Ah, Okay. Thanks!

Well, Luke is suggesting that the lawyer was hoping for an answer from Jesus which would leave him ‘justified’. Presumably, the law expert would have preferred a narrow (and less demanding) definition of ‘neighbour’.

Okay, I accept that this neighbour conversation would have been going on quite a lot back then. But again, what would the expert in the Law have to gain by bringing this up? ( Jesus didn’t bring it up, the expert did by continuing and asking “And who is my neighbour?” ) What answer was he hoping that Jesus would give?

Simon,
My understanding is that discussions about which persons constituted a ‘neighbour’ are well documented for that period, so it’s not only plausible, but almost unavoidable – given that Jesus was a well-known teacher (could a well-known teacher avoid common issues of the day?). He was not only opening a can of worms, he would have been opening it on purpose! I’m quite surprised you’d doubt that this conversation took place?

As for Luke’s perspective as to the motivation of the expert in the Law, we should understand Luke as both a historian and a theologian. He certainly has his own perspective, his own case to make, and is handling the tradition(s) which he has received in his Luke-ish way. But quite apart from all this, it’s quite a basic thing to say, isn’t it? Judging people’s motivations isn’t exactly a rare thing, is it?

I love it how Luke knew that the expert in the Law sought to justify himself. Gospel writers are afforded wonderful knowledge, aren’t they! Lol.

It seems obvious to me that any expert in the Law would know that he is opening a can of worms by asking “Who is my neighbour”. I doubt this part of the conversation actually happened.