Philistine
Sir: The Editor of the New Statesman can quote Scripture to serve his purpose, but in his own revised version. He preaches to Spectator readers (Letters, 3 June) from the parable of the Good Samaritan. But according to his 'Insight' team of evangelists, it was the Philistines—not the bien-pensants priest and Levite — who passed by on the other aide.
When he turns his attention from the New Testament to the Old, it will be interesting to see whether the Philistines are smitten with the jawbone of an ass. Christopher Hides 31Canonbury Park North, London Ni Sir: Bruce Page (Letters, 3 June) hasn't got his facts right. He didn't check his references. If he looks at Luke x 30-37 he will see that they were not Philistines who passed by on the other side. Possibly he is confusing 'Philistines' with 'Pharisees' which would be more nearly right — they may sound rather similar in Australian. But by making the Priest and the Levite Gentiles he destroys the whole point of the parable.
Perhaps it is asking too much of Mr Page
to distinguish between a Pharisee and! Philistine, but he really might try to chs. tinguish between the Samaritan in the Bible story and Mr Harold Evans in the Thalidomide shock horror. The good Samaritan bandaged the victim's wounds, poured wine and oil on them (which was thought beneficial in those days), carried him on his own beast to an inn and paid out of his own money for the man to stay there. He did not publish a series of unreadablY boring articles in the Jericho Times demanding that someone else should be made to pay extravagant damages. The essential difference is that the Samaritan was dispensing his own charity, the SundaY Times was impertinently seeking to dispense someone else's by poking its vulgar and sentimental nose into the judicial pro. cess.
Auberon Waugh Combo Florey, Taunton, Somerset
Previous page
