Lester L. Grabbeon the surface that Jubilees is not a Samaritan work, but my aim is somewhat
different. The fact that Jubilees is probably not Samaritan does not by itself
rule out that it and the Samaritans share haggadic and interpretative tradi
tions. We know from half a century of study that even though the Qumran
group was probably an isolated community and movement — at least ac
cording to the majority of scholars — they still preserved many literary and
theological parallels with other Jews and Jewish groups. It would hardly be
surprising if Jubilees had some common material with the Samaritans, but
we cannot know until the matter is investigated.
There is a major problem in any comparison: the lack of good infor
mation on the development of many Samaritan beliefs. Most of the Samari
tan literature cannot be dated earlier than the fourth century C.E., and it is
not possible to trace much of Samaritan theology beyond that date to an
earlier period. Thus, if one wants to know whether a particular Samaritan
tradition was as early as Jubilees — or perhaps even earlier — or only devel
oped much later, in many cases we cannot give a satisfactory answer. For this
reason, in the present study I generally do not talk about developments of
thought or whether the Samaritan tradition is likely to be early or not. Only
in the period from the fourth century to the present can evolution and de
velopment be sketched with any confidence.
From a typological point of view, the Samaritans look like a Jewish
sect — or from their point of view, Judaism is an Israelite sect while they are
orthodox. Still, it is not always easy to know what the Samaritans believe or
have believed in certain basic areas. A problem for a study such as this is the
lack of good editions and even basic scholarship on Samaritan writings.
Many of the Samaritan sources are late, even from the twentieth century.
This does not mean that such sources do not contain ancient elements, but
compared with much Jewish literature, the Samaritan writings are compara
tively unstudied. There are not many Samaritan specialists, and analysis of
much Samaritan literature has barely begun. A basic tool of research is A
Companion to Samaritan Studies, as well as the collection of essays entitled
The Samaritans.^3 Unfortunately, there is no critical edition of the Samaritan
complete; whether I would have continued with the project if I had seen Pummer's study
earlier is an academic question that I cannot answer.- A. D. Crown, R. Pummer, and A. Tal, eds., A Companion to Samaritan Studies
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); A. D. Crown, ed., The Samaritans (Tubingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 1989). See also the article surveying recent study: I. Hjelm, "What Do Samaritans and
Jews Have in Common? Recent Trends in Samaritan Studies," Currents in Biblical Research 3
(2004-5): 9-59. For a translation of a number of Samaritan documents, see J. Bowman, Sa-