Talk:Samaritanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] no dont
dont merge them
[edit] bewilderment
What's always bewildered me about the class-analysis origins of the Samaritans is the way in which the returnees are supposed to have out-reproduced those who stayed. If the majority stayed (which everyone seems to believe) why did they not remain the majority, at least locally. The Diaspora may have outnumbered the Jews in Palestine, but I've never read any statement that there were ever a large number of Samaritans. Is this a figment of some 19th century reconstruction? Is there any archaeological work on Samaritan origins? --MichaelTinkler
- A "majority" does not necessarily dictate what the dominant language or culture would be. The Latins, in all likelihood, NEVER outnumbered the Gauls or Iberians, but the obvious social advantages of learning Latin and adopting Roman culture meant that Latin language and culture would displace Iberian and Gaulish, for example. The returned exiles did not "out-reproduce" the non-exiles. They blended with them and this was whitewashed over by the powers that be in post-exile Judaism.
I have read somewhere now a completely different theory of their origin. According to this theory they predate the exile; some of the Jews decided to move the main centre of worship from [somewhere, can't remember name], those who moved with it became the Jews, those who rejected the move became the Samaritians. -- SJK
Somewher I have read that there still exist a samaritan community in israle, is it true?
- i've heard that there is a community of samaritans around mount gerizim. Gringo300 05:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This article really does not share much light at all on their religion. I learned much more about their scriptures, beliefs, rites, etc., from the Samaritan page proper, information I would expect more of in this article, not less. The last paragraph of Samaritanism in particular seems more like a defense of Biblical literalism , rather than laying out the facts of what they actually believe and how they conduct their religion. For example, the last paragraph says things like "This theory is problematic because..." and "The biblical story actually seems more probable, because..." in regards to the origin of the Samaritan people, when this is article is about their religion, not their origin. This article, that last paragraph especially, seems less like an encyclopedia and more like a forum. It should either be re-written or deleted. 70.153.99.149 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"...the people remaining in Israel would vastly outnumber those who returned, and there are no indications of this in either the Bible or in secular history". Is this really saying that the Babylonians took away so many people and killed so many others that centuries later the land had still not been repopulated (even by Babylonians!)? The Bible might not contradict this theory but common sense indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with it! 195.153.45.54 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] duplication
It looks like a lot of information is duplicated between Samaritans and Samaritanism. Also, there is more information about Samaritanism as a religion in the Samaritans article. These need to either be redistributed, or perhaps better integrated into one article with the other redirected to it. Any thoughts? Any objections? Wesley
- Not everything is an -ism. There is nothing spun off here that is not at Samaritans. The link should go there, where the fuller discussion is. Wetman 03:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Samaritans and the Kingdom of Israel
Would not the Samaritans have had some relation to those exiled from the northern Kingdom, rather than the southern Kingdom? After all, they ended up largely living in the former territory of the northern Kingdom, and their name derives from the capital of the northern kingdom. But, in fact, the article does not even mention the northern Kingdom, nor does it mention the Assyrians. The purported northern kingdom origins of the Samaritans are mentioned in the Samaritan article. john k 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Is anyone opposed at this point to merging this material with Samaritan? --Briangotts | (Talk) 20:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No oppostion to merger.--Tomtom9041 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger. Goodness gracious, a fair amount of the samaritan article should be moved here, and probably more branches split off as well. Hasn't anybody else read Wikipedia:summary style?
- --William Allen Simpson 04:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. See my comments above in "bewilderment." 70.153.99.149 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
i oppose
I support. From a reading of the two articles, it doesn't seem that it makes any sense to cover the ethnic group separately from the religious group. As far as I can tell, they are the same. OneVeryBadMan 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. One describes an ethnic group, the other a religious movement. Clearly a hyperlink will suffice. The religious movement is categorized under Abrahamic religions. The ethnic groups obviously isn't. Combining them only confuses an otherwise clear distinction. The Editrix 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- You presuppose that the religious group is distinct from the ethnic group, which it is clearly not. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Samaritanism
I'm under the impression that Samaritanism teaches Unitarian Monotheism (just like Judaism does), but I haven't been able to find anything on the internet so far that explicitly states this. Gringo300 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
i would think that the the following line implies that monotheism > paganism. That doesnt seem to be NPOV.
no significant changes to their religion other than the fact that the Exile cured Israel from its then recurrent bouts of paganism
[edit] Merge, but also rectify
"Samaritan" and "Samaritanism" should indeed probably be merged; neither article is sufficient, in any case. Some more detail, or at least, lots of links to relevant information on the biblical scholarship and middle-eastern archæology is needed. Citations. Stuff like that. I too think the neutrality is compromised in a couple places. I am not overly concernd with the suggestion above; the Chosen People seem to have progressed from a sort of wierd henology, through an official (but frequently breached) monolatry (consider all those furriner-wifes of Solomon and their religious accommodation...), to a rather rigid, insular monotheism, with sufficient contradictions that even Maimonides was probably perplexed at times. --djenner 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Old Isarlaism"
There is no such thing as "Old Isarlaism". It's a figment of the imagination, made up to provide the modern sect of Isarlaism with an ancient history. Paragraph on "Old Isarlaism" removed. GdB 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The foregoing claim is based upon one individual's opinion, which is not supported by any historical or Biblical information. The fact of the matter is this: Israel and Judah were divided into two separate entities, each retained a form of Yahwism. This is evidenced in Scripture. Obviously the Yahwistic religion of the northern kingdom would not be called Judaism, hence the existence of Old Isarlaism. Either disprove this using historical or Biblical evidence, or accept the fact that Old Isarlaism did exist. 9 May 2007
The burden of proof is, of course, on the person who claims that there ever was such a religion as "Isarlaism" -- not on the person who denies this. Please provide us with even one scholarly mention of Isarlaism -- you can't, because there is no such mention to be found in scholarly literature. There is reason to believe that there was a polytheistic, later henotheistic, belief in Canaan in which Yahweh played a major role -- a precursor of Judaism which is sometimes referred to (as you do) as Yahwism. However, hardly a thing is known about this religion or complex of religions. There is no evidence which allows us to distinguish between different branches of Yahwism -- the fact that Israel and Judah were separate kingdoms can by itself not be a reason to assume the existence of separate sects, let alone to give them fancy names like "Isarlaism". --GdB 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Duplication
This article is a word for word copy of the ===Religion=== section of Samaritan. I was about to replace it with a redirect to Samaritan#Religion, but thought I'd see if there were any objections first. --Storkk (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
