S. Relation of Christian teaching to the pagan mysteries.— The theories underlj-ing the pagan mysteries bear some resemblance to Christian teaching, since they contain the idea of deliverance through a process of regeneration, and through participation in a Divine life which is operative for the future as well as for the present. They differ greatly because Christian teaching represents our
SAxMARIA
SAMARIA
44;
\i
Lord as a Instoiicul Person who atconijilislies and sives salvation, wliile tlie j;roat fif,'nres in tlie lagan mysteries, e.tj. Osiris and Alt is, are mvtlio- ogieal personilications, and also liecanse tlie ethical element, always prominent in Christianity, has no real counterpart in the religion of the mysteries.
Literature. — A. Thohick, Leftrc ron der Siinile u»d von der Vcrsohming, 1823; H. N. Oxenhani, The Ctil/iulic DMlriiifof the Atvneiiifnt, 18G5 ; M. d"Aubign^, L'i-x/'iii1i<m de la cniix, 1888; A. Ritschl, Lehre von der UerhlJ'erli.iuiin utld Vfrsulin- mig, 1870-74 (Eng. tr., IBllli) ; R. W. Dale, The Duclrine of the Atonement j\^l^; H. S. Holland, Aoj/ic (iHti /v?/^ (Sermons vi.-ix.), 1SS2 ; k. Men^goz, Le p^chi et la rMemittion d'aprfh- St. Paul, 1SS2 ■, G. Thomasius, Chrisli Person uiui Werk, 1SS6-S8 ; B. F. Westcott. The Victoru 0/ the-Crosa, 188S ; W. P. DuBose, The Solei-iol.aiu of the NT, 1S»2 ; A. Titius, Die XT Lehre von der S,ioik;ii, 1S!I5-1>J00 ; R. C. Moberly, ^to;ie- jnent and Personality, I'.inl; G. A. F. Ecklin, Kilosantj xtnd Versiihnung, 1903 ; A. Ritter, Christus der Erlosir, 1!)1I3 ; J. Riviere, Le Dotimt de la redemption, 1905 ; R. Herrmann, Erlvsunri, 1905 ;"E. Minegfoz, La Mort de Ji'sm et le dogme de I'expiation, 1905 ; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 19115 ; A. Loisy, 'Tlie Christion Mvsterj,' in UJ x. [1911] 45-04; F. von Hugel, Eternal Life, 1912; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mijstery- Religions, 1913, pp. 199- 228, 298, 299 ; W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Dis- covery on the Trustworthiness of the NT, 1915, pp. 173-198.
Darwell Stone.
SAMARIA (SaMdpem [T WH -la], from jTOB').— 1. The kingdom or district.— Samaria originally de- noted the capital of tlie kingdom of Israel, but the term was early applied to the kingdom itself, and in this sense ' the king of Samaria,' ' the cities of Samaria,' ' the mountains of Samaria' are familiar expressions in the OT writings. After the over- throw of the monarchy, the name was still attached to the old territory, whether under the government of Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Hasmona?ans, or Romans. The boundary of Samaria on the N. w as the southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon, on the W. the eastern fringe of Sharon, and on the E. the Jordan. On the S. the frontier was very mutable : Josephus names ' the Acrabbene toparchy ' and 'the village Anuath, which is also named Borceos,' as the boundaries in bis time, and these terms have been identilied with Akmbbeh and Burkit, about 6 miles S. of Shechem. The Wnchj Fnrnh on the E. of the watershed, and the Wadij Ishar, called lower down Wady Deir Ballut and Wady Auja, on the Western side, may be regarded as the dividing lines, which in our Lord's time were religious rather than political. Ginea (tlie modern ■/cwi'x) is given as the most northerly town (BJ III. iii. 4), and Antipatris was just beyond the S.W. border (Talm. Bab. Gittin, 76nt).
Josepiius' statement {loc. cit.) that Samaria 'is entirely of the same nature with Juda;a' is inac- curate ; for, while Judipa was a single massive table-land, with natural barriers which rendered it austerely solitarj' and inaccessible, Samaria con- sisted of groups of mountains separated by fertile valleys, meadows, and plains, while it was so ex- [losed on its frontiers tliat neither could artificial fortresses protect it from hostile invasions nor spiritual barriers defend it from the .subtler in- fluences of environment. The physical difference between the two countries, however, does not ex- jilain that most bitter quarrel in history which came to a head some time before the Christian era began. It was after all a quarrel between brethren, the old tribal and national feud of Judah and E)iliraini being accentuated and perpetuated as a religious controversy. The Jewish contention that the Samaritans were at once foreigners and heretics was on both counts an exaggeration. The Assyrian conqueror Shalmaneser (2 K 17"), or, according to the inscriptions, his successor Sargon, deported from Samaria only the most influential families, which would have been those most likely to give trouble — 27,000 jiersons in all — leaving the humbler classes in the cities, as well as whole minor towns and villages, undisturbed. The number of Assyrian
colonists then and afterwards (Kzr4=) introduced into the country was no doulit small in proportion to the entire population. Only the most rigid Jewish exchisiveness could refu.sc to the S.'imaritans as a whole the right to the .sacred name and tradi- tions of Israel, and so to an equal share in the worship of Jahweh. Josephus, whose Jewish bias is obvious, presents the case against the .Samaritans, or, as he frequently calls them, from the As.syrian origin of a fraction of them, the Cutha-ans ("2 K IT-*). He alleges that the rival worshiji on Mt. Gerizim was begun by a renegade Jewish priest — Manasseh the high priest's brother — who had married a Cutluvan satrap's daughter (Ant. XI. vii. 2, viii. 2) ; and that when Antiochus Epi])lianes de- secrated the Temple in Jerusalem, the Samaritans denied 'that the temple on Mt. (ieriziiii belonged to Almighty (Jod,' and petitioned 'Antiochus, the god Epiphanes,' to permit them to name it ' the temple of Jupiter Hellenius'(i6. XII. v. 5). Jo.sephus therefore glories in the Maccaba^an zeal which ' sub- dued the nation of the Cutlueans, who dwelt round about that temple which was built in imitation of the Temple at Jerusalem,' 'demolished the city [of Samaria] and made slaves of its inhabitants' (BJ I. ii. 6, 7). He asserts that in his own time the Samaritans still continued to distress the Jews, ' cutting oil' p.arts of their land and carrying off slaves' (Ant. XII. iv. 1) ; that on one occasion tliey 'came privately into Jerusalem and threw about dead bodies in the cloisters' (ib. XVIII. ii. 2) ; that they harassed the Galilieans on their way to Jeru- salem and ' killed a great many of them ' (ib. XX. vi. 1) ; that in the days of Jewish prosperity they called themselves ' kindred,' but at other times declared that they were ' no way related to them, and that the Jews had ' no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them,' who were 'sojourners that came from other countries' (ib. IX. xiv. 3). That there is some measure of truth in these allegations is quite probable, but there has unfortunately been no advocate for the defence, no historian who has eloquently presented the facts from the Samaritan point of view. The despised heretics have, however, found one Defender who has adjusted the balance. Jesus not only re- buked the liery zeal of His disciples— in this respect thorough Jews — against the hated race {Lk 9^'-'''), but made one Samaritan a. pattern to all the world of neighbourly love (10™"") and another — 'this alien' (aWoyepifs) — of gratitude to God (17""'°).