John P. Meier, «The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What can be Said?», Vol. 81 (2000) 202-232

Careful analysis of the Gospels shows that there is not very much hard data about the historical Jesus’ interaction with or views about the Samaritans. There is multiple attestation, found in the Lucan and Johannine traditions, that Jesus, different from typical views of his time, held a benign view of Samaritans and had positive, though passing, encounters with some Samaritans. However, there is gospel agreement, from silence or statement, that Jesus had no programmatic mission to the Samaritans. Besides the above important conclusions, this essay also makes clear the useful distinction between Samaritans and Samarians.

building here on a Marcan framework and that in Mark, as in Matthew, this final journey apparently goes through Perea across the Jordan and up to Jerusalem by way of Jericho — a common route for Jewish pilgrims wishing to avoid the hostility of Samaritans⁴⁶. True, it remains possible that the incident recounted in Luke 9,52-56 actually took place on some other journey to or from Jerusalem (as, e.g., in John 4)⁴⁷. But once, again, serious doubts about redactional creativity leave us with a non liquet in regard to Luke 9,51-55.

        (c) Luke’s most famous reference to Samaritans comes in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (10,30-37). This involves us in the much larger problem of trying to judge whether an individual parable that lacks multiple attestation of sources goes back to the historical Jesus or is a product of the early church — a problem that cannot be discussed in detail here. We must be satisfied with considering the two major positions on this question as it concerns the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Some critics, such as G. Sellin, have argued that Luke himself has created the parable of the Good Samaritan, along with the dialogue between Jesus and a lawyer that frames it⁴⁸. If Sellin is correct, then any use of the parable to understand the views of the historical Jesus is obviously illegitimate. Sellin’s position, though, depends upon many individual judgments — from the structure and classification of different forms of parables to the theological views of Luke on the Mosaic law — that are, to say the least, debatable. Along with many critics, I consider it more likely that, while the Parable of the