Talk:Samaritans

==comments==

OneVoice, have you ever met Samaritans or talked to them? They would immediately tell you that Josephus was biased. They would have a point too. You are telling their history from a Jewish perspective. Why not introduce their voice too? After all, they claim to be descendants of the original Israelites. That should certainly be mentioned before some rival claim dismissing them. Danny 02:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Danny, I would be very happy to have their view expressed as well. Here you/we are saying that Josephus is biased. On the Jesus page, he is noted as a being reliable. Perhaps it depends strongly on what is being said about whom, though I do not know this is necessarily the case. It does not dismiss them, they are still real and present. The question as to descent could be answered rather well via DNA testing of their Priests and Levites [1] as well as mitochrondrial DNA testing. But there is risk, the desired results might not be obtained.

Would this meet the need:

The Samaritans have insisted that they are direct descendants of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who survived the destruction of the Northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. The inscription of Sargon II records the deportation of a relatively small proportion of the Israelites (27,290, according to the annals), so it is quite possible that a sizable population remained that could identify themselves as Israelites, the term that the Samaritans prefer for themselves.

Samaritan historiography would place the basic schism from the remaining part of Israel after the twelve tribes conquered the land of Canaan, lead by Joshua. After Joshua's death, Eli the priest left the tabernacle which Moses erected in the desert and established on Mount Gerizim, and built another one under his own rule in the hills of Shilo (1 Sam 1:1-3; 2:12-17). Thus, he established both an illegitimate priesthood and an illegitimate place of worship.

According to this description, the Jews are the dissidents! OneVoice 03:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not really because Jerusalem was chosen, it was the site Abraham was about to offer Isaac, it called Salem, Ancient Jewish tradition identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and Scriptural evidence supports this. Abraham met the king of Sodom and Melchizedek in “the king’s Low Plain.” Since King David’s son Absalom centuries later erected a monument there, this low plain must have been near Jerusalem, the capital of the kingdom. (Genesis 14:17, 18; 2Samuel 18:18) The word “Salem” is, in fact, incorporated in the name “Jerusalem,” and the psalmist used it in parallel with “Zion.” (Ps 76:2) Also, it would have been fitting for Melchizedek to be king and priest in the very place where later the kings of the Davidic line and the Levitical priesthood served and where Jesus Christ, the one according to Christians, chosen to be a king and priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek,” was offered in sacrifice.

Judah, By his concern for his aged father and his noble effort to preserve Benjamin’s freedom at the cost of his own, Judah proved himself to be superior among his brothers. (1Ch 5:2) No longer was he the Judah who in his youth had shared in plundering the Shechemites and who had been party to wronging his half brother Joseph and then deceiving his own father. His fine qualities of leadership entitled Judah, as one of the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel, to receive a superior prophetic blessing from his dying father. (Genesis 49:8-12) Its fulfillment is considered below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as genetic testing of Samaritans goes, this has been done extensively, and the male Samaritans are proven to be mainly of the "Cohen haplotype".[2] -- Olve 18:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say you would be very happy to have their view expressed as well. That is very generous of you [sic]. Never have I said that Josephus is reliable. In fact, I contend that the Jesus account is a later addition. Do you know how to use or assess ancient sources? As for your suggestion regarding DNA testing to determine descent, you are showing how little you actually know about the Samaritans. The priestly families died out generations ago, and the people now acting as priests are not from the priestly family. As for DNA testing, it is done regularly. In fact, Samaritans cannot marry without DNA testing being done, because there are only four families left, and it is required to prevent genetic disease (it is done in Tel HaShomer hospital. According to John Whiting in National Geographic, 1919, there were fewer than 150 Samaritans left--their growth to 700 today is largely a result of the care taken in testing). The proposed text is better, Josephus should be mentioned, but not as the main source for identifying them--you might want to look at Ben-Zvi for a later view. As for showing "Jews as dissidents," so what? We are not writing articles to promote agendas, "pro-Jewish" or "anti-Jewish." Danny 11:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[sic] is used in a quotation to indicate that an error, often spelling, is recognized by the quoter and retained deliberately to reflect exactly what was originally written. "That is very generous of you [sic]." is not correct usage, as far as I know. Why do people on wikipedia seem to always include personal invective or personal slights in their comments. That behavior is sophomoric. (Note this is a characterization/criticism of the behavior; the person is free to choose their behavior at each instant, so past behavior does not condemn on to continue behaving in the same manner....freedom of choice is given to human beings.)

NPOV edit - I removed "for self defense purposes" from the end of the sentence "But the conflict followed them. In 2001, the Israeli army set up an artillery battery on Gerizim" at the end of the second paragraph in the "Modern Times" section. The area in question is deep inside the West Bank near Nablus, and Israeli military incursion here and throughout the West Bank and Gaza is considered by some, including the UN and most human rights organizations, to be offensive rather than defensive in nature, and contrary to international law. Stating that the installation of an IDF artillery battery near Nablus was for "self defense" is a partisan POV. Based on the relevant articles of international law which address this situation without ambiguity, as well as the position of the UN SC and GA and the preponderance of official position statements from a large majority of governments of the world, it could easily be argued that a NPOV would that this installation and other similar military actions by Israel in occupied lands are inflammatory and illegal. However, to be conservative, I have removed the "self defense" reference and not replaced it with anything that could be construed as containing POV.

Ten Commandments?

It says: They have a significantly different version of the Ten Commandments (for example, their 10th commandment is about the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim).

So I would be interested in seeing this significantly different list posted SF2K1

Their Ten Commandments are pretty much the same as the usual ones, with a few words different here and there (most notably, the Masoretic version has "Remember the Sabbath Day" in Exodus and "Observe the Sabbath Day" in Deuteronomy; the Samaritan version has "Observe" in both places). And of course the paragraph of the commandment regarding Mt. Gerizim. They still have just ten commandments because they count the last two ("thou shalt not covet...") as one commandment, as Jews do as well (Jews also count "I am the LORD your God" as a commandment, which is how they get ten). Clsn 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"last century" ambiguity

In the text "a fifth family died out in the last century", does "last century" mean the 19th century or the 20th century? Anthony Appleyard 06:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it

"Samaritans fared badly under Roman rule, when Samaria was part of the Roman province of Judea, in the early part of the Common Era. However, this period was also something of a golden age for the Samaritan community."

Samaritans "fared badly" during "something of a golden age for the Samaritan community"?

Me neither.
Further, in the section titled "Under Islam" they are said to pay a tax, but then there is some claim that their tax is actually lower than for a Muslim leading one to believe they are give special treatment. But then there is a paragraph which explains how severely their numbers have been reduced. It is obvious that they have fared badly (the section on DNA testing leads one to beleive they didnt all just convert, and even if they did that is evidence that being a Samaritan under Islamic rule was disadvantageous) but there is no explanation as to why their numbers have dropped. 69.125.146.118 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Samaritans as a Jewish subdivision

Is it really appropriate to include Samaritans in the template on the article as a Jewish subdivision when their distinction stems from the Jews' and Samaritans' mutual rejection of one another, and Samaritans do not consider themselves Jewish? While the Samaritans admittedly derive their roots at least in part from Israel, it would seem more appropriate to categorize and group the Samaritans as a people associated with both the ancient Israelites and ancient Assyrians, as the Jews also are. Because of these considerations, I'll remove references that classify Samaritans as Jews, or change them to reflect that they are a divergent Israelite-associated tradition. - Gilgamesh 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, if the samaritans DON'T identify themselves as being Jewish, this article (good though it is) really shouldn't be under the Jewish section. The article itself acknowledges the difference between the religions, and the perceived ethnic differences. Any Samaitans online who can clear this up? --Indisciplined 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Samaritans generally do not consider themselves "Jewish," though they acknowledge a relationship to modern Jews, as fellow Israelites (at least potentially). They have in recent decades begun condoning marriages between Samaritan men and Jewish women. Since they reckon descent patrilineally and have no tradition of conversion (that entered Judaism with Ruth, which of course is not part of the Samaritan tradition), marriage of Samaritan women to Jewish men would be far more problematic.

Moreover, "Jewish" really is, originally, a geographic term: people from Judea. And Samaritans, of course, are not from Judea but from Samaria. In various sources I've seen, most (but not all) written by Samaritans themselves, there is no hesitation to use "Jews" and "Samaritans" contrastively. Jews and Samaritans share a history and an origin, but Samaritans are not a subset of Jews. Clsn 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Samaritans are not Jews in the sense of people from the kingdom of Judah, but they qualify in every other respect: they are a Semitic people, they speak Hebrew, they trace their lineage to Isaac, they are monotheists, they read the Torah, they keep the covenants of God with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, they follow the Law, etc. Their doctrinal and cultural differences with the people properly known as "Jews" are a product of history, and far smaller than differences between, for example, Shi'a and Sunni Islam, or even different dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

So yes, while it's true from a pedantic perspective that Samaritans are not Jews, they follow the same religion as Jews and are significant to the history and culture of Judaism, and involved in in some of the modern issues facing Jews (such as Palestine and the Third Temple).

If you exclude Samaritans from Jewish categories, you must also exclude Abraham, Moses, the Ten Commandments, Elijah, and everyone else who predates the anointing of David as the leader of the tribe of Judah, since they are not, strictly speaking, Jews either.

Just some food for thought. --96.245.223.207 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranians...

I can't believe the sentence in the opening was there for so long. I changed it.

Self-name?

What is the Samaritans' name for themselves? Is it something like Bnei Yisrael, or is it more specific? AnonMoos 03:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews usually use the term Template:Hebrew [šōmərōnīm], ‘people from Šōmərōn (Samaria)’. The Samaritans prefer the term Template:Hebrew [šomrim], ‘guardians’ instead, since they consider themselves to be the true guardians of the Torah. -- Olve 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Samaritans I know in Holon call themselves Template:Hebrew "Shamerim Yisraelim." I believe that is one of the titles they use on their web-site. http://www.the-samaritans.com--EhavEliyahu 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you have any way of finding out whether this is also a commonly used term in Shekhem? My sources are various articles on Samaritan music (J. Spector, R. Katz and others) dating primarily from the 1970s or so. I wrote a paper on Samaritan music in grad school. Never got the chance to do my thesis on them though, since the first Gulf War effectively thwarted my field work plans... -- Olve 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I will check on it and post what I find out. I will email Benny Tzedaka who is one of their scholars.--EhavEliyahu 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the same terms are used in both places. The communities are in fairly close contact, at least since 1967. Benny's newsletter, A.B., usually uses שומרונים, but that's in articles that are written in Modern Hebrew in other respects too, so that's just because it's the Israeli term.

By their deeds you will know them

There was no need of the Bible to show the Samaritans as non-Israelites if they were in fact Israelites. The Bible mentions the existence and history of the other tribes after the split from the Kingdom of Judah until their deportation by the Assyrians, even mentioning some of the survivors in the Book of Tobit. To make it short, the Bible would have no motive for bias, whereas the Samaritans would have such a motive. Also, as explained by Josephus (and most likely in other resources), the Samaritans have called themselves descendents of the tribes of Joseph when times are good for being an Israelite (which they have done without any reputable documentation or geneologies), and the Samaritans have called themselves foreigners when times are bad for being called an Israelite. Their actions (well documented enough in the Bible, Josephus, and probably other resources) also show their non-Israelite origin. JBogdan 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please study the extensive genetic testing projects and the high percentage of the Cohen haplotype which was found (amongst other factors) before you dismiss a whole people. (Some intermarriage has happened amongst Samaritans as well as amongst Jews and is not any more of a valid argument for rejecting the Samaritans than it would be for rejecting the Jews. Or any other people on the face of this planet at that.) Respectfully, Olve 00:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings JBogdan. The problem is that scholars are divided over whether the modern SECT called Samaritans and the Shomronim mentioned in the Tanakh are the same people. For example there are some scholars who note that the Shomronim mentioned in the Tanakh may have been some residents of Shomron and not specifically a religious sect who claimed Mount Gerizim as the holy place. At issue is that some scholars don't believe that the religious sect that are now modernly known as Samaritans are simply some descendents of dissident Jews from a later period who attached themselves to the claim that Mount Gerizim was the holy place. OR was there really a sect during the time of Ezra and Nechumyah who believed that Mount Gerizim was the holy place. These could be two distict issues.--EhavEliyahu 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable relevance

The section Antiochus Epiphanes and Hellenization bears no obvious relation to the subject of this article. I am tempted to remove it. Any comments? --Philopedia 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The main heading Antiochus Epiphanes and Hellenization has a subheading titled Samaritans bow to imperial pressure. The material under the subheading largely repeats the material under the main heading, but also provides the missing connection to the Samaritans. I plan to replace the material under the main heading with the material under the subheading to eliminate the redundancy and keep the article on topic. As an added benefit, the title of the subheading strikes me as prejorative, so combining these sections under the main heading should move the article toward NPOV. DHimmelspach 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Expert request

In this article, Christian and Jewish scriptures and viewpoints are repeatedly presented as fact, while Samaritan's traditional view of their own history occupies a secondary role. In its current state this a highly POV article. Bible study websites are cited are cited as fact without checking whether the site even represents a common or notable Christian view. In an article about a differnet religion with its own scriptures, Jewish and Christian views of and attitudes towards the Samaritans are secondary and should all be placed in their own separate sections. Samaritan scriptures, not the Jewish or Christian Bible, should be used as the primary scriptural source for this article. Modern historical accounts should receive greater prominence. Their may need to be a separate article on e.g. Christian attitudes towards the Samaritans, which would be an article describing Christians, not an article describing Samaritans. --Shirahadasha 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that this article largely represents a tense viewpoint somewhere between the Christian and the Jewish. However the problem remains that the number of living people who consider themselves Samaritans today is so small, that it is likely we will have to settle for this viewpoint. Unless we can find someone who openly identifies themselves as Samaritan, or is familiar enough with existing Samaritan world views to do a once over on the article to provide greater balance, I suggest we otherwise try to minimize the Jewish/Christian tension.

Also, the fact that the Jewish king Hyrcanus I destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim about 128-113 B.C.E. (and many Samaritans were forcibly converted to Judaism) should also be amplified here (not treated as a single point) for it was one of the first notable persecution of Samaritans (historically).

--WikiRat1 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)--

I don't think it's necessarily so that because there are so few of them their own views can only be minor. It depends on how many of them are literate or had their view of history written down. Also on what in history, any side, can be verified.--T. Anthony 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Last Century" ambiguity

In the modern times section, the term "last century" is used--is this the 20th or 19th century? Thanks!! --198.59.190.201 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted to the last version by Audiobooks. It looks as if somebody is attempting what is pretty near a total rewrite of an article which appears to represent collective work of a number of users. This is bad enough, but they cannot even be bothered to properly wikify their changes. PatGallacher 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Samaritan

The Samaritans were a mixed race, descended from the remnant of Israelites who were not deported by Assyria after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C. and from the foreign colonists brought in from Babylon and beyond by the Assyrian conquerors. We learn of the origin of the Samaritans in 2 Kings 17. The woman's claim (4:12) that Jacob left the well to his descendants the Samaritans is a tradition that has no biblical support. The well itself, however, is "perhaps the most identifiable site in modern Israel connected with the ministry of Jesus." Some earlier commentators thought that the woman's five husbands stood for the five gods of the nations that formed ancient Samaria, since the Hebrew word for "husband" is ba'al, also the name for pagan deities. Josephus mentions "Five nations . . . each brought its own god to Samaria." The sixth-Yahweh-was not really a husband, that is, one to whom the people had an exclusive commitment. However, by the time of our episode-the first century-the Samaritans were confirmed monotheists. When the woman begins to realize that Jesus is a prophet, she quickly turns to one of the most controversial theological questions of her day, namely, the location of the religious center of the world. There was a long-standing opposition between the Jews and Samaritans over the right place of worship. According to Samaritan tradition, Mount Gerizim, at whose foot Jacob's well was located, was the mountain where Abraham had climbed to sacrifice Isaac. Because the Samaritans recognized only the Pentateuch as authoritative, references later in the OT stipulating worship at the Jerusalem temple were not considered binding. The Samaritans actually made the obligation to worship on Mt. Gerizim a part of the Decalogue. Differences were accentuated after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, when the Samaritans put obstacles in the way of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Finally, in the second century B.C. the Samaritans helped the Syrian monarchs in their wars against the Jews, a favor the Jews returned by destroying the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim in 128 B.C. "Worship wars" indeed! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Accusations in John

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is accused of having a demon and of being a Samaritan. He denies having a demon, but does not deny being a Samaritan. Erudil 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and the Samaritans Section

I think this section should be removed. It doesn't seem like it is written very well, and it doesn't really seem to have any bearing on this article about the Samaritans.--EhavEliyahu 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment herein was silly and off the point, and I erased it. --82.166.245.247 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

==Samaritan Script==

The claim that Samaritans kept and use ancient Hebrew script is quite dubious,their script is quite different just as different as Hebrews modern script 

Compare all three

[3]old Hebrew [4] Samaritan [5] Hebrew

Actually, what you posted is not exactly accurate. In regards to old Hebrew (Ketav Ivri) there have a number of scripts that developed over time. See here.

In terms of the Samaritan script what you posted is also not exactly accurate. The first script was created by a member of a Masonic lodge which uses that script for their rituals and such. The second Samaritan script is one I have never seen on any Samaritan documents and such. The following link shows a page of the Samaritan Torah. Though it is different from the Ancient Hebrew script you posted, the Hebrew script has gone through a number of changes over the years. The Samaritans claim to use a script that the continued evolution of Ancient Hebrew.

Page of Samaritan Torah

Page with the development of the Samaritan Hebrew script

As you can see the Hebrew alphabet has developed in a number of directions that over time looked different than the more ancient scripts. The Samaritan claim is that they maintained a direct connection to the script, and not the use of a different script.

The Jewish claim is different. There are 3 opinions in the Talmud.

1) The Ketav Ivri was used in ancient times for everything and the Ashuri script like we use today was introduced after the exile.

2) The Ketav Ivri was used for common writing while the Ketav Ashuri came from God. God wrote it on the 2 Stone Tablets and all Torah documents were written in Ketav Ashuri.

3) The Ketav Ashuri came first, then the Ketav Ivri was used, but when Ezra made his reforms he revived the Ketav Ashuri.--EhavEliyahu 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All scripts evolve, and all the ones under consideration here had the same source. According to Joseph Naveh, the Samaritan script descends from the "Hebrew" branch of development of the proto-Canaanite alphabet, which changed rather slowly. It definitely has changed in the hands of the Samaritans themselves over the centuries, but still retains a lot of the original structure of the old "Ktav Ivri". The current Hebrew script, Ktav Ashuri, derives from the Aramaic line of development, which showed extremely rapid and varied development, at least in its early history. That's why it is so different from the Ktav Ivri. Ktav Ashuri has also changed some over the years (see A. Yardeni's "Book of Hebrew Script"), but not a whole lot: most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are still completely legible as modern text. The omniglot examples don't look anything like what any Samaritan I've seen looks like. It is quite reasonable to say that the Samaritans use the paleo-Hebrew script, or at least a derivative of it. Nobody uses the exact same script that they used a thousand years ago: everything evolves. Clsn (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

I have removed '...it is said...Alexander...visited Samaria and not Jerusalem'

Please source this better if it is to be included. Josephus, though seen as biased by many here on topics concerning Samaritans, was not discussing Jewish/Samaritan relations when he specifically notes that Alexander did visit Jerusalem. (Antiq 11.8.4) Brando130 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating

Can we decide on the year convention? At the time of writing, it looks like dates are given in years "CE" and in years "BC", which is a mixture of two conventions. Either AD/BC or CE/BCE, please (the latter, if you ask me). And every so often someone goes in and switches them, and someone else goes and switches them back... Is there an official Wikipedia position on this?

A need to contrast with Rabbinic Judaism

I would nice to know details on the Samaritans reject of the oral law of the pharisees. And also knowing thier stand in relation to beliefs of the Sadducees, Essenes, Rabbis, Christians, Karaites, Muslims.