Yahweh Temple on Mt. Gerizim & Before the Conflict

In the BAR magazine of July/August September/October 2019, there is the very interesting article titled Reactivating Remembrance, Interactive Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim by Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme. This post contains Claude.ai’s summary of the article of which the PDF copy is in the Dropbox directory titled “Samaria”. Following the summary is a followup prompt/response asking “How do critical bible scholars view the context of the people who worshipped at that temple in relation to the tribes or kingdoms around them. Include events and people in the time frame addressed in the article especially the Jews, or forerunners of the Jews, Cannanites, and Egyptians.”

1st Prompt – Provide a summary in the form of talking points of the attached article.

1st Response – Reactivating Remembrance: Interactive Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim (Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme)

The Site

• A Yahweh temple stood on Mt. Gerizim near modern Nablus, built c. 450 BCE (Persian period) and destroyed in 110 BCE by the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus I.
• Original phase: a modest square precinct (~330 x 330 ft) with north/south gates. Expanded significantly around 200 BCE (Hellenistic period) with a fortification, added rooms, and a monumental eastern gate with a ramp/staircase.
• A city grew up alongside it, reaching roughly 100 acres and up to 10,000 residents by the 2nd century BCE. Correspondence and offerings reached the site from as far as Delos and Elephantine.

Archaeological Evidence for Worship

• Massive sacrificial residue was found on-site — over 300,000 bone fragments (mostly sheep and goat, some cattle and pigeons), with a 6.5-foot-deep bone-and-ash layer in the southwest corner and a plastered stone altar near the Hellenistic east gate.
• No inscription was recovered in situ; all were found reused in secondary contexts (one built into the monumental staircase), so their original placement inside the sanctuary is unknown. Excavation director Yitzhak Magen hypothesizes they lined an inner wall around a central temple/altar, though that structure hasn’t been found.

The Dedicatory Inscriptions

• Hundreds of inscriptions, mostly Aramaic (a few Hebrew), carved on hewn ashlars, all dating to the Hellenistic building phase.
• Standard formula: names an unspecified gift, then the donor and dependents; roughly 50 add a request for “good remembrance” from the deity.
• Commissioning one was likely costly (covering both the gift and probably a stonecutter’s fee), so this wasn’t an everyday act for ordinary worshipers — but seeing/experiencing the inscriptions on a visit likely was.

Comparative “Remembrance” Inscriptions

• Similar Aramaic “for good remembrance” formulas appear widely from the 2nd century BCE–2nd century CE at Hatra, Assur, and Palmyra.
• A notable Palmyrene inscription (no. 0319) explicitly invites passersby to say “remembered be” on behalf of those named — suggesting the blessing was renewed each time a visitor engaged with the stone. Parallel Hatra inscriptions frame this as a curse-avoidance obligation rather than an invitation.

Connection to the Hebrew Bible

• The article draws a conceptual (not textual) link between these inscriptions and Yahweh’s own “remembrance” in Scripture: Yahweh remembers Noah in the ark (Genesis 8:1) and remembers the childless Rachel (Genesis 30:22), each act producing a tangible effect.
• Genesis 9:16 has Yahweh set his bow “in the sky as a sign to remind him of his covenant with Noah” — a divine parallel to a string tied around a finger.
• Exodus 28:29 describes the gemstones on Aaron’s breastplate, engraved with the tribes’ names, as “a continual remembrance before Yahweh” — a ritual object functioning much like the votive inscriptions.

Interpretive Payoff

• Gudme suggests most visitors — likely largely illiterate — may not have read the inscriptions themselves but still engaged with them ritually: touching a stone and murmuring “remembered be” as a kind of “material literacy” that didn’t require actual reading.
• This offers a possible resolution to the puzzle of widespread “private” dedicatory texts existing alongside high illiteracy rates in the Hellenistic-Roman world: literate visitors or temple staff may have read aloud, or the act of physical interaction itself carried the ritual weight regardless of literacy.
• Net effect: each temple visit could “reactivate” the inscribed prayer, renewing the plea for the donor’s — and now the visitor’s own — good standing with Yahweh.

Author: Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme, Associate Professor, Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen (specialist in cult polemics, food/meals in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East). Originally published in Biblical Archaeology Review (2019): 65–71, 86.

---

---

2nd Prompt

How do critical bible scholars view the context of the people who worshipped at that temple in relation to the tribes or kingdoms around them. Include events and people in the time frame addressed in the article especially the Jews, or forerunners of the Jews, Canaanites and Egyptians.

2nd Response – The Gerizim Community in the Context of Israel, Judah, Canaan, and Egypt

Critical scholarship situates the Yahwists who worshiped at Gerizim not as some late breakaway sect, but as one branch of a much older, more fractured Israelite/Canaanite religious landscape. Here’s how the major threads connect, moving roughly chronologically.

1. Canaanite Roots — Before There Were “Israelites” or “Samaritans”

• Scholars working from the Documentary Hypothesis and Iron Age archaeology (Finkelstein, Dever, Na’aman) generally hold that early “Israel” emerged from within Canaanite culture in the highlands of central Palestine during Iron I (c. 1200–1000 BCE), rather than invading it from outside as Joshua’s conquest narrative depicts. Material culture (pottery, house forms, even early cultic practice) shows continuity, not rupture, with Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture.
• The earliest known extrabiblical reference to “Israel” is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BCE), which places a people-group called Israel in Canaan — meaning “Israel” already existed as an entity under Egyptian imperial gaze centuries before either a Jerusalem or a Gerizim temple existed.
• Mt. Gerizim itself sits in the heart of this highland zone — the tribal territory later assigned to Ephraim and Manasseh, the very heartland of the later Northern Kingdom. This matters: Gerizim was never a Judean cultic center co-opted by outsiders; it sat in ancient, core Israelite/”Josephite” territory, and biblical tradition itself (Deuteronomy 11:29, Deuteronomy 27:12, Joshua 8:33) already assigns Gerizim covenantal significance — the mountain of blessing, opposite Ebal’s curse — well before any Samaritan-Jewish split existed.

2. The Divided Monarchy — Israel (Ephraim) vs. Judah

• From roughly 930 to 722 BCE, two related but politically distinct Yahwistic kingdoms existed: the larger, wealthier Northern Kingdom (Israel/Ephraim, capital Samaria) and the smaller Southern Kingdom (Judah, capital Jerusalem). Both worshiped Yahweh, but with regional cultic centers, priesthoods, and — critical scholars argue — somewhat different theological traditions (e.g., the E and J source strands often associated respectively with northern and southern origin in classical source criticism).
• This means the ancestors of the Gerizim worshipers were never “Canaanites” in some ethnically distinct sense from Judah’s ancestors — they were the northern half of the same broader Israelite Yahwistic world, with their own royal and priestly institutions predating Jerusalem’s exclusive claims by centuries.

3. Assyrian Conquest and the “Samaritan Origins” Debate

• In 722/721 BCE, Assyria destroyed Samaria and deported significant portions of its population, resettling the region with foreign populations from Mesopotamia and elsewhere — per the biblical account in 2 Kings 17.
• The biblical text (2 Kings 17:24–41) frames the resulting population as syncretistic foreign colonists who adopted Yahweh-worship alongside their own gods — the traditional basis for later Jewish polemic that Samaritans were not “real” Israelites but “Cuthim” (per the Talmud) — imported foreigners with a veneer of Yahwism.
• Modern critical scholars (Gary Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 2013; Reinhard Pummer; Ingrid Hjelm) largely reject this as later polemic rather than history. Archaeological surveys show large parts of the northern Israelite population were never deported and continued living in the region continuously. The Samaritan community that later built the Gerizim temple is best understood as the genuine, continuous heir of northern Israelite Yahwism — not a foreign import — even though its population inevitably absorbed some outside elements over centuries, as did Judah’s.

4. The Persian Period — Two Yahwistic Provinces, One God, Rival Claims

• After the Babylonian exile, Judean returnees rebuilt a temple in Jerusalem under Persian sponsorship (late 6th century BCE). At the same time, the province of Samaria (Samerina) — governed by figures like the Sanballat family — remained a separate, functioning Persian administrative unit with its own Yahwistic establishment.
• Nehemiah’s memoir casts Sanballat the Horonite as a chief antagonist to Jerusalem’s rebuilding efforts (Nehemiah 2, 4, 6) — early textual evidence of Judean-Samarian political rivalry, though this is polemical court history, not neutral reporting.
• Crucially, the article itself notes correspondence between Gerizim and the Jewish military colony at Elephantine in Egypt. The Elephantine papyri (5th century BCE) independently confirm this: this Egyptian-Jewish garrison, when seeking help rebuilding their own temple to Yahu (Yahweh) after it was destroyed by local Egyptian priests of Khnum, wrote letters to both the governor of Judah (Bagohi) and the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria — treating both as legitimate Yahwistic authorities. This is a major piece of evidence critical scholars use to argue that Persian-period Yahwism was genuinely plural, with multiple co-existing, mutually recognized temple communities (Jerusalem, Samaria/Gerizim, and Elephantine itself), not a single orthodox center with heretical rivals.
• Archaeologically, Yitzhak Magen’s excavations (cited directly in your article) date the original Gerizim sanctuary to around 450 BCE — squarely Persian period, and centuries earlier than Josephus’s later claim (in Antiquities 11) that the temple was founded in the time of Alexander the Great by a renegade Jerusalem priest, Manasseh, who married Sanballat’s daughter. Most critical scholars (Kartveit, Dušek, Pummer) now treat Josephus’s account as a later, tendentious foundation legend designed to delegitimize the Samaritans as illegitimate defectors from Jerusalem, rather than as reliable history.

5. The Hellenistic Period — Ptolemies, Seleucids, and a Flourishing Rival Sanctuary

• The article’s Hellenistic expansion of Gerizim (c. 200 BCE) happened while the region passed from Ptolemaic (Egyptian) to Seleucid control (the Ptolemies held Judea and Samaria for most of the 3rd century BCE before losing them to the Seleucids after 200 BCE at the Battle of Panium). Egyptian political oversight of the region, in other words, persisted long after the Merneptah Stele — Ptolemaic Egypt was the imperial power over both Jerusalem and Gerizim for roughly a century.
• This is also the period in which the Samaritan Pentateuch’s distinctive reading crystallizes: where the Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 27:4 commands an altar built on Mount Ebal, the Samaritan Pentateuch (and, notably, some Dead Sea Scroll fragments and an Old Latin witness) reads “Gerizim” instead — textual evidence that the Gerizim-as-chosen-site tradition is old and was only secondarily edited out of the proto-Masoretic tradition, rather than being a late Samaritan fabrication. This “Gerizim vs. Ebal” textual variant is one of the central pieces of evidence critical text critics (Emanuel Tov, whom Tom has studied extensively) use to argue for deliberate, theologically motivated scribal editing distinguishing the two communities’ scripture.
• Delos and Elephantine — both mentioned in the article as correspondents with Gerizim — reflect the wider Hellenistic Jewish/Samaritan diaspora: Delian inscriptions show a self-identified “Israelite” (Samaritan) community there making dedications to “Zeus Hypsistos” understood as Yahweh, distinct from but in dialogue with Judean diaspora communities on the same island.

6. The Hasmonean Rupture — 110 BCE and the Making of Permanent Schism

• The temple’s destruction in 110 BCE by John Hyrcanus I is the event most scholars treat as the point of no return. Hyrcanus, expanding a newly independent Judean state after the Maccabean revolt, forcibly Judaized Idumea to the south around the same period and crushed Samaria as a political and cultic rival to the north.
• Josephus (writing over a century later, from a Judean/Jerusalem-centric viewpoint) treats this destruction as righteous punishment of illegitimate schismatics. Modern critical scholars read it instead as a deliberate act of Hasmonean state-building — eliminating a rival, long-standing Yahwistic sanctuary that had operated as a legitimate cultic center for over three centuries, precisely because its continued prestige (evidenced by the wide-ranging pilgrimage and correspondence network your article describes) posed a real challenge to Jerusalem’s claim to be the sole legitimate house of Yahweh.
• This is the historical background for the later, sharper Jewish-Samaritan animosity visible in the New Testament (e.g., John 4:9’s aside that “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans,” and Luke’s parable of the Good Samaritan) — a division that, per this scholarship, was neither ancient nor inevitable, but the product of specific 2nd-century BCE Hasmonean political violence layered onto a much older, originally shared Israelite Yahwistic identity.

In short: critical scholars increasingly read the Gerizim community not as Canaanite outsiders or late foreign imports, but as the direct heirs of northern Israelite Yahwism — genuine kin to Judah’s Yahwists, sharing the same god, comparable Torah traditions, and even overlapping diplomatic networks (Elephantine) — whose split from Jerusalem was gradual, politically constructed, and only became irreversible with Hyrcanus’s 110 BCE destruction of their temple.