^{page 390 note 1} See, e.g. Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen, 1963), p. 22;Google ScholarO'Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting, 2nd ed. (London, 1970), pp. 63 f.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 2} The first account of Paul's conversion is inserted in ix. 1–25. Acts viii. 5 speaks only of ‘a city of Samaria’, which would probably include a large pagan population. That the mission was to Samaritans as distinct from Samarians is made clear in viii. 25 which speaks of the Gospel being preached ‘to many villages of the Samaritans’; cf. Luke ix. 52, 56, perhaps seen by the author as an anticipation of the Acts viii mission. That the mission was to Samaritans is also indicated by the fact that missions to Gentiles, which brought problems relating to food laws and circumcision, did not begin until a later date, at Antioch (Acts xi. 20; Acts x and xi are, of course, intended to show that the Gentile mission was anticipated by Peter, but his actions scarcely constitute a ‘mission’ to Gentiles).

^{page 391 note 1} ‘The Samaritan Element in the Gospels and Acts’, The Expositor, first series, VII, 22–40.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} The problem is noted by various writers; cf. Loisy, A., Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 1920), p. 294;Google ScholarBauernfeind, O., Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 114, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} Traktat vom Samaritanermessias. Studien zur Frage der Existenz Jesu (Bonn, 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 4} ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LXXXVIII (1915), 399–439.Google Scholar Kahle's observations are repeated in The Cairo Genizah, The Schweich Lectures for 1941 (London, 1947), pp. 143–7.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 5} Kahle, op. cit. pp. 400, 401.

^{page 391 note 6} The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965), pp. 27–33.Google Scholar It may be noted that Wilcox also finds two places in Acts vii (vv. 3, 10b) where the reading appears to agree with that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (op. cit. pp. 26–8, 159).

^{page 391 note 7} ‘Stephen's Samaritan Background’, appendix v, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible, J. Munck, ed. W. F. Albright, C. S. Mann (New York, 1967), pp. 285–300.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} Spiro gives no reference here, and throughout his study there is an almost complete lack of footnotes. The material may have suffered from being condensed. The reference is in fact to Vilmar, E., Abulfathi Annales Samaritani (Gotha, 1865), p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 2} Spiro, op. cit. pp. 285–9.

^{page 392 note 3} Bowman, J., Samaritanische Probleme: Studien zum Verhältnis von Samaritanertum, Judentum und Urchristentum (Stuttgart, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 4} ‘The Earliest Hellenistic Christianity’, Religions in Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden, 1968), pp. 176–206.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 5} Analecta Biblica, XXXIV (Rome, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 6} Scharlemann, op. cit. pp. 22–51.

^{page 393 note 1} No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, supplements to Novum Testamentum, XXIII (Leiden, 1970).Google Scholar See the section, ‘Stephen and the Temple’, pp. 154–61.

^{page 393 note 2} Hammer, H., Traktat vom Samaritaner Messias, p. 35;Google Scholar P. Kahle, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes’, p. 400 and The Cairo Genizah, pp. 143, 144. This reading is also found in the Samaritan Targum (Wilcox, , Semitisms, pp. 28, 29).Google Scholar As Kahle notes, the tradition was also known to Philo (De Migratione Abraami, XXIII, 176).

^{page 393 note 3} H. Hammer, op. cit. p. 35; P. Kahle, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes’, p. 400 and The Cairo Genizah, p. 144. Kahle points out that the reading is found in some minuscule manuscripts of the LXX, underlies the Bohairic and Ethiopic versions, and is also found in Justin, Martyr (I Apol. LXIII, 7)Google Scholar. Wilcox points out that the Samaritan Targum again supports the SP (Semitisms, p. 29).

^{page 393 note 4} H. Hammer, op. cit. p. 37; P. Kahle, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes’, pp. 400, 401 and The Cairo Genizah, pp. 144, 145. Wilcox does not note Kahle's observations here but he does point out that in word order the quotation in Acts vii. 37 is slightly nearer to Deut. xviii. 18 than to Deut. xviii. 15 (Semitisms, p. 33). Cf. the discussion in Scharlemann, Stephen, pp. 44–6.

^{page 394 note 1} This observation is apparently original to Wilcox, (Semitisms, p. 27).Google Scholar See also Scharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 38, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} Samaritanische Probleme, p. 72.

^{page 394 note 3} Spiro, op. cit. p. 286; Scroggs, op. cit. p. 190; Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 40.Google ScholarJeremias, J., Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen, 1958), pp. 36, 37Google Scholar agrees that the tradition can only be of Samaritan origin. There are references to it in rabbinic sources, in Jerome and in Syncellus. Kippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge (Berlin/New York, 1971), pp. 111, 112Google Scholar points out that the Syncellus tradition, which goes back to Julius Africanus, locates the burial place of Abraham at Shechem as well as those of Jacob and his sons.

^{page 394 note 4} Spiro, op. cit. p. 286. Scroggs independently arrives at part of Spiro's argument (op. cit. p. 190). Cf. Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} On the meaning of χειροποίητος see Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London, 1958), pp. 87–9.Google Scholar Scharlemann gives examples of the favourable use of the term applied to the Tabernacle in the Targums (Stephen, p. 48 n. 134 ); but in Acts vii the term is clearly applied in a pejorative sense, and to the Jerusalem Temple only, not to the Tabernacle.

^{page 395 note 2} Cf. Spiro, op. cit. p. 288; Bowman, , Samaritanische Probleme, pp. 72, 73;Google Scholar Scroggs, op. cit. pp. 187, 188; Gaston, op. cit. pp. 155, 156.

^{page 395 note 3} See Spiro, op. cit. p. 290; Bowman, , Samaritanische Probleme, p. 72;Google ScholarScharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 47–9.Google ScholarSimon, M. in St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London, 1958), p. 44Google Scholar points out that more than half Stephen's speech is concerned with Moses; cf. also pp. 61, 62.

^{page 395 note 4} Scharlemann, who is the only one to note this reference, mentions only Jer. vii. 18 (where the phrase occurs in the LXX only). See Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 5} Macdonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (London, 1964), p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 6} Spiro, op. cit. p. 287; Bowman, , Samaritanische Probleme, p. 72;Google ScholarScharlemann, , Stephen, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 7} Spiro, op. cit. pp. 287, 288; Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 8} Spiro, op. cit. pp. 288, 289; Scharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 49, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} Spiro, op. cit. p. 289.

^{page 396 note 2} Spiro, op. cit. p. 293; Scharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 39, 41, 42.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} Scroggs, op. cit. pp. 193, 594.

^{page 396 note 4} A point noted by Benoit, P., Revue Biblique, LXXII (1965), 619;Google Scholar cf. Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 5} Spiro, op. cit. p. 287.

^{page 396 note 6} Spiro, op. cit. p. 286; Scharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 36, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 7} To assert as Spiro does (op. cit. p. 293) that Samaritans used such expressions because ‘their alien origin weighed heavily on them and gave them a sense of inferiority’ is to accept uncritically the extremely biased later Jewish view of Samaritan origins. On the change to ‘your fathers’ at vii. 51, 52 cf. Klijn, A. F.J., ‘Stephen's Speech – Acts vii. 2–53’, N.T.S. IV (1957–1958), 25–31.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 8} Cf. Mann, C. S., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible (New York, 1967), p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 9} Dibelius, while willing to concede a possible source for vii. 2–34, holds that vii. 35–50 must be ascribed to Luke; see Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1956), pp. 167–9.Google Scholar See further, Bihier, J., Die Stephanusgeschichte im Zusammenhang der Apostelgeschichte (München, 1963)Google Scholar in which it is maintained that both Stephen's speech and the related narrative passages in Acts vi. 8–15 and vii. 54 – viii. 2 are almost entirely the work of Luke himself; the vocabulary, style and themes are all Lucan and no primitive sources can be discerned.

^{page 396 note 10} For a review of theories on the sources of Acts see Dupont, J., Les Sources du Liure desActes (ET The Sources of Acts, London, 1964)Google Scholar. On Stephen's speech see also Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, pp. 39–77.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 11} This is not to deny that Luke has edited the speech. Cf. Scroggs, op. cit. p. 183. We must presume that Luke, for the sake of dramatic effect, cut short the speech and did not use the conclusion of his source.

^{page 396 note 12} Cf. Gaston, op. ct. p. 155.

^{page 397 note 1} The speech has nothing to do with the charges laid against Stephen, it breaks the original continuity between vi. 15 and vii. 55, and it disrupts an account of Stephen's trial obviously modelled on that of Jesus. Cf. Foakes-Jackson, F. J., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1931), pp. 57, 58;Google ScholarMacgregor, G. H. C., Acts, Interpreter's Bible, IX (New York, Nashville, 1954), 91;Google Scholar M. Dibelius, op. cit. p. 168; Trocmé, E., Le ‘Livre des Actes’ et ľHistoire (Paris, 1957), pp. 186, 187;Google ScholarConzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 50, 51;Google Scholar Scroggs, op. cit. pp. 182–4.

^{page 397 note 2} Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 52, 53.Google Scholar Luke has used the source freely, especially in drawing the parallels between the Passion stories of Jesus and of Stephen (cf. Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church, pp. 20–6)Google Scholar, but nevertheless distinctive features of a source can still be discerned.

^{page 397 note 3} Spiro notes that the use of ‘place’ for Temple is found not only in the body of the speech but also at vi. 13, 14 (op. cit. p. 294). It is possible that the title ‘The Righteous One’ has been derived from Samaritan sources as part of the Moses-like prophet-christology, since Moses is given this title in Samaritan writings. Cf. Scharlemann, , Stephen, pp. 47, 48.Google Scholar On the title see Longenecker, R. N., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London, 1970), pp. 46, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 4} On Acts vii. 6 see Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (ET The Acts of the Apostles, Oxford, 1971), p. 292Google Scholar n. 4;: Barrett, C. K., ‘Stephen and the Son of Man’, Apophoreta, Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen, Beihefte zur Z.N.W. xxx (Berlin, 1964), 32–8;Google ScholarTödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1965),Google Scholar excursus II, ‘Discussion of the Concept of the Heavenly Son of Man in Acts 7, 56’, pp. 303–5.

^{page 397 note 5} On Moses as intercessor in Jewish and Samaritan thought, see Meeks, W., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, supplements to Novum Testamentum, XIV(Leiden, 1967), 118, 137, 159–61, 174, 200–4, 254, 255.Google Scholar For the view that the standing Son of Man is an intercessor or advocate cf. Higgins, A. J. B., ‘The Old Testament and some aspects of New Testament Christology’, Canadian Journal of Theology VI (1960), 209;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., The Epistles of John (London, 1970), p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 6} In Samaritan thought Moses is Israel's intercessor par excellence, and Samaritan sources reflect the Old Testament view that standing (with hands upraised) is the posture for prayer. Cf. Moses', intercession for Israel before his death in Mernar Marqah v, 2Google Scholar – ‘The great prophet Moses was standing before his Lord…How excellent to see the great prophet Moses begin to make supplication before his Lord and worship and lift up his hand to the Holy Habitation, his tears falling like rain, with exceeding much weeping – not for himself, but for the congregation! He proclaimed and said aloud, “Woe to you, O congregation! I depart and am going to leave you. You will go astray after my death. Who will make supplication for you? Who will make entreaty on your behalf? Who will seek forgiveness for you?”’ (Macdonald, J., Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah, Beiheft zur Z.A.W. LXXXIV (Berlin, 1963), 195)Google Scholar. Cf. Mernar Marqah, I. 10; V. 2; VI. 3 (Macdonald, pp. 37, 198, 224). Here we seem to have a case of Samaritan conceptions of Moses being transferred to Christ. In this connection it is interesting to recall what is said of the ‘Samaritan gnostic’ Simon Magus in Clern. Horn. II. 22Google Scholar – ‘Sometimes he intimates that he is the Christ by calling himself “the Standing One” (ό έστώς). He used this title to indicate that he would always “stand”, since there was no cause of corruption which would make his body fail. He rejects Jerusalem and substitutes Mt Gerizim…’ (quoted from Grant, R. M., Gnosticism: An Anthology (London, 1961)).Google Scholar Cf. Clern. Hom. II. 24, where Simonand Dositheus are rival claimants for the title. The explanation of the meaning of ‘the Standing One’ hardly sounds convincing. In view of the strong Samaritan background, may it be that Simon and Dositheus were claiming to be the Moses-like prophet? For a similar suggestion but with a different explanation see Grant, R. M., Gnosticism and Early Christianity (London, 1959), pp. 91, 92.Google Scholar For yet another suggestion, taking έστώς as = Samaritan □уρ = living (God), see Kretschmar, G., ‘Zur religionsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Gnosis’, Euangelische Theologie XIII (1953), 354–61.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 1} Spiro, op. cit. pp. 286, 295, 297.

^{page 398 note 2} Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} Gaston, op. cit. p. 259.

^{page 398 note 4} Scharlemann, , Stephen, p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 5} These are the lines on which Scroggs argues, op. cit. pp. 283, 197 f., 200.

^{page 398 note 6} There are no good reasons for separating Philip from Stephen as Scharlemann (Stephen, p. 187) wishes to do.

^{page 398 note 7} Cf. G. H. C. Macgregor, Acts, pp. 90, 91; Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, pp. 7–9;Google ScholarConzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 266;Google ScholarHanson, R. P. C., Acts, NCB (Oxford, 1967), p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 8} Cf. Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 9} See, e.g. Weiss, J., The History of Primitive Christianity (London, 1937), I, 165–7;Google ScholarLietzmann, H., The Beginnings of the Christian Church (London, 1937), pp. 88–90.Google Scholar Cf. Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, pp. 9–19.Google Scholar For a recent exposition of this viewpoint see Hengel, M., ‘Die Ursprünge der christlichen Mission’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), especially pp. 24–30.Google Scholar In view, however, of the penetration of the Greek language into Palestine in the New Testament period the argument that the Hellenists must have been returned Diaspora Jews is not as strong as it once was. Cf. Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek?, supplements to Novum Testamentum XIX (Leiden, 1968)Google Scholar. Samaria and Galilee were, of course, more open to the use of Greek than was Judaea.

^{page 399 note 1} Spiro, op. cit. pp. 292, 294.

^{page 399 note 2} One need only allude to Phil. iii. 5! For other references see Black, M., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), pp. 78, 79.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} E. Trocmé, op. cit. pp. 190, 191.

^{page 399 note 4} ‘The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity’, J.B.L. LXXIV (1955), 213–26,Google Scholar also in Stendahl, K., The Scrolls and the New Testament (London, 1958), pp. 18–32,Google Scholar see especially p. 26; ‘L’Opposition Contre Le Temple de Jerusalem, Motif Commun de la Théologie Johannique et du Monde Ambiant’, N.T.S. V (1958–1959), 157–73.Google Scholar For a further development of this view see Geoltrain, P., ‘Esséniens et Hellénistes’, Theologische Zeitschrift XV (1959), 241–54.Google Scholar M. Black also sees connections between primitive Christianity and Qumran but suggests tracing them through the ‘Hebrews’ as opposed to the Stephen–Philip group (The Scrolls and Christian Origins, pp. 75–80).

^{page 399 note 5} Cf. e.g. Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 260, 261.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} Cf. Filson, F. V., Three Crucial Decades (London, 1964), p. 103.Google Scholar Against Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), pp. 24–46;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., Commentary on the Book of Acts (London, 1954), pp. 142, 143;Google Scholar P. Geoltrain, op. cit. pp. 250 f. For a critique of W. Manson's universalistic interpretation of the Son of Man see Simon, M., St Stephen and the Hellenists, pp. 68–71.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 2} This on the grounds that the Son of Man is an intercessor, not a future judge coming on the clouds of heaven. Note also that while the apostles were content to remain in Jerusalem presumably awaiting the future consummation including the ingathering of God's people, the Stephen–Philip group, believing that the eschatological events were now taking place, embarked on the Samaritan mission which was part of the eschatological reunion of God's people.

^{page 400 note 3} It is possible, however, that some prophetic books may have been accepted, perhaps in certain sects.

^{page 401 note 1} The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala, 1929).Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} Op. cit. p. 185.

^{page 401 note 3} Bulletin of the John Rylands Library XL (1958), 298–308, I:Google Scholar ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans’; see also II: ‘Faith in Samaritan Thought’, pp. 298–315.

^{page 401 note 4} Samaritanische Probleme, pp. 55–61.

^{page 401 note 5} Samaritanische Probleme, pp. 55, 76.

^{page 401 note 6} The Theology of the Samaritans (London, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 7} See especially chapter XXII, ‘Moses and Christ’, pp. 420–46.

^{page 401 note 8} Macdonald, , Theology, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 9} Macdonald, , Theology, p. 422Google Scholar and passim.

^{page 401 note 10} Macdonald, , Theology, p. 421.Google Scholar For evidence of Samaritan knowledge of the New Testament seeMacdonald, J., Higgins, A. J. B., ‘The Beginnings of Christianity according to the Samaritans: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes and Commentary’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 54–80.Google Scholar The earlier source incorporated here (see p. 55) may perhaps be dated by (a) The state of the canon. Four Gospels, fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, but no Catholic epistle corresponds to the situation in the Eastern Church in the early or middle fourth century. (b) The neutral or favourable attitude to Christianity in vv. 81–5. It is difficult to place this after the late fourth/early fifth century A.D. when Samaritan-Christian relations became extremely bitter, but it might suggest Samaritan apologetic aimed at securing toleration from Christian authorities some time after Constantine. A date around the mid-fourth century A.D. is thus suggested. The Chronicle presents no evidence, however, for direct Samaritan knowledge of the New Testament; there is no direct quotation from New Testament books, and the information appears to have been obtained at second or third hand.

^{page 402 note 1} Not published, however, until 1968 in Religions in Antiquity, ed. Neusner, J. (Leiden, 1968), pp. 149–75.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 2} Buchanan goes so far as to suggest that under the terms of the agreement referred to in Gal. ii 7–9, whereby James, Cephas and John would minister to the circumcision, James was located in Jerusalem, Peter probably in Galilee and Syria, thus leaving Samaria for John (op. cit. pp.173–5).

^{page 402 note 3} Supplements to Novum Testamentum XIV (Leiden, 1967)Google Scholar.

^{page 402 note 4} Meeks, , The Prophet-King, pp. 318, 319.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 1} Catholic Biblical Quarterly, xxx (1968), 580–7.Google Scholar Freed was not aware of the work of Meeks at the time of writing this article.

^{page 403 note 2} Cf. Schnackenberg, R., The Gospel According to St John (New York, 1968), p. 419.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 3} Freed summarizes the evidence on the latter point in his remarks on Aenon (iii. 23), Salim (iii. 23), Sychar (iv. 5), Mt Gerizim (iv. 20) and Ephraim (xi. 54), op. cit. pp. 580–2. Meeks calls attention to the importance in this connection of the work of Kundsin, K., Topologische Überlieferungsstofe im Johannes-Evangelium, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments XXII (Göttingen, 1925);Google Scholar see Meeks, , The Prophet-King, pp. 314–16.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 4} On this see, e.g. Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1969)Google Scholar, chap. XVII, ‘The Samaritans’, pp. 352–8. But John iv. 9b does not imply the complete break and the absence of any dialogue suggested by the usual translation, ‘Jews have no dealings with Samaritans’. The text more probably means, ‘Jews do not use vessels in common with Samaritans’. See Daube, D., ‘Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of συγХράομαι’, J.B.L. LXIX (1950), 137–47,Google Scholar and cf. the renderings of NEB and TEV.

^{page 403 note 5} If the ‘five husbands’ do in fact refer to the five groups of settlers of II Kings xvii. 24, 30, 31, an interpretation which goes back to Origen. But it may be doubted whether the evangelist intended an allegorical interpretation. See, e.g. Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: a Commentary (Oxford, 1971), p. 188.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 6} Cf. Odeberg, op. cit. p. 189.

^{page 403 note 7} The saying about a prophet having no honour in his own country (iv. 44) is placed by John in a totally different context from the Synoptics and thus receives a quite different meaning. In the Synoptics, Jesus' πατρίς is interpreted as Galilee, whereas in John it is Judaea. For John, Jesus is rejected in Judaea, but accepted in Galilee and Samaria. See the discussion in Meeks, The Prophet-King, pp. 39, 40; also Buchanan, op. cit. pp. 165, 166. For a similar view cf. Willemse, J., ‘La Patrie de Jésus selon Saint Jean iv. 44’, N.T.S. XI (1964-1965), 349–64.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} The Prophet-King, p. 313.

^{page 404 note 2} Cf. Bowman, J., Samaritanische Probleme, p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} So H. Odeberg, op. cit. p. 304, following Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Edinburgh, 1928), II, 316.Google Scholar Also Bowman, J., Samaritan Studies, pp. 306–8;Google Scholar Buchanan, op. cit. p. 161.

^{page 404 note 4} Samaritan Studies, pp. 310, 312, 313 n. 2.

^{page 404 note 5} The Fourth Gospel knows nothing of Jesus' birth at Bethlehem and never portrays him as the Davidic Messiah. The interpretation of John vii. 41, 42 is of course disputed, but comparison with vii. 52 makes it quite clear that John believed Jesus was ‘from Galilee’. On this see Meeks, W., The Prophet-King, pp. 35 f.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 6} The incorporation of thins belief into the version of the Tenth Commandment found in the SP indicates its antiquity.

^{page 404 note 7} John i. 21, vi. 14, vii. 40, vii. 52 (Papyrus 66). See Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (London, 1959), pp. 36, 37;Google ScholarGlasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963), pp. 27–32;Google ScholarHahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London, 1969),Google Scholar appendix, ‘The Eschatological Prophet’, pp. 352–406, especially pp. 383, 387.

^{page 405 note 1} Samaritan Studies, p. 302 n. 2; cf. p. 309. See further, Samaritanische Probleme, pp. 51, 77, 83.

^{page 405 note 2} See Baguley, E., A Critical Edition, with Translation, of the Hebrew Text of the Malef, and a Comparison of its Teachings with those in the Samaritan Liturgy, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leeds, 1962.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 3} Macdonald, J., Theology, p. 33. Cf. p. 420.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 4} Macdonald, J., Theology, p. 421.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 5} See Macdonald, J., Theology, pp. 430, 432, and 170, 436, 437.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 1} See especially The Prophet-King, p. 239, 240 with reference to the claim of Macdonald that the Samaritan concept of belief in Moses developed under Christian influence. Macdonald cites John xiv. 1, ‘If you believe in God, believe also in me’ as a close parallel to the passage in Memar Marqah IV. 7 – ‘He who believes in him (i.e. Moses) believes in his Lord. Woe to us if we do not remember that. Let us believe in the Lord and in Moses his servant.’ Meeks points out that (a) the Marqah passage is not an exact quotation; (b) it is clearly based on Exod. xiv. 31, ‘…the people…believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses’; (c) the thought can be almost exactly paralleled in Jewish sources, especially Mekilta on Exod. xiv. 31. These considerations suggest that the Samaritan concept developed from Exod. xiv. 31 on the basis of earlier traditions which are paralleled in Jewish sources, without any particularly Christian influence.

^{page 406 note 2} Freed, op. cit. pp. 584, 585, based on a suggestion of Meeks, , The Prophet-King, p. 122Google Scholar n. 2. In view of what was said above (p. 397 n.6) about the standing Son of Man as an intercessor or advocate, the question may be raised as to whether the concept of the Paraclete did not enter early Christianityvia Samaritan-Christian theology. The various functions of the Paraclete are remarkably like those of Moses; cf. Glasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963), pp. 104, 105.Google Scholar On the possible Connection between the Son of Man and the Paraclete see Bornkamm, G., ‘Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium’, Festschrift für R. Bultmann (Stuttgart, 1949), pp. 12–35.Google Scholar The derivation of the Paraclete from an ascended Son of Man figure bearing the attributes of Moses seems to be more convincing than a derivation from the archangel Michael. This is not, however, to deny the complex origin of the Paraclete passages in the Gospel of John where the Paraclete has been combined with the Spirit (of God), the Holy Spirit, and the (angelic?) Spirit of Truth. For recent work on the Paraclete see Betz, O., Der Paraklet (Leiden, 1963);Google ScholarJohnston, G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 3} Freed, op. cit. pp. 582, 583. Cf. Acts vi. 13, 14, vii. 7.

^{page 406 note 4} Freed, op. cit. pp. 586, 587.

^{page 406 note 5} Cf. Buchanan, op. cit. p. 161. On the identification of Bethel with Gerizim see Bowman, J., ‘The Samaritans and the Book of Deuteronomy’, Transactions of Glasgow University Oriental Society XVII (1957–1958), 13 f.Google Scholar Note the connection made between Jacob's vision and Moses' ascent of Sinai in Memar Marqah IV. 3 (Macdonald, , Memar Marqah, p. 144).Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} Buchanan, op. cit. p. 165.

^{page 407 note 2} Cf. Robinson, J. A., ‘The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel’, N.T.S. VI (1960), 117–31.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 3} Cf. Buchanan, op. cit. pp. 158–62. The application to Jesus of the title ‘King of Israel’ is particularly striking, especially when John's version of the triumphal entry is compared with that of the Synoptics.

^{page 407 note 4} See Bowman, J., Samaritan Studies, pp. 301, 302.Google Scholar The community accepts the non-Pentateuchal books though texts are selected which will at least not give offence to Samaritan Christians.

^{page 407 note 5} Cf. e.g. Mitton, C. L., ‘Modern Issues in Biblical Studies: The Provenance of the Fourth Gospel’, E.T. LXXI (1959–1960), 337–40;Google ScholarCribbs, F. L., ‘A Reassessment of the Place of Origin and the Destination of John's Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXXIX (1970), 38–55;Google Scholar Buchanan, op. cit. pp. 149–56; Wind, A., ‘Destination and Purpose of the Gospel of John’, Novum Testamentum XIV (1972), 26–69.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 1} See, e.g. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 10–130;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible (New York, 1966), pp. lii–lxvi;Google ScholarSchnackenberg, R., The Gospel According to St. John (New York, 1968), pp. 119–52.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} Cf. the works cited in note 4 on p. 399.

^{page 408 note 3} Cullmann, O., The Early Church (London, 1956),Google Scholar IX, ‘Samaria and the Origins of the Christian Mission’, pp. 185–92. But for a different view see Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The “Others” of John 4. 38’, in Twelve New Testament Studies (London, 1962), pp. 61–6.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 1} Cf. the survey by Bruce, F. F., ‘Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Hebrews’, E.T. LXXX (1968–1969), 260–4.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 2} See e.g. Yadin, Y., ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Scripta Hierosolymitana IV (1958), 36–55;Google ScholarKosmala, H., Hebraer–Essener–Christen (Leiden, 1959).Google ScholarSpicq, C. modified the position taken in his massive commentary, ĽÉpître aux Hebreux, 2 vols. (Paris, 1954)Google Scholar in his rticle, ‘L'Épître aux Hebreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, Les Hellénistes et Qumran’, Revue de Qumran I (1958–1959), 365–90,Google Scholar in which he argues that the recipients were Essene Christians. For a more cautious assessment see Coppens, J., Les Affinités Qumraniennes de Ľ Épître aux Hebreux (Bruges, Paris, Louvain. 1962);Google Scholar also Higgins, A. J. B., ‘The Priestly Messiah’, N.T.S. XIII (1966-1967), 211–39.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 3} See, e.g. Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), pp. 25–46;Google ScholarJones, C. P. M., ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Lucan Writings’; in Nineham, D. E., Studies in the Gospels (Oxford, 1958), pp. 122–4.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 4} See especially Bowman, J. W., Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, The Layman's Bible Commentaries (London, 1962), pp. 9–16,Google Scholar who holds that ‘the author and his readers…must have been Hellenistic-Jewish Christians of the type represented by the “seven” of Acts 6: 5–6’. The recipients are possibly to be located in Sychar in Samaria.

^{page 409 note 5} The Churchman, new series XLI (1927), 184–93.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 6} Op. cit. pp. 189, 191, 192. He suggests that Heb. ii. 3 referring to ‘the salvation which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard, God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost’ recalls Philip's preaching which had to be confirmed by the apostles (the eye-witnesses of the Lord) through whom alone the ‘gifts of the Holy Ghost’ were bestowed (Acts viii. 14 f.). In his reference to the ‘more perfect tabernacle not hand-made’ (Heb. ix. 11) Philip seems to be echoing the dying words of his brother deacon Stephen (Acts vii. 48). Knox's suggestions are highly speculative but they do call attention to certain theological affinities between Stephen's speech and Hebrews.

^{page 409 note 7} Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century Know the Epistle to the Hebrews?, Leeds University Oriental Society Monograph Series, No. 1(Leeds, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 8} As evidence he cites a series of 20 words or phrases which occur in exactly the same order in Heb. x and in a composition by Aaron ben Manir (fourteenth century) in the Samaritan Yom ha-Kippur liturgy; op. cit. pp. 33–5. For the liturgy see Macdonald, J., A Critical Edition of the Text of the Samaritan Tom ha-Kippur Liturgy, with Translation thereof and Comparison with the Corresponding Jewish Liturgies, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leeds, 1958.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 1} Op. cit. p. 21. Trotter further argues that Nanah b. Marqah ‘could also have known of the existence of the Epistle’.

^{page 410 note 2} Op. cit. p. 30.

^{page 410 note 3} Theology of the Samaritans, passim; Memar Marqah, passim.

^{page 410 note 4} Theology of the Samaritans, p. 421.

^{page 410 note 5} See Trotter, op. cit. p. 18; Macdonald, J., Theology, pp. 397 f.Google Scholar; Bowman, J., Samaritanische Probleme, pp. 50, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 6} For the view that the writer is concerned to refute an angel-christology and a Moses-christology cf. Mien, E. L., ‘Jesus and Moses in the New Testament’, E.T. LXVII (1955–1956), 105.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 7} Op. cit. pp. 9–12; cf. the discussion in Macdonald, J., Theology, pp. 154–6.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} Trotter, op. cit. pp. 9, 10; see Macdonald, , Memar Marqah, pp. 79, 136, 137, 244.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 2} Macdonald suggests that it may have arisen on the basis of Gen. xv. 3. Kippenberg, quoting G. R. Driver, points out that the Samaritan phrase comes much closer to the use of the Aramaic used to translate a Persian expression designating a member of the royal family; see Garizim und Synagoge, p. 318 n. 60.

^{page 411 note 3} Macdonald, , Theology, p. 425;Google Scholar see further Macdonald, , Memar Marqah, pp. 54, 72, 81, 149Google Scholar (n. 88), 201, 223, 233.

^{page 411 note 4} Knox, op. cit. p. 189. On the concept of ‘rest’ in Samaritan thought see Trotter, op. cit. pp. 12–14.

^{page 411 note 5} In Heb. i. 5 the writer quotes (from a Testimonia source?) Psalm ii. 7 and II Sam. vii. 14, but he completely fails to follow up the ‘Son of David’ christology which these texts might suggest.

^{page 411 note 6} Cf. Trotter, op. cit. pp. 23, 24.

^{page 411 note 7} Macdonald, J., Memar Marqah, p. 155.Google Scholar Cf. Theology, p. 445.

^{page 412 note 1} Macdonald, J., Theology, pp. 81, 82, 90, 133, 134, 405.Google Scholar

^{page 412 note 2} Theology, p. 212.

^{page 412 note 3} See van der Woude, A. S., ‘Meichizedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI’, Oudtestamentische Studiën XIV (Leiden, 1965), 354–73;Google ScholardeJonge, M., van der Woude, A. S., ‘II Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 301–26;Google ScholarYadin, Y., ‘A Note on Meichizedek and Qumran’, Israel Exploration Journal xv (1965), 152 f.Google Scholar For a critique of these views see Bruce, F. F., ‘Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Hebrews’, E.T. LXXX (1968–1969), 263.Google Scholar

^{page 412 note 4} Quotations from a Jewish writer, Eupolemos, were preserved in Περί 'ίουδαίων by Alexander Polyhistor (first century B.C.), a work now lost except for extracts preserved in later writers, notably Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 17, 18, 26, 30–4, 39. It is the thesis of Freudenthal, J., Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau, 1875),Google Scholar that sections 17 and 18, part of a midrash on the life of Abraham, stand by themselves, and from their contents are clearly the work of a Samaritan writer. This view is endorsed by Schurer, E., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1886), division II, vol. III, 210, 211;Google Scholar and Goodenough, E. R., By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935),Google Scholar agrees that the writer was probably a Samaritan. See also Wacholder, B. Z., ‘Pseudo-Eupolemos: Two Greek Fragments on the Lifeof Abraham’, H.U.C.A. XXXIV (1963), 83–113;Google ScholarWalter, N., ‘Zu Pseudo-Eupolemos’, Klio XLIII-XLV (1965), 282–90;Google ScholarKippenberg, H. G., Garizim und Synagoge, pp. 80–3.Google Scholar

^{page 412 note 5} Cf. Trotter, op. cit. pp. 17, 18, 27; Macdonald, J., Theology; p. 445.Google Scholar

^{page 412 note 6} In the article previously cited, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes’, pp. 401, 402, and The Cairo Genizah, p. 147. Here again he is indebted to Hammer, H., Traktat vom Samaritaner Messias, pp. 39 f.Google Scholar See also Bruce, F. F., Hebrews, pp. 185, 186.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 192, 193.

^{page 413 note 2} On the unpopularity of Judges among the Jews of New Testament times see Spiro, A., ‘Samaritans, Tobiads and Judahites in Pseudo-Philo’, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, XX (1951), 298–300.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 3} Cf. especially C. Spicq, L'Épitre aux Hebreux. Of course, there was a HEllenistic Samaritan literature which has been almost entirely lost, and there would be nothing inherently impossible in a Samaritan writer being influenced by ‘Philonic’ conceptions.

^{page 413 note 4} Cf. Knox, op. cit. p. 193.

^{page 414 note 1} See above, p. 399 n. 1; Trotter, op. cit. p. 30; cf. Josephus, , Ant. XI. 8. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} Bruce, F. F., Hebrews, p. xxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 3} Knox regards the term ‘Hebrews’ as appropriate for Samaritan Christians though he erroneously believes that ‘the Samaritans do not indeed call themselves Hebrews’; op. cit. pp. 187, 188.

^{page 414 note 4} Cf. Hengel's, M.remarks on ‘Jesus also “Urmissionar”’ in Die Ursprünge der christlichen Mission’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 35–7.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 5} See Scobie, C., John the Baptist (London, 1964),Google Scholar chapter x, ‘The Samaritan Ministry’, pp. 163–77.