R‘szimw gmte
Udverhgg

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
MARK AND THE SAMARI TANS

presented by

Walter D. Zorn

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Interdisciplinary

 

Arts and Letters Graduate Program

Zéizééjg: gfii_lfzgafléé®a&m;)

Major professor

Date (lei/Cg 61% / V513

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

MSU

LlBRARlES
._:_—_

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop—to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK AND THE SAMARITANS

BY

Walter D. Zorn

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Arts and Letters
Interdisciplinary Program

1983

ABSTRACT
MARK AND THE SAMARITANS
BY

Walter D. Zorn

John Bowman, a leading scholar for Samaritan studies, wrote: "The
Samaritan problem does not appear in Mark at all."1 His statement is
challenged by this dissertation.

The introductory chapter establishes the origin of the Samaritans by
critically analyzing the highly polemical views of the Judaist and Samaritans.
The definitive break between Jews and Samaritans was a gradual process that
culminated sometime between c.300 B.C. and 100 B.C.

The second chapter reviews the history, sects and theology of the
Samaritans from 100 B.C. to 70 A.D. It was during this time that a major
sectarian group arose in Samaritanism: the Dositheans. Their teachings
would greatly affect later post-first century Samaritanism. Samaritan
theology essentially can be cast in the form of their creedal statement:
Belief in the One God, Moses, the Law, Mount Gerizim and the Day of Vengeance
and Recompense.

Chapter three reveals the criteria that scholars have used to relate
Samaritan studies to the New Testament. Some of these criteria are used
to relate Samaritan studies to the Gospel of Mark.

Chapter four reviews the development of Marcan studies through the

disciplines of form, redaction and literary criticism. The complex nature

Walter D. Zorn

of present-day Marcan studies suggests that no one concensus has been estab-
lished as to authorship and purpose.

Chapter five applies relevant criteria of chapter three to the Gospel
of Mark and finds that Mark's gospel has a historical framework that could
easily arise out of the "Stephen-Philip Movement," a missionary enterprise
for the Samaritan/Galilee community. The theological concerns and statements
in Mark could only be made by such a group (Spiro's observations); i.e.,
anti-temple, anti-Jerusalem, and the down-playing of Jesus' Davidic descent.
The Marcan picture of Jesus as a Taheb-like figure who performs miracles
and astounds the people may have been an apologetic to a Samaritan community.
The importance of John the Baptist in Mark and John's association with
Samaritans suggests affinity between Mark and the Samaritans. The "Gentile
world" of Mark could very well have included Samaritans as well as Gentiles.
Albright, in agreement with Spiro, even suggested that Mark has a Samaritan
background. Because of these findings the Samaritan problem is found in

Mark and Bowman's statement can no longer be entertained.

 

John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, trans. Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975), p. 57.

 

DEDICATION

To my wife, Carolyn, and to my child-
ren, Angela and Scott, from whom I have
stolen many irreplaceable hours in order
to complete this work, this volume is
most affectionately dedicated.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special word of thanks is due to Dr. Robert Anderson for his
patience and encouragement given to me throughout the writing process.
Dr. Anderson has a special interest in Samaritan studies, and I am happy
to contribute to that interest. I am also grateful for the special
accommodation in class scheduling afforded me by all Dr. Anderson's
colleagues: Dr. Staudenbaur, Dr. William Tyrrell, and Dr. Eleanor Huzar.
Especially helpful was one teacher in the Classics Department I shall
affectionately call Chris, who taught me everything I wanted to know about
Greek mythology. I wish to thank George Brown, my colleague at Great Lakes
Bible College, who taught me grammar and punctuation all over again. Most
of all I must acknowledge the tremendous amount of work my wife, Carolyn,
put into this project. She typed the dissertation from beginning to end.
Carolyn's expertise as a typist is now without an equal. Her willingness

to type many pages over because of my mistakes is deeply appreciated.

iii

PREFACE

Samaritan studies has become an aggressive area of biblical study
since Professor John Bowman's establishment of the School of Samaritan
Studies of the Department of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the
University of Leeds (1950-1959). Professor Bowman is now with the Depart-
ment of Semitic Studies, the University of Melbourne. Since 1959, John
Macdonald has continued the Samaritan studies at the University of Leeds.1

The importance of the Samaritans is to be found in their extreme
conservatism. In 1977, there were around 250 Samaritans located at Nablus,
near the ruins of the biblical city of Shechem while approximately the same
number were located at Holon, just south of Tel Aviv. Today those numbers
are increasing.

To study these people, their history, culture, and theology is to
place oneself back into biblical times. Bowman has summarized the importance
of the Samaritans in this manner:

The importance of Samaritanism is that we see, as it were in slow

motion, the new principles being accepted, but can study the old as

they existed, and see how in Samaritanism they were perpetuated long
after their disappearance in the other faiths of Hebraic origin.

 

l . .
John Macdonald, "The Leeds School of Samaritan Studies," The Annual

of Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (1961—62) 115.

 

 

2 .
John Bowman, "The Importance of Samaritan Researches," The Annual of
Leeds University Oriental Society 1 (1958-59) 51.

 

 

iv

In conclusion, the Samaritans are important as living witness
to ancient tradition and practice. They are our only link with the
old Zadokite priesthood of Jerusalem. Their sacrifices, their stress
on levitical purity, their calendar, all may be survivals of the early
post-exilic period, the period less known to biblical scholars than
any other. . . . The more the Samaritan field is studied, She more
its importance for Biblical researches will be recognized.
In another place Bowman had written:
This much insulted and frequently misunderstood community has preserved
ancient conceptions of faith and customs which can cast much light
both on thg intertestamental period and on the background of the New
Testament.
It is Bowman's own broad and sweeping statements about Samaritans and
the Gospels that has precipitated the topic of this dissertation. He stated:
The gospel of John is directed to them. On the other hand, the gos-
pel of Matthew is opposed to the Samaritans. The Samaritan problem
does not appear in Mark at all, but Luke realizes that the first mission
of the church had to be m de to Samaria before it could apply itself
to the truly pagan world.
While no one would argue concerning John and Luke's approach to the Samaritans,
though one might contend against Bowman's own specific view to which segment
of Samaritanism each book was written, Bowman's statements about Matthew and
Mark leave some valid questions. The easiest part with which to disagree
is that Matthew opposed the Samaritans. This hardly seems to be the case
since Matthew concluded his gospel with a clear mandate to make disciples
of all nations (Matt 28:19—20). The difficult statement is--"The Samaritan
problem does not appear in Mark at all." On the surface Bowman's statement

appears to be correct, for no direct statement or mention of "Samaritans" can

be found in the Gospel of Mark.

 

3Ibid., p. 54.

John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, trans. Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975), p. l.

 

5
Ibid., p. 57.

However, recent interpreters of Mark have shown this gospel to be
anything but simple, and thus its complexity may bring forth new insights
into its purpose and mission as gospel literature. Is the Samaritan problem
found in Mark?

At the risk of having a negative reply to this dissertation, thus
vindicating Bowman's generalized statement, the challenge of this question
is accepted. The approach will be to: first, study the Samaritans, their
origin, history and theology; then determine the methodology by which scholars
have related Samaritan studies to the New Testament; next review the progress
of Marcan studies to the present and; finally, to focus on target texts in
Mark applying the same methodology of Samaritan studies to the gospel of
Mark to determine whether or not the Samaritan problem appears in Mark at all.

Chapter one will review the relevant materials concerning the origin
of the Samaritans from two perspectives: the Jewish view and the Samaritan
view. Then a critical analysis of these two views will be given. The critical
analysis will discern any value and historical worth of the polemical nature
of Samaritan and Jewish sources. By utilizing what few primary sources
are available; i.e., the relevant archaeological finds and digs, the extra-

biblical historical literature, Josephus' Antiquities, Samaritan chronicles,

 

the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the study of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, one may determine within a certain time-frame the origin of the
Samaritans. However, the frustration of a final solution to this initial
problem of determining origins is expressed by John Bowman:

There is no final solution to the Samaritan Problem, whether it be

their own history, or the history of their religion--and one cannot
think of one apart from the other. There are no clearcut answers to

vi

the relationships which existed bgtween Samaritanism, Judaism, Early
Christianity and the Qumran Sect.

Chapter two will continue the history of the Samaritan people from
100 B.C. to 70 A.D.-~a 170 year period. With this historical review as
a background, the theology of the Samaritans in the first century A.D. will
be considered. The primary sources as are available, of course, will be

used; but the excellent work by John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans,

 

will be the primary guide. It is important to determine the beliefs and
practices of the Samaritans in the first century A.D., especially between
50—70 A.D., the possible time period of Mark's Gospel. By this information
one may discern any affinity that may exist between Samaritan beliefs and
expectations with Marcan gospel presentations. This section of study is
complicated by the fact that there are divisions among the Samaritans, one
sect in particular called the "Dositheans." How did this sect affect the
Samaritan theology of the first Christian century? Fortunately, Stanley J.
Isser has written a brilliant dissertation explaining this very problem.
With his help, the task of this chapter is much easier—-to clearly present
the beliefs and practices of the Samaritan sect(s), especially during the
years 50-70 A.D.

Chapter three will trace recent Samaritan studies, mostly from journal
articles, in order to determine the methodology these scholars use in relating
Samaritanism to the New Testament. Such men as John Bowman (1958, 59),
Abram Spiro (1967), Wayne A. Meeks (1967), Edwin D. Freed (1968, 70), G. W.
Buchanan (1968), C. H. H. Scobie (1973), James D. Purvis (1975), Reinhard
Pummer (1976) and R. J. Coggins (1977), just to name the most important

contributors, will be considered.

 

6
Ibid., p. xvii.

vii

The fourth chapter will consist of a review of the development and
progress of Marcan studies, the journal articles and the major commentaries
that control the field of study. A veritable explosion of materials have
been issuing forth in regards to Mark's Gospel in light of recent developments
in redaction criticism. This chapter, of course, will never settle the Marcan
debate and the problems of synoptic studies, but enough information may be
grasped so as to shed new light on the gospel's message, purpose, date, etc.
This in turn may help answer the question of Mark's relationship to
Samaritanism.

Finally, chapter five will apply the methodologies discovered in chapter
three to selected texts in the Gospel of Mark. Many texts will be explored
only for those possibilities within the influence of Samaritanism, some will
open up new probabilities, and a few may suggest genuine contact with
Samaritanism. Certainly, John Bowman's statement will either be vindicated
or need revision in light of this study. So the question remains: Is the

Samaritan problem found in Mark?

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION: ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS . . .

Roots of a Schism . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Jewish View . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Samaritan View . . . . . . . . . . .
A Critical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
The Assyrian Period . . . . . . . . .
The Persian Period . . . . . . . . .
The Hellenistic Period . . . . . . .
Literary Evidence of O.T. Apocrypha
The Samaritan Pentateuch . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. THE SAMARITANS (100 B.C.-7O A.D.), THEIR SECTS
THEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Samaritan History c.100 B.C.-70 A.D. . .
The Samaritan Sectarians: The Dositheans
The Samaritan Theology . . . . . . . . .
The Samaritan Creed . . . . . . . . .
Belief in the One God . . . . . .

The Belief in Moses . . . . . . .

Belief in the Law . . . . . . . .

Belief in Mount Gerizim . . . . .

The Belief in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense

3. THE CRITERIA FOR RELATING SAMARITAN STUDIES TO

Direct References to Samaritans . . . . .
Use of Samaritan Pentateuch . . . . . . .
The Alteration of OT Texts to Give Them a
Dependence on Samaritan Traditions . . .
Common Ideas With Samaritan Theology . .
Geographical Place-names . . . . . . . .
Literary Style and Peculiarities . . .
Concept of a "Gentile World" . . . . . .
Additional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . .
Juxtaposition of Texts . . . . . . .
The Stephen-Philip Group . . . . . .
Samaritan Christian Theology . . . .

ix

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Samaritan

15
25
25
33
43
53
64
73

76

76
87
99
101
104
107
110
111
114

119

119
124
130
132
137
148
148
151
153
153
154
155

4.

The Roots of Twentieth-Century Studies

A REVIEW OF MARCAN STUDIES

Form Criticism and the Gospel of Mark .

Redaction Criticism and the Gospel of Mark
Theological Studies and the Gospel of Mark

Conclusion

AND THE SAMARITANS

Geographical Place-names/John the Baptist .

Associations of John and Jesus
Samaritan Literary Style and Peculiarities
The Scope of the Gentile World
Common Ideas with Samaritan Theology
Dependence on Samaritan Traditions

The Stephen-Philip Movement .

Conclusion

APPENDIX . . . . . .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

O

157

159
163
176
189
200

204

206
210
212
213
214
224
235
244

249

250

INTRODUCTION: ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS

Roots of a Schism

 

The historical and geographical circumstances of Judah and Israel
reveal a division that had been there from the days of the patriarchs
themselves. Joseph was a favorite of his father, Jacob, and certainly
the Genesis account hid much trouble and distress in the family clan when
it reported:

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because

he was the son of his old age; and he made him a long robe with sleeves.

But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all

his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him

(Gen 37:3,4 RSV).

Not only did Joseph's father favor him, but also Yahweh, God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob: "But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him steadfast
love, . . .because the Lord was with him; and whatever he did, the Lord
made it prosper" (Gen 39:21a, 23b RSV).

The fact that Samaritan tradition traced their ancestry back to
Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, whom they considered to be the only
ones faithful to Yahweh's cult, makes the biblical story of Joseph insight-

ful for understanding the roots of a schism between the house of Joseph and

the house of Judah.1

 

1
John Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co., 1969), pp. 86, 112, 114-15.

 

The Joseph story is too well known to relate here except to say that
even though Joseph became a saviour to his father and brothers during an
extended famine, the stage was set for future jealousies between the des-
cendants of Joseph and those of his brothers.

Jacob (Israel) gave a special blessing to Joseph's two sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh. He considered them equal to his very own:

"And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt

before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall

be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. . . . They (their descendants)

shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance"

(Gen 48:5, 6b RSV).

Curiously, Jacob blessed Ephraim as though he was the first-born in spite of
Joseph's attempt to reason with his blind father that Manasseh was the first-
born. Jacob said: "I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people,
and he also shall be great; nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater
than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations" (Gen 48:19
RSV). The blessing included the gift of a mountain to Ephraim and Manasseh.
"Moreover I have given to you rather than to your brothers one mountain

slope which I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with

my bow" (Gen 48:22 RSV). The RSV renders Cl DU] as "slope" which literally
means "shoulder." This is almost certainly the later Shechem located between
the "shoulders" of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal.2 Shechem became the center

for a Samaritan community that had its worship center on the summit of Mt.

Gerizim. This city "had a long history with religious associations rivaling

3
those of Jerusalem."

 

2 . . . .
FranCIS Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975 ed.): p. 1014.

 

3
G. Ernest Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 3.

 

The last "prophetic" blessing of Jacob (Israel) to his sons is
recorded in Genesis 49. A brief observation shows that the longest and
perhaps best blessings are given to Judah and Joseph. Both houses would
grow beyond their own boundaries and absorb the other family clans within
their ranks. Eventually, Ephraim would become a synonym for the clans of
the North, historically called Israel. Judah's tribe would absorb the
descendants of Simeon while Benjamin's progeny, though distince from Judah,
would become identified with Judah of the South.4 The Samaritans identified
themselves as "Israel" and even "Hebrews" throughout their history.

Could it be that the jealousy between the House of Judah and the
House of Joseph is evidenced by their being among the first to be settled
in their inheritances?5 The tribe of Joseph was concerned about the size
of their land: "And the tribe of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, 'Why
have you given me the one lot and one portion as an inheritance, although
I am a numerous people, since hitherto the Lord has blessed me?'" (Josh
17:14 RSV).

At the same time Judah was given more territory than it could conquer
or use; thus Simeon obtained an inheritance with Judah's inheritance:

"The inheritance of the tribe of Simeon formed part of the territory of
Judah; because the portion of the tribe of Judah was too large for them,
the tribe of Simeon obtained an inheritance in the midst of their inheritance"

(Josh 19:9 RSV).

 

4The ten tribes of the North seem to be a little artificial, though in
general the term can be accepted. In 1 Sam 11:8, Israel and Judah are
distinct, and there seems to be no reading back into the text of a later
development. cp. 1 Sam 15:4; 18:16; 2 Sam 2:4, 9.

5
Cp. Josh 15:1; 16:1.

Note well that seven of the tribes were yet to receive their inheritances,
perhaps due to their own neglect and fear of the Canaanites (Josh 18:1-6).
But the dominating Houses of Judah and Joseph remained: "They shall divide
it into seven portions. Judah continuing in his territory on the south,
and the house of Joseph in their territory on the north" (Josh 18:5 RSV).

Because Judah remained indifferent concerning the unconquered Jebusites
in the Benjamite territory (Judg 1:21), Jerusalem remained a foreign city
until David's day (2 Sam 21:4). This fact was easily used as a polemic
against Jerusalem as the chosen city by the Samaritans in the years to
follow.6

David reigned over Judah for seven and one half years (2 Sam 2:4),
having been anointed king at Hebron before he was anointed king over Israel
as well (2 Sam 5:1—4). In reality there was a dual kingdom under one king.
David himself owned Jerusalem, for it was captured by his own men (2 Sam
5:6, 7). Thus Jerusalem became a neutral throne and a new cultic center
for all Israel (2 Sam 6). Even Isaiah in later years distinguished Jerusalem
from Judah and Israel! (Isa 1:2; 2:1; 3:1; 44:26; 36:7; 3:8; 5:3; 8:14;
22:21).

When a conspiracy against Solomon was discovered, David quickly had
Solomon anointed king in his stead and he said: "I have appointed him to
be ruler over Israel and over Judah" (1 K95 1:35b RSV). The dual kingdom

under one king still stood!

 

A. S. Halkin, "Samaritan Polemics Against the Jews," Proceedings
of the American Academy for Jewish Research 7 (1935-36) 32-40.

At Solomon's death, Rehoboam went to Shechem to be anointed as king
7
(1 K95 12:1). Apparently the right of making a king over northern Israel
was recognized by Judah as legitimate or at least necessary. Keil wrote:
The ten tribes of Israel made use of their right on Rehoboam's ascent
of the throne; but instead of coming to Jerusalem, the residence of
the king and capital of the kingdom, as they ought to have done, and
doing homage there to the legitimate successor of Solomon, they had
gone to Sichem, the present Nabulus (see at Gen. xii. 6 and xxxiii. 18),
the place where the ancient national gatherings were held in the tribe
of Ephraim (Josh. xxiv. 1), and where Abimelech the son of Gideon had
offered himself as king in the time of the judges (Judges ix. lsqq.).
After Rehoboam's taskmaster, Adoram, was stoned to death by the Israel-
ites at Shechem, war between the northern ten tribes of Israelites and the
southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin threatened. However, Shemaiah, a
prophet of God, intervened and prevented Rehoboam from going to battle against
his brothers of the north. Rehoboam was convinced by Shemaiah of Israel's
right to reject him as king and refrained from conflict (1 K93 12:21-24).
Later Jehoash of Israel had opportunity to utterly destroy Judah, but
he allowed Judah's kingdom to continue (2 K95 14:8-14). He simply took
gold and silver, the vessels of the Temple, treasuries of the king's house,
some hostages, and "he returned to Samaria" (2 Kgs 14:14 RSV). Perhaps this
incident demonstrates the recognition by both Israel and Judah that each

other's claim to be called "people of Yahweh" was legitimate, and therefore

they were not to be destroyed as a people.

 

7Saul was anointed in Gilgal (1 Sam 11:15) by Israel (the ten tribes);
David was anointed in Hebron over Judah (2 Sam 2:4); and later, after seven
and one half years, over Israel as well (2 Sam 5:3). Solomon was anointed
in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 1:39) hurriedly because of Adonijah's conspiracy and
later was anointed again for public display according to l Chr 29:22.

8C. F. Keil, The Book of the Kings: Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1965),
p. 192.

 

The next decisive event is the destruction of the Israelites of the
North by the Assyrians c.721 B.C. But this event and the Babylonian captivity
of Judah 0.586 B.C. will be considered more in depth when the Jewish view
is compared and contrasted with the Samaritan view, and both in turn will
receive critical analysis.

The above points have been made to show that from the very beginning
of the Israelite nation there was a definite division between Judah and
Ephraim. At times it was hardly perceptible, at other times they waged
war with each other. At other times they sought alliances against common
enemies. The division, of course, deepened after the Assyrian conquest
of Israel. Following the Babylonian Captivity of Judah, the Jews who returned
to Judah considered themselves superior to those who had been left in Israel
and Judah and even to those who had remained in Babylon. Thus, the schism
between Samaritans and Jews was inevitable.

The geographical boundaries of Israel and Judah contributed to their
ultimate separation. Israel had the most fertile land with wide valleys
for good agricultural crops. Being the crossroads of commercial routes
increased Israel's wealth. However, because of this she was susceptible
to influences from neighboring countries--politically, culturally, and reli-
giously. Further, she was vulnerable to enemy encroachments. Judah, on the
other hand, was separated from her enemies and her friends as well by mountain-
ous areas to her north and east and desert to the south. Because her primary
industry was sheepherding, she remained relatively poor. Jerusalem had been
a Jebusite fortress until David's day, and it continued to act as a formidable

fortress for Judah and her kings. Because of these natural barriers, Judah

was much more isolated from her neighbors and sought a special pride in the
famous temple of Solomon until its destruction in 586 B.C.

When considering the origin of the Samaritan sect, one must always keep
in mind the fundamental differences and competitive history between the
northern tribes, especially Ephraim, and the southern tribes of Judah and
Benjamin. Without this understanding, the small amount of data we have would
be frustrating beyond measure.

The next section will trace, first, the Jewish view of the origin of
the Samaritans, and second, the Samaritans' own view. Finally, a critical
analysis will be given of both in order to establish as firmly as the data

will allow the origin of the Samaritan sect.

The Jewish View

 

The Jewish view was derived from 2 Kings 17, and its interpretation
by Josephus' Antiquities. The Old Testament books of Haggai, Ezra, and
Nehemiah illustrated the tensions brought on by the events of 2 Kings 17.
Unfortunately this view is accepted by a large portion of the Christian
church. A notable example is John Bright's uncritical acceptance of this
View:

These foreigners brought their native customs and religions with them

and, together with others brought in still later, mingled with the

surviving Israelits population. We shall meet their descendants later
as the Samaritans.

 

9
John Bright, A History of Israel, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1972), p. 274.

 

This viewpoint came from a reading of 2 Kings 17 without a critical analysis
of its content. On the surface one could view 2 Kings 17 in the following
manner: Hoshea, the last king of Israel, had to pay tribute to the powerful
state of Assyria. When he refused to pay tribute while at the same time
seeking a treaty alliance with Egypt, the king of Assyria, Shalmaneser,
bound him in prison and then invaded the land beseiging Samaria for three
years (vss. 1-5). "In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured
Samaria, and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and placed them

in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the
Medes" (2 Kgs 17:6 RSV).

In verses 7-23, the writer of 2 Kings explained why God allowed the
destruction of the Northern Israelites; i.e., they had

feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations . . .

and in the customs which the kings of Israel had introduced. . .

They built for themselves high places at all their towns, . . .

pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree

. . . served idols. . . . They despised his statutes, and his cove—

nant. . . . They went after false idols . . . made for themselves

molten images of two calves; and they made an Asherah, and worshipped
all the host of heaven, and served Ba'al. And they burned their sons
and their daughters as offerings, and used divination and sorcery,
and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking
him to anger. . . . None was left but the tribe of Judah only

(2 K93 17:7, 10, 12, 15, 18 RSV).

Interestingly, vs. 19 presented Judah as under judgment too, but it
was quickly passed over for a short polemic against Israel's existence
beginning with Jeroboam (vss. 21-23): "So Israel was exiled from their own
land to Assyria until this day" (vs. 23b).

The last half of 2 Kings 17 is the relevant portion to the Samaritan
problem, revealing the practice of the Assyrians, i.e., replacing captured

peoples in foreign lands. "And the king of Assyria brought people from

Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sephar-vaim, and placed them in the cities

of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of
Samaria, and dwelt in its cities" (2 Kgs 17:24 RSV).

These peoples were attacked by lions because they did not fear Yahweh,
God of the Israelites (v. 25). Therefore, a priest of the Israelites was
sent by the king of Assyria to teach the law and proper worship of "the god
of the lands" (vss. 25—28). As a result a strong syncretism developed where
"they feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of
the nations from among whom they had been carried away" (v. 33).

It should be noted that in vs. 29 our English versions translate the
Hebrew wordlj’gulngQElas "the Samaritans." A critical evaluation will be
made of this term later, but it is enough to say here that this English
translation has certainly encouraged the perpetuation of the Jewish view of
Samaritan origins. The writer of the passage accused this people of develop-
ing a false priesthood. "They also feared the Lord, and appointed from
among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who
sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places" (vs. 32). In other
words, it was not by God's decree that these people served as priests.
Further charges against these people, the so-called "Samaritans," in vss.
34b-40 indicated the strong abhorence of their worship of other gods and
neglect of the law and commandments.

The charge of syncretism was important to the writer, for he ended
this section (chapter) with: "So these nations feared the Lord, and also
served their graven images; their children likewise, and their children's

children--as their fathers did, so they do to this day" (2 Kgs 17:41 RSV).

10

To these colonists were added those introduced by Esarhaddon and
Ashurbanipal (Ezra 4:2, 10). These heathens, who had a thin veneer of
Yahwism to their cult, were the ones who sought to halt the work on the
Jerusalem temple (Ezra 4:2ff; Neh 2:19; 4:2ff).

In accordance with this view, the Jews dub the Samaritans contempt-

uously "men of Cutha" CJ’IWTZD; or--in slightly more charitable vein--

speak of them as "lion converts" Illhjl< '3) regarding them, at best,
as one degree nearer than Gentilss, but still not as full-fledged
members of the house of Israel.

Josephus must be considered a major part of the Jewish view. His
interpretations of the biblical materials considered thus far, and his
general view of the Samaritans gave insight into how the Jews of the first
century A.D. viewed the origin of the Samaritans.

There is no doubt that Josephus interpreted 2 Kings 17 as the histor-
ical account of Samaritan origins.ll He wrote that the Assyrians removed
a pagan people from Cutha of Persia and settled them in Samaria. The ten
tribes were exiled 947 years after the entrance into Palestine. The
Cuthaioi or Cuthim were idol worshippers, and therefore Yahweh brought a
"pestilence" upon them. Through an oracle they were told to worship Yahweh
of the land, so they appealed to the Assyrians to send priests of the

captives to teach them how to worship Yahweh properly. The priests were

sent and the Cuthim readily accepted their teaching and so were saved.

 

10 . . . .
George Buttrick, ed., Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV,
R-Z, Abingdon, p. 191.

 

l , .
1Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Vol. VI, Books IX-XI, trans. Ralph Marcus,
Loeb Classical Library, ix. 279-80, 288-91.

 

ll

Josephus commented that "these same rites have continued in use even to
this day among those who are called Cuthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue,
and Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks."12 He charged the Samaritans
with a vacillating attitude toward the Jews. When the Jews prosper, the
Samaritans claim kinship through Joseph; and when the Jews were persecuted,
the Samaritans feign no kinship and claim to be aliens of another race.
Josephus claimed that these same people, the Samaritans or Cuthaeans,
were the ones who attempted to prevent the Jewish exiles from rebuilding
Jerusalem and its temple.13 He charged that the Samaritans had bribed
the satraps and those in charge to neglect the building projects. Cyrus
died ignorant of the Samaritan mischief. Josephus stated that the Samaritans
asked to be allowed to join the rebuilding of the temple. The Jews rebuffed
them but allowed them to worship at the temple if they desired. Angrily
the Samaritans again sought to stop the work by writing a letter to Darius
accusing the Jews of fortifying the city as a rebellious act. For a while
the Samaritans managed to persecute the Jews and delay their building until
the Jewish envoy to Darius communicated their plight. Darius forced the
Samaritans to cease their harrassment of the temple project and to pay
the expenses of the priests' daily sacrifices. Though there were some
variations, Josephus based this section on Ezra 4.
Just as the Samaritans tried to halt the construction of the temple
(although at first offering to help), they along with the Ammanites and
12Ibid., 290.

13
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities xi. 19-20, 84—88, 97, 114-19.

12

and Moabites and those living in Coele—Syria sought to hinder the rebuild-
ing of Jerusalem's walls.l4 Josephus' source was probably Nehemiah 4,
though he enters slight variations into the text.

Josephus also related how Sanballat gave his daughter, Nikaso, in
marriage to Manasses, supposedly the brother of the Jerusalem high priest,
Jaddus.15 This alliance was supposed to secure the goodwill of the Jews
by Sanballat, but it backfired. The Jews refused to accept Manasses'
marriage to Nikaso, for they considered her "a foreigner." This incident
may be the one recorded in Neh 13:28. When he was promised a priesthood,
the office of high priest and a temple similar to Jerusalem's temple to be
built on Mount Gerizim, Manasses went over to Sanballat's side.16 The
promise was provisional on Darius' orders.

It was at this time that Darius was defeated by Alexander the Great
at Issus, October, 333 B.C. Sanballat, therefore, submitted to Alexander.
He sought and received permission to build a temple on Mt. Gerizim for his
son-in-law, Manasses. Josephus wrote as though the temple had been built
before Sanballat's death nine months later, but this would have been too
short a period for such a project.

Josephus next related a positive meeting between Alexander and the
Jews of Jerusalem, one which included the remittance of taxes in the

4
1 Ibid., 174-75.

15Ibid., 302—03, 306-07. See R. Marcus' note c on pp. 460, 461

concerning Sanballat and Jaddua.

l6Ibid., 310-11.

17
Ibid., 322-25.

13

seventh year. Then followed his account of the negative encounter with
the Samaritans.

When the Samaritans, whom Josephus called "apostates from the Jewish
nations," saw Alexander's favorable disposition toward the Jews, they
determined to claim Jewish kinship. Josephus claimed that their attempt
to gain the seventh year remittance failed.

Alexander's refusal rested in the Samaritans self-given title, "Sidonians
of Shechem," which to Alexander means they could not claim to be Jews as
well. However, Alexander did allow the temple on Mt. Gerizim, as did his
successors.

Josephus claimed that Jews who violated their laws would flee to the
Shechemites, claiming to be unjustly expelled. It is clear that Josephus
views the temple as connected with Alexander, that the Samaritans collected
rebel law breakers from the Jewish south, and continued to vacillate on
their claim to be true Jews according to the need of the time.18

Josephus' next remarks concerning the Samaritans occurred in his dis—
cussion of Alexander's successors and their treatment of the Jewish and
Samaritan peoples.19 In the attempt to control Palestine as a buffer region
for Egypt, Ptolemy invaded the area of Judah and Samaria taking captives
to Alexandria. Josephus related how the descendants of these peoples argued
over the proper place to send their sacrifices, whether the Jerusalem temple

or the "Gerizein" temple.

l8Ibid., 340-47.

19 . . . .
Josephus, JeWish Antiquities Vol. VII, Books XII-XIV, trans. Ralph
bkarcus, Loeb Classical Library, xii. 7-10.

 

14

In a later passage Josephus recounted how the Samaritans claimed
. . . . . . . 20
pagan origins in order to av0id persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
When the Samaritans saw the intense persecution of Jews because of their
resistance to the Hellenization policies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, they
referred to themselves as "Sidonians in Shechem" in a letter pleading for
mercy. According to Josephus, the Samaritans argued that they were distinct
from the Jews "in race and in customs." They invited the king to name their
temple, "Zeus Hellenios," which previously had no name (cp. 2 Macc 6:2).
Josephus pictured the Samaritans as having chosen "to live in accordance
. "21 . . . . . .
w1th Greek customs. Though Josephus is undoubtedly prejudiCial in his
recounting of this episode, how much is accurate cannot be easily ascertained.
It is possible that the Samaritans suffered similarly as the Jews at the
hands of Antiochus, and the Grecian name for their temple was forced upon
them.
Resembling an earlier controversy (Antiquities xii, 10), another story
. .. . .. . 22
is told by Josephus to highlight JeW1Sh superiority over the Samaritans.
The Jews in Alexandria and the Samaritans disputed before Ptolemy over whose
respective temple was built according to the laws of Moses. They requested
the King to put to death those who lost the debate. Sabbaeus and Theodosius
spoke on behalf of the Samaritans while Andronicus, the son of Messalomus
spoke for the Jews. The latter spoke first. His arguments consisted primarily

of two: one, that the succession of high priests for the Jerusalem temple

 

20
Ibid., 257-64.

2
1Ibid., 263.

2
2Ibid., xiii. 74-79.

15

had been maintained according to the Law; and two, that the kings of Asia had
always honored the Jerusalem temple in contrast to their neglect of the
temple on Mt. Gerizim. Apparently the king was persuaded without the arguments
of the Samaritan representatives being heard. Josephus took it for granted
that they were put to death.

Ralph Marcus noted that Buchler believed "that the quarrel was not
over the rival claims of the temples of Jerusalem and Gerizim but of the
Jewish and Samaritan temples in Egypt."23 Marcus noted that it is difficult
to determine both the historicity of the story and whether its source was
Palestinian or Hellenistic Egyptian.24

Josephus' polemical interpretations as well as the polemical use of
the biblical passages of 2 Kings 17 and Ezra-Nehemiah continued to propagate

the Jewish View of Samaritan origins. What do the Samaritans say?

The Samaritan View

 

The Samaritans' view of their origins pushed the date of the schism
back to the days of Eli, descendant of Ithamar, who at 50 years of age led
the schism by setting up a rival altar and tabernacle at Shiloh. Uzzi, a
descendant of Phinehas, was a mere youth and Eli refused to serve under him.
Eli is presented as an ambitious, jealous old man with reprobate children.

The main source for this information is The Samaritan Chronicle II

25

 

(Sepher Ha-Yamim), translated with commentary by John Macdonald.

 

2
3Ibid., p. 263, note d.

2
4Ibid.

25
John Macdonald, ed., The Samaritan Chronicle II (or: Sepher Ha-

Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1969).

 

l6

Macdonald has successfully made a listing of the Samaritan Chronicles in

their approximate chronological order and categorized them in Roman numeral
26 . .

order I-VII. He wrote concerning Chronicle II: "The second cannot be

. . , "27

dated at all, but it is the best and most accurate of all the chronicles.

In order to understand the Samaritans' view of their origins, one must

. . . 28 . . .
understand the Samaritan scheme of Six world periods, even if it is

"artificial" and "late": Grace (Ridwan): from the Creation to the Fall
Displeasure (Panuta): from the Fall to the Exodus
Grace (Ridwan): from Sinai to Eli
Displeasure (Panuta): from Eli to the coming of
the Taheb
Grace (Ridwan): from the coming of the Taheb to

the end of the millenium
Displeasure (Panuta): from the end of the millenium

to the Day of Judgment.

 

6
Ibid., p. 225, List of Samaritan Chronicles:

N9. TITLE EDITION

I Asatir Gaster, Ben-Haim

II Sepher ha-Yamim Macdonald

III Tolidah Neubauer, Heidenheim
IV Sepher Yehoshua Juynboll

V Shalshalat ha-Kohanim Gaster

VI (No Title) Abu'l-fath Vilmar

VII (No Title) Adler-Se’ligsohn

7
John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London: SCM Press,
1964), p. 44.

John Bowman, trans., and ed., Samaritan Documents Relating to Their
History, Religion and Life (Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1977), p. 104.

17

Their view of biblical history parallels that of the Jews up to Eli's
day with a few exceptions. However, the exceptions are important. The
emphasis on Mt. Gerizim as the place God had chosen for worship is found
throughout Chronicle II. In the section concerning Joshua the chronicler

wrote:

Q (G*) Joshua the son of Nun built a temple on the top of Mount Gerizim.
He set the whole tent of meeting in it with the ark of the testimony,
the propitiary and the screen, as well as all the altars nd all the
accoutrements of the sanctuary, everything on its stand.
Macdonald thought that (G*) could be a second tradition added to an earlier
sanctuary tradition in (A*—D*). On the other hand, he surmised: "the use
of the word temple may suggest a polemical situation, with the purpose of
. . . 30
forestalling the erection of Solomon's Temple in the 10th century."
Macdonald noted that the chronicler's purpose in placing Q between Joshua's
completed conquest and allotment of land was "to centralize Joshua's kingdom
. . 31
on Mount GeriZim."

Not only did the chronicler emphasize Mt. Gerizim, but also the position

of the priesthood.
J (A*) Now the descendants of Phinehas the son of Eleazar have the
position of the high priesthood. (B*) They have charge of the holy
things, and they have the supremacy and the final decision. (C*)
The King of Israel comes and goes a5 their command, and only under-
. . . . 2
takes an action at their direction.

This paragraph established the absolute rights of the high-priesthood and

introduced the beginnings of the story of Eli and subsequent period of Divine

disfavour.

29

Macdonald, op. cit., Joshua Q (G*), p. 93.
30

Ibid., p. 22.

31
Ibid., p. 93.

32
Ibid., Judges J (A*)-(C*), p. 109.

18

The narratives of the Chronicle II give the Samaritan view of the Schism.
Macdonald wrote: "To all Sam. chroniclers & exegetes Israel's loss of the
Divine Favour, and the schism between North & South were caused by the defec-

. . 33
tion of Eli and the attendant war between Saul & and the Northerners."

The biblical text, of course, is ignorant of this schism. One must note
the different approach and materials in the Samaritan chronicles not found

in the biblical text. Macdonald commented:

The Eli-Samuel-Saul tradition in ST & all other relevant chronicles

is consequently very different from the ET. The chief question in
assessing the ST is whether there is anything in BT which supports

the Sam. view of the period. Obviously the removal of Eli to Shiloh,
thus breaking with Shechem and challenging its rights, itself repre-
sented a schism-~even in BT terms. The BT statement of Elkanah going
up to worship in Shiloh (I Sam. i 3) has a tenuous link with the end
of BT Judg. xxi--a passage whose authenticity is implicitly & explicitly
denied by the ST's om., either because the story was not known to the
early Sams. or because it 'authenticated' Shiloh (especially verse 19).
For the Sams. Shiloh did not exist as a sanctuary until Eli made it so.

The Samaritans considered Eli the culprit who caused the schism by
seeking to take over the high priesthood position of Uzzi who was only a
youth.35 Eli controlled the entire revenue of the Israelites' tithe and was
prince over the tribe of Levi. Being advanced in age Eli sought one more
honor—-the high priesthood held by the youth Uzzi.

In the biblical text (1 Samuel 1) Eli was introduced only incidentally
as part of the birth and childhood stories of Samuel (1 Samuel 1-3). In the
ST Eli was introduced in detail and was a major figure throughout. After
Samson was presented as "the last of the kings of the era of Divine Favour,"36

33Ibid., p. 27.

34Ibid.

35
Ibid., Judges K (A*)-(D*), p. 110.

36
Ibid., K (F*).

19

the general statement in Judg 13:1 was elaborated to include Eli's evils,
a section that Macdonald considered to be a late addition to the basic material

of the Chronicles:37

(xiii 1) And the people of Israel again did, at that time, what
was evil in the sight of the Lord; (G*) and furthermore Eli the son
of Jephunneh was possessed of evil designs, with the result that many
of the Israelites turned from the way of truth. (H*) He seduced them,
and they took after idols, formed marriage alliances with gentiles,
and even gave their daughters to them8 (I*) and they took the daughters
of gentiles as wives for themselves.

 

 

This view of Eli was a strong contrast to a late statement in L (V*-W*)

where Eli and his family were said to depart Shechem and move to Shiloh and
copy the true sanctuary with which to worship God. Thus it is almost certainly
a later assessment of Eli by Samaritan prejudice as Macdonald noted. The
accusations of idol worship and gentile marriages against the Israelites who
followed after Eli were the same accusations the Jews had made against the
Samaritans.

Of course, one would look in vain in the biblical text for the informa—
tion that Eli (of the descendants of Ithamar) sought to undermine the high
priesthood of Uzzi of the descendants of Phinehas.39 Eli was not pictured
in the BT as having any conflict at all with anyone else over any other sight

. . ' . . . 0
for worship. Shiloh seemed to be the acceptable Sight from earlier times.4

 

37
Ibid., p. 28.

38
Ibid., K (xiii 1), (G*)-(I*), p. 110. The underlined words are from
the BT.
39 .
Ibid., K (8*); L (A*); (E*)-(J*), pp. 111-12.
40

O.T. references to Shiloh include the following: Shiloh was the
Place where Joshua headquartered in order to distribute the land. Also the
tabernacle was placed there (Josh 18:1, 8, 9, 10; 19:51; 21:2; 22:9).
Apparently building an altar somewhere else besides Shiloh was considered
treachery (Josh 22:12ff.). During the period of the judges Shiloh remained

20

But because the evil practices of Eli's sons and his refusal to discipline
them, God rejected Eli‘s family as priests over Israel forever (1 Sam 2:30ff.).
This section may provide the context for ancient divisions among the Israelites.
. . . . 41
The ST constantly emphaSized the diViSions. After a rebuff by the
high Priest Uzzi for offering an offering in error without salt, Eli gathered
his own men in protest.
(T*) The Josephites followed the High Priest Uzzi the son of Bahqi,
and the Judahites followed Eli the son of Jephunneh. (0*) The
Ephraimites and Manassites drove 035 Eli and his community from the
chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel.
Macdonald assessed this particular section in ST as late in its present form.
. . . 43
He noted that 0* gave "the affair a secular, political cast."

Eli was presented in the chronicler as a rebel who gathered his

. . . . . 44
community and sogourned in the territory of Judah at Shiloh. There he

 

the worship center as well as a rendezvous point (Judg 18:21; 21:12, 19,

21). Eli, along with his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, served as priests

at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3, 9, 24; 2:14; 14:3). It was the place where Yahweh
revealed himself to Samuel, the last judge (1 Sam 3:21). But its fortunes
changed when the Israelites removed the ark of the covenant from Shiloh to

use it in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam 4:3, 4). The ark was captured
and never again would Shiloh regain its former prestige (1 Sam 4:12). Yahweh
had spoken against Eli's recalcitrant sons and prophesied against his house
continuing in the priesthood (1 Sam 2:31ff.), a prophesy fulfilled in Solomon's
day (l Kgs 2:27). Later, Ahijah the prophet is said to have lived in Shiloh
(1 Kgs 14:2, 4). Jeremiah used Shiloh as an example to not trust in a

visible temple to save them from destruction (Jer 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9). Shiloh
is referred to later by Jeremiah so it was not totally destroyed or perhaps

he refers to the region of Shiloh (Jer 41:5). Ps 78:60, a reference to
Yahweh's forsaking of Shiloh as the place of His dwelling, is a diatribe
against the northern Israelites (Ps 78:67ff.). Gen 49:10 has a textual
difficulty that cannot be determined.

4
lMacdonald, op. cit., Judges L (K*)—(U*), p. 112.
42
Ibid., Judges (T*)-(U*).
43
Ibid., p. 28.

44
Ibid., Judges, L (V*)-(EE*), p. 113.

21

built in imitation the tabernacle and its furnishings including the tablets

in the ark of the testimony. "He put into the ark the books of the law which
were the version of Ithamar the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest;"

and it was this version, the chronicler insisted, that Eli did not change

but rather "he revised the order of words."45 Macdonald noted in his commen-
tary that this was "a picture of a man desirous of maintaining Yahweh worship
and no tincture of pagan worship in add. to the account--this in contrast to

K G*ff."46 Macdonald considered this passage of the Samaritan version strongly
polemical and suspect.

The Samaritans emphasized and underscored the abhorent sins of Eli's
sons. It is in this context that the ST related how the age of divine dis-
pleasure (Panuta) began; i.e., the story of the hidden cave.47 The Israelites
were divided into three camps: one was worshipping alien gods according to
the statutes of the gentiles, a second was following Eli and his sons, while
a third were the loyal followers of Uzzi who worshipped on Mt. Gerizim.
Yahweh's wrath was against Eli and his Shiloh altar, and therefore he withdrew
his divine Presence from the altar. Previously Uzzi had heard a voice calling
him from "a large cave" while he was ministering on Mt. Gerizim. The Levites
informed by Uzzi encouraged him to obey the voice.

(S*) So Uzzi gathered together the holy vestments, the golden and

silver utensils, the ark of the testimony, the lampstand the altars

and all the holy vessels; he placed them in that cave, (T*) and no

sooner had the High Priest Uzzi left the cave than the entrance of the

cave became sealed up by the power of the Lord--blessed is he. (U*)
The High Priest Uzzi inscribed a mark on the entrance of the cave,

4
5Ibid., (AA*), (CC*).

4
6Ibid., p. 28.

47.
Ibid., I Samuel, B (A*)-(V*), pp. 114-15.

22

(V*) and Uzzi rose early next morning to o to the cave. He looked,
and lo, there was no cave in that place!

The Samaritans expressed this "event" in the form of poetic lament in

paragraph C. Macdonald labeled the "Song of Lament" as "the myth of the

4 . .
departing god." 9 The same story can be found in Chronicle VII (Adler-

Seligsohn), a nineteenth century production, which emphasized the "illegitimacy"
., . 50 , . , . .

of Eli s priesthood. Bowman s commentary on Chronicle VII 5 verSion is

insightful:

This hiding of the Tabernacle marks the end of the period of Divine
Grace. The Biblical basis of the concept is the verse Deut. 32:20,

"I will hide my face from them.": since the Tabernacle was the place
where the Shekinah dwelt, the Shekinah, too, was withdrawn with the
withdrawal of the Tabernacle. The root used in Deut. 32:20 for hiding,
STR, may have also had in Samaritan usage the meaning of 'to destroy',
and is indeed used in the Tolidah for the destruction of the Tabernacle,
although it is possible that the destruction originally referred to
the Samaritan Temple demolished by John Hyrcanus. The one and only
Tabernagie they know was thus presumably projected back to an earlier
period.

Chronicle II dated the event at 3,055 (c.1217-ll90 B.C.).52

In the biblical text of 1 Samuel, Samuel was throughout presented as
the Lord's spokesman and judge of the people in the same manner as the judges
of the Book of Judges (of whom the Samaritan Chronicles usually referred to

as "kings"). Samuel was the maker and breaker of kings; i.e., Saul and David.

 

48Ibid., (S*)-(V*).

49
Ibid., p. 29.

0 . .
John Bowman, op. Cit., Samaritan Documents, pp. 89-90.

 

5
1Ibid., p. 104.

52 . . .
Macdonald, op. Cit., Chronicler II, Appendix V, pp. 220—23.

 

23
But the Samaritans viewed Samuel in a despicable way because of his associations
. . 53 . . . . .
With Eli. They accused him of behaVing like Balaam, worshipping strange
gods such as the Ashtaroth and the Baals. Just as Eli's sons were more wicked
than he, Samuel's sons were more wicked than their father. So the people
demanded a king and Samuel anointed Saul, a Benjamite, king over the Israelites.
This anointing the Samaritans rejected:
H (B*) Now the Phinahasites and the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh,
the Josephites, and those attached to them from the Levites and the
rest of the tribes--those called the Congregation of Israel, the
Samaritans--did not accept the rule of Saul over them. (27) And they
said, "How can this man save us?" And they despised him, and brought
him no present. But he held his place.JH
The BT referred to the ones who questioned Saul's ability to save them
as "worthless fellows" (1 Sam 10:27a). Chronicle II referred this statement
to themselves. Saul was presented as a puppet king to Samuel who controlled
. 5 .
every act of the new king.5 Because of the refusal of the Samaritans to
. . . . 56
accept the kingship of Saul, great persecution broke out against them.
The chronicler had Samuel, King Saul and Jesse arrayed in battle against
the Samaritans at Elon Moreh near Shechem. The reason was both political and
religious; i.e., the Samaritans had refused Saul's kingship, and they had
forsaken Mt. Gerizim Bethel to worship at Shiloh. The Samaritans pleaded
for their lives exclaiming that they were brothers who also fought against
the Philistines. But Saul and his men did not listen and a battle waged at

Elon Moreh. Many were killed including the High Priest, Shishai, son of

Uzzi. The battle took place during the Pilgrimage of Tabernacles and for

 

53Ibid., I Samuel D (G*)-(H*), G (A*), (F*)-(G*).

54
Ibid., H (B*).

55
Ibid., I (A*).

56Ibid.p I (B*)‘(J*) I (X*)'(DD*) I J (A*)-(C*) r (Q*)-(V*) .

24

that reason many men were taken captive while others were killed on Mt. Gerizim.
Survivors were exiled for twenty-two years unable to worship on Mt. Gerizim
or celebrate their festivals properly or sacrifice during the Passover.

Samuel and Saul's men continued to worship at Shiloh. But they prevented
any Samaritan from going up to Mt. Gerizim. They captured Samaritan cities
and populated them with their own people. The Samaritans, therefore, fled
to Sisera, king of Bashon.

From the Samaritan viewpoint this clash with Samuel and Saul and its
subsequent slaughter completed the schism. Macdonald succinctly summarized
the Samaritan attitude toward the schism at this point:

Here, then, we have the Great Schism between Samaria and Judah,
which all the relevant chrons. describe. It represents, undoubtedly,
an old tradition. The chrons. from this point regard the Schism as
beyong7repair--all this long before the traditional Schism of Ezra's
time.

To the Samaritans this was their first exile. The second came in
722/1 B.C. by the Assyrians and the third in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians.
The chronicles know of no total destruction of the Israelites of the North.
The biblical text, of course, only recorded the last two exiles and do not
mention the Samaritans, unless they are mentioned in the 722/1 B.C. exile
(2 Kings 17). Macdonald noted that "the admission by the chronicler here
that Samaria was populated by non—Sams. is in keeping with his general sub-
mission that the Sams. as a group were apart from the main body of Northern

. . . 5
Israelites, some of whom had imigrated from Judah." 8

 

57
Ibid., p. 31.

58
Ibid., p. 127.

25

The Samaritan reconstruction of their own history and origins as distinct
from the "Judaean" Jews is filled with exaggerated and extended polemical
statements even more than the Jewish view represented by Josephus and his
interpretations of 2 Kings 17, Ezra-Nehemiah and subsequent history. Both
groups attempted to push the Schism back to their earliest possible dates
as Coggins explained:

It would be unwise to treat the Samaritan account as straight history.

It would be equally unwise to dismiss it as of no historical value at

all. This being so, we have to reckon with a long period of tension

between North and South in Israel, within which the Samaritan tradition
was one component part--they should not be regarded as 'the North'

tout court. This provides a further warning against thinking in

terms of a schism in the sense of a sudden dramatic event. . . .it

appears characteristic of both Jewish and Samaritan tradition to pggh

back the origin of their divisions to as early a date as possible.

Coggin's remarks encourage a more critical look at both the Jewish and Samaritan

views of their Schism.

A Critical Analysis

 

The Assyrian Period
James D. Purvis's observation is relevant as one takes a critical look

at Samaritan origins:

Just as it is helpful to regard the Samaritan position on their
Israelite origins as a naive but necessary sectarian apologetic, it
is also helpful to regard the Jewish glaim of the pagan origins of
the sect as an antisectarian polemic.

This does not mean that 2 Kings 17 is necessarily wrong in presentation;

rather, a fresh interpretation of the material over against the Jewish view

 

59 . . . . . .
R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism

Reconsidered (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975). p- 121.

 

60 . . .
James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan
Sect (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 94.

26

is in order. For everyone who is familiar with the sources of Samaritanism

. . . . . . 61
is "aware that it is not a heterogeneous semipagan religion."

Since a brief survey of 2 Kings 17 has already been given, only the
relevant section of vss. 24-40 will be considered. Most critical scholars

see two separate sources in this section (vss.24-34a supplemented with

6 . .
34b-40). 2 The first section accused Israel of syncretism, i.e., "they feared

the Lord but also served their own gods" (vs. 33a). The "supplementary"
section simply reported, "They do not fear the Lord" (vs. 34b), a stiffer
accusation! Coggins saw different sources, too, but showed that the attacks
are primarily against the syncretism of Bethel:

This section itself betrays more than one viewpoint, and it is possible
to speak here of different "sources" without attempting to make precise
judgements upon the nature--literary or otherwise--of such sources.

The first is in vv. 25-8 with the possible addition of v. 32 and is
characterized by the fact that it condemns not Samaria nor the Samaritans
of Shechem, but Bethel, where it is alleged that a polluted form of
Yahvistic worship was maintained. It should thus be regarded as being

in line with a number of other passages in the Old Testament which
regarded Bethel as Egg centre of schisms (I Kings %3 and 13; Amos 7:10ff;
Jer. 48:13); it throws no light on the Samaritans.

It is unfortunate that the English versions for the most part have

 

translated D’Jj/‘J LU n (Ha-Shomronim) as "the Samaritans" (vs. 29) . In
three brief statements Coggins argued against this translation:

Shomeronim should not in the first instance be taken as having any
further meaning than "inhabitants of Samaria". . . . The basic refer—
ence in these verses is not so much to the native inhabitants as to
those who were introduced into Israel by the imperial authorities of
Assyria. . . .

. . .It would appear, therefore, that this chapter offers no
internal evidence in favour og4the view that it was concerned with
the origin of the Samaritans.

 

6 . . .
1Ibid., p. 89. 63Coggins, op. Cit., pp. 14-15.

62
Ibid., p. 95. 64Ibid., p. 15.

27

John Bowman made the same claim, but he gave a broader rationale for
this View:

Shomronim means the inhabitants of Shomron the city which Omri
(1 Kg. 16:23) built. Later the term Shomron was applied to the
country of Northern Israel. Shomronim in II King 17:29 can mean
inhabitants of Samaria, i.e. the land of Northern Israel and not merely
the city of Samaria. Those brought in by the King of Assyria from
Babylon, Kutha, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim were placed in the cities
of Samaria (II Kg. 17:24) instead of the Israelites who had been carried
captive. It is reiterated three times (v. 24, 26, 29) that the incomers
dwelt in the cities of Samaria, but v. 24 states that they also possessed
the country as a whole. In v. 29 it is stated that the Shomronim (here
the N. Israelites) had already made 'houses of the high places' and
that it was into these that the newcomers placed their own gods.
Indeed in v. 28 it is stated that one of the priests carried away
from Shomron (the land?) who was brought back after the incident of
the lions, dwelt in Bethel (itself a house of a high place) and
taught the incomers how to fear YHWH. The result is summed up in
v. 41. 'So those nations feared YHWH 329 served their graven images.’
It is important to note that the incomers, the new aristocracy, lived
in the cities. Not all Israelites had been taken (cf. the contem-
porary Assyrian record), and those exiled (cf. II Kg. 17:24) had come
from the cities. Presumably Israelites did remain in the country,
but the leaders of the people and of the priesthood had been taken.

In his remarks, Bowman noted the contemporary Assyrian record of the
events of 2 Kings 17. The Assyrian king, Sargon II, who actually completed
the conquest and exile of the Samarians wrote in his Annals:

I beseiged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na), led away as booty

27,290 inhabitants of it. I formed from among them a contingent of

50 chariots and made remaining (inhabitants) assume their (social)

positions. I installed over them an offiggr of mine and imposed
upon them the tribute of the former king.

 

6S . o '
John Bowman, "The History of the Samaritans," Abr-Nahrain 18 (1978-79)
101.

6 . . .

James B. Pritchard, ed., AnCient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969),
PP- 284-85.

 

 

"I

th

ci

tr

IE

1
:1: / "r

28

"It has been estimated that this represented at the most one-twentieth of
. . 67 . .

the population of the Kingdom," according to H. H. Rowley. His remarks

were derived from Roland de Vaux's estimate of Israel's population at the

time.

The grand total, then, would not amount to 800,000 inhabitants for
the whole kingdom of Israel, and would scarcely pass the million
mark even with the addition of Judah, for the latter was only one-
third as large as Israel, and much of it was more sparsely populated.
Sargon II says that he carried off 27,290 persons from Samaria.

This deportation affected mainly the capitol, and was wholesale, but
it must have included those who had taken refuge there during the
siege. The archaeologists who have excavated it also assert th

the town must have contained about thirty thousand inhabitants.

What this means is that there was a large proportion of the population
remaining in the land, impoverished to be sure and devoid of their major
cities with their political and religious rulers. The Rabbinic polemic gave
the impression that Israel was practically destroyed and what population
remained intermarried with the pagans who were brought in by the Assyrians.

James Montgomery's thoughts on this issue have remained relevant:

A very considerable remnant of Israel remained in Samaria. Yet
possessing neither spiritual nor secular heads, they must have been
both politically and religiously a weak community. Without doubt many
of them-~how large a proportion there is no means of judging--amalga-
mated with the new settlers and syncretized with them in religion,
thus giving a basis to 2 Ki. l7 and to the later Jewish tradition

that all the Samaritans were idolaters. Yet we must believe that some
few thousands of the sucession of Elija and Hosea, "that had not bowed
the knee to Baal," must have remained faithful.6

 

67 . . .
H. H. Rowley, "The Samaritan Schism In Legend and History," Israel's

Prophetic Heritage, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1962), p. 209.

6

8Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Social Institutions, Vol. I (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 66.

 

69
James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans (New York: KTAV Publishing
House, Inc., 1968, first published in 1907), pp. 53-54.

 

29

Indeed, the Samaritans sought to maintain their innocence during the
Assyrian invasion, for they have pushed their roots back to Samuel's day.
In the 1 Kings section of Chronicle II (Macdonald), the Samaritan tradition
divided the Israelites into four groups: (1) believers in Mt. Gerizim
Bethel, descendants of Phinehas the son of Eleazer, descendants of Joseph,
a few Levites and others from various tribes--"a small number"; (2) the
tribe of Judah, "those who substituted for the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim
Bethel the one in the city of Jebis; (3) "those who were in the city of
Pir'aton. . .the Sect of Forsakers," those who followed the pagan gods of
the nations surrounding them; (4) "the rest of the tribes of Israel who
followed Jeroboam. . .the Rebellious."7O The latter group was referred
to as the eight tribes of Israel.71 Thus the Samaritans categorized them-
selves as the faithful: "the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh
and a small number from the tribe of Benjamin and a few men from the rest
of the tribes remained steadfast to the truth of the law."72 Again, the
chronicler advocated the innocence of the Samaritans:

(H*) But the community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe

of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few of

the priests and a small number from the rest of the tribes of Israel,

did not devigte from the way of the holy law, nor did they worship
other gods.

 

7OMacdonald, op. cit., Chronicle II, I Kings E (C*)-(K*), pp. 157-58.

71Ibid., I Kings E (N*), p. 158. See also pp. 175—77. (Note that on
p. 176, 2 Kgs 15:17 the "ten" tribes of Israel seems to be a mistake for
"eight tribes" in Hebrew text.)

72
Ibid., I Kings E (P*).

7
3Ibid., 2 Kings H (H*).

 

30

Macdonald expressed the Samaritan contention by his summary statement:
Thus the downfall of Samaria in 722/1 was not the downfall of the
Samaritans, or even the ancestors of those later called Samaritans,
in the religious sense; it was the downfall of Israelites of many
tribes who formed a political unit in the course of time, and espec-
ially after the death of Solomon, a political unit enjoying friendly
relations with the oth 5 political unit in Palestine, predominantly
Judaean, in the south.
The issue is clear. 2 Kgs 17:24ff cannot be used to explain the
origin of the Samaritans. Even if the Samaritan interpretation in their
Chronicles is unhistorical, one must accept the possibility of a faithful
remnant (a few thousand) existing through the troublesome times of the
Assyrian invasion. Indeed, the Samaritans recorded their own exile in
. . 75
Chronicles II, 2 Kings L. They always separated themselves from the northern
Israelite community:
(CC*) This happened to all Israel, to the community of the Samaritan
Israelites, to the community of6the eight tribes of Israel, and to
the community of the Judaeans.
Coggins wrote:
It is at least clear that the religious features of later Samaritanism
show no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between
native Israelites and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country.
But later Rabbinic polemics used 2 Kings 17 as their source for accusing
the Samaritans of syncretism. This polemic said that the admixture of the

people of Cuthah with the remaining Israelites preduced the semi-pagan Samaritans.

Purvis explained:

 

74Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 20.

75
Macdonald, op. cit., Chronicle II, pp. 182-84.

 

76
Ibid., L (CC*), p. 184.

77 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 18.

31

Rabbinic traditions, preserved in the Talmud and the Midrashim,
maintain that Samaritanism and the Samaritans came into being as a
result of this situation. This claim is underscored in the name given
to the sectarians: They are called Kutim (from Cuthah, Kuta,II Kings
17:24). The Samaritans have not allowed this charge to go unanswered.
They have contended that the designation Kutim is not derived from the
Mesopotamian Kuta, but from a valley of the same name in Palestine.
Also, they claim that true worship was restored with the return of a
Yahwistic priest to Samaria, with no subesquent religious syncretism.

Perhaps the rebuttal of the Samaritans was forced and unnecessary.

The continual concern of Judah for Israelites residing in the North
after 722 B.C. indicated that there remained in Israel a remnant of Yahweh
worshippers, perhaps even a "righteous" remnant. Montgomery initially
offered this insight:

But the key to the problem of the continuance in the North of a remnant

of Israel true to Yahwism and able to resist the temptations offered

by aliens, must be found in the support ofgered to those weak brethren

by the more persistent community of Juda.

One such example is the invitation given to Israel, especially Ephraim and
Manasseh, by Josiah (c.620 B.C.) in order to celebrate the Passover according
to the "new—found law." Here Josiah acknowledged a legitimate people of
God who ought to celebrate God's feast (2 Chr 30:1, 10-11, 18—20). A
second example is Jeremiah's record of a curious event at the murder of
Gedaliah, Babylonia's governor over Judah after the exile:
On the day after the murder of Gedaliah, before any one knew of it,
eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria, with their
beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed, bringing

cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the Lord
(Jer 41:4-5, RSV).

 

8 . .
PurVis, op. Cit., p. 95.

7
9Montgomery, op. cit., p. 54.

32

Coggins offered two suggestions concerning this text:

. . first that it gives a very clear indication of a continuing
veneration for Jerusalem in the great northern sanctuaries of Shechem
and Shiloh and in the administrative center of Samaria, and secondly,
it suggests very strongly that some at least of the inhabitants of
these places, far from being an alien and immigrant population as

impliedebn 2 Kings 17, continued to look to Jerusalem as their religious
centre.

Not only was there the possibility that Israelites of the North remained
pure racially but by contrast Ezekiel presented the Jerusalem inhabitants as
having doubtful racial purity: "Your origin and your birth are of the land
of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite"

(Ezek 16:3 RSV). No doubt this was an exaggerated metaphorical use, but
as Rowley said: "There is at least as much to be said for this as for the
charge of alien origin made against the Samaritans in II Kg. 17."81

Ezekiel envisioned a reconstituted people of God—-one united nation
from both Israel and Judah (Ezek 37:15-28) with "David" as its "one shepherd."
Also his new Temple (Ezek 40-48) would be located not in Jerusalem, but in
the center of the land--very close to Shechem on Mt. Gerizim. Since the
vision is highly symbolic, nothing should be made of this except to say that
Ezekiel does not harbor any anti-Israel or Samaritan biases. Purvis concluded:

The absence of any anti-Samaritan bias in the policies of the kings

Hezekiah and Josiah, in the book of Deuteronomy, and in the writings

of Jeremiah and Ezekiel strongly suggest, however, that there was no

organizeQZSamaritan sect in the late pre-exilic or early exilic
periods.

 

80 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 30.
81 . .
Rowley, op. Cit., "Schism," p. 213.

2
Purvis, op. cit., p. 96.

33

An interesting picture emerges from the foregoing. Because of historical
circumstances, a group of Israelites, both from the north and the south, are
forced to survive together in war-torn, poor, and uncertain conditions.
Since the leaders, the wealthy, and the leading citizens had been exiled by
both the Assyrians (722 B.C.) and the Babylonians (597, 586 B.C.),

the status both of the northerners and of those who had remained in

Judah during the exile came thus to be lowered. Indeed, as we shall

see, these two groups came to be identified with one another, ggd

both would be dismissed as no part of the true people of God."

The Persian Period

Coggins examined the three references in Isaiah that a few scholars
have claimed refer to the Judaeo-Samaritan divisions: Isa 59:9-57:13;
63:7-64:11; and 65 and 66. Because of the great difficulties in these
passages due to the assumptions of the scholars involved, Coggins stated:

Consequently the majority of recent commentators find no Samaritan

reference here, and prefer to explain the sections mentioned in terms

of internal dissensions within the Jerusalem community after the return
of some of its members from exile and in the fa 3 of the problems of
re-establishing their cultic and economic life.

The same could be said about the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. No
direct statements could be said to refer to the Judaeo-Samaritan conflict.
In Hag 2:4, "people of the land," and 2:14, "this people," do not give
one enough evidence to support such a theory. Besides, the concern of these

prophets is Jerusalem and rebuilding of the temple. The references could

easily refer to the returned Jews.

 

83 . .

Coggins, op. Cit., p. 37.
84

Ibid., p. 39.

5 . .
See Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, p. 50.

 

34

Ezra, perhaps written over a hundred years later according to most
critical views, wrote about the events that concerned Haggai and Zechariah:

Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the
returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord, the God of
Israel, they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses
and said to them, "Let us build with you; for we worship your God as
you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of
Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here." But Zerubbabel,
Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said
to them, "You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our
God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King
Cyrus the king of Persia had commanded us."

Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah, and
made them afraid to build, and hired counselors against them to fru-
strate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of ngsia, even until
the reign of Darius king of Persia (Ezra 4:1-5, RSV).

In this text there is a "veiled and somewhat obscure allusion to northerners
. 87 . .
of a somewhat derogatory kind." Note that the biblical account of Ezra 4
has not mentioned Shechem or Samaria. Again it was later interpreters who
imposed a "Samaritan" understanding of this text. Clearly, Josephus in the
first century A.D. interpreted it in this way:
But the Samaritans wrote to Darius and in their letter accused the
Jews of fortifying the city and constructing the8§emple so as to
resemble a fortress rather than a sanctuary. . .
H. H. Rowley observed:
So far from being opposed to this rebuilding, the northern community
desired to share in the work, but was rebuffed, and in reporting
this approach and rebuff the compiler of the book of Ezra levels the
charge of alien origin against the northerners, but in a different
form from that found in II Kg. 17. Here it is said that they had

been brought into the land by Esarhaddon, and there 15890 mention of
any immigration of foreigners in the previous century.

 

86
See also I Esdras 5:66-73; Josephus Antiquities xi. 88, 97, 114-15.

 

7 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 53.

8 . . . .
Josephus Antiquities x1. 97.

 

89
Rowley, op. cit., "Schism p. 215.

35

When one considers that during the period of the Babylonian exile there
existed on Palestinian soil "the two distinct factors of the imported or
immigrant Gentile races and the remnants of the Hebrew race scattered through-

. . 90

out the highlands of Juda and Ephraim," the rebuff by Zerubbabel and the
remnant from Babylon was caused by a strict separationist attitude. John
Bowman wrote: "There is here a significant change of attitude from that of

. . . . . . 9
Hezekiah and JOSiah, probably for political reasons more than religious."
Even though the Babylonian remnant considered itself above the Jews who had
remained in Palestine, both north and south, the main opposition to the
rebuilding project came from the Persian overlords, i.e. the political
authorities. With this thought many scholars are in agreement. James
Montgomery initially wrote:

In general the adversaries of the Jews appear to be the Political

chiefs of the Persian province of Abar-Nahara, i.e. Syria, as in

Ezra, 5-6, or more particularly the Persian officials and Babylonian

colonists in Samaria, as in 4, 7ff, and as in the case of Sanballat,

of Bethhoron on the Samaritan border, who had behind him the support
of what is generally translated "the army of Samaria" a phrase which

may mean "the aristocrats of Samaria." . . .

. . .The explanation of the opposition to the Jewish restoration
on the part of the Persian officials, from the satrap of the province
down to the local bureaucracy of Samaria, is to be explained simply
as on the score of political envy against the privileges received or
assumed by the Jews. . . . The hostility to theggew Juda was, in a
word, of a political, not a religious character.

Whether it was the rebuilding of the Temple or the walls of Jerusalem,

the causes of Opposition remained the same. Bickerman wrote concerning the

the conflict over rebuilding the walls:

 

0 .

Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 61.

1 - - n -
Bowman, op. Cit., "History, pp. 102-03.

2
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 58-59.

36

The conflict between the two cities under Persian rule was primarily

a political one. Samaria opposed the rebuilding of the walls of

Jerusalem because the resurrected capitgl in the south would be a

natural rival of the northern fortress.
H. H. Rowley agreed:

It was essentially the intervention of the Persian authorities in

Samaria, who were jealous of the rise of Jerusalem to become on

more a city that would rival in importance the city of Samaria.
Coggins settled on the same conclusion that "the basic cause of tension
between North and South at this period would centre on the claims of the
. . . u n c "95
imperial authorities in Samaria, rather than the mass of the people.

So far there has been no reason to accept a definitive division between
the Jews <Df Judea (the returned exiles) and the Jews of both the north and
south who had remained in Palestine throughout the exilic period. If there
. n . . n 96 . . . . .
is no Samaritanism yet, either from the Assyrian period or immediately
after the Babylonian exile, then the next period to examine would be the
middle of the fifth century, the events surrounding Nehemiah.

Nehemiah, one of the exiled Jews, was cupbearer to Artaxerxes I (464—424

97

B.C.). In the twentieth year of the king's reign (Neh 2:1), Nehemiah

asked to return to Jerusalem to rebuild her walls and re-establish the city.

 

3 . .
Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York:
Schocken Books, 1947, 1962), p. 43.

 

94 . .
Rowley, op. Cit., "Schism," p. 216.

95 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 53.

96
Ibid., p. 57.

See the convincing arguments put forward by Ralph Marcus in his
"Josephus on the Samaritan Schism," Appendix B, Antiquities, Vol. VI, pp.
505-07, that Nehemiah served under Artaxerxes I rather than the II (404-

359 B.C.). If, as some scholars propose, Nehemiah did serve under Artaxerxes
II, then his first visit to Jerusalem was in 384 B.C., but this seems highly
unlikely.

 

37

This favor was granted. So with the necessary preparations Nehemiah returned
c.444 B.C. but only to be rebuffed by Sanballat, the Horonite and Tobiah
the Ammonite (Neh 2:10). In Neh 2:19 Geshem the Arab is added to the
list of Nehemiah's adversaries. The encounters between Nehemiah and Sanballat
became furious (Neh 2:10, 19; 4:1ff., 7; 6:1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 18; 13:28).
First, there was mockery and taunting (2:19); then extreme ridicule (4:1ff);
then open warfare (4:8); and finally after those means failed to stop the
work, political intrigue (6:2). After Nehemiah successfully rebuilt the
walls, he returned to the Persian king briefly. On his second visit to
Jerusalem (432 B.C.) he discovered that Sanballat's daughter was married
to the son of Jerusalem's high priest (Neh 13:28). Therefore, Nehemiah
expelled the priest and Sanballat's daughter and barred them from returning.
On the basis of the Nehemiah-Sanballat conflict, Ralph Marcus strongly
suggested that "the Samaritan schism must have taken place in the second half
of the 5th century B.C. . . . But it is likely that the schism had taken
place soon after Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C."98
Earlier Marcus had written: "But that there was a definite separation
between Judaeans as a whole and the people of Samaria in the time of Nehemiah
can hardly be questioned."99 This statement could have been true if he had
referred to the political structures alone, but he did not. He spoke of
"the Samaritan schism."
Concerning the expulsion of Sanballat's daughter and son—in—law by

Nehemiah, James Montgomery noted that "the Old Testament vouchsafes nothing

 

98 . . . . .
Marcus, op. Cit., Antiquities Vol. VI, "Appendix B," p. 507.

991bid., p. 504.

38

more about this scandal, and in no way connects it with the Samaritan schism.

. 100
Our authority for such an identification is found solely in Josephus."

Many others agree with this estimate.
H. H. Rowley gave this insight about Sanballat:

Sanballat, the arch-enemy of Nehemiah and the governor of Samaria,

was no idolater, but a worshiper of Yahweh, as we know from the
Elephantine papyri. His daughter married the son of the Jerusalem
high priest, and this provides the clearest indication that there was
no religious hostility between Sanballat and the Jerusalem priesthood.
Still less is there evidence of hostility between the people of Samaria
and the people of Jerusalem. When Nehemiah returned from a visit to
the court and found the daughter of his worst enemy marriegoto the son
of the Jerusalem high priest, he chased him from the city.

Coggins compared and contrasted Sanballat with Samaritans. Samaritans

were primarily defined as a religious group centred upon Shechem and Mt.

. . . . . 102
GeriZim. Sanballat was a representative of the imperial government.

Indeed, Sanballat was linked with other political leaders; "Samaritanism
would eschew such links." Further, Sanballat associated himself with the

high-priestly line in Jerusalem (Neh 13:28) and thus its temple. Such

. . . . 103
assoc1ations would have been repulsive to the Samaritans.

Of the biblical book, Nehemiah, Coggins made two negative points:

The first is that no mention is made in the Nehemiah material of
Shechem or of Mount Gerizim, nor is there any implication that
Nehemiah's opponents had Shechemite links of any kind, in any tradition
earlier than the Josephus story already mentioned. The second point

is the complete absence of any reference to Nehemiah in the Samaritan
traditions, apart from some allusions igofihe Chronicle II which appear
to be based upon the biblical material.

 

00 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 66.

01
Rowley, op. cit., "Schism," p. 217.

102 . .

Coggins, op. C1t., p. 58.
103

Ibid., p. 59.
104Ibid.

 

39

The "Josephus story" Coggins referred to is found in Josephus' Antiquities
xi. 302-325. But this tradition has placed the Nehemiah-Sanballat story in
the time of Alexander the Great. This problem will be considered in the
next section, the Hellenistic period. To add further to this point, Purvis
wrote:

Apart from Josephus, there is nothing else which would suggest
that a Samaritan schism occurred as a result of the expulsion of a
Jerusalem priest in the time of Nehemiah. No such consequences are
noted in the biblical account of Nehemiah 13, and there is no reference
to a Samaritan schism or the construction of a Samaritan temple in
any other post-exilic biblical literature. . . .the claim that a Samaritan
schism occurred in the Persian period as a result of the Nehemiah 13
incident rests solely upon Easinterpretation of the Josephus account

in Antiguities xi. 302—325.

The Elephantine papyri, which throws an interesting sidelight on the
issue, has been interpreted in opposite directions. The papyri of Elephantine
gave testimony of a Jewish Temple having been burnt by Egyptians in cohort
with Persian authorities in 410 B.C. Letters were sent to Jewish and Samarian
authorities petitioning for authorization to rebuild the Temple of Yahweh.
Part of the letters is as follows:

We have also sent a letter before now, when this evil was done to us,

(to) our lord and to the high priest Johanan and his colleagues the

priests in Jerusalem and to Ostanes the brother of Anani and the

nobles of the Jews. Never a letter have they sent to us. . . .

We have also set the whole matter forth in a letter in our name to 106
Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria.

. . . ' O .
This appeal was made to Bigwai (Josephus' "Bagoses"),l 7 the PerSian governor

over Judea. A joint reply from Bigwai and Delaiah authorized the rebuilding

project.

 

105
Purvis, op. cit., p. 101.

06
Pritchard, op. cit., ANET, p. 492.

107
Marcus, op. cit., "Appendix B," p. 501.

40

The evaluation of this correspondence varies. H. H. Rowley wrote:
"The Jews of Elephantine do not seem to have been aware of any absolute
breach between the two communities, or they would hardly have mentioned
. .108
to the one their approach to the other.’ Torrey and others agreed that
since the Jews of Elephantine appealed to both the Samaritan leaders and to
Bigwai in 408 B.C. there was no schism between them. But Ralph Marcus
disagreed:
But no such inference need be drawn. On the contrary, the fact that
the Jews of Elephantine appealed to the Samaritans after they had
been ignored by the priests of Jerusalem, the high priest Johanan,
and "the nobles of the Jews", and the fact that Bigwai, the Persian
governor, was allied with the Samaritans and hostile to Johanan
(according to Josephus' story), would indicate that there was a
break between Judaeans and Samaritans, which the Jews of Elephantine
learned about some time before 408 B.C. They may or may not have
known about it when they first appealed to Johanan in 411 B.C. But
it is likely that the schism had takepoplace soon after Nehemiah's
second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C.
Marcus' comments cannot be ignored, but at the same time it must be remembered
that it is to Persian authorities the appeals were made-~more political in
nature than religious. Also the Elephantine papyri make no mention of
Samaritans or Shechem, simply their Persian overlords. On this point, Coggins

noted that "Samaritan tradition consistently repudiates any connection with

Samaria."110 Consequently, these appeals for the rebuilding of an Elephantine

 

10

8Rowley, op. cit., "Schism," p. 218.
109 . . ,

Marcus, op. Cit., "Appendix B,’ p. 507.
110

Coggins, op. cit., p. 103.

41

Temple could hardly prove a definitive schism between Jews of Jerusalem and

. . . 111
Samaritans. More eVidence is needed.

Having already considered the events of Ezra 4:1-5 (1 Esdras 5:66—73),
the person and work of Ezra himself presents a puzzle to the search for
Samaritan origins. Many critical commentaries suggested that Ezra (or
perhaps a scribe or scribes of his) was the author of the books of Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah. Ralph Marcus interpreted this body of literature to be
anti—Samaritan:

The resemblances of style between the larger part of Ezra-Nehemiah
and Chronicles show that both books are part of a single work com-
piled by a writer with a special interest in the cult of the temple
at Jerusalem and a strong prejudice against the Samaritans whom he
regards as the descendants of the eastern peoples settlfg in Samaria
by the Assyrians and therefore as not true Israelites.

H. H. Rowley essentially agreed with Marcus but added that it took on a
"religious flavor":

The division between the Jews and the Samaritans, which had developed
in the reign of Artaxerxes I and had taken on a religious flavor
because of the growing segregation of the two communities, appears

to have sharpened and to have become linked more definitely with
religion, though it was in no sense fundamentally religious in its
originllBThe two communities continued to drift ever more and more
apart.

 

111 . .
The fact that there even eXisted temples outSide Jerusalem makes

for an interesting observation in light of the Deuteronomic requirements:

two in Egypt, Elephantine and Leontopolis, one probably at Araq-el-Emir in
Transjordan associated with the Tobiads, and possibly at "the place Casijsha"
(Ezra 8:17). Even the Qumran convenanters had some form of sanctuary. The
Samaritan Temple on Gerizim does not seem to have been built at the time of
Ezra; and even when it was built, it may not have provoked a clear cut schism
as previously imagined.

112 , H .
Marcus, op. Cit., Appendix B,

1 .
l3Rowley, op. cit., "Schism," p. 219. See also Pfeiffer and John

Bowman for the same view, Bowman's Samaritan Documents, p. 175, note 8.

" p. 505.

 

42

He also queried that "it is curious that the Samaritans are nowhere mentioned
in the Bible in connexion with Ezra and yet in Samaritan tradition Ezra is
associated with the schism more bitterly than is Nehemiah."114

Coggins criticized the View that the Chronicler (author of Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah) betrayed an anti-Samaritan bias saying that it was an
argument from silence. Besides, the increased knowledge of Judaism in the
last centuries B.C. has presented a complex political and religious picture.
Coggins suggested that "it maybe better to say that the beginnings of Samar-
itanism represented one only of the rivalries which the Chronicler saw as
a dangerous alternative to that worship of Yahweh which for his school could
only be carried out properly at Jerusalem."llS This writer agrees with
Coggins.

The hostility of the Samaritan tradition against Ezra's strict separa-
tion policies and his law reforms are understandable. But the worst accusation
is that he tampered with the text, introducing the square script (Aramaic
influence) and amending certain texts such as Deut 27:4, substituting
"Ebal" for "Gerizim," thus diminishing the holy place of the Samaritan
community. Unfortunately, even the Samaritan tradition does not give any
real evidence for Samaritan origins, for this is not their problem with Ezra.
Only after the historical events of Ezra's life was past was he hated by
Samaritans and loved by Jews.

Ezra's real significance, it is clear, is symbolic. No specific

charges brought against him can be upheld, but he, more than anyone
else, stands for the exclusiveness of Judaism. Still more important

 

114
Ibid., p. 218.

115 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 69-70.

43

and more specific, Ezra represents an exclusiveness based on Jerusalem
and its claims to a unique status. It was this traditional picture

of Ezra which made him so unacceptable a figure to the litgr Samaritans,
and caused him to be so greatly venerated by later Jews.

Macdonald had a more positive evaluation of the Samaritan tradition:

As far as the Samaritan historical sources show, the Judaists under

Ezra firmly rebutted any Samaritan attempts to press their claims

in the eyes of the Persians to possess the true and only sacred mountain

and the correct text gf7the Pentateuch. From now on Samaritans and

Judaists are enemies.
On the other hand, Coggins continually pushed a definitive Samaritan/Jewish
breach to a later date by stating that there is "no evidence in what can be
traced of the mission of Ezra to point to any significant Judaeo-Samaritan

development associated with his work."118

The Hellenistic Period
The problem with Sanballat spilled over into the Hellenistic period.

Actually, it was Josephus' account in his Antiquities xi. 302ff., that

 

posed the problem. He mentioned a Sanballat who gave his daughter, Nikaso,
in marriage to a Manasseh, brother of the high priest of Jerusalem, Jaddus
(Juddua). This event occurred during Alexander's conquest of the area.
Victor Tcherikover dismissed all attempts to "rescue Josephus' chron-
ology":
It is clear that we have here two different narratives which have
been linked together by Josephus: the first dealing with the disputes
between the Jews and Samaritans and the erection of the temple at

Samaria; the second with Alffgnder's visit to Jerusalem and his negative
attitude to the Samaritans.

 

1 6 .
l Coggins, op. Cit., p. 73.

7
l Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 21.

118 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 64.

119 . . .
Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic CiVilization and the Jews (1959;

rpt. New York: Atheneum, 1977), pp. 43-44.

 

44

Tcherikover listed many contradictory and incompatible ideas that made
. - . . . . . 120
Josephus narrative very suspect for historical reliability. He declared:

Josephus' narrative is not to be regarded as a serious historical
source . . . . it is a historical myth designed to bring the king
into direct contact with the Jews, and to speak of both the laudatory
terms. Here is material for reseififh worthy not of the historian,
but of the student of literature.

When confronted with Spak's theory of there being two Sanballats, one
in Nehemiah's time and the second under Alexander, Tcherikover reacted
strongly in an endnote:

If this were so, we would have to assume that there were also two
Jewish priests who married daughters of governors of Samaria, one

in Nehemiah's time, the son of Yoyada who became the son-in-law of
the first Sanballat (Neh. 13:28), the second under Alexander, Yadoa's
brother who became the son-in-law of the second Sanballat (Ant. XI,
302ff.). I do not think that we can accept this strange repetition
of events as historical faffifi scholars, indeed, do not generally
endorse Spak‘s conjecture.

James Montgomery had earlier expressed the same opinion when he wrote:
"There could hardly have been two Sanballats in succeeding centuries, each
of whom married his daughter to a member of the high priestly family, an
. . . . . . 123
offence in each case ViSited Wlth excommunication."
Montgomery simply considered Josephus to be irresponsible in Persian
history and chronology. Montgomery, as well as Tcherikover, viewed Josephus'
"confusion" as part of a great attempt to connect Jewish history with

Alexander the Great and his legends.124

 

120Ibid., pp. 44—45.
121Ibid., p. 45.
122

Ibid., p. 419.

3 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., pp. 67-68.

124 . . . . . . . .
Ibid., pp. 68-69. See also V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic CiVilization,

pp. 420-21.

 

45

The story of the origin of the Samaritan schism has been drawn into

the great vortex of the Alexander Legend . . . . Just as the Jews

had their legend concerning Alexander's favor to Jerusalem, so the

Samaritans told their fables concerning his connection with their

sect and temple; probably in this point Josephus was depending upon

some Samaritan tradition, which he, or rather the legend-cycle which25

he followed, brought into connection with the history of Sanballat.

These negative reports of Josephus' accuracy have recently been examined
anew because of a remarkable discovery of Samaria papyri. Frank M. Cross, Jr.
gave a fascinating report of how these papyri were discovered, deciphered,

126 . . . .
and evaluated. The papyri were aCCidentally discovered by Taamireh
bedouin in the spring of 1962. The cave was the Mirgharet Abu Sinjeh in the
Wadi Dalijeh, an almost impenetrable position. After intolerable diggings
through the habitations of bats and their centuries old residue, up to eighty
skeletons, male, female, young and old, were initially found (later c.300
skeleton remains were found) along with fourth century pottery. As Cross
expressed it:
The excavation was rich also in other finds: two clay bullae,

bits of cloth, personal jewelry, remains of food stores, and above all,

vast quantities ofzpottery from a little known period, precisely dated

by external data.

One of the bullae had this inscription written in Paleo-Hebrew. . .--

th bn (sn'--) blt phr smrn; "...iah, son of (san)ballat governor of Samaria."

Another one examined read: ". . .this document was written in Samaria."

 

25Montgomery, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
126 . . .
See Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri,"
The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 3, ed. Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and David
Noel Freedman (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., 1970), pp. 227-39;
also Paul W. Lapp, "Bedouin Find Papyri Three Centuries Older Than Dead Sea
Scrolls," Biblical Archaeology Review 4 (Mar. 1978) 16-24.

127
Ibid., p. 231.

 

46

thxove this line it read "(before) Jesus son of Sanballat (and) Hanan, the
Earnefect." Because the papyri consisted of legal and administrative documents,
EDJrex3ise dating of the material was easily discerned. Cross reported one
example:

It read b20 l'dr snt 2 r's mlkwt (d)rths mlk' bsmry (. . .), "on
the twentieth day of Adar, year 2 (the same year being) the accession
year of Darius the king, in Samaria. . ." Only one Achemenid king
died in the second year of his reign, Arses, who was succeeded by

. . 128
Darius III. In short the document was written on March 19, 335 B.C.

The latest date preserved complete is that of Papyrus I: March 19,
335. Several documents are from the 350's, including Papyrus 8 written
on March 4, 354, "before Hananiah governor of Samaria." The earliest
dated piece belongs between the 30th and 40th years of Artaxerxes II,
that is between 375 and 365 B.C. Thus the range oggdates extends
from about 375 B.C. down to 335 B.C. forty years.

Is there a known historical situation that can explain this discovery in
tliea Wadi Delijeh? Prof. Cross suggested:

One must look to the coming of Alexander as the terminus adAguem

for the massacre of Samaritan patricians and the abandonment of the
series of pre-Alexandrine documents and artifacts in the cave. A
precise occasion for the dread event easily suggests itself. If
Josephus is to be believed, the Samaritans initially ingratiated them-
selves with Alexander. Later while Alexander was in Egypt, Curtius
reports, the Samaritans burned alive Andromachus, Alexander's prefect

in Syria. The crime was not only heinous, it was the first sign of
revolt in Syria-Palestine, and Alexander returned in all haste to
Samaria, and according to Curtius, took vengeance on the murderers

who were "delivered up to him." According to Syncellus, and one
passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius, Alexander destroyed the city

and settled a Macedonian colony on the site, according to another
passage in Eusebius, and Jerome, Perdiccas settled the city with
Macedonians. While it is highly likely that Alexander destroyed the
city, it is probable that he hurried on to Babylon, and that Perdiccas 130
during Alexander's lifetime was designated to found the Macedonian city.

 

\
2
l 81bid-, pp. 229-30.
29
1 Ibid., p. 232.
130

Ibid., pp. 235—36. See also the primary source of which Prof. Cross
referred to: Josephus Antiquities xi. 297-345 (ed. R. Marcus); Q. Curtius
Rufus; Hist. Alex. (ed. Hedicke), iv. 8, 9-10; Chronicon, Armenian text, II,

p. 223, (ed. Archer).

 

47

Two archaeological discoveries reported by G. Ernest Wright at about
the same time helped confirm Cross' historical hypothesis: the rebuilding
of Shechem in the latter half of the fourth century and the existence of
round towers in Samaria, probably of the Greek world, built during this
time. Wright concurred with Cross' theory:

What were all those Samaritans doing in that cave so far from home?

The most reasonable hypothesis is that they had fled Alexander the

Great's punitive expedition against Samaria in 331 B.C., . .

Shechem, then, was Samaria's replacement as the Samaritan capital.

This explains why so large a building program, the creation litffiilly

of a new city, was carried out in a comparatively brief period.

The round towers would have been constructed after Alexander's punitive
action and resettlement of Samaria, either by Alexander or more likely

. n . . . "132
Perdiccas, thus by inference supporting the Eusebius-Syncellus report.
Because of these unusual discoveries, the story of Josephus is now taken
quite seriously by several reputable scholars.

John Bowman saw it as evidence of a continuing bond between the
Zadokite priests of Jerusalem and the ruling family of Samaria.

Two marriages between the actual high priestly family of Jerusalem

who were rulers of a theocratic state and the Sanballat family of

Samaria in less than a century testifies to the existence of bonds

between the Zadokites of Jerusalem and the ruling family of Samaria.

Plainly Nehemiah's treatment of the first case did not prevent the

second marriage alliance happening. . . . Even if the second to do

so was expelled from the Jerusalem high priestly succession, it is

surprising that it should have recurred. Was the Sanballat family
regarded by the Zadokite high priests of Jerusalem as levitical?

 

131 . . . . .
G. Ernest Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 181. Abram Spiro wrote in private
letters to W. F. Albright that he thought the bones were the remains of
Samaritan slaves. Albright concurred.

32
1 Ibid., p. 179.

 

48

Or was this a second attempt by Ege Sanballats to strengthen their
. . . . . l
Zadokite claims Within Samaria?

Cross explained Josephus' confusion of Sanballats on the basis of
the ancient practice of papponymy:

Such confusion is readily explained, however, when it is recognized
that the practice of papponymy (naming grandson after grandfather)
operated in these families. We have much evidence of the popularity
of papponymy in this period. One need only3£efer to its systematic
practice in the Oniad and Tobiad families.

The governor list of Samaria would look like this:

Sanballat I

Delaiah, son of Sanballat
Sanballat II

Hananiah, son of Sanballat II
Sanballat III

With this scheme, Cross presented a hypothetical reconstruction of the

Sanballat dynasty:

Sanballat I was governor of Samaria and probably, at least forty
years of age in 445 when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. Reckoning twenty-
five years to a generation, a long time in antiquity, his son Delaiah
would have been born c.460. By the beginning of the last decade of
the century Delaiah and his brother had taken over Sanballat's powers,
as we know from Letters 30 and 32 from Elephantine. Delaiah then
would have been in his early forties. Sanballat II was the father of
Hananiah, who was governor in 354 B.C. Following the sequence of
twenty-five year generations, Sanballat II, son of Delaiah or Shelemiah
would have been born around 435. Hananiah his son, born around 410,
in 354 would have been fifty-six years old. Sanballat II son of
Hananiah, born around 385, would have been at least fifty-one when
appointed governor by Darius III, and in his early fifties when he gave
away hii3§aughter Nikaso in marriage to a Jewish noble of high priestly
family.

He warned that this was "merely hypothetical," but at the same time made it

clear that the Sanballat of the papyri was not the same as the Sanballat of

 

13 . . . .
3Bowman, op. Cit., "History," pp. 103—04. Ralph Marcus in his

"Josephus on the Samaritan Schism," Appendix B, p. 507 notes Cowley as saying
that "two Sanballats, high priest, is a solution too desperate to be entertained."

34
1 Cross, op. cit., BA3, p. 238.

135
Ibid., PP. 237-38.

49

136 .
Josephus or the Sanballat of the fifth century. Thus, the hypotheSis
had good reasoning behind it. Purvis, having surveyed the same materials,

concluded:

We are thus given evidence of two Sanballats, whom we may designate
Sanballat I and II. The latter Sanballat still does not qualify for
the Sanballat who gave his daughter Nicaso to Manasseh; but since

he had been succeeded by his son Hananiah by 354, he could easily
have been a grandson with the same name (Sanballat III) who was
governor when Alexander the Great invaded the East. . . .

It is, then, the early Greek period, rather than the time of
Nehemiah, to which one is to look for the establishment of a Samaritan
Sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim. There is no reason to doubt, and good reason
to accept, the general reliability of Josephus'f3account of the role
of Sanballat (III and his son-in—law Manasseh).

Bowman concluded with the same reasoning:

As a result we see there was a descendant of the Biblical Sanballat
who married his daughter into the Jerusalem Zadokite high-priestly
family in the later half of the 4th century B.C.E. and who would

seem to be the Sanballat who according to Josephus (Ant. xi. 4.2)
with Alexandeg's help got a temple built for his Jewish high priestly
son-in-law.

If Josephus' account of a Sanballat during Alexander's time and the
added phenomena of the Samaria papyri cannot substantiate Cross' hypothetical

events, then scholars must remain cautious especially of Josephus' account.

As Rowley has stated:

If both stories are accepted as historical, then the husband in the
second case was the nephew of the husband in the first, and both
husbands were chased out of Jerusalem as the result of their marriage.
For so exact a repetition of history at an interval of a century, at

a distance of two generations on the wife's side and a single genera-
tion on the husbandi§9 we should need stronger evidence than Josephus's
account can supply.

 

136

Ibid., p. 238.
l 7
3 Purvis, op. cit., p. 104.
138
Bowman, "History," p. 103.
139

H. H. Rowley, "Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple," Bulletin of the
John Rylands Library 38 (1955) 172—73.

 

50

F. M. Cross, Jr. and G. Ernest Wright and others have attempted to
provide the stronger evidence. Indeed, in an important article in the

Biblical Archaeology Review, Cross gave this fair estimate of the evidence:

 

Josephus is not wholly vindicated. It is clear that he identified
Biblical Sanballat and Sanballat III, jumping from the fifth to the
late fourth century. But we can no longer look at the Judean-Samaritan
intermarriage Josephus describes with the same historical skepticism.
The names and relationships are not all identical in the two stories,
but it appears that the noble houses of Samaria and Jerusalem were
willing to intermarry despite the ire of certain strict Jews. This
intermarriage is evidence that the final and irreversible schism
between the Jews and the Samaritans did not come, as an earlier
generation of scholars supposed, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
This is consistent with further evidence that the schism was as late
as the fourth century B.C. The religion of Samaria is clearly derived
from late Judaism. Its feasts and law, conservation toward Torah,
and theological development show no real evidence of archaism or
religious syncretism. Even late Jewish apocalyptic left its firm
imprint on Samaritanism. For these and other reasons, scholars have
increasingly been ipgbined to lower the Samaritan schism into the
fourth century B.C.

Before this information came to light, Torrey attempted to solve the
problem by transferring Nehemiah to the reign of Artaxerxes II and combining
the biblical account with Josephus' account. This "solution" created more
problems than it solved; besides Rowley had adequately argued against the

141 . .
proposal. Whether one accepted one solution or another concerning the

 

140 . . - - n
F. M. Cross, Jr., "The Historical Importance of Samaria Papyri,

Biblical Archaeologist Review 4 (Mar. 1978) 27. See also his "Aspects of
Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times," Harvard
Theological Review 59 (July 1966) 205, where Cross defended his interpretation:
"What, then, are we to say about the marriage of the son of Joiada to a
daughter of Sanballat I, and the marriage of the brother of Jaddua to the
daughter of Sanballat III? Certainly we can no longer look at the episode
with the same historical skepticism. After all, the names and relationships
are by no means identical. It appears that the noble houses of Samaria and
Jerusalem were willing to intermarry despite the ire of certain strict Jews,
presumably the progeny of the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra."

4
1 lRowley, op. cit., "Sanballat," pp. 173ff.

 

 

51

Sanballats, many scholars have thought Josephus was correct in his dating
of the building of the Gerizim Temple during Alexander's conquests.

Certainly the abandonment of Samaria and re-establishment of Shechem
would offer the occasion for having a temple on Mt. Gerizim. The dating
of such a Temple is difficult to determine. Purvis added some information
concerning excavations underneath the temple erected by Hadrian 117-138 A.D.:

Excavations of the foundations of this temple disclosed beneath
it a large building (Building B) made of large semi-hewn stones laid
with mud mortar. Work at the site in the summer of 1966 revealed
that the building was about twenty meters square and eight meters in
height. Pottery found along the south face of the building was pre-
dominately second and third century B.C. Hellenistic. It now seems
most likely that this structure is the Samaritan temple erected in
the late fourth century B.C., although a4more definitive judgment
must await further archaeological work.

Rowley was skeptical of the whole matter, for he wrote:

Nowhere in the Old Testament are we given any account of the building
of the temple on Mount Gerizim, and we are left wholly to conjecture
as to when that event mighi42ave taken place, with very scanty evidence
to support our conjecture.

 

42
1 Ibid., p. 179. H. H. Rowley listed the scholars who accepted

Josephus as correctly dating the erection of the Samaritan Temple, footnote
3, pp. 179-80. Purvis mentioned on p. 11 of his Samaritan Pentateuch the
various views of scholars on when the Samaritan Temple was built. The Persian
Period advocates are J. Wellhausen, B. Stade, H. E. Ryle, T. K. Cheyne, R. H.
Kennett, J. N. Rothstein. Others accept the Greek Period (with Sanballat
not connected with the Temple): A. E. Cowley, E. Kautzsch, J. Spak, L. E.
Browne, R. Kittel, E. Sellin, G. Ricciotti. Also the Greek Period (with
Sanballat as the grandson of the Sanballat of the Persian Period, i.e.
papponymy): I. Vossius, G. E. Wright, F. M. Cross, Jr.
143 . .

PurVis, op. Cit., p. 106, footnote 42. See also R. J. Bull and G.
Ernest Wright, "Newly Discovered Temples on Mt. Gerizim in Jordan," Harvard
Theological Review 58 (1965) 234-37; R. J. Bull, "The Hadrianic and Samaritan
Temples," American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter No. 10, ed. E. F.
Campbell, pp. 5-8; F. M. Cross, Jr., "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History
in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times," Harvard Theological Review 59 (July
1966) 207; R. J. Bull, "An Archaeological Footnote to 'Our Fathers Worshipped
on This Mountain,’ John iv. 20," New Testament Studies 23 (July 1977) 460-62.

144 . . . . . .

Rowley, op. Cit., "Schism," p. 217. See also his discuSSion in

"Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple," pp. 187-90.

 

 

 

 

 

52

John Bowman, on the other hand, accepted the Josephus testimony in his

commentary on the Chronicle of Abu'l Fath: ". . . it was probably

 

145
Alexander who allowed them to build it (cf. Josephus, Antiq. XIII, III, 4)."

Bickerman suggested that it was the pride of the former Assyrian aristocrats
that laid the foundation for the Samaritan temple and consequently the
break between Samaritans and Jews. He added:

But the Jewish tradition itself, repeated by Josephus, states that

the Samaritan temple was founded at the time of Alexander the Great.

The fact that it did not receive any subvention from the Macedonian

rulers, as well as the fact that it belonged not to Samaria but to

"that foolish nation which dwells in Shechem" (as Ben Sira says),

offers thi4gefinitive proof of its foundation after the Macedonian

conquest.

G. F. Moore contended that the building of a temple was not the decisive
element for schism but rather a deep theological difference over the place
where God would put His Name:

All this took an entirely different complexion when the claim was

set up that Gerizim, and not Zion, was the place which God had

chosen for his habitation, or "to put his Name there" (Deut. l2, 5,

and often), the only place in the land where sacrifice was legiti-

mately offered, vows absolved, festivals observed, and the rest.

It is this claim, not the mere building4gf the Shechemite temple,

that constitutes the Samaritan schism.

Purvis gave a different evaluation. He considered the temple on Gerizim
to be an embarrassment to the Jerusalem leaders. For the Jews in Jerusalem

the Former and Latter Prophets and the Hagiographa supported the primacy

of Jerusalem as their cultic center. Deuteronomy 12 was so interpreted.

 

145 . . -
Bowman, op. Cit., Samaritan Documents, p. 119. The Josephus testi-

mony is found in Antiquities xi. 324 and xiii 74.

146Bickerman, op. cit., p. 45.

 

 

7 . . . . .
George Foot Moore, Judaism In the First Centuries of the Christian
Era, Vol. I (New York: Schocken Books, 1971). P. 24.

 

53

Other Jewish temples were tolerated such as Elephantine and Leontopolis, but
a temple in north Palestine constituted a direct threat to the Jerusalem
cult. Not only being a rival, the Gerizim temple could make a strong claim
for legitimacy with a long history from the patriarchal stories to the conquest
and settlement. "If the people who worshipped on Gerizim were heretics,
. . . "148

they were extremely orthodox--even fundamentalistic~-heretics.

Victor Tcherikover placed the final schism at the point of the building
of the Gerizim Temple: "the construction of the shrine was carried out only
in Alexander's time, when all hope of healing the breach between the two

"149 ° ' l

camps had gone. In spite of Rowley's skeptical approach to Josephus
historical scheme he expressed essentially the same idea: "That the Samaritan
Temple was in existence by the time the breach was complete, at whatever time
. . . . . 150
it may have come into eXistence, is highly probable."

Certainly there is no agreement as to when the Samaritan temple was
erected or to its significance in regards to the schism, but there is agree-
ment that the Old Testament Apocrypha offers positive proof of Samaritans

. . . . . . . . . l
liVing in Shechem and enjoying their worship on Mt. GeriZim. 51

Literary Evidence of O. T. Apocrypha
There are at least five literary sources which demonstrate a strong
division and animosity between Samaritans living in and around Shechem and
worshipping on Mt. Gerizim and Jews of Judea. The first source to consider

is Ben Sira 50:25-26:

 

148
Purvis, op. cit., pp. 11-12.

49 . .
Tcherikover, op. Cit., p. 419.

0
15 Rowley, op. cit., "Sanballat," p. 197.

5
1 1Coggins, op. cit., p. 82.

54

For two nations doth my soul feel abhorrence,
(Yea), and (for) a third, which is not a people;
The inhabitants of Seir and Philistia,

And that foolish nation that dwelleth in Sichem.

152
This passage is found at the conclusion of a section that praised "Simeon,
the son of Jochanan the priest." Oesterley's notes suggested that this was
"the second of the name, who lived at the beginning of the second century
B.C.; it was the Simeon, not Simeon I, who was surnamed 'the righteous'
"153

. . because he was the last of the house of Zadok to observe the Law.
The date of composition of this passage is c.200-l75 B.C. (preferably c.180
B.C.), and it was translated into Greek by Ben Sira's grandson in Egypt

154

c.132 B.C.

Following Oesterley, earlier commentators have suggested that the
Hellenization of Shechem in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes provided the
context for Ben Sira 50:25-26. The Samaritans in order to save themselves
joined with the Seleucid rulers against the Jews; therefore, creating the
fierce animosity expressed by Ben Sira and others. Oesterley wrote:

But the most hated of all were the people of Sichem, i.e. the

Samaritans, as is well known; they were, as Smend points out, especially

dangerous to their neighbors at this time, befggse the Seleucidae had

made common cause with them against the Jews.

T. H. Gaster wrote the same:

Under the oppressive regime of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Samaritans
appear to have quitted themselves with far less fortitude than the

 

2
15 Ben Sira 50:25—26 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 1:511.

153Ibid., p. 507.

154 . . -
Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1972), pp. 354, 364.

5
15 Charles, op. cit., p. 511.

 

 

55

Jews, and it is perhaps for this reason also that they are character- 6
ized in Hellenistic Jewish literature as a foolish or churlish people.

Purvis, on the other hand, considered Ben Sira 50:1-26 to have been

written before Antiochus IV Epiphanes appeared in Jewish history. He noted

. . 157
the context of Simon the Just (Simon II).

Since certain anti-Judaic activities of the Samaritans are noted in
Rabbinic traditions as having occurred in the time of Simon the Just,
it is perhaps to these that one should look for the occasion of Ben
Sira's invective. Ben Sira's admiration of Simon could have prompted
his words against the Samaritans if the lggter were a source of vex-
ation to the high priest and his career.

The support Purvis gave to this idea was a scholion to Megillat Ta'anit
and Josephus' obscure reference to Samaritan harassment of Jews during
Antiochus III, the time of Simon II (the Righteous). "At this time the
Samaritans, who were flourishing, did much mischief to the Jews by laying

. . .159
waste their land and carrying off slaves . . .' The only other support
was the political picture of the time reconstructed in this way:

The Samaritans followed a concurrent pro-Ptolemaic policy--in opposi-

tion to Simon and in agreement with the transjordanean TobigSs-—and
that this was the reason behind their harassment of Simon.

 

156 . . . .
T. H. Gaster, "Samaritans," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,

ed. George A. Buttrick, Vol. R—Z (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1962),
p. 193.

157See Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, pp. 34-35; also R. Marcus, "The Date of
the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous)," Appendix B, Antiquities
Vol. VII, pp. 732-36. The important point is that Josephus had confused Simon
the Just with Simon I.

158 . . .
James D. PurVis, "Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem,"

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24 (Jan.—Apr. 1965) 90. See the same article
as an appendix in his The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan
Sect, pp. 119-29.

 

59 . . . .. . .
Josephus Antiquities Xii. 156. PurVis noted that Josephus is almost
certainly mistaken to refer this to the "high-priesthood of Onias."

160

 

Purvis, op. cit., "Foolish People," p. 92.

56

Coggins agreed with this reconstruction in general: "In general terms a
reconstruction along these lines may well be right, for tension over the
. . . . . . . "161
priesthood was a major issue diViding Jews from Samaritans. But he
warned of the tentative nature of the support; i.e. the highly legendary

character of the rabbinic work Megillath Ta'anith, the reference in Josephus

 

could very well be "Samarians" rather than "Samaritans" according to the Greek
text, and the anti-Syrian stance of the Samaritans was reversed a generation

162 . . . . .
later. Rather than be preCise in relating Ben Sira 50:25-26 5 background,
Coggins was content for a general assessment:

All we can say is that we have an indication of hostility between

the Samaritans and a Jewish group, probably Jerusalemite, and showing

some links with later Sadduceeism, but otherwise not pggcisely place-

able within our knowledge of the spectrum of Judaism.

Whether general or specific interpretations are given as to the back-
ground of Ben Sira 50:25-26, there is a definite schism between Jerusalem
Jews and Shechemite "Jews" (between Mt. Zion and Mt. Gerizim) c.200-150 B.C.

This is clearly seen in the second Apocrypha text: 2 Macc 6:1—2.

Shortly after this the king sent an old Athenian to compel the Jews

to depart from the laws of their fathers, and to cease living by the

laws of God; further the sanctuary in Jerusalem was to be polluted

and called after Zeus Olympius, while the sanctuary at Gerizim was

also to be called after Zeus §g2ius in keeping with the hospitable
character of the inhabitants.

 

161 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 87.

62
1 Ibid., pp. 84-85.
16 .
3Ibldo' p. 85.
164

2 Macc 6:1—2 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 1:139.

57

This passage related the attempt by Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Hellenize
his entire empire, perhaps to enforce a unity that would bind together a
multi-ethnic peOple. The attacks were brought against the worship centers
in Jerusalem and Gerizim. Even though 2 Maccabees was written to expose
the evils of the Hellenizers and those who refused to resist them, this
reference in 2 Macc 6:1-2 did not show the same condemnation of the Samaritans
as Josephus' account: He had the Samaritans reject their Jewish origins
and call themselves "Sidonians," being distinct in both race and customs,

. . , "165

and even requesting that their temple be known as that of "Zeus, Hellenios.

However, in 2 Macc 5:23, Antiochus had appointed a governor, Andromicus,
at Gerizim, and this perhaps implied that the Samaritans were compelled to
accept the Hellenizing policies and new name for their temple just as the
Jews in Jerusalem had to do. Josephus took the opportunity to castigate the
Samaritans once more for not vigorously resisting Antiochus, twisting the
truth to the disadvantage of his hated enemies of the first century. Of
this point Montgomery wrote:

That the Samaritans took no part in the immortal struggle of the

Maccabees is without doubt a fact; probably they bowed before the

storm in silence if not with acquiescence. It must be borne in mind

that the trouble which came upon the Jews was contributed to by their

own factions, and that Antiochus's innovations were a response to the

Hellenizing party which had control in Judaea. Nor could we expect

that the northern sect would have gone to the assistance of the Jews.

But this point is clear that thg6Samaritans preserved their faith
through these troublous times.

 

SJosephus Antiquities xii. 257-64; note should be taken that 2 Macc
6:2 has the temple called "Zeus Xenius" as over against Josephus' "Zeus
Hellenios." See R. Marcus' note C in Antiq. xii. 261, pp. 134-35; also
Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 77. The better reading is "Xenios," according
to Marcus, meaning "protector of strangers."

 

 

6 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 78.

58

A third text from the Apocrypha is Judith 5:16 where the author listed

the enemies of true Israel who were driven out before them when they conquered

\

the promised land: "And they cast out before them the Canaanite, the Periz-

zite, the Jebusite, and the Shechemite, and all the Girgashites, and they

. 6
dwelt in that country many days."1 7

Cowley's notes on this verse pointed out that "Shechem" was not named
in the list in Joshua 12. He commented, "It is introduced here out of
. . . "168 . . . .
hostility to the Samaritans. There is no question of a prejudice
against Samaritans (Shechemites), for in chapter nine of Judith the incident
of Gen 34 (the vengeance of Simeon against the Shechemites) is used to

attack the enemies of the people of God. Coggins supposed that "the real

- . . 169
point of this reference was to the contemporary inhabitants of Shechem."

The same use of Gen 34 can be found in a fourth text, a pseudepigrapha:
Testament of Levi 6:7-7:2:

For we sinned because we had done this thing against his will, and
he was sick on that day. But I saw that the sentence of God was for
evil upon Shechem; for they sought to do Sarah and Rebecca as they
had done to Dinah our sister, but the Lord prevented them. And

they persecuted Abraham our father when he was a stranger, and they
vexed his flocks when they were big with young; and Eblaen, who was
born in his house, they most shamefully handled. And thus they did
to all strangers, taking away their wives by force, and they banished
them. But the wrath of the Lord came upon them to the uttermost.
And I said to my father Jacob: By thee will the Lord despoil the
Canaanites, and will give their land to thee and to thy seed after
thee. For from this day forward shall Shechem be called a city of
imbeciles; for as a man mocketh a fool, so did we mock them.

 

167Judith 5:16 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,

ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 1:252.

168Ibid.

169 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 89.

 

O

Testament of Levi 6:7-7:2 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913)
2:308.

 

 

59

R. H. Charles proposed 137-107 B.C. to be the date of composition

for the Testaments. If the text specifically referred to the destruction

7
of Samaria (T. Lev. 6:11), then it was written between 109 and 107 B.C.1 1

Note how similar is the phrase, "Shechem . . . a city of imbeciles," to
"that foolish nation that dwelleth in Sichem" (Ben Sira 50:26).

Another reference in the pseudepigrapha using the same reference in
Gen 34 gave a much stronger polemic for the total destruction of Shechem:

Jubilees 30:5, 6, 23.

And thus let it not again be done from henceforth that a daughter of
Israel be defiled, for judgment is ordained in heaven against them
that they should destroy with the sword all the men of the Shechemites
because they had wrought shame in Israel. And the Lord delivered
them into the hands of the sons of Jacob that they might exterminate
them with the sword and execute judgment upon them, and that it might
not thus again be done in Israel that a virgin of Israel should be
defiled. . . . And on the day when the sons of Jacob slew Shechem

a writing was recorded in their favour in heaven that they had exe-
cuted righteousness and uprightne3f7§nd vengeance on the sinners,

and it was written for a blessing.

In discussion of the date of Jubilees, R. H. Charles, wrote:
But it is in the destruction of Samaria, which is adumbrated in the
destruction of Shechem, XXX 4-6, that we are to look for the true
terminus a quo. Now all accounts agree in representing the destruc-
tion of Samaria as effected by Hyrcanus about four years before his

death. Heace we conclude the Jubilees was written between 109 and
105 B.C.

The strong language used in Jubilees against the Shechemites suggest

an existing separation between the groups, both religiously and politically.

Concerning Jubilees 30 Coggins wrote:

 

7
1 1Ibid., pp. 289-90.

172 . . .
Jubilees 30:5—6, 23 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2:58-59.

173Ibid., p. 6.

 

60

There may be the beginnings of a warning against any intermarriage
with the Samaritans, a theme which frequently recurs at a later period,
in the rabbinic writings; and the stress on, and justification of, the
destruction of Shechem suggests some connection with John Hyrcanus'
destroying of the city in 128, so that a justification for that action
may also be found here, and this would fit in withltge usual dating
of Jubilees, at the end of the second century B.C.
Indeed, during the Hasmonean reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.) the strength
. . 175
of the new Jewish state became powerful enough due to Syrian weakness that
it sought to destroy the Samaritans. In 128 B.C. John Hyrcanus destroyed
the temple on Mt. Gerizim and in 107 B.C. he conquered Samaria, and subse-
quently Shechem. G. Ernest Wright proposed that "the final destruction of
Shechem and the covering over of Wall A on the west end of the ruins of the
- : "176 - 0
Northwest Gate were probably his work at about the same time. Wright 3
note suggested a terminal point for a complete Jewish and Samaritan split:
"It was probably these events which led to the final and definite split
. 177
between the Samaritans and Jerusalem Jews."
Purvis offered several reasons why John Hyrcanus~destroyed Shechem
and the Temple on Mt. Gerizim. First, the Temple itself was "an irritant
to the Jews," it would have been "a divisive factor in the allegiance of

the people of the rural areas of the north." Secondly, he sought greater unity

for Palestine by removal of all other oppositions. Finally, "animosities

 

174
Coggins, op. cit., p. 92.

175Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.l35), Vol. I, revised English edition by Geza Vermes
and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), pp. 207-10. See Josephus,
Antiquities xii. 256.

 

 

76 . .
Wright, op. Cit., Shechem, p. 184.

77
1 Ibid., p. 262.

61

between Shechem and Jerusalem had been increasing from the time Shechem was

178
re-established as a Samaritan center to the time of the Hasmonaeans."

Although Hyrcanus's actions thus appear to have been motivated by
political expediency, it is also possible that the destruction of the
Samaritan temple was carried out for reasons that can properly be
called religious. He was, after all, firmly established in the ofgice
of high priest in Jerusalem, as was his father Simon before him.

This last point, the religious motive of John Hyrcanus, as high priest,
needs more elaboration. As already noted at least once, possibly twice, the
Sanballats sought intermarriage with the priestly family in Jerusalem. Each

time the marriage was rebuffed by Judaist authorities. But the marriages

180
had been consummated and the rivalries begun.

John Bowman surmised:

The Samaritans [gig] priesthood was a branch of the Jerusalem
Zadokites; the Samaritans received the Law as edited in Babylon,
brought to Judah from Babylon, and from Jerusalem by8Shechem by
Jewish priests, the ancestors of their own priests.

In another place Bowman expressed clearly this Zadokite relationship:

The Samaritan Zadokites needed the Jerusalem Zadokites as both a

buffer and support. After 180 the Jerusalem old Zadokite High

priestly family then displaced never regained power in Jerusalem.

When the Maccabean family eventually took over they had no close

family ties with the Shechem Zadokites. Relations steadily worsened

and eventually it was Hyrcanus who deliberately tried to destroy Shechem
and the Samaritans. Hyrcanus had thus destroyed the tolerant relation-
ship which had existed betwfgg the Sanballat Zadokites of Shechem and
the Zadokites of Jerusalem.

 

 

Purvis, op. Cit., p. 113.
179 .
Ibid.
180 . . . .
See John Bowman's "History," p. 105 for a pOSSible Samaritan inter-
pretation of their own history in light of possessing a "true priesthood."
181 n . n ~
John Bowman, The Samaritans and the Book of Deuteronomy, glagggw_
University Oriental Society 17 (1957-58) 11.
182

Bowman, 0p. cit., "History," p. 105.

62

Coggins criticized the arguments by Bowman concerning the Zadokite
priesthood and the Samaritan claim to true priesthood. First, the

Zadokite links of the Samaritans are extremely tenuous. There is a
Zadok in the line of Samaritan high-priests, but he cannot be iden-
tified with the Zadok of the time of David, and the references cited
by Bowman from the Samaritan Chronicle III (the Tolidah) are extremely
confused chronologically . . . . The second objection to Bowman's
theory is that it attempts to be much too precise in reconstructing
the history behind the story in Nehemiah and that in Josephus. Rowley
has pointed out how many questions are begged at this point, and
concludes that there is no real evidence for a Zadokite claim on the
part of the Samaritans. It seems, therefore, that the precise cause
of the division concerning priesthood must remain obscure, though183
the quarrels of the second century B.C. do much to illustrate it.

Coggins seemed to be overly cautious in his assessments, especially in light
of Dr. Lapp. Cross, and Wright's recent works. He suggested that the origin

of the Samaritan priesthood came from rivalries within the Jerusalem priest-

184
hood that left and settled at Shechem. Even this has to be "an open question."

Purvis pinpointed the break between the priestly families to be the crucial
event that destroyed all social contact between Jerusalem and Shechem:

The breakdown of channels of communication between the priesthood
of Jerusalem and the priesthood of Shechem was completed by the time
of Hyrcanus, if not earlier in the time of Simon (that is, when the
Zadokite priesthood in Jerusalem was replaced by the Hasmoneans).
Montgomery's suggestion that the Samaritans continued to maintain
cultural contacts with Jerusalem after this time and that the Sadducean
Hasmonaeans used the Samaritans as a counter-weighésto the Pharisees
is untenable. See Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 80.

 

In spite of "geographical, ethnic, and cultural factors," Purvis felt
that the Samaritans could have remained part of the family of Judaism were
it not for their adoption of Mt. Gerizim as a worship center (Jerusalem

. 186 . . . . . .
Talmud, Sanhedrin 29c). There is no question in the mind of this writer

 

183 . . 85 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., pp. 143-44. 1 PurVis, Op. Cit., p. 116.

4 . -
18 Ibid., pp. 142-43. 186Ibid., p. 10.

63

that the Samaritan claim to a Zadokite priesthood while at the same time
the usurpation of the same by the Hasmonaeans in Jerusalem more than sealed
the schism that would forever separate these two peoples, both claiming to
be the "true people of God."

That the Samaritans existed, thrived, and even survived the destruction
of their temple by Hyrcanus is known. They maintained their ancient cultic
site on Mt. Gerizim with their own priesthood and their own sectarian version
of the Torah. As Montgomery expressed it: I'The Samaritan sect at last
comes forth into the clear light of day in the Maccabean period, for which
we possess the abundant Jewish sources."187

Even after many years of hostilities, the Talmudic (Babylonian) liter—

ature in the Masseket Kutim (printed with an English translation by Montgomery,

The Samaritans) offered a positive and favorable gesture to the Samaritans:

 

When shall we take them back? When they renounce Mount Gerizim, and
confess Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead. From this time
forth he that robs a Samaritan shall be as he who robs an Israelite.

188

It is evident that Samaritan eschatology was similar to that of the
Sadducees due to their adeption of the Torah only. Otherwise, the major
controversy resided on the issue of rival holy places. Perhaps a Samaritan
boast of a true priesthood after the Hasmonaeans took power both politically
and religiously gave John Hyrcanus all the motivation he needed to devastate
his near rival.

At this point one last issue relating to the origin of the Samaritans

must be considered: the development of the Samaritan Pentateuch.

 

7 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 70.

1
88Ibid., p. 203.

64

The Samaritan Pentateuch
Very early W. F. Albright observed the connection between the Samaritan
Pentateuch and the origin of the final schism of Samaritans and Jews:

If we compare the oldest lapidary examples of Samaritan writing with

the coins of the Hasmonaeans (for which see the convenient table in
Narkiss, Coins of Palestine (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1936), dated between

135 and 37 B.C., a relatively late date for the origin of the Samaritan
script as such seems highly probable. Moreover, since Shechem and
Samaria were conquered by the Jews between 128 and 110 B.C. and were
lost to the Romans in 63 B.C., it would be only natural to date the
final schism between the sects somewhere in the early first century

B.C. It was presumably then or somewhat later that the entire Samaritan
Pentateuch was transcribed into the archaizing "Samaritan" script,

which symboliigg the refusal of the Samaritans to follow the "modernists"
of Jerusalem.

Cross has done extensive study of the Samaritan Pentateuch along with
his students Purvis and Bruce K. Waltke. Their commentary is valuable.
Cross wrote:

From whatever side we examine the Samaritan Pentateuch, by what-
ever typological development we measure it, we are forced to the
Hasmonaean period at earliest for the origins of the Samaritan
recension of the Pentateuch.

This evidence suggests strongly that the definitive breach between
the Jews and Samaritans must be sought in the special events of the
Hasmonaean era, before the Roman period when Jew and Samaritga look
upon each other in loathing, or as corrupters of the faith.

In another place Cross revealed that the Samaritan text was a relatively

late branch, no earlier than the Hasmonean times. He noted that this has

 

l 9 . . . . . .
8 William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (2nd ed;

Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, 1957),
pp. 345-46.
190 . . .
Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History In
Late Persian and Hellenistic Times," Harvard Theological Review 59 (July
1966) 210.

 

 

65

always been likely on historical grounds but now it is confirmed by both
paleographical and orthographic studies. "The Samaritan script is a deriva-

tive of the Paleo-Hebrew script which was revived or became resurgent in

. . . . 19
the Maccabean era of nationalistic archaism." l

Purvis followed his teacher in accepting a three text theory for the
Old Testament text. He presented this senario for the Hasmonean period:

The destruction of Biblical manuscripts in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes (I Maccabees 1:56-57) would have created a need for texts,
and would have led to later scribal activity. Thus it was during

the late Hasmonaean and early Herodian periods a number of textual
traditions of distinct development--Palestinian, Egyptian, and Baby-
lonian--came together in one general locale. These could not have
existed concurrently for any great length of time, and not long after
their coming togSEher some attempts at recensional activity were of
necessity made.

Cross' other student, Waltke, in his doctoral dissertation, Prologomena

 

to the Samaritan Pentateuch, summarized his findings:

 

Probably the Palestinian recension diverged from the Babylonian
recension in the fifth century B.C. Shortly thereafter, about 400
B.C., a representative of this recension found its way into Egypt.

The Palestinian text was developed by "scholarly" reworkings in the
fifth to second centuries B.C. After the time of the creation of the
sectarian recension during or shortly after the Hasmonean era, the
Proto-Massoretic text, "the local text of Babylon which emerged in
the fourth to second Centuries B.C.," was reintroduced into Palestine.
The superiority of its text type exerted an influence on the line of
the Palestinian recension adopted by the Samaritans. The Samaritans
transformed this recension by introducing their distinctively sectarian
readings. After its creation as a sectarian recension the text did
not undergo further recensional activity. Through scribal negligence
and lack of external controls the text gradually deteriorated and
drifted away from its archetype whichgmore closely conformed to the
carefully preserved Massoretic text.

 

191 . . -
Frank Moore Cross, Jr., The Anoient Library of Qumran & Modern Bible

 

Studies (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980), p. 172.
192
Purvis, op. cit., p. 82.

193‘3ruce Kenneth Waltke, "Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch"

(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the Dept. of N. E. Language and Literature,
Harvard University, March, 1965), p. 270.

66

It seems evident now that the building of the Samaritan Temple (if
c.330 B.C.) and the development of their Pentateuch is separated by two hundred
years or so. Thus the Samaritan Pentateuch was developed out of the crisis
of the temple's destruction by John Hyrcanus c.128 B.C. In a note concerning
the sectarian reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Purvis gave this opinion:

I maintain that the distinctive sectarian readings of the Samaritan

text were added at the time of this recensional activity, and not earlier

(that is, at the time of the building of the Temple). Indeed, it was

the sectarian claim represented in these readings which necessitated

the recension and promulgagaon of the text, which must now be dated

in the Hasmonaean period.

What were the distinctive sectarian readings? Basically, they were
changing of names in Deut 27:4: either "Ebal" (MT) or "Gerizim" (SP);
and that either God "will choose'I (MT) or "has chosen" (SP) the place of
worship. In the Samaritan Pentateuch Deut 27:2—8 (11:30) with its reading
of "Gerizim" is interpolated after the Ten Words found at Ex. 20:17 and
Deut. 5:21. Also the Samaritan Pentateuch wanted only one sanctuary, so
the references in Exod 20:24 and Lev 26:31 are singular in contrast to the
plural of the Massoretic text. In Deut 11:30 the SP adds "opposite Shechem"

after Moreh and in Gen 22:2, the SP has "Moreh" for "Moriah", the place

where Isaac was offered as a sacrifice. "In order to validate its claims,

 

1 4 . . . . .
9 PurVis, op. Cit., p. 14. For further study, PurVis gave this infor-

mation on note 48, p. 37: "For the Palaeo-Hebrew script during the Hasmonaean
Period, see Richard Hanson, 'Palaeo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonaean Age,‘
BASOR, 175, (1964), 26-42. One will find in this publication excellent charts
of the scripts of this period, from the coins and the manuscripts, as well

as a first-rate palaeographic analysis of the materials. The present work

on the Samaritan script was originally done independently of Hanson's study.
Since then, I have rechecked my work against his and have found that his
conclusions support my own."

67

. . . . . . . . 195
Samaritans identify GeriZim with several places mentioned in the Torah."

There are many other differences between the MT and the SP, mostly of secondary
significance, but over-all Waltke expressed the purpose of the recension of
the Samaritan Pentateuch:
The Samaritan text has been adapted to defend the honor of God

. . . Moses and other great persons of antiquity . . . preserves

readings reflecting a different interpretation ofgghe Law . . . to

defend Mt. Gerizim as the cultic center of thh.

But which reading, "Ebal" or "Gerizim,“ is the original? Which is

corrupted? Scholars differ widely in their opinions.197

Waltke gave eight arguments to support the MT over against the SP.198
Concerning Deut 27:4 he argued: (l) The context demands the building of
the altar nowhere but upon Mt. Ebal; i.e. the use of "self-maledictory oaths,"
appropriate on Mt. Ebal (cursing); (2) General character of SP text, i.e.
(proclivity for emphasizing Mt. Gerizim); (3) After Samaritans had built
their temple on Gerizim they would be led naturally to introduce the name
in vs. 4; (4) The Jews were not interested in Ebal or Gerizim but rather
Gerizim vs. Zion; (5) All of the later history is against the Samaritans.
Their only recourse was to falsify the Pentateuch, which was otherwise
neutral; (6) Ebal is north--the curse mountain; Gerizim is south--mountain
of blessing; (7) Ebal is higher--3076 ft. while Gerizim in only 2848 ft.;

(8) Archaeologically, Ebal shows more extensive remains. Purvis held the

same opinion. While giving some detail to the redactional activity he wrote:

 

95
Gaster, op. cit., p. 194.

196 .
Waltke, op. Cit., p. 321.

197 .
See Waltke's dissertation, p. 329, for a list of scholars who differ
on which text is corrupted.

198
Ibid., pp. 332ff.

68

The alterations of a sectarian nature in SP are quite obvious, how—
ever, and are clearly the result of redactional activity. These are
generally well known. In SP, the Decalogue, in Exodus 20 and Deuter-
onomy 5, includes a lengthy interpolation based on Deuteronomy 27:2,
3a, 4-7, and 11:30. Thus, the command to build an altar on Mt.
Gerizim (according to the old Palestinian reading in 27:4 it is Gerizim
rather than Ebal) was strengthened by making it part of the Ten Words
of Moses. Also, in all twenty-one occurrences of the Deuteronomic
phrase, "the place which the Lord thy God will choose," SP reads

"the place which the Lord thy God has chosen." The omission of the
ygd - prefix, changing the imperfect to a perfect, imp 988 a reference
to the Patriarchal traditions associated with Shechem.

Rowley, after having considered the alternatives, decided that there was

"little motive for a deliberate alteration" by the Jews and accepted the

. 200
MT as "probably the superior reading."

In contrast to the above estimates, George Foot Moore has suggested
that Samaritanism started with a complete and legitimate argument:

The temple may have been built and a high priest of indisputable
legitimacy installed, and a complete copy of the Judaean lawbook,

the Pentateuch, procured, with no further intention than to match
Jerusalem. The idea of supplanting Jerusalem came from the law
itself. In it they found that Moses had enjoined the people, as

soon as they came into the land, to put the blessing on Mt. Gerizim
and the curse on Mt. Ebal (Deut. 11:29; cf. 27, 11-26; Josh. 8:33f.).
In Deut. 27, 4, the Jewish text has "Mount Ebal," where the whole tenor
of the context demands "Gerizim," as the Samaritan Hebrew reads;

the same change has been made in the Jewish Text in Josh. 8, 30. At
Shechem, also, Joshua, at the end of the complete conquest, made the
final covenant with the people and set up a memorial of it by the
sanctuary of the Lord. Shechem - Gerizim was therefore manifestly
the place so often Spoken of in Deuteronomy where God would put his
name; Jerusalem had ursurped a precedence never meant for it. So far
as the letter of Scripture went, the Shechemites could make out an
embarrassingly good case; but it was worthless against prescriptive

 

possession.

199 . .
PurVis, op. Cit., pp. 72-73.

200 . .
Rowley, op. Cit., "Schism," p. 210. See also p. 194.

201 . . .
Moore, op. Cit., pp. 25-26. For the Samaritan Josh 8:30 reading

see John Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle II, p. 86: "Then Joshua built

 

an altar of stones on Mount Gerizim."

69

In an early article published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October,

 

1903, William E. Barton argued for the genuineness of the Samaritan text
where there were discernible deliberate changes from the Massoretic text.
He agreed with Dean Stanley's treatment that Gerizim and not Jerusalem was
probably the place of Isaac's sacrifice (Gen 22:2) and Abraham's meeting
, 202 .
of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). Barton agreed with other scholars that
the SP had interpolated a syncretized version of Deut 11:29; 27:2ff.; 11:32
after the Ten Words in Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21 but disagreed that the MT
was necessarily the correct reading. He suggested that intentional change
can be found in the MT at Judges 8:30 where a Jewish scribe has inserted
a Nun (.3) in Moses name to change it to "Manasseh" in order to prevent
Moses' grandson from being labeled an idolater and also "at the same time
. . . . .203 . . u.
to give a gratuitous fling at the Samar1tans.’ He inSisted that if the
Jews were not too good to make such a change for a trivial advantage, they
can hardly have been too good to have changed the passage in Deuteronomy
. . . . . . "204

when the question of the priority of their places of worship was involved.
Following Kennicott's arguments, Barton presented the following "proofs":

1. That Gerizim was the mountain of blessings, and altogether more

sacred in its association than Ebal. It is quite unlikely that the

altar would be erected on the mount of cursing.

2. That the Samaritans, building their new temple, the rival of that

in Jerusalem, would gladly place it in a spot known to be sacred,

even as Jeroboam erected his calf at Bethel, because of its ancient

and recognized sanctity. Political considerations, as well as
religious would have determined this choice by Sanballat and Manasseh.

 

202 . . . . .
William E. Barton, The Samaritan Pentateuch (Oberlin, Ohio: The

Bibliotheca Sacra Company, 1903), p- 31.

 

203 .
Ibid., p. 35.

20
4Ibid.

7O

3. That, as seen from Shechem, Ebal is parched and barren, while
Gerizim's more verdant, fruitful, and beautiful side is toward the
city; so that in all times Gerizim must have had the more pleasant
associations in the'city, the valley, and among the people who
passed through the gateway between the two great hills.

4. That Jotham chose Gerizim as the pulpit for his parable, probably
because it was already a sacred spot.

5. That probably Gerizim was the traditional spot of the offering
of Isaac.

6. That Joshua's own tribe, Ephraim, the tribe whose capital Shechem
was, was stationed upon Gerizim, at the time of the dedication of

the memorial stones, and that Joshua would certainly have been with
his tribe near the stones that were being dedicated.

‘ 7. That the stones were to be used as soon as set up for sacrifice;
who were to offer the sacrifices on Ebal? Were sacrifices to be
offered by Reuben, or Gad, or Asher, or Zebulun, or Dan, or Naphtali?
For these were on Ebal. The great tribes were on Gerizim; and there
were stationed the Levites, who only had the right to offer sacrifices.
It is absurd to suppose thaBsthe altar was erected on the mountain
where no one could use it.

Thus, Kennicott's conclusions with Barton's blessings were that the Jews
corrupted the text in Deut 27:4 as well as Josh 8:30. Barton's conclusion
were that this change in the text was a tragic mistake for the unity of the
kingdom. He strongly criticized Judah for its haughtiness and arrogance in
pride of position. In a supporting statement for the Samaritan viewpoint
Barton iterated:
Jerusalem and Judah were established at the expense of Shechem and
Ephraim, and the burden of taxation under Solomon fell heavy on the
other tribes, that Judah might escape. The nation grew wider with
prosperity, but the kings thought limited the real kingdom to Judah,
and at last came the inevitable rending apart of Judah and Israel.

Judah with its p68vincial capital stood alone against the real and
greater Israel.

 

2 .
oslbld.. pp. 36-39.

2
06Ibid., p. 41.

71

Which view is correct? "Ebal" or "Gerizim"? The arguments on both
sides seem strong to this writer. John Bowman has offered a slightly differ-
ent twist to the question when he wrote:

The typically Samaritan reading "Gerizim" instead of "Ebal" in

Deut. 27:4 and "the place that God chose" instead of "the place which

the Lord shall choose" in Deut. 12:14, 26, etc., it is easy to say,

are deliberate Samaritan alterations. I agree, but go on to ask

are they innovations or restorations?

Bowman became bolder in his evaluation of the Samaritan claim later in the

same article:

Just as Ex. 24 gives the covenant scene at Sinai, Deut. 27f. gives
the Mosaic instruction for the covenant scene at Shechem with Gerizim
as the Mount of Blessing. It is hard to see how the altar and the
twelve stones would have been erected on Ebal, the Mount of Cursing

. . . . I think the Samariggns are right in regarding Deut. 27:1-4

as the tenth commandment.

It is difficult to decide which is the correct view. Perhaps there
need be no real decision, for the dating of the schism need not be affected
by this knowledge. Coggins wrote:

In no instance, however, does it seem likely that agreement on a

solution of this kind of difficulty would help to throw light on

the problem of dating. The differences usually appear to reflect

polemic on one side or the other, and 5895 could have taken place at

any point during the very long period.
In spite of the inability to determine the correct text, the work of Cross,
Purvis, and Waltke have established the Hasmonaean period as the place of

final and definite schism. For Cross the idea is a key to many mysteries

concerning the origin of the Samaritans:

 

207 . - ll
Bowman, op. Cit., "Samaritans and Deuteronomy, p. 12.

2
08Ibid., p. 15.

09 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 155.

72

This reconstruction of the history of the Samaritans solves many
problems which have perplexed us in the past. As we have suggested,
it dissolves the mystery of the specifically Jewish character of
Samaritanism. It explains the close ties of Samaritanism to Zadokite
traditions, provides the background of Essene or apocalyptic Zadokite
strains in late Samaritan law and doctrine. The historian is no longer
required to contend with a parallel, but unrelated, evolution within
two sects over a half millennium after their separation.

Similarly, the new reconstruction of the history of the Samaritans
clears up confusion concerning the history of the text of the Pentateuch.

210

The fact that Sadduceeism accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical and
still was regarded as part of Judaism "invalidates the argument that Samaritan
non-acceptance of the Prophets and the Writings automatically implied a break
from the mainstream of Judaism in the fourth or third century."211 Certainly
Purvis is correct when he wrote: "Recent investigations of Jewish history
have revealed that Judaism in the last few centuries of the pre-Christian era
was more complex and less monolithic than had previously been thought."212

If the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim (c.128 B.C.) and
the ravaging of Samaria and possibly Shechem later (c.107 B.C.) precipitated
the crisis of a final schism, then certainly the coming of the Romans who
placed the Samaritans under different jurisdiction created an impenetrable
barrier that would last for centuries. Cross observed: "When Pompey in
64 B.C. freed Samaria from vassalage to the Hasmonaean priest-kings, we may
be sure the Samaritans severed all ties with Judaism, to traverse their own

isolated and involuted path."213

 

210 . . . .
Cross, op. Cit., "Samaritan and JeW1Sh History," p. 211.

211 . .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 154.

212 . .
PurVis, op. Cit., p. 9.

3 . .
Cross, loc. Clt., "History."

73

Conclusion

It has become evident that there is no one viewpoint or opinion that
holds sway the mind of scholars concerning the origin of the Samaritans.
But the trend seems to be toward a much later date than earlier students
on the subject held.

Those who have come to appreciate perhaps the Samaritan plea more than
others, such as Gaster and Macdonald, have given more than ordinary credence
to their chronicles and personal views as expressed through their Torah and
other literature. Indeed, Macdonald maintained that Samaritanism is "Northern
Israelite religion developed, modified and substantially expanded with the
aid of Christianity."214 There may have been a faithful northern Israelite
remnant throughout Biblical history, but it cannot be legitimately traced
in the Old Testament. Certainly the Samaritan Chronicles are extremely
polemical and should be suspect for reliable historical sources as far as
Samaritan origins are concerned. Howbeit, this is not to suppress their
value in many other ways. Josephus, also, was extremely polemical against
the Samaritans; and as has been shown sufficiently, his use of the biblical
materials to perpetuate that polemic has done great harm to the search for
truth in Samaritan origins. Even Macdonald acknowledged the polemical
approaches of Samaritan and Judean sources and the skeptical View one should
take of them. He wrote: "As far as our purposes are concerned, the Judean
version of the origin of the Samaritans must be suspect. This is not to say,

. . . . 215
however, that the Samaritan verSion is therefore reliable.

 

214 . .
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 419. See PurVis, p. 93, for his

rebuttal of this statement by Macdonald.

25
1 Ibid., p. 23.

74

The Biblical record does reveal a fundamental division, perhaps better
to say competition, between the tribes of the North and Judah of the South.
There is no question that those from the dominating tribe of Ephraim were,
in many places, in conflict with Judah. Coggins suggested "that there is
some link between this tension and that which later developed between Jews
and Samaritans."216 Though these should not be identified, the occasion was
always there, perhaps even inevitable. The Old Testament did attest to
conflict over places of worship, true priesthood, and interpretation of
sacred traditions in changing times. These provided the roots for later
schism.

Extra-biblical literature did not help the search for Samaritan origins
until well into the Hellenistic period, even the Hasmonaean era. Coggins
had noted that "there is no overt anti-Shechemite polemic" in the Old
Testament "until we reach Ecclesiasticus 50:26, with the doubtful exception
of Hosea 6:9."217 A few apocryphal and pseudepigrapha materials have demon-
strated a definite schism during the Hasmonaean period.

From an archaeological analysis, very little has helped to pinpoint
Samaritan origins. Rejected times for Samaritan origins has been Eli's day
(Samaritan view), the Assyrian conquest of Israel and settlement of foreigners
in the land c.721 B.C. (Josephus and the Judaist view), Nehemiah's rebuff of
Sanballat and his son-in—law, and Ezra's law reforms. Even Alexander's con-

quests and the building of the Temple on Gerizim has not been considered

 

216 _ .
Coggins, op. Cit., p. 81.

217
Ibid., p. 26.

75

a final break. But the latest work of Lapp and F. M. Cross, Jr., along

with G. Ernest Wright at Shechem, has added to the growing opinion that the
Hellenistic period should be considered as the beginning point for Samaritan
origins. Not until the Hasmonaean era when John Hyrcanus struck hard his
sectarian rivals and the Samaritan Pentateuch was "redacted" (or restored?)
can one say with certainty: "Now is the schism complete!" Sometime between
c.300 and 100 B.C. the Samaritans emerged as a unique people claiming to
have the original Torah, the true priesthood, and the only authorized place

of worship on Mount Gerizim.

CHAPTER TWO: THE SAMARITANS (100 B.C.-7O A.D.),
THEIR SECTS AND THEIR THEOLOGY

Samaritan History c.100 B.C.-70 A.D.

 

John Hyrcanus (135/4-104 B.C.) precipitated the Samaritan crises
in the latter part of the second century B.C. when he destroyed the Samaritan
Temple on Mt. Gerizim (128 B.C.) and later Shechem (c.108/7 B.C.) in his
attempt to complete the policies of conquest begun by the Maccabeans,
Jonathan and Simon. In contrast to the Samaritan View that John Hyrcanus'
reign was tyrannical and devastating to their communities, Josephus considered
his rule a good one:

And so Hyrcanus quieted the outbreak, and lived happily there-
after; and when he died after administering the government excellently
for thirty-one years, he left five sons. Now he was accounted by
God worthy of three of the greatest privileges, the rule of the nation,
the office of high-priest, and the gift of prophecy.

During these difficult times for the Samaritans, especially after the
destruction of their temple and later Shechem, only a "residual community"
. . . . . 2

remained "at the foot of GeriZim in the towns of Sychar and Neopolis."

Most fled to Samaria. However, scholars are not certain how widespread was

the Samaritan Diaspora at this time. A. D. Crown conjectured "that if the

 

lJosephus Antiquities xiii. 299.

 

2Robert T. Anderson, "Mount Gerizim: Navel of the World," Biblical
Archaeologist 43 (Fall 1980) 219.

 

76

77

Samaritans did migrate in response to the Hasmonean persecutions, . . .

. . . . . 3
they jOined their kinsmen in Egypt and, perhaps, Damascus."

John Hyrcanus' son, Aristobulus (104-103 B.C.), usurped his father's
power as well as his will, for he took complete control of the government,
banished family members, and contemptuously appropriated the title of king.
His brief reign did contribute one item that would create interesting pol-
itical and social boundaries in future generations: the conquest and
Judaizing of Galilee.

After Aristobulus' painful death, his widow, Salome Alexandra, married
the next oldest brother, Alexander Jannaeus, and for twenty-seven turbulent
years he reigned as king and high-priest. During his reign the division
between the Sadducees and Pharisees deepened. Indeed, civil war broke out
between Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees, but in the end he conquered
at the expense of weakening internally the Hasmonaean state. Alexander
Jannaeus continued to battle his neighbors, especially Transjordan, until
his death in 76 B.C.

Alexandra (76-67 B.C.) reversed her husband's policies toward the
Pharisees and allowed them more power in the government. This brought peace
internally to the Jews and peace to the conquered territories of the Jewish
state including Samaria. But it would not remain long. At Alexandra's
death in 67 B.C., a power struggle ensued between her sons, Hyrcanus II
(the eldest and high priest) and Aristobulus II. The political struggle

between the brothers resulted in an absolute Roman control as the Romans

 

Alan D. Crown, "The Samaritan Diaspora to the End of the Byzantine
Era," Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1974-75) 112.

78

were called in to "help." The Roman commander, Pompey, took complete control
of the Jewish state of Palestine:
With Pompey's decrees the freedom of the Jewish nation was carried

to its grave after barely eighty years of existence (reckoning from

142 B.C.). He was admittedly shrewd enough not to make any essential

changes in the internal condition of the country. He left the hier-

archical constitution unaltered, and gave the people Hyrcanus II,

the man favoured by the Pharisees, as their High Priest. But their

independence wa at an end, and the Jewish High Priest was merely

a Roman vassal.
Montgomery aptly remarked: "From this time forth the Samaritan sect is
forever free of the hated domination of the sister-sect."5

Gabinius, a Roman consul, rebuilt Samaria while he governed the Syrian
Province (57-55 B.C.). Later, this site became Herod the Great's favorite
rebuilding project. These circumstances would all prove to benefit the
remaining Samaritans as over against their Jewish neighbors. John Macdonald
evaluated Roman rule as a positive force for the Samaritans and stated
that according to Samaritan Chronicle II "Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14) was

. . . . 6

responSible for ending the oppreSSion of Samaritans by Herod."

The Hasmonaean rule (166 B.C. to 63 B.C.) was an unhappy one for the
Samaritans who were more and more "driven back upon their own ideas."

Macdonald called it a period of "consolidation and recapitulation." At the

end of this period or the beginning of Roman rule "Rabbinic authority in

 

4

Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People In the Age of Jesus
Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), Vol. 1 (revised English edition by Geza Vermes
and Fergus Miller; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), p. 241.

 

 

5
James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans (New York: KTAV Publishing
House, 1968, first published in 1907), p. 81.

 

6
John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London: SCM Press,
1964), P- 26.

 

79

Judaism was approaching its peak and Judaism moved further and further away
from the line of Samaritan development."7 Herod the Great's rise saw better
days for the Samaritan people.

In 40 B.C. Herod was appointed King over Judea by the Romans but
he had to return to the area and free it for himself from the hands of
Antigonus. After three years he succeeded with Roman help, and in 37 B.C.
Herod began his rule.

That one of Herod's wives may have been Samaritan could explain his
absence of malice toward them. Josephus reported that Herod had married a

wife (among nine others) who was a native of Samaria (Antiquities xvii. 20).

 

In his Jewish Wars the name of the Samaritan woman is given: "Antipater

 

and Archelaus were sons of Malthrace, the Samaritan; Olympias, a daughter
. . . . 8

of this last Wlfe had married Joseph, the king's nephew." Montgomery

revealed the importance of this marriage:
A Samaritan lady was one of his wives. If then it was a king of
Jerusalem who reigned over the district, he was nevertheless a king
in Samaria, and his favor and presence must have contributed not a

little to the w ll-being of his Samaritan subjects, Israelites as
well as Pagans.

Herod had favored the district of Samaria as his seat of government,
and it was the city of Samaria that he rebuilt and renamed Sebaste in honor

of Augustus. Josephus recorded his project:

 

7
Ibid., pp. 31—32.

8
Josephus Jewish Wars i. 562.

 

9
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 83.

80

In the district of Samaria he built a town enclosed within magnifi-
cent walls twenty furlongs in length, introduced into it six thousand
colonists, and gave them allotments of highly productive land. In
the centre of this settlement he erected a massive temple, enclosed
in ground, a furlong and a half in length, consecrated to Caesar;
while he named the town it 1f Sebaste. The inhabitants were given
a privileged constitution.
For generations to come the Samaritans and their land, favored by Herod the
Great, would become a detestable area to the Jews of both Galilee and Judea,
especially the latter. Bowman summarized the historical circumstances up

to this time in this way:

While Galilee became Jewish and the Southern district of Ephraim

went to Judah, Samaria remained a district unto itself, although it

was ruled by the Romans together with Judea. Since Herod took

Sebaste in Samaria to be hislfeat of government, this strengthened

the power of the Samaritans.

Herod used the stronghold of Sebaste as a threat against the turbulence
of the Jews, for as Montgomery explained, "Its majority of pagan citizens

. . . 12

despised the Jews, while the Shechemites hated them." Even after Herod's

death and the subsequent deposing of Archelaus by the Romans, the Samaritans

still enjoyed favorable conditions in the political arena. After Archelaus'

demise (A.D. 6), the Samaritans' favorable condition continued because of the
uniting of Judea and Samaria in a province of the third class, subordinate

to the proconsulate province of Syria. Caesarea, also one of Herod's re-
building projects, became its seat "so that now the political centre lay

. . . 13
to the extreme northwest, a condition favorable to the Samaritans."

 

Josephus The Jewish Wars i. 403. Also see Antiquities xv. 292—93.

 

 

l .
Bowman, op. Cit., p. 5.

12 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 82.

13Ibid., p. 84.

81

While the political climate favored the Samaritans, they seemed to be
the most aggressive in conflicts throughout the period of early Roman rule.
Montgomery noted that "the ancient rivalry was still maintained, and when
Jews and Samaritans met in town or on country road it blazed out in acts of

. . . "l4 .
Violence, wherein either party gave and took. Almost all of the primary
sources for these conflicts come from Josephus, so they could very well be
prejudiced against the Samaritans; but there is no reason to doubt the
essential historicity of his texts. Two major conflicts were reported.

The first conflict occurred while the first prefect governed Judea
(6-9 A.D.). During the time of Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread some
Samaritans sneaked into the gates of the Temple after midnight and scattered
human bones throughout the precinct, thus desecrating the Temple for worship.
The priests had to exclude everyone from the temple and protect it from further

. 15 . . . . .
desecration. This was a major desecration. No retaliation was recorded
by Josephus, but certainly the incident was never forgiven. Bowman inferred
from this text that "Samaritans apparently were not forbidden admission to
Jerusalem Temple feasts until . . . they scattered dead men's bones in the
. . , . "16 .

Temple at one Pesah in Coponius procuratorship. This may not be the
case since the Samaritans "secretly entered Jerusalem." Regardless, the

damage was done. The hatred between Samaritans and Jews burned brightly.

 

4
Ibid., p. 82.

5
Josephus Antiquities xviii. 29-30.

16 . . .
John Bowman, "The History of the Samaritans," Abr-Nahrain 18

(1978-79) 107.

 

 

82

Josephus recorded a second incident that occurred c.52 A.D. This time
there was retaliation and subsequent Roman intervention. A group of Galileans
were on their way to a festival in Jerusalem and as was their custom were
passing through Samaritan territory. Some Samaritans from the village of
Ginae, situated on the border between Samaria and the Plain of Esdraelon.
attacked the Jewish pilgrims and slew a great number. The Galileans begged
Cumanus, the Roman procurator in charge, to seek out the murderers responsible.
Cumanus was either bribed by the Samaritans or involved with other affairs
he thought more important. As a result, the Galileans retaliated with their
own leader, Eleazar, a brigand of renown. They burned and sacked certain
Samaritan villages killing indiscriminately. Only then did Cumanus put down
the retaliations. Quadratus, the governor of Syria, brought the combatting
parties before Caesar's court. Caesar concluded with the prodding of his
wife, Agrippina, that the Samaritans had been responsible for the debacle.

He crucified both Samaritan and Jewish leaders caught in the action, exiled
Cumanus, and executed a Roman tribune, Celer, ignominously in Jerusalem.

The ancient historian, Tacitus, also acknowledged the Samaritan-Jewish
conflicts. Unfortunately, his account of the controversy cannot be reconciled

with Josephus' Antiquities xx. 118ff.18

 

In the interval, Felix was fostering crime by misconceived remedies,
his worst efforts being emulated by Ventidius Cumanus, his colleague
in the other half of the province--which was so divided that the

natives of Galilee were subject to Ventidius, Samaria to Felix. The

 

l7 . . .
Josephus Antiquities xx. 118, 121-22, 129, 136; see also a parallel
account in Josephus' The Jewish Wars ii. 232-33, 235, 245. Several details
are changed in this account. The former is probably the more accurate account.

 

 

18 .
TaCitus, The Annals Vol. IV, Books IV-VI, XI-XII, Trans. John Jackson,
Loeb Classical Library, p. 393, note 5.

83

districts had long been at variance, and their animosities were not

under the less restraint, as they could despise their regents.

Accordingly, they harried each other, unleashed their troops of

bandits, fought an occasional fifld, and carried their trophies and

their thefts to the procurators.

The incident of the Samaritans showing great animosity toward the traveling
Galileans (in this case murder) has a near parallel in the New Testament. In
Luke 9:51 it is recorded that Jesus had determined ("set his face") to go to
Jerusalem and thus he took the more direct route through Samaria:

And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village

of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not

receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when

his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want

us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" But he

turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village

(Luke 9:52-56 RSV).

Apparently even the apostles were willing to retaliate with "murder" for the
Samaritan rebuff! The hatred ran deep.

Josephus also recorded two more conflicts involving Samaritans,
this time with the Romans. The first incident involved Pilate and a rather
large group of Samaritans who followed a self-proclaimed Taheb (Restorer).
The belief in a Taheb was based on the Samaritan Pentateuch reading of the
tenth commandment and on Deut 18:15, 18 which suggested that a prophet will
come out of the tribe of Levi, like Moses, and that he will uncover the hidden
vessels of the disappeared temple on top of Mount Gerizim.

The Samaritan nation too was not exempt from disturbance. For

a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to
the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount

 

9 . ..
TaCitus Annals X11. 54.

84

Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains.

He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred
vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them.

His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They
posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they
planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to
their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could
ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a
detachment of calvary and heavy-armed infantry, who in an encounter
with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a pitched battle
and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom
Pilate put to death the principaloleaders and those who were most
influential among the fugitives.

Pilate, perhaps, in his secular thinking, saw this group as a threat to his
control of the area and thus slaughtered many of them. Complaint was made
by the Samaritan community to Vitellius, governor of Syria. He in turn
left his friend, Marcellus, in charge of Judea and immediately sent Pilate
to Rome to face the emperor regarding his conduct toward the Samaritans.
Before he arrived at Rome, Tiberius had died (c.March 16, 37 A.D.).21 The
Pilate incident revealed two important insights: (1) "that the Samaritan
sect possessed considerable influence with the imperial administration,"22
and (2) that the Samaritan sectarians themselves had great influence over
the Samaritan community.

The other incident between the Samaritans and the Romans recorded by

Josephus is dated c.67 A.D. Josephus wrote:

Assembling on their sacred mountain called Gerizim, they did not move
from the spot, but this mustering of the clan and their determined

 

0 . . . ...
Josephus Antiquities XVlll. 85-87.

 

1 . . . ...
Josephus Antiquities XVlll. 88—89.

 

2
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 86.

85

attitude contained a menace of war. . . . Vespasian therefore
dispatched to the spot Cerealius, commander of the fifth legion,

with a force of six hundred calvary and three thousand infantry.

. . . The Samaritans happened to be short of water at the period

of a terrific heat-wave; . . . The result was that several died of
thirst that very day, while many others, preferring slavery to such

a fate, deserted to the Romans. Cerealius, concluding therefore,

that the rest, who still held together, were broken down by their
sufferings, now ascended the mountain and, having disposed his troops
in a circle round the enemy, began by inviting them to treat, ex-
horting them to save their lives and assuring them of security if they
laid down their arms. These overtures proving ineffectual, he attacked
and slew them to a man, eleven thousand six hundred in all; this was
on the twenty-seventh of the m 3th Daesius. Such was the catastrophe
which overtook the Samaritans.

Thus, on July 15, 67 A.D., a massacre interrupted the relatively good relations
that the Samaritans had had with their Roman overlords. The good fortunes
had ended.

John Strugnell has published an extant Samaritan inscription which
he believed referred to the same Josephus story. The inscription, translated
by Strugnell, revealed two differences. Trajan was the general dispatched
by Vespasian rather than Cerealis and there were 10,000 men of valor killed
rather than 11,600 men.24 The two stories are so similar that Strugnell's
belief that they refer to one event is justified.

The reason for such a massacre is not easily discerned. Bowman
followed Josephus' attitude that the Samaritans had gathered “in apparent
revolt against the Romans" and were destroyed as an example by Cerealis

. 25 .
(or Trajan?). On the other hand, Anderson hinted that the event was

 

23
Josephus The Jewish War iii. 307, 310, 312.

24 . . . . . .
John Strugnell, "Quelques Inscriptions Samaritaines," Revue Biblique

4 (Oct. 1967) 562.

 

 

5 . .
Bowman, op. Cit., "History," p. 107.

86

simply "fevered Samaritans fleeing Roman oppression who gathered by the
. 26 . .
thousands at the holiest sanctuary they knew." Even w1th two independent
witnesses to the massacre the motivation is difficult to assess. Probably
the Roman "nervousness" over the Jewish revolt precipitated such an incident.
Montgomery supposed:
At the beginning of the Jewish War (A.D. 66), Samaria-Sebaste shared
the fate of many a neighboring city, and was burnt to the ground, and
in general we have to suppose that the fires which raged in Judaea,
Peraea and Galilee seared the valleys of Samaria, and involved its
inhabitants however involuntarily, in the horrors of that war of
Armageddon.

Immediately after the war with the Jews, Vespasian established a new

city, calling it "Neapolis," locating it close to Shechem on a place formerly

called Mabortha or Mamortha.28 Shechem quickly became identified with Neapolis.

While Samaria never recovered from its calamity during the War, Shechem rose
to new heights of prestige, but it proved to be both a blessing and a curse.
Looking ahead to what Neapolis became, Montgomery evaluated its fortunes:

Neapolis rapidly forged ahead of the old capital, and is spoken of

in the IVth Century as one of the greatest cities in Palestine. This
new creation brought wealth and prestige to the centre of the Samaritan
sect, which by the IVth century seems to have entirely abandoned the
elder Shechem; but the change was fraught with danger to that community,
for the colonization of a Pagan metropolis in their midst contributed
to the fanatical exasperation of the Samaritans against the Romans,
which ultimately brought upon them the same ruin that had befallen
Jerusalem.

 

6
Anderson, loc. cit.
27 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 86.
28 .
Schurer, op. Cit., p. 520.

29
Josephus The Jewish Wars iv. 449.

 

30
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 89.

29

87

So from the destruction of Shechem by John Hyrcanus (c.107 B.C.) to
the beginning of Herod's reign (c.37 B.C.), the Samaritans were caught in
the many conflicts of the Jews. From Herod to the Destruction of Jerusalem
the Samaritans enjoyed their happiest years. Herod and the Romans saw the
value of their land as a "foothold against the tumultuous Jews."31 The
enjoyment would be a few years more, but it could not last. After the great
Jewish War with Rome there existed "a long lacuna in Samaritan history,
extending to the reign of Hadrian, (117-138)."32 When the Samaritan sect
does reappear in historical sources, it is involved in the great conflict
between Church and State “which began with the fall of Jerusalem and terminated
in the triumph of Christianity."33
One aspect of the Samaritan history (100 B.C. to A.D. 70) that needs

to be considered before a brief overview of their theology is given is the

rise of Samaritan sectarians, especially the Dositheans.

The Samaritan Sectarians: The Dositheans

 

One of the mysteries of Samaritan studies has been the origin and
influence of the Dositheans upon "mainstream" Samaritans. The issue revolved
around the doctrine of the resurrection. But the primary sources are confusing
and so the opinions of scholars have differed through the years. At the turn

. . . 34
of the century (1901) S. Krauss saw three DOSitheOi in the sources. Mont-

gomery considered there to be two Dosithean sects, "One sect of Dositheans

 

3
1Ibid., p. 87.
32Ibid., p. 89-90.

331bid., p. 90.

34Stanley Jerome Isser, The Dositheans (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976),
p. 115.

 

88

. . . . . 35
denied the resurrection, and so are placed in connection Wlth the Sadducees."
36 .

T. Caldwell also accepted the two sect theory. Bowman rejected the two
sect theory and postulated that "most of the Samaritan sects were only modi—

. . . 37 ,
fications of the DOSithean sect." Macdonald followed Montgomery and his

. . . . . 38 . . . .

two DOSithean View, only slightly modified. Coggins did not commit himself
to any one view but did accept the notion that the Dositheans denied the
resurrection.

Not until Stanley J. Isser researched the topic in his dissertation
(1976) did anyone discover a way to unravel the problem of the sources that
testified to the existence of Dositheans as a Samaritan sect. Isser's
approach was surprisingly simple:

There has been no thoroughgoing critical analysis of the sources or

satisfactory attempt to see the material about Dositheus in terms

of literary traditions whose difficulties might be explained by the

history of textual transmission rather than 20 the actual history of

Dositheus the man/men and of the Dositheans.

Isser criticized Montgomery's approach accordingly: "Montgomery, too, was

guilty of treating his sources as historical accounts, to be harmonized

rather than literary traditions to be traced."41 In fact, almost all scholars

 

35Montgomery, op. cit., p. 261.

36T. Caldwell, "Kairos," 4 (1962) 105-17.

Bowman, op. cit., Problem, p. 38.

38 .
Macdonald, op. Cit., p. 34ff.

39 . . -
R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox

Press, 1975), p. 145.

 

Isser, op. cit., p. 3.

4
lIbid., p. 116.

89

writing on the subject made the same approach as Montgomery, varying only
slightly in their opinions. Isser, on the other hand, first traced the

. . . 42 . .
literary traditions very carefully before evaluating their worth and con-
tribution to the knowledge of the Dosithean sect(s). His conclusions must
be considered before any new issues are raised concerning the Dositheans.

Of the literary sources on the Dositheans, only Epiphanius, the
Clementia, and the Samaritan chronicles offer what purports to be a
historical narrative. Other sources, such as those in the Pseudo-
Tertullianic tradition and the Karaite and Muslim writers, give
only a brief account of Dosithean beliefs, barely enough to place
Dositheus in their heresiological catalogues. . . . Origen is not
dependent on these sources, but his material offers little tangible
on the career of the historical Dositheus. The Clementine Homilies
and Recogpitions give Dositheus a historical role in connection with
the main narrative about Simon Magus, but we have argued that this

account of the associati023of the two men is fictional and unsupported
by any literary evidence.

 

42Josephus Antiquities xiii. 79-79 (first century A.D.); Eusebius
HLE, iv. 22.4ff (Hegesippus - second century A.D.); Clementina (Pseudo),
Homilies ii. 22-25 (2nd and 4th centuries), Recognitions ii. 7-12 (from
Rufinus' translation, 410 A.D.); Origen, De princpiis iv. 18 (17) (c.185-
253 A.D.), Homily on Luke 25 (middle), Commentary on Matthew, series 33
(on Matt 24:4f.), Commentary on John 13.27 (on John 4.25), Contra Celsum
i. 57, vi. 11.; Eusebius, Theophany, iv. 35 (263-339 A.D.) used Origen as
source; Pseudo-Tertullian (Hippolytus of Rome c.222 A.D.); Panarion 9ff.
(Epiphanius, Bishop of Constania in Cyprus c.370's A.D.); De. Haer. 4ff.
(Philaster, c.380 A.D.); Recognitions i. 54 (Clementine - Rufinus' influence);
Photius 25-30 (Photius - 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople - summarizing
Eulogies, Pat. of Alexandria, c.580-607 A.D.); Arabic (Middle Ages); Baladhuri,
Qirqisani, Mas'udi, Maqrizi (9th - 10th century); Shahrastani, Chronicle
Neubauer (Tolidah) (Chronicle III) (12th Century) Abu'l Fath (Chronicle VI)
(14th CenturY)p Chronicle Adler (Chronicle VII) (19th Century).

Isser has published the primary sources in their original language,
mainly Greek, Latin, Arabic and Aramaic, in his The Dositheans, pp. 167-213.
In his text he has provided an English translation of each source with full

commentary concerning their literary traditions, pp. 5-106. His conclusions
are on pp. 106-11.

 

 

 

 

 

4
3Isser, op. cit., p. 151.

90

One of the initial problems Isser had to face was the contradictory
nature of the testimony of the sources to the Dosithean belief or non-belief
in the resurrection. Isser observed: "Philaster says unequivocally that
Dositheus denied the resurrection a fact contradicted implicitly by Pseudo-

. . . ' . . ..44 .
Tertullian and expliCitly by Epiphanius. One of the keys to unlocking
the mystery was to discover the literary relationships before any doctrinal
statements could be made. Isser discovered the following relationships:

(1) Epiphanius followed the patristic sources on the Jews, making
Dositheus a forerunner of the Sadducees and continuing with descrip-
tions of the Sadducees, Pharisees, etc. (2) He even used the

patristic passage on the Samaritans, but knowing them to be separate

from the Jews, he removed them from the Jewish catalogue and supple-
mented4ghe patristic account with his independent source on the Samaritan
sects.

In summary, he found two traditions flowing through the patristic
sources: the Pseudo-Tertullian tradition and the Epiphanius account. The
Pseudo-Tertullian tradition considered Dositheus a proto-Sadducee, a descrip-
tion Isser regarded as "an error based on a lumping together of Sadducees,

. . 4
Samaritans, and DOSitheans."

Epiphanius appears to be the only Church writer of antiquity who
both mentions Dositheus and knows that the Samaritans were not a mono-
lithic group. Furthermore, he knew the story of Dositheus in the
literary form of a reverse aretalogy which must have been the creation
of "orthodox" Samaritans who regarded Dositheus as a faker and
heretic. . . . The Dositheans accepted the doctrine of resurrection.

I prefer to see the Epiphanius-Samaritan chronicles account as the
"authentic" literary tradition about Dositheus, the Ps.-Tert. version
as an artificial literary tradition which originated in the ignorance
of the Church Fathers.

 

44Ibid., p. 50.

4
51bid., p. 60.

46Ibid., p. 159.

4
7Ibid.

91

Having established the foregoing, Isser was able to critically oppose
the association that Hegesippus (as recorded in Eusebius H.E. iv. 22.4f)
made between Dositheus and Simon Magus (Acts 8). The close association of
Dositheus and Simon was "a fabrication for dramatic purposes," according to
Isser. He continued, "Nevertheless, the setting of Samaritan miracle-working

' ' I ' ' l ' "48

eschatology could eaSily fit the historical DOSitheus.

As to the literary tradition of the Karaite and Islamic sources, Isser
was puzzled. He simply noted that the traditions knew the Samaritans to

. . . . . . 49

be diVided into two major sects, the Kushaniya and Dustaniya.

Isser's analysis of the sources produced a convincing argument for

' II ' ' II ‘ 50

understanding the historical DOSitheans. He noted that the crux of the
problem was the "Syntagma" tradition attested first by Pseudo-Tertullian.
This tradition placed Dositheus (either as a Jew or Samaritan) as a forerunner
or founder of the Sadducees. Sadducean theology which included the denial
of resurrection, angels, and spirits was attributed to Dositheus and his
followers. The Pseudo-Tertullian tradition was followed by Jerome, Philaster,

parts of Epiphanius, interpolations in Clementine Recognitions i.54, and a

 

gloss in Photius' account of Eulogius' synod. Hegesippus' sectarian list
placed Dositheus in the first century A.D., contemporary with Simon Magus,

but only later by Theodoret were the two connected as the Simonian group.

 

81bid., pp. 159-60.

49
Ibid., p. 160.

50 . . . .
Ibid., pp. 106-08. For a diagrammed View of the above analySis
see Isser's "Hypothetical Schema of Literary Sources on Dositheus," in the
Dositheans, p. 110, reproduced as an Appendix.

 

92

In an early form of Clementina, Dositheus was a forerunner of Simon Magus

 

and both were involved with the sect of John the Baptist. This tradition
seemed to be influenced by the Syntagma tradition, for it connected both

Dositheus and Simon with the Sadducees. The Apostolic Constitutions was

 

dependent on both Hegesippus and the early form of Clementina. Origen pro-

 

vided an independent source. His Dositheus was a first century messianic
pretender who was a sabbath observer. Eusebius' Theophany depended on Origen.
Epiphanius, who followed Hegesippus and the "Syntagma" only in order of the
sects, was an independent source which gave much detail of Samaritan sectar-
ianism as well as much more detailed accounts of the doctrines and practices
of all the sects. Epiphanius' Dositheus believed in the resurrection. All
of these details Isser surmised came from reliable Samaritan sources. The
Karaite-Muslim traditions contributed very little. The Samaritan Chronicles,
especially Abu'l Fath, followed earlier Samaritan traditions on Dustan and
Dusis. They were highly inaccurate in chronology for the period. Thus,
Isser's analysis presented Epiphanius as the most reliable and accurate
tradition.

Mention has already been made of Josephus' story of Alexandrian Jews

in conflict with the Samaritans (Antiquities xiii. 74-79). In this story

 

Josephus gave the names, "Sabbaeus" and "Theodosius," to the Samaritan
leaders who attempted to defend Mt. Gerizim as the lawful place to worship
while Andronicus spoke for the Jews in support of the Jerusalem temple before
Ptolemy Philometor. Interestingly, Sabbaeus and Theodosius are not allowed
to speak since the Jewish argument is accounted right and supposedly the two
men are put to death. The historical value of this story is highly question-

able but the names remain. Isser remarked that "the relevance of this

93

passage to our subject depends on the argument of Krauss and Montgomery

. . . 51
that the names TheodOSius and DOSitheus are interchangeable." If the

names are equal and refer to the same person, then there may be support
for a Dosithean sect in B.C. It is surprising how positive Isser evaluated
this slight evidence. He wrote:

Although the possibility that these names are fictional eponyms is
great, and although they appear in stories written several centuries
after the events, one is tempted to argue that the origin of these
two Samaritan sects, i.e., the Sebuaeans and Dositheans, and perhaps
the live of their leaders, belong to the second century B.C. or
earlier.

Having examined the Samaritan literature, Bowman also placed a Samaritan
sect in B.C. Bowman saw the Samaritan sect(s) as opposing the Samaritan
priestly authority.

The first mention of Sectarianism at work within Samaritanism
is attributable to the time of John Hyrcanus. . . . it is in the
reign of 'Arkiya the son of Simon, the King of the Jews, that the
Dustan sect splits off from the community of the Samaritans. While
from the text the Dustan appears to rise in the Persian period, it
is clear that it is associated with 'Arkiya, i.e. Hyrcanus. . . .
The Tolidah mentions a heretic Dustis of the time of the High Priest
'Akbon of the 3rd century C.E. Abu'l Fath after speaking at length
about Baba Raba, introduces his long digression on related Samaritan
sects with the heresiarch Dusis. . . . Abu'l Fath (ibid., p. 161-2)
refers to the tenets of a Samaritan sect led by Salyah the son of
Tairun the son of Nin. On p. 162 we are told that Salyah said he
was the father of all who accepted his teaching, and that the Dustan
addressed him as 'our father'. . . . Running through the Samarit g
sects as a whole is a challenge to Samaritan priestly authority.

In another place Bowman placed the Dustan sect in the second century B.C.,

a sect that challenged the priestly authority. He suggested:

 

51
Ibid., p. 7. See Montgomery, Samaritans, p. 254, n.8.

52
Ibid., p. 8.

 

5
3Bowman, op. cit., "History," pp. 105-06.

94

We do not know when the authority of the Samaritan priests in
Shechem was questioned for the first time. But there are indications
that it happened about 122 B.C. when John Hyrcanus destroyed the
temple on Mount Gerizim.

Close to Bowman's views were Kippenberg's whose thesis Isser described:

The latest published work which includes a study of Dositheanism
is H. G. Kippenberg's Garizim and Synagoge, Berlin, 1971. His major
thesis is that after the destruction of the Samaritan temple by John
Hyrcanus, the Samaritans developed two groups and tendencies: priestly
with emphasis on Gerizim, and lggc--especially of biblical students--
with emphasis on the synagogue.

 

Isser criticized heavily Bowman's arguments, which included Kippenberg's,
that there was a necessary division between the Samaritan priests and laity.
Also he rejected Bowman's attempt to associate Dositheanism with the Zadokites
of Damascus and Qumran:
Aside from his assertion that the Dustan and Dusis references

were a double account of the same sect, Bowman made no attempt to

analyze any of the written sources, which contain nothing to sub-

stantiate his hypothesis. In effect, what he did was to refine the

Dosithean association with the Zadokites, assume that in Samaritanism

a rivalry developed between the priests and the ggy synagogues and

proceed from there despite the lack of evidence.

The events surrounding the destruction of the Samaritan Temple (c.128
B.C.) have suggested to many scholars that sectarianism was running rampant.
In the years before 104 B.C. John Hyrcanus had pulled away from the Pharisees
to join the Sadducean party. Jewish as well as Samaritan controversies
abounded.

It is important not to consider the Samaritan sects as monolithic, but

rather as diverse and changing. The sources indicated that there was a

 

Bowman, op. cit., Problem, p. 34.

5
Isser, op. cit., p. 124.

56Ibid., p. 121.

95

tendency to reduce the sects as time passed. Isser related the common source

of the Samaritan sects:

Abu'l Fath lists a possible nine, but the Chronicle Adler condenses
the list to seven, . . .

The sects derive from the followers and writings of Dusis, ggme
in agreement with the original teaching and some opposed to it.

 

This source is rather late and very difficult to determine how reliable
it may be for early sectarian Samaritanism. The sects would normally be
considered as one, lumped together under the Dositheans ("Theodosius" of
Josephus) or Dustaniya (of the Arabic authors).

Isser has adequately shown that Montgomery and others "failed to
consider the evidence in terms of a corruptible literary tradition." Thus,
they presented a sect called Dustan (perhaps led by Dusis?) which opposed
resurrection. On the contrary, if there was a Dustan sect of the first century
B.C., it leaned toward Pharisaism--"the acceptance of resurrection or the

"58 -
world to come. Further, he clearly explained:

Our thesis is . . . that the tradition in the patristic literature
which made Dositheus a denier of resurrection was a purely literary
invention based on a lumping together of Dositheans with the Samaritans
and Sadducees. Of the Church writers only Epiphanius was fully aware

of sectarianism within Samaritanism, and heSBotably, is the one writer
to see Dositheus as accepting resurrection.

 

57
Ibid., p. 103. Abu'l Fath's list of Samaritan sects: The added

information in parentheses are not quoted materials but added so that some

idea of their comparison and importance can be ascertained. See also John
Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, pp. 49-53. (1) Ba'unay (Bashan), (2) Qilatay
(antinomian - revered Gerizim), (3) Saduqay (offshoot of #1. Believed in
resurrection), (4) Abijah and Dosa (120 followers, abolition of religious

law), (5) Shlih/Sakta-Adler (rejected Gerizim, reinterpreted law), (6) Aulian (?)
of Alexandria (imminent salvation, realized eschatology), (7) Fasqutay (no
paradise or resurrection).

5
8Ibid., p. 90.

59
Ibid., p. 143.

 

96

The Samaritan Chronicles supported the same conclusions and it was
some such source that Epiphanius probably used. Therefore, "the historical
Dositheans were a pro-resurrectionist sect within a Samaritan population
. . . "6O . .
that generally denied the doctrine of resurrection. Stated in a different
manner Isser made the same point:
I think the primitive Dosithean sect which denied resurrection is
a fiction, for which the Syntagma tradition is to blame. The other
evidence, especially Epiphanius and Abu'l Fath, our most extensive
sources, indicates something else. . . . In their belief in resurr-
ection, and in their legal interpretations, they are similar to the
Pharisees; this fact would explain the hostility of 618 Samaritan sources
and the reason Dositheanism was considered a heresy.
The resurrection doctrine is clearly found in Marqah's Memar (3rd
or 4th cent. A.D.). But Isser disagreed with Bowman that Marqah was a
member of the Dosithean sect. Isser thought that the Memar did not origin-
ally teach the resurrection, rather the teachings of resurrection and advanced
ideas of the Taheb were interpolated much later (c.1000 years!) when the
Dosithean beliefs in resurrection and perhaps an expanded concept of the

Taheb was assimilated into the main body of Samaritans. Many passages in

the Memar would have been added from the Islamic period.62 Whether Isser

 

60Ibid.

6
1Ibid., p. 108.

2Concerning the issue of "resurrection: in Marqah's Memar Isser
warned: "Macdonald's text of Marqah, which we have been citing, is based
on a group of manuscripts from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries
(Macdonald's D for"Danafite" MSS.). There is, however, an earlier manuscript,
Macdonald's K (for Kahle) from the fourteenth century. The K text is much
shorter than the D version, but more important are the contents of the sections
missing in K; virtually every passage dealing with resurrection and the Taheb
is lacking in K. . . . Ben-Hayyim. . . warned of extensive interpolation
in the entire text." Isser, The Dositheans, pp. 146-47.

 

97

is correct or not, all the scholars in Samaritan studies agree that the
fourteenth century saw a renewed and unified Samaritanism that accepted
the doctrine of the resurrection. Isser explained the historical develop-
ment of the resurrection doctrine among the Samaritans:
It was the fourteenth century which saw a sort of Samaritan renaissance
in literature and the beginnings of the modern formulations of Samar-
itan doctrine. By that time, too, the Dosithean heresy no longer
existed, having either died out completely or having been assimilated
into a new unified Samaritanism. By this time resurrection wg§ an
accepted doctrine, no longer tied up with Dositheanism alone.
By tracing the literary traditions before determining the historical
and doctrinal origins, Isser was able to determine the origins and basic
. . . . 64 .
doctrinal pOSitions of the DOSitheans. He suggested that there eXisted
only one sect, though subsects later developed from it. Isser offered two
alternatives as to origins. One, the Dositheans developed in the first
half of the first century A.D. from a Pharisaizing group perhaps represented
by the mysterious Zar'ah. The sect made Dositheus their leader and took
his name. In Judaism the Pharisaizing group became the majority party,
while in Samaritanism the Pharisaizing group (the Dositheans) remained a
minority, considered heretics by "normative Samaritanism." Secondly,
Abu'l Fath's testimony to a pre-Christian Dustan sect may have been only
an anachronism. The second alternative was dismissed as a reflection of
the later Dosithean sect.

Isser also established the "historical" Dositheus as an early first

century eschatological figure who pretended to be the "Prophet like Moses"

 

6 .
3Isser, op. Cit., pp. 149—50.

6
4Ibid., pp. 109-10.

98

(Deut 18).65 He probably portrayed himself as a miracle-worker (magician?)
and either author of new texts or interpreter of biblical law. Dositheus
took over an established Dustan sect which was Pharisaic in character in
contrast to the "normative Samaritans" who were Sadducean. The sect created
a Dositheus aretalogy molded after the form of the Moses tradition. The
main body of Samaritans parodied this with a "reverse" aretalogy which became
the source for Epiphanius and the Samaritan Chronicles. Dositheus' role
was like the Moses-Taheb figure, or Elijah or Jesus rather than a priestly
Messiah who would restore the temple (tabernacle). His followers looked
for his return. By the fourteenth century the Dosithean sect had either
disappeared or was assimilated into the main body of Samaritans. Ironically
the Dosithean doctrine of resurrection was accepted at that time.
Historically, the Samaritans experienced a vigorous period between
100 B.C. and 70 A.D. There were skirmishes with their Jewish brethren,
precipitated evidently by the Samaritans themselves who felt confident in
their more favorable position with their Roman overseers. The sectarian
spirit had also permeated their ranks, thus the Dositheans and perhaps
subsects from them kept the "mainstream" Samaritans in turmoil. Sadly,
there were the "prophet" or "messianic" (?) pretenders who led many to
Mount Gerizim only to be slain by the impatient Roman administrators. It

is within this milieu that the Samaritan creed will be considered.

 

65
Ibid., pp. 163-64.

99

The Samaritan Theology

 

The most complete work on Samaritan theology is The Theology of the

 

Samaritans (1964) by John Macdonald. The primary sources to determine

 

Samaritan theologyénKBlisted in chronological order and described adequately
on pp. 40-49 of his book. The most important source, of course, is the
Samaritan Pentateuch and its Targums (Aramaic version of the Pentateuch).

After that the Memar Markah (The Teaching of Markah), probably late third

 

or early fourth century A.D., is most important. The Defter (Book of

"Common Prayer") may also come from the third century. The Asatir (Chronicle
I) has been dated anywhere between the third and ninth century, more likely
the Byzantine period. Beyond these, the Samaritan sources are very late

in order to determine early Samaritan theology.

However, the materials found in the Memar could easily date back even
before the Christian era. Macdonald, who has also published a translation
of the Memar, wrote:

In the Memar the religious atmosphere is similar to that found

in Palestine and surrounding regions from the period of Persian rule,

through the Hellenistic era, up to the early decline of the Roman

Empire. A comparison of the Samaritan Asatir, a book of ancient

legends which may belong to the Hellenistic period or possibly the

Roman, with the many apocryphal works from the 3rd century B .,

will reveal the same or closely similar ideological climate.

Isser has suggested that Markah was not a Dosithean and that many

references in the Memar are later interpolations. Macdonald has also

recognized this possibility as he wrote about Markah:

 

66
John Macdonald, ed. and trans., Memar Marqah, Vol. 1: The Text,
(Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1963), p. xix.

 

100

Markah may or may not have been a Dosithean, and the Samaritan histor-
ical sources themselves are not agreed about this or about his religious
affinities in general, beyond the fact that he was a Samaritan, but

his general teaching was accepted by all later writers, so that we

can feel sure that hi 7position was not far removed from that of the
priestly authorities.

Also, Macdonald acknowledged the problem of texts in the Memar.

There is, however, the special problem of the oldest (14th century)
MS, called herein K. This MS differs considerably in content and exact
working from the Danafi and Levitical text-types. . . . this is a

text possibly6gictated from someone's memory and not copied from an
earlier text.

The difficulty with using Macdonald's Theology of the Samaritans is

 

that almost all the discussions on the various beliefs of the Samaritans come
from late sources and more often than not, the early (or earliest) sources

cannot be ascertained. Bowman has pointed out the same problem with Cowley's

work on Samaritan liturgy:

One gets a wholly wrong impression of early Samaritanism if one takes
Cowley's two volume Samaritan Liturgy as representing early Samaritan
worship or even theology. It is a composite work whose metrical con-
tents span over a thousand years and which by concentrating on such
to the exclusion of the readings from the Torah, in full or in Qataf,
gives an erroneous impression of Samaritan worship. 9It is as if one
judged early Christian worship by modern hymnbooks.

To read the Samaritan literature, one can readily note the similarities
with Christian thought, Gnostic ideas, and of the later works, Islamic

terminology. Macdonald noted that "Samaritanism is really Pentateuchal

 

67
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 35.
8
Macdonald, Memar, Vol. 1, p. xxi; note that Isser has suggested that
the later doctrines about resurrection and increased role of the Taheb were

part of a late text interpolated into the Memar.

Bowman, op. cit., "History," p. 109.

101

religion evolved along lines influenced by Christianity. . . . The Samaritans
. . . . . 70
knew about Christ and spoke of him Without any hostility." In Macdonald's
introduction to the Memar he expressed similar convictions:
We have now to re-examine thoroughly the history of Christian missionary
activity in Samaria, so that we may explain why so much of the Johannine
(and other) writings of the New Testament has been acceptable to the
Samaritans and incorporable into their Christological and soteriological
systems. . . . Trotter has set out a fairly strong case for thinking
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was in fact either written to the
Samaritans (who prefer the title "Hebrews" to "Israelites"), or was
composed for Samaritan Christians..
Samaritan theology, therefore, has been influenced by its spiritual
and philosophical surroundings. In fact many of the Samaritan teachings
would have been very acceptable to the early Church and the teachings of
Christ (Matt 5-7). Montgomery saw this characteristic as unique to the
Samaritans as over against Judaism. The Samaritans laid greater stress on
the moral side of the Law in contrast to the Jewish emphasis on the exposition
of sacrificial laws even when they were obsolete. A certain tone of spiritual-
ity pervaded Samaritan theology so that "it appears in a way as one of those

numerous developments of Old Testament religion which were forerunners of

. . . . . . 7
the spiritual worship of synagogue and of Christianity."

The Samaritan Creed
The Samaritan confession of faith included five points: (1) Belief
in the one God, (2) Belief in Moses, (3) Belief in the holy Law, (4) Belief

. . . . . 7
in Mount GeriZim, (5) Belief in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense. 3

 

70
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 32.
l . ...
Macdonald, op. Cit., Memar, Vol. 1, p. xliii.
72 .
Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 230.

3Bowman, op. cit., Problem, p. 30.

102

The same confession of faith from a defensive note was expressed by the
Defter:
My Lord, we shall never worship any but thee, nor have we any faith
but in thee and in Moses thy prophet, and in thy true scriptures and
in the place of worshipping thee, Mount Gerizim, Bethel, the mount
of rest and7 f the divine presence, and in the Day of Vengeance and
Recompense.
How did these five tenets become part of the Samaritan Creed? Most scholars
see development in the creed. Montgomery observed:
The first three points of the Samaritan creed are identical with the
cardinal beliefs of Judaism, while the fourth is the cause of schism
between the two communities. These first four points sometimes appear
by themselves, the fifth article concerning7ghe Latter Things being
a later addition to the Samaritan theology.
The creed seems to be expressed by the Memar in a very simple way--the first

two tenets:

It behoves us to bless Him and believe in Him and in Moses His prophet,
the like of whom has not arisen and never will arise.

Let us believe in the Lord and in Moses His servant.

We believe in Thee and in Moses Thy Man and in Thy Scripture, whéch
Thou didst send down through him from Thy holy place in heaven.

In the Defter (prayer of Markah) the first four tenets are given.
Could this mean that the belief in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense was
not yet developed as suggested by Montgomery? In the Abdallah (c.p.49l.12)
all five tenets are given, which is the attestation of the 14th century A.D.

Macdonald proposed that "the Dosithean sect may have been responsible for

 

74

Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 55.
75 .

Montgomery, op. Cit., p. 207.

6 . .
Macdonald, op. Cit., Memar iv, 5, 7, 9.

103

. 77
the late formal acceptance of the fifth tenet." However, Macdonald gave
this warning:
There is no evidence as to when exactly any one Samaritan doctrine
reached its final form, and we are forced to processes of deduction

more often than not7§n order to determine the probable history of
doctrines or creed.

In spite of these doubts there seems to be no real objection or evidence
for denying an early adherence to a five (or at least four) tenet creed.

Bowman allowed this:

The liturgical version of their confession of faith says nothing
about the resurrection, the appearance of the Saviour, or a man like
Moses. However these points appear as extensions of the five points
in the form of the confession of faith which is used in their personal
prayer. Therefore there can scarcely be any doubt that this liturgi-
cal form is very old. Even the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar
expectgd the Ta'eb or the Messiah, as the author of John's gospel
says.

The problem cannot be easily solved and certainly that is not the
intention here. Enough has been said to suggest that the Samaritan creed
could very well be old, certainly going back to the beginning of the first
century A.D. Even the fifth tenet in some form could be early. The Samaritans

. . . . . 80
"stressed the importance of faith more strongly than the JeWish religion;"

and therefore, they stressed faith in these five (or four?) creedal state-

ments which will be reviewed in the same order.

 

77
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 55.

7
81bid., p. 51.

9Bowman, op. cit., Problem, pp. 30-31.
80 .

Ibid., p. 31. To be sure, the Jewish religion, too, stressed the
importance of faith but here the idea is that by comparison the Samaritans
seem to excel in this approach because of their missing temple (tabernacle)
and lack of rituals connected with a visible, physical temple.

104

Belief in the One God

 

Essentially the Samaritans' belief in God is based on their Pentateuch.
But through the years they were not hesitant to develop their ideas about
God using terminology "from current systems of thought." The development

can be seen in Markah's Memar. "In that work there is a notable philosophi-

 

cal and metaphysical flavour, and so the conservative religious expression

of God's attributes tends to be submerged in the broader, more comprehen-
. . "81

Sive language of philosophy.

Like the Judaists the Samaritans understood Deut 6:4 to be a very basic
and fundamental truth about God--"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one
LORD" (RSV). But unlike them the Samaritans did not allow it to become
part of their creed. Macdonald explained: "They do not base their claim
to believe in the oneness of God solely on scriptural warrant; they have
worked the belief out in the climate of reason and in the sanctuary of the

82 .
heart." And again Macdonald explained why the Samaritans do not accept
the concept of "unity" for God:

The Samaritans do not speak of the unity of God; such a concept is

alien to them. Like Judaist and Muslim, the Samaritan had no rgason

to believe that God was a unity, that divinity meant a Godhead.

To illustrate this point graphically the Samaritan Pentateuch does not follow

the Massoretic Text where Elohim, God, is used with a plural verb, rather

it is "corrected" to the singular (Gen 20:13; 31:53; 35:7; Exod 22:9).

 

81
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 59.

82Ibid., p. 65.

8
3Ibid.

105

The Samaritan view of God was one of "incorporaelity and impassibility."
The Targums of the Samaritan Pentateuch try to avoid the original anthropo-
morphisms. Yet, Montgomery (among others) noted one exception:

The one standing exception to this rule is the constant reference to

the writing of the Tables of the Law by the finger of God; here the

effective anthropomorphism of Scripture and the reverence for the

Law are too strong for the otherwise spiritualizing Samaritan theology.
The Samaritans seemed to possess a more philosophical and spiritualized view
of God at least by Markah's time. God's infinity is expressed both in a
positive and negative way by Markah's Memar:

He does not increase or decrease; He is eternal in His oneness, I

AM in divinity, everlasting in awesomeness. His greatness is not

localized--indeed He created every place by His power.

He has no place in which He is known and no area in which He is recog-

nized; He does not reside in a place; He is dggoid of any locality.

. . . He has no place where He can be sought.

Macdonald commented on this text:

This is an important passage in that it demonstrates (l) the Samaritan
avoidance of pantheistic concepts, and (2) the fact that although
Mount Gerizim is the "chosen place, the House of God" (Beth-e1), where
his people can worship him, no place is distinguishedags being a loca—
tion where the essential form of God can be observed.

Particular characteristics of God taught by the Judaists were not con-
. . . 87 . 88
Sidered by the Samaritans, i.e., the fatherhood of God, and the Logos-Doctrine.

By contrast the personal name of God (YHWH) appears throughout Samaritan

literature, used "without any trace of that fear at even the writing of it

 

84

Montgomery, op. cit., p. 212.

5 .

Memar iv. 5, 7.
86 .

Macdonald, op. Cit., Theology, p. 72.
87

Ibid., p. 66.

88
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 209.

106

which characterizes Judaism."89 Indeed, the Samaritans seemed to emphasize
God's love and a personal faith in Him as evidenced by the Memar:
He gives relief to those who love him and he remembers them.
He is near to all who seek him and cares for all who love him, a
strong shield to those who believe in him, for he is merciful and

full of pity.

Blessed is our Lord who magnifies his beloved and cares for them in
all their activity.

Because the Samaritans were strict literalists with regard to their
Pentateuch but at the same time used philosophical vocabulary that prevailed
around them with reference to their God, they created a puzzling phenomena
that Macdonald found contradictory:

If God has no self, how can he have personal characteristics like

love, mercy, patience, and so on? This is perhaps the greatest single

theological problem confronting the Samaritans, for their philoso-

phical background accredited to God an unsubstantial existence, while
their religious tgiining and faith taught them of a God who loves,
serves and cares.
The explanation is probably one of developments where early Samaritan concepts
of God were mainly Pentateuchal in nature while later writings exhibit the
more philosophical version but never go beyond the limits of their Torah.
Their God was simply unfathomable. As Montgomery noted: "Samaritan theology
. . . 92
in general draws the sharpest line between God and his creatures." However,
according to the Samaritans, God had revealed Himself in two acts (1) the

creation and (2) the giving of the Law through Moses. It is Moses who became

second in importance to God.

 

89
Ibid., p. 213.
Memar iii. 5, iv. 2,4.
91 .
Macdonald, op. Cit., Theolog , p. 87.

92
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 222.

107

The Belief in Moses

 

Macdonald has pointed out the importance of understanding the

Samaritan Moses:

It developed a belief in Moses, its only prophet, as the pre-eminent
one of all humanity, the specially endowed of God. Like Christianity,
it elevated its chief historical figure to the highest degree, but
unlike Christianity it did not accredit him with divine sonship.

So pre-eminent is Moses in Samaritan belief that it is true to say
that Samaritanism cannot beggnderstood without regarding belief in
Moses as basic and central.

The Memar gave many examples of this belief in Moses.

Let us believe in Him and in Moses His prophet, and let Bi bow down
before Him and testify, saying, "There is only one God."

Let us follow after the great prophet Moses who leads us well for our
Lord sent him to us. Where is there a prophet like Moses, who was
a good father to all Israel, bringing them up and caring for them,
atoning for them in his fast and also giving them life through his
prayer. He delivered them from the hands of their enemies and estab-
lished them in perfect faith. He was a good physician, healing and
giving reward. The Elders he honoured, the men he strengthened, the
young he illumined, the infants he brought up, the youths he made
strong, the children he kept alive. When he prophesied, he delivered
them; when he received the tablets he saved them; His words were from
the words of his Lord. Believe in Him--you will be safe from all
wrath, in the Day of Vengeance you will find rest; in the fire you will
not be. It will have no power over you.

He who believes in him believes i his Lord. . . . Let us believe
in the Lord and in Moses His servant.

Notice the injunction to "believe in Moses"! These words are reminiscent
of John's Gospel sayings (cf. John 14:10, 24; 3:16; 14:1, 1:3).

Just as Macdonald compared the Samaritan Moses to the Christ of
Christianity, Montgomery compared him also to Islam's Mohammed as well as

the Christ:

 

93
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 147.

Memar iv. 8

r
J I
Memar iv. 7.

108

In the Samaritan sect Moses takes a place parallel to that enjoyed
by Mohammed in Islam: "Moses is the Prophet of God." and there is
none other like him. But the Samaritan doctrine even surpasses Islam
in reverence for its prophet. For while Muslim orthodoxy thinks of
the Arabian prophet with rational soberness, the Samaritan advances
the great Lawgiver to a position where he becomes an object of faith.
He is rather like the Christ of Christianity, one whose origin is
often held to be mysterious, who now lives to make intercession for
his brethren, who will appear effectually for the saints at the last
day; the Messiah Bgmself will be but an inferior replica of that
absolute prophet.
Since the canon of the Samaritans consisted only of the Pentateuch
it is only natural that Moses should take center stage, especially since
he is deemed the author of the Pentateuch. Whereas the Jews knew Moses as
the first of a long succession of prophets, the Samaritans saw Moses as the
end of all prophecy.
Macdonald puts the Samaritan attributes of Moses into two categories:
(1) those derived or implied from the Pentateuch and (2) "those that have
. . . . . . . . "97 .
particular Significance, esoteric or cosmic in the main. Of the first
category Moses is called "good one," "righteous one," "faithful one of God,"
"the highest of men," "the most choice of humanity," "master of knowledge,"
"honoured leader," "teacher," "priest," "judge," "King," "messenger,"
"apostle," and "supplicator." Macdonald noted that "all these titles are or

. . . . 98 . .
could be applied to Christ by Christians." In Samaritan literature Moses

is called in a unique way "the Levite" and "the elect son of Amran." The

 

6
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 225.

97
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, pp. 152ff.

98
Ibid., p. 152.

109
latter title should be read, "the elect, son of Amram," according to Macdonald,
for he wrote: "Moses pre-existed as an entity, but within the human context

and especially the context of salvation, Moses was obviously not like other

"99
men.
On the second category Macdonald listed the following titles: "servant
of God," "the son of his House," "Man of God or his Man" (Deut 33:1),
"speaker," "our lord," "saviour," and "the star." Most, if not all, of these

titles come from late Samaritan literature. It is difficult to know when
the unique titles attributed to Moses began. Reason would suggest that
certainly the Pentateuchally derived titles were available from the beginning
but that the more esoteric and unique titles came after the first century,
more likely the third or fourth century A.D., Markah's time.

Whatever the beliefs the first century'Samaritansheld about Moses, it
is evident that they later accepted pre-existent attributes as well as a

heavenly superiority over angels. Isser discovered that "the Memar Marqah

 

has the largest number of passages in which the Sinai ascent appears with
. . . . "100
what looks like the picture of a pre-eXistent Moses in heaven. Macdonald
more than once suggested that the Samaritan teaching on Moses was influenced
by the Christian teachings about Christ.
It seems fairly certain that the New Testament comparisons between
Moses and Jesus which seem to lead to the New Testament belief that
Jesus was, as it were, a greater Moses, encouraged the Samaritans,
who were after all the first corporate body within a specific commun-
ity to recognize the Messianic claims attributedlsg Christ (John 4:39f),

in their development of their doctrine of Moses.

From Moses came the Law, the third creedal tenet.

 

99Ibid., p. 154.
100 . . . .. .
Isser, op. Cit., p. 136. See espeCially Memar i. 1; ii. 12; iv. 1,
3, 5, 6, 12; v. 1, 2, 3, 4.

01
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 189.

110

Belief in the Law

 

The Memar Marqah described the origin of the Law:

 

It was written by the finger of God and is descended from heaven in

two stone tablets. It was established from Creation; it was made

in the light; it was made known from the mouth of its Composer; a 102
prophet received it, who was worthy of this glory from his very birth.

It is clear also that the Torah alone is the sole revelation from God:

The book we possess is a 3k of truth, but all the writings of the
prophets are foul things.

Evidently, only the Decalogue was given and Moses expanded the Law by receiving
more from God:

After this Moses went back and requested the words of mercy (Ex.
34:6-7) which are attributive names. Our Lord appeared and 62te
before him these scriptures which He wrote by His greatness.

Macdonald described the finished product in this manner:

The process, we are told, was that thereafter Moses went on adding to
and expanding his material until the whole Law as we now have it was
completed. His prophetic function made it possible for him to write
of things he would not do, places he would not see, and even of his
own death.

The Law thus finalized was the final revelation of God direct
from God to man; thereafter revelation was to be through the mind.
God had made his final personal appearance to the world.10§is voice
was heard at Sinai, his will was on record for all time.

Like the Judaists the Samaritans counted 613 commandments within the
Torah (Pentateuch), but they categorized them differently. They counted

248 positive commands to be obeyed and performed while there were 305 negative

 

02
Memar vi. 2. (cp. Exod 24:12; 32:16; 34:1; Deut 5:22, 10:2, 4.)

0
1 3Ibid., Macdonald noted in footnote #17 that "if an attack on the
Jewish prophets"; i.e. the "foul things," "it is the only clear instance
in Marqah's writings" (p. 218).

104Ibid.,

05
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 288.

111

commands or prohibitions. Sixty of the laws were completely obligatory
upon everyone for all time. Listed in the Malef, they reveal the Samaritan
emphasis upon faith and obedience as a way of life--a much more spiritual
tone than the Judaists.106

Samaritan belief in the Law corresponds to the Christian belief in
the Holy Spirit. The Law was "lord and giver of life which proceeds from
God through his Man."107 The man, of course, was Moses. For the Christian
the Holy Spirit is giver of life which proceeds from God through His Son,

Jesus Christ. The Samaritan statement may have been late, but certainly

the first century Samaritans had similar attachments to their Law.

Belief in Mount Gerizim

 

The Memar made an interesting assertion:
There are SEVEN BEST THINGS in the world which the True One chose

and set apart as divine; the light, the Sabbath, Mount Gerizim, Adam,

the two stone tablets, the great prophet Moses, and Israel. . . .

Mount Gerizimlaa especially holy. God made it the dwelling place

of His glory.

Since the Samaritans had built a temple on Mount Gerizim sometime in
the fourth century B.C. and it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus c.128 B.C.,
the fourth tenet of the Samaritan creed was the distinguishing mark between
the Samaritans and the Jews, for it had been part of their belief from the
inception of the sect. No sect of the Jews held any more tenaciously to

their holy mount than did the Samaritans to theirs; witness the Roman slaughters

recorded by Josephus.

 

106Ibid., p. 289.
107Ibid., p. 293.
108

Memar ii. 10.

112
Montgomery took the position that the Samaritans falsified the Torah
in order to make valid their religious claim upon Mt. Gerizim. Simply by
changing "Ebal" to "Gerizim" in Deut 27:4, the Samaritans "invented Mosaic
authority for the sanctity of Gerizim, proceeded to dignify the mountain
with every epithet of honor, and to identify it with every possible trans-

. . 109 .
action of sacred history." Bruce Waltke's Prolegomena to the Samaritan

 

Pentateuch concurred with this opinion. AS already noted in chapter one,
others hold that the Samaritan Pentateuch was original and the Massoretic
text was changed. Regardless, the Samaritans did elevate the sanctity of
Mt. Gerizim. Its praise is found throughout all Samaritan literature.
Even verses that do not mention "Gerizim" in the Pentateuch are connected
to the Mount.

The Samaritans apply many biblical passages to Mount Gerizim.
So it is called "the mount of inheritance" (Ex. 15:17). Although
only mentioned twice in the Pentateuch by name, the Samaritans find
Scores of references to it by implication. According to Markah's
study there are thirteen names for the sacred mount; these are:

The mountains of the East (Gen. 10.30)

Bethel (Gen. 12.8)

The House of God (Gen. 28.17)

The gate of heaven (ibid.)

Luza/Luz (Gen. 28.19)

Sanctuary (Ex. 15.17)

Mount Gerizim (Deut. 11.29)

The house of the Lord (Ex. 23.19; 34.26)

The goodly mount (Deut. 3.25)

The chosen place (ibid.)

The everlasting hill (Deut. 33.15)

One of the mountains (Gen. 22.2)

The Lord will provide (Gen. 22.14)
. . .After Markah every Samaritan to discuss the subject depended on
his categories. . . . In Chronicle II it is regular practice to 918—
cribe the mountain as "Mount Gerizim, Bethel, the chosen place."

 

0
1 9Montgomery, op. cit., p. 235.

0
ll Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 328.

113

Every conceivable historical event in the Pentateuch that had any signifi-
cance to the Samaritans "occurred" on Mt. Gerizim. It became the center
of not only their worship, but their lives and heart. It was their means
of grace. Macdonald again described this faith in the mountain:
Mount Gerizim is the "height" (highest spot) of the Samaritan

world. As such it is nearest to heaven! It was the first land to

be uncovered after the flood in Noah's time. It is to be the cen-

tral focus of the Taheb's activities in the Second Kingdom. Its

real form will present the setting for the hereafter of perfect bliss

and purity. . . . Mount Gerizim, Bethel, is essentially pure, that

it represents the focal point in the world for prayer and praise.

Possession of and worship on this mountain is undoubtedly the means

of grace that most strikipgly marks out the Samaritans as a unique

community in Palestine.

Even to this day the Samaritans hold their festivals on Mt. Gerizim.
Bowman reported:

Pilgrimages to the summit of Mount Gerizim are made on the seventh

day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, at Pentecost, and on the

first day of the Fiast of the Tabernacles. Even Passover is celebrated

on Mount Gerizim.

There is no reason to suppose that the first four tenets of the Samaritan
Creed did not exist from the very beginning of their particular sect. Cer-
tainly each tenet was elaborated on and embroidered through the centuries,
but the same creed was there. The Samaritans clearly are of Jewish religious
heritage, i.e., their strict monotheism. Also their belief in Moses and the

five books attributed to him made them a very conservative people. Their hold

on Mt. Gerizim became their distinguishing mark and perhaps the only drawback

 

111Ibid., p. 333.

112
Bowman, op. cit., Problem, p. 43.

114

to a reunited Jewish-Israelite people. The fifth creedal statement is the
only one that could possibly have been a late development, though it need

not have been.

The Belief in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense
The Day of Vengeance and Recompense is the grand objective of the
Samaritan philosophy of history which lies at the base of all the

chronicles.

The Age of Disfavor — Fall of Adam to Moses

The Age of Favor - Moses to Samson (Eli)
The Age of Disfavor - Samson (Eli) to the Present
The Age of Favor - The Day of Vengeance and Recompense

Again the Samaritan Pentateuch comes into play for this teaching.

The Massoretic Text of Deut 32:35 reads literally: "To me (is) vengeance
and recompense." The Samaritan Pentateuch reads: "To (for) day of vengeance
and recompense." The difference is the addition of two Hebrew letters to
the prepositional phrase ’%’; i.e. EJI’ED! The variant readings reveal

that the Septuagint (LXX) agrees with the Samaritan Pentateuch. Macdonald
considered this teaching to be very early in Samaritan doctrine:
It is certain that Samaritanism, like its sister religions, developed
belief in a "day of judgment" very early, and indefg all the oldest
known literature shows an already evolved belief.
An entire section of the Memar is devoted to the idea. By the time of Markah
it is a fully developed doctrine:
The Day of Recompense is for all the good, the Day of Resurrection

for all men, the Day of Regret for all the wicked, the Day of
Reckoning for all things done, the Day of Recompense for the good

 

113
Montgomery, op. cit., p. 241.

114 .
Macdonald, op. Cit., Theology, p. 380.

115

and the evil, the Day of Interrogation about all things done by all
creatures, the Day of Trembling for all feet, thstay of Terror for
all limbs, the Day of Reckoning for all action.

Isser would probably object and declare this section a late interpolation

because of its close proximity to the "Day of Resurrection," a doctrine

he considered to be assimilated only in the fourteenth century. This could

be, but there is no way to prove it either way. Montgomery considered the

resurrection doctrine to be fully developed by Markah's day:

The elder Samaritan doubtless held to the primitive notion, exhibited
almost throughout the Jewish Scriptures, that the dead went to Sheol,
herein agreeing with Sadducaean doctrine as against Pharisaism. How-
ever, the dogma of the resufgection appears already to full bloom in

Marka in the IVth Century.

The Memar phraseology on the resurrection does remind one of the

New Testament:

tion.

He will summon His creatures as He wills. The earth will be
split because of the great terror (then), and all of them will come
forth as quick as a wink of the eye and will arise in one moment before
Him. The earth will be renewed and its split mended where it was
split.

The Samaritans used the Pentateuch to support their doctrine of resurrec-

In Gen 3:19 the MT reads: "You are dust, and to dust you shall return."

The SP reads: "You are dust, and to your dust you shall return," the differ-

ence of one Hebrew letter.

We do not know if they deliberately altered the text of Gen. 3:19
in order to accommodate a belief already in existence amongst them,
or whether this variant like many others has as great antiquity as
the equivalent in the Masoretic text employed by the Judaists and
Christians. What is certain is Egat their sacred Scripture gives

. 1
them warrant for such a belief.

 

115Memar iv. 12.
116Montgomery, op. cit., p. 239.
117

Memar iv. 12.

118Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 375.

116

Connected to the Day of Vengeance is also the Taheb:

The Taheb will arise and the Lord will have compassion. The place
of the Day of Vengeance is the evil place of the Calf. I will be
fierce in anger when I do away with the people. . . . Therefore on
the Day of Vengeance the great fire will be kindlf?9 Those who
abode by the True One will not be overcome by it.

Gesenius is credited by Montgomery for having reached the meaning of
the term Taheb:

The word is the participle of the root.31f1, the Samaritan Aramaic
equivalent of the Hebrew LJJLU, "return," "do again," "restore," the
latter form.also appearing rarely in the Epistles as :lTTUj. Through
the Samaritan indifference in the use of gutterals, the participle
also appears spelt :lTLrlbut without influencing the pronunciation.
The root is used, as in the Hebrew religious language, of the change
of the heart, or repentance, of man or God; hence Taheb has been
interpreted by some as the Penitent One, who vicariously meets God's
demand. But, with Gesenius, it is to be understood in the active
voice, as in the Biblical f7):lh0 illuj "make restoration," so that
the Samaritan Messiah is the Restorer. And this is in fact the inter-
pretation that is given by the Samaritans themselves, as thus in one
of their most recent Epistles, that to Kaatzsch: "This word..:1r111
means the one who converts the people."

Somehow he will be involved in the Last Days.
The Memar added: "When the Taheb comes he will reveal the truth and
121

God will glorify the dead." The sources have indicated many pretenders

of such a person. Josephus (Antiquities xviii. 85-87) told of the man who

 

rallied a mob to follow him to the top of Mt. Gerizim where he promised
to reveal the sacred vessels secretly buried there. Bowman has defended

his opinion (opposed by Isser):

 

11
9Memar iv. 12.

20
Montgomery, op. cit., pp. 246-47.

2
l 1Memar iii. 9.

117

The whole Samaritan doctrine of the Ta'eb (Saviour) is patterned
after Ezekiel's hope for a Nasi, except that the Ta'eb is naturally
not a descendant of David but is one who is like Moses. By the way,
Deut. 18:18 was also used as a messianic verse by the Zadokites in
Damascus and Qumran. According to the Samaritan conception, the
Ta'eb will fig? the last vessels and the incense-altar of the Taber-
nacle again.
Surely in Acts 8 Simon portrayed himself as such a figure, for through his
magic the people cried out, "This man is that power of God which is called
Great" (vs. 10). Even the Samaritan woman in conversation with Jesus at
the well of Sychar knew of a coming "messiah" and that "he will show us all

things" (John 4:25). To this Samaritan village Jesus was "the prophet"

like Moses, i.e., the Taheb! The term "Christ" is an anachronism in this

 

context of John, as Isser explained:
The term "messiah" (= "anointed one") is uncommon and unimportant--
if it occurs at all--in the literature of the Samaritans. Their

eschatolggical beliefs include no anointed figures like the Davidic
Messiah.

Only the late medieval Samaritan sources give detailed information
on the Taheb. According to them he is to come to establish the New Kingdom,
restore the vessels and temple of worship on Mt. Gerizim, and then will
die before the Resurrection. He will be buried next to Joshua and Joseph,
the patriarchs of the northern Israelites. The priests will continue to
present offerings and sacrifices on the altar until the Day of Resurrection
when all the righteous enter into a new world of bliss through Mt. Gerizim

untouched by a final conflagration. Macdonald has stated it as clearly as

the sources will allow:

 

122
Bowman, op. cit., Problem, pp. 40-41.

123 .
Isser, op. Cit., p. 127.

118

The evidence suggests that in earliest times the Taheb was to
be the restorer and no more. His function was to bring victory to
the elect in the world, and there was no suggestion that he was to
have anything to do with the Day of Vengeance and what follows. It
is understandable that the main hope about the Taheb was that he
should, like the Davidic Messiah of Judaism, make an end of perse-
cution and bring military victory to Israel. However, the Samaritan
concept of the divine favour, derived from other parts of the Law,
was a concept that probably ran parallel to that of the Taheb for
a long time, and eventually the two became integrated, with the result
that the Taheb came to be the restorer of the true worship, himself‘
a priest--after the fashion of Moses. . . . It was priesthood, not
kingshiplzfihat was expected to be the sovereign force in the new
kingdom.

It is the contention of this writer that at least the first four tenets
of the Samaritan creed were in force from the very beginning of the sect.
But the belief in the Day of Vengeance and Recompense developed early along
with the growing desire for a Taheb (Restorer) to come. Perhaps in the
"likeness of Moses," but not greater than Moses, the Taheb should restore
Samaritan worship in its true form on Mt. Gerizim and inaugurate the Era
of Divine Favour. Surely because of the influence the early Church's teaching
(especially the Gospel of John) had upon the Samaritans, this last tenet
could easily thrive among them. All of the elaborations of each tenet with
its Christian and Islamic influences came much later but became a "normal"

part of Samaritan thought and vocabulary by the 14th century A.D.

 

24
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 362.

CHAPTER THREE: THE CRITERIA FOR RELATING

SAMARITAN STUDIES TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

The criteria by which scholars have related Samaritan studies to the
New Testament have proliferated considerably in the last twenty-five years.
Examining these criteria will help to determine the best approach for relating

Samaritan studies to the Gospel of Mark.

Direct References to Samaritans

 

The most important criterion, of course, is the direct references to
Samaritans in the New Testament.1 Only one reference is found in Matthew
(10:5) while the remaining references are concentrated in John and Luke-Acts.

The Matthew passage involved Jesus' charge to the Twelve as he sent
them out on a preaching tour: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter
no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel" (Matt 10:5b-6). John Bowman evaluated this reference in a negative
manner when he wrote, "The gospel of Matthew is opposed to the Samaritans."2
This negative evaluation need not be. The fact that Jesus had to charge

them not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans may have indicated that they had

 

1The Greek concordance listed the few passages where there is mention
of "Samaritans" or "Samaria": OOlKthTnQ-Matt 10:5; Luke 9:52; 10:33; 17:16;
John 4:9, 39, 40; 8:48; Acts 8:25. Cauapt‘ttg- John 4:9, 9. oauapia-
Luke 17:11; John 4:4, 5, 7; Acts 1:8; 8:1, 5, 9, 14; 9:31; 15:3.

John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, trans. Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975), p. 57.

 

119

120

already been among Samaritans and a few Gentiles with Jesus in his ministry.
Certainly Luke and John are two witnesses to that fact. The time was not
"right" for the Twelve to go either to Samaritans or to Gentiles. This
seems to be a better explanation.

In addressing himself to the references in Luke and John, Bowman con-
cluded that both Gospels have been "conditioned by the special kind of
Samaritanism to which both evangelists addressed themselves."3 John is
addressed to the Dosithean sect which would later greatly affect Samaritan
theological orthodoxy.4 Luke is addressed to the more priestly oriented
orthodox Samaritans among others of the Gentile world.5 After having
surveyed the Samaritan affinities in the Gospel of John, Charles H. H.
Scobie thought it remarkable that "a Gospel which is so often held to be
non-Palestinian, Hellenistic and late in date, shows an astonishing interest
in the bringing of the gospel to the Samaritans, and a considerable knowledge
of Samaritan customs, beliefs and topography."6 He suggested an early date
for the Gospel of John. "Johannine theology appears in a new light if the
Gospel is regarded as the product of Galilean and Samaritan Christian com-
munities,stemming from the Stephen-Philip movement."7 This evaluation of

the over-all approach to John and Luke will have value for later criteria.

 

3 .

Ibid., p. 89.
4 .

Ibid., p. 142. See note 57.
5 I

Ibld. ' p. 59.

Charles H. H. Scobie, "The Origins and Development of Samaritan
Christianity," New Testament Studies 19 (1972-73) 403.

 

7
Ibid., p. 408.

121

The direct references to Samaritans in John consist of two episodes:
first, Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well and a brief
two day visit with her village (John 4); and second, Jesus' debate with
the Pharisaic Jews who accused him of being a Samaritan and having a demon
(John 8:48). Both episodes offer much information in regard to Samaritanism
in the first century A.D.

When Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman she queried Jesus, "'How is
it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ For Jews have
no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9 RSV). The usual translation suggests
non-communication between Jews and Samaritans, but the better rendering
might be, "Jews do not use vessels in common with Samaritans."8 From this
encounter developed a conversation that has shed much light on Samaritanism
in the New Testament era. Other criteria will consider the event more fully.

In the second episode of direct reference to Samaritans, Jesus is
accused by his adversaries of being a Samaritan and of having a demon. The
context of the passage helps to explain the meaning. The testimonies given
of Jesus by John the Baptist ("He who comes after me ranks before me, for
he was before me." John 1:15), Andrew ("We have found the Messiah." John 1:41),
Nathaniel ("Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
John 1:49) were presented by the Gospel of John in concert with the testimony

of the Samaritans (4:42) that Jesus was "the Savior of the world." Then

 

8See the scholarly work of D. Daube, "Jesus and the Samaritan Woman:
The Meaning of OUYxodouaL," Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950)
137-47 and J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1969), chap.
17, "The Samaritans," pp. 352-58. See also Scobie's article, p. 403, foot-
note 4.

 

 

122

by contrast the Jews "testify" that Jesus was a Samaritan and had a demon
(John 8:48; cp. 7:30, 8:52, 10:20). Jesus simply ignored the accusation
of being a Samaritan (John 8:49) but rejected the notion that he had a demon.
Bowman asked rhetorically: "But why then does he allow Jesus to remain
silent to the accusation that he may be one?"9 Purvis suggested that the
charge by the Pharisees was caused by Jesus' claim to divine origin as well
as his accusation to the Pharisaic Jews that they were "not of God" (8:47)
and were not Abraham's offspring (8:39). These statements could have been
made easily by a Samaritan. Jesus needed only to respond to one of the
accusations because they belonged together. The Samaritan false prophets
were considered demon-possessed; and therefore, Jesus is cast in the role
of a Samaritan cult leader (of. Mark 3:22-30; Matt 9:34; 12:24-37; Luke
9:15—26). Jesus' reply indicated that "he is no false prophet of the Dositheus
type."10

In light of the above episode Purvis noted that John may have been
contrasting the "signs" of Jesus with the "signs" of the Samaritan and
Jewish false-prophets. The magicians worked for their own fame and glory
(cp. Simon in Acts 8). Jesus had come from God as over against the false
prophets and magicians of Jewish and Samaritan fame.ll

Besides the direct references in John, a larger concentration is found

in Luke-Acts. Three separate times "Samaritans" are mentioned in the Gospel

 

9
Bowman, op. cit., p. 61.

James D. Purvis, "The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans," Novum
Testamentum 17 (1975) 196.

 

1 . .
Ibid., p. 197. See espeCially footnotes 110 and 111.

123

of Luke. The first occurred in an episode when Jesus rebuked his disciples
for wanting to rain fire on an inhospitable Samaritan village. They were
taking the "Short cut" through Samaria on their way to the Jerusalem Pass-
over celebration. The text implies that they went to another Samaritan
village (Luke 9:56). The second reference is found in the parable of "The
Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:33). Through this parable Jesus made the extreme
point that the Samaritan traveler had been the true neighbor to the Jewish
robber victim though his Jewish kinsmen had not. In light of the hostilities
existing between the two peoples, the point could not be lost. The third
reference unmistakably elevates the Samaritans in the eyes of the reader

by presenting the thankful leper as a Samaritan. Jesus traveled close to
Samaria (Luke 17:11) and encountered a group of ten lepers. After healing
them, only one, a Samaritan, returned to give thanks to Jesus (Luke 17:16).
Jesus called the Samaritan leper an alien (dkkoyefig). The significance of
this will be made later.

Luke seems to have structured his narrative in Acts, at least partly,
on the geographical outreach of the gospel beginning from Jerusalem. "You
shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the
end of the earth" (Acts 1:8b RSV). After Stephen was stoned (Acts 7), a
general persecution among Jerusalem Christians scattered them throughout
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). Philip went into "a city of Samaria" (Acts 8:5)
and there proclaimed the gospel. Many accepted the message of Philip. Even
Simon the Samaritan magician (Acts 8:9), perhaps a "messianic" pretender,
believed and was baptized following after Philip (Acts 8:12, 13). Peter and

John were sent from Jerusalem to confirm the work of Philip and to impart

124

the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (8:14-17). Simon offered money
to the Apostles so that he might have the power to impart the Holy Spirit
to anyone. He was immediately condemned. This is possibly the beginning
of the Simonian Gnostic sect if Simon pulled away from the mainstream of
Christianity at that time. Peter and John, on their return trip, preached
to many Samaritan villages (Acts 8:25). The remaining two references con-
sists of one of Luke's church growth reports (Acts 9:31) and a missionary
report given by Paul and Barnabas to the Samaritan churches (Acts 15:3).
The foregoing scriptures indicated the importance of Samaritans in
the thought of John and Luke's gospels as well as Luke's second volume,
Acts. Bowman wrote: "If Judaism took the Samaritan problem seriously,
it is all the more likely that the Christian church did so."12 Besides
these direct references to Samaritans in the New Testament there are other
criteria that scholars have used to help relate Samaritan studies to the

New Testament.

Use of the Samaritan Pentateuch

 

. . . . l3 .
While attempting to write a book about Stephen, Abram Spiro examined
Stephen's speech in Acts 7 and noticed four peculiarities that corresponded
with the Samaritan Pentateuch: (1) In Gen 11:32 (MT) Terah lived 205 years,

60 years beyond Abraham's departure from Haran (Gen 11:26; 12:4). However,

 

Bowman, op. cit., p. 57.

3 . . .

Abram Spiro, "Stephen's Samaritan Background," in The Acts of the
Apostles, by Johannes Munck, rev. by W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann (The Anchor
Bible 31, New York, 1967), pp. 285-300.

 

 

125

Stephen has Abraham leaving his father at his death (Acts 7:4) which corre-
sponds with the SP where Terah lived only 145 years. (2) God promised
Abraham the land but "gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of
ground" (Acts 7:5), a text based on Deut 2:5b. The MT has "inheritance"
only in 2:5c. In the SP it appears in vs. 5b as in Stephen's speech.

(3) In the phrase, "I am the God of your fathers" (Acts 7:32), Exod 3:6
(MT) has "father" (Singular) while the SP manifests the plural agreeing
with Acts 7:32. (4) Stephen's history depended on Genesis and Exodus, but
in Acts 7:37 reference is made to Deut 18:15 (18?). Spiro did not see this
as a reference to Deuteronomy but rather to the Samaritan Pentateuch's
tenth commandment which included a pericope at Exod 20:17 composed of

Deut 18:18 and other references to Gerizim.

For the most part Scobie accepted without argument Spiro's thesis on
the SP readings in Acts 7,14 but Spiro was not without his critics. Purvis
rejected Spiro's second SP reading in Acts 7:5 as a Samaritan reading and
warned that "these readings could simply reflect use of non-Masoretic Pales-
tinian textual tradition (of which the Samaritan Pentateuch was itself a
redaction)."15 In similar manner Reinhard Pummerl6 warned of Scobie's (and
others') ready acceptance that Stephen's speech contained or was based on

the Samaritan Pentateuch. His warning was based on F. M. Cross, Jr.'s

definitive study on the development of the various families of Hebrew texts.

 

l4
Scobie, op. cit., pp. 393-94.
5
Purvis, op. cit., pp. 174-75. See Footnote 45.

6Reinhard Pummer, ”The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament,"
New Testament Studies 22 (1976) 441-43.

126

The proto-Samaritan Pentateuch developed along with a Palestinian text whose
characteristics were "wide-spread glosses, expansions from parallel passages,
. . . . "l7 .
transpOSitions, and Similar features. Pummer suggested that instead of
jumping to the conclusion that a particular reading is from the Samaritan
Pentateuch, one should rather say that the New Testament knew a developed
Palestinian text whether Samaritan or not. In all the four references in
Acts 7, Pummer could explain the differences by simply saying: "There were
texts that had readings that differed from MT and LXX," and "There is nothing
specifically Samaritan about it," or "Such expansions are now known from
other texts found near the Dead Sea, and by themselves they cannot be adduced
to prove Samaritan influence," and finally, "another instance of a variant
. "18
reading. Pummer has, therefore, warned that an agreement between the SP
and the OT quotations or allusions in the NT "is not sufficient to postulate
Samaritan influence. Such influence may be there or it may not be. We have
. . . "l9 , . .
to find other ways to determine this. Pummer s pOint is a good one and
. . 20

was taken seriously by Earl Richard of Berea College.

Richard critically analyzed the criterion of textual data. He noted

. . u . . . "21

that only PurVis conSidered the textual data as a minimal importance.

Richard's main argument for the chronological difficulties involved

in Acts 7:4 leaned on a reading of Philo's Migration of Abraham 177 where

 

 

7
Ibid., p. 442.

18Ibid., p. 443.

19Ibid.

0Earl Richard, "Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence,“
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (Apr. 1977) 190-208.

 

2
1Ibid., p. 196, note 28. See Purvis, "The Fourth Gospel," p. 174,
note 45.

127

it is stated that the father had died before the departure for Canaan.2

He suggested that Luke (Acts), Philo, and the Samaritan Pentateuch point

to a common textual tradition, i.e., a non-traditional Palestinian text
(Cross). "No one," Richard added, "would maintain that Philo employs the
SP."23 Richard expressed concern that only Scobie had noted the Philo
reference and that only in a passing statement in a footnote,24 intimating
that those who espoused a Samaritan Pentateuch solution were being less than
honest with the available evidence.

Similarly, Richard's solution for the complex textual arrangements
in Acts 7:5 rested on a comparison with other texts besides the SP. The 8
Old Latin and Ethiopic versions, the Peshitta--all provide terms equivalent
to uknoovouiav in Acts 7:5a. Therefore, his argument ran, "The author of
Acts had at his disposal a Greek Vorlage with such a reading, a reading
which, as indicated by the Samaritan texts, had its roots in a Hebrew

_ "2
recenSion.

In the Acts 7:32 passage where the MT and LXX of Exod 3:6 (and versions)
read the singular "your father," Luke used the plural, "your fathers." After
a complicated comparison of texts demonstrating the fluidity of the textual
tradition bearing of the uses of the singular and plural of this phrase,
Richard concluded that "the readings of Justin and Acts 13:13 support an

. . . 26
original LXX plural reading of Exod 3:6--'the God of your fathers,'" and

 

22
Ibid.

2
3Ibid., p. 197.

24 . . . . . .
Ibid. See Scobie, "Samaritan Christianity," p. 393, note 2.

2
51bid., p. 199.

2
6Ibid., p. 201.

128

therefore "in regard to Acts 7:32 . . . the most likely explanation of the
occurrence there of b SCOg 1.“ch narépwv GOD is to be found in consideration
of textual history rather than in Samaritan hypotheses or even redactional

. 27
theories."

In regards to Acts 7:37 where the SP proponents adhere to the use of
the SP tenth commandment (the use of Deut 18:18 found in Exod 20), Richard
criticized their use of Kahle's support for such a theory, for Kahle had

. . 28 . . . . .
proceeded to list LXX manuscripts and many non-biblical JeWish writings
such as Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, and Fourth Ezra. Yet the SP adherents
ignored Kahle's full notes and conclusions. Richard's conclusion to the
Acts 7:37 problem was "that the additions of Exodus 20 as found in the SP
are not of Samaritan origin but belong instead to the Palestinian expansion-
. . . 29 . . . .
ists text-type so much in eVidence at Qumran." His ultimate opinion on
the subject was that Luke simply made use of the Deuteronomy passage (Deut
18:18) and inserted it into his textual arrangements.

A major conclusion of the present survey is the realization that
the passages of Acts 7, which bear a textual resemblance to the SP
(except v. 37), present evidence not of some biographical, historical,
or theological situation but raSBer of the OT text and traditions
employed by the author of Acts.

Certainly Richard has challenged the easy use that scholars have made

to the SP in regards to Stephen's Speech (Acts 7). This one criterion must

now be used with much finer arguments and supporting data. Many other

 

2
71bid., p. 202.

28 . . . . .
Ibid., p. 203. See p. 207 for Richard's sharp critiCism of the pro-
ponents of Samaritan theories who have neglected P. Kahle's initial proposals.

29
Ibid., p. 205.

30
Ibid., p. 207.

129

criteria must be used to support one's theory. Richard has done Samaritan
studies a good turn by forcing these studies to be more precise and faithful
to all the data and evidence available.

One criticism of Richard is that in spite of all his efforts, the
Samaritan Pentateuch is still a viable option for the biblical scholar to
use as the basis for some of the Acts 7 texts. Scobie himself had acknowledged
the severe criticism leveled against Spiro's original edited article in the
Anchor Bible (Acts) by such men as Pummer, Richard and Mare.31 G. Stemberger
and S. Lowy also added to the negative evaluations.32 Scobie declared that
"What most of the above writers have succeeded in demonstrating is that the
textual evidence in Acts 7 is by itself inconclusive."33 But he also added
"that this evidence in no way disproves the use of a Samaritan source."34
R. J. Coggins agreed with Scobie and optimistically wrote of this criterion:
"It is noteworthy that no text other than the Samaritan Pentateuch Supports
any of the suggested deviations, and 'Samaritanisms' of this type have not
been alleged elsewhere in Acts."35

Besides the Acts 7 readings that seem to correspond to the SP text,

another text (Heb 9:3, 4) seems to have a SP background. The author of

 

31 . . . .
W. H. Mare, "Acts 7: JeWish or Samaritan in Character?", Westminster

Theological Journal 34 (1971-72) 1-21.

 

 

2See G. Stemberger, "Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und dis judische
Tradition" in A. Fuchs, Jesus in der Verkundigung der Kirche, Studien zum
Neven Testament und seiner Unwelt, Band 1 (Linz: 1976), p. 154; and S.
Lowy, The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1977): pp. 50-57.

 

 

3Charles H. H. Scobie, "The Use of Source Material in the Speeches
of Acts II and VII," New Testament Studies 25 (1978) 405.

34Ibid.

35 . . -
R. J. Coggins, "The Samaritans and Acts," New Testament Studies 28

(1982) 424.

 

 

130

Heb 9: 3, 4 described the golden altar of incense as though it were within
the holy of holies, but according to the MT of Exodus, this is not so.
Scobie noted that in the SP, Exod 30:1-10 (the description of the altar of
incense) came between Exod 26:35 and 26:36, so that the altar of incense
followed immediately upon the description of the veil which separates the
Holy of Holies. "The misunderstanding evidenced in Heb. ix. 3, 4 can thus
be understood if the writer based his knowledge of the Tabernacle on the
36

SP." If other criteria are considered, then the SP readings become a

viable option for explaining the texts in Acts 7 and Hebrews 9.

The Alteration of OT Texts to Give Them a Samaritan Bias

 

Scobie gave this title to one of the criteria that Spiro had used

in Acts 7.37 Spiro's initial work on this criterion helped scholars to see
the Samaritan bias. In Acts 7:42-43 Stephen recounted the oracle of Amos
5:25-27, a prophecy against God's people who sinned in the wilderness, but

he made it specifically refer to Judah's Babylonian captivity by changing

the term "beyond Damascus" to "beyond Babylon," a slight revision of history.
Thus, the saints are those who followed Joshua into the Promised Land and
established the tabernacle on Mt. Gerizim (Josh 24). Therefore they ful-
filled God's promise to Abraham (Acts 7:7). This reconstruction of the text
was done by changing "sanctuary" (Josh 7:26) to "tabernacle" and transferring

it from Shechem (Josh 7:1, 25) to nearby Gerizim.

 

6 . . . . . .
Scobie, op. Cit., "Samaritan Christianity," p. 413.

37Ibid., p. 392.

131

Other scholars have sought a solution to the Acts 7:43 problem of
textual change. Archer and Chirichigno, as co-authors, wrote:
This variant seems to be a valid inference from Damascus, because
the captive Jews dragged off to Babylonia by the Chaldeans in 586
B.C. had to pass through Damascus on their way, so Babylon was
indeed beyond Damascus. The highway to Babylon went north-northeast
to Tadmor or Tiphsah to the Euphrates River, and then southeast down
to Babylon itself. Stephen's purpose was to bring out the implication
of Amos 5:27 that Ege Assyrian and Babylonian captivities would result
from Israel's sin.
The explanation above may be correct but it still does not take away the
possibility of a Samaritan bias in the Babylonian emphasis. Coggins wrote:
"This can scarcely be called a Samaritanism, even though it is not incompatible
. . 39
Wlth a Samaritan background."
Another interesting change is found in Acts 7:45b-46: "So it was until
the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked leave to
. . . 40 . .
find a habitation for the house of Jacob." This text is based on Ps
132:5 which reads: "until I find a place for the LORD, a dwelling place
for the Mighty one of Jacob" (RSV). For the Samaritan the "place" was
already founded so "Stephen followed Samaritan tradition by only using the
second half of the verse and changing it; instead of 'the Mighty One (i.e.
4 . . .
God) of Jacob,' he has 'the house of Jacob.'” 1 Therefore, DaVid 15 Viewed

as having sought a secular capital, not a religious headquarters, for that

was already established by God according to Samaritan historical orientation.

 

8 . . .
Gleason L. Archer and Gregory Chirchigno, Old Testament Quotations
in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983). p. 153.

 

 

39
Coggins, op. cit., p. 425.

40
Note that the RSV used the variant reading "God" instead of the
better textual reading "house" (OEIup).

4 . .
1Spiro, op. Cit., p. 287.

132

The final example in the third criterion is Stephen's use (Acts 7:47-
50) of Isa 66:1-2 where the text has been Slightly altered in order to create
three rhetorical questions that denounce Solomon's temple as being of human
construction, of the wrong material, and in the wrong place.

The third criterion has been given a place of its own because of its
peculiarities. In some respects it could have been subsumed under the next
criterion.

Dependence on Samaritan Traditions

 

Bowman related the Gospel of Luke to mainstream Samaritanism by appeal-
ing to Luke's content in relationship to Samaritan traditions. He sought
in a highly speculative manner to establish the birthdays of John the Baptist
and Jesus, for he thought that Luke with his interest in priestly concerns
"tried to make a certain symbolism apparent."42 Bowman conjectured that
John was born on Shebat and Jesus on Ab. He noted that the Samaritans have
two special sabbaths, one before the Passover festival and the other before
the Feast of Tabernacles. "They are called the Sabbaths of Zimmut and fall
respectively in Shebat and in Ab--apparently therefore on the respective
birthdays of John and Jesus."43 The Sabbath of Zimmut Pesah was called "the
door to the festival time period." On these two Sabbaths the Samaritan high
priest published the religious calendar for the next Six months. John the
Baptist's birth would have symbolized to the Samaritans that he was opening

the door to the coming salvation. Jesus' birth before the festivals in the

 

Bowman, op. cit., "Problem," p. 76.

43
Ibid., p. 77.

133

7th month when the sabbatical year was announced on the 7th year would
have given him further significance in their eyes.

But there is more symbolism according to Bowman. Zimmut is considered
by the Samaritans the day of the meeting of Moses and Aaron when they began
to work together to bring about the freedom of the Israelites. Therefore,
the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (the child in Elizabeth's womb jumped--
Luke 1:44) reminded the Samaritans of the meeting of Aaron and Moses, since
John was of a priestly family and Jesus was considered the new Moses (cf.
Acts 3:22; 7:37).

What is suggested to the Samaritans by the birth of John, in a season

during which they were preparing for the coming festival of salvation,

appears here to be said t the Jews in a way that they could also
understand what is meant.

The above is based on so many conjectural ideas that it remains a weak
argument. However, Bowman thought Luke touched on several Samaritan traditions.
Bowman suggested that Luke's emphasis on the Samaritans also receiving
the Holy Spirit by the Apostles' laying on of hands (Acts 8:17) was due to
the legalism of the Samaritan priests, an even more lifeless form than that
of the Pharisees. Bowman asked:
Would Luke have considered it really necessary to emphasize the end
of legalism and to emphasize the necessity of the Spirit, if he wrote
for gentiles who did not know the Law before they were confronted wi
the Gospel? Is it not more likely that he wrote for the Samaritans?
Samaritan traditions and literary emphasis on Moses gave R. J. F. Trotter

the criteria he needed to imply Samaritan influence in Hebrews. On internal

evidence Trotter noted the over-all theme of Hebrews--the proper relationship

 

4
4Ibid., p. 79.

45
Ibid., p. 88.

134

of Moses and Jesus, a subject that would have been intimately related to a
people who held Moses in high veneration. Trotter accepted Bowman's thesis
when he wrote: "It is to be remembered that of the four Evangelists only
Luke and particularly John Show clear sympathy toward the Samaritans."4
The fact that two other N. T. Books (authors) had Samaritan concerns, Luke-
Acts and John, Trotter showed that "Moses" is mentioned fourteen times in Acts,
eleven times in John and ten times in Hebrews and only nine times in the rest
of the N.T. This implied that the book of Hebrews may also have had similar
Samaritan concerns. The weakness of this argument is evident because the
Jews, too, could have been concerned about Moses. The context in which
Moses' name was used must also be considered before relating it to Samaritan
concerns.

The stress on "high priest" in Hebrews (sixteen times) may indicate
that the writer had the Samaritans in mind, for they have always allowed
almost all authority over the community reside in their high priest.47 Also
in Hebrews 7 the Levitical priesthood was brought to the fore. The Samaritans
insisted biblically that from Levi came the true priesthood and not from
Judah. "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in
connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" (Heb 7:14 RSV).

Trotter asked: "IS the stress on the expression 'our Lord' due to the writer's

 

46 . .
R. J. F. Trotter, "Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know

the Epistle to the Hebrews?" Leeds University Oriental Society, Monograph
Series No. 1 (Oct. 1961) 9.

47
Ibid., p. 23.

 

135

knowledge that the Samaritans spoke of 'our lord (Moses)?'"48 The Hebrew
writer pressed home the fact that the Law made nothing perfect and that that
same law appointed "men in their weakness" (Heb 7:28) as high priests.

This, according to Trotter, would force the Samaritans to think seriously
concerning their high priests.

While Trotter attempted to discover whether the Samaritans of the
Fourth Century knew the Hebrew epistle, Scobie suggested that the epistle
was written to Samaritan Christians. The demonstration of Jesus' superiority
over angels (Heb 1:1-2:18), Moses (3:1-19) and Joshua (4:1-10) is seen as
a logical approach for Samaritan Christians. Further, in all the discussion
of priesthood, sanctuary and sacrifice, there was no interest in contemporary
Judaism or reference to the Jerusalem Temple. All references to the Tabernacle
would have been natural, for Samaritans held only to the Pentateuch where
no concept of a temple was expressed, only the Tabernacle.

With reference to Stephen's speech in Acts 7 Spiro noted that one-fifth
of the speech was devoted to the section on Joseph (Acts 7:9-18) where the
brothers of Joseph are not even named and who are "jealous of Joseph"

(Acts 7:9).49 Spiro revealed how, in contrast to ancient Jewish writers who
showed the Jewish story from Moses through Solomon to be "harmonious and
Victorious" culminating in the building of the Temple, "the story from
Abraham through Isaiah's oracle provided him with the framework for a glorifi-

cation of the Samaritans and a denunciation of the Jews."

 

48
Ibid., p. 29.

49 . .
Spiro, op. Cit., p. 293.

50
Ibid., p. 289.

136

Edwin D. Freed investigated the question, "Did John write his Gospel
partly to win Samaritan converts?" Freed discovered that John downgraded
both Moses and Abraham, especially Moses, "precisely to appeal to prospective
Samaritan converts, because for John Jesus has assimilated the legends and
functions of Moses."51 Coggins rejected the "down-grading" of Moses argument
presented in Spiro's article (on Acts 7), and thus also Freed's. Coggins
wrote: "Neither the alleged down-grading of Moses nor the outline of Samaritan
history seems acceptable."52 But he gave little or no reasoning to his
objections. On the other hand, Scobie argued strongly that Acts 7 presented
an interpretation of history which corresponded with "the Samaritan View
according to which the true sanctuary was set up by Joshua at the Shechem site
immediately following the conquest."53 Only where Eli set up a rival sanctuary
at Shiloh did the "Era of Divine Disfavor" begin. Scobie discerned a Samaritan
source behind Acts 7:2-41, 44-45, 47-48, 53 through the process of redaction
criticism. On the same basis he proposed the Christianizing of the original
Samaritan source by the addition of vss. 42-43, 46, 49-52.54 Beyond this,

Scobie held "that Luke did not draw directly on the Samaritan source but used

what he may refer to as a Christian tract which had already appropriated

 

material from the source."

 

51 . . . . . .
EdWln D. Freed, "Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan
Converts?" Novum Testamentum 12 (July 1970) 242.

 

52

Coggins, op. cit., p. 427.

3 . . .

Scobie, op. Cit., "Source Material," p. 408.
5

4Ibid., p. 410.

55
Ibid., p. 412.

137

The above examples Show that the New Testament may have depended on
certain Samaritan traditions, and it is through this dependence that

Samaritan affinities can be found.

Common Ideas With Samaritan Theology

 

Bowman suggested that the Gospel of John deliberately showed Jesus'
teaching to be in agreement with Samaritan faith in order to build a bridge
to the Samaritan people. Bowman's review of Samaritan theology was taken
from the Mglef, a study for Samaritan children.56 It gave basic Samaritan
beliefs about God, Creation, Man and Salvation. It also paralleled the
teachings of the Samaritan Liturgy. How far back into Samaritan history
these teachings go is difficult to tell. Bowman considered them to be
rather old and certainly conservative in nature, for they were basic doctrines
taught to children. The emphasis was on "belief," not on certain prescribed
religious actions as the Rabbinic Jews emphasized. Bowman reviewed the M§l§f_
in this way:

God created with Ten Words. When God said, "Let there be light,"
the light was the Holy Spirit which resided in the prophets (patriarchs)
until its manifestation in the Lord Moses both in the invisible and Visible
world. Moses is considered to be the pre-existent Holy Spirit--light. The
whole creation was created for the sake of Moses who is the highest of all
creatures and the source of light for all the redeemed. Adam was created
on the sixth day from the dust of the earth (Gerizim?) by the angel of the

Lord. While Adam and Eve were in the garden they had no evil impulse nor

 

56 .
Bowman, op. Cit., Problem, pp. 63—65.

138

sexual intercourse, for Eden was holy while sex was impure. They were
clothed in light. But Eve was seduced by the evil spirit, Belial, who used
the serpent to tempt Eve. The evil impulse was passed on to Adam from Eve
who had received it from Belial. Adam would have died immediately after he
ate the forbidden fruit except that he had within him the light of the first
day; i.e., the image of Moses. In the Samaritans' own peculiar reading of
the text God said, "Behold, Adam has become like one frgm_him," (not "one
frgm_u§fl MT). That is, Moses was the "him," knowing good and evil. Adam
and Eve were stripped of their clothing of light and given "tunics" of skin;
i.e., their fleshly natures. In the skin (flesh?) is the evil impulse and
therefore the occasion for sin. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the
Samaritan Pentateuch read in Gen 3:19: "Dust you are and to ygu£_dust
shall you return." In other words, the spirit will one day return to its
own flesh in order to be judged at the last day. Afterwards, the spirit
will receive a new body of light in order to live in Paradise forever.

Eight days after Adam left Eden, he knew Eve and she bore Cain and
his twin sister, and then Abel and his twin sister were born. Those descended
from Cain are called sons of Belial. They represent fallen humanity and all
its evil. After Cain slew Abel, Adam repented of his sin for a hundred
years keeping a vow of sexual abstinence. God forgave Adam and then Adam
had Seth who represents a pure lineage wherein dwells "the light" and from
which the prophet Moses came. The pure lineage, of course, after Moses
included only the Samaritans. All the rest of mankind were "fallen," of the

sons of Belial! Eternal life is gained through the Law, a virtual "tree of

139

life" from which one eats its fruit and lives. Death is necessary to rid
oneself of the flesh in order to receive the new body of light as Adam had
in the beginning.

Moreover, it is especially noteworthy that men could not participate

in the eternal life until Moses, the Light of the World, brought the

Law. But then and even now eternal life is onlg7for the true Israel,

which the Samaritans consider themselves to be.

After this brief review, Bowman revealed the contacts that the Gospel
of John had with Samaritan Theology. The first is the emphasis in John on
"light." The prologue propounds the idea throughout: "In him was life,
and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and
the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:4,5 RSV). John the Baptist came
"to bear witness to the light;" "he was not the light, but came to bear
witness to the light" (1:7,8 RSV). "The true light that enlightens every
man was coming into the world" (1:9 RSV). Bowman translated John 1:10 with-
out using the personal pronoun reference but rather the impersonal to refer
to the "light," which is legitimate: "It (i.e. the light) was in the world
and the world was made through it, but the world knew it not." Jesus
designated himself as "the light of the world" (John 8:12, 9:5 RSV) and
those who believed on Him would become "children of the light" and would
"have the light of life."

Bowman made a comparison of Samaritan ideas with the thought of John
in order to reveal common interests as well as differences. For a contrast

he used the Johannine pre-existent Christ who was active in creation. It

is not clear in Samaritan sources what relationship the initial "light"

 

57
Ibid., p. 65.

140

which is the Holy Spirit, the pre-existent Moses, had with the creation of
the world.

However, it is said that the light of Moses was the origin of the

light of the stars and the spirit of the prophets, i.e., it was utilized

in the creationsgnd was at work in men before Moses came in the flesh
into the world.

In spite of these differences, Bowman made direct identification of the
Samaritan concept of Holy Spirit and light with John's Gospel, for "in John
. . . . . . . 5
the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus and Jesus is the light." 9 Thus, the
use of the term "Holy Spirit" and "light" are used identically in both John

and Samaritanism.

Why was Jesus accused of being a Samaritan (John 6:42) even though
everyone knew Jesus was not a Samaritan? Bowman was inclined to see Jesus'
emphasis on "faith," instead of the fulfillment of religious acts such as
the Jews required, as the likeness to Samaritan theology (John 8:1ff.).
When the Jews wanted to kill Jesus, Jesus accused them of acting like Cain,
the first murderer: "You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44 RSV).
"The Samaritan Fall story does not mention the seduction of Eve by Belial,

. . 6O .
but the sons of Cain are called the sons of Belial." Therefore, it

seemed to the Jews that Jesus was acting like a Samaritan when he called

them "sons of the devil," a Samaritan polemic! Bowman's conclusion is that

 

581bid., p. 66.

59Ibid.

60 . .
John Bowman, "Samaritan Studies I. The Fourth Gospel and the

Samaritans," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1958) 307.

 

141

"the Fourth Gospel interprets Jesus' preaching in a way which would be more
attractive to the Samaritans, and which even the Jews themselves must have
considered to be friendly to the Samaritans."6l

The comparisons and contrasts of Samaritan theology with the Gospel
of John are remarkable. The comparisons include: (1) What is ascribed to
the pre-existent Moses by the Samaritans as regards the creation, John's
Gospel ascribed to the pre-existent Christ. (2) While the Law gives eternal
life to the Samaritans, Christ gives eternal life to the Christians (all
people) through faith. (3) In the same manner, Moses intercedes for the
Samaritans now and in the last day, so Christ intercedes for all people who
are in Him. The contrast (according to John) is that men are ggw_able to
become sons of light, released from sinful flesh. The Samaritans can only
expect this on the day of resurrection when their mediator "Moses" appears.

Bowman offered an appealing argument involving the five-tenet Samaritan
creed; i.e., belief in God, Moses, Law, Mt. Gerizim, and the Day of Vengeance
and Recompense. In John 4:20 the Samaritan woman had stressed "this mountain"
(Mt. Gerizim) as the place of worship. After the rebuttal by Jesus that on
neither Mt. Gerizim nor Mt. Zion would true worship be performed, the woman
asked if he is the "Messiah" (Taheb--"restorer"). Bowman strongly suggested
that the author of the Gospel of John knew the Samaritan Tenth Commandment

as it appears in the Samaritan Pentateuch because of the position in the

. . . 62
text of Mt. GeriZim (or "that mountain") to the Taheb. Bowman connected

 

1 .
Bowman, op. Cit., Problem, p. 68.

62
John Bowman, "Samaritan Studies II, Faith in Samaritan Thought,"

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1958) 308-15.

142

the Taheb with the fifth tenet which cannot be proven conclusively. How-
ever, it is a reasonable assumption that the "Taheb" was developed from the
fifth article of faith as evidenced in John 4. He suggested that whereas
the fourth chapter of John spoke of the fourth and fifth tenets; i.e., Mt.
Gerizim and the Taheb, the fifth chapter of John condemned the Jews for not
having the love of God in them (vs. 42), not having believed Moses (vs. 46)63
nor in his writings (vs. 47). One can easily see the other three tenets
here: God, Moses, and the Law--in that order! Although the Samaritans are
put down for their belief in Mt. Gerizim (John 4:21), the Jews fare much
worse, for not only is Mt. Zion rejected (4:21), but the Jewish unbelief
of God, Moses, the Law and Jesus Himself (the Samaritan "Taheb" as well as
the Jewish "Messiah") is condemned. Bowman thinks that the Samaritan creed
is well in the mind of the Gospel writer. The argument is not without merit.
The emphasis Samaritanism gives to the incorporeality of God and his
moral nature as love and light suggested to Freed64 that Jesus' statement to
the Samaritan woman that "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit
and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him" (John 4:23b RSV) would
appeal to the Samaritan conception of God. Freed wrote: "In the whole Bible
only in the gospel and first epistle of John do we find the characterization
of God in language so clearly indicative of incorporeality. 'God is spirit'
(Jn iv 24); 'God is light' (I Jn ii 5); and 'God is love' (I Jn iv 8, 16)."65
John used "spirit" in contrast to the corporeality View of "spirit" in the

Greek world. Perhaps he meant "in the reality of God."

 

63
Note Should be taken that Bowman misquoted the text of John 5:46,
for he wrote "not believing ig_Moses," (p. 313), while the text simply has,

"If you believed Moses." Perhaps Bowman is forcing the issue by making the
Gospel text fit the Samaritan terminology!
64 65

Freed, op. cit., p. 253. Ibid.

143

Another fundamental belief of Samaritanism was the person and position
of Moses, already delineated. Moses was directly responsible for the giving
of the law. Freed suggested that John very carefully chose his words to
make that very point (John 1:17; 7:19, 23; cp. 1:45; 5:46f).66 Moses is
the Samaritan Savior and either Moses or one like Moses (a prophet) is to
return and restore the temple vessels on Mt. Gerizim. This belief may be
indicated by the Samaritan woman's acceptance of Jesus as "the prophet"

(John 4:19) and the Village's proclamation that he is the "savior of the
world" (John 4:42).67

Since Samaritanism was based on the Law, Freed considered any emphasis
on the law in the Gospel of John might indicate some Samaritan relationship.
With only one direct quote in John (Exod 12:46 or 12:10 in John 19:36), he
considered Aland's count of thirty-five allusions to the Pentateuch significant.

But for Johannine Christianity, based as it is on the person of Jesus,

any appeal to Jews and Samaritans alike, to be effective, would have

to show that Jesus was ggeater than the law. This is precisely what

John does emphatically.

The references in John (1:17; 7:19; 8:17; 10:34; 15:25) indicate that Jesus

presented himself above or apart from the law, perhaps replacing it with

himself.

 

66Ibid., p. 247.

7Freed made the comment that "only in Jn. iv 42 in the four gospels
is Jesus acclaimed as savior" (p. 248). Then in a footnote he acknowledged
that Luke 2:11, a birth narrative, is an exception. So why make the state-
ment in the first place unless he thought it would lose its force to make
his point that Jesus was recognized as the Samaritan Taheb? That point
could have been made anyway!

6
8Freed, op. cit., p. 247.

144

There is no question that the fourth tenet in the Samaritan creed
(Belief in Mt. Gerizim) was mentioned in John's Gospel. Both Jesus and the
woman at the well referred to Mt. Gerizim as "this mountain," perhaps having
gestured toward its summit (John 4:20, 21 RSV) and the ancient temple ruins.69

If Stephen's speech (Acts 7) has a Samaritan source, it could account

for the down-playing of the Jerusalem Temple. The Samaritans viewed the
Jerusalem Temple as not only being in the wrong "place," but also constructed
by human hands (Acts 7:48-50). By contrast the Mt. Gerizim Temple had never
been "touched" by human hands because of its heavenly pattern (Acts 7:44).
The Old Testament clearly makes the Jerusalem Temple a heavenly project
(2 Sam 24:18; 1 Kgs 18:24, 38; l Chr 21:18-26; 28:19; 2 Chr 3:1; 7:1; Ps
78:68-69), but the Samaritans refused to accept the canonicity of these
texts just as the Jews rejected the Samaritan Pentateuchal claims.

Trotter's study of Hebrews and its influence on Samaritans uncovered
a verse (Heb 10:30) that recalled the Samaritan fifth creedal statement:

"The Day of Vengeance and Recompense," based on Deut 32:35. Other references
did the same: "recompense of reward" (Heb 2:2; 10:35; cp. Deut 32:16, 41).70
To the Samaritans God was their Creator, Savior, and Juggg, one who recompenses
according to a person's deeds.

The day of judgment included also the beginning of the "time of Divine

Favour." Bowman saw in the angelic announcement (Luke 2:9-14) to the shep-

herds enough ideas attractive to the Samaritans, such as "the glory of the

 

69Robert J. Bull, "An Archaeological Footnote to 'Our Fathers Worshipped

on This Mountain,‘ John iv. 20," New Testament Studies 23 (July 1977) 460-62.

 

7OTrotter, op. cit., p. 25.

145

Lord" (equal to the angel of the Lord in Samaritan literature) and "good
news of a great joy which will come to all people," that they would see in
the announcement the beginning of the "time of Divine favour."71

Luke's approach to Jesus and his ministry may suggest the fifth tenet
of the Samaritan creed. The emphasis on divine grace in Jesus' childhood
and growth (Luke 2:52) and baptism (3:22) could not be overlooked by the
Samaritan reader. The genealogy of Jesus (3:23ff.) goes back to Adam, "the
holy seed" according to the Samaritan priests. Jesus' announcement of his
ministry in Nazareth from Isa 61:2 (Luke 4:19) would not only signify a
messianic claim to the Jews, but also for the Samaritans that he was the
Taheb who had announced the beginning of the "Time of Divine Grace and of
Favour." After Jesus had raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead
the people shouted, "A great prophet has arisen among us! God has visited
his people!" (Luke 7:16 RSV). Later in the same context John's disciples
ask Jesus, "Are you he who is to come, or Shall we look for another?"
(Luke 7:19 RSV). For the Jews he was the Davidic Messiah but for the Samaritans
he was the "one like Moses," i.e. the Taheb. The downplaying of Davidic
sonship by Jesus (Luke 20:41f.; cf. Ps 110:1) in Luke may be part of Luke's
appeal to the Samaritans. Bowman wrote that the transfiguration of Jesus
with the presence of Moses and Elijah "clearly shows that Jesus is the hope
of the Jews and Samaritans, for the Jews consider Elijah to be the forerunner
of the Messiah, while the Samaritans believed that the Messiah (Ta'eb) would

. . 7
be one who is like Moses." 2

 

l
Bowman, op. cit., Problem, p. 79.

72Ibid., p. 82.

146

The New Testament suggests that Samaritan eschatology, especially
the concept of the Taheb and his coming, was fully developed by the first
century A.D. Certainly elaboration on the subject came much later (third
and fourth centuries A.D.?). In the midst of theological debate Jesus informed
the woman that "salvation is from the Jews" (vs. 22). The woman's reply
that She knew that "Messiah" was coming and that "he will show us all things"
(vs. 25) indicated that she expected the Samaritan "Taheb," not the Jewish
Davidic "Messiah." He would have been patterned after the Deut 18:18 passage.
And yet Jesus identified himself with her idea: "I who speak to you am he"
(vs. 26). Even though the term "Messiah" was used by the woman, her earlier
perception of Jesus was that he was a "prophet." The only prophet the Samar-
itans were looking for was the Taheb, one like Moses. Bowman noted that no
Rabbinic source can be found that has applied the Deut 18:18 passage to the
Davidic Messiah. Thus, it was Bowman's suggestion that John 7:40-43 may
have been a controversy between Jews and Samaritans. The latter would ask,
"Is this really the prophet?" while the former, "Is this the Messiah?"73

In connection with the Samaritan Village's acceptance of Jesus as
Savior, the statement by Jesus to his disciples takes on more significance:
"The fields are already white for harvest" (John 4:35 RSV). Jesus had revealed
himself as the "Samaritan Messianic hope"74 while expressing the fact that
salvation is of the Jews. Jesus saw a great harvest among the Samaritans,

and he wanted his disciples to see it too.

 

7
31bid., p. 60.

74
Ibid., p. 61.

147

Purvis attempted to modify the contention that the Moses-model for
an eschatological figure was an early doctrine due to the interpolation
of Deut 18:18-22 in Exodus 20 in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Rather than a
sectarian reading, he considered it an expansionistic reading designed to
"complete" the text, a characteristic prevalent in the SP. The sectarian
readings are found interpolated in the Ten Commandments of Deuteronomy 5 (SP)
whereas the Deut 18:18-22 passage was not. This argument led Purvis to say:
"There is evidence that Samaritan Mosaism had little eschatology associated
with it in early times."75 He suggested that the Samaritan sects were
responsible for developing the concept of the Mosaic Taheb and that only
later was it accepted into thermxhibody of Samaritans.

He warned that the textual tradition of the Samaritan literature
was late. For example, Purvis noted Isser's "insight" that "virtually
all of the passages dealing with such eschatological subjects as the Ighgb
and the future resurrection are lacking in the older manuscript."77 This is
not to say that some of the later manuscripts may be the better texts. Still
Purvis and Isser must reckon with the eschatological figure of Jesus as a
Samaritan Taheb in John 4. This means an advanced development of the idea
may be found in the biblical text. Samaritan theological concepts produce

a strong criterion for relating Samaritans to the New Testament.

 

5 . .
PurVis, op. Cit., p. 189.
76 . . . . . .

In a discuSSion on the various Views of the Samaritan Taheb, PurViS
noted Freed's inaccurate statement that the Mosaic Taheb "developed as the
fifth article of the Samaritan creed." (See Freed's "John's Gospel and
Samaritan Converts," p. 183, footnote 69). This is an obvious mistake by
Freed that one is inclined to suggest that he meant that the Taheb developed
as part of the fifth article of the Samaritan creed.

7
Purvis, op. cit., p. 165. See footnote l6.

148

Geographical Place-names

 

Freed supported Bowman's thesis that the geographical place-names of
Aenon (John 3:23), Salim (3:23), Sychar (4:5), and Ephraim (11:54) clearly
place Jesus and John the Baptist in Samaria, including a vigorous ministry
among the Samaritans.78 In Stephen's speech Haran is mentioned twice (Acts
7:2, 4). spire remarked that Haran is "insignificant in Hebrew tradition"
but is "central in Samaritan lore, where in an ordeal by fire the sanctity
of Gerizim and the Samaritan Pentateuch were demonstrated."79 In the same
speech Shechem has become the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
his sons, whereas the cave of Machpelah is located in Hebron (Gen 23:1-20;
49:31).80 This tradition is certainly Samaritan in origin.81 Geographical

place-names that connect Samaritans with certain biblical texts are excellent

criteria used by scholars.

Literary Style and Peculiarities
Freed noted that the most frequent name for God in Samaritan literature
was "I AM" or "I AM THAT I AM." Therefore, John has associated this name
and many names associated with it (the "I am . . ." passages) with Jesus.
Jesus is clearly superior to Moses, for he carries the names of God the
Samaritans could easily recognize. To them only Moses was worthy to receive

the name of Yahweh.

 

78
Freed, op. cit., p. 242. See also Purvis, "The Fourth Gospel and
the Samaritans," p. 168, footnote 26.

7
9Spiro, op. cit., p. 286.
80Ibid.

8
lScobie, op. cit., p. 407.

149

Perhaps these peculiar uses of the name in John imply that he believed
the divine name given to Jesus was éYd)£36uL. If so, we would have
here another Span in the "bridge between Samaritans and Jews in Christ"
used by John in an effogE to win converts from both groups to the

Jesus of his own faith.

Spiro considered the six-times-repeated demonstrative "this" (Acts 7:35-

" . . 83 . . .
40) a Samaritan formulary construction." Spiro had compared it Wlth a
Samaritan liturgical poem which had dozens of lines with "this is he," ending
with the phrase, "this is Moses the son of Amram."

In Acts 7:7 the peculiar phrase "they shall come out and worship me '
in this place" is part of two half verses, one of which God spoke to Abraham
(Gen 15:14) and the other to Moses (Exod 3:12). Spiro explained the further
development of the peculiar phrase:

Stephen's tradition altered a "mountain" (Vii 7) to a "place." More-

over, he combined two appearances of God to Abraham--one at Shechem

(Gen xii 7) and the other at an unnamed locality (Gen xv l-21)--into

one and placed it at or near Shechem. Since the Old Testament term

"place" for a shrine is standard Samaritan usage--appearing innumerable

times in their literature and in the New Testament on the lips of

Samaritans (John iv 20 and Acts vi 14 in Stephen's words)--it follow

that God ordained the shrine ("place") of Shechem, that is, Gerizim.
Against the review of negative criticism concerning Samaritanism in Acts 7,

. . . . . . . 85
Scobie sought to identify something in Acts 7 that was "excluSively Samaritan."

He considered Spiro's analysis of "in this place" (Acts 7:7) to be inviolate

and an important contribution to Samaritan studies.

 

82

Freed, op. cit., p. 252.
83Spiro, op. cit., p. 286.
84

Ibid., pp. 286-87.

85 . .
Scobie, op. Cit., p. 406.

150

Spiro also discussed the usage of "p1ace"(115nogfl as a favorite
Samaritan term for a shrine. Stephen is reported by Luke to have used it
(Acts 6:14) "even though his words are based on the logion of Jesus (Mark
xiv 58 and par.; cf. John ii 19), who used 'temple,' gags, not 'place.'"86
Since the term does not seem to be used in any technical sense in Jewish
traditions, Spiro thought it came from Samaritan literary usage. Freed
agreed with Spiro and added references to John 4:20 and 11:48.87 Scobie
included in the same category the use of the phrase "our father(s)" at
John 4:12, 4:20, and 6:31 (of. John 8:39, 53; 6:49 and 8:38, 41, 56).88

Trotter approached the main part of his arguments by comparing key
words and phrases found in fourth century Samaritan literature with the
Book of Hebrews.89 Although he is attempting to show that the fourth century
Samaritans knew the Book of Hebrews (a reverse treatment in the above criteria),
his methodology is valuable for this criteria of literary style and peculiar
word usage. The use of the words "perfect" and "perfection" in the Defter
and Mgma£_Marqah parallels that of Hebrews. The stress in the M§m§£_of the
perfection of Moses, men, Law and Tabernacle is similar to the Hebrews'
"perfection" of Jesus Christ, men, the Law, and the Tabernacle. The phrase
in Heb 10:21, "great priest over the house of God," seems to be duplicated

in Memar iv 1 as "Son of the house of God," an unusual phrase for the

 

Samaritans according to Trotter, hence possible influence by Hebrews. The

 

6

Spiro, op. cit., p. 294.
87

Freed, op. cit., p. 242.
8 . .

Scobie, op. Cit., p. 406.

89
Trotter, op. cit., pp. 33-35.

151

term "rest" is emphasized in Hebrews (twelve times) and is used in the same
manner as the Samaritan conception of "rest." Just as Hebrews used the terms
"Sabbath rest" (4:9) and "seventh day" (4:4), but no Sabbath day, so the
Mema£_accords with this usage. Other terms that find affinity in Samaritan
literature of the fourth century are "unseen and seen" worlds (Heb 7-9),
"subjection" (Heb 2:10), "captain of salvation" (Heb 2:17-18), "drawing near"
(Heb 7:25), and"heart." Trotter puzzled over the Hebrews omission of cir-
cumcision, temple, and reference to God as Father. But he suggested that
among the Samaritans circumcision was more spiritualized, as it had become
for Christians. As for the temple, Trotter guessed that the Hebrew writer
wanted to avoid the subject altogether, perhaps aware of its sensitive nature
in Samaritan history. Finally, the references to God as "Father" are only
implied, and this may have been in deference to the Samaritan View of God.
The number of references to angels in Hebrews (1:4, 5, 7, 13; 2:2, 5, 16;
12:22; 13:2) reminded Trotter of the Samaritan use of them in their liter-
ature. No names are given them in Hebrews and only four names are given in

Samaritan literature, and that was seldom.

Concept of a "Gentile World"

 

For the Luke-Acts material, Bowman challenged popular thinking about
the "Gentile world" to which Luke addressed himself. If Luke wrote his
gospel for Gentiles, Bowman asked, "then I wonder for what part of the
gentile world it could have been destined."90 He noted (1) the references

to the temple (Luke 1:5, 9ff.; 24:53) at the beginning and end of the

 

90 .
Bowman, op. Cit., Problem, p. 58.

152

gospel, (2) Jesus' reference to the thankful Samaritan leper as an "alien"
(dAAIYYEHQ),(3) Jesus' scolding his disciples for wanting to destroy an
inhospitable Samaritan village, (4) the neighborliness of the Good Samaritan
over against his Jewish kinsmen. For Bowman all of the above revealed the
great interest Luke had for the Samaritans; i.e., the essential part of the
"Gentile world."

In Luke's second volume, Acts, the same positive interest in the
Samaritans is made. In Acts the mission to the Samaritans is clearly a
priority in order to reach the Gentile world (Acts 1:8; 8:1ff.). Bowman's
thesis is that the Samaritans represented an "essential part of the Gentile
world" to which Luke wanted to turn.91 His argument turns on the "priestly
concerns" of Luke which would have hardly been the case had Luke's interests
been toward the conventional notion of "Gentiles," i.e., non-Jews and non-
Samaritans. The priestly concerns included the following: (1) the mentioning
of Zechariah's priestly order (Acts 1:5); (2) the circumcision of Jesus on
the eighth day (2:21); (3) Mary's purification and delivery of her first
born (12:22-24); (4) the incident of Simeon's reCOgnition of Jesus in the
temple (2:25ff.); (5) at the Passover when Jesus (twelve years old) sat
among the scribes (2:41-46); (6) Jesus tempted on the pinnacle of the Temple
(4:7); and (7) lepers told to show themselves to the priests (5:14; 17:14).92

Not unlike the above argument, Bowman interpreted the "other sheep"

in John 10:16 ("And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold") to be

 

91
Ibid., p. 70.

92Ibid.

153

Samaritans while "this fold" were Jews. This was done on the basis of Ezek
34:22-24 where the emphasis is on "one flock, one Shepherd," (cp. Ezek 37).
The one shepherd is God's servant, David, (the Davidic Messiah) and the one
flock is the reunited "sticks" of Ephraim and Judah (Ezek 37:15-23). Ezek
37:24 restated the 24:23-24 passage: "My servant David shall be king over
them; and they Shall all have one Shepherd." Bowman's argument is that the
Samaritans were the only non-Jewish group that had been approached and that
had accepted Jesus as "Messiah" according to John's gospel.

To see the Samaritans within the scope of "the Gentile world" in Luke
and John may give a key criterion for the same View in other gospel presenta-

tions of the Gentile world, particularly Mark.

Additional Criteria

 

Juxtaposition of Texts
Bowman offered an interesting insight into John's literary purposes
when he pointed out the juxtaposition of Nicodemus (chapter 3) with the
Samaritan woman (chapter 4).93 In the first a Jewish teacher cannot under-

stand the principles of spiritual new-birth while in the next story an adulterous

 

Samaritan woman readily accepts Jesus as the long awaited "Messiah" (Taheb)

 

or "prophet." Bowman connected the words to Nicodemus about the new birth;
i.e., "water and spirit," to Ezek 36:25f. where God will "sprinkle clean
water upon" Israel of the north and will give them "a new heart" and "a new
spirit." There is no question that Ezek 34-37 is the great unification plea
of the Old Testament and that the Gospel of John has used it fully in order

to reach both Jews and Samaritans.

 

93Ibid., p. 62.

154

The Stephen-Philip Group

Spiro had accepted the late Samaritan tradition that Stephen was a
Samaritan. Also he considered the term, "Hebrews," as a Samaritan self-
designation. Spiro wrote, "Obviously, the Samaritans chose the name 'Hebrews'
because of "Abram the Hebrew' (Gen xiv 13)."94 Therefore, he viewed the
Stephen-Philip movement as primarily a Samaritan Christian group. Scobie
rejected Spiro's arguments for "Hebrews" noting the use of that term in Phil
3:5 to refer to the Apostle Paul.95 Scobie countered that "Stephen and his
followers . . . were representatives of some type of Palestinian sectarian
Judaism (Northern? Galilean?), with little use for the Jerusalem cult,
and possibly with certain contacts with and sympathies for Samaritanism."96
He saw the Book of Hebrews as representing the developed theology of a branch
of the Stephen-Philip movement. Also John's gospel was related to this move-
ment. Scobie theorized concerning the Stephen-Philip missionary movement:

The closest affinities with the Stephen-Philip movement as it is

revealed by the tract Acts 7 are to be found in Johannine theology,

and a strong case can be argued for holding that the Johannine commu-

nity wasgfounded originally as an offshoot of the Stephen-Philip
movement.

Recognizing the Stephen-Philip group as a missionary movement, perhaps

on behalf of Samaritans and/or northern Galileans, may help provide a historical

context for gospel materials.

 

94 . .
Spiro, op. Cit., p. 292.

5 . . . . . .
Scobie, op. Cit., "Samaritan Christianity," p. 399. See also footnote
2. Also M. Black's, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (1961), pp. 190-91.

96Ibid.

7 . . .
Scobie, op. Cit., "Source Material," p. 421.

155

Samaritan Christian Theology
Related to the above criteria is the attempt to establish a Samaritan
. . 98 . .
Christian theology. PurVis accepted Spiro‘s statement that Stephen was
. . . . . . . 99 .

a Samaritan, for "the eVidence inclines in that direction." Perhaps PurVis
was quick to accept this theory because he wanted to establish a Samaritan
Christian theology from Stephen's speech and support that theory with
similar ideas from John's Gospel. According to Purvis the Samaritan Christian
theology theoretically could be reconstructed as follows:

Jesus was compared with Abraham and Moses as being the fulfillment

of the revelation-tradition associated with them in particular,

rather than the family of David of Jerusalem (although David himself

was not denigrated). The temple of Jerusalem was viewed as theologically

non-viable, just as it had been illegitimate in the first place. And,

finally, the Jewish nation was Viewed as being at enmity with God,

disobeying his Law and killing the prophets, especially Jesus the

Righteous One. . . . Jesus was greater than Moses (as the fulfillment

of the promise is greater than the promise, vii 37) and greater than

the Law, inasmuch as it was delivered only by angels (against the

position of fagaritanism) and the people were unable to keep it
(so vii 53).

Purvis never explained how Stephen, "a Samaritan," could use angels in a
most un-Samaritan fashion, unless there was a "Christian" influence.

With regard to John's Gospel and Samaritan Christian Theology, Purvis
made a tentative proposal that the Gospel arose from a Samaria-Galilee

community using the theological traditions and concerns of that region such

asa

 

98 .
See Scobie's "Samaritan Christianity," pp. 390-414.

99 . .
PurVis, op. Cit., p. 176.

lOOIbid., pp. 176-77.

156

. . . Moses—piety popular . . . among the Samaritans, but displacing

Moses with Jesus who, as prophet-Christ, was superior to Moses. The

community would thus have found itself as much at enmity wish Gerizim-

based Samaritanism as it was with Jerusalem-based Judaism.
Rather than a missionary tract (Freed) or unification attempts (Bowman, Scobie),
Purvis saw the Gospel as a self-serving message to instill belief in Christ
in order to have eternal life (John 20:31). He considered it a polemic
against a northern Palestinian "leader of a baptizing sect, a wonder-worker,

. . . . 102 .

and someone who claimed that he was a diVine being." Simon Meander and
Dositheus were suggested, the latter being the more probable, though biblically
Simon is overtly mentioned (Acts 8:9-24).

Coggins, though critical of most Samaritan studies, accepted and
supported the phenomena of "Samaritan Christianity" just as there existed
"Jewish Christianity." He saw traces of Samaritan Christianity in Luke-Acts
and John but doubtful in Hebrews. Acts 7 "does suggest the possibility
that it may emanate from a milieu analogous to, if not precisely identifi-

. . . 103
able Wlth, Samaritanism."

The above examples are the chief criteria that scholars have used to

relate Samaritan studies to the New Testament. Of these some will prove

useful in relating Samaritan studies to the Gospel of Mark.

 

101
Ibid., p. 191..

102
Ibid., p. 192.

0
l 3Coggins, op. cit., pp. 432-33.

CHAPTER FOUR: A REVIEW OF MARCAN STUDIES

There is an almost fanatic interest in the Gospel of Mark shown by
present-day scholars. This fascination with the second Gospel of the New
Testament has developed slowly over the past one hundred or more years as
a result of higher critical studies applied to the Gospel texts. The
attempt in this chapter to review Marcan studies will certainly not be
complete, but rather selective of those works which represent certain schools
of thought or which break new ground or are representative of various view—
points unique to the subject.

Sean P. Kealy in his brief but insightful Mark's Gospel: A History

 

of Its Interpretation quoted Peter E. Ellis' unique outline of the evolution

of interest in Mark:
Mark has progressed from "the period of 'simple' Mark (Papias to
Wrede) to the period of 'tricky' Mark (Wrede to Marxsen) on to
'subtle' Mark (Marxsen to Migette de Tillesse) and finally in recent
years to 'theological Mark."

Even though the above outline may be novel and considered arbitrary, it

does follow the general pattern and progress of Marcan studies from form

criticism to redaction criticism to present-day theological studies that

have become varied both in breadth and depth.

 

1 . ' .
Sean P. Kealy, C. S. sp., Mark's Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation

 

(New York: Panlist Press, 1982), p. l.

157

158
"Simple" Mark may best be described as the Mark of Papias' testimony

(c.130 A.D.) as recorded in Eusebius' account, Ecclesiastical History iii

 

39, 15:

And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's inter-

preter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed,

in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not

heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said,

followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded

but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles,

so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points

as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to

leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false state-

ments in them."
Eusebius described this testimony as having been in volume four of Papias'
five-volume work entitled, "Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord."
Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, S. Phrygia of Asia. This early testimony
suggested that the author was John Mark who became a companion of Peter
(1 Pet 5:13). Mark's Gospel, then, is basically a recording of Peter's
messages about Jesus and his life, not necessarily in chronological order
according to the tradition. The date of writing would have been after
Nero's persecution (c.64-70 A.D.). The authorship, date and composition
of Mark's gospel as noted above held sway in the church for the most part
for many centuries, and even today among most conservative scholars, Papias'

. . . . . 2 .

testimony is regarded as adequate eVidence for the pOSltlon. However, with

the rise of gospel criticism this position began to be attacked from all

sides.

 

2See the acceptance of this testimony by Vincent Taylor, The Gospel
According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1959), p. 26f.; Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (London: Tyndale Press, 1970), p. 69f.;
William L. Lane, The New International Commentary of the New Testament:
Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974),
p. 21f.

 

 

159

The Roots of Twentieth-Century Marcan Studies

 

H. S. Reimarus (1691-1768), an eighteenth century deist, helped per-
petuate the rationalism in religious studies to the point that today he is
"considered the father of modern gospel criticism and even of its most
recent emphasis--radaction criticism."3 He rejected all the supernatural
in the gospels, rationalizing the miracles of healing and resurrection of
Jesus. Reimarus discovered that the gospel writers had other than biographi-
cal concerns of Jesus' life. The authors were describing a later View,
expressing their own doctrinal positions, and imposing on the textual tra—
dition distinct biases. He would be the first of a long list of scholars
in quest of the historical Jesus.

Johann J. Griesbach (1745-1812), an eminent theologian during the
revolutionary years of France and America, contributed to gospel studies
his "Greek Synopsis of 1774-6 and the theory about the interrelationships
among the Gospels which resulted from it."4 His mature View of the inter-
relationships of the gospels placed Mark as dependent on both Matthew and
Luke. This View was perpetuated by his disciple, Wilhelm M. L. de Wette,
and enjoyed great popularity due to its adoption by the Tubingen School led
by F. C. Bauer. But Griesbach's theory would be short-lived due to the new
and contemporary theory of Marcan priority, a competitive theory that would

bury Griesbach's hypothesis for almost two hundred years. In recent times,

 

3
Kealy, op. cit., p. 59.

4

Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, eds., J. J. Griesbach:
Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976 (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1978), p. xi.

 

160

a resurrection of Griesbach's theory in modified form has occurred.

G. E. Lessing treated the relationships between the gospels as a purely
literary problem in his essay, "New Hypothesis Concerning the Evangelists
Regarded as Merely Human Historians" (1778). Avoiding the presupposition
of inspiration, he postulated an Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes which was
translated into several Greek versions. Each gospel evangelist used these
translations. His idea of a lost gospel (authentic) somewhere behind the
canonical gospels would be perpetuated until present times.

J. G. Eichhorn (1794) developed Lessing's thesis further in a compli-
cated manner. He considered that one had to opt for either the interdependence
of the three gospel writers or they all depended upon a common source.
Eichhorn opted for the latter. Others suggested an oral gospel behind the
canonical gospels (C. L. Gieseler in 1818), and thus the groundwork was being
laid for what would later become form criticism.

Because of C. G. Wilke's investigations into the synoptic problem,
he is credited for being "the first to provide evidence that Matthew used
Mark."6 He had noted that almost all of Mark was to be found in Matthew and

Luke, and therefore, he inaugurated the Marcan Priority hypothesis. C. H.

 

This "resurrection" will be considered briefly later in this chapter.
One should especially see William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical
Analysis (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1976), and his article,
"Modern Developments of Griesbach's Hypothesis," New Testament Studies 23
(Apr. 1977) 275-95; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan
Hypothesis, trans. and ed. by Donald L. Niewyk (Macon, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1980); Frank Beare, "Book review of Farmer's work listed
above," Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965) 295-97; C. H. Talbert
and E. V. McKnight, "Can the Griesbach Hypothesis be Falsified?", Journal
of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 338-68; George Wesley Buchanan, "Has the
Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?", Journal of Biblical Literature 93
(1974) 550-72.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 .
Kealy, op. Cit., p. 68.

161

Weisse (1838) also developed the Marcan hypothesis and the two-source
theory, but the two scholars could agree on little else and therefore went
their separate ways.

B. F. Westcott (1851) not only accepted the priority of Mark, but he
did it without the skepticism of others before him of its historical reli-
ability. His position would be accepted by the more conservative scholars
of the future.

A turning point in synoptic gospel studies occurred when H. J. Holtzmann
did a detailed study of the linguistic nature of the gospels (1863). By
this means he practically assured the Marcan hypothesis to be "fact." His
study of the small details, language, style and diction of Mark enabled
Holtzmann to announce with confidence that Mark was behind Matthew and Luke,
and where the latter two agreed there lay a written source made up mainly
of discourses. The Q symbol for this source was yet to be ascribed.

Paul Wernle (1899) solidified the two-source theory by using Luke 1:1-4
of which he noted that (1) Luke was not the earliest gospel and had many
predecessors, (2) these predecessors had used common oral traditions and
they themselves were not eyewitnesses, (3) Luke's intention was to provide
a more complete and chronologically accurate account of Jesus' life. Mark,
a "Petrine" gospel, became the source (among others) for both Matthew and
Luke. Wernle's contribution is that he began his studies by looking at the
text (Luke's Prologue) rather than beginning with an hypothesis.

Source criticism of the nineteenth century and its attempt to isolate

the documents in order to establish a scientific history of Jesus was the

 

7Ibid.

162

backdrop to Martin Kahler's criticism of the validity of historical study
of the Bible, especially of the gospels for a life of Jesus. He wrote
(1896):
We have no sources for a biography of Jesus of Nazareth which measure
up to the standards of contemporary historical science. . . they
tell us only about the shortest and last period of his life.
This led him to refer to the gospels and probably Mark in particular as
"passion narratives with extended introductions."9 Kahler considered an
infallible Bible as a detriment to one's faith, for "one's whole faith in
the revelation of God is called into question when the accuracy of any detail
recorded in the Bible is cast into doubt."10 Kahler clearly separated history

from faith in order to "rescue" the believer from drowning in the fruitless

search for the real historical Jesus.

 

He distinguished "historic" from "historical" in the sense that
"historic" aims not to provide particular data but to describe the
impact Jesus had on the people of his time. The historical Jesus

is the attempted reconstfgction of the Jesus of history which varies
from scholar to scholar.

Kahler saw the gospels as Simple "recollections" being "confessional in

"12
nature.

I deny that the purpose of the Gospels is to serve as documents for
a scientifically reconstructed biography of Jesus. . . . Their pur-
pose is to awake faith in Jesus through a clear proclamation of his
saving activity.

 

8 . . . . . . .
Martin Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical
Christ, trans. and ed. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964
ed. 1896). PP. 48-49.
9 .
Kealy, op. Cit., p. 87.
10 .
Kahler, op. Cit., p. 114.
ll .
Kealy, loc. Cit.
12 .
Kahler, op. Cit., p. 126.

13
Ibid., p. 127.

163

Kahler's influence would be felt later by such men as Bultmann, Karl
Barth, and Paul Tillich. With Kahler the nineteenth century came to an end
with liberal scholarship still in search of the historical Jesus. The
roots of the twentieth century gospel studies had been laid deep and so

entered the era of what Peter Ellis called "tricky" Mark (Wrede to Marxsen).

Form Criticism and The Gospel of Mark

Wilhelm Wrede's (1859-1906) The Messianic Secret in the Gospels dealt

 

a serious blow to the optimism of liberal scholarship's quest for the
historical Jesus. Wrede was influenced by the "history of religions" school
which envisioned Paul as the perverter of an original Jewish Christianity.
He introduced an existing Hellenistic myth of a heavenly redeemer and thus
did not base his writings on a historical Jesus. According to Wrede, the
"messianic secret" was portrayed differently in each gospel, and therefore
each had to be studied separately for its own emphasis for a "proper" inter-
pretation. On the basis that Mark has early recognition of Jesus' messianic
ministry and passion (2:19f.; 2:10, 28) by the disciples and Jesus himself,
Wrede concluded that "the psychological and historical portrayal of the
lives of Jesus had in fact been read into Mark's text."l4 Wrede contended
that Mark "no longer has any real picture of the historical life of Jesus."15
His key text for his theory was Mark 9:9 where Jesus told his disciples
immediately after the transfiguration not to tell anyone what they had seen

until after his resurrection. In the same manner, Wrede considered the

 

4
l Kealy, op. cit., p. 91.

15Ibid.

164

parables to be reinterpreted according to Mark's own purposes and not
historically oriented. Everything was a "riddle" to those outside the
church, but those who were on the inside believed in the Messiah, the Son
of God, and thus understood the meaning of the resurrection. This was the
key idea--on1y after the resurrection could Jesus' messiahship be under-
stood. The commands to secrecy (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; 9:9)
were literary devices to explain the lack of faith the people had in Jesus
while he was alive.

So Wrede developed his "messianic secret" theme under the umbrella of
three separate ideas: (1) Mark's parable theory (9:9), (2) the commands
to be silent, and (3) the misunderstanding of the disciples. Wrede actually
anticipated the basic approach of the redaction critics, an approach developed
more strongly since Marxsen. For Wrede Mark was a theologian who developed
a gospel which was theological in nature and purpose. Mark was no less
theological than John's gospel! "Wrede failed to distinguish consistently
between Mark's tradition and his redaction. Later Bultmann would Show that
Mark had worked the messianic secret into his materials."16

. . . 17
Albert Schweitzer's great volume, The Quest of the Historical Jesus,

 

was a critical study of the "quest" from Reimarus to Wrede. It had a great
influence over the scholarly world, which saw the end of the rationalistic,
mythical and liberal approach to the gospels. He thought it impossible

for the gospel writers to create any kind of objective, historical account

 

16Ibid., p. 93.

17 . . .
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. W.

Montgomery, 1906 German ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1968).

 

165

of Jesus' life. His constant complaint was that the German scholars of
his day and the nineteenth century knew more about the historical Jesus
than the gospels themselves! Schweitzer did not consider the gospel des-
cription of Jesus' ministry to be historical. However, he viewed the
"messianic secret" as a genuine part of Jesus' ministry, historical or not,
as over against Wrede's view.

His main interest in the gospels had to do with the Lord's Supper.
Since neither Matthew nor Mark had the phrase, "Do this in memory of me,"
and since he considered Mark to be the earliest gospel, Schweitzer con-
cluded that the command for repetition of the Lord's Supper was a development
of the disciples much later than during Jesus' lifetime. The parables in
Mark 4 were never intended to be interpreted and understood. Rather, they
were to teach the mysteries of the kingdom.

Schweitzer's view of Jesus was certainly human, but "divinely" com-
passionate. His trip to Jerusalem was supposed to force the hand of God
in bringing the kingdom of God to earth. His "secret" was divulged by Judas
and he was killed by the rulers as a messianic pretender.

To Schweitzer a history of Jesus was no longer tenable nor necessary.
It was even a stumbling-block to religion! The "heroism" of Jesus was
what was admired and was to be emulated. His ethical teachings were only
provisional or "interim" until the kingdom arrived.

Schweitzer insisted that Jesus could never be understood by our own
time and culture and that most "liberal" scholars had created their own
"historical Jesus" to suit their own tastes and imagination. The gospel

of Mark was found by him to be patchwork of non-sequential stories. In

166

his zeal to make sense out of the "chaotic confusion of the narratives,"
Schweitzer restored what he called "thoroughgoing eschatology" to the inter-
pretation of Jesus' teaching:

The choice according to Schweitzer had to be made between the thorough-

going skepticism implied by Wrede in his challenge to the common

belief that Mark was a historical view of Jesus and the thorough-

going esEBatology to which J. Weiss had pointed in a study published

in 1892.

Schweitzer oversimplified the gospel tradition problem in a summary
of the three basic concerns of nineteenth century research:

The first was laid down by Strauss: either purely historical or.

purely supernatural. The second had been worked out by the Tubingen

schools and Holtzmann: either Synoptic g£_Johannine Now came the

third: either eschatological g£_non-eschatological!

Schweitzer considered both Matthew and Mark to be products of an
earlier common source which went back to eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.
"In brief, for Schweitzer we need to de-eschatologize the gospel of Jesus

. . . 2
in contrast to Bultmann's View that we need to demythologize the gospel."

Julius Wellhausen in The Gospel of Mark (1903) and Introduction to the

 

 

First Three Gospels (1905) contributed three main ideas to gospel studies
which later form critics. would develop into major axioms: (l) The original
source of the Gospels was oral tradition that circulated in small units.

(2) These oral sources had been brought together by various ways and redacted
in various stages by a given community, of which the evangelists were only
one stage. (3) The written materials, therefore, give information not only
of the ministry of Jesus, but also about the beliefs and practices (problems)

of the early Church.

 

18Kealy, op. cit., p. 97.

19 . .
Schweitzer, op. Cit., p. 238.

0
Kealy, op. cit., p. 98.

167

Wellhausen saw Mark as not wanting to make Jesus' person manifest or
even intelligible. He only wished to establish Jesus' divine vocation;
i.e., that he was the Christ. For Wellhausen, Jesus was only a teacher
who accommodated his disciples by the acceptance of the title, "Messiah."
Mark was written in the decade after Jerusalem's destruction (70-80 A.D.),
and the author deliberately ended his gospel with the puzzling statement,
"they were afraid" (Mark 16:8). Mark was known by the other gospels.

Johannes Weiss, a teacher of Wellhausen, published a study of Mark:

The Oldest Gospel which developed his earlier study on Preaching of Jesus on

 

 

the Kingdom (1892). Weiss based his studies on the Jewish apocalyptic books
of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, and 2 Esdras. He presented Jesus strictly
as an eschatological herald who preached a future kingdom to be inaugurated
only after his return from death to be the Son of Man judge according to
Daniel.

Weiss considered Mark to be a collection of Peter's reminiscences
but not necessarily by the John Mark of Acts 12:12, 25 and 15:37. He noted
the difficulties with the Markan priority hypothesis, for in many places
Matthew and Luke agreed against Mark. He saw the gospel writers as both
collectors of traditional materials and authors expressing their own concep-
tion and convictions.

"F. C. Burkitt in The Gospel History and Its Transmission (1906)
asked for the first time the question how to explain the agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark."21 The existence of Mark and Q were the
"assured results" of synoptic scholarship. He saw Mark as a highly accurate

document for portraying the historical Jesus who had to break away from

 

2
lIbid., p. 101.

168

official Judaism. For him Matthew only elaborated, revised and rearranged
the gospel of Mark while Luke devised a new gospel using Mark and other
sources.

A. Loisy published The Synoptic Gospels (1907) and The Gospel According

 

 

to Mark (1912). Loisy essentially held to the same source view as the above;
i.e., that Mark was a collection of notes which originally recorded Jesus'
Galilean ministry and then the messianic adventure in Jerusalem with its
culmination on Golgotha. He believed that the author of Mark tried to cover
up the political activity of Jesus by confusing the chronological and topo-
graphical order of his sources. Jesus was unconscious of his own divinity,
which in reality was imposed upon him by later Church interpretations of
which Mark is one result. "Like J. Weiss and many others, Loisy thought
that Mark was influenced by Paul whose main idea he borrowed. He dated

Mark in Rome A.D. 75-80 like Goguel, Branscomb and Bacon."22

B. W. Bacon in Beginnings of the Gospel Story (1909) presented Mark

 

(the author) as a Paulinist and his gospel as involving a large redactional
element. In a 1919 essay, "Is Mark a Roman Gospel?", Bacon argued that Mark
was a member of the Roman church and anti-Jewish; i.e. anti-Petrine. The
Gospel's final form was only the result of development and successive periods
of redactions.

M. J. Lagrange, a Catholic scholar, published his commentary on Mark,
and it became an "epoch-making event" for Catholic New Testament exegesis.

He was traditional in that Mark was dependent on Peter as an eyewitness to

 

2
2Ibid., p. 105.

169

Jesus' ministry, but he also stressed the autonomy of Mark as an author.

He gave Mark high marks for historical accuracy due to the small picturesque
details evident throughout the book which was due to eyewitness accounts.
Mark depended on Peter's preaching, his primary source, while Matthew (the
Greek text) depended both on Aramaic Matthew and Mark.

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1913), anticipated several of the

 

developments of form criticism. The oral traditions are what stamped the
character of the gospel framework. The germ cells of the gospel tradition
are the individual closed pericopae that together with the paSsion story
make up the gospel story. Bousset put little emphasis on the gospel writers
as authors. The Jesus of the gospels was originally created to meet the
needs of the Christian community. There were two phases of development:
the primitive Palestinian community and the later Gentile community before
Paul. The "Son of Man" Christology derived from the former while the cultic
"Kyrios" Christology belonged to the latter. Thus he saw Jesus, a simple
ethical teacher, as an original stage that developed into Palestinian Christian-
ity, then to Hellenistic Christianity, then to Paul. Afterwards came Johannine
Christianity and Gnosticism which further mythologized the Christ myth of
Paul until the writings of Irenaus, when Christianity had become institution-
alized. This developmental methodology in terms of the worshipping community
would have its effect upon future critical studies on the gospels.

The works above helped precipitate the contribution of three men, Karl
L. Schmidt (1891-1956), M. Dibelius (1891-1956), and Rudolf Bultmann (1884—
1976), who produced the movement known as form criticism (or form-history).

In 1919, Schmidt published his Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (The

 

Framework of the Story of Jesus). He, like the others, accepted Mark and Q

170

as prior to Matthew and Luke, but he sought to penetrate behind the extant
gospels to the period of oral tradition that produced the various pericopae.
These pericopae were built into a framework that originated with the author
of the gospel according to his own interests. Each individual pericope
arose out of a worshipping community that had preserved certain pericopae
because they had met the needs of the community. Therefore, the gospels
were looked upon as reflecting the life of the early Christian community
rather than any factual account of the life of Jesus.

Schmidt carefully studied the entire Synoptic tradition from the
perspective of the framework which the Gospel writers gave to the
life of Jesus. He also gave some helpful suggestions as to the
nature and origin of the individual units making up the Synoptic
tradition. But Schmidt did not really utilize the tools of form
criticism to pry back into the oral period of Gospel origins. This
task was left for Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann.

In the same year, Martin Dibelius produced a slim volume entitled
Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (The Form-History of the Gospels), from
. . . 24 . .
which the movement gained its name. His assumption was that the oral
tradition consisted mainly of preaching materials with the exception of the
passion narrative, the earliest part to be written down. He sought to
establish the historical circumstances (Sitz im Leben) of the various forms

found in the gospel; i.e., paradigms, tales, legends, myths, and sayings.

V. Taylor's evaluation of Dibelius's work is somewhat positive:

 

23 . . . . . .
Edgar V. McKnight, What Is Form CritiCism? (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969), p. 15.
24 . . . . . . .
See the English translation: Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to
Gospel, trans. Bertram Lee Wolf (New York: Scribner, 1965).

 

 

171

In the main, his treatment of the tradition is constructive. It is
especially attractive that the inquiry is pressed beyond the work

of Evangelists dealing with sources into the many-sided life of the
earliest communities. Inevitably in such investigations the inquiry
extends beyond 'forms' and Form Criticism becomes a branch of
historical criticism.

By far the most influential of the three was Rudolf Bultmann who in

. . . . . . 2
1921 published his The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 6 Bultmann was

 

complete in his analysis of the Synoptic material dividing it into two parts:
the sayings of Jesus and the narrative material. The sayings of Jesus were
divided into two: apophthegms and dominical sayings, each one further
divided. The narrative material also was divided into two parts: miracle
stories and historical and legendary stories. After having established

the various forms in the gospel, in great detail he outlined the editorial
work of Mark.27 Bultmann was convinced that the gospel traditions could
only be traced to the primitive Palestinian Church. Only isolated sections
were initially used and made to conform to the needs of the community.

"For the idea of an unified presentation of the life of Jesus, knit together
by some dominant concept, which first constitutes the Gospel, was obviously
far removed from the Palestinian church."28 It was not until the Hellenistic
Church took over that the need for the gospel arose, and thus the traditional
materials were reshaped into this gospel form: Mark being the earliest

and Matthew and Luke following the basic outline.

 

5 .
Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan
& Co. 1959), p. 19.

 

26 . . .
Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John
Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).

2
7Ibid., pp. 338-50.

2
81bid., p. 369.

 

172

In many places where Bultmann discussed the relationship of theology
to the biblical material, he has clearly separated faith from history, as
for example concerning the messianic consciousness of Jesus:

The acknowledgement of Jesus as the one in whom God's word decisively

encounters man, whatever title be given him--"Messiah (Christ)," "Son

of Man," "Lord"--is a pure act of faith independent of the answer to
the historical question whether or not Jesus considered himself the

Messiah. Only the historian can answer this question-—as far as it

can be answered at all-—and faith, aging personal decision, cannot be

dependent upon a historian's labor.
To Bultmann the quest for the historical Jesus was irrelevant. The impor-
tant element is the Christ of faith, that which the Church has actually
given in faith that others may have faith. To his credit he attempted to
make relevant the gospel tradition to modern-man in every way possible.
The New Testament world was filled with myth of a kind quite foreign to
twentieth century man's scientifically-oriented world. The answer for
Bultmann was simply to demythologize the Scriptures and thereby establish
the biblical messages by which modern-men should live in faith. The jarring
statement is clear for those who would hold to the "myth": "We can no longer
look for the return of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven or hope that

. . . . . "30
the faithful w111 meet him in the air (I Thess. 4:15ff.).

Bultmann considered Mark to be more mythical than Matthew and Luke.
James M. Robinson explained his view in this manner:

In distinction from Matthew's Jewish pattern of prophecy and fulfill-

ment, Mark sees Jesus' life in the Hellenistic pattern of an 'epiphany
of the Son of God', so that one could speak of the history of Jesus

 

9
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 26.

 

0
3 Rudolph Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York:
Harper & Row 1961), p. 4.

 

173

only in quotation marks. Emphasizing miraculous events like the
baptism and transfiguration, Mark sees in Jesus 'the miraculous mani-
festation of divine healing in the cloak of earthly occurrence'. Yet
Mark, by the very fact of giving his presentation 'the form of an
historical presentation, a "life of Jesus",' reflects the early
Christian awareness that their revelation comes not in the pictures
of ecstatic visionaries, ngf by some unconfirmable myth, but 'by an
historical figure, Jesus.‘

Kealy has noted that Bultmann propounded the view that Mark used the
Apostles in his gospel as indirect targets for the critical and negative
portrayal of his contemporary Jewish Christians, a view that has been
developed in recent times by T. J. Weeden (1971).32

About the same time of Bultmann's growing influence, B. H. Streeter

proposed his Four Document Hypothesis in The Four Gospels (1924). Based

 

on the two source theory he separated materials peculiar to Luke (L) and
Matthew (M) and placed each in a Christian center where supposedly the
tradition and text grew; i.e. Jerusalem (M c.56), Caesarea (L c.60), Antioch
(Q c.50) and Mark in Rome c.65-70 A.D. Streeter theorized that Luke was
completed 0.80 and Matthew c.85 A.D. Perhaps an interesting side-light in
his investigations of the synoptic relationship was to show the verbal
agreements between Mark and John. His conclusion was that John knew Mark's
gospel well.

In the midst of form critical developments, there were a few scholars
who held to traditional viewpoints even after in-depth studies. One such

was C. H. Turner who made a detailed study of Mark's linguistic features

 

31 . . .
James M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM
Press, 1957), p. 19. Note #1.

 

32
Kealy, op. cit., p. 126.

174

and concluded that Mark was very important for eyewitness accounts of Jesus'
life-~a very important historical document. This was a complete reversal
of Bultmann's view, but of course, it did not affect the growing concerns
of form criticism.

By contrast R. H. Lightfoot's History and Interpretation in the Gospels

 

(1934) developed form—criticism to the extent that he is often called the
first redaction critic.33 Having debunked all that he had been taught about
Mark as "pure history," he discovered that Mark was not biographical but
rather theological in nature. Influenced by Wrede, he called Mark the book
of the secret Messiahship of Jesus. Later he understood geographical places
and names as theologically oriented rather than literal. In his final work,

The Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950), Lightfoot offered many insights into

 

the Markan text in terms of parallels which he interpreted theologically.
He saw Mark's purpose as having been written in Rome soon after Nero's
persecution in order to answer the problem of suffering; i.e., why did the
Messiah have to suffer? Why must Christians suffer today? This idea was
not new and many have placed Mark's purpose in this category.

In 1939 H. J. Ebeling reviewed the history of the criticism of Wrede's

theory concerning the Messianic secret in The Messianic Secret and the Message

 

of the Evangelist Mark. Whereas all scholars agreed that Mark presents

 

a "Messianic secret," they differed on interpretation.

Wrede had seen it as an invitation of the early Church to explain
the difference between its cult of the risen Lord and its memories
of the past. Jesus had foreseen that it would happen. Dibelius

 

3
31bid., p. 141.

175

similarly saw it as part of the apologetic of the early Church as

it tried to explain the humble nature of Jesus' life. Bultmann re-

lated the messianic secret to the evangelist's redaction. Ebeling

reduced it to a lizerary device so that there is no secrecy motif

in Mark's gospel.

Ebeling, therefore, saw the "secret" as really a "revelation" to the
readers that they may rejoice in having the "secret" made known to them!
Other traditional interpretations view the messianic secret as Jesus' teaching
to avoid the Jewish misunderstanding of his true messiahship and on the other
hand to avoid the blinding of his contemporaries by a full revelation of his
divinity.

Commentaries on Mark are plentiful throughout this period such as
B. H. Branscomb (1937), A. M. Hunter (1949) and Vincent Taylor (1953).
Vincent Taylor's commentary has since become a classic for its combination
of holding to a very conservative position but at the same time seeking to
preserve the best results from form criticism of his day. It is a good
mediating commentary. Taylor expressed very simply the historical value
of Mark:

Mark was not seeking to write history and is not a historian. His

purpose was simpler. He wanted to tell how the Good News concerning

Jesus Christ, God's Son, began. . . . In addition to Petrine narratives,

forms of Church tradition, including pronouncement stories and sayings,

were used by the Evangelist. The historical value of the Gospel de-
pends on the nature and the use made of these sources of information.

Mention should be made of Bultmann's pupil, Ernst Kasemann who sought

to correct some of his formidable teacher's skepticism about the historical

Jesus. He attempted to reunite faith and history and to show that a Christian's

 

34Ibid., p. 146.

5
3 Taylor, op. cit., pp. 130-31.

176

faith requires confidence in the continuity between the earthly and risen
Jesus while not denying that the gospels were a product of the Early Church's
faith.

The fact that many scholars at this time were continually searching
for further development of form criticism or new ways from which to View
the gospel tradition, the next period of time (from Marxsen to Minette de

Tillesse) may be described as "subtle" Mark.

Redaction Criticism and The Gospel of Mark

 

Harald Riesenfeld, a Swedish scholar, was one of those who seriously
questioned the fruits of form criticism. He did recognize that form criticism
had permanently achieved "the formal analysis of the individual elements in
the Gospel material, of the parables and other words of Jesus, of the accounts
of the deeds of Jesus, or of happenings in the life of Jesus."36 But he
criticized its claim that the methodology of form criticism had enabled it
to explain the beginnings of the Gospel tradition. To give as the "Sitz_im.
Lebggf (situation in life) of the Gospels "preaching" or "catechetical instruc-
tion" or "controversy" contexts was inadequate and even unbelieveable to
Riesenfeld. He argued that the gospel tradition actually went back to Jesus
himself, and that his teaching of the apostles was parallel with the method-
ology of the rabbis who scrupulously had their disciples repeat exactly
their teachings. The dividing line of interpreting Mark's gospel was one's

view of the "messianic self-consciousness." Riesenfeld's attitude toward

 

6
Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, trans. Margaret Rowley and
Robert Kraft (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), p. 4.

 

177

Jesus' self-consciousness as the Jewish Messiah led him back to the ”classical"
. . 37 . . .

method of interpretation. Although Riesenfeld's Views were different from

Willi Marxsen's, his contemporary who firmly established redaction criticism

for gospel studies, he produced many of the same results. Riesenfeld wrote

concerning the composition of the Gospel of Mark:

This Gospel is the work of a man who, with firm grip and with a definite
theological view, has arranged and molded the material handed down. It
is inevitable that the evangelist found himself in living contact with
the preaching and teaching of the church of his time, but he was cer-
tainly more than a mere exponent of an anonymous community's view and
opinions. Rather he seems to have belonged to the leading figures

within early Christendom who had the ability comprehensively to select
and systematize the material.

Riesenfeld saw Mark as a Christological outline imposed upon a pre-
existing geographical historical outline. Mark l:l4-8:26 he entitled,
"The Son of man and Israel," which emphasized "the call," while 8:27-10:52
was entitled, "The Messiah as teacher and prophet," which emphasized "disciple-
ship."39

Riesenfeld accounted for the differences among the synoptic gospels
by establishing two principles of composition:

First, the firm elements of tradition, to which belong both a stylized
basic plan of the outward course of the public ministry of Jesus and
characteristic details of the "framework" of the pericopes, and
secondly, the evangelist's intention from a theological point of

view to edit and systematize the material handed down. These two
principles cannot simply be united or superimposed on one another.

The analysis of the Marcan material had shown rather that here and
there the one or another principle falls short,48hich is the cause

of inconsistencies in one direction or another.

 

37
Ibid., pp. 27-28.

38Ibid., p. 54.

39Ibid., pp. 57, 65.

4
0Ibid., p. 74.

178

While Riesenfeld touched on many redactional ideas in his critical
analysis of form criticism and gave much weight to the historical aSpects
of the gospel tradition (in line with Dibelius), Willi Marxsen (in line
with Bultmann) gave new directions to Marcan studies in terms of redaction
criticism. Today Marxsen is noted for pioneering the application of redaction
criticism to Mark, even though redaction criticism can be traced back to

Lightfoot, Wrede and Reimarus. Marxsen's book, Mark the Evangelist: Studies

 

on the Redaction History of the GOSpel,41 appeared in 1956, two years after

Hans Conzelmann's The Theology of Luke. With these two works gospel studies

 

moved into the period of redaction history. In contrast to form criticism's
anti—individualistic view of the Gospels, Marxsen plainly stated that "Mark
is the first to bring the individualistic element to the forming and shaping
of the tradition."42 In other words, redaction criticism saw three "life-
situations" in the text, rather than the two of form criticism. The first
was Jesus' activities and sayings, the second was the situation of the
primitive church, and the third was "the author's point of view and the
situation of his community."43 "Although some scholars still argue that

only two situations-in-life exist, most scholars have accepted the correct-

. 44
ness of Marxsen's theSis."

 

1Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History
of the Gospel, trans. James Boyce, Donald Juel, William Poehlmann, with Roy
A. Harrisville (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).

42Ibid., p. 19.

4
31bid., p. 25.

 

4Robert H. Stein, review of Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the
Redaction History of the Gospel, by Willi Marxsen. Translated by James
Boyce, Donald Juel, William Poehlmann, with Roy A. Harrisville, Nashville:
Abingdon, 1969, in Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (Sept. 1969) 360.

 

 

179

Marxsen applied redactional—historical investigations to four areas

in Mark: The Baptist, geographical locations, concept of evangelion, and

 

Mark 13 (the Little Apocalypse). After the application to the four areas
of study, Marxsen postulated that Mark was a "sermon" to the Christian
community of his day to flee the church in Judea and its coming destruction
by the Romans (c.66—70 A.D.) unto Galilee and to await the imminent return
of Jesus. In the midst of great tribulation flee to the place where the
Messiah first appeared, for He will soon appear a second time. Just as
Jesus suffered before glory, so must the Christian suffer and prepare for
the glory to be revealed.

Robert H. Stein, who reviewed Marxsen's book in the JBL, was very
critical of Marxsen's thesis for three reasons: (1) In Mark 13:10 the concern
is the delay of the parousia rather than its imminence. (2) Marxsen has
Mark 12:28 and 16:7 refer to the parousia but Stein maintained that, Peter
having already been dead, the passages must refer back to the resurrection.
(3) Mark's explanation of Jewish customs and Aramaic terms preclude Aramaic-
speaking Judean Christians as the recipients of the gospel.

In spite of all criticisms of Marxsen, the methodology by which Mark
and the other gospels were approached have been changed considerably. Jack
Dean Kingsbury cited three areas of Marcan research where Marxsen has made
a lasting contribution:

(a) the attempt to distinguish in the analysis of Mark's Gospel
between traditional materials, which the evangelist inherited, and

 

45Ibid.

180

"framework" materials, which stem from his hand; (b) the importance
of regarding the evangelist Mark as an "author-personality" whose
genius reveals itself in the "framework" materials of his Gospel;
and (c) the need to reconstruct, for the purposes of correct inter-
pretation, th historical and sociological situation in which Mark's
Gospel arose.
In other words, the "Marcan hypothesis" that Mark being the earliest gospel
and a major source for Matthew and Luke, thus providing a reliable historical
. . . 47 .
source and a baSis for a Life of Jesus, is no longer tenable. Redaction
criticism set the stage for a voluminous response from scholars who either
criticized the discipline offering alternatives or those who positively
contributed to the study and expanded its influence. Norman Perrin has
already pointed out that Marxsen himself was moving beyond redaction criti-
cism to a newer stage in which he worked from a theological insight to the
. . . . . . 4
historical Situation of that inSight.
In 1957 James M. Robinson responded to the problem of history that
. . . . . . . 49
redaction critiCism presented. In his book, The Problem of History in Mark,
he maintained "that Mark sees the history of Jesus from an eschatological
perspective." Presented by Mark as a unity, his history was prepared by
John the Baptist at Jesus' baptism and temptation, "carried on through the

struggles with various forms of evil," until Jesus' death on the cross,

the ultimate experience of history and "diabolic antagonism." "In the

 

6 . .
Jack Dean Kingsbury, "The Gospel of Mark in Current Research,"
Religious Studies Review, 5 (Apr. 1979) 102.

 

7 I O I I o l o I
Norman Perrin, What is Redaction CritiCism? (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969) p. 7.

 

481bid., p. 39.

49 . . .
James M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM
Press, 1957).

50

 

Ibid., p. 52.

181

resurrection the force of evil is conclusively broken and the power of God's
reign is established in history."51 This is Mark's understanding of Jesus'
history according to Robinson but what is Mark's understanding of his own
history? "The result of this investigation into Marcan history after A.D.
30," concluded Robinson, "is that history since the resurrection is conceived
of as a continuation of the same cosmic struggle which Jesus began."52

Thus, Mark is seen as providing an understanding of history (of Jesus and
the early Church) which applies to each reader. Christian experience in
Christ is to enter into history, a history determined by Old Testament
prophetic words, up to John the Baptist, Jesus' life and mission, and the
early Church.

Etienne Trocme, a French writer, accused both Robinson and Marxsen of
imposing the framework of very modern theological categories onto Mark's
Gospel. Robinson borrowed O. Cullmann's theology of the history of salvation
while W. Marxsen used R. Bultmann's existentialist theology. Trocmé saw
this as a dangerous approach; i.e., "projecting a too elaborate and abstract
system of thought on to a work as closely linked to events as Mark's Gospel."53
For Trocmé's part in Marcan studies he theorized that canonical Mark is
"the 'second edition, revised and supplemented by a long appendix' of an

. 54 . . .
earlier Gospel." He sees the first edition as Mark 1-13 by an author of

Palestinian origin who attacked the Jerusalem and Judean Christian establishment

 

5
1Ibid., p. 53.

52
Ibid., pp. 66-67.

3 . . .
Etienne Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark, trans.
Pamela Gaughan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 141. See note #1.

54Ibid., p. 240.

 

182

5 . . .

(James, Peter and the Twelve). 5 He surmised that the original Mark (1-13)
could have been written by Philip, the evangelist to the Samaritans (Acts 8).

I
Trocme viewed the work of Philip as a break from the church of Jerusalem.
In the midst of his missionary travels throughout Samaria and Galilee, he
composed his gospel (Mark l-13) probably around 50 A.D. Only later was
Mark 14-16 added and that in close time sequence with Luke-Acts (c.80—85

/

A.D.). This unusual proposal led Trocme to question why there was no mention
or reference to Samaria and the Samaritans in Mark's gospel.

It is hard to see why our Evangelist did not refer to this part of

the country in passages such as 3.7-8 or 10.1. It seems doubtful

that he could have basically detested the Samaritans in particular,

since hi§6hostility to the Temple of Jerusalem would have drawn him

to them.

I I o I o o

Trocme's suggestion that the Samaritan mlSSlon field may have produced
"bitter fruit," or that it was the "preserve of missionaries who did not
belong to his own group," or that "his silence probably conceals some kind
of bitterness" hardly seems plausible. One last reason was suggested:

Is it the result of a disappointment suffered by himself or by some-

body close to him? It is clear in any case that the evangelization

of Samaria has encountered unforeseen difficulties (Simon Magus: cf.

Acts 8:9-13, 18-24) and provoked certain rivalries amogg Christian

missionaries (Acts 8.5-8, 12, 14-17, 25; John 4.37-8).

J. Schreiber, two years earlier, had proposed similar ideas about

58
Mark's purpose in an article, "The Christology of Mark's Gospel" (1961).

 

551bid., p. 252.

56
Ibid., p. 250. Footnote #3.

57 . . . .' . ’ .
Ibid. POSSible alternatives W111 be given to Trocme's query in

the next chapter.

58J. Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums," Zeitschrift
fur Theologie und Kirche 58 (1961) 154-83.

 

183

Schreiber was the first to develop the idea of two competing Christologies
in Mark: one of a gnostic Redeemer belonging to Hellenistic theology, and
the other of the "divine-man" miracle-worker of whom Mark uses the title,
"Son of God" (Mark 15:39). Mark played down the Jewish-Christian church
and denigrated Peter and the other apostles for their blindness in regards
to the mission to the Gentiles. Thus, the extolling of the Galilean mission
was an exhortation for the Christian to follow his Lord through the pattern
of humiliation-exaltation (Phil 2:6-11), the example of a "divine-man"
experience.

Of a much more conservative and traditional approach was C. E. B.

Cranfield's article on "The Gospel of Mark" in the Interpreter's Dictionary

 

, 59 . . .
of the Bible (1962). He took the traditional line that the author was

 

John Mark who wrote from Rome c.65-67 A.D. for Gentiles. Cranfield's concept
of the theology of Mark turned on his use or non-use of the word Kurios
(Lord). "The whole gospel presupposes the early church's faith that Jesus

is Lord (of. Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5, etc.)--it would never have

been written if Mark had not shared this faith."6O Cranfield argued that

Mark considered Jesus to be the divine pre-existent Son of God (i.e. according
to John's Gospell), yet who humbled himself to become a man with the result
that he deliberately "hid" his Lordship. Then after the humiliating death

on a cross and burial, he was exalted as the living Lord over the Church

and was expected to return in order to manifest the kingdom. Cranfield

 

59 . . .
C. E. B. Cranfield, "Gospel of Mark," The Interpreter's Dictionary

of the Bible ed. George A. Buttrick, Vol. 3, K-Q (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1962). pp. 267-77.

60
Ibid.. PP. 272-73.

 

 

184

outlined his Markan Christology in this manner: (1) The Lord who "was
rich," (2) The Lord who "became poor," (3) The Lord who was exalted, and
. . 61
(4) The Lord who is coming.
. . . . 62 . . .

In this same period (1963) Dennis E. Nineham stressed his opinion
that Mark's material "bears all the signs of having been community tradition
and cannot therefore be derived directly from St. Peter or any other eye-

. 63 . . . . . . .
WltneSS." In line With form and redaction critiCism Nineham wrote:

The older view that the Gospels were attempted biographies of Jesus,

as adequate as the education of the Evangelists and the circumstances

of the time would allow, has given place to the recognition that each
of them was produced to meet some specific practical and religious
needs in the church of its origin, and that it is those needs which
have very largely controlled each Evangelist's choice, arrgggement,
and presentation of material and distribution of emphasis.

Using the same approach Eduard Schweizer thought that Mark was primarily
criticizing inadequate views of Jesus which were prevalent in the mid-first

65 . . . . . .
century A.D. First, the JeWish-Christian community Viewed Jesus as no
more than an outstanding teacher. Mark wrote to show that one must go beyond
the teachings of Jesus to understand who he really was. Second, there were
Hellenistic or Gentile Churches such as Corinth who ignored Jesus' humanity

and overemphasized the resurrection and the heavenly Christ to the point of

developing a serious heresy (proto—gnostic type). Finally, there were those

 

6
lIbido I pp. 273-75.

2 . . .
Dennis E. Nineham, The Gospel of Mark: The Pelican New Testament
Commentaries (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963).

6
3Ibid., p. 27.

64Ibid., p. 29.

 

 

5 . .
Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, trans. Donald H.
Madwig (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1967).

 

185

(probably in Syria) who put the emphasis on Jesus' mighty deeds, one who

incarnated divine power. Through magic this "divine man" (theios aner)

 

. . . . . 66
aroused his audiences to an enthuSiastic follow1ng.

Schweizer believed that Mark wrote his unique "gospel" to counter-act
the false-views men possessed of Jesus; i.e., a Christological corrective!
By looking at the structure of Mark as a whole, Schweizer summarized three
areas where most scholars would agree: (1) Jesus was rejected by men all
through Mark's Gospel. (2) Man was called to follow Jesus. (3) Jesus cannot

. 67 . . ...
be understood Without the cross. Why the "meSSianic secret in Mark?
Schweizer wrote:

Mark's answer is that the time for proclamation has not come, since

the secret of Jesus will become really apparent only on the cross,

and one must follow him 188the way of the cross to be able to really

understand it (see 8:34).

Roy A. Harrisville gave credit to Bultmann for his "suggestion that
Mark's Gospel is a combination of Hellenistic preaching with the tradition
of the story of Jesus," and to Marxsen for his "attention upon the theology

69 . u ' fl '
of Mark." HarriSVille saw Mark 5 Gospel as a "sermon which used a
death-motif throughout:

Mark's Gospel at the outset strikes the death-note, quietly, even

so indistinctly, but with each succeeding chapter adds a bit of

volume until all the fury of hell breaks loo in that agonizing cry:
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

 

66 ,
Ibid., pp. 380—86.

’

67Kealy, op. cit., p. 190.

8 . .
Schweizer, op. Cit., p. 56.

69Roy A. Harrisville, The Miracle of Mark (Minneapolis: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1967), p. 7.

 

7
OIbid., pp. 16-17.

186
In spite of his redaction critical approach, Harrisville accepted John Mark
as the author who wrote sometime between 63 and 70 A.D. for a Roman audience.
In 1968, T. J. Weeden in an article, "The Heresy That Necessitated
Mark's Gospel," attempted to think like a first century reader and to be
. . . . . 71
guided by the same prinCiples and procedures of literary analySis. Later,
he expanded and refined his dissertation and presented a book with an extremely

. . . . . . . 72
creative approach to Mark's interpretation: Mark--Traditions in Conflict.

 

He used H. I. Marrou's A History of Education in Antiquity as a basis for

 

his theory that the first-century Hellenist would have used characters in
the story to dramatize his viewpoint. The conflict between Jesus and his
disciples represents the key to Mark's interpretation according to Weeden.

The disciples were viewing Jesus as a theios aner (divine man) and their

 

activity and requests reflected the pattern of theois aner discipleship.

 

In rejection of this attitude, Jesus constantly presented the suffering
servant Christology and discipleship which represented Mark's viewpoint.
His enemies were represented by the non-understanding disciples.

The delay of the parousia had led to the appearance of a group of
"illuminati", of spirit-filled "divine men" (13:6, 22; Mt. 7:21-23;

2 Cor. 11:13-15; Acts 8:9ff.; 19:13-16) who claimed to be Jesus
figures in the churches and to have esoteric knowledge of Jesus as

a "divine man" and to be his personal envoys on earth. The community
is full of eschatological excitement awaiting impatiently the return
of Jesus (13:30). Mark, who is hostile to the Twelve, presents them
as false teachers. He contrasts the true picture of Jesus the
Suffering Servant with the false picture of the triumphalistic wonder-
worker in chapters 1-8.

 

71 .
Kealy, op. Cit., pp. 193-94.

72 . .
Theodore J. Weeden, Mark--Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971).

 

7 .
3Kealy, op. Cit., p. 194.

187

In those chapters Weeden followed Johannes Schreiber--"that the interest
in narrative and collecting epiphany stories began in a Christian circle

which sought to establish Jesus as a theios aner for missionary and cultic

 

interests in the Hellenistic world."74 Schreiber had contended that it was
not unlikely that the Stephen circle (the Seven) may have initiated the new
Christian kerygma.

The approach that Mark took to combat this new heresy was to use the
"historical Jesus!" "That is, he stages the Christological debate of his
community in a 'historical' drama in which Jesus serves as a surrogate for
Mark and the disciples serve as surrogates for Mark's opponents."75 In
three stages the drama was developed: the disciples were "unperceptive"
(1:16-8:26) in the first stage; in the second, they had many "misconceptions"
(8:27—14:9); and finally, they totally "rejected" Jesus (14:10-72).76 Once
this drama has been unfolded Mark's conclusion was simply a presentation of
Jesus alone before Pilate and the Passion scenes.

Weeden attributed Mark's "success" to the way he used his opponent's

own tradition (the miracle stories, theios aner concepts) against them.

 

But by so doing, Mark weakened his own position and thereby experienced at
u . . . 77 _ .
best a limited Victory." In a reView of Weeden's book, Vernon K. Robbins

observed:

 

7
4Weeden, op. cit., p. 160. Note #1.
75

Ibid., p. 163.
76

Ibid.

77
Ibid., p. 168.

188

If Weeden's hypothesis about the origin of Mark wins the day within
NT scholarship, then a new era has been launched in Marcan inter-
pretation. As Wrede's View of the Messianic Secret has pervaded
seventy years of Marcan interpretation, so Weeden's View of the
Messianic Misunderstanding could tage center stage as the hermen-
eutical key to the origin of Mark.

But Weeden's hypothesis did not win the day, for it has been the subject
7
of debate and critical review in spite of a few who followed his thinking.

Sean Kealy used G. Minette de Tillesse's Le secret Messianique dans

 

l'evangile de Marc (1968), a French study on the messianic secret in Mark,

 

to conclude this section. Kealy related how Tillesse advocated that "the
messianic secret in Mark plays the same role that the developed account
of the temptation scene plays in Matthew and Luke."80 Jesus chose the way
of humiliation and suffering in order to save mankind. The "messianic secret"
is the way in which he accomplished his task, not his messiahship. Yet,
his glorious sonship could not be hidden for those who knew (demons) and
for those who were healed. This book is only one of many of a long line
from Wrede's original study on the "messianic secret."

The last section, somewhat arbitrarily called "Theological" Mark
(1969 to Present), was chosen by Kealy because in 1969 the Catholic church
developed a series of lectionaries that gave Mark's gospel an equal place

81
with the other three gospels. He considered it "Mark Restored: 1969 Onward."

 

8Vernon K. Robbins, review of Mark-Traditions in Conflict by Theodore
J. Weeden, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971, in Journal of Biblical Literature
91 (Sept. 1972) 417.

 

 

For a review of the Theios Aner controversy and a well-stated corrective
of Weeden's thesis, see Carl H. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism:
A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, 1977). Holladay's work deals mainly with the Theios
Aner concept in Hellenistic-Jewish literature.

 

 

80Kealy, op. cit., p. 197.

81,
Ibid., p. 198.

189

Theological Studies and The Gospel of Mark

 

In 1969, K. G. Reploh wrote Teacher of the Community the thesis of

 

which was that Mark's goal was not to give a historical account of Jesus'
life, but rather to teach his own Christian community how to live the Christian
life through the Jesus traditions. Mark 1:14-8:26 taught them the misunder—
standings the Christian community had while 8:27-10:52 led them into true
discipleship. Throughout the 1970's scholars would attempt to discover the
social setting of the gospel and its particular message for that community,
each one a variation of the other.

A unique interpretation of Mark in terms of its social setting can be
found in the emphasis on the Eucharist by Quentin Quesnell who wrote Th3
Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through Exegesis of Mark 6:52
(1969). The text of Mark 6:52, "For they did not understand about the loaves,
but their hearts were hardened" became for Quesnell the transition in the
literary development of the narrative of Mark. The Eucharist became the
essence of Christianity. It meant death and resurrection with Christ, the
union of all men in one Body, his abiding presence. "Presumably Quesnell
meant that 'the event' is the death of Jesus, and 'the reality' is the
Eucharist which furnished the meaning of the death."82

In 1972, Ralph P. Martin rendered students of Marcan studies a favor
by surveying and summarizing the main contributions of major scholarly works

on Mark from Augustine to the present (1972). Martin's review and criticisms

were not without his own biases. His own interpretation of Mark was developed

 

2 .
Howard Clark Kee, "Mark's Gospel in Recent Research," Interpretation
32 (Oct. 1978) 356-57.

 

190

from the ideas of E. Schweizer, T. J. Weeden and S. Schulz. The evangelist-

theologian Mark sought to combat a spiritual, gnostic Christ or Jesus as a

“divine man" by his "innovative joining of a Jesus-tradition and a Passion

narrative, of the twin elements which made up the Pauline preaching. These
. . . "83 .

are the humiliation and enthronement of the church's Lord. Taking a more

traditional View of Mark's purpose Martin wrote:

It is our theorem that Mark wrote his gospel-book as a theological
and practical exercise related to a specific and pressing need. In
order to offset what he believed to be a dangerous trend in the church
of his day he wished to set out the character of Jesus' life, death,
and triumph with a View of disgfilling the doubt that he was truly
human as well as fully divine.

M. Robert Mansfield, in a book review, criticized Martin's views in
three areas: (1) Mark's Leitmotiv as the consistent rejection of signs and
the appeal to faith in order to recognize the true character of Jesus was
"too bold, overstepping the evidence." (2) "The close association between
the Pauline churches and the Marcan Sitz im_Leben is too readily assumed
without adequate analysis and defense." (3) His methodology was sometimes
inconsistent, at times concerned with Mark's theology but at many points
"engrossed in the issue of determining the attitude or ipsissima vox of

. . "85
the historical Jesus.

Recent papyri discoveries regarding the gospel of Mark may alter

what has been theorized about its date. Jose' O'Callaghan, a papyrologist

of the Biblical Institute in Rome, caused great excitement about a possible

 

83Ralph P. Martin, Mark Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1972), p. 161.

84Ibid., p. 163.

85 . . .
M. Robert Mansfield, reView of Mark Evangelist and Theologian by
Ralph P. Martin, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972, in Journal of Biblical Liter-
ature 94 (Mar. 1975) 136.

 

 

 

191

discovery of two small fragments of the gospel of Mark, 6:52-53 (7Q5) and
4:28 (7Q6, 1). The full information has been published as a supplement to

the Journal of Biblical Literature.86 Other scholars besides O'Callaghan

 

dated the papyri c.50 A.D. If the fragments are genuine copies of Mark's
gospel, it would radically change New Testament dating, Mark in particular.
But since there is a possible time span of twenty-five years for the dating
process, the traditional and modern dates for Mark (c.64-75 A.D.) were not
necessarily affected. Also, the evidence is still tenuous and inconclusive
but the possibilities from Qumran caves remain exciting. For the most part
scholars have taken a wait-and-see position on this "discovery."

Morton Smith discovered at the Monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem
a document written by Clement of Alexandria.87 In the writing was reference
to " a secret gospel" by Mark. Ultimately, Smith interpreted his "find" as
part of an expanded version of canonical Mark written by a secret society
that gathered for nocturnal baptisms, including hints of homosexual prac-
tices.88 Smith's two highly idiosyncratic and conjectural books have been

reviewed and criticized in detail. Quesnell debated with Smith through

 

86 . .
Jose O'Callaghan, "New Testament Papyri in Qumran Cave 7?" and Carlo

M. Martini, "Notes on the Papyri of Qumran 7," Supplement to JBL 91, (1972)
No. 2.

87
Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1973)
and Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973).

 

88
Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1973),
pp. 113-14.

 

192

appropriate articles, but most scholars today have refused to respond to
. . 89
Smith's theories.

Although Norman Perrin died in 1976 before finishing his commentary
on Mark, he has probably contributed more to Marcan studies than anyone else
on the American scene, especially through his students who continue to write.
Perrin continued the Christological debate in Mark and developed his ideas
from T. J. Weeden who acted as a "catalyst" for his thoughts: "A major
aspect of the Markan purpose is Christological: he is concerned with
correcting a false Christology prevalent in his church and to teach both

. . . . . . . "90
a true Christology and its consequences for Christian disc1pleship.

It is clear to Perrin that Mark addressed his own Church through the
tradition about Jesus and his disciples. In light of Peter's confessions
(three) in Mark (8:27-10:45), Perrin wrote:

In these interpretations of Peter's confession, Mark is presenting

his own passion-oriented Christology, using Son of Man, and then

drawing out its consequences for Christian discipleship: in the

first, the necessary preparedness Jesus exhibited; in the second

the necessity of servanthood; in the third, the climactic presenta-
tion of servanthood culminating in the ransom saying. At no point

 

89
See Q. Quesnell's article, "The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of

Evidence," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975) 48-67; Morton Smith,
"On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement," §§Q_38 (1976)
200-203. See also for a sidelight on the issue, Raymond E. Brown, "The
Relation of 'The Secret Gospel of Mark' To the Fourth Gospel," The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 36:4 (Oct. 1974) 466-85. For an excellent review and
more complete bibliography see Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplementary Volume, s.v. "Secret Gospel of Mark."

 

 

ONorman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 110. See also his What is
Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969) for a clear
explanation of redaction criticism and its application to Mark.

 

193

in the Gospel, except for the discourse in chapte 13, is Mark so

clearly addressing and exhorting his own readers.

Perrin noted in Mark that every major section of the gospel ended with
a note looking toward the passion (3:6; 6:6; 8:21; 10:45; 12:44) while the
central section 8:27-10:45 sought to interpret the passion. He saw geograph-
ical references as both symbolic and a concern for the Gentile mission (i.e.
Galilee). While Perrin admitted there was no consensus among scholars as
to Mark's purpose in writing, he thought there was consensus that the evangelist
writing shortly before or after 70 A.D. (The Fall of Jerusalem) was addressing
Christians caught up in the apocalyptic events of that period in order to
help them endure their trials until the imminent return of the Son of Man.
Perrin named five themes with which Mark was concerned: the messianic secret,
Christology, discipleship, Galilee, and eschatology.92

Some of Perrin's students have contributed greatly to Marcan studies.

John R. Donahue wrote Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel

 

of Mark (1973), a work which continued Perrin's View that Mark employed the
title Son of Man to interpret properly the title, "Son of God." Donahue
explained that the title "Son of God," used in the first half of Mark, was

a false, Hellenistic theios-aner Christology (3:11; 5:7), which could not

 

be applied to Jesus until at his trial. The Son of God was seen as Jesus,

Son of Man, who must suffer, die, and return in glory.

 

1 . . . . .
Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 111.

 

2

Norman Perrin, "The Gospel of Mark," The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, gen. ed. Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon,
1976), p. 572b.

 

 

194

Mark's purpose was to establish an ideal paradigm of trial behavior

and also a theological rationale for Christians who were facing

trials (13:9ff.) as a result of the Jewish wars in the late 60's.

His problems caused by messianic pretenders and a false eschatology

were the result of Zealot activity in Jerusalem. He intercalated

the trial within the denial scene 53 warn his Christians against

faltering during trial like Peter.

Apparently Donahue has shifted his position on the Christology of
Mark, for in a recent essay he followed Philipp Vielhauer (1964) and Joseph
Fitzmyer (1974) by asserting that Mark's Christology must be seen in the light

. . . 94 .
of JeWish royal meSSianism. Another student of Perrin, Donald Juel, wrote
his Yale dissertation from the same perspective and thus strengthened the
shift by Donahue.95

Another student of Perrin to make a major contribution to Marcan

studies, as well as to honor his master teacher through the editing of The

Passion in Mark,96 was Werner H. Kelber who published his book, The Kingdom

 

in Mark (1974),97 based on his doctoral dissertation at the Divinity School
of the University of Chicago. Kelber traced the key ideas of past scholars
who contributed to his book:

Among the scholars, past and present, who guided my thinking in

fundamental ways, the following deserve Special mention: Ernst
Lohmeyer who discovered the significance of Galilee in Mark; Robert

 

93 .
Kealy, op. Cit., p. 212.
94 . .
John R. Donahue, S. J., "Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology,"
The Passion of Mark, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976). pp. 72-79.

5 . . . . . '
Donald Juel, MeSSiah and Temple, SBL Dissertation Series, 31 (Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, 1977).

 

96Werner H. Kelber, ed., The Passion in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976). Most of the contributors were students of Norman Perrin, and
the work is in essence a tribute to Perrin. See a balanced review by Howard
Clark Kee, Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (Mar. 1978) 143-44.

 

 

7
Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1974). ‘

195

H. Lightfoot who insisted on the relevance of space and place in the
gospels; Willi Marxsen who pioneered the redaction-critical exegesis
of the oldest gospel; Theodore J. Weeden who brought the discipleship
phenomenon in Mark into focus; Rudolf Pesch who contributed a magis-
terial work on chapter 13; Norman Perrin who dugéng the last decade
has prepared the ground for a theology of Mark.

Kelber concentrated on Perrin's views of Mark's historical situation
and its eschatological meaning. It was Kelber's opinion that Mark wrote in
Galilee after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The story of Mark
"is not an historical account of the life of Jesus, but the mythological

. . . . . . "99
reconstruction of a critical moment of Christian history. The new place
for the kingdom of God was Galilee where the kingdom was to be initiated by
Jesus' parousia. But due to the women's failure to report this to the
disciples (Mark 16:8), they failed to leave Jerusalem. Thus, they forfeited
their opportunity to enter the kingdom. Now it is up to the Jerusalem
Christians (represented by the disciples) to discern the new time and new
place of the kingdom; i.e., they are to leave Jerusalem and its destruction
(the new time) and flee to Galilee (the new place) in order to establish
the Gentile mission. Mark's gospel "furnishes the new spatiotemporal
universe in which one can breathe again, relate and orient oneself, find
. . . "100 . . . . . .
identity, and undertake new action. It is a new beginning for Christianity
outside the now judged city of Jerusalem with a new orientation to the king-

dom of God, Jesus, and discipleship. Whereas Weeden saw Mark combatting a

false Christology. Kelber saw him combatting a false eschatology.

 

98
Ibid., p. xi.
9
9Ibid., p. 147.
100

Ibid., p. 144.

196

Jack Dean Kingsbury made a note of reservation about Kelber's thesis:
"Because of the methodological difficulties inherent in any attempt to recon-
struct the historical situation in which Mark's Gospel arose, Kelber's thesis

. . . "l
necessarily remains tentative.

When Dibelius and Bultmann considered Mark's gospel as "kerygmatic
history," Bultmann, followed by Marxsen, Perrin and his disciples, emphasized
the kerygmatic dimension of the gospel while minimizing its historical
value. This led to a great diversity of ideas relating to Marcan theology.
But in the last decade some scholars have begun to approach Mark with Dibelius'
emphasis on its historical aspects. Such scholars as Jurgen, Roloff, Hejne

. . . . 102
Simonsen, Keikki Raisanen and Rudolph Pesch would argue that Mark was a
"conservative redactor" who interpreted his material by the way he organized
it in his gospel.

And whereas Marxsen admits to no intention on the part of Mark to

speak of the "time of Jesus", this is, in fact, what was uppermost

in his mind. Mark's purpose was not to write something like a

sermon, but to tell the Christians of his church about the "time

of Jesus". For them, the time of Jesus was a vital significance, for

it was foundational for their Christian faith and life. Consequently,

Mark, by narrating the story of the earthly ministry of Jesus, was
informing his church of its roots in the age of Jesus. Except perhaps

 

lKingsbury, op. cit., p. 103.
102 u . .

Jurgen, Roloff, "Das Markusevangelium als Geschichtsdarstellung,"
Evangelische Theologie 29 (1969) 73-93; Hejne Simonsen, "Zur Frage der
grundlegenden Problematik in form-und redaktions - geschichtlicher
Evangelienforschung", Studia theologia 27 (1972) 1-23; Heikki Raisanen,

Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium, Schriften der Finnischen Exe-
getischen Gesellschift, 28, (Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft,
1976); Rudolph Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols, Herders theologischer
Kommentor Zum Neven Testament, 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976).

 

197

for chapter thirteen, seemingly the one place in the Gospel where

the Marcan church is addressed directly, it is only in this "indirect

manner" that 183k tells these Christians of their faith and mission

in the world.
Mark's aim, according to Pesch, was to arrange his traditional materials in
such a way as to instruct the church in its gospel foundations (the ministry
of Jesus) and its mission to the world (the ministry of the Church). The
European scholars' approach seems to be a much more conservative stance than
their counterparts in this country. In fact, it seems to be a reaction against

. . . . . . 104
Marxsen's influence of a "de-historiCiZing hermeneutic."

In this same time period, a conservative scholar, William L. Lane,
. . . . . . . . . 105
acknowledged the contributions of redaction critiCism initiated by Marxsen.
. . 106

He, however, pOinted out its weakness and proceeded to follow very much
the same line of arguments for authorship, date, purpose, etc. as Taylor's
classic commentary.

Paul J. Achtemeier's commentary was a good example of how a writer
has taken contemporary scholarship on Marcan studies and presented it in

. 107

such a form as to be useable for pastors in the local church. He covered

Mark's intention, method of creating a narrative, structure, Christology,

Jesus as preacher and teacher, miracle worker, the passion, disciples, and

 

103 .
Kingsbury, op. Cit., p. 104.

104 . . .
William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974» p. 6.

105Ibid.

10
6Ibid., pp. 6-7.

107 . . .
Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark, Proclamation Commentaries, ed. Gerhard

Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

 

 

198

Jesus' parousia. In regard to the literary problems of Mark, Achtemeier
remained “tentative" concerning authorship, date and origin. According to
Achtemeier Mark's emphasis for Christians of his day was "faith."

In a new direction, Howard Clark Kee wrote a commentary that took up
the suggestion which Dibelius made but never developed: the social setting

of the gospel.108 Kee's goal was "to employ a social-cultural—historical

109
method in New Testament study," and to do so by using the Gospel of Mark.

Using the Dead Sea writings as an analogy to the Gospel of Mark, Kee viewed
the gospel as a document for a self-conscious community.

In both there are esoteric interpretations of the Jewish scriptures,
which point to the coming of the founder of the community of the
New Covenant and promise that beyond his suffering and death lies
divine vindication. There are regulations for the on-going life of
the community, as in the Dead Sea Scroll of the Rule. There are
oblique references to worldly powers as well as to the demonic
powers and the struggle with them in which the community will be
involved. These conflicts are depicted in the War Scroll and the
biblical commentaries at Qumran on the one hand, and in Mark 13 on
the other. What we have in Mllb' therefore, is a foundation document
for an apocalyptic community.

Kee rejected Mark's gospel as being an aretalogy,lll even though he

admitted it may have been influenced by Hellenistic culture. Rather, Kee

 

Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's
Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977).

109Ibid., p. ix.

110
Kee, op. cit., "Recent Research," pp. 365-66.

Morton Smith defined "aretalogy" as "a miracle story or a collection
of miracle stories and that the primary use of such collections was praise of
and propaganda for the deity supposed to have done the deeds." See M. Smith,
"Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and
Jesus," Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (June 1971) 176. This idea was
expanded to include the Gospel of Mark (1-10) as an aretalogical gospel. The

199

. . . 112
suggested, the major influence upon Mark was the OT Book of Daniel.

Mark's gospel is a new genre according to Kee which shared affinities with
Jewish apocalyptic literature. Kee described Mark's community as:

. . a community which is influenced both by the Jewish—Hasidic-
Essene-apocalyptic tradition, with its belief in cosmic conflict about
to be resolved by divine intervention and the Vindication of the faith-
ful elect, and the cynic-Stoic style of gaining adherents by itinerant
preaching, healing, and exorcisms from Village to village, existing
on the hospitality that the local tradition offered.

Thus "Mark was produced by an apocalyptic community, probably in the years
. . "114 . .
just prior to the fall of Jerusalem. He wrote in Greek for Septuagint
users and shaped the tradition to reveal Jesus as God's final plan of the
ages, the triumphant Son of Man who would vindicate the evil and stress in
the world. Kee suggested that Mark was written in southern Syria for
itinerant charismatics who radically followed the precepts of their Lord.

Kee presented his work as "a holistic approach"115 and encouraged others

to do the same.

 

first half of Mark "would be understandable as an expansion and Judaizing
reinterpretation of this primitive aretalogy" (p. 197). (See also M. Hadas
and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods, New York, 1965). Isser, on the other hand,
wrote, "The creators of the Jesus aretalogy used as their principal model
the preexistent and already Judaized Moses aretalogy; i.e., Jesus became the
miracle-working, authority-bearing, divine man: the prophet like Moses,"
The Dositheans, p. 156. '

 

 

 

2
ll Kee, op. cit., Community of the New Age, p. 45.
1
13Ibid., p. 105.
l 4
1 Ibid., p. 176.
115

Ibid., p. 177.

200

Conclusion

 

One can only marvel at how far Marcan studies have traveled from
"simple" Mark of the early church fathers to the "theological" Mark of
today. At present Marcan studies seem to be continuing at an unrelenting
pace. H. C. Kee has listed four areas in which the literary analyses of
Mark is presently continuing to provide insights to the aims of Mark:

(1) studies of the literary relationships among the Gospels (new
approaches to the old synoptic problem); (2) attempts to identify
the literary genre or model used by Mark; (3) efforts to employ
contemporary literary criticism-~especially in relation to narra-
tive--inli8terpreting Mark; (4) detailed study of component elements
0 Mar .

The first area is more like a battle. Hans-Herbert Stoldt on the
German front revitalized the Griesbach theory that Mark came after Luke as

117 . . .
well as after Matthew. William R. Farmer on the American front continued

‘ . 11
the debate with his espousal of the Griesbach theory with modification. 8

Farmer admitted that "Griesbach redivivus" has met with negative reaction

. . . . . 119
in the United States but in Europe the reaction was more cautious. The

debate and studies continue.120

 

116 .
Kee, op. Cit., "Recent Research," pp. 360-61.

117Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis,
trans. and ed. Donald L. Niewyk (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press,
1980). See especially Pierson Parker, "A Second Look at the Gospel Before
Mark," Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (Sept. 1981) 389-413 where he
admits that he is "unsettled" by Griesbach's hypothesis and "by its reflec-
tions in the work of Buchanan, Farmer, Longstaff, Orchard, and Stoldt" (p. 393).

118 . .
Farmer, op. Cit., Synoptic Problem.

119William R. Farmer, "Modern Developments of Griesbach's Hypothesis,"
New Testament Studies 23 (Apr. 1977) 276. For a good review of this continuing
debate see pp. 275-95 of the above article. Also see Bernard Orchard and
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, ed., J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text-critical
studies 1776-1976 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 . .
Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark: The Griesbach Solution to

 

201

The second area is the literary model Mark may have been using. Perrin
listed three models used by scholars: (l) aretalogy (Loester and Robinson),
(2) passion narrative (Marxsen and Burkill), and (3) apocalyptic (Kee and

. . . 2 . . .
Perrin in different ways).1 1 C. H. Talbert in his What is a Gospel? The

 

Genre of the Canonical Gospels proposed biography as a mode. "Much less

likely is the proposal of D. 0. Via that Mark is patterned after Hellenistic
122 . . .

comedy." Kee rejected Via's use of structuralism because the structure

of Mark was located in the Evangelist's mind--a place not available for

analysis! The interpretations by the French structuralists, such as Jean

Starobinski on the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5, is also rejected by Kee.
Like the existential hermeneutics of the sixties, one can expect
that this new psycho-allegorization will flourish in some quarters,
but its anti—historical stance encourages intellectual irresponsibility
and its use of the text as a point of departure belies the announced
aim oflfige method's proponents: to direct attention to the text
alone.

The third area is a further development of redaction criticism. In

order to investigate the editing and use of traditional materials by the

 

the Synoptic Question (Manchester: Koinonia, 1976); Thomas R. W. Longstaff,
Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study In the Synoptic Problem, SBL
Dissertation Series 28 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977); John M.
Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1978). These references are not meant to be complete or exhaustive but
only suggestive of the continuing study of the problem.

 

 

121

Perrin, op. cit., IDB, Supplement, p. 572.
122 _

Kee, op. Clt., "Recent Research," p. 362.
123

Ibid., p. 363. See for another example of the structuralist approach
Jean Callous, "Toward a Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark," Perspec-
tives of Mark's Gospel, Semeia 16, ed. Norman R. Petersen (Missoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 133-65.

 

202

evangelist (redaction criticism), literary criticism has come to the fore
in order to "isolate pre-Markan material in the text of the gOSpel and then
, 124 .
to observe how it has been redacted." The study of its structure and
how the various parts of the text relate to the themes of the author help
to better interpret the book as a whole. Tannehill's explorations in this
. . 12

field are good examples of this approach.

The fourth area is concentration on the component elements that make

/

up Mark's Gospel. Etienne Trocme's investigations in this area (already
reviewed in this chapter) are in stark contrast to Werner Kelber's analysis

in his forthcoming book, The Making of Mark. Kee's review of Kelber's work

 

revealed the reason for Mark's Gospel as a written gospel:
Kelber proposes that by reproducing the Jesus tradition in written
form, Mark has sought to bring to an end the free-wheeling trans-
mission of the Jesus tradition by wandering prophets, who place
their claims on at least as loftly a level as that of Jesus: the
central opponents whom Mark is attacking are the false prophets agg6
false Christs of Mark 13:5, 21-23 with their wild pronouncements.
When one surveys the latest journal articles for Marcan studies, one

will find a myriad of detailed theological interpretations of Mark. The

interesting point to make is that both conservative and more critical views

of Mark place the gospel in the milieu of the Jewish War with Rome (c.66-70

 

A.D.). Debate will continue on the "historical" questions of its contents.
124 . .
Perrin, op. Cit., IDB, Supplement, p. 572a.
125

See Robert C. Tannehill, "The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christ-
ology," Perspectives on Mark's Gospel, Semeia 16, ed. Norman R. Petersen
(Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 57-95 and "The Disciples in
Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," Journal of Religion 57 (1977)
386-405.

126
Kee, op. cit., "Recent Research," p. 365.

 

203

But almost all are certain that Mark established a new model in writing his
gospel. Because no one scholarly school or person commands the field, no

one can authoritatively say, "This is the true meaning of Mark!"

CHAPTER 5: MARK AND THE SAMARITANS

The relating of Samaritan studies to the Gospel of Mark is a new
idea. Tradition of many years is against these two areas of study having
anything to do with each other. The Gospel of Mark according to patristic
tradition is a product of Mark's (John Mark?) recounting of Peter's gospel
stories about Jesus, and the recipients are Romans (1 Pet 5:13). The date
is usually placed somewhere between 65 and 70 A.D. Most conservative commen-
tators have followed the patristic tradition or similar lines of thought.1
There are scholars who by the employment of form and redaction criticism
consider patristic traditions non-Viable. The new interpretation was begun
by Willi Marxsen. His idea that Mark is a summons to Jerusalem Christians to
flee to Galilee, where the expected parousia of the risen Lord was imminent,
has had its share of criticism. But Marxsen opened the door to a host of
new theologians who used redaction criticism to search for Mark's purpose

or theological designs as an author of a gospel. Because Marcan studies

 

l . . .
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Cambridge

Greek Testament Commentary, gen. ed., C. F. D. Moule (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1959), pp. 3-9; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to

St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959), pp. 26-32; A. M. Hunter, The Gospel
According to St. Mark (London: SCM Press, 1949), pp. 16-18; R. A. Cole,

The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,
gen. ed., R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1961). pp. 28-50;
William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark: The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1956, 2nd ed.), PP. xiii-xxi; William L. Lane,

The Gggpel According to Mark: The New International Commentarygon the New
Testamegg, gen. ed., F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974),
pp. 7-25; William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark: New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Hook Ho:se, 1975). PP. 3-16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

204

205

is in a state of extreme flux, one recent commentator on Mark's Gospel wrote:
"It is a fair deduction that in our present state of knowledge it is proving
virtually impossible to fix precisely the historical locale and circumstances
within which Mark carried through his task."2 The most this commentator will
say is that

Mark's Gospel reflects a community undergoing considerable duress,

most probably from incipient persecution (8:34ff.; 8:38; 10:30;

13:8, 10), and agitated by great theological turbulence, particularly

over the question of the true nature of Jesus' authority.
Any statement about the gospel of Mark, then, must be subject to scrutiny.
The possibility that Samaritanism is related to Mark must be approached with
caution.

John Bowman's statement that Mark disregarded the Samaritans4 seems
to dismiss such a possibility. His statement rests on the fact that there
are no direct references to Samaritans (or Samaria) in the Gospel of Mark.
This first criterion (of "direct references"), though important, does not
necessarily preclude the possibility that the relationship exists. It is
possible that certain words do not appear in the text, but that the idea
is expressed through different words or perspectives. One example is 1 Peter.
The word "church" is not used in the epistle. But who would argue that the

epistle is not referring to the church throughout? Primarily it uses Old

Testament terminology in reference to the church. So the principle must

 

2 .

Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark: The New Century Bible Commentary,
gen. eds., Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1981 ed.), p. 44.

 

3Ibid., pp. 54-55.

4
John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, trans. Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975), p. 57.

 

206

stand that simply the absence of a particular word does not prevent the
idea from being a focal point of discussion, either with different terminol-
ogy or from an entirely different perspective.

Criteria already established by various scholars as discussed in
chapter three will now be employed to determine if indeed "the Samaritan

problem" can be found in Mark.

Geographical Place-names/John the Baptist

 

If it can be demonstrated that John the Baptist had close associations
with Samaria, it can be contended that Mark's emphasis of the role of John
in his Gospel would at least disprove the suggestions that he was either
anti-Samaritan or apathetic toward them. John the Baptist's associations
with Samaria: i.e., Salim and neighborhood, are therefore very important.
They can be proposed for two reasons. The first consists of the criteria
of geographical locations. In John 3:23-24 it is reported that John baptized
at Aenon near Salim: "John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because
there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John
had not yet been put in prison" (RSV). This indicated that John's ministry
of baptizing occurred before Jesus actually began his ministry (Mark 1:14a).
Most Bible atlases place Aenon and Salim just south of Scythopolis (Beth-
Shean): "John's activity was concentrated in the Jordan valley, either at
Bethabara at the fords of the Jordan near Jericho, or higher up the river

at Aenon near Salim, south of Scythopolis (Beth-Shean)."5 This description

 

5
Johanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas,
revised edition (New York: Macmillan, 1977), p. 143.

 

207

located the cities eight miles south of the pagan city of Scythopolis which
was part of the Decapolis.

W. F. Albright, long ago, questioned this tradition by asking why
John had to go north into a pagan area to baptize Jews. The traditional
site does not make sense. Albright wrote:

The only Salim (20,181.11) of which we know from other sources is the
ancient town of the name, modern Salim, east of Nablus. This town is
referred to (Gen. 33, 18) as existing in the time of the patriarchs,
again (Jer. 41, 5) in the time of Jeremiah, later in Judith, and
elsewhere. . . . Now Conder pointed out long ago that Aenon near Salim
must be modern 'Ainun, with identically the same name, nearly eight
miles northeast of Salim. It is true that the modern site has no
water, but the name alone shows that the ancient Village of this name
lay nearer the head of the Wadi Far'ah, now three miles away, either
at Hirbet es—Smeit, or at Tammun. Wadi-Far'ah is a perennial stream,
with five springs at its source, and in ancient times pools where
immersion could be conveniently practiced. In fact, it is the nearest
suitable place of baptism to Neapolis, the Samaritan centre. There
can be little doubt that John preached to the Samaritans as well as
to the Jews proper; otherwise it would be very hard to explain how
his name came to be associated with that of the Samaritan Dositheus.
Moreover, there is surely some nucleus of truth in the persistent
tradition which places his burial-place at Sabaste (Samaria). Here,
therefore, we have a clear case in which the Gospel of John is more
accurate in its topographical documentation tgan Eusebius or the other
patristic students of Palestinian topography.

The arguments by Albright seem conclusive that the geographical location
of Aenon, near Salim, is indeed in Samaritan territory and that John's ministry
included a vigorous proclamation to the Samaritans as well as to the Jews.

In a more recent discussion of these geographical locations of Aenon,

Raymond E. Brown concurred with Albright that locating Aenon in Samaria

 

6 . . . . . . .
W. F. Albright, "Some Observations Favoring the Palestinian Origin

of the Gospel of John," Harvard Theological Review 17 (Apr. 1924) 193-94.

 

208

answered the question of why John was there; i.e., "where water was plentiful."
The other two locations given by Brown, Perea and south of Scythopolis, would
have been superfluous because the Jordan river was close at hand. Brown
added that "it would agree very well with the strong traditional ties that

. . . 7
connect John the Baptist with Samaria."

At least in John, Edwin D. Freed believed that these place names
(including Jesus at Sychar and Ephraim, John 4:5 and 11:54) was a "clue to
the writer's effort to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hOpe
for a people united, not only the Jews of Judah, but also the Samaritans,
who claimed descent from the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh."

John the Baptist's association with the Samaritan Dositheus is the
second reason for associating John with Samaria. The following passages
from Clementine Homilies II, 23, 24 refer to John the Baptist:

23. But that he (Simon Magus) came to deal with the doctrines of religion

happened in this way. There was a certain John, a Hemerobaptist, who

was also, according to the system of syzygies, the forerunner of our

Lord Jesus; and as the Lord had twelve apostles, bearing the number of

the twelve months of the sun, so also John had thirty chief men,

according to the monthly reckoning of the moon. . . . But of these
thirty, the first and most esteemed by John was Simon; and the reason
that he did not become chief after John's death was as follows:

24. When Simon was away in Egypt to (acquire) practice in magic, and

John was killed, a certain Dositheus, who desired the leadership,

falsely gave out that Simon was dead, and succeeded to the leadership

of the sect. But Si n returned not long after and strenuously claimed
the place of his own.

 

7Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I—XII: The Anchor
Bible 29, gen. eds., W. F. Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1966), p. 151. For a different opinion that holds to
the Decapolis area, see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, gen. ed., F. F. Bruce (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 237, note 97.

 

 

 

8 . . . .
Edwin D. Freed, "Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan
Converts?" Novum Testamentum 12 (July 1970) 242.

 

9Stanley Jerome Isser, The Dosithians (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976),
pp. 19-20.

 

209

In another place of the Pseudo-Clementine literature (Recognitions II, 8),

 

a slightly different version is given.

8. After John the Baptist was killed, as you yourself know, Dositheus

breached his heresy with thirty other chief disciples and one woman

who was called Luna-~these thirty appear to have been appoiBted with

reference to the number of days in the course of the moon.

All of the above concerning John the Baptist, Simon, and Dositheus fit
well the picture of the Samaritan eschatological prophet. S. J. Isser stated
"that a messianic pretender belonging to these groups would claim to be the
True Prophet, and that people would evaluate him by comparison with the

. . . . . 1
Prophet's attributes, is historically plauSible." 1 As has already been
pointed out, Isser separated Simon and Dositheus, although both are considered
first century Samaritan Taheb pretenders and leaders of a Samaritan sect.
Isser reduced the above information to a bare outline:

There apparently existed a story, known to the Homilist, that John

the Baptist had a sect of thirty members, one of whom was Dositheus,

who became its leader after John's death because John's most esteemed

disciple, Simon, was absent in Egypt. After his return, Simon eventually

forced Dositheus out, claimed the title "Standing One", andlsecame the
new leader of the sect. Dositheus died shortly thereafter.
How much of the above is historically accurate? Isser believed that "hostility
toward John on the part of the originator of the account may have been respon—
sible for the invention of the details about the Baptist's sect and his role

. . 13 . . .
as teacher of DOSitheus and Simon." Thus, Isser rejected the assoc1ation

of Simon with Dositheus and John the Baptist as their teacher. However, he

 

10Ibid., p. 20.

1
1Ibid., p. 21.

2
1 Ibid., p. 25.

13Ibid.

210

accepted that they were first century contemporaries. Even if the hostility
produced a fictional account, there may have been some associations of John
with the Samaritans to the extent that a later polemic against him could
easily make the associations, even though from an evil intent. There were
those who did think of John as "the prophet" (John 1:25). It could very well
be that some of John's disciples were taken over by Samaritan pretenders of
messiahship or "that great prophet," i.e., "the Standing One."

If John the Baptist was closely associated with Samaritans during his
ministry, then Mark's placement of the Baptist tradition (Mark 1:2-11, 14a;

6:14—29) into his gospel is important.

Associations of John and Jesus

 

In Mark's account of John's death (Mark 6:14-29), John and Jesus are
closely related. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is even accused of being a
"Samaritan" (John 8:48). Thus, if John and Jesus are identified both in
terms of activities and speech as being in some sense "Samaritan," it is
because of their willingness to be associated. If there is any historical
value to the Clementine literature regarding John the Baptist's associations
with the Samaritan sectarians led by either Dositheus and/or Simon, then
these events took place following the incident of John's beheading. John's
arrest and beheading seems to be placed very early in Mark's gospel (Mark 1:14),
but the story of his beheading is told in Mark 6:14-29 to account for Herod's
fear of John's "reappearance" in the "guise" of Jesus.

Morton Smith considered the "fear" of Herod to be evidence of the

. . . . l4 . . .
cultural milieu of magiCians. "King Herod heard of it [Eesus' miracles of

 

4 . . .
Morton Smith, Jesus the MagiCian (New York: Harper & Row, 1978),

 

211

healing and exorcisms] ; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, 'John
the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at
work in him'" (Mark 6:14 RSV). Smith placed John and Jesus in the same
category as Simon, the magician (Acts 8). He followed Kraeling's thinking
concerning the text of Mark 6:14:

Jesus was called "John" because it was believed that he "had", that

is possessed, and was possessed by, the spirit of the Baptist. . . .
Particularly interesting in relation to Mk. 6:14 is a prayer to Helios-
Iao-Horus to assign to the magician, as perpetual "assistant and
defender," the soul of a man wrongfully killed. This would establish
approximately the sort of relation Jesus was believed to have with

the soul of John. In the light of these beliefs it seems that Mk. 6:14
should be understood as follows: "John the Baptist has been raised

from the deadfi<by Jesus' necromancy; Jesus now has him . And therefore
(since Jesus-John can control them) the (inferior) powers work (their
wonders) by him (that is, by his order > ." A little later, after Jesus
had been executed, the Samaritan magician, Simon, was similarly thought
to "be" Jesus. The Christians, of course, maintained that the spirit

by wpgch Simon did his miracles was not Jesus, but merely a murdered
boy.

Even though Herod may have responded in a pagan way; i.e., belief in
necromancy, others considered this power to be from "Elijah," a Jewish
expectation (Mal 4:5).16 Still others thought that it came from a "prophet."
Could this have been a Samaritan reaction? Samaritans were looking for an
eschatological prophet who would perform signs and miracles and reveal the

temple vessels that had been "hidden" since the days of Eli. The possibility

must remain.

 

15Ibid.

Kent Brower, "Elijah in the Markan Passion Narrative," Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983) 85-101.

 

 

212

Samaritan Literary Style and Peculiarities

 

One of the peculiarities of Samaritan literature, especially in the
Memar_was the frequent use of the phrase "I AM" or "I AM HE" or "I AM WHO
I AM," names for Yahweh (see p. 148). The m frequently used X'h—l ’JX .17
In Mark 13:6 Jesus warned, "Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am
he!’ and they will lead many astray" (RSV). Matthew added a predicate
noun and made the meaning more "Jewish": "I am the Messiah," (Matt 24:5).
Luke retained Mark's original saying, "I am" (éYd) ELuL) . When Jesus faced
the high priest and was asked, "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?"
he replied, "I AM!" (Mark 14:61-62). The "I AM" passages in John become
significant in this light. The names of Dositheus and Simon readily come
to mind as Samaritan messianic pretenders. Jesus said, "False Christs and
false prOphets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if
possible, the elect" (Mark 13:22 RSV). In Pseudo-Clementine Homilies II
24 Dositheus was presented as confronting Simon with the question, "If you
are the Standing One, I also will worship you." Simon replied simply, "I
am," whereupon Dositheus fell down and worshipped him.18 The Clementine
passage is reminiscent of the Marcan passages. Although one cannot say
that the "I AM" phrases are strictly Samaritan, the warning passage in
Mark 13:6 may have been directed toward the Samaritan sectarians as well
as Jewish messianic pretenders. No other particularly Samaritan style as

such could be found in Mark.

 

17
See in particular Memar i. 2 (p. 8), iv. 8 (p. 162), iv. 12 (p. 187).

8
Isser, op. cit., p. 20.

213

The Scope of the Gentile World

There are three texts which imply that Mark presents Jesus as one
who included all men in his vision of the Kingdom. The first is Mark 11:17
(RSV): "And he taught, and said to them, 'Is it not written, "My house shall
be called a house of prayer for all the nations"? But you have made it a
den of robbers.'" Mark is the only gospel to record the use of Jesus' phrase:
"for all the nations"(-T15LOLV Tots éSveow) (Cp. Mark 11:17 with Matt 21:13
and Luke 19:46). This is in contrast to his sharp denunciation of the
religious leaders who are responsible for commercialization of the Jerusalem
Temple. Hugh Anderson wrote:

Mark is presenting Jesus not as the reformer of an institution that

remains Viable, but as the one who declares the final word against

an inward-looking and enclosed institution whose day of exclusivism

is now over and done with, since the grace of God offered in the place

of prayefgmust be available not just for a select group, but for all
peoples.

This is reminiscent of Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman who
argued for Mt. Gerizim as the place of worship. Jesus declared that no
mountain, either on Gerizim or Zion, will be sufficient, but rather true
worshippers will worship in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). Mark made it
clear. A whole new way of worship is given and this is for all nations-—
Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles!

The second text, Mark 12:14, records that Jesus' enemies knew that he
held no partiality toward men. Did this include Samaritans? It is this

writer's opinion that the Pharisees and Herodians, enemies who themselves

 

9 .
Anderson, op. Cit., p. 267.

214

united against Jesus, were thinking of Jesus' non-partiality of Jews,
Samaritans and Gentiles. Jesus, indeed, was different,

Finally, in Mark 13:10 (RSV), "And the gospel must first be preached
to all nations," it is probable that Jesus' words, "to all nations" included
Samaritans, for the first missionary effort caused by persecution and affliction
was to Samaritans and Galilean Jews. Note that the statement is made in
the context of future persecution (see Mark 14:9—13). Could not "Gentiles"
refer to Samaritans as well as non-Jews? Though most if not all commentaries
recall Paul's ministry as an example of this prophecy (2 Cor ll:23ff.),
the Stephen-Philip movement (Acts 6-8), earlier than Paul's ministry, could
very well be implied or at least included. The Samaritan mission must be

included in the statement: "To all nations."

Common Ideas with Samaritan Theology

 

The first of these commonalities is that two of the names used of
Christ may satisfy both Jewish and Samaritan concepts. In answer to the
question, "Who do men say that I am?" the disciples gave the popular answers
that had been known in Herod's court (Mark 6:14-16). Some thought Jesus
was John the Baptist. This group is represented by Herod and perhaps his
court who may have believed in the necromancy of Jesus; i.e., the magic of
taking on the spirit and power of a man who died violently. Others said
that Jesus was Elijah. The Jews would have been represented here because
of the text of Mal 4:5. Although the Jews never understood, Jesus taught
his disciples that John the Baptist had fulfilled the prophecy about Elijah

(cf. Matt 17:10; 11:10, 14). Others said Jesus was one of the prophets.

215

It could be a general phrase to include both Jewish and Samaritan expectations
of a coming prophet like Moses. When Peter replied, "You are the Christ,"

the same term was used by the Samaritan woman: "I know that Messiah is

coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things"
(John 4:25 RSV). Thus there is no reason to insist "Christ" is exclusively

a Jewish term. Even the first term, "John the Baptist," had associations with
Samaritan place names.

The Transfiguration scene (Mark 9:2-8) suggests two contacts with
Samaritan theology: (l) the "high mountain" (vs. 2), and (2) "Elijah with
Moses" (vs. 4). Tradition has identified the mountain as Mount Tabor, a moun-
tain overlooking the Galilean valley. But the sources themselves do not
identify the mountain in any way (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28). Luke
does not use the adjective "high" but simply uses the definite article, "SEE
mountain." Whatever the case, the exact location is either not known by the
original gospel writers or else it is merely taken for granted. Anderson
observed that "what matters here for Mark is that the mountain is the place
where God reveals himself as usual in the biblical tradition (cf. eg. Exod.

24 and 34; I Kg. 18:20; 19:8, 11; Mat. 4:8; 5:1; 28:16)."20 Could the "high
mountain" possibly be Mt. Gerizim? For the Samaritans this mountain would
have been the only mountain of worth as well as the sacred mountain of

. . 2
revelation, espeCially of the Taheb (Restorer).

 

20
Ibid., p. 224.

1Robert T. Anderson, "Mount Gerizim: Navel of the World," Biblical
Archaeologipt 43 (Fall 1980) 217-21.

 

216

The second contact, the symbolic nature of Elijah and Moses, will help
to support the hypothesis. There is no question that Elijah is connected
with the Jewish eschatological expectations from Mal 4:5ff. onward. But
Moses is not easily associated with the eschatological events in Jewish sources.
On the other hand, the Samaritans expected a prophet like Moses, or at least
a priestly-prOphet who would restore the temple and her vessels to Mt. Gerizim.
The voice in vs. 7, "this is my beloved Son; listen to him," is clearly an
echo of Deut 18:15, 18-19. Isser stated: "The Marcan transfiguration passage,
and Peter's speech in Acts, for example, clearly associate Jesus with earlier

22
Israelite prophets and with the 'prophet like Moses' reference from Dt. 18."
This text was not used by the Jews; but on the other hand, the Samaritans

. . . 23
used it as a reference to their eschatological prophet to come. The sugges-
tion is that Elijah would appeal to the Jews while Moses appealed to the
Samaritans. Bowman argues thus:

The transfiguration of Jesus together with Moses and Elijah

(9:28ff.) clearly shows that Jesus is the hope of the Jews and

Samaritans, for the Jews consider Elijah to be the forerunner of

the messiah, while the Samaritans believed that the messiah (Ta'eb)

would be one who is like Moses. Here Jesus has the approval of both

of them, ang4Luke expects that Jesus will be accepted by the Jews and

Samaritans. ‘

Although he applies this argument to the Luke passage (9:28-36), it applies

equally well to the Mark account. The implication by Mark would be that

Jesus is to be received by both branches of God's People. It must be admitted

 

22
Isser, op. cit., p. 156.

2
3John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London: SCM Press,
1964), pp. 160, 198, 360, 363, 367, 443.

 

4 .
Bowman, Op. Cit., Problem, p. 82.

217

that Elijah and Moses could also be "an expression in concrete historical
terms of the early Christian conviction that the Law and the Prophets testified

'25 But the fact that

to Christ. Cf. Matt 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44; 16:29, 31.‘
Elijah is mentioned first may dictate against this thought.

On the other hand, in the Samaritan tradition, it is clear that they
are very conscious of the Mount of Transfiguration. "The Samaritans seem

to give proof of their dependence on the Christian story when they insist,

almost ad nauseum, that there was no third person between Moses and God on

 

. . 26 . . . .
Sinai." They were conSCiously comparing Moses with Christ. Macdonald
related how a fourteenth century Samaritan poet described creation with
Moses the Word having declared the divine fiat. The heavenly host marvel
at its glory and in a mystical fashion the poet wrote: "The two stars were
. . . . 27 .
Speaking With Moses and were ViSible." The two stars adVised Moses of
his mission and expressed that the divine Word must be incarnate to express
the divine life.
It is impossible to identify the two stars, since nothing is
said that helps in this. If the Samaritan poet Abisha is really
incorporating elements of the New Testament Transfiguration story,
then he may well be interpreting Moses and Elijah cosmically, as Samar-
itans were always wont to do when religious tradition and expression

did not prevent it. Certainly he puts into the Sinai experience of
Moses much of what Christ experienced on the Mount of Transfiguration.

 

2

5Nineham, op. cit., p. 235.
26 .

Macdonald, op. Cit., Theology, p. 428.
27

Ibid., p. 429.

2
8Ibid.

218

This is, of course, reverse influence where Christianity has affected
Samaritan tradition, but it does show that the biblical story was known well
enough that it had to be "answered" by the Samaritan poet. However, it is

a rather late tradition. There is little that can be gleaned from this in
regards to Mark's Transfiguration story except to say that it may have been
a polemic against the Samaritan View of Moses' supremacy over Christ. This
would have been true for the Judaists as well. Samaritans did not accept
Elijah as a good prophet (nor did they accept any of the prophetic literature).
Again, perhaps the detailed discussion occasioned by Mark in this section
concerning Elijah is not only showing Jesus as supreme over the great Old
Testament prophet to Israel, but also revealing the true mission of Elijah
in the form of John the Baptist (see p. 145). If John's close association
with Samaritans is established, then it is not too much to consider that
Mark's comments about Elijah (in the words of Jesus) as the "restorer" is
significant for Samaritans as well as Jews.

As the three disciples descended the mountain, they asked Jesus the
question: "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" (Mark 9:11
RSV). Jesus replied: "Elijah does come first to restore all things; and
how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and
be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they
did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him" (Mark 9:12—13
RSV).29 Although the Jews did not recognize John the Baptist as Elijah,
the fulfillment of Malachi, Jesus' reply to the disciples absolutely identi-

fied John as him. The important point in this text is the idea of Elijah-John

 

29
See the passages in Mal 4:5ff.; Mark 9:11-12; and Acts 3:19-22.

219

as the "restorer." Literally, Elijah having come firsthIOHSLOTdVEL TECiVTO.
(restores all things). The question of the restoration of dominion for
Israel is put to the risen Lord (Acts 1:6). Only Matthew followed Mark in
the use of Elijah restoring all things (Mark 9:12; Matt 17:11).

Jesus' statement about Elijah could also be connected with the Samaritan
concept of the Taheb. Isser gives insight into the Samaritan concept of
refreshment as it relates to restoration:

Elijah became the Restorer par excellence of all things; his coming
precedes that of the Christ and of the times of refreshing. The par-
allel with the Taheb is immediately obvious, but this in itself is
no surprise. What is more interesting is the reference to the times
of refreshing. The Samaritans awaited the period of rehuta (Divine
Favor or Refreshment--so Montgomery, p. 242). The Acts passage seems
to refer to the restoration (not "establishment" as in RSV) of just
such a period of Favor or Refreshment (anapsuxis). The association
of this term with the prophet motif from Dt. 18 is striking. It makes
Elijah (and Jesus?) a Virtual Tahe We may be dealing here with an
idea taken over from Samaritanism.

 

 

The Memar Marqah explicitly revealed that "the Taheb will come in peace to

 

repossess the place which God chose for those good people. . . . The Taheb
will come in peace to possess the places of the perfect ones and to manifest
the truth. Give ear and hear! . . . Their souls have relief within the

. "31 . . . . .
kingdom. Macdonald's footnote on this section is instructive:

The ref. to a kingdom and one coming as an inaugurator is unique
to this passage. There is no doctrine of a kingdom of God as under-
stood in Christianity, but the Sam. teaching is that God has a kingdom
composed of His beloved--otherwise unspecified. The one to come is
the Taheb; his function of restoration involved relief for the hard-

pressed beliavers on earth. It is possible that the kingdom ref. to
is earthly.

 

3O
Isser, op. cit., p. 141.

1John Macdonald, ed. and trans., Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah
Vol. II: The Translation (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1963), IV 12,
pp. 185-87.

 

32
Macdonald, op. cit., Memar, p. 187, note 273.

220

Certainly the early disciples of Jesus expected an "earthly kingdom" (Acts
1:6). This is in contrast with Jesus' words: "My kingship is not of this
world" (John 18:36 RSV).

Perhaps embedded in Mark's account of the Transfiguration and Jesus'
conversation about Elijah is a polemic against the Samaritan view of their
Taheb as well as a corrective to the Judaist misunderstanding of Elijah (or
non-identification of Elijah with John the Baptizer). In other words, from
Mark's viewpoint the "Restorer" was John the Baptist. For the Judaists
Elijah was to restore all things, but they did not recognize the spirit
of Elijah in John (Mal 4:5f). For the Samaritans their "Restorer" (Taheb)
would be in some sense a prophet like Moses or Moses redivivus. It has
already been argued above that John the Baptist was associated with the heretics
Simon and Dositheus, two who claimed to be the Samaritan Taheb. Perhaps
there were some Samaritans who made this claim for John the Baptist, and Mark's
Gospel is a "corrective" or a "confirmation" of the identification, although
John did not do what the Samaritans expected in terms of recovery of the
Temple and vessels on Mt. Gerizim. What he did do according to Mark was

restore people's hearts by means of repentance to the coming Messiah (Mark

 

1:2-4).

Macdonald had noted particularly that the Samaritans interpreted their
laws in a much more spiritual fashion than the Rabbinic interpreters (see
pp. 101-03.

The New Testament View of the Sabbath as opposed to the Pharisaic

is perhaps reflected in the Samaritan attitude: "The worker is not
wearied on the Sabbath, nor the labourer oppressed during it. Servant

221

and master alike are sustained when they observe it." This is very
much the principls of "the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath"
as in Mark 2:27.
Not only would Samaritans have been comfortable with the way in which the Law
was presented in Mark (by Jesus' words), but also their whole theological
thrust in life was based on "faith." Bowman observed that Samaritans placed
much more emphasis on faith than the Judaists who emphasized ritual religious
acts (pp. 103, 106, 137). In his discussion on the Gospel of John and
Samaritans he wrote:
The emphasis which he puts on faith instead of on the fulfillment of
ritual religious acts must have made him appear strange in comparison
with the former. If the speeches in 8:1ff. have real historical
foundations, it cann054be surprising that "the Jews" looked upon
Jesus as a Samaritan.
. . . 35 . .
The same emphaSis on "faith" can be found in Mark. Jesus' ministry of
preaching began with the command to "repent and believe in the gospel"
(Mark 1:15b RSV). Jesus saw the faith of those who let the paralytic down
through the roof (Mark 2:5). He chided his disciples in the midst of a storm:
. 6
"Have you no faith?” (Mark 4:40 RSV).3 The woman who touched Jesus' garments

was healed because (Jesus said): "Your faith has made you well" (Mark 5:34

RSV). To the ruler of the synagogue, he said: "Do not fear, only believe,"

 

33
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 434.

4
John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem, trans. Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975), p. 66.

 

35Note the references in Mark to‘nLCTE80u>- Mark 1:15; 5:36; 9:23,
24, 42; 11:23, 24, 31; 13:21; 15:32; (16:13, 14, 16, 17) longer ending;
ntoug — Mark 2:5; 4:40; 5:34; 10:52; 11:22.
36Note that this seems to be a stronger statement used by Mark than
either by Matthew or Luke - Matt 8:26 - OALYOTILO'COL Luke 8:25a TIOO 'n
ntoru; Duchy.

222

and this with reference to his dead daughter! (Mark 5:36 RSV). To the father
with the demon-possessed boy Jesus exclaimed: "All things are possible to
him who believes" (Mark 9:23 RSV). The father replied, "I believe, help my
unbelief!" (9:24 RSV). Jesus cared for those who believed in him (9:42).

The blind man at Jericho was healed because (Jesus said) "your faith has made
you well" (10:52 RSV). Due to the disciples' astonishment at the withered
fig tree, Jesus said, "Have faith in God," or better, "Reckon upon God's
faithfulness;" i.e., God will fulfill his word (11:22 RSV). In this context
the disciples are encouraged to believe what God says (11:23) and ask in
prayer believing (11:24). Jesus' enemies do not want to believe (11:31).
Jesus warned against believing in false Christs and prophets (13:21).

Jesus' emphasis on faith was hurled back into his face at the cross (15:32).

Even though the word is not used, the confession of the centurion when
Jesus breathed his last was perhaps the climax of faith in the gospel:

"Truly this was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:39b RSV). From this brief study
there is demonstration that "faith" was emphasized in Mark. If the Gospel
of John appealed to Samaritans on this basis, so did Mark (see p. 140).

The Samaritans believed that the age of grace and mercy had disappeared
with the disappearance of the Tabernacle on Mount Gerizim after Eli's schism.
At the appearance of the Taheb the "Time of the Divine Favour" would begin
and thus the mercy of God returned. Bowman suggested that any Samaritan
reading Luke 2:8-14 in which the heavenly host proclaim: "Glory to God in
the highest,and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased" (Luke 2:14

7
RSV) would have understood that the "Age of Mercy" had begun.3

 

7 .
Bowman, op. Cit., p. 80.

223

Just as an idea may be emphasized by its frequent occurrences, so in
an opposite way an idea may be specially presented by rare occurrences.

The very few references (Mark 5:19; 10:47—48) to God's mercy in Mark may be
singular enough to give it a special emphasis. After being healed the
demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) begged Jesus to stay with him while the city entreated
him to leave, perhaps out of fear of his "power." Jesus told the man:

"Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you,
and how he has had mercy on you" (Mark 5:19 RSV). In other healings the
command to secrecy was given, but now the "mercy" of God was to be proclaimed.
The man was from Decapolis where there were Samaritans as well as Gentiles.
The message of mercy would have been welcomed by the Samaritans.

The other incidence of mercy was Jesus' healing of blind Bartimaeus
outside of Jericho (Mark 10:46-52). He cried: "Jesus, Son of David, have
mercy on me!" but was rebuked by the disciples. He was to be silent! The
end of the story suggested a message to all would-be disciples by Mark:

"Go your way; your faith has made you well." But rather than go his own way,

he followed Jesus in the way (Mark 10:52), the path to suffering and death.

 

Could Mark's message be: The age of mercy can only come through radical
discipleship and commitment to Jesus as the true Messiah?

In the first story of "mercy" (Mark 5:1-20) Jesus performed a powerful
miracle in a predominately Gentile area. He told the healed demoniac to tell
his neighbors about the "mercy" of God. If the Gentile world and early
mission of the church included the Samaritans (and it did according to Bowman's
analysis of Luke's gospel), then the demoniac incident may have been an
announcement of "the age of Divine favor" for the Samaritans as well as "mercy"

for Gentiles (non—Samaritans).

224

The second story suggests a deliberate down-playing of the Davidic
messiahship by the disciples, yet not a denial of it. By the blind man's
faith, the "age of mercy" had begun for him and he followed Jesus "in the
way."

The common ideas with Samaritan theology in Mark included the Taheb
(Restorer) and his associations with Moses who is cast in a secondary position
on the "mount" of Transfiguration. For Mark "Elijah" is truly the "Restorer"
before Messiah comes. The Samaritan emphasis in their theological writings
on "faith" and "mercy" can be seen in Mark. At least there are enough

affinities to Samaritan theology to suggest a relationship.

Dependence on Samaritan Traditions

 

The perspective of Jesus as presented by Mark against the Pharisaic
traditions of the elders would have been recognized by Samaritans. The
Samaritans held to a more literal reading of the Law and did not seek to
elaborate and circumscribe it by traditions such as "Corban." Mark makes
special note of Jesus' accusation against the Pharisaic tradition of Corban--
a tradition that avoided the care of parents in their old age (Mark 7:9-13),
"And many such things you do." Such denunciation would have agreed with
Samaritan tradition. Samaritans would have enjoyed witnessing the encounter.

A second tradition which suggests a Taheb type wonder worker, is seen
in the unnamed exorcist in Mark 9:38-39, "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw
a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was
not following us.‘ But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does
a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.'"
Jesus' attitude toward the exorcist was extremely tolerant. Who was this

strange exorcist?

225

Most critical commentaries View this episode as reflecting the problem
that the early church had with pagan exorcists, who used Jesus' name to affect
their cures without themselves becoming Christians (Acts l9:l3ff.; 8:18ff.).38
If the answer was Jesus' tolerant attitude, the early Church emphatically did
not practice it (of. Acts 19:15ff; 8:20ff, 13:10). But there is no reason to
reject this as an event in Jesus' time. The application, of course, could
and was made for Mark's day (cp. vs. 40). It certainly corresponded with
Jesus' liberal attitude toward outsiders as recorded by other gospel writers
(e.g. Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:1—9; 10:29-37). But the question remains: Who
was this unknown exorcist? Could he have been Simon Magus or one like the
magician? The fact that Jesus was accused of being a "Samaritan" (John 8:48)
may suggest that Jesus appeared to be like one of these exorcists who demon-

strated extraordinary powers. Although this writer emphatically rejects

Morton Smith's main premises in his book, Jesus the Magician, Smith offered

 

insight on this point:

Simon like Jesus was thought to "be" or "have" a "great power of God."

He had some sort of connection with Jesus--perhaps they had both been
disciples of the Baptist-~and he had an enormous success both in Samaria
and in Rome. When the gospel of Jesus was written he was the outstanding
example of the miracle working magician who claimed to be a god, so

John made the Jews reply to Jesus' claims of deity and miraculous

powers with the accusation, "Ygu are a Samaritan (like Simon the magician)
and (like him) have a demon."

Inasmuch as Luke claimed to write an "orderly" account of the gospel
(chronological order?), he placed this episode immediately before Jesus'

journey to Jerusalem through Samaria (Luke 9:51-56). Because a Samaritan

 

38Anderson, op. cit., p. 235 and Nineham, p. 253.

39 . .
Smith, op. Cit., pp. 81-82.

226

village would not welcome them, James and John wanted Jesus to rain down

fire from heaven and consume them (vs. 54). But Jesus' tolerant and gracious
spirit prevailed again. He rebuked James and John (vs. 55). Presumably they
went on to another Samaritan village that did receive them (vs. 56). It.1§

possible that the unknown exorcist was a Samaritan, but the evidence is too
slight to be dogmatic.

A third tradition, the Samaritan expectation of a priestly Messiah
rather than the Davidic Messiah as the Jews were expecting, was clearly
down-played by the words of Jesus himself:

And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes
say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by
the Holy Spirit declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right
hand, til I put thy enemies under thy feet.l David himself calls him
Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly
(Mark 12:35-37 RSV).

Samaritan tradition as well as their theology rejected any connections with
the Davidic Messiah. Because Samaritanism was Pentateuchal, Moses became
their messianic mode1--Moses redivivus. Without necessarily denying the
Davidic messiahship, Jesus down-played the idea. Mark is the only synoptic
gospel to record the enthusiastic response of the crowd: "the great crowd
were hearing him gladly" (Mark 12:37b). Matthew's reaction was negative in
description: "No one was able to answer him a word" (Matt 22:46a) while
Luke recorded no reaction at all, perhaps content with the Marcan statement
used before Jesus' statement: "No one dared to ask him any question" (Mark
12:34b, cp. Luke 20:40). The enthusiastic hearing of the crowd would have
pleased any Samaritan, but there is no evidence that Samaritans were part

of the crowd. The context of the saying is somewhere in the Temple area

(Mark 13:1). The crowd would have been a mixture of many Jewish people

227

arriving in Jerusalem in preparation for the Passover. Yet, if the down-
playing of Davidic sonship in Luke may have appealed to Samaritans (see

p. 145), then Mark's Gospel had the same appeal with even a stronger response
from the crowd.

A fourth tradition is the negation of the Jerusalem Temple and the
support of Mt. Gerizim. If the down-playing of Davidic messiahship were
not enough, the down-grading of the Temple itself became part of false
testimony against Jesus at his trial.

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to

him, "Look Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!".

And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will

not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down"

(Mark 13:1-2 RSV).

Perhaps one can say that the climax of Jesus' (Mark's?) denunciation of the
Jerusalem authorities and cult practices was given here. Of course, Samaritan
tradition had always denounced Jerusalem (Mt. Zion) as the place for worship.
Mt. Gerizim only was chosen by God according to their Pentateuch. These

words of Jesus would have been welcomed, especially when the Samaritan temple
had lain in ruins since 128 B.C., if indeed the temple had not been rebuilt
(see p. 51).

At the trial of Jesus false witnesses were brought forward to testify
against him. Even though their testimonies did not agree, there was some
basis for one of the testimonies as follows:

"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands,

and in three days I will build another, not made with hands'" (Mark

14:58 RSV).

Some justification for such an accusation can be found in John 2:19 RSV:

"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise

it up."

228

Later Stephen was similarly accused by false witnesses who used the same
attack:

"This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the

law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy

this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us"

(Acts 6:13-14 RSV).
The only parallel passage for Mark 14:58 is in Matthew. Note the striking
differences: "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God,
and to build it in three days'" (Matt 26:61 RSV). For Matthew the temple
is "of God," for Mark it is a temple "made with hands" XELDOTLOCnTOV.
What is the significance of the synoptic difference? Nineham wrote: "The
whole idea suggests the outlook of later Christians like Stephen who questioned

. . . . 40
the permanence and Significance of the temple rites." Hugh Anderson's
explanation was that it
. . reflects the perspective of the Hellenistic Church which under-

stood itself as the promised new Temple (cf. 1C. 3:17; 2 C 6:16; Eph.

2:22), the community whose rich inward spiritual life through the power

and presence of the risen Christ made quite obsolete the outward

Observances gf the old Temple (cf. Ac. 7:48; 17:24; Heb. 9:11, 24;

4

Eph. 2:11).

Certainly Stephen's speech was an anti-Jerusalem temple polemic: "Yet
the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48 RSV).
Stephen spoke to Jews. Paul spoke to pagans the same message: "The God who
made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not

live in shrines made by man" (Acts 17:24 RSV). The Hebrew writer suggests

a definition for the term "made with hands":

 

0
Dennis E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark (Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1963), p. 406.

 

41
Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976),
p. 330.

 

229

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that

have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made

with hands, that is, not of this creation). . . (Heb 9:11 RSV).

For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy

of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence

of God on our behalf (Heb 9:24 RSV).
Thus a temple "not made with hands" would be God ordained, heavenly, not of
this creation. Its opposite is man-made, earthly, temporal. By the same
terminology the Apostle Paul wrote of the Christians' new life (by repentance)
as a circumcision "made without hands" (Col 2:11 RSV) and of the Jewish
circumcision as "made in the flesh by hands" (Eph 2:11 RSV). The resurrection
for the Christian will be "a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"

(2 Cor 5:1b RSV). Samaritan tradition had emphasized that Solomon's Temple

was strictly man-made, a project of his own doing: "Now Solomongproposed

 

to build a temple representing the Lord, and a palace representing his own

 

 

kingship."42 When Solomon commanded all to worship at the Temple, the
Samaritans say of themselves that they disobeyed and did not forsake the

chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel.43 The anti-temple polemic of both Jesus

and Stephen would have had a great appeal to the Samaritans as a whole although
they looked forward to a restoration of their own temple on Mt. Gerizim.44

Yet there was the Dosithean sect that for a while at least were anti-temple
oriented.45 As Isser concluded: Dositheus "was not a priestly Messiah who

would restore the temple or tabernacle, he is said, in fact, to have temporarily

 

2
John Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle II (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
& Co., 1969), 2 Chr. 1:18, p. 145.

43Ibid., p. 148.

 

44
Macdonald, op. cit., Theology, p. 365.

5
Isser, op. cit., p. 91.

230

rejected worship on Gerizim."46 All Samaritan attitudes would be against
the Jerusalem temple, but the Dosithean sect especially would have been
anti-temple.

Abram Spiro in his investigations into Samaritan studies, already
investigated in chapter three, made an interesting turn through a series of
correspondence between himself and William F. Albright over a period of
almost two years.47 While attempting to write a book on Stephen, Spiro
was investigating Acts 6-8, but his studies began to widen. He became
convinced that "Mark used a Samaritan document which portrayed the life of
Jesus and the crucifixion. Mark apparently had sympathy with the Samaritans.

At any rate, whether or not he sympathized with them, he used their documents."

 

46Ibid., p. 163.
47

On December 16, 1981, Dr. C. 8. Mann, presently of St. Mary's
Seminary and University, Baltimore, Maryland, sent to Dr. Robert T. Anderson,
Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, a package of materials that contained correspondence
between W. F. Albright, late Professor at the John Hopkins University,
Baltimore, Maryland, and Abram Spiro, late Professor in the Department of
Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Wayne State University, Detroit,
Michigan. Dr. Anderson acknowledged the receiving of the materials and
their contents on January 7, 1982. Dr. Anderson then proceeded to catalogue
the materials. The correspondence dates from April 7, 1964 to December 29,
1965, between A. Spiro and W. F. Albright. Several letters were then written
by A. Spiro to C. S. Mann and one to an unknown "Jim" between January 4, 1966
and July 13, 1967. All total there were 108 different letters. Spiro died
shortly thereafter and Albright, a few years later. The bulk of the corres-
pondence consisted of Spiro's letters dealing with his theological interests,
including his special study on Stephen's Speech in Acts 7. Albright's brief
responses were more of an encouragement or corrective suggestions to Spiro's
theological probes. Not only are the letters of interest for historical
value and insight into the personalities of Spiro and Albright, but they
contain relevant ideas to the relationship of Mark and the Samaritans.
The letters will be referred to in the text by their date and page numbers.

48 . .
Letter, Spiro to Albright (March 12, 1965), p. l.

231

Spiro came to this conviction when he noticed the Logion of Jesus in Acts 6:14

and compared it with Mark 14:58 and the parallels in John 2:19 and Matt 26:61.

Again he wrote:
It became clear to me instantly that, while Matthew and John tried
to weaken the force of the offensiveness of this Logion of Jesus,
Mark, far from weakening it, makes it even more damaging, for he
adds gall to the vinegar. It is bad enough to make a statement of
the destruction of the Temple in a moment of provocation, but it is
quite a different story when you add a theology to it and say that
the Temple is made by hands. It dawned on me instantly that Mark
reflects the words of Stephen in Acts 7:48. No Jew would say that
the Temple was made by hands; it is always the other fellow's Temple
which is made by hands. Stephen says that the Jewish Temple was
made by hands. His own tabernacle, of course, waigpatterned by an
angel; therefore, it is not handmade (Acts 7:44).

Spiro, then, asked why Mark was completely silent about the Samaritans.

He answered himself: "It dawned on me that this silence is not due to

indifference. Rather, it is a studied silence in order not to give himself
50

away." At this point Spiro made several observations on Mark: (1) Mark

did not carry the genealogy of Jesus that led to David whereas Luke and

Matthew did even though they vary. (2) Jesus denied that the Messiah was

a descendant of David (Mark 12:35-36). (3) The idea of Jesus being a

descendant of David came from the scribes in Mark (VS. 35). (4) When the

Phoenician woman cried out, Matthew had her cry out, "Son of David," while

this was not found in Mark 7:25-30. (5) At the triumphal entry into Jeru—

salem, Jesus was not directly addressed in Mark as the Son of David (Mark 11:9-10)

as he was in Matthew (Matt 21:9). (6) In Mark 1:44, Jesus commanded a cleansed

 

49
Ibido I pp. 1‘2.

50Ibid., p. 2.

232

leper to go to "the priest." Spiro suggested: "It seems to me that he

did not send him to the Temple in Jerusalem but he asked him to go to a

local priest." Spiro thought this priest was a Samaritan priest. (7) Spiro

declared that Jairus (Mark 5:21-24, 35-43) was a “good Samaritan and Tobiad
. . "51

name. Apparently Jairus was the head of a Samaritan synagogue.

Finally, in the last paragraph of this letter Spiro made one last
conjecture for Mark's Gospel and the Samaritans:

Of course, many commentators have suggested that Mark's anti—

Jewishness was due to the fact that he wrote for a Gentile audience.

I do not believe this to be true. Had Mark been thinking of Gentiles,

he would not have attributed to Jesus the words that the Gentiles

are "dogs" (Mark 7:27). Obviously, Gentiles were not foremost in

his mind when he wrote his Gospel. This being the case,59is anti-

Jewishness is not anti-Semitism, but it is Samaritanism.

Surprisingly, Albright's response (March 16, 1965) was very positive,
and he welcomed the new conjectures. He wanted to change Spiro's "studied
Silence" to "a prudent avoidance of non—essential but controversial issues,"
even though he agreed that Mark was indeed using Samaritan traditions.

Albright concluded his response with this tabular statement:53

Now we have:

Paul - Pharisee background
Mark - Samaritan background
John - Essene background

Luke - conciliatory synthesis

In another letter Spiro added:

All of Jesus' activities according to Mark take place in Galilee, which
was a country with a mixed population, heavily Samaritan. . . . Neither
in his lifetime nor after the resurrection would Jesus have gzything to
do with Jerusalem except to censure it and its institutions.

 

51
Ibid.. pp. 2-3.

52
Ibid., p. 4.

53Letter, Albright to Spiro (March 16, 1965) p. 2.

54Letter, Spiro to Albright (March 21, 1965), pp. 3-4.

233

Spiro even went so far as to speculate that l Clement did not quote from

. . . 55
Mark's Gospel because "he didn't like his Samaritan bias [Italics mine] ."

 

 

Albright, after study of his own on Mark, wrote:

After rereading Mark this morning, I think that he was influenced by
both Samaritan and Essene ways of thinking; he may well have been a
young follower of Stephen, since he presumably lived well after A.D.
60 and was probably the half-grown lad referred to in Mark 14:51f.

I still concede Samaritan influence on Mark (perhaps through Stephen).
(Incidentally, Stephen was presumably a native of Caphargamala, which
was less than 9 km. north of the home of the house of Sanballat.)

There were probably a good many Samaritans in this region of north-
western Judaea, which was well outside of the pre-Hellenistic Judah.

56
Albright considered Mark "a Jew from the Disapora who had been influenced
by some Samaritan ideas and probably knew Stephen personally."57

Spiro was convinced that Mark and Acts 6-8 were taken from Samaritan
tradition because of the similar plots and false witnesses against Jesus
and Stephen respectively. According to Spiro the condemnation of the Jews
by both Mark and Acts 6-8 was final and unremitting-~unlike the other Gospels
and the rest of Acts.

Spiro made some brilliant observations. He did present an alternative
to Trocme's answer for why Mark did not mention Samaritans in his gospel
(see pp. 181-82). But his "studied silence" is difficult to maintain and
takes too much for granted. It is an argument from Silence! Even Albright's

more balanced view that Mark was only avoiding certain controversial issues

is an argument from silence, but less innovative.

 

55
Ibid., p. 7, underlining mine.

56 . .
Letter, Albright to Spiro (March 25, 1965), pp. 1-2.

57
Letter, Albright to Spiro (April 17, 1965).

234

However, Spiro's observations (seven in number) do force one to listen
to his arguments. Spiro's observation that Mark avoided a genealogical
list is not clear. If it is to avoid the mention of David, it is again
an argument from Silence. Most commentators suggest that Mark's audience
(Gentiles?) would have had no interest in genealogies such as the Jews had.
Even though the point by Spiro is weak, still it is relevant to his over-all
scheme. Spiro's second observation is stronger. Jesus' denial that the
Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 12:35-36) is also found in Matt 22:
42-45 and Luke 20:41-44, thus diluting Spiro's point. Matthew, an essentially
Jewish gospel, uses the same saying. Why? Because it was recognized as
a genuine saying of Jesus and its point was not so much denial of Davidic
descent but rather a statement about Divine origins for the Son of God.
Spiro's third point suggests that the origin of the teaching about a Davidic-
Messiah came from the scribes. In Mark the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, knew
the Messiah as "Son of David." Evidently the common people followed scribal
teaching according to Spiro. It should be noted that Bartimaeus was rebuked
for his outbursts. Spiro's fourth observation of the Phoenician woman crying
out, "Son of David," in Matthew but not in Mark is a strong argument. Also
the fifth observation that Jesus was not directly addressed as Son of David in
the Mark account of the triumphal entry (Mark 11:9-10) demonstrates that the
author was deliberately down-playing that Davidic relationship in contrast
to Matthew (Matt 21:9). Even though some of Spiro's observations to this
point were weak, together they add up to a clear picture that Mark is indeed
down-playing the Davidic-descent of the Messiah without totally denying it.
This perspective would certainly agree with Samaritan traditions and prejudices.

And why take this perspective if Mark's only interest were Gentiles (Romans)?

235

Spiro's sixth observation that "the priest" was a local priest and
Samaritan at that has no real evidence, though the fact that Jesus is far
from Jerusalem somewhere in Galilee (Mark 1:39) makes the hypothesis plausible,
especially if the entire tradition of Mark's Gospel is found to be "Samaritan-
Galilee" in any fashion. Spiro's seventh observation about Jairus' name being
a "good Samaritan and Tobiad name" is rather flimsy. No evidence is given
to support either this conjecture or the postulation that Jairus was the
head of a Samaritan synagogue. Spiro's last remark, however, has substance.
Why should Mark refer to Gentiles as "dogs" (Mark 7:27) if he is primarily
writing for them? Thus the anti-Jewishness of the Gospel is not anti-Semitism,
but rather Samaritanism. It is a bold thought and not conclusive, but it
would make sense if placed along side more evidence.

Spiro's point that Galilee was heavily Samaritan should be considered
an exaggeration. As far as the "Samaritan bias" of l Clement, that was a
figment of Spiro's imagination.

Albright's more "calm" appraisal seems to be more satisfactory with
the sources at hand. However, Albright conceded that Spiro had broken new
ground, and even he was for a Samaritan background in regards to Mark's
Gospel. But in order to substantiate the probings of Spiro and Albright,
a broader historical framework must be established for Mark. A few scholars

have found this in the Stephen-Philip Movement.

The Stephen-Philip Movement

 

. / . . . .
Etienne Trocme introduced an important hypotheSis in regard to Mark's

formation and its relationship to early Christianity that affected Mark's

236

relationship to Samaritanism (see pp. 181-182). Trocme; through elaborate
arguments, postulated that canonical Mark is the "'second edition, revised

and supplemented by a long appendix,‘ of an earlier Gospel."58 This earlier
Gospel is for all practical purposes the same as Mark 1-13. The "long appendix"
is Mark 14-16. This is just the opposite of earlier proposals where the
Passion Narratives were considered central and the rest considered merely

"an introduction."

As to the origins of Mark 1-13, Trocme suggested a Palestinian Jewish
author wrote for fellow-Palestinians, urging them to accept the pure gospel
and "wrest Israel from its bad shepherds, at the same time Opening the door
wide to their Gentile neighbors."59 The main adversaries of the author
are the Jerusalem authorities. Perhaps these represented (in Mark's applica-
tion to his community) the Jerusalem Church leaders who have placed too high
a regard on Jerusalem and cult (Temple and laws). "Our author," Trocme,
maintained, "concentrates attention on the part of Palestine situated north
and north-east of Samaria . . . with a Special interest in the whole of the
region of which Galilee forms the core."60

Trocme thought that he could detect the same polemical and theological
concerns of Mark in the group of the Seven (Acts 6-8; of. Acts 11:19-21; 22:20).
This is reminiscent of Spiro's work. In examining their missionary activity
Trocme concluded that "their missionary method relies largely on wonder-

working(Acts 6.8; 8.6-8.13), appeals to the people (6.8; 8.6) and provocative

speaking (Acts 6.10-11, 13-14; 7.2-53). In all these fields they practice

 

I
Etienne Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark, trans.
Pamela Gaughan (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), p. 240.

591bid., p. 250.

 

6O ,
Ibid.

237

. . 61
exactly what the original Mark teaches." Indeed, he thought he could
discern why Mark 1-13 was written--its plan and primary intention:
Harshly persecuted by the Jewish authorities, the Seven and their
group have fled out of reach of their mortal enemies but they have
kept, in their refuges not far from the land of the Jews, the mentality
of emigres preparing to return in triumph and looking for the best
mode of attack for their religious revolution. Expelled from Samaria
by their rivals from Jerusalem, they thought to find revenge in Galilee
and the neighbouring areas, where ggey walked with the risen Christ
in the steps of the earthly Jesus.
Trocme relunctantly suggested an author for Mark 1-13. In light of
all his proposals he selected "Philip, the evangelizer of Samaria and the
only one of the Seven, apart from Stephen, of whom we know a little,"
limited however in Acts 8 and 21:8ff., if the tradition of the patristics
. . . . . . 6 .
is true that Philip lived at Hierapolis after 70 A.D. 4 Trocme conjectured
that Philip made missionary expeditions throughout northern Palestine,
Samaria included, from Caesarea (Acts 8:40; 21:8-9). Having been driven
out of Jerusalem and Judea by persecution in the 40's A.D. and having settled
. . . . . 65
in Caesarea, Philip wrote the gospel of Mark (1-13) sometime in the 50's A.D.
When Luke discovered it for his gospel account, he was staying with Paul in
. . . 66
prison at Caesarea for a two-year period in the late 50's A.D.

I
Trocme has placed Mark in the same historical framework (the Stephen-

. . . . . . I
Philip miSSionary movement) as Spiro did. Trocme's arguments are strong,

 

6
lIbid., p. 254.

2
6 Ibid., pp. 256-57.

6
3Ibid., p. 257.

4 . . . . ...
See Eusebius, EccleSiastical History 111, 39, 9.

 

Note that Trocme's dating of Mark's "first edition" coincides with
Jose' O'Callaghan's dating of the Qumran fragments of "Mark" based on his very
tentative "discoveries."

66 I
Trocme, op. cit., p. 259.

238

but his low View of Mark as an author would unsettle the most broadminded
of all conservatives: "The author of Mark was a clumsy writer unworthy of
mention in any history of literature."67 If there is any validity at all
to his conjectures, then the Gospel of Mark must be viewed in a new light.

It was Philip who opened up the Samaritans to the gospel, though some
had been prepared by Jesus' own evangelistic activity (John 4; Luke 9:56).
Philip seemed to have had great success in "a city of Samaria" (Acts 8:5)
(Shechem?) where he even converted Simon, the magician, who was proclaimed
by the populous as "that power of God which is called Great" (Acts 8:10).
Philip's preaching ("good news about the kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus," Acts 8:12 RSV), at least in heading, was the same as Mark's ("the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" and "the kingdom of God is at hand,"
Mark 1:1, 14, 15 RSV).

Thus Trocmé saw the author of Mark as having an ecclesiology that was
a radical break with the Mother-church in Jerusalem. As part of the Stephen-
Philip movement, Mark launched a vigorous missionary enterprise among the
common people in Palestine, obeying the risen Christ and following the example
he had set in his earthly ministry. It was possibly Philip, the Evangelist,
who wrote to encourage the itinerant missionary enterprise throughout Palestine
and to combat the Jerusalem Christian community which had failed her Lord in
proclaiming the gospel to the whole world. Since Trocme viewed Mark (Mark
1-13) as a Palestinian document produced by the group of Seven, he questioned
why there was the absence of any reference to Samaria or Samaritans in the

text (see p. 182). His suggestion that the author of Mark (Philip?) had

 

6
7Ibid., p. 72.

239

suffered some kind of disappointment in his ministry among the Samaritans
is more plausible than Spiro's "studied silence" or even Albright's "prudent
avoidance of non-essential but controversial issues." Trocme considered
Simon Magus (Acts 8:9—13, 18-24) to be the one who provoked certain rivalries
among Christian missionaries in Samaria (Acts 8:5-8, 12, 14-17, 25; John 4:
37-38).68

Another possibility is the rise of the Dosithean sect as a major
obstacle for missionary efforts in Samaria. Isser has confirmed the possibil-
ity that Dositheus led a sect of Samaritans in the first century and that he
considered himself the "prophet like Moses" (Deut 18), performing "miracles"
in the same manner as Simon, the magician, who made similar claims. Isser
wrote: "His role is much like that of the Moses-Taheb combined figure, or
Elijah, or Jesus."69 Would it be too much speculation to see Mark's Gospel
as an appeal to Samaritans (among Jews and Gentiles!) to avoid such Charlatans
as Dositheus or Simon or any other magician? In other words, Jesus was
presented as the true Jewish Messiah, the Samaritan Taheb, and only hope for
Gentiles. All of the polemic against the Jerusalem cult and leadership would
sit well with all the major groups outside Jerusalem and her immediate locale,
especially the Samaritans.

Another scholar, Michael Goulder, developed his Christology within the

framework of the Stephen-Philip movement in his chapter: "The Two Roots

 

68Ibid., p. 250.

9
Isser, op. cit., p. 164.

240

of the Christian Myth."7O The two roots were (1) the Galilean eschatological
myth and (2) the Samaritan gnostical myth. Concentrating on the second point,
Goulder argued that the Samaritan mission was an embarrassment to Luke who
recorded very little of it in Acts (twenty-two verses). That embarrassment
was caused by the corrupting influence of Thebuthis, who became vengeful

for not having been chosen bishop after James the Just's martyrdom. Thus
began the corrupting influence of various Samaritan sects (seven according

to Hegesippus).71 Goulder further postulated that Simon's claim to be "that
power of God which is called Great" (Acts 8:10b RSV) equaled a claim to be
God incarnate.72 He contended that "the Samaritan Christians were a power-
ful section of the first-century church, and that their movement grew into
Christian Gnosticism in the second."73 Goulder thought he could discern a
dualism in the Samaritan Pentateuch and literature. It is his thesis that
"dualism and a doctrine of incarnation were accepted features of belief

among some of the Samaritans who actually became Christians in the first
decade of the church's life."74 Therefore, when Philip came to Samaria,

he proclaimed Jesus as the prophet like Moses, a message couched in Gnostic

terminology. Instead of a Jewish son of David, Jesus is presented as a

 

70 . .
Michael Goulder, "The Two Roots of the Christian Myth," chapter four,
The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1977), pp. 64-86.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 22, 5.

 

72 .

Goulder, op. Cit., p. 65.
73

Ibid., p. 67.
74

Ibid.

241

. 75 . .
Samaritan God become man. Goulder, then, hypotheSized that a Samaritan
Christology would have tended to contribute five points to an interpretation
(Galilean) of the Significance of Jesus:

(i) an emphasis on wisdom and knowledge as the primary fruits of
conversion, rather than faith and love; (ii) the myth of Jesus'
pre-existence in the Godhead, and of his incarnation; (iii) a 'glory'-
ministry instead of a Son-of-Man ministry, with Moses instead of

David as the type-figure; (iv) a minimizing of the cross and resurrec-

tion--Jesus Should rather just go his way to the Father; nd (V) a

realized eschatology rather than a futurist eschatology.

According to Goulder these characteristics belonged to Paul's opponents, but

that sometime later "Paul appropriated the idea of Jesus' incarnation in

the course of dialectic with the Samaritan missionaries in Corinth and Ephesus
'77 . .

between 50 and 55.‘ Goulder's Samaritan theory is an attempt to place the

concept of “incarnation" beyond the origins of Christianity to a competing

force against Paul and the early church; i.e., the Christian Samaritan commun-

ity. Thus Goulder believes that the incarnation doctrine was introduced into

the church by Simon Magus and his Samaritan followers; consequently the doctrine

has become dispensable for Goulder and his colleagues today.

Goulder's arguments for dualism (or binitarian or incarnationism) in
Samaritanism is highly unlikely, even in the texts he cited. Samaritans
have always held to a strict monotheism, even more so than Jewish philosophical

Speculations on "Wisdom" and "Logos." The whole concept of "incarnation"

would have been unthinkable for Samaritans as far as a deity is concerned.

 

75
Ibid., p. 75.

76
Ibid.

77
Ibid., p. 79.

242

Graham Stanton has appropriately responded to Goulder's theory by showing
that Goulder's reconstruction of Samaritan theology and New Testament

. . . . . 78 . . .
Christology is inadequate and inconcluSive. Goulder's contribution is
not his view of Christology, which this writer firmly rejects, but rather
his emphasis on Samaritan Christianity in the early Church.

One of the emerging ideas from several scholars is their view that
Samaritan Christianity somehow was in constant opposition with Jewish
Christianity, this in spite of the plain testimony of scripture. C. H. H.
Scobie suggested that "despite Luke's editorial efforts to disguise theological
division within the early Church and to reduce Stephen and Philip to 'deacons',
they are to be regarded as preachers and teachers, and representatives of

. 79 . . . .
a separate wing of the Church." Scobie Viewed the Stephen-Philip group
as representatives of a Palestinian sectarian Judaism, possibly Galilean,
who opposed the Jerusalem cult and had sympathies with Samaritanism. "Clearly
they did not share the View of the majority of Jews that the Samaritans were
descendants of foreigners settled in the North after the Fall of Samaria,
. . . . . . . 80 .

the true Ten Tribes being still in eXile in some far distant land." This

. . . l . . . . .
View would not be at variance With Trocme's; that is, of an itinerant miSSionary
thrust by Philip(?) and his community in northern Palestine and surrounding

territory. The text (Acts 8) would suggest less disharmony, but at the same

 

8 . .

Graham Stanton, "Samaritan Incarnational Christology?" Appendix 1,
Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued, ed. Michael Goulder (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 243-46.

9 .
charles H. H. Scobie, "The Origins and Development of Samaritan
Christianity," New Testament Studies 19 (1972—73) 398.

0
8 Ibid., p. 399.

 

243

time has all the earmarks of problems in the Samaritan Christian community
caused by such men as Simon (Acts 8), Dositheus, and other sectarian leaders
(Christian or non-Christian).
Spiro's View of the "seven" (Stephen-Philip Group) is similar to
/
Trocme, Goulder, and Scobie. Spiro emphasized that the gospel of Mark
"had heavily drawn on the Samaritan-Hellenistic sources, that is on the
81 . .
sources of the 'seven.'" He did not accept the reasonable account in
Acts 6 as the way the true history of the early church occurred. Due to
Spiro's observation that Mark was negative against Jerusalem and the disciples
(apostles), especially Peter, he surmised that there was a radical break
between the Jerusalem Church and the Samaritan-Galilee mission by the
Stephen-Philip missionary group. Spiro explained why he thought Jesus
commanded his followers to flee Jerusalem and meet him in Galilee:
How, then could Mark report that Jesus bade Peter and the others to
leave Jerusalem. All the attempts at harmonization--which already
began in John 21--must be regarded as a failure. Just as in Acts
an attempt is made to make the seven orthodox and subordinate to the
"twelve," in John 21, another solution for the troublesome "seven"
is found. Jesus appeared before seven disciples headed by Peter by
the Sea of Galilee! Seven disciples! Five are named, two are unnamed!
Are they Stephen and Philip? Was Stephen originally Simon the Zealot?
But the answer is simple: all the disciples failed Jesus, even his
own mother and brothers failed him and remained in the "heretical"
church of Jerusalem and Israel. Yet Jesus bade them not to remain
in Jerus em. This is the message of Mark and the church of the
"seven."

Spiro went too far in his speculations. In fact, Albright called them

"dubious hypotheses" and suggested to Spiro that he "go very slowly in

 

81
Letter, Spiro to Albright (August 10, 1965), p. 6.

82
Ibid., pp. 6-7.

244

dealing with the role of the 'seven' in the history of early Christianity."83
Albright went so far as to relegate the role of "the seven" to a minor one
in early church life. He wrote: "I earnestly suggest that you omit all
references to the 'seven' as more than a significant institutional phase
of the development of early Christianity."84

The "seven" or Stephen-Philip group had a profound effect upon the
early church as it initiated a missionary movement beyond the borders of
Jerusalem and Judea. The Samaritans, whom the gospel writers considered
part of the Gentile world, were a vital step toward the evangelization of
all Gentiles. There is no need to doubt or impugn the motives of Peter and
John as they "inspected" the Samaritan mission (Acts 8:14-16). After all,
it was for the purpose of giving Apostolic approval through the gift of
the Holy Spirit. The missionary movement afterwards continued with renewed
vigor and power. There is no reason to postulate a "troublesome" seven

as Spiro does.

Conclusion

 

Several of the criteria used in relating Samaritan studies to the New
Testament have proven profitable in relationship to Mark. Although no
one argument can be considered conclusive, the accumulative effect of the
foregoing arguments suggests that indeed the Samaritan problem is found in

Mark. The following points can now be properly evaluated:

 

8 . .
3Letter, Albright to Spiro (August 14, 1965). p. 1.

84Ibid., p. 2.

245

l. The historical framework from which the gospel of Mark may have
developed is called the "Stephen-Philip Movement." Trocme, Spiro (Albright),
Goulder, and Purvis have all contributed to this idea, howbeit, for different
purposes and with varying interpretations. But the fact that almost all
can see the contents of Mark's gospel as in some way being part of the
Samaritan/Galilee missionary thrust suggests a relationship between Mark
and the Samaritans. A Galilean (Jewish) background is, thereby, not rejected
as a possibility but the missionary efforts in Galilee included Samaria as
well.

2. The Gospel of Mark manifests a concern for perseverence in the

midst of persecution and a concentration on Jesus' death (Mark 8:31; 9:31;
10:32-34; 14:8-9; 14:26-28 etc.). The Samaritan/Galilee mission thrust
began out of persecution (Acts 8:1). Thus the historical framework already
proposed would fit the contents as well as the emphasis of the gospel.
The historical milieu could easily be accounted for in the Stephen-Philip
Group. Trocme suggested that Philip was the author but this is arbitrary.
Even the patristic tradition that "Mark" (John Mark?) was the author could
be entertained within this historical framework. Albright's suggestion of
a young lad (Mark 14:51f.) who was a follower of Stephen has merit.

3. Why there is no mention of "Samaritans" in Mark was answered in
various ways: Spiro, "A studied silencer" Albright, "deliberate avoidance
of controversial issues;" and Trocme, "a root of bitterness due to missionary
problems among the Samaritans." Given the historical framework above, the

answer could be that Mark's traditions are looking from the inside out.

246

It is a tradition arising out of a Samaritan/Galilee community with the
northern area of Galilee emphasized due to the stress of persecution and
conflict from the southern territory of Judea and perhaps areas of Samaria
by messianic pretenders.

4. The theological framework of the Stephen-Philip Group would have
coincided with the theological concerns of Mark. The most important is
the anti-temple (Jerusalem) stance of the gospel. Spiro's observation of
the temple "made with hands" (Mark 14:58) as compared with the charges
(in the Logion of Jesus) against Stephen (Acts 6:14) makes sense. His argu-
ment that this accusation could only be made by a Samaritan is exaggerated,
but still possible. It is also possible that a "Christian" Jew could have
made the point, i.e., John Mark. But that would not damage the claim for
Marcan tradition arising out of a Samaritan/Galilee milieu.

5. The down-playing of Davidic descent in Mark is unquestionable
(Mark 12:35-36; 11:9-10). The omission of any Davidic genealogy in Mark
is evident as is the addition of "son of David" by Matthew to the address
given by the Phoenician woman (Mark 7:25-30). In two places Jesus is
called "son of David." One is from his enemies (Mark 12:35) and the other
is from a blind man (Mark 10:47f.) who was commanded to "be silent" concerning
his address.

6. Spiro's pithy statement that if Mark was writing for Gentiles
only, why would he call them "dogs" (in the words of Jesus)? Perhaps the
original expression was not as harsh as it sounds since the Greek word
means "little dog or house dog." Regardless, the point is well made to

suggest an audience beyond Gentiles alone.

247

7. Marcan emphasis on "faith" seems to be a very strong argument for
suggesting affinities with Samaritan theology and its emphasis on "faith."
Bowman argued similarly for John's Gospel.

8. The Marcan picture of Jesus presents a Taheb-like figure who
performs miracles and astounds the people. He is a prophet like Moses
who speaks against the Jewish traditions and "ignorance" of the Law. Mark
is seeking to reveal Jesus as the true Messiah for Jews and Samaritans.

9. The Mount of Transfiguration muSt be considered as an appeal to
Jews and Samaritans through Jesus' assimilation of the ministry and work
of Elijah (for the Jews) and Moses (for the Samaritans). The "corrective"
by Jesus that John the Baptist was "Elijah" suggested that the "Era of
Divine Favor" (refreshment) had arrived. This theological thought would
certainly have appealed to Samaritan expectations. Mark's rare use of
"mercy" suggested that the age of mercy had dawned in Jesus (a Samaritan
expectation!). At least the terminology was similar.

10. Mark presents a strong moral View of the Law by Jesus. The same
View of Law prevailed among the Samaritans. They emphasized God's love and
personal faith in regards to the Law. Faith and obedience was a way of
life.

11. Mark's view of the Gentiles (Mark 11:17; 13:10) may very well
include Samaritans as well as Gentiles (non-Jewish and non-Samaritan).

The first "Gentiles" reached by the gospel were Samaritans (Acts 8). Jesus'

statement, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations,"

 

is unique to Mark. Surely the concept included Samaritans.

248

12. Mark's use of the tradition about John the Baptist as an essential
part of the gospel suggests that Mark was not anti-Samaritan nor apathetic
toward Samaritans, if indeed it is proven that John was closely associated
with Samaritans (Bowman).

Other arguments have been suggested throughout the text, but these
have been marshalled to reveal the strong possibility that Mark indeed has
a Samaritan background (as Albright propounded). Even though Marcan author-
ship and purpose cannot be determined absolutely, at least the statement,

"the Samaritan problem does not appear in Mark at all," can no longer be

entertained.

 

 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

HYPOTHETICAL SCHEME OF LITERARY SOURCES ON DOSITHEUS

 

  
  
   

 

 

 

Hegesippus Early Origen Hippolytus' Lost Samaritan
form of lost Sources
Clementina Syptagma
A_______postolic /
Constitution
Eusebius'
Theophany
Pseudo-Tertullian

 

 

 

Theodoret Jerome
Expanded
Version?
Epiphanius
hilaster
Eulogius
Photius Karaite
Sources
M O
uslim Preserved
Sources .
Samaritan

Sources

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. "'He Taught Them Many Things': Reflections on Marcan
Christology." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (Oct. 1980) 465-81.

 

. Mark. Proclamation Commentaries. Edited by Gerhard Krodel.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

. "Mark as Interpreter of the Jesus Traditions." Interpretation
32 (Oct. 1978) 339-52.

 

. "The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae."
Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (June 1972) 198-221.

 

"Toward The ISolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae." Journal
of Biblical Literature 89 (Sept. 1970) 265-91.

 

Aharoni, Johanan and AVi-Yonah, Michael. The Macmillan Bible Atlas.
Revised edition. New York: Macmillan, 1977.

Aland, Kurt et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. New York:
United Bible Societies, 1975.

 

Albright, William Foxwell. From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company,
1957.

"Some Observations Favoring the Palestinian Origin of the
Gospel of John." Harvard Theological Review 17 (Apr. 1924).
189-95.

 

Anderson, Bernhard W. and Harrelson, Walter, eds. Israel's Prophetic Heritage.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962.

Anderson, Bernhard W. "The Place of Shechem in the Bible." In The Biblical
Archaeologist Reader, 2, pp. 265-75. Edited by David Noel Freedman
and Edward F. Campbell, Jr. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1957.

 

 

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark: The New Century Bible Commentary.
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1976; reprint ed. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981.

 

Anderson, Robert T. "Mount Gerizim: Navel of the World." Biblical
Archaeologist 43 (Fall 1980) 217-21.

 

Archer, Gleason L. and Chirchigno, Gregory. Old Testament Quotations in
the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

 

250

251

Bacon, B. W. Beginnings of the Gospel Story. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1909.

 

Barclay, William. The First Three Gospels. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1966.

 

. The Gospel of Mark: The Daily Study Bible Series. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

 

Barton, William E. The Samaritan Pentateuch. Oberlin, Ohio: The Bibliotheca
Sacra Company, 1903.

 

Beardslee, William A. Literary Criticism of the New Testament. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1970.

Beare, Frank W. Review of The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis,
by William R. Farmer. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Journal of
Biblical Literature 84 (1965) 295-97.

 

 

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Future. London: Macmillan & Co.,

 

1954.
Beck, Norman. "Reclaiming a Biblical Text: The Mark 8:14-21 Discussion
‘ About Bread in the Boat." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43

 

(Jan. 1981) 49-75.

Beek, G. W. Van. "Samaria." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
Vol. 4 R-Z. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon,
1962.

. "Samaria, Territory of." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible Vol. 4 R-Z. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962.

Best, Ernest. "Peter in the GOSpel According to Mark." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 40 (Oct. 1978) 547-58.

 

 

"The Role of the Disciples in Mark." New Testament Studies 23
(July 1977) 377-401.

 

Bickerman, Elias. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. New York:
Schocken Books, 1962.

 

Bilezikian, Gilbert C. The Liberated Gospel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1977.

 

Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish
Background of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1961.

 

252

Boomershine, Thomas E. "Mark 16:8 and the Apostolic Commission." Journal
of Biblical Literature 100 (June 1981) 225-39.

Boomershine, Thomas E. and Bartholomew, Gilbert L. "The Narrative Technique
of Mark 16:8." Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (June 1981)
213-23.

Borsch, Frederick Houk. The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man. Naperville,
Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1970.

Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos. Translated by J. E. Steely. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1970.

Bowman, John. "An Interesting Leningrad Samaritan Manuscript." Abr-Nahrain
1 (1959-60) 73-79.

 

"The History of the Samaritans." Abr-Nahrain 18 (1978-79) 101-15.

 

"The Importance of Samaritan Researches." The Annual of Leeds
University Oriental Society, 1 (1958-59) 43-54.

 

. "Samaritan Decalogue Inscriptions." Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library 33 (1950-51) 211-236.

 

, trans. and ed. Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History,
Religion and Life. Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1977.

. The Samaritan Problem. Translated by Alfred M. Johnson, Jr.
Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1975.

"Samaritan Studies." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40
(1958) 298-327.

"The Samaritans and the Book of Deuteronomy." Glasgow University
Oriental Society 17 (1957-58) 9-18.

 

Branscomb, B. Harvie. The Gospel of Mark. Moffatt New Testament Commentary.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1937.

Brehier, Emile. The Hellenistic and Roman Age. Translated by Wade Baskin.
Chicago: The University Press, 1965.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1972.

Brower, Kent. "Elijah in the Markan Passion Narrative." Journal for the
Studygof the New Testament 18 (1983) 85-101.

 

Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, Charles A., eds. Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1907.

 

Brown,

253

Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I-XII: The Anchor Bible 29.
General Editors, W. F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1966.

 

"The Relation of 'The Secret Gospel to Mark' to the Fourth Gospel."
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (Oct. 1974) 466-85.

Buchanan, George Wesley. "Has the Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?"

Bull,

Bull,

Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (Dec. 1974) 550-72.

R. J. "An Archaeological Footnote to 'Our Fathers Worshipped on
This Mountain,’ John iv. 20." New Testament Studies 23 (July 1977)
460-62.

 

. "The Hadrianic and Samaritan Temples." American Schools of
Oriental Research Newsletters No. 10. Edited by E. J. Campbell.
5-8.

 

R. J. and Wright, G. Ernest. "Newly Discovered Temples on Mt. Gerizim
in Jordan." Harvard Theological Review 58 (1965) 234-37.

 

Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by

 

John Marsh. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951.

Bultmann, Rudolph. Kerygma and Myth. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch.

 

New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

Bultmann, Rudolph and Kundsin, Karl. Form Criticism: Two Essays on New

 

Testament Research. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962.

Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. 2nd ed.

Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1925.

Calloud, Jean. "Toward a Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark."

Perspectives of Mark's Gospel. Semeia 16. Edited by Norman R.
Petersen. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980.

Campbell, Edward F., Jr. and Ross, James F. "The Excavation of Shechem

and the Biblical Tradition." In The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,
2! pp. 275-300. Edited by David Noel Freedman and Edward F.
Campbell, Jr. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1957.

 

Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.

2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

Chronis, Harry L. "The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39."

Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (Mar. 1982) 97-114.

254

Coggins, R. J. "The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins." Annual of the
Swedish Theological Institute. 6 (1968) 35-48.

 

 

Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered.
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

"The Samaritans and Acts." New Testament Studies 28 (1982)
423-34.

 

Cole, R. A. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries. General Editor, R. V. G. Tasker. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1961.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of Luke. Translated by G. Buswell. London:
Faber & Faber, 1960.

 

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy, Vol. I. Garden City, N. Y.:
Image Books, 1962.

 

Cowley, Arthur Ernest. The Samaritan Liturgy. 2 vols. Oxford, 1909.

 

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Cambridge Greek
Testament Commentary. General Editor C. F. D. Moule. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1959.

"Gospel of Mark." The Inteppreter's Dictionary of the Bible.

Vol. 3 K-Q. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1962.

 

Cross, Frank Moore Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran & Modern Bible Studies.
Revised edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.

 

"Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and
Hellenistic Times." Harvard Theological Review, 59 (July 1966)
201-11.

 

"The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri." The Biblical Archaeologist
Reader 3, pp. 227-39. Edited by Edward F. Campbell, Jr. and David
Noel Freedman. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., 1970.

 

"The Historical Importance of the Samaria Papyri." Biblical
Archaeology Review 4 (March 1978) 25-27.

Cross, Frank Moore and Talmon, Shemaryaher, eds. meran and the History

of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1975.

 

Crown, Alan D. "The Samaritan Diaspora to the End of the Byzantine Era."
Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1974-75) 107-23.

255

. Theology, Eschatology and Law, in Samaritan Funeral Rites and
Liturgy." Glasgow University Oriental Society 23 (1969-70) 86-101.

 

Culpepper, Alan R. "The Passion and Resurrection in Mark." Review and
Expositor 75 (Fall 1978) 583-600.

 

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

 

Daube, D. "Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of cuyxoaouat. "
Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950) 137-47.

 

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Social Institutions. Vol. I. New York:
MacGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.

 

 

Dewey, Joanna. "The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in
Mark 2:1-3:6." Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (Sept. 1973)
394-401.

"Markan Public Debate." Ph. D. dissertation, Graduate Theological
Union, 1977.

Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated from revised edition
by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Scribner, 1965.

 

Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of
Mark. Missoula: Pub. by SBL for Sem. on Mark, 1973.

 

"Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark." Interpretation

 

32 (Oct. 1978) 369-86.

Review of Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders, by Michael J.
Cook. Leiden: Brill, 1978.1n Journal of Biblical Literature 99
(Dec. 1980) 617-19.

 

 

"A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark." Journal of Biblical
Literature 101 (Dec. 1982) 563-94.

 

 

Temple, Trial and Royal Christology." The Passion of Mark.
Edited by Werner H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

 

Doudna, John Charles. The Greek of the Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia:
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1961.

 

Ebeling, H. J. The Messianic Secret and the Message of the Evangelist
Mark. Berlin: Toepelmann, 1939.

 

Enslin, Morton S. "Luke and the Samaritans." Harvard Theological Review
(1943) 277-97.

 

256

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History II. Translated by J. E. L. Oulton.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1973.

 

Faierstein, Morris M. "Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First."
Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (Mar. 1981) 75-86.

Farmer, William R. Jesus and the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

. "Modern Developments of Griesbach's Hypothesis." New Testament
Studies 23 (Apr. 1977) 275-95.

. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Macon, Georgia:
Mercer University Press, 1976.

Fisher, K. M. and von Wahlede, U. C. "The Miracles of Mark 4:35-5:43:
Their Meaning and Function in the Gospel Framework." Biblical
Theology Bulletin 11 (1981) 13-16.

 

Fledderman, Harry. "The Flight of a Naked Young Man (Mark 14:51-52)."
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (July 1979) 412-18.

Freed, Edwin D. "Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?"
Novum Testamentum 12 (July 1970) 241-56.

 

"Ego Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
41 (April 1979) 288-91.

Gaster: Moses. The Asatir, the Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses.
Oriental Translation Fund. Vol. 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society,
1927.

. The Samaritans: Their History, Doctrines and Literature. London:
Oxford University Press, 1925.

. Studies and Texts in Folklore, Mggic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew
Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology. 2 vols. London: Maggs Bros.,
1925-28.

Gaster, Theodore H. "Samaritans." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible Vol. 4 R-Z. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962.

Gottheil, Richard. "The Dating of Their Manuscripts by the Samaritans."
Journal of Biblical Literature 25 (1906) 29-48.

 

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According
to St. Mark. The International Critical Commentary. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922.

 

257

Goulder, Michael. "The Samaritan Hypothesis." In Incarnation and Myth:
The Debate Continued, pp. 247-250. Edited by Michael Goulder.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

 

 

"The Two Roots of the Christian Myth." In The Myth of God
Incarnate, pp. 64-86. Edited by John Hick. Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1977.

 

Green, Michael, ed. The Truth of God Incarnate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977.

 

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. London: Tyndale Press, 1970.

 

Hadas, M. and Smith, M. Heroes and Gods. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

 

Halkin, A. S. "Samaritan Polemics Against the Jews." Proceedings of the
American Academy for Jewish Research 7 (1935-36) 13-59.

 

 

Harrelson, Walter. "Shechem in Extra-Biblical References." In The Biblical
Archaeologist Reader, 2, pp. 258-65. Edited by David Noel Freedman
and Edward F. Campbell, Jr. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1957.

 

 

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964.

 

Harrisville, Roy A. The Miracle of Mark. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1967.

 

Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A. A Concordance to the Septuagint. 2 Vols.
Graz: Akademische Druck. U. Verlag-Anstalt, 1954.

 

Hendriksen, William. The Gospel of Mark: New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1975.

 

Hengel, Martin. Jews, Greeks and Barbarians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1980.

 

. Judaism and Hellenism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

 

Holladay, Carl H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the
Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, 1977.

 

 

Huck, Albert. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1968.

 

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London, SCM Press, 1949.

 

258

Isser, Stanley. The Dositheans. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.

 

Review of The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, by S.
Lowy. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Journal of Biblical Literature 98
(Sept. 1979) 471-73.

 

 

. Review of Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism
Reconsidered, by R. J. Coggins. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975.
Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (Mar. 1977) 131—32.

 

 

 

"The Samaritans and Their Sects." The Cambridge History of
Judaism Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969.

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. "Samaritans," by A. Cowley.

 

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. IV. Books I-IV. Translated by H.
St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1978.

 

Jewish Antiquities. V01. V. Books V-VIII. Translated by
H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.

 

. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. VI. Books IX-XI. Translated by Ralph
Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1978.

 

. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. VII. Books XII-XIV. Translated by
Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1976.

 

. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. VIII. Books XV-XVII. Translated by
Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1980.

 

. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. IX. Books XVIII-XIX. Translated by
L. H. Feldman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1981.

 

. Jewish Antiquities. Vol. X. Book XX. General Index. Translated
by L. H. Feldman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1981.

 

The Jewish War. Vol. II. Books I-III. Translated by H. St.
J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1976.

 

The Jewish War. Vol. III. Books IV—VII. Translated by H. St.
J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1979.

 

259

Juel, Donald. Messiah and Temple. SBL Dissertation Series, 31. Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, 1977.

 

Jurgen, Roloff. "Das Markusevangelium als Geschichtsdarstellung."
Evangelische Theologie 29 (1969) 73-93.

 

Kahler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical
Christ. Translated and edited by Carl E. Braaten. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1964.

Kasemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. London: SCM Press, 1964.

Kealy, Sean P. Mark's Gogpel: A History of Its Interpretation. New York:
Paulist Press, 1982.

Kee, Howard C. "Aretalogy and Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature
92 (Sept. 1973) 402-22.

 

Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1977.

. Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the Gospels.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970.

"Mark As Redactor and Theologian: A Survey of Some Recent Markan
Studies." Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (Sept. 1971) 333—36.

 

"Mark's Gospel in Recent Research." Interpretation 32 (Oct.
1978) 353—68.

 

The Origins of Christianity: Sources and Documents. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1973.

. Review of The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14—16, Edited by
Werner H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. In Journal of
Biblical Literature 97 (March 1978) 143-44.

 

Kee, Howard Clark; Young, Franklin W.; and Frochlich, Karlfried. Understanding

 

the New Testament. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F. The Books of the Kings. Biblical Commentary
on the Old Testament. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, n.d. 1965 photolithoprint, Ann Arbor.

 

Kelber, Werner H. The Kingdom of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

The Oral and The Written Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.

, ed. The Passion ip Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

 

260

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. "The Gospel of Mark in Current Research." Religious
Studies Review 5 (Apr. 1979) 101-07.

 

Kippenberg, H. G. Garizim and Synagogue. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971.

 

Kistemaker, Simon J. The Gospels in Current Study. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1972.

 

Klein, R. W. "Samaria Papyri." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.
Supplementary Volume (1976) 5:772.

 

Lagrange, M. J. Commentary on Mark. 4th ed. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1929.

 

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary
on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

 

Lapp, Paul W. "Bedouin Find Papyri Three Centuries Older than Dead Sea
Scrolls." Biblical Archaeology Review 4 (Mar. 1978) 16-24.

 

Lichtenstein, H. "Die Fastenrolle." Hebrew Union College Annual 8, 9
(1931-32) 339.

 

Lightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica: Matthew - I Corinthians. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1979.

 

 

Lightfoot, R. H. The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1950.

 

History and Interpretation in the Gospels. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1935.

 

Loisy, Alfred F. L' Evangile selon Marc. Paris: E. Nourry, 1912.

 

. Les Evangiles Synoptiques. Ceffonds: Chez l'auteur, 1907.

 

Longstaff, Thomas R. W. Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study_in the
Synoptic Problem. SBL Dissertation Series 28. Missoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1977.

 

 

. Review of On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, by John M.
Rist. New York: Cambridge University, 1978. In Journal of Biblical
Literature 100 (Mar. 1981) 127-30.

 

 

 

Lowy, S. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1977.

Macdonald, John and Higgins, A. J. B. "The Beginnings of Christianity
According to the Samaritans." New Testament Studies 18 (1971) 54-80.

 

261

Macdonald, John. "The Leeds School of Samaritan Studies." The Annual

Malbon,

 

Of Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (1961-62) 115-18.

 

, editor and translator. Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah.
Vol. 1: The Text. Vol. 2: The Translation. Berlin: Verlag
Alfred Topelmann, 1963.

 

, ed. The Samaritan Chronicle II (or: Sepher Ha-Yamim) From
Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1969.

 

 

"The Theological Hymns of Amram Dorah." The Annual Of Leeds
University Oriental Society 2 (1950—61) 54-73.

 

 

. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM Press, 1964.

 

Elizabeth Struthers. "Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature
in Marcan Interpretation." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44
(April 1982) 242-55.

 

Review of Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric
Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6, by Joanna Dewey. Chico:
Scholars, 1980. Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (Dec. 1982)
608-09).

 

 

 

Maloney, Elliott C. "Semitic Inferences in Marcan Syntax." Ph. D. dissertation,

Fordham University, 1979.

Mansfield, M. Robert. Review of Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, by Ralph

Marcus,

Mare, W.

Marrou ,

 

Martin. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1973. Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (Mar. 1975)
134-37.

 

Ralph. "The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous)."
In Josephus.Jewish Antiquities Vol. VII. Books XII-XIV. Translated

by Ralph Marcus, pp. 732-736. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1976.

 

"Josephus on the Samaritan Schism." In Josephus. Jewish Antiquities.
Vol. VI. Books IX-XI. Translated by Ralph Marcus, pp. 498-511.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

 

H. "Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan in Character?" Westminster
Theological Journal 34 (1971—72) 1-21.

 

 

Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity. London: Sheed
and Ward, 1981.

 

Marshall, I. Howard. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Downers

 

Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

262

Martin, Ralph P. Mark Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1972.

 

Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by G. Buswell.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the
Gospel. Translated by James Boyce, Donald Juel, William Poehlmann,
with Roy A. Harrisville. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969.

Mauchline, John. "Aaronite and Zadokite Priests: Some Reflections on an
Old Problem." Glasgow University Oriental Society 21 (1965-66) 1-11.

Mayer, L. A. Bibliography of the Samaritans. Edited by Donald Broadribb.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.

 

McKnight, Edgar V. Review of Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in
the Synoptic Problem, by Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1977. Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (Mar. 1979) 143-45.

 

. What Is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

 

Meeks, Wayne A. Review of The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher
Ha-Yamim) From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar, by John Macdonald.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Journal of Biblical Literature 89
(Dec. 1970) 481-83.

 

. Review of Samaritanische Probleme. Studien zum Verhaltnis von
Samaritanertum, Judentum und Urchristentum, by John Bowman. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1967. Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (Dec. 1968)
448—50.

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1963.

Minette de Tillesse, G. Le Secret Messianique du l'Evangile de Marc.
Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1968.

Montgomery, James Alan. The Samaritans. New York: KTAV Publishing House,
1968.

 

Moore, George Foot. Judaism In the First Centuries of the Christian Bra.
2 vols. New York: Shocken Books, 1971.

Mor, Menachem. "More Bibliography on the Samaritans." Henoch 1 (1979)
99-122.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John: The New International Commentary
on the New Testament. General Editor, F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971.

 

263

 

Moule, C. F. D. The Birth of the New Testament. London: Adam & Charles
Black, 1966. '

. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Cambridge: At the University
Press, 1965.

 

 

Moulton, W. F. and Geden, A. S., eds. A Concordance to the Greek Testament.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1967.

 

Mowery, Robert L. Review of Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A
Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark, by
E. J. Pryke. New York: Cambridge University, 1978. In Journal
of Biblical Literature 99 (Dec. 1980) 615-17.

 

 

 

Nardoni, Enrique. "A Redactional Interpretation of Mark 9:1." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 43 (July 1981) 365-84.

 

 

Nickelsburg, W. E. "The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narratives."
Harvard Theological Review 73 (Jan. - Apr. 1980) 153-84.

 

Nineham, Dennis E. The Gospel of Mark: The Pelican New Testament Commentaries.
Baltimore: Penquin Books, 1963.

 

O'Callaghan, Jose. "New Testament Papyri In Qumran Cave 7?" and Martini,
Carlo M. "Notes On The Papyri of Qumran Cave 7." Supplement to
Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972).

 

Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, R. W., eds. J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic
and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1978.

 

 

Orchard, Bernard. Matthew, Luke and Mark: The Griesbach Solution to the
Synoptic Question. Manchester: Koinonia, 1976.

 

 

Orchard, John Bernard, ed. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Macon, Georgia:
Mercer University Press, 1982.

 

Orlinsky, Harry M. Israel Exploration Journal Reader. 2 vols. New York:
KTAV Publishing House, 1981.

 

Parker, Pierson. "A Second Look at The Gospel Before Mark." Journal of
Biblical Literature 100 (Sept. 1981) 389-413.

 

 

Patte, Daniel. What is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976.

 

Patten, Priscilla. "The Form and Function of Parable in Select Apocalyptic
Literature and Their Significance for Parables in the Gospel of
Mark." New Testament Studies 29 (Apr. 1983) 246-58.

 

264

Payne Smith, R. "The Samaritan Chronicle of Abu'l Fatah, The Arabic Text
from the Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library with a Literal English
Translation." In M. Heidenheim, ed., Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift
fur englisch-theologische Forschung und Kritik. (1863) 304-432.

 

 

Perrin, Norman. "The Gospel of Mark." The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible. Supplementary volume. General Editor Keith Crim.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

 

. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology, Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1974.

 

Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row,
1967.

 

. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969.

 

Pesch, Rudolph. Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols. Herders theologischer
Kommentor Zum Neuen Testament, 2. Frieburg: Herder, 1976.

 

Petersen, Norman R. "The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26." Harvard Theological

 

 

Review 73 (Jan. - Apr. 1980) 185-217.

, ed.' Semeia l6 Perspectives on Mark's Gospel. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1980.

 

Pfeiffer, Robert H. History of New Testament Times. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, 1972.

 

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969.

 

Pummer, Reinhard. "New Evidence for Samaritan Christianity." Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 41 (Jan. 1979) 98-117.

 

. "The Present State of Samaritan Studies: II." Journal of Semitic
Studies 22 (1977) 41-43, 47.

 

"The Samaritan Pentateuch and the New Testament." New Testament
Studies 22 (1976) 441-43.

 

Purvis, James D. "Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem." Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 24 (Jan. - April 1965) 88-94.

 

. Review of The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity,
by Stanley Jerome Isser. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Journal of Biblical
Literature 97 (June 1978) 290-91.

 

 

 

"The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans." Novum Testamentum 17
(1975) 161-98.

 

265

. Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano, Genesis: Edicion critica sobre
la base de Manuscritos ineditos, by Luis Fernando Giron-Blanc.
Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1976.
Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (Sept. 1978) 441-43.

 

 

. "Samaritan Pentateuch." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible. Supplementary Volume (1976) 572-75.

 

. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968.

"The Samaritans." The Cambridge History of Judaism Vol. II.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, not yet published.

 

Quesnell, Quentin. "The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence."
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975) 48-67.

 

. The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method through Exegesis
of Mark 6:52. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

 

 

"A Reply to Morton Smith." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
38 (Apr. 1977) 200-203.

 

Raisanen, Heikki. Das "Messiasgeheimnis" im Markusevangelium, Schriften
der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschift, 28. Helsinki: Finnische
Exegetische Gesellschaft, 1976.

 

Reploh, Karl-Georg. Markus, Lehrer der Gemeinde; eine redaktionsgeschichtliche

 

Studie zu den Jungerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums. Stuttgart:
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.

Rhoads, David and Michie, Donald. Mark as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982.

 

Richard, Earl. "Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence."
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (Apr. 1977) 190-208.

 

"The Polemical Character of the Joseph Episode in Acts 7."
Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (June 1979) 255-67.

Richardson, Alan. The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels. London: SCM Press,
1969.

 

Riesenfeld, Harold. The Gospel Tradition. Translated by Margaret Rowley
and Robert Kraft. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

 

Rist, John M. Review of Matthew, Luke and Mark by Bernard Orchard. Manchester:
Koinonia, 1976. Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (Mar. 1979) 137-38.

 

 

On the Independence of Matthew and Mark. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1978.

266

Robbins, Vernon K. Review of Mark - Traditions in Conflict, by Theodore
J. Weeden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Journal of Biblical
Literature 91 (Sept. 1972) 417-20.

 

 

 

Roberts, B. J. "Samaritan Pentateuch." In The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible Vol. 4 R-Z. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962.

 

 

Robinson, James M. The Problem of History in Mark. London: SCM Press, 1957.

 

Robinson, John A. T. Redatipg the New Testament. Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1976.

 

Rowley, H. H. "The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History." Israel's
Prophetic Heritage, pp. 208-22. Edited by Bernard W. Anderson and
Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1962.

 

Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple." Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library 38 (1955) 166-98.

 

Russell, D. S. The Jews From Alexander to Herod. London: Oxford University
Press, 1967.

 

Sandmel, Samuel. The First Christian CenturygIn Judaism and Christianity.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.

 

Judaism and Christian Beginnings. Oxford University Press, 1978.

 

Schmidt, Karl L. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919.

 

Schreiber, J. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums." Zeitschrift
fuer Theologie and Kirche 58 (1961) 154-83.

 

 

Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135). 2nd vol. Revised English edition by Geza
Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1973.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. With a new intro-
duction by James M. Robinson. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

 

 

 

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Translated by Donald
H. Madwig. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1967.

 

"The Portrayal of the Life of Faith in the Gospel of Mark."
Interpretation 32 (Oct. 1978) 387-99.

 

 

267

Scobie, Charles H. H. "The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity."
New Testament Studies 19 (1972-73) 390-414.

 

. "The Use of Source Material in the Speeches of Acts II and VII."
New Testament Studies 25 (1978) 399-421.

 

Simon, Marcel. Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus. Translated by James H.
Farley. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

 

Simonsen, Hejne. "Zur Frage der grundlegenden Problematik in form-und
redaktions - geschichtlicher Evangelienforschung." Studia theologia
26 (1972) 1-23.

Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.

 

Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973.

. "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End
of the First Decade." Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982) 449-61.

. Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

 

"On the Authenticity of the Mar Saba Letter of Clement."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976) 196-99.

 

. "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the
Gospels and Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (June 1971)
174-99.

The Secret Gospel. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

 

Spiro, Abram. "Samaritans, Tobiads, and Judahites In Pseudo-Philo."
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 20 (1951)
279-335.

. "Stephen's Samaritan Background." In The Acts of the Apostles,
pp. 285-300, by Johannes Munck, revised by W. F. Albright and C. S.
Mann The Anchor Bible 31, New York, 1967.

 

. unpublished letters in possession of Robert T. Anderson, Michigan
State University.

Stanton, Graham. "Samaritan Incarnational Christology?" In Incarnation and
Myth: The Debate Continued, pp. 243-46. Edited by Michael Goulder.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

 

Stein, Robert H. Review of Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction
History of the Gospel, by Willi Marxsen. Translated by James Boyce,
Donald Juel, William Poehlmann, with Roy A. Harrisville. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1969. Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (Sept. 1969) 358-60.

 

268

Stemberger, G. "Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und dis judische Tradition."
In A. Fuchs, Jesus in der Verkunkigung der Kirche, Studien Zum
Neven Testament und seiner Unwelt, Band 1. Linz: 1976.

 

 

Stoldt, Hans-Herbert. History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis.
Translated and edited by Donald L. Niewyk. Macon, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1980.

 

Streeter, B. H. The Four GOSpels. London: Macmillan Co., 1930.

 

Strugnell, John. "Quelques Inscriptions Samaritaines." Revue Biblique 4
(Oct. 1967) 555-79.

 

Swanson, Reuben J. The Horizonal Line Synopsis of the Gospels Greek Edition.
Volume 1. The Gospel of Matthew. Dillsboro, N.C.: Western North
Carolina Press, Inc., 1982.

 

 

Tacitus. The Annals Vol. IV. Books IV-VI, XI-XII. Translated by John
Jackson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1970.

 

Talbert, C. H. and McKnight, E. V. "Can the Griesbach Hypothesis be Falsified?"
Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 338-68.

 

Talbert, C. H. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

 

Talmon, Shemaryahu. "The Samaritan Pentateuch." The Journal of Jewish
Studies 2 (1951) 144-50.

 

"The Samaritans." Scientific American 236 (Jan. 1977) 100-108.

 

Tannehill, Robert C. "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative
Role." Journal of Religion 57 (1977) 386-405.

 

"The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology." Perspectives
on Mark's Gospel. Semeia 16. Edited by Norman R. Petersen.
Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980.

 

 

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan &
Co., 1959,

 

Taylor, W. R. "A New Samaritan Inscription." Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 81 (Feb. 1941) 1-6.

 

Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated
by S. Applebaum. 1959. New York: Atheneum, 1977.

 

Thayer, Joseph Henry. Translated, revised, and enlarged. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: American Book Co., 1889.

 

 

269

I . . .
Trocme, Etienne. The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark. Translated
by Pamela Gaughan. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

 

Trotter, R. J. F. "Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know the Epistle
to the Hebrews?" Leeds University Oriental Society. Monograph
Series No. 1 (Oct. 1961) 1-37.

 

Tyson, Joseph B. "The Blindness of Disciples in Mark." Journal of Biblical
Literature 80 (Sept. 1961) 261—68.

 

 

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1948 ed. s.v. "Samaritans," by Theodor
H. Gaster.

Vassiliadis, Petros. "Behind Mark: Towards A Written Source." New Testament

 

Studies 20 (Jan. 1974) 155-60.

Waltke, Bruce Kenneth. "Prolegomena to the Samaritan Pentateuch." Unpub-
lished Ph. D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1965.

Weeden, Theodore J. Mark--Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1971.

 

Weiss, Johannes. Das alteste Evapgelium. Gottengen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1903.

 

Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1892.

Wellhausen, Julius. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin:
G. Reimer, 1905.

 

. Das Evangelium Marci. 2. Ausg. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1909.

 

Wrede, Wilhelm. The Messianic Secret in the Gospels. Greenwood, S.C.:
Attic Press, 1971.

 

Wright, G. Ernest, ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
and Company, 1961.

 

 

"Samaria." In The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, pp. 248-57.
Edited by David Noel Freedman and Edward F. Campbell, Jr. Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1957.

 

"The Samaritans at Shechem." Harvard Theological Review 55
(1962) 357-66.

 

. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1964.

Wright, Ernest and Filson, Floyd, eds. The Westminster Historical Atlas
to the Bible. Revised edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1956.