stephan huller

The starting point of the claims in regard to what is earlier to what, the worship on Mount Gerizim, or the worship on Temple Mountain in Jerusalem, as in other matters, is that who are claiming those claims making everything between Jews and Samaritans to a matter of religious polemic, as for them it is not enough that Jewish tradition is 3000 years old and for it self it is matter that should be respected and cherished, even if Judaism in its separate image and contains are existed almost 2400 years and drew the foundation of its tradition from the religious life in the Kingdom of Judea and the worship of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem.

This is a fundamental mistake to see every matter a reason to a Jewish-Samaritan argument, and despite the fragment from Qumran of Duet. 27: 4-6 [ Now located in Azusa University Library, East of Los Angeles ], that contains the commandment of Building the First Altar of the People of Israel ”In Mount Gerizim“ = בהרגרזים, it is easy to prove that the written tradition of the Torah in the hands of the Israelite Samaritans based on more ancient sources, northern, of the Israelite being in the Kingdom of Israel and derived from the ancient roots of the People of Israel.

All respect should be related to those who kept the traditions in both communities, the Jewish and the Samaritan, and preserved them with affection through many generations. In the foundation of the matters in hand the common side is much more than the uncommon because it derived from the same root - The most ancient written sources of the People of Israel - The Torah and the history of both communities in the Land of Israel.

The covenant with the Forefathers, The covenants of Sinai, Moab and Mount Gerizim, the later is the first done with the People of Israel in his land, based on the common sources, hundreds of years to the recognition of Jerusalem as a cult center, actually came from the need of Judah tribe and the House of David to find a legitimate answer to the Northern Israelite worship, that attracted the majority of tribes of the People of Israel.

In all those periods till the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylones, hundreds years of the exile, the Bible never mentioned Jews or Samaritans, since those two different ethnic groups as ”Jews“ and ”Samaritans“ never created inside the People of Israel till the middle of Second Temple Period or exactly through the period of the successors of Alexander the Great, during the third century BCE. Nobody called till then himself ”A Jew“ or ”A Samaritan“ since there were not such definitions to describe different religious groups.

Although we find one of both definitions sometimes in ancient source, it is for sure an anachronistic addition by installing later criteria in ancient source [As in the books 2Kings or Jeremiah] or an exilic life definitions, that made by later copyists of the Bible after the separation between the two groups completed, which the common terminology for both of them was ”Israelite“.

Thus no wonder that the loyals to Mount Gerizim testified about themselves in the inscriptions found in the Island of Delos from the third and second centuries BCE as ”We are Israelite“.

The definitions ”Jews“ and ”Samaritans“ were invented first by the writers of the Assyrian imperators as national terms [ Jehu the King of Israel called in their annals ”Samarini“ and Uzziah the King of Judea called ”Jaudi“]. Only later, following the internal argument and separation between the two groups those terms became religious. But we have to remark that the great argument between Jews and Samaritan was like woods that fed the fire inside both groups and gave them the power of survival through all generations. It created ”Judaism“ and ”Samaritanism“ that called after the two main regions of the Land of Israel were the centers of the two kingdoms existed - Judea and Samaria.

When we minimize the argument to what is between ”Samaritan tradition“ to ”Jewish tradition“ we make a mistake in finding the historical truth that always emphasizes the common matters between the two groups.

There is no need ”to jump“ over every religious difference between the two communities by claiming ”it is a mistake!“ or ”It is an adjustment!“, because these differences are not exactly ”Jewish“ or ”Samaritan“ but created in ancient periods of the People of Israel, before these two groups were established as separate traditional groups.

Duvduv

Stephan, have you found out from your friend what the Samaritan position has been about the periods when they worshiped at Gerizim? Also, since they perform their Passover sacrifice there today with no sanctuary, is it possible they did so as well in the distant past, or did they do so only when there was a sanctuary?
If a new sanctuary did not get built until after the Bar Kochba period, and GJohn was a late work, then it stands to reason that the author of GJohn backdated chapter 4 to the earlier period of inactivity.
I don't know whether the Greek has the word "worshiped" in the past tense in 4:20.
And the idea that a Samaritan would accept the notion of the Davidic messiah is incorrect -- as expressed there in John 4:25 and 39, and presumably the author of GJohn should have known that.

stephan huller

Believe it or not, Benny and I are involved in the sale of a fifteenth century Samaritan manuscript for a six figure fee. No I am not making any money on the transaction. I am doing it for a friend. I have asked him already but his mind is on other things and he just finished celebrating Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (for the Samaritans because of their adherence to the actual wording of the Pentateuch - two different holidays).

Duvduv

OK, I understand. Then whenever it works out. In the meantime any thoughts on the other points?

Duvduv

I wanted to go into the subject of John 4 again in some more detail.

1 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John [What is the connection with the Pharisees and John? He was not a Pharisee. As we can see, the introductory statement has no context. ]

2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. [Why was this important to add, even as an interpolation a parenthetical phrase]

3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. [What for?]

4 Now he had to go through Samaria. [What for?]

5 [What does this story now have to do with the first four verses? It would appear that it was thrown together to offer inclusiveness for the Samaritans within the new religion. Otherwise there is no need to specifically tell the story with Samaritans. Nevertheless the entire structure and flow of the story is very amateurish.]
So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.

6 Jacob’s Well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon.

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?”
8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) [Why is this last parenthetical phrase necessary?]

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])[Another explanatory interpolation, though if commentary were necessary, the whole story needs to be explained]

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,
14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. [What PRECISELY is the water and again, why does it have to involve a Samaritan to make the point?] Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.
18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. [Why does the author not know that the Samaritans never believed or believe in any "prophet" after Moses?!]

20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” [First of all, what does this statement have to do with anything that precedes it? Second, it should be duly noted that according to a knowledgeable Samaritan they believe that Gerizim was in their possession during the first century, but then taken over by the Romans thereafter for a long time. The fact that it is in the past tense suggests the writer is giving away the fact that at the writing of the story the Samaritans did not have access to the mountain, and suggests very strongly that it was not written in the first century],

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. [OK, no future rebuilding of the Temple with the advent of the Messiah or his return according to this implication. But the question is "why not?"]

22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. [This of course makes no sense at all. Who is "we" and what is the difference in the object of worship? And why is salvation being suddenly introduced here?]

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” [What does this have to do with the question of where people were worshiping?]

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”[Why did the author of the story not know that the Samaritans did not believe in the Jewish concept of the Davidic Messiah, but had a very different belief about a "Restorer" (Taheb)?]

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he. [And what exactly then does she expect him to explain? Now it is the end of the confused story written by someone with little knowledge of the background of the story he was promoting.]

Toto

Perhaps Duvduv's post on John 4 should be a separate thread.

This blog post explains some of the background: Chiasms, Irony and Misdirection in John

Toto

And as to why Jesus had to go through Samaria:

Duvduv

Thank you. There is still a long way to go to making sense of all this. It should be noted that the Samaritans never claimed that they had a building on Gerizim, ONLY a tabernacle/tent sanctuary that they believe(d) was the one built in the desert by Moses, the only source of divine prophecy.

And the idea that local Samaritans would suddenly believes in Jesus begs the point as to WHAT they believed in according to the story. Does it mean that suddenly all these Samaritans (in contrast to those stiff-necked Jews) simply without question believed something, i.e. official Church doctrine about Jesus?? Or the one idea that gets no traction in the other gospels or even the majority GJohn itself, i.e. that Jesus was "the Word." Why would a Samaritan believe that? For what reason? Because the woman said so? As Samaritans they wouldn't believe in the Rabbinic Jewish Davidic messiah but they would believe in the Johannine concept (whatever that is)??

How about a simpler explanation: the story is intended simply to be a slap in the face of the rabbinical Pharisee Jewish system that surrounded the inventors of Christianity and was viewed as competition; meant for that purpose even with all the confusion and elements that make no sense in context but serves to attract gentiles who know little about Pharisee Judaism but like some ideas in the Torah and what Jews believe in general?!

This view itself might explain much of the overload of confusion and contradictions we find in the NT texts themselves, from the writing to the content to the context: They were not only religious texts for a new religion but SIMULTANEOUSLY POLEMICAL documents in relation to Judaism (and also any other competitors, real or imagined), and therefore the redactors were not concerned about the contradictions and confusion. The main thing was the ARGUMENT and CLAIMS, without worrying over the details. Apparently, then, even later apologists or polemicists were primarily focused establishing the centrality of the religion and its primacy over Judaism.