I thought that the point of contention between Samaria and Judea/Israel was that the Jews were pure-blood and Samaria was mixed-race…Israelite and Phillistine?
According to the OED, it’s from the Latin Samaritanus, from the Greek demonym Samareitēs from their word for the country Samareia. It doesn’t mention why there’s a T in the demonym. Perhaps that’s a feature of the Greek language that I’m not remembering.
As someone who attended Catholic school and was taught the history behind the parable and the context of “Good Samiritan,” I find that absolutely hilarious. Mitchell and Webb can do no wrong.
The official reason was that the Jews performed sacrifices exclusively at the Temple, whereas the Samaritans perform them exclusively at Mount Gerizim (present tense because they still do). So, different versions of how and where to worship the same God. Sound familiar?
Are you asking if that’s a fable, or if people refer to someone who helps someone else as “the mouse who helped a lion”? Because depending on which version of the fable you’re talking about, the mouse wasn’t so much generous as suicidally stupid…
Also would need to include the part about people of the same group as the robbed man, Jews it happened to be in this case, passing by on the opposite side of the road to avoid him. The parable was said to be given in answer to the question by a devout Jew, a scribe, ‘who is my neighbor?’, in turn in response to Jesus’ command to ‘love your neighbor’. So at the end of the parable, it’s asked ‘who is the robbed man’s neighbor?’, and Jesus approves of the scribe’s answer that it’s the one who showed compassion. There is, like other such passages/parables, not just one obvious meaning but possible variations. But the general theme that some insiders (ie. Jesus’ own people) did not live the true meaning, as given by Jesus, of the law despite professing it, whereas some looked down up outsiders could intuitively understand and act on the true meaning, is a common one and pretty central to the story.
I agree this understanding of the parable tends to be limited to actively practicing Christians or others with a particular interest in the religion, and not everyone in ‘Christian cultures’ in the sense of the West. OTOH the stripped down secular meaning of ‘somebody who comes to the aid of others’ is so generic it doesn’t seem really worth asking what other cultures call it. Also keeping in mind that Christianity is not limited to the West let alone just English speakers, in some other cultures Christians understand the parable in its Biblical context, but the term wouldn’t used in the watered down secular sense it is in English.
Thank you for the nice explanation Nava. I would like to point out that in the Indian / Hindu context legends and parables get mixed up because some of the characters are 3000+ years old and many records in India got destroyed by invaders (sort of like the dark ages in Europe). So take the example of Vikramaditya (Vikramaditya - Wikipedia). This character is both called a legend and a mythical character on the wiki page. And it boils down to belief over accuracy.
One of the things I read suggested that the Samarians were descendants from some of the 12 tribes that rejected the Temple Hierarchy in Jerusalem and their demands for annual taxes. Hence they worship in their own central location, and over the millennia since the Babylonian exile have developed their own version of Judaism. As usual, the near neighbor was hated more than complete and different groups.
You mean the 0.5 millennium?
I was thinking the 2.5 (or is it 2.6) millennia. Although you are right, it only took 0.5 millennia for them to become despised by the Jerusalem orthodoxy.
Photo - Samaritans marking Sukkot on Mount Gerizim, West Bank
Should also point out the inn that the Good Samaritan took the traveller to, can be found on the highway from Jerusalem to Jericho. The crusaders arrived in 1100 and wanted to see all the spots mentioned in the bible, and the locals were happy to oblige - for a fee. Hence the last supper was also celebrated in the upstairs room of a house we can still visit, but built a millennium later. There are two tombs for Jesus, and a shepherd’s field for each denomination in Bethlehem.
This makes no sense at all. Why would speaking English interfere with the ability to understand a foreign language?
:dubious:
When you are talking about a Jewish born person, explaining a parable to a Jewish audience, about Jews and neighbours relations, the “Judeo” part can be dropped?
Never never have I heard of this. The good Samaritan is just one of many and one who chose the path of being good above all else, including ethnic divides. Never have I heard that this indicates all Samaritans are good, just this one (any any others who do likewise). In biblical context it shows that goodness of God is in all cultures, but not omnipresent in all cultures.
When you are talking about the Christian parts of “Judeo-Christian,” just drop the pretense. The story of the “Good Samaritan” is meaningless to Jews, as are any other expressions derived from the gospels or the epistles. I happened to take some classes in college, because I find Christianity highly entertaining, and that makes me the far and widest expert on it on most Jewish circles. Most Jews are totally clueless on the origin of terms like “Good Samaritan,” or for that matter, “Easter egg” (in reference to video games). The “golden rule” sounds just like something Hillel once said.
It seems to me that Christians like to say “Judeo-Christian,” because it gives some kind of provenance to their faith that it hasn’t really earned.
:dubious:
Actually lots of :dubious::dubious::dubious:
Christianity developed from Judaism. Early Christians would have been very upset to learn that they were not Jews. Probably until well after the Romans sacked Jerusalem. Yes in the centuries and millennia that followed there has been a massive divergence between the religions.
But the parable in question in the context and to the audience and to the personalities its made, yes it absolutely is a Jewish one, a first-century Jewish one.
As for Hillel, he lived a generation before Jesus. However, his influence was vast and its extremely unlikely that Jesus was not indeed aware of his teachings. In one of the Gospels (I think) someone asks Jesus a question (about easy divorce), which was one of the major divergences between Hillel and Shammai, which as many commentators have pointed out is the asker trying to acertain which of the two schools Jesus was from.
In Acts, Paul describes himself as having been a student of Gamaliel, Hillel’s grandson. In the Talmud, I believe there is a reference to student of Gamailel which is taken as a reference to Paul.
A story isn’t about the characters - it’s about the people who tell it, the people who hear it, and the people who believe it. And in this case, those people are Christians, not Jews. Just because a piece of Christian mythology was written when the Christians were still mostly Jews doesn’t make it Jewish mythology.
So stop goysplaining our own religion to us. And happy Sukkot!
:rolleyes:
The question here is not religion. You are free to have whatever beliefs you desire. Nor is it about any influence the parable has on modern Judaism and modern belief. The question is about the historical context in which the parable was made.. That was an absolutely palpably First Century Jewish context and religion and belief don’t enter into it.
There are lots of things that were common beliefs or practices in First Century Judea which don’t exist today. proselytizing for instance was pretty big then not so much now.
Mentioning them does not make it “goysplaining”.
It is not contradictory that a Jew, or some Jews, referred to a “good Samaritan” even as the story failed to enter Jewish mythology and it would not typically occur to a Jew today (who nevertheless has almost certainly heard the expression) to refer to a good person that way.
Is that the case?
Then most Jews are very poorly educated. Not knowing the origin of very common phrases derived from the Bible when it has been so massively influential on Western Civilization for the past couple of thousand years is noting more humble-brag worthy than not knowing about phrases that derive from Shakespeare. And I say that as a strident atheist.
Yeah not to pile on but that’s a wacky post even by internet standards. The religion now known as Christianity follows the teachings of a Jew, who according to its writings held himself as a supreme scholar in the Jewish scriptures among other things. He constantly spoke and taught in the context of Judaism and Jewish life as then practiced. The key ‘popularizer’ of the religion (divinely inspired or not, doesn’t matter for this purpose what one believes), Paul aka Saul of Tarsus, was likewise a Jew and preached to an early church composed of a mix of Jews and Gentiles.
So, the fact that modern Jews might not be familiar with Christian scriptures is pretty irrelevant to whether the two religions are closely intertwined, which they obviously are, under the correct heading Judeo-Christian. Many nominal Jews today aren’t familiar with strictly Jewish scripture either. Many nominal Christians aren’t familiar with Christian scripture. Lots of people of all faiths and none don’t understand the full 1st century Jewish context of the ‘Good Samaritan’ story. So what?
Oh fer…there’s nothing Jewish about Christianity. It is an extremely Hellenic religion. Most Christians know very little about Judaism, and so they don’t realize how unJewish their religion is, no matter what they might wish. The religions are not “intertwined.” Judaism owes nothing to Christianity.
Paul preached that Judaism was not necessary for Christianity. He totally divorced the two.