Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans
Studia Judaica
Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums
Begründet von
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich
Herausgegeben von
Günter Stemberger
Band 66
Studia Samaritana
Herausgegeben von
Magnar Kartveit, Gerald Knoppers
und Stefan Schorch
Band 6
De Gruyter
Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans
Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics
Edited by
József Zsengellér
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-026804-1
e-ISBN 978-3-11-026820-1
ISSN 0585-5306
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Société d’études samaritaines. International Congress (6th : 2008 : Pápa,

Hungary)
Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans : studies on Bible, history and linguistics /
József Zsengellér.
p. cm. - (Studia Judaica Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Juden-
tums ; Bd. 66) (Studia Samaritana ; Bd. 6)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-3-11-026804-1 (hardcover 23 ⫻ 15,5 : alk. paper)
1. Samaritans - Congresses. 2. Bible. O.T. - Criticism, interpretation,
etc, Jewish - Congresses. I. Zsengellér, József. II. Title.
BM905.S63 2008
296.8117-dc23
2011032628
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
쑔 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
In memoriam G. D. Sixdenier
Preface
The last decade witnessed the loss of several scholars in the community
of Samaritan studies: the death of Ferdinand Dexinger in 2003, of Ser-
gio Noja Noseda in 2008, of Hanan Eshel, and of Alan D. Crown in
2010. In the year of the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines (SES) Papa Con-
ference (2008), Father Dom Guy Sixdenier passed away. He was the
founder and the engine of our Society in its early years. This book is
dedicated to the memory of his work and life.
During the last twenty-five years, Samaritan studies began to re-
ceive the recognition they deserve in the field of biblical, historical and
linguistic research. The foundation of the SES, its four-yearly series of
conferences, Samaritan sections in international scholarly meetings
(SBL, EABS, ICANAS), and the restarting of the Studia Samaritana sub-
series in the Studia Judaica series of the publisher de Gruyter, all signal
the importance of this area of academic research. Despite these facts
and in spite of the new wave of publications (monographs, handbooks,
and articles) during the last 20-25 years, many biblical scholars still
seem unaware of the recent contributions made by those in the field of
Samaritan studies.
Although maybe less significant than the Dead Sea discoveries,
Samaritan topics permea te more areas of biblical studies. The question
of the Samaritan Pentateuch has a serious impact on the textual criti-
cism of the Hebrew Bible. The pre-Samaritan text-type among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, as well as the dating and isolation of Samaritan features of
the Samaritan Pentateuch provide fresh and important data for gaining
a better understanding of the composition of the Torah /Pentateuch.
New reconstructions of the early history of the Samaritans have a great
effect on the history of the Jewish people in the Persian and Hellenistic
period. As a distinct group in the centuries arotmd the htrn of the
Common Era in Palestine, Samaritans played an important role in the
social and religious formation of early Judaism and early Christianity.
Living for centuries tmder Islamic rule, Samaritans provide a good
example of linguistic, culh1ral and religious developments experienced
by ethnic and religious groups in Islamic contexts. Hopefully our ef-
forts, which are also manifested in the present volume, will succeed
and provide fruitful ideas for other areas of academic research.
viii Preface
The papers in this volume were presented at the sixth international

conference of the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines held at the Reformed
Theological Academy of Papa, Htmgary in July 17-25, 2008. This meet-
ing was organized by the Shime'on Centre for the Study of Hellenistic
and Roman Age Judaism and Christianity.
The editor expresses gratitude to Prof. G<ibor Vladar, Rector of the
Reformed Theological Academy of Papa, and his administrative staff
for kindly providing their support for the conference. The conference
would not have been possible without the help and support of the staff,
the students, and my colleague, Prof. Dr. Geza Xeravits, secretary of the
Shime' on Centre.
Special thanks are due to Edina Kekk, who kindly prepared the in-
dexes. I am also indebted to Mr. Jeffrey Rop, who improved the English
of the non-native writers' articles.
I would like to thank Dr. Albrecht Dehnert, the editorial Director
for Theology - Jewish Studies - Religious Studies at de Gruyter pub-
lishing house, the editors of the sub-series Studia Samaritana who sup-
ported the edition of this vohune, and the Societe d'Etudes Samarit-
aines for their financial support of the editorial work.
Prof ]6zsef Zsengeller (Caspar Karoli Reformed University, Budapest)

List of Contributors
Shimon DAR: Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Israel)
Jan DUSEK: Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic)
Moshe FLORENTJN: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)
Ingrid HJELM: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
Haroutyun S. JAMGOTCHIAN Institute of Oriental Studies, Yerevan (Armenia)
Magnar KARTVEIT: School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger (Norway)
Gary N. KNOPPERS: Pennsylvania State University (USA)
Menahem MoR: University of Haifa (Israel)
Etienne NODET: Ecole Biblique Et Archeologique Fran~aise, Jerusalem (Israel)
Stefan ScHORCH: Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg (Germany)
Hasee b SHEHADEH: University of Helsinki (Finnland)
Paul STE HOUSE: Sydney (Australia)
Abrah am TAL: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)
Habib TAWA: Paris (France)
Thomas L. THOMPSON: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
Benyamim TSEDAKA: A-B Institute for Samaritan Studies, Holon (Israel)
Gerhard W EDEL: Free University of Berlin (Germany)
J6zsef ZSENGELLER: Caspar Karoli Reformed University,Budapest (HLmgary)

Contents
Preface ..... ........ . ...... ........ .... ..... ...... ....... . ........ ....... ........ . ....... ...... ...... .. . .. vii
List of Contributors ........ ............ ........... ............... ....... ........ ....... ........... ix
I. Memorial
HABIBTAWA
Equisse Biographique du Pere Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier ........ 1
II. Bible
THOMASL.THOMPSON
Genesis 4 and the Pentateuch's Reiterative Discourse:
Some Samaritan Themes ........................................................................ 9
STEFAN ScHORCH
The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of
Deuteronomy ......................................................................................... 23
GARY N. KNOPPERS
Did Jacob Become Judah?: The Configuration of Israel's
Restoration in Deutero-Isaiah ............................................................... 39
III. History
} AN DUSEK
Administration of Samaria in the Hellenistic period .......................... 71
MENAI-IEM MOR
The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan
Governors - Again ................................................................................ 89
MAGNAR l<ARTVEIT
Josephus on the Samaritans- his Tendenz and Purpose ................... 109
ETIENNE NODET
Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews ................... ................. ............. 121
xii Contents
INGRID HJELM
Samaritans. History and Tradition in Relationship to Jews,
Christians and Muslims: Problems in Writing a Monograph .......... 173
IV. Linguistics
ABRAHAM TAL
"Hebrew Language" and "Holy Language" Between Judea
and Samaria ......................................................................................... 187
MOSHE FLORENTIN
An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type FATII:IA ........................ 203
BENYAMIM TSEDAKA: Different Pronunciations of the Same

Word in the Torah Reading of the Israelite Samaritans in
Comparison Its Significant Attributes ............................................... 217
V. Artifacts and Texts

SHIMON DAR
The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima ............................................... 225
J6ZSEF ZSENGELLER
An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht ............ .................... ... 237
VI. Arabica
PAUL STENHOUSE
Reflections in a Samaritan Belief in an After-life. Text-proofs
for 'The Appointed Day' in Sam. Ms. BL Or10370 .. .......................... 245
GERHARD WEDEL
Abft 1-tfasan CU?-$ftri and his Inclinations to Mu'tazilite Theology .. 261
HAROUTYUN S. JAMGOTCH1AN
A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories ? ................................ 287
H ASEEB SHEHADEH: The Samaritan High Priest 'Imram ben

Salama and his Poem against Mubarak al Mufarragi, Who Became
a Convert to Islam in 1841 .................................................................. 293
Indexes ................................................................................................. 311

I. Memorial
Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy
Dominique Sixdenier
HABIB TAWA
Le 1er octobre 1917 naissait à Blandy, près de l'antique ville de Melun

(Sud-Est de Paris), Guy Sixdenier. Son père, Gaston Sixdenier, origi-
naire du Jura, s'était installé en 1911 comme notaire à Blandy. L'année
suivante il y épousait la fille d'un entrepreneur des travaux publics :
Lucienne Grare et achetait une charge de commissaire-priseur. De la
profession de son père Gaston, le jeune Guy conserva un goût sûr pour
les belles oeuvres. Il en gardera aussi un attachement à ses racines ju-
rassiennes. Sa mère, de lointaine ascendance picarde, lui transmit son
amour de la musique, son sens aigu du devoir et sa piété profonde.
C’est dans cette atmosphère, imprégnée des valeurs traditionnelles
de la France catholique, que le jeune Guy suivit, comme son frère aîné‚
et sa sœur, une scolarité harmonieuse dans une institution religieuse.
Elle s'acheva sans peine par le baccalauréat de philosophie, en 1935.
A la recherche du sens ultime des choses, il consacra deux années à
suivre les cours de philosophie de l’Institut Catholique de Paris. Ses
réflexions le conduisirent à entrer au séminaire, en 1937. Deux ans plus
tard, à la veille de la guerre, il devint novice chez les bénédictins. Une
voie contemplative semblait alors se dessiner pour lui.
Mais le destin en décida autrement; car à peine mobilisé, il était
nommé officier, après une préparation militaire supérieure. Le lieute-
nant Sixdenier était chargé de former des unités de tirailleurs sénéga-
lais. Ce contact, avec des wolofs et des maures au service de la France,
fut le premier de ceux qu'il aura avec l’Afrique noire et l'Islam.
La “drôle de guerre” terminée, démobilisé, il réintégra son couvent,
en fin 1940. Quatre ans plus tard, le 29 Juin 1944, il prononçait ses vœux
définitifs. Il était ordonné moine sous le nom de Dominique. Ainsi s'ex-
primaient clairement les options de base qui orienteront sa vie : la com-
binaison du travail incessant et de la prière qui caractérisent les
bénédictins; le choix d’une vie tournée vers le monde à l’instar de Saint
Dominique, son patron; et, l’érudition de haut niveau, qui est valorisée,
tant par les dominicains que par les bénédictins. Il se trouvait comblé.
2 H. Tawa
A peine était-il devenu moine, que ses supérieurs lui demandaient

de former des novices. En dépit de cette lourde charge, il s’inscrivit aux
cours de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Anciennes et de l’Ecole Prati-
que des Hautes Etudes. Il y suivit une formation de grec attique et bib-
lique car il maîtrisait déjà le latin depuis le séminaire. Mais il concentra
surtout son effort et ses intérêts sur les études sémitiques. De 1944 à
1947, il fut successivement diplômé d’hébreu, de syriaque et d’araméen
biblique. Sa préférence linguistique allait à l’hébreu et au syriaque, à
travers lesquels il découvrira les autres langues sémitiques. Il noua à
l’ELOA les premiers liens qui, au fil des années, permettront au "Père
Sixdenier" de devenir, grâce à l’étendue de ses contacts et à leur diver-
sité, l’un des hommes-clés parmi les plus introduits dans le milieu des
sémitisants, français puis internationaux.
Ses supérieurs ayant apprécié ses qualités pédagogiques
l’envoyèrent alors comme professeur au monastère de Wisques, dans le
Pas de Calais. Il y forma, durant deux années académiques (1947-48 et
1948-49), des universitaires, à l’étude de la littérature du christianisme
primitif et à l’histoire des origines chrétiennes. Il en profita pour tra-
duire des textes grecs inédits de Saint Grégoire de Nysse. Son en-
seignement lui inspira la publication, en 1948 dans le ”bulletin du
Cange,” de sa première note érudite ”sur l'emploi par la vulgate du
mot firmamentum.” Il y met en parallèle les Bibles latine et hébraïque.
En 1949 l’ordre bénédictin cherchait des volontaires pour fonder un
monastère au Maroc. Et le voilà parti à Séfrou, à une quinzaine de ki-
lomètres au sud de Fez, avec cinq de ses confrères. Dans cette région à
la limite des populations arabes et berbères, il découvrit que : ”l’on parle
au marché quatre langues : l’arabe, le berbère, l’hébreu et le français". Car les
6.000 juifs de Séfrou constituaient le quart de la population de cette
petite ville. Il apprit alors l’arabe, avec un marocain francophone, et
vécut, jusqu’en 1951, une riche expérience. Elle s’acheva par le rat-
tachement de son monastère à une institution plus traditionnelle. Là
aussi il profita de sa présence pour enseigner l’exégèse du Nouveau
Testament au grand séminaire de Rabat.
On lui proposa alors des fonctions à Rome. Sans hésiter, il s’installa
sur les bords du Tibre, en 1951. Rattaché à l'Académie Pontificale Saint
Jérôme, il y reçut pendant un an une rigoureuse formation à la critique
textuelle. Il remplit alors la fonction de secrétaire de l’édition de la Bible
latine. Il découvrit bien vite les subtilités de la vie vaticane et résumera
ses dix huit ans passés dans la ville éternelle par cette phrase lapidaire :
”Je suis un vieux romain.” Et il est vrai qu’il y a beaucoup appris et s’y
est fait de nombreuses et solides amitiés.
Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier 3
Pour l'heure il était attaché à l’étude critique des variantes de la

”Vetus Latina.” Il y établit des notes très érudites et exhaustives, com-
parant le texte adopté aux versions divergentes dont on dispose avec
les autres versions anciennes de la Bible. Sa connaissance des langues
sémitiques faisait en cela merveille. Elle fut aussi mise à contribution
lorsqu'il édita, avec Francesco Vattiani, le texte quadrilingue du Sira-
cide (ou Ecclésiastique). Cette édition met en parallèle les textes latin,
grec, syriaque et hébreu. Ce dernier, qui avait été découvert à la fin du
XIX° siècle parmi les fonds de la Geniza de la synagogue Ben ’Ezra du
Vieux-Caire, aiguisa son intérêt pour les manuscrits perdus de la Bible.
N’était-il pas comme son grand modèle Saint Jérôme à la recherche
d'une "veritas hebraica" ? N’avait-t-il pas constat‚ que le texte de la ”Ve-
tus” avait longtemps fluctué avant d'être fixé (au VII° siècle pour cer-
taines parties) ? Il en était d’ailleurs tellement convaincu qu’il parvint à
faire admettre la nécessité de restituer au Siracide, de la Vetus Latina,
tout un chapitre qui lui manquait. Désormais le texte canonique com-
portera 52 chapitres, au lieu des 51 antérieurement recensés.
Ce travail sur les sources le conduisit à s'intéresser à la Bible sama-
ritaine, dont il étudia le mode de transmission. En 1955, il chargeait
deux collègues, voyageant en Terre Sainte, de lui ramener la cantilla-
tion traditionnelle de la Bible, par les prêtres samaritains. L’année sui-
vante il en reçut l'enregistrement cantillé des trois premiers chapitres
de la Genèse, à la fois en hébreu et en araméen. Il examina aussi les
techniques des scribes samaritains et en proposa une classification. Il
identifia ainsi un certain ”scribe lambda.” Ses recherches lui ouvrirent,
en 1960, les portes de la Société Asiatique dont le Journal publia cette
année là son article ”Paléographie samaritaine.”
En 1969, son travail achevé il rentra à l'abbaye Sainte-Marie, de la
rue de la Source à Paris; celle où il avait prononcé ses voeux. Il en a fait
un lieu de rencontre privilégié pour les sémitisants français et étrang-
ers. Son sens de l'hospitalité et sa courtoisie, jointes à son art d'établir,
par petites touches, des passerelles entre des personnes venues
d’horizons différents, si ce n'est divergents, lui ont permis de rassemb-
ler des spécialistes, parfois isolés par l’exigence de leurs travaux ou la
spécificité de leur domaine de recherche.
Pendant les premières années qui suivent son retour à Paris, il con-
tinue ses travaux de paléographie. Il écume les grandes bibliothèques :
Nationale, Mazarine, archives des jésuites à Chantilly. Il y étudie les
manuscrits, analyse les écritures et compare les textes.
Ainsi analyse-t-il, en 1969, ”le III° Livre d’Esdras et la Vulgate de
Stuttgart,” dans le T.LXXI de la Revue d’Etudes Anciennes. Il publie
aussi une note sur des fragments latins de Jérémie, dans le T.XXIV de
4 H. Tawa
Scriptorium, en 1970. Il donne le compte rendu d’un ouvrage sur le

psautier de Ruffin, dans la ”Rivista di storia della filosofia religiosa.” Il
identifie aussi, dans le fonds slavon des manuscrits du mont Sinaï ori-
ginaires d'Ohrid, un psautier latin à la graphie singulière. Il le date
entre le IX° et le XII° siècle, dans le N° XLI de Scriptorium, en 1987.
Il n’abandonne pas non plus son intérêt pour les études sémitiques.
Là aussi il publie divers articles. Ainsi, en 1986, paraît dans le n° 3-4 du
Journal Asiatique son article sur le texte syriaque de la stèle nestorienne
de Si Ngan Fou.
Son expérience lui a appris que certains trésors dorment encore,
perdus dans des bibliothèques ou stockés, si ce n'est oubliés, dans des
dépôts insalubres. Il constate que certains courants marginaux ou
hétérodoxes du christianisme et du judaïsme sont parfois porteurs de
trésors dont il n'apprécient pas toujours eux mêmes l'importance. Il
estime qu'il faut sauver ces textes et ces traditions inappréciables de la
disparition. C’est dans cet esprit qu’il s’intéresse aux samaritains, aux
qaraïtes et aux textes de l’ancien orient chrétien. C’est ainsi que
s’expliquent les fondations successives de sociétés savantes dont il est à
la fois l’animateur, le bienfaiteur et le héraut : Société d’Etudes Samari-
taines SES en 1985, Société des Amis des Manuscrits et des Etudes Ka-
raites SAMEK en 1987, Hautes Etudes du Clergé sur les Textes de
l’Orient Religieux HECTOR en 1988. Il aide aussi à la fondation de
l’Association Française pour l’Etude du Judaïsme Ethiopien AFEJE en
1992.
Par une forme de pudeur, probablement un peu ironique, il ne sera
jamais que le secrétaire adjoint de ces sociétés qu’il soutient … bout de
bras !
La première et jusqu'ici la plus vivante de ces associations naît
d'une rencontre. Poursuivant ses recherches sur le texte biblique, il
avait commencé une traduction de quelques chapitres du targum sa-
maritain. Quelle ne fut sa surprise de découvrir, en 1980, que l'édition
critique de Von Gall, qu’il pensait compléter, était déjà en voie de l'être.
Abraham Tal venait d’éditer le premier tome de son ”Samaritan Tar-
gum of the Pentateuch” (qu'il achèvera en 1983). Aussitôt Sixdenier en
publie une recension, dans le n° 1-2 du Journal Asiatique de 1983. Il y
montre, avec la sûreté de jugement que lui donne sa familiarité avec le
sujet, à la fois l’intérêt exceptionnel et les limites de cette édition. Mais,
l’enthousiasme qu'il y exprime est si manifeste, qu'une amitié est alors
rapidement née ! Il complétera sa présentation par un autre article éru-
dit et rigoureux, paru dans le n° 3-4 du Journal Asiatique de 1984: ”La
langue du Targum samaritain, observation sur son évolution.”
Equisse Biographique du Pére Dom Guy Dominique Sixdenier 5
Lors du séjour de Tal à Paris, en 1983, le projet d’une ”table ronde”

voit le jour. Avec Jean-Pierre Rothschild et Jean Margain, ils la
réunissent tous les quatre, en 1985, à l’Institut d’Histoire des Textes de
Paris. Dans le même mouvement ils fondent la Société d’Etudes Sama-
ritaine, sous la présidence d’André Caquot. Le renom des 25 membres
fondateurs, ajouté aux efforts incessants et à la diplomatie du Père Six-
denier, ont fait le reste. L’atmosphère, d’amitié et de mutuelle estime
des initiateurs, s’est communiquée aux membres fondateurs. Elle est
devenue aujourd'hui un trait caractéristique de la SES.
Les congrès internationaux se sont alors enchaînés: Tel Aviv 1988,
Oxford 1990, Paris 1992, bientôt Milan 1996. Ils manifestent la vitalité
de la SES, dynamisée par son animateur. La publication des actes, tant
de la table ronde que de chacun de ces congrès, en a élargi l'auditoire.
Les oeuvres collectives, éditées avec la collaboration de nombreux
membres (The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown, 1989; A Companion to the
Samaritan Studies, ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, Abraham Tal,
1993; Die Samaritaner, ed. Ferdinand Dexinger et Reinhard Pum-
mer,1992) ont soudé leur amitié à leur science. A cela il faut ajouter,
depuis une décennie (83-94), au moins une dizaine d’ouvrages et de
nombreux articles, de samaritanistes, généralement membres de la SES.
Il faut aussi rappeler le projet, déjà largement engagé, d'une ”Hexapla
Samaritaine;” il permettra d'éditer, en parallèle au texte massorétique,
plus de six versions différentes du Pentateuque samaritain.
Tant dans ses communications, présentées lors des réunions de sa-
maritanistes, que dans sa collaboration aux ouvrages collectifs, la
présence de Sixdenier a été multiforme. Ouvrant sur un prologue et
présentant la numismatique samaritaine (in The Samaritans), ou rédi-
geant des biographies de samaritanistes de la Renaissance (in A Compa-
nion ..), le père Sixdenier a aussi bien étudié les ”Relation des samari-
tains avec leurs voisins du Nord” (Tel Aviv) que les ”variantes” du
Targum de l’Exode (Table Ronde). Il a de surcroît publié diverses rela-
tions critiques sur des ouvrages de samaritanistes (Journal for the Study
of Judaism et autres). Ceci sans compter les textes qu’il a rédigé avec
d'autres et sous leur nom.
Quant à la SAMEK, elle aussi s’est formée à l’ombre d’une amitié;
celle qui a lié durant plus de trente ans, Dom Sixdenier au qaraïte et
savant qaraïtologue Simon Szyszman. Tant la Bibliothèque Nationale
que la Société Asiatique, avaient été pour eux des lieux d’échanges
fructueux. En 1981, Sixdenier consacrait une longue relation, dans le
Journal Asiatique, à l’ouvrage fondamental de Szyszman : ”Le Ka-
raisme.”
6 H. Tawa
Sixdenier, avait déjà abordé le qaraïsme, lors de son édition du Si-

racide, ainsi que dans son étude des traditions prophétiques du ju-
daïsme intertestamentaire. Sa rencontre avec Szyszman lui a permis de
mesurer l’intérêt que présente l’éclairage donné aux courants mas-
sorétiques, aux doctrines sadducéennes et, plus largement, aux cou-
rants judéo-israélites étrangers au rabbanisme. Ces perspectives,
révélées par la qaraïtologie, en montrent l’intérêt. C’est dans ce sens
que la SAMEK vise à étudier et à comprendre l’histoire et l’esprit du
qaraïsme et celui de ses prédécesseurs.
La SAMEK a été fondée, en 1987 par Guy Sixdenier, sous la prési-
dence de Charles Perrot, avec Henri Cazelles, Victor Escroignart, qui y
représentait Simon Szyszman, et Habib Tawa. Elle a réuni deux congrès
internationaux, en Sorbonne en 1990 et au Collège de France en 1992,
dans une atmosphère chaleureuse et amicale. Les actes de ces congrès
seront publiés dans le courant de cette année. Là aussi, la publication
d’ouvrages et d'articles de membres de la SAMEK est venue s’ajouter,
depuis 1987, à la publication des actes des deux congrès. Les recherches
entreprises laissent espérer pour la SAMEK un développement compa-
rable à celui de la SES.
Tous ces travaux illustrent la fécondité de l’oeuvre déjà accomplie.
Ils concrétisent souvent les intuitions prémonitoires que révèlent par
exemple ses ”Remarques sur la paléographie samaritaine” de 1960, où
on peut lire: ”On peut conclure en souhaitant aux études samaritaines,
paléographiques ou autres, une coordination plus active et plus efficace
entre les professeurs, les revues et les instituts qui s’y consacrent, et qui
grâce à Dieu, ne connaissent pas de rivalité, mais qui n’ont guère, non
plus, jusqu'ici dépassé les relations de simple courtoisie.”
Ces quelques remarques laissent pressentir l’ampleur encore plus
grande des perspective ouvertes par l’action infatigable de celui qui
affirme modestement n’être “qu’un pauvre bénédictin” et dont l’un des
rôles clés aura été d’être le ferment qui a fait lever la pâte .. .
Peut-être n'est-ce que sa paraphrase de l’homélie sur les béatitudes !
n. Bible
Genesis 4 and the Pentateuch’s Reiterative
Discourse: Some Samaritan Themes
THOMAS L. THOMPSON
The Plot Line
Several of the central, interconnected themes of the garden story, such

as the innocence of Adam and Eve’s unrecognized nakedness and the
disobedience in the face of a test, with its associated challenge to divine
hegemony, are taken up again in the immediately following story of
Cain and Abel. In this allegory on the first murderer, the “creature”
Cain, challenges his creator’s and divine patron’s choice in accepting
his brother’s offering, but not Cain’s own which had been produced
from the cursed soil brought from the garden (Gen 3:23!).1 Moreover, in
a subtle reiteration of the motif of mankind created in the image of
God, the garden pair, who had assumed a divine identity in their
search for a knowledge reserved to the divine (Gen 3:6.22), Cain, in his
story, will also see himself in God’s image and assume a divine role for
himself. This motif; namely the implicit challenge of assuming the di-
vine image, had entered the Cain story already in its opening lines,
with Eve’s proud and hardly pious realization that she had created a
man with Yahweh. Adam had called her havah, “‘mother’ of all that
live”2 (Gen 3:20). Reiterating this divine epithet, Eve stands with Yah-
weh: having created a man (Gen 4:1b). In contrast, Sara humbly offers
the etiology for her son: “God has created laughter for me” (Gen 21:6a).
As the story turns to Cain, he takes what Eve had claimed was hers to
give, and marks their shared hubris complete. At the closure of the
Pentateuch, Deuteronomy will finally turn against such pretension,
declaring that it is Yahweh’s and only Yahweh’s prerogative to “kill
and make living; to wound and to heal. No other is a God with him”
(Deut 32:39).
1 See PFOH, Genesis 4; THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 229.

2 Sum. amaÆ Accad. Awa: “mother.”
10 T. L. Thompson
The Cain story’s brief, etiological discourse on Abel’s fragile, un-

protected life offers a very delicately crafted scene in which the rejected
one hangs his head in anger at Yahweh’s response to his offering (Gen
4:5-7). The cause of Cain’s anger, however—Yahweh’s rejection—is
never discussed. Yahweh is not to be tested. He is a God whose essence
is to do what he will do (Ex 3:14; cf. Ex 33:19-20)! What is good or not
good is what is good or not good “in his eyes” (Gen 1:4.10.12.18.21.
25.31; cf. 1Sam 3:18).3 The contrast does not distinguish between what
might be in fact good or not good, but rather separates a human from a
divine perspective,4 marking the greater plotline of the Pentateuch with
one of the central themes of classical tragedy.5 Neither Cain nor his
offering is acceptable. Yahweh’s question to Cain: “Why are you an-
gry?” is entirely rhetorical. Rather than waiting for an answer, he puts
Cain to the test. Like Eve before him (Gen 2:16-17), Cain is given a sin-
gular, fate-determining choice. Eve has the choice of taking or not tak-
ing the knowledge of good and evil. All the fruit of the trees in the gar-
den, can she eat, save one. So Cain can always hold his head high by
doing the good. He must master the “wrong that lies before his door”
(Gen 4:7). Cain is, with Eve, created in the image of his divine patron
and, like Eve, he will choose what he sees to be good (Gen 3:6). Howev-
er, Yahweh’s role suggests an element of progression as our stories are
set firmly together in the Pentateuch’s larger narrative. Although once-
innocent Eve hardly knew the basis of her test, the wary reader might
notice that the Cain story’s “sinful error,” lying in wait at the door,
veils the crawling snake of the garden story’s curse (Gen 3:4b). After
the flood, when Yahweh and his narrative turn towards a new begin-
ning, good Noah, who walked with God, is also given a choice, reiterat-
ing Eve’s. Noah may eat all the meat he chooses, save that which has
the blood still in it, thereby—and for the first time—marking the dis-
tinction between God and his image through cult and covenant.6 To
Noah, the necessity of the choice is explained as Yahweh seeks to miti-
gate and channel the violence; the life is in the blood (Gen 9:3-4).
Cain’s story moves quickly and its language is choice and simple,
bearing well the story’s parable. Cain’s head no longer hangs; hubris
replaces anger as Cain, himself, becomes the sin lying before his door.
He “rose up,” “attacked” and killed his brother, Abel (Gen 4:8), taking
3 THOMPSON, He is Yahweh, 246-263. For a discussion of this motif in the Cain story,
see THOMPSON, Creating the Past, 11-17.
4 On fluctuating, but parallel motifs for “evil” and “wrong”, compare Gen 3:15 with
Job 29:17 and Ps 72:4c; further, THOMPSON, Job 29, 127-130.
5 PFOH, Genesis 4; THOMPSON, Bible in History, 308.
6 On covenant and divine patronage, see now PFOH, Emergence.
Gen 4 and the Pentateuch’s Reiterative Discourse 11
as his own the divine power over life and death. Once Abel is dead, the
story finds time for reflection by having Yahweh ask the obvious, a
strategy that echoes the transition of the garden story’s discovery of
nakedness to Yahweh’s calling to Adam, who hides, fearful in his
knowledge: “Where are you (Gen 3:10)?” The Cain story’s reiteration
has Yahweh ask a similarly simple and exposing question: “Where is
Abel, your brother (Gen 4:9)?” Cain’s answer is commonly read both
as, rhetorically, contrary to fact, and as an assertion of arrogance: “I do
not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”—indeed, as a refusal to answer
Yahweh’s question. However, we must consider the greater plot line:
does Cain know what it is to kill a man? Though he has chosen lurking
evil, does he know what it is? Does he know where his brother has
gone? If, however, we continue to hold our plot-line parallel to the gar-
den tale and not least the garden narrative’s theme of anthropogenesis,
the first part of Cain’s answer, asserting his ignorance, echoes the inno-
cent Adam, fearful of his nakedness: “I don’t know.” Abel was there
talking with him (Gen 4:8a), but, now, is no more! How, could Cain
answer otherwise? And so Cain opens his story’s centre with a counter-
question that is deeply his own. Reiterating Adam’s failure in the role
as “servant and keeper” of the garden of delight (Gen 2:15), Cain the
“servant of the ground,” asks about his brother, the keeper of sheep:
“Am I my brother’s shomer?” “Am I the shepherd?” The irony is im-
pressive, given Yahweh’s acknowledged preference for that shepherd
and his meat. It was not Cain, but Abel who was mankind’s shepherd!
The tragedy of his death becomes now for the first time clear to his
brother; who now is rather among the lost sheep of this world: those
who suffer the fate that threatened the Israelites of Numbers 27:17.
Cain’s fearful “Am I my brother’s keeper?” reflects self-awareness and
incapacity—a desparate humility. If Cain is not his brother’s keeper,
who, then, is mankind’s shomer? That is the question that is proposed at
the heart of the Cain story.
Such a compassionate reading of the Cain story seems supported
by what follows. As with Yahweh’s answering question in Genesis 3:11:
“Who told you that you were naked?” Yahweh’s response to Cain is
introduced with a similarly rhetorical interrogative: “What is it you
have done?” The question, however, implies not merely that Yahweh
knows the ramifications of what Cain has done, as the similar question
to Adam had, but it is also implied that Cain does not know! In Genesis
3, Yahweh’s retribution is expressed in his curse of the land on which
Adam was dependent (Gen 3:17-19). In Cain’s narrative, however, that
cursed, wilderness earth swallows what Cain had spilled: the blood of
Abel. The voice of his brother’s blood cries to Yahweh from she’ol. In-
12 T. L. Thompson
tensifying the garden story’s curse of Adam, the land, now, in this rei-
teration will no longer yield its produce (Gen 4:12). The story again
progresses. Adam and Eve’s fate as exiles from the garden (Gen 3:23-
24) is intensified in Cain’s more desperate fate as wandering fugitive
(Gen 4:12b). His fate is in the land of Nod—East of Eden—exiled both
from god and land, anxious prey to any who might wish to kill him
(Gen 4:13-14). Unlike the very passive figure of Adam in the scene of
the garden story’s three-fold curse, Cain protests his fate in a scene that
bears more than merely the ironic comedy of the murderer fearing for
his life. In Yahweh’s compassionate answer, the tragic fate of mankind
as sheep without a shepherd is resolved. With now this second failure,
Yahweh takes up himself the role of mankind’s shomer. The mark of
Yahweh’s patronage protects Cain from any who might wish to kill
him (Gen 4:15). It marks Cain with Yahweh’s patronage. Cain becomes
untouchable. His life is protected with the threat of retribution from
Yahweh’s vengeance.7
Murder, Revenge and Blood Guilt
There are several major themes of the Pentateuch anchored in the story
of Cain, which need to be discussed in detail, in order to appreciate the
full impact of the Cain story’s implications. Among the most important
we might mention are the theme of the cursed land and its curse, which
brings exile and estrangement, as well as the paired-figures of Adam as
“servant and keeper” of the garden and his shepherd-son, Abel, whose
death opens the rich thematic problem of sheep without a shepherd.
Most dominating is the plot-creating motif of brothers fighting brothers
along with its major sub-theme of the younger son supplanting the
elder, which is so clearly illustrated in Seth’s displacement of Cain in
the bridge narrative that links the Cain story to Adam’s toledoth. These
interrelated themes are in turn reiterated throughout the Pentateuch
and feed its never-ending allegory about Samaria and Jerusalem.8 There
are also lighter references to major themes that are primarily played out
in other contexts such as the motif of sin threatening at the door, who
must be mastered: a clear echo of the myth of the Apophis dragon and
the one who breaks his jaw with a king’s shepherd-like virtue (Job
29,17).9 This is more than can be dealt with in this brief paper and,
7 PFOH, Genesis 4.
8 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise,169-253; HJELM, Brothers Fighting, 197-222.
9 THOMPSON, Job 29, 127-132.
therefore, I must limit myself to the thematic opposition between re-

venge and reconciliation that dominates the implied discourse between
the Pentateuch and the ancient Near Eastern theme of murder and
blood guilt.
The ancient Near Eastern paired themes of blood-guilt and reconcil-
iation, evoked by Lamech’s divinely competitive song of vengeance
(Gen 4:23-24), moves the narrative significantly forward in support of
Yahweh’s regret that he had created mankind, with which the flood
story begins (Gen 6:5). After the flood, the “solution” to murder offered
by Yahweh’s commandment, legislating vengeance in Genesis 9:5-6,
hardly evokes a reader’s confidence in Yahweh’s new, post-flood
world. It not only ignores Lamech’s pride and the uninhibited evil of
the human heart (Gen 8:21), but this new test of mankind: “All can be
eaten, except . . .,” pointedly echoes the first failed test of the garden
story (Gen 9:3; cf. Gen 2:16-17). An implicit variation on Orphic and
Pythagorean horror of blood sacrifice functions as opening to Leviticus’
theology of forgiveness and reconciliation, presented as commentary to
blood sacrifice (esp. Lev 17:10-11; cf. Lev 8:15). Yahweh adds to his
prohibition: “The life of the meat is in the blood and I have given it for
you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood
that makes atonement by reason of the life.” The utopian vegetarianism
of the creation’s failure is superseded by cultic functions of atonement
and reconciliation.
The confluence in Genesis 9’s story of new beginnings, maintaining
echoes of Cain’s pre-flood violence, supports the figure of Yahweh and
his bow, the sign of his covenant (Gen 9:12-17), a mimesis of the horror
with which the Greek god Ares and his bow were notoriously attri-
buted, marking humanity’s new dominance over the world with He-
brew variants of Ares’ two sons, Phoibos and Deimos: “Fear” and “Ter-
ror” (Gen 9:2).10 With such a vision of mankind, created in the image of
God, in place, one well sees the Exodus “covenant code”-discourse on
murder in Exodus 21 (Ex 21:12-14), with its close variant in Deuteron-
omy’s plan for cities of refuge in the promised land (Deut 19:1-13), as
directed towards reconciliation. Similarly, and in accord with Leviticus
4’s related concerns for the unintentional sinner (Lev 4:1-21), the cove-
nant with Noah is also marked with overtones of forgiveness and re-
conciliation (Gen 9:9-11), initiating a new effort to resolve the violence
that had moved Yahweh to destroy his creation in the flood. Both Ex-
odus and Deuteronomy present a place of refuge for one who has
committed unintended manslaughter, which, in the mitigating phrase
10 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 236-237.

14 T. L. Thompson
of Exodus 21:13, “God had allowed to happen.” In Numbers, the com-

munity is, moreover, instructed to save the one guilty of unintentional
manslaughter and bring him to the place of refuge. He is finally recon-
ciled with the community at the death of the anointed high-priest
(Num 35:10-34).11 All reject the use of the place of refuge in cases of
intentional murder and all reiterate in one manner or another Genesis
9’s assertion of the death penalty. Deuteronomy 19:13, in fact, explicitly
advises against showing mercy to one who, like Cain, has spilled inno-
cent blood. Is this demand for retribution and revenge to be read as a
legislative solution, specifically superseding the failure of Yahweh’s
compassionate response to Cain’s fear? However much it is consonant
with the principle of “a life for a life and an eye for an eye”, which
closes this pericope (Deut 19:21), it hardly deals with Lamech’s over-
trumping Yahweh’s vengeance. It opposes Yahweh’s mercy to the
murderer as much as it undermines the righteousness of his seven-fold
vengeance. Such problems call for a wider exegesis.
The interrelated discourse on murder, revenge and blood guilt is
well-known in ancient narrative literature. One of the earliest of such
stories takes up these themes as a political and philosophical problem,
much as the Pentateuch does. “The Proclamation of Telipinu,” which
comes to us in both Old Hittite and Accadian versions from as early as
the 13th century, BCE,12 is told in the 1st person voice. Telipinu begins
his story with a brief account of the reigns of the first seven kings of
Hattusa, beginning in the distant past. The first king, Labarna (early
17th century BCE), ruled with a united family supporting him. His sons
ruled seven cities “and the great cities made progress.” The second
king, Hattusili, also ruled with a united family with similar success.
However, corruption came, greed and conspiracy, and “they began to
shed blood.” The third king, Mursili, also begins his reign in harmony
and success. His cupbearer, Hantili, however, conspires with his son-
in-law Zidanta to kill Musili “and sheds his blood.” Hantili then wor-
ries like Cain (Gen 4:13-14): “Will I be protected… and so the gods pro-
tected him.” The story continues, with expanding conspiracies and
murders within the royal family. “When Hantili grew old, Zidanta
ruthlessly murders both Hantili’s son and his grandsons to become the
fourth king. In response, the gods seek revenge and cause Zidanta’s son
Ammuna to hate and kill his father and he thereby becomes king him-
self. The gods, however, demand revenge and strike the land with fa-
11 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 294-295.

12 HOFFNER, Propaganda, 49-62; VAN DEN HOUT, Proclamation, 194-198. For an earlier
discussion of this narrative, see THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 168-169.
mine, causing the land itself to turn against Ammuna. Seven cities
(rebel) and his troops are defeated. When Ammuna is old, Retribution
brings Huzziya, the head of his bodyguard, to send his son to kill the
crown prince and the whole of the king’s family so that Huzziya might
become king. When the author of our story, Telipinu, marries Huz-
ziya’s sister, the king and his five brothers plot to kill him. Uncovering
the plot and successfully seizing power, Telipinu declares: “They did
evil to me, but I [will not do] evil to them.” Instead, he gives the would-
be murderers houses, food and drink and declares that no one may do
them harm (cf. 2 Kings 6:21-23). Nevertheless, Telipinu’s commanders,
unknown to the king, have both Huzziya and his 5 brothers murdered.
When, however, the royal council condemns three of the conspirators
to death, Telipinu overturns the judgment. Instead of killing them, he
takes their weapons and (with an uncertain text) turns them into a mus-
ical instrument.13 Finally, disgusted by the excess of bloodshed in Hat-
tusa, Telipinu makes a decree, which bans any killing of a member of
the royal family and sets the order of succession to the throne. Telepi-
nu’s successor may no longer kill any member of the family. If the king
does plan such a murder, his council is to show him this tablet, forbid-
ding it. The death penalty is set for regicide, but the murderer is not to
be killed secretly nor is his family to be killed. Anyone who sins against
this decree, even a prince, must pay with his own life, but his family
will not be harmed and his property will not be confiscated.
The common ground in the political philosophy and social thinking
associated with Telipinu’s and Cain’s stories is broader than this single
issue. An entire range of thematic elements are shared. Among these,
are a story of origins; a setting in the distant past; the killing of rela-
tives; spilling of blood; blood-guilt; revenge; uncontrollable violence
and evil; the gods curse of the land; rebellion of the land after it has
been cursed with famine; a murderer’s fear of being killed; gods pro-
tecting the murderer; a logic of retribution; the reversal of a divine
judgment and the effort to restrict punishment to the guilty. As soon as
one goes beyond Genesis to other thematically related biblical narra-
tives, the common ground between this Hittite story and biblical narra-
tive expands considerably.
Telipinu’s decision to spare his would-be assassins is an act of re-
conciling mercy, ending violence and establishing peace. The decree,
condemning on the one hand one who is guilty of killing a member of
the royal family and protecting the innocent on the other, is intended to
13 The commonly accepted translation of the uncertain reading by FORRER, Boghazköi

Texte, 42 n8, a “yoke” is apparently influenced unduly by Isaiah; see VAN DEN HOUT,
Proclamation, 196 n46..
16 T. L. Thompson
prevent the cycle of violence that revenge and blood-guilt foster. Al-
though the Pentateuch’s development of this discourse follows the
same pattern, from mercy to law, as the Telipinu story does—
condemning the one alone who does evil and protecting the innocent—
the biblical discussion is spread over a much larger narrative and is
maintained, with the inclusion of other themes, throughout the Penta-
teuch. Yahweh’s original decision to use vengeance to protect Cain
creates the problem. His “solution” is ridiculed with open irony by the
song of Lamech. Yahweh’s vengeance invites even greater violence
much as the gods’ demand in Telipinu’s story for vengeance, use of
famine as punishment and encouragement of civil war fostered further
assassination and bloodshed. A law-giving resolution to the problem is
delayed in Genesis, as humanity’s penchant for violence causes Yah-
weh to regret his creation and send a flood which he then in turn also
comes to regret (Gen 8:21). This development is most interesting as it
takes up a plot line that shares motifs with the flood story in the Gil-
gamesh epic, particularly in the scene in which the goddess Ninurta
scolds Enlil for sending the flood in a three-fold voicing of her regret
for the flood: “Instead of your bringing on the flood, would that a lion
had risen up to diminish mankind; instead of your bringing on a flood,
would that a famine for the land to undergo; instead of your bringing
on the flood, would that a pestilence had risen up for mankind to un-
dergo!” Ninurta’s 3-fold lesser punishments are drawn out in biblical
narrative between Yahweh’s covenant promise to Noah to “remember
his covenant with mankind when he sees his bow in the skies, so that
never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all creation” (Gen
9:15-17) on the one hand and the long-delayed threefold choice he gives
to David at the close of 2 Samuels between “three years of famine in the
land, three months of flight, with the enemy in close pursuit or three
days of pestilence in your land” (2 Sam 24:11-14) on the other. In both
Noah’s and David’s narrative, the ultimate pedagogical goal of this
motif as expressed in Ninurta’s scolding counsel in the Gilgamesh story
is maintained: “How could you, unreasoning, have brought on the
deluge? Impose punishment on the sinner for his sin: on the transgres-
sor for his transgression”14—a formulation of principle, which receives
quite precise reiteration as one of the specific prescriptions of Deute-
ronomy: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor
children for their parents; each one may be put to death only for his
own sin” (Deut 24:16).
14 Both quotations from Gilgamesh follow the translation of FOSTER, Gilgamesh, 460b.
After the flood, the regretful Yahweh searches for his solution to his
creation by moving towards this conclusion in Deuteronomy with a
covenant’s new beginning (Gen 9:12-17) and a plot-line that carry us to
the story of Yahweh’s rejection of the wilderness generation in Num 14
and its recollection in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:34-36). Among the texts
outside the Pentateuch we might profitably consider—which take up
such issues as violence, blood-guilt and revenge and resolve them on
principles of justice—are Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s commentaries on the
proverb, “the fathers eat sour grapes and their sons’ teeth are set on
edge” (cf. Lam 5:7). Jeremiah is both brief and straightforward: clearly
pedagogical in his interpretation: “Everyone will die for his own
wrongdoing; he who eats the sour grapes will have his own teeth set on
edge” (Jer 31:30). Ezekiel’s commentary not only doubly reiterates Deu-
teronomy’s principle: “It is the person who sins that will die; a son will
not bear the responsibility of his father’s guilt, nor a father his son’s.
The righteous will have his own righteousness placed to his account
and the wicked person his own wickedness” (Ezek 18:20). He is also
more comprehensive, considering the implicit claim to the justice of an
innocent and righteous son of a sinful father and draws the important
further principle that, when a sinner converts from the wrong he has
done, he too shall live (Ezek 18:21-32), a conclusion, fostering mercy
and forgiveness, which is not only echoed in Isaiah (cf. Ezek 18:27 and
Isa 55:7) and the Psalter (Ps 130:3-4), but clearly accommodates Yah-
weh’s mercy to Cain.
There are also two narratives in 2 Kings that deal with this theme
and bring us even closer to the principle of love of one’s enemy, which
brings an end to violence in the biblical narrative and is comparable to
Telipinu’s kindness to his would-be assassins. The first is one of the
parables of Elisha. In answer to his prayer, Yahweh blinds a terrifying
troop of Aramean cavalry that the prophet might lead them helpless
into Samaria. There they stand before the king, who would kill them.
Elisha counsels, however, mercy to prisoners. A feast is prepared and,
having been given food and drink, the enemy soldiers are allowed to
return home. A closing commentary—that this brought an end to Ara-
mean raids into Israel—interprets the story (2 Kings 6:18-23). A parallel
story, set also in Samaria, is found in 2 Chronicles 28, in which the sol-
diers of Israel, having killed 120,000 Judeans in battle, take 200,000
women and children captive. The prophet Oded upbraids them both
for the massacre carried out in hatred and for intending to force their
kin into slavery. Immediately the men of Samaria gave the prisoners
clothing, sandals, food and drink and anointed them. Those who
couldn’t walk, they put on donkeys and led them all back to Jericho (2
18 T. L. Thompson
Chron 28:6-15). Rather than the love of one’s enemy, 2 Chronicles’ par-
able illustrates specific commands of the torah; particularly, the prohi-
bition in Leviticus against hating your brother, with its associated
command to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:17-18). The second
tale in Kings deals more specifically with the themes of regicide and
blood-guilt. When King Joash was assassinated by his own men (2
Kings 12:20-22) and his son Amasiah came to power, Amasiah kills
those who had killed his father, but—the narrator explains—he does
not kill their sons, for “in the book of Moses’ torah,” it is commanded
that fathers should not suffer for the sins of their sons, nor sons for the
sins of their fathers. One must suffer death only for one’s own crime”,
citing Deuteronomy directly (2 K 14:5-7; Deut 24:16). Again the narra-
tive turns us back to the Pentateuch’s discourse, which both Jeremiah
and Ezekiel had held implicit.
The Pentateuch’s treatment of these themes centers in two parallel
stories—in Exodus and in Numbers—which reiterate the flood story’s
figure of Yahweh, regretting his creation (Gen 6,5-7). In the first narra-
tive, Yahweh’s regret expresses his anger over the golden calf which
Aaron and the people made in the wilderness (Ex 32:1-24; Deut 9,8-21),
a narrative which is pointedly reiterated in 1 Kings’ supersessionist
story of Jeroboam’s calves set up at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:26-33)
and is very central to the theme of “brothers fighting brothers.”15 Ex-
odus’ brief story takes up the metaphor of Yahweh as shepherd, angry
at Israel’s rebellious stubbornness, rejecting the path he would have
them follow. As in Genesis’ flood story, Yahweh once again regrets his
creation and decides to destroy all before him. Rather than Israel, he
will make a new beginning and create yet another great people from
Moses (Ex 32:7-10). Moses’ response to Yahweh’s threat is told in two
variations. In the first Moses argues against the plan by appealing to
Yahweh’s reputation. If he were to do what he threatens, the nations
will mock him. Yahweh listens to him and, as in the flood story, regrets
once again the evil he would do (Ex 32:11-14). With this closure of the
debate, Israel’s fate is delayed and the theme of murmuring and rebel-
lion continues throughout the wilderness journey into Numbers. The
variant resolution of the story, however, brings Yahweh immediately
into agreement with Deuteronomy 24:16. Moses takes on the role of
shepherd, protecting the people with his own life, bringing the debate
over vengeance and the innocent directly into the story. Moses goes to
the mountain to argue with Yahweh. If he will not forgive the people,
he must blot out Moses’ name from his book as well. Yahweh listens to
15 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise, 66-70.

his argument and closes the story with a vengeance-ending decree:

Only one who has sinned against him will he blot out from his book
(Ex 32:32-35).
In the parallel story of Numbers, the people are frightened by the
terrifying reports about the Nephilim from the scouts, returning from
the Valley of Eshcol. With rivers flowing with milk and honey and
grape clusters demanding two men to bear, it is a valley defended by
giants. Fearing for the fate of their wives and children, the people
murmur against Moses and Aaron for having led them out of Egypt
only to die in battle (Num 13:25-14,4). Although Caleb and Joshua en-
courage obedience to Yahweh, the people will have new leaders to lead
them back to Egypt. When the people threaten to stone them, an angry
Yahweh appears in his kavod and will strike them with plague. Again,
he will make an even greater people from Moses (Num 14:10-12). Once
again Moses disagrees and debates with Yahweh about the people’s
fate. If Yahweh does kill the people with a single blow, the Egyptians
and the inhabitants of the land will gossip that Yahweh was not able to
bring the people into the land. Yahweh, Moses argues, should rather
show himself in his greatness and true to his own claims: “long-
suffering, ever faithful, one who forgives sin and rebellion, but does not
leave the guilty unpunished” (Num 14:18). This far, Moses’ argument
brings the discussion to a reaffirmation of Yahweh’s justice, the point
where the discourse closes in Deuteronomy. It is a difficult argument,
however, on which to rest his case in Exodus and Numbers, as, in terms
of their story, Moses needs to argue for mercy rather than justice. His
plea—like Cain’s—is on behalf of the guilty. And so he continues:
“Yahweh is one who punishes children for their fathers’ guilt to the
third and fourth generation, but he does not destroy them entirely”
(just so, the covenant-ethic which Yahweh had learned in the flood
story). Now Moses’ plea is in order: “As you have put up with this
people ever since Egypt, so forgive them their guilt now to accord with
your great constancy.” Yahweh’s response is interesting and just as
considered. Again regretting the excess of his anger,16 he presents a
self-understanding that departs significantly with Moses’ sense of the
covenant. The “forgiveness” Moses wished is integrated with Deute-
ronomy’s principle of justice as Yahweh becomes the protecting
shepherd of the innocent (Num 14:20). The guilty—the generation of
the wilderness—die in the wilderness (Num 14:21-35) and the scouts
who spread false reports are killed by plague (Num 14:36-38). The story
16 On this interesting trope, see now GUILLAUME / SCHUNCK, Job’s Intercession, 457-
472.
20 T. L. Thompson
bears the parable that only the guilty will be punished. The innocent
children and grandchildren are protected by Yahweh. The generations
to come, those for whose sake the lost generation had disobeyed Yah-
weh, theirs is the promised-land.
My tentative conclusion about Genesis 4 and the discourse on mur-
der and blood-guilt that it introduces is that the discourse does not
close within the Pentateuch: neither here in Numbers, nor in Deutero-
nomy 24:16. Punishment of the guilty is not sufficient in the Penta-
teuch’s own terms. The extended discourse as it now stands can be
traced thematically by way of such stories as the parable of Elisha in
Samaria in 2 Kings 6:8-23, showing how love of your enemy can bring
an end to war. Even more is the Pentateuch’s narrative directly devel-
oped by 2 Kings, as in the decision of Amasiah, within the narrative
line drawn between 2 Kings 12:19-21and14:1-6. His father Joash having
been assassinated in a conspiracy carried out by his own servants,
Amasiah comes to the throne and, as soon as he had consolidated him-
self in power, puts to death those who had murdered his father. The
potential cycle of revenge, however, is closed as Amasiah spares the
assassins’ children and directly points to Deuteronomy’s law for his
reason: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor child-
ren for their parents; each one is to be put to death only for his own sin
(2 Kings 14:6). That this closure of bloodguilt brings Kings a substantial
step further towards its goal of Yahweh’s mercy for the sinner, which
Solomon had sketched in his prayer in 1 Kings 6:46-53, and which
marks this theme, springing from the Cain story, as a substantial aspect
of the narrative strategy of Kings.
Cain’s allegory closes with a call to a boundless vengeance surpass-
ing even Yahweh’s. It is sung by Cain’s grandson, Lamech (Gen 4:23-
24) and helps form a somewhat eclectic bridge between the Cain story
and the following genealogy of Genesis 5. Lamech’s mockery is both
supersessionist challenge and pointed commentary to Yahweh’s asser-
tion of his own role as avenging shepherd. It reiterates the ironic chal-
lenge of a humanity created in the image of God: “If Yahweh’s revenge
for Cain is 7-fold, Lamech’s revenge will be 77-fold! One must wonder
whether the seven-fold revenge is Yahweh’s and the seventy-fold man-
kind’s greater revenge; for the Bible has three stories of revenge and
blood-guilt, involving the killing of 70 or 7. The motifs of Yahweh’s 7-
and Lamech’s 77-fold revenge seems to be alluded to, together with the
related themes of blood guilt, civil war and regicide, in each of these
stories. In revenge for their failure to support his troops, Gideon, for
example, having been taunted by the 77 elders of Succoth for his failure
to capture Zebah and Zalmunnah, takes his revenge after his success by
beating them with briars and thorns, pulling down the tower of Penuel
and executing the men of the town (Judges 8:14-17). When, however
Gideon dies and is succeeded by his 70 sons, one, Abimelek, slaughters
his brothers, but a single one survives, Jotam. Jotam’s curse on the
murderer of his brothers leads to civil war and a massacre of the city of
Shechem (Judges 9:1-57; par. Gen 34:1-30). In a closely parallel narra-
tive, also echoing elements of Genesis 34, Yahweh’s avenging Messiah,
Jehu, kills Ahab’s 70 sons and murders all of the Ba’al priests of Sama-
ria (2 Kings 10:1-29). Finally, it is necessary to mention 1-2 Samuel’s
elaborate maintenance of David’s innocence in blood-guilt in the disas-
ter that overtakes Saul, Jonathan and Abner, a narrative of revenge,
blood-guilt and civil war that does not end until David brings an end to
the famine in Jerusalem sent by Yahweh because of Saul’s massacre of
the Gibeonites, who demand in retribution a 7-fold divine vengeance
over Saul’s house (2 Sam 21:1-14). It is here that the David story finally
embraces themes of reconciliation. On the other hand, even within the
Pentateuch, the discourse on Cain that begins in the distinction be-
tween innocence and guilt, moves into yet other, interesting, directions.
Having taken its departure from Yahweh’s arbitrary acceptance of
Abel’s offering and rejection of Cain’s (Gen 4:5), this theme is used to
expose not only the Janus-faced character of monotheism, bringing
both good and evil to men—a figure of Yahweh which plays such a
central role in the plot-line of Exodus-Numbers. In this role, he deter-
mines both blessing and curse, a figure already latent in the garden
story’s divine “knowledge of good and evil” and is an ever implicit
attribute of the royal figure of the shepherd, with his watchful crook,
bringing protection and comfort to the sheep; yet, this crook can also be
his punishing staff, bringing retribution.17 This role brings us back to
the issue of Yahweh’s arbitrariness, with which the Cain story begins
and which is captured so powerfully in Exodus with Yahweh’s answer
to Moses’ prayer that Yahweh be with Israel: “I will show mercy to
whom I wish and I will reconcile myself with whom I will (Ex 33:19-
20).18
17 PFOH, Genesis 4.
18 See on this, THOMPSON, I Guds billede, in Dansk Teologiske Tidsskrift (forthcoming).
22 T. L. Thompson
Bibliography
FORRER, Emil. Die Boghazköi Texte in Umschrift, Band II, Leipzig 1926.
FOSTER, Benjamin R., Gilgamesh, in: HALLO, William W. / LAWSON YOUNGER,
Kenneth. (eds.), The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions
from the Biblical World, Leiden 1997, 458-460.
GUILLAUME Philippe / SCHUNCK, Michael, Job’s Intercession: Antidote to Divine
Folly, in Biblica 88 (2007) 457-472.
HALLO, William W., The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from
the Biblical World, Leiden 1997.
HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competi-
tion, (CIS 14) London 2004, 169-253.
HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers: Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism
in Tradition and History, in: THOMPSON Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in
Ancient History and Tradition, London 2003, 197-222.
HOFFNER, Harry A., Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Histori-
ogaphy, in: GOEDICKE Hans / ROBERTS, Jimmy Jack M. (eds.), Unity and
Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient
Near East, Baltimore 1975, 49-62.
VAN DEN HOUT, Piet J., The Proclamation of Telipinu, in HALLO, William W.
(ed.), The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Bib-
lical World, Leiden 1997, 194-198.
PFOH, Emanuel, Genesis 4 Revisited: Some Remarks on Divine Patronage, in
SJOT 23 (2009) 38-45.
PFOH, Emanuel, The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and
Anthropological Perspectives, Copenhagen International Seminar, Lon-
don 2009.
THOMPSON, Thomas L., ‘He is Yahweh; He Does What is Right in His Own
Eyes: The Old Testament as a Theological Discipline, II’, in: FATUM Lone
/ MÜLLER, Mogens (eds.), Tro og Historie: Festskrift til Nils Hyldahl
(FBE, 7) Copenhagen 1996, 246-263.
THOMPSON, Thomas L., Creating the Past: Biblical Narrative as Interpretive
Discourse, in: Collegium Biblicum Årsskrift (1998) 7-23.
THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Lon-
don 1999.
THOMPSON, Thomas L., Job 29: Biography or Parable, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L.
/ TRONIER, Henrik (eds.), Frelsens Biografisering, (Forum for Bibelsk Ek-
segese 13) København 2004, 115-135
THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Messiah Myth: The Ancient Near Eastern Roots of
Jesus and David, New York / London, 2005.
The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the
Origin of Deuteronomy
STEFAN SCHORCH
Since 1953, when Albrecht Alt’s famous essay “Die Heimat des Deute-
ronomiums” was published, the question about the historical origin of
Deuteronomy became an important issue in the research on the He-
brew Bible.1 Pointing especially to conceptual parallels between Deute-
ronomy and the Book of Hosea, Alt argued that Deuteronomy was not
composed in Judah or in Jerusalem, but in the North. Although this
suggestion has been followed by important experts of Deuteronomy,2
Alt’s theory is today far from being generally accepted among Old Tes-
tament scholars. One of the main reasons for this situation seems to be
one weak point: Alt’s study offers no explanation for how the idea of
cult centralization, which is so prominently expressed in Deuteronomy
(especially in chapters 12, 14, and 16), fits in the geographical context of
Israel. Therefore, this issue seems to be worth reconsideration, and this
will be the main focus of the following article.
The idea of cult centralization appears for the first time in Deut
12:5:3
You shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your
tribes (‫ )המקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיכם מכל שבטיכם‬as his habitation to put his name
there. You shall go there…
This or similar formulae appear in the Book of Deuteronomy no less

than 22 times. From the perspective of the received Masoretic text as a
whole, the chosen place is clearly identified within the so-called Deute-
1 ALT, Heimat.
2 The most important predecessor of Albrecht ALT was Adam C. WELCH, Code of
Deuteronomy. Among those who found strong Northern traditions in Deuteronomy
are especially Gerhard von RAD (see his Deuteronomium-Studien, 149, as well as his
commentary Das 5. Buch Mose, 18), and Moshe WEINFELD , Deuteronomy 1-11,44‒57.
3 The English translation of Biblical passages is generally quoted from the New Re-
vised Standard Version (1989).
24 S. Schorch
ronomistic history. Accordingly, the chosen place is Jerusalem, as ex-

pressed in the extant narrative for the first time in 1 Kgs 8:16
(LXX//2 Chr 6:5‒6):4
Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I have not
chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel (‫ )לא בחרתי בעיר מכל שבטי ישראל‬in
which to build a house, so that my name might be there, and I chose no one
as ruler over my people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem in order that
my name may be there (‫)ואבחר בירושלם להיות שמי שם‬, and I have chosen David
to be over my people Israel.
This verse, together with eight similar references in the Book of Kings,
creates a link between the promise ‫“( יִב ְ ח ַר‬he will choose”) in the text of
Deuteronomy and the fulfillment (‫“ ‒וָא ֶ ב ְ ח ַר‬and I chose”), which not
only entered both Jewish and Christian tradition, but subsequently
became widely accepted within critical scholarship. Accordingly, most
reconstructions of the literary and religious history of ancient Israel
regard the demand for the centralization of worship as originating in
Jerusalem, and as referring to Jerusalem from the very beginning.
Regarding the literary history of this link, it seems quite clear that
the passages in the Book of Kings are linguistically and contextually
dependent on the centralization formula in Deuteronomy and not the
reverse, as can be learned especially from the analysis of the Hebrew
formula in Deuteronomy ‫“ לשכן שמו שם‬to cause his name to dwell
there.”5 Sandra Richter convincingly demonstrated that this Deutero-
nomic formula is based on the Akkadian formula šuma šakānu, which
literally means “to place the name.”6 Without knowledge of its source,
the Hebrew translation of this formula in Deuteronomy seems to have
been difficult to understand for the contemporary authors and readers
of Biblical Hebrew, and it was therefore changed into the more intellig-
ible ‫“ להיות שמו שם‬to be his name there”7 by the text of the Book of Kings,
while the original difficult phrase ‫ לשכן שמו שם‬is totally absent in this
composition. Thus, the respective text in the Book of Kings is secondary
to that in Deuteronomy.
On the other hand, it is generally acknowledged that Deuteronomy
cannot be seen only in connection with the so-called Deuteronomistic
history, but has to be taken as a literary composition on its own. Most
4 According to Sarah Japhet, the text of Chronicles is here preferable to the parallel
version in 1 Kgs 8:16, see JAPHET, Chronicles, 588.
5 Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2.6.11; 26:2.
6 RICHTER, Deuteronomistic History.
7 1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Kgs 23:27.
The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy 25
obviously, therefore, as the Deuteronomistic identification of the cho-

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

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

9 See RAD, Das 5. Buch Mose, 67.
10 See Deut 12:10: “When you cross over the Jordan and live in the land that the LORD
your God is allotting to you, and when he gives you rest from your enemies all
26 S. Schorch
Therefore, the centralization formula should be taken as referring to

only one single place. Regarding the question, to which concrete place
the Book of Deuteronomy refers, the text seems to provide a clear iden-
tification in 27:4‒8, although the Jerusalem-focused exegesis of genera-
tions of scholars mostly ignored that the latter text is a clear response to
the demand for centralization as expressed in Deut 12.
The relevant passage, focusing on the centralization demand, al-
ready starts in Deut 11:31, as the literary structure and a Qitza-sign in
the Samaritan Pentateuch indicate:11
When you cross the Jordan to go in to occupy the land that the LORD your
God is giving you, and when you occupy it and live in it, you must dili-
gently observe all the statutes and ordinances that I am setting before you
today. These are the statutes and ordinances that you must diligently ob-
serve in the land… (Deut 11:31‒12:1)
The following passage starts in the 2nd person plural ( ‫א ַ בּ ֵד תאבדון את כל‬
…‫“ המקומות‬You must demolish completely all the places…”, vv. 2‒12),
continuing in the singular from v. 13 onwards (…‫“ ‒ ה ִ שּׁ ָ מ ֵ ר לך‬Take
care…”). Due to the change in number and the presence of several
doublets, the text is generally believed to be the result of a diachronic
literary development.12 For our present question, however, the recon-
struction of subsequent literary stages within Deut 12 is irrelevant inso-
far as Deut 27 clearly refers to the text as whole, a conclusion which is
based on the observation that Deut 27:6‒7 uses the singular, like Deut
12:13‒18, but follows the sequence of the plural passage 12:4‒7.
The following synopsis exhibits the several parallels in structure
and wording between Deut 11:31‒12:18 and Deut 27:2‒7:
Deut 11:31–12:18 Deut 27
When you cross the Jordan On the day that you cross
11:31 27:2
(‫)כי אתם עברים‬, over the Jordan (‫)תעברו‬
to go in to occupy the land into the land that the LORD

that the LORD your God is your God is giving you…
giving you…
around so that you live in safety”. An analysis of the concept of “rest” and its history
was provided by RAD , Es ist noch eine Ruhe, 101‒108.
11 ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 223.
12 See ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 221‒222.
12:2–3 (demolition of cult places) –
12:4–5 …you shall seek the place So when you have crossed 27:4–
that the LORD your God will over the Jordan, you shall
6a
choose out of all your tribes set up these stones, about
as his habitation to put his which I am commanding
name there. you today, on Mount Ebal,
and you shall cover them
with plaster. And you shall
build an altar there to the
LORD your God, an altar of
stones…
12:6 There you shall bring your Then offer up burnt offer- 27:6b
burnt offerings (‫)עלתיכם‬, ings on it (‫ )והעלית עולת‬to the
LORD your God,
and your sacrifices (‫)וזבחיכם‬, make sacrifices of well- 27:7

being (‫)וזבחת שלמים‬
your tithes and your dona- –

tions, your votive gifts, your
freewill offerings, and the
firstlings of your herds and
flocks.
12:7 And you shall eat (‫)ואכלתם‬ and eat them (‫ )ואכלת‬there,
there in the presence of the
LORD your God, you and
your households together,
rejoicing (‫…)ושמחתם‬ rejoicing (‫ )ושמחת‬before the

LORD your God…
28 S. Schorch
The synopsis demonstrates that Deut 27:4‒5 indeed identifies the

“place that the LORD your God will choose” (Deut 12:5) as the place of
the torah-stones and the altar.13
We have to realize, however, that the Masoretic reading in Deut
27:4 ‫“ בהר עיבל‬on Mount Ebal” is almost certainly a secondary ideologi-
cal correction, as opposed to the text-historically original ‫“ בהר גריזים‬on
Mount Gerizim”, which is preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch14 and
the Old Latin (Vetus Latina).15 According to the original text of the Book
of Deuteronomy, therefore, this altar is to be built on Mount Gerizim,
which is the mountain of the blessings according to the framing pas-
sages Deut 11:29 and 27:12‒13. Having made this observation, we may
approach the problem of the context and the aim of this identification.
As a starting point, we should note that the Deuteronomic designa-
tion of Mount Gerizim as the chosen place seems to exclude Jerusalem
as the chosen place, since there is only one. Eckart Otto tried to avoid
this problem through explaining Deut 27 as a late addition to the text,
when Deuteronomy already was part of the Torah and, therefore, the
altar on Mount Gerizim could be seen as covered by the altar law of
Exod 20:24, allowing for several places.16 Similarly, Christophe Nihan
suggested explaining the altar law of Deut 27 as being composed from
the outset with close and specific reference to Exod 20:
[I]n order to preserve the legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple […] the men-
tion of the Gerizim sanctuary in Deuteronomy 27 was deliberately pre-
sented as corresponding to the regulation found in the altar law of Exod
20:24‒26 […] and not to the Deuteronomistic law of centralization in Deu-
teronomy 12.17
Both authors, however, seem to have overlooked that Deut 27 was from
the beginning written with reference to the centralization demand of
Deut 12, and this latter text, unlike and against Ex 20:24, exhibits the
13 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “Only in Deut. xii and xxvii are places dedi-
cated by the order of the Lord; in all other Biblical passages they are sanctified by
His (or His angel’s) epiphany.”
14 In the Samaritan tradition, although not confined to it, “Har Garizim” is always
written as one word only ‒ ‫הרגריזים‬, compare PUMMER, ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ.
15 See SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 106‒107, and compare already TOV, Textual
Criticism, 95 n. 67.
16 OTTO, Deuteronomium, 230‒231. That Deut 27 is a late addition was already Alt’s
conviction, see ALT, Heimat, 274 n. 1.
17 NIHAN, Torah, 223.
concept of only one legitimate cultic place. Their solution, therefore, is

not satisfying.
While these latter suggestions focused on the text and its develop-
ment, other authors took the historical circumstances as their point of
departure. According to Heinz-Josef Fabry, Deut 27:4‒8 was inserted by
a late Judean author, who aimed for a gesture of national reconciliation
with the proto-Samaritans and their cultic places.18 This theory seems to
be excluded by similar reasons like Nihan’s and Otto’s. Due to its lite-
rary connections with Deut 12, Deut 27 does not designate the altar on
Mount Gerizim as one possible cultic place among others, but as the one
and only legitimate cultic place, delegitimizing all other cultic places,
including Jerusalem. This makes reconciliation a rather improbable
motif.
A different attitude was taken by Nadav Na’aman, who regarded
the passages relating to Shechem in Deuteronomy (Deut 11:26‒30;
27:4‒10) and the Book of Joshua (Jos 8:30‒35; 24) as the insertion of “a
late, possibly Ephraimite scribe who sought to […] reinforce the idea of
Shechem as the chosen place,” after doubts arose whether the first tem-
ple of Jerusalem could be the chosen place, following its destruction in
587 BCE.19 Na’aman’s suggestion, however, apart from being rather
speculative at several points, like the origin and textual development of
Deuteronomy or the intellectual history of Judah, leads to the funda-
mental problem how a single Ephramite scribe could expand the gen-
eral textual tradition with several passages which must have been ra-
ther difficult to accept for his Judean colleagues. Moreover, since the
transmission of texts in the Ancient Near East generally took place in a
collective context, not in an individual one,20 Na’aman’s suggestion
seems to overestimate the possible influence of a single scribe. Thus, his
suggestion is rather improbable, too, and we will have to look for a
different historical setting of Deut 27.
The only context within which the literary ambitions of Deut 27:4‒8
are entirely understandable seems to be the cult on Mount Gerizim,
with the author of the text being a follower of the Gerizim cult, and one
may even be inclined to say: a proto-Samaritan. Thus, if we come back
to our initial question regarding the origin of Deuteronomy, the altar
law of Deut 27 becomes a new point of departure for approaching this
problem and solving it. Against Albrecht Alt, who spoke only of Deut
18 FABRY , Altarbau.
19 NA’AMAN, Law of the Altar, 158.
20 Compare CARR, Writing.
30 S. Schorch
12‒26 when he suggested a Northern origin of Deuteronomy,21 chapter

27 is obviously of Northern origin, too. And most obviously, the inclu-
sion of this chapter must have occurred before Deuteronomy became
accepted in Judah.22 This occurred most probably during the 7th century
BCE, since at least some of the core ideas of Deuteronomy seem to have
been known in Judah in the late 7th century.23 Given this observation,
the most probable explanation for Deuteronomy’s southward journey
seems to be the Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century BCE, when
large parts of the Northern elite flew to the South.24 In an important
study of Ancient Hebrew paleography, Johannes Renz demonstrated
that after the Assyrian invasion of the North, the Northern writing
tradition of Hebrew was continued in Judah.25 This fact seems to be due
to the integration of the Northern scribal elite into the scribal culture of
Judah. Therefore, it not only goes without any doubt that Deuteronomy
entered the literal culture of Judah, but we even know at least one poss-
ible way on which Deuteronomy might have travelled from the North
to the South.
We may imagine that the strong Deuteronomic references to the
Gerizim cult must have posed a serious challenge to Judeans. There-
fore, we will have to answer the question why and how Deuteronomy
was adopted in the South.
One factor certainly was the integration of Northern scribes within
Judean scribal culture already mentioned. Additionally, however, two
further points should be reminded:
1.) One of the major issues the Book of Deuteronomy deals with is
the composition and publishing of texts, as for instance expressed in
the following instance:
You shall write on the stones all the words of this torah very clearly. (Deut
27:8)
21 See above, note 16.

22 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “We can infer that concepts like the central
sanctuary for all Israel and dedication by divine word originated in Shechem […].”
23 This seems especially true for the tradition related to the so-called Josianic reform as
well as for the idea of textualization, which originates in Deuteronomy, see SCHAPER,
Tora als Text, and, in the same volume, SCHNIEDEWIND, The textualization of torah.
24 Compare ROFÉ, Strata of the Law, 225: “the author of Deut. xii 8‒12 was either a
Shechemite refugee who found asylum at the court of Jerusalem after the Assyrian
conquest of Ephraim, or one of his native disciples.”
25 RENZ, Schrift und Schreibertradition.
The identification of the writing on the stones as “this torah” (‫)התורה הזאת‬
means that the Book of Deuteronomy itself contains a reflection on its
textual character.26 According to Deut 27, the torah which was written
down by Moses is the very same which the actual reader holds in his
hands. Therefore, Deuteronomy’s quest for authority is not voiced by
an anonymous author, but by the present reader’s copy itself. It is the
authority of the “book within the book”, in Jean-Pierre Sonnet’s famous
formulation.27 As far as we know, this kind of authority claim is an
invention of Deuteronomy,28 and it certainly helped prevent the book
from being put aside and forgotten, as well as its acceptance among its
new readers.29
2.) The transfer of Deuteronomy to the South certainly involved its
de-contextualization, i.e. the book was taken out of its original histori-
cal, geographical and sociological contexts. This de-contextualization
must have meant that the book was open for re-contextualization, i.e. in
Judah, Deuteronomy could be and had to be connected to a new set-
ting. Proceeding from this latter general observation, we now have to
look for the hermeneutical strategies of connecting Deuteronomy to the
new Judean context.
Generally speaking, this new orientation was carried out through

joining Deuteronomy with the Books of Samuel and Kings in general,
and the centralization formula, with the concepts of Jerusalem being
the one chosen place with the Davidic dynasty as its rulers, in particu-
lar. Regarding this latter connection, the link is created by the word
‫“ ואבחר‬I have chosen” in 1 Kgs 8:16, corresponding to the Deuteronomic
formula ‫“ יהוה יבחר‬the Lord will choose.”30
However, yet another text-critical issue has to be dealt with, as the
verbal form in the future ‫ יבחר‬is not the only reading, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch preserves instead the reading ‫“ בחר‬he has chosen.” Regard-
ing these variant readings, a broad scholarly consensus views the Sa-
maritan reading as a late ideological correction from the supposed orig-
inal reading ‫יבחר‬, serving the needs of the Samaritan community. Most
prominently, this judgment entered Emanuel Tov’s important hand-
26 See SCHAPER, Tora als Text.

27 SONNET, Book within the Book.
28 See SCHAPER, Tora als Text.
29 Thus, it seems, that the claim of scriptural authority originates in the North of Israel.
Jer 8:8 (‫ )עט שקר סופרים‬even demonstrates that some circles in Judah were opposing it,
compare SCHNIEDEWIND, The textualization of torah.
30 See above, p. 23‒24.
32 S. Schorch
book on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible as a paradigmatic

case of textual correction out of ideological reasons.31 However, Adrian
Schenker has pointed out in two recent articles that the reading ‫ בחר‬is
not only found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, but is attested by some
Greek Septuagint manuscripts, too, as well as by the Coptic and the
Latin secondary translations of the Old Greek text of the Pentateuch.32
This indicates that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek translation of
Deuteronomy read ‫בחר‬, and in terms of textual criticism ‫ בחר‬is therefore
certainly the original reading, while the Masoretic reading ‫ יבחר‬is sec-
ondary, being an ideological and maybe even an anti-Samaritan correc-
tion.
Nevertheless, the Judean readership seems to have had no difficul-
ty seeing a reference to Jerusalem even in the original and uncorrected
‫ ;בחר‬that is, before the text was deliberately changed into ‫יבחר‬. This can
be learned from Neh 1:8‒9:33
Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, ‘If you are
unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to me
and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are un-
der the farthest skies, I will gather them from there and bring them to the
place at which I have chosen to establish my name’ ( ‫המּ ָ קוֹם א ֲשׁ ֶ ר בּ ָ ח ַר ְ תּ ִ י ל ְשׁ ַ כּ ֵן‬
‫)ת־שׁ ְמ ִ י שׁ ָ ֽם‬.”
ֶ‫א‬
This free paraphrase of Deut 30:1‒4 and the centralization formula

clearly contextualizes the latter within the life time of Moses and links
it to Jerusalem. It presupposes, therefore, that the election of Jerusalem
already happened before Moses, implying a concept of Jerusalem’s pre-
destination as the chosen place. This view probably draws on old local
traditions according to which Jerusalem was the seat of El, the highest
God, and of the heavenly assembly of the Gods.34 Thus, the concept of
Jerusalem’s pre-destination as the chosen place seems to have provided
the first possibility for understanding Deuteronomy as referring to
Jerusalem, even before the change from ‫ בחר‬to ‫ יבחר‬was carried out.
However, the concept of Jerusalem’s predestination is the basis for
only one of the literary strategies which have been applied in the con-
31 TOV, Textual Criticism, 94‒95.

32 See SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 113‒116, and SCHENKER, Le Seigneur.
33 Compare SCHENKER, Textgeschichtliches, 115.
34 Compare Ps 48:3, where Mount Zion is equated with Tzafon, the Northern seat of the
assembly of the Gods: “beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion,
in the far north, the city of the great King.” ‒ ‫ִיּוֹןַר ְ כּ ְת ֵ י צ ָפוֹןק ִר ְ יַת‬
‫יְפ ֵ ה נוֹף מ ְשׂוֹשׂ כּ ָל־ה ָאָר ֶ ץה ַר־צ י‬
‫מ ֶ ל ְֶךר ָ ב‬.
text of the Judean re-reading of Deuteronomy. Yet a second strategy is

attested, proceeding from the concept of the succession of several cho-
sen places. This view is clearly expressed in Ps 78:60‒68:
[60] He abandoned his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among
mortals […] [67] He rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe
of Ephraim; [68] but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he
loves. (‫וַיִּב ְ ח)ַר א ֶת־שׁ ֵ ב ֶט יְהוּד ָה א ֶת־ה ַר צ ִיּוֹן א ֲשׁ ֶר אָה ֵב‬
According to this view, there already were chosen places before Jerusa-
lem was chosen, but their election faded away. For 2 Kgs 23:27 and Jer
7:14.16 the concept of succession even opens up the possibility that the
election of Jerusalem disappear, too. Thus, just as the other places be-
fore, Jerusalem may lose its special status as the chosen place:
The LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed
Israel; and I will reject this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house
of which I said, My name shall be there ( ‫וּמ ָאַס ְתּ ִ י א ֶת־ה ָ ע ִיר ה ַזּ ֹאת א ֲ שׁ ֶר־בּ ָח ַר ְ תּ ִ י‬
). (2‫ת־י‬
‫ְרוּשׁ ָל ַ ִם וְא ֶת־ה ַ בּ ַ יִת א ֲשׁ ֶר אָמ ַר ְ תּ ִ י יִה ְי ֶה שׁ ְמ ִ י שׁ ָם‬ ֶ ‫ א‬23:27)
Kgs
Following this succession theory, Judeans could accept that Mount

Gerizim was one of the chosen places of the past, while Jerusalem was
the chosen place of the present and the future.
That these Judean re-readings of Deuteronomy had some textual
difficulties, both in the original text of the centralization formula, which
contained the reading “the place which the LORD has chosen” ( ‫המקום‬
‫)אשר בחר יהוה‬, and in the localization of the altar at Mount Gerizim (Deut
27:4), was, it seems, only realized in the late Second temple period,
within the context of a changing scribal culture which shifted its atten-
tion from the textual deep-structure to the textual surface, and in con-
nection with an ongoing discussion about the exact determination of
the chosen place.35 Moreover, there is enough evidence preserved to
date the textual corrections from ‫ בחר‬to ‫ יבחר‬in the centralization formu-
la, and from ‫ הר גריזים‬to ‫ הר עיבל‬in Deut 27:4, which was carried out in
the textual tradition which was the historical basis for the Masoretic
text.
As mentioned above, the Old Greek translation of Deuteronomy,
dating to the 3rd century BCE, exhibits the unchanged text of Deuteron-
omy, i.e. the verbal form in the perfect “he has chosen” in the centrali-
zation formula, and the reading Gerizim in Deut 27:4. The halachic text
35 See below.
34 S. Schorch
from Qumran 4QMMT, dating to the middle of the 2nd century BCE,
still attests the centralization formula with the perfect reading ‫בחר‬:
[… ‫“ ‒ ]…[ כי ירושלים היאה מחנה הקדש והיא המקום שבחר בו מכל שבטי ]ישראל‬For
Jerusalem is the holy camp. It is the place that He chose from all the tribes
of [Israel …]”36
The Temple scroll, on the other hand, dating to the second half of the
2nd century BCE, contains the verb in the future:
‫“ ‒ לפני תאוכלנו שנה כשנה במקום אשר אבחר‬You are to eat those before Me annual-
ly in the place that I shall choose.” (11Q19 52:9)
‫“ ‒ ושמחתה לפני במקום אשר אבחר לשום שמי עליו‬and rejoice before Me in the place
that I will choose to establish My name” (11Q19 52:16)
‫“ ‒ מן המקום אשר אבחר לשכין שמי עליו‬in the place where I shall choose to estab-
lish My name” (11Q19 56:5)
‫“ ‒ אל המקום אשר אבחר לשכן שמי‬to the place where I will choose to establish My
name” (11Q19 60:13‒14)
Thus, the textual change from “he has chosen” (‫ )בחר‬to “he will chose”
(‫ )יבחר‬seems to have taken place in the period between 4QMMT and the
Temple Scroll, i.e. around the middle of the 2nd century BCE.
Yet a further question should be considered: If the verb ‫ בחר‬was left

unchanged until the middle of the 2nd century BCE, why was it cor-
rected into ‫ יבחר‬in the 2nd century BCE?
A number of textual witnesses attest that in the 2nd century BCE,
under the rule of the Hasmoneans, the location of the chosen place
became an important question. On the one hand side, the exact halachic
status of Jerusalem seems to have needed clarification. Thus, 4QMMT
shows that discussions about the status of Jerusalem took place in the
middle of the 2nd century BCE, proceeding from certain textual tensions
between the centralization formula in Deuteronomy and the reference
to the centralization formula in the Book of Kings. The centralization
formula speaks about a place for making offerings, namely a sanctuary,
but Jerusalem is a city. Therefore, the question yet to be answered was
that of the exact relation between sanctuary and city. The oldest evi-
dence that this question became an issue can already be detected in
36 4Q394 f8 iv:9‒11; compare K RATZ, The place which He has chosen, 72‒73.
Chronicles. According to 2 Chr 3:1, for instance, the chosen place ap-
pears to be not Jerusalem in general, but rather specifically the place
where the temple is to be built, i.e. Mount Moriya and the threshing
floor of Arauna:
Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Mo-
riah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that
David had designated, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
However, in spite of instances like this, Chronicles exhibits no syste-

matic tendency to deal with that question. In 4QMMT, conversely, the
exact location of the chosen place became an explicit issue: 4QMMT
solves the problem by declaring both the temple as well as the city of
Jerusalem as chosen, holy places, but attributing to the temple a higher
measure of sanctity than to the city.37 Thus, 4QMMT clearly shows that
an increasing interest in the exegesis of the centralization law and the
location of the chosen place was at stake.
On the other hand, the attitude towards the proto-Samaritan Geri-
zim-followers changed dramatically for the worse, reaching its peak
with John Hyrcanus’ destruction of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim
(128 BCE) and the city of Shechem (106 BCE).38 Thus, the textual
changes from ‫ בחר‬to ‫ יבחר‬in the centralization formula and from “Geri-
zim” to “Ebal” in Deut 27:4 seem to have taken place within the con-
texts of an intensified exegetical interest in the centralization formula
and the total delegitimation of Mount Gerizim and the proto-Samaritan
claims of its sanctity.
Like the Jews, the (proto-)Samaritans, too, introduced some textual
interpolations in order to strengthen their position. The most substan-
tial of them is the addition of the passage concerning the veneration of
Mount Gerizim after the Ten Commandments.39
We may conclude, therefore, as follows: “Die Heimat des Deutero-
nomiums” seems to have been the Northern Kingdom, as was already
suggested by Albrecht Alt, although Alt didn’t realize Deuteronomy’s
focus on Mount Gerizim. In spite of this focus, however, Deuteronomy
was adopted in the South, too, where it arrived most probably through
the hands of refugees who flew from the North after the Assyrian con-
quest. The fact that Deuteronomy was understood as the textual proof
for the geographical and historical claims of both the followers of
37 Compare KRATZ, The place which He has chosen.

38 See SCHORCH, La formation, 5‒10.
39 See DEXINGER, Garizimgebot.
36 S. Schorch
Mount Gerizim and Mount Zion seems to have been one of the major
factors which made Deuteronomy one of the most read Hebrew books
in the Hellenistic and Roman age, a fact which is at least suggested by
the number of manuscripts of the different literary compositions pre-
served in the Judean desert.
Bibliography
ALT, Albrecht, Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: IDEM, Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2. Band, München 19784, 250‒275.
CARR, David M., Writing in the tablet of the heart: origins of scripture and lite-
rature, New York 2005.
DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner, in:
BRAULIK, Georg (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60.
Geburtstag. Wien 1977, 111‒134.
FABRY, Heinz-Josef, Der Altarbau der Samaritaner ‒ ein Produkt der Text- und
Literargeschichte?, in: DAHMEN, Ulrich / LANGE, Armin / LICHTENBERGER,
Hermann (eds.), Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebrä-
ischen Bibel. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 35–52.
HALPERN, Baruch, The centralization formula in Deuteronomy, in VT 31(1981)
20‒38.
JAPHET, Sara, I & II Chronicles: a Commentary (The Old Testament Library),
Louisville, Kentucky 1993.
KRATZ, Reinhard Gregor, “The place which He has chosen”: The identification
of the cult place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT, in Meghillot V-VI
(2007) 57–80.
NA’AMAN, Nadav, The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy, in: M CKENZIE, Steven
L. / RÖMER, Thomas (eds.), Rethinking the foundation: Historiography in
the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters
(BZAW; 294), Berlin / New York 2000, 141–161.
NIHAN, Christophe L., The Torah between Samaria and Judah : Shechem and
Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON,
Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understand-
ing Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake, IN 2007, 187‒223.
OTTO, Eckart, Das Deuteronomium zwischen Tetrateuch und Hexateuch, in:
IDEM, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Li-
teraturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deutero-
nomiumrahmens (FAT; 30), Tübingen 2000, 156‒233.
PUMMER, Reinhard, ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: a criterion for Samaritan provenance? in JSJ 18
(1987) 18‒25.
RAD, Gerhard von, Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes: Eine
biblische Begriffsuntersuchung, in: IDEM Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament, München 1958, 101‒108.
RAD, Gerhard von, Deuteronomium-Studien, in: IDEM, Gesammelte Studien

zum Alten Testament II (hg. Rudolf Smend), München 1973, 109‒153.
RAD, Gerhard von, Das 5. Buch Mose ‒ Deuteronomium (ATD 8), Göttingen
19834.
RENZ, Johannes, Schrift und Schreibertradition: eine paläographische Studie
zum kulturgeschichtlichen Verhältnis von israelitischem Nordreich und
Südreich (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 23), Wiesbaden
1997.
ROFÉ, Alexander, The Strata of the Law About the Centralization of Worship in
Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement, in: Con-
gress Volume ‒ Uppsala 1971 (VT.S 22), Leiden 1972, 221‒226.
RICHTER, Sandra L., The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology:
lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318),
Berlin / New York 2002.
SCHAPER, Joachim, Tora als Text im Deuteronomium, in: MORENZ, Ludwig /
SCHORCH, Stefan (eds.), Was ist ein Text? – Ägyptologische, altorientalisti-
sche und alttestamentliche Perspektiven (BZAW 362), Berlin / New York
2007, 49‒63.
SCHENKER, Adrian, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?:
l’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et
massorétique, in: VOITILA, Anssi / JOKIRANTA, Jutta (eds.), Scripture in tran-
sition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Ho-
nour of Raija Sollamo, Leiden / Boston 2008, 339‒351.
SCHENKER, Adrian, Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und
Samareitikon, in: MOR, Menahem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samari-
tans: Past and Present: Current Studies, Berlin / New York 2010, 105‒121.
SCHNIEDEWIND, William M., The textualization of torah in Jeremiah 8:8, in: MO-
RENZ, Ludwig / SCHORCH, Stefan (eds.), Was ist ein Text? – Ägyptologische,
altorientalistische und alttestamentliche Perspektiven (BZAW 362), Berlin /
New York 2007, 93‒107.
SCHORCH, Stefan, La formation de la communauté samaritaine au 2e siècle
avant J.-Chr. et la culture de lecture du Judaïsme, in: HIMBAZA, Innocent /
SCHENKER, Adrian (eds.), Un carrefour dans l'historie de la Bible: Du texte à
la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C. (OBO; 233), Fribourg / Göttingen 2007,
5–20.
SONNET, Jean-Pierre, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Bibli-
cal interpretation series 14), Leiden / New York / Köln 1997.
TOV, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis / Assen /
Maastricht 1992.
WEINFELD, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, New York et al. 1991.
WELCH, Adam C., The Code of Deuteronomy: a New Theory of its Origin,
London 1924.
Did Jacob Become Judah?: The Configuration
of Israel’s Restoration in Deutero-Isaiah
GARY N. KNOPPERS
In one of the restoration oracles of Second Isaiah (48:19-20), the poet

proclaims:
Go forth from Babylon, run from the Chaldeans.

Proclaim with a loud voice, make this heard,
Send it forth to the ends of the earth.
Say, “Yhwh has redeemed (‫ )גאל‬his servant Jacob!”
The prophetic speech is full of hope, boldly announcing that the era of
Jacob’s servitude is over (cf. Isa 49:26; 60:16).1 Against the backdrop of
the demise of the Babylonian empire, the oracle proclaims that Yhwh
has decided to ransom his people. But to whom does the prophecy
refer? Who is Jacob? Does the oracle refer to all those people, who
might identify with the patriarch, who lived many centuries earlier, or
does it refer to those specific Yahwists, who suffered under Babylonian
rule (wherever they might be found)? Perhaps the meaning is yet more
specific. Might the oracle refer to Judah under the name of Jacob? In
this interpretation, Judah has become heir to the larger legacy of Israel.
Or does the term refer to a particular group within Judah, for instance,
the Babylonian exiles? In such a view, very common in contemporary
scholarship, Jacob is code for those Judeans, who had been deported to
Babylon at the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the
sixth century BCE. One commentator has written with the tumultuous
developments in the sixth-fifth centuries BCE in view, “What now is
Israel?”2
1 An earlier version of this paper was read at the Sixth International meeting of the
Société d’Études Samaritaines, Pápa, Hungary, 20–25 July 2008. Thanks go out to the
participants for their very good comments and questions. I would especially like to
thank József Zsengellér for his kind hospitality and generosity in hosting this confe-
rence.
2 WILLIAMSON, Israel, 142.
40 G. N. Knoppers
In this essay, I would like to revisit the issue of Israelite identity in

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

Judean Literature
In dealing with the two main Judean historiographical writings dating

to the late Achaemenid or early Hellenistic period – Chronicles and
Ezra-Nehemiah – one is confronted with two fundamentally different
conceptions of the people of Israel.4 In Ezra and in some of the editorial
sections of Nehemiah, Israel appears delimited as the běnê ha-gôlâ, “the
children of the exile” (Ezra 4:1; 6:19-20; 8:35; 10:7, 16; cf. běnê gālûtâ᾽ in
Ezra 6:16), hā῾ōlîm miššěbî ha-gôlâ, "the ones who came up from the cap-
tivity of the exile;" Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), and ha-gôlâ, "the exile(s)" (Ezra
3 For the sake of this study, Deutero-Isaiah basically encompasses Isaiah (34-35) 40-55
and Trito-Isaiah encompasses Isaiah 56-66. Admittedly, the compositional history of
Isaiah 40-66 is complex and there is no consensus as to how, when, where, and by
whom the materials in Isaiah 40-66 were written and how these materials relate to
the earlier chapters in the book. See DUHM, Jesaia, 13-15; BEGRICH, Deuterojesaja, 1–
91; HERMISSON, Einheit und Komplexität, 287–312; BEUKEN, Isaianic Legacy, 48–64;
idem, Isaiah, 204–221; STECK, TritoJesajah, 403-406; idem, Studien, 217–228; WIL-
LIAMSON, Book Called Isaiah; SMITH, Rhetoric; KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 5-38; SOMMER,
Prophet, 187–198; SCHMID – STECK, Restoration, 41–81; BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40-55;
idem, Isaiah 56-66. If, as some contend, the material in Isaiah 34-35, 40-55 is to be
viewed as a completely distinct composition over against the material earlier in the
book, rather than being a gradual continuation of the prophetic oracles found in
Isaiah 1-33, this would not materially affect the overall argument sketched here.
4 Perhaps 1 Esdras (Esdras α) should be added to this list, because it develops aspects
of the end of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35–36) and an earlier version of Ezra (1–10*),
yet also goes its own way, BÖHLER, Die heilige Stadt.
Did Jacob become Judah? 41
1:11; 9:4; 10:6; Neh 7:6), and so forth.5 Over against the exiles stand “the
people(s) of the land(s)” (῾am-hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽ărāșôt; Ezra
3:3, 4:4; 9:1, 2, 11, 14; 10:2; 11; cf. Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29, 31, 32).6
The terminology differs somewhat in the so-called Nehemiah me-
moir.7 Within the first-person narratives of Nehemiah, the people with
whom Nehemiah identifies are described as ha-yĕhûdîm, “the Judeans”
(Neh 2:16; 3:33, 34; 4:6; 5:1, 17; 6:6; 13:23) and hā῾am, kol-hā῾am, hā῾am
hā᾽ēlleh, “(all) the/this (Judean) people” (e.g., Neh 3:38; 4:7, 16; 5:1, 13,
15, 18, 19; 7:4; cf. 13:1).8 References to yĕhûdâ, “Judah” (Neh 4:4; 13:12),
the house of Judah (Neh 4:10), and the children of Judah (Neh 13:16)
also occur. The focus upon the territory of Judah, as opposed to a larger
territory of Israel, is telling.9 Apart from the allusions in the opening
verses of Nehemiah (1:2, 3) to those who remained from the captivity
(šĕbî), references to the Judean captivity do not appear elsewhere in the
Nehemiah memoir.10 In the Nehemiah materials, the protagonists con-
sist of Nehemiah and his allies among the Judeans, while the antago-
nists mainly consist of those who resist Nehemiah’s mission – ha-gôyîm,
“the nations” (Neh 5:8, 9, 17; 6:6, 16; 13:26), that is, the Samarians, Ash-
5 Also relevant are the references to the "assembly of the exile" (qĕhal ha-gôlâ) in Ezra
10:8, 12-16 and the "assembly of God" (qĕhal hā᾽ĕlōhîm) in Neh 13:1. In the last instan-
ce, the writers are quoting from Deut 23:4-7. There are a number of instances, espe-
cially in Ezra (primarily in the lists and letters) in which the term Israel signifies the
laypeople as opposed to the priests, Levites, gatekeepers, and so forth (e.g., Ezra
2:2,70 [//Neh 7:7,73]; 6:16; 7:7, 10, 13; 9:5; 10:25; Neh 2:10). The two meanings are not
mutually exclusive, because the laity comprises a subset of the returnees.
6 Occasionally, there are hints of the survival of the concept of a larger entity (e.g.,
Ezra 6:17, 21), but such occurrences are rare.
7 The two concepts are linked, however, in the present text of Neh 7:1-5. The desire to
increase the Judean population of Jerusalem leads Nehemiah to examine an old list
(7:6-72) of returnees (//Ezra 2:1-70). The complex editorial history of the Nehemiah
memoir cannot be discussed here. See the disparate analyses of BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-
Nehemiah, 46-47; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxiv-xxviii; ALBERTZ, Religion, 437–
460; REINMUTH, Bericht Nehemias; WRIGHT, Rebuilding Identity.
8 The usage is also common elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 2:2, 70; 3:1, 11, 13;
8:15, 36; 10:1, 9, 11, 13; Neh 7:4, 5, 7, 72; 8:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16; 9:10; 10:15, 29,
35; 11:1, 24; 12:30, 38).
9 The concern with a linkage between ethnic and cultic purity is also prominent in
certain parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, O LYAN, Rites and Rank; idem, Purity Ideology, 1–
16; ALBERTZ , Kultische Konzepte, 13–32.
10 The first-person Nehemiah narratives may thus be contrasted with the material in
Ezra 1-6 (Ezra 3:8), the parallel lists of returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 (Ezra
2:1//Neh 7:6), and the Ezra materials (e.g., Ezra 8:35; 9:7; Neh 8:17). There is a refe-
rence by Nehemiah to the šibyâ (Neh 3:36), but this represents what Nehemiah wis-
hes for Sanballat, Tobiah, and their followers.
42 G. N. Knoppers
dodites, Arabs, Moabites, and Ammonites.11 Especially prominent in

the Nehemiah narratives are certain leaders of these peoples – Sanballat
of Samaria, Tobiah of Ammon, and Geshem/Gashmu the Arab.12 In
short, the Ezra and Nehemiah materials evince some differences in
terminology that relate primarily to the protagonists portrayed in the
story. Nevertheless, both present some similar conceptions about the
identities of those who belong and do not belong to the main group
under discussion. In both cases, the Samarians, those people living to
the north of Yehud, are depicted as belonging to a larger collection of
peoples, who are unrelated to the Judeans and who constitute Judah’s
adversaries.
The authors of Chronicles present a fundamentally different con-
ception of Israelite identity. For them, the people of Israel constitute a
comprehensive, albeit complex and segmented corporate entity, consis-
ting of twelve (or more) tribes. The sodalities persist over time in spite
of changes in national political and administrative structures.13 These
geographically-dispersed sodalities are genetically related to each
other, because they all stem ultimately from a common forbearer (1 Chr
2:1-2). Indeed, the work plays on the different nuances of the name
Israel – the patriarch Israel, the united kingdom of Saul, David, and
Solomon, the northern kingdom, the southern kingdom, the people of
God, the future community of God’s people, and so forth. There are
references in Chronicles to “the peoples” (hā῾ammîm) and to “the peop-
les of the lands (῾ammê hā᾽āreș; ῾ammê hā᾽ărāșôt), but such expressions
refer to non-Israelite entities (e.g., 1 Chr 5:25; 16:8, 24, 26; 2 Chr 6:33;
7:20; 13:9; 32:13, 19).14 To complicate matters further, the internal deve-
lopment of the tribe of Judah is itself rather involved (1 Chr 2:3–4:23).
The lineages of this tribe include a variety of cases of intermarriage
between Judahites, including Davidic Judahites, and women from a
variety of other peoples (e.g., Canaanite, Moabite, Egyptian, and Ge-
shurite). The Judahite lineages do not contain any words of censure or
11 The references to ᾽ō/ôyēb, “enemy” (Neh 4:9; 5:9; 6:1, 16; cf. 9:28) and șār, “adversary”
(Neh 4:5; cf. Ezra 4:1; Neh 9:27), are also relevant, because Nehemiah equates the na-
tions with his foes.
12 Nevertheless, Nehemiah also faced determined opposition from members of his own
elite, who were prepared to support him on certain issues, but actively resisted his
leadership on others, KNOPPERS, Nehemiah, 305–331.
13 JAPHET, People and Land, 103–125; eadem, Ideology; eadem, Rivers; WILLIAMSON,
Israel; WILLI, Juda; KNOPPERS, I Chronicles 1-9; K LEIN, 1 Chronicles.
14 In a few cases, the expression, “the people of the land,” refers (as it does in the paral-
lel passages in Kings from which the writers of Chronicles draw) to the landed gent-
ry of Judah (2 Chr 23:20, 21; 26:21; 33:25; 36:1).
disapproval of such links to other peoples.15 Chronicles thus provides

evidence of diversity within the postmonarchic Judean community
with respect to the issue of intermarriage.
The Chronistic depiction of those who live to the north of Judah
during the monarchy is particularly fascinating. There are important
changes alluded to in the history of northern Israel, but the writers
never waver in their insistence that the inhabitants of the areas north of
Judah are bona fide Israelites. Like the authors of Kings, the writers of
Chronicles acknowledge the destruction and havoc caused by the Assy-
rian conquests, but the authors of Chronicles posit continuous inhabita-
tion of the land by remnants of the northern tribes, in spite of the Assy-
rian deportations. There is no empty land in the depiction of northern
Israel’s history.16 Nor is there a record of Assyrian-sponsored immig-
rants settling in the former northern kingdom. The social structure of
the people remains intact. Those who reside in Ephraim, Manasseh,
Asher, and Naphtali during the late Judean monarchy are Ephraimites,
Manassites, Asherites, and Naphtalites (2 Chr 30:1-17; 34:3-7).
In comparison with the carefully-demarcated stance advanced by
the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah, the writers of Chronicles present a more
nuanced, complex, and somewhat conciliatory attitude toward the
North. Some of Judah’s best monarchs, such as Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:1-9)
and Josiah (2 Chr 35:1-19), make important overtures toward their nor-
thern kin. In the brief Chronistic depiction of postexilic Jerusalem, the
writers assert that not only Judeans and Benjaminites settled in this
town, but also Manassites and Ephraimites (1 Chr 9:3).17 This is a very
important consideration in assessing how different postmonarchic wri-
ters construed the rebuilding of the Judean homeland community. In
most reconstructions of Persian period Judah, the witness of Ezra-
Nehemiah is (understandably) given pride of place, but this discrepan-
cy between the witness of Ezra-Nehemiah and that of Chronicles is
often neglected. In the context of the Chronistic genealogical introduc-
tion to the people of Israel, the Persian-period town of Jerusalem ap-
pears as a mixed community, housing both northern and southern re-
sidents.
15 KNOPPERS, Intermarriage, 15-30.

16 With the exception of the Trans-Jordanian tribes, which are exiled during the Assy-
rian conquests (1 Chr 5:23-26), K NOPPERS, I Chronicles 1-9, 375–400.
17 Hence, some of the social diversity evident within the genealogies pertaining to
Israel’s past is also evident in Persian-period Jerusalem. Reflecting the interests of
the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, the parallel text in Neh 11:4 simply states: “in Jerusa-
lem resided some of the descendants of Judah and some of the descendants of Ben-
jamin.“
44 G. N. Knoppers
The contrasts between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah should not

be drawn too far. The two works share some important ideological
tenets. Among them are the centrality of Jerusalem, the exclusive status
of the Jerusalem temple, the importance of bloodlines, and the pivotal
status of Judah, Benjamin, the priests, and the Levites to the larger body
politic. In the course of history, Israel’s normative cultic institutions all
come to be located in the South.18 In both works, the people of Israel
(however Israel may be defined) reside within the land and outside the
land in foreign locales.19 In this respect, Israel is an international entity
in both of these late writings.
Nevertheless, in Chronicles a pan-Israel theme characterizes both
the genealogies and the narrative sections of the work. Each sodality,
whatever its geographical location, plays an integral role within the
larger Israelite people. Indeed, the discrepancy between Chronicles and
Ezra-Nehemiah concerning the identity of Israel is especially striking in
light of the many tenets these two works share. How does one explain
such a strong difference of opinion among literary works that both date
to the same general period? It may be said that of the two perspectives,
the notion of Israelite identity being exclusively bound to the experien-
ce of the Judahite exile is the more atypical view. Most earlier biblical
authors, including those responsible for the formation of the Penta-
teuch, embraced a large, rather than a narrow, understanding of Israel.
The book of Kings contains a series of very negative comments on the
fall of the northern monarchy, the deportations of its inhabitants, and
the importation of foreign settlers into the former northern kingdom (2
Kings 17). Nevertheless, the authors of Kings do not speak of Judah, the
southern kingdom, as Israel. In Kings Israel may refer to a multi-tribal
entity, the united kingdom, the northern region of the nation, the nor-
thern kingdom, or the exiled northerners (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11), but the
term Israel is never used to refer to either the southern kingdom or the
18 The normative (or, at least major) Israelite political institution—the Davidic dynas-
ty—also stems from Judah, hence the writers of Chronicles, unlike the writers of
Kings, do not recount the independent history of the northern monarchy. In the view
of the Chronistic writers, the creation of an independent northern monarchy was an
affront to God (2 Chr 13:4-12), KNOPPERS, Rehoboam, 423–440; idem, Battling against
Yahweh, 511–532. Nevertheless, in spite of the northern secession, Israel remains a
segmented society encompassing both northern and southern tribes. For this reason,
Chronicles includes almost all of the northern-southern contacts narrated in Kings,
as well as many northern-southern contacts that are not narrated in Kings, JAPHET,
Ideology, 291–300; WILLIAMSON, Israel, 97–131. The continuation of the Davidic dy-
nasty is, however, not an interest of the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah, KNOPPERS, I
Chronicles 1-9, 80–100.
19 KNOPPERS, Ethnicity, 147–171.
Judahite exiles.20 The writers of Kings, as well as the writers of the other
books in the Deuteronomistic History (or the Former Prophets), embra-
ce a comprehensive understanding of the Israelite people.
If so, the question arises as to whether the stance of Ezra-Nehemiah
is completely unique and unprecedented or whether earlier writers also
advanced a predominantly or exclusively Judean understanding of
national identity. Most major shifts in usage do not arise de novo, but
are anticipated to a lesser or greater extent by usage in earlier works.
This is an important issue that I would like to pursue in this study.
There have been some, who have thought that the attitude toward the
Samarians in Ezra-Nehemiah was anticipated to a greater or lesser ex-
tent in earlier prophetic writings. In this theory, one sees an important
shift in and subsequently a gradual narrowing of Israelite identity in
prophetic works dealing with the late monarchic age, the Judahite exile,
and the Achaemenid era. My focus in addressing this issue will be limi-
ted to the major prophetic works of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah,
and Trito-Isaiah. The first two will be dealt with rather briefly, but the
work of Second Isaiah presents a rather complex case that requires
more detailed analysis.21
2. The Future of Israel in Ezekiel and Jeremiah
Some find important parallels between the book of Ezra and Ezekiel in
that both depict a diarchy, privilege the Judahite exiles, promote Jeru-
salem and its temple, and maintain a distinction between priests and
Levites. Nevertheless, the writers of Ezekiel emphasize a broad notion
of national identity. This stress is especially clear in the last third of the
book, dealing with the reconstruction of national institutions and the
geo-political structure of Israel itself.22 An expansive understanding of
corporate identity is evident in those texts depicting the future re-
gathering of the people (39:25-29; cf. 28:24-26; 29:21), the ecological
20 HJELM (Jerusalem’s Rise, 30-92, 117-118) points out that the writers of Kings use the
expression, “Yhwh, the God of Israel,” with reference to events in the southern
kingdom after the fall of the northern kingdom (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:5; 19:15, 20). Yhwh
may be “the God of David” (2 Kgs 20:5), but Yhwh is also the God of the body poli-
tic. The use of the epithet, “Yhwh the God of Israel,” ties the deity Hezekiah wors-
hips to a broader corporate entity. Judahites, no less than their northern counter-
parts, are beholden to the God of Israel. See also, LINVILLE, Israel.
21 The situation in Third Isaiah may be deemed to be even more complex and will have
to await study in another context.
22 LEVENSON, Theology; TUELL, The Law of the Temple.
46 G. N. Knoppers
restoration of the mountains of Israel (36:1-15), the revivification of the

Israelite people in the Valley of Dry Bones (37:1-14), the resetting of
tribal boundaries (47:13-23), and the normalization of equal geographi-
cal tribal allotments, albeit at strikingly different locations from their
distribution in earlier texts (48:1-35). The strong sense of national iden-
tity is also apparent in the recurrence of phrases, such as, ‫כל־בית ישראל‬
“all the house of Israel” (5:4; 12:10; 20:40; 37:11 [16]; 39:25; 45:6) and
‫כל־בת ישראל כלה‬, “all of the house of Israel, all of it” (11:15; 36:10).23
There is, of course, a Jerusalem-centered perspective evident in this
work and the redefined national polity is led by a Davidic ‫( נשיא‬34:23-
31; 45:8, 16). Moreover, the prophecy of the two sticks (37:15-28) pre-
supposes a traditional ethnic and political distinction between Ephraim
and Judah. Yet, this division is to be overcome by Yhwh himself as he
refashions these two nations (‫ )שני גוים‬and two kingdoms (‫)שתי ממלכות‬
into a single nation (‫ ;גוי אחד‬37:22).24 It is also important to observe that
this work is Jerusalem-centered, but not Judah centered.25 In the alloca-
tion of land to the various tribes (48:8-22), Jerusalem and its temple are
near the center, but the tribal territory of Judah is separated from the
sanctuary.26 Judah is resituated north of the tribe of Levi north of Jeru-
salem, while Benjamin is resituated to the south of Jerusalem (48:7, 23).
In sum, there are some striking ways in which the writers of Ezra may
be indebted to the prophetic work of Ezekiel, but there are also notable
differences between them.27 One of the most striking of these pertains
to the identity of Israel. Ezekiel’s new Israel consists of a reconfigured,
highly-unified twelve-tribe arrangement, whereas Ezra’s Israel consists
of the Judahite exiles and their descendants.
If there is a contrast to be drawn between Ezekiel and Ezra concer-
ning the nature of corporate identity, similar things may be said about
the relationship between Jeremiah and Ezra. The restoration prophecies
23 ZIMMERLI, Israel, 75-90; idem, Ezekiel 2, 563-565.

24 See also LUST, Exile, 99–122. On the difficult and much-contested question of natio-
nality in antiquity, see GOODBLATT, Elements.
25 ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 564.
26 For these and other reasons, some earlier commentators thought that Ezekiel was a
northerner; see GASTER, Samaritans, 11–15, 138–140; SMITH, Prophet Ezekiel, 55–71.
Gaster and Smith also thought that the original temple site of Ezekiel was not Jerusa-
lem, but rather Shechem or Mt. Gerizim. SMITH opined that Ezekiel directed his mes-
sage (originally) to a northern Israelite community, Prophet Ezekiel, 67, 71. Reading
certain passages in Ezekiel and other books in a Judean-Samari(t)an context has a
long history in biblical studies, MONTGOMERY, Samaritans; HJELM, Samaritans and
Early Judaism.
27 For the sake of this discussion, I am focusing on the whole. There is, e.g., diversity
within the work concerning the exiles themselves, ROM-SHILONI, Ezekiel, 1-45.
in the book of Jeremiah advance a comprehensive vision of God’s peop-

le.28 In the so-called book of consolation, Yhwh announces that he is
“restoring the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his dwel-
lings” (30:18). Ephraim is described as Yhwh’s firstborn (Jer 31:9) and
as Yhwh’s precious son (‫ ;בן יקיר‬31:20). In an oracle to be proclaimed far
and wide to the nations, we are told that:
The One who scatters Israel will gather them

And guard him like a shepherd of his flock
For Yhwh has ransomed (‫ )פדה‬Jacob,
And redeemed (‫ )גאל‬him from the hand of one stronger than he.
Rachel’s inconsolable weeping for her children is met with an assuran-

ce from Yhwh that her children will return from the land of the enemy
(31:15-17).29 The writers of this section acknowledge the divisions bet-
ween North and South, but envision Yhwh as overcoming such divisi-
ons by reinstating Rachel’s surviving offspring. Like the authors of
Ezekiel’s restoration program, these writers formulate a Jerusalem-
centered vision of their people, but the contours of that entity are wide-
ranging, embracing both Ephraim and Judah.
3. The Redefinition(s) of Israel in the Book of Isaiah
If the works of Ezekiel and Jeremiah both promote strong, albeit varied,
notions of pan-Israelite solidarity, the situation is considerably more
complex in the book of Isaiah. For many scholars, the real transition in
the meaning of the term Israel is evident in the cumulative growth of
this particular prophetic book.30 The long process of writing, rewriting,
and editing that culminated in the formation of this literary work is
thought to provide clues about the changing meaning of the term Israel
and its eventual application to Judah. So, for instance, Kratz writes that
the compositional process of this book bears witness to the transforma-
tion of the name both in the history of Israel and in the literary history
of Isaiah.31
28 SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 154–185.

29 Referring to Joseph (Gen 30:22-24) and Benjamin (35:16-18; 41:51-52). Joseph’s sons
(and Rachel’s grandsons) Ephraim and Manasseh are also likely in view.
30 See, e.g., ROST, Propheten, 91–94; DANELL, Studies, 186–189, 261–264; H ØGENHAVEN,
Gott,17; WILLIAMSON, Concept, 144–159; and K RATZ, Israel, 105.
31 KRATZ, Israel, 103.
48 G. N. Knoppers
In one dominant reading of the work, Israel is increasingly cons-

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

33 Pace DANELL, Studies, 262
34 Similar variants between the MT and 1QIsa occur in Isa 39:7. For the use of “bowels”
(‫ )מעים‬elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah with reference to Israel, see Isa 48:19. If the Qum-
ran text of Isa 48:1 contains the older reading (BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 281–284), the
reference is to the patriarch Judah, rather than to the geo-political region of Judah.
35 For the former interpretation, see DANELL, Studies, 262; ROST, Propheten, 92. For the
latter interpretation, which levels out certain geographical and political disparities,
see K RATZ, Israel, 123. Even if one wishes, for the sake of argument, to understand as
Isa 48:1 as identifying Judah with Jacob/Israel, it does not necessarily follow that the
other tribes or regions traditionally associated with Israel are no longer being regar-
ded as Israelite in character. The force of Isa 48:1 is to link Judah to historic Israel.
The text does not address the fate of Ephraim.
36 KOOLE (Isaiah III, 1, 556) provides a history of interpretive options.
37 But this text is, of course, found in Third Isaiah.
38 Even so, the lemma does not address, explicitly at least, the fate of northern Israeli-
tes. It presents a Jerusalem-centered view of Jacob.
ro-Isaiah, it can be further restricted in Trito-Isaiah “to a faithful indivi-

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

Second Isaiah
The points scholars have made about the changing nature of Israel in
the book of Isaiah carry much weight. But should one immediately
associate such shifts in meaning as univocally signaling a transition
from open toward restrictive definitions? Perhaps not. Even with refe-
rence to the different meanings of Israel in the book of Isaiah, there are
complications. The work does not speak with one voice about the re-
constitution of Jacob/Israel.44 In the analysis of Kratz, ‘“Israel’ does not
represent primarily a historical, but rather a theological entity.”45 He
argues that in many instances the term designates the people of God (or
Israel) as a whole.46 When both Israel and Judah fall victim to foreign
39 WILLIAMSON, Concept, 147.

40 WILLIAMSON, Concept, 150. See also AHLSTRÖM, Israelites, 110–118.
41 Most notably, Rost, Propheten, 48.
42 E.g., THOMPSON, Mythic Past.
43 DANELL (Studies, 186–89) does not think that Isaiah called Judah Israel before the fall
of the northern kingdom, while AHLSTRÖM (Israelites, 104–110) and K RATZ situate
the beginning of the transition in seventh-century Judah, Israel, 114.
44 See SCHMID, Buchgestalten, 110–181 (and the references listed there).
45 KRATZ, Israel, 111. By “theological,” Kratz means the people of God or Israel as a
whole, rather than a political (the northern tribes/kingdom or the southern tri-
bes/kingdom) designation (K RATZ, Israel, 117).
46 KRATZ, Israel, 117. Cf. ZOBEL, yiśrā᾽ēl, 417 (with reference to Isa 44:5; 48:1).
50 G. N. Knoppers
conquests and deportations, they become “fellow sufferers–the one

people of the one God.”47 In the view of some commentators, the be-
ginning and end of the book have been shaped and edited as a frame to
highlight important issues that relate to the question of the people’s
identity.48 Both Kratz and Williamson call attention to the opening lines
of the book (Isa 1:1-3), which they believe belongs to one of the latest, if
not the latest, layers of the work.49
1:1 The vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw (‫ )חזה‬concerning
Judah and Jerusalem in reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah.
2. Hear O heavens and listen O earth,
For Yhwh has spoken:
“Children I have reared and raised,
but they have rebelled against me.
3. An ox knows its owner,
and an ass its feeding trough;
Israel does not know,
My people show no understanding.”
Given that subsequent chapters deal with both Judah and northern
Israel, Kratz and Williamson contend that Israel in these verses refers to
the people of God or to Israel as a larger corporate entity. Indeed,
Yhwh’s reference to “my children” (Isa 1:2) would seem to point to a
broad, rather than a narrow, concept of Israel. The usage of “Israel” in
this particular context is, therefore, quite important. The first chapter
may have been shaped or added to the book to serve as an introduction
to the whole.50
In what follows, I would like to support and extend such an open-
ended and nuanced way of reading certain texts in Second Isaiah. I
would agree with earlier scholars that one finds a striking diversity of
views within the book of Isaiah and that this diversity provides some
important clues to understanding the changing meanings of Israel in
the history of Judean lore. I would also maintain however, that certain
problematic assumptions about the course of northern Israelite and
southern Judahite history have unduly affected scholarly theories about
47 KRATZ, Israel, 125–126 (with reference to Isa 5:1-7; 6:9-10).

48 FOHRER, Jesaja 1, 148–166; SWEENEY, Isaiah, 20–24. Note, however, the cautions
expressed by SOMMER, Allusions and Illusions, 178–183.
49 WILLIAMSON (Book Called Isaiah, 153-154) and others note the similar (earlier?)
introduction at the beginning of Isa 2:1, “The word (‫)הדבר‬, which Isaiah son of Amoz
saw (‫ )חזה‬concerning Judah and Jerusalem.”
50 WILLIAMSON, Isaiah 1-5, 9-11.
the meaning of texts mentioning Israel/Jacob in Deutero-Isaiah. One

common presupposition of biblical scholars has been that the Assyrian
conquests and deportations effectively brought an end to the Israelite
population in northern Israel. Following the storyline of 2 Kings 17,
many have supposed that the area of northern Israel was radically
transformed in demography, culture, and religion in the late eighth
century. After the arrival of state-sponsored foreign settlers in the for-
mer northern kingdom, the focus of attention shifted to the kingdom of
Judah and eventually Judahite writers began to apply the name Israel
to the Judahite people or to the people of Yhwh as a whole. In other
words, the narrowing or reapplication of meaning is thought to res-
pond to and reflect ongoing historical developments.
But the assumption that the story of (northern) Israel ends with the
Assyrian bi-directional deportations is problematic on a number of
different counts. The material evidence does not support such a simp-
listic conclusion. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the majori-
ty of those who survived the Assyrian onslaughts in Samaria were Is-
raelites.51 In spite of some destruction, serious losses, and limited bi-
directional deportations, the preponderance of those who survived the
tumultuous events of the late eighth century in the areas of Megiddo
and Samaria were Israelite.52 This means that the story of northern Is-
rael continued, albeit in altered circumstances. There is thus no good
reason to assume that most Judahite writers living in the South thought
that there no longer were any Yahwists residing in the areas of Eph-
raim and Manasseh or that the only northern Israelites to be attested
were all dislocated by the Assyrians. In spite of the assertions of those
Judean scribes responsible for composing certain sections in 2 Kings 17,
there is no clear reason to think that most members of the Judean elite
believed that any surviving Israelites in northern Israel had all become
contaminated by alien blood.53
To complicate matters, one needs to envision a historical set of cir-
cumstances affecting Judeans in the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries
BCE that involves more than simply a Jerusalem-Babylon axis. During
the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic eras, Judeans could not
only be found in Judah and in Babylon, but also in Egypt (e.g., 2 Kgs
51 MACCHI, Samaritains, 73–133; ZSENGELLÉR, Gerizim, 95–176; KNOPPERS, Search, 15–

30; idem, Mt. Zion; idem, Revisiting, 265–289.
52 The regions of Galilee and the northern Trans-Jordan are another matter. There, the
uni-directional deportations of Tiglath-pileser III seem to have resulted in the severe
depopulation of a number of different areas formerly belonging to the Aramean and
Israelite kingdoms, KNOPPERS, Search, 160–170.
53 MACCHI, Controversies théologiques, 85–93; KNOPPERS, Cutheans, 223–239.
52 G. N. Knoppers
25:22-26; Jer 37:1-43:13) and in other parts of Syria-Palestine.54 In dea-

ling with texts in Second Isaiah, one should not presume that because
these texts often speak of Jerusalem, Judah, the towns of Judah, the
aftermath of the Babylonian exile, and Cyrus as Yhwh’s designated
messiah, the references to Jacob and Israel in these texts must all some-
how refer to Judah, the Babylonian Judean expatriates, or to some
group among the Babylonian Judean expatriates.55 The older theory
assumes what it needs to prove. One may argue, in fact, that even in
Second Isaiah, which presents a number of different images for the
reconstitution of God’s people, there are occasions in which Jacob/Israel
relates to the people as a whole and not simply to Judah, the homeland
community in Judah, or to a particular group, such as the Babylonian
deportees.
My argument is not that somehow Second Isaiah is not concerned
with the renaissance of Jerusalem, Zion, and Judah (it certainly is), but
rather that indications of broader notions of Israelite identity may be
found in certain portions of this work. Some texts may reapply the term
Israel to Judah (or to a certain group within Judah), but others affirm a
larger and more complex understanding of Israel. It should prove use-
ful to take a close look at some relevant passages.56
Isa 43:1-7
1. But now, thus says Yhwh,

the One who creates you, O Jacob,
who fashions you, O Israel:
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you (‫)גאלתיך‬,
I have called you out by name, to me you belong.
2. When you pass through waters I am with you . . . .
3. For I Yhwh am your God,57
54 On the Egyptian question, reference is often made (and appropriately so) to the
Jewish colony at Elephantine (PORTEN, Archives), but reference may also be made to
Judeans residing in certain areas of the Delta, HOLLADAY, Judeans, 405–437.
55 DANELL (Studies, 262) acknowledges this possibility, but contends that other passa-
ges speaking of Jerusalem, Zion, and the towns of Judah (e.g., Isa 40:9; 44:26) show
that the prophet only has the Judean exiles in mind.
56 Such a broad view is also very much in evidence in the prophecy of Isa 11:10-16,
which speaks of a renewed Davidic kingdom ruling both northern and southern sec-
tions of Israel. Because the authorship and date of this important text are much de-
bated (it does not seem to belong to Second Isaiah), it will be left out of this discussi-
on. LAATO (Servant, 116–117) and SOMMER (Prophet, 246–248) contend that it was
written before the time of Deutero-Isaiah, but others date it later.
57 So the MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsag, and the LXX. 1QIsaa lacks ‫כי‬.
The Holy One of Israel, your deliverer (‫)מושיעך‬.

I have given Egypt as your ransom (‫)כפרך‬,
Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you;
4. Because you are precious in my eyes,
you are honored and I, I have loved you,
I shall give man in exchange for you,
and peoples in your stead.
5. Fear not for I am with you;
from the east, I shall bring your seed,
from the west, I shall gather you.
6. I shall say to the north: “Give (back),”
and to the south: “Do not hold back;
bring my sons from afar,
and my daughters from the ends of the earth,
7. all who are called by my name (‫)כל הנקרא בשמי‬,
for my glory I have created them, formed them, indeed made them.”
Isaiah 43:1-7 is one of several passages in Second Isaiah that announce

the regathering of God’s people back to the land.58 The oracle of rene-
wal follows one of reproach (Isa 42:18-25).59 Divine punishment does
not lead to ultimate destruction, but rather to a decisive divine inter-
vention in the history of Israel in which Yhwh acts decisively as a divi-
ne kinsman to redeem (‫ )גאל‬his people.60 The Creator willingly pays an
exorbitant ransom to retrieve his people from far-off places and lead
them back to the land. The addresses of the highly allusive lines in
Isaiah 43 are commonly considered to be limited to the Babylonian
Judean exiles. Those formerly outcast to Babylon would certainly be
part of the picture (43:14), but is the hopeful message simply limited to
this group? Or are the Babylonian deportees major beneficiaries of a
larger and more comprehensive divine action?
58 For CHILDS, Isa 43:1-7 are part of a larger unit extending from 42:14–43:21, Isaiah,
327-37. But BLENKINSOPP (Isaiah 40-55, 220) situates Isa 43:1-7 at the beginning of a
new section extending through 44:8. A text speaking of the despoiling and plunde-
ring of the people (42:18-24) gives way to a new message of deliverance. See also
BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 155-160. Sommer contends that Isa 43:5-9 is a reprediction,
a case in which Deutero-Isaiah repeats and recasts a positive prophecy of Jeremiah
(31:7-9), Allusions and Illusions, 171.
59 Hence, W ESTERMANN, types 43:1-7 an “oracle of salvation,” Isaiah 40-66, 115.
SCHOORS divides the piece into two separate but related oracles, Saviour, 67–77. The
issue need not detain us here.
60 The usage is no accident, but forms part of a larger pattern in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa
41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 22, 24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8) and Trito-Isaiah. On the
use of the metaphor elsewhere, see Exod 6:6; 15:13; Jer 31:11; 50:34; Hos 13:14; Mic
4:10; Ps 74:2; 77:16; 78:35; 106:10; 107:2.
54 G. N. Knoppers
There are some good reasons to believe that a highly restrictive de-
signation may not be warranted by the text. To begin with, the addres-
see of the divine oracle is Jacob/Israel. The very choice of terminology
points to the people as a whole, rather than to some part thereof.61 If, as
most commentators agree, the poet is alluding to the rebirth and re-
creation of Israel, the referent would seem to be the people in general,
because the older traditions upon which the poet draws (e.g., those in
the Pentateuch) depict the birth of the people as a corporate entity and
not the birth of a particular tribe (‫ )שבט‬or clan (‫ )משפחה‬within that larger
entity.62 The reference to Jacob’s seed (‫ )זרע‬points to a genealogically
comprehensive, rather than a genealogically constrictive, designation.63
Second, the poet does not make qualitative or quantitative distinc-
tions. He does not speak, for example, of a remnant of the people or
distinguish between “bad figs and good figs” (Jer 24). Instead, he
speaks of the whole. Third, the final lines speak of Yhwh gathering the
descendants of Jacob/Israel from all four directions of the compass and
not simply from any one particular area. The scope is comprehensive,
“to the ends of the earth” (v. 6).64 If the writer had only the Babylonian
deportees in mind, one would think that he would speak of only the
east or the north, rather than of all four directions.65
Fourth, in the progression of the poem one can discern a stress on
the fullness of Yhwh’s initiative. When he initially speaks to Ja-
cob/Israel, the God of Israel (Yhwh) assures his redeemed that “I have
called (you) out by your name ‫קראתי בשמך‬, you belong to me” (43:1).66
At the conclusion of the piece, this promise is slightly modified and
intensified. Yhwh summons the north and the south to give back “all
who are called by my name” (‫ ;כל הנקרא בשמי‬v. 7). If the poet had a very
61 ZOBEL recognizes the issue, stating that “Jacob” (ya῾aqōb, 203) can mean the people
of the exile (Second Isaiah) or the postexilic community (Third Isaiah). He acknow-
ledges a problem in that “Jacob” can refer to the entire nation or to parts thereof. In
the end, he adopts the traditional (restrictive) scholarly stance.
62 The connections with the promises to the ancestors are stressed in the treatment of
LAATO, Servant.
63 The text may be compared with Isa 44:3; 48:19; 54:3; 61:9; 65:23.
64 Hence, CHILDS speaks of “a return of the scattered diaspora” (Isaiah, 335). Cf. Isa
56:8; 60:4ff.
65 So also KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 297. If one wishes to make a case that this text somehow
refers to a loyal Judean remnant, such a remnant would have to be actively drawn
from all four directions of the compass (cf. Isa 49:12; Zeph 3:10; Obad 20), BLENKIN-
SOPP, Isaiah 40-55, 222.
66 So the MT. The Versions make the direct object explicit (= ‫)קראתיך בשמך‬. Cf. Gen 28:13-
15; 32:10, 28.
narrow understanding of those who could possibly be affected by the

dramatic divine action, it is unlikely that he would be so inclusive.
Isa 45:22-25
22. Turn to me and be delivered,

all the ends of the earth.
For I am God (‫)א ֵל‬,
and there is no other.
23. By myself have I sworn,
from my mouth has righteousness gone forth,
speech and it will not return,
for to me every knee will bow,
every tongue will swear.”67
24. Only in Yhwh will it surely be said,68
are righteousness and strength;
To him will come69 and be ashamed,
all who were incensed against him.70
25. In Yhwh all the seed of Israel (‫)כל־זרע ישראל‬,
will win vindication and glory.
These lines are part of a longer poem addressed to the “survivors of the
nations” (Isa 45:20-25), summoning them to acknowledge God’s sove-
reignty, bow before him, and employ his name in oaths.71 The singular
nature of the godhead is associated in this poem with a singular divine
action on behalf of “all the seed of Israel” against all those who raged
against him. The reference to the personal name of Israel’s God by the
“survivors of the nations” (‫ )פליטי הגוים‬is particularly striking (Isa
45:20).72 In any case, what does it mean for “all of the seed of Israel”
67 So the MT, 4QIsab. The LXX and 1QIsaa preface “and.”

68 Reading ‫ לו יאמר‬for MT ‫( לי אמר‬cf. LXX, Syr., and1QIsaa). So also CLIFFORD , Fair Spo-
ken, 124.
69 The MT has the sg. (‫)יבוא‬, but many Heb mss, 1QIsaa, and the Versions have the pl.
(‫)יבואו‬.
70 Cf. Isa 41:11, GOLDINGAY – PAYNE, Isaiah 40-55, 165.
71 So BLENKINSOPP (Isaiah 40-55, 260–263). Some define the unit as Isa 45:18-25
(SCHOORS, Saviour, 233–238; Koole, Isaiah III, 1, 473; CHILDS, Isaiah, 355). In the view
of CHILDS, the poem of vv. 18-25 is part of a larger unit consisting of Isa 44:24–45:25,
Isaiah, 344–356.
72 CLIFFORD, Fair Spoken, 124–127. See also Isa 2:2-4; 42:5-12; 60:1-7.
56 G. N. Knoppers
(‫ )כל־זרע ישראל‬to win vindication and glory?73 A cultic connection with

Jerusalem and Zion may be likely, but why would the poet limit the
group of beneficiaries only to Judeans (or even more narrowly, either to
exiled Judeans or to homeland Judeans), when he is summoning the
ends of the earth to acknowledge Yhwh’s power?74 The poet does not
speak of the seed of Judah or even of all the seed of Judah, but rather of
“all the seed of Israel.”75 Certainly, displaced Judeans and homeland
Judeans would benefit from the actualization of divine speech and the
broad-based acknowledgement of divine justice, but does not the use of
the adjective ‫“( כל‬all”) underscore the participation of all the stock of
Israel in the coming divine victory?76
Isa 46:3-4
3. Listen to me, O House of Jacob,

All that are left of the House of Israel (‫)כל־שארית בית ישראל‬,
those who have been carried since birth,
those borne since leaving the womb.
4. To old age, I am He,
To dotage, I, I shall carry.
I, I have acted and I, I shall bear,
I, I shall carry and I shall bring to safety.
This excerpt is part of a larger poem (46:1-13), which contains an exten-

ded comparison between the Babylonian deities Bel (Marduk) and his
son Nabu, on the one hand, and Yhwh, the God of Israel, on the other
73 A similar phrase is used in v. 19, “seed of Jacob.” Cf. “You are Israel my ser-
vant/Jacob whom I have chosen/seed of Abraham my friend” (Isa 41:8). Cf. Isa 43:5;
44:3, 18; 54:3.
74 On the expression ‫אפסי־ארץ‬, see also Isa 40:28; 41:5, 9. The range of geographical
expressions in Second Isaiah led some older commentators to speculate that the ho-
me of Second Isaiah was not in Babylon or in Judah, but in some other location, such
as Phoenicia or Egypt. BARSTAD provides a helpful survey, Babylonian Captivity,
23–32.
75 Some even think that Israel and Jacob as corporate entities carry slightly different
nuances in this material—more national (Jacob) as opposed to more inclusive (Is-
rael). See BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah, 251 (with further references).
76 Indeed, some would see in the divine summons to “the ends of the earth” a procla-
mation that transcends ethnic, national, or geographical borders (CHILDS, Isaiah, 356;
KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1, 500–501). This may be so, but the oracle itself focuses attention
upon a particular ethnos (Israel) and its future vindication.
hand.77 The fact that the images of Bel and Nabu bow and stoop is quite
ominous for the deities they represent (Isa 46:1-2).78 Bel and Nabu will
no longer be carried (‫ )נשא‬in processional splendor, but will be reduced
to booty, carried (‫ )עמס‬into captivity as a burden (‫ )משא‬by weary pack
animals, who are unable to deliver (‫ )מלט‬the burden (‫ ;משא‬46:1-2). By
contrast, Yhwh will carry (‫ )נשא‬and bear (‫“ )סבל‬the house of Jacob” and
deliver (‫ )מלט‬them, just as he has borne (‫ )עמס‬them from the time of
birth. The reference to “all of the remnant of Israel” (‫)בית ישראל כל־שארית‬
explicitly acknowledges the major loss of life in the people’s past, but
nevertheless reassures the prophet’s audience that Yhwh is concerned
with all those Israelites, who have managed to survive the ravages of
history.
Part and parcel of Yhwh’s unique status, as presented in this pro-
phecy, is his ability to achieve that which he speaks (vv. 9-11). His deli-
verance will not tarry. There is no doubt that a deliberate contrast bet-
ween Babylon and Zion is intended, because the poem concludes with
the assertion, “I have set my deliverance in Zion / to Israel (I have gi-
ven) my glory” (v. 13).79 The issue is, however, whether this Judean
author can only be speaking of the Babylonian deportees or some sub-
set thereof, when he refers to the house of Jacob.80 When Yhwh refers to
his bearing “all who are left of the house of Israel” (46:3) since the time
that Jacob left the womb, it does not seem convincing to maintain that
the text in reality can only designate a small portion of those who
would identify with Jacob/Israel. The traditional interpretation presup-
poses that the author believed all of the northern Israelites had either
been extirpated or scattered to oblivion and thus were out of the Judean
writer’s frame of consciousness.81 Similarly, if the references to the
77 For CHILDS, the verses are part of a larger unit extending from 46:1–47:15, Isaiah,
356–367. Cf. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 40-55, 263–270.
78 SCHAUDIG explores the allusions to and the reuse of Neo-Babylonian processional
imagery, Bēl Bows, 557–572.
79 On the frequent references to Zion, see CLEMENTS, Zion, 3–17; KOOLE, Isaiah III, 1,
41–43.
80 The associations between the people, identified as the “house of Jacob,” and the
eponymous ancestor would be important, because of the importance given to conti-
nuity with the ancestors. Connections with the patriarchs and matriarchs carried po-
tential implications for the present and future. SCHMID (Erzväter, 266–270) observes
that the divinely elected patriarch is an important theological concept that focuses
attention on the (re)formation of Israel as the people of God. The promised future is
presented, in part, as the repetition of positive beginnings made during difficult cir-
cumstances in the ancestral age. If so, the promise underscores, in this context, the
possibilities for a new beginning in the ongoing story of Yhwh’s people.
81 Or that the author cared only about the Babylonian exiles.
58 G. N. Knoppers
“house of Jacob” and “all that are left of the house of Israel” are code
for a small Judean group, a tiny remnant of the whole people, it must
be conceded that the language used is remarkably open-ended. It
seems more plausible to hold that the suggestive and open-ended fra-
me of reference is deliberate. If the text is specifically meant for the
Judean expatriates residing in Babylon, the text reassures them of
Yhwh’s good intentions by situating their deliverance in the context of
a broader divine action on behalf of “all the remnant of the house of
Israel” (Isa 46:3).
Isa 49:1-6
1. Listen O coastlands to me,

pay attention, O peoples from afar.
As for Yhwh, he called me from the womb,
from my mother’s body, he pronounced my name.
2. He made my mouth like a sharp sword,
in the shadow of his hand, he hid me;
he made me a sharpened arrow,82
in his quiver, he concealed me.
3. He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in you I shall be glorified.”
4. As for me, I thought: “In vain have I labored,83
for waste and nothing have I expended my strength;
yet, my cause lies with Yhwh,
and my reward is with my God.”
5. And now, says Yhwh,
the one who forms me from the womb to be his servant,
to restore Jacob to himself,
that Israel might be gathered to him,84
and I have been honored in the eyes of Yhwh,
my God has been my strength,85
6. He said to me, “It is too little for you to be my servant,
to establish the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the survivors of Israel.
I shall make you a light of the nations,
to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.”86
82 1QIsaa explicates, “like a sharpened arrow.” We read with the MT and 4QIsad.
83 So 1QIsaa, which lacks the initial ‫ ו‬of the MT and 4QIsad (‫)ואני‬.
84 Reading ‫( לו‬so the qere, some Heb. mss, 1QIsaa, the LXX; Aquila, Eth.). The ketiv and
4QIsad have ‫לא‬.
85 Although some commentators (and BHS) would reposition this clause (“my God
who has been my strength”) at the end of v. 4, it is not necessary to do so.
In this poem, one of the so-called servant songs, Israel receives a pro-
phetic call as a witness to the nations.87 Within the larger section of
Isaiah (49-55) of which the poem of Isaiah 49:1-13 marks a new begin-
ning, certain themes receive special emphasis, while others disappear.
Within these chapters, Babylon, the cult of images, and Cyrus are no
longer mentioned, but Zion is mentioned more often (than in Isaiah 40-
48). As a number of commentators have stressed, election terminology
in ancient Near Eastern royal oracles has been applied to Yhwh’s cho-
sen people in some passages of Second Isaiah.88 In the context of Isaiah
49, the language of election is applied to Yhwh’s chosen servant. There
is, of course, an ongoing debate whether the servant designates the
prophet, the remnant of the people in a prophetic role, the people of
Israel, the prophet and the people of Israel together, or some represen-
tative group within the group as a whole. These issues are legitimate,
but do not have to be revisited here. The issue that needs to be pursued
in this context is the nature of the servant’s assignment.
In referring to the servant’s earlier mission, Yhwh declares that it is
too little a task for the servant “to establish the tribes of Jacob” (‫להקים‬
‫ )את־שבטי יעקב‬and “to restore the survivors of Israel” (‫)ונצירי ישראל להשיב‬.89
The prophetic call is extended so that the servant will become “a light
of the nations” and so that Yhwh’s salvation might reach “the ends of
the earth” (Isa 49:6; cf. Isa 42:1-4; 51:4-5). Within its literary context, the
original call seems to be broadly configured. The servant is not asked to
establish only one particular tribe of Jacob or some small part thereof,
but rather the “tribes of Jacob.”90 An inclusive pan-Israelite perspective
is in view.91 The servant will become a blessing to the nations. To put
matters somewhat differently, there is no clear evidence to suggest that
the servant’s original charge was simply to focus on one small portion
of the larger Israelite people. The reference to the “tribes of Jacob” by
definition includes more than the Judeans or the Judean exiles. If the
writer had a very limited perspective, it would be odd to leap from that
highly restrictive charge to an international mandate.
86 Thus 1QIsaa. The MT and the LXX have the sg.

87 Cf. 40:28-31; DUHM, Jesaja, 14–15, 367–370.
88 CLIFFORD, Fair Spoken, 9–67, 150–155; KRATZ, Kyros, 110–112; idem, “Israel,” 106.
89 Reading with the ketiv (‫)נצירי‬, rather than the qere (‫)נצורי‬. Cf. Isa 11:10-12.
90 KOOLE (Isaiah III, 2, 17) observes that Isa 49:6 is the last time Israel appears parallel
to Jacob in the book of Isaiah. The term Israel does not occur in Isa 49:8–55:13, except
in titles of God, ROST, Propheten, 92n. BEENTJES discusses the citation of Isa 49:6 as a
reprediction in Sir 36:11, Relations, 158–159.
60 G. N. Knoppers
6. Conclusions
In discussing this limited group of texts from Second Isaiah, I do not

wish to deny either that the Judean authors of these texts saw Judah (or
one group within Judah) as especially favored by the deity or the pos-
sibility that such a group was chosen by God to serve as a catalyst for
the renewal of the whole. The critical question is what constitutes the
whole? Does Jacob/Israel consist of the Judean exiles, Judah itself, or
some other social group within Judah or does Jacob/Israel sometimes
carry broader connotations? I have argued that the latter possibility
should not be excluded in the interpretation of these highly suggestive
oracles. That some of these writers envision the group in question as
revitalizing not only the house of Jacob, but also having a positive func-
tion to play in the interaction with other peoples may also indicate that
a broad, rather than a narrow, understanding of Israelite identity is in
view.
To return to the issues raised at the beginning of this essay, there
are good reasons to doubt a historical progression over the course of
the centuries that involves simply broader definitions of Israelite identi-
ty in the Neo-Babylonian period becoming much more narrow definiti-
ons of Israelite identity in the Achaemenid period. Rather, one should
think of the coexistence of a number of overlapping and competing
understandings of Israelite identity. To be sure, one important histori-
cal trajectory leads to characterizations of Israel (among the Judean
elite) that center on Judah itself, the Judean exiles, or some other group
within Judah. But such a trajectory should not be privileged as repre-
senting the complete historical picture. Alongside such a narrow trajec-
tory, there is another that begins to define Israelite identity (or Judean
identity) along religious lines (e.g., Israel as the people of God) and not
simply on the basis of genealogy. Yet another trajectory retains tradi-
tional definitions of Israelite identity as encapsulating surviving des-
cendants of all the Israelite tribes.
In this respect, the restoration programs of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
should not be construed simply as fossils surviving from an earlier age.
The prophecies within these books may hearken back to older utopian
ideals, but they also transform those ideals in new and surprising ways.
Within the context of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenis-
tic periods, these works functioned as living documents and not simply
as frozen relics of bygone eras. The textual histories of both these
works, as witnessed by the discrepancies in the length of the respective
91 See also recently, GOLDINGAY – PAYNE, Isaiah 40-55, 165-66.

works in the MT and the LXX, testify to a continuing process by which

a variety of additions were made to older, shorter texts.92 This means,
among other things, that these literary works continued to attract the
interest of scribes (and their patrons), who preserved, copied, and
augmented these writings. If so, it is unlikely that the major tenets of
these writings, especially as these tenets involved notions of corporate
identity, failed to capture the imagination of any adherents.93 Indeed,
the perspective on pan-Israelite identity found in Chronicles demons-
trates that the inclusive view promoted in Ezekiel and Jeremiah and in
other important writings, such as the books of the Pentateuch, persisted
in later times.94 Newer writings, such as Chronicles, may put their own
twist on pan-Israelite identity, but they perpetuate and develop older
models. One implication of this evidence drawn from older prophetic
works and newer writings, such as Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, is
that a variety of notions of Israelite identity coexisted in postmonarchic
times.
When considering the meaning of the hopeful passages we have
discussed in Second Isaiah, it may be helpful to keep the historical con-
texts of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods in mind.
At this time, there were Samarians and Judeans situated in the land
living under foreign rule, as well as Samarians and Judeans dispersed
at various locales in other lands.95 The mention of the “tribes of Jacob”
(Isa 49:6) need not signify, therefore, wishful thinking for the resurrec-
tion of defunct or extinct groups, but rather an acknowledgment of
complicated demographic realities.96 That these authors stemmed, as
far as we know, from the south (Judah), demonstrates that at least some
Judeans continued to embrace a comprehensive definition of their
people. Given the nature of the Diaspora, the international tenor of the
Achaemenid and Hellenistic ages, and the absence of full-scale political
92 JANZEN, Studies; TOV, Septuagint Translations; HOLLADAY , Jeremiah 2, 2–24; ZIM-

MERLI , Ezekiel 1, 1–77; TOV, Textual Criticism, 319–327, 333–334.
93 BEN Z VI, Inclusion, 95–149; Scatolini Apóstolo, Elusiveness, 1–27.
94 See section 1. above.
95 ZADOK discusses the onomastic evidence, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy;
idem, Foreigners, 431-447; idem, Prosopography, 781-828; idem, Earliest Diaspora.
96 The ethnic complexity of the diasporic situation is evident in the witness of epigra-
phy. The late third/early second century BCE Samaritan inscription discovered on
the Aegean island of Delos mentions Mt. Gerizim and employs the term "Israelites"
to refer to the Samaritans, BRUNEAU, Israélites, 465–504; WHITE, Delos Synagogue,
133–160. For northern Israelites living in Assyria and Egypt during earlier times, see,
for instance, Amos 7:11; Hos 8:13; 9:3; 11:5; 12:2.
62 G. N. Knoppers
autonomy for subject peoples, debates about identity were inevitable.

In many respects, the debates begun in antiquity continue to this day.97
Bibliography
AHLSTRÖM, Gösta W., Who were the Israelites? Winona Lake, IN 1986.
ALBERTZ, Rainer, Ethnische und kultische Konzepte in der Politik Nehemias, in:
F.-L. HOSSFELD, Frank-Lothar / SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Ludger
(eds.), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments – Festschrift Erich Zenger (Her-
ders biblische Studien 44), Freiburg 2004, 13–32.
ALBERTZ, Rainer, A History of Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2: From
the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL), Louisville 1994.
BALTZER, Klaus, Deutero-Isaiah (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001.
BARSTAD, Hans M., The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah (Instituttet
for sammenlignende kulturforskning B/CII), Oslo 1997.
BEENTJES, Pancratius C., Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah, in:
VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et
leurs relectures unité et complexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989,
155-159.
BEGRICH, Joachim, Studien zu Deuterojesaja (BWANT 4/25), Stuttgart 1938.
BEN ZVI, Ehud, Inclusion and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of
the Term Israel in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts, in: HOLLOWAY, Steven
Winford / HANDY, Lowell K. (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Es-
says for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOTSup 190), Sheffield 1995, 95–149.
BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isa. 56:9–57:13 – An Example of the Isaianic Legacy of
Trito-Isaiah, in: VAN HENTEN, Jan Willem et al. (eds.), Tradition and Rein-
terpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of
Jürgen C. H. Lebram (StPB 36), Leiden 1986, 48–64.
BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure
of the Book of Isaiah, in: EMERTON, John A. (ed.), Congress Volume: Leu-
ven, 1989 (VTSup 43), Leiden 1991, 204–221.
BEUKEN, Willem A.M., Isaiah, Volume 2, part 2: Isaiah 28-39 (HCOT), Leuven
2000.
BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL), Philadelphia 1988.
BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Isaiah 1-39 (AB 19), New York 2000.
BLENKINSOPP, Joseph, Isaiah 40-55 (AB 19A), New York 2002.
BÖHLER, Dieter, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzep-
tionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158), Göttingen 1997.
97 See, for instance, Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, and the references listed there.
BRUNEAU, Philippe, Les Israélites de Délos et la juivierìe délienne, Bulletin de

Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982) 465–504.
CHILDS, Brevard S., Isaiah: A Commentary (OTL), Louisville 2001.
CLEMENTS, Ronald Ernest, Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central
Isaianic Quest, in: VAN RUITEN, Jacques / VERVENNE, Marc (eds.), Studies in
the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken (BETL 127), Leuven
1997, 3–17.
CLIFFORD, Richard J., Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second
Isaiah, New York 1984.
COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-
sidered, Atlanta 1975.
COHEN, Shaye J.D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncer-
tainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31), Berkeley 1999.
DANELL, Gustav Adolf, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, Upp-
sala 1946.
DUHM, Bernhard, Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; GHAT III;
Abteilung, Die prophetischen Bücher 1), Göttingen: 1914.
FOHRER, Georg, Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfang der Verkündigung Jesajas, Studien
zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, 1949-1965 (BZAW 99), Berlin 1967, 148–
166.
GASTER, Moses, The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature, Lon-
don 1925.
GOLDINGAY, John – PAYNE, David, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Isaiah 40-55 (ICC), 2 vols., London 2006.
GOODBLATT, David M., Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge
2006.
HERMISSON, Hans-Jürgen, Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas: Probleme
der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40-55 in: VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The
Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures unité et comp-
lexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989, 287–312
HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans and Early Judaism (JSOTSup 303; Copenhagen
International Seminar 7), Sheffield 2000.
HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competiti-
on (JSOTSup 404), London 2004.
HØGENHAVEN, Jesper, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja: Eine Untersuchung zur bibli-
schen Theologie (Acta theologica Danica 24), Leiden 1988.
HOLLADAY, John S., Judeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the Late Seventh to
Sixth Centuries, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / HIRSCH, Antoine (eds.), Egypt, Is-
rael, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honour of Donald
B. Redford (Probleme der Ägyptologie 20), Leiden 2004, 405–437.
HOLLADAY, William L., Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1986.
HOLLADAY, William L., Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 1989.
64 G. N. Knoppers
DE HOOP, Raymond, The Interpretation of Isaiah 56:1-9: Comfort or Criticism?

JBL 127 (2008) 671–695.
JANZEN, J. Gerald, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6), Cambridge, MA
1973.
JAPHET, Sara, People and Land in the Restoration Period, in: STRECKER, Georg
(ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, Göttingen 1983, 103–125.
JAPHET, Sara, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical
Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt am Main 1989.
JAPHET, Sara, I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville 1993.
JAPHET, Sara, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, Winona
Lake, IN 2006.
KLEIN, Ralph W., 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2006.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim? JBL 109 (1990)
423–440.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., “Battling against Yahweh”: Israel's War against Judah in 2
Chr 13:2-20, RB 100 (1993) 511–532.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in
the Genealogy of Judah, JBL 120 (2001) 15–30.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., I Chronicles 1-9 (AB 12), New York 2004.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., I Chronicles 10-29 (AB 12A), New York 2004.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., In Search of Postexilic Israel: Samaria after the Fall of the
Northern Kingdom, in: DAY, John (ed.), In Search of Preexilic Israel
(JSOTSup 406), Edinburgh 2004, 150–180.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., What has Mt. Zion to do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the
Early Relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Pe-
riod, SR 34 (2005) 307–336.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period, in:
LIPSCHITS, Oded / O EMING Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the
Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN 2006, 265–289.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan
Origins in 2 Kings 17, in: REZETKO, Robert et al. (eds.), Reflection and Ref-
raction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld
(VTSup 113), Leiden 2007, 223–239.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?
in: LIPSCHITS, Oded et al. (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Cen-
tury, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 305–331.
KNOPPERS, Gary N., Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean
Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra,” in: KNOP-
PERS, Gary N. / RISTAU, Kenneth A. (eds.), Community Identity in Judean
Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, Winona Lake, IN
2009, 147–171.
KOOLE, Jan L., Isaiah III, Volume 1: Isaiah 40-48 (HCOT), Kampen 1997.
KOOLE, Jan L., Isaiah III, Volume 2: Isaiah 49-55 (HCOT), Leuven 1998.
KRATZ, Reinhard G., Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: redaktionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40-55 (FAT 1), Tü-
bingen 1991.
KRATZ, Reinhard G., Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1f. und das Jere-
miabuch, ZAW 106 (1994) 243–261.
KRATZ, Reinhard G., Israel in the Book of Isaiah, JSOT 31 (2006) 103–128.
LAATO, Antti, The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exi-
lic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40-55 (ConBOT 35), Stockholm 1992.
LEVENSON, Jon Douglas, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-
48 (HSM 10), Missoula, MT 1976.
LINVILLE, James Richard, Israel in the Book of Kings (JSOTSup 272), Sheffield
1998.
LUST, Johan, Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel, in:
AUWERS Jean-Marie / WÉNIN André. (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bib-
le: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144), Leuven 1999, 99–122.
MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les controversies théologiques dans le judaïsme de
l’époque postexilique: L’example de 2 Rois 17,24-41, Transeu 5 (1992) 85–
93.
MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les Samaritains: histoire d'une légende: Israël et la pro-
vince de Samarie (Le Monde de la Bible 30), Geneva 1994.
MONTGOMERY, James M., The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect (The Bohlen
Lectures 1906), Philadelphia 1907.
OLYAN, Saul M., Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult,
Princeton 2000.
OLYAN, Saul M., Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute
the Community, JSJ 35 (2004) 1–16.
REINMUTH, Titus, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditions-
geschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts
Nehemias (OBO 183), Göttingen 2002.
ROM-SHILONI, Dalit, Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic
Theology, HUCA 76 (2005) 1–45.
ROST, Leonhard, Israel bei den Propheten (BWANT 4/19), Stuttgart 1937.
ROTHSTEIN, Johann Wilhelm, Juden und Samaritaner die grundlegende Schei-
dung von Judentum und Heidentum: eine kritische Studie zum Buche
Haggai und zur jüdischen Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhun-
dert (BWAT 3), Leipzig 1908.
SCATOLINI APÓSTOLO, Silvio Sergio, On the Elusiveness and Malleability of “Is-
rael,” JHS 6 (2006) 1–27.
SCHAUDIG, Hanspeter “Bēl Bows, Nabû Stoops!” The Prophecy of Isaiah xlvi 1-2
as a Reflection of Babylonian “Processional Omens,” VT 58 (2008) 557–
572.
66 G. N. Knoppers
SCHMID, Konrad, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Re-

daktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches
(WMANT 72), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996.
SCHMID, Konrad, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Be-
gründung der Ürsprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Al-
ten Testaments (WMANT 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999.
SCHMID, Konrad – STECK, Odil H., Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic
Tradition of the Old Testament, in: SCOTT, James M. (ed.), Restoration:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72), Leiden
2001, 41–81.
SCHOORS, Antoon, I am God your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main
Genres in Is. xl-lv (VTSup 24), Leiden 1973.
SMITH, James, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: A New Interpretation, London
1931.
SMITH, Paul Allen, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure,
Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56-66 (VTSup 62), Leiden 1995.
SOMMER, Benjamin D., Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah
in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition in: MELUGIN, Roy
F. –SWEENEY, Marvin A. (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup 214),
Sheffield 1996, 156–186.
SOMMER, Benjamin D., A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66.
Stanford 1998.
STECK, Odil H., TritoJesaja im Jesajabuch, in: VERMEYLEN, Jacques (ed.), The
Book of Isaiah/Le livre d'Isaïe: les oracles et leurs relectures unité et comp-
lexité de l'ouvrage (BETL 81), Leuven 1989, 403–406.
STECK, Odil H., Studien zu Tritojesaja (BZAW 203), Berlin 1991.
STECK, Odil H., Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja
(FAT 4), Tübingen 1992.
SWEENEY, Marvin A., Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaia-
nic Tradition (BZAW 171), Berlin 1988.
THOMPSON, Thomas L., The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of
Israel. New York 1999.
TOV, Emanuel, The Septuagint Translations of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discus-
sion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8
(HSM 8), Missoula, MT 1976.
TOV, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.), Assen 2001.
TUELL, Steven Shawn, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM 49), Atlan-
ta 1992.
WESTERMANN, Claus, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1969.
WHITE, L. Michael, The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the
Graeco-Roman Diaspora, HTR 80 (1987)133–160.
WILLI, Thomas, Juda - Jehud - Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Juden-
tums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12), Tübingen 1995.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge 1977.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16), Waco 1985.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., The Concept of Israel in Transition, in: CLEMENTS,
Ronald E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1989, 141-160.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in
Composition and Redaction. Oxford 1994.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G.M., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27,
Volume 1: Isaiah 1-5 (ICC), London 2006.
WRIGHT, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest
Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin 2004.
ZADOK, Ran, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography
(OLA 28), Leuven 1988.
ZADOK, Ran, Foreigners and Linguistic Material in Mesopotamia and Egypt, in:
VAN LERBERGHE, Karel – SCHOORS, Antoon (eds.), Immigration and Emig-
ration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński (OLA 65),
Leuven 1995, 431–447.
ZADOK, Ran, A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea, UF 30 (1998)
781–828.
ZADOK, Ran, The Earliest Diaspora: Israelites and Judeans in Pre-Hellenistic
Mesopotamia (Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute 151), Tel
Aviv 2002.
ZIMMERLI, Walter, Israel im Buche Ezechiel, VT 58 (1958) 75–90.
ZIMMERLI, Walter, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1979.
ZIMMERLI, Walter, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia 1983.
ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, Stammesspruch und Geschichte. Die Angaben der Stam-
messprüche von Gen 49, Dtn 33 und Jdc 5 über die politischen und kulti-
schen Zustände im damaligen "Israel" (BZAW 95), Berlin: Töpelmann,
1965.
ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, ‫יַע ֲק ֹב‬/ ‫ ;יַע ֲקוֹב‬yaȾ aqōb /yaȾ aqôb, TDOT 6 (1990) 185–208.
ZOBEL, Hans–Jürgen, ‫ש ְ ר ָ א ֵל‬
; ִ ‫ י‬yiśrāȽ ēl, TDOT 6 (1990) 397–420.
ZSENGELLÉR, József, Gerizim as Israel: Northern Tradition of the Old Testament
and the Early History of the Samaritans (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks
38), Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
III. History
Administration of Samaria in the
Hellenistic Period1
JAN DUŠEK
Introduction
The history of Samaria in the Hellenistic period was studied in the last
few decades by several authors. We list among them the studies of R. J.
Coggins, M. Mor, U. Rappaport, A. Kasher, A. D. Crown, P. W. van der
Horst and H. Eshel.2 New elements for the study of the history of Hel-
lenistic Palestine were recently published.
After the chronological delimitation of the concerned period, we
summarize the political situation and context of the province of Sama-
ria in the Hellenistic period, under Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule. Then
we focus on evidence of the military presence in Samaria, the role of the
Tobiad family in Samaria, on information furnished by inscriptions
from Mt. Gerizim and, finally, on religious institutions. The purpose of
this article is not exhaustive analysis of all quoted theories. A more
complex study of the history of Samaria in the Hellenistic period is
being prepared by the author and this text represents a preliminary
overview of the question.3
1 This study is the result of a research activity which is part of the grant project GAČR
401/07/P454 “Critical analysis of the new epigraphic evidence related to the history
of the province of Samaria from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE,” which has
provided financial support for its editing.
2 COGGINS, Samaritans, 74-81; MOR, Samaritan History, 1-18; RAPPAPORT, Samaritans,
281-288; RAPPAPORT, Les Juifs et leurs voisins, 955-974; KASHER, Samaritans, 153-165;
CROWN, Samaritan Diaspora, 166-183; VAN DER HORST, Samaritanism and Hellenism,
184-191; ESHEL, Development, 192-209.
3 This article represents author’s position presented in July 2008 at the seventh confe-
rence of the Société d’études samaritaines in Pápa, Hungary. In 2010, still before the
publication of the present text, the author finished the above mentioned project con-
cerning Samaria in Hellenistic period. Further work on this topic between 2008 and
2010 compelled the author to modify some of his opinions held in summer 2008. The
up-to-date position will be published in Jan Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions
72 J. Dušek
1. Chronological Delimitation
The period concerned by this study extends to more than two centuries,
from 331 to the end of the 2nd century BCE, and is defined by two major
military destructions in Samaria which had important consequences for
the history of this region. The first is represented by two transitions of
the army of Alexander the Great in Palestine in 332 and 331 BCE: on the
way back from Egypt, Alexander punished the citizens of the city of
Samaria for the murder of his governor over Syria, Andromachus, as
recorded by Quintus Curtius, Eusebius, Jerome and George Syncellus.4
The end of the period with which this article is concerned is
marked by the destruction of all the important places in Samaria,
which, according to Flavius Josephus, was done by army of John Hyr-
canus at the end of the 2nd century BCE. He destroyed the city of Sama-
ria, Shechem and the temple as well as the surrounding city on top of
Mt. Gerizim.5 This information is confirmed – with some chronological
modifications – by archaeological excavations. John Hyrcanus de-
stroyed Mt. Gerizim in 112/111 BCE,6 the city of Samaria in 108 BCE7
and Shechem in 107 BCE.8
2. Political Context of Samaria
During the Persian period, Samaria was an untroubled region belong-

ing to the huge 5th satrapy of Transeuphrates. The situation radically
changed after Alexander’s conquest and especially after his death,
when his empire was split between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III the Great and Antiochus IV Epiphanes
(Culture and History of the Ancient Near East) Leiden – Boston: Brill, forthcoming.
4 Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander IV, VIII:9-11; Eusebius, Chronicon (MIGNE,
Patrologia Graeca,. 489; Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik (ed. J. KARST; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1911), 197; Jerome, Eusebius Werke VII: Die Chronik des
Hieronymus/Hieronymi Chronicon (ed. R. H ELM and U. TREU; Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1984), 123; George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (ed. A. A. MOSSHAMMER,
Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 314:6-13.
5 Josephus, Ant 13.254-56, 275-81; War 1.62-66.
6 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 13.
7 AVIGAD, Samaria, 1307.
8 CAMPBELL, Shechem, 1354.
Administration of Samaria in the Hellenistic Period 73
In the Hellenistic period, the region of Samaria was part of the ad-
ministrative unit of (Koi,lh) Suri,a kai, Foini,kh which became, in fact, a
border zone between the different military and political forces.9
2.1 Ptolemaic rule
First, let’s discuss evidence concerning the history of Samaria in the

Ptolemaic period, during the 3rd century BCE.
After the destructions done by the army of Alexander in 331 BCE,
the city of Samaria was destroyed once again, according to Diodorus
Siculus, along with the ports of Akko, Iope and Gaza, by the Ptolemaic
army in 312 BCE during the return of Ptolemy I to Egypt.10 According
to the Letter of Aristeas and Flavius Josephus, Ptolemy I deported many
captives from the district of Jerusalem, Samaria and Gerizim to Egypt.11
Ptolemy I regained a certain eminence in Syria after 301 BCE and rein-
forced this position towards 288-286 BCE, thanks to the occupation of
the two Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon.12 The city of Samaria was
destroyed once again by Demetrius in 296 BCE.13
We are especially informed about the territories in Ptolemaic pos-
sessions in Syria by the archive of Zenon from Caunos. A part of his
archive – the so called “Syrian folder” – concerns his journeys in the
south of Levant between the years 261 and 252 BCE. This part of the
archive concerning Syria was analyzed and published by Xavier Du-
rand.14
After 261, when Zenon arrived in Syria, the region was already Pto-
lemaic and the border between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empire was
established. After 301 BCE, the border lay on the river Eleutheros (Nahr
el-Kebir), between Tripolis and Arados.15 This border existed until the
end of the 3rd century BCE, but during this time it was transgressed
several times by Ptolemaic as well as Seleucid parties.
According to the analysis of Durand, the archive of Zenon shows
some kind of map of the Ptolemaic possessions in Syria: the regions
mentioned in his papyri are situated in Transjordan, in Hauran, Galilee,
Idumea, Phoenicia, etc. This “map” shows important roads in Syria as
9 Cf. Berlin, Between Large Forces, 2-51.

10 Diodorus Siculus XIX:93, 7.
11 Letter of Aristeas 13; Ant 12.7.
12 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 107-109.
13 Eusebius, Chronicon, Olympiad 121, year 1 (MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca. 496).
14 DURAND, Grecs.
15 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 154.
74 J. Dušek
well as primary cities. But Durand points out that the centre of this
map is empty: Samaria and Judea are never mentioned in the Zenon
archive, and Durand concludes that these two regions probably didn’t
have an important position in the economy of Palestine under Ptole-
maic rule.16
This seems to be confirmed by results of the archaeological survey
done by Adam Zertal in the Shechem syncline in the Manasseh Hills:
compared to the Persian period, he records an important abandonment
of rural settlements during the Hellenistic period, especially in the Do-
than valley.17 Zertal assigns this abandonment to activity of Alexan-
der’s army during his return from Egypt in 331 BCE.18 A similar aban-
donment is recorded by Zertal in the eastern valleys of the Manasseh
hills between the Shechem syncline and the Jordan valley. 19 Other sur-
veys in the region of Samaria manifest different results: Israel Finkels-
tein records that the Hellenistic period represented a time of prosperity
in southern Samaria.20
During his travels, Zenon meets many officials of the Ptolemaic
administration in the regions around Samaria: Toubias and his staff in
Transjordan (klhrou/coi of Toubias), dikasth,j /judge, a certain royal
agent, grammateu,j /scribe, an oivkono,moj from Pelousion, a kwmomisqwth,j
/collector of taxes in a village, a ièreu,j /priest from Ioppe, Theodotos
who was a[rcwn of Sidon, the agents of revenues, Démétrios who was
avntigrafeu,j /controller in the nomo,j of Prosopite, or a u[parcoj. None of
these officials is explicitly attested as belonging to the administration of
Samaria.
According to Durand, the mission of Zenon in Palestine between
261-252 BCE is to be interpreted in the context of the end of the second
Syrian War in Palestine and the stabilization of the Ptolemaic positions
in the region, after the retreat of the Ptolemaic army from the Seleucid
possessions near Antiochia.21 A piece of evidence for the stabilization of
the Ptolemaic administration is one of the two prosta,gmata recorded on
16 DURAND, Grecs, 271-272.

17 ZERTAL, Manasseh Hill Country, 60-61.
18 Perhaps we shall not exclude the possibility that this abandonment was also result of
the military conflicts between Ptolemies and Seleucids at the end of the 4th century
and in the 3rd century, during the Syrian wars.
19 ZERTAL, Manasseh Hill Country, 92-93.
20 FINKELSTEIN, Samarian Hills, 1313-1314.
21 The hoard of 58 golden Ptolemaic coins discovered in Hüseyinli (9 km far from the
city of Antiochia) indicates the probable presence of Ptolemaic army in the Seleucid
territory during the 2nd Syrian war, towards 259/8 BCE. DAVESNE / YENISOGANCI,,
Ptolémées, 23-36.
the famous Vienna papyrus (C.Ord.Ptol. 21-22) from 260 BCE, concern-
ing the declaration of the fiscal system in Syria and Phoenicia.22
The administrative organization of Syria in the Ptolemaic period
was already well analyzed. Let’s mention as example, four studies writ-
ten by Michael Avi-Yonah,23 Roger Bagnall,24 Jack Pastor25 and by Mau-
rice Sartre.26
The owner of the land is the king and the land was administrated in
Syria by the dioikhth,j from Egypt. The archives of Zenon attest the
name of dioikhth,j Apollonios. The structure of the administrative sys-
tem in Syria and Phoenicia is recorded in the Vienna papyrus from 260
BCE. The territory is divided into u`pa,rceiai. Each u`parce,ia has its oivk-
ono,moj – an official of finances. The lower administrative level is
represented by the kwma,rchj, the official on the level of villages. The tax
farmers (memisqwme,noi) are responsible for collecting the right amount of
the taxes in the villages (kw,mh). An official charged with collecting taxes
in a village, kwmomisqwth,j, is attested in the Ptolemaic Syria in texts be-
longing to the Zenon archive.27
According to Shimon Appelbaum, in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid
period a considerable part of Samaria was a royal domain (basilikh,
gh/).28 Pastor attributes to Judea, under the Ptolemaic rule, the status of
cw,ra basilikh,.29
2.2 Seleucid rule
The time of Seleucid rule in Palestine, the 2nd century, was also a period
of conflicts for Samaria, especially between Seleucid and Hasmonaean
powers.
In the beginning of the Seleucid rule in Palestine, Syria and Phoeni-
cia were still called Suri,a kai, Foini,kh in the Seleucid inscription from
Hefzibah (l. 14).30 Later, in 178 BCE, it is called Koi,lh Suri,a kai, Foini,kh
22 LIEBESNY, Erlass, 257-288; Lenger, 37-45 (no. 21-22).

23 AVI-YONAH, Holy Land, 32-41.
24 BAGNALL, Administration, 11-24.
25 PASTOR, Land, 21-40.
26 SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, 153-164.
27 PSI 6, 554, col. II, 13; 258 BCE.
28 APPELBAUM, Settlement Pattern, 257, 259-260.
29 PASTOR argues that Judea was considered by the Ptolemaic Crown as cw/ra basilikh,
(Land, 21-40, 42).
30 LANDAU, Greek Inscription, 54-70; FISCHER, Seleukideninschrift, 131-138; BERTRAND,
Inscription, 167-174.
76 J. Dušek
in a letter from Seleukos IV to Heliodoros (line 24)31 and in the books of

Maccabees.32
We are informed about some officials in Palestine by the Hefzibah
inscription containing documents from the period between 201-195
BCE:33 Ptolemaios, strategos and chief-priest (strathgo,j kai, avrciereu,j) in
Syria and Phoinike, Kleon and Heliodoros the dioikhtai,, the oivkono,moj,
“the commanders of garrisons” (froura,rcoi) and “those in charge of the
places” (oi` evpi, tw/n to,pwn tetagme,noi).34
The books of Maccabees refer to Lysias, appointed by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes over the king’s affairs from Euphrates to the borders of
Egypt,35 and the governors with the title Koi,lhj Suri,aj kai, Foini,khj
strathgo,j Apollonius son of Tharseos,36 Apollonios, son of Menes-
theos,37 and Ptolemaios.38
The official name of Samaria under Seleucid rule is attested in the
books of Maccabees. The province is called Samari/tij39 or cw,ra
Samarei,aj.40 The city of Samaria (Sama,reia) is mentioned in 1 Macc 3,10.
Judea had perhaps a different status and is called gh/ Iouda41 or Ioudai,a:42
the status of Judea was discussed by Pastor and he concludes that Ju-
dea was considered by the Seleucids as a land of a nation (evqnoj).43
Samari/tij under Seleucids was probably divided in nomoi,: three of these
nomoi,, Efraim, Lod and Ramataim, were added from Samaria to Judea
in 145 BCE.44 This text of 1 Macc 11,34 is interesting, because it states
not only that these three nomoi, were added from Samari/tij to Ioudai,a,
but also that the revenues of these three nomoi, belonged to the king, and
after their annexation to Judea they belonged to those who sacrifice in
Jerusalem.45
31 COTTON / WÖRRLE, Seleukos , 191-203.

32 1 Macc 10:69 (Koile-Syria), 2 Macc 3:5; 4,4; 8:8; 10:11.
33 See the new reading of the dates mentioned in COTTON / WÖRRLE, Seleukos, 194.
34 See a detailed analysis by TAYLOR, Seleucid Rule, 108-168.
35 1 Macc 3:32.
36 2 Macc 3:5.
37 2 Macc 4:4. Cf. also 1 Macc 4:4.
38 2 Macc 8:8.
39 1 Macc 10:30; 11:34.
40 1 Macc 10:38.
41 1 Macc 10:33.37; 14:4
42 1 Macc 10:38; 11:34; 2 Macc 5:11.23; 14:2.
43 PASTOR, Land, 42-44.
44 1 Macc 10:30; 1 Macc 11:28.30ff. Cf. 1 Macc 11:57. See A LT, Geschichte, 346-362.
45 Some territories could be also owned by the high royal officials: for example the
Hefzibah inscription attests a hereditary property of some villages (kw/mai) by Ptol-
emaios, strategos and chief-priest.
The importance of Samari/tij seems to decline with the increase of

the Maccabaean movement. One of the signs of this decline is the trans-
fer of three nomoi, of Samaria under the jurisdiction of Judea. The other
sign of increasing Hasmonaean power in Samaria was the Hasmonean
colonization of the western part of Samaria in the period between 145
and last decades of the 2nd century BCE. This Hasmonaean colonization
of western Samaria was, according to Appelbaum, Dar and Zeev Safrai,
a part of the Hasmonaean plan of encirclement of Samaria in the
second half of the 2nd century BCE.46 The Hasmonaean colonizers per-
haps used for this purpose the Hellenistic field towers in western Sa-
maria built in the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE. Dar discovered approximately
1,200 of these towers.47
The decline of Hellenistic Samari/tij was completed by the destruc-
tion of the cities of Samaria and Shechem and of the city and temple on
Mt. Gerizim, done by John Hyrcanus at the end of the 2nd century BCE.
3. Army and Fortifications in Samaria
The existence of ‫“ חיל שמרון‬army of Samaria” is already attested in the

middle of the 5th century BCE in the book of Nehemiah.48 The military
presence in Samaria seems to have been important, especially in the
Hellenistic period, because of its position near the border between the
Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. The city of Samaria was already
transformed to a seat of the Greek army by the end of 4th century BCE
by Alexander or later by Perdikkas, as Eusebius, Jerome and George
Syncellus attest.49
The Greek army was not only present in the city of Samaria, but al-
so in other areas of the province. During the survey of the south of Sa-
maria, Dar discovered fortified military farms from the Hellenistic pe-
riod, which probably belonged to the ex-officers of the Greek army.50
The Hellenistic fortification system of western Samaria was very effi-
cient. According to Dar, “when the entire deployment was operating
46 DAR, Landscape, 121, 258; APPELBAUM / DAR / SAFRAI, Towers, 91-100.

47 DAR, Landscape, 88-125; APPELBAUM / DAR / SAFRAI, Towers.
48 Neh 3:34.
49 Eusebius, Chronicon (MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca,. 489; Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik
(ed. J. Karst; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1911), 197 and 199; Jerome, Eusebius Werke VII:
Die Chronik des Hieronymus/Hieronymi Chronicon (ed. R. Helm and U. Treu; Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1984), 123 and 127-28; George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica
(ed. A. A. Mosshammer, Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 314:6-13 and 17-20.
50 DAR, Landscape, 12-16, 260.
78 J. Dušek
under one command, western Samaria became a well-fortified zone,

equally able to withstand local raids and external enemies”.51
During the Hellenistic period, Shechem, and especially the city of
Samaria, were protected by strong fortifications.52 In the 2nd century, the
city of Samaria seems to have been a seat of the Seleucid army: accord-
ing to 1 Macc 3,10 Apollonios commanded the army from Samaria (avpo.
Samarei,aj du,namij). This unit probably belonged to the Seleucid army of
Syria (du,namij Suri,aj) mentioned several times in the 1st book of Macca-
bees.53
4. Tobiads and Samaria
The family of Tobiads seems to have played an important role in Pales-

tine in Persian as well as in Hellenistic periods, under the Ptolemies
and the Seleucids, until the 2nd century BCE. The Tobiads also played a
role in the history of Samaria. Close relations between the governor of
Samaria, Sanballat, and Tobiah the Ammonite servant, are already at-
tested in the 5th century.54
The traditional seat of the family of Tobiads was in Transjordan.
Under the Ptolemaic rule, Toubias, chief of the kleruchs (klhrou/coi) of
Ammanitis, is attested in the Zenon archive around the middle of the
3rd century BCE.55
The site of Araq el-Emir seems to have already belonged to the To-
biads in the 3rd century.56 A hoard of Ptolemaic coins was discovered in
Araq el-Emir in 1993. According to the preliminary publication by
Christian Augé, the hoard was probably collected in 243/2, or some
short time after, under Ptolemy III, and contains Ptolemaic coins issued
between 295 and 242 BCE.57 The hoard was, according to Augé, proba-
bly constituted in Palestine or in Transjordan, and hidden towards the
end of the 3rd Syrian war, probably in relation to the activity of Joseph
the Tobiad. The presence of the hoard in Araq el-Emir shows that this
region was under the same Ptolemaic financial regime as the Cisjordan:
the hoard contained coins issued in the Syrian and Phoenician Ptole-
51 DAR, Landscape, 223-224.

52 CAMPBELL, Shechem, 1353-1354; AVIGAD, Samaria ,1306-1307.
53 1 Macc 3:13; 3:41; 7:39.
54 Neh 2:10.19; 3:35; 4:1; 6:1.12.14.17.19; 13:4.7.8.
55 P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59003; P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59005; P. Lond. 7, 1930; P. Cairo Zen. 5, 59802;
P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59075; P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59076; P. Lond. 7, 2152 (?).
56 WILL Le témoignage, 35.
57 AUGE, Note, 483-486.
maic monetary workshops in Tyre, Sidon, Gaza, Ptolemais, Ioppe, and

some of them were from Cyprus.
The chronology of the Tobiad family and of the site of Araq el-Emir
has been discussed and it is impossible to analyze all hypotheses in this
paper.58 An interesting chronology was presented by Fawzi Zayadine:
he dates the activity of Joseph the Tobiad as a tax collector to the last
quarter of the 3rd century BCE.59 Flavius Josephus attests that Joseph the
Tobiad collected taxes in Syria, Phoenicia and Samaria during 22 years
(Ant 12.224), which correspond, according the chronology of Zayadine,
to the time between 222 and the definitive conquest of Syria by Antio-
chus III between 200 and 198 BCE.
The inhabitants of Samaria seem to have supported Joseph the To-
biad in the purchase of the right to collect taxes, and Samaria became a
part of the territory under fiscal responsibility of Joseph the Tobiad.
According to the evidence of Flavius Josephus, friends in Samaria
helped Joseph the Tobiad to acquire the office of tax collector by lend-
ing him money in order to buy the right to collect taxes (Ant. 12.168).
Joseph paid for the right to collect taxes from Coele-Syria, Phoenicia,
Judea and Samaria for the sum of 16,000 talents (Ant 12.175) – the sum
seems to be exaggerated by Flavius Josephus.60
According to the chronology proposed by Zayadine, the collection
of taxes was inherited – at least in Tranjordan – by Hyrcanus, son of
Joseph the Tobiad, after 210/9 BCE. Hyrcanus constructed the ba/rij
ivscura, “fortified residence” (Qasr el-Abd) in Araq el-Emir.61
In the final decades of Ptolemaic rule in Palestine, the region of Sa-
maria was again a place of military conflict between Ptolemies and
Seleucids. The region was for a short time occupied by the army of
Antiochus III during the 4th Syrian war (219-217 BCE). Polybius records
in Historiae that Antiochus III got possession of Rabatammana (in 218
BCE) and sent a military unit of 5,000 soldiers to the district of Samaria
(kata, Sama,reian to,pouj) to protect the conquered territory.62 For which
political power did Joseph the Tobiad collect taxes during the 4th Syrian
war, during the period of the occupation of Samaria by the Seleucid
58 Let’s mention some recent publications: MAZAR, Tobiads,, 137-147 and 229-238; JI,
New Look, 417-440; GERA, Judaea, 36-58; SCHWARTZ, Josephus, 47-61; FUKS,
Josephus, 354-356; Schwartz, Once Again, 146-51; ROSENBERG, Qasr al-Abd, 157-75;
ROSENBERG, New Element, 85-92; EDELMAN, Seeing double, 570-584.
59 ZAYADINE, Campagne, 68-84; ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 5-23.
60 CAVAIGNAC, Population, 117.
61 Ant 12.230-234. Concerning the archaeological excavations in Araq el-Emir: LAPP,
Excavations; WILL / LARCHÉ, ‘Iraq al Amir.
62 Polybius, Historiae V, 71:11-12.
80 J. Dušek
army? According to Edward T. Newell, the mint in Tyre produced sil-

ver tetradrachms for Antiochus III during the 4th Syrian war (219-217
BCE).63 We cannot exclude that, at least during the 4th Syrian war, taxes
from Samaria were collected for the Seleucids. An answer to this ques-
tion might perhaps be furnished by a future publication cataloguing
the coins of Antiochus III, minted in the 3rd and 2nd centuries and dis-
covered on Mt. Gerizim.64
A similar problem also remains following the Seleucid annexation
of Palestine in the 5th Syrian war after 198 BCE. Zayadine argues that
Hyrcanus, from the Tobiad family, continued to collect taxes for Ptole-
mies even after 198 BCE, when the territory was under Seleucid rule.65
The reason for this would be the conclusion of a dotal agreement be-
tween Antiochus III and Ptolemaios V.66 This dotal agreement was con-
cluded because of the marriage of the daughter of Antiochus III with
Ptolemaios V: its purpose was the commitment of the taxes from the
former Ptolemaic possessions by the Seleucids to the Ptolemies.67 Zaya-
dine argues that this dotal agreement was respected during the life of
Antiochus III, between 196 and 187 BCE.68 According to this interpreta-
tion, Joseph the Tobiad bought the right to collect taxes from Syria and
Phoenicia from the Ptolemaic king a second time, in 196 BCE,69 and that
he perhaps had given this right to his son, Hyrcanus.
If it is true that Hyrcanus the Tobiad collected taxes on behalf of the
Ptolemies in the territory de facto conquered and belonging to the Seleu-
cids in the period between 196 and 187 BCE, we must ask about the
monetary authority: whose coins were used in these territories, Seleu-
cid or Ptolemaic? Georges Le Rider and François de Callataÿ have
demonstrated that the Seleucid administration allowed the use of for-
eign coins in their kingdom, but the monetary system in the Ptolemaic
kingdom was closed and the use of coins other than Ptolemaic was
forbidden.70 Actually, the monetary situation in the region of Syria and
Phoenicia seems to have been exceptional during this period, because
coins of both kingdoms were in circulation.
63 NEWELL, Coinage, 200-201.

64 A preliminary information about this discovery was published by MAGEN, Mt.
Gerizim, 74-118, especially 114.
65 ZAYADINE, Campagne, 83; ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 15-17; ZAYADINE, Grand
domaine, 275.
66 Ant 12.154-155; Polybius, Historiae XXVIII:20, 9; Appian, Roman Hisroty: Syrian War 5.
67 CUQ, Condition, 146.
68 ZAYADINE, Les Tobiades, 15-17.
69 Ant 12.155ff.
70 LE RIDER / DE CALLATAŸ, Séleucides, 103 and 166-168.
New light is shed on the monetary system in Syria and Phoenicia

after the Seleucid conquest in the 5th Syrian war by the research of Ar-
thur Houghton and Catharine Lorber: in the beginning of the 2nd cen-
tury BCE, after the Seleucid conquest, the use of Ptolemaic silver coins
were maintained for financial reasons in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.71
Ptolemaic silver was used for local transactions and could not be ex-
ported. Seleucid bronze coins of Antiochus III were used along with the
Ptolemaic silver coins, for ordinary transactions. The fact that Ptolemaic
silver coins were used together with the Seleucid bronze coins after the
Seleucid conquest indicates that the story about the dotal agreement
may have a historical base. Thus it is possible that Hyrcan the Tobiad
would have collected – according to the chronology of F. Zayadine –
taxes on Seleucid territory and those taxes would have been collected
for the Ptolemies in Ptolemaic silver coins.
5. Mt. Gerizim Inscriptions: an Evidence for Fiscal Districts?
Yitzhak Magen and his colleagues published in 2004 a corpus of in-

scriptions discovered on Mt. Gerizim.72 In this publication, Magen pub-
lished 395 inscriptions in Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and Samaritan script.
Most of these inscriptions are in Aramaic script, monumental or cur-
sive. This Aramaic group consists of stereotyped dedicatory formulae
which inform us about the persons who sacrificed in the Temple of
Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period.73 The inscriptions are
dated by the editors to 3rd-2nd century BCE.74
An irruption of activity on Mt. Gerizim seems to date to the time of
the reign of Antiochus III in Syria and Palestine. This period seems to
be confirmed by the numismatic finds by Magen’s team in the vicinity
of the Gerizim temple. In a preliminary report, Magen published a
short summary concerning discovered coins from the Hellenistic pe-
riod.75 These finds show that the main period of activity of this temple
was under Seleucids, and especially under Antiochus III. The team of
Magen discovered only 417 coins from the whole Ptolemaic period.
This number sharply contrasts with the number of 3,500 discovered
71 HOUGHTON / LORBER, Antiochus, 44-58.

72 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim.
73 The formulae have very often the following form: “that X, son of Y, offered for him-
self, his wife and his sons”, sometimes followed by sentence “for good remembrance
before God in this place” (MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 16-19).
74 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA , Mount Gerizim, 41.
75 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim, 114.
82 J. Dušek
Seleucid coins. 1,500 of these coins were issued under Antiochus III in
3rd – 2nd centuries BCE.
The tax collector in Samaria and other regions, in the last decades of
the 3rd century was Joseph the Tobiad. He was succeeded in this func-
tion – at least in Transjordan – in 210/209 BCE by his son Hyrcanus the
Tobiad, who was also active under Seleucid rule in the 2nd century,
until his suicide (probably 169 BCE).76 Thus Mt. Gerizim, as well as the
villages in Samaria, whence people came to the temple on Mt. Gerizim,
was under the responsibility of the Tobiad family.
The Vienna papyrus, as well as the Zenon archive, attests that the
basic administrative unit for the collection of taxes in the Ptolemaic
Palestine was a village (kw,mh).77 The Aramaic equivalent for the Greek
word kw,mh is ‫כפר‬. The Aramaic group of inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim
contains several references to the villages and other regions in Samaria.
Some people mentioned in the Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions come
from ‫( כפר חגי‬Gerizim, no. 3), and from [‫( כפר עב]רתא‬Gerizim, no. 8). Oth-
er people come from ‫( יקמעם‬Gerizim, no. 7), from ‫ – שכם‬the city of She-
chem (Gerizim, no. 12, 36?, 39?), from ‫ – שמרין‬the city of Samaria (Geri-
zim, no. 14 and 15), and from the region of ‫( טורא ט͘]ב[ ͘א‬Gerizim, no. 11).
These villages and places probably belonged to the fiscal district under
the responsibility of Joseph and Hyrcanus from the Tobiad family.78
We suppose that the reference to Samaria in inscriptions no. 14 and
15 from Mt. Gerizim concerns the city of Samaria and not the whole
region. It is more probable that the inscription refers to one particular
place (city of Samaria) within the region of Samaria: the other inscrip-
tions also mention one particular place in the region. The names of
provinces are not mentioned in preserved inscriptions. Thus it is prob-
able that some people worshipping Yahweh lived not only in Shechem,
but also in the Greek city of Samaria.
The Aramaic inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim seem to also mention
two officials acting in Hellenistic Samaria: inscription no. 26 perhaps
mentions ‫“ שר דפנא‬chief of Daphna.” ‫ שר‬is perhaps an Aramaic equiva-
lent of the kwma,rchj attested in one of the two Ptolemaic prostagmata
related to Palestine.79 Inscription no. 34 seems to mention an evpimelhth,j
from Shechem or from Samaria.
76 Ant 12.236.
77 C.Ord.Ptol. 21-22; PSI 6, 554, col. II, 13.
78 One village called Kafar Salam is attested in 1 Macc 7:31.
79 C. Ord. Ptol. 21,13.
6. Religious Institutions in Hellenistic Samaria
A Seleucid official, who served first as an official in the Ptolemaic ad-

ministration, Ptolemaios, son of Thraseas, has the title strategos and
chief-priest (strathgo,j kai, avrciereu,j) of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.80
This title is attested in the Hefzibah inscription, lines 10-11.18.20-21.27-
28.81 Joan E. Taylor analyzed the use of this double title, concluding that
Ptolemaios was probably an “administrative” chief-priest of all cults in
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and the sanctuaries were under his respon-
sibility.82
Ptolemaios, son of Thrassos, was possibly succeeded in the function
of high-priest in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia in 178 BCE by Olympio-
doros, mentioned in the letter written by Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.83
At least two temples existed in Samaria in the Ptolemaic period.

The first was the temple of the Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim. This temple
seems to have been founded by Sanballat, governor of Samaria, in the
last decades of the 5th century BCE and was later rebuilt and enlarged
in the Hellenistic period.84 The dating of some archaeological remains
by Magen to the Persian period is supported by the discovery of 68
coins from the Persian period, from 5th and 4th centuries BCE.85 The
temple itself is called in the inscriptions published by Magen as ‫ מקדש‬in
Aramaic (Mt. Gerizim, no. 150,3), and new, in Greek in the 2nd book of
Maccabees (2 Macc 6,2).
2 Macc 5,22 informs that Antiochus IV Epiphanes appointed An-
dronikos as evpista,thj on Mt. Gerizim.
Five inscriptions from the walls of the sacred precincts of Mt. Geri-
zim temple mention priests:86 four of them concern the priest Pinhas,87
who was even possibly the high-priest.88 According to Flavius Jose-
phus, the first high-priest serving in the temple on Mt. Gerizim be-
longed to the Zadokite family of high priests from the temple of Jerusa-
80 Cf. a similar title proposed by Sanballat to Manasses in the story preserved by

Flavius Josephus in Ant 11.310.
81 LANDAU, Greek Inscription; FISCHER, Seleukideninschrift; BERTRAND, L’inscription.
82 TAYLOR, Seleucid Rule, 124.
83 COTTON, Seleukos, 197.
84 Ant 11.310-311.324; MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 1-9; DUŠEK, Manu-
scrits, 538-548 and 603-604.
85 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim, 114.
86 Nos. 24, 25, 382, 388, 389.
87 Nos. 24, 25, 384, 389.
88 No. 384.
84 J. Dušek
lem. Manasseh, from the Zadokite family from Jerusalem, married Ni-
kaso, the daughter of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, at the end of the
5th century BCE.89 Sanballat, his father-in-law, appointed him high-
priest in the temple on Mt. Gerizim.90 Flavius Josephus does not inform
us about his possibly high-priest descendants. The Samaritan chronicles
consider the high-priest family from Samaria as descending from Aa-
ron, nevertheless their evidence is used with caution. In the opinion of
John Bowman, the high-priests from Samaria had their origin in the
Zadokite family in Jerusalem.91 Nevertheless, Lester L. Grabbe is hesi-
tant about this interpretation.92
The people who sacrificed in the temple on Mt. Gerizim were from
the city of Samaria, from Shechem and from other places in the region
of Samaria.93 Their names were Hebrew, Greek and also Arabic.94
We don’t know if the temple on Mt. Gerizim disposed of the right
of asylum. But it cannot be ruled out. Marie-Therèse Lenger published
several Ptolemaic prostagmata from Egypt in which the Ptolemaic kings
grant the right of asylum to different temples.95 The Jerusalem temple
also seems to dispose of the right of asylum in the case of debts under
Demetrios I (1 Macc 10,43).
Another temple in Samaritis probably stood in the city of Samaria in

the 3rd century BCE and was dedicated to Sarapis and Isis. The only
evidence proving the existence of this temple is the Greek Ptolemaic
inscription discovered in the city of Samaria: HGHSANDROS XENARCIS
KAITAPAIDIA SARAPIISI “Hegesandros, Xenarchis and the children
to Sarapis Isis”.96 This Greek dedicatory formula is similar to the Ara-
maic formulae from Mt. Gerizim. In an article published in 2001, Jodi
Magness argued that the cult of Isis and Sarapis was established in the
city of Samaria during the Ptolemaic period and the inscription was
associated with a temple or shrine, which probably stood in the vicinity
of the later temple of Kore.97 The cult of Isis and Sarapis was replaced
by the cult of Kore in the city of Samaria – according to Magness – by
the second century BCE.
89 Ant 11.302-03.306-11.
90 Ant 11.324.
91 BOWMAN, Ezekiel, 1-14.
92 GRABBE, Josephus, 238-242.
93 See § 5.
94 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim, 25-27.
95 LENGER, Corpus des Ordonnances, 185-197.
96 CROWFOOT / CROWFOOT / KENYON, Samaria-Sebaste III, 37, no. 13.
97 MAGNESS, Cults of Isis.
In the context of the cult of Sarapis, let’s evoke one letter from the
Zenon archive98 from the 12th of February 257 BCE. This letter was ad-
dressed by Zoilos to Apollonios, the Ptolemaic dioikhth,j in charge of
Syria and Phoenicia. In this letter, Zoilos describes his dream, in which
he was ordered by the god Sarapis to ask the dioikhth,j Apollonios to
build for him a temple and appoint a priest in it. This temple might be
built in the Greek quarter, near the harbor, in an unspecified city. It is
not sure that this letter belongs to the “Syrian folder” of the Zenon arc-
hive. It is even impossible to know if the temple was actually built.
Nevertheless, this letter remains an interesting confirmation of the
spread of the cult of Sarapis in the middle of the 3rd century BCE – the
cult attested also in Samaria in the Ptolemaic period.
Bibliography
ALT, Albrecht, Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria, in:
IDEM, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2. Band,
München 1950, 346-362.
APPELBAUM, Shimon, The Settlement Pattern of Western Samaria from Hellenis-
tic to Byzantine Times: A Historical Commentary, in: DAR, Shimon,
Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.
– 636 C.E.; With a historical commentary by Shimon Appelbaum, II vols.
(BAR International Series 308i-ii), Oxford 1986, 255-269,
APPELBAUM, Shimon / DAR, Shimon / SAFRAI, Zeev, The Towers of Samaria, in:
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978) 91-100.
AUGÉ, Christian, Note sur le trésor de monnaies ptolémaïques de ‘Irāq al-Amīr,
in: Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45 (2001) 483-486.
AVI-YONAH, Michael, The Holy Land From the Persian Period to the Arab Con-
quest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography, Grand Rapids MI
1966.
AVIGAD, Naaman, Samaria (City), in: STERN Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem
1993, 1300-1310.
BAGNALL, Roger S., The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside
Egypt (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 4.), Leiden 1976.
BERLIN, Andrea M., Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period,
in: Biblical Archaeologist 60 (1997) 2-51.
BERTRAND, Jean-Marie, Sur l’inscription d’Hefzibah, in: Zeitschrift für Papyro-
logie und Epigraphik 46 (1982) 167-174.
98 P. Cairo Zen. 1, 59034.

86 J. Dušek
BOWMAN, John, Ezekiel and the Zadokite Priesthood, in: Transactions of the
Glasgow University Oriental Society 16 (1955-1956) 1-14.
CAMPBELL, Edward F., Shechem, in: STERN Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclope-
dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem
1993, 1345-1354.
CAVAIGNAC, Eugène, Population et capital dans le monde méditerranéen
antique, Strasbourg-Paris 1923.
COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews. The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-
sidered, Oxford 1975.
COTTON, Hannah M. / WÖRRLE, Michael, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New
Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel, in: Zeitschrift für Papyro-
logie und Epigraphik 159 (2007) 191-203.
CROWFOOT, John W. / CROWFOOT, Grace M. / KENYON, Kathleen M. (et al. eds.),
Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London 1957.
CUQ, Édouard, La condition juridique de la Coelé-Syrie au temps de Ptolémée
V Épiphane, in: Syria 8 (1927) 143-162.
DAR, Shimon, Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria
800 B.C.E. – 636 C.E (With a historical commentary by Shimon Appel-
baum, 2 vols. BAR International Series 308 i-ii), Oxford 1986.
DAVESNE, Alain / YENISOGANCI, Veli, Les Ptolémées en Séleucide: le trésor
d’Hüseyinli, in: Revue numismatique 34 (1992) 23-36.
DURAND, Xavier, Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ. Le
dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261-252). (Cahiers de la
Revue Biblique 38), Paris 2003.
DUSEK, Jan. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-
332 av. J.-C. (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 30), Leiden-
Boston 2007.
EDELMAN, Diana. Seeing double: Tobiah the Ammonite as an Encrypted Char-
acter, in Revue biblique 113 (2006) 570-584.
FINKELSTEIN, Israel, The Southern Samarian Hills Survey, in: STERN Ephraim
(ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem 1993, 1313-1314.
FINKIELSZTEJN, Gérald. L’économie et le roi au Levant Sud d’après les sources
archéologiques et textuelles, in: CHANKOWSKI, Véronique / DUYRAT,
Frédérique (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures
royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Topoi Suppléments 6),
Lyon 2004, 241-265.
FISCHER, Thomas, Zur Seleukideninschrift von Hefzibah, in: Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979) 131-138.
FUKS, Gideon, Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note, in: Journal of Jew-
ish Studies 52 (2001) 354-356
GERA, Dov, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE (Brill’s Series in
Jewish Studies 8.), Leiden / New York / Köln 1998.
GRABBE, Lester L., Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration,
in: Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987) 231-246.
HOUGHTON, Arthur / LORBER, Catharine, Antiochus III in Coele-Syria and
Phoenicia, in: Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000-2002) 44-58.
JI, Chang-Ho. C., A New Look at the Tobiads in ‘Iraq al-Amir, in: Liber annuus
Studii biblici franciscani 48 (1998) 417-440.
LANDAU, Yohanan H., A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah, in: Israel
Exploration Journal 16 (1966) 54-70.
LAPP, Nancy L., (ed.), The Excavations at Araq el-Emir, Vol. 1. (The Annual of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 47), Cambridge 1984.
LE RIDER, Georges / DE CALLATAŸ, François, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées.
L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand, Paris 2006.
LENGER, Marie-Therèse, Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (Mémoires de
la classes des letters 64.2), Brussels 1964,
LIEBESNY, Herbert, Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die
Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phönikien (PER Inv.
Nr. 24.552 gr.), in: Aegyptus 16 (1936) 257-288.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 33/120 (2000) 74-
118.
MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excava-
tions. Vol. 1: the Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea &
Samaria Publications 2.), Jerusalem 2004.
MAGNESS, Jodi, The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic
and Roman Periods, in: Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001) 157-177.
MAZAR, Benjamin, The Tobiads, in: Israel Exploration Journal 7 (1957) 137-147,
229-238.
MIGNE, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 19, Paris 1857.
MOR, Menahem, Samaritan History: 1. The Persian, Hellenistic and Has-
monaean Period, in: Crown. Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen
1989, 1-18.
NEWELL, Edward Theodore, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from
Seleucus I to Antiochus III. (Numismatic Studies 4), New York 1941.
PASTOR, Jack, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London / New York
1997.
RAPPAPORT, Uriel, The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period, in: C ROWN, Alan D.
/ Davey, Lucy, (eds.), Essays in Honor of G. P. Sixdenier: New Samaritan
Studies of the Société d’Études Samaritaines III and IV. Sydney 1995,
281-288.
RAPPAPORT, Uriel, Les Juifs et leurs voisins à l’époque perse, hellénistique et
romaine, in: Annales 51 (1996) 955-974.
88 J. Dušek
ROSENBERG, Stephen G., Qasr al-Abd: A Mausoleum of the Tobiad Family? in:
Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 19-20 (2001-2002)
157-175.
ROSENBERG, Stephen G., A New Element in the Dating of the Tobyah Inscrip-
tions at Airaq al-Amir in Jordan, in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Ar-
chaeological Society 24 (2006) 85-92.
SARTRE, Maurice, D’Alexandre à Zénobie. Histoire du Levant antique IVe siècle
av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C., Paris 2001.
SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century? in:
GOODMAN, M. (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 1998, 47-61.
SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a
Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks, in: Journal
of Jewish Studies 53 (2002) 146-151.
STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002.
TAYLOR, Joan E., Seleucid Rule in Palestine, (PhD. Dissertation) Duke
University 1979.
WILL, Ernest, Le témoignage de Fl. Josèphe, Antiquités XII, 4, 1, §§ 229-36, in:
WILL, Ernest / LARCHE, François (et al. eds.), ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du
Tobiade Hyrcan (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132.), Paris
1991, 25-35.
ZAYADINE, Fawzi, La campagne d’Antiochos III le Grand en 219-217 et le siège
de Rabbatamana, in: Revue biblique 97 (1990) 68-84.
ZAYADINE, Fawzi, Les Tobiades en Transjordanie et à Jérusalem, in WILL, Ernest
/ LARCHE, François, et al., ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan
(Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 132), Paris, 1991, 5-23.
ZAYADINE, Fawzi, Le grand domaine des Tobiades en Jordanie et la politique
économique des Lagides et des Séleucides, in: CHANKOWSKI, Véronique /
DUYRAT, Frédérique (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et
structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide (Topoi
Suppléments 6), Lyon 2004, 267-290.
ZERTAL, Adam, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Vol. 1: The Shechem Syn-
cline (Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 21.1.), Leiden / Boston
2004.
ZERTAL, Adam, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Vol. II: The Eastern Valleys
and the Fringes of the Desert (Culture & History of the Ancient Near
East 21.2), Leiden / Boston 2008.
The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the
Samaritan Governors – Again
MENAHEM MOR
Recently Jan Dušek published a significant and detailed book, based on

his dissertation supervised by Andre Lemaire.1 In addition to a full
publication of the Wadi Daliyah Papyri in French, Dušek reviewed all
of the possible reconstructions of the Samaritan Governors offered by
various scholars in the last half century. He also deals with their histor-
ical interpretations and implications for the understanding of the histo-
ry of the Samarian province.
Though Dušek ignores many Hebrew publications on the subject,
after examining his rich volume, I realized that the topic of the Samari-
tan Governors has approached a dead-end! And only new findings can
reopen the discussion on this topic!
That being the case, why do we need another lecture on the Samari-
tan Governors? Particularly when it was recently criticized that it is
only interesting for the history of research, but rather unimportant for
questions regarding Samaritan history and the establishment of a Sa-
maritan cult place on Gerizim in either the second or the fourth century
BCE.2
The trigger for this lecture was two "most recent" articles, which chal-
lenged directly and indirectly the issues related to the Samaritan Go-
vernors and the date of the building of the Samaritan temple, that were
published in a new collection entitled: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth
Century B.C.E.3 The essays in this volume originated in an international
conference: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. held at
the University of Münster, 12-15 August 2005.
I. Magen, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan
Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, pp.
157-211.
1 DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméeens, 157-211.157-211.

2 HJELM, What do Samaritans and Jews have in Common?, 20.
3 LIPSCHITS / KNOPPERS / ALBERTZ, Judah and the Judeans.
90 M. Mor
II. Eshel, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth
Centuries B.C.E., pp. 223-234. This is Hanan Eshel's last article in a se-
ries on this subject.4
These two publications raise some new questions about major issues in
the history of the Samaritans during the Persian Period, which are the
dating of the Samaritan temple and the Samaritan Governors, and the-
refore it is worthwhile reconsidering these issues once again.
I.
Since 1982, Yitzhak Magen, staff officer of archaeology of Judaea and

Samaria, has been publishing a series of reports and interpretations
about his excavations on Mount Gerizim. In the year 2000, he published
in Hebrew a summary of 18 years of excavating the Mountain.5 This
was followed by a volume published in 2004 with Haggai Misgav and
Levana Tsfania.6 His latest publication was the above-mentioned article
which appeared in 2007.7
Magen in general discounts the historical value of Josephus’ Jewish
Antiquities, Book 11, and mainly his description of the building of the
Samaritan temple. Until the year 2000, in every report about Mt. Geri-
zim, he changed his interpretation regarding the existence of a Samari-
tan Temple on the Mountain of Blessing, going from a complete denial
of its existence to the assumption of two Samaritan Temples, one at
Samaria, built in the fourth century BCE, and the second constructed on
Mount Gerizim in the second century BCE. Alternatively, he suggested
the existence of only a Samaritan sacred precinct on Mt.Gerizim.
However, since the article of the year 2000, on the basis of archaeo-
logical evidence, he constantly dates the first phase of the temple and
the surrounding precinct, to the mid-fifth century BCE. He ascribes the
building to Sanballat I, the Horonite, governor of Samaria, who built
the temple in 445 BCE, parallel with the days of Nehemiah the gover-
nor of Judaea (Neh 2:1-10).8
4 Hanan Eshel of blessed memory, passed away untimely, on April 8, 2010 in Jerusa-
lem.
5 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City.
6 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations.
7 Shortly after delivering this lecture, two more volumes were published by Yitzhak
Magen: MAGEN, The Samaritans, and: MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations.
8 The year in which Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem was 445 and not 444 BCE! In
parenthesis, I should like to note that already in 1921, without having recourse to la-
The Building of the Samaritan Temple and the Samaritan Governors – Again 91
According to Magen, the fact that it was Sanballat I who had built
the temple shows that the construction was not done impetuously, but
with deliberate intent. The choice of Mt. Gerizim and Shechem derives
from the sanctity of the mountain, and in fact Mt. Gerizim and She-
chem are an indivisible pair just as Mt. Moriah and Jerusalem. The
temple was in use during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods until its
destruction by John Hyrcanus I.9
In the final paragraph of the article Magen claims:
We do not know on which historical sources Josephus relied when he wro-

te the history of the Samaritan people in the Persian and Hellenistic pe-
riods. The archaeological testimonies from Mt. Gerizim demonstrate that
he erred in describing the historical facts.10
The above historical conclusions are based on the Mt.Gerizim excavati-

ons, centred on the following archaeological findings:
1. Inscriptions11
2. Pottery12
3. Coins13
4. Carbon 14 testing.14
We shall briefly review and evaluate Magen's assumptions based on
the archaeological evidence:
1. Inscriptions
In the introduction to the Inscriptions volume, Magen reports that:
Some four hundred inscription fragments in Neo-Hebrew and Aramaic

(lapidary and proto Jewish) script inscribed on building and paving stones,
that were found inside the city's Hellenistic period sacred precinct. Scores
of Greek inscriptions were uncovered as well, some from the Hellenistic
period, but most dating from the reconstruction of the Samaritan sanctuary
in the reign of Constantine I in the fourth century CE; some also dated
ter archaeological findings, Edward Meyer claimed that it was Sanballat the Horoni-
te who had built the temple. See: MEYER, Ursprung und Anfange, 9, note 2.
9 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 183-189; MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Geri-
zim Excavations, 10-12.
10 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 193.
11 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 166-169 and MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount
Gerizim Excavations.
12 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 177-179.
13 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 179-180.
14 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase, 180-183; MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations,
169.
92 M. Mor
from the time of the subsequent Byzantine Church. Also found were a few
inscriptions in the Samaritan script, whose style dates them to the medieval
period.15
He describes the nature of the inscriptions as dedication or votive in-

scriptions in which the donors asks for blessing.16 And in conclusion he
argues:
We believe that most of the early inscriptions should be dated to the Helle-
nistic period (third –second centuries BCE), although some may belong to
the earliest period of the sacred precinct (fifth-fourth centuries BCE).17
In any case, how can we use these inscriptions in our discussion, if ac-
cording to Magen most of the inscriptions should probably be ascribed
to the Samaritan sanctuary of the Hellenistic period during the 3rd and
2nd centuries BCE? It is just possible that some of them were from a
more ancient sanctuary dating back to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.
Another difficulty is seen in the Aramaic and neo-Hebraic inscrip-
tions that were brought together in this impressive collection, regar-
ding whether they can serve as evidence for the construction of a temp-
le on Mount Gerizim during the days of Sanballat I. As Magen himself
notes with regard to these inscriptions:
In addition, since the Mt. Gerizim inscriptions were not found in situ, no
time frame could be determined for the use of the various scripts. All the
inscriptions date from the Hellenistic period (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), a ti-
me in which, with a few exceptions, the lapidary style is not known to have
been in use.18
If so, how can evidence from the 3rd and 2nd centuries serve as proof for
the early existence of the temple?
2. The Pottery
According to Magen, almost all the ceramic finds from the Persian pe-
riod were discovered in the sacred precinct and should be dated to the
period between the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE, namely, before
the conquest of Alexander the Great.19
15 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 13.

16 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 16
17 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, p. 14
18 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, pp. 12, 41
19 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 177-179.
The dating of the ceramics is, for Magen, sufficient proof for the da-
ting of the building of the temple to the beginning of the fifth century
BCE!
Although can we definitely date the pottery, do we have the tools
to date exactly the different types of ceramics between 445 and 332? Is
Alexander’s conquest a chronological division between the Persian and
the Hellenistic periods?
3. The Coins:
During the twenty-three seasons of excavations on Mt. Gerizim more

than 14,000 coins were found. However, only 72 coins are dated to the
Persian period.20 According to Magen:
The fifth century which is at the center of the debate concerning the exis-
tence of a temple on Mount Gerizim, is well represented; there is no doubt
that the early coins faithfully attest the existence of the sacred precinct in
the fifth century BCE.
On the other hand he continues:
The first half of the fourth century is also significantly represented in the
discoveries at Mount Gerizim.21
How and why would the extensive pottery and coins from Mount Ge-
rizim, dating to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE prior to the expedition of
Alexander the Great to the Land of Israel, with the date of the earliest
coin being 480 BCE, constitute proof that the temple was erected during
Nehemiah’s time? The most that can be learnt from this is that Mount
Gerizim, the “mountain of blessing,” continued to be considered for
centuries as a sacred site.22
20 See MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 179. Three coins cannot be identified. The
earliest coin is a drachma from Cyprus dated ca. 480 BCE (fig. 27/1).
21 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 179-180 . MAGEN, Mt Garizim: A Temple City,
168-169. It includes: A Phoenician coin, Samaritan coins from ca. 375-332; 18 coins
from Sidon dated ca. 370-358; 5 Persian coins from Sidon assigned a general dating
of the fourth century. A Persian coin minted from Sidon of Euagoras II dated to ca.
345-342. 4 Persian coins of Mazdi from Sidon dated to ca. 343-333. A Persian coin, an
Attic standard, from Tyre dated to ca. 332-275. 18 Persian coins from Sidon dated to
the first half of the 4th century. A Phoenician coin from Byblos dated to the fourth
century. 18 Samaritan coins dated to the fourth century.
22 For a detailed discussion of this issue, see: MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 93-94.
94 M. Mor
4. Carbon-14 Testing:
In the recent article he devotes a long paragraph accompanied by a

chart about the Carbon-14 testing. He listed 10 samples of charred
wood and 1 of bones found at the site. His conclusion is that in addition
to the pottery, coins, the C-14 testing proves:
with a great degree of certainty – that the first phase of the precinct was
built in the fifth century BCE.23
He adds that:
Relying solely on C-14 dating, the first phase of the precinct came to an end
ca. 200 B.C.E., when the construction of the precinct's second phase began
(during the reign of Antiochus III).24
However, being an ignoramus on the subject of Carbon-14 testing, I

consulted two experts: Dr. Elesasbeta Boaretto of the Weizmann Insti-
tute, who tested some of the cases in the chart, and Prof. Shariel Shalev,
a meteorologist from the University of Haifa. Both clarified to me some
of the details of Carbon-14 testing in general and the results from Mt.
Gerizim in particular.
1. Only the calibrated dates should be examined.
2. The dates that have more than one option should not be considered!
Apparently, the calibrated curve created a situation in which, in the
same zone, there is more than one possible overlap, and therefore it is
advisable to refer to the calibrated dates that have only one option of
calibration.
3. The dates in tests number: 3, 5, 8, 10 are of charcoal that can be earlier
than the archaeological layer in which it was found, but cannot be later
than the layer!
4. The burnt bone, number 11, has the same limitations, assuming that
its life span is shorter. Nevertheless, the large space between the calib-
rated dates points to a calibrated zone that is relatively flat, and there-
fore it is preferable not to use this date.
Therefore, if we consider tests number: 3, 5, 8, and 10, all are dated
later than the mid 5th century BCE. In the range of years in these
examples, my proposed dating, the mid 4th century BCE for the buil-
23 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 180.

24 MAGEN, The Dating of the First Phase, 180; MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations,
169.
ding of the Samaritan temple, is even more appropriate than the date
suggested by Magen.
Magen is very consistent when it comes to his evaluation of Josephus’
description about the Samaritans in Jewish Antiquities 11. He rejects the
historicity of the account in Book 11, and particularly the events and
dates related to the erection of the Samaritan Temple.
If this is the case, how can you reject the whole story and still use
some of its details to create a similar story dated to the days of Nehe-
miah? The Biblical evidence in Neh 13:28:
One of the sons of Joiada son of the High priest Eliashib was a son-in-law
of Sanballat the Horonite, I drove him away from me.
The biblical verse mentions three names: Joiada, Eliashib, Sanballat the
Horonite, the names of the bride and groom are missing. Magen, in
trying to use details mentioned by Josephus, made up a name for the
groom: Ephraim instead of Menasseh! He took details from Josephus
description in Book 11 and transfers them to the sole biblical verse.
Does the verse mention a relocation of priests from Jerusalem to Mt.
Gerizim?
Magen believes that it is indicated in the Elephantine papyri that
the sons of Sanballat "might have served as priests on Mt. Gerizim".25
However, the Elephantine letters made a clear distinction between
religious leaders and secular political leaders; Yohanan is referred to as
the High Priest in the Jerusalemite Temple, and at the same time Bagoi
and Sanballat are entitled Pe’ah. Furthermore, if we accept Josephus’
account of the relations between Alexander and the Jews and Samari-
tans, the Jewish negotiator was the High Priest, while the Samaritan
was the political figure Sanballat.
Towards the end of the article Magen tries to resolve Josephus‘ „er-
rors,“ including his dating of the construction of the Samaritan temple.
He argues that Josephus erred between the construction of the temple
on Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period, the 5th century BCE and the foun-
ding of the city on Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period following the
destruction of Samaria in the 4th century.26
But how do we reconcile this assumption with Magen’s earlier re-
marks?
In 1986, Magen in his first publication: „A Fortified Town of the
Hellenistic Period on Mount Gerizim,“27 and four years later in an artic-

27 MAGEN, A Fortified Town, 101.
96 M. Mor
le: „Mount Gerizim –A Temple City,“28 argued that, around the Samari-
tan precinct, a large city covering 350 dunams was built on Mt. Geri-
zim. Based on hundreds of coins, he dates the Hellenistic city to the 2nd
century BCE, during the days of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (217-
187 BCE). He finds a comparable occurrence in the massive building in
the upper city of Jerusalem, described by Josephus in Jewish Antiqui-
ties 13.133-144.
In addition to the critique mentioned above, the new date for the erec-
tion of the temple according to the estimation of Magen has raised a
few more general questions that should be discussed in depth:
1. What motivated Sanballat I to build the Samaritan temple preci-
sely in the year 445 BCE? The reliance of Magen on the words of Ne-
hemiah to his adversaries: Sanballat the Horonite, Geshem the Arabian,
and Tobias the Ammonite, are not convincing. Nehemiah certainly
rejected them and told them during his construction of the wall around
Jerusalem: “… but you have no share or right or memorial in Jerusa-
lem” (Neh. 2:20). But Magen’s statement afterwards, that Nehemiah’s
reply left them without any cultic site, does not conform to the critical
facts. Is this the first time they were rejected? Already in 538 BCE, when
the first group of people returned to Zion, those who were called the
“opponents of Judah and Benjamin” and “the people of the land” (Ezra
4: 1, 4) were rejected by the Jewish leadership with the words:
You do not have the same purpose as we do in building a house for our
God, for we alone shall build [a house] for Yahweh God of Israel (Ezra 4:3).
Moreover, where was the cultic center for the Samaritans from 538 to
445 BCE, the year in which the temple was constructed by Sanballat I
according to Magen’s proposal? One can even go further and ask: Whe-
re did they worship God between the year 720 when Samaria was con-
quered by the Assyrians and the year 445 BCE? But the main question
regarding Magen’s dating is whether it was at this date that the histori-
cal opportunity was created to erect the Samaritan temple.
2. Was it Artaxerxes I who granted Sanballat the permission to erect
the temple on Mount Gerizim? Nehemiah needed the agreement and
permit of that same king in order to go to Jerusalem and rebuild it:
28 MAGEN, Mount Gerizim –A Temple City, 70.96.

As I answered the king and if your servant has found favor in your sight,
then send me to Judah, to the City of the graves of my fathers, that I may
rebuild it (Neh 2:5).29
The rebuilding of the Temple following the Edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1: 1-4;
6:3-5) and the permit granted during the reign of Darius I (Ezra 6: 6-12)
clearly demonstrate that without permission of the central government
it would not have been possible to erect the Temple in Jerusalem. Fur-
thermore, there are several scholars who claim that not only would the
construction of the Temple in Jerusalem have been impossible without
Persian consent, but that the main reason for its erection was to satisfy
the administrative requirements of the Persians.30
3. Why was the temple erected on Mount Gerizim? Magen was
right in saying: “Sanballat did, indeed, possess a site whose sanctity
was confirmed by the Pentateuch itself, and to which not even the Ju-
deans could object.”31 But his claim that: “The sanctity of Mt. Gerizim
and the city of Shechem were deeply entrenched in the religious tradi-
tion of the north, just as Mt. Moriah was the sacred mountain of Jerusa-
lem in Judea”32 is an unfounded claim. In the year 445 BCE it was not
yet possible to pair Mount Gerizim with the city of Shechem because at
that time the urban center of the Samaritan population was in the city
of Samaria and not in Shechem.
4. We shall not resume here the continuing discussion on the lists of
Samaritan leaders during the Persian period, but will only note that in
a review of these lists, ever since the articles by Cross and others that
followed, the conclusion was that there were at least three Sanballats
during the Persian period.33 Josephus mentions at least two Sanballats.
29 All the translations from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are from: MYERS, Ezra,
Nehemiah.
30 See BEDFORD, Temple Restoration, 183-299. Chapter 4 is devoted to the various
factors behind the erection of the Temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Darius I,
and pages 185-230 are devoted to “Temple Rebuilding as a Judean Initiative.” For
the main studies of this approach, see: MEYERS/ MEYERS, Haggai Zechariah; MEYERS/
MEYERS, Zechariah 9-14; WEINBERG, Citizen-Temple Community. Following the pub-
lication of Bedford’s book, see: TROTTER, Second Jerusalem Temple. See also: EDEL-
MAN, Origins of the 'Second' Temple, 344-349. However, Edelman dates the building
of the Samaritan temple to the days of Nehemiah.
31 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 13. See also: NA ’AMAN,
Population Changes.
32 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 10.
33 See: W RIGHT, Rebuilding Identiry, 257-269.
98 M. Mor
Can we assume that he confused the Sanballat of Nehemiah’s time with

the Sanballat of the period of Darius III and Alexander the Great?34
5. The main argument against Magen’s dating of the temple to the
days of Nehemiah and Sanballat I is an argumentum e silentio. The
silence regarding the Samaritan temple in the Book of Nehemiah is a
resounding example! Sanballat, Tobias and Geshem, the three adversa-
ries of Nehemiah, are given a central place in the memoirs of Nehe-
miah, and the political and ideological differences between them and
Nehemiah are extensively described (Neh 2:10, 19-20; 3:32-35; 4:1-2; 6:1-
19; 13:4-9), including the marriage of Sanballat’s daughter to the son of
the high priest in Jerusalem and their expulsion from the city as a result
of this (Neh 13:28). Can it be assumed that the author of Nehemiah’s
memoirs would have ignored the existence of the Samaritan temple
built by the enemy of Nehemiah? Would he have passed over in comp-
lete silence the construction of a temple that would be considered by
Nehemiah to be an illegal temple?
Actually, from the summary of the excavations and the historical intro-
duction, two outstanding contributions are made to the history of the
temple. The important one is that on Mount Gerizim there was a sacred
sanctuary in the center of which stood a temple, and the other is that
the temple was built during the Persian period. Beyond this, the
archaeological finds do not support any exact date for the erection of
the temple.
In order to strengthen our supposition regarding the erection of the
Samaritan temple in the later stages of Persian rule over the Land of
Israel, I shall find support once again in the Yedania letter from the Yeb
(Elephantine) papyri that was mentioned above. As I noted there, the
letter of 407 BCE was a plea made by the leaders of Yeb after the dest-
ruction of their temple to Bagohi, the governor of Yehud and to Delaiah
and Shelamiah the sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria. In this letter
they request assistance in restoring their ruined temple, and note the
fact that three years earlier, in 410 BCE, they had addressed their re-
quest to Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem, but he had not answered
them at all. Therefore, if in the year 410 BCE there had been a temple on
Mount Gerizim, would not the leaders of Yeb have addressed their
request to the high priest on Mount Gerizim, just as they did to the
high priest in Jerusalem? Does not the application to Delaiah and She-
34 For latest review of these issues see DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméeens.
lamiah indirectly indicate that the Samaritan temple had not yet been
built?35
The Samaritan temple existed for over two hundred years and was
used by the Samaritans as their religious centre. Its destruction in the
year 111 BCE caused an ideological-religious transformation among the
Samaritans. Not only did they never try to rebuild their temple, but
even denied the existence of the temple in the past. Instead, they turned
the whole of Mount Gerizim into a “sacred sanctuary.”36
II.
Hanan Eshel in the final footnote of his article, note 66, wrote the follo-
wing:
In 2005, M. Mor published an essay that defends Cross’s reconstruction:

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

my article was also published in English in the proceedings of a confe-
rence held at Helsinki Finland in 2000, which was published in 2005.37
In addition, it should be mentioned that Eshel’s article had already
been published in 1999 in Hebrew, in the volume honoring Prof. Frank
M. Cross.38 I had compared the Hebrew version of 1999, with the Eng-
lish one of 2007, and besides some minor changes such as citing coins
from the 2nd edition of Meshorer-Qedar, the two articles are identical.
However, in the concluding remarks of my Hebrew version that
Eshel argued about, I added a final section entitled: Addition, in which
I listed two works that, because of their later publication, I was unable
to consult for the article:
35 COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30-32; “If it please our lord, take thought of that
Temple to rebuild (it) since they do not let us rebuild it … Let a letter be sent from
you to them about the Temple of YHW the God to rebuild it in Elephantine the fort-
ress as it was formerly built.” Reinhard Kratz has recently dealt with the temple in
Yeb. See: K RATZ, Second Temple of Jeb.
36 TSEDAKA, History of the Israelite-Samaritans, 16-17.
37 MOR, Putting the Puzzle together.
38 ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.
100 M. Mor
a) Meshorer, Ya'akov and Qedar Shraga published a new edition of

the collection of Samarian Coins in 1999.39 As mentioned above I did
not use this edition for my article, however, I used the first version of
their collection of 1991.40 Besides this, I also compared the two editions,
and found that the major difference was another numbering of the
coins as well as some coins that were added to the second version.
b) The entire volume of Qadmoniot, which was devoted to the exca-
vations on Mt. Gerizim, and particularly Magen's report of 2000.41
Eshel, in note 66, instead of pointing out this omission, replaced it with
Gropp's work, criticizing me for not using the „official“ publication of
the papyri published by Gropp in the DJD Series,42 although I had used
Gropp's dissertation, which was the basis for the DJD edition.43
Furthermore, Eshel himself in his Hebrew article did not use the
corpus published by Gropp, nor the 1999 edition of the Samarian coins
published by Meshorer-Qedar. However, comparing the two editions
by Meshorer-Qedar, the major question is whether the second edition is
essentially different from the first one, and if it can be considered a
major contribution to the issue of the Samaritan governors.
In my paper, to which Eshel deliberately avoided giving any res-
ponse, I extensively criticized three articles written by him. In these
articles he wanted to prove the unreliability of Josephus Jewish Antiqui-
ties, Book 11 regarding the Samaritan governors and the date of the
building of the Samaritan temple. The three articles are:
1. Wadi–ed Daliya Papyrus 14 and the Samaritan Temple.44
2. Israelite Names from Samaria in the Persian Period.45
3. The Rulers of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.46
I shall not repeat my major arguments against Eshel’s assumptions in

the above articles. I reported my claims at length in my articles. To
make my points clearer I shall just briefly mention a few of them:
1. In order to discredit Josephus’ dating of the building of the Samari-
tan temple in the mid-fourth century BCE, Eshel used Papyrus 14, is-
39 MESHORER / QEDAR, Samarian coinage.

40 MESHORER / QEDAR, Coinage of Samaria.
41 MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City.
42 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II.
43 Ph.D Thesis, Harvard University, 1986. This is a publication of nine papyri, which
are bills of sale of slaves. GROPP, Samaria Papyri.
44 ESHEL, Wadi -ed Daliya Papyrus 14.
45 See ESHEL, Israelite Names.
46 ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.
sued in Samaria. Based on the word: nishka= lishka= ‫=(לשכה‬chamber) in

the Papyrus he concluded that:
In Wadi Daliyah may be seen proof of the existence of a temple in the city
of Samaria at the end of the Persian period, before the Macedonian con-
quest.47
However, Gropp, who is the „official“ publisher of the Papyri, in DJD

Plate XVI, Papyrus 14, entitled it: „Deed of Consignment of Public
Rooms“ (DJD Plate XVI), and he did not include the reading of the re-
mains of this document in the official edition. He finds this papyrus as
„…a clear instance of a conveyance of Chambers in a public building.“48
Rejection of the assumption that, in Papyrus 14 the nishka sold is
part of a temple, calls for equal dismissal of the supposition that the
papyrus proves the existence of a temple in the city of Samaria prior to
the conquest of the Land of Israel by Alexander the Great.49
2. In articles 2-3, Eshel used some Wadi Daliyah papyri to reject Jose-
phus' description of the building of the Samaritan Temple and to set up
another list of Samaritan Governors.
Papyrus 1 is a bill of a sale of a slave in the presence of the Samari-
tan Governor, dated to 19 March 335 BCE. However the name of the
governor in line 11 is not preserved.
In 1986 Douglas Gropp, in his dissertation,50 restored line 11 and in-
cluded in the lacuna the name of the Samaritan governor: Yeshu’a son
of Sanballat. Eshel adopted Gropp’s completion and gave it an histori-
cal interpretation. Since Papyrus 1 is the latest of the Wadi Daliyah
papyri, this means that, according to Eshel, the last Samaritan governor
was Yeshu’a son of Sanballat II, and not Sanballat III.51
This reconstruction allowed Eshel to reject the reliability of Jose-
phus’ account in Jewish Antiquities 11. In his view, Sanballat, whose
name appears throughout the narratives of Alexander the Great, is
Josephus’ invention, and therefore this section is of insignificant histo-
rical value. All the events that preceded the establishment of the Sama-
ritan temple are part of Josephus’ anti-Samaritan polemic.
47
ESHEL, Wadi -ed Daliya Papyrus 14, 364-365.
48 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II, 5.
49 ESHEL, Governors of Samaria, 224 note 8. Surprisingly, Eshel in ESHEL, Governors of
Samaria still refers to his ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria. and argues “on the importance of
this Document.“ However, reading this assumption with the results from the Mt Ge-
rizim excavation in the background is astonishing.
50
GROPP, Samaria Papyri.
51
See ESHEL, Samaritans , 40-42; ESHEL, Rulers of Samaria.
102 M. Mor
Already in my lecture at the Helsinki Conference of 2000, I doubted

the value of Gropp’s completion of the lacuna in Papyrus 1, which had
provided the grounds for Eshel’s reconstruction of the governors of
Samaria.
Indeed in DJD volume 28, Gropp himself completed line 11 diffe-
rently, and in the comments he wrote: „There is apparently enough
room for only two witnesses to be listed in what remains of line 11“,52
and he did not mention any names.
If Eshel’s reconstruction of the Samaritan governors is based on an
incorrect completion,53 his conclusions are necessarily questionable.
Accordingly, the matter of Josephus’ reliability in Jewish Antiquities 11
deserves a different approach.
Since 1975, when I published my MA Thesis,54 I adopted the conclusi-
ons made by Cross, the leading scholar of the Wadi Daliyah papyri, in
his portrayal of the end of the Persian rule in Eretz Israel.55 He has dis-
cussed this papyrus on several occasions, and although he does not
suggest a completion to the lacuna in line 11, he directs his readers
instead to Papyrus 7, line 17 where it is stated, “before [H]ananyah
governor of Samaria.”56
Ever since his first article in 1963, he has been arguing that the Pa-
pyri contain the names of three governors in Samaria: Sanballat, who
was the father of the other two, Hanayah, governor in 354,57 and Yes-
hu’a / Yesha’yahu/ Yadu’a, whose name appears on the “Sanballat bul-
la.”58 Yeshu’a/Yadu’a preceded his brother Hananyah or Hanan, accor-
ding to evidence that a certain Hanan was the deputy when Yeshu’a
was governor.59
52 GROPP / BERNSTEIN, Wadi Daliyeh II, 43.

53 In ESHEL, Governors of Samaria, 233 note 64 he remarks: “However, he did not
include this reconstruction in the official published volume.“
54 MOR, Samaritans and Jews.
55
See Cross’s various articles on the Wadi Daliyah papyri: CROSS,, Discovery; CROSS,
Aspects; CROSS, Papyri; CROSS, Papyri and their Historical Implications; CROSS, Re-
construction; CROSS, Samaria and Jerusalem.
56
See CROSS, Samaria Papyrus, Pl. 2; CROSS, Report on the Samaria Papyri, on page 22
there is a photograph of a reconstruction of Papyrus 1, but it is printed upside-
down! See also A RATA MANTOVANI, I papiri di Samaria.
57
See Papyrus 7, line 17.
58
On the bullae from Wadi Daliyah see: LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I. On the Sanballat bulla
see: CROSS, Papyri, 47, and LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I, 3 note 2.
59
See Papyrus 11, in which “Hanan the ‫ = סגנא‬deputy” is mentioned.
The reconstruction by Cross and others of the dynasty of the Sama-

ritan governors60 and the lineage of the high priests in Judah61 has sol-
ved a large number of the chronological problems arising from Jose-
phus’ accounts. The existence of Sanballat III, who held office at the
time of the conquest of Eretz Israel by Alexander the Great, sheds a
different light on Josephus’ description. The Judaean-Samaritan-
Macedonian relationship is also illuminated from a fresh angle. The
death of Sanballat III shortly after the completion of the building of the
Samaritan temple imperiled for the first time the continued existence of
the Samaritan leadership. The appointment of the Macedonian Andro-
machus as governor of the region impelled the Samaritan aristocracy to
rise against Macedonian rule; they burned Andromachus alive.62 Flee-
ing to escape Alexander’s wrath, they took refuge in a cave in Wadi
Daliyah, where the papyri under discussion were discovered.
Eshel tried to invalidate Cross and my reconstruction of the Samari-
tan Governors, arguing on one hand that, for his list of governors,
Cross did not use the Samarian coins dated to the 4th century BCE. And
on the other hand, he rejected my lists because I did not use the 1999
edition of Meshorer and Qedar. What coins is he considering? Which
coins did Cross overlook when he asserted that Sanballat III was the
last Samaritan governor of Samaria? As for myself, since I did use the
first volume of Meshorer-Qedar to support Cross’ reconstruction, I was
blamed for not using the second edition: Samarian Coinage.
As I have argued elsewhere, and as others have argued, the Samari-
tan temple on Mount Gerizim, whose founding is described by Jose-
phus, was built in the interim between the fall of the Persian kingdom
and the conquest of Eretz Israel by Alexander the Great. The temple
stood intact until the time of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean ruler, who
burnt it down in 107 BCE because it was a major point of discord bet-
ween Judah and Samaria.
60
See Appendix 2. Since the publication of the papyri various attempts have been
made to reconstruct the succession of governors of the province of Samaria. In this
article we deal only with the disagreement of Eshel’s reconstruction with that of
Cross. We note here only the leading studies on this subject: WIDENGREN, Persian
Period; SALEY, Date of Nehemiah; GRABBE, Josephus and the Reconstruction; WIL-
LIAMSON, Governors of Judah; CROWN, Another Look at Samaritan Origins. For a
penetrating critique on the contribution of the Wadi Daliyah papyri to this recons-
truction see: SCHWARTZ , On Some Papyri.
61
In his various articles Cross also deals with the dynasty of high priests in the Temple
in Jerusalem. For criticism of this reconstruction see MOR, High Priests in Judah. See
also VANDERKAM, Jewish High Priests.
62
See: Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander the Great, IV 8: 34, 9-11. See also: STERN,
Greek and Latin Authors, 447-449.
104 M. Mor
In the last 45 years of research concerning the Samaritans in the

Persian period, major progress has been made mainly through rich
archaeological excavations. The excavations at Wadi ed Daliyah,63 She-
chem,64 and especially on Mount Gerizim, revealed very rich material.
There is now a consensus about the existence of a Samaritan temple
on Mt. Gerizim and disagreement about the dates of its erection. Scho-
lars are still debating about the Samaritan administration in the Persian
period. There are those who argue for one Sanballat, some prefer two,
and others are convinced of the leadership of at least three Sanballats.
The recent state of research about the Samaritan governors during
the Persian period has reached a dead end. The existing written sources
and archaeological material have been exhausted and only fresh evi-
dence can contribute new avenues to solve the difficulties we have
discussed in this paper.
63 LIETH, Wadi Daliyeh I.

64 MAGEN, Flavius Neapolis.
Appendix 1: Eshel’s reconstruction
Governor Official (sgn’) Date Source

(phh)
Sanballat I Mid-5th c Book of Nehemiah
BCE Papyrus YB, Cowley 30
Dalayah Turn of 5th- Papyrus YB, Cowley 30-32)
4th c BCE Samaritan coin no. 49 (?)
Shalmayah Early 4th c Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30)
BCE Samaritan coins (still un-
published)
Hananyah Siton/Asiton First half of Wadi Daliyah documents 7,
4th c BCE 8, 9, Samaritan coins 29, 30
Sanballat II “Aqabiyah Second half Wadi Daliyah, bulla; Do-
of 4th c BCE cuments 5 (?) 11; Samaritan
coins 41-45
Yeshu’a/ Hanan Second half Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Do-
Yesh’yah of 4th c BCE cuments 1, 11
Appendix 2: Cross’s reconstruction
Governor = peha Date Source

Sanballat I Mid-5th c BCE Book of Nehemiah; Papyrus YYB
(Cowley 30)
Dalayah Turn of 5th-4th Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30-32)
c BCE
Shalmayah (his Beginning of Papyrus YYB (Cowley 30)
brother) 4th c BCE
Sanballat II Second half of Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Documents 5
4th c BCE (?), 11
Yeshu’a/ Yadu’a/ First half of 4th Wadi Daliyah: bulla, Documents 1,
Yesha’–yahu c BCE 11
Hananyah (his Mid-4th c BCE Wadi Daliyah, Document 7
brother)
Sanballat III Second half of Antiquities 11.30-345
4th c BCE
106 M. Mor
Bibliography
ARATA MANTOVANI, Piera, I papiri di Samaria (1 SP), in: Riv. Bib. 40 (1992) 87-
89.
BEDFORD, Peter R., Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65),
Leiden 2001.
COWLEY, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923.
CROSS, Frank M., A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration, in: JBL 94 (1975)
4-18 [= Interpretation 29 (1975) 187-203].
CROSS, Frank M., A Report on the Samaria Papyri, in: EMERTON, James A. (ed.),
Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986, (VTSup 40), Leiden 1988, 17-26.
CROSS, Frank M., Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in the late Persian
and Hellenistic Times, in: HTR 59 (1966) 201-211.
CROSS, Frank M., Papyri and their Historical Implications, in: LAPP, Paul / LAPP,
Nancy (eds.), Discoveries in the Wadi ed-Daliyeh, Cambridge MA 1974, 17-
29.
CROSS, Frank M., Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C., in: FREEDMAN, David N. /
GREENFIELD, Jonas. C. (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, Gar-
den City NY 1969, 450-469.
CROSS, Frank M., Samaria and Jerusalem, in: TADMOR Haim (ed.), The Restora-
tion: The Persian Period, Jerusalem 1983, 81-94 (Hebrew).
CROSS, Frank M., Samaria Papyrus: An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 B.C.E.
Found in Wadi Daliyeh, in: Eretz Israel 18 (1985) 7*-17*.
CROSS, Frank M., The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri, BA 26 (1963) 110-120.
CROWN, Alan D., Another Look at Samaritan Origins, CROWN, Alan, D. / DAVEY,
Lucy (eds.), New Samaritan Studies (Studeis in Judaica 5), Sindey 1995, 13-
155.
DUŠEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméeens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarievers 450-
332 av.J.-C., Leiden 2007.
EDELMAN, Diana, The Origins of the ’Second’ Temple, Persian Imperial Policy
and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, London 2005.
ESHEL, Hanan, Israelite Names from Samaria in the Persian Period, in DEMSKY,
Aaron et al. (eds.), These are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics,
Ramat Gan 1997, 17-31 (Hebrew).
ESHEL, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries
B.C.E., LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah
and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 223-
234.
ESHEL, Hanan, The Rulers of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E,
Eretz Israel (Frank Moore Cross Volume) 26 (1999) 8-12 (Hebrew).
ESHEL, Hanan, The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Ori-
gins of Samaritanism, (Ph.D Thesis, Hebrew University) Jerusalem 1994
(Hebrew).
ESHEL, Hanan, Wadi –ed Daliya Papyrus 14 and the Samaritan Temple, in:
Zion 61 (1996) 359-365 (Hebrew).
GRABBE, Lester L., Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,
in: JBL 106 (1987) 231-246.
GROPP, Douglas M. / BERNSTEIN, Moshe, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri
from Wadi Daliyeh, Qumran cave 4, XXVIII, Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD, 28),
Oxford 2001.
GROPP, Douglas Marvin, The Samaria Papyri from the Wādî ed-Dāliyeh, 1986,
(Publishsed Microfiche. Ann Arbor, Mich. University Microfilms Interna-
tional, 1986).
HJELM, Ingrid, What do Samaritans and Jews have in Common? Recent Trends
in Samaritan Studies, in: Currents in Biblical Research 3 (2004) 9-62.
KRATZ, Reinhard G., The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem, in: LIPSCHITS,
Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans
in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 247-264.
LIETH, Mary Joan Winn, Wadi Daliyeh I. The Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions,
Oxford 1997.
LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the
Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007.
MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excavati-
ons, Vol. I, The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea and
Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on Mount Gerizim,
in: Qadmoniot 19 (1986) 91-101 (Hebrew).
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Flavius Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period (Judea and
Samaria Publications 5), Jerusalem 2005 (Hebrew)
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 23 (1990) 70-
96 (Hebrew).
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim Excavations: A Temple City, Israel Antiquities
Authority (Judea and Samaria Publications 8), Jerusalem 2008.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim: A Temple City, a Summary of 18 Seasons,“ in:
Qadmoniot 33 (2000) 74-118. (Hebrew).
MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on
Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, in: LIPSCHITS,
in the Fourth Century B.C.E, Winona Lake Ind. 2007, 157-211.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, (Judea and Samaria
Publications 7), Jerusalem 2008.
MESHORER, Ya’aḳov / Q EDAR, Shraga, Samarian Coinage, Jerusalem 1999.
MESHORER, Ya’aḳov / Q EDAR, Shraga, The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth
Century BCE, Jerusalem 1991.
MEYER, Eduard, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, Berlin 1921.
MEYERS, Carol L. / MEYERS, Éric M., Haggai Zechariah 1-8 (Anchor Bible 25),
Garden City 1987.
MEYERS, Carol L. / MEYERS, Éric M., Zechariah 9-14: A new translation with
introduction and commentary (Anchor Bible 25), Garden City 1993.
MOR, Menahem, From Samaria to Shechem, The Samaritan Community in
Antiquity, Jerusalem 2003 (in Hebrew).
108 M. Mor
MOR, Menahem, Putting the Puzzle together: Papyri, Inscriptions, Coins and
Josephus in Relation to Samaritan History in the Persian Period, in: SHEA-
DEH, Haseeb / TAWA, Habib / PUMMER, Reinhard (eds.), Proceedings of the
Fifth International Congress of the Societe d' Etudes Samaritaines, Helsinki,
August 1-4, 2000, Paris 2005, 41-54.
MOR, Menahem, Samaritans and Jews during the Persian, Hellenistic and Has-
monean Periods, (MA Thesis, University of Haifa) Haifa 1975 (Hebrew).
MOR, Menahem, The High Priests in Judah in the Persian Period, in: Beit Mikra
(1978) 57-67.
MYERS, Jacob M., Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Anchor
Bible 14), Garden City 1965.
Na’aman, Nadav, Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian
Deportations, in: Tel Aviv 20 (1993) 104-124.
SALEY, Richard J., The Date of Nehemiah Reconsidered, in: TUTTLE, Gary, A.
(ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William San-
ford LaSor, Grand Rapids MI 1978, 151-165.
SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., On Some Papyri and Josephus’ sources and chronology
for the Persian Period, in: JSJ 21 (1990) 175-199.
STERN, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1., Jeru-
salem 1974.
TROTTER, James M., Was the Second Jerusalem Temple a Persian Project, in:
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15 (2001) 276-294.
TSEDAKA, Benyamim, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans, Ho-
lon 2001.
VANDERKAM, James C., Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List
Complete?, in: ANDERSON, Gary / O LYAN, Saul (eds.), Priesthood and Cult
in Ancient Israel, Sheffield 1991, 67-91.
WEINBERG, Joel, The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup 151), Sheffield 1992.
WIDENGREN, Geo, The Persian Period, in: HAYES, John H. / MILLER, J. Maxwell
(eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977, 489-538.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh. G.M., The Governors of Judah under the Persians, in: Tyn-
dale Bulletin 93 (1988) 59-82.
WRIGHT, Jacob L., Rebuilding Identiry: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest
Josephus on the Samaritans –
his Tendenz and purpose
MAGNAR KARTVEIT
“There can be little doubt of Josephus’ prejudice against the Samari-

tans. In this, he reflects the general Jewish attitude of bitterness and
contempt, as seen in rabbinic writings,” Louis Feldman wrote in 1989.1
Doubt was raised, however, by Rita Egger in her dissertation from
1986: she found that Josephus cannot be termed an anti-Samaritan au-
thor.2 So, who is right? Was Josephus anti-Samaritan or not?
The Tendenz of Josephus can be described as in Steve Mason’s Jose-
phus and the New Testament.3 Josephus wished to repudiate accusations
against the Jews and to portray them as e.g. literate, cultured and bene-
volent. According to Mason, the main project in War and Antiquitites
was to present the Jews in a favourable light in order to counter the
accusations levelled against them by Roman and Greek authors. War
was written while the victor over the Jewish people was still Emperor
in Rome, and under his patronage. Josephus’ idea is that only a part of
the Jewish people rebelled against Rome, and the Romans acted as
God’s agents in punishing them. Conditions were almost intolerable
under the later governors, so one can understand the rebel instincts,
but the wiser leaders tried to keep the peace. The Jews had been able to
defend themselves heroically under the Maccabees, as the figure of
Hyrcanus showed. In Antiquities the antiquity of the Jews and their
respectable origin is a major issue.
If one considers the general framework, the Samaritans are used by
Josephus as a group that forms a negative counterpart to the loyal Jews,
1 FELDMAN, Critical Bibliography, 420.

2 EGGER, Josephus Flavius, 311. She notes, however, a certain Ambivalenz, cf. 73, note
176, referring to Ant. 9.291; 12.257; 11.340f. Cf. in general the important review by
NODET, Egger, 288-294.
3 MASON, Josephus, 55-121.
110 M. Kartveit
an example of people who try to exploit the ruling powers and who are
justly punished for that.4
Opportunism
The most conspicuous trait in Josephus’ picture of the Samaritans is

their opportunism—if we may use an anachronistic term for his por-
trayal of them.5 This is emphasized three times in the form of com-
ments on the stories of their origin and constitutes his Tendenz. The first
occurrence of this allegation comes in connection with Josephus’ retell-
ing of 2 Kgs 17:
[The Chouthaioi brought to Samaria their own gods and worshipped them
and thereby] provoked the Most high God to anger and wrath…And so
they sent some elders to the king of the Assyrians and asked him to send
priests…and after being instructed in the laws and worship of this God,
they worshipped him with great zeal…They continue to practice these
same customs even to this day, those who are called Chouthaioi in the He-
brew language, and Samareitai [Samarei/tai] in the Greek; those who alter-
natively [pro.j metabolh.n] call themselves their relatives whenever they see
things going well for the Jews – as if they were descendants of Joseph and
had family ties with them in virtue of that origin, when, however, they see
that things are going badly for them [i.e. for the Jews], they say that they
are not at all close to them and that they have no claim to their loyalty or
race – instead, they make themselves out to be migrants of another nation
[metoi,kouj avlloeqnei/j]. Ant 9.288-291.6
The crucial sentence here is crw,menoi, te toi/j auvtoi/j e;ti kai. nu/n e;qesi
diatelou/sin, “they continue to practice these same customs even to this
day.” Scholars have tried to find out which “customs” Josephus here
refers to, but this approach might be a cul de sac. In the following sen-
tence Josephus goes on to speak of the opportunism of the Samaritans
in terms of their changing claims of ethnicity, not in terms of their reli-
gion, be it syncretism as in 2 Kgs 17:33 or the lack of worship of Yah-
weh, as in 2 Kgs 17:34. It seems therefore to be an adequate understand-
ing of Ant 9.288-291 that Josephus speaks of “customs” = opportunism
through this whole section, in the case of religion in the past, and in the
case of claims of ethnicity in the present. The Samaritans saw how the
4 AVIOZ, Josephus, 9-17, is also discussing the tendency of Josephus—in this case in
connection with a well-known biblical text.
5 HANHART, Ältesten Traditionen,106-115.
6 Author’s translation.
Josephus on the Samaritans 111
wind blew, and set sails accordingly. The “customs” would simply
mean their way of behaviour, their opportunism. They changed their
behaviour, and only one thing is consistent with them: their opportu-
nism. On this understanding, Josephus claims that they showed their
opportunism in turning towards the Most High God at the time of the
plague, and at present in pretending to descend from Joseph when this
is beneficial to them, but professing to be sojourners and foreigners
unrelated to the Jews when they profit from this. The translation cho-
sen here is supported by the following sentences, which describe the
Samaritans as changing their claim for kinship according to circums-
tance.
The second time this description of them is found in connection
with the retelling of Neh 13 and the establishment of the Samaritan
temple at the time of Alexander the Great:
For such is the nature of the Samaritans [eivsi.n ga.r oi` Samarei/j toiou/toi th.n
fu,sin], as we have already shown somewhere above. When the Jews are in
difficulties, they deny that they have any kinship with them, thereby in-
deed admitting the truth, but whenever they see some splendid bit of good
fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at the connection with them,
saying that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim
and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. Ant 11.341.
The account stresses the opportunism of the Samaritans, to the extent

that they deliberately use different names for themselves:
[Alexander] inquired who they were that made this request [to remit the
tribute in the seventh year]. And, when they said that they were Hebrews
but were called the Sidonians of Shechem, he again asked them whether
they were Jews. Then, as they said they were not, he replied, “But I have
given these privileges to the Jews. However, when I return and have more
exact information from you, I shall do as I shall think best.” With these
words, he sent the Shechemites away. Ant 11.343f.
The term “Sidonians” reoccurs in connection with Antiochus Epipha-

nes in Ant 12.257-264, and Josephus might have done this in order to
create an impression that the Samaritans use whatever they can for
obtaining what they want from the different rulers. The allegation of
opportunism also resurfaces:
But when the Samaritans saw the Jews suffering these misfortunes, they
would no longer admit that they were their kin [suggenei=j autw=n] or that the
temple on Garizein was that of the Most Great God [tou= megi/stou qeou/], the-
reby acting in accordance with their nature [th/| fu,sei poiou/ntej avko,louqa], as
112 M. Kartveit
we have shown; they also said they were colonists [a;poikoi] from the
Medes and Persians, and they are, in fact, colonists from these peoples. Ant
12.257.7
As an historian, Josephus interprets his material and finds system and

pattern. In the case of the Samaritans one of the patterns is that they
were opportunists. The opportunism of the Samaritans shows itself
mainly in the way they depict their origin, according to Josephus. In
addition, it also showed itself in the way that they changed their relig-
ion, depending on the plague that befell them. Admittedly, this was the
result of a divine oracle, so what might seem a religious pragmatism
was in fact divine plan. But the pattern on the human level as far as the
Samaritans were concerned was visible already here, and it was re-
peated several times in connection with their origin. Josephus thus
makes two allegations at the same time: they profess ancestry depend-
ing on the situation, and this reveals a deeper phenomenon, their op-
portunism. He has a biblical source for the first instance of the oppor-
tunism, the religious one, and this he can spin into a larger yarn.
Josephus provides three stories on the origin of the Samaritans:

they were brought in from the east; they were expelled from Jerusalem;
and they were Sidonians.
The First Story: An Eastern Origin
The full version of the story is told only once, in Ant 9.278f., 287-291,
where Josephus expounds 2 Kgs 17, and this forms the basis for the
short repetitions later in Ant. Four times the same story is told, even
with the same king, Salmanassar, mentioned three times, Ant
9.278f.288-291; 10.184; 11.19, 302-347; 12.257-264. This ‘myth’ is thus
consistently told by Josephus.
The basic story is found in Ant 9.278f.: kai. metasth,saj a;lla e;qnh avpo.
Cou,qou to,pou tino,j e;sti ga.r evn th/| Persi,di potamo.j tou/tV e;cwn tou;noma
katw,|kisen eivj th.n Sama,reian kai. th.n tw/n VIsrahlitw/n cw,ran “Moving
other nations from a certain river called the Chouthas—for there is a
river in the country of the Persians bearing this name—he settled them
in Samareia and the country of the Israelites.”8 This story is repeated in
7 Translations of Ant. 11.341, 343f; 12.257 quoted from MARCUS, Jospehus, 365.
8 Translated by BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus, 200.
Ant 10.184, only with additional information on the derivation of the

name ‘Samaritans’ from the name of the landscape ‘Samaria’:
Once Salmanasses had then deported the Israelites, he settled in their place
the nation of Chouthaites [to. tw/n Couqai,wn e;qnoj], who previously were in
the interior of Persia and Media. Thereafter, however, they were called the
Samareians [Samarei/j] getting this name from the country in which they
were settled. Ant. 10.184.9
This text uses the Greek word Samarei/j and not Samarei/tai as in book 9,
but in both cases they are identified as Chuthaeans. The new informa-
tion here is that the name Samarei/j was adopted “because they as-
sumed the name of the country in which they were settled.” Josephus
interprets the name as a gentilicum formed from a geographical name.
At the time of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in the sixth
century Josephus again recaptures the story:
While they [those who came to Jerusalem from the land of their captivity]
were laying the foundations of the temple and very busily engaged in
building it, the surrounding nations, especially the Chuthaeans, whom the
Assyrian king Salmanesses had brought from Persia and Media and settled
in Samaria when he deported the Israelite people, urged the satraps… Ant
11.19.10
The Israelites were deported from Samaria and the Samaritans were
imported there from Chutha/Persia. They were opportunistic in rela-
tion to their kinship with the Jews.
2 Kgs 17:29 refers to the ‫שמרונים‬, LXX: Samarei/tai. Josephus adopts
Samarei/tai in Ant 9.290, and adds Couqai/oi as the corresponding He-
brew term. He then is able to use the whole biblical chapter as an ex-
planation for the origin of the Samaritans. In 2 Kgs 17:24 Chutha is one
of the place-names for the origin of the people deported by the Assyr-
ian king into the northern kingdom after 722 BCE, and Josephus uses
Couqai/oi throughout Ant 9.278f., 288-291. Samarei/tai as used by Jose-
phus most likely comes from the LXX rendering of ‫שמרונים‬. All the more
conspicuous is his Hebrew name for the Samarei/tai as Couqai/oi, which
is neither a translation nor a transliteration of ‫שמרונים‬, but perhaps an
adaptation of oi` a;ndrej Couq, 2 Kgs 17:30 LXX. It seems that a Jewish
expression of his day made it natural to use Couqai/oi, and that the He-
brew name ‫ שמרונים‬for the Samaritans belongs to a later age. He thus
9 Translated by BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus.

10 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus 323.
114 M. Kartveit
adopted a polemical Hebrew term for this group and transliterated it,
rather than a translation or transliteration of the more neutral ‫שמרונים‬.
Couqai/oi had a basis in 2 Kgs 17:30, and the application of this chapter
to the Samaritans is clear in Ant 9.278f., 288-291, so indirectly he laid
the foundation for the later use of ‫ שמרונים‬as a name for the Samaritans.
Compared with the biblical account of 2 Kgs 17, the story in Ant
9.278f., 288-291 has several characteristics. 2 Kgs 17:6 says that the As-
syrian king “carried the Israelites away to Assyria,” but Josephus’ ex-
pression is that he “transported the entire population to Media and
Persia,” Ant 9.278. The MT also does not specify that the entire leaders-
hip was exterminated, but this is his version, perhaps in order to create
a parallel to 2 Kgs 25:18-21 and Ant 10.149.11 The effect of these claims
in Ant 9 is that there can be no connection between the old Israelite
population of the north and the Samaritans.
The deportees are all Chuthaeans, from Chutha in Persia or from
Chutha, the river in Persia,12 even though 2 Kgs 17 mentions five diffe-
rent peoples. Josephus interprets these as five peoples within the cate-
gory of Chuthaeans. This means that the population replacing old Is-
rael are all Chuthaeans = Samaritans.
The Second Story: Origin from Jerusalem and Construction

of the Temple
Given that the Samaritans were deported from the east into Samaria,
they receive a new element through the expulsion of the priest Manas-
seh and his followers from Jerusalem. This is how the cult on Mount
Gerizim came into existence. Josephus presupposes that the Samaritans
existed at this time. Manasseh was married to Nicaso, the daughter of
“Sanaballetēs – he had been sent to Samaria as satrap by Darius, the
last king, and was of the Cuthean race from whom the Samaritans also
are descended”, Ant 11.302.13 Still, the marriage of a Jerusalemite priest
to a Samaritan woman causes what amounts to a second story of the
origin of the Samaritans, Ant 11.302-347.
Josephus may have understood the whole incident to be modelled
upon the brief remark in Neh 13:28, and the time of the incident was
provided by Neh 12:22. If this is correct, Josephus expounds Neh 13:28,
and dates it according to Neh 12:22. In this way he makes the construc-
11 BEGG / SPILSBURY, Flavius Josephus, 200. n. 1084.

12 This is the understanding in the translation of BEGG / SPILSBURY, op. cit., 200.
13 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus, 461.
tion of the temple on Gerizim taking place in the time of Darius, the last
king, and dependent upon the Greek king Alexander. This would have
a negative ring to Roman ears in the days of Josephus; the point of lo-
cating the story to the days of Alexander has an anti-Samaritan pur-
pose. Josephus tacitly corrected the Biblical chronology on occasions
when he thought it appropriate.14 Thus, Josephus creates his second
story by literary means, and it is futile to search for a Sanballat III. As J.
Dušek has shown, there is no evidence in the Wadi Daliyeh bullae for a
governor with this name at the time of the last Persian king.15
The expression ‘Shechemites’ is central to Ant 11.302-347. H.G.
Kippenberg supposes a Shechemite source in Ant 11.302-347, which
would be a Samaritan source, but this is unlikely in view of the par-
lance earlier in Antiquities.16 The expression Sikimi/tai occurs in Ant
5.240f., 243, 247, 248, 250f., where Josephus deals with the rebellious
kingdom in the North under Abimelech, and the Shechemites. Here,
the MT of Jud 9:2, 6,7,18,20,23,24,25,26,39 has ‫בעלי שכם‬, or ‫אנשי שכם‬, and
the LXX has oi` a;ndrej Sikimwn/Sucem. Josephus changes to Sikimi/tai,
thereby creating a link to his contemporaries in Shechem. There are
thus negative associations to the name ‘Shechemites’ from early on.
This expression can not reveal a Samaritan source, since it is negatively
laden from the beginning. Josephus has a broad retelling of the Dinah
story in Gen 34, and here also the name Sikimi/tai occurs, Ant 1.337-340.
Josephus introduces us to the Shechemites by retelling Gen 34 at the
beginning of Antiquities, then they appear at the time of Abimelech, and
he further mentions that the rebellion of Jeroboam against Jerusalem
and the son of Solomon took place in Si,kima, Ant 8.212, 225. The later
Samaritans are branded by the use of the name Sikimi/tai for them.
Josephus follows a practice that can be found in a series of renderings
of Gen 34 from the second century BCE.
It would seem that Josephus through this parlance admits that the
Samaritans had a connection to the original inhabitants of the city, and
this runs counter to his first story: they are immigrants. The underlying
idea might be that the city conferred her characteristics to her later in-
habitants, irrespective of there being a direct descendancy. Josephus is
not consistent in this matter, as he offers three stories of origin, so a
genealogical connection would not have been necessary for him. The
expression Sikimi/tai was negatively charged from books 1 and 5 of
Antiquities, and this fits his purpose.
14 MARCUS, Josephus, Appendix B, 510f.

15 DUSEK, Les manuscrits araméens.
16 KIPPENBERG, Garizim und Synagoge, 50-57.
116 M. Kartveit
Scholars are today often inclined to believe this second explanation

for the origin of the Samaritans, combined with the archaeological evi-
dence from Tell Balata and the Wadi Daliyeh papyri, even if they real-
ize the polemical nature of much of what Josephus writes.17 Many
scholars accept the account by Josephus and try to understand the
problems of the short period of nine months for the construction of the
temple.18
However, the question is whether Josephus here provides accurate
history, or embellishes a biblical remark in order to deliver another
blow at the Samaritans. He gives as the background for this story of the
temple building on Mount Gerizim Manasseh’s ambitions and his mi-
xed marriage, and as the result that “whenever anyone was accused by
the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath
or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites,
saying that he had been unjustly expelled,” Ant 11.347.19 A temple built
for an ambitious priest living in a mixed marriage in violation of the
law attracts unclean people from Jerusalem. This is the Tendenz of his
story, and we should be cautious when we extract historical informati-
on from it.
The Third Story: Sidonians
The third story about the origin is found twice. First, it is embedded in
the second story in the way that the Samaritans—by Josephus here
introduced as Shechemites—request remission for taxes in the seventh
year and Alexander asks who they are.
And, when they said that they were Hebrews but were called the Sidonians
of Shechem, he again asked them whether they were Jews. Then, as they
said they were not, he replied, “But I have given these privileges to the
Jews. However, when I return and have more exact information from you,
I shall do as I shall think best.” With these words, he sent the Shechemites
away. Ant 11.344.20
At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, this origin “myth”: Sidonians of

Shechem, is repeated. Immediately after the passage where Josephus
asserts that they are colonists from Media and Persia (Ant 12.257), we
17 KIPPENBERG, Garizim und Synagoge, 52.57-59.

18 FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 537-539.
19 Translation by MARCUS, Josephus, 483.
20 Translation by MARCUS, Jospehus, 481.
read how the Samaritans tried to alienate themselves from the Jews and
pretend to be related to the Greeks:
Accordingly, they sent envoys to Antiochus with a letter in which they

made the following statements. “To King Antiochus Theos Epiphanes, a
memorial from the Sidonians in Shechem. Our forefathers because of cer-
tain droughts in their country, and following a certain ancient superstition,
made it a custom to observe the day which is called he Sabbath by the
Jews, and they erected a temple without a name on the mountain called
Garizein, and there offered the appropriate sacrifices. Now you have dealt
with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king’s officers, in the
belief that we follow the same practices as they through kinship with them,
are involving us in similar charges, whereas we are Sidonians by origin, as
is evident from our state documents…we are distinct from them [the Jews]
both in race and in customs (h`mw/n kai. tw/| ge,nei kai. toi/j e;qesin avllotri,wn
u`parco,ntwn), and we ask that the temple without a name (avnw,numon ièro.n)
be known as that of Zeus Hellenios (Dio.j ~Ellhni,ou),…” To this petition of
the Samarians [Samare,wn] the king wrote the following reply. “King Antio-
chus to Nicanor. The Sidonians in Shechem have submitted a memorial
which has been filed. Since …they are in no way concerned in the com-
plaints brought against the Jews, but choose to live in accordance with
Greek customs (avlla. toi/j ~Ellhnikoi/j e;qesin ai`rou/ntai crw,menoi zh/n), we
aquit them of these charges, and permit their temple to be known as that of
Zeus Hellenios, as they have petitioned.” Ant. 12.258-263.21
Elias Bickermann and Jonathan Goldstein claim that the documents in

Ant. 12.258-264 are genuine.22 In the words of Goldstein: “Bickerman
solved most of the problems of these documents and proved them au-
thentic.”23
The simpler understanding of the “Sidonians”-story is that the Sa-
maritans are portrayed by Josephus as opportunistic, even to the extent
that they professed themselves Sidonians if they considered this oppor-
tune. R. Coggins remarked that “Sidonians” may have had a negative
ring to it at the time of Josephus. “Sidon” occurs in the HB in the list of
peoples in Gen 10:15.19; 1 Chr 1:13 as the son of Canaan; and further in
the oracles against nations in Isa 23:2. 4.12; Jer 47:4; Ezek 27:8; 28:21f;
Joel 4:4; Zech 9:2; and in the text on the cup of God’s wrath in Jer 25:22.
The simplest understanding of the phrase the “Sidonians of Shechem”
is to assume that MT negative sentiments attached to the expression are
alluded to by Josephus. As “Sidon” was the son of “Canaan,” it was not
21 Translation by MARCUS, Jospehus, 133-137.

22 BICKERMANN, Un document; GOLDSTEIN, Petition of the Samaritans, 523-539.
23 Op. cit., 524.
118 M. Kartveit
difficult to create the combination “Sidonians of Shechem.” By this

combination, the Samaritans were acknowledged as descendants of the
Canaanites, according to the list of nations, but forming a group which
had negative associations in the HB and could be connected to Greeek
customs and therefore seemed suspect in the eyes of the Romans.
Josephus’ emphasis on the “Sidonians” comes on top of his allega-
tions that the Samaritans were Chuthaeans, and also apostates from
Jerusalem. The three theories are hardly compatible. Taken together,
these three origin “myths” are confusing. The first and third compete
with each other, while the second may be combined with either of
them. When Josephus presents three different explanations of the ori-
gin it does not mean that they strengthen each other, but on the con-
trary they weaken each other. Polemics + polemics does not add up to
truth, but shows that whatever was available was used. There will be
facts behind this material, but they are not identical with it. Often, scho-
lars have taken the first to be the true story of the origin, and more late-
ly scholars have concentrated on the second. Josephus has been taken at
face value by Jews and Christians, and even by the Samaritans, when in
their chronicles they modeled their own origin myth on Josephus.
Conclusions
A few methodological points can be made after this survey of some of

the material.
First, to read Josephus with a priori definitions may distort the ma-
terial. We must listen to the voice of Josephus on its own terms. Over-
simplifying the case, one could say that we have to read Josephus as if
we never heard of the Samaritans before, but knew his background and
audience, his Tendenz and intentions.
Secondly, reading Josephus directly as history is not adequate, and
ignores his overall plan and intentions. An attention to his Tendenz and
his readers’ presuppositions is necessary before addressing history.
Only after the literary work is done can one approch the historical
questions.
Thirdly, we cannot be confident that Josephus will answer all our
questions. He may be überfragt, but then we have to respect his terri-
tory, not insist on our own.
Fourthly, to delineate his sources on the basis of his parlance has
proven to be difficult. Similarly, his different designations for groups
are not used according to modern definitions. Trying to find clearly
defined groups behind each designation has been a cul de sac.
The temple on Mount Gerizim is not termed illegitimate, but its

origin is highly dubious. Its destruction at the hands of one of
Josephus’ heroes, Hyrcanus, functions as an act of piety and valour,
War 1, 62f; Ant 13.254-256. Its short, 200-year existence may be sup-
posed to be due to this unlawful origin and an unclean priesthood.
Josephus would not give a high age for the temple of a group he dis-
likes, and he attributes the license to build the temple to an enemy of
Rome—Alexander the Greek—and its destruction to his hero—John
Hyrcanus. If the temple was in fact from an earlier age than that of
Alexander, it existed at the time of the Wadi Daliyeh-papyri and bullae,
and one element in the CROSS-theory would be unfounded, namely that
the temple was constructed by disenfranchised nobility from Samaria
after the hellenization of that city at the hands of Alexander. The tem-
ple may have been founded at a time when there was a Yahweh-temple
in Samaria.
Josephus used 2 Kgs 17, Ezra 4 and Neh 12; 13 polemically and for
his purposes. His use of Neh 12; 13 implied that Jews living in mixed
marriages joined the Cutheans, Ant 11.302f, opening up for the allega-
tion that they were a mixed race. The use of 2 Kgs 17 in Ant 9 created
the possibility that 2 Kgs 17:33 also spoke of the Samaritans: they had a
mixed religion. This polemical use of Scripture might have had their
origin in the attitude of the priests in Jerusalem.
Indirectly, Josephus testifies to a significant group of Samaritans,
existing in his age, and probably much earlier. He presupposes that
there were Samaritans in Egypt shortly after Alexander, and that they
had lived in Samaria from early on. He does not criticize them for ha-
ving a distinct Torah, or halakhah; it seems that they were Jewish in
these respects. A distinct group with the later characteristics had not
emerged at the time of Josephus, but there were people living in Sama-
ria, around Mount Gerizim and focusing on this mountain, with a tra-
dition that there had been a temple there. The limits around this group
were not yet fixed, but they were committed to Mount Gerizim—
enough to maintain hostility to Jerusalem.
Josephus used the expression “The Most High God” for the god of
the Samaritan temple. This may render the divine name in a way ap-
propriate to both Jews and Romans. The temple was ”unnamed,” but
still dedicated to the supreme God. As the inscriptions from Gerizim
were made by Yahweh-worshippers, and the name YHWH has been
found on the mountain, the sanctuary there probably was dedicated to
this Deity. Indirectly, Josephus allows for this.
120 M. Kartveit
Bibliography
AVIOZ, Michael, Josephus’ Retelling of Nathan’s Oracle (2 Sam 7), in: SJOT 20
(2006) 9-17.
BEGG, Christopher T. / SPILSBURY, Paul (eds.), Flavius Josephus, Translation and
Commentary, vol. 5 (Judean Antiquities 8-10), Leiden 2005.
BICKERMANN, Elias, Un document relatif à la persecution d’Antiochos IV
Épiphanes, in: RHR 115 (1937) 188-223 = Studies, II, 105-35;
DUSEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-
332 av. J.-C., (CHANE 30) Leiden 2007.
EGGER, Rita, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner (NTOA 4), Friebourg 1986.
FELDMAN, Louis H., A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus, in: FELDMAN,
Louis H. / HATA Göhei (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History, Leiden
1989, 330-448.
FELDMAN, Louis H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Berlin 1984.
GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A. The Petition of the Samaritans and the Reply of Antio-
chus IV as Preserved by Josephus at AJ xii 5.5.258-64, in: IDEM II Macca-
bees (AB 41A), Garden City 1983, 523-539.
HANHART, Rudolf,, Zu den ältesten Traditionen über das samaritanische
Schisma, in: Eretz Israel 16 (1982) 106-115.
KIPPENBERG, Hans G., Garizim und Synagoge. Traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchungen zur samaritanische Religion der aramäischen Periode, Berlin
1971.
MARCUS, Ralph, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books 9-11 (Loeb Classical Li-
brary No. 326), London 1937.
MASON, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament (2. ed.), Peabody Mass 2003.
NODET, Étienne, Rita Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, in: RB 95
(1988) 288-294.
Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews
ETIENNE NODET
Introduction
This study aims at showing that the Samaritans of Shechem are the
heirs of the early Israelites, and not a downgraded Jewish sect as old
Judean traditions and many modern scholars claim.
Three literary facts prompt an investigation and show the intrica-
cies of the problem. First, there is a contradiction within Josephus’ sta-
tements: in his paraphrase of the biblical account of the origins of the
Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-
41), he says that they have remained faithful to the worship of God
“until this very day”(Ant 9.290), but much later, after the building of a
temple on Mount Gerizim at the end of the Persian period, he holds
that the religion of the Shechemites is just a kind of weakening Judaism
(Ant 11.346). Second, Ben Sirach states that the wicked people (‫)עם נבל‬
who dwell around Shechem are not even a nation (Sir 50:26), but the
context is a praise of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and the high priest Simon
son of Onias, who had rebuilt or repaired the temple of Jerusalem; mo-
reover, according to 2 Macc 5:22 and 6:1-3, both temples were deemed
to belong to “our nation”. Third, when John Hyrcanus invaded the
region of Samaria, he persecuted the Samaritans instead of trying to
bring them back to a decent Judaism, and destroyed their rival temple.
The Gerizim temple seems to have been a major issue for the Jews
regarding the significance of the Samaritans of Shechem. This is all the
more interesting because, besides the pious account in 2 Chron 3-6,
neither Solomon’s temple nor the one envisioned by Ezekiel nor the
work of the returnees with Zerubbabel and Haggai match the rules
stated by Moses. Moreover, we learn from Ezra 3:1-6 that the whole
sacrificial worship according to Moses’ laws could be performed on the
restored altar, without any temple (house). It could be objected that
there is one exception: on the Day of Atonement, the tenth of the se-
venth month, the high priest has to enter the holy place (Lev 16:1-3), so
a temple is needed. However, in the story of Ezra’s proclaiming the law
of Moses to the returnees in the seventh month, there is no room for
122 E. Nodet
such a day: the people are busy studying, preparing and celebrating the
Feast of Booths according to the law of Moses, that is, until the 22nd day,
and then, on the 24th day of that month, comes a penitential celebration
(Neh 8:13-9:1), so that the Day of Atonement is skipped over. In other
words, the rationale of a temple is indeed an issue.
In such a literary context, the recent discoveries on Mount Gerizim
are of groundbreaking importance. We will proceed in four steps.
1. The Gerizim Temple and its significance in the Persian period.
2. Jews and Samaritans in Hellenistic times.
3. The Jerusalem temple and the meaning of King Solomon’s works.
4. The Pentateuch was common to all; what does it say about She-
chem ?
The stress will be on literary analyses; the two latter parts are biblical,
while the two former involve additional sources (Josephus, archeology).
I. The Gerizim Temple: A Challenge?
Josephus relates that by the end of the Persian Period, Sanballat built a
temple similar to that of Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim, and he stresses
that this was the beginning of a dissident faction of less observant Jews.
However, this statement does not square with other things that he says
elsewhere as well as with external sources, as recent excavations there
have unearthed a Yahwist precinct built in the 5th century BCE or ear-
lier, which is devoid of syncretist features.1 The dating is secured
through coins. In fact, there are two major levels: the upper one is a
Hellenistic temple from the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, that is,
after the end of the Lagid period in Coele-Syria, when, after several
wars, Antiochus III (223-187) ended up conquering it. The earlier level
is a large sanctuary built as a stronghold, where a huge amount of ani-
mal bones has been unearthed, but without a shrine. Thus, there were
one or more altars, but no cella. Interesting Aramaic inscriptions come
from this level, such as “In front of God,” “In front of Yhwh;” one Heb-
rew inscription in Aramaic letters reads “What Joseph offered for his
wife and sons in front of Yhwh in the precinct;” the Tetragram in Paleo-
Hebrew letters can be seen engraved on a stone. Many pottery shards
have been collected, including some Attic stoneware from the 5th centu-
ry, but no cultic figurine or image. This Persian building seems to have
been in use for more than two centuries, before and after Alexander’s
campaign (332).
1 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase.

Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews 123
These discoveries, which display a strong Aramaic influence with

Hebrew traces, will allow a reassessment of some known literary sour-
ces: 1. By the time of Zerubbabel, the Samaritans did not have a temple;
2. Josephus states that the Gerizim temple was built under Darius III
(339-331); 3. During the Maccabean crisis, the Samaritans were not yet
separated, but something was cropping up. Later in this essay, the
meaning of the biblical temple will be dealt with, as well as the passage
on the origins of the Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in
722.
Modern scholars distinguish between “Samaritan,” related to the
Yahwist worship of Mount Gerizim and the Shechemites, and “Sama-
rian” for everything connected with the city of Samaria, founded by
king Omri in the 9th century, and the region around it. The rationale of
the distinction is the conviction, popularized by Josephus, that the Mt.
Gerizim worship has always been a late Jewish dissidence, unconnec-
ted to the ancient kingdom of Israel around the city of Samaria. But if
we can show that the Samaritans were ancient Israelites, such a distinc-
tion becomes useless.2
1. A Problem by the Time of the Return from Exile
According to Ezra 3:1-6 the high priest Yeshua and Zerubbabel, when
they arrived at Jerusalem with a sizable crowd of returnees, rebuilt the
altar in its previous place and launched the whole cycle of annual burnt
offerings, starting with the Feast of Booths, as it is written in the law of
Moses, “although the foundations of the temple (‫חיכל‬, oi=koj) of Yhwh
were not yet laid.” This worship matches the prescriptions given in
Num 28-29, which obviously do not necessitate a temple. One may
object that according to Lev 16:1-8 the rite of the Day of Atonement
(Kippur) implies the existence of the Holy Place (or the tent of Meeting);
however, the annual atonement rite described in Ex 30:10 is performed
solely with the altar. This issue is discussed below.
We may observe that erecting an altar of unhewn stones (see Ex
20:25) is not a big task, as can be seen from the patriarchs’ stories, or
from the restoration of the altar of burnt offering by Judas Maccabeus
in 164 (1 Mac 4:44-52). In the following, the word “temple” will only be
used for the closed shrine (‫בית‬, nao,j), and “sanctuary” for an open sac-
2 Extensive use has been made here of PUMMER, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, who
concludes that Josephus is not very consistent; he mainly despises the Samaritans as
being of doubtful Israelite origin, and he follows their sources when they state that
their religion is either true Yahwism, or a kind of downgraded Judaism.
124 E. Nodet
red place, which may include altars and other devices3 (‫מקדש‬, see Jos
24:26).
The commandment to build a temple in the promised land does not
appear in the Pentateuch, even if 2 Chron 1:3 is careful to show that
Solomon’s temple is the heir of the tabernacle in the wilderness. In fact,
the order to build a temple comes from Cyrus4 (Ezra 1:1-3 and 6:3-5).
According to Ezra 3:7-13, the construction begins, but the wording,
with cedar trees from Lebanon, Phoenician workers, Levites and songs
according to the directions of David, refers to Solomon’s time as disp-
layed in 2 Chronicles. This can hardly be taken at face value, since the
allusions to Solomon disappear in the next section (Ezra 4:1-3): the “ad-
versaries of Judah and Benjamin,” after hearing that a temple to the
God of Israel is being built in Jerusalem, approach Zerubbabel and
Yeshua with the request to join the builders, saying: “We worship your
God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him5 ever since the
days of Esar-Haddon, king of Assyria, who let us go up (‫ )המעלה‬here.”
But Zerubbabel and Yeshua refuse, explaining that Cyrus, king of Per-
sia has commanded only them to do the job. They mention neither Mo-
ses nor Solomon.
This meeting includes interesting details. First, the phrase “adver-
saries of Judah and Benjamin” alludes to the rivalry between the two
kingdoms after the secession of the North until the fall of Samaria in 1-
2 Kings, and refers to the northern tribes of Israel, which are called
“Samaritans” in 2 Kings 17:29 (‫שמרנים‬/Samari/tai, the only occurrence of
the word). In contrast, for Josephus, the Samaritans, also called Ku-
theans, are first the Assyrian settlers; he never connects them with Om-
ri’s capital (Ant 10.184). In his paraphrase, Josephus calls the visitors
“Samaritans,”6 but with his later meaning of descendants of the settlers
(Ant 11.84-87).
Second, these enemies do worship God in the same way as Yeshua,
that is, they perform the same sacrifices. They do not say that they des-
cend from the settlers brought in by the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:24
3 In Hebrew ‫מקדש‬, a sacred area, see Ex 15:17; 25:8; Jos 24:26 and below § III.3.
4 The relationship between the two versions of the decree has puzzled scholars, see
WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 6-9.
5 Following Qeré ‫ ולו‬with versions, and not Ketib ‫ולא‬, which would mean “and not us
sacrificing since the days of A.”, an awkward sentence construction.
6 WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 49, mentions after others this interpretation. MOR,
Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period, refuses after many others to view them
as Samaritans, for he accepts Josephus’ statement that they were dissident Jews who
appeared at the end of the Persian Period following the Manasse-Nikaso affair (see
§ 2 below).
‫ )ויבא‬after the deportation by Sargon II in 722, but they use the verb “let
go up” which is typical of the pilgrimages or the entry into the promi-
sed land. Cyrus’ proclamation reads (Ezra 1:3): “Whoever is among you
of all his people, let him go up to Jerusalem.” Moreover, the king who
let them go up is not Shalmanezer (see below § III.2), but king Esar-
Haddon (681-669), a son of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37). In other words,
the enemies pretend to be Israelites who were sent back home many
years before Zerubbabel.7 They worship God in the same way but they
have no temple.
Third, the claim of the enemies has a literary follow-up. After its
completion, the dedication of the temple includes sacrifices for the
twelve tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17), and eventually Passover is celebrated
with a remarkable conclusion (v. 22): “For Yhwh had turned the heart
of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the
temple of God.” Again, the wording of the whole inauguration is typi-
cal of 1-2 Chronicles,8 but the king referred to should be Darius, king of
Persia. “Assyria” should not be viewed as a sloppy mistake, but as a
coded message that now the Jerusalem temple is the only one for all of
Israel, including any ancient returnees. In other words, the new temple
is akin to Solomon’s.
Fourth, this beautiful conclusion – one temple for all the tribes –
does not satisfactorily explain the dismissal of the visitors. Zerubbabel’s
argument is Cyrus’ order, which allows him to avoid any reference to
Solomon. But behind this lie other considerations.
In the general context of Ezra-Nehemiah, we can see that the retur-
nees profess very specific tenets, which seem to be difficult to reconcile
with the customs of local Israelites. Above all, the lengthy list of the
returned exiles (Ezra 2) focuses on genealogy: the people have to be
Jews by birth, including priests and Levites. Some are not allowed to
join, for they cannot prove their descent (v. 59-62). Circumcision is not
mentioned. Thus, the true Israel is the “holy race” (Ezra 9:2) saved from
Babylon, and not the “people of the land.” Such a view is held by the
Prophets, too (Jer 24:1-13; Ezek 3:6-11), but with another perspective:
the hope of return, not its effectiveness.
The newcomers do have special customs, which can be summari-
zed around two points: a discovery of the Pentateuch in Jerusalem and
non-biblical laws. According to Neh 8:1-18, Ezra proclaims the law of
Moses in Jerusalem to the returnees after they have settled. This occurs
7 Jer 41:4-5 mentions Israelites that came from Shechem, Silo and Samaria to worship
Yhwh in Jerusalem.
8 See NODET, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire.
126 E. Nodet
on the first day of the seventh month, then from the second day on the
people study it and learn that they have to build booths in order to
dwell in them for eight days, starting on the 14th. These booths domina-
te over everything, including the courts of the temple, and no sacrifice
is mentioned. This Feast of Booths is deemed to be a new feature, since
it is stated that “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day the
sons of Israel had not done so” (v. 17). Such a reference skips over the
whole period of the Judges and Kings and suggests a new beginning, as
if the returnees, that is the true sons of Israel, were just arriving from
Egypt. The rite itself has something to do with the prescriptions of Lev
23:39-43, which combine a feast of the ingathering at the end of the Year
(see Ex 23:16) and the commandment to dwell in booths as a memorial
of the journey through the wilderness.
Two points should be stressed. First, the people discover a major
precept of Scripture (Lev), which was not alluded to at the time of Zer-
ubbabel’s Feast of Booths according to Ezra 3:1-7, when the sacrificial
cult was restored. Second, the Day of Atonement9 does not appear in
this story, this all the more so since a penitential day occurs instead on
the 23rd of the same month (Neh 9:1). The Day of Atonement is briefly
described in Lev 23:26-32 and Num 29:7-11, with a fast, rest and sacrifi-
ces, but Lev 16 expounds the ritual on a much larger scale in connection
with the temple, as we said above. So we may wonder whether in the
law of Moses proclaimed by Ezra the book of Leviticus is identical with
the one we know.10 Another possibility could be that the story aims at
introducing to the promised land a custom that was not known there,
but only in the Diaspora. A clue to this can be found in an interesting
difference between Philo and Josephus. The former underlines the im-
portance of the booths in every place for the feast and separates them
from the sacrifices in Jerusalem (Spec. leg. 1:189 and 2:204-213), while
the latter, a priest from Jerusalem, ignores the booths as a family rite: in
9 The inauguration of Solomon’s temple overlaps the feast of the Booths in the 7th
month (LXX 1 Reg 8:65-66 et 2 Chron 7:8-10; the MT has been reworked in order to
separate them), and the day of Atonement is absent there (1 Reg 8:4), as in the ritual
of the temple of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 45:18-20).
10 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 217-220, observes that the ritual lacks details; however, there are
ancient parallels that seem to exclude a late introduction of that day. Other explana-
tions have been voiced. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1061-1063, admits some redaction his-
tory and concludes that the rite of Lev 16:2-28 was first the story of an urgent clean-
sing, which was transformed in pre-exilic times into a yearly atonement day (v. 29-
34). LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, gives a status questionis, observes that there is no
consensus, and surmises that it is because modern studies, focusing upon the narra-
tives, neglect the literary and legal structure of Leviticus; he concludes that Lev 16 is
the core of the book. So does GANE, Cult and Character.
Ant 3.244-247, when he paraphrases Lev 23:39-43, he explains that Mo-

ses had told the Israelites to pitch tents in the desert, of course without
any ingathering, and to make an eight-day pilgrimage feast when they
have entered their homeland, without booths or tents.
Later, just before Nehemiah’s second trip, it is reported that a por-
tion of the book of Moses was read to the people, and immediately
“they separated from Israel all that was mixed” (Neh 13:1-3 ‫ויבדילו כל‬
‫ערב‬, evcwri,sqhsan pa/j evpi,miktoj), with the typical words of separation (see
Gen 1:4 f.; Lev 20:24). The plain meaning is the separation from the
people of mixed descent, but the passage quoted is Deut 23:4-6, which
envisions those who shall not enter the assembly of Yhwh: the only
nations permanently excluded are Ammon and Moab; even the Edomi-
tes and Egyptians are accepted after several generations. So the conclu-
sion drawn by the people runs far beyond the quotation. The authority
of the written book covers a precept which is not exactly Biblical.
Again, circumcision is not mentioned. From earlier stories, we learn
that the opponents to Nehemiah include Sanballat the Samaritan, To-
biah the Ammonite as well as prominent people of Judah, a prophetess
and some prophets (Neh 6:14-18). In the sequel, Nehemiah himself,
whose credentials are not indicated, expels other people from Jerusa-
lem, including a son of the high priest Jehoiada who has married a
daughter of Sanballat (Neh 13:28). It really seems that Israelites were
expelled, and we shall see on other grounds that this was so.
Other stories and customs indicate that the link with Moses’ laws
was loose. In Neh 5:1-13, during his tenure as governor, Nehemiah has
to solve a problem of economic oppression among the Jews, but he
ignores the laws of the sabbatical year, which correct this kind of prob-
lem and are later stated in the covenant rules (Neh 10:31). In Neh 13:15-
22, the core of the Sabbath commandment is to close the gates of the
city in order to prevent any trade. This very form of the precept is in-
cluded in the community covenant given in Neh 10:31-40, as well as
others which do not match the written laws of Moses.
As for Ezra’s mission, it can be divided into two parts. First, with
the approval of king Artaxerxes, he brings from Babylon a large group
of exiles (Ezra 7-8). Second, he discovers that “the people of Israel and
the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the
peoples of the land,” so that he proceeds to put away the foreign wives
(Ezra 9-10). We just saw that Nehemiah acts to the same effect. Now the
trespassers, who are termed “the exile” (‫)הגולה‬, include some sons of the
high priest Yeshua the son of Jozadak, priests, Levites, temple atten-
dants and other people. So they belong to the people who came from
Babylon before Ezra. The latter’s authority is given in an odd way (Ezra
128 E. Nodet
7:1-5): his short genealogy promotes him as a kind of high priest, son of
Seraya, but we learn from a longer list11 given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 that
Seraya, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Jozadak or
the grandfather of Yeshua. So Ezra, as a substitute or brother of Joza-
dak, is set one generation before Yeshua and Zerubbabel. Again, this
literary feature is not a mere mistake, but a device to put Ezra and the
people he brought along with him above Zerubbabel and his returned
people, and to state that he is the true heir of the pre-exilic period. The-
re were two waves of migrants, or more accurately, two parties. In fact,
when Nehemiah has rebuilt the walls, he sees that the city is large, but
the people within it are few. Then he discovers the genealogies of those
who have come first, and quotes the very list of Ezra 2.
This overall perspective of the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah has
contaminated the general narrative from the beginning. Zerubbabel
and Yeshua did worship according to the laws of Moses. Moreover,
what has been said above regarding the long list of returned exiles fol-
lows the views of Nehemiah, but this is not satisfactory, for it includes
the sons of Solomon’s slaves and the nethinim, whose descent can hard-
ly be Israelite. The purpose of the list is not to select only Jews, but to
make sure that the people permitted to go to Jerusalem are the descen-
dants of actual exiles from Israel, of whatever period. This gives ano-
ther clue for the hypothesis that the “foreign” wives were just local
Israelites and not daughters of “Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusi-
tes” (referring to Deut 7:1), who were hardly available in the Persian
period.
To sum up, so far we can identify three Israelite parties during the
Persian period. The first one was called “the people of the land,” so-
mewhat related to the ancient northern tribes. The second one, laun-
ched by Cyrus, was a first wave of returned exiles, who eventually built
the temple; they had some intercourse with the local Israelites. Later on
came a third party of Babylonian reformers who did reform,12 but they
stayed at some distance from the temple, albeit urging its proper func-
tioning. Claiming to be the true Israel, they were adamant about sepa-
ration (walls and gates, foreign wives) and enforced customs that were
not quite biblical. This reminds one of the later Pharisee, whose Ara-
maic name means “separated”13: they had strong Babylonian connecti-
ons, insisted on genealogy and followed “oral” traditions.
11 Its length is artificial, for it has been obtained by repeating the same names, see
NODET, La crise maccabéenne 243-253. Josephus has better data (Ant 10.152-153).
12 See JAPHET, Periodization between History and Ideology.
13 See NODET, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians.
These first remarks pose some biblical problems and leave aside
both chronology and the meaning of the temple: according to Ezra 5:1-
2, the building of the temple was prompted by prophets, when Yeshua
and Zerubbabel were somewhat idle in this respect.
2. Ezra, Nehemiah, Josephus. the Israelite Parties
For his biblical paraphrase (Ant 11.183), Josephus did not know the
canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Instead of the latter, his source
knows Nehemiah only as a builder, not as a reformer, which matches
the short praise of Sir 49:13 (Ezra is not mentioned). As for the former,
his source is akin to 1 Esdras (or Esdras A’14 of Rahlfs). This Greek text
is parallel to Ezra, with some omissions, changes of order or wording,
and three major additions: first, 1 Esd 1 is an independent translation of
2 Chron 35-36, a passage which runs from Josiah’s Passover through a
prophecy of Jeremiah’s announcing seventy years of exile; second, Zer-
ubbabel, who appears by the time of Cyrus in Ezra 3, is introduced as
the winner of a contest between king Darius’ pages (1 Esd 3:1-4:46);
third, Neh 8:1-13a is added at the end, that is Ezra’s proclamation of
Moses’ law, but without the Feast of Booths (v. 13b-17). Josephus did
not know 1 Esd 115 and had a longer form of the third addition, since he
mentions the Feast of Booths.
Josephus reworks the chronology. 1 Esdras gives the succession of
the Persian kings as Cyrus-Artaxerxes-Darius,16 under whom the temp-
le is completed. According to the Greek historians this Darius cannot be
earlier than Darius II (423-404), successor of Artaxerxes I (464-424).
Josephus, who knows these historians, replaces Artaxerxes with Cyrus’
son Cambyses (530–522) in order to make sure that Darius is Darius I
(521-486). So the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah is adequately fulfil-
led, and the succession of the high priests makes sense, since Yeshua is
the son of Jozadak, the high priest deported in 587. In fact, most mo-
dern scholars follow Josephus for this chronology.
From Ezra 3:2 through 5:2, Zerubbabel and Yeshua seem to have
had a very long career , under Cyrus, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Artaxerxes
and Darius, that is more than one hundred years. However, their posi-
tion is not quite clear, for according to Ezra 1:7-8, Cyrus consigned the
14 On the reasons to believe that 1 Esdras reflects an earlier version of Ezra, see SCHEN-
KER, La Relation d’Esdras; BÖHLER, On the Relationship.
15 See NODET, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe, LX.
16 Ezra 4:6 adds Xerxes (486-465) between Cyrus and Artaxerxes, but this does not
affect the discussion here.
130 E. Nodet
temple vessels to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, but immediately

after this, Zerubbabel appears as a kind of governor of Judah under
Cyrus (Ezra 3:1). Many commentators have concluded that the same
man had both names.17 Later on, in the second year of Darius, the pro-
phets Haggai and Zechariah urged Zerubbabel and Yeshua to start the
construction (Ezra 5:1-2; Hag 1). By the time of the dedication of the
temple, they have disappeared, while the involvement of the prophets
has not weakened. Interestingly, the works are completed according to
the “decree of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes the king of Persia”
(Ezra 6:14). The wording suggests that the first two ones were charac-
ters of the past. The context indicates that this Artaxerxes was not the
first one, an opponent to the rebuilding of Jerusalem18 (Ezra 4:17-22),
but Artaxerxes II (404-358), son of Darius II. This would mean that the
inauguration took place in the 4th century.19 All this indicates that Zer-
ubbabel and Yeshua provide a literary continuity from Cyrus through
Darius II, and maybe later, but their direct involvement in the temple
building was not outstanding, to say the least.
As a matter of fact, their views were far removed from what we
read in the books of these prophets. According to Hag 2:2-9, in the se-
cond year of Darius, Haggai receives a revelation from God to be han-
ded over to Zerubbabel and Yeshua: they have to build the temple, for
everything is about to be shaken, so that the treasures of all the nations
will come and the temple will be filled with a splendor greater than the
former one. After these events, Zerubbabel will be the (eschatological)
chosen one (v. 23). Zerubbabel is supplied with a Davidic descent by
secondary witnesses (1 Chron 3:19; in 1 Esdras 5:4, followed by Jose-
phus; Mt 1:12), but not by the prophets.
Jozadak and other high priests are operating around an altar, while
the temple, as the dwelling place of God or of God's name, has to be a
radiant center. Such a broad perspective can already be found in Solo-
mon’s dedication of his temple (1 Kings 8:38 LXX20). In the same way,
the vision of Zech 2:12 in the same second year of Darius announces
17 Since TORREY, Ezra Studies.

18 See GARBINI, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, 53-60.
19 Ag. Ap. 1:197-199 quotes Hecateus of Abdera, who describes a walled sanctuary that
includes an altar of unhewn stones and a building with an incense altar and a cand-
lestick, both in gold. Hecateus knew the beginnings of the Lagid period in Egypt. He
would witness the Jerusalem temple before the repairs under Antiochus III, but the
genuineness of the passage is controversial, see STERN, Greek and Latin Authors,
I:22-24.
20 The MT restricts it to Israel, but this is a gloss, see SCHENKER, Septante et texte mas-
sorétique, 139.
that after a disaster “many nations shall join themselves to Yhwh,” who
has roused himself from his holy dwelling. Yeshua is restored in his
splendor (3:5-7). An oracle says that a man called “branch,” somehow
connected with “Zerubbabel,” is to build the temple of Yhwh (4:8; 6:12-
13). These eschatological visions, linked to the temple, have a much
broader scope than the sacrificial worship, which is costly (Zech 14:21):
“And there shall no longer be a trader in the temple of Yhwh on that
day.” The intervening of the foreign king Cyrus is viewed in Is 45:1-7 as
the very beginning of a universal recognition of the only God. The dif-
ference from the Zerubbabel narrative of Ezra 3 is blatant. It squares
with the difference between temple and altar.
Incidentally, the genealogies of 1 Chron 5 and Ezra 7 are definitely
of symbolic value, but they cannot be taken as accurate, which permits
us not to give Yeshua too high a chronology. As for the reformers Ezra
and Nehemiah, who are both related to an Artaxerxes favorable to the
Jews, they – or more probably the party they represent – should be put
under Artaxerxes II (404-358), not far from the completion of the temp-
le.
This section allows us to refine the definition of the three Israelite
parties during the Persian period, because of the prophets and the low
involvement of Zerubbabel in the temple building. To the first, called
“the people of the land,” should be joined the first returnees at the time
of Cyrus or probably later; they do have intercourse and sacrifice upon
altars like the ones on mount Gerizim. The second one, let us say under
Darius II, can be called “prophetic;” its action resulted in the building
of a temple, hence the later fame of Jerusalem, supposed to be the only
dwelling place of God. The third party, represented by Ezra and Ne-
hemiah, came later (Artaxerxes II) and launched reforms.
3. The Gerizim Temple. Josephus
The only ancient source on the building of the Gerizim temple is Jose-
phus (Ant 11.302-347), but his account is difficult, for it combines seve-
ral discrepant sources and has obvious legendary aspects. It is framed
by some pieces of general history under Darius III and Alexander. It is
convenient to divide it into two blocks. The first follows in three parts.
1. (§ 302-303) The high priest Jaddua son of Johanan (son of Jehoia-
da) has a brother Manasseh who married Nikaso, a daughter of Sanbal-
lat, a Samaritan satrap of Samaria. Manasseh agreed, for he wanted to
get closer to Jerusalem and its fame. This happened around the time of
the murder of Philip, the father of Alexander, in 336 (§ 304-305).
132 E. Nodet
2. (§ 306-308) The elders of Jerusalem, eventually joined by the high

priest, object to this marriage, arguing that the misfortunes and exile
were caused by such unions.
3. (§ 309-312) Then Manasseh approaches Sanballat, who, with the
consent of King Darius, begins to build a temple like the one in Jerusa-
lem for him on Mt. Gerizim. Manasseh hoped soon to be appointed
high priest, for Sanballat was aging. Helped by Sanballat, many priests
and Jews who had married in the same way join Manasseh.
Some comments are appropriate. The “elders,” who oblige Sanbal-
lat to alter his plans, are reformers, since many have married Samaritan
women without being faulted. The allusion to the exile suggests that
this new party of “elders” has come from Babylonia recently. We saw
above that Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of Sanballat, who was a
son of the high priest Jehoiada; this is a different tradition of the same
event, with a discrepancy of one generation. So Nehemiah, in his se-
cond trip to Jerusalem, belongs to the party of the elders, who argue
similarly to him, when he expels the foreign wives. He says that in spite
of his wisdom, Solomon was led to idolatry by foreign wives, which
was the very beginning of the fall of his kingdom (Neh 13:26; see
1 Kings 11:1-13). These foreigners are just Samaritans or local Israelites.
Now the change in Sanballat's project is significant: first to get closer to
the fame of Jerusalem, then to build a parallel temple. The fame is lin-
ked to the temple, not to the altars that had been extant for a long time ,
as shown by the recent excavations.
From a literary point of view, this story implies that the reformers
showed up some time after the completion of the temple, which mat-
ches the conclusions in the previous section.
The second block, which is introduced by Alexander’s victory over
Darius at Issus in 333 (§ 313-317a), is more complex, for what concerns
the Gerizim splits into two narrative threads that can hardly be reconci-
led.
1. (§ 317b-320): Alexander, besieging Tyre, sends to the high priest
of Jerusalem for help, but the latter refuses out of faithfulness to Darius.
2. (§ 321-325): Sanballat abandons Darius, goes to Tyre with eight
thousand men and submits to Alexander. He explains that he wants to
build a temple in order to divide the power of the Jews. With Alexan-
der’s consent, he builds it in nine months and dies by the time Alexan-
der, after taking Tyre and Gaza, heads to Jerusalem to punish the high
priest for his refusal.
3. (§ 326-339): The legend of Alexander coming to Jerusalem, chan-
ging his mind miraculously after seeing the high priest of God, and
granting favors to the Jews in Judea, Babylon and Media. Many Jews
join him on his way to Egypt.
4. (§ 340-345): Hearing of the favors granted to the Jews, the Samari-
tans come and meet him to receive the same treatment, proclaiming
themselves to be Jews and inviting him to see their temple. Alexander,
who never heard of them, asks who they are; being told that they are
Hebrews but not Jews, he refuses, but takes Sanballat’s soldiers to settle
them in Egypt.
5. (§ 346-357): After Alexander’s death, the Gerizim temple remai-
ned and attracted Jews expelled from Jerusalem for violating the laws.
From the side of the Samaritans, there are two stories, with a kind
of bridge formed by Sanballat’s soldiers. In the first story with Sanbal-
lat, the Samaritans are somehow Jews with more lenient laws if we
follow the previous block and the conclusion here; their temple is new.
In the second one, without Sanballat, the Samaritans are not Jews but
are faithful to the laws, and their temple was extant before Alexander’s
arrival. One may observe that the Gerizim temple is built in a very
short time span, and that Sanballat’s death happens at the right time.
Now if we remove Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem as being legenda-
ry, the sum total of the story around two points is clear. First, Alexan-
der has taken some Samaritans or Hebrews to settle them in Egypt but
has not touched their laws. Second, the Gerizim construction remains
connected with Sanballat, but not with Alexander. If this is the case, the
first block above indicates that it has been done with the consent of a
King Darius, but the chronological frame given by Josephus, the end of
the Persian period, is quite artificial, for the event is linked to the action
of the party of the “elders,” which above was put under one Artaxer-
xes.
Regarding Alexander’s campaign, ancient sources21 do speak of
Samaria, but not of Jerusalem. On his way to Egypt, he actually besie-
ged Tyre and then Gaza, and at some point his general Parmenion ap-
pointed one Andromachus commander in Coele-Syria. But the latter
was assassinated by the Samaritans. When Alexander returned from
Egypt in 331, he punished the offenders and settled Macedonian colo-
nists in Samaria. Josephus’ account implies some kind of meeting bet-
ween Alexander’s staff and the Samaritans, but ignores these facts;
however, the discovery in 1962 of some two hundred skeletons in a
cave in the Wadi Daliyeh22 (southern Samaria) with papyri and coins
21 See SCHÜRER / VERMES, History of the Jewish People, 160.

22 See the major study of DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh.
134 E. Nodet
dating to the end of the Persian period seem to witness to a harsh pu-
nishment.
By the time of Alexander, we clearly see two parties. The more an-
cient is Israelite in the proper sense, with priests and two temples. It is
the outcome of three phases: early Israelite worship on altars, building
of the Jerusalem temple (prophets), copying it on Mt. Gerizim. The
more recent is the party of the “elders” in Jerusalem, which strives to
promote a pure Judaism. It has been related to Ezra and Nehemiah. In
Ant 11.140-145, Josephus paraphrases the expulsion of the foreign wi-
ves by Ezra (Ezra 9:1-2; 1 Esd 8:65-67) with the same allusion to the
cause of the disasters. Ezra acts after a denunciation of intermarriage23
by “the officers” (‫שרים‬, h`gou,menoi), in whom we can recognize the “el-
ders.” Josephus does not see a relationship between this and the Nikaso
story, for since he closely follows his source, he understands that the
matter is plainly due to foreign wives and concludes that Ezra’s reform
remained fixed for the future. This indicates that even for him all the
“foreign wives” around the Nikaso affair were Samaritan.
4. High Priests, Sanballat, Chronology
The succession of the Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period
is not very clear. The main lists are given somewhat independently of
each other in Neh 12:10-11 and Ant 11.297 and differ as regardsone
name (Jonathan/Johanan); some fragments appear elsewhere. Within
Neh 12 we note some discrepancies; rather than plain sloppiness, they
could be a sign that the high priests are not too important in a book
whose major character is Nehemiah, a layman.
23 Contrarily to his source, Josephus only speaks of the purity of the priests, but this
was a major issue for him and his time (Ag. Ap. 1:30-31), see SCHWARTZ, Doing like
Jews.
Neh 12:10 f. Neh 12:22 Neh 12:23 Neh 13:28 Ezra 10:6 Ant 11.297 f.
Yeshua (Yeshua)
Joiakim (Joiakim)
Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib
Joiada Joiada Johanan Joiada Johanan Joiada
Jonathan Johanan (Manasseh) Johanan
+Joshua
Jaddua Jaddua Jaddua
+Manasseh
The Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period.
Josephus, who is very careful about this succession, states that Jozadak
was in charge by the time of the deportation (Ant 10.150), and that Jad-
dua’s tenure extended until Alexander’s arrival, that is six generations
in some 255 years. This is not impossible,24 but other considerations
have to be introduced.
The study of the story of Alexander has shown that the constructi-
on of the Gerizim temple, linked to Sanballat, was completed under a
King Darius. As for the legend of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and his
greeting the high priest Jaddua, it cannot be conclusive. But there are
other clues. The main one is that the high priest Johanan was in charge
in 410, under Darius II, for he is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri.25
So Jaddua must definitely be severed from the time of Alexander. A
confirmation can be found in the same Elephantine document: it is a
letter to Bagohi, the governor of Judea, and Josephus reports a very
strange event during the tenure of both Johanan and Bagohi (Bagoas),
but under one Artaxerxes; either Josephus confused the kings or the
episode happened after Darius’ death under his successor Artaxerxes II
(404-358).
Other clues entail problems. Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of
Sanballat, one of his permanent enemies, under one Artaxerxes, but
according to Josephus, this son-in-law, whose name was Manasseh was
expelled by the “elders” under the last Darius. The same Elephantine
document mentions Sanballat (line 28) as governor of Samaria and his
sons Delayah and Shelemyah; some commentators have surmised that
Sanballat was already dead and that one of these sons was his succes-
sor. In any case, he was in charge under Darius II and perhaps before.
24 So concludes VANDERKAM, From Yeshua to Caiaphas.

25 COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30-31, 108-122.
136 E. Nodet
The Wadi Daliyeh documents mention a governor Sanballat in charge

at the beginning of the 4th century. All these data cannot be reconciled
without some assumptions.
Early Further Dušek A New

Persian Kings Josephus Synthesis26 Synthesis27 (Elephantine, Proposal
(Elephantine) (W. Daliyeh) W. Daliyeh) (altar/–temple)
Cambyses 529 Samaritans
Darius I 521 Jerusalem
temple (altars)
Xerxes 486 Ezra
Samaritans
Nehemiah
Artaxerxes I (Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat I, Sanballat, Nehemiah I
464 Nehemiah, Nehemiah (governor)
Nikaso I,
Gerizim
Darius II 423 Sanballat I, Sanballat, Prophets
(Nehemiah) Nikaso, Jerusalem
Gerizim temple
Sanballat
Johanan
Artaxerxes II (Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat II Bagohi
404 “Elders”
Ezra-Neh II
Gerizim temple
Artaxerxes III Bagohi Sanballat II Jaddua
358
Darius III 338 Sanballat, Nikaso, Sanballat III
Nikaso, Gerizim Nikaso II
Alexander 333 Gerizim Onias
Some views on Sanballat
– Josephus, who wants to stress the continuity with the pre-exilic

period, locates Ezra and Nehemiah under Xerxes, after the completion
of the Jerusalem temple under Darius I. But after this, he has only
Esther to fill up the period until the Bagohi story.
26 Taken up by ESHEL, Governors of Samaria.

27 CROSS, The Papyri and their Historical Implications.
– After the discovery of Elephantine, it is clear that Sanballat under

Darius II could not be identical with the one of Josephus, hence a first
doubling by papponymy, in order to maintain the succession of the
high priests (according to Josephus).
– The papyri from the W. Daliyeh mention Sanballat somewhere in
between, hence a tripling by papponymy, in order to save both the
Jerusalem temple under Darius I and the succession of the high priests.
– Then a new synthesis was suggested, based solely on archaeolo-
gical evidence (documents, excavations). Josephus and Ezra-Nehemiah
are discarded as unreliable, so that only one Sanballat survives. Howe-
ver, the link between Sanballat and the Gerizim temple is not very
clear.
– This new suggestion embraces both the antiquity of the Samari-
tans and the later fame of Jerusalem by introducing for the cult a dis-
tinction between the altar, that is the Pentateuch requirement, and the
temple as God’s dwelling place, a later feature which appeared first in
Jerusalem and was copied on Mt. Gerizim. This way, the general outli-
ne of Josephus’ non-biblical accounts, but not his chronology, makes
sense in connection with the action of the “elders” and Sanballat’s pro-
jects. As we shall see below, the man Nehemiah has to be split into the
builder (Sir 49, Josephus) and the reformer, who is akin to the “elders.”
5. Ezra, Nehemiah. The Characters and the Books
But more has to be said on the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, for they inclu-
de much more than the reformers.28 For political reasons Artaxerxes I
was opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem but not of the temple (Ezra
4:17-23); the conclusion says that work on the temple ceased, but this is
a redactional wrapping, since it is actually supposed to have begun
under Cyrus. So the Artaxerxes who sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusa-
lem (Neh 2:6) can hardly have been the same king; it seems that he
should have been Artaxerxes II, under whom the construction of the
temple was completed. However, he was working in Jerusalem by the
time of the high priest Elyashib, father or grandfather of Johanan, the
high priest in charge by the time of Darius II. Therefore, he was actually
sent by Artaxerxes I, who changed his mind. This is not impossible,
since in his letter to the local officials he tells them to decree that the
city not be rebuilt until he himself has issued a decree. Now, according
to Neh 5:14, Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judah from the 20th
28 See ESKENAZI, In an Age of Prose.

138 E. Nodet
to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, and later obtained a leave for his second
trip (13:6). As for Ezra, in King Artaxerxes' seventh year, he was sent
(Ezra 7:8) with the mission to enforce the laws of his God everywhere,
and there is a list of priests and Levites of different periods (Neh 12:12-
26), which concludes: “These were in the days of Joiakim son of Yeshua
son of Jozadak and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra
the priest scribe.” So they must have been contemporaneous.
But such a conclusion is unlikely. If we take an overview of the
book of Nehemiah, we obtain a clear picture: after Nehemiah as gover-
nor has rebuilt Jerusalem and restored some social order, Ezra pro-
claims the law of Moses, then follows a covenant, and at the end, after
various lists, Nehemiah comes back to enforce the new regulations; the
city walls symbolize the separation demanded by the law. But such an
outline is a construct, since according to the dates given, they cannot
have been contemporaneous. Scholars have tried to put Ezra before
Nehemiah under the same Artaxerxes,29 or Nehemiah before Ezra un-
der two different kings,30 but neither solution works properly, for in
each case, the historians must omit some passages in their syntheses in
order to avoid contradictions.31 Now if we look at Nehemiah’s second
trip, as a reformer, it displays at least two strange features: first he ob-
tains a leave from the king, with no special mission or authority; howe-
ver, he vigorously realizes his reforms without any opposition. Second,
the king is named “Artaxerxes king of Babylon,” instead of “Persia,” a
significant anachronism. Thus, in spite of the fact that the story is writ-
ten as memoirs in the first person32 (see 2 Macc 2:13), this is just a piece
of literature, built upon some facts or traditions, which aims at showing
that the reforms were successful.
The above discussion of the passages from Josephus has shown that
the party of the “elders”, to which belongs Nehemiah as reformer, ap-
peared after the completion of the Jerusalem temple, that is under Ar-
taxerxes II. So Nehemiah's second trip could easily be put under “Arta-
xerxes,” giving a sense that he still had the authority of a governor. So
we may call this reformer “Nehemiah II.” Incidentally, as regards the
redaction history, it should be remembered that Josephus did not know
of Nehemiah as a reformer. As for Ezra, who acts only as a reformer, he
29 Thus DE VAUX, Israël and CROSS, A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, with
three Sanballats.
30 Since VAN HOONACKER, Néhémie et Esdras; see the review of WIDENGREN, The
Persian Period, 504 f.
31 STERN, The Persian Empire, 74; ACKROYD, The Jewish Community in Palestine, 138
n. 2 and 148.
32 See W RIGHT, Rebuilding Identity.
is aptly put under the same Artaxerxes, and there is a minor clue to this
effect: according to Ezra 9:6 Ezra, after making a covenant with the
people, withdrew to “the chamber (‫ )לשכת‬of Johanan son of Elyashib,”
where he spent the night fasting and praying. This was not a private
house, and he had no meeting with anyone. This chamber seems to
have been named after a late high priest, who was in office under Dar-
ius II.
The actual Nehemiah was a governor and a builder, while the re-
former is a kind of impersonation with his memoirs. We may ask whe-
ther Ezra, a reformer who wrote memoirs in the first person, was a
similar fiction. In the praise of the Fathers in Ecclesiasticus Sirach, Ne-
hemiah is given one line as the restorer of the walls and the gates and
the houses, but not as a reformer, and Ezra the reformer is ignored (Sir
49:13). In the sequel, Simon son of Onias is praised for having repaired
the temple (50:1-2). The author addresses his wisdom book to anyone
who fears God (1:1-14), as the translator stresses in his prologue. All
this forms a pattern in striking contrast with the mindset of the refor-
mers, who in some way are not deemed to be “Fathers.”
Over against this, the book of Nehemiah conveys the impression of
an overall acceptance of the reforms.33 However, we can see that a
struggle between parties has been smoothed over, for some significant
traces have been left. Nehemiah is a layman from Babylon who wants
the worship to be performed properly, but the temple is never his main
concern. He focuses on the walls. Once they are repaired and the doors
set up, gatekeepers, singers and Levites are appointed at the gates (Neh
7:1-2; 13:22); the walls are solemnly dedicated, with two groups in pro-
cession visiting the gates and reaching the temple at the end to offer
sacrifices. But if we follow the movement on a map, it appears that the
enclosure of the dedicated walls does not include the temple itself. A
separate district has been created, with all the signs of a holy place.
This should not be surprising, as the construction work of Nehe-
miah splits into two different pictures. He is officially sent by Artaxer-
xes, who grants him every kind of help, but when he comes to Jerusa-
lem, he first hides for three days and then secretly, by night, inspects
some dilapidated walls and gates within the same small area of the
later dedication (Neh 2:8-16). In the sequel he recovers his position as
governor and launches the work (2:17-18), but again the construction is
run at two levels: on the one hand, the high priest Elyashib presides
over an overall overhaul of the walls and gates, having recruited wor-
kers from almost everywhere in Judea, but Nehemiah himself is not
33 See W RIGHT, A New Model.

140 E. Nodet
mentioned (Neh 3). On the other hand, Nehemiah and his followers
finished the wall in fifty-to days (6:15), in spite of opponents who for-
ced him to organize a defense system day and night (4:10-23). In fact,
there were two kinds of opponents: from outside the city, Sanballat,
Tobiah and others are very vocal from the outset, after Nehemiah has
received his mission (2:10); from the inside, we hear of prominent Jews,
a prophetess and some prophets (Neh 6:16-19), who join the first group.
Thus, in the book Nehemiah the reformer has put on the garments of
the governor, so that the general outline is consistent, but behind this,
we see that the party of the Babylonian reformers has set up a special
protected area of reformed people. There is no reason to separate
Elyashib’s work from the governor Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I, but
the reform party surged up later.
The Books of Chronicles display a set of views that can be summa-
rized in a couple of tenets: the law of Moses is cited everywhere; the
Jerusalem temple, which to a large extent reproduces Moses’ sanctuary
in the wilderness, is the cultic center of all the tribes of Israel; the wors-
hip is organized according to David’s regulations; at the end, Cyrus’
decree is quoted, with an invitation to whoever belongs to all the peop-
le of the God of heaven to go up to Jerusalem. The ideology is that men
are rewarded according to their deeds, or that they build their own fate,
as shown by the reworking of the story of Josiah: his unexpected death
(2 Kgs 23:29-30) is now the result of his stubborn refusal to obey God
(2 Chr 35:20-25). Many scholars have thought that the books of Ezra
and Nehemiah were written by the “Chronicler,”34 but all this has no-
thing to do with the goals of the reformers, who focus upon a narrow
Israel. However, a layer of these views has surfaced in Ezra 3 and 6 – let
us call it a final editing –, when the temple construction begins in a
liturgical manner (3:10-13), and when the worship is set up according
to the rules written in the “book of Moses,” that is Chronicles, with its
references to the law of Moses; sacrifices are made for the twelve tribes.
In the book of Nehemiah the same layer is to be detected in the liturgi-
cal inauguration of the walls, and maybe in the various genealogies of
priests, Levites and other people given at random places.
6. Conclusion
The starting point of this study was the similarity between Zerubba-
bel's and Yeshua's worship without a temple Yeshuawhen they arrived
34 Until the study of JAPHET, The Supposed Common Authorship.

in Jerusalem (Ezra 3:1-6), and what has been discovered of the Samari-
tan sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim without a temple, dating from the 5th cen-
tury or earlier. This has prompted a study of Josephus on the Samari-
tans and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Josephus is not very
accurate and the stories he reports are always suspect as regards legen-
dary or biased reworking, but instead of focusing upon unreliable
events, we have considered that they have been remembered and
transmitted through patterns of thinking that were provided by some-
times conflicting institutions and customs.
Ezra and Nehemiah are very complex books with a difficult redac-
tional history. They efficiently resist any easy narrative or historical
interpretation, in spite of many references to Persian kings. We have
looked for traces of institutions and customs, but also believe that unli-
ke Josephus’ works, these books have been carefully written, which
means that any discrepancy or strange wording is not a mistake but a
kind of “signal” inviting further scrutiny – very biblically: the stories
always have an aspect of broken history, as if they were sloppily writ-
ten.
The discoveries of Elephantine, Wadi Daliyeh and Mt. Gerizim ha-
ve provided additional clues and refinement for dating. Together with
the literary sources, they have allowed us to follow the scholars who
accept one Sanballat only, the powerful Samaritan governor in charge
during the reigns of Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and perhaps Artaxerxes II.
The implication has been to discard to a large extent the historical au-
thority of the canonical books and to have a very cautious approach to
Josephus because of his lack of critical discernment. Then, after dealing
with some of their “signals,” it has been necessary to distinguish bet-
ween the historical Nehemiah, a builder, and a symbolic reformer to
whom his authority is attributed (called Nehemiah II)
Some conclusions have emerged.
– We have shown the usefulness of the distinction drawn between
the altar upon which all sacrifices can be performed according to the
law of Moses, and the temple as the dwelling place of God, demanded
by foreign kings (from Cyrus to Darius II) and the prophets, with a
flavor of universal monotheism. Erected first in Jerusalem around the
end of the 5th century, it was copied on Mt. Gerizim some time later.
– Three Israelite parties have been identified. The first one, the most
traditional, is represented at various periods by Zerubbabel, Yeshua
and Sanballat. They had parallel sanctuaries without temples at Jerusa-
lem and Mt. Gerizim. They are local Israelites as well as returned exiles.
Incidentally, the numerous “Jewish” colonies in Egypt, including Ele-
phantine, belong to this party, and should be called Israelite. The se-
142 E. Nodet
cond one, represented by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, promo-

ted the building of a temple, with due respect for the high priests. The
third party, represented by Josephus’ “elders” as well as Ezra and Ne-
hemiah II, was of Babylonian origin and wanted reforms, including of
the high priesthood; it could not accept the Samaritans. A tiny thing to
begin with, it succeeded in erecting a separate, walled area. It eventual-
ly overshadowed the other ones in Judea, which were merged in some
way, for the later Hasmonean state as well as the Pharisees were the
outcome of this trend. By the time of the Samaritans, only the first party
was extant: they had neither prophets nor reformers, at least not with
the same significance.
– The succession of the high priest in Jerusalem is quite clear at the
beginning of the Persian period, but there is a gap at the end. We may
surmise that some of them moved to Egypt because of the reform party;
in any case, the very name of the first priest of the Hellenistic period
after Alexander, Onias, indicates an Egyptian connection, as we shall
see below. It may well be that the legend of Alexander bowing down
before a Jerusalem high priest reflects the latter's help in this respect,
but no evidence is available and it is doubtful that he actually created a
Jewish quarter in Alexandria, in spite of a seemingly clear reference in
an edict of Claudius issued in 42 CE (Ant 19.279-285).
These conclusions involve some biblical problems35 of which the
most conspicuous is a permanent Judean or Jewish bias.36 For the pre-
sent study, three should be considered, besides the peculiar features of
Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles: first, the significance of Solomon’s
temple, for the Persian restoration hardly mentions it, if we accept the
literary layer of the “Chronicler;” second, the position and authority of
Deuteronomy, which the returned exiles seem to have discovered in
Jerusalem (Neh 13:1-3), and which demands only one “chosen place;”
third, the possibility of a sacrificial cult without a temple renews the
question of the origin and authority of the chapter on the Day of Ato-
nement37 (Lev 16).
35 In this respect, it is useful for any text to draw a distinction between redaction and
religious or legal authority, see KNOPPERS / LEVINSON, The Pentateuch as Torah, 1-
19.
36 The issue is clearly defined by NIHAN, The Torah between Samaria and Judah.
37 In this respect, the proposal of Mary DOUGLAS (Leviticus as Literature) is suggestive:
considering that the only two pieces of narrative are transgressions with major con-
sequences (Lev 8-10 and 24:10-22), she sees them as representing the veils that di-
vided the temple into three parts. This view has been criticized (see the review of
LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, 220-228), but one of its merits is to include the “chosen
place” of Deut in the Holy of Holies (see Lev 26-27).
In order to shed some more light upon the Persian period,38 the next
step will be a discussion of the adjacent periods; we will consider first
the Hellenistic period, to see how the relationship between Samaritans
and Jews developed, and then some pre-exilic features around the sig-
nificance of the Solomon temple.
II. Jews and Samaritans in the 2nd Century.

The Onias Temple
By the time of the Maccabean crisis, two full-scale temples were extant,
Jerusalem and Gerizim. The author of 2 Macc 5:22-6:3 does not find
fault with this. For him, after the fall of Onias, the best high priest, the
Hasmonean high priesthood and state are unimportant,39 for he states
that since Judas Maccabeus’ victory over Nikanor in 161, Jerusalem has
been in the possession of the Hebrews (15:37), while we learn from
1 Macc 13:51 that the independence of Jerusalem did not happen before
142, with Simon son of Mattathias. The book is in fact a foundation
narrative for the commemoration of this victory on the 13th of Adar,
defined as “the day before Mordechai’s day.” This reference to the feast
of Purim, which is not given in the parallel story in 1 Macc 7:49, is quite
interesting, for the book of Esther reports a persecution of the Jews in
Susa followed by a providential salvation on the spot, without any
allusion to a homeland (Judea, Jerusalem). Passover, as the beginning
or end of a liberation toward a promised land, is ignored, since Esther
proclaims a three-day fast on the 13th of the first month,40 while Passo-
ver falls on the 14th. The author of 2 Maccabees has the perspective of a
pilgrim. For him, the presence of God in the temple matters much more
than the altar and sacrifices.
The origin of the new Hasmonean dynasty was Judas Maccabeus,
an heir of the reformers of the third party,41 who could not accept any
Hellenization. The Samaritans had to deal with this, as we can see in
two episodes, one in 166 during the Jewish uprising, the other around
150 in Alexandria, with a contest as regards the right temple.
38 VELÁZQUEZ, The Persian Period, poses goods questions, but still focuses upon Judah.
39 See Robert DORAN, Temple Propaganda. The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees,
Washington, CBA, 1981, p. 84-90.
40 N. L. COLLINS, “Did Esther Fast on the 15th Nisan ? An Extended Comment on
Esther 3:12”, RB 100 (1993), p. 533-561, strives to maintain that Esther did celebrate
Passover, by introducing calendar discrepancies; but this is impossible, for the only
reference is the actual moon, as clearly seen by b.Meg 15a.
41 See NODET, La crise maccabéenne, 212-242.
144 E. Nodet
1. The Samaritans’ Distrust
Josephus introduces and quotes a petition (supplique) by the Samari-

tans to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king (175-164), at the time
when Judas Maccabeus set up his rebellion (Ant 12.258-264).
42
To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians,
43
who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent droughtss in
their country, and following a certain ancient superstition, made it a cus-
tom to observe of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sab-
bath. And when they had erected a temple (ièro,n) without a name at the
mountain called Gerizim, and there offered the proper sacrifices. Now you
have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king’s offi-
cers, believing that through kinship with them we practice as they do, ma-
ke us liable to the same accusations, although we are originally Sidonians,
as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech you, our bene-
factor and savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of
the country, and to Nikanor, the procurator of your affairs, to give us no
(
disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused of, since we
are aliens from their nation and from their customs (e;qesin); but let the
temple without a name be called that of Jupiter Hellenius. When this is do-
ne, we shall be no longer disturbed, and shall be more intent on our own
occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to you.
Antiochus’ acceptance is also quoted, with a date corresponding to

summer 166, and we can surmise that the petition was issued that same
year. The authenticity of this letter has been established by E. Bicker-
man,44 but many scholars find it difficult to understand, for it seems to
be a plain statement of apostasy, as stressed by Josephus himself in his
introduction. But this cannot be reconciled with other documents that
witness to the faithfulness of the Samaritans. In fact, it is a fine piece of
diplomacy, carefully worded. The key to understanding it is the inten-
ded meaning of “Jews.” By underlining their ancient local origin, the
Samaritans point to the opposite for the Jews. This becomes clear if we
consider the two Jewish parties in Jerusalem: a more ancient one (in-
cluding the prophetic trend) akin to the Samaritans, and newcomers,
42 By metaphor, Sidon became the whole of Phoenicia, so that the Phoenicians were
named Sidonians, see Iliad 6:290, 23:743; Odyssea 4:84. On coins minted by Antio-
chus IV Epiphanes, Tyre is named “metropolis of the Sidonians”. The king of Sidon
had the title “king of the Sidonians of Sidon.” A Marissa inscription mentions Sido-
nians. See APICELLA, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique.
43 Variant: “because of frequent pestilences.”
44 BICKERMAN, Un document relatif.
Ezra-like returnees from Babylonia, who brought along specific cus-

toms and rejected any kinship with local Israelites. The petition is care-
ful to avoid any Israelite or Hebrew identity, as well as circumcision or
Moses’ laws.
As for the rededication to Zeus of the anonymous temple, it is a
minor concession. Herodotus (2.52), followed by Strabo, reports that by
his time there were only some primitive small tribes left that were
worshiping anonymous gods. He does not mention the Phoenician
anonymous divinities, for they were always given Greek names. The
inhabitants of Tyre used the Greek name for their protector Herakles,
but at home he was invoked as “Master of Tyre” or “King.” Zeus and
Herakles were just the Greek names of Baal shamen and Melqart.45 Ho-
wever, a new name could sometimes come along with a new cult. For
instance, Menander of Ephesus, an historian of the 2nd century BCE,
reports that king Hiram I of Tyre altered the sanctuaries on a broad
scale: he joined the island where a temple of Zeus stood to the city, and
demolished the previous Phoenician temples in order to build new
ones to Herakles and Astarte and worship them properly. (Ag. Ap.
1:118-119).
In other words, a mere Hellenization of the anonymous God at Ge-
rizim was not the sign of a new cult, for there is no allusion to any
change of the priests or the buildings, all the more so since it is not qui-
te clear whether they used their closed temple for purposes of worship.
In his carefully worded reply, Antiochus seems to understand that the
(
Samaritans were suggesting a full-scale Hellenization (§ 264): “Since
they choose to live in accordance with the Greek customs (eq; esin), we
acquit them of these charges and permit their temple to be known as
that of Zeus Hellenios.” This fine wording amounts to saying that for
political purposes, the king accepts the distinction between Jews and
Samaritans.
2. A Conflict in Alexandria. The Onias Temple
The second story, cited and then reported by Josephus (Ant 12.10 et
13:74-79), is a quarrel between Jews and Samaritans that happened in
Alexandria at the time of king Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-146). The
contest was around who had the only correct temple (ièro,n) according
45 See BONNET, Melqart.

146 E. Nodet
to the laws of Moses.46 The plaintiffs requested a judgment by the king

in his council and demanded that the losers be put to death. The names
of the defenders of both parties are given. Josephus only gives an outli-
ne of the speech of the Jews. They invoked the fame of their temple
among the kings of Asia and the succession of the high priests, each
one receiving the office from his father. Nothing is said of the argu-
ments of the Samaritans, but they lost. A significant detail is that the
Jews were afraid and resentful that anyone should seek to destroy the
temple of Jerusalem. Such a fear indicates that the contest was launched
by the Samaritans.
The quarrel has to be put in perspective. Almost nothing is known
of an explicit presence of Samaritans in Egypt,47 but there were many
Israelites. Let us consider first the Jewish arguments. The succession of
the high priests since Aaron was a pet topic of Josephus’ and he had
more pieces of information than what we can extract from the canonical
books (see Ant 5.361-2 and 10.152-3), while no reliable source exists on
the side of the Samaritans. As for the fame of the temple,48 it was a fact
known by ancient historians and somehow related to the aim of the
prophets. However, this has nothing to do with the laws of Moses,
whereas these could definitely favor the Samaritans: first, there is no
mention of Jerusalem,49 but Shechem is well known ever since Abra-
ham (Gen 12:6); Jacob bought a plot of land there and built an altar
(Gen 33:19-20, see Jn 4:5-6). Moreover upon their entry into Canaan, the
sons of Israel are ordered to put a blessing on Mt. Gerizim and a curse
on Mt. Ebal (Deut 11:29), which is done later with Joshua (Jos 8:30-35).
The “chosen place” of the legal part that follows (Deut 12:5 etc.) sug-
gests a place in the vicinity of Shechem, but no name is given, nor any
46 The contest implies that both parties had the same text (Greek and/or Hebrew), as
supposed by the Letter of Aristeas (§ 30 and 311). As for the actual texts, there are so-
me 1900 contacts (mostly minor) of LXX-Samaritan against the MT. See ANDERSON,
Samaritan Pentateuch.
47 See VAN DER HORST, Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity; PUMMER, Samaritans in
Egypt,. These studies mainly rely upon proper names, but it should be stressed that
any Israelite name can be either Samaritan or Jewish.
48 The Hellenistic writers know only of the Jews and ignore “Israelites” as well as
“Samaritans,” which is probably due to this fame. In Ant 11.133 Josephus ventures
another explanation: only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are subject to the Ro-
mans (in Asia and Europe) while the ten others never returned to their homeland;
there are countless myriads of them beyond the Euphrates.
49 In Gen 14:18 Melchizedek is ‫( מלך שלם‬LXX basileu.j Salhm ). Josephus transcribes
Soluma and states the place was later called ~Ieroso,luma “Jerusalem, Holy Solyma”)
by adding the Greek prefix ièro- (Ant 1.180; Ag. Ap. 1.174). PHILO, Leg. alleg. 3.82,
translates “roi de paix,” without a place name.
indication for a sanctuary. But even if we admit that the original phrase
was in the past tense (‫בחר‬,50 God “has chosen”) and not in the future, as
in the MT and LXX (‫“ יבחר‬will choose”), there is a discontinuity bet-
ween Deut 11 and 12: the “chosen place” and the priests-Levites who
teach appear only in the legal block51 (Deut 12-26) inserted in the long
discourse of Moses, which culminates with the arrival at Ebal and Geri-
zim. Josephus himself, in paraphrasing this passage, does not venture
to give a name. He speaks of the “city in which they shall establish the
temple” (Ant 4.203). Even rabbinic tradition displays some flexibility:
the place can be changed “if a prophet so decides,”52 (Sifré Num 70 on
Deut 12:13-14). Anyhow, there should be only one “chosen place,” and
the quarrel must have been grounded upon Deuteronomy.
In any case, the arguments adduced should be considered to be in-
conclusive, and the victory of the Jews must have depended on political
considerations. The context provides some clues. A first idea is given
by two letters sent by the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt, ur-
ging them to pay due attention to the temple of Jerusalem and to celeb-
rate its dedication53 (2 Macc 1:1-10). The second letter, dated 124, quotes
a previous one of 142, which apparently did not have the expected re-
sults. These dates are interesting: in 142 the high priest Simon (144-134)
was recognized by Rome (1 Macc 15:15-24), which means that the yo-
ung Hasmonean state began to be taken seriously. The Romans were
interested in having a kind of buffer between Egypt and Syria. The
second letter was sent at the time of John Hyrcanus,54 Simon’s son (134-
50 See SCHENKER, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il, who concludes from ancient translations

that the Samaritan reading is more original (Neh 1:9 quoting Deut 30:24 as an indi-
rect witness). The other form is Judean, and is meant to prepare God’s revelation to
Solomon (1 Kgs 8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I
chose no city in all the tribes of Israel to build a house, that my name might be there,
but I chose David…” (See below § III.1). DE VAUX, Le lieu que Yahwé, thinks that the
anonymous place refers to Jerusalem, for he quotes an El-Amarna letter from a king
of Jerusalem to Pharaoh, who “has put his name upon the land of Jerusalem. He
cannot abandon the land of Jerusalem”; so Jerusalem was a place where a name
dwelt.
51 Deut 27 harmonizes the legal block with the speech that surrounds it. In Deut 27:9
‫“ וידבר משה והכהנים הלום‬and Moses spoke (sing.) and the priests-Levites”, the last two
words are a gloss, see D RIVER, Commentary on Deuteronomy, XLVI-XLVII and 298.
52 The reference is probably the altar built by Elijah on Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30).
53 Its authenticity has been shown by BICKERMANN, Ein jüdischer Festbrief. See NISULA,
Time Has Passed.
54 In his prolog, the translator of Ecclesiasticus says that he found the Hebrew original
in Egypt, “in the 38th year of the late king Evergetes.” This king was Ptolemy VII
(170-114); so the book was found in 132, but the prologue was written after Ptole-
my’s death. Si 50:26 scorns the people dwelling around Shechem. The wording re-
148 E. Nodet
103), when he was still a vassal tightly controlled by Syria. These letters
indicate that the Egyptian Jews had been reluctant to accept the Has-
monean rule.
The fear of the Jews as regards the contest had a very simple cause.
The Jerusalem temple had been badly weakened by the Maccabean
crisis, but its symbolic value still stood. For themselves, they had the
temple of Onias, in Heliopolis.
Just before the quarrel, Josephus gives an account of the foundation
of this temple (Ant 13.62-73). The two passages are unrelated, but they
are inserted between the death of king Demetrius I of Syria en 150
(13:61) and the marriage of Alexander Balas with the daughter of King
Ptolemy VI of Egypt, which took place the same year at Ptolemais-
Akko (13:80-82). This Alexander returned from exile in 152, and pre-
tended to be the legitimate heir to the throne of Syria. With Rome’s
approval, he challenged Demetrius, who was waging a war against
Egypt. His death caused a political upheaval, with some consequences
for Judea. On his arrival, Alexander had appointed Jonathan son of
Mattathias high priest of Jerusalem because of his military skills, but
upon hearing of this, Demetrius had sought to seduce him with some
favors. (1 Macc 10:6.25-45). Jonathan’s position was quite precarious,
since he was appointed for political reasons only, and the high pries-
thood of Jerusalem had been vacant ever since the death of Alkimus in
159 (1 Macc 9:54-57) after a three-year tenure (1 Macc 7:1-9). Jonathan
managed to get invited to the wedding in Ptolemais, bringing along
expensive gifts to both sovereigns, who welcomed him. This was a
major promotion for himself and especially for the temple, which had
become quite insignificant before this development, all the more so
since it was outside of direct Egyptian influence. This was the Judean
context of the quarrel, which should be dated some time before Jona-
than’s elevation.
As for the Onias temple, it should be noted first that in his summa-
ry of the high priestly dynasties, Josephus mentions the gap of seven
years between Alkimus and Jonathan. He concedes that Alkimus was a
priest of Aaronide stock, but he did not belong to the traditional dynas-
ty of high priests. When he was appointed, the heir of the legitimate
dynasty, King Ptolemy VI, had already granted Onias the right to build
a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem in the district of Heliopolis, as
calls Deut 32:21 on the enemy threatening Israel. Si 50:1-5 has praised the work of
the high priest Simon the Righteous, who repaired the temple around 200. It is hard
to ascertain the genuineness of the text (see KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus, but the picture
given fits very well the views of an Egyptian Jew of that time, just before the destruc-
tion of the Gerizim temple.
well as the dignity of high priest (Ant 20.235-237). So during Alkimus’

life, there were two Jewish high priests: one in Jerusalem under Syrian
dominion, and another in Egypt of a much more famous descent. After
Alkimus’ death, Onias was the only one in charge. The appointment of
Jonathan in 152 cannot have been a major event, but his recognition in
150 was. After this date, the Onias temple fades out, till a short revival
after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.
Josephus gives some details about the works of Onias in Egypt. In
his first account (War 7:423-432), he says that Onias “son of Simon, one
of the high priests of Jerusalem” ran away to escape the persecutions of
Antiochus IV and approached King Ptolemy. He told him that if he
allowed him to build a temple, the whole of the Jewish nation would
come over to him. Josephus comments that Onias acted out of rivalry
against Jerusalem. Ptolemy accepted out of his hatred for Antiochus,
who had twice attempted to invade his kingdom (in 169 and 168, see
2 Macc 5:1-14). He adds that Josephus knew a prophecy of Isaiah to this
effect. Of course, this cannot be true, but the prophecy, which belongs
to a very peaceful chapter, has significant variant readings (Isa
19:18.21).
In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Ca-
naan […] One of the cities will be called the City of Destruction (‫הרס‬, an-
cient versions and 1 Q Isaa ‫“ הרס‬sun,” LXX asedek ”justice”) […] They will
make sacrifices, they will perform vows.
Ancient translations testify to the 1 QIsaa reading. It is most probably

original and definitely refers to Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun,” but
the variants are instructive. The Heliopolis settlement was or will be a
disaster for the MT,55 while it is held in high esteem for the LXX, which
wants to suggest a Hebrew original. The prophecy can hardly have
been extant by the time of Onias, but there were some Israelite traditi-
ons attached to that place. The wife of Joseph, son of Jacob, was a
daughter of Potiphera, a priest of On (Gen 41:45 ‫ און‬MT, LXX “Heliopo-
lis”). According to Ex 1:11, the Israelites in Egypt had to build the store-
cities of Pitom and Ramses; the LXX adds a third one, transcribed Wn
and translated `Hli,ou po,lij, which indicates a previous Hebrew word
‫ און‬or maybe ‫הון‬.56
55 The Targum combines both readings: “the city of the temple of the sun, due to be
destroyed,” and a similar saying is given in b.Men 110a.
56 Manetho, a priest of Heliopolis, states that a priest of the Osiris cult in that city gave
the Jews a constitution and took the name of Moses (Ag. Ap. 1.250).
150 E. Nodet
Rabbinic tradition knows the Onias temple57 (‫)בית חוים‬, and connects
it to the same prophecy, for the same commandments can be performed
there: it is permitted under certain conditions to make sacrifices, and to
fulfill the nazir vows (mMen 13:10), at least when this is not possible in
Jerusalem (bMeg 10a). However, another passage states that the holi-
ness of Jerusalem cannot be removed, even if the temple is not functio-
ning (mMeg 1:11). The underlying controversy indicates that the questi-
on was discussed. Josephus says that after the fall of Massada (73 or
74), the importance of the Onias temple was renewed. It became a kind
of Zealot meeting point. Some unrest spread in Egypt, so much so that
Vespasian himself ordered the governor of Alexandria to demolish it
(War 7:421).
In the passage cited above, just before the quarrel, Josephus gives
another account of the Onias foundation, which is parallel to the pre-
vious one but with additional details. Young Onias was already in
Egypt when he heard that Judea was ravaged by the Macedonian
kings. He sent a request to Ptolemy, in which he explains that the Jews
have many sanctuaries in Egypt (plh/qoj tw/n ièrw/n) and disagree about
the form of worship, and he begs that a temple (nao,n) be built in the
likeness of that of Jerusalem, in order to restore harmony among the
Egyptian Jews. Then Onias built the temple and found priests and Levi-
tes to minister there.
Both stories have the same chronology: the temple would have
been requested and built by the time of Antiochus IV, who died in 164.
In his final summary of the high priests, Josephus mentions it by the
time of Alkimus’ appointment in 162. Before this, he has said that the
high priest Onias son of Simon (see Sir 50:1) has been supplanted by his
brother Jason in 175, at the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV, and
eventually murdered in 170 (Ant 12.237, see 2 Macc 4:8-40). By this time
his son Onias had fled into Egypt, removing a high priestly legitimacy.
To sum up, the center of Judaism was in Egypt for several years.
Obviously, the campaign and dedication of Judas Maccabeus (166-164)
had no meaning for Onias, all the more so since there was a high priest
in Jerusalem during the whole crisis, Menelaus (171-163), who had
supplanted Jason by paying more for the office. Such a context sheds
some light upon the contest with the Samaritans: they saw an opportu-
nity for the Gerizim temple to prevail. In this respect, a later event is
meaningful: when the Seleucid power was weakened by a fratricidal
57 The name could be Yahwist: combining “Hon” and “Yhwh” would give ‫ חוניהו‬and
then a shorter form ‫( חוניו‬as in m.Men 13:10), or ‫חוניה‬. The latter form could be trans-
cribed “Honiyah,” hence “Onias” by Hellenization.
war between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus58

around 113 (see Ant 13.327), John Hyrcanus saw an opportunity to ex-
pand his realm (Ant 13.254-6): southwards he annexed Idumea and
circumcised its inhabitants, and northwards he conquered Samaria,
Shechem and other cities; he did not have to circumcise the Samaritans,
but he was careful to destroy the Gerizim temple in order to avoid any
further contest as well as to keep convincing the Egyptian Jews of his
legitimacy. The second letter to them about the Jerusalem temple had
been sent less than fifteen years previously.
III. Solomon, Shechem, Jacob, Joshua
The Persian cultic realities are impressive, and the problem now is to
assess to what extent they have inherited or altered the previous state
of affairs. Three topics will be considered: Solomon and his temple, the
story of the origins of the Samaritans, and the major blessings in the
Pentateuch as regards their views of the tribes.
1. Salomon, his Ambiguity and his Temple
According to 1 Chron 17:1-15, David could not build the temple, but he
prepared everything so that his successor would have an easy task.
After having bought the threshing floor of Arauna-Ornan, he said
(1 Chron 22:5): “My son Solomon is young59 and inexperienced, and the
house that is to be built for Yhwh must be exceedingly magnificent, of
fame and glory throughout all lands.” The fame depends on the “hou-
se” (temple). He had received from God the plan for everything
(1 Chron 28:11-19). The word for “plan” (‫ )תבנית‬recalls the command-
ments given to Moses in the wilderness (Ex 25:9): “According to all that
I show you concerning the pattern (‫ )תבנית‬of the tabernacle, and of all its
furniture, so you shall make it.” When the work proceeds, various de-
tails show that the temple resembles the tabernacle. For the dedication,
Solomon performs sacrifices according to the laws of Moses with
priests and Levites as ordered by David (2 Chron 8:13). This is somew-
hat exaggerated, for he is not a priest. Later on, Kings Hezechiah and
Josiah reform the cult, and the priests and Levites take their posts “ac-
58 See BARAG, New Evidence; FINKELSZTEJN, More Evidence.

59 Some mss. of 1 Kings 2:12 LXX, as well as b.Tem 14a and Jerome, Epistula 72, say that
he was 12 when he became king. According to Josephus, he was 14 (Ant 8.211).
152 E. Nodet
cording to the law of Moses” (2 Chron 30:16; 35:16), and the same is
said of the restoration of the temple with Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra
6:18). In one word, all the cultic implementations follow Moses’ rule,
directly or through some additional revelations to David.
This is a major reshaping of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, which give quite
another picture. According to 2 Sam 24:20-25, David did buy Arauna’s
threshing floor, but there is no link to the ark of the covenant that Da-
vid has brought in before (2 Sam 6:17), and he does not prepare any-
thing for the temple to be built. Later, Solomon went and offered sacri-
fices at Gabaon, and did the same in front of the ark when he came
back to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:4-15). In this and during the construction, he
hardly follows any of David’s regulations. In fact, the choice of Solo-
mon as David’s heir is not very clear, for he is the youngest son (1 Kgs
1:13). Recent studies suggest that at a former stage in the story, the en-
visioned heir was Adoniah, the oldest of Solomon’s surviving sons60
(see 1 Kgs 2:22).
So the story of Solomon is significant. According to 1 Kings 5:1.14,
he reigned over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the border of
Egypt, and people from everywhere came to hear his outstanding wis-
dom. This means that the promises made to Abraham and Moses had
been fulfilled. Then he endeavored to build a temple in seven years
with the help of king Hiram of Tyre, and a palace for himself in thirteen
years. Almost everything has been said about the historicity of this
story.61 From a literary point of view, the main element is that the temp-
le has nothing to do with Moses’ laws. This is made plain from the de-
dication speech of Solomon himself, who quotes God’s words (1 Kgs
8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out from Egypt, I
have chosen no city from any tribe of Israel in which to build a house
that my name might be there,62 and I chose David to be over my people
Israel.” Then he said that such a project was David’s idea, but God told
him that it would be done by his son (see 2 Sam 7:14-16).
Thus, work on the temple begins only after the power and fame of
Solomon are well established. More precisely, it starts when King Hi-
ram sends his servants to Solomon, who then asks for building mate-
rials. But 1 Kings 5:15 has two different forms:
60 See VEIOLA, Die ewige Dynastie; LANGLAMET, Pour ou contre Salomon?; MCK ENZIE,
Yedidyah.
61 See the review of HUROWITZ, Yhwh’s Exalted House. RÖMER, Salomon d’après les
deutéronomistes.
62 LXX (B) adds a gloss “and I chose Jerusalem for my name to be there” (deleted by
Orig. and Luc.).
– The MT says that Hiram sent his servants because he had heard of
Solomon’ anointing: ‫( את עבדיו אל שלמה כי שמע כי אותו משחו למלך תחת‬... ‫)וישלח‬
‫אביהו‬.
– The LXX (B, followed by Luc.; Origenes restores according to the
MT) states that Hiram sent them to anoint Solomon:
(…) tou.j pai/daj auvtou/ cri/sai to.n Salwmwn avnti. Dauid tou/ pa,troj auv-
tou.
The shorter form of the LXX could be explained away by the omis-
sion of ‫ כי שמע‬by homoioteleuton, but even so the sentence would be-
come: Hiram sent “his servants to Solomon for they anointed him.”
This is not clear, since it can be understood in two opposite ways: either
“for he had been anointed” (by Jerusalemites) or “for his servants had
anointed him” (previously), a strange statement. Thus, the LXX testifies
to another Hebrew version ‫)וישלח( אל שלמה למשחו למלך‬. As for the mea-
ning in the narrative, the LXX is more difficult, since Solomon has al-
ready been anointed by Zadok (1 Kgs 1:34). Moreover, it would make
of Solomon a vassal of king Hiram. However, if we follow the MT, no-
thing is said of the purpose of the Tyrian visitors, but immediately after
this visit and unconnected with it, Solomon sends to Hiram, asking for
cedar and cypress logs. Then, in his subsequent reply, Hiram accepts
and asks for food. Therefore, the LXX should be preferred.63
Hiram’s backing, with an anointing or not, was the starting point
for the building process. But his influence had already surfaced in ano-
ther context. After David had conquered Jerusalem-Jebus and settled in
the stronghold, it is stated that he went on and became great. Then
Hiram, king of Tyre, sent him messengers, workers and materials, and
they built a house for him. The conclusion is remarkable (2 Sam 5:12):
“So David knew that Yhwh had established him as king over Israel.” In
other words, Hiram’s acknowledgment and help are viewed as signs
from God after he became great. This is the same pattern as the relati-
onship between Hiram and Solomon, and both passages shed some
light on one another.
Of course, we may have historical concerns and ask what prompted
Hiram to do that, what was the price of his help, what did Hiram think
of the Philistines, David’s permanent foes, and so on. Above all we may
wonder how the same Hiram could have been a friend of both David
and Solomon from the beginning of their reigns: David was 30 years
old when he conquered Jerusalem, and when he died at 70, Solomon
was only 12, according to a tradition. The gap between the two appea-
rances of Hiram is in some way bridged in 1 Chron 22:4, when building
63 See SCHENKER, Septante et texte massorétique, 140.

154 E. Nodet
material is sent to David from Tyre and Sidon. But such questions miss
the point, because what matters is the literary device: the legitimacy of
David as a king and of Solomon as his heir comes from a foreign king,
and not from anything connected to Israelite tradition or to the laws of
Moses. Or conversely, Solomon’s legitimacy gets attached to David’s,64
for Tyrian chronicles indicate that Hiram of Tyre became king eight
years before Solomon;65 by that time, David has been reigning for some
twenty-five years, which cannot be reconciled with Hiram’s early help.
The main point to be underlined here is that a foreign influence – here
Phoenician – was instrumental in launching the construction of the
temple.66 This provides an interesting context to the fact that after So-
lomon’s death all Israel convened at Shechem, even before the later
schism. Jerusalem was not yet the obvious capital.67
On the relationship between King Hiram68 and Solomon, more sto-
ries are reported. According to 1 Kings 9:26, Solomon built a fleet of
ships at Etzion Geber, and Hiram sent seamen to help Solomon’s ser-
vants, and they brought gold from Ophir; 1 Kings 10:22 gives further
details, but Hiram’s fleet seems to have been more important and his
men more competent.
A somewhat obscure passage (1 Kgs 9:10-14) reports that during
the building process (or maybe after it) Hiram had supplied Solomon
with gold and wood “as much as he desired.” Then Solomon offered
Hiram twenty cities in Galilee, but the latter refused and eventually
gave Solomon a large amount of gold. Some rationale is missing, and
2 Chron 8:2 blurs the problem by stating that “Solomon built the cities
Hiram had given him and settled the sons of Israel there.” The sentence
is clear, but somewhat unexplained.
64 CAQUOT /DE ROBERT, Les livres de Samuel, 404, are content with attributing 2 Sam
5:12 to the Zadokite redactor (as well as 7:1-3, which mentions David’s cedar house.
65 According to these documents, Solomon would have begun the work in the 12th year
of Hiram of Tyre (Ag. Ap. 1:106 s.; the 11th in Ant 8.62), that is, 240 years after the
foundation of Tyre and 143 years before that of Carthage ; it was also the 4th year of
Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 6:1). For Carthage , the date is known approximately to have
been between 814 and 825. Solomon’s reign would thus have begun between 963
and 974.
66 Phoenician (or Cananean) names are used for the months of the dates connected to
the temple (construction: Ziv, Bul, 1 Kgs 6:37-38; inauguration: Ethanim, 1 Kgs 8:2),
see KALIMI, Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 115.
67 SKA , Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord, observes that El-Amarna letters
mention kings in Shechem and Jerusalem centuries before David, and concludes that
a united kingdom under David and Solomon was at best shaky.
68 1 Kings 7:13 mentions a bronze worker from Tyre named Hiram (‫חירם‬, 2 Chron 2:13
‫)חירום‬.
Fortunately, Josephus has preserved a document that gives both the

context and meaning. In Against Apion 1:106-116, he quotes the Tyrian
archives and an historian, Dius. It is said that Hiram was busy in public
works, and had timber cut down for the construction of temples. Solo-
mon, the sovereign of Jerusalem, sent him riddles and asked for others
from him. The one who failed to solve them had to pay a fine to the
other. First Hiram failed and so spent a large part of his wealth. Then
he was helped by one Abdemon of Tyre, so that in turn Solomon failed
and eventually paid back more than he had received. From this we
understand better the gold Hiram sent to Solomon and the cities the
latter had to present when he was short of money. The biblical account
omits that Solomon’s wisdom did have some limitations.
To sum up, it would be far-fetched to conclude that Solomon was a
kind of Phoenician king or vassal.69 For the present study, the point to
be stressed is the peculiar origin of the temple. For Solomon, and for
Zerubbabel as well it started through the impulse of a foreign king.70 In
another context, when king Antiochus III subdued Judea around 200,
his first decision was to restore the Jerusalem temple and to provide for
its cult in order to secure the Jewish fidelity to Syria71 (Ant 12.138-144),
but the decree quoted by Josephus has the form of a letter to the local
governor, and no Jewish authority is named.
However, this kind of external pressure developed into a sign of Is-
raelite monotheism. In the dedication rite, Solomon says in his prayer
(1 Kgs 8:27): “But will God indeed dwell with men72 on the earth?”
Later, the prophets would insist on the importance of the temple as an
eschatological meeting point for all the nations, but it is significant that
the high priests are not prominent in the whole narrative of 1-2 Kings.
The tentative genealogical lists given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 or Ezra 7:1-5 do
not fill up the gap. As for the hope for a future king, the reference is
always David, who never had a temple.
Anyhow, when it exists, the temple becomes a major symbol of
power and fame.73 This was the background of a struggle between Jews
and Samaritans that occurred in the 2nd century BCE.
69 The LXX credits Solomon with some Dionisian features, current in Ptolemaic Egypt,
see LEFÈBVRE, Salomon et Bacchus.
70 This differs from a pattern more current in the ancient world, see LUNDQUIST, The
Legitimizing Role of the Temple.
71 BICKERMAN, Une proclamation séleucide.
72 These two words are missing in 1 Kings 8:27 MT, but are testified to by LXX and
1 Chron 6:18.
73 As witnessed by ancient non-Hebrew sources, see. HAYWARD, Jewish Temple.
156 E. Nodet
2. The Yahwist Cult in Samaria after the Kingdom of Israel
Some inscriptions from the 8th cent. have been found at Kuntillet el-
Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom that mention “Yhwh and his Ashera” in
connection with the city of Samaria.74 They have interesting implicati-
ons, but the study here will be limited to the biblical accounts of the
arrival of the Assyrian colonists in Samaria after the fall of the northern
kingdom (Israel) and the deportation of its inhabitants in 722?
There are two accounts.75 The shorter one (2 Kgs 18:9-12) tells us
that in the fourth year of king Hezekiah of Jerusalem, Shalmanezer
king of Assyria besieged Samaria, took it after three years and carried
Israel away captive to Assyria. The reason given is that they had trans-
gressed God’s covenant and Moses’ commandments. Nothing is said of
any foreigner placed in the cities of Samaria; so there is no more Israeli-
te worship in the Northern kingdom. The context is Hezekiah’s reign
and the campaign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, against the cities of
Judah ten years later; they were saved providentially, and no deporta-
tion took place. In other words, the Northern kingdom deserved its
fate.
The longer account (2 Kgs 17:1-41) first tells of the fall and deporta-
tion, then expands the remarks on the sins of Israel since Jeroboam:
God who had brought them from Egypt had warned them by all the
prophets. Judah’s sin is included, so that “Yhwh rejected (‫ )וימאס‬all the
race of Israel.” We may note that the shorter account does not mention
the exodus from Egypt, while the longer one ignores Moses as lawgi-
ver.
Then follows the relation of the subsequent events, in three parts.
1. (v. 24-28) The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cu-
tha, Ava, Hamath und Sepharvaim76 in Samaria to replace the sons of
Israel. The first two names were preserved by Josephus and rabbinic
traditions, and the three others appear in Sennacherib’s campaign
(2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The settlers were attacked by lions because they
74 MESHEL, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. LEMAIRE, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? MCCAR-
TER, Aspects of the Religion.
75 As for which of them is earlier, scholarly opinions differ, see the review of Jean-
MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 47-72.
76 Babylon and Cutha were well known among the Judean exiles. The three others
were probably in Syria; they are mentioned in the story of Sennacherib’s campaign
(2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The gods worshipped by the five nations, besides Nergal, are
Canaanite, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.
did not worship Yhwh. Then the king sent an Israelite priest (or some
priests) to Bethel, who taught them the ritual of the God of the land.
2. (v. 29-33 and 41) Concerning the gods and rites the five nations
introduced into the high places built by the “Samaritans” (or ancient
Israelites), which were not removed. Thus, they used to worship both
their gods and Yhwh. With the exception of Nergal, these gods are
Canaanite, which suggests some redactional activity.77 Verse 41 speaks
again of “these nations” which worshiped both Yhwh and their idols
“to this day”: this is a concluding sentence, which picks up what was
said previously and places it over and beyond the third part below on
the “sons of Jacob”.78 The conclusion stands alone, but the context has a
bearing on its meaning.
3. (v. 34-40) On the Israelites, sons of Jacob who were brought from
Egypt by God and somewhat mixed up with the five nations “until this
day”. God had made a covenant with them and given them the com-
mandment not to worship any other god. At this point we have variant
readings of major significance: the MT (and Targ., Vulg.) says that they
were not faithful; contrary to this, the LXX states that they actually
were (the Luc. recension mixes up both), but they receive the warning
to resist idolatry. The difference can be seen in v. 34 and 40:
v. 34 ‫הם עשים‬ auvtoi. evpoi,oun

‫כמשפטים הראשנים‬ kata. to. kri,ma auvtw/n (from ‫)כמשפטם‬
‫אינם יראים את יהוה‬ auvtoi. (from ‫ )הינם‬fobou/ntai
.‫ואנים עשים כחקתם‬ kai. auvtoi. poiou/sin kata. ta. dikaiw,mata auvtw/n.
MT: They do according to their first ordinances; they do not fear Yhwh and
they do not do according to their statutes (given to Jacob’s sons).
LXX: They do according to their ordinance; they fear and they do accor-
ding to their statutes.
v. 40 ‫ולא שמעו כי אם‬ kai. ouvk avkou,sesqe (from ‫)ולא תשמעו‬

‫כמשפטם הראשון‬ evpi. tw/| kri,mati auvtw/n
‫הם עשים‬ o] auvtoi. poiou/sin
MT: And they did not obey, but according to their first ordinance they do.
LXX: And you shall not obey their ordinance, that they do.
77 See MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.

78 This classical division is accepted, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.
158 E. Nodet
For the MT the sons of Jacob still practice the former rituals, that is,
what they did before the covenant with Israel, a difficult statement. For
the LXX, from which the Hebrew source differs only by some letters,
they are faithful and urged to remain so. The passage between the two
verses expounds the covenant in a typically Deuteronomistic style and
stands without difficulties in both versions, for it does not depend on
fidelity .
In order to identify the original form, we cannot deal with the con-
tent without begging the question, since no other document is availab-
le. Direct textual criticism gives no clear result, since the text from
which the LXX worked is lost, all the moreso since for 1-2 Kings the
Old Greek version is very different from the MT. However, Josephus
provides a clue (Ant 9.289-290): briefly paraphrasing 2 Kings 17, he says
that the five nations had brought along their gods and worshipped
them “in accordance with their ancestral customs” (kaqw.j h=n pa,trion
auvtoi/j). Then, after Israelite priests had been sent back from Assyria,
they worshiped the God of Israel with great zeal, and “these very rites
(e;qh) have continued in use even to this very day.” So they are faithful
to the Israelite laws.79 Josephus follows closely its source here, for what
he says does not match his later statements about the religion of the
Samaritans. He has read the three parts as one account, mixing up the
foreign nations and the sons of Jacob, so that he is able to explain af-
terwards how the Samaritans can pretend either to be kinsmen of the
Jews because of their descent from Joseph or to belong to another race.
Josephus dislikes them, but here he cannot help saying that they are
faithful to that way. In other words, he read 2 Kings 17:34-40 as it is in
the LXX.
If Josephus were following the LXX, as is commonly held,80 his tes-
timony would be worthless, but it can be shown that for 1-2 Kings he
never saw the LXX as we have it81: first, his plain statement in Ant 1.12
and elsewhere is that he “translated” a Hebrew Bible. Second, he trans-
cribes the proper names independently of the LXX. Here are some ca-
ses: for King Hiram of Tyre (‫ חירום‬or ‫)חירם‬, Ant 8.50 has Ei;rwmoj, against
Ce$i%ram of the LXX; for King Ben-Hadad of Damascus (‫ )מן הדד‬Ant 8.363
has :Adadoj, against LXX uiò.j Ader (from ‫ ;)הדר‬for Queen Athaliah (‫עתליה‬
or ‫)עתליהו‬, Ant 9.140 f. reads VOqli,a, against LXX Goqolia. Third, he never
79 Because of the mainstream opinion that the Samaritans are Jewish dissidents, EGGER,
Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, 48-50, thinks that Ant 9.289-290 should be
discarded.
80 At least under the “proto-lucianic” form for the historical books, see MEZ, Die Bibel
des Josephus; THACKERAY, Josephus, 77-80.
81 See NODET, Flavius Josèphe, XXVI-XLIX.
follows the general content of the LXX when it differs broadly from the
MT; however, he sometimes follows its order, the most obvious case
being the succession of chapters 21 and 20 of 1 Kings, but this does not
imply that he saw a Greek text. Moreover, Josephus’ Hebrew Bible was
an official copy, taken by Titus from the temple archive in 70.82
In conclusion, the LXX form of v. 34 & 40 should be preferred as
reflecting a more original Hebrew.83 So the whole story of 2 Kings
17:24-41 indicates, under a somewhat blurring redactional effect, that
after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel there were two kinds of
people in Samaria: some imported nations with mixed cult at Bethel
and in some ancient high places, and local Israelites of old, faithful to
the laws given to the sons of Jacob. In fact, it is well known from Assy-
rian sources that only a part of the population was deported. Inciden-
tally, we have observed that the MT version is difficult to understand
because of the reference to a worship by the sons of Jacob before the
covenant with Yhwh. However, in the literary context, this previous
cult is distorted in order to refer to the customs imported by the pagan
immigrants, so that the difference between them and the local Israelites
(Samaritans) is bound to disappear.
Now we can attempt a comparison of the two accounts of the fall of
Samaria, for their differences are significant. The shorter one mentions
Moses and ignores any sequel to the deportation, so that no Israelite
cult is left in the north. In contrast, the longer one duly restored states
that something has survived, but without the name of Moses as the
lawgiver. The reference character is Jacob-Israel, and the only named
place is not Samaria but Bethel. So two very different views are disp-
layed: the shorter account well reflects a Judean point of view, which
states that the Samaritans are downgraded Jews of mixed origin; this
reasonably squares with Josephus’ account of the foundation of the
Gerizim temple, as well as with the careful editing of the MT. The lon-
ger story (LXX, Josephus) witnesses more to a northern view, but it is
difficult to relate it clearly to the Gerizim sanctuary of the Persian pe-
riod. Anyhow, two points emerge: the traditional Israelite cult has no
contact with the city of Samaria, and the allusions to Bethel and Jacob
lead us to consider the city of Shechem.84 In the footsteps of Abraham,
Jacob came there after his meeting with Esau, then he built an altar,
which he named “El the God of Israel” (Gen 33:18-20). After Solomon’s
death, the Israelites met there and not in Jerusalem to make his son
82 See NODET, Josephus and the Pentateuch.

83 Against most commentators, even HJELM, Brothers Fighting Brothers.
84 Still today the Samaritans speak of “Mt. Gerizim-Bethel”, and the area is named Luz
or Luza (Gen 28:19; 35:6; 48:3).
160 E. Nodet
king. The “chosen place” for the name of God cannot be far away from
there. So we have to examine some biblical traditions relative to She-
chem and the tribes issued from Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.
3. Joshua and Shechem
Joshua, son of Nun, is a character from the northern kingdom, whose

grave is in the hill country of Ephraim (Josh 24:29-31; Judg 2:9). He has
two faces. The more conspicuous is the servant and successor of Moses
(Num 11:28; 27:18-21; Deut 1:38). He is first heard of at the time of the
war against Amalek in the wilderness (Ex 17:9-14). From those who
went out from Egypt, he is the only one, with Caleb, who enters Ca-
naan (Num 14:6). He presides over the conquest, with a clear mission
given by Moses (Jos 1:1-5). But the second face is a lawgiver’s: he recei-
ves a revelation similar to the one to Moses at Mt. Horeb (Josh 5:13-15),
and later he gives the tribes of Israel “a statute and ordinances” at She-
chem (Josh 24:25).
The account of his conquest is oversimplified, but it includes a
strange passage: for the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh (the half
who crossed the Jordan river), the sons of Joseph complain to Joshua
that they are too numerous for a small estate. Then they are given the
hill country and told to clear ground for themselves and drive out the
Canaanites, in spite of their being strong and having iron chariots85
(Josh 17:16-18). So Joshua does nothing for them, which suggests a kind
of Israelite presence before him. An obvious objection is that all the
Israelites come from outside, for at their arrival they perform a cultic
action at Gerizim and Ebal (Josh 8:30-35), fulfilling the precepts of Deut
27:2-26 without any opposition. But the passage is a literary addition,
which splits apart an account of events in Benjamin,86 and whose func-
tion is to neutralize any hint pointing to the presence of Israelites before
Joshua.
85 The notice is given again (Josh 17:14-15) with a wording that indicates that the sons
of Joseph have just arrived. Just before his final blessing, Jacob gives Joseph ‫שכם אחד‬
“one Shechem” (so the LXX; or “one shoulder”) above his brothers (Gen 48:22), see
§ 4 below. DE VAUX, 583-584, observes that the excavations in the main sites have
shown no evidence of an overall destruction at the supposed time of the conquest.
YOUNGER, Rhetorical Structuring, does not deal with this lack of evidence.
86 The LXX puts the passage after Josh 9:2, which improves nothing, and Josephus (Ant
5.68-69) at the end of the conquest. This is more logical, but he may have edited the
order of his source.
Joshua’s second face becomes obvious in the story of the Shechem

covenant. At the end of his life, Joshua summons all Israel and utters a
legacy speech, in which he urges the people to remain faithful to the
laws of Moses, warning that otherwise disasters will occur (Josh 23:1-
16). The effect of the discourse is given later (Judg 2:6-9): that generati-
on was faithful, unlike the following ones. Between these two parts of
the same account other passages are inserted. The first one is a conven-
tion of all the tribes of Israel at Shechem87 (Josh 24:1-2888). Joshua gives
a speech (v. 2-13), mentioning Abraham, Jacob, the exodus from Egypt
with Moses and Aaron, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Balaam affair
and God’s victory over the nations of Canaan. Here Moses is no lawgi-
ver. Then (v. 14-15) Joshua urges the people to serve Yhwh and put
away the gods they used to worship beyond the River (Euphrates) and
in Egypt. Then, unexpectedly, he allows them to choose whom they
want to worship: these foreign gods, the local ones,89 or Yhwh; he adds
that he himself and his family have chosen Yhwh. When the people
declare they choose Yhwh (v. 17-22.24), he warns them to remove the
other gods that lie among them (v. 23). And here is the conclusion (v.
25-26):
Joshua made a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with them and made for them a statute and
an ordinance (‫חק ומשפט‬, no,mon kai. kri,sin) in Shechem. He wrote these words
in the book of the law (‫ )תורה‬of God. He took a large stone and set it up the-
re under the oak in the sanctuary90 (‫ )מקדש‬of Yhwh.
This is not in agreement with Joshua’s previous speech. The account is

difficult, for it mixes up two different narrative threads: first, the
speech addresses the tribes, reminding them of the history from Abra-
ham to the conquest (v. 2b-13), but without a lawgiver; then the people
agree and due warnings are voiced (v. 17-21a); broadly speaking, this is
in keeping with the former speech. But the second thread is different:
Joshua invites newcomers to join and worship Yhwh. This is just optio-
nal, and there is no reason to surmise that these immigrants are organi-
87 The LXX has Shlw “Silo,” most probably because the ark was there then (Josh 18:1),
but Josephus reads Shechem (Ant 5.114).
88 For a good survey of scholarship on this passage, see ZSENGELLÉR, Gerizim as Israel,
68-86, who concludes that this was an ancient tradition, poorly inserted within the
Deuteronomistic redaction.
89 There is some affinity with Gen 35:2-4, where Jacob demands that his family remove
any foreign god, see SOGGIN, Zwei umstrittene Stellen. However, the parallel is so-
mewhat shaky, for Jacob leaves no choice.
90 That is a cultic open area, see HARAN, Temples and Temple Service, 48-57.
162 E. Nodet
zed in twelve tribes.91 Upon their acceptance (v. 14-16), Joshua made a
covenant with them and gave them written laws, with the understan-
ding that they must avoid any syncretism. So the Yahwist congregation
gets widened. We may observe that circumcision is not mentioned,
which matches the situation of the Shechemites at Jacob’s arrival (Gen
34:15-24).
The variant of the account given in the Samaritan book of Joshua92
is helpful, for it corresponds exactly to the second thread, with tiny
differences: v. 2b-13 and 17-21a are omitted93, so that Joshua stands as
the only Yahwist in front of newcomers who do not have any earlier
history with Yhwh, and he becomes their lawgiver. He seems already
to have a “book of the law of God” that was extant previously.
Such a position of Joshua in Shechem fits in the overall outline of
the conquest of Canaan (Josh 1-11), in which the region of Samaria
(Ephraim and half Manasseh) is not conquered, while other territories
in the north and south have to be seized for the newcomers. So it ap-
pears that Joshua is quite similar to the priests who update the colonists
in Bethel about worshiping Yhwh (2 Kgs 17:28), but their cult eventual-
ly turns syncretistic, for they serve Yhwh without leaving their pre-
vious gods. These priests did have the laws that Yhwh had ordered the
sons of Jacob after their exit from Egypt, with due warning against the
foreign gods. This corresponds to the first thread defined above, which
strictly concerns the sons of Jacob, also known as the twelve tribes.
We may conclude that there was a tradition of an exclusive Yhwh-
cult at Shechem, to be located in the sanctuary with an oak in the Jos-
hua account. It was linked to a migration from Egypt, but not with Mo-
ses. This tradition diffuses in two occasions, when traditional Israelites
are confronted with pagan newcomers. Bethel and Shechem have to be
viewed as twin places.
Archeology does not yet allow a clear relationship between this
sanctuary and the Persian constructions on the Gerizim beyond the
likeliness of their having covered previous facilities. However, some
details point to a special significance of the Shechem area. The Joshua
91 Such is the conclusion of DE VAUX, Histoire, 613, but he concludes that the newco-
mers have the same origin as Joshua; in v. 14 he thinks that they all came from the
East, and not from Egypt.
92 It is the first part of a Chronicle, which runs through the ages, see GASTER, Das Buch
Josua; MACDONALD , The Samaritan Chronicle No. II . COGGINS, Samaritans and
Jews. This version has some affinities with Josephus’ source for his paraphrase, see
NODET, Flavius Josèphe, 1995, XIII.
93 These verses are replaced by Deut 4:34, which mentions the exodus from Egypt.
Verses from Deuteronomy are inserted in several places in the Samaritan Penta-
teuch, as well as in some Qumran fragments.
sanctuary had an oak, which suggests a parallel with the “oak of Mo-
reh” (‫ )מורה‬or “oak of the teacher” where Abram first arrived and had a
revelation (Gen 12:6; see Deut 11:30). Not far away from Shechem, Judg
9:37 mentions the “navel of the land” (‫ )טבור הארץ‬and the “oak of the
diviners.” More than this can hardly be ventured.
4. The Prophecies of Jacob and Moses on Joseph and Judah
The Pentateuch, common to the Samaritans and Jews, includes, beyond

the narratives and laws, some prophecies on the tribes. In his final bles-
sing of his sons (Gen 49:1-27), Jacob relies partly upon some future
events, partly upon the previous stories, and the name of God only
appears in a prayer inserted in the middle (v. 8). For most of his sons,
he is rather negative: the firstborn Reuben is condemned because of his
sin related in Gen 35:22; Simeon and Levi are promised to oblivion (v.
5-7), because of the Dina affair (Gen 34), and so on. In contrast, the
sayings on Judah and Joseph are outstanding: Judah will win over his
foes and be praised by his brothers, and “the scepter shall not depart
from him… until Shiloh comes” (v. 8-12); the name “Shiloh,” perhaps
corrupted, has been understood as having Messianic overtones.94 Some
imagery elements in the passage may allude to previous accounts; for
instance, Judah the lion may refer to the wild beast which allegedly
devoured Joseph (37:33), the scepter could allude to the staff he pled-
ged to Tamar (38:18), “washing his garments in the blood of grapes” (v.
12) could hint at Joseph’s tunic dipped in blood (37:31). This is possible,
but these seem to be free allusions framed into a different pattern, for
the passage as a whole is definitely positive.
As for Joseph, the text of his blessing is lengthy but difficult, with
many differences between MT, Sam and LXX. Here it suffices to make
some observations: he is a fruitful bough; he has suffered, God has
helped him, he receives blessings, he is nazir (consecrated) among his
brothers. Of course, this may refer to Joseph’s story, viewed as provi-
dential (Gen 50:20); Judah helped to save him, albeit unwillingly (Gen
37:26). The elevation of Joseph could be a permanent position, for he
has previously received “one Shechem (or ‘shoulder’, ‫ )שכם‬above his
brothers” (Gen 48:22), but his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are not
mentioned.
94 The MT word ‫ שלה( שילה‬in some mss and Sam.) is un clear. It has been read ‫ שלו‬by the
LXX and Syr. “until the coming of the one to whom it belongs.” Targ. Onkelos ren-
ders “till the Messiah comes.”
164 E. Nodet
According to an agreed opinion95 Jacob’s will has been first incor-

porated into the J document, but there is no consensus about the histo-
rical context. The predictions on Judah could point to a composition
close to the time of David and Solomon, but it has been objected that
nothing is said about the foreign origins (Egypt, Moses’ era) or the Ben-
jaminite kingship of Saul, so that the passage reflects better the period
of the Judges. It is held that it antedates the song of Deborah (Judg 5),
which alludes to Sinai (v. 5) but does not mention Judah. In fact, the
historical circumstances are hard to ascertain, for in the absence of hard
evidence, they depend on many assumptions. However, a literary con-
text can be envisioned if we consider three points which connect it with
Shechem: first, the importance of this place in the traditions about Jacob
and the prominence given to Joseph; second, the strictly local traditi-
ons, with no mention either of Abraham’s origin or of the fact that the
whole family of Jacob was in Egypt, where he died after having pro-
nounced his will; third, the burial of Joseph’s bones in Jacob’s field at
Shechem is mentioned immediately after Joshua’s appearance as a local
lawgiver.
As for any historical context, we have to look for a time with a She-
chemite Yahwism without Levites (including Moses and Aaron) and
accepting Judah as ruler for a time, for he eventually went down: unli-
ke Samaria, Shechem had its stability, while the kingdom of Judah was
wiped out until the decree of Cyrus, the master of the world. Without
disregarding the antiquity of the poem as a whole, a clue to a much
later editing is provided by v. 5 MT (LXX and Vulg. are different) on
Simeon and Levi: “Their ‫ מכרת‬are tools of violence.” The difficult word
has elicited many hypotheses, but the most obvious one is the traditio-
nal rabbinic explanation as “sword”, viewing ‫ מכרה‬as a transcription
from the Greek96 ma,caira “sword” (Rashi, quoting Gen Rabba a. l.). For
a literary context, the end of the prophecy on Judah may provide a clue,
for it states “and to him the obedience of the nations”; besides a tradi-
tional messianic interpretation (LXX, Targums) it may be an idealizati-
on of Solomon’s reign.
In Deuteronomy, Moses’ blessings over the tribes are placed bet-

ween two stanzas of a hymn (Deut 33:1-5 and 26-29). The order of the
tribes has been arranged in a concentric pattern with,97 Joseph in the
middle; his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are named, but Simeon is mis-
95 See the review by WENHAM, Genesis, 477-479.

96 The underlying assumption is that all the languages are rooted in Hebrew, the pri-
meval one before the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1), see Banitt, Rashi Interpreter, 12-19.
97 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.
sing, so that the number twelve is maintained. As for the content, the
main features are: first, the blessing of Joseph is long and quite similar
to the one in Gen 49, with some phrases in common, including “he is
nazir among his brothers.” Second, Judah is given a short notice, which
includes a prayer to God: “Bring him to his people.98 Third, Levi is gi-
ven major prominence: he was tested in the wilderness (Massah and
Meribah) and he separated himself from his family, so that he became
entitled to teach Israel the laws and to perform the cult. To sum up, the
comparison with Jacob’s will shows a reversal of the fates of Judah and
Levi, while Joseph is stable.
The dating of Moses’ blessing has been discussed at length,99 but
some literary remarks are relevant in order to give a context to these
features. It is clear that the speaker is Moses, as the promotion of Levi
suggests, but the latter’s new responsibility is connected to some events
before entering Canaan, while Joseph still represents the local traditi-
ons, unaffected by Moses and Levi. In other words, Israel still has two
roots: one local and one imported; this fits the twofold profile of Jos-
hua, both a local lawgiver and Moses’ heir. As for Judah, he seems to
have gone astray. Now, if we forget about the Judean historiography of
the divided monarchy and take the opposite point of view, that is from
the Northern kingdom, it is clear that Judah is guilty of being somew-
hat outside of Israel.
Now if we put together Jacob’s will and Moses’ blessing, which are
parts of the same Pentateuch, we obtain a balanced statement: without
Moses or Levi, Judah is strong, but with Moses and the Levites, Judah
is out of place and should come back to his people. Some simple clues
can be ventured: Judah’s strength without Moses matches the story of
Solomon, his power and his temple, as seen above. As for Judah having
gone astray, far away from his nation, a good context is provided by
the returnees from exile (or the “elders” in the Manasseh affair), the
peculiar Jews who do not want a relationship with local Israelites.
IV. Conclusion
In order to show that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the
ancient Israelites, some reassessments have been necessary.
1. There were two kinds of Jewish returnees from exile. The more
ancient renewed the cult, but did not hurry to rebuild a temple; they
98 The LXX is different (with many variants): “Come to his people.”

99 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.
166 E. Nodet
were not very different from the local Israelites. The more recent, repre-
sented by Ezra and Nehemiah, akin to the later Pharisees, were apart in
some points: they relied upon genealogy; they brought along some
non-biblical customs; they did not accept relations with local Israelites
(from Judea or Samaria), and strove to cleanse “foreign marriages” and
to reform the cult. As a result, there were divisions within Jerusalem.
2. The Pentateuch was rooted among these local Israelites, inclu-
ding the Samaritans. The account in 2 Kings 17, understood according
to the LXX and Josephus, shows that besides the people imported from
Assyria, there were true sons of Jacob, faithful to a covenant with
Yhwh. Moses is not named, but this covenant may be connected with
Joshua as a local legislator at Shechem. In other words, there was a
Samaritan Yahwism before the appearance of an authoritative Penta-
teuch in which Moses is or became the most prominent character.
3. The temple is a peculiar feature, which – unlike an altar – has no-
thing to do either with Moses or with Joshua son of Nun. Since Solo-
mon, it has two aspects: from outside, it is prompted by a foreign po-
wer, as a control tool of the ethnos; this was the meaning of Cyrus’
decree, renewed by Darius – and much later by Antiochus III. From
inside, it is or perhaps becomes a symbol of identity and fame. At some
point, the Samaritans copied the Jerusalem temple, with Persian appro-
val. By the time of Judean weakness, in the sequel of the Maccabean
crisis, the Samaritans made an attempt to promote their own temple,
but they failed, and it was eventually destroyed. In fact, it never was an
essential feature.
4. The hope for a renewed temple after a disaster became a prophe-
tic theme, devoid of the need of an actual high priest or king, as can be
seen in 2 Maccabees. Typically, 2 Chron 36:21 gives a summary of Je-
remiah's prophecy as an exile of 70 years, but it cannot be taken at its
face value.
5. The Samaritans did have their own chronicles, somehow parallel
to the Judean “Former Prophets,” but have nothing that would corres-
pond to the “Later Prophets,” or even to the story of Elijah, a northern
prophet. Thus, as a conclusion, we may ask why their Bible is so short.
Rabbinic tradition has preserved some traces of the local preceden-
ce of the Samaritans. According to b.Sanh 21b, Israel first received the
law of Moses in Hebrew letters (‫כתב עברי‬, paleo-Hebrew), then by the
time of Ezra it was given anew in Aramaic letters (‫)כתב אשורי‬, while the
ancient script was left to the people of Flavia Neapolis (Nablus), the
new name of Shechem, which was rebuilt after 70. This piece of infor-
mation is anachronistic, for both scripts were in use in Judea until the
Hasmonean era, but it witnesses to a feeling that the Samaritans were
in former times the local Israelites, while the Jews imported novelties
from Babylonia. In the 2nd century, the ethnarch Simon b. Gamaliel said
in a controversy on Samaritan unleavened bread (t.Pes 1:15): “For every
precept that the Samaritans observe, they are more meticulous than
Israel,” that is “than the Jews.” He praises their biblical accuracy, which
has not been matched by the “oral laws” of the Pharisees and rabbis.
Bibliography
ACKROYD, Peter R., The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period,
in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis (ed.), The Cambridge History of
Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 130-161.
ANDERSON, Robert T., Samaritan Pentateuch: A General Account, in: CROWN,
Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 390-412.
APICELLA, Catherine, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique: quelques problèmes mé-
connus, in: SARTRE, Maurice (ed.), La Syrie hellénistique (Topoi, Suppl. 4),
Paris 2003, 125-147.
BANITT, Menahem, Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter, Tel Aviv 1986.
BARAG, Dan, New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I, in: Israel
Numismatic Journal 12 (1992-1993) 1-12.
BICKERMAN, Elias J., Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochus IV Épipha-
neææ, in: RHR 115 (1937) 188-223. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Chris-
tian History II, Leiden 1980, 105-135.
BICKERMAN, Elias J., Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusa-
lem, in: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II, Leiden 1980, 86-
104.
BICKERMANN, Elias J., Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr., in: ZNTW
32 (1933) 239-241. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II
(AGAJU, 9), Leiden 1980, 136-158.
BÖHLER, Dieter, On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism.
The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras
(LXX), in: SCHENKER, Adrian, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, Atlanta
2003, 35-50.
BONNET, Corinne, Melqart, cultes et mythes de l'Héraclès tyrien en Méditerra-
née (Studia Phoenicia 8), Leuven 1988.
CAQUOT, André / DE ROBERT, Philippe, Les livres de Samuel (Commentaires de
l’AT 6), Genève 1994.
CHRISTENSEN, Duane L., Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (Word Biblical Commentary
6B), Nashville 2002.
COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-
sidered, Oxford 1975.
COWLEY, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C., Oxford 1923.
CROSS, Frank M., A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, in: JBL 94
(1975) 4-18.
168 E. Nodet
CROSS, Frank M., The Papyri and their Historical Implications, in: LAPP, Paul W
/ LAPP, Nancy L. (eds.), Discoveries in the Wadi Ed-Daliyeh (Annual of the
American School of Oriental Research 41), New Haven 1974, 17-29.
DE VAUX, Roland, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Vol. I., Paris 1971.
DE VAUX, Roland, Israël, in: DBS 4 (1949), col. 764-769.
DE VAUX, Roland, Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y établir son nom, in: MAASS,
Fritz (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW
105), Berlin 1967, 219-228.
DOUGLAS, Mary, Leviticus as Literature, Oxford 1999.
DRIVER, Samuel R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy,
Edinburgh 1896.
DUŠEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-
332 av. J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 20), Leiden –
Boston 2007.
EGGER, Rita, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Un-
tersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner (Novum Testamentum
et Orbis Antiquus 4), Freiburg (CH) / Göttingen 1986.
ESHEL, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries
B.C.E., in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.),
Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007,
223-234.
ESKENAZI, Tamara Cohn, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-
Nehemiah (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 36), Atlanta
1988.
FINKELSZTEJN, Gerald, More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead
Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps, in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society 16 (1998) 33-63.
GANE, Roy, Cult and Character. Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and
Theodicy, Winona Lake 2005.
GARBINI, Giovanni, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese (Studi biblici 129), Brescia
2001.
GASTER, Moses, Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension, in:
ZDMG 62 (1908) 209-279 and 494-549.
HARAN, Menahem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Winona
1985.
HARTLEY, John E., Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4), Dallas 1992.
HAYWARD, C. Robert, The Jewish Temple. A non-Biblical Sourcebook, London /
New York 1996.
HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers. Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism
in History and Tradition, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in An-
cient History and Tradition (JSOT Suppl. 381), London / New York 2003,
197-222.
HUROWITZ, Victor A., Yhwh’s Exalted House. Aspects of the Design and Sym-
bolism of Solomon’s Temple, in DAY John (ed.), Temple and Worship in
Biblical Israel, London 2005, 63-110.
JAPHET, Sara, Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and
Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded /O EMING, Manfred (eds.),
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 491-508.
JAPHET, Sarah, The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-

Nehemiah Investigated Anew, in: VT 18 (1968) 330-371.
KALIMI, Isaac, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona
Lake 2005.
KEARNS, Conleth, Ecclesiasticus, in: A New Catholic Commentary on Holy
Scripture, London 1969, 541-562 (§ 441-443).
KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah.
New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona
Lake 2007.
LANGLAMET, François, Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne
de 1 Rois I-II, in: RB 83 (1976) 321-379 and 481-528
LEFÈBVRE, Philippe, Salomon et Bacchus, in: COX, Claude E. (ed.), VII Congress
of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leu-
ven 1989, Atlanta 1991, 313-323.
LEMAIRE, André, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? Startling New Inscrip-
tions from Two Different Sites Reopen the Debate About the Meaning of
Asherah, in: BAR 10/6 (1984) 2-51.
LUCIANI, Didier, Sainteté et pardon. Structure littéraire du Lévitique (BETL
185), Leuven 2005.
LUNDQUIST, John M., The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the
State, in: SBL Seminar Papers 1982, Chico 1982, 271-297.
MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les Samaritains. Histoire d’une légende, Genève 1994, 47-
72.
MACDONALD, John, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher ha-Yamim)
From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW 107), Berlin 1969.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on
Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, in: LIPSCHITS,
in the Fourth Century B. C. E., Winona Lake 2007, 157-212.
MCCARTER, P. Kyle, Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical
and Epigraphic Data”, in: MILLER Patrick D. et al., Ancient Israelite Religi-
on, Philadelphia 1987, 137-155.
MCKENZIE, Steven, Yedidyah, in: LICHERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le
roi Salomon, un héritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen
(Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bruxelles 2008, 87-97.
MESHEL, Ze’ev, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre From the Time of the Ju-
daean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, Jerusalem 1978.
MEZ, Adam, Die Bibel des Josephus, untersucht für Buch V-VII der Archäolo-
gie, Basel 1894.
MILGROM, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16 (Anchor Bible 3), New York 1991.
MOR, Menahem, “The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period”, in: CROWN,
Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18.
NIHAN, Christophe, The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Geri-
zim in Deuteronomy and Joshua, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Ber-
nard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding
its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake 2007, 187-223.
170 E. Nodet
NISULA, Timo, ’Time Has Passed Since You Sent Your Letter.’ Letter Phraseolo-
gy in 1 and 2 Maccabees, in: JSP 14 (2005) 201-222.
NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres IV et V, Paris 1995.
NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres VIII et IX, Paris
2005.
NODET, Étienne, Josephus and the Pentateuch, in: JSJ 28 (1997) 154-194.
NODET, Étienne, La crise maccabéenne, Paris 2005.
NODET, Étienne, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe. Livres X-XI, Paris 2010.
NODET, Étienne, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire, in: RB 114 (2007) 499-
534.
NODET, Étienne, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, in: HOLMÉN, Tom /
PORTER, Stanley E., Handbook of the Study of the Historical Jesus, Leiden
2010, 1495-1544.
PUMMER, Reihard, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism 129), Tübingen 2009.
PUMMER, Reinhard, The Samaritans in Egypt, in: AMPHOUX, Christian-Bernard
et al., Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire
du Texte Biblique 4), Lausanne 1998, 213-232.
RÖMER, Thomas, Salomon d’après les deutéronomistes: un roi ambigu, in: LICH-
TERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en ques-
tion. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bru-
xelles 2008, 98-130.
SCHENKER, Adrian, La Relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-
Néhémie, in: NORTON, Gerard J., Tradition of the Text, Fribourg 1991, 218-
248.
SCHENKER, Adrian, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi ?
L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et
massorétique, in: VOITILA, Anssi / JOKIRANTA, Jutta M. (eds.), Scripture in
Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in
Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJ Supplements 126), Leiden 2008, 339-351.
SCHENKER, Adrian, Septante et texte massorétique dans l'histoire la plus an-
cienne du texte de 1 Rois 2-14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48), Paris 2000.
SCHÜRER, Emil / VERMES, Geza et al., The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135): A New English Version, Edinburgh
1979.
SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Doing like Jews or becoming a Jew ? Josephus on Women
Converts to Judaism, in: FREY, Jörg / SCHWARTZ Daniel R. / GRIPENTROG,
Stephanie, Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden / Boston
2007, 93-110.
SKA, Jean-Louis, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord: Fact or Fiction?,
in: LICHERT, Clauded / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage
en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau
33), Bruxelles 2008, 36-56.
SOGGIN, Jan Alberto, Zwei umstrittene Stellen aus dem Überlieferungskreis um
Schechem, in: ZAW 73 (1961) 78-87.
STERN, Ephraim, The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of
Palestine in the Persian Period, in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Pe-

riod, Cambridge 1984, 70-87.
STERN, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 Vols. Jeru-
salem 1974-1984.
THACKERAY, Henry St. J., Josephus, The Man and the Historian (Strook Lectures
1928), New York 19672, 77-80.
TORREY, Charles C., Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910.
VAN DER HORST, Pieter W., The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity, in: Idem,
Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity, Göttingen 1990, 136-148.
VAN HOONACKER, Albin, Néhémie et Esdras, une nouvelle hypothèse sur la
chronologie et la Restauration juive, in: Le Muséon 9 (1890) 151-184, 315-
317, 389-401.
VANDERKAM, James C., From Yeshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile,
Minneapolis / Assen 2004.
VEIOLA, Timo, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie
nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975.
VELÁZQUEZ , Efraín II, The Persian Period and the Origins of Israel: Beyond the
‘Myths,’ in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY Paul J. Jr. (eds.),
Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Research
Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 61-78.
WENHAM, Gordon J., Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary 2) Dallas 1994.
WIDENGREN, Geo, The Persian Period, in: HAYES, John H. / MILLER, J. Maxwell ,
Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977.
WILLIAMSON, Hugh G. M., Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary 16),
Waco 1985.
WRIGHT, Jacob L., A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, in:
LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and
the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 333-348.
WRIGHT, Jacob L., Rebuilding Identity. The Nehemiah-Memoirs and Its Earliest
YOUNGER, K. Lawson Jr., The Rhetorical Structuring of the Joshua Conquest
Narratives, in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY, Paul J. Jr.
(eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Re-
search Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 3-32.
ZSENGELLÉR, József, Gerizim as Israel (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 38), Ut-
recht 1998.
Samaritans. History and Tradition in Relationship
to Jews, Christians and Muslims: Problems in
Writing a Monograph
INGRID HJELM
The first part of the title of this lecture is an English translation of a

planned monograph in Danish about Samaritan history and tradition.
The book will consist of eleven chapters of which chapters 1-5 will deal
with theories of origin, history and demography, religion and cult, and
the history and role of Mt. Gerizim. Having given a portrait of the Sa-
maritans past and present in these first chapters, chapters 6-8 will focus
on literary traditions and biblical parallels, Samaritans in light of recent
information about the ancient history of Palestine and a chapter length
discussion about the importance of Samaritan history and tradition for
biblical studies. This discussion has become most important in light of
recent excavations that have fostered a huge amount of new knowledge
of the development of Palestine, and especially about the status of
Israel/Shomron and Judah in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The
book concludes with chapters on Jewish and Samaritan relationships in
antiquity: their cooperation, animosity and attempts at demarcation, on
Samaritans and Christianity and, finally, on Jewish, Islamic, Christian
and Samaritan legal discussions in medieval times.
The book is planned as a textbook for students at seminaries and
universities and well educated lay people as well. It opens with an in-
troduction that will discuss epistemological issues pertaining to history
writing. This is especially important with a subject that is so thoroughly
informed with tradition. Where does history end and tradition begin,
or where does tradition end and history begin? The distinction is not
easy as tradition also belongs to history, past and present. People be-
come the stories they tell.1 These affect the way we compose ancient
histories: timescale, geography, sociology, political circumstances etc. A
classical example is the periodization between Iron I-II, III and the Exi-
le, which refers to the Babylonian exile, although several exiles took
1 WHITELAM, Invention, ch. 3-4.

174 I. Hjelm
place in Palestine from the 9th to the 3rd century BCE. Nevertheless, to
many biblical scholars, the exile is a watershed that separates pre-exilic
from post-exilic literature, language, archaeology, sociology etc. What
timescale and watersheds do we have regarding Samaritan history?
When should we begin our history? I have dealt with these last questi-
ons in several publications.2 Here we will take a look at recent works on
histories of biblical Israel, Israel, Judah and Palestine. The changing
paradigms for these histories and the history of the literature that be-
came a product of these ancient regions also affect conclusions about
Samaritan history and tradition.
When I first formulated a topic for this conference, I was working
on two projects: writing an application for research funds for the book
just mentioned and writing a review of Megan Bishop Moores book:
Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel.3 The history
Moore had in mind was the biblical history and its correction and con-
firmation by extra biblical sources. The histories analyzed by Moore
have been written by biblical scholars and theologians who, in different
ways, have approached tensions between history and biblical tradition
in their inventions of Israel’s past, whether it is seen as mythical or real.
Pressing issues in scholarship of the 20th century have been the reliabili-
ty of certain parts, narratives and aspects of biblical history. What had
begun in an analysis of biblical sources and various documentary hy-
potheses of the Pentateuch in the 19th century, led to intense source
critical analyses of Noth’s Deuteronomistic History (especially in Ge-
rman scholarship) since its publication in 1943.4 Accompanying these
efforts at separating and differentiating sources brought together in a
continuous narrative, archaeology, epigraphy and written sources
which have come to light, have complicated matters in a way that has
undermined confidence in the possibilities of writing any history that
might give more than just a hint of what really happened.
Such analyses, archaeological achievements and considerations ha-
ve resulted in a dismissal of the historicity of the Patriarchs, Moses,
Joshua’s conquest, kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon, and an in-
creasing skepticism about the remaining narratives in the Hebrew Bib-
le, their time scale, geography, sociology, political circumstances and
cultic behavior.
2 HJELM, Samaritans; HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise; HJELM, What do Samaritans, 9-62;

HJELM, Brothers Fighting, 197-222; HJELM, Samaritans in Josephus, 27-39.
3 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice; HJELM, Review of Moore.
4 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien; For recent works on Noth’s thesis, see,
DE PURY / RÖMER / MACCHI , Israel Constructs its History; SHEARING / MCKENZIE,
Those Elusive Deuteronomists; RÖMER, The So-called Deuteronomistic History.
Samaritans. History and Tradition 175
From seeing biblical tradition as a continuous narrative that had

been updated concurrently to the history it told, biblical narratives
have been loosened from this explicit chronology and setting, and da-
ted at a distance from the events narrated. In other words, biblical tra-
dition has undergone a transformation from historical sources to histo-
rical narratives. It has become ‘fictional historiography’ in John Van
Seters’ inversion of Otto Eissfeldt’s theory of ‘fictionalised history,’5 or
it has become invention and creation with very little historical nucleus
according to Thomas Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, Philip Davies
and others.6
Reflective of these considerations are titles and composition of his-
tories of ancient Israel that focus on the biblical, historical or ancient
Israel. Thus, Miller and Hayes’ A History of Ancient Israel and Judah,7
begins with the period of the Judges as the Bible’s earliest historical
kernel. Soggin’s A History of Israel from the Beginning to the Bar Kochva
Revolt8 has the united monarchy under David and Solomon as his star-
ting point. Gösta Ahlström’s The History of Ancient Palestine from the
Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest9 attempts a balance from Joshua
onwards, without too much synthesizing of sources. However, when
he begins using Kings and Prophets, the biblical material takes center
stage. Thomas Thompson’s Early History of the Israelite People10 rather
deconstructs any history told and attempts opening up avenues to the
literary and intellectual matrices of biblical tradition.
Countering these works, we find recent assessments of Israel’s bib-
lical past in works of Kenneth Kitchen, William Dever, Ferdinand Deist,
Iain Provan, Philips Long and Tremper Longman III,11 who advocate a
general trust in the Bible as a historical document from the Patriarchs
onwards and reject modern opinions about the biblical books as literary
and theological documents. It stands to reason that these scholars in
general are quite skeptical of recent achievements in related fields.
Seeking to mediate between these positions, Megan Bishop Moore
advocates an idealist, one might say modern, confidence, that an objec-
tive comprehensive history of Israel’s past can and should be written,
5 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise, 19-21.

6 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 106-107
7 MILLER / HAYES, History of Ancient Israel and Judah.
8 SOGGIN, History of Israel.
9 AHLSTRÖM, History of Ancient Palestine.
10 THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People.
11 KITCHEN, On the Reliability; DEVER, What Did the Biblical Writers Know; DEVER,
Who Were the Israelites; DEIST, Contingency; D EIST, Material Culture; P ROVAN /
LONG / LONGMAN, Biblical History of Israel.
176 I. Hjelm
but that this history should be composed in such a way that ‘whatever
relevant information that is available is made known and nothing po-
tentially relevant is omitted, while keeping the distinction between
evidence and interpretation as clear as possible.’12 Rather than the scep-
ticism advocated by several scholars, Moore advocates, with Deist and
Philips Long, that “qualified correspondent truth” is a more appropria-
te ‘truth-standard for the history of Israel at this time.’13 She also advo-
cates that a comprehensive history should and can be written. Moore
herself does not give an example of the result of such a, dare I say, “bo-
gus” epistemology, in which, however, we are all in danger of being
trapped.
At this point, I will give attention to a recent history of Israel by the
Italian Assyriologist Mario Liverani, because it implicitly offers an
answer to Moore’s position, but in a far more sophisticated way than
the works of Deist and Philips Long. In Liverani’s Israel’s History and the
History of Israel, translated and published in 2005 from its Italian origi-
nal in 2003,14 he far surpasses Van Seters’ hypothesis of a late Yahwist,
responsible for the non-Priestly material in the Tetrateuch.15 This stra-
tum encompasses the primeval history, the Patriarchs and the life of
Moses and was the work of a Judaean scholar living among the exiles
in Babylonia.16 Van Seters dates J to around ca 540 BCE and later than D
(ca 625) and DtrH (Grundschrift), but earlier than P’s modifying additi-
ons (ca 400).17 Liverani’s book is divided into 2 parts with an introduc-
tion and an epilogue. Part I-II is entitled: ‘A normal History’ and ‘An
Invented History’, respectively. His ‘Normal History’ covers the period
from the 12th century Late Bronze/Iron Age transition until the end of
the Babylonian empire. However, his introduction, his imprinting, deals
with Palestine in the Late Bronze Age; that is 14th and 15th centuries
with no obvious change or transition in his history writing to part one,
which begins in general analyses of Palestine and gradually focuses
more intensely on Israelite matters as the story moves towards the divi-
sion of the otherwise non-historical Davidic kingdom and the historic
12 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 144.

13 MOORE, Philosophy and Practice, 183.
14 LIVERANI, Israel’s History.
15 P is usually ascribed to Exod 25-31, 35-40, Leviticus; Num 1-10, 15, 18-20, 26-30, 34-36
+ variously to minor narrative and genealogical sections in Genesis-Numbers. It is
considered to be the youngest layer of the Pentateuch. VAN SETERS, Joshua 24; VAN
SETERS, Prologue to History; VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses; VAN SETERS, Is There
Evidence; VAN SETERS, Law Book for the Diaspora.
16 VAN SETERS , Life of Moses, 468.
17 VAN SETERS , Pentateuch, 14.
fate of Israel and Judah, such as told in biblical narratives and partly
confirmed by extra biblical sources. Methodologically, Liverani moves
from having founded his history of Palestine in extra biblical sources
and material to basing his entire histories of the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah on the Books of Kings of the Hebrew Bible; that is, modern com-
pilations of masoretic texts. His reason for doing so, although implicitly
claimed to be epistemological, is, however, a matter of conviction; na-
mely, that it is only in the period of the ‘divided’ kingdoms that the
authors had ‘reliable official documentation at their disposal: palace
archives, royal inscriptions and chronicles.’18 With these documents,
they wrote the various annals referred to in Kings, brought these to
Babylon and, influenced by Babylonian Chronicle writing, formed the
synchronistic history of the kingdoms in a ‘scanty yet precise way,
chronologically well related in detail and without using legendary ma-
terial (apart from the clearly demarcated prophetic cycles of Elijah and
Elisha).’19 On form critical grounds, one must agree with Liverani that
the parallels with Babylonian chronicles are substantial enough to as-
sert a literary a quo in the Babylonian period.20 However, and Liverani
must know that, form does not yield or guarantee reliability per se, and
an early a quo dating does not contradict the possible later ad quem,
suggested by other scholars.
Part II, Liverani’s ‘Invented History’ is basically an attempt at pla-
cing the returning Jews within frameworks of Ezra, Nehemiah and
contemporary Prophets and at aligning these books with what is
known about the Persian Empire. Also here, Liverani shows a great
deal of confidence in the biblical books. The term ‘invention’ does not
relate to the history of the Jews in the Persian period, but to their crea-
tions, namely the books they wrote about their prehistory from creation
to the end of the Solomonic kingdom. This means that the invention of
the Israelite people, with their tribal divisions, the exodus, wandering
in the desert, covenants and Law, settlement in the Promised Land,
period of Judges and the early kingdom down to the division of that
kingdom, all are paradigmatic of political, social, cultic and literary
circumstances from the late neo-Assyrian to well into the Persian pe-
riod, rather than any earlier periods narrated in Genesis to 2 Samuel.
Liverani’s attempt at ‘referring literary texts to the time in which
they were written and not the period they speak about’21 is both insigh-
18 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 228.

19 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 228.
20 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, 229-230.
21 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, xvi.
178 I. Hjelm
tful and stimulating. He might be the first historian who has attempted
a comprehensive History of Israel that seeks to incorporate some recons-
truction of its literary history based on recent ‘critical deconstructions
of the Biblical text.’22 However, already in 1971, Morton Smith’s Palesti-
nian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament became very in-
fluential in deconstructing old paradigms leading to speculations about
a much later dating of canonical books.23 The process became highly
influenced by evidence gained from publications of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, which forced scholars to rethink processes of canonization of
Biblical texts and entities. The existence of multiple text variants from
the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE have undermined the status
of the Masoretic text as normative before Medieval times.24 In short, did
any of the texts used by Liverani exist in the 7th-5th century BCE?
Strangely enough, this research is completely absent in Liverani’s book,
although much has been written on the subject. The deconstruction
models outlined in Liverani’s book represent, in fact, only one aspect of
debates about biblical texts. A close forerunner of Liverani’s book is
Thomas Thompson’s The Bible in History. How Writers Create a Past,
from 1999.25 While Liverani’s book is sociological and chrono-historical,
Thompson’s book is oriented towards intellectual and literary forms in
the ancient worlds of scribes and audience.
Another aspect that has not made its way into Liverani’s book is re-
cent archaeological achievements regarding the Persian and Hellenistic
periods.26 Especially the last ten years have produced new results re-
garding the number and size of settlements in Judaea and the very slow
growth of Jerusalem, which makes it unlikely that a considerable temp-
le, let alone a city wall had been built as told in Ezra and Nehemiah.27
The political, demographic and economic power to carry out major
building projects was not at hand before well into the Hellenistic pe-
riod, and there is no precedence for walled cities in central Palestine in
the Persian period.28 Theories about a fortified Jerusalem are entirely
22 LIVERANI, Israel’s History, xvi.

23 SMITH, Palestinian Parties.
24 HJELM, Whose Bible Is It Anyway?
25 THOMPSON, The Bible in History.
26 OFER, All the Hill Country; BARSTAD , After the “Myth of the Empty Land”; CARTER,
Emergence of Yehud; CARTER, Ideology and Archaeology; LIPSCHITS / OEMING,
Judah and the Judaeans; LIPSCHITS / KNOPPERS / ALBERTZ , Judah and the Judeans;
LIPSCHITS, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem.
27 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem.
28 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem, 510.
based on Nehemiah and have no archaeological basis.29 From the Ele-

phantine archive, Jerusalem’s temple seems to have been in place at the
end of the 5th century, but it was only in the 2nd to 1st century BCE that it
gained in size and importance. Whether this should be ascribed to
Hasmonaean or Herodian activity or whether one should rather think
of the restoration of the temple undertaken by Antiochus III, such as
told by Josephus (Ant 12.138-144), demands further research. Similarly
the growth of Judah went much slower than has been estimated earlier
and the “province’s” political role seems to have been subordinate to
the political role played by Samaria up to the 4th century BCE.
Jerusalem was not the only place for Yahweh worship in Persian
period Palestine. The Samarian/Samaritan temple on Gerizim was in
place from early in the 5th century according to the coinage found there,
and it gained in size (and importance) in the 3rd-2nd century BCE.30 The
structure of the precinct, measuring 96 x 98 m and the six chambered
gates, (to the north, the south and the east), common throughout Israel
in the Iron II, resembles descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel and the
Temple Scroll. The cult carried out at the site is testified in finds of
hundreds of thousands of burnt animal bones of three- to one year old
sheep, goats, cattle (rare), and pigeons, consistent with the distribution
of sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 1-6.31 These were concentrated in
four areas of the Persian period complex. Small finds from the Persian
period include silver jewellery, a silver ring with the insignia “Yahweh
is one” (yhwh ’ḥd), a copper snake and metal implements.32 No pagan
objects, no Greek pottery with mythical depictions and no images have
been uncovered. Thus the Samaritan temple and community did not
arise in the late 4th century as claimed by Josephus, but was in existence
more than a century earlier; that is, the time in which the Books of Ezra
and Nehemiah depict the Samaritans as adversaries of the returning
Jews. Leaving aside the polemics in these books and looking at the evi-
dence, we find a cultural continuity between Samaria and Yehud in the
Persian and Hellenistic periods. This consists of language (Aramaic and
Hebrew), similar scripts, archaized seal impressions inscribed in paleo-
29 FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem, 509.

30 NAVEH / MAGEN, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions; MAGEN, Mt. Gerizim; MAGEN /
MISGAV / TSEFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations I; MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase;
MAGEN, Mount Gerizim Excavations II; HJELM, Changing Paradigms; HJELM, Mt.
Gerizim and Samaritans.
31 NAVEH / MAGEN, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions. MAGEN / MISGAV / TSEFANIA,
Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 9.
32 KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion.
180 I. Hjelm
Hebrew, a significant overlap in personal names and a predominance

of Yahwistic personal names.33
In the rebuilding of the temple in the early second century BCE,
four chambered gates replaced the old gates on the northern, eastern
and southern sides and the walls were enlarged. On the western side, a
continuous wall was built on the foundations of the early wall. A
monumental staircase, with a gatehouse at its bottom and the four
chambered gatehouse at its top, which is integral to the wall, was con-
structed on the eastern side. To the north and south of the staircase
were courtyards supported by huge retaining walls. The city that grew
up around the temple had already begun to expand considerably after
the invasion of Alexander the Great. On Mt. Gerizim, five residential
quarters with streets and alleys have been excavated to the north, south
and west of the holy precinct. A great number of public buildings have
been uncovered to the east and to the south. Defensive fortresses, tower
and courtyards surrounded by thick retaining walls, were built to the
southeast and west of the precinct. Before its destruction around 110
BCE, the city housed more than ten thousand people in addition to the
many pilgrims who visited the temple. Outside the city itself, towards
the northwest, was found a large residential and industrial quarter.34
Incorporating new insights in one’s analysis is a slow process be-
cause it demands a rethinking of several foundations. One is the Jerusa-
lem orientation that pervades the scholarly world to such an extent that
even the biblical books that have no Jerusalem orientation (Genesis-
Joshua) have been brought under the same umbrella as Samuel-2
Kings, Ezra- Nehemiah and Chronicles. In doing so, scholars are able to
retain the paradigm about Babylonian influence in exile, which became
postexilic practice with the returning Jews. However, Babylonian reli-
gious and legal practice could have greatly influenced Israelite and
Judaean customs, whether in Palestine or exile, from as early as the 7th
century. Linked to the aforementioned paradigm is the paradigm about
the cessation of the Israelite population with the fall of Samaria in 722
BCE. A myth of an almost empty land that became filled with foreig-
ners, who forced the remaining religious establishment to seek refuge
in Jerusalem, and, having brought their traditions with them, these
became incorporated in Judaean scripture. Such popular paradigms,
unfounded and contradicted by evidence,35 try to answer more than
they can. They are simple explanations of the very complex problem of
33 KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion, 11; see also KNOPPERS, Revisiting the Samari-
tan Question, 273-279.
34 MAGEN / MISGAV / TSFANIA, Mount Gerizim Excavations I, 1-10.
35 KNOPPERS, In Search of Post-Exilic Israel, 162-165.
the formation of Scripture, which did not end with the biblical figure of
Ezra around 400 BCE. Neither did runaway priests bring a Jewish Pen-
tateuch to Gerizim, where they later transformed its messages to fit the
new situation. We simply have to look for other scenarios and most
likely for models of cooperation between Samaritans and Jews.36 Unfor-
tunately, new evidence does not make our tasks easier. The uncertainty
in knowing our present, but having a past that changes every day, is a
condition we cannot overcome. However, it makes it meaningful to
continue to investigate past events, so let’s do so and learn as much as
we can together.
Bibliography
AHLSTRÖM, Gösta W. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic

Period to Alexander’s Conquest (EDELMAN Diana V. ed., JSOTS 146), Shef-
field 1993.
BARSTAD, Hans M., After the “Myth of the Empty Land”: Major Challenges in
the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah, in: LIPSCHITS Oded / BLENKINSOPP, Jo-
seph (eds.), Judah and Judaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona
Lake 2003, 3-20.
CARTER Charles E., The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and
Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294), Sheffield 1999.
CARTER Charles E., Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period:
Excavating Text and Tell, in: LIPSCHITS Oded / BLENKINSOPP, Joseph (eds.),
Judah and Judaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Winona Lake 2003, 301-
322.
DEVER, William G., What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They
Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell us about the Reality of Ancient
Israel? Grand Rapids 2001.
DEVER, William G., Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come from?
Grand Rapids 2003.
DEIST, Ferdinand E., Contingency, Continuity and Integrity in Historical Un-
derstanding: An Old Testament Perspective, in: Scriptura 11 (1993) 99-115.
DEIST, Ferdinand E., The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction (The
Biblical Seminar 70), Sheffield 2000.
FINKELSTEIN, Israel, Jerusalem in the Persian (and early Hellenistic) Period and
the Wall of Nehemiah, in: JSOT 32/4 (2008) 501-520.
36 NODET, Search for the Origins of Judaism, 176-195; KNOPPERS, Mt. Gerizim and Mt.
Zion, 12, 28-31.
182 I. Hjelm
HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis

(JSOTSup 303, CIS 7), Sheffield 2000.
HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers: Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism
in Tradition and History, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in An-
cient History and Tradition (CIS 13, JSOTSup 381), London / New York,
197-222; (Arabic in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. / JAYYUSI, Salma Khadra (eds.),
Al-Quds, The Ancient City of Jerusalem between Tradition and History,
Beirut 2003, 275-306.
HJELM, Ingrid, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competi-
tion (JSOTSup 404, CIS 14), London / New York 2004.
HJELM, Ingrid, What do Samaritans and Jews Have in Common? Recent Trends
in Samaritan Studies, in: Currents in Biblical Research 3.1 (2004) 9-62.
HJELM, Ingrid, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? Ancient Authors, Medieval Manu-
scripts and Modern Perceptions, in: SJOT 18/1 (2004) 108-134.
HJELM, Ingrid, The Samaritans in Josephus’ Jewish History, in: SHEHADEH, Has-
seeb / TAWA, Habib (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress
of the Société d’Études Samaritaines. Helsinki, August 1-4, 2000. Studies in
Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger, Paris 2005, 27-39.
HJELM, Ingrid, Changing Paradigms: Judaean and Samarian Histories in Light
of Recent Research, in: MÜLLER, Max / THOMPSON, Thomas L. (eds.), Histo-
rie og Konstruktion. Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche i anledning af 60 års
fødselsdagen den 6. september 2005 (Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 14) Co-
penhagen 2005, 161-179.
HJELM, Ingrid, Review of Megan Bishop Moore, Philosophy and Practice in
Writing a History of Ancient Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-
ment Studies 435), London / New York 2006, in: SJOT 22/1 (2008) 150-154,
and in: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008) 579-580 (abbreviated ver-
sion).
HJELM, Ingrid, Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research, in: MOR, Mena-
hem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present. Current
Studies (Studia Judaica 53, Studia Samaritana 5), Berlin 2010, 25-41.
KITCHEN, Kenneth A., On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids /
Cambridge 2003.
KNOPPERS, Garry N.‚ In Search of Post-Exilic Israel: Samaria After the Fall of the
Northern Kingdom, in: DAY John (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel. Pro-
ceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 406), London /
New York 2004, 150-180.
KNOPPERS, Garry N., Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion: A Study in the Early History of
the Samaritans and Jews, in: Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 34/3-4
(2005) 309-337.
KNOPPERS, Garry N., Revisiting the Samaritan Question in the Persian Period,
in: LIPSCHITS Oded / O EMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the
Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 265-289.
LIPSCHITS, Oded, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, Winona Lake 2005.
LIPSCHITS Oded / O EMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Per-
sian Period, Winona Lake 2006.
LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Garry N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the
Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona Lake 2007.
LIVERANI, Mario, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London 2005 (orig:
Oltre la Bibbia: Storia Antica di Israele, Roma-Bari 2003).
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mt. Gerizim – A Temple City, in: Qadmoniot 33/2 (120) 2000,
74-118 (Hebrew).
MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple, in:
LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Garry N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and
the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona Lake 2007, 157-212.
MAGEN, Yitzhak, Mount Gerizim Excavations II: A Temple City (Judea &
Samaria Publications 8), Jerusalem 2008 (English and Hebrew).
MAGEN, Yitzhak / MISGAV, Haggai / TSFANIA, Levana, Mount Gerizim Excava-
tions I: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea & Samaria
Publications 2), Jerusalem (English and Hebrew).
MILLER, J. Maxwell / HAYES, John H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah,
Philadelphia 1986.
MOORE, Megan Bishop, Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient
Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Series 435), London / New
York 2006.
NOTH, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und
bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Halle 1943.
NAVEH, Joseph / MAGEN, Yitzhak, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions of the
Second Century BCE at Mount Gerizim, in: Atiqot 32 (1997) 9-17.
NODET, Etienne, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mish-
nah (JSOTSup 248), Sheffield 1997 ( orig.: Essai sur les origines du Ju-
daïsme: de Josue aux Pharisiens, Paris 1992).
OFER, Avi, “All the Hill Country of Judah”: From a Settlement Fringe to a Pros-
perous Monarchy, in: FINKELSTEIN, Israel / NA’AMAN, Nadav (eds.), From
Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early
Israel, Jerusalem 1994, 92-121.
PROVAN, Ian.W. / LONG V. Philips / LONGMAN Tremper III., A Biblical History of
Israel, Louisville 2003.
DE PURY, Albert / RÖMER, Thomas / MACCHI, Jean-Daniel (eds.) Israel Cons-
tructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research
(JSOTSup 306), Sheffield 2000 (first published as Israël construit son histoi-
184 I. Hjelm
re. L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes

[Le Monde de la Bible 34, Geneva 1996]).
RÖMER, Thomas, The So-called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Histo-
rical, and Literary Introduction, London / New York 2007.
SHEARING Linda S., / MCKENZIE, Steven L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuterono-
mists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268), Sheffield
1999.
SMITH, Morton, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament,
New York 1971.
SOGGIN, J. Alberto, A History of Israel: From the Beginning to the Bar Kochba
Revolt, AD 135, London 1984 (orig: Storia d’Israele, dale origini alla rivolta
di Bar-Kochba, 135 d.C., Brescia 1984; 2nd rev. ed., An introduction to the
History of Judah, London 1993, orig: Introduzione alla Storia d’Israele e di
Guida, Brescia 1993; 3rd. rev. ed., Brescia 1998; Eng. trans., London 1999).
THOMPSON, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written
and Archaeological Sources (SHANE 8), Leiden 1992.
THOMPSON, Thomas L. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Lon-
don 1999 / 2000 (= The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of
Israel, New York 1999 / 2000).
VAN SETERS, John, Joshua 24 & the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament,
in: Barrick W. Boyd / Spencer, John R. (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays
on Ancient Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström (JSOTS 31), Sheffield
1984, 139-158.
VAN SETERS, John, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis,
Louisville 1992.
VAN SETERS, John, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-
Numbers, Kampen 1994.
VAN SETERS, John, The Pentateuch, in: MCKENZIE Steven / GRAHAM, Matt Patrick
(eds.), The Hebrew Bible Today. An introduction to Critical Issues, Louis-
ville 1998, 3-49.
VAN SETERS, John, Is There Evidence of a Dtr Redaction in the Sinai Pericope
(Exodus 19-24, 32-34), in SHEARING, Linda S. / MCKENZIE, Steven L. (eds.),
Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism
(JSOTS 268), Sheffield 1999, 160-170.
VAN SETERS, John, A Law Book for the Diaspora. Revision in the Study of the
Covenant Code, Oxford 2003.
WHITELAM, Keith, The Invention of Ancient Israel. The Silencing of Palestinian
History, London 1996.
IV. Linguistics
”Hebrew Language“ and ”Holy Language“
between Judea and Samaria
ABRAHAM TAL
As is well-known, the language in which Biblical literature was handed

down to future generations is never called “Hebrew” within that cor-
pus. No allusion is made to the name of the language of the “Heb-
rews,” male or female ( ‫העברים‬, ‫ העבריות‬Ex 2:6-7). Nor are we informed
about the name of the language spoken in “the Land of the Hebrews”
(‫ ארץ העברים‬Gen 40:15). Therefore, we do not know what the inhabitants
of the land called it. It is probably the language that Isaiah called ‫שפת‬
‫כנען‬, in his florid style (19:18), although it is doubtful whether is this
more than a figure of speech.1 A more specific name is ‫יהודית‬. In 2 Kgs
18:26, 28 (= Isa 36:11, 13), the emissaries of Hezekiah, king of Judah, ask
Rabshakeh, the Assyrian general, to refrain from speaking to them
‫יהודית‬, so that the common people would not understand his demorali-
zing speech. Apparently, this refers to the language of Judah alone; one
would doubt whether this includes the speakers that populated the
northern kingdom too, who would have had a pronounced aversion to
such a name. Nevertheless, Amos, the Judahite prophet, found no diffi-
culty in making speeches in Samaria “in the days of Jeroboam... king of
Israel!” The same term is used by Nehemiah (13:24) when he complains
about the mixed marriages of many Judahites, which result in children
“who do not know to speak ‫[ יהודית‬Judahite].”2 This is of course the
name which he grants to the language spoken in the territory under his
rule, namely Judah. No doubt, this name could not be accepted in the
territory of Samaria, with the governor of which Nehemiah had nume-
1 This did not deter Ibn Ezra from claiming, “from this we learn that the Canaanites
used to speak in the Holy Language.”
2 ‫אשדודית‬, the language he opposes to ‫יהודית‬, is apparently a derogative name for the
language spoken by these offspring of the unwanted foreign wives. It is difficult to
ascertain the meaning of the following ‫וכלשון עם ועם‬, “and the language of various
peoples.” The Septuagint ignores the entire expression, while the Vulgate associates
it to ‫אשדודית‬, as other spoken languages, not without a preceding insertion loquebatur,
in order to clarify matters.
188 A. Tal
rous unfriendly encounters (Neh 2:10-19, etc.). The Bible itself never lets
us know what the language of its literary pieces is called, although it
calls other languages by name: ‫ ארמית‬is mentioned in the speech of the
emissaries of Hezekiah, as well as in Daniel (2:4), and in Ezra (4:7).
It is only in the period that we are used to call “post-Biblical” that
the name “Hebrew” is used for the language spoken within the boun-
daries of Eretz Israel. Naturally, this does not imply that the name did
not exist before this period. The first echo of the name is embedded into
the preface of the Greek Book of Ben-Sira, where the author’s grandson
(2nd century B.C.E.), who made the translation, complains about the
difficulties in rendering into Greek “what is said e`brai?sti,.”3 The con-
temporary Letter of Aristeas speaks about the king’s desire to have trans-
lated into Greek the Law evk tw/n par´ u`mw/n legome,nwn e`brai?kw/n gram-
ma,twn (§ 38). The Book of Jubilees 12:26-7 reports about God’s speech to
Moses, saying that He taught Abraham th.n e`brai<da glw/ssan.4 The ad-
verbial expression e`brai?sti, occurs in many somewhat later literary pie-
ces composed in the Roman periods, such as Philo’s references to
e`brai/wj glw/ssa in his De Sobrietate § 45 and De Confusione Linguarum §
68.5 So is Josephus’ account of Rabshakeh’s speech held e`b` rai?œsti, “be-
3 The discovery of the Ben Sira fragments in the Cairo Geniza generated an ardent
dispute over the question whether they represent the original that underlies the
Greek translation or not. Their striking resemblance to the fragments from Masada
solved the problem. See HURWITZ, Linguistic Status, 72-73. For a detailed discussion
of the translator’s use of the term e`brai?œsti, , and the distinction between Hebrew and
Aramaic at its time, see SCHORCH, Pre-eminence.
4 According to the Greek version quoted by SYNCELLUS, Georgius Syncellus, 185. The
Ethiopian version is somewhat different but mentions Hebrew too. An indirect
testimony is provided by the medieval ‫ ספר הזכרונות‬by Yerahmiel b. Shelomo. In a
chapter largely dependent on the Testament of Naphtali, the division of the
languages is narrated, mentioning that after the Tower of Babylon affair, God sent
the angels to teach the seventy nations seventy languages, while ‫ לשון עברי‬remained
for Shem and Eber and Abraham their descendant. (YASSIF, The Book of Memory,
146. To be sure, this segment does not exist in the Greek version of the Testament of
Naphtali).
5 Philo, vol. III, LCL, Cambridge, Mass., 1940, 466; ibid., vol. IV, 47, respectively. His
testimony is somewhat blurred by his statement made in De Vita Mosis 2:26-27 that
the Torah was originally written “in Chaldean” (glw,ssh| caldai?kh|)/ before being
translated into Greek, ibid., vol. VI, 1935, 460, 462. For a detailed study of Philo’s use
of the term Chaldean when referring to Hebrew, see WONG, Philo’s use of Chaldaioi.
The interpretation of eJbraiœsti/ is the subject of an endless dispute. Assuming that
Hebrew was no longer in colloquial use after the Exile, many scholars took it as
expressing Aramaic. Place names ending in a in the Gospels, such as Golgoqa,
Gabbaqa, Beqzaqa (John 5:2; 19:13,17 respectively) apparently support this view, since
the ending a allegedly represents the final Aramaic article. Mary Magdalene's
“Aramaic” exclamation rabbouni, “my Master,” at the sight of Jesus (John 20:16), etc.,
“Hebrew Language” and “Holy Language” between Judea and Samaria 189
cause he mastered this language” (Ant 10.8), and of Nehemiah who

reports hearing two people speaking e`b` rai?œsti, to each other (Ant
11.159). The same term occurs in many other places, such as the Gospel
according to John, which relates that Pilate sat on the judgement seat at
a place named Liqo,strwton, (which) e`b` rai?œsti, (is named) Gabbaqa (19:13).
Paul addresses the crowd in Jerusalem in th/| e`brai<di diale,ktw| (Acts
21:40; 22:2). The Testament of Solomon 14:7 tells about “the great angel
who abides in the second heaven and is called e`braiœ?sti, Bazaza,q (= Beel-
zebul).”6
The name ‫( עברית‬and its variant ‫ )עברי‬for Hebrew associated with
speech is not widespread in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature. I
found in the data-base of the Academy of the Hebrew Language only
41 occurrences in the older Rabbinic sources from the beginning of the
Common Era to the end of the seventh century. ‫ עברית‬appears mainly in
precepts referring to writing of deeds, contracts, and even in scrolls. For
example in the Mishnah: ‫גט שכתבו עברית ועדיו יוונים‬, “a writ of divorce writ-
ten ‫ עברית‬with its witnesses [signing in] Greek” (Gittin 9:8, quoted in
Talmud Yerushalmi Gittin 50c; Talmud Bavli Gittin 19b; 87b). ‫תרגום‬
‫שכתבו עברית‬, „a Targum written ‫( ”עברית‬Yadayim 4:5). Likewise in the
Tosefta: ‫מגילה כתובה עברית‬, “a scroll written ‫( ”עברית‬Megillah 3:13, quoted
in Yerushalmi Megillah 74d); ‫משנין את השטר מעברית ליוונית‬, “a deed may be
changed [from] ‫ עברית‬to Greek” (Megillah 3:13). The Talmud Bavli
enumerates writings that one is permitted to desecrate Shabbat in order
to save from fire: ‫ מצילין אותן מפני‬... ‫ ועילמית יונית‬,‫ עברית‬,‫ מדית‬,‫היו כתובים גיפטית‬
‫הדליקה‬, “if they are written in Egyptian, Median, ‫עברית‬, Elamitic, or
Greek..., they may be saved from a fire” (Shabbat 115a). Many of the
forty cases are mere repetitions in younger sources of passages quoted
or simply re-written from the older ones. Rarely is ‫ עברית‬used in context
of speech. The 3rd century Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael claims that one of
the factors that led to the liberation of the Children of Israel from Egypt
was the fact that they never abandoned their language and continued
to speak ‫ עברית‬in the Egyptian environment: ‫ומנין שלא חלפו לשונם שנ' מי שמך‬
‫ מכן שהיו מדברים עברית‬.‫לאיש שר ושפט‬, “Wherefrom (do we know) that they
as well as similar “quotations” of direct speech, have been put forward in favor of
this thesis. This argumentation, however, has been refuted by many scholars. For
example the vocalization ‫ר ַ בּוּן‬in Hebrew documents is discussed by YALON, Reasons,
162, and WIEDER, Form Rabbun, 214-217 (both in Hebrew). Such is also the
imperative evffaqa,, “be opened” in Mark 7:34, which gave raise to a long dispute
over its nature between EMERTON, Did Jesus speak Hebrew? and RABINOWITZ,
Ephphata. The argument continued in the seventies and was examined by MORAG,
evffaqa,. As the matter is far beyond the scope of this article, I direct the reader to the
learned account given by PENNER, What Language. See also POIRIER, Narrative Role.
6 Quoted from MCCOWN, Testament of Solomon.
190 A. Tal
did not change their language? It is written: ‘Who made you a ruler and
judge over us?’ (Ex 2:14); Therefrom that they were speaking ‫”עברית‬
(sec. Pasha 8).7 This aggadah is repeated again and again in various
later compositions. In a similar context ‫ עברית‬occurs in Mekhilta de-
Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yohai: ‫בזכות ]ישראל[ שהיו מדברים עברית‬, “by the merit of
[Israel], because they were speaking ‫( ”עברית‬sect. Mishpatim).8 Sifre
Devarim §343 says: ‫ייי מסיני בא זה לשון עברי‬, “the Lord came from Sinai
(Deut 33:2) – this is [in the] Hebrew language” (in contrast with the
following parallel verb ‫ואתה‬, “and he came,” which is characterized as
‫לשון ארמי‬, Aramaic).9 Most famous is the dictum of R. Jonathan of Bet
Guvrin who, attributing functions to the four important languages of
his time, reserves Hebrew for speech: ‫ארבעה לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם‬
‫ואילו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסי לאילייא עברי לדיבור‬, “Four languages are sui-
table for the world to use them. They are: Laaz (= Greek) for song, Ro-
man for battle, Syriac for elegy, Hebrew for speech” (Talmud Yerus-
halmi, Megillah 71b [ch. I, 8]. Notwithstanding its importance in the
eyes of the rabbis, the term ‫ עברית‬remains infrequent in their literature.
More frequent is the appellation ‫לשון הקודש‬, “holy language,” whose
occurrences in the same chronologically defined Rabbinic literature
number around 80. Although this term occurs in imitative texts too, it is
far more widely used than the preceding one, perhaps because of its
appreciative connotation. One may assume that its origin lies in its
attribution to the language in which the Holy Writ is transmitted, whe-
refrom it spread to the nickname of Hebrew in general.10 The oldest
Tannaitic document, the Mishnah, specifies that certain formulae are
pronounced in ‫לשון הקודש‬. For example, Yevamot 12:6 says that the rite
of the Ḥaliṣa was performed in ‫( לשון הקודש‬cf. Mishnah Sotah 7:4). Ho-
7 HOROVITZ / RABIN Mechilta d'Rabbi Ismael, 15.

8 EPSTEIN MELAMED, Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b. Jochai, 160.
9 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 395.
10 The Aramaic correspondent occurs once in the Pseudo-Jonatan Targum ‫בלישן קודשה‬
‫הוו ממללין דאיתבריא ביה עלמא מן שירויא‬, “they were speaking in the holy language, in
which the world was created from the beginning” (Gen 11:1). Obviously, this is an
Aramaic adaptation of a midrash about the primeval language, related to the Tower
of Babylon. E.g., Tanhuma: ‫שהלשון הראשון היו מדברים בלשון הקודש ובו בלשון נברא העולם‬, “that
the first language that they (i. e., the builders of the tower) spoke was the holy
language, in which the world was created” (editio princeps, Constantinople 1523).
The matter is treated by RUBIN, The Language of the Creation. The amplified
expression ‫ לישן בית קודשא‬occurs elsewhere in the Palestinian Targum in all its
versions. The various opinions about its origin and meaning are detailed in SHINAN,
The Embroidered Targum, 113-115. The author believes that, as far as the Targum is
concerned, ‫ לישן בית קודשא‬is the prototype of ‫לישן קודשא‬. See the article mentioned
below, note 13.
wever, the same term is used not only to qualify quotations from the
Holy Writ or other formulae, but also to designate spoken Hebrew.
Thus, according to the 3rd century Sifre on Deuteronomy §46 the father
of a boy is required to speak ‫ לשון הקודש‬with his son as soon as he starts
speaking: 11 ‫כשהתינוק מתחיל לדבר אביו מדבר עמו בלשון הקודש‬. A famous saying
of R. Meir in the same composition (§333) says: ‫כל הדר בארץ ישראל וקורא‬
‫“קרית שמע שחרית וערבית ומדבר בלשון הקדש הרי הוא בן העולם הבא‬anyone who
lives in the Land of Israel, and recites the creed (‫ )שמע ישראל‬morning and
evening and speaks ‫לשון הקודש‬, will inherit the world to come.”12
The oldest record of the term ‫ לשון הקודש‬came to light recently in a
fragment discovered in the fourth cave in Qumran (4Q464), and pub-
lished by Esther Eshel and Michael E. Stone.13 A segment of document
says:
‫[עד עולם כיא הואה‬...] 7

‫[רא לשון הקודש‬...] 8
‫ ]כי אז אהפך[אל עמים שפה ברורה‬... 9
One cannot fail to notice the fact that this is the first manifestation
known so far of the term ‫ לשון הקודש‬in a non-rabbinic source. From its
proximity to the quotation from Zephaniah 3:9, ‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה‬
‫ברורה לקרא כלם בשם יהוה לעבדו שכם אחד‬, the authors inferred that the frag-
ment belongs to the eschatological genre, meaning that at the “end of
the days” people will speak the “holy language,” i.e., the primeval lan-
guage. For, obviously, ‫ שפה ברורה‬is interpreted as the “chosen langua-
ge.”14 This is how Targum Jonathan to the Prophets renders the verse:
‫ארי בכין אשני על עממיא ממלל חד בחיר לצלאה כולהון בשמא דיוי למפלח קדמוהי כתף חד‬,
11 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 104.

12 FINKELSTEIN, Siphre, 383. The opposite of ‫ לשון הקודש‬in Talmud Yerushalmi is ‫לשון‬
‫הדיוט‬, i. e., the language of commoners. E.g. jSanhedrin 25d [ch. VII, 10] defines the
difference between ‫מסית‬, “one who instigates (to idolatry),“ and ‫מדיח‬, “one who leads
astray,” in terms of the languages they use for preaching, according to their
audience: ‫מסית אומר בלשון הקודש ומדיח אומר בלשון הדיוט‬, “a ‫ מסית‬is one who speaks in the
Holy Language, and a ‫ ומדיח‬in the language of commoners” (referring to Sanhedrin
7:10). The Talmud Bavli exhibits the dichotomy between ‫ לשון קודש‬and ‫לשון חול‬,
“secular language”: ‫דברים של חול מותר לאומרן בלשון קודש של קודש אסור לאומרן בלשון חול‬,
“Secular matters may be uttered in the holy language, whereas sacred matters must
not be uttered in secular language'”(bShabbat 40b).
13 ESHEL / STONE, Exposition on the Patriarchs. See also ESHEL / STONE, Holy Language.
14 There is a wide consensus among modern translations of this passage: “At that time
I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on
the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord.” (RSV, NRSV, JPS, etc). Yet, the
root ‫ ברר‬bears the meaning “choice,” especially in the book of Chronicles, see BDB
s.v. I‫ברר‬.
192 A. Tal
“for at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a selected
speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him
with one accord.” Jerome translates the verse in similar terms: reddam
populis labium electum, and so does the Peshitta: ‫אהפך על עממא ספתא גביתא‬.
Actually, the root ‫ ברר‬in the Second Commonwealth period bears the
sense of “choosing.” Thus, for example, 1 Chron 16:41 relates about the
‫ברורים‬, the chosen ones “that have been designated by names,” when
the Chronicler refers to chosen people, using the language of Num 1:17:
‫אשר נקבו בשמות‬, “designated by names.” Similarly, the Damascus Cove-
nant mentions ‫וזה סרך לשפטי העדה עד עשרה אנשים ברורים מן העדה‬, “this is the
rule for the judges of the community, they shall be ten men in all cho-
sen from the community” (10:4-5),15 and the Temple Scroll states: ‫וכל‬
‫הברורים אשר יבור יהיו אנשי אמת יראי אלהים‬, “and all the chosen whom he has
selected shall be men of truth, God fearing” (57:7-8).16 The Mishna too
uses the verb in the sense of “choice,” i.e., ‫איזו היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו אדם‬,
“what is the straight way that a person should choose for himself”
(Avot 2:1); ‫הכהן בורר לו את היפה‬, “the priest selects the better of them for
himself” (Bekh 2:6), etc.
Notwithstanding its Jewish appearance, the term ‫ לשון הקודש‬is by no
means alien to Samaritan literature, which expresses the beliefs of the
community. Here is an example taken from a hymn composed by the
10th century poet ‫ טביה בן יצחק‬Tabya ban Yēʼṣåq.17
‫היכול האל הקדש‬ ‫יתרבי זה השם הגדול‬

...
‫והארץ הך בלש‬ ‫ביהוה היה שמים‬
‫ועפר והאור הוא האש‬ ‫האור והרוח והמים‬
‫כל עץ ודשא ורמש‬ ‫מהם קם עלמה‬
‫וכל עוף וכל נפש‬ ‫וכל חיה וכל בהמה‬
‫יאמר בלשן הקדש‬ ‫ואדם בצלם והדמה‬
‫מי כמוך נאדרי בקדש‬ ‫מי כמוך באלים יהוה‬
Exalted be this Great Name /... / By YHWH heaven and earth came into be-
ing, as He desired / and so (were) the Light and the Wind and the Water /
and the Dust and the Light, which is the Fire / from them the world came
into being: every tree and grass and creeping creature / and every living
being and every beast / and every bird and every soul. / And Man in the
image and likeness says in the Holy Language: ‘Who is like You, O Lord,
among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in holiness?’ (Ex 15:11).
15 BROSHI, Damascus Document, 29.

16 QIMRON, Temple Scroll, 83.
17 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 132-133.
This is a segment of a hymn, written by Tabya for the first day of the
month of Nissan (if it falls on a Sabbath), which extols the glory of God
in the context of the Song of the Sea. Each of its four strophes ends with
a quotation from the Torah, which has a certain relevance to Passover.
The strophe under scrutiny has verse 11 in Exodus 15, and the expres-
sion ‫( לשון הקודש‬liššon aqqådəš) plays the role of an introductory formula
of a Torah quotation. Evidently, it differs from the Qumran fragment,
where the term does occurs in a clear eschatological environment.
Another poem composed for similar circumstances by the 14th cen-
tury priest ‫ יוסף הרבן‬Yūsəf aråbbån says:18
‫דו למועדים ארש‬ ‫מועד הפסח מה טבו‬

‫ומיכל קרבן צלי אש‬ ‫שבת ומועד ופסח‬
‫בשמח וברגש‬ ‫על מצות ומרורים יאכלהו‬
‫פמו בלשן הקדש‬ ‫ויקום כל איש ויפתח‬
‫תנים יומה אה עם קדש‬ ‫ויחתם שירתה במימר‬
How good is the feast of Pessah, for it is the foundation of all the feasts: /
Shabbat and the Passover feast and the eating of the offering, roasted over
the fire, / with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it (Ex 12:8),
in joy and excitement. / And every man raises and opens his mouth in the
Holy Language, / and finishes the Song (of the Sea) saying: ‘O, that you re-
peat the day, O Holy people.’19
Yūsəf does not quote the Song of the Sea explicitly like Tabya, but he
rather refers to it: “let everyone raise and open his mouth in liššon
aqqådəš (and recite the Song)“ and ends with the saying, “repeat the
day, O holy people!"
A later poet, namely ‫ אברהים אלעיה‬Ibrāhim alʽAyya, (18th century) uses
the same expression for Hebrew as introductory formula of the glori-
fying verse from the Song of the Sea:20
‫שופר תשבחן נקש‬ ‫כימי השמים על הארץ‬

‫דבוקה דאתה ירש‬ ‫לך מרון דחייה‬
‫אמרים בלשן הקדש‬ ‫כלה ולך ישובו‬
‫מי כמוך נאדרי בקדש‬ ‫מי כמוך באילים יהוה‬
As long as the heavens are above the earth (Deut 11:21), a horn of praises
blasts / for You, the master of the living creatures, the deliverer. For you
18 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 135.

19 The common formula of blessing is ‫תנים יומה מאה שנה‬, ”O that you repeat the day
hundred years.” See BEN-HAYYIM, Samaritan Poems, 353.
194 A. Tal
21
possess / all, and to you they will return saying in the Holy Language: /
‘Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in ho-
liness?’
The great personality of the 14th century, the priest ‫ פינחס הרבן‬Fī‘nås
arråbbån, famous for his cultural activity,22 wrote in a prayer for Passo-
ver, in which he used, along with ‫ לשון הקדש‬liššon aqqådəš, another term
to designate the Hebrew, ‫( העברי לשן‬liššon åʼibri):23
‫ כי נפושה קריב‬/ ‫ לך יהוה ירוח ויטיב‬/ ‫ ועשית פסח ליהוה אלהיך והקריב‬/ ‫שמור את חדש האביב‬
‫ הב יהוה בו העולם וישיב‬/ ‫ כי הו לחדש האביב‬/ ‫ בלשן העברי אביב‬/ ‫קרא יהוה שם חדש האביב‬
‫ ובו קרבן יהוה אקריב‬/ ‫ על יד דמע כל האנשים‬/ ‫ בו הוציא יהוה עמו בני שם‬/ ‫אב לכל חדשים‬
‫ וחדש הירחי הזה נקריב‬/ ‫ כי הו חדש השמש‬/ ‫ חדש האביב בלשן הקדש‬/ ‫קראו הנאדרי בקדש‬
Observe the month of Abib / and offer a passover sacrifice to the Lord your
God (Deut 16:1) / The Lord will grant you ample space and will deal well
with you / For the relief is near.
The Lord called the name of the month of Abib / in the Hebrew Language
Abib / for to the month of Abib / the Lord has given the world and estab-
lished it.
It is the father of all the months / in which the Lord brought out his people,
the children of Shem (from Egypt), through the choicest of all men (= Mo-
ses) / and in it he offered a sacrifice to the Lord.
Recite ‘majestic in holiness’ / (in) the month of Abib in the Holy Language /
for it is the month of the sun / and in the month of the moon we shall offer
sacrifices.24
Although ‫ לשון הקדש‬liššon aqqådəš does not function here as an explicit

introductory formula, it undoubtedly refers to the Song of the Sea. On
the other hand, Fī'nås introduced an innovation: ‫ לשון העברי‬liššon åʼibri,
which soon became popular and was used in several variations by
other poets.25
21 I translated ‫ ירש‬as “possess” (originally “inherit”) following the suggestion of my

colleague and friend, Professor Moshe Florentin (e-mail message). According to his
research, the verb ‫ ירש‬is frequently employed in the liturgy in this sense, when
associated with God (COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 101, 216, 264, 403, etc.).
22 CROWN, The Samaritans, 430, 673; COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 124.
24 The author's excessive resort to licentia poetica combined with his docile compliance
with rhyme and rhythm produced a decadent piece, linguistically erroneous, hard to
understand and strenuous to translate.
25 Since the expression is used in the latest Samaritan literature, one may wonder
whether it was borrowed from Jewish literature. Borrowings from Jewish writings
are manifest in Samaritan compositions, such as their Aramaic Targum (see TAL,
In a poem for the Day of Atonement ‫( עבדאל בן שלמה‬ʽAbəd El ban

Šalame) writes:26
‫לאדם ולזרעו‬ ‫דעת עץ הדעת עיבת‬

‫מאשר תדעו‬ ‫מה אתשרשר להם‬
‫ונשרי במקראו‬ ‫וטרם נדכר לזה‬
‫מטרם מוצאו‬ ‫נדכר מה הוה מנה‬
‫דמע בין בוראו‬ ‫מן גן עדן והיך הוה‬
‫יהלל עבודה וישבחו‬ ‫ושרה בלשון עבראותה‬
You required from Adam and his offspring awareness of (the interdiction
of eating from) the tree of knowledge. / What happened to them, as far as
you know, / before we recall that and begin to read it, / let us recall what
(Adam) was before being banished / from the Garden of Eden, and how he
was the choicest before27 his Creator / (when) he begun to praise his Maker
and to eulogize Him in liššon ibråʼūtå.
In his prolix Neo-Samaritan Hebrew, the author relates Adam's praises

to God before being banished from Eden. One perceives a notable neo-
logism in his ‫( לשון עבראותה‬liššon ibråʼūtå), an aramaizing form of liššon
åʼibri. The poet describes Adam praising God before eating from the
Tree of Knowledge. He emphasizes that the appraisal was said in the
Hebrew language. One may conclude that the poet expresses the belief
prevalent within his community that the primeval language was Heb-
rew. This belief was quite popular in Jewish circles too from time im-
memorial. The rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah, sect. 18, states clearly:
“Inasmuch as [the Torah] was given in the holy language (‫)לשון הקודש‬,
so the world was created in the holy language.“28 Discussing the escha-
tological prophecy of Zephaniah, the medieval Midrash collection Tan-
huma (sect. Noah) maintains that Hebrew was the primeval language,
which God “confused” because of human arrogance. But in the world
to come, Hebrew will regain its status as the universal language.29
Samaritan Targum, 30-31). Likewise, the oldest version of their Arabic translation of
the Pentateuch is based mainly on Saadia's Tafsir (KOHN, Zur Sprache, 125;
SHEHADEH, Arabic Translation, 88f.). A self evident example is the adaptation of one
of Saadia's prayers to Samaritan beliefs (BEN-HAYYIM, A baqasha).
27 Abbreviated from ‫בין ידי‬, “before,” frequent Arabic loan: ‫ﻳﺪﻱ‬. ‫ ﺑﻴﻦ‬See TAL, Samaritan
Targum, 71-72.
28 This is a homily on ‫לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לקחה זאת‬, “she shall be called woman, for from
man was she taken” (Gen 2:23). In order to prove the primordiality of Hebrew it
resorts to the popular etymology connecting ‫ אשה‬with ‫איש‬, which in fact belong to
different roots. THEODOR / ALBECK, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 164.
29 ‫לעולם‬... ‫מה היה אותו הלשון שהיו מדברים בו לשון הקודש היה שבו נברא העולם‬... ‫שערבב הקב"ה את לשונם‬
196 A. Tal
A remarkably similar eschatology is exhibited in a poem for the

Day of Atonement by of a contemporary of ʽAbəd El, the priest ‫אבישע‬
Abiša the son of Fīn’ås arråbbån, grandson of Yūsəf aråbbån. Resembling
the view of Tanhuma but going one step further, Abiša places Hebrew
in the status of the language of the Last Days. In a long poem for the
Day of Atonement, Abiša makes a survey, starting with the Creation,
continuing with the principal events in the course of human history
and ending with the Ta‘eb, the Redeemer, who will bring the “Day of
Revenge and Recompense.”30 Then, the Tabernacle will be rebuilt and
the priests will renew their service:31
‫האמן מן יראתו‬ ‫וישכן ישראל בטח‬

‫ויקריב קרבנותו‬ ‫ויעבד מועדיו בשלם‬
‫וכל העמים יכפתו‬ ‫והשמחות תתחדש‬
‫ויתגלי לשן עבראותו‬ ‫ויבלל לשן הערבים‬
Israel will dwell in safety (Deut 38:28), the steadfast in its faith / and he will
keep the feasts in peace and make his offerings / and joy will be renewed,
and all the nations will be subdued / and the language of the Arabs will be
confused and the liššon ibråʼūta will be revealed [= reinstated].
The environment in which the Samaritans lived and in which their

rennaissance took place in the 14th century was Arabic-speaking. The
Samaritan community itself is clearly Arabic-speaking and Arabic-
writing as well. Abiša knows that this situation is not going to change in
the near future. He expresses his longing for the end of the days, when
Hebrew will regain its status of universal language, as it was in the
days before the Tower of Babylon, when humanity became multilin-
gual. He gives voice to his feelings regarding the deplorable state of the
Samaritans under Arab rule in a rather blunt way using the verb ‫בלל‬,
which calls up an association with the wicked generation of the Tower
of Babylon.32 The term used is again the Aramaic shaped ‫לשן עבראותה‬.
‫הבא כולן שוין כתף אחד לעבדו שנאמר כי אז אהפך וגו‬, “that God confused their language and
nobody understood his fellow's language. What was that language that they were
speaking? It was the holy language', in which the world was created... In the world
to come all [creatures] will equally worship Him, for it is said: ‘At that time I shall
change...” BUBER, Midrash Tanchuma, 56. For the occurrence of a similar homily in
early medieval liturgical poetry, see the evidence provided by the articles quoted
above, in note 13.
30 ‫ ליום נקם ושלם‬is the Samaritan counterpart of the masoretic ‫( לי נקם ושלם‬Deut 32:35), cf.
LXX evn h`me,ra| evkdikh,sewj avntapodw,sw.
31 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, 513. For a description of the personality of the Ta'eb, the
Samaritan redeemer, and his role in “the end of the days,” see DEXINGER, Der Taheb.
32 This generation, hostilely named ‫מגדלאי‬, “the people of the Tower,” is harshly
The re-birth of Hebrew is for Abiša the hallmark of a global process of

the nations' admittance of the true faith, which he describes in the co-
lors of Isaiah‘s prophecy (of which he is probably unaware). The nati-
ons33 will acknowledge their mistake:
‫כל מנון יימר לעדתו‬ ‫והגוים והערלים‬

‫וזה הו הקשט דתו‬ ‫כל מה אנן בו שקר‬
‫ונבוא תחת צל קורתו‬ ‫קומו בנו )?!( נלך אליו‬
‫ובמשה ותורתו‬ ‫וייתו ויאמנו בו‬
And the nations and the uncircumcised, each one of them will say to its
community: / ‘Everything in which we are is untrue, and this is the true
faith. / Arise, let us go to it and come under the shelter of its roof (Gen
19:8).’ / And they will come and believe in Moses and his law.
Needless to say, Jews are not going to evade the universal conversion
to Samaritanism. They too will acknowledge their error and abandon
their law, given to them by Ezra, the father of the Jewish heresy. Abiša
is blunt when he refers to them:
‫זה נבוא בדתו‬ ‫היהודהים )!( יימרו‬

‫דכתב בבישאתו‬ ‫ארור עזרה ודבריו‬
And the Jews will say: ‘let us join this faith / cursed be Ezra and his words,
which he has written in his evilness.’34
Abiša returns to this subject in another poem for the Day of Atone-
ment,35 in which he states clearly that Hebrew has a central role in the
global conversion due to occur when the rū:tå (the period of divine
grace) will return, after the long period of disgrace, the fanūtå.36
‫דיומיה כשית‬ ‫הא על רחותה‬

‫ועינינו בה בכית‬ ‫ראינו פנותה‬
...‫יכתב לה ספר כריתית‬ ‫אן אתריח אלה‬
...‫ויקום לשן עבראית‬ ‫תבלל שפתי ערבי‬
‫ואוליך אתכם קוממית‬ ‫ואשברה מטות עולכם‬
condemned in Samaritan sources. See for example BEN-HAYYIM, ‫תיבת מרקה‬, Book IV,
§64.
33 The ‫גוים‬, “nations,“ probably refers to the circumcised Arabs, as opposed to the
following ‫ערלים‬, uncircumcised Christians.
34 According to the Samaritans, the Jewish Torah was written by Ezra, not by Moses
under divine inspiration.
36 For these terms see DEXINGER, Pnwt; and DEXINGER, Rḥwth.
198 A. Tal
Behold, against the rū:tå with its good days / we have seen the fanūtå, and
our eyes wept. / If God wants He will write her a bill of divorce (Deut
24:1)... / The Arabic language will (then) be confused (= annihilated) and
Hebrew Language will arise... / ‘and I shall break the bars of your yoke and
made you walk erect’ (Lev 26:13).
Abiša's motif of Hebrew re-birth appears in a poem of an 18th century

poet, ‫ משלמה‬Mešallama, for the Shabbat that falls on the Sukkot week.
He too, expresses his request for the coming of the Redeemer, who will
establish joy and happiness, marked by the revival of Hebrew and the
abandonment of Arabic:
‫ובטובו לון יחמול‬ ‫ויצוה הברכה בין ידיון‬

‫ומהם אמן לא תבטל‬ ‫ויסגי חדותה ביומיון‬
‫ויתעצם ויגדל‬ ‫ויקים תהבה ביומיון‬
‫ולשן הערבים יבלל‬ ‫ויתגלי לשן העברים‬
And (God) will ordain the blessing before them and in his goodness will
have pity for them, / and will increase joy in their days and Amen (= mani-
festation of faith) will not cease, / and will bring about the Redeemer in
their days, and (he?) will gather strength an grow / and the language of the
Hebrews will be revealed (= reinstated) and the language of the Arabs will
be confused (= annihilated).
Obviously, he is speaking about his own community‘s redemption

from actual oppression, symbolized by Arabic speech.
In the 19th century, Šalama ban Tabya writes about the prevalence of
Hebrew in the world to come. When this takes place, the Jews will
abandon their heresy and return to the bosom of ‫ישראל השמרים‬:37
‫ומל יהוה אלהיך את לבבך באבותה‬

...‫ישלח לך נביו כות משה שליחותה‬
‫ויעבר הרגריזים קדש כל ארעותה‬
...‫ויחפר הארץ דבה טמרים אבני ארהותה‬
... ‫ויכתב באדה התורה ויימר זה הו קשיטותה‬
... ‫ויקום לשון עבראותה‬
‫והיהודים יימרו זה נבוא עדתה‬
‫ארור עזרה ודברו ומה עשה עמן בעשותה‬
‫כל מה דאנן בה שקר וזה הקשט עדתה‬
‘God will circumcise your heart’ (Deut 30:6). In His will / he will send you
a prophet like Moses the messenger... / he will pass to Mount Gerizim, the

holiest of all the lands / and he will dig the land where the stones of the law
(Deut 27:2-4) are hidden... / and he will write the Torah with his own hand
and say: this is the truth... and the Hebrew language will arise. / And the
Jews will say ‘we shall enter this congregation; / cursed be Ezra and what
he did to us in his deeds.’ / All in what we are is falsehood, but this is the
congregation of truth.
The Jews not only will acknowledge their straying, but they will even
curse Ezra for inducing them into errancy and join the “congregation of
truth.”
However, the denomination ‫ לשון הקדש‬is not reserved exclusively for
quotations from the Tora or for eschatological visions. In a poem writ-
ten by Yusef, the great grandfather of Marḥib38 we read:
‫ולשני אקדש‬ ‫פממי אטהר‬

‫בלשן הקדש‬ ‫וארנן ואתפחר‬
‫דלערפלה נגש‬ ‫למן נורו נהיר‬
‫ודרס לגו אש‬ ‫דזרח משעיר‬
Let me purify my mouth and purge my tongue / and sing and glorify in the
Holy Language / the one who his light is kindling, who approached the
darkness (Ex 20:21) / who dawned from Se‘ir (Deut 33:2) and trod on the fi-
re (refers to Ex 3:3-6).39
From the text of the poem it is obvious that the term ‫ לשן הקדש‬designates
here the late medieval Neo-Samaritan Hebrew, clearly not a formula
introducing quotations from the Torah.
In a similar environment, the term ‫ לשון עברי‬is employed. Saʽd Alla
ban Ṣadaqa, the 14th century poet, praises Moses, “the choicest of all
flesh,” in a poem dedicated to a groom at his wedding:40
‫כלנו נקרי שלום אנה ובכל מקום דאנן בו נשרי‬

‫טובינן טובינן כל ימי חיינן אן נגלג פממינן‬
‫ונימר בלשן העברי גלגי זה הגבר‬
‫הגביר הרם לית כמו בבשר דו משה גבירי‬
Let all of us declare: ‘peace here41 and wherever we are dwelling / happy
we are, happy we are all the days of our lives if we praise with our mouths
38 According to the genealogical data given in COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, XLVIII.

39 Published by BEN-HAYYIM, Samaritan Poems.
41 For ‫ אנה‬as the adverbial particle of place see FLORENTIN, Late Samaritan Hebrew,
256-257; TAL, Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, 211.
200 A. Tal
/ and say in the Hebrew Language the praises of this man (Ex 32:1) / the
elevated noble man, like whom there is none in mankind, Moses my mas-
ter.’
We have seen that, notwithstanding their long lasting rivalry, Samari-

tans and Jews have not only common traditions, but some traces of
common hopes and even common terminology.
Bibliography
BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, A baqasha of R. Saadia Gaon – A Samaritan Prayer, in: JSAI 9
(1987) 1-38.
BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, Samaritan Poems for Joyous Occasions, in: Tarbiz 10 (1939)
353 (in Hebrew).
BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, Samaritan Poems for Joyous occasions, in: Tarbiz 10 (1939)
359-360 (in Hebrew).
BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, ‫תיבת מרקה‬, A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim, Jerusalem
1988 (in Hebrew).
BROSHI, Magen, The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem 1992.
BUBER, Salomon (ed.), Midrash Tanchuma, Vilna 1885 (in Hebrew).
COLSON Francis. H. / WHITAKER George H. (eds.), Philo, vol. III. (Loeb Classical
Library 247), Cambridge, Mass., 1940.
COWLEY, Arthur E., The Samaritan Liturgy, vols. I-II, Oxford 1909.
CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989.
DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Der Taheb, ein "messianischer" Heilsbringer der
Samaritaner, Salzburg 1986.
DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Pnwt, in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL,
Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 186.
DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Rḥwth (rū:ta), in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard /
TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993,
202-204.
EMERTON, John A., Did Jesus speak Hebrew?, in JThS 12 (1961), 189-202.
EPSTEIN Jacob Nahum / MELAMED, Ezra Zion (eds.), Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shim'on b.
Jochai, fragmenta in Geniza Cairensi reperta digessit apparatu critico... J.
N. Epstein, defuncti editoris opus absolvit et edendum curavit E. Z.
Melamed, Jerusalem 1955.
ESHEL, Esther / STONE, Michael E., An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and
Two Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b), in: Le Muséon 105 (1992)
243-264.
ESHEL, Esther / STONE, Michael E., The Holy Language at the End of the Days in
Light of a New Fragment Found at Qumran, in: Tarbiz 62 (1993) 169-177 (in
Hebrew).
FINKELSTEIN Louis (ed.), Siphre ad Deuteronomium H. S. Horovitzii schedis
usus cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, Berlin 1939.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, Late Samaritan Hebrew, a Linguistic Analysis of its
Different Types, Leiden / Boston 2005.
HOROVITZ, H. Saul / RABIN, Israel A. (eds.), Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael cum variis
lectionibus et adnotationibus edidit H. S. Horovitz, defuncti editoris opus
exornavit et absolvit I. A. Rabin, Frankfurt am Main 1931.
HURWITZ, A., The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and
Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects. in: MURAOKA, Takamitsu /
ELWOLDE, John. F. (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira,
Leiden / New York / Köln 1997, 72-73.
KOHN, Samuel, Zur Sprache, Literatur und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, Leipzig
1878;
MCCOWN, Chester Charlton, The Testament of Solomon, Leipzig 1922.
MORAG, S. evffaqa, (Mark VII.34): Certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic?, in: JSS 17
(1972) 198-202.
PENNER, Ken, What Language. did Paul speak in Acts 21-22? Ancient Names for
Hebrew and Aramaic? paper delivered at the Canadian Society of Biblical
Studies Annual Meeting, May 30, 2003 (http://www.purl.org/net/-
kmpenner/).
POIRIER, John C., The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts,
in: Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (2003) 107-116.
POIRIER, John C., The Narrative Role of Semitic Languages in the Book of Acts,
in: Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (2003) 107-116.
QIMRON, Elisha, The Temple Scroll, A Critical Edition with Extensive
Reconstructions, Beer Sheva / Jerusalem 1996.
RABINOWITZ, Isaak, Ephphata, in: ZNW 53 (1962) 229-238.
RUBIN, Milka The Language of the Creation or the Primordial Language: A
Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, in: JSS 49 (1998) 306-333.
SCHORCH, Stefan, The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging
Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism, in: XERAVITS
Géza G. / ZSENGELLÉR, József (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, etc.,
Leiden / Boston 2008, 43-54.
SHEHADEH, Hasseeb, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
Prolegomena to a Critical Edition (unpublished doctoral dissertation)
Jerusalem 1977.
SHINAN, Avigdor, The Embroidered Targum. The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1992 (in Hebrew).
SYNCELLUS, Georgius / NICEFORUS, Constantinopolitanus, Georgius Syncellus et
Niceforus, ex recensione Guilielmi Dindorfii, Vol. I, Bonn 1829.
TAL, Abraham, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, Leiden / Boston 2000.
TAL, Abraham, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, Vol. 3, Tel Aviv 1983.
THEODOR, Julius / ALBECK, Chanoch (eds.), Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Critical
Edition with Noted and Commentary, Jerusalem 1965 (reprint).
Wieder, Naphtali, The Form Rabbun in Hebrew Sources, in: Leshonenu 27-28
(1963-64) 214-217
WONG, C. K., Philo’s use of Chaldaioi, in: The Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992)
1-14.
Yalon, Hanokh, Reasons for Mishnah vocalization, in: Leshonenu 24 (1960) 157-
166.
YASSIF, Eli, The Book of Memory, that is The Chronicles of Jerahme'el, a Critical
Edition, Tel Aviv 2001.
An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type FATỊHA
MOSHE FLORENTIN
During their funeral ceremonies in the present day, the Samaritans

recite a few liturgical compositions – portions of the Pentateuch (espe-
cially the Song of Moses, Deut. 32) and two poems1. These two poems
were published by A. E. Cowley in the section ‫“( ﻋﺪﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻩ‬The Mourning
Book“) which he presented at the end of his Samaritan Liturgy2. One is
‫“ לית ממן לעלם אלא אלה לגדלה‬nobody lives for ever but God with his
greatness.“3 The other piece is a short blessing which reads as follows:
‫אדוני יהוה אשאלך ברחמיך ובך ובשמך ובכבודך ובאדונינן אברהם ויצחק ויעקב‬
‫ויוסף ואדונן משה ואהרן ואלעזר ואיתמר ופינחס ויהושע וכלב והמלאכים הקדושים‬
‫והשבעים הזקנים וקדוש הרגריזים בית אל אן תשים זה המקרא יבוא מפניך‬
‫הקדושה מנחה שלוחה רצון ורחמים ורתו יטלל על רוח עבדך ﻓﻼﻥ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻓﻼﻥ דמבני‬
‫ﻓﻼﻥ ﻭﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻣﺮﺍﻩ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻼﻧﻪ בת ﻓﻼﻥ דמבני ﻓﻼﻥ אדני יהוה ברחמיך רחמו ﺍﻭ‬
‫רחמה ואשכן רוחו ﺍﻭ רוחה בגן עדן וסלח לו ﺍﻭ סלח לה ולכל קהל ישראל הסגודים‬
.‫ אמן‬.‫ אמן‬.‫להרגריזים בית אל אמן בעמל משה הנאמן אמן‬
Lord God, I ask you – with the merit of your mercies and you and your
name and your honor and our masters Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jo-
seph and our master Moses and Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamar and Phi-
nehas and Joshua and Caleb and the holy angels and the seventy elders
and holy Mount Gerizim Beth-el – that you accept this reading as a sent of-
fering before your holiness and send favor and mercy and pity to shield
the spirit of your servant … Lord God, in your mercies have mercy on him
(or: her) and put his (or: her) spirit in Paradise and forgive him (or: her)
and to all the congregation of Israel who worship Mount Gerizim Beth-el
Amen, in the merit of Moses the faithful, Amen, Amen, Amen.4
1 On the Samaritan rites of funeral and mourning see, the Samaritan periodical ‫א" ב‬,
issue number 828-829, published in 14 February 2003.
2 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy.
204 M. Florentin
The Samaritans call this short blessing FAṬHA. However, this blessing
has nothing to do with the kind of poem named FATỊHA, which are
found in the “Book of Mourning“ mentioned above. These poems
themselves which are no longer recited, and other evidence found in
the titles of these poems, prove that in the past the Samaritan mourning
ceremonies were much more abundant with liturgical poems.
One poem of the type FATỊHA is found in The Samaritan Liturgy,
and it begins with the following stanzas:
Human being, remember death ‫בן אדם זכר מותה‬

And look at the end ‫ואתבונן לאחריתה‬
Renew for yourself repentance ‫חדד לך תאותה‬
Before you go to the Day of Judgment ‫קדם תלך לחשבניה‬
And renew for you yourself penance ‫וחדש לך תשובה‬

And leave all abomination ‫ועזב כל תועבה‬
Life is like an ark ‫חייה הך תיבה‬
And death is like the sea ‫והמות הך ימיה‬
The poem concludes with these words:
And turn back to your creator ‫ועזר לברואך‬

Before your soul is gone ‫קדם תלך רוחך‬
And expel your wrong and your vanity ‫וגרש שקרך ושואך‬
And walk in the way of the good ones ‫ואלך דרך טביה‬
And see the faithful righteous ‫וראה להזכאים הנאמנים‬

And the prophets and the priests ‫והנביים והכהנים‬
And the faithful righteous ‫והצדיקים והמימנים‬
Who walked in these ways ‫כה הלכו בזאת שביליה‬
And happy is he who dies ‫וטוב למן ימות‬

When he believes in the great faith ‫על רב אימנות‬
Of the prophet that none is like him ‫נבי לית לו דמות‬
5
The most holy of all prophets ‫קדש כל נבייה‬
The central motif of this poem is common to most of the poems found
in Samaritan collections for funeral and mourning: demand from the
sinner to repent so that he will emerge innocent on the Day of Judg-
ment.

An Unknown Samaritan Poem of the Type FATỊHA 205
The name of the poet and when he lived is not mentioned. From its
late Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew and from the rigid rhyming one may
conclude that it was not composed before the fourteenth century6.
At present we know some fifteen additional Samaritan poems of
the kind FATỊHA, found in a Samaritan manuscript containing a total
of 56 poems.7 One of these is presented below. However, before addu-
cing the Aramaic source of the poem, along with my English translati-
on, some general words about this kind of poem and about this particu-
lar instance are required.
It is quite plausible that the name FATỊHA (‫ )פאתחה‬was given after
the name of the first Sura in the Quran. Indeed, unlike the Samaritans
who read the FATỊHA in certain points during the funeral and mourn-
ing ceremonies, the Muslims read their ‫ ﻓﺎﺗﺤﺔ‬during every holy ceremo-
ny or circumstance. Yet, the wording and ideas found in the Arabic ‫ﻓﺎﺗﺤﺔ‬
have much in common with those found in the Samaritan FATỊHA.
Especially notable is the verse ‫"ـﺎﻟ ِﻚ ِ ﻳ َﻮ ْﻡ ِ ﺍﻟﺪ ﱢﻳﻦ‬Master
َ‫ﻣ‬ of the Day of
Judgment" which is identified with ‫ יום דיני‬mentioned in our poem (line
140). By that I do not claim that the Samaritans were influenced by the
ideas and wording of the Arabic Sura, but only that they adopted its
name. Note that another Samaritan poem, the TAẈHID, is no doubt
named after an Arabic Sura8.
Out of the fifteen poems included in the collection, five have an
Arabic rubric, ‫( ﻓﺎﺗﺤﻪ‬fātiḥa), while the rubrics of the other ten are written
in Hebrew – ‫( פאתחה מקום‬fātiḥa maqom). It seems that the term ‫( מקום‬liter-
ally: ”place“), which occurs only in the rubrics of the fātiḥa poems, re-
fers to their musical characteristics, and is probable a Hebrew vestige of
the term ‫( ﻣﻘﺎﻡ‬maqām) known from Arabic poetry.
Since the rubrics do not contain names of poets and since the poems
themselves do not mention any chronologically identifiable event, we
can date our poem only according to its language and structure. The
late Samaritan Aramaic of the poem and the rigid rhyming attests that
it was not composed before the 11th century9.
6 On criteria for dating Samaritan poems see my article: FLORENTIN, Criteria.

7 They are all presented in my book "Samaritan Elegies" (in press). I have dealt with
several poems found in that manuscript in my articles: FLORENTIN, Tawḥīd, and
FLORENTIN, Embedded Midrashim.
8 See FLORENTIN, Tawḥīd, 168.
9 See FLORENTIN, Criteria.
206 M. Florentin
The rubric of the poem – ‫ – תתמר על כהן‬says that it is to be recited when

the deceased is a priest.
Before presenting the poem, I will describe briefly its content, lan-
guage and structure.
The Content of the Poem
The poem can be divided into two parts: the larger, main part contains
31 stanzas, each with four lines (verses), while the second part contains
six stanzas. The content of both parts is clear and well-organized.
The first two stanzas praise the eternal God, who has created all out
of nothing. The next 14 stanzas mention through allusions, and accord-
ing to chronological order, the patriarchs of the nation, who notwith-
standing their greatness passed away. Since the poem is recited on the
occasion of the death of a priest, a considerable part of this section, eight
stanzas, are devoted to the description, partly legendary, of the charac-
ter and death of Aaron the priest, brother of Moses. The third stanza is
devoted to Adam, of whom it is said ”everyone except him knew that
his life has an end” (lines 11-12). The fourth stanza deals with Abraham
about whom it was said ”you shall go to your fathers in peace” (Gen
15:15; lines 15-16). The fifth stanza speaks about Isaac who is alluded to
by the words “Oh, son without blemish”10. The sixth stanza mentions
Jacob ”the vower” (since he made a vow, Gen 28:20), and he also said:
”How awesome is this place!” (Gen 28:17; line 24). The seventh stanza is
devoted to Joseph, who was ”hated by his brothers” and about him it is
written explicitly ”and Joseph dreamed a dream” (Gen 37:5; line 48).
The eighth stanza is devoted to Moses, who, as usual in Samaritan lite-
rature, is entitled, ”the unique of all human kind.”
The next eight stanzas of the section which deals with the pa-
triarchs of the nation are devoted to Aaron the priest. The ninth stanza
mentions the order of God to Moses to come up with Aaron to Mount
Hor. The tenth stanza begins the legendary part of the poem: Moses
approaches Aaron and reminds him the verse: ”for dust you are” (Gen
3:19; line 39). In the eleventh stanza Moses informs Aaron that ”Eleazar
will take your place after you” (lines 43-44). The twelfth stanza tells
10 This hints at the famous legendary Midrash, according to which Isaac asked from his
father during ”the binding” (Aqeda): “Father, bind my hands well, lest at the moment
of my distress I shall jerk and confuse you, and your offering would be rendered
disqualified, and we will be thrust into the pit of destruction in the world to come”
(see FLORENTIN, Embedded Midrashim).
about the climbing of Moses, Aaron and Eleazar up to the mountain “in
the command of the ‘Eternal Potent’” (line 48). The thirteenth stanza
describes how Aaron takes off his clothes and they are passed “from a
loved one to another loved one” (line 52). The fourteenth stanza tells
that Moses bowed down and kissed his brother. In the fifteenth stanza
Moses salutes Aaron and tells him that they will meet later in the resur-
rection of the dead (line 60). The sixteenth stanza concludes the story of
Aaron: “the one killed Aaron” (line 61), and the whole congregation
”wept for Aaron thirty days” (Num 20:29; lines 63-64).
The seventeenth stanza reminds the listeners and the readers that in
spite of the death, which he imposes on all his creatures, God is “merci-
ful and gracious” (Ex 34:6; line 68).
The next section of the poem contains five stanzas which are dedi-
cated to the deceased priest. The eighteenth stanza announces that the
next stanzas will deal with the priest who is ”honored by people and
God” (lines 71-72). The nineteenth stanza entitles the priest with the
common honorific titles such as "the savior and the knowledgeable"
(line 73). The twentieth stanza adds that he “followed the will of his
master” (line 79). The twenty-first stanza tells that the late priest was
“perfect and upright, and jealous for the good deeds” (lines 81-82). The
twenty-second stanza adds that he was the ”keeper of the law,” and
therefore ”who can estimate his glory?” (lines 87-88).
The twenty-third stanza stands between the praises of the priest and
the praises of God which are told in the following stanzas. It is said in
this stanza: ”let God forgive his sin and guilt” (lines 89-90).
The main part of the poem is concluded by seven stanzas which
again praise God. In the twenty-fourth stanza the poet approaches God:
”Oh, the one who creates every image, fill us with peace” (lines 94-95).
Each of the next seven stanzas, from the twenty-fifth to the thirtieth,
contains verse from the Song of Moses (Deut 32).
In the thirty-first stanza, which is the last stanza of the main part,
the poet demands that the congregation praise God: ”let us glorify him
and worship him” (line 121-122).
At the end of the poem there is a common blessing, which is not
part of the poem itself: ”blessed is our God for ever and blessed is his
name forever."
As in many of the poems of the type FATỊHA, this one has an addi-
tion. This part consists of six stanzas. Its rhyming proves that, while it is
set apart by the aforementioned blessing, it is part of the whole poem.
The first starts with the blessing ”just is the right God” based on
Deut 32:4, which characterized the addition which appears, with simi-
lar phrasing, in other poems of this type. The other five stanzas, as the
208 M. Florentin
last stanzas of the main part of the poem, are based on verses from the
Song of Moses.
The final blessing of the poem is ”great is God for ever and great is
his name.”
The Language
As mentioned above, the poem is written in a late Samaritan Aramaic,

which was in use until the end of the 11th century11. It is distinguished
both by Hebrew influence (in grammar and lexicon) and by use of
Aramaic words which are found only in late Samaritan compositions.
Important grammatical Hebrew features are the use of the definite ar-
ticle, e.g. ‫“( בגדי הקדש‬the holy garments,” line 51), ‫“( הנביא הצעום‬the fast-
ing prophet,” line 92), ‫“( אלהים הקדום‬the ancient God,” line 108); and the
pronominal suffix ‫( –ו‬instead of the Aramaic ‫)–ה‬, e.g. ‫“( בו‬in it,” lines 98,
103), ‫“( וידו‬and his hand,” line 112), ‫“( שמו‬his name,” line 119). Hebrew
words which are not found in ancient Samaritan Aramaic texts are:
‫“( באשמחו‬joyfully,” line 119), ‫“( טהור שלום‬pure and perfect,” line 120), ‫אדון‬
‫“( כל הבשר‬master of all human beings,” line 126), ‫“( פני‬before,” line 132).
Aramaic words which occur in late Samaritan texts are: ‫“( ברנש‬man,”
line 7), ‫“( לתלימה‬to his brother”, line 53). A grammatical feature which is
typical to late Samaritan Aramaic texts is the absence of ‫ נו"ן‬in the 3rd pl.
masc. morpheme of the imperfect, e.g. ‫( יאמנו‬instead of ‫יאמנון‬, “they be-
lieve,” line 103), ‫( ישבחו‬instead of ‫ישבחון‬, “they praise,” line 118).
The Rhyming
Each of the 37 stanzas of the poem consists of four lines. Each stanza
has its own rhyme, while the rhyme of the fourth line is common to the
whole poem; thus the scheme of the rhyme is aaaa ccca ddda.12
11 See FLORENTIN, Late Samaritan Hebrew, 18.

12 See FLORENTIN, Criteria.
The Poem
In the name of God

FATIḤA MAQOM
The master has created everything, ‫ברא מר כל כלום‬
Creatures out of nothing; ‫בריאות מלא כלום‬
God does not resemble anything ‫אל לא דמי לכלום‬
Nothing is like him ‫לית שיאם לה כלום‬
5 One, alone, eternal ‫אחד יחידי תמיד‬

He was in the past and will be in the future ‫עם דהבה ועם דעתיד‬
A man who does not proclaim his name ‫ברנש דבה לא מסיד‬
Exploits himself ‫לקנומה טלום‬
Our father was informed ‫אבונן אתודע‬

10 What was known to his children13 ‫מד לבניו מודע‬
Everybody after him knew ‫כל בר מנה ידע‬
That there is an end to his life ‫דעביד לחייו סכום‬
The father of he him prayed14 ‫אבואה דאשתדל‬

Was informed during the pray ‫אתמר לה מן שדל‬
15 ”You shall go ‫עוד אתה תבוא אל‬
To your fathers in peace”15 ‫אבותך בשלום‬
The good son arrived hardly16 ‫בר טב נדי בחמר‬

He rested when it was said: ‫אנשם אן דאתמר‬
“And to your dust you shall return“17 ‫לעפרך שוב אתמר‬
20 Oh, son without blemish18 ‫אה ברה דלית בה מום‬
Death has sentenced the vower ‫גבה מותה נדור‬

Who dwelt in the cave ‫עד במערתה ידור‬
He saw a ladder and said: ‫עזיו סלם אמור‬
“How awesome is this place!“19 ‫מה נורא המקום‬
13 The idea of this stanza is this: Since Adam had not seen a death, he should have been
told by God that he will die.
14 It was Isaac who prayed (In the Jewish Targumim to Gen 24:63 ‫ לשוח‬is rendered by
‫( למצלאה‬to pray). Thus, the father of him who prayed is Abraham. According to Gen
15:12 he was informed during his dream after the Covenant between the Pieces.
15 Gen 15:15.
16 Does the verse hint to the late pregnancy of Sarah?
17 19 According to Gen 3:19.
18 See note 10.
210 M. Florentin
25 The dream of him who was hated20 ‫חלומה דאסתנה‬

The dream was told by Moses ‫חלמה משה תנה‬
About which it was said: ‫בדילה אתנה‬
”And Joseph dreamed a dream” ‫ויחלם משה חלום‬
And he21 is unique of all human beings ‫ויחידאי כל אנשה‬

30 He has what is absent in all human beings ‫בה מד לית באנשה‬
The whole kind of human beings ‫כל מין האדם‬
Is abased, and Moses is exalted! ‫כבת מך ומשה רום‬
The mighty22 told him ‫אודעה גיבורה‬

About the "selected" and ”chosen” ‫בדיל קטפה ובחורה‬
35 That he will climb up to Mountain Hor ‫יסק לטור טורה‬
Which is located on the border of the land of Edom ‫דעל תחת ארע אדום‬
Aaron lived enough ‫אהרן אחי מיסתה‬

Listen to this thing: ‫משמע הדה מלתה‬
”For dust you are” ‫הלא עפר אתה‬
40 This is the sentence of the ancient judge ‫פשרון קעים קדום‬
My brother, know that your place ‫אחי דע דאתרך‬

Is given to your follower ‫למן מבתרך‬
After you, Eleazar ‫אלעזר בתרך‬
Will stand at your place ‫על אתרך יקום‬
45 On Mount Hor climbed up ‫טור טורה סלק לה‬

Moses whose greatness is exalted ‫משה דאסתקף גדלה‬
And Aaron and his inheritor23 ‫ואהרן וירותה דלה‬
In the command of the 'Eternal Potent' ‫ברשות יכול קעום‬
It is nice to see the father24 ‫יהי מעמי לארש‬

50 Taking off his garments and the son dressing ‫מן משלח ונוף לבש‬
19 Gen 28:17.
20 Gen 28:17: “And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren; and they
hated him yet the more.“
21 Moses.
22 The mighty one is God who told Moses to climb up the mountain: “And the LORD
said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom, Aaron
shall be gathered to his people“ (Num 20:23-24).
23 Eleazar.
24 Aaron: “Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor; and strip
Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son“ (Num 20:25-26).
The holy garments ‫בגדי הקדש‬

From beloved to beloved ‫מן רעום לרעום‬
He hugged his brother ‫גפף לתלימה‬

And fell on his face ‫ואנפל על צלמה‬
55 And blessed him on behalf of himself ‫ואפשט לה משמה‬
A great and huge peace blessing ‫שלם רב ועצום‬
To you from me a blessing of peace is sent ‫עליך מני שלם‬

A peace for ever ‫שלם עד לעלם‬
And till the occurrence of the Day of Vengeance ‫ועד זימון יום נקם‬
60 The day in which we shall all resurrected ‫יומה דבה נקום‬
The only one killed Aaron ‫יחידאה לאהרן אמית‬

And when it was known that he died ‫ואן אתודע דו מית‬
It was said: “they wept ‫אתמר ויבכו את‬
For Aaron thirty days”25 ‫אהרן שלשים יום‬
65 And the justice is to the eternal one ‫וזכותה לקעימה‬

The master of earth and heaven ‫מר מכה ורומה‬
Who created the world ‫דגלה לעלמה‬
He is ”a God merciful and gracious”26 ‫הו אל חנון ורחום‬
Let us first praise ‫קרית גלוג אקר‬

70 The son of him who is honored ‫בדיל נוף מן דאתוקר‬
The honored priest ‫כהנה דו מוקר‬
By every human being27 and God ‫ביד כל סכום וקעום‬
The one who knows, the clever, ‫ידעוה ומבוננה‬

He reached all his wills28 ‫אמטה כל חשבנה‬
75 I will announce his glory ‫גלוגה אתנה‬
That he was worshipper and one who fasts ‫דהוה צלאה וצעום‬
We should praise him ‫לבי דנגלג בה‬

He reached the will of his heart ‫דאמטה רחיות לבה‬
25 Num 20:29.
26 Ex 34:6. The poet changed the order of the words because of the rhyme.
27 On the word ‫ סכום‬which means “human being“ see my article: FLORENTIN, Aramaic
Words.
28 Since it is the priest who calculates the Samaritan calendar, it is possible that the
word ‫ חשבנה‬refers to this calculation, the regular name of which is ‫“( חשבן קשטה‬the
true reckoning“).
212 M. Florentin
And followed the will of his master ‫וענה ריחות רבה‬

80 And therefore his remembrance will rise ‫ודכרה בכן ירום‬
He was perfect and upright, ‫הוה תמים וכני‬

And jealous for the good deeds ‫ולטבאתה קני‬
And he submitted the bad things ‫ולבישאתה כני‬
And he was perfect and merciful ‫והוה תמים ורעום‬
85 The inheritor of wisdom ‫ירותה דחכמתה‬

And the reciter of the prayer ‫ופרוטה דצלותה‬
And the keeper of the law ‫ושמור ארהותה‬
Who can estimate his glory? ‫גלוגה מן ישום‬
Let God forgive ‫יס]לח[ לה קעימה‬

90 His sin and guilt ‫מן חטאה ואשמה‬
In the merit of the prophet of the world ‫בנביה דעלמה‬
The fasting prophet ‫הנבי הצעום‬
Oh, the maker of mankind ‫אה צעורה דאדם‬

Oh, the creator of every image ‫אה בריו כל צלם‬
95 fill us with peace ‫אמליתן בשלם‬
In which we shall stay every day ‫נשרי בכל יום‬
"For I will proclaim the name of the LORD"29 ‫אלא בשם יה]וה[ נקרי‬
Happy is he who reads in it ‫טובי מי בו יקרי‬
Since he is my might and my rock ‫כי הו עזי וצורי‬
100 The one who gives every thing ‫יהוב לכל כלום‬
“And ascribe greatness to our God“ ‫והבו רבו לאלהנו‬

For every greatness is his ‫דלה כל רבינו‬
Happy are those who believe in him ‫טובי מי בו יאמנו‬
And woe to any exploiter ‫ואוי לכל טלום‬
105 “The Rock, His work is perfect“30 ‫צעורה דשלם פיאלה‬

The Rock is perfect in his work ‫הצור תמים בפעלה‬
Truth is in his saying ‫קשטה במללה‬
God the ancient ‫אלהים הקדום‬
29 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:3.

30 Deut 32:4: the Samaritan Targum and than after the Hebrew verse (according to the
Samaritan version).
“For all his ways are justice“31 ‫האלא כל ח< דין‬

110 And he is just more than any judgment ‫ויזדכי מכל דין‬
And he executes true justice ‫ויעבד קשט בדין‬
And therefore his hand is lifted up ‫וידו בכן תרום‬
“A God of faithfulness and without iniquity“32 ‫אל מי< ול< שקר‬

Hates any lie ‫סני לכל שקר‬
115 Happy is he who is honored ‫טובי מן דמתוקר‬
In the name “A God merciful“33 ‫בשם יה< אל רחום‬
“Just and praise is he“34 ‫קשיט ומשבחו‬

Happy is he who praises ‫טובי מי ישבחו‬
His name joyfully ‫לשמו באשמחו‬
120 In a pure and perfect heart ‫בלב טהור שלום‬
We all praise him ‫כהלן נרבנה‬

And we all worship him ‫וכהלן נסגד לה‬
Give him what he himself owns ‫הבו לה מדלה‬
Oh, who is gathered here ‫אה מן דאכה קעום‬
125 Blessed is our God for ever and blessed ‫>בר< א< ל< ו‬
Is his name for ever35 ‫< ש< לע‬
Section II
Just is the right God36 ‫יזדכי אל ישר‬

Master of all human beings ‫אדון כל הבשר‬
The maker of every member ‫צעור לכל אבר‬
130 And the one who knows every hidden thing ‫ולכל כסי חכום‬
“See now that I“37 ‫חזו כדו דאני‬

Last in my reign ‫מורך בשלטני‬
31 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4: ‫הלא כל אורחיו דין‬. In the manuscript < is a sign for
abbreviated word.
32 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4: ‫אל מהימן ולית שקר‬.
33 Ex 34:6.
34 The Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:4. Note that the Samaritan Targum interpreted
‫“( וישר הוא‬and right is he“) as ‫וישרו‬, derived from the root ‫שי"ר‬, “praise“.
35 ‫ברוך אלהנו לעולם וברוך שמו לעולם‬.
36 According to Deut 32:4: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is
he.“
214 M. Florentin
I proclaim: “I, even I“38 ‫קראי אני אני‬

Before and after the whole world ‫פני ואחר כל יקום‬
135 “And there is no god with me“39 ‫ולית אלהין עמי‬

And who is the one who can stand against me? ‫ומנו דיקום קמי‬
None is like me ‫ליתו לי מדמי‬
And who is the one who can estimate my greatness?40 ‫ומנו לגדלי ישום‬
“I kill and I make alive“41 ‫אנה מחיי וממית‬

140 And nothing is not like my greatness ‫ולית לגדלי דמית‬
Since I am the source of “at the beginning“ ‫כי מני בראשית‬
And in my Day of Judgment I shall repent ‫וביום דיני נחום‬
“There is none that can deliver out of my hand“ ‫לית מן אדי מפשר‬
And who can be saved from me? ‫ומן מני יפשר‬
145 My lover is delivered ‫רעומי מפשר‬
And vengeance shall be taken on him who hates me ‫וסני בנקמי קעום‬
For I lift up my hand to heaven42 ‫האלא תלית לשומיה‬

With mercy ‫ברחמים‬
And I say the words: ‫ואמרתי מליה‬
150 „I live for ever“ ‫חי אנכי לעולם‬
43
Great is God for ever <‫רב חי< לע‬
And great is his name ‫ורב שמה‬
38 Deut 32:39.
40 The poet probably followed the 4th century Amram Dare: ‫“( מן ישום מה הו חילך‬who can
estimate your strength?,“ BEN-HAYYIM, Literary and Oral Tradition, 57).
41 According to the Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:39: ‫אני ממית ומוחי‬. The poet changed
the order of the words because of the rhyme.
42 The whole verse is based on the Samaritan Targum to Deut 32:40: “For I lift up my
hand to heaven, and swear, As I live for ever.“
43 <‫ = חילה לעולם = חי< לע‬God for ever.
Bibliography
BEN-HAYYIM, Zeev, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic
amongst the Samaritans, Vol. III/2., Jerusalem 1977.
COWLEY, Arthur E., The Samaritan Liturgy, vols. I-II, Oxford 1909.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, Criteria for Dating Anonymous Samaritan Aramaic
piyyutim, in: Leshonenu 65 (2003) 279-302.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, Late Samaritan Hebrew – A Linguistic Analysis of its Dif-
ferent Types, Leiden 2005.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, Embedded Midrashim in Samaritan Piyyutim, in: Jewish
Quarterly Review 96 (2006) 525-539.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, Tawḥīd – The Language and Structure of Unknown Samari-
tan Poems, in: Hebrew Union College Annual 77 (2006) 167-178.
FLORENTIN, Moshe, The Aramaic Words Skwm and Q‘wm and the Hebrew
Word Mt Meaning ‘Mortal‘ in: Leshonenu 70 (2008) 303-312.
Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the
Torah Reading of the Israelite Samaritans in
Comparison to Its Significant Attributes
BENYAMIM TSEDAKA
Introduction
The reading of the Pentateuch among the Israelite Samaritans has a

very special way. Therefore it is necessary to delve into the practice of
the different pronunciations of the words, and to distinguish between
the different nuances of the pronunciations. These differences were
created in order to emphasize the diverse significances of the same
written words.
It is hard to determine what came first, meaning or pronunciation.
Maybe the translation and the commentary of the Israelite Samaritan
sages and authors were adjusted to the given pronunciation; or on the
contrary pronunciation was adjusted to the philosophy, commentary
and translation of the written and pronounced word.
Z. Ben-Hayyim, the greatest scholar of Samaritan studies in our
times (may he live long), has distinguished between the different pro-
nunciations of the words in the oral readings in his monumental edi-
tion of the Samaritan version of the Torah in phonetic transcription.
Thanks to his work, it is possible to follow all variances, although he
did not describe the different significant attributes. His disciples, A. Tal
and H. Shehadeh, discussed some of them. I. Tsedaka has discussed the
forms “Sham”= ‫ שם‬and ”Shem”= ‫שם‬.
Great Samaritan sages, such as the commentators Abū l-Ḥasan aṣ-
Ṣūrī, Ṣadaqa al-Ḥākim, and his son Munajah (all three from the 12th-13th
centuries), discussed the main words, but not all the words. So the
present study is the first attempt to list most of the words that are pro-
nounced another way in different passages during the Torah reading
by the Israelite Samaritans. Pronunciation helps to make distinctions
between the different significant attributes that the Samaritans gave to
the same written word.
218 B. Tsedaka
Examples of Different Pronunciations
We can divide these significant attributes according to their distinc-

tions:
1. Distinction in the pronunciation of the word between the

Almighty to the human
2. Distinction between The Almighty to His Angels
3. Distinction between male to female
4. Distinction between a positive name to a negative name
5. Distinction between eating kosher meat to tainted meat
6. Distinction between Moses to another human
7. Distinction between Angels to humans
8. Distinction between direct speech to a preposition word
9. Distinction between a first-born human to the first-born

beast belonging to a human, to be offered to the Almighty
10. Distinction between holiness to the worship of idols
11. Distinction between other words
12. Distinction between Mount Gerizim to other mountains
There are also examples of different pronunciations of the same words

that in our view developed from a misunderstanding of the written
text. We will offer a few examples of them:
13. Distinctions developed from a misunderstanding of the

written text
Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading 219
Let us note the examples and the different significant attributes influ-
enced by its pronunciation, and from these we will study the depth of
the Samaritan commentary and its directions.
Note: The quotation of each word presented here for the first time is
written in the Torah of the Israelite Samaritan version.
1. Distinction in the pronunciation of the word between the Almighty

and the human
1a ‫אדני‬ Aadaanee my Lord Gen 15:2 ‫ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה‬
1a ‫אדני‬ adannee my master Gen 23:6 ‫שמענו אדני נשיא אלהים‬
1b ‫דבר‬ dabber command Gen 15:1 ‫היה דבר יהוה אל אברם‬
1b ‫דבר‬ debaar concerns Gen 12:17 ‫על דבר שרי אשת אברם‬
1c ‫לשכן‬ alshakken to dwell Deut 12:11 ‫יהיה המקום אשר בחר יהוה‬
‫אלהיכם בו לשכן את שמו שם‬
1c ‫לשכן‬ lishkaan to dwell Deut 14:23 ‫ואכלתו לפני יהוה אלהיך‬

‫במקום אשר בחר יהוה אלהיך לשכן את שמו שם‬
1d ‫יראו‬ yirraaoo be seen Ex 23:15 ‫ולא־יראו פני ריקם‬
1d ‫יראו‬ yerehoo they will see Gen 12:12 ‫והיה כי יראו אתך‬
2. Distinction between The Almighty and His Angels
2a- ‫אדני‬ aadaanee my Lord Gen 15:2 ‫ויאמר אברם אדני יהוה‬
2a-‫אדני‬ adannee my Master Gen 18:27 ‫הנה נא הואלתי לדבר אל אדני‬

220 B. Tsedaka
3. Distinction between male and female
3a- ‫אתך‬ ootaak you Gen 7:1 ‫אל התבה כי אתך ראיתי צדיק‬
3a- ‫אתך‬ ootek you Gen 12:12 ‫והיה כי יראו אתך המצרים‬
3b- ‫אתך‬ ittaak with you Gen 6:19 ‫להחיות אתך זכר ונקבה‬
3b- ‫אתך‬ ittek with you Gen. 20:16 ‫ולכל אשר אתך ואת הכל ונוכחת‬
4. Distinction between an ordinary name to a negative name
4a- ‫ שם‬sham name Gen. 3:20 ‫ויקרא האדם שם אשתו חוה‬
4a- ‫ שם‬shem name Gen. 11:4 ‫ונעשה־לנו שם פן נפוץ על פני כל הארץ‬
5. Distinction between eating kosher meat to tainted meat
5a- ‫תאכל‬ taaookel will eat Gen 2:16 ‫מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל‬
5a- ‫תאכל‬ taakkel will eat Lev 17:15 ‫וכל הנפש אשר תאכל נבלה‬
6. Distinction between Moses to another human
6a- ‫המיתו‬ aamitoo to stan him Ex 4:24 ‫ויבקש המיתו‬
6a- ‫להמיתו‬ limeetoo to kill him Gen 37:18 ‫ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו‬
6b- ‫בנה‬ binnaah her heart Ex 4:25 ‫ותכרת את ערלת בנה‬
6b- ‫בנה‬ benah her son Gen 21:10 ‫גרש את האמה הזאת ואת בנה‬
Different Pronunciations of the Same Word in the Torah Reading 221
7. Distinction between Angels and humans
7a- ‫אנשים‬ enooshemn angels Gen 18:2 ‫והנה שלשה אנושים נצבים עליו‬
7a- ‫אנשים‬ enaashem men Gen 12:20 ‫יצו עליו פרעה אנשים‬
8. Distinction between direct speech to a preposition word
8a- ‫ את‬it the Gen 1:1 ‫בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ‬
8a- ‫ את‬at from, with Gen 4:1 ‫והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את קין‬
9. Distinction between a first-born human to the first-born beast

belonging
9a- ‫בכר‬ baakor first born Gen 25:13 ‫בכור ישמעאל נבאות‬
9a- ‫בכור‬ bikkor first born Deut15:19 ‫ולא תגז את בכור צאנך‬
10. Distinction between holiness to the worship of idols
10a- ‫קדש‬ qaadesh holy Ex 3:5 ‫אדמת קדש היא‬
10a- ‫קדיש‬ kedesh prostitute Deut 23:18 ‫ולא יחיה קדיש מבני ישראל‬
11. Distinction between other words
11a- ‫חטאת‬ 'aataat sin-offering Ex 29:14 ‫חטאת היא‬
11a- ‫חטאת‬ etaat sin Gen 4:7 ‫ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ‬
11b- ‫חלב‬ eleb beast's fat Gen 45:18 ‫את חלב הארץ‬
11b- ‫חלב‬ 'aalaab milk Ex 3:8 ‫ארץ זבת חלב‬

222 B. Tsedaka
11c- ‫קבה‬ qabah stomach Deut 18:3 ‫ונתן לכהן הזרוע והלחים והקבה‬
11c- ‫קבה‬ qaabbaa brothel Num 25:8 ‫ויבא אחרי איש ישראל אל הקבה‬
12. Distinction between Gerizim Mountain to other mountains
12a- ‫הר גרזים‬ aahrgaarizem Mt. Gerizim Deut 11:29 ‫ונתתה את‬
‫הברכה על הרגריזים‬
12c- ‫הר‬ aar mountain of Gen 10:30 ‫ויהי מושבם‬

‫ממשא באכה ספרה הר הקדם‬
13. Distinctions caused by different reasons: misunderstanding,

colecism, mistake
13a- ‫ ואהבת‬waabtaa and love Lev 19:18 ‫ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יהוה‬
13a- ‫ ואהבת‬wa'ibtaa and love Lev 19:18 ‫ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יהוה‬
13a- ‫ ואהבת‬wa'ibtaa and love Lev 19:34 ‫ואהבת לו כמוך כי גרים‬
13b- ‫ארה‬ ehraa curse Num 22:6 ‫ועתה לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה‬
13b- ‫ארה‬ aaraa curse Num 23:7 ‫לכה ארה לי יעקב‬
13c- ‫תרע‬ tarr'ah shall dislike Deut 28:54 ‫תרע עינו‬
13c- ‫תרע‬ tirr'ah shall dislike Deut 28:56 ‫תרע עינה‬
Note: Mistake in this regard could contain cases through the past gen-
erations, when one of the elders or the leading figures of the prayer hall
would make a mistake while reading and then refuse to correct it for
reasons of honor, prestige or crookedness, and his successors and sup-
porters repeated this mistake generation after generation till the
present. This is interesting material for research, but it does not change
the fact that the form has been created by mistake.
V. Artifacts and Texts
The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima
SHIMON DAR
The cosmopolitan metropolis of Caesarea was an important maritime

city and the centre of Roman and Byzantine administration. Its popula-
tion was composed of several ethnic and religious groups: pagans as
well as Jews, Christians and Samaritans who split from the main Jewish
nation. The Jewish community in Caesarea is well attested by archaeo-
logy and written sources, but the Samaritans, who comprised an impor-
tant part of the city in Late Roman and Byzantine periods, are elusive to
archaeological studies.
The leading scholars estimate that at its peak the population of Cae-
sarea and its vicinity was no more than 50,000 inhabitants, including
15,000 Jews and nearly the same number of Samaritans.1
According to Ben-Zvi, the Jewish population of Palestine had reser-
vations concerning Caesarea Maritima, considering it a rival of Jerusa-
lem, whereas the Samaritans favored the city and chose it and its vicini-
ty to be a leading settlement centre after the rebellions against Rome
and until the Arab conquest.2
Opinions vary concerning the arrival of the Samaritans to Caesarea.
Some scholars claim that the first settlers were brought by king Herod,
the founder of the new city.3 Others argue that the Samaritans estab-
lished themselves in the city and settled in the Sharon plain only after
the Bar-Kochba revolt (132-136 CE) especially in the 3rd century CE,.4
In the excavations in Caesarea's Stadium directed by Yoseph Porat,
pottery from Samaria was discovered. According to the excavator the
pottery reached the city through Samaritans who were invited by King
Herod to take part in the construction of the city.5
1 HOLUM, Identity, 163-164; 169-171.

2 BEN-ZVI The Book of the Samaritans, 98-193.
3 LEVINE, Caesarea, 227.
4 PUMMER, Samaritanism in Caeserea; PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 40-41
5 Personal communication in 2010.
226 S. Dar
According to the Jerusalem Talmud, Samaritans were the largest

ethnic religious community in the city. The Jews together with the gen-
tiles outnumbered them (jDemai, 2:1, 22c).
The Samaritans were involved in the city's administration and
served in the Roman security forces.6
The Jewish leaders of the Late Roman Caesarea community, headed
by Rabbi Abbahu, accused the Samaritans of idolatry (Avoda Zara) and
adaptation of Hellenic manners. But the background of the accusations
is not clear, and could stem from the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt
and its severe territorial implications for the Jews.7
There are scholars who believe that some of the Samaritans, like the
Jews, were influenced by Hellenism in its early phases, and communi-
cated in the Greek language instead of Hebrew8.
Another possible reason for the dispute between the two sister
communities could stem from economic and commercial rivalry be-
tween Jews and Samaritans. Caesarea was an international maritime
centre, and the leading families of the different communities were en-
gaged in lucrative commerce. Hence the possible rivalry between them.
The wine trade seems to be a corner stone of the rivalry.9 But other
Talmudic sources point to the cooperation between Jews and Samari-
tans concerning monetary transactions, land renting and mutual stor-
ing of agricultural produce.10
Urbanization of Roman Palestine following immigration from the
countryside to the cities, affected not only Caesarea, but also its rural
vicinity. Archaeology and written sources attest to the growing Samari-
tan community in the Sharon plain, replacing the weakened Jewish
community.11 According to the tradition in the Tulida, the Samaritan
leader Baba Rabba nominated two prominent men to be the leaders of
the Samaritan community in Caesarea: Yoseph son of Shutelah and
Aharon son of Aharon.12 Baba Rabba was active in the second half of
the 3rd century, or the beginning of the 4th century CE.13 It seems that
the Samaritan community in Caesarea flourished until the unrest and
6 jAvoda Zara 1:2, 39c; DAN, City in Eretz Israel, 135.

7 MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 183; HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements,
112-113.
8 VAN DER HORST, Samaritans and Hellenism, 184.
9 HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements, 91-92.
10 LEVINE, Caesarea, 48-56; PUMMER, Samaritanism in Caeserea, 199-200.
11 HAMITOVSKY, Changes and Developements, 113-119).
12 FLORENTIN, Tulida, 90.
13 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 41.
The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima 227
the revolts of the 5th and 6th centuries CE, which nearly annihilated the
Samaritans in Palestine, including Caesarea.14
Leah Di Segni is of the opinion that the 484 CE events in Caesarea
were not a real political revolt, but a local struggle between the
“Greens“ and the “Blues“ faction fans of the Caesarea Hippodrome.15
Many scholars believe that the background of the Samaritan revolts
was the anti Samaritan legislation of the Byzantine Christian emperors
of the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Justinian (527-565) in particular
viewed the Samaritans and Jews as enemies of Christianity.16
The Archaeological Evidence
The abundance of historical sources attesting the existence of the Sama-

ritan community in Caesarea contradicts the material evidence. Only
the last generation of scholars tried to define “Samaritan Archaeology“
in Eretz-Israel.17 Their efforts were part of the Ethnic Archaeology trend
of the Eighties and Nineties of the 20th century.
Archaeological evidence from the excavations and surveys in Cae-
sarea Maritima and its vicinity attests to pagan, Jewish and Christian
remnants, but it is very problematic regarding the Samaritan communi-
ty. Until today, no Samaritan synagogue or public building has been
discovered, and not a single funerary inscription mentioning specifical-
ly a Samaritan by name has been found.18
Long ago the inscriptions on the stelae discovered in the Caesarea
cemeteries were considered as belonging to the Jewish community,19
but we may assume that some of them belong to Samaritans.
After two generations of surveys and excavations in Caesarea very
few remains can be attributed to the Samaritan community.20
In the last generation, scholars defined a distinct group of oil lamps,
together with a certain type of stone sarcophagi as belonging to the
Samaritans.21 Oil lamps and sarcophagi were discovered in the city and
14 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 245-304; MOR, From Samaria to Shechem, 221-222,
225-226.
15 DI SEGNI, Samaritan Revolts, 468-480.
16 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 257, 281-304.
17 PUMMER, Samaritan Material Remains, 135-177.
18 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 19.
19 KLEIN, Sefer Hayishuv, 150.
20 HOLUM / RABAN, Caesarea.
21 SUSSMAN, Samaritan Oil Lamps, 339-371; BARKAY , Samaritan Sarcophagi, 310-338.
228 S. Dar
vicinity but not in defined areas. A small number of amulets with typi-
cal Samaritan formulae were also found at Caesarea.22
Three invocations of the type “God is One” are attributed to the
Samaritan community in Caesarea, but the same invocation was used
in Palestine by the Jews and Christians too.23
What are the reasons for this anomaly? We propose several possi-
bilities:
1. Only in the Late Roman period did the Samaritans feel the
necessity to adopt national and identity symbols.
2. Until today, very few residential areas have been excavated
in Caesarea.
3. Instead of a proper synagogue, the Samaritans performed
their religious rituals in private halls, not yet discovered by
archaeologists.
4. The Roman and Byzantine authorities did not grant the
Samaritan Community the right to build public buildings,
not recognizing them as a separate and lawful religion.
5. Could it be that Samaritans prayed in the Jewish Synago-
gue?
There are more questions than answers, but the situation until today in
Caesarea Maritima is clear: a paucity of archaeological material culture
which could be attributed to the historical Samaritan community in the
city.
We may conclude with the remarks of the leading Caesarea scho-
lars, Profs. Lehmann and Holum:
Sharing iconography (e.g. the menorah) and nomenclature with the Jews,
Caesarea’s Samaritans tend to lose themselves epigraphically among the
Jews.24
22 REICH, Amulets, 289-309.

23 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 128-129.
24 LEHMANN / HOLUM, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, 19.
The Samaritans in Caesarea Maritima 229
Bibliography
BARKAY Rachel, Samaritan Sarcophagi, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan

(eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 310-338 (He-
brew).
BEN-ZVI, Itzhak, Sefer Hashomronim (The Book of Samaritans), Jerusalem 1970
(Hebrew).
DAN Yaron, The City in Eretz-Israel During the Late Roman and Byzantine
Periods, Jerusalem 1984 (Hebrew).
DI SEGNI Leah, Samaritan Revolts in Byzantine Palestine, in: STERN, Ephraim /
ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002,
454-480 (Hebrew).
FLORENTIN Moshe, The Tulida. A Samaritan Chronicle, Jerusalem 1999 (He-
brew).
HAMITOVSKY, Yitzhak, Changes and Developments of the Samaritan Settlement
in the Land of Israel during the Hellenistic-Roman Period (MA thesis, Bar
Ilan University), Ramat Gan 2004 (Hebrew).
HOLUM, Kenneth G., Identity and the Late Antique City: The Case of Caesarea,
in: LAPIN, Hayim (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman
Palestine (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 5), Potomac
1998, 155-177.
HOLUM, Kenneth G. / RABAN, Avner, Caesarea, in: STERN, Ephraim (ed.), The
New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1
(1993) 270-291; Vol. 5 (2008) 1656-1684.
VAN DER HORST, Pieter, Samaritans and Hellenism, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL,
Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 184-
191 (Hebrew).
KLEIN, Samuel, Sefer Hayishuv (Book of the Settlements), Tel Aviv 1939 (He-
brew).
LEHMANN, Clayton Miles, / HOLUM, Kenneth G., The Greek and Latin Inscrip-
tions of Caesarea Maritima, Boston 2000.
LEVINE, Lee I., Caesarea Under Roman Rule, Leiden 1975.
MOR, Menahem, From Samaria to Shechem. The Samaritan Community in
Antiquity, Jerusalem 2003 (Hebrew).
PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Material Remains, in: CROWN, Alan, D. (ed.), The
Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 135-177.
PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima, in: DONALDSON, Te-
rence L., (ed.), Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea
Maritima, Waterloo 2000, 181-202.
PUMMER, Reinhard, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism
(TSAJ, 92), Tübingen 2002.
230 S. Dar
REICH, Rony, Amulets from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, in: STERN,
Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan (eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jeru-
salem 2002, 289-309 (Hebrew).
SUSSMAN, Varda, Samaritan Oil Lamps, in: STERN, Ephraim / ESHEL, Hanan
(eds.), Sefer Hashomronim / The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, 339-371 (He-
brew).
SUSSMAN, Varda, The Oil Lamps, in: PATRICH, Joseph (ed.), Archaeological Ex-
cavations at Caesarea Maritima, Final Report. Vol. 1: The Objects, Jerusa-
lem 2008, 208-300.
ȱȱȱȱȱ Řřŗȱ
ŗǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱŗȱǯȱǯǯȱ
ǻȱȱŘŖŖŞǱȱŘŘŚǲȱŘŜŝǱřŞǰȱřşǼȱ
Řǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǯȱ
řȱȮȱŚȱǯȱǯǯȱǻȱȱŘŖŖŞǱȱŘřŚȬŘřśǲȱŘŝŚǱŗŖŚȬŗŖśǼǯȱ
ŘřŘȱ ǯȱȱ ȱ
řǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱǯȱŚȱȮ śȱǯȱ

ǯǯȱǻȱȱŘŖŖŞǱȱŘřŚȬŘřśǲȱŘŝŚǱȱŗŖŚȬŗŖśǼǯȱ
Śǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ǯȱǻȱȱŘŖŖŘǱȱřśŘǼǯȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ Řřřȱ
śǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱřȱȮ śȱǯȱǯǯȱǻȱ
ȱŘŖŖŞǱȱŘŚŖȬŘŚŗǲȱŘŝŝȬŘŝŞǼǯȱ
ŘřŚȱ ǯȱȱ ȱ
Ŝǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱřȱȮ śȱǯȱǯǯȱǻȱ
ȱŘŖŖŞǱȱŘŚřǰȱŘŝŞǼǯȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ Řřśȱ
ŝǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȃȱȱȱȱ ǰȱ
Ȅ ǻǯȱřřǰȱŘŜǼȱǻȱȱŘŖŖŘǱȱŘşşǼǯȱ
Şǯȱȱ¢ȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ ǻȱȬ
Ǽȱǻȱ¢ȱŘŖŖŘǱȱřŘŘǼǯȱ
şȬŗŖǯȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ǯȱ ȱ Ȭ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ
ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȉȱ
ȱ ȱ Ȉǯȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ
ȱ ȱ
ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ
ǯȄ ǻȱ

ŗşśşǱȱŚřȬŚśȱǯŚȱȬǼǯȱ
An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht
JÓZSEF ZSENGELLÉR
Introduction
Samaritan manuscripts on various topics are the main sources of Sama-

ritan research. Scholars wrestle with problems of space, time and mon-
ey to see originals or copies, hard or electronic versions, since Samaritan
manuscripts are located in about seventy public libraries1 all over the
world: in Europe, North America, Turkey, Syria, Israel and Australia.
Next to these open libraries, there are some private collections preserv-
ing Samaritan manuscripts. In order to find the manuscripts on a given
topic, we rely upon published or electronic catalogues of libraries and
private collections. Most of the printed catalogues were published at the
end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.2 The introduction of
electronic library catalogues and the new wave of Samaritan research
made it necessary to write new catalogues or to rewrite and update
those already in existence. Sometimes errors which had been made
during the identification and description of manuscripts in the old cata-
logues were corrected in the new editions or catalogues, but this is not
always the case and the problem has continued to trouble scholars. In
this short note we will deal with one such a problem.
1 ROTHSCHILD,:Samaritan Manuscripts.
2 The catalogue of Paris was made in 1866 (ZOTENBERG, Catalogues), of Leiden in 1873
(DE GOEJE, Catalogus), of Oxford in 1886 and 1906 (NEUBAUER, Catalogue), of the
British Museum in 1893 (MARGOLIOUTH, Descriptive List), of Leipzig in 1906 (VOL-
LERS , Katalog), of the Sasson collection in 1932 (SASOON, Ohel David), of Manchester
in 1938 (ROBERTSON, Catalogue), – just to mention some of them. For a full list of
Samaritan manusrcipt catalogues see CROWN / PUMMER, Bibliography, 587.
238 J. Zsengellér
Exposition of the Problem
In his article about the Samaritan Manuscripts3 Jean-Pierre Rothschild

listed a certain manuscript in the library of Utrecht University (The
Netherlands). Working on Samaritan topics during the 1990s at the
University of Utrecht, I was wondering how a Samaritan manuscript
entered the Library of this university.
Libraries acquired Samaritan manuscripts in three ways. First, they
come into the possession of a library by way of donation. Either a single
manuscript or a collection could have been presented to a library, fore-
most to those where an oriental or Hebrew collection had already ex-
isted. The second way is purchasing from private persons or auction-
ing. This was the case with the Gaster collection of Samaritan
manuscripts.4 The third way is through loans, as it is happened in Lei-
den “where the Oriental manuscripts of the Royal Academy were depo-
sited as a permanent loan.“5
Utrecht is famous for its mediaeval theological and ecclesiastical
collection, prominently represented by the Utrecht Psalter,6 but the Li-
brary of the University of Leiden is the most prominent place in the
Netherlands where oriental manuscripts are collected. Consequently, a
special reason must lay behind the existence of this manuscript in
Utrecht.
In all of the descriptions in his article, Rothschild mentioned every
detail available for him about the listed manuscripts. The data concern-
ing the Utrecht University Library is the following:
One manuscript, eighteenth century: Seb. Rau, Excerpta quaedam dialectorum

nempe ... Samaritanae ... linguae (MS 1423 [var. 160]).7
Many of the Samaritan manuscripts have a tashkil,8 which gives the

name of the scribe who copied the text, but there is no title. A colophon
3 ROTHSCHILD, Samaritan Manuscripts, 793.

4 It was purchased in 1954, see its description on the homepage of the Gaster Collecti-
on: http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/guide/atoz/gaster.
5 WITKAM, Selection (http://bc.ub.leidenuniv.nl/bc/olg/selec/samaritan/object1.html)
(downloaded 2011.02.18). An Arabic manuscript signed “Acad. 218“ belongs to this
collection.
6 WALTHER / WOLF, Codices Illustres.
7 ROTHSCHILD, Samaritan Manuscripts, 793.
8 A tashqil is a graphical arrangement of letters within a given Samaritan text (on one
single page, or extending over several pages) in such a way that the letters which are
singled out through the graphical arrangement (e.g. the letters which appear in a cir-
An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht 239
can substitute or supplement a tashkil with more information on the

author and on the circumstances of the writing of the manuscript. The
deeds of sale (shtarim) can add data concerning the purchasing of the
manuscript.9 There are no such types of information in this description.
Moreover, it seems to be strange that this eighteenth century “Utrecht
manuscript” has an author of Germanic origin and a Latin title.
If one checks the source of Rothschild in the catalogue of the fam-
ous Dutch bibliographer and librarian Pieter Anton Tiele,10 the total
description runs there as follows:
“1423 (var. 160.) Charta. 4°. 265 pp. Saec XVIII.

Seb. Rau, Excerpta quaedam11 dialectorum Orientalium, nempe Syriacae,
Samaritanae, Arabicae et Rabbinicae. (Dictata). [+ ex collegio S. Rauii]
Donum Vidue v.cl. J.C. Swijghuisen Groenewoud.”
This description indeed refers to a manuscript in the true sense of the

word since it is handwritten, but not as supposed by Rothschild, and
not as we would expect after his mention of it as a Samaritan MS.
Solution of the Enigma
The first two words, “Seb. Rau,” refer to professor Sebald Fulco Jo-
hannes Rau. He was the author of the text, or better to say the speaker
of the lectures which were put down in this form catalogued by num-
ber 1423 of the “niet westerse hanschriften” of the library of the Uni-
versity of Utrecht.
S.F.J. Rau was born in Utrecht on 16th October 1765 and was trained
as a protestant minister. After some years as a minister in Harderwijk
and Leiden, at the age of 22 he was appointed as professor of systemat-
ic theology (dogmatics) at the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. After 7 years
teaching dogmatics, he started a new career at the same University as
professor of eastern languages and Hebrew antiquities. In 1807 Rau
cle, or in a vertical line) form words and sentences providing information regarding
the scribe of the manuscript.
9 On the detailed description of the tashkil, colophon and shtarim see „The Codicology
of Samaritan Manuscripts,“ in CROWN, Samaritan Scribes, 40-55.
10 TIELE, Catalogus, 337.
11 There is an additional word (quarundam) here in the original title of the manuscript.
240 J. Zsengellér
received the Dutch Cross of Knights, yet he also died in Leiden that
same year.12
During his last two years his students or assistants wrote down his
lectures either from his notes or from his own dictations. The two Latin
expressions, dictata13 and ex collegio S.Rauii do not allow us a more pre-
cise decision.
The papers on which the text exists are bound in leather in a book
form of 22 cm x 17 cm14 and consist of 265 pages, with a prolegomena of
17 pages. As the title suggests, the book has four parts. The first part
was written by J. Alting in 1806 under the title “Annotationes quaedam
in Synopsin Institutionum Syriacanum.” This section also contains a
prolegomena and is divided into 60 paragraphs. The second part shows
some interest in Samaritan studies written by G. Otho in 1806: “Anota-
tiones quaedam in Synopsin Institutionum Samaritanarum. This sec-
tion has only 18 pages, 2 prolegomenas and 50 short paragraphs. It is
mostly paleographical and comparative, relating Samaritan to Hebrew
and Syriac and at the same time to Egyptian and Greek. The third and
fourth parts on Arabic and rabbinic Hebrew languages were also writ-
ten by G. Otho, but a year later in 1807.
There is one more thing to note about the manuscript, namely the
manner in which it entered the collection of the Utrecht University
Library. The text was a donation of the widow of a certain J.C. Swijg-
huisen Groenewoud. Jacobus Cornelis Swijghuisen Groenewoud was
born in Roordahuizen on 30th November 1784. He was trained as a
protestant minister and was appointed as professor of eastern literature
at the University of Franeker in 1817. After 14 years of teaching there,
he became a professor in Utrecht. Groenewoud owned the manuscript
of the lectures of his predecessor. After the death of Groenewoud in
Utrecht on 14th July 1859, his widow presented his library to the Utrecht
University.15
12 GLASIUS, Godgeleerd Nederland, 140-146. MOLHUISEN / KOSSMAN, Biographisch

woordenboek, 842-843.
13 The word dictata belongs to the description of the Tiele cathalogue, and it is not
written on the first page.
14 The inner size is 21 cm x 16,3 cm. I am indebted to Wiebe Boumans, librarian of the
University Library of Utrecht who kindly checked me the size of the manuscript.
15 MOLHUISEN / BLOK / KOSSMANN, Biografisch Woordenboek, Coll. 639-40.
An Elusive Samaritan Manuscript in Utrecht 241
Consequences
The text mentioned by Rothschild is a series of unpublished lectures by

professor Sebald Fulco Johannes Rau on several oriental languages,
among them Samaritan Hebrew. Rothschild mistakenly interpreted the
text of the Tiele catalogue as referring to a Samaritan manuscript. Al-
though it was listed under the Hebrew manuscripts of the Utrecht Li-
brary, Tiele’s description stated exactly that it was a work of a certain
(western) author and had its own title. Consequently, Utrecht should
be deleted from the list of places which host Samaritan manuscripts, as
well as from Rothschild’s list and from the “Internet Resources for Sa-
maritan Manuscripts and Inscriptions.”16
As a result of this mistake we have lost a Samaritan manuscript, but
we have won a comparative study on the Samaritan Hebrew language
from the first years of the 19th century.
Bibliography
CROWN, Alan, D. / PUMMER, Reinhard, A Bibliography of the Samaritans (3rd

ed.), Lanham / Toronto / Oxford 2005.
CROWN, Alan, D., Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (TSAJ 80), Tübingen 2001.
DE GOEJE, Michael Jan, Catalogus codicum orientalium bibliothecae Academiae
Lugundo.Batavae, Vol. 5. Leiden 1873.
GLASIUS, Barend, Godgeleerd Nederland: Biographisch Woordenboek van
Nederlandsche Godgeleerden, Vol. III., ‘S Hertogenbosch 1856.
MARGOLIOUTH, George, Descriptive List of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manu-
scripts in the British Museum, London 1893.
MOLHUISEN, Philip Christiaan / BLOK, Petrus Johannes / KOSSMANN, Friedrich
Karl Heinrich, eds., Nieuw Nederlandisch Biografisch Woordenboek, Vol.
6. Leiden 1924.
MOLHUISEN, Philip Christiaan / KOSSMANN, Friedrich Karl Heinrich, eds.,
Nieuw Nederlandsch biographisch woordenboek, Vol. 9. Leiden 1933.
NEUBAUER, Adolf, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Li-
brary, 2 vols, Oxford 1886 / 1906.
ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscript in the John Ryl-
ands Library, Manchester, 2 vols, Manchester 1938-1962.
ROTHSCHILD:, Jean-Pierre, “Samaritan Manuscripts”, in A. D. CROWN, Alan D.
ed.:, The Samaritans, Tübingen, 1990, 771-794.,
16 See http://shomron0.tripod.com/manuscriptsinscriptions.html, although it is not a

scholarly database.
242 J. Zsengellér
SASOON, David Solomon, Ohel David: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew

and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sasoon Library, 2 vols, London / Oxford
1932.
TIELE, Pieter Anton, Catalogus manuscriptorum bibliothecae universitatis Rhe-
no-Trajectinae, Den-Haag / Utrecht 1887.
VOLLERS, Karl, Katalog der islamischen, christlich-orientalischen, jüdischen und
samaritanischen Handschriften der Universitäts-Bbibliothek zu Leipzig,
vol 2, Lepzig 1906.
WALTHER, Ingo F. / WOLF, Norbert, Codices Illustres: The world's most famous
illuminated manuscripts, 400 to 1600, Köln 2005.
WITKAM, Jan Just, A Selection of Samaritan Manuscripts in Leiden University
Library, Leiden 2002, (http://bc.ub.leidenuniv.nl/bc/olg/selec/samaritan/-
object1.html) (downloaded 2011.02.18).
ZOTENBERG, Hermann, Catalogues des manuscrits hébreux et samaritains de la
Bibliothèque impériale, Paris 1866.
VI. Arabica
Reflections on Samaritan Belief in an After-life
Text-proofs for ‘The Appointed day‘ in Sam Ms BL Or 10370
PAUL STENHOUSE
The study of Samaritan belief in an after-life owes a great debt to the

late Ferdinand Dexinger for whom it was a life-long interest. Despite
his erudition, however, many problems remain. Of it he wrote:
Samaritan eschatology, especially as has been made clear in the case of the
Taheb, exhibits traits which reach back into the second century BC. More
precise religio-historical investigation and dating of other eschatological
notions among the Samaritans remains, for the time being, a scholarly de-
sideratum. 1
What follows is a respectful response to Dexinger’s ‘scholarly desidera-

tum’ concerning on-going debate on some of the ‘other eschatological
notions among the Samaritans;’ and musing on certain points raised by
Reinhard Pummer2 concerning resurrection and the Samaritans.

Deuteronomy 32:35 is a key proof text for Samaritan teaching on Re-
ward and Punishment in the afterlife. Moses Gaster said of it3 that it ‘is
considered by (the Samaritans) as the revelation of the deepest myster-
ies of the world and of the future, and is fully interpreted in a great
work called The Day of Judgement, “Yom al-Dīn,” and in the Code of
Laws, “Hillukh”.’
The New English Bible (1970 ed.) agrees with Gaster. It translates the
Deuteronomic passage thus:
all this (i.e. the work of those who lack good counsel) I have in reserve /
sealed up in my storehouses /
till the day (‫ )ליום‬of punishment and vengeance.
1 DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatology, 292.

2 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 9 and passim.
3 GASTER, The Samaritans, 89.
246 P. Stenhouse
The translators have followed the variant reading from the Samaritan
Pentateuch (SP) and the Septuagint (LXX). The Jerusalem Bible follows
the Masoretic Text (MT) and reads the last line of the strophe as ‘A moi
(‫ )לי‬la vengeance et la retribution.’
Few today would find this surprising. Scholars have noted and oc-
casionally followed variant readings found in the SP as it is well-known
that the SP and the LXX at times agree against the MT. As we shall see,
the SP will sometimes differ from the MT precisely in ways that em-
phasise the fact of a future ‘Day of Reckoning.’4
Samaritan studies have made great strides since the latter half of
the 20th century. Emanuel Tov has noted a kinship between what schol-
ars call ‘Proto-Samaritan’ texts unearthed at Qumran, and the SP,5 ex-
tending our Samaritan sources (what Gulielmus Gesenius called the
‘genuina hujus sectae monumenta,’ ‘the authentic documentary re-
mains of this sect’)6 to a point six-hundred years earlier than their hith-
erto fourth century AD terminus a quo.
That this point will eventually be pushed further back seems to me
to be self-evident.
In this paper we concern ourselves with the subject of Retribution
and Reward treated in Deuteronomy 32:35 and elsewhere in Samaritan
documentary remains, but especially in midrashim on the SP contained
in BL OR 10370.
Themes such as these which once would have been treated in the
context of a Day of Judgement, today come under the general heading
of ‘Eschatology’ – a modern term that covers a wide range of topics like
the ‘last things,’ and apocalyptic millennialism, as well as immortality,
resurrection of the dead, reward and punishment in the next life, and,
in the Samaritan context, the Taheb.
We take as a ‘given’ in what follows, that Samaritans, like their
Rabbinical (and, for that matter, Christian) exegetical counterparts,
were concerned with respecting ‘true texts’ and ‘establishing true exe-
gesis’7 of the texts when they were ‘fixed.’ Reinhard Pummer in his
‘The Samaritans and their Pentateuch,’ has noted that ‘there is consen-
sus among scholars that the SP is an adaptation of a pre-Samaritan or
harmonistic text known from Qumran that was produced at the turn of
the 2nd to the 1st century BCE ... as a consequence of the break between
4 See infra what will be said of Deut 30:15 where SP appears to omit ‫ היום‬precisely for
this purpose.
5 TOV, Proto-Samaritan texts, 397 ff.
6 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 38.
7 LOWY, Principles, 20.
Reflection on Samaritan Belief in an After-life 247
Samaritans and Jews.’8 Some scholars even suggest that after the Sa-
maritans chose their version, Judaean scribes engaged in comprehen-
sive editing of the Jewish Torah, whereas the Samaritans made no fur-
ther changes.9
We also accept that while regarding the text of the Torah as self-
explanatory the Samaritans nevertheless had recourse to midrashim – in
order to draw conclusions suggested by the text over and above its
literal meaning – provided these didn’t radically ‘contradict the explicit
sense.’10
Scepticism About Belief in Resurrection Among the

Samaritans
Ben Zvi defined Samaritan faith as: ‘En Toi, Éternel, en Moïse, fils
d’Abraham Ton Serviteur, en la Sainte Loi, au Mont Guerizim-Betel, et
au jour de la vengeance et de la récompense.’ 11
The single point of departure in this list from the thirteen articles of
Jewish Faith given by Moses Maimonides is the reference to Mount
Gerizim (though it is interesting that in this context Maimonides, as far
as I can discover, does not mention Jerusalem or any Qibla for that mat-
ter, at which or towards which Jews should pray). The other articles,
mutatis mutandis, could be reduced to Ben Zvi’s formulation of the Sa-
maritan Credo.12
The late13 Simeon Lowy notes that the opposition of the Samaritans
to Jerusalem ‘may fairly be said to be their major distinctive doctrine
and ... may well have been the prime cause of the creation of the
schism.’14 He also notes that the Rabbinic stipulation for acceptance by
Jews of the Samaritans in the Tractate Kuttim, added a further distinc-
tive note, viz.: that they renounce Mt Gerizim and acknowledge Jerusa-
lem and the resurrection of the dead.15
Reinhard Pummer comments that
8 PUMMER, Samaritans and their Pentateuch, 247.

9 See PUMMER, Samaritans and their Pentateuch, 247, note 50.
11 BEN-ZVI, Les Tribus, 175, quoted Faü / Crown, Les Samaritains, 5.
12 See JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith.
13 He died in May, 2008.
15 Ibid. See also HIGGER, Seven Minor Treatises, quoted DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschato-
logy, 282.
248 P. Stenhouse
Patristic authors (as well as rabbinic authors) repeatedly accuse the Samari-
tans of not believing in resurrection. It is well known that at a later time
Samaritans do believe in it. What is not known is when the change oc-
curred.16
Joseph Albo (15th century CE)17 quotes Rabbi Eleazer b. Josē the plebe-
ian Galilean, the contemporary of Rabbi Akiba (late 1st to early 2nd cen-
tury CE), as arguing in the Gemara from ‘their (i.e. from the Samari-
tans’) saying that the resurrection of the dead cannot be deduced from
the Torah,’ that therefore the books of the Samaritans were corrupted
(‫)שהיו אומרים אין תחיית המתים מן ספריהם מזוייפים‬. 18
Eleazer would doubtless have had in mind the tractate in the
Mishna19 that declares that ‘All Israelites have a share in the world to
come ... and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he
that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.
....’20
His view reflects that of the Rabbinite Jews in the Tractate Kuttim
referred to above,21 for whom a condition for admitting Samaritans as
proselytes was that they renounce Mt Gerizim, and acknowledge Jeru-
salem and the resurrection of the dead.22
This assumption that Samaritans denied the resurrection of the
dead was shared by Pope Gregory the Great and many of the Fathers of
the Church who preceded him.23 It permeates much writing on Samari-
tan views on the after-Life to the present day.
Gregory’s Commentary on the Book of Job, better known as the Moral-
ium Libri, was begun in Constantinople where he had been sent as nun-
cio by Pope Pelagius II in 578 CE. It was completed after he became
pope in 590. In this historical/allegorical/moral study of reward and
retribution in this life, Gregory drew a lesson from Job’s camels ‘which
chew the cud’ (and, for the sake of the metaphor, nothing else). He
compares them to Samaritans who ‘accept part only of the words of the
Law.’ Then he goes on to say that like the camels which ‘can in no way
16 PUMMER, Early Christian Authors, 9.

17 Sepher ha-‘Iqqarim, (Book of Principles) 31.4. The references are taken from MORINUS,
Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65.
18 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65. See JASTROW, Dictionary of the Targu-
mim, 389, under ‫ זוף‬for references to Samaritans allegedly falsifying their Torah.
19 Sanhedrin 10,1.
20 See DANBY, Mishna, 397.
21 See note 15.
22 My emphasis.
23 Cf among others, the references given by GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theo-
logia, 38.
cleave their hoofs,’ the Samaritans ‘belittle the Law in its entirety by
accepting only a part.’ 24
Employing yet another metaphor, the pope laments the Samaritans’
lack of belief in resurrection after death, and an after-life in which there
is reward and punishment.
they carry a heavy load on the backs of their minds, because they do all
that they do without any hope of eternal life. The fact is, they have no
knowledge of belief in a resurrection. And what can be heavier and more
burdensome than to suffer the affliction of an ephemeral world, and never
to be able to raise one’s spirit with the hope of the joy of reward?25
I see no reason to doubt that Pope Gregory, Rabbi Eleazer and the Fa-
thers would have agreed with the late André Caquot, founding Presi-
dent of the Société d’Etudes Samaritaines. In his preface to Alan
Crown’s edition of The Samaritans, Caquot praised the advances made
in Samaritan studies, and rightly cautioned that
... everything may be called into question, or improved on points of detail

by the discovery of unpublished texts or manuscripts which may yet come
to light, for hundreds of these still remain inaccessible to scholars.26
One assumption that may profitably be questioned is the very point

raised by the pope and by Rabbi Eleazer: namely, that the Samaritans
denied the resurrection of the dead, and that they held no belief in life
after death (what the seventeenth century Oratorian Jean Morin, wri-
ting of Samaritan beliefs, calls interitus animarum ‘the annihilation of
souls’).27
In the first place, it should be noted that there is no documented
reference to Samaritan denial (or ignorance to use Gregory’s less pejora-
tive term28) of the resurrection of the dead that antedates that time of
Rabbi Akiba i.e., as we said above, from late 1st to early 2nd century CE.
24 Book I, chapter xv: ‘Potest etiam per camelos ... Samaritanorum vita signari. Cameli
namque ruminant, sed nequaquam ungulam findunt. Samaritani quoque quasi ru-
minant, quia ex parte legis verba recipiunt, et quasi ungulam non findunt, quia eam
pro parte contemnunt. See MIGNE, Patrologia Latina, 536, 537.
25 Ibid.: ‘Qui et grave onus in dorso mentis tolerant, quia in omne quod faciunt, sine
spe aeternitatis elaborant. Fidem quippe resurrectionis nesciunt. Et quid esse gravius
atque onustius potest, quam afflictionem saeculi pratereuntis perpeti, et nequaquam
ad relevationem mentis gaudia remunerationis sperare?’
26 CAQUOT, Preface, IV.
27 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 65.
28 ‘Nesciunt’: see supra note 25.
250 P. Stenhouse
Secondly, Sigmund Mowinckel, was of the opinion that ‘neither Is-

rael nor early Judaism knew of a faith in any resurrection.’29 He went
on to deny that such a faith was ‘represented in the psalms.’ Mow-
inckel’s opinion, however, was judged by Mitchell Dahood as unable to
stand up to serious scrutiny.30
Certainly Maimonides made the resurrection of the dead (whatever
he understood the term to mean) his Thirteenth Principle. Louis Jacobs
makes the point that Deuteronomy 38:11 (prohibiting consulting the
dead) makes no sense unless there was belief in an after-life in ancient -
or at least in 3rd century to 2nd century BCE – Israel.31
Let us grant that the schism between the Samaritans and the
Judaeans occurred around the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion
in +/-333 BCE.
Let us further grant that around approximately the same time ‘the
written word (of the Torah) became binding on the various groups.’32
Our credulity would have to stretched to the limit to accept that
‘the Samaritans’ – whose faith up till that time would roughly have
paralleled that of the rest of the Hebrews, and more specifically that of
the Judaeans33 – denied the resurrection of the dead.
It is equally difficult to believe, as Shahrastani, the 12th century his-
torian would have us believe,34 that the dositheans in his day did not
believe in the after-life. As Alan Crown suggests, either Shahrastani
erred, or has offered a second-hand account representing distorted
information.35
If Louis Jacobs is right, and disillusionment with hope in a good life
for the righteous here on earth led to a shift from this-worldly36 to
other-worldly37 sanctions for the good life, then this would have been
true of the Northern Israelite Samaritans as well as the Southern Israel-
29 MOWINCKEL The Psalms, 240.

30 DAHOOD, Psalms, Introduction, xxxvi.
31 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 411.
32 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 20.
33 ‘Samaritanorum religio Iudaica est; in nonnullis tamen et magni moment, a Iudaeis
dissentiunt,’ The religion of the Samaritans is Jewish; in some things of great impor-
tance, however, they differ from the Jews’: MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae,
61.
34 Quoted MONTGOMERY , Samaritans, 252.
35 CROWN, Dositheans, 80.
36 What BL OR 10370 calls ‫‘ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ‬this-worldly abode’.
37 What BL OR 10370 calls ‫[ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﺧﺮﻯ‬sic!] ‘other-worldly abode’. Do these two phrases
reflect an Islamic influence on the expression of Samaritan belief? See ISSER, Dosi-
theans, 147, note 69.
ite Judaeans.38 If this shift really occurred during the Hellenistic period
‘when the “saints” were being slaughtered in the name of their faith,’
then Samaritans and Jews alike, would have been persecuted for their
faith however the Chronicles may deal with the complex relationship
between the two groups.
In Defence of Samaritan Belief in the Resurrection of the

Dead
Morin,39 quoting Origen’s Contra Celsum,40 attributes the denial of belief

in the resurrection of the dead to the Samaritan sectary Dositheus.
He argues for continuing Samaritan belief in the after-life from
Justin Martyr’s comment concerning Samaritan and Jewish Messianism
in his Dialogue with Trypho: nunquam non Christum praestolantes, ‘They
were always waiting for the Christ.’ Morin remarks
Vix enim fieri potest, ut qui ta[n]to cum omnium gentium ludibrio redemp-
torem spectant immortalis redemptionis suae spem omne[m] abiiciant. (It
is unthinkable that hoping as they did for a redeemer of all people, they
should have rejected in so cynical a fashion the hope of immortal redemp-
tion.)41
The Hillukh42 paints its own picture and by a reductio ad absurdum sup-
ports Justin’s incredulity:
If there would be no second world besides this one which the men of
knowledge are able to reach by their understanding, then the world would
be deficient of any good deed, and the non-fulfilment of a command would
be better than the fulfilment of it … Then all the fools and the brutes
among mankind, and the animals and beasts would be better off than those
38 JACOBS, Principles of the Jewish Faith, 354. Disilusionment with the lot of the righ-
teous, however, antedates the Hellenistic period by millennia. The book of Job, in its
Ugaritic version, is a case in point.
39 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 66-67. But see STENHOUSE, Kitāb al-Tārikh,
218, 219, 224 for a contrary view. Notice, too that ISSER, Dositheans, agrees that the
Dositheans were a pro-resurrection sect within a Samaritan population that general-
ly denied the doctrine of the resurrection. See also DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatolo-
gy, 282 ff.
40 I,2.
41 MORINUS, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae, 67-68.
42 GASTER, Samaritan Oral Law, 143. The Hillukh is the Samaritan code of halakhic
laws.
252 P. Stenhouse
who are perfect in knowledge, and this is stupidity, which cannot find fa-
vour with any man of intelligence, for if there is really no second world in
existence, or one to come later on after this world, then the life of the fool
and the ignorant brutes among men, beasts and birds in this world would
be in a preferable position to the life of the men of understanding, whose
knowledge is greater than that of the animals and beasts which possess no
knowledge, and are not expected to keep any Law or commandments and
who act according to their own wishes and desires; and therefore [regar-
ding] the fools who possess no knowledge whatsoever, and the brutes who
are unable to distinguish between good and evil, there would be no obliga-
tion on them to keep the Law and commandments, and through the want
of knowledge they would do whatever they chose.
Ferdinand Dexinger notes that Babylonian Talmud (TB) Sanhedrin,43

after textual emendation, has the following reading: ‘The Patriarch of
the Samaritans asked R. Meir (c.150) “I know that the dead will revive
for it is written, and they shall blossom forth out of the city like the grass of
the earth’ (Ps 72:16). But he and Stanley Isser44 both comment that the
likelihood of a Samaritan’s quoting the Psalms as proof texts for this
doctrine is minimal.
Much Samaritan writing, however, is directed at Jews – and is po-
lemical in nature. For some reason scholars seem to presume – uncon-
sciously perhaps – that it is always directed at Samaritans. This may be
true of the liturgical and historical writings, but doctrinal matters are at
least indirectly aimed at the critical Jewish audience traditionally so
dismissive of Samaritan ideas.
To dismiss a Samaritan text as not possible because it quotes the
Psalms45 or Isaiah, or Proverbs is to ignore the fact that while, as Gaster
said, the Samaritans are forced to rely on the Pentateuch for proof pas-
sages for their beliefs, and do this with extraordinarily creative genius,
there is nevertheless nothing to stop them quoting the rest of the Bible
if it suits their purpose.
Gesenius makes much of what he calls the ‘authentic documentary
sources of this sect ... from which it is clear which references in the To-
rah refer to this dogma [of life after death].‘46
Among these ‘documentary sources’ he lists the ‘liber de futura vita
(‫)ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ‬47 eiusdem auctoris (referring to the eleventh-century Abu ’l-
43 Sanhedrin 90b.
44 ISSER, Dositheans, 145, 146.
45 ISSER, Dositheans, 146.
46 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 38-39. ‘... genuina hujus sectae monumenta
ex quibus, quae Pentateuchi loca ad hoc dogma [i.e. vita post mortem futura] ac-
commodaverint, constat.’
Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣuri) in quo futurae vitae veritas argumentis e lege mosaica ductis
[v(erbi).g(ratia). Gen. ix, 5, Deut. xxxii, 35, 36, 39] comprobatur.’ ‘The book
of the future life by the same author in which the truth about the future
life is proven by arguments drawn from the Law of Moses e.g. Gen 9:5,
and Deut 32:35.36.39.’
Also listed by Gesenius are Samaritan liturgical hymns. These are
to be found passim in his De Samaritanorum theologia ex fontibus ineditis
Commentatio (1822)48 and his Carmina Samaritana (1824).49
Starting, at least implicitly, from the well-known principle of the so-
called ‘capitula Caelestini’50: Lex orandi lex credendi, i.e. ‘how one prays
reflects what one believes,’ Gesenius offers cogent arguments in sup-
port of Samaritan belief in an after-life, and in the doctrine of Reward
and Retribution in the world to come.51
Carmen No. v, verse 13 is rendered by Gesenius thus:
O rex spirituum nostrorum /

Absque te non est /
Resurrectio ad vitam nostram.
[‘O king of our spirits (‫)אה מלכה רוחינן‬/
without you there is no /
resurrection for our life’ (‫)לית קוממו לחיינן‬.]52
The whole of Carmen No. vii praises Moses, and touches on questions
associated with the last judgement, the fire of hell, and the resurrection.
Gesenius translates Verse 34 as follows:
Salus Jehovae super eo /

cui vita eterna est (‫)שלום יהוה עליו בעל חיים ועמידותה‬
(The Salvation of the Lord be upon him /
whose life is everlasting.)53
47 GESENIUS, De Samaritanorum Theologia, 11

48 See note 6.
49 In GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana.
50 Because it is found in an appendix to letter of Pope Celestine [422-432] written to the
bishops of Gaul but now regarded by some as an addition by Prosper of Aquitaine
[390-463]. The principle is sometimes phrased as Legem credendi lex statuat suppli-
candi i.e. ‘Let the law governing prayer lay down what should be believed’.
51 See Carmina iii,13; v,13; vi,21 in GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana.
52 GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana, 35 [Hebrew], 89 [Latin].
53 GESENIUS, Carmina Samaritana, 39 [Hebrew], 98 [Latin].
254 P. Stenhouse
BL OR 10370 and the ‘Appointed Day,’ the Day of

Reckoning
While one may agree with Lowy that Samaritans are ‘at all times an-
xious to find proof-texts for their belief in an ‘after-life,’ his further sta-
tement ‘we know there is little or no explicit and unquestionable sup-
port (for the after-life) in their scripture,’ 54 begs, I suggest, the question
that concerns us here.
BL OR 10370, one of the Gaster MSS in the British Library embodies
such a collection of ‘proof-texts’. We find that folios 40v-51r are taken
up with evidence55 from the SP for the ‘Yom al Mi‘ad’56 – ‫ – ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻌﺎﺩ‬the
Appointed Day, the Day of Promise, the Day of Reckoning.57 ‫ ﻣﻴﻌﺎﺩ‬is not
to be confused with ‫ ﻣﻌﺎﺩ‬in the ‫ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩ‬referred to above, which deals
with the ‘future life’ as such.58
The ‘Hillukh’ - the Samaritan code of halakhic laws - calls Deuteronomy
xxxii the ‘chapter of the Appointed Day.’ It is to be read as a Samaritan lies
dying ‘to give comfort to the hearers and a message to those who are
faithful that they will receive a reward on the Day of Judgement.’59
The copyist of this midrashic text describes himself in the colophon
as ‘Ishaq the priest’ (i.e. Isaac ben Amram 1855-1916)60 and says that he
finished the (whole) work on the 25th of Jumada I (i.e. the fifth month)
of the year 316 (sic!) according to the Arabic reckoning.
We know from the colophon of the Samaritan Hebrew text on the
Pentateuch in the preceding folios 1-36 that this earlier section was
completed in 1315 AH (=1897). We can only assume that ‘the year 316’
was a lapsus calami for 1316 AH (=1898).
BL OR 13070 contains fourteen principal proof-texts offered from
the SP, with appropriate midrashim, in support of the doctrine of the
‘yom al-mī‘ād,’ ‘The Appointed Day.’ It may help in evaluating these
proof-texts to ponder the words of Moses Gaster in his The Samaritans,
The Schweich Lectures, 1923:
Now how did the Samaritans evolve their own theories from the Penta-
teuch, and why could not the Jews find the same proofs from the text? A

55 Arabic: adilla, pl. of dalīl.
56 See CROWN, Catalogue, No 38, pp.55,56.
57 From the root ‫ ﻭﻋﺪ‬.
58 From the root ‫ ﻋﻮﺩ‬. The term ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻌﺎﺩ‬is also used for the New Testament thus: ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻌﺎﺩ‬
‫ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬. See DOZY, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, under [‫]ﻭﻋﺪ‬.
59 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 129, 130.
60 CROWN, Samaritan Scribes, 425.
glance at the Samaritan recension answers these questions. Not a few of the
variants in this latter are the pegs on which the Samaritans hang their doct-
rines. It may be a coincidence, but at any rate it is very curious that in most
of these eschatological points the Samaritan text differs slightly from the
Jewish. Whether these changes were made in order to find a Biblical reason
for these beliefs, or whether these beliefs were found in the text in a form
satisfactory enough to be adduced, cannot easily be decided. I have already
had occasion to point out that many an ancient Halakhah is based upon or
is justified by the reading peculiar to the Samaritan text. There again the
same question arises whether the text is anterior to the Halakhah or vice
versa, but as it is unlikely that a text would be altered when the latter has
already been put into practice in order to find a posteriori reasons for it, it
must be assumed that the reading is anterior to the interpretation. The sa-
me must therefore be assumed for their application of the text to eschatolo-
gical doctrines.61
In the order in which they appear, these ‘loci’ are as follows:

1.Genesis 3:24.
2.Genesis 9: 5.
3.Genesis 25:7.
4.Genesis 25:17.
5.Exodus 1:20.
6.Exodus 32:34.
7.Exodus 34:6.
8.Leviticus 18: 5.
9.Leviticus 20:30.
10.Numbers 14:35.
11.Number 23:10.
12.Deuteronomy 6:24.
13.Deuteronomy 30:15.
14.Deuteronomy 32:29, 31, 32, 34, 35.
The first proof-text (Gen 3:24) sets the tone by recalling the image of the
Cherubim, with swords flashing and whirling, guarding the gates to
the garden of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve – the very
image of the after-life and its Judgement.62 Acording to the Hillukh, the
Garden of Eden is the heavenly home, it is everlasting – its opposite is
the fire of Gehinnom. After death and his rising on The Appointed Day
will come Judgement and Reckoning or Punishment or Requital.63
61 GASTER, The Samaritans, 87, 88.

62 Folio 85.
63 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 138.
256 P. Stenhouse
The fact that our anonymous author bypasses Genesis 3:19 – one of
the Samaritans’ strongest proof-texts for the resurrection – shows that
they are not as bereft of arguments for their beliefs as Lowy sugges-
ted.64 The MT of Gen 3:19 reads ‫‘ כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב‬for you are
dust, and unto dust you shall return’ while the SP reads ‫כי עפר אתה ואל‬
‫ …‘ עפרך תשוב‬unto your dust you shall return.’
What follows is a sampling of the style of the exegesis of these texts.

Genesis 9:5 in the SP reads ‘living creature’ (‫ )חי‬and differs from the
MT which reads ‘wild beast’ (‫ )חיה‬The midrash explains that every living
creature ‘includes someone who kills himself and there could not be
any demand for his blood (from him, as the cause of his own death)
because he (the cause) is dead. This is therefore out of the question. But
his blood could be demanded of him after he has been resurrected.’65
Genesis 25:7. Referring to Abraham’s being ‘gathered to his ances-
tors’ the midrash says that the meaning of his being ‘gathered to his
ancestors’ is that the body rests in the ground, in its burial place, but
the spirit is in its superior world, its immaterial world.’66
Exodus 1:20: a midrash on the story of the two midwives assisting
the Hebrew women to give birth. Because they feared God and obeyed
him, he repaid them with homes. ‘So that Almighty God rewarded
them with palaces in Paradise, and saved them from the slyness of the
Pharaoh.’67
Exodus 32:34: ‘On the Day of punishment I will punish them.’ That is,
the midrash explains, for their sins. This is a great, undeniable witness to
the Promised World of Judgement, when his servants will be punished
– called the Day of Punishment. This will occur when all possibility of
time for delaying has been exhausted. The Day in which every man will
be remembered for what he has done. His Judgement requires an end
to disobedience in this world, or his being weighed in a place different
from this world. ‘Here there is delay; but there is no possibility of re-
pentance on the Day Judgement is handed down; on the Last Day. …
God delays until the day of punishment and Resurrection. Let us pray
to the Almighty to look kindly on us on that Day. May his antecedent
mercy be upon us before that last moment arrives to snatch us away.
Amen Amen.’68

65 Folio 85.
66 Folio 86.
67 Ibid.
68 Folio 88.

Reinhard Pummer, writing of the collection of works attributed to the

famous 4th century author Marqe, wisely cautions the unwary reader:
Although Tibat Marqe speaks of resurrection, these passages do not date

from the fourth century as do the earlier layers of the work, but are later in-
terpolations as Ben-Hayyim has shown.
Bowman took a different view. He considered that many pages of the

older MSS which Ben-Hayyim favoured, had been lost.69 The additio-
nal material in Macdonald’s BL MS may well have been drawn from
MSS more ancient than the Shechem MSS of which the latter, also,
were copies. As some of the lacunae appear in the middle of a passa-
ge,70 this lends plausibility to this theory. They may have been caused
by folios of the original of the older MSS being mislaid, or by homoeo-
teleuta caused by scribal inattention.
Interpolations are usually made to clarify ambiguity or confusion
in a text.71
Whatever be the explanation for the omissions in the older MSS or
the interpolations in the younger, that the latter are later interpolations
is not conclusive proof that they are later material, and that they were
not in the 4th century original, or that they do not ante-date the fourth
century.
Our MS BL OR 10370 is an early 20th century copy of a presumably
lost orginal by an unidentified author. It labours under many of the
disadvantages that plagued Macdonald’s BL text.
Nevertheless, Robert Renehan, whom I quoted above concerning
interpolations, wrote of a text in Plato’s Symposium in 1969: ‘that the
oldest witness is necessarily the most trustworthy is a theory long-since
exploded.’72
He gives a number of instances where mediaeval MSS have pre-
served a genuine reading where ancient witnesses have failed to do
so.73 And notes, further, that there are ‘literally thousands of passages
where the readings of the MSS have been unnecessarily condemned
and tampered with by scholars,’ quoting R.J. White74 who refers to the
69 BOWMAN, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 221-223 quoted ISSER, Dositheans, 147 note 70.
70 See ISSER, Dositheans, 147 note 70.
71 RENEHAN, Greek Textual Criticism, 105.
74 WHITE, Dr. Bentley.
258 P. Stenhouse
‘occupational disease of the “emendator” – the final inability to leave

well alone.’75
Renehan thus comes out in support of the general principle in tex-
tual criticism – that applies to MS as well as to textual variants – ‘recen-
tiores non deteriores’ ‘the more recent are not necessarily the least
trustworthy.’
I don’t doubt that our late President Ferdinand Dexinger would ag-
ree with this judgement, or at least with the cautela. Concerning the
antiquity of Samaritan beliefs he wrote in his comprehensive study
‘Samaritan Eschatology’:
The oldest Samaritan sources date from the fourth century AD and cannot,
therefore, help us in determining the age of those Samaritan beliefs that are
certainly older than these texts.76
Moses Gaster, in the 30s of the last century, reflected on the same phe-
nomenon:
We have shown … that anything that is found in the Samaritan writings

whatever the date of the MS. may be, is not new, it is merely a repetition of
older writings: there was no real evolution after a certain period because
we can trace the same ideas back through the ages from the oldest available
writings to the most recent.77
Who knows what treasures await discovery in some ancient hiding

place, or on forgotten library shelves. Mutatis mutandis I dare to say that
most of us would agree with this common-sensed judgement of these
two scholars whose productive lives spanned the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries and to whom all of us who take an interest in rebus Sa-
maritanis are greatly indebted.
Bibliography
BEN-ZVI, Itzhak, Les Tribus Disperseés, Paris 1959.

BOWMAN, John, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch Among the Samaritans and
among the Rabbis, in: Oudtestamentische Studiën 8 (1950) 223-262.
CAQUOT, André, Preface, in: CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen
1989, III-IV.
75 WHITE, Dr. Bentley, 103-104.

76 DEXINGER, Samaritan Eschatology, 267.
77 GASTER, Samaritan Eschatology, 122.
CROWN, Alan, D., Dositheans, Resurrection and a Messianic Joshua, in: Antich-
ton 1 (1967) 70-85.
CROWN, Alan D., A Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Lib-
rary, London 1998.
CROWN, Alan D., Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism 80) Tübingen 2001.
DAHOOD, Mitchell, Psalms 1-50 (Anchor Bible 16), Garden City 1965.
DANBY, Herbert, The Mishna, Oxford 1933.
DEXINGER, Ferdinand, Samaritan Eschatology, in: CROWN, Alan D. The Samari-
tans, Tübingen 1989, 266-292.
DOZY, Reinhardt, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, Leiden / Paris 1927
[reprint Beirut 1968].
FAÜ, Jean-François / CROWN, Alan D., Les Samaritains rescapés de 2,700 ans
d’Histoire, Paris 2001.
GASTER, Moses, The Samaritan Oral Law and Ancient Traditions: Vol I – Sama-
ritan Eschatology, London 1932.
GASTER, Moses, The Samaritans, Their History, Doctrines and Literature, (The
Sweich Lectures), 1923, (Kraus Reprint, München, 1980).
GESENIUS, Wilhelm, Anecdota Orientalia, Fasciculus Primus Carmina Samari-
tana continens, Lipsiae 1824.
GESENIUS, Willhelm, De Samaritanorum Theologia ex Fontibus Ineditis Com-
mentatio, in: eadem, Iesu Christi Natalitia pie celebranda Academiae Fri-
dericanae Halensis et Vitebergensis civibus indicunt Prorector et Senatus,
Hale 1822.
HIGGER, Michael (ed.), Seven Minor Treatises, New York 1930.
ISSER, Stanley, The Dositheans. A Samaritan Sect on Late Antiquity (Studies in
Judaism in Late Antiquity 17), Leiden 1976.
JACOBS, Louis, Principles of the Jewish Faith. An Analitycal Study, London
1964.
JASTROW, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerus-
halmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. 1., New York 1943.
LOWY, Simeon, The Principles of Samaritan Biblical Exegesis (Studia Post-
Biblica 28), Leiden 1977.
MIGNE, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 75., Paris 1849.
MONTGOMERY, James, A. The Samaritans. The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their His-
tory, Theology and Literature, Philadelphia 1907.
MORINUS, Ioannes, Exercitationes Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum
Pentatteuchum de illorum Religione et Moribus, Paris 1631.
MOWINCKEL, Sigmund, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, Vol. 1., Oxford 1962.
PUMMER, Reinhard, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism
(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92), Tübingen 2003.
PUMMER, Reinhard, The Samaritans and their Pentateuch, in: KNOPPERS, Gary
N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah, Winona Lake
2007, 237-269.
260 P. Stenhouse
RENEHAN, Robert, Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Loeb Classical Mono-

graphs) Cambridge Mass. 1970.
STENHOUSE, Paul, The Kitāb al-Tārikh of Abu ‘l-Fath. Translated into English
with Notes (Studia in Judaica 1), Sydney 1985.
TOV, Emmanuel, Proto-Samaritan texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch, in:
CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 397-407.
WHITE, R. James, Dr. Bentley: a Study in Academic Scarlet, London 1965.
Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī and his Inclinations to
Mu‘tazilite Theology
GERHARD WEDEL
Introduction
When the Samaritans accepted the Arabic language as medium for

their written communication in the 10th/11th century CE, they also
adopted an elaborated terminology shaped in an Islamic environment.
The implicit adoption of an Islamic influence necessarily caused a chal-
lenge for Samaritan scholars at least on a linguistic level to which they
reacted in different ways. In some cases they shifted the meaning of
Arabic words to meanings more appropriate to necessities of their own
religion.1 However, when they approached the scholastic theology of
the Muslims, ‘ilm al-kalām, they had to keep the original meanings of
terms of Islamic theology and to use them in the same way as Muslim
scholars did in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise they would exclude
themselves from participation in inter-religious discourses.
When the Samaritan scholar Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī, who flourished
in the second half of the 11th century CE, started to defend the Samari-
tan religion against attack from various directions he used the Arabic
language and tacitly he introduced ‘ilm al-kalām into Samaritan theol-
ogy. He seems to be the first Samaritan scholar who attempted to par-
ticipate in the general religious discourse of his time. By publishing his
theological treatises he strengthened the position of Samaritans in case
they had to defend themselves in theological disputes.
Opening the door to inter-religious dialogue could have been a
slippery path for unprepared Samaritans. Unskilled people often failed
in philosophical argumentation with Muslim scholars, who usually
were better prepared. It is recorded that some badly prepared Jewish
participants were defeated in inter-religious discussions because they
could not resist their Muslim counterparts who were more skilled in
1 WEDEL, Aspekte der Etablierung.

262 G. Wedel
theological controversies. Under the spell of that impression some Jews

abandoned their religion and converted to Islam, being overwhelmed
by the superior arguments put forward by Muslim theologians. As a
consequence, Jewish scholars took countermeasures by composing
manuals to prepare their co-religionists to be better-equipped, with
improved knowledge and rhetoric skills.2
Adopting theological doctrines – usually used by scholars of an-
other religious group – always means tacitly adopting ways of thinking
that could undermine traditionally transmitted attitudes. Particularly in
the case of the ‘rational theology,’ developed by the Mu‘tazila, textual
exegesis by means of literal interpretation of scripture became doubtful
and a higher level of argumentation was required, including the rejec-
tion of anthropomorphism.
In contrast to traditional theologians, advocates of ‘rational theol-
ogy’ used to present their cases primarily by philosophical evidence
and less by evidence of scripture – neither Bible or Qur’ān. This level of
discussion was a challenge for traditional scholars. Because participants
in this case they had no answers or their arguments failed in discussion
sessions, they had no other choice than to keep silent or to retreat.3
In the following I will present first results of my investigations of
the theological parts of the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ to support my thesis that
Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī was an adherent of ‘rational theology.’ The evi-
dence from the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ even supports a strong inclination to
the school of Mu‘tazilite kalām. Even the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ could be seen
– at least in its theological parts – as means to support Samaritans in
2 These manuals were written by Rabbanites like Samuel ben Ḥofnī as well as by
Karaites like al-Qirqisānī (10th century; Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib) and later Yūsuf
al-Baṣīr (d. ~1040; Kitāb al-Muḥtawī). Even Muslim Mu‘tazilites equipped their stu-
dents with guides for disputations like ‘Abd al-Ğabbār al-Hamadānī (d. ~1024; Kitāb
al-ụsūl al-ḫamsa). Cf. SKLARE, Responses, and SKLARE: Samuel ben Ḥofnī. ‒ I compa-
red the Mu‘tazilite attitudes of these authors with those of Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī and I
found striking aggreement of their positions. Cf. WEDEL, Gebrauch mu‘tazilitischer
Terminologie.
3 ″The reality of the polemical majālis was not necessarily a pleasant one.″ ‒ a number
of Jews were so impressed by the Muslims’ arguments for the authenticity of Mu-
hammad’s prophecy that they converted to Islam. (SKLARE, Responses, 141f.). ‒ The-
re were quite different cultural climates in the mağālis ˗ more liberal and tolerant in
Baġdād and more aggressive and less tolerant in Cairo. Consequently the pressure to
convert to Islam in case a participant of the mağālis was defeated was higher in Cai-
ro. (SKLARE, Responses, 143f.).
Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī 263
theological discussions. So we can see it as a mirror of an elevated level

of internal theological discussions of the Samaritans themselves.4
The Samaritan Scholar Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī
Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī was one of the most important Samaritan scholars,
who probably lived in the 11th/12th century CE.5 Because he was the first
Samaritan scholar who systematically treated theological subjects, he is
comparable with two famous Jewish scholars some generations before,
– the Rabbanite Sa‘adya Gaon (882-942) and his Karaite contemporary
of the 10th century al-Qirqisānī. Though Abū l-Ḥasan is famous even
now among Samaritans, nothing reliable about his personal life is re-
corded, including when and where he lived. His expertise and compe-
tence in religious matters must have been enormous, because people
asked for his authoritative advice. This can be seen from the number of
responsa included in the Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ.6 It is assumed that the Kitāb
aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ was composed between 1030 and 1040.7 He also is famous for
4 WEDEL, Mu‘tazlitische Tendenzen, 349-375, ‒ This contribution is a first attempt to

indicate Mu‘tazilite doctrines in some detail in Samaritan texts and to discuss the
question of possible means of contact to adherents of the Mu‘tazila.
5 WEDEL, Elemente islamischer Dogmen; WEDEL, Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ; several articles in
CROWN / PUMMER / TAL, Companion. For more of my publications see the list of refe-
rences.
6 HALKIN, Samaritan Polemics, 17, and note 24. Halkin collected all possible informa-
tion (pp. 15-24). He stated: “… it is surprising indeed that nothing further is related
about a personage who must have won renown even during his lifetime.” – Cf. my
studies on Samaritan responsa: WEDEL, Jewish Responsa, and WEDEL, The Question
of Samaritan Responsa.
7 Cf. my survey on Abū l-Ḥasan in W EDEL, Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ, 6-11. See also SHEHADEH,
Ab Ḥisda, and the reconstruction of Abū l-Ḥasan‘s liftetime by W EIS Abū 'l-Hasan. –
Support for the date has been seen in the fact that Abū l-̣Hasan mentions a certain
Abū Ya‘qūb whom Abraham Halkin supposed to identify either with Abū Ya‘qūb
Yūsuf b. Nụ̄h (d. ca. 1020) the Karaite who did run the famous Karaite college in Je-
rusalem (since 1002-03) or his student the famous Karaite scholar Yūsuf al-Bạsīr (d.
ca. 1040). – I examined the mss. and found that Abū l-Ḥasan mentions a certain Abū
Ya‘qūb being in accordance with ‘Ānān (London BL Or ms. 12257, copied 1256-
1289/1840-1872, fol. 62a = p. 103; Library of the High Priest in Nablus ms. N 123, fol.
96a = p. 172 (Zuhair Shunnar assumed the copy was made ca 800 / 1397-98 (!) and
corrections ca. 1850). But other mss. have Ya‘qūb without kunya and ‘Āmān instead
of ‘Anān. Both wordings are obvious scribal errors or evidence for ignorance. (John
Rylands Library ms. 9A, 1103-1123 / 1692-1711, fol. 122b; Paris BN ms. arabe 4521,
1153 / 1740, fol. 45b and Oxford Bibl. Bodleiana, collection Huntington ms. 24 = Ni-
coll V, 1660-1680, (no fol.) chapt. 26). – Halkin relates the custom, that persons na-
264 G. Wedel
several other works.8 Abū l-Ḥasan eventually composed some Hebrew

and Aramaic poems, piyyụtim, perhaps used as liturgical poetry, partly
included in Cowley's “Samaritan Liturgy” but certainly incomplete.9
The Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ is the chief work of Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī. The
first survey of its content in Europe was in 1835 when Alexander Nicoll
published his catalogue of Oriental manuscripts in the Bodleiana Li-
brary of Oxford.10 A complete critical edition is still pending, though I
published half of the book, as PhD thesis in Freie Universität Berlin (in
1987). It includes a critical edition, German translation with philological
commentary, a comprehensive introduction and appendices.
The Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ is not an integrated piece of work but an amal-
gam of possibly former independent treatises and responsa. These texts
were put together under the vague label Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ, which liter-
arily means “Book of the cook”, resembling the housewife preparing a
meal out of different ingredients. Perhaps it should be better translated
by “Book of Slaughtering” derived from Hebrew ̣tebạh or ̣tabbạh, or
even resembling Arabic “slaughterer” dabbāḫ, because the first chapters
of the book deal with rules of slaughtering and the differentiation of
clean and unclean animals to eat.
med Yūsuf automatically receive the kunya Abū Ya‘qūb. Both persons, named Abū
Ya‘qūb, seem to be contemporaries of Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī of the 11th century CE.
HALKIN, Samaritan Polemics,18f.
8 1. The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but the authorship of Abū l-
Ḥasan is questioned and more likely attributed to the Rabbanite scholar Sa‘dya
Gaon – SHEHADEH, Arabic Translation, iii-iv (Foreword). – Already in 1943/44 Hal-
kin wrote “We do not know who the original author is, but it may be the tenth or
eleventh-century Samaritan scholar Abu-l-Ḥasan al-̣Sūrī whom the Samaritans
wrongly (sic!) … attribute the work.” HALKIN, Scholia to Numbers, 42. – 2. āb al-
Ma‘ād = “the Book of the Return,” a brief eschatological work including quotations
of the Samaritan-Arabic version of the Pentateuch (CROWN / PUMMER / TAL, Compa-
nion, 43): no edition available. – 3. Kitāb fī šurụ̄h al-‘ašr kalimāt = Šaṛh ‘ašeret ha-
dibberot = “Commentary on the Ten Words or Decalogue” (CROWN / PUMMER / TAL,
Companion, 144): no edition available. – 4. Ḫụtba al-ğāmi‘a = Šaṛh be-ha-azīnū (Dt
32) = “Commentary on the ‘speech of assembly‘”: edition of the Samaritan-Arabic
text in Hebrew characters in 395 lines by HALKIN, Min haparšanut hašomronit, 210-
226 – For full listings of references to mss. including shelf marks in collections, cf.
WEDEL, Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ, 13.
9 Some specimen of his liturgical poetry is published by COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy;
new English translations of two poems of Abū l-Ḥasan by ANDERSON / GILES Tradi-
tion Kept, 386-391. – cf. SHEHADEH, Samaritan Arabic Liturgy.
10 Nicoll, Alexander: Biblio. Bodl. Cod. Manus. Orient. Catalogus, II. Oxford, 4f. ̽ Ed-
ward Robertson dealt with it in a more comprehensive way in ROBERTSON, Catalo-
gue of the Samaritan Manuscripts, columns 110-116.
The uneven distribution of topics and the mixture of different sorts

of text may suggest a posthumous and arbitrary combination of pri-
marily independent treatises.
There are four kinds of chapters:
1. chapters where the headline already indicates controversial at-
titudes to Muslim theological or philosophical topics: Muslim
attacks on the text of the Torah; attacks of philosophers on the
text of the Torah; rejection of Aš‘arite doctrines concerning tağ-
sīm and kalām Allāh; on doctrines of the Muğbira and Qadariyya
on free will and the righteousness of divine retaliation: against
compulsion and fate; on creation of the world and of the crea-
tion of the Qur’ān.
2. chapters on disputes in scholastic theology: on the unity of god
taụhīd and on accidents; on the need for sending prophets and
messengers; on the rejection of the Christian's dogma of trinity;
on human actions.
3. chapters on controversies with Rabbanite and Karaite Jews:
refutations of the Jews concerning their slaughtering of preg-
nant or castrated animals; refutation of the Jews concerning
their opinion that Samaritans are not from the tribes of Israel;
dispute with Rabbanite and Karaites on several points, like: the
direction of prayer qibla, the determination of new moon hilāl,
the ‘omer (first fruit of the harvest, celebrated at the time of
pesạh), their refusal to permit children to fast on the Day of
Atonement, topics of Genesis, Passover (pesạh) that cannot be
celebrated but at the chosen place.
4. chapters in form of a fatwā, i.e. responsa, characterized by their
structure of question and answer.
Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī turns his apologetics and polemics against opin-
ions held by four different groups. At first he rejects certain opinions of
some (not named) co-religionists. Secondly, he disputes opinions held
by Rabbanite and Karaite scholars. Thirdly, he explicitly mentions sev-
eral renown Islamic groups whose opinions he debates: Aš‘ariyya, Muğ-
bira, Qadariyya and Falāsifa. Opinions of the Mu‘tazila, to be equated
here to Qadariyya, he prefers generally. At last, he explicitly rejects the
Christian doctrine of trinity.
The main purpose to compose the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ seems to be to
stop apostasy of Samaritans. Abū l-Ḥasan used arguments borrowed
from the side of the predominant religion in his time, Islam. This was
indispensable, particularly in times when the Samaritans had adopted
Arabic as their colloquial and literary language. They therefore were
266 G. Wedel
able to read books composed by Muslims and they could be attracted

by their concepts.
Obviously, Abū l-Ḥasan made an attempt to support his co-religio-
nists to resist temptations of conversion by providing them with argu-
ments. The same was done before by Rabbanite and Karaite scholars
when they composed handbooks for their support in discussions with
Muslim scholars to prevent their Jewish brethren from conversion to
Islam.
Altogether, the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ consists of 70 chapters – units of
text – separated by headings. Eighteen of them are devoted to theologi-
cal subjects. I examined eight chapters to look for examples of
Mu‘tazilite tendencies used by the author. In most cases of his theologi-
cal chapters Abū l-Ḥasan uses “rational arguments.” Usage of reason in
this context means arguing without evidence from Scripture (“Schrift-
beweis”) but only by theological speculation. In seven of the eight
chapters which are devoted to theological subjects the author follows
this line of argumentation. Some of these chapters show appropriate
headings, particularly the chapter headed by fạsl fīt-taụhīd, “section on
the unity of God”, displays the typical heading of Mu‘tazilite texts.
The Mu‘tazila
The history of the Mu‘tazila is one of the most intriguing stories of the
Islamic culture.11 Intending to defend their young religion against sev-
eral competitive religions and their denominations, Muslim theologians
developed a system of principles and “rational” concepts. This theo-
logical system met with great success by gaining the status of “state
doctrine” of the Abbasid dynasty. But it also provoked a fast decline
caused by conservative forces bound to literal interpretation of Qur’ān
and Sunna. Consequently, most manuscript material of copies of origi-
nal Mu‘tazilite authors survived nearly exclusively in “sectarian”
groups of Shia, Zaydiyya and the Jewish Karaites. These materials were
scattered around the world and preserved only by chance in a few
places like the Cairo Geniza, now chiefly in manuscript collections of
Firkovich in St. Petersburg and of Taylor-Schechter in Cambridge, U.K.,
and some collections in Yemen and Iran.
11 Cf. NAGEL, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, ‒ see also basic articles in EI2: ‘Ilm
al-kalām, Mu‘tazila etc.
In 2003 the international “Mu‘tazilite Manuscript Project Group”

was founded to investigate how non-Muslim communities adopted
and handed down Mu‘tazilite theology. Because of a lack of original
source material, their first tasks were to catalogue and to edit manu-
scripts. In this framework first results were published 2007 in the
handbook “A Common Rationality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Juda-
ism.” presenting the state of research today.12 This handbook also in-
cludes a chapter devoted to Mu‘tazilite influences on Samaritan theol-
ogy.13
By some quotations I shall introduce the main features of Mu‘tazilite

history, doctrine and outlook.
“The Mu‘tazila was a school of rationalist Islamic theology, known as

kalâm, and one of the important currents of Islamic thought. Mu‘tazilîs
stressed the primacy of reason and free will (as opposed to predestination)
and developed an epistemology, ontology and psychology which provided
a basis for explaining the nature of the world, God, man and the phenom-
ena of religion such as revelation and divine law. In their ethics, Mu‘tazilis
maintained that good and evil can be known solely through human reason.
The Mu‘tazila had its beginnings in the eighth century and its classical pe-
riod of development was from the latter part of the ninth until the middle
of the eleventh century CE. While it briefly enjoyed the status of an official
theology under the Abbasid caliphs in the 9th century, the Mu‘tazila soon
fell out of favour in Sunnî Islam and had largely disappeared by the four-
teenth century. Its impact, however, continued to be felt in two groups:
Shî‘î Islam and, to some extent, Karaite Judaism. Within Shî‘î Islam in par-
ticular, the influence of the Mu‘tazila continued through the centuries and
can be felt even today.” (…) “… the Mu‘tazilī doctrines and terminology
provided a basis for discussion and polemical exchanges between Jewish
and Muslim scholars.”14
After a phase of incubation in the 8th century CE there are three phases
of development in the Muslim Mu‘atzilite movement.15
1. a phase of great diversity on the doctrinal level gaining the
height of their political influence
12 See ADANG / SCHMIDTKE / SKLARE, Common Rationality.

13 Cf. WEDEL, Mu‘tazilitische Tendenzen.
14 ADANG / SCHMIDTKE / SKLARE, Common Rationality, 11.
15 “Mu‘tazila (is the) the name of a religious movement founded at Bạsra, in the first
half of the 2nd/8th century by Wạ̄sil b. ‘Ạtā’ (d. 131/748), subsequently becoming
one of the most important theological schools of Islam.” (EI2 VIII, 783a).
268 G. Wedel
2. scholastic phase - systematization and formulation in Bagdad

and Basra (815-850)
3. last innovative school: Abū l-Ḥasan al-Bạsrī (d. 1044): he intro-
duced philosophy under the cover of theology (!)
After the decline of Sunni Mu‘tazila, this line of theology spread
among Zaidiyya and Twelver Šī‘a and later it exercised influence on
Jewish circles of Rabbanite but particularly on Karaite scholars.
Abū Huḏail (d. ca 841) – so it is assumed – defined the five princi-
ples (al-ụsūl al-ḫamsa) of the Mu‘tazila.
1. at-taụhīd: the uniqueness or unity of God which means the as-
sessment of the unity of God (question of divine attributes and
eternity)
2. al-‘adl: the justice of God (question of human freedom)
3. al-wa‘ad wa-l-wa‘īd: “promise and threat” (question of reward
and punishment in the world to come)16
4. al-manzila baina l-manzilatain: theory of an “intermediate state”
(question of major and minor sin)17
5. al-amr bi-l-ma‘rūf wa-l-nạhy ‘an al-munkar: ‘command the good
and forbid the evil’ (the question of public responsibility).18
The importance of the Mu‘tazila lies in the application of these princi-

ples on several theological, philosophical and moral subjects.
1. The fundamental dogma of the Mu‘tazila is the doctrine of God’s
justice. That means: God does only that which is good.19 Only humans
are able to do evil. The doctrine of God’s justice necessarily excludes
any notion of predestination20 and includes the free choice (iḫtiyar) of
human beings.21 In the opinion of the adversaries of the Mu‘tazila, like
16 “By which … it is understood that … every Muslim guilty of a serious offence, who
dies without repentance, will suffer for eternity the torments of Hell.” (EI2
Mu‘tazila, 786b).
17 “According to which the same sinful Muslim cannot here on earth be classed either
as ’believing’ (mu’min) or as ’disbelieving’ (kāfir), but belongs to a separate category,
that of the ’malefactor’ (fāsiq).” (EI2 Mu‘tazila, 786b-787a).
18 “In other words, to intervene in public affairs to uphold the Law and oppose impie-
ty.” (EI2 Mu‘tazila, VIII, 787a).
19 “May be said without exaggeration to be their fundamental dogma.” (EI2 VIII, 789a).
20 “Necessary justice of God first of all excludes any notion of predestination; it would
be unjust on the part of God, say the Mu‘tazila, to decide in advance the fate of every
man in the Hereafter and to ordain that one will be saved and another damned, wi-
thout either having merited this by his actions.” (EI2 VIII, 789).
21 “For the Mu‘tazila, the notion of power (qudra) is linked to that of free choice
(iḫtiyar), itself implied, once again, by the principle of divine justice.” (EI2 VIII, 790).
al-Aš‘arī, God is not bound by moral obligation and is not subject to

any rule.22 Therefore God creates all acts and man is able only to ac-
quire the act he wants. The adherents of predestination do not even
grant man any choice.
2. Following the doctrine of absolute and unquestioned unity of
God, the Mu‘tazilites refuse all “essential attributes,” ̣sifạ̄t dātiyya, in-
herent in God. This absolute transcendence has two consequences: a)
“God is not a body, and therefore is not to be attributed with any of the
properties of a body, such as being localised, moving about, having a
form, etc.” and b) “God cannot be seen, in the literal sense of the term,
either in this world or in the other“23
3. Because the word of God kalām Allāh is an accidental attribute,
they identify the revelation as created thing: The Mu‘tazila do indeed
uphold the doctrine of the created qur’ān – al-qur’ān al-maḫlūq.24 Other-
wise they would hold an anthropomorphic concept of God as a speak-
ing deity with head and mouth etc. Against this view adherents of tra-
ditions maintain the pre-existence of revelation.
Rationalism is the common means of Muslim theologians (mutakal-

limūn).25 Because of rationalism the rift is not between Mu‘tazila and
Sunnis, but between those who accept the methods, challenges and
vocabulary of the ‘ilm al-kalām and those conservative traditionalists
who reject them, such as the ̣Hanbalis and generally the ạṣhāb al-hadīt.26
In the sphere of ethics rationalism was exclusive to the Mu‘tazila.
They were convinced that man is capable of knowing by his reason
alone what is morally good or evil.27
Concerning the case of Samaritan theology, research will have to
trace back the way Mu‘tazilite doctrines came to Samaritan scholars,
because there is no direct mention of sources or persons in the Kitāb ạt-
̣Tabbāḫ – the lone exception being a renowned Karaite scholar who
lived in Jerusalem in the 11th century. An analysis and comparison of
22 “For one such as al-Ash'ari, God is necessarily just whatever He does; He would be
so | even if He acted in a contrary fashion. God, according to al-Ash’ari, is not sub-
ject to any rule.” (EI2 VIII, 789a).
23 Mu‘tazila in: EI2 VIII 788b.
24 The qur’ān is “like every word, it is made up of letters serially arranged and sounds
separately articulated‘ (̣hurūf maṇzūma wa-ạswāt muqa ̣ṭta‘a), which God creates in one
or other corporeal framework (ma ̣hall).” (Mu‘tazila in: EI2 VIII 788b).
25 EI2 VIII, 791-793.
26 EI2 VIII, 792b.
27 EI2 VIII, 792b; Cf. HOURANI, Islamic Rationalism, and ELKASY-FRIEMUTH, God and
Humans.
270 G. Wedel
textual evidence will likely demonstrate that contact between Samari-

tan scholars and the circles of Rabanite and Karaite scholars in Damas-
cus or Jerusalem in the 10th and 11th centuries provided Mu‘tazilite doc-
trines for the Samaritans.
Mu‘tazilite tendencies in the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ
In his Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ Abū l-Ḥasan deals with a series of subjects typi-
cal for Mu‘tazilite scholars: the relationship of revelation (divine law,
šar‘) and reason (‘aql), the relationship of human freedom of will
(iḫtiyār) and man's obligation to be obedient to God (taklīf), the question
of anthropomorphism (tağsīm) in Scriptures, the assessment of the
unity of God (taụhīd) and his essential attributes (̣sifāt dātiyya), and the
createdness of God‘s speech (kalām Allāh).
Other topics of theological concern – which will not be dealt with
here, but should be named, to show the spectrum of his competence –
are: authenticity of prophets and oral tradition, abrogation of revela-
tion, categories of men and their actions, the question of the createdness
of the Qur’ān. Following the Mu‘tazilite way, he develops his criticism
against doctrines of Muslim philosophers (falāsifa) and non-Mu‘tazilite
schools, particularly against those who assume divine predestination
by the concept of “power and decree” (qạdā’ wa-ğabr).
Although Abū l-Ḥasan mentions some of the Muslim theological
branches like Muğbira and Qadariyya, Aš‘ariyya and Ḥašwiyya, he
does not mention the names of leaders or supporters of these schools.
By Qadariyya Abū l-Ḥasan addresses the Mu‘tazila, although – curi-
ously enough – the name Mu‘tazila itself he avoids. Perhaps this is a
hint for dating his sources because the predecessor of the Mu‘tazila was
called Qadariyya.
Details of six topics will be dealt with based on quotations from the
Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabbāḫ of Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī:
1. The creation of a rational human being

2. The relationship between man and God: rejection of predestina-
tion
3. The proof of the existence of God and the evidence for the unity
of God
4. The attributes of God (̣sifāt)
5. The problem of anthropomorphisms in scripture
6. The speech of God (kalām Allāh)
1. The Creation of a rational human being
Already in the foreword of the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ the reader will find first
hints of Mu‘tazilite tendencies by emphasizing the role of human rea-
son (ff. 1b-2b).28
Abū l-Ḥasan introduces Adam as the human being whom God
gave priority over animals by providing him with reason and language.
By that equipment he also enables him to profess monotheism in some
kind of šahāda.
The foreword of the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ continues in telling us that
Adam's wife Eve was created to make Adam a complete human being.
Abū l-Ḥasan here connects the two different “creation stories” in Gene-
sis by naming the first human beings Adam and Eve like it is done only
in the second “creation stories,” and by representing human beings
created simultaneously as man and woman like it is done in the first
“creation stories.” Abū l-Ḥasan – by his emphasis of rationality – gen-
erally prefers the first “creation stories” because he does not mention
that Eve is derived from a rib of Adam.29
The text of the foreword is done in neat rhyme prose (f. 2a):30
‫ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ـ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﺍﻥ ـ ﻭﻛﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺑﺪﻋﺎ ـ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﺍﺩﻡ ﺻﻨﻌﺎ ـ ﻭﺻﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ـ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻪ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻧﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻥ ـ ﻭﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻗﺪﺭ ]ﺍﺑﻦ[ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﻪ ـ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺟﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﻜﻨﻪ ـ ﻭﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﺗﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺴﺎﺱ ـ ﻭﻻ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺭﺽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻨﺎﺱ ـ ﻭﺧﻠﻖ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻮﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻠﺘﻪ ـ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺩﻱ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺯﻭﺟﺘﻪ‬
ḫalaqa al-insān ma‘a l-̣hayawān – wa-kammala kull mā abda‘ā – wa-ba‘dahum
adam ̣sana‘ā – wa-̣sawwarahu al-‘ạzīm bi-l-lisān – qāla lā ilah illā anta yā ‘ạzīm
aš-šān [aš-ša’n] – wa-ḫalaqahu qadr [ibn] ‘išrīn sana – wa-fī ğanān askanah(u) –
wa-ḫalaqahu tāmma l-‘aql wa-l-ịhsās – wa-lā lahu fī l-aṛd min ağnās – wa-ḫalaqa
lahu ̣hawwā fī ğumlatihi– wa-qāla dī [dī] takūn zauğatahu
28 All references follow the foliation given in Ms sam 9A of the John Ryland's Library
Manchester (ROBERTSON, Catalogue). ̽ Variant readings which differ from Ms sam
9A I set in square brackets. My alternatively proposed interpretations I set in round
brackets.
29 For the creation of woman, cf. the first ″myth of creation″ or ″creation story″ in Gen
1:27b, and the different second ″creation story″ in Gen 2:22.
30 The end of a unit of rhyme prose I marked with a dash. Here I follow the usage of
the copyist who inserted gaps and some kind of Arabic comma. Because the quota-
tion begins in the middle of the foreword, the rhyme word al-insān seems to have no
″partner″ here, but the words before this text are: al-qādir al-‘a ̣zīm aš-šān. ‒ In this
contribution I abstain from any linguistic comment concerning pecularities of Sama-
ritan Middle Arabic. For more detailed studies cf. STENHOUSE, Samaritan Arabic;
SHEHADEH, Arabic of the Samaritans; MACUCH, Problems of the Arabic Translation.
272 G. Wedel
(God) created the human being together with animals

he made perfect all, what he created,
after (the animals) he created Adam,
the Almighty formed him with a tongue (i.e. language) to be able to say:
“There is no God other than You; oh, high of rank (almighty one)”,
he created him being twenty years old and settled him in Paradise,
he created him with perfect reason and sense,
there is no one of this kind on earth,
he created for him Eve for his completition,
and he said: this one (fem.) shall be his (!) wife.
Abū l-Ḥasan places the human being in a central position of creation

and emphasizes the role of reason. Later on in the text, he states in a
central statement that “reason is a (means) of evidence for God” (al-‘aql
̣huğğat allāh, f. 31b). This attitude qualifies Abū l-Ḥasan to be an adher-
ent of the Mutazilite school of thought. But what is more convincing to
identify him as a Mu‘tazilite is his choice to address his own commu-
nity as ahl al-‘adl wa-t-taụhīd (f. 59b), which means “confessors of the
justice of God and of the unity of God”. This appellation normally is
applied particularly to the Mu‘tazilite school of Muslim theology. The
special context in the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ is given by the situation when the
people of Israel were prepared to escape from Egypt and had to share
the sacrificial lamb with their neighbours on the eve of Pesạh. Abū l-
Ḥasan distinguished the Israelite people from the Egyptians by ad-
dressing them ahl al-‘adl wa-t-taụhīd, while the Egyptians he addresses
as “people of injustice and unbelief” (ahl ạz-̣zulm wa-l-kufr, f. 59b). By
Arabic word ̣zulm he is also hinting at suppression which was the fate
of Israel in Egypt. Although the expressions are linked to a special con-
text of a Biblical story, the formula ahl al-‘adl wa-t-taụhīd is strikingly
Mu‘tazilite.
Further evidence for Abū l-Ḥasan’s Mu‘tazilite preference appears
in some later chapters. The chapter on “Unity of God” (ff. 140b-143b)
starts with the role of human reason (f. 140b):
‫ﺍﻧﻤﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻗﻞ ﻋﺎﻗﻼ ﻟﻴﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻤﻮﺟﺐ ﻋﻘﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻬﺘﺪﻱ ﺑﻨﻮﺭ ﺑﺼﻴﺮﺗﻪ‬
innamā ğu‘ila al-‘āqil ‘āqilan li-ya‘mala bi-mūğib ‘aqlihi wa-yuhtadī bi-nūr
bạsīratihi
The sensible (man) was created rational so that he may act appropriate to
his reason and that he may be guided by inspiration (of reason) to his in-
sight (enlightening).
In the chapter on the Muslim branches of theology Muğbira and

Qadariyya (ff. 164a-167a) which is devoted to human freedom of free
will, Abū l-Ḥasan deals with reason, prophets and the revealed law
(šar‘). The mere order of these topics in the quotation communicates the
idea of preference of reason (f. 164a):
‫ﺍﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺣﺠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻪ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺳﻞ ﻫﺪﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺮﻉ ﻧﻮﺭ ﻭﺿﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻣﻪ‬
aqāma al-‘aql ̣huğğa[tan] fī ‘ālamihi wa-l-anbiyā wa-r-rusul hudan fī ummatihi
wa-š-šar‘ nūr wa-̣diyā fī qaumihi
(God) installed reason as evidence for his world, the prophets and the en-
voys as guidance for his community, and the revealed law as light and
brightness for his people.
2. The relationship between man and God: rejection of predestination
In his chapter concerning the two branches of Muslim theology, the

Muğbira and the Qadariyya (ff. 164a-167a), Abū l-Ḥasan states that
human freedom of will is the precondition for a fair judgement of hu-
man actions by God. He quotes the concept of al-qạdā’ wa-l-ğabr, liter-
ally translated: “power and decree” meaning the theological concepts
of “predestination and compulsion”. This concept was rejected by the
Mu‘tazila. They prefer – like Abū l-Ḥasan – the concept of iḫtiyār “free
choice” of man: (f. 164b)
‫ﻭﻟﻤﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺩﺍﻉ ﻭﺻﺎﺭﻑ ﻣﻤﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺨﺘﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻋﺮﺍﺿﻪ ﺣﺴﻦ ﻻﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻟﻚ ﻣﺪﺣﻪ ﻭﺩﻣﻪ ﻭﺟﺰﺍﻩ ﻳﺤﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻘﺎﻗﻪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺼﺎﻑ‬
wa-lammā ḫalaqa al-insān ‘alā dā‘in wa-̣sārifin mumkinan min fi‘l mā yaḫtāruhu
wa-yaqa‘u ‘alaihi i‘rạ̄dahu ̣hasan li-ağl d[d]alika madạhahu wa-d[d]ammahu wa-
ğazāhu yạḥsulu bi-miqdār istịhqāqihi ‘alā qạdiyya al-‘adl wa-l-iṇsāf
At the same time when God created the human being as someone who is
able to cause something to happen or to prevent something to happen,
(God) gave him the possibility [opportunity, choice] to do what he prefers.
So he is set into a position also to avoid [refrain from] the Good (and to
turn to the Evil). Only for that reason God may bestow praise on man or
rebuke him. Reward and punishment will follow to the extent that he de-
serves according to a fair and proper judgement.
In case all human acts are determined by predestination sending of

prophets is pointless if man has no free choice of good and evil as Abū
l-Ḥasan states some lines later (f. 165a):
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻜﻴﻢ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺒﺮ ﻳﻤﻨﻌﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﺨﺮﺟﺎﻧﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺳﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺒﺘﺎ‬
274 G. Wedel
fa-kaifa bi-l-̣hakīm ta‘ālā wa-l-qaḍā wa-l-ğabr yamna‘ān wa-yaḫruğānuhu ‘an al-

̣hasan wa-yakūnu wurūd al-anbiyā safahan wa-‘abatan
How could it be possible to the All-wise one, who is exalted, – predestina-
tion and compulsion – which both would prevent and stop him from doing
the Good. (In this case) the appearance of prophets would be a foolish
thing and pointless.
Consequently with an unambiguous statement all adherents of predes-

tination are condemned (f. 165b):
‫ﻭﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺭﺍﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻀﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺒﺮ‬

wa-fasād rāy man yarā bi-l-qạdā wa-l-ğabr
Fatal is the view of someone who supports (the doctrines of) predestination
and compulsion.
3. The proof of the existence of God and the evidence

for the unity of God
In his chapter on the “Unity of God” fạsl fī t-taụhīd, (ff. 140b-143b) Abū
l-Ḥasan presents a proof of the existence of God (ff. 141b-143b). It is
also a good example for his scholastic kind of arguing.
At first he states that substances (ğawāhir) and bodies (ağsām) are
created in time, i.e. they are temporally limited. As proof he argues that
both, substances and bodies, must contain accidents (a‘rād) to exist, and
accidents are created in time (mụhdat), so substances and bodies are
temporally limited. From there it becomes clear that both need a creator
of temporal things (mụhdat) who himself necessarily must be older than
all created things, i.e. he must be eternal (qadīm). (ff. 140b-141b)
In refuting dualism, Abū l-Ḥasan presents as evidence that two dei-
ties who are almighty at the same time are impossible. Here it becomes
clear that the Arabic word taụhīd, which is a verbal nomen (mạsdar) of
the intensive stem, literally means the assertion or declaration of the
oneness of God: (ff. 142b-143a)
‫ﻭﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻻ ﺗﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ | ﻟﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺨﻞ ﺍﻣﺮﻫﻤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺗﻼﺗﻪ ﺍﻗﺴﺎﻡ‬
wa-yağibu an yakūna ̣sāni‘ al-‘ālam wạ̄hidan lā tāni (= tānin) lahu fī ̣sifātihi wa-
lau ğāza an yakūna lahu tāni fī ̣sifātihi lam yaḫul (ḫlw) amruhumā ‘an ạhad talāta
(= talātatin) aqsām.
Necessarily, the maker (creator) of the world is (only) one, and there is no
second one owning his attributes; but if it were possible that he had a sec-
ond (God as companion at his side) owning his attributes, then the orders
of them both were not free of three (problems)
To prove that God is the only and almighty one and that there is no
other deity he assumes three cases of competition between deities.
Consequently, if two deities were almighty they would obstruct each
other and that would cause damage to the world. (compare ff. 142b-
143b)
In his introduction to the section on “remission of debts (= Schuldener-

laß) and the years of jubilee” (ff. 37a-41a) Abū l-Ḥasan demonstrates
his evidence of the unity of God.
In this chapter on festivals and calendar regulations God does not
appear to be a creator of life, but a creator of physical elements and
celestial bodies and constellations. Observation of these heavenly bod-
ies by man becomes fundamental to understanding nature and for the
calculation of calendars.
In his text the author uses some means of literary style by setting
parallels between parts-of-speech. For example he emphasizes contrasts
by positioning positive and negative statements together, like “begin-
ning and end,” and “first one and last one.”
This introductory paragraph sounds like a confession to the school
of Mu‘tazilism (f. 37a-b):
‫ﺗﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﻀﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺯﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺤﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺗﻴﻪ ﻭﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﺑﻼ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﻪ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻲ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻪ ﻣﺒﺪﻱ‬
‫| ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺩﺕ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﺍﻻﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﻭﻣﺮﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﻣﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻛﺐ ﻭﻣﻨﺸﺮ ﺍﻻﻧﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺭﺗﺒﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﺤﻜﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻝ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻭﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻳﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻨﺼﺒﺔ ﺣﻖ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺪﺍﻝ ﺻﺪﻕ‬
tabāraka man tafạḍdala fī l-azal bi-l-wuğūd wa-istạhāla ‘alaihi at-taqsīm wa-huwa
al-wạ̄hid bi-l-̣haqīqa laisa ka-wạ̄hid al-‘addad bal iḫtịsạ̄suhu bi-̣s-̣sifāt ad-dātiyya (=
dātiyya) wa-bihā kāna wạ̄hidan wa-huwa al-awwal bi-lā bidāya wa-l-āḫir ilā ġair
nihāya | mabdā al-̣hawādit wa-ḫāliq al-ağsām wa-murattib al-‘anạ̄sir wa-
mukawwin al-aškāl ̣sāni‘ al-kawākib wa-munaššir al-anwār rattabahā ta‘ālā bi-
̣hikmatihi wa-ğa‘alahā ayāt yastadillu bi-hā ‘alā mā yaf‘aluhu ta‘ālā fī l-‘ālam wa-
li-ma‘rifat al-auqāt wa-l-ayām wa-s-sinīn bi-̣tarīqat tu’addī ilā ma‘rifatihi bi-
nụsbat ̣haqqin wa-i‘tidāl ̣sidqin
Blessed be the one, who is good-hearted in eternity of his existence, to
whom division is impossible, because he is one in reality, not like one in
numbers, although he is characterized by (several) essential attributes, he
remains one,
276 G. Wedel
he is the first one without beginning and the last one without end,
he is the beginning of the created things and creator of bodies,
he is the one who gives structure to the elements,
he is creator of forms (constellation of stars: zodiac?),
he is maker of stars and he is the one who unfolds the lights (of sun and
moon).
he – the exalted one – set them in order [organized] in his wisdom
he made them as signs whereby one can find orientation what
he – the exalted one – made in the world and to know the times and days
(of festivals) and (special) years by a method (way) that leads to his knowl-
edge (God) by a truthful guide and reliable balance (also means the astro-
nomical term of equinox).31
4. The attributes of God (̣sifāt)
In accordance with Mu‘tazilite doctrines Abū l-Ḥasan wants to prove

absolute transcendence of God. For this purpose no such attributes are
acceptable that allow corporeality, three-dimensional space or tempo-
rality.
Attributes of God appear in the Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ in five different
forms and functions:
1. As eulogy after the Arabic name of God, sometime replacing the
name of God, e.g. ta‘ālā (he is exalted) (passim);
2. As simple description that can be found at several places in the
Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ, resembling the so-called “most beautiful namens
of God” (al-asmā’ al-̣husnā) – renown from the Qur’ān. They are fre-
quently present in the basmalla: ar-rạhmān and ar-rạhīm (Beneficent,
the Merciful), also used by Abū l-Ḥasan at the beginning of the Ki-
tāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ (f. 1b): bismi llāh ar-rạhmān ar-rạhīm wa-bi-hi atiqu;
3. As anthropomorphic words to express physical appearance, parts
of body, behaviour and acts of God, e.g. hand, eye, voice (yad, ‘ain,
̣saut) rejected by Abū l-Ḥasan (ff. 92a-94a);
4. As so-called essential attributes (̣sifāt dātiyya) or attributes of
eternity (̣sifāt al-qidam), e.g.: almighty, all-wise, eternal, omniscient,
the one, just(qādir, ̣hakīm, qadīm, ‘ālim, wạ̄hid, ‘ādil) (f.99a);
5. As a theological concept, divided into four categories: ̣sifāt dāti-
yya, ̣sifāt ma‘nawiyya, ̣sifāt muqtạdiyya ̣sifāt fi‘liyya. (essential attrib-
31 This paragraph is followed by a quotation of Gen 1:14: ″Let there be lights in the
firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years.″
utes, attributes of ideas, necessary attributes, attributes of the act,

fol 98b).32
In the chapter on “accusations of the falāsifa against the people of the

Torah” (ff. 94b-105b) Abū l-Ḥasan qualifies views of “the philosophers”
altogether as “false or specious arguments”.33 In this chapter he deals
with a series of theological issues to refute “the philosophers”, particu-
larly concerning the divine attributes (f. 99a):
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺗﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﻻ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺕ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﻪ‬

ạs-̣sifāt ad-dātiyya laisa hiya ad-dāt wa-lā ġair ad-dāt bal hiya min wāğibāt ad-dāt
al-qadīma
The essential attributes are not identical with his essence and not different
of the essence, rather they are a requirement [necessity] of the eternal es-
sence.
Also in the chapter on the “Unity of God” (fạsl fī t-taụhīd, ff. 140b-143b)
Abū l-Ḥasan enumerates the essential attributes of God:
̣hakīm, mụhaddit, qadīm, wạ̄hid “all-wise, creator of temporal things,

eternal, one” (fol 142b) and qādir, ‘ālim, ̣hayy, ġanniy, mauğūd “al-
mighty, all-knowing, alive, self-sufficient, ever-existing” (fol 143b)
He finishes this chapter by stating (f. 143b):
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺗﻴﻪ ﻭﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ‬

wa-ta‘ālā man iḫtassa bi-̣s-̣sifāt ad-dātiyya (= ad-dātiyya) wa-bihā kāna wạ̄hidan
The exalted one is the only one who owns the essential attributes and
therefore he is unique.
In the chapter on “Attributes which are not suitable to describe the

exalted one” (ạs-̣sifāt allatī lā yūsafu bihā ta‘ālā, ff. 143b-144b) Abū l-
Ḥasan enumerates eleven “negative attributes” which differ totally
from his theological discussed in the section before. These attributes are
32 The real meaning of ̣sifāt ma‘nawiyya ̣sifāt muqta ̣diyya not clear yet. Abū l-Ḥasan only
explains the essential attributes but says nothing on the other three ones. ‒ Concer-
ning ̣sifāt fi‘liyya. Cf. Gimaret ″on attributes″ which God merits from all eternity, on
account of his essence, (̣sifāt al-dātor al-nafs), and others which he merits on account
of his acts (̣sifāt al-fi‘l). Cf. ̣Sifa, in: EI2, vol IX, 551b.
33 Cf. Shubha, in: EI2.
278 G. Wedel
negative because they describe conditions that are not acceptable for
the idea of a transcendent God. Mainly because they display weakness
(‘ağz) or limitedness (tanāhiyy), and therefore they are suitable for cre-
ated bodies (̣sifāt al-ağsām) and accidents (a‘rād) alone.
The list of attributes include:
quantity al-kam, quality al-kaifa, space al-aina, time al-matā, location

al-malaka, behaviour an-nụsba, condition al-qunya, motion al-̣haraka,
rest as-sukūn, merging al-iğtimā, separation al-iftirāq. (ff. 144a-b)
Because of their contrasting characteristics most of them form comple-

mentary pairs. Six of these concepts resemble Aristotle's categories:
quantity al-kam, quality al-kaifa, space al-aina, time al-matā, location al-
malaka, behaviour an-nụsba. The remaining five concepts at the end of
the list do not belong to Aristotle's categories but refer to behaviour of
physical bodies: al-qunya, condition; al-̣haraka, motion; as-sukūn, rest; al-
iğtimā‘, merging; al-iftirāq, separation.34
5. The problem of anthropomorphisms in scripture.
Concerning the question of anthropomorphisms in Scripture Abū l-

Ḥasan likewise is close to doctrines of the Mu‘tazila. In the section on
“The solution of doubts presented by an adversary who slanders
against the text of the Torah” (ff. 92a-94b) he rejects the accusation that
the followers of the Torah take anthropomorphic attributes of God
literally.
Because of the statement “he has in the Qur’ān” (‘indahu fī l-qur’ān,
f. 93b) it becomes clear that the adversary whom Abū l-Ḥasan is ad-
dressing here, is Muslim, though the name is omitted. Abū l-̣Hasan
repeats the well known accusation of Muslim scholars that all anthro-
pomorphic sections in the Torah (e.g. Gen 3:8; 28:13) are proof for arbi-
trary alterations of the original text of the Torah, made by Jews by do-
ing expansion and abridgement, change and exchange (ziyāda, naq̣s,
taġyīr, tabdīl) (f. 92a).35
34 For a more comprehensive discussion of the contrast between Abū l-Ḥasan’s

″negative attributes″ and the categories of Aristoteles and the Arabic interpretation
done by Sa‘adya Ga’on, see my forthcoming contribution W EDEL, Gebrauch
mu‘tazilitischer Terminologie.
35 Cf. Tạhrīf, in EI2.
He does not deny the existence of anthropomorphic sections in the

Pentateuch. But in such cases he proposes to apply the method of alle-
gorical interpretation (ta’wīl). By this means, Mu‘tazilites usually main-
tain the incorporeality of God in sections of Scripture (Pentateuch,
Qur’ān etc.) that indicate incarnation.
Naturally, Abū l-Ḥasan refers to the Torah and he offers proofs for anti-
anthropomorphic statements but does not rely on rational arguments
alone. He supports his statements “created things impossibly incarnate
in God” and “God is unable to take up space” by quoting “God the
Lord is in Heaven above and down on Earth” (Deut 4:39). In Abū l-
Ḥasan’s opinion this quotation proves that God can be at several places
at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to localize God.
To support the statement “there is no similarity with God and he
has no shape” he refers to “the Lord talked to you from within the fire;
you only could hear the sound of the words, his shape remained invisi-
ble”. (Deut 4:12)
Generally Abū l-Ḥasan states that “orally revealed texts (an-nụṣsụ̄s
as-sam‘iyya) including divine attributes are in concord to rational evi-
dence (al-̣huğağ al-‘aqliyya)” (f. 93b) because they are understandable by
application of reasoning (nạzar) and the presentation of evidence (istid-
lāl).
Abū l-Ḥasan rejects all of the assumptions of his adversary that the
people of the Torah apply literal interpretation of anthropomorphisms,
because in this case the outward sense of a word is useless. Generally
he denies that God takes up space or has a visible body (f.94b):
‫ﻓﺎﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻭﺍﺩﺍ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻭﻳﻞ ﻭﺟﺐ ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻟﻚ ﻗﺪﺣﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻻﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺧﺎﻁﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺖ ﻫﻢ ﺗﻜﻼﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻬﻢ ]ﻗﻮﻟﻬﻢ[ ﻭﺩﻟﻚ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻻ ﺷﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
fa’ayyadahu an-nụsụ̄s wa-ida wuğida fīhā mā yạhtamilu at-ta’wīl wağab ̣hamluhu
‘alaihi wa-lā yakūnu dalika qaḍhan fīhā li-annahu ta‘ālā ḫạ̄tib al-‘ālam min ̣haitu
hum tuklānan ‘alā mā rattaba-hu fī ‘uqūlihim [qaulihim] wa-dalika bayyin la
šubah fīhi
This is confirming the texts (of the Scripture) that in case something is
found that allows allegorical interpretation there is an obligation to apply
it; (that means) no violation (of the texts), because the exalted one ad-
dressed the world that (men) may trust that (God) had organized their rea-
son (accordingly). That is obvious without any doubt.
Abū l-Ḥasan does not restrict himself to apologetically defending his

opinion, but he also attacks his adversary by pointing to anthropomor-
phic sections in the Qur’ān. For this reason his adversary also is obliged
280 G. Wedel
to apply allegorical interpretation in case God is depicted with hand or

eye. Abū l-Ḥasan quotes Qur’ān (5, 64) “God's hand is bound” (yadu
llāhi maġlūlatun) and “No, he has spread his hands” (bal yadāhu
mabsụ̄tatān) (f.93b) to give evidence of the case.36
One and a half centuries before Abū l-Ḥasan, the Karaite al-
Qirqisānī, who died 930, also quoted this verse from the Qur’ān in his
Kitāb al-Anwār to state anthropomorphism The usage of the same ar-
gument could be evidence that Abu l-Ḥasan knew the Kitāb al-Anwār,
but at least that he knew this argument from Jewish critics.37
6. “The speech of God” (kalām Allāh)
Within the context of the chapter about the followers of al-Aš‘arī38 and
their doctrine concerning the nature of letters and sounds, Abū l-Ḥasan
deals with the topic of the nature of “the speech of God” (kalām Allāh).
(ff. 160a-163a)
Abū l-Ḥasan assumes that “the speech of God” could not be eter-
nal, because God is incorporeal. He creates “his speech” ad hoc without
requiring an organ or instrument to speak: (f. 160b)
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺻﺢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻻﺕ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﻩ ﻭﻻ ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﺻﺢ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻻﺕ ﻛﺪﺍ ﺻﺢ ﻣﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﻟﻬﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﺨﻼﻑ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻘﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻫﺪ‬
fa-qad ̣sạḥha min-hu al-fi‘l bi-ġair ālāt wa-lā mubāšara wa-la ittịsāl fa-ka-mā ̣sạḥha
minhu al-fi‘l bi-ġair ālāt kadā ̣sạḥha min-hu al-kalām bi-ġair lahawāt bi-ḫilāf mā
ya‘qiluhu fī š-šāhid
It is a certain fact that (God) acts without tool, without physical cause (of
an organ) and without connection (to material things); because as much it
is certain that he acts without any tool, it is also certain that any word from
him comes without uvula (= organ to speak, Gaumen) although this may
contradict what a witness grasp with his reason.
36 PARET, Der Koran, 125 (with references to Sura 5, 64); HALKIN, Relation of the Sama-
ritans, 286, n. 85; BÖWERING, God and his Attributes, 325 col. a (”the hand of God” as
an example of anthropomorphisms in Qur’ān).
37 For translations of al-Qirqisānīs Chapter on Jewish sects and Christianity, in section
4. 11, cf.: NEMOY, Al-Qirqisānī, 355: ”The hand of God is manacled.”‒ LOCKWOOD,
Abū Yūsuf, 127: ”The Jews say that God‘s hand is fettered.” ‒ To manacle and to fet-
ter are synonym meaning ″to tie somebody‘s hand or foot.″
38 The chapter is called: ”Section on a similar subject: the Aš‘ariyya said concerning the
rejection of letters and sounds” fa ̣sl fī ġairi dālika qālat al-Aš‘ariyya bi-nafyi l- ̣harf wa-̣s-
̣saut (ff. 160a-163a).
In the following Abū l-Ḥasan refers to the physical nature of sounds in

language. Every sound only exists for a short moment until it is re-
placed by the next sound. And because the next sound is heard only if
the preceding one is gone, all sounds cancel each other and vanish. So
“the speech of God” – seen as a series of sounds – could not pre-exist
from eternity and could not last for ever.
This opinion is directed against the anthropomorphists whom Abū
l-Ḥasan calls al-̣hašwiyya, likewise recalling the rejection Mu‘tazilites
would do in the same way.39 The basic meaning of the root ̣h-š-w “to
stuff” in theological context means “stuffed with attributes” of such
kind that – to the view of the Mu‘tazila – it would strike the eternity of
God (f. 162a):
‫ﻭﻻ ﻳﺠﻮﺯ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻗﺪﻳﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﺍﻟﺤﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺍﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ‬
wa-lā yağūzu an yakūna al-̣harf wa-̣s-̣saut qadīman qālat al-̣hašwiyya l-
iḫtilāfihimmā wa-ğawāz al-‘adam ‘alaihimmā
It is impossible that any letter or sound may be eternal as anthropomor-
phists (̣hašwiyya) assume because both follow each other (alternatively:
bear the contradiction in themselves) and (have the possibility to) extin-
guish each other.
At the end of this chapter Abū l-Ḥasan states: (f. 163a)
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻟﻚ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺭﺍﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻗﺎﻳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻟﻤﻦ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﻱ‬
fa-qad bāna bi-dalik fasād rāy man yarā anna l-kalām ma‘nā qāyim fī n-nafs wa-
fasādahu bayyin li-man yạtrạhu al-hawā wa-yatba‘u t-taqwā
Therefore, it is obvious that the opinion of someone who teaches that ‚the
speech of God‘ is an idea inherent in the essence of God is void; anyone
who can distinguish the voidness of this opinion rejects arbitrariness and
devotes oneself to fear (of God).
39 The term Ḥašwiyya is ″... used by some Sunnis of extremist traditionists or those
whose researches are of very little value. ͐ it is used, in a narrower sense, of the
Ạṣhāb al-Ḥadīth [q.v.] who, uncritically and even prompted by prejudice, recognize as
genuine and interpret literally the crudely anthropomorphic traditions. (͐) The
Mu‘tazilīs applied the name of ̣Hashwiyya to the majority of the A ̣ṣhāb al-Ḥadīth, be-
cause, although without the unquestioning acceptance of the Ḥashwiyya proper and
often with the reservation ’without comment’ (bilā kayfa), they yet admitted some
anthropomorphic expressions.″ (EI2: Ḥashwiyya ‒ Ḥashawiyya Ḥushwiyya, or Ahl
al-Ḥashw).
282 G. Wedel
In a special chapter on the question whether the Qur’ān is created or

not (ff. 167b-176a) Abū l-Ḥasan is occupied with the question how the
revelation is sent to the prophets. In a sophisticated section he displays
how the ways of transmission can be distinguished regarding their
means of transmission: (f. 168a)
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻰ ]ﺍﺣﺪ[ ﺗﻼﺗﻪ ﺍﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻲ ﺗﻨﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻌﺒﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻗﻮﻣﻪ ﺑﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﺻﻮﺕ ﻳﻨﺴﻤﻊ ﺍﻭ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻓﻴﺴﻤﻊ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﻳﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻳﻨﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﺻﺤﻒ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﻪ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺪﻩ ﺍﻻﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎ ﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻟﻠﺮﺳﻮﻝ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺣﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺒﺖ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻥ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻭﻫﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺕ‬
wa-huwa yanqasimu ilā ạhad talāta aqsām ammā an yakūna išāra ilā tanzīl al-
ma‘ānī ‘alā qalb ar-rasūl fa-yu‘abbiru ‘anhā ilā qaumihi bi-mā bi-yadaihim min al-
luġa au yaridu (wrd) ilaihi ̣saut yusma‘u au ̣harf yaktubu fa-yusammi‘u minhu
yudawwinu ‘anhu au yunzalu ilaihi ̣sụhuf maktūba kull min hadihi l-aqsām
yadullu ‘alā kaunihi maḫlūqan li-annna l-ma‘ānī al-̣hạ̄sila li-r-rasūl qabla
ḫụsūlihā lam takun ̣hạ̄silahu la-hu fa-qad tabata ̣hụsūluhā ba‘da an lam takun wa-
hāda huwa ̣haqīqat al-mụhdat
(The transmission of the revelation, tanzīl) is done in one of three ways. (1)
Either there is a signal of revelation and its meaning is sent down (directly)
to the brain (qalb) of the envoy (rasūl) and succeedingly he articulates (the
meaning) in plain words to his people (qaum) in the language they under-
stand; (2) or he receives a sound to be he heard or a letter to be written,
then he hears it and he writes it down, (3) or the revelation comes down on
written pages. All of these ways of revelation prove that (the means of
revelation) are created because the ideas [meanings] that reached the envoy
(rasūl) do not exist before. Therefore its occurence is manifest after it was
not existent (before); and that means the reality of things created in time
(mụhdat contingent things).
Conclusion and Discussion of Results
The number of topics and quotations I have chosen from the Kitāb ạt-
̣Tabbāḫ give enough evidence to judge that Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī was
heavily inclined into Mu‘tazilite theology, – particularly in the doc-
trines of taụhīd and ‘adl, and in anti-predestination and anti-
anthropomorphism. Nevertheless, it remains questionable how far he
applied Mu‘tazilite methods to all topics, especially in exegesis of the
Torah, in Halacha and in other fields of Samaritan peculiarities.
Unfortunately, Abū l-Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī did not mention his sources.
Therefore the mediators who imparted the Mu‘tazilite doctrines to the
Samaritans remain unknown. Nonetheless it is likely that Karaites who
immigrated to Jerusalem introduced Mu‘tazilite theological attitudes

into Jewish and Samaritan communities in Palestine.
Another question will be left to further research, as long as not all
Samaritan-Arabic texts are published: Did doctrines of Mu‘tazilite ori-
gin become a permanent part of Samaritan theology or was Abū l-
Ḥasan a rare exception without successors in the centuries that fol-
lowed? As a general result, we state that topics of philosophy and the-
ology in the period, when the Samaritans wrote their texts in Arabic,
are worth exploring on a much larger scale.
Bibliography
ADANG, Camilla / SCHMIDTKE, Sabine / SKLARE, David (EDS.), A Common Ration-
ality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Judaism, (Istanbuler Texte und Studien. Ori-
ent-Institut Istanbul, vol. 15), Würzburg 2007.
ANDERSON, Robert T. / GILES, Terry, Tradition Kept. The Literature of the Sama-
ritans, Peabody, Mass. 2005.
BÖWERING, Gerhard, God and his Attributes, in: McAuliffe, Jane Dammen et al
(eds.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān (EQ), Vol. II, Leiden 2002, 325. Col. A.
COWLEY, Arthur E., Samaritan Liturgy, 2 Vols., Oxford 1909.
CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to
Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993.
CROWN, Alan D., (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989.
EI2 = The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. 11 vols. Leiden 1960-2002. (EI2
and EI3 on-line by University subscription: http://www.brillonline.nl/-
subscriber).
EJ = Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols. Jerusalem 1972. (Supplement vols. and year
books). (The 2nd edition is on-line by University subscription at Gale Vitual
Reference Library: http://go.galegroup.com
ELKASY-FRIEMUTH, Maha, God and Humans in Islamic Thought. ‘Abd al-Jabbār,
Ibn Sīnā and al-Ghazālī, London / New York 2006.
HALKIN, Abraham, Samaritan Polemics against the Jews, in: Proceedings of the
American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. VII. Philadelphia 1935-1936,
15-24.
HALKIN, Abraham, The Scholia to Numbers and Deuteronomy in the Samaritan-
Arabic Pentateuch, in: JQR N.S. 34 (1943-1944) 41-59.
HALKIN, Abraham, The Relation of the Samaritans to Saadia Gaon, in: COHEN
Boaz (ed.), Saadia Anniversary Volume. Texts and Studies (Vol. II.), New
York 1943 (Reprint: Israel 1970). 271-325.
HALKIN, Abraham, Min haparšanut hašomronit..., in: Lešonenu 32 (1967/68) 208-
246.
284 G. Wedel
HOURANI, George F., Islamic Rationalism. The Ethics of ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Oxford
1971.
LOCKWOOD, Wilfrid, Abū Yūsuf Ya‘qūb al-Qirqisānī, The First Section of the
Book of Lights and Watchtowers, in: CHIESA, Bruno / LOCKWOOD, Wilfrid
(eds.), Ya‘qūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity. A Translation of
Kitāb al-anwār (Book I), Frankfurt am Main 1984, 91-188.
MACUCH, Rudolf, On the Problems of the Arabic Translation of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, in: Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979) 147-173.
NAGEL, Tilman, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie. Von Mohammed bis zur
Gegenwart, München 1994 (engl. translation: The History of Islamic Theol-
ogy: From Muhammad to the Present), Princeton, NJ 1999 (2nd printing
2006. Princeton Series on the Middle East).
NEMOY, Leon, Al-Qirqisānī‘s Account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity, in:
Hebrew Union College Annual 6 (1930) 317-397.
PARET, Rudi, Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz, Stuttgart 1971.
ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Ry-
lands Library Manchester, Vol. I., Manchester 1938.
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, Ab ̣Hisda [Isda] of Tyre. (Abū l-̣Hasan ạs-̣Sūrī), in: CROWN,
Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhardt / TAL, Abraham (eds.), Companion to Samari-
tan Studies, Tübingen 1993, 3.
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Arabic of the Samaritans and its Importance, in:
CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Essays in Honour of G.D. Sixdenier.
New Samaritan Studies of the Société d'Études Samaritaines III and IV.
(Studies in Judaica, No. 5), Sydney 1995, 551-575.
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Edited
from the Manuscripts with an Introductory Volume, Volume One: Genesis -
Exodus. Volume Two: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jerusalem 1989-
2002.
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy, in: MORABITO, Vittorio /
CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Samaritan Researches. Volume V,
Proceedings of the Congress of the SES held in Milan July 8-12 1996, Sydney
2000, 2.47-2.84.
SKLARE, David E., Samuel ben Hofni Gaon and His Cultural World (Études sur
le Judaïsme Médiéval 18), Leiden 1996.
SKLARE, David, Responses to Islamic Polemics by Jewish Mutakallimun in the
Tenth Century, in: HAVA, Lazarus-Yafeh et al. (eds.), The Majlis. Interrelig-
ious Encounters in Medieval Islam, Wiesbaden 1999, 137-161.
STENHOUSE, Paul, Samaritan Arabic, in: CROWN Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans,
Tübingen 1989, 584-623.
WEDEL, Gerhard, Elemente islamischer Dogmen im Kitāb ạt-̣Tabāḫ des Samari-
taners Abū l- Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī. (MA thesis, Seminar für Semitistik und
Arabistik) Berlin 1976.
WEDEL, Gerhard, Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ des Samaritaners Abu l- Ḥasan ạs-̣Sūrī. Kri-
tische Edition und kommentierte Übersetzung des ersten Teils, (PhD thesis,
Seminar für Semitistik und Arabistik) Berlin 1987.
WEDEL, Gerhard, Aspekte der Etablierung des Arabischen als Literatursprache
bei den Samaritanern, in: MACUCH, Maria / MÜLLER-KESSLER, Christa /
FRAGNER, Bert G. (eds.), Studia Semitica Necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch
septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicate, Wiesbaden 1989, 397-407.
WEDEL, Gerhard, Das “Kitâb at-Tabbâh” (ḲT) des Samaritaners Abū l-̣Hasan ạs-
̣Sūrī (ẠH), in: DEXINGER, Ferdinand / PUMMER, Reinhard (eds.), Die Samari-
taner (Wege der Forschung 604), Darmstadt 1992, 428-430
WEDEL, Gerhard, Jewish Responsa and Muslim Fatwā. A Comparison of Ap-
proaches on Cultural Exchange and Mutual Acknowledgement in Standard
Encyclopaedias, in: BAR-ASHER, Moshe / FLORENTIN, Moshe (eds.), Samari-
tan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, Je-
rusalem 2005, 147-173.
WEDEL, Gerhard, The Question of Samaritan Responsa and the Transmission of
Knowledge around the Mediterranean in Classical Antiquity and Medieval
Times, in: SHEHADEH, Haseeb / TAWA, Habib (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth
International Congress of the Société d'Études Samaritaines. Helsinki, Au-
gust 1-4, 2000. Studies in Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger, Paris 2005, 55-76
WEDEL, Gerhard, Mu‘tazlitische Tendenzen im Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ des Samari-
taners Abu l-̣Hasan ạs-̣Sūrī, in: ADANG, Camilla / SCHMIDTKE, Sabine /
SKLARE, David (eds.), A Common Rationality: Mu‘tazilism in Islam and Ju-
daism (Istanbuler Texte und Studien 15), Würzburg 2007, 349-375.
WEDEL, Gerhard: Gebrauch mu‘tazilitischer Terminologie in der samari-
tanischen Theologie. Eine Neubewertung des Kitāb ạt-̣Tabbāḫ von Abū l-
̣Hasan ạs-̣Sūrī, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Man-
daic and Samaritan Studies. Berlin 2008. Zum Gedenken an Rudolf Macuch
(1919-1993). (provisonal title, forthcoming 2011).
WEIS, Raphael, Abū 'l-Hasan Al-Sūrī's Discourse on the Calendar in the Kitab
Al-Tabbākh, Rylands Samaritan Codex IX, in: BJRL 30 (1946/47) 144-156.
A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories?
HAROUTUN S. JAMGOTCHIAN
The famous collection of Oriental stories by Washington Irving (1783-

1859) The Alhambra (1st edition, 1832; Revised Edition, 1851) needs no
presentation. In Russia it attracted special attention as “Legend of the
Arabian Astrologer” and it turned out to be the direct source of “Fairy
of the Golden Coquerelle” by the great Russian poet Aleksandr Push-
kin (1799-1837). An investigation by Konstantin Boyko in 1979 revealed
the dependance of Irving’s Story on an ancient book entitled L’Egypte de
Murtadi fils de Gaphiphe published in Paris in 1666.1 The compiler of this
edition translated a manuscript from Arabic which was then in the
famous library of Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661) but was later unfortu-
nately lost. Boyko surmised that this lost manuscript was of Egyptian
or Coptic origin.
Nevertheless, similar legends are recorded in the medieval geogra-
phical book Akhbār al-Buldān (Information on Countries) by Ibn al-Faqīh
al-Hamadhānī (903). These arenot in the editio princeps,2 but are only
extant in the celebrated Mašhad Manuscript, in which I found valuable
additions to the text, later published in 1979 and 1988.3
In a very short way the present legend is summarised in the mirabi-
lia of Mesopotamia (As-Sawād):
In the fifth city there is a bronze goose, on a bronzen pillar, situated on the
city’s gate, and if a spy enters the city, the goose cacles so loud, that the in-
habitants of the city hear the cackling and they discover that a spy has pe-
netrated their territory.4
Such a story is found twice in two Samaritan Arabic chronicles by dif-

ferent authors, in a passage undoubtely of the same origin.
1 BOĬKO, Ob arabskom istochnike motiva.

2 DE GOEJE, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum.
3 IBN AL-FAKIKH, Akhbar al-Buldan. Z HAMKOCHIAN, Neizdannye otryvki.
4 IBN AL-FAKIKH, Akhbar al-Buldan, 58 (Russian), 185 (Arabic), 280 (Facsimile in Ara-
bic).
288 H. Jamgochian
Here the events of the legend are connected with the eminent Sa-
maritan reformer Baba-Rabba (4th-5th century CE).5 In a very detailed
form, this story is found in two extracts in Arabic from a Samaritan
legend of Baba-Rabba which survived separately in leafs added in 1513
CE to Leiden MS of Chronicon Samaritanum. . . cui titulus est Liber Josuae
(Leiden, 1848) and in Abulfathi Annales samaritani (Gotha, 1865). The last
extant words of the former coincide happily with the first extant passa-
ge in the latter, so that the whole text of the legend can be restored.
English versions of the relating part of the legend are published in the
present paper in extenso. The middle part preserved in both the texts
shows the common origin, undoubtedly ancient. Here is the end of the
Liber Josuae manuscript in a translation by Oliver Crane.6
“[p.130] And the Romans suffered not one of the Samaritans to circumcise
his child, but stationed trustworthy men of the Romans over the houses of
the Samaritans to prevent them from performing circumcision. And the
Samaritans were wont at that time, when a child was born unto them, to
place it in a basket and cover it with wool, and go with it to the cave and
circumcise it under ground by the light of candles. And also then the Ro-
mans prevented the Samaritans [p.131] from ascending the Mount; for they
said: “Whosoever goes up on to this Mount shall be put to death.” And the
Romans placed upon the summit of the Mount a talisman, and this was a
brazen bird, and it used to turn round with the sun howsoever it revolved,
and it was so that if a Samaritan did go up, the bird would screech out:
“Hebraeus,” and they would know then that there was a Samaritan on the
Mount, and would issue forth against him and kill him. And the children
of Isrâîl continued in this distress, untill Babâ Rabba arose ; and in him the-
re was a spirit of resolution and zealous patriotism. And Babâ Rabba as-
sembled the Israelitish community, and said: “How long shall this polluted
nation go on dominating over you? Arise, let us lift up the children of Isrâîl
from this oppression, and let us be zealous for God–may He be exalted, as
our Father Fînahas was zealous, and there remains to him a goodly re-
membrance unto the end of the ages. And now know that I have resolved
upon the destruction of the Romans, and I will purify Mount Gerîzîm of
them but not a thing can be accomplished for us, except by the destruction
of this bird which is stationed over the temple, and this cannot be effected
for us except by a stratagem which God has revealed unto me. Now ye
know that this is a time of infidelity, and they have many kings, and my
plan is to send Lawí, the son of my brother, to Qustûniyeh (Constanti-
nople) the city of the Romans, that they may learn what they talk about
what it is that makes them powerful, and may gain a knowledge of their
religious sects. And he shall go in the garb of a Christian monk (or) priest,
5 STENHOUSE, Reliability of the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fath.

6 CRANE, Samaritan Chronicle, 130-133.
A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories? 289
and no one will know him, and the Romans will not know who he is; and
he will come back to Mount Gerîzîm, and will go up to the church and
make use of a stratagem to smash the bird; and when they (the Roman
guards) attempt [p.132] to repel him he will employ stratagem and get the
power to ascend the Mount, and will supplicate God upon it, and He will
then give us the victory over our enemies.” And all the people said: “O our
master, do what seemeth good in thy sight.” And he said: “Give unto me
your own handwritings that after his coming back your souls will stand by
him.” And they did this. And Babâ Rabba led forth the son of his brother to
Beitîl (Bethel) in the presence of the people, and said unto him: “Be atten-
tive however thou mayest be, and set thy mind upon learning every thing,
and be on thy guard that thou cease not to read the Pentateuch night and
day, and God shall help thee in all thy doings.” And he sent away Lawî,
the son of his brother; and he pursued his journey seeking Qustûniyeh.
Now Lawî was an intelligent, knowing, acute and pure man, yea, in him
was found every virtue; and he arrived at Qustûniyeh, and sought after
learning and diligently applied himself, and he obtained what he sought
for; and with his keenness of intellect he continued reading for the space of
two years, and there remained no one among all the Romans more learned
than he. And he arose to such eminence in learning that the Romans used
repeatedly to come to do him reverence, and by reason of his eloquent at-
tainments in learning they made him Archbishop, and he was elevated to
the highest rank among them, until kings used to come to his door, and no
king could assume the kingly authority without his orders, nor put on a
crown except by his command. And it came to pass at the end of thirteen
years that he said unto the king: “I have a desire to visit the church which
is on the Mountain of Nâbulus.” And the whole army assembled, and the
king and the legions marched in his [p.133] service. And when they en-
camped at Nâbulus, the king sent for all the people who were in Nâbulus
to come out to meet the Archbishop, And when the Samaritans heard this
they were smitten with a great fear, and all the people as¬sembled, and
said: “We have lost hope in the opinion we had with regard to Lawî whom
we sent away on his journey ; for no tidings have come back from him, and
without doubt he has perished: and as to this Bishop who has now arrived,
we have heard that he is the head of the nation of the Romans, and they
proclaim of him that he is profoundly versed in infidelity, and the Romans
call him...” [Here the extant part of the manuscript abruptly ends].
The same story is found also in an incomplete form in the Chronicle of

Abū-’1-Fatḥ compiled near 1355 CE. He says that the story is not bor-
rowed from the Book of Joshua b. Nun as is in the case with the previous
material, but from a different source. Further I quote the rest of the
290 H. Jamgochian
legend according to the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fatḥ as translated by Paul

Stenhouse.7
“[p.195] ...Now, this High Prelate who has just arrived – I have heard that
he is the head of the people of Byzantium, and their model. “I have heard
too that he is a staunch believer in heresy, so we can be sure that we will be
destroyed if we don’t go out to meet him. “We would not be safe from him
were he to be angry with us. “He has the whole army of Byzantium at his
command, and he will order them to kill us. “What can we possibly do
without weapons, or means of war, against their superior numbers?” When
they heard that, they (too) became very much afraid, and they said, “We
trust in God, and we turn to him for help”. After this, the High Prelate
reached Nablus and all the people went out, as did Baba Rabba and his
people. As they drew close to the High Prelate he lifted up his eyes and
saw his uncle and all the people of Israel, the Samaritans, with a milling
crowd welcoming him with a very noisy show. At this his eyes filled with
tears, but his uncle and the Samaritans did not recognize him for he had
been a youth when they sent him off, but he returned now grown up, with
a [p.196] beard, and in this exalted office. Levi glanced at the king and
asked him, “These people, who are they?” The king replied, ”O our lord
and Master, these people are unbelievers and are called the Samaritans.”
He then asked him, “What do they do, and what do they worship?” He
replied, ”They worship an unseen and immaterial God!” At which he
asked, “Why do they not worship idols and icons?” The king replied to
him, “We have tried hard (to make) them, but they have never done so.”
He said, “If they will not do so, then let them not be spared.” The news
spread quickly that the High Prelate was opposed to the Samaritans, and
their fears grew. Then Levy urged the king on, and he went ahead of him
to Mount Gerizim. When they reached the top of the mountain the copper
Bird Talisman screeched out, “Hebrew.” He asked, “What is this?” (The
king) replied, “This is the Talisman. No Samaritan can come up the Moun-
tain without this copper Bird screeching out.” He said to them, “I see that it
is screeching out now. Have a look to see if there is any Samaritan on the
Mountain, and kill him (if there is).” They searched the Mountain without
finding anyone. Then Levi entered the Church [p.197] and sat down with
all the kings in his presence while the copper Bird screeching out and went
on screeching. Levi asked, “What is the matter with this Bird? It has dried
out our heads with its screeching, yet there is no Samaritan on the Moun-
tain. Without doubt it is deranged. There seems no point in our keeping it -
it is only giving us a headache!” The king said to him, “You are right, my
lord: what would you like to do with it?” He said smash it to pieces!” So
they smashed it up, and threw it away. This was the eve of the first day of
the seventh month.”
7 STENHOUSE, Kitāb al-Tarīkh, 195-197.

A Samaritan Legend in the Alhambra Stories? 291
Thus, the point of the speaking talisman warning of danger at the

arrival of enemies was rather widespread in Arabic literature. In the
presented passages from the Arabic medieval texts, only a bird is said
to have such ability, exactly as it is in the fairy-tale by Pushkin, whereas
the legend retold by W. Irving gives the role of talisman to “a figure of
a ram, and above it a figure of a cock, both of molten brass” and to “a
bronze figure of a Moorish horseman.”
Since it was noted that the French translator had before him a ma-
nuscript of special or even strange recension of a mirabilia book which
was popular in that period, and Samaritan manuscripts (of Egyptian
origin) were in fact available in Mazarin’s library,8 we may ask if that
lost manuscript was a Samaritan one?
Bibliography
BOĬKO, Konstantin Alexeyewich, Ob arabskom istochnike motiva o zolotom
petushke v skazke Pushkina. in: Vremennik Pushkinskoĭ komissii 1976,
Leningrad 1976, 113-120.
CRANE, Oliver T., The Samaritan Chronicle or The Book of Joshua the Son of
Nun, New York 1890.
DE G OEJE, Michael Jan (ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum. Vol. V.
Compendium libri Kitâb al-boldân auctore Ibn-Fakîh al-Hamadânî, Leiden
1885.
IBN AL-FAKIKH, al-Hamadânî, Akhbar al-Buldan (Izvestiia o stranakh). Vvede-
nie, perevod s arabskogo, izdanie teksta i kommentarii A.S.Zhamkochiana,
Erevan 1979.
IRVING, Washington, The Alhambra, Paris 1832.
SILVESTRE DE SACY, Antoinne-Isaac, Memoire sur la version arabe des livres de
Moise à l'usage des samaritains et sur les manuscripts de cette version, in:
Mémoires de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles lettres 49 (1808) l-
199.
STENHOUSE, Paul (ed.), The Kitāb al-Tarīkh of Abu ’l-Fath. Translated into Eng-
lish with Notes, Sydney 1985.
STENHOUSE, Paul, The Reliability of the Chronicle of Abū-’1-Fath with Special
Reference to the dating of Baba Rabba, in: ROTHSCHILD, Jean-Pierre / SIXDENIER
Guy Dominique, Études samaritaines Pentateuque et Targum, exegése et
philologie chroniques. Actes de La Table Ronde, Louvain / Paris 1988, 235-
257.
ZHAMKOCHIAN Aroutun S., Neizdannye otryvki Ibn al-Fakikha i Abu Dulafa iz
Meshkhedskoĭ rukopisi, in: Vostochnoe istochnikovedenie 1 (1988) 311-340.
8 SILVESTRE DE SACY, Memoire sur la version arabe des livres de Moise, 19.
The Samaritan High Priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma and
his Poem Against Mubārak al-Mufarrağī Who
Became a Convert to Islam in 1841
HASEEB SHEHADEH
Religion is the major theme of Samaritan Arabic poetry. Within this

broad category, the following topics can be included: supplication,
preaches, panegyrics of the fathers, Moses, high-priests, pilgrimages,
circumcision, feasts, mourning, appeal for aid, hymns, asceticism, ele-
gies, repentance, paradise, consolation, holy sites, weddings1. Needless
to say, secular subjects such as love in general, nature, social, psycho-
logical and economic situations, and even wine songs are represented
in the Samaritan Arabic poetry written in Middle Arabic.
The subject of the following twelve line poem is rare. It is a devia-
tion from the Samaritan religion which is, as we know, very rare
among the members of the Samaritan community. The number of this
religio-ethnic group today is over 700. The writer of the poem was the
high-priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma ben Ghazāl al-Ḥiftāwī (1809-1875).2 He
became high-priest (‫ )הכהן הלוי‬after the death of his father in 1856/7 until
the year 1859.3
Among the Samaritans, there was a rumour concerning the high-
priest ‘Imrān, namely that he left (or was compelled to leave) the office
of the high-priesthood during his last fifteen years (1859—1874)4 be-
cause he married a woman who was either divorced by a Samaritan
1 See SHEHADEH, Samaritan Arabic Liturgy.

2 About this high-priest see BEN HAYYIM, Literary and Oral Tradition, ‫ ;מט‬PUMMER,
Samaritan Manuscripts in Toronto; FLORENTIN, ‘Amrām Dāre; HARVIAINEN / SHE-
HADEH, Abraham Firkovich; PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts; BEN ‘UZZI ,
Kitāb al̻Sāmiriyyīn, 66-68.
3 See ROBERTSON, Catalogue, col. 233 note 1. Since 1624 after Ṣ̣adaqa ben Ghazāl (1624-
1626) high-priests stem from Ithamar, Levites, and no longer from Aaron. See
ROBERTSON, Catalogue, col. 227 note 2, TSEDAKA, Summary, 82. He mentions at the
same page that ‘Imrān functioned unofficially as high-priest since 1826.
4 BEN ‘UZZI , Kitāb al̻Sāmiriyyīn, 96.
294 H. Shehadeh
who had converted to Islam or because that woman was a widow5.

Nothing is known about that Samaritan man who belonged to the Mu-
farraī (Marḥivi) family. The name of the woman was Lea6 (Leqa).
‘Imrān’s son (d. 1909) describes his father as ‘‫‘פרד זבנה‬,"nbz drf,
‘‫’ﻓﺮﻳ ﺪ ﻋﺼ ﺮﻩ ﻭﺯﻣﺎﻧ ﻪ‬, ‘unique in his time.’7 Other epithets to be found are
‘‫’ﺍﻟﻌ ﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻜ ﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺨ ﻢ ﻫﻜﻬﻴ ﻦ ﻋﻤ ﺮﺍﻥ‬, ‘the honoured and venerated uncle the
priest ‘Imrān’, ‘‫‘ ’ﺍﻟﻤﻜ ﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔ ﺮﻳﺰ‬honoured and distinguished.’8 Therefore,
and on the basis of the following poem, one may have doubts about the
correctness of the above-mentioned rumour. Furthermore, a Samaritan
written source ascribes the renunciation of the high-priesthood by ‘Im-
rān in favour of his brother’s young son Jacob b. Aharon the Levite
(1838—1916) in 1859 to the hard situation of the tiny Samaritan com-
munity numbering 150 souls. A division of duties was established.
‘Imrān became responsible for the secular affairs of the Samaritans and
was a member of a court9 for sects and minorities, whereas Jacob, the
young man, dealt with the religious issues as a high-priest.10
In addition to that, the high-priest ‘Imrān functioned as an infor-
mant and teacher for J. H. Petermann11 in reciting the Samaritan Penta-
5 It is an open secret that priests are not allowed to marry divorced women, see Leviti-
cus 21:7. For further discussion see the two chapters (nos. 19 and 20) on marriage
and divorce in the work of al-Kāfī by Muhaddab al-Dīn Yūsuf b. Salāma al-‘Askarī;
SHAVIT / GOLDSTEIN / BE’ER, Personalities, 385.
6 Its Arabic equivalents are ‫ ﻓﺎﺗﻨ ﺔ‬،‫ﺷ ﻔﻴﻘﺔ‬. The name of ‘Imrān’s mother was Lāyiqa
Surūr from Gaza who lived over one hundred years. BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al̻Sāmiriyyīn,
76.
7 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. I. 203, 210, 211.
8 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol.I. 148 line 1, 283 line 1, 362 line 12, al-farīz in the
sense of ‘distinguished’ is not attested in Arabic lexicons. The adjective al-ḥaqīr ‘the
inconsiderable, despised, miserable’ is common in Samaritan literature when writers
or scribes mention their names at the end of a work. See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy,
Vol. I. 716 line 3, 765 line 16. This adjective is similar to the equivalent English ‘hum-
ble’ used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The adjectives ‘the smallest first
slave and the most humble’ (‫ )ﻟﻌﺒ ﺪ ﺍﻻﺯﻏ ﺮ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺣﻘ ﺮ ﺍ‬are used by ‘Imrān about him-
self, see FIRKOVICH Sam XIII 23, p. 2b in the National Library of Russia in St. Peters-
burg.
9 See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 66. ‘He held a respected position in the Turkish
government similar to a member in magistrate’s court in our time’ ( ً ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﺼﺒﺎ ً ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻣﺎ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴ ﻪ ﻳﺸ ﺒﻪ ﻋﻀ ﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻨ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣ ﺔ‬. Ben ‘Uzzi (1899—1987) was the
grandson of Jacob ben Aharon.
10 See BEN ‘UZZI, Waṣiyyatī wa-tārīkh ḥayātī, 43—44 ‫ﺗﻮﻟ ّﻰ ﺍﻻﻣﺎﻣﺔﻳﻮﻡ َ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﻰ ً ﻓ ﻲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ِﻄ ْ ﻨﺔ ٍ ﻭﺫﻛ ﺎء ﻭﻻﻧ ﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻳﻀ ﺎ )ﺍﻱ ﺍﻟﻜ ﺎﻫﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ( ﻛ ﺎﻥ‬
‫ ﺃﺳ ﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻴ ﻪ ﺑﺤﻴﺎﺗ ﻪ ﻟ ِﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ ﺲ ﺑ ﻪ ﻓ‬،‫ﺍﻟﻜ ﺎﻫﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ‬
ُ ‫ ﺍﻟ ﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧ ﺖ ﻳﻮﻣﺌﺬ ٍ ﺗﻌﺠﻬ ﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺿ ﺔ ﻭﻳﺜﻘ ﻞ ﻛﺎﻫﻠﻬ ﺎ ﻟﻔﻘ ﺮﺍ ﻭﺗﻨﻮ‬،‫ﻣ ُﻨﺼﺮﻓﺎ ً ﺍﻟ ﻰ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺷ ﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺋﻔ ﺔ‬
‫ ﻓﻀﻼ ً ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎﻥﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻄ ﻮﺍ ﺋ ﻒ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﻠﻴ ﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﻤﺜ ﻞ ﻁﺎﺋﻔﺘ ﻪ‬.‫ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﻁﺎﺋ ﻞ ﺍﻻﺿ ﻄﻬﺎﺩ‬
.‫ﻭﻳ ﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻬ ﺎ‬
11 See GASTER, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen; P ETERMANN, Versuch, 3.
The Samaritan High Priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma 295
teuch, had connections with the British consul in Jerusalem, James Finn
(1846—1862), and the ambassador in Istanbul and played a central role
in the acquisition of the Samaritan manuscripts in the dasht (geniza) of
Nablus in 1864 by the Karaite leader Abraham Firkovich (1787—1874).12
Last, but not least, he was a prolific writer of hymns and poems in Sa-
maritan Aramaic and Arabic as well as a copyist and witness for mar-
riage contracts.13 He wrote poems in Arabic when he was nineteen
years old, as demonstrated in a manuscript written and copied by him
in 1828 shows.14 Among the works by ‘Imrān are a commentary of two
parts on the book of Exodus and a treatise on inheritance.15 The attempt
of Mills to teach ‘Imrān the English language was not successful.16
The difficult situation of the family of the priest ‘Imrān, as we shall
see later, should be taken into consideration with regard to their being
led to resign from the high-priesthood. His father, Shalma b. Ṭabia
(1782—1857), also stepped down from the high-priesthood. Shalma
described his community as širdima, a fragmented group.17 It is note-
worthy that ‘Imrān’s successor in the high-priesthood, his nephew,
Jacob ben Aaron, faced an attempted dismissal from office in 1878. A
procès-verbal (maḍbaṭa) was admitted to the government. The appeal
was supported by a great number in the Samaritan community, includ-
ing two priests who were his cousins. The position of the cousins was
not in accordance with the testament of their father ‘Imrān discussed
below. The claim that Jacob the high-priest was ‘evil doer’ (mufsid) and
should be punished was turned down because ‘the respected ones’ (al-
mu‘tabarīn) in the community were on the side of Jacob. The antago-
nists intended to ‘seize the findings of the synagogue’ (ḍabṭ mawğūdāt
12 See HARVIAINEN / SHEHADEH, Abraham Firkovich, 170ff. In those days Samaritans

had good relations with the Karaites in Jerusalem, see A. B. Samaritan News 258—
259, 28.4.1980, 38.
13 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II, xcvii (index of authors); ROBERSON, Cata-
logue, (Index of names of Samaritans) Vol. I., col. 405; Vol. II., col. 298. See the fol-
lowing manuscripts of marriage contracts in the Firkovich collection housed in the
National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg: Sam X, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 90, 91.
These manuscripts date back to the twenties until the fifties of the 19th century.
Compare also Ms Sassoon 716 found today in JRUL as Sam 377 and Firkovich Sam
IX 268, MS Shechem High Priest (‫ )ג’’כ‬21 in the Jewish National and University Li-
brary in Jerusalem. See P UMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts.
14 Firkovich Ms Sam XIII 23 in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg.
15 Number three and number 53 in a hand-written list of Samaritan Arabic books at
the disposal of the priest ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn (El‘azar) Ṣadaqa (1927-2010). A copy of this
list was given to me by its writer ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn (El‘azar) Ṣadaqa in 13 March 1975
and I thank him for it.
16 MILLS, Three Months, 186.
17 See TSEDAQA HASSAFAREY, Kitab Al-Tasabich, 145.
296 H. Shehadeh
al-kanīsa).18 Another example of a Samaritan person who converted to

Islam in the first half of the nineteenth century in 1841 is reported by
Jacob Joseph Ṣadaqa al-Shalabī born in 1829. A woman called Ğalīla.19
(Yokheved) Isḥāq al-Asmar al-Danafī, the widow of Shalabī ‘Abd al-
Laṭīf ben Ṣadaqa married a Muslim lover. Her fourteen year old son
Isaac was forced to embrace Islam and was given the name As‘ad,
while his sister Zaġlūla died as a result of torture.20
Samaritans today still tell of Mubārak’s presence at the horrible in-
cident in which this woman and her two children were forced to em-
brace Islam. What he saw and heard led him immediately to declare his
acceptance of Islam. Though he continued to celebrate Samaritan feasts
with his family, he was excommunicated by the family of the priests
and the other families who strongly condemned the event in order to
deter others from following him.21 Mubārak was put upon a horse and
passed through the city of Nablus in a procession of triumph.22 The
subject of Samaritan conversion to Islam during the last few centuries
requires a separate investigation. Generalizations without evidence
such as “Up until 1859...many Samaritans were killed and others were
forcefully converted to Islam”23 do not contribute much to our knowl-
edge and understanding.
It was during these days, when the ‘Ulamā’ declared the Samari-
tans not to be A ̉ hl al-Kitāb’ (People of the Book), that the Samaritan
community underwent hardship. It was claimed that the Samaritan
community did not possess any of the following five holy books: the
Torah, the New Testament, Psalms (Zabūr), the Prophets and the
Qur’ān. Help in counteracting this sensitive and dangerous accusation
came from Jerusalem. Its Sefardi Chief Rabbi Ḥayyim Avraham Gagin
(1842-1848) known as Ḥakham Bāshī acknowledged in a document that
the Samaritans are a branch of the children of Israel and that they be-
lieve in the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch.24
The governor of the Nablus district in the period in question was
Maḥmūd ‘Abd al-Hādī the Qaysī, and clashes between Qaysī and Ya-
18 See page 237, the last page in manuscript No. 7087 in Yad Ben Zvi Library in Jerusa-
lem.
19 Other secular equivalents to Yokheved are ‫ﺟﻠ ﻮﻝ‬، ‫ ﻧﺠﻠ ﺔ‬،‫ ﻧﺠ ﻼء‬.
20 See BEN Z VI, Book of the Samaritans, 50-51.
21 I learned this from my friend Binyamim Tsedaka in a letter dated October 15, 2000.
Compare what Jacob El-Shelabī say in the previous note.
22 See BEN Z VI, Book of the Samaritans, 51.
23 See PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts, 4.
24 ELAZAR, Nasi in Israel, 33; ROGERS, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, 30.
manī factions were inflamed.25 The British consul in Jerusalem, James

Finn, also extended some help to the Samaritans.26 Minorities in Nablus
were distinguished from the Muslim majority by the colour of their
head cloths. Christians, numbering five hundred in the last quarter of
the nineteenth century, used the blue colour, the two hundred Jews
used the yellow colour and the Samaritans, about one hundred fifty,
had the red colour.27 For two decades until 1849 the Samaritans were
prohibited to celebrate their Passover (Feast of Qurban) on Mount Ger-
izim.
The poem in question is a sort of condemnation of the actions of Mubā-

rak28 (Mbārak, in spoken Arabic) Ibrāhīm Mufarrağ (Barukh Abraham
Maḥriv); namely, leaving the Samaritan religion and embracing Islam.
His new name became Muḥammad Sa‘īd al-Misilmānī, and it is
claimed that the contemporary al-Misilmānī family in Nablus stems
from him.29 But it should also be noted that the Arabic family name is
known in Nablus from at least 1819, that is to say, more than two gen-
erations before the conversion of Barukh.30 The late high-priest Jacob
ben ‘Uzzi (1899-1987) related that the name of the father of the Misil-
mānī family was Mubārak Mufarrağ. His family, the Marḥivi, comes in
the second or third place with regard to number after āl Alṭīf. After the
division of Palestine (1947), the majority of its members moved to live
in Jaffa and later in Ḥolon. The rest of Mar˙iv family live in Nablus and
most of its members are workers and craftsmen. The number of the
descendants of Mubārak (Muḥammad Sa‘īd al-Misilmānī) surpasses
much the number of Marḥivi family.31
25 See AL-NIMR, History of Mount Nablus Vol. I, 168, 269, 274-275; BUSCH, Eine Wall-
fahrt nach Jerusalem, 139-146, SCHUR, History of the Samaritans, 139-147; BROWNE,
Travels in Africa, 47; AL-DABBĀĠ, Bilādunā Filistīn.
26 On this period see FINN, Stirring Times; WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 206-235;
MILLS, Three Months Residence; ROGERS, Domestic Life; ROGERS, Notices of the
Modern Samaritans.
27 WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 207-208. Compare the twenty-fifth tale of the
‘Thousand and One Nights’.
28 Other Arabic equivalents to Barukh/ ‫ ברוך‬are ‫ ﺭﺍﻁ ﺐ‬،‫ ﻣﺘﻤﻜ ﻦ‬،‫ ﻣﻜﻴ ﻦ‬،‫ ﻣﻌﻈ ﻢ‬،‫ ﻣﺤﻤ ﻮﺩ‬see Firk-
ovich MS. Sam. III 2 page 46a. This manuscript housed in the National Library of
Russia in St. Petersburg was copied in 1331 A.D. as mentioned in page 4a.
29 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 80; BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 38. ‘ ‫ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫[“ ’ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩﻫ ﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻋ ﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺌ ﻪﺍﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻋﺎﺋﻠﻪ ﺍﺳﻠﻤﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺌﺔ ﺳﻨﻪ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ً ﻭﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﺪﺩ‬āl al-Misilmānī] and it
was a family that embraced Islam about one hundred years ago and the number of
its members today exceeds one hundred.”
30 ‘Īsa al-Misilmānī, See Firkovich Ms Sam XIV 33, p. 3b, in the National Library of
Russia in St. Petersburg.
31 See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Samiriyyīn, 39.
298 H. Shehadeh
This short poem is preserved, as far as we know, in two manu-

scripts. The first manuscript has no title and it was copied by the priest
‘Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa in Nablus. This priest, as mentioned before, is
the great-grandson of ‘Imrān the high-priest, the author of this poem.32
The poem is on page 80. This manuscript, including 109 pages num-
bered by Samaritan characters, consists of the following sections:
A) Fragment from Memar Marqe, pp. 1—16 in Samaritan script.

Marginal remarks are added, such as Arabic translations of Samaritan
Aramaic words such as: ‫( אנחה = ﻓﺎﺋ ﺪﻩ‬benefit); ‫ארעה באירה = ﺃﺭﺽ ﺑ ﺎﺋﺮﻩ‬
(uncultivated land); ‫( תבהת = ﺗﺨﺠ ﻞ‬to be shy, ashamed); ‫לא צבה = ﻻ ﻳﺮﻳ ﺪ‬
(does not want); ‫( נהרביתי = ﺃﻁﻔ ﺎﻟﻬﻢ‬their children); ‫( טליותה = ﺣﺪﺍﺛﺘ ﻪ‬his
youth); ‫( קלומה = ﺫﺍﺗ ﻪ‬himself); ‫( כתיה = ﺑ ﺎﺭﺩﻩ‬cold, f. s.).33 At the end of this
section the following colophon is given:
‫זה אתו מצאתי מה מצא המוספות זאת הן יאמר והוא בריטאניא מן חבר לי אתו שלח בספר אתם‬
‫בספרי מרקה במימר ימצאו לא והם שם נמצאו שרא מרקה מימר בידנו אשר על כן בדלתי אתם‬
۰‫לשפת הקדש עד מן ידרש יקרא אתם יוכל למבדילותם ואני העני הדל אלעזר בר צדקה כהנה בשכם‬
. ‫ ישועתא אאל‬۱۹٦٤/۱۲/۲
That is what I found in a book sent to me by a friend from Britain. He says

that these additions he has found in copies (books) of Memar Marqe kept
there [Britain] and they are not included in Memar Marqe which is avail-
able to us. Therefore I changed them into the holy language so that every
one who likes to read them can distinguish between them. I am the poor
and humble El‘azar ben Tsedaka the priest in Nablus, 20th of December
1964 A.D.34
B) Bilingual glossary, Samaritan Aramaic from Memar Marqe and

Hebrew (‫תרגום‬/‫ )עברי‬arranged according to alphabetical order, pp. 17—
25. These nine pages, divided as a rule into two columns (sometimes a
third column is added at the beginning in which the root of the word is
indicated), consist of approximately two hundred words. As stated in
32 Sincere thanks are due to my friends the priest and Yefet ben Ratson Tsedaka who
sent me a copy of the manuscript.
33 Pages 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 repectively.
34 This manifestation of Neo-Samaritan Hebrew reminds us of mediaeval Hebrew
under the impact of Middle Arabic, the absence of ‫ ש‬in the first two phrases, asyn-
detic clause, Britain is written as in Arabic, plural feminine which does not refer to
human beings is regarded as feminine singular (‫ )תאז המוספות‬etc. ‫ דע‬has the meaning
of ‫ﺣ ﺘﻰ‬, in order, so that. The two words after the year are not ordinary, especially
the last one. These two words are analogous to the common Samaritan colophon ‫ﺍﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺳ ﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ‬, the followers of Ishmael.
the title of this section, the words used in Memar Marqe appear in more
than one form.35 A few examples are in order: ‫( דובב = אויב‬enemy); = ‫בעי‬
‫( דרש‬to ask for); ‫ נפשב‬,‫ לבב‬,‫ קנום = לב‬,‫( קלום‬heart, soul); ‫( געז = עבר‬to pass);
‫( אשתנק = אצטלב‬to be tormented); ‫( שריו = בראשית‬at the beginning); ‫= שלח‬
‫( שגר‬to send). At the end of this section there is a colophon stating that
the same priest copied it on the 24th of December 1963,36 almost one
year before writing the first section.
C) Collection of prayers, hymns, bit durran (string of pearls) and
songs of praise by various priests, elders and poets taken from the book
of Cowley37 and other source at the disposal of the scribe in Nablus
dating back to the year 1708. The authors of this religious material are
‘Āmram Dāre (‘Imrān al-Zamān), Ab Gillūgā b. Qala, the elder ̣Tabia b.
Darta, the high-priest ̣Tabia b. Tsedaka, Shalma b. Ab Zahuta b. Yosef
ha-Mạtri, the elder Ḥizqia b. ‘Ābed El, Abraham b. Yūsef haq-Qābbạ̄si,
̣Tabia b. Isaac, ‘Āmrām b. Shalmā b. ̣Tabia, Abraham Jacob al-Danfī
known as al-‘Ayye, ̣Tabia b. ab Zahūta, Abisha‘. In addition one finds
poems in the Arabic language and script, as well as two testaments in
Arabic by the high-priests ‘Imrān and his grandson Ṣedaka b. Isaac
Tsedaka (1894—1971), the father of the scribe El‘azar Tsedaka (‘Abd al-
Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa). This third section of the manuscript under discussion is
the largest one. It begins on page 27 and continues to the end on page
109. The date of copying this part is the 26th of November 1986.
Marginal notes and explanations in Arabic can also be found in this
section. On the top of page 70 the reader finds the two words ‫אסרת יצר‬
and their Arabic translation is added above them ‫( ﻋﻘ ﺪ ﻧﻴ ﻪ‬setting of
intention). In the light of the material given in this third section, namely
the poems, it is safe to say that ‘Imrān experienced poverty, deaths of
members of his family, desperation and failure in his first marriage at
least. Some sources speak about a third marriage.38 Besides, the general
conditions of the Samaritan community in Nablus were not encourag-
ing. ‘Imrān’s father, Salāma, was very poor and tried to earn livelihood
35 ‫מלים מימר מרקה אדינן מרי עליו רצון מרו וזאת המלים המצאו על מותר מן צורה אחדה‬. The last words
are a kind of claque from the Arabic language ‫ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﺃﻛ ﺜﺮ ﻣ ﻦ‬.
36 ‫ אודה את יהוה‬.‫ זה מה מצאתי מן זאת המלים ואני עבדה אלעזר בר צדקה כהנה בשכם מול הרגרי‬۱۹٦۳/۱۲/۲٤.
37 COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy.
38 See GASTER, Samaritan Manuscripts, 128; Mills wrote about the second and third
wives “Both wives were living together with their husband on the best of terms,” see
MILLS, Three Months Residence, 184. Some Samaritans such as Salāma ben Ya’qūb
ben Murğān al-Danafī from the eighteenth century married seven times. On the
other hand the New Testament states that the Samaritan woman married five times
and she had an illegal sixth, see John 4:18.
300 H. Shehadeh
as a tailor.39 He describes himself in one of his supplications as ‘humble,

poor, unfortunate, in need, weak’40. Samaritan oral tradition speaks
about a close friendship between Salāma and Ḥusain ‘Abd al-Hādī, the
governor of Gaza. The latter used to help the high-priest financially.41
Written testimony by ‘Imrān himself from the year 1826 speaks about
very high prices in Nablus. The price of an ounce of meat was thirty
silver and the price of a saa of corn reached eleven Qurūsh (piasters).42
A virgin girl who did not like ‘Imrān, became his first wife in 1826
when he was seventeen years old.43 All the children that she gave birth
to (some say thirteen, others five) died.44 ‘Imrān’s third marriage was to
Lā’iqa bint As‘ad (1820-1910), whom he loved and who gave birth to
four children, three boys, El‘azar, Salāma and Isaac, and a daughter
called Zahra.45 It seems that his daughter Badriyya was born from an-
other wife. The great-grandson of ‘Imrān, the priest ‘Abd al-Mu‘īn
Ṣadaqa (El‘azar Tsedaka, born in 2.2.1927), calls her “Our lady the late
Lā’iqa may God sanctify her secret” and gives the venerated epithet
39 BEN ‘UZZI , Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 183-184. A story about this priest and the tailors of
Nablus was translated into English by SHEHADEH The Samaritan High Priest Salāma.
40 See COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. I, 217 line 2 (‫ )עבדך דל ועני ומסכין וצריך ונשיש‬and
lines 14, 18; 218 line 17 and see 743.
41 BEN ‘UZZI , Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 187-196.
42 See MS Firkovich Sam III 19, p. 23a in the margin, in the National Library of Russia
in St. Petersburg (‫ﻭﻓﻴ ﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺤ ﻢ‬...‫ ﺍﻟﻘﻤ ﺢ ﻟﺤ ﻖ ﻭﻛﺎﻧ ﺖ ﺩﻟ ﻚ ﺍﻟﺴ ﻨﻪ ﻏ ﻼ ﺷ ﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ‬۰۳ ‫ﻓﻀ ﻪ ﻭﺻ ﺎﻉ‬
‫)ﺍﺣ ﺪﻩ ﻋﺸ ﺮ ﻗ ﺮﺵ‬. Compare Ms Firkovich Sam XIII 18 of the same year, saa of corn six, a
rotl of meat eighty four, rotl of rice fourty four, rotl of oil seventy two.
43 She is most likely ̣Hānunjah bint Ya‘qūb bint Ṣadaqa al-Danfī as indicated in the
Ketubbah (marriage contract) in Firkovich Sam X 21 and 84 in the National Library
of Russia in St. Petersburg, ‫והיא בעת ההיא נערה בתולה‬, her dowry was 4900 Egyptian
units of currency. The term Egyptian pieces” (‫ )ﻗﻄ ﻊ ﻣﺼ ﺮﻳﺎﺕ‬is used since the seven-
teenth century as shown in Firkovich Sam XIV 1. Other sorts of money such as
mạsārī, maḥmūdī, ‘ādlī, qirạ̄ta, nịsf akkl, bishlī are mentioned in Firkovich Sam XIV 35.
Cf. A. B. Samaritan News, 544-545, 7.10.1991, 55-76, VILSKER, Samaritänskie do-
kumenty. PUMMER, Samaritan Marriage Contracts, 35, who says that ‘Imrān was 24+
years!
44 See the marginal note by El‘azar Ṣadaqa in the manuscript of Nablus page 77 and
compare, P ETERMANN, Versuch, 3. On the basis of a letter by the priest El‘azar
Ṣadaqa sent to me on 8 November 2000, the following information is indicated. The
high priest was called “‘Umrān al-Zamān” due to his efforts to take care of the Sa-
maritan community in all aspects of life. His first wife was Lạtīfa who gave birth to
thirteen children who all died except one daughter called Warda. His second wife
was Lā’iqa who gave birth to Issac, Salāma and a daughter named Badrī. He left the
office of high priesthood because he was fat. Mubārak was named al-ma‘kūs. This in-
formation is based on oral tradition.
45 Zahra ‘Imrān Salāma got married in 1865, see MS. BL Or 12375d. This marriage is
mentioned only in Kahle’s list where there is a mention of six Samaritans who mar-
ried three times, See KAHLE, Die Samaritaner.
“‘Imrān al-zamān” to her husband.46 El‘azar the son, as well as ‘Imrān’s

two younger brothers, Isaac and Aaron, died while ‘Imrān was alive.47
His son Isaac visited London in 1903 and sold some Samaritan
manuscripts to the Jewish Rabbi Moses Gaster (1856-1939) and to the
British Library.48 Wardah (̣Sịs) was thirteen years old in 1855 when she
married Ṣālịh ben al-Shaikh Ibrāhīm āl Ṣālịh al-Murğān ben Salāma al-
Danāfī, the maternal uncle of her father.49 Educated elders of the Sa-
maritan community had either passed away or were ineffective, and
ignorant individuals and bankers (Ṣarrāfūn) had become leaders and
had the upper hand on the community.50 Evil intentions and idle talk
prevailed. People were engaged with their carnal appetites. ‘Imrān the
high-priest was hit and kicked by a soldier in a public place in Nablus,
and the new ruler was present.51
In view of the facts stated above, it is no wonder to find that ‘Imrān
became fed up with such a life (‫ )ﻋ ﺎﻳﻒ ﺣﻴ ﺎﺗﻲ‬and expressed his deep
sadness and mourning in several lines, as we shall see shortly. He
wished on several occasions to depart this earthly life and to be buried
beside his father in a very deep grave.52
In his relatively short testament, the following information is avail-
able. ‘Imrān does not want shouting, noise and increase in mourning
46 The full name of the priest is ’Abd al-Mu‘īn Ṣadaqa Isḥāq ‘Imrān Salāma Ghazāl
Iṣhāq Ibrāhīm Ṣadaqa, “‫ “ﺳ ﻴﺪﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻮﻣ ﻪ ﻻﺋﻘ ﻪ ﻗ ﺪﺱ ﷲ ﺳ ﺮﻫﺎ‬in the manuscript dis-
cussed below, page 77 in the margin and see page 83 in the margin and page 98 at
the top. See also the handwritten book mentioned in note no. 60, pp. 15, 112.
47 See page 77:.
‫צריך בכפני‬ ‫לא כסף אבי עני ב‬
‫לי בתולה לא תרציני‬ ‫ורב מאד לקחו‬
‫וכלם מתו לפני‬ ‫בא לי ממנה בנים‬
‫היתה כרחצוני‬ ‫עד לקחתי אחרת‬
‫והנם שני‬ ‫נשאר לי ממנה בנים‬
An elegy on his son El‘azar is to be found on pages 81-82 begining with:
‫ﻭﺩﻣﻮﻋ ﻲ ﻓ ﻮﻕ ﻭﺟﻨ ﺎﺗﻲ ﻏ ﺰﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺯﺍﺩ ﺑﻠﺒ ﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﻗ ﻞ ﺍﻻﺻ ﻄﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺣ ُﺮﻕ ﻓﺆﺍﺩﻱ ﺁﻩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺰ ﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺍﻕ ﻣﻬﺠﺔ ﻛﺒﺪﻱ‬
See BEN ‘UZZI, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn, 66-67.
48 See GASTER, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen, 513.
49 See ROBERTSON, Catalogue, Vol. I. col. 333. Mills writes “The males are marriageable
at fourteen, and the females at ten, and in some cases as early as eight years of age”
see MILLS, Three Months Residence, 194.
50 Such as Jacob al-Shelabī who was illitetate but was one of the Samaritan leaders and
tourists’s guide who lived mainly on tips (baqšīš, baġšīš) from them, see SMITH,
Travels, 291-299; WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 226.
51 See A. B. Samaritan News 258—259, 28-4-1980, 40. At the same day the priest wrote a
letter to James Finn the British consul in Jerusalem.
52 See pages 75 line 2, 98 line 12, 92 line 13.
302 H. Shehadeh
on his death. He asked his family to take care in washing53 his corpse
and covering it with winding sheet. The coffin should be taller than
him and made of the best wood. The washing bench (dakka) should be
new. After his funeral both should be kept for the use of other Samari-
tans in the future. Reading from the Torah follows putting the dead
body in the coffin. He asks his children Isaac (d.1932) and Salāma (d.
1909) and his wife (her name is not indicated) to continue their life as
before. The key to a sort of an attic (siddi/e) should be kept with Isaac
only and not even with his mother. ‘Imrān had a shop shared by Jacob
the son of his brother and with Ya‘qūb al-Mūsa. The father ‘Imrān says
to his son Isaac: consult your cousin Jacob, Iṣhāq Lụtfī and others in the
Samaritan community who like you, especially Murğān the husband of
your sister. The big house goes to Isaac and the small one to Salāma.
The rest of the building (dār) will be divided into three thirds (appar-
ently, Isaac, Salāma and their mother). The father urges his son Isaac to
read, learn and preserve his faith during all his life. With regard to
Isaac’s marriage, the father advises him to follow the choice of his
mother. ‘Imrān urges his son Isaac to marry, if possible, the daughter of
his sister Zahra the wife of Isḥāq Lụtfī. Such a marriage would be real-
ized if Iṣhāq Lụtfī agrees to give his daughter to Isaac instead of Isaac’s
fiancée al-sinyūra (!) to the son of his wife.54 On the basis of a letter
written by ‘Imrān in 1858 to al-Khawāğa ‘Ōda, it is clear that the priest
had a share in an oil press and quarrels with regard to business.55 The
priest used to visit Jerusalem for commercial reasons and stayed over-
night at Karaite homes. Petermann mentions that one day ‘Imrān told
him that the place of hell is in fact Jerusalem.56
Charles Warren wrote about ‘Imrān, whom he knew personally:
a delightful old gentleman, the only one of the Samaritans I had any sym-
pathy with...told me his melancholy state...he felt he was gradually dying
day by day, and talked of being fed on poisonous food; poor old man,
whatever was the cause, it was evident he was sinking slowly, and that his
energies were going; probably his house in Nâblus was filled with impure
air from the bad arrangements within, or perhaps it was constitutional
53 The term used here is ‫ﻏﺴ ﻞ‬, other terms to be found in Samaritan Arabic literature
are ‫ ﻣﻐﺴ ﻞ‬،‫ ﺗﻐﺴ ﻴﻞ‬see COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II. 852, 853, 854, 855, 858, 866.
54 See pages 92-93.
55 See Firkovich Ms Sam XIV 25, in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg.
56 PETERMANN, Reisen im Orient, 279.
alone seemed to guard the treasures of the Samaritans...and prescribed

charcoal for his disorder, which appeared to be a kind of dysentery ...57
A few lines by ‘Imrān are in order:
‫ﻓﺎﺭﻗ ﺖ ﺣ ﺰﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﺿ ﺤﻴﺖ ﺍﻻﺣﺒ ﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﺧﺮﺍﺏ ﺯﻣ ﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﻛ ﻞ ﺍﺳ ﻤﻲ ﻋﻤ ﺮﺍﻥ‬
My name is ‘Imrān (in written Arabic ‘Umrān = prosperity, flourishing)

and all my life is destruction, I parted from the beloved ones and became
grieved.58
‫ﻭﻛﻴ ﻒ ﺍﻟﺘ ﺬ ﺑﻄﻌ ﺎﻡ ﻣﻨﺴ ﺠﻢ ﺑﻤ ﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺑﻌ ﺪ ﻓﻘ ﺪ ﺍﻻﺣﺒ ﺎﺏ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻨ ﺎﻡ ﻧ ﺎﺭﻱ‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺲ ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻧﻌﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻓﺎﻩ‬
After the loss of the beloved ones how my passion (fire) will sleep (die
down) and how can I enjoy food mixed with bitterness ‘Imrān says “O
Lord bestow upon me death while having faith in the five books (Torah).”59
‫ﻭﻓ ﻲ ﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺟ ﺎﻝ ﺿ ﺎﻋﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺴ ﺎء‬ ‫ﺘﻐﻠﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻻﺗﻤ ﺎﻡ ﺷ ﻬﻮﺓ ﻧﻔﻮﺳ ﻬﻢ ﻣﺸ‬
They are busy in satisfying the lust of their souls and in the love of women
men were lost.60
The second manuscript, by the high-priest ‘Imrān ben Salāma ben

Ghazāl al-Ḥiftāwī, which includes the poem on Mubārak Ibrāhīm Mu-
farrağ who left the Samaritan religion in 1841, is kept in Berlin. It is Ms.
Or. Quart. 1095 in the Staatsbibliothek and consists of 229 folios of
prayers for the Sabbaths of Pentecost, Yom Maqrata (reading day of the
Torah in remembrance of revelation on Mt. Sinai) and the feast of har-
vest. This manuscript was copied in 1845 by Shelạh b. Abraham b.
Shelạh b. Ab Sakuwwa ha-Danfi. The poem in question is added at the
end of the manuscript in 227b. A description of this manuscript, as well
as a publication of the poem accompanied by a Hebrew translation,
was published in the periodical A. B. Samaritan News in 1998.61 It is to be
noted that the poem in this manuscript appears in Samaritan letters,
while in the Nablus manuscript the script is Arabic.
57 WARREN, Underground Jerusalem, 225-226.

58 See page 75 line 5.
59 Page 82 lines 8 and 11.
60 Page 98 line 8.
61 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 79-81.
304 H. Shehadeh
Moreover, there are several differences between the texts of the

poem in these two manuscripts.62 It should be stated that the Hebrew
translation is not always accurate. The poem on Mubārak / al-Musilmā-
nī was written in 1262 Hiğra, 1846 A. D. five years after his conver-
sion.63 It is known to us that this Mubārak was in 1840 one of the scribes
of Manuscript No. 7023 in Yad Ben-Zvi Library in Jerusalem. A year
later Mubārak / al-Musilmānī copied a prayer found in Ms. Or. Quart.
538 in Berlin on the 28th of Rağab 1257 Hiğra, 9 September 1841 A.D.
The high-priest ‘Imrān, who condemned the conversion of Mubārak in
the following poem, wrote these words in the same place “‫ﻫ ﺎ ﺧ ﺮﺝ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﻬ ﺎ‬
‫ “ﻭﻟ ﻪ ﺍﻟﺤ ﺮﻭﻕ ﻣ ﻦ דת משה הצדיק ﺍﻟ ﻰ דת מחמד הזנדיק‬which means “Its scribe hav-
ing burns has left the religion of the God-fearing Moses for the religion
of Mụhammad the atheist (zendik).64 One more piece of information
about Mubārak is that he was one of the three scribes of Ms No. 7023 in
Yad Ben-Zvi Library in Jerusalem. Mubārak accomplished his part in
1840, his brother Sa‘d in 1857 and Íāli ben Ibrāhīm ben Ṣālịh ben Mur-
ğān al-Danfī in 1849.
‫ﻗﺎﻟ ﻪ ﺭﺣﻤ ﻪ ﷲ ﻋﻨ ﺪﻣﺎ ﺧ ﺮﺝ ﻣﺒ ﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﺑ ﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‬

‫הדת ﷲ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ ً ﻟﻌﻨ ﻪ‬65 ‫ﻣﻔ ﺮﺝ ﻋ ﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺪﻳﺎ ً ﺍﻟﻰ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻬ ﻢ ﺍﻣﻴ ﻦ‬
66
‫ﻻ ﺷ ﻚ ﺍﻧ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﻣ ﻊ ﺍﻟﺸ ﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻣﺸ ﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻳ ﺎ ﺣﻴ ﻒ ﺍﻳ ﻦ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﻋﻘﻠ ﻚ ﻳ ﺎ ﻣﺒ ﺎﺭﻙ‬
67
‫ﺑ ﻞ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﻳﺴ ﺪﺩ ﻋﻘﻠ ﻲ ﻭﻳﻐﺮﻳ ﻨﻲ ﻓﺸ ﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻣ ﺎ ﺑﻘﻴ ﺖ ﺍﻅ ﻦ ﻓﻴ ﻚ ﻛ ﺬﺍ ﻳ ﺎ ﻣﻐﻔ ﻞ‬
68
‫ﺑﻘ ﻲ ﻟ ﻚ ﻗﺒ ﻮﻝ ﻭﻟ ﻮ ﻛ ﺜﺮﺕ ﺍﻧ ﺪﺍﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻁﻤ ﺲ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻋﻘﻠ ﻚ ﻛﻴ ﺪ ﺍﻟﺸ ﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ‬
69
‫ﻥ ﻣﻌﻴ ﺎﺭﻙﺧ ﻴﺮ ﻟ ﻚ ﻳ ﺎ ﻣﻌﻜ ﻮﺱ ﻡ‬ ً ‫ﻳﺎﻳﺎ ﻟﻴﺖ ﺫﻫﺒﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﻓﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺧ ﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﻣ ﻞ ﻭﺍﻅﻠﻤ ﺖ ﺟﻤﻴ ﻊ ﺍﻧ ﻮﺍﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﺗﺎﻣﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻚ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻫﻼ ً ﻟﻠﺼﻼﺡ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻁ ﺎﻟﻊ ﻣﻮﻟ ﺪﻙ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﻏ ﻴﺮ ﻣﺒ ﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻳﺎ ﺗ ُﺮﻯ ﻁﻤﻊ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﻫﺎﻙ‬
70
‫ﻛﻴ ﻒ ﻛ ﺎﻥ ﺣ ﺘﻰ ﺿ ﻴﻌﺖ ﺍﻵﺧ ﺮﻩ ﺳ ﻮﺍء ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻏﺪﺍ ً ﺍﻧﻄﻔﺎءﺍ ً ﻟﻨﺎﺭﻙ‬
71
‫ﻛﻴ ﻒ ﻻ ﻭﺍﻧ ﺖ ﺧ ﺎﺋﻦ ﺧﻤ ﺲ ﺍﺳ ﻔﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻳ ﻢ ﺻ ﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻴ ﻚ ﺣ ﺮﺍﻡﺟﻨ ﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ ﻊ‬
62 I did not examine the Berlin manuscript and here I depend on the version published
in A. B.
63 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 80.
64 A. B. Samaritan News 722—724, 9.10.1998, 84.
65 Originally in Samaritan script. The title is missing in the Berlin manuscript.
66 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ﻣ ﺒﺮﻙ‬، ‫ ﺷ ﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬،‫ ﺍﻧ ﺎ‬instead of ‫ ﺍﻟﺸ ﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬،‫ ﺍﻧ ﻪ‬،‫ ﻣﺒ ﺎﺭﻙ‬respectively.
67 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﻭﻳﻌ ﺰﻥ‬،‫ ﺑﺎﻧ ﻚ‬instead of ‫ ﻭﻳﻐﺮﻳ ﻨﻲ‬،‫ ﻛ ﺬﺍ ﻳ ﺎ‬respectively.
68 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﺍﻧ ﺪﺍﺭﺍﻙ‬،‫ ﺍﻛ ﺘﺮﺕ‬instead of ‫ ﺍﻧ ﺪﺍﺭﻙ‬،‫ ﻛ ﺜﺮﺕ‬respectively.
69 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﺡ‬،‫ ﻳ ﺮﻣﺘﻮﻓ ﺎ‬instead of ‫ ﺧﻴﺮ‬،ً ‫ ﻣﺘﻮﻓﻴﺎ‬respectively.
70 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﺍﻥ ﺗﻨﻄﻔ ﻲ ﻧ ﺎﺭﻙ‬،‫ ﻋﺎﺩ ﻛﻨﻴ ﻢ‬،‫ ﺳ ﻮﻯ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﺨ ﺮﻯ‬instead of ،‫ ﺳ ﻮﺍء‬،‫ﺍﻵﺧ ﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺍ ﻟﻨ ﺎﺭﻙ‬،ً ‫ ﺑﻘ ﻲﻧﻄﻔﺎءﺍ‬respectively.
‫ﻫ ﻮ ﺧﺼ ﻴﻤﻚ ﻳ ﺎ ﻣﺴ ﻜﻴﻦ ﺍﻥ ﻛﻨ ﺖ ﺗ ﺪﺍﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻣ ﻦ ﺳ ﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺳ ﻮﻝ ﻣ ﺎ ﺑﻘ ﻲ ﻟ ﻚ ﻗﺒ ﻮﻝ‬

72
‫ﻭﻣ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ﺍﻟﻴ ﺪ ﺣﻴﻠ ﻪ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﺩﻓ ﻊ ﻋ ﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﺍﺳ ﻔﻲ ﻭﷲ ﻋﻠﻴ ﻚ ﺑﻤ ﺎ ﻭﻗﻌ ﺖ ﻓﻴ ﻪ‬
73
‫ﻳﺸ ﻔﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴ ﻢ ﻭﺗﻜ ﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻨ ﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﻟ ﻮ ﻛﻨ ﺖ ﺗﻮﻓﻴ ﺖ ﻛﻨ ﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﻣ ﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤ ﺎﻉ‬
74
‫ﻭﺑﻌ ﺪ ﻛ ﻞ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻀ ﻼﻝ ﻣ ﺎ ﺑﻘﻴ ﺖ ﻣﺒ ﺎﺭﻙ‬ ‫ﺑﻌ ﺪ ﻫ ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺤ ﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻣ ﻞ ﻓﻴ ﻚ ﻣﺤ ﺎﻝﻭ‬
‫מן עזב דת משה‬

‫לית לו שם מושיע‬
‫יגוז לגו אשה‬
‫ולא הוה כל טוב עמה‬75
He Said it76 when Mubārak Ibrāhīm Mufarrağ Left the Religion

May God curse him77 forever until the Day of Judgement, O God Amen
What a pity, where was your mind O Mubārak? No doubt it was cooperat-
ing with the devil
I did not think you would do that O fool, but my mind was directing and
tempting your vain boasting
The devil’s deception dominated78 your thinking and you are not ac-
cepted79 anymore, even your vows80 were numerous
If only you had passed away from this world it would be better for you, O
overturned because of your shame!81
71 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﻟﺨﻤ ﺲ‬،‫ ﺣ ﺎﺑﻲ‬،‫ ﺍﻧ ﺖ‬،‫ ﻟ ﻮ‬instead of ‫ ﺧﻤ ﺲ‬،‫ ﺧ ﺎﺋﻦ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﻧ ﺖ‬،‫ ﻻ‬respec-
tively.
72 Berlin manuscript reads ‫ ﻫﻮﺍ‬in line 9 instead of ‫ ﻫﻮ‬and ‫ ﻭﺍﻟ ﻞ‬is missing and ‫ﺑﻤ ﻪ‬، ‫ ﻣ ﺎ‬،‫ﻳ ﻪ‬
instead of ‫ﺑﻤ ﺎ‬، ‫ ﻭﻣ ﺎ‬،‫ ﻓﻴ ﻪ‬respectively.
73 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﺍﻟﺮﺳ ﻮﻝ‬،‫ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤ ﻊ‬instead of ‫ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴ ﻢ‬،‫ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤ ﺎﻉ‬respectively.
74 Berlin manuscript reads: ‫ ﺑﻌ ﺪ‬،‫ ﻫ ﺪﻩ‬instead of ‫ ﻭﺑﻌ ﺪ‬،‫ ﻫ ﺬﺍ‬respectively.
75 These four lines are missing in the Nablus manuscript and appear in Samaritan
characters in the Berlin manuscript.
76 The pronoun is in the third person masculine singular though the feminine would be
expected because it refers to poem which is feminine in Arabic, spoken and written
alike. Yet it seems possible to explain this masculine pronoun as referring to words
which are masculine such as ši‘r, kalām meaning “poetry, speech.”
77 Literally, may God curse him a curse forever. In ordinary structure in written Arabic
one finds either ‫ ﻟﻌﻨ ﻪ ﷲ ﻟﻌﻨ ﺔ ﺃﺑﺪﻳ ﺔ‬or ‫ﻟﻌﻨ ﻪ ﷲ ﺇﻟ ﻰ ﺍﻷﺑ ﺪ‬.
78 The usage of the verb ‫( ﻁﻤﺲ‬to efface, erase, wipe out) with the preposition ‫ ﻋﻠ ﻰ‬is
meaningless. Therefore I translated “dominated,” taking into consideration that the
required verb in this connection is ‫ ﻁﻐ ﻰ‬.
79 Accepted by the Samaritan community. The reader has to bear in mind that this
statement is declared by the high-priest, the highest religious authority.
80 First of all the phoneme dāl which is used in cities instead of the phoneme dāl in
literary Arabic as well as in fellạhite dialects, for instance. Secondly, the standard
plural form of the singular nadr is nudūr. The form andār is not known in Arabic and
it was chosen because of the needed ryhme -ārik.
81 ‫ ﻣﻌﻴ ﺎﺭ‬in the sense of ‫( ﻋﺎﺭ‬shame, disgrace) is used also on page 98 line 8 in the Nablus
manuscript.
306 H. Shehadeh
We hoped that you will be worthy of righteousness, disappointment came

and all your lights grew gloomy
I wonder, did the greediness of this world befall upon you or was the star
of destiny of your birthday unblessed?
What happened so that you have lost the hereafter altogether 82and the fu-
ture83 of your fire (hell) will not extinguish
Paradise became forbidden to you, why should not be so since you are dis-
loyal to your Torah?84
You are no longer accepted85 (or to be forgiven) by our lord the messenger
(Moses), he is your antagonist,86 O miserable if you can realize87
My grief on you, by God, for what has occurred to you and nothing can be
done in order to drive away your disgrace
Had you died we could have hoped to meet, Moses88 would have inter-
ceded and paradise would be your abode
After this state you are hopeless89 and after all this delusion you are not Ba-
rukh (his Hebrew name which means ‘blessed’) anymore
He who left the religion of Moses
Has no salvation
He will step into fire
Even though everything he did was good.
To conclude, an attempt was made to deal with what was at our dis-
posal concerning the life and works of the high-priest ‘Imrān ben
Salāma ben Ghazāl al-̣Hiftāwī (1809-1875). The main idea of the poem
is that Samaritans who convert from their religion (in this case to Islam)
have no chance of going to paradise. In another short poem it is obvi-
ous that Samaritans will enter the ‘abode,’ viz ‘the paradise,’ either
through good deeds which please God or through repentance for the
slips sins they committed.90 This denomination of research, namely
82 Either in the meaning of the colloquial sawa or the written expression sawā’an bi-
sawā’.”
83 The literal translation is “tomorrow” and, in fact, the additional sense of “bukra” in
Palestinian Arabic was attached to the equivalent literary word.
84 Literally “your five books.”
85 Compare COWLEY, Samaritan Liturgy, Vol. II. 463 line 8, 765 line 8 below.
86 The ordinary form is ‫ﺧ َﺼ ْ ﻢ‬.
87 The third verbal form is used instead of the fourth because of rhyme.
88 Originally “speaker” and the meaning is obvious ‫ﻢ ﷲ‬ ‫ ﻛﻠﻴ‬which is an epithet of
Moses.
89 Literally “hope in you is absurd.”
90 See the Nablus manuscript page 98:
‫ﺍﻟ ﺪﺍﺭ ﻳ ﺎ ﻟﻴ ﺖ ﺷ ﻌﺮﻱ ﺑﻌ ﺪ ﺍﻟﺒ ﺎﺏ ﻣ ﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤ ﻮﺕ ﺑ ﺎﺏ ﻭﻛ ﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ ﺎﺱ ﺩﺍﺧﻠ ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺿ ﻲ ﺍﻻﻟ ﻪ ﻭﺍﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﻔ ﺖ ﻓﺎﻟﻨ ﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟ ﺪﺍﺭ ﺟﻨ ﻪ ﻋ ﺪﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﻠ ﺖ ﺑﻤ ﺎ‬
articles devoted to single scholars are important desiderata in Samari-

tan studies and their significance go beyond the “Who is Who” series.91
Bibliography
BEN HAYYIM, Ze’ev, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic
Amongst the Samaritans. Vol. I., Jerusalem 1957.
BEN SHAFĪQ BEN JACOB (BEN ‘UZZI), Jacob, Waßiyyatī wa-tārīkh ṣayātī, Nablus
1974.
BEN ‘UZZI, Ya‘qūb, Kitāb al-Sāmiriyyīn..., Nablus 1960 (handwritten).
BEN ‘UZZI, Ya‘qūb, Wạsiyyatī wa-tārīkh ̣hayātī, Nablus 1974 (handwritten).
BEN ZVI, Isaac, The Book of the Samaritans, Tel Aviv 1970.
BROWNE, William G., Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria, London 1806.
BUSCH, Moritz, Eine Wallfahrt nach Jerusalem, Leipzig 1861.
COWLEY, Arthur, The Samaritan Liturgy. Vol. I-II., Oxford 1909.
CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard / TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to
the Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993.
AL-DABBĀĠ, Mụṣtafa, Bilādunā Filistīn, Vols. 1-2., Beirut 1965.
ELAZAR, Ya’qūb, Nasi in Israel, “the First ones in Zion,” Jerusalem 1977 (He-
brew).
FINN, James, Stirring Times, London 1878 (repr. Jerusalem 1980).
FLORENTIN, Moshe, ‘Amrām Dāre, in: CROWN, Alan D. / PUMMER, Reinhard /
TAL, Abraham (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen 1993,
13. (Reprint in: A. B Samaritan News 659-662, [1.5.1996] 3.).
‫ﻓ ﺎﺧﺘﺮ ﻟﻨﻔﺴ ﻚ ﺍﻱ ﺍﻟ ﺪﺍﺭ ﺗﺨﺘ ﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﺤ ﻼﻥ ﻣ ﺎ ﻟﻠﻤ ﺮء ﻏﻴﺮﻫﻤ ﺎ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻥ ﻫﻔﻮﺍ ﻫﻔﻮﺓ ً ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﻏﻔﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣ ﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺒ ﺎﺩ ﺳ ﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻔ ﺮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﻠ ﻮ ﺍ‬
Death is a door and all people will enter it, I wish I knew what is the abode next to
the door.
The abode is the Garden of Eden if you worked to please God and if you disobeyed
then fire (hell).
They are the two places that a human being has, so chose for yourself one of them!
Human beings have nothing but paradise if they acted [well] and if they made a slip
God is much-forgiving.
Similar opinion with regard to repentance is expressed by ‘Imrān in the handwritten
book “Kitāb sabīl al-lahfān li-ma‘rifat al-’īmān by El‘azar ben Ṣadaqa ben ’Amram,
Nablus 1979, p. 2. I thank the priest El‘azar and Yefet ben Ratson Tsedaka for the
copy of this work.
91 A. B. The Samaritan News 779-782, 15.2.2001, 155-144.
308 H. Shehadeh
GASTER, Moses, Massoretisches in Samaritanischen, in: BEZOLD Carl (ed.),

Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag ge-
widmet, Giessen 1906, 514, 519.
GASTER, Theodor H., Samaritan Manuscripts, in: Journal of Jewish Bibliography
2 (1940) 127-135.
HARVIAINEN, Tapani / SHEHADEH, Haseeb, How Did Abraham Firkovich Ac-
quire the Great Collection of Samaritan Manuscripts in Nablus in 1864?
Studia Orientalia 73 (1994) 167—192. (reprint in: A. B. The Samaritan News
633—636 [13.4.1995] 158-180 and Hebrew Summary, 6, 1-8.).
HASSAFAREY, Ratson Tsedaqa (ed.), Kitab Al-Tasabich (The Book of Commenda-
tions) the Best Wishes, Commendations and Supplications to God. Written
by Samaritan Writers between 10th-20th Centuries A.D. Be Copied in Old
Hebrew and from Arabic, Transliterated into Old Hebrew Letters, Holon,
Israel 1970.
KAHLE, Paul, Die Samaritaner im Jahre 1909 (A.H. 1327), in: Palästinajahrbuch
26 (1930) 89-103.
MILLS, John, Three Months Residence at Nablus and an Account of Modern
Samaritans, London 1868.
AL-NIMR, Ịhsān, History of Mount Nablus and the Balqā’, 4 Vols. Nablus 1975
(in Arabic).
PETERMANN, Julius Heinrich, Reisen im Orient, Leipzig 1860.
PETERMANN, Heinrich, Versuch einer hebräischen Formenlehre nach der
Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner nebst einer darnach gebildeten Tran-
scription der Genesis (AKM 5.1), Leipzig 1868.
PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Manuscripts in Toronto, in: Revue de
l’Université d’Ottawa, 46 (1976) 345-363.
PUMMER, Reinhard, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce, Vol.
I., Wiesbaden 1993.
ROBERTSON, Edward, Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the John Ry-
lands Library Manchester, Vol. I-II., Manchester 1938/1962.
ROGERS, Edward Thomas, Notices of the Modern Samaritans, Illustrated by the
Incidents in the Life of Jacob esh-Shelaby, London 1855. (repr. in: A. B. Sa-
maritan News 258-259, 28.4.1980, 34-41.)
ROGERS, Mary Eliza, Domestic Life in Palestine, London 1863.
̣SADAQA, El’azar, Kitāb sabīl al-lahfān li-ma‘rifat al-īmān, Nablus 1979 (hand-
written).
SCHUR, Nathan, History of the Samaritans, Frankfurt am Main / Bern / New
York / Paris 1989.
SHAVIT, Yaacov / GOLDSTEIN, Yaacov / BE’ER, Haim (eds.), Personalities in Eretz-
Israel 1799-1948. A Biographical Dictionary, Tel Aviv 1983 (Hebrew).
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan Arabic Liturgy, in: MORABITO, Vittorio /

CROWN, Alan D. / DAVEY, Lucy (eds.), Samaritan Researches Volume V.
Proceedings of the Congress of the SES (Milan July 8-12 1996) and of the
Special Section of the ICANAS Congress (Budapest July 7-11 1997), Sydney
2000, 247-284.
SHEHADEH, Haseeb, The Samaritan High Priest Salāma b. Ghazāl b. Iṣhāq b.
Ibrāhīm b. ̣Sadaqa and the Arab Tailors of Nablus in the Nineteenth Centu-
ry, in: A. B. The Samaritan News 785-788 (6.4. 2001) 185-175. = A Case of
Palestinian Arab Justice between Minority and Majority. The Samaritan
High Priest Salāma b. ̣Sadaqa and the Arab Tailors of Nablus in the Nine-
teenth Century, in: Studia Orientalia 101 (2007) 359-372; = in: Marhaba
(Yearbook of the Finnish-Arabic Society, Helsinki 2008), 48-63; = in: MOR,
Menachem / REITERER, Friedrich V. (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present.
Current Studies, Berlin 2010, 205-219.
SMITH, Agnes, The Travels of Three Ladies (Eastren Pilgrims), London 1870.
TSEDAKA, Benyamim, Summary of the History of the Israelite-Samaritans,
Holon 2001.
VILSKER, Leib H., Samaritänskie dokumenty gosdarstvenoj publixnoj biblioteki
imeni M. E. Saltykova-Wedrina. Katalog, Sankt-Peterburg 1992.
WARREN, Charles, Underground Jerusalem: An Account of some of the Princi-
pal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained
with a Narrative of an Expedition through the Jordan Valley and a Visit to
the Samaritans, London 1876.
Index of Authors
Ackroyd, P.R...................... 138 Bertrand, J.-M. ............... 75, 83

Adang, C. ........................... 267 Beuken, W.A.M. .................. 40
Ahlström, G.W. ........... 49, 175 Bickermann, E... 117, 144, 147,
Albeck, Ch. ........................ 195 ............................................ 155
Albertz, R. ............... 41, 89, 178 Blenkinsopp, J. ... 40f, 53-55, 57
Al-Dabbāġ, M. ................... 297 Blok, P.J. ............................. 240
Al-Nimr, I. ......................... 297 Boĭko, K.A. ......................... 287
Alt, A........................ 23, 28, 76, Bonnet, C............................ 145
Anderson, R.T.............146, 264 Bowman, J. ................... 84, 257
Apicella, C. ........................ 144 Böhler, D. ..................... 40, 129
Appelbaum, S. ............... 75, 77 Böwering, G. ...................... 280
Arata Mantovani, P. .......... 102 Broshi, M............................ 192
Augé, C. ............................... 78 Browne, W.G. .................... 297
Avigad, N. ..................... 72, 78 Bruneau, P............................ 61
Avioz, M. ........................... 110 Buber, S. ............................. 196
Avi-Yonah, M. ..................... 75 Busch, M. ........................... 297
Bagnall, R.S. ......................... 75 Campbell, E.F. ............... 72, 78

Baltzer, K. ................. 48, 53, 56 Caquot, A. .................. 154, 249
Banitt, M. ........................... 164 Carr, D.M. ............................ 29
Barag, D. ............................ 151 Carter C.E. ......................... 178
Barkay R............................. 227 Cavaignac, E. ....................... 79
Barstad, H.M................ 56, 178 Childs, B.S. ...................... 53-57
Be’er, H. ............................. 294 Christensen, D.L. .............. 164f
Bedford, P.R......................... 97 Clements, R.E....................... 57
Beentjes, P.C. ....................... 59 Clifford, R.J. ................... 55, 59
Begg, C.T. .................... 112-114 Coggins, R.J............. 48, 71, 162
Begrich, J. ............................. 40 Cohen, S.J.D. ........................ 62
Ben Shafīq, J. .....293f, 297, 300f Collins, N.L. ....................... 143
Ben-Hayyim, Z. 193, 195, 197f, Cotton, H.M. .................. 76, 83
..................... 214, 217, 257, 293 Cowley, A.E. . 99, 135, 192-199,
Ben-Zvi, E. ........................... 61 .. 203f, 264, 294f, 299f, 302, 306
Ben-Zvi, I. ........... 225, 243, 296 Crane, O.T. ......................... 298
Berlin, A.M........................... 73 Cross, F.M. .. 99, 102f, 105, 136,
Bernstein, M................ 100-102 ............................................ 138
312 Index of Authors
Crowfoot, G.M..................... 84 Eskenazi, T.C. .................... 137

Crowfoot, J.W. ..................... 84
Crown, A.D. 71, 103, 194, 237f, Fabry, H.-J. ........................... 29
................... 247, 250, 254, 263f Faü, J.-F. ............................. 247
Cuq, É................................... 80 Feldman, L.H. ............ 109, 116
Finkelstein, I. .............. 74, 178f
Dahood, M. ........................ 250 Finkelstein, L. .................... 190
Dan Y. ................................ 226 Finkielsztejn, G. ................. 151
Danby, H............................ 248 Finn, J. ................. 295, 297, 301
Danell, G.A. .............. 47-49, 52 Fischer, T. ....................... 75, 83
Dar, S................................... 77f Florentin, M. ..... 194, 199, 205f,
Davesne, A........................... 74 ..................... 208, 211, 226, 293
Davies, P. ........................... 175 Fohrer, G. ............................. 50
De Callataÿ, F. ..................... 80 Forrer, E. .............................. 15
De Goeje, M.J. .............237, 287 Foster, B.R. ........................... 16
De Pury, A. ........................ 174 Fuks, G. ................................ 79
De Robert, P. ...................... 154
De Sacy, S........................... 291 Gane, R. .............................. 126
De Vaux, R. ..138, 147, 160, 162 Garbini, G. ......................... 130
Deist, F.E. .......................... 175f Gaster, M...... 46, 162, 238, 245,
Dever, W.G. ....................... 175 ..................... 251, 254-256, 258,
Dexinger, F. 35, 196f, 245, 247, ............................. 294, 299, 301
.................................. 251f, 258 Gaster, T.H. ........................ 299
Di Segni, L. ........................ 227 Gera, D. ................................ 79
Doran, R. ............................ 143 Gesenius, W. ...... 246, 248, 253f
Douglas, M. ....................... 142 Giles, T. .............................. 264
Dozy, R. ............................. 254 Glasius, B. .......................... 239
Driver, S.R.......................... 147 Goldingay, J. .................. 55, 60
Duhm, B. ........................ 40, 59 Goldstein, J.A..................... 117
Durand, X. .......................... 73f Goldstein, Y. ...................... 294
Dusek, J. ..... 83, 89, 98, 115, 134 Goodblatt, D.M. ................... 46
Grabbe, L.L. ................. 84, 103
Edelman, D. ................... 79, 97 Gropp, D.M................. 100-102
Egger, R.......................109, 158 Guillaume, P. ....................... 19
Eissfeldt, O......................... 175
Elazar, Y. ............................ 296 Halkin, A................... 261f, 280
Elkasy-Friemuth, M........... 269 Halpern, B. ........................... 25
Emerton, J.A. ..................... 189 Hamitovsky, Y. .................. 226
Epstein, J.N. ...................... 190 Hanhart, R. ........................ 110
Eshel, E............................... 191 Haran, M. .......................... 161
Eshel, H. ............ 71, 90, 99-103, Hartley, J.E. ........................ 126
.....................................105, 136 Harviainen, T. ............ 293, 295
Index of Authors 313
Hayes, J.H. ......................... 175 Landau, Y.H................... 75, 83

Hayward, C.R. ................... 156 Langlamet, F. ..................... 152
Hermisson, H.-J. .................. 40 Lapp, N.L. ............................ 79
Higger, M........................... 247 Larché, F............................... 79
Hjelm, I. .... 12, 18, 45f, 89, 159, Le Rider, G. .......................... 80
................................. 174f, 178f Lefèbvre, P. ........................ 155
Hoffner, H.A. ....................... 14 Lehmann, C.M. ................. 227f
Høgenhaven, J. .................... 47 Lemaire, A. .................. 89, 156
Holladay, J.S. ................. 52, 61 Lemche, N.P....................... 175
Holum, K.G. ............. 225, 227f Lenger, M.-T. ....................... 84
Horovitz, H.S. .................... 190 Levenson, J.D. ...................... 45
Houghton, A. ....................... 81 Levine, L.I. ........................ 225f
Hourani, G.F. ..................... 269 Levinson, B.M. ................... 142
Hurowitz, V.A. .................. 152 Liebesny, H. ......................... 75
Hurwitz, A. ........................ 188 Lieth, M.J.W. .............. 102, 104
Linville, J.R. ......................... 45
Ibn Al-Fakikh, A-H. .......... 287 Lipschits, O. ................. 89, 178
Irving, W. ........................... 293 Liverani, M. ................ 176-178
Isser, S. ...................... 251f, 257 Lockwood, W..................... 280
Long V.P. .......................... 175f
Jacobs, L. ................... 247, 250f Longman T.I. ..................... 175
Janzen, J.G............................ 61 Lorber, C. ............................. 81
Japhet, S. ......... 24, 42, 128, 140 Lowy, S. ............. 246f, 254, 256
Jastrow, M.......................... 248 Luciani, D................... 126, 142
Lundquist, J.M. .................. 155
Kahle, P. ............................. 300 Lust, J. .................................. 46
Kalimi, I. ............................ 154
Kasher, A. ............................ 71 Macchi, J.-D..........51, 156f, 174
Kearns, C............................ 148 Macdonald, J. ............. 162, 257
Kenyon, K.M........................ 84 Macuch, R. ......................... 271
Kippenberg, H.G. ............. 115f Magen, Y. ... 72, 80f, 83f, 89-98,
Kitchen, K.A. ..................... 175 .................... 100, 104, 122, 179f
Klein, R.W. ........................... 42 Magness, J. ........................... 84
Klein, S. .............................. 227 Marcus, R. ................... 112-117
Knoppers, G.N.... 42-44, 51, 89, Margoliouth, G. ................. 237
.............................. 142, 178-181 Mason, S. ............................ 109
Kohn, S. .............................. 195 Mazar, B. .............................. 79
Koole, J.L........ 40, 48, 54-57, 59 McCarter, P.K. ................... 156
Kossmann, F. .................... 239f McCown, C.C. ................... 189
Kratz, R.G. .... 34f, 47-50, 59, 99 McKenzie, S.L. ........... 152, 174
Meir, R........................ 191, 252
Laato, A.......................... 52, 54 Melamed, E.Z..................... 190
Meshel, Z. .......................... 156 Penner, K............................ 189

Meshorer, Y. ...............100, 103 Petermann, J.H.... 294, 300, 302
Meyer, E. .............................. 91 Pfoh, E. ...................... 9f, 12, 21
Meyers, C.L.......................... 97 Poirier, J.C. ......................... 189
Meyers, É.M. ........................ 97 Porten, B............................... 52
Mez, A. ............................... 158 Provan, I.W. ....................... 175
Migne, J.-P. ............. 73, 77, 249 Pummer, R. .......... 28, 123, 146,
Milgrom, J. ......................... 126 .............. 225-227, 237, 245-248,
Miller, J.M. ......................... 175 ........... 257, 263f, 293, 295f, 300
Mills, J. .........295, 297, 299, 301
Misgav, H. ... 72, 81, 83f, 90-92, Qedar, S...................... 100, 103
.................................... 97, 179f Qimron, E........................... 192
Molhuisen, P.C. ................ 239f
Montgomery, J.M. ....... 46, 250 Raban, A............................. 227
Moore, M.B. ................ 174-176 Rabin, I.A. .......................... 190
Mor, M. ........... 71, 93, 99, 102f, Rabinowitz, I...................... 189
................................... 125, 226f Rappaport, U. ...................... 71
Morag, S. ............................ 189 Reich, R. ............................. 228
Morinus, I. .................. 248-251 Reinmuth, T. ........................ 41
Mowinckel, S. .................... 250 Renehan, R. ....................... 257f
Myers, J.M............................ 97 Renz, J. ................................. 30
Richter, S.L. .......................... 24
Na’aman, N. ................. 29, 97, Robertson, E.237, 264, 271, 293,
Nagel, T.............................. 266 ................................... 295, 301
Naveh, J.............................. 179 Rofé, A. .....................26, 28, 30
Nemoy, L. .......................... 280 Rogers, E.T. ....................... 296f
Neubauer, A. ..................... 237 Rogers, M.E........................ 297
Newell, E.T. ......................... 80 Rom-Shiloni, D. ................... 46
Nihan, C.L................... 28f, 142 Rosenberg, S.G..................... 79
Nisula, T............................. 147 Rost, L. ...................... 47-49, 59
Nodet, É. ... 109, 125, 128f, 143, Rothschild, J.-P. .......... 237-241
........................... 158f, 162, 181 Römer, T..................... 152, 174
Noth, M. ............................. 174 Rubin, M. ........................... 190
Oeming, M. ........................ 178 Sadaqa, E............. 295, 300, 307

Ofer, A. .............................. 178 Safrai, Z. ............................... 77
Olyan, S.M. .......................... 41 Saley, R.J. ........................... 103
Otto, E. ................................ 28f Sartre, M......................... 73, 75
Sasoon, D.S. ....................... 237
Paret, R............................... 280 Scatolini Apóstolo, S.S......... 61
Pastor, J. .............................. 75f Schaper, J. ............................ 31
Payne, D. ........................ 55, 60 Schaudig, H. ........................ 57
Index of Authors 315
Schearing, L.S. ................... 174 Thompson, T.L.... 9f, 12-14, 21,

Schenker, A. ... 28, 32, 129, 131, ............................... 49, 175, 178
.................................... 147, 153 Tiele, P.A. ........................... 239
Schmid, K............ 40, 47, 49, 57 Torrey, C.C. ....................... 130
Schmidtke, S. ..................... 267 Tov, E. ............... 28, 32, 61, 246
Schniedewind, W.M. .......... 30f Trotter, J.M........................... 97
Schoors, A. ........................... 53 Tsedaka, B. ................... 99, 293
Schorch, S..................... 35, 188 Tsedaka, I. .......................... 217
Schunck, M. ......................... 19 Tsedaqa, R.......................... 295
Schur, N. ............................ 297 Tsfania, L. .... 72, 81, 83f, 90-92,
Schürer, E. .......................... 133 .................................... 97, 179f
Schwartz, D.R. ...... 79, 103, 134 Tuell, S.S............................... 45
Shavit, Y, ............................ 294
Shearing, L.S. ..................... 174 Van Den Hout, P. J. ............14f
Shehadeh, H. .... 195, 217, 263f, Van Der Horst, P.W. .... 71, 146
......................271, 293, 295, 298 Van Hoonacker, A. ............ 138
Shinan, A. .......................... 190 Van Seters, J. ..................... 175f
Ska, J.-L. ............................. 154 Vanderkam, J.C. ........ 103, 135
Sklare, D.E. .................262, 267 Veiola, T. ............................ 152
Smith, A. ...................... 40, 301 Velázquez , E.I. .................. 143
Smith, J. ................................ 46 Vermes, G. ......................... 133
Smith, M............................. 178 Vilsker, L.H. ....................... 300
Smith, P.A. ..................... 40, 46 Vollers, K. .......................... 237
Soggin, J.A. .................161, 175 Von Rad, G.................... 23, 25f
Sommer, B.D. .......... 40, 50, 52f
Sonnet, J.-P. .......................... 31 Walther, I.F. ....................... 238
Spilsbury, P................. 112-114 Warren, C. ............297, 301-303
Steck, O.H. ........................... 40 Wedel, G. ..... 261-264, 267, 278
Stenhouse, P...............251, 271, Weinberg, J. ......................... 97
................................... 289, 290f Weinfeld, M. ........................ 23
Stern, E. .............................. 138 Weis, R. .............................. 263
Stern, M.......................103, 130 Welch, A.C. .......................... 23
Stone, M.E. ......................... 191 Wenham, G.J. ..................... 164
Sussman, V. ....................... 227 Westermann, C. ................... 53
Sweeney, M.A...................... 50 White, L.M. .......................... 61
Syncellus, G. ...................... 188 White, R.J. .......................... 258
Whitelam, K. ...................... 173
Tal, A......... 194f, 199, 217, 263f Widengren, G. ........... 103, 138
Taylor, J.E. ..................... 76, 83 Wieder, N........................... 189
Thackeray, H.S.J. ............... 158 Will, E..................................78f
Theodor, J. ......................... 195 Willi, T.................................. 42
Williamson, H.G.M. 39-42, 44, Zertal, A. .............................. 74

....................... 47, 49f, 103, 125 Zhamkochian A.S. ............. 287
Witkam, J.J. ........................ 238 Zimmerli, W................... 46, 61
Wolf, N............................... 238 Zobel, H.–J. .................... 49, 54
Wong, C.K. ........................ 188 Zotenberg, H...................... 237
Wörrle, M............................. 76 Zsengellér, J. ................ 51, 161
Wright, J.L..............41, 97, 138f
Yalon, H. ............................ 189

Yassif, E.............................. 188
Yenisoganci, V. .................... 74
Younger, K.L. Jr. ................ 160
Zadok, R............................... 61
Zayadine, F. ........................ 79f
Index of Citations
Old Testament
Genesis 8:21 .................. 13, 16 33:19-20 ............... 146

1:1 ........................ 221 9:2 .......................... 13 34:1-30 ................... 21
1:4 ........................ 127 9:3-4 ................. 10, 13 35:2-4 ................... 161
1:4 . 10.12.18.21.25.311 9:5 ............... 253, 255f 35:6 ...................... 159
1:14 ...................... 276 9:5-6 ....................... 13 34:15-24 ............... 162
1:27b .................... 271 9:9-11 ..................... 13 35:16-18 ................. 47
2:15 ........................ 11 9:12-17 ............. 13, 16 35:22 .................... 163
2:16 ...................... 220 9:15-17 ................... 16 37:5 ...................... 206
2:16-17 ............. 10, 13 10:15.19 ............... 117 37:18 .................... 220
2:22 ...................... 271 10:30 .................... 222 37:26 .................... 163
2:23 ...................... 195 11:1 ............... 164, 190 37:31.33 ............... 163
3:4b ........................ 10 11:4 ...................... 220 38:18 .................... 163
3:6 .......................... 10 12:6 ............... 146, 163 40:15 .................... 187
3:6.22 ....................... 9 12:12 ................... 219f 41:45 .................... 149
3:8 ........................ 278 12:17 .................... 219 41:51-52 ................. 47
3:10 ........................ 11 12:20 .................... 221 45:18 .................... 221
3:11 ........................ 11 14:18 .................... 146 48:3 ...................... 159
3:15 ........................ 10 15:1.2 ................... 219 48:22 ............. 160, 163
3:17-19 ................... 11 15:12 .................... 209 49:1-27 ................. 163
3:19 ....... 206, 209, 256 15:15 ............. 206, 209 50:20 .................... 163
3:20 .................. 9, 220 18:2 ...................... 221
3:23 .......................... 9 18:27 .................... 219 Exodus
3:23-24 ................... 12 19:8 ...................... 197 1:11 ...................... 149
3:24 ...................... 255 20:16 .................... 220 1:20 ..................... 255f
4:1 ........................ 221 21:6 .......................... 9 2:6-7 ..................... 187
4:1b .......................... 9 21:10 .................... 220 2:14 ...................... 190
4:5 .......................... 21 23:6 ...................... 219 3:3-6 ..................... 199
4:5-7 ....................... 10 24:63 .................... 209 3:5 ........................ 221
4:7 ........................ 221 25:7 ..................... 255f 3:8 ........................ 221
4:8 ......................... 10f 25:13 .................... 221 3:14 ........................ 10
4:9 .......................... 11 25:17 .................... 255 4:24.25 ................. 220
4:12 ........................ 11 28:13 .................... 278 6:6 .......................... 63
4:12-15 ................... 12 28:13-15 ................. 54 15:11 ................... 192f
4:13-14 ................... 14 28:17 ............. 206, 210 15:13 ...................... 53
4:23-24 ............. 13, 20 28:19 .................... 159 15:17 .................... 124
6:5 .......................... 13 28:20 .................... 206 17:9-14 ................. 160
6:5-7 ....................... 18 30:22-24 ................. 47 20:21 .................... 199
6:19 ...................... 220 32:10-28 ................. 54 20:24 ................ 25, 28
7:1 ........................ 220 33:18-20 ............... 160 20:24-26 ................. 28
318 Index of Citations
20:25 .................... 123 25:8 ...................... 222 27:9 ...................... 147

21:12-14 ................. 13 27:17 ...................... 11 27:12-13 ................. 28
23:15 .................... 219 27:18-21 ............... 160 28:54 .................... 222
23:16 .................... 126 29:7-11 ................. 126 28:56 .................... 222
25:8 ...................... 124 35:10-34 ................. 14 30:1-4 ..................... 32
25:9 ...................... 151 30:6 ...................... 198
29:14 .................... 221 Deuteronomy 30:15 ............. 246, 255
30:10 .................... 123 1:34-36 ................... 17 30:24 .................... 147
32:1 ...................... 200 1:38 ...................... 160 32:3.4 ................... 212
32:1-24 ................... 18 4:12 ...................... 279 32:4 ...................... 213
32:7-14 ................... 18 4:34 ...................... 162 32:21 .................... 148
32:32-35 ................. 18 4:39 ...................... 279 32:29-35 ............... 255
32:34 ................... 255f 6:24 ...................... 255 32:35 ........... 196, 245f
33:19-20 ........... 10, 21 7:1 ........................ 128 32:35.36.39........... 253
34:6 . 207, 211, 213,255 9:8-21 ..................... 18 32:39 ................ 9, 214
11:21 .................... 193 32:40 .................... 214
Leviticus 11:26-30 ................. 29 33:1-5 ................... 164
4:1-21 ..................... 13 11:29 ....... 28, 146, 222 33:2 ............... 190, 199
8:15 ........................ 13 11:30 .................... 163 38:11 .................... 250
16:1-3 ................... 121 11:31-12:1 .............. 26 38:28 .................... 196
16:2-28 ................. 126 11:31-12:18 ............ 26
17:10-11 ................. 13 12:4-7 .................... 26f Joshua
17:15 .................... 220 12:5 ........... 23, 28, 147 1:1-5 ..................... 160
18:5 ...................... 255 12:10 ...................... 25 5:13-15 ................. 160
19:17-18 ................. 18 12:11 ............... 24, 219 8:30-35 .... 29, 146, 160
19:18 .................... 222 12:13-14 ............... 147 9:2 ........................ 160
19:34 .................... 222 12:13-18 ................. 26 17:14-15 ............... 160
20:24 .................... 127 14:23 ............... 24, 219 17:16-18 ............... 160
23:26-32 ............... 126 15:19 .................... 221 18:1 ...................... 161
20:30 .................... 255 16:2.6.11 ................ 24 23:1-16 ................. 161
23:39-43 .............. 126f 18:3 ...................... 222 24:1-28 ................ 161f
24:10-22 ............... 142 19:1-13 ................... 13 24:25 .................... 160
26:13 .................... 198 19:13 ...................... 14 24:26 .................... 124
19:21 ...................... 14 24:29-31 ............... 160
Numbers 23:4-6 ................... 127
1:17 ...................... 192 23:4-7 ..................... 42 Judges
11:28 .................... 160 23:18 .................... 221 2:6-9 ..................... 161
13:25-14:4 .............. 19 24:1 ...................... 198 2:9 ........................ 160
14:6 ...................... 160 24:16 ........... 16, 18, 20 8:14-17 ................... 20
14:10-12 ................. 19 26:1-3 ..................... 25 9:1-57 ..................... 21
14:18 ...................... 19 26:2 ........................ 24 9:37 ...................... 163
14:20-38 ................. 19 27:2-4 ................... 199
14:35 .................... 255 27:2-7 .................... 26f 1Samuel
20:23-24 ............... 210 27:2-26 ................. 160 3:18 ........................ 10
20:25-26 ............... 211 27:4 .................. 33, 35
20:29 ............. 207, 211 27:4-5 ..................... 28 2Samuel
22:6 ...................... 222 27:4-8 ............... 26, 29 5:12 ..................... 153f
23:7 ...................... 222 27:4-10 ................... 29 6:17 ...................... 152
23:10 .................... 255 27:8 ........................ 30 7:1-3 ..................... 154
Index of Citations 319
7:14-16 ................. 152 18:11 ...................... 44 34:3-7 ..................... 43

21:1-14 ................... 21 18:9-12 ................. 156 35:1-19 ................... 43
24:11-14 ................. 16 18:26.28 ............... 187 35:16 .................... 152
24:20-25 ............... 152 18:34 .................... 157 35:20-25 ............... 140
19:13 .................... 157 36:1 ........................ 42
1Kings 19:15.20 ................. 45 36:21 .................... 166
1:13 ...................... 152 19:37 .................... 125
1:34 ...................... 153 20:5 ........................ 45 Job
2:22 ...................... 152 23:27 ................ 24, 33 29:17 ................. 10,12
3:4-15 ................... 152 23:29-30 ............... 140
5:1.14 ................... 152 25:18-21 ............... 114 Psalms
5:15 ...................... 153 25:22-26 ................. 52 48:3 ........................ 32
6:1 ........................ 154 72:4 ........................ 10
6:37-38 ................. 154 1 Chronicles 72:16 .................... 256
6:46-53 ................... 20 1:13 ...................... 117 74:2 ........................ 53
7:13 ...................... 154 2:1-2 ....................... 42 77:16 ...................... 53
8:2 ........................ 154 2:3–4:23 ................. 42 78:35 ...................... 53
8:4 ........................ 126 3:19 ...................... 130 78:60-68 ................. 33
8:16 ... 24, 31, 147, 152 5:23-26 ................... 43 106:10 .................... 53
8:27 ...................... 155 5:25 ........................ 42 107:2 ...................... 53
8:38 LXX ............. 131 5:30-41 .......... 128, 155 130:3-4 ................... 17
8:65-66LXX ......... 126 6:18 ...................... 155
9:10-14 ................. 154 9:3 .......................... 43 Isaiah
9:26 ...................... 154 16:8, 24, 26............. 42 1:1-3 ....................... 50
10:22 .................... 154 16:41 .................... 192 2:1 .......................... 50
11:1-13 ................. 132 17:1-15 ................. 151 2:2-4 ....................... 55
12:26-33 22:4 ...................... 154 5:1-7 ....................... 50
18:30 .................... 147 22:5 ...................... 151 6:9-10 ..................... 50
28:11-19 ............... 151 11:10-12 ................. 59
2 Kings 11:10-16 ................. 52
6:8-23 ..................... 20 2Chronicles 19:18 .................... 187
6:18-23 ................... 17 1:3 ........................ 124 19:18.21 ............... 149
6:21-23 ................... 15 2:13 ...................... 154 23:2.4.12 .............. 117
10:1-29 ................... 21 3:1 .......................... 35 36:11.13 ............... 187
12:19-21 ................. 20 6:33 ........................ 42 39:7 ........................ 48
12:20-22 ................. 18 7:8-10 ................... 126 40:9 ........................ 52
14:1-6 ..................... 20 7:20 ........................ 42 40:28 ...................... 56
14:5-7 ..................... 18 8:2 ........................ 154 40:28-31 ................. 59
17:1-41 ................ 156f 8:13 ...................... 152 41:5.9 ..................... 56
17:6 ................. 44, 114 13:4-12 ................... 44 41:8 ........................ 56
17:24 ............. 113, 125 13:9 ........................ 42 41:11 ...................... 55
17:24-41 ........ 121, 159 23:20.21 ................. 42 41:14 ...................... 53
17:28 .................... 162 26:21 ...................... 42 42:1-4 ..................... 59
17:29 ............. 113, 124 28:6-15 ................... 17 42:5-12 ................... 55
17:30 .................... 113 30:1-9 ..................... 43 42:14-43:21 ............ 53
17:33 .................... 119 30:1-17 ................... 43 42:18-25 ................. 53
17:33.34 ............... 110 30:16 .................... 152 43:1.14 ................... 53
17:34-40 ............... 158 32:13.19 ................. 42 43:1-7 .................... 52f
18:5 ........................ 45 33:25 ...................... 42 43:5 ........................ 56
43:14 ...................... 53 31:20 ...................... 47 4:8 ........................ 131

44:3 .................. 54, 56 31:30 ...................... 17 6:12-13 ................. 131
44:5 ........................ 49 37:1-43:13 .............. 52 9:2 ........................ 117
44:6.22.24............... 53 41:4-5 ................... 125 14:21 .................... 131
44:18 ...................... 56 43:1 ........................ 54
44:24–45:25 ............ 55 47:4 ...................... 117 Amos
44:26 ...................... 52 50:34 ...................... 53 7:11 ........................ 61
45:1-7 ................... 131
45:22-25 ................. 55 Lamentations Micah
46:1-3 ..................... 57 5:7 .......................... 17 4:10 ........................ 53
46:1-13 ................... 56
46:1–47:15.............. 57 Ezekiel Zephaniah
46:3-4 ..................... 56 3:6-11 ................... 125 3:9 ........................ 191
46:9-11 ................... 57 5:4 .......................... 46 3:10 ........................ 54
47:4 ........................ 53 11:15 ...................... 46
48:1 ....................... 48f 12:10 ...................... 46 Obadiah
48:17.20 ................. 53 20:40 ...................... 46 20 ........................... 54
48:19 ................ 48, 54 18:20-32 ................. 17
48:19-20 ................. 39 27:8 ...................... 117 Ezra
49:1-6 ..................... 58 28:21f ................... 117 1:1-3 ..................... 124
49:1-13 ................... 59 28:24-26 ................. 45 1:1-4 ....................... 97
49:6 .................. 59, 61 29:21 ...................... 45 1:3 ........................ 125
49:7.26 ................... 53 34:23-31 ................. 46 1:7-8 ..................... 130
49:8–55:13.............. 59 36:1-15 ................... 46 1:11 ........................ 40
49:12 ...................... 54 37:1-14 ................... 46 2:1 ......................... 40f
49:26 ...................... 39 37:15-28 ................. 46 2:2.70 ..................... 41
51:4-5 ..................... 59 39:25-29 ................ 45f 3:1 ........................ 130
54:3 .................. 54, 56 45:6 ........................ 46 3:1-6 ..... 121, 123, 141
54:5.8 ..................... 53 45:8.16 ................... 46 3:1.11.13 ................ 41
55:7 ........................ 17 45:18-20 ............... 126 3:2 ........................ 130
56:8 ........................ 54 47:13-23 ................. 46 3:3 .......................... 41
59:20 ...................... 48 48:1-35 ................... 46 3:7-13 ................... 124
60:1-7 ..................... 55 3:8 .......................... 41
60:4 ........................ 54 Daniel 3:10-13 ................. 140
60:16 ...................... 39 2:4 ........................ 188 4:1 .................... 40, 42
61:9 ........................ 54 4:1-3 ..................... 124
65:23 ...................... 54 Hosea 4:1.4 ....................... 96
8:13 ........................ 61 4:3 .......................... 96
Jeremiah 9:3 .......................... 61 4:4 .......................... 41
7:14.16 ................... 33 11:5 ........................ 61 4:6 ........................ 129
8:8 .......................... 31 12:2 ........................ 61 4:7 ........................ 188
24:1-13 ................. 125 13:14 ...................... 53 4:17-22 ................. 130
24:6 ........................ 54 4:17-23 ................. 137
25:22 .................... 117 Joel 5:1-2 .................... 129f
30:18 ...................... 47 4:4 ........................ 117 5:2 ........................ 130
31:7-9 ..................... 53 6:3-5 ................ 97, 124
31:9 ........................ 47 Zechariah 6:6-12 ..................... 97
31:11 ...................... 53 2:12 ...................... 131 6:14 ...................... 130
31:15-17 ................. 47 3:5-7 ..................... 131 6:16 ....................... 40f
6:17 ...................... 125 5:1.17 ..................... 41 13:24 .................... 187

6:17.21 ................... 41 5:1-13 ................... 127 13:26 ............... 41, 132
6:18 ...................... 152 5:1.13.15.18.19 ....... 41 13:28 ........ 95, 98, 114,
6:19-20 ................... 40 5:8.9.17 .................. 41 ...................... 127, 135
7:1-5 ..................... 155 5:9 .......................... 42
7:7.10.13 ................ 41 5:14 ...................... 137 Haggai
7:8 ........................ 138 6:1-19 .......... 42, 78, 98 2:2-9 ..................... 130
8:15.36 ................... 41 6:6.16 ..................... 41
8:35 ....................... 40f 6:14-18 ................. 127 1 Maccabees
9:1-2 ..................... 134 6:15 ...................... 140 3:10 ........................ 78
9:1.2.11.14.............. 41 6:16-19 ................. 140 3:13 ........................ 78
9:2 ........................ 125 7:1-2 ..................... 139 3:32 ........................ 76
9:4 .......................... 41 7:1-5 ..................... 128 3:41 ........................ 78
9:5 .......................... 41 7:1-72 ..................... 41 4:4 .......................... 76
9:6 ........................ 139 7:4 .......................... 41 4:44-52 ................. 124
9:7 .......................... 41 7:4.5.7.72................ 41 7:1-9 ..................... 148
10:1.9.11 ................ 41 7:6 ......................... 40f 7:31 ........................ 82
10:2 ........................ 41 7:7.73 ..................... 41 7:39 ........................ 78
10:6 ................. 41, 135 8:1-16 ..................... 41 7:49 ...................... 143
10:7.16 ................... 40 8:1-17 ................... 129 9:54-57 ................. 148
10:25 ...................... 41 8:1-18 ................... 126 10:6.25-45 ............ 148
18:8.12-16 .............. 41 8:13-9:1 ................ 122 10:30 ...................... 76
8:17 ........................ 41 10:33.37 ................. 76
Nehemiah 9:1 ........................ 126 10:38 ...................... 76
1:2.3 ....................... 41 9:10 ........................ 41 10:43 ...................... 84
1:8-9 ....................... 32 9:24.30 ................... 41 10:69 ...................... 76
1:9 ........................ 147 9:27 ........................ 42 11:28.30ff ............... 76
2:5 .......................... 97 9:28 ........................ 42 11:34 ...................... 76
2:6 ........................ 137 10:15.29.35............. 41 13:51 .................... 143
2:8-16 ................... 139 10:29.31.32............. 41 13:61 .................... 148
2:10 ................. 41, 140 10:31 .................... 127 13:80-82 ............... 148
2:10.19 ...... 78, 98, 187 10:31-40 ............... 127 14:4 ........................ 76
2:16 ........................ 41 11:1.24 ................... 41 15:15-24 ............... 147
2:17-18 ................. 139 11:4 ........................ 43
2:20 .................. 96, 98 12:10-11 .............. 134f 2Maccabees
3:32-35 ................... 98 12:12-26 ............... 138 1:1-10 ................... 147
3:33.34 ................... 41 12:22 ............. 114, 135 2:13 ...................... 138
3:35 ........................ 78 12:23 .................... 135 3:5 .......................... 76
3:36 ........................ 41 12:30.38 ................. 41 4,4 .......................... 76
3:38 ........................ 41 13:1 ........................ 41 4:8-40 ................... 150
4: ............................ 78 13:1-3 ............ 127, 142 5:1-14 ................... 149
4:1-2 ....................... 98 13:4.7.8 .................. 78 5:11.23 ................... 76
4:4 .......................... 41 13:4-9 ..................... 98 5:22 ................. 83, 121
4:5 .......................... 42 13:6 ...................... 138 5:22-6:3 ................ 143
4:6 .......................... 41 13:12 ...................... 41 6:1-3 ..................... 121
4:7.16 ..................... 41 13:15-22 ............... 127 6:2 .......................... 83
4:9 .......................... 42 13:16 ...................... 41 8:8 .......................... 76
4:10 ........................ 41 13:22 .................... 139 10:11 ...................... 76
4:10-23 ................. 140 13:23 ...................... 41 14:2 ........................ 76
15:37 .................... 143 49:13 ............. 129, 139 50:26 ............. 121, 148
Ben Sira 50:1 ...................... 150 Judith
1:1-14 ................... 139 50:1-2 ................... 139 9:2-39 ................... 115
36:11 ...................... 59 50:1-5 ................... 148
New Testament
Matthew John Acts

1:12 ...................... 130 4:5-6 ..................... 146 21:40 .................... 189
4:18 ...................... 299 22:2 ...................... 189
Mark 5:2 ........................ 188
7:34 ...................... 189 19:13,17 .............. 188f
20:16 .................... 188
Pseudepigrapha
Jubilees 1 Esdras Testament of Solomon

12:26-7 ................. 188 3:1-4:46 ................ 129 14:7 ...................... 189
5:4 ........................ 130
Letter of Aristeas 8:65-67 ................. 134
§ 30.311................ 146
Dead Sea Scrolls
11Q19 56:5 ........................ 34 4Q394 (MMT)

52:9 ........................ 34 60:13.14 ................. 34 f8 iv:9‒11 .............. 34
52:16 ...................... 34
Philo
Legum allegeroiae De Confusione Ling. De specialibus legibus

3.82 ...................... 146 § 68 ..................... 188 1:189 .................... 127
2:204-213 ............. 127
De Sobrietate De Vita Mosis
§ 45 ...................... 188 2:26-27 ................ 188
Josephus
Jewish Antiquitates 8.50 ...................... 158 9.291 .................... 109

1.12 ...................... 158 8.62 ...................... 154 9.278f.287-291...... 112
1.180 .................... 146 8.211 .................... 151 10.8 ...................... 189
3.244-247 ............. 127 8.212, 225............. 115 10.149 .................. 114
4.203 .................... 147 8.363 .................... 159 10.150 .................. 135
5.68-69 ................. 160 9.140 f .................. 159 10.184 ......... 112f, 124
5.114 .................... 161 9.278f, 288-291.... 113f 10.152-153 128, ... 146
5.240f.243.247. ..... 115 9.288-291 ............. 110 11.19 .................... 113
5.248.250f ............ 115 9.289-290 ............. 158 11.19, 302-347 ...... 112
5.361-2 ................. 146 9.290 ............. 113, 121 11.30-345 ............. 105
11.84-87 ............... 124 11.346 .................. 121 13.327 .................. 151

11.133 .................. 146 11.347 .................. 116 19.279-285 ........... 142
11.140-145 ........... 134 12.10 .................... 145 20.235-237 ........... 149
11.159 .................. 189 12.138-144 .... 155, 179
11.183 .................. 129 12.154-155 ............. 80 Jewish War
11.297 ................. 134f 12.168 .................... 79 1,62f ..................... 119
11.302f ................. 119 12.175 .................... 79 7:421 .................... 150
11.302-03.306-11.... 84 12.230-234 ............. 79 7:423-432 ............. 149
11.302-347 .......... 114f 12.236 .................... 82
...................... 131-133 12.237 .................. 150 Against Apion
11.310 .................... 83 12.257 ... 109, 112, 116 1:30-31 ................. 134
11.310-311.324 ....... 83 12.257-264 .......... 111f 1:106-116 ............. 155
11.324 .................... 84 12.258-264 .... 117, 144 1:106 .................... 154
11.340f ................. 109 13.62-73 ............... 148 1:118-119 ............. 145
11.341 ................. 111f 13:74-79 ............... 145 1.174 .................... 146
11.343f ................ 111f 13.133-144 ............. 96 1:197-199 ............. 130
11.344 .................. 116 13.254-256 .... 119, 151 1.250 .................... 150
Classical Greek and Roman Sources
Appian Curtius Rufus, Odyssea 4:84 ........ 144

Roman History: History of Alexander
Syrian War the Great, Jerome
5 ............................. 80 IV 8: 34, 9-11 ....... 103 Epistula 72 ........... 151
Polybius Homer
Historiae Iliad
V 71:11-12 ............. 79 6:290 .................... 144
XXVIII 20, 9 .......... 80 23:743 .................. 144
Rabbinic Texts
Mishnah Talmud Yerushalmi Gittin 50c.............. 189

Pesahim 1:15 ........ 167 Demai, 2:1, 22c..... 226 Gittin 19b ............. 189
Megillah 1:11........ 150 Megillah 1:8 71b ... 190 Gittin 87b ............. 189
Megillah 3:13........ 189 Megillah 74d......... 189 Sanhedrin 21b ....... 166
Yebamot 12:6 ....... 190 Sanhedrin 7:10 25d 191 Sanhedrin 90b ....... 252
Sotah 7:4 .............. 190 Avoda Zara 1:2, 39c226 Menahot 110a ....... 149
Gittin 9:8 .............. 189 Temurah 14a ......... 151
Sanhedrin 10,1 ...... 249 Talmud Bavli
Abot 2:1 ............... 192 Shabbat 115a ........ 189 Genesis Rabbah
Menahot 13:10 ...... 150 Shabbat 40b .......... 191 18 ......................... 195
Bekhorot 2:6 ......... 192 Megillah 15a ......... 143
Yadayim 4:5 ......... 189 Megillah 10a ......... 150 Sifré Numeri
70 ......................... 147

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Société d’études samaritaines. International Congress (6th : 2008 : Pápa,

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

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

The papers in this volume were presented at the sixth international

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

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

Jan DUSEK: Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic)

Moshe FLORENTJN: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)

Ingrid HJELM: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

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

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

Gary N. KNOPPERS: Pennsylvania State University (USA)

Menahem MoR: University of Haifa (Israel)

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

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

Hasee b SHEHADEH: University of Helsinki (Finnland)

Paul STE HOUSE: Sydney (Australia)

Abrah am TAL: Tel-Aviv University (Israel)

Habib TAWA: Paris (France)

Thomas L. THOMPSON: University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

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

Gerhard W EDEL: Free University of Berlin (Germany)

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

BENYAMIM TSEDAKA: Different Pronunciations of the Same

V. Artifacts and Texts

H ASEEB SHEHADEH: The Samaritan High Priest 'Imram ben

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

Le 1er octobre 1917 naissait à Blandy, près de l'antique ville de Melun

A peine était-il devenu moine, que ses supérieurs lui demandaient

Pour l'heure il était attaché à l’étude critique des variantes de la

Scriptorium, en 1970. Il donne le compte rendu d’un ouvrage sur le

Lors du séjour de Tal à Paris, en 1983, le projet d’une ”table ronde”

Sixdenier, avait déjà abordé le qaraïsme, lors de son édition du Si-

The Plot Line

Several of the central, interconnected themes of the garden story, such

1 See PFOH, Genesis 4; THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 229.

The Cain story’s brief, etiological discourse on Abel’s fragile, un-

Murder, Revenge and Blood Guilt

therefore, I must limit myself to the thematic opposition between re-

10 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 236-237.

of Exodus 21:13, “God had allowed to happen.” In Numbers, the com-

11 THOMPSON, Messiah Myth, 294-295.

13 The commonly accepted translation of the uncertain reading by FORRER, Boghazköi

15 HJELM, Jerusalem’s Rise, 66-70.

his argument and closes the story with a vengeance-ending decree:

This or similar formulae appear in the Book of Deuteronomy no less

ronomistic history. Accordingly, the chosen place is Jerusalem, as ex-

obviously, therefore, as the Deuteronomistic identification of the cho-

1.) The centralization formula originally has a distributive meaning,

2.) The centralization formula refers to only one, single place.

8 HALPERN, Centralization formula.

Therefore, the centralization formula should be taken as referring to

Deut 11:31–12:18 Deut 27

to go in to occupy the land into the land that the LORD

12:2–3 (demolition of cult places) –

and your sacrifices (‫)וזבחיכם‬, make sacrifices of well- 27:7

your tithes and your dona- –

rejoicing (‫…)ושמחתם‬ rejoicing (‫ )ושמחת‬before the

The synopsis demonstrates that Deut 27:4‒5 indeed identifies the

concept of only one legitimate cultic place. Their solution, therefore, is

12‒26 when he suggested a Northern origin of Deuteronomy,21 chapter