gregoryjenks

Tag: Jacob

  • Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (27 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 29:15-28 & Psalm 105:1-11, 45b (or Psalm 128) [alt 1 Kings 3:5-12 & Psalm 119:129-136]
    • Romans 8:26-39
    • Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52

    Gospel: More parables from Matthew

    The notes gathered here highlight comments on the various parables from a select group of scholars.

    Mustard Seed

    Crossan [Historical Jesus, 276-79] treats The Mustard Seed as one of 5 parables and 7 other items that comprise a list of 12 multiply-attested complexes that refer to the kingdom of God. He notes that this is the only extant parable with triple independent attestation. He notes three “converging vectors” along which the tradition has adapted the parable as it was handed on:

    (1) developing the original contrast between seed and plant to emphasize the transition from smallness to greatness; (2) transformation of the mustard plant into a substantial tree (as in Sayings Gospel Q); and (3) inter textual links with the biblical traditions such as Ps 104:12; Ezek 31:3,6; Dan 4:10-12

    Crossan cites the comments on the mustard plant by Pliny the Elder (fl. 23-79 CE) in his Natural History 19.170-71:

    Mustard … with its pungent taste and fiery effect is extremely beneficial for the health. It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once.

    Citing his own earlier work on the parable (In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. Harper & Row, 1973), Crossan points out:

    When one starts a parable with a mustard seed one cannot end it with a tree, much less the great apocalyptic tree, unless, of course, one plans to lampoon rather crudely the whole apocalyptic tradition. After noting the way in which mustard plants tend to proliferate in both field and garden with negative results for both, so that the Mishnah (around 200 CE) would regulate its cultivation, Crossan cites with approval Douglas Oakman’s observation: “It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately likens the rule of God to a weed.”

    In the end, Crossan concludes:

    The point, in other words, is not just that the mustard plant starts as a proverbially small seed and grows into a shrub of three or four feet, or even higher, it is that it tends to take over where it is not wanted, that it tends to get out of control, and that it tends to attract birds within cultivated areas where they are not particularly desired. And that, said Jesus, was what the Kingdom was like: not like the mighty cedar of Lebanon and not quite like a common weed, like a pungent shrub with dangerous takeover qualities. Something you would want only in small and carefully controlled doses—if you could control it.

    The Mustard Seed secured a combined red and pink score of 89% in the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar, putting it just marginally behind The Leaven (see below). The notes in The Parables of Jesus. Red Letter Edition (Polebridge:1988) read as follows:

    The Mustard Seed originated with Jesus because the proverbially small mustard seed is a surprising metaphor for the kingdom. In everyday usage, the proper figure for the kingdom of God is greatness, not smallness. As the parable was handed on, interpreters converted the parable into the contrast between small beginnings (small seed) and great outcome (great tree). This process can be observed in both Mark and Thomas, where the small seed becomes a great shrub or plant; in Matthew and Luke, the shrub (plant) has actually become a tree, probably under the influence of Ezekiel 17:22-23—the great cedar representing Israel. In the hands of Jesus, the Mustard Seed is a parody of the noble cedar. Subsequent interpreters transformed the modest shrub into the traditional towering tree. (p. 34)

    Brandon Scott [Reimagine the World, 35-40] provides a fresh look at this parable, but I shall cite just a few observations that he poses about the nature of the Jesus tradition within the church:

    … for Jesus, God’s empire is more pervasive than dominant. It is like a pungent weed that takes over everything and in which the birds of the air can nest; it bears little if any resemblance to the mighty, majestic, and noble symbol of empire of Israel or Caesar. Take your choice, says the parable. The history of this parable’s interpretation is a clear example of how Jesus’ own language betrayed him, because the tradition had a clear preference for the cedar of Lebanon … Why did the parable of the Leaven and the Mustard Plant fail in the later tradition? Why did Christian preaching so perversely misunderstand them? The fault lies in the language of the parable. In these two parables Jesus took on the fundamental assumptions of his society—and nearly every human society—about how God acts. How are we to imagine God’s activity? As leaven or unleavened? As mustard plant or mighty cedar? The tradition either pretended or preferred not to hear in parable his re-imagined God. (p. 39-40)

    The Leaven

    Crossan discusses this parable as one of several in the section “A Kingdom of Undesirables” (Historical Jesus, 276-82).

    The essential point is “that leaven in the ancient world was a symbol of moral corruption,” according to Brandon Scott, since it was “made by taking a piece of bread and storing it in a damp, dark place until mold forms. The bread rots and decays … modern yeast … is domesticated.” Furthermore, “in Israel there is an equation that leaven is the unholy everyday, and unleaven the holy, the sacred, the feast” (324). Once again, we are confronted with an image of the Kingdom that is immediately shocking and provocative. And it is compounded by the fact that, again from Scott, “woman as a symbolic structure was associated in Judaism, as in other Mediterranean cultures, with the unclean, the religiously impure. The male was the symbol for purity.” Furthermore, “the figurative use of hiding to describe the mixing of leaven and flour is otherwise unattested in Greek or Hebrew” (326). With mustard and darnel, then, stands another and triply shocking image for the Kingdom: a woman hiding leaven in her dough. It’s there, it’s natural, it’s normal, it’s necessary, but society has a problem with it.

    In the considerations of the Jesus Seminar, this parable received the highest rating of any saying attributed to Jesus. The combined red and pink vote was 90% and not a single black vote was cast in this case. That strong vote seems to have rested primarily on the reversal of expectations when Jesus used leaven (an agent of corruption typically associated with impurity in Jewish thought) as a metaphor for God’s kingdom. Brandon Scott [Reimagine the World, 21-34] has an excellent discussion of some key dimensions to this parable. (1) the inter textual allusion of the “three measures” to Abraham’s hospitality to three anonymous sacred visitors in Genesis 18:

    When the parable employs the term three measures it conjures up from the audience’s repertoire the story of Abraham and the birth of Isaac. In parable it suggests a comparison between the woman’s actions and the birth of Isaac. Now we begin to understand the difference between parabolic or oral thinking and our own literate, more abstract way of thinking. In parable “three measures” serves to compare the event of Isaac’s birth with the event of the parable. Literally and abstractly it makes little sense. But parable is a concrete way of thinking, not an abstract way. (p. 28)

    (2) leaven as a symbol of decay and corruption:

    In the ancient world the process of leavening frequently stood as a metaphor for moral corruption. … The New Testament contains several examples of this negative use of leaven. In Mark’s Gospel Jesus warns the disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15). .. Twice Paul quotes the proverb, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” … In the Hebrew Bible unleavened bread is a powerful symbol of the holy. During the feast of Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, all leavened bread was to be cleansed out of the house. When we reflect how leaven is a product of rotten bread and is associated with a corpse, we begin to see how it can serve as a powerful metaphor for corruption and how its opposite, unleavened bread, can serve as a metaphor for the sacred and holy. The very beginning of the parables with the simple word “leaven,” would throw an audience off guard and maybe into panic. For leaven is surely no correct symbol of the kingdom of God. (pp. 25-27)

    (3) a woman concealed … :

    In the normal process of baking one might expect a woman to be kneading the dough. There is nothing untoward about her role here. But as a parable for the kingdom of God, a woman’s role as an emblem of the sacred becomes highly problematic. Again, there is nothing wrong with the kingdom of God being hidden. But in this parable an unexpected word is used for hiding. “Concealed”—krypto (Luke) or enkrypto (Matthew)—is a much more negative term, for hiding than the more neutral kalypto. Krypto has some sense of concealment. (p. 27f)

    Finally, under the delightful subheading “Kneading the parable,” Scott begins to sketch out a way of hearing this parable:

    … my contention is that Jesus told parables to let people in on his experience of God. Parables were his way of making God available to them. Actually, empire of God is a symbol used to make God available to folks, to provide them with an alternative to their everyday life in the empire of Caesar or in the kingdom of Caesar’s puppet, Herod Antipas. If we listen to the parable it says something like this. “The empire of God is like moral corruption.” Well of course that is a very bad start. Most folks in Jesus’ audience would have blanched at the first term “leaven.” Perhaps they would snicker that the empire of Caesar is more like leaven. “which a woman took.” Again how can a woman, weak as she is, have anything to do with God’s empire? But if it is like leaven, then there is a certain logic, a weird logic, to the parable. “and concealed …” Does she do it while no one is looking? How can she keep it concealed? Will folks be unaware that it is leavened bread? After all most bread in the ancient world was flat bread, like tortillas or pita. “in three measures of flour …” Now we are getting somewhere. Finally an image of great size, an image appropriate to God. And this tells us we are on the right track. Three measures assures us that this is after all the empire of God. What a huge banquet she is preparing, enough for a hundred people! This is an event like the birth of Isaac. Is she preparing the messianic banquet? “until it was all leavened …” Until it has worked its way through everything, until it has corrupted the whole mass of dough. Surely such total corruption is nonsense as a way of talking about God or experiencing God. What is this about?

    Scott then poses the question: “for whom would this parable be good news?” Whether or not it seems good news for me probably depends on whether I see myself as doing well under the status quo, or whether I yearn for change and freedom. The following poem by Gene Stecher explores some of the themes relating to this parable:

    GIVE US TODAY A LEAVENED LOAF Nothing is hidden that won’t be revealed, nothing is veiled that will not be unveiled! The Leaven was placed and no one knew, but can you miss the 50 pound flour effect? (Th 5:2, Lk 12:2; 13:20-21) The mustard seed will burst from the earth. The treasure and pearl are going to be found. Wedding garments and fruit reveal the truth. The spotlight shines on what comes out of you. (Th 20, Mt 13:44, Th 76, Mt 7:16; 22:11, Mk 7:15) The lamp goes on top of the bushel. The lost are found, whether sheep or coin. The seed ripens, and it is harvested. Log removal brings one’s friend into focus. (Lk 8:16, Lk 15:4-9, Mk 4:26, Th 26) Investment matters, so expect good gifts. The embers smolder. Uh oh, the jar is empty! The leavened demon came out screaming! This Jesus is now exalted to Lord and Messiah! (Mt 25:14, Th 97, Mt 7:9, Th 10, Lk 11:20, Acts 2:32-36) Is there any better feeling, than finding or discovering something of value that had been hidden, even rising to giddiness at seeing the hidden emerge, like when one’s ten year old daughter picks up a basketball for the first time, walks up to the playground, and knocks down shot after shot. [Gene Stecher – Chambersburg, Pa.]

    The Treasure

    There is a rabbinic parallel to this story:

    R. Simeon b. Yohai taught [that the Egyptians were] like a man who inherited a piece of ground used as a dunghill. Being an indolent man he went and sold it for a trifling sum. The purchaser began working and digging it up and he found a treasure there out of which he built himself a fine palace. He began going about in public followed by a retinue of servants, all out of the treasure he found in it. When the seller saw it, he was ready to choke and exclaimed, “Alas, what have I thrown away?” So when Israel was in Egypt they were set to work at bricks and mortar, and they were despised in the eyes of the Egyptians. But when the Egyptians saw them encamped under their standards by the sea in military array, they were deeply mortified and exclaimed, “Alas, what have we sent forth from our land.” [Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 4.12.1 tr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon] (London: Soncino Press, 1939. Vol 9, pages 292-20)

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) voted both the Matthew and Thomas versions of this parable pink, but Matthew seems to be closer to the presumed original form. The version in Thomas is closer to the rabbinic parallel than the version in Matthew, suggesting that perhaps it has been adapted to conform to the better-known rabbinic parable. The Matthean version also has a slightly more scandalous character as the person who finds the treasure is not the rightful owner, but secures title to the treasure by deceit. This twist to the tale is also seen in parables such as 466 The Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-7). John Dominic Crossan (In Parables) suggests that The Treasure, The Pearl and The Fishnet belong together as stories that affirm the advent of God’s kingdom, describe the reversal of fortunes flowing from its arrival among us, and create new possibilities for action. He then goes on to structure his study of the parable tradition around those key descriptors: parables of advent, parable of reversal, and parables of action. He writes:

    These are surely humble and everyday examples and yet they are startling in their implications. It has always been clear that Jesus criticized many of the notions open to the religious experience of his contemporaries: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zealots, the Essenes. But usually, and especially since Paul and the Reformation, it is his critique of the Law that is to the forefront. It is here suggested that the basic attack of Jesus is on an idolatry of time and that this is the center whence issued forth what Yeats called that “Galilean turbulence” which set Jesus against all the major religious options of his contemporaries. It should be quite clear that he forged a two-edged sword which strikes as lethally against his contemporary Judaism as it should have done against primitive Christianity; thereafter it was much too late. The one who plans, projects, and programs a future, even and especially if one covers the denial of finitude by calling it God’s future disclosed or disclosable to oneself, is in idolatry against the sovereign freedom of God’s advent to create one’s time and establish one’s historicity. This is the central challenge of Jesus. The geographers tell us we do not live on firm earth but on giant moving plates whose grinding passage and tortured depths give us earthquake and volcano. Jesus tells us that we do not live in firm time but on giant shifting epochs whose transitions and changes are the eschatological advent of God. It is the view of time as man’s future that Jesus opposed in the name of time as God’s presence, not as eternity beyond us but as advent within us. Jesus simply took the third commandment seriously: keep time holy! (p. 35)

     

    The Pearl

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) simply notes that Matthew and Thomas seem to preserve independent versions of this saying, with each source developing the underlying tradition in slightly different directions. The saying was voted pink in both its versions. Another poem by Gene Stecher:

    The surprise within and the systematic search among. The subject of the surprise, the subject of the searching. Pearls and treasures come from either direction. Better stay alert for the knock! or maybe we’re talking about JOY! The joy of the surprise, the joy of priceless discovery, the joy of paying the full value. A pearl in a field? Hard to find! After you rush to buy the field, the joy of walking barefoot through luscious HJ grass. But you have to pay the full value, everything you have! [Gene Stecher – Chambersburg, Pa.]

    The Fishnet

    There is a parallel to this story from Aesop:

    A fisherman drew in the dragnet he had cast <into the sea> only a short time before. As luck would have it, it was filled with all kinds <of fish>. The small fish made for the bottom of the net and escaped through its porous mesh. The large fish were trapped and lay stretched out in the boat.

    While Crossan gives this item a positive historical assessment, he notes [Historical Jesus, 350f] that it is also a prime example of the ambiguity inherent in the traditions associated with Jesus:

    Nothing could illustrate more clearly the problem of deciding original materials even within the first stratum. Jesus could use a more or less proverbial or parabolic image that is radical only in its application, namely, that his vision, his message, or his challenge is as obvious, ordinary, or necessary as this or that action. It is as clear as a fisherman choosing the better fish or a harvester choosing the right moment to begin reaping. But the transmission could just as easily interpret common sense as sapiential mystery hidden from the dawn of creation or eschatological secret to be revealed at the imminent eschaton. Jesus, like all the Cynics, would claim that their life was simply the wisdom of common sense open to all with eyes to see and ears to hear

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) notes that both versions of this parable were given a black vote as the saying seems to originate from the common lore of the ancient world:

    The Fishnet, like the Planted Weeds, reflects the necessity of the young Christian movement to mark off its social boundaries from the larger world, hence the interest in sorting out the good from the bad. The separation to take place at the close of the age (Matt 13:49-50) is a typical Matthean theme and represents the way he understood the parable. (p. 70)

    The Kingdom’s Scribe

    The Jesus Seminar report on this item in The Five Gospels reads as follows:

    This saying has probably been composed by Matthew as the conclusion to his collection of parables. For Matthew, scholars schooled in Heaven’s imperial rule will understand the parables in much the same way that the disciples respond in this exchange. The toastmaster at a banquet produces both mature and young wine from a large cellar (drawing images and stories, old and new, from a large repertoire and then explaining what they mean for those present). This is the way Jesus tells and explains parables according to Matthew. (p. 198)

    Jesus Database

    • 035 The Mustard Seed – (1) GThom. 20:1-2; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:18-19 = Matt 13:31-32; (3) Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-32
    • 104 The Leaven – (1) GThom. 96:1; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:20-21 = Matt 13:33

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Fifth Sunday after Pentecost (13 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 25:19-34 and Psalm 119:105-112 [or Isaiah 55:10-13 and Psalm 65:(1-8), 9-13]
    • Romans 8:1-11
    • Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

    The twin sons of Isaac: Esau and Jacob

    For those wishing to continue following the ancestral narratives, the following excerpt from Nahum Sarna’s comments in the New JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (1989:169-71) may provide some helpful material.

    The second series of patriarchal narratives, that relating to Isaac, now begins. The data about him are exceedingly sparse. Much of what is preserved—his birth and circumcision, the Akedah, and his marriage—is integrated into the biography of Abraham, while other episodes belong to the large collection of traditions regarding Jacob. Nothing is recorded of the first twenty years of Isaac’s marriage. Only a few isolated events in his life are preserved in the literature, where he is eclipsed by the towering figure of his father Abraham and overshadowed by the dynamic, forceful personality of his son Jacob.

    Yet Isaac is more than a mere transition between Abraham and Jacob, and the biblical account does contain unmistakable elements of individuality. Isaac’s name, uniquely bestowed by God, is not changed; his pastoral wanderings are restricted to a narrow range and largely center around Beer-sheba; unlike Abraham, he does not live at Hebron-Kiriat-arba but settles there only in his old age; he alone remains monogamous; he is the only patriarch to engage in agriculture and the only one never to leave the promised land; finally, the unique divine name pachad yitschak (31:42) suggests some episode, not recorded, in which this particular name would have been meaningful. References in Amos 7:9, 16 to “the shrines of Isaac” and to “the house of Isaac” as an epithet for Israel seem to indicate that a more extensive account of his life once existed.

    The story of Isaac, interrupted by the genealogies of chapter 25, now resumes with the main emphasis on the birth of Esau and Jacob and the rivalry between them. These narratives present an ancient belief that the bitter hostility that marked the later relationships between the peoples of Israel and Edom had its origin in the prenatal experience of their founding fathers, who were twins.

    The idea that Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom were siblings finds expression in several biblical texts. Deuteronomy 23:8 says: “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman.” Numbers 20:14 reports that in the course of the wilderness wanderings Moses sent a message to the king of Edom that opened with the phrase, “ Thus says your brother Israel.” The prophet Obadiah, in his indictment of Edom, also refers to “your brother Jacob” (v. 10), and Malachi (1:2) assumes it to be common knowledge that “Esau is Jacob’s brother.” This tradition is so extraordinary, given the long and bitter history of enmity between Israel and Edom, that it must reflect authentic historical experience. The two peoples must have shared memories of an early common ancestry, blood kinship, or treaty associations.

    According to Genesis 36:6–8, the clan of Esau originally lived in Canaan but later settled in “the hill country of Seir.” The national territory of Edom lay east of the Jordan in the southernmost part of the country. It stretched from the Gulf of Elath northward for a distance of about 100 miles (170 km.) to Nachal Zered (Wadi Chasa’), which formed the natural boundary between Edom and Moab. It shared a common boundary with Judea along the rift of the Arabah, which extends from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba.

    It was this geographic reality that engendered the hostility between the two peoples. The western side of the Edomite homeland enjoyed a strategic and climatic advantage. Its steep precipices, rising to 5,000 feet (1,525 m.) above sea level, overlook the Arabah. Their westerly exposure assures the receipt of respectable amounts of precipitation, thereby sustaining agriculture and forests. The “king’s highway,” one of the main arteries of communication in the ancient world, traversed the country from north to south. This gave it control over the precious caravan trade from India and southern Arabia and connected it with Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Punon, an important copper mining and smelting site, was also situated within Edom.

    On the western side of the rift lay the Arabah, arid and far from the Judean centers of population. This necessitated long lines of communication and the hauling of supplies over considerable distances and treacherous terrain. The copper deposits of the Arabah were unexploitable without a local supply of fuel. A strategic highway led through the region from the Gulf of Akaba across the Negeb to Beersheba, where it split into a network of roads joining the important towns of Judea and Northern Israel. Without control of the Arabah, the nomadic tribes that roamed the Negeb were a constant menace.

    Both Edom and Israel had abundant incentive to encroach upon each other’s territory. It was easier for the Edomites to infiltrate westward into the Arabah than for the Judeans to penetrate Edom. The Edomites exploited their strategic advantage to the full, while the temptation to shorten communication lines, to have a supply source close by, and to have access to fuel for the copper mines as well as control over the lucrative spice trade proved irresistible to the Judean kings. It was David who defeated the Edomites, stationed permanent garrisons in their land, and made them vassals of his kingdom, as described in 2 Samuel 8:13f.

    These observations do not foreclose the literary questions that attend the ancestral narratives of ancient Israel and Judah. As readers separated by more than two millennia from the cultural and historical details of everyday life in biblical Palestine, we find it helpful to be reminded of the physical, cultural and political realities that would have needed no explanation to the original audiences for whom this narrative was composed. But such information only gives us an approximate parity with those first hearers, and should not be mistaken for an explanation of the story’s significance.

    The more important questions are not whether younger sons could displace elder brothers in ancient Middle Eastern societies, but how such a story would have been experienced by the struggling Judean community in the post-exilic period (5C BCE / 4C BCE). Whether the “historical David” was anything more than a local Judean chieftain, or whether he actually conquered the Edomites as described in 2 Samuel 8, is less significant to us as “people of the Book” than the question of why those who understood themselves as successors of the legendary David now saw advantage in telling the story of their ancestors (and thus themselves) in a way that simultaneously affirmed common origins and asserted a superior claim to the sacred blessing (covenant, land, progeny).

    Gospel: Jesus and the Parables

    This week’s Gospel brings us to a major collection of parables, and provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the significance of Jesus as a composer of parables. In Reimagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Polebridge, 2001), B. Brandon Scott suggests that the history of parable studies can be divided into two major stages.

    First Stage

    This stage is dominated by a number of important European scholars: Adolf Jülicher, C.H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias. Scott gives the following “report card” comments of the contributions of these pioneer studies into the parables of Jesus:

    Adolf Jülicher (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu – 1910) attached the traditional method of interpreting the parables as allegories, but also showed that the parables themselves often fit rather poorly with their immediate literary context in the NT Gospels. The parables had a life prior to their incorporation into the Gospels, and the allegories that are sometimes found in their Gospel context do not represent the original interpretations of the parables.

    Gain – Rejection of allegory
    Loss – Parables are not dependent on their Gospel context

    C.H. Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom – 1935) built on the foundation laid by Jülicher but added the suggestion that the parables had a distinctive interest in eschatology. Dodd used the phrase, “realized eschatology,” to describe the parables’ interest in a kingdom which is already present for the hearers. As Scott notes, Dodd also crafted one of the most influential definitions of parable:

    At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.

    Gain – Introduced the question of the parables; eschatology

    Joachim Jeremias (The Parables of Jesus – 1947) adopted the insights of Form Criticism to develop a convincing account of the oral transmission process for the parables prior to their inclusion in the written gospels. He applied these “laws of transmission” to specific parables in order to reconstruct the original words of Jesus, even suggesting the Aramaic phrases that he believed lay behind the extant Greek version of the parables. Jeremias understood the original life situation (Sitz im Leben) of the parables to have been oral disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees, although scholars these days are more cautious about the presence of Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus’ life time. Interestingly, despite his conservative theological tendencies, Jeremias was a pioneer in using the Gospel of Thomas as an independent witness to the parable tradition.

    Gain – Outlined the stages for a history of the parables from Jesus to the Gospels

    Second Stage

    The next stage of critical study of the parables reflects the contributions made by American scholars: Robert Funk, Dan Via, John Dominic Crossan and Brandon Scott.

    Over a number of studies beginning in the 1960s, Robert W. Funk and Dan Via independently drew on the well-established models of literary studies familiar to students in English departments across North America. Both scholars studied the parable as an object in its own right (an “aesthetic object” for Dan Via, and a “metaphor” for Funk).

    Dan Via (The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension – 1967) overcame the limitations of historical criticism by focusing on the parable as an autonomous text. What matters is the “internal meaning” of the parable, not the historical context or its possible original sense. The original audiences may not have fully understood the meaning of the parable, just as later generations find new layers of significance while finding older interpretations unconvincing. Like any aesthetic object, the parable can be appreciated but never fully understood.

    Gain – The specific historical situation does not determine meaning, or the meaning of the parable cannot be reduced to a specific situation in the ministry of Jesus.

    Robert W. Funk (Language, Hermeneutics and the Word of God – 1966 and Jesus as Precursor – 1975) contrasted the logic of discursive language and metaphorical language, and proposed a way of reading the parables that took seriously their character as metaphorical languages that creates (new) meaning by juxtaposing “two discrete and not entirely comparable entities.” In a sense this project built upon Dodd’s definition of parables as incongruous metaphors that provoke thought.

    Gain – Parables function as a metaphorical structure or system
    Loss – Attention must be paid to the very metaphorical nature of the words themselves.

    John Dominic Crossan (The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story – 1975 and In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus – 1973) explored and expanded the creative insights of Dan Via and Robert Funk, consolidated their gains, and made this new approach to the parables accessible to a wide audience. Crossan understands the parables as promoting what he calls “permanent eschatology” as the “permanent presence of God” confronts, challenges and shatters the complacency of human individuals and systems. Where Jeremias had sought to recover the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, Crossan argues that what was remembered in the oral parable tradition was not the words themselves but the structure (ipsissima structura), the form, and the pattern of the parables.

    Gain – We are dealing not with the very words of Jesus but with the structure (the memory and performance) of the parables.

    Bernard Brandon Scott (Hear Then the Parable – 1989) was the first person since Jülicher to deal with all of the parables in a single study. Scott took seriously the different dimensions of orality and literacy in the parable tradition, and drew on reader-response criticism to develop a comprehensive literary strategy for interpreting (hearing) the parables. He asks not so much what Jesus intended by the particular parable, but what effect the parable might have on its audiences. Scott also drew on insights from the social sciences to develop what he calls the “repertoire” of a text — those social conventions and assumptions that the teller and audience hold in common.

    William Herzog (Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed – 1994) also draws on social science studies to make sense of the parables, but has rejected the embrace of literary criticism by Via, Funk and Crossan. For Herzog, the parables encode first century structures of oppression and, as Scott says, “Herzog often produces illuminating readings of the parables, making sense of details that have often left one confused.”

    Gain – Literary methods and social science method are both necessary to interpret the parables.

    The tradition of critical study of the parables was to play a significant part in the work undertaken by the Jesus Seminar in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The seminar was jointly chaired by Robert Funk and Dominic Crossan, and many of their graduate students (including Brandon Scott) were included among the Fellows. Crossan’s compilation, Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition (Fortress, 1986) provided the basic text for the Seminar as it went about its work, and a careful analysis of the sayings attributed to Jesus was the primary focus for the first phase of the Seminar. The results of that phase were reported in the bestseller The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (Macmillan, 1993).

    This creative new work on parables allowed the Jesus Seminar to break new ground with its inquiry into historical Jesus research. By giving primacy to the sayings of Jesus rather than the deeds of Jesus, the Seminar believes that historical Jesus research reaches back to an earlier stage of the tradition as well as drawing closer to the heart of the Jesus tradition.What Jesus himself may have said has a certain spiritual cache that no third party report of events involving him can ever have. In addition, with each performance of the parables their spiritual power may be experienced afresh.

    The actions of Jesus are another matter. Particular events happen just once. The reports of them are always second hand. They are especially susceptible to legendary development, and they seem to be used in the tradition for theological purposes rather than as simple accounts of specific events. As Lane McGaughy (“Why Start with the Sayings,” p. 20) notes:

    The best one can hope to recover with respect to deeds are the earliest reports of bystanders about what they thought they saw, whereas the authentic sayings indicate what Jesus himself thought or intended …

    McGaughy cites with approval the couplet coined by (Jesus Seminar Fellow) Julian Hills: “sayings are repeated, deeds are reported.”

    Jesus Database

    • 034 The Sower – (1) GThom. 9; (2) Mark 4:3-8 = Matt 13:3b-8 = Luke 8:5-8a; (3) 1 Clem. 24:5.
    • 009 Who Has Ears – (1a) GThom. 8:2; (1b) GThom. 21:5; (1c) GThom. 24:2; (1d) GThom. 63:2; (1e) GThom. 65:2; (1f) GThom. 96:2; (2a) Mark 4:9 = Matt 13:9 = Luke 8:8b; (2b) Mark 4:23 =Matt 13:43b; (3) Matt 11:15; (4) Luke 14:35b; (5) Rev 2:7,11,17, 29; 3:6,13,22; 13:9.
    • 092 Knowing the Mystery – 1) GThom. 62:1; (2a) Secret Mark f2r10;(2b) Mark 4:10-12 = Matt 13:10-11,13-15 = Luke 8:9-10.
    • 040 Have and Receive – (1) GThom. 41; (2) 2Q: Luke 19:(25-)26 = Matt 25:29; (3) Mark 4:25 = Matt 13:12 = Luke 8:18b.
    • 014 Eye Ear Mind – (1a) 1 Cor 2:9a; (1b) 1 Clem. 34:8; (2) GThom. 17; (3) 2Q: Luke 10:23-24 = Matt 13:16-17; (4) Dial. Sav. 57a [140:1-4].

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

Exit mobile version