On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, g wrote:

> I'm searching for opinions regarding the
> role that Samaritan converts to Christianity
> might have played in Jerusalem, BEFORE the
> appointment of deacons there.
>
> Acts talks about a conflict between "Hellenes"
> or "Greeks" and the "Jews" of the Christian
> community. And this seems to be consistent with
> what we know of relations between Samaritans
> and Jews in general.
>
> However, there are those who think that this
> was merely a conflict between Greek speaking
> Jews and Hebrew speaking Jews.
>
> My problems with this view are:
>
> 1) So what happened to the Samaritans? With
> all of the recruiting Jesus did in Gallilee
> and even in Samaria, are there really so few
> Samaritan or Gallilee converts?
>
> 2) If they a Jew is called, more or less,
> a "Greek" because he speaks Greek, would Jesus
> have been called a "Greek" by the average
> Palestinian?
>
> Comments and tongue lashings welcome!

Hi, George,

Actually, this subject has been of considerable interest to me lately, and
I've been doing some research in this area. In my new book, this theme
will be very prominent. I think the Samaritans are very important for
understanding the real history of NT.

But I think your current focus may be a bit too narrow. Before we get to
the point of asking about Samaritan converts to Christianity in Jerusalem
at that particular period post-crucifixion, a number of important
background questions must be clarified first.

First of all, Who were the Samaritans, and why was there an enmity between
them and the Jews at the time of Jesus? This question alone will take a
very long time to answer. What was really the nature of the conflict
between the Pharisees and the Samaritans?

And there are still more questions,

- Can the Samaritans also be considered as Jews?
- Were the Samaritans closer theologically to the Sadduccees than to the
Pharisees?
- Why were the Samaritans critical of the Jerusalem Temple cult?

But the biggest, and the most politically sensitive question of all (in
the context of Judaism) seems to be,

- When did the Samaritan tradition really become separated from the
mainstream Jewish tradition, which is Jerusalem-based?

This question is a lot more complicated than many people may think.

Now, let's take a look at the Samaritans in the NT. To start with, it is
clear that, while Lk and Jn are quite interested in Samaritans, Mt thinks
otherwise,

Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following
instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the
Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

But according to Jn, Jesus, himself, stays in a Samaritan village right at
the beginning of his ministry, and makes a lot of converts there! This is
quite a contradiction, you will agree?

And for Lk, a Samaritan exceeds all others in his faith,

Lk 17:16 and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks.
Now he was a Samaritan.
17 Then said Jesus, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are
the nine?
18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God
except this foreigner?"
19 And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith
has made you well."

Also, according to Jn, Jesus was thought to be a Samaritan himself,

John 8:48 The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a
Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

So, basically, we seem to get this split in the middle on this subject
between Mt/Mk (which really seem like two somewhat different versions of
one and the same tradition) and Jn/Lk. Generally, I see Mt/Mk as based on
an early Judean gospel, and Jn/Lk as based on a primitive Northern
Israeli, or Samaritan-friendly gospel.

In the course of my recent research, I've discovered a lot of completely
new evidence in this whole area. This is mostly found in the Pepysian
Gospel. So here are some of my latest findings summarised briefly. It will
all be explained in my book when it's out.

- Jesus was a close associate of JB, who was actually closely linked with
the Samaritans.

- It looks to me like the proto-Lk was the original Christian gospel. It
was the product of the Northern Judaism, current in Northern Israel and
Syria. pLk was also rather close to, and quite friendly with the
Samaritans.

- This pLk was rather short, and entirely Jewish in its spirit (i.e.
respectful of the Torah), and generally Jewish-friendly. I date its wide
publication to ca 80 ce.

- At some point, this pLk elicited a response from Jerusalem, from the
apostolic community there, and this response took the form of a
proto-Mk. This was the source of Mt/Mk. This pMk was the first edition of
a Judaic-Christian gospel -- representing the Southern Judaism. The
attitude of this exegetical school was more exclusivist-Judaic. The Hebrew
Mt represents this tradition best of all. This tradition tends to made
Jesus into a Judean, which he most likely wasn't in the real life.

- The pLk tradition advocated a Jewish religious reformation in the spirit
of Northern Judaism, and away from the Temple and its formalism (this is
also JB-connected). This was the real historical context of the Purging of
the Temple episode.

- Still later, a Matthean revision of both pMk and pLk brought these two
gospels together, and served as a basis for the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (GAH), which was a very important early Christian gospel. For
nearly four centuries, GAH became the dominant Christian gospel in Syria,
which was of course a very key place in the context of early Christian
history. This GAH was that famous gospel that Justin Martyr used, the
quotations from which are found in his writings. And much later, and after
some considerable revisions, GAH became known as the Diatessaron. Tatian,
in fact, did not write the Diatessaron (this seems like a false myth that
was spread after 400 ce for political purposes by the Catholic party).

- Essentially, the Pepysian Gospel represents the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, i.e. the earliest edition of the Diatessaron.

This is quite a lot of stuff, isn't it?

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

I doubt, therefore I might be.