Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews

Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews

ETIENNE NODET

Introduction

This study aims at showing that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the early Israelites, and not a downgraded Jewish sect as old Judean traditions and many modern scholars claim.

Three literary facts prompt an investigation and show the intrica-cies of the problem. First, there is a contradiction within Josephus’ sta-tements: in his paraphrase of the biblical account of the origins of the Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-41), he says that they have remained faithful to the worship of God “until this very day”(Ant 9.290), but much later, after the building of a temple on Mount Gerizim at the end of the Persian period, he holds that the religion of the Shechemites is just a kind of weakening Judaism (Ant 11.346). Second, Ben Sirach states that the wicked people (עם נבל) who dwell around Shechem are not even a nation (Sir 50:26), but the context is a praise of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and the high priest Simon son of Onias, who had rebuilt or repaired the temple of Jerusalem; mo-reover, according to 2 Macc 5:22 and 6:1-3, both temples were deemed to belong to “our nation”. Third, when John Hyrcanus invaded the region of Samaria, he persecuted the Samaritans instead of trying to bring them back to a decent Judaism, and destroyed their rival temple.

The Gerizim temple seems to have been a major issue for the Jews regarding the significance of the Samaritans of Shechem. This is all the more interesting because, besides the pious account in 2 Chron 3-6, neither Solomon’s temple nor the one envisioned by Ezekiel nor the work of the returnees with Zerubbabel and Haggai match the rules stated by Moses. Moreover, we learn from Ezra 3:1-6 that the whole sacrificial worship according to Moses’ laws could be performed on the restored altar, without any temple (house). It could be objected that there is one exception: on the Day of Atonement, the tenth of the se-venth month, the high priest has to enter the holy place (Lev 16:1-3), so a temple is needed. However, in the story of Ezra’s proclaiming the law of Moses to the returnees in the seventh month, there is no room for

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR


122 E. Nodet

such a day: the people are busy studying, preparing and celebrating the Feast of Booths according to the law of Moses, that is, until the 22nd day, and then, on the 24th day of that month, comes a penitential celebration (Neh 8:13-9:1), so that the Day of Atonement is skipped over. In other words, the rationale of a temple is indeed an issue.

In such a literary context, the recent discoveries on Mount Gerizim are of groundbreaking importance. We will proceed in four steps.

1. The Gerizim Temple and its significance in the Persian period. 2. Jews and Samaritans in Hellenistic times. 3. The Jerusalem temple and the meaning of King Solomon’s works. 4. The Pentateuch was common to all; what does it say about She-chem ?

The stress will be on literary analyses; the two latter parts are biblical, while the two former involve additional sources (Josephus, archeology).

I. The Gerizim Temple: A Challenge?

Josephus relates that by the end of the Persian Period, Sanballat built a temple similar to that of Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim, and he stresses that this was the beginning of a dissident faction of less observant Jews. However, this statement does not square with other things that he says elsewhere as well as with external sources, as recent excavations there have unearthed a Yahwist precinct built in the 5th century BCE or ear-lier, which is devoid of syncretist features.1 The dating is secured through coins. In fact, there are two major levels: the upper one is a Hellenistic temple from the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, that is, after the end of the Lagid period in Coele-Syria, when, after several wars, Antiochus III (223-187) ended up conquering it. The earlier level is a large sanctuary built as a stronghold, where a huge amount of ani-mal bones has been unearthed, but without a shrine. Thus, there were one or more altars, but no cella. Interesting Aramaic inscriptions come from this level, such as “In front of God,” “In front of Yhwh;” one Heb-rew inscription in Aramaic letters reads “What Joseph offered for his wife and sons in front of Yhwh in the precinct;” the Tetragram in Paleo-Hebrew letters can be seen engraved on a stone. Many pottery shards have been collected, including some Attic stoneware from the 5th centu-ry, but no cultic figurine or image. This Persian building seems to have been in use for more than two centuries, before and after Alexander’s campaign (332).

1 MAGEN, Dating of the First Phase.



Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews 123

These discoveries, which display a strong Aramaic influence with Hebrew traces, will allow a reassessment of some known literary sour-ces: 1. By the time of Zerubbabel, the Samaritans did not have a temple; 2. Josephus states that the Gerizim temple was built under Darius III (339-331); 3. During the Maccabean crisis, the Samaritans were not yet separated, but something was cropping up. Later in this essay, the meaning of the biblical temple will be dealt with, as well as the passage on the origins of the Samaritans after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722.

Modern scholars distinguish between “Samaritan,” related to the Yahwist worship of Mount Gerizim and the Shechemites, and “Sama-rian” for everything connected with the city of Samaria, founded by king Omri in the 9th century, and the region around it. The rationale of the distinction is the conviction, popularized by Josephus, that the Mt. Gerizim worship has always been a late Jewish dissidence, unconnec-ted to the ancient kingdom of Israel around the city of Samaria. But if we can show that the Samaritans were ancient Israelites, such a distinc-tion becomes useless.2

1. A Problem by the Time of the Return from Exile

According to Ezra 3:1-6 the high priest Yeshua and Zerubbabel, when they arrived at Jerusalem with a sizable crowd of returnees, rebuilt the altar in its previous place and launched the whole cycle of annual burnt offerings, starting with the Feast of Booths, as it is written in the law of Moses, “although the foundations of the temple (חיכל, oi=koj) of Yhwh were not yet laid.” This worship matches the prescriptions given in Num 28-29, which obviously do not necessitate a temple. One may object that according to Lev 16:1-8 the rite of the Day of Atonement (Kippur) implies the existence of the Holy Place (or the tent of Meeting); however, the annual atonement rite described in Ex 30:10 is performed solely with the altar. This issue is discussed below.

We may observe that erecting an altar of unhewn stones (see Ex 20:25) is not a big task, as can be seen from the patriarchs’ stories, or from the restoration of the altar of burnt offering by Judas Maccabeus in 164 (1 Mac 4:44-52). In the following, the word “temple” will only be used for the closed shrine (בית, nao,j), and “sanctuary” for an open sac- 2 Extensive use has been made here of PUMMER, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, who

concludes that Josephus is not very consistent; he mainly despises the Samaritans as being of doubtful Israelite origin, and he follows their sources when they state that their religion is either true Yahwism, or a kind of downgraded Judaism.



124 E. Nodet

red place, which may include altars and other devices3 (מקדש, see Jos 24:26).

The commandment to build a temple in the promised land does not appear in the Pentateuch, even if 2 Chron 1:3 is careful to show that Solomon’s temple is the heir of the tabernacle in the wilderness. In fact, the order to build a temple comes from Cyrus4 (Ezra 1:1-3 and 6:3-5). According to Ezra 3:7-13, the construction begins, but the wording, with cedar trees from Lebanon, Phoenician workers, Levites and songs according to the directions of David, refers to Solomon’s time as disp-layed in 2 Chronicles. This can hardly be taken at face value, since the allusions to Solomon disappear in the next section (Ezra 4:1-3): the “ad-versaries of Judah and Benjamin,” after hearing that a temple to the God of Israel is being built in Jerusalem, approach Zerubbabel and Yeshua with the request to join the builders, saying: “We worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him5 ever since the days of Esar-Haddon, king of Assyria, who let us go up (המעלה) here.” But Zerubbabel and Yeshua refuse, explaining that Cyrus, king of Per-sia has commanded only them to do the job. They mention neither Mo-ses nor Solomon.

This meeting includes interesting details. First, the phrase “adver-saries of Judah and Benjamin” alludes to the rivalry between the two kingdoms after the secession of the North until the fall of Samaria in 1-2 Kings, and refers to the northern tribes of Israel, which are called “Samaritans” in 2 Kings 17:29 (שמרנים/Samari/tai, the only occurrence of the word). In contrast, for Josephus, the Samaritans, also called Ku-theans, are first the Assyrian settlers; he never connects them with Om-ri’s capital (Ant 10.184). In his paraphrase, Josephus calls the visitors “Samaritans,”6 but with his later meaning of descendants of the settlers (Ant 11.84-87).

Second, these enemies do worship God in the same way as Yeshua, that is, they perform the same sacrifices. They do not say that they des-cend from the settlers brought in by the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:24

3 In Hebrew מקדש, a sacred area, see Ex 15:17; 25:8; Jos 24:26 and below § III.3. 4 The relationship between the two versions of the decree has puzzled scholars, see

WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 6-9. 5 Following Qeré ולו with versions, and not Ketib ולא, which would mean “and not us

sacrificing since the days of A.”, an awkward sentence construction. 6 WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 49, mentions after others this interpretation. MOR,

Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period, refuses after many others to view them as Samaritans, for he accepts Josephus’ statement that they were dissident Jews who appeared at the end of the Persian Period following the Manasse-Nikaso affair (see § 2 below).




after the deportation by Sargon II in 722, but they use the verb “let (ויבאgo up” which is typical of the pilgrimages or the entry into the promi-sed land. Cyrus’ proclamation reads (Ezra 1:3): “Whoever is among you of all his people, let him go up to Jerusalem.” Moreover, the king who let them go up is not Shalmanezer (see below § III.2), but king Esar-Haddon (681-669), a son of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37). In other words, the enemies pretend to be Israelites who were sent back home many years before Zerubbabel.7 They worship God in the same way but they have no temple.

Third, the claim of the enemies has a literary follow-up. After its completion, the dedication of the temple includes sacrifices for the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezra 6:17), and eventually Passover is celebrated with a remarkable conclusion (v. 22): “For Yhwh had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the temple of God.” Again, the wording of the whole inauguration is typi-cal of 1-2 Chronicles,8 but the king referred to should be Darius, king of Persia. “Assyria” should not be viewed as a sloppy mistake, but as a coded message that now the Jerusalem temple is the only one for all of Israel, including any ancient returnees. In other words, the new temple is akin to Solomon’s.

Fourth, this beautiful conclusion – one temple for all the tribes – does not satisfactorily explain the dismissal of the visitors. Zerubbabel’s argument is Cyrus’ order, which allows him to avoid any reference to Solomon. But behind this lie other considerations.

In the general context of Ezra-Nehemiah, we can see that the retur-nees profess very specific tenets, which seem to be difficult to reconcile with the customs of local Israelites. Above all, the lengthy list of the returned exiles (Ezra 2) focuses on genealogy: the people have to be Jews by birth, including priests and Levites. Some are not allowed to join, for they cannot prove their descent (v. 59-62). Circumcision is not mentioned. Thus, the true Israel is the “holy race” (Ezra 9:2) saved from Babylon, and not the “people of the land.” Such a view is held by the Prophets, too (Jer 24:1-13; Ezek 3:6-11), but with another perspective: the hope of return, not its effectiveness.

The newcomers do have special customs, which can be summari-zed around two points: a discovery of the Pentateuch in Jerusalem and non-biblical laws. According to Neh 8:1-18, Ezra proclaims the law of Moses in Jerusalem to the returnees after they have settled. This occurs

7 Jer 41:4-5 mentions Israelites that came from Shechem, Silo and Samaria to worship

Yhwh in Jerusalem. 8 See NODET, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire.



126 E. Nodet

on the first day of the seventh month, then from the second day on the people study it and learn that they have to build booths in order to dwell in them for eight days, starting on the 14th. These booths domina-te over everything, including the courts of the temple, and no sacrifice is mentioned. This Feast of Booths is deemed to be a new feature, since it is stated that “since the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day the sons of Israel had not done so” (v. 17). Such a reference skips over the whole period of the Judges and Kings and suggests a new beginning, as if the returnees, that is the true sons of Israel, were just arriving from Egypt. The rite itself has something to do with the prescriptions of Lev 23:39-43, which combine a feast of the ingathering at the end of the Year (see Ex 23:16) and the commandment to dwell in booths as a memorial of the journey through the wilderness.

Two points should be stressed. First, the people discover a major precept of Scripture (Lev), which was not alluded to at the time of Zer-ubbabel’s Feast of Booths according to Ezra 3:1-7, when the sacrificial cult was restored. Second, the Day of Atonement9 does not appear in this story, this all the more so since a penitential day occurs instead on the 23rd of the same month (Neh 9:1). The Day of Atonement is briefly described in Lev 23:26-32 and Num 29:7-11, with a fast, rest and sacrifi-ces, but Lev 16 expounds the ritual on a much larger scale in connection with the temple, as we said above. So we may wonder whether in the law of Moses proclaimed by Ezra the book of Leviticus is identical with the one we know.10 Another possibility could be that the story aims at introducing to the promised land a custom that was not known there, but only in the Diaspora. A clue to this can be found in an interesting difference between Philo and Josephus. The former underlines the im-portance of the booths in every place for the feast and separates them from the sacrifices in Jerusalem (Spec. leg. 1:189 and 2:204-213), while the latter, a priest from Jerusalem, ignores the booths as a family rite: in

9 The inauguration of Solomon’s temple overlaps the feast of the Booths in the 7th

month (LXX 1 Reg 8:65-66 et 2 Chron 7:8-10; the MT has been reworked in order to separate them), and the day of Atonement is absent there (1 Reg 8:4), as in the ritual of the temple of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 45:18-20).

10 HARTLEY, Leviticus, 217-220, observes that the ritual lacks details; however, there are ancient parallels that seem to exclude a late introduction of that day. Other explana-tions have been voiced. MILGROM, Leviticus, 1061-1063, admits some redaction his-tory and concludes that the rite of Lev 16:2-28 was first the story of an urgent clean-sing, which was transformed in pre-exilic times into a yearly atonement day (v. 29-34). LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, gives a status questionis, observes that there is no consensus, and surmises that it is because modern studies, focusing upon the narra-tives, neglect the literary and legal structure of Leviticus; he concludes that Lev 16 is the core of the book. So does GANE, Cult and Character.




Ant 3.244-247, when he paraphrases Lev 23:39-43, he explains that Mo-ses had told the Israelites to pitch tents in the desert, of course without any ingathering, and to make an eight-day pilgrimage feast when they have entered their homeland, without booths or tents.

Later, just before Nehemiah’s second trip, it is reported that a por-tion of the book of Moses was read to the people, and immediately “they separated from Israel all that was mixed” (Neh 13:1-3 ויבדילו כל evcwri,sqhsan pa/j evpi,miktoj), with the typical words of separation (see ,ערבGen 1:4 f.; Lev 20:24). The plain meaning is the separation from the people of mixed descent, but the passage quoted is Deut 23:4-6, which envisions those who shall not enter the assembly of Yhwh: the only nations permanently excluded are Ammon and Moab; even the Edomi-tes and Egyptians are accepted after several generations. So the conclu-sion drawn by the people runs far beyond the quotation. The authority of the written book covers a precept which is not exactly Biblical. Again, circumcision is not mentioned. From earlier stories, we learn that the opponents to Nehemiah include Sanballat the Samaritan, To-biah the Ammonite as well as prominent people of Judah, a prophetess and some prophets (Neh 6:14-18). In the sequel, Nehemiah himself, whose credentials are not indicated, expels other people from Jerusa-lem, including a son of the high priest Jehoiada who has married a daughter of Sanballat (Neh 13:28). It really seems that Israelites were expelled, and we shall see on other grounds that this was so.

Other stories and customs indicate that the link with Moses’ laws was loose. In Neh 5:1-13, during his tenure as governor, Nehemiah has to solve a problem of economic oppression among the Jews, but he ignores the laws of the sabbatical year, which correct this kind of prob-lem and are later stated in the covenant rules (Neh 10:31). In Neh 13:15-22, the core of the Sabbath commandment is to close the gates of the city in order to prevent any trade. This very form of the precept is in-cluded in the community covenant given in Neh 10:31-40, as well as others which do not match the written laws of Moses.

As for Ezra’s mission, it can be divided into two parts. First, with the approval of king Artaxerxes, he brings from Babylon a large group of exiles (Ezra 7-8). Second, he discovers that “the people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land,” so that he proceeds to put away the foreign wives (Ezra 9-10). We just saw that Nehemiah acts to the same effect. Now the trespassers, who are termed “the exile” (הגולה), include some sons of the high priest Yeshua the son of Jozadak, priests, Levites, temple atten-dants and other people. So they belong to the people who came from Babylon before Ezra. The latter’s authority is given in an odd way (Ezra



128 E. Nodet

7:1-5): his short genealogy promotes him as a kind of high priest, son of Seraya, but we learn from a longer list11 given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 that Seraya, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Jozadak or the grandfather of Yeshua. So Ezra, as a substitute or brother of Joza-dak, is set one generation before Yeshua and Zerubbabel. Again, this literary feature is not a mere mistake, but a device to put Ezra and the people he brought along with him above Zerubbabel and his returned people, and to state that he is the true heir of the pre-exilic period. The-re were two waves of migrants, or more accurately, two parties. In fact, when Nehemiah has rebuilt the walls, he sees that the city is large, but the people within it are few. Then he discovers the genealogies of those who have come first, and quotes the very list of Ezra 2.

This overall perspective of the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah has contaminated the general narrative from the beginning. Zerubbabel and Yeshua did worship according to the laws of Moses. Moreover, what has been said above regarding the long list of returned exiles fol-lows the views of Nehemiah, but this is not satisfactory, for it includes the sons of Solomon’s slaves and the nethinim, whose descent can hard-ly be Israelite. The purpose of the list is not to select only Jews, but to make sure that the people permitted to go to Jerusalem are the descen-dants of actual exiles from Israel, of whatever period. This gives ano-ther clue for the hypothesis that the “foreign” wives were just local Israelites and not daughters of “Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusi-tes” (referring to Deut 7:1), who were hardly available in the Persian period.

To sum up, so far we can identify three Israelite parties during the Persian period. The first one was called “the people of the land,” so-mewhat related to the ancient northern tribes. The second one, laun-ched by Cyrus, was a first wave of returned exiles, who eventually built the temple; they had some intercourse with the local Israelites. Later on came a third party of Babylonian reformers who did reform,12 but they stayed at some distance from the temple, albeit urging its proper func-tioning. Claiming to be the true Israel, they were adamant about sepa-ration (walls and gates, foreign wives) and enforced customs that were not quite biblical. This reminds one of the later Pharisee, whose Ara-maic name means “separated”13: they had strong Babylonian connecti-ons, insisted on genealogy and followed “oral” traditions.

11 Its length is artificial, for it has been obtained by repeating the same names, see

NODET, La crise maccabéenne 243-253. Josephus has better data (Ant 10.152-153). 12 See JAPHET, Periodization between History and Ideology. 13 See NODET, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians.




These first remarks pose some biblical problems and leave aside both chronology and the meaning of the temple: according to Ezra 5:1-2, the building of the temple was prompted by prophets, when Yeshua and Zerubbabel were somewhat idle in this respect.

2. Ezra, Nehemiah, Josephus. the Israelite Parties

For his biblical paraphrase (Ant 11.183), Josephus did not know the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Instead of the latter, his source knows Nehemiah only as a builder, not as a reformer, which matches the short praise of Sir 49:13 (Ezra is not mentioned). As for the former, his source is akin to 1 Esdras (or Esdras A’14 of Rahlfs). This Greek text is parallel to Ezra, with some omissions, changes of order or wording, and three major additions: first, 1 Esd 1 is an independent translation of 2 Chron 35-36, a passage which runs from Josiah’s Passover through a prophecy of Jeremiah’s announcing seventy years of exile; second, Zer-ubbabel, who appears by the time of Cyrus in Ezra 3, is introduced as the winner of a contest between king Darius’ pages (1 Esd 3:1-4:46); third, Neh 8:1-13a is added at the end, that is Ezra’s proclamation of Moses’ law, but without the Feast of Booths (v. 13b-17). Josephus did not know 1 Esd 115 and had a longer form of the third addition, since he mentions the Feast of Booths.

Josephus reworks the chronology. 1 Esdras gives the succession of the Persian kings as Cyrus-Artaxerxes-Darius,16 under whom the temp-le is completed. According to the Greek historians this Darius cannot be earlier than Darius II (423-404), successor of Artaxerxes I (464-424). Josephus, who knows these historians, replaces Artaxerxes with Cyrus’ son Cambyses (530–522) in order to make sure that Darius is Darius I (521-486). So the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah is adequately fulfil-led, and the succession of the high priests makes sense, since Yeshua is the son of Jozadak, the high priest deported in 587. In fact, most mo-dern scholars follow Josephus for this chronology.

From Ezra 3:2 through 5:2, Zerubbabel and Yeshua seem to have had a very long career , under Cyrus, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Artaxerxes and Darius, that is more than one hundred years. However, their posi-tion is not quite clear, for according to Ezra 1:7-8, Cyrus consigned the 14 On the reasons to believe that 1 Esdras reflects an earlier version of Ezra, see SCHEN-

KER, La Relation d’Esdras; BÖHLER, On the Relationship. 15 See NODET, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe, LX. 16 Ezra 4:6 adds Xerxes (486-465) between Cyrus and Artaxerxes, but this does not

affect the discussion here.



130 E. Nodet

temple vessels to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, but immediately after this, Zerubbabel appears as a kind of governor of Judah under Cyrus (Ezra 3:1). Many commentators have concluded that the same man had both names.17 Later on, in the second year of Darius, the pro-phets Haggai and Zechariah urged Zerubbabel and Yeshua to start the construction (Ezra 5:1-2; Hag 1). By the time of the dedication of the temple, they have disappeared, while the involvement of the prophets has not weakened. Interestingly, the works are completed according to the “decree of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes the king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). The wording suggests that the first two ones were charac-ters of the past. The context indicates that this Artaxerxes was not the first one, an opponent to the rebuilding of Jerusalem18 (Ezra 4:17-22), but Artaxerxes II (404-358), son of Darius II. This would mean that the inauguration took place in the 4th century.19 All this indicates that Zer-ubbabel and Yeshua provide a literary continuity from Cyrus through Darius II, and maybe later, but their direct involvement in the temple building was not outstanding, to say the least.

As a matter of fact, their views were far removed from what we read in the books of these prophets. According to Hag 2:2-9, in the se-cond year of Darius, Haggai receives a revelation from God to be han-ded over to Zerubbabel and Yeshua: they have to build the temple, for everything is about to be shaken, so that the treasures of all the nations will come and the temple will be filled with a splendor greater than the former one. After these events, Zerubbabel will be the (eschatological) chosen one (v. 23). Zerubbabel is supplied with a Davidic descent by secondary witnesses (1 Chron 3:19; in 1 Esdras 5:4, followed by Jose-phus; Mt 1:12), but not by the prophets.

Jozadak and other high priests are operating around an altar, while the temple, as the dwelling place of God or of God's name, has to be a radiant center. Such a broad perspective can already be found in Solo-mon’s dedication of his temple (1 Kings 8:38 LXX20). In the same way, the vision of Zech 2:12 in the same second year of Darius announces

17 Since TORREY, Ezra Studies. 18 See GARBINI, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese, 53-60. 19 Ag. Ap. 1:197-199 quotes Hecateus of Abdera, who describes a walled sanctuary that

includes an altar of unhewn stones and a building with an incense altar and a cand-lestick, both in gold. Hecateus knew the beginnings of the Lagid period in Egypt. He would witness the Jerusalem temple before the repairs under Antiochus III, but the genuineness of the passage is controversial, see STERN, Greek and Latin Authors, I:22-24.

20 The MT restricts it to Israel, but this is a gloss, see SCHENKER, Septante et texte mas-sorétique, 139.




that after a disaster “many nations shall join themselves to Yhwh,” who has roused himself from his holy dwelling. Yeshua is restored in his splendor (3:5-7). An oracle says that a man called “branch,” somehow connected with “Zerubbabel,” is to build the temple of Yhwh (4:8; 6:12-13). These eschatological visions, linked to the temple, have a much broader scope than the sacrificial worship, which is costly (Zech 14:21): “And there shall no longer be a trader in the temple of Yhwh on that day.” The intervening of the foreign king Cyrus is viewed in Is 45:1-7 as the very beginning of a universal recognition of the only God. The dif-ference from the Zerubbabel narrative of Ezra 3 is blatant. It squares with the difference between temple and altar.

Incidentally, the genealogies of 1 Chron 5 and Ezra 7 are definitely of symbolic value, but they cannot be taken as accurate, which permits us not to give Yeshua too high a chronology. As for the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah, who are both related to an Artaxerxes favorable to the Jews, they – or more probably the party they represent – should be put under Artaxerxes II (404-358), not far from the completion of the temp-le.

This section allows us to refine the definition of the three Israelite parties during the Persian period, because of the prophets and the low involvement of Zerubbabel in the temple building. To the first, called “the people of the land,” should be joined the first returnees at the time of Cyrus or probably later; they do have intercourse and sacrifice upon altars like the ones on mount Gerizim. The second one, let us say under Darius II, can be called “prophetic;” its action resulted in the building of a temple, hence the later fame of Jerusalem, supposed to be the only dwelling place of God. The third party, represented by Ezra and Ne-hemiah, came later (Artaxerxes II) and launched reforms.

3. The Gerizim Temple. Josephus

The only ancient source on the building of the Gerizim temple is Jose-phus (Ant 11.302-347), but his account is difficult, for it combines seve-ral discrepant sources and has obvious legendary aspects. It is framed by some pieces of general history under Darius III and Alexander. It is convenient to divide it into two blocks. The first follows in three parts.

1. (§ 302-303) The high priest Jaddua son of Johanan (son of Jehoia-da) has a brother Manasseh who married Nikaso, a daughter of Sanbal-lat, a Samaritan satrap of Samaria. Manasseh agreed, for he wanted to get closer to Jerusalem and its fame. This happened around the time of the murder of Philip, the father of Alexander, in 336 (§ 304-305).



132 E. Nodet

2. (§ 306-308) The elders of Jerusalem, eventually joined by the high priest, object to this marriage, arguing that the misfortunes and exile were caused by such unions.

3. (§ 309-312) Then Manasseh approaches Sanballat, who, with the consent of King Darius, begins to build a temple like the one in Jerusa-lem for him on Mt. Gerizim. Manasseh hoped soon to be appointed high priest, for Sanballat was aging. Helped by Sanballat, many priests and Jews who had married in the same way join Manasseh.

Some comments are appropriate. The “elders,” who oblige Sanbal-lat to alter his plans, are reformers, since many have married Samaritan women without being faulted. The allusion to the exile suggests that this new party of “elders” has come from Babylonia recently. We saw above that Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of Sanballat, who was a son of the high priest Jehoiada; this is a different tradition of the same event, with a discrepancy of one generation. So Nehemiah, in his se-cond trip to Jerusalem, belongs to the party of the elders, who argue similarly to him, when he expels the foreign wives. He says that in spite of his wisdom, Solomon was led to idolatry by foreign wives, which was the very beginning of the fall of his kingdom (Neh 13:26; see 1 Kings 11:1-13). These foreigners are just Samaritans or local Israelites. Now the change in Sanballat's project is significant: first to get closer to the fame of Jerusalem, then to build a parallel temple. The fame is lin-ked to the temple, not to the altars that had been extant for a long time , as shown by the recent excavations.

From a literary point of view, this story implies that the reformers showed up some time after the completion of the temple, which mat-ches the conclusions in the previous section.

The second block, which is introduced by Alexander’s victory over Darius at Issus in 333 (§ 313-317a), is more complex, for what concerns the Gerizim splits into two narrative threads that can hardly be reconci-led.

1. (§ 317b-320): Alexander, besieging Tyre, sends to the high priest of Jerusalem for help, but the latter refuses out of faithfulness to Darius.

2. (§ 321-325): Sanballat abandons Darius, goes to Tyre with eight thousand men and submits to Alexander. He explains that he wants to build a temple in order to divide the power of the Jews. With Alexan-der’s consent, he builds it in nine months and dies by the time Alexan-der, after taking Tyre and Gaza, heads to Jerusalem to punish the high priest for his refusal.

3. (§ 326-339): The legend of Alexander coming to Jerusalem, chan-ging his mind miraculously after seeing the high priest of God, and




granting favors to the Jews in Judea, Babylon and Media. Many Jews join him on his way to Egypt.

4. (§ 340-345): Hearing of the favors granted to the Jews, the Samari-tans come and meet him to receive the same treatment, proclaiming themselves to be Jews and inviting him to see their temple. Alexander, who never heard of them, asks who they are; being told that they are Hebrews but not Jews, he refuses, but takes Sanballat’s soldiers to settle them in Egypt.

5. (§ 346-357): After Alexander’s death, the Gerizim temple remai-ned and attracted Jews expelled from Jerusalem for violating the laws.

From the side of the Samaritans, there are two stories, with a kind of bridge formed by Sanballat’s soldiers. In the first story with Sanbal-lat, the Samaritans are somehow Jews with more lenient laws if we follow the previous block and the conclusion here; their temple is new. In the second one, without Sanballat, the Samaritans are not Jews but are faithful to the laws, and their temple was extant before Alexander’s arrival. One may observe that the Gerizim temple is built in a very short time span, and that Sanballat’s death happens at the right time.

Now if we remove Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem as being legenda-ry, the sum total of the story around two points is clear. First, Alexan-der has taken some Samaritans or Hebrews to settle them in Egypt but has not touched their laws. Second, the Gerizim construction remains connected with Sanballat, but not with Alexander. If this is the case, the first block above indicates that it has been done with the consent of a King Darius, but the chronological frame given by Josephus, the end of the Persian period, is quite artificial, for the event is linked to the action of the party of the “elders,” which above was put under one Artaxer-xes.

Regarding Alexander’s campaign, ancient sources21 do speak of Samaria, but not of Jerusalem. On his way to Egypt, he actually besie-ged Tyre and then Gaza, and at some point his general Parmenion ap-pointed one Andromachus commander in Coele-Syria. But the latter was assassinated by the Samaritans. When Alexander returned from Egypt in 331, he punished the offenders and settled Macedonian colo-nists in Samaria. Josephus’ account implies some kind of meeting bet-ween Alexander’s staff and the Samaritans, but ignores these facts; however, the discovery in 1962 of some two hundred skeletons in a cave in the Wadi Daliyeh22 (southern Samaria) with papyri and coins

21 See SCHÜRER / VERMES, History of the Jewish People, 160. 22 See the major study of DUŠEK, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh.



134 E. Nodet

dating to the end of the Persian period seem to witness to a harsh pu-nishment.

By the time of Alexander, we clearly see two parties. The more an-cient is Israelite in the proper sense, with priests and two temples. It is the outcome of three phases: early Israelite worship on altars, building of the Jerusalem temple (prophets), copying it on Mt. Gerizim. The more recent is the party of the “elders” in Jerusalem, which strives to promote a pure Judaism. It has been related to Ezra and Nehemiah. In Ant 11.140-145, Josephus paraphrases the expulsion of the foreign wi-ves by Ezra (Ezra 9:1-2; 1 Esd 8:65-67) with the same allusion to the cause of the disasters. Ezra acts after a denunciation of intermarriage23 by “the officers” (שרים, hgou,menoi), in whom we can recognize the “el-ders.” Josephus does not see a relationship between this and the Nikaso story, for since he closely follows his source, he understands that the matter is plainly due to foreign wives and concludes that Ezra’s reform remained fixed for the future. This indicates that even for him all the “foreign wives” around the Nikaso affair were Samaritan.

4. High Priests, Sanballat, Chronology

The succession of the Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period is not very clear. The main lists are given somewhat independently of each other in Neh 12:10-11 and Ant 11.297 and differ as regardsone name (Jonathan/Johanan); some fragments appear elsewhere. Within Neh 12 we note some discrepancies; rather than plain sloppiness, they could be a sign that the high priests are not too important in a book whose major character is Nehemiah, a layman.

23 Contrarily to his source, Josephus only speaks of the purity of the priests, but this

was a major issue for him and his time (Ag. Ap. 1:30-31), see SCHWARTZ, Doing like Jews.




Neh 12:10 f. Neh 12:22 Neh 12:23 Neh 13:28 Ezra 10:6 Ant 11.297 f.

Yeshua (Yeshua) Joiakim (Joiakim) Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Elyashib Joiada Joiada Johanan Joiada Johanan Joiada Jonathan Johanan (Manasseh) Johanan

+Joshua Jaddua Jaddua Jaddua

+Manasseh

The Jerusalem high priests during the Persian period. Josephus, who is very careful about this succession, states that Jozadak was in charge by the time of the deportation (Ant 10.150), and that Jad-dua’s tenure extended until Alexander’s arrival, that is six generations in some 255 years. This is not impossible,24 but other considerations have to be introduced.

The study of the story of Alexander has shown that the constructi-on of the Gerizim temple, linked to Sanballat, was completed under a King Darius. As for the legend of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and his greeting the high priest Jaddua, it cannot be conclusive. But there are other clues. The main one is that the high priest Johanan was in charge in 410, under Darius II, for he is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri.25 So Jaddua must definitely be severed from the time of Alexander. A confirmation can be found in the same Elephantine document: it is a letter to Bagohi, the governor of Judea, and Josephus reports a very strange event during the tenure of both Johanan and Bagohi (Bagoas), but under one Artaxerxes; either Josephus confused the kings or the episode happened after Darius’ death under his successor Artaxerxes II (404-358).

Other clues entail problems. Nehemiah expelled the son-in-law of Sanballat, one of his permanent enemies, under one Artaxerxes, but according to Josephus, this son-in-law, whose name was Manasseh was expelled by the “elders” under the last Darius. The same Elephantine document mentions Sanballat (line 28) as governor of Samaria and his sons Delayah and Shelemyah; some commentators have surmised that Sanballat was already dead and that one of these sons was his succes-sor. In any case, he was in charge under Darius II and perhaps before.

24 So concludes VANDERKAM, From Yeshua to Caiaphas. 25 COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30-31, 108-122.



136 E. Nodet

The Wadi Daliyeh documents mention a governor Sanballat in charge at the beginning of the 4th century. All these data cannot be reconciled without some assumptions.

Persian Kings

Josephus

Early

Synthesis26

(Elephantine)

Further

Synthesis27

(W. Daliyeh)

Dušek

(Elephantine,

W. Daliyeh)

A New

Proposal

(altar/–temple)

Cambyses 529

Darius I 521

Samaritans

Jerusalem

temple

(altars)

Xerxes 486 Ezra

Samaritans

Nehemiah

Artaxerxes I

464

(Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat I,

Nehemiah,

Nikaso I,

Gerizim

Sanballat,

Nehemiah

Nehemiah I

(governor)

Darius II 423 Sanballat I,

(Nehemiah)

Sanballat,

Nikaso,

Gerizim

Prophets

Jerusalem

temple

Sanballat

Johanan

Artaxerxes II

404

(Esther) (Nehemiah) Sanballat II Bagohi

“Elders”

Ezra-Neh II

Gerizim temple

Artaxerxes III

358

Bagohi Sanballat II Jaddua

Darius III 338 Sanballat,

Nikaso,

Nikaso,

Gerizim

Sanballat III

Nikaso II

Alexander 333 Gerizim Onias

Some views on Sanballat

– Josephus, who wants to stress the continuity with the pre-exilic period, locates Ezra and Nehemiah under Xerxes, after the completion of the Jerusalem temple under Darius I. But after this, he has only Esther to fill up the period until the Bagohi story.

26 Taken up by ESHEL, Governors of Samaria. 27 CROSS, The Papyri and their Historical Implications.




– After the discovery of Elephantine, it is clear that Sanballat under Darius II could not be identical with the one of Josephus, hence a first doubling by papponymy, in order to maintain the succession of the high priests (according to Josephus).

– The papyri from the W. Daliyeh mention Sanballat somewhere in between, hence a tripling by papponymy, in order to save both the Jerusalem temple under Darius I and the succession of the high priests.

– Then a new synthesis was suggested, based solely on archaeolo-gical evidence (documents, excavations). Josephus and Ezra-Nehemiah are discarded as unreliable, so that only one Sanballat survives. Howe-ver, the link between Sanballat and the Gerizim temple is not very clear.

– This new suggestion embraces both the antiquity of the Samari-tans and the later fame of Jerusalem by introducing for the cult a dis-tinction between the altar, that is the Pentateuch requirement, and the temple as God’s dwelling place, a later feature which appeared first in Jerusalem and was copied on Mt. Gerizim. This way, the general outli-ne of Josephus’ non-biblical accounts, but not his chronology, makes sense in connection with the action of the “elders” and Sanballat’s pro-jects. As we shall see below, the man Nehemiah has to be split into the builder (Sir 49, Josephus) and the reformer, who is akin to the “elders.”

5. Ezra, Nehemiah. The Characters and the Books

But more has to be said on the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, for they inclu-de much more than the reformers.28 For political reasons Artaxerxes I was opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem but not of the temple (Ezra 4:17-23); the conclusion says that work on the temple ceased, but this is a redactional wrapping, since it is actually supposed to have begun under Cyrus. So the Artaxerxes who sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusa-lem (Neh 2:6) can hardly have been the same king; it seems that he should have been Artaxerxes II, under whom the construction of the temple was completed. However, he was working in Jerusalem by the time of the high priest Elyashib, father or grandfather of Johanan, the high priest in charge by the time of Darius II. Therefore, he was actually sent by Artaxerxes I, who changed his mind. This is not impossible, since in his letter to the local officials he tells them to decree that the city not be rebuilt until he himself has issued a decree. Now, according to Neh 5:14, Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judah from the 20th

28 See ESKENAZI, In an Age of Prose.



138 E. Nodet

to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, and later obtained a leave for his second trip (13:6). As for Ezra, in King Artaxerxes' seventh year, he was sent (Ezra 7:8) with the mission to enforce the laws of his God everywhere, and there is a list of priests and Levites of different periods (Neh 12:12-26), which concludes: “These were in the days of Joiakim son of Yeshua son of Jozadak and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest scribe.” So they must have been contemporaneous.

But such a conclusion is unlikely. If we take an overview of the book of Nehemiah, we obtain a clear picture: after Nehemiah as gover-nor has rebuilt Jerusalem and restored some social order, Ezra pro-claims the law of Moses, then follows a covenant, and at the end, after various lists, Nehemiah comes back to enforce the new regulations; the city walls symbolize the separation demanded by the law. But such an outline is a construct, since according to the dates given, they cannot have been contemporaneous. Scholars have tried to put Ezra before Nehemiah under the same Artaxerxes,29 or Nehemiah before Ezra un-der two different kings,30 but neither solution works properly, for in each case, the historians must omit some passages in their syntheses in order to avoid contradictions.31 Now if we look at Nehemiah’s second trip, as a reformer, it displays at least two strange features: first he ob-tains a leave from the king, with no special mission or authority; howe-ver, he vigorously realizes his reforms without any opposition. Second, the king is named “Artaxerxes king of Babylon,” instead of “Persia,” a significant anachronism. Thus, in spite of the fact that the story is writ-ten as memoirs in the first person32 (see 2 Macc 2:13), this is just a piece of literature, built upon some facts or traditions, which aims at showing that the reforms were successful.

The above discussion of the passages from Josephus has shown that the party of the “elders”, to which belongs Nehemiah as reformer, ap-peared after the completion of the Jerusalem temple, that is under Ar-taxerxes II. So Nehemiah's second trip could easily be put under “Arta-xerxes,” giving a sense that he still had the authority of a governor. So we may call this reformer “Nehemiah II.” Incidentally, as regards the redaction history, it should be remembered that Josephus did not know of Nehemiah as a reformer. As for Ezra, who acts only as a reformer, he

29 Thus DE VAUX, Israël and CROSS, A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, with

three Sanballats. 30 Since VAN HOONACKER, Néhémie et Esdras; see the review of WIDENGREN, The

Persian Period, 504 f. 31 STERN, The Persian Empire, 74; ACKROYD, The Jewish Community in Palestine, 138

n. 2 and 148. 32 See WRIGHT, Rebuilding Identity.




is aptly put under the same Artaxerxes, and there is a minor clue to this effect: according to Ezra 9:6 Ezra, after making a covenant with the people, withdrew to “the chamber (לשכת) of Johanan son of Elyashib,” where he spent the night fasting and praying. This was not a private house, and he had no meeting with anyone. This chamber seems to have been named after a late high priest, who was in office under Dar-ius II.

The actual Nehemiah was a governor and a builder, while the re-former is a kind of impersonation with his memoirs. We may ask whe-ther Ezra, a reformer who wrote memoirs in the first person, was a similar fiction. In the praise of the Fathers in Ecclesiasticus Sirach, Ne-hemiah is given one line as the restorer of the walls and the gates and the houses, but not as a reformer, and Ezra the reformer is ignored (Sir 49:13). In the sequel, Simon son of Onias is praised for having repaired the temple (50:1-2). The author addresses his wisdom book to anyone who fears God (1:1-14), as the translator stresses in his prologue. All this forms a pattern in striking contrast with the mindset of the refor-mers, who in some way are not deemed to be “Fathers.”

Over against this, the book of Nehemiah conveys the impression of an overall acceptance of the reforms.33 However, we can see that a struggle between parties has been smoothed over, for some significant traces have been left. Nehemiah is a layman from Babylon who wants the worship to be performed properly, but the temple is never his main concern. He focuses on the walls. Once they are repaired and the doors set up, gatekeepers, singers and Levites are appointed at the gates (Neh 7:1-2; 13:22); the walls are solemnly dedicated, with two groups in pro-cession visiting the gates and reaching the temple at the end to offer sacrifices. But if we follow the movement on a map, it appears that the enclosure of the dedicated walls does not include the temple itself. A separate district has been created, with all the signs of a holy place.

This should not be surprising, as the construction work of Nehe-miah splits into two different pictures. He is officially sent by Artaxer-xes, who grants him every kind of help, but when he comes to Jerusa-lem, he first hides for three days and then secretly, by night, inspects some dilapidated walls and gates within the same small area of the later dedication (Neh 2:8-16). In the sequel he recovers his position as governor and launches the work (2:17-18), but again the construction is run at two levels: on the one hand, the high priest Elyashib presides over an overall overhaul of the walls and gates, having recruited wor-kers from almost everywhere in Judea, but Nehemiah himself is not

33 See WRIGHT, A New Model.



140 E. Nodet

mentioned (Neh 3). On the other hand, Nehemiah and his followers finished the wall in fifty-to days (6:15), in spite of opponents who for-ced him to organize a defense system day and night (4:10-23). In fact, there were two kinds of opponents: from outside the city, Sanballat, Tobiah and others are very vocal from the outset, after Nehemiah has received his mission (2:10); from the inside, we hear of prominent Jews, a prophetess and some prophets (Neh 6:16-19), who join the first group. Thus, in the book Nehemiah the reformer has put on the garments of the governor, so that the general outline is consistent, but behind this, we see that the party of the Babylonian reformers has set up a special protected area of reformed people. There is no reason to separate Elyashib’s work from the governor Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I, but the reform party surged up later.

The Books of Chronicles display a set of views that can be summa-rized in a couple of tenets: the law of Moses is cited everywhere; the Jerusalem temple, which to a large extent reproduces Moses’ sanctuary in the wilderness, is the cultic center of all the tribes of Israel; the wors-hip is organized according to David’s regulations; at the end, Cyrus’ decree is quoted, with an invitation to whoever belongs to all the peop-le of the God of heaven to go up to Jerusalem. The ideology is that men are rewarded according to their deeds, or that they build their own fate, as shown by the reworking of the story of Josiah: his unexpected death (2 Kgs 23:29-30) is now the result of his stubborn refusal to obey God (2 Chr 35:20-25). Many scholars have thought that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written by the “Chronicler,”34 but all this has no-thing to do with the goals of the reformers, who focus upon a narrow Israel. However, a layer of these views has surfaced in Ezra 3 and 6 – let us call it a final editing –, when the temple construction begins in a liturgical manner (3:10-13), and when the worship is set up according to the rules written in the “book of Moses,” that is Chronicles, with its references to the law of Moses; sacrifices are made for the twelve tribes. In the book of Nehemiah the same layer is to be detected in the liturgi-cal inauguration of the walls, and maybe in the various genealogies of priests, Levites and other people given at random places.

6. Conclusion

The starting point of this study was the similarity between Zerubba-bel's and Yeshua's worship without a temple Yeshuawhen they arrived

34 Until the study of JAPHET, The Supposed Common Authorship.




in Jerusalem (Ezra 3:1-6), and what has been discovered of the Samari-tan sanctuary of Mt. Gerizim without a temple, dating from the 5th cen-tury or earlier. This has prompted a study of Josephus on the Samari-tans and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Josephus is not very accurate and the stories he reports are always suspect as regards legen-dary or biased reworking, but instead of focusing upon unreliable events, we have considered that they have been remembered and transmitted through patterns of thinking that were provided by some-times conflicting institutions and customs.

Ezra and Nehemiah are very complex books with a difficult redac-tional history. They efficiently resist any easy narrative or historical interpretation, in spite of many references to Persian kings. We have looked for traces of institutions and customs, but also believe that unli-ke Josephus’ works, these books have been carefully written, which means that any discrepancy or strange wording is not a mistake but a kind of “signal” inviting further scrutiny – very biblically: the stories always have an aspect of broken history, as if they were sloppily writ-ten.

The discoveries of Elephantine, Wadi Daliyeh and Mt. Gerizim ha-ve provided additional clues and refinement for dating. Together with the literary sources, they have allowed us to follow the scholars who accept one Sanballat only, the powerful Samaritan governor in charge during the reigns of Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and perhaps Artaxerxes II. The implication has been to discard to a large extent the historical au-thority of the canonical books and to have a very cautious approach to Josephus because of his lack of critical discernment. Then, after dealing with some of their “signals,” it has been necessary to distinguish bet-ween the historical Nehemiah, a builder, and a symbolic reformer to whom his authority is attributed (called Nehemiah II)

Some conclusions have emerged. – We have shown the usefulness of the distinction drawn between

the altar upon which all sacrifices can be performed according to the law of Moses, and the temple as the dwelling place of God, demanded by foreign kings (from Cyrus to Darius II) and the prophets, with a flavor of universal monotheism. Erected first in Jerusalem around the end of the 5th century, it was copied on Mt. Gerizim some time later.

– Three Israelite parties have been identified. The first one, the most traditional, is represented at various periods by Zerubbabel, Yeshua and Sanballat. They had parallel sanctuaries without temples at Jerusa-lem and Mt. Gerizim. They are local Israelites as well as returned exiles. Incidentally, the numerous “Jewish” colonies in Egypt, including Ele-phantine, belong to this party, and should be called Israelite. The se-



142 E. Nodet

cond one, represented by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, promo-ted the building of a temple, with due respect for the high priests. The third party, represented by Josephus’ “elders” as well as Ezra and Ne-hemiah II, was of Babylonian origin and wanted reforms, including of the high priesthood; it could not accept the Samaritans. A tiny thing to begin with, it succeeded in erecting a separate, walled area. It eventual-ly overshadowed the other ones in Judea, which were merged in some way, for the later Hasmonean state as well as the Pharisees were the outcome of this trend. By the time of the Samaritans, only the first party was extant: they had neither prophets nor reformers, at least not with the same significance.

– The succession of the high priest in Jerusalem is quite clear at the beginning of the Persian period, but there is a gap at the end. We may surmise that some of them moved to Egypt because of the reform party; in any case, the very name of the first priest of the Hellenistic period after Alexander, Onias, indicates an Egyptian connection, as we shall see below. It may well be that the legend of Alexander bowing down before a Jerusalem high priest reflects the latter's help in this respect, but no evidence is available and it is doubtful that he actually created a Jewish quarter in Alexandria, in spite of a seemingly clear reference in an edict of Claudius issued in 42 CE (Ant 19.279-285).

These conclusions involve some biblical problems35 of which the most conspicuous is a permanent Judean or Jewish bias.36 For the pre-sent study, three should be considered, besides the peculiar features of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles: first, the significance of Solomon’s temple, for the Persian restoration hardly mentions it, if we accept the literary layer of the “Chronicler;” second, the position and authority of Deuteronomy, which the returned exiles seem to have discovered in Jerusalem (Neh 13:1-3), and which demands only one “chosen place;” third, the possibility of a sacrificial cult without a temple renews the question of the origin and authority of the chapter on the Day of Ato-nement37 (Lev 16).

35 In this respect, it is useful for any text to draw a distinction between redaction and

religious or legal authority, see KNOPPERS / LEVINSON, The Pentateuch as Torah, 1-19.

36 The issue is clearly defined by NIHAN, The Torah between Samaria and Judah. 37 In this respect, the proposal of Mary DOUGLAS (Leviticus as Literature) is suggestive:

considering that the only two pieces of narrative are transgressions with major con-sequences (Lev 8-10 and 24:10-22), she sees them as representing the veils that di-vided the temple into three parts. This view has been criticized (see the review of LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon, 220-228), but one of its merits is to include the “chosen place” of Deut in the Holy of Holies (see Lev 26-27).




In order to shed some more light upon the Persian period,38 the next step will be a discussion of the adjacent periods; we will consider first the Hellenistic period, to see how the relationship between Samaritans and Jews developed, and then some pre-exilic features around the sig-nificance of the Solomon temple.

II. Jews and Samaritans in the 2nd Century. The Onias Temple

By the time of the Maccabean crisis, two full-scale temples were extant, Jerusalem and Gerizim. The author of 2 Macc 5:22-6:3 does not find fault with this. For him, after the fall of Onias, the best high priest, the Hasmonean high priesthood and state are unimportant,39 for he states that since Judas Maccabeus’ victory over Nikanor in 161, Jerusalem has been in the possession of the Hebrews (15:37), while we learn from 1 Macc 13:51 that the independence of Jerusalem did not happen before 142, with Simon son of Mattathias. The book is in fact a foundation narrative for the commemoration of this victory on the 13th of Adar, defined as “the day before Mordechai’s day.” This reference to the feast of Purim, which is not given in the parallel story in 1 Macc 7:49, is quite interesting, for the book of Esther reports a persecution of the Jews in Susa followed by a providential salvation on the spot, without any allusion to a homeland (Judea, Jerusalem). Passover, as the beginning or end of a liberation toward a promised land, is ignored, since Esther proclaims a three-day fast on the 13th of the first month,40 while Passo-ver falls on the 14th. The author of 2 Maccabees has the perspective of a pilgrim. For him, the presence of God in the temple matters much more than the altar and sacrifices.

The origin of the new Hasmonean dynasty was Judas Maccabeus, an heir of the reformers of the third party,41 who could not accept any Hellenization. The Samaritans had to deal with this, as we can see in two episodes, one in 166 during the Jewish uprising, the other around 150 in Alexandria, with a contest as regards the right temple. 38 VELÁZQUEZ, The Persian Period, poses goods questions, but still focuses upon Judah. 39 See Robert DORAN, Temple Propaganda. The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees,

Washington, CBA, 1981, p. 84-90. 40 N. L. COLLINS, “Did Esther Fast on the 15th Nisan ? An Extended Comment on

Esther 3:12”, RB 100 (1993), p. 533-561, strives to maintain that Esther did celebrate Passover, by introducing calendar discrepancies; but this is impossible, for the only reference is the actual moon, as clearly seen by b.Meg 15a.

41 See NODET, La crise maccabéenne, 212-242.



144 E. Nodet

1. The Samaritans’ Distrust

Josephus introduces and quotes a petition (supplique) by the Samari-tans to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king (175-164), at the time when Judas Maccabeus set up his rebellion (Ant 12.258-264).

To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians,42 who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent droughtss43 in their country, and following a certain ancient superstition, made it a cus-tom to observe of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sab-bath. And when they had erected a temple (iero,n) without a name at the mountain called Gerizim, and there offered the proper sacrifices. Now you have dealt with the Jews as their wickedness deserves, but the king’s offi-cers, believing that through kinship with them we practice as they do, ma-ke us liable to the same accusations, although we are originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech you, our bene-factor and savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nikanor, the procurator of your affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused of, since we are aliens from their nation and from their customs ((e;qesin); but let the temple without a name be called that of Jupiter Hellenius. When this is do-ne, we shall be no longer disturbed, and shall be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to you.

Antiochus’ acceptance is also quoted, with a date corresponding to summer 166, and we can surmise that the petition was issued that same year. The authenticity of this letter has been established by E. Bicker-man,44 but many scholars find it difficult to understand, for it seems to be a plain statement of apostasy, as stressed by Josephus himself in his introduction. But this cannot be reconciled with other documents that witness to the faithfulness of the Samaritans. In fact, it is a fine piece of diplomacy, carefully worded. The key to understanding it is the inten-ded meaning of “Jews.” By underlining their ancient local origin, the Samaritans point to the opposite for the Jews. This becomes clear if we consider the two Jewish parties in Jerusalem: a more ancient one (in-cluding the prophetic trend) akin to the Samaritans, and newcomers,

42 By metaphor, Sidon became the whole of Phoenicia, so that the Phoenicians were

named Sidonians, see Iliad 6:290, 23:743; Odyssea 4:84. On coins minted by Antio-chus IV Epiphanes, Tyre is named “metropolis of the Sidonians”. The king of Sidon had the title “king of the Sidonians of Sidon.” A Marissa inscription mentions Sido-nians. See APICELLA, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique.

43 Variant: “because of frequent pestilences.” 44 BICKERMAN, Un document relatif.




Ezra-like returnees from Babylonia, who brought along specific cus-toms and rejected any kinship with local Israelites. The petition is care-ful to avoid any Israelite or Hebrew identity, as well as circumcision or Moses’ laws.

As for the rededication to Zeus of the anonymous temple, it is a minor concession. Herodotus (2.52), followed by Strabo, reports that by his time there were only some primitive small tribes left that were worshiping anonymous gods. He does not mention the Phoenician anonymous divinities, for they were always given Greek names. The inhabitants of Tyre used the Greek name for their protector Herakles, but at home he was invoked as “Master of Tyre” or “King.” Zeus and Herakles were just the Greek names of Baal shamen and Melqart.45 Ho-wever, a new name could sometimes come along with a new cult. For instance, Menander of Ephesus, an historian of the 2nd century BCE, reports that king Hiram I of Tyre altered the sanctuaries on a broad scale: he joined the island where a temple of Zeus stood to the city, and demolished the previous Phoenician temples in order to build new ones to Herakles and Astarte and worship them properly. (Ag. Ap. 1:118-119).

In other words, a mere Hellenization of the anonymous God at Ge-rizim was not the sign of a new cult, for there is no allusion to any change of the priests or the buildings, all the more so since it is not qui-te clear whether they used their closed temple for purposes of worship. In his carefully worded reply, Antiochus seems to understand that the Samaritans were suggesting a full-scale Hellenization (§ 264): “Since they choose to live in accordance with the Greek customs ((e;qesin), we acquit them of these charges and permit their temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenios.” This fine wording amounts to saying that for political purposes, the king accepts the distinction between Jews and Samaritans.

2. A Conflict in Alexandria. The Onias Temple

The second story, cited and then reported by Josephus (Ant 12.10 et 13:74-79), is a quarrel between Jews and Samaritans that happened in Alexandria at the time of king Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-146). The contest was around who had the only correct temple (iero,n) according

45 See BONNET, Melqart.



146 E. Nodet

to the laws of Moses.46 The plaintiffs requested a judgment by the king in his council and demanded that the losers be put to death. The names of the defenders of both parties are given. Josephus only gives an outli-ne of the speech of the Jews. They invoked the fame of their temple among the kings of Asia and the succession of the high priests, each one receiving the office from his father. Nothing is said of the argu-ments of the Samaritans, but they lost. A significant detail is that the Jews were afraid and resentful that anyone should seek to destroy the temple of Jerusalem. Such a fear indicates that the contest was launched by the Samaritans.

The quarrel has to be put in perspective. Almost nothing is known of an explicit presence of Samaritans in Egypt,47 but there were many Israelites. Let us consider first the Jewish arguments. The succession of the high priests since Aaron was a pet topic of Josephus’ and he had more pieces of information than what we can extract from the canonical books (see Ant 5.361-2 and 10.152-3), while no reliable source exists on the side of the Samaritans. As for the fame of the temple,48 it was a fact known by ancient historians and somehow related to the aim of the prophets. However, this has nothing to do with the laws of Moses, whereas these could definitely favor the Samaritans: first, there is no mention of Jerusalem,49 but Shechem is well known ever since Abra-ham (Gen 12:6); Jacob bought a plot of land there and built an altar (Gen 33:19-20, see Jn 4:5-6). Moreover upon their entry into Canaan, the sons of Israel are ordered to put a blessing on Mt. Gerizim and a curse on Mt. Ebal (Deut 11:29), which is done later with Joshua (Jos 8:30-35). The “chosen place” of the legal part that follows (Deut 12:5 etc.) sug-gests a place in the vicinity of Shechem, but no name is given, nor any

46 The contest implies that both parties had the same text (Greek and/or Hebrew), as

supposed by the Letter of Aristeas (§ 30 and 311). As for the actual texts, there are so-me 1900 contacts (mostly minor) of LXX-Samaritan against the MT. See ANDERSON, Samaritan Pentateuch.

47 See VAN DER HORST, Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity; PUMMER, Samaritans in Egypt,. These studies mainly rely upon proper names, but it should be stressed that any Israelite name can be either Samaritan or Jewish.

48 The Hellenistic writers know only of the Jews and ignore “Israelites” as well as “Samaritans,” which is probably due to this fame. In Ant 11.133 Josephus ventures another explanation: only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are subject to the Ro-mans (in Asia and Europe) while the ten others never returned to their homeland; there are countless myriads of them beyond the Euphrates.

49 In Gen 14:18 Melchizedek is מלך שלם (LXX basileu.j Salhm). Josephus transcribes Soluma and states the place was later called ~Ieroso,luma “Jerusalem, Holy Solyma”) by adding the Greek prefix iero- (Ant 1.180; Ag. Ap. 1.174). PHILO, Leg. alleg. 3.82, translates “roi de paix,” without a place name.




indication for a sanctuary. But even if we admit that the original phrase was in the past tense (50,בחר God “has chosen”) and not in the future, as in the MT and LXX (יבחר “will choose”), there is a discontinuity bet-ween Deut 11 and 12: the “chosen place” and the priests-Levites who teach appear only in the legal block51 (Deut 12-26) inserted in the long discourse of Moses, which culminates with the arrival at Ebal and Geri-zim. Josephus himself, in paraphrasing this passage, does not venture to give a name. He speaks of the “city in which they shall establish the temple” (Ant 4.203). Even rabbinic tradition displays some flexibility: the place can be changed “if a prophet so decides,”52 (Sifré Num 70 on Deut 12:13-14). Anyhow, there should be only one “chosen place,” and the quarrel must have been grounded upon Deuteronomy.

In any case, the arguments adduced should be considered to be in-conclusive, and the victory of the Jews must have depended on political considerations. The context provides some clues. A first idea is given by two letters sent by the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt, ur-ging them to pay due attention to the temple of Jerusalem and to celeb-rate its dedication53 (2 Macc 1:1-10). The second letter, dated 124, quotes a previous one of 142, which apparently did not have the expected re-sults. These dates are interesting: in 142 the high priest Simon (144-134) was recognized by Rome (1 Macc 15:15-24), which means that the yo-ung Hasmonean state began to be taken seriously. The Romans were interested in having a kind of buffer between Egypt and Syria. The second letter was sent at the time of John Hyrcanus,54 Simon’s son (134-

50 See SCHENKER, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il, who concludes from ancient translations

that the Samaritan reading is more original (Neh 1:9 quoting Deut 30:24 as an indi-rect witness). The other form is Judean, and is meant to prepare God’s revelation to Solomon (1 Kgs 8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel to build a house, that my name might be there, but I chose David…” (See below § III.1). DE VAUX, Le lieu que Yahwé, thinks that the anonymous place refers to Jerusalem, for he quotes an El-Amarna letter from a king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh, who “has put his name upon the land of Jerusalem. He cannot abandon the land of Jerusalem”; so Jerusalem was a place where a name dwelt.

51 Deut 27 harmonizes the legal block with the speech that surrounds it. In Deut 27:9 and Moses spoke (sing.) and the priests-Levites”, the last two“ וידבר משה והכהנים הלוםwords are a gloss, see DRIVER, Commentary on Deuteronomy, XLVI-XLVII and 298.

52 The reference is probably the altar built by Elijah on Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). 53 Its authenticity has been shown by BICKERMANN, Ein jüdischer Festbrief. See NISULA,

Time Has Passed. 54 In his prolog, the translator of Ecclesiasticus says that he found the Hebrew original

in Egypt, “in the 38th year of the late king Evergetes.” This king was Ptolemy VII (170-114); so the book was found in 132, but the prologue was written after Ptole-my’s death. Si 50:26 scorns the people dwelling around Shechem. The wording re-



148 E. Nodet

103), when he was still a vassal tightly controlled by Syria. These letters indicate that the Egyptian Jews had been reluctant to accept the Has-monean rule.

The fear of the Jews as regards the contest had a very simple cause. The Jerusalem temple had been badly weakened by the Maccabean crisis, but its symbolic value still stood. For themselves, they had the temple of Onias, in Heliopolis.

Just before the quarrel, Josephus gives an account of the foundation of this temple (Ant 13.62-73). The two passages are unrelated, but they are inserted between the death of king Demetrius I of Syria en 150 (13:61) and the marriage of Alexander Balas with the daughter of King Ptolemy VI of Egypt, which took place the same year at Ptolemais-Akko (13:80-82). This Alexander returned from exile in 152, and pre-tended to be the legitimate heir to the throne of Syria. With Rome’s approval, he challenged Demetrius, who was waging a war against Egypt. His death caused a political upheaval, with some consequences for Judea. On his arrival, Alexander had appointed Jonathan son of Mattathias high priest of Jerusalem because of his military skills, but upon hearing of this, Demetrius had sought to seduce him with some favors. (1 Macc 10:6.25-45). Jonathan’s position was quite precarious, since he was appointed for political reasons only, and the high pries-thood of Jerusalem had been vacant ever since the death of Alkimus in 159 (1 Macc 9:54-57) after a three-year tenure (1 Macc 7:1-9). Jonathan managed to get invited to the wedding in Ptolemais, bringing along expensive gifts to both sovereigns, who welcomed him. This was a major promotion for himself and especially for the temple, which had become quite insignificant before this development, all the more so since it was outside of direct Egyptian influence. This was the Judean context of the quarrel, which should be dated some time before Jona-than’s elevation.

As for the Onias temple, it should be noted first that in his summa-ry of the high priestly dynasties, Josephus mentions the gap of seven years between Alkimus and Jonathan. He concedes that Alkimus was a priest of Aaronide stock, but he did not belong to the traditional dynas-ty of high priests. When he was appointed, the heir of the legitimate dynasty, King Ptolemy VI, had already granted Onias the right to build a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem in the district of Heliopolis, as

calls Deut 32:21 on the enemy threatening Israel. Si 50:1-5 has praised the work of the high priest Simon the Righteous, who repaired the temple around 200. It is hard to ascertain the genuineness of the text (see KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus, but the picture given fits very well the views of an Egyptian Jew of that time, just before the destruc-tion of the Gerizim temple.




well as the dignity of high priest (Ant 20.235-237). So during Alkimus’ life, there were two Jewish high priests: one in Jerusalem under Syrian dominion, and another in Egypt of a much more famous descent. After Alkimus’ death, Onias was the only one in charge. The appointment of Jonathan in 152 cannot have been a major event, but his recognition in 150 was. After this date, the Onias temple fades out, till a short revival after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.

Josephus gives some details about the works of Onias in Egypt. In his first account (War 7:423-432), he says that Onias “son of Simon, one of the high priests of Jerusalem” ran away to escape the persecutions of Antiochus IV and approached King Ptolemy. He told him that if he allowed him to build a temple, the whole of the Jewish nation would come over to him. Josephus comments that Onias acted out of rivalry against Jerusalem. Ptolemy accepted out of his hatred for Antiochus, who had twice attempted to invade his kingdom (in 169 and 168, see 2 Macc 5:1-14). He adds that Josephus knew a prophecy of Isaiah to this effect. Of course, this cannot be true, but the prophecy, which belongs to a very peaceful chapter, has significant variant readings (Isa 19:18.21).

In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Ca-naan […] One of the cities will be called the City of Destruction (הרס, an-cient versions and 1 Q Isaa הרס “sun,” LXX asedek ”justice”) […] They will make sacrifices, they will perform vows.

Ancient translations testify to the 1 QIsaa reading. It is most probably original and definitely refers to Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun,” but the variants are instructive. The Heliopolis settlement was or will be a disaster for the MT,55 while it is held in high esteem for the LXX, which wants to suggest a Hebrew original. The prophecy can hardly have been extant by the time of Onias, but there were some Israelite traditi-ons attached to that place. The wife of Joseph, son of Jacob, was a daughter of Potiphera, a priest of On (Gen 41:45 און MT, LXX “Heliopo-lis”). According to Ex 1:11, the Israelites in Egypt had to build the store-cities of Pitom and Ramses; the LXX adds a third one, transcribed Wn and translated `Hli,ou po,lij, which indicates a previous Hebrew word 56.הון or maybe און

55 The Targum combines both readings: “the city of the temple of the sun, due to be

destroyed,” and a similar saying is given in b.Men 110a. 56 Manetho, a priest of Heliopolis, states that a priest of the Osiris cult in that city gave

the Jews a constitution and took the name of Moses (Ag. Ap. 1.250).



150 E. Nodet

Rabbinic tradition knows the Onias temple57 (בית חוים), and connects it to the same prophecy, for the same commandments can be performed there: it is permitted under certain conditions to make sacrifices, and to fulfill the nazir vows (mMen 13:10), at least when this is not possible in Jerusalem (bMeg 10a). However, another passage states that the holi-ness of Jerusalem cannot be removed, even if the temple is not functio-ning (mMeg 1:11). The underlying controversy indicates that the questi-on was discussed. Josephus says that after the fall of Massada (73 or 74), the importance of the Onias temple was renewed. It became a kind of Zealot meeting point. Some unrest spread in Egypt, so much so that Vespasian himself ordered the governor of Alexandria to demolish it (War 7:421).

In the passage cited above, just before the quarrel, Josephus gives another account of the Onias foundation, which is parallel to the pre-vious one but with additional details. Young Onias was already in Egypt when he heard that Judea was ravaged by the Macedonian kings. He sent a request to Ptolemy, in which he explains that the Jews have many sanctuaries in Egypt (plh/qoj tw/n ierw/n) and disagree about the form of worship, and he begs that a temple (nao,n) be built in the likeness of that of Jerusalem, in order to restore harmony among the Egyptian Jews. Then Onias built the temple and found priests and Levi-tes to minister there.

Both stories have the same chronology: the temple would have been requested and built by the time of Antiochus IV, who died in 164. In his final summary of the high priests, Josephus mentions it by the time of Alkimus’ appointment in 162. Before this, he has said that the high priest Onias son of Simon (see Sir 50:1) has been supplanted by his brother Jason in 175, at the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV, and eventually murdered in 170 (Ant 12.237, see 2 Macc 4:8-40). By this time his son Onias had fled into Egypt, removing a high priestly legitimacy.

To sum up, the center of Judaism was in Egypt for several years. Obviously, the campaign and dedication of Judas Maccabeus (166-164) had no meaning for Onias, all the more so since there was a high priest in Jerusalem during the whole crisis, Menelaus (171-163), who had supplanted Jason by paying more for the office. Such a context sheds some light upon the contest with the Samaritans: they saw an opportu-nity for the Gerizim temple to prevail. In this respect, a later event is meaningful: when the Seleucid power was weakened by a fratricidal

57 The name could be Yahwist: combining “Hon” and “Yhwh” would give חוניהו and

then a shorter form חוניו (as in m.Men 13:10), or חוניה. The latter form could be trans-cribed “Honiyah,” hence “Onias” by Hellenization.




war between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus58 around 113 (see Ant 13.327), John Hyrcanus saw an opportunity to ex-pand his realm (Ant 13.254-6): southwards he annexed Idumea and circumcised its inhabitants, and northwards he conquered Samaria, Shechem and other cities; he did not have to circumcise the Samaritans, but he was careful to destroy the Gerizim temple in order to avoid any further contest as well as to keep convincing the Egyptian Jews of his legitimacy. The second letter to them about the Jerusalem temple had been sent less than fifteen years previously.

III. Solomon, Shechem, Jacob, Joshua

The Persian cultic realities are impressive, and the problem now is to assess to what extent they have inherited or altered the previous state of affairs. Three topics will be considered: Solomon and his temple, the story of the origins of the Samaritans, and the major blessings in the Pentateuch as regards their views of the tribes.

1. Salomon, his Ambiguity and his Temple

According to 1 Chron 17:1-15, David could not build the temple, but he prepared everything so that his successor would have an easy task. After having bought the threshing floor of Arauna-Ornan, he said (1 Chron 22:5): “My son Solomon is young59 and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for Yhwh must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and glory throughout all lands.” The fame depends on the “hou-se” (temple). He had received from God the plan for everything (1 Chron 28:11-19). The word for “plan” (תבנית) recalls the command-ments given to Moses in the wilderness (Ex 25:9): “According to all that I show you concerning the pattern (תבנית) of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.” When the work proceeds, various de-tails show that the temple resembles the tabernacle. For the dedication, Solomon performs sacrifices according to the laws of Moses with priests and Levites as ordered by David (2 Chron 8:13). This is somew-hat exaggerated, for he is not a priest. Later on, Kings Hezechiah and Josiah reform the cult, and the priests and Levites take their posts “ac-

58 See BARAG, New Evidence; FINKELSZTEJN, More Evidence. 59 Some mss. of 1 Kings 2:12 LXX, as well as b.Tem 14a and Jerome, Epistula 72, say that

he was 12 when he became king. According to Josephus, he was 14 (Ant 8.211).



152 E. Nodet

cording to the law of Moses” (2 Chron 30:16; 35:16), and the same is said of the restoration of the temple with Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:18). In one word, all the cultic implementations follow Moses’ rule, directly or through some additional revelations to David.

This is a major reshaping of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, which give quite another picture. According to 2 Sam 24:20-25, David did buy Arauna’s threshing floor, but there is no link to the ark of the covenant that Da-vid has brought in before (2 Sam 6:17), and he does not prepare any-thing for the temple to be built. Later, Solomon went and offered sacri-fices at Gabaon, and did the same in front of the ark when he came back to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:4-15). In this and during the construction, he hardly follows any of David’s regulations. In fact, the choice of Solo-mon as David’s heir is not very clear, for he is the youngest son (1 Kgs 1:13). Recent studies suggest that at a former stage in the story, the en-visioned heir was Adoniah, the oldest of Solomon’s surviving sons60 (see 1 Kgs 2:22).

So the story of Solomon is significant. According to 1 Kings 5:1.14, he reigned over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt, and people from everywhere came to hear his outstanding wis-dom. This means that the promises made to Abraham and Moses had been fulfilled. Then he endeavored to build a temple in seven years with the help of king Hiram of Tyre, and a palace for himself in thirteen years. Almost everything has been said about the historicity of this story.61 From a literary point of view, the main element is that the temp-le has nothing to do with Moses’ laws. This is made plain from the de-dication speech of Solomon himself, who quotes God’s words (1 Kgs 8:16): “Since the day that I brought my people Israel out from Egypt, I have chosen no city from any tribe of Israel in which to build a house that my name might be there,62 and I chose David to be over my people Israel.” Then he said that such a project was David’s idea, but God told him that it would be done by his son (see 2 Sam 7:14-16).

Thus, work on the temple begins only after the power and fame of Solomon are well established. More precisely, it starts when King Hi-ram sends his servants to Solomon, who then asks for building mate-rials. But 1 Kings 5:15 has two different forms:

60 See VEIOLA, Die ewige Dynastie; LANGLAMET, Pour ou contre Salomon?; MCKENZIE,

Yedidyah. 61 See the review of HUROWITZ, Yhwh’s Exalted House. RÖMER, Salomon d’après les

deutéronomistes. 62 LXX (B) adds a gloss “and I chose Jerusalem for my name to be there” (deleted by

Orig. and Luc.).




– The MT says that Hiram sent his servants because he had heard of Solomon’ anointing: (וישלח ...) את עבדיו אל שלמה כי שמע כי אותו משחו למלך תחת .אביהו

– The LXX (B, followed by Luc.; Origenes restores according to the MT) states that Hiram sent them to anoint Solomon:

(…) tou.j pai/daj auvtou/ cri/sai to.n Salwmwn avnti. Dauid tou/ pa,troj auv-tou.

The shorter form of the LXX could be explained away by the omis-sion of כי שמע by homoioteleuton, but even so the sentence would be-come: Hiram sent “his servants to Solomon for they anointed him.” This is not clear, since it can be understood in two opposite ways: either “for he had been anointed” (by Jerusalemites) or “for his servants had anointed him” (previously), a strange statement. Thus, the LXX testifies to another Hebrew version (וישלח) אל שלמה למשחו למלך. As for the mea-ning in the narrative, the LXX is more difficult, since Solomon has al-ready been anointed by Zadok (1 Kgs 1:34). Moreover, it would make of Solomon a vassal of king Hiram. However, if we follow the MT, no-thing is said of the purpose of the Tyrian visitors, but immediately after this visit and unconnected with it, Solomon sends to Hiram, asking for cedar and cypress logs. Then, in his subsequent reply, Hiram accepts and asks for food. Therefore, the LXX should be preferred.63

Hiram’s backing, with an anointing or not, was the starting point for the building process. But his influence had already surfaced in ano-ther context. After David had conquered Jerusalem-Jebus and settled in the stronghold, it is stated that he went on and became great. Then Hiram, king of Tyre, sent him messengers, workers and materials, and they built a house for him. The conclusion is remarkable (2 Sam 5:12): “So David knew that Yhwh had established him as king over Israel.” In other words, Hiram’s acknowledgment and help are viewed as signs from God after he became great. This is the same pattern as the relati-onship between Hiram and Solomon, and both passages shed some light on one another.

Of course, we may have historical concerns and ask what prompted Hiram to do that, what was the price of his help, what did Hiram think of the Philistines, David’s permanent foes, and so on. Above all we may wonder how the same Hiram could have been a friend of both David and Solomon from the beginning of their reigns: David was 30 years old when he conquered Jerusalem, and when he died at 70, Solomon was only 12, according to a tradition. The gap between the two appea-rances of Hiram is in some way bridged in 1 Chron 22:4, when building

63 See SCHENKER, Septante et texte massorétique, 140.



154 E. Nodet

material is sent to David from Tyre and Sidon. But such questions miss the point, because what matters is the literary device: the legitimacy of David as a king and of Solomon as his heir comes from a foreign king, and not from anything connected to Israelite tradition or to the laws of Moses. Or conversely, Solomon’s legitimacy gets attached to David’s,64 for Tyrian chronicles indicate that Hiram of Tyre became king eight years before Solomon;65 by that time, David has been reigning for some twenty-five years, which cannot be reconciled with Hiram’s early help. The main point to be underlined here is that a foreign influence – here Phoenician – was instrumental in launching the construction of the temple.66 This provides an interesting context to the fact that after So-lomon’s death all Israel convened at Shechem, even before the later schism. Jerusalem was not yet the obvious capital.67

On the relationship between King Hiram68 and Solomon, more sto-ries are reported. According to 1 Kings 9:26, Solomon built a fleet of ships at Etzion Geber, and Hiram sent seamen to help Solomon’s ser-vants, and they brought gold from Ophir; 1 Kings 10:22 gives further details, but Hiram’s fleet seems to have been more important and his men more competent.

A somewhat obscure passage (1 Kgs 9:10-14) reports that during the building process (or maybe after it) Hiram had supplied Solomon with gold and wood “as much as he desired.” Then Solomon offered Hiram twenty cities in Galilee, but the latter refused and eventually gave Solomon a large amount of gold. Some rationale is missing, and 2 Chron 8:2 blurs the problem by stating that “Solomon built the cities Hiram had given him and settled the sons of Israel there.” The sentence is clear, but somewhat unexplained.

64 CAQUOT /DE ROBERT, Les livres de Samuel, 404, are content with attributing 2 Sam

5:12 to the Zadokite redactor (as well as 7:1-3, which mentions David’s cedar house. 65 According to these documents, Solomon would have begun the work in the 12th year

of Hiram of Tyre (Ag. Ap. 1:106 s.; the 11th in Ant 8.62), that is, 240 years after the foundation of Tyre and 143 years before that of Carthage ; it was also the 4th year of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 6:1). For Carthage , the date is known approximately to have been between 814 and 825. Solomon’s reign would thus have begun between 963 and 974.

66 Phoenician (or Cananean) names are used for the months of the dates connected to the temple (construction: Ziv, Bul, 1 Kgs 6:37-38; inauguration: Ethanim, 1 Kgs 8:2), see KALIMI, Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 115.

67 SKA, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord, observes that El-Amarna letters mention kings in Shechem and Jerusalem centuries before David, and concludes that a united kingdom under David and Solomon was at best shaky.

68 1 Kings 7:13 mentions a bronze worker from Tyre named Hiram (2 ,חירם Chron 2:13 .(חירום




Fortunately, Josephus has preserved a document that gives both the context and meaning. In Against Apion 1:106-116, he quotes the Tyrian archives and an historian, Dius. It is said that Hiram was busy in public works, and had timber cut down for the construction of temples. Solo-mon, the sovereign of Jerusalem, sent him riddles and asked for others from him. The one who failed to solve them had to pay a fine to the other. First Hiram failed and so spent a large part of his wealth. Then he was helped by one Abdemon of Tyre, so that in turn Solomon failed and eventually paid back more than he had received. From this we understand better the gold Hiram sent to Solomon and the cities the latter had to present when he was short of money. The biblical account omits that Solomon’s wisdom did have some limitations.

To sum up, it would be far-fetched to conclude that Solomon was a kind of Phoenician king or vassal.69 For the present study, the point to be stressed is the peculiar origin of the temple. For Solomon, and for Zerubbabel as well it started through the impulse of a foreign king.70 In another context, when king Antiochus III subdued Judea around 200, his first decision was to restore the Jerusalem temple and to provide for its cult in order to secure the Jewish fidelity to Syria71 (Ant 12.138-144), but the decree quoted by Josephus has the form of a letter to the local governor, and no Jewish authority is named.

However, this kind of external pressure developed into a sign of Is-raelite monotheism. In the dedication rite, Solomon says in his prayer (1 Kgs 8:27): “But will God indeed dwell with men72 on the earth?” Later, the prophets would insist on the importance of the temple as an eschatological meeting point for all the nations, but it is significant that the high priests are not prominent in the whole narrative of 1-2 Kings. The tentative genealogical lists given in 1 Chron 5:30-41 or Ezra 7:1-5 do not fill up the gap. As for the hope for a future king, the reference is always David, who never had a temple.

Anyhow, when it exists, the temple becomes a major symbol of power and fame.73 This was the background of a struggle between Jews and Samaritans that occurred in the 2nd century BCE.

69 The LXX credits Solomon with some Dionisian features, current in Ptolemaic Egypt,

see LEFÈBVRE, Salomon et Bacchus. 70 This differs from a pattern more current in the ancient world, see LUNDQUIST, The

Legitimizing Role of the Temple. 71 BICKERMAN, Une proclamation séleucide. 72 These two words are missing in 1 Kings 8:27 MT, but are testified to by LXX and

1 Chron 6:18. 73 As witnessed by ancient non-Hebrew sources, see. HAYWARD, Jewish Temple.



156 E. Nodet

2. The Yahwist Cult in Samaria after the Kingdom of Israel

Some inscriptions from the 8th cent. have been found at Kuntillet el-Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom that mention “Yhwh and his Ashera” in connection with the city of Samaria.74 They have interesting implicati-ons, but the study here will be limited to the biblical accounts of the arrival of the Assyrian colonists in Samaria after the fall of the northern kingdom (Israel) and the deportation of its inhabitants in 722?

There are two accounts.75 The shorter one (2 Kgs 18:9-12) tells us that in the fourth year of king Hezekiah of Jerusalem, Shalmanezer king of Assyria besieged Samaria, took it after three years and carried Israel away captive to Assyria. The reason given is that they had trans-gressed God’s covenant and Moses’ commandments. Nothing is said of any foreigner placed in the cities of Samaria; so there is no more Israeli-te worship in the Northern kingdom. The context is Hezekiah’s reign and the campaign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, against the cities of Judah ten years later; they were saved providentially, and no deporta-tion took place. In other words, the Northern kingdom deserved its fate.

The longer account (2 Kgs 17:1-41) first tells of the fall and deporta-tion, then expands the remarks on the sins of Israel since Jeroboam: God who had brought them from Egypt had warned them by all the prophets. Judah’s sin is included, so that “Yhwh rejected (וימאס) all the race of Israel.” We may note that the shorter account does not mention the exodus from Egypt, while the longer one ignores Moses as lawgi-ver.

Then follows the relation of the subsequent events, in three parts. 1. (v. 24-28) The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cu-

tha, Ava, Hamath und Sepharvaim76 in Samaria to replace the sons of Israel. The first two names were preserved by Josephus and rabbinic traditions, and the three others appear in Sennacherib’s campaign (2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The settlers were attacked by lions because they

74 MESHEL, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. LEMAIRE, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? MCCAR-

TER, Aspects of the Religion. 75 As for which of them is earlier, scholarly opinions differ, see the review of Jean-

MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 47-72. 76 Babylon and Cutha were well known among the Judean exiles. The three others

were probably in Syria; they are mentioned in the story of Sennacherib’s campaign (2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13). The gods worshipped by the five nations, besides Nergal, are Canaanite, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.




did not worship Yhwh. Then the king sent an Israelite priest (or some priests) to Bethel, who taught them the ritual of the God of the land.

2. (v. 29-33 and 41) Concerning the gods and rites the five nations introduced into the high places built by the “Samaritans” (or ancient Israelites), which were not removed. Thus, they used to worship both their gods and Yhwh. With the exception of Nergal, these gods are Canaanite, which suggests some redactional activity.77 Verse 41 speaks again of “these nations” which worshiped both Yhwh and their idols “to this day”: this is a concluding sentence, which picks up what was said previously and places it over and beyond the third part below on the “sons of Jacob”.78 The conclusion stands alone, but the context has a bearing on its meaning.

3. (v. 34-40) On the Israelites, sons of Jacob who were brought from Egypt by God and somewhat mixed up with the five nations “until this day”. God had made a covenant with them and given them the com-mandment not to worship any other god. At this point we have variant readings of major significance: the MT (and Targ., Vulg.) says that they were not faithful; contrary to this, the LXX states that they actually were (the Luc. recension mixes up both), but they receive the warning to resist idolatry. The difference can be seen in v. 34 and 40:

v. 34 הם עשים auvtoi. evpoi,oun (כמשפטם from) kata. to. kri,ma auvtw/n כמשפטים הראשנים

fobou/ntai (הינם from) .auvtoi אינם יראים את יהוה .kai. auvtoi. poiou/sin kata. ta. dikaiw,mata auvtw/n ואנים עשים כחקתם.

MT: They do according to their first ordinances; they do not fear Yhwh and they do not do according to their statutes (given to Jacob’s sons). LXX: They do according to their ordinance; they fear and they do accor-ding to their statutes.

v. 40 ולא שמעו כי אם kai. ouvk avkou,sesqe (from ולא תשמעו) evpi. tw/| kri,mati auvtw/n כמשפטם הראשון o] auvtoi. poiou/sin הם עשים

MT: And they did not obey, but according to their first ordinance they do. LXX: And you shall not obey their ordinance, that they do.

77 See MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66. 78 This classical division is accepted, see MACCHI, Les Samaritains, 64-66.



158 E. Nodet

For the MT the sons of Jacob still practice the former rituals, that is, what they did before the covenant with Israel, a difficult statement. For the LXX, from which the Hebrew source differs only by some letters, they are faithful and urged to remain so. The passage between the two verses expounds the covenant in a typically Deuteronomistic style and stands without difficulties in both versions, for it does not depend on fidelity .

In order to identify the original form, we cannot deal with the con-tent without begging the question, since no other document is availab-le. Direct textual criticism gives no clear result, since the text from which the LXX worked is lost, all the moreso since for 1-2 Kings the Old Greek version is very different from the MT. However, Josephus provides a clue (Ant 9.289-290): briefly paraphrasing 2 Kings 17, he says that the five nations had brought along their gods and worshipped them “in accordance with their ancestral customs” (kaqw.j h=n pa,trion auvtoi/j). Then, after Israelite priests had been sent back from Assyria, they worshiped the God of Israel with great zeal, and “these very rites (e;qh) have continued in use even to this very day.” So they are faithful to the Israelite laws.79 Josephus follows closely its source here, for what he says does not match his later statements about the religion of the Samaritans. He has read the three parts as one account, mixing up the foreign nations and the sons of Jacob, so that he is able to explain af-terwards how the Samaritans can pretend either to be kinsmen of the Jews because of their descent from Joseph or to belong to another race. Josephus dislikes them, but here he cannot help saying that they are faithful to that way. In other words, he read 2 Kings 17:34-40 as it is in the LXX.

If Josephus were following the LXX, as is commonly held,80 his tes-timony would be worthless, but it can be shown that for 1-2 Kings he never saw the LXX as we have it81: first, his plain statement in Ant 1.12 and elsewhere is that he “translated” a Hebrew Bible. Second, he trans-cribes the proper names independently of the LXX. Here are some ca-ses: for King Hiram of Tyre (חירום or חירם), Ant 8.50 has Ei;rwmoj, against Ce$i%ram of the LXX; for King Ben-Hadad of Damascus (מן הדד) Ant 8.363 has :Adadoj, against LXX ui`o.j Ader (from הדר); for Queen Athaliah (עתליה or עתליהו), Ant 9.140 f. reads VOqli,a, against LXX Goqolia. Third, he never

79 Because of the mainstream opinion that the Samaritans are Jewish dissidents, EGGER,

Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, 48-50, thinks that Ant 9.289-290 should be discarded.

80 At least under the “proto-lucianic” form for the historical books, see MEZ, Die Bibel des Josephus; THACKERAY, Josephus, 77-80.

81 See NODET, Flavius Josèphe, XXVI-XLIX.




follows the general content of the LXX when it differs broadly from the MT; however, he sometimes follows its order, the most obvious case being the succession of chapters 21 and 20 of 1 Kings, but this does not imply that he saw a Greek text. Moreover, Josephus’ Hebrew Bible was an official copy, taken by Titus from the temple archive in 70.82

In conclusion, the LXX form of v. 34 & 40 should be preferred as reflecting a more original Hebrew.83 So the whole story of 2 Kings 17:24-41 indicates, under a somewhat blurring redactional effect, that after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel there were two kinds of people in Samaria: some imported nations with mixed cult at Bethel and in some ancient high places, and local Israelites of old, faithful to the laws given to the sons of Jacob. In fact, it is well known from Assy-rian sources that only a part of the population was deported. Inciden-tally, we have observed that the MT version is difficult to understand because of the reference to a worship by the sons of Jacob before the covenant with Yhwh. However, in the literary context, this previous cult is distorted in order to refer to the customs imported by the pagan immigrants, so that the difference between them and the local Israelites (Samaritans) is bound to disappear.

Now we can attempt a comparison of the two accounts of the fall of Samaria, for their differences are significant. The shorter one mentions Moses and ignores any sequel to the deportation, so that no Israelite cult is left in the north. In contrast, the longer one duly restored states that something has survived, but without the name of Moses as the lawgiver. The reference character is Jacob-Israel, and the only named place is not Samaria but Bethel. So two very different views are disp-layed: the shorter account well reflects a Judean point of view, which states that the Samaritans are downgraded Jews of mixed origin; this reasonably squares with Josephus’ account of the foundation of the Gerizim temple, as well as with the careful editing of the MT. The lon-ger story (LXX, Josephus) witnesses more to a northern view, but it is difficult to relate it clearly to the Gerizim sanctuary of the Persian pe-riod. Anyhow, two points emerge: the traditional Israelite cult has no contact with the city of Samaria, and the allusions to Bethel and Jacob lead us to consider the city of Shechem.84 In the footsteps of Abraham, Jacob came there after his meeting with Esau, then he built an altar, which he named “El the God of Israel” (Gen 33:18-20). After Solomon’s death, the Israelites met there and not in Jerusalem to make his son 82 See NODET, Josephus and the Pentateuch. 83 Against most commentators, even HJELM, Brothers Fighting Brothers. 84 Still today the Samaritans speak of “Mt. Gerizim-Bethel”, and the area is named Luz

or Luza (Gen 28:19; 35:6; 48:3).



160 E. Nodet

king. The “chosen place” for the name of God cannot be far away from there. So we have to examine some biblical traditions relative to She-chem and the tribes issued from Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.

3. Joshua and Shechem

Joshua, son of Nun, is a character from the northern kingdom, whose grave is in the hill country of Ephraim (Josh 24:29-31; Judg 2:9). He has two faces. The more conspicuous is the servant and successor of Moses (Num 11:28; 27:18-21; Deut 1:38). He is first heard of at the time of the war against Amalek in the wilderness (Ex 17:9-14). From those who went out from Egypt, he is the only one, with Caleb, who enters Ca-naan (Num 14:6). He presides over the conquest, with a clear mission given by Moses (Jos 1:1-5). But the second face is a lawgiver’s: he recei-ves a revelation similar to the one to Moses at Mt. Horeb (Josh 5:13-15), and later he gives the tribes of Israel “a statute and ordinances” at She-chem (Josh 24:25).

The account of his conquest is oversimplified, but it includes a strange passage: for the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh (the half who crossed the Jordan river), the sons of Joseph complain to Joshua that they are too numerous for a small estate. Then they are given the hill country and told to clear ground for themselves and drive out the Canaanites, in spite of their being strong and having iron chariots85 (Josh 17:16-18). So Joshua does nothing for them, which suggests a kind of Israelite presence before him. An obvious objection is that all the Israelites come from outside, for at their arrival they perform a cultic action at Gerizim and Ebal (Josh 8:30-35), fulfilling the precepts of Deut 27:2-26 without any opposition. But the passage is a literary addition, which splits apart an account of events in Benjamin,86 and whose func-tion is to neutralize any hint pointing to the presence of Israelites before Joshua.

85 The notice is given again (Josh 17:14-15) with a wording that indicates that the sons

of Joseph have just arrived. Just before his final blessing, Jacob gives Joseph שכם אחד “one Shechem” (so the LXX; or “one shoulder”) above his brothers (Gen 48:22), see § 4 below. DE VAUX, 583-584, observes that the excavations in the main sites have shown no evidence of an overall destruction at the supposed time of the conquest. YOUNGER, Rhetorical Structuring, does not deal with this lack of evidence.

86 The LXX puts the passage after Josh 9:2, which improves nothing, and Josephus (Ant 5.68-69) at the end of the conquest. This is more logical, but he may have edited the order of his source.




Joshua’s second face becomes obvious in the story of the Shechem covenant. At the end of his life, Joshua summons all Israel and utters a legacy speech, in which he urges the people to remain faithful to the laws of Moses, warning that otherwise disasters will occur (Josh 23:1-16). The effect of the discourse is given later (Judg 2:6-9): that generati-on was faithful, unlike the following ones. Between these two parts of the same account other passages are inserted. The first one is a conven-tion of all the tribes of Israel at Shechem87 (Josh 24:1-2888). Joshua gives a speech (v. 2-13), mentioning Abraham, Jacob, the exodus from Egypt with Moses and Aaron, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Balaam affair and God’s victory over the nations of Canaan. Here Moses is no lawgi-ver. Then (v. 14-15) Joshua urges the people to serve Yhwh and put away the gods they used to worship beyond the River (Euphrates) and in Egypt. Then, unexpectedly, he allows them to choose whom they want to worship: these foreign gods, the local ones,89 or Yhwh; he adds that he himself and his family have chosen Yhwh. When the people declare they choose Yhwh (v. 17-22.24), he warns them to remove the other gods that lie among them (v. 23). And here is the conclusion (v. 25-26):

Joshua made a covenant (ברית) with them and made for them a statute and an ordinance (חק ומשפט, no,mon kai. kri,sin) in Shechem. He wrote these words in the book of the law (תורה) of God. He took a large stone and set it up the-re under the oak in the sanctuary90 (מקדש) of Yhwh.

This is not in agreement with Joshua’s previous speech. The account is difficult, for it mixes up two different narrative threads: first, the speech addresses the tribes, reminding them of the history from Abra-ham to the conquest (v. 2b-13), but without a lawgiver; then the people agree and due warnings are voiced (v. 17-21a); broadly speaking, this is in keeping with the former speech. But the second thread is different: Joshua invites newcomers to join and worship Yhwh. This is just optio-nal, and there is no reason to surmise that these immigrants are organi-

87 The LXX has Shlw “Silo,” most probably because the ark was there then (Josh 18:1),

but Josephus reads Shechem (Ant 5.114). 88 For a good survey of scholarship on this passage, see ZSENGELLÉR, Gerizim as Israel,

68-86, who concludes that this was an ancient tradition, poorly inserted within the Deuteronomistic redaction.

89 There is some affinity with Gen 35:2-4, where Jacob demands that his family remove any foreign god, see SOGGIN, Zwei umstrittene Stellen. However, the parallel is so-mewhat shaky, for Jacob leaves no choice.

90 That is a cultic open area, see HARAN, Temples and Temple Service, 48-57.



162 E. Nodet

zed in twelve tribes.91 Upon their acceptance (v. 14-16), Joshua made a covenant with them and gave them written laws, with the understan-ding that they must avoid any syncretism. So the Yahwist congregation gets widened. We may observe that circumcision is not mentioned, which matches the situation of the Shechemites at Jacob’s arrival (Gen 34:15-24).

The variant of the account given in the Samaritan book of Joshua92 is helpful, for it corresponds exactly to the second thread, with tiny differences: v. 2b-13 and 17-21a are omitted93, so that Joshua stands as the only Yahwist in front of newcomers who do not have any earlier history with Yhwh, and he becomes their lawgiver. He seems already to have a “book of the law of God” that was extant previously.

Such a position of Joshua in Shechem fits in the overall outline of the conquest of Canaan (Josh 1-11), in which the region of Samaria (Ephraim and half Manasseh) is not conquered, while other territories in the north and south have to be seized for the newcomers. So it ap-pears that Joshua is quite similar to the priests who update the colonists in Bethel about worshiping Yhwh (2 Kgs 17:28), but their cult eventual-ly turns syncretistic, for they serve Yhwh without leaving their pre-vious gods. These priests did have the laws that Yhwh had ordered the sons of Jacob after their exit from Egypt, with due warning against the foreign gods. This corresponds to the first thread defined above, which strictly concerns the sons of Jacob, also known as the twelve tribes.

We may conclude that there was a tradition of an exclusive Yhwh-cult at Shechem, to be located in the sanctuary with an oak in the Jos-hua account. It was linked to a migration from Egypt, but not with Mo-ses. This tradition diffuses in two occasions, when traditional Israelites are confronted with pagan newcomers. Bethel and Shechem have to be viewed as twin places.

Archeology does not yet allow a clear relationship between this sanctuary and the Persian constructions on the Gerizim beyond the likeliness of their having covered previous facilities. However, some details point to a special significance of the Shechem area. The Joshua 91 Such is the conclusion of DE VAUX, Histoire, 613, but he concludes that the newco-

mers have the same origin as Joshua; in v. 14 he thinks that they all came from the East, and not from Egypt.

92 It is the first part of a Chronicle, which runs through the ages, see GASTER, Das Buch Josua; MACDONALD, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II . COGGINS, Samaritans and Jews. This version has some affinities with Josephus’ source for his paraphrase, see NODET, Flavius Josèphe, 1995, XIII.

93 These verses are replaced by Deut 4:34, which mentions the exodus from Egypt. Verses from Deuteronomy are inserted in several places in the Samaritan Penta-teuch, as well as in some Qumran fragments.




sanctuary had an oak, which suggests a parallel with the “oak of Mo-reh” (מורה) or “oak of the teacher” where Abram first arrived and had a revelation (Gen 12:6; see Deut 11:30). Not far away from Shechem, Judg 9:37 mentions the “navel of the land” (טבור הארץ) and the “oak of the diviners.” More than this can hardly be ventured.

4. The Prophecies of Jacob and Moses on Joseph and Judah

The Pentateuch, common to the Samaritans and Jews, includes, beyond the narratives and laws, some prophecies on the tribes. In his final bles-sing of his sons (Gen 49:1-27), Jacob relies partly upon some future events, partly upon the previous stories, and the name of God only appears in a prayer inserted in the middle (v. 8). For most of his sons, he is rather negative: the firstborn Reuben is condemned because of his sin related in Gen 35:22; Simeon and Levi are promised to oblivion (v. 5-7), because of the Dina affair (Gen 34), and so on. In contrast, the sayings on Judah and Joseph are outstanding: Judah will win over his foes and be praised by his brothers, and “the scepter shall not depart from him… until Shiloh comes” (v. 8-12); the name “Shiloh,” perhaps corrupted, has been understood as having Messianic overtones.94 Some imagery elements in the passage may allude to previous accounts; for instance, Judah the lion may refer to the wild beast which allegedly devoured Joseph (37:33), the scepter could allude to the staff he pled-ged to Tamar (38:18), “washing his garments in the blood of grapes” (v. 12) could hint at Joseph’s tunic dipped in blood (37:31). This is possible, but these seem to be free allusions framed into a different pattern, for the passage as a whole is definitely positive.

As for Joseph, the text of his blessing is lengthy but difficult, with many differences between MT, Sam and LXX. Here it suffices to make some observations: he is a fruitful bough; he has suffered, God has helped him, he receives blessings, he is nazir (consecrated) among his brothers. Of course, this may refer to Joseph’s story, viewed as provi-dential (Gen 50:20); Judah helped to save him, albeit unwillingly (Gen 37:26). The elevation of Joseph could be a permanent position, for he has previously received “one Shechem (or ‘shoulder’, שכם) above his brothers” (Gen 48:22), but his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are not mentioned.

94 The MT word שילה (שלה in some mss and Sam.) is un clear. It has been read שלו by the

LXX and Syr. “until the coming of the one to whom it belongs.” Targ. Onkelos ren-ders “till the Messiah comes.”



164 E. Nodet

According to an agreed opinion95 Jacob’s will has been first incor-porated into the J document, but there is no consensus about the histo-rical context. The predictions on Judah could point to a composition close to the time of David and Solomon, but it has been objected that nothing is said about the foreign origins (Egypt, Moses’ era) or the Ben-jaminite kingship of Saul, so that the passage reflects better the period of the Judges. It is held that it antedates the song of Deborah (Judg 5), which alludes to Sinai (v. 5) but does not mention Judah. In fact, the historical circumstances are hard to ascertain, for in the absence of hard evidence, they depend on many assumptions. However, a literary con-text can be envisioned if we consider three points which connect it with Shechem: first, the importance of this place in the traditions about Jacob and the prominence given to Joseph; second, the strictly local traditi-ons, with no mention either of Abraham’s origin or of the fact that the whole family of Jacob was in Egypt, where he died after having pro-nounced his will; third, the burial of Joseph’s bones in Jacob’s field at Shechem is mentioned immediately after Joshua’s appearance as a local lawgiver.

As for any historical context, we have to look for a time with a She-chemite Yahwism without Levites (including Moses and Aaron) and accepting Judah as ruler for a time, for he eventually went down: unli-ke Samaria, Shechem had its stability, while the kingdom of Judah was wiped out until the decree of Cyrus, the master of the world. Without disregarding the antiquity of the poem as a whole, a clue to a much later editing is provided by v. 5 MT (LXX and Vulg. are different) on Simeon and Levi: “Their מכרת are tools of violence.” The difficult word has elicited many hypotheses, but the most obvious one is the traditio-nal rabbinic explanation as “sword”, viewing מכרה as a transcription from the Greek96 ma,caira “sword” (Rashi, quoting Gen Rabba a. l.). For a literary context, the end of the prophecy on Judah may provide a clue, for it states “and to him the obedience of the nations”; besides a tradi-tional messianic interpretation (LXX, Targums) it may be an idealizati-on of Solomon’s reign.

In Deuteronomy, Moses’ blessings over the tribes are placed bet-

ween two stanzas of a hymn (Deut 33:1-5 and 26-29). The order of the tribes has been arranged in a concentric pattern with,97 Joseph in the middle; his sons Ephraim and Manasseh are named, but Simeon is mis- 95 See the review by WENHAM, Genesis, 477-479. 96 The underlying assumption is that all the languages are rooted in Hebrew, the pri-

meval one before the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1), see Banitt, Rashi Interpreter, 12-19. 97 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.




sing, so that the number twelve is maintained. As for the content, the main features are: first, the blessing of Joseph is long and quite similar to the one in Gen 49, with some phrases in common, including “he is nazir among his brothers.” Second, Judah is given a short notice, which includes a prayer to God: “Bring him to his people.98 Third, Levi is gi-ven major prominence: he was tested in the wilderness (Massah and Meribah) and he separated himself from his family, so that he became entitled to teach Israel the laws and to perform the cult. To sum up, the comparison with Jacob’s will shows a reversal of the fates of Judah and Levi, while Joseph is stable.

The dating of Moses’ blessing has been discussed at length,99 but some literary remarks are relevant in order to give a context to these features. It is clear that the speaker is Moses, as the promotion of Levi suggests, but the latter’s new responsibility is connected to some events before entering Canaan, while Joseph still represents the local traditi-ons, unaffected by Moses and Levi. In other words, Israel still has two roots: one local and one imported; this fits the twofold profile of Jos-hua, both a local lawgiver and Moses’ heir. As for Judah, he seems to have gone astray. Now, if we forget about the Judean historiography of the divided monarchy and take the opposite point of view, that is from the Northern kingdom, it is clear that Judah is guilty of being somew-hat outside of Israel.

Now if we put together Jacob’s will and Moses’ blessing, which are parts of the same Pentateuch, we obtain a balanced statement: without Moses or Levi, Judah is strong, but with Moses and the Levites, Judah is out of place and should come back to his people. Some simple clues can be ventured: Judah’s strength without Moses matches the story of Solomon, his power and his temple, as seen above. As for Judah having gone astray, far away from his nation, a good context is provided by the returnees from exile (or the “elders” in the Manasseh affair), the peculiar Jews who do not want a relationship with local Israelites.

IV. Conclusion

In order to show that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the ancient Israelites, some reassessments have been necessary.

1. There were two kinds of Jewish returnees from exile. The more ancient renewed the cult, but did not hurry to rebuild a temple; they

98 The LXX is different (with many variants): “Come to his people.” 99 See CHRISTENSEN, Deuteronomy, 844-845.



166 E. Nodet

were not very different from the local Israelites. The more recent, repre-sented by Ezra and Nehemiah, akin to the later Pharisees, were apart in some points: they relied upon genealogy; they brought along some non-biblical customs; they did not accept relations with local Israelites (from Judea or Samaria), and strove to cleanse “foreign marriages” and to reform the cult. As a result, there were divisions within Jerusalem.

2. The Pentateuch was rooted among these local Israelites, inclu-ding the Samaritans. The account in 2 Kings 17, understood according to the LXX and Josephus, shows that besides the people imported from Assyria, there were true sons of Jacob, faithful to a covenant with Yhwh. Moses is not named, but this covenant may be connected with Joshua as a local legislator at Shechem. In other words, there was a Samaritan Yahwism before the appearance of an authoritative Penta-teuch in which Moses is or became the most prominent character.

3. The temple is a peculiar feature, which – unlike an altar – has no-thing to do either with Moses or with Joshua son of Nun. Since Solo-mon, it has two aspects: from outside, it is prompted by a foreign po-wer, as a control tool of the ethnos; this was the meaning of Cyrus’ decree, renewed by Darius – and much later by Antiochus III. From inside, it is or perhaps becomes a symbol of identity and fame. At some point, the Samaritans copied the Jerusalem temple, with Persian appro-val. By the time of Judean weakness, in the sequel of the Maccabean crisis, the Samaritans made an attempt to promote their own temple, but they failed, and it was eventually destroyed. In fact, it never was an essential feature.

4. The hope for a renewed temple after a disaster became a prophe-tic theme, devoid of the need of an actual high priest or king, as can be seen in 2 Maccabees. Typically, 2 Chron 36:21 gives a summary of Je-remiah's prophecy as an exile of 70 years, but it cannot be taken at its face value.

5. The Samaritans did have their own chronicles, somehow parallel to the Judean “Former Prophets,” but have nothing that would corres-pond to the “Later Prophets,” or even to the story of Elijah, a northern prophet. Thus, as a conclusion, we may ask why their Bible is so short.

Rabbinic tradition has preserved some traces of the local preceden-ce of the Samaritans. According to b.Sanh 21b, Israel first received the law of Moses in Hebrew letters (כתב עברי, paleo-Hebrew), then by the time of Ezra it was given anew in Aramaic letters (כתב אשורי), while the ancient script was left to the people of Flavia Neapolis (Nablus), the new name of Shechem, which was rebuilt after 70. This piece of infor-mation is anachronistic, for both scripts were in use in Judea until the Hasmonean era, but it witnesses to a feeling that the Samaritans were




in former times the local Israelites, while the Jews imported novelties from Babylonia. In the 2nd century, the ethnarch Simon b. Gamaliel said in a controversy on Samaritan unleavened bread (t.Pes 1:15): “For every precept that the Samaritans observe, they are more meticulous than Israel,” that is “than the Jews.” He praises their biblical accuracy, which has not been matched by the “oral laws” of the Pharisees and rabbis.

Bibliography

ACKROYD, Peter R., The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period, in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 130-161.

ANDERSON, Robert T., Samaritan Pentateuch: A General Account, in: CROWN, Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 390-412.

APICELLA, Catherine, Sidon à l’époque hellénistique: quelques problèmes mé-connus, in: SARTRE, Maurice (ed.), La Syrie hellénistique (Topoi, Suppl. 4), Paris 2003, 125-147.

BANITT, Menahem, Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter, Tel Aviv 1986. BARAG, Dan, New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I, in: Israel

Numismatic Journal 12 (1992-1993) 1-12. BICKERMAN, Elias J., Un document relatif à la persécution d’Antiochus IV Épipha-

neææ, in: RHR 115 (1937) 188-223. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Chris-tian History II, Leiden 1980, 105-135.

BICKERMAN, Elias J., Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusa-lem, in: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II, Leiden 1980, 86-104.

BICKERMANN, Elias J., Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr., in: ZNTW 32 (1933) 239-241. Reprint: IDEM, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II (AGAJU, 9), Leiden 1980, 136-158.

BÖHLER, Dieter, On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism. The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX), in: SCHENKER, Adrian, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, Atlanta 2003, 35-50.

BONNET, Corinne, Melqart, cultes et mythes de l'Héraclès tyrien en Méditerra-née (Studia Phoenicia 8), Leuven 1988.

CAQUOT, André / DE ROBERT, Philippe, Les livres de Samuel (Commentaires de l’AT 6), Genève 1994.

CHRISTENSEN, Duane L., Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (Word Biblical Commentary 6B), Nashville 2002.

COGGINS, Richard J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Recon-sidered, Oxford 1975.

COWLEY, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C., Oxford 1923. CROSS, Frank M., A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration, in: JBL 94

(1975) 4-18.



168 E. Nodet

CROSS, Frank M., The Papyri and their Historical Implications, in: LAPP, Paul W / LAPP, Nancy L. (eds.), Discoveries in the Wadi Ed-Daliyeh (Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 41), New Haven 1974, 17-29.

DE VAUX, Roland, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, Vol. I., Paris 1971. DE VAUX, Roland, Israël, in: DBS 4 (1949), col. 764-769. DE VAUX, Roland, Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y établir son nom, in: MAASS,

Fritz (ed.), Das ferne und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105), Berlin 1967, 219-228.

DOUGLAS, Mary, Leviticus as Literature, Oxford 1999. DRIVER, Samuel R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy,

Edinburgh 1896. DUŠEK, Jan, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-

332 av. J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 20), Leiden – Boston 2007.

EGGER, Rita, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Un-tersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 4), Freiburg (CH) / Göttingen 1986.

ESHEL, Hanan, The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 223-234.

ESKENAZI, Tamara Cohn, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 36), Atlanta 1988.

FINKELSZTEJN, Gerald, More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps, in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 16 (1998) 33-63.

GANE, Roy, Cult and Character. Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy, Winona Lake 2005.

GARBINI, Giovanni, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese (Studi biblici 129), Brescia 2001.

GASTER, Moses, Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension, in: ZDMG 62 (1908) 209-279 and 494-549.

HARAN, Menahem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Winona 1985.

HARTLEY, John E., Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4), Dallas 1992. HAYWARD, C. Robert, The Jewish Temple. A non-Biblical Sourcebook, London /

New York 1996. HJELM, Ingrid, Brothers Fighting Brothers. Jewish and Samaritan Ethnocentrism

in History and Tradition, in: THOMPSON, Thomas L. (ed.), Jerusalem in An-cient History and Tradition (JSOT Suppl. 381), London / New York 2003, 197-222.

HUROWITZ, Victor A., Yhwh’s Exalted House. Aspects of the Design and Sym-bolism of Solomon’s Temple, in DAY John (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, London 2005, 63-110.

JAPHET, Sara, Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded /OEMING, Manfred (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 491-508.




JAPHET, Sarah, The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew, in: VT 18 (1968) 330-371.

KALIMI, Isaac, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona Lake 2005.

KEARNS, Conleth, Ecclesiasticus, in: A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London 1969, 541-562 (§ 441-443).

KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Bernard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake 2007.

LANGLAMET, François, Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois I-II, in: RB 83 (1976) 321-379 and 481-528

LEFÈBVRE, Philippe, Salomon et Bacchus, in: COX, Claude E. (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leu-ven 1989, Atlanta 1991, 313-323.

LEMAIRE, André, Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah? Startling New Inscrip-tions from Two Different Sites Reopen the Debate About the Meaning of Asherah, in: BAR 10/6 (1984) 2-51.

LUCIANI, Didier, Sainteté et pardon. Structure littéraire du Lévitique (BETL 185), Leuven 2005.

LUNDQUIST, John M., The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State, in: SBL Seminar Papers 1982, Chico 1982, 271-297.

MACCHI, Jean-Daniel, Les Samaritains. Histoire d’une légende, Genève 1994, 47-72.

MACDONALD, John, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher ha-Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (BZAW 107), Berlin 1969.

MAGEN, Yitzhak, The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence, in: LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B. C. E., Winona Lake 2007, 157-212.

MCCARTER, P. Kyle, Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data”, in: MILLER Patrick D. et al., Ancient Israelite Religi-on, Philadelphia 1987, 137-155.

MCKENZIE, Steven, Yedidyah, in: LICHERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bruxelles 2008, 87-97.

MESHEL, Ze’ev, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre From the Time of the Ju-daean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, Jerusalem 1978.

MEZ, Adam, Die Bibel des Josephus, untersucht für Buch V-VII der Archäolo-gie, Basel 1894.

MILGROM, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16 (Anchor Bible 3), New York 1991. MOR, Menahem, “The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period”, in: CROWN,

Alan D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18. NIHAN, Christophe, The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Geri-

zim in Deuteronomy and Joshua, in: KNOPPERS, Gary N. / LEVINSON, Ber-nard M. (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake 2007, 187-223.



170 E. Nodet

NISULA, Timo, ’Time Has Passed Since You Sent Your Letter.’ Letter Phraseolo-gy in 1 and 2 Maccabees, in: JSP 14 (2005) 201-222.

NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres IV et V, Paris 1995. NODET, Étienne, Flavius Josèphe. Les antiquités juives, livres VIII et IX, Paris

2005. NODET, Étienne, Josephus and the Pentateuch, in: JSJ 28 (1997) 154-194. NODET, Étienne, La crise maccabéenne, Paris 2005. NODET, Étienne, Les Antiquités juives de Josèphe. Livres X-XI, Paris 2010. NODET, Étienne, Pâque, azymes et théorie documentaire, in: RB 114 (2007) 499-

534. NODET, Étienne, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, in: HOLMÉN, Tom /

PORTER, Stanley E., Handbook of the Study of the Historical Jesus, Leiden 2010, 1495-1544.

PUMMER, Reihard, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 129), Tübingen 2009.

PUMMER, Reinhard, The Samaritans in Egypt, in: AMPHOUX, Christian-Bernard et al., Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du Texte Biblique 4), Lausanne 1998, 213-232.

RÖMER, Thomas, Salomon d’après les deutéronomistes: un roi ambigu, in: LICH-TERT, Claude / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en ques-tion. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bru-xelles 2008, 98-130.

SCHENKER, Adrian, La Relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-Néhémie, in: NORTON, Gerard J., Tradition of the Text, Fribourg 1991, 218-248.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi ? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique, in: VOITILA, Anssi / JOKIRANTA, Jutta M. (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (JSJ Supplements 126), Leiden 2008, 339-351.

SCHENKER, Adrian, Septante et texte massorétique dans l'histoire la plus an-cienne du texte de 1 Rois 2-14 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48), Paris 2000.

SCHÜRER, Emil / VERMES, Geza et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135): A New English Version, Edinburgh 1979.

SCHWARTZ, Daniel R., Doing like Jews or becoming a Jew ? Josephus on Women Converts to Judaism, in: FREY, Jörg / SCHWARTZ Daniel R. / GRIPENTROG, Stephanie, Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden / Boston 2007, 93-110.

SKA, Jean-Louis, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du Nord: Fact or Fiction?, in: LICHERT, Clauded / NOCQUET, Dany (eds.), Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Coll. Le livre et le rouleau 33), Bruxelles 2008, 36-56.

SOGGIN, Jan Alberto, Zwei umstrittene Stellen aus dem Überlieferungskreis um Schechem, in: ZAW 73 (1961) 78-87.

STERN, Ephraim, The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period, in: DAVIES, William D. / FINKELSTEIN, Louis




(ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism; I. Introduction; The Persian Pe-riod, Cambridge 1984, 70-87.

STERN, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 Vols. Jeru-salem 1974-1984.

THACKERAY, Henry St. J., Josephus, The Man and the Historian (Strook Lectures 1928), New York 19672, 77-80.

TORREY, Charles C., Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910. VAN DER HORST, Pieter W., The Samaritan Diaspora in Antiquity, in: Idem,

Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity, Göttingen 1990, 136-148. VAN HOONACKER, Albin, Néhémie et Esdras, une nouvelle hypothèse sur la

chronologie et la Restauration juive, in: Le Muséon 9 (1890) 151-184, 315-317, 389-401.

VANDERKAM, James C., From Yeshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis / Assen 2004.

VEIOLA, Timo, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975.

VELÁZQUEZ , Efraín II, The Persian Period and the Origins of Israel: Beyond the ‘Myths,’ in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY Paul J. Jr. (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 61-78.

WENHAM, Gordon J., Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary 2) Dallas 1994. WIDENGREN, Geo, The Persian Period, in: HAYES, John H. / MILLER, J. Maxwell ,

Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977. WILLIAMSON, Hugh G. M., Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary 16),

Waco 1985. WRIGHT, Jacob L., A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, in:

LIPSCHITS, Oded / KNOPPERS, Gary N. / ALBERTZ, Rainer (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 333-348.

WRIGHT, Jacob L., Rebuilding Identity. The Nehemiah-Memoirs and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin 2004.

YOUNGER, K. Lawson Jr., The Rhetorical Structuring of the Joshua Conquest Narratives, in: HESS, Richard S. / KLINGBEIL, Gerald A. / RAY, Paul J. Jr. (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (Bulletin for Biblical Re-search Supplements 3), Winona Lake 2008, 3-32.

ZSENGELLÉR, József, Gerizim as Israel (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 38), Ut-recht 1998.



Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews

Documents

Transcript of Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews