Why doesn't Jesus sound smart?

[teacher]

Reply to post 80 (KingMerv) on page 2. I didn't turn over, sorry.

 

[jjramsey]

Kinda like people wouldn't want to make up some of the stuff that Joyce wrote about Leopold Bloom?

False analogy. From the Existence of Jesus article on SkepticWiki (which, yes, I wrote):

[Mythicists] have also tried to use a false analogy to blunt the force of the "against the grain" material, arguing that there is known fiction, for example, Lord of the Rings, in which there is material that appears to put some of the protagonists in a bad light, but that such embarrassing material obviously does not mean that Lord of the Rings is historical. This ignores that all evidence points to the Gospels as being works meant to be taken as fact. (Note, for example, the intent implied by Luke 1:1-4 and John 20:30-31.) This does not mean that the contents of the Gospels are accurate. Rather, they might be described cynically as being meant to portray Jesus in a way that makes him look good, and statements that go against this trend would be more likely to be factual because they go against the apparent goals of the writers of the Gospels.

Ulysses, the book that Leopold Bloom is from, is clearly meant to be read as fiction, so embarrassing stuff about him is not a statement against James Joyce's own interests.

 

[KingMerv00]

Leopold Bloom is from, is clearly meant to be read as fiction, so embarrassing stuff about him is not a statement against James Joyce's own interests.

I would argue that in 2000 years or so, it may become difficult to figure out what the author's intentions were.

LOTR, viewed in the right light could be seen history-based fiction.

 

[kmortis]

I would argue that in 2000 years or so, it may become difficult to figure out what the author's intentions were.

2000 years?? His intentions aren't all that clear now, only about 100 years later.

JJramsey,
I only brought it up because you put forth the argument that if JC was a work of fiction that the embarassing/mundane things were a sign that the works were genuine. I'm just pointing out a modern example where the entire book was essentially embarassing and mundane things happening to the main character. I'm sure if we look hard enough, we could find others (Greek myths come to mind). It isn't a false anaology, if I were claiming that Leo and Jesus were alike and therefore one of the apostles were like Stephen Deadalus, THAT would be a false analolgy.

I will admit to being guilty to the Argument by Joyce. I seem to make a habit of that.

 

[jjramsey]

2000 years?? His intentions aren't all that clear now, only about 100 years later.

The intentions of the authors of Luke and John are certainly clear, even 2,000 years from now. The author of Luke, in his opening paragraph, had said that he "decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." The author of John writes "these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God ..." These are clearly the words of people who are purporting to report fact.

It isn't a false anaology, if I were claiming that Leo and Jesus were alike and therefore one of the apostles were like Stephen Deadalus, THAT would be a false analolgy.

Yes, it is, because the agendas of the Gospel writers and James Joyce were totally different. James Joyce's agenda is to entertain and provoke thought. Writing negative content about Leopold Bloom hardly works against this agenda. The agendas of the Gospels are at least partly making Jesus and Christianity look good; negative or embarrassing content about Jesus, then, is more problematic for them.

 

[kmortis]

The intentions of the authors of Luke and John are certainly clear, even 2,000 years from now. The author of Luke, in his opening paragraph, had said that he "decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." The author of John writes "these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God ..." These are clearly the words of people who are purporting to report fact.

Well, for sure that's what the guy who wrote the book said that Luke said. We have little to no evidence that Luke wrote it tho. At least we're 99.99% certain that James actually wrote "Ulyssess". Although, BoL, BoJ and Ulyssess all have one thing in common; they're all works of fiction

Yes, it is, because the agendas of the Gospel writers and James Joyce were totally different. James Joyce's agenda is to entertain and provoke thought. Writing negative content about Leopold Bloom hardly works against this agenda. The agendas of the Gospels are at least partly making Jesus and Christianity look good; negative or embarrassing content about Jesus, then, is more problematic for them.

And here I thought that James was celebrating a hunderscorednd job from Nora. I will grant you the second point. The Gosples are works of haigiography writ large.

 

[KingMerv00]

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

How would we know this was fiction if someone had not told us in advance? How do would you know it's not a diary?

 

[jjramsey]

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

How would we know this was fiction if someone had not told us in advance? How do would you know it's not a diary?

A clue would be the writing style, which is a bit melodramatic. Whether the style resembled known fiction of the time would be another clue. All that said, what you've just pointed out is that good fiction is hard to tell apart from fact. The problem is that if the Gospels were intentional fiction, then three out the four of them would be bad fiction. Mark is choppy and abrupt; Matthew is very talky; and John is really talky, putting into Jesus' mouth long prose speeches. John's Greek, AFAIK, is pretty bad, and Mark's isn't too wonderful, either. The author of Luke is a good writer, but if he's writing fiction, then it is rather odd that he starts out proclaiming that he is doing the opposite, yet writing about the same subject as those three other much poorer writers. The storyline, such as it is, is rather freakish, as drkitten pointed out. It's one thing to flippantly say "Oh, the Gospels could just be fiction." It's another thing to deal with all the oddities that follow from the hypothesis that the Gospels are intentional fiction.

 

[kmortis]

A clue would be the writing style, which is a bit melodramatic. Whether the style resembled known fiction of the time would be another clue. All that said, what you've just pointed out is that good fiction is hard to tell apart from fact. The problem is that if the Gospels were intentional fiction, then three out the four of them would be bad fiction. Mark is choppy and abrupt; Matthew is very talky; and John is really talky, putting into Jesus' mouth long prose speeches. John's Greek, AFAIK, is pretty bad, and Mark's isn't too wonderful, either. The author of Luke is a good writer, but if he's writing fiction, then it is rather odd that he starts out proclaiming that he is doing the opposite, yet writing about the same subject as those three other much poorer writers. The storyline, such as it is, is rather freakish, as drkitten pointed out. It's one thing to flippantly say "Oh, the Gospels could just be fiction." It's another thing to deal with all the oddities that follow from the hypothesis that the Gospels are intentional fiction.

IIRC, it was quite a common practice that the authors of the day would make up words that the subject didn't actually, you know, say. I would call that intentional fiction. We have no assurance that what is reported in the gospels as having coming from the Mouth O' Jesus actaully did so.

to the writing style argument. I can think of two things to counter that.
1) Maybe it reads better in the origional language. I don't know, I don't read any language besides English (and a smattering of German and French), so I can't comment to that.
2) So what? That just indicates that M, M, L & J were hack writers.

 

[KingMerv00]

A clue would be the writing style, which is a bit melodramatic. Whether the style resembled known fiction of the time would be another clue. All that said, what you've just pointed out is that good fiction is hard to tell apart from fact. The problem is that if the Gospels were intentional fiction, then three out the four of them would be bad fiction. Mark is choppy and abrupt; Matthew is very talky; and John is really talky, putting into Jesus' mouth long prose speeches. John's Greek, AFAIK, is pretty bad, and Mark's isn't too wonderful, either. The author of Luke is a good writer, but if he's writing fiction, then it is rather odd that he starts out proclaiming that he is doing the opposite, yet writing about the same subject as those three other much poorer writers. The storyline, such as it is, is rather freakish, as drkitten pointed out. It's one thing to flippantly say "Oh, the Gospels could just be fiction." It's another thing to deal with all the oddities that follow from the hypothesis that the Gospels are intentional fiction.

I still don't fully understand your argument. The Gospels are mundane and poorly written...therefore accurate?

 

[BeholdTheTruth]

His parables have to be read very carefully and thoughtfully to see what is actually being pointed to, not you think what is being pointedto from a casual reading. Most people whether Christians or not simply do not do that. So of course religionists blindly believe what they think Jesus is saying and equally so anti-religionists just as blindly make fun of what the believers believe not necessarily what Jesus is supposedly saying.

Two examples...

Take Matt: 20. How many groups were offered work in the vineyard? And how many groups actually went into the vineyard that day to work?

Also, how about the parable of the tares in John? When Jesus has the householder say, "Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them. But gather the wheat into my storehouse," why does Jesus use the word 'but' -- instead of the word 'and''? And then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command. (Or is that... But then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command?

 

[KingMerv00]

His parables have to be read very carefully and thoughtfully to see what is actually being pointed to, not you think what is being pointedto from a casual reading. Most people whether Christians or not simply do not do that. So of course religionists blindly believe what they think Jesus is saying and equally so anti-religionists just as blindly make fun of what the believers believe not necessarily what Jesus is supposedly saying.

Two examples...

Take Matt: 20. How many groups were offered work in the vineyard? And how many groups actually went into the vineyard that day to work?

Also, how about the parable of the tares in John? When Jesus has the householder say, "Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them. But gather the wheat into my storehouse," why does Jesus use the word 'but' -- instead of the word 'and''? And then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command. (Or is that... But then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command?

I generally don't complain about the minor Bible issues. Subtle differences like what you have mentioned mean little to me.

I am more bothered by the gigantic plot holes and lack of empirical evidence.

 

[bruto]

His parables have to be read very carefully and thoughtfully to see what is actually being pointed to, not you think what is being pointedto from a casual reading. Most people whether Christians or not simply do not do that. So of course religionists blindly believe what they think Jesus is saying and equally so anti-religionists just as blindly make fun of what the believers believe not necessarily what Jesus is supposedly saying.

Two examples...

Take Matt: 20. How many groups were offered work in the vineyard? And how many groups actually went into the vineyard that day to work?

Also, how about the parable of the tares in John? When Jesus has the householder say, "Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them. But gather the wheat into my storehouse," why does Jesus use the word 'but' -- instead of the word 'and''? And then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command. (Or is that... But then notice how using the word 'but' subtly changes the meaning of the house-holder's two-part command?

It may be an interesting "but," but I'm not sure it really changes the meaning as much as simply providing the correct emphasis, that the tares and the wheat are going to have very different treatment and destinations after having grown together without distinction. It seems like a good stylistic choice but little else. And of course, we cannot be sure how accurate that usage is, since we are reading a translation that is based on a series of potentially corrupted or modified copies of ancient texts. Even if we choose to believe that the parable has survived essentially intact from the mouth of Jesus to the printed pages we now read, we cannot be sure that it was stated in exactly those words. It's not in John, either, by the way. Oh, and if I were going to do some biblical interpretation I would also point to this very parable as an example of Jesus affirming that God does not micro-manage the doings of the world as wackos like Pat Robertson would like us to believe. The householder makes it quite clear to the servants that the tares are not to be weeded out for fear of harming the crop. It's only at the final reckoning that the distinction is made.

The problem of close reading becomes more obvious in your first example, because of the ambiguity of the King James version. In this version, a group is offered work at the third hour, and "they went their way." This is repeated on the sixth and ninth hours, and finally at the eleventh. The phrase "they went their way" might mean they sauntered off without employment, or it might mean they went to work. but if they refused, it would have been easy to say that, so I'm guessing they worked. No additional phrasing regarding acceptance is applied to the eleventh-hour workers to differentiate them, and yet we know they worked, or the parable would make no sense. In the Revised Standard version, the phrase is "So they went," which pretty clearly suggests that each shift worked. In both versions, the payout is done "beginning with the last, up to (or unto) the first," which suggests that there were more than just the two shifts. Of course you can conclude what you will from all this. My conclusion is that the bible is ambiguous, and however valuable it might be for numerous purposes of spiritual guidance, the text is too corrupt to bear the kind of close analysis some people apply. Lacking the will and the skill to exegesize the original Greek, I'm going to go on the theory that all five shifts worked, though it might be more dramatic if the eleventh-hour workers were filling a breach left by the mid-day slackers.

 

[teacher]

John 3:16

Who said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life"?

 

[BeholdTheTruth]

The problem of close reading becomes more obvious in your first example, because of the ambiguity of the King James version. In this version, a group is offered work at the third hour, and "they went their way." This is repeated on the sixth and ninth hours, and finally at the eleventh. The phrase "they went their way" might mean they sauntered off without employment, or it might mean they went to work. but if they refused, it would have been easy to say that, so I'm guessing they worked. No additional phrasing regarding acceptance is applied to the eleventh-hour workers to differentiate them, and yet we know they worked, or the parable would make no sense. In the Revised Standard version, the phrase is "So they went," which pretty clearly suggests that each shift worked. In both versions, the payout is done "beginning with the last, up to (or unto) the first," which suggests that there were more than just the two shifts. Of course you can conclude what you will from all this. My conclusion is that the bible is ambiguous, and however valuable it might be for numerous purposes of spiritual guidance, the text is too corrupt to bear the kind of close analysis some people apply. Lacking the will and the skill to exegesize the original Greek, I'm going to go on the theory that all five shifts worked, though it might be more dramatic if the eleventh-hour workers were filling a breach left by the mid-day slackers.

Well you may be right. OTOH, if one tries to look for positive practical advice within Matt: 20 (which, of course, is quite different from desiring to find fault with it -- which, of course, is everyone's right, right or wrong), then how might one approach Matt: 20?

I could be very wrong, but it does seem to me that Matt: 20 does provide very good practical advice if one first notices that only two groups out of five of laborers are mentioned at the end. And then one chooses to think about what possible reason(s) there might be for JC only mentioning two groups? That is, treating Matt: 20 as if it is actually a riddle that can not be solved if any of its facts are deleted or new facts are added. (After all, he does often say that to understand his parables, one has to have eyes that see and ears that hear. He does not say be creative.

One reason to not mention the three groups in the middle at the end is that they did not complain, but just took the money and ran. Another possibility is that one or more of the three groups did complain, but their case was not as clear cut due to the hours they worked. Or maybe one or more of the three middle groups got paid more than a dinar! One could go on and on with coming up with reasons til the cows come home simply by adding additional info into the riddle to end up with any answer that you want to end up with? (BTW, I am fond of the curious riddle about why anything that is concluded lends up -- even when it ends up down, but that is left for another parable.)

Getting back to Matt:20, why would the three middle groups of laborers go a non-vineyard way when given a vague offer about compensation, while the last group did decide to come into the vineyard when given the same offer? Well, how about if because a dinar (a minimum unit of money for that era) for an hour of work was a good deal, whereas for two or three hours of work not as good?

And thus perhaps Matt: 20 is very good practical advice? And even today for us. For example, if you need work very badly to put bread on the table and cover your nut today, and you get two offers in all aspects equal except for the comp plan, with one of offer a low but assured comp that will at least put bread on the table and cover your nut for today, and the other a deal to do the work and get paid what the buyer later thinks your work is worth, you'd be nuts to not take the first deal, other things being exactly equal. BTW, I am told that is why prostitutes ask for the money up front -- surely a case when and where the value of providing a service greatly diminishes after the service has been performed.

Which btw leads me to believe any prositute is far more likely to immediately get the practical meaning of Matt: 20 than most seminarians in Harvard's Theological Seminary or the Princeton or Yale one. Which may be why The Man hung out with the ladies: they "understood" him. And perhaps why most people, Christians as well as non-Christians, do not look deeply enough into JC's parables and other words -- as who is willing to prostitute one's self without guaranteed guarentees of getting value for cognitive value given?

 

[ned flandas]

I am more bothered by the gigantic plot holes.

Which ones please?

 

[bruto]

Well you may be right. OTOH, if one tries to look for positive practical advice within Matt: 20 (which, of course, is quite different from desiring to find fault with it -- which, of course, is everyone's right, right or wrong), then how might one approach Matt: 20?

I could be very wrong, but it does seem to me that Matt: 20 does provide very good practical advice if one first notices that only two groups out of five of laborers are mentioned at the end. And then one chooses to think about what possible reason(s) there might be for JC only mentioning two groups? That is, treating Matt: 20 as if it is actually a riddle that can not be solved if any of its facts are deleted or new facts are added. (After all, he does often say that to understand his parables, one has to have eyes that see and ears that hear. He does not say be creative.

One reason to not mention the three groups in the middle at the end is that they did not complain, but just took the money and ran. Another possibility is that one or more of the three groups did complain, but their case was not as clear cut due to the hours they worked. Or maybe one or more of the three middle groups got paid more than a dinar! One could go on and on with coming up with reasons til the cows come home simply by adding additional info into the riddle to end up with any answer that you want to end up with? (BTW, I am fond of the curious riddle about why anything that is concluded lends up -- even when it ends up down, but that is left for another parable.)

Getting back to Matt:20, why would the three middle groups of laborers go a non-vineyard way when given a vague offer about compensation, while the last group did decide to come into the vineyard when given the same offer? Well, how about if because a dinar (a minimum unit of money for that era) for an hour of work was a good deal, whereas for two or three hours of work not as good?

And thus perhaps Matt: 20 is very good practical advice? And even today for us. For example, if you need work very badly to put bread on the table and cover your nut today, and you get two offers in all aspects equal except for the comp plan, with one of offer a low but assured comp that will at least put bread on the table and cover your nut for today, and the other a deal to do the work and get paid what the buyer later thinks your work is worth, you'd be nuts to not take the first deal, other things being exactly equal. BTW, I am told that is why prostitutes ask for the money up front -- surely a case when and where the value of providing a service greatly diminishes after the service has been performed.

Which btw leads me to believe any prositute is far more likely to immediately get the practical meaning of Matt: 20 than most seminarians in Harvard's Theological Seminary or the Princeton or Yale one. Which may be why The Man hung out with the ladies: they "understood" him. And perhaps why most people, Christians as well as non-Christians, do not look deeply enough into JC's parables and other words -- as who is willing to prostitute one's self without guaranteed guarentees of getting value for cognitive value given?

Well, as we know the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose, this parable can be read all sorts of ways. The usual sunday-school way is that as long as you're on board by the end of the day, you're on board. This accords pretty well with other biblical bits, that there is only on kind of salvation and if you get it you get it, whether you sign on early or late. A cautionary tale for those who think that because they've behaved better longer they should get some kind of special treatment. Christians who especially stress the idea of grace rather than works can point to this parable. Of course it can also be read as a rather high-handed "it's not for you to say, I make the rules" kind of statement, and if you are inclined to try for biblical justification for everything, you could even read it as a justification to reject collective bargaining in labor issues! Your implication above that the first group was unwise to take the deal without more negotiation is quite an interesting variant too, but it makes that parable pretty hard to reconcile with the usual allegory for divine grace! I think it falls down because the parable makes it clear that every group hired knew in advance what the payment would be, and got what they bargained for. It is they who wish to renegotiate at the end, not the boss.

As for why only two groups are mentioned at the end, it could be significant, but it could just as easily be that the first and last are the most obviously contrasted, and to get into the relative disputes or merits of those in between would just make the parable bulky and confusing. It is, after all, a parable, not a short story; it's supposed to be compact, easy to tell and easy to remember. While some writer or scribe might well have wished to make a complex riddle of it, if we assume for the moment (skeptics and atheists aside for this moment) that Jesus actually uttered this parable, we must also assume that he did it orally, and with the intention of being understood without a great deal of effort or ambiguity.

I find this an amusing bit of thread digression, because it really does point up how two people can read the very same passage of the bible, "literally," as it were, and yet come up with quite different conclusions.

 

[BeholdTheTruth]

Well, as we know the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose, this parable can be read all sorts of ways.

Agreed. And can I assume moving forward in our discussion that you do not consider me The Devil.

The usual sunday-school way is that as long as you're on board by the end of the day, you're on board. This accords pretty well with other biblical bits, that there is only on kind of salvation and if you get it you get it, whether you sign on early or late. A cautionary tale for those who think that because they've behaved better longer they should get some kind of special treatment. Christians who especially stress the idea of grace rather than works can point to this parable. Of course it can also be read as a rather high-handed "it's not for you to say, I make the rules" kind of statement, and if you are inclined to try for biblical justification for everything, you could even read it as a justification to reject collective bargaining in labor issues!

Indeed, it is occasionally pointed out that the parable says that one is not to worry in the here and now about rewards in the Hereafter. What a cool way to fleece the sheep, yes! OTOH, IF it is a cautionary tale about the here and now, then it seems to me to take on just about the opposite meaning of conventional Christian teachings. Which to me is not such a bad thing as it would keep the baby (and adult Jesus while throwing out the perhaps non-Jesus bath water.

Your implication above that the first group was unwise to take the deal without more negotiation is quite an interesting variant too,

Not unwise to me, but rather not at the right place at the right time per the last group IF fortune is a matter of who gets paid more for what is done. They needed the work and specifically knew up front what they would receive, unlike any of the other groups. It appears to me that the master of the vineyard was being perfectly fair with them, though of course not at all generous.

but it makes that parable pretty hard to reconcile with the usual allegory for divine grace!

In deed! (and that space is not a typo, as the master is willing to be judged by how well his deeds actually match up with his carefully chosen words.) So perhaps for a moment consider this: what would be more "divine" (and rare) than a teacher who actually sees the subtleties of reality for what they are, and then is willing and able to explain that complexity of reality to those students of his able to sooner or later come to an understanding of the subtleties and complexities of how things really work and do no work. And whether in work situations or other circumstances?

Furthermore, if any such "common sense, practical advice" interpretation of Jesus' words pulls the rug out from anyone seeking to play a bait and switch game on sheep the way many radio and TV evangelists frequently do -- hear, here! Because those fools and/or knaves are acting so opposite to the master of that vineyard who very forthrightly did not reneg on his deal(s).

I think it falls down because the parable makes it clear that every group hired knew in advance what the payment would be, and got what they bargained for. It is they who wish to renegotiate at the end, not the boss.

I do not think that you are correct here according to the texts. Matt: 20 indicates that the first group knew they would get one dinar, and indicates that the four other groups knew they would get at least one dinar.

A big difference, even if just one small fact in the parable.

And I believe that small item but big difference is the key point that unlocks the solution to the riddle inherent in this parable. (See below my comment about parables as riddles.)

As for why only two groups are mentioned at the end, it could be significant, but it could just as easily be that the first and last are the most obviously contrasted, and to get into the relative disputes or merits of those in between would just make the parable bulky and confusing.

I considered that as well, but rejected it for what I believe is a reasonable reason: if YOU were to craft a parable that advised listeners to be disinclined towards deals where the comp was determined by the recipient of a service after that service was performed, would you not word it along the lines of Matt: 20? And if you were particularly crafty at crafting parables, and wanted to have those parables capable of being passed down the centuries, would you not make sure that they were neither bulky nor confusing? I dare say yes -- and, als, no.

And now, good sir, I can almost hear you responding that while Matt: 20 is not bulky, it IS VERY confusing as it is so open to different intrerpretations!

And if that were to be your response, I would now respond that I believe JC purposely worded it to be confusing to those without the eyes to see what he was pointing to. Because I believe that he sought to make all his parables and other pronouncements a method of training his followers to see beneath the everyday cognitive clutter that turns most men and women into sheep and some men and women into wolves.

It is, after all, a parable, not a short story; it's supposed to be compact, easy to tell and easy to remember. While some writer or scribe might well have wished to make a complex riddle of it, if we assume for the moment (skeptics and atheists aside for this moment) that Jesus actually uttered this parable, we must also assume that he did it orally, and with the intention of being understood without a great deal of effort or ambiguity.

Absolutely not true according to his words per much of the NT. Time and again, he says quite the opposite: I am speaking in parables, most of you will never understand me... the kingdom of heaven is only for those of you who have ears that hear and eyes that see. Or words to that effect.

So I think a reasonable question is why would anyone who was God on earth -- or even just a cool rabbi with a small following -- go out of his way to be enigmatic? I, of course, may be wrong, but I believe that he spoke that way as a means of separating a certain kind of uncertain deep thinker from other deep thinkers as well as shallow ones. By the way, the fact that lots of deep thinkers do not see it that way may simply be because once a deep thinker has taken the plunge in one direction/way of thinking, it is very hard to then begin taking the plunge in some opposite direction/way of thinking. Which of course at least to me is what the structure & elements of his parables are all about: purposely requiring the listener or reader to work at shifting his or her directions of deeper & deeper plunges to further & further plumb the depths of what he is, even today, pointing to.

I find this an amusing bit of thread digression, because it really does point up how two people can read the very same passage of the bible, "literally," as it were, and yet come up with quite different conclusions.

Me too. And yet, if you were to take a tiny plunge in the direction of seeing JC's parables as multi-layered riddles to be solved (solved, e.g., like really good Zen koans), you might come to see something even more am-using. Something which in moments of extreme light-headedness, I, now and then, am shamelessly inclined to refer to as the "Generalities of Nature's Operating System"/"GNOS".

 

[bruto]

Indeed, it is occasionally pointed out that the parable says that one is not to worry in the here and now about rewards in the Hereafter. What a cool way to fleece the sheep, yes! OTOH, IF it is a cautionary tale about the here and now, then it seems to me to take on just about the opposite meaning of conventional Christian teachings. Which to me is not such a bad thing as it would keep the baby (and adult Jesus while throwing out the perhaps non-Jesus bath water.

The parable starts right out with "The kingdom of heaven is like..." which to me suggests that it is meant as just that: an allegory about the kingdom of heaven. We don't see Jesus elsewhere giving practical worldly advice, and I don't see why it should be read in here. I stand corrected on the details of the payment. It's only the first group, who bargained for a known wage, that complains later when the landowner determines that the same wage is fair for all. All the others have agreed to accept whatever the landowner deems fair, and accept without complaint. Again, I prefer to see this as a metaphor for the self-righteous who judge the value even of the kingdom of heaven only invidiously: they cannot consider the reward fair if it goes the same to those less worthy than themselves.

It appears to me that the master of the vineyard was being perfectly fair with them, though of course not at all generous.

Yes. Everyone gets paid according to the bargain. Not generous? Perhaps not, but it depends on what is a fair wage for the day's work. I don't know what a vineyard laborer would have gotten back then, but for all we know the wage may have been generous. The workers certainly found it at least sufficent. If, in fact, the agreed wage for the first group was fair and sufficient (and if we are indeed talking about the kingdom of heaven, then we can presume that it is that), then the landowner is certainly being generous to all but the first group, and possibly to them as well. Again, my reading of the parable suggests that that's part of the point: the complainers look at others' bonus as diminishing the value of their wage, but it does not.

I do not think that you are correct here according to the texts. Matt: 20 indicates that the first group knew they would get one dinar, and indicates that the four other groups knew they would get at least one dinar.

Yes, I misread that bit, but I don't think it makes a material difference, except perhaps to explain why groups 2 through 4 did not complain, since their agreement was to accept whatever the landowner thought fair, and their faith was borne out: they got more than they might have expected. The complainers got the fair wage they expected, but judged it not on its intrinsic value but a relative value based on jealousy of others' good fortune.

And now, good sir, I can almost hear you responding that while Matt: 20 is not bulky, it IS VERY confusing as it is so open to different intrerpretations!

It might be confusing, but then again, my point is that we cannot know the exact way it was originally worded, and how that telling might have made sense to the audience. I believe there was a longstanding Jewish tradition of parables on which Jesus drew, and the people he spoke to may well have been more accustomed to that kind of allegorical teaching than we are. To make too much of the subtleties of the wording at this great remove is very speculative. And of course I could also take the position of so many and say, nonsense, that parable isn't confusing. I have explained it. All other explanations are wrong!

And if that were to be your response, I would now respond that I believe JC purposely worded it to be confusing to those without the eyes to see what he was pointing to. Because I believe that he sought to make all his parables and other pronouncements a method of training his followers to see beneath the everyday cognitive clutter that turns most men and women into sheep and some men and women into wolves.

Absolutely not true according to his words per much of the NT. Time and again, he says quite the opposite: I am speaking in parables, most of you will never understand me... the kingdom of heaven is only for those of you who have ears that hear and eyes that see. Or words to that effect. (..snip to reduce thread clutter)

I think the parables were undoubtedly meant to make people think and discuss ideas, and especially to illustrate ideas that might be complicated to explain outright, but I'm not convinced they're quite as multi-layered and intentionally complex as you make out, and most of all, I think that close analysis of actual text is a blind alley when dealing with material such as this, which was written from recollected accounts long after the events (events which are themselves subject to much dispute and doubt), and comes to us through a chain of transcriptions and translations, many of which were done by people with a religious agenda that may or may not be in accord with the intentions of Jesus Christ, a person whose very existence is questioned by many, not to mention what he actually said. There is a difference between ambiguity and complexity.

 

[username]

I've read the gospels off and on since my childhood, and Jesus just never impressed me as very intelligent. He suffers in comparison with ancient poets, philosophers, statesmen and historians, whose surviving writings often reveal shrewd insights into the human condition, derived from intelligent reflections on real human behavior.

I don't fully agree. As a former Christian, now atheist I look back on some of the teachings as reflecting great wisdom and keen insight into the human condition.

I think one problem with the teachings of Jesus is that while the translations are modern (in some cases), the idea on the part of some sects that the words are divinely inspired has prevented us from seeing the teachings presented in an updated, culturally relevant fashion. To update them for cultural relevance would be sinful to many.

Even so, consider this pearl "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". Or "remove the plank in your own eye before the speck in your brother's.".

Even the most militant atheist would benefit from reflecting on the wisdom contained in such sayings. If one prefers one can gain the same truth from a more secular "religion" such as buddhism or even secular humanist authors.

Regardless I find in the sayings attributed to Jesus a lot of wisdom and unfortunately quite a bit of bigotry. Then again that is true of most.

If one approaches the teachings of any "teacher" with a skeptical, but open mind then one is free to find value nearly everywhere.