Samaritanism

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, Samaritanism as a religion still exists. There are about 800 of them.

They say that Eli of Shiloh, the Eli who raised Samuel, usurped the high priesthood from Uzzi. A civil war broke out between those who followed Eli (the descendant of Aaron's son Ithamar) and Uzzi (Descendant of Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron). The legitimate line of Uzzi then became the Samaritan High Priest. This is of course extra-biblical detail.

They also say that the Holy place of Israel is Mount Gerizim and had constructed their own temple there before it was destroyed in Byzantine times after Samaritan revolts.

It is an interesting and ancient collection of lore and doctrine they hold, often forgotten that they are another Abrahamic religion - the cousin of Judaeo-Christianity.

The thing is though that we see the High Priest of Israel descend from the younger son of Aaron in the Bible before Eli's line is extinguished and this does not really fit the general primogeniture setup of contemporary peoples. Perhaps there is something to their tale of a civil war where Eli left Gerizim and setup a paralel structure at Shiloh.

Likewise we see the Septuagint say in 2 Chronicles that Abraham sacrificed Isaac at Amoria instead of Moriah - this means etymologically 'land of the Amorites' who lived around Shechem at Mount Gerizim and we see Hamor, another etymologically associated name, residing at Shechem in Genesis. This supports a reading of Moriah as Gerizim instead of Jerusalem and thus the Samaritan view.

We also see that the Qumran scrolls support that Gerizim was the mountain of blessings in Judges instead of Ebla - another Samaritan position - which makes far more sense as Gerizim is fruitful and Ebla barren.

In light of the passage of the Samaritan woman at the well in which Jesus says that they "know not who they worship" and that Salvation comes of the Jews, but also states that the time comes when God will be worshipped neither on Gerizim or Jerusalem, what are we to make of them?

Anyone have an opinion on the historicity of Samaritan accounts or some theological speculation?

 

[Philip_B]

The John 4 passage is beautiful and I believe has a lot of depth.

Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.​

The fundamental issue of divide for the Jews and Samaritans was the question as the whether they were to worship on the Holy Mountain where Abraham had been led, and Jacob found the spring, and worshipped here, or in Jerusalem where David conquered and Solomon built the Temple.

The Samaritan Messianic Hope was of the restorer who would restore all things. Part of that expectation was that when he came to restore all things there would be buckets of water at his side.

Then the woman left her water-jar and went back to the city.​

I am sure that part of the purpose of the narrative in John 4 is to present Jesus, not simply as the Jewish Messiah, but also as the Samaritan restorer. The passage ends with another of the great titles ascribed to Jesus in John.

we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.​

I many ways the Samaritans are the misunderstood and misrepresented Old Guard trying to be faithful to the old ways.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The John 4 passage is beautiful and I believe has a lot of depth.

Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.​

The fundamental issue of divide for the Jews and Samaritans was the question as the whether they were to worship on the Holy Mountain where Abraham had been led, and Jacob found the spring, and worshipped here, or in Jerusalem where David conquered and Solomon built the Temple.

The Samaritan Messianic Hope was of the restorer who would restore all things. Part of that expectation was that when he came to restore all things there would be buckets of water at his side.

Then the woman left her water-jar and went back to the city.​

I am sure that part of the purpose of the narrative in John 4 is to present Jesus, not simply as the Jewish Messiah, but also as the Samaritan restorer. The passage ends with another of the great titles ascribed to Jesus in John.

we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world.​

I many ways the Samaritans are the misunderstood and misrepresented Old Guard trying to be faithful to the old ways.

Interesting way to see them, as the Old Guard.

They maintain the High Priesthood, eating lambs at Passover, the ancient Jewish calender where the new year started on Aviv, the Hebrew script, animal sacrifice etc.

Their Torah is a bit different, some doctrinal and some accidental - most notably their tenth commandment referring to keeping the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.

From what you wrote, I take it you agree that Abraham 'sacrificed' Isaac on Gerizim and not the temple mount? This is of course not the standard position of Judaeo-Christianity which considers the Jerusalem position valid especially as it allows the Isaac-Jesus paralel to be drawn easily, of a Father sacrificing his son. Do you have another support for the position other than the Samaritan assertions and the Septuagint reading I gave above?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes, Samaritanism as a religion still exists. There are about 800 of them.

They say that Eli of Shiloh, the Eli who raised Samuel, usurped the high priesthood from Uzzi. A civil war broke out between those who followed Eli (the descendant of Aaron's son Ithamar) and Uzzi (Descendant of Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron). The legitimate line of Uzzi then became the Samaritan High Priest. This is of course extra-biblical detail.

They also say that the Holy place of Israel is Mount Gerizim and had constructed their own temple there before it was destroyed in Byzantine times after Samaritan revolts.

It is an interesting and ancient collection of lore and doctrine they hold, often forgotten that they are another Abrahamic religion - the cousin of Judaeo-Christianity.

The thing is though that we see the High Priest of Israel descend from the younger son of Aaron in the Bible before Eli's line is extinguished and this does not really fit the general primogeniture setup of contemporary peoples. Perhaps there is something to their tale of a civil war where Eli left Gerizim and setup a paralel structure at Shiloh.

Likewise we see the Septuagint say in 2 Chronicles that Abraham sacrificed Isaac at Amoria instead of Moriah - this means etymologically 'land of the Amorites' who lived around Shechem at Mount Gerizim and we see Hamor, another etymologically associated name, residing at Shechem in Genesis. This supports a reading of Moriah as Gerizim instead of Jerusalem and thus the Samaritan view.

We also see that the Qumran scrolls support that Gerizim was the mountain of blessings in Judges instead of Ebla - another Samaritan position - which makes far more sense as Gerizim is fruitful and Ebla barren.

In light of the passage of the Samaritan woman at the well in which Jesus says that they "know not who they worship" and that Salvation comes of the Jews, but also states that the time comes when God will be worshipped neither on Gerizim or Jerusalem, what are we to make of them?

Anyone have an opinion on the historicity of Samaritan accounts or some theological speculation?

Abimelech raised Shechem (in Manasseh) about 1100 BC, coinciding with the schism between the line of Eliezer at Shechem vs line of Ithamar at Shiloh (in Ephraim farther south).

Abimelech at Shechem

cp. Genesis 48 in which Jacob crosses his arms and prophetically blessed Ephraim over Manasseh.

cp. Tabernacle & Ark eventually moved even farther south to Gibeon in Benjamin, and the Ark then moved even farther south to Jerusalem

 

[Erik Nelson]

The Cruel End of Canaanite Azekah - Biblical Archaeology Society

Context, about the same place at about the same time, perhaps one generation earlier.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Reformed Only! Masoretic Text (MT)

Arguably there have been anti Samaritan Edits to the Biblical text.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Bronze Age Collapse: Pollen Study Highlights Late Bronze Age Drought - Biblical Archaeology Society

recent studies show a decrease in trees requiring a great deal of water and an increase in the cultivation of dry-climate trees, such as olive trees, during the period between 1250 and 1100 B.C.E. ...the new studies suggest a broader climate change across the Eastern Mediterranean around the time of the Bronze Age collapse...

The new pollen data is critical for understanding the Late Bronze Age collapse. While a single source for the centuries-long upheaval seems unlikely, an extended period of drought may have led to economic failures and population migration, sparking broader military and other conflicts that broke down the extended imperial network of the Late Bronze Age. While Egypt, Hatti, Mycenae and others would never rise to their pre-collapse levels of prosperity again, the so-called Dark Ages saw the birth of some of history’s most prodigious cultures, including the Biblical Israelites.​

The Israelites were loyal to the memory of Moses and Joshua in the 12th century BC during the period of prolonged drought. But once climactic conditions improved beginning about 1100 BC. They turned to the sinful ways of Abimelech that saw them lose the Ark in battle in the 12th century to Egypt's ally, the Philistines.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The tale of Wen Amun dates from this period also.