The Most Misunderstood Parable of Jesus
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription by going to ground.news/religionforbreakfast.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the most famous parables of Jesus. But people have been misinterpreting it for centuries.
Join our Patreon community!: / religionforbreakfast
One-time donations here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbrea...
Sign-up for my mailing list to be notified of online classes: classes.religionforbreakfast....
00:00 The Traditional Interpretation
2:16 Intro to Samaritan Israelites
3:20 Ethnic Hostility is Exaggerated
5:44 Evidence from the Mishnah
9:13 Samaritan Woman at the Well
11:45 Addressing the Polemicists
14:20 Race-Science and the Traditional Interpretation
16:55 Rethinking Luke 10
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images and Reuters
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/religionforbreakfast.
*Yazılı kaynaklarda ismi geçen Hz. Muhammed'e ait cariyelerin tam listesi aşağıdadır:*
1. Baraka
2. Berre binti Şerhabil
3. Cüveyriye binti Haris
4. Ebu Rafi'nin cariyesi
5. Ebi Cehil'in cariyesi
6. Ebi Ruhm
7. Esma binti Nu'mân
8. Esiye
9. Eslem
10. Etiye
11. Fadl
12. Fadîme
13. Gaziyye
14. Gifran
15. Gülsim
16. Habibe
17. Hakim bin Hizam'ın cariyesi
18. Halime
19. Hanzale
20. Hafsa binti Ömer
21. Haybe
22. Hazm
23. Hudayl
24. Humeyra
25. İmâme
26. İnâb
27. İsmet
28. İsâfe
29. İsmâ
30. İyâle
31. Ikrime
32. Jemile
33. Kalka
34. Kays binti Sa'd
35. Keyse
36. Kevkebe
37. Leyla binti Hamîze
38. Leyla binti Kudame
39. Leyla binti Haris
40. Lebbeyne
41. Leyl
42. Lübâbe binti Haris
43. Marhaba
44. Marya
45. Medyune
46. Mehebibe
47. Mehriye
48. Meymune
49. Mîme binti Abdillah
50. Muhsine
51. Muteb
52. Nâile
53. Nâşiye
54. Nufeyse
55. Nübye
56. Nübeyşe
57. Nüceyb
58. Rabia
59. Râkiye
60. Rashide
61. Remle
62. Ramlah binti Şevbe
63. Reyyane
64. Rihane
65. Rumaysa
66. Safiyye binti Ebû Ubeyd
67. Sâfiyye binti Huyeyy
68. Sâfîne
69. Sâra
70. Sâvîye
71. Sebîne (veya Sabîne)
72. Seliha
73. Selime
74. Sıdâ
75. Sire
76. Sümeyra
77. Sümeyye
78. Sâibe
79. Şağalibe
80. Sâvite
81. Şeyma
82. Şirîn
83. Tufeyre
84. Tübâ
85. Tayba
86. Ukbe binti Ömer
87. Ummu Ammâr
88. Umame binti Abdi'l-Muttalib
89. Ummu Ayman
90. Ummu Bârekât
91. Ümmü Eymen
92. Ümmü Gıris
93. Ummu Hakim
94. Ümmü Habîbe
95. Ümmü Mektûm
96. Ümmü Mısrâ
97. Ümmü Muhâcir
98. Ummu'l-Hüseyn
99. Ümmü Selem
100. Ümmü Seleme binti Ebi'l-As
101. Ümmü Şuca
102. Vüheybe
103. Zeyneb binti Cahş
104. Zeyneb binti Güzeyle
105. Zeyneb binti Cehş
106. Zenibe
107. Şuva binti Haris
Bu listede belirtilmeyen Hz Muhammed'in cariyelerinin isimlerini yaz.
Your ad read segue is always SO smooth.
Shouldn't this be titled "Misunderstanding Samaritan and Jewish Relations" instead? The lesson taught in the parable is about neighbours, not ethnic hostility and if there was ethnic hostility it only re-enforces the point.
So Samaritans were to the Jews what modern day Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are to christians.
Judah literally destroyed their temple.
Their might be sum ethnic hatred there buddy 😂😂😂 liberals are sooooo dumb sometimes
There is another layer to this parable. Priests and Levites had specific religious duties that made them very careful about ceremonial purity, so they would not stop to help the half-dead man. If the man turned out to be dead, touching the body would make them ceremonially impure. In contrast, the Samaritan was not concerned with becoming ceremonially impure, so he had no impediment to helping the man. I'm not saying this is the one and only true interpretation, but through this lens, the parable is about how the strict following of the law by the Pharisees often interferes with being a good person, or in this case, 'acting as a neighbor,' this would be consistent with other interactions of Christ with Pharisees.
Yes, I love that interpretation because it can apply to so many things and is consistent with other stories, like Jesus healing someone on the sabbath.
So much of Jesus’ stuff is ‘omg stop taking it literal, if I turn one physical object into another will you shut up and listen that I know what I’m talking about’ 😂
I think RFB should have broken out of the ivory tower for this video. I think the academics assume everyone reading their articles knows the religious duties bit, and are arguing over the narrow question of whether Samaritans were outsiders (ignorant of the purity laws/considered impure themselves) or insiders (privy to the purity laws and exercising the more just interpretation of them). But we do need a reminder :)
The point of the parable is that it shouldn't matter who you are: if someone is in need, you help them. The Samaritan saw someone in need and helped. He wasn't thinking about ritual purity because he was an ordinary person. The priest and the Levite couldn't be bothered to even go to the nearest dwelling and tell anybody about the injured man. They couldn't be bothered to risk impurity and all the folderol that would surround ritual cleansing.
Amen brotha
"If you know anything about the Samaritans, you probably know them from a famous story in the Gospel of Luke" is a sentence that I find to be very funny coming from the channel where I first learned about the Samaritan Israelites
Maybe im misunderstanding the point of this video, but that there was a more nuanced picture doesn't dissallow this parable from speaking to some degree of prejudice. That prejudice might not have been the stark picture created by some older scholars, but instead a more ambiguous uncertainty about how one relates to a people similar and yet different. Jesus asks the expert in the law who was the neighbour to the injured man, his answer is the samaritan who helped him. Jesus then exhorts him to do likewise, the point seemingly being that being someone's neighbour is based on how you treat them and not simply being closely related.
Personally, i have always interpreted this parable as an admonishment to the Preisthood that their service to the community is more important than their ritual duties, including ritual cleanliness.
Its a classic case of scholars reducing the historical view and then claiming the nuance as their own.
@@mikewilliams6025 This is an astute comment; I see this behaviour from other academics all the time.
@@Christian___ Good way to get published, noticed, cited.
"Jesus asks the expert in the law who was the neighbour to the injured man, his answer is the samaritan who helped him." If I'm recalling the exact words from my Bible translation, the teacher of the law didn't say "the Samaritan who helped him" but "the one who had mercy on him." Maybe it's just the way I'm reading it but it seems like even then, the teacher of the law could not bring himself to say the word Samaritan or acknowledge him as the one who did the right thing.
Then again the main contention of the video is that the priest, the Levite and the Samaritan were all problematic and that the Jewish audience would have reacted the same way had the Levite or the priest been the one who helped. But the bulk of the video was about how the Samaritans were "OK" racial Israelites, not about how the priest or Levite were just as problematic.
With the new interpretation it sounds like non-Israelites are not neighbors suddenly. The main point was clearly about showing mercy in general than figuring out who is more pure
The main point is making people reflect on their attitudes and actions. Jesus tells the story as a response to someone asking "who is my neighbor" ie, who do I have to love as myself.
Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan and asks "who was this man's neighbor," which turns the question on its head, from "who do I have to be neighborly to" into "who would I want to treat me as a neighbor when I'm in need?"
This aligns with the Sermon on the Plains, "as a man metes out so shall it be measured back to him," -give what you hope to recieve.
I agree. All this talk about racial antagonism seems like a case of Sherlock Holmes was Wrong
Remember that the historical Jesus seems to have beemln very focused on Judea, so I don't think you necessarily need to take it as a blow that he directed his address at his Jewish audience with their particular concerns (that is *if* the historical jesus told this parable)
When were they ever?
@@Agryphos and yet Jesus spent most of his time with his activities taking place in and around Samaria and Perea (which is east of both Judea and Samaria). His focus was not on Judea. If anything he was focused on the people he thought were wrong in their faith and their actions, which included the Judahites.
The proposed interpretation is still remarkably similar to commonly accepted one. The Samaritan at the edge of Israelite identity / outside the law from a Jewish perspective is the person who fulfills the true law, which is mercy, rather than those who adhere to doctrine but fail to show mercy.
I will also add that one should not discount the pre-reformation interpretation wherein the parable looks ahead to jesus's rejection by the Jews and acceptance by non-jews.
Yeah, one feels like a natural extension from the other.
The interpretation that I heard growing up in a Church of England school was that Samaritans and Israelites hated each other, so it was like a Martin Luther King taking care of a KKK member. Instead it's argued it's more like an Mormon taking care of a Christian. They're related but still have a history of conflict alongside cooperation.
I think there is a difference between understanding the relationship between the wounded man and the Samaritans as that of a nazi and jew or you and your coworker that doesn't clean his hands after going to rhe bathroom.
True. It's also worth noting that prejudice isn't exclusive to the paradigm of race. There is such a thing as religious prejudice. The lesson of the common interpretation can still hold true.
Was about to say just this.
Reminds me a lot of Catholic/Orthodox contact. Always taking care of which sacraments are "valid", but not seeing them as non-believers
Huh?
That photo of Dr. Chalmers makes him look like he just got back from Arrakis
😂
the spice must flow
He kinda looks like religion for breakfast from the future
@@loltroll1286 glad I wasnt the only one who noticed😅
@@loltroll1286 I totally thought it was just Mr. RFB wearing a wig at first.
I feel like there's a difference between one teacher of the law disliking Samaritans and the entire Jewish race disliking Samaritans. Like it's the difference between claiming that one dude is racist vs. saying that an entire ethnic group is racist.
Right. There isn't anything in the Talmud about Italian-Americans either, but I can assure you that there was plenty of ethnic tension between them and Jewish-Americans in New Jersey in the 60s and 70s.
@@tfkia356 genuinely what are you trying to say here
@@tfkia356 Tension between Italian-Americans and Jewish-Americans... I come from a Jewish family and my first job as a young adult was with an Italian family owned and operated small business. I tell you, it was hard to distinguish between a "Jewish mother" and an "Italian mother"! - they were both loud, opinionated but caring and protective of their children (even their "adopted" children who worked for them). "Too close (similar) for comfort"???
this parable proves that jews have been ethnocentric racists since day 1
@@tfkia356nothing about Italian-Americans specifically, but it definitely discusses goyim
Idk, i feel like the relative freshness of John Hyrcanus' destruction of the Samaritan Temple is a signal of an undercurrent of tension running between the two groups.
Whether fully racially othered or not, derision, hatred, antipathy, and hostility were likely very common. It doesn't have to be universal and unquestioned for the basic meaning of the "traditional interpretation" of this story to more or less hold up.
Yeah, it's weird, right? But the evidence isn't there to suggest that the destruction of the Samaritan sanctuary mattered to such an extent. Nor that derision and hatred were very common. Maybe it's because it was more than hundred years later. Or maybe because Hyrcanus just wasn't particularly popular among Jews even just a bit later. It's one of those things where it *seems* like evidence should be everywhere, and then it's just...not so much
A lot of presumptions here to support a decidedly one-sided conclusion. I hold a degree in religion and have done research as well on this topic. I agree this parable is not about ethnic rivalries but when you say "audience" you presuppose that the target was all Jews in attendance which was not the case. This parable was directed at the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem who put their work in the temple (profit) above the needs of the Jews. While many Jews did not hold Samaritans as enemies or non-Jews there were among those in power in Jerusalem that did consider them a much lower form of Jew thus the two characters one a priest and a Levite at the highest level of Jewish power and society. A Samaritan, a person of a lower social and religious status did what was right in the eyes of God while those who should have cared the most for one of their sheep only cared for their status and place in the temple. This is in line with Jesus's other teachings concerning the Temple hierarchy. To be clear, the high priest served at the pleasure of the Roman governor. Yes, there were not only questions of legitimacy among the Jews but their true loyalty. Jesus tapped into this anger and distrust creating a movement that Anas, Ciaphas, and the Sanhedrin saw as a clear threat to their power. Therefore Jesus had to be eliminated.
Excellent comment, and I believe factual.
Do you have any recommendations on books to learn about the historical Jesus and what his original ministry was objectively about? (In the context of Rome occupied Palestine 10 ad)
mysticwander's comment is very well taken although I think the video was less definite in its conclusion that was implied. The interesting thing for me is that the parable emphasises the fact that Jesus was preaching to a Jewish audience. Thus the Samaritan is not a Greek or Roman pagan. That would have been a radical message indeed.
Gotta love comments that feels like it was made about a different video 😂 blessed
@@georgepanicker61916 "The Jesus Dynasty" by Dr. Tabor is an excellent historical account of the life of Jesus and his family but beware he writes based on historical accounts and archaeology, not theology so he doesn't address accounts of Jesus's miracles or divinity. Dr. Tabor has spent a lifetime on this quest.
I've heard this passage interpreted such that the reason the first two did not stop was because they were on the way to temple and did not want to get blood on themselves. They needed to remain clean for their ritual so chose to follow strictly to that cleanliness standard over helping. So JC is rebuking the idea of strict adherence to the law comparing it to doing good for others.
That’s good! I never thought of that. I think Jesus is also pointing out that everyone is to be considered our neighbor and trying to define what is a “neighbor” is really not our concern. So it’s is already mirroring what your saying.
What I see is the scribe is snarky with Jesus when asking about “what is a neighbor” and Jesus points to the Samaritan who would have been a foreigner so not what what is typically understood as “neighbor”.
This was an interpretation of this parable that I first heard at a youth retreat in the 90s.
Jesus picked a Samaritan for a reason. If it wasn’t meant to be ironic then what was it?😊
How does any of this actually change the meaning of parable? It's still the idea of help not coming from the expected sources
In some ways it could narrow the scope on who is a neighbor and who isn't. Such as not treating a Roman as a neighbor, because they are not Israelites. So the scope of how we deal with the parable may be more restrictive. However other passages when asked such questions, he knew he was walking into a political minified trap, where a poorly placed word could get him into trouble.
If his argument that levites and priesthood were controversial is true, then the audience would not necessarily expect them to help either. So the parable just enjoins Israelites to help those in their community.
@@toddfraser3353 Not a likely interpretation, since elsewhere Jesus says to give to whoever asks, and if you are forced to walk a mile carrying a load (by a Roman soldier), offer to go two miles instead.
It doesn't change the meaning of the parable. But it changes our perception of the contrast between the characters, and also changes our view of the relation between Jewish and Samaritans
Very not impressed by this video. The presenter cites a number of sources in which there is a somewhat ambivalent, as opposed to totally negative, attitude towards Samaritans and claims that they are evidence against the conventional interpretation of the story of the Good Samaritan. He also views the story as being antisemitic. I would agree, (although it is an example of religious as opposed to racial antisemitism). Claiming that the conventional interpretation of the story is antisemitic and, therefore, incorrect only makes sense if we assume that the New Testament as a whole is not antisemitic. New Testament scholars would, of course, vehemently disagree with this. Religious antisemitism is found throughout the New Testament, especially in the Gospels.
I was always under the impression that the interpretation of the parable was that the lawyer asked, "Who is my neighbor?" And Jesus responded that your neighbor is anyone you encounter. Focusing on whether the Samaritans were ethnic or religious outcasts misses the point.
Well in this case the Samaritan was the neighbor. Even in the passage Jesus points out that the point is a neighbor is one who shows mercy to another and that if you want eternal life go and do mercy to others.
@@servnava6601 Exactly.
Same. Even hearing this story as a kid I found that the specific kind of people in the story didn't matter. What matters is that the parable is saying you should treat everyone as your neighbor, with compassion and love.
Sameee
@@amatsu-ryu4067that’s because you aren’t a religious historian, when you first heard “Samaritan” when you were little you probably didn’t even know what that was. But it matters when studying ancient ethnography during the second temple period
I studied in a Catholic school and when discussing this parable, it was always about how the priest and levite are both in positions of power within the community, and preach to others how to do good, and then when the chance arises, they don't do it themselves. The distinction between the three people was never mentioned other than in their actions. So when Jesus says "go do the same" it meant don't preach purity of rite while disregarding good actions and mercy. It was explained to us that it doesn't mean anything to pray all day and go to church twice per week if you don't pair it with good acts. All interpretations are interesting and as you say, they might show more of the reteller of the story than the original intent itself.
The Jew/Samaritan difference feels like a foreshadowing of the Catholic/Orthodox difference.
We call the story "The Good Samaritan" to make it sound like no other Samaritan was good. It's a major part of the story, and if it is comparable to the Catholic/Orthodox groups, it must be absolutely wild compared to those who think the Bible didn't dwell on Mary, and nor should you - Jesus is the intercessor (he was very clear about that) and nobody else. Not even his mom.
agreed. comparing the local church vs Global Church.
One is the people of the kingdom of Israel and the other is the people of the kingdom of Judah. There's a lot more difference between Samaritans and Jews than Catholics and Orthodox.
That’s why white peoples need to leave the church. Jesus is king and savior of the Jews. Not white people. It’s time for us to go back to our roots of Zeus and Odin
@@KarstenJohanssonHow is jesus an intercesor if he is god? out with your heresy
To be honest: I don't really see how these interpretations are so widely different.
I get that we want to be mindful of polarisation and antisemitic prejudices but the story doesn't really change that much, regardless of whether the Samaritan is considered a fringe part of the larger group of the Israelite people or outside of it entirely.
Basically, it changes the focus of differentiation from one of ethnicities/bloodlines to one of ritual practices and beliefs, and then it states that “correctness” is irrelevant compared with action, making it more parallel with other parables that Jesus taught, like the parable of the sheep and the goats.
weird time for this video imo
It’s also strange how far he’s going to insist that the biblical/historical Israelites weren’t concerned with ethnic purity or an ethnic hierarchy. As if that isn’t a central theme in the Bible.
@@DneilB007 But we already know that. We know that the tensions were religious, because that is exactly how the ethnic tension is explained. The only difference is that they assume that the religious tension led to ethnic tension--like it always does.
It's kinda difficult to believe that there were no animosity when the Samaritan temple got destroyed not that long ago
This guys whole shtick is undermining Christian interpretations with fallacious “absence of evidence” reasoning
He was talking about Samaritan Israelite and Jewish Israelite relations contemporary to Jesus’ ministry. Those relations can and did change with time. Later animosity does not negate this interpretation.
@@Tinkering4Time it was destroyed BC
@@mixk1don the contrary, much of his shtick is pointing out how there is a lack of evidence for many common Christian interpretations and claims while providing evidence that does in fact contradict said claims. There is nothing fallacious about pointing out that a handful of popular narratives that dominate common understanding lack evidence. With so much spurious Christian lore out there the way needs to be cleared for interpretations based on what evidence we can gather.
@@Tinkering4Time im not suggesting that taking an evidential approach is inherently fallacious. But I think he quite frequently reports scholarly interpretations as inherently factual/more reputable than traditional interpretations, when the interpretations of scholars are merely interpretations as well so suffer from the same biasing issues that plague the reliability of traditional interpretations as a method of coming to truth. For example, the fact that this channels entire shtick is subverting expectations introduced a bias in how the viewer interprets the evidence given. There’s quite a few other comments who have noticed this cognitive dissonance because it’s particularly pronounced in this video… because there was plenty of evidence provided in this video for there being tension between the two groups, which he introduced with narrative scaffolding around. At the end of the day these are two groups of human beings, of course there were racial tensions between them, knowing human nature at large in the modern day. He’s pretty much appealing to an exact word fallacy that we don’t find specific claims about racism / bigotry, despite all the breadcrumbs surrounding the issue.
So, the parable wasn't misunderstood after all?
This was a very long video to say that maybe the rivalry between Samaritans and Jews has been exaggerated. It changes absolutely nothing of the essence of the story, namely that of the stereotypically unlikely character doing what's right and how doing what is right is what truly matters in the end.
Right, pretty much every source he gives explains that there was tension between Israelites and Samaritans, not all but some, and not seething fiery bigotry but certainly devine differences, and I don't see how any historical evidence he provided is a defeater to the idea that Jesus might have been attempting to acknowledge that tendancy among some, not all, of his supposed kingdom.
He brought up many examples that allude to why the exaggeration is extremely relevant. For example:
1. The nazi bible scholar who projected race science onto the narrative
2. John Calvin’s interpretation that even earlier inserted ethnic tension into the narrative to serve his own anti-establishment agenda.
The ethnic conflict spin has had major influence on how Jews are perceived and treated even to this day. And that is important since outcry against the state of Israel and its current genocide in Gaza is being used as cover for global antisemitism. And ethnicized narratives similar to The Good Samaritan are used as false evidence for claims about Islam and Judaism being ancient enemies even to this day, and that Jews are inherently a racist and bigoted culture.
So yes, it changes plenty when you look at how traditions have been built up around the narrative over the millennia.
Yeah, huh, it's actually the first time I watched a religionforbreakfast video and came out feeling like I got clickbaited into a poorly constructed argument.
@@anglerfish4161 he's always been known for integrity and quality, this is seems out of character as a long time fan
I think the title is accurate. If you had a conservative Christian background growing up, this parable was often painted with this idea that the man being helped absolutely despised and hated the Samaritan to the point of wanting to kill them. The teacher of the law in the story also hated the Samaritan so much that he didn't even say "the Samaritan", but instead says "the one who showed him mercy".
The message I got then was "help anyone you can, even if they hate you, or you hate them." Which ties neatly to Jesus' teachings.
With this video, the story may have some other implications. Notice he mentioned the audience would have felt "relief", not "revolt" at the idea the Samaritan helped.
If the Samaritan was an edge case however to establish what is considered in a sense of community, that makes one wonder: would that same help be received or given if a Gentile was involved? Jesus has mentioned in other gospels he is here for the Jews, and even implied that a gentile woman is a dog.
In a more modern sense, imagine the Samaritan as a Muslim, and the beaten up person a Jew, be replaced with the Samaritan as a Shia Muslim, and the beaten up person as a Shiite Muslim.
It is now no longer a story about insiders vs outsiders. It is a story about insiders.
During part of this I saw what seems like a parallel to today's Christianity, where there are a zillion different versions who think they have the correct interpretation of the Bible, but they acknowledge that other people are christian too.
LOL, sometimes. What do you think the centuries of hatred and bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants was all about? Hell, some of that is still going on.
@@Serai3 Yes it is still going on. And it goes on in every religion in the world, and always has.
But all Christians view themselves more aligned with other Christians than to non-Christians.
Frankly, the whole subject speaks of a multi-millennia experiment proving the non-existence of any deity (defined as conscious and intercedent in human lives).
Everybody sees something different.
You know how common it is to hear "catholic vs christian"? Or Mormons vs Christians? Yeah no. Christian denominations will outright say other branches aren't truly christian because they don't worship the same way.
@@janerkenbrack3373Not really. Protestant-Catholic relations have improved significantly over the years. Yes, we disagree, but we still see each other as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I would gladly hang out with a Catholic who takes the faith seriously any day.
@@Serai3 Where is hatred and bloodshed between Protestants and Catholics still going on? I have never heard of such a thing continuing to this day.
Essentially it is comparable to Protestants and Catholics interacting today
That certainly seems like a good way to look at it
I saw that even more specifically in the description of the blessings for meals, especially in the account of Jews waiting to say “Amen.” until they heard whether the Samaritan mentioned Gerizim or Jerusalem. Almost like Catholics who consider Rome the place where the head of the Christian Church lies!
Got it. So they're essentially Team Edward vs Team Jacob. Still friendly, still within the same fandom, but disputes and rivalries were obviously present.
😂
1:51 bro shows a picture of himself with a wig on and calls it "Matthew Chalmers"
😂 I did a double-take and had to check the comments to see if anyone else saw it!
Hee hee. Can't unsee it...
"It's not racial stereotyping guys, it's heretical stereotyping" - this video. The parable still stands.
For a second there I was worried the ruling class in Judea were racists! Turns out they were just theocratic bigots. Nothing to see here, don't apply your sense of confusion at this strange video to current events or questioning our trust in video essayists pleaseee
Agreed lol
And Jesus is still a bigot and no one ever claimed there was hostility toward the (deficient) group he was bigoted against and that the rest of the Israelites harmfully stereotyped as lazy and selfish.
Also note how Jesus never told Jews to be less bigoted or to be kind to non Jews or consider non Jews as neighbours. He only reaffirmed the stereotypes and showed that neighbours are all Jews, even the heretical stereotypical lazy and selfish ones, but no one else.
All this video did was confirm that the actual criticism is justified by all religious and non religious sources and that this channel devotes its time to tearing down strawmen versions of actual criticism.
@@stylis666 Well duh, by Jesus' law, slavery is still fine and women are close to cattle.
@@stylis666 This is quite ignorant of You. Just Matthew 8 disproves your point, not to mention other parts of the Gospels.
"And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: *Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel. And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.* And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour." ~ Matthew 8:5-13
This interpretation does seem to fit better with the overall theme of Jesus' parables: Better to follow the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.
That was my takeaway too. I was taught that the priest and Levite may have had concerns over their duties/purity that prevented them from helping the man, and the lesson is to not be so tied to rituals that you miss out on doing the obvious right thing.
But that's always been the interpretation. It just had the added idea that the guy people looked down on was the one who followed the spirit, and not the people in charge.
The biggest rivalry is always with closest ethnicity. No one is more like a Belfast Protestant than a Belfast Catholic. Samaritans and Jews would have been indistinguishable to outsiders but they'd have tolerated and hated each other as it suited them.
Ah, familial rivalries. A tale as old as time.
The problem there is being from Belfast haha an atrocious accent
Yes. A destruction of a temple . Every family member destroys the house of the other. Just playing
Stealing the sacred texts of the other. Every family member steals the land deeds and books of the other. Always happens
Except for the fact that the Belfast protestants are Scots-Irish colonizers sent to subjugate the indigenous Irish at the behest of a fledgling English empire. It's structural superiority. Pick a different example.
Long winded but... I wonder if the relationship between Samaritans and other Jews might be compared to the relationship between different Christian sects (Catholic vs Protestant?) or maybe even going so far as comparing the Samaritans and Jews, to Mormons as Christians??? Or even compare to issues between today's various Jewish "sects" - some Orthodox will have as much disdain for Reform Jews (as not following Jewish law "properly") as some ancient Jews may have had for Samaritans. They would not go so far as to say they are not Jews, just that they are not GOOD Jews.
I think that Mormons and Christians comparison seems to be closer in comparison.
@@maverick7291 The comparison between reform and orthodox judaism seemed pretty accurate to me - why do you think Mormons and Christians are closer? (I don't come from a christian background so maybe I'm missing something)
@@amir_os754 Mormons believe in Jesus Christ but as God of Earth. Mormons believe we can all become God's , each belonging to a planet... Or something like that, their theology is very far out. So they are Christian in the sense that they believe in Jesus Christ as God but they have all these extra ideas not found anywhere in the holy Bible that makes them very different in comparison to any other Christian denomination, whether it is Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
@@maverick7291 I think it's less about specific doctrines than levels of "authority" or goodness. Mormons consider themselves exactly as authoritative, and as an organization control obscene amounts of wealth, plus they have a happy-go-lucky "righteous" public image. Make that 3rd slot a sunday school teacher or janitor from some obscure foreign christian branch, maybe one that uses psychedelics as part of their rituals or something.
@@maverick7291 gotcha. Thanks for the explanation
Is it possible that the new interpretation stuck around so well because it makes for a better story? The more likely true interpretation doesn't ring as relevant to modern audiences, while Calvin's is quite a bit broader in who can see the value in it. "Treat people well even if they're different" is what we teach to kids for a good reason.
I think there is likely truth to that, but the social context also shapes what we consider the "better story". Like he mentioned in the video, medieval Christians generally seemed to value an interpretation of religious adversity and reliance in Jesus, without really seeming to care why a Samaritan was even the example. Could we not say that was the "better story" to them?
Here in Latinamérica, the parable is shown as, your neighbour is anyone next to you regardless of who they are. The Jewish priest may have understood as neighbours other Jews, but this parable shows us that is anyone. Kind of weird seeing Americans give it a racial/ethnic perspective
I think this makes total sense. Not to be too cynical, but I'd also add that one of the reasons the us v. them logic underpinning this stuck is that people really liked an ethical story based in them being *better* than someone else if they choose to do the right thing
This is one of those video essays where the person tries to argue one case, but accidentally strengthens the case they're trying to disprove. Your proposed interpretation doesn't even answer the question Jesus is being asked. Who is your neighbor? The parable answers your neighbor is he who *does* show you kindness, not necessarily he who *should* show you kindness. The fact those who ostensibly should be the ones to help didn't and the pseudo-outsider group *is* directly relevant.
If this was being told today it would be the equivalent of Jesus talking to a Catholic who asks him who is neighbor is and him telling a story about a guy getting robbed/hurt and some Catholics walk by and ignore him but a protestant stops and helps.
The essay is just another progressive attack on the Bible…those racist old timers got it wrong but us modern free thinkers got it right.
So, maybe a bit more like a Presbyterian discussing a Baptist, a Catholic, and Mormon to a crowd of people asking just how far does a “neighbor in Christ” extend? Or like a particularly liberal and radical Christian sect discussing a Cristian, a Jew and a Muslim. “My Brother in Christ, we’re all believers on the same God.”
Me:
I'm a Pagan and I believen on your god. *Shrugs*
I just don't worship him.
That seems like a fairly accurate comparison to me.
This seems like semantics.
If there was a guy telling this parable. Today he would go a White Guy, A Mexican, and a Black Guy.
Race isn't apart of the story, it just makes it easier to tell it that way for the teller and the audience. It's like with most stories, the number one axiom is "the writer or teller is lazy because he's try to preserve his flow and momentum"
Now in the story Jesus is very much the guy going, it doesnt matter, act with compassion and be nice to everyone.
No. It would be more like a priest or bigot of some sort and a Mexican.
The Mexican would help, while the priest would not.
That’s what I understand from this interpretation.
In short : your neighbor is the one that will borrow you his lawnmower, rather than the one that pretends that he knows what you should do and why.
@chefchaudard3580 That also works. Whatever method works.
Well it seems all Semitic to me.
😂
Why do people from the USA think of Mexican as a ethnicity and not a nationality? Its just as diverse as other countries in the Americas, if not more then most.
@PathOfAvraham Because in terms of conversational English, that's how the bit goes.
The joke isn't a Caucasian, an African American, and a Latino walk into a bar.
You forgot to mention how in Josephus's The Jewish war, jews from Galilee and Jerusalem swept into Samaria, slaughtering them and didn't "spare neither infants nor the aged, and set fire to the buildings" (II, 243). All this because one jew was murdered by a Samaritan. The story ends with the Romans handing the 3 most powerful Samaritans over to the jews to be "tortured, dragged around the city, and finally beheaded." So there is that...
That would explain why modern day Israel acts the way it does. I had no idea.
Then all the Roman Senators tweeted “there is no moral equivalence between Galilee, Judea and Samaria”
@@PowerCZcamsrViewerha ha ha….
They do have their ways huh?
Actually, in historical sense and proof. That event did not happen nor did Jews living in Egypt for 600 years. The term "fake it till you make it" does apply here.
Before Israel existed, there were many tribes living in jurasalem but slowly merged together as one religion. In other words, they are the Canaanites in being with.
The sentence of killing infants and destroying homes was added to justify both the Jews and Christians that it is ok to do a bit of war crime in the name of god. Islam did follow that example later on.
It’s always seemed to me like a parable against zealotry or bigotry in general.
No. Parables require a narrow historical lens to understand their specific intended meaning.
@@PowerCZcamsrViewer Hm. Well, we’re allowed to disagree.
@@stovepipehat396 I was being facetious. I think that sort of interpretation belies the nature of parables.
So that Mitchell and Webb sketch was really kind of accurate!
Yah lol
Every once in a while I think actively about how that sketch could basically replace this whole article
The problem I have with this interpretation is that human experience tells us that when you view another group as “less pure”, ritually or otherwise, you are already against that group in some fashion and hold prejudices against them as well. This applies to all humanity, and I doubt that the intended audience of this parable were thinking: Samaritans are ok but less pure. More like just: Samaritans are lesser because they are less pure. They were likely held with some disdain. This is what makes the parable impactful, which is why it wasn’t the parable of the good roman or greek.
This is just it. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice. The prejudiced person always thinks that of all the prejudices in history theirs is uniquely justified or somehow different from the others. The spirit giveth and the word taketh away.
So we don't have sufficient evidence between the relationship of Jews and Samaritans. Yet some researchers have to establish assumptions😒😒
At some point it’s all about whose assumptions are better supported by facts though. According to the information in the video, the assumption of Sumerians being treated like complete outsiders by Jews at the time of Jesus is wrong.
I've always considered the Samaritans as Israelites, but not Jews. At least that's my understanding.
Also the ancient understanding.
That's the correct one
Which is correct
So there's little significance to the Maccabean king destroying the temple at Gerizim in the 2nd century BCE? Just asking.
Extremely smooth ad transition at the end
LOL. But he almost always does it this way, and always puts it at the end. He has his sponsors and he has to pay the bills.
I think the way he does it is most agreeable.
ground news is actually awesome though. awesome service. #notsponsored lol
One other factor I would be interested to hear discussed in this context is the fact that this story appears specifically in the Gospel of Luke, which I've always thought of as more of a gentile gospel (it's dedicated to a certain 'Theophilus' which would imply that it's oriented towards Greek rather than culturally Jewish christians, and based purely on my own reading, when they overlap Luke tends to come off as being less knowledgable on Jewish theology and identity than Mark or Matthew). As far as I am aware, this lines up with the scholarly consensus that the author of Luke was most likely a Gentile Christian or a Hellenized Jew. So to understand what the authors original intent was, I think you'd have to answer not just "What was the relationship between Jews and Samaritans actually like" but also "What might a non-jewish outsider have thought their relationship was?" In that context, I could also speculate a potential interpretation of the parable as specifically being invented by gentiles to justify their right to membership in the christian community, equating their ambiguous status in the early church with that of the samaritans, whether or not they entirely understood the nuances of samaritans' position in Israelite society.
That's a remarkably brilliant point
Luke, not Jesus, says the scholar seeks to justify himself. The scholar is speaking at a theoretical level. Jesus, as he so often does, answers the question that is really weighing on the scholar's heart. Luke highlights what Jesus is doing. Jesus crafts an answer that seems to address the abstract question but bypasses the question to focus on the real issue.
Uhmm? I think you're doing a great job of proving your own point wrong in this video. Let me see if I'm getting your point: they chose to live separately, kept competing texts, competing temples, burned down each other's temples, refused to eat each other's food, insulted each other's women, didn't allow each other in their temples, wouldn't even take each other's money to enter their temples, occasionally committed terrorist acts against each other. Restricted from being allowed to say amen to each other's prayers!? And based upon all of this we conclude that these two groups accepted one another and got along just fine? By the way, I love your channel, but unless I'm missing something there seems to be a serious lapse of reasoning here.
I'm pretty sure his point here was that the truth is muddled somewhere in the middle, and while they had spats or disagreements overall they atleast partially got along and that the parable was meant to be a call to action as an attempt to get the Israelites to coexist and treat each other the same and as neighbors. I don't think he's proving himself wrong, I think you may have missed the entire point
are you talking about race relations in Israel in the 100's
or America in the 1900's?
also you're _referencing_ his points, but it feels like you didn't _hear_ each of them. He specifically explains how they are not as sharply dividing as they seem on their surface (kind of like how America's race relationship is described very differently through different political lenses).
This video seems like a weird reach and like you read one scholar and just ran with his argument
gotta get that ad revenue boyyy
Dr Chalmers looks like Dr Henry disguised for undercover boss.
Ooh, very interesting video topic! Excited to watch! 😁
It seemed to me like more was read into the 2nd Temple Jewish literature to produce the reading offered by Dr. Matthew Chalmers. Was the Jewish response to Samaritans monolithic? No. Could Rabbi Akeva's defence of Rabbi Eliezer be plausibly understood not as him implying Rabbi Eliezer had much softer words to say, instead that he had stronger condemnations to offer? I think so.
Also I feel that more could have been said about the actual audience Jesus was talking to in the Gospel of St. Luke. They were Pharisees, who absolutely did not have a high opinion of Samaritan Israelites NOR the Priests, who were often Sadducees, but recognized them (during this period) nonetheless. They would have excused the Priests & Levites as having an obligation to remain pure, despite them journeying to Jericho (often evoking connotations of sin & wickedness), and so the parable was pointed at recognizing that everyone is their neighbor, no matter our opinion of them, and not to excuse ourselves, even from religious observance, from loving our neighbor.
I have a memory of being told (or reading somewhere) that part of the reason that the priest or Levite might not have stopped to look at the beaten body was concern about ritual impurity needed to perform their functions as religious people, given that dead bodies would be ritually impure, and that this was something that would have been known by the audience. Thus, Jesus is saying that ritual purity does not matter as much as helping out people in need.
you help me understand challenging subjects. i know ground news is helping you pay the bills, but to me, it's the antithesis of understanding. what a feeling when you browse it and think you're getting the whole picture. i feel it does a disservice to challenging subjects. thanks for all you do.
I thought Dr. Matthew Chalmers was you in a wig at first.
Thank you, non Christian skeptic for explaining our parable and how we have been misunderstanding it for two thousand years
This is tedious. And after listening, I still think the traditional makes the most sense.
"Blessed are the cheesemakers!" This widely misunderstood usage was in fact a metaphor for any industrial producer of dairy products, of course.
This is awesome content. Thank you for the good work.
I'm not sure that all this has a point. It's clear that the Samaritan's mercy is meant to be portrayed as a surprise, compared to the lack of compassion of the pious Pharisee and Levite. If not, why wasn't the 'good character' in the parable a simple yeoman goat herder? Why mention the Samaritan at all?
As a nonreligious person I think the parable has nothing to do with the groups per say, I think its trying to make a statement about how to act and pointing out that it matters what you do not just that you say you follow god. He is saying that you should basically treat everyone like your 'neighbor', not just your literal neighbors, like the two jews walking by who ignored him because they didn't know him. I don't feel like its that complicated 😅.
Even as a long time scholar in the field, I always learn something new from Andrew. Thank you.
In my view it makes very little difference whether the marginalisation of Samaritans was racial or doctrinal. People confuse these all the time and hate each other just the same.
I don't take it as an allegory or a weapon of surprise. I take it at face value, Jesus basically says, "Why are you asking about who your neighbor is? You can act neighborly towards anybody, or fail to do so."
Recall the initial question, "Who is my neighbor?"
And recall Jesus final question, "Who acted as a neighbor to the man who was beaten?"
The focus is on the doer of the good act, and not the receiver. He chose to treat the beaten man and hi neighbor, and so he WAS his neighbor by so doing.
So stop wondering about theories of neighborhood, and go make neighbors. That's the main point.
That said, both the traditional interpretation and Calvin's interpretation have merit. Jesus' stories are like onions. They have layers.
It's a shame that this one has been misinterpreted parable, because the misinterpretation has aged very well.
And now that I've gotten to around 15:00 in the video, given current events I had best clarify "aged very well".
Those sorts of tensions have been around longer than humans have had true civilization.
I see them as sadly universal to humanity. At some point in time virtually every civilization has engaged in such behavior.
A parable about overcoming such behavior is what has aged so well. We need that in our lives now more than ever.
All around the world.
There's no reason to stop viewing it that way. Religious and mythological stories get reinterpreted to fit every age. That's a big part of what keeps them relevant.
I look at it the way I look at songs. The songwriter may have had one idea in mind. But I interpret it and apply it to my specific situation. Both are valid as long as the distinction is acknowledged.
This happens all too often.
A scarcity of sources, skewed sources, and pop history have become an active plague in our understanding of the past and other cultures.
Considering the Hebrews massacred the other Israelites in Canaan over dogmatic differences of how the tribes worshiped El and Yahweh, and those doing the killing were basically "cleaning up the canon" and turning it into a monotheist religion, it makes sense that there would be friction between Jews and Samaritans later, since the Jews had a history of dealing with internal religious disputes by putting everyone to the sword.
war never changes
If we want to be historically accurate, the Jews/Israelites WERE Canaanites, and there was no mass slaughter as they moved into the land. It was a nomadic subgroup moving into the urban regions and mingling with the other people, and then setting themselves apart from the other locals based on religious beliefs.
Could you make a video on full preterism, the eschatological view that believes Jesus came back on 70 AD?
I think you are just trying to stretch it here. The principle topic of parable was about definition of neighbor and mercy and both groups be it the prejudiced anti Samaritans or the new ones who try to show that they were not hated by their contemporary Jews are just stretching it for their own benefit. For example none of the examples you have quoted show Samaritans in good light, they were either more negative or less negative but they were negative which shows that the prejudice was there. This is sometimes the problem with scholarship when they try to stretch and totally reinterpret something which otherwise is pretty obvious.
He never contested the core message of the parable which is obviously about helping your neighbour, he's specifically talking about the ethnic reading of the parable. He also fully acknowledges that even when their relationship was at its best, the Samaritans were still seen as distinct from other Israelite Jews. But the point made by the video is that they *still* Israelite Jews themselves.
@@LoudWaffle On the other hand, the Jewish sect which would become Christianity is widely thought to have been one of the ones who were not charmed by the temle in Jerusalem, or more specific, the people running it.
@@ThW5 I'm not understanding your point or what it has to do with my comment.
@@LoudWaffle I meant "temple", typo.
@@ThW5 I know you did, that doesn't clarify anything.
Thank you for this video. It’s fascinating to look at scripture within a historical context rather than from our modern perspective.
Love these types of videos.
I often find your explanations useful and helpful, but this video seems to me much ado about nothing. As far as I can see, the message of the parable is unchanged by all these speculations.
The article that this is based on is appalling scholarship.
it's Sam Harris tier apologia. Very disappointing from RFB
Nice job, Andrew, as always.
not at all.
Great video. So informative!
The People's judean front!
Vs
The People's front of judean!
Why do you say BCE and CE. Can you tell me what major occurrence separates BCE from CE ?
To quote Louis C.K in his bit about this “JEEEEEEESSSSUS” 😂
When I read the parable as a child, I didn't know what "samaritan" means. I just saw a good guy helping someone in need, not the politics between ethnicities.
Religion is interpreted by your heart. Don't fight over which scripture is "true".
This was super interesting. I’m probably going to be thinking about this all day.
Honestly, the difference between "anti-Samaritan" and "Samaritans are less pure" seems minimal
At first glance, I get why someone might think that, but ritual purity in Judaism is more nuanced than that. People can enter a state of ritual impurity just by going about one's normal business. Doesn't necessarily imply "disdain" or "sin."
Good subject for a video@@ReligionForBreakfast
@@ReligionForBreakfast and what about the Canaanites or their cousins the Ishmaelite’s? I guess the juize just saw them as “ritually impure” too! lol
I think there’s also reason to expect that ritual purity in a late antique context (and also a modern context) was not a concern that was held with the same importance across Jewish society. A priest who works in the temple would find it much more concerning than, say, a leatherworker or latrine-digger. So it’s important to consider the audience in trying to understand how they might have felt about a stranger who is understood to be generally ritually impure-for lower class and diasporic audiences I don’t think there’s reason to expect ritual purity to align with broader value judgments at all
I would personally agree with you, in the sense that I still think the basic point of the parable stays much the same.
However it does matter when the parable is used to help legitimize a more or less overt antisemitism, which does sometimes still happen.
Are the robbers your neighbors?
This lends itself to the idea that Jesus’ message of love thy neighbour was initially intended for Israelites only, with the worldwide application being discovered later
Fascinating, as always
Wait I thought for the longest time that this was Jesus's most misunderstood parable because most people didn't know about the whole ethnic prejudice thing, not that even that interpretation was wrong
you are correct, these revisionists are just trying to downplay ethnic hostility as a factor because there is ethnic cleansing going on right now
This feels a little click baity... The Judaeans might not be in all out war with the Samaritans, they nevertheless have feelings of animosity against the Samaritans. The Qumran settlement is also home to a Jewist sect; I don't think the main audience that Jesus was addressing would be those settlers in particular.
why are the judaeans so racist in every story?
Thanks Dr. Henry!
In common usage outside religious context 'Good samaritan' I heard people completely ignoring the supposed irony of the stranger helping you, while belonging to a group generally seen in a negative light and just denotes an "unexpexted helpful stranger who goes above and beyond to help".
Even laws have been made to oppress them , but NO ethnic hatred huhhhh 😂😂😂
This video got more than Ground News attention I guarantee that
Because it wasn't ethnic; Jews and Samaritans were the same ethnicity, that's the point. It was discrimination more on the lines of cultural/religious differences, and fluctuated over time between outright hatred and very amicable (though still with their differences kept in mind).
Ok Matthew Chalmers looks like you in a wig with a TikTok filter over your eyes.
I never realised that "good samaritan" is basically the ancient version of "you're one of the good ones"
It's actually practical advice on cold-weather survival, which JC learnt on his journey back from learning Buddhism during the lost years before he started his ministry
It feels like this video is making a bit of a revisionist reach. The point that Samaritans are considered Israelites and Jews of a different category does not go against there being ethnic tensions between Samaritans and other Jews. Often religious and ethnic tensions go hand in hand with such legal definitions. For example I am reminded of the Sunni Shia divide where each sect generally considers the other to be Muslim with considerable religious tension between the two groups, often stronger than the tensions between Muslims and Christians for example.
After watching the video, I still believe the subtext of the Samaritan parables in the new testament is one of tension that Jesus is interacting with.
Also it misses a critical element of the parable: Jesus isnt answering every jew who may or may not be ok with Samaritans or think priests kind of suck. He answered a TEACHER OF THE LAW. The kind of person who has every reason to turn their nose at someone they think fails to follow the Law properly.
the sub sub text is that Israel is cool and good, Target Demographic™!
@@Giantcrabz If so, this was a failure, because what he did was to talk about real, if not as dramatic, Jew-Samaritan tension and then made it sound like Jesus wouldn't care about gentiles
For once, the evidence you presented contradicts your conclusions. Just because Calvin had intentions behind his interpretations doesn't mean his interpretation is wrong. There is ample evidence to conclude that there was animosity. The idea of the limit concept isn't well-founded; it's just another interpretation, worse than the traditional one. It requires more mental gymnastics and inferences, making it less plausible according to Occam's Razor.
Who is Calvin that I should listen to him?
>it’s just another interpretation, worse than the traditional one.
It’s assuming that the traditional interpretation has the historically accurate priors of Samaritans being the outsiders. If we assume that this idea is unfounded, and Sumerians were considered a part of the same, albeit a spiritually improper, group by Jews, the meaning of the parable will indeed be different.
Brilliantly detailed!
another excellent video! ❤️ Watched here and Nebula.
Why specifically use Samaritan if it wasn't to make a point? I don't think it holds weight if they were chummy or even tolerant of each other. For all we know it could have been a very recent and short lived beef during Jesus' lifetime.
I think the mistake here lies in thinking of an entire nation as a solid block holding one correct opinion. I think the anti-Samaritanism was definitely quite prevalent idea among the Jews but due to the proximity to each other it wasn't like they were avoiding one another - they still lived and worked pretty much together
@@szlomobronsztajn3115 I'm just saying when Jesus was alive maybe there was locally some bad blood so it made sense for his followers at that time and at that place.
It's like changing this story to be about a Pittsburgher not helping out someone from down the street but someone from Baltimore did... That beef only exists and makes sense if I'm taking to another Pittsburgher/Steeler fan in 2024 - if you ask a historian in 100 years (let alone 2,000 years) they're gonna say that doesn't make sense!
Definitely possible - although, as you say, not really evidence for it. I suppose I'd say that the point seems to be to use a Samaritan, a priest, and a Levite because of their complicated shared relationship to the people of Israel. The Samaritan isn't locked in a Samaritan v. Jew binary
It would have been good if you did a slightly wider survey of how Samaritans are presented in the gospels:
Joh 8:48 (NKJ) Then the Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"
Mat 10:5 (NKJ) These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
These (plus the woman at the well episode) seem to point to a bigger issue.
but that would contradict his narrative
What does this prove? He acknowledges that the tensions between Samaritans and other Israelites fluctuated, even points out the destruction of a Samaritan temple. The video does not deny that hatred existed, it rebukes the commonly-held idea that it was the blanket matter-of-state.
@@LoudWaffle Remember, this video is about the interpretation of the parable, not just a simple correction in historical fact.
The point of my comment was to show that the gospels themselves serve as a basis for assuming general hostility between the groups and hence the interpretation of the parable in that context. It really doesn't matter what might be historically more accurate. For example, what's the point of trying to show that the Samaritans thought of themselves as Israelite when Matthew has Jesus implying that Samaritans are not part of the "house of Israel"?
Just because it is possible that the historical reality was more nuanced does not mean that the gospel authors and their community saw it that way.
I wonder if this sort of uneasiness of Judeans to fully accept Samaritans comes from what you discussed in a former video about the creation of a unified Jewish identity mostly perpetuated by the surviving Kingdom of Judea, considering the northern Kingdom of Israel of the Iron Age fell first and is known not to completely have migrated south (hence the stories of the “Lost Tribes”). Samaritans are possibly the continuation of the old Kingdom of Israel’s identity that never fully merged with Judeans in their goal of a united Jewish identity, and while Samaritans were happy to keep the small differences in customs and religious law, the southern Judeans held a slight resentment to having not fully united both faith and kingdoms after the fall of Israel. Obviously speculation, but I’d understand an ancient stereotype forming after some northern Israelites migrated while some decided to keep their view of Judaism separate.
I was really lucky (blessed) to have Father Gustavo Gutiérrez preside over graduation Mass at the Oblate School of Theology. He had it right. I appreciate all of the additional detail.
I think there’s a difference between saying Jews didn’t consider Samaritans as Israelites vs Jews did not consider Samiratans as rivals.
Respectfully, it seems like you were arguing statement 1 instead of arguing statement 2.
It is entirely possible that even tho Jews reluctantly or enthusiastically included Samiratans as fellow Israelites, they doesn’t mean they were fond of them in general.
Already there was much division amongst the Jews themselves. Pharisee vs Saducee , Judean vs Galilean etc…
It wouldn’t be surprising that whilst Jews still considered Samaritans as Israelites there was still animosity and rivalry which plays into the parable Jesus is giving…
Just my perspective tho
good perspective. why is he trying to justify jewish racism?
The "rivalry" between Jews and Samaritans was pretty one-sided.
Interesting video as always ReligionForBreakfast. You've got a nice book collection in the background. Though it's a bit too blurry for me to make out what their titles are. But if I were to guess what some of these books in your collection are, I think I recognize the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha two volume set edited by James H Charlesworth and the Study Quran. Have you ever thought about making a video or webpage showing your library and what books you'd recommend from it?
My only problem with this is that ethnic tensions tend to flare up and then die down generation from generation. In other words attitudes and tolerances change depending on social conditions. I can easily imagine that at a time of scarcity and oppression, there would be hatred towards minorities. The opposite being true in times of abundance.
I always interpreted this story as the priests represented people who felt entitled and the Samaritan represented people who feel compassion
Next make a video about Buddhist religion in ancient egypt or in the West
If I remember correctly, I've heard a preacher (or maybe some preachers) say that the priest and the Levi in this parable won't touch the victim because it will make them unclean. After all, the victim was almost dead and bleeding. Because the priest and the Levi know about the law, and touching some corpse or blood coming out from their body) will make you unclean for the ritual to God, they don't want to help the victim. A good Samaritan doesn't care about that and chooses the right point: to save a single soul, even though by law he will be unclean until the sunset comes.
Boy I read this a third different way.
"Look at how people can call themselves holy and they do nothing to help those in need. Compare this to just some guy who saves this person. Actions dictate holiness."