Luke, Matthew, Mark and John, each of whom did write a Gospel…

 

As noted in earlier posts, my Lenten discipline is a formal contemplation – some deep profound thinking – about exactly how and when Moses put the first five books of the Bible – the Torah – into writing.

One thing I’ve learned:  Moses may have relied heavily on oral tradition.

It wasn’t until Moses’ lifetime that writing as we know it got used at all. (And then only among the “learned classes.”)  And as late as 700 years after Jesus, even Charlemagne – lord and ruler of the Holy Roman Empire – couldn’t read or write.

And Moses lived a thousand years before Jesus.  (And two millennia before Charlemagne.)

Another thing I learned:  Moses may have gotten the “One God” idea from a Pharaoh who ruled 100 years before him.  (That would be Akhenaten.  Egyptians later called him the “heretic king” for messing with traditional Egyptian polytheism.  See Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia.”)

Of course you may find that a bit hard to swallow.  (That Moses got “One God” from an Egyptian.)

But consider this new evidence from the Daily Office Readings for Saturday, February 27.

In Genesis 43:16-34, Moses continued the story of how the Hebrews came to be in Egypt.  For starters,  Joseph was the son of Jacob, whose name got changed to Israel by God.  And basically, Joseph ended up in Egypt after being kidnapped and sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.

So Joseph ended up in Egypt as a slave, but that was a good thing.  (As it turned out.)

And aside from being a slave, Joseph also had to become pretty much a convicted felon.  That is, he got “convicted” after Potiphar’s wife – seen at right – falsely accused him of rape.  But then he ended up so well rehabilitated that Pharaoh made him his right-hand man.  (Pharaoh seems to have given Joseph the functional equivalent of a pardon.)  

In the meantime, Joseph’s family back in Canaan was going through a devastating famine. So Jacob – alias “Israel” – sent most of his sons down to Egypt to negotiate for some food.

In turn, the reading for Saturday, February 27, had Joseph invite his brothers to dinner.  Of course the kicker was that his brothers didn’t recognize the guy who invited them to dinner as their “dead brother.”  (Joseph was “dressed as an Egyptian ruler,” and the the last thing the brothers expected was to “find the brother they had sold into slavery.”)

The point of all this:  According to Genesis 43:32 the Hebrews were unclean to the Egyptians:

The waiters served Joseph at his own table, and his brothers were served at a separate table. The Egyptians who ate with Joseph sat at their own table, because Egyptians despise Hebrews and refuse to eat with them. (E.A.)

According to the Pulpit Commentary, Egyptians couldn’t “break bread” with Hebrews, basically because they were ritually unclean.  (The ritual painting at right is of “taking the bride to the bath house.”)  

In turn, the Hebrews – after Moses – went on to develop their own tradition of refusing to eat with, come in contact with, or even visit “Gentiles.”  See for example Salvation of the Gentiles, Part 1:

A strict Jew wouldn’t allow himself to be a guest in a Gentile house, neither would he invite one to be a guest in his own home…  The Jews viewed Gentiles as unclean, and that had great ramifications.  For example, milk that was drawn from a cow by Gentile hands was not allowed to be consumed by Jews…  No Jew would ever eat with a Gentile. (E.A.)

So it would seem that the Hebrews “borrowed” this idea of ritually unclean foreigners from the Egyptians.  In turn it seems well within the realm of possibility that – in the same way – Moses borrowed the idea of “One God.”  (From the “heretic” Egyptian king, Akhenaten.)  But note that Moses did a much better job than Akhenaten.  He literally changed history, in such a way that it can be said, “His burning bush still lights our world.”   (Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia.”)

But we were talking about about exactly how and when Moses put the first five books of the Bible into writing.  And to that end, we were discussing the related topic of whether Jesus Himself personally “wrote” the four Gospels found in the New Testament.

Of course the short answer is No, Jesus didn’t personally write any of the Gospels.

In turn the fact that He left that task to His disciples – and/or followers – seems rarely to have been debated in history.  (Of course one “atheist” answer is that Jesus didn’t write His own Gospel because He was, “as a Galilean peasant, most probably illiterate.”)

Then too, it seems to have been common practice back then for really smart people to have their students – and followers – take down what they said.  For example, consider what Will Durant wrote about Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 “before Jesus.”  (And so well after Moses):

…it is possible that the writings attributed to Aristotle were not his, but were largely the compilations of students and followers who had embalmed the unadorned substance of his lectures in their notes…  Even the unity of style that marks Aristotle’s writings, and offers an argument to those who defend his direct authorship, may be, after all, merely a unity given them through common editing…  About this question there rages a sort of Homeric Question…  We may at all events be sure that Aristotle is the spiritual author of all these books that bear his name:  that the hand in some cases [may be] another’s hand, but that the head and heart are his. (E.A.)

In turn it could easily be said that Jesus “spiritually authored” the four Gospels.  But might the same thing be said of Moses?  Once again, there seems no certain answer.

“Boot camp” Christians say that of course Moses personally hand-wrote all first five books of the Bible.  (See Don Stewart :: When Did Moses Write, or Compile, the Book.)  Others point out various anachronisms and/or “chronological inconsistencies” that seem to prove otherwise.  (See Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah – Mesa Community College.)

But couldn’t Moses too have had his own “students and followers,” just like Aristotle?

Those students and followers might well have “embalmed the unadorned substance” of Moses’ “lectures.”  After all, what else was there to do on those long dark nights during 40 years of wandering in the wilderness?  And those students and followers might well have numbered in their “hundreds, fifties and tens.”  (Just like the other “leaders over groups” noted in Exodus 18:21.)  And just what was Moses trying to do during those 40 long years?

Mainly Moses was trying to forge a disciplined army – from a bunch of former slaves – capable of bringing down the walls of Jericho, on the way to re-conquering the Promised Land.

(As alluded to in the Old Testament reading for the Fourth Sunday in Lent, Joshua 5:9-12.)

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.  And unfortunately we’ve gone beyond the ideal length of blog posts, meaning this Homeric Question will remain unresolved a while longer…

 

 Aristotle [contemplating] a bust of Homer, by Rembrandt…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Four Evangelists – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  For the four listed in order of appearance, see Peter Paul Rubens: The Four Evangelists – Art and the Bible:

Rubens portrayed the four evangelists while working together on their texts.  An angel helps them…  Each gospel author can be identified by an attribute.  The attributes were derived from the opening verses of the gospels.  From left to right:  Luke (bull), Matthew (man [angel]), Mark (lion), and John (eagle).

Re:  “Boot-camp Christians.”  There’s more on that concept at the end of these notes.  See also 2d Timothy 2:3-4, where Paul wrote,  ^“Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” 

Also re: “buck private.”  See Buck Privates – Wikipedia, on the “1941 comedy/World War II film that turned Bud Abbott and Lou Costello into bona fide movie stars.”  (A poster for which is seen at right.)

The image of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph is courtesy of Potiphar – Wikipedia, captioned:  “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, by Guido Reni 1630.”

On Joseph becoming “Israel.”  See On arguing with God.

Re: brothers not recognizing. See Why didn’t Joseph’s brothers … Answers.

Re: Egyptians refusing to eat with Hebrews.  See the full Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 43:32:

Because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews.  Herodotus (2:41) affirms that the Egyptians would neither use the knife, spit, or basin of a Grecian, nor taste the flesh of a clean cow if it happened to be cut with a Grecian knife.  For that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.  The reason for this separation from foreigners being that they dreaded being polluted by such as killed and ate cows, which animals were held in high veneration in Egypt.

The Durant quote on Aristotle is from The Story of Philosophy: The lives and opinions of the world’s greatest philosophers from Plato to John Dewey.  Specifically, from the 1953, Washington Square Press “Pocket Books” edition, at page 57, from Chapter II, “Aristotle and Greek Science,” sub-section II, “The Work of Aristotle.”

Note also that – strictly speaking – a Homeric Question “concerns the doubts and consequent debate over the identity of Homer, the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey, and their historicity…” 

The lower image is courtesy of Aristotle – Wikipedia.

*   *   *   *

One time when Moses almost got stoned – to death – along with Joshua and Caleb…

*   *   *   *

Here’s an update on some recent Dally Office Readings.

The Old Testament reading for last Sunday – January 10, 2015 – was Genesis 1:1, up to Chapter 2:3.  That story of the creation of the world begins – and ends – like this:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters…  And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.  So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

In turn, that account causes a lot of non-believers to scoff.

They scoff because the person who wrote it – presumably Moses – didn’t put forth a “carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.”  They scoff because Moses said the earth was created in seven days.

And they scoff because Moses didn’t tell his audience that the earth was some billions of years old by that time.  Or that there’d been “dinosaurs” roaming the earth millions of years before the Israelites became slaves in Egypt.

Or that that the terra firma on which they stood actually revolved around that “big bright round thing in the sky.”  (And not the other way around.)

What those scoffers fail to realize is that if Moses had mentioned any such things, he would have been stoned to death.  (At yet another time and for yet another reason;  one such incident is shown in the image at the top of the page.)

In other words, what those scoffers fail to realize is that at the time he was writing, Moses was addressing an audience of the largely “unwashed.”  That is, illiterate men and women who had been trained since birth to be “mindless, docile slaves.”

So again, if Moses had mentioned any of the things above, he would have certainly been “stoned,” there in the Wilderness.  (And not in a good way.)  And by the way, Jesus noted a similar problem in John 3:12, where He told His disciples, “If you don’t believe me when I tell you about things on earth, how will you believe me when I tell you about things in heaven?“

Which is another way of saying that our puny little human minds are simply incapable of fully understanding God and all that “He” – anthropomorphism – is.  And this was especially true of the main audience Moses addressed when he wrote the First Five Books of the Bible.

Suppose Moses had mentioned dinosaurs in his writings.  Or how “we” revolve around that “big bright thing in the sky.”  The result would have been similar to what nearly happened in the Old Testament reading for January 8 – 2016 – Exodus 17:1-7.  In Exodus 17:4, “Moses cried out to the LORD, ‘What should I do with these people?  They are ready to stone me!'”

That was the incident at Mount Horeb, where God responded to the Israelites’ whining about being thirsty.  (By telling Moses to “strike the rock,” out of which came a stream of water.)

And that’s not to mention Numbers 14:10, “The whole assembly talked about stoning them.”  That was also part of “the people rebelling” – while Wandering in the Wilderness – told in Numbers 14.  In this case, the Bible noted “the people” were ready to stone not just Moses and Aaron, but also Joshua and Caleb.  (Who tried to defend them.)  In turn, God told Moses He was ready to “strike them down with a plague and destroy them,” that is, the Whiners.  But fortunately, Moses was able to persuade God not to do that.  (See also On arguing with God.)

So here’s what the Pulpit Commentary said about that incident:

This is the first which we hear of stoning as a punishment.  It is naturally one of the easiest modes of wreaking popular vengeance on an obnoxious individual, and was known to the Greeks as early as the time of the Persian War…

A couple of notes:  The reference to the Persian War (or “Wars”) means the ancient Greeks were also familiar with stoning-as-punishment, apparently somewhere around 470 B.C.  And that wreaking “popular vengeance on an obnoxious individual” has also been around awhile.

(Not making any suggestions about our current political situation…)

But getting back to the problem Moses faced, writing the Pentateuch…

In plain words, “Moses was forced by circumstance ‘to use language and concepts that his ‘relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience’ could understand.'” (See On the readings for June 15 – Part I.)  And to the extent he was writing for a future audience, he probably expected that future audience to understand those circumstances, and take them into account.

But getting back to the point, “our puny little human minds are simply incapable of fully understanding God:”  On that note the DORs for January 11 included Isaiah 55:8 and 9:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Bible said that this passage denotes “the heavenliness of the ways and thoughts of God, the eternity and unsearchableness of them, and their excellency and preciousness; as well as the very great distance between [God’s] ways and thoughts and men’s [ways and thoughts] which this is designed to illustrate.”

All of which is another way of saying that “our puny little human minds are simply incapable of fully understanding God.”  Or as one professor put it – on our inability to understand God:

We are simply not up to the task, not wired for such an overload.  We are no more prepared to comprehend [God] than – to make use of a memorable example – cats are prepared to study calculus.  It’s just not in our nature. (E.A.)

So to sum up, if Moses had mentioned dinosaurs – or the earth being billions of years old, or our earth revolving around that “big bright round thing in the sky – in the first five books of the Bible, “the people” would have thought he was crazy, or worse.  They probably would have stoned him to death – as a heretic – or burnt him at some nearby convenient stake.

At the very least, Moses would have faced some sort of Inquisition – like Galileo did, some 2,800 years after Moses.  (For holding a view ostensibly “contrary to Scripture,” that the earth revolved around the sun, and as shown below.)   Which leads to one final comment:

It was never “contrary to Scripture” that the earth revolved around the sun.  It was only contrary to a narrow-minded, pigheaded, too-literal reading of the Scripture…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Stoning of Moses, Joshua and Caleb | Byzantine | The Metroplitan Museum of Art.  (It’s a mosaic from the 5th century.)  See also Stoning – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which includes another painting of the incident. The caption to that painting, under Punishment of the Rebels:  “The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron (1480–1482), by Sandro Botticelli, Sistine Chapel, Rome.”  See also Heresy – Wikipedia. 

The stoning article said this of a “Korah” painting of the incident:

The painting … tells of a rebellion by the Hebrews against Moses and Aaron.  On the right the rebels attempt to stone Moses after becoming disenchanted by their trials on their emigration from Egypt.  Joshua has placed himself between the rebels and Moses, protecting him from the stoning…

Which raises anew the question:  “What would those backward, ignorant, sons-of-the-desert have done to Moses if he’d told them the truth about that ‘big bright round thing in the sky?’”

*   *   *   *

Re:  The Creation Story.  See also The Creation Story – Bible Story Summary and/or Creation Stories (from around the World) – University of Georgia.

The “dinosaurs” image is courtesy of Dinosaur – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Artist’s impression of six dromaeosaurid theropods:  from left to right Microraptor, Dromaeosaurus,Austroraptor, Velociraptor, Utahraptor, and Deinonychus.”

The “Moses striking the rock” image is courtesy of BLB Image Gallery :: Moses Striking the Rock.

The “wandering in the wilderness” map is courtesy of davidblum61 … /2012/01/09/bible-maps-2.

Re:  The DORs for January 11.  The four-volume book version of the Daily Office has readings specified for a specific day in January – January 7 through 12 – beginning with the “Epiphany and following,” up to the “Eve of 1 Epiphany.”  However, in the online Satucket website, the reading for January 11 is listed as for the Monday after the First Sunday of Epiphany.  The net effect is to require the assiduous Daily Office reader to have two sets of readings for the days in January from the 7th to the 12th. 

Re:  the “cats-calculus” quote.  See On “Job the not patient” – REDUX, citing Professor Timothy Shutt of Kenyon College, author of Hebrews, Greeks and Romans:  Foundations of Western Civilization.

The lower image – “Cristiano Banti‘s 1857 painting Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition” – is courtesy of the article, Heresy – Wikipedia:

Galileo Galilei was brought before the Inquisition for heresy, but abjured his views and was sentenced to house arrest, under which he spent the rest of his life. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.  He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions. (E.A.)

*   *   *   *

 And here’s more on the  ostensible “Bible contradictions,” alluded to above.  See the notes for The Bible readings for September 27.  They cited the For or against link at the Secular Web site.  (Owned and operated by Internet Infidels, Inc.)  The site included this:  “The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize.”  The website also took the Bible to task for not creating a “carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.” 

I addressed such criticisms in posts like The readings for June 15 – Part I.  I pointed out that Moses – for example – in writing the first five books of the Bible, was limited by “his audience’s ability to comprehend.”   The audience he “wrote” for was almost wholly illiterate – not to mention ignorant by present-day standards – and had been trained since birth only to be mindless, docile slaves.  Thus Moses was forced by circumstance “to use language and concepts that his ‘relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience’ could understand.” 

In further words, if Moses had written the “carefully constructed treatise” suggested by the “Infidels,” he almost certainly would be burned at the stake or stoned to death.  (Or both.)  See also Reflections on Volume 3 – Part II, which includes “The Stoning of Moses and Aaron.”

Then too, those “Bible bangers” are just the type of people inclined to give a “narrow-minded, pigheaded, too-literal reading of the Scripture.”

*   *   *   *

A final note:  The DOR Gospel reading for Saturday, January 16 – the day this was posted – was John 2: 13-22.  That included verses 19-22, where Jesus was asked about his “authority:”

 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”  They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”   But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Which leads to another reason not to read the Bible too literally:  Jesus often spoke in metaphors, not to mention “parables.”  See for example, On three suitors (a parable)

*   *   *   *

The Good Samaritan:  Was this a parable about “inclusion?”

 

Most people know the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  And most such people naturally assume that a “good Samaritan” has always been a person who “selflessly helps others.”  (See Urban Dictionary: Good Samaritan:  “Today a Good Samaritan is usually someone who goes out on a limb to help others, even if they are complete strangers.”)

But most people don’t know that calling someone a “Samaritan” in the time of Jesus was pretty much like calling him a “Communist” – or worse – in the America of the 1950s:

Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus’s audience.  It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted…   Jesus’ target audience, the Jews, hated Samaritans…  The Samaritans in turn hated the Jews.  Tensions were particularly high in the early decades of the 1st century because Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover with human bones. (E.A.)

See Wikipedia.  So the Jews hated the Samaritans and the Samaritans hated the Jews.  (Sound familiar?)  Or as Asimov put it (523), these were the “hated and heretical Samaritans.”

I bring all this up because the Daily Office Reading for Monday, September 28, 2015 – the Old Testament reading – described the root of why Jews hated Samaritans so much.  (And by extension, why it was so provocative of Jesus to make a Samaritan a “hero” in His parable…)

But back to the root of the hatred itself.

The article Samaritans – Second-Class Citizens noted that “even worse than publicans* in the estimation of the Jews were the Samaritans…  ‘Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil’ was the mode in which the Jews expressed themselves when at a loss for a bitter reproach.”

For starters, in Matthew 10:5–6, Jesus told His disciples:  “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.” (E.A.)  And sometimes other Jews hurled this epithet – at Jesus – as noted above.  See John 8:48:  “The people retorted,  “You Samaritan devil!  Didn’t we say all along that you were possessed by a demon?”  (In the New Living Translation.)

The sentence [- “you’re a Samaritan!” -] is singularly insulting in its tone and form.  We cannot measure the exact amount of insult they condensed into this word, whether it be of heresy, or alienation from Israel, or accusation of impure descent.

(Emphasis added.)  All of which is another way of saying there’s more to this parable than meets the eye.  (The business of “impure descent” – illegitimacy – is a whole ‘nother subject…)

But getting back to that Old Testament Daily Office Reading for Monday, September 28.  As noted, it goes back to why the Jews hated Samaritans so much.

The story goes back to the time of Sargon II, and the year 722 B.C.:

Under his rule, the Assyrians completed the defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, capturing Samaria after a siege of three years and exiling the inhabitants.  This became the basis of the legends of the Lost Ten Tribes.  According to the Bible, other people were brought to Samaria, the Samaritans…  Sargon’s name actually appears [at] at Isaiah 20:1…

As Asimov explained it, in the year 725 B.C. the Hebrews – a “stubborn and stiff-necked people” – had rebelled once again against their overlords.  (The Hebrew homeland got conquered quite often in Jewish history.)  But in a twist, when Sargon conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel, he didn’t massacre the inhabitants wholesale.  Instead he deported the native Hebrews and brought in new people – from far away – to colonize Samaria.

This tactic marked the permanent end of that northern Kingdom of Israel, and led to the story of the Ten Lost Tribes.  Asimov estimated that some 27,000 “leading citizens” of Israel were deported; mostly landowners and members of the ruling class.  the “colonists” were brought in from Babylon, some 500 miles away “as the crow flies.”  Those new colonists centered in Samaria, and they and their descendants “are what the Bible refers to as Samaritans.”

Or as the Bible itself put it, in 2d Kings 17, verses 24-41 (“edited for content“):

The king of Assyria transported colonies of people from Babylon [and other areas] and resettled them in the cities of Samaria, replacing the people of Israel…  But they continued to follow the religious customs of the nations from which they came.  And this is still going on among them today…  These colonists from Babylon worshiped the Lord, yes – but they also worshiped their idols.  And to this day their descendants do the same thing.

For a contemporary equivalent, think of Northern Ireland and especially The Troubles.  That article described the centuries-old conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

The “Troubles” started 500 years ago, in 1609:  “In 1609, Scottish and English settlers, known as planters, were given land confiscated from the native Irish in the Plantation of Ulster.  Coupled with Protestant immigration to ‘unplanted’ areas … this resulted in conflict between the native Catholics and the ‘planters,’ leading in turn to two bloody ethno-religious conflicts.”

And the two parties – Catholics and Protestants – both claimed to be “the true Israel” – in their own way – and that their version of Bible worship followed “the original” more closely, and that their enemies worshiped a “falsified text,” as noted below.

And to paraphrase 2d Kings 17:34, these Irish Troubles are “going on among them today.”  (Or at least until the 1990s, after 30 years of “intense violence during which 3,254 people were killed.”)

But getting back to the root of Jewish hatred of Samaritans:  When they came in to colonize the area, these “Neo-Samaritans” decided to worship both the God of the Hebrews, and also “their own gods.”  (See also “hedging your bets.”)  The resulting Samaritan religion became – in the eyes of native Hebrews – “a kind of Yahvistic heresy.”  In turn the native Judeans would be “more hostile at times to the heretics than to the outright pagan.”

(As Asimov also noted, this too is a recurring phenomenon throughout history.)

Thus again, to the audience Jesus spoke to, these were the “hated and heretical Samaritans.” But the Samaritans in turn thought the same thing of the hostile Hebrews:

The Samaritans claimed that they were the true Israel[, and] that their version of the Pentateuch was the original and that the Jews had a falsified text…  Both Jewish and Samaritan religious leaders taught that it was wrong to have any contact with the opposite group, and neither was to enter each other’s territories or even to speak to one another.  During the New Testament period … Josephus reports numerous violent confrontations between Jews and Samaritans throughout the first half of the first century.

See Samaritans – Wikipedia, which included the image at right:  “Israeli actress from the Samaritan community, Sofi Tzadka…  Born as an Israeli Samaritan, along with her siblings [she] formally converted to Judaism at the age of 18.”  (She also did the voice-over role of “Ella of Frell (played by Anne Hathaway) in the Hebrew dub of the film ‘Ella Enchanted.'”)

I suppose there’s some kind of object lesson in Sofi’s example.  (Perhaps on the healing power of beauty.)  But we were talking about Jewish attitudes toward Samaritans in the time of Jesus.

Jesus clearly wanted to make a point by making the hero of this parable a Samaritan.  The question is:  What was His point?  According to Asimov:  “The point Jesus was making was that even a Samaritan could be a neighbor; how much more so, anyone else.”  Thus to repeat:

The term “good Samaritan” has been used so often … that one gets the feeling that Samaritans were particularly good people and that it was only to be expected that a Samaritan would help someone in trouble.  This loses the point of the story, since to a Jew at the time of Jesus, Samaritans were a hateful and despised people. (E.A.)

And again, there were at least two reasons why the Samaritans were so hated and despised.  Not only did they usurp and colonize territory that had once belonged to the Kingdom of Israel, they had also usurped the Jewish religion itself.  But they didn’t adopt the Jewish faith whole cloth.  Instead – in the eyes of native Jews – the Samaritans had created a hybrid, “hedge-your-bets” and/or “feel good” type of religion that was tantamount to heresy.

And the usual fate of heretics was to be massacred, as shown at left.

But Jesus didn’t want that.  In His parable, first a priest and then a Levite passed by the fellow Hebrew who’d been beaten and robbed.  “They were each learned in the law and undoubtedly knew the verse in Leviticus” – Leviticus 19:18, with its command to love your neighbor as yourself.   “Yet they did nothing.”  Instead, in this parable it was the hated and despised – infidel and heretic – Samaritan who helped.

Asimov said the “flavor of the parable” could be set in modern terms with a “white southern farmer left for dead,” but ignored and passed by by a minister and a sheriff.  In this update of the parable, the white southern farmer would be saved by a “Negro sharecropper.”

In other words, a man is not a “neighbor” because of what he is but because of what he does.  A goodhearted Samaritan is more the neighbor of a Jew, than a hardhearted fellow Jew.  And, by extension, one might argue that the parable teaches that all men are neighbors, since all men could do well and have compassion, regardless of nationality.  To love one’s neighbor is to love all men…  The point Jesus was making was that even a Samaritan could be a neighbor; how much more so, anyone else.

And finally, Asimov noted that only the Gospel of Luke included this parable, which is “among the most popular of all those attributed to Jesus, and which preaches universalism.”

So I suppose you could say this parable was “about ‘inclusion.'”  Which in turn is another way of saying that Jesus will never turn away anyone who comes to Him, as noted in John 6:37.

And besides all that, Luke seems to have been a pretty dang good artist…

 

“Luke paints the Madonna and the Baby Jesus…”

 

The upper image is courtesy of The Good Samaritan (after Delacroix), by Vincent Van Gogh.

Re: “Inclusion.”  The practice where “different groups or individuals having different backgrounds like origin, age, race and ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity and other are culturally and socially accepted and welcomed, equally treated, etc.” 

On that note, see Paul Ryan urges GOP, from August 2014: “Republican congressman and 2012 vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan … says his party is doomed to future defeats unless it broadens its appeal beyond a traditional base of older white voters…  Ryan says his party needs to be more inclusive, spend far more time talking to black and Latino voters, and avoid playing into what he calls a caricature of the ‘cold-hearted Republican.'”  Then there’s Some black conservatives question tea party’s inclusiveness.  (So apparently “inclusiveness” is a good thing, to most people…)

For a further explanation of the Daily Office, see What’s a DOR?

Re: Isaac Asimov.  The quotes about the Samaritans are from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), at pages 377-382, and pages 943-45.  The quote about the “hated and heretical” Samaritans is from page 523. 

Asimov (1920-1992) was “an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books.  Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.”  His list of books included those on “astronomy, mathematics, theBible,William Shakespeare’s writing, and chemistry.”  He was a long-time member of Mensa, “albeit reluctantly;  he described some members of that organization as ‘brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs.’”  See also Isaac Asimov – Wikipedia.

Re:  “Publicans.”  For more on how much the Jewish people of Jesus’ time hated publicans and tax collectors, see On St. Matthew:  “No tax collector [at that time was] actually going to be loved, but a ‘publican’ of the Roman sort was sure to be hated above all men as a merciless leech who would take the shirt off a dying child.” 

Re: distance from Babylon to Samaria.  Google Maps puts the driving distance at some 2,600 miles, by a circuitous route including a ferry, tolls, restricted roads and “multiple countries.”

The “massacre” image is courtesy of the Wikipedia Heresy article.  The caption:  “Massacre of the Waldensians of Mérindol in 1545.”

The bottom “Luke paints” image is courtesy of Luke the Evangelist – Wikipedia.  The full caption:  “Luke paints the Madonna and the Baby Jesus, by Maarten van Heemskerck.”  On that note:

Christian tradition, starting from the 8th century, states that he was the first icon painter.  He is said to have painted pictures of the Virgin Mary and Child…  He was also said to have painted Saints Peter and Paul, and to have illustrated a gospel book with a full cycle of miniatures.

The other Daily Office Readings for Monday, September 28, are Psalm 89:1-18, Psalm 89:19-52, 1st Corinthians  7:25-31, and Matthew 6:25-34.