Parable

The Tree, the Fruit and the Gardener is an adaptation of John 15: 1-6.

Parable or Extended Metaphor?

The first problem in adapting this parable to a modern context is whether it’s a parable at all, or whether it’s a very extended metaphor. John isn’t supposed to ‘do’ parables, concentrating as he often does on Jesus’ more complex teaching for his long-term disciples – but I’d side with those arguing for ‘parable’. A slightly different style of parable, because Jesus is using the story of the vine, the gardener and the two types of branches to explain things to his disciples, rather than to provoke discussion amongst the crowd – but still a parable.

Retelling a parable – choices

As in The Parable of the Tenants , the major change in retelling this is the move away from the ‘vine’ imagery. Shifting the retelling away from ‘vine’ loses the connotations it had for the original disciples. The vine is associated with Israel; one of the things Jesus is probably saying is that he is, in some way, Israel. But the problem with keeping ‘vine’ in a modern retelling is that Jesus’ disciples would have got the connection with Israel immediately – we won’t. That connection is now only obvious to people who’ve done a lot of Bible reading or some Bible study. In a sermon, it would be something the preacher would need to tease out.

And, again, we have the problem that vines are not an everyday sight in urban Britain (where I’m writing now). For places like the UK, keeping ‘vine’ keeps the associated theology (for those who understand it), but if the listener isn’t familiar with Bible stories, it immediately places Jesus and his disciples as ‘exotic’. Other. If I hear I am the true vine and my Father is the vinedresser’, I’m already halfway to wondering what this guy is going on about, if I haven’t switched off entirely. Instead of ‘needs thinking about’, I would say we move into ‘needs footnotes’.

Which is fine, if the person listening is already in church and has access to ‘footnotes’ in the sense of bible resources or classes. Not so good if it’s someone who’s never been inside a church and doesn’t know why they should go.

Language Choices

My Greek is fairly terrible basic, but I think we do have to consider what Jesus meant by ‘true’. He is the true vine, the essential Israel, yes – but would we ever, in modern British English, say ‘I am the true Britain’? I think in colloquial English we’d be far more likely to use ‘essentially’. Jesus is the true life. Essentially, Jesus is life. One’s more theologically accurate, the other is more direct.

In the same way, while ‘abide in me’ is an accurate translation, it’s not something we’d ever say in modern British English. A colloquial Brit would use ‘stay with me’, or maybe ‘stick with me’ if they were being more forceful.

Question

Does the heightened, formal English used in most Bible translations help or hinder?

Previous Parable: The Parable of the Tenants

Next Parable: The Smart and Stupid Builders