Talk:Parable of the Good Samaritan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

"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)

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)

The moral of the good Samaritan parable seems to have more than one possibility. First, I would like to discuss the moral of the parable from the viewpoint of the scholar of the law. I think Jesus' command to the scholar to "Go and do likewise" may have put the example of the Samaritan's conduct in the form of a specific challenge to the scholar from which he could then draw a moral teaching. Since the two of them (Jesus and the scholar) agreed on the words of the two commandments, the scholar may not have lacked a proper moral compass. But the scholar had to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt in order to have drawn a moral teaching from his conversation with Jesus. Let us further examine the scholar's plight. Recall that Jesus' avatar in the parable was socially objectionable to the scholar. In the scholar's attempt to justify himself, the scholar may have had doubt in his ability to allow only safe people close enough to love as himself. The scholar may have been disappointed with past relationships. He may have been good at only the letter of the law. He may have questioned the meanings of both love and neighbor. But even if we accept only the scholar's documented difficulty, the scholar's accomplishment of even a short term unbalanced give-and-take relationship, with the scholar only giving to someone who has touched his heart and the recipient only taking from the scholar who may not be skilled in maintaining his own boundaries, was likely to be a growth experience that would have exercised the scholar's people skills, and any lack thereof. This sounds more like a task than a teaching, and the scholar had to do the task to believe whatever moral teaching he might draw from Jesus' Samaritan parable. The moral of this story to the scholar and to us in the present day may be that there is a third commandment if you understand the first but not the second commandment: Learn who is your neighbor by generously meeting the short term needs of a needing someone who touches your heart. The moral may be that asking Jesus was and is the way to learn how to obey the commandments. The moral may be that the scholar's answer is in the believing and the doing. The moral may be that Jesus was a neighbor to a scholar who did not know who his neighbor was. The moral may be that Jesus treated the scholar with all the kindness and love possible. Turrncote354 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There probably is a right answer - we just can't be entirely sure what it is. But I think it is generally accepted that the point is to be like the Samaritan. Personally, I think it significant not just that the Samaritan is "supposed" to hate the Jew, and helps him instead, but also that the person he helps probably does hate the Samaritain, and the Samaritan knows that the Jew would probably not have done the same for him. I think the "race" issue is just one application of the parable, but really it is much wider than that. Westmorlandia (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vandalism

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

Requested move

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

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)

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)

The logical problem may reside in a reader's worldview that reflects a need. A salient need may be a need for absolute truth, a need for understanding, a need for peer group approval, a need to do the right thing, a need to look like one is doing the right thing, a need for logical correctness, etc., ad infinitum. Whatever the questioning reader's need, the parable may guide the reader to actions beneficial to self and others in the fullness of time, and may result in personal growth and understanding. Of course, one's worldview may change with growth. Turrncote354 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone correct this vandalism:

[2]

it can't just be undone. 70.20.190.160 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Luke is a Gentile

The uncited excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia really should be followed up with explanation that Luke is not Jewish. As it stands, that part of the article implies that Luke is pulling a fast one or intentionally reporting false history. In context, the parable is consistent with Luke's attention to outsiders. FFerreri 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC) FFerreri

Sick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.88.75 (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Levite

If the priest didn't help the dying man to maintain ritual purity, why didn't the Levite help? 71.225.102.120 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Levites are also subject to some of the laws of ritual purity, they are sort of sub-priests in Jewish law. 131.94.169.118 00:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And because then the parable wouldn't have worked... ;-) Westmorlandia (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Samaritan not explained

How is it possible that in this article nobody thought it important enough to explain exactly what a Samaritan is? This context is very important, and should be added. Badagnani 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish encyclopedia quote is, as noted, unreferenced. I find it a little ironic that the Jewish encyclopedia is quoted as a source for the parable being changed. The Jewish Encyclopedia is ...how can I put this... not likely to be entirely objective when it comes to evaluating Christian stories that appear to be anti-Jewish. Can't we find a source that evaluates the textual evidence a little more objectively? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Theological Analysis Section

I propose to delete the word "believers" in the following sentence of this section:

"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 to a stranger?"

It appears to have a POV, unless Jesus only spoke to "believers" or the message/moral is only for "believers." Any objections? --Edesh (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who were the robbers?

Were they Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.245.127 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus doesn't say. Could have been anyone. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Good Samartian was not an atheist

It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have ever conveyed an atheist as willing to do something Christian, since an atheist by definition is anti-Christian. Jesus publicly claimed to be God, and the Bible actually says in Psalm 14:1: that the fool says in his heart there is no God. So an atheist would not be a suitable substitute for the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan while a gentile is probably still intended as a Christian theistic man or a very least maybe an agnostic, so I have changed the illustration to agnostic for now. Also I added an additional illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.1 (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An atheist is not by definition anti-Christian. Nothing would preclude an atheist from engaging in good behavior, and nothing would even preclude an atheist from believing that Christianity was a good thing, despite not believing in it. The Good Samaritan was not a Christian, as Christianity did not exist during the ministry of Jesus, and there is no indication that the Good Samaritan was one of Jesus' followers. There's no reason to think that the Good Samaritan was an atheist, as if that was intended, it would have been mentioned in the story. But the parable is not about belief or unbelief, it's about actions. The point of the story is that the despised Samaritan was behaving better than those who thought themselves pious. The story could have been written with an atheist instead of the Good Samaritan, and it would have been essentially the same: "Even this fool atheist is better than the phony pious".--RLent (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Samaraitan is intended to have held the same religion as all Samaritans, i.e. Samaritanism? Without any indication to the contrary, it is hard to imagine that Jesus would have expected the audience to think anything else. Westmorlandia (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good??

Should there be mention of the fact that the word "good" does not occur in the original telling of the story? When did "good" first attach itself to the Samaritan? It seems to devalue the parable; Jesus is saying that a member of a despised people did the right thing but the word "good" implies that this was out of the ordinary - there was once a single "good Samaritan" among a tribe of the un-good. Saintmesmin (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's just saying this guy was good, not that all other Samaritans weren't. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once a rich young man came up to Jesus and said, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life," to which Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." The Samaritan was not a good person as there is no such thing, but he did do the righteous thing. Maybe we should rename the parable "The Parable of the Samaritan Who Did Something Righteous and Neighbourly One Day While Walking Down the Road." I know its a bit on the long side of things... haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.65.17 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Word "The"

The word "the" is often used in this article without any citation. I would like to know how the word "The" was used with in the historical context of the parable and for citation to be included. Give me a break... The Parable is self explanitory. Asking for citation when it comes to something as simple as "Love your neighbour as yourself"--(Jesus) is ridiculous. The idea that Jesus was talking about loving our enemies (that includes all people not just Samaritans) is actually well founded. Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you." The idea that the parable is about loving even our enemies is not just a religious POV, its how any intelligent person would interpret the parable irregardless of their own religious convictions or non-convictions. Giving a simply explanation of the parable on this WIKI is warrented for those that are not able to understand it at first glance.

Also, I am extremely tired of atheists assuming I am an idiot simply because I believe in God or that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. I would like to see some research and statistics from athiests on the level of education that us "religious" folk have, stop assuming we are all morons. You often quote imaginary statistics on how (religious = idiot/blind/closeminded) and (athiest = genius/educated/logical). You are so focused on other people presenting evidence that you often forget to present your own. So next time you presume that all religious people are a bunch of mentally disabled lemmings please quote a study or a credible scientific magazine which supports your hypothesis.

Oh, and for the above I would like to cite myself and also Jesus of Nazareth for the two quotes. And I am in no way assuming that all athiests assume that all religious people are idiots because I have no evidence to support his hypothesis, just personal experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.65.17 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Source/Tone problems

While this article is generally good, too much of it offers interpretations of the story without any sources or attributions as to which denominations accept the interpretation. Also, much of the article is in a vaguely sermon/pedagogic style which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Ashmoo (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I propose including the spectrum of documentable interpretations that may roughly range from the present Theological Analysis to the Minority View. The distinguishing personality feature that determines one's preferred interpretation of this parable may be some basic aspect(s) of oneself, and may therefore be very hard to change and/or see beyond. Comparison of interpretations by readers may advance their understanding, but their progress may be just another pipedream of mine. Turrncote354 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Talmudic controversies

It would appear that the Good Samaritan parable refers to controversies that are mentioned in the Talmud. For instance, the Talmud says some very nasty things about Gentiles, and declares that the life of a Jew is worth more than that of the best of the Gentiles, since they are held to be mere cattle. Therefore, the parable seems to imply that the Samaritan is treated like some sort of cattle, someone who is de-humanized because he is outside the norms of mainsteam Judaism. ADM (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2