far, that they were entirely excluded from fellowship.91 The extreme limit of this
direction,92 if, indeed, the statement applies to the Samaritans,93 is marked by the
declaration, that to partake of their bread was like eating swine's flesh. This is further
improved upon in a later Rabbinic work,94 which gives a detailed story of how the
Samaritans had conspired against Ezra and Nehemiah, and the ban been laid upon them,
so that now not only was all intercourse with them forbidden, but their bread declared
like swine's flesh; proselytes were not to be received from them; nor would they have part
in the Resurrection of the dead.95 But there is a great difference between all this
extravagance and the opinions prevailing at the time of Jesus. Eve n in the Rabbinic
tractate on the Samaritans 96 it is admitted, that in most of their usages they resembled
Israelites, and many rights and privileges are conceded to them, from which a heathen
would have been excluded. They are to be 'credited' on many points; their meat is
declared clean, if an Israelite had witnessed its killing, or a Samaritan ate of it;97 their
bread98 and, under certain conditions, even their wine, are allowed; and the final prospect
is held out of their reception into the Synagogue, when they shall have given up their
faith in Mount Gerizim, and acknowledged Jerusalem and the Resurrection of the dead.
But Jewish toleration went even further. At the time of Christ all their food was declared
lawful.99 There could, therefore, be no difficulty as regarded the purchase of victuals on
the part of the disciples of Jesus.
88. St. John iv. 9.
89. Megill. 2.
90. Jer. Abhod. Zar. v. 4.
91. Chull. 6 a.
92. Shebhyith viii. 10.
93. The expression literally applies to idolaters.
94. Yalkut
ii. p. 36 d.
95. In Jer. Kil. ix. 4, 9. 32 c (middle) the question of the Resurrection is discussed, when
it is said that the Samaritan inhabitants of Palestine, far from enjoying the blessings of
that period, would be made into sections (or, made like cloth [?]), and then burnt up.
96. Massecheth Kuthim, in Kirchheim, Septem Libri parvi Talmudici, pp. 31 -36.
97. Chull. 3 b.
98. In Jer. Orlah ii. 7 the question is discussed, how long after the Passover it is not
lawful to use bread baked by Samaritans, showing that ordinarily it was lawful.
99. Jer. Abhod. Zar. v. 4.
It has already been stated, that most of the peculiar doctrines of the Samaritans were
derived from Jewish sources. As might be expected, their tendency was Sadducean rather
than Pharisaic.100 Nevertheless, Samaritan 'sages' are referred to.101 But it is difficult to
form any decided opinion about the doctrinal views of the sect, partly from the
comparative lateness of their literature, and partly because the Rabbinist charges against
them cannot be absolutely trusted. It seems at least doubtful, whether they really denied
the Resurrection, as asserted by the Rabbis,102 from whom the Fathers have copied the
charge.103 Certainly, they hold that doctrine at present. They strongly believed in the
Unity of God; they held the doctrine of Angels and devils;104 they received the
Pentateuch as of sole Divine authority;105 they regarded Mount Gerizim as the place