israel During the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, Jerusalem 1984 (Hebrew).

DI SEGNI Leah, Samaritan Revolts in Byzantine Palestine, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 454-480 (Hebrew).

FLORENTIN Moshe, The Tulida. A Samaritan Chronicle, Jerusalem 1999 (He-brew).

HAMITOVSKY, Yitzhak, Changes and Developments of the Samaritan Settlement in the Land of Israel during the Hellenistic-Roman Period (MA thesis, Bar Ilan University), Ramat Gan 2004 (Hebrew).

HOLUM, Kenneth G., Identity and the Late Antique City: The Case of Caesarea, in: LAPIN, Hayim (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 5), Potomac 1998, 155-177.

HOLUM, Kenneth G. / RABAN, Avner, Caesarea, in: STERN, Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1 (1993) 270-291; Vol. 5 (2008) 1656-1684.

VAN DER HORST, Pieter, Samaritans and Hellenism, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 184-191 (Hebrew).

KLEIN, Samuel, Sefer Hayishuv (Book of the Settlements), Tel Aviv 1939 (He-brew).

LEHMANN, Clayton Miles, / HOLUM, Kenneth G., The Greek and Latin Inscrip-tions of Caesarea Maritima, Boston 2000.

LEVINE, Lee I., Caesarea Under Roman Rule, Leiden 1975. MOR, Menahem, From Samaria to Shechem. The Samaritan Community in

Antiquity, Jerusalem 2003 (Hebrew). PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Material Remains, in: CROWN, Alan, D. (ed.), The

Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 135-177. PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima, in: DONALDSON, Te-

rence L., (ed.), Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, Waterloo 2000, 181-202.

PUMMER, Reinhard, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism (TSAJ, 92), Tübingen 2002.

230 S. Dar

REICH, Rony, Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jeru-salem 2002, 289-309 (Hebrew).

SUSSMAN, Varda, Samaritan Oil Lamps, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 339-371 (He-brew).

SUSSMAN, Varda, The Oil Lamps, in: PATRICH, Joseph (ed.), Archaeological Ex-cavations at Caesarea Maritima, Final Report. Vol. 1: The Objects, Jerusa-lem 2008, 208-300.

An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht

JÓZSEF ZSENGELLÉR

Introduction

Samaritan manuscripts on various topics are the main sources of Sama-ritan research. Scholars wrestle with problems of space, time and mon-ey to see originals or copies, hard or electronic versions, since Samaritan manuscripts are located in about seventy public libraries1 all over the world: in Europe, North America, Turkey, Syria, Israel and Australia. Next to these open libraries, there are some private collections preserv-ing Samaritan manuscripts. In order to find the manuscripts on a given topic, we rely upon published or electronic catalogues of libraries and private collections. Most of the printed catalogues were published at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.2 The introduction of electronic library catalogues and the new wave of Samaritan research made it necessary to write new catalogues or to rewrite and update those already in existence. Sometimes errors which had been made during the identification and description of manuscripts in the old cata-logues were corrected in the new editions or catalogues, but this is not always the case and the problem has continued to trouble scholars. In this short note we will deal with one such a problem.

1 ROTHSCHILD,:Samaritan Manuscripts. 2 The catalogue of Paris was made in 1866 (ZOTENBERG, Catalogues), of Leiden in 1873

(DE GOEJE, Catalogus), of Oxford in 1886 and 1906 (NEUBAUER, Catalogue), of the British Museum in 1893 (MARGOLIOUTH, Descriptive List), of Leipzig in 1906 (VOL-LERS, Katalog), of the Sasson collection in 1932 (SASOON, Ohel David), of Manchester in 1938 (ROBERTSON, Catalogue), – just to mention some of them. For a full list of Samaritan manusrcipt catalogues see CROWN / PUMMER, Bibliography, 587.

238 J. Zsengellér

Exposition of the Problem

In his article about the Samaritan Manuscripts3 Jean-Pierre Rothschild listed a certain manuscript in the library of Utrecht University (The Netherlands). Working on Samaritan topics during the 1990s at the University of Utrecht, I was wondering how a Samaritan manuscript entered the Library of this university.

Libraries acquired Samaritan manuscripts in three ways. First, they come into the possession of a library by way of donation. Either a single manuscript or a collection could have been presented to a library, fore-most to those where an oriental or Hebrew collection had already ex-isted. The second way is purchasing from private persons or auction-ing. This was the case with the Gaster collection of Samaritan manuscripts.4 The third way is through loans, as it is happened in Lei-den “where the Oriental manuscripts of the Royal Academy were depo-sited as a permanent loan.“5

Utrecht is famous for its mediaeval theological and ecclesiastical collection, prominently represented by the Utrecht Psalter,6 but the Li-brary of the University of Leiden is the most prominent place in the Netherlands where oriental manuscripts are collected. Consequently, a special reason must lay behind the existence of this manuscript in Utrecht.

In all of the descriptions in his article, Rothschild mentioned every detail available for him about the listed manuscripts. The data concern-ing the Utrecht University Library is the following:

One manuscript, eighteenth century: Seb. Rau, Excerpta quaedam dialectorum nempe ... Samaritanae ... linguae (MS 1423 [var. 160]).7

Many of the Samaritan manuscripts have a tashkil,8 which gives the name of the scribe who copied the text, but there is no title. A colophon

3 ROTHSCHILD, Samaritan Manuscripts, 793. 4 It was purchased in 1954, see its description on the homepage of the Gaster Collecti-

on: http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/guide/atoz/gaster. 5 WITKAM, Selection (http://bc.ub.leidenuniv.nl/bc/olg/selec/samaritan/object1.html)

(downloaded 2011.02.18). An Arabic manuscript signed “Acad. 218“ belongs to this collection.

6 WALTHER / WOLF, Codices Illustres. 7 ROTHSCHILD, Samaritan Manuscripts, 793. 8 A tashqil is a graphical arrangement of letters within a given Samaritan text (on one

single page, or extending over several pages) in such a way that the letters which are singled out through the graphical arrangement (e.g. the letters which appear in a cir-

An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht 239

can substitute or supplement a tashkil with more information on the author and on the circumstances of the writing of the manuscript. The deeds of sale (shtarim) can add data concerning the purchasing of the manuscript.9 There are no such types of information in this description. Moreover, it seems to be strange that this eighteenth century “Utrecht manuscript” has an author of Germanic origin and a Latin title.

If one checks the source of Rothschild in the catalogue of the fam-ous Dutch bibliographer and librarian Pieter Anton Tiele,10 the total description runs there as follows:

“1423 (var. 160.) Charta. 4°. 265 pp. Saec XVIII.

Seb. Rau, Excerpta quaedam11 dialectorum Orientalium, nempe Syriacae, Samaritanae, Arabicae et Rabbinicae. (Dictata). [+ ex collegio S. Rauii] Donum Vidue v.cl. J.C. Swijghuisen Groenewoud.”

This description indeed refers to a manuscript in the true sense of the word since it is handwritten, but not as supposed by Rothschild, and not as we would expect after his mention of it as a Samaritan MS.

Solution of the Enigma

The first two words, “Seb. Rau,” refer to professor Sebald Fulco Jo-hannes Rau. He was the author of the text, or better to say the speaker of the lectures which were put down in this form catalogued by num-ber 1423 of the “niet westerse hanschriften” of the library of the Uni-versity of Utrecht.

S.F.J. Rau was born in Utrecht on 16th October 1765 and was trained as a protestant minister. After some years as a minister in Harderwijk and Leiden, at the age of 22 he was appointed as professor of systemat-ic theology (dogmatics) at the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. After 7 years teaching dogmatics, he started a new career at the same University as professor of eastern languages and Hebrew antiquities. In 1807 Rau

cle, or in a vertical line) form words and sentences providing information regarding the scribe of the manuscript.

9 On the detailed description of the tashkil, colophon and shtarim see „The Codicology of Samaritan Manuscripts,“ in CROWN, Samaritan Scribes, 40-55.

10 TIELE, Catalogus, 337. 11 There is an additional word (quarundam) here in the original title of the manuscript.

240 J. Zsengellér

received the Dutch Cross of Knights, yet he also died in Leiden that same year.12

During his last two years his students or assistants wrote down his lectures either from his notes or from his own dictations. The two Latin expressions, dictata13 and ex collegio S.Rauii do not allow us a more pre-cise decision.

The papers on which the text exists are bound in leather in a book form of 22 cm x 17 cm14 and consist of 265 pages, with a prolegomena of 17 pages. As the title suggests, the book has four parts. The first part was written by J. Alting in 1806 under the title “Annotationes quaedam in Synopsin Institutionum Syriacanum.” This section also contains a prolegomena and is divided into 60 paragraphs. The second part shows some interest in Samaritan studies written by G. Otho in 1806: “Anota-tiones quaedam in Synopsin Institutionum Samaritanarum. This sec-tion has only 18 pages, 2 prolegomenas and 50 short paragraphs. It is mostly paleographical and comparative, relating Samaritan to Hebrew and Syriac and at the same time to Egyptian and Greek. The third and fourth parts on Arabic and rabbinic Hebrew languages were also writ-ten by G. Otho, but a year later in 1807.

There is one more thing to note about the manuscript, namely the manner in which it entered the collection of the Utrecht University Library. The text was a donation of the widow of a certain J.C. Swijg-huisen Groenewoud. Jacobus Cornelis Swijghuisen Groenewoud was born in Roordahuizen on 30th November 1784. He was trained as a protestant minister and was appointed as professor of eastern literature at the University of Franeker in 1817. After 14 years of teaching there, he became a professor in Utrecht. Groenewoud owned the manuscript of the lectures of his predecessor. After the death of Groenewoud in Utrecht on 14th July 1859, his widow presented his library to the Utrecht University.15

12 GLASIUS, Godgeleerd Nederland, 140-146. MOLHUISEN / KOSSMAN, Biographisch

woordenboek, 842-843. 13 The word dictata belongs to the description of the Tiele cathalogue, and it is not

written on the first page. 14 The inner size is 21 cm x 16,3 cm. I am indebted to Wiebe Boumans, librarian of the

University Library of Utrecht who kindly checked me the size of the manuscript. 15 MOLHUISEN / BLOK / KOSSMANN, Biografisch Woordenboek, Coll. 639-40.

An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht 241

Consequences

The text mentioned by Rothschild is a series of unpublished lectures by professor Sebald Fulco Johannes Rau on several oriental languages, among them Samaritan Hebrew. Rothschild mistakenly interpreted the text of the Tiele catalogue as referring to a Samaritan manuscript. Al-though it was listed under the Hebrew manuscripts of the Utrecht Li-brary, Tiele’s description stated exactly that it was a work of a certain (western) author and had its own title. Consequently, Utrecht should be deleted from the list of places which host Samaritan manuscripts, as well as from Rothschild’s list and from the “Internet Resources for Sa-maritan Manuscripts and Inscriptions.”16

As a result of this mistake we have lost a Samaritan manuscript, but we have won a comparative study on the Samaritan Hebrew language from the first years of the 19th century.

Bibliography

CROWN, Alan, D. / PUMMER, Reinhard, A Bibliography of the Samaritans (3rd ed.), Lanham / Toronto / Oxford 2005.

CROWN, Alan, D., Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (TSAJ 80), Tübingen 2001. DE GOEJE, Michael Jan, Catalogus codicum orientalium bibliothecae Academiae

Lugundo.Batavae, Vol. 5. Leiden 1873. GLASIUS, Barend, Godgeleerd Nederland: Biographisch Woordenboek van

Nederlandsche Godgeleerden, Vol. III., ‘S Hertogenbosch 1856. MARGOLIOUTH, George, Descriptive List of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manu-

scripts in the British Museum, London 1893. MOLHUISEN, Philip Christiaan / BLOK, Petrus Johannes / KOSSMANN, Friedrich

Karl Heinrich, eds., Nieuw Nederlandisch Biografisch Woordenboek, Vol. 6. Leiden 1924.

MOLHUISEN, Philip Christiaan / KOSSMANN, Friedrich Karl Heinrich, eds., Nieuw Nederlandsch biographisch woordenboek, Vol. 9. Leiden 1933.

NEUBAUER, Adolf, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Li-brary, 2 vols, Oxford 1886 / 1906.

ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscript in the John Ryl-ands Library, Manchester, 2 vols, Manchester 1938-1962.

ROTHSCHILD:, Jean-Pierre, “Samaritan Manuscripts”, in A. D. CROWN, Alan D. ed.:, The Samaritans, Tübingen, 1990, 771-794.,

16 See http://shomron0.tripod.com/manuscriptsinscriptions.html, although it is not a

scholarly database.

242 J. Zsengellér

SASOON, David Solomon, Ohel David: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sasoon Library, 2 vols, London / Oxford 1932.

TIELE, Pieter Anton, Catalogus manuscriptorum bibliothecae universitatis Rhe-no-Trajectinae, Den-Haag / Utrecht 1887.

VOLLERS, Karl, Katalog der islamischen, christlich-orientalischen, jüdischen und samaritanischen Handschriften der Universitäts-Bbibliothek zu Leipzig, vol 2, Lepzig 1906.

WALTHER, Ingo F. / WOLF, Norbert, Codices Illustres: The world's most famous illuminated manuscripts, 400 to 1600, Köln 2005.

WITKAM, Jan Just, A Selection of Samaritan Manuscripts in Leiden University Library, Leiden 2002, (http://bc.ub.leidenuniv.nl/bc/olg/selec/samaritan/-object1.html) (downloaded 2011.02.18).

ZOTENBERG, Hermann, Catalogues des manuscrits hébreux et samaritains de la Bibliothèque impériale, Paris 1866.

VI. Arabica

Reflections on Samaritan Belief in an After-life Text-proofs for ‘The Appointed day‘ in Sam Ms BL Or 10370

PAUL STENHOUSE

The study of Samaritan belief in an after-life owes a great debt to the late Ferdinand Dexinger for whom it was a life-long interest. Despite his erudition, however, many problems remain. Of it he wrote:

Samaritan eschatology, especially as has been made clear in the case of the Taheb, exhibits traits which reach back into the second century BC. More precise religio-historical investigation and dating of other eschatological notions among the Samaritans remains, for the time being, a scholarly de-sideratum.1

What follows is a respectful response to Dexinger’s ‘scholarly desidera-tum’ concerning on-going debate on some of the ‘other eschatological notions among the Samaritans;’ and musing on certain points raised by Reinhard Pummer2 concerning resurrection and the Samaritans.

Deuteronomy 32:35 is a key proof text for Samaritan teaching on Re-ward and Punishment in the afterlife. Moses Gaster said of it3 that it ‘is considered by (the Samaritans) as the revelation of the deepest myster-ies of the world and of the future, and is fully interpreted in a great work called The Day of Judgement, “Yom al-Dīn,” and in the Code of Laws, “Hillukh”.’

The New English Bible (1970 ed.) agrees with Gaster. It translates the Deuteronomic passage thus:

all this (i.e. the work of those who lack good counsel) I have in reserve / sealed up in my storehouses / till the day (ליום) of punishment and vengeance.

1 DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatology, 292. 2 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 9 and passim. 3 GASTER, The Samaritans, 89.

246 P. Stenhouse

The translators have followed the variant reading from the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and the Septuagint (LXX). The Jerusalem Bible follows the Masoretic Text (MT) and reads the last line of the strophe as ‘A moi ’.la vengeance et la retribution (לי)

Few today would find this surprising. Scholars have noted and oc-casionally followed variant readings found in the SP as it is well-known that the SP and the LXX at times agree against the MT. As we shall see, the SP will sometimes differ from the MT precisely in ways that em-phasise the fact of a future ‘Day of Reckoning.’4

Samaritan studies have made great strides since the latter half of the 20th century. Emanuel Tov has noted a kinship between what schol-ars call ‘Proto-Samaritan’ texts unearthed at Qumran, and the SP,5 ex-tending our Samaritan sources (what Gulielmus Gesenius called the ‘genuina hujus sectae monumenta,’ ‘the authentic documentary re-mains of this sect’)6 to a point six-hundred years earlier than their hith-erto fourth century AD terminus a quo.

That this point will eventually be pushed further back seems to me to be self-evident.

In this paper we concern ourselves with the subject of Retribution and Reward treated in Deuteronomy 32:35 and elsewhere in Samaritan documentary remains, but especially in midrashim on the SP contained in BL OR 10370.

Themes such as these which once would have been treated in the context of a Day of Judgement, today come under the general heading of ‘Eschatology’ – a modern term that covers a wide range of topics like the ‘last things,’ and apocalyptic millennialism, as well as immortality, resurrection of the dead, reward and punishment in the next life, and, in the Samaritan context, the Taheb.

We take as a ‘given’ in what follows, that Samaritans, like their Rabbinical (and, for that matter, Christian) exegetical counterparts, were concerned with respecting ‘true texts’ and ‘establishing true exe-gesis’7 of the texts when they were ‘fixed.’ Reinhard Pummer in his ‘The Samaritans and their Pentateuch,’ has noted that ‘there is consen-sus among scholars that the SP is an adaptation of a pre-Samaritan or harmonistic text known from Qumran that was produced at the turn of the 2nd to the 1st century BCE ... as a consequence of the break between

4 See infra what will be said of Deut 30:15 where SP appears to omit היום precisely for

this purpose. 5 TOV, Proto-Samaritan texts, 397 ff. 6 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 38. 7 LOWY, Principles, 20.

Reflection on Samaritan Belief in an After-life 247

Samaritans and Jews.’8 Some scholars even suggest that after the Sa-maritans chose their version, Judaean scribes engaged in comprehen-sive editing of the Jewish Torah, whereas the Samaritans made no fur-ther changes.9

We also accept that while regarding the text of the Torah as self-explanatory the Samaritans nevertheless had recourse to midrashim – in order to draw conclusions suggested by the text over and above its literal meaning – provided these didn’t radically ‘contradict the explicit sense.’10

Scepticism About Belief in Resurrection Among the Samaritans

Ben Zvi defined Samaritan faith as: ‘En Toi, Éternel, en Moïse, fils d’Abraham Ton Serviteur, en la Sainte Loi, au Mont Guerizim-Betel, et au jour de la vengeance et de la récompense.’ 11

The single point of departure in this list from the thirteen articles of Jewish Faith given by Moses Maimonides is the reference to Mount Gerizim (though it is interesting that in this context Maimonides, as far as I can discover, does not mention Jerusalem or any Qibla for that mat-ter, at which or towards which Jews should pray). The other articles, mutatis mutandis, could be reduced to Ben Zvi’s formulation of the Sa-maritan Credo.12

The late13 Simeon Lowy notes that the opposition of the Samaritans to Jerusalem ‘may fairly be said to be their major distinctive doctrine and ... may well have been the prime cause of the creation of the schism.’14 He also notes that the Rabbinic stipulation for acceptance by Jews of the Samaritans in the Tractate Kuttim, added a further distinc-tive note, viz.: that they renounce Mt Gerizim and acknowledge Jerusa-lem and the resurrection of the dead.15

Reinhard Pummer comments that

8 PUMMER, Samaritans and their Pentateuch, 247. 9 See PUMMER, Samaritans and their Pentateuch, 247, note 50. 10 LOWY, Principles, 21. 11 BEN-ZVI, Les Tribus, 175, quoted Faü / Crown, Les Samaritains, 5. 12 See JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith. 13 He died in May, 2008. 14 LOWY, Principles, 29. 15 Ibid. See also HIGGER, Seven Minor Treatises, quoted DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschato-

logy, 282.

248 P. Stenhouse

Patristic authors (as well as rabbinic authors) repeatedly accuse the Samari-tans of not believing in resurrection. It is well known that at a later time Samaritans do believe in it. What is not known is when the change oc-curred.16

Joseph Albo (15th century CE)17 quotes Rabbi Eleazer b. Josē the plebe-ian Galilean, the contemporary of Rabbi Akiba (late 1st to early 2nd cen-tury CE), as arguing in the Gemara from ‘their (i.e. from the Samari-tans’) saying that the resurrection of the dead cannot be deduced from the Torah,’ that therefore the books of the Samaritans were corrupted 18 .(שהיו אומרים אין תחיית המתים מן ספריהם מזוייפים)

Eleazer would doubtless have had in mind the tractate in the Mishna19 that declares that ‘All Israelites have a share in the world to come ... and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law. ....’20

His view reflects that of the Rabbinite Jews in the Tractate Kuttim referred to above,21 for whom a condition for admitting Samaritans as proselytes was that they renounce Mt Gerizim, and acknowledge Jeru-salem and the resurrection of the dead.22

This assumption that Samaritans denied the resurrection of the dead was shared by Pope Gregory the Great and many of the Fathers of the Church who preceded him.23 It permeates much writing on Samari-tan views on the after-Life to the present day.

Gregory’s Commentary on the Book of Job, better known as the Moral-ium Libri, was begun in Constantinople where he had been sent as nun-cio by Pope Pelagius II in 578 CE. It was completed after he became pope in 590. In this historical/allegorical/moral study of reward and retribution in this life, Gregory drew a lesson from Job’s camels ‘which chew the cud’ (and, for the sake of the metaphor, nothing else). He compares them to Samaritans who ‘accept part only of the words of the Law.’ Then he goes on to say that like the camels which ‘can in no way 16 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 9. 17 Sepher ha-‘Iqqarim, (Book of Principles) 31.4. The references are taken from MORINUS,

Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65. 18 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65. See JASTROW, Dictionary of the Targu-

mim, 389, under זוף for references to Samaritans allegedly falsifying their Torah. 19 Sanhedrin 10,1. 20 See DANBY, Mishna, 397. 21 See note 15. 22 My emphasis. 23 Cf among others, the references given by GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theo-

logia, 38.


cleave their hoofs,’ the Samaritans ‘belittle the Law in its entirety by accepting only a part.’ 24

Employing yet another metaphor, the pope laments the Samaritans’ lack of belief in resurrection after death, and an after-life in which there is reward and punishment.

they carry a heavy load on the backs of their minds, because they do all that they do without any hope of eternal life. The fact is, they have no knowledge of belief in a resurrection. And what can be heavier and more burdensome than to suffer the affliction of an ephemeral world, and never to be able to raise one’s spirit with the hope of the joy of reward?25

I see no reason to doubt that Pope Gregory, Rabbi Eleazer and the Fa-thers would have agreed with the late André Caquot, founding Presi-dent of the Société d’Etudes Samaritaines. In his preface to Alan Crown’s edition of The Samaritans, Caquot praised the advances made in Samaritan studies, and rightly cautioned that

... everything may be called into question, or improved on points of detail by the discovery of unpublished texts or manuscripts which may yet come to light, for hundreds of these still remain inaccessible to scholars.26

One assumption that may profitably be questioned is the very point raised by the pope and by Rabbi Eleazer: namely, that the Samaritans denied the resurrection of the dead, and that they held no belief in life after death (what the seventeenth century Oratorian Jean Morin, wri-ting of Samaritan beliefs, calls interitus animarum ‘the annihilation of souls’).27

In the first place, it should be noted that there is no documented reference to Samaritan denial (or ignorance to use Gregory’s less pejora-tive term28) of the resurrection of the dead that antedates that time of Rabbi Akiba i.e., as we said above, from late 1st to early 2nd century CE.

24 Book I, chapter xv: ‘Potest etiam per camelos ... Samaritanorum vita signari. Cameli

namque ruminant, sed nequaquam ungulam findunt. Samaritani quoque quasi ru-minant, quia ex parte legis verba recipiunt, et quasi ungulam non findunt, quia eam pro parte contemnunt. See MIGNE, Patrologia Latina, 536, 537.

25 Ibid.: ‘Qui et grave onus in dorso mentis tolerant, quia in omne quod faciunt, sine spe aeternitatis elaborant. Fidem quippe resurrectionis nesciunt. Et quid esse gravius atque onustius potest, quam afflictionem saeculi pratereuntis perpeti, et nequaquam ad relevationem mentis gaudia remunerationis sperare?’

26 CAQUOT, Preface, IV. 27 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65. 28 ‘Nesciunt’: see supra note 25.

250 P. Stenhouse

Secondly, Sigmund Mowinckel, was of the opinion that ‘neither Is-rael nor early Judaism knew of a faith in any resurrection.’29 He went on to deny that such a faith was ‘represented in the psalms.’ Mow-inckel’s opinion, however, was judged by Mitchell Dahood as unable to stand up to serious scrutiny.30

Certainly Maimonides made the resurrection of the dead (whatever he understood the term to mean) his Thirteenth Principle. Louis Jacobs makes the point that Deuteronomy 38:11 (prohibiting consulting the dead) makes no sense unless there was belief in an after-life in ancient - or at least in 3rd century to 2nd century BCE – Israel.31

Let us grant that the schism between the Samaritans and the Judaeans occurred around the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion in +/-333 BCE.

Let us further grant that around approximately the same time ‘the written word (of the Torah) became binding on the various groups.’32

Our credulity would have to stretched to the limit to accept that ‘the Samaritans’ – whose faith up till that time would roughly have paralleled that of the rest of the Hebrews, and more specifically that of the Judaeans33 – denied the resurrection of the dead.

It is equally difficult to believe, as Shahrastani, the 12th century his-torian would have us believe,34 that the dositheans in his day did not believe in the after-life. As Alan Crown suggests, either Shahrastani erred, or has offered a second-hand account representing distorted information.35

If Louis Jacobs is right, and disillusionment with hope in a good life for the righteous here on earth led to a shift from this-worldly36 to other-worldly37 sanctions for the good life, then this would have been true of the Northern Israelite Samaritans as well as the Southern Israel-

29 MOWINCKEL The Psalms, 240. 30 DAHOOD, Psalms, Introduction, xxxvi. 31 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 411. 32 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 20. 33 ‘Samaritanorum religio Iudaica est; in nonnullis tamen et magni moment, a Iudaeis

dissentiunt,’ The religion of the Samaritans is Jewish; in some things of great impor-tance, however, they differ from the Jews’: MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 61.

34 Quoted MONTGOMERY, Samaritans, 252. 35 CROWN, Dositheans, 80. 36 What BL OR 10370 calls دار الدنيا ‘this-worldly abode’. 37 What BL OR 10370 calls دار اخرى [sic!] ‘other-worldly abode’. Do these two phrases

reflect an Islamic influence on the expression of Samaritan belief? See ISSER, Dosi-theans, 147, note 69.


ite Judaeans.38 If this shift really occurred during the Hellenistic period ‘when the “saints” were being slaughtered in the name of their faith,’ then Samaritans and Jews alike, would have been persecuted for their faith however the Chronicles may deal with the complex relationship between the two groups.

In Defence of Samaritan Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead

Morin,39 quoting Origen’s Contra Celsum,40 attributes the denial of belief in the resurrection of the dead to the Samaritan sectary Dositheus.

He argues for continuing Samaritan belief in the after-life from Justin Martyr’s comment concerning Samaritan and Jewish Messianism in his Dialogue with Trypho: nunquam non Christum praestolantes, ‘They were always waiting for the Christ.’ Morin remarks

Vix enim fieri potest, ut qui ta[n]to cum omnium gentium ludibrio redemp-torem spectant immortalis redemptionis suae spem omne[m] abiiciant. (It is unthinkable that hoping as they did for a redeemer of all people, they should have rejected in so cynical a fashion the hope of immortal redemp-tion.)41

The Hillukh42 paints its own picture and by a reductio ad absurdum sup-ports Justin’s incredulity:

If there would be no second world besides this one which the men of knowledge are able to reach by their understanding, then the world would be deficient of any good deed, and the non-fulfilment of a command would be better than the fulfilment of it … Then all the fools and the brutes among mankind, and the animals and beasts would be better off than those

38 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 354. Disilusionment with the lot of the righ-

teous, however, antedates the Hellenistic period by millennia. The book of Job, in its Ugaritic version, is a case in point.

39 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 66-67. But see STENHOUSE, Kitāb al-Tārikh, 218, 219, 224 for a contrary view. Notice, too that ISSER, Dositheans, agrees that the Dositheans were a pro-resurrection sect within a Samaritan population that general-ly denied the doctrine of the resurrection. See also DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatolo-gy, 282 ff.

40 I,2. 41 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 67-68. 42 GASTER, Samaritan Oral Law, 143. The Hillukh is the Samaritan code of halakhic

laws.

252 P. Stenhouse

who are perfect in knowledge, and this is stupidity, which cannot find fa-vour with any man of intelligence, for if there is really no second world in existence, or one to come later on after this world, then the life of the fool and the ignorant brutes among men, beasts and birds in this world would be in a preferable position to the life of the men of understanding, whose knowledge is greater than that of the animals and beasts which possess no knowledge, and are not expected to keep any Law or commandments and who act according to their own wishes and desires; and therefore [regar-ding] the fools who possess no knowledge whatsoever, and the brutes who are unable to distinguish between good and evil, there would be no obliga-tion on them to keep the Law and commandments, and through the want of knowledge they would do whatever they chose.

Ferdinand Dexinger notes that Babylonian Talmud (TB) Sanhedrin,43 after textual emendation, has the following reading: ‘The Patriarch of the Samaritans asked R. Meir (c.150) “I know that the dead will revive for it is written, and they shall blossom forth out of the city like the grass of the earth’ (Ps 72:16). But he and Stanley Isser44 both comment that the likelihood of a Samaritan’s quoting the Psalms as proof texts for this doctrine is minimal.

Much Samaritan writing, however, is directed at Jews – and is po-lemical in nature. For some reason scholars seem to presume – uncon-sciously perhaps – that it is always directed at Samaritans. This may be true of the liturgical and historical writings, but doctrinal matters are at least indirectly aimed at the critical Jewish audience traditionally so dismissive of Samaritan ideas.

To dismiss a Samaritan text as not possible because it quotes the Psalms45 or Isaiah, or Proverbs is to ignore the fact that while, as Gaster said, the Samaritans are forced to rely on the Pentateuch for proof pas-sages for their beliefs, and do this with extraordinarily creative genius, there is nevertheless nothing to stop them quoting the rest of the Bible if it suits their purpose.

Gesenius makes much of what he calls the ‘authentic documentary sources of this sect ... from which it is clear which references in the To-rah refer to this dogma [of life after death].‘46

Among these ‘documentary sources’ he lists the ‘liber de futura vita -eiusdem auctoris (referring to the eleventh-century Abu ’l 47(كتاب المعاد) 43 Sanhedrin 90b. 44 ISSER, Dositheans, 145, 146. 45 ISSER, Dositheans, 146. 46 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 38-39. ‘... genuina hujus sectae monumenta

ex quibus, quae Pentateuchi loca ad hoc dogma [i.e. vita post mortem futura] ac-commodaverint, constat.’


H asan as-Suri) in quo futurae vitae veritas argumentis e lege mosaica ductis [v(erbi).g(ratia). Gen. ix, 5, Deut. xxxii, 35, 36, 39] comprobatur.’ ‘The book of the future life by the same author in which the truth about the future life is proven by arguments drawn from the Law of Moses e.g. Gen 9:5, and Deut 32:35.36.39.’

Also listed by Gesenius are Samaritan liturgical hymns. These are to be found passim in his De Samaritanorum theologia ex fontibus ineditis Commentatio (1822)48 and his Carmina Samaritana (1824).49

Starting, at least implicitly, from the well-known principle of the so-called ‘capitula Caelestini’50: Lex orandi lex credendi, i.e. ‘how one prays reflects what one believes,’ Gesenius offers cogent arguments in sup-port of Samaritan belief in an after-life, and in the doctrine of Reward and Retribution in the world to come.51

Carmen No. v, verse 13 is rendered by Gesenius thus:

O rex spirituum nostrorum / Absque te non est / Resurrectio ad vitam nostram. [‘O king of our spirits (אה מלכה רוחינן)/ without you there is no / resurrection for our life’ (לית קוממו לחיינן).]52

The whole of Carmen No. vii praises Moses, and touches on questions associated with the last judgement, the fire of hell, and the resurrection. Gesenius translates Verse 34 as follows:

Salus Jehovae super eo / cui vita eterna est (שלום יהוה עליו בעל חיים ועמידותה) (The Salvation of the Lord be upon him / whose life is everlasting.)53

47 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 11 48 See note 6. 49 In GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana. 50 Because it is found in an appendix to letter of Pope Celestine [422-432] written to the

bishops of Gaul but now regarded by some as an addition by Prosper of Aquitaine [390-463]. The principle is sometimes phrased as Legem credendi lex statuat suppli-candi i.e. ‘Let the law governing prayer lay down what should be believed’.

51 See Carmina iii,13; v,13; vi,21 in GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana. 52 GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana, 35 [Hebrew], 89 [Latin]. 53 GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana, 39 [Hebrew], 98 [Latin].

254 P. Stenhouse

BL OR 10370 and the ‘Appointed Day,’ the Day of Reckoning

While one may agree with Lowy that Samaritans are ‘at all times an-xious to find proof-texts for their belief in an ‘after-life,’ his further sta-tement ‘we know there is little or no explicit and unquestionable sup-port (for the after-life) in their scripture,’ 54 begs, I suggest, the question that concerns us here.

BL OR 10370, one of the Gaster MSS in the British Library embodies such a collection of ‘proof-texts’. We find that folios 40v-51r are taken up with evidence55 from the SP for the ‘Yom al Mi‘ad’56 – يوم الميعاد – the Appointed Day, the Day of Promise, the Day of Reckoning.57 ميعاد is not to be confused with معاد in the كتاب المعاد referred to above, which deals with the ‘future life’ as such.58

The ‘Hillukh’ - the Samaritan code of halakhic laws - calls Deuteronomy xxxii the ‘chapter of the Appointed Day.’ It is to be read as a Samaritan lies dying ‘to give comfort to the hearers and a message to those who are faithful that they will receive a reward on the Day of Judgement.’59

The copyist of this midrashic text describes himself in the colophon as ‘Ishaq the priest’ (i.e. Isaac ben Amram 1855-1916)60 and says that he finished the (whole) work on the 25th of Jumada I (i.e. the fifth month) of the year 316 (sic!) according to the Arabic reckoning.

We know from the colophon of the Samaritan Hebrew text on the Pentateuch in the preceding folios 1-36 that this earlier section was completed in 1315 AH (=1897). We can only assume that ‘the year 316’ was a lapsus calami for 1316 AH (=1898).

BL OR 13070 contains fourteen principal proof-texts offered from the SP, with appropriate midrashim, in support of the doctrine of the ‘yom al-mī‘ād,’ ‘The Appointed Day.’ It may help in evaluating these proof-texts to ponder the words of Moses Gaster in his The Samaritans, The Schweich Lectures, 1923:

Now how did the Samaritans evolve their own theories from the Penta-teuch, and why could not the Jews find the same proofs from the text? A

54 LOWY, Principles, 459. 55 Arabic: adilla, pl. of dalīl. 56 See CROWN, Catalogue, No 38, pp.55,56. 57 From the root وعد . 58 From the root عود . The term الميعاد is also used for the New Testament thus: الميعاد

.[وعد] See DOZY, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, under . الجديد59 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 129, 130. 60 CROWN, Samaritan Scribes, 425.


glance at the Samaritan recension answers these questions. Not a few of the variants in this latter are the pegs on which the Samaritans hang their doct-rines. It may be a coincidence, but at any rate it is very curious that in most of these eschatological points the Samaritan text differs slightly from the Jewish. Whether these changes were made in order to find a Biblical reason for these beliefs, or whether these beliefs were found in the text in a form satisfactory enough to be adduced, cannot easily be decided. I have already had occasion to point out that many an ancient Halakhah is based upon or is justified by the reading peculiar to the Samaritan text. There again the same question arises whether the text is anterior to the Halakhah or vice versa, but as it is unlikely that a text would be altered when the latter has already been put into practice in order to find a posteriori reasons for it, it must be assumed that the reading is anterior to the interpretation. The sa-me must therefore be assumed for their application of the text to eschatolo-gical doctrines.61

In the order in which they appear, these ‘loci’ are as follows: 1.Genesis 3:24. 2.Genesis 9: 5. 3.Genesis 25:7. 4.Genesis 25:17. 5.Exodus 1:20. 6.Exodus 32:34. 7.Exodus 34:6. 8.Leviticus 18: 5. 9.Leviticus 20:30. 10.Numbers 14:35. 11.Number 23:10. 12.Deuteronomy 6:24. 13.Deuteronomy 30:15. 14.Deuteronomy 32:29, 31, 32, 34, 35. The first proof-text (Gen 3:24) sets the tone by recalling the image of the Cherubim, with swords flashing and whirling, guarding the gates to the garden of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve – the very image of the after-life and its Judgement.62 Acording to the Hillukh, the Garden of Eden is the heavenly home, it is everlasting – its opposite is the fire of Gehinnom. After death and his rising on The Appointed Day will come Judgement and Reckoning or Punishment or Requital.63

61 GASTER, The Samaritans, 87, 88. 62 Folio 85. 63 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 138.

256 P. Stenhouse

The fact that our anonymous author bypasses Genesis 3:19 – one of the Samaritans’ strongest proof-texts for the resurrection – shows that they are not as bereft of arguments for their beliefs as Lowy sugges-ted.64 The MT of Gen 3:19 reads כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב ‘for you are dust, and unto dust you shall return’ while the SP reads י עפר אתה ואל כ

עפרך תשוב ‘… unto your dust you shall return.’ What follows is a sampling of the style of the exegesis of these texts.

Genesis 9:5 in the SP reads ‘living creature’ (חי) and differs from the MT which reads ‘wild beast’ (חיה) The midrash explains that every living creature ‘includes someone who kills himself and there could not be any demand for his blood (from him, as the cause of his own death) because he (the cause) is dead. This is therefore out of the question. But his blood could be demanded of him after he has been resurrected.’65

Genesis 25:7. Referring to Abraham’s being ‘gathered to his ances-tors’ the midrash says that the meaning of his being ‘gathered to his ancestors’ is that the body rests in the ground, in its burial place, but the spirit is in its superior world, its immaterial world.’66

Exodus 1:20: a midrash on the story of the two midwives assisting the Hebrew women to give birth. Because they feared God and obeyed him, he repaid them with homes. ‘So that Almighty God rewarded them with palaces in Paradise, and saved them from the slyness of the Pharaoh.’67

Exodus 32:34: ‘On the Day of punishment I will punish them.’ That is, the midrash explains, for their sins. This is a great, undeniable witness to the Promised World of Judgement, when his servants will be punished – called the Day of Punishment. This will occur when all possibility of time for delaying has been exhausted. The Day in which every man will be remembered for what he has done. His Judgement requires an end to disobedience in this world, or his being weighed in a place different from this world. ‘Here there is delay; but there is no possibility of re-pentance on the Day Judgement is handed down; on the Last Day. … God delays until the day of punishment and Resurrection. Let us pray to the Almighty to look kindly on us on that Day. May his antecedent mercy be upon us before that last moment arrives to snatch us away. Amen Amen.’68

64 LOWY, Principles, 459. 65 Folio 85. 66 Folio 86. 67 Ibid. 68 Folio 88.


Reinhard Pummer, writing of the collection of works attributed to the famous 4th century author Marqe, wisely cautions the unwary reader:

Although Tibat Marqe speaks of resurrection, these passages do not date from the fourth century as do the earlier layers of the work, but are later in-terpolations as Ben-Hayyim has shown.

Bowman took a different view. He considered that many pages of the older MSS which Ben-Hayyim favoured, had been lost.69 The additio-nal material in Macdonald’s BL MS may well have been drawn from MSS more ancient than the Shechem MSS of which the latter, also, were copies. As some of the lacunae appear in the middle of a passa-ge,70 this lends plausibility to this theory. They may have been caused by folios of the original of the older MSS being mislaid, or by homoeo-teleuta caused by scribal inattention.

Interpolations are usually made to clarify ambiguity or confusion in a text.71

Whatever be the explanation for the omissions in the older MSS or the interpolations in the younger, that the latter are later interpolations is not conclusive proof that they are later material, and that they were not in the 4th century original, or that they do not ante-date the fourth century.

Our MS BL OR 10370 is an early 20th century copy of a presumably lost orginal by an unidentified author. It labours under many of the disadvantages that plagued Macdonald’s BL text.

Nevertheless, Robert Renehan, whom I quoted above concerning interpolations, wrote of a text in Plato’s Symposium in 1969: ‘that the oldest witness is necessarily the most trustworthy is a theory long-since exploded.’72

He gives a number of instances where mediaeval MSS have pre-served a genuine reading where ancient witnesses have failed to do so.73 And notes, further, that there are ‘literally thousands of passages where the readings of the MSS have been unnecessarily condemned and tampered with by scholars,’ quoting R.J. White74 who refers to the

69 BOWMAN, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 221-223 quoted ISSER, Dositheans, 147 note 70. 70 See ISSER, Dositheans, 147 note 70. 71 RENEHAN, Greek Textual Criticism, 105. 72 RENEHAN, Greek Textual Criticism, 8. 73 RENEHAN, Greek Textual Criticism, 9. 74 WHITE, Dr. Bentley.

258 P. Stenhouse

‘occupational disease of the “emendator” – the final inability to leave well alone.’75

Renehan thus comes out in support of the general principle in tex-tual criticism – that applies to MS as well as to textual variants – ‘recen-tiores non deteriores’ ‘the more recent are not necessarily the least trustworthy.’

I don’t doubt that our late President Ferdinand Dexinger would ag-ree with this judgement, or at least with the cautela. Concerning the antiquity of Samaritan beliefs he wrote in his comprehensive study ‘Samaritan Eschatology’:

The oldest Samaritan sources date from the fourth century AD and cannot, therefore, help us in determining the age of those Samaritan beliefs that are certainly older than these texts.76

Moses Gaster, in the 30s of the last century, reflected on the same phe-nomenon:

We have shown … that anything that is found in the Samaritan writings whatever the date of the MS. may be, is not new, it is merely a repetition of older writings: there was no real evolution after a certain period because we can trace the same ideas back through the ages from the oldest available writings to the most recent.77

Who knows what treasures await discovery in some ancient hiding place, or on forgotten library shelves. Mutatis mutandis I dare to say that most of us would agree with this common-sensed judgement of these two scholars whose productive lives spanned the nineteenth and twen-tieth centuries and to whom all of us who take an interest in rebus Sa-maritanis are greatly indebted.

Bibliography

BEN-ZVI, Itzhak, Les Tribus Disperseés, Paris 1959. BOWMAN, John, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch Among the Samaritans and

among the Rabbis, in: Oudtestamentische Studiën 8 (1950) 223-262. CAQUOT, André, Preface, in: CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen

1989, III-IV.

75 WHITE, Dr. Bentley, 103-104. 76 DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatology, 267. 77 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 122.


CROWN, Alan, D., Dositheans, Resurrection and a Messianic Joshua, in: Antich-ton 1 (1967) 70-85.

CROWN, Alan D., A Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Lib-rary, London 1998.

CROWN, Alan D., Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 80) Tübingen 2001.

DAHOOD, Mitchell, Psalms 1-50 (Anchor Bible 16), Garden City 1965. DANBY, Herbert, The Mishna, Oxford 1933. DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Samaritan Eschatology, in: CROWN, Alan D. The Samari-

tans, Tübingen 1989, 266-292. DOZY, Reinhardt, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, Leiden / Paris 1927

[reprint Beirut 1968]. FAÜ, Jean-François / CROWN, Alan D., Les Samaritains rescapés de 2,700 ans

d’Histoire, Paris 2001. GASTER, Moses, The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions: Vol I – Sama-

ritan Eschatology, London 1932. GASTER, Moses, The Samaritans, Their History, Doctrines and Literature, (The

Sweich Lectures), 1923, (Kraus Reprint, München, 1980). GESENIUS, Wilhelm, Anecdota Orientalia, Fasciculus Primus Carmina Samari-

tana continens, Lipsiae 1824. GESENIUS, Willhelm, De Samaritanorum Theologia ex Fontibus Ineditis Com-

mentatio, in: eadem, Iesu Christi Natalitia pie celebranda Academiae Fri-dericanae Halensis et Vitebergensis civibus indicunt Prorector et Senatus, Hale 1822.

HIGGER, Michael (ed.), Seven Minor Treatises, New York 1930. ISSER, Stanley, The Dositheans. A Samaritan Sect on Late Antiquity (Studies in

Judaism in Late Antiquity 17), Leiden 1976. JACOBS, Louis, Principles of the Jewish Faith. An Analitycal Study, London

1964. JASTROW, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerus-

halmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. 1., New York 1943. LOWY, Simeon, The Principles of Samaritan Biblical Exegesis (Studia Post-

Biblica 28), Leiden 1977. MIGNE, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 75., Paris 1849. MONTGOMERY, James, A. The Samaritans. The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their His-

tory, Theology and Literature, Philadelphia 1907. MORINUS, Ioannes, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum

Pentatteuchum de illorum Religione et Moribus, Paris 1631. MOWINCKEL, Sigmund, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, Vol. 1., Oxford 1962. PUMMER, Reinhard, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism

(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92), Tübingen 2003. PUMMER, Reinhard, The Samaritans and their Pentateuch, in: KNOPPERS, Gary

N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah, Winona Lake 2007, 237-269.

260 P. Stenhouse

RENEHAN, Robert, Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Loeb Classical Mono-graphs) Cambridge Mass. 1970.

STENHOUSE, Paul, The Kitāb al-Tārikh of Abu ‘l-Fath. Translated into English with Notes (Studia in Judaica 1), Sydney 1985.

TOV, Emmanuel, Proto-Samaritan texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch, in: CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 397-407.

WHITE, R. James, Dr. Bentley: a Study in Academic Scarlet, London 1965.

Abū l-H asan a s-Sūrī and his Inclinations to Mu‘tazilite Theology

GERHARD WEDEL

Introduction

When the Samaritans accepted the Arabic language as medium for their written communication in the 10th/11th century CE, they also adopted an elaborated terminology shaped in an Islamic environment. The implicit adoption of an Islamic influence necessarily caused a chal-lenge for Samaritan scholars at least on a linguistic level to which they reacted in different ways. In some cases they shifted the meaning of Arabic words to meanings more appropriate to necessities of their own religion.1 However, when they approached the scholastic theology of the Muslims, ‘ilm al-kalām, they had to keep the original meanings of terms of Islamic theology and to use them in the same way as Muslim scholars did in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise they would exclude themselves from participation in inter-religious discourses.

When the Samaritan scholar Abū l-Hasan as-Sūrī, who flourished in the second half of the 11th century CE, started to defend the Samari-tan religion against attack from various directions he used the Arabic language and tacitly he introduced ‘ilm al-kalām into Samaritan theol-ogy. He seems to be the first Samaritan scholar who attempted to par-ticipate in the general religious discourse of his time. By publishing his theological treatises he strengthened the position of Samaritans in case they had to defend themselves in theological disputes.

Opening the door to inter-religious dialogue could have been a slippery path for unprepared Samaritans. Unskilled people often failed in philosophical argumentation with Muslim scholars, who usually were better prepared. It is recorded that some badly prepared Jewish participants were defeated in inter-religious discussions because they could not resist their Muslim counterparts who were more skilled in

1 WEDEL, Aspekte der Etablierung.

262 G. Wedel

theological controversies. Under the spell of that impression some Jews abandoned their religion and converted to Islam, being overwhelmed by the superior arguments put forward by Muslim theologians. As a consequence, Jewish scholars took countermeasures by composing manuals to prepare their co-religionists to be better-equipped, with improved knowledge and rhetoric skills.2

Adopting theological doctrines – usually used by scholars of an-other religious group – always means tacitly adopting ways of thinking that could undermine traditionally transmitted attitudes. Particularly in the case of the ‘rational theology,’ developed by the Mu‘tazila, textual exegesis by means of literal interpretation of scripture became doubtful and a higher level of argumentation was required, including the rejec-tion of anthropomorphism.

In contrast to traditional theologians, advocates of ‘rational theol-ogy’ used to present their cases primarily by philosophical evidence and less by evidence of scripture – neither Bible or Qur’ān. This level of discussion was a challenge for traditional scholars. Because participants in this case they had no answers or their arguments failed in discussion sessions, they had no other choice than to keep silent or to retreat.3

In the following I will present first results of my investigations of the theological parts of the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ to support my thesis that Abū l-Hasan as- Sūrī was an adherent of ‘rational theology.’ The evi-dence from the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ even supports a strong inclination to the school of Mu‘tazilite kalām. Even the Kitāb at- Tabbāḫ could be seen – at least in its theological parts – as means to support Samaritans in

2 These manuals were written by Rabbanites like Samuel ben H ofnī as well as by Karaites like al-Qirqisānī (10th century; Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib) and later Yūsuf al-Baṣīr (d. ~1040; Kitāb al-Muḥtawī). Even Muslim Mu‘tazilites equipped their stu-dents with guides for disputations like ‘Abd al-Ğabbār al-Hamadānī (d. ~1024; Kitāb al-u sūl al-ḫamsa). Cf. SKLARE, Responses, and SKLARE: Samuel ben H ofnī. ‒ I compa-red the Mu‘tazilite attitudes of these authors with those of Abū l-H asan a s- Sūrī and I found striking aggreement of their positions. Cf. WEDEL, Gebrauch mu‘tazilitischer Terminologie.

3 ″The reality of the polemical majālis was not necessarily a pleasant one.″ ‒ a number of Jews were so impressed by the Muslims’ arguments for the authenticity of Mu-hammad’s prophecy that they converted to Islam. (SKLARE, Responses, 141f.). ‒ The-re were quite different cultural climates in the mağālis ˗ more liberal and tolerant in Baġdād and more aggressive and less tolerant in Cairo. Consequently the pressure to convert to Islam in case a participant of the mağālis was defeated was higher in Cai-ro. (SKLARE, Responses, 143f.).

Abū l-H asan a s- Sūrī 263

theological discussions. So we can see it as a mirror of an elevated level of internal theological discussions of the Samaritans themselves.4

The Samaritan Scholar Abū l-H asan as- Sūrī

Abū l-Hasan as- Sūrī was one of the most important Samaritan scholars, who probably lived in the 11th/12th century CE.5 Because he was the first Samaritan scholar who systematically treated theological subjects, he is comparable with two famous Jewish scholars some generations before, – the Rabbanite Sa‘adya Gaon (882-942) and his Karaite contemporary of the 10th century al-Qirqisānī. Though Abū l-Hasan is famous even now among Samaritans, nothing reliable about his personal life is re-corded, including when and where he lived. His expertise and compe-tence in religious matters must have been enormous, because people asked for his authoritative advice. This can be seen from the number of responsa included in the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ.6 It is assumed that the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ was composed between 1030 and 1040.7 He also is famous for

4 WEDEL, Mu‘tazlitische Tendenzen, 349-375, ‒ This contribution is a first attempt to indicate Mu‘tazilite doctrines in some detail in Samaritan texts and to discuss the question of possible means of contact to adherents of the Mu‘tazila.

5 WEDEL, Elemente islamischer Dogmen; WEDEL, Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ; several articles in CROWN / PUMMER / TAL, Companion. For more of my publications see the list of refe-rences.

6 HALKIN, Samaritan Polemics, 17, and note 24. Halkin collected all possible informa-tion (pp. 15-24). He stated: “… it is surprising indeed that nothing further is related about a personage who must have won renown even during his lifetime.” – Cf. my studies on Samaritan responsa: WEDEL, Jewish Responsa, and WEDEL, The Question of Samaritan Responsa.

7 Cf. my survey on Abū l-H asan in WEDEL, Kitāb a t- Tabbāḫ, 6-11. See also SHEHADEH, Ab H isda, and the reconstruction of Abū l-H asan‘s liftetime by WEIS Abū 'l-Hasan. – Support for the date has been seen in the fact that Abū l- Hasan mentions a certain Abū Ya‘qūb whom Abraham Halkin supposed to identify either with Abū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf b. Nū h (d. ca. 1020) the Karaite who did run the famous Karaite college in Je-rusalem (since 1002-03) or his student the famous Karaite scholar Yūsuf al-Ba sīr (d. ca. 1040). – I examined the mss. and found that Abū l-H asan mentions a certain Abū Ya‘qūb being in accordance with ‘Ānān (London BL Or ms. 12257, copied 1256-1289/1840-1872, fol. 62a = p. 103; Library of the High Priest in Nablus ms. N 123, fol. 96a = p. 172 (Zuhair Shunnar assumed the copy was made ca 800 / 1397-98 (!) and corrections ca. 1850). But other mss. have Ya‘qūb without kunya and ‘Āmān instead of ‘Anān. Both wordings are obvious scribal errors or evidence for ignorance. (John Rylands Library ms. 9A, 1103-1123 / 1692-1711, fol. 122b; Paris BN ms. arabe 4521, 1153 / 1740, fol. 45b and Oxford Bibl. Bodleiana, collection Huntington ms. 24 = Ni-coll V, 1660-1680, (no fol.) chapt. 26). – Halkin relates the custom, that persons na-

264 G. Wedel

several other works.8 Abū l-Hasan eventually composed some Hebrew and Aramaic poems, piyyutim, perhaps used as liturgical poetry, partly included in Cowley's “Samaritan Liturgy” but certainly incomplete.9

The Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ is the chief work of Abū l-Hasan as- Sūrī. The first survey of its content in Europe was in 1835 when Alexander Nicoll published his catalogue of Oriental manuscripts in the Bodleiana Li-brary of Oxford.10 A complete critical edition is still pending, though I published half of the book, as PhD thesis in Freie Universität Berlin (in 1987). It includes a critical edition, German translation with philological commentary, a comprehensive introduction and appendices.

The Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ is not an integrated piece of work but an amal-gam of possibly former independent treatises and responsa. These texts were put together under the vague label Kitāb at- Tabbāḫ, which liter-arily means “Book of the cook”, resembling the housewife preparing a meal out of different ingredients. Perhaps it should be better translated by “Book of Slaughtering” derived from Hebrew teba h or tabba h, or even resembling Arabic “slaughterer” dabbāḫ, because the first chapters of the book deal with rules of slaughtering and the differentiation of clean and unclean animals to eat.

med Yūsuf automatically receive the kunya Abū Ya‘qūb. Both persons, named Abū Ya‘qūb, seem to be contemporaries of Abū l-H asan a s- Sūrī of the 11th century CE. HALKIN, Samaritan Polemics,18f.

8 1. The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but the authorship of Abū l- H asan is questioned and more likely attributed to the Rabbanite scholar Sa‘dya Gaon – SHEHADEH, Arabic Translation, iii-iv (Foreword). – Already in 1943/44 Hal-kin wrote “We do not know who the original author is, but it may be the tenth or eleventh-century Samaritan scholar Abu-l-H asan al- Sūrī whom the Samaritans wrongly (sic!) … attribute the work.” HALKIN, Scholia to Numbers, 42. – 2. āb al-Ma‘ād = “the Book of the Return,” a brief eschatological work including quotations of the Samaritan-Arabic version of the Pentateuch (CROWN / PUMMER / TAL, Compa-nion, 43): no edition available. – 3. Kitāb fī šurū h al-‘ašr kalimāt = Šar h ‘ašeret ha-dibberot = “Commentary on the Ten Words or Decalogue” (CROWN / PUMMER / TAL, Companion, 144): no edition available. – 4. Ḫu tba al-ğāmi‘a = Šar h be-ha-azīnū (Dt 32) = “Commentary on the ‘speech of assembly‘”: edition of the Samaritan-Arabic text in Hebrew characters in 395 lines by HALKIN, Min haparšanut hašomronit, 210-226 – For full listings of references to mss. including shelf marks in collections, cf. WEDEL, Kitāb a t- Tabbāḫ, 13.

9 Some specimen of his liturgical poetry is published by COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy; new English translations of two poems of Abū l-H asan by ANDERSON / GILES Tradi-tion Kept, 386-391. – cf. SHEHADEH, Samaritan Arabic Liturgy.

10 Nicoll, Alexander: Biblio. Bodl. Cod. Manus. Orient. Catalogus, II. Oxford, 4f. Ed-ward Robertson dealt with it in a more comprehensive way in ROBERTSON, Catalo-gue of the Samaritan Manuscripts, columns 110-116.


The uneven distribution of topics and the mixture of different sorts of text may suggest a posthumous and arbitrary combination of pri-marily independent treatises.

There are four kinds of chapters: 1. chapters where the headline already indicates controversial at-

titudes to Muslim theological or philosophical topics: Muslim attacks on the text of the Torah; attacks of philosophers on the text of the Torah; rejection of Aš‘arite doctrines concerning tağ-sīm and kalām Allāh; on doctrines of the Muğbira and Qadariyya on free will and the righteousness of divine retaliation: against compulsion and fate; on creation of the world and of the crea-tion of the Qur’ān.

2. chapters on disputes in scholastic theology: on the unity of god tauhīd and on accidents; on the need for sending prophets and messengers; on the rejection of the Christian's dogma of trinity; on human actions.

3. chapters on controversies with Rabbanite and Karaite Jews: refutations of the Jews concerning their slaughtering of preg-nant or castrated animals; refutation of the Jews concerning their opinion that Samaritans are not from the tribes of Israel; dispute with Rabbanite and Karaites on several points, like: the direction of prayer qibla, the determination of new moon hilāl, the ‘omer (first fruit of the harvest, celebrated at the time of pesa h), their refusal to permit children to fast on the Day of Atonement, topics of Genesis, Passover (pesah) that cannot be celebrated but at the chosen place.

4. chapters in form of a fatwā, i.e. responsa, characterized by their structure of question and answer.

Abū l-Hasan as-Sūrī turns his apologetics and polemics against opin-ions held by four different groups. At first he rejects certain opinions of some (not named) co-religionists. Secondly, he disputes opinions held by Rabbanite and Karaite scholars. Thirdly, he explicitly mentions sev-eral renown Islamic groups whose opinions he debates: Aš‘ariyya, Muğ-bira, Qadariyya and Falāsifa. Opinions of the Mu‘tazila, to be equated here to Qadariyya, he prefers generally. At last, he explicitly rejects the Christian doctrine of trinity.

The main purpose to compose the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ seems to be to stop apostasy of Samaritans. Abū l-Hasan used arguments borrowed from the side of the predominant religion in his time, Islam. This was indispensable, particularly in times when the Samaritans had adopted Arabic as their colloquial and literary language. They therefore were

266 G. Wedel

able to read books composed by Muslims and they could be attracted by their concepts.

Obviously, Abū l-Hasan made an attempt to support his co-religio-nists to resist temptations of conversion by providing them with argu-ments. The same was done before by Rabbanite and Karaite scholars when they composed handbooks for their support in discussions with Muslim scholars to prevent their Jewish brethren from conversion to Islam.

Altogether, the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ consists of 70 chapters – units of text – separated by headings. Eighteen of them are devoted to theologi-cal subjects. I examined eight chapters to look for examples of Mu‘tazilite tendencies used by the author. In most cases of his theologi-cal chapters Abū l-Hasan uses “rational arguments.” Usage of reason in this context means arguing without evidence from Scripture (“Schrift-beweis”) but only by theological speculation. In seven of the eight chapters which are devoted to theological subjects the author follows this line of argumentation. Some of these chapters show appropriate headings, particularly the chapter headed by fasl fīt-tauhīd, “section on the unity of God”, displays the typical heading of Mu‘tazilite texts.

The Mu‘tazila

The history of the Mu‘tazila is one of the most intriguing stories of the Islamic culture.11 Intending to defend their young religion against sev-eral competitive religions and their denominations, Muslim theologians developed a system of principles and “rational” concepts. This theo-logical system met with great success by gaining the status of “state doctrine” of the Abbasid dynasty. But it also provoked a fast decline caused by conservative forces bound to literal interpretation of Qur’ān and Sunna. Consequently, most manuscript material of copies of origi-nal Mu‘tazilite authors survived nearly exclusively in “sectarian” groups of Shia, Zaydiyya and the Jewish Karaites. These materials were scattered around the world and preserved only by chance in a few places like the Cairo Geniza, now chiefly in manuscript collections of Firkovich in St. Petersburg and of Taylor-Schechter in Cambridge, U.K., and some collections in Yemen and Iran.

11 Cf. NAGEL, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, ‒ see also basic articles in EI2: ‘Ilm al-kalām, Mu‘tazila etc.


In 2003 the international “Mu‘tazilite Manuscript Project Group” was founded to investigate how non-Muslim communities adopted and handed down Mu‘tazilite theology. Because of a lack of original source material, their first tasks were to catalogue and to edit manu-scripts. In this framework first results were published 2007 in the handbook “A Common Rationality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Juda-ism.” presenting the state of research today.12 This handbook also in-cludes a chapter devoted to Mu‘tazilite influences on Samaritan theol-ogy.13 By some quotations I shall introduce the main features of Mu‘tazilite history, doctrine and outlook.

“The Mu‘tazila was a school of rationalist Islamic theology, known as kalâm, and one of the important currents of Islamic thought. Mu‘tazilîs stressed the primacy of reason and free will (as opposed to predestination) and developed an epistemology, ontology and psychology which provided a basis for explaining the nature of the world, God, man and the phenom-ena of religion such as revelation and divine law. In their ethics, Mu‘tazilis maintained that good and evil can be known solely through human reason.

The Mu‘tazila had its beginnings in the eighth century and its classical pe-riod of development was from the latter part of the ninth until the middle of the eleventh century CE. While it briefly enjoyed the status of an official theology under the Abbasid caliphs in the 9th century, the Mu‘tazila soon fell out of favour in Sunnî Islam and had largely disappeared by the four-teenth century. Its impact, however, continued to be felt in two groups: Shî‘î Islam and, to some extent, Karaite Judaism. Within Shî‘î Islam in par-ticular, the influence of the Mu‘tazila continued through the centuries and can be felt even today.” (…) “… the Mu‘tazilī doctrines and terminology provided a basis for discussion and polemical exchanges between Jewish and Muslim scholars.”14

After a phase of incubation in the 8th century CE there are three phases of development in the Muslim Mu‘atzilite movement.15

1. a phase of great diversity on the doctrinal level gaining the height of their political influence

12 See ADANG / SCHMIDTKE / SKLARE, Common Rationality. 13 Cf. WEDEL, Mu‘tazilitische Tendenzen. 14 ADANG / SCHMIDTKE / SKLARE, Common Rationality, 11. 15 “Mu‘tazila (is the) the name of a religious movement founded at Ba sra, in the first

half of the 2nd/8th century by Wā sil b. ‘A tā’ (d. 131/748), subsequently becoming one of the most important theological schools of Islam.” (EI2 VIII, 783a).

268 G. Wedel

2. scholastic phase - systematization and formulation in Bagdad and Basra (815-850)

3. last innovative school: Abū l-Hasan al-Basrī (d. 1044): he intro-duced philosophy under the cover of theology (!)

After the decline of Sunni Mu‘tazila, this line of theology spread among Zaidiyya and Twelver Šī‘a and later it exercised influence on Jewish circles of Rabbanite but particularly on Karaite scholars.

Abū Huḏail (d. ca 841) – so it is assumed – defined the five princi-ples (al-usūl al-ḫamsa) of the Mu‘tazila.

1. at-tauhīd: the uniqueness or unity of God which means the as-sessment of the unity of God (question of divine attributes and eternity)

2. al-‘adl: the justice of God (question of human freedom) 3. al-wa‘ad wa-l-wa‘īd: “promise and threat” (question of reward

and punishment in the world to come)16 4. al-manzila baina l-manzilatain: theory of an “intermediate state”

(question of major and minor sin)17 5. al-amr bi-l-ma‘rūf wa-l-nahy ‘an al-munkar: ‘command the good

and forbid the evil’ (the question of public responsibility).18 The importance of the Mu‘tazila lies in the application of these princi-ples on several theological, philosophical and moral subjects.

1. The fundamental dogma of the Mu‘tazila is the doctrine of God’s justice. That means: God does only that which is good.19 Only humans are able to do evil. The doctrine of God’s justice necessarily excludes any notion of predestination20 and includes the free choice (iḫtiyar) of human beings.21 In the opinion of the adversaries of the Mu‘tazila, like

16 “By which … it is understood that … every Muslim guilty of a serious offence, who dies without repentance, will suffer for eternity the torments of Hell.” (EI2 Mu‘tazila, 786b).

17 “According to which the same sinful Muslim cannot here on earth be classed either as ’believing’ (mu’min) or as ’disbelieving’ (kāfir), but belongs to a separate category, that of the ’malefactor’ (fāsiq).” (EI2 Mu‘tazila, 786b-787a).

18 “In other words, to intervene in public affairs to uphold the Law and oppose impie-ty.” (EI2 Mu‘tazila, VIII, 787a).

19 “May be said without exaggeration to be their fundamental dogma.” (EI2 VIII, 789a). 20 “Necessary justice of God first of all excludes any notion of predestination; it would

be unjust on the part of God, say the Mu‘tazila, to decide in advance the fate of every man in the Hereafter and to ordain that one will be saved and another damned, wi-thout either having merited this by his actions.” (EI2 VIII, 789).

21 “For the Mu‘tazila, the notion of power (qudra) is linked to that of free choice (iḫtiyar), itself implied, once again, by the principle of divine justice.” (EI2 VIII, 790).


al-Aš‘arī, God is not bound by moral obligation and is not subject to any rule.22 Therefore God creates all acts and man is able only to ac-quire the act he wants. The adherents of predestination do not even grant man any choice.

2. Following the doctrine of absolute and unquestioned unity of God, the Mu‘tazilites refuse all “essential attributes,” sifāt dātiyya, in-herent in God. This absolute transcendence has two consequences: a) “God is not a body, and therefore is not to be attributed with any of the properties of a body, such as being localised, moving about, having a form, etc.” and b) “God cannot be seen, in the literal sense of the term, either in this world or in the other“23

3. Because the word of God kalām Allāh is an accidental attribute, they identify the revelation as created thing: The Mu‘tazila do indeed uphold the doctrine of the created qur’ān – al-qur’ān al-maḫlūq.24 Other-wise they would hold an anthropomorphic concept of God as a speak-ing deity with head and mouth etc. Against this view adherents of tra-ditions maintain the pre-existence of revelation.

Rationalism is the common means of Muslim theologians (mutakal-limūn).25 Because of rationalism the rift is not between Mu‘tazila and Sunnis, but between those who accept the methods, challenges and vocabulary of the ‘ilm al-kalām and those conservative traditionalists who reject them, such as the Hanbalis and generally the ashāb al-hadīt.26

In the sphere of ethics rationalism was exclusive to the Mu‘tazila. They were convinced that man is capable of knowing by his reason alone what is morally good or evil.27

Concerning the case of Samaritan theology, research will have to trace back the way Mu‘tazilite doctrines came to Samaritan scholars, because there is no direct mention of sources or persons in the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ – the lone exception being a renowned Karaite scholar who lived in Jerusalem in the 11th century. An analysis and comparison of

22 “For one such as al-Ash'ari, God is necessarily just whatever He does; He would be so | even if He acted in a contrary fashion. God, according to al-Ash’ari, is not sub-ject to any rule.” (EI2 VIII, 789a).

23 Mu‘tazila in: EI2 VIII 788b. 24 The qur’ān is “like every word, it is made up of letters serially arranged and sounds

separately articulated‘ ( hurūf man zūma wa-a swāt muqa t ta‘a), which God creates in one or other corporeal framework (ma hall).” (Mu‘tazila in: EI2 VIII 788b).

25 EI2 VIII, 791-793. 26 EI2 VIII, 792b. 27 EI2 VIII, 792b; Cf. HOURANI, Islamic Rationalism, and ELKASY-FRIEMUTH, God and

Humans.

270 G. Wedel

textual evidence will likely demonstrate that contact between Samari-tan scholars and the circles of Rabanite and Karaite scholars in Damas-cus or Jerusalem in the 10th and 11th centuries provided Mu‘tazilite doc-trines for the Samaritans.

Mu‘tazilite tendencies in the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ

In his Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ Abū l-Hasan deals with a series of subjects typi-cal for Mu‘tazilite scholars: the relationship of revelation (divine law, šar‘) and reason (‘aql), the relationship of human freedom of will (iḫtiyār) and man's obligation to be obedient to God (taklīf), the question of anthropomorphism (tağsīm) in Scriptures, the assessment of the unity of God (tauhīd) and his essential attributes (sifāt dātiyya), and the createdness of God‘s speech (kalām Allāh).

Other topics of theological concern – which will not be dealt with here, but should be named, to show the spectrum of his competence – are: authenticity of prophets and oral tradition, abrogation of revela-tion, categories of men and their actions, the question of the createdness of the Qur’ān. Following the Mu‘tazilite way, he develops his criticism against doctrines of Muslim philosophers (falāsifa) and non-Mu‘tazilite schools, particularly against those who assume divine predestination by the concept of “power and decree” (qadā’ wa-ğabr).

Although Abū l-Hasan mentions some of the Muslim theological branches like Muğbira and Qadariyya, Aš‘ariyya and Hašwiyya, he does not mention the names of leaders or supporters of these schools. By Qadariyya Abū l-Hasan addresses the Mu‘tazila, although – curi-ously enough – the name Mu‘tazila itself he avoids. Perhaps this is a hint for dating his sources because the predecessor of the Mu‘tazila was called Qadariyya.

Details of six topics will be dealt with based on quotations from the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ of Abū l-Hasan as-Sūrī:

1. The creation of a rational human being 2. The relationship between man and God: rejection of predestina-

tion 3. The proof of the existence of God and the evidence for the unity

of God 4. The attributes of God (sifāt) 5. The problem of anthropomorphisms in scripture 6. The speech of God (kalām Allāh)


1. The Creation of a rational human being

Already in the foreword of the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ the reader will find first hints of Mu‘tazilite tendencies by emphasizing the role of human rea-son (ff. 1b-2b).28

Abū l-Hasan introduces Adam as the human being whom God gave priority over animals by providing him with reason and language. By that equipment he also enables him to profess monotheism in some kind of šahāda.

The foreword of the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ continues in telling us that Adam's wife Eve was created to make Adam a complete human being. Abū l-Hasan here connects the two different “creation stories” in Gene-sis by naming the first human beings Adam and Eve like it is done only in the second “creation stories,” and by representing human beings created simultaneously as man and woman like it is done in the first “creation stories.” Abū l-Hasan – by his emphasis of rationality – gen-erally prefers the first “creation stories” because he does not mention that Eve is derived from a rib of Adam.29 The text of the foreword is done in neat rhyme prose (f. 2a):30

خلق االنسان ـ مع الحيوان ـ وكمل كل ما ابدعا ـ وبعدهم ادم صنعا ـ وصوره العظيم باللسان ـ عشرين سنه ـ وفي جنان اسكنه ـ وخلقه تام ]ابن[قال ال اله اال انت يا عظيم الشان ـ وخلقه قدر

ساس ـ وال له في االرض من اجناس ـ وخلق له حوي في جملته ـ وقال دي تكون العقل واالح زوجته

ḫalaqa al-insān ma‘a l-hayawān – wa-kammala kull mā abda‘ā – wa-ba‘dahum adam sana‘ā – wa-sawwarahu al-‘azīm bi-l-lisān – qāla lā ilah illā anta yā ‘azīm aš-šān [aš-ša’n] – wa-ḫalaqahu qadr [ibn] ‘išrīn sana – wa-fī ğanān askanah(u) – wa-ḫalaqahu tāmma l-‘aql wa-l-ihsās – wa-lā lahu fī l-ard min ağnās – wa-ḫalaqa lahu hawwā fī ğumlatihi– wa-qāla dī [dī] takūn zauğatahu

28 All references follow the foliation given in Ms sam 9A of the John Ryland's Library Manchester (ROBERTSON, Catalogue). Variant readings which differ from Ms sam 9A I set in square brackets. My alternatively proposed interpretations I set in round brackets.

29 For the creation of woman, cf. the first ″myth of creation″ or ″creation story″ in Gen 1:27b, and the different second ″creation story″ in Gen 2:22.

30 The end of a unit of rhyme prose I marked with a dash. Here I follow the usage of the copyist who inserted gaps and some kind of Arabic comma. Because the quota-tion begins in the middle of the foreword, the rhyme word al-insān seems to have no ″partner″ here, but the words before this text are: al-qādir al-‘a zīm aš-šān. ‒ In this contribution I abstain from any linguistic comment concerning pecularities of Sama-ritan Middle Arabic. For more detailed studies cf. STENHOUSE, Samaritan Arabic; SHEHADEH, Arabic of the Samaritans; MACUCH, Problems of the Arabic Translation.

272 G. Wedel

(God) created the human being together with animals he made perfect all, what he created, after (the animals) he created Adam, the Almighty formed him with a tongue (i.e. language) to be able to say: “There is no God other than You; oh, high of rank (almighty one)”, he created him being twenty years old and settled him in Paradise, he created him with perfect reason and sense, there is no one of this kind on earth, he created for him Eve for his completition, and he said: this one (fem.) shall be his (!) wife.

Abū l-Hasan places the human being in a central position of creation and emphasizes the role of reason. Later on in the text, he states in a central statement that “reason is a (means) of evidence for God” (al-‘aql huğğat allāh, f. 31b). This attitude qualifies Abū l-Hasan to be an adher-ent of the Mutazilite school of thought. But what is more convincing to identify him as a Mu‘tazilite is his choice to address his own commu-nity as ahl al-‘adl wa-t-tauhīd (f. 59b), which means “confessors of the justice of God and of the unity of God”. This appellation normally is applied particularly to the Mu‘tazilite school of Muslim theology. The special context in the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ is given by the situation when the people of Israel were prepared to escape from Egypt and had to share the sacrificial lamb with their neighbours on the eve of Pesah. Abū l-H asan distinguished the Israelite people from the Egyptians by ad-dressing them ahl al-‘adl wa-t-tauhīd, while the Egyptians he addresses as “people of injustice and unbelief” (ahl az-zulm wa-l-kufr, f. 59b). By Arabic word zulm he is also hinting at suppression which was the fate of Israel in Egypt. Although the expressions are linked to a special con-text of a Biblical story, the formula ahl al-‘adl wa-t-tauhīd is strikingly Mu‘tazilite.

Further evidence for Abū l-Hasan’s Mu‘tazilite preference appears in some later chapters. The chapter on “Unity of God” (ff. 140b-143b) starts with the role of human reason (f. 140b):

تدي بنور بصيرته انما جعل العاقل عاقال ليعمل بموجب عقله ويه

innamā ğu‘ila al-‘āqil ‘āqilan li-ya‘mala bi-mūğib ‘aqlihi wa-yuhtadī bi-nūr ba sīratihi

The sensible (man) was created rational so that he may act appropriate to his reason and that he may be guided by inspiration (of reason) to his in-sight (enlightening).

In the chapter on the Muslim branches of theology Muğbira and Qadariyya (ff. 164a-167a) which is devoted to human freedom of free


will, Abū l-Hasan deals with reason, prophets and the revealed law (šar‘). The mere order of these topics in the quotation communicates the idea of preference of reason (f. 164a):

قومه في وضيا نور والشرع امته في هدا والرسل واالنبيا عالمه في حجه العقل اقام

aqāma al-‘aql huğğa[tan] fī ‘ālamihi wa-l-anbiyā wa-r-rusul hudan fī ummatihi wa-š-šar‘ nūr wa-diyā fī qaumihi

(God) installed reason as evidence for his world, the prophets and the en-voys as guidance for his community, and the revealed law as light and brightness for his people.

2. The relationship between man and God: rejection of predestination

In his chapter concerning the two branches of Muslim theology, the Muğbira and the Qadariyya (ff. 164a-167a), Abū l-Hasan states that human freedom of will is the precondition for a fair judgement of hu-man actions by God. He quotes the concept of al-qadā’ wa-l-ğabr, liter-ally translated: “power and decree” meaning the theological concepts of “predestination and compulsion”. This concept was rejected by the Mu‘tazila. They prefer – like Abū l-Hasan – the concept of iḫtiyār “free choice” of man: (f. 164b)

الجل حسن اعراضه عليه ويقع يختاره ما فعل من ممكنا وصارف داع علي االنسان خلق اولم واالنصاف العدل قضية علي استحقاقه بمقدار يحصل وجزاه ودمه مدحه دلك

wa-lammā ḫalaqa al-insān ‘alā dā‘in wa-sārifin mumkinan min fi‘l mā yaḫtāruhu wa-yaqa‘u ‘alaihi i‘rādahu hasan li-ağl d[d]alika madahahu wa-d[d]ammahu wa-ğazāhu yah sulu bi-miqdār istihqāqihi ‘alā qadiyya al-‘adl wa-l-insāf

At the same time when God created the human being as someone who is able to cause something to happen or to prevent something to happen, (God) gave him the possibility [opportunity, choice] to do what he prefers. So he is set into a position also to avoid [refrain from] the Good (and to turn to the Evil). Only for that reason God may bestow praise on man or rebuke him. Reward and punishment will follow to the extent that he de-serves according to a fair and proper judgement.

In case all human acts are determined by predestination sending of prophets is pointless if man has no free choice of good and evil as Abū l-H asan states some lines later (f. 165a):

فكيف بالحكيم تعالي والقضا والجبر يمنعان ويخرجانه عن الحسن ويكون ورود االنبيا سفها وعبتا

274 G. Wedel

fa-kaifa bi-l-hakīm ta‘ālā wa-l-qadā wa-l-ğabr yamna‘ān wa-yaḫruğānuhu ‘an al-hasan wa-yakūnu wurūd al-anbiyā safahan wa-‘abatan

How could it be possible to the All-wise one, who is exalted, – predestina-tion and compulsion – which both would prevent and stop him from doing the Good. (In this case) the appearance of prophets would be a foolish thing and pointless.

Consequently with an unambiguous statement all adherents of predes-tination are condemned (f. 165b):

وفساد راي من يري بالقضا والجبر

wa-fasād rāy man yarā bi-l-qadā wa-l-ğabr

Fatal is the view of someone who supports (the doctrines of) predestination and compulsion.

3. The proof of the existence of God and the evidence for the unity of God

In his chapter on the “Unity of God” fasl fī t-tauhīd, (ff. 140b-143b) Abū l-H asan presents a proof of the existence of God (ff. 141b-143b). It is also a good example for his scholastic kind of arguing.

At first he states that substances (ğawāhir) and bodies (ağsām) are created in time, i.e. they are temporally limited. As proof he argues that both, substances and bodies, must contain accidents (a‘rād) to exist, and accidents are created in time (muhdat), so substances and bodies are temporally limited. From there it becomes clear that both need a creator of temporal things (muhdat) who himself necessarily must be older than all created things, i.e. he must be eternal (qadīm). (ff. 140b-141b)

In refuting dualism, Abū l-Hasan presents as evidence that two dei-ties who are almighty at the same time are impossible. Here it becomes clear that the Arabic word tauhīd, which is a verbal nomen (masdar) of the intensive stem, literally means the assertion or declaration of the oneness of God: (ff. 142b-143a)

لم | صفاته في تان له يكون ان جاز ولو صفاته في له تان ال واحدا العالم صانع يكون ان ويجب اقسام تالته احد عن امرهما يخل

wa-yağibu an yakūna sāni‘ al-‘ālam wāhidan lā tāni (= tānin) lahu fī sifātihi wa-lau ğāza an yakūna lahu tāni fī sifātihi lam yaḫul (ḫlw) amruhumā ‘an ahad talāta (= talātatin) aqsām.


Necessarily, the maker (creator) of the world is (only) one, and there is no second one owning his attributes; but if it were possible that he had a sec-ond (God as companion at his side) owning his attributes, then the orders of them both were not free of three (problems)

To prove that God is the only and almighty one and that there is no other deity he assumes three cases of competition between deities. Consequently, if two deities were almighty they would obstruct each other and that would cause damage to the world. (compare ff. 142b-143b)

In his introduction to the section on “remission of debts (= Schuldener-laß) and the years of jubilee” (ff. 37a-41a) Abū l-Hasan demonstrates his evidence of the unity of God.

In this chapter on festivals and calendar regulations God does not appear to be a creator of life, but a creator of physical elements and celestial bodies and constellations. Observation of these heavenly bod-ies by man becomes fundamental to understanding nature and for the calculation of calendars.

In his text the author uses some means of literary style by setting parallels between parts-of-speech. For example he emphasizes contrasts by positioning positive and negative statements together, like “begin-ning and end,” and “first one and last one.”

This introductory paragraph sounds like a confession to the school of Mu‘tazilism (f. 37a-b):

العدد كواحد ليس بالحقيقه الواحد وهو التقسيم عليه واستحال بالوجود االزل في تفضل من تبارك مبدي نهايه غير الي واالخر بدايه بال االول وهو واحدا كان وبها الداتيه بالصفات اختصاصه بل االنوار ومنشر الكواكب صانع االشكال ومكون العناصر ومرتب االجسام وخالق الحوادت | االوقات ولمعرفة العالم في تعالي يفعله ما علي بها يستدل ايات وجعلها بحكمته تعالي تبهار

صدق واعتدال حق بنصبة معرفته الي تودي بطريقة والسنين وااليام

tabāraka man tafad dala fī l-azal bi-l-wuğūd wa-istahāla ‘alaihi at-taqsīm wa-huwa al-wāhid bi-l-haqīqa laisa ka-wāhid al-‘addad bal iḫtisā suhu bi-s-sifāt ad-dātiyya (= dātiyya) wa-bihā kāna wāhidan wa-huwa al-awwal bi-lā bidāya wa-l-āḫir ilā ġair nihāya | mabdā al-hawādit wa-ḫāliq al-ağsām wa-murattib al-‘anāsir wa-mukawwin al-aškāl sāni‘ al-kawākib wa-munaššir al-anwār rattabahā ta‘ālā bi-hikmatihi wa-ğa‘alahā ayāt yastadillu bi-hā ‘alā mā yaf‘aluhu ta‘ālā fī l-‘ālam wa-li-ma‘rifat al-auqāt wa-l-ayām wa-s-sinīn bi-tarīqat tu’addī ilā ma‘rifatihi bi-nusbat haqqin wa-i‘tidāl sidqin

Blessed be the one, who is good-hearted in eternity of his existence, to whom division is impossible, because he is one in reality, not like one in numbers, although he is characterized by (several) essential attributes, he remains one,

276 G. Wedel

he is the first one without beginning and the last one without end, he is the beginning of the created things and creator of bodies, he is the one who gives structure to the elements, he is creator of forms (constellation of stars: zodiac?), he is maker of stars and he is the one who unfolds the lights (of sun and moon). he – the exalted one – set them in order [organized] in his wisdom he made them as signs whereby one can find orientation what he – the exalted one – made in the world and to know the times and days (of festivals) and (special) years by a method (way) that leads to his knowl-edge (God) by a truthful guide and reliable balance (also means the astro-nomical term of equinox).31

4. The attributes of God (sifāt)

In accordance with Mu‘tazilite doctrines Abū l-Hasan wants to prove absolute transcendence of God. For this purpose no such attributes are acceptable that allow corporeality, three-dimensional space or tempo-rality.

Attributes of God appear in the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ in five different forms and functions:

1. As eulogy after the Arabic name of God, sometime replacing the name of God, e.g. ta‘ālā (he is exalted) (passim); 2. As simple description that can be found at several places in the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ, resembling the so-called “most beautiful namens of God” (al-asmā’ al-husnā) – renown from the Qur’ān. They are fre-quently present in the basmalla: ar-rahmān and ar-rahīm (Beneficent, the Merciful), also used by Abū l-Hasan at the beginning of the Ki-tāb at-Tabbāḫ (f. 1b): bismi llāh ar-rahmān ar-rahīm wa-bi-hi atiqu; 3. As anthropomorphic words to express physical appearance, parts of body, behaviour and acts of God, e.g. hand, eye, voice (yad, ‘ain, saut) rejected by Abū l-Hasan (ff. 92a-94a); 4. As so-called essential attributes (sifāt dātiyya) or attributes of eternity (sifāt al-qidam), e.g.: almighty, all-wise, eternal, omniscient, the one, just(qādir, hakīm, qadīm, ‘ālim, wāhid, ‘ādil) (f.99a); 5. As a theological concept, divided into four categories: sifāt dāti-yya, sifāt ma‘nawiyya, sifāt muqtadiyya sifāt fi‘liyya. (essential attrib-

31 This paragraph is followed by a quotation of Gen 1:14: ″Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.″


utes, attributes of ideas, necessary attributes, attributes of the act, fol 98b).32

In the chapter on “accusations of the falāsifa against the people of the Torah” (ff. 94b-105b) Abū l-Hasan qualifies views of “the philosophers” altogether as “false or specious arguments”.33 In this chapter he deals with a series of theological issues to refute “the philosophers”, particu-larly concerning the divine attributes (f. 99a):

الصفات الداتيه ليس هي الدات وال غير الدات بل هي من واجبات الدات القديمه

a s-sifāt ad-dātiyya laisa hiya ad-dāt wa-lā ġair ad-dāt bal hiya min wāğibāt ad-dāt al-qadīma

The essential attributes are not identical with his essence and not different of the essence, rather they are a requirement [necessity] of the eternal es-sence.

Also in the chapter on the “Unity of God” (fasl fī t-tauhīd, ff. 140b-143b) Abū l-Hasan enumerates the essential attributes of God:

hakīm, muhaddit, qadīm, wāhid “all-wise, creator of temporal things, eternal, one” (fol 142b) and qādir, ‘ālim, hayy, ġanniy, mauğūd “al-mighty, all-knowing, alive, self-sufficient, ever-existing” (fol 143b)

He finishes this chapter by stating (f. 143b):

صفات الداتيه وبها كان واحداوتعالي من اختص بال

wa-ta‘ālā man iḫtassa bi-s-sifāt ad-dātiyya (= ad-dātiyya) wa-bihā kāna wāhidan

The exalted one is the only one who owns the essential attributes and therefore he is unique.

In the chapter on “Attributes which are not suitable to describe the exalted one” (as- sifāt allatī lā yūsafu bihā ta‘ālā, ff. 143b-144b) Abū l-H asan enumerates eleven “negative attributes” which differ totally from his theological discussed in the section before. These attributes are

32 The real meaning of sifāt ma‘nawiyya sifāt muqta diyya not clear yet. Abū l-H asan only explains the essential attributes but says nothing on the other three ones. ‒ Concer-ning sifāt fi‘liyya. Cf. Gimaret ″on attributes″ which God merits from all eternity, on account of his essence, ( sifāt al-dātor al-nafs), and others which he merits on account of his acts ( sifāt al-fi‘l). Cf. Sifa, in: EI2, vol IX, 551b.

33 Cf. Shubha, in: EI2.

278 G. Wedel

negative because they describe conditions that are not acceptable for the idea of a transcendent God. Mainly because they display weakness (‘ağz) or limitedness (tanāhiyy), and therefore they are suitable for cre-ated bodies (sifāt al-ağsām) and accidents (a‘rād) alone. The list of attributes include:

quantity al-kam, quality al-kaifa, space al-aina, time al-matā, location al-malaka, behaviour an-nusba, condition al-qunya, motion al-haraka, rest as-sukūn, merging al-iğtimā, separation al-iftirāq. (ff. 144a-b)

Because of their contrasting characteristics most of them form comple-mentary pairs. Six of these concepts resemble Aristotle's categories: quantity al-kam, quality al-kaifa, space al-aina, time al-matā, location al-malaka, behaviour an-nusba. The remaining five concepts at the end of the list do not belong to Aristotle's categories but refer to behaviour of physical bodies: al-qunya, condition; al-haraka, motion; as-sukūn, rest; al- iğtimā‘, merging; al-iftirāq, separation.34

5. The problem of anthropomorphisms in scripture.

Concerning the question of anthropomorphisms in Scripture Abū l-H asan likewise is close to doctrines of the Mu‘tazila. In the section on “The solution of doubts presented by an adversary who slanders against the text of the Torah” (ff. 92a-94b) he rejects the accusation that the followers of the Torah take anthropomorphic attributes of God literally.

Because of the statement “he has in the Qur’ān” (‘indahu fī l-qur’ān, f. 93b) it becomes clear that the adversary whom Abū l-Hasan is ad-dressing here, is Muslim, though the name is omitted. Abū l-Hasan repeats the well known accusation of Muslim scholars that all anthro-pomorphic sections in the Torah (e.g. Gen 3:8; 28:13) are proof for arbi-trary alterations of the original text of the Torah, made by Jews by do-ing expansion and abridgement, change and exchange (ziyāda, naqs, taġyīr, tabdīl) (f. 92a).35

34 For a more comprehensive discussion of the contrast between Abū l-H asan’s ″negative attributes″ and the categories of Aristoteles and the Arabic interpretation done by Sa‘adya Ga’on, see my forthcoming contribution WEDEL, Gebrauch mu‘tazilitischer Terminologie.

35 Cf. Ta hrīf, in EI2.


He does not deny the existence of anthropomorphic sections in the Pentateuch. But in such cases he proposes to apply the method of alle-gorical interpretation (ta’wīl). By this means, Mu‘tazilites usually main-tain the incorporeality of God in sections of Scripture (Pentateuch, Qur’ān etc.) that indicate incarnation. Naturally, Abū l-Hasan refers to the Torah and he offers proofs for anti-anthropomorphic statements but does not rely on rational arguments alone. He supports his statements “created things impossibly incarnate in God” and “God is unable to take up space” by quoting “God the Lord is in Heaven above and down on Earth” (Deut 4:39). In Abū l-H asan’s opinion this quotation proves that God can be at several places at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to localize God.

To support the statement “there is no similarity with God and he has no shape” he refers to “the Lord talked to you from within the fire; you only could hear the sound of the words, his shape remained invisi-ble”. (Deut 4:12)

Generally Abū l-Hasan states that “orally revealed texts (an-nussūs as-sam‘iyya) including divine attributes are in concord to rational evi-dence (al-huğağ al-‘aqliyya)” (f. 93b) because they are understandable by application of reasoning (nazar) and the presentation of evidence (istid-lāl).

Abū l-Hasan rejects all of the assumptions of his adversary that the people of the Torah apply literal interpretation of anthropomorphisms, because in this case the outward sense of a word is useless. Generally he denies that God takes up space or has a visible body (f.94b):

هالن فيها قدحا دلك يكون وال عليه حمله وجب التاويل يحتمل ما فيها وجد وادا النصوص فايده فيه شبه ال بين ودلك ]قولهم[ عقولهم في رتبه ما علي تكالنا هم حيت من العالم خاطب تعالي

fa’ayyadahu an-nusūs wa-ida wuğida fīhā mā yahtamilu at-ta’wīl wağab hamluhu ‘alaihi wa-lā yakūnu dalika qadhan fīhā li-annahu ta‘ālā ḫātib al-‘ālam min haitu hum tuklānan ‘alā mā rattaba-hu fī ‘uqūlihim [qaulihim] wa-dalika bayyin la šubah fīhi

This is confirming the texts (of the Scripture) that in case something is found that allows allegorical interpretation there is an obligation to apply it; (that means) no violation (of the texts), because the exalted one ad-dressed the world that (men) may trust that (God) had organized their rea-son (accordingly). That is obvious without any doubt.

Abū l-Hasan does not restrict himself to apologetically defending his opinion, but he also attacks his adversary by pointing to anthropomor-phic sections in the Qur’ān. For this reason his adversary also is obliged

280 G. Wedel

to apply allegorical interpretation in case God is depicted with hand or eye. Abū l-Hasan quotes Qur’ān (5, 64) “God's hand is bound” (yadu llāhi maġlūlatun) and “No, he has spread his hands” (bal yadāhu mabsūtatān) (f.93b) to give evidence of the case.36

One and a half centuries before Abū l-Hasan, the Karaite al-Qirqisānī, who died 930, also quoted this verse from the Qur’ān in his Kitāb al-Anwār to state anthropomorphism The usage of the same ar-gument could be evidence that Abu l-Hasan knew the Kitāb al-Anwār, but at least that he knew this argument from Jewish critics.37

6. “The speech of God” (kalām Allāh)

Within the context of the chapter about the followers of al-Aš‘arī38 and their doctrine concerning the nature of letters and sounds, Abū l-Hasan deals with the topic of the nature of “the speech of God” (kalām Allāh). (ff. 160a-163a)

Abū l-Hasan assumes that “the speech of God” could not be eter-nal, because God is incorporeal. He creates “his speech” ad hoc without requiring an organ or instrument to speak: (f. 160b)

منه صح كدا االت بغير الفعل منه صح فكما اتصال وال مباشره وال االت بغير الفعل منه صح فقد الشاهد في يعقل ما بخالف لهوات بغير الكالم

fa-qad sah ha min-hu al-fi‘l bi-ġair ālāt wa-lā mubāšara wa-la ittisāl fa-ka-mā sah ha minhu al-fi‘l bi-ġair ālāt kadā sa hha min-hu al-kalām bi-ġair lahawāt bi-ḫilāf mā ya‘qiluhu fī š-šāhid

It is a certain fact that (God) acts without tool, without physical cause (of an organ) and without connection (to material things); because as much it is certain that he acts without any tool, it is also certain that any word from him comes without uvula (= organ to speak, Gaumen) although this may contradict what a witness grasp with his reason.

36 PARET, Der Koran, 125 (with references to Sura 5, 64); HALKIN, Relation of the Sama-ritans, 286, n. 85; BÖWERING, God and his Attributes, 325 col. a (”the hand of God” as an example of anthropomorphisms in Qur’ān).

37 For translations of al-Qirqisānīs Chapter on Jewish sects and Christianity, in section 4. 11, cf.: NEMOY, Al-Qirqisānī, 355: ”The hand of God is manacled.”‒ LOCKWOOD, Abū Yūsuf, 127: ”The Jews say that God‘s hand is fettered.” ‒ To manacle and to fet-ter are synonym meaning ″to tie somebody‘s hand or foot.″

38 The chapter is called: ”Section on a similar subject: the Aš‘ariyya said concerning the rejection of letters and sounds” fa sl fī ġairi dālika qālat al-Aš‘ariyya bi-nafyi l- harf wa-s-saut (ff. 160a-163a).


In the following Abū l-Hasan refers to the physical nature of sounds in language. Every sound only exists for a short moment until it is re-placed by the next sound. And because the next sound is heard only if the preceding one is gone, all sounds cancel each other and vanish. So “the speech of God” – seen as a series of sounds – could not pre-exist from eternity and could not last for ever.

This opinion is directed against the anthropomorphists whom Abū l-H asan calls al-hašwiyya, likewise recalling the rejection Mu‘tazilites would do in the same way.39 The basic meaning of the root h-š-w “to stuff” in theological context means “stuffed with attributes” of such kind that – to the view of the Mu‘tazila – it would strike the eternity of God (f. 162a):

عليهما العدم وجواز الختالفهما الحشويه قالت قديما والصوت الحرف يكون ان يجوز وال

wa-lā yağūzu an yakūna al-harf wa-s- saut qadīman qālat al-hašwiyya l-iḫtilāfihimmā wa-ğawāz al-‘adam ‘alaihimmā

It is impossible that any letter or sound may be eternal as anthropomor-phists (hašwiyya) assume because both follow each other (alternatively: bear the contradiction in themselves) and (have the possibility to) extin-guish each other.

At the end of this chapter Abū l-Hasan states: (f. 163a)

الهوي يطرح لمن بين وفساده النفس في قايم معني الكالم ان يري من راي فساد بدلك بان فقد التقوي ويتبع

fa-qad bāna bi-dalik fasād rāy man yarā anna l-kalām ma‘nā qāyim fī n-nafs wa-fasādahu bayyin li-man yatrahu al-hawā wa-yatba‘u t-taqwā

Therefore, it is obvious that the opinion of someone who teaches that ‚the speech of God‘ is an idea inherent in the essence of God is void; anyone who can distinguish the voidness of this opinion rejects arbitrariness and devotes oneself to fear (of God).

39 The term H ašwiyya is ″... used by some Sunnis of extremist traditionists or those whose researches are of very little value. it is used, in a narrower sense, of the A s hāb al-H adīth [q.v.] who, uncritically and even prompted by prejudice, recognize as genuine and interpret literally the crudely anthropomorphic traditions. ( ) The Mu‘tazilīs applied the name of Hashwiyya to the majority of the A s hāb al-H adīth, be-cause, although without the unquestioning acceptance of the H ashwiyya proper and often with the reservation ’without comment’ (bilā kayfa), they yet admitted some anthropomorphic expressions.″ (EI2: H ashwiyya ‒ H ashawiyya H ushwiyya, or Ahl al-H ashw).

282 G. Wedel

In a special chapter on the question whether the Qur’ān is created or not (ff. 167b-176a) Abū l-Hasan is occupied with the question how the revelation is sent to the prophets. In a sophisticated section he displays how the ways of transmission can be distinguished regarding their means of transmission: (f. 168a)

فيعبر الرسول قلب علي المعاني تنزيل الي اشاره يكون ان اما اقسام تالته ]احد[ الى ينقسم وهو ويدون همن فيسمع يكتب حرف او ينسمع صوت اليه يرد او اللغه من بيديهم بما قومه الى عنها المعاني الن مخلوقا كونه على تدل االقسام هده من وكل مكتوبه صحف اليه ينزل او عنه

حقيقه هو وهدا تكن لم ان بعد حصولها تبت فقد له حاصله تكن لم حصولها قبل للرسول الحاصله المحدت

wa-huwa yanqasimu ilā ahad talāta aqsām ammā an yakūna išāra ilā tanzīl al-ma‘ānī ‘alā qalb ar-rasūl fa-yu‘abbiru ‘anhā ilā qaumihi bi-mā bi-yadaihim min al-luġa au yaridu (wrd) ilaihi saut yusma‘u au harf yaktubu fa-yusammi‘u minhu yudawwinu ‘anhu au yunzalu ilaihi suhuf maktūba kull min hadihi l-aqsām yadullu ‘alā kaunihi maḫlūqan li-annna l-ma‘ānī al-hāsila li-r-rasūl qabla ḫusūlihā lam takun hā silahu la-hu fa-qad tabata husūluhā ba‘da an lam takun wa-hāda huwa haqīqat al-muhdat

(The transmission of the revelation, tanzīl) is done in one of three ways. (1) Either there is a signal of revelation and its meaning is sent down (directly) to the brain (qalb) of the envoy (rasūl) and succeedingly he articulates (the meaning) in plain words to his people (qaum) in the language they under-stand; (2) or he receives a sound to be he heard or a letter to be written, then he hears it and he writes it down, (3) or the revelation comes down on written pages. All of these ways of revelation prove that (the means of revelation) are created because the ideas [meanings] that reached the envoy (rasūl) do not exist before. Therefore its occurence is manifest after it was not existent (before); and that means the reality of things created in time (muhdat contingent things).

Conclusion and Discussion of Results

The number of topics and quotations I have chosen from the Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ give enough evidence to judge that Abū l-Hasan as- Sūrī was heavily inclined into Mu‘tazilite theology, – particularly in the doc-trines of tauhīd and ‘adl, and in anti-predestination and anti-anthropomorphism. Nevertheless, it remains questionable how far he applied Mu‘tazilite methods to all topics, especially in exegesis of the Torah, in Halacha and in other fields of Samaritan peculiarities.

Unfortunately, Abū l-Hasan as- Sūrī did not mention his sources. Therefore the mediators who imparted the Mu‘tazilite doctrines to the Samaritans remain unknown. Nonetheless it is likely that Karaites who


immigrated to Jerusalem introduced Mu‘tazilite theological attitudes into Jewish and Samaritan communities in Palestine.

Another question will be left to further research, as long as not all Samaritan-Arabic texts are published: Did doctrines of Mu‘tazilite ori-gin become a permanent part of Samaritan theology or was Abū l-H asan a rare exception without successors in the centuries that fol-lowed? As a general result, we state that topics of philosophy and the-ology in the period, when the Samaritans wrote their texts in Arabic, are worth exploring on a much larger scale.

Bibliography

ADANG, Camilla / SCHMIDTKE, Sabine / SKLARE, David (EDS.), A Common Ration-ality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Judaism, (Istanbuler Texte und Studien. Ori-ent-Institut Istanbul, vol. 15), Würzburg 2007.

ANDERSON, Robert T. / GILES, Terry, Tradition Kept. The Literature of the Sama-ritans, Peabody, Mass. 2005.

BÖWERING, Gerhard, God and his Attributes, in: McAuliffe, Jane Dammen et al (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān (EQ), Vol. II, Leiden 2002, 325. Col. A.

COWLEY, Arthur E., Samaritan Liturgy, 2 Vols., Oxford 1909. CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to

Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993. CROWN, Alan D., (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989. EI2 = The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. 11 vols. Leiden 1960-2002. (EI2

and EI3 on-line by University subscription: http://www.brillonline.nl/-subscriber).

EJ = Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols. Jerusalem 1972. (Supplement vols. and year books). (The 2nd edition is on-line by University subscription at Gale Vitual Reference Library: http://go.galegroup.com

ELKASY-FRIEMUTH, Maha, God and Humans in Islamic Thought. ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Ibn Sīnā and al-Ghazālī, London / New York 2006.

HALKIN, Abraham, Samaritan Polemics against the Jews, in: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. VII. Philadelphia 1935-1936, 15-24.

HALKIN, Abraham, The Scholia to Numbers and Deuteronomy in the Samaritan-Arabic Pentateuch, in: JQR N.S. 34 (1943-1944) 41-59.

HALKIN, Abraham, The Relation of the Samaritans to Saadia Gaon, in: COHEN Boaz (ed.), Saadia Anniversary Volume. Texts and Studies (Vol. II.), New York 1943 (Reprint: Israel 1970). 271-325.

HALKIN, Abraham, Min haparšanut hašomronit..., in: Lešonenu 32 (1967/68) 208-246.

284 G. Wedel

HOURANI, George F., Islamic Rationalism. The Ethics of ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Oxford 1971.

LOCKWOOD, Wilfrid, Abū Yūsuf Ya‘qūb al-Qirqisānī, The First Section of the Book of Lights and Watchtowers, in: CHIESA, Bruno / LOCKWOOD, Wilfrid (eds.), Ya‘qūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity. A Translation of Kitāb al-anwār (Book I), Frankfurt am Main 1984, 91-188.

MACUCH, Rudolf, On the Problems of the Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in: Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979) 147-173.

NAGEL, Tilman, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie. Von Mohammed bis zur Gegenwart, München 1994 (engl. translation: The History of Islamic Theol-ogy: From Muhammad to the Present), Princeton, NJ 1999 (2nd printing 2006. Princeton Series on the Middle East).

NEMOY, Leon, Al-Qirqisānī‘s Account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity, in: Hebrew Union College Annual 6 (1930) 317-397.

PARET, Rudi, Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz, Stuttgart 1971. ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Ry-

lands Library Manchester, Vol. I., Manchester 1938. SHEHADEH, Haseeb, Ab Hisda [Isda] of Tyre. (Abū l-Hasan ạs-Sūrī), in: CROWN,

Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhardt / TAL, Abraham (eds.), Companion to Samari-tan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 3.

SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Arabic of the Samaritans and its Importance, in: CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Essays in Honour of G.D. Sixdenier. New Samaritan Studies of the Société d'Études Samaritaines III and IV. (Studies in Judaica, No. 5), Sydney 1995, 551-575.

SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Edited from the Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume, Volume One: Genesis - Exodus. Volume Two: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jerusalem 1989-2002.

SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy, in: MORABITO, Vittorio / CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Samaritan Researches. Volume V, Proceedings of the Congress of the SES held in Milan July 8-12 1996, Sydney 2000, 2.47-2.84.

SKLARE, David E., Samuel ben Hofni Gaon and His Cultural World (Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval 18), Leiden 1996.

SKLARE, David, Responses to Islamic Polemics by Jewish Mutakallimun in the Tenth Century, in: HAVA, Lazarus-Yafeh et al. (eds.), The Majlis. Interrelig-ious Encounters in Medieval Islam, Wiesbaden 1999, 137-161.

STENHOUSE, Paul, Samaritan Arabic, in: CROWN Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 584-623.

WEDEL, Gerhard, Elemente islamischer Dogmen im Kitāb at-Tabāḫ des Samari-taners Abū l- H asan ạs-Sūrī. (MA thesis, Seminar für Semitistik und Arabistik) Berlin 1976.


WEDEL, Gerhard, Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abu l- H asan ạs-Sūrī. Kri-tische Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung des ersten Teils, (PhD thesis, Seminar für Semitistik und Arabistik) Berlin 1987.

WEDEL, Gerhard, Aspekte der Etablierung des Arabischen als Literatursprache bei den Samaritanern, in: MACUCH, Maria / MÜLLER-KESSLER, Christa / FRAGNER, Bert G. (eds.), Studia Semitica Necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicate, Wiesbaden 1989, 397-407.

WEDEL, Gerhard, Das “Kitâb at-Tabbâh” (KT) des Samaritaners Abū l- Hasan ạs-Sūrī (AH), in: DEXINGER, Ferdinand / PUMMER, Reinhard (eds.), Die Samari-taner (Wege der Forschung 604), Darmstadt 1992, 428-430

WEDEL, Gerhard, Jewish Responsa and Muslim Fatwā. A Comparison of Ap-proaches on Cultural Exchange and Mutual Acknowledgement in Standard Encyclopaedias, in: BAR-ASHER, Moshe / FLORENTIN, Moshe (eds.), Samari-tan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, Je-rusalem 2005, 147-173.

WEDEL, Gerhard, The Question of Samaritan Responsa and the Transmission of Knowledge around the Mediterranean in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Times, in: SHEHADEH, Haseeb / TAWA, Habib (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d'Études Samaritaines. Helsinki, Au-gust 1-4, 2000. Studies in Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger, Paris 2005, 55-76

WEDEL, Gerhard, Mu‘tazlitische Tendenzen im Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ des Samari-taners Abu l- Hasan as-Sūrī, in: ADANG, Camilla / SCHMIDTKE, Sabine / SKLARE, David (eds.), A Common Rationality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Ju-daism (Istanbuler Texte und Studien 15), Würzburg 2007, 349-375.

WEDEL, Gerhard: Gebrauch mu‘tazilitischer Terminologie in der samari-tanischen Theologie. Eine Neubewertung des Kitāb at-Tabbāḫ von Abū l-Hasan as-Sūrī, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Man-daic and Samaritan Studies. Berlin 2008. Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch (1919-1993). (provisonal title, forthcoming 2011).

WEIS, Raphael, Abū 'l-Hasan Al-Sūrī's Discourse on the Calendar in the Kitab Al-Tabbākh, Rylands Samaritan Codex IX, in: BJRL 30 (1946/47) 144-156.

A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories?

HAROUTUN S. JAMGOTCHIAN

The famous collection of Oriental stories by Washington Irving (1783-1859) The Alhambra (1st edition, 1832; Revised Edition, 1851) needs no presentation. In Russia it attracted special attention as “Legend of the Arabian Astrologer” and it turned out to be the direct source of “Fairy of the Golden Coquerelle” by the great Russian poet Aleksandr Push-kin (1799-1837). An investigation by Konstantin Boyko in 1979 revealed the dependance of Irving’s Story on an ancient book entitled L’Egypte de Murtadi fils de Gaphiphe published in Paris in 1666.1 The compiler of this edition translated a manuscript from Arabic which was then in the famous library of Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661) but was later unfortu-nately lost. Boyko surmised that this lost manuscript was of Egyptian or Coptic origin.

Nevertheless, similar legends are recorded in the medieval geogra-phical book Akhbār al-Buldān (Information on Countries) by Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadhānī (903). These arenot in the editio princeps,2 but are only extant in the celebrated Mašhad Manuscript, in which I found valuable additions to the text, later published in 1979 and 1988.3

In a very short way the present legend is summarised in the mirabi-lia of Mesopotamia (As-Sawād):

In the fifth city there is a bronze goose, on a bronzen pillar, situated on the city’s gate, and if a spy enters the city, the goose cacles so loud, that the in-habitants of the city hear the cackling and they discover that a spy has pe-netrated their territory.4

Such a story is found twice in two Samaritan Arabic chronicles by dif-ferent authors, in a passage undoubtely of the same origin.

1 BOĬKO, Ob arabskom istochnike motiva. 2 DE GOEJE, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum. 3 IBN AL-FAKIKH, Akhbar al-Buldan. ZHAMKOCHIAN, Neizdannye otryvki. 4 IBN AL-FAKIKH, Akhbar al-Buldan, 58 (Russian), 185 (Arabic), 280 (Facsimile in Ara-

bic).

288 H. Jamgochian

Here the events of the legend are connected with the eminent Sa-maritan reformer Baba-Rabba (4th-5th century CE).5 In a very detailed form, this story is found in two extracts in Arabic from a Samaritan legend of Baba-Rabba which survived separately in leafs added in 1513 CE to Leiden MS of Chronicon Samaritanum. . . cui titulus est Liber Josuae (Leiden, 1848) and in Abulfathi Annales samaritani (Gotha, 1865). The last extant words of the former coincide happily with the first extant passa-ge in the latter, so that the whole text of the legend can be restored. English versions of the relating part of the legend are published in the present paper in extenso. The middle part preserved in both the texts shows the common origin, undoubtedly ancient. Here is the end of the Liber Josuae manuscript in a translation by Oliver Crane.6

“[p.130] And the Romans suffered not one of the Samaritans to circumcise his child, but stationed trustworthy men of the Romans over the houses of the Samaritans to prevent them from performing circumcision. And the Samaritans were wont at that time, when a child was born unto them, to place it in a basket and cover it with wool, and go with it to the cave and circumcise it under ground by the light of candles. And also then the Ro-mans prevented the Samaritans [p.131] from ascending the Mount; for they said: “Whosoever goes up on to this Mount shall be put to death.” And the Romans placed upon the summit of the Mount a talisman, and this was a brazen bird, and it used to turn round with the sun howsoever it revolved, and it was so that if a Samaritan did go up, the bird would screech out: “Hebraeus,” and they would know then that there was a Samaritan on the Mount, and would issue forth against him and kill him. And the children of Isrâîl continued in this distress, untill Babâ Rabba arose ; and in him the-re was a spirit of resolution and zealous patriotism. And Babâ Rabba as-sembled the Israelitish community, and said: “How long shall this polluted nation go on dominating over you? Arise, let us lift up the children of Isrâîl from this oppression, and let us be zealous for God–may He be exalted, as our Father Fînahas was zealous, and there remains to him a goodly re-membrance unto the end of the ages. And now know that I have resolved upon the destruction of the Romans, and I will purify Mount Gerîzîm of them but not a thing can be accomplished for us, except by the destruction of this bird which is stationed over the temple, and this cannot be effected for us except by a stratagem which God has revealed unto me. Now ye know that this is a time of infidelity, and they have many kings, and my plan is to send Lawí, the son of my brother, to Qustûniyeh (Constanti-nople) the city of the Romans, that they may learn what they talk about what it is that makes them powerful, and may gain a knowledge of their religious sects. And he shall go in the garb of a Christian monk (or) priest,

5 STENHOUSE, Reliability of the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fath. 6 CRANE, Samaritan Chronicle, 130-133.

A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories? 289

and no one will know him, and the Romans will not know who he is; and he will come back to Mount Gerîzîm, and will go up to the church and make use of a stratagem to smash the bird; and when they (the Roman guards) attempt [p.132] to repel him he will employ stratagem and get the power to ascend the Mount, and will supplicate God upon it, and He will then give us the victory over our enemies.” And all the people said: “O our master, do what seemeth good in thy sight.” And he said: “Give unto me your own handwritings that after his coming back your souls will stand by him.” And they did this. And Babâ Rabba led forth the son of his brother to Beitîl (Bethel) in the presence of the people, and said unto him: “Be atten-tive however thou mayest be, and set thy mind upon learning every thing, and be on thy guard that thou cease not to read the Pentateuch night and day, and God shall help thee in all thy doings.” And he sent away Lawî, the son of his brother; and he pursued his journey seeking Qustûniyeh. Now Lawî was an intelligent, knowing, acute and pure man, yea, in him was found every virtue; and he arrived at Qustûniyeh, and sought after learning and diligently applied himself, and he obtained what he sought for; and with his keenness of intellect he continued reading for the space of two years, and there remained no one among all the Romans more learned than he. And he arose to such eminence in learning that the Romans used repeatedly to come to do him reverence, and by reason of his eloquent at-tainments in learning they made him Archbishop, and he was elevated to the highest rank among them, until kings used to come to his door, and no king could assume the kingly authority without his orders, nor put on a crown except by his command. And it came to pass at the end of thirteen years that he said unto the king: “I have a desire to visit the church which is on the Mountain of Nâbulus.” And the whole army assembled, and the king and the legions marched in his [p.133] service. And when they en-camped at Nâbulus, the king sent for all the people who were in Nâbulus to come out to meet the Archbishop, And when the Samaritans heard this they were smitten with a great fear, and all the people as¬sembled, and said: “We have lost hope in the opinion we had with regard to Lawî whom we sent away on his journey ; for no tidings have come back from him, and without doubt he has perished: and as to this Bishop who has now arrived, we have heard that he is the head of the nation of the Romans, and they proclaim of him that he is profoundly versed in infidelity, and the Romans call him...” [Here the extant part of the manuscript abruptly ends].

The same story is found also in an incomplete form in the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fatḥ compiled near 1355 CE. He says that the story is not bor-rowed from the Book of Joshua b. Nun as is in the case with the previous material, but from a different source. Further I quote the rest of the

290 H. Jamgochian

legend according to the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fatḥ as translated by Paul Stenhouse.7

“[p.195] ...Now, this High Prelate who has just arrived – I have heard that he is the head of the people of Byzantium, and their model. “I have heard too that he is a staunch believer in heresy, so we can be sure that we will be destroyed if we don’t go out to meet him. “We would not be safe from him were he to be angry with us. “He has the whole army of Byzantium at his command, and he will order them to kill us. “What can we possibly do without weapons, or means of war, against their superior numbers?” When they heard that, they (too) became very much afraid, and they said, “We trust in God, and we turn to him for help”. After this, the High Prelate reached Nablus and all the people went out, as did Baba Rabba and his people. As they drew close to the High Prelate he lifted up his eyes and saw his uncle and all the people of Israel, the Samaritans, with a milling crowd welcoming him with a very noisy show. At this his eyes filled with tears, but his uncle and the Samaritans did not recognize him for he had been a youth when they sent him off, but he returned now grown up, with a [p.196] beard, and in this exalted office. Levi glanced at the king and asked him, “These people, who are they?” The king replied, ”O our lord and Master, these people are unbelievers and are called the Samaritans.” He then asked him, “What do they do, and what do they worship?” He replied, ”They worship an unseen and immaterial God!” At which he asked, “Why do they not worship idols and icons?” The king replied to him, “We have tried hard (to make) them, but they have never done so.” He said, “If they will not do so, then let them not be spared.” The news spread quickly that the High Prelate was opposed to the Samaritans, and their fears grew. Then Levy urged the king on, and he went ahead of him to Mount Gerizim. When they reached the top of the mountain the copper Bird Talisman screeched out, “Hebrew.” He asked, “What is this?” (The king) replied, “This is the Talisman. No Samaritan can come up the Moun-tain without this copper Bird screeching out.” He said to them, “I see that it is screeching out now. Have a look to see if there is any Samaritan on the Mountain, and kill him (if there is).” They searched the Mountain without finding anyone. Then Levi entered the Church [p.197] and sat down with all the kings in his presence while the copper Bird screeching out and went on screeching. Levi asked, “What is the matter with this Bird? It has dried out our heads with its screeching, yet there is no Samaritan on the Moun-tain. Without doubt it is deranged. There seems no point in our keeping it - it is only giving us a headache!” The king said to him, “You are right, my lord: what would you like to do with it?” He said smash it to pieces!” So they smashed it up, and threw it away. This was the eve of the first day of the seventh month.”

7 STENHOUSE, Kitāb al-Tarīkh, 195-197.

A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories? 291

Thus, the point of the speaking talisman warning of danger at the arrival of enemies was rather widespread in Arabic literature. In the presented passages from the Arabic medieval texts, only a bird is said to have such ability, exactly as it is in the fairy-tale by Pushkin, whereas the legend retold by W. Irving gives the role of talisman to “a figure of a ram, and above it a figure of a cock, both of molten brass” and to “a bronze figure of a Moorish horseman.”

Since it was noted that the French translator had before him a ma-nuscript of special or even strange recension of a mirabilia book which was popular in that period, and Samaritan manuscripts (of Egyptian origin) were in fact available in Mazarin’s library,8 we may ask if that lost manuscript was a Samaritan one?

Bibliography

BOĬKO, Konstantin Alexeyewich, Ob arabskom istochnike motiva o zolotom petushke v skazke Pushkina. in: Vremennik Pushkinskoĭ komissii 1976, Leningrad 1976, 113-120.

CRANE, Oliver T., The Samaritan Chronicle or The Book of Joshua the Son of Nun, New York 1890.

DE GOEJE, Michael Jan (ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum. Vol. V. Compendium libri Kitâb al-boldân auctore Ibn-Fakîh al-Hamadânî, Leiden 1885.

IBN AL-FAKIKH, al-Hamadânî, Akhbar al-Buldan (Izvestiia o stranakh). Vvede-nie, perevod s arabskogo, izdanie teksta i kommentarii A.S.Zhamkochiana, Erevan 1979.

IRVING, Washington, The Alhambra, Paris 1832. SILVESTRE DE SACY, Antoinne-Isaac, Memoire sur la version arabe des livres de

Moise à l'usage des samaritains et sur les manuscripts de cette version, in: Mémoires de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles lettres 49 (1808) l-199.

STENHOUSE, Paul (ed.), The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu ’l-Fath. Translated into Eng-lish with Notes, Sydney 1985.

STENHOUSE, Paul, The Reliability of the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fath with Special Reference to the dating of Baba Rabba, in: ROTHSCHILD, Jean-Pierre / SIXDENIER Guy Dominique, Études samaritaines Pentateuque et Targum, exegése et philologie chroniques. Actes de La Table Ronde, Louvain / Paris 1988, 235-257.

ZHAMKOCHIAN Aroutun S., Neizdannye otryvki Ibn al-Fakikha i Abu Dulafa iz Meshkhedskoĭ rukopisi, in: Vostochnoe istochnikovedenie 1 (1988) 311-340.

8 SILVESTRE DE SACY, Memoire sur la version arabe des livres de Moise, 19.

The Samaritan High Priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma and his Poem Against Mubārak al-Mufarrağī Who

Became a Convert to Islam in 1841

HASEEB SHEHADEH

Religion is the major theme of Samaritan Arabic poetry. Within this broad category, the following topics can be included: supplication, preaches, panegyrics of the fathers, Moses, high-priests, pilgrimages, circumcision, feasts, mourning, appeal for aid, hymns, asceticism, ele-gies, repentance, paradise, consolation, holy sites, weddings1. Needless to say, secular subjects such as love in general, nature, social, psycho-logical and economic situations, and even wine songs are represented in the Samaritan Arabic poetry written in Middle Arabic.

The subject of the following twelve line poem is rare. It is a devia-tion from the Samaritan religion which is, as we know, very rare among the members of the Samaritan community. The number of this religio-ethnic group today is over 700. The writer of the poem was the high-priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma ben Ghazāl al-Ḥiftāwī (1809-1875).2 He became high-priest (הכהן הלוי) after the death of his father in 1856/7 until the year 1859.3

Among the Samaritans, there was a rumour concerning the high-priest ‘Imrān, namely that he left (or was compelled to leave) the office of the high-priesthood during his last fifteen years (1859—1874)4 be-cause he married a woman who was either divorced by a Samaritan

1 See SHEHADEH, Samaritan Arabic Liturgy. 2 About this high-priest see BEN HAYYIM, Literary and Oral Tradition, מט; PUMMER,

Samaritan Manuscripts in Toronto; FLORENTIN, ‘Amrām Dāre; HARVIAINEN / SHE-HADEH, Abraham Firkovich; PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts; BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al Sāmiriyyīn, 66-68.

3 See ROBERTSON, Catalogue, col. 233 note 1. Since 1624 after Ṣadaqa ben Ghazāl (1624-1626) high-priests stem from Ithamar, Levites, and no longer from Aaron. See ROBERTSON, Catalogue, col. 227 note 2, TSEDAKA, Summary, 82. He mentions at the same page that ‘Imrān functioned unofficially as high-priest since 1826.

4 BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al Sāmiriyyīn, 96.

294 H. Shehadeh

who had converted to Islam or because that woman was a widow5. Nothing is known about that Samaritan man who belonged to the Mu-farraī (Marḥivi) family. The name of the woman was Lea6 (Leqa).

‘Imrān’s son (d. 1909) describes his father as ‘פרד זבנה‘,"nbz drf, ه‘ ره وزمان د عص unique in his time.’7 Other epithets to be found are‘ ,’فريران‘ ن عم م هكهي رم المفخ م المك the honoured and venerated uncle the‘ ,’العpriest ‘Imrān’, ‘ريز رم الف ,honoured and distinguished.’8 Therefore‘ ’المكand on the basis of the following poem, one may have doubts about the correctness of the above-mentioned rumour. Furthermore, a Samaritan written source ascribes the renunciation of the high-priesthood by ‘Im-rān in favour of his brother’s young son Jacob b. Aharon the Levite (1838—1916) in 1859 to the hard situation of the tiny Samaritan com-munity numbering 150 souls. A division of duties was established. ‘Imrān became responsible for the secular affairs of the Samaritans and was a member of a court9 for sects and minorities, whereas Jacob, the young man, dealt with the religious issues as a high-priest.10

In addition to that, the high-priest ‘Imrān functioned as an infor-mant and teacher for J. H. Petermann11 in reciting the Samaritan Penta-

5 It is an open secret that priests are not allowed to marry divorced women, see Leviti-

cus 21:7. For further discussion see the two chapters (nos. 19 and 20) on marriage and divorce in the work of al-Kāfī by Muhaddab al-Dīn Yūsuf b. Salāma al-‘Askarī; SHAVIT / GOLDSTEIN / BE’ER, Personalities, 385.

6 Its Arabic equivalents are ة فيقة، فاتن The name of ‘Imrān’s mother was Lāyiqa .شSurūr from Gaza who lived over one hundred years. BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al Sāmiriyyīn, 76.

7 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. I. 203, 210, 211. 8 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol.I. 148 line 1, 283 line 1, 362 line 12, al-farīz in the

sense of ‘distinguished’ is not attested in Arabic lexicons. The adjective al-ḥaqīr ‘the inconsiderable, despised, miserable’ is common in Samaritan literature when writers or scribes mention their names at the end of a work. See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. I. 716 line 3, 765 line 16. This adjective is similar to the equivalent English ‘hum-ble’ used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The adjectives ‘the smallest first slave and the most humble’ (ر ا ر االول االحق د االزغ -are used by ‘Imrān about him (لعبself, see FIRKOVICH Sam XIII 23, p. 2b in the National Library of Russia in St. Peters-burg.

9 See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 66. ‘He held a respected position in the Turkish government similar to a member in magistrate’s court in our time’ ( محترما وقد تولى منصباة ي الحكوم ا ف ي زمانن ه ف و البداي به عض ه يش Ben ‘Uzzi (1899—1987) was the .(التركيgrandson of Jacob ben Aharon.

10 See BEN ‘UZZI, Was iyyatī wa-tārīkh ḥayātī, 43—44 ي زمن عمه ان فتى ف ك ى االمامة يوم تولان اهن عمران) ك ا (اي الك ه هو ايض اء والن نة وذك ط ه من ف س ب ما أن ه ل ه بحيات ندها الي اهن عمران، أس الكرا وتنو ا لفق ل كاهله ة ويثق ا الفوض ت يومئذ تعجه تي كان ة، ال ؤون الطائف ى ادارة ش ال نصرفا مه ل طائفت ات ليمث ف واالقلي وا ئ ي محكمة الط ف ان عضوا ه ك طهاد. فضال عن كون ل االض ت طائ تحا. دافع عن حقوقه وي

11 See GASTER, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen; PETERMANN, Versuch, 3.

The Samaritan High Priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma 295

teuch, had connections with the British consul in Jerusalem, James Finn (1846—1862), and the ambassador in Istanbul and played a central role in the acquisition of the Samaritan manuscripts in the dasht (geniza) of Nablus in 1864 by the Karaite leader Abraham Firkovich (1787—1874).12 Last, but not least, he was a prolific writer of hymns and poems in Sa-maritan Aramaic and Arabic as well as a copyist and witness for mar-riage contracts.13 He wrote poems in Arabic when he was nineteen years old, as demonstrated in a manuscript written and copied by him in 1828 shows.14 Among the works by ‘Imrān are a commentary of two parts on the book of Exodus and a treatise on inheritance.15 The attempt of Mills to teach ‘Imrān the English language was not successful.16

The difficult situation of the family of the priest ‘Imrān, as we shall see later, should be taken into consideration with regard to their being led to resign from the high-priesthood. His father, Shalma b. Tabia (1782—1857), also stepped down from the high-priesthood. Shalma described his community as širdima, a fragmented group.17 It is note-worthy that ‘Imrān’s successor in the high-priesthood, his nephew, Jacob ben Aaron, faced an attempted dismissal from office in 1878. A procès-verbal (madbat a) was admitted to the government. The appeal was supported by a great number in the Samaritan community, includ-ing two priests who were his cousins. The position of the cousins was not in accordance with the testament of their father ‘Imrān discussed below. The claim that Jacob the high-priest was ‘evil doer’ (mufsid) and should be punished was turned down because ‘the respected ones’ (al-mu‘tabarīn) in the community were on the side of Jacob. The antago-nists intended to ‘seize the findings of the synagogue’ (dabt mawğūdāt 12 See HARVIAINEN / SHEHADEH, Abraham Firkovich, 170ff. In those days Samaritans

had good relations with the Karaites in Jerusalem, see A. B. Samaritan News 258—259, 28.4.1980, 38.

13 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II, xcvii (index of authors); ROBERSON, Cata-logue, (Index of names of Samaritans) Vol. I., col. 405; Vol. II., col. 298. See the fol-lowing manuscripts of marriage contracts in the Firkovich collection housed in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg: Sam X, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 90, 91. These manuscripts date back to the twenties until the fifties of the 19th century. Compare also Ms Sassoon 716 found today in JRUL as Sam 377 and Firkovich Sam IX 268, MS Shechem High Priest (ג’’כ) 21 in the Jewish National and University Li-brary in Jerusalem. See PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts.

14 Firkovich Ms Sam XIII 23 in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. 15 Number three and number 53 in a hand-written list of Samaritan Arabic books at

the disposal of the priest ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn (El‘azar) Ṣadaqa (1927-2010). A copy of this list was given to me by its writer ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn (El‘azar) Ṣadaqa in 13 March 1975 and I thank him for it.

16 MILLS, Three Months, 186. 17 See TSEDAQA HASSAFAREY, Kitab Al-Tasabich, 145.

296 H. Shehadeh

al-kanīsa).18 Another example of a Samaritan person who converted to Islam in the first half of the nineteenth century in 1841 is reported by Jacob Joseph Ṣadaqa al-Shalabī born in 1829. A woman called Ğalīla.19 (Yokheved) Isḥāq al-Asmar al-Danafī, the widow of Shalabī ‘Abd al-Lat īf ben Ṣadaqa married a Muslim lover. Her fourteen year old son Isaac was forced to embrace Islam and was given the name As‘ad, while his sister Zaġlūla died as a result of torture.20

Samaritans today still tell of Mubārak’s presence at the horrible in-cident in which this woman and her two children were forced to em-brace Islam. What he saw and heard led him immediately to declare his acceptance of Islam. Though he continued to celebrate Samaritan feasts with his family, he was excommunicated by the family of the priests and the other families who strongly condemned the event in order to deter others from following him.21 Mubārak was put upon a horse and passed through the city of Nablus in a procession of triumph.22 The subject of Samaritan conversion to Islam during the last few centuries requires a separate investigation. Generalizations without evidence such as “Up until 1859...many Samaritans were killed and others were forcefully converted to Islam”23 do not contribute much to our knowl-edge and understanding.

It was during these days, when the ‘Ulamā’ declared the Samari-tans not to be Ahl al-Kitāb’ (People of the Book), that the Samaritan community underwent hardship. It was claimed that the Samaritan community did not possess any of the following five holy books: the Torah, the New Testament, Psalms (Zabūr), the Prophets and the Qur’ān. Help in counteracting this sensitive and dangerous accusation came from Jerusalem. Its Sefardi Chief Rabbi Ḥayyim Avraham Gagin (1842-1848) known as Ḥakham Bāshī acknowledged in a document that the Samaritans are a branch of the children of Israel and that they be-lieve in the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch.24

The governor of the Nablus district in the period in question was Maḥmūd ‘Abd al-Hādī the Qaysī, and clashes between Qaysī and Ya-

18 See page 237, the last page in manuscript No. 7087 in Yad Ben Zvi Library in Jerusa-

lem. 19 Other secular equivalents to Yokheved are ول ة ،جل الء، نجل . نج20 See BEN ZVI, Book of the Samaritans, 50-51. 21 I learned this from my friend Binyamim Tsedaka in a letter dated October 15, 2000.

Compare what Jacob El-Shelabī say in the previous note. 22 See BEN ZVI, Book of the Samaritans, 51. 23 See PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts, 4. 24 ELAZAR, Nasi in Israel, 33; ROGERS, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, 30.


manī factions were inflamed.25 The British consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, also extended some help to the Samaritans.26 Minorities in Nablus were distinguished from the Muslim majority by the colour of their head cloths. Christians, numbering five hundred in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, used the blue colour, the two hundred Jews used the yellow colour and the Samaritans, about one hundred fifty, had the red colour.27 For two decades until 1849 the Samaritans were prohibited to celebrate their Passover (Feast of Qurban) on Mount Ger-izim.

The poem in question is a sort of condemnation of the actions of Mubā-rak28 (Mbārak, in spoken Arabic) Ibrāhīm Mufarrağ (Barukh Abraham Mahriv); namely, leaving the Samaritan religion and embracing Islam. His new name became Muhammad Sa‘īd al-Misilmānī, and it is claimed that the contemporary al-Misilmānī family in Nablus stems from him.29 But it should also be noted that the Arabic family name is known in Nablus from at least 1819, that is to say, more than two gen-erations before the conversion of Barukh.30 The late high-priest Jacob ben ‘Uzzi (1899-1987) related that the name of the father of the Misil-mānī family was Mubārak Mufarrağ. His family, the Marḥivi, comes in the second or third place with regard to number after āl Altīf. After the division of Palestine (1947), the majority of its members moved to live in Jaffa and later in Ḥolon. The rest of Mar˙iv family live in Nablus and most of its members are workers and craftsmen. The number of the descendants of Mubārak (Muhammad Sa‘īd al-Misilmānī) surpasses much the number of Marhivi family.31 25 See AL-NIMR, History of Mount Nablus Vol. I, 168, 269, 274-275; BUSCH, Eine Wall-

fahrt nach Jerusalem, 139-146, SCHUR, History of the Samaritans, 139-147; BROWNE, Travels in Africa, 47; AL-DABBĀĠ, Bilādunā Filistīn.

26 On this period see FINN, Stirring Times; WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 206-235; MILLS, Three Months Residence; ROGERS, Domestic Life; ROGERS, Notices of the Modern Samaritans.

27 WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 207-208. Compare the twenty-fifth tale of the ‘Thousand and One Nights’.

28 Other Arabic equivalents to Barukh/ ברוך are ب ن، راط ن، متمك م، مكي ود، معظ -see Firk محمovich MS. Sam. III 2 page 46a. This manuscript housed in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg was copied in 1331 A.D. as mentioned in page 4a.

29 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 80; BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 38. ‘ وهي ويزيد عدد عائله اسلمت من قبل مئة سنه تقريبا ه ايضا ن المئ ا اآلن ع and it [āl al-Misilmānī]“ ’ افرادهwas a family that embraced Islam about one hundred years ago and the number of its members today exceeds one hundred.”

30 ‘Īsa al-Misilmānī, See Firkovich Ms Sam XIV 33, p. 3b, in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg.

31 See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Samiriyyīn, 39.

298 H. Shehadeh

This short poem is preserved, as far as we know, in two manu-scripts. The first manuscript has no title and it was copied by the priest ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa in Nablus. This priest, as mentioned before, is the great-grandson of ‘Imrān the high-priest, the author of this poem.32 The poem is on page 80. This manuscript, including 109 pages num-bered by Samaritan characters, consists of the following sections:

A) Fragment from Memar Marqe, pp. 1—16 in Samaritan script.

Marginal remarks are added, such as Arabic translations of Samaritan Aramaic words such as: ده ائره ;(benefit) אנחה = فائ באירה = أرض ب ארעה (uncultivated land); ل د ;(to be shy, ashamed) תבהת = تخج לא צבה = ال يري(does not want); الهم ه ;(their children) נה רביתי = أطف his) טליותה = حداثتyouth); ه ارده ;(himself) קלומה = ذات 33 At the end of this.(.cold, f. s) כתיה = بsection the following colophon is given:

בספר אתם שלח אתו לי חבר מן בריטאניא והוא יאמר הן זאת המוספות מה מצא מצאתי זה אתו אשר על כן בדלתי אתם מימר בידנו מרקה שרא נמצאו שם והם לא ימצאו במימר בספרי מרקה לשפת הקדש עד מן ידרש יקרא אתם יוכל למבדילותם ואני העני הדל אלעזר בר צדקה כהנה בשכם۰

۱۲/۲/۱۹٦٤ ישועתא אאל .

That is what I found in a book sent to me by a friend from Britain. He says that these additions he has found in copies (books) of Memar Marqe kept there [Britain] and they are not included in Memar Marqe which is avail-able to us. Therefore I changed them into the holy language so that every one who likes to read them can distinguish between them. I am the poor and humble El‘azar ben Tsedaka the priest in Nablus, 20th of December 1964 A.D.34

B) Bilingual glossary, Samaritan Aramaic from Memar Marqe and Hebrew (עברי/תרגום) arranged according to alphabetical order, pp. 17—25. These nine pages, divided as a rule into two columns (sometimes a third column is added at the beginning in which the root of the word is indicated), consist of approximately two hundred words. As stated in

32 Sincere thanks are due to my friends the priest and Yefet ben Ratson Tsedaka who

sent me a copy of the manuscript. 33 Pages 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 repectively. 34 This manifestation of Neo-Samaritan Hebrew reminds us of mediaeval Hebrew

under the impact of Middle Arabic, the absence of ש in the first two phrases, asyn-detic clause, Britain is written as in Arabic, plural feminine which does not refer to human beings is regarded as feminine singular (תאז המוספות) etc. דע has the meaning of تى in order, so that. The two words after the year are not ordinary, especially ,حthe last one. These two words are analogous to the common Samaritan colophon اال ماعيل .the followers of Ishmael ,اس


the title of this section, the words used in Memar Marqe appear in more than one form.35 A few examples are in order: דובב = אויב (enemy); = בעי ;(to pass) געז = עבר ;(heart, soul) קלום, קנום = לב , לבב, נפש ב ;(to ask for) דרש = שלח ;(at the beginning) שריו = בראשית ;(to be tormented) אשתנק = אצטלב At the end of this section there is a colophon stating that .(to send) שגרthe same priest copied it on the 24th of December 1963,36 almost one year before writing the first section.

C) Collection of prayers, hymns, bit durran (string of pearls) and songs of praise by various priests, elders and poets taken from the book of Cowley37 and other source at the disposal of the scribe in Nablus dating back to the year 1708. The authors of this religious material are ‘Āmram Dāre (‘Imrān al-Zamān), Ab Gillūgā b. Qala, the elder Tabia b. Darta, the high-priest Tabia b. Tsedaka, Shalma b. Ab Zahuta b. Yosef ha-Matri, the elder Ḥizqia b. ‘Ābed El, Abraham b. Yūsef haq-Qābbāsi, Tabia b. Isaac, ‘Āmrām b. Shalmā b. Tabia, Abraham Jacob al-Danfī known as al-‘Ayye, Tabia b. ab Zahūta, Abisha‘. In addition one finds poems in the Arabic language and script, as well as two testaments in Arabic by the high-priests ‘Imrān and his grandson Ṣedaka b. Isaac Tsedaka (1894—1971), the father of the scribe El‘azar Tsedaka (‘Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa). This third section of the manuscript under discussion is the largest one. It begins on page 27 and continues to the end on page 109. The date of copying this part is the 26th of November 1986.

Marginal notes and explanations in Arabic can also be found in this section. On the top of page 70 the reader finds the two words אסרת יצר and their Arabic translation is added above them ه د ني setting of) عقintention). In the light of the material given in this third section, namely the poems, it is safe to say that ‘Imrān experienced poverty, deaths of members of his family, desperation and failure in his first marriage at least. Some sources speak about a third marriage.38 Besides, the general conditions of the Samaritan community in Nablus were not encourag-ing. ‘Imrān’s father, Salāma, was very poor and tried to earn livelihood

דהאח 35 רצ ון מרו וזאת המלים המצאו על מותר מן צורה עליו מרי אדינן מרקה The last words .מלים מימר

are a kind of claque from the Arabic language ن ثر م ى أك .عل .۱۹٦۳/۱۲/۲٤ זה מה מצאתי מן זאת המלים ואני עבדה אלעזר בר צדקה כהנה בשכם מול הרגרי. אודה את יהוה 3637 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy. 38 See GASTER, Samaritan Manuscripts, 128; Mills wrote about the second and third

wives “Both wives were living together with their husband on the best of terms,” see MILLS, Three Months Residence, 184. Some Samaritans such as Salāma ben Ya’qūb ben Murğān al-Danafī from the eighteenth century married seven times. On the other hand the New Testament states that the Samaritan woman married five times and she had an illegal sixth, see John 4:18.

300 H. Shehadeh

as a tailor.39 He describes himself in one of his supplications as ‘humble, poor, unfortunate, in need, weak’40. Samaritan oral tradition speaks about a close friendship between Salāma and Ḥusain ‘Abd al-Hādī, the governor of Gaza. The latter used to help the high-priest financially.41 Written testimony by ‘Imrān himself from the year 1826 speaks about very high prices in Nablus. The price of an ounce of meat was thirty silver and the price of a saa of corn reached eleven Qurūsh (piasters).42

A virgin girl who did not like ‘Imrān, became his first wife in 1826 when he was seventeen years old.43 All the children that she gave birth to (some say thirteen, others five) died.44 ‘Imrān’s third marriage was to Lā’iqa bint As‘ad (1820-1910), whom he loved and who gave birth to four children, three boys, El‘azar, Salāma and Isaac, and a daughter called Zahra.45 It seems that his daughter Badriyya was born from an-other wife. The great-grandson of ‘Imrān, the priest ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa (El‘azar Tsedaka, born in 2.2.1927), calls her “Our lady the late Lā’iqa may God sanctify her secret” and gives the venerated epithet 39 BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 183-184. A story about this priest and the tailors of

Nablus was translated into English by SHEHADEH The Samaritan High Priest Salāma. 40 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. I, 217 line 2 (ונשיש וצריך ומסכין ועני דל and (עבדך

lines 14, 18; 218 line 17 and see 743. 41 BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 187-196. 42 See MS Firkovich Sam III 19, p. 23a in the margin, in the National Library of Russia

in St. Petersburg (م ه اللح ديد عظيم...وفي ال ش نه غ ك الس ت دل ق وكان ح لح اع ۰۳ القم ه وص فضرش ر ق ده عش Compare Ms Firkovich Sam XIII 18 of the same year, saa of corn six, a .(احrotl of meat eighty four, rotl of rice fourty four, rotl of oil seventy two.

43 She is most likely Hānunjah bint Ya‘qūb bint Ṣadaqa al-Danfī as indicated in the Ketubbah (marriage contract) in Firkovich Sam X 21 and 84 in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg, והיא בעת ההיא נערה בתולה, her dowry was 4900 Egyptian units of currency. The term Egyptian pieces” (ريات ع مص -is used since the seven (قطteenth century as shown in Firkovich Sam XIV 1. Other sorts of money such as ma sārī, maḥmūdī, ‘ādlī, qirā ta, ni sf akkl, bishlī are mentioned in Firkovich Sam XIV 35. Cf. A. B. Samaritan News, 544-545, 7.10.1991, 55-76, VILSKER, Samaritänskie do-kumenty. PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts, 35, who says that ‘Imrān was 24+ years!

44 See the marginal note by El‘azar Ṣadaqa in the manuscript of Nablus page 77 and compare, PETERMANN, Versuch, 3. On the basis of a letter by the priest El‘azar Ṣadaqa sent to me on 8 November 2000, the following information is indicated. The high priest was called “‘Umrān al-Zamān” due to his efforts to take care of the Sa-maritan community in all aspects of life. His first wife was La tīfa who gave birth to thirteen children who all died except one daughter called Warda. His second wife was Lā’iqa who gave birth to Issac, Salāma and a daughter named Badrī. He left the office of high priesthood because he was fat. Mubārak was named al-ma‘kūs. This in-formation is based on oral tradition.

45 Zahra ‘Imrān Salāma got married in 1865, see MS. BL Or 12375d. This marriage is mentioned only in Kahle’s list where there is a mention of six Samaritans who mar-ried three times, See KAHLE, Die Samaritaner.


“‘Imrān al-zamān” to her husband.46 El‘azar the son, as well as ‘Imrān’s two younger brothers, Isaac and Aaron, died while ‘Imrān was alive.47

His son Isaac visited London in 1903 and sold some Samaritan manuscripts to the Jewish Rabbi Moses Gaster (1856-1939) and to the British Library.48 Wardah (Si s) was thirteen years old in 1855 when she married Ṣālih ben al-Shaikh Ibrāhīm āl Ṣālih al-Murğān ben Salāma al-Danāfī, the maternal uncle of her father.49 Educated elders of the Sa-maritan community had either passed away or were ineffective, and ignorant individuals and bankers (Ṣarrāfūn) had become leaders and had the upper hand on the community.50 Evil intentions and idle talk prevailed. People were engaged with their carnal appetites. ‘Imrān the high-priest was hit and kicked by a soldier in a public place in Nablus, and the new ruler was present.51

In view of the facts stated above, it is no wonder to find that ‘Imrān became fed up with such a life (اتي ايف حي and expressed his deep (عsadness and mourning in several lines, as we shall see shortly. He wished on several occasions to depart this earthly life and to be buried beside his father in a very deep grave.52

In his relatively short testament, the following information is avail-able. ‘Imrān does not want shouting, noise and increase in mourning 46 The full name of the priest is ’Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa Isḥāq ‘Imrān Salāma Ghazāl

Ishāq Ibrāhīm Ṣadaqa, “رها دس هللا س ه ق ه الئق يدتنا المرحوم -in the manuscript dis “سcussed below, page 77 in the margin and see page 83 in the margin and page 98 at the top. See also the handwritten book mentioned in note no. 60, pp. 15, 112.

47 See page 77:. לא כסף אבי עני ב צריך בכפני ורב מאד לקחו לי בתולה לא תרציני בא לי ממנה בנים וכלם מתו לפני עד לקחתי אחרת היתה כרחצוני נשאר לי ממנה בנים והנם שני An elegy on his son El‘azar is to be found on pages 81-82 begining with: زار اتي غ وق وجن ي ف طبار ودموع ل االص الي وق زاد بلب

ر ق فؤادي آه اين العز اروالروح ح كبدي مهجة على فراق See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 66-67.

48 See GASTER, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen, 513. 49 See ROBERTSON, Catalogue, Vol. I. col. 333. Mills writes “The males are marriageable

at fourteen, and the females at ten, and in some cases as early as eight years of age” see MILLS, Three Months Residence, 194.

50 Such as Jacob al-Shelabī who was illitetate but was one of the Samaritan leaders and tourists’s guide who lived mainly on tips (baqšīš, baġšīš) from them, see SMITH, Travels, 291-299; WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 226.

51 See A. B. Samaritan News 258—259, 28-4-1980, 40. At the same day the priest wrote a letter to James Finn the British consul in Jerusalem.

52 See pages 75 line 2, 98 line 12, 92 line 13.

302 H. Shehadeh

on his death. He asked his family to take care in washing53 his corpse and covering it with winding sheet. The coffin should be taller than him and made of the best wood. The washing bench (dakka) should be new. After his funeral both should be kept for the use of other Samari-tans in the future. Reading from the Torah follows putting the dead body in the coffin. He asks his children Isaac (d.1932) and Salāma (d. 1909) and his wife (her name is not indicated) to continue their life as before. The key to a sort of an attic (siddi/e) should be kept with Isaac only and not even with his mother. ‘Imrān had a shop shared by Jacob the son of his brother and with Ya‘qūb al-Mūsa. The father ‘Imrān says to his son Isaac: consult your cousin Jacob, Ishāq Lutfī and others in the Samaritan community who like you, especially Murğān the husband of your sister. The big house goes to Isaac and the small one to Salāma. The rest of the building (dār) will be divided into three thirds (appar-ently, Isaac, Salāma and their mother). The father urges his son Isaac to read, learn and preserve his faith during all his life. With regard to Isaac’s marriage, the father advises him to follow the choice of his mother. ‘Imrān urges his son Isaac to marry, if possible, the daughter of his sister Zahra the wife of Isḥāq Lutfī. Such a marriage would be real-ized if Ishāq Lutfī agrees to give his daughter to Isaac instead of Isaac’s fiancée al-sinyūra (!) to the son of his wife.54 On the basis of a letter written by ‘Imrān in 1858 to al-Khawāğa ‘Ōda, it is clear that the priest had a share in an oil press and quarrels with regard to business.55 The priest used to visit Jerusalem for commercial reasons and stayed over-night at Karaite homes. Petermann mentions that one day ‘Imrān told him that the place of hell is in fact Jerusalem.56

Charles Warren wrote about ‘Imrān, whom he knew personally:

a delightful old gentleman, the only one of the Samaritans I had any sym-pathy with...told me his melancholy state...he felt he was gradually dying day by day, and talked of being fed on poisonous food; poor old man, whatever was the cause, it was evident he was sinking slowly, and that his energies were going; probably his house in Nâblus was filled with impure air from the bad arrangements within, or perhaps it was constitutional

53 The term used here is ل other terms to be found in Samaritan Arabic literature ,غس

are ل يل، مغس .see COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II. 852, 853, 854, 855, 858, 866 تغس54 See pages 92-93. 55 See Firkovich Ms Sam XIV 25, in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. 56 PETERMANN, Reisen im Orient, 279.


alone seemed to guard the treasures of the Samaritans...and prescribed charcoal for his disorder, which appeared to be a kind of dysentery ...57

A few lines by ‘Imrān are in order:

اب حيت االحب زين واض ت ح ران فارق اني وكل اسمي عم خراب زم

My name is ‘Imrān (in written Arabic ‘Umrān = prosperity, flourishing) and all my life is destruction, I parted from the beloved ones and became grieved.58

رار جم بم ام منس ذ بطع ف الت اري وكي ام ن اب كيف تن د االحب د فق بعاسفار الخمس وشريعة االيمان على عمران يقول يا رب انعم بالوفاه

After the loss of the beloved ones how my passion (fire) will sleep (die down) and how can I enjoy food mixed with bitterness ‘Imrān says “O Lord bestow upon me death while having faith in the five books (Torah).”59

اء اعت النس ال ض ي حب الرج تغلين وف هم مش هوة نفوس ام ش التم

They are busy in satisfying the lust of their souls and in the love of women men were lost.60

The second manuscript, by the high-priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma ben Ghazāl al-Ḥiftāwī, which includes the poem on Mubārak Ibrāhīm Mu-farrağ who left the Samaritan religion in 1841, is kept in Berlin. It is Ms. Or. Quart. 1095 in the Staatsbibliothek and consists of 229 folios of prayers for the Sabbaths of Pentecost, Yom Maqrata (reading day of the Torah in remembrance of revelation on Mt. Sinai) and the feast of har-vest. This manuscript was copied in 1845 by Shelah b. Abraham b. Shelah b. Ab Sakuwwa ha-Danfi. The poem in question is added at the end of the manuscript in 227b. A description of this manuscript, as well as a publication of the poem accompanied by a Hebrew translation, was published in the periodical A. B. Samaritan News in 1998.61 It is to be noted that the poem in this manuscript appears in Samaritan letters, while in the Nablus manuscript the script is Arabic.

57 WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 225-226. 58 See page 75 line 5. 59 Page 82 lines 8 and 11. 60 Page 98 line 8. 61 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 79-81.

304 H. Shehadeh

Moreover, there are several differences between the texts of the poem in these two manuscripts.62 It should be stated that the Hebrew translation is not always accurate. The poem on Mubārak / al-Musilmā-nī was written in 1262 Hiğra, 1846 A. D. five years after his conver-sion.63 It is known to us that this Mubārak was in 1840 one of the scribes of Manuscript No. 7023 in Yad Ben-Zvi Library in Jerusalem. A year later Mubārak / al-Musilmānī copied a prayer found in Ms. Or. Quart. 538 in Berlin on the 28th of Rağab 1257 Hiğra, 9 September 1841 A.D. The high-priest ‘Imrān, who condemned the conversion of Mubārak in the following poem, wrote these words in the same place “ا رج كاتبه ا خ هى דת מחמד הזנדיק ن דת משה הצדיק ال ه الحروق م -which means “Its scribe hav “ولing burns has left the religion of the God-fearing Moses for the religion of Muhammad the atheist (zendik).64 One more piece of information about Mubārak is that he was one of the three scribes of Ms No. 7023 in Yad Ben-Zvi Library in Jerusalem. Mubārak accomplished his part in 1840, his brother Sa‘d in 1857 and Íāli ben Ibrāhīm ben Ṣālih ben Mur-ğān al-Danfī in 1849.

راهيم ارك اب رج مب دما خ ه هللا عن ه رحم قاله ن 65הדת هللا لعنة لعن رج ع مف

الى يوم الدين ابديان م امي الله

ارك66 يطان مش ع الش ان م ه ك ك ان ارك ال ش ا مب ك ي ان عقل ن ك ف اي ا حي يارك67 ني فش ي ويغري دد عقل ان يس ل ك ل ب ا مغف ذا ي ك ك ن في ت اظ ا بقي م

دارك68 ثرت ان و ك ول ول ك قب ي ل يطان وال بق د الش ك كي ى عقل س عل طموس م69 ا معك ك ي ير ل اركخ ن معي يا يا ليت ذهبت من الدنيا متوفياوارك ع ان ت جمي ل واظلم اب االم للصالح خ تاملنا فيك تكون اهالارك ير مب ان غ دك ك الع مول يا ترى طمع دنياك الذي دهاك أو ط

لنارك70 انطفاءا واء وما بقي غدا ره س يعت اآلخ تى ض ان ح ف ك كيفارك71 س اس ائن خم ت خ ف ال وان ع كي ان الن رامجن ك ح ار علي م ص ي

62 I did not examine the Berlin manuscript and here I depend on the version published

in A. B. 63 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 80. 64 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 84. 65 Originally in Samaritan script. The title is missing in the Berlin manuscript. 66 Berlin manuscript reads: برك يطان ،م ا، ش يطان instead of ان ه، الش ارك، ان .respectively مب67 Berlin manuscript reads: زن ك، ويع ني instead of بان ا، ويغري ذا ي .respectively ك68 Berlin manuscript reads: داراك ترت، ان دارك instead of اك ثرت، ان .respectively ك69 Berlin manuscript reads: ا، ح رمتوف ، خير instead of ي .respectively متوفيا70 Berlin manuscript reads: ارك ي ن م، ان تنطف وى، عاد كني رى، س واء، instead of الخ ره، س اآلخ

ارك ،ا لن ي نطفاءا .respectively بق


دارك ت ت كين ان كن ا مس يمك ي و خص ول ه ك قب ي ل ا بق ول م يدنا الرس ن س مارك72 ع ع ى دف ه عل د حيل ي الي ا ف ه وم ت في ا وقع ك بم في وهللا علي اسه دارك73 ون الجن م وتك فع الكلي اع يش ل االجتم ا نتام ت كن ت توفي و كن ل

ارك74 ت مب ا بقي الل م ل ذا الض د ك الو وبع ك مح ل في ال االم ذا الح د ه بع מן עזב דת משה לית לו שם מושיע יגוז לגו אשה 75ולא הוה כל טוב עמה

He Said it76 when Mubārak Ibrāhīm Mufarrağ Left the Religion May God curse him77 forever until the Day of Judgement, O God Amen What a pity, where was your mind O Mubārak? No doubt it was cooperat-ing with the devil I did not think you would do that O fool, but my mind was directing and tempting your vain boasting The devil’s deception dominated78 your thinking and you are not ac-cepted79 anymore, even your vows80 were numerous If only you had passed away from this world it would be better for you, O overturned because of your shame!81

71 Berlin manuscript reads: س ابي، لخم ت، ح و، ان س instead of ل ائن، خم ت، خ -respec ال، وان

tively. 72 Berlin manuscript reads هوا in line 9 instead of هو and ل ه is missing and وال ا ،بم ه، م ي

instead of ا ا ،بم ه، وم .respectively في73 Berlin manuscript reads: ول ع، الرس م instead of االجتم اع، الكلي .respectively االجتم74 Berlin manuscript reads: د ده، بع د instead of ه ذا، وبع .respectively ه75 These four lines are missing in the Nablus manuscript and appear in Samaritan

characters in the Berlin manuscript. 76 The pronoun is in the third person masculine singular though the feminine would be

expected because it refers to poem which is feminine in Arabic, spoken and written alike. Yet it seems possible to explain this masculine pronoun as referring to words which are masculine such as ši‘r, kalām meaning “poetry, speech.”

77 Literally, may God curse him a curse forever. In ordinary structure in written Arabic one finds either ة ة أبدي ه هللا لعن د or لعن ى األب ه هللا إل .لعن

78 The usage of the verb طمس (to efface, erase, wipe out) with the preposition ى is علmeaningless. Therefore I translated “dominated,” taking into consideration that the required verb in this connection is ى . طغ

79 Accepted by the Samaritan community. The reader has to bear in mind that this statement is declared by the high-priest, the highest religious authority.

80 First of all the phoneme dāl which is used in cities instead of the phoneme dāl in literary Arabic as well as in fella hite dialects, for instance. Secondly, the standard plural form of the singular nadr is nudūr. The form andār is not known in Arabic and it was chosen because of the needed ryhme -ārik.

ار 81 is used also on page 98 line 8 in the Nablus (shame, disgrace) عار in the sense of معيmanuscript.

306 H. Shehadeh

We hoped that you will be worthy of righteousness, disappointment came and all your lights grew gloomy I wonder, did the greediness of this world befall upon you or was the star of destiny of your birthday unblessed? What happened so that you have lost the hereafter altogether 82and the fu-ture83 of your fire (hell) will not extinguish Paradise became forbidden to you, why should not be so since you are dis-loyal to your Torah?84 You are no longer accepted85 (or to be forgiven) by our lord the messenger (Moses), he is your antagonist,86 O miserable if you can realize87 My grief on you, by God, for what has occurred to you and nothing can be done in order to drive away your disgrace Had you died we could have hoped to meet, Moses88 would have inter-ceded and paradise would be your abode After this state you are hopeless89 and after all this delusion you are not Ba-rukh (his Hebrew name which means ‘blessed’) anymore He who left the religion of Moses Has no salvation He will step into fire Even though everything he did was good.

To conclude, an attempt was made to deal with what was at our dis-posal concerning the life and works of the high-priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma ben Ghazāl al-Hiftāwī (1809-1875). The main idea of the poem is that Samaritans who convert from their religion (in this case to Islam) have no chance of going to paradise. In another short poem it is obvi-ous that Samaritans will enter the ‘abode,’ viz ‘the paradise,’ either through good deeds which please God or through repentance for the slips sins they committed.90 This denomination of research, namely

82 Either in the meaning of the colloquial sawa or the written expression sawā’an bi-

sawā’.” 83 The literal translation is “tomorrow” and, in fact, the additional sense of “bukra” in

Palestinian Arabic was attached to the equivalent literary word. 84 Literally “your five books.” 85 Compare COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II. 463 line 8, 765 line 8 below. 86 The ordinary form is م ص . خ87 The third verbal form is used instead of the fourth because of rhyme. 88 Originally “speaker” and the meaning is obvious م هللا which is an epithet of كلي

Moses. 89 Literally “hope in you is absurd.” 90 See the Nablus manuscript page 98:

ا اب م د الب عري بع ت ش ا لي دار ي ه ال اس داخل ل الن اب وك وت ب المار ت فالن ه وان خالف ي االل ا يرض ت بم دن ان عمل ه ع دار جن ال


articles devoted to single scholars are important desiderata in Samari-tan studies and their significance go beyond the “Who is Who” series.91

Bibliography

BEN HAYYIM, Ze’ev, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans. Vol. I., Jerusalem 1957.

BEN SHAFĪQ BEN JACOB (BEN ‘UZZI), Jacob, Waßiyyatī wa-tārīkh ṣayātī, Nablus 1974.

BEN ‘UZZI, Ya‘qūb, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn..., Nablus 1960 (handwritten). BEN ‘UZZI, Ya‘qūb, Wasiyyatī wa-tārīkh hayātī, Nablus 1974 (handwritten). BEN ZVI, Isaac, The Book of the Samaritans, Tel Aviv 1970. BROWNE, William G., Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria, London 1806. BUSCH, Moritz, Eine Wallfahrt nach Jerusalem, Leipzig 1861. COWLEY, Arthur, The Samaritan Liturgy. Vol. I-II., Oxford 1909. CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to

the Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993. AL-DABBĀĠ, Mustafa, Bilādunā Filistīn, Vols. 1-2., Beirut 1965. ELAZAR, Ya’qūb, Nasi in Israel, “the First ones in Zion,” Jerusalem 1977 (He-

brew). FINN, James, Stirring Times, London 1878 (repr. Jerusalem 1980). FLORENTIN, Moshe, ‘Amrām Dāre, in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard /

TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 13. (Reprint in: A. B Samaritan News 659-662, [1.5.1996] 3.).

ار دار تخت ك اي ال اختر لنفس ا ف رء غيرهم ا للم هما محالن م فالرب غفار و ا وان هفوا هفوة ردوس ان عمل وى الف اد س ا للعب مDeath is a door and all people will enter it, I wish I knew what is the abode next to

the door. The abode is the Garden of Eden if you worked to please God and if you disobeyed

then fire (hell). They are the two places that a human being has, so chose for yourself one of them! Human beings have nothing but paradise if they acted [well] and if they made a slip

God is much-forgiving. Similar opinion with regard to repentance is expressed by ‘Imrān in the handwritten book “Kitāb sabīl al-lahfān li-ma‘rifat al-’īmān by El‘azar ben Ṣadaqa ben ’Amram, Nablus 1979, p. 2. I thank the priest El‘azar and Yefet ben Ratson Tsedaka for the copy of this work.

91 A. B. The Samaritan News 779-782, 15.2.2001, 155-144.

308 H. Shehadeh

GASTER, Moses, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen, in: BEZOLD Carl (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag ge-widmet, Giessen 1906, 514, 519.

GASTER, Theodor H., Samaritan Manuscripts, in: Journal of Jewish Bibliography 2 (1940) 127-135.

HARVIAINEN, Tapani / SHEHADEH, Haseeb, How Did Abraham Firkovich Ac-quire the Great Collection of Samaritan Manuscripts in Nablus in 1864? Studia Orientalia 73 (1994) 167—192. (reprint in: A. B. The Samaritan News 633—636 [13.4.1995] 158-180 and Hebrew Summary, 6, 1-8.).

HASSAFAREY, Ratson Tsedaqa (ed.), Kitab Al-Tasabich (The Book of Commenda-tions) the Best Wishes, Commendations and Supplications to God. Written by Samaritan Writers between 10th-20th Centuries A.D. Be Copied in Old Hebrew and from Arabic, Transliterated into Old Hebrew Letters, Holon, Israel 1970.

KAHLE, Paul, Die Samaritaner im Jahre 1909 (A.H. 1327), in: Palästinajahrbuch 26 (1930) 89-103.

MILLS, John, Three Months Residence at Nablus and an Account of Modern Samaritans, London 1868.

AL-NIMR, Ihsān, History of Mount Nablus and the Balqā’, 4 Vols. Nablus 1975 (in Arabic).

PETERMANN, Julius Heinrich, Reisen im Orient, Leipzig 1860. PETERMANN, Heinrich, Versuch einer hebräischen Formenlehre nach der

Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner nebst einer darnach gebildeten Tran-scription der Genesis (AKM 5.1), Leipzig 1868.

PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Manuscripts in Toronto, in: Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa, 46 (1976) 345-363.

PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce, Vol. I., Wiesbaden 1993.

ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Ry-lands Library Manchester, Vol. I-II., Manchester 1938/1962.

ROGERS, Edward Thomas, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, Illustrated by the Incidents in the Life of Jacob esh-Shelaby, London 1855. (repr. in: A. B. Sa-maritan News 258-259, 28.4.1980, 34-41.)

ROGERS, Mary Eliza, Domestic Life in Palestine, London 1863. SADAQA, El’azar, Kitāb sabīl al-lahfān li-ma‘rifat al-īmān, Nablus 1979 (hand-

written). SCHUR, Nathan, History of the Samaritans, Frankfurt am Main / Bern / New

York / Paris 1989. SHAVIT, Yaacov / GOLDSTEIN, Yaacov / BE’ER, Haim (eds.), Personalities in Eretz-

Israel 1799-1948. A Biographical Dictionary, Tel Aviv 1983 (Hebrew).


SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy, in: MORABITO, Vittorio / CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Samaritan Researches Volume V. Proceedings of the Congress of the SES (Milan July 8-12 1996) and of the Special Section of the ICANAS Congress (Budapest July 7-11 1997), Sydney 2000, 247-284.

SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan High Priest Salāma b. Ghazāl b. Ishāq b. Ibrāhīm b. Sadaqa and the Arab Tailors of Nablus in the Nineteenth Centu-ry, in: A. B. The Samaritan News 785-788 (6.4. 2001) 185-175. = A Case of Palestinian Arab Justice between Minority and Majority. The Samaritan High Priest Salāma b. Sadaqa and the Arab Tailors of Nablus in the Nine-teenth Century, in: Studia Orientalia 101 (2007) 359-372; = in: Marhaba (Yearbook of the Finnish-Arabic Society, Helsinki 2008), 48-63; = in: MOR, Menachem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies, Berlin 2010, 205-219.

SMITH, Agnes, The Travels of Three Ladies (Eastren Pilgrims), London 1870. TSEDAKA, Benyamim, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans,

Holon 2001. VILSKER, Leib H., Samaritänskie dokumenty gosdarstvenoj publixnoj biblioteki

imeni M. E. Saltykova-Wedrina. Katalog, Sankt-Peterburg 1992. WARREN, Charles, Underground Jerusalem: An Account of some of the Princi-

pal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained with a Narrative of an Expedition through the Jordan Valley and a Visit to the Samaritans, London 1876.

Index of Authors Ackroyd, P.R...................... 138 Adang, C. ........................... 267 Ahlström, G.W. ........... 49, 175 Albeck, Ch. ........................ 195 Albertz, R. ............... 41, 89, 178 Al-Dabbāġ, M. ................... 297 Al-Nimr, I. ......................... 297 Alt, A. ....................... 23, 28, 76, Anderson, R.T. ............146, 264 Apicella, C. ........................ 144 Appelbaum, S. ............... 75, 77 Arata Mantovani, P. .......... 102 Augé, C. ............................... 78 Avigad, N. ..................... 72, 78 Avioz, M. ........................... 110 Avi-Yonah, M. ..................... 75 Bagnall, R.S. ......................... 75 Baltzer, K. ................. 48, 53, 56 Banitt, M. ........................... 164 Barag, D. ............................ 151 Barkay R............................. 227 Barstad, H.M. ............... 56, 178 Be’er, H. ............................. 294 Bedford, P.R. ........................ 97 Beentjes, P.C. ....................... 59 Begg, C.T. .................... 112-114 Begrich, J. ............................. 40 Ben Shafīq, J. .....293f, 297, 300f Ben-Hayyim, Z. 193, 195, 197f, ..................... 214, 217, 257, 293 Ben-Zvi, E. ........................... 61 Ben-Zvi, I. ........... 225, 243, 296 Berlin, A.M........................... 73 Bernstein, M. ............... 100-102

Bertrand, J.-M. ............... 75, 83 Beuken, W.A.M. .................. 40 Bickermann, E. .. 117, 144, 147, ............................................ 155 Blenkinsopp, J. ... 40f, 53-55, 57 Blok, P.J. ............................. 240 Boĭko, K.A. ......................... 287 Bonnet, C............................ 145 Bowman, J. ................... 84, 257 Böhler, D. ..................... 40, 129 Böwering, G. ...................... 280 Broshi, M. ........................... 192 Browne, W.G. .................... 297 Bruneau, P............................ 61 Buber, S. ............................. 196 Busch, M. ........................... 297 Campbell, E.F. ............... 72, 78 Caquot, A. .................. 154, 249 Carr, D.M. ............................ 29 Carter C.E. ......................... 178 Cavaignac, E. ....................... 79 Childs, B.S. ...................... 53-57 Christensen, D.L. .............. 164f Clements, R.E....................... 57 Clifford, R.J. ................... 55, 59 Coggins, R.J............. 48, 71, 162 Cohen, S.J.D. ........................ 62 Collins, N.L. ....................... 143 Cotton, H.M. .................. 76, 83 Cowley, A.E. . 99, 135, 192-199, .. 203f, 264, 294f, 299f, 302, 306 Crane, O.T. ......................... 298 Cross, F.M. .. 99, 102f, 105, 136, ............................................ 138

312 Index of Authors

Crowfoot, G.M. .................... 84 Crowfoot, J.W. ..................... 84 Crown, A.D. 71, 103, 194, 237f, ................... 247, 250, 254, 263f Cuq, É................................... 80 Dahood, M. ........................ 250 Dan Y. ................................ 226 Danby, H. ........................... 248 Danell, G.A. .............. 47-49, 52 Dar, S. .................................. 77f Davesne, A. .......................... 74 Davies, P. ........................... 175 De Callataÿ, F. ..................... 80 De Goeje, M.J. .............237, 287 De Pury, A. ........................ 174 De Robert, P. ...................... 154 De Sacy, S. .......................... 291 De Vaux, R. ..138, 147, 160, 162 Deist, F.E. .......................... 175f Dever, W.G. ....................... 175 Dexinger, F. 35, 196f, 245, 247, .................................. 251f, 258 Di Segni, L. ........................ 227 Doran, R. ............................ 143 Douglas, M. ....................... 142 Dozy, R. ............................. 254 Driver, S.R.......................... 147 Duhm, B. ........................ 40, 59 Durand, X. .......................... 73f Dusek, J. ..... 83, 89, 98, 115, 134 Edelman, D. ................... 79, 97 Egger, R.......................109, 158 Eissfeldt, O. ........................ 175 Elazar, Y. ............................ 296 Elkasy-Friemuth, M........... 269 Emerton, J.A. ..................... 189 Epstein, J.N. ...................... 190 Eshel, E............................... 191 Eshel, H. ............ 71, 90, 99-103, .....................................105, 136

Eskenazi, T.C. .................... 137 Fabry, H.-J. ........................... 29 Faü, J.-F. ............................. 247 Feldman, L.H. ............ 109, 116 Finkelstein, I. .............. 74, 178f Finkelstein, L. .................... 190 Finkielsztejn, G. ................. 151 Finn, J. ................. 295, 297, 301 Fischer, T. ....................... 75, 83 Florentin, M. ..... 194, 199, 205f, ..................... 208, 211, 226, 293 Fohrer, G. ............................. 50 Forrer, E. .............................. 15 Foster, B.R. ........................... 16 Fuks, G. ................................ 79 Gane, R. .............................. 126 Garbini, G. ......................... 130 Gaster, M...... 46, 162, 238, 245, ..................... 251, 254-256, 258, ............................. 294, 299, 301 Gaster, T.H. ........................ 299 Gera, D. ................................ 79 Gesenius, W. ...... 246, 248, 253f Giles, T. .............................. 264 Glasius, B. .......................... 239 Goldingay, J. .................. 55, 60 Goldstein, J.A. .................... 117 Goldstein, Y. ...................... 294 Goodblatt, D.M. ................... 46 Grabbe, L.L. ................. 84, 103 Gropp, D.M. ................ 100-102 Guillaume, P. ....................... 19 Halkin, A................... 261f, 280 Halpern, B. ........................... 25 Hamitovsky, Y. .................. 226 Hanhart, R. ........................ 110 Haran, M. .......................... 161 Hartley, J.E. ........................ 126 Harviainen, T. ............ 293, 295

Index of Authors 313

Hayes, J.H. ......................... 175 Hayward, C.R. ................... 156 Hermisson, H.-J. .................. 40 Higger, M. .......................... 247 Hjelm, I. .... 12, 18, 45f, 89, 159, ................................. 174f, 178f Hoffner, H.A. ....................... 14 Høgenhaven, J. .................... 47 Holladay, J.S. ................. 52, 61 Holum, K.G. ............. 225, 227f Horovitz, H.S. .................... 190 Houghton, A. ....................... 81 Hourani, G.F. ..................... 269 Hurowitz, V.A. .................. 152 Hurwitz, A. ........................ 188 Ibn Al-Fakikh, A-H. .......... 287 Irving, W. ........................... 293 Isser, S. ...................... 251f, 257 Jacobs, L. ................... 247, 250f Janzen, J.G. ........................... 61 Japhet, S. ......... 24, 42, 128, 140 Jastrow, M. ......................... 248 Kahle, P. ............................. 300 Kalimi, I. ............................ 154 Kasher, A. ............................ 71 Kearns, C............................ 148 Kenyon, K.M. ....................... 84 Kippenberg, H.G. ............. 115f Kitchen, K.A. ..................... 175 Klein, R.W. ........................... 42 Klein, S. .............................. 227 Knoppers, G.N.... 42-44, 51, 89, .............................. 142, 178-181 Kohn, S. .............................. 195 Koole, J.L. ....... 40, 48, 54-57, 59 Kossmann, F. .................... 239f Kratz, R.G. .... 34f, 47-50, 59, 99 Laato, A. ......................... 52, 54

Landau, Y.H. .................. 75, 83 Langlamet, F. ..................... 152 Lapp, N.L. ............................ 79 Larché, F............................... 79 Le Rider, G. .......................... 80 Lefèbvre, P. ........................ 155 Lehmann, C.M. ................. 227f Lemaire, A. .................. 89, 156 Lemche, N.P....................... 175 Lenger, M.-T. ....................... 84 Levenson, J.D. ...................... 45 Levine, L.I. ........................ 225f Levinson, B.M. ................... 142 Liebesny, H. ......................... 75 Lieth, M.J.W. .............. 102, 104 Linville, J.R. ......................... 45 Lipschits, O. ................. 89, 178 Liverani, M. ................ 176-178 Lockwood, W..................... 280 Long V.P. .......................... 175f Longman T.I. ..................... 175 Lorber, C. ............................. 81 Lowy, S. ............. 246f, 254, 256 Luciani, D................... 126, 142 Lundquist, J.M. .................. 155 Lust, J. .................................. 46 Macchi, J.-D..........51, 156f, 174 Macdonald, J. ............. 162, 257 Macuch, R. ......................... 271 Magen, Y. ... 72, 80f, 83f, 89-98, .................... 100, 104, 122, 179f Magness, J. ........................... 84 Marcus, R. ................... 112-117 Margoliouth, G. ................. 237 Mason, S. ............................ 109 Mazar, B. .............................. 79 McCarter, P.K. ................... 156 McCown, C.C. ................... 189 McKenzie, S.L. ........... 152, 174 Meir, R........................ 191, 252 Melamed, E.Z..................... 190


Meshel, Z. .......................... 156 Meshorer, Y. ...............100, 103 Meyer, E. .............................. 91 Meyers, C.L. ......................... 97 Meyers, É.M. ........................ 97 Mez, A. ............................... 158 Migne, J.-P. ............. 73, 77, 249 Milgrom, J. ......................... 126 Miller, J.M. ......................... 175 Mills, J. .........295, 297, 299, 301 Misgav, H. ... 72, 81, 83f, 90-92, .................................... 97, 179f Molhuisen, P.C. ................ 239f Montgomery, J.M. ....... 46, 250 Moore, M.B. ................ 174-176 Mor, M. ........... 71, 93, 99, 102f, ................................... 125, 226f Morag, S. ............................ 189 Morinus, I. .................. 248-251 Mowinckel, S. .................... 250 Myers, J.M. ........................... 97 Na’aman, N. ................. 29, 97, Nagel, T.............................. 266 Naveh, J.............................. 179 Nemoy, L. .......................... 280 Neubauer, A. ..................... 237 Newell, E.T. ......................... 80 Nihan, C.L................... 28f, 142 Nisula, T............................. 147 Nodet, É. ... 109, 125, 128f, 143, ........................... 158f, 162, 181 Noth, M. ............................. 174 Oeming, M. ........................ 178 Ofer, A. .............................. 178 Olyan, S.M. .......................... 41 Otto, E. ................................ 28f Paret, R. .............................. 280 Pastor, J. .............................. 75f Payne, D. ........................ 55, 60

Penner, K............................ 189 Petermann, J.H.... 294, 300, 302 Pfoh, E. ...................... 9f, 12, 21 Poirier, J.C. ......................... 189 Porten, B. .............................. 52 Provan, I.W. ....................... 175 Pummer, R. .......... 28, 123, 146, .............. 225-227, 237, 245-248, ........... 257, 263f, 293, 295f, 300 Qedar, S...................... 100, 103 Qimron, E........................... 192 Raban, A............................. 227 Rabin, I.A. .......................... 190 Rabinowitz, I...................... 189 Rappaport, U. ...................... 71 Reich, R. ............................. 228 Reinmuth, T. ........................ 41 Renehan, R. ....................... 257f Renz, J. ................................. 30 Richter, S.L. .......................... 24 Robertson, E.237, 264, 271, 293, ................................... 295, 301 Rofé, A. .....................26, 28, 30 Rogers, E.T. ....................... 296f Rogers, M.E. ....................... 297 Rom-Shiloni, D. ................... 46 Rosenberg, S.G. .................... 79 Rost, L. ...................... 47-49, 59 Rothschild, J.-P. .......... 237-241 Römer, T..................... 152, 174 Rubin, M. ........................... 190 Sadaqa, E. ............ 295, 300, 307 Safrai, Z. ............................... 77 Saley, R.J. ........................... 103 Sartre, M......................... 73, 75 Sasoon, D.S. ....................... 237 Scatolini Apóstolo, S.S. ........ 61 Schaper, J. ............................ 31 Schaudig, H. ........................ 57

Index of Authors 315

Schearing, L.S. ................... 174 Schenker, A. ... 28, 32, 129, 131, .................................... 147, 153 Schmid, K. ........... 40, 47, 49, 57 Schmidtke, S. ..................... 267 Schniedewind, W.M. .......... 30f Schoors, A. ........................... 53 Schorch, S. .................... 35, 188 Schunck, M. ......................... 19 Schur, N. ............................ 297 Schürer, E. .......................... 133 Schwartz, D.R. ...... 79, 103, 134 Shavit, Y, ............................ 294 Shearing, L.S. ..................... 174 Shehadeh, H. .... 195, 217, 263f, ......................271, 293, 295, 298 Shinan, A. .......................... 190 Ska, J.-L. ............................. 154 Sklare, D.E. .................262, 267 Smith, A. ...................... 40, 301 Smith, J. ................................ 46 Smith, M............................. 178 Smith, P.A. ..................... 40, 46 Soggin, J.A. .................161, 175 Sommer, B.D. .......... 40, 50, 52f Sonnet, J.-P. .......................... 31 Spilsbury, P. ................ 112-114 Steck, O.H. ........................... 40 Stenhouse, P...............251, 271, ................................... 289, 290f Stern, E. .............................. 138 Stern, M. ......................103, 130 Stone, M.E. ......................... 191 Sussman, V. ....................... 227 Sweeney, M.A. ..................... 50 Syncellus, G. ...................... 188 Tal, A. ........ 194f, 199, 217, 263f Taylor, J.E. ..................... 76, 83 Thackeray, H.S.J. ............... 158 Theodor, J. ......................... 195

Thompson, T.L.... 9f, 12-14, 21, ............................... 49, 175, 178 Tiele, P.A. ........................... 239 Torrey, C.C. ....................... 130 Tov, E. ............... 28, 32, 61, 246 Trotter, J.M. .......................... 97 Tsedaka, B. ................... 99, 293 Tsedaka, I. .......................... 217 Tsedaqa, R. ......................... 295 Tsfania, L. .... 72, 81, 83f, 90-92, .................................... 97, 179f Tuell, S.S............................... 45 Van Den Hout, P. J. ............14f Van Der Horst, P.W. .... 71, 146 Van Hoonacker, A. ............ 138 Van Seters, J. ..................... 175f Vanderkam, J.C. ........ 103, 135 Veiola, T. ............................ 152 Velázquez , E.I. .................. 143 Vermes, G. ......................... 133 Vilsker, L.H. ....................... 300 Vollers, K. .......................... 237 Von Rad, G.................... 23, 25f Walther, I.F. ....................... 238 Warren, C. ............297, 301-303 Wedel, G. ..... 261-264, 267, 278 Weinberg, J. ......................... 97 Weinfeld, M. ........................ 23 Weis, R. .............................. 263 Welch, A.C. .......................... 23 Wenham, G.J. ..................... 164 Westermann, C. ................... 53 White, L.M. .......................... 61 White, R.J. .......................... 258 Whitelam, K. ...................... 173 Widengren, G. ........... 103, 138 Wieder, N. .......................... 189 Will, E. .................................78f Willi, T.................................. 42


Williamson, H.G.M. 39-42, 44, ....................... 47, 49f, 103, 125 Witkam, J.J. ........................ 238 Wolf, N............................... 238 Wong, C.K. ........................ 188 Wörrle, M. ............................ 76 Wright, J.L..............41, 97, 138f Yalon, H. ............................ 189 Yassif, E. ............................. 188 Yenisoganci, V. .................... 74 Younger, K.L. Jr. ................ 160 Zadok, R............................... 61 Zayadine, F. ........................ 79f

Zertal, A. .............................. 74 Zhamkochian A.S. ............. 287 Zimmerli, W................... 46, 61 Zobel, H.–J. .................... 49, 54 Zotenberg, H. ..................... 237 Zsengellér, J. ................ 51, 161

Index of Citations

Old Testament

Genesis 1:1 ........................ 221 1:4 ........................ 127 1:4 . 10.12.18.21.25.311 1:14 ...................... 276 1:27b .................... 271 2:15 ........................ 11 2:16 ...................... 220 2:16-17 ............. 10, 13 2:22 ...................... 271 2:23 ...................... 195 3:4b ........................ 10 3:6 .......................... 10 3:6.22 ....................... 9 3:8 ........................ 278 3:10 ........................ 11 3:11 ........................ 11 3:15 ........................ 10 3:17-19 ................... 11 3:19 ....... 206, 209, 256 3:20 .................. 9, 220 3:23 .......................... 9 3:23-24 ................... 12 3:24 ...................... 255 4:1 ........................ 221 4:1b .......................... 9 4:5 .......................... 21 4:5-7 ....................... 10 4:7 ........................ 221 4:8 ......................... 10f 4:9 .......................... 11 4:12 ........................ 11 4:12-15 ................... 12 4:13-14 ................... 14 4:23-24 ............. 13, 20 6:5 .......................... 13 6:5-7 ....................... 18 6:19 ...................... 220 7:1 ........................ 220

8:21 .................. 13, 16 9:2 .......................... 13 9:3-4 ................. 10, 13 9:5 ............... 253, 255f 9:5-6 ....................... 13 9:9-11 ..................... 13 9:12-17 ............. 13, 16 9:15-17 ................... 16 10:15.19 ............... 117 10:30 .................... 222 11:1 ............... 164, 190 11:4 ...................... 220 12:6 ............... 146, 163 12:12 ................... 219f 12:17 .................... 219 12:20 .................... 221 14:18 .................... 146 15:1.2 ................... 219 15:12 .................... 209 15:15 ............. 206, 209 18:2 ...................... 221 18:27 .................... 219 19:8 ...................... 197 20:16 .................... 220 21:6 .......................... 9 21:10 .................... 220 23:6 ...................... 219 24:63 .................... 209 25:7 ..................... 255f 25:13 .................... 221 25:17 .................... 255 28:13 .................... 278 28:13-15 ................. 54 28:17 ............. 206, 210 28:19 .................... 159 28:20 .................... 206 30:22-24 ................. 47 32:10-28 ................. 54 33:18-20 ............... 160

33:19-20 ............... 146 34:1-30 ................... 21 35:2-4 ................... 161 35:6 ...................... 159 34:15-24 ............... 162 35:16-18 ................. 47 35:22 .................... 163 37:5 ...................... 206 37:18 .................... 220 37:26 .................... 163 37:31.33 ............... 163 38:18 .................... 163 40:15 .................... 187 41:45 .................... 149 41:51-52 ................. 47 45:18 .................... 221 48:3 ...................... 159 48:22 ............. 160, 163 49:1-27 ................. 163 50:20 .................... 163

Exodus 1:11 ...................... 149 1:20 ..................... 255f 2:6-7 ..................... 187 2:14 ...................... 190 3:3-6 ..................... 199 3:5 ........................ 221 3:8 ........................ 221 3:14 ........................ 10 4:24.25 ................. 220 6:6 .......................... 63 15:11 ................... 192f 15:13 ...................... 53 15:17 .................... 124 17:9-14 ................. 160 20:21 .................... 199 20:24 ................ 25, 28 20:24-26 ................. 28

318 Index of Citations

20:25 .................... 123 21:12-14 ................. 13 23:15 .................... 219 23:16 .................... 126 25:8 ...................... 124 25:9 ...................... 151 29:14 .................... 221 30:10 .................... 123 32:1 ...................... 200 32:1-24 ................... 18 32:7-14 ................... 18 32:32-35 ................. 18 32:34 ................... 255f 33:19-20 ........... 10, 21 34:6 . 207, 211, 213,255

Leviticus

4:1-21 ..................... 13 8:15 ........................ 13 16:1-3 ................... 121 16:2-28 ................. 126 17:10-11 ................. 13 17:15 .................... 220 18:5 ...................... 255 19:17-18 ................. 18 19:18 .................... 222 19:34 .................... 222 20:24 .................... 127 23:26-32 ............... 126 20:30 .................... 255 23:39-43 .............. 126f 24:10-22 ............... 142 26:13 .................... 198

Numbers 1:17 ...................... 192 11:28 .................... 160 13:25-14:4 .............. 19 14:6 ...................... 160 14:10-12 ................. 19 14:18 ...................... 19 14:20-38 ................. 19 14:35 .................... 255 20:23-24 ............... 210 20:25-26 ............... 211 20:29 ............. 207, 211 22:6 ...................... 222 23:7 ...................... 222 23:10 .................... 255

25:8 ...................... 222 27:17 ...................... 11 27:18-21 ............... 160 29:7-11 ................. 126 35:10-34 ................. 14

Deuteronomy 1:34-36 ................... 17 1:38 ...................... 160 4:12 ...................... 279 4:34 ...................... 162 4:39 ...................... 279 6:24 ...................... 255 7:1 ........................ 128 9:8-21 ..................... 18 11:21 .................... 193 11:26-30 ................. 29 11:29 ....... 28, 146, 222 11:30 .................... 163 11:31-12:1 .............. 26 11:31-12:18 ............ 26 12:4-7 .................... 26f 12:5 ........... 23, 28, 147 12:10 ...................... 25 12:11 ............... 24, 219 12:13-14 ............... 147 12:13-18 ................. 26 14:23 ............... 24, 219 15:19 .................... 221 16:2.6.11 ................ 24 18:3 ...................... 222 19:1-13 ................... 13 19:13 ...................... 14 19:21 ...................... 14 23:4-6 ................... 127 23:4-7 ..................... 42 23:18 .................... 221 24:1 ...................... 198 24:16 ........... 16, 18, 20 26:1-3 ..................... 25 26:2 ........................ 24 27:2-4 ................... 199 27:2-7 .................... 26f 27:2-26 ................. 160 27:4 .................. 33, 35 27:4-5 ..................... 28 27:4-8 ............... 26, 29 27:4-10 ................... 29 27:8 ........................ 30

27:9 ...................... 147 27:12-13 ................. 28 28:54 .................... 222 28:56 .................... 222 30:1-4 ..................... 32 30:6 ...................... 198 30:15 ............. 246, 255 30:24 .................... 147 32:3.4 ................... 212 32:4 ...................... 213 32:21 .................... 148 32:29-35 ............... 255 32:35 ........... 196, 245f 32:35.36.39 ........... 253 32:39 ................ 9, 214 32:40 .................... 214 33:1-5 ................... 164 33:2 ............... 190, 199 38:11 .................... 250 38:28 .................... 196

Joshua 1:1-5 ..................... 160 5:13-15 ................. 160 8:30-35 .... 29, 146, 160 9:2 ........................ 160 17:14-15 ............... 160 17:16-18 ............... 160 18:1 ...................... 161 23:1-16 ................. 161 24:1-28 ................ 161f 24:25 .................... 160 24:26 .................... 124 24:29-31 ............... 160

Judges 2:6-9 ..................... 161 2:9 ........................ 160 8:14-17 ................... 20 9:1-57 ..................... 21 9:37 ...................... 163

1Samuel 3:18 ........................ 10

2Samuel 5:12 ..................... 153f 6:17 ...................... 152 7:1-3 ..................... 154

Index of Citations 319

7:14-16 ................. 152 21:1-14 ................... 21 24:11-14 ................. 16 24:20-25 ............... 152

1Kings 1:13 ...................... 152 1:34 ...................... 153 2:22 ...................... 152 3:4-15 ................... 152 5:1.14 ................... 152 5:15 ...................... 153 6:1 ........................ 154 6:37-38 ................. 154 6:46-53 ................... 20 7:13 ...................... 154 8:2 ........................ 154 8:4 ........................ 126 8:16 ... 24, 31, 147, 152 8:27 ...................... 155 8:38 LXX ............. 131 8:65-66LXX ......... 126 9:10-14 ................. 154 9:26 ...................... 154 10:22 .................... 154 11:1-13 ................. 132 12:26-33 18:30 .................... 147

2 Kings 6:8-23 ..................... 20 6:18-23 ................... 17 6:21-23 ................... 15 10:1-29 ................... 21 12:19-21 ................. 20 12:20-22 ................. 18 14:1-6 ..................... 20 14:5-7 ..................... 18 17:1-41 ................ 156f 17:6 ................. 44, 114 17:24 ............. 113, 125 17:24-41 ........ 121, 159 17:28 .................... 162 17:29 ............. 113, 124 17:30 .................... 113 17:33 .................... 119 17:33.34 ............... 110 17:34-40 ............... 158 18:5 ........................ 45

18:11 ...................... 44 18:9-12 ................. 156 18:26.28 ............... 187 18:34 .................... 157 19:13 .................... 157 19:15.20 ................. 45 19:37 .................... 125 20:5 ........................ 45 23:27 ................ 24, 33 23:29-30 ............... 140 25:18-21 ............... 114 25:22-26 ................. 52

1 Chronicles 1:13 ...................... 117 2:1-2 ....................... 42 2:3–4:23 ................. 42 3:19 ...................... 130 5:23-26 ................... 43 5:25 ........................ 42 5:30-41 .......... 128, 155 6:18 ...................... 155 9:3 .......................... 43 16:8, 24, 26 ............. 42 16:41 .................... 192 17:1-15 ................. 151 22:4 ...................... 154 22:5 ...................... 151 28:11-19 ............... 151

2Chronicles 1:3 ........................ 124 2:13 ...................... 154 3:1 .......................... 35 6:33 ........................ 42 7:8-10 ................... 126 7:20 ........................ 42 8:2 ........................ 154 8:13 ...................... 152 13:4-12 ................... 44 13:9 ........................ 42 23:20.21 ................. 42 26:21 ...................... 42 28:6-15 ................... 17 30:1-9 ..................... 43 30:1-17 ................... 43 30:16 .................... 152 32:13.19 ................. 42 33:25 ...................... 42

34:3-7 ..................... 43 35:1-19 ................... 43 35:16 .................... 152 35:20-25 ............... 140 36:1 ........................ 42 36:21 .................... 166

Job 29:17 ................. 10,12

Psalms 48:3 ........................ 32 72:4 ........................ 10 72:16 .................... 256 74:2 ........................ 53 77:16 ...................... 53 78:35 ...................... 53 78:60-68 ................. 33 106:10 .................... 53 107:2 ...................... 53 130:3-4 ................... 17

Isaiah 1:1-3 ....................... 50 2:1 .......................... 50 2:2-4 ....................... 55 5:1-7 ....................... 50 6:9-10 ..................... 50 11:10-12 ................. 59 11:10-16 ................. 52 19:18 .................... 187 19:18.21 ............... 149 23:2.4.12 .............. 117 36:11.13 ............... 187 39:7 ........................ 48 40:9 ........................ 52 40:28 ...................... 56 40:28-31 ................. 59 41:5.9 ..................... 56 41:8 ........................ 56 41:11 ...................... 55 41:14 ...................... 53 42:1-4 ..................... 59 42:5-12 ................... 55 42:14-43:21 ............ 53 42:18-25 ................. 53 43:1.14 ................... 53 43:1-7 .................... 52f 43:5 ........................ 56


43:14 ...................... 53 44:3 .................. 54, 56 44:5 ........................ 49 44:6.22.24 ............... 53 44:18 ...................... 56 44:24–45:25 ............ 55 44:26 ...................... 52 45:1-7 ................... 131 45:22-25 ................. 55 46:1-3 ..................... 57 46:1-13 ................... 56 46:1–47:15.............. 57 46:3-4 ..................... 56 46:9-11 ................... 57 47:4 ........................ 53 48:1 ....................... 48f 48:17.20 ................. 53 48:19 ................ 48, 54 48:19-20 ................. 39 49:1-6 ..................... 58 49:1-13 ................... 59 49:6 .................. 59, 61 49:7.26 ................... 53 49:8–55:13.............. 59 49:12 ...................... 54 49:26 ...................... 39 51:4-5 ..................... 59 54:3 .................. 54, 56 54:5.8 ..................... 53 55:7 ........................ 17 56:8 ........................ 54 59:20 ...................... 48 60:1-7 ..................... 55 60:4 ........................ 54 60:16 ...................... 39 61:9 ........................ 54 65:23 ...................... 54

Jeremiah 7:14.16 ................... 33 8:8 .......................... 31 24:1-13 ................. 125 24:6 ........................ 54 25:22 .................... 117 30:18 ...................... 47 31:7-9 ..................... 53 31:9 ........................ 47 31:11 ...................... 53 31:15-17 ................. 47

31:20 ...................... 47 31:30 ...................... 17 37:1-43:13 .............. 52 41:4-5 ................... 125 43:1 ........................ 54 47:4 ...................... 117 50:34 ...................... 53

Lamentations 5:7 .......................... 17

Ezekiel 3:6-11 ................... 125 5:4 .......................... 46 11:15 ...................... 46 12:10 ...................... 46 20:40 ...................... 46 18:20-32 ................. 17 27:8 ...................... 117 28:21f ................... 117 28:24-26 ................. 45 29:21 ...................... 45 34:23-31 ................. 46 36:1-15 ................... 46 37:1-14 ................... 46 37:15-28 ................. 46 39:25-29 ................ 45f 45:6 ........................ 46 45:8.16 ................... 46 45:18-20 ............... 126 47:13-23 ................. 46 48:1-35 ................... 46

Daniel 2:4 ........................ 188

Hosea 8:13 ........................ 61 9:3 .......................... 61 11:5 ........................ 61 12:2 ........................ 61 13:14 ...................... 53

Joel 4:4 ........................ 117

Zechariah

2:12 ...................... 131 3:5-7 ..................... 131

4:8 ........................ 131 6:12-13 ................. 131 9:2 ........................ 117 14:21 .................... 131

Amos

7:11 ........................ 61

Micah 4:10 ........................ 53

Zephaniah

3:9 ........................ 191 3:10 ........................ 54

Obadiah 20 ........................... 54

Ezra 1:1-3 ..................... 124 1:1-4 ....................... 97 1:3 ........................ 125 1:7-8 ..................... 130 1:11 ........................ 40 2:1 ......................... 40f 2:2.70 ..................... 41 3:1 ........................ 130 3:1-6 ..... 121, 123, 141 3:1.11.13 ................ 41 3:2 ........................ 130 3:3 .......................... 41 3:7-13 ................... 124 3:8 .......................... 41 3:10-13 ................. 140 4:1 .................... 40, 42 4:1-3 ..................... 124 4:1.4 ....................... 96 4:3 .......................... 96 4:4 .......................... 41 4:6 ........................ 129 4:7 ........................ 188 4:17-22 ................. 130 4:17-23 ................. 137 5:1-2 .................... 129f 5:2 ........................ 130 6:3-5 ................ 97, 124 6:6-12 ..................... 97 6:14 ...................... 130 6:16 ....................... 40f


6:17 ...................... 125 6:17.21 ................... 41 6:18 ...................... 152 6:19-20 ................... 40 7:1-5 ..................... 155 7:7.10.13 ................ 41 7:8 ........................ 138 8:15.36 ................... 41 8:35 ....................... 40f 9:1-2 ..................... 134 9:1.2.11.14 .............. 41 9:2 ........................ 125 9:4 .......................... 41 9:5 .......................... 41 9:6 ........................ 139 9:7 .......................... 41 10:1.9.11 ................ 41 10:2 ........................ 41 10:6 ................. 41, 135 10:7.16 ................... 40 10:25 ...................... 41 18:8.12-16 .............. 41

Nehemiah 1:2.3 ....................... 41 1:8-9 ....................... 32 1:9 ........................ 147 2:5 .......................... 97 2:6 ........................ 137 2:8-16 ................... 139 2:10 ................. 41, 140 2:10.19 ...... 78, 98, 187 2:16 ........................ 41 2:17-18 ................. 139 2:20 .................. 96, 98 3:32-35 ................... 98 3:33.34 ................... 41 3:35 ........................ 78 3:36 ........................ 41 3:38 ........................ 41 4: ............................ 78 4:1-2 ....................... 98 4:4 .......................... 41 4:5 .......................... 42 4:6 .......................... 41 4:7.16 ..................... 41 4:9 .......................... 42 4:10 ........................ 41 4:10-23 ................. 140

5:1.17 ..................... 41 5:1-13 ................... 127 5:1.13.15.18.19 ....... 41 5:8.9.17 .................. 41 5:9 .......................... 42 5:14 ...................... 137 6:1-19 .......... 42, 78, 98 6:6.16 ..................... 41 6:14-18 ................. 127 6:15 ...................... 140 6:16-19 ................. 140 7:1-2 ..................... 139 7:1-5 ..................... 128 7:1-72 ..................... 41 7:4 .......................... 41 7:4.5.7.72................ 41 7:6 ......................... 40f 7:7.73 ..................... 41 8:1-16 ..................... 41 8:1-17 ................... 129 8:1-18 ................... 126 8:13-9:1 ................ 122 8:17 ........................ 41 9:1 ........................ 126 9:10 ........................ 41 9:24.30 ................... 41 9:27 ........................ 42 9:28 ........................ 42 10:15.29.35 ............. 41 10:29.31.32 ............. 41 10:31 .................... 127 10:31-40 ............... 127 11:1.24 ................... 41 11:4 ........................ 43 12:10-11 .............. 134f 12:12-26 ............... 138 12:22 ............. 114, 135 12:23 .................... 135 12:30.38 ................. 41 13:1 ........................ 41 13:1-3 ............ 127, 142 13:4.7.8 .................. 78 13:4-9 ..................... 98 13:6 ...................... 138 13:12 ...................... 41 13:15-22 ............... 127 13:16 ...................... 41 13:22 .................... 139 13:23 ...................... 41

13:24 .................... 187 13:26 ............... 41, 132 13:28 ........ 95, 98, 114, ...................... 127, 135

Haggai

2:2-9 ..................... 130

1 Maccabees 3:10 ........................ 78 3:13 ........................ 78 3:32 ........................ 76 3:41 ........................ 78 4:4 .......................... 76 4:44-52 ................. 124 7:1-9 ..................... 148 7:31 ........................ 82 7:39 ........................ 78 7:49 ...................... 143 9:54-57 ................. 148 10:6.25-45 ............ 148 10:30 ...................... 76 10:33.37 ................. 76 10:38 ...................... 76 10:43 ...................... 84 10:69 ...................... 76 11:28.30ff ............... 76 11:34 ...................... 76 13:51 .................... 143 13:61 .................... 148 13:80-82 ............... 148 14:4 ........................ 76 15:15-24 ............... 147

2Maccabees 1:1-10 ................... 147 2:13 ...................... 138 3:5 .......................... 76 4,4 .......................... 76 4:8-40 ................... 150 5:1-14 ................... 149 5:11.23 ................... 76 5:22 ................. 83, 121 5:22-6:3 ................ 143 6:1-3 ..................... 121 6:2 .......................... 83 8:8 .......................... 76 10:11 ...................... 76 14:2 ........................ 76


15:37 .................... 143 Ben Sira

1:1-14 ................... 139 36:11 ...................... 59

49:13 ............. 129, 139 50:1 ...................... 150 50:1-2 ................... 139 50:1-5 ................... 148

50:26 ............. 121, 148 Judith

9:2-39 ................... 115

New Testament

Matthew

1:12 ...................... 130

Mark 7:34 ...................... 189

John 4:5-6 ..................... 146 4:18 ...................... 299 5:2 ........................ 188 19:13,17 .............. 188f 20:16 .................... 188

Acts 21:40 .................... 189 22:2 ...................... 189

Pseudepigrapha

Jubilees

12:26-7 ................. 188

Letter of Aristeas § 30.311................ 146

1 Esdras 3:1-4:46 ................ 129 5:4 ........................ 130 8:65-67 ................. 134

Testament of Solomon 14:7 ...................... 189

Dead Sea Scrolls

11Q19

52:9 ........................ 34 52:16 ...................... 34

56:5 ........................ 34 60:13.14 ................. 34

4Q394 (MMT) f8 iv:9‒11 .............. 34

Philo

Legum allegeroiae

3.82 ...................... 146

De Sobrietate § 45 ...................... 188

De Confusione Ling. § 68 ..................... 188

De Vita Mosis 2:26-27 ................ 188

De specialibus legibus 1:189 .................... 127 2:204-213 ............. 127

Josephus

Jewish Antiquitates

1.12 ...................... 158 1.180 .................... 146 3.244-247 ............. 127 4.203 .................... 147 5.68-69 ................. 160 5.114 .................... 161 5.240f.243.247. ..... 115 5.248.250f ............ 115 5.361-2 ................. 146

8.50 ...................... 158 8.62 ...................... 154 8.211 .................... 151 8.212, 225 ............. 115 8.363 .................... 159 9.140 f .................. 159 9.278f, 288-291.... 113f 9.288-291 ............. 110 9.289-290 ............. 158 9.290 ............. 113, 121

9.291 .................... 109 9.278f.287-291...... 112 10.8 ...................... 189 10.149 .................. 114 10.150 .................. 135 10.184 ......... 112f, 124 10.152-153 128, ... 146 11.19 .................... 113 11.19, 302-347 ...... 112 11.30-345 ............. 105


11.84-87 ............... 124 11.133 .................. 146 11.140-145 ........... 134 11.159 .................. 189 11.183 .................. 129 11.297 ................. 134f 11.302f ................. 119 11.302-03.306-11 .... 84 11.302-347 .......... 114f ...................... 131-133 11.310 .................... 83 11.310-311.324 ....... 83 11.324 .................... 84 11.340f ................. 109 11.341 ................. 111f 11.343f ................ 111f 11.344 .................. 116

11.346 .................. 121 11.347 .................. 116 12.10 .................... 145 12.138-144 .... 155, 179 12.154-155 ............. 80 12.168 .................... 79 12.175 .................... 79 12.230-234 ............. 79 12.236 .................... 82 12.237 .................. 150 12.257 ... 109, 112, 116 12.257-264 .......... 111f 12.258-264 .... 117, 144 13.62-73 ............... 148 13:74-79 ............... 145 13.133-144 ............. 96 13.254-256 .... 119, 151

13.327 .................. 151 19.279-285 ........... 142 20.235-237 ........... 149

Jewish War 1,62f ..................... 119 7:421 .................... 150 7:423-432 ............. 149

Against Apion 1:30-31 ................. 134 1:106-116 ............. 155 1:106 .................... 154 1:118-119 ............. 145 1.174 .................... 146 1:197-199 ............. 130 1.250 .................... 150

Classical Greek and Roman Sources

Appian Roman History: Syrian War 5 ............................. 80

Polybius

Historiae V 71:11-12 ............. 79 XXVIII 20, 9 .......... 80

Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander the Great, IV 8: 34, 9-11 ....... 103

Homer

Iliad 6:290 .................... 144 23:743 .................. 144

Odyssea 4:84 ........ 144

Jerome Epistula 72 ........... 151

Rabbinic Texts

Mishnah

Pesahim 1:15 ........ 167 Megillah 1:11........ 150 Megillah 3:13........ 189 Yebamot 12:6 ....... 190 Sotah 7:4 .............. 190 Gittin 9:8 .............. 189 Sanhedrin 10,1 ...... 249 Abot 2:1 ............... 192 Menahot 13:10 ...... 150 Bekhorot 2:6 ......... 192 Yadayim 4:5 ......... 189

Talmud Yerushalmi Demai, 2:1, 22c ..... 226 Megillah 1:8 71b ... 190 Megillah 74d......... 189 Sanhedrin 7:10 25d 191 Avoda Zara 1:2, 39c226

Talmud Bavli Shabbat 115a ........ 189 Shabbat 40b .......... 191 Megillah 15a ......... 143 Megillah 10a ......... 150

Gittin 50c.............. 189 Gittin 19b ............. 189 Gittin 87b ............. 189 Sanhedrin 21b ....... 166 Sanhedrin 90b ....... 252 Menahot 110a ....... 149 Temurah 14a ......... 151

Genesis Rabbah 18 ......................... 195

Sifré Numeri 70 ......................... 147