race or religion, and this in the most offensive terms of assumed superiority and self-
righteous fanaticism.
61. See specially War iii. 3. 4, 5.
62. For ex. Baba B. iii. 2.
63. For ex. Jer. Chag.
iii. 4.
64. Gitt. vii. 7.
65. War iii. 3. 4, 5.
66. Ant. xii. 4.1.
67. Rosh haSh. ii. 2.
68. Ant. xviii. 2. 2.
69. Ant. xx. 6. 1.
In view of these relations, we almost wonder at the candour and moderation occasionally
displayed towards the Samaritans in Jewish writings. These statements are of practical
importance in this history, since elaborate attempts have been made to show what articles
of food the disciples of Jes us might have bought in Samaria, in ignorance that almost all
would have been lawful. Our inquiry here is, however, somewhat complicated by the
circumstance that in Rabbinic writings, as at present existing, the term Samaritans
(Cuthim 70) has, to avoid the censorship of the press, been often purposely substituted for
'Sadducees,' or 'heretics,' i.e. Christians.71 Thus, when72 the Samaritans are charged with
denying in their books that the Resurrection can be proved from the Pentateuch, the real
reference is supposed to have been to Sadducean or Christian heretical writings. Indeed,
the terms Samaritans, Sadducees, and heretics are used so interchangeably, that a careful
inquiry is necessary, to show in each case which of them is really meant. Still more
frequent is the use of the term 'Samaritan' (ψτωκ) for 'stranger' (ψρκν ), the latter, and not
strictly Samaritan descent being meant.73 The popular interchange of these terms casts
light on the designation of the Samaritan as 'a stranger' by our Lord in St. Luke xvii. 18.
70. The more exact translation would, of course, be Kuthim, but I have written Cuthim on
account of the reference to 2 Kings xxvii. 24. Indeed, for various reasons, it is impossible
always to adopt a uniform or exact system of transliteration.
71. Thus in Ber. 57 b Cuthæan is evide ntly used for 'idolator.' An instance of the Jewish
use of the term Cuthæan for Christian occurs in Ber. R. 64, where the Imperial
permission to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem is said to have been frustrated by Cuthæan
intrigue, the text here evidently re ferring by that expression not to Samaritans, but to
Christians, however silly the charge against them. See Joël, Blicke in d. Relig. Gesch. P.
17. Comp. also Frankel u. s. p. 244; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. i. p. 49, note 2.
72. In Sanh. 90 b.
73. Frankel quotes as a notable instance of it, Ber. viii. 8, and refers in proof to the Jerus.
Talmud on this Mishnah. But, for reasons soon to be explained, I am not prepared in this
instance to adopt his view.
In general it may be said that, while on certain points Jewish opinion remained always the
same, the judgment passed on the Samaritans, and especially as to intercourse with them,
varied, according as they showed more or less active hostility towards the Jews. Thus the
Son of Sirach would correctly express the feeling of contempt and dislike, when he
characterised the Samaritans as 'the foolish people' which his 'heart abhorred.'74 The same
sentiment appears in early Christian Pseudepigraphic and in Rabbinic writings. In the so-