<<

journal for the study of the historical 16 (2018) 156-172 brill.com/jshj

Memory and Jesus’ J.P. Meier’s explosion and the restoration of the ‘Bedrock’ of Jesus’ Speech

Ruben Zimmermann Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz [email protected]

Abstract

This article interacts with John P. Meier’s view concerning the parables that can be shown to be “authentic,” i.e., shown to have been uttered by the . His highly critical and largely negative result (only four parables remaining ) demonstrates once more that historical Jesus research that is intrinsically tied to questions of authenticity has run its course. Such an approach can only lead to minimalistic results and destroys the sources that we have. By contrast, the so-called memory approach tries to understand the process and result of remembering Jesus as a teller. Collective memory requires typification and repetition in order to bring the past to mind in a remembering community. Parables as a genre are such media of collective memory that shape and form not only the memory itself, but also the identity of the remembering community. Thus, the many parables of Jesus in early Christian writings are more than ever an indispensable source for historical research on the remembered Jesus, a point that is demonstrated in the final section of this ar- ticle using kingdom parables as a test case.

Keywords

Jesus – parable – genre – John P. Meier – collective memory – historical Jesus research – history – kingdom parables

At the beginning of this essay I will set forth two contradictory statements:

First: The historical Jesus did not tell parables. Second: The remembered Jesus told many parables, in particular Kingdom-parables.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/17455197-01602006Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 157

In the following, these two sentences are developed in three steps. First, I will take up the thesis of John P. Meier’s latest volume in his work on the histori- cal Jesus, a volume that is devoted to parables. Meier is both a prominent and preeminent example of the manner in which parable research is applied to historical Jesus research. Second, I will present my own approach to the study of the parables within the context of the memory approach to Jesus. Third, and finally, the differences in the two approaches will be examined using the “Kingdom of God” parables as an example.

1 A Dead End in Historical Jesus Research–Engaging the Work of J.P. Meier

Throughout the various stages of historical Jesus studies, scholars have agreed that parables represent an authentic voice of Jesus.1 Parables were said to be the “bedrock”2 or the “core of Jesus’ speech,”3 perspectives that supported the view, as Snodgrass puts it, that “the parables are indeed the surest place where we have access to Jesus’ teaching.”4 However, this general consensus in scholarship has now been challenged. According to John P. Meier in his most recent book, volume 5 of the “A Mar- ginal Jew” series, with the subtitle “Probing the Authenticity of the Parables,” the historical Jesus did not tell parables—or, to be more precise, there are only four demonstrably authentic parables passed on to us. These “happy few,”5 as Meier calls them, are (1) The Mustard Seed (:30–32par.), (2) the Evil Ten- ants of the Vineyard (:1–12par.), (3) The Great Supper (Matt 22:2–14par.) and (4) the Talents/Pounds (Matt 25:14–30). Although Meier himself stated in vol. 2 of the Marginal Jew, “That parables were a privileged form of Jesus’ teaching is a fact accepted by almost all questers

1 See the brief history of research in R. Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables: Methods and Inter- pretation (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2015), 58–74. 2 See the oft-cited statement of J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (3d ed. New York, NY: Charles Scribner´s Sons, 1963), 7: “The student of the parables of Jesus, as they have been transmit- ted to us in the first three , may be confident that he stands upon a particularly firm historical foundation. The parables are a fragment of the original rock of .” (German “Urgestein”). 3 See F. Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments i (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 67. 4 K. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rap- ids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 31. 5 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Vol. 5: Probing the Authenticity of the Parables (New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press, 2016), 230.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

158 Zimmermann for the historical Jesus …. The abundance of parables in the Synoptic tradition, distributed among all the sources, plus the absence of equally deft, artistic parables elsewhere in the nt, argues well for the origin of many—though not all—of the parables in Jesus’ teaching,”6 in vol. 5 he has now challenged this view on the basis of, in his words, “seven unfashionable theses.”7 I will cite only thesis seven here: “Relatively few of the parables can meet the test of the criteria of authenticity that other and deeds of Jesus are supposed to meet.”8 Whereas throughout vols. 1–4 Meier asserts that “authenticity could be supported by one or more of the criteria of historicity,” in vol. 5 “such a positive outcome is often not to be had.… In most instances, no criterion of historicity can argue convincingly for the origin of a given parable in the mouth of the historical Jesus.”9 As is well known, Meier is an advocate of the criteria approach in its purest form. In the recently-published vol. 5 of his work, he repeats the “five primary criteria,” which Meier views as having “proven themselves especially useful:10”

(1) Criterion of Embarrassment (2) Criterion of Discontinuity (3) Criterion of Multiple Attestation (4) Criterion of Coherence (5) Criterion of Jesus’ Rejection and Execution

It is readily apparent that the significant amount of the parable tradition found in the Matthean and Lukan Sondergut fails with regard to the criterion of mul- tiple attestation. “Only the Mustard Seed, as a Mark-Q overlap, clearly enjoys multiple attestation.”11 More difficult to evaluate is the question concerning “embarrassment”; for such a query, at its core, contradicts the multiplicity of

6 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Vol. 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University press, 1994), 145. 7 See Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 30–82. 8 This is the second part of thesis seven. It starts with: “Relatively few of the Synoptic par- ables can be attributed to the historical Jesus with a good degree of probability,” Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 48. 9 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 5. 10 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 12–17. In addition to this he also mentions the “Secondary (or Dubious) Criteria” including “Traces of the Aramaic language” and “echoes of the ear- ly 1st-century Palestinian environment” or “nature of a ”. Meier, however, states, that “secondary criteria offer no significant help in detecting parables that come from Jesus” (Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 17). 11 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 194.

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 159 meaning inherent in the parable genre. As Meier recognizes, “an ingenious modern critic is free to use his or her skill to interpret a parable in an em- barrassing or shocking way, but then the next critic is equally free to offer a different and nonshocking interpretation.”12 This observation leads Meier to the following conclusion: no parable fulfills the criterion of “embarrassment.” With a view towards the criterion of “discontinuity,” Meier considers, on the one hand, the ot and Jewish meshalim and, on the other hand, the oral tradi- tion of early Christian communities. Here Meier considers it highly unlikely that “there was a chain or group of oral tradents who preserved, repeated, and handed down Jesus’ authentic parables for three or four decades.”13 In similar fashion, Meier considers the other criteria and finds all of them wanting, re- sulting in the conclusion that the criteria approach can only lead to a negative result with regard to the parables.14 In addition to the criteria approach based examination of the historical au- thenticity of the parables, Meier also represents those embracing redaction- critical argumentation. Within the context of his consideration of each of the sources (chapter 39), Meier argues that the parables are embedded so tightly into their context that it is hardly possible to dissolve original and authentic material from it. The example of the parable of the Good Samaritan, one of the best-known parables of Jesus15 and a parable that is placed second in the list of 22 authentic parables of Jesus set forth by the ,16 serves to highlight this point.

12 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 52. With regard to the , Meier states, that “some authors claim that in ancient literature leaven was always as symbol of cor- ruption. Therefore, its appearance in the parable of the Leaven as a positive symbol of the kingdom of God is the sort of discontinuous and/or embarrassing that one would expect from the historical Jesus. However, closer examination of the sources reveals that in the ancient world leaven symbolized a whole range of ideas, some positive, some nega- tive. There is nothing inherently embarrassing or shocking in the use of leaven as a sym- bol of the kingdom, and hence the argument from embarrassment or discontinuity fails” (Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 194). 13 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 54. 14 See Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 52–54. 15 Meier is fully aware of this status: “I dare to say, many non-Christians would probably be as dismayed as most Christians by the judgement that the parable of The Good Samaritan is a creation not of Jesus but of either the early church or Luke himself.” (Probing the Au- thenticity, 199). 16 See R.W. Funk and R.W. Hoover, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco, Calif. Harper, 1997), 323–24 (in red font, which means the highest plausibility of authenticity); see also the list in Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 68–69.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

160 Zimmermann

The parable is embedded within a two-part controversy story, which, as a result of its parallel structure (Luke 10:25–37), has every appearance of hav- ing been composed by the evangelist. Meier observes: “The parable of the Good Samaritan … is thoroughly Lucan on every imaginable level: the macro- structure of Luke-Acts, the macro-structure of the Great Journey Narrative, the characteristically Lucan literary structure of introductory anecdote-plus parable… the typically Lucan vocabulary and grammar”17 and so on. The par- able draws on key Lucan theological concerns, such as caring for the marginal- ized and—perhaps most importantly for Meier—reflects Luke’s unique focus on the Samaritans, which stands in contrast to the “almost total absence of Samaritans and Samaria in Q, Mark, and Matthew.”18 Therefore, Meier concludes: “When one surveys all the Lucan elements that make up this literary-theological whole, one must ask why any critic would feel an imperative to discover some underlying, pre-redactional parable that Luke has reworded. Even if we suspect some such substratum, how could we ever discover what it was?”19 As a result, Meier arrives at the view that “the parable of the Good Samaritan is a pure creation of Luke the evangelist.”20 Meier pulls no punches and is relentlessly consistent in applying his meth- odology and following where it leads. By way of contrast, it is nigh on to in- comprehensible for Meier that Bernard Brandon Scott could contend that in the case of parables, authenticity can be assumed while inauthenticity must be proven. (According to Scott, “[For parables] the burden of proof [falls] on the one who would claim that the originating structure of a parable is not from Jesus.”21) We can be thankful for John P. Meier and for his courage and forth- rightness. I do believe that he has done Jesus and parable scholarship a great service, even if it may be in a manner quite different from what he intended. His unflinching application of the criteria employed in historical Jesus schol- arship reveals the conclusions to which criteria-based scholarship leads. The criteria approach to the historical Jesus can only achieve minimalist results

17 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 207. 18 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 205. 19 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 207. 20 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 51. 21 B.B. Scott, Hear then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1989), 63. Scott presents three arguments for this “reversal” of the burden of proof: 1. The parable genre is found in the Hebrew but largely unkown in Hellenistic literature; 2. No parables are found in the Pharisaic-rabbinical tradition before 70 A.D.; 3. Parables are rarely found in the developing Christian tradition (they are pres- ent only in Q, the , EvThom und EpJak), ibid., 63–64. This assessement is embraced by J.D. Crossan, “The Parables of Jesus,” Interpretation 56 (2002), 247–59, 249.

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 161 and therefore does not offer a better understanding of early Christian texts but works against the texts that have been transmitted to us. Stated more point- edly, the criteria approach destroys our sources; it does not interpret them. Meier himself recognizes that the criteria of embarrassment and discontinu- ity cannot be applied to the parables in any meaningful sense. Thus, he writes, “(b)ut this argument from discontinuity does not work with the anonymous tradents of the Synoptic oral , especially the parable traditions.”22 In a similar manner, however, his coupling of redaction-criticism with his criteria is equally inapplicable. Is he not completely right, when he asks, concerning the parable of the Good Samaritan, “Even if we suspect some such substra- tum, how could we ever discover what it was?”23 Absolutely right! One cannot discover a substratum. And yet, Meier, in my estimation, does not draw the necessary consequence: it is not the parables but the criteria approach itself that must be fundamentally questioned. The pursuit of authentic Jesus mate- rial arrives as its limits and runs into the proverbial brick wall with the para- bles. If a methodological approach to the Jesus of the past fails with regard to parables, which is according to the Gospel tradition a fundamental manner of Jesus’ speech, it has to be revisited in general. With his work on the parables Meier demonstrates once more “the demise of authenticity”24 along the lines of criteria-based research. As Chris Keith put it: “Criteria of authenticity is a problematic concept.”25 And he clarifies in 2016: “My argument was not and is not against ‘criteria’ in a general sense of methodological principles … [but] specifically against the concept of ‘authenticity’ and the tradition model for the Jesus tradition that generates it.”26 Thus, historical Jesus research that is intrinsically tied to authenticity issues has come to an end, as it is stated by some scholars from different perspectives.27

22 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 54 (emphasis added). 23 Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 207. 24 See C. Keith and A. Le Donne (ed.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, London 2012. 25 C. Keith, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (Library of Historical Jesus Studies/Library of Studies, 413; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 47 (em- phasis original). 26 C. Keith, “The of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research,” jsnt 38 (2016): 426–55, here 429. 27 See the same conclusion in K. Wengst, Der wirkliche Jesus? Eine Streitschrift über die his- torisch wenig ergiebige und theologisch sinnlose Suche nach dem ‚historischen Jesus‘ (Stutt- gart: Kohlhammer, 2013); see the summary in R. Zimmermann, “Nur der gemalte Christus? Historische, erinnerte und erzählte Jesusbilder in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Dialektische Theologie 31 (2015): 31–63.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

162 Zimmermann

2 Parables of the Remembered Jesus

My second statement at the outset of this paper was: The remembered Jesus told many parables. And “many” means—according to our Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu28—more than 100 parables, which are remembered as having been told by Jesus. In other words: Jesus was remembered as a parable teller. Independently of actual numbers, it is more significant that the fundamen- tal perspective upon and understanding of the transmitted parables changes within the memory approach. Before returning to the parables, it is impor- tant to make a few foundational observations concerning memory studies in general. Even though there are an increasing number of exegetes positively inclined towards the memory approach, it remains the case that relatively few take the media side of this process into account. According to Jan and Aleida Assmann and others,29 memory always needs media and form in order to be construct- ed, conserved, and communicated. Various forms, such as diaries, rings, pho- tos, or gravestones are used by individuals to remember biographical events. Thus, several forms of collective memory are used by different groups, and each group generates special forms which can be regarded as typical for a cer- tain memory and which help to construct the identity of that group. Regarding Christian communities there are also several forms through which the life and death of Jesus is remembered, e.g., liturgy or a mimetic ethos. Most accessible and available for us, however, is language-based memory, that is to say, texts.

2.1 Genres as Media of Collective Memories One of my own research interests within the Jesus Memory approach is to consider not only each form of “remembering” text, but in particular, genres as media of collective memories. My main hypothesis—which I have discussed in further detail elsewhere30—is that memory requires the repetition and

28 R. Zimmermann et al. (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2nd ed., Gütersloh: Güter- sloher Verlag, 2015). 29 See A. Assmann, M. Weinberg and M. Windisch (eds.), Medien des Gedächtnisses (Stutt- gart/Weimar: Metzler, 1998); Medialität und Gedächtnis. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur kulturellen Verarbeitung europäischer Krisen (eds. V. Borsò, G. Krumeich and B. Witte; Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 2001); Medien des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Konstruktivität— Historizität—Kulturspezifität (eds. A. Erll and A. Nünning; mcm 1; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004). 30 See R. Zimmermann, “Formen und Gattungen als Medien der Jesuserinnerung: Zur Rück- gewinnung der Diachronie in der Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments,” in Die Macht der Erinnerung, (O. Fuchs and B. Janowski, eds., JBTh 22) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2007),

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 163

­typification of certain forms in order to gain collective meaning. The process of remembering thus inevitably leads to the development of certain forms and genres. Every cultural community possesses a basic inventory of conventionalized forms by means of which the past can take shape and can become an object of cultural memory. “The form is not reinvented over and over again. Instead, it exists within a tradition that requires and adopts it.”31 Modifying one of Jan Assmann’s terms, Astrid Erll and Klaudia Seibel have spoken of “forms of re- use” (Wiedergebrauchs-Formen) that prefigure cultural memory.32 Genres can be defined as such forms of re-use in which a genre can be described as the conventionalized form of a text.33 In genres, such as historiography or his- torical , this of memory may be immediately understandable. How- ever, as Richard Humphrey states, there is little point in speaking of “genres of memory”34 because “memory and remembering … form the basis of any and thus any fictional genre,” which means that “there are only genres

131–167; Ibid., “Memory and : The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge be- tween Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process,” in The Inter- face of Orality and Writing, (A. Weissenrieder and R.B. Coote, eds., wunt 260) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 130–143. 31 J. Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis, 239. 32 See A. Erll and K. Seibel, “Gattungen, Formtraditionen und kulturelles Gedächtnis” in Er- zähltextanalyse und Gender Studies (eds. V. Nünning and A. Nünning; Weimar: Metzler, 2004), 180–208, 189, 191: “Wiedergebrauchs-Formen sind daher bedeutungsgeladenen (sic!) Träger von Ideologien des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, d.h. von Vergangenheitsver- sionen, Geschichtsbildern, Konzepten kollektiver Identität sowie von Wert- und Nor- mvorstellungen.” (“Forms of re-use are thus meaningful carriers of the ideologies of a cultural­ memory. They are carriers of versions of the past, of historical images, of con- cepts of collective identity as well as of concepts of values and norms.”) Jan Assmann named “Wiedergebrauchs-Texte, -Bilder und -Riten” (“re-use texts, images and ”); see J. Assmann, “Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität,” in Kultur und Gedächt- nis (eds. idem and T. Hölscher; Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1988), 9–19, here 15. 33 A. Erll and A. Nünning, “Gedächtniskonzepte der Literaturwissenschaft. Ein Überblick,” in Literatur, Erinnerung, Identität (ed. A. Erll; Trier: wvt, 2003), 2–27, here 10: “The concept of genres as ‘locations’ of memory … points paradigmatically to the variety and complex- ity of literature/memory relations.” 34 See H. van Gorp and U. Musarra-Schroeder, “Introduction: Literary Genres and Cultural Memory,” in Genres as Repositories of Cultural Memory (ed. idem; Amsterdam/Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi, 2000), i–ix, here iii.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

164 Zimmermann of memory.”35 Therefore, my own conclusion is: Insights into the shaping of genres give us access to the process of remembering. The past is primarily communicated through narratives and, as a result, a narrated story is the dominant form in remembering history. This basic state- ment is of only little help if we want to focus specifically upon the details of the process of remembering. Telling a story can be done in various ways, using different techniques, styles, and forms. Hayden White pointed out that an understanding of the past finds its goal only within a process of emplotment.36 Following the line indicated by Northop Frye, White distinguished between four basic plots: romance, tragedy, comedy, and , by means of which the past is narrated and remembered (emplotment). In other words, White assumes a form-finding process as an important stage in remembering the past.37 I would like to pick up on this view and take it a step further. or, more generally, language-based treatments of the past can- not be limited to four general plots. As a consequence, one must look at the individual linguistic forms and genres used in early in order to remember the Jesus story. Which form certain topics or persons of the past are remembered in makes a difference, e.g. annals by a Roman historian like Taci- tus to remember an emperor, or gospels to remember a Jewish Messiah. And this is true on the level of macro-genre (e.g. historiography or bios) as well as on the level of micro-genre (e.g. gnome, diatribe or encomium). Furthermore, in the memory process of early Christians, well-known linguistic forms such as wisdom sayings, chreia or meshalim were not only used, they were also re- shaped and reinvented in the collective memory process. Literary forms, however, are in no way vehicles of memory without con- tent. As form-giving entities they have a definitive impact on the processes of memory of any culture.38 In the genre of historiography, Hayden White

35 R. Humphrey, “Literarische Gattung und Gedächtnis,” in Gedächtniskonzepte der Liter- aturwissenschaft. Theoretische Grundlegung und Anwendungsperspektiven (eds. A. Erll and A. Nünning; mcm 2; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005), 73–96, here 74. 36 See H. White, Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press, 1973/2014), 6–11. 37 See White, Metahisy, 7: “The structure would appear to be the implicit form of chronicle itself. The important point is that every history, even the most ‘synchronic’ or ‘structural’ of them, will be emplotted in some way.” 38 Erll and Seibel, “Gattungen, Formtraditionen und kulturelles Gedächtnis,” 191: “Collec- tive identities, values, norms and the relationships between the sexes are not stabilized in memory cultures only by means of defined media of memory. Their formal processes such as parable, epos, , tragedy and Bildungsroman contribute to the communica- tion of cultural meaning.”

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 165 named this meaning-giving characteristic of form “the content of the form.”39 Taking up the concepts of Russian formalism (Jury Lotman) and of the Prague School (Roman Jacobson), Ansgar Nünning speaks from a literary-critical per- spective of a “semanticizing of literary forms.”40 The processes and structures of linguistic portrayal thus act as distinct bearers of meaning and a central role in the granting of meaning in memory processes. The form and structure of the language are perceived as the sediments of the content, such that they allow for the meaning potential in the memory process that then grants mean- ing for the producers, tradents, and recipients of the artifacts of memory. In this way, examining the New Testament genres gives us access to the pro- cess of remembering in Early Christianity. When collective memory occurs, it requires typification and repetition in order to bring the past to mind in a re- membering community. And, as early form criticism recognized, literary forms are tied to certain situations (Sitz im Leben), which are themselves subject to a historical context and tradition. There were, however, no pure and fixed forms at the beginning, as was believed by early form criticism. Instead, forms are shaped, modified, and reinforced in the process of transmission. A genre thus proved and established itself during transmission. It is only from the end of the process, that is, in retrospect, that we can more clearly recognize the form and function of memories.41 At this point, the question poses itself: What does all this mean with a view toward the parables?

2.2 Parables as One Extraordinary Medium of Remembering Jesus In my view, the parable genre is one of the vitally important genres of early Christianity, which has been shaped and reshaped in telling and remembering

39 H. White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore, Md./London: John Hopkins University Press, 1987). 40 A. Nünning, “Semantisierung literarischer Formen,” in Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kul- turtheorie (ed. A. Nünning; 3rd ed.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 2011), 603–604; see also regarding this term W. Schmid, “Die Semantisierung der Form. Zum Inhaltskonzept Jury Lotmans,” Russian Literature 5 (1977): 61–80. 41 See also Chris Keith, who dealt with the close link between historical approaches and form criticism, and in particular the criteria approach`s indebtedness to the old school of form criticism; Keith argued that the criteria approach shares with form criticism the theory that the narrative frameworks of the Gospels are a hindrance to asking historical Jesus questions; that is, the problem of “authenticity.” Nevertheless he showed that the memory approach confirms several aspects of form criticism. See Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 437–41. On the link between form criticism and memory see also the article from Alan Kirk in this volume.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

166 Zimmermann the Jesus story. It is striking that though there are some meshalim/parables in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Nathan’s parable spoken to David in 1 Sam 12), the number is quite limited. It is in early Christianity that parables experienced an unprecedented boom. What was the cause of this development and sudden valuing of this form? A simple solution is simply stated: Jesus told parables. According to Dunn, “Jesus was evidently remembered as using parables.”42 Carrying this comment a bit further, one could say that Jesus’ manner of speaking left an “impact,” which initiated a particular effect. At the same time, however, the form of the parable is particularly suited for remembering.43 It is not only narratives that are a preferred medium for remembering the past. Images are also valued as a wonderful tool for aiding memory, and not only in ancient rhetoric.44 Parables are, in a nutshell, a combination of brief narration and /.45 Thus, we can conclude that parables as metaphorical narratives are much easier to memorize than other texts. This may be true during both the earliest oral stage of Early Christian memory as well as in the fixation and literalization of memory.46 The parable, however, is also a preferred theological medium for remember- ing that is closely connected with the proclamation of Jesus. The proximity and presence of the reign of God is set forth in the language of the parables. The kingdom of God is communicated through everyday images. That which is experienced by humanity in daily life, the preparation of dough, the loss of a sheep, the work in a vineyard, serves to bring theological insight to expression. Jesus approaches people within the concrete world of their experiences and with scenes drawn from everyday life opens their eyes for God’s reality.

42 J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd- mans, 2003), 385; see also ibd., 698: “It can be affirmed with full confidence that the par- able was a distinctive feature of his teaching, both in the extended use he made of it and in its as an extended metaphor.…, and there should be little doubt that we are in touch with the enduring impact left by Jesus.” 43 See for the following, Zimmermann, Puzzling the parables, 90–92. 44 See also A.D. Baum, „Bildhaftigkeit als Gedächtnishilfe in der synoptischen Tradition,“ Theologische Beiträge 35 (2004), 4–16. Engaging with memory-psychological research Ar- min D. Baum pointed out the great importance of figurativeness for memory. , linguistic images, are much easier to memorize than abstract topics. 45 For further discussion of the criteria for defining a parable, see Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 137–150. 46 See on this A. Kirk, “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources,” nts 58 (2012): 1–22; L.W. Hurtado, “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies?” nts 60 (2014): 321–40.

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 167

In parables one can quite clearly see what “semantization of the form” (see above) means. Memory does not utilize arbitrarily determined forms. Rather, it forms and shapes itself, to a certain extent, through these forms. This point can be made more concrete in two ways. The proximity to daily life as well as the openness to multiple interpretations not only makes variation in the process of repetition in individual remembrances possible but actually encourages it. Parables drink deeply at the well of the everyday. They are brought into new communicative situations through adapting to the changed situation of daily life. The inherent multiplicity of interpretive meaning due to the parables’ metaphorical elements and appeal structure can already be seen within the New Testament (cf. the questions of the disciples concerning meaning in Luke 8:9; cf. Mark 4:10) and also sets new interpretive possibilities into motion. Re- membering does not so much mean getting back into the past, but transferring the past into the present, as the terms recordari or er-innern’ demonstrate.47 Whoever has embraced or has been infused with the form of the parable will, in the process of remembering and re-telling, rightly carry out adaptations and assimilations. He or she will not simply recount a parable, but also retell and re-present it in new and different ways. Birger Gerhardsson maintains that “early Christianity felt itself entitled to formulate new narrative meshalim of the Kingdom, … meshalim created in the spirit of the master and according to the same lines as his own meshalim.”48 Such creativity is pejoratively labeled an “inflation of parables” by Meier,49 though in this formulation he portrays the manner in which he is captive to his idea of a limited origin. Yet, the semantization of the form can also be taken up in a different manner and in a different direction. One particular distinctive feature of the memory culture is that the parable texts were always linked to Jesus as the parable teller. One does not need to dispute that the original telling of the parable already con- tained a christological dimension.50 Yet, it is by far and foremost in the process

47 See J. Schröter, “Nicht nur Erinnerung, sondern auch eine narrative Vergegenwärtigung,” ZThK 108 (2011): 119–137. 48 Cf. B. Gerhardsson, “The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels,” nts 34 (1988): 339–362. See also Meier, Probing the Authenticity, 197: “For the sake of argument, let us accepts the common view that the chronological order of the Synoptic Gospels (plus the hypothetical Q document) is Q-Mark-Matthew-Luke. … If we grant this theory, an intrigu- ing pattern arises. In the first Christian generation, both Q and Mark are notable for the relatively small number of narrative parables they contain.” 49 Ibid. 50 See, for instance, C.L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (2nd ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: ivp Academic, 2012), 434. A stark contrast is found in the analysis of B. Gerhardsson, “The earthly Jesus in the synoptic Parables,” in , Controversy, and ­Community:

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

168 Zimmermann of remembering by the disciples that this dimension could truly unfold. By involving the narrative framework of memory, the recounter of the narrative himself becomes an important contextual component of the parables. The Evangelists are even able to record, in a nutshell, that Jesus’ entire ministry has been remembered in the form of parables (Mark 4:33–34; John 16:25). Similar to other instances in the Judeo-Christian tradition, memory of a particular per- son occurs by means of a specific genre (e.g. David as a writer of psalms, Solo- mon as a writer of wisdom sayings, Paul as a writer of letters)51 and, therefore, the parables are linked to Jesus as the parable teller. Jesus is the parable teller par excellence. This is not the historical Jesus but rather the remembered Jesus or, more concretely, the Jesus who is remembered as “parable teller.” In the end, this has also led to a deepened understanding of Jesus himself. This christological construction of meaning through parables cannot be recognized through the historically reconstructed contents of the para- bles but rather only through the process of remembering parables and their teller. The parables are regarded as a part of the definitive and later canoni- cal memory texts that brings the Jesus story into connection with one’s own life. Parables are thus not only historical sources or witnesses of redactional narrative work. They are mimetic texts that bring the remembering of Jesus to life. Because of the ‘semantization of literary forms,’ it is the form of the para- bles that itself becomes the meaning-bearing and meaning-creating element of this remembering of Jesus, or, in other words, that supports the creation of a certain Jesus portrait. Because Jesus is remembered as a teller of parables, a specific Jesus portrait is simultaneously preserved and created. The close convergence of the medium and the message of the parable was set forth many years ago by E. Jüngel in his well-known statement: “The Basileia is ex- pressed in the parable as the parable.”52 However, because a parable is not handed down as an isolated text but is remembered within the narrative

New Testament essays in honour of David R. Catchpole (ed. D.G. Horrell; NovTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 49–62. “The striking result of our study is that neither Jesus himself …, nor the different elements of his activity and fate on earth are the objects of questions and elucidations in the narrative meshalim in Matthew. There has obviously not been interest in taking up these latter motifs and elucidating them with parables.” (Ibid., 58). The comments made here concerning Matthew also apply to the entirety of the synoptic parable tradition (ibid., 60f.). 51 See R. Zimmermann, “Pseudepigraphie/Pseudonymität,” rgg 4th ed. Vol. 6 (Mohr Sie- beck: Tübingen 2003), 1786–1788. 52 E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Ur- sprung der Christologie (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2; 6th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 135.

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 169 framework of the Jesus tradition in which Jesus is the concrete parable teller, this statement can be intensified christologically: The Jesus remembered as parable teller himself becomes the parable. The parable teller is the “parable of God.”53 The fact that Jesus is remembered as the one who spoke of God figu- ratively in the form of parables converges with the christological confession that Christ himself is “the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15) who reveals the Father (John 1:17; 14:7).

3 The Kingdom-Parables as Test Case

In this third section I begin with a statement arising from the above two sections with specific reference to the “Kingdom of God” parables: Only the remembered Jesus told “Kingdom of God” Parables! Following the vast majority of New Testament scholars, one can point out that the preferred theological subject of Jesus’ parables is the Kingdom of God (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ),54 a position that has been almost universally argued since the work of C.H. Dodd.55 Along these lines, Crossan observed: “There is very

53 E. Schweizer, Jesus, the Parable of God: What Do We Really Know About Jesus? (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1994). 54 See on the Kingdom of God, among others T. Söding, Lehre in Vollmacht: Jesu Wunder und Gleichnisse im Evangelium der Gottesherrschaft, in Communio 36/1 (2007): 3–17; also G. Vanoni and B. Heininger, Das Reich Gottes (neb 4; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002). On the kingdom of God in parables, see, for example J.D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus New York, ny: Polebridge Press, 1973; Nachdruck: Sonoma, ca: Po- lebridge Press, 1992, 23–36; J. Breech, The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Histori- cal Man (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1983), 66–74; A.J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000) 384: “The kingdom was certainly a main , even the main theme, of Jesus’ message.” Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 179: “Any number of parables could be labelled parables of the present kingdom, and to some degree all the parables presuppose that the kingdom of God is present in the activity of Jesus, even where the kingdom is not explicitly in view.” Also from the perspective of Jesus scholarship: P. Pokorný, “Lexikalische und rhetorische Eigentümlichkeiten der ältesten Jesustradition,” in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (eds. J. Schröter and R. Brucker; bznw 114; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 393–408, 395: “Es ist kaum möglich, die Bedeutung der Reich-Gottes-Verkündigung in der Jesustra- dition zu überschätzen.” 55 See also the programmatic introductory sentence in C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the King- dom (Glasgow: Collins, 1978), 13: “The parables are perhaps the most characteristic ele- ment in the teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels. … Certainly there is no part of the Gospel record which has for the reader a clearer ring of authenticity.”

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

170 Zimmermann wide agreement that Jesus is the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God (in parables).”56 Historical Jesus research, however, is not able to prove the veracity of this statement. Instead, the oldest sources, Q and Mark, in general do not intro- duce their parables with the formula: “The Kingdom of God is like …” and the “Kingdom of God” explicitly appears only twice in Q and twice in Mark in close connection to parables.57

Q 13:18–19: Parable of the Mustard Seed Q 13:20–21: Parable of the Leaven Mark 4:26: Parable of the Mustard Seed, Mark 4:30: Parable of the Growing Seed

The Parable of the “Mustard Seed” appears in both sources; therefore, there are only three Parables in Mark and Q that explicitly relate something about the Kingdom of God.58 This is even more remarkable when considering the wide range and large number of parables actually found in these sources, as identified in the Kompendium: Out of a total of 28 Q parables,59 ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is mentioned only in the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Q 13:18–19, 20–21). Out of a total of 17 Markan parables, the Kingdom of God is referred to only in the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26) and that of the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30). Thus, of a total of 45 parables within the oldest sources, there are only three which can be entitled “Kingdom of God Parables.” What makes this reality even more striking is that despite this paucity of “King- dom” parables in Q and Mark, Q quite often speaks of the “Kingdom of God”60 and in Mark we find this theologumenon at central points in the Gospel (Mark 1:15; 14:25 etc.).

56 Crossan, In Parables, 23. 57 According to Dieter Roth, the Kingdom, however, can be seen to play a major role within Q-parables in a broader sense, see Dieter T. Roth, Parables in Q (Library of New Testament Studies; London: T&T, 2018). 58 One of the few scholars who named this evidence clearly was Charles Hedrick, see C.W. Hedrick, “Parable and Kingdom: A Survey of the Evidence in Mark,” in his Parabolic Fig- ures or Narrative ? Seminal Essays on the Stories of Jesus (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 26–51, here 30: “In only three instances does Mark specifically associate basileia with parables” (Mark 4:10–12, 26–29, 30–32). 59 In the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu 28 texts for Q and 17 texts for Mark are listed as parables, see the tables in R. Zimmermann, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, 59–60; 262–63. 60 Q 4:5; 6:20; 7:28; 10:9; 11:2, 17, 18, 20; 11:52; 12:31; 13:18, 20, 28; 16:16; 17:20–21; 22:30.

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access

Memory and Jesus’ Parables 171

What can be inferred from these observations? Should one conclude that the idea of the “Kingdom parables” is a pure invention of Mark, Matthew or Early Christian authors, as Hedrick did: “Thus the idea that parables medi- ate the sovereign reign of God, like the messianic secret, may only be an early Christian invention”?61 Within the memory approach, the source evidence can be interpreted as a unification of two currents of memory (Jesus the parable teller and the centrality of the “Kingdom of God” in Jesus’ ministry). This uni- fied memory is already to be found in Mark and Q. However, in the process of remembering the tradition was intensified. The idea of the Kingdom parables can be documented more nuanced in later Gospel traditions, particularly in Matthew.62 It was the first Evangelist who picked up the slight overlaps of two parallel currents of tradition (on the one hand, the memory of Jesus’ parable discourse, and on the other hand the memory of the constitutive meaning of the “Kingdom of God” in Jesus’ proclamation) and developed a theologi- cal concept. In parable introductions in Matthew, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is employed ten times as a frame of reference for the parables.63 For example, see “The Kingdom of heaven is like…” in Matt 13:24–30; 13:44; 13:45–46; 13:47–50; 13:52; 18:23–35; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 22:1–14; 25:1–13.64 According to Dunn, “Mat- thew’s much more extensive use of the (‘the kingdom of heaven is like …) may indicate the technique of the story-teller retelling the parables as much as Jesus’ own characteristic style.”65 One can agree with Dunn’s judgment with- in the scope of Matthean remembrance: “Jesus was evidently remembered as using parables to illustrate or illumine what he had in mind when he spoke of the kingdom.”66 In this way, creative memory is shown to be established in the object itself. The form of the parable is considered to be constitutive for

61 Hedrick, “Parable and Kingdom,” 51. 62 See Matt 13:24–30, 44–46, 47–50, 52; 18:23–35; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 22:1–14; 25:1–13; further- more John 3:3–5; Gos. Thom. 22; 64; 97; 98. 63 C. Münch, Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium. Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion (wmant 104; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004), 144–50. 64 See also John 3,3–5; Gos. Thom. 22; 64; 97; 98. 65 Somewhat curiously, Dunn, at least in some respects, is hesitant to read any significance into this finding as he continues: “The point here is that it would make little difference either way: whether or not Jesus himself introduced all these parables (and others) with this formula, he was remembered as characteristically teaching about the kingdom by us- ing parables” (Jesus Remembered, 385). I would argue that it does make a difference and it brings the process of creative memory to the fore. 66 See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 385; similarly M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 398: “Auf jeden Fall blieb er (= Jesus) in Erin- nerung als der, der von der Königsherrschaft Gottes in Gleichnissen sprach.”

journal for the study of the historical jesus 16 (2018)Downloaded 156-172 from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:52:25AM via free access

172 Zimmermann

Jesus’ speech about the Kingdom of God. In addition to the Jewish-theological tradition, it is the concrete world in which humanity lives on a daily basis that becomes the canvas upon which Jesus paints his theological message of the reign of God. This proximity to life and people is the deepest expression of “Emmanuel” (God is with us, see Matt 1:23), whose proximity to humanity is promised to the end of the age (Matt 28:20). Does this Matthean activity in the process of remembering mean that it is not adequate or true towards the “real” Jesus’ speech? By no means. As Antho- ny Le Donne stated, “(t)he historical Jesus is not veiled by the interpretations of him. He is most available for analysis when these interpretations are most pronounced. Therefore, the historical Jesus is clearly seen through the lenses of editorial agenda, theological reflection, and intentional counter-memory.”67 However, to avoid misunderstandings, this interpreted Jesus of the past should not be named “the historical Jesus” any more, but “the remembered Jesus.” The example of the “Kingdom of God” parables thus reveals that approach- ing the texts on the basis of the traditional criteria has a destructive element that ultimately destroys our sources and their contents. The memory approach, by contrast, interprets the extant traditions and brings them into contact with each other in a productive manner. Here, parables are a medium of remem- brance that serve as an example to highlight the manner in which the intensifi- cation and forming of memory68 takes place and to aid us in our understanding and appreciation of this process. Most important, however, might be, that the memory approach is confident that the process of remembering preserves true insights and impacts in the origins of these processes. Therefore, the memories of the kingdom-parables and parable telling in general, although intensified during the process of remembering, preserves an indisputable historical truth: Jesus was a parable teller.

67 See A. Le Donne, Historical Jesus: What can we know and how can we know it? (Grand Rap- ids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 134. 68 See here the circle-model of A. Le Donne, Historical Jesus, 79: “Each new cycle of the mem- ory process reinterprets historical memory. In most cases, several cycles of memory have occurred before ‘history’ gets written down. What this … illustrates is that history is an interpretive trajectory that is interpreted and reinterpreted with each new remembering.”

journal for the study of the historicalDownloaded jesus from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2018) 156-172 05:52:25AM via free access