[See page image]

Page 188

the second Temple. The schism and the mutual hatred of Jews and Samaritans are most simply accounted for by the old standing opposition between north and south.

Preeminent in importance in accounting for the consolidation of the Samaritans were the recognition of the Pentateuch and the erection of the temple on Mt. Gerizim. Of the second matter Josephus 2. Josephus' gives an account (Ant., XI., vii. 2,

investigation. According to him Daxius Codomannus sent as satrap to Samaria a certain Sanaballetes, and he, to secure Jewish friendship, gave his daughter in marriage to Manasseh, brother of Jaddus, the high priest. In accordance with Ezra ix., Manasseh was ordered to give up his wife or his priesthood, and appealed to Sanballat; the latter then promised him a temple on Mt. Gerizim and the high priesthood of it. Manasseh therefore took up his residence in Samaria, whither other Jews, priests and laymen, who had heathen wives followed him and were joyously received by Sanaballetes and given means of support. While Alexander was besieging Tyre, the satrap went over to him and secured Alexander's consent to his project, after which he built the temple. After the death of Sanaballetes, the Samaritans sent a deputation to Alexander, invited him to their city, and asked immunity from taxation in the sabbatical year, asserting that they were Hebrews, though they disclaimed being Jews. Alexander postponed granting their request, but took the Samaritan soldiery with him to Egypt and settled them there as guardians of the boundary. But the temple at Gerizim became a refuge and resort of Jews who in their own land were socused of breaking the laws of Judaism. This account does not make clear how a heathen people through the shrewdness of their satrap and the accession of a fugitive Jewish priest permitted the victory over them of a new religion. Rather, Manasseh, if he acted as is related, found existing an idea of relationship to the Jews. The chronology of Josephus raises questions, when compared with Ezra ix., x. 5, and Neh. x. 31, xiii. 23 sqq. Neh. xiii. 28 seems to have the same basis as the narrative of Josephus; a son of Joiada, who was son of the high priest Eliashab, was son-in-law of Sanballat. Josephus makes Manasseh, son-in-law of Sanaballetes and brother of the high priest Jaddus, who was son of the high priest Johanan, the grandson of Joiada and great-grandson of Eliashab. That is, Josephus puts Manasseh a century too late. If Manasseh built the temple on Gerizim, he was not son or grandson of Joiada. It seems historical that the Gerizim temple was built under Alexander (cf. Joaephus, Ant., XIII., ix. 1). If Manasseh is identical with the son of the Joiada of Nehemiah, he may have been active among the Samaritans, but not as builder of the temple. At the cost of chronology, identity has been assumed (by Josephus) between the founder of the temple and the object of Nehemiah's anger. Reference to the Samaritan temple has been seen in the " Trito-Isaiah " (chaps. lvi.-lxvi.), as in Ivii. 3 sqq., 1xv. 3 sqq., lxvi. 1 aqq., 16 eqq., and with considerable reason (cf. on this A. Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 229 sqq.,

Leipsie, 1894; T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, pp. $16-317, 363 sqq., London, 1895, and Jeuiah Religious Lifa after the Exile, pp. 25 sqq., ib. 1898).

When the Pentateuch was taken over by the Samaritans is entirely. unknown. It can no longer be maintained that the hatred between Jews and Samaritans after the time of Nehemiah necessitates the acquisition by the Samaritans of the Pentateuch earlier than the breach at that time; nor can Josephus' account be wholly rejected, nor may the absolute completion of the Pentateuch be set between 444 and 432. The mutual hatred of the two peoples, moreover, was not so great as to hinder the Samaritans from adopting an unquestioned work of Moses, since they derived their religion from him as its founder. Moreover, in the Samaritan alphabet there are to be seen indications that it dates back to the forms of the fourth century B.C.

Under the Ptolemies and Seleucidse the Samaritans shared the fortunes of the Jews (cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant., XII., i. 1). The hatred of the two peoples manifested itself in acts of aggression $. History (Josephus, Ant., XII., iv. 1; I Mace. to 88 A. D. u'. 10) and in epithets (Ecclus. 1. 25 26). Under Antiochus Epiphanes the Samaritans denied kinship with the Jews and claimed descent from Medea and Persians (Josephus, Ant., XII., v. 5) or Phenicians, while they contested with the Jews in Egypt for precedence in behalf of their own temple (Josephus, Ant., XIII., iii. 4). John Hyrcanus overran Samaria and destroyed the temple at Gerizim and later the city of Samaria (Josephus, Ant., XIII., ix. 1, x. 2), and under Alexander Janamus (104-78 B.C.) the city was in the power of the Jews. In 63 B.C. it was made a free city, that is, was under the Roman governor of Syria. Under Gabinius (57-55) it was rebuilt, and in 30 adorned by Herod and named Sebaste in honor of Augustus. After the death of Herod the district came under Archelaus, but after his deposition came again under direct Roman rule, except that in 41-44 A.D. it was given by Claudius to Herod Agrippa. Testimony to the continuing hatred of and for the Jews is found in John viii. 48; Josephus, Ant., XVIII., ii. 2, XX., vi. 1; War, II., xii. 3, in which the recurring conflicts are in part narrated while they explain such in-. cidents as those of Luke ix. 53 and the remark in John iv. 9. John iv. shows, however, that the separation and exclusiveness were not absolute, and the circuit made by Galileans in going to Jerusalem was caused less by the hostility of the Samaritans than by the exposure to ceremonial defilement on the part of Jews. That the Samaritans in the time of Jesus were considered heathen follows neither from Matt. x. .5 nor Luke xvu. 18; note that in John iv. 12 the Samaritan woman speaks of " our father Jacob." The New Testament nowhere charges the Samaritans with idolatry. The report in the Talmud (Chullin 6a) that the Samaritans worshiped the image of a dove is a late invention, and that they worshiped a god Ashima arose from a misunderstanding. That worship continued on Gerizim in the time of Jesus is clear. The significance of Gerizim for the Samaritans is indicated by Josephus (Ant., XVIII., iv.), according to whom in