Q&A: The Argument from Testimony versus the Samaritans’ Arguments
The Argument from Testimony versus the Samaritans’ Arguments
Question
Hello, and thank you in advance.
Regarding the argument from testimony, the Samaritans also have a tradition that they are descendants of the tribes of Israel, and I assume also of the revelation at Mount Sinai, etc. Yet the position of Jewish law is that they are not part of the Jewish people, but rather Cutheans who were exiled. If we rely on and accept the argument from testimony, why shouldn’t we accept their tradition as well? And if we do not accept their tradition, doesn’t that undermine the argument from testimony? After all, they too claim a mass revelation, as far as I know. (As I understand it, according to genetic studies there is indeed some truth to both approaches: that they are both descendants of Israelites and also of another people, and apparently these were Israelites who married foreign women.) Is the root of the difference the number of people transmitting the tradition? Or perhaps we rely on additional arguments in order to believe in Judaism, such as the unique history of the Jewish people and the like?
Answer
I am not familiar with their tradition, but I do not see any contradiction to our tradition. They too speak about the event at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah. So what is the problem? As for the question whether gentiles became mixed in among them or not, I do not know. That is true of other communities in Israel as well. Why is that connected to the question of tradition?
Discussion on Answer
I do not understand the claim. It is very plausible that they were originally Jews, and perhaps became mixed in with others. Their conversion is not valid because it is not according to the Jewish law that was transmitted to us. From their perspective, that is their tradition, and they will convert accordingly. You are conflating different concepts of tradition. Their form of conversion is not a tradition that testifies to an event. It is a halakhic tradition that arose at some stage, and that does not carry the force of truth.
In general, the validity of a tradition is a matter of overall impression, and you cannot infer from one to the other.
My question is whether one can claim that they are only Cutheans. If so, then they are transmitting a tradition of revelation even though their ancestors were not present at it, which shows that it is indeed possible to create a false mass tradition.
And if they are a mixture of Cutheans and descendants of Israel, then why is their conversion not valid like ours? And why do we not relate to them as a valid tradition regarding the Oral Torah, the laws of the sukkah, and the like, or regarding the holiness of Jerusalem? As I understand it, they claim that the holiness is actually on Mount Gerizim. How do we know which tradition is the correct one? By the majority?