“... Perhaps by using the term “messiah” the Fourth Gospel has her appeal to a concept shared by both Jews and Samaritans (cf. Josephus Ant. 18.85–87), but the Samaritan concept most equivalent to the Jewish messiah appears to be quite different from the Jewish concept. They spoke not of a Davidic messiah, nor actually much of an “anointed” (messianic) agent per se, but of the “Taheb,” the “restorer,” a prophet like Moses. Like Moses (see comment on 6:15), the Taheb would also rule. As best as we can tell, they believed that the era of divine favor (rahutha) ended soon after Moses, in the time of Eli, with Israel’s religious practices becoming defiled from Samuel’s time onward. The era of divine displeasure (panutha) now prevailed, but the Taheb, the prophet like Moses, would restore the era of divine favor. So central was the new Moses idea to the Taheb’s mission that the Samaritan Pentateuch places Deut 18:18 near the Ten Commandments of Exod 20. If members of John’s audience could be expected to catch the allusion, the greater-than-Moses imagery in John 4 would reinforce the picture of Jesus as the Taheb. Although it is important to affirm again the uncertainty of our knowledge of many Samaritan beliefs in this period, it may be relevant that Samaritans apparently expected the Taheb to be a sort of teacher, as in 4:25. ...”