08 May 2024
Bailey cites some obscure evidence that the basic story of the Good Samaritan was based on a historical event in Jewish lore. Jesus may have been citing a familiar tale, but I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
The rhetorical pattern is ABCDCBA. To be honest, this one stretches things just a bit:
A. Robbers injure the man
B. Priest avoids
C. Levite avoids
D. Samaritan shows compassion
C. Treats wounds (Levite's failure)
B. Transports (Priest's failure)
A. Spends money (compensates for the robbery)
It's almost certain the victim is Jewish; that's assumed by the context of Jesus' telling. The man likely resisted the robbing and was beaten for it.
The priests as a class were wealthy; we should assume this one was riding a beast of burden and could have easily transported the victim. Bailey is somewhat sympathetic in that the victim might have been dead and it would defile the priest to touch him. Priests are specifically told not to handle the dead, leaving it to other Jews. However, Bailey is simply wrong about the necessity of returning to Jerusalem for the cleansing ritual. There are several options for priests to offer reasonable care for even dead bodies of unknown strangers, to include burial if no one else is around to do it.
So far as anyone can tell, priests did not have unique rituals for cleansing after touching the dead; it was the same for all Israelis. It required a week of isolation. This priest was on his way home and would not be summoned for another round of Temple service for several months.
The Levite had fewer restrictions. Nothing in the parable suggests this one knew he was following a priest down the same road. However, if he did know, he would have realized the priest left the body for him to investigate. Either way, the Law required some level of care, whether Jew or Gentile.
The whole point of the story was that a Samaritan obeyed the Samaritan Covenant Law better than the priest or Levite obeyed Moses' Law. Anyone who bothered to examine the Samaritan Scriptures knows that it consisted of the Books of Moses with just a few minor changes about the location of worship and related commands. And, they had no Talmudic corruptions to pervert their moral code. Thus, when Jesus suggested this Samaritan was going to follow the spirit of the Law better than a priest or Levite, everyone in the audience who was not among the elite knew it was an accurate portrayal. However, they were probably expecting the next figure in the story, stepping down through the social classes, would be a common Jewish layman. You can be sure the lawyer was expecting that.
By the way, most chronologies place this exchange with the lawyer well after the Woman at the Well and His teaching in Samaria. Jesus had first-hand knowledge of Samaritan faith. This Samaritan obeyed the Law and took care of the victim. Then he transported him on his own ride. There is a famous inn today claiming to be built on the same site, and it's listed on the historical register for that reason. There's no evidence to support the claim. It's about halfway down between the crest of the ridge (Mount of Olives) and Jericho. It's an interesting study to review what that route looks like, and may have looked like in New Testament times, because it shows up later in the gospel narrative.
Bailey overstates the risk to the Samaritan man moving a wounded Jew through Jewish territory; they traveled through there all the time unharassed because Romans didn't tolerate it. The two Roman coins (denarii) would have funded at least a week, and more likely two weeks, of recovery.
In the end, Jesus turns the question on its head: Who was a neighbor to the victim? Who acted like family? The unspoken implication is that this Samaritan was some the best family the lawyer could get. Meanwhile, the lawyer realizes that the answer to his original question was that he was not the kind of man likely to qualify for eternal life in the Messiah's reign.
This document is public domain; spread the message.