Talk:Parable of the Good Samaritan/Archive 2

No ref

I support the unref removals Leadwind made. That material was sitting there with no ref for long. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the material he removed was well-referenced. There is scope for compromise on this issue. I hope Leadwind will discuss it here, and then we can find the right solution. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually he wrote a nice lead too. That fellow knows how to write leading paragraphs, and I think his user name comes from that. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He also removed some well-referenced material, which you have re-removed. Are the pair of you going to discuss it properly here, or shall I just put it back? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know him, just seen his work around. Wait for him, but if you have FULLY refed material list it here for discussion please. As is, there is 2 against one for now. History2007 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the new lead
• The section "Historical contexts and modern recasting" has had its, admittedly useless, references removed, so that it now has none. Yet it has been retained. Why?
• The section "Priestly cleanness" had no references and has been removed. Strictly this is justifiable, although digging up some source would have been preferable
• The section "Minority view" had one reference of very indirect relevance. Again, a search for a better source would be preferable to just dumping it.
• The excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia under "See also" is totally well sourced, and there are no grounds for deleting it. At an earlier date this appeared in the main body of the article, but it was relegated to "See also" by people who didn't like it. It should be returned to the main text.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The histo-context section is probably useful to the user. I will look for refs for it in a day or two. I have for long been unhappy about the other material in this article, it said very little and was sitting there as a distraction, if anything. I was glad when he cleaned it out. The last See also item should be returned, please return that if you wish, it is fine with me. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia view

User:Pottergreen has introduced a paragraph

The criticism is problematic. A parable is by definition a fictitious narrative, often in the form of a riddle eliciting a moral response.. The criticism is a historical observation, and does little to understand the moral of such a hypothetical illustration, except to purportedly demonstrate an anti-Jewish alteration of the parable.

The argument itself rests on the observation that no Samaritan would have been found on that road, yet no proof is provided equal to such a certain claim, save an obscure reference to a J.Halevy article and no specific argument or data in support. Such a serious accusation of an anti-Jewish alteration requires far more support than a century old and incomplete encyclopedic reference. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was notorious for its danger and difficulty, known as the "Way of Blood" because "of the blood which is often shed there by robbers", a recognizably dangerous route for that audience.

but I think he misunderstand the situation. Wikipedia reproduces facts. Opinions from notable people, clearly attributed to those people, are themselves facts. Wikipedia does not advance its own opinions; they are forbidden by the policy WP:NPOV. In this case, we have the words of the parable itself, which we can take as factual. Halevy and co, who were all well-known scholars, published an interpretation of the parable. The fact they they did so is perfectly well sourced, so to reproduce their opinion, with a clear statement of its authorship, is legitimate and, since their view is interesting and still available to read, we ought to do it. In doing so, we as Wikipedia in no way endorse that opinion. By the same token, we do not need, and indeed are not permitted, to contradict it, speaking as Wikipedia. If other scholars or notable persons have published a contrary view, we include that too. But Pottergreen's attempt (irrespective of how convincing it is) to refute Halevy and co is banned as WP:OR. He must find a refutation published elsewhere and cite that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My (Pottergreen) entry clearly refers to a definition of a parable as a hypothetical illustration, and clearly contrasts the JE's historical observation as if a hypothetical is to be taken as factual e.g., did it really happen? Fiction is not the same as history. Yet, out of this we are to assume an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory? The issue is whether the parable was changed because of anti-semitism. No evidence or argument is provided for such a conspiracy theory, only a reference to an article that is currently not available. This is clearly evidenced in the JE: no detail provided, only a passing reference in a larger article about Jesus of Nazereth. This is a serious accusation lacking in the sort of detail and argument that merits such an accusation and as such is hearsay. How are people to determine its merit without the supporting argument and evidence the JE merely refers to? This is not an unreasonable expectation. The JE may have been written for an audience that had a high degree of expertise in the field and was familiar with the background material; the same cannot be said today. The presence of the JE reference undermines the moral of the parable, directing the reading to consider not the ethical issue but rather to interpret as a conspiracy using historical evidence, ironically demonstrating the very problem Jesus sought to illustrate: legalism and sectarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pottergreen contrib is most probably WP:OR given that it has no specific refs. However, the Jewish Encycopedia entry is probably subject to other problems such WP:weight and is not a mainstream view since it just relies on one reference itself namely Halevy. Moreover, the rest of that section is just as WP:OR, e.g. there are five roads leading through Samaria to Jerusalem. Those are "disconnected" refs glued together without a coherent source and need to go. And the JE item itself needs to be viewed as a single ref view. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I (pottergreen) supplied a map reference which enumerates no less than five roads running through the region, all of which lead to Jerusalem. The references I provided along side of that were from wikipedia itself. I made no inference, induction or deduction from the references provided. The JE article claims "no Samaritan could be found on that road" How is that logically possible when those roads run all through the region? Not one Samaritan...ever? Is this the same as the speed of light limitation? Roads connecting regions were vital to Roman legions and administration, enabling tax collection and policing. It is quite likely a Samaritan could have been a tax agent acting on behalf of the Roman government, as it was risky for a Jew to act as such within their own community. Hence, such a Samaritan could have walked that road as a tax collector, census taker, etc. Samaritans did not interact socially with Jews, but both could travel through their regions, especially when the Romans administered the area.The JE referenced article is absurd unless the details be known, and was likely not rebutted because it was not intended for any but a select audience. Regardless, the parable is a hypothetical case and irrelevant to whether they would actually travel that road. The JE reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pottergreen says above "The issue is whether the parable was changed because of anti-semitism." He has then gone on to supply a mass of mildly interesting but fundamentally irrelevant supporting evidence. It's irrelevant because the issue we are discussing is not whether the parable was changed. The article isn't saying that, nor should it, The article is saying that Halevy and co said it, which they did. If we take the (possible) view that the meaning of the parable is crystal-clear without further ado, then the whole article is unnecessary and we should list it as AfD. If we think there is more to be said, we need to survey what scholars and religious teachers have said about the parable. In that case we must include some views which we as editors may find wholly unconvincing or even distasteful. But we aren't telling our readers what to think; we are telling them what others have thought. Our readers decide for themselves which bits they actually agree with.

The JE was written for anyone who would buy it, although its title made clear that it was directed at Jews. It's there on line, and you can easily check that it made no great assumptions about the erudition of its audience. I can't see that its age is relevant; I know of no evidence that the Jewish view of Christianity has changed much in the last century (or indeed in the last two millennia). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia cannot be a ref for Wikipedia. The other items Pottergreen had were interesting and I used them in the context section - they had nothing to do with JE. But Pottergreen do NOT let this discussion discourage you. Wikipedia has 10,000 or more rules and everyone quotes them everywhere. In time you will get used to using those rules as Samuel does. So keep going and find other items, instead of using Wikipedia as a reference. And be careful not to get trapped in the WP:3RR rule. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement History2007. The JE may be correct, but we cannot decide as the argument and information that demonstrates the assertion is absent. People deciding what to think require an informed choice. For the readers of that time the JE was produced, that article may have been widely circulated amoung the intended audience, who knows? Not today. The danger is that in the absence of specific argument, the JE's assertion it was changed for anti-Jewish application could function as anti-Christian propaganda in the context of a wikipedia entry, given the accusation of anti-semitism. (pottergreen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:Not censored. There is I think more than one way in which the JE assertion might be seen to constitute a "danger", although personally I find it more amusing than anything else. It certainly doesn't sit easily with many people's agendas, which is why some people want rid of it. But it was written and published, and it's relevant to the subject, so we should include it. Pottergreen has been researching hard, but in the wrong direction. What's needed is a published refutation of the JE view, or other scholarly discussions of the meaning and significance of the parable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not beholden to mention everything about this parable that's been written and published, only those things that are notable. The opinion from the JE is 100 years old and isn't found in current scholarship. If there's evidence that this view is notable, then let's find that evidence. If there's no evidence that this view is notable (though it might have been notable 100 years ago), then there's no reason to include the reference. Leadwind (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Leadwind. That was what I meant by being a "single ref" item that no one else refers to. And the fact that no one else bothers to debate it just reinforces the non-notability. So let us have a quick discussion on its notability. In my view it is not. Any reason to oppose that? History2007 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are over 2500 references to the Jewish Encyclopedia in Wikipedia articles. Are you going to apply this specious line of argument to all of them, or just to the ones you don't like? I totally agree that we need to find opinions from current scholarship; at the moment we have none at all, so no evidence as to what is allegedly absent from it. But to regard a source as being suspect because of being 100 years old , which is never hinted at in policies such as WP:RS, would imply losing probably a majority of references on religious and ancient historical subjects in Wikipeida. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How many refs to this specific item? History2007 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any easy way of estimating, but in any case how is that relevant to the point at issue? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You said: "2500 references to the Jewish Encyclopedia" so opened the door to that. If hardly anyone discusses it, then it is long gone and forgotten and not noteworthy. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If we could please try and take a mature approach to this, and return to the point, my argument is that the JE view is worth including because it was held by five respected Jewish scholars, namely Joseph Halévy, Joseph Jacobs, Kaufmann Kohler, Richard James Horatio Gottheil and Samuel Krauss. All five of them have WP articles, so in combination their opinion must be notable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I (pottergreen) have been researching a bit on this; I cannot find a direct response to Halevy article. What I have found is a basis for a response to the methodology employed by the JE fragment. The JE entry is typical of German mid nineteenth century "source criticism" of the historical critical method. The major German scholars of this time (FC Baur, 1860 of the Tubingen "school", Julius Wellhausen, writing in 1878 and Adolf von Harnack in 1901) are the major figures of this method which sought to understand scripture in terms of the historical developments presumed to underlie it. Regarding parables, one writer in Germany Adolf Julicher rejected the allegorical readings of parables and maintained that no detail of a parable represents something else and were meant as simple, realistic illustrations. For example, Julicher observed that the father of the prodigal son would not have run to greet his wayward son as it was an undignified response in that time period. However, later schools of hermeneutics reject such literalism as a profound misreading of the literary genres of the bible. Allegorical excess is to be avoided, but how can we approach the parable of the Prdigal SOn without at some level seeing a similarity between God and the father in the parable? Regardless, the JE fragment toils in the rear of such monumental figures like as Baur and Julicher and by the time of its publication, was obsolete as form criticism and giants such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann were emerging. It is at best a slice of a dated approach to biblical exegesis but in its fragmentary form, utterly lacking in detail or argument, it is completely worthless - a ruinous stain on the article. Its inclusion evidences a lack of discernment on the part of the editors, of poor taste and an inability to judge good material from bad. The only argument being offered to support its inclusion is merely because it is "there", a kind of philosophy that could only be the child of the internet. Samual the Ghosts writes "although personally I find it more amusing than anything else" evidences the point: we are to be amused by entries in the wikipedia, rather than consider the sublimity of the parable. Hence the wikipedia is at best a sophomoric joke and at worst, a point form list and distillation of mediocre public domain and dated varia. Further, to find the entry amusing leads one to wonder if this parable and we other editors, are being treated with respect. Why is Samual going to the mat to enshrine an entry he finds merely amusing? Is there no connection between the principles he holds true and the material he selects? The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a general criticsm of the methodology in its entry on parables. It is also a contemporary to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The JE fragment on the good samartian should be removed as irrelevant and weak, dragging down the quality of the whole article. However, if it is to kept, I propose the inclusion of the CE's general view of these trends in 19th German hermeneutics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Pottergreen's last sentence. I will reserve comment on the rest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think both the text for the JE and CE need to be shortened there since they have UNDUE weight in this article now. It is like an article on the history of US devoting 70% to the state of Delaware. So both items need to become 1 or 2 sentences to be given balance, not become dissertations on a minor issue. History2007 (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how the interpretation of the parable can be considered a "minor issue". I think balance should be achieved in exactly the opposite way to History2007's suggestion. What's needed is further analyses and appraisals by scholars of differing viewpoints. A modern Protestant view would be particularly helpful. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, add Buddhist and Hindu views too. Will not hurt in your approach I guess. It would be fun to read. By the way, there are people in Japan who claim the tomb of Jesus is there. Maybe you want to ask their view too. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If there was a serious published discussion of this parable written by a respected scholar commenting from a Buddhist or Hindu perspective, of course it would be worth including. You seem to be implying that only Christian views are allowed. That would be quite unreasonable, as well as a breach of WP:NPOV. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am all for good NPOV, PONV, VONP etc. How about MTBOAT? Missed the Boat? I think the discussion in this article has missed the boat on the "meaning and impact" of this parable, the way it affected the views on social kindness to others, affected social structures, and in Europe legal issues. The term Good Samaritan law is briefly mentioned in the See also section, but barely discussed. Yet the fact is that in France this is taken seriously and if someone is bleeding on the street not helping them is illegal. So instead of that discussion this MTBOAT article is discussing "Collector coins" (give me a break) and 100 year old obscure encyclopedic issues about how some single author considered the parable changed. So the discussion is a joke at best, and a sad joke at that. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Pottergreen)The JE fragment mentions "dogmatic reasons"...what dogmatic reasons? The JE fragment mentions the parable was changed: changed by whom? the gospel writers, the post-apostolic fathers, the ante-nicene writers? The JE article claims it was Anti-Jewish application: what does that mean? There is too much ambiguity. It is also a product of a particular time and highly derivative save applying the means to anti-semitic ends. The JE fragment suggests an anti-allegorical reading, whihc leads into a protestant reading of that time period (eg rejection of catholic tradition and papacy and monopoly). On its own, the JE fragment is a distraction from the essence of the parable itself. The Enclopedia Biblica also mentions a fragmentary reference to the historicity of the good samaritan:"Parables and history are easily confounded, so that even Sir Philip Sidney speaks with mild surprise of theologians of his time who denied the historicity of the parable of the good Samaritan." (p.1439; its on google books) So there was some kind of debate, a tributary of a larger debate over allegory and history, All of which requires a wider context and a different topic. Our article does not mention the major church writers on that parable, nor is there a modern protestant view. I have run across Muslim and Buddhist reaction to parables in general, not in scholarly form, but with friends who are practicing those religions and they focus on the morality and lessons learned, and there is little to disagree with: why would either answer the question of "who is my neighbour" any differently? Its a socratic method, any other answer makes you look mean spirited. Im wading through Karl Barth's "Church Dogmatics" looking for a protestant view. Its online or partially online. AS are the early Christian writers. Chrsitians writers do not own a monopoly on the parables interpretation, but given that it is a central teaching o n love, there is more information from Xian writers, more theological discussion., etc.

So Im propose additions to come; Ive read some other encyclopedic references on style and content: some are essentialist, focusing only on the matter at hand (good Samaritan parable), and make links to related issues (g.s. laws, , allegory vs literalism, gospel of mark etc.). Others are detailed but provide context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Pottergreen, if you feel like writing a new section on meaning and impact that discusses the social implications, laws etc. with refs that would be great. History2007 (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Context

I (pottergreen)was reading Calvins Commentaries on Mark, Matthew and Luke; he suggests that the three accounts report the same event, noting their similarities and differences. Such "harmonies" are important bible study techniques as well as emphasizing Calvin's view that the bible is a unified narrative, which excessive allegory tended to diminish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I seemed to have messed up the historical context section...sorry, ill try to repair it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Calvin and the allegorical readings

Calvin gives us a representative response to anti-allegorical readings, which hints at his position on free will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Calvin item you added was very nice and the last parag says it all. By the way, if you add 4 ~ symbols after your comment, it automatically gets your signature. Calvin's views on free will are a very long story, however, and conflict with Augustine & Aquinas etc. So that is another Pandora's box not to open. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The anti-allegorical (or as he calls it, "natural meaning") reading by Calvin actually sets up the Jewish Encyclopedia reading. We have the traditional allegory, then Calvin's "naturalism", then the JE's historicity (with the Catholic Enc. refs to Strauss, Julicher etc., critique of confusing history with parable but then the CE re-introduces allegory). So the reader is taken from the strong allegorical tradition of the early Church to the reformation-minded attention to scripture and the demand for a clear literal meaning, then this literal meaning becoming a demand for certainty on the historical reliability of the passage. So there is a strong range of approaches. I suppose a contemporary position should be researched. Pottergreen (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More context

Someone needs to put it in its full Jewish context. The point is not merely that the priest and the Levite are bad people, but that they are worried contact with a dead person may render them ritually unclean. That's why they "pass by on the opposite side." In their worry about one part of the Law, they transgress a greater part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.0.193 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That's not in there? Leadwind (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Vermes

I added the material about Vermes discounting the parable. I think Vermes is wrong, but I'm just an editor, not an expert, and it's my duty to report what the experts say. Vermes' negative opinion apparently drew a defender into the mix to do some counter-points editing. My personal beliefs are not at issue, as as long as we all cleave to good WP policy and practice, I'm sure the article will be better all around for the attention it gets. Vermes, for those who might not recognize the name, is one of the most important voices in the study of historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is capture the range of different views which different scholars have on the topic. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity

Seeing as editors have neglected the courtesy of discussing the wholesale changes to the entry, I will at least discuss it here in this new entry. I have added William Placher's commentary on the authenticity issue; it is the obvious problem that a fictitious illustration is not meant to correspond to a historical description. Jesus was not referring to a specific incident but illustrating a moral. The previous version under the heading of "late nineteenth century Jewish perspective" contrasting Jewish and Catholic encyclopedia references was far simpler and superior, providing direct quotations only from the original public domain works and led to other hermeneutical issues and authors at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The JE relied entirely on Joseph Halévy, whose opinion is still covered. The Placher quote is a good one, though. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Halévy is dead and so is source criticism.Pottergreen (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Many people miss the meaning of a parable and discuss the events from 2,000 years ago. As is, events from 2 years ago are still unclear as to how some actor died of what causes, so discussing a road from 2,000 years ago is just talk & talk. I wonder if some of those scholars like Vermes see someone with a flat tire on a rainy road bother to stop and help them change the tire. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are few refutations from orthodox Christian sources because the authenticity debate toils at the fringes; no one takes it seriously, as i) historical analysis is as you observe complicated by over 2000 years, dead languages and customs unknown and as ii) it was a strategy in vogue (source criticism) 100 years ago but now long abandoned, becuase iii) a parable is a fiction; history, non fiction; using one to determine the validity of the other is a fool's errand, mimicking scientific pretensions in interpretation. Minor footnote scholars such as Vermes or the Jesus Seminar can hardly be representative as anything but idiosyncrasies, and as such the authenticity debate is a dull entry here. It was better left as the earlier 19th century Jewish perspective. (Pottergreen).

There are some bone-headed articles in Wikipedia, especially on religious topics, but this one takes the biscuit. PiCo (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is bone-headed about the article? -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And could we have a formal definition of bone-headed, approved by a sub-committee of the United Nations please? Just kidding... History2007 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the E.P. Sanders references as it had nothing to do with the issue of authenticity, instead praising the ethics, referring to Thomas Jefferson; a nice entry mind you, but better off in the ethics section.. I also moved the Placher quote to the end as it is a point on biblical genre and authenticity, whereas the JE/Vermes/J.Seminar speculations about authenticity and the excellent commentary on Luke are specific to historical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wrt Thomas Jefferson, but I think the Placher quote relates especially to historicity. I've reorganised and trimmed authenticity as follows:

1. Did it really happen/was it really about a Samaritan? (Halévy) It's ethical, not historical (Placher)
2. The shock value of the Samaritan's appearance is deliberate (various)
3. Did it originally involve the lawyer's question? (Scott) Why not? (Forbes) -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Placher quote was great. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Brandon Scott material; The Gospel writers paraphrased Jesus ministry; but to say that Luke joined an oral tradition with a parable is not an argument against authenticity unless Jesus did not actually believe that oral tradition of eternal life, and there is absolutely no evidence of that, indeed his ministry was dedicated to it. If I believe in a free market and low taxes, a parable vindicating both would be an authentic representation of my philosophy. Rather, that quote should be in a section regarding "harmonization with other gospels"; I had once upon a time here reported John Calvin's harmonization of the Lukan account with the other two, discussing the lawyer's question etc. and it was removed, but the issue of "harmonization" seems to be re-emerging. Again, with my apologies to the person who worked to provide the Scott material, it should be part of an issue on harmonization or "authorship". Im going to check my dusty hermenutics text to find out what word they use to describe that kind of analysis. Calvin called it "harmony". Pottergreen (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Im using Hubbard, Blomberg and Klein's "Introduction to Biblical Interpretation" That text observes that the Gospels are not meant to be read anachronistically, as if to measure up to modern literary conventions. That book calls this "tradition criticism" and claims that the Jesus Seminar was preceded by the radical work of Rudolf Bultmann. However, the problem with tradition criticism is that it was the norm for authors in the time of Jesus to paraphrase and digest long speeches, to select material for a specific theological emphasis (but not contradiction or invention). What is the purpose of interpretation? To understand the meaning of the author to the audience intended. Hence, the idea of a Samaritan parable shocking its audience escapes us now because we dont know from Samaritans. It shocked Halevy to the point of denying its accuracy. IF it were retold today and the parable was changed to a man robbed while going to church and discovered by a priest, a minister and a homosexual, it would shock conservative church-goers; back then, Samaritans! Of course, like Halevy, you might have an evangelical claiming that "no homosexual would be found on their way to church" but one can see the problem of such an assetion, ie missing the whole point. tPottergreen (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just delete a properly-sourced paragraph just because you disagree with it (and neither can I). Scott is questioning the authenticity of Luke's account of the context of the parable, in a way that several other liberal scholars also do, so that it's certainly worth noting. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Scott material does not question authenticity. You are misreading Scott. The quote stated ""The existence of the lawyer's question in Mark and Matthew, in addition to the evidence of heavy Lukan editing, indicates that the parable and the question of eternal life were separate in the oral tradition and were very probably joined editorially by Luke." What has this to do authenticity? He is speculating that an oral tradition was joined editorially to the parable, the quote does not say "therefore it is inauthentic". Where are you reading authenticity? Scott, in that quote, is not saying the parable inauthentic; he only saying that the question of "eternal life" was separate from the parable and joined.If the oral tradition is authentic to Jesus beliefs, and the parable originated from Jesus, how is it inauthentic in Luke? Is Luke contradicting Jesus? It might be an issue of paraphrasing, but no more than that. It does not belong here. You are misreading Scott, or quoting very badly. According to the Jesus Seminar, which Scott is a member, the parable is considered authentic. Are you saying that the Jesus Seminar disagreed on its authenticity, if Scott who is also a member, disagreed? If so, the JS entry is confusing and the added Scott material moreso. It doesnt belong here.

You are free to start another section on harmonization with other gospels or purported "oral traditions" but I would recommend closer readings of the source materials.Pottergreen (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Scott clearly thinks that the parable is authentic, but the combination of the parable with "who is my neighbour?" is not. Personally, I disagree, but that's his opinion. Have you read his book? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting Scott. You now introduce the idea that Scott questions the "authenticity of the parables context" but Scott does not state either context to be inauthentic. Scott says that in Luke the "setting is strikingly different"; this is not inauthenticity. The link to the quoted pages of Scott clearly states that "it is outside our purview whether Luke has modified Mark or Q, or whether there is some source-critical solution". The question of authenticity, as posed originally by the Halevy quote in the JE, concerned modification, that the original Jesus parable was changed by the church to suit an anti-semetic agenda. All Scott will propose is that Luke joined oral traditions, but does not say they are inauthentic to Jesus ministry or that the traditions were changed, merely mashed together into one narrative.

The question here is relevance. Authenticity in an Encyclopedia article suffers if it is changed to mean "context" instead of "historical trustworthiness". It is not reader-friendly becuase an ordinary reader, just looking for information, will confuse Scott's view as a question of historical reliability, which Scott refuses to address or that Scott views the Lukan entry as inauthentic, which he does not later in that chapter. The entry has to be consistent in its headings. It would merit a separate heading.

Scott contradicts himself, Though he views the presence of the parable in the lawyers narrative as "strikingly different" and therefore indicating some kind of editorial alteration, he paradoxically views the unexpected appearance of a Samaritan as evidence of its reliability as a parable of Jesus. Halevy original argument was that such striking contrasts were evidence of editorial alteration; Scott is inconsistent, saying more about his character than his academic consistency, preferring "scandalous comparison" as authentic in the bible but rejecting orthodoxy on authorship. Scott seems to thrive on controversy. Encyclopedias do not, seeking instead the common denominator.Pottergreen (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Scott very clearly questions whether the parable, as Jesus originally told it, was about the question "who is my neighbour?"

He is therefore questioning the authenticity of one aspect of Luke's account (and isn't the only scholar to do so). This is a different authenticity issue from Halévy, who thinks the Samaritan was a later addition. Scott may indeed be inconsistent in so doing, but that's a personal opinion (which I share, but that's beside the point).

However Wikipedia does not "seek the common denominator" in this kind of question, but presents the different points of view, which is what the article currently does. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are now grossly misinterpreting Scott. Scott does not say the question of the neighbor is inauthentic, but rather the issue of eternal life was joined by Luke: "The existence of the lawyer's question in Mark and Matthew, in addition to the evidence of heavy Lukan editing indicates that the parable and the question of ETERNAL LIFE were separate in the oral tradition." (191)You have redacted Scott, mixing a quote about eternal life and his later observations about neighbour. This tends to misrepresent Scott, who says in the same quoted passage that the parralel structure of the parable "exemplifies neighborliness". Scott later in that discussion observes that the issue of neighbour is actually "unresolved" (191), noting that if they were separate from a position of form criticism, it gives some clues about the "original parable" as a "breaking down of barriors" (192), and to the original target audience (gentile or jew); Scott assumes that form criticism position on the issue of neighbour as a "reading" of Luke, he renders a "reading" for a proposed Jewish audience, but its a speculation based on an unresolved position via form criticism. He only states that some scholars (julicher) argue that the definition of neighbour shifts from someone I love to someone who loves me; he maybe sympathetic to the form critical approach but wont commit. He is sure, however, that ETERNAL LIFE was a separate. Its a rather technical point Scott is making. What is the educative value of such strategies?

you also admit that the issues raised by Scott are not of the same type raised by the other entries on authenticity, which is confusing to the reader. I think we must err on the side of consistency in headings and avoid confused entries; Im not sure where the paragraph could be placed, its seems like a minor point in a larger discussion (proposed audience - Jew or gentile?)Pottergreen (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not "redacted" Scott, but quoted him accurately. The fact that he makes certain comments about the Lukan form of the parable doesn't detract from his remarks about authenticity. Nor is it "confusing to the reader" to discuss two kinds of authenticity in one section. I can see that you don't like the paragraph, but I'm not seeing any convincing reasons to delete it, nor indeed any consensus to do so. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Scott paragraph is not accurately representative of the cited material. Scott argues the issue of "eternal life" is separate, stated clearly and concisely on p 191: "The existence of the lawyer's question in Mark and Matthew, in addition to the evidence of heavy Lukan editing indicates that the parable and the question of ETERNAL LIFE were separate in the oral tradition." The parable and the question of eternal life. Radagast has quoted selected sentences from page 192 of the quoted passage, which focuses on the issue of neighbour, and blended it with selected quotations on page 191 of that work, which deals with the question of eternal life. This is appalling scholarship, bordering on falsification. Do you normally read texts from the back cover to front? Irregardless, nowhere does the issue of authenticity come up. Scott beleives these oral traditions are all "authentic" to the times, not later additions, its a matter of their editorial placement in Luke.

Scott on p 192 denies Radagast quoted material. Radigast supplies "the parable originally circulated separately from the question about neighborliness"(192), yet is questioned by Scott in the very next line! "this observation does not explain why Luke used this parable as an example of a good neighbour." (192)and Scott later observes that the parable WAS indeed an issue of neighbour "In some profound way this parable has to do with breaking down barriers, which Luke has symbolized with the question "who is my neighbour" (192) So Scott is not refuting the authenticity of neighbour or even seeing it as a separate oral tradition. He is arguing against the form-critical approach that only separates the two (i.e., shift in its form from "who I must love" to "who loves me?") via a "reading" of the Lukan passage to conclude that Luke saw IN the parable a profound question of neighbour that Luke paraphrased into a lawyers question. Scott argues the opposite of what Radagast has quoted. And in neither approach, form-critical or Scott's "reading" is neighbourliness or the parable doubted in terms of its authenticity, only whether they were extant oral traditions that got joined by Luke. It is a highly complex but minor point in our understanding of the meaning of the parable.Pottergreen (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) Scott describes the discourse between Jesus and the lawyer both in terms of the eternal life question and in terms of the neighbour question. It's still the same discourse. This does not alter his suggestion that the discourse was attached to the parable by Luke, with edits to make them consistent.

(2)Scott is distinguishing between the parable Jesus told and the parable Luke wrote down: the latter is certainly focussed on being a neighbour. The fact that you're seeing two consecutive sentences by Scott as contradictory is a clue that you are misunderstanding what he is saying. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Radagast has provided no defence for redacting Scott. It is original research masquerading as Scott.While true the chapter of the book quoted concerns the parable and therefore everything in that chapter "discourses" on the theme of that parable, we cannot conclude that becuase Scott sees eternal life as a separate oral tradition, that he therefore maintains the same for everything else. This is foolish. Note my objections quote specifically from the referenced material. Radagast does not quote from the referenced material, only proposes a very weak argument that Scott's chapter "dicourses" on the good samaritan. Scott is quoting other commentators position, a form-critical observation that the parable was separate from neighbour, becuase the question of "who do I love" is changed to "who loves me". Scott then states this shift is significant from that "form-critical" point of view, but that it is too narrow. He is saying, "yes, it is separate if that was the only consideration, but why does Luke choose neighbour and not some other virtue?" He then goes on to deconstruct the form critical view using historical evidence. Scott states that ancient civilizations drew a line between themselves and "outsiders" and that the early Christian experience was one of dissolving those barriers. Scott goes on to establish that in a "profound way" the parable in its original form has to do with the breaking down of barriers which Luke summed up with the question "who is my neighbour" becuase early Christians were breaking down tribal barriers, an experience Scott describes as "profound", hence an authentic oral tradition that Luke paraphrases in one concise question. No issue of authenticity, perhaps of paraphrasing at best. Scott is defending Luke. radagast is taking an argument in midstream, and proposing it to fit a completed argument in another section, neither of which question its authenticity. Scott is tricky to read, and easy to misinterpret, which is why a close reading and conservative approach is required.

I note that radagast is furiously busybodying himself editing the disputed paragraph, an interesting move, given that a third party has agreed to render an opinion.Pottergreen (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be far more involved an issue than I can reasonably opine on, given that I've never studied the topic. However, I would remind both of the disputant editors to WP:AGF. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Andrensath (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Radagast3

There is an ongoing dispute about deleting or retaining the last paragraph of the Authenticity section (beginning "Bernard Brandon Scott") which I would argue summarises scholarly opinion for and against the authenticity of the context of the parable (i.e. the lawyer's question and the last 2 verses). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Pottergreen

Scott definitively separates the question of eternal life and the parable. Radagast selectively quotes material from a later discussion of neighbour with selected quoted on the issue of eternal life, presenting it as if it was Scott's position. This is an unfortunate fabrication. See my detailed comments, chapter and verse. Scott actually "reads" Luke as true to the original parable on the issue of neighbour (p 192 of the material) but Luke paraphrases with the question of neighbour.

The rebuttal material in the paragraph evidence questionable reading. The Forbes material only considers the issue of "keen rabbinic interest in the greatest commandment" as an answer to one of two possible harmonization strategies of the Lukan account with the other biblical narratives of the parable in terms of a source-critical approach. The Snodgrass reference does not refer to anything meaningful or specific.

The authenticity segment of this entry is being inflated by busybody antics; I notice the Jesus Seminar entry being weighed down now with addition of a "score" of 60% red flags, ridiculous. There is no point for me to improve the entry becuase Radagast has demonstrated a stubborn and possessive disposition defending a paragraph as wretched as the one he is defending. The paragraph is structurally sound: opinion and rebuttal, balancing the ideas, but they are badly misquoted.

Further, these issues tend to be highly complex yet minor debates that exist in academia. Like a dictionary, an encyclopedia must provide concise and relevant definition, what is the essential nature of the good samaritan: that Luke may have paraphrased two oral traditions and rebuttals? Or that a scholar 100 years ago questioned whether a Samaritan could be found on that road and rebuttals? These are tertiary observations at the very fringe of relevance. The material on ethics, historical context and allegorical interpretations are secondary but relevant. Snodgrass observes that one must possess a thorough knowledge of hermeneutics in order to debate these tertiary issues. We have to assume the reader to be ignorant (why else use the wiki) not an expert. Pottergreen (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Andrensath

Too complex for me. Feel free to seek a 3O from somebody else, or start an RfC on the issue. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the attempt. I note that it remains as an open question at Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming From the 3O board: I will take a whack at it myself for a second third (fourth fifth sixth...) opinion. I'm currently reviewing the matter thus far. WCityMike 00:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Third Opinion Request

Hello. This is a response to your recent request for a third opinion. The opinion offered here is not one that has any authority greater or more special than any participant's opinion here; it should not be considered a tiebreaker and does not count towards creating a sense of consensus; its purpose is merely to offer a fresh opinion from someone new to the situation.

Opinion. You two are discussing things on such an advanced level of expertise that no one in the Third Opinion board is qualified to render a useful opinion in this matter. (And I like to consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but you swiftly surpassed my ability to follow you.) I'm going to leave this off the Third Opinion board; you're welcome to put it back on there if you disagree, but I think it's a timewaster for you as you'll almost certainly just get more well-meaning people who come here and swiftly realize it's beyond their ken. So where do you go from here? Certainly you're not the only Biblical scholars on Wikipedia; the question is getting people who know what you're talking about to this disagreement so that consensus can be reached on the issues in question. I'd set up a request for comment (by Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. If that doesn't work, then perhaps the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee will end up resolving your question. My educated guess, however, is that WP:3O is not going to be useful to you. Anyway, that's my 2¢.

Next up. The purpose of a third opinion is to provide a single third opinion from an objective outsider who has no investment in an existing disagreement between two users; it is not meant to provide an ongoing mediation process. Mediation is available on Wikipedia from volunteer mediators, but not from third opinion volunteers.

Hopefully, my opinion has been of use. However, if the parties are still unable to resolve their differences, I suggest you proceed further into the dispute resolution process. Your options include a request for comment, noticeboard post, WikiProject post, wikiquette alert, or a request for either informal or formal mediation. Each of the links in that sentence should take you to a place where you can begin said process, although I suggest you begin small and work upwards.

If, despite this response and despite the limited role of a third-opinion provider, you feel further assistance is still needed, please indicate here your concerns, and then alert me to the need for further follow-up by clicking here to notify me on my talk page. (I may not have this page on my watchlist.) I will then post the requested follow-up here on this page. I suggest it be done this way to avoid ex parte discussions, or, more candidly, to prevent disagreements from migrating to my talk page. :) WCityMike 01:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Talk ⇨ Editor assistance ⇨ Third opinion ⇨ Request for comment ⇨ Wikiquette ⇨ Mediation (informal) ⇨ Mediation (formal) ⇨ Arbitration

Thank you for your assistance. I have listed the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See the RfC at the bottom of this page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a couple days late, but I may be able to assist. One thing, though. Pottergreen, the above clearly says To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. Instead of doing this, you wrote 3 paragraphs, which suffers from TL;DR. Would you be willing to try to summarize your position in far less words? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Reliability

I have renamed the Authenticity section to Historical Reliability, as the former heading led to ambiguity; where the initial entries concerned historical observations, the later entries on Scott et. al, concern harmonization.

Scotts discussion of the Lukan account in the original "Authenticity" are premised on the observation that they differ from the other biblical accounts. MATTHEW 22:34-40; MARK 12:28-34;LUKE 10:25-37; these are issues of harmonization based on a comparison to other biblical passages on similar events, not authenticity or reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentaries generally discuss these issues under "Authenticity," but I can live with this as a title. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Radagast continues with his misinterpretation of Scott. BTW, which commentaries are you referring to? Pottergreen (talk

Archiver's note: Section ends at this point in the original.