Talk:Parable of the Good Samaritan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Parable being anti-racism 2 Why the {} sign/s? 3 "Lawyer"? 4 the good samaritan 5 The republican/conservative analogy 6 When did this happen? 7 Vandalism 8 Requested move 9 Last Paragraph 10 Logical Problem

[edit] Parable being anti-racism

Asimov may not have been the first to point out the non-discrimination theme, but he was the first who I saw point it out, and I'd never seen it elsewhere, so... DS 15:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out the Jesus page on wikiquote, got one from Bertrand Russell: "Christ said "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" and when asked "who is thy neighbour? went on to the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you wish to understand this parable as it was understood by his hearers, you should substitute "Germans and Japanese" for Samaritan. I fear my modern day Christians would resent such a substitution, because it would compel them to realize how far they have departed from the teachings of the founder of their religion." LamontCranston 13:22, 20 Jul 2006 (UTC)

The article in its current form concludes that the Parable of the Good Samaritan represents "an example of Christianity against racial prejudice." This conclusion represents a personal faith statement rather than an evidenced conclusion. A check of the Documenting the American South database, for example, reveals about a dozen references to Good Samaritans in the literature of US slavery -- hardly a convincing body of evidence, but not negligible either. Have well-recognized writers employed this parable as a emblem of anti-racism? A brief keyword search in Lexis did not reveal such. The discourses of race in the United States have not employed much reference to the Good Samaritan. There is no basis for this conclusion other than one individual's opinion. This article needs to be stripped of its advocacy of a particular religious interpretation in order to address historical uses of the parable. The insertion of the Jews/Hezbollah comparative example gives the amateurish effect of an 'encyclopedia article ripped from the headlines.'Jlockard 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually arguing that this parable doesn't apply to race relations and enemies in war? Roy Brumback 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The parable might conceivably apply to a wide range of human relations, not only to race relations or warfare. These emphases are your own; the historical uses of this parable center on compassion and charity. An encyclopedia article is not a pulpit from which we learn one speaker's opinion of the best social application of a text. That, regretably, is how this article reads. I have sufficient field expertise to state that the Good Samaritan parable is not a noticeable element in the history of US discourses on race or race prejudice (indeed, 'race' is a modern concept not applicable to biblical texts). To suggest otherwise, as does this article, is simply misinformation. I found the entry and its editorial history disturbing for the ease with which an individual theology was superimposed on a Wikipedia article with little competent challenge. The article needs a thorough overhaul based on evidence, not personal belief.Jlockard 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So you admit it does apply to these two situations. If you have other situations it applies to add them. Race is not a total modern concept, and the Jews certainly didn't consider the Samaritans one of their people. The Samaritans worshipped the same God, the God of Abraham, but in a different way, just as modern Muslims do, and were largely taught to not like Jews, hence the Palestinian and Hezbollah comparisons. I found thousands of web pages discussing this parable in terms of racism, and cited two. The only evidence about the parable is the parable, it's historic analysis, and what people have interpreted it to mean. Roy Brumback 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone from very poor to worse, apparently as a result of authorial defensiveness. I suggest deleting the last two paragraphs and starting over with an historical approach rather than a religious POV. For example, how have various writers employed this parable over recent centuries? The current version with its social-religious message renders this history unrecognizable. As for the concept of 'race,' Western thought begins the eighteenth century with minimal trace of the concept and concludes that century with fully-developed ideologies of race. It is a modern concept; reading biblical texts through its lens is a distortion that peaked in 19th-century social and religious thought. For such reasons, pronouncing the Parable of the Good Samaritan to be a paradigm of anti-racist thought makes a hash of history.Jlockard 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all what exactly is the religious POV? Secondly, feel free to include what various writers have said about the parable, but realize that that too is their religious POV. And what history are you talking about. As for race, since this parable is almost 2 millenia old, how about what the ancients thought about it? The Jews certainly didn't conside the Samaritans as the same kind of people as them, whatever word you want to assign to it. And finally, it really only matters what Jesus was trying to get across with the parable, not what the 19th century thought about it, not that the 19th century had one view anyway. Do you think Jesus was trying to say that the Samaritans, people of a race not his own, can obey God's will just as well or better then his fellow Jews? And if so, why can it not be applied beyond Jews and Samaritans to blacks and whites, men and women ect... as he is trying to point out being a member of a group, whichever one, does not automatically make you good, your actions do. Roy Brumback 07:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll decline the invitation to discuss personal opinions on what views should be attributed to Jesus: that is not relevant to an article on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Try to keep the discussion focused on the article in question; its discussion and privileging of the author's view is precisely the problem. For example, the footnoting that you have done only buttresses a clear personal POV and its emphases rather than surveys historical uses of the Good Samaritan parable. Wikipedia policy emphasizes both NPOV where all significant views are presented, and avoidance of religious bias. In its current form, this article leads to your own conclusion concerning the meaning of the parable, rather than review the meanings a broader range of authors attribute to it. Further, Wikipedia policy states that partisan or religious websites should be employed with caution if at all. The citations you have added of religious websites demonstrate one reason why such highly-selective and low-quality web citations constitute poor practice. By googling "Good Samaritan" together with racism, one obtains 104,000 URL cites. This is apparently what you meant in stating that you found thousands of websites discussing this parable in terms of racism. However, your selective bias becomes apparent when one re-does the search with new terms. The same search together with "compassion" renders 252,000 results; with "charity," 402,000; with "care," 2,370,000; and with "dogs," 265,000. In short, according to Google, on the Internet there is well over twice the association of Good Samaritans with dogs as with racism. But this way lies nonsense and non-evidence; it only demonstrates the selectivity of your citations and neglect of general opinion. There are many good research resources available if you wish to contribute to an article on the parable of the Good Samaritan. I would prefer to persuade you to do that work to obtain the views of others concerning the interpretation and use of the parable, rather than employ the article to give readers your version of the correct interpretation. Let readers do their own interpreting. Thanks. Jlockard 05:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no "author" of this page, several, and I've only made a few edits, and not the racism one, as a check in page history will show, but I think it's relevent. My cites were from reputable mainstream Bible scholars. Feel free to challenge them with counter cites if you disagree with them. If you actually checked the pages from the search you will see that those pages are largely Christian Churches using the parable against racism, showing a substantial modern usage of the parable in that fashion, and that certainly buttresses the claim. Do you have examples of Christians using it to defend racism? Are there many and do they use seriously twisted logic? Do you really have no opinion on what Jesus was trying to say with this parable? I get a non-racism message from it, one out of many. And here is hit#1 from a yahoo search of the parable and "dogs" [1], and it too discusses parable being about loving people regardless of race. Roy Brumback 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has become circular. Your repeated invitations to discuss what was on the mind of Jesus would seem to indicate a failure to grasp that this is not the issue. At a slightly later point, I shall strip the last two paragraphs and replace them with more solid material. I regret having failed to persuade you to revisit the POV problems in this article.Jlockard 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What was on the mind of Jesus is the issue, as that is what the parable really means. And what exactly is the POV in the article, just your disagreement with the parable being against racism? Why isn't that your POV? I'll tell you that I will argue for race relations being included if you try to delete it as there is major evidence of it being used in that fashion. Roy Brumback 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest iteration of these paragraphs interjects some material that is a bit less centered on one POV, albeit some of the writing is quite poor ("modernly"?). When there is some time, I will still be stripping the latter section for a complete rewrite relying on more normative discussion.Jlockard 16:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again, what is the POV specifically in the article? What does "normative discussion" mean? And if you edit please use sources and cites and not write in any personal opinion. Roy Brumback 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this territory. See above. Normative discussion refers to prevailing terms of discussion among subject authorities, rather than the personal religious POV that characterizes the current article.Jlockard 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But you have not said what you find POV, other then the anti-racism message of the Parable, which you seem to be the only one to object to, and have not given one cited source to the contrary. You talked about Good Samaritans and slavery literature. Could you be more specific? What are the "prevailing terms" and who are the "subject authorities"? Roy Brumback 09:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not the job of wikipedians to interpret the subject. What is needed is citations of published interpretations. Anything else if original research. HighInBC 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Ray Brumback, there has already been sufficient discussion of the point. It would be redundant to extend matters here, as persuasion has had no effect concerning removal of personal interpretation. Concerning specifics & citations, these will come when there is a bit of library time available. Some of us have day jobs other than Wikipedia.Jlockard 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Roy, and I have two jobs plus graduate classes to attend. Thanks for the insulting tone. Are you saying we can't say what interpretations Christians have given to it. Roy Brumback 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Lawyer"?

I'm not entirely certain that the phrase "scholar of the Law" describes what we currently think of as a "lawyer"; after all, "the Law" is usually used to describe the Torah (and the Talmud as well). DS 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the good samaritan

what is the moral of the story the good samaritan?

idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mütze (talk • contribs) .

Thank you. Mütze 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly a proper response to a question, even if you think it an obvious one. The moral of the Good Samaritan lies in the opinion of the Samaritans by the people Jesus was speaking to. Samaritans were generally regarded as people who had turned their back on God. In the story, three men pass an injured man on the roadside and only the Samaritan, an enemy of the injured man's people, stops to help. This is linked to the parable of loving one's neighbor (often called the "Golden Rule" and often stated "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" or more or less "treat people how you would want to be treated") to illustrate that all people (in the Samaritan's case, an enemy of his people, which is about as far from a friend as you can get) are our neighbors and must be treated as we would wish to be treated. The moral of the Godd Samaritan is Universal Brotherhood and that all people must be treated with kindness and love. - 24.10.95.220 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The republican/conservative analogy

There are a number of problems with this. First off republican and liberal are American terms, not carrying the same meaning in the rest of the world. Secondly, what's with the stereotyping? "Similarity, a liberal audience could be faced with a homosexual or advocacy group spokesperson as the assaulted man, and a conservative Christian, a member of the military or a businessman in the role of the Samaritan."

The one assaulted in the parable was a jew. Does this mean that the typical liberal is a homosexual? Are conservatives all middle-class businessmen?

I think it should be deleted, basically, or replaced with something more in the spirit of the parable. I think it's difficult to create a true modern-day analogy as there aren't many direct caste/race conflicts. Maybe you could make the analogy with a regular westerner as the victim, which was then helped by a stereotypical "terrorist" type.

The previous poster gets it spot on.--Atemperman 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of the parable is helping people from groups you don't like, and there are certainly modern groups that don't like each other. I agree it needs to be better worded, but I'm reinserting it till then. Roy Brumback 8:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When did this happen?

Hello,

this is a somewhat weird question, but did Jesus ever mention how long ago this was? He probably didn't give an exact date, but is there a time frame : 1000 BC-0 BC or something?

Thank you! Evilbu 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The parables are generally held to have been illustrative stories invented on the spot, rather than actual events. DS 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but I heard that the Samaritans only became a major part or the population after the Assyrian influence.

It's the same with the battle between David and Goliath, it that really happened, it must have happened after Noah.Evilbu 10:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing what the term "parable" means. It means an illustrative story, not something meant to be taken as a historical event. David and Goliath are described in historical terms (whether they occurred or not); parables are never intended to be interpreted as describing real events. And the Samaratan/Jewish divide was very much alive during Jesus' time (which you can see from the "other" Samaratan story in the New Testament, where Jesus asks a Samaratan woman for water from Jacob's well--which, by contrast, is described as history, rather than parable). Epstein's Mother 08:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that, while we often talk of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel (David and Goliath is in Samuel) and Kings as history, Jesus himself would have referred to them as the former prophets. The difference may be emphasis, but it's enough to see it as a different genre of writing. Andrewa 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just removed some vandalism on this page. Maybe it needs to be locked down? --Mcorazao 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

See Talk:The Good Samaritan (Seinfeld episode) for a requested move affecting this article. Andrewa 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Paragraph

Rather unencyclopedic, no?

Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 68.173.19.198.

That it was a priest and then a Levite who first passed by is significant beyond the irony of the situation: people who were expected to help, didn't, while someone whom the victim (and Jesus' audience) despised, did. The priest had good reason (read 'excuse') not to help. There's the possibility that the victim was already dead. And touching a dead person for someone so 'holy', while not forbidden, would be, in modern vernacular, such a hassle - all the necessary cleansing rituals prescribed by Mosaic Law. The priest made a judgment call: he decided that being "priestly" was more important than saving someone's life. Jesus' unspoken challenge to all believers seems to be: would we help only if it's convenient, or are we willing to go out of our way to show compassion?

It could be better put, but that's a pretty standard and IMO helpful interpretation of the parable. It's been marked citation needed, which I can understand, but is it really? There's nothing terribly original here, and it's been published in many places. Probably if you look up two or three of the four references given, you'll get all of this quite happily sourced. Andrewa 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Problem

I've added a section on the logical problem of the Good Samaritan. Whilst I don't believe that any serious Christian writers have grappled with a possible error in the central parable of Luke, I know that some Christians have noticed it without prompting. Atheists notice it quite quickly when it is pointed out. Christian commentators try to explain the problem by saying that Jesus has turned the question around on the lawyer. There is no evidence either way. But, pointing the problem out is important, because most people who try and explain the parable usually make some kind of logical mistake. There is one in the wiki, when someone says "So a neighbor is anyone who needs our help and love". Where did that come from? Citation needed!!! What I have added is not original research, because I have been careful to make sure that each statement is easily verifiable. Bipedia 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)