Talk:Samaritanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. 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)
[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)
