Can we prove that Jesus was NOT a Samaritan?
Nice to hear from you again.
I hope you are not implying that I changed my profile
name in order to pretend to be another person. My
specific interests and the way I write about them,
and the fact I always sign my name, should be quite
sufficient for me to be identifiable no matter where
Perhaps you can offer some opinions as to why the idea
that Samaritan Christians might have been more important
to the early Church than "diaspora Jews"? Why is this
such a futile topic to discuss? Is it because there is
zero information on the problem? Or is it because it is
too "different" an idea for people to get used to?
In the Gospel of John we have all sorts of strange clues
that should go quite a way to at least make us curious:
1) A barrage of references to "the Jews". While the
"old saw" says this is because the early converts and the
2nd generation of Christians didn't see themselves as
Jews.... imagine how much MORE true this would be for
people who converted from Samaritan families. The
Samaritans have hated the Jews since the time of Ezra.
This could very well be the "ground zero" for centuries
of anti-semitism reaching right to this very day.
2) Virtually the oldest continuously existing
anti-jewish culture was and still is the Samaritans.
They claim (and with convincing evidence) that the
Jews "edited" the Bible. Wow.... is that such an
unusual charge to the mind of the modern historian?
The Samaritans would be the perfect audience to
refer to "those Jews".
3) In John we have the offhand comment that Jesus
was a Samaritan. And Jesus doesn't respond to it, but
defends against another charge. Why? Because to him it
is no sin. He is a Samaritan convert to Judaism, or he
is descended from a family of such converts. We
know the Hasmoneans performed forced conversions in
4) Could the parable of the Good Samaritan be, in fact,
a story about Jesus himself? The Samaritan worries NOT
about purity rules, and other strict taboos. In fact,
the Samaritan has a downright Greek/modern view of what
is noble and what is right.
5) Jesus makes a special effort to visit and/or convert
Samaritans to his cause.
6) Combine all of this GJohn content with references in
Acts where it is said that the Jerusalem church spread
out into surrounding areas, INCLUDING Samaria, and we
have a pretty amazing network of facts that suggest
Samaritan converts to Christianity were an important
minority in the early church years before Paul started
And yet, John, you speak as though it is foolhardy to
suggest this significant element within the early church
could have had a special term OTHER than the word "Samaritan".
How about let's put the shoe on the other foot. The Gospel
of John practically TELLS us that Jesus was a Samaritan.
How well would you do to prove that he was NOT one?
I'm very interested to read how you would respond to this.
- George wrote:
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
Am I the only one getting a feeling of deja-vu in this correspondence, or is
it that I experienced this argument on the Gospel of John list, where I am
also a member. As I remember it, George, you convinced very few last time,
and I suspect you will convince very few this time, despite a change in
JOHN E STATON
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, historynow2002 wrote:
> The Samaritans have hated the Jews since the time of Ezra.
What are you basing this on? I think this view is rather too simplistic
> This could very well be the "ground zero" for centuries of
> anti-semitism reaching right to this very day.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
I didn't realize there would be any doubts about the
rivalry between Samaritans and Jews.
Josephus discusses AT LEGNTH about the rivarly between
these two groups in Egypt. The rivalry was so intense,
whether truthfully described or not, he tells of 2 Samaritans
in a debate against 2 Jews. And the losing side has to DIE.
This is not a casual "my dad can beat up your dad" kind of
dispute. This is a life or death struggle between the
Samaritans and the Jews.
And when the Hasmoneans destroy the Samaritan temple,
this is not exactly a form of endearment.
And finally, the New Testament makes it quite clear that
if Jews would be more willing to walk AROUND Samaria to get
to Galilee instead of through it, then there is obviously
some major hostilities bubbling just below the level of
> What are you basing this on? I think this view is rather toosimplistic and one-sided."
What do you see as something more nuanced and even-handed?
I am eager to hear what you have to say.
- On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, historynow2002 wrote:
> You write:George,
> > What are you basing this on? I think this view is rather too
> > simplistic and one-sided."
> What do you see as something more nuanced and even-handed?
> I am eager to hear what you have to say.
As posted to this group on Jul 17, 2001,
Here's the article by Grabbe that can be read on the Web,
I must say that I like his approach. This sure seems like objective
scholarship to me. He's very careful to state how much in this area is
still unknown. Also he stresses that the schism between the Jews and
Samaritans probably wasn't so severe, and didn't take place until much
later than most people think.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
to us the things to come -=O=- Isaiah 41:22
The very same thing can be said about the people
who discuss was Jesus a man, a divine being, or
In debating class, if you cannot comprehend BOTH
sides of the dispute, you are a failure.
Generations and generations of historians have said
and repeated the same thing over and over. And now
you say that I have to PROVE something.
I think "discussion" is in order before I have to
worry about PROVING something, don't you?
I've sent the article you suggest I read to the printer.
Give me a few days to digest it.
But does that mean that you dispute that the New Testament
presentation that the Samaritans and the Jews disliked each
This tangent is a little off topic, but I'm happy to discuss
it offlist or on it.
The point that I would suggest is still valid is that there
was a distinct difference between Samaritan converts to Christianity
and Jewish converts to Christianity that would have been
palpable even after BOTH groups had become Christian.
And that this "distinction" would have been the more logical
one to "label" than to label disaspora jews vs. non-diaspora
--- In johannine_literature@y..., Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, historynow2002 wrote:
> > You write:
> > > What are you basing this on? I think this view is rather too
> > > simplistic and one-sided."
> > What do you see as something more nuanced and even-handed?
> > I am eager to hear what you have to say.
> As posted to this group on Jul 17, 2001,
> Here's the article by Grabbe that can be read on the Web,
> I must say that I like his approach. This sure seems like objective
> scholarship to me. He's very careful to state how much in this area
> still unknown. Also he stresses that the schism between the Jews and
> Samaritans probably wasn't so severe, and didn't take place until
> later than most people think.
> [end quote]
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
> What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
> reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
> to us the things to come -=O=- Isaiah 41:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "historynow2002" <historynow2002@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Samaritan Anti-Semitism
This thread, off-topic and, being based on question begging assumptions and
untestable, is officially closed.
You don't get it, do you? You're the guy with the theory, its you
that has to prove it. All I am saying (and I hear people much better
qualified than me saying it, too) is that you haven't proved it yet. You
need some solid evidence and more convincing arguments.
JOHN E STATON