In conclusion, let it be noted that the bearing of the myth of Simon Magus on Christianity is not limited to the explanation of the Samaritan origins and the elucidation of the Paul-and-Peter antagonism. The more the matter is looked into, the more reason is seen for surmising that Samaria played a large part in the beginnings of the Christian system. Samaria seems to have been beyond all other parts of Palestine a crucible in which manifold cult-elements tended to be fused by syncretic ideas; and the extent to which Samaria figures in the fourth gospel is a phenomenon not yet adequately explained. The fact that Jesus is there said to have been called a Samaritan reminds us that among the movements of the "false Christs" so often alluded to in the Gospels [578] a Samaritan cult of the mystic Christ may have counted for much. The fourth gospel itself would come under the anti-Pauline ban, inasmuch as, while Simon Magus is said to have sought to substitute Mount Gerizim for Jerusalem, Jesus here [579] is made to set aside both the Samaritan mountain and Jerusalem. The very fact that the Samaritan woman professedly expects the coming of Messiah, is a hint that the story of the well and the living water may be of Samaritan Messianic origin. Nay more, since we know that the Samaritans in particular laid stress on the Messiah Ben Joseph rather than on the Messiah Ben David, they regarding themselves as of Josephite descent, it is probable that the very legend of Jesus being the putative son of one Joseph, which we know was absent from the Ebionite version of Matthew, was framed to meet the Samaritan view. These matters are still far from having been exhaustively considered. NOTES [1] The charge of haste is posited as a preliminary to criticism by the Rev. Dr. Thorburn in his work on The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels. Some examples of Dr. Thorburn's own haste will be found in the following pages. [2] Twenty years ago a French scholar gently included me in this reproach. [3] I omit personalities. [4] Art. by H. G. Wood in The Cambridge Magazine, Jan. 1917. [5] Cp. H.J. 128-139. [6] In the course of a second attack, the critic avows that he knows of "no theory of gospel-origins, living or dead," which concedes that the tragedy-story was added to the gospels as a separate block. Reminded that the school of B. Weiss make their "Primitive Gospel" end before the tragedy, he replies in a third attack that that school is "obsolete"--i. e. neither living nor dead? [7] It seems to have been the view of Mr. Cassels. [8] Art. Gospels in Encyc. Bibl., ii, col. 1869. [9] Ecce Deus, p. 93. [10] Historical Christ, p. 182. [11] Ecce Deus, pref. p. ix. [12] Dr. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, p. 5. [13] H.J. 112, 113, 128, 157 sq., 177 sq. [14] Hist. of Greece, 10 vol. ed. 1888, ii, 462. [15] Id. p. 500. [16] Gesch. des Alterthums, ii (1893), 649. See the context for the historic basis in general. [17] Id. 427, 564.