Was Jesus a Samaritan?

[Jero]

Was Jesus a Samaritan?
For decades I have had this feeling that all is not what it seems when it comes to the supposed Jewishness of Jesus when the information is contrary to what we believe. Both, Matthew and Luke genealogies of Jesus attest to his Davidic Bloodline, but factually it is incorrect. Historically both genealogies do not match and have errors and anomalies that don’t ring true. Done it appears to authenticate the Messiahship of Jesus.
How many people in this technological age could go back a thousand years to claim descent from a king that is more mythical than true! Yet, the authors of Jesus’ genealogy expects us today to believe that a peasant carpenter from a remote village that was not even mentioned in the works of Josephus know that he was of Davidic Royal Blood! However, when we read the Old Testament (OT) or check the chronology of Israel on the history of the Israelites, the Jewishness and family tree of Jesus evaporates, like a puff of smoke!
Back in biblical history when Moses supposedly brought the Israelites out of Egypt into the land Canaan, God’s promised land c. 1400 BCE. The Israelites conquered the Canaanites with the help of their God, they named their new land, Israel. It stayed that way through the period of the Judges, and the early kings such as Saul, David and Solomon.
On the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam became king of (united) Israel and its 12 Tribes, nevertheless, it was short-lived as the Ten Northern* tribes refused to acknowledge Rehoboam as their new king. Owing to high taxation and historical labour disputes during the reign of Solomon. Meanwhile, Jeroboam from the tribe of Ephraim, who had fled to Egypt after being sentenced to death by the late king Solomon for subversion, returned from exile. In short, he led a revolt against Rehoboam after the king refused to lower taxes and negotiate on labour issues.
*Known today as Ten Lost Tribes of Israel!
In 931 BCE the once united kingdom of Israel—split in two! With Jeroboam becoming the first king of the Northern kingdom of Israel with its Ten tribes, and Rehoboam becoming the king of the Southern kingdom of Judah with its Two tribes.

This is where biblical history, geography, chronology and terminology comes into play!
The etymology of the English term Jew originates from the biblical Hebrew word Yehudi, meaning " from the Kingdom of Judah." So theoretically those Ten Tribes of the Northern kingdom of Israel were not Jews but Israelites. Therefore, to be a Jew (after 931 BCE), one must have been born into the tribe of Judah and lived within the kingdom. For two-centuries both kingdoms, North and South lived peacefully(?).

During the reign of King Omri (884-873) BCE the name of the kingdom of Israel changed to Samaria. (Proof of this is found in the Assyrian conflict of 733 BCE-721 BCE—Shalmaneser king of Assyria marched against Samaria and laid siege to it and captured it.[2 Kings 18:9-11 NIV and 2 Kings 17:24 NIV.]) Around c. 878 BCE Omri moved from his old capital Tirzah to his new capital also called Samaria, see 1 Kings 16: 23-24.

By 721 BCE, the conquest of Samaria was complete and the Assyrians deported all the Israelites to the four corners of the Assyrian empire. Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites.[2 Kings 17:24 NIV]

The same fate befell on the kingdom of Judah between 599 BCE and 583 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and exiled the king and all the Jews to Babylon. Zedekiah (597–586 BCE) was the last king of Judah when he was taken captive in 586 BCE and sent to Babylon. The Judah monarchy went extinct with his death when he died in captivity c. 861 BCE.
At the time of Jesus, the status quo remained with the population of Galilee being gentile/Samaritan.

Galilee was inhabited by Gentiles?
Isaiah 8
23 There is no gloom where there had been distress. Where once he degraded the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, now he has glorified the way of the Sea, the land across the Jordan, *Galilee of the Nations.[a](Isaiah 8:23 NABRE) also see Footnote [a]
*Galilee of the Nations means the people that the king of Assyria forced to repopulate Samaria/northern kingdom of Israel from 721 BCE onward (see 2 Kings 17:24).

What Matthew 4 says on Galilee!
15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles,
16 the people who sit in darkness
have seen a great light,
on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by the death
light has arisen.” [Matthew 4:15-16 NABRE]
Source: For both Isaiah 8:23 and Matthew 4:15-16
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=NABRE

Jews in Palestine at the time of Jesus kept to the confines of what was to them their ancient tribal lands of Judah.
The foreigners who had repopulated the lands of the Ten tribes of Israelites were Pagan worshippers. However, between the year 721 BCE and the arrival of Ezra the scribe in Jerusalem. The new influx of people that replaced the Israelites became proselytes to Judaism. Today we know them as the Samaritans of the New Testament.
Although the tribal system had been abolished with the deportation from 599 BCE to 583 BCE when the last Jews were deported to Babylon. Yet, Luke in the NT tries to authenticate the Messiahship by stating that Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to pay Roman taxes, which is historically false. However, it does allow the storyteller to place Mary giving birth to Jesus in the land of Judah.
Everything about this event in Bethlehem is fabricated.

My last comment before the final coup de grâce is that in
840 BCE 1st year of Queen Athaliah reign. She murdered all the royal heirs of David except the infant Joash aka Jehoash. (see 2 Kings 11:1-2).
Finally, no Jew would live in the time stated outside his ancient homeland and live amongst foreigners unless he was deported. We know that the Samaritans had their Synagogues, and Jews would be welcomed, but a Jewish Synagogue would not welcome a Samaritan, even today.
The coup de grâce!
48 The Jews answered him [Jesus], “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”[John 8:48 NIV]
Jesus was not eligible to be a Messiah let alone be a Jew according to Jewish Law!

Cofion cynnes/warm regards
Jero Jones

[davidmartin]

One other less well known point is found in the book of Hebrews
Hebrews 7:14 says about Jesus
"who has become (a priest) not on the basis of a law of fleshly commandment but according to the power of an indestructible life"

It is saying Jesus was not of the right lineage according to the law to be a priest but that law has been replaced
Hebrews also says Jesus was of the tribe of Judah but elsewhere it says he was "without father, without mother, without genealogy"
(Hebrews is a little bit wild as to what it says in one place, then in another something different)

So here is another angle on the problem, but i recon it wasn't Jewish law the messiah had to be from Judah, it was prophecy that said that... so Hebrews was content to do away with the levitical requirement only?

[Ben C. Smith]

So here is another angle on the problem, but i recon it wasn't Jewish law the messiah had to be from Judah, it was prophecy that said that... so Hebrews was content to do away with the levitical requirement only?

Heck, it was not even Jewish law that there had to be only one Messiah. In fact, the Hebrew scriptures themselves rarely if ever apply the term Messiah to the sort of eschatological figure we tend to think of; rather, it is later authors, both Jewish and Christian, who use the term as a tag for the handful of figures promised to come and restore Israel: especially the scion of Judah through David, the scion of Joseph through Ephraim, the prophet like Moses, and the priest like Aaron. There was also supposed to be an Elijah redivivus, but I am not sure he was ever actually called a Messiah.

[Paul the Uncertain]

In John, Jesus denies having the demon, but neither confirms nor denies the Samaritan part. Shortly afterwards, Jesus mysteriously escapes from the midst of the angry crowd, perhaps suggesting that he wasn't entirely candid about the demon part, either .

A Samaritan with a demon sounds a lot like Simon Magus. Irenaeus and others claim that the Simonians believed that their supposed Samaritan founder did the deeds that Christians mistakenly attribute to Jesus. More modern theories about possible Simonian origins of Christianity are searchable.

It is plausible that the author of John has a character ask Jesus the question based on the author's awreness of the Simonian group's claims during the late gospel era. That the question is asked isn't strong evidence that the belief was prevalent outside of the Simonians.

[Secret Alias]

The Joshua redivivus myth was undoubtedly Samaritan in origin. The Pentateuch is written to make Joshua the one like Moses

[Difflugia]

Both, Matthew and Luke genealogies of Jesus attest to his Davidic Bloodline, but factually it is incorrect. Historically both genealogies do not match and have errors and anomalies that don’t ring true. Done it appears to authenticate the Messiahship of Jesus.

Even aside from the problems with the genealogies themselves, the Gospels of Mark and John both include rhetorical questions that seem to imply that Jesus lacked Davidic ancestry. Mark does so with his "the LORD said to my Lord" pericope in 12:35-37 (ESV):

And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
‘Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.’

David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

John seems to imply that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem nor Davidic in 7:40-44:

When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

At the time of Jesus, the status quo remained with the population of Galilee being gentile/Samaritan.

Galilee is entirely north of Mount Gerizim, so that fits at the very least with the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus was a Samaritan.

The "Galilee of the Nations/Gentiles" stuff is interesting, as well. Thanks.

[Giuseppe]

The connection of Jesus with Samaria in the Gospels is artificial.

If a Samaritan allegorizes the Stranger par excellence, then from a Catholic POV it is better a Samaritan Jesus than a Jesus absolute Stranger.

[Ben C. Smith]

The "Galilee of the Nations/Gentiles" stuff is interesting, as well. Thanks.

Was Jesus a Samaritan?
For decades I have had this feeling that all is not what it seems when it comes to the supposed Jewishness of Jesus when the information is contrary to what we believe.

I cannot claim to have had such a feeling for "decades," but a while back I did put together a thread speculating that Jesus was known as the Messiah ben Joseph before he came to be known as the Messiah ben David: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5343. This was a follow up of sorts to another thread I had posted a good while before that: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3076, which looked into the typological connections between Jesus and his namesake Joshua. By no means do I assent to everything on those threads, and they were both very much exercises in exploration and experimentation, but I do still very much think that there is something to the idea that a Northern tradition from Galilee involving the scion of Joseph eventually flowed into a Southern tradition from Judea involving the scion of David.

The correspondences between the Messiah ben Joseph according to Jewish tradition and Jesus according to Christian tradition are numerous:

1. Jesus is said to have been the Christ/Messiah; the Messiah ben Joseph has "Messiah" right in the title.
2. Jesus is said to have been the son of Joseph; the Messiah ben Joseph has "son of Joseph" right in the title.
3. Jesus is said to have traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem.
4. Jesus is said to have been slain just outside of Jerusalem; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to be slain just outside of Jerusalem.
5. Jesus is said to have been pierced; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to be pierced.
6. Jesus is said to have been the Suffering Servant; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to be the Suffering Servant.
7. Jesus is said to have been the only begotten son of God; the Messiah ben Joseph is mourned as if for an only son.
8. Jesus is said to have been resurrected; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to be resurrected.
9. Jesus is said to have been the firstfruits of those resurrected; the Messiah ben Joseph is supposed to be the first one resurrected at the eschaton.
10. Jesus, the name, is simply an Anglicization of the name Joshua; the Messiah ben Joseph, also known as the Messiah ben Ephraim, is sometimes cast as a Joshua redivivus, and Joshua himself, the Hebrew hero, is scripturally a descendant of Joseph through Ephraim.

By far the main issue is that many of these connections derive from Jewish texts which postdate the New Testament by years, centuries, and even up to a millennium. Did those later texts preserve much earlier traditions, traditions which Christians picked up on and applied to their Savior? Or did the Jewish tradents of later centuries copy attributes from the Christian Savior and apply them to their Messiah ben Joseph? Or, finally, did both groups independently apply the same basic exegetical techniques to the Hebrew scriptures (which do promise a ruler from Joseph!) and come up with similar results? I have been working on this matter ever since.

One example of something I really cannot seem to get over is Testament of Benjamin 3.1-8. If this text is Jewish, then it is early Jewish evidence for a Savior who sounds very much like Jesus Christ fulfilling the prophetic blessing on Joseph. If it is Christian, then it implies a Christian who thought of Jesus Christ in terms of Joseph instead of (or in addition to) in terms of David. Either case is very interesting, I think.

ETA: While there is much in Richard Carrier's book which I think amounts to texticide, so to speak, there are also some excellent insights, including this one:

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, page 75: This dying-messiah doctrine is not only found in the Talmud but is more considerably spelled out in the seventh-century Apocalypse of Zerubbabel (Sefer Zerubbabel), which likewise prophesies that there will be two messiahs, a Messiah ben David and a Messiah ben Joseph, and that the latter messiah (the Son of Joseph) would come first and be killed by an evil tyrant named Armilus (whom some scholars conjecture is a Hebraicism for Romulus, i.e., Rome). But all would not be lost, because the second messiah (the Son of David) would soon appear and resurrect him, and the end of the world would soon follow. / Quite simply, if anyone were to merge these two messiahs into a single person (the Son of Joseph and the Son of David, one who dies and rises and one who returns to bring victory), we would have Christianity: a messiah fathered by a Joseph who is killed by an evil power and is then resurrected and anointed 'the Son of David', destined to return triumphant. It is far more likely that Christians united two figures already imagined in earlier Jewish apocalyptic thought than that rabbinical Jews took a novel messiah from the heretical sect of Christianity and elaborately split it into two messiahs, with otherwise all the same attributes (and then make no mention of how this responds to Christianity or why they would even do that).

[Joseph D. L.]

If a Samaritan allegorizes the Stranger par excellence, then from a Catholic POV it is better a Samaritan Jesus than a Jesus absolute Stranger.

How? How does that even make sense?

[Giuseppe]

If a Samaritan allegorizes the Stranger par excellence, then from a Catholic POV it is better a Samaritan Jesus than a Jesus absolute Stranger.

How? How does that even make sense?

Jesus was connected with Samaria in some parables and episodes "to explain" implicitly his being Alien (to this world and the god of this world). To eclipse the embarrassing fact that the real reason of the being Alien is that Jesus was the Son of an Unknown Father ("Bar-Abbas").