Comments on: The Parables of Jesus: Part 1, The Good Samaritan

By: blt

blt — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:01:09 +0000

Correction: “in assigning WHAT I think feels right about my interpretation”

By: blt

blt — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:59:38 +0000

KLC,
Good point and sorry. For the record, I was having a wonderful discussion with you . . . in my head.
Here’s the funny thing. I agree completely that the parable of the Good Samaritan (thanks, guys, I can’t even write that without thinking of Vlade Divac) is extremely useful, both as a morality tale and as an allegory.
Be that as it may, I think that Brad’s post might merit pause. Haven’t we–Christians–done violence to Christ’s teachings in the past? Case in point–the crap about Christ’s camel and the eye of the needle being some sort of midget gate in Jerusalem. Or, for example, the “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it, but I really said ‘my yoke is easy and my burden is light’” debaucle.
After reading both Crossan and Brad’s post, I have come to the conclusion that I need to tread lightly in jumping to conclusions about Christ’s message, because I am worried that I might, in assigning why I think feels right about my interpretation, neuter a much more radical, harrowing and ultimately salvative (word?) message.
It’s not like this doesn’t happen often. Gandhi was a rebel; nothing less, but he is looked upon now as some sort of deluded hippy that lucked out on the timing of WW2. Helen Keller was an avowed socialist, not just an amazing handicapped person.
Don’t we owe it to the Son of God to check ourselves, and consider whether we’re sanitizing his message.
What do you think?
For the record, I really hope we aren’t, because I really dig the MLK interpretation of this story.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:37:04 +0000

While I find it interesting to understand the historical context for the parable and to surmise what message may have been intended for Jesus’ immediate audience, I believe the allegorical interpretation is equally compelling and applicable for us today.

By favoring any single interpretation, don’t we by default limit the significance any other interpretation? As KLC states, can we not treat all possible interpretations with equal importance?

Certainly there is plenty to learn from these rich parables. Just when I think I understand I find (usually from others such as those that contribute here) that there are still angles that I never considered. I look forward to more posts on the parables….

By: KLC

KLC — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:16:30 +0000

blt, after several paragraphs of thoughtful discussion between Brad and me you come in with a two line riposte that seemed to show you either did not read or did not understand what I wrote and you expect me to take you seriously?

I spent several posts telling Brad exactly what the problem is and said more than once that I had no problem with fresh looks at a parable, either his analysis, or MLK’s or Welch’s.

But to reiterate, your use of the phrase “Christ’s intended message” in #75 as well as your comment that “Historical context is everything” in #78 are exactly what my problem is.

Christ’s oral message to that small group of people 2000 years ago is an historical curiosity. As such it is subject to critical analysis and as such it’s historical context is indeed everything. But by being included in a scriptural canon which we accept as inspired that incident now transcends history and its interpretation transcends historical analysis.

To me it is conceivable that Christ’s intended message to the group 2000 years ago that heard his voice may be entirely different than his intended message to those that read the same words in the Bible. Given that there are two audiences for this parable, one historical and one scriptural, and that there may be two intended messages, one historic and one scriptural, it seems erroneous to make definitive statements about a parable based only on history, such as your “historical context is everything” and Brad’s interpretational hierarchy of correctness.

I’m not negating the value of an historical approach to parables, just putting it alongside other approaches instead of above all the rest.

By: CraigH

CraigH — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:32:02 +0000

blt is mostly right that historical context is everything—it’s only almost everything. It’s everything when it’s about getting the story and context right in the first place, to be sure you get what it meant to the participants. But it’s got no life unless it connects to you in another place and time as well, and that’s where the act of transposition, and the historian, has to come in. Not a superficial comparison, but a genuine transposition, just like taking a piece of music and putting it in a different key, or writing it for another instrument. The point of the transposition is to show that the original is essentially the same as the new creation, it just has a different form.

By: blt

blt — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:18:06 +0000

KLC,
Thanks for the smarmy reply. Regardless, you did say that you “don’t agree that this likely original interpretation must be the most important one to me or anyone else in 2008.”
I have to disagree. Historical context is everything.

By: Swisster

Swisster — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:57:28 +0000

Regarding choice of epithet in “Good _______.”

If I’m trying to fill in that blank, am I being more true to the parable if I include a despised race or ethnicity in the label? Or is it just important that the category of person is despised for any reason? How do I know?

By: KLC

KLC — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:54:07 +0000

blt, you’re right, I can’t be saying that. Go back and read through again and see if you pick what I am saying the second time.

By: blt

blt — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:13:45 +0000

KLC,
You can’t be saying that Christ’s intended message is subordinate to you fitting it into your Sunday School lesson, so what’s the problem? Is a fresh look at the parable problematic?

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:52:10 +0000

Brad #30, when I was YMP, my young men thought I looked like Vlade Divac (who was still playing back then), and so their affectionate nickname for me was “Vlade.”