Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation

Texts

Preface and Acknowledgments

Studying the parables of Jesus is a challenge. It is a challenge with regard to the conception of Jesus as the author of these texts. Parables have always played a major role in research on the historical Jesus. Although there is no doubt that Jesus was a parable teller, it is obvious that there is a difference between the authentic voice of Jesus and the text of the parables as they are derived from the Gospels. How can we come to grips with this problem? In this book I have chosen not to pursue the main and traditional avenues of historical Jesus research, arguing instead for a Jesus-memory approach to the parables. In other words, parables are media of collective memory.

Studying the parables of Jesus is also a challenge with regard to the parable texts themselves. Parables are puzzling texts. Incomprehension is not only due to our historical distance from the original context and the resulting gaps in knowledge and lack of understanding, but it is also a feature of the parable genre itself. Parables are metaphoric texts that cannot be transformed into one single message and to a univocal meaning. Uncertainty and ambivalence always remain. However, the parable genre itself is not easy to define. In this book I provide a new definition of a parable, which takes into account both the Evangelists’ intentional use of genre as well as new insights of modern genre theory.

Studying the parables of Jesus is a challenge with regard to meaning. There is a growing tendency among parable scholars to recognize that it is not possible to narrow down the meaning of these texts to a single interpretation. To the contrary, there is a variety of possible interpretations, which is also seen in the New Testament itself when one parable is narrated in different contexts within two or three Gospels. In this book, I value and appreciate different and even contradictory interpretations, presenting them in such a manner as to allow them to stand side by side. This multiplicity, however, raises the question of whether a reader can do anything she or he wants to do with the text. In other words: Are there limits to the understanding one posits and a place where misunderstanding begins? My own goal is to seek a binding openness, which, on the one hand, accepts a great variety of interpretations but on the other hand does not relinquish an overarching interpretive framework for the truth of the parables.

Furthermore, studying the parables of Jesus is a challenge with regard to methodology. There are many ways to approach these texts, approaches that have been developed into complex and sophisticated methods. Roughly speaking, we can distinguish methods of historical-critical exegesis (e.g., form criticism, redaction criticism), literary methods (e.g., narrative criticism, study of metaphor), as well as methods oriented to the readers’ contemporary context (e.g., feminist exegesis, liberation theology). Each of these methods has value, and each of them offers an important perspective. At the same time, each individual perspective falls short of exhausting the broad potential for the exegesis of the parables, an interpretive breadth that the parables themselves demand. In this book I attempt to offer (and apply in the second part) an integrative method, which includes aspects of all of the three above-mentioned approaches. Hence, the method is nuanced and includes a wide range of hermeneutical questions. It might be compared to a mosaic or puzzle, in which many different pieces must be joined together to get a comprehensive picture at the end. Though a certain amount of complexity is unavoidable, the approach can be handled more easily in what I call the four-step organon, which will be explored and presented below.

Studying the parables of Jesus finally is a challenge with regard to the history ofresearch. Modern parable research began with the magnumopus of Adolf Jülicher penned more than one hundred years ago. Since that time, a plethora of books on parables has been written, and it is not easy to gain an overview of this increasingly vast, and sometimes confusing, field of research. This is even more true if one wishes to remain abreast of and remain informed about international scholarship. In spite of strong German roots with Jülicher and Joachim Jeremias, a certain gap has appeared between continental (esp. German) and American scholarship, and the two threaten to continue to drift further apart. In this book it is my intention to bridge this gap and to demonstrate how current questions are still being influenced by decisions made by older German parable researchers. Furthermore, it is my hope to be able to bring together, at least to a certain extent, current German and American research on parables and in the process to gain insights from engagement with each other.

There have been many people involved in this project to whom I would like to express my sincere gratitude. The origins of this book go back to a research leave spent in South Africa in 2008. I recently had published the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloher Verlag 2007; 2nd ed., 2015) and was in the final process of editing the Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte (WUNT 231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008; 2nd ed., 2011). In my teaching and guest lectures in Pretoria and some other universities in South Africa, many colleagues and students lamented that there was no English-language parable book with my ideas, as there are fewer and fewer students and scholars who are able to read German with ease. Therefore, they encouraged me to write an English monograph. I had the same experience during visits in Nijmegen (NL) and the United States. So, a first word of thanks goes to all those colleagues and students who were interested in my views and considered them to be of great enough value to be presented in English for a worldwide readership.

This background also explains why the work done in the Kompendium and the Hermeneutik is the starting point for this book. It also reveals the reason why some sections of this book are revised versions or translations of contributions to those volumes. Many thanks to the publishers Mohr Siebeck (in particular Dr. Henning Ziebritzki) and Gütersloher Verlag (in particular Dietrich Steen and Tanja Scheifele) who, without hesitation, permitted the revision and translation of parts of the books.

I am deeply grateful to Janelle Ramaley and Dr. Dieter T. Roth for translating and proofreading many parts of my manuscript; for some final revision also to Samuel Tedder and Prof. Barbara Rossing. Without their extraordinary help and efforts, I would never have had the courage to publish a monograph in English. Even so, since English is not my native language, this book cannot veil that my thinking and manner of expressing myself remain, to a certain extent, German. Nevertheless, I hope that the arguments made and the discussion offered are understandable and the book itself does not remain puzzling like the parables! I would also like to express my appreciation to Christine Schoen, who helped tremendously in the editorial process. Last but not least, I would like to thank Neil Eliott for accepting this book for publication by Fortress Press. He not only had the confidence that this book has a place in the world of English-language parable research but also patiently encouraged me to finish it.

Finally, this book is dedicated to Luise Schottroff. She passed away on February 8, 2015, when I was working on the last chapters of this monograph. Years ago Schottroff was professor of New Testament in Mainz, a time which she experienced as difficult due to her feminist hermeneutic and political engagement. However, she was not only an excellent parable researcher (as evident in her Die Gleichnisse Jesu [Gütersloher, 2005]; ET The Parables of Jesus [Fortress Press, 2006]), but also an exemplary scholar and authentic person engaged in the New Testament text, searching for meaning and current theological relevance. Though my approach differs from hers, I would like to devote this book to her memory, which may also be seen as a belated acknowledgement of her time in Mainz. She deserves to be recognized and held in memory by parable students and scholars all over the world.

Three Approaches to Parables

1

Introduction

And he (Jesus) said to them,

"Do you not understand this parable?

How then will you understand all the parables?"[1]

(Mark 4:13)

The parables of Jesus are puzzling. A lack of comprehension is nothing unusual when one encounters these short stories. Even the earliest Christian texts share this assessment as one finds Gospel accounts relating that those listening to Jesus’ teaching did not understand the parables (Mark 4:10.13; John 10:6). The disciples themselves had to ask of Jesus, Explain to us the parable…! (Matt. 13:36, cf. Mark 4:10), which is to say that even they did not understand the parables, or at least not immediately. Parable speech is incomprehensible and mysterious. This is also expressed by the term παραβολή (parabolē), the predominant term with which the genre is identified in the New Testament, since its traditional-historical derivation from the Hebrew משׁל (mashal) suggests precisely this enigmatic character (e.g., Ezek. 17:2; Prov. 1:6).[2] In this chapter I chart an approach that retains the puzzling character of the parables while offering perspectives for capturing the potential of the parables to speak into different contexts. In this way the puzzle of the parables does not remain in scattered pieces but becomes a meaningful picture.

The Parables of Jesus: A Hermeneutical Challenge

Understanding[3] parables is clearly not simple, uncomplicated, or uncontroversial.[4] This is true of the longer, more complex parables as well as of the shorter miniature narratives that were formerly called metaphoric sayings or similitudes.[5] The German exegete Adolf Jülicher, one of the most influential parable scholars in the twentieth century, was of the opinion that an interpretation of the latter was not necessary because the message of these parable texts was immediately and directly apparent.[6] After a moment’s consideration, however, it is by no means self-evident why, for example, the yeast is mixed with so much flour, how a mustard seed can grow into a tree large enough to house a bird’s nest, or how salt can lose its saltiness. Parables are simply not clear and unambiguous. They neither follow the laws of philosophical or mathematical logic nor express simple platitudes. It is not merely the diversity of more recent interpretation that provides confirmation for this conclusion.

The striking differences in the understanding of these texts within the first decades of their reception, as can be seen from the parallel traditions of Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas, already document a remarkable variety of interpretations. The oldest gospels reflect the necessity for an interpretation of these texts (Mark 4:34) and offer explicit interpretations for two parables to serve as explanatory lessons for the disciples (the sower, Mark 4:13–20; the tares of the field, Matt. 13:36–43).

What is the meaning and intention of this mysterious form of speech? Why did Jesus employ precisely this manner of speech and make it his own? And why was it so successful in shaping early Christian tradition and memory? What has allowed the parables, despite their interpretive ambivalence, to remain treasured up to this very day? Is it only the close link to Jesus as the author of these texts, or do they transport the message of the New Testament in a concentrated form that cannot be replaced by any other way of speaking? Is it this literary form in particular by which religious truth takes shape?

Or by contrast, are they perhaps not even meant to be understood? Do they explicitly seek to veil the message of Jesus? This is the suggestion in Mark 4:11, which states that only the disciples will be entrusted with the secret (τὸ μυστήριον) and not those outside (τοῖς ἔξω). Are Jesus’ sayings, therefore, mysterious, esoteric speech intended only for an inner circle of Jesus’ followers? And are the outsiders, to whom the parables are addressed, supposed to remain confused or even be deceived? Did Mark want to say that incomprehension was already there in response to Jesus’ message and Jesus therefore used riddle parables to increase and punish that incomprehension?[7] Or should the so-called hardening theory of the parables be understood on a narrative pragmatic level as the attempt to process theologically the interpretative ambivalence of the parables?[8] In addition to ears to hear (Mark 4:9), do we not also need an explanation of why some of Jesus’ listeners were deaf to the message and the meaning of parables speech?

One may be tempted to relativize, to complain about, to rationalize, or even to curse the puzzling nature of the parables. However, it is this trait in particular that lends Jesus’ parables their absolutely unmistakable character and corresponding impact. Incomprehen-sibility is a constitutive element of parable speech.

Yet the ambiguity of the parables is not created as part of some game or in order to annoy or frustrate the readers. In fact, parables are actually found in communication contexts that require clarity of meaning and straightforwardness as they are intended to fulfill a certain communicative function. They are meant, for example, to help settle arguments about the Torah, to expose the problems of family roles, or to denounce social injustices. They should cause one to pause for a moment, should lead to insights, or should even move people to action. Parables actually should be understood and take on significance in concrete situations and circumstances. They should become meaningful for one’s life.[9] But how can the parables’ expectation of being understood and even calling for comprehension be reconciled with their well-known incomprehensibility and mysteriousness?

The seemingly paradoxical inner logic of this apparent contradiction is that parables are meant to create understanding through their mysteriousness. Initial incomprehension results in a process of questioning, marveling, and searching that can ultimately lead to deepened understanding. Parables are incomprehensible in order to lead to comprehension. That is to say, there is a calculated potential for misunderstanding ultimately to create deeper understanding.[10] It is precisely this hermeneutical strategy that is pursued by the parables and their narrators.[11] At the same time, the process of understanding cannot be restricted to one single meaning. Even though comprehension and understanding is the ultimate goal of the hermeneutical process, this goal cannot be equated with finding the solution to a mathematical problem. Parables are not equations. There may be different meanings, and they can even contradict each other. The meaning of a parable will differ according to time and context, a reality that is unequivocally demonstrated in the history of parable interpretation. Different readings of the same parable may also occur at different points in one individual’s lifetime.[12] However, this does not mean any of them are wrong. Furthermore, the meaning must not be limited to merely an individual process of discovery. Parables do not challenge only a singular reader or hearer. The attempt to understand a parable encourages a communal pursuit of meaning. It is precisely the many divergent interpretations and the resultant controversies and debates[13] that they create that are an enticement for communication and stimulate a collective search for meaning.

That which is true for the first community of hearers or a later community of readers is equally true for scholarly discourse concerning the interpretation of parables. Tolbert already came upon an interesting puzzle in parable research: There is not only a variety of interpretations. Even scholars who share the same assumptions concerning how one must hear the parables often present radically different interpretations of the same parable stories.[14] The ambivalence of Jesus’ parables poses, in particular, a hermeneutical challenge and thus provokes hermeneutical reflection. The fact that the understanding of the parables is so controversial results in basic questions concerning not only the prerequisites and various possibilities for understanding but also their justification and establishment. In other words, being confronted with incom-prehension necessitates a discussion of the hermeneutics of the parables of Jesus. In this way the parables become a platform for discovering and gaining insight into biblical interpretation more generally.

The Three Perspectives of Understanding the Bible

The question of understanding parable texts leads to the fundamental issue of how understanding biblical texts or even more generally understanding texts takes place in the first place. The hermeneutics of Jesus’ parables thus remains linked to the fundamental issues of biblical hermeneutics, which themselves are closely interwoven with the hermeneutic discourse of related disciplines such as philosophy, historical studies, or literary studies.[15] Clearly, it is not possible within the context of this monograph to discuss the genesis of biblical hermeneutics[16] or to consider a multitude of individual issues.[17] For this reason I will focus, in a heuristic sense, upon several aspects that are important for and helpful in the understanding of parable texts.

First, the term understanding must be clarified, especially because the possibility of understanding a text or discovering meaning in general has been called into question in radical deconstructivist (Derrida) or postmodern (Mersch) approaches.[18] Is understanding really possible, and what does it mean when we think that we have understood a text?[19] Drawing on Körtner, we can begin by stating that in understanding, the question of meaning is always posed. Understanding means grasping the meaning of something. Meaning and significance are fundamental categories of all hermeneutics.[20]

At the same time, however, the question of the level upon which this meaning is manifested arises. What, concretely, should be understood; where do meaning and significance become visible? Should the intention of the author be reconstructed or should the significance inherent to the structure of the text be decoded? Or should a reader perhaps discover meaning through productive engagement with a text?

These questions reveal three aspects that have defined the (biblical) discourse on hermeneutics throughout the centuries, namely the (historical) author, the text, and the readers.

Following Dannhauer’s definition of general hermeneutics as employing methodological rules that serve the general interpretation of texts,[21] hermeneutics was considered for a long time to be the methodologically governed art of interpretation of a written work. The goal of the process of understanding was therefore to grasp the inherent meaning of the text by means of the correct application of certain interpretive rules. This meaning had to be identical with the original intention of the author. Within this framework, understanding was regarded entirely as a reconstructive process through which, for example, deficits in understanding that arose due to the chronological distance from the author and to ignorance concerning the origins and provenance of a text had to be compensated for. The text and its author were clearly in the forefront of the search for meaning. Later, Schleiermacher emphasized two poles in the process of understanding and thus assigned a value in the construction of meaning not only to the text and its author but also to the reader or interpreter. Thus hermeneutics must be described both as grammatical-historical and psychological interpretation.[22] According to Schleiermacher, the interpreter enters into an interaction with the text and its author in which the art of interpretation is described as a (post)creative process.

In the wake of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, the phenomenological hermeneutics of the twentieth century challenged the concept of understanding as an object-related process of decoding and instead concentrated on the subjective process of perception or reception. Gadamer wrote:

A philosophical hermeneutic will come to the conclusion that understanding is only possible when the one seeking to understand brings his own perspective into play. The productive contribution of the interpreter belongs, in an indissoluble manner, to the sense of meaning itself. This does not legitimize individual and arbitrary subjective biases since the issue at hand—the text that one wishes to understand—is the only criterion that one accepts. But the irresolvable, necessary distance of time, culture, class, race—or the person him- or herself—is, however, a super-subjective circumstance that brings tension and life into every understanding. One can also describe this state of affairs that interpreter and text each have their own horizon and that every act of under-standing constitutes a fusion of horizons.[23]

In (post)structuralist and reader-response hermeneutics, focusing on the reader even led to an explicit displacement of the text from its author and its original setting, which Barthes cast in the well-known dictum: the death of the author.[24] The text was regarded as an autonomous work of art that unfolds its meaning only in the productive act of reading (Iser)[25] and interpretation. The meaning of the text no longer coincides with what the author wanted to say.[26] Thus, hermeneutics is no longer restricted to the interpretation of a text and is expanded to a general consideration of understanding and of the world in which interpretation takes place. As such, the goal of the hermeneutical process is no longer the decoding of textual meaning but the comprehensive interpretation of the self and of the world that is initiated through engagement with text.[27]

Structuralist and form critical approaches incontrovertibly take credit for emphasizing the autonomy of the text on the one hand and the autonomy of the recipient on the other. Nevertheless, many questions remain unanswered. Excessively structuralistic approaches must be challenged on the question of how the meaning of a text can be stated when a reader has not first discovered and described it. An autonomous structure of texts without readers remains meaningless. On the other hand, however, can the construction of meaning be left completely up to the reader? Does this not reduce the meaning—or even the truth of the text—to an arbitrary subjective construction? What then guarantees the successful communicability of (textual) meaning? How do constructions of meaning remain justifiably related to the text and not subject to an ever-new act of speaking or cognition? Is there not at least minimal continuity in the understanding of a text?

Although differentiating the various perspectives appears helpful, it would be wrong to separate and isolate the individual aspects. With regard to deconstructionist approaches, U. Eco pressed for a balance between the intention of the reader (intentio lectoris), of the author (intentio auctoris) and even of the text itself (intentio operis).[28] Meaning and significance cannot be made merely one-sided by limiting them to only one of the three aspects. In agreement with this perspective, the hermeneutical approach of this volume is marked by the conviction that historical author, text, and recipient all belong together and that meaning is constituted in and through their reciprocal engagement with each other.

A possible integration of the three components involved in the comprehension of a text can be demonstrated by explaining the hermeneutical process through a communication model. Whereas Gadamer described the process of understanding using the metaphor of conversation as a dialogue of two components—text and interpreter—in their respective scopes of understanding,[29] there is a tendency within biblical studies to consider especially the historical author or more generally the historical context of the text’s origin. Expanding on Gadamer’s conversation metaphor, however, the understanding of biblical texts should be described as a three-point process of communication that involves, to the same extent, the text, the setting of its origin, and its contemporary reception.

The so-called organon-model[30] developed by Karl Bühler is helpful in describing and disclosing how meaning is generated in the communicative process. With reference to Plato, language is an "organum for one person to be able to communicate with another about certain things.[31] Bühler here distinguishes between three foundations" in the linguistic process of communication that correspond to the sender, receiver, and object. Understanding thus takes place as an act of communication between a sender (S) and a receiver (R) about objects and circumstances (O).[32]

Figure 1: Understanding as communication in Bühler’s Organon Model.

Bühler’s work has contemporary speech acts in view, and therefore, I believe several modifications are necessary with regard to under-standing a text or the Bible. The medium or organon through which the message is transferred between S and R itself becomes an object.[33] In the text (T), the matter concerning which communication takes place becomes the representation. The object of understanding is thus not located outside of the text but rather in and with it.[34] Further, the sender can be described as author (A) and the receiver as reader (Rd). If we attempt to fill out this communicative model of understanding by taking the dimension of time into account, we can link the sender to the context surrounding the origin of the text and the receiver to the process of reading. Because the original reader (Rdo) is no longer directly accessible and like the historical author, must be reconstructed, the receiver aspect can be concentrated on the contemporary process of reading. The text as a philological artifact takes up a central position in which it breaks through the dimension of time and becomes a connector between history and the present day. Therefore, the hermeneutical process of understanding the Bible can be portrayed schematically as follows (see Fig. 2):

Figure 2: Text hermeneutics as a communicative process.

The arrows in the diagram (fig. 2) must, however, not be misunderstood as a unilinear transfer of meaning. Understanding is not the retracing of a linear, historical path of meaning. Instead, the question of meaning can be posed only through approaches on all three levels with the use of different methods on each level. Though earlier approaches to biblical hermeneutics differentiated strictly between methodologically controlled exegesis and hermeneutical application,[35] more recent approaches have noted the close interconnection of hermeneutics and methodology.[36] On the one hand hermeneutics cannot be reduced to a problem of method; on the other hand methods of interpretation cannot escape from the hermeneutical circle. Hence, it is helpful to link individual methods of biblical interpretation to each of the hermeneutical perspectives.[37] This enables each side of the hermeneutical triangle to be connected with certain interpretive methods (see fig. 3). In order to interpret the text appropriately, one needs linguistic methods. Methods of historical research can be used to understand the sender or the author of the text in his or her historic context while the recipient side can be illuminated using reader-oriented methods.

Fig. 3: Hermeneutical triangle for understanding the biblical text.

The understanding or meaning of a biblical text, therefore, should not be misunderstood as merely an author-fixated process of communication or solely as a text-related Wirkungsgeschichte (history of effects) or uniquely as a reader-directed process of construction. In the process of finding meaning, the original setting, the structure and form of the text, and the situation of the recipient interact and influence each other. Although meaning may be decisively influenced by a text’s linguistic structure and content, it is not possible to completely decipher that which is recorded in a historical text if the historical context of that text’s origin is unknown. A contemporary reader also brings preconceptions and his or her own questions and concerns into the process of reading, which results in the transformation of meaning from a purely reconstructive event into a productive activity.[38] Every dimension has its own intrinsic value and at the same time interacts with the other dimensions so that they all influence each other in a circular or spiral-shaped process. Thus, understanding takes place only with the reciprocal cooperation of all three components of the triangle.

If we regard biblical hermeneutics from a framework focusing on the text as an act of communication, it is possible to integrate the various perspectives and approaches found in the history of research into one complete model.[39] In this way, hermeneutics concerned primarily with questions of history, from Semler to the historical-critical method or in contemporary biblical archaeology, can be regarded as invaluable for its attention to the situation and context concerning the origin of the text. Linguistic methods of interpretation developed during the linguistic turn place the text itself at the forefront, while reader-oriented approaches to the text, as they have emerged clearly and with considerable reflection in liberation-theological or in feministic approaches, provide important insight into the perspective of the recipient. The individual aspects, however, do not have to be played off against or demarcated from each other. Each of them has its own justified place in the hermeneutical endeavor in that each one contributes to interpretation by means of specific methods that shift individual aspects of meaning evoked by the biblical text to the fore. Each perspective, however, also has its limitations because focusing on one aspect leaves other equally important aspects unconsidered. An appropriate understanding of biblical texts is only possible when the different perspectives are employed in cooperation.

The Search for an Integrative Approach to Parables

The above approaches to understanding the Bible, which can be labeled heuristically as historical, literary, and reader-orientated approaches, can be seen especially clearly in the interpretation of the parables. Thiselton is right when he states that the parables offer an excellent workshop of examples[40] in which hermeneutics can be studied. The fact that a hermeneutics of the parable can be developed in this threefold manner is actually evoked and brought about by the texts themselves. The parables can be understood from an historical perspective as well as from a text-based, literary perspective. As they are, however, also reader-oriented to a significant extent, the recipient must also be given his or her due space. Therefore, it is not surprising that the entire parable interpretation of the past one hundred years can be understood within a framework including these three perspectives.[41]

The hermeneutics of parables is based on these different perspectives: In the historical perspective, the issue is not the reconstruction of the authentic words of Jesus and a postulated path of transmission. Nevertheless, we ask historical questions when we look socio-historically for the reality from which the metaphor of the parable draws its imagery (Bildspendender Bereich), when the transmission processes can be placed diachronically into the tradition of the imagery (Bildfeldtraditionen) or when early traces of impact (Wirkungsgeschichte) can be perceived in the parallel textual traditions.

The literary dimension comes to the fore to the extent that an exact narrative analysis of the texts is called for. In such an analysis, the examination of the plot structure, the characters, time and space, the focalization, etc., reveals important insights in the way of recounting this particular parable. Furthermore, the parables are metaphorical texts. Thus, we may ask how a metaphor is to be recognized, and how it functions. We are looking for signals in the text indicating a transfer of meaning (e.g., the kingdom of God is like…) and the manner in which interaction between the two semantic fields is brought together within the metaphoric text. In order to protect the text from purely ideological agendas and prematurely articulated appropriations, its literary form and aesthetic structure should first be examined and described. Nevertheless, parables are not regarded in this process as poetic autonomous works of art that can be understood in pure isolation. Reading a particular text within the context of the macro text is also an important aspect of the literary analysis.

The aim of the parables is, however, to instigate the process of understanding. Historical and literary aspects should not be investigated for their own sake; instead they ultimately serve to attain deeper understanding. Although a certain structuring already takes place on the literary level, the meaning of each parable must ultimately be discovered anew by every reader. In which way is the reader addressed? What are the literary devices or gaps in the text that make an appeal to the reader in her or his cognitive as well as affective dimension? In this consideration, therefore, the recipient is at the forefront. However, the communication structure of parables is more complex than that found in other biblical texts. The parables are narrated narratives with a narrated narrator and narrated addressees. Thus, there are actually three identifiable levels of addressees: (1) the listeners to the parable in the narrated world, (2) the first addressees of the Gospel, and (3) the contemporary readers. The third level is the primary focus in a reader-response search for meaning; however, the other addressee or recipient levels can also influence the contemporary process of constructing meaning. Perceiving this complexity in the communication structure is particularly relevant when posing questions concerning the necessary requirements for as well as the potential difficulties of understanding and comprehending the parables.

Although it is useful in a heuristic sense to distinguish each of these issues or foci as sharply as possible, the results of such a sharp delimitation are often one-sided and inappropriate. It is far too easy to distort other positions through caricature or to employ only those methods most inclined to support one’s own position. The various approaches to understanding Jesus’ parables must not be played out against each other.

Instead, it is my goal to unify different perspectives into an integrative hermeneutic. The individual steps of interpretation that, for example, are employed in the examples in chapters 7 to 12 are thus not new methods, and neither do they lead to the discovery of new, previously unrecognized details. New, instead, is the integrative and balanced combination of different aspects that go beyond earlier interpretations and lead to a multi-perspectival, open, and thus—to a certain extant—postmodern hermeneutic.[42]

However, before we pursue this approach further, it is important to locate the present discussion within the context of the current state of parables research.

Unless otherwise noted all English Bible translations are taken from the

nrsv

or done by the author. ↵

In the

lxx

, mashal is usually translated with παραβολή; see also the discussion by Schüle, Mashal (משׁל) and the Prophetic ‘Parables.’ ↵

The following is a translation and revision of Zimmermann, Im Spielraum des Verstehens: Chancen einer integrativen Gleichnishermeneutik, 3–13. ↵

Similarly Wenham, The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution, 244: But the parables are not so simple and unambiguous that no one could mistake their meaning. Also Söding, Gottes Geheimnis sichtbar machen: Jesu Gleichnisse in Wort und Tat, 60: At the same time it is naive to assume that the parables of Jesus are as plain as day and as easy as pie. ↵

These terms render classifications that arose in German-speaking scholarship: Bildwort (Bultmann) and Gleichnis im engeren Sinn (Jülicher). ↵

See Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I, 114: They need no interpretation; they are as clear and transparent as possible; they call for practical implementation. If one … holds a mirror up in front of someone so that he sees his ugliness or the spots that ruin his looks, one does not need words of explanation. The mirror simply presents the reality better than one could with even the longest of descriptions. ↵

Crossan, The Power of Parable, 21. According to Crossan Mark interpreted Jesus’ parables as punitive riddle parables for his opponents (ibid.), but in doing so he was not appropriate or adequate to the intention of Jesus … because it is contradicted by the very context of Mark 4, with, for example, its parable of the lamp. Parables are no more meant for noncomprehension than a lamp is intended for nonlight (ibid., 26–27). ↵

See the reflection on this issue in Popkes, Das Mysterion der Botschaft Jesu; similarly Wenham, Parables, 244: Jesus’ parabolic ministry therefore comes as God’s gift to some and as his judgement to others. ↵

I disagree on that point with Hedrick, Many Things, 103: They raise questions and issues but provide no answers. ↵

The pragmatic function of the misunderstandings in John can be described very similarly (see Rahner, Mißverstehen). This strategy can be seen even more clearly in the miracle stories, which present a hermeneutical challenge in that they intentionally present the absurd, seeking to irritate and elicit incomprehension as they press beyond the end of reality in order to achieve a new way of understanding. On this issue, see my recent article Zimmermann, Wut des Wunderverstehens. ↵

See also Lohmeyer, Vom Sinn der Gleichnisse, 156–57: Parable speech is intentionally abstruse speech. … Every parable is capable of and in need of interpretation; individual parables may be easier or more difficult to understand—even the well known saying: ‘A man is not defiled by what goes into his mouth, but by what comes out of it’ (Matt 15:11) is a parable and in need of interpretation. The interpretation does not always need to be stated explicitly if comprehension is guaranteed (see Matt 13:51) but without interpretation every parable is basically abstruse and obscure. ↵

Crossan refers to a process of self-education. Parables were the special pedagogy of Jesus’ kingdom of God. Crossan, The Parables of Jesus, 253. ↵

Ibid. ↵

Tolbert, Perspectives, 15. ↵

See the lucid overview of the definitions of hermeneutics in the various disciplines in Wischmeyer, Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik; more recently the textbook with sources Luther and Zimmermann, Studienbuch Hermeneutik. ↵

See the overview in the four-volume work of Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation. ↵

See Körtner, Biblische Hermeneutik; also Luther and Zimmermann, Studienbuch Hermeneutik. ↵

See my overview on the so called Antihermeneutics and Posthermeneutic in Zimmermann, Wut des Wunderverstehens, 37–41. See for the Gadamer-Derrida debate Michelfelder/Palmer, Dialogue and Deconstruction; more recently Gumbrecht, Production of Presence; Albert, Kritik der reinen Hermeneutik; Mersch, Posthermeneutik. ↵

I am here focusing on the understanding of a text (i.e., textual hermeneutics, which is only one aspect of an overarching theory of hermeneutics). ↵

See Körtner, Biblische Hermeneutik, 11: Verstehen heißt, den Sinn von etwas zu erfassen. Sinn und Bedeutung sind grundlegende Kategorien jeder Hermeneutik. In contrast to radical deconstructivist and interpretationist approaches, philosophical and literary-critical discourse adheres to meaning or at least postulates a successful, meaning-compatible communication as the minimal demand of understanding, though without claiming objectivity and uniformity for such meaning. ↵

See Dannhauer, Idea boni interpretis; see excerpts of this text with German translation in Luther and Zimmermann, Studienbuch Hermeneutik, CD-Rom and the introduction found in Sparn, Johann Conrad Dannhauer (1603–1666). ↵

Schleiermacher came to this insight by retrospectively retracing the origins of a speech; thus, understanding is the reconstruction of the language and thought in a speech, see Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik, 93–94. ↵

Gadamer, Hermeneutik, 109. ↵

See Barthes, La mort de l’auteur, 491. ↵

See Iser, Akt des Lesens. ↵

Ricœur, Theologische Hermeneutik, 28. ↵

See ibid.: Hermeneutics aims not really at a hermeneutics of the text, but at a hermeneutics that begins with the problems posed by the text. ↵

See Eco and Goll, Autor und Text; Eco, Grenzen der Interpretation. ↵

Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 391: Thus it is completely justified to speak of a hermeneutical conversation. … Communication that is more than simple assimilation takes place between the partners in this ‘conversation’ just as it does between two people. The text may speak of some matter, but that it does so is ultimately the achievement of the interpreter. Both participate in the process. ↵

See Bühler, Sprachtheorie, 24–33. The Greek term organon (instrument) was traditionally used for a selection of Aristotelian texts, which served as an elementary methodological introduction for humanists. Bühler uses the term organon in a broader, metaphorical way. A similar application to form-critical exegesis is carried out by Backhaus, Die göttlichen Worte. ↵

Bühler, Sprachtheorie, 24. ↵

See the diagram in ibid., 28. ↵

Perceiving the Bible as organon is linked to two relativizing implications. On the one hand, the Bible is then not directly the work of God but rather the indirect bearer of a message; on the other hand it is not an end in itself but rather only a tool—that is a medium within a communication event. ↵

Alternatively one could describe the process in a four-point constellation (perhaps in the form of a tetrahedron, rectangle) in which the matter is individually and separately identified in addition to text, sender, and receiver as developed by Oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik, 176. ↵

See Weder, Neutestamentliche Hermeneutik, 5, who strictly separates his hermeneutics from methodology; also the distinction between exegesis and application in Berger, Hermeneutik. ↵

O. Wischmeyer programmatically assumes that the exegesis, which is the methodology-oriented interpretation of the New Testament texts, is also the appropriate instrument for understanding these texts. An understanding of the New Testament texts that avoids their methodological interpretation is nonsense. Wischmeyer, Hermeneutik, IX–X. ↵

See in Oeming the summarizing diagram with the classification of fourteen methods of interpretation to the four poles of the understanding process, see Oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik, 176; O. Wischmeyer also integrates the methods of Bible interpretation into hermeneutics, which is structured as A: historical understanding (21–59), B: form critical understanding (61–125), C: factual understanding (127–71) and D: textual understanding (173–209), Wischmeyer, Hermeneutik; Backhaus, moreover, speaks about reconstructive or applicative hermeneutics, see Backhaus, Die göttlichen Worte, 153–60. ↵

Approaches focusing particularly upon the reader have been helpfully employed in more recent literary studies, above all in reader-response criticism, for the understanding of biblical texts. See Warning, Rezeptionsästhetik, also Iser, Akt des Lesens; Nißlmüller, Rezeptionsästhetik; Körtner, Der inspirierte Leser. ↵

See also Oeming, Biblische Hermeneutik, 175: "On the one hand it is has been shown that each of the methods can clearly illuminate certain facets of the biblical text and thus has a relative right to be heard, but on the other hand each one has its blind spots and thus needs critical supplementation." ↵

Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 35. See the entire chapter III: An Example of Hermeneutical Method: The Parables of Jesus (35–59). ↵

See the history of research in chapter 2. ↵

It is evident, however, that the overlapping aspect between this approach and postmodern thought is the openness to different variations and truths. Quite different from postmodern philosophy is the search for meaning and even the use of the term hermeneutics; for most postmodern thinkers a term like postmodern hermeneutics would be—following Derrida—an oxymoron. ↵

2

Understanding the Parables over the Past Century: An Overview of the History of Research

As was demonstrated in the last chapter, the parables of Jesus are texts that can be considered from three different perspectives. First, they are historical texts that arose in a particular time and cultural space and that are part of a history of tradition. Second, they are fictional texts that have a typical form and poetic style and that use literary devices. Third, they are texts notably addressed to their recipients, their hearers and readers, in order to evoke a process of thinking and rethinking that ultimately leads to deeper insights and even corresponding (re-)action. In order to understand parables, all three aspects need to be taken into account—and indeed parable research has repeatedly emphasized exactly these three dimensions.

In the following, I would like to systematically present the parable research of the last one hundred years[1] from these three perspectives. Although individual authors may include more than one of these perspectives in their work, the fundamental direction of the approach taken is generally clear, allowing, for the purposes of simplicity, the works to be placed into one interpretative category or another. This overview of parable research therefore does not follow a strict chronological representation[2] and cannot deal with all individual works in detail.[3] Rather it will attempt, following the above-mentioned system, to work out the hermeneutical aspects of several larger works on parables. What is the contribution of an individual approach with regard to the comprehension of the parables? In which sense does this approach help foster the understanding of a particular aspect of the parables? What are the opportunities created and the limits of a particular perspective on the parables?

Another aim is to further differentiate between the three fundamental dimensions of the understanding of parables through historical, literary, and reader-oriented approaches.[4] Under each of these headings one can further identify several perspectives. Within the historical approach, for example, one could consider the quest for the historical Jesus as parable teller or raise questions concerning the socio-historical context or tradition history of a parable.

Simultaneously, this overview will attempt to build a bridge between English and German language parable research, which is often carried out along parallel tracks. Therefore, recent German scholarship on parables is taken into account more extensively than has often been done in English-speaking publications.[5]

Historical Approaches

The dominance of historical-critical questions in the exegesis of the past several centuries has allowed the historical approach to occupy a central position in parable research for many years. Parable scholarship was also closely connected to the question of the historical Jesus.[6] Throughout all phases of research into the historical Jesus, researchers held fast to the fundamental conviction that the parables belong to the very foundation of the Jesus tradition. It was believed that the parables could bring us very close to Jesus and his ministry.

The individual historical approaches, however, have had quite different emphases. Some parable scholars looked at the original inventory of Jesus’ parables and attempted to reconstruct them in their number and form, in some cases all the way down to the literal, original text of the parables. The goal of such interpretation was to break through to the parable speech of Jesus, which is preserved only indirectly in the biblical texts. This form of historical work ranges from Adolf Jülicher’s opus magnum[7] through Joachim Jeremias’s search for the "ipsissima vox and original meaning"[8] or Jonathan Breech’s search for the authentic voice[9] to the early works of John D. Crossan[10] and then all the way to the Jesus Seminar, founded by Robert W. Funk at the Westar Institute, with the goal, even at the end of the twentieth century, of determining the authentic words of Jesus and thereby the authentic parables.[11] A more recent work that falls into this group is that of Bernard Brandon Scott,[12] who himself was a charter member of the Jesus Seminar. In his book, he bases himself on the results of the Jesus Seminar and thus concentrates on a limited number of Jesus’ parables deemed to be authentic.[13] Scott, drawing on orality research, attempted to work out the "ipsissima structura[14] of Jesus’ parables with a three-step method. Basing himself on the synoptic tradition (and drawing upon the Gospel of Thomas), he first reconstructed the original structure of the text. Then he attempted to demonstrate how the original structure affects the meaning in order, finally, to understand the pragmatics of the parable in relation to the ministry of the kingdom of God.[15] This kingdom, called by Scott the re-imagined world,"[16] makes his followers view a new option for living, one that contrasts with the default world of the everyday. The parables of Jesus, therefore, represent Jesus’ words and deeds in a broader sense and demonstrate a startling and provocative picture of Jesus as a historical figure.

Charles H. Dodd focused less on Jesus’ speech and much more on the original setting in the application of form-critical categories (particularly the setting in life).[17] In what historical situation were these texts spoken? How can the historical context be determined? Dodd, and in his footsteps, Jeremias,[18] clearly differentiated between the setting in Jesus’ life and that in the earliest church, with the aim of the interpretation being to get back to the original context. We shall sometimes have to remove a parable from its setting in the life and thought of the Church, as represented by the Gospel, and make an attempt to reconstruct its original setting in the life of Jesus.[19]

Later works expanded this focus in two directions. In one,