sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ithamar, Jehoiada, John Hyrcanus, Judaism, Mount Ebal, Origins of Judaism

Article Theories of the Origin of the —Then and Now

Magnar Kartveit

School of Mission and , VID Specialized University, 4024 Stavanger, Norway; [email protected]

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

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

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

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

Religions 2019, 10, 661; doi:10.3390/rel10120661 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions ReligionsReligions 20182019, 9, x, 10 FOR, 661 PEER REVIEW 2 of 214 of 14 whom Jesus healed from skin disease and who returned to thank him for the healing, Luke 17:11–19. ActsActs 8:4–25 8:4–25 find find the the apostles Philip, PeterPeter and and John John preaching preaching the gospel and and healing healing people people in Samaria. in Samaria.This mission This mission is just asis just successful as successful as that as of that Jesus of in Jesus John in 4. John 4. However,However, there there are are also also dissonances dissonances in inthis this symphony symphony of ofgood good Samaritans Samaritans and and Christians. Christians. DescribedDescribed in inActs , a 8, certain a certain Simon Simon wants wants to to buy buy the the gift gift of of the the Holy , Spirit, a a wish wish fiercely fiercely rejected by by Peter.Peter. DiscussedDiscussed in in later later Church Church texts, texts, Simon Simon became became the the originator originator of all of gnostic all gnostic and otherand other heresies(for early (for Christianearly Christian texts on texts the Samaritanson the Samari seetans (Pummer see (Pummer 2002)). When2002)). Jesus When sends Jesus the sends disciples the to disciplesexorcise to evilexorcise spirits and spirits heal and diseases, heal diseases, he emphatically he emphatically tells them tells not them to enter not to enter orgentile Samaritan or Samaritanvillages, villages, cf. Matthew cf. :5. 10:5. callJews Jesus call Jesus a “Samaritan a “Samaritan and havingand having a demon” a demon” in John in :48. 8:48. Luke Lukementions mentions an incidentan incident where where Jesus Jesus and hisand disciples his disciples were deniedwere denied lodgings lodgings on the wayon the to Jerusalem,way to Jerusalem,9:51–56. 9:51–56. This diverse This situationdiverse situation has been has understood been understood to mean thatto mean themilieu that the of milieu Matthew of Matthew was against wasthe against Samaritans, the Samarita John’s communityns, John’s community was positive, was and positive, Luke plus an Actsd Luke had plus a balanced Acts had approach a balanced to them. approachWe note to that them. the We New note Testament that the simplyNew Testament refers to the simply Samaritans, refers to and the theirSamaritans, origin was and not their the origin concern wasof not those the authors. concern of those authors. OneOne would, would, logically, logically, turn turn to tothe the Hebrew / BibleOld/ Testament for for answers on this question,question, andand the theonly only place placewhere wherethe the wordword “Samaritans”“Samaritans” occurs,occurs, 22 Kings 17:29. “Samaritans” was was the the translation of hashshomronim) (hashshomronim) fromfrom KingKing James Version (KJV)(KJV) on, but in more recent , as in) ַה ֹשּׁ ְמ ֹר ִנים of in thethe New New Revised Revised Standard Standard Version Version (NRSV), (NRSV), the the rendering rendering is is “people “people of of Samaria”. Samaria”. This This change change in in translationtranslation reflects reflects the the tendency tendency to find to find the the inhabi inhabitantstants of the of the area area behind behind the the Hebrew Hebrew word, word, not not the the SamaritansSamaritans of the of the New New Testament Testament or ortoday’s today’s group. group. The The change change also also is due is due to scholars’ to scholars’ suggestions suggestions thatthat it is it necessary is necessary to todistinguish distinguish between between the the re religiousligious group group of of the the Samaritans Samaritans and and the the inhabitants inhabitants of of thethe area area Samaria. Hence,Hence, when when did did the the Samaritans Samaritans originate? originate? When When can can we we speak speak of of such such a a group? group? The The research on on thisthis questionquestion hashas been been reviewed reviewed by by Reinhard Reinhard Pummer, Pummer, James James Purvis, Purvis, Ferdinand Ferdinand Dexinger, Dexinger, Ingrid Ingrid Hjelm, Hjelm,and Magnarand Magnar Kartveit Kartveit (Pummer (Pummer 1976 ,1976, 1977, 1977, 1992, 19 201692,; 2016;Purvis Purvis 1986; 1986;Dexinger Dexinger 1992; 1992;Hjelm Hjelm 2000; Kartveit2000; Kartveit2009). 2009). Additionally, Additionally, most scholarly most scholarly contributions contri containbutions acontain chapter a with chapter research with history. research The history. overview Thein overview the following in the is organized following according is organized to the according relevant literary, to the epigraphic, relevant literary, and archaeological epigraphic, material. and archaeologicalThe aim of thismaterial. paper The is to aim review of this opinions paper is on to thereview question opinions of the on origin the question of the Samaritans,of the origin not of to thediscuss Samaritans, the origin not to of discuss the Samaritans. the origin The of the latter Samaritans. topic would The require latter topic a diff woulderent approach. require a different approach. 2. The Samaritan Version 2. The Samaritan Version The intuitive approach would be to ask the Samaritans themselves about their origin. They have a storyThe intuitive about this, approach so why would not start be to there? ask the Such Samari is thetans answer themselves in The about Kitab their al-Tarikh origin. by They Abu’l have Fath a storyfrom about 1355: this, so why not start there? Such is the answer in The Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu’l Fath from 1355:A terrible civil war broke out between son of Yafn¯ı, of the line of , and the sons of ,A terrible because civil war Eli broke son of out Yafn between¯ı resolved Eli toson usurp of Yafn theī, Highof the Priesthood line of Ithamar, from theand descendants the sons of of Phinehas,Phinehas. because He used Eli toson off ofer Yafn sacrificeī resolved on the to usurp of stones. the High He wasPriesthood 50 years from old, the endowed descendants with wealth of Phinehas.and in charge He used of theto offer treasury of the on children the altar of of Israel. stones. He He continued was 50 years for a time old, gatheringendowed awith group wealth around andhim in charge to whom of hethe said, treasury “ of one the to children whom itof is Israel. anathema He continued to serve a for child. a time I do gathering not wish (toa group do) this aroundmyself, him and to Iwhom hope thathe said, you “I will am not one to whom to it.” it is They anathema answered to serve as a groupa child. and I do said, not “Wewish are (to at do) your thiscommand, myself, and and I hope under that your you obedience: will not consent order us to as it.” you They see answered fit, and we as will a group not disobey.” and said, Accordingly, “We are at yourhe made command, them swear and thatunder they your would obedience: follow him order in allus his as purposes.you see fit, He and offered we awill sacrifice not disobey.” on the altar, Accordingly,but without he , made as if them he were swear inattentive. that they When would the follow Great Highhim Priestin all Ozzihis purposes. learned of He this, offered and found a sacrificethat the on sacrifice the altar, was but not without accepted, salt, he as thoroughly if he were disowned inattentive. him; When and itthe is (even)Great saidHigh that he rebukedOzzi learnedhim. of Thereupon this, and found he and that the the group sacrifice that sympathized was not accepted, with him,he thoroughly rose in revolt disowned and at him; once and he and it ishis (even)followers said that and he his rebuked beasts him. off forThereupon . Thushe an Israeld the wasgroup split that into sympathized factions. He with sent him, to their rose leaders in revoltsaying and to at them,once he “Anyone and his who followers would and like his to beasts see wonderful set off for things, Shiloh. let Thus him Israel come was to me.” split Then into he factions.assembled He sent a large to their group leaders around saying him to in them Shiloh, “Anyone and built who a would for like himself to see there;wonderful he constructed things, let forhim himself come to a me.” place Then like the he Temple.assembled He a builtlarge angroup altar, around omitting him no in detail—it Shiloh and all built corresponded a Temple tofor the himselforiginal, there; piece he by constructed piece. Then, for he himself had two a sons, place Hophni like the and Temple. Phinehas, He who built rounded an altar, up omitting young women no detail—itof attractive all corresponded appearance andto the brought original, them piece into theby piece. Then, which he had had two been sons, built Hophni by their and father. Phinehas, who rounded up young women of attractive appearance and brought them into the

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

TabernacleReligions 2018 ,which 9, x FOR had PEER been REVIEW built by their father. They let them savour the food of the sacrifices3 andof 14 Religions 2019, 10, 661 3 of 14 had intercourse with them inside the Tabernacle. Then, the children of Israel became three factions: ATabernacle (loyal) faction which on had Mount been Gerizim; built by an their heretical father. fact Theyion let that them followed savour false the ;food ofand the the faction thatand They let them savour the food of the sacrifices and had intercourse withfollowedhad them intercourse inside Eli son the withof Tabernacle.Yafn themī in insideShiloh. the (Stenhouse Tabernacle. 198 5,Th pp.en, 47–48)the children of Israel became three factions: Then, the children of Israel became three factions: A (loyal) faction onA Mount (loyal)According Gerizim;faction to on anthis Mount heretical story, Gerizim; the Sama anritans heretical constitute faction the that original followed Israel, false and gods; the andJews the represent faction thatthe faction that followed false gods; and the faction that followed Eli sonfaction offollowed Yafn ¯ıof in EliEli, Shiloh. son priest of ( StenhouseYafn in Shiloh.ī in Shiloh. We recognize (Stenhouse this 198 Eli5, andpp. 47–48)his sons from 1 Sam 1–3, so the Samaritan 1985, pp. 47–48) story Accordingevidently buildsto this uponstory, this the BiblicalSamaritans text. constitute Additionally, the original it builds Is uponrael, anda story the ofJews the representorigin of thethe According to this story, the Samaritans constitute the original Israel,Safactionmaritans and of the Eli, from Jews priest representthe ninetiesin Shiloh. the CE, We wh recognizeich we find this in Eli cha andpter his 11 sonsof the from Antiquities 1 Sam 1–3, by Josephus so the Samaritan (quoted faction of Eli, priest in Shiloh. We recognize this Eli and his sons frombelow).story 1 Sam evidently The 1–3, description so thebuilds Samaritan upon in Abu’l this BiblicalFath’s work text. is,Additionally, therefore, fictional; it builds it upon is an aapologetic story of the and origin polemical of the story evidently builds upon this Biblical text. Additionally, it builds uponversionSamaritans a story of the offrom thecircumstances the origin nineties of the leading CE, wh toich the we two find religious in chapter communities. 11 of the Antiquities Nevertheless, by Josephus it is repeated (quoted in Samaritans from the nineties CE, which we find in chapter 11 of the Antiquitiesthebelow). The by Josephusdescription of (quoted in Abu’lfrom 1362,Fath’s and work in is,the therefore, New Chronicle/Chronicle fictional; it is an apologetic Adler from and 1 899–polemical1900, below). The description in Abu’l Fath’s work is, therefore, fictional; it isbothversion an apologeticof them of the Samaritan circumstances and polemical manuscripts. leading toFound the two in threligiouse Samaritan communities. museum onNevertheless, the top of Mount it is repeated Gerizim, in version of the circumstances leading to the two religious communities.thisthe Nevertheless, Arabicversion Book of the itof origin is Joshua repeated is presentedfrom 1362, today. and in Addi the tionally,New Chronicle/Chronicle this self-understanding Adler probablyfrom 1899– is 1900,seen in the Arabic from 1362, and in the New Chronicle/Chronicleinboth the of Delos Adlerthem inscriptions Samaritan from 1899–1900, manuscripts. from the second Found century in the BCE,Samaritan where museum they call on themselves the top of “”Mount Gerizim, (see both of them Samaritan manuscripts. Found in the Samaritan museumbelow).this on theversion topThere of of Mountmay the originbe, Gerizim, of course,is presented some traditiontoday. Addi behindtionally, these this descriptions, self-understanding even if it probablymay be difficult is seen this version of the origin is presented today. Additionally, this self-understandingtoin trace.the Delos The inscriptionsmain probably idea isin seenfrom the Samaritanthe second chronicles century BCE, is that where the Samaritansthey call themselves are Israelites, “Israelites” not an off-(see in the Delos inscriptions from the second century BCE, where they callspringbelow). themselves of There . “Israelites”may Itbe, is ofthe course, (see way the some Samaritans see behind the origin, these descriptions, up to this day, even and if thereit may are be scholarsdifficult below). There may be, of course, some tradition behind these descriptions,whoto trace. even follow ifThe it in may main their be ideafootsteps diffi cultin the to (Gaster Samaritan 1925; chronicles Macdonald is 1964).that the Samaritans are Israelites, not an off- trace. The main idea in the Samaritan chronicles is that the Samaritans arespring Israelites, of Judaism. not an It o ffis-spring the way the Samaritans see the origin, up to this day, and there are scholars of Judaism. It is the way the Samaritans see the origin, up to this day,3.whoFl andavius follow there Josephus in are their scholars footstepson the who Origin (Gaster of the1925; Samaritans Macdonald 1964). follow in their footsteps (Gaster 1925; Macdonald 1964). Josephus has two main explanations for the origin of the Samaritans, both found in the large 3. Flavius Josephus on the Origin of the Samaritans work Antiquities (Pummer 2009). The first we read in chapter 9: 3. Flavius Josephus on the Origin of the Samaritans NowJosephus those h whoas two were main settled explanations in Samareia for werethe orig thein “Chouthaioi” of the Samaritans, [Χουθα both found in the large Josephus has two main explanations for the origin of the Samaritans,work bothῖ Antiquitie found in thes (Pummer large work 2009). The first we read in chapter 9: Antiquities (Pummer 2009). The first we read in chapter 9: οιNow], for those they who are calledwere settledby this in name Samareia until weretoday the because “Chouthaioi” they were [Χουθα brought in from the country Now those who were settled in Samareia were the “Chouthaioi” [Xocalledυθαῖ o“Chouthas”;ι], for they are this called is Persia, by where there is a river that has this name. Each of the nations— this name until today because they were brought in from the country calledthere “Chouthas”; οιwere], for five they of thisare them— called is Persia,brought by this its name own until todato Saymareia. because By they adoring were these,brought as inwas from their the ancestral country where there is a river that has this name. Each of the nations—there were[custom],called five “Chouthas”; of they them—brought aroused this the is Persia, itsgreatest where God tothere wrath is aand river rage. that For has he this inflicted name them. Each with of the a plague, nations— by own god to Samareia. By adoring these, as was their ancestral [custom],whichthere they arousedwere they werefive the of afflicted. greatest them— GodbroughtAscertaining its own no curegod tofor Samareia. their cala mities,By adoring they leathese,rne das by was way their of anancestral to wrath and rage. For he inflicted them with a plague, by which they werethat,[custom], aifffl theyicted. they worshiped Ascertaining aroused thethe nogreatest God,God tothis wrath would and be rage. [a source For he of] inflicted safety to them them. with They a plague, therefore by cure for their calamities, they learned by way of an oracle that, if theydispatchedwhich worshiped they messengerswere the greatest afflicted. to God, the Ascertaining king of the no Assyrians cure for theirand begged calamities, him they to send learne themd by way offrom an orathosecle this would be [a source of] safety to them. They therefore dispatchedhethat, messengers had if takenthey toworshiped captive the king when ofthe the hegrea warredtest God, against this wouldthe Israelites. be [a source Upon of]his sasendingfety to ththem.ese and They their therefore being Assyrians and begged him to send them priests from those he had takentaughtdispatched captive the ordinancesmessengers when he warred andto the reverence king of the for Assyrians this God, and they begged worshiped him to him send lavishly them priests and thefrom plague those against the Israelites. Upon his sending these and their being taughtimmediately thehe had ordinances taken ceased. captive and reverence Even when now he warredthe name against “Chouthaioi” the Israelites. continues Upon to his be sending used for th theseese and nations their inbeing the for this God, they worshiped him lavishly and the plague immediatelyHebrewtaught ceased. the language, Even ordinances now whereas the and name reverencein Greek for they this are God, called they “Samareitai” worshiped [ himΣαμαρεῖται lavishly]. andWhenever, the plague by “Chouthaioi” continues to be used for these nations in the ,turns,immediately they whereas see ceased. things in Greek Evengoing they now well the for namethe “Chouthaioi”ns, they call continues themselves to be their used relatives, for these in nations that they in arethe are called “Samareitai” [Σαµαρε ται]. Whenever, by turns, they see thingsdescendantsHebrew going language, well of for Josep the whereas Judeans, [] in andGreek ha v theye fa m areily calledties w “Samareitai”ith them in v [Σαμαρεῖταιirtue of tha].t o Whenever,rigin. When, by they call themselves their relatives, in that they are descendants of Josephowever,turns, [Joseph] they they and see havesee things that going things ties well are forgoing the badly Judeans, for themthey call[the themselves Judeans], they their say relatives, that they in owthate nothingthey are with them in virtue of that origin. When, however, they see that thingstodescendants are them going and badly that of Josep forthey them have [Joseph] [the no claim and toh atheirve f aloyaltymily t iores race.with Instead, them i nthey vir maketue o fthemselv that origin.es out When, to be Judeans], they say that they owe nothing to them and that they have nomigrantshowever, claim to of they their another see loyalty that nation orthings race. [ are going badly for them [the Judeans], they say that they owe nothing Instead, they make themselves out to be migrants of another nation [ἀtoλλ themoεθνε andς]. that But they about have these no claim to their loyalty or race. Instead, they make themselves out to be matters we shall have to speak in a more suitable place (Ant. 9.288–291;λλοεθνεῖςmigrants Begg and of]. Spilsbury Butanother about nation 2005 these). [mattersἀλλοεθνεῖς we shall]. But ha aboutve to thesespeak mattersin a more we suitable shall ha pvelace to (Ant.speak 9.288–291; in a more The dependence on 2 Kings 171 is evident, and Josephus here explainsBeggsuita the bleand originplace Spilsbury (Ant. of the 9.288–291;2005). people in Begg and Spilsbury 2005). Samaria after 721 BCE. They descend from the five peoples imported by the AssyrianTheThe dependencedependence king Salmanasser onon 22 KingsKings 171711 isis evident,evident, aandnd JosephusJosephus herehere explainsexplains thethe originorigin ofof thethe peoplepeople (Ant. 9.277–278). Through singling out one of the names in ,inin KutheanSamariaSamaria / Choutaioi,afterafter 721721 BCE.BCE. he laid TheyThey descenddescend fromfrom thethe fivefive peoplespeoples importedimported byby thethe AssyrianAssyrian kingking the ground for the rabbinic name for the Samaritans. The story, therefore,SaSalmanasserlmanasser also becomes (Ant.(Ant. an99.277–278)..277–278). origin ThroughThrough singlingsingling outout oneone ofof thethe namesnames inin 22 KingsKings 17,17, story for the Samaritans. He does not state, however, that the SamaritansKuthean/Choutaioi,Kuthean/Chouta were a mixedioi, population hehe laidlaid thethe groundground forfor thethe rabbirabbinicnic namename forfor thethe Samaritans.Samaritans. TheThe story,story, therefore,therefore, from imported expatriates and original inhabitants, nor that they were syncretists.alsoalso becomesbecomes anan originorigin maystorystory be forfor thethe Samaritans.Samaritans. HeHe doesdoes notnot state,state, however,however, thatthat thethe SamaritansSamaritans werewere assumed on the basis of this text and of 2 Kings 17:33, but it is not expressed.aa mixed mixed Thepop populaulation ideation of afrom from mixed imported imported expatriates expatriates a andnd orig originalinal inhabitants, inhabitants, nor nor that that they they were were syncretists.syncretists. SyncretismSyncretism maymay bebe assumedassumed onon thethe babasissis ofof thisthis texttext andand ofof 22 KingsKings 17:33,17:33, butbut itit isis notnot expressed.expressed. The The ideaidea of of a a mixed mixed population population is is later later than than Josephus. Josephus. Wh Whatat is is evidently evidently the the idea idea of of 1 2 Kings 17 is a composite text. Vv. 24–42 may be a late, anti-Samaritan polemical text,JosephusJosephus (Knoppers is is2013 thatthat, pp. thethe 61–62; SamaritansSamaritans Kartveit werewere opportunistic.opportunistic. 2014b). 61–62; Kartveit 2014b). 11 2 2 KingsKings 1717 isis aa compositecomposite text.text. Vv.Vv. 24–4224–42 maymay bebe aa lalate,te, anti-Samaritananti-Samaritan polemicalpolemical text,text, (Knoppers(Knoppers 2013,2013, pp.pp. 61–62; Kartveit 2014b). Religions 2019, 10, 661 4 of 14 population is later than Josephus. What is evidently the idea of Josephus is that the Samaritans were opportunistic. A second story on the background of the Samaritans is found in chapter 11 of the Antiquities: Now the elders of the Hierosolymites, bitterly complaining about the fact that the brother of Jaddus the , while married to a foreigner, was sharing the high priestly office, were agitating against him, for they thought that the of this one [Manasses] would become a gangway for those who would wish to transgress the concerning cohabitation with women, and that this would be for them [the Hierosolymites] the beginning of fellowship with foreigners ... . They, therefore, kept urging Manasses to be separated from [his] wife—or not to approach the sacrificial altar (Ant. 11.306–308; Spilsbury and Seeman 2017). When Sanaballet promised not only to preserve the priesthood [for him], but also to procure [for him] the high priestly power and honor and to appoint [him] governor of all the places over which he himself was ruling—on condition that he be willing to live with his daughter—and saying that [he] would build a sanctuary that would be like the one in Hierosolyma on Mount Garizein, which is the highest of the mountains throughout Samaria, and as he promised that he would do these things with the consent of Darius the king, Manasses was elated by [these] promises and remained with Sanaballet, supposing that he would acquire the high priesthood given by Darius; for Sanaballet happened to be old by now (Ant. 11.310–311; Spilsbury and Seeman 2017). Josephus describes the father-in-law of Manasses, Sanballat, as a Kuthean (Ant. 11.302), like the Samaritans. He intended to ask Darius for permission to build the temple when the conflict with Alexander had been fought to the end, but, contrary to expectations, Darius lost the battle at Issus, and Sanballat approached the Macedonian victor instead. Alexander’s consent to build a temple in Samaria changed the situation fundamentally, resulting in a new cult center in the . This encounter between the Samarian governor Sanballat and Alexander the Great took place during Alexander’s siege of Tyre in 332 BCE. Providing one combines the two stories presented by Josephus, a double origin of the Samaritans emerges: one from , one from Jerusalem. Supposedly, the people brought in from Kutha over time intermarried with the alleged migrants from Jerusalem; and it would be logical to draw the conclusion that a mixed population was the result. While Josephus builds his depiction of the origin of the Samaritans on 2 Kings 17, he evidently constructs the narrative of the origin of their temple on Neh 13:28–30a: “And one of the sons of , son of the high priest , was the son-in-law of ; I chased him away from me. Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the of the priests and the . Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign” (NRSV). The major problem with the relationship between Neh 13:28–30a and Ant. 11.310–311 is that the expulsion of the priest from Jerusalem takes place in different centuries; according to the book of it was in the fifth century while, according to Josephus, it was in the fourth century. Different solutions to this conundrum have been suggested by scholars: that there were two expulsions; that Nehemiah is correct; that Josephus is correct; that both are correct, but in different ways (Dexinger 1992, pp. 105–27; Kartveit 2009, pp. 71–108; Pummer 2009, pp. 67–80, 103–52; 2016, pp. 54–66). Josephus has a wide circle of followers over two millennia in his depiction of the origin of the Samaritans (see below).

4. Did the Samaritans Come from the City of Samaria? The Samaritan model of their origin (They are the original Israel) and the model presented by Josephus (They descend from deportees and defectors from Jerusalem) have played a large role in scholarship. A different approach has been taken by G. Ernest Wright, who uses information in another group of sources. First, in his Chronicle provides this story: Alexander besieged Tyre and occupied ; glorified by the Jews, he sacrificed to God and honored the High Priest. He set Andromachus as the procurator of the land, whom the inhabitants of the city of the Samaritans killed; Alexander punished them when he had returned from Egypt, and, Religions 2019, 10, 661 5 of 14 having occupied the city, he settled Macedonians to live there. (Eusebius, Chronicle, 112th Olympiad; Karst 1911) Secondly, Curtius Rufus writes in his biography of Alexander (IV, 8, 9–11): The sorrow was made greater by the news of the death of Andromachus, to whom he (scil. Alexander) had given the charge of ; the Samaritans had burned him alive. To avenge his murder, he hastened to the spot with all possible speed, and on his arrival those who had been guilty of such a great crime were delivered to him. Then he put Menon in place of Andromachus and executed those who had slain his general. (Rolfe 1946) Thirdly, Syncellus tells that “He (scil. Alexander) appointed Andromachos to oversee the affairs of Judaea and the other areas. Because the inhabitants of Samaria killed him, they paid the penalty when Alexander returned from Egypt. He captured the city of Samaria and settled Macedonians there” (Adler and Tuffin 2002), and Hieronymus has a similar report on the resettlement of Samaria (Fotheringham 1905). Syncellus collects material from many sources for his history, so he only can claim authority insofar as his sources are reliable. The time of this shift to a Macedonian population (often referred to as “”) of the city of Samaria is 332–331 BCE, and the city involved is supposedly Samaria (later called Sebaste). Taking the context of events taking place in 296–295 BCE, Eusebius mentions that Alexander’s general Perdiccas, and not Alexander, re-settled the city of Samaria. The killing of Andromachus and the shift to a Macedonian populace may, therefore, have been two different events (Kippenberg 1971, p. 46); but the sources agree that the “Hellenization” of Samaria took place in the late fourth or the beginning of the third centuries, and Curtius Rufus describes Alexander’s reorganizing of the government of the city. This re-foundation with a new population is confirmed indirectly by a find in Wadi Daliyeh (grid references 189.155), 40 km south-east of the city of Samaria. The remains of 200–300 persons were found in a cave in 1962, having been suffocated there in the last third of the fourth century BCE. They had brought with them bullae and documents with slave contracts in , written in the city of Samaria in the previous decades. It seems that this upper-class contingent fled into the desert when the re-settlement with Macedonians took place, where they were trapped in a cave and suffocated by a fire lit at the entrance to the cave. The onomasticon of these documents is mainly Yahwistic, testifying to the Yahwistic profile of the cult in the city of Samaria (Dušek 2007, pp. 486–89). G. Ernest Wright combines the settlement of the city of Samaria by Macedonians with archaeological results from Shechem ( , not to be confused with , which was founded in the late first century CE in Mabartha). Shechem lay desolate from early in the fifth century BCE to the latter part of the fourth, and its re-population calls for an explanation. G. Ernest Wright excavated Shechem, and suggested: It seems to us that the simplest view is provided by taking the Eusebius–Syncellus statement at face value about Alexander’s destruction of Samaria and turning it over to Macedonians. This would mean that the Samaritans were forced to establish a new capital, and the logical place was old Shechem, at a time when Samaritans were so anxious to maintain their claims over against the Jews and Jerusalem (Wright 1962, p. 365). This is a possibility, difficult to prove, but Shechem was re-established in this period, and its history gave it an important status. This theory should be seen together with Josephus’s explanation for the construction of the temple in Antiquities chapter 11 (cf. the quotation above): he has Sanballat instituted as satrap (in fact, he was a governor) of Samaria by Dareios III, and the daughter of this Sanballat married into the family of high priests of Jerusalem. According to Nehemiah, this was a defilement of the priesthood; according to Josephus, this constituted a danger of accepting priests who transgressed the for marriage and had intercourse with foreigners. To keep his daughter married, Sanballat defected from the Persians, approached Alexander, whose authorization he sought, promising to the Macedonian king that a would split the power (δύναµις) of the Jews, thus facilitating Macedonian rule. Religions 2019, 10, 661 6 of 14

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

5. : A New Direction in the Search for the Origin The theories mentioned above work with material known for a long time, and with results from the twentieth century excavations of Shechem. Accompanying the discovery of the manuscripts in Qumran, scholars suddenly had new sources in their hands, which changed the course of investigation. The manuscripts came under professional study in 1947 and new texts turned up until 1955 from several locations, but it was only in an article in 1955 that scholars dealing with Samaritans saw their value in connection with the Samaritans. The 1955 article by Patrick W. Skehan presented what he called “Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran”. This article announced that among the Qumran texts there was a scroll of Exodus with features that were previously only known from the SP: 4QpaleoExodm. One can perceive the author’s joy of discovery in the presentation of the scroll: scroll ... has been judged of sufficient interest to make a preliminary notice desirable in advance of the full edition of the biblical texts from Cave 4 at Khirbet Qumran ... The recension in question is the “Samaritan” recension, with all the essential characteristics of that fuller text, including its repetitious manner of recounting the plague episodes, its borrowings from Deuteronomy and its transpositions; this is true at almost every point where the extant fragments make verification possible. (Skehan 1955, p. 182) The significance of this discovery was enhanced by these observations: “The cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called Samaritan ... Neither is the orthography Samaritan.” Skehan’s “surprise” was therefore that “the Samaritan recension ... is shown by this scroll to have been preserved with a measure of fidelity ... that compares not unfavourably with the fidelity of transmission of MT itself ... ” Taking the assumption that the text in significant respects was the “Samaritan recension”, he concluded that this recension had been preserved well over the ages. Furthermore, as he surmised that the recension was Samaritan, but the script and the orthography were not, he cautiously concluded that a suspended judgement was called for on the question of the scroll’s Samaritan character (Skehan 1955, pp. 182–83). Skehan, in this article, briefly introduced the scroll and then presented a photograph of one column containing Exod 32:10–30 (later known as col. XXXVIII) with Hebrew transcription and comments. Skehan’s overall evaluation of the scroll is twofold: By way of conclusion, the writer wishes to underline the judgment implicit in what has been said above: that this new evidence for the antiquity and for the constancy of transmission of the Samaritan recension of Exodus does not alter the internal evidence for the secondary character of much that Religions 2019, 10, 661 7 of 14 is proper to that recension, and that the general appraisal of the recension itself remains in outline substantially what it has been since the time of Gesenius. (Skehan 1955, p. 183) Skehan referred to Wilhelm Gesenius’ study (Gesenius 1815) but failed to see the significance of the fact that the “essential characteristics” of the “Samaritan recension” had been found at Qumran. Maurice Baillet, in 1988, presented a study of the (SP) in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Arabic versions (Baillet 1988, pp. 531–44). Regarding the Hebrew SP he concluded that: (1) the descends from the pre-exilic Palaeo–Hebrew script; (2) many SP scribal details are attested at Qumran; (3) the Samaritan pronunciation is partly a vestige of the ancient Palestinian pronunciation; (4) the Samaritan recension is the daughter of a pre-masoretic recension; (5) the decisive period for the fixation of the Samaritan text and letters is between the end of the 1st and the 3rd century CE. During this period the addition of the tenth commandment also took place. More than any other scholar, Emanuel Tov has worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). He coined the term “pre-Samaritan” texts among the DSS and has led the discussion on this topic. Recently he has expressed his views on this question carefully: The most characteristic readings of the [SP]-group were created by substantial editorial changes inserted in the earlier text ... These changes involve additions (duplications) of other verses (with changes in names and verbal forms) and a few rearrangements but no omissions, following a strong inclination in [SP] not to alter the divine word. The changes should be considered editorial rather than harmonizing ... characteristic of the [SP]-group only ... Ultimately, the changes reflect theological concerns. (Tov 2012, p. 80) One notes his assessment: the major expansions reveal an editorial activity rather than being harmonizations. Generally, the DSS are not Samaritan (Crawford 2019, pp. 295–96), but there are traits in some of them that are reminiscent of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The whole pre-Samaritan group among the DSS is a text type that can be called harmonistic and with content editing, but inside this group there is one manuscript that most closely resembles the SP: 4QpaleoExodm. It has no expansions with non-Biblical text of the type found in 4QRP, only expansions copied from the Pentateuch, of the type found in SP. This is not to say that 4QpaleoExodm is a Samaritan text; concerning this question, the first judgment by Skehan was unfounded. This manuscript probably did not contain the Samaritan tenth commandment because there is no room for it in column XXI and, therefore, it was no Samaritan manuscript (Sanderson 1986, p. 317). It had, however, room for the expansion that mentions a future like , an expansion in Exod 20:21, extant in the SP. It consists of text from Deut 5:28–29; 18:18–22; 5:30–31. An overall assessment of the scroll in relation to SP allows for the assumption that 4QpaleoExodm was the ancestor of the SP, in my opinion, and this assumption will be substantiated in other publications. We find an important background for the forming of the Samaritan movement in the DSS—a possibility hitherto not considered enough in modern scholarship—if this is a correct assumption. When the commandment to build an altar at Mount Gerizim was added, we can speak of a Samaritan text. The system of quoting existing Pentateuchal text for creating an expansion also was used in the case of this commandment, and it is probable that it was created at a time when content editing is visible in the DSS, which means sometime around the turn of the eras. Additional to the tenth commandment, the SP shows some other significant readings, for example the construction of the altar on Mount Gerizim instead of on , Deut 27:4, the special form of the altar law in Exod 20:24, and the past tense of the phrase “the place that the Lord your God has chosen,” found 21 times in Deuteronomy. Such readings may be old, and it makes sense to locate them in a time and age when the Samaritan features of the SP emerged. Adrian Schenker has suggested that the reading “the place that the Lord your God has chosen” is original (Schenker 2008), and Stefan Schorch and Jan Dušek have accepted this view (Schorch 2011, p. 32; Dušek 2012, p. 90), but Sidnie White Crawford and Raik Heckl have contested this dating (Crawford 2017, pp. 102–3; Heckl 2016b), and a Samaritan provenance seems most probable for the reading “has chosen”. Due to the character of the content editing that shaped the Samaritan tenth commandment and the similar nature of the earlier content editing of Religions 2019, 10, 661 8 of 14 the pre-Samaritan texts, it is tempting to assume also a similarity in milieu or even scribal schools. The oldest pre-Samaritan text is from 250 BCE, and the use of the old script is well documented in the DSS. It is used particularly in manuscripts dealing with Moses. The pre-Samaritan texts prove that the version of the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans had its roots in a Jewish collection of Biblical texts. Concerning this, the Samaritans constitute a branch of Judaism, and one of their roots was in Judaism BCE. An Editio Maior of The Samaritan Pentateuch is now published by Stefan Schorch, and the volume with Leviticus has appeared (Schorch 2018).

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

2 The study of Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme of the Gerzim inscriptions is extensive (De Hemmer Gudme 2013), but she pays only scant attention to the phrase “in this place”, which is the novelty in the Gerizim inscriptions, and does not occur in her comparative material. Religions 2018,, 9,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 89 of 1415

The pre-Samaritan texts prove that the version of the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans had its roots in a Jewish collection of Biblical texts. Concerning this, the Samaritans constituteconstitute aa branchbranch ofof Judaism, and one of their roots was in Judaism BCE. AnAn EditioEditio MaiorMaior ofof TheThe Samaritan Pentateuch is now published by Stefan Schorch, and the volume withwith LeviticusLeviticus hashas appeappeared (Schorch 2018).

6. The Excavations on Mount Gerizim and the Discovery of Samaritan Inscriptions Until recently, scholars dated the construction of the cult site on Mount Gerizim on the basis of Josephus’ account: to the beginning of the Hellenisticic age.age. WeWe nownow havehave nenew material relevant for this question in the form of results from the excavations on the summit of Mount Gerizim. These went on for more than 20 years from 1982, done by Yitzhak Magen and his team. The results have added important evidence for the origins of the Samaritans. Based on coins, pottery, and architecture, the excavator in 2004 assessed the finds as follows: The sacred precinct, centered around the temple, was built on the highest point on the mountain, overlooking the central crossroads of Samaria, Mt. Ebal, Shechem (Tell Balatah) and, to the east, the fertile Sukkar and Dajjan valleys. The excavations revealed two main construction phases: the precinct and the temple were first built in the fifth century BCE, during the Persian period, and survived until the end of Ptolemaic rule in the Land ofof Israel;Israel; thethe SeleucidSeleucid conquestconquest waswas followedfollowed byby the rebuilding of the sacred precinct and the temple,, inin thethe earlyearly secondsecond centurycentury BCE.BCE. (Magen(Magen etet al.al. 2004, p. 3). Unfortunately, Magen did not find any traces of the temple or a similar structure dating to any of the two phases he describes but adduces the hundreds of thousands of burnt animal bones which were found inside thick layers of ash as circumstantial evidence for an altar or even a temple. Most of the bones are from goats and sheep, but cattle and pigeons also are represented. The excavators evaluate this as evidence for the worship of the God of Israel, as the bones come from animals that were deemed fit for sacrifice in Leviticus. The bones are dated by the Carbon 14-method to the Persian and Hellenistic times. Similarly, pottery and coins were found which derived from the same times. The earliest coin dates from 480 BCE, and 68 coins belong to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (preceding the arrival of Alexander the Great in the Land of Israel). The latest coins are dated to the lastlast partpart ofof thethe secondsecond centurycentury BCE,BCE, andand thisthis isis takentaken asas anan indicationindication ofof JohnJohn Hyrcanus’Hyrcanus’ destructiondestruction of the site, as described by Josephus (War 1.62–63; Ant. 13.245–256). During the excavations, 395 inscriptions and fragments of inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic were found. Additionally, a number of inscriptions in Greek were secured. No images were uncovered. The Greek inscriptions have not been made available yet, but the Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptionsinscriptions werewere publishedpublished inin (Magen(Magen etet al.al. 2004)2004)22.. TheThe publisherspublishers datedate thethe inscriptionsinscriptions toto thethe PersianPersian and Hellenistic periods, and Jan Dušek narrows the time frame down to the first part of the second century BCE (Dušek 2012). Such a precise dating might be open to discussion, but scholars agree that the inscriptions come from the time of the city on MountMount Gerizim.Gerizim. TheyThey werewere notnot foundfound inin situ,situ, andand we lack precise information on their provenance inside the city. Most of them are fragmentary, but Religions 2019, 10, 661 9 of 14 numbers 17, 20, and 147 (text damaged at two places) are intact. These three complete inscriptions are all written in Aramaic; apart from that, they are all different (Magen et al. 2004). InscriptionInscription number number 17 17 is is written written in in a a monumental monumental Aramaic Aramaic script script and and is is found found on on a a large large stone, stone, Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 103 × 3737 × 3131 cm. cm. × × ,uses monumental Aramaic script and was inscribed on a large stone זיזי 20 הקרבת מרימnumber על נפשה ועל 11Inscription .into two parts, together measuring 110 × 34 × 22 cm בניה broken22 ReligionsReligions11 This This 20182018 ,is, is 99 ,, [the [thexx FORFOR stone] stone] PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEWthat Miriam dedicated for her and for 99 ofof 1414 Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 of 14 9 זי הקרב ח[צל ]REVIEW א .sonsבר/PEER זבדיchildren/sons., children 9, x FOR ויהונתנReligions221 her2018 her ReligionsReligions 2018 2018ReligionsReligions, 9,, ,9 x,, xxFOR FORFOR2018 2018 PEER ,PEERPEER ,9, 9, ,x, x x REVIEWFOR FOR FORREVIEWREVIEW PEER PEERPEER REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW 9 9of of 14 14 99 ofof 1414 ,AramaicAramaic scriptscript andand waswas inscribedinscribed onon aa largelarge stone,stone ברה monumentalmonumental יהוספusesuses 2020 וישוע בעיה numbernumber מרימ וברה 2InscriptionInscription InscriptionInscriptionInscription numbernumber number 2020 20 usesuses uses monumentalmonumental monumental AramaicAramaic Aramaic scriptscript script andand and waswas was inscribedinscribed inscribed onon on aa a largelarge large stone,stone, stone, InscriptionInscriptionbrokenbrokenInscription1 Thisnumber intointonumber istwotwo [the 20number parts,20parts, uses stone]uses together together monumental 20monumental that uses ’A[measuringmeasuring monumentalṣl]a Aramaic Aramaicḥ, son 110110 of Aramaic ×script× script34Zabdi,34 ×× 22and22 and cm. scriptcm.and was was Yehonatan, andinscribed inscribed was inscribed on on a alarge large on stone, astone, large stone, InscriptionbrokenbrokenInscriptionInscription into into number two two parts, parts, number20number uses together together monumental2020 usesuses measuring measuring monumentalmonumental Aramaic 110 110 × × AramaicAramaic34 script3434 × × 22 2222 and cm. cm. cm.scriptscript was andandinscribed waswas inscribedinscribed on a large onon stone, aa largelarge stone,stone, broken2 hisinto son, two Yehosefparts, together and Yeshua measuring‛, Ba 110‛yah, ×× 34 Miriam, ×× 22 cm. and her son dedicated. .cm. ×cm. 34 × 22 cm 22 11022× × 34 34× × 110 זיזיmeasuring 110 הקרב הקרב ח ח measuring צל togetherצל measuring א א ברבר ,together parts זבדי זבדי intoparts, two together ויהונתנ ויהונתנ,brokenbroken into into broken two two parts זי הקרב ח[[[צל]]]א בר זבדי ויהונתנ 11 longer, incised on a large, intact stone of 202 × 36.5 × 55 cm, and it זיis 147הקרב ח[צל]א numberבר זבדי ויהונתנ 11Inscription 22 GudmeGudme ofof ththe Gerzim inscriptions is extensive (de Hemmer Gudme זיברהברהזי HemmerHemmer הקרב de יהוספdeהקרביהוספ חזיח [ זיצל וישועוישועצל ] אKatrineKatrineא הקרב הקרב ברבעיהבעיה ברח [ חAnneAnne[ צלזבדי]צלזבדיofמרימofמרימא ] א בר וברהברוברה study ויהונתנstudy ויהונתנ 2זבדי12 זבדיThe The ויהונתנ ויהונתנ1 1 זיברה ברה הקרב יהוספ יהוספ ח [[זי צל]]וישועוישועא הקרב בר בעיה ח בעיה [ צלזבדי] מרימאמרימ בר וברהויהונתנ וברה 1זבדי22 ויהונתנ 1 ṣṣ th ḥḥe stone. to the Itsphrase script “in isthis cursive: place”, which is thethe noveltynovelty inin thethe GerizimGerizimברהattentionof יהוספonly length scantוישוע full בעיהshe the pays מרימ but over וברה stretches2013),22 ,l]al]al]aḥ ,,, sonsonson ofofof Zabdi,Zabdi,Zabdi, andandand Yehonatan,Yehonatan,YehonatanברהA[’A[ ṣ’ יהוספ thatthat ברה ברהוישוע יהוספ[stone]stone יהוספבעיה the[the] וישוע מרימ וישועis is בעיהוברה וברה בעיה ThisThis 121מרימ מרימ וברהוברה וברה 2 2 inscriptions,inscriptions,11. This This is is[the [theandand stone] doesdoes stone] not notthat that occuroccur ’A[ ’A[sṣ ininl]a. l]ah herherḥ, . son ,comparativecomparative son of of Zabdi, Zabdi, material.material. and and Yehonatan, Yehonatan, 1 1This This is is [the1 12[the2 This Thishishis stone] stone] son, son,is is [the [the YehosefthatYehosef that stone] stone] ’A[ ’A[ṣ and l]aandṣthat l]athatl]aḥ ḥ, Yeshua Yeshuason,’A[, ’A[sonsonṣ ṣofl]a l]al]aofof Zabdi,‛ḥ‛ , ḥ,Zabdi, Zabdi,, Ba Ba,,son sonson‛‛yah,yah, of andofof andand Zabdi, Miriam,Zabdi,Miriam,Zabdi, Yehonatan, Yehonatan,Yehonatan, and andand andand Yehonatan, Yehonatan,Yehonatan, her her sonson dedicated.dedicated. די הקרב דליה בר .dedicatedשמעון .son son dedicated עלוהי her her ועל and and בנוהי ,Miriamאבנא,Miriam, Miriam ד[ה,yah,‛yah ‛ל]Ba Ba’yah,Ba, ‛,‛דכרנ טב Yeshua Yeshua’,Yeshua קדמ and and אלהא Yehosef Yehosef באתרא ,son, son דנה his his 221 2 2his his son, son,2 YehosefInscriptionInscription hisYehosef son, and Yehosef and numbernumber Yeshua Yeshua and ‛147147, ‛BaYeshua, Ba ‛isisyah,‛ yah,longer,longer,‛ Miriam,, BaMiriam,‛ yah,incisedincised andMiriam, and ononher her aa son laandlasonrge,rge, dedicated. herdedicated. intactintact son dedicated.stonestone ofof 202202 ×× 36.536.5 ×× 5555 cm,cm, andand itit 2 his son,InscriptionInscription21 YehosefhisThis son, is andYehosef[the numbernumber Yeshua stone] and 147147‛ , that Yeshua Ba isis ‛ longer,yah,longer, Delayah,‛‛ ,,Miriam, BaBa incised‛incised‛yah, son andMiriam, on onof her aShima la la sonandrge,rge,‛ on,dedicated. her intactintact dedicated son stonestone dedicated. ofof for 202202 himself ×× 36.536.5 × × and 5555 cm, cm,his and andchildren/sons, itit InscriptionInscriptionInscriptionstretchesstretchesInscriptionInscription number numbernumber overover the the 147 number 147number 147 fullfull is isis longer, length lengthlonger,longer, 147147 is ofis ofincised incised incisedlonger, longer,ththee stone.stone. on on incisedon incised a Its aaItsla lala rge, scriptscriptrge, on on intact aintact aa isis la large,la cursive:cursive:rge,rge, stone stone intact intactintact of of 202 stone stonestone202 × × 36.5 of ofof36.5 202 202202 × × 55 ×55× 36.5cm,36.5 cm, ×and × and 5555 it cm, cm, it andand it it stretches[this]stretchesInscription ston[e over over for]the the number fullgoodfull length length remembrance 147 of ofis th thlonger,ee stone. stone. incisedbefore Its Its script script Godon is ais cursive: laincursive:rge, this intact place. stone of 202 ×× 36.5 ×× 55 cm, and it stretchesstretchesstretches over the over overfull lengththe the full full of length length the stone. of of th the eIts stone. stone. script Its Itsis script cursive: script is is cursive: cursive: דידי הקרבהקרב דליהדליה ברבר שמעוןשמעון עלוהיעלוהי :cursive ועלisועל בנוהיבנוהי Itsis cursive: cursive: script אבנאisאבנא ד[ד[ההscriptstone. scriptל ל ]]thIts Itse דכרנדכרנ of טבטב.e estone. stoneקדמthקדמ full of of th lengthאלהאאלהא l engthlength the באתראבאתרא full overfullדנה דנה stretchesstretches overstretches over the11 the is almost completely דידי הקרבהקרב onomasticon דליהדליה their ברבר that שמעוןשמעון find עלוהיעלוהי we ועלועל בנוהי,largeבנוהי at אבנאאבנא ד[ד[הה לל]]דכרנדכרנ inscriptions טבטב the קדמקדמ at אלהאאלהא we look באתראבאתרא דנה דנה 11When ,hishis children/sons,children/sons דיandandדי הקרבהקרב himselfדיhimself דליהדליה forfor ברברהקרב די דליהשמעון שמעון ברהקרבdedicated dedicated עלוהיעלוהי ,onדליה,on‛ ‛שמעוןועל ועלבר ShimShimעלוהי בנוהי בנוהי שמעון ofof ועל אבנאאבנאsonson עלוהי ד[בנוהיד[ה ועלה לל]]אבנאבנוהי ,Delayahדכרנ,Delayah דכרנ ד[ הטב אבנא טבל that [that ד]הקדמ קדמדכרנ [stoneטב[stone אלהא ל[דכרנאלהא טבקדמisis [the[the באתרא קדמבאתרא אלהא דנה ThisדנהThis אלהא 111באתרא באתרא דנה דנה1 1 ,hishis children/sons,children/sons דיand and הקרב דיhimselfhimself דליה forברfor הקרב שמעוןדליה בר dedicateddedicated עלוהי ,on,‛onשמעוןועל‛ Shimבנוהיעלוהיofof Shim ועל אבנא sonson ד[בנוהיה ל]אבנא דכרנ,Delayah, Delayahד[ הטב ל]thatthat קדמ דכרנ טב[stoneאלהא[stone קדמis [the[theבאתראis אלהא דנה This This 111באתרא דנה 1 1 This 1is This [tYahwistic.[this][this]he is stone]1 [the ston[eThisston[e stone] thatis Additionally, for] for][the D goodthatelayah,good stone] Delayah, remembranceremembrance thatson “YHWH” ofDelayah, son Shim of before‛before on,Shim son is dedicated ‛offound on,GodGod Shim dedicated inin ‛in this on,thisfor inscription dedicatedplace.himselfplace. for himself and for number his himselfand children/sons, his 383 andchildren/sons, (ahis fragment).children/sons, The places 1 This[this][this] is 1ston[e [theston[e This stone] isfor]for] [the[the good goodthat stone]stone] Delayah,remembrance remembrance thatthat Delayah,Delayah, son of before before Shim son ‛God on,God of Shim’on,Shim dedicated in in this this‛‛on, place. place. dedicated for himself for andhimself his children/sons,and his children/sons, children /sons, [this][this] ston[e ston[e[this]named for] for] ston[e good (orgood for] restored)rem remembrance goodembrance remembrance are beforeShamrayin before God God before in in(numbers this thisGod place. place. in this 14 place. and 15), Shechem (numbers 12, 36, and 39), the [this] ston[e[this][this] for]WhenWhen ston[eston[e good wewe for]for] remembrance looklook goodgood atat remembranceremembrancethethe inscriptionsinscriptions before God beforebeforebefore at atin large, large,this GodGodGod place. we we ininin this thisthisfindfind place.place.place. thatthat theirtheir onomasticononomasticon isis almostalmost completelycompletely villageWhenWhen of weweḤaggai looklook atat(number thethe inscriptionsinscriptions 3), atat large,large, (number wewe findfind 8), thatthat Yo theirtheirkmeam onomasticononomasticon (number isis almostalmost7), The completelycompletely Good Mountain WWhenhenYahwistic.Yahwistic. we weWhen Whenlook look at we atwe Additionally,Additionally, the thelook look inscriptions inscriptions at at the the inscriptions “YHWH”“YHWH” inscriptions at at large, large, isis weat atwefoundfound large, large,find findfind that in in wethatthat we inscriptioninscription find their findfind theirtheir that thatonomasticon onomasticononomasticon their their numbernumber onomasticon onomasticon is 383383isis almost almostalmost (a(a fragment).fragment). is completely is completelycompletelyalmost almost completely completelyTheThe placesplaces Yahwistic.(numberYahwistic.When 11), Additionally, Additionally,we and look Mabartha at the “YHWH”“YHWH” inscriptions (number isis foundatfound 76). large, Most inin we inscriptioninscription of find these that places numbertheirnumber onomasticonare 383 383found (a(a fragment). fragment).on is or almost around The Thecompletely Mount placesplaces Gerizim. Yahwistic.Yahwistic.Yahwistic.namednamed Additionally, Additionally, (or(or Additionally, restored)restored) “YHWH” “YHWH” areare “YHWH”ShamrayinShamrayin is is found found is in (numbers(numbers in foundinscription inscription in 1414inscription andandnumber number 15),15), ShechemShechem383number 383 (a (a fragment). fragment). 383(numbers(numbers (a fragment). The 12,The12, places36, 36,places andandThe 39),39),places thethe Yahwistic.namednamedYahwistic.Yahwistic. Additionally, (or(or Additionally,restored)restored)Additionally, “YHWH” areare “YHWH”Shamrayin Shamrayin“YHWH” is found is (numbers foundis(numbersin found inscription in inscription in 1414 inscription andand number 15),15), number ShechemShechem number383 383(a fragment).(a(numbers (numbers383 fragment). (a fragment). 12,12,The The 36,36, places placesandand The 39),39), namedplaces thethe ,מקדש) number,(number number (numbers 12, 12, 36, 7),7),36, 199), and The Theand12, and 39), 36,GoodGood39), aandthe the“sanctuary,” MountainMountain 39), the) בית kmeam Shechem(numbers (numbersדבחאnamednamed (or named(orFurther,villagevillage restored) restored) (or ofof Mount restored)ḤḤare aggaiaggaiare Shamrayin ShamrayinGerizim (number(number are Shamrayin had(numbers (numbers3),3), aAwartaAwarta “house (numbers 14 14 (numberand(number ofand sacrifice” 15), 1415), andShechem8), 8),Shechem YoYo15), ( kmeam named (orvillagevillage(ornamed restored) restored) ofof(or Ḥ Ḥrestored)aggai aggaiare are Shamrayin (number(number are Shamrayin 3),3),(numbers AwartaAwarta (numbers 14 (number(number and 15), 15),14 8), 8), ShechemandShechem YoYo 15),kmeamkmeam Shechem (numbers(numbers (number(number (numbers 12,12, 7), 36,7),36, The andTheand 12, 39),Good Good39),36, the andthe MountainMountain village 39), the of villagevillage of villageof numberḤ(number(number Ḥaggai of 150), 11), 11),Ḥ(numberḤaggai andand and MabarthaMabartha(number the3), animalAwarta (number(number3), Awartabones(number 76).76). found (number Most Most8), Yo atofof kmeam these thethese8), siteYo placesplaces kmeam (numberprovide areare found(numberfound ample7), The onon orevidenceor7),Good aroundaround The Mountain Good MountMountof sacrifices. Mountain Gerizim. Gerizim. village of(number(numbervillage aggaiḤaggai (numberof11), 11), (numberḤ andaggai and Mabartha Mabartha 3), (number3), Awarta Awarta (number (number 3), (number (numberAwarta 76). 76). 8), Most Most (number Yokmeam8), ofYo of these kmeamthese 8), (number places placesYo (numberkmeam are are 7), found found The(number7), The Goodon on or or Good7), around around Mountain The Mountain MountGood Mount (number MountainGerizim. Gerizim. 11), in other ,, מקדשמקדש)) The are,, numbernumber on foundGood or to around the 199), 199),onMountain orperiod and andMountaround aa “sanctuary,”and“sanctuary,”(number Gerizim. Mount can beGerizim. found בית בית ,(places foundcommon7 דבחאדבחאnumberaggai(numberFurther, Further,11),(number andMany 11), MountMabarthaMount 3), of and Awartathe Gerizim GerizimMabartha elements(number (number hadhad (number 76). aina “house“house theseMost8), Yo 76). of kmeam inscriptionsofof Mostthese sacrifice”sacrifice” ofplaces (number these (( are are) , ,מקדשמקדש) ) ,number are onarenumber on or foundfound or around around 199), 199), onon ororand and MountMount aroundaround a a “sanctuary,” “sanctuary,” Gerizim.Gerizim. MountMount Gerizim.Gerizim. Further , ,בית בית are foundplacesplaces foundדבחא דבחא )numberFurther,Further, and(number(number11), and Mabartha Mount MountMabartha 11),11), andand (numberGerizim Gerizim MabarthaMabartha (number had 76).had (number(number 76).a a Most “house “house Most of 76).76). of theseof of these sacrifice” MostMostsacrifice” places places ofof thesethese ( are) phrase is ,מקדשמקדשim. , , (Thisמקדש”.a “sanctuary,” Mountand, “in ofof a sacrifices.sacrifices. “sanctuary,”this Geriz (place באתרא,(and evidenceevidence 199 דנהon, number ample 199),ample or around בית phraseבית providenumberprovidethe דבחא ,דבחאsite ( foundבית thethe areuses site דבחא Further, and Further,sacred MabarthanumberMountnumber sites GerizimMount 150),150), (number in andand Gerizim thehad thethe . 7a6). animalanimal“house had Most a But bones bones of“house of sacrifice” number these foundfound of placessacrifice” at(at147,(11 ,,מקדש)) number ,, מקדש) ) ”,ample, ample 199), 199),numbernumber and andevidence evidence 199),199), a a “sanctuary,” “sanctuary,” andand of of sacrifices. aasacrifices. “sanctuary,”“sanctuary, בית numberדבחאprovide provide, ) בית the the sitesiteדבחא ) )Further,number numberMountFurther, Gerizim 150), 150),Mount and and Gerizimhad the the a aanimal animal“house “house had bones bonesa of of “house sacrifice” sacrifice” found found of sacrifice”at at found inin otherotherמקדשaresiteare , commonnucommonprovide amplember evidence 199), ample toto thethe and evidenceperiodperiod of a sacrifices.“sanctuary,” andand of cancansacrifices. bebe ( found בית providethe דבחאFurther,number Mountnumber 150), ManyManyand Gerizim 150), the ofof and animal thethe had theelementselements a bonesanimal“house infoundin bonesof thesethese sacrifice” at found inscriptionsinscriptions the site (at number found150),numberMany Manyand or 150), the reconstructed of of the animal theand elements elements the bones animal in in infound 14 thesebonesthese or at15 inscriptions inscriptions found the inscriptions. site at provide the are are site commonItcommon ampleprovide reminds evidence to toample the usthe ofperiod period evidence ofthe sacrifices.sacrifices. 21 and and cases of can can sacrifices. inbe be Deuteronomyfound found in in other other with the and period of,, cansacrifices.“in“in and thisbethis found can place.”place.” be in found ThisotherThis phrasephrasein other isis באתראבאתרא the דנהדנהnumberMany 150),sacredsacred of aMany ndthe sitessites the elements of animalin inthe thethe elements inLevant. Levant.bones these found in inscriptionsButBut these numbernumber at inscriptionsthe site are 147147 providecommon usesuses are thethe common a tomplephrasephrase the evidenceperiod to ,”haveand period, , “incan“in the this thisbeand phrase found place.” place.” can be in“before This foundThisother phrasephrase in God/the other isis Lord באתרא theבאתרא to דנהalsoדנה Manysacred‘centralizationsacred of Manythe sitessites elements ofinin the thethe command’ elements Levant.inLevant. these But inscriptionsButin (see these numbernumber above), inscriptions 147are147 manycommon usesuses are thethe of common phrasetophrasewhic theh period and this 2121 ,can cases“incasesplace.” bethis in infound DeuteronomyThisplace.”Deuteronomy inphrase otherThis is phrase withwith the theis באתראthe theבאתרא of,of “inדנה דנה period usus באתרא phrase theדנה sacredMany sitessacredfoundfound of inthe the sitesoror elements reconstructed reconstructedLevant. in the in Levant.But these number inin inscriptions 14But14 oror number 147 1515 inscriptions.inscriptions. uses are 147 the common uses phrase ItIt the remindsreminds to ,this21 21 cases ,cases, place.” “in“in thisinthis in withDeuteronomy DeuteronomyThis place.”place.” phrasethese ThisThis phrases, is phrasewith phrase with the the isistherefore באתרא in the theinscriptions“ דנה,rizim us us of ofבאתרא phrase phraseGe דנה sacred sitesfoundjustfoundsacred inlike or theor sitessites reconstructed reconstructedmany Levant. inin thethe of But Levant.Levant.the numberin inGerizim 14 14 But But or or 15 147number15 inscriptions. inscriptions.inscriptions. uses 147 147the usesphrase uses It It Thereminds remindsthe the the alsoalso us 21, ofhave have “incases the this the the21 in place.”cases Deuteronomyphrasephrase in This“beforeDeuteronomy“before phrase with God/theGod/the theis with Lord”,Lord”, the באתראofh h דנה sacredfound sites orfound‘centralization ‘centralizationreconstructed in the or reconstructedLevant. incommand’command’ But14 or number in15 14inscriptions. (see(see or 1 15 47above),above), inscriptions.uses It themanymany reminds phrase of ofIt remindswhicwhic us found or‘centralizationseem‘centralization foundfoundreconstructed to oror echo reconstructed reconstructed Deuteronomy.command’incommand’ 14 or 15 ininin inscriptions. (see 1414(see oror above), Theabove), 1515 inscriptions.inscriptions. editors It manymany reminds are ofof It It whicprobablywhic remindsus ofhh alsothealso us 21 right havehave of cases the inthethe in21 stating phraseDeuteronomy phrase cases in inthat “before“before Deuteronomy Deuteronomy “this with God/theGod/the phrase the with Lord”, Lord”,has the a different found‘centralization or ‘centralizationreconstructedjustjust likelike command’ manymany incommand’ ofof 14 (seethethe or GerizimGerizimabove),15 inscriptions.(see above), manyinscriptions.inscriptions. of manyIt whic reminds TheThehof also whic GeGe us haverizimrizimh of also the the inscriptionsinscriptions have21 phrase cases the “beforephrasein with withDeuteronomy these“beforetheseGod/the phrases,phrases, God/the Lord”,with therefore,therefore, Lord”, ‘centralizationjusttask:‘centralizationjust‘centralization‘centralization likelike to command’ emphasizemanymany of command’command’ofcommand’ the(seethe the Gerizim Gerizimabove), sanctity (see(see inscriptions.many inscriptions. above),above), of Mt.of many manywhic Gerizim TheTheh of ofalso Gewhic whichwhicGe asrizimhaverizim hoppo also the inscriptionsinscriptionssed have phrase to thethat “before phrasewithwith of Jerusalem.” these these God/the “before phrases,phrases, God/the GodLord”, (Magen / therefore,thetherefore, Lord”, et al. 2004, p. thejustjust ‘centralization likelikejust justseemmanymanyseem likelike to toofof manyechoecho manythecommand’the GerizimDeuteronomy.GerizimDeuteronomy. ofof thethe (seeGerizim Geriziminscriptions.inscriptions. above), TheThe inscriptions.inscriptions. editorseditors many TheThe GeGe areareof rizim The probablywhicTheprobably Ge Geinscriptionsh rizimalsorizim rightright ha inscriptionsinscriptions ve inin withstatingstatingthe phrase these thatthat withwith phrases, “this“this“before thesethese phrasephrase phrases, phrases,therefore,God/the hashas therefore,aa therefore, different different seem19).seemjustjust likeWeliketo to echo echo manymanymay Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy. compare ofof thethe GerizimGerizim the The The phrases inscriptions.inscriptions. editors editors are “thisare probably probablyThe mountain” GerizimGerizim right right inscriptions ininversus stating stating Jerusalem, that that with “this “this these phrase phrase and phrases, has “thehas a a differenttherefore, placedifferent where one Lord”,seem tojust seemechotask:task: like Deuteronomy.to toto many echo emphasizeemphasize Deuteronomy. of the thethe TheGerizim sanctitysanctity editors The inscriptions. of of areeditors Mt.Mt. probably GerizimGerizim are probablyThe right asas Ge oppooppo inrizim rightstatingsedsed inscriptions tointo thatthatstatingthat “this ofof Jerusalem.”Jerusalem.”that phrasewith “this these hasphrase (Magen(Magen aphrases, different has etet a al.al. different 2004,2004, p.p. seem to task:echotask:seem to Deuteronomy.to to emphasize emphasize echo Deuteronomy. the the The sanctity sanctity editors TheThe of of are Mt. editorsMt. probably Gerizim Gerizim are probably right as as oppo oppo in stating sed rightsed to to in that thatthat stating of “thisof Jerusalem.” Jerusalem.” that phrase “this has phrase (Magen (Magen a different has et et al. al.a different di2004, 2004,fferent p. p. therefore,task: to emphasizetask:should 19).19).seem toWeWe toemphasize worship” maymay echo the sanctity comparecompare Deu theinteronomy. Johnsanctity of thethe Mt. 4:20, phrasesphrases Gerizim of The Mt.οἱ editorsπατέρες “thisGerizim“this as oppo mountain”mountain” are assedἡμῶν probably oppo to thatἐν sed versusversus τῷ of rightto Jerusalem.” ὄρειthat Jerusalem,Jerusalem, in of τούτῳ stating Jerusalem.” (Magen προσεκύνησαν thaandandt ““the“the (Magenthiset al. placeplace phrase2004, et al. where·wherep. καὶ 2004, ὑμεῖς oneone p. λέγετε task: to emphasize19).19).task:task: WeWe toto emphasize emphasizemay emphasizemay the compare sanctitycompare thethe the ofsanctity sanctitythe sanctitythe Mt. phrasesphrases Gerizim ofof of Mt.Mt. Mt. “this“this asGerizimGerizim Gerizim oppo mountain”mountain”sed asas as oppooppoto opposed that versusversussed of to Jerusalem.” to that Jerusalem,Jerusalem, that of of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem.” (Magen andand “the“the et (Magen al. ( Magenplaceplace 2004, et where where p.al. et al.2004, 2004 oneone p. , has19). aWe different19). ὅτιshouldmayshould ἐνWe compare Ἱεροσολύμοις worship”worship”maytask: compare tothe inin emphasizephrases JohnJohn theἐστὶν 4:20,4:20, phrases“this ὁ οἱοἱ theτόπος πατέρες πατέρεςmountain” “this sanctity ὅπου mountain” ἡμῶνἡμῶν versusπροσκυνεῖν of ἐνἐν Mt. τῷτῷ Jerusalem,versus ὄρειὄρει Gerizim τούτῳτούτῳδεῖ Jerusalem, . andas προσεκύνησανπροσεκύνησαν oppo“the and sedplace “the to where ··place that καὶκαὶ ὑμεῖς ὑμεῖς one ofwhere λέγετελέγετε one 19). We shouldshouldp.19).may 19). Wecompare worship” worship” We may may compare the comparein in Johnphrases John the 4:20, 4:20, the “thisphrases οἱ phrasesοἱ πατέρες πατέρες mountain” “this “this ἡμῶν ἡμῶνmountain” mountain” versus ἐν ἐν τῷ τῷ Jerusalem, ὄρει versusὄρει versus τούτῳ τούτῳ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, and προσεκύνησαν προσεκύνησαν “the and andplace “the “the where· ·καὶ καὶplace place ὑμεῖς ὑμεῖς one where λέγετε λέγετε oneone Jerusalem.should worship”shouldὅτιὅτι” (Magen ἐνἐνTaken Ἱεροσολύμοιςworship”Ἱεροσολύμοις in John etfrom al. 4:20,in 2004the John ἐστὶνοἱἐστὶν ,same πατέρες p.4:20, 19).ὁὁ τόποςperiodοἱτόπος πατέρεςWe ἡμῶν ὅπουὅπου maycome ἐν ἡμῶν προσκυνεῖνπροσκυνεῖνcompareτῷ two ὄρει ἐν inscriptions τῷτούτῳ the ὄρει δεῖδεῖ phrases προσεκύνησαν. . τούτῳ on προσεκύνησαν“this the islandmountain”· καὶ ὑμεῖςof · Delosκαὶ versus λέγετε ὑμεῖς in theλέγετε Aegean Sea, should worship”ὅτιὅτιshould ἐν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις Ἱεροσολύμοις worship” in John 4:20, in John ἐστὶν ἐστὶνοἱ πατέρες 4:20, ὁ ὁ τόπος τόπος οἱ πατέρεςἡμῶν ὅπου ὅπου ἐν προσκυνεῖν προσκυνεῖνἡμῶντῷ ὄρει ἐν τούτῳ τῷ δεῖὄρειδεῖ .προσεκύνησαν . τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς·· καὶ λέγετε ὑμεῖς λέγετε Jerusalem,ὅτι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοιςὅτιfound a ndἐνTakenTaken Ἱεροσολύμοις“the in 1979 place fromfrom ἐστὶν (IJudOr wherethethe ὁ ἐστὶντόπος samesame Ione Ach ὁ periodperiodὅπου τόποςshould 66 andπροσκυνεῖν come comeὅπου worship” 67) twotwoπροσκυνεῖν (Ameling inscriptionsinscriptions δεῖin .John et δεῖ 4al:20,. . on on2004). οἱ thethe πατέρες islandislandThey were ofofἡμῶν DelosDelos commissioned ἐν inin τῷ thethe ὄρει AegeanAegean by Sea,Sea, “Israelites” ὅτι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοιςὅτι ἐνTakenTaken Ἱεροσολύμοις fromfrom ἐστὶν thethe ὁ sameτόπος sameἐστὶν period period ὅπουὁ τόπος προσκυνεῖν comecome ὅπου twotwo προσκυνεῖν inscriptionsinscriptions δεῖ. δεῖ onon.. thethe islandisland ofof DelosDelos inin thethe AegeanAegean Sea,Sea, τούτῳTaken προσεκύνησανfoundfound fromTakenTaken inin the19791979 from ·same καὶ(IJudOr(IJudOr thethe ὑμ period samesameεῖς II AchAchλέγετε period comeperiod 6666 andand ὅτιtwo come come 67)ἐν67) inscriptions twoἹεροσολύμοις (Ameling(Ameling two inscriptions inscriptions et eton alal the..ἐστὶν 2004).2004). on islandon the ὁ TheyThey the islandτόπος of island werewereDelos ofὅπου Delos commissionedofcommissioned in προσκυνεῖνDelos the inthe Aegean in Aegean the byby δεῖ AegeanSea, “Israelites”“Israelites”. Sea, found Sea, Takenfoundwhofound from Takensend in in 1979 the1979 their from same (IJudOr (IJudOr templethe period sameI I Ach Ach tax come 66period 66 to and and “Argarizein”two 67) come67) inscriptions (Ameling (Ameling two inscriptions (Mount et et on al al . .the2004). 2004). Gerizim).island onon They They thethe of were island islandwereDelos The commissioned commissioned last ofofin DelosDelosthe editors Aegean inin thethedate by by Sea, AegeanAegean“Israelites” “Israelites” these textsSea,Sea, to 150– foundTaken infound inwhowho1979 from 1979 send send(IJudOrin (IJudOr the1979 theirtheir same (IJudOrI Ach temple Itemple Ach period 66 I 66and Ach taxtax and come 67) toto66 67)“Argarizein” “Argarizein”and(Ameling (twoAmeling 67) inscriptions(Ameling et al et(Mount(Mount. al.2004). et2004 al on Gerizim).Gerizim).They. ).2004). the They were island They were TheThe commissioned were oflast commissionedlast Delos editors editorscommissioned in date bydate the “Israelites” by thesethese Aegean “Israelites” by textstexts“Israelites” toto 150– who150– found inwho50 whofoundfound1979 BCE, send send(IJudOr inin but 19791979their their a I (IJudOr (IJudOrAchdatetemple temple 66 in andI taxIthe tax AchAch to 67)tofirst 6666“Argarizein” “Argarizein” (Ameling andand half 67)67) of (Ameling(Ameling theet al(Mount (Mount second. 2004). etet Gerizim). alGerizim).al Theycent.. 2004).2004). urywere TheyThey ThealsoThe commissioned last lastwerewereis possible.editors editors commissionedcommissioned date dateby IJudOr “Israelites” these these byby Itexts textsAch “Israelites”“Israelites” to to67 150– 150– starts in this Sea,who found sendwhosend5050 their in BCE,BCE, send 1979their temple butbut their temple (IJudOr aa date date taxtemple tax to inin I Ach“Argarizein” tothethe tax “Argarizein” firstfirst 66to “Argarizein” and halfhalf 6ofof(Mount7) thethe (Mount (Ameling secondsecond (MountGerizim). Gerizim). centcent et Gerizim). alury ury.The 2004). The alsoalso last last isThe Theyiseditors possible.possible. editors last were dateeditors date IJudOrIJudOr commissioned these these date textsII Ach textsAchthese to 6767 to texts150– bystartsstarts 150–50 to inin 150– BCE, thisthis who send50way:50who theirBCE, BCE, send temple but but their a a date date tax temple in toin the “Argarizein”the tax first first to half half“Argarizein” of of(Mount the the second second Gerizim). (Mount cent cent uryGerizim).ury The also also last is is editors Thepossible. possible. last date editors IJudOr IJudOr these date I Itexts Ach Ach these to67 67 150–starts textsstarts toin in 150–this this “Israelites”50 BCE, 50butbutway:way: whoBCE, a a date date send but in in a their the thedate first first templein thehalf half first ofta ofx the thehalfto second“Arga second of therizein” centsecond centuryury (Mount centalso alsoury is is Gerizim).possible. possible.also is possible. IJudOr IJudOrThe last IIJudOr I Acheditors Ach 67 67 I startsAch startsdate 67 thesein in starts this this way:in this 50 BCE, way:butway:50 BCE, a date but in athe date first in halfthe firstof the half second of the cent secondury alsocent isury possible. also is possible. IJudOr I IJudOrAch 67 Istarts Ach 67in thisstarts in this textsway: to 15way:0–50 1BCE, οἱ ἐν but Δήλῳ a date Ἰσραελεῖται in the first half οἱ ofἀ -the second century also is possible. IJudOr I Ach 67 way: way:1 1 οἱοἱ ἐνἐν ΔήλῳΔήλῳ ἸσραελεῖταιἸσραελεῖται οἱοἱ ἀἀ-- starts in this way:112 οἱ οἱπαρχόμενοι ἐν ἐν Δήλῳ Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται Ἰσραελεῖται εἰς ἱερὸν οἱ οἱἈργα ἀ ἀ-- - 1 1οἱ οἱ ἐν ἐν Δήλῳ Δήλῳ1122 οἱ οἱπαρχόμενοιπαρχόμενοι ἐν Ἰσραελεῖται ἐν Ἰσραελεῖται Δήλῳ Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται Ἰσραελεῖται εἰςεἰς οἱ οἱἱερὸνἱερὸν ἀ ἀ- -- ἈργαἈργα οἱ οἱ ἀ ἀ---- - 223 παρχόμενοι παρχόμενοιριζείν ... εἰς εἰς ἱερὸν ἱερὸν Ἀργα Ἀργα-- 2 2παρχόμενοι παρχόμενοι233 παρχόμενοι ριζείνριζείν εἰς εἰς ἱερὸν...... ἱερὸν εἰςἈργα Ἀργα ἱερὸν- - Ἀργα- 2 παρχόμενοι332 ριζείν ριζείνριζεπαρχόμενοι ίεἰςν ...... ἱερὸν εἰς Ἀργα ἱερὸνἱερὸν- Ἀργα-- 3 3ριζείν ριζείν ... 3...1 1 ριζείν TheThe IsraelitesIsraelitesIsraelites ... inin in DelosDelos Delos whowho who se-se- se- 3 ριζείν 1...13 The The ριζείν Israelites Israelites ...... in in Delos Delos who who se- se- 1 1The The Israelites Israelites122 The ndnd their theirIsraelitesin in Delos Delos templetemple temple whoin who Delos taxtax se-tax se- toto towho sacredsacred sacred se- Arga-Arga- Arga- 1 The Israelites221 nd nd The their their Israelites in Delostemple temple inwho tax taxDelos to se-to sacred sacred who se- Arga- Arga- 2 2nd nd their their2 33temple nd templerizein…rizein… their tax taxtemple to to sacred sacred tax toArga- Arga- sacred Arga- 2 nd their332 rizein… templerizein… rizeinnd their... tax temple to sacred tax to Arga- sacred Arga- 3 3rizein… rizein…3 IJudOrIJudOr rizein… I II Ach AchAch 6666 66 startsstarts starts thus:thus: thus: 3 rizein…IJudOrIJudOr3IJudOr rizein… I I Ach Ach 66 66 starts starts thus: thus: IJudOrIJudOr I AchIIJudOr 1Ach1 ἸσραηλῖταιἸσραηλῖται 66 66 startsI startsAch thus:66 thus:οἱοἱ starts ἀπαρχόμενοιἀπαρχόμενοι thus: εἰςεἰς ἱερὸνἱερὸν ἅγιονἅγιον ἈρἈρ-- IJudOr I1 1IJudOrAchIJudOr Ἰσραηλῖται ἸσραηλῖταιἸσραηλῖται 66 IstartsI AchAch οἱ 66thus:66οἱ οἱἀπαρχόμενοι ἀπαρχόμενοιstartsstarts ἀπαρχόμενοι thus:thus: εἰς εἰς ἱερὸν εἰςἱερὸν ἱερὸν ἅγιον ἅγιον ἅγιον Ἀρ Ἀρ-- Ἀρ- 1 1Ἰσραηλῖται Ἰσραηλῖται1122 Ἰσραηλῖται Ἰσραηλῖταιγαριζείνγαριζείν οἱ οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι ἀπαρχόμενοι …… οἱ οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς εἰς ἱερὸν ἱερὸνἱερὸν εἰς ἅγιονεἰς ἅγιον ἱερὸν ἱερὸν Ἀρ Ἀρ ἅγιον -ἅγιον -- Ἀρ Ἀρ-- 221 γαριζείν γαριζείνγαριζεἸσραηλῖταιγαριζείνίν … …... … οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀρ- 2 2γαριζείν γαριζείν211 γαριζείν … IsraelitesIsraelites … … whowho sendsend theirtheir templetemple taxtax toto sacred,sacred, holyholy Ar-Ar- 2 γαριζείν112 Israelites IsraelitesγαριζείνIsraelites … who who…… who send send send their their their temple temple temple tax tax totaxto sacred, sacred, to sacred, holy holy Ar-holyAr- Ar- 1 1Israelites Israelites122 Israelites who garizein.garizein. who send send who their their send temple temple their tax taxtemple to to sacred, sacred, tax to holy holysacred, Ar- Ar- holy Ar- 1 Israelites221 garizein. garizein.Israelitesgarizein. who send who their send temple their tax temple to sacred, tax to holy sacred, Ar- holy Ar- 2 garizein.2 garizein. 2 2garizein. garizein.2TheThe garizein. peoplepeople behindbehind thesethese inscriptionsinscriptions callcall themselvthemselveses “Israelites”“Israelites” andand thisthis isis thethe oldestoldest attestationattestation TheThe people people people behind behind behind these these these inscriptions inscriptions inscriptions call call themselv callthemselv themselveses “Israelites” “Israelites”es “Israelites” and and this this and is is the the this oldest oldest is the attestation attestation oldest attestation TheThe peopleof ofpeople thetheThe behind laterbehind laterpeople so sothese these behind well-knownwell-known inscriptions inscriptions these inscriptions self-designationself-designation call call themselv themselv call esthemselv es of“Israelites”of “Israelites” thethe esSamaritans.Samaritans. “Israelites” and and this this is TheTheand is the the this nextnextoldest oldest is informationinformationthe attestation attestation oldest attestation ofof somesome Theofof people thetheThe later laterbehind people soso these well-knownbehindwell-known inscriptions these self-designationinscriptionsself-designation call themselv call themselv esofof “Israelites” thethe Samaritans.Samaritans.es “Israelites” and this TheThe isand the nextnext this oldest isinformationinformation the attestation oldest attestation of of somesome ofof the the later laterofofconsequenceconsequence thetheso so laterwell-known laterwell-known so herehereso well-known well-known isis self-designation thetheself-designation namename self-designation of ofself-designation thethe ofmountain,mountain,of the the Samaritans. Samaritans.of ArArthe garizein,ofgarizein, Samaritans.the The TheSamaritans. aa contractionnextcontraction next The information information next The andand information transliterationtransliterationnext of of some informationsome of someofof thethe of some of the laterconsequenceconsequenceof the so laterwell-known herehereso well-known isis thetheself-designation namename self-designation ofof thethe mountain, mountain,of the Samaritans. of ArAr thegarizein,garizein, Samaritans. The aa contractioncontraction next The information next andand information transliterationtransliteration of some of of ofsome thethe theof ,,the name “Mount“Mountthe name mountain, mountain, of theGerizim.”ofGerizim.” themountain, Ar Armountain,garizein,garizein, ThisThis Ar isis garizein,a an ana contractionAr contraction oldoldgarizein, SamaritanSamaritana contraction and anda contraction transliteration designationdesignationtransliteration and transliteration and ofof of ofthe the transliterationthe the mountain,mountain, of the of the הרהרname is isthe ofגריזים גריזיםconsequenceconsequenceconsequenceconsequenceHebrewHebrew here here isnamename is the thehere here name of, , “Mount “Mountnamethe mountain, of Gerizim.” Gerizim.”the mountain, Ar garizein, ThisThis isAris an garizein,ana contraction oldold SamaritanSamaritan a contraction and designation designationtransliteration and transliteration ofof theofthe the mountain,mountain, of the הרtheהר name is גריזיםגריזים consequenceHebrewHebrewconsequence here namename is the here ,Gerizim.”“Mount andandGerizim.”, “Mount byby someGerizim.”some This ThisGerizim.” ancient ancientis is an anThis old authorsoldauthors This isSamaritan Samaritanan is old usedused an Samaritan olddesignationinin designation aa Samaritanderogatoryderogatory designation of of the designationsense.thesense. mountain, mountain, of WeWe the seesee mountain, of thatthat the thisthis mountain הר , הרהר ,name,name גריזיםa“Mountaגריזים Mount“,גריזים ,הר intoהרname name into גריזים גריזים HebrewHebrew nameHebrewHebrew developeddevelopedname and and“MountGerizim.”“Mount byby somesome Gerizim.”Gerizim.” This ancientancient is an ThisThis authorsauthorsold isis Samaritan anan used usedoldold SamaritanSamaritan inin designation aa derogatoryderogatory designationdesignation of sense.sense.the mountain, ofWeofWe thethe seesee mountain,mountain, that that thisthis,, הר ,a“Mount name,nameגריזים a, הר name intointo גריזים Hebrewdeveloped developedHebrewname developeddevelopeddevelopeddevelopedDelosDelos into into a communitycommunity aname, name, into into anda and aname, name,usedbyused by some andsome aa andcorrectcorrect byancient ancient bysome SamaritanSamaritansome authors ancientauthors ancient used authorsnamenameused inauthors infor fora used aderogatory thederogatorythe in usedmountain,mountain, a derogatory in sense. sense.a derogatory andand We We sense.thethe see see oldest oldestthat Wethat sense. this see thisknownknown that We thisself-seeself- that this developedDelosDelosdeveloped into communitycommunity a name, into aand name, usedused by some aanda correctcorrect byancient some SamaritanSamaritan authorsancient name nameusedauthors forinfor a used the thederogatory mountain, mountain,in a derogatory sense. andand We the thesense. see oldestoldest thatWe known knownthissee that self- self-this DelosDelos community communityDelosDelosDelos communitycommunity used used a acorrect correctusedused used aaSamaritan Samaritan correctacorrect correct SamaritanSamaritan name nameSamaritan for for name namethe the namemountain, formountain,for the thefor mountain, mountain, theand and mountain,the the oldestand andoldest thethe known and known oldestoldest the self- knownself- knownoldest self-self-known self-

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Inscription number 20 uses monumental Aramaic script and was inscribed on a large stone, broken into two parts, together measuring 110 × 34 × 22 cm. זי הקרב ח[צל]א בר זבדי ויהונתנ 1 ברה יהוספ וישוע בעיה מרימ וברה 2 1 This is [the stone] that ’A[ṣl]aḥ, son of Zabdi, and Yehonatan, 2 his son, Yehosef and Yeshua‛, Ba‛yah, Miriam, and her son dedicated. Inscription number 147 is longer, incised on a large, intact stone of 202 × 36.5 × 55 cm, and it stretches over the full length of the stone. Its script is cursive: די הקרב דליה בר שמעון עלוהי ועל בנוהי אבנא ד[ה ל]דכרנ טב קדמ אלהא באתרא דנה 1 1 This is [the stone] that Delayah,Religions 2018 son, 9 ,of x FOR Shim PEER‛on, REVIEW dedicated for himself and his children/sons, 3 of 14 [this] ston[e for] good remembrance before God in this place. Tabernacle which had been built by their father. They let them savour the food of the sacrifices and When we look at the inscriptions at large, we find that their onomasticon is almost completely had intercourse with them inside the Tabernacle. Then, the children of Israel became three factions: Yahwistic. Additionally, “YHWH” is found in inscription number 383 (a fragment). The places A (loyal) faction on Mount Gerizim; an heretical faction that followed false gods; and the faction that named (or restored) are Shamrayin (numbers 14 and 15), Shechem (numbers 12, 36, and 39), the followed Eli son of Yafnī in Shiloh. (Stenhouse 1985, pp. 47–48) village of Ḥaggai (number 3), Awarta (number 8), Yokmeam (number 7), The Good Mountain According to this story, the Samaritans constitute the original Israel, and the Jews represent the (number 11), and Mabartha (number 76). Most of these places are found on or around Mount Gerizim. faction of Eli, priest in Shiloh. We recognize this Eli and his sons from 1 Sam 1–3, so the Samaritan ,מקדש) ”,number 199), and a “sanctuary ,בית דבחא ) ”Further, Mount Gerizim had a “house of sacrifice story evidently builds upon this Biblical text. Additionally, it builds upon a story of the origin of the number 150), and the animal bones found at the site provide ample evidence of sacrifices. Samaritans from the nineties CE, which we find in chapter 11 of the Antiquities by Josephus (quoted Many of the elements in these inscriptions are common to the period and can be found in other below). The description in Abu’l Fath’s work is, therefore, fictional; it is an apologetic and polemical in this place.” This phrase is“ ,באתרא דנה sacred sites in the Levant. But number 147 uses the phrase version of the circumstances leading to the two religious communities. Nevertheless, it is repeated in found or reconstructed in 14 or 15 inscriptions. It reminds us of the 21 cases in Deuteronomy with the the Arabic Book of Joshua from 1362, and in the New Chronicle/Chronicle Adler from 1899–1900, ‘centralization command’ (see above), many of which also have the phrase “before God/the Lord”, both of them Samaritan manuscripts. Found in the Samaritan museum on the top of Mount Gerizim, just like many of the Gerizim inscriptions. The Gerizim inscriptions with these phrases, therefore, this version of the origin is presented today. Additionally, this self-understanding probably is seen seem to echo Deuteronomy. The editors are probably right in stating that “this phrase has a different in the Delos inscriptions from the second century BCE, where they call themselves “Israelites” (see task: to emphasize the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim as opposed to that of Jerusalem.” (Magen et al. 2004, p. below). There may be, of course, some tradition behind these descriptions, even if it may be difficult 19). We may compare the phrases “this mountain” versus Jerusalem, and “the place where one to trace. The main idea in the Samaritan chronicles is that the Samaritans are Israelites, not an off- should worship” in John 4:20, οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε spring of Judaism. It is the way the Samaritans see the origin, up to this day, and there are scholars ὅτι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος ὅπου προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. who follow in their footsteps (Gaster 1925; Macdonald 1964). Taken from the same period come two inscriptions on the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, found in 1979 (IJudOr I Ach 66 and 67) (Ameling et al. 2004). They were commissioned by “Israelites” 3. Flavius Josephus on the Origin of the Samaritans who send their temple tax to “Argarizein” (Mount Gerizim). The last editors date these texts to 150– 50 BCE, but a date in the first half ofJosephus the second has cent twoury main also ex isplanations possible. IJudOr for the I Achorig in67 ofstarts the inSamaritans, this both found in the large way: work Antiquities (Pummer 2009). The first we read in chapter 9: Now those who were settled in Samareia were the “Chouthaioi” [Χουθα 1 οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται οἱ ἀ- ῖ 2 παρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν Ἀργα- οι], for they are called by this name until today because they were brought in from the country 3 ριζείν ... called “Chouthas”; this is Persia, where there is a river that has this name. Each of the nations— 1 The Israelites in Delos who se- there were five of them—brought its own god to Samareia. By adoring these, as was their ancestral 2 nd their temple tax to sacred Arga- [custom], they aroused the greatest God to wrath and rage. For he inflicted them with a plague, by 3 rizein… which they were afflicted. Ascertaining no cure for their calamities, they learned by way of an oracle IJudOr I Ach 66 starts thus: Religions 2019, 10, 661that, if they worshiped the greatest God, this would be [a source of] safety to 10them. of 14 They therefore 1 Ἰσραηλῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀρ- dispatched messengers to the king of the Assyrians and begged him to send them priests from those 2 γαριζείν … he had taken captive when he warred against the Israelites. Upon his sending these and their being 1 Israelites who1 send Israelites their whotemple send tax their to sacred, temple holy tax Ar- to sacred, holy Ar- taught the ordinances and reverence for this God, they worshiped him lavishly and the plague 2 garizein. 2 garizein. immediately ceased. Even now the name “Chouthaioi” continues to be used for these nations in the The people behindThe these people inscriptionsHebrew behind theselanguage, call inscriptions themselv whereases call “Israelites” in themselves Greek and they “Israelites” this are is the called andoldest this“Samareitai” attestation is the oldest [Σαμαρεῖται attestation of]. Whenever, by of the later sothe well-known later so well-known self-designationturns, they self-designation see things of the going Samaritans. of the well Samaritans. for theThe Judea next Thens, nextinformation they information call themselves of some of some their consequence relatives, in that they are consequence herehere is isthe the name name descendantsof of the the mountain, mountain, of Josep Ar Argarizein,garizein, [Joseph] a a andcontraction contraction have f aandm andil ytransliteration transliterationties with th emof of the thein Hebrewvirtue of name that origin. When, Mount“Mounthowever, Gerizim.”Gerizim.” they ThisThis see isthatis an an things old old Samaritan Samaritan are going designation badlydesignation for them of of the [thethe mountain, mountain,Judeans], developed they say that into they a owe nothing“ ,הר גריזים developed into name,a name, and and by by someto somethem ancient ancientand that authors authors they usedhave used inno a inclaim derogatory a derogatory to their sense. loyalty sense. We or We seerace. see that Instead, that this this Delos they communitymake themselves out to be Delos communityused used a correct a correct Samaritanmigrants Samaritan nameof another forname the nation for mountain, the [ mountain, and the oldestand the known oldest self-designation known self- for themselves. The participle, ἀπαρχóµενoι, from πάρχoµαι, “to make (a first) offering,” could refer to the temple

tax, Exod 30:11–16,λλοεθνεῖς paid by]. JewsBut a tobout the these temple matters in Jerusalem we shall and, have accordingly, to speak in by a more Samaritans suitable to Mountplace (Ant. 9.288–291; Gerizim, possiblyBegg at and a time Spilsbury when the 2005). temple there was operating. These inscriptions were aimed to honour beneficiariesThe who dependence had contributed on 2 Kings to the building171 is evident, of Samaritan and Josephus . here explains During thatthe time,origin of the people there was a Jewishin Samaria presence after on the 721 island BCE. of They Delos, descend and Jewish from synagogues the five peoples as well. imported by the Assyrian king The inscriptionsSalmanasser from Mount (Ant. Gerizim 9.277–278). and from Through Delos witness singling to a developedout one self-consciousnessof the names in 2 Kings 17, the early secondKuthean/Choutaioi, Century BCE, rejecting he laid Jerusalem the ground as a for place the of worshipnic name (Kartveit for the 2014a Samaritans.). Excavations The story, therefore, and inscriptionsalso show becomes a functioning an origin communitystory for the centredSamaritans. on Mount He does Gerizim not state, in thehowever, second that century the Samaritans were BCE, with rootsain mixed earlier pop periods.ulation This from is now imported generally expatriates acknowledged and by orig scholarsinal inhabitants, (Magen et al. nor 2004 that; they were Pummer 2016; Knopperssyncretists. 2013 Syncretism). may be assumed on the basis of this text and of 2 Kings 17:33, but it is not expressed. The idea of a mixed population is later than Josephus. What is evidently the idea of 7. The Origin ofJosephus the Samaritans—Then is that the Samaritans and Now were opportunistic. 61–62; Kartveit 2014b). Reviewing the material presented in this article, it is probably correct to state that the oldest theory 1 2 Kings 17 is a composite text. Vv. 24–42 may be a late, anti-Samaritan polemical text, (Knoppers 2013, pp. of the origin of the Samaritans is found in 2 Kings 17:24–41. It is a polemical text from the last centuries BCE against the Samaritans, stating that they came from the five peoples deported into Samaria by the Assyrians in the eighth century BCE. Josephus in the first century CE repeats and enlarges this biblical statement in book 9 of his Antiquities. Found in book 11 he adds the story of the erection of the temple on Mount Gerizim. The generally follow Josephus (Pummer 2002). Modern scholars with theories of this type are listed in (Kartveit 2009, pp. 49–58). During the late Middle Age, the Samaritans produced their theory of their origin in the chronicles of the 14. century CE, repeated in later chronicles. As mentioned, Gaster and Macdonald follow them. Modern study of the question started with James Alan Montgomery’s book from 1906. He did not adopt the Samaritan version, but still suggested that the roots of must be sought in the faithful remnant that remained in Samaria after the Assyrian conquest. He thus opened the idea that there is a continuation from early Israel in the north to the Samaritans. This lead has been followed by later scholars (Nodet 1997; Hjelm 2000; Diebner 2011). The notion that the Samaritans are Israelites, descendants of Old Israel, is one of the main theories until today. One recent example: Lee Martin McDonald, in his 2017 book, devotes a paragraph to “The Samaritan Bible”, found in Chapter 7 dealing with “Scripture among , , , and Samaritans.” McDonald opens this paragraph by stating that “Many of the Jews who survived the 721 BCE Assyrian invasion of the northern tribes of Israel with the capture of Samaria, its capital, subsequently intermarried with the Assyrians and became known as ‘Samaritans.’ The Jews to the south tended to view them as despised ‘half-breeds’ and rejected their participation in the life of the nation and its temple cultus.” (McDonald 2017, p. 264). The use of “Jews” for the Israelites of the eighth century BCE is not common today, and the theory of the mixed origin of the Samaritans owes its main impetus to the version presented by Josephus, even though he portrays them rather as foreigners. Similar statements of a mixed population with syncretism can be found in Freudenthal(1874, p. 96), Di Lella and Skehan(1987, p. 558), and The Hodder and Stoughton Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Lockyer 1986). Modern biblical scholars often have built upon the , assuming that it reports from 445 BCE, and believed that the rejected people of the land were the Samaritans (Mor 1989). They had not been exiled, and did not qualify for membership in the Jerusalem community. Religions 2019, 10, 661 11 of 14

William Foxwell Albright suggested in 1940 that the period after the destruction of the temple was decisive for the Samaritan group: If we compare the oldest lapidary examples of Samaritan writing with the coins of the Hasmoneans, dated between 135 and 37 B.C., a relatively late date for the origin of the Samaritan script as such seems highly probable. Moreover, since Shechem and Samaria were conquered by the Jews between 128 and 110 B.C. and were lost to the Romans in 63 B.C., it would be only natural to date the final between the somewhere in the early first century B.C. It was presumably then or somewhat later that the entire Samaritan Pentateuch was re-transcribed into the archaizing “Samaritan” script, which symbolized the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the “modernists” of Jerusalem. (Albright 1940, p. 345, n. 12) The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeological excavations on Mount Gerizim with the inscriptions found there, and the find of the Delos inscriptions have changed much of the basis for Albright’s ideas. The SP was ‘re-transcribed’ into an archaizing script in the sense that the later Samaritan script probably was developed from one of the scripts used in the DSS and in the Mount Gerizim inscriptions. Albright uses the term “”, so often found in earlier and later scholarship, but eschewed by most scholars today. Moreover, a lack of relevant material from the first century BCE makes it difficult to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Against the backdrop of what we know of the cult on Mount Gerizim before the temple, its city, and Shechem were destroyed, the task is to assess the effects of such dramatic change: did it lead to a period of low activity, or did it boost the group’s activity? However, Albright’s statement has been quoted and developed by Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (Cross 1966) and, though the parlance has changed, it still inspires scholars to think in similar terms. Based on all the material now available, scholars still may consider the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim a “momentous event” (Pummer 2002, p. 2) that shaped the course of history (Knoppers 2013, p. 216; Pummer 2016, pp. 24–25). James Alan Montgomery used the word “sect” (Montgomery 1906), but an important move away from this usage is the book by Coggins (Coggins 1975), in which he advocates a model of estrangement rather than a rupture. New publications in Biblical studies take the Samaritan question more seriously than what was the case earlier. The 2007 publication, The Pentateuch as Torah, edited by Gary Knoppers and Bernard Levinson (Knoppers and Levinson 2007), contains several articles with a new discussion of the situation (especially the contribution by Christophe Nihan, pp. 187–224). Raik Heckl and Benedikt Hensel, Religions 2018in 2016,, 9, x FOR each PEER published REVIEW their own monograph on the Judea/–Samaria questions9 (Heckl of 14 2016a; Hensel 2016), where they, from different viewpoints, opt for continuous religious development and Inscription number 20 uses monumental Aramaic script and was inscribed on a large stone, contacts between Jerusalem and Samaria. During the congress of the International Organization of broken into two parts, together measuring 110 × 34 × 22 cm. the Old Testament in Stellenbosch 2016, two sessions dealt with the Samaritans from the angle of ,material. The presentations at the conference, plus additional chapters זי הקרב Samaritan ח[צל]and א בר Bible זבדי Hebrewויהונתנ 1 Knoppers 2018). A combination of continuity and estrangement dominate ברה and יהוספ Kartveitוישוע) בעיה מרימ published וברהare 2 1 Thisthe scholarlyis [the stone] field that on this’A[ṣ questionl]aḥ, son today.of Zabdi, This and development Yehonatan, seems to continue. 2 his son,The Yehosef material and reviewed Yeshua‛ here, Ba‛yah, indicates Miriam, that and a theory her son on dedicated. the origin of the Samaritans must reckon Inscriptionwith an origin number of their 147 Pentateuchis longer, incised inside aon Jewish a large, milieu intact of thestone last of three 202 BCE-centuries,× 36.5 × 55 cm, with and ait city and stretchesa cultoversite the onfull Mount length Gerizimof the stone. which Its flourishedscript is cursive: in the early second century BCE, and had a history before that time, and in that period the Samaritans had a developed self-consciousness. The initial די הקרב דליה בר שמעון עלוהי ועל בנוהי אבנא ד]ה ל[דכרנ טב קדמ אלהא באתרא דנה 1 construction on the mountain is still a matter of dispute. 1 This is [the stone] that Delayah, son of Shim‛on, dedicated for himself and his children/sons, When and how did the Samaritans emerge? The answers to these questions depend on which [this] ston[e for] good remembrance before God in this place. parts of the material one would prioritize. They were there as a group with some history and standing Whenat the we time look of at the the New inscriptions Testament at and large, Josephus. we find The that formative their onomasticon period for themis almost seems completely to have been the Yahwistic.preceding Additionally, centuries. “YHWH” is found in inscription number 383 (a fragment). The places named (or restored)Their number are Shamrayin and status today(numbers may 14 be and modest: 15), aroundShechem 800 (numbers people living 12, 36, on and Mount 39), Gerizim the and village ofin Ḥolon near . However, their name is widely known—even among people who have no idea aggaiof Samaritans (number 3), at theAwarta time (number of the Bible 8), orYo today.kmeam Their (number origin 7), is stillThe a Good fascinating Mountain object (number for research. 11), and Mabartha (number 76). Most of these places are found on or around Mount Gerizim., מקדש) ”,number 199), and a “sanctuary , בית דבחא) ”Further, Mount Gerizim had a “house of sacrifice number 150), and the animal bones found at the site provide ample evidence of sacrifices. Many of the elements in these inscriptions are common to the period and can be found in other in this place.” This phrase is“ ,באתרא דנה sacred sites in the Levant. But number 147 uses the phrase found or reconstructed in 14 or 15 inscriptions. It reminds us of the 21 cases in Deuteronomy with the ‘centralization command’ (see above), many of which also have the phrase “before God/the Lord”, just like many of the Gerizim inscriptions. The Gerizim inscriptions with these phrases, therefore, seem to echo Deuteronomy. The editors are probably right in stating that “this phrase has a different task: to emphasize the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim as opposed to that of Jerusalem.” (Magen et al. 2004, p. 19). We may compare the phrases “this mountain” versus Jerusalem, and “the place where one should worship” in John 4:20, οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν· καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος ὅπου προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. Taken from the same period come two inscriptions on the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, found in 1979 (IJudOr I Ach 66 and 67) (Ameling et al. 2004). They were commissioned by “Israelites” who send their temple tax to “Argarizein” (Mount Gerizim). The last editors date these texts to 150–50 BCE, but a date in the first half of the second century also is possible. IJudOr I Ach 67 starts in this way: 1 οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται οἱ ἀ- 2 παρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν Ἀργα- 3 ριζείν ... 1 The Israelites in Delos who se- 2 nd their temple tax to sacred Arga- 3 rizein… IJudOr I Ach 66 starts thus: 1 Ἰσραηλῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀρ- 2 γαριζείν … 1 Israelites who send their temple tax to sacred, holy Ar- 2 garizein. The people behind these inscriptions call themselves “Israelites” and this is the oldest attestation of the later so well-known self-designation of the Samaritans. The next information of some consequence here is the name of the mountain, Argarizein, a contraction and transliteration of the ,Mount Gerizim.” This is an old Samaritan designation of the mountain“ ,הר גריזים Hebrew name developed into a name, and by some ancient authors used in a derogatory sense. We see that this Delos community used a correct Samaritan name for the mountain, and the oldest known self- Religions 2019, 10, 661 12 of 14

Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

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

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

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

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