Talk:Samaritans

Samaritan and Jewish relationship to Israelites

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews we have this Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, ISO 259-2: Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation: [jehuˈdim]) or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and nation originating from the Israelites and Hebrews And in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites The Jews and the Samaritans are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Therefore I cannot see why this Samaritans article should have this Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ‎,romanized: Šā̊merīm, transl. Guardians/Keepers [of the Torah]; Hebrew: שומרונים, romanized: Šōmrōnīm; Arabic: السامريون, romanized: as-Sāmiriyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group who claim descendance from the ancient Israelites. In both cases, NPOV and consistency between articles should result in the rewording as follows. Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ‎,romanized: Šā̊merīm, transl. Guardians/Keepers [of the Torah]; Hebrew: שומרונים, romanized: Šōmrōnīm; Arabic: السامريون, romanized: as-Sāmiriyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group who descend from the ancient Israelites. AND Samaritans descend from the northern Israelite tribes who were not deported by the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. Evidence for both Jewish and Samaritan claims to their origins needs to be treated the same.Pngeditor (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In all instances, the language of 'originate' is probably the more appropriate, since 'descent' is a murkier concept and probably needs the 'claim' caveat. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Britannica uses the phrasing: "belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient ... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced descend with originate, as suggested.Pngeditor (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this edit might be taking things too far. There are some possible euphemisms for claiming descent, but simply treating their views as unchallenged "Samaritans descend from ..." is simply taking up a non-NPOV for the Samaritans, which is not the same as NPOV, esepcially as there are other points of view (Jewish version, secular scolarship etc) 2.24.71.91 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit, and, as noted in the summary, I think 'originate' works well in the first paragraph, but the second paragraph starts with several claims and assumptions, not a single simple one about descent, so I think the original wording of 'Samaritan tradition claims...' is preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Iskandar. Samaritan traditions should be respected, but they shouldn't be treated as unchallenged fact. 2.24.71.91 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan traditions should be treated in exactly the same manner as Jewish traditions.Pngeditor (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done, everyone. The skepticism over Samaritan traditions of origin stems from ancient Jewish, dismissive polemics against a people they competed with. While in the article Jews (untouchable in its POV sacrality) we have for decades the lead stating:

Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, ISO 259-2: Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation: [jehuˈdim]) or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group[10] and nation[11][12] originating from the Israelites[13][14][15] and Hebrews[16][17] of historical Israel and Judah.

which repeats a claim (As any rabbi competent in modern historiography will confirm, Jews have their origin in Judaism, not in an ethnos) as a fact, this cannot be tolerated for Samaritans and we are now adopting language which makes them less authentic than Jews, their historical religious adversaries. This is particularly comical because the best genetic evidence suggest that, to the degree that method can allow valid historical deductions, Samaritans bear lineages that indicate a pre-Assyrian Israelite lineage. Congratulations.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Both articles now use similar 'origination' language in the first paragraph. What are you proposing? A change here, there or in both articles? The main point raised in this thread was about consistency, and it seemed a fair one. While both groups may have originated in a religion, not an ethnos, did not the religions themselves originate in an ethnos - therefore whether or not the ethnos now remains the same ethnos as then, via the conduit of faith, does not the origin remain? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'ethnos' was formed by the 'religion'- not in our modern sense of the word 'religion' -and not the other way around. The religion itself required a millennium to find its definitive formulation. Ethnos is widely used of course, but to my ear it is a word which neatly retains, euphemistically, while eliding (the German word is aufheben) the idea of race, is very much a modern notion. Dozens of clan-structured tribes roamed, settled, mixed and fought throughout the earlier period over this porose territory, Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Ivri, Canaanites, Israelites etc.etc. - the Bible is perplexingly full of them - and what they shared was a basic north-western Semitic language, with dialect differences. Language is what counts, not an ethnos in the erratic common acceptation of a genetically uniform people. At one point, several groups coalesced under a Yahweh/El credo, residually polytheistic nonetheless, with a specific lifestyle in part dictated by dietary discriminations and were united under some kind of polity which broke into two regional 'houses', like that of Omri or perhaps 'David'. Exogamy was particularly favoured by the latter, and eventually a specific Judaean identity in Judea formed, mostly defined by a priestly elite with a prepossessing concern to make their own exile, with all that implied, the defining myth of their place, and compulsively, all those who looked to them for guidance, in the world. They started the idea of pure line of descent that still afflicts our thinking, and the Samaritans resident in the former northern Israelitic kingdom formed, in this biblical and rabbinical mythopoetic thinking, the foil against which this new Judaicness was to be defined, hence the material of the 'mongrelization' of their adversaries, the Samaritans, all the more intense because of the profound affinities. As Mason pointed out 15 years ago, 'The Ioudaioi (strictly speaking 'Judaeans' not Jews) of the Graeco-Roman world remained an ἔθνος: a people associated with a place and its customs—no matter how far, or how long, they had been away from Judaea.' (Steve Mason's Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History, Journal for the Study of Judaism 2007 38(4-5):457-512, p.511-512) I.e., the culture and its territorial cult determined their identity, not their 'ethnos' (in the modern sense), which in any case has always been polymorphic, and a very substantial part of the modern Jewish populations did not originate from there except if you are inclined to believe that one ancestor in antiquity with a Middle Eastern background, trumps all others who via marriage in the long line of descent ended up under the Jewish umbrella, and that single hypothesized primal ancestor among hundreds must be the definer of who you really are, if you are a Jew, while the other ancient contributors to one's ancestry, from different ethnoi, don't count - a ubiquitous but infantile argument. If anything, the Samaritans have far stronger claims to 'originate' from Israel/Palestine than anyone else there. They all appear to have practiced strict endogamy for millennia, dying out when they didn't, unlike the Jews, whose success perhaps also lies in their diasporic promiscuity. But this is waffle and this is not a forum. The point is, there is a dyscrasy between the two pages dealing with two peoples associated with Judea/Israel, in a context where Jewish polemics about Samaritan ethnic/racial inauthenticity dominate to challenge their foundation myth, whilst this doesn't hold for the Jewish narrative, which is just as much mythical, when not sheer rhetorical and emotional confusion Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Converts

I noticed a mention of members of Brazil in the article, but seems it should be noted these appear to be very recent converts?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good find, FunkMonk! I remember you from Benghazi in 2014. And I've seen your bot around occasionally. Yes, you are correct. The origin of the community in Brazil seems to be a result of something that sociologists are calling "religious transnationalism". It has been the subject of study since 2000 or so, but mostly as it pertains to Hinduism, Islam, Christianity,and Buddhism. Here's a little more about it in general, although I don't know if it is useful as a WP:RS. The article you found is a good source.--FeralOink (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot and Benghazi? I think you might have confused me for someone else, but yes, there seems to be going something on with Internet based conversions that is rater unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the bot, I was thinking of Monkbot, which is not your bot. It belongs to Trappist the Monk not Funk the Monk. Sorry about that! Regarding Benghazi, I was thinking about your comments and my (overly sincere, 2 years late, cringe) reply on this talk page. As you said later (I wish I had!) Låwl. Some of those IP editors were terribly rude to you. They shouldn't have been so mean-spirited. Take a glance at the table of contents while you're there. Wikipedia was more fun back then.

Back on topic now. I found a lot of WP:RS information in The Good Samaritan: What was his religion and does it still exist? An entire issue of a scholarly journal dated 2020 was devoted to matters pertaining to Samaritans. This was the most useful source for my purposes in editing WP, From Religious to Cultural and Back Again: Tourism Development...among the Samaritans. Minimal critical theory mumbo jumbo! Description of modern-day Samaritans from journal source follows.

"Kyriat Luza, their small village located on Mount Gerizim, attracts more and more tourists each year, particularly on the occasion of the Samaritan Passover, during which about fifty sheep are sacrificed... the ceremony brings together Palestinians, Israelis, and many foreign tourists curious to attend a ritual supposedly representing a centuries-old heritage... Samaritans are perfectly in line with... globalized societies. They export their tehina, amulets and liturgical chants, promote the digitization of liturgical manuscripts, organize conferences on Samaritanism... [At the Samaritan Passover], speeches, both those that the Israeli and Palestinian political representatives present and those of the media, portray the Samaritans as living remains of biblical history... tourism in Kiryat Luzah has been accompanied by the emergence of new practices... internet, guided tours, informative leaflets, spectacularization of rituals... development of a restaurant “The Good Samaritan” and a visitors’ center. [For Passover] plastic chairs are placed for Palestinian and Israeli political and military figures. During the ceremony, a special time is given for official greetings and handshakes between [them] and the Samaritans... Samaritan representatives declare their aspiration to become a “bridge for peace”. They have perfectly incorporated the imagery and expectations of tourists seeking an “authentic” experience."

About those Brazilian Samaritans. I have some doubts about the sourcing. A lot of it comes from the same website that uses redirects so that it seems like different landing page URLs. That's how I found this, Brazil and Sicily have New Israelite Samaritan Communities. From the journal article, see Section 4, we have some well-sourced facts. There are a lot of people eager to “convert”. They like the “authenticity” and “purity”. Emphasis mine below.

"....groups of people who express the desire to become Samaritans have emerged abroad, especially in Brazil. This phenomenon is particularly unusual since it involves the development of transnational communities without migration. The Samaritans refuse to use the term “conversion” because the formal process that characterizes conversion does not exist in Samaritanism. The “entrances into Samaritanism” in Brazil, which began in 2015, now number approximately 300 people."

That source is dated 2020, of 300 people, so 20,000 seems unlikely. The name for these new believers is Neo-Samaritans.

“Neo-Samaritans” from Brazil and elsewhere are perceived as more valuable if they remain outside the borders of Israeli-Palestinian territory. Their existence then contributes to legitimizing the Samaritans’ self-designation as keepers (shômrîm) of the authentic tradition. Moreover, their active participation on social networks integrates the process already initiated by cultural entrepreneurs... one of the steps in changing the identification of Brazilian Samaritans is to photograph oneself beside a laminated amulet containing a biblical verse in Samaritan Hebrew. The photograph is then published on social networks such as Facebook."

You get the idea. This isn't new, btw. Apparently, Europeans tourists have been casually looking for authentic religious experiences in the Holy Land since the mid-19th century. That journal article describes the history; also, interest has dropped off in the past 15 - 20 years. There are lots of Norwegian and American Lutheran scholars who are VERY interested in the idea that Samaritans are the REAL Jews. One of them is cited in the WP article. Okay, I've said enough.--FeralOink (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I corrected the number of neo-Samaritans in the article, so that it agrees with the source.--FeralOink (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

All of my edits were removed for "copyright" without further explanation.

Administrator @Diannaa fully removed all of my edits for "copyright" violations, on the same day that another user, @Regioncalifornia removed my edits as "propaganda", copy-pasted below:

05:55, 13 October 2024 Regioncalifornia talk contribs m 135,250 bytes −5,428‎ removing unsourced propaganda thank Tag: Manual revert

I just want to politely ask for a more thorough explanation for the removal of my substantial edits, in order to improve in the future. Gamalny (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:Copyright Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I already have, and reflected on which of my edits may not have upheld the copyright standard. You can see my reflections on my talk page. Gamalny (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I just spoke and clarified the issue on copyright with @Diannaa. Also, @Regioncalifornia, I would love it if we can discuss the issues that appeared to you in my edits that seemed like "propaganda", so we can come to a mutual understanding. Gamalny (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi good evening! I didn't report the copyright issue, it seems like it was automatically detected and removed from the article's history, so, I can't discuss the deleted content because I can't read it. From what I can remember, it seemed like an attempt to erase the persecution and oppression Samaritans experienced during the Ottoman rule, which is described by themselves as the worst in their history. An example of the non-removed history: "the ulama of Nablus (who resented the privileges that the Samaritans received under Egyptian rule while the Palestinian peasant population was disadvantaged through conscription and other means)" that sentence sounds like a justification, specially when you removed the link to Capital punishment in Islam. But most important, you didn't reference correctly. You must point out where exactly the information you add is written (which pages, for example) and quote the authors. If the information is referenced correctly, so everybody can read and check it, then I don't think there would a reason to revert it. Regioncalifornia (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback. I'm stepping away from editing this article right now, but once (or if) I come back to it, I will keep your points in mind and consult with you. Gamalny (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

source problems

I agree with the C designator for this article. Part of the problem is that there is so little peer-reviewed literature and another part that authors are not allowed to present original research. Samaritan scripture in Hebrew and Aramaic is online free in both Gezer and Aramaic scripts. It shows that Jews and Samaritans have an original 100% identity in their narratives. Their scripture is 90% identically worded, especially both sets of the Ten Commandments in both sets of scripture. They use 80% of the same grammar in the same places, notably in the Ten Commandments. These features record a common original tradition, with changes over time that coordinate partly with Olrik's Principles for Oral Narrative Research, partly with hybridization of Samaritan Hebrew with Arabic after the Muslims gained control of the Holy Land. The genetics of their kohanim are almost identical. But the idea that the Mishnaic rabbis couldn't tell them apart suffers from lack of sourcing. Here are some resources: https://www.sefaria.org/search?q=Samaritans&tab=text&tvar=1&tsort=relevance&svar=1&ssort=relevance 100.15.117.34 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

samaritan texts

Samaritan Torah and Targum in Gezer script: Brian Walton's polyglot from the 1600s https://archive.org/details/walton_polyglot/1%20Walton%20Polyglot%20Genesis-Leviticus/ Samaritan Torah in Aramaic script: Freiherr von Gall's critical edition from the 1900s https://archive.org/details/vonGall_SamaritanPentateuch/page/n545/mode/2up Samaritan Targum in Aramaic script: https://cal.huc.edu/newshow_browsedialects.php?R1=56 Samaritan Chronicle including Joshua https://archive.org/details/samaritanchronic00cran 100.15.117.34 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)