@Martin54 Actually, I share your reaction. I'm not surprised that I belong to the war party, but I'm surprised by the rather strong consensus here. I think that the most recent footage and pictures from Bucha and environs are just too appalling for us [ not ] to conclude that turning the other cheek means finding your cheek and the rest of you in a ditch as (literally) a dog's breakfast.
I think you've got the wrong parable. To the best of my knowledge none of the cheeks of anyone here are in danger from the Russians right now. The question is how we react to the suffering of others, not danger to ourselves.
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. . . .
@Martin54 Actually, I share your reaction. I'm not surprised that I belong to the war party, but I'm surprised by the rather strong consensus here. I think that the most recent footage and pictures from Bucha and environs are just too appalling for us [ not ] to conclude that turning the other cheek means finding your cheek and the rest of you in a ditch as (literally) a dog's breakfast.
I think you've got the wrong parable. To the best of my knowledge none of the cheeks of anyone here are in danger from the Russians right now. The question is how we react to the suffering of others, not danger to ourselves.
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. . . .
The parable works for me, as it is implicit that some of us bystanders might have harboured the sentiment that Ukraine should have turned the other cheek in some unreal, 'ideal', WWJD alternative reality universe. I did. A couple of orders of magnitude less than I did here about five years ago. I'm open to an argument for national pacifism, but can't imagine it under any circumstances. Even let us in or we nuke you. If the world allows that evil, there is no hope, if there is power that evil, there is no point living under it. Putin has been planning all of this for at least eight years. I'm impressed at his patience. It's not exactly 5D chess and we still wouldn't see it. Why didn't we arm Ukraine from then? Irrational liberal optimism which Macron demonstrated last month and the 'caution' that followed in refusing Ukraine tanks.
The thing about the Good Samaritan is the extent to which he went to care for the man who had been robbed. This wasn't just a bit of his time, a delay in his journey, or even the money he gave to the inn keeper and blank cheque to pay anything extra needed. The Samaritan stopped and spent time kneeling by the road side tending the injured man in an area where bandits who would not hesitate to beat a man near to death operated, very clearly because the evidence was there in front of him. In spending time there, and going more slowly along the road as his donkey carried the burden of the injured man, he put himself in real danger of being attacked by the same gang of bandits who had attacked the man he was helping. Common sense would be to get out of the area as quickly as possible, to hurry on by on the other side of the road and not get involved.
If we're to use that Parable for the current situation, who do we want the NATO nations to be? Those who don't want to risk themselves and hurry along to get out of the area, to avoid being entangled in the situation and risk being attacked? Or, the Samaritan who stops and helps in full knowledge that by doing so we could ourselves be targeted by the gang of robbers?
The Parable doesn't really apply to NATO, because the call is for the Church to be the Good Samaritan rather than for nations or international organisations to be so. So, it probably means the Church needs to be getting together a flotilla of ferries and hospital ships in the Sea of Azov to send food and medical supplies into Mariupol, and evacuate civilians and the injured. Or, convoys of trucks and buses to get supplies into and people out of Kharkiv. Of course, in evacuating people there needs to be an assessment of whether those people are at greater risk on the journey than they would be sheltering in cellars nearer home, and the failure by Russians to respect cease fires and humanitarian corridors means that possibly such routes are too dangerous for those trapped to use.
As far as we know the Good Samaritan was not responsible for the well-being of millions of other people so its best not to try to apply that parable to large entities.
As far as we know the Good Samaritan was not responsible for the well-being of millions of other people so its best not to try to apply that parable to large entities.
What if the Good Samaritan consists of millions of people?
As far as we know the Good Samaritan was not responsible for the well-being of millions of other people so its best not to try to apply that parable to large entities.
What if the Good Samaritan consists of millions of people?
But it didn't. It was one man.
Make up your own parable if that one doesn't fit.
No, that's individualising a faith that's inherently corporate. The Good Samaritan is all Christians, working together the save those who are in need (not all individual Christians acting on their own).
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
What we are commanded to do is to love our neighbours as ourselves. That, rather than specifics of the parable, is what should inform our actions. Of course complexity arises where I might have to choose between competing needs of neighbours, or when what will help one will harm another.
No, that's individualising a faith that's inherently corporate. The Good Samaritan is all Christians, working together the save those who are in need (not all individual Christians acting on their own).
I agree that Christianity is essentially a group thing, but it acts one person's decision at a time. Some go along with group decisions others don't. The church isn't an amorphous blob.
I was merely pointing out that the story is about one person coming to the assistance of another individual.
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner." But there's always been a bit of confusion around the parable, because in everyday conversation, "a good Samaritan" is used to mean anyone who helps somebody else, with, at most, the implication that the helper and the helpee are personal strangers to one another.
Little tidbit. The man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. That route goes through the valley that is called the Valley of Death. It is the same route David refers to in Psalm 23.
The thing about the Good Samaritan is the extent to which he went to care for the man who had been robbed. This wasn't just a bit of his time, a delay in his journey, or even the money he gave to the inn keeper and blank cheque to pay anything extra needed. The Samaritan stopped and spent time kneeling by the road side tending the injured man in an area where bandits who would not hesitate to beat a man near to death operated, very clearly because the evidence was there in front of him. In spending time there, and going more slowly along the road as his donkey carried the burden of the injured man, he put himself in real danger of being attacked by the same gang of bandits who had attacked the man he was helping. Common sense would be to get out of the area as quickly as possible, to hurry on by on the other side of the road and not get involved.
All of this. The parable is a clear working out of how we should apply our faith in practice. From this, we can work to Lord Atkin's words:
Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. (Donoghue v Stephenson)
They apply just as much in our daily behaviour to each other as they do in deciding who is liable in law.
Little tidbit. The man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. That route goes through the valley that is called the Valley of Death. It is the same route David refers to in Psalm 23.
Little tidbit. The man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. That route goes through the valley that is called the Valley of Death. It is the same route David refers to in Psalm 23.
Carry on.
Reference? To the Kidron? In any text? Whoops! Sorry @BroJames.
@Pangolin Guerre , who on this thread has given advice that has moved from risible to obscene? Me? Martin54? I think you should justify such a serious claim.
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner."
Absolutely. The point is: "This scumbag foreigner knows how to help his neighbour, but for some reason you, the religious expert, don't! Maybe you should be more like him!!"
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner."
Absolutely. The point is: "This scumbag foreigner knows how to help his neighbour, but for some reason you, the religious expert, don't! Maybe you should be more like him!!"
Agreed, of course.
Though I've been thinking a bit about this, and it occurs to me that if Jesus' xenophobic listeners were anything like the bigots today, most of them wouldn't think it plausible that a Samaritan would behave in that manner, and would dismiss the parable the way a brexiteer or a MAGA Hatter would dismiss eg. some "woke" movie plot about a Muslim guy who's a fine upstanding member of his community, way better than the members of the local Tory council.
The only way I think it would really work is if Jesus presented the story as actually true, iow, yes, there is evidence of Samaritans behaving this way.
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner."
Absolutely. The point is: "This scumbag foreigner knows how to help his neighbour, but for some reason you, the religious expert, don't! Maybe you should be more like him!!"
Agreed, of course.
Though I've been thinking a bit about this, and it occurs to me that if Jesus' xenophobic listeners were anything like the bigots today, most of them wouldn't think it plausible that a Samaritan would behave in that manner, and would dismiss the parable the way a brexiteer or a MAGA Hatter would dismiss eg. some "woke" movie plot about a Muslim guy who's a fine upstanding member of his community, way better than the members of the local Tory council.
The only way I think it would really work is if Jesus presented the story as actually true, iow, yes, there is evidence of Samaritans behaving this way.
If there were evidence of Samaritans behaving this way, wouldn't that take the wind totally out of the sails of the parable? I mean why bother making a shocking claim if it's not shocking?
Well I would have said the Good Samaritan is primarily intended to answer the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ and to undermine a line of thinking which meant that only Israelites (or those in the church) are counted as neighbours.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner."
Absolutely. The point is: "This scumbag foreigner knows how to help his neighbour, but for some reason you, the religious expert, don't! Maybe you should be more like him!!"
Agreed, of course.
Though I've been thinking a bit about this, and it occurs to me that if Jesus' xenophobic listeners were anything like the bigots today, most of them wouldn't think it plausible that a Samaritan would behave in that manner, and would dismiss the parable the way a brexiteer or a MAGA Hatter would dismiss eg. some "woke" movie plot about a Muslim guy who's a fine upstanding member of his community, way better than the members of the local Tory council.
The only way I think it would really work is if Jesus presented the story as actually true, iow, yes, there is evidence of Samaritans behaving this way.
If there were evidence of Samaritans behaving this way, wouldn't that take the wind totally out of the sails of the parable? I mean why bother making a shocking claim if it's not shocking?
Well, I'm thinking of a situation where there wouldn't be enough evidence that it would be common knowledge, but Jesus would have heard of some cases, and been trusted enough by his audience to tell the truth.
Though I suppose it's possible that most bigots would acknowledge that there could be the odd 1% of Samaritans who behave kindly at times, and that someone from that 1% would be a better neighbour than a pharisee who just walks on by. The parable could then make its basic point, regardless of whether or not Jesus was purporting to tell a story he knew to be true.
Surely the point isn't whether real Samaritans did or didn't act like that but that we should 'do likewise' to the one in the Parable?
Yes, but in order for the listeners to be shamed into behaving as neighbourly as the hated Samaritans, they would have to believe it possible(though not neccessarily common) for a Samaritan to behave that way. If the story is presented as fiction, a hardcore bigot could just shrug it off as something that would never happen in real life anyway.
Thinking about it some more, I suspect the target audience for the parable was probably someone who didn't like Samaritans, but was prepared to admit that a few of them could act in a kind way, and was ALSO was aware that pharisees were capable of behaving like jerks. So Jesus was taking it all to the next level and saying "Not only did that Samaritan act in a more generous manner than the pharisee, he's also a better neighbour."
Would a hardcore bigot be likely to be inspired by such a story, whether or not there were a kernel of truth? Or even a bushel of truth? "But you're not like other blacks" is still heard today.
This is all pure speculation. Nothing wrong with that, in and off itself but I'm not sure where it takes us nor what it adds to our understanding of the Parable.
This is all pure speculation. Nothing wrong with that, in and off itself but I'm not sure where it takes us nor what it adds to our understanding of the Parable.
What's being left out of the equation here is the teller of the story and the likely esteem in which (Some? Most? All?) his audience held him. Assume we know Jesus told it, and that he told it to followers/potential followers. Here's their moral leader narrating a tale in which the hero, a member of a despised/discounted group, behaves honorably/admirably -- and that narrator is himself viewed with admiration and held in high esteem.
Imagine the discomfiture of the audience in being expected, even required, to view the story's heretofore 'despicable' hero as a moral model, and being told by someone the audience esteems.
The moral isn't in the story alone, but also in who tells it.
Here's their moral leader narrating a tale in which the hero, a member of a despised/discounted group, behaves honorably/admirably -- and that narrator is himself viewed with admiration and held in high esteem.
And the tale also tells of the manner in which members of the same group as the audience ignored the needs of the victim of an assault and robbery, walking away from him as quickly they could.
Little tidbit. The man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. That route goes through the valley that is called the Valley of Death. It is the same route David refers to in Psalm 23.
Carry on.
Source for the tidbit?
Thank you for asking. Something I learned in Seminary nearly 45 years ago.
However, there is a Biblical Archeology Magazine (38: 1975) article that says it was called the Way of Blood in Jesus time.
It does seem as if this thread has gotten a little off track, though.
I can certainly see that the route from Jerusalem to Jericho via the Kidron Valley was dangerous, and was given names like that. What is harder to see is any evidence for a connection with Psalm 23.
To be honest, I looked at Psalm 23 (in 3 somewhat different translations) for the first time in several decades. Its application to the situation (mainly) under discussion in this thread seems very general -- perhaps too general to be useful -- to me. As I read Ps. 23 now, umpteen decades since I first learned it in childhood, its basic message seems to be, "Don't worry; no matter what happens and no matter what impact (even fatal) those happenings have on you, you're still in God's care." However, I can see nothing explicit in this psalm which links to the potentially-despised status of the rescuer in the parable.
Following @Ohher's lead, I've just re-read the 23rd Psalm(KJV), and I also agree that it's a bit of a stretch to link it with TGS.
Mostly, "I will fear no evil" seems like a strange sentiment to connect to someone who gets the living crap beat out of him by robbers: the point of the parable is not that the traveler was protected from evil, because clearly he wasn't, but rather that, after encountering the evil, he was assisted by some particular individual.
I guess the bit about the Samaritan pouring oil on the guy sorta echoes the psalmist, except that in the psalm, it seems like something done as a luxury, whereas in the parable, I think it's more for what we would call medicinal purposes.
All that being said, almost any interpretation of that parable is likely superior to the one put forth in the authorized "spiritual biography" The Faith Of Donald J. Trump, where it is stated that if Christians are too unforgiving of Trump's carnal misdeeds, they risk becoming like "the elder brother in the parable of the Good Samaritan".
Anyone else feeling queasy about discussing the number of angels dancing on a pin head (as it were) in the context of the evil being perpetrated on innocent people.
Following @Ohher's lead, I've just re-read the 23rd Psalm(KJV), and I also agree that it's a bit of a stretch to link it with TGS.
Mostly, "I will fear no evil" seems like a strange sentiment to connect to someone who gets the living crap beat out of him by robbers:
Really? It seems like a perfect application of the Psalm.
the point of the parable is not that the traveler was protected from evil, because clearly he wasn't, but rather that, after encountering the evil, he was assisted by some particular individual.
I'm thinking the Psalm came before the parable; perhaps I've got that wrong.
No, obviously, the psalm came first. But my own view is that Jesus would not likely craft that particular parable as a riff on a psalm about someone who does not fear evil. Because I think most people would assume that a guy getting beaten and robbed on a highway would be scared out of his ever-loving mind.
Though YMMV. I guess you're thinking that Jesus could have interpreted "I will fear no evil" as meaning something like "Even if really bad stuff happens to me, I know someone will be there to help me afterwards"? Personally, I read the line as suggesting that evil stuff will never happen to me in the first place, which I also think works better with the metaphor of a shepherd guiding his flock: the Samaritan in the parable wasn't leading the traveler throughout his journey, he only came along after everything had gone to shit.
Oh, and if the mods want to move this thread drift to kergymania, that would be fine with me. I'd do it myself, but I'm crap at posting links on a cell.
I intepreted the original comment as "What Psalm 23 refers to as the Valley of the Shadow of Death was, in fact, the same valley that the Good Samaritan later found the beaten traveler in."
Yes. That’s how I interpreted it too. IMO there are some problems with that
It presumes that the valley is geography and not just metaphor (though I accept it could be both)
It depends on there being only one “Valley of the shadow of death” when the possibility that the usage is simply an idiom for deep darkness is an indicator that there could be others. It’s not as secure a denotation as, say, Times Square, New York would be
It depends on the likelihood of a Bethlehem-based shepherd leading his flock that way at all
at best the evidence for the identification will only be circumstantial.
Yes. That’s how I interpreted it too. IMO there are some problems with that
It presumes that the valley is geography and not just metaphor (though I accept it could be both)
It depends on there being only one “Valley of the shadow of death” when the possibility that the usage is simply an idiom for deep darkness is an indicator that there could be others. It’s not as secure a denotation as, say, Times Square, New York would be
It depends on the likelihood of a Bethlehem-based shepherd leading his flock that way at all
at best the evidence for the identification will only be circumstantial.
Agree with all. I would need to see arguments for the idea, which have not been forthcoming.
Regarding Psalm 23. It's one I've definitely heard before but I've also heard a lot of pious rubbish.
I don't think he'd have to have been there, and he wasn't always a shepherd. If it had a reputation that he (either in his shepherd hat, outlaw hat, or rulers hat) would know.
That would work, for me. There's clearly some level of metaphor going on, because the writer isn't a sheep or directly writing about being a shepherd.
But in the absence of other text, it could be that "the valley of..." is a known place used from personal shepherding experience, a known place used hyperbolically, an established generalisation, a common phrase or a bespoke metaphor.
I would like to see something tracing the theory to something historical.
On the other hand, the valley in the good Samaritan story does show why the valley of the shadow would make you want god with you and something that makes you think of places where you might be scared today "even if I walk down central park at night" probably makes it real.
I don't see how the likelihood of a "real" Samaritan doing or not doing something plays into this at all. It's not a statistical analysis or anything. I mean, Jesus could have told the same story and had the guy helping a leprechaun or whatever--he's not making a truth claim about "some Samaritans act this way, go and look if you don't believe me." He's not even shaming people into good behavior (as in, "Your enemies do better than you"). If he were, he would have presented this as a factual anecdote rather than in parable form which is by nature more akin to fairytales than to historical narrative--names normally left unspecified, location vague, date unspecified, only the details necessary for the plot are provided.
Really, IMHO this parable is not about race relations. It's about a guy in deep shit who got helped by another person who went above and beyond what anybody would have expected of him, and we're supposed to do likewise. And take it one step further, it's about US being in deep shit when Jesus comes along and helps us (which is where the offense of God comparing himself to a Samaritan comes in all the more)--and now we're to do likewise.
I have always thought that the point of the parable was that we are supposed to love everyone.
"To love one's neighbors, to love one's enemies, to love everything, to love God in all His manifestations. It is possible to love someone dear to you with human love, but an enemy can only be loved by divine love".
In 1982 I was rescued from a late-night street attack by 3 gay men, one in a long silk dress! They had seen what happened from the other side of the road. They gave me a bed for the night (as my keys were stolen too) and 5 quid (it was London) and I never saw any of them ever again
The question "Who is my neighbour?" seeks to find people who are not my neighbour so we don't have to love them.
The answer given is that "you are the neighbour", which indicates that the original question was the wrong question.
I agree that the question is seeking to find people who are "not my neighbour".
But I think the answer given is: "Everybody else knows who their neighbour is: how come you're so dumb?". Indicating that Jesus knows exactly why the question has been asked and is having none of it.
I wish it was the case that everybody else knows to be a neighbour.
Working in a Disaster Recovery Centre at the moment there are people who want to help but are constrained and frustrated by the laws they are administering as these are couched in ways that give reasons not to give assistance. Insurance terms and conditions are also like that. I remember the government employees I worked with who could be either the ones who tried to help and those who looked for reasons not to help.
On the other hand there are volunteers who turn up and ask about how they can help.
So I think that the Samaritan story is telling the Lukan audience how to be neighbourly, as not everyone of them knew.
Comments
I think you've got the wrong parable. To the best of my knowledge none of the cheeks of anyone here are in danger from the Russians right now. The question is how we react to the suffering of others, not danger to ourselves.
The parable works for me, as it is implicit that some of us bystanders might have harboured the sentiment that Ukraine should have turned the other cheek in some unreal, 'ideal', WWJD alternative reality universe. I did. A couple of orders of magnitude less than I did here about five years ago. I'm open to an argument for national pacifism, but can't imagine it under any circumstances. Even let us in or we nuke you. If the world allows that evil, there is no hope, if there is power that evil, there is no point living under it. Putin has been planning all of this for at least eight years. I'm impressed at his patience. It's not exactly 5D chess and we still wouldn't see it. Why didn't we arm Ukraine from then? Irrational liberal optimism which Macron demonstrated last month and the 'caution' that followed in refusing Ukraine tanks.
If we're to use that Parable for the current situation, who do we want the NATO nations to be? Those who don't want to risk themselves and hurry along to get out of the area, to avoid being entangled in the situation and risk being attacked? Or, the Samaritan who stops and helps in full knowledge that by doing so we could ourselves be targeted by the gang of robbers?
What if the Good Samaritan consists of millions of people?
But it didn't. It was one man.
Make up your own parable if that one doesn't fit.
What we are commanded to do is to love our neighbours as ourselves. That, rather than specifics of the parable, is what should inform our actions. Of course complexity arises where I might have to choose between competing needs of neighbours, or when what will help one will harm another.
I agree that Christianity is essentially a group thing, but it acts one person's decision at a time. Some go along with group decisions others don't. The church isn't an amorphous blob.
I was merely pointing out that the story is about one person coming to the assistance of another individual.
Yes. The point of the story is not "You should help people in need", which would have been taken as a given by Jesus' audience. Or indeed any audience consisting of non-sociopaths.
Rather, the point was, WHO is doing the helping, the answer being "someone you guys would normally consider to be a scumbag foreigner." But there's always been a bit of confusion around the parable, because in everyday conversation, "a good Samaritan" is used to mean anyone who helps somebody else, with, at most, the implication that the helper and the helpee are personal strangers to one another.
Carry on.
All of this. The parable is a clear working out of how we should apply our faith in practice. From this, we can work to Lord Atkin's words:
Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. (Donoghue v Stephenson)
They apply just as much in our daily behaviour to each other as they do in deciding who is liable in law.
Reference? To the Kidron? In any text? Whoops! Sorry @BroJames.
Sorry, I was acknowledging that you'd beat me to it.
Absolutely. The point is: "This scumbag foreigner knows how to help his neighbour, but for some reason you, the religious expert, don't! Maybe you should be more like him!!"
Agreed, of course.
Though I've been thinking a bit about this, and it occurs to me that if Jesus' xenophobic listeners were anything like the bigots today, most of them wouldn't think it plausible that a Samaritan would behave in that manner, and would dismiss the parable the way a brexiteer or a MAGA Hatter would dismiss eg. some "woke" movie plot about a Muslim guy who's a fine upstanding member of his community, way better than the members of the local Tory council.
The only way I think it would really work is if Jesus presented the story as actually true, iow, yes, there is evidence of Samaritans behaving this way.
If there were evidence of Samaritans behaving this way, wouldn't that take the wind totally out of the sails of the parable? I mean why bother making a shocking claim if it's not shocking?
Well, I'm thinking of a situation where there wouldn't be enough evidence that it would be common knowledge, but Jesus would have heard of some cases, and been trusted enough by his audience to tell the truth.
Though I suppose it's possible that most bigots would acknowledge that there could be the odd 1% of Samaritans who behave kindly at times, and that someone from that 1% would be a better neighbour than a pharisee who just walks on by. The parable could then make its basic point, regardless of whether or not Jesus was purporting to tell a story he knew to be true.
Yes, but in order for the listeners to be shamed into behaving as neighbourly as the hated Samaritans, they would have to believe it possible(though not neccessarily common) for a Samaritan to behave that way. If the story is presented as fiction, a hardcore bigot could just shrug it off as something that would never happen in real life anyway.
Thinking about it some more, I suspect the target audience for the parable was probably someone who didn't like Samaritans, but was prepared to admit that a few of them could act in a kind way, and was ALSO was aware that pharisees were capable of behaving like jerks. So Jesus was taking it all to the next level and saying "Not only did that Samaritan act in a more generous manner than the pharisee, he's also a better neighbour."
What's being left out of the equation here is the teller of the story and the likely esteem in which (Some? Most? All?) his audience held him. Assume we know Jesus told it, and that he told it to followers/potential followers. Here's their moral leader narrating a tale in which the hero, a member of a despised/discounted group, behaves honorably/admirably -- and that narrator is himself viewed with admiration and held in high esteem.
Imagine the discomfiture of the audience in being expected, even required, to view the story's heretofore 'despicable' hero as a moral model, and being told by someone the audience esteems.
The moral isn't in the story alone, but also in who tells it.
And the tale also tells of the manner in which members of the same group as the audience ignored the needs of the victim of an assault and robbery, walking away from him as quickly they could.
Thank you for asking. Something I learned in Seminary nearly 45 years ago.
However, there is a Biblical Archeology Magazine (38: 1975) article that says it was called the Way of Blood in Jesus time.
It does seem as if this thread has gotten a little off track, though.
Fallen among thieves, as it were.
Mostly, "I will fear no evil" seems like a strange sentiment to connect to someone who gets the living crap beat out of him by robbers: the point of the parable is not that the traveler was protected from evil, because clearly he wasn't, but rather that, after encountering the evil, he was assisted by some particular individual.
I guess the bit about the Samaritan pouring oil on the guy sorta echoes the psalmist, except that in the psalm, it seems like something done as a luxury, whereas in the parable, I think it's more for what we would call medicinal purposes.
All that being said, almost any interpretation of that parable is likely superior to the one put forth in the authorized "spiritual biography" The Faith Of Donald J. Trump, where it is stated that if Christians are too unforgiving of Trump's carnal misdeeds, they risk becoming like "the elder brother in the parable of the Good Samaritan".
Really? It seems like a perfect application of the Psalm.
I'm thinking the Psalm came before the parable; perhaps I've got that wrong.
No, obviously, the psalm came first. But my own view is that Jesus would not likely craft that particular parable as a riff on a psalm about someone who does not fear evil. Because I think most people would assume that a guy getting beaten and robbed on a highway would be scared out of his ever-loving mind.
Though YMMV. I guess you're thinking that Jesus could have interpreted "I will fear no evil" as meaning something like "Even if really bad stuff happens to me, I know someone will be there to help me afterwards"? Personally, I read the line as suggesting that evil stuff will never happen to me in the first place, which I also think works better with the metaphor of a shepherd guiding his flock: the Samaritan in the parable wasn't leading the traveler throughout his journey, he only came along after everything had gone to shit.
Oh, and if the mods want to move this thread drift to kergymania, that would be fine with me. I'd do it myself, but I'm crap at posting links on a cell.
@BroJames
@LatchKeyKid
@la vie en rouge
@MaryLouise
- It presumes that the valley is geography and not just metaphor (though I accept it could be both)
- It depends on there being only one “Valley of the shadow of death” when the possibility that the usage is simply an idiom for deep darkness is an indicator that there could be others. It’s not as secure a denotation as, say, Times Square, New York would be
- It depends on the likelihood of a Bethlehem-based shepherd leading his flock that way at all
at best the evidence for the identification will only be circumstantial.Agree with all. I would need to see arguments for the idea, which have not been forthcoming.
I don't think he'd have to have been there, and he wasn't always a shepherd. If it had a reputation that he (either in his shepherd hat, outlaw hat, or rulers hat) would know.
That would work, for me. There's clearly some level of metaphor going on, because the writer isn't a sheep or directly writing about being a shepherd.
But in the absence of other text, it could be that "the valley of..." is a known place used from personal shepherding experience, a known place used hyperbolically, an established generalisation, a common phrase or a bespoke metaphor.
I would like to see something tracing the theory to something historical.
On the other hand, the valley in the good Samaritan story does show why the valley of the shadow would make you want god with you and something that makes you think of places where you might be scared today "even if I walk down central park at night" probably makes it real.
Really, IMHO this parable is not about race relations. It's about a guy in deep shit who got helped by another person who went above and beyond what anybody would have expected of him, and we're supposed to do likewise. And take it one step further, it's about US being in deep shit when Jesus comes along and helps us (which is where the offense of God comparing himself to a Samaritan comes in all the more)--and now we're to do likewise.
"To love one's neighbors, to love one's enemies, to love everything, to love God in all His manifestations. It is possible to love someone dear to you with human love, but an enemy can only be loved by divine love".
Tolstoy.
The answer given is that "you are the neighbour", which indicates that the original question was the wrong question.
But I think the answer given is: "Everybody else knows who their neighbour is: how come you're so dumb?". Indicating that Jesus knows exactly why the question has been asked and is having none of it.
Working in a Disaster Recovery Centre at the moment there are people who want to help but are constrained and frustrated by the laws they are administering as these are couched in ways that give reasons not to give assistance. Insurance terms and conditions are also like that. I remember the government employees I worked with who could be either the ones who tried to help and those who looked for reasons not to help.
On the other hand there are volunteers who turn up and ask about how they can help.
So I think that the Samaritan story is telling the Lukan audience how to be neighbourly, as not everyone of them knew.