[1970] See a previous note on p. 404.
[1971] Godet rightly asks what, in view of this, becomes of the supposed Docetism which, according to the Tubingen school, is one of the characteristics of the Fourth Gospel?
[1972] By which we are to understand a woman from the country, not the town of Samaria, a Samaritaness. The suggestion, that she resorted to Jacob's Well on account of its sanctity, scarcely requires refutation.
[1973] ver. 8.
[1974] According to the testimony of travellers the Samaritans, with the exception of the High-Priestly family, have not the common, well-known type of Jewish face and feature.
[1975] The fringes' on the Tallith of the Samaritans are blue, while those worn by the Jews, whether on the Arba Kanphoth or the Tallith, are white. The Samaritans do not seem to have worn phylacteries (Menach. 42 b). But neither did many of the Jews of old - nor, I feel persuaded, our Lord (comp. Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. vol. i. p. 60).
[1976] There were, undoubtedly, marked differences of pronunciation between the Jews and the Samaritans. Without entering into details, it may be said, that they chiefly concern the vowel-sounds; and among consonants the gutturals (which are generally not pronounced), the aspirates, and the letter {hebrew} which is not, as in Hebrew, either {hebrew} (pronounced s), or {hebrew} (pronounced sh), but is always pronounced as sh.' In connection with this we may notice one of those instances, how a strange mistake comes by tradition' to be commonly received. It has been asserted that, if Jesus had said to the woman: Teni li lishtoth (Give me to drink'), a Samaritan would have pronounced it listoth, since the Samaritans pronounced the sh as s. But the reverse of this is the fact. The Samaritans pronounced the s (sin') as sh (shin') - and not the sh as s. The mistake arose from confounding the old Ephraimite (Judg. xii. 5, 6) with the Samaritan mode of pronouncing. The suggestion seems first to have been made - through very doubtfully - by Stier (Reden Jesu, iv. p. 134). Stier, however, at least rendered the words of Jesus: Teni li lishtoth. Godet (ad loc.) accepts Stier's suggestions, but renders the words: Teni li lishchoth. Later writers have r epeated this, only altering lishchoth into lishkoth.
[1977] The article is wanting in the original.
[1978] Gen. xxvi. 19; Lev. xiv. 5.
[1979] Jer. ii. 13.
[1980] Those who wish to see the well-worn Rabbinic references will find them in Lightfoot and Schöttgen ad loc.
[1981] Ab. ii. 9.
[1982] There is much spurious religious sentiment which, in contravention to our Lord's saving, delights in such expressions as that of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (followed by so many modern hymnologists): Qui Te gustant esuriunt, Qui bibunt adhuc sitiunt.' (Ap. Daniel, Thes. i p. 223.) The theology of this is not only sickly, but untrue and misleading.
[1983] in Bar. iii. 12.
[1984] See The Temple and its Ministry,' pp. 241-243.
[1985] I cannot bring myself to see, as some commentators, any extraordinary mark of rising reverence in the use by her of the word Sir' in vv. 11 and 15. It seems only natural in the circumstances.
[1986] ver. 15.
[1987] ver. 19.
[1988] ver. 29.
[1989] St. John i. 48, 49.
[1990] Comp St. John vi. 6.
[1991] Comp. Lücke, Evang. Joh. vol. i. p. 588.
[1992] 2 Kings xvii. 24 &c.
[1993] The references here are to Strauss, vol. i. pp. 510-519, and to Keim i. 1, p. 116.
[1994] Meyer, Komment. vol. ii. p. 208, rightly remarks on the theory of Baur, Hilgenfeld, &c. According to them, the whole of this history is only a type of heathenism as receptive to faith, in contrast to Nicodemus, the type of Judaism shutting itself up against faith. But in that case why make the principal person a Samaritan, and not a heathen, and why attribute to her belief in a Messiah, which was entirely foreign to heathenism?