Beyond the Breach: An Exegetical Study of John 4:1-42 as a Text of Jewish-Samaritan Reconciliation (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 9789042936775, 9789042936966, 9042936770

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

92

Priya Paul

Beyond the Breach An Exegetical Study of John 4:1-42 as a Text of Jewish-Samaritan Reconciliation

PEETERS

BEYOND THE BREACH

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES

EDITORS

K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. Van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD REIMUND Bieringer (Leuven) LUTZ Doering (Münster) MARK Goodacre (Duke) BAS ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) ANNETTE Merz (Groningen) MADHAVI Nevader (St Andrews) THOMAS Römer (Lausanne) JACK Sasson (Nashville) TAMMI Schneider (Claremont)

Priya PAUL

BEYOND THE BREACH An Exegetical Study of John 4:1-42 as a Text of Jewish-Samaritan Reconciliation

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2021

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2021 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3677-5 eISBN 978-90-429-3696-6 D/2021/0602/30 ALL rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

FOREWORD “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” (John 4:26) – My Strength and My Guide!

Beyond the Breach unravels an expedition through the pages of the Sacred Scripture paying specific attention to the Gospel of John. Major thrust of this journey is to unearth the theme of loving one’s enemy in the Johannine corpus challenging the existing near consensus that the theme of loving one’s enemy is absent in the Fourth Gospel. This is brilliantly achieved through a thorough and systematic analysis of the implicit ethics inscribed in the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus in John 4:1-42. More specifically, this work shows how John’s creative style narrates the procedure of building a relationship in an atmosphere of no relationship; realized by loving one’s enemy, achieving reconciliation and transforming disturbed relationships into mutual understanding and welcoming positive attitudes. This academic pilgrimage has traversed through joys and sorrows, hurdles and eureka experiences. I bow my head in gratitude to the Spirit of God, who has made it possible for me to accomplish this work. Many ignited minds have gifted me with their time and talents during the various stages of this project in very many ways. An attempt to list them all would be impractical since my gratitude is due to several persons. However, a few names I mention as they are very special to this project. My sincere gratitude to Prof. Mathijs Lamberigts, the present dean as well as the former dean Prof. Lieven Boeve of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven; the members of the jury – Prof. Dr. Johan Leemans, Prof. Dr. Johannes Beutler, Prof. Dr. Sr. Margareta Gruber, Dr. Martijn Steegen; and scholarship programmes of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven and MISSIO Aachen, Germany. A special thanks to the professors and academic colleagues in the department of Biblical Studies especially Prof. Dr. Gilbert Van Belle, Prof. Dr. Eibert Tigchelaar, Prof. Dr. Joseph Verheyden and, for the insightful discussions and the constructive suggestions and evaluations towards the improvement of this work. My sincere thanks to Dr. Jonathan Sozek and Prof. Dr. Benny Karuvelil who edited the text.

VI

FOREWORD

I convey my sincere gratitude to my religious superiors of the Congregation of the Mother of Carmel (CMC) for allowing me to pursue studies and research at KU Leuven, especially my major superiors: superior general Dr. Sr. Sibi, provincial superior Dr. Sr. Prasanna and Sr. Edward, Sr. Sancta, Sr. Mary Davis, Sr. Anie Davis and our sisters of the Haus Karmel in Heidelberg, Germany. Mentioning them in any manner whatsoever will never suffice to acknowledge how my parents and family members ignited the spark of knowledge in me; my father, M. P. Paulose, who taught me to grow with an upright and loving heart, to my mother, Gracy Paulose, who first led me on the paths of being a cheerful giver, my sister and brother Preetha Jogy and Joe M. Paul. I am grateful to Dr. Jobi Thurackal, Dr. Jojo Varakukalayil and Dr. Arjen Bakker, Franziskanerkloster in Münster, Germany and the Zusters van Maria in Leuven for their cordial friendship and constant support. Finally, the person to whom I am indebted the most my Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Reimund Bieringer. My profoundest sentiments of gratitude are due to him who guided me from the days of my bachelor degree at KU Leuven to the completion of my PhD. Without his unparalleled competence and scholarship, penetrating insight, prone critique, and warm hospitality, this project would have been scarcely imaginable. He has led me on muddled paths through a walk in ways unknown. I avail myself to sincerely acknowledge Peeters Publishers, Leuven without whom this work would not have seen the light of the day! Years of learning and study have humbled me, to open wide my senses with a sense of wonder – Ad maiorem Dei gloriam! LEUVEN, 15 May 2018

Priya Paul CMC

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART 1 THEOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS: IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42? AND INTRODUCTORY EXEGETICAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE SAMARITAN PERICOPE CHAPTER 1 TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING ETHICS IN JOHN AND THE FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Alleged Absence of Ethics in John . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. The Reduction of Ethics in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Trimming-Ethics of the Johannine Love Commandment 2. The Presence of Ethics in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Traces of Ethics in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The Implicit Ethics in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. The Ethics of Love: Faith and Action in John . . 2.2.2. σημεῖα-Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3. The ζωή-Ethics of the Johannine Jesus . . . . . . 2.2.4. The Underlying Ethics in the Narrative of John. . 3. The Samaritan Episode: Scholarship on the Ethical Elements. 4. Summary and Preliminary Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Broadening of the Analytic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Thesis for Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 16 18 19 23 23 27 27 30 32 34 39 41 44 51

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7. Ethos and/or Ethics . . . 8. Methodology . . . . . . 9. Content of the Chapters . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

51 54 55 56

FOUNDATIONS: THE LITERARY-GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT OF JOHN 4:1-42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

CHAPTER 2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Literary-Geographical Indications and Itinerary of Jesus: An Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Geographical Indications and the Structure of John: A Critical Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Galilean Ministry and Judean Ministry . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. From the Prologue to the Epilogue: Journey Structure . . 2.3. The Four Journeys of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Broader and Immediate Context of the Samaritan Episode . . 4. Unity and Coherence of the Samaritan Episode . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 58 66 67 70 73 78 82 88

PART 2 THE TWO PROTAGONISTS: JESUS, A Ἰουδαῖος, AND THE WOMAN, A Σαμαρῖτις, IN JOHN 4:1-26 CHAPTER 3 A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY: INTRODUCTORY PART (JOHN 4:1-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Overtones of a Power-Conflict (John 4:1-3) . . . . . . . . 2. Jesus Had to (ἔδει) Pass through Samaria (John 4:4) . . . 2.1. The Meaning and Implications of δεῖ . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. δεῖ in Different Lexica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2. δεῖ in John 4:4 and in the Immediate Context 2.2. Implications of the Necessity of Jesus . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

93

. 93 . 94 . 98 . 98 . 98 . 100 . 102

IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. χωρίον ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ Ἰωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ and πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (John 4:5-6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Jacob’s Land and the Well given to Joseph’s Sons . . . . 3.2. Jacob and Joseph: Patriarchs of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Two Protagonists Meet: Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and a Σαμαρῖτις 4.1. The Context of δός μοι πεῖν (John 4:7-8) . . . . . . . 4.2. The First Response: Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις (John 4:9ab) 4.2.1. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: An Overview. . . 4.2.2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the Relevant Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1. ‫היהודים‬/οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and ‫השׁמרנים‬/οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the OT . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: Relevant Literature Outside the Bible . . . . . . . 4.2.2.3. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the NT 4.3. οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 106 107 113 114 117 118 121 121 124 134 140 146

CHAPTER 4 CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING: A DIALOGUE IN PROGRESS IN JOHN 4:10-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Reversal of δός μοι (vv. 10-15) . . . . . . . 1.1. Deflecting From Conflicting Mood (v. 10) . 1.2. A Phase of Bargaining Over (vv. 11-15) . . 2. Confrontations (vv. 16-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Thinking Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The Dialogue in Progress . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. θεωρῶ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. προφήτης. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

149 150 151 158 172 172 178 179 180 185

CHAPTER 5 COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. The Core Issue (vv. 20-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. προσκυνέω. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim: The SP, LXX and MT . . . 1.3. Either/Or and Neither/Nor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Hard and Soft (vv. 22-24). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Hard on the Truth (v. 22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε versus ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν . . . . . 2.1.2. ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν . . . . . . 2.2. Soft on the Resolution (vv. 23-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται ὥρα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1. ὁ θεός . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2. ὁ πατήρ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.3. ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ in the Gospel of John 2.2.2.4. God as the seeking Father . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.5. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3. ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Reaching Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

188 190 191 196 204 205 205 210 217 218 221 222 223 224 226 229 236 243 249 253

PART 3 THE PROTAGONISTS WORKING SIDE BY SIDE: Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι AND οἱ Σαμαρῖται IN JOHN 4:27-42 CHAPTER 6 A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO: JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES (JOHN 4:27, 31-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. A Transition (v. 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Dialogue: Jesus and the Disciples (vv. 31-38) . . . . . 2.1. What is Jesus’ Food (4:31-33)? . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. ἐν τῷ μεταξύ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2. φάγε, φαγεῖν and οὐκ οἴδατε (vv. 31-33). 2.2. The Key Pronouncement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. ἐμὸν βρῶμα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

257 258 263 265 265 267 276 277 278

XI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.2.3. τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. The Theme of Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. σπείρω/ ὁ σπείρων, and θερίζω/ ὁ θερισμός . . 2.3.1.1. Sowing and Harvesting in the MT and in the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.2. Sowing and Harvesting in the NT . . . . 2.3.1.3. The Sower and the Harvester . . . . . . . 2.3.2. ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

282 285 286 286 290 296 304 307

CHAPTER 7 THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE: EXCHANGES BETWEEN οἱ Σαμαρῖται AND οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (JOHN 4:28-30, 39-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Samaritans of Sychar (vv. 28-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Samaritan Woman’s Words and their Immediate Impact (vv. 29-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; . . . . . . . . . . . 2 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. The Outcome of μαρτυρεῖν: Response (v. 39) . . . . . . 2.2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus with His Disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (Samaritans of Sychar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Aftermath of ἔμεινεν (vv. 41-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. οἶδα: The Samaritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2. οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b) Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

311 312 312 318 319 327 328 329 333 337 339 344

GENERAL CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 1. Text Editions and Tools. . . 2. Commentaries of the Gospel 3. Studies . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . of John . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

355 355 356 358

INDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

ABBREVIATIONS AnBib ANL ANTC BA BAZ BBB BBR BETL BHT BibInt BiBh BS BTB BTZ BU BWANT BZAW BZNW CBET CBL CBQ CBQMS ConBNT DJD DRev DZPS EvQ EvT EWNT ExpTim FAT FRLANT HeyJ HTKNT HTS HTR ITS ITQ JAAR JBL

Analecta Biblica Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Biblical Archaeologist Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblical Interpretation Bible Bhashyam Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Biblische Untersuchungen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Discoveries in the Judean Desert Downside Review Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Sonderband Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theology Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament See Balz in the Bibliography (Section 1) Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Heythrop Journal Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Studies Harvard Theological Review Indian Theological Studies Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature

XIV JBQ JSJ JSNT JSOT NTS NovTSup RelSRev RevExp RTL RVV SANT SBAB SBF SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBLSymS SBS SE SEÅ SHR SJLA SNT SNTA SPIB SS StBL STDJ STR ST StudBib StuMor SubBi Tg. Neof. TGSST TRu TS TSAJ TTS VT VTSup ZDPV ZEE ZNW ZM

ABBREVIATIONS Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Supplements Religious Studies Review Review and Expositor Revue théologique de Louvain Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studia Evangelica Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Studies in the History of Religions Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studien zum Neuen Testament Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici Studia Samaritana Studies in Biblical Literature Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah Studies in Theology and Religion Studia theologica Studia Biblica Studia Moralia Subsidia biblica Targum Neofiti Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Tübinger theologische Studien Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Mission

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Johannine scholarship, in recent years, has witnessed a revived interest in analyzing the ethical dimensions in the fourth gospel, which was generally downplayed until about a decade ago. The debate essentially concerns the question of what ethical content and/or ethical issues are depicted in John’s gospel, which appears to be at a bare minimum compared to the other NT books. Furthermore, the moral statements that are contained in the gospel appear to be limited to just one: the commandment of love (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12). One has to keep in mind that the NT books are not written to present theories of moral actions or step by step formulations of ethical commandments as imperatives. That is, there will not be any systematically developed ethics in John or in the NT as a whole and hence one has to undertake a different approach to understand the inherent ethical elements in John. Hence, the nature of the enquiry or the approach needs to be different from enquiring for the explicit ethical imperatives presented as principles or laws which would answer the questions such as What should I do? and Why? Until recently, scholars have paid little attention to the concrete and exemplary episodes connected to the actions of Jesus in John that witness to a new mode of relationship, exhibiting higher levels of ethical concerns. Addressing such deficits in Johannine scholarship, recent scholars like, J. Frey, M. Labahn, J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann propose that in future studies of John, researchers pay attention to specific narratives in this gospel which include the portrayal of different types of relationships, in order to understand the underlying ethical elements. In other words, recent approaches have broadened the analytical categories used to examine the narratives of John, emphasizing how the words and actions of the characters function as outward expressions of virtue and character. This recent revival in scholarship invites future researchers to develop new ways of approaching ethical matters in the Johannine material. In further consideration, our present research project contributes to this effort by examining the Samaritan mission episode, which is one of the most crucial episodes in the gospel of John. Our critical overview of the discussions concerning ethics in John (cf. chapter 1) shows that less has been ventured upon the Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus in

2

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

this perspective.1 Accordingly, it is hoped that our modest project can help to shed some new light on the implication of the unique Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus which will enable a better understanding of the ethical element of reconciling love or loving the enemy in John. As J. Frey notes: “Der ,Streit der Parteien‘ [οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται] wird insofern von Jesus selbst überwunden und gerade darin erweist er sich als derjenige, der die eschatologische Erfüllung nicht nur ankündigt, sondern selbst verkörpert.”2 Our specific focus on this theme is due to the status of the research, namely, “none of the Johannine writings takes up or develops the synoptic concept of loving the enemy”3 underlined in a recent review of a series of studies in Johannine ethics and to our knowledge this consensus has not yet been challenged. In this respect, one can propose that the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman/Samaritans functions as the overcoming of the dispute between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Following this direction, this dissertation offers a study of the Samaritan narrative in Jn 4:1-42 which is the most extensive episode in the gospel and which is generally regarded as the most successful mission in John, due to its immediate effect of leading the Samaritan woman and her whole city to accept Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. The point of departure of this narrative is an atmosphere of power conflict, which has 1

2

3

Though one of the major foci of scholars while analyzing the Samaritan episode is the motif of mission, our present research’s specific attention is paid to the ethical element of loving the enemy in John where we challenge the existing consensus in Johannine scholarship, namely, that John does not takes up this theme. Nevertheless, in the broader framework, unearthing the underlying ethical element of loving the enemy, our research contributes to further in understanding the Samaritan mission of Jesus. For studies of Jn 4:1-42 in the line of mission, see, for instance, O. Cullmann, “Samaria and the Origin of Christian Mission,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (London: SCM Press, 1953), 185-192; J. McPolin, “Mission in the Fourth Gospel,” ITQ 36 (1969): 113-122; T. Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:142, WUNT II/31, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1988); R. Irudaya, “Significance of Jesus’ Mission with the Marginalized Samaritan Woman,” BiBh 32 (2006): 155-182; K. Kok, “As the Father has Sent Me I Send You: Towards a Missional-Incarnational Ethos in John 4,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in volume 2 of Early Christian Writings Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, eds. R. Zimmermann, J. G. van der Watt, and S. Luther (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 19-50. J. Frey, “Gute Samaritaner? Das neutestamentliche Bild der Samaritaner zwischen Juden, Christen und Paganen,” in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen, eds. J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid, SJ 70/StSam 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 203-233, 228-229. M. Labahn, “It’s only Love – Is that All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine Ethic – A Critical Evaluation of Research,” in Rethinking the Ethics of John, eds., Van der Watt and Zimmermann, 42.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

made Jesus to depart from Judea to Galilee and take a route through Samaria. This is specified by John’s employment of ἔδει. Jesus’ initiatives, words and actions in Samaria develop in various stages, beginning from a situation of conflict and operating against the background of tense relations between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (cf. οὐ συγχράομαι in v. 9). The Samaritan narrative presents a gradual transformation in the Samaritans’ μένειν with Jesus and his disciples, all of whom belong to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (vv. 40-42). Though initially it is made clear that Jesus had to pass through Samaria with some constraint (cf. ἔδει in v. 4), in the end he chooses to stay for two days with the Samaritans at their request before resuming his trip to Galilee. In this respect, the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus stands out among the depictions of episodes in the itinerant ministry of Jesus, not only in John but in the synoptic gospels. Motivated by the concerns presented above and in response to the direction suggested by recent scholarship concerning how to understand the underlying ethics in the narratives of John, we focus our attention in this dissertation on the unique Samaritan mission episode of the Johannine Jesus. We argue that the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus (Jn 4:142) depicts, in a unique manner, how to approach disturbed relationships and attitudes of no-relationship between two religious-political and socialcultural groups, and demonstrates how in this case the parties, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, were able to reach convergence and a mutual welcoming. From the very outset, one may outline the unfolding of 4:1-42 as follows. The episode begins in an atmosphere of conflict, implicit in its depictions of the Pharisees’ increasing hostile attitude towards Jesus (vv. 1-2) and of Jesus’ departure from Judea to Galilee (v. 3). The evangelist explains that Jesus had to pass through Samaria by using ἔδει in v. 4. Given the cultural and historical backgrounds, the strategy behind selecting this route could not have been easy to determine. Hence, we ask: why was it necessary for Jesus to pass through Samaria; was it a theological and/or a geographical necessity? Jesus passes through Samaria, and it is here that the evangelist presents an encounter between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and his disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritan woman and her fellow Samaritans) (vv. 5-6). The first exchange occurs between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις (vv. 7-9). The first response given to Jesus’ request is packed with explicit notions of denial, creating a distance between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις. One finds explicit tones of rejection and refutation (v. 9ab) on the part of the Samaritan woman, which is reaffirmed by the expression οὐ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9c).

4

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The text of the Samaritan episode depicts how the Samaritan mission of Jesus progresses through various phases such as of rejection, distancing, hesitation, doubtfulness, conflicting, deflecting, coming to a yes and to culminate with mutual acceptance: We will trace how the antagonism in v. 9 is gradually dissipated in the various phases of this encounter (vv. 10-26; 27, 31-38; 28-30, 39-42). We will see that the central part of our pericope, vv. 20-26 addresses the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, namely, who possesses the right place of worship while οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι claim it to be Jerusalem and οἱ Σαμαρῖται find it at Mt. Gerizim.4 That is, we will see how the Samaritan episode progresses from the mode of οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι through various stages and culminating in the coming together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (cf. μένειν, vv. 40-41), thus presenting an exemplar of how to build-up relationships in an atmosphere of no relationship, a practical implementation of the moral imperatives to love the enemy or reconcile the unfriendly relations in the other NT texts, one may say. Finally, the Samaritan episode culminates with the proclamation of Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου which points to an attitude beyond breach, namely, salvation is restricted neither to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι nor to οἱ Σαμαρῖται but it is for all, ὁ κόσμος (v. 42). We will examine the Samaritan episode in detail, paying attention to the various elements depicted in this narrative such as the setting of the context, and the major themes as well as key terms that concern not only the words and actions of Jesus and the other characters, but also those implicit in the religious-political and socio-cultural background of the relations between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται before the turn of the era and in the NT period. Here we will consider two important questions. The first question attempts to analyze how the breach or problems in the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are depicted in the episode. How is it expressed either explicitly or implicitly, through the words and/or actions of Jesus, of the Samaritan woman or the other Samaritans, and in the comments made by the evangelist5? Secondly, we will consider how 4

5

The question of the common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is yet another issue depicted implicitly in the Samaritan episode (cf. vv. 5-6; 11-12; 16-19). One may ask whether it is legitimate to employ modern ideas to understand the sociocultural elements in the past. Nevertheless, it is to be kept in mind that we have no choice but to interpret the past within the limits of modern ideas such as race, ethnicity, and religion, we render our analyses since we are not given any options to choose from. Moreover, such a method would be more understandable for the present readers especially when we discuss the ethical implications. See D. K. Buell, Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 5. S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties,

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

5

this episode progresses from an atmosphere of conflict and how it culminates in a μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται? In a nutshell, this episode depicts an itinerary of relationships, ranging from the most unwelcoming to the level of acceptance and desire to abide together. With these introductory remarks we proceed to give a brief description of how we analyze Jn 4:1-42 against the background of our research hypothesis. This project is presented in three parts, divided into seven chapters. The first part sets out the context in two chapters: the Implicit Ethics in John 4:1-42? and introductory exegetical issues concerning the Samaritan pericope. The major focus of part two is on the encounter between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις, in three chapters, three, four and five (vv. 1-9; 10-19; 20-26). The third part will discuss the encounters of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in three phases, in chapters six and seven. Firstly, we discuss the exchanges between Jesus and his disciples in vv. 27, 31-38 (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι). The second deals with the encounters between the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans of her town (vv. 28-30) and finally οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritans come to Jesus led by the Samaritan woman) in vv. 39-42. The first chapter begins by considering the status quaestionis concerning the ethical elements in the gospel of John, with specific attention to what scholars have said concerning elements related to love. First, we discuss scholarship which holds that there is no ethics in the gospel of John or at least that it contains considerably fewer ethical elements than any other NT books. Such discussions focus mainly on the study of direct ethical statements or imperatives in John. Second, we examine scholarship which holds the opposite view, affirming that there are ethical elements in John’s gospel, which is a rather recent approach. Finally, we narrow down the focus on our research pericope and review the remarks or discussions of scholars concerning the ethical elements in the Samaritan episode. From the above status quaestionis, we will summarize our observations and on this basis deduce some preliminary conclusions. In the next step, we examine proposals in recent scholarship that shed light on the question of how to broaden the analytic categories in order to discern the underlying or implicit ethical elements in the narrative of the gospel of John. In this light, we proceed to formulate our working hypothesis. In the last two sections, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 109-110, 136, who rightly notes that “we cannot avoid reckoning with modern ideas about race, ethnicity, and religion, so the problem is not that modern ideas are distorting historical analysis, since we can only interpret the past from the vantage point of the present”. See also Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 408.

6

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

we briefly specify the methodology and approaches that will be employed in the research as well as its working procedure. The second chapter delimits the boundaries of our research pericope within the literary-geographical context of the Samaritan episode. We first survey literary-geographical indications in the gospel pertaining to the itinerant ministry of the Johannine Jesus and critically examine these in relation to scholarship on structural proposals that have paid at least some attention to such indications in this gospel. In this light, we focus on the depiction of the itinerant ministry of Jesus within four sets of journeys. Based on this outline of the journeys of Jesus, we demarcate the broader and immediate contexts of the research pericope and make a case for reading the Samaritan episode as a coherent unity in 4:1-42. The primary point of departure of our hypothesis, which we will develop in part two, where we analyze the context and the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in chapters three to five. Firstly, in chapter three, we will examine Jn 4:1-9 against the background of indications presented specifically in the Samaritan episode and in general in the related Scripture references of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (in the MT, LXX and NT) as well as other relevant literature both prior to the turn of the era and contemporary to the NT period pertaining to the socio-political and religious-cultural elements in this pericope. In this way, we seek to understand the nature of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται as it is depicted in Jn 4 and in the relevant literature as well. As we will see, the first three verses of our research pericope carry overtones of a power conflict (vv. 1-3), and we discuss how John’s emphasis on this serves the further unfolding of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. Verse 4 addresses the issue of why Jesus had to (cf. ἔδει) pass through Samaria. We will examine the implications of this necessity by examining John’s use of the word ἔδει here. References to the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph indicate that they are the ancestors of οἱ Σαμαρῖται as well as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and this leads us to examine references in the relevant literature that point to a denial of common kinship with the Samaritans on the part of the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (see, however, vv. 5,6, 11-12, 20). In this setting, the evangelist depicts the meeting of the two protagonists: Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις. This is initiated by Jesus’ request for water at the well: δός μοι πεῖν (v. 7), where only these two protagonists are present (v. 8). The woman’s response to Jesus’ request, in v. 9, clearly indicates the distance between the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, while at the same time it depicts this distanced relationship as a clear breach and the reason why there is effectively no relationship between these two groups. We discuss

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

7

the first part of her response (Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις, v. 9ab) by addressing the issue of who οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are in the light of relevant literature from before the turning of the era and in the NT period. Then we examine the second part of the response (cf. οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις – v. 9c) to see how v. 9c fits well into the context of the Samaritan episode6, and more specifically the context of the introduction of the episode, where the two protagonists first encounter each other. We discuss the meaning and implications of οὐ συγχράομαι in general and the specific context of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Verses 1-9 provides the narrative framework in which we will consider these verses, as they implicitly present the then-prevailing relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. From this setting, the evangelist unfolds the progress of the relationship between the Samaritan woman and Jesus and of Jesus’ Samaritan mission generally. The negative response of the Samaritan woman in v. 9, with its overtones of blame and negativity, has a downside potential namely, the issue of the breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. However, Jesus does not allow the conversation to end at that point. He reinitiates it in a more inviting way. In place of his request of water (cf. δός μοι πεῖν – v. 7), he offers the Samaritan woman water of a higher quality (v. 10). In fact, vv. 10ff depicts both the encounter between these two protagonists and two of the major themes of discussion in this dialogue: namely, the theme of water (vv. 10-19), which is concluded with the Samaritan woman’s acknowledging Jesus as a/the prophet and the theme of worship which culminates with Jesus’ self-revelation (v. 26) that he is the Μεσσίας in response to the Samaritan woman’s query in v. 25 (οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα) as well. We will discuss these two themes in chapters four and five. Accordingly, in the fourth chapter, we discuss vv. 10-19 in the following respect. One notices how Jesus deflects the conversation from one mode to another. In v. 10, the woman puts it into a conflicting mood by her response to his offer of ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. This leads the conversation ultimately to a reversal of this request of water. That is, in place of Jesus’ request for water in v. 7 (δός μοι πεῖν), in v. 15 it is the Samaritan who makes the request for water (δός μοι). In the next phase, Jesus further deflects her attention in concrete terms; he confronts her (vv. 16ff), 6

On the basis of the text-critical analysis of v. 9, we come to the conclusion that οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9c) is part of the earliest recoverable text.

8

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

leading her to acclaim him as a/the prophet (v. 19). Hence, this fourth chapter will unfold in two main sections. The first will discuss how the dialogue progresses through these conflicting and deflecting modes and how it reaches the point of a request of water on the part of the Samaritan woman (vv. 10-15). The second will discuss how it progresses further, until finally the woman acknowledges Jesus as a/the prophet (v. 19), even though she had distanced herself from him, who is a Ἰουδαῖος, in v. 9. It is not certain, in v. 19, what she expects from Jesus, whom she now regards as a/the prophet who belongs to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. What is implied by the Samaritan woman’s acknowledgment of Jesus as προφήτης, meaning a prophet, or maybe the prophet like Moses? However, one can see that the dialogue in progress (vv. 7-19) leads her to speak openly to Jesus about the core issue, the right place of worship. The fifth chapter will address the issue of the right place of worship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, which the two protagonists discuss in vv. 20-26. Here, it is the Samaritan woman who introduces the theme of worship, and states an open question as to who possesses the right place of worship. προσκυνέω and προσκυνητής are the key words and major theme in vv. 20-24, and this terminology is employed in nearly every verse. Therefore we need to explore the implications of the theme of worship in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman, and more specifically at the juncture of her acknowledgment of Jesus as προφήτης. In v. 20, the Samaritan woman raises the issue and in vv. 21-24 Jesus addresses it. This is marked by moments of a hard approach (v. 21-22) and a softer one (vv. 23-24). The dialogue culminates with the two dialogue partners ‘coming to a yes’ (vv. 25-26). Similar to her exchange in v. 20, the Samaritan woman here openly states the possible solution to the longstanding issue as to who possess the right place of worship between her people (οἱ Σαμαρῖται) and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, in light of the Samaritan expectation of the coming of the Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός. And Jesus agrees, identifying himself: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (vv. 25-26). It is to be noted that the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 10-26 is marked by an inclusion (ὁ λέγων σοι – v. 10, and ὁ λαλῶν σοι – v. 26) stating that Jesus wants her to have right knowledge in order to know who he, Jesus, is (v. 10), and the conversation culminates with Jesus’ self-revelation. In this respect, vv. 20-26 specifically depict how Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman progresses from a situation of οὐκ οἴδατε of the Samaritan woman toward her gaining right knowledge (οἶδα). This leads to a point of convergence amidst the differences between the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

9

and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, namely the Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός. Hence, in the fifth chapter, we discuss how in vv. 20-21 the core issue at stake is first raised by the Samaritan woman in terms of an either/or choice (either Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim), and then by Jesus, in his instantaneous response of neither/ nor: neither of these physical places are in an ultimate sense the proper place of worship, since the only proper form of worship is in Spirit and in truth. We then introduce further elaborations and explanations on the issue of worship in vv. 22-24 and consider how it serves to lead the dialogue partners toward common ground, i.e., their “coming to a yes” in vv. 25-26. In this respect, one can better appreciate how skillfully the evangelist concludes the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in v. 26, and how he depicts the further developments in the Samaritan mission of Jesus in the following passages. The third part will discuss the exchanges between Jesus and his disciples as well as Jesus (who is with his disciples) and the Samaritans in the sixth and seventh chapters respectively. The exchange between Jesus and the disciples is depicted in vv. 27, 31-38. Two themes, of food and of harvest are presented in vv. 31-38. This section is pregnant with various expressions which one could find as the figurative depiction of the Samaritan mission such as Jesus’ food (cf. βρῶσις, ἐμὸν βρῶμα), God’s will (cf. θέλημα) and work (ἔργον), ὁ πέμψας με, the works (cf. κοπιάω) of ἄλλοι and the terms such as σπείρω and σπείρων, θερίζω and θερισμός/θερίζων. This will be the focus of chapter 6. The encounters between the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans of her town (vv. 28-30) and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritans who come to Jesus led by the Samaritan woman) in vv. 39-42 will be discussed in the seventh and final chapter. Without any gap or delay, the narrative reports in v. 27 the coming of the disciples from the city (cf. ἔρχομαι) and the departure of the Samaritan woman (cf. v. 28 ἀπέρχομαι) to prepare for the next phase of the Samaritan episode. We can see that the preceding sections of the Samaritan episode (vv. 1-26) are not only interconnected with these following sections but the former also induces the further developments in the latter part. A concurrent reversal of the parallel coming and going (cf. vv. 7-8, 27-28), both of the disciples and of the Samaritan woman, marks the beginning of the new phase of Jesus’ Samaritan mission (vv. 2942). The Samaritan woman progresses in the acquisition of right knowledge, which in fact Jesus invites her to acquire.7 She shares her experience 7

Cf. οἶδα, ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι in v. 10; δός μοι and ὕδωρ ζῶν in vv. 10, 15; and Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός and ὁ λαλῶν σοι in vv. 25-26.

10

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

of the encounter with Jesus (cf. ἅπαντα in v. 25 and πάντα in vv. 29, 39; Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός in vv. 25, 29). Jesus wants the Samaritans to have right knowledge (cf. οἶδα) concerning what ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὕδωρ ζῶν, προσκυνέω, etc. are and who Jesus is, ὁ λέγων σοι.8 Jesus affirms further that the Samaritans do not know (cf. οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 20) what they worship or from whom or where their salvation is to come (ἡ σωτηρία in v. 22). The expression οὐκ οἴδατε is employed again on the lips of Jesus to tell the disciples that they do not know what his food is. He himself will explain this to them, saying: ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον (cf. vv. 31-34). He makes them understand that they have already entered into the fruit of his works, which includes the works of ἄλλοι. We will then examine the last three verses of the episode (vv. 39-42) where Jesus with his disciples and the Samaritans come together. In a nutshell they present the fruits of the Samaritan mission which is depicted with the core expressions such as μένειν and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. One can see that a clear contrast is depicted between the level of relationship at the beginning of the Samaritan episode οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι (v. 9) and μένειν (v. 40) together with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The Samaritans implicitly admit that the Samaritan woman’s words and actions have led them to Jesus, while they explicitly state that they have come to the understanding that Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42). Finally, we evaluate our research hypothesis against the background of our research in the preceding three parts in seven chapters and deduce some general conclusions. Primarily, we consider how the encounter leads beyond the prevailing attitude of the Samaritans, according to which they had no relationship with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, mainly due to the issue of the right place of worship, and their relationship progresses beyond this breach to a consensus; i.e., ἡ σωτηρία and ὁ σωτήρ is not restricted to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι or the οἱ Σαμαρῖται, but is for all, ὁ κόσμος (cf. ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42). We approach the Samaritan episode as a narrative of the unique Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus. We are aware of the several possible objections to the formulation of our research hypothesis such as that we are not engaging discussions about how to interpret the Samaritan episode in the post-resurrection perspective and the discussions in scholarship with the presumption that this episode implicitly depicts the issues of the Johannine community, such as inner-Jewish, Jewish-Christian and inter-Christian 8

Cf. vv. 10-15; 16-19; 20-24.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11

tensions. We emphasize that the contribution of this dissertation is its careful examination of the ethical elements implicit in John’s narrative of Jesus’ Samaritan mission, and specifically as a response to proposals in recent scholarship that these narratives be studied in such a way as to expose the implicit ethics in the gospel. The methodology we will employ in this research is primarily historical-critical and exegetical. We will also implicitly make use of other approaches to help us understand the text better and thus to establish our research hypothesis. After reviewing research on the ethics in John, we go on to formulate our research hypothesis in such a way as to emphasize the underlying or implicit ethics in the gospel: its concern, namely, loving the enemy, achieving reconciliation and transforming disturbed relationships into mutual understanding and welcoming attitudes. More specifically, we emphasize that the gospel shows how to build a relationship in an atmosphere of no relationship. Our specific focus throughout this study is on the Samaritan mission of Jesus. We introduce the text in the second chapter by paying attention to the literary-geographical indications in John against the background of the itinerant ministry of the Johannine Jesus. To understand the kernel of the religious-cultural and socio-political issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, we examine relevant literature and resources that may shed light on the relationship between these two groups of people both before the turn of the era and in the NT period.

PART 1

THEOLOGICAL AND EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS: THE IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42? AND INTRODUCTORY EXEGETICAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE SAMARITAN PERICOPE

CHAPTER 1

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING ETHICS IN JOHN AND THE FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS INTRODUCTION Biblical ethics has been an inviting terrain for scholars during the past couple of decades, despite the drift of various disciplines in ethics. Although there was no sharp distinction between theology and ethics at the time of the NT, continuing research in this field and interpretation of its ethical elements enable us to determine the theological demands of morality. Study of the ethical elements in the NT is not merely a normative task, but rather calls for critical reflection on the moral behavior of human persons. In this light, biblical ethics focuses on the text, social and historical contexts, and transformation of ethics against the background of Christological and theological developments. In their explorations of the ethical themes in the NT, scholars have tended to deliver some passing comments on the gospel of John or offer just a very short discussion on it. Some even discard John, claiming that it has no ethics. Until recently, only a few materials have been published on the theme of ethics in John as compared to studies of that theme in other NT books. Scholars who devote a few pages or at most a chapter to Johannine ethics and/or the ethos of the gospel of John tend mainly to address the limits and lack of ethical elements in it. It is to be noted that even recent publications contend that there is hardly any ethical content in the gospel of John pertaining to the life of a community; for instance, M. Theobald writes “[e]in ethisches Interesse an den Lebensbereichen der Gemeinde wird im Buch nirgends greifbar”.1 However, these days the atmosphere has changed in a positive way, as scholars have pointed to the problems in earlier methodological 1

See Theobald, Herrenworte, 565.

16

CHAPTER 1

approaches challenge previous scholarship, holding that “there is much more in John than meets the eye when it comes to the ethics”.2 J. Frey asserts the following in his analysis of the ethics/ethos in John: “A Christian proclamation without any ethical elements seems to be a sterile construct far from the reality of the communities in which the New Testament texts originate”.3 Consequently, these recent scholarly materials can be divided into two groups: (i) those which discuss the ethical elements in John with negative connotations,4 and (ii) those which discuss these elements in a positive way.5 A majority of interpretations seem to fall into the first group, interpreting it negatively, though there are some who focus more on the positive ethical elements in John. This chapter will unfold in the following seven steps: (1) a discussion of the work of scholars who have approached the ethics of John negatively, holding that there is no ethics or else considerably reducing the ethical elements in John relative to other NT books; (2) a positive contribution to the study of the ethics of John; (3) a review of remarks or discussions on the ethical elements in the Samaritan episode; (4) a summary of the status quaestionis pertaining to ethics in the gospel of John as a whole and presentation of some preliminary conclusions; (5) a broadening of the analytical categories with a future orientation; (6) formulation of our research hypothesis; (7) a discussion of the two terms ethics and/or ethos and (8) a specification of the methodology and approaches that will be employed in the research as well as its (9) working procedure. 1. THE ALLEGED ABSENCE

OF

ETHICS IN JOHN

In Johannine scholarship, there are some dominant views which influence the discussions on the ethical elements in a negative way. One important 2

3 4

5

van der Watt and Zimmermann, eds., Rethinking the Ethics of John, IX-X. Zimmermann, “The Implicit Ethics of New Testament Writings,” 399-423, 403 (2009) has introduced the concept of ‘implicit ethics’ to propose a new methodology to analyze the ethics in the NT texts and he affirms that implicit ethics is “strictly bound to the text itself”. Frey, “Ethical Traditions, Family Ethos and Love in the Johannine Literature,” 167-204, 174. For scholars who have interpreted the ethical elements in John mainly with a negative connotation, see Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (1975); Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (1982); Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (1982); Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist” (1996); R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (1997); Gundry, Jesus the Word according to John (2002). For discussions of the ethics in John with a more positive tone, see Schnackenburg’s studies on the moral teachings in the NT in 1962 and 1988; Lohse (1988); Nissen (1999); van der Watt (2006, 2010, 2011, 2012); Burridge (2007); Pregeant (2008); Kok (2010); J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann, eds., 14 essays (2012); Frey (2013).

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

17

explanation proposed by Bultmann is that the incarnation in the gospel of John is best understood as the revelation of the Dass of God in Jesus, and that this revelation negates any human self-confidence. Labahn finds that Bultmann’s interpretation, which is anchored in demythologizing, is not at all interested in the ethical aspects in John. Despite Bultmann’s contributions to Johannine scholarship, one may hold that he is more concerned about his own theology and hermeneutics than on the text of the gospel of John itself.6 Even today, Bultmann’s views still much affect the work of interpreters. For instance, Theobald, while discussing and revising Offenbarungsredenquelle, takes up Bultmann’s hesitations.7 Scholarship has until recently not given sufficient attention to the ethical understandings in the gospel of John, and the few studies which have been conducted have mostly portrayed the ethics of the gospel in a negative way. Hence, the prominent view on the ethics in John is either that there is no ethics in John or else that there is a considerable reduction of the ethical elements in this gospel relative to other NT books, especially the Synoptic gospels. Scholars of the NT often limit their discussions of the ethics in John to the provision of a few quotations or of a brief discussion of the love commandment (13:34). As noted above, until recently a near consensus has prevailed that there is only one ethical teaching in John, viz., the love commandment.8 In the following, we discuss the ethical deficits in the gospel of John in two parts: we consider the negative interpretations or evaluations pertaining to the ethics (i) of this gospel in general and (ii) of the love commandment in particular. 6

7

8

See Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 418. Labahn briefly evaluates Bultmann’s explanations pertaining to the ethics in the gospel of John. Labahn, “Bultmanns Konzeption der existenzialen Interpretation des neutestamentlichen Kerygmas”, 202-206. According to Theobald, there is nothing pertaining to a serious discussion on the theme of ethics in John. He holds that the ethics in John operates within the Johannine community in the form of mutual brotherly/sisterly love. See Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium, 565. It is to be noted that in his recent commentary there is some hesitation or exclamation with regard to ethical elements. For example, Theobald refers to the later redactor in 5:29: “betrifft das Verhältnis von Glaube und Ethos: Wenn die Redaktion in 5,29 mit universalem Geltungsanspruch von Tun des Guten und des Bösen als Kriterium über Leben oder Verdammnis spricht, wirft sie die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Glaube und Werken auf, nach der Bewährung des Glaubens in einer Lehensgestalt des Guten”. See M. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes Kapitel 1-12, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 2009), 402. The love commandment in John is interpreted in scholarship both negatively and positively. A majority of scholars who have interpreted the love commandment in John have criticized this commandment for evoking sectarian views. Some others, who have discussed this commandment in the text and context of John and found positive implications, acknowledge it as a stepping stone or guide to understanding the ethics in John. In this section we examine the negative approach and in the second part the positive approach.

18

CHAPTER 1

1.1. The Reduction of Ethics in John Many scholars have held that in the gospel of John there is neither a specifically pronounced paraenesis nor any ethics taught through the medium of parables. Unlike in the Synoptic gospels, there are no lists of virtues and vices or admonitions for daily lives are absent in John. Hence, scholars often doubt that John can contribute anything significant to NT ethics. As we have pointed out above, scholars do not engage in lengthy discussions of this issue. Let us examine these brief statements and discussions in scholarship. According to Käsemann, the fourth gospel propagates a narrowminded ethos.9 A majority of studies on the gospel of John in recent years have been influenced by his interpretation, either implicitly or explicitly. H.-D. Wendland speaks of the phenomenon “einer gewaltigen Reduktion” of ethical questions and statements in Johannine writings.10 In a similar vein, J. L. Houlden concludes based on his discussion of the ethical sphere in the fourth gospel that John’s primary concerns are not ethical.11 W. A. Meeks presents a rather extensive discussion of Johannine ethics and develops further the work of his predecessors, especially Käsemann. Meeks argues that there are no explicit moral instructions in John and hence that one cannot discuss ethics in John. He adds that what is written for the small Johannine community is irrational and can provide no guidance for present day behavior, since to the society of John’s time this group is subversive. In other words, the narrative of John does not provide a universal model of behavior.12 According to Meeks, ethics and the fourth gospel are mutually contradictory subjects, or an oxymoron, and he points out four major problems in research on ethics in the gospel of John: (i) there are no maxims; which means that the major components of moral instruction are missing in John; (ii) one finds no model characters in the gospel of John, for on the one hand the disciples are very passive, and on the other the Johannine Jesus is presented as being too alien to human weakness; 9

10 11 12

See E. Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, 128. We have already discussed scholars who interpreted the ethical elements in John negatively, following Käsemann, in relation to the theme of the love commandment in John. Moreover, as was pointed out above, a majority of studies approach the theme of the love commandment either positively or negatively. Hence, to avoid repetition, we are not reinstating the same list of scholars or their discussion in this section again. See section 1 of this chapter, The Love Commandment in the Gospel of John. Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, 35-36. See Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, 35-38. See Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 317-319.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

19

(iii) there is no explicit rational moral discourse in John and John’s narrative progresses in terms of several riddles, metaphors, ironic statements and double entendre, exuberantly overthrowing ordinary rationality; in Meeks’ own words it is “antirational”; and (iv) the reader is led to the idea of predetermination, rather than being urged to make free decisions, due to the division set up between those who are headed to the light and those who remain in darkness, and this forecloses the possibility of opting for moral development. Due to these fourfold reasons, Meeks argues that ethics cannot be a subject for research in John.13 He interprets John against the social background of John’s time, holding that urgings of the Johannine Jesus indicate the situation of that community.14 He contends that the gospel of John mirrors crucial problems underlying the formation of the community. J. Becker also makes a negative judgment with regard to the ethical elements in John15 and, in a similar vein, Theobald finds no noteworthy ethical elements in the fourth gospel.16 A majority of scholars who have discussed the reduction of ethical elements in John, such as Käsemann, Houlden and Meeks, who discussed in general, the reduction of ethical elements of John tend to pay specific attention to the love commandment in John, mostly in order to highlight its deficit compared to the exhortation to love in the other books of the NT. In the following, we examine some scholarly discussions of the negative implications of the love commandment in John. 1.2. The Trimming-Ethics17 of the Johannine Love Commandment Scholars concede that the love commandment in John is the only explicit moral exhortation (Jn 13:34). However, love in John is mostly interpreted with sectarian overtones. A majority of scholars hold that the 13

14 15

16 17

See Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 317-326. See also Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 14-15. See Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 44-72. See Becker, “Feindesliebe – Nächstenliebe – Bruderliebe,” 5-17; Gerhardsson, The Ethos of the Bible, 98. Gerhardsson regards love as the only ethical theme of significance in John. Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, 297, 302, 312-314, opines that “we may ask whether a chapter on the Johannine writings even belongs in a book on the ethics of the New Testament”. However, he explains two significant ethical elements Weltdistanz und Sündenfreiheit in John. Matera, New Testament Ethics, 92, finds only a few references in the fourth gospel pertaining to moral conduct. We mentioned this in the introduction. See Theobald, Herrenworte, 565. This idea of trimming may be found in Babbage, Reflections on the Decline of Science, 175-178. Recently this term is gaining attention in business ethics with regard to professional ethics.

20

CHAPTER 1

universal love commandment of John is limited to the realm of brotherly love, whereas they regard the call to love of neighbor in the Synoptic gospels as one that crosses all boundaries of religion and culture (Mt 5; Mk 12; Lk 6, 10, 10:25-33; Mt 5:43-48). Scholars who interpret the love commandment in the context of the closed circle of the Johannine community often analyze John in order to identify what sorts of crisis were faced by the Johannine community. For these scholars, the issues faced by the Johannine community are threefold: (i) inter-Jewish, (ii) JewishChristian and (iii) inter-Christian.18 In the following, we briefly analyze each of these aspects. Käsemann contends that the love commandment in John is exclusive and the ethical elements in it are restricted to this exhortation. In his view, love in John is not a feeling and does not even apply to the range of ethical decisions. Consequently, “the object of Christian love for John is only what belongs to the community under the Word, or what is elected to belong to it; that is the brotherhood of Jesus”.19 Scholars have subsequently taken up this idea and developed it further along the same line. Meeks attempts to explain the ambiguity in the love commandment (Jn 13:34; 15:12-17), which is the only general moral rule in John, in terms of the persecution of the Johannine community.20 He finds that there is not much to discuss concerning the ethical perspective in John21 and affirms that John “is sharply sectarian and culturally and politically subversive”.22 He goes 18

19

20

21

22

See (i) on the inter-Jewish community: Martyn, History and Theology, 37, 62-68, 129; Smith, “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John,” 275-294; Frey, “Das Bild der Juden im Johannesevangelium,” 33-53, 39-40. (ii) on the Jewish-Christian community: Rinke, Kerygma und Autopsie; de Ruyter, De gemeente van de evangelist Johannes. (iii) on the inter-Christian community: de Jonge, “Variety and Development in Johannine Christology,” 193-222; de Jonge, “Christology and Theology Particularly in the Fourth Gospel,” 1835-1853. Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus, 65. Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, 59, 128. For Käsemann, Jn 3:16, which speaks about God’s love for the world, is not truly Johannine thought. Rather it comes from an earlier tradition. Recently, Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John, 6-7, has criticized Käsemann’s studies on the theme of love. See Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 322. Meeks differs from Reinhartz, “The Grammar of Hate in the Gospel of John, 416-427, who contends that “the gospel of love has also been an instrument of hate, not once, not occasionally but frequently and pervasively in the history of Jewish-Christian relations”. See Meeks, “Understanding Early Christian Ethics,” 3-11; Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 317-326, 311. For Rese, “Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen,” 44-58, “[u]nter den Markenzeichen der Bruderliebe sah man nur noch auf die eigene, konventikelhafte Gemeinschaft […]. Die Welt wurde zur teuflischen Gegenmacht, christliches Handeln auf den Binnenraum der Gemeinden der gleichgesinnten Brüder begrenzt und christliche Theologie zur Esoterik des eingeweihten Zirkels”. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 324.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

21

further, holding that affirmation of the love commandment in John led to sectarianism in that community.23 For Houlden, the love commandment in John offers new conditions of life for a believer in or follower of Christ: the “real concern is not primarily ethical at all”.24 In a similar vein, Sanders states that “perhaps the weakness and moral bankruptcy” of the ethics in John is attributable to the peculiarity of the Johannine Christian community.25 In light of the above discussions, we can see that the commandment of love in John is often explained negatively and has suffered degradation: (i) Some scholars put forward a sort of moderate explanation. Jesus’ exhortation in the love commandment is limited to a call to love only those in the Johannine community. (ii) Going still further toward the negative, some scholars hold that the Johannine Jesus urges his hearers not only to love the community members but also to exclude everyone outside of the community; the love commandment precisely means that one ought to love only ones’ friends and forget everyone else. This third explanation seems excessively pessimistic and hence should be rejected without further consideration, as it ignores the content of John pertaining to love and salvation rendered to the whole world. For Lunt, an appropriate explanation of the love commandment is that one ought to love others who belong to the Johannine community, with the caveat that anyone can enter this community at any time or that everyone is invited to be a member. Yet the allinclusiveness of the love commandment cannot meet this standard of mutuality, because one cannot have mutual love for an opponent who despises one and inflicts suffering.26 In light of the above discussions of the various levels of deficit scholars have perceived in the love commandment, we would suggest that the love commandment in John is an invitation to develop a culture of love among believers in the broadest sense and in the immediate context, Jesus commands his disciples to observe the single commandment of love that he practiced. Jesus carried out his mission among people from various ethnic 23

24 25 26

See Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” 323; Smith, “The Love Command,” 207-217. See Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, 36. See Sanders, Ethics and the New Testament, 91-100. See Lund, “The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 268-269. In his view, the problem is not only with the interpretation of the love commandment but with the approach to John that led scholars to concur that there is only one commandment in John, which is the love commandment. Lund analyzes the gospel of John to understand the other moral exhortations or imperatives in John, which we discuss in the following section.

22

CHAPTER 1

groups and, for instance, his itinerary in John begins with the Jews and moves to the borders of Judaism, then on to the gentiles.27 In the above discussion, we have been confronted with the difficulties posed by scholars who have focused on John mostly to criticize negatively or deny the Johannine ethic. In other words, previous scholarship has understood John as uninterested in ethics and concerned only about the theology and Christology. This is due to the following reasons: there are no explicit commands for specific actions and no sermons like the Sermons on the Mount or on the Plain. The dialogues in John do not have clear conclusions and are not clearly explained. There are no direct statements of do’s and don’ts pertaining to social or familial life in John, with the single exception of the love commandment. Yet, although one cannot identify a distinctive ethics in John, there are instruments for moral formation in it. The social ethics in John helps to strengthen the community from within and stands in resistance to the hostile communities outside. Scholars’ discussions seem to hold that the all prevailing theological and Christological elements in John swallow up the ethics and/or ethos in the gospel. Such views proposed by previous scholars have held that there is only a limited potential for discerning a coherent ethics/ethos in John. A majority of scholars have affirmed that there is only one ethical statement in John, namely the love commandment, and held further that even this has the negative implication of promoting a sectarian love. This one-sided approach or what has been called a trimmed-down ethics may be considered in light of the relatively limited way in which scholars have approached the search for an ethics/ ethos in John: they have merely probed for explicit moral statements or moral prescriptions, such as lists of virtues and vices and the like, ignoring the ethical actions and underlying ethics implicit in the Johannine narratives. Recently, new work on the gospel of John has broadened the horizon in the realm of the study of ethics in the gospel and brought to light its ethical potential. In the following, we analyze the ethical elements unearthed by recent scholars and the new approaches and perspectives they have employed to detect much more ethical potential in John than earlier scholars did.

27

For instance Jesus’ journey from Cana to Cana in Jn 2-4. It is interesting to note that the Lukan Jesus’ exhortation to the disciples in Acts, to go to Jerusalem, Judea, then toward Samaria and then proceed to the ends of the earth, is paralleled with the Johannine Jesus’ earthly ministry (Acts 1:8). His itinerary includes not only Jerusalem and Judea but Samaria too.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

2. THE PRESENCE OF ETHICS

23

IN JOHN

Contrary to the major criticisms that have been made against the ethical elements in John, some scholars have held that this gospel can offer much more in terms of a vision of ethical life, or at least point to some special elements and features of such a life.28 Such positive contributions to the ethics in John are rather recent29 and together these contributions amount to a shift in approach to the gospel. They examine the text in its textual and cultural contexts. Consequently, during the last couple of years, research has shown that the consensus, viz., that there are not many ethical elements in John, is outdated. In fact, these recent publications have contributed to NT ethics considerably, especially the ethics of John. In the following, we review the literature in two sections: (i) the traces of ethics found by previous scholarship is deduced from the most evident and explicit moral statement in the gospel, namely the love commandment, and (ii) the implicit ethics in John is explored in light of recent scholarship. 2.1. Traces of Ethics in John We briefly present the traces of ethical elements found by previous scholars in relation to the love commandment in John. Almost half a century ago (in 1962/1965), Schnackenburg provided some hints regarding possibilities in the study of John pertaining to its ethics. He opines that the present age demands explanation or application of John in the actual concrete human situation and that this gospel deserves increased attention in 28

29

As we progress in exploring the literature on this theme, it becomes evident that in previous scholarship which speaks only about some traces of ethics in John, discussions are clustered around one point, namely the love commandment in John, which, according to them, is the only moral statement or pronouncement in the fourth gospel. However, Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 3-4, traces back to 1777 a brief note in G. E. Lessing’s article which speaks about the message of love as the ultimate significant ethical element in the Johannine writings. Lessing, Das Testament Johannis, (first published in 1777,) here in Werke, ed. H. Göbel, Theologiekritische Schriften III; Philosophische Schriften (München: Hanser, 1979), 15-20. Lessing does not elaborate further. Labahn takes Lessing as the point of departure of his evaluation of the limitations and potential pertaining to ethics in John. Frey cites Jerome’s famous statement about the apostle John in Ephesus, that he “was not able to ... offer in different sayings anything but: Little children, love one another!”. In this manner, Frey detects from the time of early Christianity an effort to explain why the Johannine ethics clusters around the commandment of love only. He quotes from a revised and expanded version of the paper given at the NOSIER conference on March 10, 2008 in Bovendonk (NL). See Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 167. For the reference to the legend, see R. A. Culpepper, John the Son of Zebedee, 165.

24

CHAPTER 1

connection with this effort, because John, unlike the Synoptic gospels, is specialized in the issues concerning his communities, and his Christology is grounded in the simple and uniform Johannine message of “faith and love”.30 The exhortation for fraternal love is an important element in the love commandment, and Schnackenburg (1962/1965) points out that this element of love is already present in pagan religion and that in Judaism it is axiomatic. He focuses on the ‘newness’ of the love commandment in John and holds that the adjective given to the love commandment of John, viz., ‘new’, merits careful attention. He finds that, in addition to the common element of fraternal love, this exhortation presents two new and unique elements: (i) the profound idea of discipleship and following Jesus, both in one’s disposition and one’s activities, and (ii) a novel emphasis on the eschatological dimension.31 In place of the Synoptic urging to love neighbor and enemy, the Johannine Jesus seems to speak only about loving brothers, but with “a comprehensive meaning” of love in action which is elevated as the ruling principle of morality in John.32 Labahn engages with Schnackenburg (1988) and speaks of reducing the commandment of Jesus to the fundamental attitude of active faith and love, adding that faith is a predisposing attitude which includes moral integrity.33 G. Borchert 30

31

32

33

Schnackenburg, in The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 308-318, devotes a chapter to the gospel of John. The kernel of Christology in John presents Christ, who shares the knowledge of God and His world and divine life with believers. It is Christ whom the community of believers revolves around so that they could share in the divine life. Schnackenburg summarizes Christology in John as the “belief in Jesus the Messias and the Son of God is the only way to attain life; love, however, especially active, fraternal love, is the necessary consequence of adherence to Jesus in faith” and “love for God, Christ, and the brethren and the fulfillment of the moral duties springing from love”. In John, the believer steps out of the darkness into the light. Schnackenburg notes that John differs from the Synoptic gospels with regard to the theme of conversion; he depicts or mentions no act of conversion, “not even with the Samaritan woman in chapter four”, whereas the first three evangelists affirm the need for repentance to believe in Jesus. See Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 322, 323, 327, 338345. In the letters, John further elaborates the same theme. For instance, where love flourishes there God μένει, which perfects love (1 Jn 4:12). He discusses the dwelling of God in us and with us as a sign of life, having no sin and being a Christian mainly in light of the abiding theme, which is used both in the gospel and in the letters of John. Another distinct element in John in comparison with all other New Testament writings is that Jesus is presented as “the definitive and complete revealer concerns each individual personally with inescapable rigour and urgency”. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 328-340. See Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft, 162-165, 170-171; Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 19. For Schnackenburg, in a nutshell, “Liebe ist der Anfang und das Ziel aller Sittlichkeit”. Christologically speaking, the love commandment points to the love of

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

25

finds that “although the Johannine Gospel does not spend much time outlining the characteristics of the Christian life and ethical behavior; it epitomizes the transformed life in the commandment to love”.34 We summarize below a review of scholarship on the traces of ethics in John deduced from the Johannine love commandment: (i) It is evident that love is the climax of early Christian theological thinking and the kernel of the ethics of the early Christian community. The new commandment to love, which is the only moral statement/exhortation in John, is an important element in John.35 The Johannine concept of love itself summons to mind the basic role played in the early Christian community by the great commandment in Deut 6:4-5.36 When one recognizes the influence of this great commandment in the book of Deuteronomy on the love commandment in John, one can see that John is promoting a strong value system.37 (ii) The love commandment in John is a call to transform love to ethische Zeichensprache, which is to be understood basically as an ethos since it addresses the behavior of the members of a group.38 (iii) Scholars like Schulz and Thyen explain that to love does not carry the meaning of excluding one’s neighbors and that through the love commandment John reminds the members of the community to practice love according to the demands of their own situation and issues.39 (iv) God’s love carries moral value in all relationships within and outside of the Johannine community. Labahn

34 35

36

37

38

39

Jesus toward his disciples unto death and each believer is asked to follow this example. This could be explained as the content of the love commandment in 1 Jn 3:16. In 1 Jn 2:7 it is mentioned, as the old commandment. This may be due to the pre-knowledge about the new commandment in Jn 13:34 during the baptismal catechesis of the community members. Borchert, John 12-21, 355. See Schnelle, Evangelium nach Johannes, 284; Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften, 361; Vargas, Ἀγαπάω, ὑπάγω, δοξάζω, 371-395. Beutler, “Das Hauptgebot im Johannesevangelium,” 222-236. The commandments in the Decalogue generate a moral system which is implicitly expressed and maintained in the whole narrative of the gospel of John. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 28, is of the view that in order neither to overstate nor to underestimate the influence of Deut 6:4-5, the reshaping of it done by John should be taken into account and any explanations which would differentiate the love terminology in John from early Christian concepts of love presented in the other books should be carefully attended to. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 28. For discussions pertaining to the great commandment of love in Deuteronomy and the love commandment in the gospel, especially in John. See Theißen, Die Religion der ersten Christen, 269-270. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 25, agrees with Theißen that the love command in John is not a theological/Christological symbol, but rather urges the addressees to live with “distinct action(s) led by the principle of love”. See Schulz, Neutetamentliche Ethik, 526-527; Thyen, “... denn wir lieben die Brüder,” 527-542.

26

CHAPTER 1

disproves D. Rensberger’s explanation that love in John has an ethical limitation, holding that it is in accord with God’s love (3:17) and that His love cannot be an ethical limitation as it has no limits. Labahn observes that the love presented in Jn 15:13 sheds more light on the Johannine concept of love, which “may be drawn from the ancient model of the ethic of friendship”.40 From the very outset, the love commandment is all inclusive in that it is primarily focused toward one’s fellow believers and then extends out to the whole world.41 In light of these discussions above, we propose that the mainstream interpretation of the love commandment, as having negative ethical connotations, cannot be sustained. Lund rightly argues that the motivation for adopting such explanations appears to be scholars’ inability to find sensible suggestions in John pertaining to broader perspectives of love, due to the lack of attention paid to the other imperatives pronounced by the Johannine Jesus and the problems related to the appropriate methods and approaches to understanding the perspective of John.42 As we have done above, Labahn critically evaluates earlier scholarship pertaining to the love commandment in John. He highlights the consensus in scholarship that “none of the Johannine writings take up or develop the synoptic concept of loving the enemy.”43 And recent scholarship adds further that, against this backdrop, the important aspect to be studied in the future is the love relationship developed in a situation and operating against a background of enmity. It should be noted that no scholar interpreted the matter differently after him.44 In short, scholarship on the love commandment in John has brought to light some traces of ethics in John, and these have opened up new questions and challenges and new pathways by which to understand the ethics/ ethos implied in John. In short, the love commandment in John serves as the basis of the fourth gospel’s ethics. In the following, we discuss the implicit ethics in John through which the dynamics of the gospel’s ethics become active. These efforts to study 40

41

42

43 44

Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 24. See also Schnelle and Labahn, eds., Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament, 715-725. Jn 15: 9-10 speaks about μένω in the love of Jesus, and keeping his commandments goes hand in hand with this. See Carson, The Gospel according to John, 484-485; Schnelle, “Ethical Theology,” 321339. As we have seen above, some scholars highlight the farewell discourse (Jn 13-17), arguing that it contains the various aspects of the love commandment, including the enactment of love through Jesus’ act of foot-washing. See Lund, “The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 266-270. Scholars often explain this away by regarding these differences as a rhetoric device used by John. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 42. We challenge this conclusion and address this deficit as we proceed to section 5, where we formulate the thesis for investigation.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

27

John from an ethical point of view have provided new answers and arouse further new questions concerning the ethical elements in John. We shall critically evaluate them, and this will equip us to proceed further. 2.2. The Implicit Ethics in John This section further examines the criticisms of previous scholars, noted above, concerning the alleged lack of ethical elements in John, such as its supposedly narrow-minded ethos, its negligence toward law, lack of ethical theory, etc. Recent scholarship has held that the view that there is a lack of ethics in John is outdated consensus. Van der Watt and Zimmermann rightly hold that “by means of narration there is a coherent reflection of values and behavior” in the gospel of John. They add that the underlying ethics depicted through the narrated text can be called an “implicit ethics”.45 Against this background, scholars have discussed specific pericopes/narratives in John and this has resulted in some novel contributions to the study of Johannine ethics. These endeavors have unearthed some key ethical insights and a number of elements implicit in the narrative of John. 2.2.1. The Ethics of Love: Faith and Action in John Some scholars have held that actions and faith are inseparable from love.46 Schnackenburg (1962/1965)47 finds that there is a single and urgent call to faith and love that lingers through the gospels in many respects. In his view, there are two unique elements pertaining to love in John. The first is actions of love, and, for instance, John 13 depicts a commendable act of love, viz., the foot-washing. The second is that only the Johannine Jesus speaks of love for himself.48 Schnackenburg (1988) invites scholars to take up a new research objective, viz., the self-revelation of the Son of 45 46

47

48

See van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, X. It is to be noted that love is the only ethical theme in John recognized by previous scholarship. See section 2. Schnackenburg’s works on the moral elements in the NT appeared originally in 1962 in German and in 1965 in English, which is completely revised in 1980’s into two volumes. See for details note 4. Schnackenburg (1962/1965), The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 320-322. Cf. expressions such as ἠγαπᾶτέ με, ἀγαπᾷς με on the lips of the Johannine Jesus. See 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15. Also, the Johannine Jesus is not demanding conversion, and passes moral judgment only when faced with the disbelief of Jews who seek their own glory.

28

CHAPTER 1

God (Jn 1:18), who continues to act as the word of life (1 Jn 1:1). The moral encouragement expressed here requires no explicit articulation; listening to the messenger of the word of God on its own evokes faith and love in the addressee. The relations between members of the community should meet the basic ethical demand of the revealer that one respond to others with faith and love.49 Schnackenburg argues against the interpretation that the exhortation to love each other, in John, discourages love towards members outside of one’s own community. He emphasizes further the importance of actions in John, arguing that the theme of love in John is presented not only in the explicit words of the love commandment but also in specific deeds.50 Labahn agrees with Schnackenburg on these points, but does not recognize faith as a predisposing attitude.51 The importance of faith and actions in the study of the ethical elements in John is underlined by van der Watt. He notes that the Johannine Jesus urges his hearers to choose to please God always and speaks of ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ (6:29) in order to attain eternal life.52 Faith transforms a person’s relationships, thoughts and actions and leads him or her to act in accordance with the will of God. Faith and ethical actions are very much interrelated in John. According to van der Watt, “a life of faith encompasses all the action of the individual which determines all facets of a person’s present and future life”.53 Faith and not law is the central force of ethical actions. Contrary to prevailing explanations, Labahn argues that love in John is not only a foundational ethical element but also a basic and valuable ethical principle permeating the various aspects of the fourth gospel. This basic principle of love in the Johannine writings has to be studied in light of the actions of Jesus and of the responses of faith to him.54 49

50

51 52

53 54

See Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 2.148-149; Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 18-19. Schnackenburg adds that the letters of John mirror the Christological controversies created by this gospel and hence contain more ethical points. Labahn explains that though Schnackenburg explicitly refers to Bultmann’s existentialistic hermeneutics, Schnackenburg avoids Bultmann’s way of incorporating historical revelation into myth. Schnackenburg’s main thrust concerns the faith and love aspects in John. See Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft, 171-179, see also Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 19-20. He builds up this explanation from a parallel reference in Gal 6:10, and it is not a simple deduction of the Johannine text. In this light, he interprets the socalled polemics in John with an aim to strengthen the love among the members of the community. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 18-19. van der Watt, “Radical Social Redefinition and Radical Love,” 114, understands the question posed by the Jews to Jesus in 6:28 as a question concerning ethics. van der Watt, “John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour,” 444. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 27.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

29

K. Weyer-Menkhoff argues that Jesus’ actions in John are portrayed as lived examples for an ethical life.55 He focuses on the question posed by the disciples, of what should be done in order to perform the works of God (Jn 6:28), and notices that the vocabulary of work, in words such as ἔργον, ἐργάζομαι, and ποιέω, is more common in John than in any other NT book. He explains that the repeated use of this vocabulary in John implies the importance of the actions of the Johannine Jesus as carried out in close relation with God/his Father. He addresses two possible challenges one could make against this position: (1) The first turns on the question of how the works of Jesus are depicted in John, as active or passive? After discussing the works of Jesus in three dimensions, viz., vocabulary pertaining to work in John, statements about Jesus’ works, and seeing God’s deeds against the paradigm of responsivity, Weyer-Menkhoff affirms: “What God has shown and given him, namely the works of God, induces Jesus to act. They constitute the pathos to which he responds. Thus, it is, of course, true that he carries out his actions actively, and not like a puppet”.56 (2) The second challenge is to show how Jesus can perform the works of God, being human himself. Further, how is a human person to act accordingly? The Johannine Jesus himself addresses this issue in 6:28-29, saying that through their belief in Jesus human persons are enabled to do the work of God. Thus they are led to perform right actions. In a nutshell, believing in Jesus is to be understood as the major ethical action.57 Weyer-Menkhoff finds transitivity in this respect, arguing that “Jesus links the believers to God by including their works into the works of God”, and he defines believing as “looking at the works of God that Jesus did and taking them

55

56

57

Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 159-174, 159, deduces from Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 19-32, concerning the four gospels that they are βίοι, which depict the ethical actions of Jesus and urge that studies be done not only of the words of Jesus but also on his actions. See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 162-163. In Jn 7:3, the brothers of Jesus mention that Jesus’ works are an autonomous activity, whereas in the following section Jesus objects to this explicitly (7:16-18). John clearly depicts that Jesus’ deeds are not his own but are from God. See some other instances in John: 7:21; 15:24; 10:25, 32, 37; 14:10; and 17:4. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, 237, summarizes various statements in John about the work of Jesus as God’s works are “embodied in the deeds of Jesus”. See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 165-168. See also van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 158. John speaks of good works and deeds carried out as having been accompanied by light; for instance, Jn 3:21; 6:28-29. In the farewell discourse, Jesus further expounds that the believers will do even greater works (Jn 14:12). Also Jesus is the subject of the verb ποιεῖν in 63 cases in the fourth gospel.

30

CHAPTER 1

as pathos”. 58 Against this background, he discusses some implicit references in John to the ethics of work. 59 The preceding discussion focused on three key terms, viz., love, works/ actions and faith. We have seen how scholars have analyzed the relevant words and statements of Jesus pertaining to issues such as how humans can perform the actions of God and how they can imitate the actions of Jesus. These scholars have found that the actions of faith are inseparable from love, and vice versa. The central force of ethical actions of love has been held to be faith in Jesus. In what follows, we discuss specifically the actions of Jesus as depicted through the so-called semeia narratives and the Johannine use of ἔργον. 2.2.2. σημεῖα – Ethics The major ethical theme of love in John is not only present in the farewell discourse but also depicted through the semeia narratives in the first part of the gospel (chapters 1-12).60 This section of the fourth gospel narrates the actions of the earthly Jesus and depicts his various encounters 58

59

60

In John, believing is not presented as an autonomous action because it is operative through a “responsive relationship”, mainly between God and Jesus (Jn 14:10-12). See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 165; Lattke, Einheit im Wort, 24-27. Rabens, “Johannine Perspectives,” 114-139, argues that love experienced in the context of intimate relationships appears in John as the source of ethical life. He discusses how the disciples are enabled to live according to the community ethics of the fourth gospel in the context of Stoic and Philonic ethics. In aiming to have a broader definition of ethics, Rabens takes his point of departure from Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, 9, “the question of what was the enabling and grounds, the criteria and content of the early Christian way of acting and living”. He structures the article around three main arguments: (i) that Stoicism is not the primary background to understand the mode of ethics in John; (ii) that religious-ethical life in John unfolds through an intimate relationship to Jesus, the Father, divine love and the empowering of the Spirit-Paraclete; (iii) that many early Jewish traditions, especially stemming from Philo of Alexandria, exhibit distinct parallels to the mode of ethical enabling in John. In the Johannine corpus (Jn 13:34; 1 Jn 4:7-19), the love of Jesus is accompanied with knowledge of the love of God. The disciples are urged to live in love and impart to others, and thus that ethical behavior in John is rooted in imitation and obedience grounded in love. of Stoic and Philonic ethics and elucidates that this mode of love relationships is well attested in both ancient and modern literatures and that these empowering dynamics of relationship play a vital role in John, particularly with respect to the ethos of family and friendship. Rabens acknowledges the role of the Spirit-Paraclete who empowers the relationship of the disciples with Jesus and makes them abide in Jesus’ love. “Semeia Conveying Ethics,” 192-212, finds that there are seven semeia narratives (2:111; 4:46-54; 5:1-18; 6:1-15; 6:16-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-44) in the first part of the gospel and they function to reveal the identity of Jesus to convey his mission symbolically and lead people to faith. He admits that it is difficult, though not impossible, to discuss the ethical elements in the semeia narratives.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

31

with people from different walks of life.61 Ethics in Christian theology could be addressed as the way of life and behavior of Christians, which should be formed after the life and actions of Jesus. In other words, believers practice faith in their day-to-day lives and in doing this follow the path of the earthly Jesus.62 The actions of Jesus presented through the semeia narratives use the distinctly Johannine vocabulary σημεῖον and ἔργον. C. Karakolis pays specific attention to these terms in the semeia narratives and examines them against the background of the ethical elements in John, specifically, imagery of the family and the ethical theme of love. He finds that these narratives are a call and challenge in the field of faith and ethics.63 It is to be noted that σημεῖον is rarely used by the Johannine Jesus (4:48; 6:26), but mainly by his audience. This term is also used by the Jews in the OT understanding of the term, though John employs it from a post-resurrection point of view. For Karakolis, the Johannine vocabulary σημεῖον and ἔργον are employed to more or less the same effect. The first part of the gospel presents John’s ethics symbolically through the terms σημεῖον and ἔργον and this ethics is stated concretely in the second part of the gospel, especially in the new commandment of love. H. Löhr’s article “Ἐργον as an Element of Moral Language in John” agrees with Karakolis’ understanding of σημεῖον and ἔργον. Löhr notes that the relationship between the divine-human and human-human spheres was a point of discussion in early Christianity and implicitly continued to be so throughout history. In the context of these discussions, ἔργον can imply the work in the realm of human persons and/or between God and human persons. Löhr enquires the implications of ἔργον in the broader semantic field of the fourth gospel. In short, though ἔργον is not explicitly presented as an element of moral language in John, where there is a careful profiling of meanings ascribed to this vocabulary, ἔργον does in some instances link divine and human action.64 The first twelve chapters of John depict a semeia ethics 61

62

63 64

The gospel of John has a prologue at the beginning (1:1-14) and an epilogue or conclusion in the final chapter. Apart from that, there are mainly two parts (i) the earthly ministry of Jesus (1:19-12:50) and (ii) the farewell discourse and the events followed – crucifixion, death, resurrection and post-resurrection appearances (13:1-20:30). Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 1. vii-viii. According to Brown, John, 1. cxxxviii in the above division, it is suggested by the gospel itself. See Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, 9-10; Lohse, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments, 9. See Karakolis, “Semeia Conveying Ethics,” 196-198, 206-212. In the gospel of John ἔργον takes the following meanings: Miraculous healings, in general both good and bad deeds, the activity of the Son which gives life and judging or condemning, the entire mission of the Son. ἔργον is not presented explicitly in John

32

CHAPTER 1

through the various semeia narratives, and the precise use of the Johannine vocabulary σημεῖον and ἔργον present an implicit ethics of interhuman and divine-human relationships. 2.2.3. The ζωή-Ethics of the Johannine Jesus In John, we are informed about the new life offered to humanity, viz., that Jesus’ coming into the world heralds a new life given to humanity (1:4, 10:1-10). Jesus’ self-image is portrayed by the term ‘life’ (v. 10), with the promise of life in abundance. According to M. Stare, the kernel of NT ethics is in the person of Jesus and is depicted in the Synoptic gospels through the use of the key term Kingdom of God, whereas in John it is expressed through the theme of ζωή.65 In John, the term ‘life’ is used with a very high frequency compared to the Synoptic gospels, and this theme lingers throughout the gospel from beginning to end. M. Stare focuses on the theme of life, which is such a leitmotif of this gospel. In order to gain life, human persons should engage in a mutual and lasting relationship with Jesus by becoming believers and living in accordance with the ζωή-ethic. Relationships are not authoritative as if in a master-servant relation but are like a love relation with a friend and are operative in the whole world through the missionary function, which “is based on Jesus and his behavior in relation to his followers”.66 Another view is that the basis of Christian ethics can be found in the call to “Abide in me” (Jn 15:4), which represents a new mode of relationship between Jesus and his followers and may serve as a basis for Christian ethics. Through this abiding relationship, Jesus offers new life to his

65 66

as related to νόμος, the concept of Torah. In 1 John, ἔργον is used as an element of general moral language and in 2 and 3 John it is used to present arguments against the opponents. There is an overlapping of meanings pertaining to ἔργον, God’s (his Son’s) action and the actions of human beings, that implicitly presents the theological and moral discourses in the narrative. It is to be noted that the expression ἔργα τοῦ θεου (6:28; 9:3) does not refer to the work(s) of the creation. See Löhr, “Moral Language in John,” 238, 245-249. Stare, “Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John,” 213-228. For Stare, “Ethics of Life,” 227-228, symbolic language in John depicts ethics, especially through the family imagery. The family ethos is depicted through the symbolism of various relationships: the children of God, born from above, God their Father, etc. There are two symbolically portrayed families in John: the family of God (of love) and the family of evil (of hatred). The family imagery is further developed on the level of friendship. Jesus addresses his disciples as friends and exhorts them to live a life of love, even to the point of death.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

33

followers (15:1-15). C. C. Caragounis analyzes ἄμπελος and κλήματα (Jn 15:5) and argues that this literary-semantic meaning is grounded on evidence from classical times which had changed over time from Alexander (335 B.C.E) to Justinian I (565 C.E.): ἄμπελος means vineyard and κλήματα means the whole vine plant. Caragounis adds that one cannot be sure about which meaning the evangelist intended in using these terms. A detailed exegesis would be needed to draw some conclusions.67 However, it is certain that the true ἄμπελος implies the OT imagery of Israel, who failed to remain a true ἄμπελος.68 The context in which ἄμπελος and κλήματα occur (Jn 15) is the farewell discourse, where Jesus contemplates and reminds his disciples of his imminent departure and affirms that his love will remain unimpaired with them. This is restated in 14:1-4, 16:4, and 17:9, 11, 23. John symbolically uses ἄμπελος and κλήματα and refers to abiding (μένω) in Jesus in the central chapter of the farewell discourse (Jn 15), and 17:23 provides a kind of summary: ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ ἐν ἐμοί, “I in them and you in me”.69 Christ abides in everyone who believes in him, such that the believer can pursue his life as a Christian by abiding in Christ, which demands purity of mind, words and actions.70 The exalted Christ’s demand of his followers, that they “abide in me”, implies that through this abiding the follower will imbue new life. In light of all these considerations, it can be said that abiding forms the basis of the new ethics in the post-resurrection period.71 67

68

69

70

71

Down through the centuries the literal meaning of ἄμπελος is understood as the vine plant and κλήματα are the branches of the same plant. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 251. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 253. See also Caragounis, “Vine, Vineyard, Israel, and Jesus,” 206-207. Another interesting piece of information is that recent scholars have noticed that Rev 14:18-19 ἄμπελος is used in the sense of vineyard. See, for instance, D. E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, WBC 52 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 790. In the OT, we have the vine (Ps 80; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:2) and the vineyard (Isa 5:1-7). Caragounis proposes that the more likely meaning could be vineyard. Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 253. For details regarding these terms and their meanings, see Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, 257-258. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 260-261. In other words Jn 15:1-7 depicts “the pneumatic relationship between the exalted Christ and his followers” and he establishes this explanation in many different ways. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 260-262. See also Frey, who discusses the historical elements in the formation of John in terms of the problems in the Johannine community and the Johannine School (if any). In-group solidarity is a major practical ethical element in the Johannine corpus. For John, to abide in love in the faith community is the ethical life. See Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 169-179. We can see that a pneumatic relationship is postulated in Jn 15:4, according to which the believer’s existence is envisaged in the risen Christ. The mutual dwelling between the Father and Jesus is told explicitly to the disciples in vv. 9-10. See Caragounis,

34

CHAPTER 1

In the preceding discussions of scholarship, we have analyzed certain pericopes and begun to unearth the implicit ethics of life enriched by love relationships. This can be summarized as follows. The ζωή-ethics initiated and offered by the Johannine Jesus invites human persons to engage in a lasting relationship with Jesus. They are urged to continue the actions of Jesus through their engagements with other human persons. In other words, those who come to believe in Jesus will have abundance of life, and this life flows to their lives through mutual abiding with Jesus. Abiding with Jesus is reflected in their love relationship with their fellow humans and, in this way, the ζωή-ethics is made operative in the whole world through the missionary function. 2.2.4. The Underlying Ethics in the Narrative of John Some scholars have recently challenged the consensus that there is only one commandment in John, namely the love commandment, and the alleged lack of ethical elements in John due to the absence of a list of values. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, there are many more underlying ethical elements in John than ‘meet the eye’, and these can be found from the very outset of the gospel.72 In the following, we discuss first (i) ethical values in light of implicit references to the law and Torah and (ii) the practical dimension of the implicit ethics depicted through the actions of the various characters in the narratives of John. (i) U. C. von Wahlde proposes that there are two commandments in John, viz., the love commandment (13:34) and Jesus’ urging of his disciples to keep and abide in his words (14:23-24; 15:7). This claim runs contrary to the general consensus that there is only one such commandment, viz., the first one. He notices a pattern of singular and plural forms of the word group in the gospel of John; i.e., when addressing a specific group, the exhortations of the Johannine Jesus are in the singular form, whereas in general exhortations, he uses the plural form. 73 G. Lund agrees with von Wahlde, adding that ἐντολαί focuses not only on the disciples but includes all those who become believers. Lund finds a third commandment

72 73

“Abide in Me,” 262-263. Based on the discussions above, we find that on the occasion of the departure of the earthly Jesus, the parable of the vineyard and vines is told to the disciples in order to endorse his future relation with his followers. See van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, X. See von Wahlde, The Johannine Commandments, 31-32. He adds that Jesus is bound by two imperatives in his relation with the Father: (i) to do and say as instructed (8:28; 12:49-50) and (ii) to complete the work of the one who sent him (4:34; 5; 9;4), which he said he had accomplished in 17:4.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

35

in John presented in the farewell discourse: Jesus’ sending of his disciples into the world (17:18; 20:21). For him, this imperative perfects the ethics in John, rendering them universal, and is clear evidence that the fourth gospel has a reasonably complete and consistent moral system. Lund notes that the actions of Jesus, which show the practicality of his urgings, are often lost in the discourses that accompany them. For instance, the action of foot-washing is over-shadowed by the extensive discourse that follows. Lund adds that Jesus’ selfless action solely for the good of the others cannot be held separate from his life and ministry.74 Moreover, the ethics in John are not based on legislation, but rather on the life and actions of Jesus, i.e. how he behaved during his earthly life. Jesus’ works reflect his intimate relationship with God the Father.75 The three imperatives or commandments in John, to love one another – to live in adherence with the words and deeds of Jesus and to go into the world – are wholly grounded on the imitation of Jesus, which is not measurable. Contrary to the majority opinion, there are scholars who are convinced of the importance or influence of the law/Torah in John and on this basis identify a value system inherent to this gospel. Some scholars explain the influence of law/Torah as follows: The Johannine Jesus who comes from God and represents God interprets the law Christologically. His opponents uphold the dignity of the children of God, emphasizing that they hail from Abraham and thus lay claim to the authority of Moses to interpret and protect the law.76 For Labahn, the crucial question is the following: 74

75

76

See Lund, “The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 265-281. Lund argues that the commandment of Jesus to perpetuate his words and deeds could not be reduced to a religious directive since “Jesus’ life is replete with moral actions, judgments and values”. It is to be noted that in previous scholarship there is no attention given to the imperatives in John and scholars such as Frey hold that there are no such imperatives in John. See for instance, Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 167-204. See Lund, “The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 282-288. In John 7-10, Jesus explains to his opponents how his good works reflect his closeness and intimacy with God. His authentic imitation of God in his life is the vindication for his actions. Also, the alienation from God is reflected in one’s life through one’s evil actions (Jn 8:14). Jesus wants his followers to love one another in the same manner that he loves them, which could mean that the love Jesus has is derived from his close communion with God. The drawback of ethics is not based on legislation but on the imitation and intimacy with God is the enormous freedom the individual has to choose from. Lund affirms that ethics in John is unconventional and hence that those who search in John for conventional ethics often come up with the conclusion that there is little or no ethics in John. When the integrity and discernment of the individual is at risk, one’s life will be corrupted and hence a life obedient to the community could save the individual from this danger. See van der Watt, “John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour,” 431-448, 431, 445. He adds that, at this juncture, Soteriology overlaps with ethics in John. But in this gospel, ethics cannot be restricted to the categories of virtues and vices, house rules, etc., but

36

CHAPTER 1

“Is love a universal principle, or a value system that is used to build identity – a method of creating group boundaries by focusing on the disciples/ brothers and sisters?”77 He provides an answer by analyzing John’s references to law (νόμος) along with the love commandment (ἐντολή) and derives the ethical implications of promoting a value system for believers.78 Loader finds that law/Torah is referred to or discussed in John either implicitly or explicitly with due respect and in a way that acknowledges its authority.79 There are two notions of law in John: your law and our law. On some occasions in John, Jesus holds Jewish practices in high regard and goes further to higher levels. Some laws are replaced or upgraded by Jesus because the time has come in John to elevate them to a higher realm.80 The influence of Torah upon the Johannine community can be seen in two ways: (i) that Torah has only testimonial value in the community and is seen to have been replaced and/or fulfilled by Christ, and

77

78

79

80

rather, is expressed in specific moral actions. Hence, the starting point of ethical analysis in John should be the actions of Jesus and the change in identity effected through having faith in Jesus. In his view, the consensus that there is no ethics or not many ethical elements in John is due to the relative lack of treatment of this topic. For instance, the opponents observe the feasts and other rituals as per the law and they love glory coming from humans rather than from God (12:43). But such observances do not make them holier or provide forgiveness for their sins. The opponents of Jesus in John witness the works of Jesus and hence will not be excused. It is made explicit in this gospel that not accepting Jesus in itself is sin. Moreover, the denial of Jesus eventually leads the opponents to hatred, persecution, killing, etc., of Jesus himself and of those who accept Jesus. It is clear that the ethical framework in John is about who believes in Jesus and the conflict with the opponents. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 27-29, 30-33. Labahn observes that Schnackenburg makes “little progress toward defining the value system of the Johannine text and its possible impact on the readers and their way of life, or toward identifying specific deeds that would follow from love and faith”. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 19-20, 31-33. Labahn includes other terms as well, such as sin and work(s). In summary, sin in John is nothing but Unglauben. See also van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 158. Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 685. See Loader, “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 143-158, 143-145. Instances for mentioning the Jewish law with respect: the law was given to Moses (1:17); the six stone jars at Cana (2:6); the temple as the Father’s house, “Zeal for your house will consume me” (2:16-17); salvation comes from the Jews (4:22); […] purification a week before Passover (11:55); the impurity concerns of Sabbath (18:31); Sabbath observance and Jesus’ burial (19:40, 52) etc., and for the occasions confirming authoritative prediction in John: 1:45; 10:34; 12:34. Jesus asserts his testimony citing Jewish law in 5:39, 46. Loader admires how John presents Jewish law without any disparagement compared to such reference in the Synoptic gospels. Such references linger from the beginning to the end of the gospel. See for instance, 4:23-24; 6:32. See Loader, “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 148-155.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

37

(ii) that Torah is still in force, such that the elements of Torah are reflected in and linger throughout the gospel of John. If the first view prevailed in the community, their ethics have become Christ himself; if the second view prevailed, they uphold the ethics of the Torah as a means to follow Christ. This does not mean that the first group violates the values taught by the law, but rather that they lived a life of love which surpasses the law. In other words, presenting Christ in place of Torah cannot mean that Torah has been abandoned.81 Loader, in this respect, implicitly nullifies the view that love in John is sectarian and challenges the view that there is no ethics in John; i.e., he holds that Torah is a source of the ethical values operative in John. Some scholars discuss the influence of Torah in John in light of Sophia in Torah. Members of the Johannine community already have the knowledge (Sophia) in Torah and they understand Jesus’ words and deeds as pointing beyond Sophia. Thus they find in Jesus a direct way to attain wisdom. M. Willett explains: “[A]t the same time that the rabbis identified Wisdom with the law, the Johannine community identified Wisdom with Jesus. The evangelist employed this identification in polemic with the rabbis”.82 A. Glicksman finds that the Johannine community is motivated to imitate Jesus, who is Beyond Sophia: “Jesus is the new and improved Sophia”.83 In practical life, imitating a person is more attainable than applying the maxims one finds in some teachings or books, as natural actions can be imitated more easily than knowledge can be put into practice. The preceding discussion of the influence and impact of Torah/the law in John has examined the intertwining of law and the love commandment 81

82 83

Loader, “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 157-158, agrees that there are occasions of criticizing law and authority in John. Nevertheless, from the context it is clear that it is not to override or for the sake of degrading them; rather, these claims of Jesus are meant to affirm his identity and authority and show that he is even more than the law. There are two occasions concerning the Sabbath observance; healing a lame man (Jn 5) and a man born blind in Jn 9. Jesus uses Gen 2:3 and Exod 20:11 in defense of his work on the first occasion. Moreover, in both situations he affirms his identity and the uniqueness of belonging to God’s family. See Loader, “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel,” 146-156. Willett, Wisdom Christology, 141. Jesus is beyond Sophia in many respects. Glicksman summarizes these in a list of seven. They are: Jesus’ (1) eternal preexistence and divinity, (2) incarnation, (3) self-identification as truth, (4) claim to be the authentic source of proper moral behavior and everlasting resurrected life, (5) more intimate and unique parent-child relationship with the Father, (6) more direct mode of communicating God’s revelation to humanity and fostering of divine friendship, and (7) broader scope of salvation. See A.T. Glicksman, “Beyond Sophia,” 99-101.

38

CHAPTER 1

and how Torah is lifted into a higher realm when imitating the life and actions of Jesus is seen as a new mode having knowledge/Sophia. Moreover, we have seen that some maintain there are three imperatives or commandments in John: to love one another, to live in adherence with the words and deeds of Jesus, and to go out into the world. These exhortations are in their practical realm; they call for believers to follow Jesus by adhering his words and imitating his actions in real-life situations. Ethical decision-making, then, in John, is not based on legislation but rather on divine imitation and the intimacy of the community. In light of these explorations, therefore, we can more clearly see the implicit ethics in John against the background of the law and Torah. (ii) Scholars who focus their claims on the actions of characters in John’s narrative explain that the roles of these characters influence readers to identify with them. Labahn discusses certain characters in John against the background of the narrative settings, comments, gaps in the story, etc., and brings to light the function of these characters in their respective contexts as ethical models. These explorations also contribute to some ethical orientations.84 Schnelle explores the implicit narrative ethics in the gospel of John and identifies the text of John as a Meistererzählung and the narrative as a Sinnbildung. He finds that the narrative of John has become a medium which itself carries ethical elements.85 Labahn holds that the text of the gospel of John is best explored by focusing on these various elements: on Johannine theology including revelation and incarnation, the hermeneutics of love, the commandment of love, and narrative ethics.86 He adds that far too little attention is paid to much of the narrative material in John, and that only by attending to this can we understand how and to what extent a narrative ethics is present in John. Negative moral figures in John receive special focus in van der Watt’s discussions. He shows that law plays a major role in Jesus’ arguments and conversations with his opponents. It is to be noted that both Jesus and his opponents held a positive view of law. But the problems and conflicts 84

85

86

See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 38-39. For instance, the man born blind (Jn 9). After his encounter with Jesus, this man comments positively about Jesus’ actions even in the face of the threat posed by the authorities (9:22, 34). Eventually, he confesses his faith. He characterizes Jesus as the man who gave him sight. See also Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender, 25; K. Scholtissek, “Mündiger Glaube,” 75-105, 104-105. See Schnelle, “Die johanneische Schule,” 198-217. According to Schnelle, one of the major concerns of the narrative is to establish a tangible ethic (13:12-17) and more specifically to urge the reader to follow Jesus’ example. See also Schnelle, “Johanneische Ethik,” 309-327, 313. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 40.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

39

arose between them due to their differing interpretations of the law. In other words, the wrong interpretations of the law by Jesus’ opponents is challenged by Jesus in his words and deeds, yet they were not able to accept such explanations and practices of Jesus and his followers.87 One may ask how these conflicts in the gospel of John can be explained in order to rectify the wrong understandings. Van der Watt affirms that in the fourth gospel the major focus is placed on Jesus as the one who reveals God in new perspectives.88 The dynamics of the conflict are the basis of ethical argumentation and determine the focus of the gospel’s ethical discussions. In the following, we narrow down our specific focus on the Samaritan episode under the aspect of the ethical elements in this narrative. 3. THE SAMARITAN EPISODE: SCHOLARSHIP ON THE ETHICAL ELEMENTS Scholars working to uncover the ethical elements in the gospel of John have not paid specific attention to the Samaritan episode, to my knowledge, except for a short paper on the motif of the sending of Jesus as a missional-incarnational ethos.89 Surveying available scholarship, we find only a few explicit and/or implicit references to some verses or vocabulary from this episode in the context of ethical discussions of this gospel. They are the following: (i) Schnackenburg notes that John differs from the Synoptic gospels on the approach toward conversion, and to substantiate this point he refers to the Samaritan episode.90 (ii) In discussing the ethical sphere, Houlden opines that John’s primary concern is not ethical because he emphasizes following or becoming like the one who is sent by the Father, which includes the statement of Jesus in 4:34.91 (iii) WeyerMenkhoff proposes an inter-textual analysis to understand the meaning of the work in John. For this he takes Jn 4:34 as a test case. In the broader context of the Samaritan episode and in dialogue with the OT texts, he deduces that the work of Jesus in Samaria is not an autonomous action 87

88 89 90 91

See van der Watt, “Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel,” 189-191. Jesus speaks with them in order to convince them that they are biased (7:50-52), but they believe that Jesus is inhuman and unrighteous and do not try to understand him. Both think of themselves as following the requirements of the law consistently due to the fact that Jesus’ perspectives are different from his opponents’ point of view. See van der Watt, “Ethics of/and the Opponents,” 190-191. See Kok, “John 4,” 168-193. See Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching, 317-318. See for a brief discussion, section 2.1. See Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, 35-38.

40

CHAPTER 1

but a responsive action. He adds that believers are urged to perform responsive acts, i.e. one needs to respond to the work of God with Jesus, and to believe is to be responsive in the performance of ethical actions.92 (iv) Stare, who discusses the ethics of life, notes that the highest concentration of ζωή is in chapters 3-6 and mentions 4:11 specifically.93 Her paper concludes that the ζωή-ethic upholds a relationship with God that is a love relationship, not merely an authoritative relationship, which has a missionary function throughout the whole world and “is based on Jesus and his behavior in relation to his followers”.94 (v) Labahn examines the moral categories in the fourth gospel and pays specific attention to the Johannine theme of work. He finds that mostly ποιέω and ἔργον are used to denote works performed in accordance with the divine will. Jesus exhorts his disciples to do his work, either implicitly or explicitly. Against this background, Labahn argues that such works are ethical actions and belong to the value system of Johannine Christology. (vi) Karakolis and Löhr discuss the vocabulary of ἔργον briefly. For them, this theme should be further explored by studying Jn 3:17-19, 4:34, 6:28-29, 8:21-24, and 13:13-16 in their proper contexts and also the actions referred to in these passages.95 (vii) Bennema discusses virtue ethics in the gospel of John and briefly discusses the character of the Samaritan woman. He remarks that in her encounters with Jesus and her fellow Samaritans she exhibits virtues such as prudence, justice and faith.96 As is clear from the preceding, Johannine scholarship has not yet paid detailed, specific attention to the Samaritan episode in the context of the research to identify the ethical 92 93

94 95

96

See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,”167-174. Stare, “Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John,” 213-228. Here it is explained that the kernel of NT ethics is the person of Jesus. In the Synoptics it is depicted through the key phrase the Kingdom of God, while in John it pertains to the ethics of life. Jesus’ purpose in coming into the world is to give life to humanity (1:4) and Jesus’ self-image is portrayed by the vocabulary of life in Jn 10:10. From the beginning to the end, we find the repeated use of the vocabulary of life in a very high frequency in John compared to its use in the Synoptic gospels. The Johannine Jesus uses the term ‘life’ 47 times in John, either in dialogue or in prayer. The theme of life is the leitmotif of this gospel, with its promise of eternal life. In order to obtain life, human persons should engage in a mutual and lasting relationship with Jesus by becoming believers and living in accordance with the ζωή-ethic. Relationships are not authoritative, as if in a master-servant relation, but more similar to a friend’s love relation in the ζωή-ethic which is operative in the whole world through the missionary function and “is based on Jesus and his behavior in relation to his followers”. See Stare, “Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John,” 213-228. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 19-20, 31-33; Karakolis, “Semeia Conveying Ethics,” 206-211; Löhr, “Moral Language in John,” 238, 245-249. Bennema, “Virtue Ethics in the Gospel of John,” 177-181.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

41

elements in John’s gospel. However, we have found one short paper on the motif of the mission of Jesus as a missional-incarnational ethos. This paper initiates a re-discovery of a missional-incarnational ethos in the narrative of Jesus’ mission in Samaria in Jn 4 in relation to John’s theological motives. The paper raises some challenges pertaining to ecclesiology, spirituality and leadership.97 In addition to the above references, scholars such as van der Watt, Schnelle and Labahn affirm the need to study the role of different characters in John, which include not only Jesus but also others. Consequently, they mention explicitly/implicitly the deficit in scholarship in studying the roles of characters such as the disciples and of distinct figures like the Samaritan woman and the man born blind, et al. Though Frey discusses the theme of love and hatred in an ethical perspective, his attention is focused on the implicit references to love and hatred in the Johannine letters and not on reconciling love in the gospel of John. In discussing the theme of love in John, he explains that Jesus’ disciples and followers are called to live a life of imitation of his love and that Jesus’ life serves as a prototype for the disciples who follow him in his living, his actions and even to or in his death.98 This brief overview of scholarship on the ethical elements in the Samaritan episode, we find that the treatment of the Samaritan mission has been minimal, either explicitly or implicitly and even indirectly. In the following, we summarize the discussions on the status of research pertaining to the ethical elements in the above three sections and in this light deduce the preliminary conclusions. 4. SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS Whether explicitly or implicitly, scholars acknowledge that there are novel elements in John pertaining to life in a community or society. Recent research has focused on such elements that can contribute to the effort to engage the demands of the present age and sought to apply them to actual concrete human situations. These explorations have challenged the consensus that there is no ethics or no real ethical elements in John, other than the love commandment. Our discussions above have shown that the latest contributions on the theme of ethics in John have challenged the previous scholarly consensus that there is in John only a narrow-minded ethos, a 97 98

See Kok, “John 4,” 168-193. See Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 200.

42

CHAPTER 1

degradation of the law/Torah, and an absence of ethical values. Another hindrance to research on the theme of ethics in John has been the prominence given in scholarship to theological and Christological themes in the gospel of John. This has led to the view that the urgings in this gospel are all about following Christ as the one who is sent by God. In other words, currents in the present-day scholarship are unearthing ethical elements and opening up new paths for future studies on the theme of ethics. In the following, we survey the ethical elements uncovered and examine the various new perspectives on the gospel that previous scholars have recommended to be adopted by future interpreters. (i) The inseparability between actions and faith in the gospel of John has been pointed out by the majority of recent scholars, such as van der Watt, Labahn and Weyer-Menkhoff. In fact, the objection made by previous scholars, or perhaps the obstacle they encountered, namely that theology and Christology are the only major themes of the gospel of John, is challenged by these recent scholars. They have broadened the focus of research to include analysis of the implications of salvific actions and the ethics of faith in the gospel. Jesus’ actions are seen to stem from God’s will and work and ordinary human persons are enabled to do such works by coming to faith and abiding in it. In other words, by coming to believe in Jesus and abide in him is not enough; all the more, one has to abide in Jesus in order to be enabled to imitate Jesus in one’s conduct. Nevertheless, the actions of love increase faith and vice versa; thus salvific faith as well as ethical actions are the major ethical elements in John, together with love. The proposal that the actions of Jesus in John need to be discussed in detail to advance further in understanding this gospel which has gained more acceptance and prominence in recent times.99 (ii) Scholars contributing to this trend have focused on the terms σημεῖον and ἔργον in John, showing that these terms and the actions pertaining to them raise challenges and opportunities on the subject of faith and ethics. Scholars such as Karakolis, Löhr and Frey have noted that these terms are employed by the evangelist in the first half of the gospel (chapters 1-12) to portray the theme of love symbolically. The latter half of the gospel includes the statement of the love commandment and the sublime actions of love performed by Jesus, depicted through the farewell discourse, his suffering and the moment of his death, as well as his actions in the post-resurrection period. Löhr emphasizes that the semantic field of ἔργον 99

In the above explorations of scholarship, we have seen it from the suggestions made by Schnackenburg (1962) up through the monologue by Moloney (2013) on the actions of the Johannine Jesus.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

43

must be studied meticulously because it is an important element of moral language in John. In a similar vein, Stare holds that the theme of ζωή-ethics needs to be studied in detail in light of the theme of life in John and corresponding vocabulary. She finds that the ζωή-ethics in the gospel replaces authoritative leadership with an ideal of authority modeled on mutually supportive friendship in community and society. Frey asserts that the family imagery in John discussed by van der Watt effectively depicts the relationship envisioned by John along with the exhortations to live a life of love and friendship. Moreover, as emphasized above, mutual abiding is the key element to live the life of a follower of Christ. (iii) The Johannine Jesus’ sending forth of his disciples into the world (17:18; 20:21) is discussed by Lund. He explains that the imperative form employed here by the evangelist sheds light on the implicit ethics, viz., that to follow the Johannine Jesus’ urging here to go into the world, one must practice community ethics.100 Lund finds that the sending of the Johannine Jesus into the world is one of three imperatives or commandments in John.101 All three are based on the imitation of Jesus: namely, to love one another, to live in adherence with the words and deeds of Jesus, and to go into the world. Thus scholars deduce four commandments or exhortations in John: (a) to believe in Jesus; (b) to love one another; (c) to live in adherence with the words and deeds of Jesus – precisely to abide in him – and finally, (d) to go into the world, this being an action which is grounded in the first three commandments. (iv) Labahn pays specific attention to the theme and vocabulary of law, sin and work in John, along with the love commandment, to understand concretely the inherent values in the gospel. Scholars like van der Watt, Loader, and Glicksman explain that the Johannine Jesus who comes from God interprets the law/Torah Christologically. John is not denying or degrading the law; rather he perfects it in Jesus, and thus Torah is a source of the values operative in John. In other words, Jesus is the new and perfected form of Sophia/wisdom which one is better able to follow, for in practical life human persons prefer imitating persons rather than determining how to apply some theoretical elements.102 100 101

102

See section 2.2.4. Von Wahlde and Lund discuss the singular and plural use of the vocabulary ἐντολή against the background of such occurrences in the farewell discourses to find two commandments or imperatives and Lund adds one from 17:18 (20:21), namely sending into the world. See section 3.4 above, Imperatives and Laws/Torah in John. It is to be noted that rather than restricting ethical elements with some list of virtues and vices, John gives importance to specific moral actions and the changes in the life of human persons as a result of faith in Jesus. See section 3.4.1, Value System: Law/ Torah and Ethics.

44

CHAPTER 1

Scholars like van der Watt, Schnelle and Labahn add that not only Jesus, but other characters such as the disciples and distinct figures such as the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, et al., should be studied in this perspective. Van der Watt includes an evaluation of the negative moral figures and conflicts depicted in John, arguing that they convey the implicit ethics of John. The dynamics of relationships with Jesus/God invite the reader to imitate the values of love and obedience. Based on the above overview of scholarship on the theme of ethics of the Samaritan episode, we find that the treatment of the Samaritan mission has been minimal, either explicitly or implicitly and even indirectly. Scholarship on the ethical elements in the fourth gospel as a whole never discusses or finds any sort of reconciling love or love towards people who are hostile, and scholars are convinced that this is a deficit in the depiction of the theme of love in John. However, recent scholarship has urged further exploration of this gospel focused on the actions and role of its characters in order to understand Johannine ethics. The status quaestionis on the ethical theme in John reveals that there is still some skepticism concerning the alleged ethical elements in John. As we have noted above, this hesitation is due to a too-narrow and exclusive focus on the commandments in the fourth gospel. Many scholars have opted to analyze only what is explicit with regard to ethical themes in the form of concrete statements and specific ethical commands. Because there are not many statements of this kind in John, these scholars conclude that the gospel has no ethical concern as such. However, recent research has effected a shift in this approach, paying attention not only to the explicit dimensions of the ethical theme, but also to its implicit aspects, as depicted in the narrative through specific characters, dialogues, the presentation of certain incidents, etc. We discuss in the following, some proposals made by such scholars, underlining the need to broaden the analytic categories in this area of research. 5. BROADENING OF THE ANALYTIC CATEGORIES In the following, we discuss how scholars either explicitly or implicitly affirm the need to broaden the analytic categories used in interpreting John’s gospel and appeal for the use of various methods and approaches to bring to light the ethical elements in the gospel.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

45

Some scholars assert the need to study the actions of characters in John in explorations in the field of Johannine Christology. Schnackenburg seeks to identify a narrative ethics in John.103 Nissen notices that there is a growing interest in narrative ethics in John.104 For van der Watt, the Christological aspects and actions in John cannot be differentiated. Moreover, the ethical actions in John are primarily rooted in faith in Jesus, so much so that “the essential and most basic ethical deed that is required is faith in Jesus”,105 which is the basic ethical requirement for the relationship between Jesus and a person. He urges the importance of this approach due to the fact that the fourth gospel presents a narrative world enriched with different narratives, places and characters as well as dialogues and monologues of the characters which provide indications of various sorts of ethical orientation.106 Van der Watt, in his discussions of Jn 8, finds that Johannine language and style require specific attention, as this gospel employs various language features and techniques to convey its messages. He adds that moral behavior, in John, is discussed in three perspectives: the will of God, the good with regard to the use of ἀγαθός, and sin.107 The new perspectives revealed about God in John need specific attention. The presence of God, traditionally, is manifested through law and in Jesus, the one who is sent by God, and in turn, the Son of God reveals His presence in an unparalleled manner without any hesitation. Hence the ethical implications of this revelatory practice should also focus on Jesus, who in himself reveals the presence of God.108 Against the background of the use of ἔργον to denote the works of God, both in the OT and NT, Weyer-Menkhoff affirms the need for inter-textual analysis of the OT and John. He thus examines references to the works of God as a test case in Jn 4:34. First, he considers the use of ἔργον in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode and proposes that this episode 103

104 105

106 107

108

For Schnackenburg Johannine ethics centers on Christology, faith and love, where love stands in relation to distinct acts of love. See Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft, 174-180. See Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John,” 140. See van der Watt, “Ethics through the Power of Language,” 139-167, 140. See also van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 147-176. See van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 151. van der Watt, “Ethics through the Power of Language,” 163-167, the ethics in John go hand in hand with decision for Christ. See also van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos John,” 157. See van der Watt, “Ethics of/and the Opponents,” 190-191.

46

CHAPTER 1

reflects betrothal scenes in the OT. With the help of inter-textual analysis, he deduces that Jesus’ work in Samaria is not an autonomous action, but concerns the work of God.109 This suggests, according to Weyer-Menkhoff, an ethics of responsivity in which believers are invited to perform responsive acts: i.e., one has to respond to the work of God in Jesus. Based on this exploration, he concludes that to believe is to be responsive, and that to be responsive implies that one performs ethical actions, both the works of Jesus and even greater ones.110 Van der Watt affirms the urgent need to broaden the analytical categories in order to discern the ethical elements in John. The earlier consensus that there is no ethics or not many ethical elements in John was based on a relative ignorance concerning these categories.111 To address this, Labahn identifies socio-scientific criticism, semantic analysis and narrative-critical analysis as effective tools for analyzing the ethical elements in John.112 He commends that the effort to identify a narrative ethics in John is still in its very first stages and has to go a long way to unearth the ethics in John.113 At this same juncture, Anderson underlines the continuing relevance and importance of the historical-critical approach. He examines the various stages of the Johannine situation before the gospel was written in order to understand the rhetoric and ethics of John, concluding that the ethics in John is structured in terms of a discernment-oriented leadership.114 109

110 111 112 113

114

See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 174. Scholars discuss the Samaritan episode against the background of the OT, in the light of Gen 24; 29 and Exod 2. See, for instance, Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 139; Brodie, The Gospel according to John, 217-218; Stibbe, John, 68-69. There are scholars who count the differences between such scenes in the OT and Jn 4. See O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, 131. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 88-89. Moloney, Belief in the Word, 139. In spite of the differences between the OT betrothal type scenes and Jn 4, we note that “there is near consensus among literary critics that the scene at Jacob’s well follows conventions of betrothal type scene found in Hebrew narratives”. Brant, “Husband Hunting,” 205-223, 211. Arterbury, “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds,” 65. Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 167-173, explains that though there is no betrothal explicitly presented at the end of the episode there is neither betrothal nor marriage taking place in John 4. It is implicit that the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans are betrothed to Jesus. The relatives presented there are father Jacob and our fathers in the broader sense (4:12, 20, 21, 23). Also this believing betrothal led to a rebirth in water and spirit as promised to Nicodemus in Jn 3. See Weyer-Menkhoff, “The Response of Jesus,” 174. See van der Watt, “John’s Perception of Ethical Behavior,” 431-448, 431, 445. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 30-35. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 36-39. See also Nissen, “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John,” 140. Among the three phases Anderson, “Discernment-Oriented Leadership,” 290-308, discusses, the second and the third are marked with tensions and crises. Consequently, the truth claims and ethical elements developed around the theme of love and putting

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

47

In order to advance further in this field of research, these scholars adopt different approaches which focus on Johannine language and style, semantic analysis of typical vocabulary, and employment of narrative-criticism, social-scientific approaches and inter-textual analysis. By recognizing these approaches as effective tools, recent scholars are giving more space to approaches like Socio-Scientific Criticism, Narrative-Criticism, etc. One might also hope to find new avenues of research by paying attention to a range of other topics: for example the new perspectives revealed in John on God, the behavior and actions of the characters, the character of Jesus himself, of the disciples and/or of other followers; the negative moral figures in John; the dynamics of conflict in the fourth gospel, the ethics of faith; community ethics, etc. There is still room for scholarship to discuss the narrative episodes with attention to various dialogues, monologues, characters, elements of content and the structure of the narratives. Even gaps left in the stories, which call for the reader to understand and interpret, must be analyzed with precision because such gaps, even more than words, may be pregnant with different modes of relationship exemplifying ethical elements and a system of values. As Zimmermann underlines, a mixture of historical textual and reader-oriented aspects is needed in order to explore the implicit ethics in John. He adds further that no single method will be sufficient to analyze the complex ethical elements or aspects. However, he leaves open the discussion of the effectiveness of these approaches, which is needed in order to broaden or reduce the categories of analysis and determine how various methodologies are applicable.115 The central element which has evolved from these recent developments in scholarship is a recognition that one should consider how the narratives in the gospel of John reveal underlying ethical elements, called an implicit ethics.116 It was Zimmermann who first proposed ‘the approach of implicit

115 116

love into action become the major concern of John’s gospel. “The ethos of the Johannine tradition invites the audience to respond to God’s saving-revealing work and to abide in it, as a loving appeal to liberating truth versus its lesser alternatives”. See Zimmermann, “The Implicit Ethics of New Testament Writings,” 417-418. See van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, X. Zimmermann, “How to Read Biblical Texts Ethically: The New Method of Implicit Ethics in Dealing with Biblical Ethics,” a Paper Presented at San Diego, CA: SBL Annual Meeting, 2014, 1-7, explains that an ethical text can have the following elements. It will (i) exhibit a reflective orientation toward the actual way of life (ii) depict how to behave and act (iii) develop a value system through the words and actions of the characters and the setting of the text and (iv) concern a specific social group and/or the surrounding society at large. Zimmermann briefly examines various theories and approaches in the field of ethics beginning from Aristotle and concludes that it is rather difficult to unearth the implicitly depicted ethics in the NT through discourse and narratives. He affirms that

48

CHAPTER 1

ethics’ with a view to understanding the underlying ethical elements in the NT texts. He proposes “eight perspectives of the implicit ethics to be analyzed”, but adds that “all of them need not be individually checked off”.117 Zimmermann reviews various scholarly efforts to deduce the ethical elements in the Scripture, such as the applicative approach, which reads biblical texts ethically by appropriating the text in contemporary ethical discourse; the historical-contextual approach, where “Biblical ethics are located and classified within the historical context of the writing of the biblical texts”; and the theological approach, which puts ethics “under the heading of dogmatic theology”. He addresses the deficits of these approaches and proposes a model which he calls, in a nutshell, the ethics of the text, which he holds to be revealed through language, norms, and forms of ethical reflection, namely the implicit ethics of the text. He suggests a methodology based on eight approaches to explore implicit structures in the NT texts. They are the following: “1. Linguistic Form; 2. Norms and Values for Action; 3. History of Traditions of Individual Norms/Moral Instances; 4. Priorities of Values; 5. Ethical ‘Logic’/Structure of Motives; 6. The Moral Agent; 7. The Resulting Ethos as Lived; 8. Addressee/Field of Application”. That is, though Zimmermann proposes a careful analysis of narratives in order to unearth the underlying implicit ethics, until recently scholarship has paid no specific attention to such concerns. When the author of a text does not provide a clear and methodical portrayal with regard to the norms of actions, the approach is called implicit ethics.118 In other words, he specifies that he is not proposing a methodology but rather different perspectives from which to approach the text, and admits that these proposals are not a finalized or restrictive skeleton within which an exegete must analyze the text to discern the ethical elements. Nevertheless, the eight perspectives Zimmermann lists have been taken up in one way or another by exegetes in their analyses of different pericopes. Zimmermann himself affirms that such analyses of the text can unveil

117

118

without a doubt one can find such instances in the gospels and adds that one needs to discuss the text itself in order to understand it. R. Zimmermann, “The “Implicit Ethics”,” Neot 43 (2009): 399-423, challenges the consensus that there are hardly any ethical elements in John and concludes that such a view is outdated. Zimmermann reviews various scholarly efforts to deduce the ethical elements in the Scripture, such as the applicative approach, which reads biblical texts ethically by appropriating the text in contemporary ethical discourse; the historicalcontextual approach, where “Biblical ethics are located and classified within the historical context of the writing of the biblical texts”; and the theological approach, which puts ethics “under the heading of dogmatic theology”. Zimmermann, “The “Implicit Ethics,” 399-423. See also Zimmermann, “Is there Ethics in John?,” 44-80.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

49

ethical structures in the narratives which “have often been hastily overlooked due to the pursuit of [other] dimensions”.119 This approach to define implicit ethics is described by Zimmermann and his co-author, van der Watt, as follows: its “primary interest lies not in the ethos lived by the […] group, which might be reconstructed from the text, but rather how the narrated text reveals an underlying value system and ethical reflection sui generis, which can be retrospectively classified as ‘ethics,’ or better as ‘implicit ethics’.”120 Despite the fact that NT ethics is not a systematic theory of moral action, scholars such as Zimmermann and Labahn have held that it is possible to deduce the ethical elements from the content by examining interactions between the various characters in the narratives and explaining their actions within the text and context.121 Labahn underlines a major handicap among scholars who take seriously the study of the ethical elements in John and promote further research on the theme of ethics in the gospel: namely, that “none of the Johannine writings takes up or develops the synoptic concept of loving the enemy”.122 Moloney, in his recent book Love in the Gospel of John, focuses on the theme of love but not explicitly on the ethics of love. He asserts that his book has been written against the backdrop of a neglect of the actions of Jesus in John in studies on the theme of love. He discusses various actions in this gospel pertaining to the theme of love and unearths various forms of love in the gospel.123 It is to be noted that nothing is added to this opinion, positively or negatively. Addressing this deficit, we propose that the characters and actions in the Samaritan episode vividly portray Jesus’ entry into a hostile land, where Jesus and the Samaritan woman progress from a state of no relationship to an abiding with relationship. This episode 119 120 121

122

123

Zimmermann, SBL 2014, Conference paper, 1-12, 11-12. Van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, IX-X. As noted above, the NT books are not written in order to present theories of moral actions or step-by-step formulations of ethical commandments as imperatives. That is, there will not be any systematically developed ethics in John or in the NT as whole, one thus has to undertake a different approach to understand the inherent ethical elements in John. Hence, the nature of the enquiry or the approach need to be shifted away from the effort to find ethical imperatives presented as principles or laws. Zimmermann, “The Implicit Ethics of New Testament Writings,” 400; Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 14. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 42. Though we used this quote in the first section, we restate it here to support the clarity of the argument. See Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John. A majority of the discussions are clustered around the love commandment (Jn 13: 34-35). So far, scholars have tended to discuss the ethic in the gospel of John by referring to 3:15-16; 5:20ff; 10:17-19; 11:5-36; chapters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. These texts and discussions mainly explain a system of mutual love in social life. See also Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 21, 42.

50

CHAPTER 1

illustrates that one can advance in love, or at least begin a process of reconciliation, even in the face of an age-old hostility such as that between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In this light, we propose that an analysis of the narrative of the unique Samaritan episode, which we conduct in the following chapters, will enable us to deduce the underlying ethical elements or implicit ethics of the Samaritan mission. From our preceding analyses of previous scholarship, it is clear that there are no imperatives in the Samaritan episode which set forth an ethic of love for one’s enemies or aspects of reconciliation. Differing from the scholarly consensus so far, we propose that there are the ethical elements of reconciling love in the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. Our previous discussions of recent developments in the scholarship will be our point of departure in establishing this claim. As Zimmermann and Labahn affirm, John is in no way inferior to other NT books in the study of ethical perspectives. Thus we depart from the views that there are no such ethical values in John capable of building up human community and society, as there are in the Synoptic Gospels. It is in this context that the importance of the Samaritan episode becomes most clear. We propose that the narrative of the Samaritan episode in Jn 4:1-42 implicitly depicts the ethics of reconciling love through the settings and actions of the various characters in this episode, and we formulate our working hypothesis accordingly. Our research pericope, Jn 4:1-42, depicts the initiative and actions of the Johannine Jesus as he carries out his mission in Samaria. These initiatives and actions, as per the will of God, are substantiated by the progressing encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman as they address the major issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται; they are further developed in the coming of the Samaritans to Jesus, and culminate in the μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. As Rendtorff explains, an individual’s relationships in his or her own social, cultural, or religious context and the interactions between one group and others who are not on friendly terms with them can lead one to discuss the issues and identify common ground.124 Here, the contexts of the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται can be said to present an ethics of reconciliation. We propose that this Samaritan narrative gives expression to an implicit ethics of reconciling love, one which is embedded in the Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus in 4:1-42. 124

Rendtorff, Ethik, 9-16. He further explains that a human person should be able to make a judgment about one’s own deeds and that one is responsible to oneself and to the social context to which one belongs.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

6. THESIS

51

FOR INVESTIGATION

We formulate our working hypothesis as follows. Until recently, the scholarly consensus has been that one cannot find the theme of loving the enemy/neighbor in John’s gospel, be it explicitly, implicitly or indirectly. Our hypothesis, contrary to this, is that there are elements of reconciling love and even a depiction of loving one’s enemies125 in the gospel, and in a unique manner in the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:1-42). The Johannine Jesus chooses to travel through Samaria although this was against the common practice of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Throughout the OT and in the NT, there are explicit or implicit notions of prevailing age-old hostilities between the Jews and Samaritans. At the beginning of the Samaritan episode in John, the narrative points to the ruptured relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans: οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9). This implies that the two groups are hardly friendly. As the dialogue and actions of the characters in this episode progress, gradually an atmosphere of love emerges until finally, toward the end of the episode, Jesus is invited by the Samaritans to μένειν with them (vv. 40-42). In this dissertation, our focus will be on the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:1-42), which depicts Jesus’ journey through Samaria and his encounters with the Samaritan woman and Samaritans. We challenge the existing consensus that in John there are no such elements of reconciling love. Before proceeding further, we briefly examine the two terms ethos and ethics in the light of our proposed thesis and pericope. 7. ETHOS AND/OR ETHICS In this section, we briefly discuss the relation between ethics and ethos126 that our specific interest in the following examination is how to proceed 125

126

This terminology of reconciliation, in biblical language comes from Paul’s use of καταλλάσσω (cf. Rom 5:9-11; 2 Cor 5:18-20).This Greek verb refers to enemies becoming friends. Despite the absence of this terminology, as we shall see later on the basis of our research, we propose that this reality is present in Jn 4:1-42 (in a similar way, the theme of reconciliation is present in the Lucan parable in Lk 15:11-32, even though the word is absent). Accordingly, in this study, we use “reconciling love” to describe this reality. Crips, “Ethics,” 242-243, distinguishes four types of ethics in general: namely (i) the systems of value and custom of a particular group; and (ii) in particular, one of them, mostly morality. This value includes mainly the notions of right and wrong, guilt and shame; (iii) in this system, actual moral principles are contained; and (iv) the study of ethics as such, where philosophy is at work. Etymologically, ethics is derived from the

52

CHAPTER 1

further in our research on the Samaritan episode concerning the use of these terms.127 The term ‘ethos’ is employed on various occasions by scholars of John’s gospel to refer to the habitual behavior of a group or community of people, yet it has not garnered much attention.128 The study of ethos, in this respect, is mostly initiated in the field of dogmatic or dogmatic-ethical studies, which means that it is rarely used as a distinct category in the interpretation of the NT generally or, particularly, in the gospel of John.129 Frey understands ethos as referring not only to repeated actions specific and unique to a community but also, in a broader sense, to the behavior of a community. There are occasions in scholarship where ethics and ethos are used in John with little semantic variation or even used synonymously.130 In order to avoid confusion by using two terms in their strict sense, some scholars opt to use ethos in a broader sense.131 The theme of ethics is found in early Christian letters, which discuss the relations between Christians and non-Christian communities/societies.132 Rendtorff proposes a definition of ethics in a nutshell: “Theorie der menschlichen Lebensführung”.133 He uses two key words, Theorie (theory) and Lebensführung, which can be translated as behavior or lifestyle. Rendtorff explains further that the Lebensführung of a responsible human person who is independent enough to make reflective judgments about his or her

127

128

129

130 131

132

133

term ‘ethos’, which means usage or custom. Ethics is mostly distinguished from morality in that it is considered to belong to moral philosophy. Deviating from the strict sense, some scholars use the term ‘ethics’ in discussing the books of the NT. See also Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 138-157. Some scholars argue that the ethos from which ethics is etymologically originated as a term to denote the moral elements in the NT. See Schmeller, “Neuetestamentliches Gruppenethos,” 120-134; Wolter, “Let No One Seek His Own,” 200-201. However, we do not intend to formulate a precise definition of either of the terms rather our intention is to clarify the implications of the words in order to employ them in the unfolding of our thesis. See Keck, “Rethinking New Testament Ethics,” 3-16; Keck, “Das Ethos,” 13-36; Wolter, “Christliches Ethos nach der Offenbarung des Johannes,” 189-209. See van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 150. Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 169, uses mostly the term ‘ethos’ in his recent article. He reasons that ethics is operative not on individuals but more on a community level, and hence focuses not on “the debate on ethics – rather ethos”. However, he is not particular about it throughout the paper. See, for instance, Preisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums. See Frey, “Ethical Traditions in the Johannine Literature,” 168-169; van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 151. See Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 5. He cites instances from various studies on the early letters. Rendtorff, Ethik, 9-16.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

53

own deeds will make him or her responsible for his or her relationships with other human persons, either as individuals or groups. The theory advocates critical reflection on one’s theoretical and methodological frameworks, because critical reflection is an essential element of ethical discussion.134 How do we critically discuss the deeds of a human person? Could we limit our scope, and say that ethics is just the judgment of behavior? Labahn affirms that the system of ethics develops a methodological and intellectual line of argument such that ethical decisions or prescriptions have a systemic quality.135 Respect given to the interacting parties can serve as a litmus test of ethical behavior. Actions that promote harmony, cooperation and respect for differences exhibit the behavior in a society and are other elements that must be critically evaluated in terms of ethics.136 Labahn observes that no systematic definition of ethics is provided in the NT. Cognizant of this lack, he defines “an ‘ethical text’ as a text that (a) provides a reflective orientation toward the reader’s actual ‘way of life’; (b) by defining how to behave and act; (c) according to a value system that is developed or supported by the text, its characters, and/or its setting and (d) in relation to a specific social group and/or in relation to the surrounding society at large.” He adds the corollary that “ethical texts will attempt to persuade the reader to embrace the norms that they promote as normative”.137 Van der Watt attempts to broaden this perspective by distinguishing between ethics and ethos and identifying ethos as an analytical category in John.138 He specifies that ethos is the unreflective habitual behavior of a group of people or a society.139 Though Labahn 134

135 136

137 138

139

Since the time of Aristotle, a necessary premise of ethical discussions has been critical reflection. See Rendtorff, Ethik: Grundelemente, 9; Blischke, Die Begründung, 13; a recent critical survey on the definitions of ethics is presented in Honecker, Evangelische Ethik als Ethik der Unterscheidung, 13-15; Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 6. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 6. C. Angle, Defining Ethics: Good and Evil, 7-32 regards mutual respect and cooperation as the key elements in ethics, which he conceives as the study of the good of societal cooperation facilitated through mutual respect. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 7. See van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 147-176. Scholars who deny that the reflective orientation of a text is a sufficient condition for its being considered ethical often conclude that the Johannine writings contain no ethical discourses. They regard explicit theoretical presentation of value systems they uphold as the necessary trait for identifying ethical presentations in a text. See van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” 150. He refers to M. Wolter in his elaboration on ethics and ethos. See M. Wolter, “Ethos und ldentität in paulinischen Gemeinden,“ 430-444; Wolter, “Let No One Seek His Own,” 199-217.

54

CHAPTER 1

regards van der Watt’s approach as fruitful in the broader context of John and pertaining to the discussion of values, systems of meaning, and the general need to decide how to act morally, he doubts that the distinction between ethics and ethos will be helpful in studying John’s gospel specifically.140 We have seen that van der Watt and Frey use the term ‘ethos’ in a broad sense to carry the later meaning as well. Based on the above analysis, we can see that ethics has included both the habitual behaviors of groups or communities and relationships between communities, irrespective of whether they are Christian or non-Christian. In light of the preceding evaluation, we will prefer to use the term ‘ethics’ in what follows, since the background of the research question is the status of relationship between the two communities of the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Our thesis focuses on the ethical elements in the Samaritan episode, with an aim to understand how reconciling love begins to function between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις in the region of Samaria through the words, non-verbal gestures and decisions made by Jesus. 8. METHODOLOGY We first examine the situation and context of the Samaritan episode against the background of the literary-geographical indications concerning the itinerant ministry of Jesus. Thus we demarcate the boundaries of the research pericope, which is the Samaritan mission of Jesus (4:1-42). Then, we focus on the words and actions of Jesus and the other characters depicted in the research pericope to understand how the progression and culmination, i.e., the μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritan woman and the Samaritan people of her city) becomes operative in a context of problematic relations. The episode begins in an atmosphere of conflict, and the first phase of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman both implicitly suggests reasons for the itinerary chosen by Jesus to pass through Samaria and explicitly refers to the distanced and disturbed modes of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. We pay attention to the lexemes

140

Wolter gets this idea from W. Kluxen’s theory of ethos in Die Ethik des Ethos (München: K. Alber, 1974). See also Schmeller “Neutestamentliches Gruppenethos”, 120-134. Labahn, “It’s only Love,” 7-11.

TOWARD IMPLICIT ETHICS IN JOHN 4:1-42

55

and phrases that depict the then-existing status of this relationship and mark the changes or progress made in 4:1-42. This will enable us to understand the conscious and consistent core motif of this episode. We examine it in relation to the literary unity of the gospel of John. We focus on the interactions between the characters, Jesus, the Samaritan woman, the disciples and the other Samaritans; conflicts, complexities, tensions, climaxes, and turning points are all considered. In order to understand the sociocultural settings of Jn 4:1-42, we pay attention to relevant and available literature from before the turning of the era and the NT period. In short, we mainly use the historical-critical method in this research, with due space given for Literary-Critical, Socio-Scientific and Implicit-Ethics approaches. 9. CONTENT OF THE CHAPTERS We structure the dissertation in three parts comprising seven chapters: In the first, we discuss the status quaestionis and formulate the research hypothesis. In the second, we demarcate the boundaries of the research pericope in light of the literary-geographical indications in John, specifically of the itinerant ministry of Jesus. In the remaining chapters, we examine various components and aspects of the narrative in Jn 4:1-42. In chapter three, we consider the climate of breach and hostility in which the episode begins and discuss how the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman starts from explicit notions of a distanced and disturbed relationship (cf. 4:1-9). In chapter four, we consider the second phase of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, where Jesus reinitiates the conversation and the dialogue progresses in conflicting and deflecting directions (cf. 4:10-19). In chapter five, we examine how these two protagonists reach convergence and the dialogue culminates in a mode of ‘coming to yes’ (4:20-26). In the final chapter, chapter six, we examine the aftermath of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, viz., the three levels of their exchange (i) between Jesus and the disciples (vv. 27, 31-38); (ii) between the Samaritan woman and Samaritans of her town and (iii) the coming together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) with the οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritan woman and her fellow Samaritans). In conclusion, we summarize our research against the background of previous research by other scholars and draw some general conclusions based on our research findings.

56

CHAPTER 1

CONCLUSION The last couple of years have witnessed discussions of the themes, actions, and dialogues of Jesus in John that have both contributing and departed from earlier scholarship on the gospel. This has unearthed new vistas and dimensions of research in the study of ethics in John by the proposal and employment of new approaches. Recently, however, Labahn (2012) has argued that the ethical perspective of loving one’s enemy or enemies is not found in John and until now this contention has not been corrected. Our research hypothesis challenges this claim and the general status of research on John’s gospel by analyzing the Samaritan mission episode in Jn 4:1-42. In the course of this, we discuss the reconciling move and actions of Jesus toward the Samaritans and the other characters as well. We acknowledge that John or any of the NT books were written with an intention to make distinct theological and ethical contributions, yet studies on the NT have shown that there are theological and Christological modes of appeal to morality. The present study critically reflects on the behavior, actions and discussions in the Samaritan episode. We admit that it is difficult to explore the implicit ethics in John, as this is portrayed through the actions of Jesus and the dialogue partners and the parenthesis of the evangelist; it requires the employment of various methodologies and a meticulous examination of words and actions. Also, as will be clear from the preceding discussions, the obstacles that have prevented biblical scholars from having more fruitful discussions of the ethical elements in John are still present.141 We agree with Matera that research on the theme of ethics in John is a major challenge, and in this dissertation we take up this challenge and proceed to explore the unique Samaritan episode of the Johannine Jesus by employing the above methodologies against the background of the proposed research hypothesis.

141

They are the following: (i) the ethical elements in John are knitted into the narrative, unlike in the other NT books, such that without meticulous analysis of the narratives one cannot deduce the ethics of John; (ii) the actions of Jesus are often dissolved in dialogues or monologues; (iii) there are no explicit or concrete exhortations to observe a list of ethical values; (iv) John’s moral thinking is at least at the outset different from traditional moral teachings; (v) the style of the fourth gospel is unique as compared to the other three, Synoptic gospels; (vi) John’s habit of asserting opposite concepts blurs the vision of those who approach John in order to discuss ethical perspectives; (vii) there are uncertainties pertaining to the historical situations and crises faced by the addressees of the gospel of John, etc.

CHAPTER 2

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS: INTRODUCTORY EXEGETICAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE SAMARITAN PERICOPE INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, we examined the status of research pertaining to the ethical elements of love, specifically the aspects of reconciling love in the gospel of John. Against this background, we formulated a research hypothesis and briefly described the procedure and methodology. The point of departure of our research hypothesis will be the implications of the literary-geographical indications found in the Samaritan episode. The geographical references pertain to the ministry of Jesus in the opening verses of the Samaritan episode (4:1-9)1 and other literary-geographical indications run through this narrative; these will serve as a platform for examining our research hypothesis.2 We begin by discussing the context of the Samaritan episode in relation to the literary-geographical indications in John, and thus base our discussion on the literary unity of the fourth gospel. The geographical settings indicated in the narratives afford some understanding of the perspectives that they can contribute to a better understanding of the time and place and the persons involved. According to J. A. Beck, 1

2

The unique theme of the Samaritan mission of Jesus (Jn 4:1-42) is presented in the context of Jesus’ journey from Judea to Galilee (4:1-3). The evangelist provides two other indications at the beginning and at the closure of the Samaritan episode, viz., that Jesus had to pass through Samaria (4:4) and that after spending two days with the Samaritans, Jesus resumes his journey to Galilee (4:40,43). Other than the above-cited geographical indications, one notices some other place names in this episode, viz., Sychar (4:4); Jacobs well (4:6), and various places of worship (4:21-23). Our discussion will base on the literary unity of the fourth gospel. To consider other discussions concerning the underlying literary layers or redaction of the gospel or later additions, etc., is not the main thrust of this research. Nevertheless, we are not intending to provide an extensive analysis of the literary-narrative features of the gospel. Rather, our focus will be on the literary-geographical indications with respect to their appropriateness and applicability in the further exploration of our research hypothesis. See Van Belle, The Sign Source in the Fourth Gospel; Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums, 114, 206; Thyen, “Das Johannesevangelium als literarisches Werk,” 351-369.

58

CHAPTER 2

to ignore geographical indications in Biblical texts is “to miss a portion of the message the author is trying to deliver”.3 He explains further that both historical geography and literary geography must be discussed and analyzed in order to understand the geographical indications pertaining to a specific narrative.4 “Places in the narrative are not merely geographical facts but are to be regarded as literary elements in which fundamental significance is embodied”.5 “John is not only knowledgeable about the land but intentional in his interaction with it”.6 One can find that the geographical indications and journeys that depict the life and work of the Johannine Jesus exhibit a recurring pattern. The itinerant ministries of Jesus are accompanied with a series of his actions and teachings. In order to explore and analyze Jesus’ journey through Samaria or understand the Samaritan journey motif of Jesus, we first discuss literary-geographical indications in the gospel of John generally. Against this background, we demarcate the boundaries and contexts of the Samaritan mission episode. We proceed as follows: (i) we offer a brief critical discussion of structural proposals that pay considerable attention to geographical/chronological indications in the gospel of John.7 (ii) In this light, we demarcate and delimit the itinerant ministry of Jesus that runs through the major part of the narrative of John, paying specific attention to several factors, viz., literary and geographical indications, Jesus’ actions, and the response to these in various locations. (iii) Based on these discussions above, we proceed to delineate the broader and immediate contexts of the research pericope, the Samaritan episode in particular. 1. LITERARY-GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND ITINERARY OF JESUS: AN OVERVIEW We have already noticed that geographical designations of the itinerant ministry of Jesus in John do not appear as incidental details; rather, they are vital in understanding the motifs in specific narratives and in the gospel 3 4

5 6 7

Beck, “Geography,” 253-256, 254. Beck, “Geography,” 255. The authors of the books of the Bible “strategically use, reuse, and nuance geography in order to influence the emotions, understanding, perception of their readers”. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 194. See also Beck, “Geography,” 255. Burge, Jesus and the Land, 46. See also Robinson, The Priority of John, 52-67. We will not make a detailed status quaestionis of the exhaustive range of structure proposals. Rather, our intention is just to understand how scholars have discussed the structure of John in light of the geographical indications.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

59

of John as a whole. Such references are most often linked with the itinerant ministry of the Johannine Jesus. John depicts a series of journeys taken by Jesus during his public life.8 As Mlakuzhyil rightly remarks, the geographical indications provided by the evangelist are helpful in determining the structure of the fourth gospel, “provided they are used together with other literary criteria”.9 Therefore, we need to focus on the literarygeographical indications provided in the gospel of John pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus in order to correctly deduce the implications of our pericope. In the following, we first offer an overview of the literary and geographical indications in the gospel of John in general, and then discuss their importance against the background of Jesus’ actions as well as the responses received at various locations during his ministry. In short, we synthesize the literary and geographical indications and Jesus’ actions and responses in order to demarcate the relevant contexts and thus delimit our research pericope. The first geographical indication in John is in 1:28: ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Here, Jesus is presented for the first time in this gospel in the context of his actions of forming his first disciples.10 This verse (1:28) had been a major subject of discussion and debate in scholarship due to the text-critical problem of determining what place is attached to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.11 The text-critical issue raised in 1:28 has been approached from many angles, all of which pay attention to elements such as literary-geographical 8

9

10

11

See Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23; Neyrey, “Spaces and Places,” 60-74; Neyrey, “Spaced Out: Territoriality in the Fourth Gospel,” 632-663; Smit, “Cana-to-Cana or Galilee-to-Galilee,” 143-149; Lozada, Jr., “Journey and the Fourth Gospel,” 264-275. See Mlakuzhyil, Christocentric Literary-Dramatic Structure (2011), 101. He cites the following references pertaining to the geographical indications in John; 1:28,43; 2:1,11,12,13,23; 3:23; 4:3,4,5,43,46,47,54; 5:1,2; 6:1,59; 7:1,3,9; 10:22,40; 11:7,17,54; 12:1,12; 18:1; 19:17; and 21:1. Mlakuzhyil adds that “Bethlehem (7:42) and Galilee (7:52) are mentioned during the controversy among the Jews about the place of origin of Jesus, the Christ (7:42), the prophet (7:52). Similarly, the native place of Philip, Andrew and Peter is given as Bethsaida (1:43) and that of Nathanael as Cana of Galilee (21:2). These occurrences of the names of places do not seem to be important for the structure”. John the Baptist’s explicit disowning before the people sent by the authorities that he was the Christ, at the site of his baptizing ministry, is followed by Jesus’ entry onto the scene ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-29). Jn 1:28: ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων. There is a text-critical issue here pertaining to the place name, arising from the fact that various place names are attested in different manuscripts, such as Βηθανίᾳ, Βηθαβαρα, Βηθεβαρα, Βιθαβερα and the like. This has become a point of perennial discussion.

60

CHAPTER 2

indications, literary-grammatical expressions, philological analyses, archaeological evidences, etc. Discussions relating to this text-critical problem can be traced back to the time of Origen (185-254 CE). Previous scholarship, beginning from the time of early Christian literature, explains that the majority of manuscripts attest Βηθανίᾳ. ‘Origen states that in his time (186-251 CE) most of the ancient manuscripts had the reading Βηθανίᾳ’.12 However, Origen accepts Βηθαβαρα as the correct reading, as ‘Bethany is far from Jordan’.13 Scholars like Chrysostom and Jerome, who succeeded Origen, also followed his interpretation.14 While studying the text-critical problem in 1:28, scholars have paid considerable attention to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, cited along with the place name. The phrase is employed three times (in addition to 1:28, see 3:26 and 10:40) in John. All four gospels, except for Luke, use the phrase πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in relation to Jesus’ ministry or his itinerary (cf. Mt 4:15, 25; 19:1; Mk 3:8; 10:1; Jn 1:28; 3:26; 10:40). This phrase, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, has its roots in the OT. Scholars have discussed the use of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου cited in the OT and in the NT from various angles and perspectives, without ignoring those in extra-biblical literature. Some interpretations overlook πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 10:40 and Βηθανία in 11:1ff, arguing that Jesus is in Βηθανία, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου at the beginning of his public ministry in 1:28ff as well as at the close of his ministry in 11:1ff. R. Riesner reviews the status quaestionis of scholarship on this text-critical problem. He examines further the date and place of various manuscripts and argues that there is no geographical or chronological evidence pertaining to the manuscripts, nor any convincing reason why Βηθαβαρα would be substituted for Βηθανίᾳ by a redactor.15 For Riesner, Origen (185-254 CE), and many others under his influence, have discussed the issue in a similar way, holding that Βηθαβαρα (not Βηθανίᾳ) is the place mentioned in 1:28. Since the earliest times, Jericho spot has been recognized as a baptismal site, and thus some scholars have presumed that Jesus too was baptized here. New excavations on the east bank of the Jordan have reaffirmed this local tradition. However, the traditional baptismal site and ‘Bethany Beyond the Jordan’ are not of the same. Some recent scholars have held that Βηθανίᾳ is the correct reading. They attempt to unearth the reason behind this alteration and argue that Βηθανίᾳ is the correct rendering of it. Riesner’s contention is that the most probable solution, taking into consideration the 12 13 14 15

Conder, “Bethany Beyond Jordan,” 184. Conder, “Bethany Beyond Jordan,” 184; Riesner, “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” 31. See Chrysostomus, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, 138-140. Jerome, “PL 23”. See Riesner, “Bethany Beyond the Jordan,” 29-63, 184-187.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

61

various strata of research, is ‘Bethany beyond the Jordan’, at the landscape Batanaea, and that this is located northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Scholars have examined the intrinsic probability of this preferred reading in both its immediate and wider literary contexts. There are three occurrences of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in John (1:28; 3:26; and 10:40). This geographical indication presents the place where John carries out his baptising ministry and the context in which Jesus appears for the first time in John (1:29). This verse marks the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as well as the tension between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and John the Baptist. Riesner extensively studies Bethanien jenseits des Jordan, with various foci. He not only reviews the scholarship beginning from the early centuries, but also discusses the issue in light of the historical geography of the manuscripts and similar contexts and references that form the immediate and broader context, including the OT, the NT and other extra-biblical literature. He discusses the issue in light of the philological analysis of the relevant vocabulary and phrases and makes use of archeological evidence and the theology of topography. Riesner holds that John cites the distance between Βηθανίᾳ and Jerusalem as being only fifteen stadia, precisely (Jn 11:18). He adds that ‘in many instances there has been a conscious alteration of the name of the place’ from Βηθανίᾳ to Βηθαβαρα (1:28), and that the earthly Jesus’ itinerary begins from Bethany and leads to Bethany. Riesner claims to resolve this geographical riddle and concludes, without any hesitation, that ‘Bethany beyond Jordan in John 1:28 must mean the extreme south-western part of Betanaea’.16 Hence, Riesner concludes, with the majority of scholars, that Βηθανίᾳ is the correct reading.17 However, the dispute over this issue continues. Recently, some scholars have challenged Riesner’s reading that Βηθανία is the correct reading by latest interpretations. They agree with Origen that the place name in 1:28 is Βηθαβαρα. J. M. Hutton explains that though ‘the textcritical data seem to indicate Βηθανία as the preferable reading, this claim 16 17

Riesner, “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” 60. However, the above explanations for the correct reading of 1:28 are not wholly convincing for various reasons. For instance, one of the main arguments Riesner puts forward is grounded on the reference to ἡ Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε, yet there is no reference to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου alongside it. In other words, his presumption that Βηθανία in 11:1ff and πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 10:40 (1:28; 3:26) are nearby places does not accord with the evangelist’s explanation about these geographical locations. The evangelist makes clear that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 10:40 and Βηθανία in 11:18 are distant places. That is, according to the narrative, one can find that Jesus takes quite some time to travel from πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου to Βηθανία, and that Βηθανία in 11:18 belongs to Judea, whereas πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 10:40 does not.

62

CHAPTER 2

may be questioned on literary and redactional grounds’.18 He discusses this issue in light of Origen’s explanation of the meaning of the place name Βηθαβαρα, the house of preparation, and against the background of κατασκευῆς, both in the Synoptics and in the OT [cf. for instance, Mk 1:2-3, Mal 3:1, 22-23 (LXX)]. The major thrust of his analyses concerns the historical geography and the lexical problems pertaining to 1:28.19 Douglas S. Earl discusses the problem and concludes that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου should be understood symbolically. In light of various OT references (Mic 7:14-15, Jer 50:19-20 and Ps 68), he explains that John presents this geographical indications he does in order to show that Jesus is moving in the correct direction, toward Jerusalem.20 Thus we can see that scholarship on the question of the place name attached to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28 has paid attention to various facets of this issue, such as text-critical data, review of the early Christian literature, literary-redactional features, philological analysis, and discussions based on the archaeological evidences. Two different scholarly explanations have been proposed. From the time of Origen up to the present, some have held that Βηθαβαρα is the correct reading, yet this has been challenged by recent studies (over the last three decades) put forward various explanations to convince that Βηθανία as the correct reading. However, the latest scholarship has returned to Origen’s explanations and held that Βηθαβαρα must be the correct reading. Down through the centuries and up to the present day, scholars have discussed traditional and potential lexical confusion arising from the topological reference in 1:28 and used various methodologies and approaches. Thus, we are confronted by a series of perennial discussions and debates on the issue of the place name attached to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28, which seems to have no end.21 Our own focus in examining 1:28 is not specifically the place name (Βηθαβαρα or Βηθανία), but rather the itinerary of Jesus, which begins here (1:28) in the narrative of John. More specifically, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου is cited again twice: in 3:26 and again in 10:40, where it refers to the same location as 1:2822 and directly refers to the itinerary of Jesus. 18 19 20 21

22

See See Hutton, “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” 305. See Hutton, “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” 305-328. See Earl, “Bethany beyond Jordan,” 279-294. Considering the importance of the claim in this discussion and owing to its extensive treatment of the issue, I retain this text as a briefing within the body of the main text rather than citing it in the footnote. Though there is no place name attached to 3:26 and 10:40, as in 1:28, the evangelist refers back to the context of 1:28 implicitly in 3:26 and explicitly in 10:40. Thus, from

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

63

As stated above, our focus is on the itinerant ministry of Jesus,23 and since the evangelist specifies that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28, 3:26, and 10:40 are the same place, the issue of whether the correct reading is Βηθαβαρα or Βηθανία does not affect our examination of the literary-geographical indications pertaining to the itinerary of Jesus. However, in light of the above review of scholarship, we are convinced that it remains highly problematic to propose a convincing interpretation of the geography of the place name attached to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, and thereby the question of which region one can locate πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28, 3:26, and 10:40 remains open.24 At this juncture, we would note another explanation in scholarship that focuses on the implications of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus, and one which does not enter into the perennial debate concerning the place referred to. R. E. Brown and F. J. Moloney for instance discuss the literary features in John’s gospel pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus and find that the geographical indication πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου forms an inclusion within the first part of the gospel (1:1928 and 10:40-42).25 According to Moloney, 10:40-42 reflect the words and actions of Jesus during the first day of his ministry in 1:28. He adds that at this point “a major stage in the telling of the Jesus’ story comes to an end”.26 In other words, the evangelist cites the same geographical references to mark the beginning of Jesus’ public life and its closure, viz., πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:28; 10:40). Without entering into this perennial unresolved riddle, which or where is the actual place attached to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28. Rather then, we would simply deduce from previous scholarship that the phrase πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28 and 10:40 refer to one and the same place, whatever it is, and find that these two references indicate an inclusion of the words and actions of Jesus during his itinerant ministry. In what follows, we summarize the place names provided in the gospel of John pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus.

23

24

25 26

the indications provided in 3:26 and 10:40, one can understand that the location πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in these three places is one and the same. More precisely, in this chapter, we envision to understand the context of the itinerant ministry of Jesus in Samaria during his journey from Judea to Galilee. As has been already stated in the introduction, this chapter seeks to understand the literary-geographical indications pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus in order to situate the context of the Samaritan episode. For instance, if we understand that Βηθανίᾳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου is in Galilee, one may pose the question: if Jesus is already in Galilee in 1:19-51, why does the evangelist announce Jesus’ decision to go to Galilee in 1:43? See Brown, John, 54, 414; Moloney, John, 52, 108, 314-317. Moloney, John, 314.

64

CHAPTER 2

πέραν τοῦ Territory of Galilee Ἰορδάνου

Territory of Samaria

Territory of Judea

1:2827 1:43 – Galilee 2:1, 11 – Cana 2:12 – Capernaum 2:13, 23 – Jerusalem 3:22 – Judean Country side 3:23 – Aenon near Salim 4:3 – Judea 4:4 Samaria 4:5 – Sychar 4:3, 43, 45 – Galilee 4:46 – Cana 4:47, 54 – Galilee 5:1,2 – Jerusalem (Bethzatha) 6:1 – Sea of Galilee/Tiberias 6:59 – Capernaum 7:1, 9 – Galilee 7:10 – Jerusalem 10:22 – Jerusalem 10:40 11:7 – Judea 11:17- Bethany 12:1 – Bethany 12:12 – Jerusalem 18:1 – Kidron valley 19:17 – Golgotha 21:1 – Sea of Galilee/ Tiberias

27

In 3:26, the evangelist refers back to John’s ministry in Jn 1.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

65

From the above list of the geographical indications pertaining to the itinerary of Jesus in John’s gospel, we deduce the following: (i) As noted above, the first geographical indication concerning the itinerant ministry of Jesus is in 1:28 (ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου), and it is significant that toward the close of Jesus’ ministry he returns to the same place. In other words, the evangelist cites the same geographical references to mark both the beginning of Jesus’ public life and its conclusion, viz., πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:28; 10:40).28 Here, one can identify in the geographical indications pertaining to itinerant ministry of Jesus a round trip; from πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Based on this, some scholars identify an inclusion within 1:19-10:42. They hold that the evangelist presents the beginning of Jesus’ actions in 1:19-51 and then, near the end of his ministry in 10:4042, names the same location in πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.29 According to Moloney, 10:40-42 echoes the words and actions of Jesus during the first day of his ministry in 1:28. He adds that, at this point in 10:42, “a major stage in the telling of the Jesus’ story comes to an end”.30 (ii) In depicting the itinerant ministry of Jesus, the evangelist explicitly names three territories, namely, Judea, Samaria and Galilee. He gives no clear indication of the territory in which πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, in 1:28 and 10:40, is located. (iii) It is evident from the above table that Jesus’ journeys mostly oscillate between the territory of Judea and the territory of Galilee, up to chapter 7. We see that Jesus leaves Galilee in 7:9 for Jerusalem (7:10), never to return there during his earthily life.31 In other words, after reporting on Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, the evangelist does not depict any extensive itinerant ministry or action of Jesus across different territories. Moreover, concerning our research focus, the examination in this chapter of the literary-geographical indications in John are undertaken in order to better understand the only itinerant ministry of the Johannine Jesus, between Judea and Galilee. Before proceeding to discuss the context of the Samaritan episode, in the second section, we examine the scholarship pertaining to the structure of John’s gospel, which has paid considerable attention to the literary-geographical indications in the text. 28 29 30 31

See Moloney, John, 314. See for instance, Brown, John, 54, 414; Moloney, John, 52, 108, 314-317. Moloney, John, 314. During the post-resurrection period, the fourth gospel presents Jesus as being at the sea of Galilee in the Epilogue (21:1ff).

66

CHAPTER 2

2. GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND THE STRUCTURE OF JOHN: A CRITICAL REVIEW Various approaches and methodologies have been used to elucidate the structure of the gospel of John. Various foci, different types of criteria and resultant structure proposals have shown that structures act as tools to analyze different issues at stake and/or to understand various themes in John.32 Scholars have made different sorts of structural proposals. Sequences of events in the gospel, typical Johannine vocabulary, repetitions, variations, and chronological and geographical indications are the angles by which scholars have been analyzing the structure of the fourth gospel. Here one presumes that such differences are a result of the varied foci and approaches and not merely the subjectivity of the scholar who analyzes the gospel. Yet we do tend to ask, with G. Østenstad: “Can the structure of John be defined or sketched objectively?”33, As indicated 32

33

See Bernard, John, xxx-xxxii, 23. Allo, “Jean,” 817-821. Brown, John, cxxxviii, 195196. G. Østenstad, “The Structure of the Fourth Gospel: Can It be Defined Objectively?”, ST 45 (1991): 33-55, 33, presents an evaluation of and response to Mlakuzhyil’s work. In light of his critical evaluations of earlier scholarship on the structure of John, he defines specific criteria and claims that his own is the objective one. Mlakuzhyil proposes three categories of criteria to determine the structure of the gospel, namely, literary criteria, dramatic techniques and structural patterns. He deduces the structure of John’s gospel as per his criteria paying attention primarily to the literary-dramatic features of the gospel. There are four main sections in his demarcation of the Christocentric literarydramatic plan of the fourth gospel: the introduction (1:1-2:11), part I – the book of Jesus’ signs (2:1-12:50), part II – the book of Jesus’ hour (11:1-20:29), and the appendix (21). This literary structure proposed by Mlakuzhyil invites us to focus on the Christo-centric theology of John. Mlakuzhyil explores various theological themes, namely “the Christ,” “the Son of God” (“the Son,” “the Father,” “the Son of Man”), “signs” (and “works”), “faith,” “life” and the “disciples”. He further examines the Christocentric theology of John’s gospel in light of his own proposed literary-dramatic structure. Mlakuzhyil’s revised version (2011) makes only slight changes, viz., the order of the criteria and some improvisation of their names, literary criteria, structural schemes, and dramatic devices. Nevertheless, there are no substantial changes either in methodology or in the demarcation of the structure of the gospel. Østenstad agrees with Mlakuzhyil that though there are many structural proposals for the gospel of John evolved with the application of varied foci, methodologies and approaches, all these structure outlines are centred on the life and actions of Jesus. Østenstad ranks Mlakuzhyil’s proposition as a ‘brilliant contribution’ to Johannine scholarship, suggesting that the resultant critical evaluations and proposals can serve as the point of reference for all future work on the fourth gospel. But Ostentad’s major criticism of Mlakuzhyil’s work concerns his attempts to define an objective criterion and structure. However, one can understand from our brief discussions of earlier scholarship pertaining to the structure of John that, irrespective of the varied methodologies, approaches, criteria, foci, etc., the central element of the resultant structural proposals are always the life and actions of the Johannine Jesus.

67

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

above, our intention is not to make a detailed analysis of scholarship on the structure of John. Rather, we will examine the relevant discussions in scholarship pertaining to the literary-geographical settings in John, on the assumption that it will give us a firm platform for our further investigations. As noted, scholars tend to focus on various key elements in John, yet the following review of the structural proposals of John in previous scholarship will focus on propositions that pay some attention to any of the following elements: the journeys of Jesus, the itinerant ministry of Jesus, and geographical and chronological indications in John concerning Jesus’ life and work. Such propositions are either based on the presumption that the fourth gospel is a well-knitted whole with respect to its depiction of the different journeys of Jesus, or have given their prime attention to geographical and chronological references pertain to Jesus’ ministry.34 Some scholars even consider the multiple visits of Jesus to Galilee and Judea as the focal element. In the following, we examine the perspectives on the structure in John cited above in three subsections. 2.1. Galilean Ministry and Judean Ministry Scholars like J. H. Bernard and M. C. Tenney discuss the geographical and chronological indications running through the whole gospel in order to understand its outline and content.35 Bernard divides the gospel of John into three parts in addition to the Prologue at the beginning (1:1-18) and the Epilogue at the end (21). They are the following.36 Part 1

Part II

Part III

1:19–4:54, 6

5, 7, 8–12

13–20

Bethany Beyond Jordan ➔ to Galilee ➔ to Jerusalem (Judea) ➔ in Samaria ➔ to Galilee (little more than a year)

Jerusalem the Passion and ministry of Jesus Resurrection (a second year)

Bernard notes that 1:19-4:54 and chapter 6 depict the itinerary of Jesus as it “begins at Bethany beyond Jordan, goes on to Galilee, thence 34

35

36

See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 96-112. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus,” 535-541. See Bernard, John, xxx-xxxii. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 36-53. See also Allo, “Jean,” 817-821. According to this division, Jesus is solely in Jerusalem but in 7:1-9 he is in Galilee and in Jn 10, 11 two times in Bethany and once in Ephraim. See Bernard, John, xxx-xxxii.

68

CHAPTER 2

to Jerusalem, and back to Samaria and Galilee”.37 He adds that Jesus’ ministry depicted in 1:19-4:54 and 6 altogether sketches one year of his public life. He even rearranges the present order of the gospel by interchanging the order of chapters 5 and 6.38 But there is no sustainable manuscript evidence and no convincing explanation to support this change. It seems that his major interest is to elucidate the time span of Jesus’ public life. He literally attempts to calculate the days and years from the geographical and chronological indications. Accordingly, Jesus’ ministry depicted in 1:19-4:56, 6 lasted little more than a year and the second part of his mission depicted in chapters 5, 7, 8-12 lasts another year.39 We can see that Bernard’s analysis of the geographical indications pertaining to the itinerary of Jesus is often controlled or sidetracked by his motif to elucidate the chronology of Jesus’ ministry and thus to calculate the total span of the Johannine Jesus’ public ministry. According to Bernard’s structure proposal, the narrative of John is located only within the vicinity of Jerusalem (5, 7, 8-12, 13-20), except for the first part of the gospel (1:19-4:54, 6). Apart from the rearrangement of chapters 5 and 6 there are other inconsistencies in his division.40 Differing from Bernard, Tenney does not hold on to the trans-placement theories. Rather, he demarcates the structure of the present form of the fourth gospel based on the geographical and chronological indications 37

38 39

40

Bernard, John, xxx, pays attention to the first geographical indication in 1:19ff, where Jesus’ action of making his first disciples is reported. We can see that scholars tend to demarcate Jesus’ actions from 2:1ff, where the evangelist reports Jesus’ first Cana σημεῖον. See for instance, Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 36-53; A. Feuillet, Johannine Studies (New York: Alba House, 1965), 18-45; F. J. Moloney, “From Cana to Cana (Jn 2:1-4:54) and the Fourth Evangelist’s Concept of Correct (and incorrect) Faith,” Salesianum 40 (1978): 817-843. See Bernard, John, xxx-xxxii. See Bernard, John, xxi-xxii; Mlakuzhyil, The Christo-centric Literary Structure, 1819. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 70, also argues in a similar fashion that Jesus’ life and work as depicted in John covers two and a half years including Jn 21. Mlakuzhyil cautions about Bernard’s interpretation that the geographical and chronological indications in John should be studied against the background of some literary criteria as well. As per Bernard’s first division, Jesus travels through the three territories, viz., Judea, Samaria and Galilee and his journey starts from Bethany beyond Jordan (ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28). We can see that the first four chapters, 1:19-4:54 or in other words the first four chapters of the present form of the gospel (other than the Prologue), include two trips of Jesus from Judea to Galilee. [1:19–4:54: Bethany Beyond Jordan➔ Galilee➔ Jerusalem (Judea) ➔ Samaria ➔ Galilee]. See for instance: (i) The evangelist reports that Jesus travels throughout Galilee (7:1-9) and he does not wish to go to Jerusalem (7:1). The evangelist specifies that in 10:40ff Jesus is away from Judea and remained at πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

69

provided.41 Tenney explains that: “The three major geographical divisions in John are the three major units […] Galilee, Samaria and Judea […] and the motion of the narrative is alternated between Galilee and Judea”.42 He makes use of chronological indications such as first day, after two days, during a period, hour etc. as literary indicators.43 Tenney divides the fourth gospel into three units, against the background of the territories, viz., Galilee, Samaria and Judea. They are the following. Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

2:1-12; 4:43-54; 6:1-7:13 4:1-42 2:13-3:21; 5:1-47; 7:14-20:29

Galilee Samaria Judea

He does not include the Prologue and the Epilogue (Jn 21) in this list.44 Moreover, he excludes 1:19-51 also from the three units in his division. Tenney regards this section as an exception: “one exception might be noted: the events which marked the introduction of Jesus in 1:19-51. […] probably took place on the east side of Jordan […] accessible both to Jerusalem and to the Galilee by connecting roads”.45 The issue at stake here is a geographical indication in 1:28, namely ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου..46 Tenney’s interest also diverges with respect to the duration of Jesus’ ministry in various territories. However, his division highlights Jesus’ ministry through the three territories of Galilee, Samaria and Judea and this division will contribute to our further explorations in demarcating the boundaries of subsections. In what follows, we discuss the structural proposals concerning the gospel of John that demarcate the subsections in light of the different journeys of Jesus through various territories and places. 41 42 43

44

45 46

See Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 36-53. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 48. Differing from Bernard, he is not attempting to calculate the time span of Jesus’ public ministry. See Bernard, John, xxx-xxxii. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 45-48. See Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 45-47. He categorizes 7:14-10:39; 12:2-20:29 under the geographical area Jerusalem and adds that the raising of Lazarus could be considered as being connected with Jerusalem, since Bethany is a nearby city. Mlakuzhyil criticizes Tenney, holding that he deviates from the consideration of geographical and chronological indications by becoming carried away with dramatic indications seen in the later stages of Tenney’s discussions. See Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure, 58. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief, 45-47. The geographical location cited in 1:28 is ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. This has been a source of perennial discussion due to a text-critical problem pertaining to the place name provided with πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. However, as noted above this issue does not interfere with our discussion of the itinerant ministry of Jesus in Samaria and its implications pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.

70

CHAPTER 2

2.2. From the Prologue to the Epilogue: Journey Structure Scholars tend to exclude the Prologue of the gospel of John when outlining structural divisions based on the journeys of Jesus, due to the fact that the Prologue’s focus is mainly on ὁ λόγος. However, Segovia holds that the fourth gospel as a whole, including the Prologue, depicts Jesus’ journeys. Unlike other scholars, he maintains that the gospel begins with the Prologue, which is the depiction of a journey beginning from above to the world below.47 In tracing the narrative conventions in John from the Prologue to the Epilogue, he argues that the journey motif plays a dominant role in the gospel of John.48 And he regards the journey from above as the first part of the gospel (1:1-18). He divides the second part (1:1917:26) into four subsections, namely, (i) 1:19-3:36, (ii) 4:1-5:47, (iii) 6:110:42, and (iv) 11:1-17:26).49 He further delineates three Galilee/Jerusalem cycles, one each from the first three sub sections of the journeys of Jesus. Part I.

First witness of John to Jesus (1:19-34); First Galilee/Jerusalem cycle (1:35-2:12/2:13-3:21); Second witness of John to Jesus (3:22-36). Part II. Second Galilee/Jerusalem cycle (4:1-53/5:1-47). Part III. Third Galilee/Jerusalem cycle (6:1-7:9/7:10-10:39); Third indirect witness of John to Jesus (10:40-42).50 Our specific focus in this section is on the itinerant ministry of Jesus and hence, in the following, we closely, examine each of these three journey cycles identified by Segovia. (i) First Galilee/Jerusalem cycle As per Segovia’s division, the first Galilee/Jerusalem cycle, 1:352:12/2:13-3:21, falls within the first part of the gospel (1:19-3:36). As noted, in another short paper, Segovia further divides this journey cycle into subsections. Although Segovia’s structural proposal does contribute to filling up some gaps in scholarship, at the same time it evokes some issues, such as the following. 47

48 49 50

See Segovia, John 1:1-18 as Entrée into Johannine Reality, 33-64; Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23-54. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23. See Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23-54, notices that these three journeys in the second section are marked by various responses of different groups of people toward Jesus, ranging from people who reject Jesus, his words and actions to those who take heed of his words and thereby believe in him and follow him.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

71

(1) Segovia specifies that Jesus begins his public ministry in 1:35, namely, in the making of his first disciples. He rightly includes Jesus’ actions in chapter 1 as part of the public ministry, since only here does the evangelist depict Jesus’ action of the formation of his first disciples. In this, Segovia departs from previous scholarship, in which there has been a near-consensus that Jesus’ public ministry begins in 2:1. (2) According to this division, Jesus is in Galilee51 from 1:35 to 2:12. However, the evangelist reports that he is in πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:2951) and, as we have seen, it is hard to determine to which region this place belongs.52 The evangelist attests πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου as the place where Jesus appeared for the first time, as noted, on three occasions (1:28-29; 3:26 and 10:40-42).53 Moreover, in 1:43, Jesus announces his decision (θέλω) to go to Galilee, and he is in Galilee in 2:1-12 [Cana (2:1-11) and Capernaum (2:12)]. In light of this, the first subsection, 1:19(35)2:12, consists of a movement from πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου to Galilee. Another issue at stake is that the reader does not receive any explicit information about the place from which Jesus comes to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Scholars like Brown and Brodie explain that Jesus had come from God in 1:1 and from πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28-29.54 Nevertheless, the reader is informed in 1:45 that Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ. At this juncture, following the narrative line and narrative gap, one can add that Jesus, who comes from God (1:1) and belongs to the town of Nazareth in Galilee, comes (ἔρχομαι) to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28-29 and goes to Galilee 2:1-12. (3) Segovia identifies 2:13-3:26 as Jesus’ Jerusalem cycle, which is clearly in line with the flow of the narrative of the gospel of John. However, this cycle of journey ends not in Jerusalem, but rather in the countryside of the territory of Judea, specifically in Aenon near Salim. To call this the Galilee/Jerusalem cycle thus has an odd connotation, for Galilee is a territory and not a place name, while Jerusalem is a place name and not a territory. One may thus better entitle this subsection, 2:13-3:36, as “Jesus’ journey through Judea,” or else call the whole section 1:19-3:36 the Galilee/Judea cycle, instead of the Galilee/Jerusalem cycle. 51

52

53

54

Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem,” 539, argues that the Jesus’ journey begins in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem (1:19-3:36). The geographical location cited in 1:28 is ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. See above discussions. As noted, we will here focus on the geographical indication πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28, leaving aside the perennial debate over the place name attached to it. See Brown, John, 414; Brodie, John, 388-389.

72

CHAPTER 2

In the light of our close examination of Segoiva’s demarcation of the first Galilee/Jerusalem cycle, we would propose a revised division of subsection 1:19-3:36. (a) Jesus comes from God (1:1), and goes from his native place in Nazareth, Galilee to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:28-29. (b) From πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Jesus travels to the territory of Galilee (Cana and Capernaum) in 2:1-12. (c) From the territory of Galilee, Jesus journeys to the territory of Judea (Jerusalem, Aenon near Salim) in 2:13-3:36. Thus the threefold division may be stated in a nutshell in the following way; from the territory of Galilee55 ➔ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51) ➔ Territory of Galilee (2:1-12) ➔ Territory of Judea (3:1-3:36). (ii) Second Galilee/Jerusalem cycle: 4:1-53/5:1-47 According to Segovia, Jesus’ ministry is in Galilee in Jn 4 and in Jerusalem in Jn 5. Still, we can see that 4:1-3, presents what causes Jesus’ decision to go to Galilee, and in 4:4 the evangelist specifies the route by which Jesus passed through Samaria. It is to be noted that Jesus makes several journeys between Judea and Galilee; however, elsewhere in the gospel, the evangelist provides no information about the route through which Jesus travels between Judea and Galilee. Jesus’ mission is carried out in Samaria in 4:5-42, and from there he again sets out to Galilee (4:43-54). Segovia’s demarcation holds that Jesus is in Jerusalem in 5:1-47, which is fully in agreement with the literary-geographical indications provided by the evangelist. In light of this short discussion, and deducing from our analysis of the first cycle, we tend to reformulate Jesus’ itinerant ministry (4:1-5:47) as follows: {Territory of Judea [2:13-3:26 (4:1-3)]} ➔ Territory of Samaria (4:1-42 – Well of Jacob, Sychar) ➔ Territory of Galilee (4:43-54 – Cana) ➔ Territory of Judea (5:1-47 – Jerusalem). (iii) Third Galilee/Jerusalem cycle: 6:1-7:9/7:10-10:39(42). The evangelist reports that Jesus is in the territory of Galilee from 6:17:9. In 6:1, Jesus ἀπέρχομαι in Galilee, and the concluding verse of this section (7:9) attests that Jesus ἔμεινεν in Galilee. In the following verse, 55

Filling-in the narrative gap, in the light of the implicit reference in Jn 1:45, we presume that Jesus comes from the territory of Galilee to the place where John is carrying out his ministry πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51).

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

73

7:10, where the third Jerusalem cycle begins, we read that Jesus ἀναβαίνω to Jerusalem, in Judea. In 10:39, he ἐξῆλθεν from Judea and ἀπέρχομαι to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.56 We may thus outline the subsection 6:1-10:39(42) as follows: Territory of Galilee (6:1-7:9 – Sea of Galilee and throughout Galilee) ➔ Territory of Judea (7:10-10:39 – Jerusalem) ➔ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (10:40-42). In the light of our discussion of Segovia’s demarcation of Jesus’ journey cycles during his public ministry, we may summarize the itinerant ministry of Jesus as follows: πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51) ➔ Territory of Galilee (2:1-12) ➔ Territory of Judea (3:1-3:36) ➔ Territory of Samaria (4:1-42 – Well of Jacob, Sychar) ➔ Territory of Galilee (4:43-54 – Cana) Territory of Judea (5:1-47 – Jerusalem) ➔ Territory of Judea (7:10-10:39 – Jerusalem) ➔ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (10:40-42). Here we can see that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου forms an inclusion 1:19-10:42. There are scholars who highlighted πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου inclusion from chapter 1 to the end of chapter 10. We discuss their propositions as we proceed to examine other structure proposals against the background of the geographical indications. 2.3. The Four Journeys of Jesus We have discussed Segovia’s compilation of the series of Jesus’ journeys that recur in a similar way to form Galilee/Judea cycles. In this light, we find that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου indicates an inclusion between 1:1910:42 which succinctly describes the public ministry of Jesus. Against this background, now we examine the literary-geographical structures that demarcate the four journeys of Jesus in the gospel of John, excluding the Prologue. According to Rissi, the itinerant ministry of Jesus is a major element in understanding the structure of the whole gospel: “Es ist meines Wissens bisher nicht beachtet worden, dass die Reisen Jesu im vierten Evangelium nach einem bestimmten Plan gestaltet sind, und dass dieses Schema die 56

As we have seen above, the geographical location of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:28, 10:4042) is ambiguous. Since the evangelist specifies in 10:39 that Jesus went away from Judea, and in 11:1ff reports that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου is a place distant from Jerusalem, one can presume that this place does not belong to either of these two territories. The map of Israel in the NT times indicates that Perea and Decapolis are on the other side of the Jordan river from Galilee and Judea (and Samaria as well). The territories that belong to the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas are Galilee, Samaria, Judea and Perea.

74

CHAPTER 2

Struktur des ganzen Buches bestimmt”.57 He identifies two major sections of the gospel of John, namely 1:19-10:39 and 10:40-20:31.58 In the first section, 1:19-10:39, Rissi demarcates three trips of Jesus, namely in 1:19-3:36; 4:1-5:47 and 6:1-10:39. He explains that these three journeys “führen dann jedesmal nach Galiläa und von dort ins heilige Land”.59 The first trip “Anfang im peräischen Bethanien, wo Johannes tauft ... Das zweite Gebiet, das Jesus dann betritt, ist Galiäa, das dritte Judäa – Jerusalem”.60 Rissi remarks that Jesus proceeds in the same manner in the second trip and third trip.61 He adds that this structural proposal justifies the view of scholars who reject the trans-placement of chapters 5 and 6 in the fourth gospel. 62 We may list the four journeys of Jesus as per Rissi’s division as follows: i. ii. iii. iv.

1:19-3:36 – Bethany, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ➔ Galilee ➔ Judea 4:1-5:47 – Samaria ➔ Galilee ➔ Judea 6:1-10:39 – Sea of Tiberius ➔ Galilee➔ Judea 10:40-12:41– Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem.

Some components of Rissi’s subdivisions are not convincing when examined in light of the literary-geographical indications provided in the fourth gospel. He hastens to show that the first three journeys of Jesus have three parts or three stations. Rissi adds that these journeys of Jesus begin from pagan places, then go to Galilee, and then to Judea. However, one cannot accept his contention that all begin in pagan places. First of all, in scholarship no convincing explanation has been put forward for the locale of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19ff). Secondly, the religious-cultural issues pertaining to Samaria and the Samaritans do not allow us to categorize Samaria as a pagan territory in the strict sense. Thirdly, in a similar vein, πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος (6:1ff) cannot be considered a pagan place. Again, Rissi contends that the second station of Jesus’ journey always falls within the territory of Galilee and that Judea is third and final destination in each of the first three journeys. However, we can see that the evangelist gives no such indication that Jesus ends his 57 58 59 60 61

62

See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 48. Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 54. Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 49. See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 49. See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 49-52. It is to be noted that even though he criticizes existing scholarship for supporting the displacement of chapters 5 and 6, he does not fully adhere to the present form of the gospel. See also Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure, 85. See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 49.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

75

journey in Judea.63 This claim seems to emerge from Rissi’s own proposition, but is without much support from other scholars or the gospel itself. In other words, Rissi’s primary interest is apparently to show that each of Jesus’ trips ends in Judea.64 Regarding the fourth journey in his structure proposal, Rissi claims that 10:40-12:42 depicts the itinerary of the final journey of Jesus toward Jerusalem. However, the itinerary information provided in John pertaining to this section reports that Jesus travels twice to Jerusalem. Accordingly, the itinerary of Jesus depicted within 10:40-12:42 can be listed as follows: πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (10:40-42) ➔ Βηθανία (11:1ff) ➔ Ephraim (11:54) ➔ Jerusalem (11:55) ➔ Βηθανία (12:1ff) ➔ Jerusalem (12:12ff). Against this background and our previous discussion, it seems less than clear that Jesus’ final journey begins from 11:1. In the light of our discussion in section 1.1, we are inclined to include 10:40-42 as part of the third journey of Jesus, for the following reasons. Firstly, Rissi explains that the fourth journey (10:40-42) is all about Jesus’ journey to Judea, specifically to Jerusalem. However, the evangelist explicitly shows that πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, the place where Jesus is in 10:40-42, is separate from the territory of Judea (cf. 11:1ff). Secondly, from the geographical indications in John, it is clearly indicated that Jesus’ final journey to the territory of Judea begins from 11:1ff and that Βηθανία belongs to the territory of Judea. Hence, we would eliminate this oversight65 and include 10:40-42 as part 63

64

65

The evangelist provides no indication of the end of each subsection, either explicit or implicit, according to Rissi’s division of the three journeys of Jesus. See 3:36, 5:47 and 10:39. See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 48-54. See also Staley, The Print’s First Kiss, 58. On the contrary, there are scholars like Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 109; Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 153, who explain that Cana, Galilee, is given special significance in John and thus affirm that geographical indicators in John are important signboards. We have already discussed briefly such issues pertaining to the place name cited in 1:28. As the evangelist states at (ἐν Βηθανία), πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Jesus is presented for the first time where John is carrying out the baptismal ministry along with his disciples (1:19ff). The evangelist refers to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου on two other occasions in the gospel (3:36; 10:40-42). On these two occasions, he does not attach any place name to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. However, he does provide literary indications to show that the place referred to in 3:26 and 10:40-42 is the same as the one located in 1:28. (There is also a text-critical problem here, due to the attestation by important textual witnesses of place names other than Βηθανία.) Moreover, the geographical location πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 10:40-42, and of Βηθανία described in the following verses (11:1ff), are distant places. The evangelist provides necessary and sufficient indications regarding the location of these two places in this respect (cf. 10:40.11:1-7, 39). Hence it is an oversight, as we have stated above, to demarcate the literary-geographical structure of John without paying attention to these elements.

76

CHAPTER 2

of the third journey. However, some of Rissi’s observations and explanations contribute to our literary-geographical structural analysis concerning the earthly life and actions of the Johannine Jesus. It is to be noted that, departing from existing scholarship, Rissi identifies 1:19-3:36 as the first subsection of Jesus’ ministry.66 And his divisions consistently note Jesus’ journeys in various territories. In light of the demarcation of the first three journeys of Jesus, we are now able to divide the major subsection 1:1910:4267 into three subsections, in line with the itinerant ministry of Jesus. In other words, the first three journeys of Jesus as demarcated by Rissi, except for the exclusion of πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (10:40-42). These three journeys are evenly divided and each of them includes territories of Galilee and Judea. As the above discussion has made clear, the literary-geographical indications in the fourth gospel have often been used as a tool to analyze the structure and outline of the text.68 According to J. H. Neyrey, territoriality in general, and specifically the repeated references to territories visited by Jesus on his itinerant ministry, is an important tool in understanding the narrative structure of John.69 Moreover, despite the variety of foci, approaches and methods employed by scholars in demarcating the structure of the fourth gospel, one finds that these structures finally rely on the geographical indications provided in John, either explicitly70 or 66

67

68

69 70

As noted, scholars tend to ignore Jesus’ action of making his first disciples, described in Jn 1, in discussing the earthly life and actions of the Johannine Jesus. In other words, a majority of scholars demarcate the first subsection pertaining to Jesus’ actions only from 2:1ff. See for instance, Feuillet, Johannine Studies, 1-21; Moloney, “From Cana to Cana,” 817-843. Later scholars like Staley and Segovia subdivide the first subsection of Jesus’ life and actions in a similar way. See Staley, “The Structure of John’s Prologue,” 241-264, Staley, The Print’s First Kiss, 58. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem,” 539. In the previous section, we deduced an inclusion formed by πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19ff and 10:40-42). More precisely, at πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου the Johannine Jesus begins his ministry and he stayed (cf. μενειν) there with his disciples before his final entry to the territory of Judea where his earthly mission culminates. For more on this, see previous sections. Scholars who are in line with this view include Rissi, Mlakuzhyil, and Segovia, all of whom affirm the importance of literary-geographical indications in understanding the content of the gospel of John we well as its structure and outline. See Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” 48-54; Mlakuzhyil, Christocentric Literary-Dramatic Structure of John’s Gospel, 101; Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God,” 23-54. The centrality of the travel motif in John is a major element is Segovia’s discussion. See also Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem,” 535-541. See Neyrey, “Spaces and Places, Whence and Wither, Homes and Rooms,” 60-74. See Meeks, “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” 159-169; Teeple, The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, 2-3; Moloney, “From Cana to Cana, 817-843; Scobie, “Johannine Geography,” 77-84; Gibblin, “The Tripartite Narrative Structure of John’s Gospel,” 449-468; Segovia, “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem,” 535-541; Segovia,

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

77

implicitly.71 Our discussion of the outline of John in relation to the multiple journeys of Jesus have shown that Jesus’ ministry in John includes the three territories of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, though some scholars distinguish between two ministries of Jesus: the Galilean ministry and the Judean ministry. Nevertheless, Jesus’ public ministry as a whole forms an inclusion with the place name, Bethany (from Bethany to Bethany). In what follows, we discuss the itinerant ministry of Jesus in more detail. Our claim will be the following: that the journeys of Jesus in the gospel of John are not mere descriptions but are designed with a certain plan. As noted above, the inclusion of 1:19-10:42 is marked by the geographical indication πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Jesus’ actions from beginning to end are enveloped in this section, as is emphasized by literary indicators as well.72 We will divide this section into three subsections, each consisting of three journeys, in the light of our discussion above: Journey 1: πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51) ➔ Territory of Galilee (2:1-12) ➔ Territory of Judea (2:13-3:36) Journey 2: Territory of Samaria (4:1-42) ➔ Territory of Galilee (4:43-54) ➔ Territory of Judea (5:1-47) Journey 3: Territory of Galilee (6:1-7:9) ➔ Territory of Judea (7:10-10:39) ➔ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (10:40-42). Above, we traced an inclusion between 1:19-10:42, viz., from πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου to πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. We noted this inclusion in the first section, where we made a brief examination of the literary-geographical indications pertaining to the itinerary of Jesus. This has been substantiated by our critical review of relevant scholarship in this second section.73

71

72

73

“John 1:1-18 as Entrée into Johannine Reality,” 33-64; Koester, “Aspects of Historicity in John 1-4,” 93-103. Though some scholars do not explicitly point to such references in deducing the outline of the gospel, their expositions are dependent on these indications. See Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 6-10; Keener, The Gospel of John, xi-xxiv. The remaining two chapters before Jesus’ farewell discourse, namely Jn 11 and 12, mark Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem. His final σημεῖον is carried out during this journey (11:1ff) and the events that follow led to the consummation of his earthly life. The inclusion between 1:19-10:42 is due not only to the geographical reference πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, but also to the fact that it focuses on the same theme, viz., John’s testimony about Jesus in 1:19ff and the people’s acceptance of John’s testimony about Jesus as true in 10:40ff.

78

CHAPTER 2

Moreover, in this section, we have further demarcated 1:19-10:42 into three subsections or three sets of journeys, namely, 1:19-3:36; 4:1-5:47; 6:1-10:42. In the next section we will focus on the first two subsections, namely journey 1 and journey 2, then proceed to analyze the broader and immediate contexts of the Samaritan episode.

3. BROADER AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THE SAMARITAN EPISODE Based on our discussion above of the first two journeys of Jesus, viz., 1:19-3:36 and 4:1-5:57, we may now proceed to examine the broader and immediate contexts of the Samaritan episode. We will examine the context of this episode first by briefly examining Jesus’ words, actions and the responses to him in various geographical locales. The first subsection (1:19-3:36) focuses on the first journey of Jesus. It depicts his words and actions among various groups of people gathered at locations such as the baptismal site of John (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου), Cana, Capernaum, Jerusalem, and Aenon near Salim, as well as showing how these people responded to him. We will briefly summarize these depictions in three sections: πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51), the territory of Galilee (2:1-12) and the territory of Judea (3:1-3:36). The following table provides an overview of Jesus’ ministry in these locales. Πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51)

Galilee (2:1-12)

Judea (2:13-3:36)

(i) John’s testimony

(i) Occasion of marriage

(i) Jesus first time in Jerusalem

(ii) Atmosphere of conflict

(ii) Jesus’ first σημεῖον (ii) Atmosphere of conflict, Jesus cleanses the temple

(iii) First appearance of Jesus in John

(iii) Jesus’ mother’s first (iii) Jesus needs no appearance in the gospel testimony

(iv) John’s disciples μένειν with Jesus and the making of the first disciples

(iv) Jesus reveals his glory and disciples believe

(iv) Dialogue with Nicodemus: partial belief and secret disciple

(v) Jesus μένειν with (v) Jesus’ and his his mother and disciples disciples’ successful ministry at Aenon near Salim

79

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (1:19-51)

Galilee (2:1-12)

Judea (2:13-3:36) (vi) Jesus’ disciples face conflicting situation with a Ἰουδαῖος and with John’s disciples (vii) John’s disciples complain about Jesus’ success (viii) John’s final testimony

We should note the following elements from the above table, which consolidates 1:19-3:36 in light of Jesus’ words and actions and the corresponding responses. (i) This subsection begins and ends with the testimony of John about Jesus. (ii) The first and last locale, namely πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου and the territory of Judea, show the hostility of the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and specifically of their leaders, due to the successful ministries and growing recognition of John at πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου and of Jesus in Judea, respectively.74 (iii) The main characters at πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου and in the territory of Judea are the leaders of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, John and his disciples, and Jesus and his disciples, whereas in Galilee, the evangelist focuses on Jesus, his mother and disciples. (iv) One notices a progression in the responses to Jesus’ words and actions. In response to John’s witness about Jesus, John’s disciples begin to follow Jesus and become the first disciples; on the grounds of Jesus’ action at Cana, the disciples believe in Jesus, which is followed by Jesus’ μενειν with his mother and disciples. Though the evangelist depicts Jesus’ actions at Jerusalem temple, thus at least implicitly marking the beginning of the challenges against him (2:14-21), we find that the same action evokes a faith response on the part of the disciples (2:22) and of Nicodemus, a leader of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι who approaches Jesus with an attitude of acceptance (3:1ff). Moreover, the evangelist reports that many others believed in Jesus. The joint ministry of Jesus with his disciples in the countryside of Judea is marked by baptizing and making of more disciples (cf. 4:1). In light of these elements, we conclude that 1:19-3:36 is a well-knitted whole and can be demarcated as a coherent subsection. 74

We noticed that the second part (2:1-12) of the subsection (1:19-3:36), namely Jesus’ mission in Galilee, begins with an atmosphere of celebration and culminates with acceptance and a faith response. There is no mention of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.

80

CHAPTER 2

According to our demarcation, Jesus travels through the territories of Samaria, Galilee and Judea in the second phase (4:1-5:47) of his journey. We discuss briefly, in the following, the words and actions of Jesus and impact of his ministry on the people in these locales. Territory of Samaria (4:1-42)

Territory of Galilee (4:43-54)

Territory of Judea (5:1-47)

The episode begins with The Galileans welcome Jesus’ words and actions are overtones of hostility due to Jesus when they witness rejected and met with the success of Jesus’ ministry. his actions at Jerusalem. hostility. It is somehow necessary (δεῖ) that Jesus travels through Samaria. Jesus asks for water from the Samaritan woman.

Humble request by βασιλικός.

Jesus asks a particular sick man among the many whether he wills (θέλω) to be healed?

Unwelcoming response on the Jesus’ first responds part of the Samaritan woman. with a negative tone.

His response is not yes or no but he explains his difficulties.

Jesus continues his dialogue Persistent request by with the woman in a new way. βασιλικός.

Instantaneously Jesus cures him.

The Samaritan woman’s favorable response, which continues the dialogue.

Jesus accepts the request Jesus sets him free. and heals his son.

The Samaritan woman shares βασιλικός shares his her experience with her experience with his neighbors. household.

No expression of faith or gratitude from the healed man. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι accuse Jesus and, as per his report, they began to persecute him.

The disciples respond in a negative way to Jesus’ interaction with this woman. Further, in his dialogue with disciples, he reveals that his works are to complete the will of God.

There is no mention of the disciples.

There is no mention of the disciples.

The Samaritans come and μένειν with Jesus and proclaim him as σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. Many believe in Jesus.

βασιλικός and ἡ οἰκία believe in Jesus.

No response of belief; rather, Jesus confronts them about their unbelief and its consequences.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

81

From the above table, it is evident that the first and third subsections begin with the overtones of conflict or hostility, while the second part opens with the evangelist’s report that the Galileans welcomed Jesus as he entered the territory of Galilee. Conversations in each of these three parts begin with a plea or request for something, viz., to render some sort of help or favor.75 The corresponding responses are in an increasing sequence, viz., a negative reaction from the Samaritan woman, Jesus’ objection to the royal official at Cana in Galilee, and the sick man’s reply to Jesus about his inabilities, in Galilee. These three ministries of Jesus culminate in a decreasing sequence of acceptance or success: (i) The Samaritan woman speaks of her experience with Jesus to her neighbors and all come to accept and believe in Jesus. (ii) The royal official and his whole household believe in Jesus. (iii) The evangelist gives no sign of acceptance on the part of the cured man or of those who witnessed Jesus’ words and actions. On the contrary, he reports that this action of Jesus marks the beginning of Jesus’ persecution. This is irrespective of the fact that the main protagonists, other than Jesus, in the three sections, viz., the Samaritan woman, the royal official, and the sick man at Beth-Zatha, all address Jesus as κύριε (4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7). The reason for Jesus’ journeys to Galilee, according to the evangelist is the emerging hostility toward him at Jerusalem, in Judea;76 Jesus travels to Judea, specifically to Jerusalem, in 5:1 for the upcoming feasts,77 and travels through Samaria due to some necessity expressed through the evangelist’s use of the word ἔδει (4:4). In addition, the second subsection begins with a note (4:1-3) about what happened at the end of the previous subsection (3:22ff), which implies that the reason for the next step in Jesus’ itinerant ministry, according to the evangelist, is Jesus’ actions depicted in the preceding verses (at the end of the first subsection). One can see that 4:1-3 serves as a transition from the first subsection to the second one. In 4:1-3 and 3:22ff, the underlying theme is the baptismal ministry, and the characters depicted in this part are Jesus, John the Baptist and their respective disciples. In other words, the evangelist restates the characters, content and/or actions presented in 3:22-26 at the beginning of 75

76

77

Jesus asks for water from the Samaritan woman, the royal official asks for his son to be healed, and Jesus asks the sick man at Beth-zatha whether he wants to be cured by Jesus. According to the gospel of John, Jesus announces in 1:43 that he wills (θέλω) to go to Galilee, after the formation of his first disciples. In the above two sets of journeys, we can see that Jesus is welcomed in Galilee and that his words and actions are met with acceptance and faith responses. See J. Ashton, Studying John, 155-165; Reimer, “The Galileans: Interpretive Possibilities,” 299-305. See also Jn 2:13.

82

CHAPTER 2

the Samaritan episode. In 3:23-25, John’s disciples complain to John about Jesus’ actions in 3:22ff and, at the same time, refer back to the coming of Jesus to John in 1:29ff. One thus finds that the issue at stake here is the baptismal ministry of Jesus and his disciples, over against that of John and his disciples in 3:22ff. However, the evangelist implicitly indicates that Jesus’ actions at Jerusalem in 2:13ff mark the beginning of such issues and this carries further into the situation presented in 4:1-3. The Pharisees were wary of the successful ministry of John (1:19ff). In a similar way, they came to know that Jesus’ success exceeds that of John, and this led Jesus to leave Judea and travel to Galilee (4:1-3). This discussion of 4:13, in light of the preceding section, shows how the evangelist intertwines these two sections. From this overview of the itinerant ministry of Jesus we summarize the following. We find that the second subsection (4:1-5:47) is a well-formulated portrayal of the ministry of Jesus and in many respects reflects the first one (1:19-3:36). In addition, our critical review of scholarship on the structure of John pertaining to the geographical indications given by the evangelist, in the previous section, shows how various scholars have situated the Samaritan episode within the context of the first five chapters. We find that the geographical references, the vocabulary used to represent Jesus and employed to address him, as well as the different images and themes in 1:19-3:36 all recur in one way or another in the second subsection also, specifically in 4:1-54. Thus, our discussion of the context of the Samaritan episode in light of the literary-geographical indications in the text and actions of Jesus enables us to delineate the broader context of the Samaritan episode: this broader context is 1:19-5:47, which, according to our own demarcation, encompasses both the first and second journeys of Jesus (1:19-3:36 and 4:1-5:47). Moreover, the Samaritan episode dovetails with the preceding and following subsections by repeating the geographical indications concerning the itinerant ministry and actions of Jesus. Thus, we may demarcate the immediate context of the Samaritan episode as 3:22-4:54. 4. UNITY AND COHERENCE OF THE SAMARITAN EPISODE In the previous section, we delineated both the broader and the immediate contexts of the Samaritan episode in the light of our discussion of literary-geographical indications in the text pertaining to the itinerant ministry of Jesus. The broader context, we have said, is 1:19-5:47, and the

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

83

immediate context is 3:22-4:54. This has shown how the Samaritan episode stands in relation to the preceding and following sections of the fourth gospel. According to this demarcation, the Samaritan episode occurs during the second phase of Jesus’ journey from Judea to Galilee. Among the evangelist’s several accounts of the journeys Jesus made between Galilee and Judea, only here does he depict the precise route Jesus took on this journey: Jesus leaves Judea and passes through Samaria on his way to Galilee. The socio-ethnic differences, gender barrier, etc.78 make the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus stand out among other episodes in the itinerant ministry of Jesus. Hence, this episode has been studied from various perspectives: theological, political, social, moral and the like. As we have stated in the introduction, our aim here is to discuss the literary features of the episode after attending to the geographical indications it contains. Hence, in the following we briefly discuss how scholars have argued for the coherence and unity of the Samaritan episode in light of its various literary features: specifically, its inclusive framework, transition from the previous section, change in the setting, change in characters, and change of topic or issue. (i) In the preceding section, Jesus is at Aenon near Salim (3:22-36) along with his disciples (πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει). Other characters are also present there, including John, his disciples and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. We have already discussed above how 4:1-3 serves as a transition into the Samaritan episode from the previous section (3:22-36). In addition, these verses (vv. 1-3) indicate the reason for Jesus’ return trip to Galilee through Samaria [ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας. (4:4)].79 The theme of the baptizing ministry of Jesus and John in Judea in 3:22ff is recapped in 4:1 and thus v. 1 serves as a link to the previous subsection. However, there is a correction of the statement in 4:2, viz., it is Jesus’ disciples and not Jesus himself who carried out the baptizing ministry.80 Even though, v. 2 identifies Jesus’ disciples as baptizers, this verse does not 78

79

80

See Montgomery, The Samaritans, 161-165; Cullmann, “ἄλλοι of John 4:31-38?,” 185192; Hjelm, The Samaritans, 116-121; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 211-236. See also the references in the Synoptic gospels pertaining to Samaria: Mt 10:5-6; Lk 9:51-56, 10:30-37, 17:11-19; Jn 4:4, 9, 8:48. See Brown, John, 54, 414; Moloney, John, 52, 108, 314-317; Hutton, “‘Bethany Beyond the Jordan’” 305-328; Earl, “Bethany Beyond Jordan,” 279-294. We can see that what is said in 4:1 is reversed in the following verse, v. 2: “Although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized”. The connecting link between 3:26 and 4:1 and the contradictory statement in 4:2 is considered one of the major inconsistencies in the fourth gospel. See for instance, Teeple, The Literary Origin, 2; Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure, 5-6; Haenchen, John, 217.

84

CHAPTER 2

challenge the action of Jesus (Ἰησοῦς πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ), in v. 1.81 However, focus of our research hypothesis, however, is neither on the baptizing ministry of Jesus nor on that of his disciples in Judea; rather, our concern is to determine why Jesus passed through Samaria and the implications of his words and actions during his ministry in Samaria.82 (ii) It is to be noted that Samaria is not at all a destination of Jesus, either here or on any other of his trips.83 Instead, the evangelist’s use of δεῖ in v. 4 implies some sort of necessity that made Jesus pass through Samaria.84 After stating the reason for Jesus’ passing through Samaria (vv. 1-4), the evangelist indicates the time and location in which this narrative takes place (vv. 5-6). It is to be noted that the majority of scholars divide Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (vv. 7-26) into two subsections, of vv. 7-9 and vv. 10-26,85 where vv. 7-9 is considered the introductory part of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, which concerns the request for water. However, we can see that Jesus’ request for water at least implicitly breaks through the social and cultic boundaries between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and the Samaritans in vv. 7-9. More specifically, the Samaritan woman’s reply to Jesus in v. 9 clarifies the issue at stake. We ask, therefore: What are the implications of v. 9 for the Samaritan episode in particular, and for the gospel of John as a whole? In light of v. 23, we know that the evangelist wants to show that, in Jesus, all the boundaries and divisions are removed and thus the separation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and the Samaritans is no longer relevant.86 This interconnection between vv. 9 and 23 reflects the coherence between vv. 7-9 and vv. 10-26. Leidig regards v. 22 as the central verse and discusses in detail 81

82

83

84

85 86

We are not taking up the discussion in scholarship about this reversal of statements in vv. 1 and 2 based on the theories of rearrangements and replacements, since our point of departure is the literary unity of the fourth gospel. See above notes 99, 100. It is to be noted that our specific focus on the Samaritan episode is to investigate the research hypothesis concerning the question of reconciling love in the gospel of John, as stated in the introduction. Jesus with his disciples has been to Ephraim in 11:54, which is a hapax legomenon in the NT. We discuss this at a later stage. Moreover, according to our demarcation, 1:1910:42 marks the itinerant ministry of Jesus and Ephraim served as a sort of hiding place for Jesus from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Other than δεῖ, in the Samaritan episode θέλημα is employed to present one of the key statements of Jesus in 4:34 (ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον). Nevertheless, as we have already noted, the evangelist uses θέλω to depict Jesus’ willingness or preference to go to Galilee and his dislike for the journey to Jerusalem in Judea (cf. 1:43; 7:1). Scholars often subdivide vv. 10-26 into two, viz., vv. 10-19 and vv. 20-26. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 83-101; Daube, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman,” 137-214.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

85

how the narrative and discursive sections in 4:1-42 are tightly interlocked with each other, such that they cannot be separated.87 (iii) Scholars generally agree that the first part of the Samaritan episode echoes the last section in many respects.88 For instance, Van Belle examines the text-critical problem in 4:1 and affirms the inclusive framework of 4:1-42. Stibbe notes that the first and last parts of the pericope employ the same and/or similar vocabulary, viz., ἔρχεται in v. 7 and ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν in v. 40; πόλιν in v. 5 and πόλις in v. 39 and Σαμαρείας in v. 5, τῶν Σαμαριτῶν in v. 39, etc.89 In addition, one can identify a definite progression in terms of the vocabulary used to represent or address Jesus, viz., Ἰουδαῖος (v. 9); κύριος (vv. 11, 15); προφήτης (v. 19); Μεσσίας (v. 25), χριστός (vv. 25, 29), ῥαββί (v. 31) and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42).90 The use of different vocabulary to address or represent Jesus in the Samaritan episode (vv. 9, 19, 25-26, 29, 31, 42) makes clear the impact of the use of certain words and actions in Samaria. (iv) The parentheses or asides in the narratives and discourses reflect the unique style of John’s gospel, where ideas are often communicated through interruptions. He notes that the Samaritan episode contains a good number of parentheses, among which the most explicit are vv. 2, 8, 9c, 22b, 27 and 31-38.91 Van Belle discusses these verses in detail and shows that these typical Johannine parentheses serve to convey some unique messages and typical Johannine theology. Among these Johannine asides, vv. 8 and 27 show the part played by the disciples, who are absent in the major part 87

88 89 90

91

Leidig’s explanation of the employment of two different terms, namely πηγή (twice in v. 6, by the narrator and on the lips of Jesus in v. 14) and φρέαρ (in v. 12, on the lips of the Samaritan woman) also substantiates the inner coherence between the narrative sections and dialogues in the Samaritan episode. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 81-82, 133. See Van Belle, “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ or ἸΗΣΟΥΣ in John 4,1?,” 584. See Stibbe, John, 63-65. Scholars have also traced several other, similar features in Jn 4:1-42, such as similar and repeated themes, expressions, etc. We are not considering all such discussions in this paper. Rather, we employ only some of the important elements to demarcate and situate our research pericope. Van Belle, Les Parenthèses, 206-210, 211-235; 253-257, pays specific attention to the use of parenthesis in the gospel of John and notes that the evangelist comments on things that are done with parenthesis, which is the most remarkable style of the fourth gospel. In order to explain the evangelist’s unique style of employing parenthesis, Van Belle meticulously analyzes the style and grammatical structure of such expressions. According to him, John uses parenthesis to convey some specific teachings and unique theological interpretations. He notes that vv. 31-38 is an aside, a longer commentary of what happened in the previous sections in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples.

86

CHAPTER 2

of the Samaritan episode.92 Precisely, these two asides along with vv. 3138 lend more coherence to the various narratives and discursive parts of the Samaritan ministry of Jesus. Ruckstuhl explains how v. 39 links with vv. 40-42 and the previous subsections. He refers back to vv. 29-30 to illustrate this interlinking. The evangelist recounts that the Samaritans left the city, where they met Jesus listening to the Samaritan woman’s testimony δεῦτε ἴδετε ἄνθρωπον ὃς εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός (vv. 29-30). The evangelist tells of how they comprehend the Samaritan woman’s testimony, saying that they want to see this ὁ χριστός (v. 39). In addition, vv. 40-42 depict a progression in these townspeople’s understanding of Jesus. Ruckstuhl adds that v. 30 anticipates the concluding section in vv. 39-42. Without vv. 30 and 39, the subsection vv. 31-38 would be an interruption.93 In a similar vein, Schnackenburg explains that the pericope of vv. 31-38 is neatly bound together with the Samaritan episode as a whole.94 (v) In addition, on account of the place and function of the Samaritan episode, 4:1-42 stands as a significant text in the whole gospel for a number of reasons. Parallel movements of the various characters make this episode a coherent subsection. Jesus, the main protagonist, comes toward the well of Jacob at Sychar and sits down by the well (vv. 1-6). His movement from there is depicted hereafter only in 4:43. One finds that the whole episode is structured around the parallel movements of all of the characters, except for Jesus. Specifically, there are two movements that are mutually exclusive, by the disciples and by the Samaritan woman. The two travel/move in opposite directions: (a) The Samaritan woman comes to draw water from the well of Jacob to quench her thirst, and the disciples simultaneously set out to get food to satisfy their hunger. Later on, there is a concurrent reversal of these parallel comings and goings, of the Samaritan woman and the disciples. (b) As the disciples return from the city with food, the Samaritan woman leaves her water jar and goes to the city to give testimony about her encounter with Jesus. From a contrasting point of view, we can see that both the disciples and the woman fulfill their intentions, to go to the city to buy food (vv. 7, 31) and to draw water at the well of Jacob (v. 7), respectively. The Samaritan woman even leaves the water jar and returns to the city (vv. 28-29). The response the disciples and the woman receive for their actions are also opposite; the Samaritan townspeople 92 93 94

See Van Belle, Les Parenthèses, 253-257. See Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums, 116-117. See Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 455.

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

87

listen to the Samaritan woman’s witness of her encounter with Jesus and in response they come to meet him (vv. 29-30), whereas Jesus responds negatively when the disciples offer him food (vv. 31-33). He rather begins to convince them of his mission with a revelatory statement about the will of God (vv. 34-38). In addition, while the disciples struggle to comprehend Jesus (v. 33), the Samaritans come to Jesus and deepen their understanding of him (vv. 39-42). In a nutshell, the above-discussed parallels of movements, words and actions comprise a variety of literary features, such as double entendre, misunderstanding, double stage settings with ironical juxtaposition, symbolic language, and the like. The scene of the Samaritan episode is at the well of Jacob at Sychar in Samaria. Jesus the protagonist comes and take a seat by the side of the well (vv. 5-6), until the episode culminates. Moreover, all the other characters are depicted as coming to him (vv. 7-42). There is a definitive conclusion to the Samaritan episode in vv. 39-42, and Jesus resumes his journey to Galilee (vv. 43-45). This brief discussion shows how the Samaritan episode is a unique and a distinct pericope in the fourth gospel which is composed of various literary features. H. Windisch rightly observes that there are not many fully elaborated narratives in John, adding that these few narratives are embodied in episodes designed with various sorts of literary features.95 From the above discussion, we have seen that such features of a Johannine narrative is clearly dovetailed in 4:1-42. Scholars in general divide the Samaritan episode into five subsections, namely the introductory part, which is followed by Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan,96 and then a transition (vv. 27-30) which depicts the coming of the disciples to Jesus at Jacob’s well and the Samaritan woman going to the city then returning to Jesus accompanied by her townspeople. 95 96

See Windisch, “John’s Narrative Style,” 25-64. Scholars subdivide the introductory part differently, and accordingly the boundary of the second subsection (the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman) also varies. Lindars, John, 176, considers vv. 1-3 as the first subdivision and vv. 4-26 as the second one. Haenchen, John, 216, finds vv. 1-3 as a transition. Scholars like Bernard, John, 132 and Bultmann, John, 176 consider vv. 1-4 as the introductory part. For Schnackenburg, John, 421, the introductory part includes one more verse, viz., vv. 1-5; Moloney, Belief in the Word, 134, John, 115, and Brodie, John, 231 identify the introductory passage as vv. 1-6; Brown, John, 166 considers the opening verses as vv. 4-6. Boers, Neither on this Mountain nor in Jerusalem, 7, holds that vv. 1-5 comprise the introduction to the Samaritan episode. According to Beasley-Murray, John, 59, the introductory part is vv. 1-6, which depict the setting of the context. Talbert explains that vv. 4-7 set the scene for the Samaritan episode. In Van Belle, “Geloven Volgens Johannes,” 103-144, 126, vv. 1-9 are identified as the first subsection. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 182, regards vv. 1-26 as the first part of 4:1-42.

88

CHAPTER 2

Jesus then dialogues with these Samaritans (vv. 31-38), and then they talk among themselves (vv. 39-42). Here, the episode culminates and concludes. In sum, there is a near consensus concerning the last three subsections, though the first two are often subdivided differently. According to our own delimitation, vv. 1-26 includes the first two subsections. For our own purposes, the precise point at which these subsections are divided need not be determined in a strict and rigid way, since the various components leading to our research hypothesis are to be evaluated as a whole. In the following chapters, we discuss the Samaritan episode (4:1-42) against the background of our research hypothesis. In other words, we examine it as a test case, that is, to help establish this hypothesis. CONCLUSION In this chapter, we have discussed the literary-geographical indications in the gospel of John, with a specific focus on the Samaritan episode. We demarcated three phases of the itinerant ministry of Jesus as it is depicted in 1:19-10:42, and the discussion of this demarcation forms the major part of the chapter. We first examined the literary-geographical indications running through the gospel of John which depict the itinerant ministry of Jesus. Then, we discussed how these implicitly structure Jesus’ journeys by examining scholarship on the structure of John which pays considerable attention to the literary-geographical indications in this gospel. Based on this critical review of the scholarship, we demarcated three sets of journeys in the itinerant ministry of Jesus within 1:19-10:42, namely 1:193:36; 4:1-5:47 and 6:1-10:42. In a third step, we focused just on the first two subsections, 1:19-3:36 and 4:1-5:47, to show that the geographical references, vocabulary and various images and themes in 1:19-3:36 recur in one way or other in the depiction of the second set of journeys (4:1-54). In light of this, we delineated the broader context of the Samaritan episode as 1:19-5:47, as this portion of the text comprises the first and second journeys of Jesus. In light of the literary features and geographical indications and against the background of the words and actions of Jesus, we delineated the immediate context as 3:22-4:54. Finally, we briefly discussed the literary features and themes in the Samaritan episode, thus providing an immediate opening for discussion of our research hypothesis. In this chapter we paid attention to the exegetical questions of Jn 4:142; specifically, how does the Samaritan episode fit within the context of the gospel of John, precisely, in the itinerant ministry the Johannine

EXEGETICAL FOUNDATIONS

89

Jesus during his public life. In a certain sense, one may even ask how the journeys of Jesus fit in the structure and theme of the fourth gospel or within in the itinerant ministry of Jesus. Our discussions, in this direction thus have shown that how important is the itinerary of Jesus through Samaria from Judea to Galilee, within the frame work of the itinerary of the Johannine Jesus, in particular the unique nature of the Samaritan ministry. We examined the unity and inner coherence of the narrative and demarcated the boundaries of the Samaritan episode as 4:1-42. There is a near-consensus among scholars, we found, concerning the main divisions of the Samaritan episode, except for the first two subsections (vv. 1-26). In subsequent chapters, we will examine the research hypothesis by discussing the various subsections of the Samaritan episode 4:1-42.

PART 2

THE TWO PROTAGONISTS: JESUS, A Ἰουδαῖος, AND THE WOMAN, A Σαμαρῖτις, IN JOHN 4:1-26

CHAPTER 3

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY: INTRODUCTORY PART (JOHN 4:1-9) INTRODUCTION To understand the Samaritan episode of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in Jn 4 against the background of our research hypothesis, it is important to consider various elements such as geographical, socio-religious-political indications along with literary-historical structuring of the text. The opening verses of this episode are composed of various aspects of these elements. From the very outset, it is clear that vv. 1-9 reflect the historical geography and socio-political and religious-cultural elements. Thus, this section of the narrative of the Samaritan episode is seen to be pregnant with many clues and implications such as the reason and/or purpose of Jesus’ journey from Judea to Galilee through Samaria; the first reaction to Jesus’ request for water by the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob in Sychar, Samaria (4:5-9). In this chapter, we discuss vv. 1-9 against the background of such historical-literary-geographical indications in the Samaritan episode alongside with the scholarship that pertains to the socio-political and religious-cultural elements in other relevant literature before the turn of the era and contemporary to the NT period. Our specific focus will evidently be the research hypothesis1 we stated in the first chapter; and hence we analyze vv. 1-9 in order to understand the relationship that prevailed at the time of the Johannine Jesus between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The evangelist carefully formulates the introductory part of the Samaritan episode by presenting the following information: (i) the reasons for Jesus’ return journey from Judea to Galilee (vv. 1-3) (ii) implicit portrayal 1

Our hypothesis is that there are elements of reconciling love and perhaps even there is the depiction of loving the enemies in a unique manner in the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:142). We begin with discussing how the evangelist depicts the mode of relationship that exists between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the beginning of the Samaritan episode. We discuss also this theme against the background of gospel of John as a whole, in the NT in general, in the OT and in the other relevant literature contemporary to the NT.

94

CHAPTER 3

of the reasons for passing through Samaria (ἔδει in v. 4), (iii) when and where the Samaritan episode takes place (vv. 5-6) and (iv) the identity of the protagonists; how they relate to and/or differ from each other in terms of their socio-religious-cultural identity and what is the relationship between the two communities they represent (cf. vv. 7-9). Accordingly, this chapter unfolds in four subsections. We examine: how the evangelist depicts relationship which then prevailed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in vv. 1-9. This includes various components such as an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text, the Johannine literary devices and the historical-geographical, socio-political and religious-cultural backgrounds of the characters of the narrative.2 The original insights offered in this analysis take us to understand how John depicts the social/cultural/religious background pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and what made it necessary for Jesus to pass through Samaria.

1. OVERTONES OF

A

POWER-CONFLICT (JOHN 4:1-3)

In this section, we briefly examine the various functions of vv. 1-3 such as a transition from previous sections to the new phase of Jesus’ mission, relating the Samaritan episode with the previous and remaining parts of the fourth gospel, an atmosphere of conflict through which the evangelist presents as to why Jesus makes this journey. As presented in the previous chapter, vv. 1-3 situates the Samaritan episode in its immediate context of the baptizing ministry at Aenon near Salim in 3:22ff and in its broader context of Jesus itinerant ministry between Judea and Galilee (1:28ff). In 1:24ff, the Pharisees intrude to John’s action at πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου followed by Jesus’ coming to John where we find Jesus for the first time in the fourth gospel. Schnackenburg rightly notes that “the Pharisees had already called John to account for his baptizing (1:24), but there has been no mention up to this of these influential persons taking up an unfriendly attitude to Jesus.”3 The evangelist reports the negative attitude toward Jesus’ actions at Jerusalem (2:13ff) 2

3

In these discussions, we briefly examine scholarship pertaining to the above theme of discussion that concerns the relevant references in the OT, the NT, and the other sources such as the works of Josephus, the Dead Sea scrolls such as 3Q15, 4Q372 1, 4Q550c and the pre-Samaritan versions of the Pentateuch and the Samaritan inscriptions, mainly, the Delos inscriptions. Schnackenburg, John, 1.420.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

95

from the part of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι which is followed by a Pharisee of the ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων named Nicodemus’ (3:1-21) coming (ἔρχομαι) to Jesus. Jesus and his disciples are doing baptizing ministry at the countryside of Judea where John and his disciples too are carrying out their ministry in the neighboring place (3:22-26). At the close of chapter 3, the evangelist depicts John’s proclamation that Jesus must become great and he must become less which is implicitly depicted as soon as it is realized.4 In other words the protagonist in the preceding section, namely, John gives his final testimony about Jesus in 3:30-36 and we indeed do not find John hereafter.5 We can see a clear transition from 3:22-36 to 4:1-3. The theme under discussion in both places are baptizing ministry. In 3:26 John’s disciples complain that many are going to Jesus whose number exceeds that of those who come to John. In John 4, vv. 1-3 are linked with the first three chapters and is preceded by the evangelist’s report about Jesus’ decision to pass through Samaria, ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας (v. 4). From chapter 4 onwards, the evangelist presents Jesus as the main protagonist.6 We can see that vv. 1-3 serve here as transitional verses and implicitly portray the mounting up of Jesus as the protagonist, in the reminder of the gospel text.7 4 5

6

7

See Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium, 150. John’s first testimony about Jesus marks the beginning of Jesus mission in 1:29ff. In 10:40-41, the mission of John is recapped (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 1:19ff; 10:40-41) “He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and he remained there. Many came to him, and they were saying, ‘John performed no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true’” (10:40-41). In other words, after John’s final testimony about Jesus in 3:30-36, he is not carrying out any mission. See Moser, Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium, 52. In the context of John’s baptizing ministry in 1:19ff, the evangelist reports the Pharisees’ questioning of John with the overtone of a power conflict. In 4:1ff, the evangelist again cites the Pharisees that they came to know about Jesus success, πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει which is presented as the immediate reason for Jesus’ leaving Judea and returning to Galilee. We noticed that 3:22 reports about the baptizing ministry of Jesus and his disciples and 4:1 speaks about Jesus huge success in making disciples and baptizing. It is to be noted that nowhere else in the gospel of John is the baptizing action of Jesus reported except in 3:26 (4:1). Moreover, 3:26 and 4:1 are evidently related, however, 4:2 provides some sort of correction or clarification with regard to who actually carried out the baptizing activity. (“Although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized”, 4:2). These differences invited perennial debate in scholarship. Haenchen, John, 217, rightly remarks that up to here the connection between 3:22-36 and 4:1-3 is well formulated. This internal incoherence between 3:22ff and 4:2 has invited sharp criticism in scholarship. Some scholars consider that these inconsistencies are due to a gloss. See Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 128, Barrett, John, 249; Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 458. According to Brown, John, 164, it presents an indisputable evidence that several hands were involved in the composition of the fourth gospel, more specifically

96

CHAPTER 3

In addition, vv. 1-3 reflect the crisis that the action of Jesus generated between himself and the leaders of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Jesus’ reason for leaving Judea for Galilee.8 The evangelist reports in 4:1 that Jesus has had greater success than John which he pinpoints as the reason for Jesus’ travel. The evangelist attributes the departure simply to the decision of the Lord.9 Schnackenburg explains that “the evangelist explains Jesus’s departure from Judea as withdrawal at the face of the Pharisees. Learning that the Pharisees had already heard of his success, he breaks of his activity and leaves”.10 For H. N. Ridderbos “Jesus saw himself forced to return to Galilee when he learned about the hostility of the Pharisees, hostility occasioned by the large numbers of people coming to him to be baptized and to be his disciples, even more than had come to John”.11 He adds that however, this does not mean that the Pharisees are coming into good terms with John but rather they find Jesus more dangerous than John that Jesus’ words and actions threatened their authority.12 The growing influence of Jesus over John evoked problems from the part of the Pharisees toward Jesus who is already under suspicion due to Jesus’ words and actions depicted in the previous chapters.13 The evangelist presents this issue as the immediate cause for Jesus’ ἀφιέναι the territory of Judea and return (ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν) to Galilee. R. Bultmann notes that the reason for Jesus’ journey everywhere except here is a festival or festive occasion. But in

8

9

10

11 12 13

the use of καίτοιγε in 4:2. Ridderbos asks why this note occurs here and not in 3:22, 26 to which 4:1 is evidently related”. He explains that from the context of 3:22ff. one can find that the evangelist depicts Jesus’ baptizing activity as being superior to John’s. More specifically, this seems to be so, in the light of the issue presented before John by his disciples which is occasioned by John’s testimony about Jesus and also carries similar overtones that Jesus is greater than John. See Ridderbos, John, 143, 153. We will not here enter into a further analysis of this issue since our research is premised upon the literary unity of the fourth gospel. We would only note that 3:22; 4:1-2 are not denying Jesus’ role as the main protagonist in the Samaritan mission. It is not the disciples or John, or the Pharisees who decide the next mission and itinerary of Jesus. And in the following, the evangelist reports that Jesus has to ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας. We will discuss further about the meaning and function of in 4:4 in the following. It is to be noted that such problems are not reported in chapter 4 but from chapter 5 onwards the crisis due to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is on the increase. See Moser, Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium, 53. There is a text-critical problem pertaining to Lord, in 4:1. For detailed discussions, see Van Belle, “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ or ἸΗΣΟΥΣ in John 4,1?,” 153-186. Schnackenburg, John, 1.420, notes that “[T]he suspicious Pharisees must have been greatly troubled to see Jesus winning more candidates and more followers than John”. Ridderbos, John, 152. See Ridderbos, John, 152. See also Brant, John, 82. See for instance, Jn 2:13-24; 3:1-2; 22-26.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

97

this passage the evangelist depicts that Jesus leaves Judea due to “the jealousy of the Pharisees, occasioned by the success of his baptizing, which makes him take measures for his safety”.14 He travels to Galilee. Bultmann adds that “Jesus never purposely chose out Samaria for his ministry”.15 Schnackenburg explains that the evangelist presents Jesus as the one who performs the words and actions as the Father has fixed for him (cf. 2:4) and presumably thinks that Jesus is trying to avoid for the present conflict”.16 In the light of our above discussion, we can see the implications of vv. 1-3 in their immediate context and in the broader context of the gospel of John as follows. The evangelist depicts a new phase, viz., the growing influence of Jesus’ words and actions, the mounting of Jesus as the protagonist and the authorities of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι switch their gaze toward Jesus due to his growing success. Precisely, Jesus leaves Judea to Galilee due to this new atmosphere of suspicion with a hostile attitude from the part of the authorities of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.17 In other words, vv. 1-3 carry the overtones of power-conflict between Jesus and the authorities of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Thus, 4:1-3 serve as a transition from the previous three chapters, which conclude with John’s final testimony concerning Jesus (3:28-36) where John ranks Jesus as greater than himself. It can implicate that now on it is not John but rather Jesus who is the protagonist of the gospel and that hereafter John does not come to the fore in the fourth gospel. In addition to that vv. 1-3 marked with the overtones of a conflict of power due to the lack of acceptance from the part of the Pharisees of Jesus’ work. Thus, in the context of this atmosphere of conflict, the evangelist presents as to why Jesus passes through Samaria with the use of δεῖ.

14 15 16

17

Bultmann, John, 176. Also he notes that this motif occurs in 7:1. Bultmann, John, 176. Schnackenburg, John, 1.420. We will discuss the theme of Jesus’ works in confirmation to the Father’s will in a later step. In 4:34 the evangelist explicitly presents through the lips of Jesus “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work”. As we have mentioned above, Bultmann rightly notes that Jesus’ journey everywhere except here is a festival or festive occasion. See Bultmann, John, 176. Jesus saw himself forced to return to Galilee when he learned about the hostility of the Pharisees, hostility occasioned by the large numbers of people coming to him even more than had come to John. “This probable means not that the Pharisees sided with John against Jesus but that they regarded Jesus as even more dangerous to their authority than John”. In the light 7:1ff Ridderbos adds that Jesus’ return trip to Galilee is motivated by concern for his safety. In order to minimize the potential damage’ from the part of the Pharisees Jesus decides to leave Judea and travels to Galilee. See Ridderbos, John, 143, 153. Brant adds that the narrative of the Samaritan episode “moves through a topography of potential conflict by having him leave Judea (4:1-3). Brant, John, 82.

98

CHAPTER 3

2. JESUS HAD

TO

(ἔδει) PASS

THROUGH

SAMARIA (JOHN 4:4)

We discuss, in the following, the employment of δεῖ in v. 4 and the implications of the use of this word for understanding Jesus’ journey through Samaria. As per the narration, “what is about to take place in Samaria is not the purpose of the journey”18 that the evangelist reports that ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας (4:4) However, John provides the rationale for the journey in vv. 1-3 and adds that Jesus chose to travel through Samaria due to some sort of necessity (δεῖ). In the following, we examine first the meaning and implications of the use of this word δεῖ and then discuss its use in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode. 2.1. The Meaning and Implications of δεῖ In the following, we first examine the literary implications of the use of δεῖ with respect to its meaning in general, both in similar contexts elsewhere and in Jn 4:4 in particular. In general, δεῖ expresses the meaning of a necessity or a must. This can be explained on two levels: a) concerning the sphere of life in which the force is exercised and b) concerning a power which exercises a force that human persons cannot avoid and thus results in a necessity. This force could be the force of a law, a custom, a situation in life, a professional obligation or a superior event to which persons must resign themselves. It raises the question of whether this force is exercised by a personal God or an impersonal ‘destiny’ or geographical necessity.19 2.1.1. δεῖ in Different Lexica In light of these preliminary remarks we may examine the meaning of δεῖ in John 4:4, with the help of the different Greek-English lexica. We will focus on analyzing the commonly accepted meanings of δεῖ namely, as referring to (i) divine/theological necessity; (ii) geographical necessity; (iii) the specific explanation for imperfect ἔδει (if any); and (iv) the explanation of ἔδει for which Jn 4:4 is cited as example for that particular meaning. In a broader sense, δεῖ refers to something that ought to have been done and it may be applied in a variety of different forms and situations. In addition to this, δεῖ is used to show a need with the sense of some moral 18 19

Ridderbos, John, 153. cf. vv. 1-3, 4. See Fascher, Theologische Beobachtungen zu δεῖ, 228.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

99

obligation.20 W. Grundmann finds that in the NT δεῖ is used mainly in line with the religious and ethical explanations (Lk 13;14; 22:27) but also notes instances of δεῖ (1 Thes 4:1; Tit 1:7) where the will of God is made known to the believing community.21 In BAG, δεῖ in general tends to express: it is necessary, one must or has to, denoting compulsion of any kind.22 It may refer to (i) divine destiny or unavoidable fate (Mt 17:10; Mk 9:11; 13:7; Lk 4:43; Jn 3:14, 30; 9:4; etc.); (ii) the compulsion of duty (Mt 18:33; Lk 2:49; 15:32); (iii) the compulsion of law/custom (Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42); (iv) an inner necessity, growing out of a given situation (Mt 26:35; Mk 14:31; Jn 4:4); (v) a compulsion caused by the necessity of attaining a certain result (Lk 12:12; 19:5) and (vi) the compulsion of having to do what is fitting.23 This final sense can mean either that something that happened should by all means have happened (Lk 15:32; 22:7; 24:26; Jn 4:4) or that what did not take place really should take place (Mt 18:33; 23:23).24 The second revised edition of Bauer, BADG made no changes in the explanation of δεῖ. But the third edition, the lexicon now known as BDAG, drops the meaning ‘divine necessity’ and presents a modified explanation for δεῖ. According to BDAG, the changes were necessary because no strict classification is possible due to the multifunctional adaptability of the term, especially in colloquial discourses.25 The following explanation is given in place of the former divine necessity: to be under necessity of happening, it is necessary, one must, one has to, denoting compulsion of any kind; of that which takes place because of circumstances or inner necessity, with the context determining the cause with the same examples cited in BAG for the divine necessity. However, in all three editions BAG, BADG and BDAG the meanings attributed to Jn 4:4 remain the same. All three give 20 21

22 23 24

25

See LSJ, 372. See W. Grundmann, “δεῖ,” TDNT 2, 21-25, 21. See also Fascher, “Theologische Beobachtungen zu δεῖ im AT,” 244-252; Fascher, Theologische Beobachtungen zu δεῖ, 232-237. See BAG, 172. See BAG, 172. Louw and Nida, # 71.34, cites Mk 13:7 as one of the examples of the first explanation of δεῖ, which according to BAG, divine destiny. But they think that it basically has the meaning such things must happen and it is impossible to tell in a context like this whether δεῖ implies the mere inevitability of an event or whether the events are somehow part of the plan and purpose of God. Thus for them, δεῖ indicates something, some event that must necessarily take place. However, it is impossible to demonstrate in certain contexts whether the inevitability of an event is due to the plan and purpose of God. See BDAG, 213-214.

100

CHAPTER 3

two explanations of ἔδει in Jn 4:4; namely, that of an inner necessity growing out of a given situation, and something that should happen because of its fittingness, in the sense that something that happened by all means should have happened, as expressed by the imperfect ἔδει.26 Does this suggest an urging within Jesus; i.e., in the will of Jesus? In fact, in the Samaritan episode Jesus compares his food with doing the will of God during his conversation with his disciples (Jn 4:34). From these discussions we can deduce that the use of ἔδει in 4:4 signals a compulsion that necessitates a specific action or decision. With regard to these explanations, divine necessity is not listed as a lexical meaning. δεῖ does not have divine necessity as a lexical meaning rather lexica are open for it in the respective context. In the following section, we examine the use of δεῖ in Jn 4:4 and in its immediate context of 4:1-42 paying attention to the historical-geographical and literarytheological background of its use so as to bring out its meaning. 2.1.2. δεῖ in John 4:4 and in the Immediate Context John presents Jesus’ Samaritan visit as a necessity by employing ἔδει (4:4 – “He had to pass through Samaria”), without, however, giving any specific indication as to what the necessity was. Is this necessity geographical or theological? First, it could be a geographical necessity because the shortest route from Judea to Galilee was through Samaria. However, it is presumed that the majority of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι took another alternative route in order to avoid contact with Samaritans27, a point we will discuss later on.28 However, we are brought to a second aspect of this necessity as we anlyse the Samaritan episode further. Overtones of necessitating situations/reasons come back in v. 34, where Jesus proclaims “my food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work”. The phrase ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to do the will of him who sent me 26 27

28

See BAG, 172; BDAG, 213-214. Scholarship suggests the above explanation regarding the route chosen by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to travel from Judea and Galilee in the light of their analyses of the historical-geographical indications provided in the relevant literature. In the following we discuss this briefly. Such discussions are to be carried out against the background of the references to the Samaritans, mainly in the OT, in the NT and in the writings of Josephus. Such references provide hints about some sort of rupture in the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. We return to this later in this chapter. In section 4.2, we will make a detailed discussion of the level of relationship prevailed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται during in the NT period in detail by examining the scholarship on this theme against the background of the available relevant literature.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

101

in 4:34 is an expression found only in the fourth gospel and is introduced for the first time here in the Samaritan episode. It is to be noted that the Johannine Jesus uses ἔργον to acknowledge the accomplishment of actions. Jesus explicitly stated to the disciples that they do not know his food (my food) ἐμὸν βρῶμα in 4:32 or even still do not attempt to know. The possessive adjective ἐμός is used 29 times in John’s gospel (for instance, 5:30; 6:38; 8:43, 51). All these occurrences except one29 are uttered by Jesus while he is speaking about the one who sent him or about his mission as the sent one.30 Jesus’ explanation about his food in 4:34 in direct relation with the θέλημα of God suggests a deeper meaning. The specific use of the verb βρῶμα with the noun θέλημα gives an added emphasis to the explanation that Jesus’ journey through Samaria is a divine necessity (4:1-4). 31 The use of δεῖ in its context can imply that Jesus’ coming to Samaria as a divine necessity (v. 4) as in v. 34 Jesus declares to his disciples that what is most important for him is to do the will of one who sent him.32 The Samaritan episode is part of fulfilling that will and the Samaritan woman’s actions clearly show her response to this, who sets aside her own concerns and shares her experience with the Samaritans (4:27-30).33 We may conclude, then, that Jesus’ visit to Samaria expresses a divine necessity. So from the beginning of the Samaritan episode, which is the 29

30

31

32

33

In Jn 3:29, ἐμός is used to express the joy of John the Baptist in fulfilling his mission as a witness to Jesus. Jesus explains that his will is the will of his Father, while arguing with Jews who misunderstand his teachings about his father (5:30, 6:38). He claims that the authority behind his teachings (his words) comes from the Father who sent him. Maritz and Van Belle present a detailed study about the imageries of bread and water in the gospel of John. They compare 6:35 with 4:13b-14 and 7:37-39. Their comments on 4:31-34 are based on this discussion. In their view, 4:31-34 deals with two types of food. The disciples think about daily food and Jesus speaks about spiritual food. See Maritz and Van Belle, “The Imagery of Drinking and Eating in John 6:35,” 341-344. Later on in Jn 6:57, the theme of food and dependence on the will of the Father comes back more powerfully. See Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 315. Brown, John, 173, rightly notes that the role undertaken by the Samaritan woman in evangelizing the Samaritans in her city, and thus her role in providing Jesus with food, and holds that this role should be understood to have much importance. See Brown, John, 169. In Jn 3:14 we can see this type of necessity associated with God’s plan to bring all those who believe in Jesus to eternal life. The necessity mentioned in 4:1-4 cannot be a geographical necessity as Jews typically avoided the way through Samaria. Therefore, this necessity must be something of theological purpose. One may find that the encounter with the Samaritan woman and her testimony concern the fulfillment of God’s will. In 4:35-38, Jesus invites the disciples to look and see that the harvest is ready to reap. See chapter 6 for the detailed discussions.

102

CHAPTER 3

only reference to the Samaritan mission by the earthly Jesus in the NT, it is clear that it is not an incidental detail depicted by the evangelist, but rather that Jesus is performing his actions in conformity with the will of God who sent him. δεῖ explains the intrinsic reason for Jesus’ visit to Samaria, though this is not an explanation in itself. Also, Jesus engages in dialogue with the disciples while the Samaritan woman leads the Samaritans to him, and in this dialogue Jesus explains the motivating force behind his actions as the will of God (v. 34).34 Hence, the imperfect ἔδει (v. 4) is of major importance to understand as to why Jesus happened to be passing through Samaritan territory. Employment of δεῖ in v. 4 reminds the reader about its use in 3:14 and frequent use in the Synoptic gospels pertaining to the action of Jesus carrying out the divine plan of salvation.35 2.2. Implications of the Necessity of Jesus In the preceding subsections, we have examined the meaning of the vocabulary δεῖ and what is indicated by its use. In this subsection, we discuss this vocabulary and its use in the Samaritan episode against the background of previous scholarship, which pays considerable attention to the implicit historical-geography in the Samaritan episode pertaining to the itinerary of Jesus. Scholars such as C. K. Barrett and R. Bultmann, explain that the necessity expressed through the use of ἔδει is primarily geographical due to the fact that the fastest route to travel between Judea and Galilee is through Samaria.36 One could take any of the several routes to travel back and forth between Judea and Galilee, viz., near the seacoast, through Perea, and through Samaria. The Galileans, as per their custom, when they travelled to their holy city (Jerusalem) at the festivals usually take the route through the country of the Samaritans. Josephus notes that when travelling from Galilee to Jerusalem, for those who would want to go quickly, passing through that country (Samaria) is an absolute necessity due to the fact this road makes it possible for the travellers to reach their destination in just 34

35 36

Jesus’ reply to the disciples is depicted in 4:34-38. Hence, the above discussion on food and the work of Jesus and the will of God will not be complete without examining 4:35-38. One of the important issues to be studied here is Jesus’ reference to ἄλλοι as those who worked in Samaria. In the next chapter we will discuss this in detail. See Ridderbos, John, 153. See Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 129; Barrett, John, 249. Scholars such as Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 458 and Schnelle, Evangelium nach Johannes, 98, follow these explanations.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

103

three days.37 However, from the literary geographical indications, it is clear that Jesus is not travelling to Jerusalem but travels from Judea (Aenon near Salim, cf. 3:22ff) to Galilee. We can ask, then, if it is due to the growing enmity toward Jesus’ actions, why he should take this socalled shortest route during every other journey due to the fact that he has to face more severe problems in the trips hereafter. According to Bernard unlike other instances of ἔδει in John (2:4; 3:14), in 4:4 it does not stand for any sort of divine necessity.38 M. Theobald explains that if Jesus chooses the route through Samaria because he is in a hurry to reach Galilee, he will have no time to engage in dialogues. Hence, the more probable reason can be “die heilsgeschichtliche Notwendigkeit, dass sich der Retter der Welt (4,42)”.39 He adds that, “Zunächst” muss “Jesus die Grenze zu den Samaritanern überschreiten und auch ihnen das Heil bringen. Das Geheimnis der in Gottes Hand liegenden Zeit durchwaltet die ganze Vita Jesu”.40 J.-A. Brant notes that although one may find that there are longer routes to travel to Galilee from Judea, Jesus passes through the quickest route yet because he stays for two days in Samaria he does not “seem to be driven by the goal of reaching his next destination quickly”.41 For some other scholars, on the other hand, it was customary for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to travel through the Transjordan because they had so much aversion toward the Samaritans. Hence, they suggest that ἔδει implies some sort of divine necessity and is not due to geographical reasons. Scholars like R. E. Brown and B. Olsson also give prominence to the theological necessity due to the employment of ἔδει in 4:4.42 For D. A. Carson, the route depicted in v. 4 is “normally followed by Jewish travellers heading north from Judea to Galilee” and “passed through Samaria”. He continues: “Geography therefore dictated that Jesus had to go through Samaria when he embarked on the three-day walk to Galilee. The only alternative was to cross the Jordan near Jericho, travel north up the east bank (the Transjordan) through largely Gentile territory, and cross back to the west bank near the Lake of Galilee.” 43 Carson explains that “Jesus’ travel arrangements cannot 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

See Jos., Ant. 20.6.1; Jos., Life, 269. Bernard, John, 134. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 298-299. He further substantiates the above explanation with an excursus about Samaria. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 299. Brant, John, 82. See Brown, John, 145; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 162. Carson, John, 215. While discussing the route chosen by Jesus to travel through Samaria scholars usually provide an overview about the possible routes between Judean and Samaria that one could opt for at the time of the Johannine Jesus. See also Dalman, Heilige Orte und Wege Jesu, 249-256; Jos., Life, 52.269.

104

CHAPTER 3

be marshalled as evidence of divine compulsion”.44 However, he affirms that ἔδει in v. 4 may refer to God’s will for Jesus, and so, his explanation pertaining to the route through which οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι travelled “does not mean to discard the interpretations pertaining to the divine necessity in the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman”. Carson refers to Josephus to develop a nuanced explanation: “Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria”45 Even though it is the shortest route, then, Jesus passes through Samaria according to the will of God (4:34) and not because of the geographical reasons. Beasley-Murray sums up the issue saying, “[i]n this Gospel, however, as in the Synoptics, necessity laid on Jesus generally hints of the divine will for him: he goes through Samaria not only for safety, but to accomplish the work assigned to him by the Father (vv. 32, 34). The mission to the Samaritans was unplanned by Jesus but willed by God.46 Ridderbos explains that the main road from Judea to Galilee is through Samaria, however, travellers usually avoid this road whereas Jesus takes it (cf. Lk. 9:52; 17:11).47 He adds however, that such references do not disregard the other necessity, the deeper necessity which is substantiated at the culmination of the episode (v. 42).48 According to J. Zangenberg, despite of the use of ἔδει, the route indications provided in Jn 4:4 serve as, “den Schauplatz des Folgenden schlüssig einzuführen”.49 According to E. Hanechen vv. 4-9 indicates how Jesus breaks the partition between the two groups of people, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The impact of Jesus’ initiative in the Samaritan episode according to him implicitly reflects Gal 3:28.50 Thus we have seen that scholars discuss the use of ἔδει in v. 4 to provide various explanations such as (i) to indicate the geographical necessity; (ii) to affirm the theological necessity; (iii) as a means to introduce to the location of the next episode, namely Samaria and (iv) to implicate that Jesus breaks the cultural religious boundaries.

44 45

46

47 48 49 50

Carson, John, 216. Carson, John, 216, provides these explanations in the light of the works of Josephus such as Jewish Antiquities, The Life, Jewish War. See Beasley-Murray, John, 59; Brown, John, 169; Schnackenburg, John, 422; Okure, The Johannine Approach, 83-86. See Ridderbos, John, 153. See Ridderbos, John, 153, 171-172. Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 91. See Haenchen, John, 219.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

105

So far, we have discussed the issue raised above pertaining to v. 4 in three steps. Namely, (i) we have considered the meaning of δεῖ, and specifically of ἔδει in the NT, in the light of the discussions in various lexica; (ii) we have discussed this issue in its immediate context, (iii) which has taken us to review briefly the scholarship on this theme addressing various facets of the problem. (iv) We have seen that the purpose of Jesus’ journey through Samaria, in the light of vv. 1-4, emerged out of a certain necessity more likely pertaining to the will of God than to geographical necessity. A major chunk of the analysis in existing scholarship has concerned the socio-religious-cultural background pertaining to the relationship status that prevailed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the time of the Johannine Jesus. Thus, our above analysis inevitably leads us to address the issue of who οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται were, against the background of the indications provided in the Samaritan episode. Moreover, the verses that immediately follow (vv. 5-9) introduce the plot and protagonists of the Samaritan episode and examining them will help us to address this issue.51 The key words employed are Σαμάρεια, Ἰακώβ and Ἰωσήφ (v. 5); πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (v. 6); ὁ Ἰησοῦς, γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας (v. 7); μαθηταί, τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν (v. 8) and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, οἱ Σαμαρῖται, συγχράομαι (v. 9). Hence, in what follows, we first discuss the plot and the protagonists as depicted in vv. 5-9 and the implications of these verses in the Samaritan episode as a whole. After depicting the rationale and route of Jesus’ return trip from Judea to Galilee through Samaria (vv. 1-4), the evangelist portrays the location or plot of the Samaritan episode in vv. 5-6 and the following verses (vv. 7-9) and introduces the meeting of the protagonists, viz., Jesus and the Samaritan woman. 3. χωρίον ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ Ἰωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ AND πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (JOHN 4:5-6) The evangelist depicts the location of Jesus’ arrival in Samaria in vv. 56.52 Jesus comes to Samaria, Συχάρ, πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ Ἰωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ (v. 5) and he sits at πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (v. 6): ὥρα 51

52

In 4:9, the response of the Samaritan woman provides some important indications concerning this topic of discussion. As per the narrative in vv. 5-6, Jesus comes to Samaria, “into the vicinity of the Sychar, whose position is described as being close to the field that Jacob gave to Joseph.” See Bultmann, John, 177.

106

CHAPTER 3

ἦν ὡς ἕκτη. In the following, we briefly discuss the implications of the depiction of Sychar and Jacob’s well by the evangelist in light of the references to the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph.53 3.1. Jacob’s Land and the Well given to Joseph’s Sons In vv. 5-6, the evangelist employs the historic past and provides “the impression that one is watching the action unfold in present time. He comes to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the piece of land that Jacob gave his son Joseph (v. 5). The narrative then zooms in on a precise spot, making it clear that the setting is significant”54 (v. 6 – “Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon”). Knoppers explains that the well of Jacob, where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:5-6), should be an important site for both groups, though it is “not specifically mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 33:18)”.55 From the OT it is evident that Jacob and Joseph are two patriarchs. However, it is to be noted that neither the place name Sychar nor the well of Jacob is attested in the OT, in the other NT books56 or in any other relevant literature.57 Scholars cannot identify the exact places of this well in Samaria from the available historical-geographical data 53

54 55

56

57

John indicates that “Jesus is in the territory that Jacob gave to his son Joseph”. Byrne, Life Abounding, 81. See Brant, John, 82. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 2-3. Cf. Josh 24:32 – “They buried the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt, at Shechem, in the piece of ground which Jacob had bought”. Knoppers underlines that the two groups, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, trace their pedigree back to Jacob/Israel. Samaritans believe themselves to be descendants of the northern tribes of Joseph, descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Judeans believe themselves to be descendants of the southern tribes, “most notably from Jacob’s progeny of Judah”. Bultmann, John, 177. Bultmann finds that Sychar “appears to be attested in the Rabbinic literature”. Yet recent scholarship has corrected the understanding about the dating of these textual materials that was prevalent in previous scholarship, showing that they are of a much later origin than the NT period. Thus, we will not consider them here. As mentioned above, scholars have been unable to identify Sychar and the well of Jacob in the light of the attestations before the turn of the era. However, they tend to locate Sychar near the modern Aksar which is opposite to Mount Gerizim and lies on the shoulder of Mount Ebal. Jacob’s well, on this view lies about half a mile to the south of Aksar. As per the narrative the town lies near the plot of land which Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Scholars have also noted another important implication of the location of the present day Aksar: namely that it lies in the neighborhood of Shechem (now Balata) and that Joseph’s tomb lies close by Jacob’s well. A reference to Σακίρ (king of Sakir) in the Book of Jubilee 34:4 and a similar but deformed reference (Μαχήρ) from the Testament of Judah 6:3 also cited in this respect. See Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 64, 75, 237, 316.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

107

and indications.58 Descriptions of the location in these verses, according to Bultmann, evidently assume that the audiences have knowledge of this location, Sychar and Jacob’s well. When the well of Jacob is presented as “the central feature of the narrative it would be natural to choose an important well”59 which would be well known to the readers. In addition, v. 11 gives the impression that there are no other wells in the neighborhood to draw water from, except the well of Jacob.60 Such informations and indications provided by the evangelist imply that this locale and the landmark are known to his readers. Moreover, the fact that the central point of the setting of the Samaritan episode is this well of Jacob at Sychar invites further discussion: for the evangelist cites the name of the two patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph at the beginning of the Samaritan episode alongside the description about the well and the place name Sychar. We ask: What could be the evangelist’s intention in indicating this setting and the names cited against the background of the Johannine Jesus’ unique visit to Samaria? We briefly survey some discussions in scholarship pertaining to this issue. 3.2. Jacob and Joseph: Patriarchs of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται We discuss here the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the light of the references to their patriarchs Jacob and Joseph in vv. 5-6. More specifically, we will examine how scholarship have interpreted this issue in the light of a few available literature dated before the turning of the era and contemporary to the NT period. Among the many fragmentary scrolls discovered around Khibert Qumran, one work, namely the 4Q Narrative and Poetic composition61, specifically, 58

59 60

61

The specifications given in vv. 5-6 such as the place of Sychar in Samaria is introduced as Συχὰρ πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ (v. 5) and that Jacob’s well was there (v. 6) indicate the importance of Jacob’s well. See Förster, “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42), 205-206; Schenke, “Jakobsbrunnen – Josephsgrab – Sychar,” 181-184; von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s Gospel,” 558. Bultmann, John, 177. See Bultmann, John, 177. In the light of his explorations on the geographical settings of the narrative of the Samaritan episode, Bultmann locates Jacob’s well in the following way: “For this lies on the main highway running south to north from Jerusalem to Galilee, and is near the place where the main road was joined by the road to West Galilee”. 4Q Narrative and Poetic Composition is an elongated literary work in five extant manuscripts. See Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” RevQ 55 (1990): 349-376, 350; Schuller and Bernstein, “4QNarrative and Poetic Composition,” 151-204; Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 381-382.

108

CHAPTER 3

the fragment 4Q372 1 (the so-called Text about Joseph), focuses on Joseph. It consists of just thirty two lines. In the first part, the narrative section (lines 1-15a) Joseph is referred to twice and in the remaining part, the poetic section, he is presented as the one who utters lines 15b-32.62 This fragment seems to intend “on the one hand to exhibit a sympathetic attitude to Joseph, and on the other hand to oppose a group that is laying claim to the legacy of Joseph”.63 Such allusions to the Samaritans found in fragment 4Q372 1 have been further analysed by scholars and it has been argued that this text contains a polemic against the Samaritans and their cult at the temple on Mt. Gerizim.64 M. Kartveit explains that the return of the northern tribes to the land of Joseph is indicated in this fragment.65 Scholars have examined the indications and allusions in 4Q372 1 against the background of the OT and highlighted some parallel references. The most important is Ps 78 (cf. Deut 32) and 4Q372 1.66 The dating of Ps 78 is debated, viz., whether it is pre-exilic or post-exilic. In a postexilic setting, the theme of “Israel’s rejection becomes less important than the polemics of the nascent Jewish community, directed against the long established Samaritan community”.67 If that is the case, then both 4Q372 1 and Ps 78 are clearly critical of the Samaritans.68 Nonetheless, even if it is written after exile, it must have contributed greatly to the polemic directed against the Samaritans.69 In Ps 78, the fate of the tribe of Joseph is presented as an unending rejection and the restoration of these tribes is not anticipated.70 A majority of scholars think that the vocabulary Joseph 62

63

64

65 66

67

68 69 70

Among the five manuscripts, 4Q372 1 is the largest fragment in 4Q Narrative and Poetic Composition. Due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts scholars have found it impossible to relate 4Q372 1 convincingly to the rest of the work. See Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” 350; Schuller and Bernstein, “4QNarrative and Poetic Composition,” 151-204; Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 381-382. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran, 112; Schuller “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” 374. Josephus’ writings also reflect a similar or even the same idea that the Samaritans trace their ancestral line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. See Jos., Ant., 9.291; 11.341. See for instance, Zangenberg, Σαμαρεία, 332-333, Schuller “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” 374. See Kartveit, The origin of the Samaritans, 168-171. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 19-20; Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 384-388. On the theme of rejection and the fate of Joseph, see for instance, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, 291; Knowles, “The Flexible Rhetoric of Retelling,” 241-243. See Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 386. See Carroll, “Vestiges of a Tribal Polemic,” 147. See Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 388; Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” 374-375. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 19.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

109

found in this text designates the exiled northern tribes and their descendants.71 In this light, Schuller argues that “4Q372 1 is a specifically antiSamaritan text, that is directed against the Jewish community around Shechem with its cultic centre at Mount Gerizim”.72 She adds that this literary evidence depicts Joseph not in order to show his significance as a son of Jacob, but to implicate the northern kingdom of Israel.73 Though Thiessen agrees with the interpretation that 4Q372 1 contains negative references to the Samaritans, he differs from Schuller. In his view, the main purpose of this work is not to mount a polemic against the Samaritans, but it is formulated as a message to the southern tribes (Levi, Judah, and Benjamin). Concerning the northern tribes (Joseph) they are still under God’s punishment, and that the deliverance promised in Deuteronomy 32 has yet to materialize. Thiessen concludes that whatever the sort of polemic found in 4Q372 1, it is not directed against the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim, but against the theology espoused in the south.74 From the above discussion of 4Q372 1 against the background of the OT references, specifically Ps 78, we are confronted with two sorts of interpretations: that it shows that (i) the fate of Joseph as an utter rejection of God and (ii) their

71

72

73 74

In addition, this idea lingers through the other relevant literature either implicitly or explicitly. Even though Josephus’ work and other later literature reflect the Samaritans’ self-understanding or claim to be the descendants of the tribe of Joseph, they are depicted with negative overtones. We will discuss the writings of Josephus against the background of the issue of the relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the time of the Johannine Jesus. Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” 374-375. The “[t]ext about Joseph represents Jewish polemics against the Samaritans or proto-Samaritans and … its implied message is [that] Joseph is really in exile, the Samaritan claim to be descendants of Joseph is spurious, other interpretations arc also possible” . Among the authors who agree with Schuller’s interpretation that this is an anti-Samaritan text see Eshel, “The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on Αργαριζιν,” 127-128; Knibb, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” 164-170. Other authors admit that at least there are anti-Samaritan statements in the text, but they see the overall aim differently, see Kugler, “Joseph at Qumran: The Importance of 4Q 372 Frag. 1,” 274; Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 380-395. Schuller “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” 371. One may interpret 4Q372 1 in this light due to that fact that such a usage is strongly supported elsewhere. (Cf. Ps 77:16; 78:67; 80:2; 81:5; Amos 5:6, 15; 6:6; Ezek 37:15-23; Zech 10:6-10; the Pseudepigraphical work T Naph. 5-6). See Martínez, “Nuevos Textos no Bíblicos procedentes de Qumran,” 121-22; Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” 381. See Schuller “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” 371. Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,” 395, adds that “the fate of the descendants of Joseph was unrelated to the fate of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin. 4Q372 1, with the help of Deut 32, demonstrates that Ps 78 cannot be read as God’s utter rejection of the northern tribes. While they remain in exile, their full restoration is yet to come, even for those currently in the land”.

110

CHAPTER 3

restoration has yet to come. Pummer’s conclusion on 4Q372 1 is noteworthy at this juncture: namely, he holds that this fragment reflects hostility towards Samaritans, provided that Schuller’s interpretation of the reference to fools and the high mountain is right.75 Research on 3Q15 (the Copper Scroll) sheds some light on the nature of the two versions of Pentateuch (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται).76 Even though the date and authenticity of this scroll have been debated, there is a majority consensus that it is from 68 CE and that it is an authentic version.77 A group of people who are called fools is mentioned in lines 11-12 and they are said to have built a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel’s jealousy. Scholars pay attention to the word used to address this group of people, fools, and some have suggested that it can be a reminiscent of Sir 50:25-26.78 Pummer explains that “if the polemic is indeed directed against the Samaritans, the hostility may come only from the sectarians in Qumran rather than from the general Jewish population”.79 In the light of the discussions on column 12, lines 4-5 of 3Q15, it has been suggested that the Mt. Gerizim discussed here may refer to the location identified in later texts.80 Further examinations of such documents in relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch and the beliefs and practices of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι have highlighted the Samaritans’ claims found in the literature from later periods.81 Knoppers makes a detailed analysis of the MT, LXX and 75

76 77 78

79

80

81

For a similar discussion see research on 4QPrEstherd ar 1 (cf., 4Q550c), see J. T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân, “ RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321-406, 344-345. For Milik, it expresses some sort of hostility of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. For a critical discussion of Milik’s proposals see White-Crawford, “Has Esther been found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther Corpus,” 307-325. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 21-23, concludes that it is impossible to verify for certain whether or not the above explanation about the element of hostility between Judean and Samaritans is correct. He adds that if it is correct, this would be the only writing from Dead Sea Scrolls that expresses hostility toward Samaritans. See Puech, The Copper Scroll Revisited, 115-144. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll 3QI5, 409-412. Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” 374-375. We have already discussed above Sir 50:25-26 against the background of the issue of relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. See Pummer, Early Christian Authors, 86; Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 19. See Wolters, “Apocalyptic and the Copper Scroll,” 291-292. For a different view Eshel and Safrai, “The Copper Scroll,” 7-20; Magen, “The First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim,” 157-212. Due to the extremely fragmentary nature of the above discussed literature one cannot determine either the author(s) of the text or even its precise contents. Moreover, these fragments do not belong to the Samaritan mileu. Hence, one cannot depend only on any conclusion drawn from these fragments concerning the relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. With this note, we intend to refer to the discussions in

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

111

Samaritan Pentateuch and underlines that the Pentateuch shared by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται “was ultimately a compromise document, a work that could (and did and does) function as scripture for both communities”. He finds that the reasons for the violence between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are more likely the centralization legislation in Deuteronomy and references to and related to descriptions of the northern cultic campaigns in Chronicles and Kings. Knoppers argues against Magen that there is no evidence for Samaritans worshipping foreign deities at Mt. Gerizim.82 There were some pre-Samaritan versions of the Pentateuch found among the biblical fragments from Qumran.83 In light of further analysis, it is now generally accepted that the Scripture of the Samaritans, namely, the Samaritan Pentateuch took shape “in the second/first centuries BCE. Although the earliest extant manuscripts of it are approximately a millenium more recent, the text must have come into being much earlier”.84 In the light of research on this theme, scholars affirm that the Samaritans’ characteristic beliefs “were formed two hundred years before Josephus”.85 This evidence reveals how antagonistic Josephus’ portrayal of the Samaritans in his writings really was. But why does Josephus never mention the Samaritan Pentateuch in his writings? Two possible answers are that either he was not aware of this literature or deemed it to be insignificant. Thus the recent studies on such literatures have helped the scholars to find that “the text of the Samaritans’ Pentateuch is almost identical to that of the Jewish Pentateuch”.86 One can deduce that this near consensus further emphasizes the common ancestry and kinship between the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Moreover, we find

82

83

84 85

86

scholarship that pay attention to references pertaining to the Samaritans, and even allusions to such implicit depictions. We will not elaborate such discussions here, since it is not the focus of this paper and beyond the scope of this research. Magen discusses Deut 13:13-17 to explain the breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. “[s]coundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known, (Deu 13:13). See Magen, “The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan,” 25-29. See 4QpaleoExodm (Exodus) and 4QNumb (Numbers); Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch, 69-87. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 23. Specifically, the people who worshipped God at Mt. Gerizim are not οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. But they claim the ancient Israelite traditions beginning from Abraham, who built the first altar at Shechem (Gen. 12:6-7). Anderson, “Samaritans,” 940-947; Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch, 81-98 argues that the formation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which took place at about the same time as the destruction of the temple by J. Hyrcanus I, marks the definitive split between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. See Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch, 239-247. After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, London Polyglot’s seventeenth century identification of 6,000 differences between these two versions (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται) is outdated.

112

CHAPTER 3

overtones of breach in considering the relevant literature and not a single evidence of friendly associations between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. It is to be noted that though there is no clear evidence of hostility among them, we are confronted with several depictions and/or references in the literature pertaining to the breach between them. In light of our above discussion, we propose that the reference to Jacob and Joseph in vv. 5-6 (or in other words the implication that the well and land are given to Joseph’s tribes by Jacob)87 is meant only to make clear the importance of Jesus’ words and actions in Samaria to reverse the hostility and repair the breach. There are repeated references to Jacob (vv. 5, 6, 12) and, in v. 5 the patriarch Joseph is also referred.88 We can find the self-definition of the Samaritans as the descendants of the two sons of Joseph not only in this narrative description but also elsewhere testified through the first centuries of the Common Era (the time of the NT books). Josephus writes that the Samaritans claim that they are in the ancestral line of these patriarchs; specifically, that they are the descendants of Joseph.89 It is interesting to note that he presents both a broadly and a narrowly circumscribed geographical area, in which the former includes Samaria and the latter excludes it from Judea.90 In antiquity, peoples and their land were organically connected.91 According to H.G. Kippenberg “Josephs Grab, das von früh an bei Sichem lokalisiert ist, wird von den Samar. hoch verehrt. Zugleich gilt Joseph als der Stamm, zu dem sich die Samar. rechnen”.92 This area is understood as the property of the tribes of Ephraim 87

88

89 90

91

92

It is to be noted that there is a brief description of the people of Jacob and tribes of Joseph in Ps 78:67-71. In John there is one more reference to another forefather, Abraham (cf. Jn 8:30-58: precisely, in the nine verses there are eleven references to the name Abraham; 8:33, 37, 39, 40, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58). It is interesting to note that in John, other than the Samaritan episode (chapter 4), the only occasion where Samaritans are mentioned is in chapter 8 (v. 48). In addition to that in 8:30-45 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι avers that they are the descendants of Abraham while they implicitly assert that the Samaritans are not descendants of Abraham but the sons of the devil. In 8:48, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι call Jesus a Σαμαρίτης with a view to offend him. See Jos., Anti., 9.14.3. See Jos., Anti., 13.50; Jos., J.W., 2.43; 2:95-96; 2.247. Cohen rightly explains that “the writings of Josephus show that Judaea is the name both of the entire land of Israel, including its districts Idumaea, Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea, and also of a specific district, Judaea, in contrast with the other districts Idumaea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea”. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 72; Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, 21; Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 418-420. See Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 98; Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, II.1.123. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 255.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

113

and Manasseh. As we know from the OT Ephraim and Manasseh are the sons of the patriarch Joseph. What is indicated and implied by mentioning the relationship of the Samaritans with these patriarchs? Our brief discussion of vv. 5-6 has shown that the references to the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph and the importance assigned to this locale as the meeting place of Jesus and the Samaritan woman imply that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are descendants of the same patriarch while they are not willing to accept this kinship.93 Thus, we can see that the evangelist through this setting of the context, seems to assert the common ancestral link, viz., the patriarchs. Thus, in addition to the hint given to us in v. 4 due to ἔδει, we are confronted with a second indication of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the introductory section of the Samaritan episode. Our discussions so far (of vv. 1-6) thus call for a further, more thorough consideration of the relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the time of the Johannine Jesus, which is one of the major issues to be addressed in our research hypothesis.94

4. THE TWO PROTAGONISTS MEET: JESUS, A Ἰουδαῖος, AND A Σαμαρῖτις After indicating the location and time of the episode in vv. 5-6, the evangelist portrays the first protagonist, Jesus, as weary and tired. “Jesus’ humanity, his vulnerability to the body’s needs for sleep, food, and water, and perhaps more important, the need for a body to occupy space,”95 is explicitly marked. Also the time references reflect the middle of the day, and one would expect Jesus “to be tired and thirsty”.96 Appropriately, 93

94

95

96

See Förster, “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42),” 208. Scholars discuss vv. 5-9 and explain that the evangelist indicates the problematic relationship or division which then existed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Our hypothesis is that there are elements of reconciling love and perhaps even the depiction of loving the enemies in a unique manner in the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:142). We begin with discussing how the evangelist depicts the mode of relationship that exists between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the beginning of the Samaritan episode. The majority of recent scholars highlight the weariness of Jesus depicted in v. 6 in order to emphasize how John depicts the humanness of Jesus. See for instance, Carson, John, 217; Brant, John, 82; Ridderbos, John, 153, 171-172. They argue against the interpretation that the Johannine Jesus is depicted as “God striding upon the earth”. Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus, 8-9. Bultmann, John, 177. It is to be noted that v. 12 also mentions about Jacob’s well.

114

CHAPTER 3

then, the following verses present Jesus’ asking for water to the second protagonist, the Samaritan woman, and her first response to him (vv. 7-9). In the following we first discuss briefly, vv. 7-8, the context of Jesus asking for water, δός μοι πεῖν to the Samaritan woman in v. 7, paying due attention also to the additional information provided in v. 8 that the disciples had already left the scene. Next, we discuss the response of the Samaritan woman toward the above request in v. 9a-b. We examine the implications of her response (Πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πιεῖν αἰτεῖς, οὔσης γυναικὸς Σαμαρείτιδος; v. 9b) in the light of scholarship (on the relevant literature dated before the turn of the era and contemporary to the NT period) pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Finally, we discuss οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις, which we find in quite some important manuscripts while a few others do not have this. As we have mentioned above, a major thrust of our investigation is to understand the indications provided by the evangelist in vv. 7-9 whether implicit or explicit pertaining to the relationship then prevailing between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. 4.1. The Context of δός μοι πεῖν (John 4:7-8) Jesus, one of the two protagonists, sitting at the well is soon joined by the other protagonist, whose entry is presented briefly in v. 7: ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. As we discussed above, ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη in v. 6 indicates the middle of the day. Scholars usually explain that the Samaritan woman came to fetch water (v. 7) at the middle of the day. A general tendency in scholarship is to explain that women at that time came in groups, to draw water either in the morning or in the afternoon. Hence someone coming alone at noon time sounds odd. Schnackenburg comments that “Der Evangelist hält sich bei solchen Fragen nicht auf” which is a deviation from the long standing above interpretation.97 Theobald adds that ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη is Jesus’ time of arrival at the city (vv. 5-6) and is not cited along with the coming of the Samaritan woman to the well (vv. 7). Hence, he explains that ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη 97

Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 1.461. It is not only in the morning but also at any time of the day that women can come to the well (Gen 12:24 depicts women coming to the well at evening time). Moreover, for a house wife, she must come to fetch water whenever it is needed. Schottroff, “Die Samaritanerin am Brunnen (Joh 4),” 115-132, 122, adds that in this case this woman may be a Wasserträgerin. However, Theobald points to 4:17ff and comments that “Doch damit wird der Text überfordert”. This depiction provides yet more information about the woman.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

115

is cited to depict how exhausted and thirsty Jesus was.98 The majority interpretation does not take into consideration the immediate narrative function of vv. 5-6 and that claims about the common practises of women at the time, used to explain vv. 7-9 is difficult to conceive or to establish.99 Jesus’ gesture initiates a dialogue with the woman as soon as she comes to the well, saying the words δός μοι πεῖν (v. 7) seems to be a narrative technique used by the evangelist.100 This request for water is immediate and abrupt and is structured without conjunctions and participles. Also it is followed by the analepsis by the evangelist in which he reports that the disciple had been to the city (v. 8). Brant opines that the request of Jesus and thus his initiating a conversation with a Samaritan woman at the well will be more shocking for the “Jewish narrative audience”.101 Hence, in her view, vv. 7-8 could have presented another aspect of social tension in antiquity, namely conversation by the side of a well between a man and a woman who are strangers.102 It is to be noted that she is introduced as a woman from Samaria, with reference being made to the city (place name, Sychar) where she comes from. This may imply some sort of peculiarity or distinction for the people from Samaria as a whole. In other words, the vocabulary Σαμαρίτης reflects a distinct group of people (who are not οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and their identity and status is accompanied by the word Samaria/Samaritans). Moreover, in the following (v. 9), the evangelist makes a clear distinction between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the form of the response of the Samaritan woman. However, one notices 98

99

100 101 102

See Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 310, also cites an example from Antiquities 2.257 where Josephus describes the occasion of Moses’ coming to Midian and his meeting with the daughters of Raguel by the side of a well, at noontime. “When he came to the city Midian, which lay upon the Red Sea, and was so denominated from one of Abraham’s sons by Keturah, he sat upon a certain well, and rested himself there after his laborious journey, and the affliction he had been in. It was not far from the city, and the time of the day was noon, where he had an occasion offered him by the custom of the country of doing what recommended his virtue, and afforded him an opportunity of bettering his circumstances. […] There were now come, therefore, to this well seven sisters that were virgins, the daughters of Raguel, a priest, and one thought worthy by the people of the country of great honor.” Jos., Ant., 2.257. See Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 110. See also Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 310. See Wyckoff, “Jesus in Samaria (John 4:4-42), 92. See Brant, John, 83. See Brant, John, 83. It is often held that v. 8 serves the function of preparing for vv. 27-30, and that these verses together affirm that the disciples had left for the city before the Samaritan woman arrived. Also v. 9b and vv. 27-30 reflect the distinction set between a man and woman to engage in conversation. (cf also, v. 9b πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖοι ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης;)

116

CHAPTER 3

another indication in v. 8, aside from the information that Jesus is alone at the well while Samaritan woman enters, namely, the possibility to buy food from a city in Samaria.103 The evangelist specifies the reason for the disciples’ going to the city; ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν. However, one or two disciples would have been sufficient to bring food for Jesus and his disciples. John depicts the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman as carried out in private, undisturbed by the disciples.104 Thus, on the one hand v. 8 implies the possibility of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (the disciples of Jesus) went to buy food from the Samaritans and on the other hand it indicates the evangelist’s intention to show that the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman was done in private and undisturbed by disciples. What would be the implication of this verse for understanding the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται? One may argue that the disciples’ going to the city to buy food from the Samaritans surely reflects some sort of associations that existed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.105 We pay due attention to the elements of commonalities and differences between these two group of peoples in the following. 103

104 105

Bernard, John, 143, notes that “[t]he disciples should buy τροφάς in a Samaritan town shows that the barrier between Jew and Samaritan was not impassable. […] There was continuous traffic of Jews through Samaria – from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Galilee – and it is unlikely, except at moments of intense theological excitement, that a hungry traveler would have scrupled to buy bread in a Samaritan village, or that a Samaritan villager would have scrupled to sell it”. Commonalities between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται according to Knoppers are strong attachment to the land of Israel, common ancestral language, common ancestors – Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebekhah, Jacob and Rachel, Leah; priestly tribe originating in the patriarch Levi; priestly pedigree from the succession of Aaron, Eleazar and Phinehas; the same rituals and festivals; and sharing the same Holy Scriptures namely the Pentateuch and both having similar calendars. Both have their own Synagogues built in the same architecture. See Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 2. See Haenchen, John, 219. Carson, John, 217, explains that “the parenthetical explanation of v. 8 suggests that normally Jesus’ disciples would have helped him draw water, but their absence prompted Jesus to breach social custom (cf. notes below) and ask the Samaritan woman for a drink. That Jesus and his disciples were willing to purchase food from Samaritans betrays a certain freedom from the self-imposed regulations of the stricter sort of Jews, who would have been unwilling to eat food that had been handled by Samaritans. Some foods, however, especially dry foods, were considered less easily defiled than others.” However, Johannine scholars, in general are not paying any specific attention to v. 8 other than its link with v. 27 (disciples returns from the city) and the theme of food (vv. 31-34). In the history of Palestine one of the important elements that adds problems to already conflicting communities/groups of people is each one has their own right for land and religion. In the light of v. 8 we could see that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται do have some relations between them. But they stayed away from each other whenever it is possible. See U. Schnelle, Texte zum Johannesevangelium, Neuer Wettstein:

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

117

4.2. The First Response: Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις (John 4:9ab) The two protagonists of the Samaritan episode meet each other in vv. 7-9 and the first response of the woman protagonist is, πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης (v. 9). This indicates that one is a Ἰουδαῖος and the other is Σαμαρῖτις.106 Brown points out that Jesus’ request to the Samaritan woman for a drink violates the social customs and the Samaritan woman mocks him for that and it was a sort of portraying an inferior status of Jesus.107 In other words, Jesus’ unconventional request in v. 7 is questioned by the conventionalism of the Samaritan woman (v. 9) which reflects the cultic barrier between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Theobald considers that this reply of the Samaritan woman at the very opening of the dialogue indicates the topic the narrative wants to deal with “die Überwindung der Entfremdung zwischen Juden und Samaritanern in der Gefolgschaft Jesu”.108 Jesus crosses geographical boundary and socio-political differences in addition to religious-cultural barriers. It is interesting to note a comment made by R. V. G. Taskers, that even though, in 4:9, the evangelist presents the response of a Samaritan woman toward Jesus, a Samaritan man would have reacted in a similar manner.109 In the following, we examine the implications of the vocabulary Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις. Then, we discuss the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the time of the Johannine Jesus drawing on previous scholarship on the relevant resources dated before the turning of the era and contemporary to the NT period. More specifically, we will discuss the analyses pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the OT, NT and writings of Josephus, specifically, the latter’s Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War.110 We examine how scholarship has interpreted these resources against the background of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.

106

107 108

109 110

Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. 1/2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 187-195. While οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι accuse Jesus of being a Galilean (7:40-52) and a Samaritan (8:48), the Samaritan woman recognizes Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος in 4:9 and Jesus agrees with it in 4:22. Brown, John, 177. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 311. See also Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1.197; Link, Was redest du mit ihr, 186-218. See Tasker, The Gospel according to John, 75. Recent research has found that the available Samaritan literature is reworked and largely late. See for instance, J. D. Purvis, “The Samaritans and Judaism,” 81-98, 8687; Knoppers, “The Search of Post-Exilic Israel: Samaria after the Fall of the Northern Kingdom,” 150-180, 954, 961-966; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans.

118

CHAPTER 3

4.2.1. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: An Overview At the outset it is to be noted that there is no uniformity in scholars’ views as to what is referred to by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and they offer different translations to it. “While some scholars suggest that [Ἰουδαῖοι] referred specifically, to Judeans, recent studies suggest that by the 1st cent. CE, Jew had already acquired a more generalized meaning that included ethnic, geographic, political and religious elements and extended well beyond Judea to include those in Galilee, Samaria and the Diaspora who believed in the God of Israel and/or affiliated themselves to Jerusalem and Judea on religious, political, and/or ethnic grounds”.111 According to BDAG, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are those who identify with the “beliefs, rites, and customs of the adherents of Israel’s Mosaic and prophetic tradition”.112 In the ancient Mediterranean world, the vocabulary οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι denotes one’s ethnicity and one’s place in the imperial politics of the time.113 The term οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι appears seventy times in the fourth gospel, even more than in all the other gospels put together. A. Reinhartz notes that “the seventyfold occurrence of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι blurs the boundaries between and among various Jewish groups”.114 There are two explicit references to Jesus himself as a Ἰουδαῖος by the Samaritan woman in 4:9 and by Pilate in 18:35. However, Jesus or his disciples are not elsewhere directly referred to as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.115 Nevertheless, there are other implicit references as well (e.g., 2:16; 5:1). In 4:22 Jesus himself replies to the Samaritan woman in a contrasting tone, distancing himself (since he belongs to the group of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) from the Samaritans (we – ἡμεῖς). Salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in 4:22 and Jesus, who is υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ (1:45), is presented as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in 4:42.116 In 4:22 Jesus tells the Samaritan woman “[y]ou worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (4:22) where we find the self-identification of Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος. Why does the evangelist re-affirm the Jewishness of Jesus here in the Samaritan episode especially in his conversation with the Samaritan woman? He does so first from the lips of the Samaritan woman (4:9, 20), and then from those of Jesus’ 111 112 113

114 115 116

Reinhartz, “Jews in the New Testament,” 312. BDAG, 478. See Malina, The Gospel of John, 44; Oakman, “Culture, Society in Antiquity,” 412, 9. Reinhartz, “Judaism in the Gospel of John,” 384. Reinhartz, “Judaism in the Gospel of John,” 384-385. See Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel, 63-64.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

119

himself (4:22). Moreover, it is on the lips of the Samaritan woman this vocabulary appears for the first time in John other than when the evangelist uses it himself. Jesus also uses the vocabulary Ἰουδαῖοι for the first time in John in 4:22. We can see that in some occasions such as in 4:22 John reinforces the Jewishness of Jesus and in some other occasions, however this vocabulary reflects “harsh, even shocking nature”.117 Thus the evangelist employs οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι with both friendly and hostile overtones. Reinhartz rightly concludes this discussion after proposing different possible translations as follows: “[i]t is certainly true that the force and meaning of hoi ioudaioi depends heavily on its context. […] These considerations suggest that retaining the Greek hoi ioudaioi may be the best solution; if translation is needed, however, the most honest approach, and the one that is truest to the gospel’s own rhetoric, is “the Jews.’” We have reviewed briefly the meaning of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and how among English-speaking scholars in recent years, “the issue of translating the Greek term οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel of John has occasioned considerable concern”.118 However, it is difficult to find a direct equivalent for the term Ἰουδαῖος (or οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) in English, so we use this Greek word throughout the dissertation. As in the question concerning the implications of the vocabulary Ἰουδαῖος, we must here briefly address the meaning of Σαμαρίτης. Σαμαρεύς (Samarian) and Σαμαρίτης (Samaritan) are two terms identified in the literature of the early centuries that bear to the relevant geopolitical, and religious and/or cultural connotations.119 However, some hold that the former usually “refers to those inhabiting the city and province of Samaria in geographical/political terms, whereas Samaritan means those Samarians worshipping YHWH in Mount Gerizim as a sacred place, in religious and/ or cultural terms”.120 In the ancient literary texts, the first use of Σαμαρῖται is in 2 Kgs 17:29 (LXX) to denote the deported Israelite inhabitants of Samaria by the Assyrians who defeated the Northern kingdom. Further, 2 Kgs 17:24-41 implies that “the Gerizim religious/cultural community is the offspring of the Assyrian colonizers or the mixed people”.121 Josephus 117

118 119 120 121

In the gospel of John, Ἰουδαῖοι/οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is used by the narrator and by five characters, Jesus, the Samaritan woman, Pilate, the soldiers, and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The narrator uses this vocabulary 59 times; through the Samaritan woman in 4:9, 20; Jesus in 4:22; 13:33; 18:20, 36; Pilate in 18:33, 35, 39; soldiers in 19:3 and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in 11:8; 19:21. Reinhartz, “Judaism in the Gospel of John,” 383. Sheridan, “Issues in the Translation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Gospel of John,” 671. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 4-7. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 405. See Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 405.

120

CHAPTER 3

designates Cutheans to the Samaritans.122 “Their claim to being Israel or Joseph is countered by accusations of living in mixed marriages, of having a foreign origin and to illegitimate temple site, in short of being enemies and fools”.123 It is difficult to define who the Samaritans are if one takes the term to designate the identity of a specific group. The Samaritans are difficult to define as a group.124 Even though the NT does provide a few, limited references the Samaritans, it “seems more likely … [that the term] convey[s] negative, polemical attitudes towards the Samaritans within the Jewish/Christian context”.125 In the Samaritan episode neither Jesus nor the narrator employ the vocabulary Σαμαρῖτις to denote the woman from Samaria where as she uses this vocabulary to represent herself. However, the narrator employs, οἱ Σαμαρῖται in 4:39, 40 and Σαμαρίτης in 8:48. From these references, we observe that there is no distinction set between Samarians and Samaritans in John. Moreover, recent scholarship consider that the issue of terminology, whether one should distinguish Samarians and/or Samaritans is a difficult one that “[it] is not found possible or helpful to strive for complete consistency” in the literature per se.126 Jesus is addressed as a Ἰουδαῖος in 4:9 and one may ask why not as a Galilean or an Israelite in the Samaritan episode. But through the narration of the context the evangelist has already indicated that Σαμαρείτης are descendents of Jacob, and hence Israelites. One can see that the distinction set up in the Samaritan episode is between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρείτης. In this respect the use of Ἰουδαῖος for Jesus by the Samaritan woman in 4:9 implicitly points to the issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται as ethnic groups. In other words, the vocabulary Ἰουδαῖος used to address Jesus in 4:9 and the representation of the woman as not a woman from 122 123

124

125

126

Jos., Ant., 9.288. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, 360. “In later Jewish traditions, these deportees, named, Cutheans after the name of one of the five foreign ethnic groups imported into the country are construed as the ancestors of the Samaritans”. Knoppers, “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?,” 115. See Anderson, “Samaritans,” 940-947; Anderson, “Gerizim,” 496; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 531-548. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 405. Also in Jn 8:48 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι call Jesus a Samaritan in a context of mounting hostility. “The issue of terminology, whether we should speak of Samarians or Samaritans, is a difficult one” E. L. Gallagher, “Cult Centralization in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origins of Deuteronomy,” VT 64 (2014), 561-572, 562. See also Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 24; Pummer, “Samaritanism: A Jewish Sect or an Independent form of Yahwism,” 1-24; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 14-17.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

121

Sychar but as a Samaritan woman must be central to the understanding of the Samaritan episode.127 In the following, we examine the implications of the distinction set between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται against the background of the references in the relevant literature128 4.2.2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the Relevant Literature In this section we discuss the scholarship on the available relevant literature that would shed light to the level of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται such as the books in the OT (MT, LXX), the writings of Josephus, inscriptions, the OT Greek Pseudepigrapha and the NT. 4.2.2.1. ‫ היהודים‬/οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and ‫השמרנים‬/οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the OT In the OT there are some references pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται which scholars identify as from the earlier centuries of BCE (1 Kgs, 2 Kgs) toward the turning of the era ( 2nd century BCE, cf. Sir 50:25-26; 2 Macc 5:22-23; 6:1-2).129 In 1 Kgs 16:23-29 Samaria is referred to as the new capital of the northern kingdom under King Omri. According to 2 Kings chapters 17 and 18, the Assyrians captured Samaria and deported the inhabitants to Assyria and the surviving Israelites intermarried with the foreigners who come to settle in the land (2 Kgs 17, 18).130 In 2 Kgs 17 Samaritans are the descendants of those who were deported from foreign countries, like ancient Babylonia, and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι considered that Samaritans had a foreign origin, or at least a mixed pedigree.131 As οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι returned 127 128

129

130

131

See Wyckoff, “Jesus in Samaria (John 4:4-42),” 90. We are not intending to make an analysis of all such references in the literature in its immediate and broader socio-political and religious-cultural contexts but rather we examine the standing scholarship pertaining to our theme of discussion. We briefly review how scholarship interprets some inscriptions found to be related to this theme. We will not discuss the issues of the dating of the OT books here, rather we focus on recent scholarship on the references in these books pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Scholars usually trace back the above mentioned to somewhere around 930 BCE when the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah came into existence and a clear separation happened before the Babylonian exile of Judean elites (587 BCE). See for instance, Pummer, “Samaria,” 1181-1184; Stenhouse, “The Chronicle of Abu’l-Fath and Samaritan Origins,” 309. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 3. See Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan,” 187.

122

CHAPTER 3

from exile, they considered the remnants, the Samaritans, as impure, political rebels, and people of mixed racial descent.132 The account of the Assyrian deportation in 2 Kgs 17 (see also Jos., Ant., 9.277-291) is contradicted by the book of Chronicles. One may say that it conceals the given information in 2 Kgs and thus reflects a rather broader perspective. The book of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (in the Hebrew Bible) provide varied accounts of the identity of the community of Israel. In the book of Chronicles peoples of the lands are referred to as sojourners, resident aliens and foreigners (1 Chr 5:25; 22:2; 2 Chr 2:16; 6:33; 13:9; 30:25; 32:13, 19) whereas in Ezra-Nehemiah these peoples include the Ammonites, Arabians, Ashdodites, Samaritans, etc. In the book of Chronicles, twelve (or more) tribes from the common ancestor Jacob/ Israel can be traced, but, by contrast, Ezra-Nehemiah focus on the people of Judah, the children of the exile whose ancestors were from the eastern Diaspora, mainly from Babylon.133 While in Ezra-Nehemiah they are addressed as a specific elite group, the holy seed (Ezra 9:2), and in Neh 9:2 the seed of Israel refers to the repatriates. Knoppers explains that this difference between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia cannot be accidental.134 He adds that “the issue of Judean-Samarian relations in Ezra-Nehemiah may be best understood in the larger context of the editors’ concentration on the ongoing reformation of the Judean community”.135 However, scholars caution about drawing sweeping conclusions concerning the breach between Judah and Samaria.136 Scholars identify two literary sources from 132 133 134

135 136

See 2 Kgs 17:24, 26; Neh 13. See also Jos., Ant., 11.297-347. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 135. Gatherings of the returnees are depicted as assembly of exiles in Ezra (10:8, 12-16) and in Nehemiah as the assembly of God (13:1). Knoppers observes that different from prophetic writings like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Ezra-Nehemiah “does not express an ongoing hope for the restoration of both northern and southern Israel (Judah) under one leader”. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 137. It is to be noted that Ezra-Nehemiah refers to Benjamin and Judah (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9; Neh 11:4, 25, 35) but nowhere mentions the northern tribes. On the contrary, we find in the book of Chronicles (chapter 4) a reference to the northern tribes, namely, a statement that Israelites reside in the north, in the south, and in exile. Also in Ezra-Nehemiah others who are not the descendants of returnees are vaguely called the people(s) of the land(s) (Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1,2,11,14; 10:2,11; Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29,31,32). Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 137. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 168. The above explanation offered by Knoppers, is based on a variety of perspectives on the second temple period of Judaism and indeed the identity of Israelites and non-Israelites is offered in many books of the OT other than Ezra-Nehemiah. These include Chronicles, Ruth, Second and Third Isaiah, Jonah, Haggai, Sachariah etc. Knoppers, “Great Among His Brothers,” 1-27. It is reported that there were normal diplomatic relations between Jerusalem and Samarian leaders during the post-Nehemiah era “in the missive coauthored by Bagavahya, the governor

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

123

the second century BCE viz., Sir 50:25-26; 2 Macc 5:22-6:2. According to most scholars these references are the most explicit instances to the YHWH worshippers on Mt. Gerizim in that period. Such references imply that the Samaritans were a different ethnic group and were regarded as an objectionable community, like other gentile nations or communities. Sir 50:25-26 refers to the Samaritans as the foolish people who lived in Schechem. In a simiar vein, Josephus also mentions Mt. Gerizim as located in Schechem which served as the Capital of οἱ Σαμαρῖται.137 Moreover, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι consider them foolish people since they forsook Jerusalem and worshipped instead on Mt. Gerizim.138 With regard to implications of Sir 50:25-26 (cf. the Greek version), scholars generally hold that these people are regarded as a distinct, non-Pagan group of people settled in Shechem and that there were some tensions between them and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, at least with some of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. In the light of the Hebrew version, scholars mainly offer the following explanations. On the one hand, Ben Sira does not accept that Samaritans’ claim that they belong to the chosen people.139 On the other hand, F. Dexinger argues that such depictions are due to the tension that existed between Jerusalem and Shechem before the time of the Maccabees, and he adds that until 2 BCE the final break from Jerusalem had not yet occurred between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Another reference from the early times about Mt. Gerizim is found in 2 Maccabees (5:22-6:2), which suggests the existence of some sort of hostility between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Pummer concludes his discussion of this reference in 2 Maccabees by noting that this book “considers Samaritans and Jews as belonging to one people and censure[s] the temple on Mt. Gerizim. If hostility towards the Samaritans was expressed in this book, it was done in a very indirect way”.140 It is to be noted that the above references say almost nothing about the common kinship and ancestors of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται which

137

138 139 140

of Judah, and Delaiah the son of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria in late 5th century (TAD 4.9)”. Knoppers adds that during this time there was no serious break in the relations between Judah and Samaria. There are some differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of Sir 50:25-26. This text of Ben Sirach “is thought by many scholars … [to be] a reference to the Samaritans (in Hebrew ca. 180 BCE, in Greek after 129 BCE)”. However, we are not inclined discuss the dating of these two versions, rather we pay attention to their content with regard to the issue at stake, viz., the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 9-12. See Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, 157-159. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 85-86. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 9-10.

124

CHAPTER 3

signals a breach between these two groups of peoples.141 In addition, the references in the OT (dated between the 9th and 5th centuries BCE and 2nd and 1st centuries BCE) suggest that some sort of tension existed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in these periods (or at least between the people who were living in Shechem and worshipping on Mt. Gerizim and those who worshipped in Jerusalem).142 However, ambiguity remains as to what extent οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται had problems with each other. 4.2.2.2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: Relevant Literature Outside the Bible As noted in the introduction, the writings of Josephus are perhaps the only materials with quite extensive references to the Samaritans in the literature that are contemporary to the NT. In this section, we examine these writings in order to gain some further understanding about the relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The major part of this section will thus discuss the scholarship on the writings of Josephus pertaining to this theme.143 As discussed above, some implicit indications of strained relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are found both in the OT, however, these are not adequate on their own to enable us to deduce how and to what extent these groups were separated during the time of the Johannine Jesus.144 From the writings of the contemporary voice, the writings of Josephus, we can better understand the various aspects of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. There are several passages in Josephus’ writings pertaining to the origin of οἱ Σαμαρῖται and their relationship with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. More specifically, in his works such as Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War, we find quite a few passages pertaining to this theme even though they are often occasioned by contradictions and inconsistencies.145 With respect to these passages, 141

142

143

144

145

The theme of the reunification of the house of Judah as presented in Ez 37:15-28 also discussed in scholarship against this background. See Knoppers, “Did Jacob Become Judah?,” 39-67; Förster, “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42),” 213. We will discuss in the next chapter about Mt. Gerizim against the background of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Jewish Pentateuch where we analyze 4:20-26. We will also briefly examine other available relevant literature that concerns of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται such as the discussions about some inscriptions (mainly those found at Delos) and references in the Psuedepigrapha. For instance, Sirach presents the Samaritans as having an inferior status (50:26) and in John οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are said to want to eliminate Jesus accusing him of being a Samaritan possessed by demons (8:48). There are disagreements between Josephus’ descriptions in The Life and Jewish War. See Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 184. See also Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 187-192.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

125

we need to be cautious whether Josephus’ portrayal of the relation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is in line with the portrayals offered by other contemporary sources, or whether Josephus’ works contribute much more or take the discussion in another direction. By and large, the discussions of the theme of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are conducted by scholars in relation to other topics such as ethnicity, geography, politics, religion, and/or culture. But the issue at stake in our own discussion here is only the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and so we will focus our attention on the descriptions that pertain to this theme alone. Josephus’ writings include various components such as historical-geographical, socio-political and religious-cultural.146 As we mentioned earlier, there are references in Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War to Cutheans, Shechem and Mt. Gerizim.147 Battles between Galileans and Samaritans are also described in them.148 Though there are quite a number of references in Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War pertaining to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται,149 to discuss all 146

147 148 149

As we have noticed above, one of the major texts pertaining to the Samaritans in the OT is 2 Kings. In a similar vein, Josephus’ narration begins with a retelling of 2 Kgs 17:2441. The Samaritans share same religious heritage with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι such as the laws from the Torah and dietary, purity, circumcision and Sabbath observances. Yet their place of worship was different. In about 107 BCE John Hyrcanus ravaged Samaria during his Hasmonean expansion of the Judean territory and destroyed the Samaritan’s capital city, Shechem, and their temple on Mt. Gerizim. The Samaritans who were annexed were also banned from worshipping at the temple of Jerusalem by the Judeans. In light of these devastating experiences, the Samaritans began to hope in a prophet or Messiah/ the Taheb that is the restorer who will come to restore their temple. See Jos., J.W., 2.232244; Ant., 18.29-30; 20.118-136. See Jos., Ant., 13.154-256; J.W., 1.62-63. See Jos., Ant., 20.118-136; J.W., 2.232-246. Jewish Antiquities have quite some references with regard to the origins and characteristics of the Samaritans. Modern scholarship’s near consensus is that these descriptions of Josephus are with a clear interest in the defense of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. In the following we list them: 9.288-291 (recounting the OT references in 2 Kgs); 20.118-136 (massacre of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim); 11.19-20, 84-88, 97, 114-19, 174-175 (Samaritans in the restoration period); 11.302-303, 306-312, 321-325, 340347 (the temple on Mt. Gerizim in the time of Alexander the Great); 12.156, 168, 175Samaritans in the Tobiad story; 12.257-64 Samaritans in the time of Epiphanes IV and 12.7-10; 13.74-79 (Ἰουδαῖοι–Samaritan debates on the rightful temple); 17.20, 69-70, 342-44 (the Samaritans in the Roman period and the Samaritans in the time of the Herodian dynasty); 18.29-30 (Samaritans scatter human bones around the temple); 18.85-9 (Samaritans and Pontius Pilate); 20.118-36 (battle between Galileans and Samaritans). Jewish War depicts a brief summary of the Samaritans history according to Josephus. References related to this topic are the following: 1.62-63 (conquest of Shechem and the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hycarnus); 1.562, 592, 2.111 (Herodian dynasty and the Samaritans); 2.232-246 (enmity between Galileans and Samaritans in the Roman period); 3.307-315 (Massacre of the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim in the

126

CHAPTER 3

these references is beyond the scope of our study. We make only a brief review of scholarship on this theme to discuss how Josephus’ depictions serve in understanding the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. And we will see that the scholarly discussions on this theme by and large hang out upon the self-definition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim. Josephus’ descriptions of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in antiquity is puzzling due to the different explanations given to the self-definition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. It has got at least three different connotations. They are: (i) In an ethno-geographical sense Ἰουδαῖος refers to a person inhabiting his or her ancestral land; (ii) Ἰουδαῖος may refer to a person integrated in Judea as a citizen or belonging to political allies; (iii) Ἰουδαῖος can also represent a person who is non-Ἰουδαῖος in his or her ethnicity and/or geographical origin but became a Ἰουδαῖος by converting to Judaism in terms of religion and/or culture.150 In some places, Josephus presents the Samaritans as belonging to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι whereas in others he perceives that these people are separate from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. His accounts briefly depict both two groups’ assimilations and distinctions. Nevertheless, it seems that Josephus reconstructs the identity of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι precisely through these oscillating modes of inclusion and exclusion in the context of diaspora.151 Though Josephus mentions the customs and beliefs of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in his writings, one finds no such descriptions about the Samaritans’ beliefs or customs in his works.152 According to J. A. Montgomery, Josephus’ accounts of the Samaritans do little more than reflects the prejudices of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the contemporary period.153 In the light of his studies of the writings of Josephus,

150

151

152

153

Roman period). Apart from Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War, Against Apion provides one reference viz., about incorporation of Samaria into Judaea (cf. 2.42-43). However, there are disagreements between Josephus’ descriptions in Life and Jewish War. See Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 184. See also Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 187-192. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 69-106. See also our discussions above in the subsection 4.2.1. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, 181. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 407. It is to be noted that compared to Jewish Antiquities Josephus posits no sort of hostility toward Samaritans in Jewish War. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 282283. For a particularly negative portrayal of the Samaritans, see Jos., Ant., 9.288-291; 12.257-264. On the ambiguity of Josephus’ attitude to the Samaritans, see Coggins, “The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus,” 257-273, 259; Feldman, “Josephus Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence,” 23-45. See Montgomery, The Samaritans, 15-16, 156-157, 226-230, 300. He highlights Josephus’ explicit mention of the Samaritans which states that they “were nearly enough related

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

127

R. J. Coggins finds that Josephus does suggest some sort of hostility against the Samaritans, while explaining them as part of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, simultaneously, Josephus tends to depict the self-definition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in contrast to the Samaritans.154 R. Egger opines that the Samaritans are part of the community of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, yet highlights the Samarians or Cutheans as descendants of the Medians and Persians and that this portrayal induces some polemics directed against them.155 L. H. Feldman holds that the attitude towards the Samaritans in Josephus’ writings is quite ambivalent. In other words, his writings explicitly express an antagonistic attitude towards them while implicitly they present them as a part of the community of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.156 According to Lim, “Judaean/Jewish identity has the following dynamic tensions in interaction with the Samarians/ Samaritans: the Judaeans could include and exclude the Samarians; the territory of Judaea could include and exclude Samaria; the Judaean citizens could include and exclude the Samarians; Jewishness could include and exclude the Samaritans’ religious tenets and way of life”.157 In addition to this Lim continues “the conceptual boundary between ethnic-geographic and political/ religious/cultural identity could itself be porous”.158 Cohen defines ethnicity as “closed, immutable, and ascribed characteristic based on birth”. For οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι the ethnic-geographic identity was immutable even in diasporic circumstances, but for those who were not Ἰουδαῖοι it was mutable that they could become οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι by way of a transformation at one’s religious, cultural, or political affiliations.159 In this light, Lim maintains “that the unambiguous’ purpose of Josephus’ works in his ‘ambiguous’ relation to the Samaritans is to consolidate Jewish identity threatened by the destruction of the Temple”.160 F. Dexinger explains that

154 155 156 157

158

159 160

to the Jews to be an asylum for the discontented or excommunicates of the Jewish Church” (157). See Coggins, “The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus,” 257-258. See Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, 310-316. See Feldman, “Josephus Attitude toward the Samaritans,” 24-35. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 408. See also Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 109-110. Cohen assumes only that the relation between ethnicity and religion in antiquity became increasingly permeable. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 408. According to Lim, in the writings of Josephus, “the boundary between geography and politics and that between religion and culture in antiquity overlapped and supplemented each other”. See Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 109-110, 136. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 408. Josephus’ writings depict the identity of the Samaritans as always fluctuating. “He accepts the Samarians/Samaritans as part of the Judaean/Jewish community, so long as they are conducive to the formation of Judaean/Jewish identity. Otherwise, he would treat the Samarians/Samaritans as separate from the Judaeans/Jews.”

128

CHAPTER 3

Josephus’ attitude toward the Samaritans represents the climax point of a long process of development which tended to overlook any distinction between the different groups of people such as the gentile and Jewish populations in Samaria.161 P. Spilsbury explains that Josephus deliberately portrays the Samaritans negatively, while he “is careful to cast the best possible light on the Jews’ attitude towards the Samaritans”.162 A second important aspect of the theme of the relation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the writings of Josephus is Mt. Gerizim. “When the Samaritans request to be allowed to participate in the building of the Temple, Zerubbabel’s refusal is based on the fact that only the Jews had been so authorized by Cyrus and Darius. […] He goes further, however, by allowing the Samaritans along with ‘all other men’ to ‘come to the sanctuary and revere God.’”163 Thus Spilsbury contends that these descriptions display Josephus’ intentional depictions to show the distance between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται without implying hostility towards outsiders in general. He reaffirms that Josephus, in his paraphrase of the Bible’s later parts uses the same technique to portray οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as a loyal and co-operating people where as “enemies such as Samaritans and individuals such as Haman might try to persuade the ruling authorities otherwise”.164 Hjelm explains further that “Josephus shows surprisingly little knowledge of Judean-Samaritan controversies over cult and temple in his accounts in War. […] In War’s account of John Hyracanus’s campaign, Josephus does not tell of any temple destruction, but only the defeat of the Cutheans. […] While in Rome, Josephus, much later wrote Antiquities, his stories about Samaritan connection with central events in Judaism testify to a greater interest in what subsequently became known as the JewishSamaritan schism”.165 Hjelm continues that “[i]t is a wonder that Josephus in War shows no interest in mentioning the Samaritan temple,”166 although, Josephus dates the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim to the middle of the 4th BCE (Ant. 11.8.4).167 Even though Josephus was misinformed as to the 161

162 163

164 165 166 167

For instance, Ezra 4:1ff maintain by distinguishing between the enemies of Judah and Benjamin, who claimed to worship the God of Ἰουδαῖοι and wanted to join with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the building of the Temple, and the peopling of the land. See Dexinger, “Limits of Tolerance in Judaism,” 94. See also Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus, 210. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus, 210. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus, 211. Cf. Jos., Ant., 11.86-87; Ez 4:3; Neh 2:20. Jos., Ant., 8.116, 117; J.W., 4.275. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus, 224, Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 226. Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 227. Josephus’ dating had been accepted as generally accurate. However, some scholars have challenged this, suggesting that it was built one century before. See for such

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

129

date of the temple’s construction, he agreed that some of the high priests of Jerusalem were involved with the Gerizim temple. Although he denigrated the Samaritans on several occasions, he mentions that the high priests from Jerusalem were officiating on Mt. Gerizim. Josephus’ expression of indirect support for the observance of similar rituals can be found in his narration of the disagreements between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται in Egypt (Ant. 12.8-10168; 13.74-79). In Ant., 11.312, 340, we find a claim that the priests and Levites joined with Manasseh and were “apostates of the Jewish nation”.169 Yet, “Josephus acknowledges that the temple on Gerizim was that of the Most High God, allowing that the Samaritans did indeed worship the same God as the Jews”.170 (cf. Ant., 12.257). However, when Josephus mentions the Samaritans and their worship at Mt. Gerizim he assigns them different names such as Cutheans, Sidonians, Shechemites which functions implicitly to deny any common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. More precisely, such vocabulary implies that the Samaritans have pagan origin or associations.171 Thus, the preceding review of scholarship on the works of Josephus in general holds that he offers a kind of defence of Judaism.172 Josephus examines the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in various dimensions such as ethnic, geographical, political, religious, and cultural mainly in the context of the destruction of the Second Temple.173 He makes use of these backgrounds in portraying the self-definition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι by contrast with the Samaritans, their origins, relationship, worship and the like. One thus cannot take Josephus’ works at face value as a strictly reliable historical record.174 The ambiguity in Josephus’ writings stems largely from the fact that they present both points of assimilation and distinction pertaining to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The

168

169

170

171 172 173 174

discussions, Zsengeller, Gerizim as Israel, 150-158; Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple,” 157-211. In Ant. 12.10, Josephus employs the vocabulary στάσις in relation with Samaritans (στάσεις μέντοι γε τοῖς ἐκγόνοις αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς Σαμαρείτας τὴν πάτριον ἀγωγὴν τῶν ἐθῶν ἀποσώζειν προαιρουμένοις ἐγίγνοντο καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπολέμουν τῶν μὲν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν τὸ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἱερὸν ἅγιον εἶναι λεγόντων καὶ τὰς θυσίας ἐκεῖ πέμπειν ἀξιούντων τῶν δὲ Σικιμιτῶν εἰς τὸ Γαριζεὶν ὄρος κελευόντων). Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, 118. See also Albertz, Geschichte und Theologie, 588-589. Cf., Jos., Ant., 12.257. Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, 117. Cf., Jos., Ant., 9.288-290; 10.184; 11.19-20, 88, 302; 13.256. See Tobin, “The Importance of Hellenistic Judaism in the Studies of Paul,” 159. See Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 404. Josephus’ geopolitical location likely had an impact on his writing. See Barclay, Negotiating Diaspora, 5; Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 226; Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 405.

130

CHAPTER 3

major crux is that we unfortunately have no Samaritan accounts on this theme from the early centuries, the only extant literature being from later sources, beginning from the Medieval Samaritan chronicles. As noted above, there is near consensus that the manuscripts we have concerning the Samaritans’ own traditions about their origin and history were written between the Middle Ages and the twentieth century. Hence, it is very difficult to have genuine information about the Samaritans in the early periods from their own perspective.175 Modern scholarship avers the ambivalence in Josephus’ writings about the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. On the one hand, Josephus accounts for the common kinship between these two and on the other hand, he explicitly presents the Samarians as foreign people and even calls the Samaritans apostates of the nation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Lim rightly concludes that Josephus tacitly acknowledges that the Samarians were part of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι community in origin. In spite of this, he clearly undertakes to nullify the Samarians’ claim that they had an origin in common with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in such a way as to depict them as “capricious liars”.176 It is interesting to note that the scholarship on Josephus’ works presents the one concrete and particular element of breach that existed between the two groups namely their different places of worship. However, as we have seen above there were elements of ambiguity in such depictions too. Apart from the writings of Josephus, we review the discussions in scholarship on some inscriptions during the period of the turn of the era. Such discussions enquire about the origins and identity of the Samaritans and thus may shed some light on the issue at stake in the relationship status between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Two inscriptions found at Delos that are dated “respectively from the third to the second and from the second to the first centuries BC” are examined in this respect. Some scholars hold that these two inscriptions mention Samaritans albeit the name Samaritans is not found in them.177 Some scholars translate Ἀργαριζίν to interpret that these two inscriptions tell about the offering at the temple on Mt. Gerizim.178 L. M. White explains that “[t]he dedicators of these inscriptions call themselves ‘the Israelites in Delos who makes offerings 175 176 177

178

See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 37. Lim, “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans,” 417. One inscription is about honoring Menippos of Herakleion and the other is about a certain Sarapion, Son of Jason of Knossos. In both inscriptions, the context is about making offerings to the hallowed Ἀργαριζίν by the Israelites in Delos. The Menippos inscription is dated between 250-175 BCE and Sarapion inscriptions is between 150-50 BCE. See White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, 2. 341-342. Runesson and Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E., 129-131.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

131

to hallowed Argarizein’”.179 The inscriptions make it explicit that the dedicators are Israelites or they call themselves Israelites in Delos.180 The context of these inscriptions is unknown and it is debated whether this location in Delos is a Judean or a Samaritan synagogue. L. Mattasa notes that “While it is possible that there was a synagogue (Samaritan or Jewish, or both) on Delos, there is no evidence that it has been found or indeed that such discrete structures existed at this time.”181 However, she adds that the two inscriptions come from Samaritans in Delos whose centre of worship was at Mt. Gerizim.182 Pummer discusses the inscriptions at Delos in the light of 1 Macc 15:15-23 and the works of Josephus (cf. Ant. 14.213-216). He explains that these two books refer to “Jews in Delos, neither of these sources mentions Samaritans on Delos. [Hence] the two Delos inscriptions shed no light on the question of the relationship between Jews and Samaritans on the island”.183 From this brief overview on the discussions about the inscriptions at Delos, it is clear that one cannot be certain about the context of these inscriptions and hence it is difficult to deduce more information from these evidences. However, we can see that the Samaritans worshipping centre Mt. Gerizim comes to the fore in these discussions as well. In a similar vein, a number of inscriptions in Samaritan script dated after the turn of the era have also been studied. These have been categorized into four groups according to their content.184 All such inscriptions are identified as pre-mediaeval and the worship of YHWH is the most prominent feature reflected in them. Some of them (for instance, the Decalogue inscriptions) oppose idolatry and prohibit such practices. Hence, it is argued that if the Samaritans before the turn of the era worshipped different gods than YHWH, then these inscriptions should contain at least some trace 179 180

181

182

183

184

White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, 2.341. See White, “The Delos Synagogue,” 145-147; Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 16-17. L. Matassa, “Unravelling the Myth of the Synagogue on Delos,” BAIAS 25 (2007): 81-115, 113. See Mattasa, “Myth of the Synagogue on Delos,” 113. Scholars even speculate that there were two synagogues within a short distance of each other which can imply that the Samaritans at Delos were in friendly terms with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. See for the discussions and debates on the Synagogue in Delos instance, McLean, “The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and in Christian Churches on Delos,” 186-225; Matassa, “Unravelling the Myth of the Synagogue on Delos,” 81-115; Pummer, “Samaritanism, 1-24. Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 17. See also Novakovic, “Jews and Samaritans,” 208-209. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, 228; Montgomery, The Samaritans, 227-228; Davies, “A Samaritan Inscription,” 3-19.

132

CHAPTER 3

of such worship or some sort of syncretism. But as Kartveit has argued, “there are no traces of worship of other gods than YHWH in any of these inscriptions, nor any syncretism. If the Samaritans before the turn of the era worshipped various gods, among whom was YHWH, the explanation for the later concentration must be that they changed their religion from polytheism to monotheism or monolatry, or that a monotheistic element in the population survived and the other elements disappeared”.185 In sum, studies on the inscriptions at Mt. Gerizim before the turn of the era reflect that the Samaritans were worshippers of YHWH and were either monotheists or monolatrists. Hence, “the allegations against them of being idolaters, syncretists, or polytheists found in later literature are without foundation in the earliest inscriptions”.186 There are some references to the relationship between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται in the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. In a few places, in some of these books vocabulary such as Σαμάρεια and Σαμαρῖτις are used.187 They are the following: Σαμάρεια is used in 4 Bar. 8:11; Liv. Pro.10:4; 22:4, 18; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 2:12, 14[×2]; 3:1,2,3; Dem. 6:12; Σαμαρείμ in Liv. Pro. 19:1 and Σαμαρῖτις is in Let. Aris. 107:4; Eup. 9 33:1; 29:5; Ps.-Hec. 2 4:43. These references mostly point to some sort of unfriendly atmosphere prevailed between these two groups of people such as a depiction of Samaritans as the lost ten tribes (or nine and a half tribes); about their intermingling with the foreigners that they took husbands or wives from foreigners; their unwillingness to forsake them even when their entry to Jerusalem was prohibited by Ἰουδαῖοι who lived in Jerusalem; their building-up of a city in a mountain in Samaria when rejected by the Ἰουδαῖοι of Jerusalem and the issues pertaining to a false prophet from Samaria in Jerusalem.188 Pummer deduces from his analysis 185 186

187

188

Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, 225-229. Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans, 228; Montgomery, The Samaritans, 227-228; Davies, “A Samaritan Inscription,” 3-19. See Denis, Concordance Grecque des Pseudépigraphes, 71, 691 finds all together 16 references in the Greek Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, viz., Σαμάρεια [×11]; Σαμαρείμ [×1]and Σαμαρῖτις [×4]. Σαμάρεια in 4 Bar. 8:11; Liv. Pro. 10:4; 22:4, 18; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 2:12, 14 [×2]; 3:1,2,3; Dem. 6:1-2; Σαμαρείμ in Liv. Pro. 19:1 and Σαμαρῖτις Let. Aris. 107:4; Eup. 9 33:1; 29:5; Ps.-Hec. 2 4:43. 4 Baruch 8:11 (vv. 1-11) mentions Σαμάρεια and depicts problems between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. It also refers to Ἰουδαῖοι who were not ready to forsake their foreign wives or husbands who were not allowed to live in Jerusalem and hence, they went and settled in Samaria. Those who were ready to forsake their foreign husbands and wives were welcomed in Jerusalem. According to Dem. 6:1-2 “[…] On the Kings of Judaea, that the tribe of Judah and (those of) Benjamin and Levi were not taken captive by Sennacherib, but from this captivity to the last (captivity), which Nebuchadnezzar effected out of Jerusalem, (there were) 128 years and 6 months. But from the time

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

133

of the available resources pertaining to the implicit question who the Samaritans are, which serve as an important stepping stone to understand the issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and concludes as follows. “In conclusion vis-à-vis the Samaritans the predicament of the present day scholars is similar to the one in which the rabbis found themselves. For the rabbis, the Samaritans were neither Jews nor non-Jews; […] scholars realize that the evidence speaks strongly in favor of seeing the Samaritans as a Jewish sect that came into being in the last centuries before the turn of the eras, […] the Pentateuch which the Samaritans recognize as their scripture is pre-dominanatly Judean”.189 He addresses the dilemma suggested by Linville on “[t]he vexing question whether Samaritans comprised of a sect of Judaism […]”190, and affirms that “[c]learly, Samaritanism, like Judaism is based on the Israelite biblical tradition and the Samaritans’ self-understanding as Israelite is a central tenet of their faith”.191 Thus from our above discussions on the relevant literature other than the Bible on the question of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται we have seen some pointers that reflect some issues of breach between these two groups of people. One common factor among the

189 190 191

when the ten tribes of Samaria were taken captive to that of Ptolemy the 4th, there were 573 years and 9 months. But from the time (of the captivity) of Jerusalem (to Ptolemy the 4th), there were 338 years (and) 3 months.” In other words, this reference points to the depoortation of the ten tribes (Samaritans) whereas Benjamin and Levi were not. One can see that in this sense Dem. 6:1-2 reflects the problems between the southern and northern tribes of Israel. There are 6 occurrence of the vocabulary Samaria in Mart. Asc. Isa. (2:12; 14 [×2]; 3:1, 2, 3). Here too there are some indications about the problems between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται such as the deportation of nine and half tribes, the false prophet in Samaria who is opposed by those who live in Jerusalem. Liv. 19:1-2 mention a man named Joed who is from Σαμαρείμ and was the follower of the false prophets who had led him astray. Joed was attacked and killed by a Lion. Let. Aris. 1:107; Eup. 2:11; 4:4; Ps.-Hec. 5:1 employ the vocabulary Σαμαρῖτις which depict no such depictions of the relationship between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται, other than that Judea and Samaria are neighboring countries. For instance, “For the country is extensive and beautiful. Some parts of it are level, especially the districts which belong to Samaria, as it is called, and which border on the land of the Idumeans, other parts are mountainous, especially (those which are contiguous to the land of Judea)” (Let. Aris. 1:107). “He had respect for our people, as Hekataeus also says about us: “Because of the kindness and trust which the Jews granted him, he added the Samaritan region to their holdings, free from tribute.”‘ (Ps.-Hec. 5:1). See Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 143-176; Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas (Third Centruy B.C. to First Century A.D.),” 7-34. Pummer, “Samaritanism: A Jewish Sect or an Independent form of Yahwism,” 17. Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, 28. Pummer, “Samaritanism,” 18. See also our discussion concerning the Delos inscriptions in chapter 3.

134

CHAPTER 3

above literature is the issue of worhsip namely, Jerusalem temple (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) vs Mt. Gerizim (οἱ Σαμαρῖται). As I. Hamitovsky rightly summarizes, “[t]he task of reconstruction of Samaritan history in antiquity is far from simple. […] a critical reading of some anti-Samaritan Jewish traditions in the Pseudepigrapha […] reveals a major component of Samaritan identity during this period”.192 4.2.2.3. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the NT In what follows, we briefly examine the discussions or remarks about Samaritans found in the NT. C. Dietzfelbinger rightly notes that nothing is mentioned about a successful mission of Jesus himself among the Samaritans in the Synoptics and that Acts speaks only about a mission in Samaria carried out by the disciples in the post-resurrection period.193 Our point of discussion will be: How have scholars discussed these references with respect to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the first century CE? It is to be noted that in the NT references to Samaritans are found only in the gospels and in the book of Acts. There are a few occasions where the vocabulary Σαμάρεια (Lk 7:11; Jn 4:4,5,7; Acts 1:8; 8:1,5,9,14;; 9:31; 15:3), Σαμαρίτης (Mt 10:5; Lk 9:52; 10:33; 17:16; Jn 4:9, 39, 40; 8:48; Acts 8:25) and Σαμαρῖτις (Jn 4:9 [×2]) are used. Strangely there is no mention of Samaria or Samaritans in the gospel of Mark and there is only one such reference in Matthean gospel. This reference pertaining to Samaritans (10:5-6) in the gospel of Matthew is at the occasion of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples, namely, not to enter any town of the Samaritans but rather to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. According to Pummer, “only one thing is certain: the author saw the group as non-Israelites. Whether he also intended to paint them with the brush of the tradition preserved in 2 Kings 17, is impossible to know. If he really did have the Samaritans in mind, it would mean that in the eyes of the 192

193

I. Hamitovsky, “ “‫קומראן מגילות לאור והחשמונאית ההלניסטית בתקופות השומרוני היישוב תחום‬ ‫היהודי הפולמוס החיצונית והספרות‬-‫( על שומרוני‬Trans. title: The Jewish-Samaritan Territorial Controversy During the Hellenistic and Hasmonean Periods as Reflected in the Qumran Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha – Abstract in English),” in ‫ז יהודה מדבר‬ ‫מגילות‬: ‫[ במגילות מחקרים‬Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VII ], eds. M. BarAsher and D. Dimant (Jerusalem: Haifa University and Bialik Institute, 2009), 43-70, 43. He adds that “[r]ecently, scholarly opinion has shifted and accepts the notion that at least some of these traditions were Samaritan in origin and that later Jewish authors responded to these traditions, which were grounded in Samaritan territorial notions”. Dietzfelbinger, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 95.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

135

Jews and early Christians the Samaritans were neither Gentiles nor did they belong to the house of Israel.”194 Since this ban directs his disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and neither to the Gentiles nor to the Samaritans, it seems that according to Mt 10:6 the Samaritans do not belong to the lost sheep of Israel. As we noted above, more frequency of the vocabulary pertaining to Samaria and Samaritans in the NT are found in Lukan writings (in the gospel of Luke and Acts). We briefly discuss relevant refences among them which would shed some light to the issue at stake viz., the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In Lk 9:51-53, the evangelist describes Jesus’ preparations to travel to Jerusalem where he decides to pass through a Samaritan village.195 From the context, it is clear that “Jesus is not given accommodation in this unnamed village of the Samaritans”.196 In other words, the issue at stake here pertaining to our theme is the information in v. 53 that the Samaritan villagers do not receive Jesus since the destination of his travel is Jerusalem. Pummer notes that “whether the incident described in Lk 9:51-53 is historical or not, it bears witness to the existence of tensions between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in the first century CE”.197 However, scholars point out that Luke mentions the unwillingness of only one village in Samaria to receive Jesus while Jesus is also reported to have moved on to another village, in vv. 53-56. 194

195

196 197

Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 28. In a rather detailed discussion, Böhm, in Samarien und die Samaritai, 95-100, first explains that the author of the above saying probably depicts the Samaritans in the light of 2 Kgs 17:24-41, adding that the members of the Gerizim community may have been either pagans or syncretists. However, as Böhm proceeds further she admits that it is impossible to know whether 2 Kings forms the background of the saying in Mt 10:6. Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 181-191, notes that the vocabulary Kutim (Χουνθα) used for the Samaritans in 2 Kgs 17:24 is reflected here. However, it is to be noted that this term does not occur in the NT. Jesus’ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐστήριξεν τοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (v. 51) and he sends ἀγγέλους πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ. While these ἀγγέλους are on their way to Jerusalem, they entered into a Samaritan village ὥστε ἑτοιμάσαι for Jesus (v. 52). But they did not ἐδέξαντο him τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον Jerusalem (9:53). Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 29. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 29. See also S. Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 73. The attitude of the Samaritan villagers toward Jesus in Lk 9 seems to be similar to the response of the Samaritan woman toward Jesus’ request for water that of in 4:9. See Brown, John, 1.175. However, in Luke, Jesus’ destination is Jerusalem, while in John it is in other way around, to Galilee. Luke nowhere comments directly on the Samaritans’ reaction if Jesus is travelling to Galilee. However, we are not intending to deviate our discussion toward the problem between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in Judea and in Galilee and the like (Galileans vs Judeans). For such discussions see, Meeks, “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” 159-169; Cromhout, “Were the Galileans ‘Religious Jews’ or ‘Ethnic Judeans?’,” 1278-1297.

136

CHAPTER 3

One may argue that this second village is or is not in Samaria, however, Luke provides any such indication to know whether the other village is in Samaria or not.198 Pummer adds that Jesus’ moving on to another village might be a literary device used by the evangelist to indicate that “once the point was made that Jesus was determined to follow his course, he moved on”.199 But in 10:25-37, by means of a parable, the Lukan Jesus presents a Samaritan as a model of neighborly love before οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. According to Böhm οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται are presented in contrast to one another which implicitly indicates the mode of their relationship. In this respect this parable can implicate how the Samaritans observe Torah. She adds that one cannot simply reduce this parable as only the act of someone who resides in Samaria.200 It is difficult to deduce how tense these relationships are in the light of Lk 10:25-37. In a similar vein, Lk 17:11-19 presents a Samaritan in a positive light. Jesus singles out a Samaritan among the ten lepers who have been healed as the only one who returns to Jesus to express his gratitude. Among the four occasions where Luke mentions the Samaritans the last two of these, as well as the account of the disciples’ Samaritan mission in Acts 8:4-25 in the post-resurrection period, portray the Samaritans in positive light. The reference to Samaria in Acts 8:4-25 also reflects Luke’s idea that the Samaritans belonged to Israel, though not to the community who were centred at the Jerusalem temple.201 Scholars have discussed these references to the Samaritans in Luke and tend to offer the following explanations. The above brief discussion implies that according to Luke, the basic difference between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is the difference in their places of worship (Jerusalem vs. Mt. Gerizim), not their ways of observing Torah.202 And nowhere in Luke (in the gospel and in Acts) do we find any allusion to 2 Kings 17 in his depiction about the Samaritans. 198 199 200

201 202

Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans,” 224-225. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 29. Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, 247; Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 30-31. He adds that whether this parable is a creation of Luke or in its core it refers back to Jesus, “it tells us about the relationship between the two groups, Jews and Samaritans”. For Meier, this man must have been a member of the Mt. Gerizim community. Meier “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans,” 224-225. In Acts 1:8 Jesus’ commissions the disciples to witness to him “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Act 1:8). See Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, 274-311; Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 32; Haudebert, “Le Samaritain-étranger (Lc 17,18) dans l’oeuvre de Luc,” in L’étranger dans la bible et ses lectures, ed. R. Jean (Paris: Cerf, 2007), 193. The references of Luke about Samaritans “not only betray a sympathetic view of the Samaritans but also portray them as devoted observers of the Torah”. Novakovic, “Jews and Samaritans,” 209. Scholars explain that the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke indirectly presents how a Samaritan faithfully observes the Torah.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

137

There are references to Σαμάρεια, Σαμαρίτης and Σαμαρῖτις in the gospel of John on two occasions (in chapters 4 and 8).203 One of these is an extensive presentation, namely, the Samaritan episode in 4:1-42 (our research pericope) and the other is more of a passing reference, where οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι call Jesus a Samaritan (8:48), in the context of a dispute between Jesus and themselves (8:30-58). The Samaritan episode described in John 4 is identified by scholars as the “the most explicit and well-informed passage about the Samaritans in the NT”.204 Indeed, in John 4 we do find some significant indications concerning the breach/conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Among these, the two most explicit ones are the response of the Samaritan woman in 4:9205 and the discussion on the issue of the different place of worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in 4:20-26206. In the light of Lk 9:51ff and Jn 4, Ridderbos adds that the 203

204 205

206

Σαμάρεια (4:4,5,7), Σαμαρίτης (4:9, 39, 40; 8:48) and Σαμαρῖτις (4:9 [×2]). See Moulton and Geden, Concordance to the Greek New Testament, 967. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans,” 229. We may summarize our discussions on Jn 4:1-9 as follows: (i) The implication of the use of δεῖ and the travel route between Judea and Samaria in v. 4 provided some hints about the nature of the breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at the time of the Johannine Jesus. Jacob and Joseph are depicted as ancestors of the Samaritans in vv. 5-6 (v. 11). Against the background of discussions pertaining to the reference to the patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph, in the Samaritan episode, one may find that the evangelist implicitly holds that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται share same ancestors. See section 3. (ii) In 4:7, 9, the evangelist specifies that the one who comes to the fore and is in dialogue with Jesus is the woman from Samaria. The first response of the Samaritan woman sets a distinction between Jesus and herself due to the fact that the former is a Ἰουδαῖος and the latter a Samaritan (v. 9ab). In 4:9c the parenthesis of the evangelist states that οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις, which can mean either that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not share things in common with the Samaritans or οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι have no dealings with the Samaritans. See section 4.3. Pummer explains that even though the attempts to resolve either of these meaning has met with general agreement, our discussion on οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται does not require determining the precise meaning of οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in 4:9c, but rather it is sufficient to note that “the phrase shows in either case that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται had differences. Clearly, they differed in the cult-place”. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 35. See also Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 115; Böhm, Samarien und die Samaritai, 143. Since there is no explicit mention of 2 Kgs 17 in Jn 4, Pummer explains that this episode “does not charge the Samaritans with syncretism or other religious deviations. On the contrary, Jn 4:12 shows that both groups had the same patriarchs”. Egger, Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner, 202, on the other hand explains that 4:18 may allude to this OT reference, 2 Kings 17, in the sense that it was believed that, in the past, people of the five nations were part of the Samaritans. In 4:20 we are informed that the worshipping place of the Samaritan’s ancestors are on this mountain as well, and 4:21-23 reaffirms that the worshipping places, according to the narrative, are for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι at Jerusalem and for Samaritans at Mt. Gerizim. In 4:25, we are informed about the Samaritans’ expectation concerning the coming of the Messiah. It is explained that 4:25 is the oldest evidence for the concept of the

138

CHAPTER 3

Samaritans accepted only the five books of Moses and worshiped the God of Israel on Mt. Gerizim, since they rejected Jerusalem as the place of worship. Yet, one finds no reference to the Samaritans’ acceptance of the other books anywhere in the NT. As Pummer explains “the New Testament sees the Samaritans not as pagans, [for] they believe in the same god as the Jews […] but as a group apart from the Jerusalem oriented Jews, they worship on Mt. Gerizim, not in Jerusalem”.207 In the light of the OT references, however, and from the fact that Jesus’ opponents addressed him as a Samaritan (8:48 – “you are a Samaritan and have a demon”), Ridderbos rightly affirms that the evangelist hereby depicts “the deep-rooted hostility and even contempt that Jews felt for the Samaritan people”.208 From the above considerations of the NT references to the Samaritan, we may conclude that the Samaritans, in the NT are not depicted as pagans but rather that their primary point of difference from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is their place of worship (Jerusalem vs Mt. Gerizim). More precisely, one finds no polemics against the Samaritans that portray them as pagans or as practicing pagan customs. Yet, these NT references offer no specific information about the Samaritans as a distinct religious community and to which extent the Samaritans are separate from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.209 In this subsection (4.2) we have discussed so far Jn 4:9ab against the background of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. We have seen that understanding the origin of the Samaritans and their relationship with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is difficult given that the relevant literature available to investigate this theme is frequently ambiguous and inconsistent. Available evidence suggests not only the existence of some sort of hostility but also that there were interactions between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in terms of trade and travel. This may imply that the separation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται occurred only gradually. In considering the relevant scholarship, we tend to support the dominant view, namely, the first split associated with the temple at Mt. Gerizim followed

207 208

209

coming of the Messiah, in later literature presented as Taheb. See Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 34-35. (cf. Jos., Ant., 18.85-89). „[S]cheint eine strikte Trennung zwischen Juden und Samaritanern zu bestätigen”. Förster, “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42),” 208. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 37. Ridderbos, John, 154. He also notes that Lk 9:53 presents a reciprocated attitude on the part of the Samaritans. We will discuss in detail about Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritan Pentateuch along with our analyzis of vv. 20-26 where the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman depicts the theme of worship.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

139

by another between second to first centuries BCE (the Hasmonean period). The alternative view is that Samaritanism was developed as one of the factions of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (in the third century BCE) that was marked by disagreements over worship, beliefs, and society etc.210 In sum, our brief overview on the scholarship pertaining to the literary evidence such as different books in the Bible and other references in the relevant literature other than the Scripture viz., writings of Josephus, Pseudepigrapha, and inscriptions have shown that there is ambivalence in their depictions about the Samaritans’ origin and their relationship with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Moreover, it is heightened by the fact there is no extant Samaritan literature from this period requiring that such discussions be deduced from the writings and perspectives of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However, we should note that none of these sources give any evidence of harmony and kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. On the contrary all reflect some sort of breach that occurred between these two groups of people. Among the various components found in these relevant materials, one element in particular is found in every source: namely, the problems arising from the fact that the groups had different places of worship, Jerusalem for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim for οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Yet is unclear whether this alone caused a definitive rift between the two groups, but its importance cannot be denied. Also the sources we reviewed tend to express the perspective of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι on the Samaritans, viz., οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι tend to paint the Samaritans as having pagan or mixed origins and thus to erase their common kinship with the Samaritans.211 Thus, implicitly, the indistinctness in our discussion itself represents an unevenness in the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. However, it remains unclear to what extend these can be separated. Do all Ἰουδαῖοι have a problematized relationship with the Samaritans or is the case for only some of them? In what follows, we examine v. 9c. We first discuss οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (at least some manuscripts have this clause attached to v. 9 which indicate rather clear indication of breach) paying attention 210

211

See for instance, Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 30; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 163. Surprisingly, recent studies, on some fragments of the DSS have corrected the previous scholarly understanding of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It has been found that there are no major differences between the two versions of Pentateuch (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται). This can imply that Samaritans were genuinely Torah-observant, contrary to what is suggested by the polemical tone of references to the Samaritans in the sources of Ἰουδαῖοι. We will examine the recent discussions about Samaritan Pentateuch in the next chapter along with our discussions on Mt. Gerizim (cf. vv. 2024).

140

CHAPTER 3

to the various issues attached to it.212 We ask: What are the implications of Jn 4:9c for understanding the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται? 4.3. οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις We have seen that how the evangelist sets the encounter of Jesus with the Samaritan woman as a meeting between a Ἰουδαῖος and a Σαμαρῖτις without listeners. There is no one else there, so only the Samaritan woman herself is present to respond or comment on Jesus’ request (vv. 7-8). We examined also the response received for this initiative of Jesus from the Samaritan woman in v. 9ab. In the light of vv. 7-9b we highlighted the issue: Why is the request for water made by Jesus’ (who is a Ἰουδαῖος) not welcomed by the woman from Samaria whereas the disciples (who are also οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) buy food from the Samaritan city? The reply or reaction to such a request for water at the well from the part of Jesus who is a stranger and has no way to get water from the well by himself can impart some important clues in understanding the background and essence of the whole episode. Thus, as far as our research question is concerned, v. 9ab give some clear indications about the prevailing relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. For the same reason, the textual variant οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9c) is of vital importance. That is, from the very outset, οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις has its own implications; in the first place, it tells us much about how the evangelist portrays the Samaritans’ attitude toward οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and vice versa. One can see that the major text-critical issue pertaining to v. 9 is that according to the majority of manuscripts there is one further clause (v. 9c) attached to this verse, namely, οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις.213 As Olsson notes the interpretation of οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις may seem merely peripheral, yet we know from the history of its interpretation that it has often affected the interpretation of the text 212

213

There is a text-critical problem pertaining to 4:9c, namely, that some major witnesses include οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in 4:9 whereas some other manuscripts including important witnesses do not have this part. Two important witnesses, viz., B and ‫א‬, respectively have and do not have the reading, οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in v. 9 makes the examination of this variation unit even difficult. As we know, B and ‫ א‬are equally important according majority scholarship due to the uncontamination and neutrality of these two manuscripts. Earlier scholars almost unanimously uphold this view. See for instance, B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 136.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

141

as a whole.214 The issue at stake here is the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and that οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις explicitly presents socio-religious-cultural boundaries set up in between them. Additionally, the Samaritan episode culminates with the Samaritans’ urging Jesus to μένειν with them in Samaria and he ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ (vv. 4042). Thus, in this case the shift from the scenario οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9 – the first response to Jesus’ mission in Samaria) culminates with μένειν together (vv. 40-42); οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritans from the city of Sychar), which would imply how breached relations between the two groups come into a mode of acceptance or reconciliation, which is in fact the kernel of our research hypothesis. One may even add that the necessity ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας (v. 4) is the divine will to reconcile the strained relationship. We find that quite some manuscripts have οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις, and those that do not have this clause are mainly ‫א‬, D, a, b, d. e, j, copfay, Auctor de Physicis. How do the critical editions pertaining to previous scholarship handle this issue? Tischendorf (1841-1872, 4 editions) does not include v. 9c whereas Westcott-Hort (1881) and NestleAland’s first 25 editions [NA1-25 (1898-1963)] place v. 9c οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in brackets. The recent critical editions, for instance NA26-28 include it in the main text (λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις· πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖοι ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης; οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις – 4:9). However, these editions remind the reader that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the critical-apparatus contains the earliest recoverable manuscript’s reading. The following are the various types of explanations for the presence or absence of οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in v. 9. (i) This clause is either an addition by the editor of the gospel or a gloss by a scribe; (ii) its absence in some manuscripts might be accidental and (iii) the clause is a parenthesis by the evangelist. 215 The two major 214 215

Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 154-155. In the following, we briefly summarize the various explanations in scholarship about the presence or absence of οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in v. 9. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 108-110, analyzes the text-critical problem posing two alternatives: v. 9c most naturally should be the words of the Samaritan woman and however, if it is understood as an explanatory comment by the evangelist can be perhaps a later gloss since v. 9c is absent in some important witnesses. Bultmann, John, 178-179, divides 4:5-9 as a subsection concerning the question of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and he finds that the motif of vv. 5-9 is repeated in vv. 20-26. Spitta, Das Johannes-Evangelium, 28, 38, include vv. 1-9 in L (“Legende nach mündlichen

142

CHAPTER 3

issues raised by scholarship about v. 9c are the use of the verb συγχράομαι, the absence of the definite article for both Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρίταις and employment of γάρ to introduce v. 9c. Van Belle studied this issue so extensively that after him no one has studied this issue in sufficient detail to offer a real alternative to his explanations and conclusions.216 He discusses this issue in detail against the background of the parenthetical style of John and the various instances of the employment of parentheses in this gospel, holding that οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις is a parenthesis. In a nutshell, his conclusion

216

Berichten des Apostles Johannes”). Spitta defines G=L+S where G is Grundschrift and S stands for synoptische Perikopen. However, he is not discussing the text-critical problem of v. 9c. On the contrary, Noack, Zur Johanneischen Tradition, 124, explains that one cannot claim presence of another source in these sections. He affirms that the remark in v. 9c is by the evangelist in view of the further development of the episode and even criticizes scholars finding a gloss or an addition every now and then. Wilkens, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums, 136, explains that the content of v. 9 (not only v. 9c) is about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and hence it does not match with the content of the whole episode. In his view vv. 5-7, 9-26, 28-30, 40 together forms the Grundperikope and among them v. 9 is the only note/remark which is to be understood as a gloss and the reason he provides is that v. 9 does not fit to the whole text. This seems to be an exaggerated view in many respects; such as this episode sketches a unique mission in Samaria, the Samaritan woman is one of the protagonists in this narrative; Jesus openly states that the Salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and further the issue of different places of worship for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is addressed and discussed by Jesus and the Samaritan woman, and the resultant is the Samaritans from the city of Sychar coming to and the μένειν of οἱ Σαμαρῖται with Jesus along with his disciples (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) where the Samaritans’ proclaim Jesus as the Savior of the world. Contrary to the view of Wilkens, von Wahlde understands that the evangelist thinks that one of the purposes of this episode is to discuss the relations between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. See von Wahlde, “The Samaritan Woman Episode,” 504; Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 166. Another issue raised is that the parenthesis introduced by the particle γὰρ is less frequent in the fourth gospel. Bernard considers 4:9c as the comment by the evangelist and not the words of the Samaritan woman that such brief explanations are given for “whom the details would be new”. See Bernard, John, xxxiv, 138. Beasley-Murray, John, 60, explains that “[t]he explanatory parenthesis in v. 9 has survived as a proverb”. Boers explains that the request of water included in this episode is not for its own sake rather to bring another meaning that Jesus breaks the custom prevailed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. McHugh, John, 268, attempts to explain away the difficulties due to v. 9c put forward by previous scholarship. With regard to the issue of hapax legemenon he explains that some manuscripts omitted v. 9c due to the fact that the verb or the phrase as a whole does not fit to Samaritan lips but v. 9c could be an explanatory note by the editor to help the reader of the gospel and in his view the absence of definite article for both Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρίταις is “unique in John and points with fair certainty to an editorial insertion”. Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 211-235, thoroughly examines the text-critical problem and comes to the conclusion that v. 9c is a parenthesis by the evangelist. See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 211-235.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

143

is anchored on the following convincing explanations: It is consistent with other parentheses that run through the fourth gospel and exhibits the unique style of John. Van Belle challenges scholarship that attributes οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις to a later redactor. He convincingly explains that v. 9c is a parenthesis added by the evangelist citing as evidence of the Johannine stylistic features, the absence of an article in Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις, hapax legomenon (συγχράομαι)217 by highlighting concrete instances in John, etc. It is because such explantations “restent des indications trop faibles, vu le style parenthétique de la phrase entière”.218 Against this background, one cannot isolate οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις from the sentence’s context. Van Belle concludes that the parenthetical style of v. 9c, οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις, highlights the two themes of the Samaritan episode reflected in v. 9ab, namely, Jesus’ identity as a Ἰουδαῖοι and the existing situation of conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (“Elle met en évidence deux thèmes du chapitre 4: l’identité de Jésus comme Juif et l’opposition entre Juifs et Samaritains”).219 Thus, Van Belle rightly concludes that the parenthetical style and explanatory phrase is so unique to John that one can hardly isolate v. 9c from the immediate context of Jn 4. Another issue raised by some scholars concerns the grammatical point of view. That is the parenthesis in v. 9c is introduced by γάρ which is less frequent in the fourth gospel than in the Synoptic gospels. Van Belle lists 30 occurrences of γάρ introducing a parenthesis, specifically, 23 times in narratives and 7 times in the dialogues.220 He adds that similar to the case v. 9c, many of these parentheses are accompanied by a negation.221 Moreover, the parenthetical style here is consistent with other explanatory 217

218

219 220

221

Cf., Jn 4:36; 6:22; 9:22; 11:33; 18:2, 14, 15; 19:32. See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 221-225. Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John,” 134151, does not include συγχράομαι in the list of hapax legomena in the gospel of John. Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 235. The point of departure of the above discussions are the parenthèses in John according to Abbott, Johannine Grammar, ## 2018; 2070; 2164; 2168; 2180 and 2639 which is supplemented with the verses or sections with pluperfects. A pluperfect, according to Abbott, “ often expresses a parenthesis, or a statement out of its chronological place, of the nature of an after-thought”. See for instance 1:24; 3:24; 4:8; 7:30c; 8:20c; 9:22b; 11:13a, 19, 30, 57 (cf. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, ## 2480-2481). See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 235. Van Belle makes this observation alongside with Abbott’s discussions. See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 224-225; foot notes, 770, 771, 773. See also Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 102, #2066. See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 224-225, (cf. also footnotes, 774, 775).

144

CHAPTER 3

phrases that are unique to John.222 Hence, he asserts that one can hardly isolate v. 9c. In order to understand the implication of v. 9c (οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις), we discuss further the meaning of the various components of the phrase οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9c). The meaning of συγχρῶνται (the inf. of συγχράομαι) is conjectural and two different explanations have been proposed for οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9c): (i) that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not use the vessels of Samaritans, or they do not share utensils and (ii) that they have no friendly dealings between them.223 D. R. Hall finds the second meaning more fitting in light of the grammatical analysis and against the background of the immediate and broader context of the gospel of John.224 In contrast, Louw and Nida (1989) who accept the second meaning hold that the meaning of οὐ γὰρ συγχράομαι used in Jn 4:9 is “for Jews do not associate with Samaritans”.225 BAG (1957), BADG (1979), and BDAG (2000) all offer the same explanation for συγχράομαι and affirm that v. 9c carries the second meaning, i.e., ‘οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται have no friendly dealings between them’ and thus they explicitly challenge Daube’s explanation for v. 9c, that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not use the vessels of Samaritans or they do not share utensils.226 However, Daube’s interpretation of συγχράομαι in v. 9 gained wide acceptance in later scholarship.227 Leidig discusses the Jewish laws of purification in its very many details in order to address the 222

223

224 225

226

227

See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 225; (cf. also footnotes, 776, 777, 778). In addition to that Van Belle explains briefly how v. 9 is well situated in the context of the Samaritan episode that highlights two themes in this episode, viz., Jesus’ identity as a Judean and the conflict between Judeans and Samaritans. See Daube, “The Meaning of συγχράομαι,” 137-214 accepts the first meaning for συγχραομαι, namely, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not use or share the vessels of Samaritans on the following grounds: (a) in the light of the rabbinic literature the Samaritan women are unclean from the cradle and the vessels they use also transmit impurity (b) the contemporary literature uses this word in the same meaning and not in the meaning assigned by traditional translation; ‘Jews do not have dealings with Samaritans’. See David, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 375. The problem with this interpretation is that recently scholars find that the rabbinic literature which Daube cites to substantiate his explanations is not contemporary to the gospel of John. See Hall, “The Meaning of συγχράομαι in Jn 4:9,” 56-57. See Louw and Nida, #34.1. This lexicon confirms this meaning by discussing it in light of the use of συγχράομαι in the NT. Συγχράομαι can be translated in different ways: “to have something to do with, to keep company with, to go around with, to join in doing things together, […] to be regarded as close friends, and even idiomatically as to be another person’s shadow”. See Daube, “The Meaning of συγχράομαι,” 137-214. See also BAG, #5996; BADG, 783. BDAG, 953. TDNT V, 1668 is not paying specific attention to the use of συγχράομαι in Jn 4:9. See for instance Barrett, John, 232; Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 84.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

145

issues raised by v. 9.228 Scholars like Brown and Olsson find no implication for such laws in this context.229 Ridderbos adds that the evangelist “breathes” neither a word pertaining to the purity laws nor to any such issues in v. 9.230 Haenchen explains that since v. 9c does not use the vocabulary for vessel, one can simply translate: “The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.”231 In the light of Jesus’ request for water, Bultmann considers v. 9c as depicting the enmity between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. He notes that the explanation provided in v. 9c points to the common knowledge of “the original narrator and his audience, so they would have immediately realized that Jesus’ request for water signified an abandonment of the Jewish viewpoint”.232 Förster notices that v. 9c lacks a direct object for the verb συγχράομαι. This deficit may invite further discussions on συγχράομαι. However, even independently of questions on the use of vessels one can understand the implications of v. 9 as Förster points out233 that v. 9c reaffirms a clear separation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται which is already hinted in v. 9a-b.234 As we have noted above (in section 4.2.3), even though the attempts to resolve either of these meaning has met with general agreement, our discussion on οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται does not require determining the precise meaning of οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in 4:9c, but rather it is sufficient to note that “phrase shows in either case that Jews and Samaritans had differences. Clearly, they differed in the cult-place”.235 228

229 230

231 232 233

234 235

See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 84. See also Daube, “The Meaning of συγχράομαι,” 137-214. Hayes, “Purity and Impurity, Ritual,” 746-756. “There is also a tendency within Jewish writings to link Gentiles with idolatry ... This connection between food and idolatry can also be seen in the second century BC Letter to Aristeas (128-143), which claims that the dietary laws were given by God specifically to keep the Jews separate from the other nations”. The lack of table fellowship of course leads to a social separation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Gibson, Peter between Jerusalem, 116. It is to be noted that the theme of purity/impurity and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is explicitly mentioned in Jn 18:28. “They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.” (18:28). See Tomson, “Jewish Purity Laws as Viewed by the Church Fathers,” 83-84. See Brown, John, 170; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 154-157. See Ridderbos, John, 154. He adds that only when one assigns the meaning of συγχραομαι as ‘share things in common’ can the Jewish laws of purification be seen to have some implications in the light of the references to water jar in v. 28 and 4:9. Haenchen, John, 220. See also Barrett, John, 250. Bultmann, John, 178. See Förster, “Überlegungen zu den Samaritanern im Johannesevangelium,” 208. We will discuss in the following section further on this issue of the level of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Förster, “Überlegungen zu den Samaritanern im Johannesevangelium,” 208. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 35.

146

CHAPTER 3

As Van Belle, rightly remarks, the parenthesis of v. 9c fits well into the context of the Samaritan episode. More specifically, it is part of the introduction of the episode and the description of the first encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (vv. 1-9).236 In the light of these considerations of the meaning of οὐ συγχράομαι we would agree that the more plausible explanation is the second one, namely, that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται have no friendly dealings between them. The plausibility of this explanation is further supported by our discussions pertaining to the context and implications of v. 9a-b and the understanding of v. 9c as a parenthesis provided by the evangelist. Hence, we may deduce that the Samaritan episode implicitly presents the then prevailing relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται which was disturbed in different respects. This episode, thus calls for reconciling love. As Van Belle rightly points out that the introductory part, vv. 1-9 provides the narrative framework. And that these verses reflect the themes that will develop further by the evangelist in the following sections: the theme of water is introduced in vv. 7-9 which is elaborated further in vv. 10ff (living water) and the topic of food in vv. 31ff which is expected due to the evangelist report in v. 8.237 The division or rift expressed through οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις in v. 9 prepares the reader for the further dialogues (vv. 10-26; vv. 31-38) and actions (vv. 27-30, 39) in the Samaritan episode and thus witnessing a gradual transformation into the Samaritans’ μένειν with Jesus and his disciples who belongs to the group of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (vv. 40-42).238

CONCLUSION Our discussion of 4:1-9 has consisted of the following components: (i) The episode hints at an increasing hostility towards Jesus on the part of the Pharisees, and Jesus, knowing about this, leaves Judea for Galilee (vv. 1-3). These transitory verses reflect an atmosphere of power conflict by which the evangelist depicts the reason for Jesus’ journey. (ii) The evangelist explains that Jesus had to go to Samaria using the word δεῖ (ἔδει v. 4). Owing to the socio-cultural and religious-historical context of this episode, the strategy behind selecting this route could not have been simply that it was the easiest or closest one. In other words, this route was 236 237 238

See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 433. See Van Belle, “La parenthèse en 4:9,” 433. Cf. vv. 4, 6, 12, 20 etc. We will discuss the implications of μένειν (v. 40 [2×]) where we analyse vv. 40-42 in chapter 7.

A CLIMATE OF BREACH/HOSTILITY

147

sometimes opted for travelers who had to reach their destination quickly (Galilee). Hence we discussed the question of, what made it necessary for Jesus to pass through Samaria: was it a geographical necessity or a theological one? We found that it must have been more than a geographical necessity. (iii) We have discussed: What could be the evangelist’s intention in indicating this setting and the names of the ancestors/patriarchs Jacob and Joseph in vv. 5-6 (vv. 11-12) against the background of the Johannine Jesus’ unique visit to Samaria? Self-definition of the Samaritans as the descendants of these patriarchs is not only found in this narrative description but also elsewhere testified through the first centuries of the Common Era while οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not acknowledge their common kinship with οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Hence, we propose that the references to Jacob and Joseph (vv. 5, 6, 12) are meant only to make clear the importance of Jesus’ words and actions in Samaria. (iv) There are other elements of the passage that suggest problems and offer signs of breach and/or hostility between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (vv. 7-9). The reference to the disciples’ going to buy food from the Samaritan city (v. 8) can be explained in the light of the literature discussed above; i.e., despite the records and/ or depictions of breach, such as differences in cult and religious practices and examples of hostility, there are indications that exchanges occurred between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται such as trade and travelling through the other’s territory. The sharp distinction between Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις is indicated in the first response of this woman to Jesus, the solitary, thirsty traveller (v. 9ab). Yet, the exact nature of the problems between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is far from clear, even in light of our discussions of scholarship on the relevant literature pertaining to the issue of the status of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται based on the extant evidence (dating before the turning of common era up to the time of the time of the Johannine Jesus).239 However, at least implicitly v. 9ab informs the reader that there existed some sort of hostility between these two groups of people. (v) The parenthesis that the evangelist provided for the response of the Samaritan woman in v. 9c (οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται…) shows clearly how the evangelist sets the words and actions of Jesus in 239

As we have noticed the Jewish sources present some sort of hostile attitude toward Samaritans while they attribute the reason for the breach and the groups’ differences on the Samaritans. Nevertheless, the Samaritan sources, we have today are dated far after the NT period and hence cannot be taken into our discussions on our topic. Hence, when exactly the parting of the ways occurred between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται will remain a debated topic not only due to the lack of Samaritan sources from earlier centuries but also the numerous similarities such as beliefs, practices, sacred texts, ancestors.

148

CHAPTER 3

Samaria in an atmosphere of conflict and breach. In short, as per the text of John, in vv. 1-9 more stress is given to the elements of dissociation than association between Judeans and Samaritans. Thus, we propose that vv. 19 disprove the first component of the null hypothesis, namely that there prevailed a very friendly atmosphere and relationship of kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.240 True reconciliation calls for a participatory approach from both parties. At the phase of the curt response of the Samaritan woman, Jesus re-initiates the dialogue, which gradually develops into a participatory dialogue comprised of two themes (water vv. 10-19 and worship vv. 20-26). Our analyses of the different phases have shown that the available evidence almost unanimously points to one of these major issues of breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, namely, the place of worship (Jerusalem vs Mt. Gerizim), which is opened up and discussed explicitly in this dialogue. The following chapter will discuss this active dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman vv. 10-26.

240

Our hypothesis posits that the then prevailing breach/hostility between Judeans and the Johannine Jesus’ mission in Samaria implicitly shows the ethics of reconciling love, and perhaps even of loving of enemies in a unique way, as in the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:1-42).

CHAPTER 4

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING: A DIALOGUE IN PROGRESS IN JOHN 4:10-19 INTRODUCTION The final part of our analysis in the previous chapter concerned the closed and cold response of the Samaritan woman in 4:9. One would certainly not expect this conversation to continue any further as the negative response portrayed here has a downside potential, namely the issue of the breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. However, in the narrative line, we find an extended dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (vv. 10-26).1 The conversation does not come to a close at the phase of blame and negativity in v. 9; rather Jesus pursues the conversation in a more inviting way. In other words, rather than arguing or analysing straight away the content of the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 9, the Johannine Jesus re-initiates the conversation in a different mode (vv. 10ff) and in explicit notions he is more concerned with her personal experience (vv. 16-18). From the outset, however, the theme is the same, viz., water (vv. 10-19). Jesus deflects the conversation from one mode to the other (see, for instance, vv. 10, 16), then focuses on concrete issues; more specifically, he confronts the Samaritan woman (vv. 17-18), leading her to acclaim that Jesus is a/the prophet (v. 19).2 This response of the Samaritan woman shows an explicit mark of progress in the dialogue. Verse 10 begins with Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν that he invites the Samaritan woman to reverse the request δός μοι πεῖν (cf. v. 9 and v. 10). This offer sets on two challenges viz., to have knowledge (cf. οἶδα) of δωρεά τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι. She bargains over Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ 1 2

We will discuss vv. 20-26 in the following chapter. At the beginning of the conversation, the Samaritan woman perceives Jesus as a Ἰουδαῖος (v. 9). As the conversation advances, she asks Jesus, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ (v. 12). One of the outcomes of the conflicting, deflecting and confronting modes of the dialogue (vv. 7-18) is reflected in v. 19, where the woman acknowledges Jesus as a prophet (θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ).

150

CHAPTER 4

ζῶν (vv. 11-14). She raises questions such as πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; and μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ; in vv. 11-12. Eventually in v. 15, she makes the request for ὕδωρ ζῶν.3 Jesus’ offer in v. 10 is sure to grow in right οἶδα, however, it seems that she does not yet comprehend them correctly. In v. 16, Jesus deflects the conversation further and thus implicitly challenges her to broaden her perceptions and perspectives and even confronts her (vv. 17-18). In other words, Jesus goes ahead to lead the Samaritan woman to gain the right οἶδα. Such actions and interactions in vv. 10-18 resulted in the Samaritan woman’s declaration κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ (v. 19). Hence, we will discuss vv. 10-19 in two parts: vv. 10-15 and vv. 16-19. 1. THE REVERSAL OF δός μοι (VV. 10-15) As we noticed above, the Samaritan woman denies and ill-treats Jesus rather than offering him hospitality,4 so much so that one would not expect the conversation to proceed further. Yet Jesus takes the conversation in a new direction in v. 10. We can see that Jesus neither answers the question posed by her nor returns the implicit denial with a negative reaction. In other words, Jesus continues the conversation with the Samaritan woman which he himself initiated (in v. 7). He neither pursues her again for water nor poses any question about her implicit denial (in v. 9). Rather, he urges the Samaritan woman to reverse the request (v. 10). G. R. O’Day notes that the Samaritan woman’s response to Jesus is to a thirsty Ἰουδαῖος, but he invites her to understand the identity of the one who is talking to her and the gift of God. O’Day further elaborates that the Samaritan woman’s right understanding of who Jesus is eventually leads her to recognize her own need for water (vv. 10-15).5 Here, we will discuss this subsection with respect to how the conversation deflects the atmosphere of denial 3

4 5

In v. 7, however, where Jesus requests for water (cf. δός μοι πεῖν) the evangelist gives no hints of the dialogue to follow in vv. 10ff. However, in v. 10 the same three words δός μοι πεῖν uttered by Jesus are in a totally different sense. In v. 7 Jesus the recipient asks the Samaritan woman δός μοι πεῖν who has access to water, whereas in v. 10 Jesus offers the Samaritan woman ὕδωρ ζῶν, which urges her to make the request δός μοι πεῖν. In vv. 10-15 the evangelist presents Jesus’ offer of water of higher quality ὕδωρ ζῶν and reversal of request δός μοι πεῖν. See Brant, John, 83. See O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, 60; Okure, The Johannine Approach, 86-87, 95-98 takes a similar approach. Brown, John, 177, notes that Jesus, by opening up the dialogue, gradually leads the Samaritan woman to recognize her thirst. Schnackenburg, John, 1.426, goes further, arguing that Jesus does not need anything but the Samaritan woman whose need is confronted before the one who can meet her needs in abundance.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

151

and takes a new direction in v. 10 and how it unfolds in vv. 11-15, up to the point of reversal of the request (cf. v. 7 with vv. 10, 15). 1.1. Deflecting From Conflicting Mood (v. 10) v. 10a ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· v. 10b εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι· δός μοι πεῖν, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν.

Our examination of v. 10 is in the light of the response of denial from the part of the Samaritan woman in v. 9 and we make an overview of the various components of v. 10 to understand how the conversation deflects the atmosphere of denial and takes a new direction in v. 10. This verse begins with the quotation formula ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ. The vocabulary ἀποκρίνομαι6 used here informs the reader that Jesus gives answer to the Samaritan woman in v. 9. The question raised here is “[h]ow is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” From the very outset one can see that Jesus does not respond to the real issue she raised in v. 9.7 In other words, v. 10 explicitly8 does not provide any solution or even a response to the issue she raises (i.e., the issue pertaining to the relationship between Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται); rather Jesus’ answering (cf. ἀποκρίνομαι), deflects the conversation, from an atmosphere of denial by offering her a gift, living water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) in v. 10. This response of Jesus is composed of certain conditional clauses, viz., if you knew (οἶδα) δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and who is speaking to you (ὁ λέγων σοι) then you would ask him and if you asked him, then he would give you ὕδωρ ζῶν. That is, Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to fulfil certain conditions to get his offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν, namely, first to know (οἶδα) δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι which will lead her to ask for this offer. What

6

7

8

The fact that Jesus first asks water from the Samaritan woman is explained as an irony, since in this narrative the Samaritan eventually requests water from Jesus. Verse 10 begins with the phrase ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς. ἀποκρίνομαι may mean ‘giving an answer to a question’. BDAG, 113, finds two sorts of meaning for ἀποκρίνομαι (i) answer, reply and (ii) the continuation of discourse. According to L&N, #33.184, this term refers to a response to a question asking for information. Liddell and Scott first mention about the different meanings of ἀποκρίνω, viz., (i) to separate, to set apart; to mark by a distinctive form, distinguish, to choose out, choose etc. and then along with that meanings of ἀποκρίνομαι such as to reply to a questioner or question, to answer charges and defend oneself. It adds further that the aorist passive ἀπεκρίθη, with the meaning “he answered”, is “first [used] in the N.T.” LSJ, #5502. Ridderbos, John, 154-155, rightly explains that “[a]lthough the woman’s question in v. 9 touches one of the main motifs of the entire story, Jesus refrains from commenting directly on the polarity she refers to”. We discuss various elements concerning v. 10 in the following, paying due attention to the implications of this verse in relation to the previous verses, especially v. 9.

152

CHAPTER 4

would be the implications of οἶδα, δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ λέγων σοι and ὕδωρ ζῶν employed in v. 10? As Michaels rightly notes Jesus’ reply in v. 10 engages the Samaritan woman as his dialogue partner. He notes that the terms σύ and αἰτέω in v. 9 are repeated in v. 10 emphatically.9 “Instead of pursuing his request for a drink, he now raises the issue of whether she has correctly identified him (4:10).”10 The use of καί in εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι· δός μοι πεῖν (v. 10) has two main clauses, of which one is about the gift of God (δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) and the other about Jesus (ὁ λέγων σοι), in which Jesus tells the Samaritan woman about her lack of knowledge (οἶδα of these two matters, viz., δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι. It is evident that δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ is about the gift and ὁ λέγων σοι is the one who offers this gift, i.e., the first clause is about the gift and the other is about the giver of it. Hence, both clauses are so closely related that “one cannot be understood […] without the other”.11 Thus, v. 10 informs the reader that at the moment the Samaritan woman “knows neither God’s gift nor Jesus’ true identity”.12 Alternatively, Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to have knowledge (cf. οἶδα) about these two which would be vital to her. Louw and Nida explains that οἶδα and γινώσκω can mean to possess information about; to know, to know about, to have knowledge of, to be acquainted with, and acquaintance.13 “The distinction,” he writes, “between οἶδα, ‘know’ absolutely, and γινώσκω, ‘come to know’ cannot be pressed in Hellenistic Greek. For οἶδα in contexts which suggest full, accurate knowledge”.14 But we have seen that according to v. 9 what the Samaritan woman knew is that Jesus is a Ἰουδαῖος which led her to respond with an overtone of denial. In the context per se v. 10 points to two things which the woman did not know: δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι· δός μοι πεῖν.15 Okure notes that these two expressions “are remarkably vague; they form part of Jesus’ technique of arousing the woman’s curiosity […] 9 10

11 12 13

14 15

Michaels, John, 230. Matthews, “Conversation and Identity, 221. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 122, goes further, explaining that Jesus accepts her reluctance and does not pursue what has been said to him. Rather “he accepts her expression of the dilemma in which she finds herself and instead switches [from his needs] to the topic of her needs”. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 99. Köstenberger, John, 149. See L&N, #28.1. According to BDAG οἶδα may mean the following: to know someone, know about something; be (intimately) acquainted with, stand in a close relation to know or understand, be able and understand, recognize, come to know, experience. “The form οἴδασιν is found as early as Herodotus (5 BCE)”. BDAG, 555. See also GIN, #4517. MM, 439. See Michaels, John, 230-231. He rightly notes that Jesus exposes the woman’s ignorance of two matters, namely, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ and τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι· δός μοι πεῖν.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

153

Equally the expressions ‘living water’ and ‘who this is’ are in response to the woman’s reply in v 9ab: the former relates her understanding of Jesus’ request in terms of physical water, the latter to her calling him a ‘Jew.’ Jesus thus appears very attentive to the woman’s interpellations”.16 Jesus is not directly telling the Samaritan woman about her lack of knowledge, but employing conditional clauses he mentions about himself in third person ὁ λέγων σοι. The vocabulary δωρεά is used 11 times in the NT.17 According to BDAG, δωρεά is employed in Jn 4:10 in the sense “that which is given or transferred freely by one person to another, gift, bounty”.18 The gospel of John provides no specific explanation for this vocabulary as such and as we noted above this vocabulary is not found in the Synoptic gospels.19 There are different explanations of δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. Scholars in general hold that δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ refers to ὕδωρ ζῶν20 in its immediate context (vv. 10-15)21 which will provide ζωὴν αἰώνιον (cf. v. 14).22 16 17

18

19

20

21

22

Okure, The Johannine Approach, 96. δωρεά is used in Jn 4:10; Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17; Rom 5:15, 17; 2 Cor 9:15; Eph 3:7; 4:7; Heb 6:4. Among them, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ is employed twice, viz., in Jn 4:10 and Acts 8:20. See Moulton and Geden, Concordance, 240. BDAG, 266. See also Büchsel, “δωρεά,” TDNT II, 167; G. Schneider, “δωρεά,” EDNT I, 363-364. Bauer notes that DELG cites the vocabulary δωρεά under δίδωμι. In the Samaritan episode δίδωμι is repeated several times, in v. 10 itself it occurs twice. “δωρεά, a free gift, occurs in the Gospels adverbially (Mt. 10:8), and is always used in the Acts and Epistles of a divine gift.” Bernard, John, 1.138. The adverb δωρεάν conveys its basic meaning, viz., freely or for nothing. See Büchsel, “δωρεά,” 167; Okure, The Johannine Approach, 96. The adverb δωρεάν is used on just one occasion in the Synoptic gospels, in Mt 10:8 (δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε). Other instances are in Jn 15:25; Rom 3:24; 2 Cor 11:7; Gal 2:21; 2 Thes 3:8; Rev 21:6; 22:17. See Moulton and Geden, Concordance to the Greek New Testament, 240. In the following sections, we will discuss the implications of ὕδωρ ζῶν in the Samaritan episode in general and in vv. 10-15 in particular. There are several other interpretations of δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ in this respect, viz., the law given through Moses (1:17), Jesus himself (3:16), living water (cf. v. 10,), eternal life (vv. 13-14), salvation (cf. v. 22; 42), revelation (cf. v. 34) and the Holy Spirit (cf. 7:38, 39, 14:15-17). It is to be noted that the above interpretations of δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ are proposed in the broader context of the gospel of John and/or in the light of the Samaritan episode. Okure finds that God’s gift in v. 10 is further explained in vv. 20-23 and in vv. 36-38. She adds that in the OT and in the NT there are other instances for such use of δωρεάν. See Okure, The Johannine Approach, 96. See also Bernard, John, 1.138. Beasley-Murray, John, 60. Bultmann, John, 181–187, explains that the gift of God implies the revelation. McHugh, John, 269, notes that the “[i]dentical phrase τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ occurs elsewhere in the NT only in the story of Simon Magus (Acts 8.20) also sets in Samaria where it refers explicitly to the giving of holy spirit by the laying on of hands (8.17)”. See also Bernard, John, 1.138. Beasley-Murray elaborates further on δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὕδωρ ζῶν that “[t]he ‘gift of God’ denotes the salvation of God in an inclusive sense” and “[t]he ‘living water’ from Jesus is here virtually equated with it” (v. 10). See, for instance, Bultmann, John, 180; Schnackenburg, John, 1.462-464; Brown, John, 1.178-179; Theobald, Das Evangelium, 319. Jesus adds further in vv. 13-14, in response to the Samaritan woman’s enquiry, ὕδωρ ζῶν will provide ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

154

CHAPTER 4

The second main clause in v. 10b, τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι· δός μοι πεῖν depicts the second challenge namely, to have the right knowledge about ὁ λέγων σοι (who asks her δός μοι πεῖν). McHugh explains that “[this] λέγειν on the lips of Jesus underlines the importance of the words uttered, and alerts one to a possible hidden meaning: had she known the identity of the man who was asking for just a sip of water […] she would have realized that he was in fact seeking not to receive, but to confer, a favour”.23 It is to be noted that Jesus uses the third person to refer to himself. Such uses of the more neutral expression help the dialogue partner engage in the dialogue with more openness.24 Abbott notes that the unusual position of ἂν in σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν (v. 10) “calls strong attention to [this] hypothesis.”25 “Thou, in that case [hadst thou but known] wouldst have asked him [instead of waiting for him to ask thee] and he would have given thee (k. ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι).”26 σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτόν (v. 10) emphasizes ‘you-he and not he-you’ and that one should take notice of the contrast between σύ and αὐτός.27 σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν, σύ “is emphatic and the meaning is, “thou wouldst have asked him [not waiting for him to ask thee].”28 Hence, position of ἂν in v. 10 stresses “that ‘you would most certainly have asked’, by contrast with the more normal order in the following clause” (and he would have given you living water).29 In the light of this brief overview of the two conditions put forward by Jesus, one may find that Jesus, who reinitiates the conversation in v. 10, does so with precision to erase the overtone of rejection which stemmed from her lack of understanding, by inviting her to have right knowledge about right things. In sum, Jesus engages in dialogue with 23

24 25

26 27

28

29

McHugh, John, 269. He adds that ὁ λέγων σοι in v. 10 “thus initiates a dialogue terminating with a perfectly matching inclusio in v. 26 ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι”. As noted above, the Samaritan woman’s knowledge of Jesus is limited to thinking of him only as a Ἰουδαῖος. See Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 123. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2553a. He explains that “[w]herever a word is placed out of its usual order, or out of the order in which it has previously occurred, then – unless a change is made for clearness – some difference of emphasis may be expected” is the hypothesis mentioned above. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2400. BDF, #277. The nominative of pronoun σύ (in v. 10 σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτόν) is used in contrast with αὐτόν. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2553a. McHugh, John, 269, elaborates further that “[i]n the protasis, the personal pronoun was not expressed (εἰ ᾔδεις [cf. v. 10]), σύ in the apodosis is therefore emphatic”. See McHugh, John, 269-270.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

155

her to have right knowledge and thus to lead her to the life giving water (ὕδωρ ζῶν).30 In the OT the expression ‫יִם־חיִּ ים‬ ַ ‫ ַמ‬/ὕδωρ ζῶν (living water) is most often used with the symbolic meaning of divine wisdom, which is the source of life.31 It is to be noted that in the OT, the fountain of living water is usually represented as Yahweh.32 Bernard finds some connections between the messianic prophesy in Isa 35:7 which mentions about εἰς τὴν διψῶσαν γῆν πηγὴ ὕδατος with the climax of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (v. 26).33 Some references in the Qumran scrolls also shed light on the meaning and implications of the theme of living water. Scholars note some parallels in the DSS to the idea of living water. J. Fitzmyer, for example, mentions the following manuscripts. ‘“But you my God have put in my mouth, as it were an early rain for all […] and a spring of living water’ 1QHa 16[old 8]:16”.34 Okure notices the expression ‘living water’ in 1QH 4:11; 2:18; 1QS 10:12; 11:3, where it applies to knowledge.35 A. J. Rodriguez, Jr. finds some parallelism between 1QSb 1:6 and Jn 4:10-15 and explains that living waters, in both cases, serve as a symbol.36 Against the background of the similar references in the literature, 30

31

32 33

34

35

36

Botha explains that in v. 10 Jesus implicitly addresses the issue raised by her, that “her refusal and reluctance to associate with a Jew are the result of ignorance about [sic] τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ”. See Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 123. There are references to living water in the OT, such as in Ps 36:8-9; 42:1-2; 46:4; Isa 12:3; 55:1; Jer 2:13; 7:13; Ez 47:1; Zech 14:8. For instance, Ps 36:9, Jer 2:13, 17:13. See Bernard, John, 1.138. “In the Messianic forecast of Isa 35:7 one of the promised blessings was εἰς τὴν διψῶσαν γῆν πηγὴ ὕδατος, and at v. 26 […] Jesus is represented as declaring that He was Messiah”. Bernard, John, 1.139. One may note that as the dialogue progresses further the Samaritan woman’s lack of οἶδα is enriched through the right paths (cf. vv. 19, 20, 24-25) that she finds a/the prophet in Jesus and enquires more in that direction, viz., the right place of worship and right knowledge delivered by the expected Messiah. J. Fitzmyer, “Qumran Literature and the Johannine Writings,” 127. Another reference he notes is “a source of living water” from 4QDibHama (4Q504) 1-2v, “but the immediate context is missing, so one cannot determine the sense in which it is used but in line 15 it says […] ‘[f]or you have poured your holy spirit upon us’”. He notes that in 11QTemple (11Q19) 45:16 also is a reference to living water, “but there it is a question of bathing in ‘fresh running water,’ and it has no symbolic meaning”. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 99. In 1QH 8:20 (cf. 6:16) it is mentioned that “drinkers of the waters of life are the eternal trees (1QH 8:12) who become the garden of Eden”, and in 1QS 11:3-9 it is depicted as “the revelation given to the community”. See also L. Goppelt, “ὕδωρ,” TDNT VIII, 322-33; Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament I, 114-115. See Rodriguez Jr., “Life from on High,” 232-233. However, it is to be noted that the 1QSb 1:6 is incomplete in many respects. See Martínez and Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QSb 1:6, provides the English translation of the reconstruction “[m]ay [my Lord] bless you [from his holy residence.] For you may he open an eternal spring

156

CHAPTER 4

scholars note that the living water depicted in vv. 10-15 can have many nuanced interpretations. In the Hebrew Bible living water is primarily “a figure for Yahweh himself and the salvation that proceeds from him (cf. Jer 2:13; 17:13; Sir 24:21; Prov 13:14; 18:4). In the Damascus Document [(CD 6.4) Num 21:18], it is interpreted as to refer to the Torah.37 In the NT the expression ὕδωρ ζῶν is used only in the gospel of John and the book of Revelation (4:10, 11; 7:38; 7:17; 21:6; 22:1; 17).38 Scholars propose various explanations of what ὕδωρ ζῶν might refer to in the NT such as baptism, the words of Jesus Christ (cf. v. 26), faith, the Holy Spirit, salvation (7:38; 11:26) etc.39 Okure finds that δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ is described as ὕδωρ ζῶν that “[t]he two terms are synonymous”. That is “if the woman asks for ‘the gift of God’ she will be given ‘living water’”.40 From our brief overview of the meaning and implications of ‫ם־חיִּ ים‬ ַ ִ‫ ַמי‬/ ὕδωρ ζῶν, we deduce the following. Such mentions to the theme of living water, either implicitly or explicitly, refer to human beings’ inner thirst for God. In the same or a similar vein, in v. 19 and vv. 24-26 (i.e., in the Samaritan episode), we find the Samaritan woman’s confession of Jesus as a prophet and Jesus, in reply to her further responses, reveals himself to her as the Messiah. Physical thirst is satisfied temporarily by drinking water from πηγή/φρέαρ41, which is incomplete, whereas complete satisfaction

37

38

39

40

41

which [does not dry up.] From the heavens may [...] in your hand [...] May he bestow upon you all the bless[ings...] in the congregation of the holy ones. [...] eternal spring, and not [withhold the living waters] from the thirsty.” Martínez and Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls, C.D. 4.6. See Beasley-Murray, John, 60; Haenchen, John, 1.220. Cf. the explanation that “[t]he ‘well’ in question is the law”. See also Beasley-Murray, John, 60. Haenchen adds further it is that “by which [Philo] understands concretely the law and the God who teaches virtues through the law”. Philo uses the expression “the spring of living” (πηγὴ τοῦ ζῆν) for God. Cf. Philo, De fuga, 198. See Moulton and Geden, Concordance, 1050-1051. Fitzmyer, “Qumran Literature,” 133, rightly notes that “[t]he idea of ‘living water’ which Jesus expresses is unique to the Johannine gospel and is never found on his lips in the Synoptic Gospels”. Brown, John, 1.178-179, discusses extensively the various propositions in scholarship concerning the living water. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 97. Both these expressions can mean Jesus’ selfrevelation or a teaching in general. See McCool, “Living Water in St. John,” 226-235; Brown, John, 1.179. Bernard explains that “if she had understood who He was, she would have been the suppliant (σὺ ἂν ἤτησας αὐτόν, “It is you who would have asked Him) […] He would have given her “living water.” See Bernard, John, 1.138. He refers to a similar expression in Mt. 7:7 as well. ὕδωρ ζῶν issues from a spring or fountain (πηγή) and is being collected in a φρέαρ (Jacob’s well, φρέαρ in v. 12; see also πηγή in v. 6). See Bernard, John, 1.139; DCG 2, #40a. There are references to πηγὴ ζωῆς, see, for instance, Prov 13:14; 14:27. We will

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

157

is bestowed when another kind of thirst is quenched, namely, human beings’ innermost thirst for God, which takes various forms such as the longing for happiness and peace.42 Boers writes of v. 10 that “[i]n his response to the woman’s refusal Jesus now models a new program of action […] switching the active subject and the subject of the circumstances around and changing the meaning of the subject, water” i.e., from drinking water to the water of life.43 Thus, we have seen that the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman begins with the woman’s human, physical thirst for water (vv. 7-9), and then is carried further, beyond this, by the key word ὕδωρ ζῶν. As Beasley-Murray rightly remarks “[i]t is evident that [ὕδωρ ζῶν] has a variety of nuances that must be taken into account”.44 We have examined so far the meaning and implications of Jesus’ saying in v. 10 by paying attention to some key terms and expressions such as ἀπεκρίθη, οἶδα, δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ λέγων σοι and ὕδωρ ζῶν. We have seen that Jesus reinitiates the dialogue in v. 10 by placing an offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν along with two challenges, viz., to acquire right knowledge (οἶδα) about δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and to know who is ὁ λέγων σοι. Moreover, Jesus invites her to make the request for water in v. 10 at the phase of her negative response and denial to his request for water in vv. 7, 9. That is, in place of the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 9, πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος, the evangelist places on the lips of Jesus in v. 10, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν and shows him urging her explicitly to reverse the request, δός μοι πεῖν. The Samaritan woman does not yet know fully the implication of Jesus’ words, actions, role and all the more his identity, viz., who is ὁ λέγων σοι.45 Among the two expressions, δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὕδωρ ζῶν in the response of Jesus, we examined various possible interpretations which have shown that according to a majority of scholars δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ would mean ὕδωρ ζῶν in the immediate context. However, Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν needs to be

42

43

44 45

pay attention to the use of πηγή and φρέαρ interchangeably in the Samaritan episode in the following section. Schaff and Lange, The Gospel according to John, 155, explain that “it is evidently the inner-life as the operation of the life of Christ, conceived predominantly under the aspect of inward peace (no longer thirsting)”. Boers, Neither on this Mountain nor in Jerusalem, 43. From v. 10ff it is evident that “the woman does not have this water “which implies that her thirst for it is not quenched”. Beasley-Murray, John, 60. See Neyrey, The Gospel of John, 90, rightly remarks, “knowledge plays a significant role” in this dialogue.

158

CHAPTER 4

elaborated further which we will find by analysing the implicit notions in the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (vv. 11-14).46 1.2. A Phase of Bargaining Over (vv. 11-15) We discussed how Jesus redirects the conversation with an offer and by stating the conditions (to have right knowledge of (δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι) for asking for ὕδωρ ζῶν. Alternatively, she would have asked him for ὕδωρ ζῶν (v. 10) under certain conditions. Whether the Samaritan woman met these conditions or not, in v. 15 she makes the request, δός μοι. Against this background we examine the discussions in vv. 11-15. We examine how the Samaritan woman had progressed in terms of overcoming the hurdles on the way to get the offer of Jesus. The sequencing of the dialogue vv. 11-15 centers mainly on ὕδωρ ζῶν with respect to its relevancy, clarity, quantity and quality.47 Brant rightly explains that the Samaritan woman has water and Jesus has living water, and, in this, the narrative presents a double entendre in v. 10, which dominates the discussion in vv. 11-15.48 In other words, this discussion progresses with a dichotomy between physical thirst and the thirst of a human person within oneself, due to this double entendre. The woman herself is led by Jesus’ word (v. 10) to ask whether he is able to offer more than well water. This signals her willingness to participate in the dialogue. She asks Jesus, about the means to get water, οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ· πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; Okure notes that the woman’s response is “starkly practical [that] as in v. 9 she draws Jesus’ attention to the predicament of his own situation”.49 Similar to her second response in v. 11 we can see the emphatic expression, viz., τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν. The style of correlating negative and positive terms (οὔτε … καὶ) in v. 11 is not common in classical Greek and also such usage shows that the two facts combined with it are correlative.50 Abbott explains that 46

47 48 49 50

O’Day, The Word Disclosed, 36, rightly remarks that in v. 10 “[t]he juxtaposition of [ὕδωρ ζῶν] with [τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ] leaves all the possible interpretation open. […] The ambiguity of the expression [ὕδωρ ζῶν] is not resolved in verse 10, but is carried into the rest of the narrative”. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 123, adds that to make an offer, ὕδωρ ζῶν to the Samaritan woman without asking her needs would necessitate “the presupposition that [Jesus] has the ability and authority to do so”. See Botha, “John 4:16,” 183-191. See Brant, John, 84. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 97. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2258. BDF #445; MHT 3.340.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

159

“οὔτε … καί is highly characteristic style of the woman’s talk, which is somewhat flighty, passing from ‘neither bucket hast thou [nor rope to let down the bucket]’ – which she had at first in her mind – to the thought of the ‘depth’ of ‘the well’”.51 She objects that he has no vessel to draw water and that the well is deep. When examined against its literarygeographical background,52 one can see that the Samaritan woman’s enquiry οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ· πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν in v. 11 “is a logical conclusion leading into v. 12”.53 Okure notes that the Samaritan woman’s response in vv. 11-12 clearly indicates that she is not paying attention to the expression δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. One may say that perhaps she does not comprehend it at the moment or that she evades it without discussion for some reason. She replies only to Jesus’ offer for water and enquires whether he is capable of it. However, her reference to the patriarch Jacob and his gift to the Samaritans (his kin), namely the gift of Jacob’s well, which has had long-lasting blessings for the generations not only for them but for all their households, may implicitly point to Jesus’ mention of the gift of God. One may even suppose that she is curious to know the worth of the gift which Jesus offers in the light of her question μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ. Indeed, the Samaritan woman is speaking not about δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ but about ὕδωρ ζῶν to quench her physical thirst. That is, her explicit words or her enquiries are concerned about the means to get effortless access for water to meet her physical needs and thus to make her life more comfortable. The difference is that Jesus’ water will enable her to live. The Samaritan woman’s response in v. 11 makes it explicit that she is not referring to any sort of living water with added symbolic meaning, but rather just to well water. She tells Jesus that he lacks even a bucket to draw water from the deep well. Yet in the following verse (v. 12), she at least implicitly enquires about Jesus’ identity (cf. ὁ λέγων σοι in v. 10). Jesus’ concern in v. 10, however, is not just physical water, but ὕδωρ ζῶν about which the Samaritan woman did not have right knowledge. We made an overview of the meaning and implications of Jesus’ mention of ὕδωρ ζῶν in light of its use in various other sources but we should admit 51 52

53

Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2258. In what follows, we will discuss the different terms used in the Samaritan episode, viz., πηγή and φρέαρ respectively in v. 6 [×2]; v. 14 and in vv. 11, 12 and their relevance concerning the literary-geographical indications of Jacob’s well. McHugh, John, 270. Beasley-Murray, John, 60, explains that “[t]he woman’s response is controlled by her misunderstanding of the statement in v 10, and this leads Jesus to elaborate the image he has used” .

160

CHAPTER 4

that none of them belongs to Samaritan sources.54 Those references to the living water in the OT are found in the Prophets and Wisdom literature. But the Samaritans’ Scriptures do not contain these books since the Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch (Samaritan Pentateuch). Though ‫מים היים‬/ὕδωρ ζῶν is employed “eight (or seven) times in the Torah, [it] refers on every occasion to the physical element alone and is never [with a symbolic meaning or] as a metaphor”.55 Against this background it is not surprising to hear the Samaritan woman’s response to Jesus in vv. 1112 concerning Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν, viz., that Jesus has no ἄντλημα and the well is deep and μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ. This may imply that at the moment, as per the level of the knowledge of the Samaritan woman, Jesus cannot be greater than Jacob and that he cannot find a new spring to get water. In this light we understood that it is a real hurdle for her to gain knowledge of the δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι to attain ὕδωρ ζῶν. However, the Samaritan woman responds to Jesus, addressing him as κύριε (v. 11)56. This is commendable in comparison to her antagonistic address of Jesus as σὺ Ἰουδαῖος in v. 9 that she has grown in her understanding about Jesus. Hence, from the context, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ; seems to be a hesitant one.57 However, scholars have different explanations for this question raised by the Samaritan woman which begins with μὴ σύ. On many occasions, the fourth gospel employs questions with μή.58 Concerning its use in v. 12, scholars explain that here μή indicates that the Samaritan woman expects 54 55 56

57

58

There are no extant authentic Samaritan literature before the mediaeval period. McHugh, John, 273. Cf. Lev 14:5, 6, 50, 51, 52; (15:13) and Num 19:17. κύριε in v. 11 is the first occasion in John where Jesus is addressed with this title. In v. 15 and v. 19 too, the Samaritan woman addresses Jesus as κύριε. We will discuss the various titles and/or addresses of Jesus in the Samaritan episode in the next chapter. Both οὐ and μή are used in questions in the NT (cf. BDF, #365). BDF explains further that “[i]n questions with μή the verb itself can already be negated […] producing μὴ … οὐ with an affirmative answer implied [cf. Rom 10:8; 1 Cor 11:22]. It does not depend of course on the actual answer […] μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι; ‘it is not I, is it?’ [cf. Mt 26:25] receives the unexpected answer σὺ εἶπας. The meaning of μή is slightly modified in some passages: Jn 4:33 μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν; ‘surely no one can have brought him food’ (yet it appears as if someone had; cf. μή ‘whether … not’ after interrogative verbs […]; 4:29 μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; ‘that must be the Messiah at last, perhaps this is the Messiah’ [and] Jn 21:5: μή τι προσφάγιον ἔχετε; (‘it seems that you have … unexpectedly’”. BDF, #427. We will discuss the various possible implications of the question with μὴ in the following chapters. There are 18 such occasions in John and just four in Matthew, seven in Luke and one in Mark.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

161

a negative answer to the question, adding that the σύ is emphatic.59 Hence, v. 12 would imply that the Samaritan woman’s knowledge at the moment allows her to consider Jesus as no greater than the patriarch Jacob.60 Against this background one may find that the Samaritan woman raises again the issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in vv. 11-12 in a rather mild form compared to v. 9: “The Samaritans awaited the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-18; cf. 34:10-12), who was, however, not identified with the Messiah”61 (cf. John 4:25-26). She claims that Ἰακώβ […] ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ. However, it is to be noted that “[n]o OT texts attest that Jacob actually dug the well […] but the woman calls attention to its age and importance, affirming that it was bequeathed by Jacob to supply water for his family and livestock”.62 Köstenberger notes that “the woman’s claim that Jacob ‘gave us the well and drank from it himself’ is purely traditional and that [t]here is only mention of ‘Jacob’s buying and giving Shechem to Joseph’ (Gen. 33:19; 48:22), in the vicinity of which Jacob’s well is located”.63 McHugh explains that the question raised by the woman, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, “implicitly [asks] Jesus whether he is the prophet like Moses, the one spoken of in Deut18:15, 18-19.”64 In light of various references in the Pentateuch McHugh proposes this explanation: “Only one person in the 59

60

61 62 63

64

See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #2235; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 468, 568; Schnackenburg, John, 1.429. It is to be noted that on the lips of Jesus (in v. 14) also there is an emphatic negation οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶν. Grammatically it expects a negative answer but as the narrative progresses it makes up to a positive answer. As we have noticed already, Jesus does not return “any of the issues raised by the woman […] Instead he focuses on what is undoubtedly central concern of the woman”. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 100. Köstenberger, John, 152. McHugh, John, 270. Köstenberger, John, 146. In the previous chapter we discussed the location of Jacob’s well and the level of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, paying attention to various dimensions of the scholarship. McHugh, John, 271, 275-276. The Samaritan woman’s mention of οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ in v. 12 may allude to Deut 18:15-18, where the prophet Moses is mentioned. There is no reference in the OT to Jacob’s children and his livestock drinking from a source, whereas one can find such references in relation to Moses’ actions of producing water (Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13). We find a mention of “our children and our livestock” in Exod 17.3; Num 20.4, 8, 11. Against this background, one may interpret that “the wording of the question in John confirms that the challenge from Samaria means: Are you greater than Jacob, are you the prophet like Moses?” McHugh adds that “[t]his prophet like Moses was sometimes called Taheb, that is, the one who will return, or possible as one who will restore [everything], who was expected to be, like Moses, not just a political ruler, but also a teacher”. We discuss such interpretations along with our discussion of the term προφήτης in v. 19 and we will again return to this issue later in the next chapter, where we discuss vv. 25-26.

162

CHAPTER 4

five books of the Torah answers to this description [cf. Jn 4:11-12], the one who having nothing to draw with gave Israel living water at Rephidim (Ex 17:1-7) and Kadesh (Num 20:2-18), where water came forth abundantly and the congregation drank, and their cattle (20:11)”.65 Theobald explains that in v. 12, the Samaritan argues that this φρέαρ, which dates from Jacob, always had enough water for all. Does the stranger know about an unknown source that can still gush forth much richer water? “Offenkundig denkt die Frau in einem Komparativ, der die Dimension des Irdisch-Geschöpflichen nicht verlässt.”66 Haenchen notes that through vv. 11-12, “[t]he reader is alerted to the fact that the woman does not understand”.67 Scholars such as Barrett, Brown and Morris claim that, in a twist of Johannine irony, the Samaritan woman’s words in vv. 11-12 signify the greatness of Jesus.68 One may ask: Does the Samaritan woman totally misunderstand Jesus’ words? Or does the evangelist through this response of the Samaritan woman raise again the issue presented by the Samaritan woman in v. 9, viz., the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται? Keener claims that the Samaritan woman’s response in both vv. 11-12 and v. 15 have a mocking connotation that “to provide water the way he claims, Jesus would have to be greater than Jacob,” which Jesus is not, according to her current knowledge.69 Boers explains that the Samaritan woman’s response in vv. 11-12 “does not show the slightest inclination to engage in this action which is evident from her”.70 Brant explains that “by taking living water at its literal meaning, the woman engages in the play on words rather than misunderstanding Jesus. Before he could respond to this question, she makes a direct attack on his person by asking a question in the form that anticipates a negative response: ‘Surely you are not greater than our father Jacob, who gave us 65

66 67

68 69 70

McHugh, John, 271. He notes that these “passages which we should nowadays regard as two versions of the same story about water produced from a rock-face”. Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes Kapitel 1-12, 314. “Actually, the woman (so Jesus responds) should have asked him for a drink, had she known who he was (in the last analysis Jesus is the gift of God) and what he was able to give: ‘living water.’” Haenchen, John, 220. He explains that the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 11-12 implies that “Jesus is claiming that he has more to offer than her ancestor Jacob, who gave them this great well with its deep, walled shaft, and who drank from it along with his family and his herds, and who was evidently satisfied with its water”. Jesus does not evade or ignore the challenge or the hesitation posited by the Samaritan woman in response to his offer, but rather “[he] responds in a solemn manner: ‘Everyone who drinks from Jacob’s well will thirst again’” (vv. 13-14). See Barrett, John, 228, 234; Brown, John, 170; Carson, John, 219. Keener, John, 601. Boers, Neither on this Mountain, 44.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

163

this well, and he drank from it and his sons and his sheep and goats’ (4:12). At the same time as she calls Jesus’s status into question, she makes a counterclaim to Jewish aspersions against Samaritans by claiming Jacob as ‘our father’”.71 As noted above, in the light of the Samaritan woman’s knowledge at that moment concerning Jacob and Jesus, her question here may anticipate a negative answer or it reflects her hesitance (a hesitant question). One may note that the knowledge the Samaritan woman expresses in vv. 11-12 is based on her religious-political background, which is, in a nutshell, a reminiscence of the past, whereas in v. 25 she speaks about the things to come, future dimensions.72 Thus, we see that in response to Jesus’ offer and two challenges (or the two deficits she must overcome to get the offer), the Samaritan woman too points out two things which, according to her, Jesus lacks, viz., he has no ἄντλημα to draw water from the deep well of Jacob and enquires about his greatness compared to the patriarch Jacob.73 In 8:53 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι places patriarch Abraham in place of patriarch Jacob here. Examined in light of our discussion in the previous chapter of the then-prevailing relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, we have seen that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι had no interest in the Samaritans’ claim about the patriarch Jacob.74 Though this progressing dialogue was conducted in various modes, one can see that the Samaritan woman who expressed a strong denial in v. 9 makes up her mind to engage in conversation with Jesus, viz., she comprehends Jesus, and does not misunderstand him etc. which signals that she is in dialogue with Jesus. In other words, “despite her ongoing confusion, the woman continues to 71

72

73

74

Brant, John, 84. She adds that the Samaritan woman’s “use of polysyndeton is comparable to the expression ‘here and there and everywhere’”. One may also notice that the Samaritan woman’s mindset and responses are depicted as anchored in past, until v. 20. In 8:53, John depicts not only a similar situation but also the same grammatical construction. However, here the question is raised from the part of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. (8:53 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ […] ποιεῖς;). Also in 8:49 Jesus is addressed as a Samaritan. See B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42, trans. J. Gray, ConBNT 6 (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), 180-181; McHugh, John, 271. In John, one may notice such occasions where Jesus faces a series of challenges posited by others. Brant notes that “this is the first of a series of such challenges that Jesus will face, each of which raises the bar higher since Jesus must demonstrate his superiority to Moses (6:30-31) and Abraham (8:53) and his equality with God (9:29; 10:33)”. Brant, John, 84. That is, the available and relevant literary sources were not interested to promote or even make a positive note of it. Of course, all those were from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, since no sources are available of the Samaritans in this period.

164

CHAPTER 4

engage in her quest for understanding”.75 Thus, in sum, one cannot reduce the Samaritan woman’s response to a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words, but rather, through the veil of the technique of misunderstanding, the evangelist here makes clear that the issue raised in v. 9 is still intact. At the same time, regarding the two challenges placed before Jesus by the Samaritan woman, the reader knows that they are not relevant for Jesus and that the two hurdles for the Samaritan woman to receive the offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν have not yet been met by her; she has yet to comprehend them. Hence, the conversation continues with Jesus’ further explanations of ὕδωρ ζῶν in vv. 13-14 where he draws a clear distinction between the water in Jacob’s well that will make her thirsty again and his offer of water of the kind, which will quench her thirst forever and lead to ζωὴ αἰώνιος. The Samaritan woman’s response in vv. 11-12, which is monitored by Jesus’ statement in v. 10, is further elaborated in vv. 13-14.76 This additional explanation may be meant to provide a better understanding of the meaning and implications of v. 10. It is to be noted that the Samaritan woman’s concern in vv. 11-12 is with the water that quenches her physical thirst. Jesus’ further response in vv. 13-14 also stays with this focus, and at the same time implicitly points to v. 10. In other words “Jesus answer in vv. 13-14 thus serves as a restatement and expansion of what he means by “gift of God,” using the imagery of water and to the task of waterfetching both of which are familiar to the woman”.77 Okure notes that in vv. 13-14 “[Jesus] simply spells out for her the radical differences between ‘this water’ (the ‘this’ is emphatic) and the water which [he] gives”,78 drawing a clear contrast between ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου διψήσει πάλιν (v. 13) and οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (v. 14). At this juncture, one may note the different terms πηγή and φρέαρ that are used in the Samaritan episode to denote Jacob’s well. It is usually explained that Jacob’s well is simultaneously a πηγή and a φρέαρ. Scholars find that geographically, this water resource is a φρέαρ which is fed by an underground πηγή.79 75

76

77 78 79

Köstenberger, John, 151. See also Carson, John, 220, Ridderbos, John, 158; Moloney, John, 123. See for instance Beasley-Murray, John, 60, “[t]he woman’s response [in vv. 11-12] is controlled by her misunderstanding of the statement in v 10, and this leads Jesus to elaborate the image he has used”. Brant, John, 84, “[r]ather than countering her attack, Jesus makes a boast about the water that he offers.” Okure, The Johannine Approach, 103. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 101. φρέαρ denotes a well which is formed by means of human labor by digging the earth and it may run out of water due to adverse climatic condition whereas πηγή (a spring)

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

165

Haenchen remarks that “Whether the Evangelist and his source were aware that the shaft of Jacob’s well intersected a spring below, or whether they overlook such details, remains an open question. For “well” and “spring” are used interchangeably without affecting the meaning”. He also notes that “[t]he well shaft, over 30 meters deep, was walled with stone and penetrated an underground spring at the bottom.”80 What is implied here by the Samaritan woman’s use of different vocabulary, viz., she employs τὸ φρέαρ while Jesus reaffirms81 the vocabulary of πηγή? Jesus responds to the issues raised by the Samaritan woman “by discreetly substituting for τὸ φρέαρ the word πηγή (v. 14, without the article) thereby moving the dialogue on to a new plane: he speaks not of the well, but of a spring” and “[t]his is the ‘living water’ of which Jesus invites the Samaritan woman to drink”.82 John here employs εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and puts εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον on the lips of Jesus in his explanation of ὕδωρ ζῶν.83 Both these expressions are most often found on the lips of

80

81 82

83

is naturally formed water resource fed by waters under the earth. See LSJ, #34482; #45915; Michaelis, “πηγή,” TDNT VI, 112-117; BDAG, 810, 1065. L&N, #6803; #5125. Scholars usually point to the different vocabulary used in the Samaritan episode viz., πηγή and φρέαρ respectively in v. 6 [×2] and in vv. 11, 12 to show how these two terms fit for Jacob’s well. See Morris, John, 228; G. M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John: A Practical Guide, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Akademic, 2013), 142, Köstenberger, John, 150. The vocabulary πηγή used in v. 6 can imply living water or running water. According to Bultmann πηγή in v. 6 and φρέαρ v. 11 are interchangeably used in this episode and he cites example from the OT where πηγή and φρέαρ are used interchangeably. For instance, Gen. 16:7, 14; 24:16, 20. See Philo, On the Life of Moses, 1.255. See also Bultmann, John, 177. Haenchen, John, 219-220. He adds that “[t]he opening [of the well] was 2.40 meters in diameter and covered with a large lid to protect the well against dirt and other forms of contamination. There was no windlass to raise the (leather) pail to the surface, as was the case with all Palestinian wells of the period. It was necessary to bring along a leather vessel with its own rope”. Bernard, John, 1.135-136, adds that “[t]he well is about 100 feet deep, and at the bottom the water collects, probably by infiltration. The double title πηγή (v. 6) and φρέαρ (vv. 11, 12) is thus explicable”. Köstenberger, John, 149, notes that “[t]he well today is still over one hundred feet deep”. The water level in the Jacob’s well is usually about 100 ft or 30 meters below the surface and the quality of the water is superior compared to the neighboring places. Different books cite the depth of the water differently because it differs due to the different climatic conditions at different times of year. See Smith, Historical Geography, 374. Murphy-O’Connor, The Holy Land, 322. Elsewhere the Samaritan episode uses (the narrator and Jesus) πηγή (v. 6 [×2]; v. 14). McHugh, John, 275. BDAG, 810, affirms that πηγή in 4:14 has got a “quite symbolic meaning”. πηγή appears 100 times in the LXX and some of them are used with symbolic meaning in relation with wisdom; God’s wisdom, wise persons etc. (see for instance, Prov13:14; 14:27; 16:22; 18:4; Sir 21:13b). See Michaelis, “πηγή,” 112-114. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα occurs 12 times in John (4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51,52; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8) and εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον is employed 14 times (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54; 10:28; 12:25; 17:2). John uses once ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος (9:32) as well.

166

CHAPTER 4

Jesus in John. According to Haenchen, John pays attention to the proposition εἰς. He suggests that it should be “understood in a final sense. But strictly speaking the text says: this water becomes a spring of water.”84 For Bultmann, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον can be understood in line with μένω in 15:4. The believer, then, has an inexhaustible well within him; a well that flows.85 In a similar vein, Schnackenburg suggests that this phrase would mean that one may have eternal life, for forever she/he has a bottomless well within (cf. 7:37-38).86 οὐ μὴ διψήσει, in v. 14, may signal a state where there is no thirst at all. McHugh refers to Isa 49:10 and Rev 17:6, both of which speak of such a state at the time of Salvation. Contrastingly, Sir 24:21 mentions the ever-increasing thirst of a wise person for more wisdom.87 Hence, Jesus’ offer of living water “will never fail because it comes direct from the ultimate divine source”.88 Haenchen explains that Christ is the source of water for the world.89 He adds that Jesus enigmatically points to the human person’s thirst, which leads him or her to long for more, as well as his own offer to satisfy this thirst. “Negatively expressed, that means: man is relieved of his restlessness, of his lack of peace, of the desire that drives him. That is expressed positively by means of a new enigmatic figure: in him who receives it, the water that Jesus gives becomes a spring of water welling up into everlasting life”.90 In place of hostility and a lack of relationship, Jesus invites one to depart from the past ways of conflicts and approach ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Jesus is clearly depicted as the giver of the gift of God/living water in v. 10 and in v. 14. After clarifying the starkness of the difference between these two types of water, one to which the Samaritan woman has access (from Jacob’s well) and the other which Jesus offers, v. 14 provides an additional explanation for his ὕδωρ ζῶν viz., ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The second issue raised by the Samaritan woman concerns the patriarch Jacob and his depictions in the Torah. As discussed above (vv. 11-12), μή employed in the question raised by the Samaritan woman may indicate hesitation that perhaps Jesus is greater than Jacob. Yet this comparison reminds one about two contexts in the Torah: the expectation of the one 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Haenchen, John, 220. Bultmann, John, 186-87. Schnackenburg, John, 1.431. Beasley-Murray, John, 60; McHugh, John, 272. McHugh, John, 270. Haenchen, John, 241. Haenchen, John, 220. McHugh, John, 276, adds that perhaps “Jesus was inviting the Samaritan woman (and by implication her people) to examine more closely how the prophets and the teachers of wisdom had interpreted [the Pentateuch]”.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

167

who is greater than Moses (Deut 18:15-18), viz., the messianic expectation, and the occasions on which Moses provided water for his people, their children and livestock without drawing water from the level (Exod 17:3; Num 20:4, 8, 11).91 Against this background, McHugh explains that in response to the Samaritan woman’s question in v. 14, “Jesus is telling [her] that this is how the stories in the Torah concerning water should be understood. Far better than to drink of Jacob’s Well is to drink deep of the living water of the Word of God”.92 In this light, vv. 13-14 can be understood as Jesus’ offer of living water, as it is he himself who provides the water that springs to eternal life. Thus, Jesus distinguishes once again in v. 14 between the water mentioned in the Samaritan woman’s response (vv. 11-12) and his own offer in v. 10. The quality of the water that Jesus offers seems to be the major concern in vv. 13-14, and therefore in the following we discuss the implications of the explanations of the water offered by Jesus. McHugh explains that Jesus’ offer of living water “comes from the ultimate divine source” and thus will definitely quench one’s thirst.93 In v. 14, Jesus specifically tells the Samaritan woman, with authority, ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ; i.e., that it is he who gives the water that springs εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Okure rightly concludes that “[t]he whole movement of the passage supports this view that in the Johannine perspective, knowledge of ‘the gift of God’ and of Jesus’ true identity are inseparable”.94 The preceding analysis has identified various possible implications of vv. 11-14. In a nutshell, this is on the theme of water. At specific points in the discussion, it has also been asked, how the Samaritan woman understands Jesus’ offer and the knowledge that Jesus wants her to possess (vv. 11-12). How does Jesus speak to her in her incomprehension or miscomprehension? These questions have 91

92

93 94

Nowadays, scholarship regards the two references, Exod 17:1-7 and Num 20:4-11, as two versions of the same story of Moses’ action of bringing water from the rock. McHugh, John, 278-279. We have already noted that in the OT, there is no allusion to Jacob’s digging of any well and there is just one reference concerning Jacob and the well at all, Gen 29:1-12, which is about his seeking for a wife in Haran. McHugh adds that though they are dated much later than the NT books, the Palestinian Targums’ interpretation of the story in Gen 29:1-12 is noteworthy: “When our father Jacob raised the stone from above the mouth of the well, the well overflowed and came up to its mouth, and was over-flowing for twenty years – all the days that he dwelt in Haran”. (Tg. Neof. #28.10). See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti, Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 139-140. McHugh, John, 272. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 98-99. Okure also refers to v. 42 and the implications of salvation in this context. In the light of v. 42 “‘the gift of God’ can further be defined as the gift of salvation given in and through Jesus”. Beasley-Murray, John, 60, notes that “[t]he ‘gift of God’ denotes the salvation of God in an inclusive sense”.

168

CHAPTER 4

been considered against the background of Jesus’ offer and his urging that she reverses her request in v. 10. The outcome of this brief discussion is attested in v. 15: λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή· κύριε, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα μὴ διψῶ μηδὲ διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν. In v. 15 too, the Samaritan woman addresses Jesus as κύριε (v. 15), whereas Jesus does not use any form of address in speaking to her and indeed addresses her only once during this long dialogue (in v. 21, with the vocative, γύναι).95 Jesus’ imposes no clauses, but plainly asks for a drink, whereas the woman herself adds a clause concerning the benefits she expects from this offer of Jesus in v. 10. One may note that πρός is used with an accusative in v. 15. McHugh notes the phrase λέγειν πρός in v. 15, adding that this form in John is “more formal and more respectful”.96 Though no dramatic change is depicted here, it is evident that the woman moves toward Jesus in a mental respect, in light of our discussion of the progressing modes of the dialogue, for instance from σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης to κύριε, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ)97 One can see that in v. 7 and v. 10, the 95

96

97

The vocative γύναι is used mainly in five occasions [2:4 (mother of Jesus); 4:21 (the Samaritan woman); 19:26 (mother of Jesus); 20:13, 15 (Mary) – (there is one such use in 8:10)]. The Samaritan woman addresses herself as a γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος in v. 9 whereas Jesus when addresses her, does not use the adjective Samaritan but only woman. We will discuss such differences in the following section as we discuss v. 21. McHugh, John, 272. In general, such a use of πρός marks a movement or orientation toward someone or something; more specifically, it typically can refer to (physical and/ or mental) movements over a period of time. See BDAG, 874; MM, 544. L&N, # 84.18, explain that it reflects an “extension toward a goal, with the probability of some type of implied interaction or reciprocity”. It is interesting to note that all the occasions the evangelist employs λέγει αὐτῷ to introduce the dialogue part of the Samaritan woman (vv. 9, 11, 19, 25 and once εἶπεν αὐτῷ in v. 17) except in v. 15 (λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν) where an accusative is used with πρός. Such usage is found in John, in 3:4; 4:15, 49; 6:5. In the last two occasions λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν indicates action of moving from one place to another, coming closer and in 3:4 Nicodemus response to Jesus is depicted where he asks for further clarifications. In v. 15, the Samaritan woman in fact reverses the request which Jesus already urged her to do in v. 10. After their discussion (vv. 1114) upon v. 10, the Samaritan woman makes the request in v. 15. In v. 33, we find a similar expression, viz., πρός with an accusative (πρὸς ἀλλήλους), where the disciples are speaking among themselves, they are coming closer to each other while they were conversing with Jesus in vv. 31-32. In the Samaritan episode πρός is used in five places vv. 15, 30, 33, 35, 40. All are accusative and three signal the movement toward Jesus by the Samaritan woman (v. 15) and the Samaritans (vv. 30,40) respectively. In v. 33, the evangelist mentions the disciples’ movement toward each other (in a mental sense), who seem to be unhappy as on account of Jesus’ response in v. 32, and speculate that someone else had brought food for JesusVerse 35 denotes the change in the fields with respect to the time when the fields are ripe for harvesting. Thus, we can see that accusative use of πρός in John provides three types of meaning, namely a physical motion, mental movement or of time.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

169

evangelist uses the same expression, namely, δός μοι πεῖν which in v. 7 denotes Jesus’ own request for water and, in v. 10, what Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to do. However, the evangelist is not depicting the woman’s request for water in v. 15 with the same expression as in vv. 7, 10. That is, in place of δός μοι πεῖν in v. 15, we find δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ. We can see that πίνω is used by the Samaritan woman in response to Jesus’ request for water (v. 9) and in stating that Jacob and his sons and household drank from the well (v. 12). Also in v. 10 and v. 13 Jesus tells her to ask for a drink (cf. πίνειν) and adds that the one who drinks (cf. πίνειν) water (cf. ὕδωρ) from him will become a πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (v. 14).98 One might wonder why the woman asked for ὕδωρ and not for πίνειν? Does this imply that she needed water not only for herself to drink but also to give to others (to someone else)? Her level of understanding, at this juncture of the dialogue, does not seem to comprehend Jesus’ explanation of living water in terms of eternal life (cf. ζωὴν αἰώνιον). The present participle use of πᾶς ὁ πίνων in v. 13 “implies that everyone (not just the woman he is addressing) who habitually drinks or continues to drink of the water from Jacob’s Well will be thirsty again”.99 Then v. 14 progresses with the expressions in the future tense which depicts the higher quality of Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν, namely that this water not only quenches thirst eternally (οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) but also provides ζωὴν αἰώνιον.100 That is, “[i]n v. 14 further 98

99

100

It is to be noted that the vocabulary πηγή is used for the first time in v. 6 and the vocabulary ἅλλομαι is used only in John outside the book of Acts in the NT. See BDF, #101. ἅλλομαι’s literal meaning is “to make a quick leaping movement, leap, spring up” and figuratively it means “quick movement of inanimate things – to spring up from a source” and here it is used in the figurative sense. See BDAG, 46. See also LSJ, #1981. We have already discussed that one can get water from a πηγή without ἄντλημα. For πηγὴ stands for a “spring of water, fountain”. See BDAG, 655. McHugh, John, 271-272. He links Jesus’ explanation in v. 13 concerning the water in the well of Jacob (“everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again”) with the OT references of Moses’ action of giving water in the absence of neither a well nor a something to draw with and the promise of a prophet like Moses in different versions of the Pentateuch (including the Samaritans). On this basis, he stated, those who drank water from such sources will become thirsty again. It is to be noted that the Samaritan Pentateuch had added Deut 18:18-22 to Exod 20 along with the tenth commandment. Cf. 4Q158(=4QRPa). We will discuss this attestation in the DSS and the version of the Samaritan Pentateuch while we analyze vv. 20-26 in the following. In v. 14 several expressions such as ἐγὼ δώσω, οὐ μὴ διψήσει, δώσω αὐτῷ and γενήσεται are employed pointing to the future. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is employed in several occasions in the LXX and it is more frequent in John than any other NT books (cf., Jn 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51, 52; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16). εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον is used in each place with a reference to the future life. (cf. Jn 4:14, 36; 6:27; 12:25;

170

CHAPTER 4

explanation is given for the living water”.101 Though this springs from a misunderstanding on the part of the Samaritan woman, “she would like to have some of that water […]. If Jesus were to ease her task in this way, he would supersede Jacob”.102 Haenchen notes that even though this is obscured due to the misunderstanding, John depicts “a genuine, deep desire for salvation on the part of humankind”.103 Based on our discussion so far, it seems that the woman has yet to attain a real knowledge of the two challenges and thus receive Jesus’ offer. Yet, in one sense, the dialogue indicates progression, i.e., in v. 10 Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to reverse the role and v. 15 presents a reversal of the request δός μοι by the Samaritan woman. This is accompanied by an additional final clause; “she may not thirst ever again (ἵνα μὴ διψῶ) nor keep coming through here (διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν).104 The verb ἀντλέω is used in v. 15 to speak of her act of getting water. The same verb ἀντλέω has been used in v. 7 and v. 15 where, the first instance denotes the woman’s purpose of coming to Jacob’s well and the second denotes the other way around, viz., of no longer coming to Jacob’s well with this purpose. The nominal form of the verb ἀντλῆσαι, namely, ἄντλημα, is used in v. 11 where the woman tells Jesus that he lacks ἄντλημα which she owns. In light of vv. 7, 10, 11, 15, one can deduce that the evangelist implicitly indicates that the deficits which the Samaritan woman finds at the very first stage of the dialogue are broadened in their horizons of understanding not by a lack but by a surplus.105 As Okure rightly remarks “[h]er request

101 102

103

104

105

Rom 5:21; 1 Tim. 1:16, and Jude 1:21). See Bernard, John, 1.142; Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 151-168. Bernard, John, 1.139. Haenchen, John, 220. See also Schnackenburg, John, 1: 431; Braun, La Sainte Bible, 342; Brown, John, 1: 171. Haenchen adds further that v. 14 “suggests another meaning: whoever is led to God by Jesus through his Spirit becomes himself a spring, a bearer of salvation for others. This is in fact fulfilled by the Samaritan woman”. Haenchen, John, 220. See also Schnackenburg, John, 1: 431; Braun, La Sainte Bible, 342; Brown, John, 1: 171. We will discuss in detail the meaning of salvation specifically in the context of the Samaritan episode. In v. 22, John places the vocabulary ἡ σωτηρία on the lips of Jesus, and in v. 42 ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου on the lips of the Samaritans from Sychar. It is to be noted that both of these terms, σωτηρία (v. 22) and σωτὴρ (v. 42), are used only once in the gospel of John. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 103, adds that “[v. 15] thus brings to a close, without any visible success, the first part of the conversation with its theme of ‘gift of God/ living water”. McHugh, John, 273, opines that the tenses of the four verbs (δός, διψῶ, διέρχωμαι and ἀντλεῖν) used by the Samaritan woman in v. 15, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα μὴ διψῶ μηδὲ διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν “constitute a fourfold affirmation of her complete acceptance of Jesus’ offer”. This also can be a possible interpretation. It is to be noted that the tenses alone do not express things. Moreover, in the following part of the

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

171

[in v. 15] thus has the effect of bringing the conversation to a standstill, if not to an actual close”.106 In the light of our examination of v. 15, we propose that though it is not fully explicit, it is clear that she is impressed to some extent by Jesus’ words and actions. Our discussion of vv. 10-15 has shown that the Samaritan woman does partially realize the two challenges Jesus poses to her in v. 10, viz., that she should have knowledge (cf. οἶδα) about τὴν δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and about ὁ λέγων σοι to come to a position to ask for ὕδωρ ζῶν. This is due to the fact that she asks for the water offered by Jesus, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ. This subsection continues in vv. 11ff: first, the woman confronts Jesus in response to his pointing to her lack of knowledge by telling him that he does not even have an ἄντλημα (v. 11). Second, she asks Jesus about his greatness in comparison with the patriarch Jacob in order to test his ability to provide water of a higher quality than that of Jacob’s well (v. 12). These two enquiries are in one way or other directed to the ὕδωρ ζῶν offered by Jesus. One may assume that the woman’s responses in vv. 11-12 indicate that she has completely ignored the means which Jesus proposed, that she would get ὕδωρ ζῶν, namely, to have the right knowledge,107 or else seems to be side-tracked by the literal meaning of ὕδωρ ζῶν in the context of water in the Jacob’s well. However, her reference to the patriarch Jacob and her enquiry, μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, at least implicitly points to the process of gaining the sort of knowledge (in v. 10 – cf. οἶδα) and some traces of the issue raised by her in v. 9. Jesus builds upon her hesitations as a means to explain further. In response to Jesus’ offer, the Samaritan woman’s reply in vv. 11-12 carries strong overtones of scepticism and perhaps is derisory concerning his invitation. But Jesus’ further elaboration pays no attention to this indirect negativity; rather he answers her with more explanations and with authenticity such as ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ in vv. 13-14 resulted in a reversal of the request for water (v. 15 vs v. 7). The Samaritan woman adds that she would like stop keep coming (cf. ἵνα μὴ διψῶ μηδὲ διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε) to draw water from there. However, in v. 16ff employing the same vocabulary ἐνθάδε Jesus asks her to go and then to come back (cf. ἔρχομαι). Jesus asks her in v. 16 to come to Jacob’s well (once more) with her husband though in v. 15 the Samaritan woman already told him

106 107

dialogue, one sees that the Samaritan woman does not understand the words of Jesus fully, especially the implications of ζωὴν αἰώνιον in v.10. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 103. It is to be noted that the term οἶδα is spoken by the Samaritan woman only in her final response to Jesus (v. 25).

172

CHAPTER 4

that she does not want to come there anymore in order to get water. However, it is not made clear in v. 15 to what degree her request is sceptical or to what extent she is convinced that Jesus is greater than Jacob. At this juncture, the dialogue shifts to another direction as Jesus begins to ask her about her personal life (vv. 16-18). In light of the above discussion, in section 1, one may deduce that a soft phase of the dialogue is presented in vv. 10-15, beginning with Jesus’ offer (and ignoring the hard response from her in v. 9) up to the point of the woman’s acceptance of his offer. The next phase of the dialogue is a harder one, beginning with the confrontations depicted in vv. 16-18, yet it helps the dialogue partners have a better understanding of each other. Moreover, v. 19 clearly shows how the dialogue progresses fruitfully.

2. CONFRONTATIONS (VV. 16-19) In v. 15 the Samaritan woman requests water from Jesus, and one may think that the dialogue between Jesus and the woman comes to a close here due to the fact that in v. 10 Jesus reinitiated the conversation, urging her to ask for water. She seems to have complied with his demand and here, in vv. 10-15, the “petitioner and donor have exchanged roles”.108 But instead of coming to a stop, in vv. 16ff, the dialogue undergoes a transition. Major propositions concerning the function of vv. 16-18 are, in a nutshell: that these verses are intended to remedy the Samaritan woman’s lack of understanding of Jesus’ offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν and his invitation to know him (cf. ὁ λέγων σοι); that she comprehended Jesus’ teaching well and, hence, Jesus carries the conversation into the personal realm in order to guide her further; and that the Samaritan woman comprehended Jesus’ teaching to some extent, but needs to go further in order to attain the goal of the dialogue, i.e., she needs to have a better understanding of her life, which will let her understand further. 2.1. Thinking Ahead In what follows, we examine how the intervention of Jesus in v. 16 functions to further unfold the dialogue. From the very beginning (vv. 4, 7-9), the dialogue depends, explicitly or implicitly, on the relationship between 108

McHugh, John, 278. Bultmann, John, 175, notices a close link between the introductory part of the Samaritan episode and vv. 16-19 and he accordingly underlines that “vv. 10-15 is obviously contained in vv. 16-19”.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

173

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and this theme lingers throughout the deflecting, conflicting, bargaining over and coming into partial agreement modes of conversation in the previous sections (vv. 7-15). The seemingly unexpected mode of exchange on the part of Jesus is depicted in v. 16, at a point where the dialogue has come to a standstill in v. 15 and further discussion has been invited. At times, the dialogue becomes harder, such that their discussion was literally about the unpleasant situation concerning the private and personal life of the Samaritan woman. Jesus, being the initiator of the dialogue with the Samaritan woman, invites the question: Does Jesus think ahead to ask her (in v. 16 – ὕπαγε φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε) to remedy her lack of knowledge (cf. v. 10) concerning the various aspects of the concerns in this dialogue? From the outset, it is evident that Jesus carries the discussion into another realm in v. 16. But Jesus takes the conversation further by asking the woman, in v. 16, ὕπαγε φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε.109 In other words, following the narrative line, one may deduce that the dialogue between Jesus a Ἰουδαῖος and the woman a Σαμαρῖτις advances to a further step, where Jesus literally confronts the Samaritan woman about her personal life. As Carson notes “[t]he change of subject, though abrupt, is not artificial” and adds that her first responses to Jesus (v. 9, vv. 1112) reflect her lack of understanding of who Jesus is and “[b]y this turn in the dialogue [in vv. 16-18], Jesus is indicating that she has also misunderstood the true dimensions of her own need”, the real nature of her […] thirst”.110 Her responses to Jesus (v. 9, vv. 11-12) reflect her lack of understanding who Jesus is and “[b]y this turn in the dialogue [in vv. 16-18], Jesus is indicating that she has also misunderstood the true dimensions of her own need”, the real nature of her […] thirst”.111 In light of our discussion, we will pay special attention to the following elements by which Jesus takes the dialogue in v. 16, given that there it comes to an end due to the Samaritan woman’s reversal of Jesus’ request in v. 10.112 However, as pointed out above, she does not seem to get over the two hurdles Jesus presented her with (i.e., to know τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι) in order to have right knowledge about ὕδωρ ζῶν. Hence, 109

110 111 112

Okure, The Johannine Approach, 107-109, explains that several similarities are apparent between Jesus’ request for water in v. 7 and the Samaritan woman’s request in v. 15, both in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and the concepts used. Carson, John, 218. McHugh, John, 270. In v. 10, Jesus resumes the conversation, which may be thought to have ended due to the Samaritan woman’s words of denial (v. 9) in response to Jesus’ request for water in v. 7.

174

CHAPTER 4

in sum, Jesus, who initiates and reinitiates the dialogue and carries it forward to the next phase (cf. v. 16).113 One may note that the evangelist connects the theme of water in vv. 10-15 with the discussions of the woman’s private life in vv. 16-18 by employing ἐνθάδε in v. 15 and v. 16.114 In addition, his conversation with her now enters a third step, viz., in v. 7 he requested water, in v. 10 he offered her life-giving water, and now in v. 16 he touches her inner realm in one way or another. We may ask here: how does the change of subject affect the dialogue? or how does the Samaritan woman respond to this third move of Jesus? In what follows, we will briefly examine vv. 1719, which mention the further developments in their conversation. The woman’s response to Jesus’ unexpected intervention, φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου (v. 16), was also rather odd: οὐκ ἔχω ἄνδρα (v. 17). This response may literally mean that there is no point in going and coming back, since she has no one to bring to Jesus as her ἀνήρ.115 The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in v. 18 features a sharp contrast between ἔχεις and ἔσχες, which explains that the Samaritan 113

114

115

Scholars like Brown and Beasely-Murray are not mentioning anything unusual about Jesus’ response in v. 16. See Brown, John, 1.171; Beasely-Murray, John, 61. Carson, John, 222, notes that though v. 16 is abrupt it is not artificial. Schnackenburg, John, 432, find that “Jesus gives the conversation a turn which continues it in the sense at which he is aiming”. Michaels, John, 245-246, explains that Jesus recognizes the potential in the Samaritan woman’s in v. 15. Brant, John, 85, goes further to explain Jesus makes a calculated move in v. 16 “he presents her with a task that he knows she cannot fulfill”. See Boers, Neither on this Mountain, 169, note 47. It is interesting to note that in v. 16 Jesus begins where the woman ends in v. 15, i.e. when she states that she will not come back to Jesus at the well and Jesus asks her to go and then come back to him. O’Day explains that “[i]n v. 15 the woman asks for water so that she will not have to return to the well [μηδὲ διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε]. In v. 16, however, Jesus asks her to do that very thing – he sends her away after her husband, but then tells her to come back to the well [ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε]”. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, 66. It is interesting to note that later in the Samaritan episode, the Samaritan woman freely returns to Jesus with many Samaritans from her town. However, in v. 16 Jesus asks her to ὑπάγω ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε with ἀνήρ and in vv. 28-30 and vv. 39-42 suggests that she goes to the οἱ ἄνθρωποι of her village and return to Jesus with them. It is to be noted that ἀνήρ is used in John three times (1:3, 30; 6:10) other than in the Samaritan episode, where it is used in 4:16, 17 [×2], 18) to mean a human person. Compared to ἀνήρ, the frequency of ἄνθρωπος is very high in John (1:4, 6, 9, 51; 2:10, 25; 3:1, 4, 13-14, 19, 27; 4:28-29, 50; 5:5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 27, 34, 41; 6:10, 14, 27, 53, 62; 7:22-23, 46, 51; 8:17, 28, 40; 9:1, 11, 16, 24, 30, 35; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 12:23, 34, 43; 13:31; 16:21; 17:6; 18:14, 17, 29; 19:5). There are singular and plural uses of both these words. Both ἀνήρ and ἄνθρωπος are used to represent not only a male human person (in the plural as well), but also to represent Jesus and human persons in general. See for instance, BDAG, 79, 82. L&N, ## 521, 534; MM, ## 333, 342. We discuss this further in the following chapters.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

175

woman has had five ἄνδρες and that the man now with her is not her ἀνήρ. τοῦτο ἀληθὲς is a predicate adjective used along with εἴρηκας, meaning “this statement you have just made is true” (τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας).116 The interpretation of vv. 17-18 is in general based on how one understands πέντε γὰρ ἄνδρας ἔσχες. Concerning these verses, scholars have proposed different types of explanations. Some interpret vv. 1718 literally to mean that she herself in fact had five husbands; others focus on the symbolism of her exchange with Jesus in vv. 16-18.117 Some scholars ask how, being a foreigner, it would be possible for him to know about her personal life. However, we can find a similar occasion in 1:45-51 where Jesus speaks about the personal life of Nathanael. In his astonishment Nathanael even asks Jesus, “Where did you get to know 116

117

We have translated τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας by taking τοῦτο as the direct object and ἀληθὲς as the adverb qualifying the predicate εἴρηκας: you have spoken in a true way. It can also be translated in two other ways: considering εἴρηκας as the subject, τοῦτο its direct object and understanding ἀληθὲς in a predicate sense, τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας can be translated as you have said this as something true. Third way would be to take τοῦτο and ἀληθὲς together (both are neutral) and to translate as this true thing which is the direct object of εἴρηκας and hence translates, you have said this true thing. In addition to that, there is a text-critical problem in v. 18 that ‫ א‬writes ἀληθως in place of ἀληθὲς. KJV translates v. 18 using this variant reading. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #1894; BDF #272; MM, 225; McHugh, John, 281. Westcott, John, 71, comments that “a sad irony”. Zahn, Das Evangelium, 244, explains that through vv. 16, 18 Jesus intends to reveal her immoral life, which according to Haenchen is a misunderstanding of the text. According to Gibblin, “What was Everything He Told Her She did,” 148-152, the woman is a serial fornicator. According to Cantwell, Immortal Longings,” 82, the woman “is hurt and sobered by his knowledge of her secret, but is liberated from the need to go on concealing it”. Haenchen, John, 221, argues that “[h]ow the woman came to be married five times holds no significance for the story; the Evangelist chooses not to speak of ‘lawless and vulgar’ matters. What he wants to show is the uncanny knowledge of Jesus. Those exegetes who took the text literally were correct”. He also notes that in Mk 12:18-27, “the question of the Sadducees […] presupposes the remarriage of a woman six times”. Hirsch, Evangelium, 146, proposes an allegorical explanation, understanding the Samaritan woman as a symbol of the Samaritan people in the Samaritan episode. Schnackenburg, John, 1.433, discards Hirsch’s interpretation. Brown, John, 1.171, explains that an allegorical explanation is indeed possible for this text, but adds that it may not be the intention of the evangelist. Haenchen reaffirms the symbolical interpretation of vv. 16ff. Bultmann, John, 180, maintains that the evangelist does not intend to present an allegory but rather a symbolic story. An exceptional interpretation is found in Origenes, John’s Gospel, 2.271. According to this, John uses an allegory with the number five, indicating that the Samaritans accept only the five books of the Pentateuch. Bligh, “Jesus in Samaria,” 335-336, goes further, claiming that the Samaritan woman is not yet married and has matrimonial designs on Jesus. Some scholars also propose some combination of the above explanations. See for instance, Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 243, points that “the woman’s private life corresponds with the history of her people”.

176

CHAPTER 4

me?” (1:48ff). Nevertheless, such an exposition from the part of Jesus paved the way for both Nathanael and the Samaritan woman to correct their misunderstanding or to erase the prejudices concerning Jesus.118 Jesus’ conversation with the woman in vv. 16-18 is explained by some scholars as clear evidence of his supernatural knowledge. Symbolic interpretations of these verses began from that of Strauss, who held that the woman is here a symbol of the Samaritan people and the five husbands denote the five cults of the Samaritans in light of 2 Kgs 17:24-34.119 Yet another explanation of vv. 17-18 holds that it is true concerning her private life (having five husbands) and yet also signifies that the Samaritans worshipped foreign gods. The word ἀνήρ is employed five times in vv. 16-18, these being five of the total eight occurrences in John’s gospel.120 McHugh acknowledges that the use of the term ἀνήρ here supports explanations holding that the passage concerns the Samaritans’ worship of false gods.121 However, he adds that “[t]he woman in the story is naturally presented as understanding Jesus’ words in the first sense as five husbands or (more probably?) five men, whereas the evangelist intended to intimate also that Samaria had not always given its worship exclusively to the God of Israel”.122 In vv. 16ff, the subject changes from the living water (vv. 10-15) to the life of the Samaritan woman, while the action changes from giving (cf. δίδωμι [×4] in vv. 10-15) water to call husband/man (ἀνήρ [×5] in vv. 16-18).123 Haenchen affirms that in 118 119

120 121

122 123

See for instance, cf. 1:46, 49; 4:9, 19. See Strauss, The Life of Jesus, 2.36-50. In the previous chapter, we offered a rather detailed discussion of the above interpretation and the arguments against it (such as the difference between five and seven or the distorted picture) in order to understand what it more likely to be. Our discussion was based on the various available and relevant literary sources before and during the turning of the era and our major focus was on the level of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται during that period. For instance, concerning the allegorical interpretation in light of 2 Kgs 17, Haenchen finds a discrepancy: “the text,” he writes, “does not lend itself to that reading. The foreign colonists, whom the king of Assyria settled in Samaria following the fall of the northern kingdom, worshiped seven deities, not five, and these seven not in succession”. Haenchen, John, 221. Cf. 1:13, 30; 6:10. McHugh, John, 282. “The fivefold repetition of ἀνήρ is very probably an intimation that one should be on the watch for symbolism. Furthermore, in Aramaic (or Hebrew, or Samaritan) one term for husband is ba‘al, the name of the god of the Canaanites, the plural of which (be‘alim) was used by the Israelites as a designation for all false gods. Hence πέντε ἄνδρας ἔσχες can signify either You have had five husbands or You have had five be‘alim (that is, five false gods), or both”. McHugh, John, 282. δίδωμι dominates in vv. 10-15 (seven times) while ἀνήρ dominates in vv. 16-18 (five times).

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

177

interpreting this dialogue one must emphasize the intention of the author, namely, “Jesus ironically affirm that [the woman] has not told a lie. He then exposes the larger untruth: she has had five husbands”.124 Carson finds that this remark of Jesus about her personal life “is designed to help the woman come to terms with the nature of the gift he is offering” and he adds that vv. 29, 39 reaffirm that “Jesus exposes the whole truth about her private life […], but in the gentlest possible way”.125 One may say that the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 17, i.e. that she has no husband, seems to cut off the dialogue.126 However, she recaps her reply in affirming that what she has said is the truth. “In fact,” Köstenberger holds, “though technically truthful, the woman’s statement is potentially misleading”.127 As Haenchen remarks, “[h]ow the woman came to be married five times holds no significance for the story; the Evangelist chooses not to speak of ‘lawless and vulgar’ matters. What he wants to show is the uncanny knowledge of Jesus”.128 Schnackenburg states that “with the strict views of Orientals on morality, the Samaritans must also have considered such [actions] as dishonorable and illegitimate”, adding that despite this focus on the personal realm, the woman “still has her religious questions and yearnings”.129 In light of v. 29 (εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα), one may interpret vv. 17-18 to mean that, at least in the perception of the Samaritan woman, Jesus told her about her own life and actions.130 Our brief overview above has shown that various sorts of interpretations have been made of vv. 17-18: that it concerns her own private life, or the life of the Samaritans generally, or both, or implicitly that Jesus comes closer to the issue raised in the Samaritan episode through vv. 4, 9, 12. As mentioned above, Haenchen explains that the human person’s thirst for peace and happiness is implicitly presented in vv. 10-15. Of Jesus’ confrontations and the woman’s responses in vv. 16-18, he states that “[m]any exegetes are of the opinion that the woman seeks to free herself from her painful situation by uttering a ‘half-truth’”.131 In this respect recent scholarship explains the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 16-18 as a non-judgmental attitude of Jesus towards the 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Haenchen, John, 221. Carson, John, 218. Hendriksen, John, 164; Carson, John, 221; Köstenberger, John, 152. Köstenberger, John, 152. See also Keener, John, 605. Haenchen, John, 221. Schnackenburg, John, 1.433. See for instance, McHugh, John, 282. Haenchen, John, 221.

178

CHAPTER 4

Samaritan woman.132 It is evident from the immediate context that the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 16-18 does not intend to accuse her of her guiltiness. It is interesting to note that in v. 29a (cf. v. 39) the Samaritan woman introduces Jesus as the one who exposed to her about everything she had done (“who told me everything I have ever done”). This verse seems to suggest she is not ashamed of speaking about her. Hence, we propose that vv. 16-18 leads the Samaritan woman through the process of acquiring right knowledge which Jesus wants her to have (cf. vv. 10-26). The situation of the Samaritan woman is ambiguous. In the narrative Jesus explicitly has told the Samaritan woman that she had five husbands and the present one is someone whom she had not married. Reason for changing the subject to these details cannot be fully explained.133 However, in the light of our discussion we propose that it contributes to the progress of the dialogue in terms of coming to the right knowledge which Jesus wants her to possess.134 2.2. The Dialogue in Progress In v. 19, the Samaritan woman responds to the now seemingly harder confrontations of Jesus: κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ. At this stage, one notes the woman’s progress in conceiving real οἶδα, which Jesus urges her to do in v. 10. One here asks: what are the implications of the vocabulary used here in v. 19, such as θεωρέω and προφήτης? Does it indicate a change in perspective on the part of the Samaritan woman, or a change in the mode of the dialogue in vv. 19ff? In what follows, let us first examine the implications of θεωρέω in this context, and then discuss the Samaritan woman’s address of Jesus as προφήτης in light of the foregoing (vv. 7-18) and following (vv. 20-26) sections of the Samaritan episode. 132

133

134

In the early scholarship, one of the major issues addressed while examining the Samaritan episode were the morality concerns of the life of the Samaritan woman. That is, they explain vv. 16-19 function to expose the moral guilt of the Samaritan woman. However, recently, feminist interpretation takes the other end to interpret vv. 16-18. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, 190-195, concludes that “it has nothing to do with the woman’s private moral life but with the covenant life of the community”. She adds that the Samaritan woman is “a symbolic figure representing the Samaritan element in the Johannine community”. See also, Carmichael, “Marriage and the Samaritan Woman,” 332-446. Scholars, in general, agree with this view. Occasionally, scholarship gives room for the symbolic interpretation that the five men refer to the false gods of the Samaritans. We have found that in the light of Jesus’ exchange with the Samaritan woman, her response in v. 15 shows lack of comprehension and in v. 16 Jesus changes the subject to the private life of the Samaritan woman.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

179

2.2.1. θεωρῶ The action or response of the Samaritan woman is depicted in v. 19 using the word θεωρέω. What are the implications of the use of θεωρέω here in light of the term προφήτης? BDAG explains that θεωρέω is used in 4:19 and 12:19 with the same meaning, i.e. of understanding someone in light of what has been seen and heard.135 According to Louw and Nida, the meaning of θεωρέω is to “observe something with continuity and attention”, and this may well explain the implications of this word in v. 19.136 θεωρεῖν is employed in John 23 times. Bultmann identifies three types of seeing in John: (i) the perception of earthly or visible things (1:38, 47; 9:8); (ii) the supernatural aspect of seeing (1:32), and (iii) the perception of a revelation (1:14; 2:11). The occurrence of θεωρέω in 4:19 is not mentioned in his threefold classification, however.137 In discussing 4:19, Bultmann notes the implication of v. 19 in light of vv. 16-18, where Jesus is depicted as the one who has knowledge of secret details normally hidden from others. He adds that when the woman shares her experience with people of the Samaritan town Sychar in v. 29, she highlights this element.138 Bernard explains that θεωρέω “may be used either of bodily vision (20:6, 14) or of mental contemplation (12:45, 14:17), but always connotes intelligent attention”.139 According to Liddell and Scott, θεωρέω carries the meaning of speculation.140 For Abbott, θεωρέω as used in Jn 4:19 indicates that the Samaritan woman acknowledges Jesus as a prophet.141 According to B. Thettayil, θεωρέω in v. 19 carries no implication that the woman has extraordinary or supernatural knowledge and 135

136 137 138

139

140 141

BDAG, 454, explains the meaning of θεωρέω as follows: (i) to observe something and (ii) to come to an understanding of something. The latter meaning can be further elaborated as perceiving on the basis of what has been seen and heard (for instance, 4:19; 12:19) and spiritual perception of the one who is sent by God (14:17, 19). L&N, #24.14. See also MM, #1919. Bultmann, John, 69. The context of Jesus speaking to Nathanael is cited here as an example from a similar context (1:47-49). See also 2:25; 6:15, 61, 64, 70; 13:27; 14:24-25. Bultmann, John, 188. ὄπτομαι is used in 1:51, 3:36, 11:40, 16:16. Bernard, John, 1.67, 99; 2.396, 513. Bernard differentiates θεωρεῖν from ὄπτομαι: “ὄπτομαι (but not ὁρᾶν in the pres. or perf. tenses) is always used in Jn. (3:36, 11:40, 16:16, 1 Jn. 3:2) of the vision of heavenly or spiritual realities, as distinct from a seeing with the eyes of the body. The same usage is common in the rest of the N.T., but there are exceptions (e.g. Acts 7:26, 20:25). For the difference in usage between ὅπτομαι and θεωρεῖν see on 2:23.” See also Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, ##1597-1598. LSJ #796. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, #1598.

180

CHAPTER 4

that, in addition, this verb does not carry any serious theological meaning. Hence, Thettayil finds that the Samaritan woman’s perception of Jesus as a strange Ἰουδαῖος gives way to a better understanding of him as the dialogue progresses, especially in light of vv. 16-18.142 One may agree with this interpretation in the context of vv. 16-18. Yet the vocabulary which follows, viz. προφήτης, invites further discussion as it pertains to our research hypothesis in general and the expectations of the Samaritans concerning a προφήτης like Moses in particular. One can note a change in the mood of the dialogue in v. 19: i.e. the Samaritan woman, who was in a self-defensive mood in vv. 16-18, suddenly shifts her gaze (θεωρέω) to Jesus in acknowledgment. The Samaritan woman’s first response to Jesus is σὺ Ἰουδαῖος (v. 9), which is quite peripheral and emerges from her socio-religious-cultural background and her acknowledgment of Jesus in v. 19 as προφήτης, both of which also show the impact of the exchanges between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. 2.2.2. προφήτης The term προφήτης has been employed at several instances such as 1:21, 25; 4:19, 44; 6:14; 7:40, 52 and 9:17 to depict the identity of Jesus either explicitly or implicitly.143 Jesus sometimes uses the term to refer to himself or someone else uses it to address him, with overtones either of appreciation or contempt. In 1:21, 25; 7:40, the term alludes to the Mosaic prophet, and in 6:14ff it refers to the prophet and Messiah. In 9:17, the blind man speculates that Jesus is a prophet since Jesus cured him. In Jn 4 there are two references to προφήτης: viz., in v. 19, by the Samaritan woman to refer to Jesus, and in v. 44, by Jesus himself. In the Synoptic gospels, one finds a similar reference to προφήτης (Lk 7:39). There this vocabulary is used as a result of recognizing that his words and actions are spoken and performed on behalf of God.144 “The Synoptics 142 143

144

See B. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 49-53. There are all together fourteen occurrences of προφήτης in the fourth gospel; cf. 1:21, 23, 25, 45; 4:19, 44; 6:14, 45; 7:40, 52; 8:52, 53; 9:17; 12:38. John 1:21, 23, 25 all refer to John, implicitly in relation to Jesus, the one who is coming and who has been sent by God. Four references (1:45 6:45; 8:52, 53) point to the prophet(s) in the OT or to the Prophetic books in books in general, and 1:23 and 12:38 refer to the prophecy of Isaiah. All other occurrences address Jesus either with appreciation and acceptance or with misunderstanding and rejection, whatever the inclinations, these are used in relation to Jesus himself, his words and actions. Cf. 1:45; 4:19, 44; 6:14; 7:40, 52; 8:52-53; 9:17). See Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 13-50. Cf. Lk 7:16; Jn 9:17. See Bernard, John, 1.145: “[a] prophet was one who had special powers of insight, as well as of foresight”. McHugh, A Critical Exegetical and Commentary, 282.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

181

also testify that this was the most general verdict pronounced among the people when they saw a man of God at work.”145 Cho examines how the gospel of John depicts the words and actions of Jesus as prophetic and in this light he affirms that Jesus is the expected prophet like Moses not just one of the prophets similar to the OT prophets. Identifying Jesus as this prophet, he goes further to find that within the narrative of the gospel of John, both the Prophet like Moses and the Messiah “are correlated to each other for identifying the expected eschatological figure”.146 Botha notes that the woman “identifies Jesus as a prophet, for in the context of the Samaritan belief only prophets could have superior knowledge”.147 Scholars have also discussed the Samaritan woman’s understanding of Jesus as προφήτης against the background of the socio-religious-cultural issues between the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Such discussions usually begin by noting the absence of the article with προφήτης in v. 19. It is debated how to translate the Samaritan woman’s recognition of Jesus in v. 19, viz. to mean a prophet or the prophet, mainly in light of the Pentateuch reference to the promised coming of a prophet like Moses and in light of the further discussions in the dialogue initiated by the Samaritan woman (vv. 20-26). Let us examine these concerns more closely. Interpretations of the use of προφήτης in v. 19 tend to see the term as pregnant with meanings. Wallace pays specific attention to the use of προφήτης in v. 19148 and finds this verse to be “the most likely candidate of an indefinite pre-verbal predicate nominative in the NT. Yet there is some doubt about it. First, it is slightly possible that the evangelist is representing the Samaritan woman as thinking about the great prophet of Deut 18”.149 In addition to this, θεωρῶ contributes to the understanding of a prophet since it indicates that “[t]he woman seems to be focusing 145

146 147

148

149

Schnackenburg, 1.433-434, explains that “[t]he Samaritan, who must have been astonished at the stranger’s knowledge of her hidden past, concludes that he is a prophet”. Cf. Mt 14:5; 21:11, 46; Mk 11:32; Lk 1:76; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52. Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 260-265, 270-271. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 143. In addition to that, Jesus “had already shown that he did not consider the drinking vessel she had touched to be unclean; the woman, by asking for a drink from him (4.15), had reciprocated the courtesy”. Hence, Jesus’ action of asking for a drink from the Samaritan woman in v. 7 has shown that he has gotten rid of the prejudices and came to Samaria to do the actions on behalf of God. See McHugh, John, 282. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 265. He explains that although the translation is most naturally “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet,” the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitative. It could almost be translated, “I perceive that you are prophetic,” or “I perceive that you have the prophetic gift” . Wallace, Greek Grammar, 265.

182

CHAPTER 4

on the attributes of a prophet, rather than merely listing Jesus as a member of that class”.150 Wallace adds that this explanation is not certain “because of the verb θεωρῶ”. He holds that she perceives Jesus as a prophet due to the fact that “Jesus’ statement to her in v 18 is too insufficient a base to make her think of the prophet”. Wallace seems to leave room for both translations of v. 19, viz., either as a prophet or as the prophet.151 The issue at stake is stated by Thettayil: “[o]n the one hand the expectation of the people of a specific prophet leads us to understand that the woman has the prophet in mind. On the other hand, the grammatical construction of the statement indicates that since προφήτης is anarthrous, it must be read as a prophet”.152 According to E. C. Colwell, “[t]he absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it”.153 However, he proposes this explanation in light of Jn 1:49, where two titles of Jesus are depicted: one with the definite article, the other without. Hence, we cannot apply this in v. 19 since we have here only one term, namely προφήτης. In other words, it is evident that this explanation does not help us determine the definiteness of the noun προφήτης in v. 19.154 However, P. B. Harner explains that “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite of indefinite”.155 Colwell does not even mention Jn 4:19, whereas Harner includes it in his discussions. However, in the resultant list of nouns with definiteness, the occurrence of προφήτης in this verse is not counted.156 Thus, our discussion has shown that it is problematic to be certain about the definiteness or indefiniteness of the noun προφήτης in this verse. Hence, in the following we examine how scholars have interpreted προφήτης in v. 19 in relation to both its immediate and broader contexts. 150 151

152 153

154 155

156

Wallace, Greek Grammar, 265-266. See also BDF #132, #264. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 265-266. He admits that it is difficult to distinguish in such situation whether the given noun is definite or indefinite. See Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 55. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article,” 13, 20-21. “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb”. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 56. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,” 75, 82-83. Robertson, Grammar, 767, remarks that nouns in the predicate form may also have the article, though it is not essential. Harner, “Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,” 82-83.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

183

Some hold that the definite article is implied here and some even translate v. 19 to mean a/the prophet. Theobald observes that v. 19 is one of the several steps by which the Samaritan woman acquires knowledge of Jesus.157 For Carson, the syntax of v. 19 allows for the translation “I can see that you are the prophet”.158 For Bernard, προφήτης in v. 19 refers to a prophet who has special powers of insight.159 The Samaritan woman’s recognition of Jesus in v. 19 as a/the prophet anticipates 4:3942, where Jesus is proclaimed ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. In the book of Acts, the proclamation of Peter (3:22) and Stephen (7:37) about Jesus are thought to allude to Deut 18:18. In Jn 6:14, reference by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to προφήτης is likewise held to allude to Deuteronomy.160 Taking this connection to Deuteronomy Schnackenburg considers the term as used in a general sense in v. 19, as it is on other occasions such as in Mt 21:11 and Lk 1:76.161 He explains the absence of article as well as the occurrence of προφήτης in v. 19 as follows: “[t]o judge by the absence of the article, the Samaritan woman is not thinking of the (Messianic) prophet (like 6:14; 7:40, 52 var. lect.), though the Messiah as expected by the Samaritans had prophetic traits, after Deut 18:15, 18”.162 Bruce explains that John puts on the lips of the people whom he interacts with such comparisons, viz. Jesus as προφήτης which one way or another alludes to Deut 18:18; accordingly, the Samaritan woman’s reference to Jesus as προφήτης can be explained as expression of her recognition of him as the prophet.163 We have already seen that the Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch and, hence, the woman would not have much knowledge of the books of the Prophets, the only exception being the one included in the Pentateuch, viz., reference to a prophet like Moses who was expected to return. In other words, given the religious background of the Samaritan woman, the prophet who is like Moses is the only one she would have reason to 157 158 159 160

161

162 163

Theobald, Das Evangelium, 312-313. Carson, John, 221. See also, Moloney, John, 132. See Bernard, John, 145. Though there is a similar reference in 1 Mac 4:46, this falls beyond the scope of our consideration here as it does not belong to the Pentateuch. The Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch. Schnackenburg, John, 434. He adds that προφήτης in v. 19 can imply that Jesus is a man of God. Ridderbos, John, 160-161, adds that the Samaritan woman’s recognition of Jesus as a prophet implies that she acknowledges the truth which he has spoken to her. McHugh, John, 282. Schnackenburg, John, 1.434. See Bruce, The Time is Fulfilled, 40. See also Schneider, “προφήτης”, 185.

184

CHAPTER 4

expect.164 Smith proposes that even though the noun προφήτης is anarthrous, v. 19 possibly refers to the prophet in Deut 18:15.165 In 1:21, we have ὁ προφήτης, which refers to a specific prophet, whereas in 4:19 there is no such reference to a particular prophet; rather, the woman tells Jesus that she sees him as a prophet. Thettayil notes that “[t]his would, in the eyes of the woman, make Jesus one of those common prophets that walked around teaching people”.166 However, as mentioned above, the Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch and thus see no succession of prophets. Köstenberger explains that the Samaritan woman acknowledges Jesus as a prophet because “Jesus knows her life circumstances without apparently having been told by anyone – hence, he must be ‘a prophet’”.167 He affirms that this is not the Prophet of Deut 18 but simply a prophet.168 According to Beasley-Murray, “the woman’s recognition of Jesus as a prophet leads her to raise the most burning issue between Samaritans and Jews, namely the place where God should be worshipped”.169 Jesus discerns the mind of the Samaritan woman in their conversation in vv. 16-18, and thus knows that the Samaritan woman wants to let Jesus speak about the religious controversy between them, Ἰουδαῖοι and Σαμαρῖται. From the personal or private realm of her life, the Samaritan woman moves on to the religious-cultural issues concerning their nation, Samaria.170 Thus, the conception of Jesus as προφήτης by the Samaritan woman, could refer either to a prophet in general or to the prophet like Moses who is expected to come. For the former interpretation, scholars translate προφήτης without an article, and for the latter they translate this noun as definite. In light of the immediate and broader contexts of the gospel of John, the first interpretation is more in line with preceding part of the Samaritan episode and Jesus as the prophet connects this with the following part of the narrative. In sum, the translations of προφήτης to mean both a prophet and/or the prophet can be justified by the context of the passage.

164

165 166 167 168

169 170

See n. 76 in section 1.2, above, for a brief discussion of these references from the Pentateuch. See Smith, John, 115. See also Ridderbos, John, 340. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 55. Köstenberger, John, 152. Köstenberger, John, 152. In a similar vein, the blind man in Jn 9:17 understands Jesus as a prophet. Beasley-Murray, John, 61. See Zahn, Das Evangelium, 244.

CONFLICTING AND DEFLECTING

185

CONCLUSION This chapter examined vv. 10-19 with a view to understand how the Samaritan mission of Jesus progresses in terms of his encounter with the Samaritan woman. We have seen that this section depicts a progressing mode compared to the previous section where an atmosphere of conflict or denial dominates (cf. vv. 1-9). Jesus reinitiates the conversation in v. 10 and says nothing about her negative response and the distance she sets between them in v. 9. After a phase of bargaining (vv. 11-14) the Samaritan woman does make her request for ὕδωρ ζῶν (v. 15). However, vv. 1115 indicate that she still lacks the right knowledge to receive it. Following this narrative line, one finds that the dialogue between Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος and the woman as Σαμαρῖτις advances to a further stage, as Jesus confronts her about her personal life and its inner turbulences (vv. 16-18). One can notice that a soft phase of the dialogue is presented in vv. 10-15, beginning with Jesus’ offer (and ignoring the hard response from her in v. 9) up to the point of the woman’s acceptance of his offer whereas the next phase (vv. 16-18) includes open confrontation. Her response that she does not have a husband is possibly an attempt to end the conversation. But Jesus confronts her with the truth in a constructive way that he holds up the mirror to her and he does not let her get away. Through the moments of confrontation Jesus literally touches the Samaritan woman’s private life and symbolically concerns her socio-cultural and religious-political realm. And this finally brings her to the acknowledgment of Jesus as prophet. But in the light of our discussions so far one cannot say that she addresses Jesus as prophet (v. 19) merely as a result of speculation or with the aid of super natural knowledge. Rather it seems clear that Jesus’ words and actions as well as his direct and indirect acquaintance with her concerns and worries directs her to progress toward acquiring right knowledge (cf. οἶδα). In this respect, one may not conclude whether her conception of Jesus is specifically similar to that of the expectations of Samaritans, or just a prophet. Accordingly, we leave the discussion of the acknowledgement of the Samaritan woman about Jesus as a/the prophet open ended. However, this issue comes back while discussing the verses following (vv. 20-26) in the next chapter. Thus, in sum vv. 10-19 depicts first the moments of reinitiating the conversation by Jesus (v. 10) with the offer of ὕδωρ ζῶν and further discussions on this offer made the Samaritan woman to request for water (vv. 11-15). This is followed by Jesus’ confrontation leading the Samaritan woman to acknowledge, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ συ (vv. 16-19). These

186

CHAPTER 4

two phases of the dialogue (vv. 10-15, vv. 16-19) show that a progressive understanding has been developed between these dialogue partners. More specifically, the dialogue progresses to a point where the major issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is directly addressed (vv. 20-26). We discuss this issue in more detail in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 5

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26) INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, we discussed Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman up to the point where she acknowledges Jesus as a/the prophet. It is not certain what she expected from a prophet who belongs to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.1 In other words, the evangelist does not explicitly state what are the implications of the Samaritan woman’s acknowledgment of Jesus as προφήτης, whether this means simply a prophet or the prophet, like Moses. The dialogue progresses further in vv. 20ff and culminates in v. 26, where the evangelist makes clear that Jesus is the one whom they have expected. προσκυνέω is the key word and the major theme in vv. 20-24.2 We ask here, therefore: What would be the implications of the theme of worship in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman and more specifically, in the context of her acknowledgment of Jesus as προφήτης? Our discussions in chapter 3 enables us to deduce, how the Samaritan woman first brings forth the core issue3 between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (v. 20), and vv. 21-24 depicts how Jesus approaches this issue. At the very outset vv. 20-24, bring to fore this major issue4 between 1

2

3

4

At the beginning of the dialogue, the Samaritan woman identified Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος in v. 9. Hence, Jesus cannot be a prophet from among the Samaritans. προσκυνέω is used nine times in vv. 20-24, but is not used elsewhere in the Samaritan episode. In a similar vein ἐσθίω is employed in each verse in vv. 31-33, where the major theme is centered on ἐσθίω and this vocabulary is not employed elsewhere in the Samaritan episode. We have deduced this from our discussion in chapter 3 concerning the level of relationship at the time of the Johannine Jesus, paying attention not only to the immediate and broader contexts of the Samaritan episode but also to the concerned references in the available relevant literature. Hence, we suggest that the dialogue unfolds around the issue which is introduced implicitly by the narrator in vv. 1-4 and explicitly by the Samaritan woman at the opening part of the dialogue (v. 9). This means that the dialogue inevitably leads to the question of the differences between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (vv. 20-24). Our detailed discussions in the previous chapter on the problems or elements of difference between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται with reference to the relevant literary

188

CHAPTER 5

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Consequently, the dialogue culminates with Jesus and the Samaritan woman reaching a convergence in Μεσσίας/ χριστός (vv. 25-26).5 What follows here, therefore is an examination of vv. 20-26. This chapter unfolds mainly as follows: vv. 20-21 depicts how the core issue at stake is raised by the Samaritan woman (either/or) and Jesus’ instantaneous response with neither/nor; (ii) vv. 22-24 introduce further elaborations and explanations of the issue of worship (vv. 22-24) which leads the dialogue partners toward (iii) the reaching of common ground, i.e., their coming to yes in vv. 25-26.

1. THE CORE ISSUE (VV. 20-21) Having acknowledged Jesus as a/the prophet in v. 19 the Samaritan woman goes further (v. 20) to enquire about the right place of worship since οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται have different places of worship (cf. προσκυνέω). In the previous two chapters we have found how the Samaritan episode brings forth, either explicitly or implicitly, the issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται such as the distinction between Jesus as Ἰουδαῖος and the woman as Σαμαρῖτις, the parenthesis οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις (v. 9), the Samaritan woman’s enquiry μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ; (v. 12), and Jesus’ explanations and challenge to the woman that she may have right knowledge (vv. 10ff) and even personal confrontations (vv. 17ff). These different stages of encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman equipped her to perceive Jesus as a/the prophet. It seems that this broadening of the horizon of her understanding prompts her to raise the real issue, namely, the question of different places of worship (v. 20). Thus one could say that the Samaritan woman in v. 20 takes a definitive step toward breaking the barriers by opening up this core issue between the two groups of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (v. 20). In other words, the major chunk of the dialogue (vv. 7-19) prepares the way for this open discussion.

5

sources and immediate context of the Samaritan episode have one common factor: viz., problems due to these two groups’ having different places of worship: Jerusalem for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim for οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in Jn 4 culminates on a common “yes” that the dialogue partners reached at a common point, thus reaching convergence (vv. 20-26). It is neither Mt. Gerizim nor Jerusalem which are important, as such, but right worship in spirit and truth and the right teaching revealed by the Messiah, who is now in dialogue with the Samaritan woman (vv. 25-26).

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

189

One may think that the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 20 is quite strange that she shares the knowledge passed on to her regarding the issues about the different place of worship but leaves the issue open by employing either/or. That is, she is not presenting either of the two places as the right one. Obviously, members of these two groups were taught that theirs is the right place of worship, viz., Mt. Gerizim for οἱ Σαμαρῖται and Jerusalem for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However, the Samaritan woman is not arguing for the importance of worship at Mt. Gerizim over Jerusalem. Hence, we propose that the kernel of her enquiry in v. 20 is truly an effort to seek for the right knowledge as to which of these two is the right place of worship.6 In other words, unlike in her preceding parts of the dialogue here she is rather soft in her approaches. The conjunction καί (and) used to connect these two indicates that the Samaritan woman presents the issue neither to compare nor to contrast. From the very outset v. 20 mentions the Samaritan ancestors’ (οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν) worship and of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Distinct places of worship according to v. 20, are τὸ ὄρος of the Samaritans and ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. We also notice that in v. 20 the major theme and repeated vocabulary is προσκυνέω.7 The issue raised by the Samaritan woman and the response of Jesus both concern the theme of worship (cf. προσκυνέω), and her either/or and Jesus’ neither/nor both anchor on this theme (vv. 20-21).8 In view of our research hypothesis, we examine vv. 20-21 in the following way. First, we shall briefly discuss the meaning of the vocabulary προσκυνέω and, in this light, we shall offer a brief overview of the implications of worship or of the human persons’ relating to God in general according to the Hebrew scriptures and the NT. Then, we briefly discuss the reasons for the different places of worship and the issue accompanied mainly in light of the concerned references in the SP and in the MT, and consider what issues were raised by this. Thirdly, in this light, we examine vv. 20-21. In v. 20, the Samaritan woman presents the issue by employing two tense forms; i.e., she tells about the Samaritan ancestors’ worship at the Mt. Gerizim in the past tense and the place of worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as Jerusalem in the present tense; this issue will be discussed in what follows. 6

7

8

One of the main thrusts of vv. 10-19 is the need to have right knowledge about δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ λέγων σοι. It is to be noted that Jesus indirectly asks the Samaritan woman to have right knowledge about who he is. As noted above προσκυνέω is the dominant vocabulary in vv. 20-24 and is the kernel of the Samaritan woman’s question concerning the right place of worship and Jesus’ response as well. Jesus’ resolving of the issue on a common ground also deals with the theme of worship.

190

CHAPTER 5

Also we ask: what would be the implications of the Samaritan woman’s raising of the question with either/or (v. 20) and Jesus’ response with neither/nor (v. 21) concerning the issue of the different places of worship. We first discuss briefly the meaning of προσκυνέω and implications of the theme of worship in different contexts. 1.1. προσκυνέω Before examining the question of the different places of worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται as depicted in v. 20, and the difference in tense-forms employed, the Samaritans’ worship is indicated in the past tense and the worship at Jerusalem by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the present tense, we will briefly examine προσκυνέω and the theme of worship itself. We will not make an elongated discussion of these issues, but rather aim just to narrow our focus in view of our research hypothesis. In general, προσκυνέω indicates mainly two types of gestures. The first is toward God, or gods, such as making obeisance to God/s or prostrating oneself before God/s in worship. The other refers to the oriental style of prostrating oneself before kings or superiors. It expresses “by attitude and possibly by position one’s allegiance to and regard for deity”.9 In the MT and in the LXX, terms for worship are used either to depict the gesture of giving due respect to some human persons (bowing down) or to refer to worshipping God.10 In the NT προσκυνέω mainly refers to the worship of God and it is used 60 times, of which 11 are in the gospel of John, specifically in the Samaritan episode (vv. 20-24), except for 9:38 and 9 10

L&N, #53.56. See also LSJ, #37153, BDAG, 882. ‫ ָחוָ ה‬a verb used in the Hebrew Bible to denote the worship of Yahweh or other gods is almost everywhere translated as προσκυνέω (almost 150 times). προσκυνέω in the LXX is usually translated as to bow down, and this bowing can refer to God or to a human being. However, in the majority of cases it is rendered as worshipping Yahweh (cf. Gen 18:2; 19:1; 22:5; 24:52; Deut 26:10). In some contexts it is employed in contrast with worshipping gods other than Yahweh (cf. Exod 34:14; Deut 8:19). See Greeven, “προσκυνέω,” 759, 761. See also Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 119. The Pentateuch depicts in several instances how people related themselves with God in worship. προσκυνέω is used in the book of Genesis to denote both respect given to human persons and to the worship of God (cf. Gen 18:2; 19:1; 22:5; 24:26, 48, 52). Among the eleven occurrences, in the book of Exodus all except two depict either how people relate with God or the instructions given to them from God concerning the worship (cf. Exod 4:31; 11:8; 12:27; 18:7; 20:5; 23:24; 24:1; 32:8; 33:10; 34:8, 14). In the other three books of the Pentateuch προσκυνέω concerns only about human persons’ relating with God (cf. Lev 26:1; Num 22:31; 25:2; Deut 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 26:10; 29:25; 30:17; 32:43). See Koester, The Dwelling of God, 7-9; Hjelm, The Samaritans, 146-147.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

191

12:30. Similar to the LXX, προσκυνέω, as used in the NT, refers to “the cultic worship of God which is not specifically associated with any particular liturgical gestures, but denotes a prostration of a humble heart before God, turning to him with interior peace”.11 Scholars such as Bultmann and McHugh explain that προσκυνέω refers to the cultic worship of God in the Scriptures12 and that it “connotes, first of all, the relationship with God through homage and total submission to him […] such a relationship is associated with serving God, which could include performing specific religious duties and even a life marked by profound respect toward God and one’s neighbor”.13 The core expression of humanity’s relationship with God is succinctly presented in the scriptures with the term worship (cf. προσκυνέω).14 In this respect προσκυνέω expresses how human persons relate to God in response to God’s dealings with them in respective contexts. Thus, in a nutshell προσκυνέω implies how human persons relate with God and God deals with them. Hence one has to discuss the specific context of προσκυνέω in each case for further exploration. As noted above, προσκυνέω being the core vocabulary and central theme of vv. 20-24, we will discuss it further in this chapter. Before proceeding to discuss the issue raised by the Samaritan woman concerning the right place of worship in vv. 20-24, we will in the following attend to the disputes and discussions concerning the differences between the SP and MT. The core issue of interest in this discussion is the additional commandment in the SP, which urges people to worship at Mt. Gerizim. 1.2. Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim: The SP, LXX and MT In order to mention the two different places of worship, Jerusalem of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim of οἱ Σαμαρῖται, v. 20 uses προσκυνέω twice. In what follows here, we discuss how scholarship depicts what led to the specification of two different places of worship for these two groups of people, which in turn will enable us to explicate why the Samaritan woman proposes two alternatives (either/or) and Jesus responds with neither/nor 11

12 13

14

Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 120. See also, Bultmann, John, 189; Greeven, “προσκυνέω,” 760-761. Bultmann, John, 189; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 125. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 125, 115-125. She provides a detailed discussion of the term προσκυνέω and its semantic domain in the light of use in the LXX (its Hebrew equivalent in the MT) and in the NT. See Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 126.

192

CHAPTER 5

(vv. 20ff). The discussions and examinations concerning the construction and destruction of the temples and the issues attached to it point to various phases of conflicts and competitions between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται concerning their claims to possess the chosen place of Yahweh, and thus, the right place of worship.15 This crux of the issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: namely that both groups claimed to possess the right place of worship, viz., the temples at Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim, respectively. At this juncture, we discuss briefly the references concerning the theme of worship in the SP and MT, against the background of the issue at stake here. One major difference in the SP and MT in this respect is the prominence given to different places of worship. Obviously the SP highlights Mt. Gerizim and the MT affirms Jerusalem as the place chosen by Yahweh to worship. As Gallagher has written, “[t]raditionally scholars have considered three aspects of the SP to be sectarian as indicating a preference for Gerizim as the place of worship: (1) the location of the altar in Deut 27:4; (2) the perfect form baḥar in place of the MT’s imperfect yibḥar in all twenty-one appearances of the centralization formula in Deuteronomy; and (3) the Samaritan Tenth Commandment in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy. While there are other passages that probably also reflect Samaritan 15

About the differences concerning the place of worship, Josephus reports that the temple at Mt. Gerizim was built by Sannaballets for Manasse, who was his son-in-law and the brother of the high priest Jaddus, who was expelled from Jerusalem. He also mentions that it was destroyed at the beginning of the reign of Hyrcanus (128 BCE) (Cf. Josephus, Ant., 11. 302-303, Ant., 13. 254-256). However, the Samaritans continued to worship at this place (Josephus, Ant., 18.85). See Schürer, A History of the Jewish People, 11-20. Yet, recent scholarship, including archeological examinations, explicate that Josephus got it wrong and that a more probable dating would be after 111 BCE. Our discussions of vv. 6 and 11-12 concerning Jacob’s well and the common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται point to the shared belief of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in one God, festivals and other religious observances, especially Torah, and their main difference concerned the different place of worship. Such explanations are discussed in detail and underlined by Schürer. We have already seen in chapter 3 that Josephus’ account cannot be taken at face value as a correct rendering. Archaeological excavations have unveiled the presence of a huge construction, the Samaritan temple built on Mt. Gerizim, which was destroyed during the reign of John Hyrcanus. Hjelm, The Samaritans, 35, 280-284, explains that “[a]s the excavations on Mt. Gerizim have not been completed, earlier structures might still be hidden in the ground”. Since we have no authentic sources to access the history concerning the origin of the Samaritans and their relationship with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, these 2000 year-old issues cannot be understood with certainty. She concludes that “Jewish and Samaritan conflicts were not caused by the Samaritans’ move to Shechem in the fourth century BCE (as the first-century Jewish-Roman writer Josephus wanted us to believe), but rather had developed from conflicts over political supremacy in Persian-Hellenistic times culminating in the second to first century BCE as a result of the Maccabaean success”.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

193

ideology, these three have featured prominently in the discussion”.16 The tenth commandment in the SP mandates worship at Mt. Gerizim, while no such commandment is found in the MT. That is, in the depiction of the Decalogue, the SP considers the first commandment found in the MT to be an introduction, and so an additional one is given as the tenth commandment, which commands worship at Mt. Gerizim. There was a near consensus until recently that the SP intentionally altered the place of worship and that the MT provides the correct rendering. As Gallagher puts it, then, “scholarly consensus has charged the Samaritans with ideological textual revision in changing the verb to the perfect baḥar, looking back at God’s prior choice of Shechem and Mt. Gerizim, whereas the MT preserves the original imperfect yibḥar, looking forward to God’s choice of Jerusalem”.17 Recently, however, such explanations have been challenged against the background of the DSS scholarship, which considers some of the Pentateuchal manuscripts as bearing a pre-Samaritan text type. In light of this, scholars have attempted to identify the authentic textual tradition of the SP. They compare the SP with the LXX and MT and have found several commonalities between the SP and the LXX. Additionally, they highlight some more similarities between the latter two versions than between the LXX with the MT.18 Schenker goes further to argue for the priority of 16

17 18

Gallagher, “Cult Centralization in the Samaritan Pentateuch,” 562. Eshel and Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch,” 218, mention only the second and third points. Schorch, “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner,” 11, though, lists three points and rejects the first two. However, majority of recent scholars highlights the above-mentioned three elements. See Margain, “Samaritain (Pentateuque),” 762-774; Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 171-175, briefly summarizes how scholarship explains the three variants we discussed above in their comparison of the SP versus the MT. (i) “The Lord has chosen or will chose? In Deuteronomy, where the MT and LXX have frequent Deuteronomistic formula about ‘the place where the LORD will choose’ (‫ )יבחר‬to have his name dwell (Deut 12:5; 14:23; 16:2; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; etc.), the SP routinely has ‘the place where the LORD has chosen’ (‫”)בחר‬. Ulrich adds that “the polemic here, of course, is that, in the minds of the Northerners/Samari(t)ans, the Lord had at the time of Moses and Joshua chosen Mount Gerizim as true Israel’s central shrine, and that should not change; indeed in the Hebrew Bible Shechem retained its status as a revered central shrine during the period of Joshua. For the Judeans, however, Jerusalem would become the central shrine established by David and Solomon, and from Deuteronomy’s temporal point of reference, the Lord’s choice of Jerusalem still lay in the future. One tradition clearly has made a sectarian vision, and a comprehensive reexamination of the Samari(t)an-Judean problem is a major desideratum”. See Gallagher, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” 562. Evidence from the DSS shed fresh light on scholarship on the SP, and more precisely have prompted a revival of Samaritan studies with more inclusion of textual and historical research. Pummer, “AΡΓAΡΙΖΙΝ,” 19-25; Magen, “The Dating of the the Samaritan

194

CHAPTER 5

the SP and regards the MT’s imperfect form as a sectarian alteration.19 Earlier scholarship explained that this commandment in the SP is an addition inspired by specifically Samaritan concerns (or at least northern Samarian). In his latest publication, Ulrich writes of this matter in the light of the arguments proposed by recent scholars. Speaking of “the addition motivated by the sectarian concerns or simply a Samarian explication of what they believed based on the shared Samaritan-Jewish Pentateuch,”20 he holds that “perhaps a reexamination using post-Qumran thinking could lead to better understanding. It is worth exploring whether the changes in the SP are truly sectarian or simply neutral, and whether the variant forms in the MT may be the sectarian replacements” and he reaffirms that “clearly one tradition or the other has made a sectarian revision. […] whether the addition of Mount Gerizim was a simple exploitation of fact or an assertion motivated by sectarian concerns; in either case, Mount Ebal would be a sectarian variant”.21 In this respect, Ulrich leaves this question open. Anderson and Giles focus on the history and culture of the Samaritans and examine the textual features of the SP and different accounts of the origins of the Samaritans in light of the available resources such as pre-Samaritan texts, the Hebrew Bible, and “the wider context of the textual pluriformity of Second Temple Judaism in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is to be located”.22 They “rightly point out that if the goal of this layer was to

19 20

21

22

Temple,” 157-211; Pummer, “The Samaritans and their Pentateuch,” 237-269; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 178-197. See Schenker, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch, 105-122. Concerning the additional commandment in the SP, which specifies location of the altar, Ulrich, Developmental Composition of the Bible, 171-173; 215-217, explains that “though clearly added by the Samarians/northerners, [it] is not a specifically Samaritan creation; it consists mostly of the stipulations given to Moses in Deut 27:27, introduced by 11:29a and followed by 11:30. […] The SP addition simply repeats text already in the MT and LXX as well as in the SP. The glaring difference is the localization of the altar ‘on Mount Gerizim’ in the SP versus ‘on Mount Ebal’ in the MT at Deut 27:4”. Ulrich raises the issue, “Is ‘Mount Ebal’ at Deut 27:4 in the MT the original reading in the light of 4QJosha”. “That the oldest extent manuscript of Joshua apparently assumes Gilgal as the location of the first altar after Israel had crossed into the land, and […] is supported by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. Thus, Deut 27:2-3a (with no place stipulated) would have been the original reading. At a second level, it is argued, Mount Gerizim was inserted due to northern concerns, and at a third level that insertion was not deleted but was countered by Judeans with the anomalous substitution of ‘Mount Ebal.’ In so far as this interpretation be correct, it should be noted that the variant is not a sectarian variant made at Qumran but a double variant made first by the Samarians/ northerners and subsequently by the Judeans/southerners”. Ulrich, Developmental Composition of the Bible, 171-175, 215-227. Anderson and Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch, 89-103.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

195

bring the text of the Pentateuch to a greater degree of perfection, the result is painfully incomplete”.23 We have seen that the minority view regarding the differences in the SP, of the issue of worship which surfaced recently, is supported by textual evidence. However, the reasons behind the differences between the MT and SP and the similarity between the LXX and SP cannot be stated with certainty. The majority opinion is rooted in the scholarly assumptions based on conjectural arguments. In light of the above discussions of scholarship, we deduce that the intentional alteration or addition of the differences as such indicate some sort of hidden agenda on the part of either οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι or οἱ Σαμαρῖται or both. As mentioned above, the point of departure of these discussions is “within the wider group of so-called ‘pre-Samaritan’ texts, unearthed at Qumran, which share a series of major expansions with it”. But we have seen that it “lacks its distinct emphasis on Mt. Gerizim,”24 whereas the central theological tenet emphasized in the belief of the Samaritans (cf. the SP) is “the belief in the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim”.25 Hence, we narrow down our discussions to this central place concerning the belief of the Samaritans viz., Mt. Gerizim, which according to them, Yahweh had chosen as the place of worship and was enjoined by Moses (Deut 12:15, 11, 14; 16:2; 26:2). In this light, we briefly summarize this central element of the belief of the Samaritans, which is the core issue opened up by the Samaritan woman in v. 20. In the SP, Deut 27:4 presents a variant reading relative to that of the Hebrew Bible, viz., the SP reads “Mt. Gerizim” in place of “Shechem” found in the MT.26 According to the Samaritan tradition, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and meeting with Melchizedek both had taken place on Mt. Gerizim.27 Another core element of difference concerns Deut 12:10. God’s dwelling place (Deut 12:10) is Mt. Zion for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim for the Samaritans, in their respective versions of the Pentateuch.28 Thus for Samaritans the true worshipping place 23 24 25 26

27 28

Debel, “The Samaritan Pentateuch,” 435. Debel, “The Samaritan Pentateuch,” 435-436. Pummer, Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 24. Deut 27:4 in the SP depicts the instruction to Joshua to set up a shrine on Gerizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans, and one of the commandments in the Decalogue in the SP urges the Samaritans to worship at Mt. Gerizim. It is to be noted that 2 Chr 6:6 in the MT presents Jerusalem as God’s chosen place. See Brown, John, 1.171-172. See Kalimi, “Zion or Gerizim?,” 2.32-46, 32. However, the Hebrew Bible does not mention the temple on Mt. Gerizim. For Samaritans, “this mountain, not Jerusalem, was ‘the place Yahweh had chosen to worship’ for the liturgical worship enjoined by Moses in Deut 12.5., 11, 14; 16.2; 26.2 […]. This they

196

CHAPTER 5

is Mt. Gerizim, while οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι uphold the sacredness and uniqueness of the Jerusalem temple. The Samaritan woman’s raising of the issue of worship in v. 20 is rooted in her knowledge as a Samaritan. In other words, the Samaritans knew about the backbone of their belief and the central theological tenants, viz., the reasons behind the selection of Mt. Gerizim as the right place of worship over Jerusalem. And the reasons are that Abraham responded to the will of God to sacrifice Isaac on this mountain, it was there that Abraham met Melchizedek and where Moses offered the first sacrifice to God at an altar as the people of God entered the promised land of Canaan. What is more, worship on Mt. Gerizim is a commandment of the Decalogue in the SP. There thus remain many open questions concerning these issues, for example, who altered the Scripture references concerning the different places of worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim). However, the preceding discussion was meant only to shed some light on the Samaritan woman’s opening up of the core issue of worship in v. 20, not to answer these questions. In other words, the differences in the MT and the SP only confirm our findings in the previous chapters concerning the issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. 1.3. Either/Or and Neither/Nor The meeting place of God that was supposed to become the meeting place of His people thus became a bone of contention and a matter of constant conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In the following, we narrow our focus down to examine the discussion between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 20-21, which begins with the Samaritan woman’s enquiry concerning the right place to worship God. Having come to accept Jesus as a/the prophet,29 she touches directly upon the core issue between the two groups, viz., the right place of worship. Verse 20 serves as an introduction to the theme of worship discussed in vv. 21ff. One needs to pay attention in this context to the different tense forms used by the Samaritan woman to indicate the different places of worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται: why does she employ the aorist tense in

29

held was the site of the altar demanded by Moses in 27.4, which Joshua had built and where had first occurred his sacrifices in Canaan (Josh 8:30-33). Everyone knew that the sanctuary at Jerusalem had come into existence many centuries later; compare Ps 78:54 with vv. 67-68”. McHugh, John, 283-284. See our discussions in the previous chapter of προφήτης in v. 19.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

197

speaking of worship at Mt. Gerizim and the present tense in speaking of worship at Jerusalem?30 The Samaritan woman begins with a reference to her ancestors (οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν) in v. 20, while introducing the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται namely, possession of the right place of worship. πατήρ in general refers to the immediate male ancestor in its singular form and in the plural denotes the ancestors of earlier generations, viz., the forefathers.31 In the NT and in particular in the gospel of John this vocabulary is used in general to denote the patriarchs. There are four occurrences of this vocabulary that denote the patriarchs in general (4:20; 6:31, 49, 58). Another four refer to a particular patriarch: one to patriarch Jacob (4:12) and three to patriarch Abraham (8:39, 53, 56).32 In v. 20, the Samaritan woman uses οἱ πατέρες to denote their forefathers and the Samaritans accept the Pentateuch as their scripture. Hence οἱ πατέρες might be the patriarchs mentioned in these five books, beginning from Abraham. Westcott notes that the woman’s reference may include the forefathers who set up the Samaritans’ place of worship at Mt. Gerizim.33 We have already briefly discussed the references to Jacob’s well (v. 6) and the patriarch Jacob (v. 12) and the religious-cultural and socio-political issues concerning the common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.34 Based on our discussion of these issues in recent scholarship, we have deduced that Mt. Gerizim lies in the vicinity of Sychar and that Jacob’s well lies at the foot of this mountain.35 Thettayil affirms the same in light of v. 20, that “[t]he neuter demonstrative pronoun τούτῳ following the noun τόπος points to Mount Gerizim that is close by and at the foot of which the well of Jacob is situated”.36 While Jesus is in dialogue with the disciples at this location, it is quite normal that the Samaritan woman should point to Mt. Gerizim to mention the Samaritan ancestors’ worship 30

31

32 33 34 35 36

It is also important to note that Jesus, quite irrespective of the past or present forms employed by her, states in reply to the Samaritan woman that the hour is coming and that neither of these places will be the concerns of right worship (vv. 23-24). Cf. Exod 3:15; Num 20:15; Ps 22:4. πατήρ also refers to one who provides intellectual and moral upbringing. See BDAG, 786. L&N ##10.14, 10.20. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #1949. See Westcott, John, 71. Cf. chapters 3 and 4. Cf. chapters 2, 3 and 4. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 63-64. He goes further, to include all of their ancestors up until the time of the destruction of this temple. In chapter 3, we reached this same conclusion in discussing the literary-geographical indications pertaining to the Jacob’s well. That is, we found that Jacob’s well, which is in the vicinity of Mt. Gerizim, is the site of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.

198

CHAPTER 5

on “this” mountain.37 She initiates the discussion about the issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται concerning the right relation with God (προσκυνέω), and more specifically about the right place of worship, which is the core of their competition or conflict, whether it is Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim. As Bultmann notes, “the woman puts an alternative”38: either this mountain (Mt. Gerizim) or else Jerusalem, whereas Jesus’ response begins with neither of these two places (vv. 20-21) and he explains right worship in a way that goes beyond both (vv. 22-24). However, to begin with, we can see that the Samaritan woman in v. 20 is an active dialogue partner and that the question she raises “is risky, courageous and deeply theological”.39 Her question implicitly points to the theme of living water that came up in the previous part of the dialogue, in light of Ezek 47:1-12 and Zech 14:16-19, where the temple is identified as the source of living water.40 After offering living water to the Samaritan woman in vv. 10ff.,41 Jesus now promises her two things in v. 21. Firstly, he promises that the Samaritans will worship, employing ὑμεῖς, which can be understood as a response to the Samaritan woman’s saying “we Samaritans” (both “we” and “you” occur in v. 20), and that they will be worshipping the Father. The plural form of “you” (ὑμεῖς) in vv. 21-22 indicates that Jesus here addresses the issue raised by the Samaritan woman concerning her people and their ancestral worship (employing “we”). In other words, it echoes the distinction set between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται by the Samaritan woman in v. 20.42 Secondly, the term πατήρ with the definite article (οἱ πατέρες) in this verse would, for the Samaritan woman, refer to the patriarch Jacob or other human ancestors of the Samaritans. We will see that in v. 23 Jesus himself employs the term “the Father” (ὁ πατὴρ), which is the first occasion in John where this vocabulary is used with the definite article and without a possessive pronoun. We have already seen the emphatic “I” (ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ) in v. 14 where Jesus affirms the offer made by him.43 In addition, the vocabulary δεῖ in v. 20, used to refer to the worship 37

38 39 40 41 42 43

Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 65, explains the ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ, without naming the mountain shows the natural way of mentioning a proximate object while holding a conversation”. Bultmann, John, 189. Gench, Encounters with Jesus, 35. Brant, John, 85. See chapter 4. See section 1 of this chapter. See chapter 4. We find this again in v. 26, where the dialogue culminates with Jesus’ self-revelation as the Messiah/Christ. See Michaels, John, 250; Brown, John, 1.517-518;

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

199

of the Samaritan ancestors at Mt. Gerizim and the worshipping of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι at Jerusalem, implies that one must worship at the corresponding places.44 That is, v. 20 could mean that the Samaritans have worshipped at Mt. Gerizim and vice versa, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι at Jerusalem.45 As Bultmann rightly notes, on all other occasions in the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, it is Jesus who determines the course of the conversation, but here in v. 20 it is the Samaritan woman who takes the initiative to change the topic to the theme of worship.46 She comes up with the traditional contention of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, viz., the issue of the true place of worship, is it Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim? She is not emphatic and does not assert that the Samaritans possess the right place of worship. She simply identifies it as one of the alternatives, either Mt. Gerizim or the Jerusalem temple (v. 20). Ridderbos rephrases the question posed by the Samaritan woman in v. 20 as follows: “what did he (a/the prophet) think about the great stumbling block between the Samaritans (‘our fathers’) and the Jews (‘you,’ plural) namely ‘where the people ought to worship?’”47 It is the right place to raise this issue as per the progression in the dialogue. “The woman’s first question was how can you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria? But at this point another question urges itself on her even more forcefully: “How can you a Jew (in fact, a Jewish prophet), speak about the gift of God and of living water to me a woman of Samaria […], as if these two mountains were not an enormous stumbling block between us?”48 It is to be noted that Jesus makes no distinction between these two places in his reply.49 Schnackenburg explains that in v. 20 “[t]he Samaritan puts before the ‘prophet’ the age-old problem debated between the Samaritans and Jews, as to where God should be worshipped (cf. 2 Kgs 17:28-41)”. Being in the vicinity of Mt. Gerizim,

44 45 46 47

48

49

Lindars, John, 188. In 1:18, the evangelist employs the term the Father and John uses the same term in his farewell speech in 3:35. See our discussions on the meaning and implication of δεῖ in chapter 3. Cf. Chapter 3. See also McHugh, John, 284. Bultmann, John, 189. Ridderbos, John, 161. He adds that the previous section of the Samaritan episode takes the discussion toward the patriarch Jacob and Jacob’s well and in v. 20 the Samaritan woman introduces the major issue and enquires about “the relevance of the controversy in a highly personal way”. Ridderbos, John, 192. We have already noted that Mt. Gerizim in SP is Mt. Ebal in the MT (cf. Deut 27:4-8). In a similar vein, Beutler, Das Johannesevangelium, 162, remarks that the issue raised by the Samaritan woman “war der Hauptstreitpunkt zwischen Juden und Samaritanern”. However, in v. 22, we see that he explicitly points to the lack of knowledge they have (cf. ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 22 and εἰ ᾔδεις in v. 10) or their “ignorance of what they are doing”. Ridderbos, John, 162. We discuss v. 22 in the following section.

200

CHAPTER 5

the progress of the dialogue so far really opens up the way to raise this issue. We have already seen that “[a]ccording to the Samaritan tradition, the place at which the Israelites were to build an altar after their entry into Canaan (Deut 27:4-8) was not Mt. Ebal but Mt. Gerizim, which is found here in the Samaritan Pentateuch instead of Ebal”.50 However, scholars agree that it is not quite clear how the building of the temple of Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim came about. Still it is generally agreed that the place of worship at Mt. Gerizim must have come into existence around the beginning of the Hellenistic era, as it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus about a century before the turning of the common era. As Schnackenburg rightly explains, “[b]ut even after this, the Samaritans did not give up their place of worship and refused to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem”.51 Scholars find that the aorist in v. 20 reflects that the temple at Mt. Gerizim did not exist anymore at the time of Jesus’ ministry. In addition to that, though the Jerusalem temple was standing at the time of Jesus, it cannot have been there at the time of the Johannine Jesus.52 And Jesus’ response to the alternatives – either this mountain, or Jerusalem – with his discrete reply – neither this mountain nor Jerusalem – “refuses to accept the alternative as such but contrasts present cultic division with the future”.53 Jesus’ response to the core issue raised by the Samaritan woman begins with the phrase πίστευέ μοι, γύναι (v. 21). BDAG gives mainly four sorts of meaning for πιστεύω, viz., “to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust […]; “to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, with implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted […]; entrust something to someone […]; be confident about […]; think/consider (possible)”.54 Scholars like Bultmann, Bernard and O’Day regard this phrase as equivalent to “Amen, amen” or “truly, I say to you”.55 Barrett explains that by the employment of πίστευέ μοι, the statement of Jesus becomes more emphatic.56 Abbott explains that in the ordinary language, πιστεύω would mean “trust me”. He adds that in the gospel of John πιστεύω “has appeared to be carrying us from stage to stage in the development of a doctrine about ‘trusting’”. He concludes 50 51 52

53 54 55

56

Schnackenburg, John, 434. Schnackenburg, John, 435. For instance, See Bultmann, John, 189, Thyen, Corpus Iohanneum, 497-499. Stibbe, John, 115-116. Bultmann, John, 189. BDAG, 186. See Bernard, John, 1.146; Bultmann, John, 189; O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, 68. See Barrett, John, 198; Carson, John, 223; Jones, The Symbol of Water, 103.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

201

that this vocabulary is used in John “first of all to make sense […] in their literal and weighty meaning by taking them as a precept, ‘Trust me’”.57 Thettayil explains that in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode, πίστευέ μοι (v. 21) serves to invite the Samaritan woman’s attention. However, he adds further, with J. Beutler, that “[t]his understanding of the phrase by Jesus would stand between taking the phrase as a casual calling of attention and as a precept”.58 According to Jojko, πίστευέ μοι, γύναι, by which Jesus begins his response to the core issue raised by the Samaritan woman, “is not merely an invitation to trust Jesus, but a real appeal to have faith in him”.59 She adds further that the appeal alerts readers about the right knowledge or truth about to be delivered by Jesus, which concerns the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.60 Schnackenburg explains that through v. 21, “Jesus turns to the woman, with a plea for confidence (πίστευέ μοι) [which] contains a consoling promise for the Samaritans who have suffered so much contempt from the Jews”.61 Jesus’ response to the issue raised by the Samaritan woman begins with πίστευέ μοι, γύναι62 which may imply that what Jesus is telling her concerning the long-disputed issue of worship is true.63 Ramsey affirms that such an expression serves to solemnly attest “the truth of what one is about to say”.64 Our brief overview of πίστευέ μοι, γύναι65 has shown that Jesus directly addresses the issue posited by the Samaritan woman and that his 57 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

65

See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 48. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 72-73. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 137. She compares the employment of πίστευέ μοι in 14:11. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 137. Schnackenburg, John, 1.435. Carson, John, 222-223. See also Michaels, John, 249. We have already noted that in the light of 2:4, γυνή implies a respectful address. We briefly discuss this address in the following chapter, where we consider the different titles or vocabulary used to address Jesus in the Samaritan episode. Carson, John, 222-223. The closest parallel in Jn 14:11 is πιστεύετέ μοι, where Jesus is talking to his disciples. See, for instance, the similar expression, “Amen, amen” (1:51; 3:3, 5, 11). Ramsey adds that such expressions of the Johannine Jesus are implicit invitations to believe in him which would be depicted sooner by the Samaritans (in vv. 39-42) even though the Samaritan woman does not explicitly ask them to believe in him (vv. 28-29). See Michaels, John, 249. Though in John the term γυνή is employed to reflect an unpleasant attitude, and especially one towards woman in general, the vocative γύναι in v. 21 is held by scholars to reaffirm Jesus’ attitude towards the Samaritan woman who is now raising the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. With due respect and attentiveness, he addresses the issue and the addressee. See Lindars, John, 188; Carson, John, 223. As Oepke, “γυνή,” 777, affirms “the address γύναι “is no way disrespectful or derogatory”.

202

CHAPTER 5

response is to deliver right knowledge. Jesus begins with the coming of an hour (ἔρχεται ὥρα), when what is he is going to say will be fulfilled. Lindars explains that Jesus’ response that the hour is coming (ἔρχεται ὥρα) refers to the past action of the destruction of the temple at Mt. Gerizim and the approaching destruction of the Jerusalem temple and by employing ὥρα ὅτε οὔτε Jesus affirms that the Samaritans will worship in neither of these places.66 Theobald adds that the hour is coming when there will no further cultic places of worship; “[d]amit kündigt sich das Dritte jenseits der kultischen Gottesverehrung auf dem Garizim bzw. dem Zion bereits an, denn dieses Dritte hängt an der Person dessen, der das Ende beider Kultorte vollmächtig ansagt, am Sohn”.67 Schnackenburg holds that the expression “the hour is coming” implies that both places of worship will lose their significance. Considered in the light of other passages (5:25, 28 and 16:2, 25, 32), we see that such expressions have “a religious and eschatological sense” in the gospel of John. This idea is further developed in v. 23. Thus, our discussion of vv. 20-21 has explained the following. In v. 20 the Samaritan woman presents the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, viz., the issue of the right place of worship, openly but in general terms (either/or). Jesus’ immediate reply (neither/nor) in v. 21 points to another direction by negating both of the alternatives set out by her, viz., Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem. Shifts in the history of these two groups of peoples are not at all an issue for Jesus, as he will assign a common platform for both groups.68 From the discussions above, we have seen that recent scholarship affirms that the temple on Mt. Gerizim was destroyed before the NT period, at least one century before the turning of the era. Hence, the Samaritan woman’s reference to worship on Mt. Gerizim by her Samaritan ancestors, in the past tense, is historically plausible. She refers to the past worship of her ancestors at this temple (v. 20) but also indicates that

66 67 68

L&N, # 9.34 states that “As a form of address, γυνή was used in Koine Greek in speaking politely to a female person”. Some scholars translate this address as “madam” rather than woman and even consider it the feminine equivalent to κύριος (κυρία). It is interesting to note that κυρία is used twice in the NT (2 Jn 1:1, 5). See C.I. K. Story, Fourth Gospel: Its Pattern, Purpose and Power, 98. Contrastingly, Brown, John, 172, regards this address as differing from the English address “madam”. Though it is not supported by many scholars, at this juncture, it is interesting to note that the Samaritan woman addresses Jesus as κύριος and uses it throughout her encounter with Jesus. Lindars, John, 188. Theobald, Das Evangelium, 320. The Samaritan episode will progress further to show that it would be for all human persons (v. 42 – Jesus ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου).

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

203

they continue to worship on Mt. Gerizim, understanding it to be the place chosen by Yahweh for worship.69 As we mentioned above, although the Jerusalem temple was not destroyed at the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus, it would be destroyed at the time of the Johannine Jesus. Given this background, for the reader of the Samaritan episode, both Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim have been destroyed, though these places are still revered by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jerusalem) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (Mt. Gerizim) as the right places of worship. Whether worship at these places was an activity of the past or not, therefore, the issue raised in v. 20 still remains, as to who possesses the right place of worship, viz., οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι or οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Moreover, the either/or form of the question in v. 20 leaves no possibility to claim that both parties possess the right place chosen by Yahweh, but supposes that one of the parties must discard their place and accept the other. At this juncture, one can see that neither Jerusalem nor Mt. Gerizim in v. 21 is the best possible reply to the question in v. 20. That is, Jesus responds with a neither/nor, which from the very outset implies that none of them possesses the right place. The age-old controversy over the right place, chosen by Yahweh himself, comes to a standstill in this proposal of Jesus. Though some scholars have treated πίστευέ μοι as calling the attention of the Samaritan women evoking her acceptance, it could very well underline that Jesus’ reply in vv. 21ff is an emphatic saying or a precept. In sum, the Samaritan woman plainly opens up the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται without making any argument (but only by framing her question in terms of either/or). This soft and yet direct approach, even in the face of opening up of the most controversial issue from the part of the Samaritan woman, is repaid by Jesus, who also directly addresses the issue by opening up a midway (neither/nor). The solution to the problem springs from the new time that is coming, when one’s worship is no longer cult-centered but rather is in Spirit and truth and they worship God, the Father.70 However, in v. 22, Jesus affirms that the new alternative is rooted in or hails from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, viz., ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν, and at the same time he makes the Samaritan woman aware of the problem due to her lack of right knowledge on the part of the Samaritans. In the following, we discuss the further explanations of Jesus concerning the issue of worship. 69

70

Kee, “Tell-er-Ras and the Samaritan Temple,” 401-402; Anderson, “Samaritans,” 942-958. The last part of v. 21, προσκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί, we will discuss in the following section where we examine vv. 23-24. This implicit reference to the object of worship in v. 21 comes back in vv. 23-24 with much more details.

204

CHAPTER 5

2. HARD AND SOFT (VV. 22-24) We have seen that although the Samaritan woman raises the major issue of the conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, she did so without an intention to assert the superiority of the Samaritan place of worship. She rather posits the issue in an open-ended way, such that either site could be the right place of worship. One expects that Jesus will choose from these two and will most probably choose Jerusalem. Yet, contrary to this expectation, in v. 21 Jesus’ reply begins in a soft tone. In discarding the focus on the alternatives of Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem, he makes it clear to her that the solution of the age old issue proposed by him is trustworthy (πίστευέ μοι, γύναι). And Jesus’ explanations continue in the following verses (vv. 22-24), where one would note that his explanation becomes harder due to strong affirmation (cf v. 22) about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. From the very outset, Jesus’ explanation in v. 22a is hard on in its claim that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι possess more knowledge than the Samaritans (οἴδαμεν vs οὐκ οἴδατε). As Thettayil notes, with respect to the flow of the narrative, if Jesus agreed that the Samaritans have right knowledge about worship and that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not have it, how could he explain further that ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν (v. 22b)?71 It is interesting to note that Jesus urges the Samaritan woman from the beginning of the dialogue (vv. 10ff) to acquire right knowledge. Doing so enables a better understanding not only of the response of the Samaritan woman in v. 20 but also of the concerns of v. 22. Verse 22 presents the worship of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as superior to that of the Samaritans due to the fact that the former know what they worship and the latter do not know. Salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (v. 22) and Jesus is a Ἰουδαῖος, as the Samaritan woman acknowledged by her address of him in the first instance (v. 9). Thus our discussions of vv. 20-21 shed light on our further discussions on vv. 22ff. In response to her enquiries concerning the right place of worship, Jesus explains to her what right worship is. As noted above, the mode of conversation here is different from previous modes: the conversation partners are not deflecting the theme. That is Jesus directly addresses the issue she raises (vv. 21-24). Jesus’ response is a mixture of both hard 71

Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 100, adds that such an explanation is highly speculative. However, he explains the plausibility of the above suggestion in light of the attitude of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι towards the Samaritans as depicted in the Scriptures. For instance, he points to the reference to foolish people living in Shechem (Sir 50:26). We have already discussed this reference in chapter 3 while examining the status of the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. See also Gen 49:10; Mt 10:29.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

205

(v. 22) and soft (vv. 21, 23-24). In v. 22, he refers to what is said in v. 21 concerning the arrival of the right time in order to explain further the nature of right worship and true worshippers in vv. 23-24. In the following, we examine the implications of these explanations of Jesus (in vv. 22, 23-24) concerning right worship against the background of our research hypothesis. 2.1. Hard on the Truth (V. 22) Jesus clarifies first, in v. 21, that neither of the two places of worship the Samaritan woman has mentioned is worthy of discussion any more. In fact, the very question concerning the right place of worship is no longer relevant since the hour is coming (ἔρχεται ὥρα). Secondly, he goes on to affirm that what is important in this hour is to have right knowledge about worship (v. 22). Here, Jesus explicitly states that the Samaritans do not know what they worship, whereas οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do know it (v. 22a, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε· ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν). He adds further: ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν. Here it is pertinent to ask why Jesus sets such a sharp contrast between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, stating that the former do know and the latter do not know (οὐκ οἴδατε vs οἴδαμεν)? What are the implications of Jesus’ further affirmation that salvation (cf. ἡ σωτηρία) comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι? 2.1.1. ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε versus ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν Verse 22a, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε· ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, employs the two key terms οἶδα and προσκυνέω. As noted above, οἶδα is a key term in the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman from vv. 10ff and προσκυνέω is the most repeated term and major theme of vv. 20-24. The issue at stake here is that v. 22a employs these two terms concerning the knowledge (cf. οἶδα) that the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι possess about worship (cf. προσκυνέω), which the Samaritans do not have. Hence, in the following, we first examine the implications of this response of Jesus that is seemingly so hard on the Samaritans, who are said to lack knowledge (οἶδα) of the object of worship (προσκυνέω). Secondly, we discuss the implications of the sharp distinction depicted through ὑμεῖς […] ἡμεῖς. The ground of the difference between the two groups, according to v. 22a, is their knowledge (οἶδα) or lack thereof concerning the worship (cf. προσκυνέω) that each group offers to God. This distinction takes us

206

CHAPTER 5

back to v. 10, where Jesus calls for the Samaritan woman to have right knowledge (cf. οἶδα) in order to know who Jesus is and to get ὕδωρ ζῶν, which he presents as τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ. We have already seen that the narrative does not explicate what precisely τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ means.72 However, v. 22 reaffirms the Samaritans’ lack of knowledge (cf. οὐκ οἴδατε) in specific terms, stating that they do not know what they worship. We examined the meaning of οἶδα and its implications in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode. Our discussions in this respect point to their acceptance of the Pentateuch alone as the Scripture. As we know, the Pentateuch does not give a complete depiction of the history of God’s chosen people, but only up to the point of their reaching the promised land of Canaan under the leadership of Moses, who was chosen by God.73 God’s intervention in different phases of their life continued further through various chosen leaders such as judges, kings and the prophets for whom the Samaritans provided no room. In addition to this, we have deduced that προσκυνέω implies how human persons relate with God and how God deals with them. In light of this we presume that Jesus’ saying in v. 22a indicates the insufficient knowledge of the Samaritans concerning God’s relation with His chosen people and this people’s response. In the following, we briefly review how scholars have explained v. 22a concerning the knowledge of what they worship, which οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do have and the Samaritans do not.74 It is important to understand the implications of Jesus’ clear statement that the Samaritans do not know while οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do. According to Birney, “[p]resumably, this is because they know God only from the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) which is all that they recognize to be scripture, rather than from the more complete Jewish canon that includes the Prophets and the Wisdom literature”.75 We have noted that the Samaritans’ accept only the Pentateuch as their scripture and reject 72 73

74

75

See our discussions on vv. 10ff in chapter 4. We will not consider here the similarities between the Samaritan Book of Joshua (cf. Samaritan Chronicles) and the Book of Joshua contained in the Jewish tradition. This book of the Samaritans emphasizes the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim. For instance, there are further additions on this theme in Josh 9:27. However, as mentioned before, the Samaritan literary sources date from the Middle Ages and later. For more discussions of this issue in recent scholarship, see Zsengellér, Gerizim as Israel, 161-169; Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 240-242; Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans, 26-27; Purvis, “The Samaritans and Judaism,” 83. We have already seen how the dialogue progresses with respect to issues of the lack of knowledge and how progress in right knowledge remedies the problem. See Byrne, Life Abounding, 86. She adds that the knowledge of God that is “salvation [for the world] emerges from the Jews”.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

207

other parts of Salvation history in the MT (LXX)76 and thus do not include the predictions concerning the coming of the Davidic Messiah. Bernard argues that in this respect the Samaritans lack knowledge of their object of worship.77 As Carson remarks, however, in the strict sense, “Jesus makes no pronouncement on the relative merits of the claims of Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim” and that the antithesis in v. 22 addresses those claims only indirectly. Thus, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman on the one hand that “the object of their worship is in fact unknown to them” due to the fact that “they stand outside the stream of God’s revelation”, and on the other that the Jews worship what they do know; “i.e., whatever else was wrong with Jews’ worship, at least it could be said that the object of their worship was known to them” due to the fact that they “stand within the stream of God’s saving revelation”.78 Although v. 21 contains a soft approach toward the Samaritans, then, or as Schnackenburg calls it “a consoling promise”, in v. 22 Jesus remarks on the precedence of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the history of salvation so long as the Samaritans lack true knowledge of such matters. Salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι because the Messiah comes from them. Schnackenburg adds that there is nothing surprising for such a response from Jesus since the idea of salvation comes from Judaism.79 For him, in a missionary perspective, this saying of Jesus implicitly suggests that the Messiah provides salvation to all and that, more specifically, it is the Messiah who will remove the scandal of Israel, namely the breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and give salvation to the Samaritans too. Thus, scholars in general agree that Jesus’ response to the Samaritan woman about the Samaritans’ lack of knowledge of the object of their worship points to their rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures outside of the Pentateuch. Hence, scholars tend to agree with our proposal that Jesus’ reference in v. 22a, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε· ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, indicates that the lack of knowledge on the part of the Samaritans concerning the further revelations and work’s of salvation. 76 77

78 79

We examined such details mainly in chapter 3, where we examined the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται against the background of relevant literature. Bernard, John, 147-148; Cf. Ps. 147:19, 20; Jn 7:28; 8:54; Rom 9:4. “They accepted Yahweh for the true God, indeed, but they knew little about Him. By refusing to recognize the writings of the prophets and psalmists they had shut themselves off from all revelation of God except that which was contained in the Law”. Bernard cites another example from Acts (17:23), concerning the Athenians, which seems to parallel the reference here about the ignorance of the Samaritans. Yet the Samaritans cannot be compared with the Athenians, as can be verified in light of our discussions in the previous chapters. Carson, John, 223. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.435-436.

208

CHAPTER 5

As we noted above, through the employment of the two pronouns of ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς in v. 22a, a sharp distinction is set between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The modes of worship of the two groups are clearly contrasted. In v. 22a these pronouns emphasize the contrast, which is antithetical. In two clauses, v. 22a incorporates two antithetical statements. However, this is not connected with an adversative conjunction, as ἀλλά in Jn 15:16. Robertson remarks that although such a connective is absent on occasions such as in v. 22a the contrast is apparent enough. He adds that in fact the absence of such a connection is more effective in this verse than its presence.80 Thus, the employment of ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς in v. 22a reaffirms οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται as two different groups, through which Jesus associates himself as belonging to the community of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι,81 which reminds the reader of the first response of the Samaritan woman at the beginning of this encounter (v. 9) between them. At this juncture, let us briefly examine this correlation between the responses of the Samaritan woman in v. 9 and Jesus’ response in v. 22. Verse 22 takes the reader back to v. 9, where the Samaritan woman’s first response towards Jesus is depicted, firstly because both verses make a clear distinction between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, in the former by the Samaritan woman and in the latter by Jesus. Secondly, on both of these occasions the response is followed by a parenthesis.82 In v. 22a, the 80 81

82

See Robertson, Grammar, 429, 678; Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 80-81. See Bernard, John, 148. He adds that nowhere else in the gospel of John is the religiouspolitical identity of Jesus asserted definitely. And in general, in the fourth gospel, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is placed on a higher level in terms of belief and its practices. Similar to the case of v. 9, whether ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν in v. 22 is an addition, editorial gloss or parenthesis, is a much-debated point. Some scholars hold that v. 22b did not belong to the gospel originally but entered here as a gloss. Major reasons in favor of such an explanation are that the attitude of the evangelist towards οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is expressed mainly through Jesus’ responses concerning them (see for instance, 7:19;. 8:41ff; 10:34) and that salvation and salvation history are not exclusively for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Bultmann, Das Evangelium, 139, note 6, who proposes this sort of explanation firstly explains that “V. 22 ist ganz oder teilweise eine Glosse der Redaktion. Das ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν ist bei Joh unmöglich nicht nur angesichts 8:41f f.; schon 1:11 zeigte, daß der Evangelist die Juden nicht als Eigentums- und als Heilsvolk ansieht (s. S. 34, 7). Und es ist trotz 4:9 schwer verständlich daß der joh. Jesus, der sich von den Juden ständig distanziert (8:17, 10:34, 13.33 und s. S. 59, 2), jenen Satz gesprochen haben soll.” For Bultmann, not only v. 22b but also v. 22a can be read as a gloss due to the employment of ὑμεῖς as the Samaritans and ἡμεῖς as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However Becker, Das Evangelium, 175-176, affirms mainly that v. 22b is a gloss, arguing that this expression, i.e., salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, cannot be explained in a way that accords with the Johannine view that salvation comes

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

209

distinction between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is made explicit by the use of ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς. However, in v. 22 the concern is each group’s knowledge of the right worship of God, whereas in v. 9 it is about the level of relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In other words, v. 9 depicts the implications of the issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται with respect to the horizontal dimension of life, while v. 22 depicts these with respect to its vertical dimension, namely one’s relationship with God. It is evident that our previous discussions of the parts following v. 9 (vv. 10-19) in one way or another reflect the concerns of daily and personal life. It is interesting to note that Jesus deflects the Samaritan woman’s attention from such concerns by telling her about δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 10), ζωὴ αἰώνιος (v. 14) and even confronting her about her personal life (vv. 16-18). Thus, one can deduce that the various phases through which the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman lead to the final phase of their encounter in which they examine the issue. Thus, although the issue is mixed with overtones of denial on the lips of the Samaritan woman (v. 9), it is now discussed in an atmosphere of understanding. This confrontation can be seen as a breaking up of the hard shell to reach the core which will soon lead them to a converging point or a ‘coming to yes’ as stated above (vv. 25-26). In the following, we specifically examine v. 22b.

from the Father who sends his Son (Jesus). However, scholars mostly argue against this proposal and for most, the point of departure in explaining the passage begins from the fact that Jesus himself belongs to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and that the gospel itself affirms this on different occasions. For instance, in the immediate context we have one such affirmation in v. 9. See Brown, John, 1.172, Beasley-Murray, John, 62; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 184-185. Van Belle provides an overview of the various proposals concerning v. 22b and underlines that the proposition that v. 22b is a gloss “has been stubbornly and consistently opposed throughout the history of research”. Moreover, he systematically analyzes v. 22b and explains convincingly how this cannot be a gloss and shows that it is a parenthesis. We can summarize the kernel of his explanations thus: (i) There is no ground for a later interpolation when examined by the means of textual-criticism, viz., all manuscripts cite v. 22 in sequence with the surrounding verses. (ii) In terms of grammar, this is reaffirmed; for instance, ἀλλά in v. 23 unfolds from v. 22. (iii) We have seen that the proposal of identifying v. 22 as a gloss as far as theology of John is concerned is also refuted by Van Belle. He explains that v. 22 is authentic in following the theology of John in that one of its major characteristics is reaffirmed in the Samaritan episode itself (cf. vv. 9, 22, 42), namely the dialectic between the earthly and the heavenly. He adds further that the criticism of Jesus towards οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and vice versa in no way suffices to undo the salvation historical role of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. See G. Van Belle, “Salvation is from the Jews’,” 383391.

210

CHAPTER 5

2.1.2. ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν Verse 22b, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν, has been discussed and debated from different perspectives and has been one of the most controversial phrases in this passage. It is not our intention to discuss all of these interpretations systematically; rather, we will examine v. 22 in terms of the progress of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. In other words, we examine this in light of our research hypothesis in order to know how and what it implies in relation to the Samaritan mission of Jesus. It is to be noted that v. 22b begins with ὅτι, which clearly links v. 22a with v. 22b.83 In the following, we examine the meaning and implications of the statement of Jesus ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν as flowing from v. 22a and in particular in the context of the gospel of John. We focus on two views in scholarship in this regard, namely that v. 22b is an ironical statement about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and that it is a positive statement of this group of people.84 Some scholars raise several instances found in the gospel of John where Jesus criticizes sharply or distances himself from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (cf. 8:41; 10:34; 13:33) to propose the first view. Barrett considers 4:22b and 8:41 together to explain the implications of these references.85 In this light, scholars tend to interpret v. 22 as an ironical statement of Jesus concerning οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. O’Day regards v. 22b as an instance of the evangelist’s use of a literary technique of irony, stating only that salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and not anything about who receives it. She adds that those who are not οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι also receive salvation. She cites the response of Nicodemus in John 3 as an example.86 S. Motyer explains that “there is also87 83

84

85 86

87

Some important translations seem to ignore the employment of this conjunction (for instance NIB, NRSV) and some others translate it in light of ὅτι (cf. KJV, NJB, NET). “You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews” (v. 22, NET). In the previous note, we briefly presented the explanations concerning v. 22b as a parenthesis by the evangelist and summarized the convincing arguments that refute the proposal that v. 22b is a gloss. Some scholars have explained v. 22b as an editorial clause. However, we will not consider such explanations in this paper. Van Belle provides an extensive overview of various arguments proposed by scholars in this respect and a detailed analysis of v. 22b, and in this way convincingly explains that v. 22b is a parenthesis in the gospel of John and, hence, not a gloss. See Van Belle, “Salvation is from the Jews,” 370-400. See Barrett, John, 72. See O’Day, Irony and Johannine Theology, 171-172. See also O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel, 70. See Motyer, “The Fourth Gospel and Salvation of Israel,” 83-100, 95. However, he is not denying the positive elements depicted in v. 22b. That is, “on the positive side of the picture, we have the remarkable confession on the lips of Jesus in 4:22 that […] chapter 4 is to create a dramatic platform for the Samaritan confession that Jesus is ‘the

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

211

irony in the statement that ‘salvation is from the Jews.’ The preposition ἐκ is unnecessary here if a statement of origin is all that is meant. Jesus has just withdrawn from Judaea […].an example Nicodemus remained pointedly silent. […] Jesus will testify that a prophet is not honored in his own πατρίς [4:44-45]. So salvation is ‘from’ the Jews also in the Acts sense, in that because the Jews have turned it down”.88 Thettayil explains further that “the irony consists in the fact that salvation does originate from God’s ‘own’ people, the Jews, but in the Gospel it is non-Jews who recognize and accept it, believing in Jesus who is the Salvation”. He adds that “this ironic undertone […], is in keeping with the general trend of the fourth gospel”.89 However, this reading of v. 22b as expressing irony concerning οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι has been challenged by many scholars who interpret it as a positive statement about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. For instance, de la Potterie completely discards the above interpretation and holds that an ironical interpretation can play no role in v. 22b because it would mean that we [οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι] know what we worship and that ‘Salvation comes from the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. In other words, v. 22 implies that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι rejects the one (the Messiah) whom they are expecting.90 Ridderbos also rejects the above reading, which he holds is based mainly on the negative attitude in the fourth gospel towards οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι by showing that the relation between Jesus and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι not only has “this antithetical sound or meaning in the Fourth Gospel”, but that also there are references which reflect positive responses of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι toward Jesus and affirmations of them as well (cf. 2:13; 5:1; 7:11; 11:19ff., etc.).91 One cannot affirm that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as a whole rejected Jesus: for instance, the mother of Jesus did not reject him, and in the farewell discourse Jesus himself addresses οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι who are his disciples, implying that in the context of the gospel of John as a whole this interpretation cannot be completely valid. Hence, he affirms that the reading of v. 22 as an ironic saying about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι would in fact lead one to misunderstand this gospel as a whole and “even runs the danger of attributing anti-Semitic tendencies to the Gospel”.92 In this respect,

88 89 90 91 92

Savior of the world’ (4:42)” which originates from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and includes “the Jerusalem-centered issues of Temple, cult, Torah, and people feed into the salvation brought by Jesus”. Motyer, “Salvation of Israel,” 95. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 104-105. See I. de la Potterie, “Histoire de l’exégèse et interprétation de Jn 4:22,” 115. Ridderbos, John, 163. Ridderbos, John, 163. He affirms that ἀλλά, with which v. 23 begins, suggests the authenticity of v. 22. For a lengthy discussion on the genuineness of v. 22, see Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 49-63.

212

CHAPTER 5

scholars highlight expressions of a positive attitude concerning οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to show that v. 22 functions as a positive statement of Jesus about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However, the issue at stake cannot be solved completely, such that one may ask why Jesus provides such a positive affirmation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in v. 22a (we know what we worship) and how to situate this statement of Jesus? In what sense do they possess right knowledge? Moreover, vv. 21ff do not depict the object of worship, and hence one needs to examine who or what is the object of worship which is not explicitly stated so far. In other words, this explanation that v. 22 is a positive statement about οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι does not alone suffice to explain Jesus’ saying ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν. Scholars most often resolve these issues by discussing v. 22 in light of the references mainly in the MT, LXX and NT, and specifically in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode. What follows here is thus a discussion of v. 22b in order to see how it alludes to other Scripture references. We begin by briefly examining v. 22b and its immediate context. The salvation (cf. ἡ σωτηρία) which comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is the content of v. 22b and hence the focal point of our discussion. Hence, we ask: What are the implications of the reference to ἡ σωτηρία? Who provides this salvation and what or who is the object of salvation? σωτηρία is a hapax in the gospel of John. Another term used in this respect in our research pericope is ὁ σωτὴρ, which appears at the culmination of the episode (v. 42). It is interesting to note that ὁ σωτήρ also occurs only once in John (here in v. 42) and that both are employed in the Samaritan episode. Accordingly, in the following, our point of departure will be these two terms. BDAG explains that σωτηρία is employed with two foci: (i) in a physical sense it means deliverance or preservation, and (ii) in a transcendent sense it means salvation.93 It gives σωτήρ the meaning “one who rescues, savior, deliverer, preserver” and each of these terms is often employed as “a title to divinities”. In the NT, it is used mainly to denote God (for instance, Lk 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1) and Christ (Lk 2:11, Acts 13:23).94 93

94

According to BADG, 800, σωτηρία means “quite predominantly, salvation, which the true religion bestows”. BDAG does not have this explanation, yet it cites several examples from the relevant literature on σωτηρία. BDAG, 985. LSJ, #41976, σωτηρία is employed with reference to persons to mean “a saving, deliverance, preservation, safety, a means of safety, a safe return”, and with reference to things to mean “keeping safe, security, guarantee for safety”, etc. See also σωτήρ in LSJ, #41975, where the same meaning is provided as one who provides σωτηρία. It is specified that in the NT it means savior. L&N, #21.18 σῴζω and σωτηρία refers “to rescue from danger and to restore to a former state of safety and well being” σωτηρία in the NT generally means that God will provide for their salvation

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

213

Moulton adds that “in the NT σωτηρία is following its OT application”, viz., the great saving power of God exercised to deliver His people.95 In the OT, σωτηρία implies the power of God, which saves and delivers His people from various sorts of problems concerning their relationships with God and with others, such as among themselves, with the outsiders concerning various issues, with their neighboring nations or sociocultural and/or religious-political groups in their region. It points to the salvific action of God realized in the promised Davidic Messiah, the savior who will bring them superabundance enveloped in peace and joy.96 These explanations show that σωτηρία and σωτήρ are not only closely related terms but also that σωτήρ is the one who does σωτηρία, and that these terms when used with a definite article point to God and His actions and/or to the one who acts in his name. In the Samaritan episode, both terms are used with a definite article, ἡ σωτηρία in v. 22 and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42. However, in v. 22 it is not specified who grants salvation but it is affirmed who has knowledge of salvation, while in v. 42 Jesus is addressed as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. In v. 22, Jesus clearly states that one specific group of people (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) knew about the actions of the savior and that another group (οἱ Σαμαρῖται) does not have right knowledge. In v. 42, the Samaritans acclaim Jesus as the savior, namely, as one who does the action of the savior, and the object of salvation is clearly stated here as ὁ κόσμος. In light of the content of v. 22 and v. 42 we propose the following: that the object of salvation in v. 22 seems to be ὁ κόσμος, which, according to this verse, the Samaritans do not know,97 and in v. 42 the Samaritans proclaim together who the savior is, viz., they procalim Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. This reminds us of vv. 10ff, where Jesus wants the Samaritan

95 96

97

through Jesus. See L&N, # 21.22 where σωτήρ is explained as the derivative of σῴζω and means “one who rescues, saves, delivers”, etc. See M&M ##4206, 4207. See for instance, in the OT, ὁ σωτήρ is used: 1 Macc 4:30; Ps 24:5; 26:9; 64:6; 78:9; Isa 62:11. See also in the Pss. Sol. 16:4. Also “σωτήρ was regularly given to the Ptolemies and to the Roman Emperors”. See M&M ##4206, 4207. In addition to that, ἡ σωτηρία is used to denote the actions of God that delivers people from various sorts of problems they face. Cf. 2 Sam 19:3; Ps 3:9; 19:7; 41:12; 68:30; Job 30:15; Obad 1:17; Isa 33:6; Jer 3:23. See also Pss. Sol. 10:8; 12:6. In the NT ἡ σωτηρία explicitly concerns not only a specific group of people (cf. God’s chosen people) but all. Cf. Rom 11:11; 13:11; Rev 7:10; 12:10; 19:1. We have discussed in the previous chapters and in the preceding section of this chapter how Jesus urges the Samaritans to acquire right knowledge (cf. οἶδα). We have witnessed so far how the evangelist carefully unfolds the meaning and implications of οἶδα through the various phases of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.

214

CHAPTER 5

woman to come to have the right knowledge in order to receive the gift of God and, he adds further, to know the one who is speaking to her (cf. ὁ λέγων σοι), i.e., who Jesus is.98 In vv. 25-26, Jesus states that he is the Messiah/Christ, to the Samaritan woman, ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. In v. 42, it is the Samaritans who proclaim who Jesus is. According to Leidig, v. 22b reflects the upcoming fulfillment of the OT promises concerning the future salvation. She explains that the purpose of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman is to bring the Samaritans to understand him as the Messiah (vv. 25-26), the Savior of the world (v. 42), and to believe in him.99 However, the issue at stake here is the exclusive nature of v. 22, which underlines the self-understanding of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι regarding their supremacy as the chosen people, whereas v. 42 includes the salvation of all (cf. κόσμος). Jesus is the Messiah, the expected savior not only of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι but also of the Samaritans (cf. v. 25).100 As noted above, from the beginning of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, the distinction between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is affirmed and in v. 22 the special status of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is affirmed. A. Bakker explains that the two contradicting currents, viz., particularism with regard to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and universalism concerning the time of messianic salvation, converge in v. 22. In other words, such contradictions are dissolved in Jesus the Messiah.101 Leidig explains how v. 22 prepares for v. 42, where the Samaritans proclaim Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου.102 In this, one can see that v. 22 alludes to God’s promise to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as his chosen people in the OT and to the Messianic expectations which concern salvation for all. We have noted above that the patriarch Jacob’s blessing concerning the one who will come from Judah (Gen 49:8-12) is the point of departure for the messianic expectations of both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. This is because this reference is from the Pentateuch, which both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται accept as Scripture. Scholars like Bernard and Haacker explain v. 22b in light of this blessing of Judah in Gen 49:8-12.103 Haacker finds it relevant that this blessing is given by the patriarch Jacob, that the Samaritan woman episode takes place at Jacob’s well, and that Jacob is 98 99

100 101

102 103

See discussions on vv. 10ff in chapter 4. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 111, 157-158. She explains that “Zielpunkt der Heilsgeschichte Gottes ist, dass der Messias aus diesem Volk zum Heiland der Welt wird.” See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 158. See Bakker, “Salvation comes from the Jews” 60-61. See also Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 114-125. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 129. See also Lindars, John, 188-189. See Bernard, John, 148. See also Betz, “To Worship God,” 53-72.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

215

presented as the Samaritans’ father (cf. v. 12 where the Samaritan woman tells Jesus that Jacob is their father).104 Betz explains that although Jacob stands in the background of the Samaritan episode, the evangelist points out the restoration of the unity of the chosen people of God. Thus he proposes a universalistic interpretation of v.22b. He adds that the Samaritan woman’s response in v. 25 indicates that she is aware of the blessing of Jacob in Gen 49:10. The one who is sent by the Father is one of the central theological concerns of the gospel of John, which is in line with the universalistic explanation of Gen 49:10 and v. 22b.105 Earlier scholars, such as Zahn and Lagrange, explain v. 22 in relation with Isa 2:3.106 It is to be noted that N23cites Isa 2:3 in the margin as a possible allusion. Theobald outlines a synopsis of v. 22b, where he discusses Isa 2:3 as a possible allusion to v. 22b. The point of departure in outlining this synopsis is Gen 49:8-12, and Theobald lists references which in some way relate to Jn 4:22 in terms of form and content, viz., Num 24:17; Ps 3:5; 14:7 and Is 2:3 [Mic 4:2]; 59:20 [Rom 11:26]).107 It is to be noted that all these references affirm that kingship and salvation proceed from Jacob or from Jerusalem. Theobald underlines that the most striking parallel among them is with Isa 2:2f (= Mic 4:1f).108 Isaiah (2:2-3) looks forward to the future worship, which is represented in v. 22 that depicts salvation without respect to a specific place. This is further presented in 104

105 106 107

108

See Haacker, “Gottesdienst ohne Gotteserkenntnis,” 110-126, 119-121. He notes that Gen 49:8-12 further affirms 1 Chr 28:4; Ps 78:67-72. See Betz, “Standing before God,” 425, 433-434. See Zahn, Das Evangelium 247; Lagrange, l‘Évangile selon Saint Jean, 112. Theobald, Das Evangelium, 321, agrees with Haacker’s interpretation concerning v. 22b, specifically that it reflects Gen 49:8-12. See Haacker, “Gottesdienst ohne Gotteserkenntnis: Joh 4:22,” 110-126. Accordingly, he explains that “die Begründung V. 22[b] (eine umfassende Auslegungsgeschichte bei Van Belle, ,Salvation‘) klingt wie die ,Berufung auf einen anerkannten Grundsatz‘” (Haacker, Gottesdienst 120). “Möglicherweise spielt sie auf den Juda-Spruch Gen 49,8-12 an ebd. 120-122), ist aber nach Form und Inhalt doch eher den folgenden biblischen Kernsätzen nachempfunden, wie deren Synopse zeigt”, (Num 24:17; Ps 3:5; 14:7 and Is 2:3 [Mic 4:2]; 59:20 [Rom 11:26]). G. Van Belle, “Salvation is from the Jews”: The Parenthesis in John 4:22b,” in AntiJudaism and the Fourth Gospel, eds. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt and F. VandecasteeleVanneuville (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 370-400, 380-381, make a detailed examination of the various explanations proposed by the Johannine scholars concerning v. 22 and convincingly refutes the arguments that v. 22b is a gloss, and concludes that v. 22b is an integral part of the fourth gospel and thus of the Samaritan episode. Theobald’s discussion points to v. 22b as an allusion to Is 2:2-3. See also Bakker, John 4:22b, 60-68. See Theobald, Das Evangelium, 321-324. We are not entering into the discussions concerning the sources of Isa 2:2-3 and Mic 4:1-2, which falls beyond the scope of our research hypothesis.

216

CHAPTER 5

abstract form in vv. 23-24, in the reference to “in Spirit and truth”, but concludes with the affirmation that salvation is personalized in Jesus, who is the Messiah/Christ (vv. 25-26, 42).109 In light of the parallel references in the OT and how they explain v. 22 in its immediate context (vv. 20-26), Bakker affirms that v. 22 reflects Is 2:3.110 Thus we see that v. 22b alludes to several references in the Hebrew Scriptures in one way or another beginning from Gen 49:8-12. It is interesting to note that this reference which has become the point of departure of all sorts of discussions, belongs to the Scripture of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However, our discussions above make clear that this reference in itself is not enough to explain v. 22b, which at least implicitly reflects v. 22a. For although the Samaritans know about the promise in Gen 49:8-12, they are not aware of the further details of it unfolded through the history of salvation as depicted in further books of the Hebrew Scriptures.111 Hence, v. 22b, although implicitly, conveys the idea that salvation stems from knowledge that only οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι have. In the light of the above brief discussion, we can see that the Samaritan woman’s telling Jesus about the messianic expectations of the Samaritans (v. 25) and the proclamation to the Samaritans of her city about Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42) flows from v. 22. Jesus explicitly states in v. 22a that the Samaritans do not know the object of their worship, adding that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι knew what they worship. The reason for this distinction, we have seen, is the fact that the Samaritans accept just a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. This implicit fact is reaffirmed by the parenthesis of the evangelist, which employs the specific vocabulary of ἡ σωτηρία. Thus, v. 22 depicts how Jesus is hard in confronting the truth. From the very outset, Jesus’ approach in v. 22 is hard, while in the previous verse (v. 21) his explanations are inclusive of both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In v. 22, he not only draws a clear distinction between these two groups (ὑμεῖς versus ἡμεῖς), but also accords the knowledge (cf. οἶδα) of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι a superior status: οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι know (ὃ οἴδαμεν) and the Samaritans do not (ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε). In addition to this, v. 22 touches in one way or another on the various phases of the encounter between Jesus and the 109

110 111

See Theobald, Das Evangelium, 322-323. Isa 2:3 (LXX ) depicts that the house of the God of Jacob ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ and in v. 25 the Samaritan woman tells Jesus that the Messiah ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. He thus explains the implications of Isa 2:2-3 reflected not only in v. 22 but in its immediate context, vv. 20-26. See Bakker, “Salvation comes from the Jews,” 60-68. We have seen how the synopsis of v. 22b concerns the various parts of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., it begins from the Pentateuch and runs through the Writings and Prophets.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

217

Samaritan woman discussed so far.112 Thus our discussions of v. 22 has shown that v. 22 is the key statement of the whole of the Samaritan pericope, as Leidig rightly argues, and it is the answer of the question that prompted the Samaritan woman to mention to Jesus her people’s (Samaritans’) expectation of the Messiah.113 She adds further that v. 22 is necessary between v. 21 and vv. 23-24 as an implicit reference to the Messiah. In v. 29, we can see that the preceding dialogue led the Samaritan woman to tell Jesus about her people’s expectation of the Messiah (cf. vv. 25-26), who will remedy the issue through right knowledge. In the following, we examine how Jesus further handles the issue raised by the Samaritan woman later in their dialogue (vv. 23-24), after confronting her with the hard side of the truth. 2.2. Soft on the Resolution (VV. 23-24) In the previous section, we have been discussing Jesus’ response to the Samaritan woman’s question about the right place of worship in (vv. 2122) and its implications. He begins his explanation by shifting the focus away from the importance of specific geographical locations as God’s chosen place (whether Mt. Gerizim or Jerusalem). He further emphasizes this by announcing the coming of a time when issues concerning the right place of worship will be invalid (v. 21). However, in place of the question about the right place of worship, Jesus tells the woman that the issue at stake is the right knowledge which the Samaritans do not have, but which οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do (vv. 22, 42)114. In this way, Jesus’ reply in v. 21 begins to break down the distinction due to their different places of worship, though in v. 22 he asserts “Jewish precedence”. Nevertheless, as Brant writes, “Jesus’ next assertion suggests that both Jewish and Samaritan worship have been inadequate” and explains the new mode of worship.115 In vv. 23-24 the theme of worship returns to the fore as the theme of the discussion. That is, in response to the issue of the place of worship raised by the Samaritan woman (v. 20), Jesus explains the need for knowledge that the Samaritans lack (οὐκ οἴδατε) 112 113 114

115

Cf. vv. 9, 10ff, 16-18, 21. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 157. We will see that the savior of the world (v. 42) comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, who is Jesus himself. As Leidig, Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin, 103, rightly explains, v. 22 is one of the major factors which made the Samaritan woman discuss the Samaritan expectation of the Messiah and come to know that Jesus is the Messiah. Cf. vv. 25-26, v. 42. See Brant, John, 86.

218

CHAPTER 5

concerning προσκυνέω (vv. 21-22a) with an additional explanation of ἡ σωτηρία, as to where it comes from (v. 22b). One can easily discern the structure of vv. 20-24, viz., the theme of salvation at the centre (v. 22b) is enveloped in the theme of worship (vv. 20-22a, 23-24). Thus, we ask, how are these two themes related? Or particularly, how are these two terms (ἡ σωτηρία, ὁ σωτήρ and προσκυνέω) related? We have already discussed these terms briefly, viz., their meaning in general and implications in the immediate contexts. We have seen that, in a nutshell, προσκυνέω implies how the human person relates to God and how God deals with them. ἡ σωτηρία is the action of ὁ σωτήρ, and such endeavors deliver human persons from their struggles of life beginning from their well-being in the personal realm and the prosperity and peace of their living as a community or a nation as well as, as an extension of this, superabundance and their life together in eternity. In this light, we propose that salvation and worship are mutually inclusive themes; each is rooted in the other. προσκυνέω can thus be understood as the response of human persons toward God or the manner of their relation with God, who is the σωτήρ and the origin of σωτηρία. Thus we can deduce, in a nutshell, that σωτηρία evokes προσκυνεῖν. In this light, let us proceed further to discuss what is specifically discussed in vv. 23-24. From the very outset one can see that in vv. 23-24 Jesus straightaway imparts right knowledge. Verse 23 begins with ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται ὥρα; i.e., Jesus tells the woman that “but (cf. ἀλλά) the hour has now come” and specifies who the object of worship is, viz., the Father (ὁ πατήρ),116 in explaining that the Father seeks worshippers who worship in sprit and Truth (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ). Verse 24 further underlines that the Father is God and, since God is spirit (cf. ὁ πατήρ), he must be worshipped in spirit and truth. In light of this brief overview of the content of vv. 23-24, we analyze these verses, paying special attention to elements such as ἀλλά, ἔρχεται ὥρα, ὁ θεός, ὁ πατήρ and ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 2.2.1. ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται ὥρα The expression ἔρχεται ὥρα is used in both v. 21 and v. 23 (ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν). However, in v. 23 it begins with the conjunction ἀλλά and ἔρχεται ὥρα is accompanied by καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. Before 116

We already mentioned above that the preceding verses do not mention what or who is the object of worship (vv. 20-22).

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

219

proceeding to discuss the term ὥρα and the expression ἔρχεται ὥρα, first we briefly examine the function of this conjunction ἀλλά. Verse 23 starts with the conjunction ἀλλά. We begin by examining the function of this. Abbott explains that “it is hard to find a satisfactory explanation of ἀλλά employed in Jn 4:23 and 8:26”. He adds that “[i]f one no longer feels impelled to translate by ‘but,’ the trouble vanishes. Just make it ‘now’ or ‘yea’ and it is clear”.117 Robertson affirms that in v. 23 “it has to mean ‘but’”.118 It is interesting to note that almost all English translations of the Bible translate ἀλλά in Jn 4:23 and 8:26 as “but”, which points to the fact that what is said in vv. 23-24 differs from vv. 20-22. As BDAG explains, ἀλλά denotes a transition from previous verses to v. 23, or more precisely, it indicates a difference or contrast with what has said previously.119 Thettayil remarks that it is a marker of contrast with previous modes of worship and of the knowledge about salvation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι.120 Daube explains that such explanations are similar to the synoptic teachings of Jesus with the expression “but I tell you” in the context of delivering teachings contrary to what is said in the Mosaic law, viz., teachings about anger, adultery, love of enemy etc.; cf. for instance, Mt 5:27, 33, 38, 43. Though in v. 23 there is no such expression (“but I tell you”), the content of Jesus’ teaching is a new mode of worship which is different from existing modes, viz., a mode which gives emphasis to worshipping in Spirit and truth and in which God seeks the worshippers, whereas existing modes seek the right place chosen by God, Mt. Gerizim or Jerusalem. In order to makes sense of this conjunction in v. 23, Westcott explains that it depicts the tension between the perfect knowledge that is being revealed now and the knowledge passed on to the people by God’s salvific intervention in history (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) and the Samaritans’ lack of knowledge concerning the theme of worship.121 In light of the above discussion concerning the implications of ἀλλά at the beginning of v. 23, we propose that ἀλλά be read as connecting v. 23 with the preceding verse. That is, it serves primarily to connect v. 22b, on the theme of salvation, with v. 23, which depicts Jesus’ teaching of a new mode of worship as a third alternative, thus in a way nullifying 117 118 119

120 121

Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 99. Robertson, Grammar, 1185-1186. BDAG, 44, ἀλλά an adversative particle which is originally neutral plural of ἄλλος indicating a difference with or contrast to what precedes, in the case of individual clauses as well as whole sentences. See Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 106-107. See Westcott, John, 73.

220

CHAPTER 5

or replacing the previous worshipping modes of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. This may indicate that the positive saying in v. 22b does not explain that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are right and that the Samaritans have to follow,122 but rather that the conflicts due to the groups’ different teachings on the right place of worship (Mt. Gerizim versus Jerusalem) should fade away. The noun ὥρα in general means any time of the day, or a short span of time. Liddell & Scott explain that ὥρα might also mean year, the prime of the year, a part of the day, one part of the twelve parts of a natural day, or the time or season for a thing. ὥρα [ἐστίν] indicates that it is the time to do something; it would also mean the right time, in due time, in good time or metaphorically denote the prime of life, youth.123 ὥρα could also mean that a certain time has come for something to take place.124 This term occurs 26 times in the gospel of John on various occasions and with different meanings. It is to be noted that John employs this term with some specific meanings and that is typical of Johannine vocabulary. One can find mainly three sorts of meaning for the use of ὥρα in this gospel. On some occasions John uses ὥρα only to indicate the chronological time; for instance in 1:39; 4:6, 52; 5:35; 11:9; 16:21; 19:14, 27. On other occasions (12:23, 13:1 and 16:12), it is used to denote the approach of suffering and glorification. Another use of the term is to convey that the time of fulfillment of Jesus’ mission has come.125 The verb ἔρχομαι, employed in both places (vv. 21, 23), can be used in the present tense to refer to the future. It is evident that in v. 21 ἔρχεται ὥρα is employed with a reference to the future126 and in v. 23 it points to present activity (cf. ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν). We have seen that v. 21 uses the past tense in speaking of the worship of the Samaritans (on 122

123

124

125

126

We have seen that the explanations of v. 22b as presenting an ironic literary device are often based on the concern that Jesus could not possibly take the side of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Moreover, his Samaritan mission may not intend that. Also, he makes this phase of his itinerant ministry to Galilee in an atmosphere of power conflict with the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jn 3, 4). See LSJ #47499. L&N, ##67.1; 67.148; 67.199, finds mainly three meanings of ὥρα, such as an occasion (of a particular event), a while, and an hour. See M&M, 702, assigns mainly three meanings: an hour, the shortest period of time, and age (i.e. that one has reached the age for a certain ritual). See also BDAG, 1102. The third interpretation, which concerns the time of the fulfillment of the mission, takes some broader perspective as well. That is, ὥρα is employed with this meaning on various occasions that concern salvation due to Jesus’ mission, viz., the time of the passion and glorification of Jesus, announcing the coming of the Paraclete. See Collins, These Things have been Written, 168; Van Belle, Repetitions and Variations, 168-169. See Delling, “ὥρα,” 679. BDAG, 1102.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

221

Mt. Gerizim) and the present tense in speaking of the worshipping place of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jerusalem). Jesus, in discarding these two, introduces a new mode of worship pointing to the near future (cf. ἔρχεται ὥρα) and in v. 23 he makes clear that the time has come and is now (cf. ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν). John uses the same expression (ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν) again in 5:25. In light of these references (4:21, 23; 5:25), Bernard explains that Jesus tells the Samaritan woman by his use of the term ὥρα “that the old rivalries as to sanctuary are passing away, and that in the future ‘the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth’”. He adds “[b]ut that is not confined to the future; it may be equally asserted of the present, that true worshippers worship thus”.127 For Schnackenburg, this Johannine expression “has a religious and eschatological sense”, indicating that “both places of worship will lose their significance”.128 Beasley-Murray explains that “[t]he unique Johannine expression [ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν] brackets future and present without eliminating either”.129 Byrne explains that Jesus overtook the priority of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and that a time, the hour, is coming and “indeed now is” when those who worship God will do so in spirit and truth. Jesus adds that this is due to the fact that God is spirit.130 Thus we have seen that Jesus, in saying ἔρχεται ὥρα (vv. 21, 23), points to the hour that is at once coming and already come. He adds further, in vv. 23-24, ὁ θεός. ὁ πατήρ seeks for those who are true worshippers, and specifically those who worship in spirit and truth (cf. ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ). We discuss this phrase in what follows. 2.2.2. ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ We first briefly discuss the terms ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ in the LXX. On this basis we can proceed to examine them in the NT, specifically in the gospel of John, then narrow our focus further to consider them in the Samaritan mission of Jesus.

127 128

129

130

Bernard, John, 146-149. Schnackenburg, John, 1.435. He makes this interpretation in light of the other references in John (cf. 5:25, 28; 16:2, 25, 32). Beasley-Murray, John, 62. In a similar vein, Haenchen, John, 222, explains that “[t]he Evangelist intentionally combines two different temporal aspects in this phrase” which includes “the time of the earthly Jesus (for whom ‘the hour’ lay still in the future) and the time of the resurrected Jesus and the post-Easter congregation”. See Byrne, John’s Gospel, 86. McHugh, John, 286, remarks that καὶ νῦν ἐστιν serves as an explanation by the evangelist and not by Jesus.

222

CHAPTER 5

2.2.2.1. ὁ θεός There are different Hebrew words in the MT that correspond to ὁ θεός131 in the LXX. Moreover, YHWH is employed to denote the only true God, the God of Israel, the God of the chosen people, the only one true God, etc.132 The first two are employed mainly to imply the third, Yahweh.133 It is to be noted that this term is not used anywhere to denote angels or any human being, but solely to represent the one true and unique God. In the LXX, Yahweh is usually translated as θεός (or as κύριος). Both ‫ יהוה‬and ὁ θεός are used in the Hebrew Scriptures to emphasize God’s relationship with His people, who is merciful and loving toward them. He is the lord of the covenant people and his lordship controls nature as well. The people of God address him as ‘our God’.134 Thus in the LXX, ὁ θεός and its corresponding Hebrew terms (in the MT) are used to denote mainly the only one true God of Israel, the chosen people. We may deduce from the concerned scriptural references and scholarship that for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, and as salvation history further unfolds He is the God of David as well. It is to be noted that the Samaritans also acclaim Him in this respect (though not as the God of David), since they accept the Pentateuch as their Scripture. Hence, we conclude that both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται knew the meaning and implications of ὁ θεός with regard to the theme of worship and further that, in the context of vv. 20-24, the Samaritan woman can comprehend Jesus’ teaching about ὁ θεός as the object of worship. Now we proceed to discuss ὁ πατήρ with regard to Jesus’ explanations, such as προσκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί (v. 21) προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ πατρὶ (v. 23).

131

132

133 134

See, for instance, ‫אל‬, ‫אלהים‬, and ‫יהוה‬. Price, “Gods and Emperors,” 86; Harris, Jesus as God, 27. See also Kleinknecht, “θεός,” TDNT III, 65-79. In Greco-Roman culture, θεός was widely used to represent kings and emperors, heroes, politicians, philosophers, etc. It was also used to refer to some deities in general or signify a particular god (for instance, Zeus). In the extra-biblical literature, we find that θεός is also used as a predicate to explain some elements of Greek thought. Rose, “Names of God in the OT,” ABD IV, 1001-1011; Cross, “‫אל‬,” TDOT I.244; Ringgren, “‫אלהים‬,” TDOT I.267-284; Freedman and O’Connor, “‫ יהוה‬YHWH,” TDOT V.500-521; Quell, “θεός,” TDNT III.79-89; Betz, “θεός,” EWNT, III.346-352. ‫ אל‬and ‫ אלהים‬are also used to denote several others, such as a spiritual being (1 Sam 28:13), an alien god (Exod 34:14), and a human ruler (Exod 4:16). See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 111. The name of God, ‫יהוה‬, was of course not pronounced either by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι or by others (cf. Exod 10:7; Deut 5:11). See Freedman and O’Connor, “‫ יהוה‬YHWH,” 518; Rose, “Names of God in the OT,” 1011; Harris, Jesus as God, 26; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 109-111; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 150-151.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

223

2.2.2.2. ὁ πατήρ In the ancient Near East, the term ‫ אב‬is usually used by a son or daughter to address their father in an intimate way. This term is also used to denote a personal god, usually inherited from the family; a household god which Jeremiah calls an idol (2:27). Due to this pagan notion, such a relationship between a god and his people or the imagery of a fatherson relationship was avoided during the reign of monarchy. Accordingly, the Father is not a common or one of the dominant images of the OT portrayal of God.135 However, there are instances in the Hebrew Scripture in which the image of father is employed to denote God or Yahweh (cf. Exod 4:22; 2Sam 7:14). There are also implicit references to it, where the fatherly nature of God is depicted: viz., Isa 43:1 (from Him originates the child’s name), Isa 45:11 (He calls human persons into being) and Jer 31:9 (He begets Israel).136 Israel is presented as His first born, upon whom he lavishes his love and saving power. In this respect God is depicted as the Father of Israel who cares for them with compassionate love and mercy (cf. Deut 32:6, 18; Isa 63:8; Ps 27:10; 103:13).137 More specifically, concerning our discussion of the image of the father used of God in the OT, we have seen that this image is marked by the characteristics of a human father and is employed to speak of God on some occasions. Thus, as mentioned above and as is evident from our discussions, the image of God as Father in the OT is not common and occurs only infrequently. It also points to the fact that this image of God as Father has some roots in the Pentateuch, but is elaborated to some extent in the other books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence, the Samaritans would have had a minimal knowledge and understanding of ὁ θεός as ὁ πατήρ, and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι would have had a little more knowledge. The attributes of God with respect to his fatherhood are well-elaborated in the NT. In the Johannine description of God, this image plays a major role. The Father-Son relationship is clearly manifested and repeatedly asserted in 135

136

137

See Schrenk and Quell, “πατήρ,” TDNT V.969; Anderson, “Names of God,” IDB II.415; Dille, Mixing Metaphors, 34-35. In a similar vein, Hebrew Scripture depicts the motherly qualities in God’s relationship with human persons; see for instance, Hos 1:6-8; 2:3, 6, 21, 25; 11:1-5. In this respect, the image of God is depicted in both parental forms, paternal and maternal. See also Kakkanattu, God’s Enduring Love, 131- 136. See Anderson, “Names of God,” 415; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 152. Thompson, The Promise of the Father, 35-55, offers a rather detailed discussion of this theme of God as Father in the OT as a background for her analysis of the NT theme of God the Father. See Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, 58-64; Zimmermann, Die Namen des Vaters, 48-52.

224

CHAPTER 5

John as the relationship between God, the Father, and Jesus, the Son who is sent (cf. ὁ πέμψας με) by his Father.138 What follows is a brief examination of this theme in the gospel of John. 2.2.2.3. ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ in the Gospel of John In the following section, we first offer an overview of the distribution of the terms ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ in all four gospels, which will help us to understand how the theme of God the Father is taken up in the teachings of Jesus depicted in the NT as well as the prominence given to this theme in the gospel of John. Then, in this light, we examine vv. 23-24, where Jesus’ teaching concerning the worship of ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ is depicted. Gospels

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

ὁ θεός (sg.)

45

46

109

83

θεός (sg.)

10

5

14

20

ὁ πατήρ (sg.)

50

15

34

122

πατήρ (sg.)

10

2

13

14

θεοί (pl.)

0

0

0

2

οἱ πατέρες (pl.)

1

0

7

5

It is evident from the table that all four gospels employ (ὁ) θεός and (ὁ) πατήρ on many occasions. Based on their respective contexts, we can verify that all four gospels affirm the uniqueness of the only true God as the Father who is the Father of Jesus in particular.139 In the following, let us briefly discuss the distribution of these terms in John, where there are 83 occurrences of ὁ θεός and 20 of θεός, and thus altogether we find (ὁ) θεός 103 times. Among these, 78 occurrences (ὁ) θεός refer exclusively to God the Father and three refer to Jesus.140 ὁ πατήρ occurs 122 times 138

139

140

We will discuss briefly on the Johannine expression ὁ πέμψας με and the theme of sending of Jesus in chapter 6 where we analyze v. 34. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 150-165, undertakes a detailed semantical analysis of the terms (ὁ) θεός and (ὁ) πατήρ in the four gospels, paying specific attention to all five grammatical cases of the terms to explain the emphasis the four evangelists give to the notion of God as the Father. The two plural forms of θεοί employed in 10:34-35 are concerned with neither God nor Jesus. They refer back to Hebrew scriptural references concerning the law. See Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 164-176; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 155.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

225

in John’s gospel and πατήρ is used 14 times. Among the 136 references of (ὁ) πατήρ, it is used 120 times to denote God the Father specifically.141 From the table, it is clear that the highest frequency of the term (ὁ) πατήρ is in the gospel of John. More specifically, the occasions on which (ὁ) πατήρ is employed to represent God the Father and his relationship with Jesus as the Son is almost double the combined occurrences of such references in the Synoptic gospels (Mt 45 times, Mk 5 times and Luke 17 times). In addition to this, these terms, (ὁ) θεός and (ὁ) πατήρ, are most often uttered by Jesus himself in teaching about God as the Father. More specifically, 42 out of the 83 occurrences of (ὁ) θεός and 113 of the 136 occurrences of (ὁ) πατήρ are placed on the lips of Jesus. Apart from the terms (ὁ) θεός and (ὁ) πατήρ, a unique Johannine phrase to depict the Father sending the Son, viz. ὁ πέμψας με (+ πατήρ), also testifies to the role of a notion of God the Father as a core element of the fourth gospel. The Johannine Jesus employs ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ on several occasions to affirm his mission, and this idea lingers throughout the whole of the fourth gospel. All the occasions on which it is uttered, except one142, occur during the earthly ministry of Jesus (viz., 4:31-38; 5:23-37; 6:38-44; 7:16-33; 8:16-29; 9:4; 12:44-50; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5), when Jesus presents God the Father as the one who sent him.143 Based on this brief examination of (ὁ) θεός, (ὁ) πατήρ and ὁ πέμψας με (πατρός), we can see the importance of this theme in the four gospels and, in particular, there must be more to conclude in the fourth gospel’s depiction of God as the Father who has sent Jesus.144 In this light, 141

142

143

144

The remaining 16 occurrences concern human father(s) and the devil. That is, 13 refer to human fathers, viz., Jacob (4:12), a royal official (4:53), Joseph, (6:42), Abraham (8:39, 53, 56), the fathers/ancestors of the Samaritans (4:20) and of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (6:31, 49, 58; 7:22; 8:38, 41) and three to the devil (all three on one occasion, in 8:44). In Jn 20:21, πέμπω is employed where Jesus sends his disciples (cf. εἰρήνη ὑμῖν· καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς). The motif of sending is expressed differently in the Synoptics and in the fourth gospel. In the Synoptics, Jesus is often depicted as the sender, while in the fourth gospel the Father is presented as the sender, specified by the Johannine Jesus himself through the employment of ὁ πέμψας με. In the last utterance in the post-resurrection appearance, Jesus presents himself as the Sender (20:21). The first utterance of ὁ πέμψας με is during Jesus’ Samaritan mission in 4:1-42, specifically in 4:31-38, which should be recognized as playing a pivotal role in any adequate understanding of this issue. We will not engage in a detailed discussion of the terms and phrases, such as (ὁ) θεός, (ὁ) πατήρ and ὁ πέμψας με (πατρός), which is beyond the scope of this study. For such discussions, see, McPolin, “Mission,” 113-122; Bühner, Der Gesandte, 191-267; Meyer, “ God in the Fourth Gospel,”, 252-273; O’Day, “Show Us the Father,” 11-16; Stibbe, “Telling the Father’s Story, 170-193.

226

CHAPTER 5

we proceed to discuss the terms ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ as they are employed specifically in vv. 23-24, where God appears as the seeking Father (ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ) in v. 23 and πνεῦμα ὁ θεός in v. 24.145 2.2.2.4. God as the seeking Father What follows is a discussion on the meaning and implications of ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ (in v. 23). We have discussed already the implications of the terms ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ. Now, in order to understand better Jesus’ explanation of God the Father who seeks (cf. ζητέω) worshippers, let us focus on the term ζητέω. Liddell & Scott explain that ζητέω is employed to convey what is sought for or after; to have to seek; to have want of something, etc. Louw and Nida add that it conveys the meaning of trying to find something or learn something.146 In ancient Greek literature, ζητέω is used to explain one’s deliberate attempt to gain more wisdom and knowledge.147 Moulton adds further that ζητέω used in judicial references concerns enquiry into an issue.148 BDAG gives four types of meaning for this term: (i) to try to find something, (ii) to seek information or investigate; (iii) to deliberate or devote serious effort to realizing one’s desire or objective and (iv) to ask for, request or demand something.149 Among these four, the latter is explained as the meaning of ζητέω in Jn 4:23; specifically, it denotes a persistent demand.150 These explanations point to various connotations of ζητέω in relation to similar acts, yet we can see from this brief examination that the majority of explanations point to the meaning of this verb as a deliberate act on the part of the subject. The issue concerns the implications of Jesus’ statement that God the Father seeks worshippers. In v. 23, Jesus explains to the Samaritan woman that God is a seeking Father: ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν. In light of our previous discussions, this seems to be a new teaching.151 Though we have seen references that depict God as a father 145

146 147 148 149

150 151

In the next chapter, we will briefly discuss the notion of God as the sending Father ὁ πέμψας με when we analyze 4:31-38. See LSJ, #19409 L&N, #27.41. See Greeven “ζητέω,” TDNT II.892-896, 893. BAGD, 338-339; M&M, #1829. See M&M #1829. See BDAG, 428. Larson, “ζητέω,” EWNT III.253-256, further adds the significance of wanting. See, for a detailed discussion, Micallef, ζητέω in the Gospel of John. See also Lk 11:16; Mk 8:11, 12. See Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth, 119-120.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

227

or parent who seeks for the well-being of his or her child, much like a human father, we have so far found no instance of or allusion to the depiction of God as a seeking Father who seeks true worshippers. However, the emphasis given to the Father and His action of seeking in v. 23 takes us back to the salvation history depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, where God is presented as the one who seeks for His people’s salvation. More specifically, the books of the Prophets depict a God who goes after His people to deliver them and lead them to the peace and joy of salvation through various modes of interaction, such as calling them back to His ways, reminding them through the words and deeds of the prophets, and even enacting punishments. In this light, one can see that the reference to the seeking of God the Father in vv. 23-24 is Jesus’ explanation to the Samaritan woman about God the Father who seeks a personal relationship with human persons aligns with God’s salvific actions in the OT. Hence, we would add that this is a new teaching, though not completely a new one given that the Hebrew Scriptures present God as seeking for His people. Again, this is in line with Jesus’ teaching here about God the Father who seeks new worshippers, who worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ and is not concerned with a specific group of people. Thus, in light of the theme of seeking in the Hebrew Scriptures, one can see that Jesus’ explanations in vv. 23-24 point to the issues concerning the right place of worship, which has its roots in the issue of the identity of the chosen people and who can and cannot be counted among them. These issues, we learn, are not at all relevant to the phase of new worship, where God the Father seeks to come into a personal relationship with all human persons.152 In this respect, the teaching of Jesus in v. 23 is understandable for the Samaritan woman at least to a certain extent. In the NT, the term ζητέω is used in both a religious and a non-religious sense. There are 121 occurrences of ζητέω in the NT and a majority of them, 83, appear in the four gospels (13 in Matthew, 10 in Mark, 26 in 152

See Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 169-171. The above explanation may lead us to recall Isa 56:7, ὁ γὰρ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, which is taken up by the Markan Jesus (Mk 11:17) during his action of cleansing the temple (see also Mt 21:13; Lk 19:46). In Jn 2:14ff, it is stated that Jesus’ zeal for the Father’s house led to his action of cleansing the temple to turn it back into a place of worship. He wants them not to make his Father’s house a marketplace; μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου (2:16). However, these references allude to a place of worship for all nations or all human persons, and our own theme is not about the determination of a place of worship but the call for true worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ.

228

CHAPTER 5

Luke153, and 34 in John. This term lingers throughout the gospel of John and is used with various emphases and by different characters: it is first used in 1:38, by Jesus during his action of forming the first disciples, and finally after his resurrection encounter with Mary Magdalene, in Jesus’ question to her (20:15). ζητέω is also used in John to denote the seeking of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι for Jesus (6:24, 26; 7:36; 13:33), even when they are seeking to kill him (5:18; 7:1, 11, 19, 25; 11:8). Jesus is said to seek the will and glory of the Father (5:30, 44; 7:18).154 Hence, we can see that ζητέω signifies deliberate action stems and evokes some kind of relationship. ζητέω, in 4:23, depicts the Father’s action of breaking through to human persons in his relationship to them in worship.155 God the Father’s seeking (cf. ζητέω) of true worshippers is not a mere wish but an active movement on His part, which is indeed a demand or requirement156 of the humanity with respect to their mode of relating to Him, namely, in worship. In John, the seeking of God is presented as his act of love towards humanity. The evangelist clearly depicts the motif behind the actions of God in 3:16-17. As noted above, the motif of sending, which is repeatedly affirmed on the lips of the Johannine Jesus, underlines this idea further. Jesus’ words and actions are rooted in the will of the Father, as is affirmed at the beginning of the Samaritan episode (v. 4) as well as toward the end (v. 34), underlining that Jesus’ Samaritan mission is the will and the work of the Father. As Jojko rightly explains, “[t]he willing acceptance of the love of the Father through Jesus is, in effect the worshipping of the Father – a response, which as Jesus reveals, is a necessity: δεῖ προσκυνεῖν (4:24). This, then, is how true believers, receive the power to become ‘children of God’ (1:12) and respond positively to the Father’s initiative in seeking, loving, and sending”.157 In this light, we may also deduce that vv. 23-24, which place the theme of worshipping God the Father at the centre of the Samaritan episode, portray the core of the Samaritan mission.

153 154

155 156

157

In Acts, ζητέω is used 20 times. See Collins, “The Search for Jesus,” 27-48; Sadananda, The Johannine Exegesis of God, 277. See Stibbe, “Telling the Father’s Story,” 184. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 169. A majority of them interprets it to mean desire, a strong act of seeking, demanding, requiring, etc. Bultmann, John, 191 and Schnackenburg, John, 423, for instance, translate it as ‘God demands’; Lindars, John, 189 and Moody Smith Jr., John, 116, translate it as ‘God requires’. For Brant, John, 86, the Father indeed seeks. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 172.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

229

2.2.2.5. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός We have discussed in the previous section how John depicts God as the Father in the context of the theme of worship. Specifically, God is depicted as a seeker of those who worship him in Spirit and truth, ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀλήθεια in v. 23, which is stated again in v. 24b to mention the mode of true worshipping. This expression is composed of two terms, viz. ἀλήθεια and πνεῦμα, and the former is used twice in v. 23: both as the subject of worship, οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί in v. 23a, and as the mode of worship, ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ in v. 23. Also, the latter is employed twice in v. 24: as an explanation of who the object of worship is, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός and of the mode of worship, ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀλήθεια. We now discuss the explanation on the lips of Jesus concerning the object of worship, viz., πνεῦμα ὁ θεός.158 πνεῦμα in πνεῦμα ὁ θεός in v. 24 is not preceded by an article, which has led to mainly three types of interpretation: that God is a Spirit, God is the Spirit, and God is Spirit. Tenney and KJV translate πνεῦμα ὁ θεός as ‘God is a Spirit’.159 However, we would note that πνεῦμα is translated as ‘Spirit’ with a capital ‘S’.160 Some scholars, such as Lagrange and Gaebelein, translate πνεῦμα ὁ θεός as ‘God is the Spirit’.161 Almost all English translations and the majority of Johannine exegetes translate πνεῦμα ὁ θεός as ‘God is Spirit’.162 Based on this overview of the different proposals for translating πνεῦμα ὁ θεός in v. 24, we can see that the major issue at stake is how to understand πνεῦμα, either as definite or not. In the statement of Jesus, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, there is no article for πνεῦμα, but we know that in Greek, even when a definite article is absent, the object can be definite or not;163 the copula is absent here. Hence, we ask, is πνεῦμα in the predicative nominative anarthrous or not? It can be either qualitative or definite when the anarthrous predicative is placed before the subject. When the verb is in the present tense, it is very likely to follow the predicate nominative. Placing the predicate nominative before the 158

159

160 161 162

163

We will briefly discuss the implications of οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί in examining the expression ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 170, clearly states that this translation is wrong in his discussion of the definiteness of πνεῦμα in the expression πνεῦμα ὁ θεός (v. 24). See Tenney, John, 84, 86, 95. See Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Jean, 115; Gaebelein, The Gospel of John, 92. See NRSV, NJB, NAB, NET, KJV. See for instance, Plummer, John, 121; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, #1995, notes that “[t]he article with the infinitive is almost nonoccurrent in John”. See Robertson, Grammar, 756.

230

CHAPTER 5

subject makes the predicate nominative emphatic, and this emphasis can be either qualitative or definite. In this light, in v. 24, the anarthrous predicate nominative πνεῦμα comes before the subject and there is no verb (cf. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός). Here, πνεῦμα is used to stress qualitatively the nature or essence of God.164 Moulton notes that the predicative nominative πνεῦμα in v. 24 carries the force of an article and hence the employment of an article is not needed.165 In this light, we conclude that John cannot use article with πνεῦμα since πνεῦμα and ὁ θεός are not identical. That is, as we know, πνεῦμα characterizes ὁ θεός but not fully identical with it. In this context we need to examine the implications of the πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. The clause πνεῦμα ὁ θεός which we translate as (the) God is (the) Spirit is a hapax legomenon not only in John but in the Bible as a whole. However, there are instances in the MT, in the LXX and in the NT where references to God and Spirit are used together or are syntactically linked. The term ‫ רוח‬in the MT and its Greek equivalent πνεῦμα are generally classified as verbal nouns, denoting action. As Tengström and Fabry explain, this term literally means the blowing of wind or respiration, etc., and allegorically implies the power active in life and nature; life, human spirit, etc.166 It is to be noted that the significant concept of ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα is often associated with Yahweh and His actions.167 As mentioned above, we shall now 164

165

166

167

See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 269-270. He cites another example, Phil 2:11 κύριος ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστός and translates as ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’. He adds that in such instances, where there is no copula, the predicate nominative is anarthrous and comes before the subject. See also Phil 1:8; Rom 1:9. See Moulton, Grammar of the New Testament, 3.123. He explains that the absence of an article due to the predicate position of πνεῦμα in πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, without being preceded by an article, would have the force of an article. In addition to this, the predicate compliment here is a noun, and in such cases the absence of an article helps to affirm the subject as an idea when presented as a general one. That is, in cases like v. 23a, where the predicate is a noun, an article is not needed. When we have a sentence with a subject, a copula and the predicate compliment, and the subject and the predicate compliment are both nouns and the sentence is not to express a full identity. When two things are not in full identity then the subject has the article and the predicate compliment does not have article. If that is the case then in our context, the author cannot give πνεῦμα an article. See Blum, “Studies in the Problem Areas of the Greek Article,” 15-16; Thettayil, Spirit, 124-125. See Tengström and Fabry, “‫רוח‬,” TDOT XIII.368-373; Kremer, “πνεῦμα,” EDNT III.118. As noted above, ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα is used in different contexts with a wide variety of nuanced meanings. See for instance, the blowing of wind (Gen 3:8; 8:1; Job 1:19; 4:15; Ps 1:4; 135:7; Isa 7:2); a relation to the feelings of a person (Gen 26:35; 45:27; Exod 6:9; Judg 15:19); a skill, ability, inspiration, or will operative in human persons (Exod 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; Job 32:8.18; 34:19; Isa 30:1; Prov 17:22). Tengström and Fabry, “‫רוח‬,” 368-373; Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT VI.389-455; Kremer, “πνεῦμα,” 118; BDAG,

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

231

make an overview of the contexts where πνεῦμα and θεός are used together. The main instances of their being used together are πνεῦμα θεοῦ and ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ. The former, πνεῦμα θεοῦ,168 is found in Gen 1:2; 41:38; Num 24:2; Judg 6:34; 1 Sam 10:10; 19:20, 23; 1 Chr 24:20; 2 Chr 15:1; Job 33:4; Dan 5:14; Isa 11:2.169 The latter, ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ, is found in Ezek 11:24. We shall summarize what these terms precisely mean in these respective contexts: the hovering of πνεῦμα θεοῦ over the waters during God’s action of creation (Gen 1:2);170 the rulers of the people understand the presence of πνεῦμα θεοῦ, who provides the power of wisdom, discernment, etc. to Joseph (Gen 41:38) and Daniel (Dan 5:14);171 Balam prophesizes (Num 24:2) and Gideon delivers Israel (Judg 6:34) as πνεῦμα θεοῦ came upon them; πνεῦμα θεοῦ endows Saul and his fellow men with the gift of prophesy (1 Sam 10:10; 19:23) and πνεῦμα θεοῦ overtakes Zechariah (1 Chr 24:20) and Azariah (2 Chr 15:1), granting them the gift of prophesy; Job 33:4 presents πνεῦμα θεοῦ as the one who gives life, creates. In Isaiah it is said that πνεῦμα θεοῦ shall rest on the Messiah with wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and the fear of God (Isa 11:2).172 Ezekiel was brought to the people in exile to preach to them ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ (Ezek 11:24).173

168 169

170

171 172

173

832-836. In the following, our focus will not be on the occurrences of these terms with respect to any phenomena in nature and the feelings or emotions of human persons, but on occurrences syntactically or contextually linked with Yahweh/God and His actions. Within the scope of our research hypothesis, we offer a brief overview of the occasions where πνεῦμα and θεός are used together. ‫ רוח אלהים‬/ and ‫ רוח יהוה‬/ can be translated as πνεῦμα θεοῦ. In addition to πνεῦμα θεοῦ and ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ, there are some other expressions in the LXX which concern πνεῦμα and θεός. They are the following: Neh 9:20; Ps 51:13; 143:10; Wis 9:17; Isa 42:1; 44:3; Ezek 11: 19; 36:26-27; 37:5, 6, 14; Joel 3:1-2. It is to be noted that we are not making a survey of all references in the OT where πνεῦμα and θεός are either syntactically linked together or present together in a certain context. Rather, we intend to examine the implications of what it alludes to, viz., πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, in the Hebrew Scriptures; specifically, the occasions where the Godhuman relationship is mentioned. As we know, there are many other instances in the OT where πνεῦμα and θεός are employed to evoke other themes, such as God’s power exercised over the nature, natural phenomena and heavenly beings. See for instance, Gen 6:17; 7:15; Jdt 10:13; Ezek 1:20-21; 10:17; 37:5. In the same vein, we approach the references in the NT in order to examine the implications of πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. See Breck, Spirit of Truth, 5-6; Um, The Temple Christology, 77; Neve, The Spirit of God, 71; D. Berković, “The Dynamics of the Spirit,” 171-184; Nyirenda, “‘Spirit of God’ in Genesis 1.1-2,” 284-299. See Breck, Spirit of Truth, 5-6; Um, The Theme of Temple, 77. See Tengström and Fabry, “‫רוח‬,” TDOT XIII.373-374, 378-386; Baumgärtel, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT VI.363; Um, The Theme of Temple, 117-118. See Krodel, “The Functions of the Spirit,” 11; Wright, Holy Spirit through the Old Testament, 28-29.

232

CHAPTER 5

In addition to πνεῦμα θεοῦ and ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ, there are some other expressions which concern πνεῦμα and θεός. τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἀγαθόν (Neh 9:20) mentions the good spirit of God, who instructs and helps His people to overcome difficulties; that is, this spirit is God’s presence in the life of His people and leads them on a level path (cf. Ps 51:13; 143:10).174 τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦμα in Wis 9:17 speaks about the sending of the spirit from on high to bestow wisdom to human persons and teach the people, to set them on right paths and thus to save them.175 πνεῦμα καινόν, employed in Eze 11:19 and 36:26-27, speaks about God’s promise to His people in exile, that he will give them a new spirit and a new heart which will enable them to lead a life according to His statutes/will and to know Him as their God. God’s πνεῦμα ζωῆς gives life to dry bones and makes them alive (Eze 37:5).176 τὸ πνεῦμά μου depicts God as giving His spirit to human persons to make them live and know who God is (Eze 37:6, 14)177; His spirit continues to bless all the coming generations of all nations and all humanity (Isa 44:3) in order to bring justice, and not only to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Isa 42:1).178 In light of this overview of references where πνεῦμα and θεός are used to depict the God-human relationship, we may observe the following: that the Spirit of God is depicted as the Spirit from God, that has its source in God. The Spirit that God bestows performs various actions, such as creation, sustaining the created, and assisting human persons in living according to God’s will and statutes. He gives human persons the Spirit to perform His actions or assists His people in following God’s path.179 All of these actions of God and the Spirit concern the salvation of the people, in one way or another. It is important to note that as salvation history progresses, these actions of ὁ θεός are carried out through human persons by God’s bestowing of the πνεῦμα upon them to overcome 174

175

176

177

178

179

See Spieckermann, “Heart, Spirit, and Steadfast Love,” 253-265; Hildebrandt, The Spirit of God, 2-18; 60-65. See Tengström and Fabry, “‫רוח‬,” 378-386; Baumgärtel, “πνεῦμα,” 363-364; Hayes, “‘A spirit of Deep Sleep,’” 39-94. See Hummel, Ezekiel, 21-48, 1084; Wright, Holy Spirit, 131-134; Um, The Theme of Temple, 108-109. See Neve, The Spirit of God, 77; Hummel, Ezekiel, 21-48, 1074-1084; Breck, Spirit of Truth, 9-10. See, Um, The Theme of Temple, 86-87; Breck, Spirit of Truth, 6-10; Ma, The Spirit of God, 113-155; 190. Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 173-179, briefly examines the domain of references where πνεῦμα and θεός are employed together in the OT and identifies the following possible meanings of such references: creating, animating, and shaping events of history, renewing, giving life to all without setting any boundaries and inspiring human persons.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

233

all boundaries, such as that between God’s chosen people, Israel and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and other nations, including all humanity, in the pursuit of salvation. We now examine the references in the NT concerning πνεῦμα and ὁ θεός, especially where these two terms appear together in the same verse or adjacently. Here too, we shall review the implications of these words in their particular contexts to learn how the NT relates πνεῦμα and ὁ θεός. This will shed more light on our discussion of πνεῦμα ὁ θεός in v. 24. Such uses are found in Acts and the epistles more than in the gospels. The term πνεῦμα is employed 379 times in the NT, with the meanings such as ‘breath’, ‘wind’, spirit’ and ‘Spirit.’180 Specifically in the four gospels, we find 19 references in Matthew, 23 in Mark, 36 in Luke and 24 in John.181 πνεῦμα ἅγιον occurs 89 times in the NT, and in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively we find 5, 4, 13 and 3 occurrences of it. πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας occurs only four times: 3 times in the gospel of John and once in 1 John. It is not used in the Synoptic gospels. Among the Synoptic gospels, only Matthew employs πνεῦμα and θεός in combination. In Mt 3:16, [τὸ] πνεῦμα [τοῦ] θεοῦ speaks about the Spirit of God descending on Jesus, and in Mt 12:28 Jesus confronts the Pharisees by saying that it is by the Spirit of God (ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ) that he casts out demons. Luke uses the term to refer to God’s chosen people, who are inspired by πνεῦμα and witness Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation in the OT. Moreover, the synoptic gospels present πνεῦμα as God’s power, which has been active from the moment of the annunciation and was with Jesus or active through Jesus in all his missions.182 180

181

182

See Schmithals, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT VI.332-455; According to BDAG, 832-836, πνεῦμα can have the following meanings: (1) “air in movement” – wind, blowing, breath; (2) “that which animates or gives life to the body”, breath, (life-)spirit” (3) “a part of human personality, spirit”; (4) “an independent noncorporeal being, in contrast to a being that can be perceived by the physical senses, spirit” – God personally, good, or at least not expressly evil spirits or spirit-beings; evil spirits; (5) “God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit” – the Spirit of God, of the Lord; the Spirit of Christ, of the Lord; (the) Holy Spirit; (6) “the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit”; (7) “an activating spirit” and (8) “an independent transcendent personality”. The term πνεῦμα is not as frequent in the NT as the terms (ὁ) θεός and (ὁ) πατήρ, which we have discussed above. Matthew and Luke depict πνεῦμα as being active in the process of incarnation, starting from the annunciation.

234

CHAPTER 5

Other functions of the Spirit as mentioned in the NT include the following: God promises his Spirit (cf. τοῦ πνεύματός μου) upon all (Acts 2:17) and gives the Holy Spirit (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). In Acts 15:8, it is added that God gives the Holy Spirit (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) not only to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι but also to the Gentiles. Through the Holy Spirit (cf. πνεύματος ἁγίου), God pours out his love (Rom 5:5). The Spirit of God (cf. ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος) reveals the things of God (1 Cor 2:10). We have received the Spirit that is from God (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ in 1 Cor 2:12) and each of us is the temple of God, for the Spirit of God (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεου) dwells in us (1 Cor 3:16). The Spirit of God helps one to confess Jesus as the Lord (cf. ἐν πνεύματι θεου in 1 Cor 12:3). God sent to our hearts the Spirit of his Son (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτου in Gal 4:6). We are to worship in the Spirit of God (cf. οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ in Phil 3:3). The understanding that Jesus comes from God and the knowledge about the Spirit of God are complimentary (cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ in 1 Jn 4:2). πνεῦμα ζωῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεου gives life to the dead (Rev 11:11).183 The above references reflect how πνεῦμα and (ὁ) θεός are linked together in the books of the NT. These two terms are combined in the NT, too, in order to point to the actions of God through the Spirit, as we have already deduced in light of the OT references. The relationship between πνεῦμα and (ὁ) θεός in the NT, too, depicts that the Spirit is given to all. In the OT, we have seen the actions of God, of creation and salvation, carried out through the Spirit, and the references in the NT, especially in the Letters and in the book of Revelation, depict the action of recreation through the Spirit. This helps to carry out the mission of God/Jesus. In the NT, particularly in the Pauline corpus, the idea is further developed that πνεῦμα is closely related with both ὁ θεός and Jesus.184 In the following, we shall examine how John depicts πνεῦμα and ὁ θεός in relation to each other and in relation to Jesus as well. When we come specifically to the gospel of John, there are not many references in John which combine πνεῦμα185 and θεός, but a unique feature 183

184

185

Betz, “Standing before God,” 53-72; Bieringer, “The Spirit is Guidance, into all Truth,” 183-208. See Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 180-184. She briefly examines the contexts in which πνεῦμα and θεός are used together. John employs the term πνεῦμα 24 times. Cf. 1:32, 33 [×2]; 3:5, 6 [×2], 8; 3:34; 4:23, 24 [×2]; 6:63 [×2]; 7:39 [×2]; 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13, 14; 19:30; 20:22. The Johannine use of πνεῦμα refers either explicitly or implicitly to a relation with the person of Jesus and with God the Father, whereas in the Synoptic portrayal πνεῦμα, as the power of God, remains upon Jesus and is active through him.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

235

of John is the repeated employment of the expression τὸ πνεῦμα.186 The final testimony of John in 3:34 implicitly refers to Jesus to explain that one who is sent by God gives the Spirit without measure (ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα). It is to be noted that in 20:22, Jesus explicitly tells the disciples to receive the Spirit (λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον). However, in the fourth gospel’s portrayal of God, He is never depicted as Spirit or as a spiritual being and the prominence is given to the explanation that God is the Father who sends the Son (Jesus) and the Spirit. Accordingly one of the predominant expressions in John is τὸ πνεῦμα is explained mainly through Jesus’ teachings. In this way, and in light of the previous discussion of ὁ πατήρ (v. 23) and ὁ θεός (v. 24), we can understand the expression πνεῦμα ὁ θεός (v. 24). Though vv. 23b-24a convey that ὁ θεός demands that worshippers worship Him and that He is (the) Spirit (πνεῦμα), Bultmann affirms that πνεῦμα ὁ θεός “cannot be a definition of God, but rather [must] define the idea about God, by saying what God means”. He compares πνεῦμα ὁ θεός in v. 23 with the statement that ‘God is love’ in 1 Jn 4:8, 16. He adds that God’s behavior and activity is described in v. 24 (and 1 Jn 4).187 This would imply that Jesus first explains ὁ θεός by the term ὁ πατήρ, and then by employing (τὸ) πνεῦμα. Scholars such as Burge, Lindars and Bennema explain that πνεῦμα ὁ θεός on the lips of Jesus is not meant to define God or make a statement about God’s manifestation, but to show how He relates with human persons.188 The statement that ‘God is spirit’ does not serve as “an essential definition of God; but a description of God dealing with men”.189 In a nutshell, our discussion shows that God performs various actions through the Spirit, as depicted in the OT history of salvation, and gives His Spirit to human persons and to nations. In the NT, and specifically in John, God and the Son whom he has sent, the Messiah, work together with the Spirit. Brown rightly concludes that “this is not an essential definition of God but a description of God’s dealing with man because he gives the Spirit [through Jesus]”.190 186 187 188

189

190

See for instance, 1:32-33; 3:6, 8, 34; 6:63; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 19:30. See Bultmann, John, 191. See Lindars, John, 190; Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom, 188. Some others explain that πνεῦμα ὁ θεός is employed to emphasize the essential nature of God. See, for instance, Schweitzer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT VI. 439; Morris, John, 271; Bruce, John, 110-111; Sadananda, Johannine Understanding of God, 275. Brown, John, 1.172, 180. The promises of the prophets in the Hebrew Scripture depict “that the spirit of God would bring into being and sustain a New Age in the End-Time”. See McHugh, John, 286. Brown, John, 1.172. See also Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 185.

236

CHAPTER 5

In the preceding three subsections, we have discussed the implications of ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ in general and in the immediate context of vv. 2024. Both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, we have found, knew the meaning and implications of ὁ θεός with regard to the theme of worship, and the Samaritan woman would have comprehended Jesus’ teaching about ὁ θεός as the object of worship (v. 23b). ὁ πατήρ and ὁ θεός point to one and the same thing in vv. 23-24. Precisely, ὁ θεός is explained by Jesus as ὁ πατήρ who seeks true worshippers, which is in fact the reflection of the love of ὁ πατήρ and ὁ θεός, manifested through Jesus. The explanation of Jesus, πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, which we have discussed against the background of the OT, has shown that ὁ θεός is the subject who gives πνεῦμα. That is, by means of πνεῦμα various modes of God’s actions are made operative through the history of salvation, mainly in creation and salvation. Our discussion of the NT references underline our finding that in the NT the activity of God is continued through Jesus and (the) Spirit. More specifically, in the gospel of John, ὁ θεός and ὁ πατήρ are intertwined such that God the Father is in relationship with Jesus who is His sent Son. God’s further project of salvific action for humanity is continued by the sending of the Son and the Spirit. In this way the relationship of God with human persons, viz., His actions of creation and salvation, is explained by Jesus implicitly in terms of πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. In this light, we can understand Jesus’ further explanations of human persons relating with God, viz., worshipping191 ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 2.2.3. ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ God is portrayed as the Father on very many occasions by the Johannine Jesus, who addresses and presents God frequently as ‘my Father’ and explains that his Father/God is active in His works.192 His works are actions that lead human persons to salvation, carried out through His sent son Jesus and the Spirit. In other words, the Father who seeks true worshippers reaches human persons in and through the actions of Jesus. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, the only such phrase to appear in both the OT and the NT, is in line with the OT’s depiction of ὁ θεός: the subject who gives the Spirit, who is in turn engaged in the salvific actions of God and is further operative among human persons through the coming of the Messiah. Moreover, this 191

192

See our previous discussions on the meaning and implications of προσκυνέω in this chapter (1.1). Van Belle, The Sign Source, 380-389, discussed in detail John’s use of ἔργον. See also concerned discussions in chapter 6.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

237

presentation of ὁ θεός, τὸ πνεῦμα and ὁ Μεσσίας is further affirmed and developed in the NT, specifically in John. This relationship between these three (ὁ θεός, τὸ πνεῦμα and ὁ Μεσσίας) in our specific context can be summarized in a nutshell as follows: God the Father carries out his salvific will through his actions, sends his Son Jesus (the expected Μεσσίας), and through Jesus and τὸ πνεῦμα enables human persons to enter into a true relationship with God. This action is not restricted to any specific group of people, which takes us back to the OT promise of salvation for all nations. Jesus explains who these human persons are, οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί, and explains how they should relate to God, ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ (vv. 23-24). In this respect, the Johannine Jesus brings in another term/theme in the god-human relationship, by employing ἀλήθεια. The term ἀλήθεια is used in speaking of the worshipper (cf. ἀληθινός) and the mode of worship (cf. ἀλήθεια). Accordingly, in the following we first examine the meaning of ἀλήθεια in the MT, the LXX and the NT and then we shall examine its implications with regard to the term πνεῦμα in the gospel of John. In particular, we consider the expression ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, which is used repeatedly in vv. 23 and 24. In general, ἀλήθεια indicates something that is uncovered and hence available.193 Louw and Nida explain ἀλήθεια as “the content of that which is true and thus in accordance with what actually happened”.194 It is something “on which one can rely”. In the broader sense, it means sincere and hence not being fake or showing off only in appearance.195 BDAG adds that in the context of Christianity, ἀλήθεια indicates the content of ultimate truth and cites Jn 4:23ff as one such instance.196 The kernel of Greek philosophy concerns the question about the absolute sense of truth.197 We will not concern ourselves with such a use of the term ἀλήθεια here; rather, we will narrow our focus mainly to the OT and NT uses of this term. In the MT, we find that ‫ אמת‬is the closest equivalent to the LXX use of ἀλήθεια, which in general means reliable, stable, faithful, trust-worthy.198 193 194

195 196 197

198

See Hübner, “ἀλήθεια,” EDNT I.58. L&N, #72.2. They note that in John this term is employed to denote the revelation of God, mostly brought about through Jesus or by Jesus himself. See BAGD, 42; Bultmann, “ἀλήθεια,” TDNT I.238-251. BDAG, 42. See also Dodd, Interpretation, 170-171. See, for instance, de la Potterie, “The Truth in Saint John,” 67-82, where it is rightly explained that the Johannine idea of truth is not in line with this philosophy. See also Maier, “Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit,” 9-23; Kirchschläger, “‘Ich bin der Weg,” 123147. See Jepsen, “‫אמת‬,” TDOT I.310; Quell, “ἀλήθεια,” TDNT I.232-237.

238

CHAPTER 5

According to Dodd, “ἀλήθεια is fundamentally an intellectual category; ‫אמת‬, a moral category”. Also ‫ אמת‬is translated in the Scriptures mainly by three terms: ἀλήθεια, πίστις and δικαιοσύνη.199 It also denotes Yahweh in the OT, with an emphasis on his truth as compared to other, false gods. Hence Yahweh is reliable, faithful and like a rock (cf. 2 Sam 7:28; Ps 132:11; 146:6; Jer 10:10). In addition to this, the OT employs the term to denote the words of Yahweh, which functions as revelation. ‫אמת‬ is used on several occasions with ‫ חסד‬to denote true love, forgiveness and mercy.200 ‫ אמת‬is also used in an eschatological sense. Thus in the OT, ἀλήθεια and its closest Hebrew equivalents are used mainly to denote God and how He relates with His people through His actions of love, truth, mercy, forgiveness and revelation. In sum, then, the term concerns God and His true nature. The term ἀλήθεια seldom occurs in the Synoptics. In John, by contrast, it is used frequently. In the Synoptics, it is employed by Jesus and others mainly in its literal meaning, that is, to assert that what is spoken by or discerned in a person is right or reliable. In Paul, ἀλήθεια is used mainly to denote the truth revealed of God (cf. ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). In the gospel of John, the term ἀλήθεια is used on several occasions.201 There are references to the Father who is truth and to His actions of truth (for instance in 17:17 – ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν). The term is also closely connected with Jesus and his actions, as in the statement that Jesus speaks the truth which he learned from the Father (cf. 8:40, 45, 46; 16:7 – τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) and bears witness to the truth (cf. 18:37 – μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθεία). In a similar vein, Jesus is depicted as the Truth (cf. 1:14, 17 – πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας, 14:6 – ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια 199 200 201

See Dodd, The Interpretation, 176; de la Potterie, “The Truth in Saint John,” 67-82. See Aalen, “‘Truth’ a Key Word in St. John’s Gospel,” 6-23. Cf. Mt 22:16; Mk 5:33; 12:14, 32; Lk 4:25; 16:11; 20:21; 22:59; Acts 4:27; 10:34; 26:25). Jn 1:9, 14, 17; 3:21, 33; 4:18, 23, 24, 37; 5:31, 32,33; 6:32; 7:18, 28; 8:13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 32, 40, 44-46; 10:41; 14:6, 17; 15:1, 26; 16:7, 13; 17:3, 17, 19; 18:37-38; 19:35; Gal 2:5, 14; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5. The Johannine vocabulary ἀλήθεια and its meaning and implications have been a subject of detailed analysis for over 100 years. There are mainly two types of explanations for John’s use of ἀλήθεια in modern scholarship. Scholars such as Büchsel, Lightfoot, Schulz and Schweizer argue that the meaning and implications of ἀλήθεια concern Hellenistic syncretism. See Büchsel, Johannes; Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel; Schulz, Komposition; Schweizer, Ego Eimi. Some other scholars, such as Dodd, Historical Traditions, 310-312, and Barrett, “The Theological Vocabulary,” 50-64, hold that it is influenced by Platonic and Hermetic literature.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

239

καὶ ἡ ζωή).202 There are also references to the Spirit of truth (cf. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 – τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας). These are indeed the only three occasions in the gospel of John where πνεῦμα and ἀλήθεια are used together in a single expression.203 Finally, use of the term ἀλήθεια concerns human persons, i.e., the responses given to the truth by human persons. They do this by doing (cf. 3:21; 4:23), witnessing (cf. 5:33; 19:35), knowing (cf.8:32) and enquiring/asking (cf.18:38).204 In this respect, one 202

203

204

A majority of scholars explain that πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας is rooted in the MT expression ‫( ורב חסד ואמת‬cf. Exod 34:6). See Barrett, John, 167, Lindars, John, 95; Westcott, John, 13, 245; Koester, The Dwelling of God, 104. Scholars like Hanson, “John 14:18 and Exodus 34,” 90-101 and de la Potterie, La Vérité, 129-150, review the literature on this issue and, further, make a detailed analysis explains that the Johannine expression concerning truth in 1:14, 17 has a solid ground in the MT. Segovia, “John 1:1-18,” 47, affirms that 1:14 conveys the identity of the word that God reveals with His word in the human person (Jesus). Similar to Jn 14:6 in the LXX, we find the expression ‘the way of truth’ (for instance in Ps 118:30 – ὁδὸν ἀληθείας and Wis 5:6). In the Synoptic gospels, the expression employs two of the three terms (ὁδὸς, ἀλήθεια and ζωή) found in Jn 14:6. Cf. τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις – Mt 22:16; see also Mk 12:14; Lk 20:21. See de la Potterie, La vérité dans Saint Jean, 254-255; Koester, Jesus as the Way, 122-133; Schnackenburg, John, 3.64-65, explains that the use of ἡ ὁδὸς, ἡ ἀλήθεια and ἡ ζωή one after another confirms that the terms are being applied to a person. The motif of the divine and human identity of Jesus is depicted in one way or another in the gospel of John through the depiction of the person of Jesus and his actions springing from God the Father. Jn 14:17, depicts the Spirit of truth dwelling in the group/community of believers as the gift of the Father by the request of Jesus. Jesus and his acts in the world are further witnessed to by the Spirit. The Spirit functions to make Jesus’ words and actions actual amidst and within the believers (cf. 15:26; 16:13). See Porsch, Pneuma und Wort, 225; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 350-351. In sum, the expression τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας employed in John implies the action of the Spirit which directs one to the words and actions of the person of Jesus. As the truth of life, the Spirit is active both in individual persons and in communities. Aalen, “‘Truth’ a Key Word,” 6. Blank, Krisis, 106, notes that the expression ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ in v. 23, is one of the occasions in John where πνεῦμα and ἀληθεία are used together to denote the actions of human persons toward God. In 3:21, what John depicts is usually interpreted in a moral sense; however, there is no term that concerns law employed. Instead, ἀληθεία gives this implication. That is, this verse is about the human persons who perform the truth and come to the light. [ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν in 3:21 is used in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus (3:1-21)]. In the OT, God performs ἀληθεία for his people (for instance, Gen 32:10) or a human person who does what is true is said to be trustworthy and faithful (for instance, Tob 4:6; 13:6). Scholars like Schnackenburg, John, 1.407-408 and Smith, John, 100, discuss a similar theme found in the Qumran documents (cf. Rule of the Community). de la Potterie, La Vérité dans Saint Jean, 492-496 discusses the possible backgrounds of this expression in 3:21. One can see that ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (3:21) points to the fundamental decision of a human person concerning how to live and act. μεμαρτύρηκεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ employs ἀληθεία together with the term μαρτυρέω, a Johannine vocabulary. In 5:33, this expression refers mainly to the

240

CHAPTER 5

can deduce mainly a fourfold employment of the term ἀλήθεια: first it refers to the Father and to His actions, second to Jesus and to his works and thirdly, the expression of the Spirit of truth, and finally to human persons’ response to the truth in terms of asking what or who the truth is (knowing), realizing it through their actions (doing, witnessing), and worshipping. As noted above, one of the several meanings of ‫ אמת‬is reflected in the use of ἀληθείᾳ in John: the Johannine term ἀληθείᾳ does not carry a strict meaning in the Greek literature, but reflects the meanings of its closest Hebrew equivalents in the MT as well.205 In light of the above discussion, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ in v. 24 can mean true worship, knowing the true nature of God and leaving aside false gods or false understandings of God. As Dodd, Temple and Murray explain, this worship would be intelligent, sincere, freed from the dangers of superstition and hypocrisy.206 In light of the above analysis of the meaning, the uses and implications of ἀλήθεια we can discern who genuinely knows the truth: it is God the Father Himself, Jesus and the Spirit who in fact perform salvific actions throughout the human history both through communities and through individuals. Knowing this, one can respond to the truth both as an individual person and/or as a community in the worship of God. In such worship, there can be no reservation for any special group of people or for identifying any specific religious-political, socio-cultural background as the right one, over against others (cf. the issues between the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται concerning the right place of worship). Worship rather

205

206

person and mission of Jesus though it relates to John and his mission as well. ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία in 19:35 refers to the witness at the sight of crucifixion and death of Jesus that the evangelist gives such a reliable and trustworthy backup for his depictions in John. Scholars find that true witnessing given to Jesus and his actions (cf. 5:33; 19:35) is depicted in John by the Spirit through various implicit depictions (cf. 1:19-28, 31, 35-42; 14:14, 16-17; 16:7-11; 21:24). In 8:31, ἀληθεία is used as a response to the words of Jesus, more precisely, to express a serious commitment to follow his words and actions as his true disciples (cf. ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε). In 18:38, τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια is a question raised by Pilate in response to Jesus’ explanation of his life and actions as having been a witness to the truth, μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθεία (18:37). Scholars like Salier, The Rhetorical Impact, 159; Senior, The Passion of Jesus, 83; Jojko, Worshipping the Father, 46, find that this question of Pilate, ‘what is truth’, in this context reaffirms the serious commitment to follow truth as one’s life decision; precisely following Jesus, who carries out his life as a mission of God the Father through the Spirit. This question invites the reader of John to search for the truth and follow it/ him. See Torrance, “One Aspect of the Biblical Concept of Faith,” 114; Barr, Biblical Language, 196-197. See Dodd, The Interpretation, 170-171; Temple, Readings, 64-64; Murray, Jesus, 112.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

241

must be a true response of humans toward the salvific actions of God. As we have noted above, the tension between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται concerning who/what/which is right is resolved by true worship: ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν vv. 23, 24). That is, worshipping in spirit and in truth (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ) is nothing but the genuine, sincere and true way for human persons to relate to God the Father in response to His salvific actions in every dimension of their lives. The phrase ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ is used twice in vv. 23-24, and this style of repetition signifies its special importance.207 In light of the previous discussions, it is clear that this expression refers to the human person’s action of worship and that δεῖ προσκυνεῖν implies the need to worship in spirit and in truth; as Robertson remarks, δεῖ indicates the present necessity.208 Brown affirms that Jesus is not contrasting external worship with internal forms. Brant proposes a theological interpretation of vv. 23-24: namely, that ‘“God [is] spirit”. God is not a physical being, that is, and has no need of a physical building for worship; “it is necessary for those worshipping him [as spirit] to worship in spirit and truth”.209 Bultmann concludes his discussion of vv. 20-24 with the claim that “[t]here can be no true relationship between man and God unless it first be grounded in God’s relationship with man. Any attempt by man to establish such a relationship remains within the sphere of human works from which God is unattainable”.210 As Magen rightly notes, “[t]he main dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews concerned the chosen place and the location of the temple, whether in Jerusalem or at Mt. Gerizim.”211 Jesus challenges the traditions of both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, calling for a “higher level of worship which transcends the particularities such as geography, politics and ethnicity”.212 Frey explains that Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman addresses this core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and that his proclamation of a new worship of God in spirit and truth resolves the dispute over the two places of worship, enabling the issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται to be overcome. “Der ‘Streit der Parteien’ wird insofern von Jesus selbst überwunden und 207

208 209

210

211 212

See Bernard, John, 1.118, 149-150; Culpepper, Anatomy, 87; Van Belle, Repetitions and Variations, 168-169. Robertson, Grammar, 919. Brant, John, 86. Brown, John, 1.172, notes that the Johannine Jesus sees an antithesis between ignorance and knowledge. Bultmann, John, 191-192, recalls the reference in Rev 21:22, that there will no longer be any temple. ἀλήθεια can imply that “all other worship is untrue”. Magen, “The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan,” 66. Keener, John, 611.

242

CHAPTER 5

gerade darin erweist er sich als derjenige, der die eschatologische Erfüllung nicht nur ankündigt, sondern selbst verkörpert.”213 That is, in this context Jesus’ explanations regarding the right place of worship, viz., neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem but in spirit and truth, functions as the overcoming of the dispute between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.214 Though “[Jesus] announces the impending obsolescence of both the Jerusalem temple and the mount Gerizim site as definitive places of worship (v. 21) […] he insists the salvation springs from the Jews and not the Samaritans (v. 22)”.215 Finally, however, in a positive way he “forever renders obsolete the conflicting claims of Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim (vv. 23-24)”.216 Our analysis has shown that vv. 20-24 form a closely knit unity presenting the theme of worship, which includes the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and a systematic presentation of how to resolve this issue. The essential components of the proposed solution are true worship, which is in spirit and truth, and the true worshippers’ seeking of God the Father. We have seen that the term ἀληθείᾳ has two meanings, viz., the person of Jesus and the actions of God. Thus, in a nutshell, the solution to the core issue between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται concerning the right place of worship is resolved by means of true worship of the Father God by Jesus and the Spirit. It is the initiative and action of the Father to himself seek out such true worshippers that implies that Jesus’ mission in Samaria is a theological necessity (v. 4), accomplished as per the will and work of the Father (v. 34). True worshippers worship the Father in Spirit and truth. We have already briefly discussed the term προσκυνέω, which is very frequent in vv. 20-24. It appears in every verse of this subsection, a total of nine times, and its cognate noun προσκυνητής, employed in v. 23, is found nowhere else in the NT. Also we noticed that the dialogue moves from the question of the right place of worship (ὁ τόπος) to worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. That is, “[w]orship is no longer dependent on geography (or any other moral distinctions), but rather is to take place ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ”.217 Through the negation of past forms 213 214

215 216 217

Frey, “Gute Samaritaner, 228-229. Förster, “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42),” 215, notes that “In diesem Kontext kann die Anbetung in ,Geist und Wahrheit‘ (Joh 4.24) anstelle ,auf diesem Berg oder in Jerusalem‘ (Joh 4:21) als Überwindung des Streits zwischen Juden und Samaritanern um den rechten Ort der Anbetung gewertet werden”. Carson, John, 222. Carson, John, 222. Lee, “In Spirit of Truth,” 280. A similar expression, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, is employed in the farewell discourse of Jesus (cf. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13).

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

243

of worship, therefore, which were centered on specific places, and by mentioning the coming of the hour when human persons (neither as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι nor as Samaritans, but just as human persons) will worship in Spirit and truth, Jesus points to the lost unity of the community of human persons.218 In light of the preceding discussions, we may summarize the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 21-26 as follows. Claims made by οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται to possess the right place of worship chosen by God are no longer relevant; both claims miss the real kernel of worship (cf. προσκυνέω). Jesus adds that προσκυνέω is the mode of relation between (worshipping) true worshippers (οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί) and the Father. ὁ πατήρ is not concerned about who possesses the right place of worship, but looks for who worships in Spirit and truth, for He Himself is Spirit. Moreover, we have discussed in the first part of this chapter the meaning and implications of the term προσκυνέω, and concluded our examination as follows: the essence of worship (cf. προσκυνέω) in the SP, MT, LXX and the NT points to the human person’s relationship with God and vice versa.219 Thus, the Scriptures urge human persons to relate with God through προσκυνέω, and the dispute over the right place of worship is in fact a deviation from the proper object of concern, which is having the right relationship with God. Thus Jesus’ explanation of true worship makes the Samaritan woman tell him right away about the Samaritan expectation of the one who is coming, Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός who will teach them everything. In vv. 25 and 26, the dialogue culminates and concludes. In what follows, we examine the culminating verses of the dialogue vv. 25-26. 3. Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός The term Μεσσίας is used only twice in the NT, both times in the gospel of John (1:41; 4:25). The fact that this term Μεσσίας is found nowhere else in the NT has led to some debates over where John gets this term from. Expressing the view of the majority of scholars, de Jonge and Casey claim that the term Messiah was not current during the period of pre-70 CE 218 219

Lee, “In Spirit of Truth,” 281. See Chapter 5, section 1.1.

244

CHAPTER 5

and that John’s use of this term is unhistorical.220 This claim, however, is challenged by Bauckham, who posits a three-fold explanation of the evidence concerning this expression, that was used to denote the anointed one (Messiah). He finds evidence of the use of “Anointed One” in Hebrew and Aramaic and of its translation into other languages.221 In light of references to a specific eschatological figure in the literature of early Judaism, he argues that de Jonge and Casey “unjustifiably ignore the use of the Messiah” in the period prior to 70 CE. His point of departure in defending this claim is the reference to the messiah in 1 QSa 2.1114. He also cites allusions to the royal Messiah in Ps 2:2,7. 1 QSa 2.12 employs the phrase to denote “the Anointed one of Israel,” and this, Bauckham argues, implies “the currency of the abbreviated form”. He adds: “At Qumran, however, ‘the anointed one’ could designate both the eschatological high priest and the eschatological ruler”. A phrase such as “the Anointed One of Israel” presupposes that the phrase “the Anointed One” can be used as shorter reference to “the Lord’s Anointed One.” The fact that the fuller phrase “the Anointed One of Israel” at Qumran actually presuppose the abbreviated one, makes it easier to understand the fact that the abbreviated form actually appears only once in the Qumran texts (1QSa 2.12)” […].222 But we should not suppose that the same potential for ambiguity would have made popular the use of the term “the Anointed One” problematic outside of Qumran. We have no clear evidence that the eschatological prophet was ever called “the Anointed One”‘. In light of the above explorations, Bauckham concludes that “we 220

221

222

de Jonge, “‘Anointed’ in the Time of Jesus,” 132-148; de Jonge, “The Earliest Christian Use,” 110-114. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 54-57. Cf. 1 Sam 2:10; Ps. 2:2; 132:10; Ps. Sol. 18: title, 5, 7; 1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4; 2 Bar. 39:7; 40:1; 72:2; 1 QS 9.11; CD 12.23-13.1; 19.10; 4 Q266 10.1.12; 1 QSa 2.14, 20; 4 Q382 16.2; 4 Q521 2.2.1. Bauckham notes that “4Q252 5.3, where the text continues: ‘the Branch of David.’ 11QMelch 2.18 refers to ‘the Anointed One of the Spirit.’ This corresponds to the use of the plural form ‘the anointed ones of his holy Spirit’ (CD 2.12) to refer to the prophets. In 11QMelch ‘the Anointed One of the Spirit’ is the messenger of Isa 52:7, and seems also to be identified with the ‘anointed one’ of Dan. 9:25 (or perhaps Dan. 9:26) and with the anointed figure who speaks in Isa 61:1. The functions of this figure seem to indicate a prophet but it is possible that he is the royal Messiah”. Bauckham explains further that “1QSa 2.12; 2 Bar. 29:3; 30:1; 4 Ezra 12:32; cf. 2 Bar. 70:9 (‘my servant the Anointed One’); 4 Ezra 7:29 (probably the original text was ‘my servant the Anointed One’). I omit Ps.Sol. 17:32, where the Greek and Syriac versions both speak of ‘the Lord Messiah’ or ‘the Messiah the Lord’ (Greek: χριστός κύριος), but many scholars suspect the original had ‘the Lord’s Messiah’”. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 56. See also, Laato, Star, 312. Horbury, Jewish, 9-11. Dalman, The Words, 290.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

245

do not need to suppose that the absolute use of ‘the Messiah’ would only have become unambiguous after A.D. 70”.223 Thus, we see that in the literature of pre-70 CE, there are very many different ways of referring to “the royal Messiah” and or simply “the Messiah”. Further important evidence relevant to our discussion is found in the NT depictions of this theme, both in the Synoptic Gospels and also in John, where the term is employed twice. In light of this, we agree with Bauckham that the term “Messiah” seems to have become “more standard in colloquial use” in pre-70 CE period.224 We do not intend to engage in scholarly debates concerning the messianic expectations of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the second temple period. It is evident that such ideas or themes are depicted in John as a means to explain his theology, Christology, etc.225 Moreover, our own aim here is to understand why the Samaritan woman speaks to Jesus about the Samaritans’ expectation in 4:25 οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. On both occasions when the term Μεσσίας is found in John’s gospel (1:41; 4:25), the evangelist mentions χριστός as its equivalent. In addition, the immediate context of its first occurrence, viz. Jn 1, concerns issues raised by priests and Levites about the identity of John. In his reply, John denies that he is either Elijah or the prophet or χριστός, holding instead that he is just the one who has been sent to prepare the way for ὁ κύριος. In the further portrayal of the words and actions of John in the fourth gospel, we learn that Jesus is the one for whom he is sent to prepare the way (in chapters one and three). In addition, in response to Jesus’ words and actions, people identify him as a/the Prophet and/or ὁ χριστός (e.g. in 1:21, 25; 4:19, 44; 7:40-41). In light of this, in what follows, we examine briefly the meaning and implications of the term Μεσσίας. Our point of departure will be the alternatives used to denote Jesus, namely a/ the Prophet and/or ὁ χριστός, which are used in the immediate context of the employment of the term Μεσσίας (1:41; 4:19, 25). 223 224

225

Bauckham, “Messianism,” 56-57. Cf. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 57. It is to be noted that although there have been several disputes and disagreements among scholars concerning whether a continuous tradition of Davidic messianism prevailed from the post-exilic to the Roman period, it is undisputed that there was a widespread hope in this period for a new David who would come to liberate the people from the Roman invasion. This hope in one way or other points to the expectation of the Messiah. For instance, see de Jonge, “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’,” 77-116. De Jonge wants that one has to firstly“investigate how these references to Jewish beliefs function in the setting in which they occur, and within the Gospel as a whole” before proceeding further. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 34-68, has recently made a detailed analysis of the implications and issues of the depiction of Messianism.

246

CHAPTER 5

The first use of the term χριστός/ Μεσσίας (1:20, 25, 41) is found in 1:19 ff.226 In the context of this passage, such prophetic figures are linked to the return of the prophet Elijah and the prophet like Moses who is to come. In 1:19ff, the priests and Levites ask John who he is: is he the Messiah, a prophet, or the prophet?227 As Bauckham notes, the broader context of the gospel of John “seems to indicate that [this gospel] focused on either the Davidic Messiah or on the eschatological prophet (or both)”.228 In light of the questions asked by the interrogators in 1:19, 20 and 25, Van Belle agrees with Cho that ‘the addition of the names “Elijah” and “the prophet” as part of the same question reflects variety in Jewish messianic expectation’”.229 In John, there is no mention of Elijah other than in 1:25, and in the following parts of the narrative Jesus is identified mainly as the prophet and/or the Messiah. In 4:19, we have seen that the Samaritan woman acknowledges Jesus as a/the prophet.230 In what follows, therefore, we focus our attention on the figures of the prophet who is like Moses and the Davidic Messiah. Scholars have focused on several passages in John in developing accounts of how the figures of προφήτης and Μεσσίας are assimilated.231 226

227

228

229 230 231

These three figures are denied by John when he is questioned by the priests and Levites (cf. 1:19ff). Faced with John’s denial, the priests and Levites ask him, “why then are you [John] baptizing if you are neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” (v. 25). John’s further explanations (for instance, his pointing to the one who is coming after him (v. 27) and the events that follow) make it clear that the answer to this question is Jesus. However, Bauckham emphasizes that expectations of three different eschatological figures are found nowhere in the gospel of John. See Van der Woude, “Le Maître de justice et les deux Messies,” 121-134, who argues that Jn 1:19-21 presents the Qumran expectation of three prophetic figures: the Messiah, Elijah and the prophet like Moses. Brown, John, 1.50, argues on the same grounds that the Qumran community “insisted on a priesthood of pure Zadokite lineage” and hence, had no room for the expectation of Elijah, since there is no indication that he belongs to the Zadokite lineage. Bauckham finds that “this is not a cognizant objection” and that on various grounds the possibility that Elijah belongs to the Zadokite lineage cannot be ruled out. However, the issue at stake does not concern the expectations of the Qumran community. Bauckham affirms that “the ideal constitution of Israel required all three”. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 39-40. This is evident, he argues, in the depictions of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 40. See also our discussions in the previous chapter that concern this issue both explicitly and implicitly. Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 172; Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 262. See the discussions on v. 19 in the previous chapter. In the previous section, we have found that the expectation of the Messiah has roots in Gen 49:9-10 (also Num 24:17) about the one who comes from Judah. We would also note further, in light of scholarship, that v. 22 is an allusion to the OT in that it concerns in general all the promises in the OT and those in Isa 2:1-5 in particular. We will not consider in detail the references to the prophet in the other literature of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι,

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

247

Scholars such as Cho and Van Belle explain that the title προφήτης is connected with Jesus not only implicitly but also explicitly (cf. 1:21, 25; 4:19, 44; 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17).232 In light of 9:28-29, Martyn remarks that “we must consider the possibility that the figure of Moses plays an important role”.233 Yet as Bauckham notes, “Jewish Messianism was not so much a tradition of ideas as a tradition of exegesis, and in all Jewish exegesis much depended on recognizing links between one passage and another”.234 He affirms that in the broader context of the gospel of John, and in the immediate context of Jn 1, the term ‘Messiah’ points to the Davidic Messiah. He argues further that “the fourth gospel consistently distinguishes between the Messiah and the prophetic figures”.235 Yet here Bauckham is not discussing the aspects of the Samaritans messianic expectations, though these expectations, he notes, are “certainly relevant to the fourth gospel (4:25-26,29)”. 236 De Ruyter and Van Belle go further and convincingly explain that Jesus, in John, is depicted “as the Mosaic prophet and the son of David [and that these terms] are essentially interchangeable for the evangelist”.237 Cho notes an overlap in the titles prophet, king, Messiah and Son of God on several occasions (cf. 1:9, 15, 27; 3:31; 6:14; 11:27; 12; 13).238 It is to be noted that in Matthew (11;14; 17:10, 12; 27:49) and Mark (9:12-13; 15:35) the coming of the Messiah and the return of Elijah are portrayed as consecutive.239 In light of references such as 4:25; 7:27, 31, 41, 42 and 11:27, Menken explains further that “John is the only New Testament author to speak of the ‘coming’ (ἔρχεσθαι) of the Messiah”.240 In the light of this brief discussion, we can see that the terms prophet and Μεσσίας are used interchangeably to denote Jesus, not only in the broader context of John but also in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode and specifically in words of the Samaritan woman (vv. 19, 25).

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

240

such as Qumran scrolls, Josephus and Pseudepigrapha, since our specific focus is on the term Messiah. See Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 262; Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 172. Martyn, History and Theology, 99. See also Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 170. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 65. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 36. Bauckham, “Messianism,” 36. See de Ruyter, Die Gemeinde, 51-56; Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,”170. See Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 263-264; Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 173-174. In addition to this, Matthew and Luke place the expression σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος on the lips of John the Baptist, in depicting his expression of doubts concerning the identity of Jesus (Mt 11:3; Lk 17:19-20). See Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 174. Menken, Old Testament Quotations, 17. Cf. See also Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 174.

248

CHAPTER 5

In the following, we analyse the implications of the term χριστός, which is used as an equivalent to Μεσσίας. In John, χριστός occurs nineteen times and is used with the article except in four places (1:17, 41; 4:25; 17:3).241 As noted, the term Μεσσίας is used only in two places (1:41 and 4:25) and in both cases χριστός is used as an alternative term for Μεσσίας.242 The first is proclaimed by Andrew, who belongs to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Μεσσίας, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός in 1:41) and the second is by the Samaritan woman (Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός in 4:25). In response to the Samaritan woman’s query, Jesus reveals himself as ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (4:26). In 7:40-41, some people understand him as the prophet, while others affirm that he must be the Messiah/Christ. Van Belle agrees with Cho that, in John, “it is clear that the title prophet and Christ are interchangeable”.243 In addition to the reference in 1:19ff, the reference in the context of the Samaritan episode 4:19, 25-26 is an instance where “the Samaritan woman identifies Jesus as the one who will come at the end of times and thus uses the term ‘Messiah’ to distinguish Jesus, but before this she had recognized him as a prophet” (4:19, 25-26).244 Bauckham finds that “[j]ust as the Gospel of John is often more precise and detailed than the Synoptics in such factual matters as geography and chronology, so also […] its portrayal of Jewish ‘messianic’ expectations in the time of Jesus is on the whole more precise and detailed”.245 Van Belle adds that “[i]n fact, ‘both designations [Prophet and Messiah] are correlated to each other for identifying the expected eschatological figure.’”246 241

242

243 244

245

246

Ἰησοῦς and χριστός are used together in 1:17 and 17:3. It is to be noted that the term χριστός is placed on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, and that in John this term is uttered only once by Jesus (17:3). Μεσσίας means literally “the anointed one” and is explained as the Hellenized transliteration of ‫( ָמ ִשׁ ַיח‬Hebrew, [Aramaic – ‫יחא‬ ָ ‫)]מ ִשׁ‬, ְ which would mean the same. Charlesworth, The Messiah, Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity 92; BDAG, 635. See Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 172. See also Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 93. Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 170-172; Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 93, 262. They find, in light of 1:41, 11:27 and 20:31 that “it appears that in the Fourth Gospel the title χριστός is not only used as a criterion of identity, but also from a confessional standpoint as a statement of faith”. Cho also explains that the title Messiah, the anointed one, was used to denote the prophets (cf. Isa 61:1) and the kings, who was appointed by God (cf. 1 Sam 12:3 (Saul); 2 Sam 19:22 (David), and Lev 4:3, 5, 16 (priests). Bauckham, “Messianism,” 34-35. See Sanday, The Fourth Gospel, 124: “[t]here is no stronger proof of the genuineness and of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel than the way in which it reflects the current Messianic idea”. Van Belle, “The Signs of the Messiah,” 169. Van Belle explains that “[d]e Jonge is correct in his observation that the evangelist draws a clear distinction between prophet and Messiah, but this does not mean as S. Cho claims that ‘the terms “Messiah” and

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

249

Jesus is thus presented as Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός by a Σαμαρῖτις as the Samaritan expectation (cf. ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα). This is confirmed by a Ἰουδαῖος in personal testimony (cf. ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι). In other words, Jesus affirms that the Μεσσίας or ὁ χριστός who is coming to the Samaritans to impart true knowledge is he himself.247 Hence, in light of our above discussions, we may deduce that the terms Μεσσίας and ὁ χριστός in vv. 25-26 indicate the fulfillment of the promise about the one who will come from Judah (Gen 49:8-10), the prophet who is like Moses (Deut 18:15-19), and the Davidic Messiah248. On both occasions, Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός refers directly to Jesus. In the first instance these terms present him as the fulfillment of the messianic expectations of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (1:41); in the second, Jesus himself proclaims that he is the Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός who, according to the Samaritans, will come to teach them the whole truth (and not a partial truth, cf. ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα). In sum, among the two uses of Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός, one is placed on the lips of a Ἰουδαῖος (1:41) while the other is spoken by a Σαμαρῖτις (4:25) and is underlined by Jesus himself: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. In these passages we find the claim, therefore, that Jesus is the realization of the messianic expectation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as well as οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Thus, following the narrative line of 1:19 ff (1:41) and 4:19ff (1:25-26) we deduce that Jesus is the Messiah of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and also the Messiah of οἱ Σαμαρῖται.

4. REACHING CONVERGENCE It is evident from our discussions above that although many scholars have discussed Jn 4:25-26 in relation to the Messianic expectation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, few have considered the Samaritan expectation. This may be due to the scarcity of Samaritan sources from the period prior to the common era and the NT period. It remains for us here, therefore, to examine the issues at stake in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode.

247

248

“prophet” are not at all closely related to each other in John’s Gospel’”. See also de Jonge, “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’”, 77-116; Cho, Jesus as Prophet, 271. The point of departure of the reinitiated dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in vv. 10ff is the pursuit of true knowledge which points to the fact that the dialogue culminates at the right point. We have seen that this idea lingers throughout the Hebrew Scripture, mainly in books other than the Pentateuch. See for instance 1 Sam 24:7, 11; 2 Sam 7:12-16; 19:22; 22:51; 23:1-3, 5; Ps 2:2; 20:7; 28:8; 84:10; 2 Chr 6:42; Isa 9:6; 11:1ff; 45:1; Hab 3:3.

250

CHAPTER 5

Jesus’ immediate/instantaneous response to the Samaritan woman’s reference to the Samaritans’ messianic expectation, ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι, is clear evidence that Jesus and the woman do find some common ground. Verses 25-26 clearly depict the convergence of the encounter to a single point, as both dialogue partners come to a yes concerning the Messianic expectation and the matter of the identity of the Messiah. The evangelist skillfully brings this long dialogue to a culmination in the selfidentification of Jesus as the Messiah, ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. This is an expression used in both the OT and NT on several occasions. In the Synoptic gospels, ἐγώ εἰμι is used less frequently than in the gospel of John (viz., it appears five times in Matthew, three times in Mark and four times in Luke, whereas it appears thirty times in John’s gospel). This statistics points to the evangelist’s unique way of depicting the identity of Jesus and he does so through the words of Jesus himself. We will not here undertake a detailed investigation of all thirty of these occurrences; rather, we will briefly examine the occurrence of ἐγώ εἰμι in 4:26. The expression ἐγώ εἰμι is found very many times in the LXX.249 The term is employed in all five books of the Pentateuch, except the Book of Numbers. Hence, we can see that both οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται would have been able to understand what ἐγώ εἰμι points to. Since we have no pre-medieval sources to understand the Samaritans’ expectation concerning the Messiah, it is best that we approach this formulation of the Samaritan woman in light of the subsequent response of the Samaritans. In 4:29, in sharing her experience at Jacob’s well with her fellow Samaritans, the woman invites them to come and see the human person himself (cf. ἄνθρωπος) who εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα. She also adds a statement, in a question form, concerning who this human person is, saying μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; (v. 29). It is interesting to note, here, that her words do not leave any room to depict Jesus as a Ἰουδαῖος (cf. v. 9, where she identifies him as Ἰουδαῖος) and presents him as ἄνθρωπος before her fellow Samaritans (v. 29). She uses both the terms ἄνθρωπος and Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός. But the impact of her testimony in this respect is vast: all her listeners follow her to meet Jesus (v. 30; they acknowledge 249

This includes scholars like Bernard, John, 1.151; Lincoln, John, 178; Keener, John, 60; Coloe, God Dwells, 102; Wheaton, The Role of Jewish Feasts, 73, explain the meaning of ἐγώ εἰμι in Jn 4:26 in light of two sayings in Isaiah. Isaiah depicts God’s self explanations that He is the one who speaks righteousness and proclaims the truth, and in Isa 52:6 ἐγώ εἰμι is employed is to depict God’s promise of a day when people will know His name. Wheaton adds further that with this “marvelously compact expression [ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι], Jesus simultaneously appropriates to himself the title Messiah and transcends it”.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

251

that they were motivated by the Samaritan woman’s words and that these words are understood clearly when they meet Jesus (vv. 39-42), such that they proclaim Jesus to be ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42).250 From this brief overview, we deduce the following: that the terms Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός are not depicted as having a particular religiouspolitical identity. In the following sections, the term Ἰουδαῖος is not employed by the Samaritans and instead they speak of ἄνθρωπος and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. That is, we would propose that the Samaritans identify Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός as the one who is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. In the following, we make a brief overview of how scholars explain ἅπαντα/ πάντα (vv. 25, 29). According to Schapdick, ἅπαντα in v. 25 characterizes the proclamation of ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42.251 Keener, in light of the references in 1:45 and 4:25-26, explains that Jesus the Messiah’s mission as bringer of salvation is to transcend all such boundaries and thus transform all human persons into those who are born from above.252 In a similar vein, Lindars recalls the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scripture to highlight how they relate to the theme of Salvation.253 According to Carson, “the syntax of the Greek allows the translation ‘I can see that you are the prophet’” (κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ, v. 19). Explaining further the implications of προφήτης in light of the immediate context, the religious-cultural background of the Samaritans, and Deut 34:10, he explains: “Because the Samaritans accepted only the books of the Pentateuch as canonical […] they understood the words of Deuteronomy 34:10, ‘no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face’, to be absolute and in force until the coming of the prophet like Moses (Dt. 18:15–19; cf. notes on 1:21)254, the second Moses […]. If there cannot be another prophet between the first Moses and the second Moses, then to call Jesus ‘prophet’ is virtually to call him ‘the prophet’. However, in view of v. 25 it is unlikely that the Samaritan woman in v. 19 is making so clear a confession. The word ‘prophet’ was 250 251

252 253 254

See our discussions in chapter 7, of vv. 28-30, 39-42. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 257. Bieringer, “The Spirit is Guidance into all Truth,” 208, explains that according to the evangelist, “the task of revealing ἀλήθεια πᾶσα cannot be achieved by the earthily Jesus alone” (cf. Jn 16:3). He adds that Jesus and the πνεῦμα together accomplish this task, pointing to “what the Samaritan woman in 4,25 gives as the sign of Messiah: ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα”. Keener, John, 610-611. Lindars, John, 188. Carson, John, 143, refers to Jn 1:21, where οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας questions John the Baptist: “the promise of such a prophet was not fulfilled in himself: He answered, ‘No’”.

252

CHAPTER 5

used to refer to a wide range of ‘gifted’ people, and at this point may not, in the woman’s mind, denote a full-orbed Old Testament prophet, let alone a messianic figure”.255 In the following, we briefly review our discussions so far of the preceding parts of the Samaritan episode that shed light on or point to the content of vv. 25-26 and thus synthesize our analysis of vv. 25-26, where the culmination of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is presented. We have found that in vv. 7-9, Jesus asks for water from the Samaritan woman and she denies it. This is further explained as a strong negation of relationship by the parenthesis of the evangelist (cf. οὐ συγχράομαι in v. 9), and therefore Jesus reinitiates the conversation by offering her the gift of God (τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ) in v. 10. In the Samaritan episode, οἶδα is employed first in v. 10, where Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to have right knowledge. In other words, he prompts her to know rightly (cf. οἶδα) what the gift of God is as well as the right knowledge about the one who asks her to gain this knowledge, namely, Jesus himself (cf. τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, v. 10). It is interesting to note that οἶδα and ὁ λέγων σοι occur again at the culmination of the dialogue. In v. 10, these two are found on the lips of Jesus, and in vv. 25-26 the former is uttered by the Samaritan woman and the latter by Jesus. ᾔδεις (in the pluperfect indicative active) is used in v. 10, whereas we have οἶδα (in the perfect indicative active) in v. 25. The third person present indicative active (ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι) in v. 10 has thus changed, in v. 26, to the first person present active (ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι). One can see that the expression of the one who is speaking forms an inclusion, within which the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is depicted. On two occasions, Jesus tells her the unvarnished truth or shares with her true knowledge concerning her personal/private life (concerning her husband/s in vv. 16 and 18), then speaks truth about her community (the issue of worship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in vv. 22-24). One can argue that these statement of Jesus may not have been appealing to the Samaritan woman in the first instance. Yet these seemingly negative statements stimulate the woman first to recognize 255

Carson, John, 218. Bernard, John, 1.150, remarks that “[l]ittle is known about the Messianic doctrine of the Samaritans, but that they cherished Messianic hopes, although less clearly than the Jews did, is known from other sources, Josephus (Ant. XVIII. iv. 1) tells of a rising in Samaria, quelled by Pilate, which was evidently due to a kind of fanaticism, similar to that of Simon Magus in the same district (Acts 8:9) who gave himself out to be “some great one.” The Samaritan woman thought of Messiah as a prophet, like the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:18 (cf. v. 29 below)”. See also, Josephus, Ant., 18.28-30, 63ff., 85-89.

COMING TO A YES: REACHING CONVERGENCE (JOHN 4:20-26)

253

Jesus as a prophet (v. 19) and then to cite the Samaritans’ expectations concerning the Messiah/Christ (οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός in v. 25). We find also that v. 22 serves as a veiled messianic claim. In addition, for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, this knowledge of the promised anointed one who has to spring from their Scriptures, specifically from the Pentateuch (cf. Gen 49:10: the one who would come from Judah, and Deut 18:15, 18: the prophet who is like Moses). Yet despite these differences between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, the two groups now find common ground concerning the words and actions of the Messiah. The woman affirms Jesus’ teaching at least implicitly by telling him about Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός, who will explain everything (cf. ἅπαντα), and Jesus affirms that this awaited figure is himself (that he is Μεσσίας/ ὁ χριστός). Our discussions of the preceding parts of the Samaritan episode (vv. 1-24) have pointed to the Messianic expectations of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται in one way or another, which is openly spoken of by the Samaritan woman in v. 25: οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. Jesus’ response is wholly in agreement with the knowledge shared by her (cf. οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται) that Jesus tells her ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. In other words, unlike in the preceding parts of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, here she proposes a solution to the core issue which she herself opens up before Jesus, and Jesus completely agrees with her. This is the culmination of the dialogue and reflects the successful encounter between the two dialogue partners, for here they come to a converging point in vv. 25-26. In other words, vv. 25-26 depicts a converging common point of both dialogue partners or they come to a yes.

CONCLUSION The point of departure of our analysis in this chapter is the Samaritan woman’s acknowledgement of Jesus as a/the prophet in v. 19. The discussion of vv. 20-26 has clearly shown that the Samaritan woman learned from Jesus more than she could have learned from a prophet. He is thus the prophet (like Moses), the Messiah who is the fulfilment of the promise of the patriarch Jacob; a descendant of Judah who is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures as the Davidic Messiah. The Samaritan woman’s acknowledgement of Jesus as the prophet was therefore not sufficient, because Jesus is not only one of the prophets who explains or teaches about salvation and comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. He is the promised and expected Messiah

254

CHAPTER 5

who has come for all (cf. Μεσσίας […], ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα in v. 25, and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42). This explains why the evangelist places the first reference to the expectation of the Messiah expressed by the Samaritan woman (v. 25), then shows Jesus confirming it (v. 26). That is, the Samaritan woman tells Jesus about the Samaritans’ expectation (οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα (v. 25)), who, to their knowledge, will be a solution to their problems, and Jesus reveals to her that this is no longer an expectation but is realized: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (vv. 25-26). In this light, we can see that the encounter between Jesus and the woman culminates when Jesus confirms that the centuries-long expectation has been realized, and concludes when the disciples return from the city and the Samaritan woman returns to the city (vv. 27ff). Accordingly, the Samaritan mission of Jesus continues to unfold to its culmination. A number of further exchanges are depicted: between Jesus and his disciples in vv. 27, 3138, between the Samaritan woman and her fellow Samaritans in vv. 27-30, and between the two groups, when they come together and stay (μένειν) with each other in Jn 4:39-42. We discuss each of these subsections in the following chapter, where we complete our analysis of the Samaritan mission of Jesus.

PART 3

THE PROTAGONISTS WORKING SIDE BY SIDE: Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι AND οἱ Σαμαρῖται IN JOHN 4:27-42

CHAPTER 6

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO: JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES (JOHN 4:27, 31-38) INTRODUCTION The evangelist skillfully concludes the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in v. 26, at the point where the conversation “has reached its goal in substance”.1 Without any gap or delay, v. 27 reports the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the disciples from the city and v. 28 reports the departing (ἀπέρχομαι) of the Samaritan woman. In this way we are prepared for the next phase of the Samaritan episode.2 Indeed, one may find this concern: in vv. 27-30, the dominant theme is the Samaritan woman’s words and actions, which overflow from her interactions with Jesus (vv. 2830), while the subsequent theme is the disciples’ actions/reactions (v. 27), pointing to the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan woman. At the same time, in one way or another, the main thrust of this section concerns Jesus’ words and actions. However, what is decisive in vv. 27-30 is more than what Jesus has done in terms of words and actions: it is what is said about him on the part of the disciples and the Samaritan woman and what they have done in relating to him, along with the implicit depiction of the response of the people of Sychar, who followed her to meet Jesus.3 Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples in vv. 31-38 is preceded by the Samaritan woman’s interaction with her townspeople and their response. The fruits of the encounter of the Samaritans with Jesus are depicted in vv. 39-42, 1 2

3

Haenchen, John, 1.223. See Haenchen, John, 1.223. In v. 10, where the actual dialogue begins between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, Jesus states that he wants her to have right knowledge of ὁ λέγων σοι. At the culmination of the dialogue in v. 25, he implicitly points to who is ὁ λέγων σοι, and in v. 26 Jesus affirms this saying that ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. He adds that vv. 27-28 connect the conversation with the Samaritan woman and the further developments in the Samaritan episode. In vv. 27-30, the movements and/or decisive actions are depicted using the verbs ἔρχομαι (vv. 27, 30); ἀφίημι (v. 28); ἀπέρχομαι (v. 28) and ἐξέρχομαι (v. 30). See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 248-250.

258

CHAPTER 6

where the episode culminates. That is, from vv. 27ff the episode presents quite different prospects, which is a combination of various sorts of movements and actions which can rightly be called a new phase in the Samaritan episode (vv. 27-42). In a nutshell, the two protagonists are working sideby-side in vv. 27-42, which is the results in the abiding together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (Samaritans from Sychar). Three sets of exchanges are depicted in vv. 27-42: viz., between Jesus and his disciples (vv. 27, 31-38), between the Samaritan woman and her townspeople (vv. 28-30) and the final exchange between these four parties (vv. 39-42). In this chapter we discuss the exchange between Jesus and the disciples in vv. 27, 31-38.4 In the Samaritan episode, Jesus’ disciples are always depicted as a group and they always act collectively (cf. vv. 8, 27, 31, 33).5 In the following, we discuss the words and actions of Jesus’ disciples as depicted in v. 27 and vv. 31-38 upon their return from the city (cf. v. 8). First, we discuss the function of v. 27 in the context of the Samaritan episode, which reports the return of the disciples to Jesus after having gone to buy food in the city. Second, we discuss the dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in vv. 31-38.

1. A TRANSITION (V. 27) After Jesus’ self-revelation in v. 26, the evangelist immediately (in v. 27) announces the arrival of the disciples (cf. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθαν) and thus sets the stage for the subsequent conversation Jesus has with them in vv. 31-38.6 Verse 27 depicts, in a nutshell, the presumptions of the disciples at the sight of Jesus with the Samaritan woman. We examine briefly the meaning and implications of v. 27 in the context of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. Some scholars argue that the arrival of the disciples interrupts the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman,7 whereas others hold that the evangelist depicts the arrival of the disciples at the culmination of the dialogue.8 The immediate reaction/response of the disciples is depicted 4 5 6

7 8

We discuss the remaining two subsections, vv. 28-30 and vv. 39-42, in the next chapter. Cf. vv. 8, 27, 31, 33. As Bultmann, John, 192, rightly notes “[t]he Evangelist is not concerned to round off the narrative as such, but seems content to have covered the essential ground”. See also for instance, Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 251. See Carson, John, 227; Brant, John, 86. See Bultmann, John, 193; Byrne, Life Abounding, 87. Lindars, John, 192, goes even further, stating that “[a]lthough the discourse is finished [in v. 26], the story continues”.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

259

using θαυμάζω in v. 27, which is not a frequently used word in John. θαυμάζω literally means amazement or wonder; specifically, it means “to be extraordinarily impressed or disturbed by something,” and the context determines in which of these senses it is used.9 J. R. Michaels explains that ἐθαύμαζον, used in v. 27, “can have a mildly negative connotation (see 5:20; 7:15), but need not imply that they took offense (as perhaps in 5:28 and 7:21)”.10 The evangelist specifies that the amazement of the disciples is due to Jesus’ talking with a woman (cf. μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει). It is to be noted that there is no adjective used in connection with ‘woman’, viz., Samaritan woman. That is, v. 27 does not specify the socio-religious-cultural identity of the dialogue partners, but rather focuses on their gender difference. This response of Jesus’ disciples may imply that they are unable to understand the intention of Jesus’ actions in this context and location.11 However, elsewhere in the Samaritan episode, we find no other such occasion where gender is differentiated. Bultmann explains that the evangelist’s depiction of the disciples’ return in v. 27 is intended to show that the disciples witness the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman and “emphasize what is so remarkable about it. They are amazed to find Jesus in conversation with a woman, but they do not dare to question him about it”. He adds further that “whether men or women, often to the surprise of his disciples, who cannot understand why it should be this particular man or woman with whom he speaks”.12 9 10

11 12

See BDAG, 444. See also LSJ, #20.246; L&N, #205.213. Michaels, John, 257. The lexeme θαυμάζω is used five times in John (3:7; 4:27; 5:20, 28; 7:15, 21). See also θαυμαστός in 9:30. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 251. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 252. Bultmann, John, 193. At this juncture, we review the first response of the Samaritan woman to Jesus in v. 9 (πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης). There, she is concerned about Jesus’ identity as a Ἰουδαῖος and her own identity as a Σαμαρῖτις. In other words, it reflects mainly, the socio-religious-cultural issues between these two groups, while in v. 27 the evangelist reports about the disciples’ reaction (θαυμάζω) at the sight of Jesus talking with a woman (ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει). ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει denotes any woman with whom Jesus might be talking. See McHugh, John, 289. Some scholars explain the response of the disciples toward Jesus’ interaction with the woman by noting that it presupposes some traditions prevailed among the people of that time. However, Keener, John, 620-621, raises the following issues: why do the Synoptic gospels (Mk 15:40-41; Lk 8:2-3) depict occasions of Jesus travelling with the disciples? He adds that conversing with or working together with women was held to make a man’s reputation questionable: “the gospels do not report of such matters or practices”. He asks further: does this suggest that the Samaritan woman in this episode is a disreputable woman, or is the difficulty due to the religious-cultural issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται? However, the examples cited above by Keener are not about Jesus talking with a single woman while he was alone, for women did accompany him and helped him in his missions. Scholars such as Haenchen, John, 1.223, and Beasley-Murray, John, 62 refer to Strack and Billerbeck,

260

CHAPTER 6

Botha explains that “the report that they were amazed is also a way of depicting their lack of understanding of Jesus”.13 The presence of μέντοι in v. 27 reflects a characteristically Johannine style14 and hence depicts how the evangelist wants to present the disciples’ attitude toward Jesus at the moment of his meeting with the Samaritan woman. Verse 27 reflects the disciples’ attitude toward Jesus and, at the same time, their two unasked questions reveal their attitude concerning his action of speaking with the woman.15 It is interesting to note the two parts of the question that the evangelist formulates for the reader, in expressing the unstated questions of the disciples.16 What is the significance of John’s citing the unspoken questions of the disciples in v. 27? Some scholars maintain that this question was meant to be posed to the Samaritan woman and not to Jesus.17 For instance, Carson argues that

13 14

15 16

17

Talmud und Midrasch, 2.438 concerning the response of the disciples in v. 27, to explain that it is in line with advices of the Rabbis of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. However, this interpretation is based on the Rabbinic literature, which is not contemporary to the NT period. Yet in relevant literature such as the Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple period and in the works of Josephus and Philo, which are roughly contemporary to the NT, we can find such an attitude toward women, viz., women are regarded as inferior to men in various respects. See for instance, T. Reu. 5:1-2, where men are advised to avoid contacts with women in all possible ways except for the procreation of children, which is a necessity. According to Philo, women are socially dependent and through marriage a woman is transferred from her father to another man. In addition to this, Philo regards women as irrational: they are ruled only by emotion. He advises men not to have any relationships with women outside of marriage, because any contact with women other than that will give them a reputation for effeminacy and compromise their manly courage and vigour. He states that this is the order of creation, and hence accords with the plan of God. See Philo, Hypothetica 11, 14-17; Flaccus 89, Spec. 3.113, 165, 169-171. Josephus presents women as inferior to men in all things and in all respects. (Josephus, Ag. Ap., 2.201). He adds further that the testimony of women was not accepted in court due to the fact that women had no legal status. Due to the very nature of their gender, women were always socially dependent and categorized with the slaves. See Josephus, Ant., 7.11,8; 11.3,5; J.W., 1.5; 7.9. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 61. See Schweizer, Ego Eimi, 93. In addition to this, τί ζητεῖς ἤ τί λαλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς also reflects the typical Johannine style due to the double meaning of ζητεῖν and λαλεῖν. See McHugh, John, 289. He explains that “[a]t the mundane (‘earthly’) level, the disciples ‘never asked’ about the purpose or the topic of their conversation. As a result they forfeited the opportunity to learn there and then that Jesus was seeking to fulfill the will of the Father by taking the first step towards the reconciliation and restoration of Samaria, in revealing himself as the Messiah”. Schnackenburg, John, 443. The two unexpressed question of the disciples are: τί ζητεῖς ἤ τί λαλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς. This NRSV translates these as “What do you want?” and “Why are you speaking with her?” See Bernard, John, 1.152; Morris, John, 243; Carson, John, 227.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

261

the first question is directed to the woman (what does she seek?) while the second points to Jesus (why is he talking with this woman?)18 However, some manuscripts have αὐτῷ (attached to οὐδεὶς μέντοι εἶπεν), and thus explicitly indicate that both of the questions are directed to Jesus.19 ζητεῖν employed in John “hardly ever means a vague ‘wish’, but ‘to seek’, ‘to strive for’”.20 In light of this, Schnackenburg explains that the disciples “wonder what Jesus can have aiming at (τί ζητεῖς) in the conversation, and what was the subject (τί λαλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς) of the discussion”. He adds that “ζητεῖν in John hardly ever means a vague “wish” but to seek”, “to strive for”, and in the second question τί can hardly mean “why”, but “what” – as the parallelism with the first τί already suggests”.21 McHugh translates the two questions as follows: ‘“[w]hat are you trying to find out?’ or ‘[w]hat is the purpose of your conversation?’”.22 Regarding the second question, however, it makes little difference whether the question is “why are you speaking with her?” or “what is purpose of your conversation?”. The reason why the disciples do not ask these questions is not indicated by the evangelist. It is also interesting to note that the disciples address Jesus as ῥαββί in the Samaritan episode (v. 31), the same title employed by them on the occasion of the formation of the first disciples (1:38, 49).23 Schapdick asks whether this response of the disciples originates from their understanding of Jesus as a ῥαββί, due to the fact that the ῥαββί of the οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are not supposed to talk with women in private. He opines that such a response from the disciples may be due to their lack of understanding or knowledge about who Jesus is, and he 18 19 20 21

22

23

Carson, John, 227. He adds that they ask Jesus a second question in v. 31. For instance, important manuscripts such as ‫ א‬and D. Schnackenburg, John, 443; McHugh, A Critical Exegetical and Commentary, 289. Schnackenburg, John, 443. It is to be noted that scholars explain the short remark of the evangelist employing μέντοι as unique Johannine style characteristic. See Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums, 204, Schweizer, Ego Eimi, 93. McHugh, John, 289. Hardly any English translation (see for instance NRSV, REB, NET, NIV, YLT) uses the term, ‘what’ that they all employ ‘why’ to translate the second question, whereas the first question all translate as ‘what’. NJB translates “[w]hat are you talking to her about?” (as we know, the NJB is the translation of the French version La Bible de Jérusalem). But other language versions translate the second question with ‘what’. Michaels, John, 258, explains that the unspoken question τί λαλεῖς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς; reinforces had been spoken in v. 26 by Jesus. He finds irony in vv. 26-27. The disciples were amazed to see Jesus talking with a woman. But “[t]heir reference to ‘speaking’ echoes Jesus’ own ‘I who am speaking to you’ (v. 26) … accenting the irony that the One ‘speaking with a woman’ [v. 27] is none other than ‘the Messiah, who is called Christ’”. In 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2 and 11:8, the vocabulary ῥαββί is used in John. The title ῥαββί is used by the disciples to address Jesus (1:38, 49; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8), except in 3:2 where it is used by Nicodemus to address Jesus and in 3:26 where it is used by the disciples of John to address John.

262

CHAPTER 6

compares this with the initial reaction of the Samaritan woman.24 Another contrast presented is that between the response of the disciples to Jesus and of the Samaritan woman to Jesus. The evangelist shows that the disciples do not speak their questions aloud to Jesus (cf. vv. 27, 33), but the Samaritan woman does ask right from the beginning (vv. 9ff). Scholars discuss these questions mainly in light of vv. 20-26 and vv. 32ff, however they struggle to interpret the implications of the two unasked questions and of the answer to these questions.25 In light of our discussion of v. 27 above, we propose that the evangelist at this juncture carefully depicts the return of the disciples for the following reasons. The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman culminates in v. 26. Precisely, in the previous chapter, we have seen that dialogue progresses through various phases and culminates in vv. 25-26, where both dialogue partners come to a yes. The Samaritan woman’s proposed solution to the discussed issue is the Samaritans’ expectation of the coming of the Messiah/Christ (v. 25), and Jesus underlines this and makes it clear that it is no longer an expectation, for he himself is the Christ. Jesus wants the Samaritan woman to know who is ὁ λέγων σοι in v. 10, and in response to her suggested solution he states: ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι (vv. 25-26).26 Verse 27 functions to make clear that the disciples have seen Jesus conversing with the Samaritan woman and hence, in v. 39 where the Samaritans meet Jesus, the evangelist does not provide any signal for their arrival or give any explanation of why and how the Samaritans came to Jesus.27 Also, v. 27 signals Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples in vv. 31-38. As Brown rightly notes, this is a simultaneous 24 25

26

27

Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 252-253. For Brown, John, 1.173, this may perhaps indicate the thoughts of the disciples that “he had asked her for food after they had gone to get some,” while Moloney suggests that there is “sexual innuendo” in it. Moloney, John, 134. Brant, John, 87, explains that the disciples did not raise the above questions toward Jesus due to their understanding concerning the act of Jesus as a shameful one. When asked about it, it becomes even more shameful. She translates τί ζητεῖς as “what are you about?” and underlines that it exhibits a typical Johannine style. Cf. 1:38; 18:4, 7. Keener, John, 621, presumes that if the question in v. 27 were asked, Jesus’ answer would be what he says in v. 23; i.e., “the Father seeks true worshippers”. Michaels, John, 258, explains that answer to the above questions is: Jesus is doing the will of the Father and he is seeking true worshippers. According to Byrne, Life Abounding, 87, these questions in fact prepare for “Jesus’ ‘harvest’ reflection shortly to follow (vv. 32-38)”. In v. 27 the same lexeme λαλέω is employed twice, and also this verse enquires about what Jesus said (λαλέω). Verse 39 tells only that many Samaritans believed in Jesus due to the words of the Samaritan woman.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

263

action from on both back (vv. 27-30) and front (vv. 31-38) stages.28 In sum, v. 27 serves both as a transition and at the same time marks the beginning of the next phase of the Samaritan episode (vv. 28-30//31-38). Thus, as noted above, any adequate analysis of the Samaritan mission of Jesus should examine not only Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman and its effect, namely when the Samaritan woman’s towns people come to meet Jesus and μένειν with him, but also Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples (vv. 31-38). We discuss this latter dialogue in the following section.

2. DIALOGUE: JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES (VV. 31-38) The dialogue between Jesus and the disciples is well situated in its broader and immediate contexts. In 3:28, John testifies to Jesus as ὁ χριστός (3:28). This pointing out of Jesus as ὁ χριστός is underlined by the Johannine Jesus himself during his dialogue with the Samaritan woman. In fact, in this dialogue Jesus’ progressive revelation culminates with his proclamation that he himself is ὁ χριστός (vv. 25-26). This transitional episode prepares one for the climax of the Samaritan episode, where a group of Samaritans, namely the Samaritan woman along with her townspeople abide (cf. ἔμεινεν) with Jesus and proclaim Jesus to be ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (vv. 39-42). Both dialogues, in 4:7-26 and 4:31-38, present the dominant theme of the whole episode. In the first dialogue, Jesus approaches the Samaritan woman and they are in active dialogue until Jesus reveals to her that he is ὁ χριστός (vv. 25-26).29 The dialogue in vv. 31-38 is presented as distinct due to its unique characteristics: viz., the scene changes (the disciples return from the city to Jesus in v. 27) and the Samaritan woman departs to the city (v. 28). Thus she who was in the foreground recedes into the background, and the disciples, who had been in the background, advance to the foreground in 4:31. This is clearly depicted by the phrase ἐν τῷ μεταξύ.30 Scholars have encountered considerable difficulties in understanding the dialogue in 4:31-38. In what 28 29

30

See Brown, John, 181-182. As Anderson, “From One Dialogue to Another,” 106-110 notes, in the gospel of John, dialogues function as riddles and certain characteristics of these dialogues make it difficult to understand and interpret the human and divine or theological aspects of the dialogues. In 4:39, the Samaritans come to Jesus and the disciples led by the Samaritan woman which marks the beginning of the final phase of the Samaritan episode, 4:39-42.

264

CHAPTER 6

follows, we will deal with some of the major problems concerning the context and content of the pericope. These include such questions as: Why does the evangelist place this dialogue at the point where the Samaritan woman leads the Samaritans to Jesus? Does the evangelist present this dialogue in the episode of the Samaritan mission in order to express some unique message or idea? Why is the Samaritan woman presented as an active dialogue partner with Jesus (4:7-26), and why do the disciples remain passive within the whole episode? The two images of food (4:31-34) and harvest (4:35-38) are the core content of the pericope. What is the meaning and message of Jesus’ food, completing the work of God? The sayings of Jesus in 4:35-38 present all the mission terminology of the gospel. Why does John introduce much of this important mission vocabulary, such as sowing and reaping, in this short discourse with its image of harvest? As we proceed to study the pericope, all these questions seem to centre around one question: who is ὁ σπείρων and ὁ θερισμὸς/ὁ θερίζων in the Samaritan mission? Who are the ἄλλοι who worked before the disciples and into whose work they are entering? The dialogue ends with Jesus explaining to the disciples that ἄλλοι κεκοπιάκασιν καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν κόπον αὐτῶν εἰσεληλύθατε, and the following verse (v. 39) reports the Samaritans’ belief in Jesus and urging of him to μένειν with them (without any introduction of the coming of the Samaritans). Examining the solution to this problem will further our analysis of our research question with respect to the impact of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in Samaria. One may presume that the context, themes and vocabulary of the dialogue in vv. 31-38 shows that the woman has sown the seed and thus has made preparation for the harvest. We will discuss vv. 31-38 in the following sequence. First, the disciples who returned from the city urge Jesus to have food, in v. 31, which is followed by Jesus’ response concerning their not knowing (cf. οὐκ οἴδατε) about his food and the disciples’ private criticism of Jesus’ reply in vv. 3133. This conversation readies the reader for Jesus’ explicit pronouncement in v. 34 that his food is: ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον (v. 34). Second, we discuss the further explanations of this core statement offered in vv. 35-38, where the central theme is harvesting. Thus, the dialogue begins with the theme of food (vv. 31-34); it begins with the idea of physical hunger (vv. 31ff) and moves on to another realm related to food, concerning the work(s) to accomplish the will of God (v. 34), which is further elaborated through the image of harvest in vv. 35-38. Accordingly, we discuss vv. 31-38 in three parts: viz., vv. 31-33; v. 34 and vv. 35-38.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

265

2.1. What is Jesus’ Food (4:31-33)? The first three verses of the dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (vv. 31-33) depict a move from the disciples urging and making requests of Jesus, to their misunderstanding of him. The verses that follow are depicted as a monologue of Jesus addressing the disciples (vv. 34-38). The dialogue in vv. 31-38 is introduced with the phrase ἐν τῷ μεταξύ, which occurs only once, not only in this gospel but in whole the NT. Why is ἐν τῷ μεταξύ used here at the beginning of the dialogue, and what does it signal (v. 31)?31 What would be the implications of φάγε, φαγεῖν and οὐκ οἴδατε (cf. vv.31-33)? In the following, we offer a brief discussion of vv. 31-33, focusing on the responses of the disciples toward Jesus. 2.1.1. ἐν τῷ μεταξύ In the NT, μεταξύ is almost always used as a preposition.32 The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ μεταξύ in v. 31 is usually understood by scholars as an uncommon adverbial usage of μεταξύ.33 Louw and Nida explain that this prepositional phrase, ἐν τῷ μεταξύ, could be understood as an idiom, an extension of time within another period of time.34 According to BDAG, it can be rendered as ‘in the meantime’ or ‘meanwhile’.35 John here uses ἐν τῷ μεταξύ, which is an idiom that acts as a time reference, to indicate a shift in the episode.36 A similar use of μεταξύ is found in 31

32

33

34

35

36

ἐρωτάω in v. 31 can be understood as ‘to ask for’ or ‘to request’, usually with the implication of an underlying question or in the perspective of an ‘urgent request. For example ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς ‘she asked him to drive the demon out of her daughter’ Mk 7:26. See L&N, #33.161. μεταξύ is an adverb usually μεταξύ used either with a noun or as a preposition using the genitive and simply takes the meaning of “between” or “middle,” with the idea of two separate things (e.g., Mt 18:15; 23:35). There are nine occurrences of μεταξύ in John (Mt 18:15; 23:35; Lk 11:51; 16:26; Jn 4:31; Acts 12:6; 13:42; 15:9; Rom 2:15. μεταξύ is scarcely found in the LXX and on most occasions in the NT it is used as a preposition. See McHugh, John, 291. See also Bultmann, John, 194. The adverbial use of μεταξύ is very rarely found in the LXX and the NT. See Barrett, John, 240; Bultmann, John, 194; Morris, John, 75. L&N, #67.138 explains that this phrase would indicate “an extent of time within another unit or extension of time – in the meantime, meanwhile”. See BDF #215. Use of ἐν τῷ μεταξύ makes this scene a different one. This is an interlude, which recounts the basic story of the Samaritan woman and the believers. Lindars compares this with the sandwich construction (the practice of unfolding one incident within the other) in Mark’s gospel (e.g., the woman with hemorrhages is cured within the account of the raising of the daughter of Jairus – 5:21-43). Lindars, John, 193. See L&N, #83.11. According to BDAG, 641, μεταξύ is employed as a marker of an interval that separates, between, in the middle of, or next to a space or time.

266

CHAPTER 6

the NT, in Acts 13:42 (cf. εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον) and it is used to link together two or more events. On the front stage, Jesus speaks with his disciples (vv. 31-38); meanwhile (ἐν τῷ μεταξύ) on the back stage, the Samaritan woman speaks to the Samaritans and makes them to accompany her to see Jesus (vv. 28-30, 39).37 When we pay attention to v. 30, however, it is no longer the stage of persuasion, for people are already coming to Jesus (ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν – v.30b). As M.-J. Lagrange explains, ἐν τῷ μεταξύ is indicative of an intermezzo.38 O’Day regards the conjunction ἐν τῷ μεταξύ as a temporal reference which presents the background action of the Samaritan woman in vv. 27-30 as the central theme of the dialogue in vv. 31-38.39 BDAG affirms that ἐν τῷ μεταξύ in Jn 4:31 acts as a marker of time that separates what has happened in the meantime.40 Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples (vv. 31-38), which is placed between the events of the Samaritan woman’s return to the city (vv. 28-30) and her return to Jesus with the Samaritans of her city (vv. 39-42), is generally regarded by scholars as an intermezzo. Indeed, the very use of this idiom and the context of the dialogue given in vv. 2830 shows that the encounter in vv. 31-38 is in fact an intermezzo.41 The evangelist links three events together (in vv. 7-26; 27-30; 31-38) by the employment of ἐν τῷ μεταξύ in 4:31.42 The question at this stage is: why does John link these three events? A probable answer is that he wants to help the reader understand that what had taken place before is linked to Jesus’ own mission from God, in that it declares Jesus’ deepest hunger is to do God’s will, not a physical hunger.43 Thus Jesus’ hunger has been 37 38

39

40 41

42

43

Dodd, The Interpretation, 315. However, he considers this passage as an appendix. Lagrange, Évangile, 116. μεταξύ keeps the link with v. 30 while introducing a new scenario in vv. 31ff. The transitional scene in vv. 27-30 is “highly developed narrative hinge which has its own important role in the narrative. It is a narrative hinge that serves both to end the first dialogue and to provide a context out of which the second can operate”. O’Day, Revelation, 53. See BDAG, 641. This usage links two or more events which are different from other NT usages of μεταξύ. Other occurrences of μεταξύ in the NT appear either with a noun or pronoun in the genitive and simply take the meaning of “between” or “middle,” with the idea of two separate things (e.g., Mt 18:15; 23:35). The three events are: 1) Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman, 2) the Samaritans’ coming to Jesus led by the Samaritan woman, 3) Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 315. Schnackenburg, John, 1.445, explains that “[t]he approach of the Samaritans signals a success for the work of Jesus” and in the meantime Jesus converses with his disciples. In chapter 4, vv. 10ff presents thirst for a higher realm, and Jesus’ words and actions serve to make the Samaritan woman understand this thirst, which is different from the physical thirst expressed in vv. 7-9.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

267

satisfied (v. 34) by his conversation with the Samaritan woman and by its fruits (the Samaritans’ response).44 This not only prepares the reader for the response of the Samaritans (vv. 28-30, 39-42), but also reveals some important truths concerning Jesus’ life and mission (vv. 7-26, 3138). The hapax use of ἐν τῷ μεταξύ in the beginning of Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples (vv. 31-38) which indicates that this dialogue is placed in the meanwhile the Samaritan woman leads the Samaritans to meet Jesus (vv. 28-30, 39) as the resultant of her testimony of her encounter with Jesus points to the thematic and theological importance of this dialogue of Jesus in the broader context of this unique Samaritan mission of Jesus. Thus v. 31 depicts that, in the meantime, the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί45) come to Jesus and urge him: ῥαββί, φάγε. In order to understand the implications of this urging of the disciples (φάγε46) we briefly examine vv. 31-33 Jesus and the disciples precisely discuss on the theme of food, specifically the food of Jesus. 2.1.2. φάγε, φαγεῖν and οὐκ οἴδατε (VV. 31-33) Upon their return, the disciples say to Jesus: ῥαββί, φάγε. This concerns the food that will satisfy his physical hunger, for they had gone away to the city to get food (v. 8).47 As Haenchen notes, it is quite logical that in v. 31 the disciples are asking him to eat, since they had gone to the city at noon to buy food for him (vv. 6, 8).48 It is to be noted that these 44 45

46

47 48

Schneiders, Written that You may Believe, 136. Two terms are employed in John to refer to the disciples, viz., οἱ μαθηταὶ and οἱ δώδεκα. It employs the term οἱ μαθηταὶ 78 (0.057%) times [cf. Mt/Mk/Lk: 72/46/37 (0.052%/0.033%/0.027%)]. We see that it includes the others besides the twelve. Moreover, the whole Gospel has a tendency to enlarge the circle of the disciples with other figures like Nathanael, Martha, Mary, the Samaritan woman, etc. The evangelist mostly uses the term δώδεκα when a specific focus is given to the needs to say something specifically about the twelve disciples (see Jn 6:13, 67, 70f; 11:9; 20:24). On a number of occasions, the evangelist utilizes the term οἱ μαθηταὶ in slightly varied references, whereas δώδεκα always denotes the twelve (even after Judas Iscariot left their circle). This episode, and specifically the dialogue in vv. 31-38, seems to be one such case where οἱ μαθηταὶ is employed with two meanings. It is not clear whether the use of ἐσθίω in this pericope of Jesus and his disciples in Samaria (v. 31; vv. 32, 33) has some link with the frequent usage of this verb in Jn 6. It is possible that in our pericope it is a figurative usage to refer to Jesus’ work, whereas the other 12 occurrences of ἐσθίω are likely used to present Jesus as the living bread which comes from heaven (6:51). See also the discussions in 6:5, 23, 26, 31 [2×], 49, 50, 52, 58; 18:28). Unless people eat that bread (ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε in 6:53) literally, they will not find salvation. See also κοπιάω (vv. 6, 38) See Haenchen, John, 224.

268

CHAPTER 6

three verses use the term ἐσθίω in several places, namely φάγε (v. 31), ἔχω φαγεῖν (v. 32) and μή τις ἤνεγκεν φαγεῖν (v. 33), and that this term appears nowhere else in the Samaritan episode. In v. 31 the disciples urge Jesus to eat (ῥαββί, φάγε), and Jesus responds by saying ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν, adding that about which the disciples do not know (οὐκ οἴδατε). Evidently, the disciples raise the question μή τις ἤνεγκεν φαγεῖν in v. 33.49 What follows is a brief discussion of this dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, which revolves around the action ἐσθίειν (cf. φάγε and φαγεῖν).50 Moulton notes “the constative force of φαγεῖν is distinguished from the durative ἐσθίειν”51. As noted above, the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples begins with the urging, φάγε. In v. 32, φαγεῖν is on the lips of Jesus, where he tells the disciples, “I have food to eat” and in v. 33 this term is employed by the disciples when they ask, among themselves, about someone who may have given Jesus something to eat.52 There are some instances where φαγεῖν is used, both in the LXX (64 times) and in the NT (33 times).53 The context of these occurrences generally refers to food.54 But φάγος (the derivative of the stem φαγ, the aorist of ἐσθίω) expresses a more negative situation: for example, that of a glutton who habitually eats too much. The use of φαγεῖν in the gospel of John (other than in vv. 32-33) also refers to having food in the physical sense of eating it (cf. 6:31, 52). From the immediate context we can see that the term is used in the ordinary sense, though in 6:53 it does seem to refer to a higher realm (cf. 6:26-58). Hence, we propose that in John this term is used both in the ordinary sense and to indicate a metaphorical level.55 49

50

51 52 53

54

55

However, similar to the unexpressed questions of the disciples toward Jesus in v. 27, here too the disciples are not asking Jesus. Moreover, this question begins with μή, and hence reflects their increasing confusion compared to v. 27. That is, in v. 27 the evangelist reports that when the disciples return to Jesus, they are bewildered to see Jesus and the Samaritan woman talking to each other (vv. 7-26). It is to be noted that ἐσθίω is not employed in this episode hereafter. Also in this section, the verses that follow vv. 34-38 function as a monologue/discourse of Jesus addressing the disciples. M&M, #1712. See BDAG, 396. The Synoptics use φαγεῖν quite often, whereas John uses it only in this context. In chapter six, we find another context of misunderstanding regarding the earthly food and the spiritual food. And ἐσθίω (fut. mid. φάγομαι) also means having food in the ordinary sense of eating, although in Jn 6:53 it is used in the sense of a spiritual nourishment. φαγεῖν – 6:31, people speak about manna given to their ancestors to eat and in 6:52, people are astonished in Jesus’ teaching that he gives his flesh to eat in order to give life for the world. In 6:52, the activity of eating becomes a sacramental event. van der Minde

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

269

In their astonishment,56 the disciples have no words other than to urge Jesus to eat (ῥαββί, φάγε) and this marks the beginning of their conversation with Jesus (v. 31). Jesus’ response to their urging is depicted in v. 32: ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. Similar to their response in v. 27, here too the disciples ask no questions and request no clarifications from Jesus, such as who has given him food or why he is not concerned about their work of bringing him food, but they speak among themselves (πρὸς ἀλλήλους – v. 33). The important questions to be addressed here are why the disciples, despite the fact of their being his disciples, do not tell him directly about their concerns (vv. 27, 31, 33). This may reflect a lower level of understanding (or a lack of understanding) concerning who Jesus is (cf. οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 32). Given all this, the disciples’ reaction in vv. 27, 31 and 33, and specifically their urging him to eat (ῥαββί φάγε), can be seen as conveying a sense of compulsion, which is accompanied with their speaking among themselves (v. 33). In this characteristic manner, John seems to be clarifying the whole situation by presenting the misunderstanding of the disciples about the food that Jesus refers to in v. 32, and thus underlines their inability to comprehend Jesus’ words and actions in the context of his mission in Samaria. In the view of Ellis, this background rightly affords Jesus an opportune occasion to explain the real meaning of his dialogue with the Samaritan woman.57 In this respect, one finds that John, by putting the address ῥαββί with the imperative58 φάγε on the lips of the disciples, intends to show their lack of understanding of Jesus’ action, specifically in the context of his Samaritan mission.59

56

57

58

59

“ἐσθίω,” in EDNT I.58-60. In Jn v.32 φαγεῖν is used as the eating of the spiritual food. Behm, “ἐσθίω,” in TDNT III.689-695, 695. The astonishment of the disciples may have any of a variety of causes: 1) Jesus was tired as the disciples left to the city; 2) he is talking to a woman; 3) moreover, he is dialoguing with a Samaritan. Was talking to the Samaritans (and specifically the Samaritan woman) more important for him than his own physical needs? Keener, John, 623. The evangelist portrays this amazement in order to motivate the reader as well; i.e., the reader is led to know the wide horizon of a calling to discipleship. Ellis, The Genius of John, 72. We discuss this further when we analyze the food of Jesus in v. 34. In the Samaritan woman episode, both of the two encounters (between Jesus and the Samaritan woman and between Jesus and his disciples) begin with the imperative form of the verb. Moreover, in v. 31, the illocution of the disciples ῥαββί, φάγε is directive (requestive), and in v. 32 the reaction of Jesus ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε is constative (assertive). In this respect, Jesus gives an unexpected answer to his disciples’ request that he have some food: namely, that he had his own food which the disciples do not know (ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε). For more on this, see Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 180. This attitude of the disciples in their dialogue with Jesus is comparable with the response of the Samaritan woman, who knows nothing about Jesus at the beginning of

270

CHAPTER 6

At this juncture, it seems that Jesus tries to make them understand the meaning of his actions (v. 32).60 One may argue that John is contrasting Jesus’ response in v. 32 (ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε) with the attitude of the disciples in v. 31 (ῥαββί, φάγε).61 Schnackenburg, for example, notes that the evangelist has Jesus resist the urging of the disciples, so that he may give a positive affirmation of a food that does more than satisfy physical hunger and which is of a totally different nature.62 One can see that there are two components in Jesus’ response to the urging of the disciples in v. 33, namely, ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν and ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. By using ἐγώ in the first phrase and ὑμεῖς in the second, the evangelist presents a distinction between Jesus and the disciples. The employment of ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς expresses an emphatic contrast, which exposes a tension between Jesus and the disciples.63 Jesus’ enigmatic saying, ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν (v. 32), can in general give the impression that Jesus has his

60 61

62

63

their encounter (cf. σὺ Ἰουδαῖος in v. 9). It is to be noted that the Samaritan woman is asking questions, giving explanations and expressing her own understanding and misunderstanding, and thus actively participating in the dialogue, whereas the disciples talk to Jesus only once (ῥαββί, φάγε) in this dialogue. Ridderbos, John, 127, 167. It is not clear whether the use of ἐσθίω in this pericope refers to Jesus and his disciples in Samaria (v. 31; vv. 32, 33) or has some link with the lengthy usage of this verb in Jn 6. It is possible that in our pericope it is a figurative usage and refers to Jesus’ work, whereas the other 12 occurrences of ἐσθίω are likely used to present Jesus as the living bread which comes from heaven (6:51; see also the discussion in 6:5, 23, 26, 31 [2×], 49, 50, 52, 58; 18:28). Unless one eats this bread (ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε 6:53), one will not find salvation. Despite the disciples’ urging, Jesus declines to eat (4:32). The disciples are depicted as ignorant and hesitant. This is to draw readers aside towards Jesus so that the evangelist can convey the message more clearly. See Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 179. See Schnackenburg, John, 445. The evangelist does not mention explicitly anywhere in this episode that the Samaritan woman gives water to Jesus. However, the balancing of the two themes of food and drink can be understood in terms of fulfilling the will of the Father. Jesus asks for drink from the Samaritan woman and food from the disciples. That the Samaritan woman does the will of the Father, which becomes drink for Jesus, is a possible interpretation of this Johannine irony or double meaning. Morris, John, 245. The evangelist employs ἐγὼ-ὑμεῖς in several places in the fourth gospel to portray a contrasting situation and only Jesus employs this emphatic contrast explicitly. However, John the Baptist (1:26) and Pilate (19:6) use it once in an implicit manner. Jesus uses this style of speech nine times while he is in dialogue with his disciples (4:32, 38; 13:33; 14:3, 15:14, 16; 16:4, 7, 26) and five times while he is speaking to the public (7:34, 36; 8:14, 21, 28). On all these occasions, the dialogue partners perceive some sort of misunderstanding or ambiguity in the sayings of Jesus. The evangelist presents this kind of contrast in the sayings of Jesus in order to give reasons for this ambiguity or lack of understanding. See also the discussions on v. 22 in the previous chapter concerning the distinction set between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

271

own food and so is not in need of the food brought by the disciples.64 The verb ἔχω generally means ‘to have’ or ‘to hold’ or ‘to do (something)’, and in a technical sense it takes the meaning of ‘having control over the use of’ objects. When we take the ordinary meaning, therefore, we may say that ἔχω means ‘to have’ or ‘to do (something)’.65 οὐκ οἴδατε66 indicates a definitive denial that someone has right knowledge about something. The expression οὐκ οἴδατε is used more frequently in John than in the Synoptics.67 John puts it in the mouth of Jesus on five occasions. In all these contexts, Jesus is confronting his hearers with their lack of understanding about the things and actions that concerns above, beyond the matters of below.68 The Johannine Jesus uses this expression only in the book of signs, and interestingly does not use it in the farewell discourse.69 By using οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 32, the evangelist indirectly indicates the inability of the disciples to understand Jesus’ food. In other words, in v. 32 Jesus underlines the ignorance of the disciples regarding Jesus’ food, which he makes clear to them in v. 34. But the evangelist informs the reader that the Samaritans are coming to Jesus, led by the Samaritan woman (v. 30), while the disciples do not know about it. Based on the use of the Johannine techniques of double-entendre and irony in v. 32, one may presume that the Samaritans who followed the Samaritan woman after listening to her testimony are themselves a part of the food that Jesus himself links to above (vv. 34ff). Thus, we argue that the evangelist indicates here that the disciples have yet to be familiarized with this type of food, which is depicted by employing οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 32.70 64 65 66

67

68

69

70

Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 221. LSJ, #17922; L&N, #57.1; BDAG, 420. See for discussions on the use of οὐ and μή. BDF, ##365, 426-429; 220; Smyth and Messing, Greek Grammar, 608, 622. See also L&N, #69.3. See chapters 4 and 5 for the discussions on οἶδα in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode. Matthew and Mark use it three times, Luke once, and John seven (cf. Mt 20:22; 24:42; 25:13; Mk 4:13; 10:38; 13:33, 35; Lk 12:56; Jn 1:26; 4:22, 32; 7:28; 8:14; 9:30; 11:49). The actions of Jesus are not understood by those who do not know and believe in him. The distinction between believers and unbelievers is presented in these contexts. We have already noticed a similar expression εἰ ᾔδεις (v.10) and the same expression οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 22 where the former refers to Jesus’ urging of the Samaritan woman to have right knowledge, and the latter depicts Jesus’ explicit statement that the Samaritans do not have the right knowledge about what/who they worship. See chapters 4 and 5. Jn 1:26 and 11:49 are two exceptions. In 1:26, John the Baptist uses the term to refer to the coming of Jesus, and in 11:49 Caiaphas uses it to affirm the necessity of Jesus’ crucifixion. In this respect, the food in v. 32 comes from Jesus’ mission in Samaria. Schnackenburg’s interpretation is noteworthy in this context. Human persons are called to eat and drink

272

CHAPTER 6

In the first dialogue, between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, such an expression is used twice: in vv. 10 and 22.71 In 4:10, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: εἰ ᾔδεις. Both the woman and the disciples are to gain knowledge from Jesus, and so understand and follow him. We notice the following in the two dialogues. On the one hand, in v. 10 Jesus reinitiates the dialogue with an offer of τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ / ὕδωρ ζῶν, and calls upon the woman to have right knowledge (cf. οἶδα) of this type of water. In the second dialogue, Jesus tells the disciples also that they should have right knowledge of the type of food he is referring to.72 On the other hand, Jesus asks the Samaritan woman for a drink and thus initiates their dialogue. As the dialogue proceeds, Jesus reveals himself to the Samaritan woman as the Christ, the source of life-giving water. In contrast, it is the disciples who begin the second dialogue. They urge Jesus to eat, whereas the Samaritan woman seems to question Jesus when he asks her for water. Jesus continues the dialogue with the Samaritan woman by saying “if you knew it”, whereas Jesus’ response to the urging of the disciples confronts and corrects their understanding (οὐκ οἴδατε).73 As Seim remarks, an elaborate view of the response and reaction of the disciples in v. 27 is presented in v. 31-33.74 In v. 33, specifically, their response is similar to that in v. 27: they do not speak aloud to Jesus. In v. 33, the evangelist reports that οἱ μαθηταὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους; someone had given him food to eat (v. 33). The disciples, who continue to rely on their own understanding of food,75 react to Jesus’ answer by talking among themselves.76 At the beginning of v. 33, the evangelist uses οὖν, which points to the conclusion of a process of reasoning.77 The disciples understand Jesus’

71 72

73

74 75 76

77

by coming to Jesus. See Schnackenburg, John, 446. We will discuss v. 34 in the following, where such a higher realm is clearly explained in v. 34. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 138. Contrary to the previous dialogue, here instantaneously Jesus states what this food is (v. 34). In 2:11, the evangelist underlines that Jesus manifests his glory and then the disciples believe in him. The disciples already witnessed the signs of Jesus, yet they try to compel him to eat. However, nothing specific is said about how the disciples respond to Jesus’ explanations (vv. 34-38). In v. 38 Jesus tells them that although others (ἄλλοι) have labored before them and the disciples have already entered into the phase of harvesting (v. 38). We discuss the issue who are the ἄλλοι in the following. Seim, “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John,” 68. Ridderbos, John, 167. Despite their weariness after a long journey with Jesus from Judea to Samaria, they go to the city to buy food for Jesus. But when they return to Jesus with this food, they are disappointed to find that all their efforts were in vain. οὖν often stands for the conclusion of a process of reasoning. The conjunction οὖν can have the meanings: so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then, and so then. See for

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

273

words in their literal sense.78 One can see that the intention of the disciples’ saying in v. 31 is directive, but Jesus’ response is assertive in v. 32. The disciples overestimate this reply. In this context, they express their understanding among themselves in an assertive mood,79 that μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν; (v. 33). μή is used to begin the questioning of the disciples in v. 33, which anticipates a negative response. And τις, an indefinite pronoun, can mean ‘anyone/anything’, ‘someone/something’, ‘many a one’ or ‘many a thing’, ‘a certain’, ‘whoever’, etc. According to Robinson and Blass, when we use μή in questions, the answer expected is positive,80 although BDAG and Louw and Nida opine that questions using μή invite a negative answer.81 BDAG further explains that the questioner is in doubt when μήτι is employed, while μή leaves no room for doubt and anticipates a negative sense.82 What is the function of μή τις in v. 33? The response of the disciples reminds us of the question of the Samaritan woman in vv. 11-12, namely: “are you greater than our father Jacob?” (v. 12).83 In vv. 11-12, the Samaritan woman understands only one meaning of water, just as in v. 33 the disciples understand only one meaning of food. This type of question actually underscores the position of the person who asks the question and shows that he or she is making a false assumption. μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν allows for both positive and negative answers. 1) The answer can be yes: the disciples do not know what food Jesus has. But the Samaritan woman, who had an encounter with Jesus, knows from Jesus’ own self-disclosure that he is the Christ (v. 29). At the moment she comes to know this, she leaves her concerns (water jar) and goes to the Samaritans to give witness to Jesus; while

78 79 80

81 82

83

example Jn 6:13, συνήγαγον οὖν καὶ ἐγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων (therefore they gathered and filled twelve baskets with pieces). L&N, #89-127. Haenchen, John, 224. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 181. This is clearly illustrated in Mt 26:22, 25. At the time of the last Passover, all disciples asked him the same question with μήτι (Mt 26:22 μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε;). However, Judas who does not dare to ask using οὖν, and so asked Jesus μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ῥαββί (Mt 26:25). Jesus gives him an affirmative answer σὺ εἶπας (Mt 26:25). See Robertson, Grammar, 1168; and BDF, 254. L&N, #69.3, BDAG, 649. μή is a negative particle (not), used for assumed, hesitant, or indefinite denial. οὐ (not) denies a fact, whereas μή denies an idea or expresses a negative thought. LSJ, #26488. τις is an indefinite pronoun meaning anyone or anything, which is an enclitic in all cases, but τις is employed as an interrogative pronoun like ‘who?’ and ‘what?’ In v. 33 it is used as an indefinite pronoun. LSJ, #40087. We will discuss further on the meaning and implications of μή in chapter 7 where we examine μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; v. 29. See our discussions in chapter 4.

274

CHAPTER 6

Jesus is in dialogue with the disciples, she is on the way back, leading the Samaritans to Jesus.84 Jesus further explains his food as the Father’s work, and in this sense it is the Samaritan woman’s initiative in bringing the Samaritans to Jesus that serves as his food.85 2) The answer can be also no, because nobody has brought food for Jesus, according to the disciples’ understanding of food. Here, the Johannine techniques of double entendre and irony are expressed through what they say among themselves (μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν). Bultmann notes that in vv. 31-33, misunderstanding does not emerge out of the double meaning of the words employed. Instead it arises from concepts and statements that may at first sight seem to refer to earthly matters, when actually they refer to the matters from above.86 Leroy, however, points out that not all misunderstandings in John arise from the tension between the earthly and divine dimensions. Contrary to Bultmann, he affirms that the misunderstandings in the fourth gospel arise generally from Jesus’ use of words with double meanings.87 Though there are differences of opinion among scholars regarding the source of Johannine misunderstandings, in general they are employed to emphasize the identity either of Jesus or of the disciples (believers) 84 85

86

87

Okure, The Johannine Approach, 138-139. One can argue that Jesus does not send the Samaritan woman to the Samaritans, but we can see that the earthly Jesus in John never sends his other disciples either. Bultmann, John, 135. See also C.H. Dodd, Historical Traditions in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 153. According to Leroy, Rätsel und Missverständnis, 3-9, 43-46, 157-160, pure instances of misunderstandings in John’s gospels are 2:19-22; 3:3-5; 4:10-15, 31-34; 6:3235, 51-53; 7:33-36; 8:21-24, 31-33, 51-53, 56-58. Culpepper, Anatomy, 152-154, explains the misunderstanding technique in John with the principles suggested by Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony, 5-9. According to Culpepper there are three steps in these misunderstandings: 1) An ambiguous statement of Jesus that contains a double entendre; 2) The dialogue partner responds according to the literal meaning of the statement; 3) Explanation by Jesus or the narrator. We can trace each of these three steps of misunderstanding, as presented by Culpepper, in the present dialogue. In the first step, we have Jesus’ ambiguous statement regarding his food in v. 32; in the second, the misunderstanding response of the disciples (Jesus’ dialogue partners); and finally, Jesus’ explanations (v. 34-38), which clear up their misunderstanding. Through the double meaning of the food, the evangelist expresses two things. First, he presents the inferior status of the belief of the disciples through vv. 31-33 and presents a new revelation or teaching by Jesus in v. 34. The Johannine way of highlighting the superior level of the Samaritan woman’s faith compared to that of the disciples continues here too. The Samaritan woman openly expresses her misunderstanding about the water, whereas here the disciples are talking among themselves. Moreover, the misunderstanding of the Samaritan woman (about the water in v. 15), and the disciples’ misunderstanding about Jesus’ food (v. 32) are not to be considered on equal levels.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

275

and serve as a way of presenting a new teaching.88 Based on our analysis on vv. 27, 31-33, we can say that the disciples have mixed feelings of misunderstanding, disappointment and wonderment in response to Jesus’ words and actions. Their wonderment perhaps proceeds from the assumption that someone had arrived before them with food for Jesus (regardless of their hard work to bring food to Jesus as quickly as possible), or else they were questioning why Jesus accepted food offered by a Samaritan. We have discussed so far, the meaning and implication of the exchanges between Jesus and the disciples (vv. 27, 31-33) and in the following summarize them: The hapax use of ἐν τῷ μεταξύ serve to situate the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples (vv. 31-38) at the front stage while at the back stage the Samaritan woman leads her fellow town’s people, the Samaritans of Sychar to Jesus. Accordingly, the themes depicted in this intermezzo (vv. 31-38) signals the importance of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. Though the disciples urging ῥαββί, φάγε (v. 31) could be a logical continuation of these events, it points to a lower level of understanding from the part of the disciples. ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 32 and μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν in v. 33 express the tension evoked between Jesus and his disciples concerning Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman during their absence. The bewilderment of the disciples (vv. 27, 31-32) perhaps leads them to misunderstand Jesus’ saying about food (vv. 32-33). The evangelist may indirectly depict how the Samaritan woman grows in understanding through her active dialogue with Jesus, but also in her leading the Samaritans to him, whereas the disciples do not engage in a discussion with Jesus due to their lack of understanding. It is to be noted that hereafter (vv. 34ff) only Jesus is speaking 88

Haenchen, John, 224, notes that the Samaritan woman met Jesus for the first time, whereas the disciples had been with him and already witnessed his first sign (2:1-11). Yet as Schnackenburg, John, 446, underlines there is nothing unusual here in the case of the disciples, because they plunge into misunderstanding even in the final discourse of Jesus (14:8, 16:17). We notice some similarities in the situations where the disciples’ misunderstand Jesus. They are the following: 1) The disciples are tired after some hard slogs; 2) they could not reach their goal, which they intend to do through that hard work; 3) at first they could not understand Jesus; and 4) Jesus gives them a contrasting experience. For example, in the context of the Samaritan woman episode, the disciples went to the city at noon to buy food for Jesus. As they returned from the city, they asked Jesus to have his food (v. 32). The same sequence can be seen in 6:20. Here, they are rowing three or four miles through the rough sea and are tired after long hours of casting their nets (21:1-6). But when Jesus directs their ways, their efforts became fruitful miraculously. In 6:20 they reached the shore in no time, and in 21:6 they caught so many fish that they were unable to haul them.

276

CHAPTER 6

and no response/reply from the disciples is depicted by the evangelist that vv. 34-38 can be seen as a monologue. However, as we will see, in this monologue Jesus explains further on his food, his work, and concludes with the statement that the disciples are already entering into the harvest (v. 38) of others (cf. ἄλλοι) labor. That is, the evangelist does not mean to show that the disciples are not displaced from their role by the Samaritan woman. In light of the above discussion, we propose that not only Jesus words and actions, but also the response of the Samaritan woman in leading the Samaritans to Jesus, is implicitly contained in Jesus’ explanation of food in v. 34. This is a clear explanation that the food referred to here is not concerned with hunger in the literal sense. Thus, vv. 31-33 introduces the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples and raises the question of what kind of food Jesus is referring to; this is the unasked question of the disciples (v. 32) which implicitly points to the implications of Jesus’ actions in Samaria.89 Jesus gives a detailed answer to this implicit question in vv. 34-35. We now examine v. 34, where Jesus makes a major pronouncement in this exchange with his disciples. 2.2. The Key Pronouncement Jesus explains implicitly what his food is in response to the disciples urging during his dialogue with his disciples in vv. 31-33 and in v. 34 he makes an explicit statement.90 As we begin our discussion of v. 34, two important questions arise. 1) What does Jesus mean here, in the context of his Samaritan mission, by the will (θέλημα) of the one who sent him (ὁ πέμψας με); and specifically, what does John mean by presenting this message in this way? 2) What is meant by the accomplishment of the work (τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον)? Jesus’ statement in v. 34 can be divided into three parts: they are ἐμὸν βρῶμά, ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με and τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.91 89 90

91

Cf. v. 27 as well. Schnackenburg, John, 446 notes that the style and rhythm of Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 34 presents it as a revelation. By style and rhythm, Schnackenburg means here the three stich pattern of v. 34. (i) ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα, (ii) τοῦ πέμψας με and (iii) τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον. Botha compares this saying with Jesus’ self-revelation in v. 26 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ λαλῶν σοι). Just as Jesus reveals to the Samaritan woman who he is in v. 26, in v. 34 he issues a self-revelatory saying concerning what his food and his work is. That is, it indicates the food of Jesus and its two important components, viz., doing the will and completing the work of the one who sent him. See Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 173. John does not mention here the Father as the one who is sending Jesus. But in most occurrences, πέμψας με is supplemented by ὁ πατήρ (Jn 5:23; 6:37, 44; 8:16, 18;

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

277

2.2.1. ἐμὸν βρῶμα Jesus specifies that his statement is of his food (cf. ἐμὸν βρῶμα). Though Jesus’ explanation of his food is presented as a response to the disciples’ urging ῥαββί, φάγε in v. 31, it reflects more than just physical food (cf. vv. 32, 34). Jesus uses two cognate words to refer to food: βρῶσις in v. 32 and βρῶμα in v. 34. We consider what is meaning and implication of these terms, specifically in this context. βρῶσις refers to “an action of eating […] often with πόσις (drinking)”.92 BDAG indicates three meanings of βρῶσις: the first is the action of eating, and the other two are processes of causing deterioration of food.93 βρῶμα in general means any kind of food or nourishment. βρῶσις can mean ‘to consume solid food’. However, both can be used in an active and passive sense.94 BDAG, gives two meanings of βρῶμά, viz., that which is eaten and nourishment of a transcendent nature and notes that Jn 4:34 depicts the latter.95 In the gospel of John βρῶσις is also used to mean food in general,96 or anything that can be eaten. But Jesus answers that he sustains himself with food about which the disciples know nothing.97 This means that he refers to something more than just physical food. Barrett explains that βρῶσις and βρῶμα etymologically function as synonyms.98 Botha notes that the use of different words to convey the same explicit meaning (βρῶσις and βρῶμα) clearly indicates that there is a change in the implicit meaning.99 We have seen that the use of φαγεῖν expresses the meaning of having ordinary food (earthly food). Both Jesus and the disciples use φαγεῖν in vv. 31-33, whereas in v. 34 it is not employed. In Jesus’ reply to the disciples, he uses the word βρῶσις, and in v. 34, in speaking of his own, he uses βρῶμα. It is evident that the evangelist uses

92 93

94 95

96

97 98

99

9:4; 12:49; 14:24). He never uses the vocabulary (ὁ) θεός. Due to the limited scope of this paper, we will take up this problem of the absence of the term “the Father” in this pericope in our future studies. However, from the prologue itself it is made clear that God the Father is the one who sends Jesus. AGL, # 5088. BDAG, 184. See also L&N, #23.3; LSJ, #8632. van der Minde, “βρῶσις,” EWNT III.550551. See, L&N, ##5.1, 23.3; LSJ, #8627; AGLNT #5074. See BDAG, 184. In this respect, van der Minde, “βρῶμα,” EWNT3 549-550, 550, cites another example πνευματικὸν βρῶμα (1Cor 10:3). Morris, John, 245. In general, βρῶμα means ‘food’ (that which is eaten) and βρῶσις means the act of partaking of food. Morris, John, 245. Barrett, John, 201. In v. 32, φαγεῖν is used with βρῶσις as an additional explanation in this context of why Jesus has food to eat. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 173.

278

CHAPTER 6

the disciples’ conversation about earthly food as an occasion to present the important place of the will and work of God, the one who sent Jesus. Jesus takes this opportunity (cf. v. 31) to explain what he meant by food. ‘“My food”, he explains “is that I might do the will of the One who sent me and to complete his work”’.100 βρῶμα is used with possessive adjective ἐμός. Moulton explains that expression like ἐμὸν βρῶμα intends to invite attention to what follows.101 Robertson notes that “[i]n Jo. 4:34 we have ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα where the attributive use also occurs”.102 That is, the pronoun ἐμός functions here as a possessive attributive. Burton adds that ἐμὸν βρῶμα in Jn 4:34 is followed by the clause constituting a definition of the content of ἐμὸν βρῶμα.103 In v. 34 ἐμὸν βρῶμα is the predicate compliment, ἐστιν is the linking verb, and ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον is a subject-clause.104 2.2.2. τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με In the following, we briefly examine the phrase ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, which is one of the components of Jesus’ explanation of ἐμὸν βρῶμα. We offer a brief examination of ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. The noun θέλημα in general means that which is desired or wished for, and the object of this desire or wish can be either earthly or heavenly.105 100 101 102 103

104 105

Michaels, John, 261. See M&M, #1366. Robertson, Grammar, 685. See de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, #210. For instance, ἐμός is used in a similar way in 5:30 and 6:38. There, Jesus is speaking about his will as the will of his Father, while arguing with the Jews who misunderstand his teachings about his Father. Jesus claims authority for his teachings (his words) and considers them as coming from the Father who sent him. Maritz and Van Belle present a detailed study about the imagery bread and water in the gospel of John. They compare 6:35 (ὁ ἄρτος) with 6:13b-14 and 7:37-3, and in this light remark that 4:31-34 deals with two types of food. The disciples think about the daily food and Jesus speaks about the spiritual food. See Maritz and Van Belle, “The Imagery,” 332-352, 341-344. See Blass, Grammar, 228. See also Robertson, Grammar, 992. The word θέλημα has had a variety of meaning down through the ages. In the literature of 5 BCE, it is used to express the desire of the human person and even sexual desire. In the LXX, a deeper meaning is given in the sense of the will of God and man. However, all the occurrences of θέλημα have different Hebrew equivalents in the MT. θέλημα has the Hebrew equivalent ‫ ָרצוׄ ן‬in Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah and Malachi. In Deuteronomy and Psalms, θέλημα/‫ ָרצוׄ ן‬takes the meaning of blessings of the Lord, whereas in Proverbs, Psalms and Malachi it is employed to mean seeking and/or doing the will of God. The Rabbinic literature employs ‫ ָרצוׄ ן‬to express the will

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

279

The term occurs in the NT 62 times, of which 60 are used in the singular form and the remaining two in the plural (Acts 13:22; Eph 2:3). It has both objective and subjective meanings, viz., the act of willing and what is willed. There are three possible meanings of θέλημα in the NT, viz. God’s will, Jesus’ will and human will (Jn 1:13). Most often, the term is used to express the will of God, though on two occasions it concerns the will of Christ (Acts 21:14; Eph 5:17). It is to be noted that in the gospel of John, on all the occasions where θέλημα is used, it refers to the will of God.106 In addition to this, in John, in almost all cases θέλημα is accompanied by the phrase ὁ πέμψας με and is on the lips of Jesus. In other words, John links θέλημα with the will of the Father or divine sender (4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 7:16). He presents Jesus Christ as the one who bears the will, and the mediator and perfect doer of the will of the sender. One of the important aspects of the Johannine Father-Son paradigm is expressed in relation to this theme of the will. The θέλημα of God represents the whole being and doing of Jesus. The will of God that is being worked out in Jesus’ life is explained as the aim and goal of life (6:38-40). Doing the will of God leads to salvation at the moment of consummation. In 9:31, the work performed by Jesus is said to have been heard by God. It is God’s answer to the doing of his will. The expression ὁ πέμψας (με) is used only in the fourth gospel in the NT and is decidedly Johannine. The employment of πέμπω to express God as the sender occurs 24 times107 on the lips of Jesus and v. 34 is the first occurrence in John.108 ὁ πέμψας (με) frequently occurs in antithetical clauses with two members, where the emphasis is put on the second member, namely the one ‘who sends’. It is usually followed by με (cf. 5:30; 6:38; 7:16, 9:4; 14:24) and αὐτόν (7:18; 13:16). In this way, John introduces the theme of God as the sender and Jesus as the one who is sent. Jesus’ ministry is nothing apart from fulfilling the will of the Father. Schrenk explains that “one who is sent as God’s

106

107

108

of God. In the New Testament also, θέλημα is used in the meaning of ‫ ָרצוׄ ן‬in Jewish literature. G. Schrenk, “θέλημα,” TDNT III.52-54; L&N, #25.2. See Schrenk, “θέλημα,” 52-62; M. Limbeck, “θέλημα,” EDNT II.137-138. Cf. Jn 1:13 [×2]; 4:34; 5:30 [×2]; 6:38-40; 7:17; 9:31. In 7:17, ὁ πέμψας με is not explicitly used. θέλημα is used also in 1:13 and 9:31, however not on the lips of Jesus. Another word for sending (ἀποστέλλω) occurs 17 times in John. In the view of Bernard, there is no difference between these two expressions. See Bernard, John, 119. Among the 79 occurrences of πέμπω in the NT, 32 are in John and 24 of these refer to the sending of Jesus. Johannine Jesus employs the formula ὁ πέμψας με to present the sending of the son by the Father. (4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 37; 6:38, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5). H. Ritt, “πέμπω,” EDNT III.68.

280

CHAPTER 6

organ is the one who bears and mediates the will of Him that sent Him”. He is one who totally receives and who is totally at the Father’s disposal. He simply hears and executes. Schrenk adds further that the figure of the Johannine Jesus is expressed in terms of “will, act and obedience of the son”.109 The expression ὁ πέμψας με can be understood either in the subjective genitive or the objective genitive (the will and the work that was commanded by the one who sent me). The context of v. 34 suggests that the latter is more true and that the expression has a transitive meaning.110 Oepke rightly explains that the Johannine Jesus’ use of ὁ πέμψας με is wholly restricted to God’s sending.111 The phrase τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με occurs only here and on two other occasions in John (5:30; 6:38). It appears nowhere else in the NT or LXX. Lindars affirms that these two occurrences are equivalent expressions.112 We may consider Jesus’ statements: “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (5:30); “for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (6:38). It is clear from these three occurrences of τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με that the basis and content of Jesus’ life is the will of the sender.113 That is, ὁ πέμψας με expresses the link between Jesus’ response to God’s will and how he is commissioned and thus makes the phrase τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με more specific, i.e., doing the will of God.114 In this respect, we can see how the evangelist indicates, in this intermezzo, that ἐμὸν βρῶμα points to doing the will of the God in the context of the Samaritan mission. The subordinating conjunction ἵνα without any final significance, is common in John.115 In the opinion of some scholars ἵνα is used (in v. 34) not to express a purpose but rather to introduce a noun clause as subject or predicate nominative.116 ἵνα with the phrase ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με makes evident that it is an explanation of the food of which Jesus speaks in v. 34, and that at this point in the Samaritan mission his 109 110

111 112 113 114 115 116

Schrenk, “θέλημα,” 55. BDF, #163. The explanation of U.C. von Wahlde, “Faith and Works in Jn 6:28-29,” NovT 22 (1980): 304-315, 313, is relevant in this context: the one who is sent to others with a command given by the sender, and the one who is sent has to do the will of the sender. Oepke, “ἀποστέλλω”, TDNT I.404. Lindars, John, 194. Limbeck, “θέλημα,” 137. Brown, John, 173. Barrett, John, 201. See Moulton, Grammar, 3.227.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

281

focus is on the accomplishment of the work of God (cf. τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον) rather than the physical food which the disciples want him to have.117 In other words, the evangelist depicts not only in v. 34 but also in several other instances in the fourth gospel that, for the Johannine Jesus, doing the will of God and completing his works is his top priority and guides him throughout his earthly mission.118 In v. 34, John presents a clear correspondence between the will of God and the work of God.119 Bühner explains mainly threefold implications of ὁ πέμψας με in the gospel of John, viz., Jesus’ delegated authority; the obedience of Jesus as the sent one of God and Jesus as the representative of the sender, God the Father. In the specific context of v. 34, he notes the collocation of θέλημα and ὁ πέμψας με and maintains that this verse underlines Jesus’ legitimacy as the one who is sent by/commissioned by God (cf. 5:30; 6:38, 40).120 In direct relation with the will (θέλημα) of God, ὁ πέμψας με, in v. 34 Jesus explains what he means by food. One can also deduce, in light of our discussion of v. 4, that the specific use of ἐμὸν βρῶμα with θέλημα adds further emphasis to the explanation that Jesus’ journey through Samaria is a divine necessity that it points to doing the will of God (vv. 1-4).121 The progress in the Samaritan woman’s understanding during the dialogue and in her actions followed can be seen in this light as well, as part of the will of God who sent Jesus in this specific context to Samaria. What he has done so far on the Samaritan mission indicates the meaning 117

118

119

120

121

Scholars like Bernard, Morris and Barrett consider that the employment of ἵνα as epexegetic. Bernard, John, 154; Morris, John, 277; Barrett, John, 240. Plummer, John, 124 explains that it is used in a final sense. Dodd, Historical Traditions, 326, refutes this explanation by stating that Jesus will not be fully human in that he is not in need of ordinary food. There is no evidence in the fourth gospel that Jesus has no genuine hunger and thirst; rather, his humanness is affirmed by the employment of σάρξ, specifically in 1:14 (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν). See Ensor, Jesus and His Works, 150. There is no detailed discussion in scholarship that scholars usually do not pay specific attention to the use of ἵνα in 4:34. In this sense, ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με can mean sacrificing one’s own will (sacrifice one’s own human or earthly way of acting and living) in order to do the work that God wills one to do. See LSJ, #32940. The depiction of the evangelist that the Samaritan woman left behind her concern for water and hurried to the Samaritans to lead them to Jesus can be seen as an implicit illustration of doing the will of God. We examine these sections (vv. 28-30 and 39-42) in the following. In 7:18 John uses the vocabulary δόξα in the same meaning of θέλημα. John elaborates this theme in the whole gospel by differentiating between σάρξ and δόξα. Schrenk, “θέλημα,” 53, 54. See Bühner, Der Gesandte, 191-267. He discusses extensively the theme of sending in the gospel of John and the expression ὁ πέμψας με in particular. See chapter 3.

282

CHAPTER 6

of the food of Jesus in this specific context of vv. 32-34, which in fact belongs to the intermezzo depicted alongside the Samaritans coming to Jesus (vv. 28, 30, 39, 42). Later on, in Jn 6:57, the theme of food and dependence on the will of God comes back more powerfully in Jesus’ claim that he lives by that food.122 The preceding analysis indicates that ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με affirms Jesus’ works, specifically the Samaritan mission of Jesus as a performance of the will of God.123 He explains further that the will of God is to be done by the accomplishment of the work of Him, τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον. 2.2.3. τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον In the following, we briefly examine the expression τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον and discuss the key terms here, τελειόω and ἔργον, both in general and in the context of the Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus. The verb τελειόω is generally used to mean making something perfect or complete. This is explained in two ways: 1) when used with reference to things, acts, works, or time, it means to make complete or perfect or accomplish something; 2) when used with reference to persons, it denotes bringing to perfection or consummation. 124 BDAG lists three main types of meanings for τελειόω, viz., to complete an activity, to finish, accomplish something; to bring to an end or to achieve a goal or accomplishment; and to consecrate or initiate. Bauer cites 4:34, 5:36, 17:4 and 19:28 as examples of the use of τελειόω to mean to complete, finish, accomplish etc.125 τελειόω is used in John when Jesus refers to the work which his Father has given Him to do. The content of this work is expressed in 122 123

124 125

Dodd, The Interpretation, 315. Brown, John, 173. In vv. 1-4, the evangelist writes that Jesus had to pass through Samaria (implies a necessity). But we know that it is not a geographical necessity and also that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι tended to avoid the way through Samaria. Therefore this necessity must be in some way related to a divine purpose. The encounter with the Samaritan woman and her preaching becomes food for Jesus. In vv. 35-38, Jesus invites disciples to look and see that the harvest is ready to reap. Brown notes that the role undertaken by the Samaritan woman in evangelizing the Samaritans in her city, and thus her role in providing Jesus with food, is to be understood as having much importance. In other words, the Samaritan woman’s actions implicate her willingness to do such works. L&N, #68.22. LSJ, #39654. See BDAG, 996. Louw and Nida explain that τελειόω is used to mean making perfect in the moral sense or causing perfection. See L&N, #88.38. See also LSJ, #42281. Moulton adds that it would mean “to execute the deed in the proper way”. M&M, #4253.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

283

various ways, for example in 4:34, 5:36 and 17:4. In 19:28, it refers to the moment of consummation of the earthly mission of Jesus. Here, the accomplishment of a work refers to all the words and works of Jesus’ earthly ministry. That is, τελειόω expresses a sense of accomplishment in John. The Johannine Jesus speaks about an accomplishment using τελειόω in 4:34, 5:36, 17:4, 17:23, and 19:28. In all these occurrences of τελειόω in John, except in 19:28, Jesus refers to his life and action that has been done according to the Father/God who sent him.126 It is used together with the theme of work: in 4:34, it appears in the singular form τὸ ἔργον, in 5:36 in the plural τὰ ἔργα, and in 17:4 it is used along with an additional explanation for the work (τὸ ἔργον), namely that it is to glorify the Father. Given the various meanings of accomplishment, we agree with Ridderbos that doing the will and accomplishing the work of the Father in John refers to the present as well as the future and we add that it includes the works done in the past too.127 In the fourth gospel, the explanation about Jesus’ work/s (ἔργον, ἔργα) is combined with the verb τελειόω when it mentions the work that the Father assigned Jesus to do. Scholars have quite different opinions concerning the singular and plural forms of ἔργον. For Schnackenburg the plural form ἔργα represents the individual tasks that Jesus has to accomplish, whereas the singular ἔργον refers to the whole work he has to do.128 The various statements about Jesus’ works in the fourth gospel in one way or another are related to Jesus’ individual works, and that these works give witness to the salvation he has brought.129 Van Belle finds that the term ἔργον is used interchangeably with σημεῖον (4:34, 14:10).130 The term ἔργον is a part of the total activities 126

127 128

129

130

In 19:28, τελειόω is employed to denote that the time has come that everything (πάντα τετέλεσται) is accomplished. We have already seen the implication of the term πάντα in relation to the actions of the Messiah/Christ, Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός ἀναγγελεῖ ἅπαντα (cf. vv. 25-26, 29), and in v. 34, using the image of his food, he underlines (τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον) it again. That is, in 4:34 the Johannine Jesus includes the Samaritan mission as part of the accomplishment of the work of God, τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον, and in 19:28, the evangelist reports on the moment of the culmination of his earthily life as πάντα τετέλεσται. See Ridderbos, John, 168. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.447. Lindars, John, 194, also argues that ἔργα refers to the signs and ἔργα implies the whole purpose of Jesus’ life and mission. He adds that Jesus’ personal assignments will be completed in the passion (17:4; 19:30). Bertram, “ἔργον,” TDNT III.642, holds that the singular form does not refer to his work as a whole but to a single work, namely his death on the cross, which is the completion of all his works (plural). Jesus explains his works (4:34, 5:36, 10:25) as the fulfillment of his mission, which aims to evoke faith in the God who sent Jesus (6:29). The gospel of John uses ἔργον (6:29; 7:21; 10:32; 17:4) as a sign from God who sent Jesus.

284

CHAPTER 6

of God in Jesus.131 One can find an explanation of the work and the works in 6:28-29. Here, the work of God is explained as coming into belief. In v. 34, Jesus speaks of his work as his food, and in v. 42 we see that the Samaritans come to believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world. The work or works are primarily meant to evoke faith in those who witness them. Jesus is carrying out his mission through his works, and for this he was sent into the world. One can propose the following explanations of the meaning of the expression τελειώσω τὸ ἔργον in v. 34. The accomplishment of work has both present and future dimensions.132 In the immediate context of the Samaritan episode, work refers to the mission of the earthly Jesus in Samaria and his accomplishment of this mission is implicitly depicted in the final verse of this episode (cf. ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42). That is, Jesus’ mission is not restricted to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι: it is extended to include the Samaritans but to ὁ κόσμος, which is beyond any sort of boundary, breach, and hostility.133 Yet from the immediate context one can conclude that Jesus’ Samaritan mission is only a partial realization of his larger mission. It is to be noted that the evangelist presents the saying of the Samaritans in v. 39, that they had come to believe in Jesus due to the witness of the Samaritan woman. That the work is being done in Samaria is an essential element in Jesus’ fulfillment of the will and work of the Father. Additionally, as we have noted above the work (ἔργον) here too in one way or other bear the fruits of salvation (cf. ἡ σωτηρία and ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (vv. 22, 42). It is to be noted that it is not indicated in the Samaritan episode whether Jesus wants his disciples to leave him to buy food. However, the disciples’ urging of Jesus to eat and the form of address they use (v. 31), as well as their speaking privately about Jesus’ reply that they do not know (οὐκ οἴδατε) his source of food (vv. 32-33), all indicate the disciples’ doubtfulness or lack of trust in Jesus (v. 33). The disciples discuss among themselves in v. 33 whether anyone has given food to Jesus, and in light of the above discussion we can see that this unasked question is in fact answered in v. 34. The food is given to him by the one who has sent him, ὁ πέμψας με; in other words, his food is the mission given to him by the Father. We have already seen how Jesus’ Samaritan mission is depicted: both 131

132

133

See Van Belle, “The Signs,” 167. Van Belle, The Sign Source, 380-389, gives a detailed analysis of Johannine use of ἔργον. As specified in the general introduction, we are not focusing on the post-resurrection perspective of the Samaritan mission. Such a mission is presented by the apostle Philip (Acts 8). We will discuss vv. 39-42 in the following sections of this chapter.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

285

implicitly as a necessity in v. 4, and as the will of ὁ πέμψας με/God the Father in v. 34, which is here directed towards the completion of His works. Thus, based on our discussions so far, we deduce that a more probable interpretation of Jesus’ food (cf. ἐμὸν βρῶμα in v. 34) is that in the broadest sense it refers to Jesus’ mission, given to him by ὁ πέμψας με/ God the Father, and in the immediate sense it refers to Jesus’ work in Samaria.134 Jesus explains further in vv. 35-38 by employing the image of harvesting. In other words, the fructification of this work (v. 34) is depicted in terms of the harvest in vv. 35-38. In the following, we consider this depiction more closely. 2.3. The Theme of Harvesting The theme of harvesting in vv. 35-38 is presented as a continuation of the theme of food (vv. 31-34). The verbs σπείρω and θερίζω represent the beginning and the end of a full growth procedure which culminates in harvesting.135 As we know, fruits of the labour (κοπιάω), viz. sowing and harvesting, are preliminary works needed to make food. In this respect, in the literal sense, the theme of harvesting is logically well-connected with that of food and also symbolically points to the fructification of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. However, scholars agree that there is considerable difficulty in understanding the explanations of Jesus in vv. 35-38.136 In vv. 35-37, Jesus gives an explanation to the disciples using key words such as σπείρω, ὁ σπείρων, θερίζω, θερισμός, ὁ θερίζων and μισθός. He speaks about the actions of sowing and sending to reap in a figurative way. Verse 38 speaks about the ἄλλοι who worked (cf. κοπιάω) before the disciples’ are sent (ἀποστέλλω) to reap/harvest (θερίζω). κοπιάω is used again in this verse to affirm that the disciples are entering into the labor 134

135 136

In 18:11 and 19:28 the evangelist mentions a cup to drink, given by the Father. Considering this within the gospel context, the evangelist portrays Jesus’ mission as his proper food and drink. Within the Samaritan woman episode, the woman asks for the life-giving drink from Jesus and leaves behind her thirst for ordinary water after receiving the revelation from Jesus (v. 26). Similarly, in the dialogue with the disciples when they bring the food to Jesus, he invites them also to do the will and work of God. This invitation is made more explicit in the following part of the dialogue, in vv. 35-38. See Borowski, “Harvest, Harvesting,” ABD III.63-64. For example, according to Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 223, there are serious problems with this passage and he calls it one of the most obscure texts in John. Even though Schnackenburg, John, 1.448-454 and Brown, John, 182-184, agree on the importance of the post-resurrection perspective in interpreting this text, they present contrasting explanations of vv. 35-38.

286

CHAPTER 6

of the ἄλλοι. The tense of these terms in v. 38, specifically the aorist ἀπέστειλα and the perfect forms κεκοπιάκατε and κεκοπιάκασιν, demands an intricate analysis of this verse in the framework of harvesting as depicted in vv. 35-37. The reference to others (ἄλλοι) before the disciples were sent for harvesting is another complex concern, because there is no mention of any such others, either in the immediate or broader context of our research pericope. Hence, in the following, we discuss vv. 35-38 addressing issues such as: In the context of the Samaritans mission of Jesus: We ask, who are the sower(s) and harvester(s) and/or what is sowing and reaping and harvesting? who are the ἄλλοι introduced in v. 38? We proceed in three steps: First, we discuss the meaning and implication of the terms σπείρω and ὁ σπείρων, θερίζω and ὁ θερισμός/ὁ θερίζων, in general in the LXX and NT, and in near equivalents in the MT as well. Second, we address the issue of who the sower(s) and reaper(s) are in vv. 35-37. Third, we briefly examine v. 37 through a discussion of ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω, which will lead us to address issues in v. 38 such as the sudden change in the tense forms as well as the question of who the ἄλλοι worked before the disciples were sent to reap? 2.3.1. σπείρω/ὁ σπείρων, and θερίζω/ὁ θερισμός In the following, we discuss briefly the meaning and implications of the terms σπείρω and θερίζω in general and specifically consider their use in the LXX and NT, and its equivalent in the MT as well. 2.3.1.1. Sowing and Harvesting in the MT and in the LXX The verb σπείρω literally means ‘to sow the seeds’. In some contexts, this term evokes a spiritual meaning in the sense of sowing a spiritual seed. It denotes begetting or generating.137 In the LXX, σπείρω is used some 59 times. But it is very much associated with the vocabulary of seed (σπέρμα) which appears 217 times in the LXX. It is to be noted that in general the LXX uses σπείρω, where MT uses ‫זרע‬.138 The term ‫ זרע‬indicates the action of sowing seed in the fields. In the spiritual sense, it suggests that the sowing is done by God. ‫( זרע‬n) in the literal sense means the sowing of seed and on some occasions refers to sowing a specific kind of 137

138

See Schulz, “σπείρω,” TDNT VII.537. σπείρω is also used in Proverbs to show the effectiveness of an action. See Quell, “σπέρμα, σπείρω,” TDNT VII.538-542.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

287

seed and begetting offspring. In the sense of begetting offspring, this word is often used for humans and very rarely for animals. The word σπείρω conveys the different meanings of ‫זרע‬.139 In the literal sense, the θερισμός refers to the actions of cutting ripe grain and gathering it into bundles.140 It represents either the time or process of harvesting and/or the crops to be harvested. However, the extension of these meanings sometimes also includes a sense of threat or promise when accompanied with some explanations.141 For example, θερίζω comes from θέρος (summer) and thus takes the meaning of doing summer work.142 It is also used in the sense of mowing or reaping. In the figurative sense it can either mean to cut off from or to reap a good harvest.143 According to BDAG, this verb has two meanings: 1) a grain crop gathered by reaping and 2) to gain results or benefits. The second meaning is employed both in the proverbial sayings and in the context of judgment. θερισμός and θερίζω are employed in the literal sense of reaping and gathering the food produce, and are applied with a double meaning in the figurative sense.144 The verb ‫ קצר‬is an equivocal term with the entirely different meanings of being short, ineffective, powerless or impatient, or else to reap or harvest. In this latter sense, ‫ קצר‬also has the figurative meaning of reaping the fruits of righteousness or evil. In the nominal form, ‫ קציר‬refers to harvesting or the harvest. It indicates the process or time of harvesting in the literal sense and in the figurative meaning of punishment, of vintage.145 Thus the terms ‘sowing’ and ‘harvesting’ have both literal and figurative meanings and more or less the same sense.146 Any of the following meanings is attributable to them: (a) the action of sowing the seed and reaping the harvest, (b) the time of sowing and harvesting, c) begetting children and d) the effectiveness or results of one’s actions.147 In addition, both words are used both in the proverbial sayings and in a spiritual sense. Mostly, the image of sowing is expressed along with the image of harvesting, and the harvesting is the culmination of the 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

147

See BDB, ##2750, 2751; HALOT, #2288. TWOT, #2062. See L&N, #43.14 See Hauck, “θερίζω, θερισμός,” TDNT III.132-133; Sand, “θερισμός,” EDNT II.145. See Hauck, “θερισμός,” 133; Demarest “θερισμός,” NIDNTT III.525. See LSJ, “θερίζω,” #1907. See BDAG, 453. See TWOT, #0582; BDB, ##8957, 8960, 8961. In the nominal form (‫ )קציר‬has some double meanings that θερισμός does not. However, to explore the nuanced meanings of different Hebrew nouns is beyond the scope of this paper. Our research pericope is in Greek and we are referring to its Greek equivalents only to check the employment of their Greek equivalents in the MT. See TWOT, #0582; BDB, ##8957, 8960, 8961.

288

CHAPTER 6

action of sowing. Both in the LXX and the MT, the sowing (of seed) carries almost the same meanings. The employment of sowing as a noun (‫ )זרע‬can have any of the following meanings: 1) The literal meaning of sowing is the sowing of seed and sowing as a regularly recurring seasonal activity. 2) It is used to express a) the idolatry of Judah, b) the fortunes of Zion, c) the rapid and plentiful growth in the coming of time, d) the growth and prosperity of Israel and e) a moral quality of individual persons and communities, both in the good and bad sense (e.g. the community of evil doers). 3) It also symbolizes the later prophets or future generations in the context of addressing the people. When sowing is used as a verb, it takes the following meanings. The literal meaning of scattering seeds and the producing of a seed or of becoming pregnant and bearing a child; symbolizes God’s actions of fructifying his elected people; the image of sowing reflects a moral action; is used figuratively to speak of Israel’s practice of idolatry and is used as a metaphor of distress followed by joy.148 With regard to the term harvest, the LXX almost exclusively uses θερισμός whereas the MT uses ‫קציר‬. Before making a detailed analysis of the term harvest in the LXX we first offer a brief discussion of ‫ קציר‬in the MT.149 Hauck explains that it bears both literary and figurative meanings, which we can easily distinguish based on the contexts of its use. It has different meanings in different contexts.150 ‫ קציר‬is employed symbolically in a context of God’s Judgment upon humans in general and upon some nations in particular. The image presents the judgment actions of God in justice and retaliation.151 The abundance of harvest as signaling the coming of the Lord is another implication of the term harvest. Amos (9:13) explains that at the time of the coming of God, the harvest will be in abundance. In the LXX θερισμός is employed as the equivalent of ‫קציר‬ without much difference. It presents the judgment of the nations at the end 148 149

150

151

See Quell, “σπέρμα, σπείρω,” 538-540. There are 27 occurrences of the noun ‫ ריצק‬in MT. There are another 19 occurrences of the various compound forms in ‫ריצק‬. First occurrence of ‫ ריצק‬is in Gen 8:22. However the vocabulary of harvest occurs in the English translation NRSV 75 times altogether. For example, in Ruth 2:3 ‫ קציר‬is used in the proper literary meaning of harvesting. It is employed in an extended ethical sense, i.e., to reap the fruit of one’s own deeds. It expresses the teaching that doing good results in reaping good (Hos 10:12) and vice versa (Hos 8:7; Job 4:8; Prov 22:8). It also indicates in some other instances that harvesting is gaining a reward through hard work (Ps 126:5). Hauck, “θερίζω, θερισμός,” 132. Demarest, “θερισμός,” 525-526. See Legrand, “Harvest,” 3. The future of Israel in Isa 27:12 (Joel 4:1ff) is spoken of in an eschatological sense. Hauck, “θερισμός,” 132.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

289

of the world.152 Thus taken in its more symbolic or metaphoric sense, the word ‫קציר‬, as it is used in the MT evokes mainly two meanings: viz., the time of judgment in the negative sense, and the time of the coming of God as an occasion for joy. The OT references that deal with the judgment of God divide human beings into two groups: the Gentiles will suffer destruction, while the Israelites will be rewarded/judged. The reward is presented in the image of the abundance of harvest. The time of God’s judgment/ destruction of the Gentiles is explained in scholarship in light of the references in the OT as a time for rejoicing for the chosen ones.153 At the same time it reminds them of their own judgment in the future. The above discussion suggests that the theme of harvest/harvesting in the OT indicates a time of punishment, judgment in the negative sense. But it also signals the beginning of the salvation of the Israelites. Finally, the ethical sense presented by the image of sowing and harvesting emphasizes the individual retribution imposed by God. The image of harvest is employed to express the time of the coming of God. He will come either with wrath to punish the nations with all types of natural calamities, or to save them, which is accompanied by an abundance of harvest.154 God who comes as harvester is to redeem the people. This is clearly depicted in Amos 9:13 “the time is surely coming, says the Lord, when the one who plows shall overtake the one who reaps, and the treader of grapes the one who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it”. This is understood as the coming of the messianic days (see also Joel 3:18; Ps 126:5ff; Hos 6:11). Both of these occasions have eschatological significance and portray the messianic days. 152

153

154

See Hauck, “θερίζω, θερισμός,” 132-133, explains that the punishment for the Gentiles and the reward of the Israelites occurs here and now (Isa 25:13; Jer 51:33), but the judgment of God’s elected people is in the future or in the eschatological meaning (Isa 63:1-6; Joel 3:13). Quite contrary to the yield of the abundance of crops, the judgment of God’s elect people is accompanied by natural calamities (for example, Amos 8:2; Jer 6:9; Isa 17:5). The judgment is always presented in the future tense. According to Legrand, “The Harvest is Plentiful,” 3-4, in the general sense that the harvesting includes both happy and unhappy experience: both gathering of the grain and removal and burning of the chaff and straw. Likewise, the image of harvest is used to portray two situations in the life of the people of God, viz., chastisement and reward. Pesch, “Harvest,” 350, adds that prophets emphasize the abundance of harvest as a day of vindication and joy for Israel, which represents the beginning of the time of their salvation (for example, Joel 2:19-24; Isa 27:12). See Girard, “Harvest,” DBT, 224, affirms that in the former sense, God is the just harvester who judges the peoples according to their actions. He cuts them down and thus punishes all Israel (Isa 17:5; Jer 13:24), Babylon (Jer 51:2, 33), and the Gentiles (Isa 13:11). Joel 3:13 says that God will take up the sickle when the harvest is ripe with wickedness. The joyful side of this coming of God is the reversal of the above events.

290

CHAPTER 6

Thus, the image of the harvest in the MT and LXX expresses explicitly the judgment of God through the punishment and natural calamities, and implicitly the coming of the kingdom of God (the coming of the Messiah). When the harvesting time is an occasion for the destruction of the Gentiles who conquered and exercised cruelty upon the Israelites, for the Israelites it is a time for joy and surprising experience. From the prophecies it is clear that the time of the judgment for Gentiles is here and now, while for the Israelites it is depicted as a happening in the future. The judgment given either a positive or negative aspect depending on the character of the life and actions of the elected people. 2.3.1.2. Sowing and Harvesting in the NT In the NT the terms ‘harvesting’ is usually employed together with ‘sowing’ are employed together. As we noticed above, the case is different in the OT, where these two terms are used in combination only on a few occasions.155 Of the four gospels, the only place where sowing is not cited together with harvesting is in Lk 8:4-15. However, the Lukan Jesus uses here another term to represent harvest in this context (καρπός in Lk 8:8, 15).156 The terms for sowing and reaping/harvesting are used together most often in the Synoptics. In the Pauline letters they are used together only four times (1 Cor 9; 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 9 and Gal 6), in the fourth gospel only once (in vv. 35-38).157 In the Synoptic gospels, σπείρω is employed mainly in the parable of the sower (Mt 13; Mk 4; Lk 8); the parable about the weeds (Mt 13; Mk 4); the image of the birds of the air (Mt 6; Lk 12); and the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13; Mk 4).158 155

156

157

158

See for instances where sowing and harvesting are employed together in the NT: Mt 6:26; Lk 12:24; Jn 4:35, 36, 37; 2 Cor 9:6; Gal 6:7, 8. It is to be noted that only in Jn 4 the image of sowing and harvesting are used repeatedly in three consecutive verses. For example in Ex 23:16, these two terms are used in the literal sense, and in Jer 12:13; Prov 22:8 they imply reward or punishment. See Sand, “θερίζω,” 145. Mt 6:26; 13:3 [×2], 4, 18, 24, 37, 39; Mk 4:3, 4, 14 [×2], 15, 16, 18; Lk 8:5 [×2]; 12:24; Jn 4:36, 37; 1 Cor 15:36, 37 [×2], 42, 43 [×2], 44; 2 Cor 9:6 [×2], 10; Gal 6:7, 8; Jas 3:18. See Schulz, “σπείρω,” 546. According to Hackenburg, “σπείρω,” 263, these contexts, the evangelists begin with the literal meaning of sowing and move on to use its figurative meaning. The most frequently expressed metaphoric meaning is that sowing signals the coming of the kingdom of God. By the phrase ‘the parables of the seeds’, we mean the following four pericopes. (1) The parable of the sower in Mk 4:3-8 (see also Mt 13 and Lk 8); (2) the parable of the seed growing secretly in Mk 4:26-29; (3) the parable of the mustard seed in Mk 4:30-32 (see also Mt 13) and (4) the parable of the weeds sown among the wheat in Mt 13:24-230.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

291

The kingdom of God is presented as a gift from God and a joyful and surprising experience. It is further explained in these pericopes by the responses of those with whom the message of the coming of the kingdom is shared.159 Schweitzer explains that the sowing begins as John the Baptist awakened repentance and carried it further by the preaching of Jesus.160 Hackenburg rightly maintains that the image of sowing points to two dimensions: it signals both the coming of the kingdom of God and the importance of the believers’ response and commitment.161 In the letters of Paul, as in the Synoptics, Paul uses the image of sowing seeds and shifts its meaning to explain the continuity within the discontinuity of the present and future life.162 This use is reflected in Jn 12:24 as well.163 Thus, in the Synoptics σπείρω is used first in its literal meaning and then in this transformed sense. In the latter sense, it mainly expresses the two dimensions of the coming of the kingdom of God and the various levels of persons’ acceptance of the word of God or commitment to it. Those who prepare the people to receive λόγος are considered to be co-workers of Jesus as sowers. Sowing paves the way for the coming of the kingdom of God. The sowing of the λόγος is a gift from God to all people. Those who receive the sown seeds (λόγος) and commit to their growth in their lives are promised the kingdom of God, which is a joyful and surprising experience. Jesus reveals his glory in the blossoming of the kingdom of God and presents himself as the harvester. This gives an implicit reference to the earthly Jesus as the sower and the glorified Jesus as the harvester. The others’ labour prepares the people to receive the sowing of the λόγος. In other words, they bring the people to Jesus to receive the life-giving λόγος and thus be saved. Thus Jesus’ co-workers also have some role in 159

160

161

162

163

See Schulz, “σπείρω,” 546. This idea is clear in Mk 4:15 where the listener is asked to decide whether to accept or reject what is sown. See Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu, 403. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 140, adds that Jesus himself will be the harvester as the kingdom of God comes and Jesus reveals his glory. See Hackenburg, “σπείρω,” 263, states that “the original metaphor of sowing is concerned with the coming of the kingdom of God, but in the interpretations the conduct of the believers is the focus”. In the Letters of Paul, the image of sowing is employed mainly in 1 Cor 9; 15; 2 Cor 9 and Gal 6. In 1 Cor 9:11 and 2 Cor 9:6, 10 the term sowing is used to express the missionary activity. In the latter reference it is more focused on the church’s gift of love rather than simply a mission activity. In 1 Cor 15:36-44, the vocabulary of sowing is repeatedly used (6 times). Schulz, “σπείρω,” 546 and Hackenburg, “σπείρω,” 263, analyze the Pauline image of sowing more in line with the images in the gospel of John. The implication of future and realized eschatology is explained even more deeply in Gal 6:7-9. It speaks about the eschatological motivations of a believer’s behavior here and now.

292

CHAPTER 6

sowing (σπείρω).164 Thus, in the NT the theme of sowing, in general, expresses the idea of the coming of the kingdom of God, which focuses both on future eschatology and on realized eschatology, in terms of the missionary activity here and now among human persons. We now briefly examine the image of harvesting in the NT.165 Scholars explain that a majority of references to the harvest or harvesting in the NT depict the motif of judgment and blessings, which is the same as or similar to the use of the OT images of harvest. Yet other references are presented in a context of sending and/or mission.166 In the following, we briefly examine the instances of this term in the NT: first, instances in which the theme of judgment and the coming of the Messiah are depicted through the image of harvesting, and then instances that concern the theme of sending, mission, etc. The gathering of the harvest by the Messiah is explained as a separating of good from evil that takes place at the time of the coming of the kingdom of God, both in the present and at the time of the eschatological judgment. On some occasions, the image of harvesting is used to show the impact of the present actions of persons in their future lives. Specifically, at the end of the world θερισμός takes place in accord with the life and works of each person.167 The image of harvest is presented in the parable of the weeds in Mt 13.168 One who sows the good seed is the Son of man, 164

165

166

167

168

Through the seed parables, the Synoptic gospels present the eschatological dimension of the Kingdom of God. The sowing is done here and now and the growth of the seeds is in accordance with the responses of those who received the seeds. Its final outcome will be revealed in the future eschatology. The noun θερισμός is employed in the four gospels (Mt 4:29; 9:37-39; 13:30-39; Mk 4:29; Lk 10:1-2 and Jn 4:35) and in the Book of Revelation (14:15). θερίζω is used in all the four gospels (Mt 6:26; 25:24-26; Lk 12:24; 19:21-22; Jn 4:36-38), the Pauline Letters (1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 9:6; Gal 6:7-9), the Letter of James (5:4) and in the Book of Revelation (14:15). Among these, the term harvest in the literal meaning is used only in four contexts, Mt 6:26; Lk 12:24; Jn 4:35 and James 5:4. However, it takes an added meaning as the context unfolds. Hauck, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 143146. Sand, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 132-133. Jn 4:35 and James 5:4 are used also in the figurative sense. In Mt 6:26 and Lk 12:24 θερίζω(v) is used in the literal sense and it is used to express God’s blessing. Pesch, “Harvest,” 350. All the other occurrences attribute to the term a figurative meaning. We are briefly examining only the contexts which ascribe figurative meaning. Accordingly, we are not discussing instances such as Mt 6:26 and Lk 12:24, where θερισμός and/or θερίζω are used in the general sense. Cf. Mt 13:30; 2 Cor 9:6; Gal 6:7; Rev 14:15. Hauck, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 143-146. 2 Cor 9:6 [×2], expresses the idea that what one sows and reaps are proportionate. Again Gal 6:7, 8 [×2], 9, repeats the same idea of 2 Cor 9:6 and says that judgment is according to what one has sown. The parable of the weeds and its explanation in Mt 13 portray a situation at the end of the world (θερίζω/θερισμός in Mt 13:30×[3]; 39×[2]). The weeds and the seeds grow together until the time of the harvest, when they will be separated.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

293

and the weed is sown by the enemy. Harvesting happens at the end of the time. The angels are depicted as reapers of the harvest who separate the wheat from the chaff in Mt 13:39.169 The idea of harvesting employed here also signals the beginning of a new age.170 Girard adds that this judgment at the end of time has already been anticipated in the coming of Christ.171 Another implication of the theme of harvest here is the idea of super abundance. For instance, in Mt 13:1-8 the yielding of the harvest in abundance (in oriental style, by a hundredfold, sixty, thirty) reflects the eschatological overflowing of the harvest that is the coming of God in its fullness, surpassing all human measures. The harvest is not grain or fruits but rather the people who are gathered under the reign of God. In Mk 4:27, the theme of harvest indicates that it is God who cares for the sown seed in the harvest. In this respect, God is the one who is active, even in the intervals of sowing and harvesting.172 This idea is further developed in a way that echoes the OT prophecy about the messianic time that in the fullness of time he will come and there will be abundance of harvest, beyond all human works or imagining. The eschatological decision of God is presented through the image of harvesting on occasions such as Mt 13:30, 39; Mk 4:29; Rev 14:15. The difference between the OT and NT in this sense is that the hour of decision is imminent in the NT, whereas in the OT it is in the future.173 In Gal 6:7 and 2 Cor 9:6, humans are depicted as both sowers and reapers and what they reap is according to their sowing.174 The harvesting mainly concerns good and 169

170

171

172 173

174

See Pesch, “Harvest,” 350. The angels are depicted as the harvesters several times in both the OT and NT. Isa 18:4; 27:12; Jer 51:53; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:13; Mt 3:12; 13:30, 39; Mk 4:26-29; 13:27; Rev 14:14-20. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew,148-149. See Jeremias, “Johanneische Literarkritik,” 33-46, 35. Davies and Allison, John, 149. Although the harvest is depicted as the end of the world, in this sense the eschatological harvest is relevant in the present too. See Girard, “Harvest,” 224. The teaching of Jesus regarding the coming of the kingdom of God is realized not in a single moment but through the interrelated events in his life on earth, “his death and what follows are all conceived as forming a unity”. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 133. See Pesch, “Harvest,” 349. See Hauck, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 132. θερισμός is employed both in the sense of threat and promise in the NT (see Mt 3:12; 13:30) as also in the OT, and the divine harvest leads to an inevitable separation of good and evil. See Hauck, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 133. The meaning of the harvest as judgment in the OT appears in Gal 5:7b-9. Here, Paul seems to present the whole life of human beings on earth as sowing and waiting for the harvest on the last day. The harvest comes at the eschatological time but is determined by one’s earthly life (Rom 6:20-23). Sand, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 145. In Rom 1:13, the harvest refers to the fruit of Paul’s labour as an apostle. Paul uses the image of sowing and harvesting as complementary. The letter of James also presents in 3:18 the same use for these images of sowing and

294

CHAPTER 6

evil, justice and injustice, and/or judgment and reward. In Mt 25:24, 26 (the parable of the talents) and Lk 19:21, 22 (the parable of the pounds) the protagonists are accused by their Master or King for unjustly appropriating the fruit of others’ work (Mt 25:24-26).175 Here the image of harvest refers to the time of judgment when God will separate good from evil. From the above overview of the contexts in which the theme of harvest is depicted and our brief examination of them, we find that in several instances of this image of harvesting in the NT, both the motif of judgment and the coming of the Messiah are combined together. The image of harvest is employed to depict the idea of sending and/or mission on three main occasions: Mt 9:37-38; Lk 10:1-2 and Jn 4:35-38. It is to be noted that these three pericopes are presenting the theme of harvest together with Jesus’ saying about the sending of the disciples. Different from the previous sections, both in the OT and in the contexts we discussed above in the NT, the image of harvest is presented in Mt 9:3739, Lk 10:1-2 and Jn 4:35-38. In all three of these places, the terminology used is quite similar and situated in the context of mission.176 In Matthew, Jesus first spoke to the twelve disciples about the ripe harvest and need for labourers, then he sends them forth, for mission. In Luke, Jesus first appointed the seventy to go in pairs for mission, and then Jesus spoke to them using the image of harvest to explain their sending. In the Lukan gospel, the evangelist makes clear that Jesus sends them to prepare the people in advance to receive his teachings. In Matthew, by contrast, Jesus speaks about the harvest and labourers after his mission experiences, stating that the people are in a pitiful situation since they have no shepherd to lead them. Some scholars argue that Mt 9:37-38 also implies judgment, since in the other occurrences Matthew employs the image of harvest to

175 176

reaping. In the Book of Revelation the idea of the Son of Man’s coming with a sickle to harvest is presented in the same way as in Mk 4:29. There are eight such occurrences (δρέπανον) in the NT. Among them only one occurs in Mk 4:29 and the remaining seven occur in the Book of Revelation. Sand, “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 145. The death of Christ is explained as the judgment of the world both in the positive and negative sense; both as the gathering of the chosen people and as the condemnation of evil. Mt 25:24, 26 in the parable of the talents, unfolds in the context of the master accusing his servant for the unjust manner of keeping others’ harvest; the parallel reference is in Lk 19:21, 22. Through these contexts, the image of harvest signals the judgment and the reward. See Demarest “θερισμός, θερίζω,” 526. Dodd strongly defends the similarity between these passages. See Dodd, Historical Traditions, 390-393. Apart from the similar phrases and vocabulary of Jn 4:35-38 with the above Synoptic pericopes, there are many other terms that are important in the Synoptic tradition that also occur in this passage, such as sowing, reaping, labour, gathering, etc. We will not elaborate here on our study on the entire Synoptic corpus, due to the limited scope of this study.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

295

express the idea of judgment and the laborers are sent to warn the people about the judgment.177 But the majority of scholars agree that these sayings of Jesus are situated in the context of mission, and thus that the image of harvest in these contexts reflects the motif of mission.178 We agree with this view and will thus presuppose that the image of harvest in Mt 9:3738; Lk 10:1-2 and Jn vv. 35-38 suggests a motif of mission. We do so for several reasons. First and most obviously, these texts refer to sending someone for a mission and/or doing a mission.179 In Matthew and Luke Jesus is not only sending them for the harvest of the people but also the harvesting is done for the people so that they may be served with compassion and led to salvation. In all the Synoptics, Jesus implicitly speaks about the positive aspects in the kingdom of God in what he says to the disciples as he urges them to carry out the mission (Mt 9:37-38; Lk 10:12; Jn 4:35-38). The image of harvest evokes the life-giving or salvific aspects of human life. In Matthew and Luke, it refers to serving the people as a good shepherd whereas in John it explicitly speaks about eternal life.180 The motifs of the kingdom of God in the Synoptics and of eternal life in John are complementary. Both present a tension between realized and future eschatology. This overview has shed some light on how Mt 9:3738, Lk 10:1-2 and Jn 4:35-38 depict the image of harvest in relation to the theme of mission. This image is expressed in terms of the coming of the messianic days and the kingdom of God and in terms of realized and future eschatology. Our detailed analysis of the OT and the NT images of sowing and harvesting has two broad implications: viz., the judgment/ blessing from the God at the time of his coming and performance of the mission of Jesus for the people with compassion, leading them to experience the kingdom. Traces of these two uses, employed in the four gospels, are found in our research pericope (vv. 35-38) as well. In spite of these meanings in the OT, the image of harvest is used with another meaning in the NT: namely, the motif of mission in Mt 9:37-38 and Lk 10:1-2, which 177 178

179

180

See Schweizer, Matthew, 234; Legrand, “The Harvest is Plentiful,” 7. See Dodd, The Parables, 30-38; Brown, The Community, 187-188; Charette, “A Harvest,” 30. The context of sending the disciples in the Synoptic gospels is Mt 9:37-39; Mk 6:611; and Lk 7:1-6, 10:1-12. We would argue that there is some link between the image of the shepherd, the feeding of the five thousand, the duties given to the disciples as they were sent for mission and the image of harvest in terms of two source hypothesis. The Synoptic sending motif and the sending in Jn vv. 35-38 employing the image of harvest can be explained with the help of the Leuven hypothesis. To undertake a redaction-critical analysis at this point exceeds the scope of this study. See Charette, “A Harvest,” 32; Schnackenburg, John, 1.352-362; Brown, John, 1.162, 219, 222.

296

CHAPTER 6

find a clear parallel in Jn 4:35-38. Thus, in the NT the image of harvest is presented in two dimensions: being both of the people and for the people. In what follows, our specific focus will be the theme of harvest in vv. 35-38. We have so far discussed the meaning and implications of the terms concerning the image of harvest in the MT, the LXX and the NT, as the point of departure for examining its employment in vv. 35-38. Consequently, in what follows we discuss first the identity of the sower(s) and harvester(s) and then the ἄλλοι who worked for the harvest before the disciples were sent for harvesting. 2.3.1.3. The Sower and the Harvester Addressing the disciples directly, Jesus begins his monologue in vv. 3538 (cf. ὑμεῖς) with a rhetorical question: οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε.181 This is paired or contrasted by a clause, ἰδοὺ λέγω ὑμῖν, that exposes an emphatic contrast between Jesus and the disciples (v. 35).182 In v. 35, it seems that Jesus speaks to the disciples about their common understanding of the time interval between sowing and harvesting and adds further how differently, or even contradictorily, the time of harvesting has come before their eyes.183 In v. 36, he clarifies the image of 181

182 183

The rhetorical questions introduced using οὐ are repeated several times in the gospel of John and always refer to something already known. Botha, Jesus, 173, explains that rhetorical questions with the illocutionary force of a statement acts as a statement of a positive, affirmative value. He adds that the rhetorical question οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε in v. 35a indicates that it is this type of statement. In such a context rhetoric can serve as a statement that evokes different types of approaches (to those to whom it is addressed) such as suggesting, explaining, warning, promising, or requesting/advising. In this specific context, v. 35 is uttered as an explanation of the explicit statement of Jesus in v. 34. Interrogative οὐ is used in the questions to give an affirmative answer. BDAG, 742. It is to be noted that in contrast with the hesitant questions posed using μή by both the Samaritan woman (v. 12) and the disciples (v. 33), Jesus uses οὐ only to express a positive affirmation. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.448. In the book of signs, it is used ten times. On such occasions either Jesus (6:70; 7:19; 10:34, 11:40) or his listeners (6:42; 7:25, 42; 8:48; 9:8; 11:37) raise such questions in the context of misunderstanding or disbelief. See also our discussions of οὐκ οἴδατε in the previous chapters four and five. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.448-449. In the general sense we may say that this saying in v. 35 is a common saying or proverb rather than a one-time statement made by the disciples. The majority of scholars agree with this. However, there are differences of opinion regarding the content of the saying, ἔτι τετράμηνός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται. Scholars propose mainly three different explanations in this respect: (1) it is not a proverb attested outside the NT; (2) it is in the form of a traditional saying but not a proverb; (3) it is a proverb. Most scholars argue against the claim that the saying in v. 35a is a statement by the

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

297

the harvest further, affirming the activities of both the sower and the reaper. Okure rightly notes that the disciples who were questioning and speaking among themselves in the previous sections (vv. 27, 33) are now seized by Jesus in v. 35 in order to bring their situation to the surface, and the evangelist uses this as “the shared premise in instructing them and thus invites them to a deeper reflection”.184 Jesus calls on the disciples to lift up their eyes (cf. ἐπαίρω). ἐπαίρω usually refers to the lifting or raising up of something. Sometimes it carries the added meaning of inducing or persuading one to do something.185 In this context, however, given the specific style of the Johannine Jesus, it is clear that he is asking the disciples to go beyond their normal understanding and see that the harvest is ready, which points to a figurative use of the image of harvest. The phrase ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν is uttered by Jesus on three more occasions in the fourth gospel. On all such occasions it demands a perception of a reality beyond the earthly.186 The two clauses ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας act as a double exhortation to the disciples to see and understand what is really happening before them. This meaning becomes clearer when we

184 185

186

disciples regarding the agricultural cycle in a year. It is not an accurate agricultural calculation, as the evangelist mentions in v. 6. Our discussion on this agricultural compute in this section explains the possible differences in it. Though it cannot be contemporary to the NT books, there is a rabbinic saying mentioning a four-month interval in the agricultural calculation (Tannith #1.7). See. Ensor, “The Authenticity of Jn 4:35,” 15. See also Bernard, John, 155-158; Bultmann, John, 196; Morris, John, 278; Beasley-Murray, John, 63. In addition to the three explanations, a fourth is proposed by Schnackenburg. He disregards the serious discussions of whether this saying is a proverb or not. He considers the problem regarding the saying in v. 35a with respect to the chronology of the life of Jesus. However, he holds that this saying can also be a Semitic idiom which is an assertion employed in a particular context or proverb. See Schnackenburg, John, 449. We will not offer a detailed discussion of these issues here. Rather, we narrow down our focus on the question of the identity of the sower(s) and reaper(s) in continuation of this section. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 147. See LSJ, #14576. Even though ἐπαίρω and ὑψόω have the same meaning; the evangelist employs only ὑψόω to speak about the lifting up of Jesus on the cross which symbolizes salvation. See L&N, #81.5. For example, in Mk 16:14 Jesus confronts the disciples for their inability to see beyond ordinary human perception and shows their lack of faith, ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (cf. Acts 7:56). See L&N, #24.14; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 189-190; BDAG, 744. In the view of Schnackenburg, John, 1.448-449, ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν is a Semitic idiom employed by the evangelist with a specific purpose. All four occurrences are on the lips of the Johannine Jesus. In 6:5 and 11:41 are employed in the context of performing signs (the feeding of the five thousand and Lazarus returned to life), and in 17:1 Jesus is communicating with the Father about the hour.

298

CHAPTER 6

keep in mind that Jesus’ exhortation is issued against the background of the disciples’ urging of Jesus to eat. In the first part of the dialogue as a whole, the disciples ask Jesus to eat earthly food, and now in this final part Jesus urges the disciples to look beyond the earthly ways of harvesting to the harvesting of a higher realm. The object of seeing in this context is τὰς χώρας, which can have a special emphasis. Our discussion of the agricultural calculation makes it clear that τὰς χώρας does not refer to the actual fields in Samaria around Jacob’s well. Yet something is happening in the fields.187 On a narrative level, it is clear that the Samaritans are approaching led by the Samaritan woman. This is made clear by the use of ἐν τῷ μεταξύ.188 Thus it makes sense to say that Jesus is not referring literally to some fields in Samaria; rather, he is pointing to the approaching Samaritans.189 And so the fields are also the Samaritans who are on their way to Jesus. Thus, one can see that the context and the content of v. 35b really invite us to understand the act of harvesting (θερισμός) in a non-literal way. The noun θερισμός is used in both sayings (v. 35a,b) and the verb θερίζω is used in the remaining part of the dialogue (vv. 36 [×2], 37, 38).190 We have found that in v. 35 θερισμός is used with a literal meaning, but it is applied in a missionary-oriented saying and thus bears a figurative sense as well.191 It is to be noted that the evangelist only ever uses the term θερισμός in the speech of Jesus. We have already seen that the Synoptic gospels employ this term in relation with the kingdom of God and thus that it has a spiritual sense. In light of the discussions on the OT image of harvesting, one can propose that Jesus’ statement here that the harvest is ready points to the messianic harvest imagery in the OT (cf. Lev 24:5; Amos 9:13).192 However, it must be admitted that the idea of the abundance of the harvest in the OT sense is absent here. Thus it is hard to see the implications of the image of harvest, or determine whether it concerns salvation here and now (realized eschatology) or in the future (future eschatology). Verse 35 presents the ripen of the harvest (v. 35) and the joy in reaping the harvest which symbolically explain the Samaritan mission of Jesus.193 In other words, v. 35 speaks about actions such as sowing and 187 188 189 190 191 192

193

See Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 226. See section 2.1.1 in this chapter. See Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 172-173. We discuss θερισμός and θερίζω in detail in the next chapter. See Hauck, “θερισμός,” 133; Sand, “θερισμός,” 145. See Sand, “θερισμός,” 145-146, 145. Brown, John, 1.181-182. In Isa 27:12 and Joel 3:13, the harvest acts as an image to represent the eschatological fulfillment. See Brown, John, 1.182. See also Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 174.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

299

harvesting, whereas v. 36 speaks about the sower and the reaper. Three issues demand our attention here. We read ἤδη after the statement in v. 35. The adverb ἤδη is employed where the evangelist proceeds to state who the sower and harvester are and that the harvester receives no wages other than rejoicing with the sower (vv. 35-36).194 We have seen that in v. 35 that stress is given to both ὁ θερισμός and τὰς χώρας. In v. 36, the focus is almost entirely on ὁ θερίζων, since the subject of the three phrases here is on the reaper (ὁ θερίζων) and in v. 36c together with the subject, the sower (ὁ σπείρων).195 As found several times in the OT, the harvest can be read as a religious image and as presenting mainly the theme of judgment, either in the negative sense of punishment and destruction or in the positive sense of salvation and blessing. In either case, it signals the coming of the Messianic days. In the NT, although the use of the term does not change, the division between the chosen ones and the gentiles, as recipients of blessings and judgment respectively, disappears. Rather, a distinction is presented between believers and non-believers in understanding Jesus as the Messiah. In the gospels, the term harvest is used as a mission image, and in particular John uses it both with a realized and future eschatological sense. Verses 35-36 could mean that the receiving of reward explains the gathering of the fruits of eternal life. Or it could emphasize the situation in v. 36a to indicate that there is no separate reward/wage196 for the reaper other than taking part in the harvesting.197 Okure rightly notes that the two phrases in v. 36a and v. 36b are used synonymously. The words μισθός and κοπιάω can have similar meanings.198 Respectively, they mean work and reward.199 The term καρπός200 in v. 36b usually has the sense of pointing 194

195

196

197 198 199

200

For the discussions on the position of ἤδη in vv. 35-36, see Barrett, John, 241; Lagrange, Évangile, 120; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 227; Morris, John, 247 Brown, John, 1.182, Schnackenburg, John, 1.449-450. Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 227, 241-242. In addition to that, the terms employed here (ὁ θερίζων, συνάγω and καρπός) are understood by scholars as words rich in the meaning of mission. μισθός usually refers to the amount offered or paid for the work done. For instance, Lk 10:7, the worker should be given his pay. L&N, #57.173. It is also used in a general sense of reward. LSJ, #26785. See Barrett, John, 241; Brown, John, 1.182; Schnackenburg, John, 1.450. See our discussions of μισθός above. BDAG, 558-559. For instance, see 2 Cor 11:27 for the former sense, and 2 Cor 10:15 for the latter sense. καρπός in the literal sense means any fruit of plants or seeds. In a general sense, it refers to produce, returns or profits. L&N, #3.33; LSJ, #22524. But καρπόω means to enjoy the profits of something. LSJ, #22532.

300

CHAPTER 6

to a mission.201 The activity of the harvester is linked to his relationship with the sower. The idea of mission and working without a wage fits the context of mission well. εἰς in v. 36b can imply that the harvest is gathered not for the harvester but for eternal life. The expression ζωὴν αἰώνιος in vv. 35-36 reflects Jesus’ explanation to the Samaritan woman (vv. 10-15) and signifies both eternal life and the salvation of human persons. In this sense, vv. 35-37 gives the sense both of a realized eschatology and of life in the future. Schnackenburg links v. 36 with Jesus’ saying in v. 23 to show how the evangelist portrays realized eschatology.202 As we have seen, another theme implied by the image of harvest is eternal life. The reward for the worker who sincerely responds to the sowing and thus takes part in the harvesting is the eternal life that he or she enjoys with Jesus. The experience of eternal life is not only in a future eschatology, but also here and now. So we can say that those who respond to the sayings of Jesus (or to the λόγος that is sown) become both harvest and harvester. In this sense, the Samaritan woman is the harvest and she works with Jesus (performing the works of God the Father) to make possible the harvesting of the Samaritans, which leads them to happiness. The harvest and harvesting are to be continued through mission in the disciples taking up the work of Jesus. This is made clear in v. 36c, in the statement that there is no payment for the harvester other than rejoicing together with the sower. This idea, thus, reflects the implication of missionary work. The rejoicing can be understood in relation with v. 34, as the image of food is explained in terms of the image of harvest.203 From this perspective, both Jesus’ food and the rejoicing together are based on the accomplishment of the work of the Father. In this sense, the harvester here is Jesus, the sower is the one who sent Jesus (God), and the harvest are the Samaritans.204 In discussing v. 35, we raised a question as to whether the Johannine Jesus meant in this context the future eschatological dimension of the harvest or a realized eschatology within the context of the Samaritan mission (here and now). In v. 36, Jesus gives a further explanation of v. 35 and seems to blend both of these dimensions. O’Day explains that ὁ θερίζων μισθὸν λαμβάνει in v. 36 suggests that the harvest are the Samaritans and the harvesting is the shared activity of God and Jesus. He writes, “in 201

202 203 204

καρπός is used in the NT to express a missionary sense. Cf. Jn 12:24; Rom 1:13; 1 Cor 9:7; Phil 1:22. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.450. See Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 228. Thüsing, Die Erhöhung, 54, first proposed this interpretation. See also, Brown, John, 1.174; Schnackenburg, John, 1.447; Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 228.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

301

the light of v. 30 and v. 35 Jesus’ activity should be seen in relation with the approaching Samaritans. The Samaritans who will soon confess Jesus as the Saviour are the fruits of this particular harvest”.205 Verse 37 includes both an introduction and a saying: “for here the saying holds true” (v. 37a) precedes the saying “One sows and another reaps” (v. 37b). The use of γάρ at the beginning of a sentence in the ordinary sense implies its correlation with the previous sentence (in this case v. 36).206 ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ can function as a link between either the preceding or following phrases. According to Abbott, the propositional phrases always look back,207 and so it must be related to the preceding phrases. For Olsson a double reference is more usual in this unambiguous context, because in the foregoing verses the evangelist employs a double reference. On analogous occasions, ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ points to a statement that follows.208 A majority of scholars argues that ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ presents the saying in v. 36 and refers to the subsequent part of the pericope.209 We agree with this.210 Here the 205

206

207 208 209

210

See O’Day, Revelation, 83. Yet O’Day and other scholars noted above do not consider or even mention the efforts/labour of the Samaritan woman in bringing the Samaritans to Jesus. She does not appear in their analyses as a co-worker with Jesus in making the Samaritan mission fruitful. However, we will see that the evangelist depicts in v. 39, how the Samaritans themselves acknowledge the role played by the Samaritan woman in the Samaritan mission of Jesus. See Chapter 7. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 101-103, notes that γάρ is used in the fourth gospel only rarely, and when it is used it serves almost always to introduce the evangelist’s own comments. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 290-291. See Jn 9:30; 13:35; 15:8; 16:30 etc. See Barrett, John, 242. See also Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 174; Moloney, John, 144; Brown, John, 1.174, 182; Schnackenburg, John, 1.451-452; and Okure, The Johannine Approach, 157. These authors are not discussing the implications of ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ, but they seem to follow this direction. Brown and Okure hold that vv. 37-38 is a subsection in this dialogue. Approaching v. 37 in this manner, we can see there is a difference in the focus of Jesus’ saying in vv. 37-38 as compared to vv. 35-36. Brown approaches vv. 35-38 by dividing them into two subsections. In his view, v. 35 is the first proverb and its explanation is in v. 36. In a similar manner, v. 37 is a proverb and v. 38 is its explanation. See Brown, John, 182-183. We have seen that vv. 35-36 focuses more on what had happened in the immediate context and the saying there refers to the actions of the Samaritan woman along with Jesus’ doing the will of God and thus accomplishing his works. In this sense the completion of the Samaritan mission or the experience of harvesting is depicted with a realized eschatological sense (vv. 39-42). In vv. 37-38, it seems that Jesus includes the future eschatological dimension of salvation and refers back to the labor in the past, aiming to bring people to salvation. Schnackenburg explains that v. 37 implies a transition from what is said in the previous sentences, explicitly that there is the sower and the harvester in v. 36, but v. 37 envisages other sowers and harvesters. See Schnackenburg, John, 452. There are contrary views concerning the use of ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ in v. 37a. Some hold that it refers to both what precedes and what follows, others do not. Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 227-228.

302

CHAPTER 6

term λόγος implies that the following saying is a proverb. There are similar proverbial sayings attested both in the Greek literature211 and in the OT.212 Though it is given in a negative tone, a nearly parallel saying is stated in Mic 6:15 (LXX), “you shall sow but not reap”. This contrasts, of course, with v. 37a here, “One sows and another reaps”. In the NT, a similar saying with a negative implication is stated in Mt 25:24.213 However, no saying either in Greek literature, the OT or the NT is the same as in Jn 4:37. Also, v. 37a emphasizes ἀληθινός,214 which offers another explanation of our understanding that v. 37a is a proverb, since the term ἀληθινός refers back to the Greek Hellenistic world. There it is employed with truth sayings to affirm its genuineness.215 Also the saying in v. 37b employs the form ἄλλος … ἄλλος, which occurs several times in Greek proverbs. This usage usually means “one … another”.216 The saying ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων uses the same terminology as v. 36 (ὁ σπείρων and ὁ θερίζων) and 5:32 (ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ). This resembles in formulation v. 37b and shows that this saying exhibits a clear Johannine style.217 Hence, we regard this saying as similar to a Greek proverb, though with a Johannine touch. It is thus reasonable to approach the saying as it is formulated in its immediate context. As Schnackenburg rightly argues, ‘one man sows and another reaps’ in v. 37 is a general saying, and thus it is valid not only in the past and the present but also in the future.218 This saying can carry both positive and negative meanings: positively, it reflects the sharing of labors between sower and reaper,219 and negatively it alludes to the fate of the sower, namely that others will reap the harvest. 211

212 213

214 215 216

217

218 219

Our aim here is not to review the possible parallel sayings. Rather, we examine the Johannine scholars’ discussions of the use of ὁ λόγος. Barrett explains that it indicates a Greek proverb, since in the Greek literature there are such proverbial sayings. Barrett, John, 230. Brown explains that this term is used in the common reflection of many ancient peoples and he quotes the explanation of Barrett. See Brown, John, 182-183. See also Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 230. See Brown, John, 182. For other possible parallel references Deut 20:6; 28:30; Job 31:8. Brown, John, 182; Haenchen, John, 225. We will not discuss the text critical problem here; we follow NA28 in this study. See Bultmann, “ἀληθινός,” TDNT I.245. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 613. See also Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 230. LSJ, #1856. The construction in v. 37; 5:32, 45; 6:33, 63 is in form of copula + definite article + participle. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 59-61; See also Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 230. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.452. See Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 230.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

303

This leads us to the conclusion of our discussion of vv. 35-37: that God himself is both the sower and the harvester in an ultimate sense. The ripening of the harvest and harvesting are likewise the actions of God, who acts through Jesus here and now. Humans are called to respond to the sowing, and this active response leads to the harvest and harvesting. Thus God and human beings rejoice together in eternal life. The saying in v. 36c can mean that the sower and harvester are God the Father and Jesus, and that human beings who act as his co-workers rejoice together in the harvest, which is eternal life. In short, we would conclude that both God and Jesus are the sower, that Jesus is the harvester, and that those who are engaged in Jesus’ completion of the Father’s work also become sowers and harvesters in a broader sense. Yet this solution seems incomplete, since the harvester mentioned in v. 36 is in a singular form. Also, as Schnackenburg rightly observes, the saying in v. 37, presents a clear distinction between sower and harvester. In the context of the Samaritan woman episode and the major saying about the accomplishment of the works, we have explained this in a broader sense and included the Samaritan woman, who actively participated in Jesus’ mission in Samaria, as a co-worker of Jesus in harvesting. Hence, in the light of our discussion, we propose that the sowers could be God the Father, the OT prophets, John the Baptist and his followers, Jesus, and the Samaritan woman, while the reapers could be Jesus and the disciples and the Samaritan woman. In v. 38, it is stated that the disciples are sent to be the reapers/harvesters, yet there is no explicit reference to the sower(s). Jesus does, however, refer to the ἄλλοι who worked (κοπιάω) before the disciples were sent (ἀποστέλλω) for harvesting, and this points not to a single sower but to the others who worked for the harvest to come. In other words, the ἄλλοι include all those who worked before the harvesting, and the work done includes the act of sowing and the different works accompanying the activity of sowing until ripening. Accordingly, in the following we discuss v. 38, paying specific attention to the question of the identity of these ἄλλοι. We briefly examine the meaning of the verbs ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω, which will enable us to address the issue of the sudden change in the tense forms in these terms and the question of the identity of the ἄλλοι who worked (cf. ἀποστέλλω) before the disciples were sent (cf. ἀποστέλλω) to reap? We have already come across the other key terms used in v. 38 while analyzing vv. 35, 36 and 37, yet it remains to examine certain other terms, such as ἀποστέλλω, κοπιάω and ἄλλοι. We first briefly examine these words ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω, then address the issue at stake here, namely that of the identity of the ἄλλοι.

304

CHAPTER 6

2.3.2. ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω As noted above, the verbs, the aorist ἀπέστειλα and the perfect forms κεκοπιάκατε and κεκοπιάκασιν, in v. 38 will be the point of departure for our discussion of the issue of the identity of the ἄλλοι. However, before taking up the discussion of the aorist form of the verb (ἀπέστειλα) and the perfect forms κεκοπιάκατε and κεκοπιάκασιν, we begin with a concise examination of the meaning of ἀποστέλλω and κοπιάω respectively. ἀποστέλλω means ‘to send forth’ and can be used of persons or things.220 In the gospels, in the general sense it means ‘to cause someone to depart for a particular purpose’ (e.g., in Acts 15:22).221 Mostly, the contexts in which ἀποστέλλω is used carry an undertone of commissioning, which transfers the authority of the sender to the person being sent.222 BDAG explains two differing meanings for ἀποστέλλω in the NT: (1) To send messengers without extraordinary status. (2) It is employed to give extraordinary status to the one sent, indicating that he or she is sent by God (e.g. 2 Cor 8:23).223 We will accept that ἀποστέλλω carries the meaning of ‘sending’ with a connotation of commissioning, and move on to consider the issue of the change of tense in the verbs of v. 38 as compared to the verbs in vv. 35-37, as that is more relevant for our study. Scholars have proposed a variety of interpretations of the difficulties regarding the aorist form of ἀποστέλλω in v. 38. In scholarship, there are different explanations for the use of ἀπέστειλα here. For Barrett, v. 38 is to be interpreted allegorically to avoid the difficulties.224 Brown holds 220

221 222 223

224

See Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 167. The concept of sending is most often articulated in the NT by the verbs ἀποστέλλω or πέμπω. πέμπω, which is commonly used with the meaning ‘to send’, occurs 33 times in John, while it is found only four times in Matthew, once in Mark, and ten times in Luke. Precisely, in the fourth gospel the term πέμπω is used twenty-three times for the sending of the Son, and are in participial forms. ἀποστέλλω occurs twenty times in this gospel and all are presented in the indicative form in reference to the sending of the Son, except for four places where it is used in the general sense. It is to be noted that it is used to express the sending of the disciples in 4:38. In 17:18 it is used to express both the sending of Jesus by the Father and Jesus’ sending of the disciples together. See Eerdmann, “Mission,” 210. Since both verbs ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω appear recurrently in the fourth gospel, the significance of one word over another or their synonymy is a much debated topic. To understand the debate on this issue of the two Johannine verbs for sending, see Köstenberger, Linguistics, 125-143. See L&N, #15.66. See Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology, 167. See BDAG, 122. In the fourth gospel, ἀποστέλλω is used to show that behind the person’s words there is God and it is not merely one’s own authority. Oepke, “ἀποστέλλω,” 404. See Barrett, John, 243.

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

305

that there are two possible interpretations for this saying: (1) It can be understood in the context of post-resurrection outlook of the evangelist, or (2) it refers to a mission of the disciples during the earthly life of Jesus, but this mission is not narrated here. For there is no sending of the disciples during the earthly ministry of Jesus in the fourth gospel, whereas the Synoptic gospels present this sending without exception (Mt 9:27-10:8; Mk 3:13-19; 6:6-13; Lk 9:1-6; 10:1-12). Some argue that v. 38 does not refer to the earthly Jesus, but rather refers to the post-resurrection sending of the disciples.225 For example, Schnackenburg focuses on the tense of the verb and affirms that the employment of the aorist means that “Jesus puts himself mentally in the future, when he has already sent out his disciples”.226 Porter offers a more plausible discussion to show that the tense of a verb need not always be linked with time: rather, the aspect of the tense must be taken into consideration to determine the tense of the verb. We accept Porter’s position here, and further affirm his view that although one cannot always establish the time of a saying based on the tense of the verb, the time depends on this aspect as well.227 We approach v. 38 in “construing the perfect tense to have the stative force and the aorist in the global sense”.228 Therefore, we will proceed here to examine the saying of Jesus in the context of the Samaritan woman episode, or in other words, we take this saying as it is on the lips of the earthly Jesus. In this sense, the use of the aorist (ἀπέστειλα) and perfect tense (κεκοπιάκατε and κεκοπιάκασιν) in v. 38 can be understood to an extent sufficient for our own purposes. κοπιάω is employed twice in v. 38, and κόπος is employed once. The special reference to labour with respect to harvesting appears only in this pericope. This term is used only once prior to the Samaritan woman episode, in 4:6. This term usually points to a difficult work that calls one to many hardships. In the NT, κόπος is employed 18 times, mostly in the Pauline letters (11 times). Both κόπος and κοπιάω in the specific sense of the hard works that Paul undertook to live as a true disciple of Christ. He also employs this term to speak of the hard work of the ministry and of pastoral work by others (Rom 16:12; 1 Cor 15:58; 2 Cor 10:15). 225

226 227 228

See Bultmann, John, 19-200; Schnackenburg, John, 1.452; Beasley-Murray, John, 63; McHugh, John, 293. Okure, The Johannine Approach, 158-161, offers a long discussion of ἀπέστειλα and εἰσεληλύθατε and concludes that this saying is to be understood in the post-Easter perspective. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.452. See Porter, Verbal Aspects, 233. See Pamplaniyil, Crossing the Abysses, 368.

306

CHAPTER 6

Other occurrences appear in the four gospels (Mt 26:10; Mk 14:6; Lk 11:7; 18:5; Jn 4:38).229 Schnackenburg suggests that κόπος and κοπιάω were introduced by Paul and that he employs it with two meanings: namely in reference to missionary work and to the activities of the community. However, it is to be noted that 4:6 also employs the same vocabulary. Schnackenburg argues that in v. 6 it does not have the missionary sense, as it clearly does in v. 38.230 We ourselves consider the context of v. 6 as important, however, since it is employed in the immediate context and is the only occurrence of the term, other than in v. 38, either in the pericope vv. 35-38 and in the gospel in general. In v. 38, we can be sure that these terms are used in the missionary sense since the context of this saying is the Samaritan mission. Uses of κόπος and κοπιάω further underline that the gathering of the fruits or harvesting is the result of earlier hard work of others. The labour is presented in two dimensions in v. 38: “you have not laboured” and “you have entered into their labour”. The former is more negative and the latter has a more positive meaning. The evangelist presents a clear distinction between the laborious work of others and the restful activity of the disciples.231 Why this distinction? What is the work already done? Precisely who are the ἄλλοι? The word ἄλλοι literally means ‘others’. One may then ask whether it refers to others of the same kind or others of a different kind in v. 38.232 It is evident that the hard work of the ἄλλοι primarily indicates the work of those who engaged in the mission of Jesus and God/his Father in Samaria, more specifically the works done by the ἄλλοι who came before the sending of the disciples by Jesus to do the action of harvesting and at the moment they entered into the action of harvesting (cf. ἀπέστειλα). Hence, there are different kinds of ἄλλοι: God the Father and his sent son Jesus; the patriarchs depicted in the Pentateuch and possibly those who worked among the Samaritans concerning their acceptance and observance of the Pentateuch; the kings and prophets of the OT who are sent by God; John and his disciples and the Samaritan woman. In sum, in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode the ἄλλοι are those who have worked so far to make the coming of the Samaritans toward Jesus in the background of their expectation of the savior, the Christ (vv. 25-26, 229

230 231 232

Fendrich, “κόπος,” EDNT II.07-308; ibid., EWNT II.760-761; Hauck, “κόπος, κοπιάω,” TDNT III.827-830. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.453. See also Olsson, Structure and Meaning, 231. See Okure, The Johannine Approach, 158-159. See Sandiyagu, “ἕτερος and ἄλλος,” 105-130

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

307

28-29, 40-42), which is the hard and long labor done by those who worked before the disciples in realizing the will and work of God. From v. 34, the dialogue presents a discourse of Jesus (vv. 35-38). Our discussion of the image of harvesting in vv. 35-38 in light of the meaning and implications of terms such as σπείρω/ὁ σπείρων, ὁ θερισμός/ὁ θερίζων in the LXX (and their Hebrew equivalents in the MT) and in the NT, and then our application of this to its immediate and broader contexts, has shown that the image of harvesting in vv. 35-38 indicates the following. We have seen that the implicit depiction in vv. 35-37 indicates that the messianic days are at hand and that Jesus is the Christ. His disciples are sent to be active co-workers with him in the harvesting of the people and the Samaritan woman acts as a sower in the sense of being a co-worker with Jesus in bringing the Samaritans to him. In v. 37, the evangelist presents a distinction between sower(s) and reaper(s), and v. 38 goes further to explain that the disciples have entered into the action of harvesting, the result of the hard work of the ἄλλοι. This has led us to the major issue in v. 38: who are the sowers, and precisely ἄλλοι, who worked for the harvest to happen for the harvesters to enter into their work. We proposed that they include different kinds of ἄλλοι, such as God the Father and his sent son Jesus; the patriarchs depicted in the Pentateuch, and possibly those who worked among the Samaritans concerning their acceptance and observance of the Pentateuch and John and his disciples as well as the Samaritan woman.

CONCLUSION We have discussed in this chapter the exchange between Jesus and the disciples as depicted in the Samaritan episode, specifically in vv. 27, 31-38. Verse 27 reports that the disciples are back from the city and in this respect vv. 8 and 27 underline the disciples were not present during the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. In a concurrent reverse, the Samaritan woman returns to the city and tells of her meeting with Jesus, leading the people to come to Jesus with her (vv. 28-30) while Jesus is in dialogue with the disciples (vv. 31-38) and as the Samaritans reach him, their exchange in the episode culminates (vv. 39-42). Thus, v. 27 serves also as a transition. The dialogue between Jesus and the disciples are discussed mainly in three parts: The first part (vv. 31-33) serves as an introduction to the themes presented in Jesus’ dialogue. The special beginning of our pericope with

308

CHAPTER 6

ἐν τῷ μεταξύ sets the dialogue in relation to the preceding and following incidents of the Samaritan narrative. Jesus’ reply to the disciples about their lack of knowledge (οὐκ οἴδατε) of his food (v. 32) parallels in some way his dialogue with the Samaritan woman (vv. 10, 22, 25). The expression ἐμὸν βρῶμα in v. 34 introduces a transcendental dimension in Jesus’ words, which is underlined by its two subject clauses (cf. ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον) implicating Jesus’ coming to Samaria as the will and work of God (cf. also ἔδει in v. 4). In the third part, we discussed vv. 35-38 where the image of harvest is employed. Although there is a clear logical connection between the harvest and food, even in just a literal sense, we have some difficulties in understanding these verses due to the change in the tense of the main verbs and incoherencies in the explanations regarding the sower and the harvester. Precisely, major issues came up are: Why is there a change of tense in the verbs, and who are the others of whom Jesus spoke about? The words and actions of the Samaritan woman can be understood as that of a co-worker of Jesus, in both sowing and harvesting at the same time. She becomes both the harvester and also the harvested. Both Jesus and she are doing the work of God and hence ultimately God is the sower and harvester. By understanding the Samaritan woman as a co-sower and co-reaper, the problem regarding the contradictory sayings in v. 35, namely with regard to the time-gap between sowing and reaping, is resolved. But as we move to v. 36, the singular forms of sower and reaper and the mention of the rejoicing of the sower and the reaper together, with a clear distinction between them, are not in line with the sayings in v. 35. From this perspective, concerning both the content and the context of the saying, we can say that the food of Jesus in v. 34, which is completing the work, and the rejoicing together in v. 36, are to be understood as being synonymous, since both denote the accomplishment of the works of the Father. In this sense, Jesus can be understood as the harvester, God, the one who sent Jesus as the sower, and the harvest is the Samaritans, in the immediate context of the Samaritan episode. The identity of ἄλλοι (v. 38) is one of the most debated issues. ἄλλοι (others) are presented as those who laboured before the harvest, so the labour must be sowing or the different works accompanying the activity of sowing. On this view, a plausible interpretation is that the others are: God the Father and his sent son Jesus; the patriarchs depicted in the Pentateuch and possibly those who worked among the Samaritans concerning their acceptance and observance of the Pentateuch and other persons sent by God throughout this history of

A TRANSITION AND AN INTERMEZZO

309

salvation; and, in the context the fourth gospel, John, his disciples and in the specific context of the Samaritan mission of Jesus, the Samaritan woman as co-workers of Jesus in bringing the Samaritan mission to completion. In this case, through the work of the Father Jesus sows the λόγος first in the heart of the Samaritan woman. The harvest is the Samaritan woman and the people of Samaria in this context. On the narrative level, as Jesus is conversing with the disciples in vv. 31ff, the Samaritans are on the way to meet him (vv. 28-30). In this context, we presume that the sharing of the encounter with Christ serves as a sowing, and leads to their acceptance of him as the Savior, which is the harvesting (vv. 39-42). The harvest is here and now, which points to the coming of the Samaritans to Jesus. Accordingly, in the next and final chapter, we discuss vv. 28-30 and 39-42.

CHAPTER 7

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE: EXCHANGES BETWEEN οἱ Σαμαρῖται AND οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (JOHN 4:28-30, 39-42) INTRODUCTION As noted in the previous chapter Jn 4:27-30 depict how Jesus’ dialogue partners are changed in vv. 31ff: the disciples come to Jesus (v. 27), the Samaritan woman departs (v. 28) and simultaneously prepares for the arrival of a third group, namely the fellow Samaritans of the woman of Sychar (v. 30). Two persons and two groups of persons have to be distinguished in vv. 27-42, namely Jesus and the Samaritan woman, and Jesus’ disciples and the Samaritans of Sychar. Among these, we have already discussed in the previous chapter the meaning and implications of the exchanges between Jesus and the disciples (vv. 27, 31-38) in relation to our research hypothesis. What remains to be discussed in our research pericope are two sets of interactions: between the Samaritan woman and her townspeople (vv. 28-30), and between the four parties, namely the Samaritans from Sychar, including the Samaritan woman, who come to Jacob’s well where Jesus and the disciples are in dialogue (vv. 39-42). In other words, from the very outset, this concluding part of the Samaritan episode depicts the arrival of a group of Σαμαρῖται to a group of Ἰουδαῖοι and their μένειν together. As Byrne remarks, the Samaritan woman does not linger at Jacob’s well, but instantaneously goes off to share her experience with her neighbors (vv. 28-30).1 The evangelist depicts that after listening to ἡ γυνή from Samaria, the people (ἀνθρώποις) from her town of Sychar come out of the city (ἐξέρχομαι) to meet the person (ἄνθρωπον) and further reports in vv. 39-42 the coming of many Samaritans from the city to Jesus as he converses with his disciples, which is followed by their μένειν together. As Bultmann notes, the Samaritan woman’s act of sharing her experience with the Samaritans and leading them to Jesus “in turn 1

See Byrne, Life Abounding, 87.

312

CHAPTER 7

sets the situation for the discussion of the theme in 4.31-42”.2 In this respect vv. 39-42 implicitly portray how the Samaritan woman brings the Samaritans to Jesus. Thus, one can see that, in the narrative, vv. 28-30 ready the ground for vv. 39-42. Given this background, we shall proceed to discuss these two subsections against the background of our research hypothesis. 1. THE SAMARITANS OF SYCHAR (VV. 28-30) The meeting of the Samaritan woman with her neighbors in the town of Sychar is depicted in vv. 28-30. Verse 28 presents the Samaritan woman’s actions of leaving the water jar and departing to her town (cf. ἀφίημι and ἀπέρχομαι). Then she shares her experience at Jacob’s well in v. 29. Here, in introducing Jesus, she does not use the vocabulary she has used to describe or address Jesus in the preceding part (Ἰουδαῖος, κύριος, προφήτης and Μεσσίας/ὁ χριστός), but just the neutral term for a human person, ἄνθρωπος, and she explains Jesus by using the adjective πάντα (everything), saying that the ἄνθρωπος she met told her everything that she did (cf. ἐποίησα). Then she places before the Samaritans the culmination of her encounter with Jesus: namely his self-revelation to her in the form of a question, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, in v. 29. The words and actions of the Samaritan woman dominate vv. 28-29, while the actions of the Samaritans of Sychar, namely their movement to go and meet Jesus, are the focus of v. 30. Thus, the person of Jesus remains the dominant figure in vv. 28-30, as he is the object of the words and actions of both the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans of Sychar.3 The response of the Samaritans as shown in the following verse (v. 30) indicates their positive response to the words of the Samaritan woman. In light of this overview, we consider vv. 28-30 more closely to address issues such as the meaning and implications of the Samaritan woman’s actions and words and the response of the Samaritans. 1.1. ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς By employing the verbs ἀφῆκεν, ἀπῆλθεν and λέγει in v. 28, the evangelist depicts the actions of the Samaritan woman which are implicitly pointed to the last group of persons presented in the Samaritan pericope 2 3

Bultmann, John, 193-194. In analyzing the dialogue structure of vv. 28-39, Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 249-250 draws the above conclusion.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

313

and who appear here for the first time, namely the inhabitants of Sychar. They are described using the gender inclusive term ἀνθρώποις.4 After the disciples have arrived from the village of Sychar to meet Jesus again (vv. 8, 27), the Samaritan woman makes an opposite movement: she leaves Jacob’s well and returns to her town (v. 28). In the narrative of this pericope, in v. 28 one expects only that the evangelist will report on the Samaritan woman’s return to Sychar as the disciples return. However, the evangelist skilfully adds a detail about water, which was the point of departure of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. That is, the report in v. 28a that the Samaritan woman leaves the water jar, ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή, has invited discussions in scholarship which we have already examined above. We briefly examine the implications of the Samaritans woman’s action ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς in scholarship against the background of our research hypothesis. The term ὑδρία, which means a vessel to hold water, is used for the first time in the Samaritan episode in v. 28.5 In v. 7, the evangelist reports that ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. In v. 11, the Samaritan woman notes that Jesus does not have a ἄντλημα to draw the water. This can indicate that she comes with ἄντλημα (vv. 7, 11). In this respect, it is quite natural to assume that she should have come with a ὑδρία as well. In general, ἀφίημι is used to mean “to cause (or permit) a person or persons to leave a particular location – ‘to let go away, to dismiss’”.6 In the following we shall interpret the phrase ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή in light of the various explanations in scholarship as well as in the immediate context of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. 4

5

6

In vv. 28-29, the term ἄνθρωπος/ἀνθρώποις is used for the first time in the Samaritan episode. In vv. 16-18, Jesus and the Samaritan woman use the term ἀνήρ to specifically mean man or husband. Also, the term γυνή is used to refer to the Samaritan woman both by herself (v. 9) and by the disciples (v. 27). ἀφίημι, ἀπέρχομαι and λέγω are used to indicate the actions and words of the Samaritan woman (v. 28) and ἐξέρχομαι is used twice to note the Samaritans’ action of coming out of the city to meet Jesus. Jesus remains the constant factor at the site of the action, πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (cf. v. 6). See BDAG, 1023; LSJ, #43674; L&N, #6.127. It is to be noted that the term ὑδρία is used only in one other place in the NT: in Jn 2:6-7. L&N, #15.43. BDAG, 156, gives five different meaning of ἀφίημι. They are: (1) to dismiss or release someone or something from a place or one’s presence: let go, send away, give up, emit, divorce; (2) to release from legal or moral obligation or consequence: cancel, remit, pardon/forgive; (3) to move away, implying a separation: leave, depart from physical things; give up, abandon; (4) to have something continue or remain in a place: leave standing/lying and (5) to convey a sense of distancing through an allowable margin of freedom: leave it to someone to do something, let, let go, allow, tolerate.

314

CHAPTER 7

Though some scholars do not say anything specifically about the Samaritan woman’s action7 ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς, a majority of Johannine scholars interpret this phrase from different viewpoints such as its figurative meaning, symbolism of this action etc. Some scholars conclude that this action of leaving the water jar as an indication of her haste or excitement to return to her town.8 Symbolism of leaving the water jar shows her eagerness to enjoy the water offered by Jesus and willingness to leave behind the old stuff along with her past.9 Bultmann explains that this action would implicate that thirst for life has been stilled by Jesus’ words, and her thirst gives way to zeal.10 Lindars holds that the Samaritan woman’s action of leaving the water jar as she returns to the city indicates her intention to return soon.11 Daube discusses this action of the Samaritan woman in light of his analysis of v. 9c, pointing out that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται did not share their utensils.12 Okure explains the action in light of v. 19, where the woman recognizes Jesus as the prophet and shows her new openness towards Jesus’ words and actions.13 Link regards the action of leaving the water jug as typical behaviour of those who are called by Jesus: that they leave everything behind to follow him. Accordingly, for Link, the Samaritan woman is depicted here as a “female counterpart” to Jesus’ disciples.14 Schneiders interprets the phrase “the woman left her jar” in v. 28 in a similar way. She affirms that the standard gospel formula for responding to the call of Jesus is ‘to leave all things’. She refers here to the Synoptics: the disciples leave their boats and/or tax booth (Mt 4:19-22 and Mt 9:9) and in v. 28, the woman leaves her jar. For Schneiders, this symbolic act is clear evidence of the Samaritan woman’s call to discipleship.15 Yet one might question this, for the disciples followed Jesus soon after the action of leaving something behind, but the 7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15

See for instance, Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, 72; Brown, John, 1.173; Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 1.478. See Zahn, Das Evangelium, 250; Bernard, John, 1.152; Wikenhauser, Das Evangelium, 111; Schneider, Das Evangelium, 115; Blank, Das Evangelium, 1.302; Haenchen, John, 1.246; Michaels, John, 258. See Keener, John, 621-622. See Bultmann, John, 193-194. See Lindars, John, 192. See Daube, “The Meaning of συγχράομαι,” 147. See chapter 3 where we discussed the meaning and implications of συγχράομαι in v. 9. See Okure, The Johannine Approach, 169. See Link, “Was redest du mit ihr?”, 297. See Schneiders, “Women in the Fourth Gospel,” 132, compares this to interpretation of the role of women in Brown, “Roles of Women,” 688-700, where he looks at the role of the Samaritan woman by comparing it with the priestly prayer of Jesus concerning his disciples.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

315

Samaritan woman moves in the other direction to bring others to Jesus. Also, she was not called and sent by Jesus in an explicit way: Jesus only asked her for water, (v. 9), offered her living water (vv. 10ff) and revealed himself as the Messiah. Byrne adds that the woman’s action described as ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν (cf v. 28) suggests that her interest is no longer the same and that she has begun to understand the inner thirst for ὕδωρ ζῶν and the symbolic meaning of the water which Jesus offered (v. 10).16 Brant holds that such a symbolic interpretation “seems excessive”.17 She explains that the Samaritan woman’s immediate response of leaving her water jar and going to the city underlines the unpleasantness of the situation.18 However, Brant’s proposal does not seem right when one examines this verse in its immediate context: i.e., after the woman leaves her jar and goes to the city, she not only proclaims the encounter in public but also returns straight away to Jesus, leading her fellow Samaritans. Irrespective of the various interpretations of her act of leaving the water jar, Schapdick argues as follows. Whatever can be explained about this act, it becomes obvious that the Samaritan woman has given up her original intention, to draw water (v. 7). This vital activity no longer plays a role. After her encounter with Jesus, who is a Ἰουδαῖος, everything else for her has become secondary. However, the woman has understood Jesus’ statements, it has been sufficient to cause her to feel that she has to tell the inhabitants of her village immediately about it. So she returns to the place from where she obviously has come (5a, 7a) and talks to her fellow townspeople (28b-c). This alone is essential for the narrator.19 Brown and McHugh hold that the function of this verse is to prepare the stage for Jesus to converse with his disciples, whom she has taken off-stage.20 Beasley-Murray, like Lindars, explains that she left her jar “because she 16

17

18

19 20

Byrne, John’s Gospel, 87, explains that “[t]he way she voices her discovery and seeks to share it with her Samaritan townsfolk reveals the progress she has made on her journey: ‘Come and see a man who has told me all I have ever done. Can this one be the Christ?’ (v. 29). ‘Come and see’ echoes the invitation of Jesus to the first two disciples (1:39), as also Philip’s invitation to the initially reluctant Nathanael (1:46)”. See Brant, John, 87. Carson, John, 227-228, remarks that this is far from clear from the depiction of the evangelist. He thinks that more important is her act of sharing her experience with her townspeople. See Brant, John, 87. See chapter 6, of v. 27 concerning the response of the disciples (cf. θαυμάζω). Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 260. See McHugh, John, 290. Brown, John, 181, adds that the Samaritan woman shares her experience with her townspeople at the backstage of the narrative and leads them to Jesus.

316

CHAPTER 7

intended to come back at once with others”.21 In the light of her encounter with Jesus she deduced that he is the Messiah which, “is consonant with the Samaritans’ understanding of the role of the “Taheb” as restorer and revealer of the truth”.22 Her act of leaving the water jug indicates how eager she is “to proclaim her message in the village”.23 Thus in scholarship, other than the symbolic reading that her act of leaving the water jar concerns what she initially had (at the beginning of the encounter), often this act is also regarded as a definite indication of the Samaritan woman’s urgency to deliver her testimony about Jesus and an indicator of her intention to return to Jesus. In sum, scholarly accounts of the meaning of the woman’s action of leaving her water jar tend to focus on the change in the woman’s mind-set, her new openness to share things with a Ἰουδαῖος or οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (cf. vv. 9, 27), her progress in right knowledge concerning the living water (vv. 10, 19, 25) etc. In this light, we deduced the following explanations of v. 28 in its immediate context and against the background of our research hypothesis. ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή implicates hereafter that the water jar is not exclusively her own and that she left it with Jesus and his disciples, which is contrary to her attitude at the beginning of her encounter with Jesus (vv. 9, 11). In v. 9, her response to Jesus for his request for water was a strong denial: she told him it is not possible to share anything, which is confirmed by the evangelist in v. 9c which we understand as saying that there is no relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται.24 In v. 11, the woman’s response continues with an overtone of mocking, as she states that Jesus has no ἄντλημα to get water by himself. At this juncture, however, the action of the Samaritan woman of leaving her water jar when she left to go back to her town symbolically depicts the change in her previous view that sharing is impossible and that there can be no relationship. She came to Jacob’s well for water, but returned even without her water jar. Thus, the action of ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή in v. 28 should be seen as a symbolic act depicting her progress in gaining right knowledge and change in the mindset/attitude after her encounter with Jesus. We ask, what does such a change in her response to leave her jar with Jesus and his disciples who belong to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι imply? One can find this actions as a symbol of renewed relationship in the sense that it reflects her willingness to share things with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι 21 22 23 24

See See See See

Beasley-Murray, John, 62; Becker, Das Evangelium, 1.211; Lindars, John, 193. Beasley-Murray, John, 62. Haenchen, John, 223. analysis of 4:9c in chapter 3.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

317

(cf. parenthesis in v. 9 – οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις), which presupposes an attitude of reconciliation or in other words, Σαμαρῖτις, a representative of οἱ Σαμαρῖται comes to a better understanding to have a good relationship. This would implicitly presuppose a kind of deep locking of relationship between them. Whether this kind of deep locking of relationship requires forgiveness or forgetting or reconciliation remains an open question. However, one can find that this action points to a shift, she comes from no relationship (cf. οὐ συγχρῶνται) to having a good relationship in the renewed sense. Thus, one can deduce the following from the evangelist’s careful depiction of the attitude and actions of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the beginning and end of their encounter: This encounter first presents the Samaritan woman at the well meeting Jesus, who appears as a lonely traveller who has no means to get water other than the water the woman will draw from the well. Jesus asks her for a drink (v. 7). Through her response of strong denial, the evangelist skilfully portrays the state of relations between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, or at least the attitude of οἱ Σαμαρῖται toward οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, which was a rejection of relationship (v. 9b). The evangelist affirms this further in v. 9c, with a parenthesis that implicitly points to the reason behind her response of rejection and denial of the request for water from a lonely, thirsty traveller who is a Ἰουδαῖος. By making this atmosphere of denial and conflict the point of departure, the evangelist further depicts various phases of the progression in the dialogue between Jesus and the woman. Finally, at the culmination of their encounter, the evangelist provides a parenthesis by the specific mention of her action, viz., that she left her water jar even though she had initially been reluctant even to give some water from it.25 In this light, we would add further to the other explanations of v. 28a discussed above that through this action of the Samaritan woman, the evangelist symbolically depicts her change from a mind-set of no-relationship to a mind-set of relationship enriched with acceptance and generosity toward οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. In this respect, the first part of v. 28a (ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή) indicates the successful completion of the first part of Jesus’ Samaritan mission through his encounter with a Samaritan, and v. 28b serves as an introduction to the next phase of the Samaritan mission, where she shares her testimony with her fellow Samaritans (ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις). 25

Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 270-280, and Robertson, Grammar, 433, regard the explanation provided in v. 28 as a parenthesis of John, which is clear from the use of the resumptive οὖν. For other examples of this, see 2:18 and 3:28.

318

CHAPTER 7

In this respect, vv. 28 and 29-30 testify to the fruitfulness of the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.26 1.2. The Samaritan Woman’s Words and their Immediate Impact (vv. 29-30) From the very outset, v. 29 depicts in a nutshell the Samaritan woman’s testimony about her encounter with Jesus at Jacob’s well, and v. 30 reports the aim of the Samaritans who come out of Sychar (πρός αύτόν), which is to meet Jesus.27 The anarthrous ἄνθρωπος in v. 29 is the first occurrence of this term used to address Jesus.28 In vv. 29-30, nothing more is said concerning what the inhabitants of Sychar think of the woman’s statement or how they answer the woman’s question. This is discussed only in vv. 39ff. Schapdick notes that the Samaritan woman’s words invite the attention of the ἄνθρωποι of Sychar toward the ἄνθρωπος, who is sitting 26

27

28

See Byrne, Life Abounding, 87. Some scholars note that the gospel of John uses the historical present more frequently than any other gospel and specifically in the context of our discussion, v. 28 is phrased in the historical present. The historical present occurs on several other occasions in the four gospels: in Matthew 93 times, Mark 151, Lk 11, and John 162. It is always used in the third person (singular or plural) and is exclusively found in the narrative literature. In the Samaritan episode, reference to person(s) in the historical present are (vv. 11, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 34). See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 470-480; Robertson, Grammar, 433. BDF, #321, affirms that “The historical present can replace the aorist indicative in a vivid narrative at the events of which the narrator imagines himself to be present”. Nevertheless, it is explained that historic present is an auxiliary that they use in understanding the language-tenses viz., imperfect with past. In another vein, v. 28 can be explained in the narrative present that in the narratives these tense forms are used to make it lively and hence one can understand v. 28 in narrative present. εἰς τό μνημεῖον in v. 28 depicts the motion that the preposition εἰς governs, i.e., the movement from one place to another, “not into a place itself but to a vicinity of a place”; the Samaritan woman moves toward the city. Consider more closely what she says to her fellow townspeople when she gets there to lead them to come out of the town to meet Jesus (vv. 29-30). Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 248, affirms that Jesus is depicted clearly as the object of a conversation between the Samaritan woman and her townspeople. It is interesting to note that the disciples’ unexpressed response to Jesus specifies that he was talking with a woman, and the woman speaks to her townspeople about Jesus as a man. In John, ἄνθρωπος is used to represent Jesus on the following occasions: 5:12 (by the sick man), 5:27; 8:40 (by Jesus’ himself); 7:46; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 18:14, 17 (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι); 18:29; 19:59 (Pilate). Other than these occurrences, there are several occasions where ἄνθρωπος is used in ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου to represent Jesus. However, ἀνήρ is never used to mention Jesus explicitly, which refers to Jesus’ use of it asking the Samaritan woman to bring her ἀνήρ. However, as McHugh, John, 290, contends, “[t]he choice of ἄνθρωπος. over ἀνήρ is not significant, for with the solitary exception of 1.13, ἀνήρ in John always refers to a husband (5 times in 4.16-18) or a male (1.30; 6.10)”. In 1:30, John implicitly refers to Jesus.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

319

at the well (vv. 6, 28-29). One can find a careful depiction here of the characterization of Jesus in the words of Jesus, which is threefold: the woman designates Jesus first as ἄνθρωπος, then distinguishes him by a certain characteristic, ὃς εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα, and thirdly presents them with the identity of Jesus in the form of a question: μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός (v. 29). From the very outset, the Samaritan woman’s testimony, especially μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός (v. 29) seems to be more a step back than a step forward with respect to her realization/recognition of Jesus. That is, we have seen in the preceding part Jesus revealing himself to her as the Messiah in response to her query about the Samaritan expectation of the Messiah, yet she does not tell the Samaritans about Jesus’ self-revelation as the Messiah (vv. 25-26); rather, she presents it as a query before the Samaritans (μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός). At this juncture, however, one would expect her to be hurrying back to her hometown (v. 28) to deliver this news to her neighbors, viz., “I have found the messiah!”29 Thus, the discrepancy between the self-revelation of Jesus that he is the Messiah (ἐγώ εἰμι v. 26) and the Samaritan woman’s statement μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός (v. 29) is obvious. A majority of scholars are cautious in interpreting v. 29 due to this incongruence. Hence, in the light of this brief overview of vv. 29-30, the major issue yet to be addressed is this question raised by the Samaritan woman. 1.2.1. μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; In the narrative line, it is clear that μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός springs from the culminating part of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (cf. vv. 25-26). If μήτι were absent here, there would be no doubt that her testimony is an unambiguous confession of Jesus as the Messiah. We have the testimony of Andrew in 1:41 where he makes an explicit statement “we have found the Messiah”. But the Samaritan woman delivers it in the form of a question, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; which invites due attention. Two similar uses of μήτι in the gospel of John are noteworthy in this respect: μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτόν; (8:22) and μήτι ἐγὼ Ἰουδαῖός εἰμι; (18:35). Former depicts that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ask among themselves what Jesus is going to do and the latter presents Pilate’s question 29

In Jn 1:41, Andrew tells his brother, after abiding with Jesus, that he has discovered the Messiah: εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός. It is to be noted that they went to μένειν with Jesus in response to his invitation to “come and see” (1:39). In the Samaritan woman episode, the woman tells her townspeople to come and see Jesus (v. 29).

320

CHAPTER 7

and he is not a Ἰουδαῖος and thus evidently a question expecting negative answer. In the light of the above instances one can point to some elements of ambiguity in the testimony of the Samaritan woman in her question μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; (v. 29). In the following we discuss this question at length. In general, μή (μήτι) is employed if a negative answer is expected.30 That is, μήτι in general anticipates a negative reply. Yet it can also be used to mean “perhaps”, where the questioner is in doubt.31 Both hesitant questions and questions suggesting the answer ‘no’ use the same particle μή, or μήτι, and there is no formal indication as to which of the two is assumed in a particular context. Thus, one can determine the meaning only by considering the context, and even then a certain ambiguity often remains.32 Different translations reflect different exegetical readings of v. 29. For example: The RSV translates it as: “can this be the Christ?” This suggests reading μήτι as introducing a hesitant question. In the NRSV, we find the translation, “he cannot be the Messiah, can he?” This translation reads μήτι as suggesting the answer ‘no’. In this respect, the question with μήτι in v. 29 can be taken in either of two ways, namely a negative answer is expected and a hesitant question. We examine, how do Johannine scholars interpret v. 29; specifically, the question μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; Scholars explain differently the testimony of the Samaritan woman in general depicted in v. 29b by employing μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός;. Some scholars do not find any such element in this testimony of the Samaritan woman delivered before her fellow Samaritans of Sychar. In the light of v. 19, one can see that she understood Jesus only as a prophet that the μήτι should be understood as an answer expecting no. Scholars like G. H. C. Macgregor, L. Morris, J. N. Sanders and B. F. Mastin consider μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; in v. 29 as expecting a negative answer.33 However, Morris adds that “it is as though a negative answer might be 30

31 32

33

See BDF #427.2. See also Smyth and Messing, Greek Grammar, 608-629. The form of question and use of the term μήτι calls for further explanation. In Greek, we distinguish four types of questions: i) Ordinary questions with the expected answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’; ii) Questions suggesting the answer ‘yes’, distinguishable by the presence of οὐ or οὐκ with a question mark; iii) Questions suggesting the answer ‘no’; and iv) hesitant questions, suggesting the answer ‘yes’. Among these, two types of questions (iii and iv) can be recognized by the use of μή or μήτι. Cf. BDAG, 649; MHT III.283; BDF, 427. See also McHugh, John, 290. For more details, see Robertson, Grammar, 1168; Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 254. LSJ, #26488. See Macgregor, John, 108, understands the attitude of the Samaritan woman as “still more than half doubtful”.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

321

expected, but a positive one is hoped for”.34 B. Lindars notes that though it “implies the answer no”, in the light of the confession of the Samaritans in v. 42, μήτι in v. 29 hardly allows such an interpretation.35 E. Danna argues that in v. 42 the Samaritan woman “is not one of those who speak at v. 42” accordingly she understands v. 29b as He cannot be the Messiah, can he?36 Contrary to this view, O’Day translates: “This couldn’t be the Christ, could it?” and adds that “it is not a denial, but neither is it a full affirmation.”37 She underlines this explanation in the light of v. 26, “[i]n the light of the bold ἐγώ εἰμι of v. 26, it is difficult to see how anyone could respond so tentatively.”38 Danna argues that there is not even a single instance where the Samaritan woman expresses faith in Jesus other than recognizing Jesus as a prophet and she compares and contrasts the response of the Samaritan woman with that of Nicodemus in Jn 3, 7, 19 and the blind man in Jn 9. But the Samaritans without any hesitation proclaimed Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42).39 Danna concludes that “the Samaritan woman’s speech at John 4:29 does not characterize her as positively as is sometimes said. First, she sees Jesus as a prophet, and nothing more. Second, her question in v. 29b is phrased in such a way as to indicate that she expects a negative answer. Even if the woman’s question is taken more positively, as a hesitant question, it still indicates that she has doubts about Jesus’ messiahship”.40 However, she adds “[t]he woman acts like a disciple, and shares some of the characteristics of Jesus’ other disciples; indeed in some ways she is a better disciple than those disciples. While they cannot see that she mission fields are white and 34

35 36 37 38 39

40

Morris, John, 275. Sanders and Mastin add that in the light of Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3.283, the expectation of a negative answer in v. 29 does not necessarily indicate any lack of faith from the part of the Samaritan woman that she asks her fellow Samaritans to see and understand it for themselves. See Lindars, John, 193. Danna, “John 4:29,” 220. See O’Day, Revelation, 76. O’Day, Revelation, 76. See Danna, “John 4:29,” 222. She explains that “Nicodemus in his first encounter with Jesus comes to Jesus under the cover of night and sees Jesus as a teacher from God (i.e. a prophet). At 7:50-52 he is willing to stand up for Jesus before the chief priests and Pharisees, insisting that Jesus not be condemned without a hearing, and by 19:39-42 he is bold enough, and strong enough in faith, to accompany Joseph of Arimathea in obtaining and honourably burying Jesus’ body”. Similarly in chapter 9, where the blind man first sees Jesus as “the man called Jesus” (v. 11); then “a prophet” (v. 17), “from God” (v. 33), and finally “Lord” (v. 38)”. In addition to that in the broader context of the gospel of John, “the disciples will experience a similar progression in faith (2:22; 16:13). It is clear, then, that the progression seen in the Samaritan narrative is part of a pattern of spiritual growth”. See Danna, “John 4:29,” 222-223.

322

CHAPTER 7

ready for harvest, she is quick to go to her fellow townspeople and tell them about Jesus, and they believe in him as a result of her testimony”.41 Schapdick remarks that if a positive confession of Jesus were actually to have been made here, it would not have been necessary to formulate this confession in the form of a question. Thus, the negative undertone of μήτι cannot simply be turned into a positive attitude.42 Some other scholars argue that μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός is a hesitant question, and that when it is examined in light of both the preceding and following passages, it cannot be read as a question expecting a negative answer. BAG accepts both possibilities of μήτι, though it considers v. 29b as a hesitant question. A. T. Robertson notes that that “μή is just the negative to use when one does not wish to be too positive.”43 Boers, too understands μήτι positively. Among the possible translations of μήτι, Brown prefers the most hesitant form.44 From the context, and especially in relation to v. 30, “[t]hey left the city and were on the way to him” clearly indicates the effectiveness of the Samaritan woman’s testimony.45 Bultmann in his commentary suggests that the use of μήτι in v. 29 is not a reflection of hesitation but may have been meant to express the hesitation of the townspeople: “The woman’s account of her strange experience rouses the curiosity of the people, as to whether the stranger outside the town may not be the Messiah and they go out to him”.46 According to Moloney, the Samaritan woman is prepared to accept Jesus as a prophet, but she is hesitant to believe him. So he places her with Nicodemus, who exhibits a partial faith.47 Ridderbos notes that her leaving the water jar behind indicates precisely the impact her encounter with Jesus had on her mode of understanding. Moreover, the Samaritans who heard her testimony do not hesitate and with a strong motivation set out to meet Jesus. They are determined to know “what could possibly be happening?”48 Haenchen explains that the Samaritan woman’s proclamation in v. 29 with μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός anticipates the distinction between v. 38 and v. 42.49 Though the question with μήτι anticipates a negative answer, in this 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49

See Danna, “John 4:29,” 223. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 256. Robertson, Grammar, 1167, See also BDF, 221. Boers, Neither on this Mountain nor in Jerusalem, 183 See Brown, John, 173. Schnackenburg, John,1.443, compares the faith of the disciples with that of the Samaritan woman. According to him, in this episode it is the Samaritan woman who seems to have understood Jesus better than his disciples. Bultmann, John, 193. See Moloney, John, 131. Ridderbos, John, 167. See Haenchen, John, 223.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

323

context “the remarkable thing is that she is even raising such a question, so that the effect is not to rule anything out, but on the contrary to introduce a possibility not considered before”.50 Schnackenburg explains that the use of μήτι needs not suggest a negative answer, but rather can be explained as a careful presentation of her opinion about Jesus.51 “The uncertainty of the expression fits into a Johannine pattern in which Jesus’ demonstration of his powers lead to dialogues in which people discuss his identity. The woman’s question about Jesus’ identity opens up dialogic space in which the town’s people will come to their own conclusions”.52 One could say that in the light of the impact of the testimony of the Samaritan woman, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; does not suggest a negative answer. Specifically, it is a calculated move on the part of the Samaritan woman to make her testimony more effective. As Michaels argues, the Samaritan woman was aware of the issue, namely “[h]ow will ‘the men’ respond to the testimony of a woman?” (cf. v. 42). Hence, she presents her testimony in the form of a hesitant but calculated question, “could this be the Christ?” (v. 29).53 “Neither shame nor humility nor uncertainty about Jesus’ identity keeps her from issuing her invitation. ‘Come, see,’ she tells the men of Sychar, just as Philip had told Nathanael (1:46).”54 Even though different words are used for “come and see” in 1:46 and 4:29, Keener explains that “[t]he Samaritan woman’s words of invitation (‘Come and see,’ 4:29) explicitly echo the witness of Philip in 1:46”.55 However, the immediate context of the Samaritan episode hardly allows for such an interpretation. Hence in this context, it is to be “an expression of cautious faith”.56 Moreover, listening to her testimony, her townspeople follow her to Jesus (v. 30). Keener adds that the aorist tense in ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν (v. 28) and ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως (v. 30) “show that these actions are completed, but the added note” ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν in the imperfect tense describes that the action is in progress.57 In this light, one can see that μήτι serves to extend this ambiguity to the end of the Samaritan episode.58 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57 58

See Michaels, John, 259. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.144. See also Byrne, Life Abounding, 87. Brant, John, 87. See also Bernard, John, 1.152. In 1:41ff. Andrew said “we have found the Messiah,” whereas the Samaritan woman’s witness before her fellow men in v. 28 was “Could this be Christ?” Michaels, John, 259. Michaels, John, 259. See Keener, John, 622. Lindars, John, 193. See also McHugh, John, 290. See Michaels, John, 259. In this respect, scholars explain that the testimony of the Samaritan woman as a credential of her faith in Jesus as the Messiah that v. 29 represents the climax of the encounter

324

CHAPTER 7

Thus, we conclude that the question μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; in v. 29 hesitantly suggests that Jesus is the Messiah and in addition to that it is intended to keep the narrative line intact and brings the episode to a culmination in the proclamation of the Samaritans in light of what they have understood through being with Jesus. In other words, v. 29 functions to introduce Jesus before the Samaritans throw light on the messianic expectation, as is expressed already by the Samaritan woman in v. 26. Jesus is introduced as the possible Messiah in the woman’s question to cause the inhabitants of Sychar to come have a look at him and see this man (v. 29). That is, the Messiah is the one who will teach them everything. This idea is presented again not only by the Samaritan woman in v. 29, but also by the Samaritans in v. 39. In sum, the decisive function of vv. 28-29 is to cause the Samaritans of Sychar to go to Jesus, and this is accomplished in v. 30 when they come out of the town and proceed to Jesus (30a-b).59 In her account of her dialogue with Jesus, the Samaritan woman explained that he had told her everything about what she has done so far (πάντα) and she posed the question μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; (v. 29). One may note that although there were discussions of the theme of living water and worship elsewhere than in Jesus’ personal confrontation and self-revelation as the Messiah, the Samaritan woman shares only what Jesus has told about her (πάντα) and himself (ὁ χριστός). It is interesting to note that she uses a similar term in speaking of the Samaritan expectation of the Messiah (ἅπαντα in v. 25) and recounts what Jesus had said about her (πάντα in v. 29). In addition to this, in v. 39, the evangelist affirms that what the Samaritan woman had said in v. 29 is her testimony (μαρτυρέω): precisely, her words εἶπέν μοι πάντα ἃ ἐποίησα (vv. 29, 39). In this respect, for both the woman and her townspeople, the major concern is Jesus’ knowledge about everything (πάντα/ἅπαντα), which, according to the depiction of the evangelist, is the litmus test of the Samaritans’ messianic expectation. This testimony anticipates the woman’s recognition of Jesus as a savior figure, which will be soon be affirmed by the Samaritans of Sychar after their meeting and μένειν

59

between Jesus and the Samaritan woman where she has undergone various stages of understanding Jesus, viz., point of departure as a Ἰουδαῖος (vv. 7-9) toward Μεσσίας (vv. 25-26). As we have explained in the previous chapter, the time they take to reach Jesus is used by the evangelist as an intermezzo, in which a dialogue is presented between Jesus and his disciples which figuratively depicts the Samaritan mission of Jesus through its various phases of progress.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

325

together with Jesus.60 The Samaritan woman does not make a complete confession of Jesus to her townspeople. Her ambiguous explanation becomes clear only in the final part of the Samaritan pericope (vv. 3942).61 Our discussion, hence, will concern the meaning and function of vv. 29-30 in the context of the Samaritan episode as a whole; i.e., the woman’s testimony, although imprecise, takes the Samaritan mission in the right direction in that it leads the Samaritans to Jesus (vv. 29-30). Though scholars have offered different explanations of vv. 28-30, in one way or another all point to the fact it is certain that the Samaritan woman’s leaving the water jar and her rushing to the city, and her words indicate the impact her encounter with Jesus had on her. Brown opines that her actions speak even more loudly than her words and that this action indicates that she left other concerns behind for “the type of living water which Jesus has interested her in”.62 Michaels explains that just as Jesus left Judea for another phase of mission, here the Samaritan woman leaves Jacob’s well to return to her townspeople, i.e., her words and actions in the town “is an extension of Jesus’ own mission”.63 The significant element in the woman’s speaking with the Samaritans is about the one who has told her about her personal life and all the things she has ever done (v. 29). This may remind the reader of her acknowledgment of Jesus as a/the prophet. As Byrne writes, “Jesus has taken the broken fragments of her life and shown that they can be part of a wider pattern of meaning in which her personal story and that of her people can be gathered up into the transcendent narrative being worked out in his mission”.64 It is to be noted that she does not summarize the whole encounter, but shares the kernel of her experience. The Samaritan woman “merely states the central fact, a fact which is sufficient to prove that the stranger just arrived must certainly be a prophet”.65 The gift of living water becomes clear as the dialogue reaches v. 26, and thus the evangelist does not want to return to the discussions in vv. 10-15 due to the fact that the reader now knows what is meant by Jesus’ gift of living water.66 χριστός as used in v. 29 during the Samaritan woman’s interaction with her townspeople 60 61

62 63 64 65 66

See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 256; Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 164. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 259, notes that the Samaritan woman introduces Jesus to the Samaritan woman as an ἄνθρωπος (v. 28), whom she has recognized as a/the prophet (v. 19). Brown, John, 1.173; Barrett, John, 240. Michaels, John, 259. See Byrne, Life Abounding, 87 See McHugh, John, 290. See Bultmann, John, 193.

326

CHAPTER 7

unambiguously refers to the last dialogue section (vv. 25-26).67 Haenchen notes that the aorist tense is used to speak of the Samaritans leaving the city (ἐξῆλθον) and the imperfect tense is used to speak of their coming to Jesus (ἤρχοντο) in v. 30 to explain that “[t]he call of the woman has had its effect. While they are on their way, there is time for Jesus’ conversation with the disciples”.68 Verses 30 and 39 are closely connected, even without vv. 31-38. They are well-connected even without interrupting the flow of the narrative. The evangelist implicitly shows that the approach of the Samaritans (v. 30) is the outcome of the dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritan woman (vv. 7-26) and of her sharing of her experience with the Samaritans (vv. 28-29). She received the revelation from Jesus that he is the Μεσσίας (v. 26),69 and this is the sole content of her preaching (cf. v. 29 – “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?”), or rather sharing with the Samaritans as the evangelist reports it (v. 29). It is to be noted that she presumes in v. 25 that the Μεσσίας was still to come.70 Likewise, in v. 35 the disciples think that one must wait for the harvest, but Jesus tells them the harvest is ready. Verse 28 tells of the Samaritan woman’s leaving behind her concerns and returning to the city to give her testimony about Jesus. One can see in this action of the Samaritan woman in vv. 28-30 her willingness to join with Jesus in performing and completing the will of God. As scholars like Bultmann and Brown rightly note, the truth of the saying ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας (v. 35) is apparent both in the context of the coming of the Samaritans to Jesus (4:30) and in their proclamation that Jesus is the Savior of the world in 4:39-42.71 Finally, also, the inhabitants of Sychar come to Jesus but have not yet reached Jesus (v. 30). In this respect, vv. 28-30 prepare the ground for vv. 39-42. 67 68 69

70

71

See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 250. See Haenchen, John, 223. As we have discussed in previous chapters, the Samaritan woman is able to have a dialogue with Jesus in which she raises the basic tenets of the Samaritan faith, which were believed to have been handed down to them by Jacob, which implicitly points to the issue of accepting the common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and the issue between them concerning the right place of worship. Progressing through the various phases of conflicting, deflecting, confronting, understanding moments, Jesus and the Samaritan woman “come to a yes” concerning the messianic expectation of the Samaritans. For instance, O’Day, Revelation, 82, compares the saying of the Samaritan woman and the disciples with Jesus’ saying about the coming of the hour. It is also meaningful, but the link between the coming of Christ and the ripening of the harvest seems more plausible. See Bultmann, John, 196-197; Brown, John, 174.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

2. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι

AND

327

οἱ Σαμαρῖται

In the following, we first offer a brief overview of vv. 39-42, and then we proceed to address the specific issues these verses raise. It is made clear from the very outset of the last part of the Samaritan pericope, in vv. 39-42, that these final verses continue the narrative flow of vv. 28-30. These two narrative threads depart from the words and actions of the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans of Sychar and concern rather Jesus, who is with his disciples at Jacob’s well. Accordingly, in vv. 39-42 two groups of people are present: one group is οἱ Σαμαρῖται and the other is οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, i.e., the Samaritan woman with the Samaritans of Sychar and Jesus and his disciples come together. In this respect, the evangelist establishes an appropriate context for the final phase of the Samaritan episode, viz., an encounter between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and the disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans of Sychar) as the culmination of the Samaritan mission of Jesus. The result of the Samaritan woman’s testimony in v. 29 had been not only to lead the Samaritans of Sychar to Jesus (v. 30) but also, as v. 39 depicts, to lead many to believe in him. In the next step, in v. 40, the evangelist reports that the Samaritans have come to see Jesus and, upon meeting him, request that he stay with them for two days (μένειν) together. The remaining two verses, vv. 41-42, depict the aftermath of this μένειν together in the form of the responses of the Samaritans: “many more believed because of his word” (v. 41); the Samaritans said to the woman, “it is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves” (v. 42a) and they come to the knowledge (οἶδα) that Jesus is truly the Savior of the world, ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b). In this respect, vv. 39-42 present a varying quantity of Samaritans who came to believe in Jesus, leading to a step-bystep increase. Many (πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν) believed in Jesus because of the Samaritan woman’s words about him (v. 39) and many more (πλείους ἐπίστευσαν) believed in Jesus after μένειν with him and listening to Jesus’ own words (vv. 40-42a) and they acclaim further that their coming to the knowledge that Jesus is ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b). Thus, the dominating subject of vv. 39-42 is the response of the Samaritans to Jesus. In light of the above overview of these verses, let us examine more closely the following three parts: that the Samaritans benefited (cf. ἐπίστευσαν) first from the words and actions of the Samaritan woman (cf. μαρτυρούσης), second (cf. ἐπίστευσαν) through their own action of asking Jesus to μένειν with them, and finally, by coming to the knowledge that Jesus is ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου.

328

CHAPTER 7

2.1. The Outcome of μαρτυρεῖν: Response (V. 39) As noted above, v. 39 is directly linked with v. 30. The impact of the Samaritan woman’s μαρτυρεῖν is shown externally in the departure of the Samaritans of Sychar to go and see Jesus, and internally in the πιστεύειν of many of them in Jesus.72 In this respect, the words μαρτυρούσης and ἐπίστευσαν are used to depict the actions of the Samaritan woman and the due response of the Samaritans in v. 39.73 The verb πιστεύω is used 98 times in the gospel of John and is regarded as a Johannine style characteristic. In his gospel, πιστεύω is closely connected with the terms μαρτυρέω and σωτηρία. The one who testifies (see μαρτυρούσης) to the truth revealed by Jesus. In John, on some occasions it refers to the self-testimony of Jesus (5:31ff; 8:12-19; 10:25; 18:37) and on others it depicts the testimony of other witnesses (1:19; 3:34; 4:29, 39).74 By the repeated references to the Samaritan woman’s words in vv. 29 and 39, the evangelist specifies εἶπέν μοι πάντα ἃ ἐποίησα as μαρτυρέω. In this specific context, however, the Samaritan woman’s testimony is not made a subject of discussion; only her testimony concerning the basis of πιστεύειν of many Samaritans receives attention.75 ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν in v. 39 “does not necessarily signify a particular conviction about Jesus’ identity or his divine status so much as an openness to receive him and whatever identity he reveals”.76 The aorist ἐπίστευσαν in v. 39, “should perhaps be read as pluperfect” since this verse is somewhat parenthetical and provides a belated explanation of why the Samaritans of Sychar come out of the town to meet Jesus.77 Schnackenburg holds that through his statement in v. 39, where it is said that many Samaritans came to believe in Jesus due to the testimony of the Samaritan woman, “the evangelist shows that his interest is not confined to the purely historical”. Further, through Jesus’ own work, the initial response of the Samaritans is deepened (vv. 40-42).78 It is to be noted that v. 39 refers to the Samaritan woman’s words in v. 29 as μαρτυρεῖν, where the Samaritan woman 72 73

74 75 76 77 78

Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 298. We will not consider in detail the meaning of πιστεύειν and μαρτυρεῖν or the full implications of these terms in the gospel of John. Such a topic is vast and exceeds the scope of our discussion here. Rather, we will briefly examine its function in this specific context. In the following subsections, too, we will return to these two terms in one way or another as we discuss vv. 40-42. See also 2:25; 3:28; 4:44; 12:17; 13:21, 18:23. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 301-302. See Brant, John, 88. See Michaels, John, 268. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.455.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

329

introduces Jesus only as an ἄνθρωπος. In this respect, the evangelist specifies the words of the Samaritan woman in v. 29 as a μαρτυρεῖν, which led the Samaritans to πιστεύειν and made them follow her to Jesus at Jacob’s well. This explanation of the words of the Samaritan woman (cf. μαρτυρέω) “places her alongside John and Jesus” (cf. 3:11).79 In v. 40, the evangelist specifies that the people who come from Sychar are the Samaritans, while they were introduced in v. 28 just as human beings (cf. ἄνθρωπος). The Samaritan woman’s words to her townspeople (v. 29) serve as a μαρτυρεῖν to evoke a response of πιστεύειν on the part of many of the Samaritans of Sychar (v. 39), which on its interior level is an expression of πιστεύειν in the Samaritan woman’s words about Jesus and in a physical sense depicts their actions of going to see Jesus at Jacob’s well. The Samaritans are depicted as listening to the woman’s testimony regarding her meeting with Jesus, and the Samaritans of Sychar follow her to meet Jesus (vv. 29-30, 39).80 The response of the Samaritans after meeting Jesus is depicted in vv. 40-42. Verse 40 not only reports the arrival of the Samaritans but also their words and actions and Jesus’ response to them. 2.2. Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus with His Disciples) and Σαμαρῖται (Samaritans of Sychar) The action of the Samaritans’ going (v. 30), which reaches its completion, is reported in v. 40a.81 The evangelist directly refers back to v. 30 by mentioning about the approaching Samaritans (cf. ὡς οὖν).82 As noted above, v. 40 has three parts: the beginning of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritans of Sychar; their request that he stays with them for two days; and their coming to the knowledge that Jesus is ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. It is evident here that μένειν is the key word in v. 40 which is used along with the actions of Jesus as well as the Samaritans. Hence, we begin with a brief discussion of this term, then proceed to consider its function in v. 40 and in the Samaritan episode as a whole.

79 80

81 82

See Michaels, John, 268. The evangelist depicts Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples at the well simultaneously, which is enriched with many images and symbols about the work of God accomplished through him and about the others (ἄλλοι) who had worked before in Samaria. Detailed consideration of this dialogue (vv. 31-38) exceeds our scope here. We have already seen how v. 39 refers back to v. 29. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 302.

330

CHAPTER 7

μένω is an important concept in John. Of the 120 occurrences of μένω in the NT, 41 belong to John. In the LXX, μένω is employed significantly in covenantal contexts. Malatesta affirms that “the combination of μένειν and its cognates with the Covenant, the commandments, and with Yahweh himself connotes a relationship of fidelity to and communion with Yahweh, and that such expressions prepare the Johannine use of the verb”.83 In the LXX, μένω carries mainly two meanings: the abiding presence of God and the indwelling presence of God, both of which are important in John’s use of μένω.84 Louw and Nida find four meanings of μένω, namely: to stay, to wait for, to continue to exist, and to keep on.85 BAG gives two sets of meanings. First, when it is used intransitively: (i) to remain or stay, (ii) to live or dwell, (iii) to continue or abide, and (iv) to last, persist, continue to live, or exist. Second, when it is used transitively, it means to wait for, or await.86 However, both transitive (v.40b) and intransitive (v. 40c) senses are applicable to μένειν as it is used in the Samaritan episode. BDAG makes a thorough revision of the meanings and explanation given in BAG and BADG, paying attention to nuances in meaning across varied contexts and in various grammatical forms of μένω. BDAG provides the meaning of μένω as a person who remains in a place where he or she is, often with the special meaning living or dwelling.87 The question now is in what sense of the term μένειν is used here in this passage. Or what is meant by the Samaritans’ insistence that Jesus μένειν with them? We will examine these issues in the context of the Samaritan episode as well as in the broader context of the gospel of John. Jesus’ response to the Samaritans’ request is expressed by the lexeme μένειν, which has considerable importance in the gospel of John. It is also used in 1:38ff (three times), in 2:12; 7:9; 10:40; 11:6-54; 19:31; and 21:22ff (two times). μένειν is used with the adverb ἐκεῖ in John 2:12; 4:40; 10:40 and 11:54. It is used mainly with two meanings: one in the generic sense, to mean someone who is abiding/remaining in some place, and second with a spiritual connotation. In John’s gospel μένειν appears first in the context of John’s disciples questioning Jesus ποῦ μένει in 1:39a, and they ἔμειναν with Jesus (1:39b). BDAG indicates that μένειν is used in 1:39 together with the meaning of μένειν here (both in v. 40b 83 84 85 86 87

See See See See See

Malatesta, εἶναι ἐν and μένειν ἐν, 60 F. Hauck, “μένω,” TDNT IV.574-576. L&N, ## 13.89; 68.11; 85.55, 60. BAG, 504-505; BADG, 503-504. BDAG, 630-631.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

331

and v. 40c).88 H. Hübner pays specific attention to the use of μένω in John in terms of the immanence formulas in this gospel.89 He finds that μένω is employed in reciprocal immanence formulas with particular theological relevance in the gospel of John, and the point of departure for these, he maintains, is in Jn 15.90 However, recently scholars have argued that μένειν is an important Johannine term that carries not only theological meanings91 but also is used to depict love relationships and friendship.92 Caragounis recently devoted a paper to discussing the new mode of relationship in John in light of Jn 15, paying specific attention to μένειν.93 This term recurs 11 times here (15:1-10, 11-17) and the notion of abiding is interwoven with the love-command and with friendship.94 Thus, Caragounis interprets Jn 15 as the central chapter in the farewell discourse (chapters 13-17) and holds that μένω in Jesus is the symbolic representation of his relationship with his followers. Moreover, he shows the relationship between rooms (cf. μονή) in the Father’s house in 14:2 and μένειν in Jn 15, adding that the Johannine Jesus sums up the discourse in 17:23 (“I in them and you in me”) with an expression that implies μένειν. In other words, Jn 15:1-7 depicts “the pneumatic relationship between the exalted Christ and his followers”.95 Abiding in Christ will not blur the inceptive salvific faith in Christ because abiding is about remaining as a Christian.96 A believer has life only when he or she lives in union with Christ. However, this is not presented as a static state in John. He also deduces that to remain 88

89

90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Cf. 5:19-20; 14:2, 23; 15:9-10 (God) and 4:40; 6:27, 56; 8:31-32 (followers). According to Dorothy Lee, the symbolic meaning of μένειν in the first encounters (1:14f. and 1:38f.) in John begins to unfold gradually in the Samaritan episode. In the first stage of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, “Jesus invites the woman’s hospitality (4:7) and offers his own (4:10)” and thus approaches the “boundaries to reach her” (p. 63). The narrative culminates with the people who are led by the woman continuously requesting Jesus to μένειν with them, and Jesus abides with them for two days. In John, μένειν is used often to show Jesus’ intimacy with God and with his followers, and thus the Samaritans are possibly invited into the circle of followers. See Lee, “Friendship, Love and Abiding in the Gospel of John,” 57-74; Chennattu, Johannine Discipleship, 43. H. Hübner, “μένω,” EDNT II.407-408, provides three meanings: to remain, to stay and to await. It discusses the term further under three sections: namely, occurrences in the NT, the meaning and the immanence formulas in the Johannine literature. Hübner, “μένω,” 407-408. Heise 1967, 22-28, 47-103; Chennattu, “The Covenant Motif”, 145-146. See Lee, “Abiding in the Gospel of John,” 63. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 25-263. See Lee, “Abiding in the Gospel of John,” 63. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 261. See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 261-262. Remaining in Jesus means much more than simply coming to believe in him. See also Beasley-Murray, John, 272.

332

CHAPTER 7

in Christ represents the phrase “abide in me”, which the exalted Christ demands from his followers and which forms the basis of the new ethics in the post-resurrection period.97 As the Samaritan mission episode culminates, Jesus and the disciples and the Samaritans of Sychar stay together (μένω v. 40), which points to the fact that Jesus’ mission in Samaria paved the way for a new mode of relationship of abiding, moving away from the age-old ruptured relations. We have seen that Jesus’ acts of deliberately crossing geographical boundaries and reaching Sychar in Samaria and the actions that followed are ἔργον (v. 34) of God. The evangelist’s depiction of various aspects of brokenness in the existing situation – cultural-religious, ethnic and gender inequalities and rupture – through various vocabulary and carefully-described structures we discussed in the previous chapters. Jesus was led to perform the Samaritan mission by a necessity (ἔδει), which progresses from the initial situation of a problematic relationship of οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι (v. 9) and culminates in the μένειν of Jesus with the Samaritans (v. 40). In v. 40, the evangelist specifically states that the human beings (cf. ἄνθρωπος in vv. 28-29) who come from Sychar are οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Schapdick explains that the evangelist uses οἱ Σαμαρῖται here to show that they come to meet and then μένειν with Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος (v. 9).98 Brant notes in v. 40 a major reversal: namely that the Samaritans welcome Jesus, who is a Ἰουδαῖος (v. 9), to μένειν with them; they request that he “accept their hospitality”99 and they abide together with him for two days.100 The Samaritans ask Jesus to stay with them and Jesus actually does stay with them, but it is not explicitly referred to or affirmed again. Schapdick notes that this is due to the fact that Jesus stays with the Samaritans. It is only expressed in a neutral way that he stays there (v. 40) for two days.101 The Samaritans “come from Sychar to the well of Jacob to invite the ‘Jew’ to their homes without misgivings. […] Jesus accedes to the request and stays with them, but only for two days”.102 The timespan of two days with that of Did. 11:5, which wants a preacher not to abide for more than two days in any case in any given community.103 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

See Caragounis, “Abide in Me,” 262-263; Barrett, John, 474. See Schapdick, 302. Brant, John, 88. See Brant, John, 88. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 270. Schnackenburg, John, 1.455-456. Did. 11:5, “[a teacher] must not remain more than one day, or two, if there is a need. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet”. See also Bultmann, John, 148.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

333

However, Schnackenburg finds it “unlikely that the evangelist would try to show Jesus troubling himself about such a point of discipline”.104 How many days Jesus did stay with them is not the issue at stake for our research and we will not engage this discussion further. Yet the evangelist depicts the attitude of the Samaritans as welcoming Jesus to μένειν with them, and Jesus is ready to μένειν with them, along with his disciples in Samaria, without questions or reservations. The skill of abiding transforms our desires and reconciles us to the fact that there does continue within us some “love for darkness”, and that this contributes to reconciliation.105 In other words, μένειν is the reversal of a situation of οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι. The abiding (cf. μένειν) together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται is indeed an apt action in the context of the Samaritan episode in light of our discussions in the preceding chapters on the conceptual issues at play here, for example, the prohibition between these two groups sharing things, the inferior status of the Samaritans, differences in the observance of laws and regulations, controversies regarding the place of worship, claims of salvation distorting the relationship between the two groups, and so forth (cf. discussions on vv. 4, 9, 20, 22-25, 27, 32, 38). The trajectory of the Samaritan episode progresses from an atmosphere of conflict, where the words and actions of Jesus pave the way for open discussions on the issues at stake, to a mutual openness to accept the truth and leading finally to the culminating action of μένειν together. In sum, an atmosphere of hostility at the beginning of the episode gives way to an atmosphere of hospitality. We have here a gradual unfolding of freedom. Thus, John implicitly presents a renewed understanding of reconciling love and friendship in the Samaritan episode, and in the form of the invitation on the part of the Samaritans and Jesus’ immediate response, which leads to the μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. What is at stake in the following is the result of the μένειν together of these two groups of people for two days. 2.3. Aftermath of ἔμεινεν (vv. 41-42) What happened during these two days when Jesus and his disciples stayed with the Samaritans?106 Rather than explaining how they spent 104 105

106

Schnackenburg, John, 1.455. Cf. Jn 3:19. Abiding holds persons into Christ and transforms their thoughts into Christ’s thoughts (1 Cor 2:16). Why does Jesus stay for exactly two days (also 11:6) is of less importance than the fact that such a stay lasts a certain but limited period of time. During this time there

334

CHAPTER 7

these two days, the evangelist depicts the impact of the abiding together of these two groups of Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and his disciples) and Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritans of Sychar) in vv. 41-42. One can find mainly two elements in this depiction. First, in v. 41, the evangelist reports that the action of abiding together made many more Samaritans’ to believe in Jesus, even more than the impact depicted in vv. 29-30, 39. And v. 42 depicts the response of the Samaritans in direct speech, which presents in a nutshell first their experience due to the testimony (cf. μαρτυρεῖν) of the Samaritan woman and then by their abiding with Jesus. In v. 42a, the Samaritans tell the woman that “it is no longer because what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves”. In v. 42b, the culmination of the Samaritan episode, they make it clear that their new experience has led them to know that Jesus is the savior of the world, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. As noted, v. 41 and v. 42a state that Jesus’ direct encounter with the Samaritans leads to a numerically even greater success in attracting believers and outdoes in its effect the μαρτυρεῖν of the Samaritan woman. This is emphasized mostly by the language. It is to be noted that this numeric outdoing is reported at the beginning of the Samaritan episode (vv. 1-2); Jesus is quantitatively more successful than John the Baptist. In this respect, one can explain that at the beginning and at the end of the Samaritan pericope, Jesus’ effectiveness is also quantitatively shown to be a success. Verse 42 makes mainly two points: one concerning the testimony of the Samaritan woman in comparison with Jesus’ words and actions, and the second concerning the Samaritans’ new understanding of who Jesus is. Firstly, as Schnackenburg rightly notes, the Samaritan woman’s “λαλιά fades away before the λόγος of Jesus” (v. 41).107 That is, the Samaritans

107

is every opportunity to encounter Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, although nothing else is reported on it, except the effect of his stay. See also 1:39 and 2:12. At the very beginning of his earthly ministry, some of his listeners who were given the opportunity to stay (μένειν) with Jesus for a day became his first disciples (1:35-51) and in 2:12, Jesus stayed with his mother, brothers and disciples at Capernaum for not many days. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.456-457. However, he adds that as per the depiction of the evangelist, this raises no discussions regarding λαλιά and λόγος in vv. 41-42. λόγος used in v. 41 denotes the words of Jesus and the Samaritan woman’s λαλιά in v. 42 has evoked some discussions and debates. That is, the question of how these two expression can be assessed has occasioned to long discussions within the exegetical literature. Bultmann, John, 108, who has discussed this problem in detail, thinks that the Samaritan woman’s testimony in the mouth of the Samaritans degenerates into λαλιά (mere words) which do not imply the matter. In classical Greek, λαλιά usually means “idle talk”, however in the NT it is in a more ‘neutral’ sense (107). It is further explained that λαλιά as well as λόγος designates speech, and there is not a great difference between λαλιά and λόγος (107). It is true with the Samaritan episode, as the

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

335

get the opportunity to μένειν with Jesus not for a couple of hours but for two whole days along with his disciples, which leads them to form a deeper conviction than they did as a consequence of the μαρτυρεῖν of the Samaritan woman. Secondly, they tell the Samaritan woman about their knowledge (οἶδα) that Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. Specifically, οἴδαμεν is employed in v. 42 where the direct speech of the Samaritans is depicted. It is to be noted that οἶδα is used on several occasions in the Samaritan episode mainly by Jesus, which points to the need to lead the Samaritan woman (and thus, the Samaritans) to right knowledge.108 We have already discussed οἴδαμεν in v. 22, where Jesus confronts the Samaritan woman about the lack of knowledge of the Samaritans and the right knowledge of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι concerning the question from where and from whom salvation comes. ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε· ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν (v. 22).109 O’Day, in a similar vein, explains that the request of the Samaritans to Jesus to μένειν with them is one that the Samaritan woman could not quite make (vv. 10, 15). She adds that “[t]he Samaritans know who it is that is speaking to them” (vv. 10, 26). And after μένειν with Jesus, they come to understand that “Jesus cannot be labelled according to those traditional categories. Jesus is neither the Messiah the Samaritans’ expect nor the Messiah the Jews expect”. This alludes to Jesus’ reply to the Samaritan woman concerning the issue of the worship, viz., “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem” (v. 21).110 In this respect, the evangelist shows that at the culmination of the episode the Samaritans come to the right knowledge that Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. Michaels comments that the response of the Samaritans in 4:42a reflects 3:11, where Jesus explains to the people “we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen”.111 He adds that οὗτός ἐστιν

108 109 110 111

Samaritan woman’s speech is designated as λαλιά in v. 42 Jesus’ speech activity/talking is described also by λαλιά (vv. 26, 27) and in v. 39 the term λόγος is used to denote the words of the Samaritan woman as well. ἐπίστευσαν διὰ τὸν λόγον is used in vv. 39, 41 and points to the words of the Samaritan woman, though it later points to the words of Jesus. μένειν in v. 40 outdoes the impact of the actions of the Samaritan woman (v. 39), which is implicitly depicted in vv. 41-42. In light of this, we conclude that, specifically in the context of the Samaritan episode, the evangelist does not use the specific terms λόγος for Jesus’ words and λαλιά for the Samaritan woman’s. See the discussions of vv. 10-19 in chapter 4 and of vv. 20-24 in chapter 5. See Byrne, Life Abounding, 90. See O’Day, The Word Disclosed, 51. See Michaels, John, 269. Another instance in the preceding part of John which he links with vv. 39-42 is Jn 1:35-51; 2:11, 22-23 along with references from the Samaritan episode itself.

336

CHAPTER 7

ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου recalls on the one hand v. 22, where Jesus teaches the Samaritan woman about ἡ σωτηρία, and on the other hand the universal dimension of Jesus’ words and actions and the purpose of his coming (cf. 3:14-17; 11:12; 12:27, 47).112 It is notable that the evangelist goes no further to explain what happened after the proclamation of Jesus or the coming to knowledge of ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου on the part of Jesus and his disciples. Rather, v. 43 reports once again that after two days of remaining in Samaria, Jesus and his disciples resume their journey to Galilee (cf. vv. 3-4). The Samaritans not only believed in Jesus but also understood him as ὁ σωτήρ not merely for οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι or οἱ Σαμαρῖται, but as ὁ σωτήρ for all. The evangelist states that many Samaritans believed in him because of the Samaritan woman’s testimony (v. 39).113 However, they add that their faith is no longer dependent on her words (v. 42). Accordingly, one should be careful not to underestimate her role, for in John’s perspective the work of a witness is to bring a person or persons to Jesus in such a way that he or she encounters Jesus.114 As we have argued in the previous chapter, the Samaritan woman acts as a co-worker who gathers the harvest with Jesus. In this way, the person who responds to the sowing becomes both harvest and harvester. The broader context of the Samaritan episode, in 1:19-5:57, includes sequences of such responses by people of various religious-cultural and socio-political backgrounds.115 112 113

114

115

See Michaels, John, 269-270. Scholars like Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 187-188 and Schneiders, “Women,” 132, have examined the role played by the Samaritan woman in the Samaritan mission of Jesus. The evangelist presents the role of the Samaritan woman implicitly in three aspects; the self-revelation of Jesus, her response to Jesus, and her words and actions directed to her fellow Samaritans and the reaction of the disciples. Schneiders reflects on the effect of the Samaritan woman’s preaching given in v. 39. Brown finds here an implicit reference to the Samaritan woman and her missionary work. He adds the claim that only male disciples are sent and affirms it in the following way: “The story itself means that the woman has sown the seed and thus prepared for the apostolic harvest. The woman’s role is an essential component of the total mission. To some extent she serves to modify the thesis that male disciples were the only important figures in church founding”. Schneiders, “Women,” 35-45. The difference between v. 39 and v. 42 itself sheds light on the Samaritan woman’s missionary role: “[i]n the fourth gospel we see, repeatedly, people brought to Jesus by a disciple and coming to full faith in him on the basis Jesus’ own words to them”. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, 193, explains further that John the Baptist (1:35-39) testified to Jesus; two of his disciples followed Jesus and remained with him that day; and they came to believe in him on the basis of that interchange. One of them, Andrew (1:41-42), brought his brother Simon to Jesus. When Jesus recognized Simon and renamed him, Simon (now Peter) became a disciple. Philip (1:44-51) brought Nathaniel to Jesus, and again Jesus’ word converted his hearer into a follower. See chapter 2.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

337

Thus, we have seen that vv. 39-40 lays a new foundation that leads the Samaritans to believe in Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, to come to him from their town, and to invite him to μένειν with them. This is further developed in v. 41, concerning the increase in the number of Samaritans who believed and thus welcomed Jesus, which in fact lead their belief relationship to its destination, in v. 42b, ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. In other words, this progress is depicted in one way by the evangelist through their enlarged understanding, which is first emphasized quantitatively in v. 41, then as to its quality, ὁ κόσμος, in v. 42.116 From the very outset, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b) depicts the final outcome of the Samaritan mission of Jesus and shows its success. At this juncture, what remains to be discussed is the nature and content of the Samaritans’ knowledge (οἶδα): their confession or proclamation of Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου and the adverb ἀληθῶς, used along with this title of Jesus. In the following, we briefly discuss these three elements. 2.3.1. οἶδα: The Samaritans It is to be noted that the evangelist employs the term οἶδα before he unveils the contents of the Samaritans’ confession. In other words, the Samaritans speak of this confession as their coming to right knowledge (οἴδαμεν).117 Scholars in general hold that οἶδα in v. 42b serves to explain how this final phrase or culmination relates with or evolves from the various phases of progress of the Samaritan episode. Certain others focus attention on v. 22b, where ἡ σωτηρία is used in relation with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, while in v. 42b, by contrast, the evangelist places ὁ σωτήρ on the lips of the Samaritans. What follows is a brief discussion of how the knowledge depicted in v. 42b is well situated or flows from the Samaritan mission of Jesus as its final outcome. The Samaritans’ knowledge is enriched in various ways in the Samaritan episode, beginning from the Samaritan woman. The woman recognizes Jesus as an unknown traveller and a Ἰουδαῖος, and then as a particular Ἰουδαῖος, because he does not care about the issues or practises related 116

117

Becker, Das Evangelium, 1.215; Schnackenburg, John, 1.488; Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 305-306. We have already discussed the meaning and implications of οἶδα in chapter 4, where we discussed vv. 10ff. Also, discussions of this term were included in the following chapters as well due to the fact that this term lingers through the whole episode from v. 10 to the culminating verse (v. 42) of this narrative.

338

CHAPTER 7

to the relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (v. 9). Then, she is moved from an initial hesitation as to whether this man is greater than Jacob (v. 12) toward an acknowledgement that he is a/the prophet (v. 19). And the evangelist depicts further that at the culmination of their dialogue the Samaritan woman discusses about the Samaritan expectation of the one who comes to resolve the above discussed issues and thus to impart right knowledge. Jesus’ response to this enquiry of the Samaritan woman is presented as the decisive revelation that he is the Messiah who is to come (vv. 25-26, 29).118 Later on the Samaritans too join in this journey toward right knowledge (vv. 29ff), and in conclusion profess their faith in Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου.119 Leidig explains that the Ἰουδαῖος the Samaritan woman encountered is not a Samaritan figure of salvation, yet at the same time he does not limit salvation to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. He is there for all people (vv. 22, 42).120 The Samaritan woman wanted to know what her townspeople thought of her assumption (vv. 9-26, 29). The direct impression of Jesus’ μένειν with them induced the Samaritans to declare him ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. They thus arrived at a full knowledge of salvation which outbid the dispute between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. This knowledge proves to be that special knowledge which Jesus alludes to at the beginning of his conversation with the woman, namely the knowledge about his person and about the revelation of God’s word associated with him (vv. 10-26). In this way, all previous statements concerning “knowledge” – whether concerning knowledge (vv. 22, 25) or a state of not knowing (vv. 22, 32) – are surpassed and outdone, for here the truth and adequacy of Jesus’ words can be clearly seen (vv. 41, 42b). This use of οἴδαμεν implies the revelation and salvation of God in and through the life and actions of Jesus. Through vv. 14 and 23-24, the evangelist implicitly depicts that the Samaritans are invited to create their own space in their relationship with God and with other people.121 In this respect, the use of οἴδαμεν in v. 42b illustrates how positively the Samaritans’ confession is highlighted. Verse 22b shows the priority of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι over others, here specifically over οἱ Σαμαρῖται. The priority of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is justified for the reason that ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν (v. 22). Leidig explains 118 119

120 121

See our discussions in chapter 4. See Van Belle, Les Parenthèses, 221-235, 280, lists the formulae used by the evangelist to depict their progress in understanding Jesus up to and including the culmination of the Samaritan episode. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 111. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 310.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

339

that in the declaration of ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, the Messiah of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is spoken of in a way that would not have been possible without the statement that ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν (v. 22b).122 Both vv. 22b and 42b employ the same form of οἶδα (οἴδαμεν): in the former it is on the lips of Jesus pointing to we who are οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Simultaneously, we find the lexeme σωτήρ in v. 42b, which unambiguously takes up σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων from v. 22b. Thus it can be concluded that what is aimed at in v. 22 is implemented here in v. 42b. Verse 22 depicts the deficiency of the Samaritans’ knowledge compared to that of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, where the core issue concerns the right place of worship. Concerning this, Jesus wants them to come to right knowledge (cf. vv. 10ff) and the deficit is met in v. 42b through the right understanding which surpasses both elements of breach. Scholars such as Leidig and Schapdick affirm that the confession of the Samaritans ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b) is none other than ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν (v. 22b). A comparison between vv. 7-26 and vv. 27-42 makes clear the link between v. 22 and v. 38.123 Jesus directs the attention of his dialogue partners to the past in order to show them that he takes up God’s action, and the Samaritan woman joins with him as a co-worker, which is now carried further through the enjoining of the Samaritans (vv. 39-42).124 In this respect, in the whole context of the Samaritan mission of Jesus, v. 42b shows that this mission has in fact reached its goal due to the right understanding of the Samaritans. 2.3.2. οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42b) We have yet to discuss the expression ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42b, which is used with the adverb ἀληθής. From the very outset, the adverb ἀληθής clearly serves not only to prove the formal correctness of the Samaritans’ statement that follows, but also to put it into relation with God’s ἀληθής (23a-24c). Due to their encounter with Jesus, the Samaritans have experienced God’s truth: they have perceived/realized the reality and effectiveness of God’s revelation.125 The climax and end of the statement 122 123 124

125

See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 156. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 205-207; Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 310-311. See Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, 157. Jesus has the history of salvation behind him; he is God’s envoy. The concrete moment of the encounter is determined by God’s will (v. 34), because the father seeks true worshipers (v. 23) and finds them (vv. 39-42). See Blank, Krisis, 69; Schnackenburg, John, 1.490; Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 310311.

340

CHAPTER 7

of the Samaritans and thus of the entire Samaritan pericope is their assertion that Jesus is truly ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. Before we examine the Johannine sense of this title, let us briefly discuss the religious-historical origin of the title σωτὴρ (τοῦ κόσμου).126 In the LXX, primarily, God is described as σωτήρ,127 although this title is used for human beings in the OT too (Judg 3:9-15; Neh 9:27).128 In the LXX, it is not a designation for the Messiah.129 In the NT, σωτήρ is used eight times to designate God and seventeen times to refer to Jesus Christ. The title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου130 is used in the NT only in one other place and as a title of Jesus (1 Jn 4:14).131 In addition to that, among the Synoptic gospels, only Luke uses the term σωτήρ, which stands for the one who brings salvation and peace.132 Implications of the title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου as a title of Jesus are found in scholarship as follows: (1) This title is used in the Hellenistic period;133 (2) it reflects majesty and royalty, as does the term κύριος and (3) it is acknowledged that this title in the NT corresponds with the frequent theme in John that Jesus is God’s sent son for the salvation of the 126

127 128 129

130

131

132

133

Scholars explain that in the Hellenistic ruler cult, the ruler is called σωτήρ on certain occasions. The lexeme σωτήρ reveals its actual meaning within this ruler cult as a part of the official title of the king, either within the lexeme combination θεὸς σωτήρ, which was used for the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, or as σωτήρ for the kings of the Seleucid Empire. For example, an Emperor such as Hadrian (117-138 AD), to whose title three Greek words were most often appended, awarded this title, and thus the granting of such a title is not a matter of course but a result of single deed the emperor has done in favour of a city, merits him titles such as σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. See Foerster and Foherer, “σωτήρ,” TDNT VII.1004-1024, 1005-1010; Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 312. For example, Deut 32:15; 1 Sam 10:19; Isa 12:2; Ps 24:5; Wis 16:7, etc. Foerster and Foherer, σωτήρ, 1010. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 312. Josephus uses σωτήρ for human saviors only (cf. Ant. 4.240; Bell. 3.459; Vita 244). See Schelkle, σωτήρ, EDNT III.782-784; Foerster and Foherer, σωτήρ, 1021. Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 313. We have already come across briefly the meaning and implications of σωτήρ and σωτηρία in our discussion of v. 22. Hence, in this section, we will only briefly examine the title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. See Chapter 5. The idea of σωτήρ and σωτηρία is used in the LXX to represent God in (cf. Isa 19:20; Zech 9:9) and for human beings in Judg 3:9, 15. However, Schnackenburg affirms that though σωτήρ is used in the LXX, the title σωτήρ was not a current title of the Messiah in Judaism. Josephus and Philo too employ the same or similar titles for God and for human persons. Philo employs ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου used for God in Spec. 2.198. See Schnackenburg, John, 1.457. See Dibelius and Conzelmann, Epistles, 75, 100-103. See Seo, Jesus in the Roman Empire and the Emperor, 119. In the NT, as Schnackenburg, John, 1.457, notes, “[i]t was transferred from Yahweh to Jesus by the Christian. See Otto, “Augustus Soter,” 448-460; Wendland, Σωτήρ; Haenchen, John, 1.226; Koester, “Saviour of the World (John 4:42),” 665-680.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

341

world. Although the concept of savior is widespread in classical Greek language, the OT and the NT, the title σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου is used in particular for the Roman Emperors and thus we presume that in John it is meant to convey certain specific implications. κόσμος is presumably used here first to emphasize the universality of God’s revelation, which is for all.134 As Schapdick notes that ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (v. 22) points to σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42), which indicates that national as well as religious boundaries are not ultimately significant for salvation.135 In and through Jesus, the Samaritans realize God’s ultimate love. In spite of the confession ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου – a confession that breaks all boundaries – it is stated in this connection with v. 9 that Jesus is a Ἰουδαῖος. That is, the Samaritans who were presented at the beginning of the Samaritan episode as the antagonists of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι have come to this understanding.136 Decisive for the Samaritan pericope is thus the reason for Jesus’ mission. Consequently, it is not surprising to find the expression ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου on the lips of the Samaritans at the conclusion of the pericope. In this light what can be concluded based on the use of the title σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42? σωτηρία and σωτὴρ are interrelated terms. σωτὴρ inevitably points to the Messiah. σωτηρία is a hapax in the fourth gospel and the meaning of this term is hard to explain. One can argue that ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42) flows from ἡ σωτηρία in v. 22. At this juncture, one may be reminded of a similar expression: ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ in 3:17 (as well as ἵνα σώσω τὸν κόσμον in 12:47). In light of our discussions in the previous section and in chapter 5, another point to be noted here is that Jesus in his reply to the Samaritan woman says ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν in v. 22 and the episode closes with the whole city of Samaritans’ addressing Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42. Here we can ask: how can one understand this pronouncement of the Samaritans in light of v. 22b that ἡ σωτηρία comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι? It is to be noted 134

135

136

We are not entering into such discussions in the wider context of the Gospel of John, for example concerning how to explain how οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and κόσμος are related to each other. Does the statement that salvation is from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and the statement in v. 42 substantiate the other references and occasions in the gospel of John? For more on this, see for instance, Leidig, Jesu Gespräch, viii; Jojko, Worshipping the Father in Spirit and Truth, 74-75. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 315; Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 179. See Schapdick, Auf dem Weg, 315; Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien, 179.

342

CHAPTER 7

that both Jesus and the Samaritan woman use ἔρχεται to speak of the time of worship in Spirit and truth, which is coming, and the Messiah, who also is coming.137 It is to be noted that Jesus affirms what the Samaritan woman says when she asks about the right place of worship, stating that salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (vv. 20-22). Also, at the end of the episode, the Samaritans themselves proclaim Jesus as the one who grants salvation not only to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι but to the whole world; he is the savior of the world (v. 42). One can here deduce that Jesus’ initiative and resolutions pave the way for the movement away from hostility and differences due to claim that who possesses the right place of worship and that salvation comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. In their acceptance and proclamation of Jesus, the Samaritans have undergone a process of refinement resulting from Jesus’ disclosure of his identity in his various modes and deeds. The evangelist at the culmination point of the Samaritan episode places the title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου on the lips of the Samaritans. Schnackenburg thinks that the evangelist has deliberately chosen the title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου on the lips of the Samaritans at the culmination of the Samaritan episode for the following reasons: “1) […] in John Jesus’s Messiahship surpasses all the expectations of Judaism, so too the hopes of the Samaritans are fulfilled in an undreamt-of way. 2) Jesus is the Saviour of the ‘world’. His self-revelation has taught the Samaritans that the true saviour sent by God does not belong to one people alone, does not set up a special form of worship in Samaria or Judah (vv. 21-24) but bestows salvation on the whole world. 3) The evangelist also chooses the title with an eye to his readers. Purely historically speaking, it is unlikely that the Samaritans chose this well-known phrase, even though to the mind of the evangelist they have progressed beyond their limited Messianic hopes.”138 Liermann explains that ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου is used as “the culmination of a series of affirmations about Jesus [... it] moves beyond national and ethnic categories to the universal”.139 He adds further that by addressing Jesus with this title “[t]he Samaritans acclaim Jesus as not just the Jewish Messiah or Samaritan Taheb. The universal title includes and surpasses these more circumscribed expressions”.140 The adverb ἀληθῶς, used before ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, affirms the several symbolic and metaphoric meanings embedded in this title.141 In this respect, at the culmination of the Samaritan 137 138 139 140 141

John states two times (in v. 40 and v. 43) that Jesus stayed there for two days. Schnackenburg, John, 1.457. Liermann, Challenging Perspectives, 292. See Liermann, Challenging Perspectives, 292-293. See Heever, “Metaphorics,” 89-100; Liermann, Challenging Perspectives, 293.

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

343

episode, the evangelist depicts that the Samaritan mission of Jesus invites all persons to move beyond the issues and breaches induced by the traditions of groups of people such as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται to a broadened perspective that would include all persons. John even uses the term, ὁ κόσμος.142 Bultmann notes that it is by God’s initiative that human persons are brought to Christ.143 Theobald explains that v. 10b puts before the Samaritan woman the question of who Jesus is (and why he is passing through Samaria). Her understanding of this question unfolds step-by-step in the Samaritan episode. The identity of Jesus is revealed gradually: we learn that he is greater than the patriarch Jacob in v. 12; that he is a/the prophet in v. 19; the Messiah/Christ in v. 25, and the savior of the world in v. 42.144 As Brant notes in v. 42b, “the episode then ends with words that signify an act of recognition. They are represented as moving from an understanding of who Jesus is that of the Samaritan interests, onward to using a title that is not rooted in Jewish or Samaritan eschatological traditions and universal implications.145 In the Samaritan episode we have a sequence of expressions showing how the Samaritans are led to right knowledge and how Jesus communicates about God’s revelation and salvation. Through the various phases of this episode, the evangelist shows how the Samaritans understand its universal dimension so that any inter-human boundaries – whether national, religious or social – are invalidated once and for all. Therefore Jesus, an ἄνθρωπος and a Ἰουδαῖος, can and must speak to the Samaritans through his deliberate words and actions, and thus lead the Samaritans to break through all such barriers and reach out to all persons without distinction.146 This is confirmed by their understanding and acceptance of Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. In light of the preceding discussion, we conclude that, in one way or another, vv. 39-42 serve as the concluding part of several exchanges: between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, between the Samaritan woman and the Samaritans, and between Jesus and his disciples. Precisely we have here the coming together of two groups of people, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and his disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritans of Sychar), forgetting the various issues between them.

142 143 144 145

146

See O’Day, The Word Disclosed, 53 See Bultmann, John, 201; Carson, John, 231. See Theobald, Das Evangelium, 312-313. Brant, John, 88. Cf. our discussions on Jesus’ teachings on worshipping in spirit and truth. See Culpepper, Anatomy, 137.

344

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION We have seen that vv. 28-30 serves as a transition to the subsequent dialogue (31-38), just as v. 27 serves as a transition from the preceding sections (vv. 1-26) and is continued in the final part (vv. 39-42). The Samaritan woman’s speech is addressed to the Samaritans (vv. 28-30) and prepares for the Samaritans’ words and actions directed toward Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Thus, the final phase of the Samaritan episode is characterized by two conclusive parts (vv. 39-42). It is to be noted that in vv. 28-30, direct references to Jesus, the Samaritan woman, and the Samaritans are not used, but in place of these, general terms are used: a person, a woman, persons of Sychar. In other words, the evangelist shows that the Samaritan woman explains to her townspeople about just a person, and not about a Ἰουδαῖος or Jesus in particular. Her use of neutral terms, the implicit signal given to their messianic expectation in v. 29 by the use of the terms πάντα (cf. ἅπαντα in v. 25), by ὁ χριστός and the hesitant question with μήτι to suggesting a positive answer, all convinced us that the Samaritan woman is making a calculated move to make her testimony more effective. Her testimony thus points to the Messiah only implicitly, and its impact is clearly depicted in v. 30 as her listeners leave the town to go meet Jesus. The first of these parts begins with the Samaritan woman’s action of leaving the water jar while returning to her hometown and it is one of the most debated issues in scholarship concerning her actions. Scholars notice the fact that the woman’s water jar is not mentioned before in this narrative and propose various interpretations of this action such as it symbolizes her haste and excitement, leaving her concern with water as such, or leaving her belongings to follow Jesus as the disciples do in the synoptic gospels. In light of the Samaritan woman’s words and actions in the preceding and following parts, we conclude that her act of leaving the water jar symbolizes her progress in terms of having right knowledge, the broadening of her horizons (vv. 9-28). By this we mean that she left her water jar even though she had initially been reluctant even to give some water from it, in other words, the evangelist symbolically depicts her change from a mind-set of no-relationship (v. 9c – οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις) to a mind-set of relationship enriched with acceptance and generosity toward οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The second part depicts the response of the Samaritans toward Jesus and the Samaritan woman (vv. 39-42). Verse 39 corresponds directly with v. 30 that the evangelist reports here the tangible response of the Samaritans

THE FINAL PHASES OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION EPISODE

345

(they leave the town to go meet Jesus) while v. 39 depicts the inner realm in the space of which many came to believe in Jesus due to her testimony (μαρτυρεῖν). Verse 40 announces that the Samaritans have arrived and without any sort of discussion or debate they welcome Jesus and ask him to μένειν with them. Jesus accepts the invitation. As we have seen in the broader context of John, abiding transforms one’s plans and attitudes and thus μένειν here contributes to reconciliation. In other words, it is the reversal of a situation of οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι. Hence, the Samaritans’ belief in greater quantity alone is insufficient to explain the action of μένειν together and its impact (vv. 40-41). Accordingly, the evangelist goes further to use a device in the final verse of the Samaritan episode, where οἱ Σαμαρῖται proclaims that Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42). It is to be noted that the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman begins with clear overtones of breach, viz., a sharp distinction is set between these two (Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις) with additional emphasis on the point that no relationship exists between them (οὐ συγχράομαι) (v. 9). This episode culminates with the μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (v. 40). The μένειν together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (Jesus and his disciples) and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (the Samaritan woman and her townspeople) shows the success of Jesus’ Samaritan mission, which can be verified clearly in light of our discussions in the preceding chapters, which unearthed various conceptual issues concerning for example the prohibition on these two groups sharing things, the inferior status of the Samaritans, differences in the observance of laws and regulations, controversies regarding the place of worship, claims of salvation distorting the relationship between the two groups, and so forth (cf. vv. 4, 9, 20, 22-25, 27, 32, 38). The trajectory of the Samaritan episode progresses from overtones of breach and hostility through deliberate attempts to deflect the conflicting modes with a combination of hard and soft approaches in discussing the core issues openly and thus modulating and mitigating differences. In place of the Samaritan woman’s initial addressing of Jesus as ‘you a Ἰουδαῖος’, by the end of the episode οἱ Σαμαρῖται together address Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42). That is, the Samaritans have grown from the understanding of the Messiah who comes to save the Samaritans (cf. vv. 25-26, 29) toward right knowledge: ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. The evangelist carefully depicts the Samaritan narrative, which culminates with this specific outcome, to show its various phases which transform an atmosphere of breach into a mode of welcoming and μένειν together (v. 40). Jesus is shown to be the savior not of a specific group of people, such as οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, but of all, ὁ κόσμος. This substantiates the

346

CHAPTER 7

proposals of our research hypothesis, that the narrative of the Samaritan mission of Jesus transmits the underlying ethical elements that depict how to develop a situation of no-relationship, due to issues of breach and hostility, toward a welcoming and good relationship: i.e., from οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται toward their μένειν together. In the culminating verse, we are pointed to an even higher realm beyond all breach by the suggestion that the impact of the Samaritan mission of Jesus augmented the understanding of the Samaritans and enabled them to adopt the broadened perspective of ὁ κόσμος.

GENERAL CONCLUSION In this study, we have challenged the near consensus that the fourth gospel does not take up the Synoptic concept of loving the enemy, and accordingly we devised the present study to examine the possible elements that develop the theme of reconciling (enemies become friends). Scholars often argue that the commandment of love, in the fourth gospel, refers exclusively to the love among Jesus’ followers alone, and that it reflects a hostility towards others. Recent scholarship, however, has not only critically engaged such negative conclusions concerning the ethical elements in John, but also proposed a new way to study the fourth gospel that aims to unearth underlying ethical elements. Scholars such as J. G. van der Watt, R. Zimmermann and M. Labahn, in this way, have argued that the narratives in John implicitly offer ethical models in their portrayals of characters, accounts of specific words and actions, symbolic images, etc. We regard this as a promising new direction in research on John’s gospel, and one that provides a challenging point of departure for further research. We have stated the research hypothesis of our own study, therefore, in light of these developments: namely, that the fourth gospel does include elements of reconciling love and even a depiction of loving one’s enemies, and that this is implicitly depicted in the Samaritan mission narrative (Jn 4:1-42). Motivated by the concerns presented above and in response to the direction suggested by recent scholarship, we have held that the Samaritan episode depicts the theme of reconciling love in a unique manner. Our point of departure is a situation of no-relationship (οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται in v. 9) that is eventually transformed into an abiding together (cf. μένειν in v. 40) of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Hence, our major focus in this dissertation has been on the unique Samaritan mission of the Johannine Jesus. We have proceeded in three major phases: namely, (i) First part consists of chapters one and two which lay a theological and exegetical foundations of this dissertation. First chapter includes a critical overview of the discussions concerning ethics in John and the formulation of the research hypothesis and second chapter dealt with the introductory exegetical issues concerning the Samaritan pericope. (ii) The encounter between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις (vv. 1-9; 10-19; 20-26) and (iii) the encounters of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at different levels: vv. 27, 31-38 (between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι); vv. 28-30 (between the Samaritan

348

GENERAL CONCLUSION

woman and the Samaritans of her town) and vv. 39-42, where there is a final coming together of two groups of people, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and one finds the culmination of the Samaritan episode (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Jesus and the disciples and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, the Samaritans who come to Jesus led by the Samaritan woman). Henceforth, we present the findings of this research. In the preparatory phase, we have examined the status quaestionis concerning the presence of ethical themes in John’s gospel. Some scholars remain skeptical about the presence of such elements, due to a too-narrow and exclusive focus, whereas others affirm that there are many ethical elements yet to be unearthed in the narratives when one broadens one’s analytical categories. In this light, we have focused on the Samaritan episode, and specifically examined the status of the research maintaining that the treatment of ethical themes in this narrative is minimal. Furthermore, we have noted that this episode begins in an atmosphere of conflict, with indications of breach between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, and culminates with their μένειν together. Consequently, we have selected this unique Samaritan mission episode of the Johannine Jesus because we regard it as the passage most suited to an analysis of our research question. Accordingly, we have proceeded to delimit the research pericope. Paying attention to the literary-geographical indications concerning the itinerant ministry of Jesus, we demarcated the boundaries of the Samaritan episode. At the beginning of the passage the evangelist provides several literary-geographical indications, which in some way reflect the antagonistic attitude between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at that time. Accordingly, we identified the immediate context of the Samaritan episode as 3:22-4:54 and its boundaries as 4:1-42. The second phase of our research has focused on the first major part of Jn 4:1-42 (vv. 1-26), the encounter between Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος, and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις. We analyzed this encounter in three parts: namely, vv. 1-9, 10-19 and 20-26. We found that there is progress in the encounter between these two dialogue partners, viz., from an initial climate of breach, conflicting and deflecting modes of dialogue, they finally come to a ‘yes’. In the first part of this phase, it is found that vv. 1-9 are structured as an introduction to the Samaritan episode for the following reasons: (1) vv. 1-3 not only serve as transititional verses, but also reflect an atmosphere of power conflict from the part of the Pharisees toward Jesus, and knowing this he leaves Judea for Galilee. (2) The employment of ἔδει in v. 4 suggests that it is in some way necessary that Jesus pass through Samaria. The strategy of selecting this route may not be simply due to geographical

GENERAL CONCLUSION

349

necessity. It may be more of a theological necessity, in the light of v. 34 which can be better understood in the background of our findings concerning the socio-cultural and religious-political issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. (3) We considered the self-definition of the Samaritans as descendants of the patriarch Jacob (and Joseph) in vv. 5-6 (vv. 11-12), which we have found is confirmed by the relevant literature of the first centuries C.E., and the intimation that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do not acknowledge their common kinship with οἱ Σαμαρῖται. (4) The initial response of the Samaritan woman to Jesus (vv. 7-9ab) emphasizes the sharp distinction between Ἰουδαῖος and Σαμαρῖτις. (5) We found that our analysis of scholarship on the status of the relationship between the two groups of people, based on available and relevant literature such as the SP, MT, LXX, NT, pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, DSS documents, and inscriptions, points towards one specific element of breach: the place of worship (Jerusalem vs Mt. Gerizim). Surprisingly, the same issue is explicitly raised by the Samaritan woman near the culmination of her encounter with Jesus (vv. 20-26). (6) We found that this distinction is re-affirmed by a parenthesis of the evangelist in v. 9c (οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται …). In short, as per the text of vv. 1-9, stress is placed on the elements of dissociation between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. Thus, we have found that this introductory phase of the Samaritan episode establishes the first component of our research hypothesis: namely, that according to the Samaritan narrative an atmosphere of hostility and conflict, and even a strong attitude of no-relationship, prevailed between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at this time. In the second part (vv. 10-19), we examined the dialogue between the two protagonists, Jesus and the Samaritan woman, which is aimed at right knowledge (οἶδα). This progressing phase of the dialogue unfolds in five steps. (1) Re-initiation: Jesus restarts the conversation in v. 10 even though it seems ready to conclude (cf. v. 9). He urges the Samaritan woman to reverse her request for ὕδωρ ζῶν (v. 10) and deflects her from her conflicting attitude. (2) Bargaining over: The Samaritan woman implicitly raises the issue of the denial of common kinship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (vv. 11-12) when Jesus offers ὕδωρ ζῶν, on condition that the woman has to have right knowledge. (3) Reversal of the request: Jesus’ soft approach toward her amounts to a reversal of the request for water (vv. 13-15). (4) Confrontations: In another reversal, Jesus’ hard approach is depicted, where he openly confronts the Samaritan woman and explicitly refers to her private life which concerns her socio-cultural and religiouspolitical context. (5) Coming toward right knowledge: finally, the Samaritan

350

GENERAL CONCLUSION

woman progresses in terms of right knowledge by acknowledging Jesus as a/the prophet (cf. θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ συ in v. 19; cf. πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος in v. 9). Thus, Jesus’ words and actions, as well as his direct and indirect acquaintance with the woman’s concerns and worries, lead her to progress toward right knowledge (cf. οἶδα in vv. 10ff). Finally, in vv. 20-26, we find the following progressions in the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, leading to its culmination. (1) It is the Samaritan woman, rather than Jesus, who takes the initiative at this stage. She introduces two new topics: the issue of the right place of worship, and the Samaritans’ expectation of the one who is coming and will announce everything to them (cf. ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα). (2) Her initiative marks her progress in right knowledge and movement away from a closed mentality. (3) The issue of the right place of worship, which the precious stage of our research has already shown to be the core problem between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται, is explicitly raised and discussed by Jesus and the Samaritan woman. (4) Jesus transcends and thus invalidates the arguments of both parties (Jerusalem of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and Mt. Gerizim of οἱ Σαμαρῖται) by introducing a new paradigm: worship, he says, is made true by the relationship between worshippers (cf. οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ) and the Father (cf. ὁ πατήρ), not by its location. (5) In the same vein, the relationship between God and human persons is realized through ἡ σωτηρία and προσκυνέω respectively (vv. 23-24). Thereby, the narrative indirectly shows how the conflict between the two parties (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται) is resolved: i.e., by establishing a new, common ground of true worship (cf. ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν). (6) At this juncture, the Samaritan woman shares her knowledge, οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα (v. 25), which Jesus confirms by his affirmation ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι in v. 26. This underlines how the Samaritan woman is led to possess right knowledge, which Jesus wants her to acquire in the first stage of their encounter (v. 10). (7) The dialogue concludes when the dialogue partners, Jesus and the Samaritan woman, come to a ‘yes’. In sum, our research of the first phase of the Samaritan mission episode (vv. 1-26) substantiates our research hypothesis: that the need for reconciling love is shown here through the conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται and the way in which such religious-political and social-cultural barriers are taken down through the various stages of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, leading to a convergence at least between the dialogue partners: Jesus, a Ἰουδαῖος and the woman, a Σαμαρῖτις.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

351

At this point, the episode enters a second major part (cf. chapters six and seven), where the dialogue partners and their companions meet as separate groups: Jesus and his disciples in vv. 27 (cf. v. 8) and 31-38 (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) and the Samaritan woman and her townspeople from Sychar in vv. 28-30 (οἱ Σαμαρῖται). Then these two groups meet together at Jacob’s well in vv. 39-42 (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται) and stay (μένειν) together. These three exchanges together form the final phase of our dissertation, and we analyze them in three parts. The findings of the first exchange (between Jesus and the disciples) of the final phase are the following: (1) A response of the disciples, reflecting their attitude of uneasiness toward Jesus’ exchange with the Samaritan woman, is depicted in their expressions of θαυμάζω (v. 27a), nonvocalized questions (vv. 27b, 33) and expressed concerns (v. 31). These verses implicitly depict the prevailing socio-cultural issues reflected in the previous phase of the Samaritan mission (cf. vv. 9, 12-13, 20-24). (2) John both addresses the issues (through unexpressed questions in vv. 27b, 32 and expressed concerns in v. 31) and adopts a similar strategy (cf. vv. 7, 9-26). In the previous dialogue, the theme of water became a source of right knowledge for the Samaritan woman (vv. 7, 9-26), whereas in the subsequent dialogue (vv. 31-38) the theme of food becomes a source of right knowledge for the disciples (οὐκ οἴδατε vs οἶδα). (3) This dialogue begins with ἐν τῷ μεταξύ (v. 31), which is a hapax legomenon in the NT that relates the content of vv. 31-38 to the preceding and following incidents of the Samaritan episode (vv. 1-30, 39-42). Subsequently, vv. 31 and 33 depict the disciples’ concern about Jesus’ food and their unexpressed questions about his actions at Sychar during their absence. Jesus then teaches them using the images of food and harvest (vv. 32, 34-38), which are pregnant with mission vocabulary: Jesus’ food (cf. βρῶσις, ἐμὸν βρῶμα), God’s will (cf. θέλημα) and work (ἔργον), ὁ πέμψας με, the toil (cf. κοπιάω) of ἄλλοι, and terms such as σπείρω and ὁ σπείρων, θερίζω and ὁ θερισμός/ ὁ θερίζων. (4) Jesus concludes by intimating that the disciples have already been sent to reap the fruit of the Samaritan mission, which is the result of the work of the ἄλλοι. In the context of the fourth gospel, and in the specific context of the Samaritan mission of Jesus, we can understand that the ἄλλοι are the co-workers of Jesus, including the Samaritan woman who brings Jesus’ Samaritan mission to completion. (5) Based on our discussion of vv. 34-38, we conclude that this monologue is a figurative depiction of the various stages of the successful Samaritan mission. Our findings relating to the second and third exchanges of this second part of the Samaritan pericope concern the change in mindset of the Samaritan

352

GENERAL CONCLUSION

woman and her new understanding of Jesus (vv. 28-30). (1) The Samaritan woman’s action of leaving her water jar (ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς in v. 28a) at Jacob’s well, where Jesus and his disciples were to remain, serves as another indicator of her new awareness: she shares things with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (cf. vv. 9, 27), progresses in right knowledge (cf. vv. 10, 19, 25), and leaves aside her main interest, namely water. She also overcomes her apprehensions about going to the city to proclaim her encounter with Jesus in public and coming back to Jesus at Jacob’s well (vv. 29-30). In this way, ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνή indicates the successful completion of the first part of Jesus’ Samaritan mission, for he has had a real encounter with a Samaritan. (2) ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in v. 28b serves as an introduction to the next phase of the Samaritan mission, where the woman shares her testimony with her townspeople. (3) We found that the evangelist employs the term ἄνθρωπος to denote Jesus and the Samaritans (cf. ἀνθρώποις), whereas in the first two phases of the episode persons or groups of persons are referred to in terms of their socio-religious or gender identities. (4) In vv. 29 and 39, the testimony of the Samaritan woman is depicted in a nutshell with the expression πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα. This proved to be something remarkable, for it moves the townspeople to set off for Sychar to meet Jesus. (5) πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα is in fact only the first half of the Samaritan woman’s testimony: the Samaritans pay no attention to the second half, namely the hesitant question suggesting a positive answer, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; (v. 29b). (6) The impact of her testimony is shown further in the response of the Samaritans of Sychar (vv. 30, 39-42). It is shown, therefore, in two ways: both through the actions of the Samaritan woman as an individual and the actions of the Samaritans of Sychar as a group. (7) The trajectory of this progression stems from a situation of no-relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται (cf. οὐ γὰρ συγχράομαι in v. 9c), which moves toward a situation of their staying (cf. μένειν) together (v. 40). Given the initial overtones of tension and conflict, the Samaritan woman’s first responds to Jesus by saying that there is no dealing/relationship between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται. In further stages of their encounter, Jesus raises the claim that salvation (ἡ σωτηρία) comes from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (v. 22b). This statement of the Johannine Jesus, however, does not imply that the Samaritans are excluded from salvation. Our preceding discussions have identified the main issues that distorted the relationship between these groups: especially problems in sharing things, differences in religious-cultural practice, controversies about the place of worship, and claims about salvation (cf. vv. 4, 9, 20, 22-25, 27, 32, 38). Yet the evangelist depicts the attitude of the

GENERAL CONCLUSION

353

Samaritans as welcoming Jesus to μένειν with them, and Jesus does μένειν with them, together with his disciples, without any question or reservation. (8) We deduced that this action of abiding transforms the Samaritans, giving them right knowledge about ἡ σωτηρία/ὁ σωτήρ. Here it should be noted that salvation does indeed come from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and specifically from Jesus. This directly points to the right knowledge of the Samaritans when they acclaim Jesus as the savior of the world (ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου – v. 42). (9) Here we find that the transformation of an individual, the Samaritan woman, effects the transformation of a community. We thus understand that the conflict between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται depicted at the beginning of this Samaritan mission is transformed: not merely resolved, but made to lead to a state of right knowledge such that it fades away entirely. (10) The culmination of the Samaritan mission is indeed depicted in a nutshell in the term μένειν and the expression ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου. One can see a clear contrast between the relationship at the beginning of the Samaritan episode οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι (v. 9) and the μένειν (v. 40) together of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται at its end. In other words, μένειν is the reversal of a situation of οὐ συγχρᾶσθαι. Thus, the idea of loving one’s enemy, implicitly depicted in the Johannine Samaritan narrative (4:1-42), introduces into the heart of John’s gospel the ethically relevant claim that conflict can be resolved through reconciling love, which leads those who engage in it from a status of no-relationship toward a new attitude and a new way of abiding together. In sum, issues between οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and οἱ Σαμαρῖται depicted in the narrative of the Samaritan episode include the problem of no-relationship (v. 9), the denial of common kinship and ancestral relations (vv. 5-6, 11-14), the conflict about the place of worship and the understanding of salvation (vv. 20-24), the expectation on the part of οἱ Σαμαρῖται of one who will come to resolve these issues (vv. 25-26), the exchange between Jesus and his disciples that depicts his disciples’ unease (vv. 8, 27, 3133), and the monologue Jesus delivers in reply (vv. 34-38). All of these symbolically depict the issues between οἱ Σαμαρῖται and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and lead to the culmination of Jesus’ Samaritan mission. At this point, the Samaritans come to Jesus and his disciples, and the two groups, οἱ Σαμαρῖται with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, abide together. Our study thus challenges the widespread scholarly consensus that John does not take up the synoptic concept of loving one’s enemy and substantiates our research hypothesis that the Samaritan episode (Jn 4:1-42) exhibits elements of the theme of reconciling love, and even loving one’s enemies, in a unique way. In considering the culmination of the Samaritan

354

GENERAL CONCLUSION

episode, we have found that οἱ Σαμαρῖται go beyond the boundaries of ethnicity to abide with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The Samaritans implicitly admit that the Samaritan woman’s words and actions have led them to Jesus, while they explicitly state that they have come to recognize Jesus as ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (v. 42). By synthesizing the results of the stages of our research, we find that this research pericope not only substantiates the postulates of our research hypothesis, but also modifies that hypothesis; for more precisely, we find, disturbed relationships can be raised even higher to the realm beyond the breach and with a broadened perspective of ὁ κόσμος (cf. ἄνθρωπος/ἀνθρώποις in vv. 28-30; ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου in v. 42). Thus, the relationship between these two groups of οἱ Σαμαρῖται and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is, at its culmination, raised to a realm beyond the breach.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Text Editions and Tools ABBOTT, E. A., Johannine Vocabulary: A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1905. —. Johannine Grammar. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906. ALAND, K., B. Aland, J. KARAVIDOPOULOS, C. M. MARTINI, and B. M. METZGER. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012 (=N28). Nestle, E. ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart, 251963 (=N25). K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger and A. Wikgren. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart, 261979, 7th printing: 1983 (=N26) . K. Aland, B. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini and B. M. Metzger. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart, 271993, 3rd printing: 1995, 8th printing: 2001 (=N27). BALZ, H. & SCHNEIDER, G., eds., Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1982-1983; rev. ed. 2011 (=EWNT). ET: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991-1993 (=EDNT). BARBER, E. A., ed., Greek-English Lexicon: A Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. BAUER, W. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin, 4th ed., 1952, 6th ed., 1988 (ed. by K. & B. Aland); the 4th ed. was translated into English and adapted by W. F. Arndt & F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge-Chicago, IL, 1957 (= BAG); the 2nd ed. was revised and augmented on the basis of the 5th German ed. by F. W. Gingrich & F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, ILLondon, 1972, 4th rev. ed. 1999 (= BAGD); the 3rd ed. was revised and edited on the basis of the 6th German ed. and the previous English editions by F.W. Danker, 3rd ed., 2000 (= BDAG). BLASS, F., DEBRUNNER, A., and REHKOPF, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896; 17th ed., 1990, 18th ed., 2001 (= BDR). ET: Blass, F., Debrunner, A., Funk, R. W., A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge and Chicago, IL: Cambridge University Press, 1961 (= BDF). KITTEL, G. & FRIEDRICH, G., eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 11 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979 (= TWNT). ET: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976 (= TDNT). LIDDELL, H. G. & SCOTT, R., A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 91940, (= LSJ).

356

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MASON, S., Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. 10 vols. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill, 2000-2007. MOULTON, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3 vols. ed. N. Turner. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963-1967. PETERSMA, A. & WRIGHT, B. G., eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 (= NETS). RENGSTORF, K. H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973-1983. WALLACE, D. B., Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. ZERWICK, M., Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. SPIB, 114. Roma: The Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. 2. Commentaries of the Gospel of John BARRETT, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1965. 2nd ed. 1978. BAUER, W., Das Johannesevangelium. HNT, 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908. BEASLEY-Murray, G. R., John. WBC, 36. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. BECKER, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. ÖTNT. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984. BERNARD, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to John. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. BEUTLER, J., Das Johannesevangelium. Freiburg, Basel, and Wien: Herder, 2013. BLANK, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. G.SNT, 4. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981. BOICE, J. M., The Gospel of John: An Expositional Commentary. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974. BOISMARD, M.-E. & LAMOUILLE, A., L’Evangile de Jean. Synopse des Quatre Evangiles en Français. 3 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1977-1981. BORCHERT, G. L., The American Commentary: John 12-21. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2002. BORNHÄUSER, K., Das Johannesevangelium: Eine Missionsschrift für Israel. SWM, 15. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928. BRANT, J. A., John. Paideia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press, 2011. BRODIE, T. L., The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. BROWN, R. E., The Gospel according to John: Introduction, Translations and Notes. 2 vols. AB, 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-1970. BRUCE, F. F., The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. BULTMANN, R., The Gospel of John. ET: G. R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1971. CARSON, D. A., The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. CULPEPPER, R. A., The Gospel and Letters of John. IBT. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. DIETZFELBINGER, C., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. ZBKNT, 4. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

GAEBELEIN, A. C., The Gospel of John: A Complete Analytical Exposition. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1965. HAENCHEN, E., John. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1984. HOSKYNS, E. C., The Fourth Gospel. ed. F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1942. KEENER, C. S., The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 2003. KÖSTENBERGER, A. J., John. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. LAGRANGE, M. J., Evangile selon Saint Jean. Paris: Lecoffre, 1925. LIGHTFOOT, R. H., St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. London: Oxford University, 1966. LINCOLN, A. T., Gospel according to Saint John. BNTC, 4. London: Continuum, 2005. LINDARS, B., The Gospel of John. NCBC. London: Oliphants, 1972. LOISY, A., Le quatrième évangile: les épîtres dites de Jean. Paris: E. Nourry, 1921. MALINA, B. J. & ROHRBAUGH, L., Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998. MCHUGH, J. F., A Critical Exegetical and Commentary on John 1-4. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. MICHAELS, J. R., The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. MOLONEY, F. J., The Gospel of John. SP, 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. MORRIS, L., The Gospel according to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971; rev. ed. 1995. NEYREY, J. H., The Gospel of John. NCBC. Cambridge: University Press, 2007. O’DAY, G. R., The Gospel of John. NIB, 9. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995. RIDDERBOS, H. N., Het evangelie naar Johannes: Proeve van een theologische Exegese. 2 vols. Kampen: Kok, 1987-1992. ET: The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. SANDERS, J. N. & MASTIN, B. A., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1968. SCHLATTER, A., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. SENT, 3. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1953. SCHNACKENBURG, R., Das Johannesevangelium. 3 vols. HTKNT, 4. Freiburg: Herder, 1965-1992. ET: K. Smith and G. A. Korn. 1987-2002. SCHNELLE, U., Evangelium nach Johannes. THKNT, 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. SCHULZ, S., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD, 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. SERVOTTE, H., According to John: A Literary Reading of the Fourth Gospel. London: Longman and Todd, 1994. SMITH Jr., D. M., John, ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999. TASKER, R. V. G., The Gospel according to John: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1989. THEOBALD, M., Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1-12. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 2009.

358

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THOMPSON, H., The Gospel of St. John according to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. BAEERA, 36. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1924. THYEN, H., Das Johannesevangelium. HNT, 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. WEISS, B., Das Johannes-Evangelium. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1902. WELLHAUSEN, J., Das Evangelium Johannis. Berlin: Reimer, 1908. WENGST, K., Das Johannesevangelium. THKNT, 4/1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. WESTCOTT, B. F., The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1958. WIKENHAUSER, A., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. RNT, 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1961. ZAHN, T., Das Evangelium des Johannes. KNT. Leipzig: Deichert, 1908. 3. Studies AALEN, S., “‘Truth’ a Key Word in St. John’s Gospel.” In Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961. ed. F. L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964, 324. ACHTENBERG, D., “The Role of the Ergon Argument in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.” In Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy, vol. 4: Aristotle’s Ethics. ed. J. P. Anton and A. Preus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991, 59-72. AGNEW, F., “On the Origin of the Term ἀπόστολος,” CBQ 38 (1976): 49-53. AITKEN, E. B., “At the Well of Living Water: Jacob Traditions in John 4.” In Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. ed. C. A. Evans. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000, 342-352. ALLO, E. B., Saint Jean: L’Apocalypse. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1921. ANDERSON, P. N., “Discernment-Oriented Leadership in the Johannine Situation – Abiding in the Truth versus Lesser Alternatives.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 290318. ANDERSON, R. T., “Gerizim,” EDB (2000): 496. ANDERSON, R. T. & GILES, T., The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. —. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. SBLRBS, 72. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. ANDERSON, R. T., “Samaritans,” ABD 5 (1998): 940-947. ANDERSON, R. T. & GILES, T., Tradition Kept: The Literature of the Samaritans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. APPOLD, M. L., The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John. WUNT, II/1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1976. ARGYLE, A. W., “A Note on John 4:35,” ExpTim 82 (1970-1971): 247-248. ARMANDO Jr., J. R., Life from on High: The Eschatology of the Gospel of John in Light of Its Vertical Dimension. Chicago, IL: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

ARTERBURY, A. E., “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds: The Hospitality in John 4,” CBQ 72 (2010): 63-83. ASHTON, J., “The Identity and Function of the Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel,” NovT 27 (1985): 40-75. ATTRIDGE, H. W., “Josephus and His Works.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. ed. M. E. Stone. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986, 187192. —. “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 121 (2002): 3-21. AUGENSTEIN, J., “Jesus und das Gesetz im Johannesevangelium,” Kirche und Israel 14 (1999): 161-179. AUNE, D. E., Revelation 6-16. WBC 52. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998. BAKKER, A., “Salvation comes from the Jews”: A Contextual and Intertextual approach to John 4:22b. Unpublished Thesis (KU Leuven: Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, 2009). BALL, D. M., I am in John’s Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. JSNTSS, 124. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. BALZ, H., “Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der letzten Stunde.” In Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Heinrich Greeven. ed. W. Schrage. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986, 35-56. BAR-EFRAT, S., Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997. BARTON, S. C., Christian Community in the Light of the Gospel of John: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole. ed. D. G. Horell et al. NovTSup, 99. Leiden: Brill, 2000. BAUCKHAM, R., Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Fourth Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. —. “Messianism according to the Gospel of John.” In Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. ed. J. Lierman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 3467. —. “The Qumran Community and the Gospel of John.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery. ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000, 105-115. BEASLEY-MURRAY, G. R., “The Mission of the Logos-Son.” In The Four Gospels. ed. F. Van Segbroeck and C. M. Tuckett. BETL, 100/3. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1991, 1855-1868. BECK, D. R., The Discipleship Paradigm, Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1997. BECK, J. A., “Geography.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. ed. K. J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, and D. J. Treier. SPCK. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009, 253-256, BECKER, J., “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,” TRu 47 (1982): 279301. —. “Feindesliebe – Nächstenliebe – Bruderliebe,” ZEE 25 (1981): 5-17. BEDFORD, P. R., Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup, 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001. BEIRNE, M., Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2003. BENNEMA, C., Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009.

360

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Mimetic Ethics in the Gospel of John.” In Metapher – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. ed. F. W. Horn, U. Volp, and R. Zimmermann. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, 7. WUNT, 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 205-217. —. The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. WUNT, II/148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. —. “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments and Characteristics,” TynBul 52 (2001): 61-82. —. “Virtue Ethics in the Gospel of John: The Johannine Characters as Moral Agents.” In Rediscovering John: Essays on the Fourth Gospel in Honour of Frédéric Manns. ed. L. D. Chrupcała. Milano: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2013, 167-181. BENTZEN, A., Messias, Moses Redivivus, Menschensohn: Skizzen zum Thema Weissagung und Erfüllung. AThANT, 17. Zürich: Zwingli, 1948. BERGER, K., Im Anfang war Johannes: Datierung und Theologie des vierten Evangeliums. Stuttgart: Quell, 1997. —. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. UTB für Wissenschaft, 1541. Basel: Francke, 1994. BERRIN, S. L., The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. STDJ, 53. Leiden: Brill, 2004. BETZ, O., Der Paraklet: Fürsprecher im häretischen Spätjudentum, im JohannesEvangelium und in neu gefundenen gnostischen Schriften. AGSU, 2. Leiden: Brill, 1963. —. Die ‘Wahrheit’ in den johanneischen Schriften. Excursus in Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte. WUNT, 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. —. “To Worship God in Spirit and in Truth: Reflection on John 4:20-26.” In Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and Tradition Festschrift J. M. Österreicher. ed. L. Frizell and A. Finkel. New York: KTAV, 1981, 53-72. BEUTLER, J., Judaism and the Jews in the Gospel of John. Subbi 30. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. BIERINGER, R., “‘Come, and You Will See’ (John 1:39): Dialogical Authority and Normativity of the Future in the Fourth Gospel and in Religious Education.” In Hermeneutics and Religious Education. ed. H. Lombaerts and D. Pollefeyt. Leuven: Peeters, 2004, 179-201. BIERINGER, R. & POLLEFEYT, D., “Hoi Ioudaioi.” In A Dictionary of JewishChristian Relations. ed. E. Kessler and N. Wenborn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 188-189. BIERINGER, R., “The Johannine Woman and the Social Code of Their Time.” In Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions. ed. J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2000, 213-219. —. “The Spirit Guidance into all Truth: The Text-Critical Problems of John 16:13.” In New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. Ed. A. Denaux. BETL, 161. Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 183-208.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

BIERINGER, R., POLLEFEYT, D., and VANDECASTEELE-VANNEUVILLE, F., “Wrestling with Johannine Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Frame Work for the Analysis of the Current Debate.” In Anti-Judaism and the Fourth-Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium. 2000. ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001, 3-40. BINACHI, U., “Religious Dualism,” The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1997): 555-560. BINDER, D. D., Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. SBLDS, 169. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 1999. BISHOP, E. F. F., “Constantly on the Road,” EQ 41 (1969): 14-18. BITTNER, W. J., Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund. WUNT, II/26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. BLACK, M., “The Throne Theophany and Prophetic Commission and the Son of Man: A Study in Tradition-History: Jews, Greeks and Christians.” In Essays in Honor of W. D. Davies. ed. R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976. BLANK, J., Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie. Freiburg: Lambertus, 1964. BLENKINSOPP, J., Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origin of Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. BLIGH, J., “Jesus in Samaria,” HeyJ 3 (1962): 329-346. BLUM, E.A. Studies in the Problem Areas of the Greek Article. Dallas, TX: Theological Seminary, 2005. BOERS, H., “Discourse Structure and Macro Structure in the Interpretation of Texts: John 4:1-42 as an Example,” SBLSP 10 (1980): 159-182. —. Neither on this Mountain nor in Jerusalem: A Study of John 4. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. BÖHM, M., Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung. WUNT, II/111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. BOLYKI, J., “Ethics in the Gospel of John,” CV 45 (2003): 198-208. —. Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. WUNT, II/96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. BORGEN, P., “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel.” In Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. ed. P. Borgen. BJS, 31. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987, 171-184. BOROWSKI, O. “Harvest, Harvesting,” ABD 3 (1992): 63-64. BOTHA, E. J., Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John 4:142. Leiden: Brill, 1991. —. “John 4:16: A Difficult Text Speech Act Theoretically Revisited.” In The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives. ed. M. W. G. Stibbe. Leiden: Brill, 1990, 183-191. —. “Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” Neot 41 (2007): 274294. BOUSSET, W., Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. ET: J. E. Steely. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1970.

362

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOWEN, C., “The Fourth Gospel as Dramatic Material,” JBL 49 (1930): 292305. BOWMAN, J., “Early Samaritan Eschatology,” JJS 6 (1955): 63-72. —. “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans,” BJRL 40 (1958): 298-308. BOWMAN, J., Samaritanische Probleme: Studien zum Verhältnis von Samaritanertum, Judentum und Urchristentum. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967. —. “Samaritan Studies I: The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans,” BJRL 40 (1958): 295-308. BRANT, J. A., “Husband Hunting: Characterization and Narrative Art in the Gospel of John,” BibInt 4 (1996): 205-223. BRECK, J., Spirit of Truth: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991. BRAUN, F. M., Jean le théologien: Les grandes traditions d’Israël, l’accord des écritures d’après le quatriéme évangile. EB, 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1964. BRIDGES, L. M., “John 4:5-42,” Int 48 (1994): 173-176. BRODIE, T. L., The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source Oriented Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. BROWN, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. —. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” In John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1990, 1-8. —. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” In John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1991, 1-8. —. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. —. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. ed. F. J. Moloney. New York: Doubleday, 2003. —. “Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel,” TS 36 (1975): 688-700. BRUCE, F. F., “Jesus is Lord.” In Soli Deo Gloria. Richmond, VA: WJK, 1968, 23-36. BRUNS, J. E., “The Use of Time in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 13 (1967): 285-290. BUCHANAN, G. W., “The Samaritan Origin of the Gospel of John.” In Studies in the History of Religions: Religions in Antiquity. ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968, 149-175. BÜCHSEL, D. F., Johannes und der hellenistische Synkretismus. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928. BUELL, D. K., “Ethnicity and Religion in Mediterranean Antiquity and Beyond,” RelSRev 26 (2000): 211-249. —. Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. BÜHNER, J., Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung. WUNT, II/2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1974. BULL, R. J., “An Archaeological Footnote to ‘Our Fathers Worshipped on this Mountain’ John iv. 20,” NTS 23 (1977): 460-462. BULTMANN, R., “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW 24 (1925): 100-146.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

—. Neues Testament and Mythologie: Das Problem der Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkündigung. BhEvTh, 96. Munich: Kaiser, 1984. —. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. (Originally published in 1933). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. BUNN, L. H., “John 4:34-42,” ExpTim 41 (1930): 141-142. BURGE, G. M., Interpreting the Gospel of John: A Practical Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Akademic, 2013. BURRIDGE, R.A., Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. BUSSE, U., Das Johannesevangelium: Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual: mit einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998. BETL, 162. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. BYRNE, B., Life Abounding: A Reading of John’s Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014. CAHILL, P. J., “Narrative Art in John IV,” RSB 2 (1982): 41-48. CAMPBELL, J. C., Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John. CBQMS, 47. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007. CANTARELLA, E., Pandora’s Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. CARAGOUNIS, C. C., “Abide in Me: The New Mode of Relationship between Jesus and His Followers as a Basis for Christian Ethics (John 15).” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 250-263. —. “Vine, Vineyard, Israel, and Jesus,” SEÅ 65 (2000): 201-214. CARMICHAEL, C. M., “Marriage and the Samaritan Woman,” NTS 26 (1980): 332-346. CARMONA, P. B., “The Jewish Scriptures in the Background of John 4:4-42, The Samaritan Woman Narrative.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (KU Leuven: Faculty of Theology, 1990). CARROLL, R. P., “Psalm LXXVIII: Vestiges of a Tribal Polemic,” VT 21 (1971): 133-150. CASEY, M., From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1991. CHAN, P. C., “An Interfaith Encounter at Jacob’s Well: A Missiological Interpretation of Jn 4:4-42,” MS 27 (2010): 160-175. CHANCEY, M. A., The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. CHARETTE, B., “A Harvest for the People: An Interpretation of Matthew 9:37f,” JSNT 38 (1990): 29-35. CHARLES, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2004. CHARLESWORTH, J. H., “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the Dualism contained in the Gospel of John,” In John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1991, 76-106. —. “The Dead Sea Scrolls according to John.” In Exploring the Gospel of John. ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1996, 43-64.

364

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. CHENNATTU, R. M. Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. CHENNATTU, R. M., & COLOE, M. L., eds., Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. BSR 187. Roma: LAS, 2005. CHENNATTU, R. M., “Women in the Mission of the Church: An interpretation of John 4,” Vidyajyothi 65 (2001): 760-773. CHO, S., Jesus as Prophet in the New Testament. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2006. CLARK-SOLES, J., Scripture Cannot be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel. Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. CLARKSON, M. E., “The Ethics of the Fourth Gospel,” AThR 31 (1949): 112115. COGGINS, R. J., Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of the Samaritanism Reconsidered. Atlanta, GA: WJK, 1975. —. “The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus.” In Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1987, 257-273. COHEN, S. J. D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. —. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2014. —. The Jewish Messiah. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. —. “Religion, Ethnicity, and Hellenism in the Emergence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean Palestine.” In Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1990, 204-223. COLLINS, J. J., “The Literature of the Second Temple Period,” The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (2002): 53-78. COLLINS, J. J. & GREEN, D. A., “The Tales from the Persian Court (4Q5 50ae).” In Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag. ed. B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999, 39-50 COLLINS, R. F., “A New Commandment I Give to You, That You Love One Another ... (John 13:34).” In These Things have been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel. ed. R. F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University PressPeeters, 1990, 217-256. —. “The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel,” DRev 94 (1976): 26-46. —. “The Search for Jesus. Reflections on the Fourth Gospel,” LTP 34 (1978): 27-48. COLWELL, E. C., “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933): 12-21. —. The Greek of the Fourth Gospel. Chicago, IL: University Press, 1931. CONDER, C. R., “Bethany Beyond Jordan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 9, no. 4 (1877): 184-187. CONNICK, C. M., “The Dramatic Character of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 67 (1948): 159-169. CONWAY, C. M., Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization. SBLDS, 167. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 1999. COPE, L., Faith for a New Day. St. Louis, MO: CBP Press, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

365

CREHAN, J., The Theology of St. John. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1965. CROMHOUT, M., “Were the Galileans ‘Religious Jews’ or ‘Ethnic Judeans’?,” HTS 64 (2008): 1278-1297. CROWN, A. D., Pummer, R., and Tal, A., eds., A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. —. “Redating the Schism between the Judaeans and the Samaritans,” JBQ 82 (1991): 17-50. —. The Samaritans. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. CULLMANN, O., The Christology of the New Testament. ET: C. Guthrie. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1977. —. Der Johanneische Kreis: Sein Platz im Spätjudentum, in der Jüngerschaft Jesu und im Urchristentum. Zum Ursprung des Johannesevangeliums. Tübingen: Mohr, 1975. —. “Samaria and the Origin of Christian Mission: Who are the ἄλλοι of John 4:31-38?” In The Early Church. ed. A. J. B. Higgins. London: SCM, 1953, 185-192. CULPEPPER, R. A., “Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel as a Theological Problem for Christian Interpreters.” In Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. ed. R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001, 68-91. —. “Inclusivism and Exclusivism in the Fourth Gospel.” In Word, Theology and Community in John. ed. J. Painter. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2002, 85108. CURRAN, C. E., “The Role and Function of Scripture in Moral Theology.” In The Use of Scripture in Moral Theology. ed. C. E. Curran and R. A. McCormick. New York: Paulist, 1984, 178-212. CUVILLIER, E., “La figure des disciples en Jean 4,” NTS 42 (1996): 245-259. DALMAN, G. H., Heilige Orte und Wege Jesu. BFCT, 2. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924. DANNA, E., “A Note on John 4:29,” RB 106 (1999): 219-223. DAUBE, D., “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman the Meaning of συγχράομαι,” JBL 69 (1950): 137-147. —. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 2. London: Athlone, 1956. DAVEY, E. J., The Jesus of St. John: Historical and Christological Studies in the Fourth Gospel. London: Lutterworth Press, 1958. DAVIES, G., “A Samaritan Inscription with an Expanded Text of the Shema,” PEQ 131 (1999): 3-19. DAVIES, P. R., “Scenes from the Early Christian Judaism.” In The Triumph of Elohim: From Jahwisms to Judaisms. ed. D. V. Edelman. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995, 145-182. DAY, J. N., The Woman at the Well: Interpretation of John 4:1-42 in Retrospect and Prospect. Leiden: Brill, 2002. DEBEL, H., “Review: R.T. Anderson – T. Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies (SBL Resources for Biblical Study, 72), Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012,” ETL 89 (2013): 434-436. DEEKS, D., “The Structure of the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 15 (1968-1969): 107129.

366 DE JONGE,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

M., “The Earliest Christian Use of Christos: Some Suggestions.” In Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays of Marinus de Jonge. Leiden: Brill, 1991, 110-114. —. “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’ according to the Fourth Gospel.” In Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective, ed. M. de Jonge and J. E. Steely. SBLSBS, 11. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977, 77-116. —. “The Use of the Word ‘Anointed’ in the Time of Jesus,” NovT 8 (1966): 132-148. DE RUYTER, B. W. J., De gemeente van de evangelist Johannes: Haar polemiek en haar geschiedenis. Delft: Eburon, 1998. DEHN, G., Jesus und die Samariter: eine Auslegung von Johannes 4, 1-42. BibS(N), 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1956. DERRETT, J. D. M., “The Samaritan Woman’s Purity (John 4:4-52),” EvQ 60 (1988): 291-298. DEXINGER, F., “Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Defenition. Vol. 2. ed. E. P. Sanders. London: SCM Press, 1981, 96-108. —. “Der Ursprung der Samaritaner im Spiegel der frühen Quellen.” In Die Samaritaner. ed. F. Dexinger and R. Pummer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992, 67-140. DOCKERY, D. S., “Reading John 4:1-45,” CTR 3 (1988): 127-140. DODD, C. H., Historical Traditions in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. —. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. DOWELL, T. M., “Why John Rewrote the Synoptics.” In John and the Synoptics. ed. A. Denaux. BETL, 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1992, 453-457. DREYTZA, M., Der theologische Gebrauch von Ruah im Alten Testament: Eine wort-und satzsemantische Studie. Basel: Brunnen, 1992. DRYDEN, J. W., Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation. WUNT, II/ 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. DSCHULNIGG, P., “Die Berufung der Jünger Joh 1,35-51 im Rahmen des vierten Evangeliums.” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 36 (1989): 427-447. —. Jesus begegnen: Personen and ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium. Münster: LIT, 2000. DUBOSE, F. M., God Who Sends. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1983. DULING, D. C., “Ethnicity, Ethnocentrism, and the Matthean Ethnos,” BTB 35 (2005): 125-143. DUNN, J. D. G., Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishers, 2003. —. “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran.” In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 254-272. DUPONT, J., Essais sur la christologie de saint Jean: Le Christ, parole, lumière et vie, la gloire du Christ. Bruges: Sainte-Cathérine, 1951.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

DUŠEK, J., “Administration of Samaria in the Hellenestic Period.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. ed. J. Zsengellér. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 71-88. —. Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Leiden: Brill, 2012. DYKSTRA, L. A., “Living Water,” Sojourners Magazine 37 (2008): 57. EARL, D. S., “Bethany beyond Jordan: The Significance of a Johannine Motif,” NTS 55 (2009): 279-294. EDMONDSON, J., MASON, S., and RIVES, J. B. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. EERDMANN, M., “Mission in John’s Gospel and Letters.” In Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach. ed. W. J. Larkin (Jr.) and J. William. Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis, 1998, 207-226. EGGER, R., Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine Terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung der Samaritaner. NTOA 4. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1986. EISSFELDT, O., Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32, 1-43 und das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78 samt einer Analyse der Umgebung des Mose-Liedes. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958. ELLIOTT, J. H., “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5 (2007): 119-154. ELLIS, P. F., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984. ENSOR, P. W., “The Authenticity of Jn 4:35,” EvQ 72 (2000): 13-21. —. Jesus and His Works: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996. —. “The Johannine Sayings of Jesus and the Question of Authenticity.” In Challenging perspectives on the Gospel of John. ed. J. Lierman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 14-33. ESHEL, E. & ESHEL, H., “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls.” In Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. ed. S. M. Paul. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 215-240. ESHEL, H. & SAFRAI, Z., “The Copper Scroll: A Sectarian Composition Document, Where the Treasures of the First Temple Were Hidden,” Cathedra 103 (2002): 7-20. ESHEL, H., “The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ,” Zion 56 (1991): 125-136. ESLINGER, L., “The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader and the Reader-Responce Criticism.” In The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of the Twentieth Century Perspectives. ed. M. W. G. Stibbe. Leiden: Brill, 1993, 165-182. EYNIKEL, E., “The Qumran Background of Johannine Ethics.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 102-113. FASCHER, E., Theologische Beobachtungen zu δεῖ. BZNW, 21. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957.

368

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Theologische Beobachtungen zu δεῖ im AT,” ZNW 45 (1954): 244-252. FEE, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. FEHRIBACH, A., The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist HistoricalLiterary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. FELDMAN, L. H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. —. “Josephus Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence.” In Jewish Sects, Religious Movements and Political Parties. ed. M. Mor. Omaha, NE: Creighton University Press, 1990, 22-45. —. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. London: UC Press, 1998. FELDMAN, L. H., KUGEL, J. L., and SCHIFFMAN, L. H., eds., Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. 3 vols. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013. FELDMAN, L. H., Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. FERGUSON, E., Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. FERNANDO, C. A., “John 1:17 as Window to the Realities of Law and Love in the Fourth Gospel,” BiBh 24 (1999): 172-191. FERREIRA, J., Johannine Ecclesiology. JSNTS, 160. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998. FEUILLET, A., Le Cantique des cantiques: Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse. Paris: Cerf, 1953. —. Johannine Studies. New York: Alba House, 1965. FIGURA, M., “Die johanneische Botschaft von der Liebe,” IKaZ 23 (1994): 409-418. FIRTH, D. G. & WEGNER, P. D., eds., Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011. FINE, S., Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. FISCHER, J., “Über moralische und andere Gründe: Protestantische Einwürfe zu einer moralphilosophischen Debatte,” ZTK 93 (1998): 118-158. FISHBANE, S., ed., Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: A Collection of SocioAnthropological Essays. Leiden: Brill, 2007. FISHER, R., URY W. L., and PATTON, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books: New York, 2011. FITZMYER, J., “Qumran Literature and the Johannine Writings.” In Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel In Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. ed. J. R. Donahue. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005, 117-133. FLORENTIN, M., Pentateuch: the Samaritan version and the Masoretic version. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 2010. FÖRSTER, H., “Die Begegnung am Brunnen (Joh 4.4–42) im Licht der ‘Schrift’: Überlegungen zu den Samaritanern im Johannesevangelium,” NTS 61 (2015): 201-218. FORTNA, R. T., “Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel,” ATRSup 3 (1974): 58-95. FOTIOU, S. S., “The Transformation of Existence: Christ’s Encounter with the Samaritan Woman according to John 4:4-42,” ExpTim 124 (2013): 327-332.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

FRANCIS, J., The Vision of Discipleship according to John 1,35-51. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (Romae, Pontificia Universitas Urbaniana, 1997). FREDRIKSEN, P., “The Birth of Christinaity and the Origins of Christian AntiJudaism.” In Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. ed. P. Fredriksen and A. Reinhartz. London and Louisville, KY: WJK, 2002, 8-30. FREED, E. D., “Did John Write His Gospel Partly to Win Samaritan Converts?,” NovT 12 (1970): 241-256. —. “Manner of Worship in John 4:23f.” In Search of Scriptures: New Testament Studies in Honor of Raymond T. Stamm. ed. M. M. Myers. Leiden: Brill, 1969, 33-48. —. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. Leiden: Brill, 1965. —. “Samaritan Influence in the Gospel of John,” CBQ 30 (1968): 580-587. FREY, J., “Das Bild der Juden im Johannesevangelium und die Geschichte der johanneischen Gemeinde.” In Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für J. Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004, 33-53. —. “Ethical Traditions, Family Ethos and Love in the Johannine Literature.” In Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. ed. J. W. van Henten and J. Verheyden. STR, 17. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 167-204. —. “Gute Samaritaner? Das neutestamentliche Bild der Samaritaner zwischen Juden, Christen und Paganen.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. ed. U. Schattner-Rieser, J. Frey, and K. Schmid. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 203-233. —. “Temple and Rival Temple: The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis.” In Gemeinde ohne Tempel – Community without Temple. ed. B. Ego et al. WUNT, 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, 171-203. FREYNE, S., “Behind the names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi.” In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. ed. E. M. Meyers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999, 39-55. —. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. —. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. —. “The Geography of Restoration: Galilee-Jerusalem Relations in Early Jewish and Christian Experience,” NTS 47 (2001): 289-311. —. Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story. London: T&T Clark, 2004. FRIEDRICH, G., Wer ist Jesus? De Verkündigung des vierten Evangelisten, dargestellt an Johannes 4, 4-42. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967. FRÖHLICH, I., Time and Times and Half a Time: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. FRYE, N., Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957. GALLAGHER, E. L., “Cult Centralization in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origins of Deuteronomy,” VT 64 (2014): 561-572.

370

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. “Nuevos textos no bíblicos procedentes de Qumrán,” EstBib 49 (1991): 97-134. GARCÍA Martínez, F. & TIGCHELAAR, E. J. C., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Volume one: 1Q1-4Q273. Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill, 1997. GARROWAY, J., “Ioudaios.” In The Jewish Annotated New Testament. ed. A.-J. Levine and M. Z. Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 524-526. GENCH, F. T., Back to the Well: Women’s Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2004. —. Encounters with Jesus: Studies in the Gospel of John. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2007. GIBBLIN, C. H., “Miraculous Crossing of the Sea (John 6:16-21),” NTS 29 (1983): 96-103. —. “What Was Everything He Told Her She Did? John 4:17-18, 29, 39,” NTS 45 (1999): 148-152. GIBSON, J. J., Peter between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James and the Gentiles. WUNT, II/345. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. GLICKSMAN, A. T., “Beyond Sophia: The Sapiential Portrayal of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and Its Ethical Implications for the Johannine Community.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 83-101. GNANADASON, A., “Women and Spirituality in Asia.” In Feminist Theology from the Third World. ed. U. King. London: SPCK, 1994. GOODENOUGH, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. IV: The Problem of Method: Symbols from Jewish Cult. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954. GOODMAN, M., “Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period,” The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies (2002): 36-52. GOULDER, M. D., “John 1:1-2:12 and the Synoptics. Appendix: John 2:134:54.” In John and the Synoptics. ed. A. Denaux. BETL, 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1992, 201-238. —. The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter III. JSOTSup, 233. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. GRASSI, J. A., “Women’s Leadership Roles in John’s Gospel,” TBT 35 (1997): 312-317. GREEN, J. B., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992. GRILL, J., Untersuchungen über die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1902-1923. GROPP, D. M., Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh. DJD, 28. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. GRUNDMANN, W., Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum. Leipzig: Wigand, 1941. GUILDING, A., The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John’s Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. GUNDRY, R. H., Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially Its

BIBLIOGRAPHY

371

Elites, in North America. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002. GÜNTHER, K., “Das gute und das schöne Leben.” In Ethik und Ästhetik: Nachmetaphysische Perspektiven. ed. G. Gamm and G. Kimmerle. TBPG, 2. Tübingen: Diskord, 1990, 11-37. HAACKER, K., “Gottesdienst ohne Gotteserkenntnis: Joh 4:22 vor dem Hintergrund der jüdisch-samaritanischen Auseinandersetzung.” In Wort und Wirklichkeit. Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistisk Festschrift E. L. Rapp. ed. B. Benzig, O. Böcher, and G. Mayer. Meisenheim: Hain, 1976, 110-126. HAENCHEN, E., “Der Vater der mich gesandt hat,” NTS 9 (1962-1963): 208216. HAHN, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel: ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. ET: The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. H. Knight and G. Ogg. London: Lutterworth, 1969. HAHNHART, K., “The Structure of Jn I 35- IV 54.” In Studies in John: Presented to Professor Dr. J.N. Sevenster on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. ed. A. S. Geyser et al. NovTSup, 24. Leiden: Brill, 1970, 21-46. HALBWACHS, M., Das Gedächtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985. HALL, D. R., “The Meaning of συγχράομαι in Jn 4:9,” ExpTim 83/2 (1971): 56-57. HAMITOVSKY, I., “‫לאור והחשמונאית ההלניסטית בתקופות השומרוני היישוב תחום על‬ ‫היהודי הפולמוס החיצונית והספרות קומראן מגילות‬-‫( שומרוני‬Trans. title: The Jewish-Samaritan Territorial Controversy during the Hellenistic and Hasmonean Periods as Reflected in the Qumran Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha – Abstract in English).” In ‫ יהודה מדבר‬:‫[ במגילות מחקרים ז מגילות‬Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls VII]. ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Dimant. Jerusalem: Haifa University and Bialik Institute, 2009, 43-70. HANSON, K. C. & OAKMAN, D. E., Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflict. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008. HARRIS, M. J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992. HASITSCHKA, M., Befreiung von Sünde nach dem Johannesevangelium: Eine bibeltheologische Untersuchung. ITS, 27. Innsbruck, Vienna: Tyrolia, 1989. HAUDEBERT, P., “Le Samaritain-étranger (Lc 17, 18) dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” In L’étranger dans la bible et ses lectures. ed. R. Jean. Paris: Cerf, 2007, 186194. HAYES, K. M., “‘A spirit of Deep Sleep’: Divinely Induced Delusion and Wisdom in Isaiah 1-39,” CBQ 74 (2012): 39-54. HAYS, R. B., “Mapping the Field: Approaches to New Testament Ethics.” In Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. ed. J. G. van der Watt. BZNW, 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006, 3-19. HAYS, R. B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. HENDRIKSEN, W., New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953.

372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HENGEL, M., “Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des antiken Judentums.” In Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Wege der Forschung. Vom alten zum neuen Schürer. ed. A. Oppenheimer and E. MüllerLuckner. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs; Kolloquien, 44. München: Oldenbourg, 1999, 41-74. HILDEBRANDT, W., An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. HIRSCH, E., Studien zum vierten Evangelium: Text, Literarkritik, Entstehungsgeschichte. BHT, 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1936. HJELM, I., “Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research.” In Samaritans: Past and Present, Current Studies. ed. M. Mor and F. V. Reiterer. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010, 25-44. —. Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition. London: Clark, 2004. HJELM, I., The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. JSOTSup, 303. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000. HOGAN, M. P., “The Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42),” TBT 82 (1976): 663-669. HOPE, L. J., The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. HOPKINS, R. R., Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology. Springville, UT: CFI, 2006. HORN, F. W., “Ethik des Neuen Testaments 1982-1992,” TRu 60 (1995): 32-86. HORN, F. H. & ZIMMERMANN, R., eds., Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. WUNT, 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. HORSLEY, R. A., “Ethics and Exegesis: ‘Love Your Enemies’ and the Doctrine of Non-Violence,” JAAR 54 (1986): 3-32. HOULDEN, J. L., A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. BNTC. London: Black, 1973. HOWARD-BROOK, W., Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994. HUNT, S. A., & Tolmie, D. F., eds., Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John. WUNT, 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. HUTTON, J. M., “‘Bethany beyond the Jordan’ in Text, Tradition and Historical Geography,” Bib 89 (2008): 305-328. IBUKI, Y., Die Wahrheit im Johannesevangelium. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1972. IRUDAYA, R., “Significance of Jesus’ Mission with the Marginalized Samaritan Woman,” BiBh 32 (2006): 155-182. JAPHET, S., “People and Land in the Restoration Period.” In Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. ed. G. Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, 103-125. JEREMIAS, J., “Johanneische Literarkritik,” TBL 20 (1941): 33-46. JEROME, H. N., An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. JEROME, “PL 23,” in Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Sive Bibliotheca Universalis, ed., J. P. Migne, 1845. Original housed in the Lyon Public Library, digitalized Book 17/02/2011; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oG3ykZEx-lEC, accessed on 08/10/2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

373

JOHNSON, B. D., “Salvation from the Jews: Judaism in the Gospel of John.” In New Currents through John: A Global Perspective. ed. F. Lozada and T. Thatcher. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2006, 83-99. JOHNSON, E. A., “Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-Androcentric Christology,” ETL 61 (1985): 261-294. JOJKO, B., Worshipping the Father in Spirit and Truth: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Jn 4:20-26 in the Light of the Realtionships among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. TGSST, 193. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2012. JONES, L. P., The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John. JSNTSup, 145. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997. JUDGE, P. J., “Come and See: The First Disciples and Christology in the Fourth Gospel.” In Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle. ed. J. Verheyden et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 61-70. JUNG, F., ΣΩΤΗΡ: Studien zur Rezeption eines hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament. NTAbh, 39. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. KALIMI, I., “Zion or Gerizim? The Association of Abraham and the Aqeda with Zion/Gerizim in Jewish and Samaritan Sources.” In Samaritan Researches. ed. V. Morabito, A. D. Crown, and L. Davey. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000, 32-46. KAMMLER, H. C., “Jesus Christus und der Geistparaklet: Eine Studie zur johanneischen Verhältnis bestimmung von Pneumatologie und Christologie.” In Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums. ed. O. Hofius and H. C. Kammler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996, 86-211. KANAGARAJ, J. J., “The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue,” TynBul 52 (2001): 33-60. KARAKOLIS, C., “Semeia Conveying Ethics in the Gospel according to John.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 192-212. KARTVEIT, M., The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup, 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009. KÄSEMANN, E., Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966. KECK, E. K., “Rethinking New Testament Ethics,” JBL 115 (1996): 3-16. KEE, H. C., “Tell-er-Ras and the Samaritan Temple,” NTS 13 (1966-1967): 401402. KELLY, T., “God is Love: A Theological Moral Reading of 1 John,” StuMor 37 (1999): 35-71. KERSTING, W. & LANGBEHN, C., eds., Kritik der Lebenskunst. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2007. KIEFFER, R., “Rum och tid i johannesevangeliets teologiska struktur.” SEÅ 49 (1984): 109-125. KIERSPEL, L., The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel. WUNT, II/220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. KIM, J. K., Woman and Nation: An Intercontextual Reading of the Gospel of John. BibInt Series, 69. Boston, MA: Brill, 2004. KIM, S.-H., Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1-10: The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.

374

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KIPPENBERG, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode. RVV, 30. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1971. KIRCHSCHLÄGER, P. G., “‘Ich bin der Weg, die Wahrheit und das Leben’ (Joh 14,6). Der Warheitsanspruch des johanneischen Christus und Wahrheit in anderen Religionen.” Liturgie und Bibel 85, no. 2 (2012): 123-147. KITZBERGER, I. R., “Love and Footwashing: John 13:1-20 and Luke 7:36-50 Read Intertextually,” BibInt 2 (1994): 190-206. —. “Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala – Two Female Characters in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical Reader Response,” NTS 41 (1995): 564-586. —. “Border Crossing and Meeting Jesus at the Well – An autobiographical Rereading of the Samaritan Woman’s Story in John 4:1-44,” In The Personal Voice in Biblical Criticism, ed. I. R. Kitzberger. New York: Routledge, 1999, 11-127. KLAUCK, H. J., “Die Liebe zu den Brüdern und Schwestern, Exkurs 3.” In Der erste Johannesbrief. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991, 277280. —. “Brudermord und Bruderliebe: Ethische Paradigmen in 1 Joh 3:11-17.” In Neues Testament and Ethik: Festschrift Rudolf Schnackenburg. ed. H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989, 151-171. KLIPATRICK, G. D., “John 4:9,” JBL 78 (1968): 327-328. KLOPPENBORG, J. S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. KLUXEN, W., Die Ethik des Ethos. München: K. Alber, 1974. KNEPPER, G. M., “Nida’s Γύναι: Eugene Nida’s Views on the Use of Γύναι in John 2. 4,” BT 66 (2015): 159-169. KNIBB, M. A., “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390.” In The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. ed. F. G. Martinez et al. Leiden: Brill, 1992, 164-170. KNOPPERS, G. N., 1 Chronicles 10-29. AB, 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004. —. “Did Jacob Become Judah? The Configuration of Israel’s Restoration in Deutero-Isaiah.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. ed. J. Zsengellér. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 39-67. —. “Great Among His Brothers: But Who is He? Heterogenity in the Composition of Judah,” JHS 3 (2000): 1-27. —. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of their Early Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. —. “Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion: A Study in the Early History of the Samaritans and Jews,” SRSR 34 (2005): 309-338. —. “Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origins and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground?” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. ed. U. Schattner-Rieser, J. Frey, and K. Schmid. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 81-118. —. “The Search of Post-Exilic Israel: Samaria after the Fall of the Northern Kingdom.” In In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. ed. J. Day. London: T&T Clark, 2004, 150-180.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

375

KNOWLES, M. D., “The Flexible Rhetoric of Retelling: The Choice of David in the Texts of the Psalms,” CBQ 67 (2005): 236-249. KOESTER, C. R., “Aspects of Historicity in John 1-4: A Response.” In John Jesus and History. Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. ed. P. N. Anderson, F. Just, and T. Thatcher. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2010, 93-103. —. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the Old Testament. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989. —. “Saviour of the World (John 4:42),” JBL 109 (1990): 665-680. —. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 2003. KOK, K., “As the Father has Sent Me I Send You: Towards a Missional-Incarnational Ethos in John 4.” In Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in volume 2 of Early Christian Writings Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. ed. R. Zimmermann, J. G. van der Watt, and S. Luther. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 19-50. KÖSTENBERGER, A. J., “Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel.” BBR 8 (1998): 97-128. —. “Sensitivity to Outsiders in John’s Gospel and Its Implication for the Understanding of Early Christian Mission.” In Sensitivity towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. ed. K. Kok, T. Nicklas, and D. T. Roth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, 171-187. KOSSMANN, R., “Die Esthernovelle: vom Erzählten zur Erzählung. Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches.” Rijksuniversiteit, 1998, 184-207. KRAABEL, A. T., “New Evidence of the Samaritan Diaspora has been Found on Delos,” BA 47 (1984): 44-46. KRAFT, E., “Die Personen des Johannesevangeliums,” EvT 16 (1956): 18-32. KRAMER, W., Christ, Lord, Son of God. SBT 50. London: SCM, 1966. KREUZER, S., “Wo ich hingehe, dahin könnt ihr nicht kommen: Joh 7, 34; 8, 21; 13, 33 als Teil der Mosetypologie im Johannesevangelium.” In Die Kirche als historische und eschatologische Größe. Festschrift – Libri Amicorum. ed. W. Pratscher and G. Sauer. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994, 63-76. KRODEL, G., “The Functions of the Spirit in the Old Testament, the Synoptic Tradition, and the Book of Acts.” In The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church. ed. P. D. Opsahl. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001 (1st ed. 1978). KUGLER, R. A., “Joseph at Qumran: The Importance of 4Q 372 Frag. 1.” In Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint Presented to Eugine Ulrich. ed. P.W. Flint, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 2006, 261-274. KÜHL, J., Die Sendung Jesu und der Kirche nach dem Johannesevangelium. Studia Instituti Missiologica Societatis Verbi Domini, 11. Sankt-Augustin: Steyler Verlag, 1967. KUHN, K. G., “Die in Palästina gefundenen hebräischen Texte und das Neue Testament,” ZTK 47 (1950): 192-211. KUNDSIN, K., Topologische Überlieferungsstoffe im Johannes-Evangelium: Eine Untersuchung. FRLANT, 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925.

376

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KUTSCHERA, R., Das Heil kommt von Juden (Joh 4:22): Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung Israels. OBS, 25. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003. KUYPER, L. J., “Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and Its Use in the Johannine Gospel,” The Reformed Review 16 (1962): 1-16. LABAHN, M., “Der Weg eines Namenlosen – Vom Hilflosen zum Vorbild (Joh 9): Ansätze zu einer narrativen Ethik der sozialen Verantworiung im viertem Evangelium.” In Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums: Festschrift für Otto Merk zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. R. Gebauer and M. Meiser. Marburg: Elwert, 2003, 63-80. —. “Deuteronomy in John.” In Deuteronomy in the New Testament. ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2007, 82-98. —. “Die παρρησία des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium: Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis.” In Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditiongeschichtlicher Perspektive. ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 321363. —. “Jesus und die Autorität der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Überlegungen zu einem spannungsreichen Verhältnis.” In Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für J. Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004, 185-206. —. “It’s only Love – Is that All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine Ethic – A Critical Evaluation of Research.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 3-43. —. “Überzeugende Ethik mündiger Jüngerschaft: Christologische Bildersprache als Fundament Johanneischer Ethik (Johannes 15,1-8).” In Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle. ed. J. Verheyden et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 397-423. LANG, M., Die Kunst des christlichen Lebens: Rezeptionsästhetische Studien zum lukanischen Paulusbild. ABG, 29. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008. LATTKE, M., Einheit im Wort: Die spezifische Bedeutung von agape, agapan und philein im Johannesevangelium. SANT, 41. München: Kösel, 1975. LEAL, J., “El simbolismo histórico del IV Evangelio,” EstBib 19 (1960): 329348. LEE, D. A., Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John. New York: Crossroad, 2002. —. “Friendship, Love and Abiding in the Gospel of John.” In Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. ed. R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe. Roma: LAS, 2005, 57-74. LEE, D., “In Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and Early Fathers,” VC 58 (2004): 277-297. LEE, D. A., “The Story of the Samaritan Woman at the Well: A Symbolic Reading,” ABR 41 (1993): 35-48. LEFKOVITS, J. K., The Copper Scroll 3QI5: A Reevaluation: A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary. STDJ, 25. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

377

LEGRAND, L., “The Harvest is Plentiful,” Scripture 17 (1965): 1-9. —. Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990. LEHNARDT, A., “Die Taube auf dem Garizim: Zur antisamaritanischen Polemik in der rabbinischen Literatur.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. ed. U. Schattner-Rieser, J. Frey, and K. Schmid. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 285-302. LEIDIG, E., Jesu Gespräch mit der Samaritanerin und weitere Gespräche im Johannesevangelium. Theologische Dissertationen, 15. Basel: Reinhardt, 1979. LESCH, W., “Hermeneutische Ethik/Narrative Ethik.” In Handbuch Ethik. ed. M. Düwell. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2002, 231-242. LESSING, G. E., “Das Testament Johannis.” In Werke. ed. H. Göbel. Vol. 8. München: Hanser, 1979. LIERMAN, J., Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. WUNT, II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. LIM, S. U., “Josephus Constructs the Samari(t)ans: A Strategic Construction of Judaean/Jewish Identity through the Rhetoric of Inclusion and Exclusion,” JTS 64 (2013): 404-431. LINCOLN, A. T., Truth on Trail: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. LINDEMANN, A., “Samaria und Samaritaner im Neuen Testament,” WD 22 (1993): 51-76. LINK, A., Was redest du mit ihr?” Eine Studie zur Exegese, Redaktions und Theologiegeschichte von Joh 4,1-42. BU, 24. Regensburg: Pustet, 1992. LINVILLE, J. R., Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity. JSOTSup 272. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998. LOADER, W. R. G., Jesus Attitude towards the Law. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. LOADER, W. R. G., “The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 143-158. —. “Your Law – The Johannine Perspective.” In „... was ihr auf dem Weg verhandelt habt“: Beiträge zur Exegese and Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Ferdinand Hahn. ed. P. Müller and C. Gerber. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2001, 63-74. LOHMEYER, E., “Über Aufbau und Gliederung des vierten Evangeliums.” ZNW 27 (1928): 11-36. —. Das Urchristentum I: Johannes der Täufer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932. LÖHR, H., “ἔργον as an Element of Moral Language in John.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 229-249. —. “Ethik and Tugendlehre.” In Neues Testament and Antike Kultur. ed. K. Erlemann. Vol. 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005, 151-181. LOHSE, E., Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments. TW, 5/2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988.

378

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LOVERTOFF, P. P., Sacred Sites. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935. LOWE, M., “Who were the IOUDAIOI?,” NT 18 (1976): 103-130. LOZADA, Jr. F., “Journey and the Fourth Gospel: A Latino/a Exploration.” Interpretation 65, no. 3 (2011), 264-275. LUND, G., “The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 265-289. LÜTGERT, W., Die Johanneische Christologie. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1905. LUTHER, S., Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT, II/394. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. LYS, D., Rûach, le souffle dans l’Ancien Testament: Enquête anthropologique à travers l’histoire théologique d’Israel. Paris: PUF, 1962. MA, W., Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah. JSOTSup, 271. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999. MACCINI, R. G., Her Testimony is True: Women as Witness according to John. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. MACDONALD, J., ed., The Samaritan Chronicle II: From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. —. Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM, 1964. MAGEN, Y., “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albert. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007, 157-212. MAGEN, Y., MISGAV, H., and TSFANIA, L., Mount Gerizim Excavations. Vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. JSP, 2. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004. MAGEN, Y., Mount Gerizim Excavations. Vol. 2: A Temple City. JSP, 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. MAGNESS, J., “The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” HTR 94 (2001) 157-177. MALATESTA, E., Interiority and Covenant: A Study of εἶναι ἐν and μένειν ἐν in the First Letter of Saint John. AnBib, 69. Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. MALINA, B. J., The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective. Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1985. MANIPARAMBIL, J., Why are You Speaking with a Woman. Banglore: Biblia, 2004. MANSON, T. W., Ethics and the Gospel. London: SCM, 1962. MARDAGA, H., “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John,” NovT 56 (2014): 134-153. MARGAIN, J., “Samaritain (Pentateuque),” DBSup 11 (1991): 762-774. MARK L. A., The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John. WUNT, II/1. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976. MARSHALL, I. H., “The Problem of New Testament Exegesis (John 4:1-45),” JETS 17 (1974): 67-73. MARTYN, J. L., “A Gentile Mission that Replaced an Earlier Jewish Mission.” In Exploring the Gospel of John. ed. R. A. Culpepper et al. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1996, 124-144.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

379

MARY, G., “Women Disciples in the Fourth Gospel Revisited,” The Living Word 112 (2006): 169-181. MASON, S., “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457-512. MATASSA, L.D., “Samaritans History, Samaritan Origins,” EncJud 17 (2007): 719-723. MATASSA, L., “Unravelling the Myth of the Synagogue on Delos,” BAIAS 25 (2007): 81–115. MATEOS, J. & BARRETO, J., Vocabulario teológico del Evangelio de Juan. El libro de bolsillo Cristianidad, 50. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1980. MATTHEWS, V. H., “Conversation and Identity: Jesus and the Samaritan Woman,” BTB 40 (2010): 215-226. MBURU, E. W., Qumran and the Origins of Johannine Language and Symbolism. London: T&T Clark, 2010. MCCOOL, F. J., “Living Water in St. John.” In The Bible in Current Thought: Essays in Memory of M. J. Gruenthaner. ed. J. L. McKenzie. New York: Herder and Herder, 1962, 226-235. MCLEAN, B. H., “The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and in Christian Churches on Delos.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. ed. J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson. London: Routledge, 1996, 186-225. MCPOLIN, J., “Mission in the Fourth Gospel,” ITQ 36 (1969): 113-122. MCNAMARA, M., Targum Neofiti, Genesis. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. MEECHAM, H. G., The Letter of Aristeas: A Linguistic Study with Special Reference to the Greek Bible. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935. MEEK, R. L., “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology,” Bib 95 (2014): 280-291. MEEKS, W. A., “Am I a Jew? – Johannine Christianity and Judaism.” In Christanity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. ed. J. Neusner. SJLA, 12. Leiden: Brill, 1975, 163-186. —. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities.” In Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to Reformation. ed. J. Cohen. New York: New York University Press, 1991, 89-113. —. “The Divine Agent and His Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel.” In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity. ed. E. S. Fiorenza. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1976, 43-67. —. “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist.” In Exploring the Gospel of John in Honor of D. Moody Smith. ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1996, 317-326. —. “Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 85 (1966): 159-169. —. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44-72. MEIER, J. P., “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What can be Said?,” Bib 81 (2000): 202-232. —. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL, 3. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001. MENDNER, S., “Zum Problem Johannes und die Synoptiker,” NTS 4 (1957-1958): 282-307.

380

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MENKEN, M. J. J., “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: A Survey of Recent Research.” In From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Maurinus de Jonge. ed. M. C. de Boer. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993, 292-320. —. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form CBET, 15. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. METZGER, B. M., “The Bodmer Papyrus of Luke and John,” ET 73 (1961): 201-220. METZNER, R., “Gott, Welt und Sünde: Theologische Probleme der johanneischen Rede von der Sünde.” In Schöpfung, Monotheismus und fremde Religionen: Studien zu Inklusion und Exklusion in den Schöpfungsvorstellungen. ed. L. Bormann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, 185-208. —. Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium. WUNT, 122. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. MEYER, P. W., ‘“The Father’: The Presentation of God in the Fourth Gospel.” In Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. ed. A. R. Culpepper and C. C. Black. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1996, 252-273. MICHAEL, M., “Nicodème ou le Non-Lieu de la Vérité,” RevScRel 55 (1981): 227-236. MICHAEL, S., “From Rabbi to Messiah: The Meaning of Rabbi in the Gospel of John in the Perspective of 1:38b,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (KU Leuven: Faculty of Theology, 2003). MICALLEF, M., The Importance of ζητέω in the Gospel of John. Qrendi: University of Malta, 2010. MILLER, S., “The Woman at the Well: John’s Portrayal of the Samaritan Mission.” In John, Jesus, and History. Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. ed. F. Just, P. N. Anderson, and T. Thatcher. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2009, 73-81. MIRANDA, J. P., Being and the Messiah: The Message of St John. ET: J. Eagleson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1977. —. Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium: Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Sendungsformeln. SBS, 87. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. —. Der Vater der mich gesandt hat. EHS, 23. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1972. MLAKUZHYIL, G., The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel. AnBib, 117. Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1987. MOLONEY, F. J., “From Cana to Cana (Jn 2:1- 4:54) and the Fourth Evangelist’s Concept of Correct (and Incorrect Faith),” Salesianum 40 (1978): 817843. —. Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. MONTGOMERY, J. A., The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature. Philadelphia, PA: J. C. Winston Co., 1907; reprint 2007. MOORE, S. D., “Are there Impurities in the Living Water that the Johannine Jesus Dispenses? Deconstruction, Feminism and the Samaritan Woman,” BibInt 1 (1993): 207-227. —. “Deconstructive Criticism: Derrida at the Samaritan Well and Later at the Foot of the Cross.” In Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida

BIBLIOGRAPHY

381

and Foucault at the foot of the cross. ed. S. D. Moore. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994, 43-64. MOORE, A. M., Signs of Salvation: The Theme of Creation in John’s Gospel. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2013. MORGAN, G. F., “The Women of John’s Gospel,” TBT 40 (2002): 91-98. MORRIS, L., “Love in the Fourth Gospel.” In Saved by Hope: Festschrift Richard C. Oudersluys. ed. J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. MOSER, M., Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium. WUNT, II/380. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. MOTYER, S., “The Fourth Gospel and Salvation of Israel: An Appeal to Start.” In Anti-Judaism and the Fourth-Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium. 2000. ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001, 83-100. —. Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and the Jews. Exeter: Paternoster, 1997. MOULE, C. F. D., Worship in the New Testament. Richmond, VA: Knox, 1967. MUECKE, D. C., The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen, 1980. MURRAY, J. O. F., Jesus according to St. John. London: Longman, 1936. MÜLLER, J., “Ergon und eudaimonia: Plädoyer für eine unifizierende Interpretation der ergon Argumente in den aristotelischen Ethiken,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 57 (2003): 513-542. MÜLLER, U. B., Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes. SNT, 6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1972. MÜNCH, C., “Geschwister in der Fremde: Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes.” In Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. ed. T. Söding. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009, 130-164. MUNRO, W., “The Pharisee and the Samaritans in the Gospel of John: Polar or Parallel,” CBQ 57 (1995): 710-738. MURPHY-O’CONNOR, J., The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. NEUGEBAUER, J., “Die Textbezüge von Joh 4, 1-42 und die Geschichte der johanneischen Gruppe,” ZNW 84 (1993): 135-141. NEUSNER, J., GREEN, W. S., & FRERICHS, E. S., Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. NEVE, L., The Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Tokyo: Seibunsha, 1972. NEWHEART, M. W., Word and Soul: A Psychological, Literary and Cultural Reading of the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001. NEWSOM, C., The Women’s Bible Commentary. London: Cambridge University, 1994. NEYREY, J. H., An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. —. “Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10–26,” CBQ 41 (1979): 419-437. —. “John III: A Debate over Johannine Epistemology and Christology,” NovT 23 (1981): 115-127. —. “Spaces and Places, Whence and Wither, Homes and Rooms: Territoriality in the Fourth Gospel,” BTB 32 (2002): 60-74.

382

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “What’s Wrong with This Picture?,” BTB 24 (1994): 86-88. —. “Spaced Out: Territoriality in the Fourth Gospel,” HTS 58 (2002): 632663. NICOLAS, F., The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of their Faith and Understanding. WUNT II/290. Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2010. NIHAN, C., “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007, 197-223. NISSEN, J., “Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John.” In New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel, Arhus 1997. ed. J. Nissen and S. Pedersen. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999, 194-212. —. “Mission in the Fourth Gospel.” In New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel, Arhus 1997. ed. J. Nissen and S. Pedersen. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999, 213-231. NODET, E., A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah. ET: E. Crowley. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997. NOVAKOVIC, L., “Jews and Samaritans.” In The World of the NT: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. ed. J. B. Green and L. Martin. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013, 207-217. NOY, D., Panayotov, A., and Bloedhorn, H., eds., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. NYIRENDA, M., “Theological Interpretation and Translation Reception: Translating “Spirit of God” in Genesis 1.1-2,” BT 64 (2013): 284-299. OAKMAN, E. D., “Culture, Society, and Embedded Religion in Antiquity,” BTB 35 (2005): 4-12. O’DAY, G. R., “Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John.” In Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. ed. R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe. Roma: LAS, 2005, 75-92. O’DAY, G. R. & HYLEN, S., John. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2006. O’DAY, G. R., Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Method and Theological Claim. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986. —. “Show Us the Father and We will be Satisfied,” Semeia 85 (1999): 11-16. —. “Toward a Narrative-Critical Study of John,” Int 49 (1995): 341-346. —. The Word Disclosed: John’s Story and Narrative Preaching. St. Louis, MO: CBP, 1987. ODEBERG, H., The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and Hellenistic Oriental World. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1929. OEHLER, W., Zum Missionscharakter des Johannesevangeliums. BFCTh, 42. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1941. OGLETREE, T. W., The Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics: A Constructive Essay. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983. OKURE, T., The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:142. WUNT, II/31. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

OLSSON, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1-11 and 4:1-42. ET: J. Gray. ConBNT, 6. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. ØSTENSTAD, G., “The Structure of the Fourth Gospel: Can It be Defined Objectively?,” ST 45 (1991): 33-55. OTTO, W., “Augustus Soter,” Hermes 45 (1910): 448-460. PAINTER, J., The Quest of the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology by the Johannine Community. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. PAMPLANIYIL, J. T., “Crossing the Abysses: An Exegetical Study of John 20:19-29 in the Light of the Johannine Discipleship.” (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (KU Leuven: Faculty of Theology, 2006). PANCARO, S., The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel. Moses and Jesus. Judaism and Christianity according to John. NovTSup, 42. Leiden: Brill, 1975. PARKER, P., “Bethany beyond Jordan,” JBL 74 (1955): 184-187. PATON, W. R. & HICKS, E. L., The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. PAULUS, H., “Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums.” Books from the collections of Oxford University (1972). available from https://archive.org/details/daslebenjesuals01chrigoog; accessed 31/08/2015. PAUL, P., The Samaritan Woman and the Disciples: An Exegetical Study on John 4:31-38. Unpublished Master Thesis (KU Leuven: Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, 2009). PAZDAN, M. M., “Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship,” BTB 17 (1987): 145-148. PERKINS, P., Love Commands in the New Testament. New York: Paulist, 1982. —. “New Testament Ethics: Questions and Contexts,” RelSRev 10 (1984): 321327. PIEPER, A., Einführung in die Ethik. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. PINK, A.W., Exposition of the Gospel of John. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975. PIPER, J., Love Your Enemies Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. PITKÄNEN, P., Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple. Piscataway: IEEE service center, 2004. POKORNÝ, P., “Neutestamentliche Ethik und die Probleme ihrer Darstellungen,” EvT 50 (1990): 357-371. POPKES, E. E., “A Differing Approach to a Theological Heritage: Comments on the Relationship between the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas and Qumran.” In The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006, 281-318. POPKES, E. E., Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus. WUNT, II/197. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. POPKES, W., Paränese und Neues Testament. SBS, 168. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996.

384

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality.” In Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 13-46. —. “Zum Verständnis der Mission bei Johannes,” ZM 4 (1978): 63-69. PORSCH, F., Pneuma und Wort. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1974. POTTER, R. D., “Topology and Archeology in the Fourth Gospel,” SE 1 (= TUGAL 73) (1959): 329-337. POTTERIE, I. DE LA. La vérité dans Saint Jean. 2 vols. AnBib, 73, 74. Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1977. —. “‘Nous adorons, nous, ce que nous connaissons, car le salut vient des Juifs’. Histoire de l’exégèse et interprétation de Jn 4:22,” Bib 64 (1984): 74115. —. “Structura primae partis Evangelli Johannis (capita III et IV),” Verbum Domini 47 (1978): 130-131. —. “The Truth in Saint John.” In Interpretation of John, ed. J. Ashton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997, 67-82. PREGEANT, R., Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress, 2008. PREISKER, H., Das Ethos des Urchristentums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1949. PREISS, T., Life in Christ. London: SCM Press, 1954. PRETE, B., “Il messaggio della salvezza.” In Opera Giovannea e Lettere Cattoliche. ed. B. Prete and G. Ghiberti, Leumann: Elle Di Ci, 1978. —. “Vangelo secondo Giovanni.” II Messaggio della Salvezza VIII/4 (1978): 797-870. PRICE, J. L., “Light from Qumran upon Some Aspects of Johannine Theology.” In John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1990, 9-38. PRICE, S. R. F., “Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult,” JHS 104 (1984): 79-95. PUECH, E., The Copper Scroll Revisited. Leiden: Brill, 2015. PUMMER, R., “AΡΓAΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?,” JSJ 18 (1987): 19-25. —. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism. TSAJ, 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. —. “How to Tell a Samaritan Synagogue from a Jewish Synagogue.” BAR 24 (1998): 24-35. —. “Samaria.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. ed. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010, 1181-1184. —. “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences.” In Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue. ed. S. Fine. London: Routledge, 1999, 118-160. PUMMER, R., “Samaritanism: A Jewish Sect or an Independent form of Yahwism.” In Samaritans: Past and Present, Current Studies. ed. M. Mor and F. V. Reiterer. SS, 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010, 1-24. —. The Samaritans. Leiden: Brill, 1987. —. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. ed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

385

G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007, 237-269. —. Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. TSAJ, 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. PURVIS, J. D., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. HSM, 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. —. “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans,” NovT 17 (1975): 161-178. —. “The Samaritans and Judaism.” In Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986, 81-98. RABENS, V., “Johannine Perspectives on Ethical Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. WUNT, 291. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 114-139. RAJ, I., “Worship of the Father in Spirit and Truth: Its Newness and Radicality,” ITS 44 (2007): 139-167. RAWLINSON, A. E. J., “In Spirit and Truth: An Exposition of St. John iv. 16-24,” ExpTim 44 (1932-1933): 12-14. REBELL, W., “Neutestamentliche Ethik – Anmerkungen zum gegenwärtigen Diskussionsstand,” ZEE 32 (1988): 143-151. REIM, G., Jochanan: Erweiterte Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums. Erlangen: Evangelisch-Lutherische Mission, 1995. REIMER, A. M., “The Galileans: Interpretive Possibilities and the Limits of Narrative Critical Approaches.” In Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John. ed. S. A. Hunt and D. Francois. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 299-305. REINHARTZ, A., Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. London: Continuum, 2001. —. “The Gospel of John: How the ‘Jews’ became the Part of the Plot.” In Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. ed. P. Fredriksen and A. Reinhartz. London and Louisville, MN: WJK, 2002 99-116. REINHARTZ, A., “The Grammar of Hate in the Gospel of John: Reading John in the Twenty-First Century.” In Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für J. Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004, 416-427. —. “The Gospel of John: How the “Jews” became the Part of the Plot.” In Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. eds. P. Fredriksen and A. Reinhartz. London and Louisville, MN: WJK, 2002, 99-116. —. “‘Jews’ and Jews in the Fourth Gospel.” In Anti-Judaism. ed. R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001, 213-227. —. “Jews in the New Testament,” NIDB 3 (2008): 311-312. —. “Judaism in the Gospel of John,” Int 63 (2009): 382-393. —. “The Johannine Community and its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal.” In What is John? Vol. 2: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. ed. F. F. Segovia. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998, 111-138.

386

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Samaritan Woman.” In Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament. ed. C. Meyers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, 454-455. —. “To Love the Lord: An Intertextual Reading of John 20.” In The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation and Biblical Interpretation. ed. F. C. Black and R. Boer. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999, 53-69. —. The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel. SBLMS 45. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. RENA, J., “Women in the Gospel of John,” EgTheo 17 (1986): 131-147. RENDTORFF, T., Ethik: Grundelemente, Methodologie und Konkretionen einer ethischen Theologie. TW, 13. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990. RENSBERGER, D. K., Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John. London: SPCK, 1989. —. “Sectarianism and Theological Interpretation in John.” In What is John? Vol. 2: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. ed. F. F. Segovia. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998, 139-156. RENZ, G., “Nicodemus: An Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation.” In Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. ed. J. Lierman. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 255-282. RESE, M., “Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen,” TZ 41 (1985): 44-58. RICHARD, E., “Expressions of Double Meaning and Their Function in the Gospel of John,” NTS 31 (1985): 96-112. RICHARDSON, P., Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2004. RICHES, J., The New Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 4, From 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. RICHEY, L. B., Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John. CBQMS 43. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007. RICOEUR, P., Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Texas University Press, 1976. RIDDERBOS, H. N., Het Woord is vlees geworden: Beschouwingen over het eigen karakter van het Evangelie van Johannes. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1979. RIESENFELD, H., “Zu den Johanneischen ἵνα Sätzen,” ST 19 (1965): 213-220. RIESNER, R., “Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28): Topography, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel.” TynBul 38 (1987): 19-63. —. Bethanien jenseits des Jordan: Topografie und Theologie im JohannesEvangelium. BAZ 12. Giessen: Brunnen, 2002. —. Jesus as Preacher and Teacher in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Scheffield: Academic Press, 1991. RISSI, M., “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums.” NTS 29 (1983): 48-73. RITSCHL, D., Story als Rohmaterial der Theologie. ThEh, 192. München: Kaiser, 1976. ROBERT, P. de., “Les Samaritains et le Nouveau Testament,” ETR 45 (1970): 179-184. ROBINSON, J. A. T., “The Others of Jn 4:38: A Test of Exegetical Method.” In Twelve New Testament Studies. ed. J. A. T. Robinson. London: SCM, 1962, 61-66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

ROITTO, R., “The Polyvalence of ἀφίημι and the Two Cognitive Frames of Forgiveness in the Synoptic Gospels,” NovT 57 (2015): 136-158. ROWE, E. & NEYREY, J., “Christ and Time-Part Three: “Telling Time” in the Fourth Gospel,” BTB 40 (2010): 79-92. RUCKSTUHL, E., Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums: Der gegenwärtige Stand der einschlägigen Forschungen. NTOA, 5. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. RUCKSTUHL, E. & DSCHULINGG, P., Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium. Die Johanneischen Sprachmerkmale auf dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments und des zeitgenössischen hellenistischen Schrifttums. NTOA, 17. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. RUNESSON, A., Binder D. D., and Olsson, B., The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. Leiden: Brill, 2010. RUSAM, D., Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe. BWANT, 133. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. RÜSEN, J., Kann gestern besser werden? Essays zum Bedenken der Geschichte. Berlin: Kadmos, 2003. —. Kultur macht Sinn: Orientierung zwischen Gestern und Morgen. Köln: Böhlau, 2005. SABBE, M., “The Arrest of Jesus in Jn 18:1-11 and its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.” In L’évangile de Jean: Sources, Rédaction, Théologie. ed. M. de Jonge. Leuven: Peeters, 1977, 205-234. SANDIYAGU, V. R., “Eteros and Allos in Luke,” NovT 48 (2006): 105-130. SCHAPDICK, S., Auf dem Weg in den Konflikt: Exegetische Studien zum theologischen Profil der Erzählung vom Aufenthalt Jesu in Samarien (Joh 4, 1-42) im Kontext des Johannesevangeliums. BBB, 126. Berlin: Philo, 2000. SCHENKE, H. M., “Jakobsbrunnen – Josephsgrab – Sychar,” ZDPV 84 (1968): 159-184. SCHENKER, A., “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im. 2. Jh. v. Chr.” In Samaritans: Past and Present, Current Studies. ed. M. Mor and F. V. Reiterer. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010, 105-122. SCHMELLER, T., “Neutestamentliches Gruppenethos.” In Der neue Mensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament. ed. J. Beutler. Freiburg: Herder, 2001, 120-134. SCHMID, L., “Die Komposition der Samaria-Szene John 4:1-42: Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik des 4. Evangelisten als Schriftsteller,” ZNW 28 (1929): 148160. SCHMIDT, W., Der brennende Dornbusch: Eine Darlegung des Evangeliums nach Johannes. NBHS, 27. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006. SCHNACKENBURG, R., The Moral Teaching of the New Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1965. —. Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 2: Die urchristlichen Verkündiger. HTKNTSup, 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. SCHNEIDERS, S. M., “‘Because of the Woman’s Testimony ...’: Reexamining the Issue of Authorship in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 44 (1998): 513-535.

388

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church.” BTB 12 (1982): 35-45. —. The Revelatory Text. San Francisco, CA: Liturgical Press, 1999. —. Written that You may Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1999. SCHNELLE, U., “Ethical Theology in 1 John.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 321-339. —. “Johanneische Ethik.” In Eschatologie and Ethik im frühen Christentum: Festschrift Günter Haufe. ed. C. Böttrich. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006, 309-327. —. “Die johanneischen Abschiedsreden und das Liebesgebot.” In Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. ed. G. Van Belle, M. Labahn and P. Maritz. BETL, 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009, 589608. —. “Die johanneische Schule.” In Bilanz und Perspektiven gegenwärtiger Auslegung des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift Georg Strecker. ed. F. W. Horn. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995, 198-217. —. “Das Johannesevangelium als neue Sinnbildung.” In Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. ed. G. Van Belle and J. G. van der Watt. BETL, 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005, 291-313. —. “Ein neuer Blick: Tendenzen der gegenwärtigen Johannesforschung,” BTZ 16 (1999): 29-40. SCHNELLE, U., & LABAHN, M., eds., Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. 1,2: Texte zum Johannesevangelium. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. SCHOLTISSEK, K., “Ironie und Rollenwechsel im Johannesevangelium,” ZNW 89 (1998): 235-255. —. “Johannine Studies: A Survey of Recent Research with Special Regard to German Contributions,” CurBs 6 (1998): 227-259. —. In Ihm Sein und Bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften. HBS 21. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. —. “Mündiger Glaube: Zur Architektur und Pragmatik johanneischer Begegnungsgeschichten: Joh 5 und Joh 9.” In Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie and Literatur. ed. D. Sänger and U. Mell. WUNT, 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 75105. SCHORCH, S., “The Construction of Samari(t)an Identity from the Inside and from the Outside.” In Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interacting with Foreign Powers. ed. R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, 135-149. —. “A Critical editio maior of the Samaritan Pentateuch: State of Research, Principles and Problems,” HeBAI 12 (2013): 100-120. —. “Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel/The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions. ed. J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid. SS, 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 5-29.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

—. “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy.” In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. ed. J. Zsengellér. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 23-37. SCHOTTROFF, L., “Die Samaritanerin am Brunnen (Joh 4).” In Auf Israel hören: Sozialgeschichtliche Bibelauslegung. ed. R. Jost, R. Kessler, and C. M. Raising. Luzern: Ed. Exodus, 1992, 115-132. SCHRAGE, W., The Ethics of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. SCHREIBER, S., “Imperium Romanum und römische Gemeinden: Dimensionen politischer Sprechweise in Röm 13.” In Die Bedeutung der Exegese für Theologie und Kirche. ed. U. Busse. Freiburg: Herder, 2005131-170. SCHRENK, G. & QUELL, G., art. “πατήρ,” TDNT V (1954): 945-1022. SCHÜLLER, E. M., “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” RevQ 55 (1996): 349-376. SCHULLER, E. M. & BERNSTEIN, M. J., “4Q Narrative and Poetic Composition.” In Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII. Miscellanea Part 2. Ed. D. M. Grop et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001, 151-204. SCHULLER, E. M., “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,” CBQ 54 (1992): 67-79. SCHULZ, S., Komposition und Herkunft der Johanneischen Reden. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960. SCHULZ, S., Neutestamentliche Ethik. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. SCHÜRER, E., A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ. ET: S. Taylor and Rev. P. Christie. 2 divisions in 5 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. SCHÜRMANN, H., Studien zur neutestamentlichen Ethik. SBAB, 7. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. SCHWARTZ, S. R., Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B. C. E to 640 C. E. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. SCHWEIZER, E., Ego Eimi: die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der Johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums. FRLANT, 56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939. SCOBIE, C. H. H., “Johannine Geography,” SR 11 (1982): 77-84. —. “The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity,” NTS 19 (19721973): 390-414. —. “The Use of Source Material in the Speeches of Acts III and VII,” NTS 25 (1978-1979): 339-421. SCOTT, C. A. A., New Testament Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934. SCOTT, M., Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. JSNTSup, 71. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1992. SEGOVIA, F. F., ed., “John 1:1-18 as Entrée into Johannine Reality.” In Word, Theology, and Community in John. ed. J. Painter, R. A. Culpepper, F. F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2002, 33-64. —. “The Journey(s) of Jesus to Jerusalem.” In John and the Synoptics. ed. A. Denaux. BETL, 101. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1992, 535541. —. “The Journey(s) of the Word of God: A Reading Plot of the Fourth Gospel,” Semeia 53 (1991): 23-54.

390

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “The Love and Hatred of Jesus and the Johannine Sectarianism,” CBQ 43 (1981): 258-272. —. Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agape/Agapan in I John and the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS, 58. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. SEIM, T. K., “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John.” In Aspects on the Johannine Literature. ed. L. Hartman and B. Olsson. ConBNT, 18. Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksell, 1986, 56-73. SELLIN, E., Die israelitisch-jüdische Heilandserwartung. Berlin: Runge, 1909. SELVIDGE, M. J., “Nicodemus and the Woman with Five Husbands,” EGLBS 2 (1982): 63-75. SEO, P. S., Luke’s Jesus in the Roman Empire and the Emperor in the Gospel of Luke. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015. SHEELEY, S. M., “Lift Up Your Eyes: John 4:4-42,” RevExp 92 (1995): 8187. SHERIDAN, R., “Issues in the Translation of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel” JBL 132 (2013): 671-695. SKA, J-L., “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman (John 4): Using the Old Testament,” Landas 13 (1999): 81-94. —. “Jésus et la Samaritaine (Jean 4). Utilité de l’Ancien Testament,” NRT 118 (1996): 641-652. SKINNER, C. W., ed., Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. LNTS. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2013. SMIT, P. B., “Cana-to-Cana or Galilee-to-Galilee: A Note on the Structure of the Gospel of John.” ZNW 98 (2007), 143-149. SMITH, D. M., “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of thc Gospel of John.” In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honour of J. Louis Martyn. ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1990, 275-294. —. “Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel.” In Word, Theology, and Community in John. Ed. J. Painter and R. A. Culpepper. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002, 109-122. —. The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2008. —. John among the Gospels. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2001. —. “The Love Command: John and Paul?” In Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters. Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Ed. E. H. Lovering and J. L. Sumney. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996, 207-217. SÖDING, T., “Gott ist Liebe: 1 Joh 4.8.16 Spitzensatz Biblischer Theologie.” In Der Lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments; Festschrift Wilhelm Thüsing. ed. T. Söding. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996, 306357. —. “Die Macht der Wahrheit und das Reich der Freiheit: Zur johanneischen Deutung des Pilatus-Prozesses (Joh 18, 28-19, 16),” ZTK 93 (1996): 3538. SPIECKERMANN, H., “Heart, Spirit, and Steadfast Love: Substantial Contributions of Torah and Psalter to Old Testament Theology,” SJOT 28 (2014): 253-265.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

SPILSBURY, P., The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible. TSAJ, 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. SPITTA, F., Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. STALEY, J. L., “Disseminations: An Autobiographical Midrash on Fatherhood in John’s Gospel,” Semeia 85 (1989): 127-154. STALEY, J. L., “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure.” CBQ 48 (1986): 241-264. STARE, M., “Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 213-228. STARR, J. & PEDERSEN, T. E., eds., Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. BZNW, 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. STEEGEN, M., “To Worship the Johannine ‘Son of Man’: John 9, 38 as Refocusing on the Father,” Biblica 91 (2010): 534-554. STEMBERGER, G., La symbolique du bien et du mal selon Saint Jean. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1970. STENHOUSE, P., “The Chronicle of Abu’l-Fath and Samaritan Origins: 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Viewed through the Prism of Samaritan Tradition.” In Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. ed. J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 303-321. STERN, S., Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1994. STIBBE, M. W. G., “Magnificent but Flawed: The Breaking Form in the Fourth Gospel.” In Anatomies of Narrative Criticism. ed. T. Thatcher and S. D. Moore. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008, 149-156. STIBBE, M. W. G., “Telling the Father’s Story: The Gospel of John as Narrative Theology.” In Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. ed. J. Lierman. WUNT, II/219. Tübingen: Mohr, 2006, 170-192. —. “A Tomb with a View: John 11.1-44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective,” NTS 40 (1994): 38-54. STRAUSS, D. F., Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet. Tübingen: Osiander, 1837. ET: The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined, 1973. SUH, M. S., The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest. StBL, 50. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. SWARTLEY, W. M., The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Louisville, KY: WJK, 1992. TALBERT, C. H., Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. London: SPCK, 1992. TALMON, S., “A Masada Fragment of Samaritan Origin,” IEJ 47 (1997): 220-232. —. “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters.” In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. ed. J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 111-138. TEEPLE, H. M., The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Evanston: Religion and Ethics Institution, 1974. TEMPLE, S., “The Two Signs in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 81 (1962). 169-174.

392

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TENNEY, M. C., John, the Gospel of Belief: An Analytic Study of the Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953. THEISSEN, G., Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition. NTOA 8. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1992. —. Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: Kaiser, 2000. —. Soziologie der Jesusbewegung: ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums. Theologische Existenz heute, 194. München: Kaiser, 1978. THEOBALD, M., “Die Ernte ist da! Überlieferungskritische Beobachtungen zu einer johanneischen Bildrede (Joh 4,31-38).” In Im Geist und in der Wahrheit: Studien zum Johannesevangelium und zur Offenbarung des Johannes sowie andere Beiträge: Festschrift für Martin Hasitschka zum 65. Geburtstag. ed. K. Huber and B. Repschinski. Münster: Aschendorff, 2008, 83-108. THEOBALD, M., Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu I Joh. NTAbh, 20. Münster: Aschendorff, 1988. —. “Gezogen von Gottes Liebe (Joh 6,44f.): Beobachtungen zur Überlieferung eines johanneischen Herrenworts.” In Schrift und Tradition: Festschrift Josef Ernst. ed. K. Backhaus and F. G. Untergaßmair. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1996, 315-341. —. Herrenworte im Johannesevangelium. HBS, 34. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. THERATH, A., Jerusalem in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical and Theological Inquiry into Johannine Geography. New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1997. THETTAYIL, B., In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel. CBET, 46. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. THIESSEN, M., “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Josephs’ Exile,” DSD 15 (2008): 380-395. THOMPSON, H., The Gospel of St. John according to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, 36. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1924. THÜSING, W., Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium. Münster: Aschendorff, 1970. —. “Glaube und die Liebe: Die Johannesbriefe.” In Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie. ed. T. Söding. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995, 216-232. THYEN, H., “‘... denn wir lieben die Brüder’ (1 Joh 3, 14).” In Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. J. Friedrich and W. Pöhlmann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976, 527-542. —. “Das Heil kommt von den Juden.” In Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum. ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980, 163184. —. “Niemand hat größere Liebe als die, daß er sein Leben für seine Freunde hingibt (Joh 15, 13).” In Theologia crucis, signum crucis: Festschrift Erich Dinkler. ed. C. Andresen and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979, 467482.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

393

—. “Das Johannesevangelium als literarisches Werk.” In Studien zum Corpus Johanneum, ed. H. Thyen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. THOMPSON, M. M., The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2000. TOLMIE, D. F., “The Ill and the Sick: Those Who were Healed and Those Who were Not.” In Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John. eds. S. A. Hunt and D. Francois, WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 332-336. TOMSON, P. J., ‘If This Be from Heaven’: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2001. —. “Jewish Purity Laws as Viewed by the Church Fathers and by the Early Followers of Jesus.” In Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. ed. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2000, 73-91. TRÜMPER, M., “The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered,” Hesperia 73 (2004): 513-598. TURNER, M., Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPTSup, 9. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. ULRICH, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTS, 169. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2015. UM, S. T., The Theme of Temple Christology in John’s Gospel. LBNTS, 312. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001. VAHRENHORST, M., “Johannes und die Tora: Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Tora im Johannesevangelium,” KD 54 (2008): 14-36. VALE, R., “Literary Sources in Archaeological Description: the Case of Galilee, Galilees and Galileans,” JSJ 18 (1987): 209-226. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, H., “La Structure de Jean 1-12,’ L’Evangile de Jean 3 (1958): 76-88. VAN BELLE, G., Les Parenthèses dans l’Evangile de Jean: Aperçu Historique et classification texte grec de Jean. SNTA 10. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1985. —. “Geloven Volgens Johannes.” In Het Johannes Evangelie: Woorden om van het Leven. ed. G. Van Belle. Leuven – Amersfoort: Acco, 1995, 103144. —. “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ or ἸΗΣΟΥΣ in John 4,1?” In New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel. BETL 161. Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 159-174. —. “Salvation is from the Jews”: The Parenthesis in John 4:22b.” In Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt and F. VandecasteeleVanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001, 370-400. VAN BELLE, G., LABAHN, M., and MARITZ, P., Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. BETL, 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. VAN BELLE, G., The Sign Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. BETL, 116. Leuven: Leuven University Press-Peeters, 1994. —. “The Faith of the Galileans: The Parenthesis in Jn 4:44.” ETL 74 (1998): 37-39.

394

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HEEVER, G. “Theological Metaphorics and the Metaphors of John’s Gospel,” Neot 26 (1992): 89-100. VAN DER HORST, P. W., “Cornutus and the New Testament,” NovT 23 (1981): 165-172. —. “Anti-Samaritan Propaganda in Early Judaism.” In Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity: Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism. ed. P. W. van der Horst. Leuven: Peeters, 2003, 25-44. VAN DER MERWE, D. G. “A Matter of Having Fellowship: Ethics in the Johannine Epistles.” In Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. BZNW, 141. ed. J. G. van der Watt. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006, 535-563. VAN DER WATT, J. G., Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Ethics Alive in Imagery.” In Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms. Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. ed. J. Frey and J. G. van der Watt. WUNT, 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 421-448. —. “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John,” ZNW 97 (2006): 147176. —. “Preface.” In Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament. ed. J. G. van der Watt. BZNW, 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006, V-IX. —. “The Gospel of John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour,” In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 45/2 (2011): 431-448. —. “Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 175-191. VAN DER WOUDE, A. S., “Le Maître de justice et les deux Messies de la communauté de Qumrân.” In La secte de Qumrân et les origines du christianisme. eds. J. van der Ploeg, D. Barthelemy and. O. Betz. Rechbib, 4. Bruxelles: Desclée De Brouwer, 1959, 121-134. VAN HENTEN, J. W., and VERHEYDEN, J., “Introduction.” In Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. ed. J. W. van Henten and J. Verheyden. STR, 17. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 1-16. VAN TILBORG, S., Imaginative Love in John. BibInt Series, 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993. —. “The Women in John: On Gender and Gender Bending.” In Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions. ed. J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner. STR 2. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2000, 192-212. VAN UNNIK, W. G., “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” TU 73 (1959): 338-358. VARGAS, N. M., “Ἀγαπάω, ὑπάγω, δοξάζω: Juxtaposed yet Tightly-Knit Themes in John 13,31-35.” In Studies in the Gospel of John and its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle. ed. J. Verheyden and G. Van Oyen. BETL, 265. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 371-395. VARGHESE, J., The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John. Roma: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2009. VELLANICKAL, M., “Drink from the Source of the Living Water: A ‘Dhvani’ Interpretation of the Dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman (John 4:4-26),” BB 4 (1979): 309-318. VETTIKUZHIYIL, G., πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω as Designations of the Mission of the Disciples in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical Theological Study of Jn 4:3138; 17:17-19; 20:19-23. Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 2005. VAN DEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

395

VISSER, M., The Rituals of Dinner: The Origins, Evolution, Eccentricities, and Meaning of Table Manners. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. VOLZ, P., Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschliessenden Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1910. VON GEMÜNDEN, P., Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Eine Bildfelduntersuchung. NTOA, 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. —. “Der Umgang mit Angst und Aggression im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Psychologie des Urchristentums.” In Affekt and Glaube: Studien zur Historischen Psychologie des Frühjudentums und Urchristentums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, 279-306. VON WAHLDE, U. C., “The Johannine Jews: A Critical Survey,” NTS 28 (1982): 33-60. —. The Johannine Commandments: 1 John and the Struggle for the Johannine Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1990. —. “The Samaritan Woman Episode, Synoptic Form-Criticism, and the Johannine Miracles: A Question of Criteria.” In Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar. ed. G. Van Belle, J. G. van Der Watt, and P. Maritz. BETL, 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005, 503-520. —. “Archaeology and John’s Gospel.” In Jesus and Archaeology. ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006, 523-586. WALKER, R. “Jünger Wort und Herren Wort: Zur Auslegung von Joh 4, 39-42.” ZNW 57 (1966): 49-54. WALKER, P. W. L., Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. WALTER, C. K. (Jr), Mission in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. WARDLE, T., The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity. WUNT, II/291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. WATSON, A., Jesus and the Jew: The Pharisaic Tradition in John. London: The University of Georgia Press, 1995. WEDEL, A. F., “John 4:5-26(5-42),” Int 31 (1977): 406-412. WEDER, H., “Das neue Gebot: Eine Überlegung zum Liebesgebot in Johannes 13.” In Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Etudes sur Mathieu et Jean. ed. A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz. Zurich: TVZ, 2009, 187-205. WENDLAND, H. D., Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung. GNT, 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. WENDLAND, P., “Σωτήρ,” ZNW 5 (1904): 335-353. WEYER-MENKHOFF, K., “The Response of Jesus: Ethics in John by Considering Scripture as Work of God.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 159-174. WHITE, L. M., “The Delos Synagogue Revisited Recent Fieldwork in the GraecoRoman Diaspora,” HTR 80 (2011): 133-160. —. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. WHITE-CRAWFORD, S., “Has Esther been found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther Corpus,” RevQ 17 (1995): 307-325.

396

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WHITMARSH, T., Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. WHITTERS, M. F., “Discipleship in John: Four Profiles,” WW 18 (1998): 422-427. WIEVIORKA, M., Kulturelle Differenzen und kollektive Identitäten. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2003. WILKENS, W., Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958. WILLEMSE, J. J. C., Het vierde Evangelie: een Onderzoek naar zijn Structuur. Hilversum: Brand, 1965. WILLETT, M. E., Wisdom Christology in the Fourth Gospel. San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press, 1992. WILLIAM, O., The Dialogue on Living Water in John 4:7-15. Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1999. WILLIAMSON, H. G. M., “Samaritans.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992. WILLS, L. M., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015. WILSON, S. G., Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170CE. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. WINDISCH, H., “John’s Narrative Style.” In The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth Century Perspectives. ed. M. W. G. Stibbe. NTTS, 17. Leiden: Brill, 1993, 25-64. WISCHMEYER, O., “Das alte und das neue Gebot: Ein Beitrag zur Intertextualität der johanneischen Schriften.” In Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean. ed. A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz. Zürich: TVZ, 2009, 207-220. WITHERINGTON, B., Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life. SNTSMS, 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. WITTENBERGER, W., Ort und Struktur der Ethik des Johannes-Evangeliums und des ersten Johannesbriefes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertaion (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 1971). WOLTER, M., “Christliches Ethos nach der Offenbarung des Johannes.” In Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung Festschrift für Otto Böcher zum 70. Geburtstag. ed. F. W. Horn and M. Wolter. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005, 189-209. —. “Die ethische ldentität christlicher Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit.” In Woran orientiert sich Ethik? ed. W. Härle and R. Preul. Marburg: Elwert, 2001, 61-90. —. “Ethos und Identität in paulinischen Gemeinden,” NTS 43 (1997): 430444. —. “‘Let No One Seek His Own, But Each One the Others’ (1 Corinthians 10,24): Pauline Ethics according to 1 Corinthians.” In Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. ed. J. G. van der Watt. BZNW, 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006, 199-217. WOLTERS, A., “Apocalyptic and the Copper Scroll,” JNES 49/2 (1990): 145154.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

WOOD, L.J., The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976. WREDE, W., Charakter und Tendenz des Johannes-Evangeliums. SVG, 37. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1903. WRIGHT, C. J. H., Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006. WUELLNER, W., “Putting Life Back into the Lazarus Story and Its Reading: The Narrative Rhetoric of John 11 as the Narration of Faith,” Semeia 53 (1991): 113-132. WYCKOFF, E. J., “Jesus in Samaria (John 4: 4-42): A Model for Cross-Cultural Ministry,” BTB 35 (2005): 89-98. ZAGER, W., “Neutestamentliche Ethik im Spiegel der Forschung,” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 11 (2003): 3-13. ZANGENBERG, J., Σαμαρεία: Antike Quellen zur Geschichte und Kultur der Samaritaner in deutscher Übersetzung. TANZ, 15. Tübingen and Basel: Francke, 1994. ZANGENBERG, J., Art. “Samaritaner II,” DNP 11 (2001): 2-4. —. Frühes Christentum in Samarien. Topographische und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Samarientexten im Johannesevangelium. TANZ, 27. Tübingen and Basel: Francke, 1998. —. “Open Your Eyes and Look at the Fields: Contact between Christians and Samaria according to the Gospel of John.” In Samaritan Researches. ed. V. Morabito and A. D. Crown. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000, 384-394. ZEVIT, Z., “The Gerizim Samaritan Community in and Between Text and Times: An Experimental Study.” In Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. BibInt Series, 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 547-572. ZIMMERMANN, C., Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ZIMMERMANN, R., “Brautwerbung in Samarien: Von der moralischen zur metaphorischen Interpretation von Joh 4,” ZNT 1 (1988): 40-51. —. “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21-33 as a Test Case.” In Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in volume 2 of Early Christian Writings Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. Ed. R. Zimmermann, J. G. van der Watt and S. Luther. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 19-50. —. “Der Freund des Bräutigams (Joh 3, 29): Deflorations- oder Christuszeuge?,” ZNW 90 (1999): 123-130. —. “From a Jewish Man to the Savior of the World: Narrative and Symbols Forming a Step by Step Christology in John 4, 1-42.” In Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle. ed. J. Verheyden et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 99-118. —. “Is there Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus.” In Rethinking the Ethics of John: Implicit Ethics in the Johannine Writings. ed. J. G. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 44-80. —. “Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer Impliziten Ethik des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes,” TLZ 132 (2007): 259-284.

398

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “‘The Jews’: Unreliable Figures or Unreliable Narration.” In Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. ed. S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie and R. Zimmermann. WUNT, 314. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2013, 70-109. —. “Theologisierung der Ethik: Relikt oder Richtmaß? Die implizite Ethik der alttestamentlichen Weisheit und ihre Impulse für die gegenwärtige Situation,” BThZ 19 (2002): 99-124. ZIMMERMANN, R., and VAN DER WATT, J. G. (eds.), Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics; Early Christian Writings. Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. Vol. II. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ZSENGELLÉR, J., “Canon and the Samaritans.” In Canonization and Decanonization. ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn. SHR, 82. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 161-172. —. Gerizim as Israel: Northern Traditions of the Old Testament and the Early History of the Samaritans. UTR, 38. Utrecht: Utrecht University Press, 1998. —. Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. SS, 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

INDICES BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1:2 2:3 3:8 8:1 8:22 16:7-14 18:2 19:1 22:25 24:16-29 24:48-52 26:35 29:1-12 32:10 33:18-19 41:38 45:27 48:22 49:8-19

Exodus 4:22 4:31 6:9 11:8 12:27 17:1-7 18:7 20 20:11 23:16-24 24:1 28:3 31:3 32:8 33:10 34:8, 14 35:31

231 46 230 230 288 165 190 190 190 33, 165 190 230 167 239 106, 161 231 230 161 205, 214, 215, 216, 246, 249, 251

223 190 230 190 190 161, 162, 167 190 169, 190, 192 46, 162 190, 290 190 230 230 190 190 190 235

Leviticus 14:5-6 14:50-52 24:5 26:1

160 160 298 190

Numbers 19:17 20:2-18 23:1 23:18 24:2 24:17 25:2

160 161, 162, 167 190 156 231 215, 246 190

Deuteronomy 4:19 5:9 6:4-5 8:19 11:16 11:27-30 12:5-14 13:13-17 14:23 16:2 17:3-8 18:6-22 20:6 26:2-10 27:2-8 28:30 32:1-15 34:10-12

190 190 25 190 190 190 193, 195 111 193 193, 195 190, 93 161, 167, 169, 180, 184, 193, 249, 251, 252, 253 302 190, 193, 195 192, 194, 196, 200 302 108, 109, 223, 340 161, 251

Joshua 8:30-33 24:32

196 106

400 Judges 3:9-15 6:34 15:19 Ruth 2:3 1 Samuel 10:10 10:19 19:20-23 24:7-11 2 Samuel 7:12-16 7:28 19:3 19:22 22:51 23:1-5 1 Kings 16:23-29 2 Kings 17:24-52

INDICES

340 231 230

288

231 231 249

223, 249 238 213 249 249 249

121

17-18

119, 122, 125, 134, 135, 175 121, 122, 136, 199

1 Chronicle 5:25 22:2 24:20 28:4

122 122 231 215

2 Chronicle 2:16 6:33 6:42 13:9 15:1 15:15-23 22:2 30:25 32:13, 19

122 122 249 122 231 131 122 122 122

1 Maccabees 4:30

213

2 Maccabees 5:22-23 6:1-2

121, 123 121, 123

Ezra 1:5 2:11 3:3 4:1, 4 9:1-11 10:2, 8-16

122 122 122 122, 128 122 122

Nehemiah 2:20 9:2 9:20 9:24-30 10:29-32 11:4-35 13

128 122 231, 232 122, 340 122 122 122

Tobit 4:6 13;6

239 239

Job 1:9 4:8 4:15 30:15 31:8 32:8-18 33:4 34:19

230 288 230 213 302 235 235 235

Psalms 1 2 3 14 19 20 24 26 27 28 41 51

230 244, 213, 215 213 249 213, 213 223 249 213 231,

249 215

340

232

401

INDICES

64 68 77 78 80 81 84 103 126 132 135 143 146 147

213 62, 213 109 108, 109, 112, 213, 215 33, 109 109 249 223 288, 289 238, 244 230 231, 232 238 207

Proverbs 13:14 14:27 16:22 17:22 18:4 22:8

156, 165 156, 165 165 230 156, 165 288, 290

Wisdom 9:17 16:7

231, 232 340

Sirach 21:13 24:21 50:25-26

165 156, 166 110, 121, 205

Isaiah 2;1-5 5:1-7 7:2 9:6 11:1-2 12:2-3 13;11 17:5 18:4 25:13 27:12 30:1 33:6 35:7 37:5

215, 246 33 230 249 231, 249 155, 340 289 289 293 289 288, 289, 293, 296 235 213 155 232

42:1 43:1 44:3 45:1-11 49:10 55:1 62:11 63:8

231, 232 223 231, 232 223, 249 166 155 213 223

Jeremiah 2:13 2:21 2:27 3:23 6:9 10:10 12:13 13:24 17:13 31:9 50:19-20 51:2, 33 51:53

155, 156 33 223 213 289 238 290 289 155, 156 223 62 289 293

Ezekiel 1:20-21 10:17 11:19 11:24 15:2 36:26-27 37:5-14 37:15-28 47:1 47:12

231 231 231, 232 231 33 231, 232 231, 232 109, 124 155 198

Daniel 5:14

231

Hosea 1:6-8 2:3, 6, 21, 25 6:11 8:7 10:12 11:1-5

223 223 289, 293 288 288 223

Joel 2:19-24

289

402

INDICES

3:1-2 3:13 3:18 4:1

231 289, 293, 296 289 288

Amos 5:6, 15 6:6 8:2 9:13

109 109 289 288, 289, 298

Obadiah 1:17

213

Micah 4:1-2 7:14-15

215 62

Habakkuk 3:3

249

Malachi 3:1-23

62

Zechariah 10:6-10 14:8 14:16-19

109 155 198

Gospel of Matthew 3:12-16 233, 293 4:29 292 4:15-25 33, 60, 314 5:27-43 219 5:43-48 20 6:26 290, 292, 9:9 314 9:27 305 9:37-39 292, 293, 295, 10:5-8 134, 135, 153, 305 11:3 247 11:14 247 12:28 233 13:1-39 290, 292, 293 14:5 181 17:10-12 99, 247 18:15 265, 266 18:33 99 19:1 60

20:22-29 21:11 21:46 22:14-16 23:23 23:35 24:42 25:14 25:24-26 26;10 26:25 26:35 27:49

204, 271 181, 183 181 238, 239 99 265, 266 271 271 292, 294, 302 306 160 99 247

Gospel of Mark 1:2-3 33 3:8 33, 60 3:13-19 305 4:3-18 271, 290 4:2-29 292, 293, 294 5:33 238 6:6-13 295, 305 7:26 265 9:11 99 9:12-13 247 10:1 33, 60 10:38 271 11:32 181 12:1-32 20, 175, 238, 239 13:7 99 13:27 293 13:33-35 271 14:6 306 14:31 99 15:35-41 247, 259 Gospel of Luke 1:47 212 1:76 181, 183 2:11 212 2:49 99 4:25 238 4:43 99 6:10 20 7:1-16 134, 180, 295 7:39 180 8:2-5 259, 290 8:8-15 290 9:1-6 305

INDICES

9:51-56 10:1-12 10:25-37 11:7 11:42 11:51 12:12 12:24 12:56 13:14 15:11-32 16:11 16:26 17:11-20 18:5 19:1 19:21-22 20:21 22:27 22:59 24:26

104, 134, 135, 137, 138 292, 293, 295, 305 20, 134, 136 306 99 265 99 290, 292 271 99 51, 99 238 265 104, 134, 136, 247 306 99 292, 293, 294 238, 239, 99 238 99

Gospel of John 1:1-14 31, 40, 174, 179, 228, 238, 281 28, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 1:15-51 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 94, 95, 118, 153, 174, 175, 179, 180, 182, 184 220, 226, 234, 235, 238, 240, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 261, 271, 318, 319, 323, 328, 330, 334, 335 1:19-4:54 67, 68, 70, 76, 82 1:40-51 36, 59, 64, 65, 201 2-4 22, 30, 64, 68, 69, 73, 77, 78, 79, 83, 86 2:1-25 36, 64, 71, 2, 73, 77-79, 94, 96, 103, 118, 168, 174, 179, 272, 274, 330, 334, 335 3:22-4:54 248, 328 3:1-21 26, 49, 95, 99, 101, 102, 103, 153, 165, 168, 174, 201, 234, 235, 238, 239, 261, 274, 329, 333, 335, 336 3:22-36 29, 60, 61, 62, 63, 80, 81, 82. 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101,

4:1-42

4:1-26

4:27-30

4:31-38

4:39-42

4:43-54 5:1-57

403 103, 165, 179, 183, 234, 235, 238, 239, 247, 259, 261 2,3,5, 6, 13, 15, 50, 51, 54-57, 69, 72, 73, 77, 80, 85-89, 93, 113, 137, 148, 163, 225, 347, 348, 353 36, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156-192, 195-230, 233-243, 245254, 262, 266, 267, 270, 271, 273, 274, 285, 300, 307-309, 315-322, 324326, 333, 335, 336-339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353 101, 115, 146, 174, 176, 256-264, 266-270, 272, 273, 275, 307-309, 311330, 334-339, 344, 345, 347, 351, 352, 353 34, 45, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97, 100, 101, 102, 104, 116, 134, 143, 146, 153, 160, 165, 169, 225, 242, 254, 256, 257, 258, 262-286, 290-309, 322, 332, 333, 337-339, 344, 345, 347, 351, 352, 353 104, 120, 134, 141, 146, 174, 180, 202, 212, 213, 214, 251, 254, 257, 263, 267, 281, 284, 301, 302, 307-309, 311-314, 322335, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348, 351, 352, 353, 354 31, 168, 211, 220, 225 17, 49, 59, 64, 77, 78, 80, 82, 88, 101, 118, 165, 174, 202, 211, 220, 221, 225, 228, 238, 239, 240, 259,

404

6:1-7:9 6:1-22

6:24-27 6:28-46

6:47-70

7:10-10:39 7:1-13 7:14-36

7:37-41 7:42-52 8:13-58

9:1-41

10:10 10:17-19 10:22-42

11:1-55

12:1-13 12:23-50

INDICES

265, 276, 279, 280-283, 302, 318, 328, 331, 336 77, 101, 169 31, 59, 64, 143, 174, 179, 180, 181, 183, 24, 267, 275, 318, 31, 165, 169, 174, 228, 276, 331 29, 32, 36, 101, 163, 197, 225, 238, 261, 268, 274, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 296, 302 59, 101, 165, 174, 179, 197, 234, 267, 268, 274, 282, 296, 302 77, 78 59, 64, 65, 211, 228, 330 153, 174, 207, 225, 226, 238, 247, 259, 270, 271, 274, 279, 283, 296, 101, 153, 166, 180,181, 234, 245, 247, 278 59, 174, 180, 247, 318 34, 101, 112, 120, 134, 137,138, 163, 165, 169, 174, 180, 197, 207, 208, 210, 219, 225, 238, 240, 270, 271, 274, 276, 279, 296, 318, 319, 328, 331 30, 31, 34, 38, 99, 143, 163, 165, 174, 180, 190, 209, 225, 247, 261, 271, 279, 296, 301 40 49 29, 36, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 75, 76, 77, 78, 95, 163, 165, 169, 174, 208, 210, 238, 283, 296, 318, 318, 330 30, 36, 49, 59, 61, 64, 75, 143, 165, 169, 174, 179, 211, 220, 228, 247, 261, 267, 271, 296, 297, 318, 330, 333, 336 59, 64, 75 36, 165, 169, 174, 179, 180, 191, 225, 277, 279, 291, 300, 336, 341

13:8-14 13:20-35

14:1-14 14:16-26

15:1-26

16:1-32

17:1-23

18:1-29 18:31-38 19:1-59

20:22 21:1-24

38, 165, 169 1, 17, 19, 25, 30, 34, 174, 179, 207, 210, 225, 228, 270, 301 29, 30, 33, 238, 240, 270, 282, 331 34, 169, 179, 225, 234, 235, 238, 239, 240, 242, 277, 279, 331 1, 20, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 166, 225, 234, 235, 238, 239, 242, 270, 279, 301, 331 33, 174, 175, 179, 202, 210, 221, 235, 238, 239, 240, 242, 301 29, 33, 34, 43, 165, 174, 238, 248, 282, 283, 297, 304, 331 59, 64, 143, 174, 285, 318 36, 118, 238, 239, 319, 328 36, 59, 168, 143, 174, 220, 234, 235, 238, 239, 240, 282, 283, 285, 318, 330 234, 235 34, 43, 59, 64, 160, 168, 240, 267, 275, 330

Acts of the Apostles 1:8 22, 134, 137 2:17 234 5:32 234 2:38 153 4:27 238 7:26 179 8:1-25 134, 136, 153 9:31 134 10:34 238 10:45 153 11:17 153 12:6 265 13:22-23 212, 279 13:42 265, 266 15:3-9 134, 234, 265 15:22 304 17:23 207 20:25 179 26:25 238

405

INDICES

Romans 1:9-13 2:15 5:5 3:24 5:9-17 5:21 6:20-23 9:4 10:8 11:26 16:12

230, 293, 300 265 234 153 1, 153 170 293 207 160 215 305

1 Corinthians 2:10 2:12 2:16 3:16 9:1-15 11:22 12:3 15:2-44

234 234 333 234 290, 291, 292, 300 160 234 290, 291, 305

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 8:23 9:6-15 10:15 11:7-11 11:27 13:11

51 304 153, 290, 291, 292, 293 299, 305 153, 213 299 213

Galatians 2:5-14 2:21 3:28 4:6 5:7-9 6:7-10

238, 290 153 104 234 293 28, 290, 291, 292, 293

Ephesians 2:3 3:7 4:7

279 153 153

Philippians 1:8 1:22

230 300

3:3 2:11

234 230

Colossians 1:5 1 Thessalonians 4:1 99 2 Thessalonians 3:8 153 1 Timothy 1:1 1:16

212 170

Titus 1:7

99

Hebrews 6:4

153

James 5:4

292

1 John 2:7 3:2 3:16 4:2 4:7 4:8-16

25 179 25 234 19 234, 340

2 John 1:1, 5

25

Revelation 4:10, 11 7:10-17 7:38 11:11 12:10 14:14-20 17:6 19:1 21:6 22:1-17

156 156, 213 156 234 213 292, 293 166 213 153, 156 153, 156

406

INDICES

OTHER REFERENCES 1 Enoch 48.10; 52.4 244 4 Ezra 7.29; 12.32 129, 244 2 Baruch 29.3, 30.1, 39.7, 40.1, 70.9, 72.2 244 4 Baruch 8.11 132, 133 Demetrius 6.1-2 132, 133 Didache 11.5 332 Eupolemus 9 33.1, 29.5 132, 133 Letter of Aristaeus 107.4 132, 133 Lives of the Prophets 10.4, 19.1, 22.4, 22.18 132, 133 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 2.12, 2.14, 3.1-3 132, 133 Pseudo Hecataeus 2 4.43 132 Psalms of Solomon 17.32, 18 244 Testament of Reuben 260 Philo On Flight and Finding (De Fuga) 198 156 On the Life of Moses 1.255 165 Hypothetica 11.14-17 260 Against Flaccus 89 260 De specialibus legibus (Spec.) 3.113 260 De specialibus legibus (Spec.) 2.198 340 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 2.257 7.11-18 8.116-117 9.14 3 9.207-291 9.288 9.291 10.184 11.3-5 11.19-20, 88, 302 11.86-87 11.102-103 11.297-347 11.341 12.10 12.257 13.50

115 260 128 112 122 120, 126, 129 108, 126 129 260 129 128 192 122 108 129 129 112

13.154-256 13.254-256 13.256 18.4.1 18.29-30 18.85-89 20.6.1 20.118-136 Life 52.269 Jewish War 1.5 1.62-63 2.43, 95-96, 247 2.232-246 4.275 7.9 Dead Sea Scrolls and 1QH 2.18 1QH 4,11 1QH 8,12 1QH 8,20 1QHa 16 1QS 9.11 1QS 10.12 1QS 11,3 1QS 11.3-9 1QSa 2.11, 12-14 1QSa 2.14, 20 1QSb 1.6 3Q15 3Q15 4Q 158 4Q252 5.3 4Q266 10.1.12 4Q372 4Q372 1 4Q382 16.2 4Q390 4Q521 2.2.1 4Q550c 4QJosha 4QPEstherd 4QRPa 11QMelch 2.18 CD 12.23-13.1, 19.10

125 192 129 252 192, 252 138, 192, 252 108 125

103 260 125 112 125 128 260 Related Texts 155 155 155 155 155 244 155 155 155 244 244 155 94 109, 110 169 244 244 94 107, 108, 109, 110 244 109 244 94, 110 194 110 169 244 244

INDICES

407

MODERN AUTHORS Aalen, S. 238, 239 Abbott, E. A. 143, 154, 158, 159, 161, 175, 179, 197, 201, 219, 297, 301, 302, 317 Allo, E. B. 66, 67 Anderson, P. N. 46, 223, 263 Anderson, R. T. 111, 120, 194, 203 Ashton, J. 81 Attridge, H. W. 124, 126 Aune, D. E. 33 Bakker, A. 214, 215, 216 Bar-Efrat, S. 58 Barrett, C. K. 95, 102, 144, 145, 162, 200, 210, 238, 239, 277, 280, 281, 299, 301, 304, 325, 332 Bauer, W. 314 Bauckham, R. 222, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 87, 104, 142, 153, 156, 157, 159, 164, 166, 167, 174, 184, 209, 221, 260, 297, 305, 316, 331 Beck, D. R. 58 Becker, J. 19, 11, 142, 208, 316, 337 Bennema, C. 40, 235 Berrin, S. L. 108 Bernard, J. H. 66, 67, 68, 69, 87, 103, 116, 142, 153, 155, 156, 165, 170, 179, 180, 183, 200, 207, 208, 214, 221, 241, 250, 252, 260, 281, 297, 314, 323 Betz, O. 214, 215, 234 Beutler, J. 199 Blank, J. 239, 314, 339 Blass, F. 278, 320 Bligh, J. 15 Blum, E. A. 230 Boers, H. 87, 157, 162, 174, 322 Böhm, M. 123, 135, 136 Botha, E. J. 154, 155, 158, 181, 260, 269, 271, 273, 276, 277, 296, 298, 301, 325 Brant, J. A. 97, 103, 105, 113, 115, 150, 158, 163, 164, 174, 198, 217, 228, 241, 258, 262, 315, 323, 329, 332, 343 Braun, F. M. 170 Breck, J. 231 Brodie, T. L. 71, 87

Brown, R. E. 31, 63, 65, 66, 71, 83, 87, 102, 103, 104, 117, 135, 145, 150, 153, 156, 162, 170, 174, 195, 198, 202, 209, 235, 241, 246, 262, 263, 280, 282, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 314, 315, 322, 325, 326, 336 Bruce, F. F. 183, 235 Büchsel, D. F. 238 Buell, D. K. 4 Bühner, J. 225, 281 Bultmann, R. 17,87, 95, 97, 102, 104, 106, 107, 113, 141, 145, 153, 166, 172, 175, 179, 191, 198, 199, 200, 208, 235, 237, 241, 258, 259, 265, 274, 297, 302, 305, 312, 314, 322, 325, 326, 343 Burge, G. M. 58, 165 Burridge, R.A. 16 Byrne, B. 105, 204, 221, 258,262, 311, 315, 318, 323, 325, 335 Caragounis, C. C. 33, 331, 332 Carmichael, C. M. 178 Carrol, R.P. 108 Carson, D. A. 26, 103, 104, 113, 116, 162, 164, 173, 174, 177, 183, 200, 201, 207, 242, 251 Charles, R.H. 106 Charlesworth, J. H. 248 Chennattu, R. M. 331 Cho, S. 181, 246, 247, 248, 249 Coggins, R. J. 123, 126, 139 Cohen, S. J. D. 4, 112, 126, 127 Collins, J. J. 220, 228 Colwell, E. C. 182 Conder, C. R. 61 Cromhout, M. 135 Cullmann, O. 2, 83, 180 Culpepper, R. A. 23, 68, 241, 274, 343 Dalman, G. H. 103, 244 Danna, E. 321, 322 Daube, D. 84, 144, 314 Davies, G. 131 Debel, H. 195 de Jonge, M. 20, 244, 245, 247, 249 Dexinger, F. 128 Dietzfelbinger, C. 134

408

INDICES

Dodd, C. H. 101, 237, 238, 266, 274, 281, 282, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295 Earl, D. S. 62 Egger, R. 127, 137 Ellis, P. F. 269 Ensor, P. W. 281, 297 Eshel, E. & Eshel, H. 193 Fascher, E. 98, 99 Feldman, L. H. 126, 127 Ferreira, J. 304 Feuillet, A. 68, 76 Fitzmyer, J. 155, 156 Förster, H. 107, 113, 124, 137, 145, 242, 340 Frey, J. 2, 16, 20, 21, 23, 33, 41, 52, 242 Gallagher, E. L. 120, 193 García Martínez, F. & Tigchelaar, J.C.E. 109, 155, 156 Gench, F. T.. 198 Gibblin, C. H. 76, 175 Glicksman, A. T. 37 Grundmann, W. 99

Jojko, B. 190, 191, 201, 209, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228, 232, 234, 235, 239, 240, 341 Jones, L. P. 200 Kalimi, I. 195 Kartveit, M. 108, 120, 131 Käsemann, E. 18, 20, 113 Kee, H. C. 203 Keener, C. S. 77, 162, 241, 250, 251, 259, 262, 269, 314, 323 Kippenberg, H. G. 112 Kirchschläger, P. G. 237 Knibb, M. A. 133 Knoppers, G. N. 83, 106, 117, 120, 122, 194 Knowles, M. D. 108 Koester, C. R. 77, 190, 239, 340 Kok, K. 2, 16, 39, 41 Köstenberger, A. J. 152, 161, 164, 165, 176, 184 Krodel, G. 231

Irudaya, R. 2

Labahn, M. 2, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 38, 40, 46, 49, 52, 53, 55 Lagrange, M.-J. 229, 266, 299 Lattke, M. 30 Lee, D. A. 242, 243, 331 Lefkovits, J. K. 110 Leidig, E. 84, 85, 144, 145, 211, 214, 217, 338, 339, 341 Lessing, G. E. 21, 23 Liermann, J. 342 Lightfoot, R. H. 238 Lincoln, A. T. 250 Lim, S. U. 5, 113, 119, 120, 126, 127, 129, 130 Lindars, B. 87, 199, 201, 202, 214, 228, 235, 239, 251, 258, 265, 280, 283, 314, 316, 321, 323 Link, A. 117, 314 Linville, J. R. 132 Loader, W. R. G. 36, 37 Lohse, E. 31 Löhr, H. 32, 40 Lozada, Jr. F. 58 Lund, G. 21, 26, 35, 44

Jeremias, J. 293

Magen, Y.

Haacker, K. 215 Hall, D. R. 126, 144 Hamitovsky, I. 134 Haenchen, E. 83, 87, 104, 116, 145, 156, 165, 166, 170, 175, 176, 177, 221, 257, 267, 273, 275, 302, 314, 316, 322, 326, 340 Harris, M. J. 222 Haudebert, P. 136 Hayes, K. M. 145 Hays, R. B. 16, 52 Hendriksen, W. 176 Hjelm, I. 83, 124, 126, 128, 129, 139, 190, 204 Hirsch, E. 175 Hoskyns, E. C. 141, 175 Houlden, J. L. 18, 21, 39 Hutton, J. M. 62, 83

110, 111, 121, 241

INDICES

Malatesta, E. 330 Malina, B. J. 118 Malina, B. J. & Rohrbaugh, L. 112 Mardaga, H. 143 Margain, J. 193 Martyn, J. L. 20 Matassa, L. D. 131 Matthews, V. H. 152 McCool, F. J. 156 McHugh, J. F. 142, 154, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 180, 181, 183, 196, 199, 221, 235, 259, 260, 261, 265, 305, 315, 318, 323, 325 McPolin, J. 2, 225, McNamara, M. 167 Meeks, W. A. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 76, 135 Meier, J. P. 120, 137, 138, 225, 237 Menken, M. J. J. 247 Metzger, B. M. 140 Michaels, J. R. 152, 165, 174, 201, 259, 261, 262, 278, 314, 323, 325, 328, 329, 335, 336 Mlakuzhiyil, G. 59, 68, 83 Moloney, F. J. 20, 42, 49, 63, 65, 68, 76, 83, 164, 262, 301, 322 Montgomery, J. A. 83, 126 Morris, L. 165, 235, 260, 265, 270, 277, 281, 297, 299, 321 Moser, M. 95 Motyer, S. 210, 211 Moulton, J.H. 230, 280, 321 Murray, J. O. F. 240 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 165 Neve, L. 232 Neyrey, J. H. 59, 76, 157 Nissen, J. 16, 45 Novakovic, L. 131, 136 Oakman, E. D. 118 O’Day, G. R. 150, 158, 174, 200, 210, 225, 321, 326, 335, 343 Okure, T. 2, 87, 104, 150, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 161, 167, 170, 171, 173, 272, 274, 297, 301, 305, 306, 314 Olsson, B. 103, 130, 141, 145, 163, 164, 271, 285, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 306

409

Østenstad, G. 66 Otto, W. 340 Pamplaniyil, J. T. 305 Porsch, F. 239 Potter, R. D. 305 Potterie, de la I. 237, 239 Pregeant, R. 16 Preisker, H. 52 Price, S. R. F. 222 Puech, E. 110 Pummer, R. 108, 110, 111, 119, 120, 121, 122, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 145, 193, 194, 195, 204 Purvis, J. D. 111, 117, 204 Rabens, V. 30 Reinhartz, A. 118, 119 Rendtorff, T. 50, 52, 53 Rese, M. 20 Ridderbos, H. N. 96, 97, 102, 104, 113, 138, 145, 151, 164, 183, 184, 199, 211, 270, 272, 283, 322 Riesner, R. 60, 61 Rissi, M. 67, 74, 75, 76 Robertson, J. A. T. 59, 182, 208, 219, 229, 241, 273, 278, 317, 318, 320, 322 Ruckstuhl, E. 86, 261 Runesson, A. 130 Sanders, J. N. 16, 21 Sandiyagu, V. R. 306 Schapdick, S. 170, 251, 257, 258, 259, 262, 312, 315, 318, 322, 325, 326, 328, 329, 332, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341 Schenke, H. M. 107 Schenker, A. 94 Schmeller, T. 52, 55 Schnackenburg, R. 24, 27, 28, 31, 39, 42, 45, 86, 87, 95, 96, 97, 102, 104, 114, 150, 153, 161, 166, 170, 174, 175, 176, 181, 183, 200, 201, 207, 221, 228, 239, 260, 261, 266, 270, 283, 272, 275, 276, 285, 295, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 314, 322, 323, 328, 332, 333, 334, 337, 339, 340, 342 Schneiders, S. M. 178, 267, 336 Schnelle, U. 25, 36, 38, 102, 116

410

INDICES

Scholtissek, K. 38 Schottroff, L. 114 Schrage, W. 16, 30, 31 Schulz, S. 25, 135, 238 Schuller, E. M. 107, 108, 109, 110 Schürer, E. 112, 192 Shutt, R. J. H. 133 Schweizer, E. 238, 260, 291, 295 Segovia, F. F. 59, 70, 71, 76 Seo, P. S. 340 Sheridan, R. 119 Smit, P. B. 58 Smith Jr., D. M. 165, 184, 228 Spieckermann, H. 232 Spilsbury, P. 128 Spitta, F. 141 Staley, J. L. 76 Stare, M. 32, 40 Stenhouse, P. 121 Stibbe, M. W. G. 85, 200, 225, 228 Strauss, D. F. 176 Talbert, C. H. 87 Tasker, R. V. G. 117 Teeple, S. 76, 83, 240 Tenney, M. C. 67, 68, 69, 229 Theißen, G. 25 Theobald, M. 15, 17, 19, 77, 103, 115, 117, 153, 183, 202, 215, 216, 343 Thettayil, B. 180, 182, 184, 197, 198, 201, 204, 211, 219, 226, 230 Thiessen, M. 107, 108, 109 Thompson, H. 29, 223

Thüsing, W. 300 Thyen, H. 57, 75, 200 Ulrich, E. 193, 194 Um, S. T. 231, 232 Van Belle, G. 57, 85, 86, 87, 96, 142, 143, 144, 146, 209, 210, 215, 220, 236, 241, 246, 247, 248, 278, 284, 338 van den Heever, G. 342 van der Watt, J. G. 16, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53 von Wahlde, U. C. 34, 44, 107, 142 Wallace, D. B. 181, 182, 229, 230 Wardle, T. 129 Wendland, H. D. 18 Wengst, K. 95 Westcott, B. F. 175, 197, 219, 239 Weyer-Menkhoff, K. 29, 30, 40, 46 White, L. M. 130 Wikenhauser, A. 314 Willett, M. E. 37 Windisch, H. 87 Wolter, M. 52, 53, 110 Wright, C. J. H. 231 Wyckoff, E. J. 115, 121 Zahn, T. 175, 184, 215, 314 Zangenberg, J. 104, 115, 135 Zimmermann, R.16, 27, 34, 48, 49, 223 Zsengellér, J. 206

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, early Jewish and early Christian Traditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCB-700 CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8, 14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, Sacred History and Sacred Texts in early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, Essays on the Diatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, The Triumph of Elohim, From Yahwisms to Judaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, The Designation of the Individual. Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians 3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint. An Exegetical and Theological Study, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in First Corinthians 8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, Listening to Trypho. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, The Language of Belonging. A Rhetorical Analysis of Kinship Language in First Corinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents of Shem. Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bible and midrash. The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research. The Search for Valid Criteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-andAnswer Literature in Context, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, Freedom in the Gospel. Paul’s Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the Discourses of Epictetus and Philo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, Ein Held des Glaubens? Rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu den Simson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, Dreams and Scripture in Luke-Acts. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (SIR. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus. Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth. An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint. Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis 38) von der Antike bis zur Reformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), Voces Biblicae. Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Feasts and Festivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, Translated Hallelujehs. A Linguistic and Exegetical Commentary on Select Septuagint Psalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), Qumran and the Bible. Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus, the Eschatological Temple. An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13-22 in the Light of the Pre 70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Entire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), Imagery in the Booky of Revelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), The Qumran Legal Texts between the Hebrew Bible and Its Interpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persion Period, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, Prophetic Ministry in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), Greek Scripture and the Rabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), What is Bible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis 22 and Isaiah 53 in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes. Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinking the Death of Jesus. An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hilasmos and Agape in 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, Three Versions of Esther. Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, See Me! Hear Me! Divine/Human Relational Dialogue in Genesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, From Prophet to Priest. The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles. Collected Essays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me. The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the Nehemiah Memoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, A Divine Round Trip. The Literary and Christological Function of the Descent/Ascent Leitmotif in the Gospel of John, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, Between Israelite Religion and Old Testament Theology. Essays on Archaeology, History, and Hermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, Studia Hierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in Light of Text and Reception History, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “Oh God of Battles! Steal My Soldiers’ Hearts!” A Study of the Hebrew and Greek Text Forms of Jeremiah 10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews. Writing at the Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, The Rationale for Aniconism in the Old Testament. A Study of Select Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “With All Your Soul Fear the Lord” (Sir. 7:27). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira II, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods, Leuven, 2018 90. D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in he Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, Leuven, 2018 91. V.P. Chiraparamban, The Manifestation of God’s Merciful Justice. A Theocentric Reading of Romans 3-21-26, Leuven, 2018

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706