2. History of the Samaritans in their relation- ship to the Jews. — Although the Samaritans claim descent from the patriarchs (Jn 4^^), and present us with an unbroken history, and although it is to some extent true that they represent the spirit of the tribe of Ephraim (Renan, Lancf. Semit. p. 230), we must date their characteristic existence as a people only from the time of their conflicts with Ezra and Nehemiah. We regard the Samaritan statement (el-Tolidoth), that 300,000 men besides women and children were brought back from captiv- ity in the days of Sanballat, as baseless ; but, on the other hand, when Israel was carried away captive, a remnant must have been left ; and that .such was the case we have abundant evidence (2 K 23""-", Jer 4P). Their appearance as a community dates only from the time of their mingling with the Assyrian colonists settled in the land, and it is from the leading party amongst these that they are frequently designated Cuthaeans (2 K 17^). There can be no question of the accuracy of the OT narrative of the originally mixed origin of the Samaritans, but repeated accessions from Judaism (Neh 1328-29; Ant. XI. viii. 2 and 6), probably ulti-
558 SAMARIA, SAMARITANS
SAMARIA, SAMARITANS
mately outnumbering the original colonists, and the manifest reversion to the pure Semitic type, induce us to believe that the existing Samaritan race has but little connexion with the old Turanian colonists, and is probably now of almost as pure Hebrew blood as the modern Jew.
For their rejection from all participation in the rebuilding of the Temple the Samaritans never forgave the Jews (Ezr4'^-*, N eh 2-"), and for their attempted hindrance of that work the Jews bore tlie Samaritans no less a grudge. The breach became irrevocable when a rival priesthood and temple were set up on Gerizim. Jewish and Samaritan tradition agree as to the date of this event, which Josephus sets down wrong]}' in the time of Alexander the Great and Jaddua the high priest (B.C. 332) — one hundred years too late {A7it. XI. viii. -2); but, though his account is clearly mixed with fable, there may still be some historical basis for the extra details he gives. About B.C. 200, during the weak rule of the high priest Onias ii. (d. B.C. 198), the Samaritans, being then in a flourishing condition, are accused of having harassed the Jews and carried away captives to serve as slaves (Atit. XII. iv. 1). In liis account of Maccabrean times Josephus continually accuses them of denying all kinship with the Jews, when they see them in sufi'ering and difficulties, and of claiming to be Sidonians (A^it. XII. v. 5) ; but, on the contrary, when good fortune befalls the Jews, they claim to belong to that race, and to derive their descent from Joseph {ii,. IX. xiv. 3, XI. viii. 6, xil. iv. 5). John Hyrcanus (c. B.C. 128) made an expedition against Samaria (Ant. xiil. x. 2). After repeated successes against their ally and protector Antiochus Cyzicenus, he took Samaria, ravaged the country, subdued the Cuthfeans who dwelt about the temple at Gerizim, and destroyed their temple {Ant. Xlll. ix. 1). During the ijeriod of unrest that followed the deposition of Archelaus (A.D. 6), the Samaritans became so aggressive that they came privately into Jerusalem by night, and, when the gates of the Temple Avere opened just after midnight, they entered and .scattered dead men's bodies in the cloisters to defile the Temj^le {Ant. xviii. ii. 1). Another incident is later recorded, which led to very serious consequences. A number of Galilsean pilgrims were attacked, and many killed, at Ginea (Jenin), the fir.st Samaritan village on the way (Ant. XX. vi. 1-3). This led to civil war for a time, then to the intervention of the Roman authorities, and ultimately to a decision in favour of the Jews by Claudius "himself (a.d. 51). At a still later period we find the Jews excluding the Samaritans, as also Christians and pagans, from Capernaum, Nazareth, and Sepphoris (Epiphanius, adv. Hcer. i. 11). Nor was it only in Palestine that the jealousies continued to exist. Alexander and Ptolemy Lagi had taken many Jews and Samaritans to Egypt {Ant. XI. viii. 6), and there in Alexandria we read of rivalry and disorders between them {Ant. xii. i. 1), the disputes being, as usual, regarding the relative merits of Jerusalem and Gerizim.
Jewish literature is full of manifestations of the same spirit. Ben Sira speaks of ' the foolish folk that dwell at Shecheni,' and characterizes them as ' no nation ' (Sir 5025- 2C). Josephus invari- ably calls them 'Cuthoeans,' and will not admit — except some- times for a purpose— that they are of Hebrew blood. The Rabbis, though hesitating to call them ' Gentiles,' use the same name. Regarding their food, we road: 'Let no man eat the bread of the Cuthaeans : for he that eateth their bread is as he that eateth swine's flesh ' (M. Shebhiith viii. 10 ; Bab. Kidd. 76a). In the matter of gifts and offerings to the Temple, including the half-shekel, the Samaritan was put on the same footing as slaves and heathen (M. Ab. Zar. i. 5; Jerus. Ah. Zar. i. 4). If a Samaritan were witness to a bill of divorce, that in itself made the document invahd (M. Gittin i. 5). Rabban Gamaliel, quite in keeping with the liberal spirit he always shows (cf. Ac 538), was, however, inclined to accept such