Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 17.djvu/565

* SAMARITANS. 507 SAMARITANS. most valuable historical work in Hebrew from the Persian period is the Memoirs of Xeliemiab. It has lieon supposed that JSanballat, Tobiah, and Gesliem, the enemies of the .Judean governor, were Samaritans. The text rather sti^^'fiests that San- ballat. tlic Iloronite, was a ^Moabite from Horo- naim, that Tobiah was an Ammonite and ticshevii was an Arab. (See 8a.b.llat. ) Only a single phrase in Xehemiah iv. 2, by which "his brothers" is explained by the addition, "that is, the army of Samaria" (according to the Greek version), can bcurged in favor of the former view, and this phrase is proliably a late gloss. According to Josephus {Ant. xi., 7, 2; 8. 2 sqq.), Sanballat, a Cuthean, was sent to Samaria as satrap by Darins III. (B.C. 3.30-3,30). and was permitted by .Alexander to bnild a temple on Jlount Gerizim, where he made Manasseh, his son-in-law, high priest. This Manasseh is evi- dently identical with the unnamed son of .Joiada in Nehemiah xiii. 28, who was the son-in-l,iw of Sanballat and was driven away by Nehemiah. His cousin, Jaddua, the son of .Johanan, Joiada's brother, was high priest in the time of Darius III. (Xeh. xii. 22) and Alexander (.Josephus. I.e.). There is no reason to doubt the concur- rent testimony of the Chronicler and .Josephiis as to the high priest in the days of Darius III. and Alexander. But it is necessary, if this be ac- cepted, to assume that Xehemiah and Sanballat began their enmity in the reign of Artaxerxes II. (B.C. 404-359) and that Sanballat in his old age was Satrap of Samaria. The temple on Mount Gerizim was therefore, in all probability, built in B.C. 332, though no doubt there existed long before this time a shrine upon this mountain. How much of the older Israelitish literature was pre- served in Samaria in the Persian period is not known, nor to what extent the Yaliweh-worship- ing communities there kept in touch with their kinsmen in .Judea. Their deep interest in the IMosaic period and the religious associations of their own sacred places would naturally render them anxious to possess every document known to them as claiming Mosaic authorship. An evidence of such a desire to know and to practice what Moses taught is the fact that the Pentateuch, probably in the form given to it by the editorial activity of Ezra (see Hexateucu), was accepted by the Samaritans. The consciousness of wor- shiping Yahweh in the place where he had com- manded that an altar should be built and benedic- tions pronounced (see Ebal .kd Gerizim) must have given a strong impetus to the Samaritan movement. It is not likely, however, that the centralization of the cult could be carried out cvcry^here in the province. The city of Samaria seems to have been hellenized at .an early date, and the same is true of Sc^-thopolis. Xor is it probable tluit those who lived in the Egyjitian town of Samaria mentioned in papyri from the reign of Ptolemy II. (B.C. 28.5-247) were adher- ents of the Shechemite faith. .Tews and Samari- tans may indeed have disputed about the legiti- mate place of a Yahweh sanctuarv in the time of Ptolemy VII. Philomctor (B.C. 181-145). though it is not likely that this discussion was held before the King and that the deported Samaritans were put to death. It is generally recognized that no credence can be given to the alleged renuest of the Samaritans to Antiochus lA^. (b.c. 1751 04) for permission to dedicate their temple to Zeus Xenios (Ant., xii. 5). II. Maccabees vi. 2 knows Vol. XVU.— 33. of no such request. While the .Samaritans did not take a part in the Maccabean revolt, they piotited frum it at lirst, as the Seleucid rulers abandoned their policy of suppressing the native cults. The worship of Yahweh on Mount Gerizim could consequently be resumed. Hut the expansion of the Jewish power proved dis- astrous to the Samaritans, .loiiathan .secured pos- session of three districts, Ephraini, I.ydda, and Kamathaim (I. Maee. xi. 34); and John llyr- canus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim. In B.C. 107 the entire Province of Samaria Ik- came Jewish territory, after the fall of the city. Though the temple on tierizim was not rebuilt, it is jirobable that a smaller shrine existed there even during tlic Asmoncan period. I'ompey, in B.C. 63, restored Samaria and .'^eythopolis as free cities, and (labinius (b.c. 57-55) rebuilt .Sa- maria and permitted Samaritans to dwell in the City. It was rebuilt on a still grander scale by Herod (B.C. 37-4) and given the name Scbaste in B.C. 27. Even the city of Shechein was not uninfluenced by foreign thought. An evidence of this is the rise of sects, such as the Esscnes, Sabu;rans, Gorthenes, and Dositheans. The Esscnes show so marked a kinsliip to Xeo-Pythagoreanism that it must be accounted for either by direct in- fluence or by a common Oriental source; and the Dositheans seem to have derived from Greek philosophy the notion of the eternity of matter, while they adhered to the traditional idea of the future and rejection of the doctrine of a resurrection or the immortality of the soul. It is not probable that Dosithcus regarded himself as the ilessiah, nor can this be allirmed of either of the political leaders who in A.i). 30 and in A.n. 00 were punished by Pontius Pilate and Ceiatiis, or of Simon of .(Jitta, perhajis the most intliien- tial Samaritan thinker of all time. It is jirob- able that the repudiation of the sects led the great body of the Samaritans nearer to the Pharisaic party. Especially after the fall of .Jerusalem in A.n. 70 the intense zeal for the law formed a bond of union, and the ]iarticipatioii of the Samaritans in the revolt under Hadrian tended to improve the relations. Eminent .Jew- ish teachers, such as Rabbi .Akiba and Kabbi Simon ben Gamaliel, regarded them as co-reli- gionists and their land as clean. In 105 Jews and Samaritans seem to have taken sides to- gether with Piscennius Niger against Septiniius Severus, and as a consequence .Sheehem was se- vci-ely punished. During the third century the attitude of the .Jews changed. In tlic reign of Diocletian (2S4-305) Rabbi Abbaha held that the Samaritans should be treated as pagans. Christi- anity gradlially won its way into Shechein. Bishops of Xeapolis and Sebaste were present at the Council of X'iemi (325). During the fifth and sixth centuries the Samaritans were subject to cruel persecutions by the Christian emperors, leading to revolts under Zeno in 484 and .Justin- ian in 520. From the Imperial decrees against them it is evident that Samaritans lived in Egypt and Cyrenaica. in Rome and Constantinople, as well as in Svria. .Arabic writers such ns ]rnsudi (died c.0.50), Riruni (died 1038K and Shahristani (born 1080). speak of Samaritan communities in Assyria and Eg;s'pt. After the capture of .Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1000, X'abulus freely accepted Christian rule, which continued until Saladin's victory of Lake