Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:29:21.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marriage and the Samaritan Woman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Calum M. Carmichael
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The encounter between Jesus and the woman of Samaria is unique to the fourth gospel. Water symbolism and the true nature of worship constitute two major motifs that are woven into its narration. The meeting at the well touches off a discussion about water, and this discussion leads into one on worship. The connection between the two topics has not received hitherto a satisfactory solution, A. Guilding's work has the merit of recognizing the problem but her structural solution is unsatisfactory because it fails to make any connection in sense between the two.1 A matter that arouses curiosity concerns the subject of water common to the discussion Jesus and the woman have and the preceding section of material about purification and baptism by water as discussed by a Jew,2 the disciples of John the Baptist, and the Baptist himself. The fact that the incidents in question are set down in proximity invites scrutiny. Attention to the above two problems results in an interesting interpretation of the encounter.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , April 1980 , pp. 332 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960), pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

2 Some MSS have the plural reading, others the singular, which as the lectio difficilior is to be preferred.

3 If we follow the notice in 4. 2. The notices in 3. 22, 26 and 4. 1 are none the less awkward.

4 See Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London, 1955), p. 184.Google Scholar

5 John was baptizing at Aenon, and Brown, R. E., The Anchor Bible, The Gospel According to John I–XII (New York, 1966), p. 151Google Scholar, inclines to the view that the evidence favours a location in Samaria. For a more detailed discussion, see M-É. Boismard, , ‘Aenon, près de Salem (Jean, III, 23)’, R.B. 8 (1973), 218–29Google Scholar. Boismard has also linked the section about the Baptist's activity with the section about Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman and is also concerned with the theme of marriage. Although I follow his argument I cannot subscribe to the importance he attributes to the influence on the Johannine material of Gen. 24.

6 The baptism of John the Baptist and the Johannine understanding of baptism both involve the idea of re-birth. Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbi ιic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 119Google Scholar, argues that the reason for John's being called the ‘Baptist’ or ‘Baptiz r’ was because he applied Jewish proselyte baptism to his fellow-Jews. His special name calls attention to the surprising nature of his activity. Proselyte baptism was understood as bringing forth new beings, pp. 112–13.

7 It is difficult to determine what precisely the relationship is here between the water and the Spirit, and how they are conceived symbolically. See Brown, op. cit. pp. 130, 142–3.

8 Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.Oxford, 1967), p. 147Google Scholar, indicates the Semitic nature of the saying in 3. 29, 30. His detection of word-plays suggests its proverbial character. The Samaritan narrative reveals John's skilful use of the biblical proverbial tradition. Explicit use of proverbial sayings is found in 4. 35, 37.

9 See Carmichael, C. M., The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca and London, 1974), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

10 So Barrett, op. cit. pp. 421 –2. The second letter of John adopts the convention of an address by a male (the elder) to a female (the elect lady) about her children, some of whom may be in danger of being lost. He wishes to come to her ‘so that our joy may be complete’ (υ. 12) – a proverbial reference to the maintenance of all the members of this particular family.

11 See Brown, op. cit. pp. 159–60. My observation about the need for the discourse in 3. 31–6 supports those scholars who see no need to transpose it so that it becomes part of the Nicodemus narrative. On the whole I refrain in this article from taking up literary critical problems, instead concentrating on the final form of the material for the purpose of elucidating the idea of marriage and its role.

12 It is remarkable, for example, that in examining the Old Testament background of the expression ‘living water’ they concentrate on the symbols, Wisdom, Torah, Spirit, and ignore the figurative use of water in regard to women (for which, see below). Even the metaphorical use of water in regard to Wisdom owes much to its related and prior use in regard to women. For detailed discussions on the meaning of the expression see Brown, op. cit. pp. 178–80, Olsson, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund, 1974), pp. 212–18.Google Scholar

13 See Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1965), p. 297Google Scholar

14 ‘Jesus in Samaria’, Heythrop Journal 3 (1962), 336.Google Scholar

15 φραρ ύδατος τος

16 D. Daube, Op. cit. p. 373, discusses the woman's surprise at Jesus’ kindness in asking her for a drink. As he points out, normally it is the offer of a drink, not the request for one, that expresses love, especially to the unsophisticated mind. Daube's explanation, which has been widely accepted, I do not disagree with, namely, that Jesus is putting aside a presumption that, like a menstruant, she is unclean because she is a Samaritan. Such a solution is consistent with my observation that Jesus is also employing the figurative language of sexual love, a language she has been familiar with, as it turns out. It might be worth pointing out that just before the woman responds to his request John inserts the notice about the disciples' having gone to fetch some food. The next we hear of them is on their return when they are surprised that Jesus and a woman (without the designation, Samaritan) should be talking alone together. Daube's interpretation is based on the significance of the clause oὐ γρ συγχρται Ἰουδαῑοι Σαμαρταις which he translates as meaning that Jews do not use – sc. vessels – together with Samaritans, p. 375. In noting the fact that some Western manuscripts omit the clause Daube suggests that they no longer understood its significance. He thinks it less likely that the clause was not an original part of the evangelist's composition. Yet there is a possible reason for its insertion by someone other than the evangelist, namely, it could have been added to deflect attention from the boldness of Jesus' language and to remove its figurative overtone.

In the phrase Δóς μοι πιεīν it is interesting that ὕδωρ is understood. B. Olsson, op. cit. p. 176, expresses doubt about the phrase being natural in the situation. In other words, a double meaning is probably intended. If ῡδωρ were added the figurative sense would be considerably weakened. The woman's response to Jesus' request is couched in a form (use of the πς-clause) that is paralleled in Nicodemus' response to Jesus in 3. 4 when he expresses unfeigned surprise about a new birth, about entering his mother's womb again.

17 According to Josephus, Ant. xi. 341, the Samaritans claimed descent from Joseph, through Ephraim and Manasseh.

18 Op. cit. pp. 245–6.

19 In the Targums (Pseudo-Jonathan, Codex Neofiti) to Gen. 29. 22 Jacob's request for a wife (Rachel) is linked to the fact that his presence has meant an abundance of water in the wells. The link (absent in the biblical text) may owe something to the figurative use of water in regard to a woman as a wife: his supplying water requires the reciprocating provision of a ‘well of living water’ for himself.

20 This unexpected determination of her non-marital status may owe something to the influence of the well-established existence in the evangelist's time of the practice of regarding a new Convert who had been married as no longer so, because of re-creation. The person was newborn in such a real sense that previous ties had gone. On the quite specific, tremendous impact of conversion on marriage, see Daube, D., ‘Pauline Contributions to a Pluralistic Culture: re-creation and Beyond’, Jesus and Man's Hope, eds. Miller, D. G. and Hadidian, D. (Pittsburgh, 1971), n, 223–45.Google Scholar

21 Olsson's analysis (op. cit. p. 205) of Jesus' speeches to the woman causes him to stress the structural connection between an action that is demanded of her in regard to her water and one that is demanded of her in regard to her man. Olsson, who fails to recognize that there is a down-to-earth figurative use of water in regard to women, expressly denies that there might be more than a general concern with a marital theme in the entire episode (p. 172 n. 58).

22 Both Johannine and Samaritan thought are interested in the prophet like Moses of Deut. 18. 15–18, and it is commonly suggested that the woman's reference to Jesus as a prophet may have this notion in mind. So Brown, op. cit. p. 171, Olsson, op. cit. pp. 187, 191, Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King, Suppl. Nov. Test. 14 (Leiden, 1967), p. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The fact that the reference is anarthrous makes the identity with the prophet like Moses less exact and encourages a different suggestion, for example that Jesus is here standing for a prophet like Jeremiah. In this connection it is interesting to observe that the Deuteronomic influence on the book of Jeremiah would have meant that Jeremiah was interpreted as a prophet like Moses. Equally interesting is the fact that in Rabbinic sources Jeremiah was identified with the prophet in Deut. 18; for example, in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm I. 1 (in a comparison of Samuel to Moses), ‘Indeed Scripture alludes to this likeness in the verse: “A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me” (Deut. 18: 15). So, too, you find of [Moses and] Jeremiah that what is said of the one is also said of the other.’ (Trans. Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms [Yale Judaica Series, 13, New Haven, 1959, 2 vols.]Google Scholar .) For other rabbinic references see Strack–Billerbeck, , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 2 (Munich, 1924), 626–7Google Scholar. The interpretation of Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses would make him a most appropriate prophet to turn to in any attempt to connect Samaritan tradition with Jewish. It is the woman who recognizes Jesus as a Jewish prophet and who, because of this recognition, comments on both traditions.

23 In this light the reference to her many husbands probably also suggests the foreign gods of the Samaritans, perhaps those mentioned in II Kings 17. See Olsson, op. cit. pp. 186, 210–11.

24 This emphasis on the common Israelite ancestry is an important indication of an underlying historical-theological theme in the material – a united Israel that is to be restored to a proper relationship with God. Historically, Samaria, like the term Ephraim, could stand for Israel. The infusion of foreign blood and alien cults after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. stigmatized the Samaritans in the eyes of the Jews of Judah, and doubtless historical and cultural developments furthered the cleavage and gave them a distinctive group identity. None the less, they had many features in common with Judah, so that consideration of a common relationship is not surprising – thus, for example, the Samaritans' struggle with the Jews in A.D. 67 against Vespasian. Understandably, the further back in time we go the more we find a potential reuniting in religious matters. In the restoration of the temple after the exile the Samaritans came to Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Jesus in the LXX) and claimed to be of the same religion with the Jews (‘We worship your God as you do’, Ezra 4. 2). Their request, however, to be associated in the rebuilding of the Temple was rejected, presumably on grounds similar to those cited by Jesus (in John's gospel), ‘You worship what you do not know.’ Further back in time, Josiah extended his reforms to Bethel and other Samaritan cities (II Kings 23. 19), but the indication is that the northern sanctuaries continued to function much as they had done in the time of Amos and Hosea. However, his attempt to make Jerusalem the sanctuary of Samaria as well as of Judah probably met with some success, for Jer. 41.5 reports how men from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria made a pilgrimage to it at the time of the murder of the Judean governor, Gedaliah.

25 An historical account is in II Kings 17.

26 πηγ in both Jer. 2. 13 and John 4. 14. Brown, op. cit. p. 170, has the Hebrew equivalent as but (as in Jer. 2. 13) also serves. As Dodd points out, op. cit. p. 138, Philo makes great play with the passage in Jer. 2. 13. See De Fuga 197–8.

27 Water might even have stood figuratively for children or posterity, for example, Israel's in Num. 24. 7, Isaiah 48. I. Modern scholars are sceptical, however, emending the latter, without textual support, to read ‘loins’. The Septuagint, the Targum Onkelos and the Peshitta all paraphrase Num. 24 in terms of posterity. On some general aspects of the complex comparative symbolism of water, see Eliade, M., Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York, 1958), pp. 188–215.Google Scholar

28 This section of the law is omitted by Jeremiah, probably because it would limit his application, which requires him to concentrate on the actions of the woman.

29 Brown, , Driver, and Briggs, , Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford, 1907), p. 545Google Scholar, explain as the showers of March–April that are important for strengthening and maturing the crops. I do not rule out the possibility that this punishment is owing to less specific reasons than the one I have suggested, for example, a general failure to obey the law (see Deut. 11. 13, 14).

30 This identification is made explicit in John 7. 37–9.

31 Compare the rabbinic notion that the patriarchs were contemplated before the creation of the world. See, e.g., Gen. Rabba I. 4, ϒalqut on Num. 23. 9. In John 8.48–58, in Jesus' response to the Jews' accusation that he is a Samaritan, it emerges that he is greater than the prophets and Abraham (υ. 53) and existed before the latter, ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (υ. 58). Just as he is greater than Jacob, the father of the Samaritans in John 4. 12, so too he is greater than Abraham, the father of the Jews. On the linguistic parallels between these two sections of material, see Olsson, op. cit. p. 180.

32 See Dodd, op. cit. p. 248, on ‘Son of Man’ as a term that means the incorporation in Jesus of the people of God, or Jesus as the embodiment of humanity in its ideal aspect. On ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ as the most appropriate titles to describe Jesus, see de Jonge, M., ‘Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 49 (1973), 160–77.Google Scholar

33 The recognition of this unique, single process underlies Gen. Rabba 14. 7: Adam and Eve were created as fully formed beings of the age of twenty.

34 De Opif. 69, 134, De Fuga 71, 72, Leg. All. 131. See Dodd, op. cit. pp. 70–3, for significant differences between Philo and Johannine thought in regard to the ideal or heavenly man.

35 De Opif. 76.

36 See Daube, , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 74Google Scholar. On the cryptic character of the Johannine material in general and the suggestion by a number of scholars that the audience addressed is one that receives special, inside knowledge, see Olsson, op. cit. p. 282.

37 When Jesus addresses the woman in John 4. 26 as ‘Εγώ εμι he is speaking in a way that is equivalent to God's address through his prophet in the Old Testament. See Brown, op. cit. pp. 533–8.

38 See Dodd, op. cit. pp. 9, 54. Olsson, op. cit. pp. 286–8, stresses the thoroughly Jewish character of John and tentatively supports Cullmann's view that its appeal may have been primarily among Jews who were somewhat non-conformist in their beliefs. For the latter, see ‘l'Opposition contre le Temple de Jérusalem, motif commun de la théologie Johannique et du monde ambiant’, N.T.S. 5 (1959), 157–73.Google Scholar

39 Cp. Jer. 23. 13, 14: ‘In the prophets of Samaria I saw an unsavoury thing: they prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray. But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing…’ Cp. also Ezek. 16. 51, ‘Samaria has not committed half your sins; you have committed more abominations than they.’

40 It has been suggested that the significance of John 4. 23, in which the statement, ‘And now is’, modifies, even contradicts, the statement, ‘But the hour is coming’, is intended to indicate to the woman that she need not now seek out worship in Jerusalem. See Bengel, J. A., Gnomon of the New Testament 2 (7th ed., Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1877), 293.Google Scholar

41 However, as Dodd, op. cit. p. 300, points out, John has apparently replaced the quotation of Jer. 7. 11, which Mark has in the similar temple incident, with Zech. 14. 21. On John's complex use of the Old Testament see Barrett, op. cit. pp. 24, 25, also, ‘The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel’, J.T.S. 48 (1947), 155–69Google Scholar. It must seem bewildering and a cause for scepticism to argue, as almost all Johannine scholars do, that John uses the Old Testament in such an extensive and subtle way. But there is a sound basis for the argument, namely the view of Scripture that existed in John's time. Recently, in support of Barrett's uncovering of multivalent allusions to the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel, Daube explains them by reference to the interpretation of the Old Testament as absolutely unitary, with its components so closely interwoven as to constitute just several aspects of the same truth. ‘For this Evangelist, Jesus is the Word become flesh, hence at every moment comprising, living, the Scriptures in their entirety.’ For Daube's discussion of John's method and other comparable modes of interpreting material in antiquity, see ‘The influence of interpretation on writing’, Buffalo Law Review xx (1970–71), 41–59, on John, 49, 50.

42 Daube, D., He That Cometh (London, 1966), pp. 1–6Google Scholar, presents impressive evidence that Hezekiah was regarded as a Messianic figure in New Testament times.

43 The similar invitation of the disciple, Philip, to Nathanael in I. 46 is for the same purpose. Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (19th ed., Göttingen, 1968), p. 142Google Scholar, rightly sees the woman's question, ‘Can this be the Messiah?’ as put from the people's standpoint and not as an expression of her doubt.

44 It might just be noted that this first group of Samaritans (4. 39) comes to believe in a way that is different from – and possibly because of their immediate trust, to be rated higher than – a second group (4. 41) which hears Jesus' words for themselves and whose relationship with the woman is not deemed necessary.

45 In Jesus' reference to food βρσις is used and not βρμα which would give the more natural meaning. The former is the word used in Gen. 1. 29.

46 Philo also argues that God does in fact work on the sabbath. See Leg. All. 15–6. For a rabbinic view, roughly contemporary with John's, that God works on the sabbath, see Strack-Billerbeck, op. cit. p. 461.

47 On the major difficulties of interpretation of this section in John, see Olsson, op. cit. p. 223.

48 De Opif. 40.

49 R. Simlai, a Palestinian Amora of the third century, interprets Gen. I. 26 (privately to his disciples), ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’, as the man, the woman, and the divine Spirit jointly producing offspring. See Gen. Rabba 8. 9. Jesus, the woman, and the divine Spirit have accomplished this task precisely in accordance with the injunction of Gen. I. 26. Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, Mass., 1966)Google Scholar, I, 366 n. 4, thinks that R. Simlai's interpretation was directed against Christians as heretics.

50 Some additional points are noteworthy in regard to this parallel. R. Samuel was a Palestinian Amora of the earlier part of the third century. Similar to Jesus' contrast between worship at Jerusalem and worship of God in spirit and truth, he directed attention away from supplicating at the ruined site of the temple in Jerusalem to seeking the Skechinah in heaven. His view was contrary to that of those who believed that the divine presence still abode at the ruined site. He was interested in the notion of the androgynous Adam: the union of the male and the female in the first man. He thought of God as possessing both male and female characteristics. His Messianic interests were both lively and peculiar in that he speculated about an Ephraimite Messiah belonging to the tribe of Joseph. For details and sources see G. F. Moore, op. cit. I, 369, 453; II, 204, 352, 370–1. According to John, but without confirmation in Samaritan sources (see de Jonge, M., ‘Jewish Expectations about the “Messiah” according to the Fourth Gospel’, N.T.S. 19 [1973\, 268)Google Scholar, the Samaritans were open to the idea of one who was called the Messiah. From their perspective it seems likely that such a Messiah would be linked with Ephraim, since they traced their own descent from Ephraim, son of Joseph.