I. /fisiorg. — The hill of the same name, which the city occupied, was purchased for two talents of silver from the owner, Shemer (q. v.), after whom the city was named (1 Kings xvi, 23, 24), by Omri (q. v.)i king of Israel, for the foundation of his new metrojiolis, B.C. cir. 925. The first capital after the secession of the ten tribes had been Shechcm itself, whither all Israel, had come to make Rehoboam king. On the separation be- ing fullv accomplished, .leroboam reliuilt that city (1 Kings xii, 25), which had been razed to the ground by Abimelech (Judg. ix, 45). But he soon moved to Tir- zah, a place, as Dr. Stanley ol)serves, of great and pro- verbial beauty (Cant, vi, 4), which continued to be the
SAMARIA
278
SAMARIA
royal residence until Zimri biinied the palace and per- | ished in its ruins (1 Kings xiv, 17: xv, 21, 33; xvi, G- 18). Omri, who prevailed in tlic contest for the king- dom that ensued, after " reigning six years" there, trans- ferred his court and government to a new site, being under the necessity of reconstructing somewhere, and doubtless influenced bj' the natural advantages of the position, and desirous of commemorating his dynasty by a change of capital. Samaria continued to be the metropolis of Israel for the remaining two centuries of that kingdom's existence. During all this time it was the seat of idolatry, and is often as such denounced by tiie prophets (Isa. ix, 8; Jer. xxiii, 13, 14; Ezek. xvi, 4G-55; Amos vi, 1; Mic. i, 1), sometimes in connection with Jerusalem (especially by Hosea). Ahab built a temple to Baal there (1 Kings xvi, 32, 33) ; and from this circumstance a portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate wall, was called " the city of the house of Baal" (2 Kings x, 25). It was the scene of many of the acts of the prophets Elijah and Elisha (q. v.), con- nected with the various famines of the land, the unex- pected plenty of Samaria, and the several deliverances of the city from the Syrians. Jehu broke down the temple of Baal, but does not appear to have otherwise injured the city (ver. 18-28). Samaria must have been a place of great strength. It was twice besieged by the Syrians, in B.C. 901 (1 Kings xx, 1) and in B.C. 892 (2 Kings vi, 24-vii, 20) ; but on both occasions the siege was ineffectual. On the latter, indeed, it was relieved miraculously, but not until the inhabitants had suffered almost incredible horrors from famine during their pro- tracted resistance. The possessor of Samaria was con- sidered to be de facto king of Israel (xv, 13, 14) ; and woes denounced against the nation were directed against it by name (Isa. vii, 9, etc.). Although characterized by gross voluptuousness, as well as other sins incidental to idolatry, its inhabitants did not entirely lose that generosity which had early characterized Ephraim, in evidence of which note the event that happened during the reign of the last but one of its kings (2 Chron. xxviii, 6-15). In B.C. 720 Samaria was taken, after a siege • ^ of three years, by Shalmane-
■*^ ser (or, rather, by his successor
Sargon), king of Assyria (2 Kings xviii, 9, 10), and the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed. The city doubtless was demolished by the con- queror. Col. Eawlinson, in- deed, has lately endeavored to show that Samaria was not at once de|)opulated (.4 thennum [Lond.], Aug. 22, 1863, p. 246); and this was doubtless true as regards the country around; but his ajiplication of the ar- gtunent to the city itself (evi- dently in order to S(iuare with the hypothesis of a twofold Anciont Rgyptian Repie- invasion of Judah also during seniationOf the People the reign of llezekiah [q.v.]) of Samaria. is ijased upon reasons so obvi-
ously inconclusive that they need not be here examined ill detail. See Saxiaiutan. Samaria is only called Beth-Klirimr^i in the earlier cuneatic inscriptions (q. v.), but from the time of Tiglath-Pilescr II the term used is Tsamirin (l.'awlinson, /list. Krideiici's, p. 321). The peo|)le are tigureil on tlie lOgyjitian monimients among tlie captives with the hieroglyph A.iiiiii7-i attached (Wilkinson, Anc. £(/i/ptiaiis, i, 403). See Cai'tivity,
ASSYKIAN.
After this capture Samaria appears to have continued, for a time at least, the chief city of the foreigners brouglit to occupy the places of the departed natives, altliough Shechem soon became tlie capital of the Srimarifans as a religious sect. Erom this it woulil sciin lliat ilu' city of Samaria had meanwhile been but partially rebuilt.
We do not, however, hear especially of the place until the days of Alexander the Great, B.C. 333. That conqueror took the city, which seems to have somewhat recovered itself (Euseb. CImm. ad ann. Abr. 1684), killed a large portion of the inhabitants, and suffered the remainder to settle among their compatriots at Shechem (q. v.). He replaced them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians, and gave the adjacent territory (SaixaptiTig x<''p«) to the Jews to inliabit (Josephus, c. Aj). ii, 4). These Syro- Macedonians occupied the city until the time of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of considerable impor- tance, for Josephus describes it (.4n^ xiii, 10, 2) as a very strong city (ttuXiq 6-)(i<pwTaTi]). John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege, and did his best to demolish it entirely. He intersected the hill on which it lay with trenches; into these he conducted the natural brooks, and thus undermined its foundation. "In fact," says the Jewish historian, "he took away all evidence of the verj' existence of the city," This story at first sight seems rather exaggerated, and inconsistent with the hilly site of Samaria. It may have referred only to the suburbs lying at its foot. " But," says Prideaux {Co7i- nection, B.C. 109, note), " Benjamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells us in his Itinerary (no such passage, however, exists in that work) that there were upon the top of this hill many fountains of water, and from these water enough may have been derived to till these trench- es." It should also be recollected that the hill of Sama- ria was lower than the hills in its neighborhood. This may account for the existence of these springs. Jose- phus describes the extremities to which the inhabitants were reduced during this siege, much in the same way that the author of the book of Kings does during tliat of Benhadad (comp. War, i, 2, 7 with 2 Kings vi, 25). John Hyrcanus's reasons for attacking Samaria were the injuries which its inhabitants had done to the people of Marissa, colonists and allies of the Jews. This confirms what was said above of the cession of the Samaritan neighborhood to the Jews by Alexander the Great. The mention of Marissa in this connection serves to explain a notice in the earlier history of the Maccabees. The Samaria named in the present text of 1 Mace, v, 66 (i] 'Eafiaptia; Vulg. Samuriu') is evidently an error. At any rate, the wellrknown Samaria of the Old and New Testaments cannot be intended, for it is obvious that Judas, in passing from Hebron to the land of the Philis- tines (Azotus), could not make so immense a detour. The true correction is doubtless supplied by Josephus (^Ant. xii, 8, 6), who has Marissa (i. e. Mareshah [q. v.]) a place which lay in the road from Hebron to the Phi- listine plain. One of the ancient Latin versions exhibits the same reading, which is accepted by Ewald (Gesch. iv, 361) and a host of commentators (see Grimm, Kurzg. excy. Jfandb. on the passage). Drusius proposed Shaa- raim ; but this is hardly so feasible as Mareshah, and has no external support.