Talk:Samaritans

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? 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)

Oh, forgot this section, and forgot that Benghazi blast from the past! And yeah, given their much larger number, but depending on whether it's just a Facebook fad, I wonder if these neo-Samaritans should have their own article, they certainly don't have much to do with the relict Levantine group. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if info about these converts wouldn't be more relevant in the Samaritanism article instead, as they obviously don't belong to the ethnic group while practising some of their faith. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2025 (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)

Verifiability and notability of new section entitled Quranic Reference: anachronism alleged controversy

The recently added section in this article named above seems to rest primarily on arguments between anonymous, self-published websites entitled "answering-islam.org" and "islamic-awareness.org." Only one Islamic scholar is cited as contributing to this alleged debate, and no credibly cited examples of those allegedly arguing on behalf this supposed anachronism in the Quran are provided. Unless more credible sources are added, this section does not appear to meet Wikipedia's verifiability or notability standards. Prayomat (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Prayomat;

Thank you, for your ongoing constructive critique and patience. My apologies for not responding earlier, as I was unaware of your concerns.

With due respect, if you read the section as it now stands, you'll note; NOT ONE (as you suggest above), but TWO separate and differing opinions of two very highly regarded Islamic scholars are discussed and directly quoted.

I elected to limited this to two, for the sake of conciseness, as each renowned Islamic scholar, represents one of the two basic, and different Islamic approaches to this controversy. As for the opposing "self published" Websites: "answering-islam.org" or "islamic-awareness.org.", you may not find either of these particularly credible. That is your prerogative, but regardless, both sites are quite popular. The mere fact that these opposing debate factions, exist, is undoubtedly evidence sufficient, to illustrate, that this controversy is quite real, and relevant. Do note; the purpose for their respective citation, is merely to describe this controversy, not to make judgment as to the accuracy, value, nor validity of either of their respective and opposing arguments. AnarchoRepublican (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the scholars are eminent. If their words are brought from an intermediate source that is not reliable, then we can't use them. You have to quote them from a reliable source, and you have to cite the intermediate source as well as the ultimate source, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Other parts of that section are presented as quotes from Arabic sources but actually they are translations which are copy-pasted from places that are not mentioned. Translations are subject to copyright even if the original is out of copyright, so this is not allowed. I am removing the entire section for review since the parts that don't require removal won't make sense by themselves. The best outcome would be to find one or two reliable sources that describe the whole story, since the topic is undeniably notable. Trying to build a story by picking bits from all over the place doesn't work. Zero^talk 07:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Zero,

I'm very pleased you acknowledge that the topic as "undeniably notable". It is indeed that, Something a few of our colleagues herein, have vainly attempted to deny in their rashness.

The quotes are taken directly from very reliable published Islamic sources. At least one I believe is public domain, and was originally published in English (not Arabic), regardless I will pursue relevant Publishing/copyright data. However, to the contrary, "Trying to build a story by picking bits from all over the place", is actually how history works...that is if one is interested in fairly representing all sides in a controversy.

Thanks for your constructive critique...much appreciated AnarchoRepublican (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is how history works, but on Wikipedia we aren't doing history. We are only reporting what historians have written. It's ok to take things from more than one source, but as soon as you add analysis, editorial comment, or decide which source is correct, you have gone too far. This is the essence of WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 13:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This content may be appropriate for an article about the Quran, or about the specific chapter of the Quran, or some other Islam-related article, but I don't think it is appropriate for this article. This article is about the ethnoreligious group the Samaritans. The contested material is about one specific person who happens to be referred to "the Samaritan". That topic has little to do with the group, and understanding the Quranic controversy doesn't help the reader understand anything about the group itself, the subject of this article. We don't, for example, have a long multi-paragraph discussion of The Virginian in the article about Virginia, or a discussion about The New Yorker in the article about New York.

There is also the issue that the sources currently used do not seem to be reliable. answering-islam.org was discussed here and pretty unanimously judged as not only unreliable but as a "hate site" and deserving of deprecation. I don't see previous discussion of islamic-awareness.org or islamawakened.com but their content is similar to answering-islam.org and their whois information is similar enough to suggest that all three may be run by the same organization. Even if they are not run by the same organization, I don't see evidence that any of them meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources; for example, no attributions or statement of editorial policy. Certainly if this information were to be added to any Wikipedia article it needs much better sources, but even if such sources are found, I don't think it belongs in this specific article as I discussed above. CodeTalker (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sources. I also agree that mention of one person is not enough, though your Virginian and New Yorker examples are not similar (and see the Christianity section for examples that are similar). Leaving that aside, the Samaritans have lived amongst Muslims for one and half millennia, so it is quite impossible that there isn't Islamic literature that discusses the Samaritans more generally. I would certainly support a well-sourced section about that. Zero^talk 04:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

exactly "the Virginian" ...what about "The Good Samaritan"?...should we remove that? AnarchoRepublican (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

.."The Virginian (TV series)" doesn't Apply in Virginia, he's fictional true enough....Yet "The Good Samaritan", also fictional, from the New Testament belongs in Samaritans...yet, "the Bad Samaritan" from the Quran is irrelevant...nonsense...you're just making up rules as you go... AnarchoRepublican (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

answering-islam.org is not a Hate Site...its a Christian apologetic site...although Islam does hate to be being scrutinized...careful with slander...slander suits bring much bigger Judgments, than copyright violations on a few Scripture references...ridiculous AnarchoRepublican (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

islamic-awareness.org is a very similar Islamic Apologetic sites...also not a Hate Site..

islamawakened.com is a site that contains every English translation of the Quran...the Blind leading the Blind... AnarchoRepublican (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

These 3 websites you just listed are, from the en-WP perspective, WP:SPS. Just because something is online, it's not necessarily useful on WP. On using the Quran itself as a source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Aim for something more academic, like university press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

font?

the samaritan hebrew text does not display correctly. 139.28.196.179 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Displays fine for me. what os and browser Andre🚐 18:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Confused

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to their tradition, the Samaritans' ancestors, the Israelites, settled in Canaan in the 17th century BCE

When they start to believe this information. and how do we know if it’s fact? Confusing,, Hieroglyphicz (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that can be reported here as to their actual history is what's known from reliable historical records and archeological sources. If what they believe is something else, it can be reported here as their belief but not as anything else. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So, when did Samaritans adopt this belief of the time period? Hieroglyphicz (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m part Samaritan, we don’t really believe in time periods and most scholars think it happened later on. Hieroglyphicz (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The claim is supported by a reference to the website of the Samaritan Museum, so at least some part of "we" disagrees with you. Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Key Sources & What They Say

• Magnar Kartveit, “Theories of the Origin of the Samaritans — Then and Now” (2019, Religions)

Kartveit reviews various models of Samaritan origin: their own traditional view, the view of Josephus, archaeological evidence, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. He does not present a tradition among Samaritans placing the entry into Canaan in the 17th century BCE.

He notes that Samaritan self‐understanding is that they are the old Israelites, but doesn’t evidence a fixed date in that very early date (17th c. BCE).

“The Samaritans in Recent Research” (BibleInterp, Arizona; Pummer et al.)

Says Samaritans believe they are “the original Israelites who have lived in the land of the Bible for more than three thousand years.” That claim (“more than three thousand years”) is very vague and does not fix a specific century like the 17th BCE.

Modern archaeology and epigraphy are used in this article to clarify and date the archaeological evidence (e.g. sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim in the 5th century BCE, etc.), showing the historical record does not support very early dates like 1700 BCE.

“Samaritans, Biblical Studies, and Ancient Judaism” (2021 article)

Surveys recent trends, including how textual and archaeological sources are interpreted. Scholars generally do not affirm a 17th-century settlement date in Samaritan texts or tradition.

“Samaritans, ‘Historical’ and ‘Traditional’ Chronology” from Samaritan Pentateuch entries

The Samaritan Pentateuch entry says that Samaritans believe in the Pentateuch as divinely given, etc., but do not offer a date like 1700 BCE for the entry into Canaan. It also notes that modern scholars tie Samaritan texts and culture more firmly from ~5th-2nd centuries BCE onward.

How These Sources Help Refute the Claim

From the above, one can build the following logical refutation that Samaritans do not formally believe in a 17th-century BCE settlement date:

Samaritan texts and tradition talk about the Israelites entering the land under Joshua, etc., but do not specify a calendar date in “BCE” (and certainly not 1700 BCE).

When pushing for approximate timeframes, Samaritan tradition (as presented in‐scholarship) claims “more than three thousand years” which could be interpreted broadly (but not precisely 1700 BCE).

Archaeological and epigraphic evidence (which scholars rely on) dates the earliest strong Samaritan cultic or community presences to mid‐first millennium BCE, especially from the Persian period onward (~5th century BCE). This is much later than the claimed 17th century BCE.

The Samaritan Museum may present a date (or allow an interpretation) that aligns with a traditional chronology, but it likely uses a conversion of genealogical/traditional chronology into BCE, which is not a universally accepted or traditional Samaritan claim.

Scholars like Kartveit emphasize that the origin stories and Samaritan self‐understanding are much more about “Israelite tradition” and less about fixed ancient BCE dates until later in history.

So, no, Samaritan’s don’t believe in it. Hieroglyphicz (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Archaeological and epigraphic evidence (which scholars rely on) dates the earliest strong Samaritan cultic or community presences to mid‐first millennium BCE, especially from the Persian period onward (~5th century BCE). This is much later than the claimed 17th century BCE. Yes, I pointed out that what the tradition holds and what's known as far as scholarship is concerned can be two different things. Affirming what scholarship says still tells us nothing about what tradition holds. One tradition says that all human beings are descended from some ark-sailing guy named Noah and, before him, a naked man in a garden, despite scholars disagreeing with that.

I don't understand your comment about the Samaritan Museum. They say "3,660 years ago". They do say it, it isn't a matter of "may" or allowing an interpretation. The only conversion involved is simple math: that is the 17th century BCE, regardless of who's doing the arithmetic.

The existence of sources that don't claim a traditional date doesn't negate the existence of sources that do or the existence of such a date. The Samaritan Museum may be right or wrong, but failing to find it confirmed elsewhere doesn't mean that it's wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Although the Samaritan Museum states that the Israelite entry into Canaan occurred “3,660 years ago” (which corresponds to the 17th century BCE), this date reflects a modern arithmetic conversion rather than a claim held in Samaritan tradition. Samaritans do not use BCE dating; their texts, including the Samaritan Pentateuch and historical chronicles, describe the settlement in terms of genealogies, priestly succession, and religious observance rather than absolute years. Scholars note that while the tradition preserves the biblical story of entry into Canaan, it does not provide precise chronological dates, and modern interpretations of ancient timelines (such as those presented in museums) are intended for educational purposes rather than as statements of belief.

Sources:

• Benyamim Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah (2006)
• Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (2016), pp. 27–30
• Magnar Kartveit, “Theories of the Origin of the Samaritans – Then and Now,” Religions, 10(12):661 (2019)
• Samaritan texts, including the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Tolidah (Tulida) chronicle, recount the Israelites’ entry into Canaan but do not assign specific years or centuries. The Tolidah, considered the oldest Samaritan historical work, provides genealogies and priestly lineages but refrains from pinpointing exact dates for events like the settlement in Canaan. This absence of precise dating indicates that traditional Samaritan belief does not adhere to a fixed historical timeline. Source: “Tolidah,” Wikipedia Scholars generally trace the emergence of the Samaritan community to the Persian period, around the 5th century BCE. Archaeological evidence, such as the construction of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, supports this dating. The temple’s establishment is attributed to Sanballat the Horonite, a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah, during the 5th century BCE. Source: “Samaritan Pentateuch,” Wikipedia The Samaritan Museum’s claim of “3,660 years ago” corresponds to the 17th century BCE, but this is a modern calculation based on genealogical counts. Samaritans traditionally measure time using their own calendar, which does not align with the Gregorian/BCE system. Therefore, the museum’s date reflects a contemporary interpretation rather than a traditional belief. Source: “Samaritan Museum,” Travel Palestine There is no evidence in Samaritan texts or oral traditions that explicitly states their ancestors settled in Canaan in the 17th century BCE. The focus of Samaritan tradition is on religious practices, priestly lineage, and the sanctity of Mount Gerizim, rather than on establishing a fixed historical chronology.
• The claim that Samaritans believe their ancestors settled in Canaan in the 17th century BCE is not supported by traditional Samaritan texts or modern scholarly research. The Samaritan Museum’s date is a modern interpretation and does not reflect a longstanding belief within the Samaritan community.

Thank you! :) Hieroglyphicz (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is going to align with the modern academic view. Not the traditional in-group view. Andre🚐 00:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is the modern academic view 17th century BCE? Scholars say 1200 BCE. This is about Samaritan beliefs, not what scholars think. Hieroglyphicz (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're asking. Are you saying the Samaritan Museum isn't a real Samaritan institution and not reliable? Andre🚐 00:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes correct. Hieroglyphicz (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does two things: (1) report the academic view as the factual information as established thus far and (2) report the traditional view as the traditional view. Wikipedia reports all sorts of traditional views, including origin stories, flood stories, repeated multi-million year cycles of genesis and collapse of the universe, etc. It doesn't, of course, report the traditional views as fact. Largoplazo (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This long exposition supplies no further clarification. The key question is: Are you saying that given a tradition that it was 3,660 years ago, we nevertheless can't state that it was the 17th century BCE? Or are you saying that the 3,660 figure itself isn't established and was made up by somebody? If it's the former, then WP:2+2=4 applies. If it's the latter, then that's outside the scope of what I'm in a position to debate. Largoplazo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Samaritan tradition does not actually use “3,660 years ago” in a way that maps to a BCE calendar.
   • Their timeline is genealogical, not absolute.
   • Converting it to BCE is modern arithmetic, not part of the tradition.
   • Therefore, it’s misleading to present it as “the Samaritan belief is 17th BCE.”
2. The Samaritan Museum’s “3,660 years ago” is an interpretive, modern construction.
   • It’s for educational purposes, using BCE arithmetic for visitors.
   • No Samaritan text or community statement actually claims “17th century BCE.”
   • Wikipedia can and should report that the tradition exists, but it should clarify that the dating to 17th century BCE is a modern conversion, not a belief actually held by Samaritans.

Hieroglyphicz (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)