they tried to descrate the Temple on the eve of the Passover; [c Ant. xviii. 2. 2.] and that they waylaid and killed pilgrims on their road to Jerusalem, [d Ant. xx. 6. 1.] The Jews retaliated by treating the Samaritans with every mark of contempt; by accusing them of falsehood, folly, and irreligion; and, what they felt most keenly, by disowning them as of the same race or religion, and this in the most offensive terms of assumed superiority and self-righteous fanaticism.
In view of these relations, we almost wonder at the candour and moderation occasionally displayed towards the Samaritans in Jewish writings. These statements are of practical importance in this history, since elaborate attempts have been made to show what articles of food the disciples of Jesus might have bought in Samaria, in ignorance that almost all would have been lawful. Our inquiry here is, however, somewhat complicated by the circumstance that in Rabbinic writings, as at present existing, the term Samaritans (Cuthim [1 The more exact translation would, of course, be Kuthim, but I have written Cuthim on account of the reference to 2 Kings xxvii. 24. Indeed, for various reasons, it is impossible always to adopt a uniform or exact system of transliteration.] ) has, to avoid the censorship of the press, been often purposely substituted for 'Sadducees,' or 'heretics,' i.e. Christians. Thus, when [e In Sanh. 90 b.] the Samaritans are charged with denying in their books that the Resurrection can be proved from the Pentateuch, the real reference is supposed to have been to Sadducean or Christian heretical writings. Indeed, the terms Samaritans, Sadducees, and heretics are used so interchangeably, that a careful inquiry is necessary, to show in each case which of them is really meant. Still more frequent is the use of the term 'Samaritan' () for 'stranger' (), the latter, and not strictly Samaritan descent being meant. [1 Frankel quotes as a notable instance of it, Ber. viii. 8, and refers in proof to the Jerus. Talmud on this Mishnah. But, for reasons soon to be explained, I am not prepared in this instance to adopt his view.] The popular interchange of these terms casts light on the designation of the Samaritan as 'a stranger' by our Lord in St. Luke xvii. 18.
In general it may be said that, while on certain points Jewish opinion remained always the same, the judgment passed on the Samaritans, and especially as to intercourse with them, varied, according as they showed more or less active hostility towards the Jews. Thus the Son of Sirach would correctly express the feeling of contempt and dislike, when he characterised the Samaritans as 'the foolish people' which his 'heart abhorred.' [a Ecclus. 1. 25, 26.] The same sentiment appears in early Christian Pseudepigraphic and in Rabbinic writings. In the so-called 'Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs' (which probably dates from the beginning of the second century), 'Sichem' is the City of Fools, derided by all men. [b Test. Levi. vii.] It was only natural, that Jews should be forbidden to respond by an Amen to the benediction of Samaritans, at any rate till they were sure it had been correctly spoken, [c Ber. viii. 8.] since they were neither in practice nor in theory regarded as co-religionists, [d Sheq. i. 5.] [2 As in the case of heathens, neither Temple-tribute, nor any other than free-will and votive offerings were received from them.] Yet
they were not treated as heathens, and their land, their springs, baths, houses, and roads were declared clean, [e Jer. Abhod. Z. v. 4, p. 44 d.]
The question was discussed, whether or not they were to be considered 'lion-proselytes' (from fear of the lions), or as genuine converts; [f Sanh. 85 b; Chull. 3 b; Kidd, 75 b.] and, again, whether or not they were to be regarded as heathens, [g Jer. Sheq. 46 b.] This, and the circumstance that different teachers at different times gave directly opposite replies to these questions, proves that there was no settled principle on the subject, but that opinions varied according to the national bearing of the Samaritans. Thus, we are expressly told, [h Jer. Demai iii. 4.] that at one time both their testimony and their religious orthodoxy were more credited than at others, and they are not treated as Gentiles, but placed on the same level as an ignorant Jew. A marked difference of opinion here prevails. The older tradition, as represented by Simon the son of Gamaliel, regards them as in every respect like Israelites; [i Comp. also Jer. Dem. vi. 11; Jer. Ber. vii. 1; and Jer. Keth. 27 a.] whilst later authority (Rabbi Jehuda the Holy) would have them considered and treated as heathens. Again, it is expressly stated in the Babylon Talmud, [a Ber. 47 b.] that the Samaritans observed the letter of the Pentateuch, while one authority adds, that in that which they observed they were more strict than the Jews themselves, [b Comp. Chull. 4 a.] Of this, indeed, there is evidence as regards several ordinances. On the other hand, later authorities again reproach them with falsification of the Pentateuch, charge them with worshipping them with falisification of the Pentateuch, charge them with worshipping a dove, [c Chull. 6 a.] and even when, on further inquiry, they absolve them from this accusation, ascribe their excessive veneration for Mount Gerizim to the circumstance that they worshipped the idols which Jacob had buried under the oak at Shechem. To the same hatred, caused by national persecution, we must impute such expressions as [d Chull. 104 c] that he, whose hospitality receives a foreigner, has himself to blame if his children have to go into captivity.
The expression, 'the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans,' [e St. John iv. 9.] finds its exact counterpart [f Megill. 2.] in this: 'May I never set eyes on a Samaritan;' or else, 'May I never be thrown into company with him!' A Rabbi in Caesarea explains, as the cause of these changes of opinion, that formerly the Samaritans had been observant of the Law, which they no longer were; a statement repeated in another form to the effect, that their observance of it lasted as long as they were in their own cities, [g Jer. Abhod. Zar. v. 4.] Matters proceeded so far, that they were entirely excluded from fellowship, [h Chull. 6 a.] The extreme limit of this direction, [i Shebhyith viii. 10.] if, indeed, the statement applies to the Samaritans, [1 The expression literally applies to idolaters.] is marked by the declaration, that to partake of their bread was like eating swine's flesh. This is futher improved upon in a later Rabbinic work, [k Yalkut ii. p. 36 d.] which gives a detailed story of how the Samaritans had conspired against Ezra and Nehemiah, and the ban been laid upon them, so that now not only was all intercourse with them forbidden, but their bread declared like swine's flesh; proselytes were not to be received from them; nor would they have part in the Resurrection of the dead. [2 In Jer. Kil. ix. 4, 9. 32 c (middle) the question of the Resurrection is discussed, when it is said that the Samaritan inhabitants of Palestine, far from enjoying the blessings of that period, would be made into sections (or, made like cloth [?]), and then burnt up.] But there is a great difference between all this extravagance and the opinions prevailing at the time of Jesus. Even in the Rabbinic tractate on the Samaritans [m Massecheth Kuthim, in Kirchheim, Septem Libri parvi Talmudici, pp. 31 -36.] it is admitted, that in most of their usages they resembled Israelites, and many rights and privileges are conceded to them, from
which a heathen would have been excluded. They are to be 'credited' on many points; their meat is declared clean, if an Isrealite had witnessed its killing, or a Samaritan ate of it; [a Chull. 3 b.] their bread [1 In Jer. Orlah ii. 7 the question is discussed, how long after the Passover it is not lawful to use bread baked by Samaritans, showing that ordinarily it was lawful.] and, under certain conditions, even their wine, are allowed; and the final prospect is held out of their reception into the Synagogue, when they shall have given up their faith in Mount Gerizim, and acknowledged Jerusalem and the Resurrection of the dead. But Jewish toleration went even further. At the time of Christ all their food was declared lawful, [b Jer. Abhod. Zar. v. 4.] There could, therefore, be no difficulty as regarded the purchase of victuals on the part of the disciples of Jesus.
It has already been stated, that most of the peculiar doctrines of the Samaritans were derived from Jewish sources. As might be expected, their tendency was Sadducean rather than Pharisaic. [2 The doctrinal views, the festive observances, and the literature of the Samaritans of a later period, cannot be discussed in this place. For further information we refer to the following:, The Articles in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, in Winer's Bibl. Real- Worterb., and especially in Herzog's Real-Encykl. (by Petermann); to Juynboll, Comment, in Hist. Gentis Samarit.; Jost, Gesch. des Judenth.; Herzfeld, Gesh. des judisch. Volkes, passim; Frankel, Einfluss der Palast. Exeg. pp. 237- 254; Nutt, Sketch of Samaritan History, &c] Nevertheless, Samaritan 'sages' are referred to. [c Gitt. 10 b; Nidd. 33 b.] Butit is difficult to form any decided opinion about the doctrinal views of the sect, partly from the comparative lateness of their literature, and partly because the Rabbinist charges against them cannot be absolutely trusted. It seems at least doubtful, whether they really denied the Resurrection, as asserted by the Rabbis, [d Siphre on Numb. xv. 31; Sanh. 90b.] from whom the Fathers have copied the charge. [Epiphanius, Haeres. iv., xiv.; Leontius, De Sectis viii.; Gregory the Great, Moral, i. xv. Grimm (Die Samariter &c, pp. 91 &c), not only strongly defends the position of the Fathers, but holds that the Samaritans did not even believe in the immortality of the soul, and maintained that the world was eternal. The 'Samaritan Chronicle' dates from the thirteenth century, but Grimm maintains that it embodies the earlier views of that people (u. s. p. 107).] Certainly, they hold that doctrine at present. They strongly believed in the Unity of God; they held the doctrine of Angels and devils; [4 this seems inconsistent with their disbelief of the Resurrection, and also casts doubt on the patristic testimony about them, since Leontius falsely accuses them of rejecting the doctrine of Angels. Epiphanius, on the other hand, attributes to them belief in Angels. Reland maintains, that they regarded the Angels as merely 'powers', a sort of impersonal abstractions; Grimm thinks there were two sects of Samaritans, one believing, the other disbelieving, in Angels.]
