Associate Professor,Ph.D., Ingrid Hjelm

Associate Professor,Ph.D., Ingrid Hjelm

Department of Biblical Exegesis, Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen

Købmagergade 44-46, DK-1150 Copenhagen K

Tele: 45-35323658; Mail:

Review of Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), xviii + 356 pp. ISBN 978-3-16-150107-7.

Reinhard Pummer is a well known and highly appreciated scholar in Samaritan Research. His meticulous works on many aspects of Samaritan matters have contributed exceedingly to discussions on Samaritan origin, history and traditions for nearly four decades. Such discussion did not occur only in modern scholarship, but were part of ancient debates as well. In 2002, Pummer’s book on Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism. Texts, Translations and Commentary (Text and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), presented and discussed the first complete collection with original texts, translations and commentaries on 47 authors, dating from the second to the fourteenth century. Each author was presented with an introduction to the author’s personal and academic career and their writings discussed in context with contemporary and later sources of different sorts (Biblical, Patristic, Jewish, Samaritan, Greek, Latin and Byzantine Writings) including modern scholarly debates thereof. Salient points were treated in greater detail, e.g.: Early Christian views on Samaritan origin, Samaritan literature, Samaritan theology, Samaritan temple or cult place, location of Gilgal, Gerizim and Ebal, denial of resurrection, chronological discrepancies, relation to non-Samaritans, Samaritan revolts and persecutions. The method of thorough and profound discussion of the source material also pertains to Pummer’s recent book, which focuses on one aspect of discussions about the Samaritans, namely these of the 1th century Jewish author Josephus Flavius.

Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, consist of a preface, an introduction, eight chapters with detailed presentation and examination of chronologically arranged discussions about Samaritans in Josephus’ main works Jewish Antiquities (93/94 CE) and Jewish War (75-79 CE). The book is completed with the appendix: “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis in Josephus?” and a concluding chapter discussing the results of the investigation; bibliography and indices. The book does not aim at giving answers to Samaritan origin and early history, but rather to “understand Josephus’ texts about the Samaritans in light of the new insights into the Jewish historian’s methods and aims and the results of renewed research into ancient texts and archaeological remains” (p. 1-2).

The introduction discusses Terminology and Early non-Josephan Sources about the Samaritans (Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees, the Delos inscription, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the New Testament, Samaritan and Rabbinic Sources). Archaeological excavations on Mt. Gerizim and Samaria in the time of Josephus concludes the historical section before turning to discussions on Scholarship on the Samaritans in Josephus; Josephus as author and short notes on Texts and methods of the study. Several of these issues have been discussed many times before, but new scholarly developments related to archaeology and text criticism demand that they be discussed afresh (p. 9).

While Josephus dated the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim to Alexander’s conquest of the region in the fourth century, the excavations on Mt. Gerizim carried out by Yizhaq Magen since 1982/83 revealed that this should be corrected to at least the mid-fifth century BCE (p. 40). The Persian period temenos became greatly enlarged in the early 2nd century BCE and the rather wealthy city, which grew up around it consisted of about 10.000 inhabitants, most of which are assumed to have belonged to temple personnel. The Persian-period structure with three gates resembled the temple described in Ezekiel 40.10-16, “which, Magen believes, served as a model for the temple built by the returnees. The latter served itself as the ‘model for the temple erected by the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim.’” (Magen, 2007: 161; cf. Pummer p. 40).[1] About the second phase of the Samaritan cult place, Pummer writes: “The Hellenistic precinct differs from the Persian-period not only in size, but also in style. It is no longer modelled on the Jerusalem temple but includes Greek architectural features. The core of the earlier structure stayed the same, but on the outside, additional buildings were constructed: staircases for the visitors to the temple, towers, a fortified complex, large public edifices, and other structures.” (p. 42). The temple and city was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 110 BCE and not as written by Josephus immediately after “the death of Antiochus (VII Sidetes)”, which would date the event to 129/128 BCE (pp. 204f.). The offering cult on Gerizim followed practices prescribed in the Torah and no sign of religious syncretism has been detected in the excavations. The excavation thus contradicts Josephus in regard to origin, chronology, the plan of the Samaritan cult place, the city on the mountain and its destruction (pp. 150, 202).

Text critical issues relate to the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which “took shape in the second/ /first century BCE” (p. 23). The evidence for this is sought in the SP’s similarity to the small portion of so-called “pre-Samaritan” texts among DSS. These, however, did not contain the specific Samaritan readings, so “what they [the Samaritans] evidently did was to choose one of the pre-Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch and modify it slightly in conformity with their beliefs and practices” (p. 27). Pummer’s conclusion is conventional rather than based on his own discussion (pp. 24-26), which points to instances which do not support the MT against the SP. The paradigm of Samaritans “choosing” a “Jewish” text and modifying it is based on paradigms about Samaritan origins, which were common before the occurrence of the archaeological and textual evidence we have today. Of importance for Pummer’s study, however, is his observation that Josephus “never mentions the Samaritan version of the five books of the Law or any specific readings from it.” (p. 27). Neither does he accuse them of falsifying Scripture as did the rabbis (p. 284). To conclude that Josephus “was either not aware of them [i.e. the SP] or did not consider them significant”, as Pummer does (p. 27), fails to take into consideration that in Josephus’ narrative about the discussion between Samaritans and Jews in Alexandria (Ant. 13.74-79; cf. ch. six), he might imply that the combatants had different versions of the Law. Neither the New Testament authors specify which texts they used although it is clear from text critical studies that most OT citations in the NT differ from modern editions of MT. Relationship between DSS, MT, SP and the LXX still rest on paradigms that antedate the MT to the first millennium BCE, although all evidence have taught us that the MT is a medieval product.

Another aspect that is denied only in Pummer’s work is the extent to which Josephus knew Samaritans or Samaritan traditions: “Josephus never speaks of Samaritan beliefs or customs and nowhere displays an acquaintance with the Samaritan’s own account of their origin” (pp. 66, 282f.). However, Josephus mentions that the Samaritans saw themselves as descendants of Joseph (Ant. 9. 291) or Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh (11.341), which Pummer knows is part of Samaritan tradition (pp. 20, 122). Does Josephus allude to this relationship by naming Sanballat’s son in law Manasseh? A few non-scriptural details in Josephus’ stories might also reflect aspects of Samaritan traditions, but Pummer is right that Josephus does not explicitly reveal any intimate knowledge of anything Samaritan.

Pummer’s small section on the scholarship gives a hint at the opposing views on Josephus’ reliability as a historian and his attitude towards the Samaritans. It is in no way exhaustive, but basically offers a departure for Pummer’s own examination as a study that “attempts to combine composition criticism and historical research” (p. 65). Introducing the reader to recent studies in the “composition criticism” of Josephus’ works (esp. Steve Mason, James S. McLaren and Daniel R. Schwarz), - defined as “the effort to interpret an author’s writings in and of themselves, as self-contained compositions.” (Steve Mason, 1991: 43; cf. Pummer, p. 56)[2] -, Pummer argues that both Josephus’ larger work as well as his intended audience must be taken into consideration. He is absolutely right that most scholars who have used Josephus as a historical source have failed to analyze their material in the overall context of Josephus’ works. Pummer’s method, however, is not a complete novelty in Samaritan studies, but the approach I took on a much lesser scale in my 2000 book.[3] That was written before we had the evidence from archaeology, which ridicules most of what Josephus had said about the Samaritans. The interesting point is that both studies have come to the same basic conclusion; namely, that Josephus’ seemingly anti-Samaritan bias serves his aim to portray his Jewish countrymen at their best in the view of his intended Greek audience, by contrasting them with “ambiguous”, “fickle” and “dishonest” Samaritans (64, 285): “The Samaritans were in Josephus’ mind a fringe group whose status was ambiguous. But, as we will see, they were useful when an argument needed to be made that, in contrast to them, the Jews were a reliable people and friends of the Romans. In other words, Josephus contrasted the Samaritans with the Jews in order to make the latter look good in comparison.”…..”When all is said and done, Josephus was no different from other Jews of his time. He saw the Samaritans as a problematic Jewish group and had no love for them, but at the same time he was not animated by a strong personal hostility” (p. 64).

What brought Pummer to this conclusion is a meticulous and learned examination of Josephus’ narratives about the Samaritans, combining earlier discussions with new evidence. Since most of these discussions belong to paradigms based on a lack of the knowledge that has been achieved during the past twenty years, Pummer’s book also represents an important move towards a new understanding of relevant source material for writing the early history of the Samaritans. Detailed analyses of this material offer a wealth of information useful for historical reconstruction in spite of Josephus’ shortcomings. Thus it is not Josephus’ disinformation on which an author should base his or her historical reconstruction, but rather on the questions, which his material raises. Once and for all, the discrepancy between Josephus’ testimony and “was eigentlich gewesen war” has been proven an unavoidable fact.

The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus has much to offer to readers on both Samaritan issues and studies in Josephan authorship.

1

[1] Yitzhak Magen, ‘The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence’, in Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers and Rainer Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 157-212.

[2] Steve Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Studia Post-Biblica, 39; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991).

[3] Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis (JSOTsup., 303, CIS, 7; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).