religions

Article The Samaritans during the Hasmonean Period: The Affirmation of a Discrete Identity?

Jonathan Bourgel

Department of theology and religious studies, Laval University, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; jonathan[email protected]



Received: 14 October 2019; Accepted: 8 November 2019; Published: 14 November 2019


Abstract: The Hasmonean period (167–63 BCE) is increasingly seen in current scholarship as formative for Samaritan identity and, in particular, as the moment when the Samaritans emerged as a self-contained group separate from the Jews. The first aim of this paper is to give an overview of the condition of the Samaritans during this period. In largely chronological order, the first part of the article discusses the situation of the Samaritans on the eve of the Hasmonean revolt, at the outbreak of the uprising, and under the rule of the first Hasmoneans. The second aim is to review the commonly held causes of the emergence, at this time, of the Samaritans as a discrete community, such as, for instance, the destruction of the Samaritan temple, the production of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the appearance of anti-Samaritan polemics in Jewish literature. The paper concludes that the Hasmoneans’ attitude toward the Samaritans cannot simply be seen as one of hatred and rejection as is generally assumed. Besides; although some of the historical processes beginning in the Hasmonean period had far-reaching implications for the parting of the ways between Jews and Samaritans; their immediate effects should not be overstated.

Keywords: Samaritans; Samaritan identity; Hasmonean period; Jewish-Samaritan relations

The constitution of the Samaritans as a discrete community is generally seen as the outcome of a process of mutual estrangement between them and the Jews. While a great deal has been written in the attempt to delineate the circumstances of their “parting of the ways,” most scholars now consider that this development was not the result of a single occurrence, a schism so to speak, but rather a gradual historical process extending over several centuries.1 In this regard, the Hasmonean period (167–63 BCE), during which an independent Jewish kingdom was established in the land of Israel, is commonly regarded as a decisive and formative moment, if not a definitive one, in the emergence of a self-contained Samaritan identity.2 The aim of this paper is to give an outline of the situation of the Samaritans and their relations with the Jews during this period, and to review the major causes identified in the scholarship for the formation of a distinct Samaritan identity at that time. In the course of the discussion, it will be argued that the attitude of the Hasmoneans toward the Samaritans cannot simply be seen as one of hatred and rejection as is generally assumed, and that evidence for the constitution of the Samaritans at that time as a group utterly separated from the Jews should not be overstated.

1 An early advocate of this view was James D. Purvis (Purvis 1968, p. 5), according to whom: “The so-called Samaritan schism, or withdrawal from the mainstream of Judaism, was not so much an event as a process—a process extending over several centuries and involving a series of events which eventually brought about estrangement between the two communities.” See also (Coggins 1975, p. 163; Hjelm 2004, p. 15; Pummer 2007, p. 247). 2 See inter alia (Cross 1966, p. 211; Purvis 1968, p. 118; Mor 1989, p. 18; Hjelm 2004, p. 29; Schorch 2005, p. 10; Pummer 2007, p. 248). Others argue for dating the parting of the ways between Jews and Samaritans to the first centuries CE. See, for instance (Coggins 1975, p. 151; Crown 1991).

Religions 2019, 10, 628; doi:10.3390/rel10110628 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21 ReligionsReligionsReligions 2019 2019 2019, ,10 10,, , 10x x FOR ,FOR x FOR PEERPEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW 22 ofof2 21of21 21 and rejection as is generally assumed, and that evidence for the constitution of the Samaritans at that andandand rejectionrejection rejection asas asisis generallyisgenerally generally assumed,assumed, assumed, andand and thatthat that evidenceevidence evidence forfor for thethe the constitutionconstitution constitution ofof theofthe the SamaritansSamaritans Samaritans atat thatatthat that time as a group utterly separated from the Jews should not be overstated. Religions 2019, 10, 628 2 of 21 timetimetime asas asaa group groupa group utterlyutterly utterly separatedseparated separated fromfrom from thethe the JewsJews Jews shouldshould should notnot not bebe be overstated.overstated. overstated. 1. Overview of the Situation of the Samaritans on the Eve of the Hasmonean revolt 1.1. Overview1.OverviewOverview ofof of thethe 1.the SituationSituation Overview Situation ofof of of thethe the the SamaritansSamaritans Situation Samaritans of onon theon thethe the Samaritans EveEve Eve ofof of thethe the Hasmonean onHasmonean Hasmonean the Eve of revoltrevolt the revolt Hasmonean revolt 1.1. In the Land of Israel 1.1.1.1.1.1. InIn Inthethe the LandLand Land ofof IsraelofIsrael1.1. Israel In the Land of Israel It is difficult to get a clear picture of the situation of the Samaritans on the eve of the Hasmonean ItIt isisIt difficultisdifficult difficult toto gettoget get It aa isclear cleara diclearffi picturepicturecult picture to ofgetof theofthe a the clear situationsituation situation picture ofof theof the the SamaritansSamaritans Samaritans situation on ofon on thethe the Samaritanseveeve eve ofof theofthe the HasmoneanHasmonean on Hasmonean the eve of therevolt. Hasmonean It should first be recalled that the political context at the turn of the second century BCE was revolt.revolt.revolt. ItIt shouldshouldIt should firstfirstrevolt. first bebe be recalledrecalled It recalled should thatthat firstthat thethe bethe politicapolitica recalled politicall contextcontext thatl context the atat political theatthe the turnturn turn context ofof ofthethe the secondsecond at second the turn centurycentury century of the BCEBCE secondBCE waswas was century marked BCE by was the passing of control of the land of Israel from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids, as a result markedmarkedmarked byby by thethe the passingpassing passingmarked ofof controlof bycontrol control the passing ofof ofthethe the landland of land control ofof ofIsraIsra Isra ofelel thefromelfrom from land thethe the of PtolemiesPtolemies Israel Ptolemies from toto thetothe the PtolemiesSeleucids,Seleucids, Seleucids, to asas the asaa result resulta Seleucids, result of asAntiochus a result of III’s victory at the Battle of Panion (200 BC). ofof AntiochusofAntiochus Antiochus III’sIII’s III’s victoryAntiochusvictory victory atat theatthe III’s the BattleBattle victory Battle ofof PanionofPanion at Panion the Battle (200(200 (200 BC).BC). of BC). Panion (200 BC). Specific information on the Samaritans at this time derives mainly from the Jewish historian SpecificSpecificSpecific informationinformation informationSpecific onon on thethe informationthe SamaritansSamaritans Samaritans on atat theatthisthis this Samaritans timetime time derivesderives derives at mainly thismainly mainly time fromfrom derivesfrom thethe the JewishJewish mainly Jewish historianhistorian from historian the Jewish Flavius historian Josephus (37-ca 100 CE), whose stance on the Samaritan community is usually considered to FlaviusFlaviusFlavius JosephusJosephus Josephus (37-ca(37-caFlavius (37-ca 100100 Josephus100 CE),CE), CE), whosewhose (37-cawhose stancestance 100 stance CE), onon on the whosethe the SamaritanSamaritan Samaritan stance on communitycommunity thecommunity Samaritan isis usuallyisusually communityusually consideredconsidered considered is usually toto to considered be tainted to with be hostility and antagonism.3 Josephus refers to the city of Shechem in the Hellenistic bebe be taintedtainted tainted withwith with hostilityhostility taintedhostility andand with and antagonism.antagonism. hostility antagonism. and33 antagonism.Josephus Josephus3 Josephus refersrefers 3refersJosephus toto tothethe the citycity refers city ofof to ofShechemShechem theShechem city in ofin Shecheminthethe the HellenisticHellenistic Hellenistic in the Hellenistic period as period the metropolis of the Samaritans and a place of refuge for Jewish apostates (Ant 11.340; periodperiodperiod asas asthethe the metropolismetropolis metropolisas the metropolis ofof ofthethe the SamaritansSamaritans Samaritans of the Samaritans andand and aa placeplacea place and ofof a ofrefugerefuge place refuge offorfor refugefor JewishJewish Jewish for apostatesapostates Jewishapostates apostates (Ant(Ant (Ant 11.340;11.340; 11.340; (Ant 11.340; 346). He 346). also He reports that the Samaritans had their own temple on the nearby Mt. Gerizim. It was 346).346).346). HeHe He alsoalso also reportsreports reportsalso thatthat reports that thethe the thatSamaritansSamaritans Samaritans the Samaritans hadhad had theirtheir their had ownown theirown templetemple owntemple temple onon on thethe the on nearbynearby thenearby nearby Mt.Mt. Mt. Gerizim.Gerizim. Mt. Gerizim. Gerizim. ItIt wasItwas was It was modelled modelled on on the temple in Jerusalem, at the initiative of the governor of Samaria, Sanballat, with the modelledmodelledmodelled onon on thethe the templetemplethe temple temple inin Jerusalem,inJerusalem, inJerusalem, Jerusalem, atat theatthe atthe initiativeinitiative the initiative initiative ofof theofthe ofthe governorgovernor the governor governor ofof Samaria,ofSamaria,of Samaria, Samaria, Sanballat,Sanballat, Sanballat, Sanballat, withwith with with thethe the the permission permission of of Alexander the Great (ca. 332 BCE; Ant. 11.302–25; 13.256). Sanballat protected renegade permissionpermissionpermission ofof AlexanderofAlexander AlexanderAlexander thethe the Great theGreat Great Great (ca.(ca. (ca. 332(ca.332 332 BCE; 332BCE; BCE; BCE; An An Ant.t.Ant. 11.302–25; 11.302–25;t. 11.302–25; 11.302–25; 13.256). 13.256). 13.256). 13.256). SanballatSanballat Sanballat Sanballat protected protected protected protected renegaderenegade renegade renegade Jewish Jewish priests priests (expelled from Jerusalem for refusing to divorce their foreign wives), establishing them JewishJewishJewish priests priests priests (expelled (expelled (expelled(expelled from from from from Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem for for for refusing refusing for refusing refusing toto divorce todivorce todivorce divorce their their their theirforeign foreign foreign foreign wives), wives), wives), wives), establishing establishing establishing establishing them them them them as aspriests priests in inthe Gerizim temple.4 Some scholars, however, consider this account to be an elaboration asas aspriestspriests priests inin theinthe the GerizimGerizim theGerizim Gerizim temple.temple. temple. temple.44 Some Some4 Some4 Some scholars,scholars, scholars, scholars, however,however, however, however, considerconsider consider consider thisthis this accountaccount this account account toto betobe to be anan be an elaborationelaboration an elaboration elaboration of of Neh. Neh. 13:28, 13:28, according to which Nehemiah (mid-fifth century BCE) expelled one of the grandsons ofof ofNeh.Neh. Neh. 13:28,13:28, 13:28, accordingaccording accordingaccording toto towhichwhich to which which NehemiahNehemiah Nehemiah Nehemiah (mid-fifth(mid-fifth (mid-fifth (mid-fifth centurycentury century BCE)BCE) BCE)BCE) expelledexpelled expelledexpelled oneone one one ofof of ofthethe the the grandsonsgrandsons grandsons grandsons of theof the high high priest priest Eliashib because he was married to the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite.5 ofof theofthe the highhigh high priestpriest priest EliashibEliashib Eliashib becausebecause because hehe he waswas was marr marriedmarr marriediedied to to theto the the daughter daughter daughter of of Sanballatof Sanballat Sanballat the the the Horonite. Horonite. Horonite.555 5 The archaeological digs carried out by Yitzhak Magen from 1982 to 2006 have confirmed the TheTheThe archaeologicalarchaeological archaeologicalThe digsdigs digs archaeological carriedcarried carried outout out byby digs by YitzhakYitzhak Yitzhak carried MagenMagen outMagen by fromfrom Yitzhakfrom 19821982 1982 Magen toto to20062006 2006 from havehave have 1982 confirmedconfirmed confirmed to 2006 thethe have the confirmedexistence of the a Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim although, so far, only its temenos (surrounding existenceexistenceexistence ofof ofaa SamaritanSamaritana Samaritanexistence templetemple oftemple a Samaritan onon on Mt.Mt. Mt. GerizimGerizim templeGerizim alal on though,though,although, Mt.Gerizim soso so far,far, far, onlyonly although, only itsits its temenostemenos sotemenos far, (surrounding only(surrounding (surrounding its temenos precinct) (surrounding has been unearthed. In contradistinction to the data provided by Josephus, Magen dates the precinct)precinct)precinct) hashas has beenbeen been precinct) unearthed.unearthed. unearthed. has InIn been Incontradistinctioncontradistinction contradistinction unearthed. In toto contradistinction thetothe the datadata data providedprovided provided to thebyby by Josephus,Josephus, data Josephus, provided MagenMagen Magen by datesdates Josephus, dates thethe the Magen erection dates of the Samaritan sanctuary not to the time of Alexander the Great, but to the Persian period erectionerectionerection ofof ofthethe the SamaritanSamaritan Samaritanerection sanctuarysanctuary of sanctuary the Samaritan notnot not toto thetothe sanctuary the timetime time ofof Alexanderof notAlexander Alexander to the time thethe the Great,Great, of Great, Alexander butbut but toto thetothe the the PersianPersian Great, Persian butperiodperiod period to the Persian(mid-fifth period century BCE); later on, it underwent a second phase of construction during the Hellenistic (mid-fifth(mid-fifth(mid-fifth centurycentury century (mid-fifth BCE);BCE); BCE); laterlater later century on,on, on, itit underwent underwentit BCE); underwent later aa on, se sea condcondse itcond underwent phasephase phase ofof aconstructionofconstruction second construction phase duringduring during of construction thethe the HellenisticHellenistic Hellenistic during theperiod Hellenistic (early second century BCE). Moreover, the remains of a large city that surrounded the sacred periodperiodperiod (early(early (early secondsecond secondperiod centurycentury century (early BCE).BCE). secondBCE). Moreover,Moreover, Moreover, century thethe BCE). the remainsremains remains Moreover, ofof aofa large largea the large remains citycity city thatthat that of surroundedsurrounded asurrounded large city thethe that the sacredsacred surroundedsacred precinct the sacred from the late fourth century onward have been unearthed. Magen considers that this urban precinctprecinctprecinct fromfrom from thethe the lateprecinctlate late fourthfourth fourth from centurycentury century the late onwardonward onward fourth havehave century have beenbeen been onward unearthed.unearthed. unearthed. have MagenMagen been Magen unearthed. considersconsiders considers thatthat Magen that thisthis this considers urbanurban urban thatcenter this “reached urban its maximal size in the second century BCE, with an overall area of about 400 dunams centercentercenter “reached“reached “reached itsitscenter its maximalmaximal maximal “reached sizesize size inin its theinthe maximalthe second second second century sizecentury century in the BCE, BCE, BCE, second withwith with centuryan an anoverall overall overall BCE, area area area with ofof aboutofabout an about overall 400400 400 dunamsdunams area dunams of about (800 400 m dunams long and some 500 m wide), becoming the capital of the Samaritan people and its religious (800(800(800 mm mlonglong long andand and somesome(800 some m500500 long500 mm mwide),wide), and wide), some becomingbecoming becoming 500 m the wide),the the capitalcapital capital becoming ofof ofthethe the Samaritan theSamaritan Samaritan capital peoplepeople of people the Samaritanandand and itsits its religiousreligious religious people and and its cultic religious center.”6 According to Magen’s own estimates, at its peak, the city numbered about ten andandand culticcultic cultic center.”center.” center.”and66 AccordingAccording6 culticAccording center.” toto toMagen’sMagen’s 6Magen’sAccording ownown own estimates,estimates, to estimates, Magen’s atat ownatitsits its peak,peak, estimates,peak, thethe the citycity atcity numberednumbered its numbered peak, the aboutabout about city tenten numbered ten thousands about teninhabitants. Also noteworthy is the discovery on Mount Gerizim of hundreds of thousandsthousandsthousands inhabitants.inhabitants. inhabitants.thousands AlsoAlso Also inhabitants. nono teworthynoteworthyteworthy Also isis noteworthyisthethe the discoverydiscovery discovery is the onon discovery on MountMount Mount onGerizimGerizim MountGerizim Gerizimofof ofhundredshundreds hundreds of hundreds ofof of ofinscriptions, inscriptions, the vast majority of which are votive inscriptions in Aramaic dating to the Hellenistic inscriptions,inscriptions,inscriptions, thethe the vastvastthe vast majority vastmajority majority majority ofof ofwhichwhich ofwhich which areare are votivevotive are votive votive inscriptionsinscriptions inscriptions inscriptions inin inAramaicAramaic in Aramaic Aramaic datingdating dating dating toto tothethe to the the HellenisticHellenistic Hellenistic Hellenistic period.period.77 These These documents have revealed some of the donors’ places of residence, including Shechem ,כפר חגי) roughly six km south of Shechem) and Kfar Haggaị ,[עבר]תא) ccAvarta or cAwarta ,(שכם ) period.period.period.77 These These7 These documentsdocuments documentsdocuments havehave have have revealedrevealed revealed revealed somesome some some ofof theofthe of the the dodo donors’nors’ donors’nors’ placesplaces places places ofof residence,ofresidence, of residence, residence, includingincluding including including ShechemShechem Shechem Shechem ,כפר כפר חגי) חגי roughly six km south of Shechem) and Kfar Haggaị ,[עבר]תא) עבר]תאc),c cAvarta orcc cAwartaשכם)שכם probablyprobably modern modern Hajja,̣ about 14 km west of Shechem). Interestingly enough, some of the donors ,,כפר חגי)) roughly],roughly roughly sixsix six kmkm km southsouth south ofof of Shechem)Shechem) Shechem) andand and KfarKfar HH. aggaịaggaị ,[,[ ) עבר]תא)) AvartaAvarta oror orAwartaAwartaAwarta ,(,(שכם)) 8 שמרין probably modern Hajja,̣ about 14 km west of Shechem). Interestingly enough, some of the donors probablyprobably modernmodern H H.Hajja,ajja,̣ ajja,̣ aboutaboutabout 141414 kmkmkm westwestwest ofofof Shechem).Shechem).Shechem). Interestingly Interestingly enough, enough, some some of of the the donors donors apparentlyapparently came came from the city of Samaria ( ), at the time an important Hellenistic city whose atat8 atthe the the time time time an an an important important important Hellenistic Hellenistic Hellenistic city city city whose whose whose inhabitants inhabitants were were mostly the descendants of Macedonian settlers,9 and which was the seat of a temple,( 88,(,(שמרין) שמריןשמרין) ) apparentlyapparentlyapparently camecame came fromfrom from thethe the city city city of of ofSamaria Samaria Samaria inhabitantsinhabitantsinhabitants werewere were mostlymostlymostly mostly thethe the the descendantsdescendants descendants descendants ofof of MacedonianofMacedonian Macedonian Macedonian settlers,settlers, settlers,settlers,99 and9 and9 and and whichwhich whichwhich waswas waswas thethe the seatseat seat ofof aofa templetemple a temple temple devoteddevoted toto thethe cult of the Egyptian deities Isis and Serapis.10 Reinhard Pummer has inferred hence devoteddevoteddevoted toto tothethe the cultcult cultcult ofof ofthethe the EgyptianEgyptian EgyptianEgyptian deitiesdeities deitiesdeities IsisIsis IsisIsis andand and and Serapis.Serapis. Serapis. Serapis.101010 Reinhard10 ReinhardReinhard Reinhard PummerPummer Pummer Pummer hashas has has inferredinferred inferred hence hence hence that, in spite of its strongly Hellenistic character, Samaria was still inhabited by “Yahwisitic Samarians” in the second century BCE.11 3 See for instance (Cohen 1979, pp. 149–50; Coggins 1987, p. 271; Feldman 1996). For the opposite view, see 33 3 See SeeSee forfor for instanceinstance instance (Cohen(Cohen (Cohen 1979,1979, 1979, pp.pp. pp. 149–50;149–50; 149–50; CogginsCoggins Coggins 1987,1987, 1987, p.p. 271;p.271; 271; FeldmanFeldman Feldman 1996).1996). 1996). ForFor For thethe the oppositeopposite opposite view,view, view, seesee see (Egger 1991). (Egger(Egger(Egger 1991).1991). 1991). 4 See for instance (Kippenberg 1971, p. 52). 3 See for instance (Cohen 1979, pp. 149–50; Coggins 1987, p. 271; Feldman 1996). For the opposite view, see5 (Egger 1991). 44 4 See SeeSee forfor for instanceinstance instance (Kippenberg(Kippenberg (Kippenberg 1971,1971, 1971, p.p. 52).p.52). 52). I agree with Jan Dušek that, in all likelihood, “Josèphe a transféré le personnage de Sanballat du Ve s. av. J.- 4 See for instance (Kippenberg 1971, p. 52). 55 5 C. au IVe s. av. J.-C.” (Dušek 2007, pp. 540–41). See also e.g., (Kippenberg 1971, p. 52). For a different opinion I I agreeagreeI agree withwith with JanJan Jan Dušek5Dušek DušekI agree that,that, that, with inin allinall Jan all likelihood,likelihood, Dušek likelihood, that, “Josèphe“Josèphe in “Josèphe all likelihood, aa transférétransféré a transféré “Jos è lelephe personnagepersonnagele apersonnage transféré delede personnagede SanballatSanballat Sanballat dudu de du Ve SanballatVe Ve s.s. av. av.s. av. J.- duJ.- J.- Ve s. av. J.-C. au IVe C.C. auC.au auIVeIVe IVe s.s. av. av.s. av. J.-C.”J.-C.” J.-C.”s. (Dušek(Dušek av. (Dušek J.-C.” 2007,2007, (2007,Dušek pp.pp. pp. 540–41).2007540–41). 540–41)., pp. SeeSee 540–41). See alsoalso also e.g.,e.g., See e.g., also(Kippenber(Kippenber (Kippenber e.g., (Kippenberggg 1971,1971,g 1971, p.p. 1971 52).p.52). 52)., For p.For For 52). aa differentdifferent a For different a di ff opinionopinionerent opinion opinion seesee for for instance: instance: (Vanderkam 2004, p. 76). seeseesee forfor for instance:instance: instance: (Vanderkam(Vanderkam (Vanderkam(Vanderkam 2004,2004, 2004 2004, p.,p. p. 76).p.76). 76). 76). 6 (Magen et al. 2004, p. 1). On the Samaritan sanctuary and its dating, see (Magen 2007; 2008b, pp. 97–205). On 6 (Magen et al. 2004, p. 1). On the Samaritan sanctuary and its dating, see (Magen 2007; 2008b, pp. 97–205). On the Hellenistic 66 6 (Magen (Magen(Magen etet al.etal. al.2004,2004, 2004, p.p. 1).p.1). 1). OnOn On thethe the SamaritanSamaritan Samaritan sanctusanctu sanctuaryaryary andand and itsits itdating,dating,s dating, seesee see (Magen(Magen (Magen 2007;2007; 2007; 2008b,2008b, 2008b, pp.pp. pp. 97–205).97–205). 97–205). OnOn On the Hellenistic city nearby the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, see (Magen 2008b, pp. 3–93). city nearby the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, see (Magen 2008b, pp. 3–93). 7 On these inscriptions, see (Magen et al. 2004; Dušek 2012; de Hemmer Gudme 2013). thethethe HellenisticHellenistic Hellenistic citycity7 city nearbynearbyOn nearby these thethe inscriptions, the SamaritanSamaritan Samaritan see sancsanc( Magensanctuarytuarytuary et onon al. onMt. Mt.2004 Mt. Gerizim,Gerizim,; Dušek Gerizim, 2012 seesee ;see de (Magen(Magen Hemmer(Magen 2008b,2008b, Gudme2008b, pp.pp. pp.2013 3–93).3–93). 3–93).). 8 77 7 On OnOn thesethese these inscriptions,inscriptions, inscriptions,8 See seesee (Magen see (Magen(Magen (Magen et al. etet 2004 al.etal. al. 2004;,2004; pp. 2004; 28–30). DušekDušek Dušek 2012;2012; 2012; dede de HemmerHemmer Hemmer GudmeGudme Gudme 2013).2013). 2013). See (Magen et al. 2004, pp. 28–30). 88 8 See SeeSee (Magen(Magen (Magen etet al.etal.9 al. 2004,2004, See2004, pp.pp. for pp. instance 28–30).28–30). 28–30). (Pummer 2009, p. 204; Eshel 2012, p. 517; Knoppers 2013, p. 173). 9 See for instance (Pummer 2009, p. 204; Eshel 2012, p. 517; Knoppers 2013, p. 173). 10 99 9 See SeeSee forfor for instanceinstance instance (Pummer(Pummer (PummerSee (Magness 2009,2009, 2009, p. p.2001 204;p.204; ).204; EshelEshel Eshel 2012,2012, 2012, p.p. 517;p.517; 517; KnoppersKnoppers Knoppers 2013,2013, 2013, p.p. 173).p.173). 173). 10 See (Magness 2001). 11 See (Pummer 2018, p. 70). 1010 10 See See See (Magness(Magness (Magness 2001).2001). 2001).

Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEERReligions REVIEW 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 3 of 21 Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 that, in spite of its strongly Hellenistic character, Samaria was still inhabited by “Yahwisitic Religions 2019, 10, 628 that, in spite of its strongly Hellenistic 3character, of 21 Samaria was still inhabited by “Yahwisitic that, in spite of its strongly Hellenistic character, Samaria was still inhabitedSamarians” by “Ya inhwisitic the second Sama centuryrians” in BCE. the 11second century BCE.11 Samarians” in the second century BCE.11 1.2. Evidence for Diasporic Samaritan1.2. CommunitiesEvidence for Diasporic in the1.2. Second EvidenceSamaritan Century for Communities Diasporic BCE Samaritan in the Second Communities Century inBCE the Second Century BCE 1.2. Evidence for Diasporic Samaritan Communities in the Second Century BCE We know from various sourcesWe of know the existence from various ofWe Samaritan sourcesknow from of communities the various existence sources outside of Samaritan of thethe landexistence communities of Samaritan outside communities the land of outside the land of We know from various sources of the existenceof Israel of Samaritan during the communities HellenisticIsrael outside period. during the Inlandthe this Hellenistic of Israel respect, during period. the the so-called In Hellenistic this respec Samaritan period.t, the so-called inscriptions In this respec Samaritant, the inscriptionsso-called Samaritan from Delos inscriptions from Delos Israel during the Hellenistic period. In this respecfromt, the Delos so-ca arelled of Samaritan great importance. inscriptionsare of great These from importance. areDelos two are honorific Theseof great are importance. dedications two honorific These in dedi Greek arecations two engraved honorific in Greek on dedicaengravedtions on in marble Greek stelae.engraved The on marble stelae. The are of great importance. These are two honorific dedicamarbletions stelae. in Greek The dedicators engraved on presentdedicators marble themselves stelae. present The themselves asdedicators “the Israelites as present “the Israelites on themselves Delos on who Delos as make “the who Israelites off makeerings offerings on Delos to who hallowed make offerings Argarizein to hallowed Argarizein dedicators present themselves as “the Israelites onto Delos hallowed who make Argarizein offerings to hallowed (οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ Argarizein Ἰσραελεῖται (οἱ ἐν οἱΔήλῳ ἀπαρχόμενοι Ἰσραελεῖται εἰς οἱἱερὸν ἀπαρχόμενοι Ἀργαριζεὶν εἰς),” andἱερὸν “the Ἀργαριζεὶν Israelites),” who and make “the Israelites who make (οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς andἱερὸν “theἈργαριζεὶν Israelites),” and who“the offeringsIsraelites make whoto o ffhallowed,erings make offerings toconsecrated hallowed, to hallowed, Argarizein consecrated consecrated (Ἰσραηλῖται ArgarizeinArgarizein οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι Ἰσραηλῖται εἰςοἱ ἱερὸνἀπαρχόμενοι ἅγιον εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀργαριζεὶν).” On the basis of paleographic data, the first stela has been dated to between 150 and 50 offerings to hallowed, consecrated Argarizein (Ἰσραηλῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν ἅγιον Ἀργαριζεὶν).” On the basisbasis ofof paleographicpaleographic data, data, the first stela has been dated to between 150 and 50 BCE, and the second to between 250 and 175 BCE.12 As has been widely12 acknowledged, declarations Ἀργαριζεὶν).” On the basis of paleographic data,the the first first stela stela hashas beenbeen dated to between between 150 150 and and 50 50 BCE, BCE, and and the the second second to tobetween between 250 250 and and 175 175BCE. As has been widely acknowledged, declarations 12 of belonging to the people of Israel and belief in the sanctity of Mount Gerizim (Argarizein) were BCE, and the second to between 250 and 175 BCE.BCE. As12 Ashas has been been widely widely acknowledged, acknowledged, declarations declarations of belonging of belonging to tothe the people people of of Israel Israel a andnd belief belief in the sanctity of Mount Gerizim (Argarizein) were fundamental to Samaritan identity.13 We therefore have13 evidence for the presence of a Samaritan of belonging to the people of Israel and belief inin the the sanctity ofof MountMount Gerizim Gerizim (Argarizein) (Argarizein) were were fundamental fundamental to to Samaritan Samaritan identity. identity.13 We We therefore therefore have evidence for the presence of a Samaritan 13 community on the island of Delos at least between the third and first centuries BCE. fundamental to Samaritan identity. We thereforehave have evidence evidence for the for presence the presence of a Samaritan of a Samaritan community community on the on island the island of Delos of atDelos least at between least between the the third and first centuries BCE. It is well known that a Jewish community was established on the island at that time (1 Macc community on the island of Delos at least betweenthird the and third first and centuries first centuries BCE. BCE. It is well known that a Jewish community was established on the island at that time (1 Macc 15,23; Ant 14:213–216, 231–232). Interestingly enough, the Samaritan stelae were found some ninety It is well known that a Jewish community was Ites ista wellblish knowned on t thathe i asla Jewishnd at communitythat time (1 was Mac establishedc15,23; Ant on 14: the213–21 island6, at231– that23 time2). Interestingly (1 Macc 15,23; enough, the Samaritan stelae were found some ninety meters north of a second or first century BCE building (GD 80) discovered in 1912–13 by André 15,23; Ant 14:213–216, 231–232). Interestingly enoughAnt 14:213–216,, the Samaritan 231–232). stelae Interestingly were found enough,some ninety the Samaritan meters north stelae of werea second found or some first ninetycentury meters BCE building (GD 80) discovered in 1912–13 by André Plassart and identified by him as a synagogue.14 Philippe Bruneau has14 inferred from this that Delian meters north of a second or first century BCE northbuilding of a(GD second 80) ordiscovered first century in 1912–1 BCE building3 by André (GD Plassart 80) discovered and identified in 1912–13 by him by as Andr a synagogue.é Plassart Philippe Bruneau has inferred from this that Delian 14 Jews and Samaritans lived together within a Jewish enclave (“juiverie”). 15 In his opinion, the15 Plassart and identified by him as a synagogue. andPhilipp identifiede Bruneau by himhas inferred as a synagogue. from this14 thatPhilippe Delian Bruneau Jews and has Samaritans inferred from lived this together that Delian within Jews a Jewish enclave (“juiverie”). In his opinion, the 15 formation of this enclave is to be ascribed either to the local authorities who controlled the settlement Jews and Samaritans lived together within a andJewish Samaritans enclave lived(“juiverie” together). within In his a opinion, Jewish enclave the formation (“juiverie”). of this15 In enclave his opinion, is to be the ascribed formation either of to the local authorities who controlled the settlement of foreign groups on the island or to the Jews and Samaritans themselves who wanted to live in close formation of this enclave is to be ascribed either tothis the enclave local authorities is to be ascribed who controlled either to the the settlement local authorities of foreign who groups controlled on the the island settlement or to the of Jews foreign and Samaritans themselves who wanted to live in close proximity on account of some sense of communal identity. In this respect, it has been pointed out of foreign groups on the island or to the Jews andgroups Samaritans on the themselves island or to who the Jewswanted and to Samaritans live in close themselves proximity whoon account wanted of to some live in sense close of proximity communal identity. In this respect, it has been pointed out that the self-identification of the authors of the Delos inscriptions as “the Israelites who make proximity on account of some sense of communalon accountidentity. ofIn somethis respect, sense of it communalhas been pointed identity. out In that this the respect, self-identifica it has beention pointedof the authors out that of the the Delos inscriptions as “the Israelites who make offerings to Mount Gerizim” supposes that from their standpoint an Israelite was not essentially a that the self-identification of the authors of theself-identification Delos inscriptions of the as authors “the Israelites of the Delos who inscriptions make offerings as “the to Israelites Mount whoGeriz makeim” osupposesfferings to that Mount from their standpoint an Israelite was not essentially a Gerizim worshipper; the implication of this could be that they regarded the Jews as being “the offerings to Mount Gerizim” supposes that fromGerizim” their standpoint supposes an that Israelite from their was standpointnot essentially an Israelite a Gerizim was worshipper; not essentially the a implication Gerizim worshipper; of this could be that they regarded the Jews as being “the Israelites who make offerings to Jerusalem.”16 16 Gerizim worshipper; the implication of this couldthe implication be that they of thisregarded could bethe that Jews they as regardedbeing “the the Isra Jewselites as being who “themake Israelites offerings who to Jerusalem.” make offerings 16 Also noteworthy are Josephus’ accounts referring to the presence of Samaritans in Ptolemaic Israelites who make offerings to Jerusalem.” to Jerusalem.”16 Also noteworthy are Josephus’ accounts referring to the presence of Samaritans in Ptolemaic Egypt (Ant 12.7–10; 13.74–79).17 Josephus seems to17 ascribe the origins of this Samaritan diaspora Also noteworthy are Josephus’ accounts referringAlso to noteworthy the presence are of Josephus’ Samaritans accounts in Ptolemaic referring Egypt to the presence(Ant 12.7– of10; Samaritans 13.74–79). in Ptolemaic Josephus Egypt seems to ascribe the origins of this Samaritan diaspora 17 community to Ptolemy I Soter (304–282 BCE) who, “after taking many captives both from the hill Egypt (Ant 12.7–10; 13.74–79). Josephus seems(Ant to 12.7–10;ascribe the 13.74–79). origins17 ofJosephus this Samaritan seems to diaspora ascribe the community origins of to this Ptolemy Samaritan I Soter diaspora (304–282 community BCE) who, “after taking many captives both from the hill country of Judaea and the district round Jerusalem and from Samaria and those on Garizein, brought community to Ptolemy I Soter (304–282 BCE) who,to Ptolemy “after taking I Soter many (304–282 captives BCE) both who, from “after the taking hill country many of captives Judaea bothand the from district the hill round country Jerusale of m and from Samaria and those on Garizein, brought them all to Egypt and settled them there” (Ant 12:7).18 Josephus adds that18 the descendants of these country of Judaea and the district round JerusaleJudaeam and from and theSamaria district and round those Jerusalem on Garizein, and brought from Samaria them all and to Egypt those onand Garizein, settled them brought there” them (Ant all 12:7). Josephus adds that the descendants of these 18 Jewish and Samaritan settlers were in a violent dispute that they brought before the Egyptian king them all to Egypt and settled them there” (Ant 12:7).to Egypt Josephus and settled adds them that there”the descendants (Ant 12:7). of18 theseJosephus Jewish adds and that Samaritan the descendants settlers were of these in a violent Jewish dispute that they brought before the Egyptian king (Ptolemy VI Philometor; 180–145 BCE); it concerned the legitimacy of their respective sanctuaries. Jewish and Samaritan settlers were in a violent anddisp Samaritanute that they settlers brought were before in a violent the Egyptian dispute king that (Ptolemy they brought VI Philometor; before the Egyptian 180–145 kingBCE); (Ptolemy it concerned the legitimacy of their respective sanctuaries. Eventually, the Jewish representatives succeeded in convincing the king that only the Temple of (Ptolemy VI Philometor; 180–145 BCE); it concernedVI Philometor; the legitimacy 180–145 of BCE);their respective it concerned sanctuaries. the legitimacy Eventu ofally, their the respective Jewish representatives sanctuaries. Eventually, succeeded in convincing the king that only the Temple of Jerusalem had been erected in accordance with the laws of Moses. These accounts raise not a few Eventually, the Jewish representatives succeededthe in Jewish convincing representatives the king succeededthat only the in convincingTemple of Jerusalem the king that had only been the erected Temple in of accordance Jerusalem with had the laws of Moses. These accounts raise not a few difficulties, the most important of which is whether they refer to one or two distinct events. They Jerusalem had been erected in accordance withbeen the laws erected of inMoses. accordance These withaccounts the laws raise of not Moses. a few These difficulties, accounts the raise most not important a few diffi culties,of which the is most whether they refer to one or two distinct events. They difficulties, the most important of which is whetheimportantr they ofrefer which to one is whether or two theydistinct refer events. to one orThey two distinct events. They have also been questioned on the ground that they abound in “literary motifs and legends.”19 Most scholars, however, tend to accept their general historical framework.20

12 11 See (Bruneau 1982). This dating has been See generally (Pummer accepted; 2018, see11 p. for 70).See instance (Pummer (Kraabel 2018, 1984 p.). 70). L. Michael White has ascribed the first inscription to after, and the12 second to before, 166 BCE (White 1987, pp. 144–45). 11 See (Bruneau 1982).12 This dating has been generally accepted; see for instance (Kraabel 1984). L. Michael See (Pummer 2018, p. 70). 13 See among others (Pummer 2009, p. 17; Kartveit 2014, p. 467). See (Bruneau 1982). This dating has been generally accepted; see for instance (Kraabel 1984). L. Michael White has ascribed the first inscription to after, and the second to before, 166 BCE (White 1987, pp. 144–45). 12 See (Bruneau 1982). This dating has been generally14 (accepted;Plassart 1914 see). for The instance identification (Kraabel of GD 1984). 80 as L. a synagogueMichael hasWhite been supportedhas ascribed by the several first later inscription scholars to including after, and the second to before, 166 BCE (White 1987, pp. 144–45). 13 White has ascribed the first inscription to after, and the(Bruneau second 1982 to ,before, p. 467; Trümper166 BCE 2004 (White, pp. See 1987, 513–98). among pp. For 144–45). others a different (Pummer 13 opinion,See among 2009, see (p. Mazurothers 17; Kartveit 1935 (Pummer, pp. 2014, 21–22) 2009, p. and 467).p. more17; Kartveit recently 2014, p. 467). 14 13 See among others (Pummer 2009, p. 17; Kartveit 2014,(Matassa p. 467). 2007 ). (Plassart 1914). The14 identification(Plassart 1914). of GD The 80 identification as a synagogue of GDhas 80been as asupported synagogue by has several been later sup portedscholars by several later scholars 15 (Bruneau 1982, pp. 502–4). 14 including (Bruneau 1982, p. 467; Trümper 2004, pp. 513–98). For a different opinion, see (Mazur 1935, pp. (Plassart 1914). The identification of GD 80 as a 16synaSeegogue (Dušek has 2012 been, p. 77;sup Bourgelported 2017 by ,several pp. 400–2). later scholars including (Bruneau 1982, p. 467; Trümper 2004, pp. 513–98). For a different opinion, see (Mazur 1935, pp. 21–22) and more recently (Matassa 2007). including (Bruneau 1982, p. 467; Trümper 2004, pp.17 For513–98). discussions For a ofdiffere thesent accounts, opinion, see see for instance(Mazur (Coggins1935, pp. 1987 , pp.21–22) 263–64; and Pummer more recently 2009, pp. (Matassa 179–99). 2007). 15 21–22) and more recently (Matassa 2007). 18 Trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; 1943, p. 5). (Bruneau 1982, pp. 15502–4). (Bruneau 1982, pp. 502–4). 19 16 15 (Bruneau 1982, pp. 502–4). See (Isser 1976, p. 9). See (Dušek 2012, p.16 77; SeeBourgel (Dušek 2017, 201 pp.2, p. 400–2). 77; Bourgel 2017, pp. 400–2). 20 See for instance (Kartveit 2009a, p.17 126; Eshel 2012, p. 519). Bruce W. Hall has adopted a more cautious line, alleging 16 See (Dušek 2012, p. 77; Bourgel 2017, pp. 400–2). For discussions of these17 For accounts, discussion see sfor of instanthese ceaccounts, (Coggins see 1987, for instan pp. 263–64;ce (Coggins Pummer 1987, 2009, pp. pp.263–64; 179–99). Pummer 2009, pp. 179–99). that: “while it is quite probable that18 in hellenistic times Egyptian Jews and Samaritans disputed about the relative merits 17 For discussions of these accounts, see for instance (Coggins 1987, pp. 263–64; Pummer 2009,Trans. pp. Ralph 179–99). Marcus 18 (LCLTrans. 365; Ralph 1943, Marcus p. 5). (LCL 365; 1943, p. 5). 18 Trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; 1943, p. 5). Religions 2019Religions, 10, x FORReligions 2019 PEER, 10 ,2019 x REVIEW FORReligionsReligions, 10 PEER, x FOR 2019 2019 REVIEW PEER, ,10 10, ,x xREVIEW FORFOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 4 of 21 4 of 21 4 of 21 44 ofof 2121 Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21 4 of 21 19 1919 have also havebeen alsoquestionedhave been also questioned haveReligionsbeenhave on the alsoquestionedalso 2019ground been beenon, 10 ,the 628 questioned questionedthat onground thethey ground aboundthat onon thetheythe that groundinground abound “literarythey aboundthatthat in motifs “literary theythey in abound abound and“literary motifs legends.” inin motifsand “literary“literary 19legends.” andMost motifsmotifs legends.” 19 andMostand legends.”legends.” Most Most4Most of 21 have also been questioned on the ground that they abound in “literary motifs and legends.”19 Most 19 20 have alsoscholars, been questionedhowever,scholars,scholars, however,tend on the to however,scholars, scholars, acceptground tend theirto however,tendthathowever, accept general theyto accepttheir tendaboundtend historical general their toto acceptacceptin general “literary historicalframework. theirtheir historical generalmotifsgeneral framework.20 and historicalframework.historical legends.”20 framework.framework.20 Most 20 scholars, however, tend to accept their general historicalscholars, framework. however,20 tend to accept their general historical framework.20 1.3. Early Evidence1.3. Early1.3. for Evidence Early Jewish Evidence1.3.1.3. Anti-Samaritfor EarlyEarly Jewish for EvidenceEvidence Anti-SamaritJewishan Hostility? Anti-Samarit forfor JewishJewish an Hostility?The Anti-SamaritAnti-Samarit Anti-Samaritan anCase Hostility? of The Ben anCasean Sira Hostility?TheHostility? of 50:25–26 CaseBen Siraof TheThe TheBen 50:25–26 CaseCase Sira of of 50:25–26 BenBen SiraSira 50:25–2650:25–26 1.3. Early Evidence for Jewish Anti-Samaritan Hostility? The1.3. Case Early of Evidence Ben Sira for50:25–26 Jewish Anti-Samaritan Hostility? The Case of Ben Sira 50:25–26 It has beenIt proposed has beenIt has proposedthat been furtherItIt proposed has has that been been evidence further proposed thatproposed further forevidence te that nsionsthat evidence further further for between tensions forevidence evidence te Jews nsionsbetween for andfor between te te tensions SamaritansJewsnsionsnsions and Jews between between Samaritans inand the SamaritansJews Jews early inand and the Samaritans Samaritans early in the early in in the the early early It has been proposed that further evidence for tensions between Jews and Samaritans in the early 2121 It secondhas been century proposedsecond BCEsecond century that can furthercentury beenBCEsecondsecond found canevidence BCE century centurybeen incan the foundfor been BCE BCE Booktensions found incan can ofthe been beenBen between Bookin the Sira.found found of Book21 JewsBen in This in oftheSira. theand workBen Book Book 21Samaritans Sira. This was of of21 workBen BenBen composed This Sira.in Sira.Sira. was work the21 composedearly This Thisinwas Hebrew work work composed in was was Hebrew composedcomposed in Hebrew inin Hebrew Hebrew second century BCE can been found in the Book of Ben Sira.21 This work was composed in Hebrew 21 2222 secondca century 180 BCE, BCEca 180and can ca BCE,was been 180 laterand BCE,foundcaca wastranslated 180and 180 in later theBCE, BCE,was Booktranslated into laterand and of Greekwas wastranslated Ben intolater later Sira.around Greek translated translatedinto This the Greekaround workyears into into around was the132–117 Greek Greek yearscomposed the around aroundBCE. 132–117years22 in theThe the132–117the Hebrew BCE. years yearsyearsbulk22 BCE. The132–117of 132–117132–117 the 22bulk The BCE. BCE.BCE.of bulk the22 TheofThe the bulk bulk of of the the ca 180 BCE, and was later translated into Greek around the years 132–117 BCE.22 The bulk of the 22 ca 180 discussionBCE, anddiscussion wasbears laterdiscussion on the bearstranslated interpretationdiscussion discussionon bears the into oninterpretation the Greek bears bears of interpretation Si r on onaround 50: the the 25–26,of interpretation interpretationSi ther 50: whoseof years Si25–26,r 50: Hebrew132–117 25–26,whose of ofof Si SirSirr 50:version BCE.50:whoseHebrew 25–26, 25–26, HebrewThereads: version whose whose bulk version Hebrewofreads: Hebrew the reads: version version reads: reads: discussion bears on the interpretation of Sir 50: 25–26,discussion whose Hebrew bears version on the interpretationreads: of Sir 50: 25–26, whose Hebrew version reads: :(:( והשלישית והשלישית :(איננואיננו עם:(עם)) והשלישית איננו peoplepeople והשלישית a:(עםa ) איננו eveneven עם) peopleוהשלישית isis a not not איננו evenpeople עםTwo nationsTwo my nationsTwo soul nationsdetests, myTwo Twosoul myand nations nationsdetests,nations soul the thirddetests, my myandmy soul soulisthe notand thirddetests, detests, even the is third a not and andpeople even is thethe not third(thirda :(והשלישית איננו עם) detests,): and the third is not even a people והשלישית soul איננו my עם) Two nations my soul detests, and the third is not evenTwo a people nations וגויוגוי )) in Shechem וגוי in livein ( ShechemShechem וגוי nation in thatthat Shechem thatlive(live וגוי Those whoThose live inwhoThose Seir, live whoand inThoseThose theliveSeir, Philistines, in whowhoand who Seir, the livelive live and Philistines, inin and in the Seir,Seir, Seir, thePhilistines, andand foolish and and thethe the the Philistines,Philistines, nation and Philistines, foolish the that foolish nation and andlive and the the in nationthat theShechem foolishfoolish live foolish that in nationnation live(Shechem וגוי ) Those who live in Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish nation that live in Shechem .(NRSA) (וגוי .(NRSA)נבל.(NRSA) ( (הדרנבל נבל הדר הדר בשכם.(NRSA)) (בשכם)בשכםנבל .(NRSA) (הדר Shechem נבל in בשכםהדר .(S) live(NRSA בשכםנבלin הדר live בשכםThose who .(NRSA) (נבל הדר בשכם ,voiced Ben)”,”, )”,who against againstSira hisBen voiced hatred, whoSira who voicedBenhisBen Ben hatred, SiraSira Sira his voicedvoiced voicedhatred, hishis his hatred,hatredגוי גוי נבלSirawhoנבל ) Ben)”, (against גוי who people peopleagainstpeopleנבל ),”( גוי foolish“נבלthe the)”,the people(against“foolish “foolish גוי foolishthat thatpeoplethat נבל“) Many haveMany assumed haveMany thatassumed have ManytheMany assumed “foolish that have have the thatassumed assumedpeoplea “foolishssumed the against who Ben Sira voiced his hatred, 23 ,”(גוי נבל) Many have assumed that the “foolish people the)”,thethe This against Samaritans. Samaritans.derivesSa23 maritans.stance This who from stancederives23 Ben23 Thisthe ThisThis derivesSira above-mentionedfrom stance stancestance voiced the from derives derivesderives above-mentioned his the hatred, from above-mentioned fromfrom statement the thethe above-mentioned above-mentionedabove-mentioned statement statement statement statement statement of 23גויSamaritans. withwithwith stanceנבל ) Manyare to have be identified areassumed to beare identified thatwithto be the theidentifiedarearea re“foolish Samaritans.with to to be be the identified identifiedidentified withpeople Samaritans. 23the This are to be identified with the Samaritans.23 This stance derives from the above-mentioned statement23 are to beof identifiedJosephusof Josephusthatwithof Shechem theJosephus Samaritans.thatof JosephusofShechemwas JosephusthaJosephus thet Shechem thatcity Thiswas thatthat Shechemof stancethe theShechemwasShechem city Sama derivesthe wasof cityritans thewaswas the fromofSama the city the atthe thecitythe ofritanscity Sama the above-mentioned time ofof Samaritans atritansthethe ofthe Sama SamaAlexander attime theritansritans atof time the Alexanderstatement attheat time of thethe Great Alexander oftimetime Alexander the(Ant ofof Great Alexander Alexander the the(AntGreat Great thethe(Ant (AntGreatGreat 11:340) (Ant(Ant of Josephus that Shechem was the city of the Samaritans at the time of Alexander the Great (Ant of Josephus11:340) that and11:340) Shechem from1 1:and an340) was analogyfrom a ndthe11:340)and11:340) an fromcity fromwithanalogy ofand andan anGenthe analogyfromfrom analogySamawith 34:7 anan ritansGen where with analogy withanalogy 34:7 at Gen GenShechem, the where with with3 34:74:7time Gen whereGen where Shechem, Dinah’sof Alexander34:73 4:7 Shechem, wherewhere rapist,Dinah’s the Shechem,Shechem,is Dinah’sDinah’s Greatrapist,reported rapist,(Ant rapist, isDinah’sDinah’s toreported have isisreported rapist,reportedrapist, to have isis to reportedtoreported have have committed toto havehave 11:340) and from an analogy with Gen 34:7 where Shechem,11:340) and Dinah’s from anrapist, analogy is reported with Gen to 34:7have where Shechem, Dinah’s rapist, is reported to have against thing)” (an(an outrageousoutrageous thing)”Israel.thing)” against Alth againstagainst Israel. thing)”thing)”ough Israel. Isra Alththis againstael.gainst oughinterpretation Alth Although Israel. Israel.thisough interpretation Alth thisAlth this is ough interpretationoughnot interpretation entirely this this is interpretationnotinterpretation entirelyis is not not entirely entirely is is not not entirelywithoutentirely נבלהנבלה““ outrageous (an (anthing)” aa outrageous outrageous נבלהcommittedacommitted a “ (anנבלהcommitted (an a “outrageousנבלה“ committedcommitted a interpretation (an outrageous is notthing)” entirely against Israel. Although this interpretation is not entirely נבלהan outrageous thing)” against Israel.committed Although a “ this) נבלה“ committed a without credibility,withoutwithout credibility, one shouldcredibility,withoutcredibility,without one bear should credibility,credibility, one in one mind should bear should withone onein bear bearmind should shouldPeter in in withmind mindVan bearbear Peter derwith withinin mindHorst mindVan Peter Peter der withwithand Van Van Horst Reinhard Peter Peterder der andHorst Horst VanVan ReinhardPummer der der and HorstHorst Reinhard thatPummer andand ReinhardPummer Reinhard that that PummerPummer not every thatthat without credibility, one should bear in mind with Peterwithout Van dercredibility, Horst and one Reinhard should bear Pummer in mind that with Peter Van der Horst and Reinhard Pummer that not every notmention everynot of mentionevery Shechem notmentionnot of everyevery inShechem ancient ofof mentionmention ShechemShechem in literature ancient ofof in inShechemShechem ancient ancient literatureis necessarily literature in inliterature ancientancient is necessarily related is literature isliteratu necessarily necessa to relatedthere is rilyis Samaritans.necessarily relatednecessa related to the torily Samaritans.to the relatedIntherelated Samaritans. fact, Samaritans. toitto In thethe fact, Samaritans. InSamaritans. fact,In it fact, it could it InIn fact,alsofact, be itit not every mention of Shechem in ancient literature is necessarilynot every mention related ofto Shechemthe Samaritans. in ancient In fact, literature it is necessarily related to the Samaritans. In fact, it 24 2424 could alsocould be that alsocould Sir be 50:25–26also thatcouldthatcould be Sir that Sir refers 50:25–26 alsoalso 50:25–26 Sir bebeto 50 that thethat:refers25–26 refers “non-Samaritan SirSir torefers 50:25–2650 to the: the25–26 “non-Samaritanto “non-Samaritan the refersrefers “non-Samaritaninhabitants toto thethe “non-Samaritaninhabitants“non-Samaritan inhabitants of Shechem,” inhabitants of Shechem,” 24 inhabitantsinhabitants forof Shechem,”instance2424 for for ofof instanceShechem,”instanceShechem,” for instance the “Sidonians forfor instanceinstance in could also be that Sir 50:25–26 refers to the “non-Samaritancould also inhabitants be that Sirof Shechem,”50:25–26 refers24 for toinstance the “non-Samaritan inhabitants of Shechem,”24 for instance the “Sidoniansthe “Sidonians inthe Shechem “Sidonians intheShechemthe (Shechemτῶν “Sidonians “Sidonians ἐν in Σικίμοις ( Shechemτ(τῶνῶν inἐ νἐν inShechemΣ Σιδωνίων Σικίμοις ικ Shechem (τῶνίµoι ς ἐν(Σ τῶνΣιδωνίων)”ιδων Σικίμοις (mentionedτῶν ἐνίων Σικίμοις ἐν)”)” mentionedΣιδωνίωνΣικίμοιςmentioned by Σιδωνίων Josephus )”Σιδωνίων byby mentioned)” JosephusinJosephus mentioned several)” mentioned in inpassages by severalseveral by Josephus Josephus passage passages by Josephus in in s severalseveral (Ant 11:340–347; in passages several the “Sidonians in Shechem (τῶν ἐν Σικίμοις Σιδωνίωνthe)” mentioned“Sidonians byin ShechemJosephus (inτῶν several ἐν Σικίμοις passages Σιδωνίων )” mentioned25 25 by Josephus25 in several passages (Ant 11:340–347;(Ant 11:340–347;passages 12:257–264). (Ant 12:257–264).(Antpassages12:257–264).25 11:340–347; In 11:340– this (Ant 25respect,25347; In In 11:340– 12:257–264). thisthis 12:25 the respect,respect,347;7–264). existence 12:25 thethe In existenceIn 7–264).ofexistencethis inscriptions this respect, respect, of ofIn inscriptions inscriptionsthe this from existence the respect, Mt. existencefrom Gerizimfrom of the inscriptions Mt. Mt. existenceof bearing Gerizim Gerizim inscriptions from of bearing bearing inscriptions Mt. from GreekGerizim Mt. and from bearing Arabic Mt. (Ant 11:340–347; 12:257–264).25 In this respect, the existence(Ant 11:340–347; of inscriptions 12:257–264). from Mt.25 Gerizim In this respect, bearing the existence of inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim bearing 26 Greek andGreek Arabic andGerizim names Arabic maybearingGreeknamesGerizim names be and evidence mayGreek maybearing Arabic be be and evidence thatevidence Greeknames Arabic other and thatmay thatpopulationnames Arabic other beother evidence may population populationnames groups be thatevidence may lived other groupsgroups be in thatpopulationevidence the livedlived other area. inin that26population thethe groupsLikewise, area.otherarea. 26lived26 population Likewise,groups in the lived area. notgroups everyin Likewise, lived use ofin 26 Greek and Arabic names may be evidence that other populationGreek and groupsArabic livednames in may the area.be26 evidence Likewise, 26that other population groups lived in the area.26 Likewise, suffices mites;with has the necessarily it to itto suffices Sheche suquote doffi ceswith in mites;to to tothis quotethe quotedo it Shechewith suffices in in this thisthemites; toSheche regard quote it mites; Sirin this 49:5 it נבלthe themites; wordhas Sheche Shechemites; to necessarily itdo נבלthe to has theuse do word necessarilySheche with withof the נבלLikewise,not ofhas hasevery the necessarily wordto notuse do everyofwithנבל Likewise, every word area. has necessarily useנבל not every notuse everyof thethe use area.word of notthe hasto quote necessarily in this to do with the Shechemites; it suffices to quote in this 27 נבל has necessarily to do withnot theevery Sheche use ofmites; the word it suffices נבל not every use of the word nation).” hasגוי נבל nation foreign Pummerנכרי )foolish).” 27“גוי Furthermore, nationa foreign נבל called).” 2727 נכריגוי area foreign(“foolish נבל callednationנכרי regard Sirregard 49:5 suffices whereSir 49:5 tothe regardwheresuffices wherequote Babylonians the inSir tothe this Babyloniansquote 49:5Babylonians regard arewherein this calledSir are theregard 49:5 calledare aBabylonians wherecalled“foolish Sir a “foolish 49:5 thea where foreign“foolishBabylonians foreignare calledthe nation nationforeign Babylonians area ( “foolish 27 27 ”.(גוי נבל נכרי) are called a “foolish foreign nation”.( גוי נבל 27נכריregard Sir 49:5 where the Babylonians are calledregard a “foolish Sir 49:5foreign where nation27 the (Babylonians Pummer that Furthermore, thatstressed thePummer cityhasthe atrightlycitythat thehasPummer at toptherightly stressedthe ofcity Mt.hastop stressedat Gerizim,rightly ofthatthe Mt. topthethat stressedGerizim, rathercityof the Mt. atcity than that Gerizim,therather at Schechem, the topthe thancity topof rather Mt.atof was theMt. Gerizim,than thetop Gerizim, metropolis of Mt.rather Gerizim, ofthan theגוי stressed rightlyנבל Furthermore, stressedhas נכריגוי).“ rightly( rightlyנבל,Pummerhas Furthermore נכרי).“ )Furthermore,Furthermore, Pummer Furthermore, Pummer has rightly stressed that theFurthermore, city at the top Pummer of Mt. hasGerizim, rightly rather stressed than that the city at the top of Mt. Gerizim, rather than 28 28 28 Schechem,Schechem, was therather metropolis was than theSchechem,Samaritansra Schechem,thermetropolis of thethan Samaritans was inSchechem, wasof the the the Hellenisticthe metropolis Samaritans inmetrop was the Hellenisticthe period.olis of in metropthe ofthe 28Samaritansthe Hellenistic Therefore,period. olisSamaritans of 28the in Therefore,period. caution theSa inmaritans Hellenistic the28should Therefore, Hellenisticcaution in beperiod.the should applied cautionHellenistic period. Therefore, in should too Therefore,period. readily cautionconsidering Therefore, should Schechem, was the metropolis of the Samaritans in the Schechem,Hellenistic wasperiod. the28 metropolis Therefore, of caution the Samaritans should in the Hellenistic period.28 Therefore, caution should be appliedbe in applied toocaution readily in too shouldconsideringbeSircaution readily applied 50:25–26 be considering should inappliedSir as too 50:25–26 a polemicreadilybe in Sir applied tooas 50:25–26 considering against a reapolemic indily theastoo a considering against Samaritans. Sirpolemic rea 50:25–26dily the against considering Samaritans. Siras a 50polemicthe:25 Samaritans. –26 Sir against a 50s :25 a –26 polemic the aSamaritans.s a against polemic the against the be applied in too readily considering Sir 50:25–26 as a bepolemic applied against in too the readily Samaritans.Sa consideringmaritans. Sa maritans. Sir 50:25–26 as a polemic against the Samaritans. 2. The Samaritans2. The Samaritans at the Outbreak2.2. Theat The the Samaritans Samaritans Outbreak of the Hasmonean atof at the the Outbreak OutbreakHasmonean Revolt of of theRevolt the Hasmonean Hasmonean Revolt Revolt 2. The Samaritans at the Outbreak of the Hasmonean2. Revolt The Samaritans at the2. ThOutbreake Samarita2. Thof ethens Samarita aHasmoneant the Outbreakns at th Revolte Outbreakof the Hasmone of the anHasmone Revoltan Revolt 2.1. Antiochus2.1. AntiochusIV’s Decrees IV’s 2.1.against2.1. Decrees Antiochus Antiochus Judaism against IV’s IV’s Judaism Decrees Decrees against against Judaism Judaism 2.1. Antiochus IV’s Decrees against Judaism 2.1. Antiochus IV’s Decrees2.1 .against Antiochus 2.Judaism1. IV’sAntiochus Decrees IV’s against Decrees Judaism against Judaism The ascentThe of Antiochusascent of Antiochus IVTheThe Epiphanes ascent ascent IV ofEpiphanes of (ca Antiochus Antiochus 215–164 (ca IVBCE) IV 215–164 Epiphanes Epiphanes to the BCE) Seleucid (ca (ca to 215–164 215–164the throneSeleucid BCE) BCE) in throne175 to to the theBCE Seleucidin Seleucid was175 BCE throne throne was in in 175 175 BCE BCE was was The ascent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca 215–164 BCE) to the Seleucid throne in 175 BCE was Theto ascenthave lasting ofto Antiochushave effects lastingThe onIV effects ascentthetoEpiphanesto have havesituationThe onof lasting lasting Antiochustheascent (ca insituation 215–164 effectsthe eofffects Antiochus landIV onin onEpiphanesBCE) of thethe the Israel. tolandsituation situationIV the Epiphanes Soon(caof Seleucid Israel. 2 15–164in inafter the Soon (cathrone hiland BCE)s 2accession, 15–164after of into Israel. 175hithe BCE)s accession,BCE SeleucidAntiochus Soon Soon to was the after after throne SeleucidAntiochus washi hiss accession, accession,in 175throne was BCE inAntiochus Antiochus was 175 BCE was was to have lasting effects on the situation in the land of Israel. Soon after his accession, Antiochus was to havecalled lasting upon effectscalled to settle ontoupon thehave a to situationdispute lastingsettlecalledcalledto have abetween inuponeffectsdispute upon thelasting toland toon thebetweensettle settle effects the ofJerusa Israel.asituation a dispute disputeonthelem Soon theJerusa high inbetweensituation between after thelempriest, hilandhigh s the theinOniasaccession, ofpriest,theJerusa Jerusalem Israel. III,land lem Oniasand Antiochus Soonof high highhisIsrael. III, a brotherpriest, fter priest,and wasSoon hi his s OniasJason. Onias accession,brotherafter III, III,hi sandJason. and accession,Antiochus his his brother brother Antiochus Jason. Jason. called upon to settle a dispute between the Jerusalem high priest, Onias III, and his brother Jason. called Theupon latter to settleThe eventually lattera wasdispute eventually caobtainedlled betweenTheThewas upon latter latter thecaobtained lled tothe high eventually settle uponJerusa priesthoodthe a tolemhighdispute settle obtained high priesthood by a betweenpriest, offeringdispute thethe high highOniasby theabetween offering substantial priesthood priesthoodJerusa III, and thelema substantial his byJerusabribe highby brother o offeringff eringtopriest,lem Antiochus bribe Jason.high a a substantialOnias substantial topriest, Antiochus andIII, Oniasand bribe bribe his and toIII, tobrother Antiochus andAntiochus his brother and and by The latter eventually obtained the high priesthood by offering a substantial bribe to Antiochus and The latterby promisingeventuallyby promising support obtainedJason. in The supportthe thebypromisingJason. high latterpromisingHellenization in priesthoodThe the eventually support Hellenization latter support of by ineventually the obtained theofferingin Jerusalemites the Hellenization of Hellenizationthe a obtainedthe substantial Jerusalemites high (174 of the priesthoodthe BCE;of bribe Jerusalemitesthe high (174 2 JerusalemitestoMacc. priesthoodBCE;Antiochus by 4:7–10). offering2 (174Macc. and(174 BCE;by But 4:7–10). a offering BCE;three 2 substa Macc. 2But Macc.ntial a4:7–10). three substa bribe4:7–10). Butntial to three But bribe three years to by promising support in the Hellenization of the Jerusalemites (174 BCE; 2 Macc. 4:7–10). But three by promisingyears later, supportyears Jason later,inAntiochus wasthe Jason Hellenizationdisplacedyearslater,Antiochus andwas Jasonlater,by displacedby promising ofMenalaus, and wasJason the by displaced Jerusalemitesby was promising supportMenalaus, notdisplaced byof Zadokite Menalaus,in support (174 notthe by ofBCE; HellenizationMenalaus, Zadokitehighin not 2the Macc. ofpriestly Hellenization Zadokite nothigh 4:7–10).of of lineage, thepriestly Zadokite high Jerusa But of priestlywho threelineage, thelemites high offered Jerusa lineage,priestly who(174lemites offeredBCE; who lineage, (1742 o ffMacc.ered BCE;whoAntiochus 2offered Macc. years later, Jason was displaced by Menalaus, not ofyears Zadokite later, highJason priestly was 4:7–10).displaced lineage, But a4:7–10). bywho greaterthree Menalaus, offered Butyea bribe rsthree notlater, (2 Macc.yeaof JasonZadokiters later, 4:24). was Jason high Indisplaced 168 priestlywas BCE, displacedby whilelineage, Menalaus, Antiochus bywho Menalaus, notoffered wasof Zadokite campaigning not of Zadokitehigh inpriestly Egypt, high apriestly rumor

lineage, who19spreadlineage, offered throughout who offered the land of Israel that he had been killed. On hearing this, Jason attacked his rival 19 See (Isser19 1976,See19 (Isser p. See9). 1976, (Isser19 p. 1976, See9).See (Isser (Isserp. 9). 1976,1976, p.p. 9).9). 19 19 20Menelaus in Jerusalem (2 Macc. 5:5). In reaction, Antiochus sent his army against the city, slaughtered See (Isser 1976, p. 9). See20 (Isser See 1976, for20 instance p. 9).See 20 for (Kartveit Seeinstance for 20instance2009a, (Kartveit SeeSee p. forfor (Kartveit 126; instance 2009a,instance Eshel p.2009a, (Kartveit 2012,(Kartveit126; Eshel p.p. 126; 519). 2009a,2009a, 2012, Eshel Bruce p.p. 2012, 126;126;519). W. Eshel Hall Eshel p.Bruce 519). has 2012,2012, W. Bruceadopted Hall p.p. 519). 519).W. has aHall BrucemoreadoptedBruce has cautious W.W. adopted a HallHall more has hasline, acautious more adoptedadopted cautious line, aa more more line, cautiouscautious line, line, 20 20 its population, looted the Temple treasures and restored Menelaus (2 Macc. 5:11–21). See for instance (Kartveit 2009a, p. 126; Eshel 2012, p. 519). BruceSee for W. instancealleging Hall has (Kartveitthat: adoptedalleging “while alleging2009a, athat: moreit is “whilep. quitecautiousthat: 126;allegingalleging probableEshel“whileit is line, quite that:2012,that: it thatis probable“while “while p.quite 519).in he probable it itBrucellenistic thatisis quitequite in W. thathe times probableHallprobablellenistic in hasEgyptian he llenistic adopted thattimesthat in inJews Egyptian hetimes hea llenisticmore llenisticand Egyptian SamaritanscautiousJews timestimes and Jews Egyptianline,Egyptian Samaritans disputed and Samaritans JewsJews disputed andand Samaritans Samaritansdisputed disputeddisputed alleging that: “while it is quite probable that in hellenistic allegingtimes Egyptianabout that: the“while Jews relativeabout itand is the aboutmerits quiteSamaritans relative the probableof Jerusalemrelative aboutmeritsabout disputed that the theofmerits andJerusalem relativeinrelative he Mountofllenistic Jerusalem meritsmerits and Gerizi times Mount ofof m,and JerusalemJerusalem Egyptianwe MountGerizi have m, and and GerizinoJews we MountmeansMount haveandm, we of GeriziSamaritansnoGerizi havedetermining meansm,m, no we weofmeans disputed havedetermininghave the of nonohistorical determining meansmeans the ofof historical determiningdetermining the historical thethe historicalhistorical about the relative merits of Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim, weabout have thebasis no relative means of this basismerits of particular determining of ofbasis this Jerusalem narrative,” particularof this thebasisbasis particularhistoricaland narrative,” (Hall of ofMount thisthis 1987, narrative,” particularparticular Gerizi (Hall p. 293).m, 1987, narrative,” wenarrative,”(Hall have p. 1987, 293). no (Hall (Hallp.means 293). 1987,1987, of determining p.p. 293).293). the historical basis of this particular narrative,” (Hall 1987, p. 293). 21 2121 basis21 ofSee this e.g., particular21 (Kippenberg See e.g., narrative,”See (Kippenberg 1971,e.g., (Kippenberg(Hall p.ofSeeSee 74; Jerusalem 1987,1971,e.g., eMarttila.g., (Kippenberg (Kippenbergp. 1971, 293).74; and 2012, Marttila Mount p. p.74; 210).1971, 1971,Marttila Gerizim, 2012, p. p. p.74; 74; 2012, we210). Marttila Marttila have p. 210). no 2012, 2012, means p. p. of210). 210). determining the historical basis of this particular narrative,” 21 21 22 See e.g., (Kippenberg 1971, p. 74; Marttila 2012, p. 210). See22 e .g., See (Kippenberg (Sauer22 See2000,22 1971,(Sauer p.See 22; p. 2000, (SauerGilbert74;22 Marttila p. (See2000Hall See 22;2008, (Sauer Gilbert(Sauer,1987 2012,p. p. 22;, 7; p. 2000, p. 2000Calduch-BenagesGilbert2008, 293). 210). , p. p.p. 22;2008, 22;7; Calduch-Benages GilbertGilbert p. 7; 2008,Calduch-Benages2008, 2008, p. p.p. 133). 7;7; 2008, Calduch-BenagesCalduch-Benages p. 2008, 133). p. 133). 2008,2008, p.p. 133).133). 22 22 2321 See (Sauer 2000, p. 22; Gilbert 2008, p. 7; Calduch-Benages 2008,See23 (Sauer p. 133). 2000 23 , p. 22;23 Gilbert 2008,23 p.See 7; e.g., amongCalduch-Benages (Kippenberg others (Purvis 1971 2008,, p. 1965; 74; p. Marttila 133). Skehan 2012 and, p. 210).DiLella 1987, p. 558; Kartveit 2009a, pp. 140–48; Marttila 2012, See among See others among See(Purvis amongothers22 1965; (PurvisSeeothers Skehan among (Purvis1965; and others Skehan 1965;DiLella (Purvis Skehanand 19 87, DiLella1965; andp. 558;Skehan DiLella19 Kartveit87, p.and 19 558;87, DiLella2009a, Kartveitp. 558; pp. 19 Kartveit87, 2009a,140–48; p. 558; pp.2009a, Marttila Kartveit 140–48; pp. 2012, 140–48; 2009a,Marttila pp. Marttila 2012, 140–48; 2012, Marttila 2012, 23 See among others (Purvis 1965; Skehan and DiLella 1987,23 p.See 558; among Kartveit others 2009a, (Purvis pp. 140–48; 1965; Skehan MarttilaSeepp. (206–15).andSauer 2012, DiLella 2000 , p. 19 22;87, Gilbert p. 558; 2008 Kartveit, p. 7; Calduch–Benages 2009a, pp. 140–48; 2008 ,Marttila p. 133). 2012, pp. 206–15).pp. 206–15).pp. 206–15). 23 Seepp. among 206–15). others (Purvis 1965; Skehan and DiLella 1987, p. 558; Kartveit 2009a, pp. 140–48; Marttila 2012, pp. 206–15). pp. 206–15). 24 2424 pp.24 206–15). (Van der24 Horst(Van 2003,der(Van Horst p. der32;24 2003, PummerHorst((VanVan(Van p. der 2003, der 32;der 2009, Horst PummerHorst Horst p. 32;p.2003 2003,12; 2003,Pummer, 2009, p. 2016, 32; p.p. 32;Pummerp. 32;pp. 2009, 12; Pummer Pummer 47–50). 2016, p. 2009 12; pp. , 2009, 2009, p.2016, 47–50). 12; p. 2016p.pp. 12; 12; ,47–50). pp. 2016,2016, 47–50). pp. pp. 47–50).47–50). 24 24 25 (Van der Horst 2003, p. 32; Pummer 2009, p. 12; 2016, pp. 47–50).(Van25 der (Pummer Horst25 2003, 2016,(Pummer 25p. p. 32; (Pummer86). Pummer 2016, On25 thep. 2016, ((Pummer86).2009, Pummer(Pummer“Sidon On p. p. 86)ians the 12;2016 2016, .2016, On“Sidon2016, in, p. Shechem,” thep. 86).p. pp. 86). ians86)“Sidon On 47–50). . On Onin the Shechem,”ians thesee “Sidoniansthe “Sidon below. “Sidonin Shechem,” ians inseeians Shechem,” below. inin Shechem,”seeShechem,” below. see below. seesee below.below. 25 25 2626 (Pummer 2016, p. 86). On the “Sidonians in Shechem,” see below.(Pummer26 2016,26 p. 86)26. On (Dušekthe “Sidon26 2012, ((DušekiansDušek(Dušek p. in104). 2012 Shechem,”2012, 2012, , p. p. p 104). . 104).104). see below. (Dušek 2012, (Dušek p. 104). 2012, p.27 104). 26 26 27 See (Bourgel 2017, p. 386). (Dušek 2012, p. 104). (Dušek27 2012, p27. 104). 27 27 See (Bourgel 2017, p. 386). See (Bourgel See 2017, (Bourgel See p. 386). (Bourgel 2017,28 Seep. 2017, 386). (Bourgel p. 386). 2017, p. 386). 27 27 28 (Pummer 2009, p. 12). See (Bourgel 2017, p. 386). See28 ( Bourgel (Pummer 2017,28 2009,(Pummer p. 28386). p. (Pummer12). 2009, 28 p. 2009, (Pummer12).(Pummer p. 12) 2009, .2009, p. p. 12). 12) . 28 (Pummer 2009, p. 12). 28 (Pummer 2009, p. 12). Religions 2019, 10, 628 5 of 21

In 2 Maccabees 5:22–2329 we find data of prime importance to the present discussion; this passage depicts the situation following the plunder of the Jerusalem Temple and Antiochus’ departure to Antioch (summer 168 BCE):

He (sc. Antiochus) went so far as to leave officials in charge of maltreating our race (τὸ γένoς): at Jerusalem, Philip, a Phrygian by birth, but by character more barbaric than the man who appointed him; and at Mount Gerizim, Andronikos; and in addition, Menelaus, who was worse than the others inasmuch as he lorded it over his compatriots.30

While the narrative context makes it clear that Antiochus assigned Philip of Phrygia to be governor of Jerusalem in order to secure his control over the city, the grounds for the appointment of Andronikos as governor at Mount Gerizim remain unexplained, (except the general accusation that Antiochus sought to maltreat the Jewish “race”). Nothing seems to indicate that the Samaritan worshippers at Mount Gerizim had been involved one way or another in the uprising against Menelaus in Jerusalem. Menachem Mor has wondered whether, just as in Jerusalem, the Jewish population was divided between proponents and opponents of Hellenism, so was the situation among the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim. Thus, prompted by the false rumor that Antiochus IV had been killed in Egypt, the Samaritan conservatives would have revolted to gain control over the Gerizim temple.31 Stressing that the process of Hellenization was very complex, Leister L. Grabbe has called for great caution in postulating a clear-cut dichotomy between “Hellenized” and “faithful” Jews, and in drawing an analogy in this matter between Jerusalem and Shechem.32 In the absence of further information, it could alternatively be suggested that the appointment of Andronikos at Mount Gerizim was a preventive measure rather than a reactive one. In any event, it is noteworthy that the Yahweh worshippers on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem were put under the same restrictions. This raises the question of whether the Seleucid authorities made any distinction between Jews and Samaritans. No less remarkable is that the author of 2 Macc. 5:22–23 himself explicitly recognizes the two groups as belonging to the same “race,” the Jewish people.33 The same can be said of 2 Macc. 6:1–2, which describes the beginning of the persecution against Jews and Judaism initiated by Antiochus in late 167 BCE:

Not long thereafter, the king sent Geron the Athenian to compel the Jews (τoὺς Ioυδαίoυς) to depart from their ancestral laws (τῶν πατρίων νóµων) and to cease living by the laws of God. He was also to defile both the temple in Jerusalem and the temple on Mount Gerizim and to proclaim the former to be the temple of Zeus Olympios and the latter (in accordance with the...of the inhabitants of the place) to be the temple of Zeus Xenios (καὶ τὸν ἐν Γαριζιν, καθὼς ἐτύγχανoν oἱ τὸν τóπoν oἰκoῦντες, ∆ιὸς Ξενίoυ)34.

Here again, the category of Jews includes both the Yahweh worshippers in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim. However, the depiction of the Samaritans in this account remains a matter of controversy, much of this discussion depending on the meaning of the phrase καθὼς ἐτύγχανoν oἱ τὸν τóπoν oἰκoῦντες and the term Ξένιoς in v. 2. As we shall see, none of the main explanations proposed is free of difficulties.

29 2 Maccabees (2:23) describes itself as an epitome of Jason of Cyrene’s lost five-volume work. Jason’s original writings are usually dated to the first Hasmonaean generation, whereas the time of composition of its abridgement has been variously dated to the period between the rule of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) and the conquest of Judea by Pompey (63 BCE). 2 Maccabees depicts the Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes from its beginning until the overthrow of the Seleucid general Nicanor (161 BCE). On the Second Book of Maccabees, see (Goldstein 1983, pp. 3–188; Schwartz 2008, pp. 3–126; Babota 2014, pp. 15–20). 30 Trans. (Goldstein 1983, p. 245). 31 (Mor 2003, pp. 104–5). 32 (Grabbe 2002, pp. 214–16). 33 (Goldstein 1983, p. 261; Schwartz 2008, p. 264; Doran 2012, p. 229). 34 Trans. (Goldstein 1983, p. 268). Religions 2019, 10, 628 6 of 21

On the basis of Benedictus Niese’s emendation of ἐτύγχανoν to ἐνετύγχανoν, many have inferred that the Mt. Gerizim temple was renamed after Zeus Xenios, at the request of the local inhabitants.35 This interpretation seemingly corresponds to the letter found in Josephus penned by people referring to themselves as the “Sidonians in Shechem” and asking Antiochus IV to allow that their temple be renamed after Zeus Hellenios (Ant 12:258–261; see below). There is, however, a noticeable discrepancy between the mention of Zeus Xenios in 2 Macc 6:2 and that of Zeus Hellenios in the letter of the “Sidonians in Shechem.” Besides, as pointed out by Reinhard Pummer, Niese’s emendation lacks any basis in the manuscript tradition.36 Furthermore, this interpretation would render incomprehensible Antiochus’ dispatch of an emissary to “compel (ἀναγκάζειν)” the Jews to change the names of both temples, in Jerusalem and in Gerizim. As Robert Doran puts it: “Both the immediate and the larger context of 2 Macc 6:2 leads one to hold that the text should not be emended to align it with the Josephus correspondence.”36 A second alternative explanation is that 2 Macc 6:2 is an allusion to the interpretation of 2 Kings 17:24–41 according to which the Samaritans were descended from the heathen colonists settled in Samaria by the Assyrians (late eighth century BCE).38 This proposition, though, stands in contrast to 2 Macc 5:22–23 and 6:1–2, which place the Gerizim and Jerusalem worshippers in the same category of Jews. A third alternative interpretation is that ∆ιὸς Ξενίoυ designates Zeus the Hospitable; accordingly, 2 Macc 6:2 would mean that the residents of the place (Mt. Gerizim) happened be hospitable like Zeus.39 Support for this reading could be found in a statement, ascribed to the second century BCE author commonly called Pseudo-Eupolemus, that the inhabitants of the city at the Gerizim temple received Abraham hospitably.40 Daniel R. Schwartz has raised objections to the two latter explanations:41

1. They imply that the readers of 2 Macc. had a thorough understanding of traditions related to Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritans, which is dubious. 2. They suppose that the renaming of the Mt. Gerizim temple suited the inhabitants of the place, whereas Antiochus’ measures are portrayed as having been imposed against the will of the Yahweh worshippers in Jerusalem and on Mount Gerizim (we should note that this argument invalidates the first explanation mentioned above as well); 3. In order to mean “happened to be,” ἐτύγχανoν would have had to be supplemented by a participle of a verb of being.

According to Schwartz the word in question is best explained as a secondary addition, most likely influenced by the text of the petition of the “Sidonians in Shechem” to Antiochus IV (Ant 12:258–261; see below). This proposition is appealing but it implies accepting Niese’s emendation, which, as seen above, has some drawbacks. In any event, it is most noteworthy that 2 Macc. (5:22–23; 6:1–2) presents Jews and Samaritans as belonging to the Jewish people, and portrays them as co-victims of Antiochus’ coercive measures.

2.2. The “Sidonians in Shechem” As mentioned above, in his accounts of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus, Josephus quotes a memorandum allegedly sent by the Samaritans to the Seleucid king (Ant 12:257–264). The authors of

35 (Niese 1900, p. 519, no. 2). On this topic, see (Doran 1983, p. 481). 36 (Pummer 2009, pp. 14–15). 36 (Pummer 2009, pp. 14–15). 38 This proposition rests on the twofold assumption that τυγχάνω renders “happen to be” and ∆ιὸς Ξενίoυ refers to “Zeus the protector of strangers”; accordingly, 2 Macc 6:2 should be translated as follows: “(the temple on Mount Gerizim was renamed after) Zeus the protector of strangers, as were they that dwelt in the place.” See (Hanhart 1982, pp. 108*–10*; Kartveit 2009a, pp. 239–40). 39 See for instance (Doran 1983, p. 124). For a different stance, see (Pummer 2009, pp. 14–15). 40 See: Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.17.2–9 (GCS 43.1:502–04); on Pseudo-Eupolemus, see below no. 102. 41 (Schwartz 2008, pp. 537–40). Religions 2019, 10, 628 7 of 21 the missive, who described themselves as the “Sidonians in Shechem (τῶν ἐν Σικίµoις Σιδωνίων),”42 asked not to be persecuted as Jews on the grounds that they were of Sidonian stock, and that although they observed the Sabbath and “offered the appropriate sacrifices,” they practiced different customs from the Jews. In addition, they demanded that the temple on Mount Gerizim be dedicated to Zeus Hellenios. Josephus, who identifies these Sidonians with the Samaritans, presents this letter as illustrating that the Samaritans were opportunists, deriving their apparently Jewish practices from mere superstition, to which they were after all loosely tied. This point is further verified by Antiochus’ answer:

The Sidonians in Shechem ... have represented to us sitting in council with our friends that they are in no way concerned in the complaints brought against the Jews, but choose to live in accordance with Greek customs, we acquit them of these charges, and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenios, as they have petitioned.43

Although the authenticity of these documents was long debated, their genuineness is now widely accepted in the wake of Elias Bickerman’s demonstration in his 1937 publication “Un document relatif à la persecution d’Antiochos IV Épiphanes.”44 These letters, however, raise several questions that are still under discussion, the most critical of which have to do with the identity of the “Sidonians in Shechem.” Some scholars have assumed that they were reformist Hellenized Samaritans who sought to root themselves in Hellenistic culture.45 This proposal has been dismissed by, among others, Grabbe. In his opinion, the Samaritans as a whole, whose practices were very similar to those of the Jews, were—or threatened to become—the collateral victims of the upheaval in Jerusalem and Antiochus’ subsequent attack on Judaism. Distancing themselves from the Jews was therefore likely to be an attempt “by diplomacy to have the decree lifted with regard to themselves.” By acting so, they did not intend to forsake their religious practices, like the Sabbath, but meant rather to continue to observe them.46 For others, the “Sidonians in Shechem” were most likely members of a colony of Sidonians settled in Shechem.47 The existence of such colonies is attested to during the Hellenistic era in other cities of the land of Israel, like Marisa and Jamnia-on-the-Sea.48 In the same way that the Sidonians in Marisa adopted the cult of the local Idumean god Kos,49 it is likely that the “Sidonians in Shechem” to some extent adhered to the cult held in the temple on Mount Gerizim. If we were to accept this interpretation, we would have to conclude that the self-defined “Sidonians in Shechem” are to be clearly distinguished from the Samaritans (who identified themselves as Israelites). We should note, however, that the presence of a Sidonian colony in Shechem has been seriously questioned by Menachem Mor on the twofold ground that the Seleucid authorities would not have been unaware of its existence, and would have been most likely able to distinguish Sidonians from Jews.50 A further suggestion has been made by Richard Coggins that the Samaritans were called “Sidonians” simply because this name was tainted with pejorative connotations in certain passages of Isaiah (23: 2; 4).51

42 The “Sidonians in Shechem” are first referred to in Ant 11:340–47. According to this account, the Samaritans, in an attempt to obtain Alexander the Great’s favors, said that “they were Hebrews but were called the Sidonians of Shechem.” But after Alexander asked them whether they were really Jews, they confessed that they were not. 43 Ant 12:262–64. Trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; 1943, pp. 133–35). 44 See (Bickermann 1937; Isaac 1991; Dušek 2012, p. 103). For the opposite opinion, see (Rappaport 1990, pp. 386–93). 45 See (Mor 1989, p. 14; 2003, p. 120; Schwartz 1993). 46 (Grabbe 2002, p. 206). 47 See for instance (Isaac 1991; Dušek 2012, pp. 101–4). 48 On the Sidonian colonies at Marisa, see (Oren and Rappaport 1984). 49 Interestingly enough, the name of the god Kos appears in several theophoric names from the Sidonian tombs of Marisa. See (Peters et al. 1905, pp. 44–47, 54, 62–63). 50 (Mor 2003, p. 121). 51 (Coggins 1987, p. 266). Religions 2019, 10, 628 8 of 21

It turns out thus that discussions of the petition of the “Sidonians in Shechem” to Antiochus can lead to very different conclusions, depending on whether one chooses to identify them as Samaritans in general, Samaritan Hellenistic reformers, or descendants of Phoenician colonists.

3. The Samaritans under Hasmonean Rule

3.1. Under Jonathan (161–142 BCE) In reaction to Antiochus’s decrees against Judaism, a rebellion broke out, with the Jewish rebels initially led by Matthias and his son Judas of the priestly Hasmonean family (167 BCE). But what began as a rebellion against religious persecution transformed in the course of time into a war of territorial expansion. After the death of Judas (161 BCE), his brothers, Jonathan (161–142 BCE) and Simon (142–134 BCE), took the lead in the struggle against the Seleucids. Exploiting dissension among the Seleucid rulers, and playing off one claimant to the crown against another, Jonathan gained religious authority and political control of additional lands. In 152 BCE, Alexander Balas, a pretender to the Seleucid throne, awarded Jonathan the high priesthood (1 Macc 10:20; Ant 13.45). In the same vein, in ca 145 BCE, Demetrius II Nicator (145–141 and 129–125 BCE), a new Seleucid ruler, officially annexed to Judea the three southern Samarian districts of Lydda (Lod), Aphairema (Ephraim) and Ramathaim (Rama) (1 Macc 11:34–36; Ant 13.127). Interestingly enough, the grant of these districts was supplemented by the award of exemption from all royal taxes for “all those who offer sacrifices in Jerusalem (πᾶσιν τoῖς θυσιάζoυσιν εἰς Iερoσóλυµα).” This clause, which certainly derived from a specific request of Jonathan (1 Macc 11:28), implies that those inhabitants of the three annexed districts who continued to bring sacrifices to the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim were denied the exemptions.52 In other words, it seems that Jonathan used persuasion to convince those YHWH worshippers dwelling in the regions of Lydda, Aphairema and Ramathaim to recognize the Jerusalem temple as the only legitimate place of worship, and his high priest (Jonathan himself) as the only legitimate leadership.53 It is also likely that he could expect substantial economic benefit, if the offerings and tithes that had formerly been sent from the three southern Samarian districts to Mount Gerizim would henceforth be redirected to the Jerusalem temple. However, it must be stressed that the award of exemption from taxes for “those who offer sacrifices in Jerusalem” supposes in itself that offering sacrifices to the Gerizim temple, though discouraged, was not forbidden.

3.2. Under John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) It is usually thought that it was not until the rule of Jonathan’s brother, Simon that the Hasmonean state became independent of the Seleucid Kingdom (Josephus BJ 1.53; Ant. 13.211). The rule of Simon’s son, John Hyrcanus, was to have tremendous consequences for the Samaritan community. According to Josephus’ Jewish War (1.62), Hyrcanus launched a military campaign against the cities of Syria during the expedition of the Syrian ruler Antiochus Sidetes against the Medes (130 BCE). However, in Antiquities (13.254), Josephus reports that Hyrcanus began his campaign immediately upon learning of the death of Sidetes (129 BCE). This dating however, has been revised in the light of recent archaeological discoveries that indicate that Hyrcanus’ territorial expeditions occurred toward the end of his reign, between the years 112/111–108/107 BCE.54

52 See (Goldstein 1983, pp. 432–33; Schwartz 1991, p. 56; Knoppers 2013, pp. 172–73). 53 In this respect it should be noted that, a few years earlier (152 BCE), Demetrius I Soter (161–150 BCE), in an attempt to win the support of Jonathan, assured him that the dwellers of the three Samarian “nomes” would recognize no other authority than that of the Jerusalem high priest (i.e., Jonathan; 1 Macc 10:38). It is likely that those areas were already militarily controlled by Jonathan and his followers. At any rate, Jonathan gave no credence to Demetrius I’s promises (1 Macc 10:46). See (Goldstein 1983, pp. 410–11). 54 See (Barag 1994; Finkielsztejn 1998; Magen 2007, p. 193, no. 43). Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21 campaign immediatelyReligions 2019upon, 10 ,learning 628 of the death of Sidetes (129 BCE). This dating however, has 9 of 21 been revised in the light of recent archaeological discoveries that indicate that Hyrcanus’ territorial expeditions occurred toward the end of his reign, between the years 112/111–108/107 BCE.54 According to Josephus,According Hyrcanus to Josephus, first took Hyrcanus the Transjordanian first took the cities Transjordanian of Madaba cities and Samaga of Madaba and Samaga (together with neighboring(together with places). neighboring He then attack places).ed Shechem He then attackedand Gerizim, Shechem subduing and Gerizim, “the nation subduing of “the nation the Cutheans whoof thedwelt Cutheans round whoabout dwelt that temple round aboutwhich that was temple built in which imitation was builtof the in temple imitation at of the temple at 55 Jerusalem” (BJ 1.62).Jerusalem”55 The account (BJ 1.62). in Ant.The (13.255) account describes in Ant. (13.255) the destruction describes of the the destruction temple on ofMt. the temple on Mt. Gerizim in more Gerizimdetail: in more detail: [Hyrcanus took][Hyrcanus Shechem took]and Garizein Shechem and and Garizeinthe Cuthaean and the nation, Cuthaean which nation, lives which near livesthe near the temple temple built afterbuilt the model after the of modelthe sanctuary of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, at Jerusalem, which Alexander which Alexander permitted permitted their their governor governor SanaballetesSanaballetes to build to for build the for sake the of sake his ofson-in-law his son-in-law Manasses, Manasses, the brother the brother of the of the high priest high priest JadduaJaddua as we as have we haverelated related before. before. Now Nowit was it two was hundred two hundred years years later laterthat this that this temple was temple was laid waste.laid waste.56 56

After this, HyrcanusAfter moved this, Hyrcanus southwards moved to Idumea southwards and conquered to Idumea Adora, and conquered Marisa, and Adora, other Marisa, and other cities. Eventually,cities. he subdued Eventually, the Hellenistic he subdued city the of Hellenistic Samaria.57 city of Samaria.57 The results of recentThe resultsarchaeological of recent investigations archaeological have investigations confirmed haveJosephus’ confirmed data. Excavations Josephus’ data. Excavations at Tell Balâtah (ancientat Tell BalShechem)âtah (ancient have shown Shechem) that have the site shown ceased that to the be siteinhabited ceased in to the be inhabitedlate second in the late second century BCE. Thecentury destruction BCE. of The Shechem destruction goes of ba Shechemck to 107 goes BCE back according to 107 BCEto G. accordingErnest Wright, to G.58 Ernest and Wright,58 and to to the year 112–111the yearBCE 112–111 according BCE to according Dan Barag. to Dan59 Yitzhak Barag. 59Magen’sYitzhak excavations Magen’s excavations on top of on Mt. top of Mt. Gerizim Gerizim have revealedhave revealed that John that JohnHyrcanus Hyrcanus not only not only destroyed destroyed the theSamaritan Samaritan temple temple but but also also devastated the devastated the surroundingsurrounding city, city, in in around around 111–110 111–110 BCE. BCE.60 60 MagenMagen has has inferred inferred from from the the discovery discovery of a hoard of of a hoard of HasmoneanHasmonean coins coins on on the the western sideside ofof thethe city city that that a Hasmoneana Hasmonean garrison garrison was was subsequently based subsequently basedon topon top of theof the mount, mount, to to prevent prevent the the Samaritans Samaritans from from returning. returning.6161 AA furtherfurther likely reference to the reference to the destructiondestruction of of the the Samaritan Samaritan temple temple by by John John Hyrcanus Hyrcanus is found in Megillat Ta’anit, 6262 celebrating “the on 21 Kislev. 6363 ”(יום הר גריזים) celebrating “the day of Mount Gerizim Josephus does notJosephus specify doeswhat notprompted specify Hyrcan what promptedus to destroy Hyrcanus the Mt. to Gerizim destroy thetemple. Mt. GerizimAs Seth temple. As Seth Schwartz has observed,Schwartz the has devastation observed, of the this devastation sanctuary ofis thisusually sanctuary interpreted is usually by modern interpreted historians by modern historians as an act of hostilityas an against act of hostilitythe Samaritan against community the Samaritan as a communitywhole.64 Menahem as a whole. Mor64 andMenahem others have Mor and others have concluded that theconcluded Samaritans that were the Samaritans treated by wereHyrcan treatedus like by “the Hyrcanus Hellenistic like cities “the Hellenisticin Eretz Israel cities in Eretz Israel which were burnedwhich to werethe ground burned and to thetheir ground population and their deported.” population65 Zeev deported.” Safrai thinks65 Zeev that Safrai John thinks that John Hyrcanus’ treatmentHyrcanus’ of the treatment Samaritans of the was Samaritans even harsher was even than harsher that of than thethat Hellenistic of the Hellenistic cities, for cities, for whereas whereas the Hasmoneansthe Hasmoneans later laterresettled resettled cities cities like like Samaria, Samaria, theythey leftleft Shechem Shechem abandoned. abandoned.66 Likewise,66 according Likewise, accordingto Magen, to Magen, “John “John Hyrcanus’ Hyrcanus’ decision deci tosion burn to the burn city testifiesthe city to testifies a wish forto revenge,a wish for reflecting the great revenge, reflectinghatred the great which hatr Jewsed harboredwhich Jews toward harbored the Samaritans toward the and Samaritans their temple and ontheir Mt. temple Gerizim on... , as expressed Mt. Gerizim…, asin expressed the words in of the Ben words Sira ... of Ben(50:26).” Sira…67 James(50:26).” D.67 Purvis James sees D. Purvis religious sees and religious political and factors behind the political factors destructionbehind the destruction of the Samaritan of the temple, Samaritan whose temple, aim would whose have aim been would to “solidifyhave been the to extent of Judaean authority” and hold strongly to the “inheritance of our fathers” (1 Macc 15:33–34).68 Seth Schwartz, for

his part has proposed that in the wake of the persecution by Antiochus IV (167 BCE), the reformist 54 See (Barag 1994; Finkielsztejn 1998; Magen 2007, p. 193, no. 43). 55 On the term Cuthean, see e.g., (Schiffman 1993). 56 Trans. Marcus (Trans. Ralph Marcus (LCL 365; 1943, pp. 355–57). 57 BJ 1.64–65; Ant.55 13.275–81.On the term Cuthean, see e.g., (Schiffman 1993). 56 58 See inter alia (WrightTrans. 1962, Marcus p. 358; (Trans. 1965, Ralph p. 47; Marcus Campbell (LCL365; 2002, 1943, pp. pp. 1, 8). 355–57). 57 BJ 1.64–65; Ant. 13.275–81. 59 (Barag 1994, pp. 7–8). 58 See inter alia (Wright 1962, p. 358; 1965, p. 47; Campbell 2002, pp. 1, 8). 60 (Magen 2007, p.59 193;(Barag 2008b, 1994 p., pp. 98). 7–8). 61 (Magen et al. 2004,60 (Magen pp. 12–13; 2007, Magen p. 193; 2008b 2008b,, p. p. 98). 81). 62 Megillat Ta‘anit61 (Scroll(Magen of et Fasting) al. 2004, pp.is a 12–13; treatise Magen originat 2008bing, p. in 81). the late Second Temple period; it lists thirty- 62 five festival days onMegillat which Ta‘anit fasting (Scroll was offorbidden, Fasting) is many a treatise of which originating were incommemorations the late Second Temple of victories period; of it the lists thirty-five festival days on which fasting was forbidden, many of which were commemorations of victories of the Hasmonaean period. See Hasmonaean period.(Noam See 2003 (Noam). 2003). 63 See: (Noam 2003,63 See:pp. 262–65). (Noam 2003 , pp. 262–65). 64 (S. Schwartz 1993,64 ( Schwartzp. 11). 1993, p. 11). 65 65 See e.g., (Mor 1989,See p. e.g., 16; (2003Mor ,1989 p. 125,, p. 16; 127; 2003 Giles, p. 125,2008, 127; p. Giles 540). 2008 , p. 540). 66 (Safrai 1986, p. 129). 66 (Safrai 1986, p. 129). 67 (Magen et al. 2004, p. 12). 67 (Magen et al. 2004,68 (Purvis p. 12). 1968 , pp. 113–15).

Religions 2019, 10, 628 10 of 21

Hellenized Samaritans (the so-called “Sidonians that were in Shechem” mentioned in Ant 12.257–64) took control of the Mt. Gerizim temple (henceforth dedicated to Zeus). They remained in charge of the sanctuary until John Hyrcanus subdued them with the support of the conservative and law-abiding Samaritan party.69 In a study published in 2016, I proposed that John Hyrcanus’ destruction of the Samaritan temple was not intended as an act of exclusion, but was, on the contrary, an act of forced incorporation of the Samaritans into the Hasmonean state70. It was an extreme but fully logical attempt to rally them to his authority as high priest of the Jerusalem Temple. In theory, nothing further was necessary for the Samaritans to be incorporated with the Jews, in contradistinction to the Idumeans, who had to submit to circumcision and the laws of Moses. In this respect, it is by no means unlikely that John Hyrcanus considered the Samaritans genuine Israelites, for as we have seen, 2 Macc. (5:22–23; 6:1–2) shows that, in the mid-to-late second century BCE, the Jews (or at least some of them) regarded the Samaritans as brethren. I further proposed that John Hyrcanus’ policy was aimed at diverting the Samaritans not only from their sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, but also from the priesthood associated with it. In fact, as mentioned above, as the Jerusalem Temple high priest, John Hyrcanus could expect to enhance his authority and make substantial economic gains, with the offerings and tithes that had formerly been sent to Mt. Gerizim henceforth being redirected to the Jerusalem Temple. In support of this proposition, it has been argued that while the gentiles under Hasmonean rule were driven from their homes71 or enslaved,72 the Samaritans were apparently allowed to remain on their lands. The results of at least three archaeological surveys of Samaria, and especially the areas surrounding Mount Gerizim, show that these areas did not witness major changes in the number of sites in the Roman period in comparison with the Hellenistic period.73 But, at any rate, whatever Hyrcanus’ motivations were, it is plain that the destruction of their temple greatly enhanced the resentment and defiance of a part of the Samaritan people toward the leadership in Jerusalem and its priesthood; as such, it has often been described as the decisive cause of the parting of the ways between the Jewish and Samaritan communities.74 It should be added that very little is known about the Samaritans in general and the state of their relations with the Jews in particular during the latter part of the Hasmonean period, following the reign of John Hyrcanus (135/4–104 BCE). Unfortunately, our main source, Josephus, provides only very scanty information about this issue, leaving it to modern scholars to consider this specific question.

4. The Production of the Samaritan Pentateuch The question of the production of a distinctive Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) is directly relevant to the present discussion, first because it is usually dated to the late Hasmonean period, and second because it is considered by some as having greatly contributed to the separation of Samaritans and Jews.75 This dating is founded mainly on the assumption that the SP is based on a text-type similar to several manuscripts from the late Hasmonean period discovered at Qumran.76 These texts share

69 (Schwartz 1993). Schwartz’s proposition has been challenged by Hanan Eshel, on the basis that the religious decrees of persecution were abolished by Antiochus V Eupator (164–162 BCE; 2 Macc 11:22–25), decades before the time of John Hyrcanus; (Eshel 2012, p. 534). 70 (Bourgel 2016). 71 This was the case for at least some of the Idumeans; on this see for instance (Faust and Erlich 2008, pp. 10–18, 22). 72 This was the case for the inhabitants of the city of Samaria (BJ 1.65). 73 (Campbell 1991; Finkelstein et al. 1997, pp. 2:907–19, 2:953–54; Zertal 2004, p. 63). An important exception is the environs of the Hellenistic city of Samaria (the “Sebastiyeh section”) which experienced a sharp fall in the number of settlements during the transition from the Hellenistic to the Roman period (Zertal 2004, p. 93). 74 See among others (Cross 1966, pp. 210–11; Purvis 1981, pp. 348–49; Mor 1989, p. 18; Freyne 1999, p. 52; Anderson and Giles 2002, p. 30). 75 See (Knoppers 2011, p. 507). 76 See e.g.,: 4QpaleoExodm, 4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb and 4QDeutn. About five percent of the Pentateuch texts from Qumran are categorized as so-called pre-Samaritan or harmonizing texts. See for instance (Anderson and Giles 2002, pp. 43–58). Religions 2019, 10, 628 11 of 21 common characteristics with the SP like harmonization of contradictory passages, the content of certain accounts and linguistic features. While some scholars have labelled these manuscripts as Samaritan,77 or proto-Samaritan,78 most have opted for the wording pre-Samaritan.79 In the late second to early first century BCE, or so it is widely assumed, the Samaritans added specific Samaritan readings to a previously existing harmonistic text-type, reflecting their ideology (such as the emphasis on the sanctity of Mount Gerizim80 to constitute their own version of the Pentateuch.81 With some reason, this proposition has been questioned on the ground that none of the so-called pre-Samaritan texts found at Qumran exhibit specific SP readings characteristic of Samaritan beliefs; accordingly, these manuscripts cannot provide confirmation for the shaping of the SP in the late Hasmonean period, which remains no more than a possibility.82 If, in spite of this, we were to accept with the majority of scholars that the SP took shape in the late second to early first century BCE, there is still a further important question that needs to be asked: what impact did it have on relations between Gerizim and Jerusalem worshippers? Thus, while James D. Purvis has emphasized the importance of the promulgation of the SP in the Samaritan process of self-definition,83 other scholars have downplayed its implications, stressing that the late Second Temple period was still a time of textual fluidity and pluriformity. Thus, according to Judith E. Sanderson, the very fact that the SP is based on one of the popular text-types in circulation in the late Hasmonean period indicates that the Samaritans developed their holy writings “in concert with the religion and sacred writings of other Israelites.”84 Stefan Schorch has identified two further interrelated phenomena closely connected to the emergence of the SP that contributed, he believes, to the shaping of Samaritan identity and the parting of the ways between Samaritan and Jews in the late second century BCE:85 first, the emergence of Samaritan Hebrew as a “group-specific sociolect,” functioning as a linguistic marker of Samaritan identity. This proposition rests on the postulate that the dialect spoken by the forefathers of the Samaritans ceased to have any interaction with its linguistic surroundings by the late second to early first century BCE. Second, the constitution, then, of a Samaritan oral reading tradition, fixing the vocalization, pronunciation and phrasing of the consonantal framework of the Samaritan Pentateuch. This oral reading tradition was to become a means of identification for the Samaritan community and create a clear-cut distinction with the Jewish tradition. Schorch further contends that the written framework of the Samaritan Pentateuch and oral reading tradition “should be regarded as one linguistic corpus only, dating to the late 2nd century BCE.”86 Although this proposition is appealing, it should be

77 See for instance (Baillet 1971). 78 See e.g., (Purvis 1968, p. 80; Tov 1989; 2012, pp. 74–92). 79 See inter alia (Crawford 2011; Tov 2013). Esther and Hanan Eshel have deemed it inappropriate to call the scrolls under discussion “pre-Samaritan” and “proto-Samaritan,” for they do not include specifically Samaritan readings; they prefer to label them “harmonistic texts.” See (Eshel and Eshel 2003, pp. 220–21). See also (Anderson and Giles 2012, pp. 34–35, no. 36). 80 Most illustrative in this respect is the Samaritan Tenth Commandment that emphasizes the sanctity of Mount Gerizim as God’s chosen place of worship. It is composed of: Exod 13:11a, Deut 11:29b, 27:2b–3a, 4a, 5–7, and 11:30. For lists of other readings in the SP considered to be specific to the Samaritans, see inter alia (Margain 1991, cols. 767–68; Knoppers 2011, pp. 514–16). The specific Samaritan character of most these readings has recently been questioned by Edmond L. Gallagher (Gallagher 2015, pp. 99–101). 81 According to Esther and Hanan Eshel, the Samaritan ideological readings were added prior to the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim, (Eshel and Eshel 2003, pp. 238–39). See also, inter alia (Pummer 2007, p. 247; Anderson and Giles 2012, pp. 43, 49; Tov 1989; 2012, pp. 79, 90–93). 82 See for instance (Hjelm 2000, p. 93; Grabbe 2002, p. 214). Timothy Lim has proposed as an alternative possibility that the Samaritan Pentateuch emerged earlier in relation to the building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim; (Lim 2017, pp. 96, 102). See also (Gallagher 2015, pp. 103, 106). 83 (Purvis 1981, p. 333). See also (Dexinger 1992, p. 136). 84 (Sanderson 1986, p. 32). See also (Ulrich 1999, p. 65; Hjelm 2004, p. 15; Knoppers 2011, p. 527). 85 (Schorch 2005, pp. 11–15; Schorch 2013, pp. 135–50). 86 (Schorch 2007, p. 186). Religions 2019, 10, 628 12 of 21 stressed that Schorch’s early dating of the emergence of the Hebrew Samaritan has not been universally agreed on.87

5. Literary Evidence for a Jewish Anti-Samaritan Polemic in the Hasmonean Period? Also closely tied to the question of the Samaritans in the Hasmonean period is the supposed anti-Samaritan polemic found in a number of second to first century Jewish writings, which has been interpreted as reflecting the growing rift between Jews and Samaritans at that time. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to thoroughly review these accounts, we shall give an overview of the current discussion on this complex issue.88 First, we shall briefly refer to the Greek version (G) of Sir 50,25–26 which, as seen above, is probably to be dated to the years 132–117 BCE This reads:

My soul was offended at two nations, and the third is not a nation (τὸ τρίτoν oὐκ ἔστιν ἔθνoς): those who settled on Mount Samaria (oἱ καθήµενoι ἐν ὄρει Σαµαρείας) and Phylistiim, and the foolish people who live in Sikima (ὁ λαὸς ὁ µωρὸς ὁ κατoικῶν ἐν Σικιµoις).89

Strikingly enough, the expression appearing in the original Hebrew text “those who live on Mount Seir” has been replaced by “those who settled on Mount Samaria.” While for some scholars, this change should be ascribed to a textual corruption in the Greek version,90 for others it is an intentional anti-Samaritan editing of the Hebrew text, reflecting the worsening of Jewish-Samaritan relations during the Hasmonean period.91 Thus, whereas the Idumeans (Seir) were considered fully-fledged Jews in the wake of their conversion by John Hyrcanus, the Samaritans became wholly alienated from the Jewish community. This interpretation is problematic in two ways. Firstly, it raises a chronological problem, for the conquest of Idumea by John Hyrcanus (112/111–108/107 BCE) occurred after the commonly accepted date for the translation of Ben Sira into Greek (between the years 132 and 117 BCE). Secondly, it requires supposing that Sir 50,25–26 (G) contains two self-contradictory references to the Samaritans, one to a “nation” and the second to a “non-nation.” It is therefore obvious that “the foolish people that live in Shechem” are to be distinguished from “those who settled on Mount Samaria,” who were most probably the inhabitants of the Hellenistic city of Samaria.92 The reference to the inhabitants of Shechem may contain an anti-Samaritan polemic, but, as in the original Hebrew text, this is no more than a mere possibility. A further possible explanation for calling them a non-people could stem from their being a mixed group.93 Other anti-Samaritan polemics have been found in the numerous retellings of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) composed during the Hasmonean period. Interestingly enough, this episode was very popular and the focus of many interpretations in the second to first centuries BCE. Retellings of the rape of Dinah can be found in works like the Testament of Levi, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Judith, Theodotus, and 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition. According to a widely accepted view, the authors of these texts reworked the story of Dinah’s rape in order to create a correlation between the wicked Shechemites of Genesis 34 and the people who inhabited Shechem at their own time, that is supposedly the Samaritans.94 However, caution should be exercised in drawing too-general conclusions based on this premise: It should be stressed first that the great popularity of the biblical account of the rape of Dinah during

87 According to Moshe Florentin, Samaritan Hebrew postdates not only the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, “but the Hebrew reflected in the good manuscripts of the Mishnah as well;” See (Florentin 2005, pp. 15–16). 88 This section is an abridged version of certain passages of my article: (Bourgel 2017). 89 Trans. (Pietersma and Wright 2007, p. 761). 90 (Smend 1906, p. 491). 91 See (Kartveit 2009a, p. 143; Schorch 2013, p. 137). 92 As Pummer has pointed out, ὄρει Σαµαρείας can refer either to the mountains in the area of Samaria in general, or to the mountain of the Hellenistic city of Samaria (Pummer 2009, p. 11). 93 (Tigchelaar 1996, p. 202, no. 77). 94 See, for instance (Collins 1980; Mendels 1987, p. 110). Religions 2019, 10, 628 13 of 21 the Hasmonean period can be explained by reasons other than its geographical setting in Shechem. This episode indeed deals with questions that were of great concern to second-century BCE Jews, such as exogamous marriages and gentile conversions to Judaism.95 Second, it is remarkable that certain adaptations of Genesis 34 omit to mention that the men of Shechem were circumcised before they were slaughtered by Shimeon and Levi (as described in Gen 34:24).96 Yet the representation of the Shechemites from Gen. 34 as permanently uncircumcised jeopardizes their identification with the second century BCE Samaritans, of whom there are no grounds for thinking that they had forsaken circumcision in the Hellenistic period.97 Unlike those accounts, the Testament of Levi does describe the circumcision of the Shechemites before they were slain (T. Levi 6,6). Furthermore, it creates a clear correlation between the past misdeeds of the Shechemites and the city of Shechem of his own time (T. Levi 7,1–3). T. Levi is part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a Greek Christian work from the late second century CE. However, it was almost certainly, in its original form, a Jewish text composed in the second century BCE,98 linked in some way with the Aramaic Levi fragments discovered in the Cairo Geniza and among the Dead Sea Scrolls.99 T. Levi 7 has often been seen as reflecting a second century BCE anti-Samaritan polemic.100 However, in this case too, care should be taken not to draw over-hasty conclusions, firstly since no parallel to T. Levi 7,1–3 has been found in the Aramaic Levi fragments;101 therefore one cannot say whether it belonged to the original Jewish strata of T. Levi or to later Christian strata. Secondly, as already seen, not every reference to Shechem in ancient Jewish literature necessarily has to do with the Samaritans. The case of the second century BCE writer Theodotus is also noteworthy.102 Theodotus is only known by a poem partially preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century CE). Eusebius, however, was not quoting directly from the works of Theodotus but from the writings of the Greek historian Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105–35 BCE).103 The surviving section of Theodotus’ poem deals with Dinah’s rape. Scholarly discussion of this text has focused on his apparent merging of Jewish and Samaritan identity markers. Thus, for instance while on the one hand, Theodotus praises Shechem and depicts it as a “holy city (ἱερὸν ἄστυ)” (l. 7), he states, on the other hand, that Jacob asked all Shechemites to be “circumcised and become Jews (περιτεµνoµένoυς ᾿Ιoυδαΐσαι)” (Praep. Ev. 9.22.5). This combination of Jewish and Samaritan features has been regarded as paradoxical and the result of textual corruptions probably to be ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor. Much of the scholarly debate has therefore centered on whether Theodotus was a Jew104 or a Samaritan,105 and on whether it was the Jewish or the Samaritan elements that were later appended to the original text. The terms of this discussion, though, may be based on a retro-projection of later conceptions of Jews and Samaritans as constituting fully separate and discrete categories. It is possible that Polyhistor faithfully reproduced Theodotus’ poem, which in its original form contained both so-called Samaritan and Jewish characteristics.106

95 In this respect, it is obvious that the Book of Jubilees (30), has reworked Dinah’s story in order to condemn marriages with foreigners and Gentiles’ conversion to Judaism. See inter alia (Schwartz 1993, p. 12; Shatzman 2007, p. 260; Segal 2012, p. 349). 96 See for instance: Jubilees (30,4) as well as the Book of Judith (9). 97 (Pummer 1982, pp. 185–86). 98 See, for instance (Charlesworth 1985, pp. 38–41). 99 On the link between the Aramaic Levi and the text in Greek of the Testament of Levi, see (DeJonge 1988). 100 See for instance (Collins 1980, p. 98; Kugel 1992, pp. 23–25). 101 The Aramaic Levi Document does contain a reworking of Genesis 34 (Greenfield et al., pp. 56–59); but as Kartveit has pointed out, this text is too fragmentary “to say anything about a certain ideological tendency in this material.” (Kartveit 2009a, p. 175); sae also (Grabbe 2002, p. 207). 102 See (Fallon 1985a, p. 788). 103 Praep. Ev. 9.22.1–11 (GCS 43.1:512–516). On Alexander Polystor, see (Schmitz 1862, p. 115; Wacholder 1963, p. 83 no. 2). 104 See e.g., (Kippenberg 1971, p. 84; Collins 1980; Kartveit 2009a, pp. 122–40). 105 See e.g., (Freudenthal 1875, pp. 99–100; Bull 1967, p. 224; Purvis 1968, p. 13 no. 21; Wacholder 1972, p. 1102; Mendels 1987, p. 111). 106 Similar observations can be made about the mid-second century BCE writer commonly called Pseudo-Eupolemus. Eusebius’ extensive excerpts from Alexander Polyhistor’s work include a fragment on Abraham’s life, from a work by the Jewish historian Eupolemus entitled “On the Jews”; Praep. Ev. 9.17.2–9 (GCS 43.1:502–504). Eupolemus is frequently identified with Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

The terms of this discussion, though, may be based on a retro-projection of later conceptions of Jews and Samaritans as constituting fully separate and discrete categories. It is possible that Polyhistor Religions 2019, 10, 628 14 of 21 faithfully reproduced Theodotus’ poem, which in its original form contained both so-called Samaritan and Jewish characteristics.106 In contradistinction to the discussions of the ab above-mentionedove-mentioned works, there is a wide consensus among scholars that the Qumran text 4Q372 does reflectreflect a polemic against the Samaritans and the Gerizim temple.107 ThisThis fragment fragment contains contains a a psalm psalm attributed to Joseph,108 who,who, according to the prevailing view, isis toto bebe interpretedinterpreted herehere notnot asas thethe patriarchpatriarch ofof Genesis,Genesis, but as the Israelite northern tribes exiled from theirtheir homelandhomeland by thethe “nations”“nations” (4Q372 1, lineslines 4;4; 5;5; 7).7). Most remarkable are the 4Q372 1, line 11) and “a hostilehostile) (נבלים ) ”new occupants of Joseph’s terri territorytory who are called “fools ”on a a high high mountain” mountain (במה) 4Q372 (4Q372 1, 1, line line 21),21), andand areare saidsaid toto setset upup aa “high“high placeplace) (”(עם אויב ) people (line(line 12)12) andand speakspeak “against“against thethe tenttent ofof Zion”Zion” (4Q372(4Q372 1,1, lineline 13).13). Eileen Schuller was the first first to see in this depiction a clear reference to the Samaritan community with with its its cultic cultic center center at at Mount Mount Gerizim. Gerizim. She has surmised that 4Q372 originally belonged to an anti-Samaritan work aiming at refuting the Samaritans’ oror “proto-Samaritans’”“proto-Samaritans’” claim claim to to descend descend from from Joseph, Joseph, by by stating stating that that his realhis real offspring offspring had remainedhad remained in exile. in exile.109 Accordingly,109 Accordingly, we should we should interpret interpret the high the placehigh place erected erected on a high on a mountain high mountain in the landin the of land Joseph of Joseph as being as a being reference a reference to the temple to the ontemple Mount on Gerizim, Mount Gerizim, and the foolish and the people foolish speaking people againstspeaking the against tent of the Zion tent as of a reference Zion as a to reference the Gerizim to the worshippers. Gerizim worshippers. Schuller has Schuller dated the has composition dated the ofcomposition 4Q372 to before of 4Q372 the to destruction before the of destruction the Gerizim oftemple the Gerizim at the temple hand of at John the hand Hyrcanus of John I (ca. Hyrcanus 112/111 BCE).I (ca. 110112/111Reinhard BCE). Pummer,110 Reinhard who sees Pummer, Schuller’s who proposition sees Schull aser’s probable, proposition has nonetheless as probable, rightly has stressednonetheless that rightly the invectives stressed in that 4Q372 the couldinvectives also in be 4Q372 pointed could against also groups be pointed other against than the groups Samaritans, other suchthan asthe “Shechemite Samaritans, reformers,such as “Shechemite or Greek colonists reformers, at Samaria, or Greek or colonists no actual at contemporary Samaria, or no group actual at all.”contemporary111 Having group said that, at all.” Schuller’s111 Having explanation said that, remains Schuller’s the most explanation likely. 4Q372 remains is also the outstanding most likely. in that4Q372 it acknowledgesis also outstanding the existence in that it acknowledges of three discrete the communities, existence of three that is,discrete Israel, communities, the gentiles and that the is, Samaritans.Israel, the gentiles In fact, and the the latter Samaritans. are not to In be fact, considered the latte partr are ofnot Israel to be or considered even as an part unformed of Israel group or even of people,as an unformed a non-people; group rather, of people, they a exist non-people; as a constituted rather, foe,they and exist indeed as a constituted a people. Itfoe, should and beindeed noted a thoughpeople. thatIt should 4Q372 be 1 noted (line 27) though seems that to consider4Q372 1 the(line possibility 27) seems of to a consider “fool” repenting. the possibility112 of a “fool” repenting.By way112 of conclusion of this section, we can say that there is likely evidence for an anti-Samaritan polemicBy way in second of conclusion century of BCE this Jewish section, writings; we can however,say that there this shouldis likely not evidence be exaggerated, for an anti-Samaritan for in many instances,polemic in one second cannot century be sure BCE whether Jewish thewritings; Samaritans however, are actuallythis should intended. not be exaggerated, for in many instances, one cannot be sure whether the Samaritans are actually intended. 6. Samaritan Mikva’ot: Evidence for Judaization of the Samaritans in the Hasmonean Period? 106 SimilarAnother observations factor that can may be bemade relevant about inthethis mid-second discussion century and BCE which writer has commonly been raised called by YitzhakPseudo- MagenEupolemus. is the discovery Eusebius’ of extensive mikva’ot excerpts (singular, from mikveh) Alexander in ancient Polyhistor’s Samaritan work settlements. include a fragment The Jewish on mikvehAbraham’s consisted life, of from a stepped, a work by plastered the Jewish immersion historian Eupolemus pool cut into entitled bedrock, “On andthe Jews”; used toPraep. remove Ev. 9.17.2– ritual 9 (GCS 43.1:502–504). Eupolemus is frequently identified with the envoy of Judas Maccabeus to Rome, who impurity.9 (GCS It 43.1:502–504). is generally acceptedEupolemus that is frequently it made its identifi firsted appearance with the envoy in the of HasmoneanJudas Maccabeus period, to Rome, probably who is referred to in 1 Macc 8,17 and 2 Macc 4,11; (Fallon 1985b). Jakob Freudenthal was the first to reject the at some point between the second half of the second century and the first half of the first century attribution of the fragment to a Jewish writer because it says that Abraham was received as a guest at the city at the temple Argarizin, which is interpreted as “mountain of the Most High”; (Freudenthal 1875, pp. 85–87). Furthermore, Freudenthal saw such a depiction as incompatible with the laudatory representation theof envoy the Jerusalem of Judas Maccabeus Temple in to other Rome, of who Eupolemus’ is referred toaccoun in 1 Maccts. Accordingly, 8,17 and 2 Macc Freudenthal 4,11; (Fallon 1985bassigned). Jakob this Freudenthal fragment wasto an the unknown first to reject Samaritan the attribution author of the hefragment called Pseudo-Eupolemus; to a Jewish writer because henceforth it says that, his Abraham proposition was receivedhas been as widely a guest at the city at the temple Argarizin, which is interpreted as “mountain of the Most High”; (Freudenthal 1875, pp. 85–87). accepted. But as is the case with Theodotus, it may well be that discussions of Eupolemus are based on an Furthermore,accepted. But Freudenthal as is the saw case such with a depictionTheodotus, as incompatible it may well with be that the laudatory discussions representation of Eupolemus of the are Jerusalem based Temple on an inanachronistic other of Eupolemus’ perception accounts. of Jews Accordingly, and Samari Freudenthaltans as already assigned fully this fragmentseparate to categories. an unknown Samaritan author he 107 called (Schuller Pseudo-Eupolemus; 1989–1990). See henceforth, also (Knibb his proposition 1992, p. 168; has Kart beenveit widely 2009a, accepted. pp. 119–33; But as 2009b). is the case For with different Theodotus, opinions, it may wellsee be for that instance discussions (Kugler of Eupolemus 2006, pp. are276–77; based Mitchell on an anachronistic 2009). perception of Jews and Samaritans as already fully separate categories. 108 107 (Schuller 4Q372 ).is part See also of a ( KnibbHebrew 1992 text, p. known 168; Kartveit as 4QNarrati 2009a, pp.ve and 119–33; Poetic 2009b Composition). For different (or “Joseph opinions, Apocryphon”), see for instance (Kuglerthat is 2006 contained, pp. 276–77; in four Mitchell more 2009 manuscripts). (4Q371, 2Q22, 4Q373, and 4Q373a). 108109 4Q372 (Schuller is part 1989–1990, of a Hebrew p. text 371). known as 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition (or “Joseph Apocryphon”), that is contained in four more manuscripts (4Q371, 2Q22, 4Q373, and 4Q373a). 110 (Schuller 1989–1990, p. 376). 109 (Schuller, p. 371). 111 110 (Schuller(Pummer, p. 376).2009, p. 20); see also (S. Schwartz 1993, p. 22, no. 18). 111112 (PummerAccording 2009 to, p. Shuller, 20); see Joseph’s also (Schwartz commitment 1993, p. 22, to no.teach 18). God’s law to “all who abandon” the Torah (l. 27), could 112 Accordingbe interpreted to Shuller, “more Joseph’s specifically commitment and to polemically teach God’s lawin reference to “all who to abandon” the Samaritans” the Torah(l. (Schuller 27), could 1989–1990, be interpreted p. “more366). specifically If this is andright, polemically it would in mean reference that to the the author Samaritans” of 4Q372 (Schuller considered, p. 366). If the this Gerizim is right, it worshippers would mean that to thebe author of 4Q372 considered the Gerizim worshippers to be apostates who had forsaken God’s law. apostates who had forsaken God’s law.

Religions 2019, 10, 628 15 of 21

BCE.113 Magen114 highlights several facts: First, mikva’ot have been found neither in the area of the sacred precinct of Mount Gerizim, nor in the remains of the adjacent second century BCE city; but many bathtubs were discovered on Mount Gerizim inside private houses from the Hellenistic period. Second, a number of mikva’ot were discovered elsewhere in Samaria, in different sites from the Roman and Byzantine periods (for example, Qedumim, El-Khirbe, Khirbet Samara, H. orbat Migdal). Of special importance is one of the six mikva’ot unearthed in Qedumim (Mikveh A-1), which Magen dates to the “late second Temple period.”115 On this basis, Magen contends that the Samaritans made no use of mikva’ot until they were subdued by John Hyrcanus and their temple was destroyed at his hands. It was during the following decades that the custom of building mikva’ot was forced on them by the last Hasmonean rulers.116 If this proposition were true, it would be further evidence that John Hyrcanus and his successors did not seek to expel the Samaritans, but rather to forcibly integrate them into the Hasmonean state centered on Jewish Jerusalem. The plausibility of Magen’s hypothesis, though, has been questioned on the ground that his early dating of Mikveh A-1 from Qedumim to the late Second Temple period is doubtful.117 Besides, the theory of coercion on the part of the Hasmoneans is only a hypothesis to explain the fact that mikva’ot came to be in use among the Samaritans at the latest during the Roman period;118 this could as well be explained by ongoing religious interaction and mutual influences between Jews and Samaritans in this period.119

7. Conclusions The question of the Samaritans in the Hasmonean period is multifaceted and needs to be treated with different approaches. In the first place, the attitude of the Hasmoneans toward the Samaritans has turned out to be a more complicated issue than was initially assumed, and it may be reductive, if not erroneous, to simply see it as one of hatred and rejection. In my opinion, the Hasmonean rulers, as part of their general endeavor to religiously unite their new territorial acquisitions, sought to bring the Samaritans to recognize the Jerusalem temple as the only legitimate place of worship, and its priesthood as the only legitimate priesthood; while Jonathan used persuasion, John Hyrcanus, for his part, used coercion. However, their attempt eventually backfired and turned the Samaritans against them and the Jerusalem cult, the majority of the former remaining exclusively loyal to Mt. Gerizim. It should be added that the principles of this policy were abandoned a few decades later, when the Samaritans were expelled from the Jerusalem Temple in the days of the Roman procurator Coponius (6–9 CE; Ant 18:29–30120). At any rate, these events most likely further strengthened and accelerated the process of the formation of the Samaritans as a discrete community. It is difficult though to determine whether they had a direct effect on the composition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is often regarded either as a major factor in Samaritan identity constitution, or as the ultimate indicator of the emergence of the Samaritans as a group distinct from the Jews. Another important issue is what the general Jewish understanding of the Samaritans was in the second century BCE. Remarkably enough, analysis of the relevant sources reveals that there were different opinions among Jews about the Samaritans. Thus, for instance, while 4Q372 1 reflects a feeling of estrangement towards the Samaritans to the point of seeing them as non-Israelites, 2 Macc. (5:22–23;

113 See for instance (Reich 2013, p. 209; Adler 2018, pp. 7, 9–11, 17, 20). I am very grateful to Dr. Yonatan Adler for supplying a great deal of important information on the Miqwa’ot in the Second Temple Period. 114 (Magen 2002, pp. 227–36). 115 (Magen 1985, p. 22; 2002, p. 229). 116 See (Magen 2002, p. 236; 2008a, pp. 186, 194). 117 See (Reich 1990, p. 333; Adler 2011, p. 47, no. 94; Knoppers 2013, p. 236). 118 It is commonly accepted that the Samaritans took up the use of miqwa’ot from the Jews sometime in the first centuries of the common era. See for instance (Pummer 2016, p. 116). 119 (Knoppers 2013, p. 237). 120 On this passage, see for instance (Pummer 2009, pp. 222–30). Religions 2019, 10, 628 16 of 21

6:1–2) is evidence that during this period there were Jews who considered the Yahwistic worshippers in Gerizim to be a kind of Jews. All in all, we know that the abovementioned historical developments and processes, which began during the Hasmonean period, had far-reaching implications on the emergence of the Samaritans as a self-contained community separate from the Jews. Their effects, however, were not as immediate and definitive as has been thought. In spite of periods of tension between Jews and Samaritans, there is evidence for ongoing religious and social relations between them during the following centuries. It is conspicuous in this respect that, at least until the late second century CE, the question of the Samaritans’ status was still hotly debated and controversial among Jews.121

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

References

Adler, Yonatan. 2011. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Erez.–Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE–400 CE). Ph.D. dissertation, Bar–Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. (In Hebrew). Adler, Yonatan. 2018. The Hellenistic Origins of Jewish Ritual Immersion. JJS 69: 1–29. [CrossRef] Anderson, Robert T., and Terry Giles. 2002. The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans. Peabody: Hendrickson. Anderson, Robert T., and Terry Giles. 2012. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. Atlanta: SBL. Babota, Vasile. 2014. The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood. SJSJ 165. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Baillet, Maurice. 1971. Le texte Samaritain de l’Exode dans les manuscrits de Qumran. In Hommages à André Dupont–Sommer. Edited by André Dupont–Sommer, André Caquot and Marc Philonenko. Paris: Adrien–Maisonneuve, pp. 363–81. Barag, Dan. 1994. New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I. INJ 12: 1–12. Bickermann, Elias. 1937. Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochos IV Épiphanes. RHR 115: 188–223. Bourgel, Jonathan. 2016. The Destruction of the Samaritan Temple by John Hyrcanus: A Reconsideration. JBL 135: 505–23. [CrossRef] Bourgel, Jonathan. 2017. Brethren or Strangers: Samaritans in the Eyes of Second Century BCE Jews. Biblica 98: 382–408. Bruneau, Phillipe. 1982. Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne. BCH 106: 465–504. [CrossRef] Bull, Robert J. 1967. A Note on Theodotus’ Description of Shechem. HTR 60: 221–28. [CrossRef] Calduch–Benages, Núria. 2008. The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): A Polemic Text? In The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 119–38. Campbell, Edward F., Jr. 1991. Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey. Edited by Karen I. Summers. ASORAR 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Campbell, Edward F. 2002. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Charlesworth, James H., ed. 1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins. SNTSMS 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coggins, Richard J. 1975. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford: Basil Blackwel. Coggins, Richard J. 1987. The Samaritans in Josephus. In Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 257–73. Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1979. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: Brill. Collins, John J. 1980. The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans. HTR 73: 91–104. [CrossRef]

121 On this matter, see for instance (Hershkovitz 1940; Schiffman 1985). Religions 2019, 10, 628 17 of 21

Crawford, Sidnie White. 2011. The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre–Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch. In Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 123–36. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. 1966. Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times. HTR 59: 201–11. [CrossRef] Crown, Alan D. 1991. Redating the schism between the Judaeans and the Samaritans. JQR 86: 17–50. [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 and Boston: De Gruyter. DeJonge, Marinus. 1988. The Testament of Levi and Aramaic Levi. RevQ 13: 367–85. Dexinger, Ferdinand. 1992. Der Ursprung der Samaritaner im Spiegel der fruhen Quellen. In Die Samaritaner. Edited by Ferdinand Dexinger and Reinhard Pummer. Wege der Forschung 604. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 67–140. Doran, Robert. 1983. 2 Maccabees 6:2 and The Samaritan Question. HTR 76: 481–85. [CrossRef] Doran, Robert. 2012. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Dušek, Jan. 2007. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. CHANE 30. Leiden: Brill. Dušek, Jan. 2012. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. CHANE 54. Leiden: Brill. Egger, Rita. 1991. Josephus Flavius and the Samaritans. In Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’étude samaritaines. Edited by Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, pp. 109–14. Eshel, Hanan. 2012. The Growth of Belief in the Sanctity of Mount Gerizim. In A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason. SJSJ 153/2. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 509–35. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. 2003. Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls. In Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 215–40. Fallon, Francis T. 1985a. Theodotus (Second to First Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction. In Pseudepigrapha Volume 2: Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo–Hellenistic Works. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, pp. 785–93. Fallon, Francis T. 1985b. Eupolemus (Prior to First Century B.C.). In Pseudepigrapha Volume 2: Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo–Hellenistic Works. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, pp. 861–72. Faust, Abraham, and Adi Erlich. 2008. Hasmonean policy toward the gentile population in light of the excavations at Kh. er–Rasm and other rural sites. Jerusalem and Eretz Israel 6: 5–32. (In Hebrew). Feldman, Louis H. 1996. Josephus’ attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence. In Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by Louis H. Feldman. AGJU 40. Leiden: Brill, pp. 114–36. Finkelstein, Israel, Zvi Lederman, and Shlomo Bunimovitz, eds. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Publications Section. Finkielsztejn, Gerald. 1998. More evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s conquest: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora stamps. BAIAS 16: 33–63. Florentin, Moshe. 2005. Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of its Different Types. SSLL 43. Leiden: Brill. Freudenthal, Jacob. 1875. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und Samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1 + 2. Breslau: Skutsch. Freyne, Sean. 1999. Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi. In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. Duke Judaic studies series 1; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Gallagher, Edmond L. 2015. Is the Samaritan Pentateuch a Sectarian Text? ZAW 127: 96–107. [CrossRef] Gilbert, Maurice. 2008. Methodological and Hermeneutical Trends in Modern Exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira. In The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 1–20. Giles, Terry. 2008. The Samaritans in the Time of Jesus. In Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Craig Evans. New York: Routledge, pp. 539–42. Religions 2019, 10, 628 18 of 21

Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1983. II Maccabees. AncB 41A. Garden City: Doubleday. Grabbe, Lester L. 2002. Betwixt and Between: The Samaritans in the Hasmonean period. In Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture. Edited by Philip R. Davies and John Halligan. JSOTSup 340. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 202–17. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, pp. 56–109. Hall, Bruce W. 1987. Samaritan Religion from John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabba. Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust and University of Sydney. Hanhart, Robert. 1982. Zu den ältesten Traditionen über das samaritanische Schisma. EI 16: 106–15. Hershkovitz, Yehudah. 1940. The Samaritans in tannaitic literature. Yavneh 2: 71–105. (In Hebrew). Hjelm, Ingrid. 2000. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. JSOTSup 303. CIS 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hjelm, Ingrid. 2004. What Do Samaritans and Jews Have in Common? Recent Trends in Samaritan Studies. CBR 3: 9–59. [CrossRef] Isaac, Benjamin. 1991. A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia–on–the–Sea: Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians. IEJ 41: 142–43. Isser, Stanley J. 1976. The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. Kartveit, Magnar. 2009a. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTS 128. Leiden: Brill. Kartveit, Magnar. 2009b. Who Are the ‘Fools’ in 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c? In Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard–Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge and Martin Ehrensvärd. STDJ 80. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 119–33. Kartveit, Magnar. 2014. Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. JSJ 45: 449–70. [CrossRef] Kippenberg, Hans G. 1971. Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, Bd. XXX. New York and Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Knibb, Michael A. 1992. A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390. In The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by F. Garcia Martínez, A. Hilhorst and C. J. Labuschagne. VT.S 49. Leiden: Brill, pp. 164–77. Knoppers, Gary N. 2011. Parallel Torahs and Inner–Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective. In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, pp. 507–31. Knoppers, Gary N. 2013. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraabel, A. Thomas. 1984. New Evidence of the Samaritan Diaspora Has Been Found on Delos. BA 47: 44–46. [CrossRef] Kugel, James L. 1992. The Story of Dinah in the ‘Testament of Levi. HTR 85: 1–34. [CrossRef] Kugler, Robert A. 2006. Joseph at Qumran: The Importance of 4Q372 1 in Extending a Tradition. In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. VT.S 101. Leiden: Brill, pp. 261–78. Lim, Timothy. 2017. The emergence of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Textual and Reception History in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew Perrin. EJL 47. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 89–104. Magen, Yitzhak. 1985. The miqwa’ot in Qedumim and the purification standards of the Samaritans. Cathedra 34: 15–26. (In Hebrew). Magen, Yitzhak. 2002. The Samaritans during the Roman and Byzantine periods. In The Samaritans. Edited by Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Tzvi, pp. 213–44. (In Hebrew) Magen, Yitzhak. 2007. The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim. In Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE. Edited by Oded Lipschitz, Gary Knoppers and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 157–211. Religions 2019, 10, 628 19 of 21

Magen, Yitzhak. 2008a. The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Translated by Edward Levin. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology, Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria: Israel Antiquities Authority. Magen, Yitzhak. 2008b. Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City. JSP 8. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria: Israel Antiquities Authority. Magen, Yitzhak, Haggai Misgav, and Levana Tsfania. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1, The Aramaic, Hebrew & Samaritan Inscriptions. JSP 2. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology, Civil Administration. Magness, Jodi. 2001. The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. HTR 94: 157–77. [CrossRef] Margain, Jean. 1991. Samaritain (Pentateuque). In Dictionnaire de la Bible. Edited by Jacques Briend. Supplément 11. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, cols, pp. 762–773. Marttila, Marko. 2012. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter. Matassa, Lidia. 2007. Unravelling the Myth of the Synagogue on Delos. Bulletin of the Anglo–Israel Archaeological Society 25: 81–115. Mazur, Belle D. 1935. Studies on Jewry in Greece. Athens: Printing Office Hestia. Mendels, Doron. 1987. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. TSAJ 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mitchell, David C. 2009. A Dying and Rising Josephite Messiah in 4Q372. JSP 18: 181–205. [CrossRef] Mor, Menahem. 1989. The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period. In The Samaritans. Edited by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, pp. 1–18. Mor, Menahem. 2003. From Samaria to Shechem: the Samaritan Community in Antiquity. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center. (In Hebrew) Niese, Benedictus. 1900. Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, nebst beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen Erhebung. Hermes 35: 268–307. Noam, Ver. 2003. Megillat Ta’anit: Versions, Interpretations, History. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben–Zvi. (In Hebrew) Oren, Eliezer D., and Uriel Rappaport. 1984. The Necropolis of Maresha–Beth Govrin. IEJ 34: 114–53. Peters, John P., Hermann Thiersch, and Stanley Arthur Cook. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Mareshah)¯ . London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. 2007. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press. Plassart, André. 1914. La Synagogue juive de Délos. RB 11: 523–34. Pummer, Reinhard. 1982. Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. HTR 75: 177–88. [CrossRef] Pummer, Reinhard. 2007. The Samaritans and their Pentateuch. In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 237–69. Pummer, Reinhard. 2009. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck. Pummer, Reinhard. 2016. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pummer, Reinhard. 2018. Samaritan Studies—Recent Research Results. In The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans. Edited by Magnar Kartveit and Gary N. Knoppers. Studia Samaritana 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 57–78. Purvis, James D. 1965. Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem. JNES 24: 88–94. Purvis, James D. 1968. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Purvis, James D. 1981. The Samaritan Problem: A Case Study in Jewish Sectarianism in the Roman Era. In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpem and John D. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 323–50. Rappaport, Uriel. 1990. The Sect of the Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period. Zion 55: 373–96. (In Hebrew). Reich, Ronny. 1990. Miqwa’ot [Jewish ritual immersion baths] in the Land of Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. (In Hebrew). Reich, Ronny. 2013. Miqwa’ot—Jewish Ritual Baths—In the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben–Zvi and Israel Exploration Society. (In Hebrew) Safrai, Zeev. 1986. The history of the settlement in Samaria in the Roman and Byzantine periods. In Shomron Studies. Edited by Zeev Safrai and Shimon Dar. Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameukhad. (In Hebrew) Religions 2019, 10, 628 20 of 21

Sanderson, Judith E. 1986. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sauer, Georg. 2000. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1985. Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah. JQR 75: 325–50. [CrossRef] Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1993. Cuthaeans. In A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Edited by Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer and Abraham Tal. Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, pp. 63–64. Schmitz, Leonhard. 1862. Alexander Cornelius. In Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Edited by William Smith. New York: Harper and Brothers. Schorch, Stefan. 2005. The Origin of the Samaritan community. Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Poznan 7: 7–16. Schorch, Stefan. 2007. Spoken Hebrew in the Late Second Temple Period According to Oral and Written Samaritan Tradition. In Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Edited by Jan Joosten and Jean–Sebastien Rey. STDJ 73. Leiden: Brill, pp. 175–92. Schorch, Stefan. 2013. The Construction of Samari(t)an Identity from the Inside and from the Outside. In Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers. Edited by Rainer Albertz and Jakob Wöhrle. JAJSup 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 135–50. Schuller, Eileen M. 1989–1990. 4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph. RevQ 14: 349–76. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2008. 2 Maccabees. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Schwartz, Joshua J. 1991. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins Through the Byzantine Period, 560 BCE–640 C.E. BAR International Series 571. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Schwartz, Seth. 1993. John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and Judaean–Samaritan Relations. Jewish History 7: 9–25. [CrossRef] Segal, Michael. 2012. Rewriting the Story of Dinah and Schechem: The Literary Development of Jubilees 30. In The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nora David, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Shatzman, Israel. 2007. Jews and Gentiles from Judas Maccabaeus to John Hyrcanus According to Contemporary Jewish Sources. In Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz. AJEC 67. Leiden: Brill, pp. 237–70. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. DiLella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday. Smend, Rudolf. 1906. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 1996. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic. OTSt 35. New York and Leiden: Brill. Tov, Emmanuel. 1989. Proto–Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In The Samaritans. Edited by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, pp. 397–407. Tov, Emmanuel. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition Revised and Expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress. Tov, Emmanuel. 2013. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Proximity of the Pre–Samaritan Qumran Scrolls to the SP. In Keter Shem Tov: Collected Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown. Edited by Shani Tzoref and Ian Young. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, pp. 59–88. Trümper, Monika. 2004. The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered. Hesperia 73: 513–98. [CrossRef] Ulrich, Eugene C. 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Van der Horst, Pieter W. 2003. Anti–Samaritan Propaganda in Early Judaism. In Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism and Hellenism. Edited by Pieter W. van der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menek, Joop F. M. Smit and Geert Van Oyen. CBET 33. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 25–44. Vanderkam, James C. 2004. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wacholder, Ben-Zion. 1963. Pseudo–Eupolemus’ two Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham. HUCA 34: 83–113. Wacholder, Ben-Zion. 1972. Theodotus. EncJud 15: 1102. White, L. Michael. 1987. The Delos Synagogue Revisited Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco–Roman Diaspora. HTR 80: 133–60. [CrossRef] Religions 2019, 10, 628 21 of 21

Wright, G. Ernest. 1962. The Samaritans at Shechem. HTR 25: 357–66. [CrossRef] Wright, G. Ernest. 1965. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw–Hill Book Company. Zertal, Adam. 2004. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, vol. 1, The Shechem Syncline. CHANE 21.1. Leiden: Brill.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 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/).