Words

van-gogh-good-samaritan

Essay I

Jessica Waite

Jesus’ Words

The Good Samaritan

Within the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus’s teachings were in the form of parables to challenge listeners and encourage further reflection on how one should live their life. However, Luke strives to portray Jesus in a slightly different way than Matthew and Mark depict Jesus. Luke’s Jesus is viewed as a teacher who is wise and uses parables, not in a way to create controversy, but to educate his people, the Jews. The parables within Luke are aimed to motivate the Jews to become better people, but later evidence shows that the author of Luke manipulates and changes parables within the book to maintain the visual of Jesus as an honorable Teacher.

According to The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Volume 4, “the term parable is a transliteration of the parable, which signifies a comparison; literally it is something cast alongside.” In the Synoptic Gospels, narratives, proverbs, simple straightforward discourse, and other sayings with a proverbial character are designated ‘parable,’ which generally means for the evangelists that they have a deeper religious significance. Thus early Christian literature appears to designate as ‘parable’ any saying of Jesus whose meaning is not immediately clear in terms of Christian faith and ideology.”[1] Volume 4 of The Dictionary of the Bible continues to describe the significance of Jesus within the church. Jesus would not talk about anything, for example a mustard seed, unless he had special meaning and deep thinking about said thing. There would always be some hidden meaning that took time and thought to discover, and with that theory, the parable was created. There are also two different types of parables: the challenge parable and the example parable. The challenge parable refers to a story that creates a problem within a people or culture, such as the Jews not doing the right thing while their enemies are doing the right thing. John Crossan, the author of The Power of Parable, states that challenge parables also challenge individuals to think, argue, and decide what the present meaning is. In a different light, an example parable refers to a story that simply provides an example for how one should live their lives without a lot of controversy. It does not “callout” a particular group like the challenge parable tends to do, but rather tells one how they should live on a softer note. Luke is said to be an author that changes the context of a particular parable called, the Good Samaritan, which I will discuss later.

The parable of the Good Samaritan can be found in Luke 10:25-37. In Luke, Jesus presents this parable after a lawyer tries to test Jesus in the beginning of verse 25 by asking him how he can inherit eternal life. The lawyer knows that to inherit eternal life the law states, amongst other things, to love your neighbor. However, he does not know necessarily who his neighbor is. Jesus replies with this parable, which begins with a man who was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. During his journey, he is robbed and beaten by thieves. The next scene displays a priest who sees the disheveled man, but continues on his way without helping him. Another man passes by, a Levite, but also refuses to stop and check on the beaten man. Finally, a Samaritan sees the man. Rather than passing by like his predecessors, the Samaritan stops and cares for the man. He pours wine and oil on his wounds, bandages them, places him on his own animal (meaning he himself would have to walk the rest of the way), and takes him to an inn to care for him there. The next day, the Samaritan gives the inn keeper two denarii, which according to the annotation linked to verse 35 is said to be enough currency to “provide for the cost of lodging.”[2] The parable finishes with the Samaritan leaving the battered man in the inn keeper’s care, but with plans in returning and paying any extra fees that accumulate while he is gone.

What is shocking about this parable is that Jesus uses a Samaritan as the individual to help the man in need. Samaritans were the enemies of the Jews.[3] The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 5 states that “according to the Jews (Ezra 4:1-6 and Nehemiah 2:19, 4:2-3, 7-8), Northerners (Samaritans or Samarians) tried to join them in the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Jews rejected them because they were no longer pure. Sanballat’s daughter had married the son of the Jewish high priest, and Nehemiah exiled them from Jerusalem (Neh 13:28).”[4] If a Jew were listening to a parable of a man who saves the wounded man, they would have expected the hero to be another Jew, but that is where Jesus’s lesson comes into play. He expresses that anyone, including the enemy, can be a neighbor and that one must love everyone.

The verses containing this parable had a reference to another story of Samaritans showing “kindness” to the Israelites. The story is found in the Old Testament book, 2 Chronicles 28:8-15. The Samaritans had invaded Judah and taken captive two hundred thousand sons, daughters and wives. God sent a prophet named Oded to confront the Samaritans and convince them to set their captives free. After comparing the Samaritans to hypocrites for harming the Israelites when they had their own sins, the Samaritans cleaned and fed the Israelites and took them to their fellow Israelites located in Jericho. We can see a parallel here between this story and Jesus’s parable of the “Good Samaritan.” He uses the same theme of the Jews’ most hated enemy showing compassion towards them, and that to become better individuals they must do the same towards the enemy.[5]

According to the two stories above, the Jews are told to love their enemies as they have loved them. This type of reasoning that Luke offers in the Good Samaritan parable refers to an example parable, because individuals can look at that story and follow the Good Samaritan by example. However, telling stories through the oral tradition can change the interpretation and narrative of a story based on different incentives. For example, Luke changed the order of the parable to turn it into an example story, when originally the parable would have been considered a challenge parable. Evidence of this relies on the wording within the parable. According to Crossan and as mentioned in class, Matthew and Luke both derive their content from Mark, since the author of Mark had written his book before Luke and Matthew in the year 70CE. The author of Matthew, stated by Crossan, thought that copying Mark’s story of the conversation between Jesus and the scribe would be repetitive, so he decided to solely write the one interaction between Jesus and the lawyer. However, Luke combined these stories. “It was Luke – and not Jesus – who adopted the dialogue about the double commandment of loving god and neighbor from Jesus in Mark as the context for the Good Samaritan parable. He also adapted it; he changed it from a questioner applauding Jesus with, ‘You are right, Teacher,’ in Mark 12:32 to Jesus applauding the questioner with, ‘you have given the right answer,’ in Luke 10:28.”[6] Placing the dialogue of the double commandment before the parable would help listeners of the story to create an understanding of what the parable meant, presumably rather than having other interpretations of the parable. Making the parable an example parable would put the Jews in a positive light and give them a teaching moment rather than depict them as worse than their enemy and that they should follow their lead to righteousness.

Another view on the importance of words relies on the fact that Jesus categorized the travelers: one was a priest, one a Levite, and one a Samaritan. If Jesus intended to make this parable an example parable as Luke established, why would Jesus then categorize each traveler, when he could have simply said “traveler 1,” “traveler 2,” and “traveler 3?” A similar story of this parable is found in Henry Fielding’s satirical novel, The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews, and of His Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, Written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes, Author of Don Quixote. In Fielding’s novel, a man named Joseph is attacked by thieves, stripped naked and left for dead. Similar to the parable in Luke, travelers pass by the wounded man; a stagecoach filled with six characters rather than the three in Luke. However, these characters argue. The lowly postilion hears groans from the ditch and wishes to stop. The coachman, constrained by time refuses to stop. The thought of a naked man displeases the lady inside the coach, and the other men inside agree with the lady all except for the younger lawman. Unwilling to be responsible for a man’s death, but interested in taking credit for saving him, the lawman asks the coachman to stop, which he ends up doing. As seen in the story, the travelers are categorized, just as they are within the parable in Luke. It is believed that since the characters are categorized, it would make more sense for the Good Samaritan parable to be that of a challenge parable, just as Crossan argues. “With Jesus and Fielding, it is the respectable ones who refuse to help and the disreputable one who does what is necessary. Jesus, accordingly, uses ‘the priest and the Levite,’ while Fielding works right down the coach’s hierarchy from top to bottom. The upper-class lady and gentleman, the middle-class lawyer, and the lower-class coachman and footman all refuse to help. Only the youngest, lowest-class, oath-swearing criminal-to-be is the one who saves poor Joseph. This makes it a challenge parable, because it reverses the expectations and judgments, the presuppositions and prejudices of Fielding’s hierarchically driven society. What happens to your world if a story records that your ‘best’ people act badly and only your ‘worst’ person acts well?”[7] Luke may have known that the addition of the subject categories could push the parable into a challenge parable. Luke wants to gain followers of Jesus rather than push them away with animosity. Luke revered the Jews at a higher level, and using the challenge parable would only put the Jews down. He already puts Jesus in a more positive light by depicting him as a Teacher, which is a highly revered position, rather than a “secret” messiah as described in class. Changing the challenge parable into an example parable would embody a lesson a teacher would present and would encourage followers, rather than depict Jesus as one to accuse his said followers and push them away.

Another way Luke can raise Jesus’s position as a Teacher is how he presents the lawyer. Generally, a lawyer is considered an elite position, and often times in the New Testament they have been considered “good.” They follow the law and at times are perceived like that of a missionary as seen in Titus.[8] However, Luke seems to convey the lawyer in a lesser light. The first example is how the lawyer calls Jesus teacher: “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”[9] The way that the lawyer says “teacher” here shows that he either does not respect or not fully understand who Jesus is rather than saying “Teacher, I beg of you to look at my son.”[10] Also, asking how to enter eternal lift illustrates the lawyer as one who thinks that eternal life can simply be achieved in one action. “’What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ (NRSV) is the wrong question. The verb ‘do’ is an aorist participle (poiesus), a tense that suggests a single, limited action. The lawyer is thinking of something to check off his to-do list: recite a prayer, offer a sacrifice, drop off a box of macaroni for a food drive, put a twenty in the collection plate. If he’s efficient, he can inherit eternal life before lunch. He should be thinking of living a life of righteousness, much like the lawyer in 4 Maccabees. But he’s a lawyer. And this is Luke’s Gospel, so righteousness is not going to be his concern,”[11] states Amy-Jill Levine, author of, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. The way the lawyer asks Jesus the question is also like a test rather than actually wanting to know. This kind of questioning was similar to what those who opposed Jesus did, such as the Pharisees and other authority figures. Jesus warns followers specifically about this kind of questioning. “the term ‘test’ (Gk. Edpeiradzon) is exactly what Jesus’s followers pray to avoid: ‘Lead us not into temptation’; the line, familiar from the Lord’s Prayer, is literally, ‘Do not bring us to the test’ (Luke 11:4, just a few verses after the parable of the Good Samaritan). By testing Jesus, the lawyer takes the Devil’s role, for it was Satan who had ‘tested’ Jesus in the wilderness.”[12]

But putting the lawyer in this light shows he does not know and that Jesus can teach him how to live a life that is pleasing to him and that will allow the lawyer to enter heaven. It also shows Jesus’s power over the lawyer rather than the lawyer being in a higher position, because Luke gives the impression that the lawyer is not as smart and knowing as he seems to think he is. Luke depicts Jesus passing yet another test and overcoming evil.

Unlike the other Gospel writers, the author of Luke strives to convey Jesus as a noble teacher. Mark displayed Jesus in a way that made him appear to be a “secretive” messiah, with passages that were somewhat embarrassing of people not understanding him. Luke tries to counter this outlook by portraying Jesus as a noble teacher. Teachers are of a higher position and are highly revered. Luke wanted Jesus to be an individual that taught lessons and showed the way to a righteous life and heaven and not as someone who puts down those who follow him. By putting Jesus in this light, Luke was hoping to gain followers and appeal to the Jews.

[1] Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. (pp. 368-369). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1; B.1; D; E.3).

[2] The Jewish Annotated New Testament. New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press, Inc. 2011.

[3] Levine, Amy-Jill. Understanding the Good Samaritan. Biblical Archeology. January 2012. Web. 25 February 2015. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/understanding-the-good-samaritan-parable/

[4] Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 76. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1.2.a, d; C.1-4; D.1, 3)

[5] 2 Chronicles 28:8-15. New International Version. Bible Gateway. Web. 25 February 2015. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+28%3A8-15&version=NIV

[6] Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013. (pp. 58-59).

[7] Ibid. (p. 56).

[8] Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014. (pp. 77).

[9] Luke 10:25

[10]  Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014. (pp. 77).

[11] Ibid. (pp. 78).

[12] Ibid. (pp. 78).

 

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Essay II

Kalila Proulx

Religion 317

Jesus Words

 

Jesus’ words were somewhat confusing to people. He spoke to large crowds in parables and most of them had no idea what he was saying. Many questioned why he was speaking to them in this way. Some thought that he was speaking to his disciples. If they understood what He was saying they would be considered privileged…important.   While others thought he was simply talking to certain religious groups. Everyone else who failed to understand simply didn’t need to know. In reality there are many different interpretations and ways in which Jesus’ words can be described and applied to people’s lives. The parable of the Good Samaritan is an example of this. A simple conversation about a lawyer questioning the words that Jesus spoke.

 Part A: Summary of Luke 10:25-37.

Luke 10:25-37 is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It begins with a lawyer testing Jesus. The lawyer is opposing Jesus, hoping to confuse Him, making himself look better. Similar to how Satan tested Jesus. The lawyer is trying to figure out what he has to do in order to inherit eternal life. In the Jewish Annotated New Testament it is interesting to note that the word test can also be translated as tempt, which highlights the ongoing battle between Jesus and Satan, right versus wrong, good versus evil. “Tempting” instead of testing is the lawyer seeking personal gain through this conversation, something Satan seeks on a daily basis. If the lawyer represents Satan, then tempting Jesus, asking him about eternal life, would simply revolve around ones actions. This passage describes how eternal life is not something that is simply given, based on the worldly actions that they perform. Eternal life is given freely. Actions can only get someone so far; it has to be a lifestyle, a choice, a way of living… not just a to-do list that one has to simply check off. In the scriptures, Jesus describes what the book of the law says. It states in verse 27 “He answered, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself”. One must love God and love others. While reading the Jewish Annotated New Testament it was interesting to read about the concept of the neighbor in the Jewish and Christian ethics. “First, some Christian readers, influenced by the parable of the good Samaritan and Jesus’ exhortation to “love your enemies”, accuse Judaism of having an exclusivist ethic: Jews only love fellow Jews; Christians expand the definition of neighbor and are to love everyone, Jew and Gentile, friend and enemy” (NRSV 540) Having this idea of “neighbor” takes on a different meaning and seems to add to this idea of abstractness and demonstrating that actions won’t advance your journey towards eternal life. It is more than mere actions. Grace, freely given advances God’s kingdom and our journey towards it. God’s gift of eternal life is immersed in grace.

Part B: Summary of Two Articles

In the first article The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus became Fiction about Jesus by John Dominic Crossan. It begins by describing the Parable of the Prodigal son, not the Good Samaritan. In the first part Crossan describes a story of three brothers rather than two. Each one plays their individual role and contributes different relational strengths to society. Crossan’s considering of this as a “challenge parable” is interesting, “because, in its format and content, it quietly and gently challenges the version, not only of Luke, but maybe even of Jesus” (Crossan p.47) There is the first son who never left, the second son, the prodigal son who left and then returned, and lastly there is the third son who left and took nothing with him and will never return. We can relate this passage of the “Prodigal Son” to the “Parable of the Good Samaritan” because one of the main ideas in the “Parable of the Good Samaritan” is this idea that simply doing things, especially things for yourself, may lead to a very comfortable life here on earth, but won’t lead to life beyond this one. In fact it won’t even lead to a very fulfilling life on this earth. This is the struggle of the brothers in the “Prodigal Son.” The first son did everything by the book, following all the rules, never getting into trouble but he ended up being a tax collector, someone despised by society. The second son left with his share of his inheritance. He went and squandered it away on useless things (all very selfish things). When he returned home, although very underserving, he was received with love and open arms. The third son, who expected nothing and took nothing…never understanding our connectedness together would embark on a journey of loneliness and never return. The lawyer in our story is a combination of the three sons. He is very intelligent, has money, authority and respect but lacks in his ability to extend grace to others like the father did for the second son. Not only could he not extend grace to others, I don’t even think he understood what Jesus was talking about…thus the parable.

In the article The Power of Parable it later describes the “Parable of the Good Samaritan” as being allegorical, like a riddle parable. St Augustine is one of Christianity’s greatest theologians and he is credited with coining this idea of the riddle parable. Everything has a secondary meaning. Jesus used words familiar to the culture, but they were only able to understand them in one context. They could not understand phrases that had multiple definitions such as, the thieves being considered as the devil or his angels as the Samaritan “which means “guardian”, therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name”” (Crossan 50). Next the Good Samaritan is described as an example parable. This is more of an ethical approach to looking at the parable. Crossan describes Augustine’s thinking by analyzing ones neighbor. “For the name “neighbor” is relative, and no one can be neighbor except to a neighbor… Everyone whom we ought to show or who ought to show to us, the offices or mercy is called a neighbor” (Crossan 52). Although Crossan does end up by stating that the Parable of the Good Samaritan could be an example parable, he stands by the idea that “challenge parables humble our prejudicial absolutes, but without proposing counter absolutes in their place” (Crossan 63). He believes that the challenge parable has more to offer and is more relevant to society today.

In the article Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi by Amy-Jill Levine. She begins the article by giving different examples from our world today where the Parable of the Good Samaritan might be applicable, however the translation is subject to their interpretation. For example she describes a citizen of Sierra Leone receiving help from the Soviet Union presenting the idea that the “Samaritan” is people in general and how the “Samaritan” needs to help those in need. They define and interpret the story of the Good Samaritan to mean what they want it to mean for their specific purposes. The article then goes on talking about how to disprove Luke’s concept about who the Lawyer is. The article describes the Lawyer as being single minded and not fully respecting the answer in which Jesus gives him, as if he is looking for more of a “quick fix” rather than taking the time to actually change and make a difference in his life. In a way she Levine is describing how the lawyer is belittling the name of Jesus and who He is. Later in the article it talks about how Jesus responded in more of a “professional” manner by having him refer back to the book of the law. This article is portraying Jesus as more of a teacher because of his interaction with the Lawyer. The language flows as if a teacher is talking to a student. All of these are valid points, signifying the depth of a parable and it’s many interpretations. Along with its many interpretations, Levine later states how in the beginning of the parable the person is not given an identity, alluding to the idea that this person could be anyone of any background and social status which ultimately makes the passage more relatable no matter who the person reading or hearing about this story is (Levine 2014). The article by Levine really puts into perspective the humanity aspect of the parable and how everyone should be treated with respect. When going into detail about the corps and how they should be treated with respect and how it’s the idea that one should be respectful just because their also a human being and it could have been anyone. One cannot simply catch the “uncleanliness” of another person by helping them (Levine 2014). Later in the article Levine shifts to the idea that compassion is what drives the Samaritan; and that we too should have compassion for others around us. These ideas represented in the parable are applicable for any real life event or situation. The parable doesn’t have a timeline in which it functions, it’s a timeless parable. The article is based around humanity and compassion for other people. We shouldn’t simply be good just to have this everlasting life. The everlasting life is freely given and we should do good because that’s what Jesus’ words tell us and that we are all part of humanity therefore grace and compassion should be freely given to all.

Part C: Analytical Response to The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible:

In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 4 section A.1 begins explaining the concept of the word “parable”, what it means and how it is relevant to the Old Testament. “The old testament uses the term mashal for literary units whose meaning is not immediately clear or easily understood. Mashal translates as “parable” (Hedrick 368). It is evident to note that “parable” means something that is not easily understood when relating this word back into the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The Lawyer did not easily understand what it was that Jesus was saying. It was not just a simple task to go help this man and then receive eternal life. Jesus said that eternal life is given to everyone. Often times it is viewed as a check list of duties that people have to do, or get done, in order to live a fulfilled life. They then feel that they have earned eternal life. While this may be how things appear at first glance, it is not the sole purpose of the parable. As it is stated that parables are not easily understood, one has to dig deeper than the literal words on paper. The reading in the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 4 also describes how this parable functions as an allegory, which we can then compare to the Power of the Parable: How Fiction By Jesus Became Fiction About Jesus by John Dominic Crossan. The passage is considered an allegory in both, which is interesting because it gives substance to this idea that each person and each idea has a deeper and more meaningful ideal behind them. Each character can be dissected and viewed in a deeper context such as the thieves representing the devil and his angels. Part E of volume 4 speaks about example stories. This seems to fit well with section A because it talks about the parable being a form of an example parable… other ways of looking at a parable rather than having just one concrete way that’s considered the “right” way. Parables are able to take on multiple meanings.

In the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 4 section B.1 it states again how these ideas designated as “parable” are not clear at first glance. Many of Jesus’ followers were continually confused because Matthew, Mark and Luke all stated Jesus’ sayings differently, leaving out or adding pieces depending on their own personal understanding, writing style and personal values and beliefs.

In the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible volume 4 section D there is a discussion about why Jesus spoke in parables. With parables being as indirect as they are, people often wondered why Jesus would speak in parables instead of just stating things directly. While it says that Mark thinks Jesus used parables because Jesus was always speaking to crowds and that “the secret of the kingdom of God would only be understood by his disciples; for those outside the circle of his followers everything is presented in parables so that “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven”” (Hedrick 372). Mark and Luke both have differing perspectives on why Jesus spoke in parables, which continues to confuse people even more with how to interpret what Jesus is saying. Even though the parables seem confusing at first glance, they are for all peoples general understanding and it is up to their own interpretation. Part B states, “Jesus whose meaning is not immediately clear in terms of Christian faith and theology. Jesus, being who he was in the faith of the church, simply would not traffic in superficial discourse; therefore what appears to be banal language is judged to be figurative or comparative discourse and is given a deeper significance” (Hedrick 369).

In the Dictionary of the Bible volume 5 section A.1 it evaluates the relationships of the people in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It puts into perspective the tension between Jews and Samaritans. Just as volume 4 alluded to the idea of many different interpretations, this passage from volume 5 section A.1 states, “Jesus’ answer illustrates that everyone is a neighbor and that we should act neighborly to all who need us. Many different groups have identified themselves with the Samaritan and hope to embody his good qualities” (Anderson75). The personal identification that each person can have in common with the Samaritan and placing themselves in a position where they want to act as the Samaritan shows a much deeper understanding of the parable.

In volume 5 section A it states that the Samaritans “may be products of intermarriage between such immigrants and remnants of the northern tribes “lost ten tribes””(Anderson 76). The Samaritans were not well liked. In fact they were a people group that was looked down on by the Jews. This is what makes this parable so intertwined with meaning. Jesus selected this people group to be the one who chose correctly. When connecting this reading in section A.2.d it says “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans” (Anderson p77). When connecting this back to the original passage it doesn’t matter who the person is, it says to love your neighbor. Everyone is a neighbor therefore treat everyone with kindness. “Jesus says that even Samaritans behave better than Jews on occasion, which he illustrates in the stories of the Good Samaritan” (Anderson p 77).

Section C in the Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 5, talks about monotheism and while the parable of the Good Samaritan talks about treating your neighbor well, the lawyer states how he and the Samaritan have nothing in common. Section C states how their belief systems are similar though. While each religion functions differently they are similar in the aspect that monotheism is the foundation of their faith. The Torah is viewed as a moral code similarly as the parable is viewed as moral stories to live by, whether that be a challenge parable, example parable or ethical parable. In section C.4 when its talking about Mount Gerizim, its evident that even though the Samaritans were looked down on as having less, or being less important, this section illustrates how they have a beautiful place to live with wonderful temples and synagogues to practice their faith. While they are looked down upon, they still have enough to satisfy their own needs and be who they are called to be. Section D highlights that the Samaritans and Jews were indeed rooted from the same historical tradition. Without knowing the historical context the lawyer didn’t know just how similar he and the Samaritan were.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is very much open for interpretation. Jesus’ words were both vague and clear, depending on the personal perspective. To some it became a checklist of things that have to be followed. To others it became a model of how to live. The world is filled with nations that have developed their own faith, their own belief system. The parable of the Good Samaritan tells us that only those rooted and grounded in grace, seeking to care for your neighbor will lead to eternal life. The lawyer wanted the fastest way to eternal life…that is why he didn’t understand the parable.

Throughout this class it has been very interesting and valuable knowledge to learn about the historical context of where these stories come from. It isn’t as difficult to look at the bible and draw my own conclusions and ideas from it, but one thing that I have been learning a lot more from is where these stories actually come from and how putting them on a timeline really does help put them into context. It has been really interesting for me to think about the 2-source hypothesis and learn how the gospels pull ideas from one another. Comparing the verses in class has been really interesting. I’ve read the bible, but not always known where these stories are drawn from or which stories have similar ideas. The 2-source hypothesis was a foreign idea to me and now after learning about it, it really does help to put things into a greater perspective.

 

 

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Essay III

Levi Smucker

Rel 317

Jesus Words

 

Jesus is one of the most iconic figures in history. His words and deeds continue to be analyzed for their historical, religious, and cultural significance. In what was believed to be just three years of public ministry, he used parables, miraculous healings, and controversial sermons to permanently make his mark on history. I want to explore one of the more famous parables that Jesus gave in his short time of public ministry. The Good Samaritan parable is one of the more dense and complex parables that Jesus tells and I’d like to unpack the meaning of this parable and do an analytical study of it. I’ll start with a summary of the text and then begin to unpack the multiple sources available to try to provide background information and meaning for the parables before I provide my final analysis for the text.

We find our self in the midst of Jesus’s public ministry in Luke 10:25-37, and just after giving a short teaching to his disciples we find Jesus prompted with a question from a lawyer. Jesus is prompted with the difficult question, “…what must I do to inherit eternal life “ (Lk 10:25). Jesus has a stereotypical response to the question by answering the question with a question. Rather than answering the question he asks the man to answer for himself based on what scripture tells him (Lk 10:26). The lawyer’s response was, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your strength….and love your neighbor as yourself” (Lk 10:27), which originates from the Old Testament Jewish law found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Jesus then confirms the lawyer’s answer, but then the lawyer prompts him again with the question, “…and who is my neighbor?” (Lk 10:28). To this provocative question Jesus began to address this question, or somewhat address this question, in the form of a parable. Jesus began to tell a story about a man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and was attacked by robbers. He was left on the road half-dead and a series of three travelers came upon him in separate occasions. The priest came first and walked right past him, while the Levite that followed did the same. Surprisingly, the final traveler, the Samaritan, was the only one that stopped. He bandaged the injured mans wounds, stayed with him that night in a nearby inn, and even paid the inn keeper enough money to let him stay in the inn till he recovered. After finishing the story Jesus asked, “Which of these three do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers” (Lk 10:36). The Lawyer then replied “The one who showed him mercy” (Lk: 10:37), and after hearing that Jesus called him to go out into the world and do the same.

In John Dominic Crossan’s book, “The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction About Jesus” he attempts to address the purpose and intentions that Jesus was trying to convey in the parable, rather than that of Luke. He starts by addressing and defining the three most common interpretations of parables as riddles, examples, and challenges.   After carefully addressing each interpretation he provides his evidence on why we should look at the parable of the Good Samaritan as a challenge parable. Crossan formulates his argument by slightly disproving the first two interpretations, then providing evidence for the challenge parable that leads the reader to understand that the challenge parable is the most likely intent we can convey based on our internal and external evidence.

Crossan started out his argument by supplying the reader a context for what a challenge parable is with Gide’s counter parable of the Prodigals son (Crossan 2013). A challenge parable is essentially a story that challenges the reader to think more deeply about what we commonly think about society (Crossan 2013). For example, a challenge parable may tell a story that highlights the benefits of being poor over being rich. This would be a challenge parable because it’s in opposition of what is commonly thought, since we traditionally think it is better to be rich rather than poor.

With this context in mind, he used St. Augustine’s, “Questions on the Gospels” as a primary source for the explanation on why the parable could be seen as a riddle. Crossan pointed out that in Augustinian’s book he focused on interpreting the Good Samaritan parable as a riddle with an allegorical meaning. While Crossan admitted the sophisticated nature of the analysis, he pointed out the obvious problem with this outlook because every parable could be seen as an allegory. Crossan felt that Augustinian’s claims were a little far fetched for being the most believable intention that Jesus was trying to express in telling the story. It would seem that this would be a highly complex story for these largely uneducated audiences to take in. However, Augustinian wrote two different interpretations on the passage, one being a riddle that we already addressed, and the other claims the Good Samaritan should be read as an example parable. Augustinian provided his evidence in his book, “On Christian Doctrine” which he outlines that, “Jesus was teaching us that he is our neighbor whom it is out duty to help in his need… one to whom we ought to show, or who ought to show to us, the offices of mercy is by right called a neighbor” (Crossan 2013, 52). The most concrete reason why he believes it isn’t an example parable is because there is an unstated assumption that helping a man naked on the side of the road is the right thing to do.

Crossan furthered his argument by using a counter parable by Henry Fielding called, “Adventures of Joseph Andrews” to essentially prove the similarities to the Good Samaritan story to essentially prove it’s a challenge parable rather than an example parable. The counter parable story of Joseph Andrews is nearly identical to that of the Good Samaritan with similar characters and a common theme. Crossan claimed the most important information is found in the characters because the people who refused to help the man in need, were the people who were expected to help and the people who helped weren’t expected to (Crossan 2013). The priest and Levite were the people in society that were expected to help people when they were in need, while Samaritans were hated and seen as not very trustworthy. Thus, we see that Jesus reversed the common expectations. The characters are one of the essential pieces of evidence that drives the support that the parable is a challenge parable, since Jesus could have told the story with unspecified characters (Crossan 2013).

In Amy-Jill Levine’s, “Short Stories by Jesus” she also attempts to unpack the meaning of the Good Samaritan parable. She began her analysis by addressing the popularity in the statement, “Good Samaritan” and addressed the fact that the phrase is often used out of context or without scriptural integrity (Levine 2014). Levine feels that the parable is so much more than about identifying with the Samaritan, but in reality there are multiple perspectives one should consider before they use the term. Levine carefully unpacks the scripture line by line as she works her way through the parable providing background on the gospel’s and highlighting important details. Levine believes that the overall message for us to receive from the parable is to practice what you preach, or let love manifest itself into action.

In her detailed analysis, she uses specific characters in the narrative to support her ultimate theme for the parable as a call to action. She begins with addressing the lawyer’s character and ultimately shows the lawyer was someone with poor intentions. She supports her claim by showing that the name, “Teacher” would have been a derogatory name for Jesus and would reduce his kingship (Levine 2014). Thus, the lawyer was demeaning the name of Jesus when he referred to him as teacher. Her second point analyzes the issue in the phrasing of the question when he asked “What must I do to inherit eternal life” (Lk 10:25), because his question suggests that it is a single action that gets one to heaven instead of seeing heaven as a gift. In Luke 10:25 we can see this by looking at the significance in the meaning in the word, “do” which implies that the assumes the lawyer felt that there was something he could do to inherit eternal life (Levine 2014). Levine points out that the lawyer also seems to be testing Jesus in his question rather than trying to gain insight because he clearly knew all the answers. All of this evidence pieced together helped her support the argument that the lawyer’s character was flawed and he had poor motives. She furthers her support of the lawyer’s faulty motives with addressing the final questions from the lawyer. The final question that Levine addresses is in Luke 10:29 when he asks “…And who is my neighbor? ” (Lk 10:29), which Levine points out could be interpreted as, “Who does not deserve my love” (Levine 2014, 86)? Ultimately, she has really focused her argument by analyzing the lawyer’s character in the narrative to show he really didn’t understand what love meant in the context of action.

Levine begins to develop her argument by addressing the many misguided beliefs for the reasons why the priest and Levite didn’t help the man in need. She pointed out that the priests and Levites weren’t concerned with following Jewish law and becoming ceremoniously unclean by touching the man since he wasn’t dead yet. Therefore, the law in Numbers 18 wasn’t held against them (Levine 2014). Furthermore, the priests were coming down from Jerusalem; thus, they had no reason to be ceremoniously clean. The reason why the priests didn’t help was merely a problem of the lack in action. She used a great quote from Martin Luther King in addressing the problem of the priests, “The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But… the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him” (Levine 2014, 94)? Essentially, she attributed the central flaw was that the priest and Levite thought about what would happen to them, while the Samaritan worried about what would happen to the poor man in the ditch. Therefore, we see that Levine used the lawyer, priest, and Levite as her main support to argue that the parable is a call to action. All three of the characters clearly knew, “who” to love, but really didn’t know, “what” it meant to love.

Upon further review of the evidence presented in the texts I feel myself being drawn towards all the ideas presented in the articles analyzing the Good Samaritan parable. After doing a lot of pondering on the arguments presented I think that Augustinian said it best, “…although the author he reads did not understand this aspect of the truth even though he did understand the truth in a different meaning” (Crossan 2013, 62)? This passage is very complex in nature, and there are so many different interpretations we can receive from it because of its complex nature. Part of the complexity, is the gospel writers are constantly writing passages that can be connected to previous Jewish scripture as the articles pointed out. Therefore, one could interpret the gospels based on comparing the similarities to Old Testament passages, or one could interpret the stories based on the new theology Jesus conveyed in his time of ministry. With that being said I really felt that Crossan presented an interesting case for the parable to be read as a challenge parable. His underlying piece of evidence was pointing out the significance in the choice to use the priest, Levite, and Samaritan to tell the story. As previously mentioned, these characters really challenged the audience to rethink their idea that the most respected people would be the most likely to help a person in need. However, in the story he uses one of the most hated people in relation to the Jews by using a Samaritan. In, “The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” we saw that the history of the Jews and Samaritans is quite unsettling. The significance in using the Samaritan as the hero would have been the unexpected to an audience of that time and would be extremely challenging for them to believe because the Samaritans were their enemies. Samaritans had long been known for making deals with the Persians behind the backs of the Jews and constantly working with the enemies (Anderson 2009). To make matters worse, they had a lot of religious tension between the two groups because of the significance of Mount Gerizim. For years the Samaritans held a temple there and felt that it was a sacred place because they believed that’s where the Garden of Eden originated, where Noah first landed the arc, and saw it as a significant place for many other biblical reasons (Anderson 2009). This created a huge tension between the Jews and the Samaritans; therefore we now have a greater understanding of the true challenge it presented to the audience.

While it’s obvious that the parable is definitely a challenge to the audience, parables in themselves have a challenging nature to them. In, “The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible” they define parables as stories that are not immediately clear in terms of Christian faith and theology (Hedrick 2009). However we saw Crossan defines a challenge parable as essentially a story that challenges the reader to think more deeply about what we commonly think about society (Crossan 2013). Therefore, it seems that every parable in some way challenges the audience to think beyond what they’ve previously known about the bible and can be defined as a challenge parable. Parables were used even in the Old Testament in Ecclesiastes 9:14-16, where we see the overriding message in the story of a poor wise man’s deliverance of a city was that wisdom is better than strength (Hedrick 2009). The idea that wisdom is greater than strength would have definitely been a challenging thought during this time because strength was likely valued over wisdom.   With all the previous evidence in mind, I think Crossan’s claim seem to further support the ideas presented in Levine’s argument. The challenge Crossan saw was in the nature of how people would expect the situation would turn out when respectable and unrespectable came upon the man in need. Therefore, the challenge was directly pointed at the audience’s perception of a Samaritans morality. It would require action to change the perception one previously had about a culture; therefore, we see that this challenge is in fact a call to action. Since Levine clearly sees the passage as a call to love your enemies, we see that Levine’s argument isn’t separate of Crossan’s; in fact they build off of each other quite nicely.

Levine certainly provides sufficient evidence in her argument and I think her most fundamental piece of evidence was found in her analysis of the lawyer and the words of Jesus. Again, similar to Crossan, we see her core piece of evidence comes from the important use of analyzing the characters to help clarify the overriding message.   Levine pointed out the significance in Jesus response to the lawyer’s question of “Who is my neighbor?” (Lk 10:29), by pointing out that Jesus didn’t answer who his neighbor is, he actually answered what it looks like to love your neighbor. It appears that both Levine and Crossan agree that it wasn’t a matter of people not knowing the scripture, but rather it was fault in understanding of the scripture. This idea is supported by the misunderstanding of the morality of the Samaritan’s found in Crossan’s article and is further expanded upon when Levine’s call to the action of love. The significance at the end of the parable story really highlights this idea of love being a constant action by the Samaritan’s willingness to give money to continue to nurse the man to health. The New Interpreters bible also pointed out a central theme of love in this entire section of Mark because the following passage focuses on how to love your neighbor (Anderson 2009). Overall, we have seen that the narrative is extremely complex in nature with multiple themes that can be discovered, but the underlying theme was showing love as an action.

A reoccurring theme throughout the analysis of the gospel is the complex nature of the stories and format. After reading the articles and analyzing it’s helped me begin to think about these stories with so many different perspectives. As we have pointed out in class, we should consider our external and internal sources when reading the gospels. Externally we can use the Old Testament to provide meaning to passages and parables, and we can internally look at what the author in general is trying to convey throughout his gospel. As I pointed out in my paper, there is a huge complexity one needs to respect when reading this piece of literature because it’s a phenomenally written book if you take it into context the authors who wrote the books and when they were written. The writers of some of the gospel’s had very minimal education and we can’t forget that this was the first century. It’s amazing to me that they could make all the brilliant connections to past prophecies and scripture, while still staying true to their own depiction of Jesus in their gospel’s. While the bible may not be able to be used as a historical piece of literature, I think we can all agree it’s a very well written and complex piece of literature. This project has truly sparked my interest to explore the resources available to me to help broaden my understanding on how to read the gospel stories.

 

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

 

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Essay IV

Hayleigh Swartz

Religion 317

Jesus Words

The words of Jesus provide a window into his life and teachings. They allow readers to understand what made him so likeable to some, and disliked by others. Parables specifically, stories that provide lessons or principles, play a large role in how Christians and non-Christians view Jesus today. The parable of The Good Samaritan is an iconic story, in which Jesus expresses what he expects from his followers morally, what he expects from them, however, is open to interpretation.

 

Part 1

The story of the Good Samaritan begins in Lk 10:25, with a lawyer standing up to question Jesus. The lawyer is established not as an impartial questioner, but rather, takes on the role of Satan in this passage. This is known because later, Lk 11:4 states “And forgive us of our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us, And do not bring us to the time of trial.” The importance of this verse lies in the phrase “do not bring us to the time of trial.”, because ‘trials’ are synonymous with tests and temptations as referenced in multiple parts of the Hebrew Bible. The lawyer’s reference to “eternal life” as something that can be, or is to be earned is also erroneous, as Jesus has on several occasions made clear that eternal life is a gift freely given. The lawyers’ role as an opponent of Jesus provides the framework for the parable. Jesus responds by asking “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” (vs 26) to which the lawyer responds with a combination of quotes from the Torah, containing the overall message to ‘love your neighbor’. It is the persistent challenge of this teaching that allows Jesus to provide example through parable.

Jesus tells the story of a man, who in his travels is robbed and brutally beaten. Several characters, including a priest and a Levite, notice the man and pass by. It is not until a third character, a Samaritan approaches the man and comes to his aid. The Samaritan tends to the wounds of the man, puts him on an animal, and takes him to an inn. After telling this story, Jesus asks the lawyer “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (vs 36), to which the lawyer responds, alluding to the Samaritan. Jesus then encourages the lawyer to take similar action.

 

Part 2

Article 1

In The Power of the Parable, John Crossan takes a close look at the Good Samaritan parable of Jesus by first by outlining the context of the story. Crossan notices that the passage takes on a folklore fashion, using the power of three as a buildup to climactic success. He raises context questions, wondering how much of the passage is truly Jesus’ words, and what portions might be embellishments by Luke, a factor of oral tradition. This inquiry is an indication that the two-source hypothesis likely plays a role in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Crossan analyzes the text through three different lenses, first as a riddle parable, then as an example parable, and finally as challenge parable. Reading the story first as a riddle parable, Crossan looks at Questions on the Gospel, written by Christian theologian St. Augustine. This reading is one of the best-known allegorical readings, and is notorious for its controversial interpretation. St. Augustine’s reading is controversial because it raises clever thoughts about possible meanings, but Crossan believes the readings’ falsities to out way its wit. St. Augustines interpretation picks apart each sentence of the parable, drawing metaphorical conclusions for each as separate entities, reading it as a riddle parable.

Crossan looks next to see if the Good Samaritan might be read best as an example parable. To do this he looks at an earlier reading, ironically also by St. Augustine. In On Christian Doctrine, written in 397, Augustine interprets the Good Samaritan from an ethical point of view. To do this, Augustine split an eight-unit passage into only five units, and presented them in a reverse structure. The conclusion drawn is that the parable is largely about the term ‘neighbor’, and looking at the ‘neighbor’ as both the helper and the reciprocate, Jesus is able to spread a message of kindness towards everyone.

Crossan explores the Good Samaritan lastly as a challenge parable, an interpretation that substitutes more timely settings and characters. In The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews, and of His Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, Written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes, Author of Don Quixote, Henry Fielding reworks the passage into a challenge parable. By doubling Jesus’s three characters into six, Fielding creates a hierarchy of individuals from all different social standings that appear at the same time. They then discuss what to do about the man who in his beaten state, is in desperate need of assistance. The lawyer steps in and insists on helping the man, not from a place of empathy, but rather, logic and selfishness, as he is worried about being held accountable for a death. However, when none of the passers by offer up a greatcoat, and the man refuses to ride naked out of modesty, the problem returns back to square one. It is then that the youngest and hierarchically lowest member offers up his coat. Crossan argues that this empathetic act, helping the man, is largely taken for granted in the riddle and example readings, as this act should not be a presupposition, but rather the theme of the parable. The individual lowest on the totem pole giving up his jacket indicates a challenge parable because the action goes against expectations of the hierarchically driven society. Crossan makes the claim that Jesus intended for the Good Samaritan to be a challenge parable, and it is Luke, who in his interpretation changed the story into an example parable. However, this claim is difficult to prove seeing as Crossan does not have the ability to enter the mind of Jesus, but he recognizes this and addresses it accordingly. This claim can be made by removing the parable of the Good Samaritan from its literary context and viewing it in its social context, so that emphasized points, seen also in Mark and Matthew, can be used as focal points for what are more likely to be the intentions of Jesus. The Lukan framework is the part of the passage in which Jesus and the lawyer discuss “neighbors” in the terms’ various contexts; however, this interaction was likely a product of Luke’s interpretation, rather than a sequential series of events. In light of this, Crossan emphasizes the importance of viewing the Good Samaritan as a challenge parable as an essential means of understanding its true purpose. Viewing the parable as an example parable operates under the assumption that empathy would not be expected, however, Crossan would like readers to give the people of this time more credit than that, and look deeper into the story as a challenge parable, in order to examine the social injustices, cultural woes and tradition that the ‘good Samaritan’ himself emulates.

 

Article 2

Amy-Jill Levine speaks of the various interpretations of The Good Samaritan in Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. As referenced by George Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Tony Blair and more, The Good Samaritan is a parable shown in a positive light. There is a positivity associated with the parable, as ‘assisting a neighbor’ is theoretically a positive action worth promoting, however, Levine argues that listeners at the time would have said differently. Because Jewish values already promote kindness to strangers, Jews did not view the parable in this light; in fact, they read a far more challenging message. Levine argues that to read this parable today, as a message simply promoting kindness is naïve, and misses the point all together.

In Christian contexts, the purpose of the parable is to love thy neighbor as thyself, and provides a definition of ‘neighbor’ as those in need, however, the Judaism perspective understands this parable as an encouragement to value ritual and spiritual purity over the love of neighbors. From this viewpoint the emphasis transfers from the actions of the Samaritan to the two passers by. Levine also points to the irony in the title Good Samaritan, keeping in mind the context it is used in today. “Good Samaritan” is a term commonly thrown around without regard to its meaning. Samaritans were religious people, and viewing the term in that context, it is actually quite offensive. The social narrative present today considers term such as “Good Christian” or “Good Muslim” overtly offensive, and Levine points out the lack of sensitivity towards the Samaritan religion, and lack of awareness of what “The Good Samaritan” likely meant to Jews of the time. The likely opinions of lawyers present another discrepancy, as Jews had a positive view of lawyers at the time of this parable. In this parable most interpretations pin the lawyer as a satanic figure, an enemy of Jesus, however positive views of lawyers are cited throughout the New Testament. This presents further evidence to suggest that the Lukean narrative might be different than how Jesus intended his parables to be received. Similarly, there are parts of the story that suggest disrespect towards Jesus on the lawyer’s part. The lawyers negative address to Jesus as “teacher” is the first implication, showing that the lawyer either did not know or did not respect who Jesus really was. Second, the framework of the lawyers question disrespects Jesus, as it is not asked in an effort to understand, but rather to test. As outlined in the summary of the scripture, Levine also considers ‘testing’ Jesus in this context to be a symbol of the Devil, the lawyer in this case, taking on the role of the Devil. The phrasing of the question also contributes to this, as Jesus makes clear that eternal life cannot be earned, but is rather, freely given. By turning the question back onto its asker, Jesus shows that he knows the intents of the lawyer. It is interesting to note that Jesus does not ask the lawyer to simply recite the Torah, but ask him “How do you read?” putting an importance not on what is written, but how it is read.

Levine then breaks down the parable into three parts to analyze its context and meaning. The first part is Luke 10:30 which states “Some person was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who, stripping him, even placed blows, going away, leaving him half dead.” It is argued that Jesus’s audience would have seen this parable as shining a negative light on Judaism, and not sympathized with the beaten man. Some would argue that the robbers in this parable were Jewish Robin Hoods, those who in economic protest, stole from the rich to give to the poor. Levine rejects this theory by pointing out the lack of evidence that the beaten man was rich, a logical fallacy.

The second portion evaluated includes Luke 10:31-32, “And by coincidence, some priest was going own that road, and seeing him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, coming to the place, even seeing, passed by on the other side.” Levine first addresses two common misinterpretations of this passage, misconceptions about the relationships between peasant and priests, and theories that the two passers by do so to comply with Jewish law. The first is false because the idea that priests are a part of a ‘priestly elite’ is a more contemporary argument, and Jews of the time did not in fact resent priests. The second is an issue that has been addressed previously, and Levine also feels that the notion that passers by did so to avoid the unclean is misguided. Jewish law instead states that dead bodies be treated with the upmost respect, a law not applicable to the parable.

The last passage considered is Luke 10:33-34 “But some Samaritan, traveling, came near him and seeing, had compassion. And coming toward (him), he bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine (on them), and having set him upon his own animal, he brought him to an inn and cared for him. Levine identifies the compassion of the Samaritan as the parables ‘hook’ for most readers, but encourages further thought about how Jewish listeners would interpret it. She brings up the general dislike of Samaritans at the time, and recognizes that from the beaten man’s perspective, being rescued by a Samaritan could be undesirable. This is evidenced by the story of Jesus and the Samaritan found in Luke 4, where Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well, and she is surprised by his kindness towards her. Levine ends by noting the stark relevance of The Good Samaritan today. She takes an extremely political stance, comparing the two passers by to the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., while comparing the Good Samaritan to a Palestinian Muslim. She ends with a challenge to put this parable of The Good Samaritan into practice, in its entirety. To view each other as equals along with showing kindness to thy neighbor, a thought that she, and most would argue not enough people have.

 

Part 3

 

The history of parables is important to understand, and The New Interpreters Dictionary of The Bible provides detailed description. In early Christian literature, ‘parables’ were known to be sayings of Jesus that were not immediately understood, requiring further theological research, as Charles Hedrick writes. Several stories in the Hebrew Bible mimic this idea, in that the metaphorical nature of the story made them harder to interpret. The definition of a parable differs between the gospels, explaining varying emphases when recounting the same story. Literary context played a large role in the interpretation of parables, and the moral and theological lessons drawn from them. The gospels provide three explanations for why Jesus chose to speak in parables. Mark suggests that Jesus spoke in parables so that only his disciples could interpret them in Mk 4:10-11 which states “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven”. I find this hard to believe, seeing as the gospel of Mark is riddled with passages that allude to the disciples’ confusion yet faithful following of Jesus. However, this idea is presented in a similar passage in Lk, where Jesus suggests that the disciples have been given a unique ability to understand, and that is why he presents messages in parable form. Matthew also explains this, stating, “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.” (13:13) in reference to the general public. The New Interpreters Dictionary of The Bible pins the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example parable, because of the perceived focus on what it means to love a neighbor. This interpretation differs from that of Crossan in The Power of the Parable, where he argues that Jesus intended for this passage to be a challenge parable.

The derivatives of both the term and concept of Samaritans are imperative to the passage’s analysis because of the characters’ significance., and through The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Robert Anderson provides context for the word ‘Samaritans’. Samaritan history dates back to the 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus, and The Bible. The Samaritans are likely immigrants brought to Samaria by the Assyrians after the defeat of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. Religion of the Samaritans was likely shaped by an Israelite priest commissioned specifically for the purpose of educating the people, and evolved as memories and memory distortions did. Josephus’ accounts of early Samaritans include their suffering under Roman rule. Herod the Great controlled both the city of Samaria renamed Sebaste, and Judea, and Josephus cites the slaughter of 10,000 Samaritans by Trajan. It is clear that Samaritans were considered to be of a lower status by Jews of the time, as cited in the Hebrew Bible. Moses, the founder of Samaritanism is depicted in some Samaritan images that resemble gospel descriptions of Jesus.

Samaritanism is rooted in the theological and historical traditions of Judaism, the Karaites, Christianity and Islam. Samaritanism has at times been considered a sect of Judaism due to Jewish influence on Samaritan thought. Samaritans share the lunar calculation festival dates and biblical prohibitions with the Karaites. Christianity and Samaritism have for centuries interacted, most notably because of the use of Samaritans as a mission field for early Christians. The rise of Islam integrated Arabic speech into the daily lives of Samaritans, so certain phrases can be traced back.

In his brief analysis of The Good Samaritan in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Nathan Lane justifies the reluctance of the first two passersby, saying they likely did not lend a hand due to ceremonial uncleanness. He suggests that this parable would have likely stirred already present tensions between Jews and Samaritans of the time, and it is only looking at the story now, that individuals can understand the message of kindness he feels it is meant to portray.

 

Part 4

 

My favorite aspect of Crossans argument lies his words “What happens to your world if a story records that your “best” people act badly and only your “worst” person acts well?” This simple sentence is what I believe to be an extremely important insight and an essential thought. Why is it that in ancient storytelling, specifically parables, it is often the individual lowest on the totem pole that plays the empathetic role. It is clear that Fielding does not know the answer, and neither do I, but I think that dwelling on why this might be the case opens a window of thought that is difficult to explain, and would take me far off topic. I simply wonder what it is about money, power and influence that garner apathy out of people, and often rid them of empathy. It is themes such as this, questions raised, arguments made that contribute to my curiosity about religion, the Bible, and specifically the gospels. The life of Jesus is fascinating, and researching and writing about his words through the study of parables gave me an idea of why people were so drawn to him in that time. Conversely, it gave me an idea of why he was so passionately disliked by some as well.

Levine’s analysis captures my attention about different aspects of the text, but in the same way. She focuses largely on interpretation, what I have noticed to be a large part of modern Christian thought, and shows the drastically different meanings a story can have simply by shifting the emphasis. I learned that from an interpretive perspective, no matter your religion, a positive message could be drawn from this parable. It is commonly thought that the sole message of this story is to show kindness to thy neighbor, when in reality; it has a deeper and far more political meaning. In his teachings Jesus did not intend for those of different religious beliefs to resent one another, but for love to be shown to all people. This sparks my curiosity about other possible misinterpretations that so many people today believe to be true. I do not know what I believe, in a religious sense, but I do believe this message was intended to transcend kindness not only towards those who carry other beliefs, but to everyone, no matter their differences, and I feel if all people, religious or not, adopted this in some sense, it could make for some extremely positive change. John 19:30

Gospel Passage: Lk 10:25-37

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by       Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1; B.1; D;       E.3)

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by             Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1.2.a, d; C.1-4;       D.1, 3)

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited        by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New         York: HarperOne, 2013. (pp. 45-64)

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York:         HarperOne, 2014. (pp. 71-106)

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Essay V

Heléne Barkhuizen

REL 317, Reis

2/26/15

Jesus’ Words

Part One

Luke 10:25-37 is one of the most well-known passages in the Bible that represents Jesus’ sayings, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  The parable starts off by a lawyer testing Jesus, calling him “teacher”, and asking him how to inherit eternal life (25).  Whenever the “book of law” is referenced, the Torah should come to mind.  This lawyer is “testing” Jesus, playing the negative, opposing role of Satan.  He misunderstands the concept of eternal life, and Jesus will attempt to explain the truth to him.  Because Jesus is a smart man, he returns the lawyer’s question with another question and asks him what is written in the law (Torah), to which the lawyer replies with the two most important commandments to love God and love your neighbor (27).  The lawyer is not as original as he thinks he is, as these commandments are referenced in Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18 and Mark 12:29-31.  Once Jesus commends him, the lawyer tries to challenge him again, trying to present himself in the right, and asks who his neighbor is (29).  Judaism states that everyone must be treated as a neighbor, but the terminology of the word “neighbor” gets tricky.  Leviticus 19:33-34 uses the term “alien” as a neighbor, but these strangers are still deserving of love.  In Hebrew, “neighbor” and “enemy” or “evil one” share the same consonants but differ in vowels, showing the lawyer that he should be reading the Torah that shows these contrasting figures both deserving of love.  In return, Jesus explains through a parable rather than pointing to a book of law, exactly what this should look like (30-37).  The parable begins with a man walking from Jerusalem to Jericho, and then falls into the hands of robbers, who leave him half-dead in a ditch.  Robbers are violent criminals, despite the argument trying to depict these characters as Robin Hoods who take money from the rich and give it to the poor.  Then, a priest walks down the road, later followed by a Levite; both proceed to pass by on the other side, avoiding the man.  One large argument trying to explain the actions of these men is that they cannot touch him because he is impure.  However, no law prohibits people from helping someone in this man’s condition.  Numbers 19:10-13 describes how to cleanse oneself after touching a corpse and Tobit and Josephus demonstrate the strong Jewish concern for the respectful treatment of the dead.  Leviticus 21 forbids priests, but not Levites, from touching corpses, but the Talmudic Tractate Nazir 7:1 insists that even a high priest or Nazirite (a person under utmost purity) may contract uncleanness because of a neglected corpse.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Despite the historical facts and theological rules, if they had taken a closer look they would have seen that this man was not dead.  To take this failed logic further, it was believed that a person “walking up” to the temple was in an impure state, going to be cleansed.  This man was walking “down from” the temple, which does not explain why the priest and Levite walk on the other side of the road.  The issue here is community, not purity.  The Jews fit into three groups: priests, Levites and Israelites.  After mentioning the priest and Levite, one would expect the Israelite to walk along the road next, but instead Jesus spoke of the three groups’ enemy, the Samaritan.  As the Samaritan passes the man in the ditch, he is moved with pity, or compassion.  He bandages the man’s wounds, pours oil and wine on them, puts him on his own animal, brings him to an inn and takes care of him, and then pays the innkeeper to take care of him.  To most people, hearing this parable would be shocking.  Why would an evil Samaritan, the enemy of everyone, show compassion?  2 Chronicles 28:8-15 shows a contrasting side to these people, something Jesus is trying to hint at.  The people of Israel took 200,000 captives and brought them to Samaria, and the enemy Samaritans landed up caring for the Jewish victims.  After telling the parable, Jesus then asks lawyer which of the three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers, and the man answers with “the one who showed him mercy”, to which Jesus replies “Go and do likewise” (37).  The lawyer cannot even answer using the word “Samaritan”, continuing to link himself to Satan.  The footnotes for the passage end with this: “The issue is not ‘who is my neighbor?’, but ‘can we recognize that the enemy might be our neighbor and can we accept this disruption of our stereotypes?’”  These two questions will be further examined by John Dominic Crossan and Amy-Jill Levine.

Part Two

Crossan’s thesis in his work “The Power of the Parable” is that parables can be examined in different ways, through their writing and intention.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Crossan discusses three versions: the riddle parable, the example parable and the challenge parable, and he concludes that the challenge parable is the most important.  The challenge parable “challenges us to think, to discuss, to argue, and to decide about meaning as a present application.”  Crossan argues that St. Augustine, a theologian, presents a brilliantly clever yet inadequate interpretation to both the riddle parable and example parable.  In his reworked riddle parable, St. Augustine uses each concept to parallel with something more meaningful, such as the thieves representing devils and an angel; the Samaritan, the Lord; the inn, the Church.  Crossan wonders if Augustine thinks we could and should read all of Jesus’ parables as riddle parables and concludes that he is being “seriously playful”.  In St. Augustine’s example parable, he looks at the framing context and cuts down Luke’s conversation with the lawyer and rearranges it.  He’s trying to show the reader that Jesus is our neighbor, and that the term “neighbor” should be mutual to the person in the ditch and on the road.  The challenge parable according to Henry Fielding portrays different characters in a different setting, seventeen centuries after Jesus.  He intentionally uses a social hierarchy by using six passers-by interacting with each other instead of three separate ones to show how the person of lowest status, translating to the Samaritan, gives the man in the ditch his coat.  Crossan states that Jesus and Fielding take it for granted that the man should be saved, and points out the importance of moral behavior: the best (priest, Levite) people act badly and the worst (Samaritan) person acts well, reversing society’s hierarchal assumptions.  Luke turns Jesus’ challenge parable into an example parable by bringing together the dialogue about the double commandment and the parable about the Good Samaritan.  Crossan’s thesis concludes that Luke’s intention is an example parable, but Jesus’ intention is a challenge parable.  He challenges listeners to “think long and hard about their social prejudices, their cultural presumptions, and their most sacred religious traditions.”  Finally, challenge parables push us to ponder cultural customs, social relations, traditional politics, religious traditions (Crossan 2013, 47, 51-52, 59, 62-63).

In “Short Stories by Jesus”, Amy-Jill Levine’s thesis in her chapter about the Good Samaritan is that the division and roles in groups of people (lawyers, priests, Levites, Samaritans) and the misunderstanding of each group through Jewish and Christian interpretation paint the bigger picture that identity must be wiped away and be replaced by love.  Right away, Levine tackles the issue of the title “good” Samaritan implying that there are bad Samaritans too, and in turn, good and bad people in every class and religion.  Luke portrays the initial concept that lawyers are bad because they connect to the Torah incorrectly and they reject “God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30) as well as being insulted by Jesus (Luke 11:45); they address Jesus as “teacher”, unintentionally not fully understanding or respecting him; and as seen in the parable, they “test him”.  Lawyers are literate and should be able to read the Torah, but their understanding of it is incorrect. The lawyer in the parable misses the point that he must choose life over eternal fate so that he can love the Lord (Deuteronomy 30:19-20) and have a continuous relationship with Him.  Levine thinks the lawyer’s questioning of “neighbor” is fair, although he might as well be asking who to exclude.  The term can have several interpretations, but the most prominent is love.  However, by following Jewish law, lawyers concluded that they only had to love others like them and didn’t have to love those who were not like them.  A common misunderstanding of the parable is to think that the man in the ditch was a certain person who deserved to be blamed, but the priest and Levite know nothing about him.  In fact, there is no proof to say that they were higher status than him; the ordinary priest should’ve fulfilled the basic deed of assistance as well as his peer, the Levite.  Jewish law states that dead bodies should be treated with the utmost respect; so even if he was dead, they should have taken care of the body instead of leaving it in the ditch.  Levine references Martin Luther King Jr. who compares two ways to approach the situation: “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” or “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”  Jesus uses the Samaritan’s compassion as a response to death or injury signaling their drive to restore wholeness, but Levine reminds the reader that the Samaritan is the enemy and not a benevolent figure.  With examples in Genesis and Judges calling Samaritans rapists and murderers, the reader has every reason to believe Samaritans should be excluded from a good society.  However, Levine says “the cycle of violence can be broken” and “those who want to kill you may be the only ones who will save you”.  It is important to remember that the Samaritan is not a social victim, and is able to provide care and money for continued care in which the man can trust in.  By the end, one should be able to realize that the distinction and hatred between groups in society is not worth it.  Peoples’ actions should count more than their motives, and compassion should count more than mercy.  Levine concludes this, and explains that Jesus was trying to show that love conquers all differences among people and that it trumps theology and history.  The battle between Jew and Samaritan is nothing compared to the eternal love promised by God. Lastly, she leaves the reader with some food for thought: “Can we finally agree that it is better to acknowledge the humanity and the potential to do good in the enemy, rather than to choose death?” (Levine 2014, 72, 78, 81, 96, 103, 106).

Part Three

The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (NIDB) states that the Old Testament utilizes unclear or misunderstood literary units, also known as “mashal”.  This can then be translated to the word “parable”, which is familiar to us.  The most common connection between the parable of the Good Samaritan and the use of “mashal” in the Old Testament can be seen in the concepts incorporated into the parable.  Although we cannot find a direct narrative to match this specific parable in the Old Testament, there are guidelines pertaining to the handling of corpses, the “testing” of lawyers, the definition of “neighbor”, the background on Samaritans and most importantly the two commands to love God and to love your neighbor.  Although the NIDB uses the small excerpt to contribute to a different parable in the New Testament, I found a parallel between a narrative about the abuse of the poor by the wealthy elite and the treatment of the man in the ditch; this directly relates to Levine’s analysis of the parable.  Section B.1 talks about the Synoptic Gospels and how there are parables that can be compared between the four.  Due to the murkiness of Jesus’ intentions in his discourse and sayings, parables vary from gospel to gospel.  The parable of the Good Samaritan does not contribute to the Synoptic Gospels because it is only found in Luke.  Section D explains that Jesus speaks in parables to keep the kingdom of God a secret but provides limited understanding so that they will continue to seek after this mysterious phenomenon.  Only the disciples understand what is going on, but everyone else is left in the dark.  When comparing this to the parable of the Good Samaritan, not every religious group and social class will understand each other.  That is why Jesus is trying to show people that loving God and loving their neighbor will draw people together; having a common goal of love clears up Jesus’ vision for the kingdom of God among many different people.  (Hedrick 2009, 368-370, 372-373).

The NIDB continues to explain the significance of the parable of the Good Samaritan by concluding that it has “shown remarkable generative power in its history of interpretation” (Lane 2009, 75).  This can be linked to Crossan’s article because he shows how tradition is constantly changing even when core values stay the same.  Interpretation leads to new insight, and some may seem more favorable than others; for example Crossan felt the challenge parable was the strongest of the three types that portrayed the significance and intention of the passage.  Levine’s article relates to the NIDB’s explanation of Samaritan origins through 2 Kings 17 and Josephus; after the defeat of the Northern Kingdom, the Assyrians brought the Samaritans into the region of Samaria.  Josephus says that the Jews and Samaritans suffered under the Roman rule, and that Samaritans were of lower status than the Jews.  But, like the parable of the Good Samaritan shows, good can still come from a group of people that may seem like the underdog.  Christians and Samaritans both were dissatisfied with the Jerusalem Temple, exemplifying Levine’s point about different groups of people interacting together either cohesively or maliciously but in the end are bound together by the commandment of love.  The Samaritans and Jews (as well as Muslims) also land up sharing a monotheistic religion despite different takes on it, and they can agree that the Torah holds answers through different interpretations.  Moses, the founder of Samaritanism, is the bearer of the Torah.  Again, the NIDB can be seen through Crossan and Levine’s work as different groups ebb and flow in the making of their own belief systems (Anderson 2009, 75-77, 80).

Part Four

This project has contributed to my appreciation of the gospels in their first-century context because it shows how complex we can make one small, twelve verse parable, and in turn the life lessons we can gain from it.  By examining structures like the Synoptic Gospels or a chiasmus, there are many ways we can go about digging deeper rather than taking two minutes to scan over a passage.  This project also made me think about the two-source hypothesis because the parable of the Good Samaritan is only found in Luke.  However, fundamental concepts like loving God and loving your neighbor originate in Mark.  Using skills we have learned in class, this has helped me conclude that Luke most likely used some of Jesus’ sayings from Q, basic principles from Mark and Luke’s own creative literature technique of weaving together fragments of the story of Jesus.  The parable of the Good Samaritan give us insight into who Jesus is and the kind of message he wanted to spread to everyone.  By drawing upon some of my own contributions to the class, I have learned that Jesus spreads the good news that faith could help the people understand what he was about.  As the NIDB mentions, Jesus’ parables are not crystal clear, but all he is asking for is faith.  Despite differences in culture, status, theology, history and law, Jesus was able to attract people into the message he was spreading, and through faith and love they could thrive in God’s kingdom together.

 

References

Luke 10:25-37

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by   Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1; B.1; D; E.3)

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by             Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A.1.2.a, d; C.1-4;      D.1, 3)

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited     by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New      York: HarperOne, 2013. (pp. 45-64)

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York:             HarperOne, 2014. (pp. 71-106)

 

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Essay VI

Thatcher Green

Part 1

The parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke is an important theological narrative that has changed in meaning with the culture, time, or people who heard it. The parable is set up by an exchange of conversation by a lawyer who is questioning Jesus. The lawyer asks Jesus how he can “inherit eternal life” but Jesus responds with a question of his own to the lawyer about “what is written in the law” (Lk 10:25-26). Using his knowledge of the Torah the lawyer responds with “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all our strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” which Jesus confirms is the “right answer” then leads him to another question for Jesus “who is my neighbor” (Lk 10:27-29). Jesus’ response is the parable of the Good Samaritan that starts with a man traveling the road the Jericho and is subsequently robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. After a priest and Levite both see and pass the man the third one to pass, a Samaritan finally stops to assist him. The Samaritan even took the beaten man to an inn to care for him and essentially leaves an open tab at the inn for him before he leaves. After reciting the parable Jesus asks the lawyer who of the three who passed was a “neighbor to the man” (Lk 10:36). The lawyer answers “The one who showed him mercy” and Jesus replies with “Go and do likewise” ending the parable (Lk 10:37).

Part 2

Just like many in the Bible the parable of the Good Samaritan is complicated and has evolved over time to where our contemporary understanding of it is far from what the original author had intended. The book chapters written by John Dominic Crossan and Amy-Jill Levine go into detail about different interpretations of the parable along with the aspects of the original narrative that has been changed or lost over the years. Levine’s chapter focuses on the literal term Samaritan and how the original audience of the parable understood it in comparison with later interpretations. Crossan on the other hand wants to argue that the story is what he calls a challenge instead of an example or riddle parable. Both authors call upon the history of the parable in its initial context and the later interpretations which most likely deviating from the original meaning. These chapters represent a larger theme seen throughout the Bible in which original meanings and understandings of the audiences have changed over time not only within the narrative itself but also in the surrounding world.

The chapter by Levine is a well written study of the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke. After the initial intro of Levine’s chapter she begins to study the context in which the parable is presented in the narrative of Luke’s Gospel. She starts by understanding the author of Luke’s reasoning for having a lawyer be the one to prompt Jesus to tell the parable. Traditionally “For Jesus’s Jewish audience, lawyers would likely have been positive figures” with a “connection to the Torah” but there are many clues in the text of the Gospel that show the author wants to portray him in a different light (Levine 2014). Throughout the Gospel of Luke the author depicts lawyers in a negative view as they reject Jesus along with the Pharisees and much more. The text also betrays the lawyer as it describes his question to Jesus as used to “test” him, which is “exactly what Jesus’s followers pray to avoid” (Levine 2014). Also the lawyers question of “What must I do to inherit eternal life” clearly trying to find a particular path in order to do receive this gift but this the wrong way to go about it from what Judaism teaches which is “focused on loving God and neighbor” instead of focusing on personal salvation. (Levine 2014). Using the “Socratic Method” Jesus answers the lawyer’s question with another question the lawyer than answers, which Levine describes as calling upon verses in the Torah from Deuteronomy and Leviticus (2014). Although Jesus had answered the lawyer he was not done questioning Jesus, as he needed clarification of who his “neighbor” is supposed to be. This is where the parable starts and it shows the context upon which the Good Samaritan comes to play. The broad term of neighbor and “some person” within the narrative is for a particular purpose as to not specify anyone in particular. Though the next section of the parable is in contrast quite specific to whom is being referred to as Jesus tells of both a priest and Levite both passing the beaten man finally to have a Samaritan help him. Levine describes Jesus’s audience reaction to the Samaritan as “surprised at this lack of compassion, would have presumed both that the third person would be an Israelite and that he would help” but instead of being an Israelite Jesus uses a Samaritan to help (2014). One of the themes throughout both authors’ chapters is that the term Samaritan has come very far from its original definition. The term is now understood completely differently than how it was understood by its original Jewish audience. The Samaritan people as known to a first century Jew is that of an enemy dating back to when the Davidic kingdom split into two with a Southern and Northern Kingdoms. Levine compares the Jewish audiences understanding of a “good Samaritan” to that of a “good rapist” or “good murderer” (2014). This is where the teaching of the parable begins because one of the important themes is to love without prejudice and that sometimes a supposed enemy will be the only ones to help. Levine shows how even this lesson can be seen in other Judaic tradition as in 2 Chronicles 28 where the lesson is “Those who want to kill you may be the only ones who will save you” (2014). The ending of the parable shows how continued care is given to the man not just a singular action. Even though the end of the conversation between Jesus and the lawyer shows the lawyers lack of understanding it also portrays Jesus’s lesson of “Loving God and loving neighbor cannot exist in the abstract; they need to be enacted” (Levine 2014). Conclusively Levine paints a picture of the parable as one that has changed greatly over time not only in meaning but theological understand but the most powerful lesson is found when understanding it through its original interpretations.

Crossan’s chapter is less about the specifics of the words Jesus uses but more with the later interpretations losing the original message of the Good Samaritan. Crossan studies later analysis of the parable in order to support his claim that instead of being an example or riddle parable it is in fact a challenge parable. Two of the three readings used by Crossan are by St. Augustine with the first being from his Questions on the Gospels in which he reads the parable as a riddle parable. Augustine’s analysis compares the parable as one of the larger Christian world as a whole where the man being saved is the biblical Adam who after falling is attacked the devil and his angles that persuaded Adam to sin. The priest and Levite represent the ministry of the Old Testament with the Samaritan signifying God himself. While this is a very an engaging interpretation of the parable it is inherently wrong and calls upon “Marks’ allegorical interpretation of the Sower parable to its ultimate extreme” (Crossan 2013). The difference between Augustine’s other interpretations as an example parable he focuses on the ethics within it instead of allegorically understanding it as a riddle. As an example parable Augustine understands that it does not matter whether the neighbor is the man in the dirt or the one on the road but it is both because “no one can be neighbor except to a neighbor” (Crossan 2013). Crossan then goes on to describe a 18th century satirical novel by Henry Fielding and his own interpretation of the parable, which the he considers the “most accurate” (2013). The reason is because “with both Jesus and Fielding, it is the respected ones who refuse to help and the disreputable one who does what is necessary” making this a “challenge parable, because it reverses the expectations and judgments, the presuppositions and prejudices” (Crossan 2013). One of the first claims Crossan makes is that the original parable of the Good Samaritan could truly be actually “text” from Jesus while the conversations between the lawyer and Jesus is context added by Luke (2013). At the end of the chapter he goes deeper into what he means by this and how it is important in understand the original and later interpretations. Part of the evidence can be found in that dialogue about loving God and one’s neighbor is in both Mark and Matthew but it is set during Jesus’s last week in Jerusalem but Luke contains two of the same dialogues surrounding the one about one’s neighbor. His argument is that the author of Luke omitted that conversation because he used it earlier in his Gospel in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Crossan’s conclusion is that the dialogue between the lawyer and Jesus is a separate from the parable said by Jesus who intended it to be a challenge parable whereas Luke changes it to an example parable.

Part 3

Levine’s chapter on the Good Samaritan is supplemented very well by the definitions given to Samaritans and Samaritan, The Good in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. The understanding of a Samaritan to a first century Jew is that of an oppressor rather than oppressed. But as The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible explains that the particular view held by Jews is fairly unique because the Samaritans had much in common with Judaism. It is due to the differences between the two that Jesus’s uses them as an example to symbolize what a neighbor is. Although there are many similarities between Jews and Samaritans a first century Jew would have a very negative view which is exactly the reason Jesus has the Samaritan be the one to act neighborly to the man in the ditch. Levine makes this same case in her chapter including the context that a first century Jew while hearing the parable would’ve assumed an Israelite would be the one coming to the rescue not a Samaritan (2013). This is important because it shows that Jesus’s parable “deconstructs the implied exclusivity of the lawyer’s words by showing the supposed enemy to be a neighbor” (Lane 2009). It is this that is the true meaning of the parable “that everyone is a neighbor and we should act neighborly to all who need us” (Lane 2009).

Both Crossan and The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible agree that although there is no evidence Jesus spoke in parables it is likely however that the specific parable of the Good Samaritan comes from an oral tradition originating around the time of the end of Jesus’s public ministry. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible gives a larger context for parable and shows examples of what could be considered parables and even shows that rabbinic parables can only be dated to the later first century after those of Jesus (Hendrick 2009). A parable serves to as an allegory to teach a lesson by using real world examples to portray a larger theological theme. Crossan would disagree though with The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, which classifies the parable of the Good Samaritan as an “example” story (Hendrick 2009). It is important for us as a modern day reader to be able to identify and put ourselves in the mind of a first century Jew when reading the parables because that was the intended audience.

Part 4

These chapters and the excerpts from The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible gave me a fresh and scholarly understanding of one of the most famous parable stories in the Bible. One of my favorite things I learned is that the verb do that Jesus uses to finalize the lawyers answer that the way to eternal life is to love God and your neighbor “focuses not on a single action, but on an ongoing relationship” (Levine 2014). I think that it is quite important because it is in contrast to the verb used in the lawyer’s question that “suggests a single, limited action” (Levine 2014). Although as Crossan would argue the dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer is not immediately connected to the parable itself. Before this project I had no idea there is a literal Samaritan people let alone who they were to first century Jews. It is very interesting that it is not widely known because it is such an important part of the parable. Without seeing a Samaritan through the lens of the intended audience it would be difficult to find the true meaning behind the parable and how it was viewed. Both Crossan and Levine understand that the reasoning for using the Samaritan is because of the negative view the first century Jew would have had when picturing the parable. Ultimately the easy to follow logic of the arguments made by both Crossan and Levine lead me to agree with them. I agree that the parable is better seen as a challenge parable due to the Samaritans negative view among first century Jews. Levine is right when characterizing the importance of the parable as “The issue for Jesus is not the ‘who,’ but the ‘what,’ not the identity but the action” (2014). It is only through being able to understand the original context of the parable that one is able to truly interpret it.

 

Bibliography

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

 

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Essay VII

Hannah Braun

REL 317

David Reis

2/26/15

Jesus’ Words

The words spoken by Jesus himself are arguably the most important component of the entire bible, let alone the New Testament. If Jesus was in fact God in the flesh, then many would find it extremely crucial to analyze and attempt to understand his every word. Jesus often speaks in parables, which are allegorical stories that aim to express certain truths or morals. One of these parables tells the story of the “Good Samaritan.” This story is one of Jesus’ most famous teachings, and is well known even among those outside of Christianity. Luke 10 verses 25 through 37 tell this story, but evidence shows that the author of Luke may have manipulated the way he tells the parable in order to maintain the character of Jesus that he wanted to portray. The true meaning of this parable has been long since debated.

The passage in Luke opens with a lawyer, who was considered an opponent of Jesus, testing him. He asks, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25) Lawyers would have known the law and the Torah inside and out, so this man was not asking from a place of genuine curiosity, but rather he was challenging Jesus, wondering if he would answer according to the law. Jesus replies by asking the lawyer what is stated in the law, and the lawyer quotes Deuteronomy 6:5, which is part of the Torah. It reads “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus agrees, and says that if the lawyer followed this commandment, he would have life.

The lawyer challenges him further by asking who his neighbor is. This is where Jesus launches into the parable of the Good Samaritan. He describes a Jewish man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. On his journey, he runs into a bit of trouble. He is stopped by robbers who strip him, beat him, and leave him on the side of the road in a terrible state. A priest happens to walk by on the same road. He notices the struggling man but pretends he doesn’t see him and walks right by. A Levite also walks by and does the same, ignoring him completely. Priests and Levites were supposed to be people after God’s heart and morals, yet they do not stop to help this poor man. Some scholars have presented the argument that the priest and the Levite may have ignored the injured man because of reasons having to do with ritual purity and cleanliness. Upon reading these laws explicitly in the Torah, however, you will find that nothing in the law would have prohibited the priest or Levite from touching this man. (JANT 123)

The parable continues, with a Samaritan approaching the injured man. Samaritans, unlike priests and Levites, were enemies to the Jews because of their mixed pagan heritage. Being that the injured man was a Jew, the expected reaction would be for the Samaritan to bypass him like the others did, not wanting to associate with his enemies. The Samaritan, however, takes pity on the man and stops to come to his aid. He cleaned his wounds with oil and wine and wrapped them in bandages. He helped him onto his own animal and took him to an inn where he was able to receive rest for the night. In the morning, he gave the innkeeper some money and asked him to tend to the needs of the injured man until he was revived. He tells the innkeeper that he will repay him any more money he may need to spend on his way back to Jerusalem. This concludes the parable.

After Jesus finishes telling this parable to the lawyer, he asks him which of the three men, the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan, he believes is acting as a “neighbor” toward the injured man. The lawyer replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” (Luke 10:37) It didn’t matter that the Samaritan was an enemy of the Jews; he was the one who showed mercy. I think what Jesus was getting at with this parable was that a person’s actions speak louder than their title. The priest and the Levite were supposed to be people of God, but those titles mean nothing if they are not striving to uphold His values. Without modeling their own lives after those morals, they are simply hypocrites who tell others to maintain them but fail to do so themselves. In contrast, the Samaritan, who was thought to be the enemy of the people of God, was the one who upheld God’s values. This passage shows that it doesn’t matter where you come from or whom you’re associated with. People from all walks of life can live by these morals and love their neighbors, and those who do so, no matter who they are, will be more pleasing to God than those who claim to be his people but prove otherwise by their actions.

The author of Luke aimed to present the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of what the Jews’ moral behavior should look like. According to The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, this story would have been utterly shocking to the Jews because the tension between the Jews and Samaritans was so strong at the time. (NIDB Vol 5 75) Stories like these would have helped the Jews understand how Jesus thought they should act toward others, even when their instinct was to be hostile. Luke’s portrayal of the character of Jesus shows him as a wise teacher of morals, encouraging the Jews to become better human beings. Because of the author of Luke’s desire to uphold this image of Jesus, he tells the story in a way that will do so. For example, there is no evidence of the context in which the parable is presented. In other words, the interaction between Jesus and the lawyer could have been completely made up by the author of Luke. In addition to this, he embellishes and edits his writing further to make Jesus appear how he wanted. According to the NIDB, evidence shows that Jesus’ audience had a very difficult time understanding his parables. It states that Luke omits parts of certain verses that appear in other gospels that make it seem as if Jesus didn’t actually want his followers to understand him, because that would go against his teacher image. In Luke 8, Jesus says that the secrets of the kingdom of God are told to the masses in the form of parables, but his disciples will be able to comprehend them. Parts of other gospels suggest that Jesus’ disciples were often confused by Jesus’ teachings as well, and the author of Luke thought that this made Jesus appear as a bad teacher, which is why he makes some changes. (NIDB Vol 4 370)

The NIDB also discusses how the gospel writers had disagreements on what actually constitutes a parable. Some stories are presented as parables in certain gospels, and not recognized as parables in others. It is in these situations where it is important to further analyze Jesus’ actual intent rather than simply taking on the views of the gospel writers, as they have written these stories according to the likeness of their own character of Jesus. (NIDB Vol 4 369-370) The changes and manipulations that the author of Luke makes categorize his version of the parable as an “example parable,” which Author John Dominic Crossan discusses. Because of the changes Luke makes to the story, scholars debate on Jesus’ actual intended meaning of the parable.

Author John Dominic Crossan analyzes and elaborates on the parable of the Good Samaritan in his literary work, The Power of Parable, by looking at three different approaches to interpreting the parable in an attempt to find Jesus’ true intentions in telling the story. The first approach is as a riddle parable, the second as an example parable, and the third, which he believes to be the correct approach, as a challenge parable. A riddle parable interprets the story metaphorically, claiming that each aspect of the story symbolizes or represents something else. Crossan takes a look at an example of this sort of interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan that is found in Saint Augustine’s literary work titled Questions on the Gospel, which was written between the year 399 and 400. Saint Augustine wrote that the parable is allegorical, and he comes up with a symbol for each part of it. For example, he claims that the injured man is Adam, the robbers are the devil and his angels, and the Samaritan is the Lord Himself, to briefly name a few. Although Saint Augustine is known today as a highly famed and well-respected theologian, Crossan argues against his riddle interpretation because he feels it is too extreme. (Crossan 49-51)

Crossan looks at another of Saint Augustine’s works, titled On Christian Doctrine, which analyzes the Good Samaritan story as an example parable. The idea behind this interpretation is that the parable’s intent is to teach proper moral behavior. It takes into account the context in which the story is told, and the dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer. Saint Augustine claims that a “neighbor” is anyone who helps us when we’re in need, or whom we are called to help when they are in need. He puts an emphasis on the mutuality between the two neighbors, and he rearranges and paraphrases the dialogue of the passage in order to prove his point. While Saint Augustine brings up some good ideas in this interpretation, Crossan argues that this approach is still not the most accurate of the three. He claims that, although an important aspect, Jesus’ intent goes deeper than simply promoting good morals. (Crossan 51-52)

Crossan’s third approach, the challenge parable, is the one he believes to be closest to the true intent of Jesus. This sort of interpretation is not allegorical, like a riddle, nor is it ethical and literal, like an example. It is meant to encourage thought and arguments and to provoke questions about how to apply it to present, everyday life. Crossan analyzes a satirical novel titled The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews, and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, Written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes, Author of Don Quixote, which was written in 1742 by an author named Henry Fielding. In this novel, Fielding recreates the parable of the Good Samaritan in a way that would’ve been relevant to his location and the time period. In his version of the story, a man named Joseph is robbed, stripped and beaten nearly to death on the street, much like Jesus’ version. As Joseph is lying there helplessly, a stagecoach carrying six people of all different socioeconomic statuses approaches the scene. There is much debate between the passengers on whether or not they should stop for him at all, and the only reason that they do end up stopping is because the lawyer riding in the stagecoach is afraid of possible legal issues that may arise if the jury found out that they left him there to die. Joseph then refuses to enter the stagecoach naked out of politeness, but none of the passengers will lend him some clothing—that is, until the lowest-class passenger of them all speaks up. The passenger who offers his clothing to Joseph is a criminal; a young man who was being held and transported for robbery. This presents an interesting twist in the story, much like when the “enemy” Samaritan stops to help in Jesus’ version. (Crossan 53-56)

Fielding’s intent with his version of the parable was not to symbolize another meaning through allegory, nor was it simply to relay the message that people should help those in need. It is meant to provoke thought and discussion about what it really looks like to love your neighbor as yourself, as well as to demonstrate the power that this true, unconditional love holds. This parable shows that love has no bounds between race, class, or status, and who you are or where you come from does not restrict who can practice this love. Crossan argues that reaching this realization was Jesus’ intent in the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Crossan 57)

Similar to the challenge parable interpretation of the Good Samaritan story, Author Amy-Jill Levine discusses her own interpretation of the parable in her book titled Short Stories by Jesus. Levine discusses how being a Good Samaritan is viewed in today’s popular culture as “helping the stranger and being charitable toward others,” (Levine 74) which isn’t a bad thing per say, but, in her opinion, simply isn’t correct. She argues that this is not what it would have meant for the first-century Jews. For starters, Jews and Samaritans were not “strangers” to each other—They were all too familiar enemies, like the NIDB describes. Levine, like Crossan, claims that the parable has a deeper meaning than just charity; a meaning that involves love with no bounds.

Levine analyzes the context in which Jesus tells the parable to the Lawyer. As mentioned previously, the lawyer is an opponent of Jesus and is testing him. While it is argued whether or not this context is crucial to the meaning of the parable, Levine brings up an essential point about the question the lawyer asks. He asks, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25) She emphasizes the lawyer’s use of the word “do.” The way he uses it implies that there is something he can do to earn eternal life, when it is actually a gift that is freely given by Jesus. This puts a new perspective on the way Jesus answers the question. First, he doesn’t really answer the question; he asks another back. This reframes the lawyer’s question a bit, and suggests that the answer isn’t necessarily black and white; it’s meant to be thought about. When the lawyer answers back by reciting the law, Jesus confirms his response. He says, “Do this, and you will live,” (Luke 10:28) however, Levine claims that the “do” in this context implies a continuous relationship rather than one singular action. This could mean that there is a deeper meaning in that response than just loving God and loving others. We are to love God and others with our entire being, and because eternal life is a gift that is given, not earned, this love should flow from that gift. To accept the gift is to “love the Lord you God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)

Levine explains extensively what the parable of the Good Samaritan would have meant to its first-century Jewish audience, but she also discusses the stereotype it has become today. She pushes for people to recognize its original intent and meaning, and she argues that it still has significant relevance to today’s society, especially in situations involving people or groups with differences between one another. The person or group who shows compassion is always the “Good Samaritan” in a given situation, and we need to recognize the “potential to do good in the enemy rather than to choose death.” (Levine 106) Once again, we need to ponder what it truly means to love your neighbor as yourself.

Through studying the different interpretations of the parable of the Good Samaritan, I have learned a completely new facet of a story that I’ve heard countless times before. Not unlike Saint Augustine’s interpretation and Luke’s intention of the story as an example parable, I used to see this parable simply as a story about exhibiting good moral behavior and being charitable towards others. While this is a nice way of thinking about it, I now agree more with the opinions of Crossan and Fieldings. Looking at the story as a challenge parable seems like a more accurate interpretation to me, and more aligned with my personal view of the character of Jesus. Studying the parable from this perspective has sparked my curiosity to learn about who Jesus actually was in history, and to form my own educated opinions on him. Learning about each gospel writer’s different takes on the stories and character of Jesus has given me the desire to dig deeper into passages and their contexts rather than just briefly glossing over them and assuming I’ve interpreted them correctly. Despite all of the different interpretations and versions of Jesus’ stories, I think it is clear to all of the gospel writers that Jesus aimed to spread a message of love and kindness to all of those who would listen.

 

Bibliography

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

 

 

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rhianna Gelhart

Essay Review #4

Jesus’ Words

Part 1: Summary of Luke 10:25-37

The parable of the Good Samaritan consists of the verses 10:30-35 in the gospel of Luke. It is important to distinguish verses 10:25-29 and 10:36-37 as Lukan material, or context brought about by Luke. However, for the purpose of this section all verses, 10:25-37 will be analyzed as a whole in order to obtain the understanding that was meant by Luke. To begin with, verse 10:25 states that a lawyer wanted to test Jesus. A lawyer in this context was probably an expert in the Law of Moses and could easily be affiliated with the Pharisees. The lawyer then refers to Jesus as “teacher” before inquiring how to “inherit eternal life”(10:25). Addressing Jesus in this way shows understanding of the lawyer that Jesus is the Son of God and savior of humanity. Jesus then replies to the lawyer in 10:26 and asks him “what is written in the law?” (10:26). Jesus is prompting the answer from the lawyer rather than giving it straight to him, this is significant in the lawyer’s understanding of the commandments of the law. The lawyer then replies with, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (10:27:28). It is important to note that both of these commandments appear in the gospels Matthew, John and Mark, and the commandment about loving your neighbor as yourself appears in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus then acknowledges the lawyer’s response as the right answer, “do this and you will live” (10:28).

The lawyer then attempts to justify himself and asks Jesus to clarify who his neighbor would be. Jesus then replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan. He begins it by describing a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. This is important because the road to Jericho during that time was considered extremely dangerous. The man then falls “into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away leaving him half dead” (10:30). Jesus then specifies that both a priest and a Levite (both clergy) pass by the man and do not help. The third character to come across the man is a Samaritan, who at this time in history is not expected to show sympathy to Jews, but he does. The Samaritan is the one who helps the man by bandaging him, pouring wine and oil on his wounds, and taking him to an inn. Once at the inn the Samaritan first gives the innkeeper two denarii, which at the time would equate to about two months or so of lodging (Levine 2011). He then says to the innkeeper, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend” (10:35b). These details are important to note because they give the notion of pure compassion for one’s neighbor. Jesus then asks the lawyer which of these three characters demonstrates a good neighbor to the man on the road to which the lawyer replies, “The one who showed him mercy” (10:37). Jesus then answers, “go and do likewise” (10:37b). Jesus’ response reiterates the importance of the law to love thy neighbor and that it is not restricted to those of high religious leadership of the time, but rather to every person even Samaritans.

Part 2: Detailed Analysis of The Power of the Parable by John Crossan and Short Stories by Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine

In The Power of the Parable by John Crossan his thesis explains that there are three different types of parables by Jesus that are most commonly identified. The first of these is the riddle parable, where the parable in question is to be a little difficult for the layperson to understand. There is a definite hidden meaning and only by careful examination or attentiveness to detail by the audience can the true meaning be determined. Crossan explains that the Christian theologian St. Augustine has analyzed the Good Samaritan as a riddle parable and provides the famous allegorical reading of it in his book Questions on the Gospels (Crossan 2013, 49). However, Crossan further explains that St. Augustine has also analyzed the Good Samaritan as an example parable in another one of his writings, On Christian Doctrine. An example parable is a parable in which an example of ethical behavior is described and used as a way to demonstrate how one should act. The third kind of parable is the challenge parable. A challenge parable does just that, challenges. It is designed to challenge all aspects of a society and culture and to undermine expectations. Crossan references The Adventures of Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding as the best version of the Good Samaritan as a challenge parable.

When Crossan explains St. Augustine’s example of the Good Samaritan as a riddle parable he adds that there is “no mention about intended incomprehension for deliberate condemnation” (Crossan 2013, 51). This is a point that is brought up in Parable by Charles Hedrick. Hedrick argues that in early Christian Literature any saying of Jesus that is not immediately clear is a parable, it is judged as comparative discourse and is given a deeper significance (Hedrick 2009). Crossan provides Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan, which is detailed to every word of the original text. Augustine creates a complete interpretation by giving each character of the Good Samaritan an analogy to Christian theology.

The next example of Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan as an example parable includes the surrounding verses in Luke, both 10:25-29 and 10:36-37. This is important to note as Crossan later identifies these verses to be Lukan material, which alters the meaning of the parable itself. In this example interpretation Crossan notes that Augustine solves the discrepancy of whether the neighbor is the one in the ditch or the one on the road (Crossan 52). This gives the “example” for the example parable, which is that “neighbor” has duality. Crossan states, “the road from Jerusalem to Jericho is two-way street” (Crossan 52).

Crossan makes his dominating argument to be that the parable of the Good Samaritan should be read as a challenge parable. In Fielding’s The Adventures of Joseph Andrews, he creates six characters out of the original three. This is done to best illustrate the caste or social strata at the time. Since in this interpretation the parable is designated as a challenge parable, the point of the Good Samaritan is to illustrate how it challenges the social norms, in other words the social strata. It shatters the expectation that the dominant and high-class people in society always do good and the lower class inferior people always do bad. Crossan notes that the lawyer only decides to help the poor man on the side of the road out of worry for himself and the legal aspect of the situation say it were to go against his name, not out of compassion for his neighbor (Crossan 2013, 54). This illustrates the challenge of the social norm and expectations of different members of society. If Jesus had intended for this parable to be merely an example or riddle he would not have specifically named each character as Priest, Levite and Samaritan (Crossan 2013).

To further his argument Crossan states that he finds two reasons for why the Good Samaritan should be read as a challenge parable. The first of these is the importance of removing the intended parable from Lukan material. He notes that the only version of the Good Samaritan is to be found in Luke, which means his content provides the only interpretation. If the parable is removed from Luke’s context then it creates an entirely different meaning, as the dialogue is no longer associated with it. Once the parable is separated Crossan notes that it is important to then read it in the “social context in the world of Jesus” (Crossan 2013, 59). This allows for the ability of the audience to see what Jesus meant by specifically giving each of the characters the actions he did.

Crossan ends this argument that the challenge parable is the best version of reading but answering the question of whether or not this is all a waste of time. He addresses St. Augustine’s postmodern way of thinking about the parables, which he wrote in his book Confessions. St. Augustine wrote, “What harm would be done if I should interpret the meaning of the sacred writer differently from the way some other person interprets?” (Crossan 2013, 63). He then elaborates on this by writing that the different interpretations by different people could all produce very true meanings. This could stand to say that these different true meanings do not have to be categorized as right or wrong. Crossan then goes on to write that these are in fact “the parables of Jesus, not the parables of Mark or Luke”(Crossan 2013, 63). This gives meaning to his decision to read the parable with the intentions meant by Jesus, not the interpretation of Luke. He believes that Jesus intended for the Good Samaritan to be a challenge parable and to “pull us into pondering whatever is taken totally for granted in our world” (Crossan 2013, 63).

The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible entry on Parables defines a parable as “a type of speech that carries over a similarity or likeness from one thing to another and is used in argumentation to clarify or prove” (Hedrick 2009). It later goes on to state that specifically in the Synoptic Gospels, a parable is “any saying of Jesus whose meaning is not immediately clear in terms of Christian faith and theology” (Hedrick 2009). This coincides with Crossan’s idea of the Good Samaritan being a challenge parable as it has a deeper meaning than just a surface reading. Each of the writers of the gospels drew upon moral lessons from the parables for each of their respective communities of faith, which again can support Crossan’s argument to remove Lukan material from the reading of this parable. The entry also offers three explanations as to why Jesus chose to speak in parables. These include from Mark that Jesus spoke in parables to keep the secret of the Kingdom of God so that only his disciples could understand and also from Luke that the crowds may not perceive or understand (Hedrick 2009). In Matthew it is addressed that the crowds Jesus speaks to have deliberately chosen to be confused in contrast to not being given the ability to understand (Hedrick 2009).

Next to analyze is the Short Stories by Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine. Levine’s thesis is to first deconstruct what the meaning of “Good Samaritan” takes on today, and then to understand what it meant during the time Jesus spoke it and what context it had in society then. Levine acknowledges that texts can and should now be read with new understanding as knowledge grows from experience but also that “texts have their own original context” (Levine 2014, 73). She notes that in many Christian contexts, the Samaritan represents Christians who have overcome prejudice and that the priest and Levite represent Judaism and the ritual of purity and self-interest over the love of the neighbor as something that needs to not be followed anymore (Levine 2014, 74). Going back to today’s understanding of “Good Samaritan” she believes that the phrase should be seen as offensive, much like stating the rest are inherently not good. Levine also writes that the Lukan material helps us to understand the parable of the Good Samaritan better, it highlights the meaning.

Levine then proceeds to dissect Luke 10:25-37 by separate sections in order to give depth to her argument. Firstly, it is important to note that it is a lawyer who asks Jesus. Luke depicts lawyers as to not be “among the righteous” (Levine 2014, 76). She explains that the lawyer referring to Jesus as “teacher, usually suggests that the interlocutor does not fully understand or respect who, for Luke, Jesus really is” (Levine 2014, 77). Also, the lawyer engages in conversation with Jesus not for enlightenment but rather to “test”. This is a huge opposition to what Jesus’ believers tend to shy away from, much like the example of Satan “testing” Jesus in the woods. It is out of almost an ignorant indifference that the lawyer tests Jesus. The next extremely important point to understand is that the question itself asked by the lawyer implies that there is one action to be “done” in order to gain “eternal life”. This is quite the opposite of the commandments that which the lawyer responds with, as the commandments are not simply to be done once and checked off but rather a continual way of living, “one does not “do” anything to “inherit” eternal life” (Levine 2014, 78). Levine then goes on to explain that Jews did not follow the commandments to earn eternal life, because that is already apart of the covenant. They followed them because in doing so it “prevented sin and showed how love of God and love of neighbor were to be manifested” (Levine 2014, 79). This focus on eternal life is not the answer, but rather one should move their focus to caring for others, which is what the parable will demonstrate.

Next Levine addresses how Jesus then answers the lawyer in what is sometimes called the “Socratic Method”, which is to answer a question with a question. This may be an attempt by Jesus to appeal to the lawyer’s ego, alluding to the fact that he must surely know the answer already. What is important to note in this section is when Jesus asks “how do you read?”. In antiquity not very many people were literate, and although the lawyer is, Jesus is referencing more of how the lawyer understands and interprets what he is able to read (Levine 2014, 81). The lawyer responds with “a combination of two verses of the Torah that are common to Jews then and now” (Levine 2014, 81). These two commandments go together and the latter comes from an understanding and following of the first, for if one loves God with all their heart, soul, and mind then the next commandment will be second nature. It is clear that the lawyer knew the commandments and the context, but it is unclear whether or not he fully understood them, which is what Jesus was questioning. Jesus’ next imperative of “This do, and you will live” focuses not on singular one time action but rather an ongoing relationship. As a lawyer in Luke’s gospel “he proves his malevolent intent toward Jesus by posing another, even more inappropriate question” (Levine 2014, 83). This concern for self-justification is “something Luke’s Jesus despises” (Levine 2014, 84). Levine argues that the lawyer’s question has legal merit in knowing who is and who is not his neighbor, but on the context of love, which is what Jesus is implying, it does not. He is misguided and attempting to get at whom he should not love, which brings to the point of Jesus overall insisting on loving ones enemy as one loves themselves and anyone else. The misinterpretation of the lawyer causes him to become the recipient of a parable (Levine 2014, 87).

Levine also notes that in the case of this parable there is no notation present to give the priest and Levite a higher social standing. This priest is an ordinary priest who “fails to act when he should” (Levine 2014, 91). Levine also writes that many scholars argue the point that at the time both the priest and the Levite would be attempting to stay away from being “impure” so that is why they do not stop and help. She quickly rebuts this with several points. The first is that while to this day priests “remain outside the cemetery gates unless the funeral is for immediate relatives; Levites will step onto the cemetery grounds” (Levine 2014, 93). This gives support to the fact that Levites would not have been concerned with being impure by being near a dead or half dead body. Next neither was traveling toward Jerusalem so the need to be pure would not be of priority. Also, “saving a life is so important that Jewish law mandates that it override every other concern” (Levine 2014, 94). The parable takes on folklore fashion but having three characters, the final one being the Samaritan. Levite argues that in order to understand like the original audience “we need to think of Samaritans less as oppressed but benevolent figures and more as the enemy, as those who do the oppressing” (Levine 2014, 96). This helps to understand that to Jesus’s Jewish audience the idea of the “Good Samaritan” would make no more sense than “good murderer” (Levine 2014, 96). When reading the Samaritan’s actions Levite notes that it is important to understand that he does not provide a one-time aid, but long-term care as he promises to return to the innkeeper and provide for that time of care as well. Levite writes that, “by trusting the innkeeper he provides confirmatory evidence that we make our neighbors, that trust is essential for life” (Levine 2014, 104). Finally, the lawyer reads the actions of the Samaritan as “showing mercy” not compassion which prompts the emphasis on “the divine being manifested only through our actions” by Jesus (Levine 2014, 105). The intention of the parable to love God and to love your neighbor comes from continual action, not just as “an abstract” (Levine 2014, 105).

In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible entry by Nathan Lane, he expresses that “the parable of the good Samaritan has shown remarkable generative power in its history of interpretation” (Lane 2009). This coincides with Levine’s thesis that text interpretation will change over time and can have power, but we must not forget the original context as well. The next entry by Robert Anderson describes the position of the Samaritans from New Testament comments and stories to “infer the low status Samaritans had among Jews” (Anderson 2009). Levine acknowledges this but she argues that it should not cast a negative light towards the Jewish culture as that distracts from the idea of this parable entirely.

Part 4: Synthesis and appreciation of the gospels

As I have extremely gone over the approximate word count for this review I will attempt to not have too long of a synthesis. Having a minor in religious studies I have had the wonderful opportunity to gather quite a bit of knowledge and information on many aspects of the study. This project in particular was exciting for me to engage in because I am in awe of all the work and research that has been done and is available for every aspect of religion. More specifically working with the New Testament and the gospels, this assignment and class has heightened my appreciation to be able to understand that there are many different interpretations and that each gospel was written with a different intent. I think the idea that language evolves with time is something that is often overlooked and so to have to go back to the first-context to which these gospels were directed at takes a certain amount of discipline that this project fosters. I find it all so fascinating that there are such drastic differences in the recounts of the gospels and such different intent with their specific sermons and parables. I think it is important to realize that in many cases, like St. Augustine wrote, there are different interpretations that can all yield the truth. The two articles given to review offer different viewpoints, as Crossan believes the parable should be taken out of Lukan context, and Levine believes that the Lukan material adds to the meaning. This dedication to the understanding of these texts and doctrines is something I find to be admirable.

Bibliography

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013

Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

Essay IX
Alaire Fajardo
REL 317
Jesus’ Words

Summary of Luke 10:25-37

One of the more famous parables in the New Testament is that of the “Good Samaratan”. Even if one has never read it in the Bible, most have heard the term and have a sense of what it means in our society today. However, we are going to examine the passage in a historical context and what it would have meant to the followers of Jesus in His time. In the gospel passage Luke 10:25-37, Jesus is tested by a lawyer with a question of how to obtain eternal life. However, Jesus turns the question back to the lawyer by asking him in essence, what his interpretation of the law is. It is clear that there is not one “act” that can bring eternal life, therefore; Jesus is turning the table back to the lawyer in vs. 27-28 “He answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all you soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Levine and Brettler 2011). These passages come from the Torah, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 and are considered law. This was in deed the right answer, however, it was not enough for the lawyer and he continued to question Jesus by asking Him who he was to consider his neighbor to be. This is when Jesus continues with the parable of the Good Samaritan which consists of a man being beaten, stripped, robbed and left for dead in a ditch to then be rescued by the unlikely Samaritan man while a preacher and Levite turn a blinds eye and leave him for dead.

Detailed Description of Books Reviewed

The first book reviewed looks at the parable in three different viewpoints, all of which have been used to interpret the parable throughout the centuries. First, the author examines the parable as a riddle through the work of St. Augustine, who was one of Christianity’s greatest theologians (Crossan 2013). Throughout St. Augustine’s interpretation, he is dissecting each part of the parable and giving a personal interpretation of what it is saying. For instance, he states that the word Samaritan means “guardian”, and that means the Samaritan is in essence the “Lord Himself” (Crossan 2013). However, we will see how this is far from the truth as we continue to examine this passage and how this interpretation is far from correct.

Second, the author interestingly discusses the parable as an example parable by again, using the work of St. Augustine from an earlier writing then the one above which is also the way most Christian theologians today interpret the parable, however, the author does not feel it is the most adequate interpretation either. Nonetheless, the author shows how Augustine takes the parable and then explains what the main premise is of the parable which is that the word under question “neighbor” is both the person who is being helped and the person who is helping, and in turn it becomes an ethical example parable (Crossan 2013).

The third and final analysis of the parable is what the author calls a “challenge parable” and also the interpretation that the author feels is the most adequate of all interpretations. First, let’s examine what the author means by challenge parable. He states, “It is a challenge parable because it challenges us to think, to discuss, to argue, and to decide about meaning as present application” (Crossan 2013). The author argues that in order to truly understand the parable, you must first take out the Lukan elements which are the versus before the parable and after. Then take into consideration what was going on around Jesus socially and politically at the time that He would have told this parable. This is to say that the author believes that Jesus meant this parable to be a challenge to listeners, to make them think more intently about how they interpret the law which caused social prejudices, and cultural beliefs that made them superior to others which in turn would challenge their religious traditions (Crossan 2013).

The second book reviewed discusses in depth how our society today and for thousands of years, has gotten it all wrong. The author speaks about how it is depicted as a parable about strangers helping strangers and in turn has become a political discourse and “come to mean whatever we want it to mean” (Levine 2014). She argues that the Jews would not have thought of the Samaritan in the same way we do, as a stranger giving aid to someone in need, but as a rival to the Jews, an enemy that was very much hated in those times. The author challenges the way we use the term “Good Samaritan” and clearly warns the reader against taking away the actual context in which it was spoken to ensure a true, deeper understanding of its meaning.

In order to do this the author makes the point that although Luke had his own agenda in mind and therefore may have took what Jesus originally intended the audience to understand and made it his own. However, being able to clearly see this through the examination of the synoptic gospels and how neither Mark nor Matthew have the parable of the Good Samaritan, but rather they all have the dialogue between a person questioning Jesus about the greatest commandments and having Jesus answer by combining the two versus from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, we can separate Luke’s agenda from Jesus’s and conclude that the parable is most likely one that was spoken by Jesus but intended for a different purpose. For instance, in Luke’s depiction of the lawyer, he is seen as being a negative figure as the author points out from Luke 7:30 where the Pharisees and the lawyers reject John the Baptist and in doing so rejects “God’s purposes for themselves” (Levine 2014). However, the author makes the point that for Jesus’s audience, lawyers would have been seen in a positive light due to their dedication to the Torah which is the book of Law’s and other teaching that the Jews continue to follow today and that in itself was very important to the Jews.

The author puts a lot of emphasis on the word neighbor. In Jesus’s time, the term neighbor is translated from the Hebrew term rea which has many meanings depending on what context it is being used in the Bible. For instance, it could mean friend, lover, or fellow which is what gives the question posed by the lawyer in Luke 10:29 “but who is my neighbor” such merit. To a Hebrew speaker the meaning of neighbor is someone who is close to them both from a personal and legal standpoint and not everyone fits into that category (Levine 2014). Furthermore, the law was not meant to be followed by non-Jews and thus should it be applied to non-Jews. However, to love your neighbor did not necessarily mean to love your enemy. Although the author will argue that if the lawyer had a “true” understanding of the Torah, then he would know that the word neighbor is share the same consonants and therefore to love your neighbor is to also love your enemy.

There are several interpretations that have been looked at by scholars as to the Priest and Levite and why they would be depicted in a negative light. The author discusses two that are more common. The first being a more contemporary view that is at odds with the religious hierarchies but does not fit in line with either the text or context (Levine 2014). The second view although more popular, speaks of the excuse of becoming impure by being close to a corpse, however; the author makes it clear that there are other safeguards in play that would not make either of them impure and that it an excuse that neither Jesus or Luke would have been trying to make. The reason that the author gives has to do with the “appearance of the third figure” (Levine 2014). When Jesus mentioned the priest and the Levite, his audience would have automatically thought the third person, the person who is there to save the day, would be an Israelite but that is not the case which would as we saw above, challenge the audience.

Finally, the author makes the point that the issue at hand that Jesus was trying to convey was not the “who” but the “what”, not the identity but the action (Levine 2014). She also encourages the reader to stop looking at the parable in the misguided context that it has been translated to today, but through the eyes of the audience it was being spoken to and in doing so, one can have a deeper insight of what Jesus was really trying to teach.

Analysis

Both authors make it clear that the parable of the “good Samaritan” has been taken into different contexts based on who is doing the interpretation. Some have been completely off mark and others a little closer, however, all seem to have a more personal agenda at hand and are not in their opinions, the right interpretation. This dilemma makes perfect sense when you read the definition of a parable in the acient world in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary Bible, it states “The OT uses the term mashal for literary units whose meanings is not immediately clear or easily understood and in the LXX, the term mashal is translated as parable” (Hendrick 2009). However, a parable in early Christian literature a parable is something that has a deeper meaning and importance but also whose meaning is not clear. Furthermore, in the synoptic gospels there seems to be some differences in what each author considers a parable. If the gospel writers themselves were having a hard time distinguishing a parable from a saying then it would come to no surprise that there are several contextual interpretations that have come from such parables.
The question then arises, if parables were not meant to be easily understood, then why use them at all? Although scholars do not all agree with the explanations given by the gospel writers, it is difficult to truly know why Jesus chose to address his audience this way. However, we will continue to have scholars dissect this question and in doing so we find Crossan’s belief which states, it is to “challenge” the audience to think deeper about how they interpret the Torah and to not necessarily pick out the parts that they feel tend to their social needs but to understand it all and challenge the restraints religion has placed on them.

As we’ve seen in both Crossan and Levine’s readings, the term Samaritan was not intended to be used in the sense that we use it today. In ancient times, it has a negative condemnation, Samaritan’s were enemies of the Jew’s. Samaritans believe they are the keeper of the law (Anderson 2009). It is thought that they may have ancestry associated to the ten lost tribes, however; this is not proven. Nonetheless, Samaritan’s were said to be favored by the Persian’s but it also appeared that the Persian’s were trying to keep tension high between the Samaritan’s and Jew’s. During the Roman rule, 10,000 Samaritans were slaughtered and it is said that both Samaritans and Jews were mistreated under the Roman rule (Anderson 2009). However, the instead of joining forces, they continued to despise one another which is another reason why Levine makes it clear that the name we use today “The Good Samaritan” is completely out of context. Both authors require the reader to look at the historical context while reading the passage in question; however, it is clear that most do not.

It is safe to say that although there was much turmoil between the Samaritans and the Jews, they both believed in one God, the Lord God. They both historically are based on the same traditions past down by the Torah. Anderson states, “Samaritanism has been considered a sect of Judaism” (pg. 81). And despite the similarities of serving the same God, they both have used their status with God as a reason to make the other inferior to each other. The same is for the Christians as well. During the Byzantine period Christians went to Samaria and preached the Gospel to them, trying to convert them to Christianity. However, once again, there was turmoil within the Christian community and the Samaritan’s and they would destroy the Christian’s property, dispute over who had access to Jacob’s well and Joseph’s tomb (Anderson 2009). Unfortunately, we still see disputes to this day over which religion is correct and whose practices are to be seen by God as the “right” way to live. In my opinion, this is a very troubling truth.

Synthesis

It is clear to me how important it is to not only read the bible in the context of today, but to ensure that it is also being interpreted in the context it was meant for. In doing so, the reader will find a much deeper insight of what the true meaning is. As discussed, Jesus spoke in a way that to some brought confusion but to others insight. He challenged His audience to dig deeper to gain a stronger understanding; however, this was not always how His words were interpreted through the Gospels and even today. Due to the confusion that His sayings and parables seemed to bring, the Gospels writers felt a need to explain them further which in turn has brought further confusion but to those who chose to study them, it has also served as a guide to be able to understand what was really thought to be Jesus’s words and not just the Gospel writers agenda.

This project has given me a deeper understanding of how important the historical aspect of these writings are. It has also given me a deeper appreciation for the work that goes into the study of the Gospel’s, Jesus and the Bible as a whole. In doing so you can see discrepancies due to the writer’s agenda but also strong historical evidence that can lead one to an appreciation for those same discrepancies. The readings for this project brought important insights to the differing views from interpretations that have been done throughout history. They both were able to take historical facts about the actual time period Jesus lived which might not have been available during the time the historical documents were written. With that being said, it is apparent that Jesus had a very different agenda than Luke did when he spoke about the parable of the Samaritan. I think Amy-Jill Levine said it well when she said “For a final sense of the profundity of the parable, we need only look from ancient texts to present context” (pg. 105). In doing so, we can see that the enemy too can have good intentions and does not always need to be looked at as a target. One should love everyone, even their enemy and in doing so, who knows what may happen. Could it be that Jesus had it right all along and we still have it wrong?

Bibliography

Anderson, Robert T. “Samaritans.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75-82. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2013
Hedrick, Charles W. “Parable.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 368-377. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Lane, Nathan C. “Samaritan, The Good.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 75. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009.

Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Levine, Amy, and Marc Z. Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.