Talk:Parable of the Good Samaritan

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)

References

We could do with some specific page numbers on some references. There are five citations of "Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Luke" p. 271-400." That's a block of more than 100 pages, and citing it doesn't really meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, since a reader would have to wade through the entire block looking for the various points being referred to. There's also a reference to "Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004. Chapter 10: Towards the authentic gospel. p. 370-397." which is a much smaller block, but still 28 pages. Several other references are to other large blocks, or to entire chapters, and are equally difficult to verify. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact removed one of the references to Vermes after wading through the cited section and not finding the statement accredited to him. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed some incorrect geographical information which cited a map, but on checking did not match it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you are having a monologue here let me mention that 1. The images you added were pretty good and overall I fully support your edits here. 2. I am not sure why so many people are in love with Vermes. There seems to be a Vermes fan club out there and he is just one fellow. I would not mind giving him less of a pulpit. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I also wondered why there is so much Vermes, but was reluctant to remove anything without a specific reason. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason: undue weight to one voice. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and that suggests that one or two Vermes comments might be removed, but gives no guidance as to which. So far I've addressed the WP:UNDUE issue by adding other voices instead. And some of the thing Vermes said are also said by other people.

Also I'd prefer not to start an edit war. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An edit war would require lack of consensus and two parties who are ready to revert instead of discuss. I do not see a war here. However if we have agreement that there is undue weight on Vermes, we can just trim his material. I can trim now anyway, and if you think that is not the best one to trim, just select another. In any case, I trimmed the Weasel words therein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a few things that broke as a result, but we're better off without the "who is Vermes" side-discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding all this huff and puff of authenticity, let me state as a matter of logic and common sense that ANY discussion of the authenticity of an event from 2,000 years ago in such detail and flimsy reasoning is just idiotic in my opinion, and just sells books - nothing else. Events in recent history like JFK's which had photographers around them are still unclear from a historical perspective and there are 20 theories about them. Now to argue at length about 2,000 years ago based on the estimation of if someone liked Samaritan's is just hot air and nothing else. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The authenticity debate is a large and important one, and should be retained. Vermes' argument is certainly a weak one, and contrary to the scholarly opinion which says that the most surprising things are most likely to be authentic, but can perhaps be kept in its trimmed form. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reshuffled a bit to remove duplication, but have retained Vermes' opinion, in the Halévy section. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Retained is one thing, laughed at is another. Regardless of the Wikipage the books are out there and people discuss it - other like me laugh at the discussions as less than intelligent. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 5 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

Harmonization with other Gospels

Here is where the Brandon Scott material can materialize. Scott's work are based on harmonizing the Lukan account with other similar biblical passage. (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-37). Ive started with the great John Calvin, who sees them as similar and yet not connected.Pottergreen (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Ive also added the rest of the disputed paragraph into this section. Again, the basis of the arguments are in comparing them to other gospels and trying to square them. This also solves the issue of "authenticity" as a headline for both historical and harmoniacal isues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With the heading change to "Historical reliability", this material fits better with the rest, which has the advantage that the two aspects of the Jesus Seminar commentary are more closely integrated. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the Jesus Seminar.Pottergreen (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

After all, Scott's claim relates to an aspect of the historical reliability of Luke's account, namely whether the parable was actually told in that specific context. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An aspect of historical reliability? This is the same kind of "aspect" that creates a conceptual garbage can into which anything can be thrown.Pottergreen (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Calvin material clearly identifies the biblical passages in question. It is important to identify all 3 texts that other critics refer to. The material under this heading are products of horizontal comparisons with the gospel passages. The full Calvin quote mentions that the differences between the Lukan text and Mark, Matthew are merely becuase Luke mentions the circumstances of the questions in another passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottergreen (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC) The Brandon Scott material is in clear dispute and must be removed pending some kind of resolution. Irregardless, as a member of the Jesus Seminar, there is no good reason to call out his particular views anyway, as that group can speak on behalf of its members, with the quote provided, lest someone find a list of those members, google-book their work, and cherry pick a quote out of context until their google reading privileges are revoked.Pottergreen (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy would, I believe, be for retaining the disputed material until there is a consensus to delete, unless you can provide a clearer explanation of why the material should be deleted.

As the article says, a number of other commentators share Scott's opinion; he is therefore representative of a class of scholars, whose opinion is notable. I've re-read the relevant two pages of Scott, and I believe I've represented his views accurately.

I also think the present structure flows much better than what you had, which separated some "response" sentences from their original context.

You are correct that the Bible passages should be identified: I've hyperlinked them in the Calvin quote. I also believe its important to quote Calvin's "it may be the same narrative", which gives a clearer view of his opinion.

I'm not sure why you reverted the complete Calvin citation back to a bare url.

I also believe that this discussion would be easier if we followed Wikipedia:Civility. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not permit original research. Your view is that the question of neighbour is a separate oral tradition, and purport it to be Bernard Scott's position, but it is NOT in fact his position (he briefly considers the question and then rebuts it). If there are other scholars, then supply them. I cant recall a specific quote but I beleive the work of Rudolf Bultmann is the most radical of the group (whom the Jesus Seminar owe much to). Scott is clearly moved by the idea of "breaking down barriers" that entails neighbourliness and considers Luke authentic to the intent of the parable. He's not the best source anyway.

Its a problem with kerygma arguments, sure, we can deduce from John, Mark and Matthew that Zebedee's wife's name was Salome and that she and Jesus' mother Mary were sisters. Jesus would then have been cousins with his two disciples, John and James. This may have been widely understood by early Christians so the gospel writers felt no need to spell it out.But we cannot prove any of it. SImilarly with Scott's appropriation of oral traditions, there is no audio or video recordings of what that oral tradition and what its assumptions may be. It leads Scott to write complex positions: he considers the form-critical significance of neighbour, then considers it inadequate due to a rather emotional and sentimental argument that "breaking down barriers" is deeply profound. What you need is a Halevy.

The material is best left separated into two headings: the Halevy material and rebuts concern that very issue of historical reliability, eg the story got changed to suit some agenda, the original story would have read differently owing to this historical fact (no Samaritan in Judea rule). The other material concerns horizontal comparisons of the gospel verses and why the Lukan account differs from the Mark and Matthew circumstances. Scott relies on those comparisons, where the Halevy objection relies on an external criteria (no Samaritan in Judea rule).

The complete Calvin quote contains a very huge clue: the differences between Mark, Matt. and Luke regarding the circumstances of the lawyer's question, where different, were mentioned ELSEWHERE in Luke. Luke has already noted the circumstance described in the comparison verses (MK, MT). This would tend to undermine Scott's view that the differences evidence heavy Lukan editing - one must assume the passages are referring to the same event. Scotts assumption is that they are, but good old Calvin demonstrates the circumstance is noted elsewhere in Luke. Luke felt no need to reiterate them. Again, these are issues regarding harmonization, comparison strategies, not historical facts. Blending them under one heading lacks precision.

I beleive the virtue of Wiki civility to be as important as correct interpretations of quoted material. Our primary duty inherent to civility is to be civil to the intent of the quoted authors and accurately represent quoted viewpoints, not superimpose and reconstruct their quotes to paraphrase an alternative vision. Our dispute merely concerns Scott and neighbour-as-separate. Unlike previous entries, this section is much better than before becuase it balances the viewpoints. We are both passionate about this, so much the better than apathy.

I had some friends check the entry (non-experts). One thing that stood out is oral tradition and what it referred to: is it Jesus oral tradition or some common belief of early Christians about what Jesus taught or any idea floating around Judea at the time? One person wondered how could anyone know about an oral tradition unless they built a time machine: all you have is the bible. The only thing I can think of is that Scot et. al. are merely comparing gospels and accounting for the differences...thats the argument (and hence should be headed under "harmonizaton" )Pottergreen (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear response. Let me take it point-by-point:

(1) There is no "original research" here. Everything is drawn for a selection of standard commentaries, and fully referenced.

(2) You are, in my view, misunderstanding Scott. He does not "briefly consider the question and then rebut it." Rather, he responds very positively to the parable in its Lukan form, while questioning aspects of the historicity of Luke's account. Scott says explicitly that the question at the end "is part of the Lukan formulation" but seems to believe that there is something "profound" about the parable that justifies Luke bringing the "neighbour" concept into it. Scott also raises the "twist" in which Luke has Jesus not directly answering the lawyer's question - an issue that both Green and the OBC address.

(3) Forbes lists 6 scholars who believe Luke has done substantial editing, and there are lots more (presumably, most of the Jesus Seminar).

(4) I see no benefit in splitting the "Historical reliability" section, since Scott is addressing the question: "Did this episode occur as Luke describes it?" Such a split would also separate the Jesus Seminar endorsement of the parable from their qualification, so that honesty would require duplicating the qualification in a somewhat messy way. In any case, there is an outstanding RfC on the section.

(5) We could quote more Calvin, but that seems pointless to me, in that he sits on the fence a little regarding whether the three gospels are describing the same episode, and doesn't seem to address the fact that Matthew and Mark don't mention "who is my neighbour?" and that Mark/Matthew and Luke disagree on who is the person who quotes the law. I'm sure there are better sources out there that could be quoted.

(6) I think this article has benefited from input by many people, including yourself. It's probably the best of the parable articles. However, it has to strike a careful WP:NPOV balance, or it will oscillate forever between liberal and conservative viewpoints. It has to do justice to all sides, which requires a bit of WP:Writing for the opponent. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) The issue I have raised is your assessment that Brandon Scott questions the authenticity of the parable; you have taken quotes regarding his definitive position on "eternal life" (p. 191) and applying them to the more problematic position on "neighbour" (p 192). You once had p. 191 quoted in its complete form, then you changed it to "neighbour". It is quite obvious, even in the edit history, what you have done. My comments in the discussion over "authenticity" quote from Scott demonstrate my observation.

Further, your definition of historical reliability is far too vague for an encyclopedia; clarity and distinction is vital. You say the critics question "aspects of the historicity of Luke's account". What external criteria are they referring to that would lead to skepticism? None. Their argument is a harmonization strategy with other gospel accounts. Indeed, Scott uses historical evidence to demonstrate that both Luke and the parable "break down barriers" of sectarian norms in ancient civilizations, that the Christian community was at odds with this norm, hence the profundity, distinction and uniqueness of the Christian experience. it is authentic and historically reliable, which Luke merely paraphrases into one singularity: "who is thy neighbor?" To think that Scott is actually concerned about whether it "really" happened that way is anachronistic, as if scholars have an ancient court transcript to access.

I am questioning the use of the Jesus Seminar. Their deliberations on the authenticity of the biblical account of Jesus ministry include 5 Gospels, adding the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. In my view this violates the scope of the Wikibible projects. Canon works in Christianity absolutely and universally reject any but the 4 gospel accounts. The wikibible project has to assume orthodox canon if the word "bible" is to be distinct from other uses and on the matter of "gospel", there are only 4. The Gospel of Thomas is heretical; though apocryphal writings are an ancient written source, they cannot be used as if they are canon, which is what the Jesus Seminar has done in their determination of authenticity. Biblical canon was substantially agreed by AD 175, gospels much earlier, mainly in reaction to Marcion (who excluded the OT) and gnostic deviations.This is a telling argument against the Jesus Seminar insofar as they are not referring to the bible. Their harmonization strategy is to include a non-canon gospel. At the very least, this must be clearly prefaced in any JS usage, as an alert and warning.Pottergreen (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) As I said, I stand by my summary of Scott: I believe you are misreading him. I guess that won't be resolved until some other editors read him and comment.

(b) Certainly Scott and others question "aspects of the historicity of Luke's account". Scott is quite clearly asserting that Luke incorporated elements from another episode. I don't see how you can deny that. We can debate going back to "Authenticity" as a section title if you prefer that (that's the section title that Peter Rhea Jones, for example, uses).

(c) The Jesus Seminar did not, as far as I know, refer to the Gospel of Thomas in discussing this parable.

(d) More generally, though, the inclusion of Jesus Seminar comments has been much debated on Wikipedia and the consensus has been to include them even when they are discussing Thomas. Nothing in the WikiBible project excludes the use of Thomas in discussing NT texts (and in fact, for the OT, there is more than one "canon of Scripture"). In fact, the consensus has even been to include parables that occur only in Thomas as part of the Parables of Jesus project (see the template on this article). You may think Thomas is heretical, but that's simply your personal point of view. You can call it Gnostic, which is more objective. I don't believe you fully understand the Wikipedia:NPOV policy on this sort of thing.

(e) You can't make the Jesus Seminar go away from Wikipedia (or from the world in general): all you can do is make sure that the opposing point of view is well-argued. In any case, the current state of the article is probably as close to your theological position as it's going to get: if it moves too far, more liberal editors will come in and justifiably cite WP:NPOV to give it a flavour more to their liking. I say that with confidence, because I've seen similar things happen dozens of times before. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scott says that Luke "symbolized" the intent of the parable with the question "who is your neighbour" (p.192). Your reading of Scott and the organization of this section again confound the distinction between historical reliability (a la Halevy and external historical 'facts') and harmonization: Scott does not say the issue of neighbour was inauthentic to the parable. He merely asserts it was paraphrased from extant oral understandings of Jesus ministry in the Christian community (p 192), all justified and authentic and historically reliable. Luke reporting, while true to the intent, paraphrases and condenses, all based on comparisons with other gospels, assuming them to be referring to the same incident. WIth Halevy, the change to Samaritan entailed a theological consequence: the status of "non-Jews" - neighbour for Jesus referred only to Jews and class distinction in Halevy, breaking down barriers of authority, not nationality or religious belief. For Halevy, Jesus salvation is offered only to Jews. In Scott, the issue of Luke's editing (whether your view or my view) does not alter the basic theological consequence that neighbour referred to non-Jews, only that the account in comparison to the other 2 gospels requires an explanation in order to harmonize, assuming them all to refer to the same event (whether separate event or not). Again, distinction makes a difference. If historically inaccurate, then the original message of Jesus was altered; Halevy in the JE reference says it was for an anti-Semetic purpose, presumably to separate the Nazerenes as a Judaic sect into something else. Scott, on the other hand, says it was integral to Jesus ministry, that his striking parable envisions something far greater than sectarian communities, that salvation is offered to anyone. Therefore, historical reliability entails a theological consequence, a feature not present in Scott's work.

The Jesus Seminar material should include, without contradiction, a reference to their method and sources. I note the presence of "red" and "pink" voting, why not their considered sources? We have no idea to what extent the heretical work had on their dispositions. It is a courtesy to orthodox readers who may not know who the Jesus Seminar is, but sure as heck will know canon works.

The issue of bible is purely one of definition. Are all contemporaneous works considered biblical? Is Josephus 's "Jewish Wars" part of the bible? Thats the point, what is the definition of bible? A biblical study of a parable is by definition biblical. While since Martin Luther there are differences between Catholic and protestant canon, these are well understood and historically defined and orthodox in theology. WHy not rename the wikibible to wikiJesus project? Apocryphal works are not banned but must be noted as such. They are commonly used in biblical translation in order to establish models for meaning and usage but are not considered biblical; biblical has a theological requirement: orthodoxy. I cannot imagine why an encyclopedia entry would seek to redefine something so basic and universal as the idea of "biblical". Yet, the JS uses apocraphyl works as if they were. If "liberal" editors choose to liberalize the definition of bible, then let it be explicit, so that the ordinary enquirer can judge for themselves if the entry is worth considering.Pottergreen (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe we are unlikely to agree about Scott, and it might be best to wait for the RfC process.

If you have general problems with the way WP:Wikiproject Bible refers to the Jesus Seminar, you should take that up on the project talk page, because it would affect a large number of articles. Explaining who they are is a task for the Jesus Seminar article, which refers to some of the notable criticism of their work. However, their use of Thomas in other contexts is not really a valid criticism of their conclusions here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume the same would apply for references to the Koran or Tanakh? Is there some debate about what those refer to? If the Jesus Seminar is cited, their methodology and sources are relevant.Pottergreen (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Their methodology in this case did not involve the Gospel of Thomas. General comments about them belong in the Jesus Seminar article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What proof do you have they did not use Thomas? I provided a cited source enumerating the Gospel of Thomas. Scott in his particular work we have been debating does not, as far as that chapter goes. But the reference to Jesus Seminar was not part of the Scott paragraph.Pottergreen (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They did not use Thomas because this is not a parable with a parallel in Thomas. In any case, you would have had to have provided a source specifically supporting their use of Thomas in this parable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Historical reliability (now "Authenticity")

The dispute above would benefit from additional input. They key points, as I understand them, are:

• Whether this article should be more concise, containing only "relevant information"
• Whether the article in its current form follows WP:NPOV
• Whether the "Historical reliability" section accurately represents the opinions of Bernard Brandon Scott and John Calvin
• What the best structure of the article should be. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As it stands, the section on "Historical reliability" is neutral and balanced. I do think "Authenticity" would be a better heading, since it is also about the authenticity of the context. To say Scott "questions the authenticity of the parable's context" does indeed seem like a fair summary of his view. On the other hand, the Calvin quotations are confusing ("they are not the same... yet I do not dispute that it may be the same narrative") and I don't think the last paragraph in the section ought to be included. The Snodgrass quote is fine, and ought to be incorporated into the preceding paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! How about:

Differences between the gospels suggest that Luke is referring to a different episode from Mark and Matthew,* and Klyne Snodgrass writes that "While one cannot exclude that Luke has joined two originally separate narratives, evidence for this is not convincing."*

-- Radagast3 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

StAnselm has not addressed the serious issue of Scott's view on the issue of "neighbour"; the quote construction attributes a false position. The use of vague arguments like "seems like a fair summary" pales in comparison to an assessment that requires "chapter and verse".Pottergreen (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

StAnselm has endorsed the existing wording of the article, and suggested changes which I will implement. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with those changes. StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, as the Scott material i) distorts his position on neighbour and ii) trivializes it. Scott believes the issue of neighbour to be profound; you rendered it a banality questioning the parables authenticity. Another problem with the wording is your writing style, much like your rendering of Scott. I recommend reading examples of professional encyclopedic references to improve your "wording".Pottergreen (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pottergreen, maybe you could be constructive and write up your version of what the Scott paragraph should say. Leadwind (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The article isn't too long, but it has way to many long blockquotes. Read a good encyclopedia and you'll see that such block quotes are rare. Instead, we should summarize the block quotes and put the quotes themselves in the footnotes.
• The article is pretty close to NPOV. Judging by the discussions on this page, sources that don't align well with orthodox Christianity are getting maligned. I'm thinking here Vermes and Jesus Seminar. But overall the article's not bad.
• I'm not familiar with Scott, but he seems to be in line with the JS, which considers the parable and the question of who one's neighbor is to have been joined editorially by Luke. Is Calvin even in this section?
• The structure of the article seems OK.

Leadwind (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. There was a Calvin quote, but it was cut at StAnselm's suggestion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vermes, Sanders, and Jesus Seminar

It's not clear why people are hating on Geza Vermes. I prefer Sanders over Vermes, but Vermes is one of the top names and voices in contemporary Jesus scholarship. Sanders may be the only person who outranks him in this regard. This article refers to plenty of scholars who are nowhere near as notable as Vermes. Vermes is cited as an important voice both by Theissen (university textbook) and by Sanders (Encyclopedia Britannica).

E P Sanders is probably the number one expert on historical Jesus in the world. He's the guy that Encyclopedia Britannica chose to write their article on Jesus. If he's not notable, who is? He says that the parable is legit, and this article should cite him saying so. Sanders is cited as an important voice both by Theissen (university textbook) and by Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Jesus Seminar is hated mostly because they say loudly and publicly the very same things that scholars teach in the confines of academia: that the gospels contain all manner of inventions, elaborations, contradictions, and revisions. Yes, they investigate gospels without regard to sectarian opinions, but that's exactly what scholars using the historical-critical method do. The historical-critical method has become nearly universal in secular academia, as well as dominant in mainline seminaries. It is mainstream. The seminar's disrespect for canonical boundaries isn't a violation of good scholarship, it's an entry requirement. The seminar's co-founder, Crossan, is another notable voice in Jesus scholarship (per Theissen and Sanders), and fellows Funk, Harris, Borg, etc. are also notable.

I'm sure it must be hard when top-name scholars say things that contradict one's cherished beliefs, but WP policy is that we stick to what the experts say, even if some editors don't like it. Leadwind (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has had a lot of back-and-forth from editors with different points of view, and in the past it's oscillated back and forth a little between "liberal" and "conservative" opinions. I would like to see the article stabilise on an WP:NPOV balance. I think that requires including the (clearly notable) Jesus Seminar opinion (with Scott as a notable representative of the JS, given his book Hear Then the Parable), as well as the opposing points of view from other experts.

Vermes and Sanders were both in there once, and I'm not sure who removed them. Looking back through the history, I think Vermes' role gradually shrunk because his position was so similar to that of Halévy (not surprising, since they both have the same religious affiliation). I think somebody cut Sanders back because he was quoted as simply saying Jesus' ethics were good, not quoted as saying anything about authenticity. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vermes' opinion is notable on its own because it's contemporary, because Vermes is a notable source, and because he provides an argument different from Helevy's: that Jesus didn't like Samaritans (despite what the authors of Luke and John said). Vermes gets cited a lot, but mostly it's for historical background, not original arguments. Sanders says not only that the parable is authentic but that it is in line with Jesus' ethics. Maybe we could do a short point-counterpoint. Vermes says it's not authentic because (he says) Jesus didn't like Samaritans; Sanders says it is authentic because it's in line with Jesus' open-hearted ethics. The issue of whether Jesus liked Samaritans is an open one in contemporary scholarship, and this parable is bound up in that debate. Showing how this parable plays into these debates would fit the perfect article guidelines, which say we should examine the topic from every encyclopedic angle.

My comments were not just about whether these sources are included but about how they don't deserve the criticism that they're subjected to here on the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right: whether Jesus liked Samaritans is a different point from Halévy's (one that could go under "Authenticity" or "Jesus and Samaritans", for that matter). I do remember reading the cited book by Vermes, though, and it was mostly an assertion, without much in the way of reasoning. There may be a more detailed Vermes reference that could be cited. Do you know of one?

As to the talk page, I don't think the editors deserve the criticism that they're subjected to either. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Halevy section?

The authenticity section starts with reference to a scholar from 100 years ago, Joseph Halévy. Why? We have a major, contemporary scholar (Vermes) whose opinion that Jesus didn't say this parable has been cut out from this section. Why prefer the 100YO source to a contemporary one? I don't mind keeping Halevy (esp. as he's way better than the JE, which was quoted in an early version of this article), but Vermes outranks him on the notability scale, so let's include Vermes as well.

Also, the William C. Placher citation is well-meant but off-base. Placher is referring to whether the good Samaritan story ever really happened. Halevy (like Vermes) isn't saying that the event never happened, he's saying that Jesus never told that parable. Placher's insistence that a parable should be understood as a parable has no bearing on the argument that Jesus never told this parable. Placher's rejoinder is actually a non sequitur. Leadwind (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One reason for including Halévy is that so many books on the parable mention him; he's probably more notable than Vermes in that sense. Some mention Halévy to agree with him, and some to disagree with him, but almost everyone seems to mention him.

Vermes is still cited in the article, though -- seven times, which is more than any other source except Scott.

The Placher citation was from Pottergreen, but if I can speak for him, I think it relates to Halévy's suggestion that a Samaritan travelling down the road was implausible. Another editor strongly endorsed the inclusion of the quote; I'm not 100% wild about it myself, since it's really just a throwaway line in a very short article, but lean towards retaining it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point on why we include Halevy, and I now agree we should include him. Placher is beside the point. Halvey's criticism is that it's weird for a parable to be about a Samaritan on the Judean road, and that's true even if we accept that the parable isn't history. The Placher source says it's silly to worry about whether the good Samaritan story ever happened, but Halevy isn't arguing about that, so Placher is off-target. I understand that certain editors prefer Christian sources for Christian articles, but even they need to play by the rules. Leadwind (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the Placher quote, personally, but won't fight to retain it. I would fight to retain the I. Howard Marshall quote, which is from a serious scholarly work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)