Article Information

Eben Scheffler1

1Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies, University of South Africa, South Africa

Correspondence to:
Eben Scheffler

Postal address:
PO Box 392, UNISA, Pretoria 0003, South Africa

Received: 24 May 2013
Accepted: 19 June 2013
Published: 28 Oct. 2013

How to cite this article: Scheffler, E., 2013, ‘The assaulted (man) on the Jerusalem – Jericho road: Luke’s creative interpretation of 2 Chronicles 28:15’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #2010, 8 pages.

Copyright Notice:
© 2013. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS OpenJournals.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The assaulted (man) on the Jerusalem – Jericho road: Luke’s creative interpretation of 2 Chronicles 28:15
In This Original Research...
Open Access
Creative reinterpretation in Lukes Gospel
   • The (sinful woman) anointing Jesus (feet): Lukes version of Mark 14:39
   • Jesus programmatic preaching in Nazareth: Lukes creative reinterpretation of Mark 6:1–6 and Isaiah 61:1–3
2 Chronicles 28:5–15 and 2 Kings 16 compared
2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–35: A comparison
   • Similarities between 2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–37
   • Differences between 2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–37
      • Differences on the points of similarities
      • Difference of genre: History versus parable
      • A war situation versus individual assault
      • The non-action of the clergy in the parable
      • The use of the term ἐσπλαγχνίσθη [moved with pity]
The parable of the Good Samaritan in Lukan context
   • Some final considerations
      • Creative interpretation as a legitimate use of the Bible
   • Lukes response to the theodice problem
   • The compassionate Lucan Jesus as celebrator of the good life
   • Competing interests

The article takes as a point of departure that the parable of the Good Samaritan was inspired by Luke’s reading of 2 Chronicles 28:15. After introducing the concept of Lucan creative interpretation by referring to other examples in the gospel, it will be argued that a comparison between the texts in question provides a relief for an even better understanding of the parable. Some hermeneutical conclusions will be drawn regarding the concept of ‘creative interpretation’ for the authority of the Bible and its use, the theodicy problem, and the ultimate purpose of the gospel’s emphasis on the marginalised, taking Old Testament motif(s) of beauty into account.


The parable of the Good Samaritan may be well known to most of us, but to many the text of 2 Chronicles 28:15 may be rather obscure. I quote the Revised Standard Version (with own adaptions) (Box 1).

BOX 1: Text and translation of 2 Chronicles 28:15.

Not only about all the major commentaries on Luke’s Gospel when commenting on Luke 10:30–36 refer to 2 Chronicles 28:15 (not so Wiefel 1988:206–2011), but commentators on the Chronicles text also refer to the Good Samaritan parable (e.g. Rudolph 1955; not so Curtis & Madsen 1910:458–459). Since the similarities are there for all to see, Coggins (2003:307) in his Chronicles commentary concludes that the Lucan parable ‘is surely based’ on 2 Chronicles 28:15. This may of course imply that the parable is denied to the historical Jesus, which may be a reason why New Testament scholars are more cautious. Klein (2006), for instance in his voluminous Meyers Kritische Kommentar (which took 114 years to appear after that of Weiss [1892]) concluded after some discussion that it should first be demonstrated that Luke knew the Chronicler so precisely that he could interact so independently with it, whereas Wolter (2008:395) sees no connection. Or if the parable is still ascribed to the historical Jesus (as Crossan [1994:49] for instance does) a great deal of creativity and erudition on a literary level (which is not usually the case) is assumed regarding the historical Jesus.

It would not be my prime aim in what follows to prove beyond doubt that Luke indeed used the Chronicler. I will rather presuppose as a point of departure that he did, and trace the creative process involved in such a case. Firstly, I will discuss briefly two other examples of creative interpretation in Luke’s Gospel (and only refer to some others) to show what is meant by this concept and to indicate that Luke indeed used the text in this creative way. Secondly, a closer (synoptic) look at the Chronicles text will follow compared to the Deuteronomistic text of 2 Kings 16. Thereafter the text of 2 Chronicles 28:15 will briefly be compared with the Lucan parable, noting the similarities and differences. To complete the picture of reinterpretation, I will indicate how Luke made the parable to function in the gospel at large. Some conclusions will be drawn and some hermeneutical remarks made.

Creative reinterpretation in Luke’s Gospel

Our first example of creative interpretation will be a case where Luke made use of his basic source, namely Mark’s Gospel, in order to show clearly that he indeed used his sources creatively. The second example will be a case when he used both Mark and the Old Testament (Is 61:1–3), after which various other instances of creative interpretation will only be indicated, the investigation of which could only provide an increasingly profound insight in Luke’s method and thought.

The (sinful woman) anointing Jesus (‘feet’): Luke’s version of Mark 14:3–9
Luke’s version of the anointing woman (Box 2) is so different from that of his source Mark (he extended 7 verses to 14) that some scholars are of the opinion that it forms part of his peculiar material (Sondergut) which either is Luke’s own creations or a separate source (L) from which he borrowed. However, it is beyond doubt that he meant it to be an interpretation of Mark 14:3–9, since the passage is omitted in the Marcan sequence which he (like Matthew) usually follows (Box 3).

BOX 2: The anointing woman.

BOX 3: The anointing woman: Lukes (non-)use of Mark.

Central to Luke’s reinterpretation is the significance of the anointment. According to Mark (and followed by Matthew and John) it is interpreted as a prelude to Jesus’ burial. For Luke the focus is on the forgiveness or release (social acceptance, liberation) which the ‘sinful’ woman (Simon the Pharisee hints that she was a prostitute) receives.

It is interesting to note that by transposing the passage to Jesus’ Galilean ministry, with no (post-Easter) interpretation regarding Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, or the ultimate spread of the gospel, Luke actually situates the occurrence squarely within the earthly life of Jesus, and his version is thereby most probably the historically more correct one. There are more differences that are significant and which could be interpreted within the framework of Luke’s theology, for example:

• the use of the parable (of the creditor and two debtors) in Luke’s version

• Mary (Magdalene?) in John 12 and Luke 8:1–3

• the anointment on the head (Mk and Mt) versus the feet (with erotic connotations) in Luke and John

• the absence of the statement ‘you will have the poor always with you’ in Luke.

Constraints of space do not allow elaboration here but these variations are indicated to illustrate the creativity of the Lucan version (which a detailed analysis is bound to show even further, see commentaries on Luke).

Jesus’ programmatic preaching in Nazareth: Luke’s creative reinterpretation of Mark 6:1–6 and Isaiah 61:1–3
Again Luke has more than double the verses of his source (15 vs. Mk’s 6) (Box 4). Again he transposes the passage from the Marcan sequence: it should have been situated between the passage about Jairus’s daughter and the woman with haemorrhage (Lk 8:40–46; Mk 5:21–43) and the commissioning of the twelve (Lk 9:1–6; Mk 6:7–13).

BOX 4: Synopsis of Luke 4:1630, Mark 6:1-6a and Isaiah 61:14 (Jesus in Nazareth).

Luke transposes it at the beginning of his report on Jesus’ Galilean ministry, as a programmatic introduction to the gospel as a whole.1 All the main Marcan motifs are retained in the dramatic Lucan expansion, for example, the (1) Sabbath preaching, the (2) amazement of the addressees, (3) the absence of healings in Jesus’ home town, (4) the adage of the prophet not honoured in his own hometown, and (5) the offence taken at Jesus.

However, in his version Luke typifies what the content of Jesus’ ministry entails and implies by quoting from Trito-Isaiah (61:1–4) the verse which traditionally functions almost just as prominently in liberation theology (see Scheffler 1991a) as the exodus tradition (Table 1).

TABLE 1: Synopsis of Isaiah 61:1–2 and Luke 4:18–19.

Interestingly, the Lucan text refers, as can be deduced from the rest of the passage, for example, the references to the widow of Zarephtah and Naaman the Syrian (Lk 4:26–27), to far more than political liberation, whereas the Isaiah text functions more in a political context.2 However, I have never come across any liberation theologian appropriating the Isaian text for their cause. To my mind one can ascribe this oddity only to the lack amongst liberation theologians of reading texts in their proper contexts (shown here to be the case regarding the omission of Isaiah as well as the appropriation of Luke).3

That Luke through his creative interpretation typifies Jesus’ ministry as release or liberation for the poor, the blind and the demon-possessed (as his word ‘captives’ should be translated in view of Ac 10:38) is significant. For the Lucan Jesus the world is not a place where the beauty of creation guarantees the happiness of people. It is a place where people (yearning for happiness, ‘the year of the Lord’s favour’) suffer. Jesus’ ministry consists of good news, not because it primarily proclaims a release from this world into a heavenly one, but because it confronts the suffering in the present world head-on.

To ensure that the gospel is thus understood, Luke creatively reworked his Marcan source and used the LXX (Septuagint) of Isaiah 61:1–2 to serve his purpose. Below I will hopefully illustrate that he went about in a similar fashion in his narration of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Moreover, I hope to illustrate that his narration of the parable is but one of the many expressions of the stance towards suffering people in the Nazareth episode.

The following are further examples of (possible) creative interpretations in Luke’s Gospel, namely, (1) the Magnificat (Lk 1:46–56) and the song of Hannah (1 Sm 2:1–10); (2) the widow of Nain (Lk 7:11–17) and Elisha’s raising of the widow’s son in 2 Kings 4; (3) the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16–21) and Proverbs 27:1; (4) the parable of the barren fig tree (Lk 13:6–9) and the cursing of the fig tree (Mk 11:12–14); (5) on choosing places at table (Lk 14:7–11) and Proverbs 25:6; (6) the parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11–31) and the two sons (Mt 21:28–32); (7) the ten lepers (Lk 17:11–19) and the healing of the leper (Mk 1:40–45); and (8) the importunate widow (Lk 18:1–8) and Sirach 35:14–15.

2 Chronicles 28:5–15 and 2 Kings 16 compared

Most scholars would agree that the Chronicler (who wrote his work about 300–250 BCE) used the text of the book of Kings (amongst others) for narrating Israel’s history from creation up to the exile. A synoptic comparison between 2 Chronicles 28 and 2 Kings 16 is therefore called for (cf. also Is 7).

Both chapters relate the reign of king Ahaz (742–727 BCE; Miller & Hayes 2006) within the context of the Syro-Ephraimitic war in which king Peka of the Northern kingdom went into alliance with Rezon of Syria to oppose the Assyrian domination during the reign of Tiglat-Pileser. Ahaz of Judah (probably on the advice of the prophet of Isaiah) refused to take part in the alliance, paying tribute to Assyria instead. Ahaz was consequently attacked by the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance with the aim of forcing Judah into cooperation (see Scheffler 2001:107, 120–121; Miller & Hayes 2006:378–380). Ahaz (contrary to Isaiah’s advice to be passive and trust in the Lord), resorted to Assyria for help and became a vassal state of the latter. Tiglath-Pileser responded by dethroning Rezon of Syria. Ahaz, though he saved Judah for another 130 years, was accused by both historiographers for introducing Baal practices into Judah.

The difference between the accounts is that Chronicles reports (as a fairly large interpolation of 10 verses) that the Israelite forces from Samaria had initial success in the war against Judah. In one day 120 000 Judeans were killed, including palace personnel, and 200 000 women and children were taken as captives to function as slaves (2 Chr 28:6–8) (Box 5).

BOX 5: The text of 2 Chronicles 28:5–15.

The prophet Oded protested against the violence involved (‘a rage that reached up to heaven’), the ‘brother’ conflict, and urged the army to release the Judean captives. The narrative obtains an authentic ring when four army officers are all mentioned by name: Azariah, Berechiah, Jehizkiah and Amasa. These officers responded positively to Oded’s prophecy by repeating the prophet’s message to the warriors, who eventually released the captives.

But the four officers are reported to have gone even further than what the prophet had demanded. The captives were not left to their own fate, but – voluntarily – with concrete acts of compassion they were clothed, fed, medically treated and led on donkeys (at the expense of the Samarians) to their ‘brothers’ (= kindred, family, compatriots) in Jericho (on the border between the Northern and the Southern kingdoms).

If one takes the Chronicler’s perspective into account that actually only Judah represented the legitimate continuation of Israel, these ‘Samaritan’ acts become even more remarkable. And even more so if one takes into account that during the writing of the Chronicles text there already existed intense conflict between the Samaritans (who were regarded as racially impure and not being true believers) and the Jews. This brings us back to the familiar parable which we know so well.

2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–35: A comparison

It is noteworthy that if the parable of the Good Samaritan is compared with the LXX text of 2 Chronicles 28:15 there are virtually no similarities in the use of language (Table 2). The reference to Jericho is actually the only term occurring in both passages. The fact that we know that Luke knew and used the LXX (as was illustrated in his use of Is 61:1–2 in Lk 4:18–19), has the implication that Luke (Box 6) created the parable with the Chronicles text vaguely in his mind, or that he got it from another source, leaving us with the possibility that the text could indeed go back to the historical Jesus, as is actually asserted by many historical Jesus scholars (e.g. Crossan 1991). In such a case part of the creativity in the reinterpretation of 2 Chronicles 28:15 should then be attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. One can also imagine that Jesus, on occasion to appease Jewish hatred for the Samaritans (as is the impression created by the travel narrative as a whole, recalled the incident described in 2 Chronicles 28, and that people recalled the fact that he did that and it thus became part of the oral tradition. Luke then, whom we know from his artistic abilities, created a parable out of it, and put it into Jesus’ mouth to drive the same message home. Although a probability, however, this cannot be proven.

TABLE 2: Synopsis 2 Chronicles 28:15.

BOX 6: Synopsis Luke 10:30–37.

Similarities between 2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–37
In the absence of terms, the most significant similarities between the Chronicles text and the parable are thus limited to motifs regarding content which for the moment are merely mentioned. In the discussion below of the differences between the text further comments are due to be made regarding these similarities:

• Firstly, there is an act of benevolence performed to people (or a person) in need.

• Secondly, the victims were assaulted, in war or otherwise.

• Thirdly, the protagonist is an enemy: Samarians/a Samaritan care(s) for (a) Jew(s).

• Fourthly, the victims were (mostly) naked.

• Fifthly, part of the care consists in the treatment of wounds.

• Sixthly, the victims were brought to a safe place.

• Seventhly, animal transport is provided by the Samarians/the Samaritan

• Eighthly, Jericho (the city of palms) is mentioned both texts (as destination)

• Ninthly, ultimately the Samarians/Samaritan leave the victim.

These nine similarities which touch on all aspects of the narrative provide to my mind enough evidence that one can conclude that the parable was inspired by the Chronicles text, whether the original author was Jesus, or author of the gospel himself. The similarities need not to be explained in terms of textual dependence, but could have occurred through oral and cultural memory which the historical Jesus (as a poor peasant who in all probability was analphabetic) had to rely upon.

In order to prove independence there should be enough similarities between two texts, but to prove that one is a creative reinterpretation of the other, there should be enough differences. It is precisely on those points where the author (or composer of the parable) alters the tradition, where his or her creativity is (amongst others) to be found.

Differences between 2 Chronicles 28:15 and Luke 10:30–37

Differences on the points of similarities
If one considers the motifs where there exist similarities between the two texts, differences can also be noted on almost every point, due to the creative interpretative process:

1. The acts of benevolence are presented in both texts differently. The parable does not explicitly mention the clothing and feeding of the victim, although it is implied in the use of the term ἐπεμελήθη (take care, 2 times) in verses 34–35.

2. In the Chronicles text the assaulted people were wounded soldiers, whereas in the parable the assaulted man was attacked by robbers and left half dead (ἡμιθανῆ).

3. Although enemies are involved in both texts, the narrated world of the texts are about seven centuries apart, which is less so if the Chronicles text is interpreted against the backdrop of the time of its writing (3rd century BCE, when one can already speak of Samaritans and enmity between the latter and Jews in view of the Samaritan schism).

4. In the parable it is stated that the assaulted man was stripped (ἐκδύσαντες) by robbers, whereas in the Chronicles text their being naked was probably the result of booting.

5. The treatment of the wounds is more elaborately reported in the parable (the Samaritan bandaged the wounds having poured oil and wine on them), whereas in the Chronicles text only the term ‘anoint’ is used.

6. In the parable the victim is brought to an inn to be cared for on the way to Jericho, whereas in 2 Chronicles 28:15 the wounded soldiers are brought to Jericho, to their kindred (‘brothers’), which can also imply safety and care.

7. In the Chronicles text donkeys are mentioned whereas κτῆνος, which could mean any domesticated animal (e.g. a donkey or a camel) is referred to in Luke 10:34. Interestingly readers of the parable usually imagine a donkey, as in Van Gogh’s famous painting (see Figure 1). Could it be that the Chronicles text still plays a role in the collective subconscious memory when the parable is interpreted?

8. The Samarians returned to Samaria, whereas the Samaritan also left but promised to come back.

9. In the Chronicles text Jericho functions as the home of the Judeans, whereas in the parable it functions as the destination of the victim’s journey which he in the parable never reaches.

These differences relating to the similar motifs of the two texts testify to the creativity involved in the composition of the parable. But there are also other significant differences.

FIGURE 1: Vincent Van Goghs famous painting, the Good Samaritan, interpreting the transporting animal to be a donkey, more in accordance with 2 Chronicles 28:15 than with Luke 10:34.

Difference of genre: History versus parable
The text of 2 Chronicles 28:5–15 purports to be history, whether the event described actually happened or not. Its omission in 2 Kings 16 may suggest that it is legendary. The parable, however, is complete fiction and the fact that it is created on the basis of this event testifies to the significance of the message of the described event in terms of caring for the enemy. This parable actually communicates that a historical event does not need to be literally true to have a message – something that ancient readers seem to have realised better than some present-day fundamentalists. In Luke’s Gospel, as part of the teaching of Jesus, it encourages the hearer of the parable and the gospel not to think in terms of own nationalistic tribal loyalties but to be involved in caring deeds of compassion to sufferers whoever they are (cf. Scheffler 2006:77–106).

A war situation versus individual assault
In the text of Chronicles a war situation is described and the caring deeds are done by the victors for the prisoners of war. The value of this subtle criticism of war situations cannot be denied and correlates with similar antiwar sentiments of the Chronicler, such as his criticism of David who was denied the building of the temple because he had spilt so much blood (1 Chr 22:8).4 However, in the parable in Luke’s Gospel an individual is the focus of attention. This corresponds to other deeds of compassion described in Luke’s Gospel (whether in parables or healings by Jesus) where the focus is usually on an individual (e.g. the sinful woman in Lk 7; the bent woman in Lk 13 and the prodigal son in Lk 15). The focus on the individual is significant, since it portrays a Jesus who cares for every human being and not only humanity or creation at large, poignantly expressed in the parable of the lost sheep.

The non-action of the clergy in the parable
Nothing is mentioned of the involvement of Priests or Levites in 2 Chronicles 28:5–15. As far as religious leaders are concerned only the prophet Oded (who called for the benevolent action) is mentioned. One can say he has his counterpart in Jesus who in the gospel also prophetically calls Jews and Samaritans to brotherhood and benevolent action. But the difference regarding the institutional clergy contributes significantly to the meaning of the parable. It has often been observed that the Priest and Levite side-stepped the assaulted men not because they did not have any empathy, but because purity laws forbade them to touch a possible corpse. The Lucan (and probably historical) Jesus who told the parable thereby communicates that the motif of compassion overrides every religious law, which brings us to the last important point of difference.

The use of the term ἐσπλαγχνίσθη [moved with pity]
By explicitly mentioning that the Samaritan was moved with pity before he acted, Jesus communicates that acts of caring follow from compassion that comes from the inside of the individual person and not because of casuistic laws. In Luke’s sermon on the plain (Lk 6:17–49)5, Jesus encourages his followers to be compassionate (οἰκτίρμονες) as the heavenly father, and not perfect (τέλειοι) as Matthew’s version has it, the latter being more positive inclined towards the law than Luke (cf Lk 6:36 & Mt 5:48).

The parable of the Good Samaritan in Lukan context

Thus far we traced detail differences between the two texts which gave a profound insight into Luke’s creative interpretative activity. However, the way in which he embedded the parable in the gospel also forms part of this creative process.

In Luke’s Gospel the parable forms part of what Ellis (1974) calls a Socratic interrogation with two question and answer pairs which comprises of Luke 10:25–31. It is therefore narrowly linked to the double love commandment, which is also transposed from the context of controversies (where it functions in Mk 12:28–34) to the travel narrative. In the narrated world of the travel narrative Jesus seems to pass through Samaria on his way to Jerusalem. In the travel narrative (Lk 9:50–19:27) there are also two other ‘Samaritan friendly’ passages. In the first Jesus advocates no retaliation when the Samaritans do not receive (Lk 9:51–55) him and in the second it is only a Samaritan that thanks him after being healed (Lk 17:11–19).

By creatively combining the double love commandment6 with the parable, Luke communicates at least four aspects of Jesus’ message:

1. Love of God and the neighbour should be universal, it should include the enemy.

2. Love for the fellow human being consists primarily not in the keeping of certain laws, but is defined as intense feeling of compassion (literally affecting a person’s intestines, cf. use of the term ἐσπλαγχνίσθη).

3. Love should be expressed in concrete acts of caring, which demands one’s time and money.

4. Religious leaders – the traditional keepers of the law – who do not act in this way are criticised.

Some final considerations

Creative interpretation as a legitimate use of the Bible
A strict concept of biblical authority does not allow for creative interpretation of the biblical text. Its demand to merely repeat what is said in the Bible and to interpret most things literally, has the result that the deeper message of the text does not communicate in a specific context that is life-related. The message is locked up in its functioning in the religious cult. Ancient readers of the Bible present themselves to us as pre-fundamentalistic: they took freedom in making new creations where artistic elements were by no means absent. As far as Luke’s Gospel is concerned, human compassion to alleviate suffering was the basic driving force in these creative interpretative process.

Luke’s response to the theodice problem
If God is love and created everything to be beautiful and good, why is there so much (innocent) suffering in the world? Although God’s creation and the beauty of nature is not denied by Luke’s Gospel, and indeed plays a significant role in the life of Jesus, it does not function in the sense that it distracts Jesus from the severity of human suffering (non-beauty). To the contrary: Jesus’ withdrawal into nature seems to have motivated his compassion for a suffering humanity. In the gospel there is no philosophical reflection on why God allows all the suffering, although Luke 13:1–5 seems to suggest that the Lucan Jesus was aware of such questions. The response of the Lucan Jesus is to confront suffering head-on with acts of compassion, instead of allowing oneself to become despondent about it.

The compassionate Lucan Jesus as celebrator of the good life
The Lucan Jesus is not to be interpreted as promoting an ascetic life style because he deals so much with human suffering and its alleviation. In Luke 7:31–35 it is clearly communicated that Jesus was an eater and a drinker and – contrary to John the Baptist – a player of the flute. Friends should be made by means of the unjust mammon (Lk 16:1–18). In the gospel cases of non-beauty like the assaulted man on the Jerusalem-Jericho road (cf. also the bent woman, Lk 13:10–17) elicit compassion, not because ugliness is idealised, but because beauty and health are the ideal. There is compassion for the poor because they should take part in the feasts (Lk 14) and the return of the prodigal son is celebrated with a great feast (Lk 15). The purpose of Luke’s stance should be viewed as an attempt to restore the beauty and goodness of creation of which all should be able to enjoy.


Dedicated to Jimmie, with much thanks and appreciation.

Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.


Albertz, R., 1983, ‘Die Antrittspredigt Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem altestamentlichen Hintergrund’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74, 182–206.

Busse, U., 1978, Das Nazareth-Manifest Jesu: eine Einführung in das lukanische Jesusbild nach Lk 4,16–30, Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart.

Coggins, R., 2003, ‘1 and 2 Chronicles’, in J. Dunn & J. Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans commentary on the Bible, pp. 282–312, Eerdmans, Cambridge.

Conzelmann, H., 1964, Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas, 5. Aufl., Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Crossan, J., 1991, The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant, Harper, San Francisco.

Crossan, J., 1994, The essential Jesus: Original sayings and earliest images, Harper, San Francisco/New York. PMid:7821974, PMCid:PMC1415015

Curtis, E. & Madsen, A., 1910, The books of Chronicles, T & T Clark, Edinburgh.

Ellis, E., 1974, The Gospel of Luke, Oliphants, London.

Hanson, P., 1979, The dawn of apocalyptic: The historical and sociological roots of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, rev. edn., Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Klein, H., 2006, Das Lukasevangelium, 10. Aufl., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.

Miller, J.M. & Hayes, J.H., 2006, A history of ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd edn., Westminster John Knox Press, London.

Rudolph, W., 1955, Die Chronikbücher, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

Scheffler, E., 1991a, ‘Good news for the poor: How does the New Testament use the Old?’, in H.L. Bosman, I.G.P. Gous & I.J.J. Spangenberg (eds.), Plutocrats and paupers: Wealth and poverty in the Old Testament, pp. 96–107, Van Schaik, Pretoria.

Scheffler, E., 1991b, ‘Reading Luke from the perspective of liberation theology, in P.J. Hartin & J.H. Petzer (eds.), Text and interpretation: New approaches in the criticism of the New Testament, pp. Brill, Leiden.

Scheffler, E., 1993, Suffering in Luke’s Gospel, Theologischer Verlag, Zürich.

Scheffler, E., 2001, Politics in ancient Israel, Biblica, Pretoria.

Scheffler, E., 2006, ‘Compassionate action: Living according to Luke’s Gospel’, in J.G van der Watt (ed.), Identity, ethics, and ethos in the New Testament, pp. 77–106, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Van Gogh’s, V., 1849, ‘Good Samaritan’, in Art and Bible, viewed n.d, from

Weiss, B. & Weiss J., 1892, Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, Vandenhoeck, Göttingen.

Wiefel, W., 1988, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Evangelische Verlaganstalt, Berlin.

Wolter, M., 2008, Das Lukasevangelium, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.


1. For a more detailed discussion of the passage see Scheffler (1991a, 1991b, 1993); Albertz (1983); Busse (1978).

2. For an apt discussion of the Isaiah text in the postexilic context of the poor, see Hanson (1979:46–76).

3. Whilst in liberation theology the Old Testament functions prominently as far as the Exodus narrative is concerned (also the prophets Amos, Micah and Jeremiah) the text of Isaiah 61:1–2 is hardly referred to.

4.1 Chronicles 22:8: ‘But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.”’ The criticism of David on this point is even more significant in view of the fact that he omits David’s adultery and murder (cf. 1 Chr 20 with 2 Sm 11–12), usually interpreted to save his image.

5. Not on a mount as in Matthew. Mountains are for the Lucan Jesus places of withdrawal in pursuit of inner renewal, (cf. Conzelmann 1964)

6. In the Lucan version it is Jesus who asks the question regarding the commandment as a counter question to the lawyer who asked him about eternal life.

Crossref Citations

No related citations found.