Saturday, December 26, 2009

Why Isn't the Study of Samaritanism a Prerequisite to Developing Theories About Early Christianity?

This was one of the first things that struck me about NT scholarship when I developed an interest in the field twenty years ago - how are we so convinced that Christianity DIDN'T develop from Samaritanism?

To be sure Irenaeus didn't think so (or didn't want US to think so). Everything Samaritan is 'bad' or leads to questions about one's 'orthodoxy.'

But should Irenaeus' taste or Irenaeus' influence settle every question about early Christian origins?

I know that for practical purposes this has been the methodology of all previous generations of scholars. Yet this by no means should necessarily continue.

The Samaritan chronicles identify an intense persecution against their religion in the Commodian period. It was a persecution which is acknowledged to have resulted in 'changes' to their religion.

Apparently Irenaeus shared Commodus dislike for things Samaritan. Could that have also extended to 'heretical' forms of Christianity which grew out of Samaritanism? That is an open question but it has to be recognized that there is some correlational evidence to at least suggest the need for further inquiry.

So why hasn't this been carried out before? Why isn't an understanding and appreciation of Samaritanism a prerequisite for the study of early Christianity?

Am I the first person to suggest that most people in the field have motivations OTHER THAN the uncovering of truth?


Email stephan.h.huller@gmail.com with comments or questions.


 
Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.