Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SAMARIA

(Heb. šōmrôn; Aram. šāmĕrāyin;
Gk. Samáreia)

Ruins of the Omride royal residence at Samaria (Phoenix Data Systems, Neal and Joel Bierling)

Region

Though never explicitly delineated in the OT, the region of Samaria included mainly the mountainous territories S of Lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley (below the Mt. Carmel–Mt. Gilboa line), W of the Beth-shan and Jordan River valleys, and E of the Sharon and Acco plains. The southern border fluctuated with the political vicissitudes between north and south (1 Kgs. 14:30; 15:15ff.; 2 Chr. 13:19) until King Asa of Jerusalem established it in the area between Bethel and Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh), which served henceforth as border stations. The sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim (Josh. 16:1-4), became the eponymous ancestors for Israelite tribes occupying this north central hill country region, but Ephraim emerged as the dominant tribe early on, and consequently the entire area took on his name (cf. Gen. 48:14). Later, under the political influence of Omri, the territory assumed the same name as the capital city Samaria (1 Kgs. 13:32 notwithstanding). Still, some 8th-century Judahite prophets preserved a distinction between region and city by referring both to Ephraim, with its ties to the house of Joseph, and to Samaria, in relationship to the broader kingdom of Israel (Isa. 7:9; 9:8-9; Mic. 1:5; compare Amos 3:12; 6:1 with 6:6).

Shechem quickly became the religious and political hub of Samaria because it controlled a crucial pass between the centrally located mountains of Ebal and Gerizim. We may therefore speak of “North Samaria,” the area N of Shechem which correlated roughly with the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:7-10), and “South Samaria,” the territory south of Shechem which basically represented tribal Ephraim (16:5-10). These areas reveal different geological formations which helped determine patterns of settlement. The mountains of South Samaria were formed primarily of hard, uplifted, Cenomanian limestone and rose to greater heights (915 m. [3000 ft.]) than the ranges N of Shechem. Deeply cut drainage systems on both sides of the southern Ephraimite watershed made access to it more difficult and restricted travel to primary ridge routes stretching longitudinally between eastern and central Samaria. That the book of Joshua failed to provide a list of cities for Ephraim, unlike other tribal territories, may reflect the difficulties encountered in settling this area. Once the area was populated, however, terrace farmers made good use of the shallow but fertile terra rosa soil produced by the deteriorating rock formations.

By contrast, North Samaria presented a more variegated geological portrait as the Ephraim arch declined toward the northern valleys. Uplifted strata of Cenomanian limestone dominated the eastern sector of this area, while an even harder Eocene limestone base (which decomposed into a less-than-fertile brown forest soil) characterized the central portion from Gilboa to Ebal and Gerizim. West of these areas, a mixture of limestones and chalks which had experienced more moderate degrees of faulting facilitated the establishment of a local and regional network of roadways that prompted denser settlements and made for greater communication and trade. Here the principal roads either followed the Naḥal Shechem to the coastal route or proceeded northward through the Dothan Valley to Jezreel and points farther north and east. Though forested throughout initially, the entire area of Samaria underwent significant ecological change resulting from intense deforestation as the area absorbed large numbers of inhabitants starting in the early Iron Age (Josh. 17:14-18).

Settlement patterns of the Iron Age resemble those of Early Bronze I (3500-3100) and Middle Bronze IIA (2000-1800). In all three phases, survey data seem to suggest that peoples spread generally from east to west and north to south. Those who see the highland population emerging from processes of de-urbanization among the Canaanite city-states of the western lowlands must reckon with this pattern of occupation. In Iron I a mixture of sedentary settlements and interspersed, seasonal campsites lay mainly in the dry forest ecozone just E of the watershed, where rainfall averaged ca. 200-400 mm. (8-16 in.) annually. Both the nature of sites surveyed and their concentration in this particular zone point to a localized, dimorphic, socioeconomic base in which pastoralists and agriculturists existed in a symbiotic relationship.

The main approach to the central country of Samaria from the east lay in the deeply faulted Wadi Fâriʿa, which ascended toward Tell el-Fârʿa (biblical Tirzah) from el-Mahruq in the Rift Valley S of the fords of the Jordan River at Adam. During Iron I this main road turned south from Tirzah and continued to Shechem. A secondary road diverged just prior to reaching Tirzah and led directly to Shechem from the northwest end of the wadi. A string of more than a dozen Iron I-II sites along those routes attests to their maintenance and use in both periods. This eastern access to Shechem served mainly North Samaria, while another Iron I route linking Shiloh and the Jordan River Valley served South Samaria. The latter passageway has yielded few Iron II remains, reflecting developments associated with the nascent monarchy in Jerusalem and the demise of Shiloh as a cultic and political center. Instead, a new road followed a more northerly course from the valley area E of Shiloh and proceeded along the Ephraim-Manasseh border through Khirbet Yānûn (biblical Janoah?) to Shechem.

By the time the population spread west in Iron II, highland society had become more complex in its political and economic structure. Numerous settlements of a more uniform character (with virtually no ephemeral campsites) appeared on the seaward slopes of Samaria and survived or thrived as part of a much larger network of trade, while locally a new type of dimorphism resided in the symbiosis between capital and countryside. Early Iron II chronologies for the late 10th and early 9th centuries are not yet archaeologically secure enough to determine precisely how many of these sites arose as a result of Solomon’s administrative districts versus Omri’s economic programs and demands. But clearly these sites both served the capital at Samaria and participated in interregional trade, if only by offering auxiliary services such as overnight lodging and animal care to passing caravans. In this way, they facilitated trade between the highland centers and the main coastal route leading north to Phoenicia or northeast through the Jezreel Valley past Hazor to Damascus. The close spatial distribution of these new western settlements indicates that not all represented mere caravan stops; rather, many of these villages bolstered their own local economies by producing and trading commodities such as wine and oil.

Omri’s shift of the region’s political center from Tirzah W of the watershed to the city of Samaria in the early 9th century prompted significant demographic and economic change throughout the region. Few Iron I sites had existed in this area (e.g., Khirbet Kabuba, Khirbet el-Babariya, Khirbet Husein es-Sahel, Khirbet Qaraqaf, Khirbet ed-Duweir/Tel Lachish), and they had all remained quite small and very near Shemer’s family estate, the site of the future capital city (1 Kgs. 16:24). But Iron II western expansion of rural villages left a footprint of settlements which has allowed identification of at least 11 lateral and local roadways connecting the highlands in the Samaria-Shechem area with the lucrative trade along the coastal route. Most notable among these routes were those which: (1) connected the villages of South Samaria to the major center at Aphek via the lateral valley systems north of Shiloh (Naḥal Qanah), and (2) utilized the more northerly Naḥal Shechem to link the highland towns of North Samaria to Socoh by intersecting the coastal route just S of the southwest entrances to the strategic Jezreel Valley. Undoubtedly, both Socoh and Aphek became trading stations or clearing houses for goods and commodities produced by or transported through the matrix of highland villages leading down from the Israelite capital and other large centers at high elevations (Samaria, Tirzah, Tubas, Tappuah, Dothan, Shechem).

City

Ca. 884 Omri transferred his political capital to Samaria, located near the center of the northern kingdom. Situated 56 km. (35 mi.) N of Jerusalem and W of the Ephraimite watershed, its summit rose to a height of 430 m. (1410 ft.) above sea level and overlooked the main coastal road (Via Maris) connecting Egypt and Judah with the Jezreel Valley and northern routes to Phoenicia and Damascus. The site’s biblical names, Šāmîr (Judg. 10:1-2) and, somewhat later, Šōmrôn (1 Kgs. 16:24), mean “watch” or “watchman.”

Gottlieb Schumacher initiated the archaeological exploration of Samaria (1908), followed by George Andrew Reisner and architect Clarence Fisher (1909-10). Focusing on the western half of the summit, these excavations revealed much of the Israelite royal palace and, immediately to its west, a sizable storeroom complex. The latter became known as the Ostraca house due to the discovery of dozens of laconic shipping dockets recording the transfer of various commodities from outlying villages to the capital during the reigns of Jehoash and Jeroboam II in the first half of the 8th century.

A consortium directed by John W. Crowfoot renewed excavations at Samaria from 1932 to 1935. Kathleen M. Kenyon, who supervised all work in the royal quarter, introduced new techniques of debris-layer analysis. After exposing a north-south section across the entire summit, Kenyon concluded that pottery found there provided crucial evidence which justified a redating of the stratigraphic history and ceramic traditions at other Iron II sites in Palestine, such as Megiddo and Hazor.

Though the rock surface yielded clear signs of EB I occupation, most of the material remains pointed to Iron Age cultures. The date of the earliest Iron Age settlement, however, proved problematic. Kenyon interpreted 1 Kgs. 16:24 as precluding any occupation of the site prior to Omri’s reign. From there, she outlined eight major building phases, with periods I-VI spanning from Omri to the fall of Samaria to Assyria in 722/721. Additionally, the Kenyon construct argued that new ceramic traditions accompanied each new building phase. But other scholars proposed maintaining a distinction between the ceramic and architectural developments at Samaria, with the earliest Iron Age pottery providing evidence of pre-Omride occupation.

The resulting controversy stemmed mainly from differences in archaeological method and interpretation. Whereas Kenyon dated floor levels based on material found beneath them (sometimes by as much as several depositional layers), George Ernest Wright and others dated surfaces according to material lying directly on them. While Kenyon’s system offers the earliest possible date of the surface’s construction, Wright’s approach identifies the span of time the floor was actually used. Recent re-evaluations of the Samaria evidence, from both ceramic and stratigraphical starting points, have confirmed an Iron I occupation but have shown (with Kenyon) that this phase lacked any monumental architectural features. Instead, installations either resting on or cut into the rock surface seem to indicate the presence of a modest family estate which produced oil and wine already during the late pre-monarchic era.

Unfortunately, much of the pottery and other materials came from disturbed or secondary contexts. As a result, many fewer stratigraphically secure archaeological data are available from the city for the 9th century than Kenyon’s official report implied. Without further field work, we cannot rely on this evidence alone when establishing or adjusting chronologies at other sites in Israel or the Aegean world.

History

The region of Samaria experienced three successive models of social, economic, and political organization: (1) locally controlled tribal allotments under Joshua in the days of the judges (Josh. 16–17; 19:49-50); (2) centrally controlled administrative districts under Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:7-19); and (3) a foreign controlled imperial province, beginning with Assyrian hegemony in the second half of the 8th century (2 Kgs. 17:24ff.).

Though in the judges phase the region embodied the “cradle of Israelite civilization,” it attained its greatest prominence following Omri’s rise to power in the early 9th century. Quickly transferring the country’s political center from Tirzah to Samaria (1 Kgs. 16:21-24), Omri and his successors — particularly his son Ahab — transferred this onetime family estate into a relatively small but cosmopolitan royal city. So impressive appeared the fortification walls, palace, large courtyards with rectangular pools, public buildings, and storerooms, that writers spoke of Samaria as the undisputed “head of Ephraim” (Isa. 7:9), or as Jerusalem’s “elder sister” who ruled and influenced numerous “daughters” (outlying villages) of her own (Ezek. 16:46, 53, 55, 61; 23:4-5). Bountiful archaeological discoveries of ivory fragments and furnishings spanning the period from Ahab to Jeroboam II correlate well with later biblical memories of opulent, ivory-appointed houses and royal banquets in the capital (1 Kgs. 22:39; Ps. 45:8[MT 9]; Amos 3:15; 6:4). That the city now gave its name to the larger region bespeaks the power which emanated from this new, stately center. Even the villagers themselves came to be known as Samaritans rather than Israelites (2 Kgs. 17:29).

Omri’s new economic orientation toward the open markets of the Mediterranean brought the entire region into greater contact with foreign cultures. With Ahab’s politically motivated marriage to Jezebel, Samaria gained access to Phoenician wealth but also exposure to its religious beliefs and customs. As it became increasingly syncretistic under this influence, the political leadership incurred the scorn of Elijah and the orthodox religious establishment generally (1 Kgs. 17–19). Ultra-conservative factions with both religious and political aspirations arose. With backing from the prophetic leadership, conservative social groups such as the Rechabites, and zealous segments of the military, the populist Jehu seized the throne of Samaria in 842 (2 Kgs. 9–10). Yet even in the late 8th century the Assyrians continued referring to Samaria as the “House of Omri” and, like contemporary Hebrew prophets, often distinguished between the capital city/kingdom of Israel (bît ³u-um-ri-ia) and the countryside of Manasseh/Ephraim (Sa-me-ri-na-a-a, though they also employed this term interchangeably for the city).

From ca. 884-722/721, 14 Israelite kings ruled from Samaria. But the regional and even international prominence which they brought to the area also presented its capital and religious centers (e.g., Bethel) as the clearest and most dangerous symbols of opposition to the southern kingdom and its cult at Jerusalem. This deeply rooted north-south schism and the Judahite perspective taken in the final Deuteronomistic history produced a critical treatment of the rulers and activities at Samaria in the OT, while extrabiblical sources (Mesha stela; Assyrian annals) often pointed to the capital’s political, military, and economic successes, despite periods of severe drought and famine (1 Kgs. 17:1, 7; 18:2).

By the late 8th century the Assyrian provinces of Dor, Megiddo, and Gilead encompassed the Ephraimite hill country on the west, north, and east, respectively. In 722/721 armies led by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II penetrated the highlands, besieged and occupied the city of Samaria, deported large numbers of Israelites, and resettled the city primarily with captives from distant Syro-Mesopotamian locations as well as from southern Arabia (2 Kgs. 17:24). In this manner, Assyria effectually transformed the highland region into the province of Samerina. Though its southern border remained fixed between Bethel and Mizpah (2 Kgs. 17:28), it appears that Samerina now subsumed the coastal district of Dor.

Archaeologists have recovered only a few remains from the Assyrian occupation, including a stela fragment (apparently from the time of Sargon II) and appreciable quantities of palace ware. But fragments from various cuneiform tablets, some apparently representing a letter to Abi-aḥi, the local governor, strongly suggest that Samaria served as the administrative center of Samerina.

Following the decline of Assyrian influence at home and abroad after 633, Josiah reannexed to Judah at least the southern extent of Samerina, as far as Bethel, and perhaps the province in full measure. His political and religious reforms led him to desecrate local shrines in the north and to execute their priests (1 Kgs. 13:1-2; 2 Kgs. 23:15-20), while merely closing the high places of the south and recalling local priests to Jerusalem. After the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 587/586, Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor of Judah, established his administrative center at Mizpah rather than in Jerusalem (Jer. 41:1); this may belie the south’s orientation toward Samaria more than Jerusalem at this time, possibly because those who survived the scourge of Judah needed the stores of grain, honey, and oil which remained available in the region (vv. 4-8). Some have suggested that the Babylonians now officially considered the ravaged south as part of Samaria.

When Persia conquered Babylon in 539, Cyrus and his successors retained Samaria as the administrative center in the “Province Beyond the River (Euphrates)” and placed it under the governorship of Sanballat. Athenian and Sidonian coins, Aramaic ostraca, plus significant quantities of pottery imported from Aegean centers all attest to the solvency of the Ephraimite economy, which Persia apparently underwrote. It seems likely that the economic dependence of Judah upon Samaria increased during this period (cf. Neh. 5:1-5). As a result, northern leaders viewed efforts to revitalize Jerusalem as a fortified center of activity late in this period to be an act of sedition against Samaria and the Persian Empire alike (Ezra 4; Neh. 2, 4, 6; 1 Esdr. 2).

The local and international economies of the north continued to flourish throughout most of the turbulent Hellenistic period. In the late 4th century, when locals assassinated Andromachus, a Greek general installed by Alexander the Great as prefect of Syria, Samaria incurred Alexander’s full wrath. Citizens who could fled eastward with numerous legal and administrative documents written in Aramaic (Samaria papyri), only to have Alexander’s army overtake and execute them in a cave in the precipitous Wadi ed-Daliyeh. As the city they abandoned became more fully Greek in character, the center of Samaritan activity shifted to Shechem. A series of beautifully built round towers at Samaria and a subsequent massive defense wall with square towers bear witness to the current political vicissitudes, as the successors of Alexander, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, competed for control over the region. The greatest setback to Samaria, however, emerged more locally. Late in this period (ca. 108/107), the Hasmonean priest John Hyrcanus gained de facto independence in Judea following the death of the Seleucid ruler Antiochus VII in 128 and planned a frontal assault on the region and city of Samaria. Following the capture of Shechem and the burning of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, a year-long siege against Samaria destroyed much of the fortress wall and brought the entire region temporarily under Judean control (Josephus Ant. 13.275-81; BJ 1.64-65).

The Roman conquest of Palestine by Pompey in 63 b.c.e. set the stage for the climactic resurgence of Samaria, beginning with the tenure of Gabinius (57-55) as provincial governor. He rebuilt the city walls, created new residential areas, and constructed a forum with an adjoining basilica northeast of the summit. Soon after the earthquake in 31 b.c.e., Herod the Great expanded the city’s fortifications, apportioned both city and territorial properties among his former allies (Josephus records 6000 colonists), offered them special constitutional rights, and consequently considered Samaria “a third rampart against the entire nation,” behind only his own palace in Jerusalem and the fortress Antonia (Ant. 15.292-98; BJ 1.403). Even the street which led into the city became a thriving bazaar, and additional temples and altars as well as a stadium and theater adorned the summit and slopes of the city. To honor Emperor Augustus, Herod named this magnificent place Sebaste (the Greek equivalent of Lat. Augusta). It became a center of celebration, ceremony, and magic (cf. Acts 8:9). Perhaps for these reasons, and because of the Samaritan-Jewish schism, natives of Judea generally circumnavigated the entire region when traveling to and from Jerusalem (Matt. 19:1; Luke 17:11; cf. John 4:4-9), and the followers of Jesus treated it as a virtual foreign territory in their early missionary and church-planting efforts (Acts 1:8; 8:1-25; 9:31; 15:3).

The grandeur of Samaria-Sebaste gradually faded during the late Roman/Byzantine period. Archaeologists have recovered few remains from this time.

Bibliography. B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria (Leiden, 1992); D. A. Dorsey, “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria,” BASOR 268 (1987): 57-70; I. T. Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing,” BA 45 (1982): 229-39; R. E. Tappy, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, 1: Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century b.c.e. HSS 44 (Atlanta, 1992).

Ron E. Tappy

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SAMARIA

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)