# Are New Testament parables supposed to be literally true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678 "2012-05-22T01:29:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/41 "2012-05-22T20:43:05Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > . . . Whether the story of Lazarus & the Rich Man is a parable has been a subject of debate in several Christian circles. It seems to lead to curious consequences… First, it would be the first time Jesus specifically declares his godliness, given that he can see what is happening in heaven and in hell. Second, it entails someone being punished in hell prior to the day of judgement. (The standard idea is that we lie in a dreamless sleep until bodily resurrection, at which time we are judged, and heaven and hell are peopled. With some odd exceptions, like the handful of Prophets who were carried up to heaven bodily, and the “Good Thief” who got a special-case bypass ticket directly to heaven.) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/42 "2012-05-22T23:18:24Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The parables may be more literally true then we can understand. Jesus does explain that He speaks in parables so the people are able to understand things that if He told them directly and openly they would not be able to accept. Jesus, by stating the message in parables, is bypassing filters we have as humans, so often we can look at what we are doing wrong. While that may not be incorrect, he was much clearer about saying the oppositte. He had many enemies, and he explicitly said he was trying to _avoid_ certain people understanding what he was saying. There’s a strong implication that after the public attacks early in his career, he used prables to keep spreading the message in such a way that the powerful did not understand. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/43 "2012-05-22T23:25:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What ‘they’ are we talking about - common people, or guys like Pythagoras, Archimedes, and Euclid? > > The Greek mathematicians were pretty good at figuring things out from first principles, and figuring out what those principles had to be in the first place. To say that they _hadn’t_ done any work on basic probability doesn’t tell me they _couldn’t_ have answered a question about the likelihood of different rolls of a pair of dice; it tells me they hadn’t had reason to consider such questions. > > I really can’t believe a question like this would have stumped those guys. I think that, given time and motivation enough, I’d have had a decent chance of coming up with the basics of probability. But I’d have needed several lifetimes just to make progress towards determining the postulates of plane geometry, which is something they were able to achieve. I was including even the top mathematical minds like those you mentioned. Probability just wasn’t a direction their mathematical thinking was geared towards. Classical mathematics were aimed at things like proofs - a binary system where answers were either yes or no. Probabilities require you to view things in terms of maybe. I think you could have got the concept across to somebody like Euclid but he probably would have said that what you were talking about wasn’t mathematics because it had no certain answers. Or look at Pythagoras - he thought there was something wrong about irrational numbers. He didn’t think a number should extend into infinity. And he was advance - the consensus of earlier mathematicians was that fractions weren’t real numbers. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/44 "2012-05-22T23:58:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Most people are going to be able to figure out that a thread on beliefs about the New Testament will be about what Christians believe without needing to be told. > > I mean seriously, Tom, if I asked a question about what a Menorah symbolizes, would you respond by asking if I meant what a Menorah symbolizes to Jews? Where does belief enter into the question posed by the OP? For your analogy to work, the OP would not have been a question regarding what the menorah symbolized; it would have been a question as to whether the use of the menorah actually dated to the time of the wanderings in the Sinai. The answer might have any number of possible responses, open to challenges from various sources or authorities, but no answer to that question would allude to what Jews believed it symbolized. The question was whether parables in the New Testament were supposed to be instructive fiction or actual events. The answer to that lies in the simple reading of the gospels, not in the meanings assigned to various parables by later generations. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/45 "2012-05-23T01:17:22Z")
Y’know, for my whole life, just from straight reading even as a child, it seemed to me evident that the way the gospels present the parables, is in the manner of Jesus making a point by telling a contrived story with a moral. Who’s the neighbor you must love? _Anyone who needs your help or offers that help even if he’s from a despised rival tribe_ (Parable of the Good Samaritan). Who will get more rewarded by God, those born in the faith or new converts? \* Everyone who comes to God will be rewarded no matter if they came early or late\* (parable of the Laborers). Should I play it safe and do just the bare minimum expected? _No, fool; from him to whom much is given, much will be demanded; if you try to coast on the bare minimum effort, the guy who really hustled will end up taking your pot_ (parable of the Talents); Isn’t it unfair that those those who sin and repent be treated as well or better that those who always behaved themselves? _Now don’t be a jerk, you’re getting yours anyway; be glad he repented when he had the chance, would you rather he have perished?_ (The Prodigal Son). As I read, it seemed to me that whether they were supposed to be describing some event that Jesus had observed or heard from, or merely were Just-So Stories he was telling to make a point, that was irrelevant to the gospel writer, the point was his point. As mentioned earlier by **Bricker** , in Catholic teaching the usual take is that when the gospel says \*“and he then told this parable…” \* that’s a flag that says “attention, the next passage is allegorical and Jesus is making a point using a clever story”. (Of course, Catholicism comes from a majority tradition dating all the way back through the history of Christianity, where reasonable believers will not be shocked at the idea that Jesus ever said a single word that was metaphorical and not a materially true depiction of fact to-the-letter.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/46 "2012-05-23T02:19:03Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I’m been long amused by that take-away. The point was that this guy is a GOOD Samaritan. Not like all those other Samaritans who keep lowering property values, making the whole neighbourhood smell funny with their cooking, dress oddly, and mind you I know a lot of them are really fine folks but I get nervous when I have to pass a group of them on the street. > > I think Asimov had an essay on Lost in Non-Translation, wher he pointed out that modern readers do not have the cultural prejudice against Samaritans that Yeshua’s audience shared. I recall him making a similar point regarding the Book of Ruth, a “Moabitess” (filthy bitch!) who became the ancestress of King David. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/47 "2012-05-23T06:15:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Where does belief enter into the question posed by the OP? I think I can speak authoritatively on what I meant when I wrote the OP. And judging from the responses, other people seem to have understood my question. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/48 "2012-05-23T06:26:17Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > What is Truth? When someone asks if a given parable is “literally true” are they asking whether the lesson or the illustrating anecdote are factual? > > A lesson can be “true” without needing to be literal or factual. A made-up story can (can, not must, and not always) give more insight into the truths of human nature than any recounting of Just The Facts. The way I see it, the search for meaning in the parables depends a lot on whether they are regarded as fictional or as factual. If they were factual, then the only editorial decision Jesus made was choosing what event to relate and how to present the facts of the event. So you can only judge Jesus’ meaning based on those decisions. But if the stories were fictional, then Jesus made up all of the elements of the story and you can look for meaning in these elements as well. ---
**Author:** ![Rampant\_Coypu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rampant\_Coypu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rampant_Coypu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/49 "2012-05-23T06:37:19Z")
No, because that’s just what “parable” means. It’s from the same root as “parabola”, a conic section where the square of the section equals the rectangle of the diameter and a line defined by where the cone is cut. Parables aren’t real, but the are as precise as efforts of the dudes doing proto-calculus in the age when whatevr person who became Jesus lived. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/50 "2012-05-23T06:52:58Z")
BRIAN: Look, there was this man and he had two servants . . . ARTHUR: What were their names? BRIAN: What? ARTHUR: What were they called? BRIAN: I don’t know. And he gave them some talents . . . ELSIE: You don’t know. BRIAN: Well, it doesn’t matter. ARTHUR: He doesn’t know what they were called. BRIAN: They were called Simon and Adrian. Now . . . ARTHUR: Oh! You said you didn’t know. BRIAN: It really doesn’t matter. The point is there were these two servants . . . SAM: He’s making it up as he goes along. BRIAN: No I’m not . . . or wait a moment, were there three? EDDIE: Oh he’s terrible, isn’t he? ARTHUR: Terrible. BRIAN: Three . . . well, _stewards,_ actually . . . _Genereal eye raising to heaven._ ARTHUR: Tch tch thc. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/51 "2012-05-23T09:53:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I was including even the top mathematical minds like those you mentioned. Probability just wasn’t a direction their mathematical thinking was geared towards. Classical mathematics were aimed at things like proofs - a binary system where answers were either yes or no. Probabilities require you to view things in terms of maybe. I don’t understand why this would have been a barrier. There really are exactly 6 ways a cubic die can come up. And there really are exactly 36 ways a pair of cubic dice can come up. (Easily illustrated by numbering the sides of one die, and coloring the sides of the other with different colors. This is manageable for a Greek. And even though you haven’t said it, you’ve got a sample space.) No ‘maybe’ in sight. You don’t even need fractions _per se_, just the notion that certain ways of collecting outcomes from the sample space involve collecting more of those 36 individual outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/52 "2012-05-23T14:05:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Androcles and the Lion. [/quote] Possibly not. Androcles is a derivative of the Greek Andros (cf Heracles) and simply means man of fame and thus could be a generic name. ---
**Author:** ![Flips187](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@Flips187](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flips187)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/53 "2012-05-27T15:35:49Z")
Matthew 13:10… Theres your answer my friend…god bless Iu ---
**Author:** ![Flips187](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@Flips187](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flips187)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/54 "2012-05-27T15:41:04Z")
Matthew 13:10 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/55 "2012-05-27T16:02:25Z")
How did I know that the join date would be May 2012? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678/56 "2012-05-27T17:07:49Z")
For the record, Matthew 13:10 says _“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’”_ Which doesn’t seem to really answer my question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-new-testament-parables-supposed-to-be-literally-true/622678.md?page=2)