- Methodology
- One example of this concerns taḥrīf. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (following others) was intrigued by the possibility that the Qurʾānic accusation that the Jews and Christians corrupted or falsified their scriptures is based on a Samaritan accusation levelled in pre-Islamic times against the Jews. That ʿEzra is the villain in this polemic is particularly important as it could shed light on the Qurʾānic accusation that the Jews unduly elevated ʿUzayr’s (lit. “little ʿEzra”) status. Jewish sources from late antiquity may suggest that Samaritans accused the Jews of corrupting their Scriptures. In more than one case, a rabbi boasts that he has been able to prove, in a debate, that the Samaritan scriptures have been corrupted (See also y.Sotah 30b; b.Sanhedrin 90a, and Sifre Numbers 15.31. To cite but one such example (b.Sotah 33b), Rabbi Elʿazar the son of Rabbi Yose (second century C.E.) claimed, “I declared the books of the Samaritans (lit. ‘Cutheans’) to be false! I said to them, ‘You have forged your Torah and have not gained anything [from doing so]!’.” The only possible response the Samaritans could have given was that it is quite the opposite: It is the Jews who have falsified their scriptures. After all, unlike in the case of the Qurʾān, the Jews and Samaritans claimed to have the same Torah, except that there are thousands of [mostly minor] differences between the texts: One of them, the reasoning goes, had the original text and the other made changes to it (On the textual differences between the two versions of the Pentateuch, see the Introduction to Tal and Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version).
In fact, pre-Islamic Jewish sources actually admit that Ezra changed the script in which the Torah is written from ancient Hebrew to ‘Assyrian’ letters (B.Sanhedrin 21b-22a). Moreover, in one Talmudic passage it is implied that Ezra did so to spite the Samaritans (b.Sanhedrin 21b-22a). Post-Islamic sources such as Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash Tanhuma add that it was Ezra personally who pronounced a ban on the Samaritans, and Christian sources from late antiquity – to which we will return below – make it clear that Samaritan anger was directed not merely at the Jews but at Ezra specifically (Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, pp. 298-302; and Tanḥuma, Vayeshev, 2).
- The Qurʾānic Sabians and the Samaritans
- Some other authors who tried to find the identity of Sabians:
- See e.g. de Blois, “The Sabians (Ṣābi’ūn) in pre-Islamic Arabia,” pp. 39-61; Mazuz, “The identity of the Sabians,” pp. 233–254; Buck, “The identity of the Ṣābi’ūn,” pp. 172-186; McAuliffe, “Exegetical identification of the Ṣābi’ūn,” pp. 95-106; and Stroumsa, “The Sabians of Harran and the Sabians of Maimonides,” pp. 277-295 (in Hebrew).
The Sabians are mentioned three times in the Qurʾān: In one case, they are simply listed as a religious community, alongside Jews, Christians, Magians, and pagans (Q 22:17). The other two references are actually the same statement, repeated twice (Q 2:62 and 5:69), to the effect that the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians – whoever amongst them believes in one God, believes in the Last Day, and behaves righteously (ʿamila ṣāliḥan) – will be rewarded by God and/or will not have cause to fear or to grieve. This statement echoes others in the Qurʾān, such as the famous jizya verse (Q 9:29) that orders believers to fight those “who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and who do not forbid that which God has forbidden…” What we have in these verses is three stipulations: 1) Belief in one God; 2) Belief in the Afterlife; and 3) Correct application of God’s laws (in two verses expressed through positive commandments: believers must behave righteously; and in one verse expressed through negative commandments: believers must refrain from that which is impermissible). In other words, the Qurʾān makes it clear that one must be a Jew, Christian or Sabian who satisfies these three conditions, the implication being that there are those within these communities who do not satisfy all three.
- Samaritanism was divided between those who believed in the Afterlife and those who did not (the latter group thus not satisfying condition 2) (Lehnardt, “Masekhet Kutim and the resurrection of the dead,” pp. 175-192). The received wisdom is that it was the Dositheans who believed in resurrection of the dead and the Day of Judgement, while Sabuaeans did not. Epiphanius (Panarion, section 13) says that the Dositheans differ from the rest of the Samaritans as they admit resurrection. On this topic, see Isser, The Dositheans, pp. 143ff and Crone, “The Quranic Mushrikūn and the resurrection (part II),” pp. 1-20 at 8 (based on Origen, Epiphanius, Massekhet Kutim, Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, and others from later periods). See also the discussion in Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity, pp. 139ff
- What this meant is that the dichotomy is not between Jews (both good and bad) on the one hand and Samaritans (both good and bad) on the other, but between the Good (be they Jews or Samaritans) and the Bad (be they Jews or Samaritans). Inclusion within the Jewish fold required ‘righteous behaviour’. Similarly, in another discussion on this matter (m.Kutim 2.8), which dates from the eve of Islam, the rabbis suggested that should a Samaritan wish to return to the fold all he must do is accept Jerusalem (renouncing Mount Gerizim and Shechem) and accept the doctrine of the Afterlife (reflecting the second Qurʾānic stipulation). Thus, the Qurʾān’s acceptance of Monotheists, who believe in the Last Day and who act righteously, reflects debates and controversies surrounding the status and acceptability of the Samaritans in late antique Jewish sources. This does not, on its own, necessarily mean that those verses that list the Sabians alongside Jews and Christians are equating Sabians with the ‘good’ Samaritans, only that the religious logic of these verses echoes Jewish discussions of the Samaritans on the eve of Islam.
My argument that the Qurʾān’s Sabians are indeed Samaritans is based on three pieces of evidence: First is the etymology of the word Sabuaeans. As stated, in late antiquity (if not earlier) the Samaritans became sub-divided, with some groups believing in the Afterlife and others rejecting the idea (as it has no Pentateuchal basis). Divisions amongst the Samaritans did not only pivot around the Afterlife issue, however. Epiphanius of Salamis describes the circumstances in which already in Achaemenid times a group of Samaritans split from the wider community:
- The law commanded all the Jews from everywhere to gather in Jerusalem frequently, (and especially) three times a year, on the Feast of Unleavened (Bread), and on Pentecost and Tabernacles. Now the Jews used to live dispersed on the borders of Judaea and Samaria. So it happened that when they went to Jerusalem some of them made their way through (the territory of) the Samaritans. And when they (both Jews and Samaritans) chanced to have their assembly for the festival at one and the same time conflicts arose on account of this, as (they did) also when Ezra fortified Jerusalem after the return from Babylonia … Then the Sebuaeans, out of rage and anger, changed the times of the aforementioned holidays, first out of anger at Ezra, secondly for the aforementioned reason – which had led them into fight because of those journeying through. So they set the new month for Passover after the New Year in the fall, i.e. after the (first of) the month of Tishri … Hence, they reckon their New Year and immediately celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. They have Pentecost in the fall, then they have Tabernacles when the Jews have the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover. ( Epiphanius, Panarion, 10, 11 (in Isser, The Dositheans, p. 40).
- Whatever the precise circumstances of the Sabuaeans’ emergence from within Samaritanism, Epiphanius states elsewhere that they continued to exist in his time. But what does ‘Sabuaean’ mean? While some have argued that the name is related to the Semitic root for ‘seven’, hence relating them to the Feast of Pentecost (in Hebrew, Shavuʿoth, lit. ‘weeks’), others have derived it from the Hebrew or Aramaic root ṣ.b.ʿ referring to immersion in water (Pummer, Early Christian authors, p. 128; and Thomas, Le movement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie, p. 42; and Rudolph, “The Baptist sects,” p. 477: “In this connection the ‘Samaritan heresy’ of the Sebuaeans (Sebouaioi), noted only by Ephiphanius (Pan. 11) is worth mentioning; this name, obviously meaning ‘baptized ones’ (Aramaic ṣebuʿaiya), is formed from the root ṣbʿ). The name is reminiscent of the Elkesaite (Sobiai), and the later Sabians of the Aramaic sources … Certainly, we know of many water ceremonies among the Dositheans, a Samaritan sect.” It is known that, on account of their strict ritual purity laws, Samaritans (in general) engaged in frequent ritual immersions. Elsewhere, for instance, Epiphanius has the following to say about the Samaritans’ curious customs:
- But they have some other customs too, which are entirely stupid. They wash with urine on returning from a foreign land, [as though] they had been contaminated, if you please! Whenever they touch someone else, who is a gentile, they immerse themselves in water with their clothes on. For they think it is pollution to take hold of one person, or touch another, if he is of another persuasion. But they have a bad case of insanity (Epiphanius, Panarion, 3.6 (in Pummer, Early Christian authors, p. 157 [Emphasis mine]).
- A pilgrim’s account from 570 CE relates something similar, albeit in a less judgemental tone:
- There were several Samaritan cities and villages on our way down through the plains, and wherever we passed along the streets they burnt away our footprints with straw whether we were Christians or Jews, they have such a horror of both. This is what they tell Christians: ‘Don’t touch what you want to buy until you have paid the money. If you touch anything without buying it there will soon be trouble.’ Outside each village there is a guard to give the warning. You must put your money into water since they will not take it from your hand. When you arrive they curse you. Nor must you spit. If you do, you start trouble and later they have to purify themselves with water before entering the village or city (In Wilkinson, Jerusalem pilgrims before the Crusades, p. 81).
The second piece of evidence comes from the great polymath al-Bīrūnī. In his description of the Sabians, al-Bīrūnī says:
Others maintain that the Ḥarrānians are not the real Ṣabians, but those who are called in the books Heathens and Idolaters. For the Sabians are the remnant of the Jewish tribes who remained in Babylonia, when the other tribes left it for Jerusalem in the days of Cyrus and Artaxerxes. Those remaining tribes felt themselves attracted to the rites of the Magians, and so they (were inclined) towards the religion of Nebuchadnezzar, and adopted a system mixed up of Magism and Judaism like that of the Samaritans in Syria ( Sachau (tr.), Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of the nations, p. 188).
This passage is interesting for four reasons. First, it considers the Sabians to be an offshoot of Judaism. Second, it describes their split from Judaism as taking place in the Achaemenid period (“in the days of Cyrus and Artaxerxes”), which is precisely when the Bible (and later authors drawing on its contents) hold that the Samaritan-Jewish split took place (Ezra 4, in which Cyrus and Artaxerxes are specifically mentioned).53 Third, it associates the Sabians with Nebuchadnezzar’s religion. While it is unclear what this could mean, I am disinclined to read into it a reference to the Marduk-cult or the like.54 In fact, the book of Daniel gives a very confused picture of Nebuchadnezzar’s “religion”, in which he is, on the one hand, a pagan tyrant (e.g. Daniel 3:1-7 and passim), but on the other a convert to Judaism (Daniel 4:34ff.), and Jews and Christians in late antiquity debated whether Nebuchadnezzar was a genuine believer.55 What all agreed on, however, was his role in destroying the First Temple and this may be the connection to the ‘Sabians’. For as Ezra 4 tells us, the Samaritans did all they could to prevent the construction of the [second] Temple and it may be that al-Bīrūnī’s Sabians and Nebuchadnezzar shared a hostility to the Jewish Temple.56 Finally, al-Bīrūnī actually concludes his treatment of the ‘Sabians’ by comparing them to the “Samaritans in Syria”. Now, this could be read in two ways: Either, by comparing them to the Samaritans al-Bīrūnī is saying that the two communities are similar and yet distinct; or, he is comparing them (intending Samaritans in the East) with the Samaritans in Syria.
The third piece of evidence comes from nomenclature. The curious fact is that in pre-Islamic times, as early as Josephus, we hear of Sabbeus and his followers from within the Samaritan community,57 and multiple late antique sources refer to the Sabuaeans (by various spellings), but no postIslamic source mentions a Samaritan group by this name. Additionally, none of the various post-Islamic groups that claim to be the Qurʾān’s Sabians – Ḥarranians and Mandaeans, amongst others – were actually known by the label ‘Sabian’ (or similar) in pre-Islamic times.58 In other words, we may surmise that Sabuaeans existed until the rise of Islam, were known to the Qurʾān, which entitled them to tolerance as a recognized religion, at which point other groups appropriated the label for themselves (conversely, Muslim jurists conferred the label on groups for whom they sought to gain tolerance),59 and the Samaritan Sabuaeans were submerged under the label of ‘Kushani’ (compare: ‘Kuthean’) and ‘Dustani’ (compare: Dosithean), these being the only two Samaritan groups that post-Islamic Jewish and Muslim sources seem to known about.
- Summary
- They are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans
Leave a Reply