Cornelius, E
North-West University (Vaal Triangle Faculty)

I heard the voice of the Samaritan woman in John 4:1-46

ABSTRACT

This article offers retellings of John’s story of the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Two versions of this story are presented to be told by a female narrator, the Samaritan woman herself. The intention is to offer different perspectives on the same story, but most of all, to shed some light on a method of “hearing women’s voices” in male authored texts. In order to move the Samaritan woman to centre stage in the story of John 4:1-46, the first focus is John’s text to understand the character of the text, the author and readers of the text, the purpose, the different characters and the socio-historical background. Only then is the story retold from the woman’s perspective. The moment the woman is allowed to take centre stage, we are confronted by an ancient female perspective on women’s roles in society, a woman’s experience of Jesus, told in her own words, giving her own opinions, revealing her emotions and fears and joys. The rhetorical purpose of her text is not necessarily to bring about change in the hearts of people, but rather to reveal her own heart – her understanding of who Jesus was, her emotions during the conversation with Jesus, her opinions, her experience as a Samaritan woman in an ancient society, but most of all, the changes Jesus brought about in her life! She expresses her amazement at Jesus’ knowledge and most of all at his ignorance of the bounds and barriers of national hatred, revealing how he also crosses a religious boundary by simply talking to her – a Samaritan and a woman.

1. INTRODUCTION

“Real women…are not to be found so much in the explicit text of the historical record as in its gaps and silences” (Skinner, 1987:3).

Have you ever tried to hear the Samaritan woman in the story told in John 4:1-46 – and I mean “really heard”? Can you feel her pain, her fears, can you hear her heart, understand her questions, views, experiences and opinions? Or are you, like I found myself, so overwhelmed by John’s way of telling his story, by traditions of interpretations of this pericope (Gench 2004:111) calls it “interpretive litter”), that you find it hard to find the Samaritan woman in John’s historical record? Have you learnt to hear women’s voices in the gaps and silences of stories in our patriarchal Bible?

Franzmann (2000:74-74) discusses the marginalization of women in religious texts in general and says that women most often only appear in religious texts when they are problematical figures, immoral characters, the victims of men’s violence, or silent characters. Women are only mentioned to highlight a certain male character in the text or to bring some aspect of men’s experience more sharply into focus. This is also true of women in the Bible – a typical result of ancient patriarchy. The Samaritan woman is not (like many other women in the New Testament) a silent character, but many see her as an immoral character because of John 4:18. In this view the Samaritan woman has a problem and this is then taken as a motive and a background for the conversation between herself and the male character “Jesus”. Others (see Gench, 2004:111) prefer to view her as a positive character – a spokesperson for the Samaritan community, being present in this text to highlight the message of Jesus, Fact is, the Samaritan woman is thoroughly present in this text and her conversation with Jesus is even “recited” to highlight the character of Jesus (note that he is a male character) and to bring his teaching and a certain aspect of his character, namely that he gives new life to all people, more sharply into focus (see Franzmann, 2000:75).

Franzmann (2000) challenged me to apply her proposed techniques in reading the Bible, in order to retell the story from the particular woman’s point of view. How will we know what the Samaritan woman’s point of view is exactly? John’s narrative gives but a glimpse on this woman and therefore I can only try to construct one or two possibilities of this woman’s own narrative of the same conversation. I do think, however, that Franzmann’s method can be a way to hear John’s narrative again as if for the first time – a way to actually hear the voice of the Samaritan woman. My application of this method, however, is not intended at all to determine “the” accurate portrait of the Samaritan woman – perhaps a contribution in getting there.

Franzmann (2000:109) proposes a method of how to invite women to be subjects in the hermeneutical process of interpreting women’s religious experience. She suggests some simple techniques:

• By changing pronouns from “they/them” to “we/us”, so that women may tell their own stories, or

• By imagining women who are secondary characters moving to centre stage to tell the story from their own perspective.

I (Cornelius, 2000:5,6) categorised women in the New Testament into the following categories:

• women involved in miracles (Elisabeth, Peter’s mother-in-law, the woman with an issue of blood, Mary Magdalene, the woman of Canaan),

• followers of Jesus (Salome, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the Apostle),

• prophetesses (Anna the prophetess, the four daughters of Philip),

• co-workers in Church (Phoebe, Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche),

• believing women (Mary of Bethany, Lydia, Martha, Drusilla, Lois and Eunice),

• having theological conversations with Jesus (the Samaritan woman),

• women anointing Jesus (the penitent sinner, Mary of Bethany),

• shown in a bad light (Herodias, Sapphira, Jezebel),

• advancing the Lord’s cause ((Mary of Jerusalem, Priscilla, Mary of Rome),

• businesswoman (Lydia),

• supporting Jesus (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna),

• witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the Apostle),

• being favoured by God (Mary the mother of Jesus); and

• mothers (those women recorded in the New Testament in their roles as mothers - this does not mean, however, that the other women were not mothers).

Although these women are mentioned in the New Testament as being prominent in the field of religion as co-workers, prophetesses, believing, advancing the Lord’s cause, anointing Jesus, followers of Jesus and having theological conversations with Jesus, they seem to be mentioned by these authors only as a passing by fact indeed (Cornelius, 2000:6). I could have chosen many other texts where women are mentioned in the New Testament, but John 4:1-46 almost invited me to read the Samaritan woman’s story from a totally different point of view. My friend and former student, Laura Maleya Mautsa and I had many discussions about the Samaritan woman in preparation for her own studies (see Maleya Mautsa, 2006). And all our conversations and new insights that grew from our interesting discussions, made me wonder about the Samaritan woman. I also thought it would be easier to hear this woman in a text where her words are even presented as being recited – a text offering me 46 verses to try and hear the voice of the Samaritan woman.

The Samaritan woman is thoroughly present in my story in John 4:1-46, but I doubt that many interpreters (including myself) have either seen her or been listening to her voice. After reading Franzmann (2000) I was wondering whether I would be able to hear her voice in this text without being constrained by more traditional and restrictive interpretations of the text. The purpose of John 4:1-46, as it is, is to tell something about Jesus, thus with no intention to give me the history of the Samaritan woman. John 4:1-46 does, however, tell me something about this woman:

• She is only mentioned in general, with no name (4:7). Her only relevance for the story, seems to be her identity as a Samaritan and as a woman – two taboos for Jewish men in public.

• She fetches water from a well in Samaria (4:7).

• Jesus has a conversation with her (4:7-26).

• Jesus orders her to give him water (4:7).

• She may be religious (she knows about prophets (4:19), her ancestors worshiped on the mountain (4:20), she knows about the Messiah to come (4:25)).

• She could be immoral – married 5 men and lives with a sixth (4:17-18).

• She testifies about Jesus in Samaria and plays a role in converting other Samaritans (4:39,42).

Like King (1995:200) asks, “is it possible to recover women’s ideas and experience from male authored texts, and if so, how should we go about doing this?” In order to move the Samaritan woman to centre stage in the story of John 4:1-46, I first focus on my text as it is, to understand the character of the text, the author and readers of the text, the purpose, the different characters and the socio-historical background. Only then can the story be retold from the perspective of the Samaritan woman – only then can the Samaritan woman take centre stage.

2. THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

Though the text gives no name of an author, the consistent testimony of the early church is that the author is John, the disciple and early church leader (read Smalley, 1978:68-82). Early church fathers believed the gospel was written in John’s old age probably AD 85-95 20 years after the synoptic gospels. The “John” who is considered the author of this gospel by tradition, was a disciple, the “beloved” disciple, probably the son of Zebedee, an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (and this view is motivated with Jn 1:14; 1:19; 1:7; 3:11; 19:25-27; 20:2-10; 21: 23,24).

The problem with the theory above is that it is mainly based on the reference to the “beloved disciple” in John 21:24. This “beloved disciple” who “has written these things”, is pictured to be close to Jesus, but who could that be? John could be a likely candidate for this “beloved disciple”, especially if one assumes that one of the sons of Zebedee (mentioned with other unnamed disciples in John 21:2), was the “beloved disciple”. In this gospel the author is traditionally considered to be an eyewitness as he seems to have been well-informed on various matters. It could be true that he had personal acquaintance with these matters or one may argue (like Dodd, 1965:13) that he made judicious use of good sources of information. Dodd (1965:14) says that the vivid dramatic traits which are distinctive of Johannine narrative and dialogue, the characterization, the apparent insight into the inner emotional content of a situation, may be due rather to the author’s literary skill.

As Dodd (1965:16) says, the question of authorship is, on the basis of data available, incapable of decision (see also Burridge, 2004:229). What is clear to me is that this gospel tells its story of Jesus from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, an eyewitness – a literary technique used by ancient authors to impart to the narrative a sense of authority (see Davies, 1992:252). For the sake of this article, I assume that the implied author of this gospel was a Jewish man1 from Palestine, being aware of the history, culture and theology of the Jews and Samaritans, that he would have been part of the patriarchal system and would have had an understanding of the roles of women in the ancient society. Was he an eye-witness to the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman? I doubt it. The story of the Samaritan woman is presented as a conversation while the disciples left Jesus to buy food (John 4:8) and that they returned to Jesus only after the conversation with the Samaritan woman (see 4:27). When it is reported in 4:6 that Jesus was tired, I consider this to be a narrator’s comment on the basis of information he got from tradition.

I imagine how the real author heard the oral traditions about the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, and I imagine how he consulted people, perhaps the Samaritan woman herself, about this, how he invited her to tell the story in order to write it down. For the purpose of my article, I imagine how the Samaritan woman wrote her story for John and others, how she kept in mind the identity of the readers, their knowledge about this man Jesus and His relationship with the Samaritans and women. This may determine what background the Samaritan woman will give for her story, how many and what kind of comments she will add.

3. THE READERS AND THEIR SITUATION

For the Samaritan woman to move to centre stage and tell the story about her and Jesus, she would have to keep in mind who the final readers of John’s story would be. Only a reader who can make sense of a text, will be able to understand it. Therefore, for effective communication the Samaritan woman as author of her text needs to create an implied reader as close as possible to the real readers – a reader with a competence to understand the text: perhaps a knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, a knowledge and acceptance of Scripture, and a familiarity with theological perspectives expressed in the text, being a member of a confessional community living out the insights of the Gospel (see Davies, 1992:362). For effective communication the Samaritan woman will need to at least include the competence of John’s readers, expanded to include those she would want to reach herself, those she would need to understand her text.

The first readers of the gospel of John are not stated in the gospel. Davies (1992:355) points out that it is Scripture which provides the familiar literary stock from which the gospel grows. A reader without a knowledge of Scripture will not effectively be reached by John’s narrative. Throughout John there are references to different parts of the Old Testament. In John 4 we find the following Scriptural references in the words of Jesus:

• 4:10: …“living water” (Jer 13; Zech 14:8);

• 4:21-22: “…when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (2 Kgs 17:28-34).

We have to keep in mind, however, that the Samaritan woman would not be able to quote from or refer to material outside the Pentateuch, as the Samaritans only believed in the Pentateuch (see paragraph 7.1). It could be possible, however, that she did understand references outside the Pentateuch as many heard the different stories, although not necessarily regarding it as authoritative Scripture.

When the Samaritan woman in John’s story asks the question in 4:12 “are you greater than our father Jacob who gave us this well…”, the question is left unanswered by John - perhaps because he knew his readers would have enough knowledge (at least more knowledge than the Samaritan woman) to give the answer themselves. However, in the Samaritan woman’s version, she would have understood Jesus’ silence after her question differently. She would have had to interpret this silence in some way.

Further on, it is very important to realize that the readers of John were already familiar with the Synoptic gospels (at least Mark and Luke) – they have already heard other versions of his stories. The readers implied by the text of John, therefore, seem to be Christians who already knew the basic story of Jesus (see Davies, 1992:358). It could be true that even the Samaritan woman must have heard these stories, although she did not believe those to be “Scripture”. The story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman, however, was not known from the other Gospels. I do believe, however, that there must have been different oral versions of this story.

John’s gospel is directed not exclusively to Jewish Christians but to all Christians in order to strengthen their faith. The diversity of the recipients was both ethnic as well as gender. From the gospel itself one sees accounts that involve both men and women (see Maleya Mautsa, 2007:60). Having this in mind, would the Samaritan woman be inclined to defend herself as Samaritan, as woman? I guess she would have seen it as an opportunity to defend the Samaritans, to free women, perhaps to defend herself with her own history with men, especially among her own people. Moreover, she would have seen her own act of writing as an act of freedom!

4. THE AUTHOR’S COMMUNICATION

The Evangelists functioned as author-editors, using independent oral traditions and shaping them into compositions reflecting their own perspectives (Aune, 1987:50). The gospel of John in general can be typified as a “gospel” literature, including “narratives” and “discourses”. The narratives include miracle stories, pronouncement stories and stories about Jesus, while discourses include parables and sayings (Aune, 1987:50). In John’s case, we almost find a distinctive Johannine “gospel genre” where miracle stories become points of departure for lengthy discourses, with relatively long discourses of Jesus unified in form and content, with dialogues developing into monologues, monologues framed by dialogue, and dramatic dialogues (like 4:1-46). In the dialogues John will typically begin with a statement of Jesus, followed by a response indicating incomprehension or misunderstanding, which becomes the basis for a monologue (e.g.4:31-38) (Aune, 1987:50-51).

Aune (1987:48) indicates that John (like Mark) has a dramatic structure in his presentation of Jesus’ ministry. The plot of the narrative is moved by various degrees of conflict between Jesus and other characters over the issue of his true identity and significance. In the pericope of John 4:1-46, we have this typical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (4:1-2) about power and authority and this automatically develops into a dialogue with the Samaritan woman, being ignorant and misunderstanding (4:7-26)– a dialogue revealing the true identity of Jesus. It all ends in a dialogue with the disciples (4:27, 31-34) -and almost a monologue by Jesus (4:35-38).

In my presentation of the Samaritan woman’s perspective on this story, I will attempt to conform to the genre and structure of John’s story in John 4:1-46, in order to be able to compare the different perspectives in the end.

5. STYLE: JOHANNINE MISUNDERSTANDING, AMBIGUITY AND IRONY

The author of the fourth Gospel structures his discourse material so as to advance his subject – almost in spiral fashion – through a series of dramatic disclosures towards a climax (Smalley, 1978:198). The dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman builds up to Jesus revealing his messianic identity. In the fourth Gospel the techniques of “misunderstanding” and “irony” are often used in service of the revelation. The whole dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is an example of these techniques. In John 4:11-12 the woman asks “are you greater than our father Jacob…?” For John, Jesus is indeed greater than the patriarch, and the implied reader is supposed to know the answer to this question. Marrow (1995:51) says that such irony, like the misunderstanding in which it is embedded, is the means the evangelist employs to bring the reader one step closer to the inevitable revelation which is to follow (see also Smalley, 1978:197-198).

Dodd (1965:318) shows that in Johannine dialogues the interlocutor’s role to play goes seldom beyond misunderstanding and irony. He/she is there in the dialogue to misunderstand and to provide opportunity for the development of the theme. Rarely can he/she be said to make any positive contribution, except indeed by way of the typical Johannine irony (see Dodd, 1965:318). In my attempt to create the Samaritan woman’s own story, I hope to move her from her passive role she plays in John’s story, to a creative person. The woman does not necessarily have to include these techniques in her presentation of the story.

6. A STRUCTURE OF JOHN 4:1-46

John presents his story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman in the following way:

• Narrative: A series of events as background for the dialogue 4:1-6

• Dialogue: 4:7-26

• Jesus makes a request for water 4:7

• The Samaritan woman gives a socio-historical answer, which is both a question and an answer, followed by a comment from the narrator 4:9.

• Jesus gives a theological answer 4:10

• The Samaritan woman answers from a literal understanding with a statement and two questions 4:11-12

• Jesus offers a theological answer 4:13-14

• The Samaritan woman’s request: an admission of Jesus’ power 4:15

• Jesus’ request 4:16

• The Samaritan woman responds 4:17

• Jesus’ response: call to personal belief 4:17-18

• The Samaritan woman responds at theological level 4:19-20

• Jesus’ self-disclosure 4:21-24

• The Samaritan woman responds at theological level 4:25

• Jesus closes the conversation with a reference to His identity 4:26

• Narrative: the narrator’s comment on the return of the disciples and the exit of the Samaritan woman 4:27-30

• Jesus’ dialogue with his disciples 4:31-33

• Jesus’ monologue 4:34-38

• Narrative: the narrator’s comment on the result of the woman’s testimony 4:39-42.

It is interesting to see the gradual progression in the presentation of the dialogue. Misunderstanding is used as a technique to sidestep the revelation of Jesus with the purpose to explain it all. Marrow (1995:55-56) made me aware of the different issues the woman is presented to introduce into this dialogue:

• Her care for social proprieties (“You , a Jew…ask me, a woman of Samaria” 4:9);

• Her down-to-earth-common sense (“the well is deep” 4:10);

• Her pride in tradition (“our father Jacob” 4:12);

• Theological savvy (“you say that in Jerusalem is the place…to worship” 4:20).

It is not my aim to mould the woman’s own presentation of this story in exactly the same structure, although I will try to keep the basic structure in order to make comparison easier.

7. THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TEXT

The next question is sociological: why was this specific character a Samaritan, why specifically a woman, why this particular Samaritan woman?

The Samaritans

When I use the word “Samaritan”, I am not referring to the inhabitants of Samaria but those of Schechem (see Coggins, 1975: Introduction and 85).

In John’s story about the Samaritan woman, the following information is given about the Samaritans:

• They were a religious group separate from the Jews (Jn 4:9);

• They had their own cultic centre (Jn 4:20);

• The Samaritan woman perceives that Jesus is a prophet (Jn 4:19);

• She seems to believe in the future advent of the messiah (Jn 4:25);

• And the Samaritans confess that Jesus is the Saviour of the world (Jn 4:42).

The above could be different from what the author knew about the Samaritans, and also different from what he heard about them, but it is exactly what he chose to reveal in his story about them. According to John, Jesus’ growing reputation and the murmuring and rumours prompted Jesus to leave Judea for Galilee in the North. He, however, took the route (note, according to John, Jesus “had to” (edei) in verse 4) through Samaria.

Politically, Samaria and Judea were under the Roman procurator, which under normal circumstances meant that there were no barriers (Barret 1978:231; Carson, 1991:216). Coggins (1975:138) says that the basic features of Samaritan belief and practice were very closely akin to those of Judaism. However, socio-historically, the Samaritans and the Jews were divided by history and religion. By New Testament times the Jews looked upon the Samaritans as foreigners (Ferguson, 1987:423). The Jewish aversion for the Samaritans had deep roots in history (Davies, 1992:304 refers us to Apocrypha Sirach 50.25-26). King Omri in 1 Kings 16:24 had named Samaria the capital city of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. During the Assyrian exile of 722 BC Israelites were deported from their land and the Assyrian king settled foreigners in the land. These foreigners intermarried with the surviving Israelites and the people were called Samaritans. The Samaritans were considered racial half-breeds. Ferguson (1987:423) says that they have been religiously very conservative and not inclined toward syncretism with paganism (see also Coggins, 1975:138,139,144). They distinguished themselves from the inhabitants of Samaria and referred to themselves as “keepers” of the torah. Their religion was based only on the Pentateuch (Carson, 1991:216; Davies, 1992:304; Coggins, 1975:148). The Samaritans erected their own temple on Mt. Gerazim, and never went up to Jerusalem anymore. Jews would rather travel a longer journey than to travel through Samaria.

According to Davies (1992:304) the author of the fourth gospel was not fully informed about Samaritan beliefs, as the Samaritans accepted the prediction of Deuteronomy 18:15,18 that God would raise up a prophet like Moses to give the people his commands. The Samaritan woman and the other Samaritans would therefore not look forward to a messianic descendent but to a prophet. Coggins (1975:146) explains the Samaritans’ messianic expectation as follows: according to him (1975:146) in the Old Testament period there was a development of a variety of forms of messianic expectation, with none of these becoming the norm of that period. Among the Samaritans this messianism was expressed under the figure of a “taheb”, derived from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew “sub”, “to return”. They expected “one who returns” or “one who restores”. I am not so sure, however, that the woman did not know what a “messiah” was or referred to. Coggins (1975:153) admits that the Samaritans did hear and also probably respected for a while the prophets and other writings of the Old Testament as we know it, however, they only believed in the Pentateuch.

This Jewish-Samarian historical background gives significance to Jesus’ need or deliberate choice to travel through Samaria. Although John mentions that Jesus “had to” go that way, the reason is not given. It seems logic that, after the conflict with the Pharisees, Jesus chose to go to Samaria. Why Samaria? Why did he not simply proclaim himself the Messiah to the Pharisees? Dods (1903:131) says it is obvious: the time was not right to proclaim himself Messiah to controversial Pharisees – it was logic to reveal his identity rather to a simple-minded Samaritan woman. Perhaps it is patriarchy speaking up again when Dods says “simple-minded”. The presence of the Samaritan woman in this story is more because of her national identity than her so-called “simple-mindedness”. Jesus made a deliberate choice to cross ethnic and religious and gender boundaries. Perhaps John meant in his presentation of the story that the aversion of the Jews to the Samaritans was so great that for Jesus to travel through Samaria reflects the compulsion of divine appointment and not geography (see Carson, 1991:216, Okure, 1988:83-86). In that case one would expect the verb “chose to” in stead of “had to”. This could be the Samaritan woman’s choice of a verb in her presentation of the story, realising afterwards that she was part of God’s plan.

Women

Were Jewish men allowed to speak to a woman in public? Although Ferguson (1987:58) argues that Jewish women were not as restricted in public appearance as Greek women, one may gather from this text and from Apocrypha Sirach (9.9) that men and women did not normally converse together in public without company (see Davies, 2004:305; Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998:101; see also the discussion of this issue by Maleya Mautsa, 2006:65-66). The text relates that the disciples were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but they kept quiet (Jn 4:27). Their astonishment could be motivated by more than just her womanhood and women’s roles in public. Coggins (1975:157) discusses the issue of ritual impurity of Samaritan women – they were considered to be lifelong menstruants. Brown (1966:170) explains that a Jewish regulation of A.D. 65-66 warned that one could never count on the ritual purity of Samaritan women since they were menstruants from their cradle (see also Leviticus 15:19; Hendricksen, 1989:159). Therefore Davies (2004:304) concludes by saying that the constrained relations between men and women in first-century Palestine is accurately reflected in John’s story.

In the Samaritan woman’s presentation of this story, one could expect to hear the heart of ancient women – her inner feelings and opinions about society’s restrictions on women.

The Samaritan woman in particular

At the well of Jacob, south of Sychar, at the foot of the mountain Gerizim, Jesus met the Samaritan woman. Davies (1992:284) points out that “Sychar” is not mentioned in the Synoptics nor in the Septuagint and the “well of Jacob” is not mentioned at all in Scripture. The reference to these places must have been derived from sources other than Scripture. It is usually uncertainly identified with the modern Askar, close to Schechem, and on the route between Judea and Galilee (Davies, 1992:284). How did she recognize Jesus as a Jew? Dods (1903:134) says that she recognized him as a Jew by dress and accent.

It was about the sixth hour (Jn 4:5-6) when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well. How did John reckon the hours of the day? Did he reckon the hours from midnight or from sunrise, did he adopt the Roman reckoning and counted noon the sixth hour (see Dods, 1903:132)? Many prefer the last option and therefore translate it with “noon”. If this is true, it is strange however, why the woman would walk such a distance to the well outside the city at this time of the day – at the hottest hour of the day. One would expect her rather to come early mornings or late afternoons (see Genesis 24:11). She also came there on her own – with no company. If it was the typical time for women to fetch water, one would expect her within the company of others. Otherwise, the specific well could be the reason for her being there alone. Perhaps she came at a different time to a different well. Did she perhaps want to avoid the conversations with the others, their criticism and mockery? If one regards her to be immoral, this could have been the reason for her avoidance of other women.

There are, however, also other possible interpretations of this. Schottroff (1998:165-166) mentions the possibility that the Samaritan woman’s workload might have required multiple trips to the well. Why then would she fetch water from a well outside the city – there must have been more wells closer to the city? Gench (2004:112,133) asks if “noon” should not be understood as the “fullest light of day” – with “light” being a central positive image throughout the Gospel of John. One’s understanding of this reference to the time of day that she came to the well, will depend on how one understands the reference to the woman’s husbands in John 4:16-19.

John states that this woman had five husbands and is living with one who is not her husband, but gives us no reason for this situation. The Jews were allowed only three marriages and if the same standard was applicable among the Samaritans, Brown (1966:171) believes the Samaritan woman’s life had been markedly immoral. If true, one can imagine her reputation in society – how other women must have seen her, how people gossiped and rejected her. She was in need of sympathy and spiritual strength (Dods, 1903:131). She has gone wrong en knew no recovery, went sadly through her daily activities, heavy at heart and weary of sin (Dods, 1903:135). Did she expect some spiritual freedom to come, some forgiveness, some relief of her emotional pain? Dods (1903:135) says she did not know the gift of God. She was not expecting anything spiritual – her expectations were limited by her earthly condition and her physical wants. With affections worn out, with character gone, with no purifying joy, she came out to fulfil her daily duties.

Feminist studies directed us, however, in a different direction to see other possibilities. O’Day (1992:296) suggested that this woman could have been trapped in the custom of levirate marriage and that the last male in the family line probably refused to marry her. Although “divorce” is not mentioned in John’s text, McKinnish Bridges (1994:173-176) raises this issue of divorce which was only a male privilege in ancient societies and says that this woman could have suffered the injustices from five husbands who simply rid themselves of further responsibilities. I wonder, however, how one can explain the sixth man (not being her husband) in the Samaritan woman’s life then. McKinnish Bridges (1994:174) offers another possibility - that of the Samaritan woman being old, having outlived five husbands, living with a sixth as she is in her later years, giving up on legal marriage. Whatever the case of the five husbands could be, the fact is that the Samaritan woman was not married to the sixth man. If O’Day is right to blame this sixth man for not being willing to marry her in the custom of levirate marriage, this poor woman suffered because of a patriarchal society. If the woman did indeed outlive five husbands or suffered because of five husbands simply not wanting her anymore, one still needs to find a reason for her living with a sixth man. I do not think that this woman, coming from an ancient society, would have had a choice whether she wanted to marry the sixth man or not. In a patriarchal society I still believe that the choice would be the male’s. No matter what the true circumstances were, taking all the possibilities into regard, it seems as if the Samaritan woman suffered the consequences of a patriarchal society.

Fact is, this woman needed redemption – whether it was from promiscuity, or from injustices from five husbands in a patriarchal society, or/and the injustice from a sixth man. McKinnish Bridges (1994:174) states that she needed redemption from a life that has been lived in pieces – broken relationships, unsuccessful marriages, societal oppression, poverty (as she had to draw her own water), and town gossip. This all makes sense if we keep in mind that Jesus does not make any judgement about the woman’s character. Now it seems to me that one can very easily interpret the woman’s coming to the well at noon, outside the city, when nobody else is there, as a way to avoid other people – to find some time alone away from others’ gossip, to find some time to think about direction in her life. Perhaps she expected some redemption from life’s miseries?

Was she religious? Her reference to “our father Jacob” most probably indicates that she wanted to tell Jesus that she considered herself still to be a descendant of Jacob. She refers to mount Gerizim as “their” place of worship (4:20) and she recognizes Jesus as a prophet (4:19). Like all Samaritans she must have regarded the Pentateuch as Scripture and expected a prophet like Moses to come. In John 4:19 she seems to arrive at last – she confesses Jesus a prophet. This is, however, not a confession of guilt. Marrow (1995:53) says it is rather an expression of her astonishment that a total stranger should know such intimate secrets of her life (see Barret, 1978:236). One could add that this woman develops a trust in this man as somebody who knew the unknowable, who crossed social boundaries in order to talk to her. McKinnish Bridges (1994:175) points out that this no-name woman turns out to talk theology in public with a Jewish rabbi, she receives an invitation to drink living water, hears the Christological confession of the Messiah, and then goes out to evangelize.

We should be careful not to see this woman as a simple-minded person as Dods (1903:131) states. Maleya Mautsa (2006:72-75) discusses the leadership qualities of this woman and it almost helps one to zoom in on this woman. It is important to see that even in John’s story, the Samaritan woman is presented as a brave and intelligent woman:

• She does not hesitate to challenge Jesus a Jew and right from the start she brings out the differences between Jesus and herself right away. She is not afraid to confront the issue.

• She shows intelligent general and historical knowledge, which she applies, in their conversation.

• As the conversation progressed, the Samaritan woman began to realize that there was deeper meaning to who Jesus is and what he was saying. She recognised that and declared Jesus, as a prophet not only because he handled her theological questions, but also that he revealed things in her background that she had not disclosed to him.

She was aware of the social boundaries society created as part of the different cultures. She was well aware of the Jews’ antagonism against the Samaritans, of the restrictions society laid on women, of the religious debate between the Jews and Samaritans about their places of worship, she recognized the term “messiah”, as a word in the everyday-colloquial language of the Jews, she must have been aware of other religious literature (perhaps in oral form) other than the Pentateuch. Because of the conversation with Jesus she changes into a blessed, forgiven, empowered, liberated woman with a purpose in life (see McKinnish Bridges, 1994:176).

8. THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL AND THE PARTICULAR STORY IN IT

The content of all the gospels is a presentation of the public career of Jesus, concluding with his death and resurrection. The writings and the message of the gospel give a theological, persuasive interpretation of Jesus’ words and actions in narrative form. Aune (1987:55) says that the content of the gospels in general is dominated by attempts to demonstrate and confirm the supreme significance of the identity of Jesus. Burridge, 2004:230) says that the author must provide information about Jesus in order for the reader to come to believe and he does this through the chronological narrative and discourse material. The purpose of the Gospel of John is summarised in the concluding paragraph in 20:30-31 “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God”. The author seeks to show the identity of Jesus, that he was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God and Saviour of the world, in order to instil faith in his readers. This is also the purpose of John’s story about the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 – to reveal Him as Messiah.

Aune (1987:55-56) points out that this emphasis on the identity of Jesus is strengthened by the use of several literary themes or motives. In the case of John, the following themes are used:

• The depiction of the disciples as obtuse, fearful and misunderstanding, and

• The refutation of the charge that Jesus practiced magic.

In the Gospels, the ignorance and fear of those in contact with Jesus are literary devices emphasizing the revelatory character of his words and the supernatural power evident in his deeds. This specific motif is highly developed in John, where it is broadened to include others besides the disciples, such as the Samaritan woman in John 4. The misunderstandings are the results of ambiguities or double meanings in Jesus’ discussions.

The Samaritan woman’s ignorance, misunderstanding and background of sin are used to emphasise the character of Jesus’ words and the power of his deeds. In this text this woman simply becomes part of a rhetorical technique to enhance the purpose of the gospel. In short, the focus of John’s narrative, is Jesus. In my creation of the Samaritan woman’s narrative I keep in mind that the focus could move from Jesus to herself, or to her identity as Samaritan or woman in general. What underlying purpose could she have in mind?. It would most certainly not be to proclaim the Messiah – perhaps to tell the news about a new prophet (as she understood it).

9. CENTERING THE SAMARITAN WOMAN

It is important to understand that I do not insert the “new” female author of the story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman into this particular story. She is already thoroughly present in John’s version of the story - simply not allowed to tell her own story and we never even bothered to listen to her heart and soul in John’s story. In this article the Samaritan woman takes center stage in order for us to hear her voice, and perhaps also the voices of women of her time. Hopefully this will also let us hear the message of John’s story as if we hear it for the first time.

I already mentioned that one may understand the Samaritan woman’s history in different ways and therefore I chose to present two versions of “her” story – the one with the sinful immoral woman in my mind, the other with a positive figure chosen by God to proclaim His word as background. For the most part of her stories, the Samaritan woman will tell about the conversation between herself and Jesus. Later on I will even invite other Samaritan women of her time to speak from their hearts and to take centre stage in her story. The Samaritan woman does not only engage in conversation with Jesus, but she becomes the narrator, provides the comments and even becomes creative in presenting the dialogue of herself with Jesus. She becomes the one to choose the sources of her material, to decide on the purpose of her story.

9.1 The immoral Samaritan woman

I invite you to listen first to the voice of the Samaritan woman as an immoral woman with a bad reputation in society, gossiped about and rejected, in need of sympathy and spiritual strength, one who “has gone wrong en knew no recovery, went sadly through her daily activities, heavy at heart and weary of sin”, expecting spiritual freedom and some forgiveness, some relief of her emotional pain. You will see that this woman does not always understand what Jesus has to say, almost Dods’ “simple-minded” person. Through her conversation with Jesus she becomes free from society’s judgement on her sins, and society’s limitations on her as a woman and a Samaritan.

Would you mind if we call her “Martha”? Would you mind if I present her story in translation? I let her tell her story:

1 I understand that when this Jew, Jesus, learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John”

2 – although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized –

3 he left Judea and started back to Galilee again2.

4 But he chose3 to go through Samaria – only now do I realize his reason4 for this choice.

5 So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. (Later I learned that this man’s followers, called his “disciples” had gone to the city to buy food and that this man rested for a while.)5

6 Jacob’s well was here in Sychar – a source of water outside the city and my favourite place to escape from society’s criticism and ignorance of women. I came to draw water, at about noon – hoping not to find other women there. But I found a man there – he was not familiar to me, Jewish of origin I assumed, sitting by the well. I realized he must have had a long journey, as I could see the tiredness on his face.

7 He asked me, “Give me something to drink.”

8 I felt uncomfortable to hear a man speaking to me in public, especially because there were no one else there and I guess I also expected bitterness from this Jew.

9 I nevertheless answered him, “Why would you, being a Jew, ask something from a Samaritan, and from a woman?6” Everybody knew of the Jews’ antagonism against us Samaritans, of our differences.

10 He did not answer my question about this social dilemma, but said: “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 How could he get water from a deep well with no bucket? Is he claiming to be more than an ordinary Jew?

12 I asked him: “Sir, are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his flocks and herds?”

13 For some reason, he did not seem interested to defend himself and answered: “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,

14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 I did not understand him on “eternal life”, but I wanted this kind of water – “living water”, can you imagine? I begged him to give me this water – I mean, anything to make life easier!

16 And then he turned my world upside down, saying: “Go call your husband and come back.”

17 I felt the shame I felt so often in my society and replied silently “I have no husband”. He said “You are right”

18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the one you have is not your husband.”

19 Life was not easy on me and I did the best I knew then. How can I be forgiven for my mistakes? How did this man know about my life story anyway? Was he the promised prophet to come? The one who would take away all life’s miseries, my mistakes, society’s limitations on us as Samaritans, on me as a woman? I said to him “You must be a prophet?

20 I did not want him to dwell on my immorality any further and brought in another question, hoping to confirm his identity as a prophet: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we should worship is in Jerusalem?”

21 He declared 7“Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know, for salvation is from the Jews.

23 Yet, a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

25 I could see that he was trying to explain something to me I have not yet understood and replied, comforting myself: “They say a 8prophet will come to explain everything to humankind.”9

26 He said “I am more than that – I am the messiah!

27 His disciples showed up at the well, making me feel uncomfortable again. However, their being male suddenly did not matter to me anymore. Luckily they did not ask any questions,

28 and, leaving my water jar there, I rushed back to town. These moments at the well, changed my life!

29 On my way back I could not stop talking to those passing me by, men and women. I urged them: 10“come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done – without me saying a word about it. He claims to be the messiah! He cannot be the promised prophet, can he? Feel free to go to him, as he crossed the boundaries of Jewish antagonism against us.”

30 I rushed to a well nearby where the women were already fetching water, and ignored the rejection on their faces, saying: “I found a Jewish man at the well outside the city, and he had no problem talking to me in public”. One lady remarked, “you are known for your history with men.” Another said “you are known for ignoring society’s rules.” I ignored that and proceeded, “I think he is the Prophet – do you think he will change women’s situation in our society?”

31 I could see how these women looked at each other, forgetting for a moment about my history. I heard someone say: “I have always been waiting for the promised prophet to lift the burden of being a woman!” I proceeded: “This man impressed me and seems to be able to make a remarkable difference in society. He came to restore society.11

32 12Many Samaritans, men and women, believed in him because of my testimony.

33 They said to me, “You were right about him, but he is more than a prophet – he is Jesus, the messiah, the Saviour of the world, and he is our answer to many problems. We invited him to stay.”

34 A group of women invited me to join them, as they were heading where Jesus was staying over for two days. Truly, Jesus came to Sychar for a reason!

9.2 The Samaritan woman with a mission for the Messiah

If we can escape, however, from the traditional picture of this Samaritan woman that we came to know through scholars’ eyes through the ages, I present you with the story of a totally different “Martha”. Like our first “Martha”, this woman is also in need of redemption. Her tragic circumstances, however, are not a result of her own bad choices in life, but she suffered the consequences of a patriarchal society in different ways. Let us assume for this retelling that she was caught up in the custom of levirate marriage where a man refused to marry her and thus left her in shame. After the conversation with Jesus, this Martha becomes free, no longer being a passive conduit for an abusive, patriarchal culture – a woman with a mission for the Messiah. This Martha is an intelligent woman, chosen by God to show His mercy on the outcast, chosen to evangelize His word. She becomes willing to leave behind the past and walk boldly into the future, carrying the living water of God’s forgiveness and mercy in their lives – becoming a paradigm for evangelism (see McKinnish Bridges, 1994:176).

Note that I use bold for those parts of her story being different from the first version.

1 I understand that when this Jew, Jesus, learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John”

2 – although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized –

3 he left Judea and started back to Galilee again.

4 But he chose to go through Samaria – only now do I realize his reason for this choice.

5 So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. (Later I learned that this man’s followers, called his “disciples” had gone to the city to buy food and that this man rested for a while.)

6 I came to draw water, at about noon, from Jacob’s well just outside Sychar – my favourite place to find some peace and some time to think for myself. I was hoping not to find others there. But I found a man there – he was not familiar to me. Was he a Jewish rabbi? I realized he must have had a long journey, as I could see the tiredness on his face.

7 Because of my negative experience with males in the society, I felt no need to have a conversation with this man and turned around to head back home. He asked me, however, “Give me something to drink.”

8 I felt uncomfortable to hear a Jewish rabbi speaking to me in public, especially because there were no one else there and I guess I also expected bitterness from this Jew. I have had enough of society’s bitterness towards Samaritans and ignorance of women.

9 I nevertheless answered him, “Why would you, being a Jew, ask something from a Samaritan, and from a woman?” Everybody knew of the Jews’ antagonism against us Samaritans, of our differences.

10 He did not answer my question about this social dilemma, but said: “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 He had no bucket with him. He was surely not here to fetch water. Who is he?

12 I asked him: “Sir, are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his flocks and herds?”

13 This man was clever and definitely heading somewhere else than simply our conversation about water. He said, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,

14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 Our conversation became promising. I wanted this eternal life so many talked about. I wanted this living water! But how could I trust this man?

16 He must have seen the distrust on my face as he came with a different weapon to persuade me: “Go call your husband and come back.”

17 Why would he want my husband to be present? Did he want to teach me and my family about this “living water”? I replied: “I have no husband”. He said “You are honest”.

18 I know that you have had five husbands, and the one you have is not your husband.”

19 So he knew about the injustice a man made me suffer? Could he also know about the injustice men caused for many women in society? Life has not treated me well. When my first husband died, I was forced by society into the custom of levirate marriage – a custom where I ended up with a man refusing to marry me. How did this man know about my life story? Was he the promised prophet to come? Will he free me from society’s rules and limitations on women? Will he be the one who will take away all life’s miseries, society’s limitations on us as Samaritans, on me as a woman? I said to him “You must be a prophet?

20 If he was, I had more questions to ask him: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we should worship is in Jerusalem?”

21 He declared “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know, for salvation is from the Jews.

23 Yet, a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

25 I felt some trust for this man and asked: .“They say a prophet will come to explain everything to humankind?

26 He said “I am more than that – I am the messiah!

27 I was so excited! If he were the messiah I heard many talk about, I had to spread the news! His disciples showed up at the well. But why would this make me feel uncomfortable? The Messiah has come and I am free! As if they could see the freedom on my face, they did not ask any questions,

28 and, leaving my water jar there, I rushed back to town. These moments at the well, changed my life!

29 On my way back I could not stop talking to those passing me by, men and women. I urged them: “come and see a man who is definitely more than human. This total stranger knows my history – without me saying a word about it. He claims to be the messiah we’ve heard the Jews talk about! Feel free to go to him, as he crossed the boundaries of Jewish antagonism against us.”

30 I rushed to a well nearby where the women were already fetching water, and said: “I found a Jewish rabbi at the well outside the city, and he had no problem talking to me in public”. One lady remarked, “Can’t be, Martha – the Prophet has not yet come! I ignored her remark and proceeded, “I think he is the Messiah –He will change women’s situation in our society?”

31 I could see how these women looked at each other, with smiles breaking through. They knew I took a serious view of these issues and I heard someone say: “I have always been waiting for someone to lift the burden of being a woman – of being a despised Samaritan!” I proceeded: “This man impressed me and seems to be able to make a remarkable difference in society. He came to restore society.

32 Many Samaritans, men and women, believed in him because of my testimony.

33 They said to me, “You were right about him - he is indeed more than a prophet – he is Jesus, the messiah, the Saviour of the world, and he is our answer to many problems. We invited him to stay and he accepted!” I smiled!

34 A group of women invited me to join them, as they were heading where Jesus was staying over for two days. Truly, Jesus came to Sychar for a reason! I have a new calling – I am willing and free to proclaim Jesus!

10. CONCLUSION: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXT OF JOHN AND MY PRESENTATION OF THE SAMARITAN WOMAN’S STORY

It is always possible that other “retellings” or “rereadings” of a text may come into conflict with aspects of a tradition that are basic to its structure. The moment the Samaritan woman is allowed to take centre stage, we are for the first time confronted by an ancient female perspective on women’s roles in society, a woman’s experience of Jesus, told in her own words, giving her own opinions, revealing her emotions and fears and joys. Revealing own personality, emotions, and opinions, is not really strange for narrators and authors in the Bible. The Samaritan woman is typically doing what ancient (male) authors were doing. Paul describes himself in the openings of all his letters. In those parts described as the “thanksgivings”, he reveals his emotions and his relationship with others. He mentions his suffering, describes his ministry, and defends his apostolic authority. In the letter closings one gets glimpses of his travel plans, requests and personal greetings. My retelling of John’s story, through the Samaritan woman, should therefore not surprise the reader.

In comparing the structures of the three different versions of the same event, it is clear that I tried to conform to John’s structure as I did not want the structure to become the focus point of my discussion. The difference rather comes out in a comparison of the rhetorical purposes of the different stories. John is presenting the public career of Jesus, demonstrating and confirming the supreme significance of the identity of Jesus, providing information about Jesus in order for the reader to come to belief. In the two versions of the Samaritan woman’s story, the rhetorical purpose is not necessarily to bring about change in the hearts of people. The purpose is to reveal the woman’s own heart – her understanding of who Jesus was, her emotions during the conversation with Jesus, her opinions, her experience as a Samaritan woman in an ancient society, but most of all, the changes Jesus brought about in her life!

Once we compare the revelations about Jesus, the differences are not really that huge. John reveals Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, who was also willing to cross social and religious boundaries in order to reach people. This is also true for the second version of Martha’s story in paragraph 9.2 where we are confronted by an intelligent woman who finally accepted Him as messiah and became willing to proclaim Him to the world. In Martha’s story in the first version, however (in paragraph 9.1), the focus is not so much on Jesus’ identity as “messiah” as she perhaps did not really understand that almost up to the end of the story, but rather saw him as a prophet. For her, Jesus’ significance was not in what he was called, but rather in his actions – the way he treated her.

In both retellings the woman expresses her amazement at Jesus’ knowledge and most of all at his ignorance of the bounds and barriers of national hatred, revealing how he also crosses a religious boundary by simply talking to her – a Samaritan and a woman. She describes other Samaritans’ reactions to this whole event and brings out her relief for knowing that her history, her womanhood and nationality, made no difference to Jesus. His conversation with her was only the beginning of a complete new life: she found a new identity as a woman, as a Samaritan. In the second version (in paragraph 9.2), Martha even found a new identity as an evangelist. The Samaritan woman was no longer held captive by herself and others because of her mistakes in life (in the first version in paragraph 9.1). In the second version (in paragraph 9.2) she was no longer held captive by the rules of a patriarchal society. The Samaritan woman in both versions felt free to talk to people, people’s actions changed towards her. The immoral Martha (in paragraph 9.1) was even accepted not only by Jesus, but also by her fellow-citizens who previously despised her.

With this article I do not offer “the” story of the Samaritan woman. My intention is to present “two of my” interpretations of her story. With this retelling of John’s story, with a female as the narrator, I hope to have offered a different perspective on the same story, but most of all, to have shed some light on a method of “hearing women’s voices” in male authored texts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aune, D.E. 1987. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity. W.A. Meeks. (ed.) Philadelphia : Westminster Press.

Barret, C.K. 1992. The third Gospel as a Preface to Acts? Some reflections. (In Van Segbroeck, F. et al ed. The four Gospels, Festschrift Frans Neirynck, Leuven. Leuven : University Press. pp.1451-1466).

Brown, R.E. 1966. The Gospel according to John (i-xii). New York : Doubleday & Company.

Burridge, R.A. 2004. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan : William B. Eerdmans.

Carson, D.A. 1991. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans.

Coggins, R.J. 1975. Samaritans and Jews. The origins of Samaritanism reconsidered. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Cornelius, E.M. 2000. Androcentric language in 1 Thessalonians. In die Skriflig 34(3):373-382.

Davies, M. 1992. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 69) England : Sheffield Academic Press.

Dodd, C.H. 1965. Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge : University Press.

Dods, M. 1903. The Gospel of St. John. The Expositor’s Bible. London : Hodder & Stoughton.

Ferguson, E. 1987. Backgrounds of early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Wialliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Franzmann, M. 2000. Women and Religion. New York : Oxford University Press.

Gench, F.T. 2004. Back to the Well. Women’s encounters with Jesus in the Gospels. Loisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Hendricksen, W. 1989. The New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

King, H. 1995. Medical texts as a source for women’s history. (In Powell, A., ed. s.a. The Greek World. London : Routledge. p. 199-218).

Maleya-Mautsa, L. 2006. Female leadership in the New Testament. A socio-historical study. Doctoral thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom.

Malina, B.J. & Rohrbaugh, L. 1998. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Philadelphia : Fortress Press.

Marrow, S.B. 1995. The Gospel of John. A Reading. New York : Paulist Press.

McKinnish Bridges, L. 1994. John 4:5-42. Interpretation, April 1994:173-176.

O’Day, G. 1992. “John”, (In Newsom, C. and Ringe, S. ed. The Women’s Bible Commentary. Loisville, Kentucky : Westminster).

Okure, T. 1988. The Johannine approach to mission: A contextual study of John 4:1-42. Tübingen : J.C.B. Mohr.

Skinner, M.B. (ed), 1987. Rescuing Creusa: New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity = Helios 13.2 Lubbock, Texas.

Smalley, S. 1978. John: Evangelist and interpreter. Exeter : The Paternoster Press.

KEY WORDS

Woman, Samaritans, Samaritan woman, John 4:1-46, Patriarchy, New Testament

TREFWOORDE

Vroue, Samaritane, Samaritaanse vrou, Johannes 4:1-46, Patriargie, Nuwe Testament

Contact Details

Elma Cornelius

Vaal Triangle Faculty

North West University

E-mail: emcornelius@telkomsa.net