Contents | Index
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
SAMARITANS
(sa-mar'-i-tanz) (shomeronim; Samareitai, New Testament; (singular),
Samarites): The name "Samaritans" in 2 Kings 17:29 clearly applies to the Israelitish
inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of
mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from Babylon
and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israelites and those who were
left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried away only 27,290 of
the inhabitants (KIB, II, 55).
Doubtless these were, as in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth
and influence, including all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till
the land, tend the vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah
probably in 715 BC, could still appeal to the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar,
Asher and Zebulun (2 Chron 30:5,10,11,18 ff); and the presence of these
tribesmen is implied in the narrative of Josiah's reformation (34:6 f). Although the
number of the colonists was increased by Esar-haddon and Osnappar
(Assur-bani-pal, Ezra 4:2,9 f), the population, it is reasonable to suppose, continued
prevailingly Israelite; otherwise their religion would not so easily have won the
leading place.
The colonists thought it necessary for their own safety to acknowledge Yahweh,
in whose land they dwelt, as one among the gods to be feared (2 Kings 17:24
ff). In the intermixture that followed "their own gods" seem to have fallen on
evil days; and when the Samaritans asked permission to share in building the
temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed, apparently with a good conscience, to serve
God and to sacrifice to Him as the Jews did (Ezra 4:1 f). Whatever
justification there was for this claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly
hostility by the blunt refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and
south no doubt intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and
Samaritan, in its bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samaritans set
themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which they
were not permitted to share (Ezra 4:4 ff: Neh 4:7 ff. etc.).
From the strict administration of the Law in Jerusalem malcontents found their
way to the freer atmosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was Manasseh,
brother of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat, the Persian
governor of Samaria. According to Josephus, Sanballat, with the sanction of
Alexander the Great, built a temple for the Samaritans on Mt. Gerazim, of which
Manasseh became high priest (Ant, XI, vii, 2; viii, 2 ff). Josephus, however,
places Manasseh a century too late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Neh 13:28).
When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the
Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pentateuch was the only authentic copy (see
PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN); they were equally ready to deny all connection in
times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a heathen deity (Josephus,
Ant, XII, v, 5). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1).
In the time of Christ the Samaritans were ruled by procurators under the Roman
governor of Syria. Lapse of years brought no lessening of the hatred between
Jews and Samaritans (Ant, XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of
the latter, Jews from Galilee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerusalem
by way of Peraea. "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon" was an expression of
opprobrium (John 8:48). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into any city
of the Samaritans (Matt 10:5), the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that His
love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred (Luke 10:30 ff; compare
17:16; 4:9).
During the Jewish war Cerealis treated the Samaritans with great severity. On
one occasion (67 AD) he slaughtered 11,600 on Mt. Gerazim. For some centuries
they were found in considerable numbers throughout the empire, east and west,
with their synagogues. They were noted as "bankers" money-changers, For their
anti-Christian attitude and conduct Justinian inflicted terrible vengeance on
them. From this the race seems never to have recovered. Gradually-dwindling, they
now form a small community in Nablus of not more than 200 souls. Their great
treasure is their ancient copy of the Law. See SAMARIA.
LITERATURE. --The best account of the Samaritans is Mills, Nablus and the
Modern Samaritans (Murray, London); compare Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907). A
good recent description by J.E.H. Thomson, D.D., of the Passover celebrated
annually on Mt. Gerazim will be found in Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1902,
82 ff.
W. EWING
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, public domain).
PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN
(sa-mar'-i-tan):
(For the outline to this article, see the ISBE Supplement under 'General
Books'.)
The existence of a Samaritan community in Nablus is generally known, and the
fact that they have a recension of the Pentateuch which differs in some respects
from the Massoretic has been long recognized as important.
I. Knowledge of the Samaritan Pentateuch.-Of the Greek Fathers Origen knew of
it and notes two insertions which do not appear in the Massoretic Text-Num 13:1
and 21:12, drawn from Deut 1:2 and 2:18.
- In Older Times: Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon compares the ages of
the patriarchs before Abraham in the Septuagint with those in the Samaritan
Pentateuch and the Massoretic Text. Epiphanius is aware that the Samaritans
acknowledged the Pentateuch alone as canonical. Cyril of Jerusalem notes agreement of
Septuagint and Samaritan in Gen 4:8. These are the principal evidences of
knowledge of this recension among the Greek Fathers. Jerome notes some omissions in
the Massoretic Text and supplies them from the Samaritan Text. The Talmud shows
that the Jews retained a knowledge of the Samaritan Pentateuch longer, and
speaks contemptuously of the points in which it differs from the Massoretic Text.
Since the differences observed by the Fathers and the Talmudists are to be seen
in the Samaritan Pentateuch before us, they afford evidence of its authenticity.
- Revived Knowledge: After nearly a millennium of oblivion the Samaritan
Pentateuch was restored to the knowledge of Christendom by Pietro de la Valle who in
1616 purchased a copy from the Samaritan community which then existed in
Damascus. This copy was presented in 1623 to the Paris Oratory and shortly after
published in the Paris Polyglot under the editorship of Morinus, a priest of the
Oratory who had been a Protestant. He emphasized the difference between the
Massoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch for argumentative reasons, in order to
prove the necessity for the intervention of the church to settle which was
Scripture. A fierce controversy resulted, in which various divines, Protestant and
Catholic, took part. Since then copies of this recension have multiplied in Europe
and America. All of them may be regarded as copies ultimately of the Nablus
roll. These copies are in the form, not of rolls, but of codices or bound volumes.
They are usually written in two columns to the page, one being the Targum or
interpretation and this is sometimes in Aramaic and sometimes in Arabic. Some
codices show three columns with both Targums. There are probably nearly 100 of
these codices in various libraries in Europe and America. These are all written
in the Samaritan script and differ only by scribal blunders.
II. Codices and Script.
- The Nablus Roll: The visitor to the Samaritans is usually shown an ancient
roll, but only rarely is the most ancient exhibited, and when so exhibited still
more rarely is it in circumstances in which it may be examined.
Dr. Mills, who spent three months in the Samaritan community, was able to make
a careful though interrupted study of it. His description (Nablus and the
Modern Samaritans, 312) is that "the roll is of parchment, written in columns, 13
inches deep, and 7 1/2 inches wide. The writing is in a fair hand, rather small;
each column contains from 70 to 72 lines, and the whole roll contains 110
columns. The name of the scribe is written in a kind of acrostic, running through
these columns, and is found in the Book of Deuteronomy The roll has the
appearance of very great antiquity, but is wonderfully well preserved, considering its
venerable age. It is worn out and torn in many places and patched with
re-written parchment; in many other places, where not torn, the writing is unreadable.
It seemed to me that about two-thirds of the original is still readable. The
skins of which the roll is composed are of equal size and measure each 25 inches
long by 15 inches wide." Dr. Rosen's account on the authority of Kraus
(Zeitschr. der deulschmorgenl. Gesellsch., XVIII, 582) agrees with this, adding that
the "breadth of the writing is a line and the space between is similar." Both
observers have noted that the parchment has been written only on the "hair" side.
It is preserved in a silk covering enclosed in a silver case embossed with
arabesque ornaments.
- The Script: The reader on opening one of the codices of the Samaritan
Pentateuch recognizes at once the difference of the writing from the characters in an
ordinary Hebrew Bible. The Jews admit that the character in which the Samaritan
Pentateuch is written is older than their square character. It is said in the
Talmud (Sanhedhrin 21 b): "The law at first was given to Israel in `ibhri
letters and in the holy tongue and again by Ezra in the square ('ashurith) character
and the Aramaic tongue. Israel chose for themselves the 'ashurith character
and the holy tongue: they left to the hedhyoToth ("uncultured") the `ibhri
character and the Aramaic tongue-`the Cuthaeans are the hedhyoToth,' said Rabbi
Chasda." When Jewish hatred of the Samaritans, and the contempt of the Pharisees for
them are remembered, this admission amounts to a demonstration. The Samaritan
script resembles that on the Maccabean coins, but is not identical with it. It
may be regarded as between the square character and the angular, the latter as
is seen in the manuscript and the Siloam inscription. Another intermediate
form, that found on the Assouan papyri, owes the differences it presents to having
been written with a reed on papyrus. As the chronology of these scripts is of
importance we subjoin those principally in question.
The study of these alphabets. will confirm the statement above made that the
Samaritan alphabet is, in evolution, between the square character and the
angular, nearer the latter than the former, while the characters of the Assouan
papyri are nearer the former than the latter. Another point to be observed is that
the letters which resemble each other in one alphabet do not always resemble in
another. We can thus, from comparison of the letters liable to be confused,
form a guess as to the script in which the document containing the confusion
written.
- Peculiarities in Writing: In inscriptions the lapidary had no hesitation,
irrespective of syllables, in completing in the next line any word for which he
had not sufficient room. Thus, the beginnings and endings of lines were directly
under each other, as on the MS. In the papyri the words are not divided, but
the scribe was not particular to have the ends of lines directly under each
other. The scribe of the square character by use of literae dilatabiles secured this
without dividing the words. The Samaritan secured this end by wider spacing.
The first letter or couple of letters of each line are placed directly under the
first letter or letters of the preceding line-so with the last letters-two or
three-of the line, while the other words are spread out to fill up the space.
The only exception to this is a paragraph ending. Words are separated from each
other by dots; sentences by a sign like our colon. The Torah is divided into
966 qisam or paragraphs. The termination of these is shown by the colon having a
dot added to it, thus:. Sometimes this is reinforced by a line and an angle-(.
These qisam are often enumerated on the margin; sometimes, in later manuscripts
in Arabic numerals. A blank space sometimes separates one of these qisam from
the next.
- The Tarikh: When the scribe wished to inform the reader of his personality
and the place where he had written the manuscript he made use of a peculiar
device. In copying he left a space vacant in the middle of a column. The space thus
left is every now and then bridged by a single letter. These letters read down
the column form words and sentences which convey the information. In the case
of the Nablus roll this tarikh occurs in Deuteronomy and occupies three columns.
In this it is said, "I Abishua, son of Pinhas (Phinehas), son of Eleazar, son
of Aharun (Aaron) the priest, have written this holy book in the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation in Mt. Gerazim in the 13 th year of the rule of
the children of Israel in the land of Canaan." Most of the codices in the
libraries of Europe and America have like information given in a similar manner. This
tarikh is usually Hebrew, but sometimes it is in the Samaritan Aramaic.
Falsification of the date merely is practically impossible; the forgery must be the
work of the first scribe.
- The Mode of Pronunciation: Not only has the difference of script to be
considered, but also the different values assigned to the letters. The names given to
the letters differ considerably from the Hebrew, as may be seen above. There
are no vowel points or signs of reduplication. Only B and P of the
BeGaDH-KePHaTH letters are aspirated. The most singular peculiarity is that none of the
gutturals is pronounced at all-a peculiarity which explains some of the names given
to the letters. This characteristic appears all the more striking when it is
remembered how prominent gutturals are in Arabic, the everyday language of the
Samaritans. The first 5 verses of Genesis are subjoined according to the
Samaritan pronunciation, as taken down by Petermann (Versuch einer hebr. Formenlehre,
161), from the reading of Amram the high priest: Barashet bara Eluwem it
ashshamem wit aarets. Waarets ayata-te'u ube'u waashek al fani .... turn uru Eluwem
amra, efet al fani ammem waya'mer Eluwem ya'i or way'ai or wayere Eluwem it a'
or ki tov wayabdel Eluwem bin a'ir ubin aashek uyikra Eluwem la'or yom ula
'ashek qara lila. Uyai `erev uyai beqar yom a'ad.
- The Age of the Nablus Roll: There is no doubt that if the inscription given
above is really in the manuscript it is a forgery written on the skin at the
first. Of its falsity also there is no doubt. The Tell el-Amarna Letters sent from
Canaan and nearly contemporary with the Israelite conquest of the land were
impressed with cuneiform characters and the language was Babylonian. Neglecting
the tarikh, we may examine the matter independently and come to certain
conclusions. If it is the original from which the other manuscripts have been copied we
are forced to assume a date earlier at least than the 10 th century AD, which
is the date of the earliest Hebrew MS. The script dates from the Hasmoneans.
The reason of this mode of writing being perpetuated in copying the Law must be
found in some special sanctity in the document from which the copies were made
originally. Dr. Mills seems almost inclined to believe the authenticity of the
tarikh.
His reasons, however, have been rendered valueless by recent discoveries. Dr.
Cowley, on the other hand, would date it somewhere about the 12 th century AD,
or from that to the 14 th. With all the respect due to such a scholar we
venture to think his view untenable. His hypothesis is that an old manuscript was
found and the tarikh now seen in it was afterward added. That, however, is
impossible unless a new skin-the newness of which would be obvious-had been written
over and inserted. Even the comparatively slight change implied in turning
Ishmael into Israel in the tarikh in the Nablus roll necessitates a great adjustment
of lines, as the letters of the tarikh must read horizontally as well as
perpendicularly. If that change were made, the date would then be approximately 650
AD, much older than Cowley's 12 th century. There is, however, nothing in this
to explain the sanctity given to this MS. There is a tradition that the roll was
saved from fire, that, it leaped out of the fire in the presence of
Nebuchadnezzar. If it were found unconsumed when the temple on Mt. Gerazim was burned by
John Hyrcanus I, this would account for the veneration in which it is held. It
would account also for the stereotyping of the script. The angular script
prevailed until near the time of Alexander the Great. In it or in a script akin to
it the copy of the Law must have been written which Manasseh, the son-in-law of
Sanballat, brought to Samaria. The preservation of such a copy would be
ascribed to miracle and the script consecrated.
III. Relation of the Samaritan Recension to the Massoretic Text and Septuagint.
- Relation to the Massoretic Text: Classification of Differences: While the
reader of the Samaritan Pentateuch will not fail to observe its practical identity
with the Massoretic Text, closer study reveals numerous, if minor, differences.
These differences were classified by Gesenius. Besides being illogical, his
classification is faulty, as founded on the assumption that the Samaritan
Pentateuch text is the later. The same may be said of Kohn's. We would venture on
another classification of these variations, deriving the principle of division from
their origin. These variations were due either to (1) accident or (2)
intention. (1) The first of these classes arose from the way in which books were
multiplied in ancient days. Most commonly one read and a score of scribes, probably
slaves, wrote to this dictation. Hence, errors might arise (a) when from
similarity of letters the reader mistook one word for another. (b) If the reader's
pronunciation was not distinct the scribes might mis-hear and therefore write the
word amiss. (c) Further, if the reader began a sentence which opened in a way
that generally was followed by certain words or phrases, he might inadvertently
conclude it, not in the way it was written before him, but in the customary
phrase. In the same way the scribe through defective attention might also blunder.
Thus the accidental variations may be regarded as due to mistakes of sight,
hearing and attention. (2) Variations due to intention are either (a)
grammatical, the removal of peculiarities and conforming them to usage, or (b) logical, as
when a command having been given, the fulfilment is felt to follow as a
logical necessity and so is narrated, or, if narrated, is omitted according to the
ideas of the scribe; (c) doctrinal changes introduced into the text to suit the
doctrinal position of one side or other. Questions of propriety also lead to
alterations-these may be regarded as quasi-doctrinal.
(1) Examples of accidental variations.-(a) Due to mis
NOTE: This text has been truncated to the maximum allowable by copyright.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, public domain).
The Samaritans Home
Bible History Online
Home