Additionally, this self-understanding probably is seen in the Delos inscriptions from the second century BCE, where they call themselves “Israelites” (see below). There may be, of course, some tradition behind these descriptions, even if it may be difficult to trace. The main idea in the Samaritan chronicles is that the Samaritans are Israelites, not an off-spring of Judaism. It is the way the Samaritans see the origin, up to this day, and there are scholars who follow in their footsteps (Gaster 1925; Macdonald 1964).
......
The pre-Samaritan texts prove that the version of the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans had its roots in a Jewish collection of Biblical texts. Concerning this, the Samaritans constitute a branch of Judaism, and one of their roots was in Judaism BCE. An Editio Maior of The Samaritan Pentateuch is now published by Stefan Schorch, and the volume with Leviticus has appeared (Schorch 2018).
6. The Excavations on Mount Gerizim and the Discovery of Samaritan Inscriptions
Until recently, scholars dated the construction of the cult site on Mount Gerizim on the basis of Josephus’ account: to the beginning of the Hellenistic age. We now have new material relevant for this question in the form of results from the excavations on the summit of Mount Gerizim. These went on for more than 20 years from 1982, done by Yitzhak Magen and his team. The results have added important evidence for the origins of the Samaritans. Based on coins, pottery, and architecture, the excavator in 2004 assessed the finds as follows:
The sacred precinct, centered around the temple, was built on the highest point on the mountain, overlooking the central crossroads of Samaria, Mt. Ebal, Shechem (Tell Balatah) and, to the east, the fertile Sukkar and Dajjan valleys. The excavations revealed two main construction phases: the precinct and the temple were first built in the fifth century BCE, during the Persian period, and survived until the end of Ptolemaic rule in the Land of Israel;
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/12/661
The connection between the Syrian Sinaiticus (specifically the Syriac Sinaiticus, a 4th-century Old Syriac translation of the Gospels) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (or the Codex Sinaiticus text group) represents a vital link in the field of biblical textual criticism. They intersect primarily through shared textual roots, geography, and ancient alignment against later standardized Hebrew texts.
The connection manifests through three major dimensions:
1. Alignment with the Septuagint Over the Masoretic Text
When looking at the Old Testament portions of great 4th-century Greek uncials like Codex Sinaiticus (which relies on the Septuagint), textual critics find a surprising phenomenon: the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree with each other thousands of times against the Jewish Masoretic Text (the basis of most modern Old Testaments).
[1, 2] - The Shared Ancestry: This means that the earliest Greek manuscripts (like those in Sinaiticus) and the independent Samaritan tradition share a much older, common Hebrew manuscript branch. [1, 2]
- The Proof: This theory was definitively proven by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained "pre-Samaritan" and "Septuagint-aligned" Hebrew texts dating back to the 3rd century BCE, showing that the readings found in the Samaritan line were widely circulating in Palestine during antiquity
Ephrem’s cell on Mount Edessa refers to the small, austere cave located in the hills overlooking the ancient city of Edessa (modern-day Şanlıurfa, Turkey) where Saint Ephrem the Syrian lived as an ascetic hermit during the final decade of his life.
Healey, J. F. 2011. “The Edessan Milieu and the Birth of Syriac.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac
Studies 10 (2): 115–27...Possekel, U. 1997. “Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem
the Syrian.”
Edessa owed more to its Semitic cultural roots and early Syriac writings do not reflect strong Greek impact. The emergence of the language is to be seen in the context of
the varied contemporary Aramaic dialects of Mesopotamia, with the
variations also reflected within early Syriac itself....Many of these inscriptions and parchments are dated either directly
or indirectly and the dates span the period from A.D. 6 to A.D. 243
(Drijvers and Healey 1999, used for reference to inscriptions
below). All of these materials are non-Christian, and there is no
expression of Christian sentiments or allegiance in them. The
cultural environment of this early Syriac is, therefore, pagan...there is a danger
of exaggeration of the hellenistic factor in early Edessa....he most characteristic survival of pre-Christian
Edessa is that of the mosaics, mostly funerary mosaics set on the
floors of tomb-chambers. The mosaics all appear to date from the
early 3rd century A.D., though a recently published mosaic is dated
a little earlier, to A.D. 194 (Healey 2006). They are of great interest
in themselves and point to Edessa’’s cultural contact at this period
with Roman Antioch: the concept of mosaic-making must have
come from that direction. Interestingly, though, by far the majority
of the mosaics follow artistic norms which are non-Antiochene:
they bear Syriac rather than Greek inscriptions, presumably
because the patrons knew no Greek
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Beth-Mardutho/hugoye-data/master/pdf/vol10/HV10N2Healey.pdf
on “Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis”),....Manichaean and Sethian Gnostic literature enjoy
a common heritage in Jewish apocalypticism, but am less skeptical about the possibility
that Sethian Gnostic literature may have circulated or even originated among Syrian or
Mesopotamian baptismal groups (a hypothesis rejected by BeDuhn 2020: 214, but sug-
gested in Burns 2014: 143–44, 155–57, as an alternative to the history of Sethian Gnosticism
devised by John D. Turner [e.g., “Sethian Gnosticism”]; cf. also Lieu 1992 [focusing on
positing the presence of Valentinian and Thomasine literary traditions in third-century
Syria and Mesopotamia]; Dilley 2015: 105–7, 132 [on the possible interface of Sethian and
Zoroastrian traditions])...Reeves, J. C. 1992. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the ‘Book of the
Giants’ Traditions. Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press.....The only extant Aramaic literature I am aware of that, by Mani’s age had participated in
the tradition of Greek philosophy is that belonging to the second-century CE Edessan
philosopher Bardaisan and his circle. However, Bardaisan and his followers appear to
have been more the ‘exception that proves the rule’ that Aramaic literature in the second
and third centuries was, as a whole, removed from that of the Greeks (see esp. Healey
2011: 119–20).
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/161372903/9789004542938-BP000017.pdf
True light is shown on the Woman of Samaria (John 4:3-44) and how she is to be the virgin bride of the Samaritan messiah called Taheb in order to reestablish a pure bloodline. The woman's husbands are figurative and not flesh. There names are Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and the sixth is "made alive again" Moses in the person of Taheb to whom she is only betrothed/engaged to awaiting for him to appear at Jacob's Well so they can consummate the betrothal. The author makes the statement regarding the knowledge of this book as being essential and without it everything said about Samaritans is nonsense. At the time of Christ the Samaritans practiced a Patrilineal/Patriarch theology. The meeting between the woman at the well and Taheb is based on a replication of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24). In short, the Woman of Samaria is a title likened to royalty and has been falsely accused of being an immoral person. Jesus came to Samaria to persuade her to denounce her Taheb-ism and accept Him as the true Messiah. The Samaritans were the first to announce Jesus as the Savior of the World. To the Samaritan Moses is lord of the universe and all things came into existence through him. The Jews called their religion a silly religion.
The Taheb, then, is an ἐρχόµενος, “coming one,” but he is not a µεσσίας. Hence John’s choice to have the Samaritan woman use the latter technical term in John 4:25 is puzzling. So puzzling, in fact, that the Swedish exegete Hugo Odeberg proposed a conjectural emendation to the text of John 4:25: read Ταεβ for µεσσίας, thus “the Taheb, who is called [by you Jews] ‘the anointed one,’ is coming.” This is admittedly ingenious, but a simpler and, to my mind, more compelling explanation is that John has either confused or deliberately conflated his Judean and Samaritan eschatologies.
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/51157768/Novenson_Jesus_the_Messiah_author_final_copy.pdf
did this confusion (Taheb for Messiah) happen
before or after the choice of Pilate as killer of Jesus?
Jesus was considered a taheb (the Samaritan restoration-prophet "like Moses") by the Samaritans who believed in him, as recorded in the Gospel of John.
[1, 2] The Samaritan Context
- The Taheb Definition: Unlike mainstream Jews who anticipated a royal, Davidic king, the Samaritans recognized only the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy). Based on Deuteronomy 18:15–18, they awaited a future restorer-prophet known as the taheb (meaning "the restorer" or "he who comes") who would reveal the truth and explain everything. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- The Encounter at the Well: In John 4:25, the Samaritan woman tells Jesus she knows the Messiah (called Christ) is coming and will explain all things. Jesus explicitly accepts this role by responding, "I who speak to you am he"
Your analysis highlights a fascinating intersection of ancient linguistics, theology, and sectarian messianism. Historically, the names "Jesus" and "Joshua" are linguistically identical, both deriving from the Hebrew Yeshua (or Yehoshua), which translates to "Yahweh saves" or "He will save."
In ancient Greek, the language of both the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) and the New Testament, both individuals are referred to by the exact same name: Ἰησοῦς (Iesous). Because of this, early Christian authors frequently engaged in typology, viewing the Old Testament Joshua as a prophetic foreshadowing of Jesus.
1. The Typology in the Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (Chapter 12) explicitly draws out this connection. The author argues that when Moses changed his lieutenant's name from Hoshea to Joshua (Numbers 13:16), it was not a random act but a deliberate prophetic sign:
[1, 2, 3] "What, again, says Moses to Jesus (Joshua) the son of Nave [Nun], when he gave him this name... with this view only, that all the people might hear that the Father would reveal all things concerning His Son Jesus..." [1, 2]
For early Christians, Joshua leading Israel into the Promised Land after the death of Moses perfectly mirrored Jesus leading humanity into spiritual salvation where the Mosaic Law could not.
2. The Samaritan Taheb and Sectarian Rivals
In Samaritan eschatology, the central messianic figure is the Taheb ("the Restorer" or "he who returns"). Unlike Judean Jews, who expected a royal Messiah from the Davidic bloodline, the Samaritans adhered strictly to the Pentateuch. Their expectation was anchored in Deuteronomy 18:15–18, which promised a "prophet like Moses." [1, 2, 3] Because Joshua was Moses’ direct successor and the one who originally established the tribes in the land, the title of a "Second Joshua" carried immense geopolitical and religious weight. Figures like Simon Magus and Dositheus operated in this highly charged Samaritan context, claiming roles as divine manifestations or eschatological restorers to rally followers.
[1, 2] 3. Was Yeshua a Given Name or a Title?
While the theological overlap is profound, historical and archaeological data indicate that Yeshua was a highly common given name rather than just an esoteric title in first-century Judea and Galilee.
- The Ossuary Evidence: First-century Jewish burial boxes (ossuaries) frequently bear the name Yeshua. It ranks as one of the top five most common male names of the period, alongside names like Joseph, Simon, and Judah.
- The Functional Distinction: To distinguish the Galilean from other men named Yeshua, his contemporaries used locative or patronymic identifiers (e.g., "Yeshua of Nazareth" or "Yeshua ben Joseph") rather than treating the name itself as a unique title.
However, because the name literally meant "salvation," early Greek-speaking Christians and Samaritan-influenced groups immediately seized upon the linguistic coincidence to argue that his very name was a divinely ordained title mapping out his destiny.
[1] Would you like to explore how other Early Church Fathers (like Justin Martyr or Origen) compared Jesus to Joshua, or dive deeper into the differences between Samaritan and Jewish messianic expectations?
both Ephrem and John Chrysostom in 4th century Syria wrote
extensively on the book of Genesis.
Both these authors wrote shortly after
the Council of Nicaea, and both of them adhere to Nicene doctrine. Perhaps it would be
more accurate to say that both authors were concerned with the practical outworkings of
the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in their own apologetic contexts. They were both
concerned to combat contemporary ‘heresies’, mainly the Arian doctrine on the status of
Christ, the teaching from several sources that God created the universe by ordering pre-
existent matter, and the tendency to anthropomorphise God.
the
philosophical notion of limit might have been transmitted to Ephrem, particularly in the
form of the mantra “God encloses but is not enclosed.” I
there was some sort86 of Christianity in Edessa. The great flood of c.200
destroyed “the temple of the church of the Christians”, and the next reference to a church
building describes the laying of the foundations of the Edessan church building around
312/3, and the baptistry around 60 years later. This is consistent with the change in
religious toleration marked by the Edict of Milan in 313,
Ephrem seems to imply that when he arrived in
Edessa he was shocked to discover that the Nicene Christians were marginalised to the
extent that the title ‘Christian’ had gone to the ‘heretics’ (Marcionites) and the Nicenes had
to content themselves with being named after a second century bishop:
Bardaisan was born around 154 in Edessa and died in 222.98 Healey describes Bardaisan as a
Christian, but one who “walked a tightrope between paganism and Christianity”,
attempting to harmonise various aspects of Christianity, Greek philosophy and Semitic
culture.
The Syriac Life of Ephrem preserves
the tradition that while Ephrem was meditating in his cell on Mount Edessa he received a
heavenly scroll from a choir of angels, and the very next morning Ephrem started writing
his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus.
. The first of these is Ephrem’s emphasis on the unity of the creator, thus
rejecting the various dualisms of Bardaisan, Marcion and Mani. The second is the role of the
Son of God in creation, where he sets himself up in opposition to the Jews and the Arians.
The third is Ephrem’s identification of the wind brooding over the waters with a natural
wind, and not the Holy Spirit, against the Marcionite interpretation.
According to this interpretation of the central myth in the Phaedrus, angels are,
for Proclus following Syrianus, the messengers of the gods. Such is the role of
divine personages as Hermes and Iris, as well as mythical characters such as
Er and the prophet of Lachesis in the eschatological myth that concludes the
Republic.
