Category:Samaritan Schism (event)

• BACK TO THE EVENTS--INDEX

The Samaritan Schism refers to the religious separation betwen the Samaritans and the Judeans at the very end of the 5th century BCE.

• This page is edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, University of Michigan

Overview

The roots of the conflict between Judah and Samaria go back to the monarchic period. At stake was the hegemony in the region--a situation that repeated after the Babylonian exile. In spite of their common religious roots, the Samaritans found themselves in the front line against any attempt at restoring an autonomous political or religious power in Judah, which would have diminished the hegemony they had gained in the region. Eventually, they could not stop the exiles' plan of reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple, nor effectively challenge the Zadokite refusal to share the control of the rebuilt sanctuary with any local priesthood. The support the returnees received from the Persian administration under Darius I was a decisive factor in the setback. The political and economical power in the region, however, remained largely in the hands of the Samaritans.

The change in religious policy by Darius I' son, Xerses I, revealed how precarious the situation of the returned exiles was. With a poor economy and without the military protection of walls Jerusalem was defenseless, and the Temple heavily depended on the support of outsiders. As governors of Samaria, the Sanballats regained some yards in Jerusalem with a covert and judicious policy of patronage. Had their influence not been strong in Jerusalem, they would never have succeeded in infiltrating even the Zadokite family structure of power through intermarriage. The lamentations of Malachi reflect the growing concerns of the Zadokite party over the objective weakness of the Temple administration (1:6--2:9) and the priesthood's tendency to compromise and establish economical and familiar links with "foreign people" (2:10-12). Without a decisive change in the balance of power in the region, the outcome would probably have been some political and religious accommodation between the Sanballats and the Zadokites.

The Babylonian diaspora ran to the rescue, and thanks to personal connections with the Persian court and the new king, Artaxerses I, Nehemiah was able to reverse the situation. It is pretty obvious that Sanballat was upset at seeing Jerusalem gaining political, economical and military autonomy, and frustrated at his failure to sabotage Nehemiah's plan. The walls of Jerusalem were a barrier against any hope of compromise with the Jerusalem priesthood. Now, it was just a matter of time before the political struggle turned into a religious schism.

At the end of the second mission of Nehemiah, the Zadokite party was strong enough to sever any residual tie with the Sanballats. The incident involved a distinguished member of the Zadokite family. "One of sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliahib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; and I chased him away" (Neh 13:28; cf. Josephus, Ant 11:302-312).

Josephus adds to the story many interesting details, including the names of Manasseh (ben Joiada) and Nicaso (bat Sanballat) as the banned couple. However, the chronological and genealogical framework he provides differs significantly, the episode being dated almost one century later. This does not imply an improbable repetition of events. Josephus also knew from his source that the incident occurred "under Darius" (Ant 11:311) and involved a Sanballat. He ignored, however, that the Sanballats were an ancient dynasty, with several individuals bearing the same name, not a single individual. The only Sanballat Josephus knew was the "one who was sent by Darius, the last king (of Persia), into Samaria" (Ant 11:302). It was therefore obvious for Josephus to believe that the Darius mentioned in his source was Darius III, not the successor of Artaxerses I, Darius II. He adjusted the historical and genealogical framework of the episode accordingly.

As the marriage between members of influential families was a public and calculated political act, so was the request of divorce. The Zadokite leadership signaled to the world their freedom from the patronage of the Sanballats. As a good politician, Sanballat made the best of his defeat. According to Josephus, he promised his son-in-law "not only to preserve to him the honor of the priesthood but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest... and that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem upon Mount Gerizim" (Ant 11:310). Since the Deutenonomist legislation required only one sanctuary but did not specified its location, a member of the dominant priestly family (the House of Zadok) was just the one who was needed to give equal legitimacy to a religious schism and to a rival temple, and to create embarrassment to their adversaries by means of the similarities between the two traditions. Significantly, the source of Josephus speaks only of Sanballat's "promise" of a temple and provides no description of its actual construction; archaeological evidence shows it probably happened only "about the end of the fourth century BCE".

Although the boundaries of separation between the two communities remained somehow uncertain for a long time, the wound in the Israelite body would never be healed. The destruction of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE only ratified the impossibility of reconciliation. The Samaritan Schism would never be recomposed, and members of the House of Zadok would continue to serve as High Priest in Samaria, from father to son, for centuries to come, ironically much longer than their relatives in Jerusalem. While the last Zadokite High Priest served in the Jerusalem Temple at the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, according to Samaritan tradition the Samaritan branch of the House of Zadok lasted until 1624 when the High Priest Shelemiah ben Pinhas died without male succession and the Samaritan High Priesthood was taken by Aaronite descendants. Today, the Samaritans still survive as a separate branch of Israelite religion.

The Samaritan Schism in ancient sources

• See Samaritan Schism (sources)

The Samaritan Schism in scholarship

External links