The Parable of the Good Samaritan & Fielding's Joseph Andrews

Although the stories of Joseph Andrews (in Henry Fielding's novel of the same name) and the Biblical traveller in Luke certainly share much, there is a fundamental difference between them. In the New Testament, we are presented with a single, isolated incident. We know nothing of the traveller; he is not even named. The parable is simply that: a short instructional tale with generic, any-man characters. When I read the equivalent of the Good Samaritan story in Fielding's novel, I was already well acquainted with the main character. I was privy to Joseph's thoughts.

Unlike the mysterious Biblical victim, I knew why Joseph Andrews was travelling, where he was going to and from, and what his character was like. The attachment between reader and subject was already established, and so the tale is viewed more in terms of a sorrow for the character than a valid instruction. Certainly, it makes the tale more discreet in its moral.

Accordingly, the novel version is much more explicit in recounting the events. We are given the details of conversations, thoughts, the wounds Andrews received, etc. The actual parable merely gives us the essentials of the story, omitting all erroneous details.

We also develop a greater disgust with the passers-by/coach riders in the Fielding adaptation. Information of their situations and reactions is supplied, and the truths are upsetting. The people honestly do not care that a fellow human being is laying injured and abused, except perhaps for feeling agitated that he should dare to disturb their comfort. They don't want to help him; they just want him out of sight. Rather than simply knowing their position and action, we are given how trivial and self-cantered their actions are. The woman feigns disgust at his nakedness, yet proposes no solution. The lawyer will aid him only to avoid prosecution.