Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Where are the Samaritans in GJohn?

Expand Messages
  • historynow2002
    Jack, You write: I am skeptocal of there being Greek-speaking Samaritans. Certainly you don t mean to tell me that the Samaritans were LESS influenced by
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack,

      You write:
      "I am skeptocal of there being "Greek-speaking" Samaritans."

      Certainly you don't mean to tell me that the Samaritans were
      LESS influenced by Hellenism than the religious core of
      Judaism? I've never heard anyone advance this idea before.
      This must be relatively easy to "test" - - to see which community
      used Aramaic more thoroughly than the other. But since the
      communities north of Samaria were notoriously integrated into
      Romano/Hellenistic culture, I'm guessing that Samaritans were
      much more "integrated" into the Hellenism around them.


      You write:
      "Hyrcanus' subjugation of the Samaritans may well be associated
      with Samaritan resistance to Hellenism."

      If anything, I would think the forced conversion activities of
      the Hasmoneans would have actually driven them INTO the embrace
      of Greek society.... along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy
      is my friend."

      In terms of a continuum, I would say the Jews were obviously
      the MOST opposed to Hellenism.... and thus, by definition, there
      had to be more "Hellene influence" in Samaria than in Judea.

      George
    • Piet van Veldhuizen
      ... If I remember well, I read in Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge) and other studies about the Samaritans inviting Alexander the Great to take part in the
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack Kilmon wrote:

        > "Hyrcanus' subjugation of the Samaritans may well be associated
        > with Samaritan resistance to Hellenism."

        If I remember well, I read in Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge) and other studies about the Samaritans inviting Alexander the Great
        to take part in the consecratory ceremony after finishing their Garizim temple. That was a long time before Hyrcanus, of course, but
        still it might be proof that Samaritan tradition as such is not anti-hellenistic.

        Kind regards,
        Piet van Veldhuizen
        Rotterdam
        pi.veldhuizen@...

        my dutch-language website: http://home01.wxs.nl/~veldh395/pvv.htm.
      • historynow2002
        There is also the little appreciated fact the Samaritans had their own sectarian conflicts. Some Samaritans were VERY zealous in their religion and/or zealous
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 8, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          There is also the little appreciated fact the Samaritans
          had their own sectarian conflicts. Some Samaritans were
          VERY zealous in their religion and/or zealous in their
          opposition to the Jerusalem Temple.

          And other Samaritans were less so.

          It would make for an interesting 4-way analysis, where
          someone tested each Samaritan sect (including the Dositheans)
          for the degree of "integration" into the Post-Alexandrian
          Hellenistic world.

          George
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: historynow2002 To: Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 8, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "historynow2002" <historynow2002@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:39 PM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Where are the Samaritans in GJohn?


            > Jack,
            >
            > You write:
            > "I am skeptocal of there being "Greek-speaking" Samaritans."
            >
            > Certainly you don't mean to tell me that the Samaritans were
            > LESS influenced by Hellenism than the religious core of
            > Judaism? I've never heard anyone advance this idea before.
            > This must be relatively easy to "test" - - to see which community
            > used Aramaic more thoroughly than the other. But since the
            > communities north of Samaria were notoriously integrated into
            > Romano/Hellenistic culture, I'm guessing that Samaritans were
            > much more "integrated" into the Hellenism around them.

            I am not sure where we are going with this since we have gotten into
            "suppositional" history and I do not see a connection to Johannine
            literature. The original question concerning where Samaritans were in 4G was
            adequately answered by Yuri and expanded a bit by me..but I get the sense
            that a previously unsuccessful thread is about to be resurrected and would
            like to respectfully discourage this in a forum that is more demanding in
            its academic requirements as it relates to evidence.

            Jack
          • historynow2002
            Jack, Naturally, you must discourage whichever threads you find wanting. But I have proposed examining ways of TESTING the idea that Samaritans were more
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Jack,

              Naturally, you must discourage whichever threads you find
              wanting. But I have proposed examining ways of TESTING
              the idea that Samaritans were more likely to be Greek-
              speaking than Diaspora Jews. I proposed this because
              I know you consider this a "forum that is more
              demanding in its academic requirements as it relates
              to evidence."

              Couldn't we explore the possibility of "hard evidence"
              just a tad more before we chop the legs out from under
              the idea?

              Otherwise, we are going to leave the Samaritan converts
              to Christianity as a phantom in the bible, while perhaps
              falsely giving Diaspora Jews a greater role than is perhaps
              suggested by the rather dramatic involvement of Jesus with
              the Samaritan community.

              Your thoughts on the matter, sir?

              George
            • Thomas W Butler
              George, I am obviously WAY behind in responding to e-mail messages. I hope it means something to you that I saved your message from last February because I
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 20, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                George,
                I am obviously WAY behind in responding to e-mail messages.
                I hope it means something to you that I saved your message from
                last February because I wanted to respond to it.

                You said:
                On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:07:39 -0000 "historynow2002"
                <historynow2002@...> writes:
                > I have been doing some more reading about the Gospel of
                > John in relation to the Jewish community.
                >
                > As we know, Jesus made some significant headway to the
                > Samaritans. And after the Jerusalem community "fled"
                > persecutions in Jerusalem (except for the Apostles),
                > we know that some of the community moved into Samaria.
                >
                > So, when John and other books mention the Hellenes or
                > Hellenistic Jews, isn't it natural to assume that this is
                > a reference to SAMARITAN believers, rather than to
                > "diaspora" Jews?

                I think it is more likely that it is a reference to gentiles, like
                Roman soldiers and court officials. The Fourth Gospel does
                indicate that Jesus had the attention of such people. Some of
                them were obviously followers, even though they were not
                necessarily Jews. (See Jn. 4: 46-54).
                >
                > This would also explain the pervasive use of the term
                > "the Jews" in John. If the book of John was written BY
                > or TO an audience of Samaritan converts, categorizing the
                > Jews as "the Jews" would be COMPLETELY expected...
                > indeed, required. Since there would be no other term available
                > to a Samaritan convert to Christianity to distinguish between
                > them and unconverted Jews.

                On the contrary, the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan
                woman in John 4 suggests that Jesus not only accepted Samaritans
                as disciples, but he "sent" one of them to her neighbors. (ie: She
                was an apostle to the Samaritans.) I agree with Raymond Brown
                that the gospel supports the idea that there were Samaritans among
                the community of believers who followed Jesus and had a part in
                creating the gospel, but I see no evidence to suggest that the gospel
                was written by or to an audience of Samaritan converts, at least
                not exclusively. The writer(s) of the gospel have indicated a degree
                of acceptance by Jesus of Samaritans that got him into hot water
                with the Jewish officials (See John 8: 48). My point is that Jesus
                is pictured as not excluding Samaritans as Jewish authorities and
                perhaps the general Jewish population apparently did.

                > So the question arises that if the term Hellene or Hellenist
                > does NOT refer to Samaritan converts to Christianity, then
                > WHERE are expected references to Samaritan converts to
                > Christianity? Why would the writer go out of his way to
                > mention DIASPORA JEWISH CONVERTS with a special
                > term, but NOT the VERY special category that SAMARITAN
                > CONVERTS would obviously merit?

                I don't think that the term "The Jews" indicates that the writer(s)
                of the Gospel are going out of their way to create a special term
                for Jews of the diaspora. I think the term indicates the established
                leadership of the Jerusalem cultus, the High Priest, the Chief Priests,
                most of the members of the Council of the Sanhedrin (predominantly
                Pharisees, some scribes and some Sadducees.)

                I draw this conclusion both from the way "The Jews" are
                characterized in the narrative and from the fact that this term
                is used that way in Nehemiah 2: 16 in the context of a need
                to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple. Note that
                Nehemiah was the bearer of the king's wine chalice and that
                he approached the king in the month of Nisan. He arrives
                and is in Jerusalem for three days. He left the city at night and
                inspected the walls, then returned. "The officials did not know
                where I had gone or what I was doing; I had not yet told the
                Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials, and the rest that
                were to do the work."

                Yours in Christ's service,
                Tom Butler
              • heronblu
                ... Priests, ... Do you exclude the possibility that a better translation of the term in question might be the Judeans ? If the leadership of the Christian
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 21, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tom, your interesting and informative post contained the following:

                  > I think the term [the Jews] indicates the established
                  > leadership of the Jerusalem cultus, the High Priest, the Chief
                  Priests,
                  > most of the members of the Council of the Sanhedrin (predominantly
                  > Pharisees, some scribes and some Sadducees.)

                  Do you exclude the possibility that a better translation of the term
                  in question might be "the Judeans"? If the leadership of the
                  Christian Church (including, perhaps, the leadership of the Johannine
                  community) was or had been Galilean and if the Judeans were
                  disdainful of Galileans, one might expect that "the Jews" might have
                  been applied in a blanket fashion as a pejorative to anyone with so
                  much as a Judean accent, much as "Noo Yorker" is used by some of my
                  neighbors with posterior nucheal rubicundity as a blanket term of
                  disrespect. Furthermore, look at what happened to the local boy when
                  he went to the Big Apple.
                  Yours in Christ,
                  Lou
                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                  ... Lou, is this term politically correct? Jeffery Hodges ===== Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 21, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    heronblu wrote:

                    > posterior nucheal rubicundity

                    Lou, is this term politically correct?

                    Jeffery Hodges

                    =====
                    Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                    447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                    Yangsandong 411
                    South Korea

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
                    http://health.yahoo.com
                  • heronblu
                    ... Who knows from political? But it IS anatomically correct, and that ought to count for something - not to mention that around here, it is a lot safer than
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 21, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In johannine_literature@y..., Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      <jefferyhodges@y...> wrote:
                      > heronblu wrote:
                      >
                      > > posterior nucheal rubicundity
                      >
                      > Lou, is this term politically correct?
                      >
                      Who knows from political? But it IS anatomically correct, and that
                      ought to count for something - not to mention that around here, it is
                      a lot safer than saying "redneck"!
                      Yours in Christ,
                      Lou
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.