nt 8430 final paper

7/26/2019 NT 8430 Final Paper

1/11

Joachim Jeremias was one Europes most highly influential New Testament scholars

in the mid-twentieth century. In the introduction to his book The Atonement, artin !engel

called him "the most significant New Testament scholars of the last generation in #ermany.$%

Jeremias scholarly output was prolific. &y the time of his death in %'(', Jeremias had

written o)er *+ scholarly articles and o)er books. mong his most influential books was

Die Gleichnisse Jesu /The Parables of Jesus0. fter its initial publication in %'1(, The

Parables of Jesus continued to be rewritten, re)ised, and e2panded by Jeremias o)er the ne2t

* years. "s it de)eloped through its )arious editions this book became the most widely

read book on the parables, and today it is the essential starting point for parable research.$

*

The modern study of parables is so indebted to the work of Joachim Jeremias that Norman

3errin could claim, "when we talk of interpreting the parables of Jesus today we mean

interpreting the parables as Jeremias has reconstructed them, either personally or through his

influence on others who ha)e followed the method he de)eloped.$

4uch a claim, while perhaps not entirely true, does highlight the significance of Jeremias to

the modern study of parables. 5et, e)en if his work does hold such a prominent place in

modern parable study, does this mean it is without error6 re the suppositions of Jeremias

and his predecessors /to whom his work is greatly indebted0 correct6 It is the purpose of this

essay to briefly e2amine and assess the work of Jeremias in The Parables of Jesus.

1artin !engel, The Atonement/7ondon8 49, %':%0, 1.

2Norman 3errin,Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom /3hiladelphia8 ;ortress, %'(


2/11

To enter a discussion on Jeremias work on the parables, one must first recogni=e that

it absorbs the work of two of Jeremias most important predecessors, dolf J>licher and 9.

!. ?odd. J>licher first published his work on the parables,Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, in %::licher wrote hisDie Gleichnisreden Jesuin an attempt to pro)ide an understanding

of the parables /as Jesus told them0 as )i)id and understandable. ;or centuries the parables

of Jesus had been treated as elaborate allegories, in which each feature of the story referred to

something other than itself.licher made a distinction between allegory and parable and

4James 9. 7ittle, "3arable esearch in the Twentieth 9entury8 I. The 3redecessors of J.

Jeremias,$Expository Times :( /4eptember %'(


3/11

sought to demonstrate that the parables of Jesus were in fact the latter and not the former.

J>licher belie)ed that Jesus parables consisted of two parts8 "the matter/ache0 which is the

real concern of the parabolist, and thepicture /"ild0 with which it may be compared.$(

Jeremias accepted much of J>lichers work, including8 the contention that the parables were

not allegories and the contention that they were )i)id, simple stories and pictures designed to

make a single point. Dhere Jeremias departed from J>licher was o)er the nature of the

"single point$ which the parables were designed to make. J>licher belie)ed that Jesus

teaching concerning the Fingdom of #od was based on general moral principle. This )iew is

a reflection of his late nineteenth century #erman liberal world)iew, rather than a strict

reading of the te2t itself, and Jeremias was right to reGect it.

In the decades between J>lichers publication of his work on the parables and

Jeremias first publication of The Parables of Jesus, a significant shift in understanding of the

Fingdom of #od took place. Thanks largely to the work of Johannes Deiss and lbert

4chweit=er, the Fingdom of #od, as preached by Jesus, was seen as the imminent inbreaking

of #ods dramatic inter)ention in the world. The message of Jesus concerning the Fingdom

of #od was framed in terms of apocalyptic e2pectation. Dhile Deiss and 4chweit=er

belie)ed that Jesus )iewed the Fingdom to be imminently coming, 9. !. ?odd argued that

Jesus belie)ed that the Fingdom had actually come in his ministry. ccording to ?odd,

Jesus eschatology was a reali=ed eschatology. In %'+, ?odd wrote the first edition of his

Parables of the Kingdom, in which he argued that "while Jesus employed the traditional

so on.

73errin, '.


4/11

symbolism of apocalypse to indicate the Hother-wordly or absolute character of the kingdom

of #od, he used the parables to enforce and illustrate the idea that the kingdom of #od has

come upon men there and then.$: ?odds work not only introduced parables into the

discussion of Jesus message of the Fingdom, but it had the re)erse effect as well,

introducing the concept of the eschatological Fingdom of #od into the discussion of Jesus

parables. Dhile Jeremias himself reGected ?odds )iew of "reali=ed eschatology$ and

accepted instead an "eschatology in the process of being reali=ed$, he drew upon a number of

?odds ideas.

?odd argued that the parables needed to be interpreted in terms of the it# im Leben,

but the problem was that the "setting in life$ of the parables was not that setting which was

pro)ided by the situation of the early church. !e thought that, in order to retrie)e the

original setting of the parable as told by Jesus, one would sometimes ha)e to remo)e it from

the life and thought of the early church. "In this respect Jeremias follows ?odd

enthusiastically, relating parable after parable to hypothetical situations in the ministry of

Jesus, situations of Jesus confronted by eager hearers, by hostile opponents, by Auestioning

disciples, and so on.$'

!a)ing sur)eyed the groundwork laid by scholars like J>licher and ?odd and ha)ing

noted Jeremias indebtedness to them for his work on the parables of Jesus, let us now look at

the work of Jeremias directly, noting his concerns, aims, and methods regarding the study of

the parables. Jeremias concerns are, on one le)el, historical. !e desires to reco)er the

87ittle,


5/11

ipsissimi vox of the historical Jesus, and found, in the parable material, a firm source of

Jesus authentic teaching. !e opens The Parables of Jesusby saying8 "The student of the

parable of Jesus, as they ha)e been transmitted to us in the first three #ospels, may be

confident that he stands upon a particularly firm historical foundation.$%ccording to

Jeremias, we can be confident that the parables really reflect the teaching of Jesus because

they reflect the character of his good news, the eschatological nature of his preaching, the

intensity of his summons to repentance, and his conflict with 3harisaism. 5et, for Jeremias

/as we noted abo)e in J>licher0, the parables are buried under layers of tradition. This is

e)ident in his Aualification "as they ha)e been transmitted to us in the first three #ospels.$

!e charges that the parables had undergone a certain amount of reinterpretation already by

the first decades after Jesus death. These early years saw Jesus parables begin to be treated

as allegoriesa trend which continued for centuries after. This misunderstanding was

corrected by dolf J>licher, but Jeremias bemoans the fact that J>licher "stopped half-way.

!e cleansed the parables from the thick layer of dust with which the allegorical interpretation

had co)ered them, but after achie)ing this preliminary task he did not mo)e forward.$ %% ;or

Jeremias, the main task is still to be done8 to attempt to reco)er the original meaning of the

parables.

The method by which this end will be achie)ed, according to Jeremias, was

articulated by 9. !. ?odd. ?odd, as we already mentioned, sought to redisco)er the it# im

Lebenof the parables, as told by Jesus. 7ike ?odd, Jeremias seeks to place the parables in

10Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus$trans. 4.!. !ooke, *nd re). ed. /New 5ork8

4cribner, %'(*0, %%.

11Jeremias, %'.

+


6/11

the setting of the life of Jesus. If the historical situation of each parable can be reco)ered,

then one may disco)er what Jesus intended to say at a particular moment. Jeremias

approach, at least ideally, is one in which historical critical study of the parables is done first

and literary critical study of them is done second. John 4ider frames the discussion in terms

of historical criticism /looking "through$ the literature of the gospels to see Jesus0 )ersus

literary criticism /looking "at$ the literature of the gospels Bor a specific piece of them, like

the parablesC to find meaning in the te2t as we ha)e it.0 %* The problem with approaching the

parables in this order is that the literary analysis of them relies on a conGectural, reconstructed

)ersion of them. ;or scholars like Jeremias, the latter approach of "BfCull scale literary

analysis is used not to interpret the gospel )ersions, but only to illuminate the conGectural

/and already interpreti)e0 reconstructions.$%

Dith this concern in mind, let us look at Jeremias method for determining how the

parables may ha)e shifted from their original setting. !e notes ten laws of transformation,

which he hopes to apply to the parables to purge them of non-original material.%1 This

approach is not uniAue to Jeremias. J>licher pointed out many of these same obser)ations.

@ther scholars ha)e also attempted to redisco)er "the original conte2t in the best a)ailable

12John 4ider, "edisco)ering the 3arables8 The 7ogic of the Jeremias Tradition,$J"L%*

/arch %':08


7/11

match between the point of the parable and Hthe recorded e2perience of Jesus &ut such

Gudgments are as subGecti)e as the critics )iews of Jesus career, as their interpretation of

each parable.$%+ Dith specific regard to Jeremias, his criteria fall into serious Auestion when

we reali=e that they offer no regularity of cause and effect. "!e does not belie)e, for

instance, that his e2amples of alteration in translation are typical of passages translated from

ramaic into #reekK or that two or more parables in one place could not ha)e been put

together by Jesus.$%


8/11

dditionally Jeremias is so blinded by his understanding of Jesus eschatology /influenced by

4chweit=er0 that he cannot concei)e of the parable ha)ing, as its original meaning, anything

resembling the churchs missionary outreach. !e says "we must reGect the interpretation

which misses its eschatological point, shifts its emphasis from the eschatological to the

psychological and hortatory aspect, and turns it into a warning to the con)erted against a

failure to stand fast in time of persecution and against worldliness.$*

study of Jeremias treatment of the 3arable of the 4ower will be useful to illustrate

the error of his refusal to accept an allegorical interpretation as original to the parable. In his

treatment of ark 1, Jeremias ignores the descriptions of the four types of soil and instead

focuses on the obstacles which the sower faces. !e sees the parable as a contrast-parable.

"@n the one hand we ha)e a description of the manifold frustrations to which the sowers

labour is liable...&ut now a miracle happens. ;rom the dreary fallow land grows a field of

wa)ing corn.$*% The meaning of the parable is that #od brings forth the triumphant end

which he promised. The problem here is that the structure and details of the parable does not

lend itself to this interpretation. There are specifically four kinds of soil, not one plot of

"dreary fallow land$ which offers obstacles to growth. !e ignores the details of the te2t,

because they would lead toward an interpretation of the parable Jeremias has reGected a

priori.

7et us now turn briefly to the idea of allegory in the parables and Jeremias use of the

#ospel of Thomas. s pre)iously stated, Jeremias belie)es that the interpretation of parables

20Ibid., %+.

21Ibid.

:


9/11

in the gospels is a secondary addition to the te2t. !e argues that originally the number of

parables where Jesus left the hearers to draw their own conclusions was greater, and the

#ospel of Thomas supports this because all but three of the parables end without an

interpretation.** number of points need to be made here. ;irst, Jeremias himself admits

that the #ospel of Thomas /which he assumes to represent an earlier strand of the tradition0

includes, in some cases, an interpretation of the parable. Thus his argument is weakened

from the outset by e2amples that do not fit his reconstruction. 4econd, his argument is based

on the dubious assumption that Thomas represents an earlier strand of the tradition because

Jesus does not e2plain his parables. "@n the contrary, because Hparables were regarded as

especially mysterious by #nostics, the gnostic author of Thomas would gladly suppress all

the e2planations in the tradition, the teacher would e2pound Jesus meaning to accredited

de)otees only.$* ;urthermore, there is e)idence that Thomas represents a later tradition,

because it e2hibits indication of tampering. In the #ospel of Thomas, the teaching is said to

be Jesus "secret words$ and all the parables are addressed only to the inner-circle and ne)er

to the crowd.*1 In fact, the remo)al of interpretation from the parable in the #ospel of

Thomas actually speaks strongly to its e2istence, as esoteric knowledge purged from the te2t

so that the masses might not ha)e access to it.

22Ibid., %+.

234ider, (


10/11

!a)ing obser)ed some of the problematic elements of Jeremias approach to the

parables, we are now ready to make some concluding remarks. ;irst, in spite of e)erything

negati)e that has been stated about Jeremias method of attempting to obtain the original

setting and form of Jesus parables, he is relati)ely optimistic about the amount of historical

Jesus material which is contained in the #ospels. !is commitment to demonstrating the

Jewishness of Jesus in an era where the criterion of double dissimilarity reGected anything

Jewish as inauthentic to the historical Jesus is commendable. !owe)er, it is all the more

striking that he reGects the authenticity of material containing similarity with the early church,

while defending the Jewishness of Jesus against the attack of this criterion. @ne would think

that his reGection of the criterion of double dissimilarity as concerns Judaism would gi)e him

cause to hesitate about applying it when it comes to the issue of the early 9hurch.

"!ow reliable are Jeremiass inferences about the original form of Jesus parables6

Not as reliable as inferences based on more fully informed literary principlesK and certainly

not as reliable a foundation for a literary history of the parable form as the gospel te2ts.$ *+

Jeremias, like many other scholars, is guilty of simply glancing "at$ the te2t before looking

through it. fuller treatment of the te2t as we ha)e it would be of more benefit than a

hypothetical te2t reconstructed on faulty literary and historical assumptions.

Dord 9ount8 *'+%

25Jeremias, :.

%


11/11

&ibliography

?odd, 9. !. The Parables of the Kingdom. 7ondon8 Nisbet, %'+.

!engel, artin. The Atonement. 7ondon8 49, %':%.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by 4.!. !ooke. *nd re). ed. New 5ork8

4cribner, %'(*.

7ittle, James 9. "3arable esearch in the Twentieth 9entury, I8 The 3redecessors of J

Jeremias.$Expository Times :( /4eptember %'(

nt 8430 final paper

Documents