Transforming Conversations
Introduction
Points
Because of these hostilities, Jewish pilgrims from Galilee often crossed over to the East Bank of the Jordan River in order to detour around Samaria. Those who chose to pass through Samaritan territory did so at great risk. According to Josephus, “Hatred also arose between the Samaritans and the Jews for the following reason. It was the custom of the Galileans at the time of the festival to pass through the Samaritan territory on their way to the Holy City. On one occasion, while they were passing through, certain of the [Samaritan] inhabitants of a village … joined battle with the Galileans and slew a great number of them” (Ant. 20.6.1 §118; see also J.W. 2.12.3 §232).
The Samaritans’ canon contains only the Pentateuch. They regard Moses as the final prophet of God and a superhuman being. Mt. Gerizim they identify as the place where Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22) and where God intended that Israel’s one place of sacrificial worship be established (cf. Deut. 11:29–30; 12:5–14). The Samaritans’ alternative to the Jewish history of the relation between the two groups teaches that the Jewish departure from the truth began when Eli set up a shrine at Shiloh (cf. 1 Sam. 1–3), not Gerizim; Ezra compounded the falsehood by altering the Pentateuch and by rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. Though they acknowledge that non-Israelites entered the region of Samaria under Assyrian auspices, the Samaritans regard themselves as descendants of exiled Israelites who returned to the land.
Some Jews regarded the Samaritans with contempt, considering them fools (Sir 50:25–26; T. Levi 7:2) and idolaters (Gen. Rab. 81:3 [on Gen 35:4]), who were killed with divine approval (Jub. 30:5–6, 23). Later traditions in rabbinic literature regard Samaritans as apostate, wholly unclean and destined for Gehenna. [C. A. Evans]
But in most of Palestinian Judaism only the husband could initiate the divorce, except under extreme circumstances in which a court would require him to terminate the marriage at his wife’s demand. Since a divorced woman might bear some social stigmas in Palestinian Jewish society (Safrai, 791), women probably did not seek divorce frequently.
Palestinian Jewish husbands could divorce for virtually any reason (e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.8.23 §253, though this is not to imply that the average husband was looking for excuses to divorce his wife). They could divorce their wives for disobedience (Sir 25:26; Josephus Life 76 §426; m. Ketub. 7:6; ʾAbot R. Nat. 1A) or for burning the bread (m. Giṭ. 9:10; Sipre Deut. 269.1.1). The agreement of a variety of sources on this matter suggests that the school of Shammai, which accepted only unfaithfulness as valid grounds for divorce—a standard charge in the dissolution of marriages—held the minority opinion in Palestinian Jewish culture at this point, although they were generally the dominant Pharisaic school in Jesus’ day. Further, even Shammaites accepted as legally valid those divorces enacted for reasons with which they disagreed (see Keener, 39–40). The exception clause to Jesus’ divorce saying in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 probably accepts but radicalizes the Shammaite position (Keener, 38–40; see DJG, Divorce).