one of them, perhaps that which contributed the principal settlers, Cuthah, furnished the name Cuthim, by which the Jews afterwards persistently designated the Samaritans. It was intended as a term of reproach, [e St. John viii. 48.] to mark that they were of foreign race, [f St. Luke xvii. 16.] [6 The expression cannot, however, be pressed as implying that the Samaritans were of entirely Gentile blood.] and to repudiate all connection between them and the Jews. Yet it is impossible to believe that, at least in later times, they did not contain a considerable admixture of Israelitish elements. It is difficult to suppose, that the original deportation was so complete as to leave behind no traces of the original Israelitish inhabitants, [g Comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, 9 Jer. xii. 5; Amos v. 3.] Their number would probably be swelled by fugitives from Assyria, and by Jewish settlers in the troublous times that followed. Afterwards, as we know, they were largely increased by apostates and rebels against the order of things established by Ezra and Nehemiah. [a Jos. Ant. xi. 8, 2, 6, 7.] Similarly, during the period of internal political and religious troubles, which marked the period to the accession of the Meccabees, the separation between Jews and Samaritans could scarcely have been generally observed, the more so that Alexander the Great placed them in close juxtaposition. [1 Comp. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. ii. p. 120.]
The first foreign colonists of Samaria brought their peculiar forms of idolatry with them, [b 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31.] But the Providential judgments,by which they were visited, led to the
introduction of a spurious Judaism, consisting of a mixture of their former superstitions with Jewish doctrines and rites, [c vv. 28-41.] Although this state of matters resembled that which had obtained in the original kingdom of Israel, perhaps just because of this, Ezra and Nehemiah, when reconstructing the Jewish commonwealth, insisted on a strict separation between those who had returned from Babylon and the Samaritans, resisting equally their offers of co-operation and their attempts at hindrance. This embittered the national feeling of jealousy already existing, and led to that constant hostility between Jews and Samaritans which has continued to this day. The religious separation became final when (at a date which cannot be precisely fixed [2 Jost thinks it existed even before the time of Alexander. Comp. Nutt, Samar. Hist. p. 16, note 2.]) the Samaritans built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, and Manasseh, [3 The difficult question, whether this is the Sanballat of the Book of Nehemiah, is fully discussed by Petermann (Herzog's Real-Enc. vol. xiii. p. 366).] the brother of Jaddua, the Jewish High-Priest, having refused to annul his marriage with the daughter of Sanballat, was forced to flee, and became the High-Priest of the new Sanctuary. Henceforth, by impudent assertion and falsification of the text of the Pentateuch, [4 For a very full criticism of that Pentateuch, see Mr. Deutsch's Art. in Smith's Bible-Diet.] Gerizim was declared the rightful centre of worship, and the doctrines and rites of the Samaritans exhibited a curious imitation and adaptation of those prevalent in Judaea.
We cannot here follow in detail the history of the Samaritans, nor explain the dogmas and practices peculiar to them. The latter would be the more difficult, because so many of their views were simply corruptions of those of the Jews, and because, from the want of an authenticated ancient literature, [5 Comp. the sketch of it in Nutt's Samar. Hist., and Petermann's Art.] the origin and meaning of many of them have been forgotten. [1 As instances we may mention the names of the Angels and devils. One of the latter is called Yatsara (), which Petermann derives from Deut. xxxi. 21, and Nutt from Ex. xxiii. 28.1 have little doubt, it is only a corruption of Yetser haRa. Indeed, the latter and Satan are expressly identified in Baba B. 16 a. Many of the Samaritan views seem only corruptions and adaptations of those current in Palestine, which, indeed, in the circumstances, might have been expected.] Sufficient, however, must be said to explain the mutual relations at the time when the Lord, sitting on Jacob's well, first spake to the Samaritans of the better worship 'in spirit and truth,' and opened that well of living water which has never since ceased to flow.
The political history of the people can be told in a few sentences. Their Temple, [2 The Jews termed it (Ber. R. 31). Frankel ridicules the derivation of Reland (de Monte Garis iii., apud Ugolini, Thes. vol. vii. pp. 717, 718), who explains the name as stercoreum delubrum, corresponding to the Samaritan designation of the Temple at Jerusalem as oedes stercorea. Frankel himself (Palast. Ex. p. 248) derives the expression from with reference to Gen. xxxv. 4. But this seems quite untenable. May not the term be a compound of, to spit out, and ? .] to which reference has been made, was built, not in Samaria but at Shechem, probably on account of the position held by that city in the former history of Israel, and on Mount Gerizim, which in the Samaritan Pentateuch was substituted for Mount Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4. It was Shechem also, with its sacred associations of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, which became the real capital of the Samaritans. The fate of the city of Samaria under the reign of Alexander is uncertain, one account speaking of the rebellion of the city, the murder of the Macedonian governor, the consequent destruction of Samaria, and the slaughter of part, and transportation of the rest, of its inhabitants to Shechem, [3 Comp. Herzfeld, u. s. ii. p. 120.] whileJosephus is silent on these events. When, after the death of
Alexander, Palestine became the field of battle between the rulers of Egypt and Syria, Samaria suffered even more than other parts of the country. In 320 B. C. it passed from the rule of Syria to that of Egypt (Ptolemy Lagi). Six years later [a In 314.] it again became Syrian (Antigonus). Only three years afterwards, [b In 311.] Ptolemy reconquered and held it for a very short time. On his retreat, he destroyed the walls of Samaria and of other towns. In 301 it passed again by treaty into the hands of Ptolemy, out in 298 it was once more ravaged by the son of Antigonus. After that it enjoyed a season of quiet under Egyptian rule, till the reign of Antiochus (III.) the Great, when it again passed temporarily, and under his successor, Seleucus IV. (Philopator), [c 187-175.] permanently under Syrian dominion. In the troublous times of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, [d 175-164. ]the Samaritans escaped the fate of the Jews by repudiating all connection with Israel, and dedicating their temple to Jupiter, [a According to Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 5,; according to 2 Mace. vi. 2 2,.] In the contest between Syria and the Maccabees which followed, the Samaritans, as might be expected, took the part of the former. In 130 B. C. John Hyrcanus destroyed the Temple on Mount Gerizim, [1 It is very probable that the date 25 Marcheshvan (Nov.) in the Megill. Taan. refers to the capture of Samaria. Both the Talmud (Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Sot. 33 a) and Josephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 7) refers to a Bath Qol announcing this victory to Hyrcanus while he ministered in the Sanctuary at Jerusalem.] which was never rebuilt. The city of Samaria was taken several years afterwards [b Between 113 and 105.] [2 Not a few of the events of Herod's life were connected with Samaria. There he married the beautiful and ill-fated Mariamme (Ant. xiv. 12. 1); and there, thirty years later, her two sons were strangled by order of the jealous tyrant (Ant. xvi. 11. 2- 7).] by the sons of Hyrcanus (Antigonus and Aristobulus), after a year's siege, and the successive defeat of Syrian and Egyptian armies of relief. Although the city was now not only destroyed, but actually laid under water to complete its ruin, it was rebuilt by Gabinius shortly before our era, [c Ant xiv. 5.3.] and greatly enlarged and beautified by Herod, who called it Sebaste in honour of Augustus, to whom he reared a magnificent temple, [d Ant. xx. 8. 5; Jewish War i. 21. 2.] Under Roman rule the city enjoyed great privileges, had even a Senate of its own. [e Ant. xviii. 4. 2.] Byone of those striking coincidences which mark the Rule of God in history, it was the accusation brought against him by that Samaritan Senate which led to the deposition of Pilate. By the side of Samaria, or Sebaste, we have already marked as perhaps more important, and as the religious capital, the ancient Shechem, which, in honour of the Imperial family of Rome, ultimately obtained the name of Flavia Neapolis, which has survived in the modern Nablus. It is interesting to notice that the Samaritans also had colonies, although not to the same extent as the Jews. Among them we may name those of Alexandria, Damascus, in Babylonia, and even some by the shores of the Red Sea. [3 Comp. Nutt, Samar. Hist. p. 26, note, and the authorities there quoted.]
Although not only in the New Testament, but in 1 Mace. x. 30, and in the writings of Josephus, [f See specially War iii. 3. 4, 5.] Western Palestine is divided into the provinces of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, the Rabbis, whose ideas were shaped by the observances of Judaism, ignore this division. For them Palestine consisted only of Judaea, Peraea, and Galilee, [g For ex. Baba B. iii. 2.] Samaria appears merely as a strip intervening between Judaea and Galilee, being 'the land of the Cuthaeans.' [h For ex. Jer. Chag. iii. 4.] Nevertheless, it was not regarded like heathen lands, but pronounced clean. Both the Mishnah [i Gitt. vii. 7.] and Josephus [k War iii. 3. 4, 5.] mark Anuath ( ) as the southern boundary of Samaria (towards Judae). Northward it extended to Ginaea (the ancient En-Gannim) on the south side of the plain of Jezreel; on the east it was bounded by the Jordan; and on the west by the plain of Sharon, which was rekoned as belonging to Judaea. Thus it occupied the ancient territories of Manasseh and Ephraim, and
extended about forty-eight miles (noth and south) by forty (east and west). In aspect and climate it resembled Judaea, only that the scenery was more beautiful and the soil more fertile. The political enmity and religious separation between the Jews and Samaritans account for their mutual jealously. On all public occasions the Samaritans took the part hostile to the Jews, while they seized every opportunity of injuring and insulting them. Thus, in the time of Antiochus III. they sold many Jews into slavery, [a Ant. xii. 4.1.] Afterwards they sought to mislead the Jews at a distance, to whom the beginning of every month (so important in the Jewish festive arrangements) was intimated by beacon fires, by kindling spurious signals, [b Rosh haSh. ii. 2.] We also read that
