Jesus-Woman of Samaria Dama

 

 


 
                      Jesus-Samaritan Woman Drama: A Scientific Rendition.

The word “Research” implies that something hides somewhere; and that between the researcher and the topic there is something yet to be known – pleading, yearning, and longing. To adequately do justice to this discourse, we must learn what Samaritan is, in order to know who the woman was; we must learn what Jew is to learn who Jesus is (Assuming we were non-Christians, could we have known this?); we must know the Samaria-Jewish relations in older days as well as the effects of this relations, and the implicate of these as per the Jesus-woman of Samaria encounter. We must learn why our dramatis personae behaved in the way they did. We must know the theology of the encounter of John 4. We must learn the effects of this encounter, short-run, long-run and the very long-run, on this theology, to understand the role of its universal applicability in Christological Engineering.
To start, we must start with the first. But just before then, it is imperative to know Christological engineering, hinting that it is scientific handling of Christology, using the pure sciences as apparati. Here Christology shall be taken to its scientific level (since God/Jesus is the founder of all science). Now, Samaritan! Samaria, in the northern part of Israel, was the geographical home of the Samaritans. When Judah was captured by the Babylonians (586 BC), the disabled and unabled ones left behind fell into intermarriage with some of the members of the army of occupation, producing a stock of Jews called the Samaritan Jews. Owing to the irritated nature of the Judean exiles, they felt these stocks of Jews were privy to the actions of the nations who danced that Judah was undone. They were basically found in Samaria after Ezra-Nehemiah actions in the inter-testamental days. The woman of Samaria, Photina, as she became known (Scetvena, in Russia), the great object of this mission, was one of these.
Like the Samaritans, the Jews were the descendants of Jacob, who were the owners of the land of Israel, following the Abrahamic Covenant and who, because they were exiled and returned by God, felt they had greater ties with God than the Samaritans. This locus degenerated into bitter Samaria-Israel relations, a relations in which each detested each with contemptible eyes, esteeming each as detested. In this relations, nor Jews, nor Samaritans, was prepared for unity, a position before the woman came to the well, which well she had the ancestral right to visit. (Jacob, the owner of the well, was the ancestor of the Samaritans, not only the Jews). She came to draw water, frowns of the Jews who arrogated themselves as the sole children of Abraham, not withstanding (Matt. 3:7-9). She had to go there because she needed water, and from the well dug by her own ancestor (Gen. 26:22). She, too, was an Israelite since both Jews and Samaritans were descendants of the Jews of the Tribal period and of the Monarchical loud-ringing (15th to 6th centuries). While the Jews inhabited the territories of Judea and Galilee, the Samaritans were in Samaria, though that some Samaritans could be found in these two and that some Jews could be in Samaria is a fact unassailable (Joshua 15:63).
        So related! But how? Consequent upon history, and upon ethno-linguistic affinity, the Jews (i.e. Jacob’s descendants minus the Samaritans) and the Samaritans (i.e. Jacob’s descendant minus the Jews) found themselves unavoidably in the land of Israel, the Jews in the south, the Samaritans, in the north. They were members of the tribes of Manaseh and Ephraim (sons of Joseph) and of the same umbilical cord with Levi. Like the Jews, the Samaritans called themselves Bene Yisrael, sons of Israel, though they saw not themselves as Yehudim or Mainstream Israel. A thing of fact is that general Jewishism treated the Samaritans as Jews when their religious tenet tallied with theirs; but treated them as out-casts when their doctrines migrated. But really, Samaritan law is not Halakha or Rabbinical Jewish law, having several groups or sects – like Phariseeism and Sadduceeism among the Jews. Things took a strange turn when Judah was exiled, and the land was left prone.  Among the reasons for the evil relationship this was major. When Judah was devastated by the Babylonians, a vacuum needing to be filled was established in Jerusalem, a populational vacuum. And following the law of Social Osmosis (Honsbira, 2012), many people came in, including some people of Samaria from the northern kingdom, who mixed Judaist Puritanism with foreign incomprehensibility. That was not all. Because of the riotous inability of the new population to properly get itself engaged in Judaism for which Ezra wept (Ezra 9:1-10; 14), it had to apply to the Assyrian authority to allow some original priests to return to Jerusalem to correct the adulteration of Judaism as practiced by the social molecules – the relations has already been likened to the solutions of the osmotic process. Returning to Jerusalem, the post-exilic Jews called the foreigners fools and renegades or enemy, though they referred to them not as foreigners. As the Samaritans mocked Jerusalem, building their own worship centre at Gerizim (John 4), as the returned still had their hope in the Temple, the result was religio-psycho-social removal. What is more? That the Temple was on a plain while the Gerizim was on a mountain was adequately segregative. Perhaps Honsbira had this view in view when he posited that racial discrimination and segregation can be found within a race (Honsbira 2012: 9). 
      These positions graduated into the well-side exchange, though it roots were in the pre-Solomonious Rabbinism after the North-South geo-socio-political agenda and its calamitous culmination split the kingdom. These were North Israel with Samaria as capital, and South Israel, with Jerusalem. With effects on the Social Studies of the Jews, on the one hand, and on the Samaritans’, on the other, it explains why Jesus structured the disciples not to go to the Samaritans (Matt. 5:10). “… enter no towns of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Its embers of anti-Samaritanism glowing, it explains why Jesus had to be begged by Jews to help a Samaritan, whom in the process, Jesus called a dog! It represents the ethnocentric tendency of the Jews to pride themselves in their ancestorship of Abraham like the Asantes on the Golden Stool of Asante Oseitutu (Ojelabi, 1970. The Samarito-Jewish relations of the pre-Jesus days, now the determinant one in the Jesus’, led up to the Well Drama, producing effects. 
      One influence is the ideological diversity between the two actors, on the one hand, and the resultant ideological unity, on the other. When Jesus said, “Give me a drink,” he struck a chord of equilibrium between minds socio-religiously diverse, between minds geographically isolate. His intent, unknown to the woman, she replied, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” This accentuating the incompatibility forces, was nothing short of theological battle, for Jesus’ response was in the moment adequately theological when he lamented that the woman had failed to know the gift of God as the Christological process went on. Proceeding to make this known by display of divinity, the woman, exited, pleaded to be given the promised water. Opting off her malicious tendency for a cup of water capable of welling up to eternity, the woman heralded the universality of God through the Son and the Holy Spirit which helped to tell her a big chunk of her life tales. She was converted, so to say. But that is not even all; she, getting disgusted with the old view of Jesus’ disciples as they returned, quickly left to intimate general Samaria of the need for Pan-Israelism as against the age-old anti-Israelism in which they waded. They followed her and got to the messiah: meeting, seeing and believing, in a scene that shall remind one of Caesar’s I came, I saw, I conquered. The tendency in the woman of Samaria to be high-feathered to her fellow Samaritans by being the first to receive the sight was politely rebuffed by the argument of these that they did not need to say they believed the woman, but that she brought them there to witness a greater thing (than she had related to them). They said, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard by ourselves, and we know that this is indeed, the savior of the world” (John 4:42). This episode, speaking of how from a mustard seed of truth, mountains of truth can emerge, can be likened to the view of David Bohn that there is an Implicate Order linking all things such that nothing is completely removed from the other and that nothing is isolate (Bohm: 1884). Redstone (2009) in Honsbira (2012) calls this the Law of Non-locality, which is the tendency of an idea, physically or spiritually, to move from one locale to the other without fail. That the consequent spirituality soon spread to the nooks and cracks of the Samaritan community to herald the universal pseudopodia of the message is an eloquent demonstration of this fact. Oh, yes, this fact prevails in Shakespeare’s “Nor stony tower, nor walls of beaten brass … nor strong links of iron can be retentive to the strength of spirit …” (Julius Caesar, Act i: Scene 3). Before this hour, the message was mostly Jewish, thrusting into Samaritanism – like Montague-Capulet thrusts (Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Act, Scene 1). The message was initially Jewish, but with universal elasticity – like the reality of Judah among the tribes of Israel (Matt. 2:6; Micah 5:2). 
         A close study of this story reveals the role of the original Jewish inclination of the message, providing us with specifics of dealing with the specificity of the message.  But what is universality? The doctrine of the universality of the message of the Christ states that taking the leap from saturate the world, to Judea, to Samaria and to the end of the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8). To do this we shall differentiate Specific from Universal Applications – as if in Differential Calculus. And when from here we are able to arrive at a suitable point in Theology, our goal must have been doubly achieved.  Specific application means the extent of the applicability of the message to a single socio-politico-religious circle, to Jews only. Following this encounter the universality of the mission (hitherto kept secret by Jesus) became known. The effects of this knowledge, both in the Samaritans and in the disciples, like ripples from a stone dropped in a pool of clear, stagnant, pure water, swashed far and far, from shore to shore. It created a new tendency for the specific application to become universal. When the message was applied specifically, it only had to do with the realities of the Israelites. We call this (y). When it was rendered universally, it related to the realities of the Gentiles. We shall call this (m). Yet, in the former, some Gentiles were touched. Again, call this (m). In the latter, there were also tendencies toward Israel. Call this (y). Between these two polarities there is a no-man’s land, like all that lies in the Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well side (a combination of y and m). This is because while Jesus’ inclinations that the woman gave him drink spoke of universal intentions (y), the woman’s view that Jesus was too Jewish for her to interact with tended to specificity (y). And while some of the acts of Paul in Acts of the Apostles were mixtures of specific and universal applications of the message of Jesus (y and m), because while Paul suffered to make the Word universal, suffering imprisonment, tri-shipwreck etc (m), he also engaged in specificity, even paying some mosaic vows (Acts 21: 23-26) (y). His argument that circumcision, though good for non-Jews, was not indispensible for same, and yet going ahead circumcising Timothy only for his Jewish maternity, is applicationally specific.
            Nothing could really be well-explained, if incapable of being explained in figures (Agharowu (Honsbira), 2012: 432, vol.2, no 4, April 2012 following Kelvin, 1883 [e-mail]). So, we explain the exposition of the outgrowth of universal tendencies in the Jesus encounter with the woman like this:

Let the entire New Testament message
(specific and universal messages or Redemption) be R;
Let the specific messages be s,
Let the universal messages be u,
Let any universal thing in the specific be s,
Let any specific thing in the universal be u
Let differences between specific and universal be x.

If all specific and universal messages is R,
Then, R = s+ u + s + u. (as there are traces of each in each).
          R = 2y+2m.
               
Jesus’ message and its salvation-giving capacity is complete and total, so, R = 100.
Suppositions
Assuming the specific message in the Specific is = 30,
And the specific in the universal is 10,
It means all specifics 30+10 = 40.

Assuming universal message in the universal = 50,
And the universal in the specific message 10,
It means all universals 50 +10 = 60.
                 
It means R as s + u + u + s,
              = 30+10+50+10
                  = 100 (our starting point).
To effect a difference between specific and universal messages of Jesus is then, to simply subtract s from u.
Giving u – s
=  60 – 40
= 20.
  Check: if s = 30,
                where another s = 10,
                  and u = 50,
                  where another u = 10,
then, u + s = 
30+10+50+10=100.
And u – s = 60 – 40
                = 20.

Thus, based on our assumptions, X = 40 is the difference between specific and universal applications of the NT message.           
        Using our hypothetical figures, while 40 and 60 add up to 100, their difference, 20, is the object of our mission here. And this takes us to a hypothesis. Universal things tends towards specificity; and specific things tends towards being universality. How? As it gets more specific, spirituality develops more in the local locale, making here to be more spiritually concentrated than the spiritually less concentrated outside locations. This is in obedience to Spiritual Osmosis (Honsbira in AJSC, 2012) as in Genesis 1:2 where from above, spirituality more concentrated here, migrated to earth where there was none; and in Acts 2 where spirituality, more in Jesus than in the disciples, flowed Jesus-discipleswards, and from the disciples to the Pentecostals at Jerusalem (Acts 2:1-8), spirituality must flow out to the outside locations! And as it does so, the specific location, as a part of the universal, gets more affected. Then, the other-way-round? The truth is that all things starting at a point, spirituality cannot start abroad, except from inside. This takes us back to the Law of Non-locality aforesaid.
         It was this locus, R = 30+10+50+10, deciding each of Jesus and the Samaritan woman to confront each other in the said encounter, that we must dissect for its gold content. Jesus asked the woman for a drink to disclose the universality of his mission. But the woman, failing to grasp the identity of Jesus, started defending the psycho-socio-political individuality of Samaritanism. The natural need for Samaritanism to seek self-unity with its biological brother (Jewishism) had not appeared to be a function of brotherhood on her part. Thus, in the bid to fan the embers of tribalism, she repealed the Lord’s cup-stretched hands of comradeship in a way that leaned towards woe – for woe, really, was the origin of the segregation. The above analysis, deep and scientific and pushed through the jaws of Mathematics carries thoughts we choose to refer to as Theological Engineering.
And Jesus? The stance of Jesus was only para-ordinary. It was not as if he did not know the social barrier between the Jews and the Samaritan. He once forbade his messengers going to the Samaritans, probably, for this reason; and probably because the time was not ripe. But that time, the Samaritans, who might have been aware of the instruction of Jesus, also included the woman. Thus, “What then is the meaning of this new show of friendliness,” she could have asked, at least, in her mind. “What a temptation?” But the time was ripe, and Jesus was poised to do the Father’s will, for what he said he did; where he sent he went. All in all, Jesus made the move, moving before the Samaritan, a movement that touched other Samaritans, if not Samaritanism in general. The woman’s response became equal to, if not more than, those of each of her people, validating the validity of the chemical law that in a mixture of gases which do not mix chemically, the pressure of each of the gases on the walls of the container equals the pressure it would have exerted if it alone were in the container (Holderness et al, 1988). Jesus’ action, analogous to the woman’s, was equal to if not greater than that of the woman and her people taken as one. This is because Jesus was a party in the dual relations, in the dual entente, and so, was equal – though he only was in his group. If one considers that in international relations, sizes of nations do not matter in decision-taking, but only nationalistic individuality, then all is safe here. 
Apart from the specifics of parties bahaviours, we are here faced with the theology of the encounter, and this on its own part is another encounter. Theology is the study of the things about God. In Theological Engineering, let’s call it the study of the mind of Jesus. As an effective introduction into this subject, we may want to see what qualified the Samaritan to make use of the well. Her descent from Abraham and from Jacob, the well owner, is why (Gen. 26:22). Thus, we beg to repeat that Samaritans were descendants of Joseph, the dreamer, the 11th son of Jacob. Thus, it seems true that a curse waits for who deprives a child from inheriting his father’s property and waited for who would have dared to ward her off. To such a divinely configured encounter, we sing:

On that day, a day so wet;
Oh that day when all was set,
In and around the welling well,
With God watching harshly well,
Dogs need nothing, only “Come and eat.”
The Lord said it, bit in bit,
But mostly like the bank triangulare,
Samaritan wits were spare.
With a universal touch lit as call,
The well being for all and all,
Nothing remained specific,
From the Pacific to the pacific;
Oh, since that day.


We won’t as why Jesus applied for water from the Samaritan.  Suffice it to say he was carrying out an order for “What the Father asks me I do” (John 14:13; 14:9;16:23). We won’t ask why the woman refused to help Jesus. Suffice it to say Jesus’ “nor Gezerim nor Jerusalem would be overall centre of worship,” that worship, thenceforth conducted anywhere, would be a thing of the mind, not locale, is why. (Could this be why Jeremiah said that there was to come a new covenant to be written in the heart of men?). In this context, Jerusalem was not Jerusalem, but a temple – that was soon to be razed down! If Jerusalem was a spiritually slanting centre, why, then, was the ado about it? It was for this fact – that worship would come to be decentralized – that Jerusalem was doomed. A chief actuality of God is that he accepted what he does not want from man, if he feels this causes no harm. God does not want man to build him a house, we see. When man and his God started relating, there was no specific place where he worshipped his God. Just anywhere, even his mind (Gen. 1-3). In fact, who is man, what does he know to want to build God a house or a place of abode (Isaiah 66:1-3)? In place of beautiful structures for God to stay, God chooses the contrite heart of the humble, one who fears him. When Ezra cried and Nehemiah wept that a house was not made for the Lord, it was not as if they longed to see God protected from rains or sun. It was for lack of a befitting place to worship God, a befitting place for the worshipers! But there are no befitting places for God, I beg, a contestation validated by validity of Paul’s that,


“But it was Solomon who built a house for him.
Yes, the most high God does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
Heaven is my throne,
And the earth, my foot stool.
What house will you build for me,
Says the Lord, or where is the place of my rest?
Did not my hands make all these things?” (Acts 7:47-49). 

If God needs a house to stay, then how many houses shall be built for him? If he does not need a house to stay, then why must we cling to the temple of Jerusalem as central for God? Thus, to feel that suitable abode can be built for God can translate as the most grievous fault in Theology. Herefrom, one can argue that vanities are the gold and the silver with which the building blocks of the temple was made. And when Jesus said that a time was coming when no block of the temple would remain on the other (Matt 24:2; Luke 21:6), he was referring to the likelihood of the invaders to get a block cracked from the other to harvest the vain gold pieces in between blocks. If not so, who will destroy a city and spend time to crack each stone from each? There is normally no time for that? So the encounter foretells a time when true worship shall be decentralized, time of significant enlargements of worship. Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness as a part of the plan (Isa. 1:26; 4:3-4; Ezek. 36:25-26; Daniel 9:24). But with time, Good would be found in the extension of Israel's good to the surrounding nations (Micah 4:1-4; Isa. 2:2-4; 45:5,6; Zech. 2:11; 8:22-23; Isa. 60; 66:19-21; Zech. 14:16-17), including the soil of Egypt (Isa. 19:19-22). Since Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, a new heaven and a new

earth were to come (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21). When this shall be, man shall become new man (neos anthropos).
         Having so said, it is imperative to bring out the follow-ups of this encounter as a matter of fact of this theology. Among the most far-reaching effects of the encounter is the extension of Christology, not only to Samaria, but also, to the world. The Samaritans, picking this up, saw the need to rethink, not isolatorily clinging to the rocks of Gerizim, or uncompromisingly esteeming the Jews of Jerusalem as lower than foes. Another follow-up of the meeting was the erection of a new methodological and ideological consciousness in the disciples that Jerusalem did not necessarily matter. It foreran the readiness in same to scatter abroad, the message on head – as instructed in the Great Commission – “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit shall come upon you; and you shall be my witness in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” Another effect of the meeting was the establishment of doctrinal imperialism based on Well Side,  for the forces which it embellished smoldered and smoldered. The idea of traveling to distant places to drop the news by Peter, John Mark, Paul and Barnabas, and others, and the commission of Ananias by God to help in this respect witnesses this fact (Acts 9:15). Another effect of the Jesus-Samaritan meeting at Jacob’s Well was on the geography of the land which seemed more than before to be meeting and merging. Reasoning suggests that when the people got closer, the land is ipso facto closer, too. An effect, too, of the meeting was the rebirth, please, let’s say so, of a mite of the racial temperamental homogeneity between the two sociologies of the pre-Rehoboam-Jeroboam period. It is likely that, if not youths, some elders, nostalgic in the feeling of days-gone-by, could weep in joy that things tended towards the union days, and that better days lay ahead. What is more, didn’t Jesus himself in “Jesus wept.” weep that things were somehow (John 11:35)? In addition, the psycho-social climate of the general Jewish-Samaritan relations also changed, consequent upon the well side meeting of Jesus and the woman. As the Lord drew nearer the woman, the woman’s heart drew toward the Lord, resulting in a growing radicalism in Samaria for Christ and what he stood for. In addition, also, there developed, with roots in the meeting, a fissiparity of Christology, its tendency to permeate and to flood up the land, most remarkable. In less than a day, Christology became liquid, which liquidity became its life wire, thousands of years to come. The encounter is pedagogic, a time teacher, teaching the roles age-old enmity between people can play in ensuring peace meant to last for children yet unborn, and to ages yet to come. Today, today, (over 2000 years away, are we to enjoying this role now?) Another thing is this. Though some could call it an “effect-seeking experimental exercise” – in fact, Olubunmi, reacting to this in my public lecture (February, 16th, 2014) said so, yet one finds it hard to believe Olubunmi. That the seemingly new relations between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:39-45) made the surrounding hostile nations of Israel fear a bulky combine is reasonable and capable of baffling the inroads of Olubunmi. (Consider 2 Kings 7:6-7 as a pointer to this consideration.) Consider also, the fact that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4 in militarism, since combined, each 2 will produce more than it could, left singly (Kazmi 2010: 198). The law of synergy, as it is called operates especially when there are 4 at either side and some have to dessert. If 2 deserts, it leaves 4:2 as the ratio; if 1, it leaves 4:3. If the deserting 1 joins the opponent (as in our argument) it leaves the ratio as 5:3. The leaving of 1 person from camp B has thus left the power equation in A’s favour, if really, 5 – 3=2, but not 1. Poor Olubunmi!   

         Thus, “It was an encounter that allied itself to the mind of God, an encounter that fructified,” (Honsbira in Writing.com” The Mind of God) Honsbira concluded. Consequent upon the the Jacob Well encounter, one can sing thus:


God does nothing without its time;
This is the law of nature.
  Off its seasons, the Kola bears no fruit;
  In its seasons, all plants bear their seeds;
  Again, it is a law of nature, of God.

In the thick, dark and impenetrable forest,
The newest palm frond always weird weak,
Rears its head to taste the sky, to kiss the Lord;
It is the law of nature, the law of God.

In midst of the tempest hottest,
The towering eagle fears no fear,
Armed by law, both front and rear,
Shall bank and land, after
Towering and towering, God the timer.

If from thorny tickets, irokos can out-spread,
From Jacob Well, let the message spread.


These force us to conclude; and to do so we highlight our segments once more. That the Jesus-Samaritan woman encounter at Jacob Well is a blessing is glare. This can be learnt from what Samaritan is, who the woman was, what Jew is, who Jesus is, meaning of Samarito-Jewish relations in the pre-well days, the productive effects of this relations on Jesus, Jews, Samaria and Samaritanism; the cumulate of these on the intent of the occasion, on the encounter per se, why each dramatic character behaved his/her way. John 4 created a new theology as important as the old. There was the long-run effect of the encounter on Christology, and this makes us understand the role of universal applicability of the message intended by the meeting of the Lord with the woman in our Christological engineering. All these taken as one is a representative representative of the mind of God before creation.


  Bibliography

1.            Abraham J. Heschel: The Prophets; Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2001.
2.          Agharowu, E. E. (Honsbira) .Applying  Bottom-of the-Pyramid Theory  In Boosting The Income of The Private  School  ; And Leaving the Society Happier – A Thesis  On Strategic Management, accepted for Publication in the Asian/Japanese Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences (AJSC), June, 2012. Email:editor.ajsc@leena luna.co.jp,[e-mail]
3.          Agharowu E.E. (Honsbira). Strategic Management: Applying the Reverse of Osmosis in the Teaching-Learning Process in the School (R.O. in Action), Published in the Asian / Japanese Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, AJSC, June 2012. Email:[e-mail], [e-mail]
4.          Agharowu Eyebira Emmanuel (Honsbira). Using Mathematics to Teach History: A Case Study of the Nana-British Relations, Published in the American/China Educational Review, April, 2012.,[e-mail].
5.          Agharowu Eyebira Emmanuel (Honsbira). The Mind of God - Writing.Com

6.          Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P.: The Holy Land: A Pilgrim’s Guide to Israel, Jordan and the Sinai Continuum Publishing, 1996).
7.          Holderness, H.O. and Lambert, M.A. (1988). A New Certificate Chemistry. Ibadan: Heinemann.
8.           Horne, Thomas Hartwell. (1856). An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge. New York : Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts
9.           I Sleep With My Books Because I Believe Osmosis. Http.//Www.Facebook.Com./Pages/ I
10. Ojelabi, Adekunle. (1970). A TEXT-BOOK OF WEST AFRICAN HISTORY. IBADAN: HEINEMAN.
11.           Osmosis and Kinetic Energy “Emergency Medical Para Medicine”, April 2011, Online.
12.          Smith, David: “Where it happened”, The Jerusalem Post Christian Edition, December 2007.
13.          The Torah, W. G. Plaut, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New York, 1981.
14.          The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version (1970). London. British and Foreign Bible Society.
15.          Turiel, C. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge. New-york: University Press.
16.          What was the name of the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the well? Online.  http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/photini.htm