In my previous post I talked about how Origen’s view that souls existed before being born as humans related to his view that in the end, all things — including the most wicked beings in the universe — will convert and return to God: salvation for all! Also connected to this idea was Origen’s notion that after death people would be reborn to, in a sense, “give it another go.” Origen is our most famous Christian proponent of the idea of reincarnation.
Reincarnations – Before Origen
The idea of reincarnation had been floated for centuries before Origen. In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Pythagoras was widely believed to have been the first to perpetrate, or at least popularize the idea. Later it was allegedly held by such figures as Parmenides and Empedocles, the latter of whom had allegedly said “Before now I was a boy, and a maid, a bush and a bird, and a dumb fish leaping out of the sea.”
So too we find it in the Roman tradition, as when Virgil’s Aeneas visits the underworld and sees innumerable souls gathered around the River Lethe (Forgetfulness) before being sent back to earth in a “second body.” He doesn’t understand why anyone would want to leave paradise for the miseries of life, but he is told that “the wretches are not completely purged of all the taints, nor are they wholly freed of all the body’s plagues” and so that need to be “drilled in punishments” in order to “pay for their old offenses.” Only then can they “revisit the overarching world once more” by returning to bodies, to try again (Aeneid 6. 865-96).
It is often said today that reincarnation was widespread teaching in early Christianity as well.
But There’s Not a Lot of Evidence
In fact, the evidence for it is sparse. To be sure, later interpreters have detected possible traces of the idea already in the New Testament. When Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do people say that I am,” they tell him that some say he is John the Baptist come back from the dead, or Elijah, or one of the prophets (Mark 8:27-28). This may not indicate that everyone has had a previous life, but it certainly shows that some people thought Jesus did. So too in the Gospel of John, the puzzled Jewish leaders ask John the Baptist: “Are you Elijah?” (John 1:21).
He denies it, but it’s interesting that they thought it was possible. And even more interesting, if less obvious, later in the same Gospel, Jesus passes by a man who was born blind, and his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this person or his parents, that he should be born blind?” (John 9:2). It’s a revealing question: if the man was born blind because of his own sin, obviously he had to have committed the sin before his birth. Voila. Reincarnation.
The idea of Jesus possubly being Elijah should not be considered support for Jewish belief in reincarnation since it was believed on the basis of the Hebrew scriptures that Elijah was taken up bodily into heaven and that he would return. Hence his re-appearance would not imply the reincarnation of a dead person’s soul into a new body.
Good point. But I think the idea is that he has a different body now — not quite the same as coming back after dying, you’re right.
On the premise that Elijah was taken up ALIVE…let’s bring him back as John the Baptist and show how it is so. Elijah is famed for having killed 400 of the prophets of Baal with “the edge of the sword”. 1 KI 18:40. John is beheaded by Herod…before the incidents in Mark 9:12 and Matthew 17:12-13… and as it is written in Matthew 26:52…Gen 9:6.
Elijah also appears with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses is dead. We know this from Joshua 1:2. How is it that a “living” Elijah and dead Moses is conversing with Jesus. Even the disciples understood that Elijah was dead at the point of Mat 17:13, and so was John the Baptist; Luke 9:7-8 &18-19, Mat 14:2,
Let’s also examine Jesus response to the disciple when they tried to ascribe to him the possibility of being the (spiritual) return of John The Baptist, Elijah or Jeremiah in a physical body in Mat 14:16.
In other instances of faulty belief, e,g, the Pharisees, Apostles (Peter in particular), even his mother (twice), Jesus was quick to rebuke the error. In the case of Mat 14;16 and the other witness verses (and context thereof) Jesus does not say to them…”Bozos…there is no such thing as reincarnation!! That is a Satanic concept of that heretic Buddha”…as we hear today.
This “ascetic lifestyle, moving up along a chain of being” sounds very much like ideas from Hinduism and Buddhism. We know that there was contact between India and the Roman Empire – what’s your gut feeling, was Origen influenced by ideas from the East?
It seems unlikely; his associations principally involved Greek and Roman philosophical and Christian theological traditions (based on his extensive references and the “biography” about him by Eusebius)
What influence, if any, did Buddhism have on these beliefs?
It seems unlikely; his associations principally involved Greek and Roman philosophical and Christian theological traditions (based on his extensive references and the “biography” about him by Eusebius)
Is this idea of existing before being born similar to the Mormon beliefs?
Hmmm. Someone else better answer this one — I don’t know!
yes.
Professor Ehrman, of all the various blogs I follow, yours is the one I most enjoy reading! I hope you continue for a long long time! Thank you.
Off-topic: Bart, is it safe to say Paul had no idea what the Trinity was? … He does mention Spirit in 2 Cor 3:6, but wasn’t it Tertullian who was first to conjure up the idea of the Trinity?
The doctrine of the Trinity developed long after Paul. Not sure what he would make of it, but my sense is that he would find it completely unacceptable. What he would propose as an alternative is hard to say. But he seems to have had a subordinationist view, that Christ was not fully equal, let alone of the same substance, as the Father.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. We start with gospels that dont agree with each other. Next we have Paul who seems to make up a lot of new ideas and doesnt seem to always agree with what Jesus says in the gospels. Next we have early church fathers making up even more stuff like the trinity and purgatory. I know you are not a theologian but as a historian do you know when christianity became stable and no more new beliefs were added to the doctrine? Maybe never? Thanks!!!
Every religion develops and evolves and has different points of view represented. It’s kind of like asking when did the Democratic party finally decide on what all its members would think for all time without variation.
great analogy. thanx
Answer to the question…..Never…………………………
While the Doctrine of the Trinity was “developed” some time after the codifications, it always lingered in the wording, waiting to be defined…as with many other “missing” words…”divinity”, “rapture”, “atheist”…etc
Um, where does join the Carpocratians? A friend wants to know . . .
Sorry, I”m not sure what you’re asking.
Are you familiar with the 1991 Albert Brooks film, Defending Your Life? After death he has to defend how he lived his life to avoid being sent back for another go-around, instead of advancing on to the next plane of existence. I like Brooks’ work and thought this one was humorous and insightful.
I’m not, but it sounds interesting!
Fantastic film!
I’ve always thought that if there were an afterlife that reincarnation would be among the more plausible possibilities. Honestly, it’s a bit disappointing that it didn’t make it into the Orthodox Christian view.
“When Jesus asks his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am,’ they tell him that some say he is John the Baptist come back from the dead, or Elijah, or one of the prophets (Mark 8:27-28). This may not indicate that everyone has had a previous life, but it certainly shows that some people thought Jesus did.”
Since Elijah was taken to heaven and did not die, why would believing that someone was Elijah express a belief in a “previous life”? (2 Kings 2:11, Malachi 4:5, Sirach 48:9-11, Matthew 17)
“And even more interesting, if less obvious, later in the same Gospel, Jesus passes by a man who was born blind, and his disciples ask him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this person or his parents, that he should be born blind?” (John 9:2). It’s a revealing question: if the man was born blind because of his own sin, obviously he had to have committed the sin before his birth. Voila. Reincarnation.”
Rather than demonstrating a belief in reincarnation, why could not the Jewish belief that infants could sin in utero underlie the disciples’ question? See https://tinyurl.com/TalmudandHebraica.
Could sin in utero? Not sure I’ve ever heard that one.
Isn´t John 1 21 not refering to Malachi 3 that the Elijah(whom not has died) will come.
Yes, the idea would be not that he came back from the dead, but that he’s reappeared in a different body. Not quite the same as reincarnation.
Fascinating. The concept of reincarnation in one form or another or one degree or another is such a trans-cultural phenomenon that it’s hard to dismiss out of hand. Behind the specifics of various religions’ interpretations of the concept seems to be the idea that the individual souls, spirits, sparks of the divine, entities, or whatever constitutes our core being has a purpose or mission or desire that can only be fulfilled by “taking on” successive individual material forms. Some philosophers today see consciousness as fundamental, and the material world (including our brains) as a “precipitate” or “condensate” of it rather than the other way around. Worth thinking about, I think, especially considering that at the fundamental level, “matter” has no substance, and disappears into mathematics (information).
I’m not sure I would argue that any view about ultimate reality is more likely right if it’s held among people in various cultures… (How many cultures, prior to the past century, have held to the idea of a Big Bang, e.g.?!)
Good point – ultimately, Science doesn’t care what we believe (or don’t believe). However, it does make one wonder. To my mind, cross-cultural beliefs, especially among ancient peoples who are very likely never to have had contact, is suggestive that something is going on, if “only” psychological or sociological (based on the fact that we are all human, e.g.?) My point is simply that, firstly, we have no idea what consciousness is or where our subjective mental experiences come from. If they are simply epiphenomena generated by brain chemistry, can it be said that they have any existence at all? Secondly, whatever constitutes ultimate reality isn’t physical or material stuff – science at least tells us this much. So I keep an open mind, and a sense of humility in the face of the unknown.
(The Big Bang and world creation mythologies are a whole ‘nother topic best left for a future thread, I think!)
*Thanks for your response!
Pre Christmas we had a thread which questioned and debated the stories of Jesus’ birth. In Luke 2, of course, we have the only other story about the young Jesus in the canonical gospels although there are numerous childhood legends in the apochryphal gospels. Do you have any opinion, please, as to why this story of Jesus at 12 made it into Luke?
Ah, good question. Maybe I”ll blog on this. Short answer: Luke is modeling his story on Greco-Roman biographies of great men who are always shown as Wunderkinden to reflect their characteristic traits that will be manifest even more strikingly when they are older.
I’m an agnostic-atheist, not a Christian. But I could probably sign up for a Christianity that espoused universal salvation. Whenever I tried to get interested in Christianity, one of the big stumbling blocks was always the idea that a Buddhist physician who spends 80 hours a week tending to the needs of children with serious illnesses would go to hell.
Dr. Ehrman, I just found this video on You Tube titled, “What advice would you give to Students taking Dr. Ehman’s class?” It’s produced by the Ehrman Project, which I assume is designed to counter your influence on the planet. At some time in the future, would you like to do a point by point response to this? Something tells me that you have already responded in the sense that you have covered these issues in your books and lectures.
There were lots of videos done for that project, and I”ve only seen a couple. The ones I”ve seen struck as really bizarre — especially since they were made by otherwise good scholars. Amazing what they’d be willing to claim on video!
It’s easy to see how the story of Origen castrating himself got started. Whether he actually did it or not (I’m guessing not), it’s sort of consistent with his valuing spirit over flesh.
Flann O’Brien wrote a novel called The Dalkey Archive, in which the hero meets a man who by arcane means, conjures up the spirit of St. Augustine, who speaks disparagingly of this earlier Father of the Church:
(O’Brien, like James Joyce, didn’t believe in quote marks)
–How could Origen be the Father of Anything, and he with no knackers on him? Answer me that one.
–Yes. We must assume his spiritual testicles remained intact.
It’s philosophy, more than theology–that is to say, theology for intellectuals, and therefore not likely to catch on outside very learned circles.
I wonder if Origen was influenced by Buddhism?
The variety of stuff you know truly amazes me.
Probably not, at least based on what he says about his influences in all his writings and what is said in Eusebius’s “biography” of him. BUt there are some intriguing parallels.
What I know: not really very amazing. It’s what I do for a living!
Buddha didn’t invent reincarnation. He merely refined the earlier ideas in Hinduism, which refined still earlier ideas, and so on. We can assume many basic religious ideas occurred independently to people all over the world.
The Indo-European Celts also had a concept of reincarnation, but it was much less systematic, more free form. Souls can migrate from form to form, but it doesn’t necessarily have to mean you were good or bad. The Celts saw the beauty in nature, and were not repelled by the notion of rejoining it.
It is, when you think about it, hopelessly anthropocentric for us to assume that we are the highest physical form of existence, and only a disembodied spirit would be more advanced. If you ever saw a hawk soaring in the sky, or a horse galloping in a meadow and thought “That’s a lower form” I don’t know what to tell you. Jonathan Swift would find that very funny.
It seems like it’s always difficult to reconstruct the spiritual beliefs and practices of a group from the writings of their enemies. Do we have any writings by Carpocratians or someone else not quite as biased as Irenaeus
Oh boy we wish we did!!
Who you say I am is a big and recurring question. Ultimately, the charge that Jesus claimed to be king got him crucified. I always thought that a claim to be the reincarnation of John the Baptist or Elijah would be heretical if not criminal, and so the question of who Jesus was was another trick question.
It wouldn’t be criminal, and not technically heretical — but probably offensive, as seemingly unacceptably arrogant and a bit off-balanced.
While this blog isn’t about what Christians think now, I think that the parallels are interesting, in terms of there being a belief that seems to go on regardless of dominant worldviews and authorities, be they Church or Science..
Here we have the delightfully abstruse theological arguments for why Christians really shouldn’t believe in reincarnation (even though 25% of us do) https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2015/10/21/25-percent-us-christians-believe-reincarnation-whats-wrong-picture.. and yet mine coexist with my version of Christianity just fine, thank you. I think it matters if you are theologically big picture or theologically into the details.
Take this paper https://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/Nordic_Psychology_erlhar06.pdf
“This shows independence from scientific as well as religious authorities. Is it a remnant of pre-Christian beliefs, due to exposure to Buddhist and Hindu concepts, or a sign of original independent thinking? Half a century of anti-religious regimes in Eastern Europe seems to have had no major effect on beliefs about personal survival, and the European Values Survey shows a widespread belief in reincarnation.”
So I wonder if there are spiritual sensors in human beings and it doesn’t matter what they are told to believe or not believe.. those sensors are part of the human organism whether in early Christianity or now.
I once read that Martin Luther was also seen as the returned Elijah so that idea was alive in Christianity for a long time.
Dr. Ehrman,
the fact that some Christians as well as some Jews could had believed in reincarnation, which from what I understand from your post has little evidence to support, does not question the fact that Jesus clearly believed in bodily resurrection and not in reincarnation. Is it correct?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
That’s right, Jesus certainly believed in resurrection and not reincarnation.
We can say the same of Paul and those who wrote the Gospels, right?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
Yes indeed.
Those few clues that you mention regarding reincarnation may be telling. What other sayings are there that may have been made but were omitted and lost by a church disbelieving in reincarnation?
There is no way to make sense of these few hints except that reincarnation must have been a common belief then. Add now the central message: “Before the earth was, I am.” To say this does not indicate reincarnation as the central element is to say there is some special “Son of God” who is eternal when mankind is not. Yet there are numerous hints in both Old and New Testaments that we are made of the same stuff as is God.
Our society likes to make stars of ordinary people. Some people are extraordinary. We should identify and pay attention to those who are extraordinary for they better know what is right, but we should not otherwise place them above us. This is a central biblical theme.
I’m afraid that apart from these, there just isn’t a whole lot else out there….
Matthew 11:11-15; “11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[d] and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear,[e] let him hear. (ESV)
Matthew 17:9-13; “9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” 11 He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. 12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.” (ESV)
To my untrained mind those verses seem to intimate that Jesus is hinting or out right saying that John The Baptist is Elijah reincarnated. Even Matthew 11:11 Jesus is saying that John The Baptist was at least equal to Elijah, that Elijah certainly was not greater than him, both being born of women as well as Elijah no longer being in the kingdom of heaven, “Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”, but since being reincarnated as John The Baptist here on Earth.
I am sure I am reading it wrong, out of context, as I am no expert whatsoever, but that is the way it reads to me. Your expert take would be more than welcomed!!! Thanks and love the blog!!
Yes, it is often read that way. See the new book on John the Baptist by Joel Marcus (who has produced a guest post on his book for the blog)
I’m rather curious to ask if John 9:1-5 support the idea of reincarnation:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
Judaism holds that souls can reincarnate to either finish tasks they didn’t finish in this life or possibly as a punishment for sins in a previous lifetime.
Yes, it is often cited as one of the texts that could support it.
Did any Church council ever ban the doctrine of reincarnation? I read once years ago that the Council of Nicea did, but from a quick brush up here, that doesn’t seem likely.
No, I don’t believe so, certainly not Nicea. It was never a big enough “heresy” in early Christianity.
Dr. Ehrman:
Could John 9:2 be inquiring, almost naively, about the passing of sin from parents to children? In the O.T, children were born suffering from past generation, but in the New Testament “everyone will be judge according to what they have done” (their own sin). By Jesus’ answer, he seems to undermine both the Old Testament and any notion that this may be about migrating souls by affirming “neither sinned.” What’s your take on the reason for the question in terms of John’s message? Thank you, for your time.
Yes, at least in this specific case he’s saying that the man is not blind because of his parents’ sins or his own (apparently before he was born! Since the man was born blind….), but in order to give him, Jesus, an opportunity to prove he wsa divine. Very interesting, and a bit strange!
I completely understand (I think) your rationale for taking the position you do Bart. It’s been very painful and scary to grow up in the most strictest of Church of Christ(non-mainstream). I started questioning things early in my life. It didn’t ever make sense that not to he Church of Christ that took our position would be saved. I pitied and suffered for everyone being lost and having to suffer for eternity. Why if God was the boss and knew everything before hand would he create us knowing how many people would suffer/go to hell? Why did he make this a rule If he loved us so much? If he knew all this then how can he be so self-absorb to want to be loved and worshiped that he would have the audacity to do this? Is it truly only about his pleasure and our suffering if we don’t aspire? This is selfish and unloving to me. I would never have a child or create them if I could ever think they might suffer just cause I needed them in my life! So selfish! Maybe our understanding of God is wrong. Maybe God is a concept and non-tangible.
In addition to Origen, didn’t Clement of Alexandria also believe in reincarnation? If so, would that not suggest it was a widely held belief in Alexandria?
Not to my knowledge or, at least, recollection. What passage in Clement aer you thinking of?
It’s debated. The most explicit passage is De somniis 1,138-139. See, eg, Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, “Chapter Six. The Transmigration Of Souls,” in his Clement of Alexandria on Trial, Brill, 2010 [probably no] and P. Sami Yli-Karjanmaa, Reincannation in Philo of Alexandria, SBL Press, 2015 [probably yes].
Follow up to my question:
“In addition to Origen, didn’t Clement of Alexandria also believe in reincarnation? If so, would that not suggest it was a widely held belief in Alexandria?”
You replied:
“Not to my knowledge or, at least, recollection. What passage in Clement are you thinking of?”
My response to your reply:
I don’t have a specific passage in mind. But I have read that he was among early Church Fathers that did. Photios I of Constantinople (writing in the 9th century) attacked Clement’s theology for among other things, the belief in reincarnation (transmigration of souls) that he discusses in his work “Hypotyposes” (at least according to Photios). But I don’t believe that work by Clement survives. I was just thinking (presuming) that if indeed that is true, and Clement was taught at the same Alexandrian school as Origen, who did believe in reincarnation, then that would suggest reincarnation was a widely held Christian belief in Alexandria. Would you agree or am I reading too much into that?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, but I don’t know of any solid evidence one way or the other. That may, though, by my ignorance. Photios, as you point out, was living 600 years later.
The dual concepts of reincarnation and karma as determinative of ascent (or descent) in the quest for liberation of the spirit from entrapment in the material realm were ubiquitous during the Axial Age — across both the western and eastern worlds.
Indeed, the premise that this spiritual sojourn requires multiple lifetimes to complete continues to predominate in the east to this day. Not least because it resolves the vexing problem of justice — both mortal and divine.
No one escapes accountability for their bad behavior. But it isn’t by a good and loving God that anyone “will be condemned,” but rather by their own doing. Ne’er-do-wells simply “fall into lower life forms” because “If you just can’t restrain yourself now, you’ll become a toadstool later.”
This theology allows for either gaining or losing ground in the quest for spiritual liberation in any particular incarnation. But I know of no version asserting that: “Anyone who had not had the full human experience – in every way — had to come back and try it again, until every possible experience had been undergone.”
Is there any supporting evidence for this Carpocratian anomaly — or is it merely an unsupported slander by Origen?
I believe the Carpocratians are mentioned first by Irenaeus, then Hippolytus, and then Clement of Alexandria. I don’t recall any reference for them in Origen. (Did I say Origen??)
😔 Nope. That’s on me. You mentioned Origen as the patristic luminary who *embraced* the concept. Abject apologies for the backasswards misstatement. I’m sure that is the kind of carelessness that earns an otherwise decent term paper an “F.” 😢
If you will kindly overlook the faux pas…
Did the trio of heresiologists you properly identify as critics of the Carpocratians provide anything to support the claim that the sect’s conception of reincarnation held that the only escape from saṃsāra (to borrow the Buddhist term since I don’t know the western equivalent) was to undergo “the full human experience,” i.e. “ever possible experience”?
If there is evidence for this understanding of reincarnation, it would both be peculiar to them *and* merit condemnation.
But orthodox apologists have — for yours truly, at least — pretty much burned through their credibility. And, frankly, this is so at odds with (indeed, constitutionally self-destructive to) every other instance of belief in reincarnation of which I am aware, that I would need a bit more than unsubstantiated accusations.
Does anything survive of even plausibly authentic texts that trace TO the Carpocratians, themselves? Or did all of their own, 1st-person writings go up in holy smoke?
No, heresiologists never provide proofs about what htey say about heretics; it is almost always assertion, and historians then have to figure out if there is any plausibility in them.
The question “Rabbi, who sinned, this person or his parents, that he should be born blind?” (John 9:2), clearly presupposes that his disability is attributable to some prenatal transgression.
That this could be retribution for his parents’ sin is unremarkable since that idea is fundamental, Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. OT scripture quotes Yahweh promising to hold the progeny of wrongdoers accountable by “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation.” Indeed, “Substitutionary Atonement” soteriology, axiomatic to Orthodoxy, *stands* on the presupposition of persisting divine wrath provoked by Adam’s filching from the Eden Gardens orchard.
But Yahweh’s vengeance on the progeny of the Original Sinner obviously did not include striking them all blind in utero. Thus, having been “born blind” must be a consequence of some additional transgression.
As it was he, particularly, who was misfortunately born, one would incline to some offense committed BY him — perforce in a previous incarnation — if not for orthodoxy’s bizarre understanding of a divine justice that punishes innocent offspring.
In any case, does the fact that there is no synoptic attestation of this anecdote suggest that reincarnation might have been an accepted tenet in the Johannine community?
Yes, the verse has been taken to suggest reincarnation. But I’d say that the absence of the idea from the Synoptics doesn’t have any bearing on whther it was an accepted tenet in John.
The possible allusions in the gospels to reincarnation you cite — explicitly in speculations about both John the Baptist (Mk 9:13//Mt 17:12 and Mt 11:14) and Jesus (Mk 8:27-28//Mt 16:13-14//Lk 9:18-19) as returned prophets, and implicitly in the question about the man born blind (Jn 9:2) — are the only references I can recall ever hearing proffered by proponents of the idea.
But it occurs to me that transmigration of souls progressing through a number of lifetimes would, for instance, also account for how there can be TWO Judgment Days — one for each individual assessing his/her individual life, and a collective, “Last Judgment,” as metaphorically described in Matthew’s parable: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne” and “Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” for a *final* reckoning when the evil “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mt 25:31-46)
Are there other passages in the gospels that the reincarnation supposition would (for us heretics, at least) make a bit less enigmatic?
None that I know of. Almost no one in the ealry Christian tradition definitely held to it — until Origen.
What if we turn the question around?
Is there anything in Jesus’ teachings (within his public ministry to afford a bit more confidence in the authenticity of the quotes) that is clearly INcompatible with reincarnation?
Even your fundamentalist colleagues will concede that for a number of (the earliest!) Christian sects transmigration of souls across numerous lifetimes was axiomatic — until, of course, the church acquired Holy Roman muscle-power and ruthlessly exterminated them.
It seems to me that the concept of reincarnation might explain *more* than just contemporaneous speculations about John and Jesus being returned prophets, and the question about prenatal transgressions by the man “born blind” — and even that it would allow for the simultaneous existence of both individual AND final Judgment Days.
It might also help explicate recorded teachings of Jesus so inscrutable to Orthodox apologists that they spin themselves dizzy attempting to provide interpretations while doggedly clinging to post-Nicaea, church doctrine.
Consider, for example, the Q source’s “Parable of the Talents” (Mt 25:14-30//Lk 19:11-27 ) — one that appears to boggle the minds (and common sense) of Orthodox apologists, inciting them to (over)reach in every direction to interpret away pretty much every detail.
Starting with how…
Well, his teaching about both the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection seem incompatible with it, yes.
Easter greetings, Professor!
From your perspective as an agnostic scholar of history, Jesus was simply a 1st-century, Jewish rabbi — an Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Indeed, he was that.
However, I would add (but, admittedly, can’t prove) that I think he spent his “Missing Years” as a monk at Qumran before following his mentor out of the monastery on a preaching and baptizing ministry. Together they began a mission to bring their apocalyptic message of the imminent “Kingdom of God” to their imperiled, fellow Jews.
He certainly didn’t get such an impressive command of “the Law and the Prophets” by making pairs of end tables at Joseph & Sons in Nazareth. 😉 Nor is it likely he simply wandered away one day and happened to find himself in the crowd at the Jordan river listening to a hellfire-and-brimstone preacher.
I have no doubt that he did speak — probably often, at length, and in depth — about the “Kingdom of God.” In fact, the “Some of you standing here” quote may well be authentic.
But, given the decades his teachings only survived as pericopes by word of mouth, should we rely on Mark’s timeline for exactly where and when he said anything?
Not being an atheist/agnostic, and having studied English and poli-sci, I’m not constrained by the rigors of your discipline. So…
I believe that at some point Jesus so earnestly entreated the “Father” for total, spiritual enlightenment — promising to be an uncompromising emissary of the divine “Word” to mortal man — that his prayer was actually answered.
As Phil Ochs memorably put it: “To a nightmare of knowledge he opened up the gate, and a blinding revelation was laid upon his plate.”
Jesus of Nazareth BECAME the “Son of God.” (Be careful what you wish for! 😧)
Once “something greater than Jonah is here,” his use of the phrase “Kingdom of God” took on a wholly different and far more transcendent meaning. Rather than the material, political domain he once anticipated as a disciple of John the Baptist, he came to realize that his “kingdom is not of this world.” It isn’t “here” or “there.” Rather, “the Kingdom of God is WITHIN you!” It is “spread out over the earth, and people do not see it.”
Not that I can *prove* any of that.
As creationists incessantly challenge: “Were you there?” No. I never saw or heard him in person. 😔
No we shouldn’t. And as you know, there are compelling reasons for thinking Jesus was not a member of the Qumran community.
Since we should’t rely on (or, therefore, read contextual significance into) how Mark ordered pericopes, presumably that also eliminates this as a consideration for any exegesis of Matthew.
Unless Jesus monologued parables like a stand-up comic does jokes, we can safely assume the Parable of the Talents had nothing whatever to do with either the one about the Ten Virgins or the one about the Sheep and the Goats. These three parables were undoubtedly taught on different occasions to different hearers to illustrate different points. Their proximity in Matthew was manufactured BY Matthew.
Two millennia of practice has made apologists for RCC-pontificated church doctrine (now regarded as beyond question by *every* Christian denomination) past masters at diversion, distraction and rationalization. Like, for instance, their blithely dismissive rejection of the concept of reincarnation — notwithstanding that it had early acceptance and is in fact axiomatic to most, if not all, of the world’s major, non-abrahamic theologies.
I appreciate your clearing the red herring from the path to a (heretical 😏) reexamination of the Parable of the Talents.
But before getting back to that, your outright rejection of the possibility that Jesus (and, presumably, John the Baptist) were erstwhile Essenes, leaves me to wonder…
An “outright rejection” makes it sound as if it is off teh bat without carefully considering it. Au contraire! I’ve thought about it a good deal and simpy find the evidence overwhelming (and the *positive* evidence completely underwhelming).
How and where do you think a peasant tekton from the rural hinterlands came to acquire knowledge of Jewish scripture so extensive and insightful as to confound Pharisees and Sadducees at every turn?
You have often (and IMHO rightly) advised Q&A interlocutors to examine the bona fides of the sources they reference. Obviously, there were no credentialing institutions in 1st-century Israel to issue PhDs. But what happens if we theoretically apply this stricture to the Man from Galilee?
Surely he would not have brooked the violence of Zealot ideology. Nor did he seem to share the Sadducee fixation on the animal sacrifice aspects of Judaism. That leaves only an internship with the Pharisees (which, admittedly, might account for his incessant contentiousness with them versus the other two groups.)
Jesus and John, though not an exact match, seem most closely aligned with the Essenes. Plus, they launched their public ministry barely a couple of day’s walk from the Essene’s Qumran HQ.
From whom do you think this illiterate peasant acquired such impressive knowledge of “the Law and the Prophets”?
Or is Jesus an exception to your usual fastidiousness about those who attribute their scholarship to “independent studies”?
I”m not sure Jesus was confounding other Jewish teachers right, left, and center. Apocalyptic thinking was widely spread at the time it wasn’t just an Essene thing. And if he could (on the theory) have acquired more lknowledge at Qumran, why couldn’t he (on other theories) just as easily adquired it elsewhere? One of the major problems is that precisely the major teachings of the Essenes stand at odds wtih those of Jesus (e.g., on purity; the need for monastic like communities) and those of Jesus are at odds with theirs (come for sinners, etc.) (There are lots of other considerations. Why, e.g., does the word Essene never show up in the Gospels? Why is Qumran never mentioned? Why is there no indication that Jesus did anything but live at home and then leave to become an itinerate preacher? etc. etc.)
Getting back to the Parable of the Talents… maybe. You have a way of derailing my train of thought, professor. Not that I mind. Writing is such a clarifying exercise as it forces me to find supporting evidence for conclusions that evolved from long-forgotten times and sources.
Blogging is a cumbersome form of communications (especially for someone who needs 200 words to write an introductory paragraph. 😏)
Should your travels take you to the Great Lakes State, I would be delighted if you could find the time to allow me to take you to dinner and enjoy an actual conversation — especially if you can bring along your Shakespearean wife.
I’ll happily travel to wherever you are going to be — Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids, etc. — and find a good restaurant (though it may not measure up to the fabled Armadillo Grill in Carraboro. 😉)
If a speaking engagement or book tour should happen to take you to my Water Winter Wonderland, and you can find the time, please don’t hesitate to send me an email. I’m a huge fan, and it would be a sincere sensation to break bread with you for just an hour or two.
Thanks!
While “the major teachings of the Essenes stand at odds with those of Jesus,” his differences with Pharisees and Sadducees are equally notable — yet, as you observe, the Essenes somehow go completely unnoted! Might there be some editorial decision-making in the (conspicuous) absence of contentiousness with that third, theological faction of Judaism?
Even disregarding the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke (clearly fictional attempts by both authors to retrofit Jesus into Jewish, messianic prophecy), we aren’t actually left with “no indication that Jesus did anything but live at home and then leave to become an itinerate preacher.”
In all four gospels he sought out and submitted to John’s ritual baptism — *after* leaving home and *before* becoming an itinerate preacher. Do you concur with the orthodox supposition that the ONLY thing that demarcated these two lives was his direct, 80-mile trek from Nazareth to the Jordan river?
Given your rejection of anything divine — including inspiration — what might have prompted a 30-year-old Jesus to suddenly put down his saw (or chisel) and make a pilgrimage to the renowned “Baptizer”?
Also, how and when did he manage to acquire his impressive understanding of Torah — “teaching them as one who had authority”?
[cont.]
He appears to have felt called by God. And it appears he picked up his information on Torah in the synagogue, whatever that was like, or by talking wiht other experts.
Doesn’t it seem more plausible that Jesus left home a decade or more *before* his baptism — and spent those years in study and prayer (perhaps as a disciple of John the Baptist)?
Leaving aside supernatural channeling (a point on which we agree), Jesus’ knowledge and understanding of Jewish scripture MUST have come from somewhere! 🤔
The idea that an apprentice at a peasant carpenter’s shop in the Galilean hinterlands spent his spare time acquiring so impressive an ability to quote chapter and verse seems to me barely less miraculous than divine inspiration.
If you think Jesus’ teachings are irreconcilable with those of the Essenes, forget Qumran. There was also the storied rivalry between Pharisee Tech and Sadducee U. Would one of those be a more likely alma mater?
If Jesus didn’t leave home until the age of 30 (ethnic quip omitted 😉), and had no prior involvement with Essenes, Pharisees OR Sadducees, how did an illiterate, day-laborer from the sticks come to have so impressive a command of “the Law and the Prophets”?
I don’t see why that would be more plausible, no. We have lots of instances of itinerant prophets up and heading out, in both religious and philosophical circles, when they feel the call/pull.
I have no doubt about the apocalyptic fixation of all 1st-century Jews (unsurprising in occupied Palestine.)
What perplexes me is how the 30-year-old son of a manual laborer from a remote village in the Galilean outback acquired such chapter-and-verse knowledge of scripture and surpassing devotion to proclaiming the coming Kingdom of God — without ever having left home! 🤔
I assume Nazareth didn’t even have a public library, much less any educational institutions. Not that either would have been of much use to an illiterate peasant in any case. Nor would Joseph have given the family’s heir apparent time off for unproductive, leisure activities.
So how does an illiterate tekton from the sticks become arguably the most profoundly insightful (and inarguably most influential) spiritual guru in human history — in his spare time, from mere cultural osmosis in the hinterlands, at the dawn of Anno Domini?
If I’m wrong about Jesus spending a decade (or two) at Qumran, the only reasonable alternative is an apprenticeship with Pharisees or (if he could gain admission) Sadducees.
Otherwise, absent divine channeling, how did Jesus come by the expertise to repeatedly cross metaphorical swords with experts who spent their entire lives studying “the Law and the Prophets”?
I’m afraid we don’t know what passages of Scripture Jesus quoted, how many, how extensively, how accurately, and so on. Rarely does he actually quote anything extensive, except in dubious texts such as Luke 4 (where, btw, he’s reading, not quoting).
If this horse hasn’t already been flogged to death… 😏
While the Essenes appeared to be more fixated on “the End of Days” than the other two factions, the same could be said of their obsession with ritual purity.
It appears Jesus ultimately came to a different, more etherial understanding of the former. But by all accounts he explicitly *repudiated* the latter — apparently out of fastidiousness about (in modern parlance) “the triumph of form over substance” — which seems an entirely warranted criticism of all *three* sects.
OTOH [acronyminous translation: “on the other hand” 😇], it is noteworthy that both John and Jesus remained celibate to the end — a signature Essene stricture that was of no particular moment to Pharisees or Sadducees.
Although this will undoubtedly remain unresolvable speculation, why is it implausible that a sense of urgency about the imminent arrival of the Son of Man inspired John (with his disciple, Jesus, in tow) to abandon the detached, cloistered lifestyle at Qumran on a mission to warn the larger world of the looming “Armageddon”?
That’s not the reason for doubting John was a member of the Qumran community . The main reason is that there’s no evidence that he wsa, and the kinds of things that he supports and promotes don’t match up with what we know about the Qumran community. So why think they were linked?
As you have repeatedly — and rightly — said, we will only ever be able to determine what *probably* happened.
And as I have repeatedly said (though unconvincingly it seems, despite the dead horse 😉), I find it highly IMprobable that at the age of 30, a still unmarried, day-laborer from the Galilean outback suddenly decided to put down his hammer, abandon home and family, and become a vagabond, doomsday preacher — having somehow managed to acquire the theological and rhetorical chops to embarrass and anger Temple officialdom… including the High Priest! 😳
Unless he actually DID have God whispering in his ear, Jesus’ tektonic shift almost certainly happened a decade (probably closer to two) *before* he showed up at the Jordan.
While his teachings vis-à-vis all three, major factions of 1st-century Judaism demonstrate both commonalities (e.g., apocalypticism) and divergences (e.g., the importance of ritual purity), they seem to me more consonant with Essenes (e.g., immanence of the end, asceticism and celibacy) than either of the other two.
“So why think they were linked?”
Why think they weren’t? I recall hearing somewhere that absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.
The question is: Which is more probable?
I think you can guess my answer. (Look: there were *lots* of apocalypticists at the time. Why think he associated with just one of the groups we happen to know about?)
Yeah, pretty much. And so, before this Essene horse gets beaten into glue 😳, I’m throwing in the towel.
Although Jesus’ ex nihilo expertise seems pretty far-fetched to me, maybe he was like Carl Spackler: “What an incredible Cinderella story! This unknown comes out of nowhere to lead the pack!” 😉
Or, maybe, orthodox apologists are right, and God had a part-time gig as the Peasant Whisperer…
The (necessarily post hoc) doctrine of “Substitutionary Atonement” compels viewing everything Jesus taught through the anachronistic lens of his mission to become the sacrificial lamb to God.
Thus, the Parable of the Talents putatively alludes to the Christian duty to spread the “Good News” of salvation made available only by Jesus’ death and Resurrection. However, that obviously could NOT have been his original, historical meaning since it hadn’t happened yet (and would be incomprehensible to those who heard it in any case.)
Determined to pound doctrinal ‘square pegs’ into textual ‘round holes,’ apologists further muddy the waters by interpreting this parable — not on its own merits — but vis-à-vis other parables/teachings appearing adjacent to it in the gospels.
Given that Matthew and Luke compiled into gospels *numerous* pericopes that had been in circulation — independently — for decades, this seems more a rationalizing retrofit than an illuminating consideration. Absent some connection sufficiently compelling to suggest a memorable association, the more logical conclusion is that the authors grouped such stand-alone units as parables by theme.
Can we deduce historical association of specific teachings from their mere proximity in the gospel narratives? Or does the alignment simply reflect the editorial decisions of the authors?
I’m not sure whatyou’re asking.
Sorry. It’s a thin line between concise and cryptic. 😏
Googling “Parable of the Talents” brings up a lengthy hit list of articles by Orthodoxy apologists — many couching interpretation on surrounding passages. At the top of the hit parade, for instance, is one that unabashedly begins: “The parable of the talents is part of a series of three parables that…”
Such connecting of hypothetical dots seems to be quite a venerable tactic.
As I suggested in a previous thread on the mysterious “Unforgivable Sin,” Mark adds an editorial comment relating this ominous caution back to an exorcism by Jesus that provoked some Pharisees to say it was “By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” Thus, Mark *explicitly* interprets Jesus to have meant that questioning his own divine empowerment was the one and only unforgivable sin. 🤔
This seems quite an apologetically convenient reach between issues — AND the pericopes that had independently traversed a half-century of “oral tradition” before Mark assembled them into his narrative.
To conclude this brief, but relevant, digression: Is this discourse as reported — from “He is possessed” to that accusation being the “Unforgivable Sin” — historical or the creation of a proselytizing author?
Either way…
My guess is that it’s editorial — that it doesn’t go back to Jesus. But yes, the unpardonable sin in the text is thinking that the power of Jesus comes from the evil side rather htan from God.
Connecting Jesus’ warning about the “Unforgivable Sin” to the Pharisee allegation of demonic possession is, at least, IN the text of Mark’s gospel!
What I was attempting to ask: Does interpreting parables — or any pericopes — “in context” have any exegetical value?
This is not a criterion I recall seeing on anyone’s list for assessing authenticity. But among apologists it seems to be the go-to rationalization for difficult passages (starting with the very first gospel! 😮)
Doesn’t the arrangement of pericopes in the gospels simply reflect the editorial decisions of the individual authors? John not only moved Jesus’ death up a day, but pushed the precipitating, “Cleansing of the Temple” fracas (per the synoptics) all the way back to the *beginning* of his ministry!
Absent some association sufficiently memorable to preserve a pericope connection across the oral tradition gap, shouldn’t we assume that each author situated them either to suit his narrative (e.g. anecdotes According to John) or grouped them by theme (e.g. parables According to Matthew)?
While “The Parable of the Talents is part of a series of three parables” in Matthew, is that line-up historically tenable? Do virgins, sheep or goats shed any light on talents?
Within the context of Matthew, it is certainly legitimate to see how an author combines his sources in order to help the entire narrative teach some overarching lessons. But the interpreter has to *argue* for the connections and make a plausible case that they authors was using one text to help his readers understand another. If the connedtions appear stretched, then so too is the interpretatoin. AND saying that Matthew saw and meant a connection may help you understand Matthew, but it does not necessarily help you understand Jesus himself (unless he was the one who made the oconnnectoins)
Within the context of Matthew, it is certainly legitimate to see how an author combines his sources in order to help the entire narrative teach some overarching lessons. But the interpreter has to *argue* for the connections and make a plausible case that they authors was using one text to help his readers understand another. If the connedtions appear stretched, then so too is the interpretatoin. AND saying that Matthew saw and meant a connection may help you understand Matthew, but it does not necessarily help you understand Jesus himself (unless he was the one who made the oconnnectoins)
Surveying apologetic interpretations of the Parable of the Talents (which seemed a prudent preliminary to a heretical reexamination per this thread) provides what could be Exhibit A for why I suggested that your next book should be on the parables. Frankly, what is readily available out there is transparently vacuous.
The most recent completely-misses-the-point apologetic I came upon devoted significant time and attention to rationalizing the unequal allocation of “talents” the master entrusted to his three servants during his absence.
This apologist completely ignored the explanation “to each according to his ability” (Mt 25:15) that appears right IN the text, despite having *just* recited the parable — including that very the line! Worse, he not only failed to acknowledge that Luke’s version does not present this difficulty, he never made so much as passing mention of the fact that this same parable also appears, much of it verbatim, in Luke’s gospel!! 😵
You have sometimes remarked that among your scholarly peers there are some of orthodox disposition whose work is credible (i.e., not reliant on the “Bible Inerrancy” inanity) and well-reasoned. Can you recommend one whose work would be accessible to this amateur?
In the meantime…
It completely depends on what you’re interested in. Craig Evans has a lot of books out there on Jesus and the Gospels, e.g. Most of his popular books ar pretty polemical against historical scholarship but his scholarly analyses are often quite good , even where I disagree with him.
Please affirm or correct:
1. The Parable of the Talents traces to Q as it appears in both Matthew and Luke, but not Mark.
2. Mark, however, does strongly suggest that this pericope has historical roots as this author recounts a much briefer one with the same premise (Mk 13:34) — notwithstanding that he attached a different lesson to it.
3. Thomas, though lacking the parable, nevertheless affirms its crucial lesson about the importance of responsible stewardship (an intriguing complement to Mark who preserved the story, but not the moral. 🤔)
4. Although Matthew and Luke did a substantial amount of interpolation, both faithfully preserved the “accounting” portion of the story as they got it from Q, some of which (Mt 25:24-28//Lk 19:20-24) appears — at least in translation — to be nearly word-for-word identical.
5. This pericope, therefore, is independently attested in THREE sources.
The $64,000 Question: Can we safely assume that the essential lesson — “For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Mt 25:29//Lk 19:26//Th 41) — actually traces to the historical Jesus?
1. Any saying in matthew and luke not in mark is by definition Q. 2. A saying along the similar line that is multiply attested does not show that a full parable goes back to Jeuss. The parable presupposes the absence and return of jesus, so that doesn’t appear to go back to him durin ghis lifetime. 3. I see it as attested in one source, since it doesn’t occur in the other two you mention. As you say, they lack it.
It’s the challenging lesson — “For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” — that I’m asking about.
It is most vividly illustrated as the conclusion to the parable in Matthew and Luke, but also independently attested — nearly verbatim — in Thomas (albeit sans the lengthy parable.)
Although this enigmatic (arguably embarrassing) line wasn’t preserved by Mark, that author *does* have a one-verse parable (Mk 13:34), about “a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work.”
While Mark — apparently deducing Jesus intended to illustrate another (less controversial and more ubiquitous) teaching about the need for watchfulness — attaches “and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch,” can’t we safely infer that a pericope with this theme must have persisted across the oral tradition?
The bottom line: Does the “For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away,” moral to the Parable of the Talents trace to the historical Jesus?
I’d say that it’s … hard to say!
Okay, unlike the Jesus-Essene connection — a circumstantial inference that must perforce remain speculation since it is unsupportable from anything in any text — your doubts about this saying DOES surprise me!
It was undeniably preserved by both Q — *without* significant emendation by either Mathew (Mt 25:29) or Luke (Lk 19:26) — and in substantially the same form by Thomas (Th 41).
Further, in comparing these three instances I discovered the one-verse parable in Mark (Mk 13:34) that clearly has, at least, the same set-up — albeit with that author drawing the more ubiquitous (and less enigmatic) lesson about the need for watchfulness. (Call it: two and a half sources? 🙃)
Given that the Mt 25:29//Lk 19:26//Th 41 pericope is also worthy of nomination for a Dissimilarity ribbon, it never even occurred to me that you question its authenticity! 🤔
It seems I need to give this saying a closer look.
Unfortunately, there’s no way to know whether Matthew or Luke more faithfully preserved this Q parable. But based on other modifications/insertions made throughout his gospel by the self-appointed ‘Spin Doctor of the Synoptics,’ my money would be on Luke.
It’s interesting that the two accounts not only differ over the master’s initial allocation of talents/gold, but Matthew actually underscores his *unequal* (5, 2 and 1) version with a strikingly prophetic anticipation of what would — nineteen centuries later — become the most famous line in secular scripture, the Gospel According to Karl: “each according to his ability.”
Even more confounding is that in BOTH versions the master’s eventual redistribution of wealth — “So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents” Mt 25:28//Lk 19:24) — is based, not on the socialist paradigm of need, but the capitalist paradigm of productivity!
Why? There’s no explanation. Luke even has bystanders objecting!
Nevertheless, “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.”
Is this quote merely embarrassing? Or is it a “Dissimilarity” for the ages? 😳
I’ve often wondered how weird that sounded in teh ancient context. Certainly doesn’t seem to work well in ours. But I’m not sure I’c apply the categories of socialism and capitalism to a world where neither existed yet….
Redistributing wealth from the productive to the needy (typically the “haves” and “have nots”) is, as you note, a post-capitalist/socialist paradigm. The unprecedented abundance of the scientific and industrial revolutions generated by the former — prerequisite to the envy that inspired the latter — lay many centuries in the future.
Certainly, doing the very opposite in the 21st century (“even what he has will be taken away” 😱) is, to our ears, a dissimilarity of shocking proportions — for both our worldview generally AND our contemporary understanding of Jesus particularly.
But Q, Matthew and Luke were all writing in the 1st century (and possibly Thomas, as well, though he may have been early 2nd century); thus, the relevant question: Would this quote have been sufficiently antithetical to the proselytizing agenda of these authors to satisfy the criterion of dissimilarity?
I’m sure the discordant Mk 10:18 quote is in no danger of losing the Blue Ribbon to the saying that concludes the Parable of the Talents. Nor, perhaps, does it compare with the embarrassment of Jesus having been baptized by John. But isn’t Mt 25:29//Lk 19:26//Th 41 at least worthy of an Honorable Mention?
You’ll need to spell it out (quote it) for readers of the blog ot understand your reference!
Too cryptic? (Again! 😞) Sorry. I was presuming the (hot-linked) citations and familiarity of readers with your work would suffice. But I’m happy to spell it out.
I first noticed the problematic lines Mark attributes to Jesus in the Rich Young Man pericope — “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18) — while I was still in high school. However, it wasn’t until I got your Teaching Co. lectures (or maybe it was reading “Misquoting Jesus”) that I came to appreciate how for scholars the preservation of so discordant a quote actually redounds to its authenticity, i.e., the “Criterion of Dissimilarity.”
In hindsight that makes perfect sense and probably should have occurred to me at the time since I DID notice that the quote was apparently so disconcerting to the author of Matthew that he actually *rewrote* it to read: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (Mt 19:17)
[cont.]
I took this to be the altered version as Luke’s recounting of the same incident seconded Mark’s version of the exchange. (At the time I assumed all three were independent witnesses — until you enlightened that both authors in fact began with a copy of Mark and simply plagiarized most of that gospel — which also explained the timeline concurrence among the synoptics.)
Regardless, embarrassment over the manifestly UNdeifying rejoinder/challenge by Jesus in this anecdote makes a strong case for the authenticity of the quote according to Mark which, as it turns out, is also the earliest version.
Further, if the author of Luke was discomfited by it, he must have given priority to the reliability of his source (and/or, unlike Matthew, didn’t have the chutzpah to actually *correct* the words of the Incarnate Word! 😮)
The other major embarrassment — Jesus having been baptized “for the forgiveness of sin” by John — could not be as easily mitigated with a bit of literary legerdemain. But Matthew obviously didn’t allow that to deter him from correcting whatever he perceived to be a Messianic faux pas, and actually *invented* an entire scene to rectify that problem:
[cont.]
“Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.” (Mt 3:13-17)
Matthew devised this uncorroborated (indeed, *impossible* to have been witnessed!) exchange and then, strangely, put a rationalization on Jesus’ lips that is nonsensical 😦 — a disdain for intelligibility this author would go on to demonstrate again in rewriting the Beatitudes he got from Q.
So we come to the Parable of the Talents and the lesson it ostensibly teaches: “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Mt 25:29)
This is, of course, startlingly antithetical to our 21st century sensibilities. But in view of Matthew’s unhesitating wont to alter his sources, doesn’t the Criterion of Dissimilarity support the authenticity of this quote as something the historical Jesus actually DID say to his 1st century followers?
I guess it depends — I’m not sure what it is dissimilar *to* in the early Xn imagination. I could see Christians thinking it is perfectly sensible and correct, which would mean it’s not particularly dissimilar.
Both versions of the “Parable of the Talents” (Mt 25:14-30//Lk 19:11-27) presumably trace to Q.
Clearly, however, at least one of the authors modified important details of the story. For instance, whether the master entrusted his servants with portions of his property, “each according to his ability” (Matthew), or equally when “He summoned ten of his slaves and gave them ten pounds” (Luke).
The difference has interesting implications from our contemporary perspective. Perhaps, more so than in the 1st century. But neither this, nor any of the other differences between the two versions, affects the lesson.
Both authors essentially concur on the conclusion: “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Mt 25:29//Lk 19:26).
That would seem disturbing in ANY time and place (Luke in fact has bystanders raising objections!) and certainly seems dissimilar to Jesus’ other teachings about poverty and the duty of those who have the resources to alleviate it.
Is there *anywhere* else in the record wherein Jesus conditions wealth distribution on the worthiness of the recipient?
There appear to be a number of instances in which an authentic saying of Jesus comes to be attached to a larger story to provide a context for it, in which the story itself is not authentic but the saying is (E.g. the interpretaiton of the parable of the sower in Mark 4; the parable may be authentic but the interpretation not; or the saying “the one who lives by the sword dies by the sword”; etc.). I suspect that’s the case here. The one-liner comes from Jesus but the parable does not. (As shown by the fact that it presupposes Jesus will be leaving and then coming back looking for faithful behavior in the interim)
There’s also the more dispositive criterion of Independent Attestation.
Since both Matthew and Luke got this parable from Q, they trace to a single source.
However, Eusebius paraphrases a parable in the (otherwise lost) Gospel of the Hebrews that: “included three servants, one which devoured the substance with harlots and flute-women, and one which multiplied, and one which hid the talent: then that one was accepted, one only blamed, and one shut up in prison.” This is clearly just an alternate version.
I also found a homily by Clement that counsels “…in order that you may be saluted with the ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ and not be found fault with, and declared liable to punishment, like him who hid the one talent.” But I assume this merely recapitulates Q.
You would certainly know far better than me where else to look.
Mark does include a parable that begins: “It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work” (Mk 13:34). While this sets up a different lesson about diligence (“and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch”), it *does* evidence survival of the premise through the oral tradition period.
But the point of *any* parable is the lesson it teaches. And that IS independently attested — in all of its blatant dissimilarity — by Mark: “For to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” (Mk 4:25)
Indeed, Mark uses the quote in the context of several other parables to emphasize this very point — one that Matthew and Luke considered so important that earlier in their gospels BOTH authors preserved, nearly verbatim, the teaching in that context, as well (Mk 4:25//Mt 13:12//Lk 8:18), i.e., before *reiterating* it as the lesson of the Parable of the Talents!
Then came the miraculous resurrection of the long-lost Gospel of Thomas. 😇
While this non-canonical work doesn’t include the elaborate parable, it DOES provide clear and unequivocal attestation for its (embarrassing) lesson — that those who fail to produce will be stripped of whatever meager assets they DO have!
Jesus said, “The person who possesses will be given more. And the person who does not have will be deprived of even the little that person has.” (Th 41) 😳
Orthodox apologists would undoubtedly be quick to rationalize that Thomas simply got the lines from one of the synoptics. It does, after all, occur FIVE times across all THREE of them!
Perhaps. However, it appears to me that it is the *idea* here that the author of Thomas parallels, not the verbiage. But that may simply be a consequence of the translation into English. Assessing the Greek and/or Coptic is above my highest level of incompetence.
Is the actual wording in Thomas sufficiently close to what is in Q (once removed) or Mark that the author is susceptible to a charge of plagiarism?
Even so, the fact that it differs significantly might in turn be rationalized away by alleging that Thomas deliberately altered the wording to conceal that fact.
But this would be compounded speculations — which (it seems to me) should double down on the burden of proof for those making the accusation.
(Not that orthodoxy apologists haven’t proposed even the most bizarre of coincidences and unlikelihoods in the sacred cause of preserving church doctrine…😉)
You are one of very few NT scholars who is highly regarded, widely published, and *not* hamstrung by the delusional credo that every word in the gospels is the gospel truth.
I’m sure objective analyses in professional journals could fill libraries. But the only reference I have that purports to assess the authenticity of ALL the quotes attributed to Jesus is the Funk-Hoover translation and analysis: “The Five Gospels.”
I know you differ with many (most?) of the Funky conclusions. Further, the copy I have is now 30 years old, and there may be later editions that reflect more recent opinion. In fact your recommendations of any other such, written for the popular market (i.e., us amateurs), would be gratefully received.
Meanwhile, for yours truly the (credentialed) scholars of this “Jesus Seminar” have the only game in town.
The apposite saying — that those with meager resources who don’t make the best with what they have will be dispossessed of even their pittance — appears, in virtually identical form, *six* times across *four* of the five gospels! Yet the Jesus Seminarians didn’t believe it merited their red (“That’s Jesus!”) typeface rating. 🤔
Would this be one of your disagreements with Funk & Friends?
Yes, they did not based their judgment simply on the number of times a saying appears, but on other considerations. You can get a sense of one ofhe best knowin members’ views about how to establish authenticity, John Dominic Crossan, in his long book about Jesus the Jewish Mediterranean Peasant. If you have lots of questions like this, I’d suggest you get some kind of Bible Dictionary, such as the Harper Collins one-volume, or if yo uhave the reseources, and far better, the six volume Anchor Bible Dictionary.
The translations/evaluations made by the Jesus Seminar:
“In fact, to those who have, more will be given, and from those who don’t have, even what they have will be taken away.” (Mk 4:25) JS rating: pink (Probable)
“In fact, to those who have, more will be given, and then some; and from those who don’t have, even what they do have will be taken away!” (Mt 13:12) JS rating: gray (Possible)
“In fact, to everyone who has, more will be given and then some; and from those who don’t have, even what they do have will be taken away!” (Mt 25:29) JS rating: gray (Possible)
“In fact, to those who have, more will be given, and from those who don’t have, even what they seem to have will be taken away.” (Lk 8:18) JS rating: pink (Probable)
“I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given; and from those who don’t have, even what they do have will be taken away.” (Lk 19:26) JS rating: gray (Possible)
“Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have.” (Th 41) JS rating: pink (Probable)
This unaccredited amateur would say: “That’s Jesus!” ☺️
Is there any doubt that all six of these occurrences recount the same saying? Yet the Jesus Seminar rated half of them rates as “probable,” the other half merely “possible.”
As you often like to ask: How does THAT work? 🤔
As for the whole of Q’s lengthy Parable of the Talents, they rated both the Matthew and Luke versions as “probable” — except, that is (strangely enough), for the words of the concluding lesson! In both instances that summary line was rated as “possible.” 🙄
“The Five Gospels” shows only the majority opinion of authenticity in color-coded ratings, without (for obvious reasons) any of the debate/discussion that preceded the vote.
Perhaps the Jesus Seminarians felt that both Matthew and Luke decided to splice the saying they got from Mark onto the Q parable, despite having already included it earlier in their accounts, because it seemed a particularly illustrative example of the point.
If so, they perforce presumed the unlikely coincidence that two authors independently made the very same (rather presumptuous) editorial decision! So it may have been the context, not the saying, that they regarded as being ahistorical. But wouldn’t that be a confusing, arguably misleading, application of their own methodology?
I haven’t looked up this particular instance, but slight changes of wording matter for their evaluation.
While authenticity is THE question for you and me, it’s one orthodox apologists can’t even hear over their endless refrains of “For the Bible tells me so.” 🙄
But I am actually with them on the authenticity of the Parable of the Talents. Criteria aside, this just *sounds* to me like the kind of discombobulating parable Jesus told. (Though you were unmoved when I made this same observation about the Parable of the Broken Jar. 😕)
Still, your acceding to the authenticity of the concluding lesson should be sufficient to show where and how I err in my amateur exegesis of the Q parable (either version, though I will stick with the one in Matthew.)
There remains one additional, crucial consideration that could derail this entire endeavor — the symbolic referents.
I am assuming the “master” represents God, the “servants” we who tread this mortal coil, the “talents” our peculiar abilities, the “long journey” our lifetime opportunity to either use or squander them, and the “accounting” as Judgment Day.
This appears to concur with every exegesis of this parable I could find. But are you aware of any other meanings attached to any of these, or am I safe to continue on this basis?
I don’t think we can do history by deciding what feels right and what doesn’t. It’s always a matter of evidence and argument, not predilection. The whole parable presupposes a gift to be investment, an absence, an unexpected return, and a time of reckoning. That is SO much in line of what early Xns thought about the departure/return of Jesus that at its very heart the parable is problemative (as going back to Jesus himself; as a *parable* it’s terrific!)
My observation that “this just *sounds* to me like the kind of discombobulating parable Jesus told” was merely a parenthetical remark. I wasn’t suggesting it was either evidence or argument, just making an observation.
I don’t follow how “the whole parable presupposes a gift to be investment.” In fact I don’t even know what that means. A gift is property transferred from giver to recipient — permanently and with no expectation that it will ever be returned. An investment is property transferred to a fiduciary — entrusted temporarily and with the full expectation that it *will* eventually be returned (with interest!) Isn’t the distinction irreconcilable?
This parable seems to me to be entirely about “investment” and responsible stewardship, with the explicit expectation that the property will not only be returned, but with ROI! Where is there any mention of “a gift”? What is the gift? By whom and to whom was it given?
The absence of the “master” (his “long journey”) is crucial to the story. As is his eventual, but certainly not “unexpected,” return. Indeed, it was in anticipation of his return that the three servant/trustees acted as they did in the interim.
[But wait… there’s more! 😉]
It appears, however, that Mark DID add a caution about remaining vigilant, lest the master return unexpectedly and catch one unprepared, to the pericope — as *he* got it from *his* source (Mk 13:34-37), i.e., sans all the details and without the more startling conclusion about dispossessing the unproductive (though, notably, that saying also made it to him, albeit unattached to any parable.) But why think the master’s return was unexpected in the Q version?
It appears that we both take the “time of reckoning” (the “accounting”) to represent Judgment Day.
Finally (and cutting to the chase!), we are both also keenly aware of the overwrought, orthodox interpretation of the master’s absence being “SO much in line of what early Xns thought about the departure/return of Jesus.” That is the very reason I deliberately equated the “master” with God — and NOT with Jesus!
That Jesus intended the “master” in this parable to be a self-reference is as manifestly anachronistic — and logically indefensible — as it is ubiquitous among orthodox apologists. Nonetheless, it seems ALL of them (the ones I found anyway) were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle. 😉
A fairly extensive search of exegeses of the Parable of the Talents made two things about orthodox apologist/authors abundantly clear to me.
First, they provide essentially NO diversity of interpretation whatsoever. Regardless of academic credentials, theological suppositions, particular denomination — or anything else I can see — they are essentially unanimous on the message and meaning of this parable.
Second, all of them march together in (unspoken) lockstep — disconnecting the parable from the historical context in which it was (perforce) told, disregarding problematic details, and blithely ignoring the blatant conflicts their interpretation creates with other gospel passages.
Why should this be? In a word: incontrovertibility.
In another couple of years RCC doctrine will have ruled Christianity for seventeen centuries! A reign that wrote the book on dealing ruthlessly with dissenters.
Protestant protestations notwithstanding, in *every* fundamental tenet ALL Christians have steadfastly and unquestioningly adhered to the credo that emerged from the deal with the devil the movement long ago made to secure a church-state alliance and acquire the secular power that conferred.
IMHO the reason for the universal (and universally incomprehensible) interpretation of the Parable of the Talents is because there IS no outside of the orthodox box for thinking. 😱
Hearing no objections… 😏
I was somewhat taken aback by your doubts about the authenticity of the Parable of the Talents.
Admittedly, it does comport with my own suppositions about the teachings of the historical Jesus. But it *was* essentially preserved by all three synoptic authors — Matthew and Luke via Q, Mark in a form pared down (presumably through the oral circulation filter) to a Reader’s Digest version. Further, it was, according to Eusebius, also preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews, as well as referenced in a homily by Clement.
While it’s possible that all of these trace back to single source, isn’t it more probable that there were at least two? But, multiple attestation aside, we know of SEVEN authors — all but one of them from the first century! — who obviously took it to be authentic.
In any event, my point about this parable (yes, I actually *do* have one 😎) can stand on just the concluding line — “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” — the authenticity of which you DO recognize.
However… (🙄)
Consideration of the full parable, while not essential to the point, will be more illustrative.
Googling Matthew’s more popular version returns a hit parade of interpretations that are unanimously orthodox (i.e, church doctrine über alles), and as oblivious of inherent contradictions as they are disconnected from everything else Jesus taught.
My search, of course, wouldn’t return the kind of scholarship available to you. But it did underscore the utterly credulous embrace by pewsful of Christians of *everything* propounded ex cathedra and preached from pulpits by the self-appointed spokespersons for the Almighty — despite blatant contradictions with both the larger corpus of scripture and rudimentary logic.
Consider, for instance, the YouTube sermon I previously cited in which the pontificator first read the entire parable (Mt 25:14-30), then invested substantial time on various speculations about the master’s unequal allocation of his assets among the three servants. It appears this “scholar” wasn’t listening to himself when he read verse 15 that explicitly clarifies: “to each according to his ability.”
Isn’t it insultingly disingenuous to ignore the fact that this was NOT an issue in Luke’s version — where the allocation IS equal? How about neglecting to even *mention* that Luke’s alternative version exists for comparison? 😧
I”m not sure what you’re asking or what you’re pre-supposing. If you want to figure out the historicity of a saying/parable of Jesus, you look at all the iterations and see if one appears to be more ancient than another, and then if any of them is likely to be authentic to Jesus. (And to make sure they are actually versions of the same saying/parable when there are signicant differences, as in this case)
What I’m pre-supposing:
1. The discoverable teachings of the historical Jesus must be within the quotes attributed to him in the surviving record.
2. These must be winnowed for authenticity per the criteria that I (most gratefully) learned from you.
3. What remains should be prioritized — with credibility diminishing on a log scale — as follows:
3a. Teachings from his public ministry in the synoptic gospels. I do make a single exception here: Luke’s quotation of Paul’s quotation of Jesus in Acts 20:35. Why? Because that *sounds* authentic to me. (Okay, it’s arbitrary and academically unsupportable — but, hey, it’s MY priorities list. 😎)
3b. Teachings that survive from unapproved, “lost” sources. Primarily, the recovered Gospel of Thomas. But also excerpts preserved by patristic authors (albeit secondhand and with an agenda) from otherwise extinct works, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews.
3c. Synoptic accounts of what Jesus reputedly told his disciples privately during his ministry.
3d. Teachings from his public ministry in John’s gospel.
3e. John’s account of what Jesus reputedly told his disciples privately during his ministry.
3f. Post-resurrection quotes (all sources.)
This paradigm is, I believe, more rigorous than what obtains in contemporary scholarship. Do you think I am being excessively fastidious? If so, where?
I’d say it’s less rigorous. (Sorry!) (Something that “sounds like” Jesus is not a particularly rigorous standard. “sounds like” to whom? And on what grounds). Also, I think you should think through why you’re prioritizing public to private teachings. If someone assumes that the source of information ultimately are the apostolic band, rather than hearsay, I’m not sure it would follow…)
Wow! My (SIX-level) authenticity-ranking protocol is “LESS rigorous” than that of your scholarly colleagues?
I’d have guessed the great majority of New Testament Scholars Guild members react to *any* challenge to the authenticity of what they dub “Sacred Scripture” with a rousing chorus of “For the Bible tells me so!” Indeed, that even the Atheist-Agnostic caucus at an SBL convention (who could undoubtedly convene a quorum around a restaurant table 😏) would regard my paradigm as unreasonably meticulous. Do I, perhaps, underestimate the number of my own, theological fellow travelers in the Heretic-Apostate delegation?
When I threw in that Acts 20:35 exception I explicitly noted that it was an “arbitrary and academically unsupportable,” personal foible. Frankly, it did occur that (notwithstanding the disclaimer and emoji) I was inviting you to focus in on it like Kenneth Copeland spotting a new Liberty 75 in a Learjet showroom. 😉 So I’ll withdraw it.
The other particular you mention — assessing the prospects for authenticity as better for Jesus’ public teachings than those he allegedly shared privately with his disciples — suggests I’m being unjustifiably fastidious. How could this illustrate my being *less* rigorous than what is academically de rigueur?
But I’m thinking it through.
I meant you’re less rigorous in part because you accept sayings of Jesus became they simply seem right to you. That’s fine, it’s not methodologically rigorous. (There’s no argument other than feel or sense). And to come up with criteria they need to be reasoned out with evidence — and I’m not sure what evidence would suggest that private conversations to disciples would be less reliably transmitted by the disciples than public conversations made in the presence of the disciples, equally transmitted by the disciples. Thos who want to assume that the public conversations were more widley reported and transmitted by non-disciples would need to provide evidence/argument that that’s correct. I’v ethought of the obvious reasons (there’d be more people who heard them) but I don’t think they stand up to scrutiny (since we don’t know who, of those hearers, later came to be believers who would tell the stories, for example.
Has no one previously suggested “that private conversations to disciples would be less reliably transmitted by the disciples than public conversations made in the presence of the disciples,” notwithstanding that both were “equally transmitted by the disciples”?
We know Jesus gave very different teachings in public than in private. FOUR gospels recount him explicitly making this point (Mk 4:11//Mt 13:11//Lk 8:10//Th 62) — and the dichotomy could hardly be sharper. He *intended* his public discourses to be cryptic (in fact, inscrutable!) While in private he not only clarified the meaning of his public teachings for his disciples, but actually shared the very “secrets of the kingdom of God” with them!
My understanding is that such mystery cults forbid any recording of their essential “secrets.” These were only to be shared and passed along — orally — by bona fide members.
If any of the “secrets of the kingdom of God” are preserved in the gospels, they aren’t identified as such. Even so, how could they have gotten from what were originally “eyes only” (make that “ears only” 😉) revelations for trusted insiders to foreigners living decades later, far from Galilee, who DID write them down — and in a different language? 😳
I’m sure people have suggested it, but I don’t know of any major claims made in that direction, for reasons i mentioned.
We’ll never know what “secrets of the kingdom of God” Jesus shared in private. If they weren’t written down (SOP for mystery cults), the “secrets” died with his original disciples — or, at least, within a generation or two of them.
But lack of documentary evidence doesn’t mean we are left entirely unable to evaluate the authenticity of what we *do* have.
In the words of the great prophet, “Come now, and let us reason together” — echoed by the great NT scholar: “to come up with criteria they need to be reasoned out.” 🙂 That is, in fact, the ONLY option when evidence isn’t (and undoubtedly won’t ever become) available.
Given that all surviving accounts of what Jesus said come from his devoted proselytizers, both logic and experience suggests to this amateur parser that we should NOT have equal confidence in the accuracy of both types of reports.
Claims of what Jesus shared privately when only his inner circle (them) was present should be considered inherently more suspect than public statements made before witnesses with no vested interest. Public occasions could (and often did) attract openly hostile adversaries.
Ordinary prudence dictates greater fastidiousness by apologists where any misrepresentation invites discrediting refutation by opponents.
Of course, comparing Jesus and his disciples with Nixon or Trump and “all the presidents’ men” is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. They differ in every possible way — *except,* that is, for the one I’m attempting to illustrate.
Shelve the only Jesus quote outside of the gospels (but ascribed to Paul in Acts 20:35 by the author of one of them), even though it certainly *sounds* (😮) like a Jesus aphorism from one of his public discourses. ALL the rest were identifiably made either in public OR in private.
The distinction is significant because the difference is purposive.
Movement leaders make public statements to recruit new supporters — ever mindful of the fact that these will also be heard by opponents, i.e., they’re “on the record.” Wording in this circumstance will, therefore, be carefully crafted and edited, vetted and revised, to eliminate ambiguities and anticipate counterarguments.
Unless Jesus was channeling the divinely-inspired Word of God, you can take *my* word for it — as I do yours on the text of scripture — that Peter, John and the rest commented every night on the reception the day’s sermon got. And that Jesus considered their assessments before preaching the next one.
When rising movement leaders are speaking only with their trusted confederate-confidants, the opportunity to evaluate progress and revise their message or strategy/agenda is the least of it.
More importantly they are unconstrained by the likely presence of adversaries bent on exploiting what is said in private. In this it doesn’t matter whether the leader is a repugnant pol whose opponents are Republicans/Democrats, or the Lamb of God bedeviled by Pharisees/Sadducees.
In the warm embrace of friendly, uncritical, insider camaraderie they have the opportunity to inspire their faithful with soaring rhetoric and lofty predictions of the reimagined world they promise will emerge once the movement has succeeded. Their aim in this circumstance is to build confidence in and loyalty to their leader, and to stoke redoubled passion for their shared cause.
Both logic and experience suggests that when such confabs are not caught on a callously objective tape-recorder, but instead exclusively recalled by enraptured followers, the accounts should be taken with a grain or two of salt.
I heard somewhere that if salt has lost its taste, it’s thrown out and trampled under foot. (Though, frankly, I’m not sure what that means. 🤔)
But is this being “less rigorous” than your SBL colleagues?
You may want to read discussions of the historical Jesus by established scholars — you’re certainly interestegd in the topic!
“Interested” is a masterpiece of understatement, professor!
Frankly, I am baffled by my fellow believers’ disinterest in winnowing historical wheat from chaff to glean Jesus’ authentic teachings from transcription error, apologetic spin and post hoc emendation. How can anyone who believes Jesus of Nazareth was the “Incarnate Word of God,” NOT think this makes finding his *genuine* words kinda important? 🤔
It appears BTW that I committed a major SNAFU in attempting to post the pièce de résistance to my argument for why I think there is an important distinction to be drawn between his public teachings and those he only shared privately with his trusted confederates. Not only did Jesus, himself, explicitly make this distinction (Mk 4:10-11//Mt 13:10-11//Lk 8:9-10), but YOU insightfully observed that this very difference could well account for *what* it was that Judas actually betrayed!
In any case I intended support for this distinction by logical deduction to be underscored by some real-world examples (in a 7/23 or 7/24 entry) of the phenomenon. Alas, it appears that instead of hitting “post,” I must have unintentionally exited the blog — forever banishing those penetrating observations to Cyberia. 😞
In the authenticity horse race, wouldn’t the “For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away” aphorism get the Triple Crown?
“Coherence” should finish first. Does any other saying more sharply contradict the concerns Jesus tirelessly expresses everywhere else in the canon “for those who have nothing”? Is any line more shocking than the judgment pronounced on the timorous servant — *not* for being a thief or a spendthrift (since he returns the entire principal) — but merely for having been unproductive?
“Dissimilarity” naturally places. The unprofitable fiduciary is dispossessed of his remaining pittance and cast into the outer darkness to weep and gnash his teeth! 😧 What pericope is more challenging to integrate (or even simply reconcile) with all the rest of scripture?
Still, both of these criteria rely on subjective evaluation. And as you have often (correctly) observed, a determined apologist can reconcile anything.
But if you’ll forgive my mixing into a boxing metaphor, “Coherence” and “Dissimilarity” are just the one-two punch that set up the haymaker — the more objectively measurable category of “Independent Attestation.”
Is there any doubt about the historicity of this saying?
It sounds like you’re using coherence to argue against the aying and dissimilarity to argue for it?
You’re right. I should, perhaps, have rechristened the winner of the criteria sweepstakes here as “INcoherence.” 😉 It’s a photo finish. But, given the ubiquitous refrains of compassion and forgiveness throughout Jesus’ teachings, INcoherence with the rest wins by a nose over “DISsimilarity” with Holy Writ.
My (poorly-expressed) intent was to separate these reconciliation stablemates because one is problematic for the canon, the other for the apologist agenda. But both must overcome the dissimilarity hurdle of viewing everything through the stained-glass window of church doctrine.
Exegeses I’ve found on this parable are, frankly, underwhelming. Most focus on marginal issues, e.g., the master’s unequal allocation of talents (without so much as a BTW that this is *not* an issue in Luke’s version.) Others are manifestly anachronistic interpretations based on the — necessarily post hoc — supposition that Jesus intended the master in the story to be a self-reference whose return represented his own “Second Coming.”
But rather than belabor varieties of apologetic retrofitting, forget the parable and allow me to cut to the steeplechase.
What do YOU make of the lesson: “For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away”?
I’ve never much understood it. It sounds like a spiritual form of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” which is true enough in most economies these days, but if it’s how God dispenses spiritual benefits, it’s a bit of a puzzle.
Presuppose orthodox doctrine and it’s a gordian knot of a puzzle. OTOH suppose those early Christians were right. Then “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is, indeed, “how God dispenses spiritual benefits!”
If spiritual perfection requires many lifetimes to attain, it makes perfect sense that at each step along the way, “to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” Such theology (aka “karma”) would eliminate the need to pound a square understanding of Divine Justice into the round holes in church doctrine, *and* render moot such dubious mitigations as “purgatory.”
What makes this aphorism enigmatic — with or without the parabolic context — is “The Triumph of Christianity” (😉) that subordinated the genuinely spiritual teachings of Jesus to the self-serving, temporal agenda of the statuesque, Roman emperor’s Holy Henchmen.
The aborning church arrogated to itself a sacred monopoly on “Truth,” propounded by doctrinal diktat, mercilessly enforced by sword and pyre, and appointed itself gatekeeper of both heaven and hell.
Could power BE more absolute? We didn’t need to wait fifteen centuries for Lord Acton to show us where this was headed… 😧
Before I began what became a somewhat lengthy thread 🙄 (many thanks BTW for your patient sufferance in staying with me on it, professor) on the renowned Parable of the Talents, I made a fairly extended search of the web for extant exegeses on it.
Christian apologies are legion. Yet *all* that I found had two things in common:
1. They propose interpretations — overwhelmingly anachronistic — that could, at best, be described as “strained,” and, less charitably, as “nonsensical.”
2. Not a single one included so much as a passing speculation that we might want to consider the story in light of the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
So, just to put a bow on it…
Could I really be the first to suggest (at least, since the church stopped serving up Gnostic Flambé 😉) that the lesson here is simply an illustration of the consequences of either investing or squandering the “talents,” however large or small, available in each lifetime as leading to better or worse positioning in the next?
If life is a one-and-done (as orthodoxy understandably prefers) what sense is there in the “you have been trustworthy in a few things; I will put you in charge of many things” reward?
The ominous warning that God will reward the haves — by confiscating from the have nots! 😳 — was preserved by both Mark (Mk 4:25) and Q (Mt 25:29//Lk 19:26).
Indeed, it is a saying that the authors of Matthew and Luke apparently considered so axiomatic to Jesus’ teachings that *both* of them included it in their accounts from *both* of their sources — first, as the reason Jesus gave for his use of parables generally (Mt 13:12//Lk 8:18), and then again as the lesson of the Parable of the Talents/Pounds particularly (Mt 25:14-30//Lk 19:12-26).
Thus, this line was actually quoted TWICE by the authors of both Matthew and Luke, for a total of FIVE times in the canon — and in essentially identical words — across all THREE synoptics!
Further, the lesson (sometimes called the “Matthew Effect”) is attested in non-canonical sources, as well.
It’s also preserved, albeit this time in different words, in the miraculously-resurrected, sole-surviving copy of the Gospel of Thomas — “Jesus said: ‘He who has in his hand, to him shall be given; and he who has not, from him shall be taken even the little that he has.’” (Th 41)
“But wait, there’s more!” 😉
Eusebius references the Parable of the Talents as preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews (putatively, since this work did *not* manage to escape the Holy See’s 4th-century, doctrine crucible.)
Differences suggest this version didn’t trace to Q. Only one servant invested the master’s wealth. The, second, more risk-averse one still merely hides it. But the third squandered it; thus, understandably and deservedly provoking the master’s ire. It’s a more obvious denouement, but one that obviates the warning about the dire consequences of being unproductive.
Finally, a homily by Clement of Alexandria importunes: “…that you may be saluted with the ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ and not be found fault with, and declared liable to punishment, like him who hid the one talent.” It’s not clear (AFAIK, but correct me if I err here) what source Clement was using. Neither did he include the problematic aphorism. But this, at least, attests — independently or not — the Q parable.
Are any other pericopes, much less essentially verbatim quotes from Jesus, recounted in so *many* sources? Do any others appear in so many places *within* the canon?
Do scholars — of any stripe — question the authenticity of this enigmatic saying?
the parable of the talents? Absolutely scholars question whether it’s historically accurate. It presupposes that Jesus (the lord) will be gone for a while and people need to do his work in his absence — that is, it presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death when his followers were expecting him to return.
At the risk of parading the impertinence of an amateur here, professor, I must respectfully disagree with the scholarly assessment.
What support is there for the argument that the parable ”presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death”?
It’s unsurprising that this (perforce post hoc) interpretation is ubiquitous in church doctrine apologies. But what evidence is there to suggest that the author of Q made that anachronistic presupposition? Or even, for that matter, the authors of Matthew or Luke?
If we set aside the trinitarian theology that was elevated to incontestable creed three centuries later, wouldn’t a far less strained reading be that Jesus intended the “master” in the parable to represent God (the Father) rather than himself (the Son)?
Clearly, the post-resurrection Christian movement exalted the prophet, Jesus, to divine status by creating a confusing conflation of God’s incarnate “Word,” with the Jewish Messiah (reimagined from conquering champion to “suffering servant”) *and* Daniel’s cosmic “Son of Man” (that one from nearly whole cloth) who would not disappoint, but eventually make a triumphal return at his “Second Coming.”
Are you asserting that this entire transformation was complete *before* Q ever put quill to papyrus?
Sorry — I’m not sure which response of mine you’re referring to. I don’t get my response in your comment, just your reply itself, and since it was on a post that dealt with something else, I don’t see which post hoc interpretation you’re objecting to.
😕 I just assumed you were seeing the entire thread.
I was referring to your January 29 post noting that scholars doubt the historicity of the Parable of the Talents because it “presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death when his followers were expecting him to return.”
This reading assumes (indeed, requires) that Jesus intended the “master” in the parable (who clearly represents God) to be self-referential.
This seems to me to be manifestly post hoc — both because it is suspiciously reflective of later, Christian theology/eschatology, *and* because it is perforce anachronistic on the lips of Jesus.
Additionally, doesn’t a synoptic portrayal of Jesus as a self-aware, preexistent, divine being who DID “regard equality with God as something to be grasped” create coherence issues?
How do scholars account for the author of Q having had so exalted an understanding of Jesus — specifically, his nature as being co-equal with the Father — decades before the author of John (not to mention *centuries* before the apologetic concept of the “Trinity”)?
I’m not sure where in Q Jesus is portrayed as equal with God the Father. The one who provides the talents is Jesus, not Got the Father.
Explicitly? Nowhere. But neither is the “master” explicitly portrayed as representing Jesus, himself.
Notwithstanding its ubiquity, that interpretation appears to rest entirely on church doctrine — specifically, the incomprehensible (and “It’s a mystery” disingenuous) conception of the “Trinity” that propounds Son and Father as equal.
Although JW theology has some overwrought theology, one thing that sect gets right — contra the RCC and all of its other spin-offs — is that “co-substantial” is *not* the same as “co-equal.”
AFAIK “the only begotten Son” tenet, for instance, derives entirely from editorializing by NT authors. (What BTW does “begotten, not made,” even mean? 🤔) Did Jesus ever actually claim that “through him all things were made,” or did he more likely regard creation as the province and providence of the Father?
I do happen to believe that “for our salvation he came down from heaven,” but also join in your insightful question: “When Jesus prayed was he just talking to himself?” 🙄
Q wrote centuries before those theological abstractions were elevated to doctrinal “truth.” So, assuming arguendo, that the Parable of the Talents *is* authentic, are there any NON-creedal reasons to think that Jesus intended the master to be self-referential?
Does that interpretation meet the contextual credibility criterion?
None that occurs to me. Anything that passes contextual credibility is not thereby more likely to be accurate. Unlike the other criteria that we use (e.g., independent attestation and dissimiarlity), contextual credibility is a NEGATIVE criterion. It (and pretty much it alone) determines which material can NOT be historical. (The others show what probably should be seen as historical)
If not authentic, this parable came from Q or the preceding, oral tradition. But it was indisputably *not* woven from whole cloth, as there are *two* other authors (Mark and Thomas) who independently preserved its aphoristic lesson.
Given that Q owes its hypothetical existence to Matthew and Luke, that work was not only written but in wide enough circulation to have been acquired by both (and they independently of one another, as well!)
Thus, the enigmatic lesson — both with and without parabolic context — must date to within about a half century of Jesus’ death.
But greater specificity should be possible.
If the master in the parable represents Jesus (rather than his Father), whose “Second Coming” will be to “settle accounts” with his own followers (rather than as the returning, divinely-empowered “Son of Man”), it makes Paul — the apostle nonpareil — monumentally mistaken. Not only in his eschatology, but in his claim that Jesus “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,” which is the essential implication of the apologetic interpretation.
Doesn’t it follow that Q must, therefore, postdate most, if not all, of Paul’s letters, narrowing its composition to within a decade (or less) of Mark?
I”m not sure why an interpretation of the parable hinges on whether it’s view is consistent with Paul’s.
I wasn’t suggesting that it does. I was merely noting that the orthodox interpretation (i.e., that Jesus intended the master to represent himself and the parousia an individual, afterlife experience, rather than a collective, earthly consequence of the apocalyptic arrival of Daniel’s conquering “Son of Man”) reflects a later, more sophisticated, pagan understanding. While it accounts for Jesus’ no-show, it’s manifestly irreconcilable with Jewish eschatology.
Assuming that Paul and his views were as revered among Christians before his death as both came to be after (perhaps, an unjustified supposition), *and* if the orthodox interpretation of this parable is correct, wouldn’t it follow that Q must date to sometime after 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians? It does appear, however, that by the time he wrote Romans, Paul had come to terms with the fact that he might not live to see the triumphal return of Jesus as the “Son of Man.”
It seems to me that the (pyre-worthy 😳) heresies of reincarnation and karma make the inscrutable Parable of the Talents more, well, scrutable. 😏
Regardless, I was simply asking: Doesn’t it necessarily follow that, if the orthodox interpretation (muddleheaded rationalizations notwithstanding) is correct, Q must have been written in the 55-70 c.e. range?
I think it’s a mistake to think we can date a writing based on whether or not it supports a view found in any of Paul’s surviving writings, if that’s what you’re asking.
It would be a mistake to think we can definitively date a hypothetical writing on *any* basis. All we know for certain is that it was written in the roughly half-century between the death of Jesus and its use as a source by (the earlier of) Matthew and Luke.
It’s the orthodox *interpretation* of this Q parable that clearly and directly contradicts the eschatology Paul expresses in his letters to the churches in Thessalonica (c. 49-51) and Corinth (c. 53-54). “There,” as Bill the Bard memorably said,”is the rub!” 😉
It seems to me that orthodox apologists have three options:
1. During his lifetime Paul and his thinking were not so axiomatic and unassailable in the Christian movement as both would later become. No implications for dating the composition of Q.
2. Q was not written until after the movement had made the transition from a delimiting, Jewish Messiah sect to one that was amenable to erstwhile pagans who were familiar with and accepting of both demigods and Platonic eschatology. That would put its composition at around the same time as Mark — say, within about decade of one another.
3. The orthodox interpretation of this parable is simply wrong.
Is there a fourth possibility?
By “orthodox” I assume you mean apologists who hold to the infallibility of Scripture? Most people along that line have ways of reconciling seeming differences through interpretation rather than through historical sequencing….
IMHO “apologists who hold to the infallibility of Scripture,” i.e., presuppose the existence of a magic book that is “inerrant” in every detail because it was dictated by God, espouse primitive superstition (not to mention embrace idolatry), thus disqualifying their exegeses from rational consideration.
But my challenge to “the orthodox *interpretation* of this Q parable” is far broader than that. It extends to every extant, Christian denomination. Though many will surely bristle at the suggestion, all that survived the RCC’s millennium-long reign of terror offer only minor variations on church doctrine that has held sway ever since it was propounded in the early 4th century.
Every exegesis I have ever found on the Parable of the Talents “presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death when his followers were expecting him to return” (as you put it in your 1/29 post.)
Where is there *anything* in the parable — according to Matthew OR Luke — to justify that presupposition?
Doesn’t it incontestably rest on a Platonic understanding of both the afterlife and the “Second Coming”? Doesn’t that directly contradict Paul’s Jewish eschatology, whereby the Messiah would return as the conquering Son of Man to establish an earthly Kingdom of God in the New Jerusalem?
Not sure what you’re asking. The key person entrusts his wealth to his slaves; he leaves; he returns; he judges them for how well they did. That is what early Christians said about Jesus in relation to his followers. Paul, though, has nothing to do with it. He didn’t tell the parable and probalby didn’t know it, and most followers of Jesus in the first century were not connected with Paul.
How can interpretation of a parable that “presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death” NOT be manifestly anachronistic on the lips of the living Jesus? (Haven’t any mainstream apologists read Joseph Heller? 😉)
Suppose we simply stop viewing it through a stained-glass window, darkly. 😏
Gnostic Christians — had they not been refined out of existence by the orthodox crucible — would have stated the obvious. What this parable *actually* presupposes is that spiritual advancement progresses over the course of many lifetimes, with the consequences of each carried into the next. (The lesson would BTW be equally obvious to even the most neophyte, Buddhist novitiate.)
IMHO the doctrinal blinders worn by orthodox exegetes were originally manufactured and distributed by the unholy church-state alliance that emerged in Rome seventeen centuries ago — because to acknowledge the concepts of reincarnation and karma would be to forfeit ‘hellfire and damnation’ control over the faithful hoi polloi.
But suppose the popular interpretation is wrong. If Jesus did *not* intend the master to be a self-reference, whose return was *not* his own “Second Coming,” anachronisms disappear faster than an overflowing collection plate at a tent revival.
Wouldn’t that put this parable in an entirely different (divine) light?
Sorry, we’re at cross purposes. A parable that presupposes a situatoin after Jesus’ death NECESSARILY is anachronistic on Jesus’ lips. That’s what I’m saying.
I don’t doubt that “what early Christians said about Jesus in relation to his followers” inspired the belief that he intended the master in this parable to represent himself. In fact the concept of Jesus as the self-aware Son of God has been the view of *all* Christians ever since — undoubtedly the reason every apologetic exegesis starts with that very presupposition.
What I’m asking is: Not withstanding the ubiquity of this self-deifying interpretation, what textual and/or historical support is there to justify it?
It seems to me that the more natural reading, contra Christian rhapsodizing, is that Jesus intended the master in the story to represent God (the “Father”), and not anyone else — including himself (the Son.)
Is there any reason to think that the historical Jesus (at least, per the synoptics) was as self-exalting as the popular understanding of this parable would require him to have been?
Indeed, absent (corollary) divine omniscience, how could he possibly have been alluding to his posthumous self? How could he have contemplated his “Second Coming” even before his first one had been brought to its abrupt and brutal end?
I”m not sure what kind of evidence you’re looking for. The textual evidence is the text of the parable and the historical evidence is that this is the expectation that can be documented for the early church. No one was expecting God to be on earth, acquire slaves, leave them, and then return (except insofar as Jesus was God).
It is, indeed, our purposes that are crossing here, professor, since we clearly agree that “A parable that presupposes a situation after Jesus’ death NECESSARILY is anachronistic on Jesus’ lips.”
But where you conclude (and correct me if I misconstrue) that, therefore, the parable isn’t authentic, I deduce that it’s apologetic interpretations of it that “gang aft a-gley.”
The concluding aphorism (the historicity of which neither or us question) is perfectly apropos to the parable. More so, actually, than in the context it was given (sans parable) by Mark.
My point is that IMHO the parable *also* goes back to the historical Jesus. It’s orthodox attempts to pound an authentically square teaching of Jesus through the round holes in church doctrine that renders it anachronistic.
What if we evaluate it in light of Gnostic eschatology, i.e., that we progress spiritually through a succession of lives, each with karmic consequences for the next?
Wouldn’t it make better sense to understand Jesus as saying that “to those who have” (by being productive in this life), “more will be given” (in the next), “and from those who have nothing” (because they were unproductive in this life), ”even what they have will be taken away” (in the next)?
My view is that the interpretation someone is naturally drawn to is the one that “makes better sense” to them. The question is how we decide what words mean. What criteria of interpretatoin do we use? Is one way to decide what Jesus meant to see what it could have meant, say, to Gnostic views that develped over a century later? What role does the immeiate literary context have? What role word usage as found in the same author. And by other authors at the time? Does hisotry of interpretation matter? Does histoircal context matter? Does it matter that Jesus’ context was different from the author who recorded his sayings. Or is it enough just to read and decide what makes the best sense?
Exhibit B: “‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much.” (Mt 25:21 and 23)
If faux Paul is correct that “it is appointed for mortals to die once and after that the judgment” (Heb 9:27), what reward were the two, “good and faithful” servants given (aside, of course, from escaping an eternity of weeping and teeth-gnashing in the outer darkness 😱)?
If life is a one-and-done, how are the productive servants to reap the benefits of their promotion? What future opportunity will they have to invest their eleven and four talents?
Or are we to understand that the heavenly realm requires administration by competent stewards? 🤔
I don’t think we can interpret Matthew in light of the views of Hebrews (which is not faux Paul, btw, since the author make sno authorial claim).
Thank you, professor, for your thoughtful response. All of the questions you raise, such as “what words mean” (especially given the Aramaic > oral transmission > intermediary languages > more oral transmission > Greek ‘telephone game’), the “criteria of interpretation,” etc., are absolutely essential to understanding the text.
It’s you and your scholarly colleagues who provide our only hope of overcoming those hurdles. Such assessments are certainly far above my highest level of incompetence.
In fact, I can’t say too often how grateful I am for your objective analyses and insightful deconstructions of the surviving record. It’s your books and lectures on what survives of the teachings of Jesus (along with my eventual discovery of those of Siddhartha Gautama) that reinvigorated my belief in an animating and unifying divine power — a loving God who from time to time sends us “Word” of the “Way” to find oneness with (excuse the anthropomorphism) “Him” — giving meaning and purpose to existence.
Fortunately, I *can* bring what you don’t have to offer: the belief that those who hear and heed God’s emissaries (the Christ, the Buddha, maybe others I haven’t yet found) will attain salvation/enlightenment… because everyone who searches finds! 😇
So I’ve heard! I hope you’re right! (Well, wish you were! I know a lot of searchers who just find more things to search.,..)
Before I began what became a somewhat lengthy thread 🙄 (many thanks BTW for your patient sufferance in staying with me on it, professor) on the renowned Parable of the Talents, I made a fairly extended search of the web for extant exegeses on it.
Christian apologies are legion. Yet *all* that I found had two things in common:
1. They propose interpretations — overwhelmingly anachronistic — that could, at best, be described as “strained,” and, less charitably, as “nonsensical.”
2. Not a single one included so much as a passing speculation that we might want to consider the story in light of the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
So, just to put a bow on it…
Could I really be the first to suggest (at least, since the church stopped serving up Gnostic Flambé 😉) that the lesson here is simply an illustration of the consequences of either investing or squandering the “talents,” however large or small, available in each lifetime as leading to better or worse positioning in the next?
If life is a one-and-done (as orthodoxy understandably prefers) what sense is there in the “you have been trustworthy in a few things; I will put you in charge of many things” reward?
FWIW it seems to me that the Parable of the Talents/Pounds fits very nicely within the larger corpus of Jesus parables. It:
1. is succinct, simple in concept, and structurally symmetrical
2. conjures a setting and situation that would have been perfectly comprehensible to average, 1st-century, Jewish peasants
3. features the “master and servants” cast that Jesus frequently employed in his parables
4. postulates not only a test, but representatives for the most likely reactions to it
and perhaps most compellingly of all,
5. comes to an unexpected (and even startling) conclusion that inspires introspection by anyone “who has ears to hear,” thereby provoking a reevaluation of previously unquestioned assumptions
This parable certainly sounds like the real deal to yours truly.
But I’ll spare the wear and tear on your keyboard, professor, by readily admitting that textual criticism is not charades — and that “sounds like” is not a legitimate clue (with or without ear-tug. 😉) So let’s table the question of the authenticity of the parable, and merely address the (multiply-attested) lesson you *don’t* question.
What do you think the concluding aphorism, “For to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away,” is teaching?
At the risk of prompting a Sonny & Cher refrain, please indulge a reiteration of the substance of my February 2 post, professor, as I am very much interested in your insights on two issues.
First, do scholars have any authenticity criteria (beyond the usual ones) that are specifically applicable to assessing the historicity of Jesus’ parables?
As with ascribing different degrees of certitude WRT quotes attributed to Jesus based on the circumstances in which they were made, I somewhat presumptuously suggested five, specific characteristics that seem to me (“He’s making it up as he goes along!”😉) could — or should — bear on the authenticity of parables. [Please advise if that previous post isn’t visible to you, and I will be happy to repost the five criteria I postulated.]
Second, while you have previously said you are skeptical about the authenticity of the Parable of the Talents, you expressed no such doubts about the saying with which it concludes: “For to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away,”
So, parable notwithstanding, what lesson do you think Jesus intended in this startlingly discordant (if not contradictory) teaching?
1. Scholars establish whether certain parables were said by Jesus on the same grounds that they establish whether certain sayings really were spoken by Julius Caesar or Abraham Lincoln. No special criteria required. 2. I do have doubts about the saying about more being given, but not the same grounds for doubting. I’m not sure if Jesus said it or someone else. The argument for it being authentic is that it is replicated in numerous sources; it first occurs in Matthew in 13:12 (borrowed from Mark 4:25), and it can be found in Q (Luke 19:26); and in Gospel of Thomas 41. In its Synoptic contexts it refers to understanding the teachings of Jesus. Those who understand acquire increasing understanding over time; those who are ignorant become increasingly ignorant. Now that I think aobut it (i.e., now that I have osme understanding), I think, based on my experience, that’s right!