Talk:Sar'a

Pictures

The present picture in the article originally comes from the Mattson collection here (which also has a (later) colour edition here.)

Now, according to this blog, SWP made an "unfortunate blunder" on SWP III, p. 150, saying that the structure pictured there was the Tomb of Samuel, when in fact it was the tomb of Sar'a.

Comparing the picture on p. 150 with those of Nabi Samwil and with the Mattson pictures from Sar'a; he is obviously correct: SWP made a mistake here. The p. 150 is in fact from Sar'a.

(And, personally, I can also easily agree that the present Tomb of Samson is not an improvement.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This seem to be another view of the shrine, from 1910-1920. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical References to the Burial Site of Samson

In C. R. Conder's memorable work, Tent Work in Palestine (vol. 1), London 1879, pp. 274–275, he describes the differing views prevalent in his day about the traditional burial site of Samson, the famous biblical figure that married the Philistine woman, Delilah, and who was eventually betrayed by her. All historical geographers concur that the former Arab village Sar'a (صرعة), whose Arabic phonemes are equivalent to the Hebrew phonemes צרעה, or what are (ص=צ--ر=ר--ع=ע--ة=ה), were most-likely used to denote the same village, insofar that it is a well-known fact that many Arabic place-names have preserved the old Hebrew place-names for the same towns and villages. This one here would have been no different. Indeed, we see the best historical geographers identifying the place Sar'a with the biblical Zoreah (see, for example, p. 70 in Maisler, Benjamin (1932). "A Memo of the National Committee to the Government of the Land of Israel on the Method of Spelling Transliterated Geographical and Personal Names, plus Two Lists of Geographical Names". Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects (in Hebrew). 4 (3): 51. Retrieved 21 February 2017 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help).

Sar'a, with its English transliteration of "Zoreah" or "Zorah", the Arabic ṣad (ص) being exchanged for the English "Z", was the birth place of Samson, and where the village Eshta'ol (Ishwa) was situated in close proximity. This fact is preserved even in Arabic-Muslim tradition, as we shall see by Conder's report more than a century ago. He writes of the place on this wise: "On the north brink of the Vale of Sorek (in which also Delilah lived) there is a conspicuous white chapel on the hill << see the photo as it now appears in view below,

the dome of which was painted blue, and later underwent further renovation >>, dedicated to Neby Samit, and close to the village of Zoreah. Confused traditions–––which are, however, probably of Christian origin–––connect this prophet with Samson, whose name is recognisable in other parts of this district under the forms Shemshûn, Sanasîn, and ʾAly (as at Gaza), and also a little farther south as Shemsîn and Samat. It appears probable that the tomb now shown at Zoreah, is that known, to the Jews, in the fourteenth century as Samson's; and the tradition, thus traced to other than monkish origin, is very possibly as genuine as that which fixes the tombs of Joseph and Phinehas near Shechem. Here, then, we are in Samson's country..." (END QUOTE)

This view is shared by many others, such as Victor Guérin in his seminal work, Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine (vol. 2), pp. 15–17, besides a vast host of modern historical geographers. As for archaeological finds dating back to the late Bronze Age, these have yet to be found, but this can be attributed to the fact that a "mud village" saw many periods of destruction. The earliest archaeological finds from the village have been dated back to the late period marked by Israel's kings.Davidbena (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm not contesting that this identification is still generally accepted. I just want to say that the list of Benjamin Maisler (later Mazar), as it's name suggests, was a list created for clear political purposes, namely to lobby the Government of Palestine regarding the Jewish "claim" to as many Palestinian sites as possible. One should look in Mazar's academic writings in order to cite him. Zero^talk 14:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with your assessment. I'll try and find better sources. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Note what this place writes, Lost shrines, Maqam Neby or Sheikh Samat: (Ok, so the source is not a RS, but it is quite knowledgable), Huldra (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

O Huldra! O Huldra! How wrong can you be!? The pictures shown of the shrine known as Maqam Neby or Sheikh Samat, with the larger building, happens to be on the same site where are now the smaller tombs with blue domes, since the larger structure was torn down. Having visited the site myself about two weeks ago, it is plain to me that we're talking here about the same elevated place, on top of Mount Tzora'ah (Sar'a). The only thing accurate in your post is that the original building no longer exists. The place and its former structure are, however, clearly marked-off as being the same place of "veneration" attended by earlier Muslim residents of the place. Moreover, the description of this place as had in Conder & Kitchener's SWP (vol. 3), p. 158, is clearly referring to the same place as shown in the pictures and where I visited. Davidbena (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

O Davidbena! O Davidbena! What are you alleging!? When did I ever say that Maqam Neby or Sheikh Samat, wasn't where the present so called Samson Grave is? Huldra (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what is being disputed here. The Shrine for "Sheikh Samat", or on maps "En Nabi Samit", was on the place where the blue-painted tombs are now. Within the limits of map accuracy (10 meters or so). Incidentally, there is a drawing of "Shrine of Sheikh Samat at Surah (Zorah)" on p339 of Canaan's 1927 book. It looks identical to the photo SWP claims as the tomb of Samuel so it clear that SWP mixed up their photos. Zero^talk 04:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure how much we can learn from sketches of shrines made a long time ago, since, in all honesty, most Muslim-built shrines in this country all have, generally, the same appearance.Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean similar, I mean absolutely identical. I'm sending you the book; check your mail soon. Zero^talk 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When I wrote "this identification is still generally accepted", I meant the identification of Sar'a with Zorah. Not anything to do with Samson. Actually I think that the story about Samson being buried here comes from the Travelogue of Isaac Chelo, which is now considered to be a modern forgery. There are other claimants too. For example a place in Gaza City is mentioned in the 1894 Baedeker Guide, p157; also in Martin Meyer's History of the City of Gaza, p111, which says "This, or at any rate a tomb of Samson, was shown throughout the Middle Ages, as is reported by all visiting pilgrims."; also in "Handbook of Palestine" (Luke and Keith-Roach, 1922) and other places. Zero^talk 13:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that the identification of Sar'a with Zorah is firmly footed, whereas the identification of Samson's tomb is still dubious. Josephus says that Samson was buried in a place called Sarasat. Anyway, for all intents and purposes, I am only interested in pointing out in the lede paragraph that historical geographers have unanimously identified Sar'a with the biblical Zoreah/Zorah. BTW: I received the article "Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine," written by Canaan and published by the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. I will cite from it!Davidbena (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Tawfiq Canaan's Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine is available, to download, at least 2 different places, see under the Canaan article. But I cannot find the picture? And while the association with Zorah is old, I would still like to see some hard facts (read: archeology) to back it up, before we mention it in the lead, (The lead as it is "The site today" ...with only 19th century and older sources is a contradiction, IMO) Huldra (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: There are 8 full-page sketches starting immediately after the index. This is the 7th sketch. If you don't find it, you might be looking at a defective copy. Look for the copy I sent you, and if you don't find that either ask be to send it again. Zero^talk 04:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

For a modern identification, Dauphin p904. It seems as solid as the average identification; i.e. nobody has a better idea. Zero^talk 04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I have one electronic copy of Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine (dated 7 Oct 2017) ...but that one is just as the online versions: No pictures after the index. Please send me a version with the pictures? Huldra (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, the evidence is not only in its name, but also in its geographical location, located in the Shfelah, as also being near to the biblical villages of Eshtaol, and Timnah. The biblical account relates that the tribe of Dan settled in a territory that adjoined that of the tribe of Judah, before eventually moving further north, near Leshem (Dan), which is near Banias. Sur'ah is a site mentioned by nearly all the historical geographers at the location of the Arab village by the same name, and that is precisely what the statement says. The moment we come-up with archaeological results, we'll post that too.Davidbena (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)