Re: [John_Lit] Where are the Samaritans in GJohn?
"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.
"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.
- Jack Kilmon wrote:
> "Hyrcanus' subjugation of the Samaritans may well be associatedIf I remember well, I read in Kippenberg (Garizim und Synagoge) and other studies about the Samaritans inviting Alexander the Great
> with Samaritan resistance to Hellenism."
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.
Piet van Veldhuizen
my dutch-language website: http://home01.wxs.nl/~veldh395/pvv.htm.
- 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
----- Original Message -----
From: "historynow2002" <historynow2002@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Where are the Samaritans in GJohn?
> 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.
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
Couldn't we explore the possibility of "hard evidence"
just a tad more before we chop the legs out from under
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?
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.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:07:39 -0000 "historynow2002"
> I have been doing some more reading about the Gospel ofI think it is more likely that it is a reference to gentiles, like
> 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?
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).
>On the contrary, the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan
> 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.
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 HellenistI don't think that the term "The Jews" indicates that the writer(s)
> 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?
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, your interesting and informative post contained the following:
> I think the term [the Jews] indicates the establishedPriests,
> leadership of the Jerusalem cultus, the High Priest, the Chief
> most of the members of the Council of the Sanhedrin (predominantlyDo you exclude the possibility that a better translation of the term
> Pharisees, some scribes and some Sadducees.)
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,
- heronblu wrote:
> posterior nucheal rubicundityLou, is this term politically correct?
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
- --- In johannine_literature@y..., Horace Jeffery Hodges
> heronblu wrote:Who knows from political? But it IS anatomically correct, and that
> > posterior nucheal rubicundity
> Lou, is this term politically correct?
ought to count for something - not to mention that around here, it is
a lot safer than saying "redneck"!
Yours in Christ,