The Parable of the Talents

[Belinda]

Hello 3uGH7D4MLj If you look up 'The Jesus Seminar' you may find theories by important Biblical scholars , I copied this bit:

Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".

The usury parable does present opposites.

Newme's descriptions from her animal keeper experience (of goat behaviour contrasted with sheep behaviour )does bear out the aptness for the sheep and goats parable for rural Galilee ,at the time when animal herding was the most important industry, and for country people who appreciate and learn better from an orally delivered joke.

The teaching of important ethical or political ideas is most often carried by rhetoric. Art ,if you like !

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Hello 3uGH7D4MLj If you look up 'The Jesus Seminar' you may find theories by important Biblical scholars , I copied this bit:

Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".

Love your enemies is certainly a beautiful and shocking bit of word play, I hope not ironic.

Now I have to go look at The Good Samaritan.

best,

[Newme]

(Nested quote removed.)

Yes, I know. I put this interpretation into the "pleasant homily" category. Thanks but there is something weird about this parable, something doesn't fit, there's something out of place.

This parable doesn't seem strange to you?

From post #5: I can't help being curious about Jesus' representing God as an unscrupulous businessman and the culture of speculation that pervades the story. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm also wondering why the slow and sheepish slave met with such harsh punishment.

"Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, & did not minister unto thee?" ok, but then there is this parable which tells the tale of a slave who's rightfully rebuked by his unscrupulous master, and cast into the outer darkness (prison, according to Eusebius' version) not because he was dishonest, but because he was cautious about his investments.

I don't worry about the details as much as I used to, but try to focus on the spirit or general message. Still, I think it's good to pay attention to your sense that something isn't right regarding the way the parable is stated. Consider biblical canon history of how the 66+ books came to be. Much of the stories of Jesus weren't added until 400 years after the fact. Back then, religious and political power were intertwined, so, a lot of the wording was changed, to keep people feeling submissive. It's loaded with cognitive distortions. It's as if Jesus is being crucified again, by twisting his teachings around to means something completely different.

Any parable - even if it is warped - can be interpreted in spiritual and good ways, once you get past power & money-hungry "orthodox" interpretations. Consider that the "investment" symbolized investing in a "treasure that neither moth or rust can corrupt." IMO, one's capacity to love, is the spiritual monetary system.

Use common sense, along with spiritual intuition. "The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." The greatest commandments are to love God and to love others as ourselves. These are good and true, IMO and if anything conflicts with them, don't buy into it.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I don't worry about the details as much as I used to, but try to focus on the spirit or general message. Still, I think it's good to pay attention to your sense that something isn't right regarding the way the parable is stated. Consider biblical canon history of how the 66+ books came to be. Much of the stories of Jesus weren't added until 400 years after the fact. Back then, religious and political power were intertwined, so, a lot of the wording was changed, to keep people feeling submissive. It's loaded with cognitive distortions. It's as if Jesus is being crucified again, by twisting his teachings around to means something completely different.

That's a possible explanation, can we trust the canonizers, though many will argue that the canonizers were under divine guidance. I take your points, I just thought I'd post it because of that bad moment hearing it when I was just a kid. Now, it's all anthropology to me, fascinating, but I don't take it to heart.

[Newme]

That's a possible explanation, can we trust the canonizers, though many will argue that the canonizers were under divine guidance. I take your points, I just thought I'd post it because of that bad moment hearing it when I was just a kid. Now, it's all anthropology to me, fascinating, but I don't take it to heart.

I think I understand where you're coming from. For a while, I was so upset about realizing I'd been fooled. But now, when I really dig into scriptures, I see new meanings, pearls of wisdom among some trash. It's really cool! Someone said, expect to get dirty if you're looking for a diamond in a dumpster. Such is with most writings, IMO. There's no one single guru that has the answer to everything - even those gurus from thousands of years ago. As my friend said, "There's nobody here but us chickens."

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I think I understand where you're coming from. For a while, I was so upset about realizing I'd been fooled. But now, when I really dig into scriptures, I see new meanings, pearls of wisdom among some trash. It's really cool! Someone said, expect to get dirty if you're looking for a diamond in a dumpster. Such is with most writings, IMO. There's no one single guru that has the answer to everything - even those gurus from thousands of years ago. As my friend said, "There's nobody here but us chickens." :D

I think the old stories in the Hebrew scriptures are amazing. If you ever come across it check out Harold Bloom's Book of J. It's a secular, scholarly take, but with a nice recognition of the genius.

[Robin]

If you read the parable in context and in relation to the people that Jesus was talking to, I think it was being taught to people who were established in traditional Judaism and Jesus comes along bringing his kingdom, something new and strange to them. I think you could interpret the parable in the light of taking risks and not remaining in the comfortable mindset that you and your ancestors had kept. he was asking his hearers to invest in His teaching, His way.

In any case, in my own personal experience, I had let many things pass me by by my natural timidity and resistance to change. I think it would have been better if I took risks, if I had been fearless and went with my heart. It was the timid servant after all who taught his master a hard man and not the servants who were not afraid to invest.

[Belinda]

I like the point that Robin makes, regarding Jesus's advocating risking a new paradigm. I think however that the literal meaning which praises the sin of usury remains problematic. Did Jesus actually teach by getting his audience to reconsider a traditional proscription? If so, I wonder if Jesus wanted his audience to look again at the Jewish law, or to actively reform it.

A modern-day problem with preaching from this parable is that bankers have taken immoral risks.

[Newme]

I think the old stories in the Hebrew scriptures are amazing. If you ever come across it check out Harold Bloom's Book of J. It's a secular, scholarly take, but with a nice recognition of the genius.

Thank you for that book recommendation. After a brief search, it looks interesting.

[Jake]

The Clementine Homilies, the Apostolical Constitutions, the Teaching of Addai, Victor of Capua, Origen, and other patristic quotations identify the money as scripture, both genuine and spurious, given out as a test.

The first slave recognized pure gold and preserved it. The second one doubled fool’s gold, and the third wasted gold on harlots who adulterated it (a reference to Rome’s anti-Torah doctrines, Trinitarianism, supersessionism, and anti-Semitism based on altered MSS, cf. Rev 17.1–5).

Rewriting a parable that dealt with forgery was clearly of the essence.