chrysalis

Once upon a time I found a website that showed how the parables taught by Jesus were not original teachings but were recycled from jewish lore/mythology.
For the life of me I can't find that information again. Can anyone direct me to where I can find something similar to this?

Thanks!

Mageth

That appears to be --sort of-- the conclusion by at least some Scholars/researchers. See here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theissen-hj.html

which is a review of The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide
by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz.

The note on Chapter 11 from that book:

aikido7

I understand that the parabolic form of speech and story is--by its very structure--designed to undercut and even dislocate the world view of conventional reality.

Scholarly studies on this very point have been done by John Crossan and, in particular, Bernard Scott, both of which are or were at one time members of the Jesus Seminar (the public relations arm of historical Jesus scholarship).

And there have been additional peer-reviewed and published studies in the last couple of decades that focus on the theory that the early church immediately began turning Jesus' parabolic speeches into allegory, partly because it did not understand them and partly because it needed to "domesticate" his stories to speak to each Christian community's immediate historical concerns.

I remember Crossan once writing that the New Testament's presentation of Jesus parabolic teaching tales are set forth in shorthand and truncated verse but probably took an hour or more for Jesus to perform. The focused and readable evidence cited by Scott in his book Re-Imagine the World frames the biblical parables convincingly in the shared culture and traditions of Jesus' original first-century audience.

He reveals some startling information that overturns conventional wisdom on the Galilean's vision of "the Kingdom of God."

More importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that all of this teaching still flies under the radar of both mainline and fundamentalist approaches--again because we don't understand it and need to unwittingly "dumb it down" and domesticate it for the rest of us.

I see it as truly revolutionary--then as now. I don't think there are many historical parallels for such speech, but I could be wrong. To me this new understanding of the parable itself and how Jesus told a parable almost take on the appearance of an extended Zen koan--to teach a truth by catching the pedestrian mind "off guard."

I truly believe Jesus actually did speak and teach "not like the scribes and priests."

Clivedurdle

Buddhist influence again?

aikido7

Maybe rather common-sense religious enlightenment of which Buddhism and Christianity (and others) all draw from.

I could be wrong.

Visionary7

Hello... The parables of Jesus are by far the hardest to intrepret and understand, even for Bible scholars such as myself..I particulary agree %100 percent with your last sentence.. Do you want Scripture references to help clear that up for you? Won't be hard..Years of bible study pays off.

aikido7

I believe the true parable belongs to the same mental domain of poetry, schizophrenia and humor. Once scholars attempt to "interpret" and "understand" the parable, they are meeting it with their left-brain, not their right. The parable, as Jesus used it, was an oral story meant to be heard, not studied.

It is the difference between interpreting and understanding how a particular joke works versus being surprised by one's own laughter.

Using scripture references only will not give us an accurate picture of the context of first-century Palestine. The Enlightenment still has to fully bloom, the letter "S" still needs to be seen as a viable addition to the word "religion," and serious readers of the Bible need to bring to the table the revolutionary knowledge base we now have to do a critical study of the New Testament world.

Since I believe the Bible is a complex mix of history and theology, we need to go wherever common-sense truth leads us. Then we can fashion useful beliefs.

Diogenes the Cynic

Scripture doesn't really clear it up because it doesn't actually offer much reliable information about the original intent of the parables but simply the biased interpretations, misunderstandings or even distortions of those teachings. The authors of the Gospels were trying to force a sayings tradition into their own theological and eschatological systems and that means that their presentations of the parables, their redactions and their commentary on them have to be read with that in mind. Just because Luke says a parable is about X does not mean that the author of the parable (be he HJ or someone else) intended any such thing.

noah

The only thing I will say here is that Jesus fashioned his parables to make them unintelligible for everyon except a tiny handful of believers.
James Buckner made this point:

Why would Jesus deliberately obscure the gospel by speaking in parables so that people would not understand, turn, and be forgiven (Mark 4:11-12)? Did he not come that all men might be saved?

This is for me the most important thing about the parables. They were designed to make salvation the exclusive right of a few people. Hardly the conduct of a loving and just world saviour.

Regards,

judge

But even his believers had no idea what they meant. We can see this in Matthew 13 when even his followers ask Jesus what the parable means.

If we look at this particlular parable we may find a clue.

If you tell a YEC that the earth is not 6000 years old and that we have good evidence for this he still probably will not "see" it because he will not be receptive.

IOW it may not have made any difference if Jesus had "spelt it out", if people are not recptive it wont make any difference.
From this perspective Aikido's points might make sense.



But even this idea might be influenced by ideas about Jesus teaching that became accepted long after Jesus.

That being that salvation is only the right of a few.


Clearly true.