The Good Samaritan Made Simple

I think that there is a basic logic problem that many people have in reading the Scripture. Linguistics is simply the internal logic of language, but many simply don't apply it when reading Scripture sometimes. I think this is true mainly because traditions take over, and if one has always understood a text to mean such and such, then it is extremely difficult for one to get beyond that tradition and actually just read the text for what it says.

So I've broken it down in simple figures to illustrate the legitimacy of my interpretation and the illegitimacy of the common traditional one.

The key is as follows:

A = a worshiper of YHWH

+ = One who is thought of as the most prominent of the worshipers of YHWH in the view of the lawyer

no sign as the average worshiper

- = the least prominent of the worshipers of YHWH in the view of the lawyer

B = an unbeliever


The story, and the contextual interpretation is as follows:

An A was traveling down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and was injured and left for dead.
An A+ traveled by and saw him but did not help him.
Another A+ traveled by and saw him but did not help him.
An A- traveled by and helped him, taking care of his total need.

Logical Interpretation: The story deals with which one became a true A to the A. Thus one proves to be a true A by taking care of the needs of another A.


Now, here is the non sequitur of the traditional interpretation:

An A was traveling down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and was injured and left for dead.
An A+ traveled by and saw him but did not help him.
Another A+ traveled by and saw him but did not help him.
An A- traveled by and helped him, taking care of his total need.

Modern Traditional Interpretation: The story deals with which one became a true A by helping the A. Thus, one becomes an A by helping another B.


Likewise, the context of Luke itself is ignored, as the entire thing is internally covenantal, and does not deal with how an A should take care of B's. The whole interpretation is a logical fallacy.


Of course, the even more popular interpretation is even worse. It notes all of the above and then states, "Therefore, everyone, at least everyone in need, is an A," which is not even close to what the parable says, as the text actually says that only one of the three supposed A's became a true A to the A, meaning precisely that everyone is NOT an A.

It's simply amazing that anyone would think that this parable had anything to do with B's at all; but that's the power of tradition for you.