SAMARITANS. The word Samaritan occurs but once in the O. T.—viz. 2 Kings xvii. 29. In the N. T. it is applied, strictly speaking, to the people or sect who had established an independent worship of their own in a temple or synagogue at Nablfis. In the books of Kings it has a wider signification. The origin of the people so desig nated is somewhat obscure, on account of the scanty details of them supplied by the O. T. Two points have been discussed in relation to them— viz. Were all the inhabitants carried away from the cities and villages of Samaria in 721 B.C., by Shalmaneser king of Assyria ? and, Who colonised the depopulated district ? In Kings xvii. 5, 6, we read : Then the king of Assyria. came up throughout all the land and went up to Samaria and besieged it three years. In the ninth year of Hosea, the king of Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away into Assyria and placed them in Halah and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.' By _Israel is here meant the remnant of the ten tribes which acknow ledged the authority of Hosea ; for Pul and Til gath-pileser ha d depopulated the territory before. Hengstenberg, and those who follow him, argue that the Israelites were removed to the last man by Esarhaddon, because it is said in 2 Kings xvii. 24 that other peoples were placed in the land instead of the children of Israel ; because the petition of the heathen colonists implies (2 Kings xvii. 26) that there was no one in the land who could give them the rudest notion of the way and manner of worshipping the God of the land ; because the pro phetic expressions relating to the destruction of the ten tribes represent the members as completely carried away (Jer. iii. 3o, 3r ; Zech. x.) ; and be cause they did not assert their Israelitish origin, in Ezra iv. 3. The same critic calls special attention to Sirach 1. 25, 26, contending that the passage corroborates his view, since the inhabitants of the mountains of Samaria (the Israelites) are there re presented as perfectly distinct from the people who dwell in Sichem (the Samaritans). The climax, he tells us, is conceivable only on the supposition of the entirely heathen origin of the Samaritans. He refers also to Sirach xlviii. 15, according to which the Israelites had been completely carried away ;' tO 2 Maccab. vi. 2 ; and to Josephus's testimony (Antiq. x. 9. 7). The name Cuthites, prevalent in Josephus's time and commonly used in the Talmud, is said to confirm the same conclusion, The notices of the Samaritans in the N. T. are ad duced and commented upon with a like object by Hengstenberg. Whatever plausibility belongs to this argument, and it cannot be denied that it has some such character, we believe it to be weak and unsound. From 2 Kings xvii. 24 it cannot be in ferred that the Israelites were removed to the last man, because we learn from 2 Chron. xxxiv. 9 that a remnant of Israel existed in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, of whom the Levites col lected money for the repair of the temple, in Josiah's reign. The sante king sent to search the houses in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even as far as Naphtali, and to de stroy the high places and idolatrous altars in the land (2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, 7) ; showing that there was still a remnant of the Israelites in the land after the times of Esarhaddon, that had not been carried away. Besides, according to 2 Chron. xxx., Heze kiah sent an invitation to the escaped who re mained from the hand of the king of Assyria in the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, even to Zebulon, to take part in the passover at Jerusalem. It is probable that this event belongs to the time after the final destruction of the kingdom of Israel ; at all events, Hengstenberg admits that it was subsequent to the devastation by Shalmaneser. All that the words in 2 Kings xvii. 24 prove is, that the colonists who had been transplanted thither took the place of the deported Israelites as owners of the soil. The Israelites were no longer the chief inhabitants. The petition of the heathen colonists does not show that the last remnant had been removed by the Assyrians. From the re moval of all the priests, it does not follow that all the inhabitants had been carried away ; and the petition of the inhabitants merely speaks of sending a priest of whom it was thought that he alone could offer worship acceptable to a local deity.
The people wanted priests to teach them the right worship of the God of the land ; nor is aught said of giving the inhabitants the rudest idea of the man ner of worshipping such a deity. According to the analogy of similar deportations, such as that of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, we must suppose that the principal' inhabitants of Israel—those fit for war, the priests, and others--were carried away ; leaving the poor, weal:, and aged, 'in the country districts, who had little or nothing to do with war. The prophetic expressions in Jeremiah and Zechariah speak only of the Israelites as a whole, of their rejection and banishment. The fact that the Samari tans in Ezra iv. 1, etc., do not mention their Israel itish origin is easily explained, because heathen blood had overpowered the Israelitish element. Had the latter retained its distinctive existence they would probably have referred to their origin ; but as it had become almost extinct, the wiser policy was to make no allusion to descent. The very fact, however, of their application for admission to the national worship of the Jews, and all their subse quent history in connection with this people, im ply an Israelitish element in their origin. Had they been of pure heathen descent, what propriety was there in the application ? What had they to do with Jewish worship, on the supposition that they were mere heathens ? It is unnecessary to follow the line of Heng stenberg's argument farther, through Sirach, Mac cabees, and the N. T. Kalkar has entirely destroyed whatever weight might be supposed to attach to it. We shall therefore content ourselves with referring to him (Theologisthe Mitarheiten by Pelt, Mau, and Dorner, for 1840 ; Drittes p. 24, et seq.) The people in their origin were a mixed race. Doubt less the heathen element prevailed, because the colonists were greatly superior in numbers. When they came they found none but the dregs of the populace, whom the victors had left. All power was in the hands of the colonists. It is useless to refer to authorities in favour of the purely Assyrian orig,in of the people. Hengstenberg quotes Mill, Schultz, R. Simon, Reland, and Elmacin. To this list others add Suicer, Hammond, Drusius, Maldonatus, Havernick, and Robinson. In ancient times, Josephus, Origen, Eusebius, Epi phanius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, are quoted on the same side. But weightier names are on the other. Three alone, De Sacy, Gesenius, and Winer, are sufficient to outweigh a host. How is it that the Samaritans always claimed descent from Ephraim and Manasseh ? Have tbey been con tinuous liars in making this pretension ? So Heng stenberg would persuade us. If so, their history proves an unaccountable imposture. Was there ever before a heathen people so desirous to unite with the worshippers of the true Jehovah, as to be come implacable enemies to tbeir recusants ? Can a refusal of their participation in the national wor ship at Jerusalem have led, in the main, to such opposition and lying pretensions ? We come DOW to the second point—viz., Who 1 colonised the depopulated district ? It is plain that Shalmaneser was the Assyrian king who completed the destruction of Israel as a kingdom. Did he also colonise it ? The narrative in 2 Kings xvii, 24 would lead one to suppose that Shalmaneser is the king of Assyria intended, because he is spoken of in the preceding context as the deporting king. So Josephus understood the matter. But when we compare Ezra iv. 2, we see that Esarhaddon „botatight the colonists into the land. It is possible that Shalmaneser may have brought one part of the colonists into the land and Esarhaddon another. So some solve the apparent contradiction. But the assumption is far-fetched. There is no trace in the O. T. of a double transplanting of colonists. .Neither does the context necessarily lead to the conclusion that Shalmaneser effected their introduc tion. We suppose, therefore, that Esarhaddon is meant by the king of Assyria in 2 Kings xvii. 24 ; and thus the narrative harmonises with the account which the Samaritans themselves give in Ezra iv. We can only agree with Hengstenberg so far as to hold that Esarhaddon colonised Samaria. That after his time there were none but heathens in the land cannot be maintained. He invaded Samaria a second time, and completed the depopulation which his grandfather had begun.