PARABLES OF REVERSAL: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Three)

The Good Samaritan (GS; Luke 10:30-37)

"The example of the despised half-breed was intended to teach him that no human being was beyond the range of charity. The law of love called him to be ready at any time to give his life for another's need." - J. Jeremias

"The story certainly leaves no doubt that what really matters is to act as the Samaritan did ... in the same simplicity ... governed completely by the need of the man who confronts us." - E. Linnemann

"The parable is not a pleasant tale about the Traveller Who Did His Good Deed: it is a damning indictment of social, racial, and religious superiority." - G.V. Jones

(1) The Meaning for Luke:

• Scholarly consensus has the GS as an 'example parable' (sets a good example for the audience). This is based on the parable's overture of Lk. 10:25-29 and the admonition in vs. 37, "'Go, and do likewise.'"
• Crossan's Thesis: The present context of the GS in 10:25-29 and 10:37 is not original and cannot be used in interpreting the meaning of the parable.
• Evidence of Thesis (summary): 1) The presence of the context but not the parable in Mark; 2) the divergent uses of the term 'neighbor' in context and parable in Luke.
• Four Units to the GS:

1. The Question Concerning Eternal Life (10:25-28): The question concerning eternal life is similar to the question of the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-31 and Matt. 23:34-40, indicating that a citation of Deut 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 (the two great commandments) was present in both Q and Mark. Matthew conflates Q and Mark, while Luke prefers Q over Mark (compare synoptic passages already cited).   
2. The Question Regarding One's Neighbor (10:29): In 10:25-28 the neighbor is still the one who receive the help; the recipient, not the helper. "And who is my neighbor?" 10:29 does not exist in Mark or Matthew. "Mark does not know this second question and Matthew does not accept it from Q."   
3. The Parable of the GS (10:30-35): Logical inconsistency between the meaning of 'neighbor' in 10:27,29 and in 10:36. The parable is pulled in two directions. In 27,29 the neighbor is the recipient of the helper (the man on the roadside). In 36 the neighbor is the helper who provides assistant to the recipient (the samaritan). Indicates inauthenticity of the dialogue between Jesus and the questioner. Crossan proposes that 10:25-28(29) and 10:30-36(37) were two seperate units combined by Luke because of their common theme of 'neighbor'. The disharmony of these two units is a remnant of their once separateness.     
4. The Conclusion with Question and Final Admonition (10:36-37): The question of 10:36 serves as an excellent rhetorical question to end the parable. "the change from this unanswered rhetorical question in 10:36 to the question-and-answer format in 10:36-37a is an obvious change as soon as the questioner became identified as an individual lawyer or scribe. This would argue that the original ending was 10:36." The final answer of 10:37 serves as a nice ending to the question of the lawyer in 10:25.

• Summary: "This is not an authentic dialogue between a lawyer and Jesus in 10:30-37; neither is it two original controversy dialogues in 10:25-28 and 10:29-37 word-linked by 'neighbor.'" The single controversy of 10:25-28 has been expanded to include the parable of 10:30-37. The parable of the GS was originally independent of its present context.   

(2) The Meaning for Jesus:

• What does GS mean without the surrounding context? What if it's just 10:30-36?
• First climax comes in the reaction of the priest and Levite/saw/passed by on the other side, juxtaposed with the Samaritan/saw/had compassion. The Second climax is in the final rhetorical question, "Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor ...?"
• At the second climax the details of the Samaritan's actions come into importance. "When the hearer is confronted with the rhetorical question in 10:36 he might negate the entire process by simply denying that any Samaritan would so act. So, before the question can be put, the hearer must see, feel, and hear the goodness of the Samaritan for himself."  
• The Importance of 'Samaritan': "Most importantly, if he [Jesus] wanted to inculcate love of one's enemies, it would have been radical enough to have a Jewish person stop and assist a wounded Samaritan. But when the story is read as one told by the Jewish Jesus to a Jewish audience, and presumably in a Jerusalem setting, this original historical context demands that the 'Samaritan' be intended and heard as the socio-religious outcast which he was... The whole thrust of the story demands that one say what cannot be said, what is a contradiction in terms: Good + Samaritan... But when good (clerics) and bad (Samaritan) become, respectively, bad and good, a world is being challenged and we are faced with polar reversal" (emphasis mine).
• From Parable to Example: "The literal point confronted the hearers with the necessity of saying the impossible and having their world turned upside down and radically questioned in its presuppositions. The metaphorical point is that just so does the Kingdom of God break abruptly into human consciousness and demand the overturn of prior values, closed options, set judgments, and established conclusions... The hearer struggling with the contradictory dualism of Good/Samaritan is actually experiencing in and through this the inbreaking of the Kingdom."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat