I was originally raised as a Christian, but I left the church at 18, and became an atheist shortly after. A Christian friend gave me an article that I presume was intended to convince me that the Christian God exists, and that we need Christian ethics. Among the things that I did in response is to read Hector Avalos's Bad Jesus, and Luke:15, which I think embodies some of the things I don't like about Christianity. I will also say that I am rather literal minded. It's not that I don't understand that the parables are teaching stories, but when I read almost anything, I always imagine how this would work in real life, or how I would feel in those circumstances. The story about the lost coin doesn't bother me, since coins are inanimate, and it is easier to take it symbolically, but I can't stop entering into the feelings of the older brother of the Prodigal Son and the 99 sheep left on their own.

I think about these parables when I read about the feelings of families of the murder victims in Helen Prejean's Dead Man Walking and the Garlands whose daughter Bonnie was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. They felt abandoned and even betrayed as the clergy of their church lavished far more attention and concern on the murderers than on the families. If that's how Christianity works, and the clergy can certainly point to Luke 15 as justification, I'm well out of it. I will give Helen Prejean credit that eventually she caught on to the families's feelings. The Garlands' lawyer, Joseph Pisani, said:

"The Garlands are standing by themselves, outside the courtroom, having just lost their daughter in such a terrible way. [...] And there is the defendant just a few yards away, surrounded by members of the clergy in their clerical garb. [...] And they're fawning over him, joking and smiling trying to lift his spirits! [...] If anyone needed charity and sympathy and consolation, it was the Garlands."

This is a rather personal review, but I hope still useful. Despite my problems with the book, I do strongly recommend it for those wanting an in-depth look Luke15.

I have always disliked the parable of the Prodigal Son. Rereading Luke:15 also made me realize how much I also dislike the parable of the shepherd leaving the ninety-nine sheep on the hill, or in the wilderness, while he went after the lost sheep. He seriously expects there to be ninety-nine sheep when he gets back, even though he's already has to search for one wanderer? Bailey suggests that with such a large flock, there may have been a second shepherd. So what if there were only 29 left alone? I realized that was how I felt at church before I decided to leave it, back in 1971. As one person stated in a semi-official publication, the church never used to worry about young people leaving, because they always got married, had children, and came back. Only now they don't as much. When Finding the Lost showed up as a suggested purchase, I bought it to see if it changed my mind.

Bailey has written a book that is full of fascinating details. He has searched through numerous other Jewish texts, and his knowledge of contemporary traditional Middle Eastern life to help interpret the parables as Jesus and his listeners would have. He has also searched translations of the Bible made by non-Europeans, which is particularly interesting. Bailey draws very vivid scenes of what the parables would have evoked in the listeners' imaginations. He compares other parts of the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, to the parables. He has also included information about literary forms. Hector Avalos is very skeptical of some of these techniques: can the lives of Jews in the first half of the first century really be likened to that of Arabs two thousand years later? Are Jewish texts written hundreds of years after that time reliable guides to Jewish in the first century? A lot of things had changed, notably with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora. Bailey is at least conscious of these difficulties and offers justifications for his choices. The book has indexes of scripture and authors, but a general index would be helpful as well.

Has Bailey made me feel any better about the parables? Not really. The evidence is cherry-picked. In analyzing the parable of the Prodigal Son, Bailey criticizes the older son for assuming that his brother spent his money on prostitutes, when presumably he has no way of knowing. O.K., but Bailey throws in details for which he has no evidence. Actually, I think it more likely that the brother could have known about the Prodigal, because other Jews going to the far country might have brought news. He tells us that it would be extremely shocking for a son to ask for his inheritance while his father was alive; it implies that he wishes his father dead.

Bailey's has a number of strained charges against the older brother. Would he have even thought of the first four if he didn't need to reduce sympathy for the older brother to make the parable work?

1. The older brother should have tried to mediate between the father and the Prodigal. Bailey declares that the older brother refused to do, but nothing at all is said about the subject; the older brother could have tried and failed. In any case, he would still be less responsible for the fiasco than his father and the Prodigal.

2. Bailey claims that the older son is willing to take but not give, since he accepts his share of the inheritance, but obviously father and son have treated it as still belonging to the father. Bailey argues that he should have refused it, but it the Prodigal was given his share, the older brother has the rest by default.

3. Bailey argues that the older son is hypocritical in saying that he has worked hard for his father, since the work ultimately enhances his inheritance. But this is true of any inherited family business, and was true when the father worked for his father.

4. Bailey faults the older son for asking onlookers what the party is about instead of simply going in. I think it's reasonable for the older brother to wonder how it is that he left for an ordinary work day and comes back to unexpectedly find two hundred people eating, singing, and dancing – and he wasn't even summoned to the party.

5. He also claims that the older son behaved worse than the Prodigal, because he shamed, i.e., argued with, his father in public when he refused to go into the party. He claims that the Prodigal's behavior was private, and therefore less hurtful, although as Bailey acknowledges elsewhere, people knew what the Prodigal did – he claims that the father had to run to meet the Prodigal to protect him from the scorn of the village.

6. Bailey acknowledges that people have argued that the father insulted his older son by not even bothering to send to him about his brother's arrival and the party when Bailey imagines that the entire village and paid entertainers have already been sent for and arrived? Bailey waves that off on the grounds that not telling the older brother makes the story work better. Apparently not if people keep bringing it up.

7. Bailey tries to portray the older son's disappointment at never being given so much as a kid to celebrate with his friends as being the equivalent of the Prodigal demanding his inheritance on one hand, and an insult to the villagers on the other. Apparently it is disgraceful that he might like to have an intimate dinner with close friends.

I could go on. I have previously read other, less detailed analyses of the parable, but I have always been left thinking that the condemnations of the older brother are labored. Yes, it would have been better if he had gone into the banquet and voiced his objections later, but I sympathize with his feelings. He isn't being gracious, but he has been treated shabbily.

Here's where my literal mindedness comes in. Bailey and other writers have argued that the older son still had his property. Bailey claims that the father has confirmed that his inheritance won't be reduced, but I think the evidence is unconvincing. I always interpreted “what is mine is yours” particularly in context, as meaning that the older son has been safe and comfortable at home while the younger brother has been suffering through his self-created disaster. Bailey interpreted it as an assurance to the older son that he will get his full (minus expenses.). In the first place, the value of the older brother's future inheritance has been drained by the fact that his lesser amount, minus the Prodigal's share, is being used to support the household, which must be strained trying to deal with the deficit. Maybe that's why he says he worked like a slave. I would also strongly suspect, as an experienced sibling, that the next morning over breakfast, the father would point out that nothing could be done to recover the Prodigal's share, and he couldn't really be left penniless, so the older brother's share was going to be split between the two sons.

Bailey defends the superiority of story-telling to Western communication, but sometimes it is a lot murkier. The problem with parables, similes and metaphors is that one has to figure out what the teller meant to be taken literally or compared. Sometimes people try to explain things using these techniques, and I am confused as to which qualities of the items are intended to be compared and which ignored. I think it was a mistake for Jesus to compare money to salvation as he does in a number of parables. Money can be divided, salvation cannot. No matter how many people are saved, no person is any more or less saved. If salvation is a gift, then unlike the wages of the workers in the vineyard parable, it isn't a reward for effort. ( )

Excellent treatment of Luke 15. Bailey is an absolute genius and exegetes all 3 parables in Luke 15 and then shows parallels in Psalm 23. Some of the stuff he finds will just make you shake your head. This guy is incredible and I could read him all day long. You think you know what Luke 15 says? Just read Bailey's work on it and you will find things you never even dreamed were there! ( )