Corresponding differences in emphasis are found in the Four Gospels. A writer with a more "Samaritan" idea of the Messiah might be expected to mention Moses more often, and to give the Samaritans themselves a more prominent role in the Gospel story. A writer whose views were more traditionally "Jewish," on the other hand, would mention David more often and speak more of kings and kingdoms.
I searched each of the Gospels for the strings "Moses," "Samari-," "David," and "king-." (Why not also "Jew" and "prophet" to contrast with "Samaritan" and "king"? Well, naturally most of Jesus' story takes place among the Jews, so of course every Gospel will mention them a lot. "Prophet" is also not useful for distinguishing between the two Messianic visions, since the Samaritans see the Messiah as being primarily a prophet, while the Jewish Messiah is based on the writings of the prophets.) Here are the results.
 |
| To control for the varying lengths of the Gospels, the numbers indicate what percentage of verses in each Gospel contain the target string. |
The pattern is clear, and confirms the impression I already had. The Fourth Gospel ("of John") emphasizes Moses and the Samaritans, while downplaying David and Jesus' role as king; Matthew shows the opposite pattern; and Mark and Luke are intermediate.
I should mention that it is already my opinion, for reasons unrelated to this issue, that the Fourth is the most trustworthy of the Gospels and that Matthew is the least so.
2 comments:
While it is outside the scope of your investigation, Acts 8 is an interesting addition to the subject. Philip goes to Samaria and proclaims the Messiah. Everyone is impressed with the miracles (v6-8), but the miracles only get their attention. What sells them appears to be Jesus as the Messiah and his Kingdom (v12). How can this be? I think the answer is in v14: Samaria had accepted the Word of God.
Samaria first saw the miracles, which got their attention. These were attributed to Jesus in his role as the Christ, who spoke the Word of God. This was in accordance with Deut 18:18. The essential attribute is the Kingdom, not the kingship. The kingdom was the message, the Good News (v12). The Deut prophecy describes the messenger, not the message.
I think it would be interesting to break down the different references to "King-" in the gospels to see whether the focus is more on the kingdom or the king. It would also be interesting to look at the references to "good news" and equivalents, as these are the messages that the prophets give. If you do this, I suspect the other gospels will weight more in favor of the prophetic role.
Interesting comments, Derek.
While Deuteronomy 19 doesn't mention kingship, 20th-century Samaritans at least expected the Messiah to be a king as well as a prophet.
Given that "king-" yields exactly the same pattern as "David," I think it's a good indicator of the Davidic view of the Messiah. It seems to me that separating "king" from "kingdom" is as likely to turn up superficial stylistic differences as anything else.
Post a Comment