Talk:Samaritans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Temple of Zeus on Mount Gerizim

According to most of the accounts I've read the temple of Zeus on Mt Gerizim was to Zeus Hypsistos. This is because Hypsistarianism was a Greco-Israelite Hellenistic religion of the 'Most-High God' in which Hellenistic Israelites identified Zeus with El Elyon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion

Is there ANY reason why the antisemitic Protocols of Zion are published underneath the article? Or is this just someone "joking" around and it was not yet noticed? Maybe that should be deleted as i see no connection to samaritanism. 84.56.237.125 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This very POV

Saying samaritan Hebrew is ancient Hebrew and that it was used by Jews long ago, the closest to Biblical Hebrew is Yemenite,Samaritan has changed just as much as other hebrew if not more,loosing most of the gutterals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought - their language too is exposed to change over time

NOTE TO ALL SURFERS:

WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE I HAVE TRIED TO UPDATE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAMARITANS IN MORE PROFESSIONAL WAY. THIS IS ONLY A FIRST ATTEMPT. WHEN I WILL HAVE MORE TIME I WILL CORRECT AND GIVE MORE USEFUL INFORMATION IN THE SECTIONS I DID NOT CORRECT YET. SEE MY UPDATES IN THE BEGINNING AND CORRECTING OF THE LIST OF THE HIGH PRIESTS. FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT ANY ASPECT YOU CAN REACH BY WRITING DIRECTLY TO ME - tsedakab@netvision.net.il. More correct information please find in our web site: http://mystae.com/samaritans.html

Benyamim Tsedaka, Head of A.B. - Institute of Samaritan Studies, Holon, P.O.Box 1029, Holon, Israel

Thanks, Benny. We need some first-hand input. ~mark 2007 May 3

What is the basis for the following section:

"In the land of Israel during the early Christian era, Samaritans fared badly. Due to intense pressure to convert to Christianity (often with threats of violence) Samaritans took to attacking Christians. Christians used the threat of force to convert Samaritans and Jews to Christianity, and often had outright attacks on both Samaritans and Jews. The holy places of both groups were taken over by the Christians. By the 3rd century both Samaritans and Jews were second-class citizens."

Until the 3rd Century, Christians were themselves a tiny and persecuted minority. It seems implausible that they were able to exert as much pressure on Samaritans or Jews as this section suggests. Furthermore, pacifism was a dominant part of Christian theology until after the conversion of Constantine. This section should be heavily edited/deleted unless it can be substantiated. --Michelle K. 08:52, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

---

CONTEXT HE SAID "BY THE 3RD." JUST READ HISTORY BOOKS AFTER THE APOSTLES DIED THE CONGREGATION WAS FILLED BY “WOLVES.” THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST JESUS, THE CONGREGATION WAS FULL OF APOSTATE “WEEDS.” THE ROMAN EMPEROR “CONVERTED” TO CHRISTENDOM NOT TRUE CHRISTIANITY. HE BRANDED HIS PAGAN BELIEF INTO THE ALREADY WEEDED CONGREGATION. CHRIST PROMOTED PEACE TO HUMAN POLITICS AND WARS. NOW THIS ROMAN EMPEROR THREATEN TO KILL THOSE WHO DID NOT CONVERT. HELENA SUPPORTED THIS. A PAGAN TEMPLE TO JUPITER STOOD ON THE SITE OF WHERE THE HOLY TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM STOOD. THE ROMAN EMPEROR PLACED A CHURCH THERE ON TOP OF THE ROMAN TEMPLE. MUSLIMS BUILT A MOSQUE AND DOME ON TOP OF THE RUINS. (MY CAP LOCK BUTTON IS BROKEN)

comments

OneVoice, have you ever met Samaritans or talked to them? They would immediately tell you that Josephus was biased. They would have a point too. You are telling their history from a Jewish perspective. Why not introduce their voice too? After all, they claim to be descendants of the original Israelites. That should certainly be mentioned before some rival claim dismissing them. Danny 02:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Danny, I would be very happy to have their view expressed as well. Here you/we are saying that Josephus is biased. On the Jesus page, he is noted as a being reliable. Perhaps it depends strongly on what is being said about whom, though I do not know this is necessarily the case. It does not dismiss them, they are still real and present. The question as to descent could be answered rather well via DNA testing of their Priests and Levites [1] as well as mitochrondrial DNA testing. But there is risk, the desired results might not be obtained.

Would this meet the need:

The Samaritans have insisted that they are direct descendants of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who survived the destruction of the Northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. The inscription of Sargon II records the deportation of a relatively small proportion of the Israelites (27,290, according to the annals), so it is quite possible that a sizable population remained that could identify themselves as Israelites, the term that the Samaritans prefer for themselves.

Samaritan historiography would place the basic schism from the remaining part of Israel after the twelve tribes conquered the land of Canaan, lead by Joshua. After Joshua's death, Eli the priest left the tabernacle which Moses erected in the desert and established on Mount Gerizim, and built another one under his own rule in the hills of Shilo (1 Sam 1:1-3; 2:12-17). Thus, he established both an illegitimate priesthood and an illegitimate place of worship.

According to this description, the Jews are the dissidents! OneVoice 03:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not really because Jerusalem was chosen, it was the site Abraham was about to offer Isaac, it called Salem, Ancient Jewish tradition identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and Scriptural evidence supports this. Abraham met the king of Sodom and Melchizedek in “the king’s Low Plain.” Since King David’s son Absalom centuries later erected a monument there, this low plain must have been near Jerusalem, the capital of the kingdom. (Genesis 14:17, 18; 2Samuel 18:18) The word “Salem” is, in fact, incorporated in the name “Jerusalem,” and the psalmist used it in parallel with “Zion.” (Ps 76:2) Also, it would have been fitting for Melchizedek to be king and priest in the very place where later the kings of the Davidic line and the Levitical priesthood served and where Jesus Christ, the one according to Christians, chosen to be a king and priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek,” was offered in sacrifice.

Judah, By his concern for his aged father and his noble effort to preserve Benjamin’s freedom at the cost of his own, Judah proved himself to be superior among his brothers. (1Ch 5:2) No longer was he the Judah who in his youth had shared in plundering the Shechemites and who had been party to wronging his half brother Joseph and then deceiving his own father. His fine qualities of leadership entitled Judah, as one of the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel, to receive a superior prophetic blessing from his dying father. (Genesis 49:8-12) Its fulfillment is considered below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as genetic testing of Samaritans goes, this has been done extensively, and the male Samaritans are proven to be mainly of the "Cohen haplotype".[2] -- Olve 18:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say you would be very happy to have their view expressed as well. That is very generous of you [sic]. Never have I said that Josephus is reliable. In fact, I contend that the Jesus account is a later addition. Do you know how to use or assess ancient sources? As for your suggestion regarding DNA testing to determine descent, you are showing how little you actually know about the Samaritans. The priestly families died out generations ago, and the people now acting as priests are not from the priestly family. As for DNA testing, it is done regularly. In fact, Samaritans cannot marry without DNA testing being done, because there are only four families left, and it is required to prevent genetic disease (it is done in Tel HaShomer hospital. According to John Whiting in National Geographic, 1919, there were fewer than 150 Samaritans left--their growth to 700 today is largely a result of the care taken in testing). The proposed text is better, Josephus should be mentioned, but not as the main source for identifying them--you might want to look at Ben-Zvi for a later view. As for showing "Jews as dissidents," so what? We are not writing articles to promote agendas, "pro-Jewish" or "anti-Jewish." Danny 11:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[sic] is used in a quotation to indicate that an error, often spelling, is recognized by the quoter and retained deliberately to reflect exactly what was originally written. "That is very generous of you [sic]." is not correct usage, as far as I know. Why do people on wikipedia seem to always include personal invective or personal slights in their comments. That behavior is sophomoric. (Note this is a characterization/criticism of the behavior; the person is free to choose their behavior at each instant, so past behavior does not condemn on to continue behaving in the same manner....freedom of choice is given to human beings.)

I am not an expert on the Samaritans. I do not and have not claimed to be. I did not say that you believe Josephus to be reliable. Indeed my opinion and your opinion on his accuracy is immaterial. There are authorities aplently with degrees from prestigious institutions whom we can turn to for their opinions on such matters. I would like to read the Ben-Zvi material. Is it available on the web? Please feel free to edit the page. But consider keeping the Bible citation and Josephus because our ability to determine what actually is the truth of the matter is poor.

To return to the personal asperitions...what agenda do you believe that I am trying to promote. What I am trying to do is reduce the level of partisanship and black and white presentation that wikipedia has at this time while not ignoring that deeds are committed by people and their personal responsibility should not be hidden by the passive voice. OneVoice 15:57, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV edit - I removed "for self defense purposes" from the end of the sentence "But the conflict followed them. In 2001, the Israeli army set up an artillery battery on Gerizim" at the end of the second paragraph in the "Modern Times" section. The area in question is deep inside the West Bank near Nablus, and Israeli military incursion here and throughout the West Bank and Gaza is considered by some, including the UN and most human rights organizations, to be offensive rather than defensive in nature, and contrary to international law. Stating that the installation of an IDF artillery battery near Nablus was for "self defense" is a partisan POV. Based on the relevant articles of international law which address this situation without ambiguity, as well as the position of the UN SC and GA and the preponderance of official position statements from a large majority of governments of the world, it could easily be argued that a NPOV would that this installation and other similar military actions by Israel in occupied lands are inflammatory and illegal. However, to be conservative, I have removed the "self defense" reference and not replaced it with anything that could be construed as containing POV.

Ten Commandments?

It says: They have a significantly different version of the Ten Commandments (for example, their 10th commandment is about the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim).

So I would be interested in seeing this significantly different list posted SF2K1

Their Ten Commandments are pretty much the same as the usual ones, with a few words different here and there (most notably, the Masoretic version has "Remember the Sabbath Day" in Exodus and "Observe the Sabbath Day" in Deuteronomy; the Samaritan version has "Observe" in both places). And of course the paragraph of the commandment regarding Mt. Gerizim. They still have just ten commandments because they count the last two ("thou shalt not covet...") as one commandment, as Jews do as well (Jews also count "I am the LORD your God" as a commandment, which is how they get ten). Clsn 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"last century" ambiguity

In the text "a fifth family died out in the last century", does "last century" mean the 19th century or the 20th century? Anthony Appleyard 06:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it

"Samaritans fared badly under Roman rule, when Samaria was part of the Roman province of Judea, in the early part of the Common Era. However, this period was also something of a golden age for the Samaritan community."

Samaritans "fared badly" during "something of a golden age for the Samaritan community"?

Me neither.
Further, in the section titled "Under Islam" they are said to pay a tax, but then there is some claim that their tax is actually lower than for a Muslim leading one to believe they are give special treatment. But then there is a paragraph which explains how severely their numbers have been reduced. It is obvious that they have fared badly (the section on DNA testing leads one to beleive they didnt all just convert, and even if they did that is evidence that being a Samaritan under Islamic rule was disadvantageous) but there is no explanation as to why their numbers have dropped. 69.125.146.118 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Samaritans as a Jewish subdivision

New - The links have not been addressed in relation to this issue. Some of the links provided state that the Samaritans are a sect of Judaism and while the articles may be informative its important to back up the main article with sources that reflect it rather than undermine it. I also agree with the comment below that this entry really shouldn't be under the Jewish section for the same reason, it undermines the article. - End 15/03/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to include Samaritans in the template on the article as a Jewish subdivision when their distinction stems from the Jews' and Samaritans' mutual rejection of one another, and Samaritans do not consider themselves Jewish? While the Samaritans admittedly derive their roots at least in part from Israel, it would seem more appropriate to categorize and group the Samaritans as a people associated with both the ancient Israelites and ancient Assyrians, as the Jews also are. Because of these considerations, I'll remove references that classify Samaritans as Jews, or change them to reflect that they are a divergent Israelite-associated tradition. - Gilgamesh 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, if the samaritans DON'T identify themselves as being Jewish, this article (good though it is) really shouldn't be under the Jewish section. The article itself acknowledges the difference between the religions, and the perceived ethnic differences. Any Samaitans online who can clear this up? --Indisciplined 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Samaritans generally do not consider themselves "Jewish," though they acknowledge a relationship to modern Jews, as fellow Israelites (at least potentially). They have in recent decades begun condoning marriages between Samaritan men and Jewish women. Since they reckon descent patrilineally and have no tradition of conversion (that entered Judaism with Ruth, which of course is not part of the Samaritan tradition), marriage of Samaritan women to Jewish men would be far more problematic.

Moreover, "Jewish" really is, originally, a geographic term: people from Judea. And Samaritans, of course, are not from Judea but from Samaria. In various sources I've seen, most (but not all) written by Samaritans themselves, there is no hesitation to use "Jews" and "Samaritans" contrastively. Jews and Samaritans share a history and an origin, but Samaritans are not a subset of Jews. Clsn 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Samaritans are not Jews in the sense of people from the kingdom of Judah, but they qualify in every other respect: they are a Semitic people, they speak Hebrew, they trace their lineage to Isaac, they are monotheists, they read the Torah, they keep the covenants of God with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, they follow the Law, etc. Their doctrinal and cultural differences with the people properly known as "Jews" are a product of history, and far smaller than differences between, for example, Shi'a and Sunni Islam, or even different dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

So yes, while it's true from a pedantic perspective that Samaritans are not Jews, they follow the same religion as Jews and are significant to the history and culture of Judaism, and involved in in some of the modern issues facing Jews (such as Palestine and the Third Temple).

If you exclude Samaritans from Jewish categories, you must also exclude Abraham, Moses, the Ten Commandments, Elijah, and everyone else who predates the anointing of David as the leader of the tribe of Judah, since they are not, strictly speaking, Jews either.

Just some food for thought. --96.245.223.207 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to traditional Jewish beliefs, Abraham wasn't a Jew, since Jews are those who were present on Mount Sinai and their descendants... While I agree Samaritans are ethnically very close to Jews, Theologically speaking to say they are Jews is basically saying that the Oral Torah is at most secondary in modern Judaism. Such a view is obviously dead wrong, and suggests a total lack of knowledge on Judaism. --87.68.136.93 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Then doesn't that make the Samaritans Jews, since they were on Mt. Sinai? And theologically speaking, it is you who are wrong, because the Samaritans worship what all sides acknowledge as the same God using the same rites as Jews. The only difference is that through an accident of history, the Samaritans have a Temple to El and an active priesthood, whereas the mainstream Jews don't. Historically, culturally, maybe you can say they are different, but in the respect of theology (and maybe ethnicity and language) if nothing else they are identical with Jews. --96.245.223.207 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.183 (talk)

No, wrong criteria! Jews are those who peruse full Tanakh, and usually Talmud, but reject the New Testament of the Christian Bible. Samaritans use Torah and a special Samaritan Chronicle. According to Jew folklore also those who are maternally descendent from a Jew are Jews. The Samaritans are Israeli (Samaria). The talk about DNA is irrelevant and prob pseudoscience, the talk about West Semites is bogus, they could then as well be Libanese, Palestinians, Syrians whatever, the talk about Hebrew is also irrelevant, quite a few Christian priests know a great deal about Hebrew. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time with this article because they only deal with one sect of Samaritans. Ten Tribes were given to Ephraim as the northern Kingdom of Israel, and we were called Samaritans after our capital city. Many Samaritans became Christians, and no matter how you count us, as descendants of Israel, we are still Samaritans, not Jews of the southern Kingdom. Though many are Christians, my family believes that we are blood descendants of Ephraim, and as descendants of Israel, we are Samaritans, not Jews.

JosephLoegering (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What a collection of unsourced material, why your Christian family beliefs are relevant to this Levantine ethnreligious group?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is many Samaritans became Christians and Muslims, and we did not die off, we multiplied, and we are still of Israel, Samaritans in fact, regardless of religious belief, because you cannot remove our DNA.

Many People are waking up to the fact that regardless of religious belief, descendants of Israel are still descendants of Israel, and they realize that the promise of the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel in the Scriptures was in fact made to Israel that is scattered abroad.

Because I read and write Hebrew, and my religious practices are no different than Jews, Antisemitic Christians persecute me as a Jew. But because I believe that Yahshua whom they call Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed, and I speak in tongues of men and or of angels like the Apostles did on Pentecost, Antichrist Jews persecute me as a Christian. Since I was a child we have been taught we are Samaritan, we are neither the religious group the article talks about, and they and we are not Jews. Forcing us into a category where we do not fit is what all the people do that persecute us for one reason or another.

JosephLoegering (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are being reported for offensive language and word abuse, i have never and would never offend people based on their faith or race, while accusing me of persecution is such terms is rude and a violation of WP guidelines.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I will clarify this for you. The moment we say the truth that we are Israel, Samaritans, because of religious articles written about Israel and Samaritans, we are automatically placed in the category of Jews, and we get persecuted as Jews, but the Jews will have nothing to do with us. The moment we declare that as Israel, as Samaritans, we believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Anointed of Yahweh, we are automatically placed in a group of Christians or a group of Samaritans that don't believe anything that we believe, but we are persecuted as such. That is why I have a hard time with this article, because they exclude the multitudes of Samaritans that became Christians or Muslims, and they force us into categories where we don't even fit, like you did. Come to my Talk Page and talk, you will find that indeed all that I said is not unsourded, but is documented in history. JosephLoegering (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Iranians...

I can't believe the sentence in the opening was there for so long. I changed it.

Self-name?

What is the Samaritans' name for themselves? Is it something like Bnei Yisrael, or is it more specific? AnonMoos 03:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews usually use the term שׁוֹמְרוֹנִים‎ [šōmərōnīm], ‘people from Šōmərōn (Samaria)’. The Samaritans prefer the term שׁוֹמְרִים‎ [šomrim], ‘guardians’ instead, since they consider themselves to be the true guardians of the Torah. -- Olve 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Samaritans I know in Holon call themselves שַמֵּרִים יִשְׂרָאֵלִים‎ "Shamerim Yisraelim." I believe that is one of the titles they use on their web-site. http://www.the-samaritans.com--EhavEliyahu 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you have any way of finding out whether this is also a commonly used term in Shekhem? My sources are various articles on Samaritan music (J. Spector, R. Katz and others) dating primarily from the 1970s or so. I wrote a paper on Samaritan music in grad school. Never got the chance to do my thesis on them though, since the first Gulf War effectively thwarted my field work plans... -- Olve 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I will check on it and post what I find out. I will email Benny Tzedaka who is one of their scholars.--EhavEliyahu 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the same terms are used in both places. The communities are in fairly close contact, at least since 1967. Benny's newsletter, A.B., usually uses שומרונים, but that's in articles that are written in Modern Hebrew in other respects too, so that's just because it's the Israeli term.

By their deeds you will know them

There was no need of the Bible to show the Samaritans as non-Israelites if they were in fact Israelites. The Bible mentions the existence and history of the other tribes after the split from the Kingdom of Judah until their deportation by the Assyrians, even mentioning some of the survivors in the Book of Tobit. To make it short, the Bible would have no motive for bias, whereas the Samaritans would have such a motive. Also, as explained by Josephus (and most likely in other resources), the Samaritans have called themselves descendents of the tribes of Joseph when times are good for being an Israelite (which they have done without any reputable documentation or geneologies), and the Samaritans have called themselves foreigners when times are bad for being called an Israelite. Their actions (well documented enough in the Bible, Josephus, and probably other resources) also show their non-Israelite origin. JBogdan 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please study the extensive genetic testing projects and the high percentage of the Cohen haplotype which was found (amongst other factors) before you dismiss a whole people. (Some intermarriage has happened amongst Samaritans as well as amongst Jews and is not any more of a valid argument for rejecting the Samaritans than it would be for rejecting the Jews. Or any other people on the face of this planet at that.) Respectfully, Olve 00:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings JBogdan. The problem is that scholars are divided over whether the modern SECT called Samaritans and the Shomronim mentioned in the Tanakh are the same people. For example there are some scholars who note that the Shomronim mentioned in the Tanakh may have been some residents of Shomron and not specifically a religious sect who claimed Mount Gerizim as the holy place. At issue is that some scholars don't believe that the religious sect that are now modernly known as Samaritans are simply some descendents of dissident Jews from a later period who attached themselves to the claim that Mount Gerizim was the holy place. OR was there really a sect during the time of Ezra and Nechumyah who believed that Mount Gerizim was the holy place. These could be two distict issues.--EhavEliyahu 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable relevance

The section Antiochus Epiphanes and Hellenization bears no obvious relation to the subject of this article. I am tempted to remove it. Any comments? --Philopedia 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The main heading Antiochus Epiphanes and Hellenization has a subheading titled Samaritans bow to imperial pressure. The material under the subheading largely repeats the material under the main heading, but also provides the missing connection to the Samaritans. I plan to replace the material under the main heading with the material under the subheading to eliminate the redundancy and keep the article on topic. As an added benefit, the title of the subheading strikes me as prejorative, so combining these sections under the main heading should move the article toward NPOV. DHimmelspach 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Expert request

In this article, Christian and Jewish scriptures and viewpoints are repeatedly presented as fact, while Samaritan's traditional view of their own history occupies a secondary role. In its current state this a highly POV article. Bible study websites are cited are cited as fact without checking whether the site even represents a common or notable Christian view. In an article about a differnet religion with its own scriptures, Jewish and Christian views of and attitudes towards the Samaritans are secondary and should all be placed in their own separate sections. Samaritan scriptures, not the Jewish or Christian Bible, should be used as the primary scriptural source for this article. Modern historical accounts should receive greater prominence. Their may need to be a separate article on e.g. Christian attitudes towards the Samaritans, which would be an article describing Christians, not an article describing Samaritans. --Shirahadasha 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that this article largely represents a tense viewpoint somewhere between the Christian and the Jewish. However the problem remains that the number of living people who consider themselves Samaritans today is so small, that it is likely we will have to settle for this viewpoint. Unless we can find someone who openly identifies themselves as Samaritan, or is familiar enough with existing Samaritan world views to do a once over on the article to provide greater balance, I suggest we otherwise try to minimize the Jewish/Christian tension.

Also, the fact that the Jewish king Hyrcanus I destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim about 128-113 B.C.E. (and many Samaritans were forcibly converted to Judaism) should also be amplified here (not treated as a single point) for it was one of the first notable persecution of Samaritans (historically).

--WikiRat1 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)--

I don't think it's necessarily so that because there are so few of them their own views can only be minor. It depends on how many of them are literate or had their view of history written down. Also on what in history, any side, can be verified.--T. Anthony 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Last Century" ambiguity

In the modern times section, the term "last century" is used--is this the 20th or 19th century? Thanks!! --198.59.190.201 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have again reverted to the last version by Audiobooks. It looks as if somebody is attempting what is pretty near a total rewrite of an article which appears to represent collective work of a number of users. This is bad enough, but they cannot even be bothered to properly wikify their changes. PatGallacher 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Accusations in John

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is accused of having a demon and of being a Samaritan. He denies having a demon, but does not deny being a Samaritan. Erudil 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

“How is it that you, a Jew, asks a drink of me, a Samaritan woman?” When Jesus wanted to cross through Samaritin territory He was denied because of being Jewish. Jesus didn't deny being a Jew. His lineage being traced to David, being presented at the Temple by his mother and a sacrifice of doves, area where he was born, being accepted as a Jew within the Jewish community without hostility until he began His ministry, accepted as Rabbi by many synagogues imply He is Jewish. He was also under the authority of the Jewish priests, sanhedran, pharisees. that's why they were allowed to sentence Him to be crucified. There is not one ounce of evidence that he is at all connected to the Samaritans. He had no reason to defend himself for the same reason a Chinese man would not feel obligated to respond to accusations of being Japanese. the apostles who were Jewish obviously saw Jesus as a Jew when they happily proclaimed Salvation is of the Jews. there would not have been crowds of Jews in Israel receptive to Jesus's message if they considered him not Jewish.

_______

I agree - lack of response does not mean agreement - the accusation of being demon possessed was far more serious, and worth responding to. That of being a Samaritan was petty nonsense.31.48.183.212 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jesus and the Samaritans Section

I think this section should be removed. It doesn't seem like it is written very well, and it doesn't really seem to have any bearing on this article about the Samaritans.--EhavEliyahu 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment herein was silly and off the point, and I erased it. --82.166.245.247 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Samaritan Script

The claim that Samaritans kept and use ancient Hebrew script is quite dubious,their script is quite different just as different as Hebrews modern script Compare all three

[3]old Hebrew [4] Samaritan [5] Hebrew

Actually, what you posted is not exactly accurate. In regards to old Hebrew (Ketav Ivri) there have a number of scripts that developed over time. See here.

In terms of the Samaritan script what you posted is also not exactly accurate. The first script was created by a member of a Masonic lodge which uses that script for their rituals and such. The second Samaritan script is one I have never seen on any Samaritan documents and such. The following link shows a page of the Samaritan Torah. Though it is different from the Ancient Hebrew script you posted, the Hebrew script has gone through a number of changes over the years. The Samaritans claim to use a script that the continued evolution of Ancient Hebrew.

Page of Samaritan Torah

Page with the development of the Samaritan Hebrew script

As you can see the Hebrew alphabet has developed in a number of directions that over time looked different than the more ancient scripts. The Samaritan claim is that they maintained a direct connection to the script, and not the use of a different script.

The Jewish claim is different. There are 3 opinions in the Talmud.

1) The Ketav Ivri was used in ancient times for everything and the Ashuri script like we use today was introduced after the exile.

2) The Ketav Ivri was used for common writing while the Ketav Ashuri came from God. God wrote it on the 2 Stone Tablets and all Torah documents were written in Ketav Ashuri.

3) The Ketav Ashuri came first, then the Ketav Ivri was used, but when Ezra made his reforms he revived the Ketav Ashuri.--EhavEliyahu 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All scripts evolve, and all the ones under consideration here had the same source. According to Joseph Naveh, the Samaritan script descends from the "Hebrew" branch of development of the proto-Canaanite alphabet, which changed rather slowly. It definitely has changed in the hands of the Samaritans themselves over the centuries, but still retains a lot of the original structure of the old "Ktav Ivri". The current Hebrew script, Ktav Ashuri, derives from the Aramaic line of development, which showed extremely rapid and varied development, at least in its early history. That's why it is so different from the Ktav Ivri. Ktav Ashuri has also changed some over the years (see A. Yardeni's "Book of Hebrew Script"), but not a whole lot: most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are still completely legible as modern text. The omniglot examples don't look anything like what any Samaritan I've seen looks like. It is quite reasonable to say that the Samaritans use the paleo-Hebrew script, or at least a derivative of it. Nobody uses the exact same script that they used a thousand years ago: everything evolves. Clsn (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

I have removed '...it is said...Alexander...visited Samaria and not Jerusalem'

Please source this better if it is to be included. Josephus, though seen as biased by many here on topics concerning Samaritans, was not discussing Jewish/Samaritan relations when he specifically notes that Alexander did visit Jerusalem. (Antiq 11.8.4) Brando130 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating

Can we decide on the year convention? At the time of writing, it looks like dates are given in years "CE" and in years "BC", which is a mixture of two conventions. Either AD/BC or CE/BCE, please (the latter, if you ask me). And every so often someone goes in and switches them, and someone else goes and switches them back... Is there an official Wikipedia position on this? Clsn (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A need to contrast with Rabbinic Judaism

I would nice to know details on the Samaritans reject of the oral law of the pharisees. And also knowing thier stand in relation to beliefs of the Sadducees, Essenes, Rabbis, Christians, Karaites, Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk • contribs)

LOL

At all the hatred for Samaritans. The POV bias is subtly but distinctly noticeable. I can't say that I really care, but as a casual reader of history it amused me to find these sentiments still alive. Is this the work of the notorious Wikipedia Jew Cabal?

Indeed, needs some fixing...ideas anyone?

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you could take your hate of Jews away. The bias I see was added from a Christian view. "Jew Canal" says it all - old conspiracy theories paintings of Jews doing their evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.24.169 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but to comment

Article says:

"As of November 1, 2007, there were 532,000.5 Samaritans"...

Interesting, wouldn't you say? Not only this number is hugely inflated, but also it has a fraction! I am not a historian, but what does 0.5 Samaritan mean exactly?

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The Israeli army maintains a presence in the area to monitor terrorist activity in Shechem (Nablus) and to maintain security for Har Brakha.[13]

Terrorist? That's an Israeli point of view, the word terrorisim in this contest is relative to the eye of the beholder and should not be presented as a fact.

Samaritan communities tend to be more politically aligned with Israel, regardless of whether they live in Jewish-majority or Arab-majority areas.[14] As a small community physically divided between neighbors in a hostile region, Samaritans have been hesitant to overtly take sides in the Arab-Israel conflict, fearing that doing so could lead to negative repercussions.

the source quoted in the source used here is a book written over 30 years ago. It should not be cited as an actual fact of today.

I agree, I don't think you have a good grasp of the relationship between Palestinians and Samaritans. Samaritans are Palestinians, and do view themselves as Palestinians. Moreover, are the occupation forces really there to protect the samaritans or rather to do what an occupation does, which is to undermine Palestinian sovereignty. If Samaritans are so fearful of "terrorist" activity, they wouldn't be working in Nablus and they would not be attending schools in Nablus. Mmm245 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

--Michael1408 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs) Unwillingly changed name?: as the inhabitants of the latter place had requested.—II Maccabees 6:1–2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.249.72.171 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Samaritan view underrepresented

Section	wordcount (wc)
	words (wc -w)	chars (wc -m)
History and origin according to Samaritan sources	649	4026
History and origin according to Jewish sources	2586	17337

Or, one can also suggest: "the Samaritan origin according to Jewish sources" could be shuffled over to another article, and here being replaced by a review being let's say 2000 chars long – after all: this article is about Samaritans, not the Jews, who have their own articles. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A little bit wrong, because the headings were in disorder, the figures should be:

Section	wordcount (wc)
	words (wc -w)	chars (wc -m)
History and origin according to Samaritan sources	649	4026
History and origin according to Jewish sources	980	6346

Maybe not as serious bias, but the Jewish sources taking more place than the Samaritan is still not quite a good thing. F.ex. the Midrash dialogue is actually malrepresenting the Judaism opinion by being quite ridiculous. the Encyclopaedia Judaica citations could be shortened. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Samaritans representatives are more then welcome to edit this article on Samaritan beliefs regarding the Talmud:

• - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Standforder/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Samaritan website link is wrong. The correct link, the-samaritans.com or www.the-samaritans.com, seems to be down now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the link is wrong for the monthly magazine The Samaritan News A-B (or A-B The Samaritan News). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian scriptures section

A few comments from a Christian point of view. First the article is quite interesting. Second most Christians have a generally positive view of the Samaritans, if they think about them at all. Third the Gospels seem to often use the word "Samaritan" when the main concept is the person is not Jewish. For instance when Jesus himself was accused of being one the point was that he was being accused of not being Jewish and so an imposter. When he told his followers not to visit the towns of the Samaritans it was because it was their duty to visit the Jews first, as God's chosen people. Nothing against the Samaritans. In fact it probably would have been more pleasant for them to have visited there. Fourth one reason that Mark does not mention them is probably because it was written first, before the question of the relationship of non-Jews to the Jewish God became such a major issue among followers of Jesus. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mount Gerizim, Shechem

Shechem is now called Nablus, Mount Gerizim is one of Nablus Mountains, Both part of the West Bank, which according to the international community is part of Palestine.

I added the Palestinian flag to the list of locations

--Michael1408 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

Article title

Just curious why this article is called "Samaritan" (singular) instead of "Samaritans", which would seem more like what someone looking for information would type into the Search bar. I guess it's trying to avoid conflict with the article on Samaritans (charity), but surely that could be handled by putting a disambiguation? Anyway, this isn't something I'm losing sleep over, but it does seem the wrong title IMO. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a move. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am an idiot but (History Section)

Reading the history of the Samaritans I was confused by the section on the schism. The section states numerous times that the children of Israel divided into three following the civil war between Eli and the sons of Pincus; nowhere, however, is it stated which derivative becomes the Samaritans. Que? (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Gospels?

The Christian Gospels section, does it have a point, or is it just a list of sentimental trivia? If it would have a point it would be how Christianity relates to the Samaritans, such as for example: then many from those [Samaritan] towns converted to Jesus, or that Irenaeus associated the heretic Gnosticism with Simon Magus and then claimed (the Bible doesn't AFAIK) that Simon was a Samaritan, unlike other church fathers who associated gnosticism either to Judaism or Platonism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In which century did the 5th Samaritan family die out?

• In the text "(a fifth family died out in the last century)", which century? If the original source of this text was written before 2000 AD, it likeliest means the 19th century. Else it means the 20th century. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to FamilyTreeDNA, the fifth family died out between 1912-1967. Source Link: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan/default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagstones925 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article

It should be "Samaritan people" --77.126.61.111 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Samaritan Jews

...and if you do not believe me, see this[6]. The Britannica defines them as Jews. Wikipedia is for placing verified/verifiable facts, not religiously slanted wording. Djathinkimacowboy 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski, I think I will begin keeping tabs on you as well. You would do well to stop lying about me so brazenly - you know very well I attacked no one, and I called no one biased except those who clearly show bias. Don't get all sore with me and toss in your two pennies because your last attacks on me failed. Samaritans in the real world are considered Jews and you know it. Your wording of my edit, rather than simply reverting it, is a sad sort of proof that you yourself are practically agreeing with me. Djathinkimacowboy 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No matter how strongly one editor may say there is no disagreement about the origins and identity of the Samaritans, there is most certainly scholarly debate. For a good outline of a few Samaritan and non-Samaritan traditions regarding the issue, see the "origins" section of the article from the Encyclopedia Judaica here. It shows no "religious bias," despite the claims of user:Djathinkimacowboy to disagree with his statement and belief that Samaritans are Jews. NearTheZoo (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the point, NearTheZoo, and I think that is easy to see. The point is that Samaritans are accepted in general as Jews and I see it as disingenuous to keep that fact out of the article. It does suggest bias on your part for even defending the opinion. That is what you are doing in the end, forcing your POV and from what I can tell, you are also utilising OR to defend your position. Djathinkimacowboy 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is advice: do not revert the edit mentioning the discussion about Samaritans as Jews. That will be easily proved to be edit warring on your part. I reworded the sentence (and added back the citation you had no right to remove just because you don't like what it says). Djathinkimacowboy 02:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sargon's Inscription

I don't think that the inscription is accurate with respect to the number of captives taken from Israel. Business documents from the same era give some insight into the tendency of scribes to exaggerate numbers [see, Olmstead, A.T.'Assyrian Histiography', KE:Loc:104. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.87.169 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Malciting Britannica

A weird sentence in the intro, citing erroneous Britannica to prove an error:

It is commonly, though inaccurately, accepted that Samaritans are mainstream Jews.

the reference was Encyclopedia Britannica, that didn't claim that it is "commonly, though inaccurately, accepted", but made this error by claiming that the Samaritans are Jews.

First of all, citing another encyclopedia is IMHO not a good thing to do, first because it is error prone like Wikipedia, secondly because encyclopedias cannot go around citing each other, that would create a potential for perpetuating errors.

Secondly, "commonly accepted", requires that someone have polled the general meaning, and that we use that someone as a reference – one example of an error will not prove anything – it might actually be a possibility that most people giggle ironically towards Encyclopedia Britannica and shakes their heads, thinking:

"why produce such an obvious error, and then cash money for it?"

Thirdly I don't think we shall choose the correct alternative for the reader, the alternatives are:

1. Samaritans are Jews,
2. Samaritans are not Jews, but share the common original religion for both Judaism and the Samaritanism.

We should present it so and then the reader should decide him/herself. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, section History and Origin contains no Bible claims subsection. The Bible Old Testament/Tanakh supports both the Samaritan theory as well as the Jewish version. The Old Testament/Tanakh claims, in contradiction to itself that a large part of the Israeli were left in place after the Assyrian conquest, and that all Israeli were deported and replaced with Cutheans. Ezra also claims that "the inhabitants of the land" offered aid in rebuilding the second temple, but AFAIK, Ezra doesn't specify who they are. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly a contradiction. The Jews were removed from their land multiple times in their history, and each time they came back mixed with someone else's populace. You can never fully remove a people from an area, and from time to time we know new blood entered, whether by conquering or being conquered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.84 (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Roman period - The Samaritans "fared badly" in a "golden age" for them?

The section "Roman empire" begins "Samaritans fared badly under the Roman Empire, when Samaria was a part of the Roman-ruled province of Judaea." No source is cited or explanation given for the statement that they "fared badly". Presumably it means because they didn't like being part of the province of Judaea and ruled by the Romans? But the article should say how they "fared badly", not just leave the reader to guess, especially when we are told two sentences later "this period is also considered as something of a golden age for the Samaritan community", they rebuilt their temple, the world's oldest synagogue may date from that time. So I am taking out the unsupported claim that they fared badly.Smeat75 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is some discrepancy in time window description: Samaritans "fared badly" during Roman Judaea period (1st and early 2nd centuries CE); later in the late 3rd and 4th century Roman control of Syria-Palaestina diminished, the legions were taken out and Samaria was practically "abandoned" for self-rule - the golden era of the Samaritans. Eastern Rome (Byzantium) was once again a bad period on the verge of disaster (during 5th and 6th century Samaritan revolts brought Samaritans to an almost complete annihilation). So it is all correct, but suitable years should be put for such sentences.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster

Sources written by Miller, Vandome, and McBrewster need to be double checked (and possibly deleted) as per VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

incomplete citation

Any citation to the Bible is incomplete if it doesn't give the exact verses. Kings II chapter 17 is not, in its entirety, about the founding of the Samaritan people. You need to read the material so you can cite the verses. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tracing descent

Do Samaritans trace descent by matrilineal lineage, patrilineal lineage or a combination of the two? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samaritans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080614010749/http://grizimtour.com:80/Tourism.htm to http://www.grizimtour.com/Tourism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Original source

Johnston's publication at Lonely Planet saying there were a million Samaritans in Roman times is not a primary document; he was not alive at the time. What is his source and what is that source's source? Fifth hand information tends to be exaggerated as well as inexact because print media has a profit motive and it's hard to profit without exaggeration. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

bad link

The link to Johnston's "Lonely Planet" material doesn't work. It goes to a commercial website. Since there is no Johnston document at the other end, this link and the associated information should be deleted as unsupported. No such document turns up when I use my search engine. Until a reliable source can be demonstrated for this material, it should not be restored to the article. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The current link does work and it leads to the "Lonely Planet" site. However, the correct link to Johnston's "Lonely Planet" material on Mount Gerizim is https://www.lonelyplanet.com/the-palestinian-territories/mt-gerizim. I can't see any reference here to there being a million Samaritans in Roman times or a source for the assertion. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Name given in Aramaic square script

The self-designation שוֹמְרִים Samerim is given in the Aramaic square script a.k.a. Modern Hebrew a.k.a. the Jewish script. Should it not be given in the Samaritan alphabet, or no? I know that it's sometimes been the convention to use Aramaic/ModHebrew as a stand-in when writing less-known Semitic alphabets like Mandaic, but this is the digital age and whatnot. Other articles on Wikipedia give self-designations in Gothic and Babylonian Cuneiform etc. so I think Samaritan can be pulled off. The only reason not to is if there is some precedent for Samaritans using the Aramaic square script, but even the Samaritan Targum (written in the Aramaic language) uses the Samaritan alphabet if I recall correctly. 209.159.249.162 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

von Gall's and Bruell's editions, both available online, use the square "Aramaic" script. It is also used in the Qumran texts, including the fragments that match the content of Samaritan Pentateuch. That's also available online in the Ulrich book published under the auspices of Dr. Emanuel Tov's team. If you're interpreting the word as Hebrew, you have to know that you're misspelling the transcription. If somebody used your transcription in a search engine, it wouldn't turn up Mr. Benny Tsedaka's website and that has to be considered authoritative if any of them are. 100.15.120.122 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samaritans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119075635/http://adath-shalom.ca/samaritan_origin.htm to http://www.adath-shalom.ca/samaritan_origin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew and English place names

I have changed 'Samaria' to the 'West Bank' and 'Shekhem' to 'Nablus' because although Samaria and Shekhem are Hebrew Names (even though they are in Palestine), Wikipedia has to use the commonly used English names, which Samaria and Shekhem are not. This is not political, it is just wikipedia policy of using the commonly used names in Enlgish (Nablus and West Bank)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samaritans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119035811/http://www.zajel.org/article_view.asp?newsID=4425&cat=18 to http://www.zajel.org/article_view.asp?newsID=4425&cat=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology: utter BS

If Sargon II calls the province Samarina, right after conquering Samaria (city) from the northern Kingdom of Israel around 720 BCE, how can the PROVINCE be called after an ethno-religious group which didn't yet exist? If the group existed before, how come it's never mentioned by this name before 720 BCE? This "hypothesis" is so illogical that it kills me how much attention and space it gets here. Bias, a little bit...? Arminden (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Genetics

I can't make a lot of sense out of what the genetics section is saying. I do know that people try to claim that the Cohen Modal Haplotype proves someone is Jewish/Israelite although that's just wrong. User:Hmains, User:Editor2020, can you have a read of it and see what you think? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In this article, it makes the claim--based upon older research--that the J2 Samaritans are further defined by M67. This is not correct. Only the Danfi clan is M67 while the Sedaqa clan is PF5169 which is also a L26 subclade but not in the same line as M67.

JacobLMetz (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Confusing sentence

I'm changing the statement "Although they are drafted into the Israel Defense Forces and considered by Rabbinic Judaism to be a branch of Jews,[21] the Chief Rabbinate of Israel requires Samaritans to officially go through a formal conversion to Judaism", as a total mess. There is no relation between serving in IDF to their affinity with Jews. Moreover, Samaritans are NOT Jews.GreyShark (dibra) 10:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia community! I will be adding more detail under the Rejection by Judeans section of the Samaritan Wikipedia article according to the Schiffman text titled "Judaism in the Persian Period."

Some additions (and edits) I will be making are as follows:
In the early years of the Persian Period (also known as the Second Commonwealth), there were no more than twenty thousand Samaritans living in Judea by 522 BCE. The Persian period established the continuation of Second Temple Judaism and this formed the Jewish identity. this determined that the Jewish identity was by descent through the mother rather than by just living in the area where Judaism was the central religion.

This is an unsigned comment. To user who wrote it: the Talk Page is generally meant for describing what you plan to change and why, and offering the chance for users to give feedback.Chapmansh (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stein196.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan

The Samaritans were a mixed race, descended from the remnant of Israelites who were not deported by Assyria after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C. and from the foreign colonists brought in from Babylon and beyond by the Assyrian conquerors. We learn of the origin of the Samaritans in 2 Kings 17. The woman's claim (4:12) that Jacob left the well to his descendants the Samaritans is a tradition that has no biblical support. The well itself, however, is "perhaps the most identifiable site in modern Israel connected with the ministry of Jesus." Some earlier commentators thought that the woman's five husbands stood for the five gods of the nations that formed ancient Samaria, since the Hebrew word for "husband" is ba'al, also the name for pagan deities. Josephus mentions "Five nations . . . each brought its own god to Samaria." The sixth-Yahweh-was not really a husband, that is, one to whom the people had an exclusive commitment. However, by the time of our episode-the first century-the Samaritans were confirmed monotheists. When the woman begins to realize that Jesus is a prophet, she quickly turns to one of the most controversial theological questions of her day, namely, the location of the religious center of the world. There was a long-standing opposition between the Jews and Samaritans over the right place of worship. According to Samaritan tradition, Mount Gerizim, at whose foot Jacob's well was located, was the mountain where Abraham had climbed to sacrifice Isaac. Because the Samaritans recognized only the Pentateuch as authoritative, references later in the OT stipulating worship at the Jerusalem temple were not considered binding. The Samaritans actually made the obligation to worship on Mt. Gerizim a part of the Decalogue. Differences were accentuated after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, when the Samaritans put obstacles in the way of the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Finally, in the second century B.C. the Samaritans helped the Syrian monarchs in their wars against the Jews, a favor the Jews returned by destroying the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim in 128 B.C. "Worship wars" indeed! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Samaritans

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Samaritan → Samaritans – per WP:PLURALS.--Rafy talk 21:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline that covers this is WP:SINGULAR, and it states: "Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see Naming conventions (plurals)." Editor2020 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant guideline is neither WP:PLURALS nor WP:SINGULAR. It should be WP:PLURAL. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per normal Wikipedia usage. Ethnic (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Ukrainians), religious (Mormons, Vaikhanasas), and ethnoreligious groups (Jews, Maronites) are typically titled using plurals or the adjective form plus "people", itself a plural. This is not currently reflected at WP:PLURAL but I have proposed an addition here. Note there are major exceptions when it comes to articles religious adherents (e.g., Sikh, Christian, Hindu, Muslim). —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We would also be later required to decide whether to split a section on Samaritanism into a separate article.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per AjaxSmack. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect population

The population is listed as 840, and cites The Samaritan Update website, but the website has the population in 2021 as 820. I'll correct this unless there is a reason for the 840 number.Joseon1 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

Do we need to keep in the introduction, which should be short, the following three sections?

1)"A notable example of a Samaritan convert to Judaism is Sofi Tsedaka, an Israeli actress/singer/television presenter who formally adopted the Jewish faith at the age of 18."? It is already in the text below, so I don't see how it is needed in the introduction.

2) "According to Rabbinic literature in the polemical book of Tractate Kutim, Samaritans are rejected amongst them unless they renounce Mount Gerizim as their Holy Site as it is stated: "When may they be received into the Jewish community? When they have renounced Mount Gerizim and acknowledged Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead."[23] Samaritans do accept the resurrection of the dead on the basis of Deuteronomy 32 also known as the Song of Moses and have the tradition by their sage Marqah.[24][25]"

The last bit just doesn't make sense ("and have the tradition by their sage Marqah" - which tradition?). Also, what is the point of having in the lead a statement by one specific Jewish text regarding Samaritans only to in the next sentence state that the text is wrong? If it should be kept in the article, it could be further down, not in the introduction.

3) "They are members of the Abrahamic faiths, Bnei Anusim, the Lost Tribes of Israel" - The sources given do not corroborate that, and I understand that neither Jews consider Samaritans "Bnei Anusim" and "the Lost Tribes of Israel", nor the Samaritans themselves see themselves as either Bnei Anusim or as the Lost Tribes of Israel, so I believe these two bits should also be removed, but I will gladly hear other impressions if someone has different sources. Dan Palraz (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) Moved down the page (2)précised the point and placed most of the text in a footnote (3) already removed this obvious nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is too long per WP:LEAD. Editor2020 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Hellenization

When did he die? This section has two different years for Antiochus's death(164 and 163 BCE)! Since he has his own entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes) and since that gives not just the year but "November/December", I thought I would change this article accordingly, but then I thought that that wasn't a very good basis for an alteration, using wikipedia to verify wikipedia, so I've written this instead. Nick Barnett (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)