SHECHEM
632
SHECHEM
The "certain men from Shechcm" mentioned in Jer. xli, 5, who were slain on tlieir way to Jerusalem, were possibly Cuthites, i. e. Babylonian immigrants who had become proselytes or worshippers of Jehovah (see Hit- zig, Ikr Pruph. Jer. p. 331). These Babylonian settlers in the land, intermixed, no doubt, to some extent with the old inhabitants, were the Samaritans, who erected at length a rival temple on Gerizim (B.C. 300), and be- tween whom and the Jews a bitter hostility existed for so many ages (Josephus, Ant. xii, 1, 1 ; xiii, 3, 4). The Sou of Sirach (1, 26) says that "a foolish people," i. e. the Samaritans, "dwelt at Sheeliem" (^ra liKij-ia). From its vicinity to their place of worship, it became the principal city of the Samaritans, a rank which it maintained at least till the destruction of their temple, about B.C. 129, a period of nearly two hundred years (ibid, xiii, 9, 1 ; War, i, 2, 6). From the time of the origin of the Samaritans th.e history of Shechem blends itself with that of this people and of their sacred mount, Gerizim; and the reatler will find the proper informa- tion on this part of the subject under those heads. The city was taken and the temple destroyed by John Hyr- canus, B.C. 129 (-Iw^ xiii, 9, 1 ; Wm{\, 2, 6).
As already intimated, Shechem reappears in the New Test. It is probably the Sychar of John iv, 5, near which the Saviour conversed with the Samaritan wom- an at Jacob's well. 'Zvxfip, as the place is termed there {1.tX(ip in Kec. Text is incorrect), found only in that passage, was no doubt current among the Jews in the age of Christ, and was either a term of reproach ("plIJ, "a lie") with reference to the Samaritan faith and wor- ship, or, possibly, a provincial mispronunciation of that period (see Liicke, Comin. iib.Johan. i, 577). The Sav- iour, with his disciples, remained two days at Sychar on his journey from Judjea to Galilee. He preached the Word there, and many of the people believed on him (John iv, 39, 40). In Acts vii, 1(5, Stephen reminds his hearers that certain of the patriarchs (meaning Joseph, as we see in Josh, xxiv, 32, and following, perhaps, some tradition as to Jacob's other sons) were buried at Sy- chem. Jerome, who lived so long hardl}' more than a day's journey from Shechem, says that the tombs of the twelve patriarchs were to be seen there in his day. The anonymous city iu Acts viii, 5, where Philip preached with such effect, may have been Sychem, though many would refer that narrative to Samaria, the capital of the province.
We have seen that not long after the times of the New Test, the place received the name of Nea|)olis, which it still retains in the Arabic form of Nablus, being one of the very few names imposed by the Ro- mans in Palestine which have survived to the present day. It had probably suffered much, if it was not com- pletely destroyed, in the war with the Romans (see Rambach, Be Urhe Sichem Sale Conspersa [Hal. 1730]), and would seem to have been restored or rebuilt by Ves- pasian, and then to have taken this new name ; for the coins of the city, of which there are many, all bear the inscription Flaria Nectjwlis — the former epithet no doubt derived from Flavins Vespasian ( Mionnet, Med. Antiq. v, 499). The name occurs first in Josephus {War, iv, 8, 1), and then in Pliny {Hist. Nat. \, 14), Ptolemy {Geog. v, 16). As intimated above, there had already been converts to the Christian faith at this place under our Saviour, and it is proljable that a Church had been gathered here by the ajiostles (John iv, 30-42; Acts viii, 25; ix, 31; xv, 3). Justin Martyr was a native of Neapolis {Apoln;/. ii, 41). The name of (Jcrmanus, bishop of Neapolis, occurs in A.D. 314; and other bisho|)s continue to be mentioned down to A.U. 536, when the bishop John signed his name at the synod of Jerusalem (Belaud, Pakpst. p. 1009). Wlien the Moslems invaded Palestine, Neapolis and other small towns in the neighborhood were subdued while the siege of Jerusalem was going on (Abulfeda, Annal. i, 229). After the taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders,
Neapolis and other towns in the mountains of Samaria tendered their submission, and Tancred took possession of them without resistance (Will. Tyr. ix, 20). Neapo- lis was laid waste by the Saracens in A.U. 1113; but a few years after (A.D. 1120) a council was held here by king Baldwin II to consult upon the state of the country (Fulcher, p. 424; Will. Tyr. xii, 13). Neapolis was not made a Latin bishopric, but belonged probably to that of Samaria, and the property of it was assigned to the abbot and canons of the Holy Sepulchre (Jac. de Vitriacus, ch. Iviii). After some disasters in the unquiet times which ensued, and after some circumstances which show its remaiiung importance, the place was finally taken from the Christians in A.D. 1242 by Abu Ali, the colleague of sultan Bibars, and has remained in Moslem hands ever since.