Editing Parable of the Good Samaritan (section)

=={{anchor|Historical reliability}}Authenticity==
[[File:Aime-Morot-Le-bon-Samaritain.JPG|thumb|upright=0.9|''The Good Samaritan'' by [[Aimé Morot]] (1880) shows the Good Samaritan taking the injured man to the inn.]]

The [[Jesus Seminar]] voted this parable to be authentic,{{sfn|Funk|Hoover|1993|pp=271-400}}{{sfn|Jones|1999|p=294}} with 60% of fellows rating it "red" (authentic) and a further 29% rating it "pink" (probably authentic).{{sfn|Jones|1999|p=294}} The paradox of a disliked outsider such as a Samaritan helping a Jew is typical of Jesus' provocative parables,{{sfn|Funk|Hoover|1993|pp=271-400}}{{sfn|Forbes|2000|p=63}} and is a deliberate feature of this parable.{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=199}} In the Greek text, the shock value of the Samaritan's appearance is enhanced by the emphatic {{langx|grc|Σαμαρίτης|Samaritēs|label=none}} at the beginning of the sentence in verse 33.{{sfn|Forbes|2000|p=63}}

Bernard Brandon Scott, a member of the Jesus Seminar, questions the authenticity of the parable's context, suggesting that "the parable originally circulated separately from the question about neighborliness"{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=191}} and that the "existence of the lawyer's question in Mark 12:28–34<ref>{{bibleverse|Mark|12:28–34}}</ref> and Matthew 22:34–40,<ref>{{bibleverse|Matthew|22:34–40}}</ref> in addition to the evidence of heavy Lukan editing"{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=191}} indicates the parable and its context were "very probably joined editorially by Luke."{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=191}} A number of other commentators share this opinion,{{sfn|Forbes|2000|p=57}} with the consensus of the Jesus Seminar being that verses Luke 10:36–37<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|10:36–37}}</ref> were added by Luke to "connect with the lawyer's question."{{sfn|Jones|1999|p=294}} On the other hand, the "keen rabbinic interest in the question of the [[Great Commandment|greatest commandment]]"{{sfn|Forbes|2000|p=57}} may make this argument invalid, in that Luke may be describing a different occurrence of the question being asked.{{sfn|Forbes|2000|p=57}} Differences between the gospels suggest that Luke is referring to a different episode from Mark and Matthew,{{sfn|Snodgrass|2008|p=348}} and [[Klyne Snodgrass]] writes that "While one cannot exclude that Luke has joined two originally separate narratives, evidence for this is not convincing."{{sfn|Snodgrass|2008|p=348}} The ''Oxford Bible Commentary'' notes:

{{blockquote|That Jesus was only tested once in this way is not a necessary assumption. The twist between the lawyer's question and Jesus' answer is entirely in keeping with Jesus' radical stance: he was making the lawyer rethink his presuppositions.|source={{harvnb|Barton|Muddiman|2001|p=942}} }}

The unexpected appearance of the Samaritan led [[Joseph Halévy]] to suggest that the parable originally involved "a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite",{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=199}} in line with contemporary Jewish stories, and that Luke changed the parable to be more familiar to a gentile audience."{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=199}} Halévy further suggests that, in real life, it was unlikely that a Samaritan would actually have been found on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem,{{sfn|Scott|1989|p=199}} although others claim that there was "nothing strange about a Samaritan travelling in Jewish territory".{{sfn|Marshall|1978|pp=449-450}} William C. Placher points out that such debate misinterprets the biblical genre of a parable, which illustrates a moral rather than a historical point: on reading the story, "we are not inclined to check the story against the police blotter for the Jerusalem-Jericho highway patrol. We recognize that Jesus is telling a story to illustrate a moral point, and that such stories often don't claim to correspond to actual events."{{sfn|Placher|1995|pp=924-925}} The traditionally understood ethical moral of the story would not hold if the parable originally followed the priest-Levite-Israelite sequence of contemporary Jewish stories, as Halévy suggested, for then it would deal strictly with intra-Israelite relations just as did the Lev 19:18 command under discussion.