My thanks to the kind folk at Eerdmans for a review copy of Klyne R. Snodgrass' Magnus opus, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008).
Some books have no rivals because of the quality of their reasoning, subtleness of exegetical insight etc. Others have no rivals because they offer something no other book even attempts. One can say that Snodgrass' Stories with Intent, also has no rivals - for a mixture of both of these reasons. At over 850 pages, Graham Stanton rightly exclaims that this book 'will be the book on the parables for the next decade and beyond'. We have here, with Stories with Intent, a real publishing event.
Of course, such a long work, as Snodgrass explains in his preface, is not meant to be read in one go. It functions as a resource manual, as a mine of relevant information concerning all of the parables of Jesus, carefully sifted from all manner of historical sources.
His introduction to the parables of Jesus includes a discussion of his definition of 'parable' ('an expanded analogy used to convince and persuade', 9), the characteristics of Jesus' parables, an examination of how parables should be interpreted, and a look at NT criticisms in relation to the parables. Wisely, in my view, he questions a number of dubious assumptions behind much previous work on the parables, such as the notion that there was 'an original' form, that 'items with allegorical significance were probably added', that 'the handing on of traditional material follows certain "laws" so that the shorter is earlier, the more detailed is later, etc.', that 'the parables can be read as mirror images of what was happening in the Evangelists' communities', and so on (cf. 32). All of this is naturally expressive of his methodological approach throughout the work.
Particularly revealing of his methodology are also his statements at the end of the introduction. In terms of the question of historical reconstructions of the life of Jesus, he argues along with Dunn that '[w]e do not have the ipsissima verba of Jesus ... and attempted reconstructions are not going to supply them ... the only Jesus that exists is the historic, biblical Christ. Anything else is a figment of the imagination' (35). As he later explains, he recognises very well the 'the essential fidelity of the Gospel writers to the tradition they received and the freedom with which they adapted it' (280). Because of this, we are left, for better or worse, with the biblical Christ. I am reminded of similar claims in Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, in which the author formulated his argument in dialogue with M. Bloch, R.G. Collingwood, Paul Ricoeur etc. Of course, Snodgrass is careful to fend off potential misunderstandings of his statements. But it is such comments as these that show the massive changes presently underway in much historical Jesus scholarship. But I am left wondering, Is any other approach really only 'a figment of the imagination'? How can we know that? How do we know if the Gospel writers handled their traditions with fidelity and freedom? Is this wanting to have our cake and eat it? While I think some good answers are forthcoming in terms of the last two questions, the others hang in the air, not so easily waved away. Nevertheless, I for one am heartily in favour of this overturning of the many presuppositional 'holy cows' that have driven much historical Jesus scholarship into many a bizarre dead end. About 90% of me passionately stands behind Snodgrass on these issues!
After this, Snodgrass turns to examine parables in the ancient world, namely in the Old Testament, early Jewish and Greco-Roman writings, the early church and later Jewish writings. Jesus, of course, was not the first to use parables. Yet prior to him, it appears that they were not used so forcefully or frequently. What is more, parables mostly have a very dependent relationship with the context in which they are said (which is why I wanted more appreciation of Wright's insights. But more on that anon).
In the following, Snodgrass turns his attention the various parables, categorising them thematically under the following chapter headings:
- Grace and Responsibility (Matt 18:23-35; Luke 7:41-43)
- Parables of Lostness (Luke 15; Matt 18:22-14)
- The Parable of the Sower and the Purpose of Parables (Matt 13:3-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:5-15)
- Parables of the Present Kingdom (Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 13)
- Parables Specifically about Israel (Matt 21:28-32, 33-46; 22:1-14; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 13:6-9; 14:15-24; 20:9-19; Gos. Thom. 64-66 – though it wouldn't worry me, for those panicking at the sight of 'Gos. Thom.', I say 'fear not', for Snodgrass argues that these texts are dependent on the canonical witnesses!).
- Parables about Discipleship (Matt 7:24-27; 20:1-16; Luke 6:47-49; 10:25-37; 14:28-32)
- Parables about Money (Luke 12:16-21; 16:1-13, 19-31)
- Parables concerning God and Prayer (Luke 11:5-8; 18:1-14)
- and Parables of Future Eschatology (the Eschatological Discourse; Matt 13:47-50; Matt 25:1-46; Luke 19:11-27)
For each parable, Snodgrass seeks to provide an introduction, an examination of the parable type, a list of issues requiring attention, a look at helpful source material, categorised and cited according the divisions employed in his study of 'parables in the ancient world'. He offers a comparison of the various accounts of the parable, a study of textual features worthy of attention and relevant cultural information, and an explanation of the parable (with 'options for interpretation', 'decisions on the issue'). Finally, he offers a section on 'adapting the parable' (for today), a further reading list and often some final remarks. All of these issues are raised in turn, in relation to the parables, in a structured manner.
It is clear that this material has been prepared with specific goals in mind. As he writes in the preface, the material is 'what I want when preparing to teach or preach on the parables' (xi). In other words, the material Snodgrass provides is of interest for all, whether scholar, student or preacher. As Martin Hengel comments in his book blurb. Stories with Intent is a book 'written for pastors and scholars, for students of the Bible, and for laypeople interested in the teaching of Jesus'. And given the consistent divisions in the discussion concerning each parable, finding whatever information is of interest is not difficult.
I have just one major grumble with the format of the book, however. Eerdmans decided to use endnotes. Why oh why?! Endnotes come from the pit; they are the invention of the satanic hoards! Please, oh please: Footnotes!! It makes it SO much easier to read. Perhaps the editor was worried Snodgrass' potential readers were going to be 'frightened away' by so many footnotes. But I think that the size of the book would have done all of the frightening away before that sort of reader would have been put off by footnotes. Please! FOOTNOTES!
I also had a small grumble with Snodgrass' critique of Wright's (peace be upon him) approach to material in Luke 15. Anybody who has read Jesus and the Victory of God (which is my all time favourite book, if I haven't yet mentioned that this week) will know Wright's approach to the parable of what Snodgrass calls 'the compassionate Father and his two lost Sons' (Luke 15:11-32). Wright, if you remember, argues that the controlling story for understanding the parable is that of exile and return, and that this parable is to a large extent that story in miniature. Snodgrass dismisses Wright's suggestion with the argument that his attempt to explain the significance of the elder brother is dubious (Wright proposes that the elder brother represents the Samaritans). I agree with Snodgrass that Wright's thesis at this point is questionable, but that is not enough to wipe the rest of Wright's proposal away! Luke's Gospel sets itself up to be read, in my view, in terms of the controlling story Wright posits (cf. the material relating to the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a baby, Luke's citation of the prophetic literature used by John the Baptist, and by Jesus in his sermon in Nazareth etc.). Just because Wright's Samaritan proposal does not persuade does not mean another option to explain the significance of the elder brother in terms of exile and return is not forthcoming. I believe one is, but I leave you guessing until a later date on that one. I thought it a real pity Snodgrass didn't pursue matters with a more positive assessment of Wright's (valid) insight on this matter. Is Snodgrass' project marred for its lack of appreciation of the controlling story of exile and restoration? I will let the reader decide.
Stories with Intent is a tremendous resource, one I will dip into for the rest of my life in relation to both scholarly pursuits and for sermon preparation. Even though I have sometimes found myself in disagreement with Snodgrass' judgments, I know that every time I read it I will potentially be inspired, corrected and educated by the pen of this 'parable grandmaster'. In many ways he represents evangelical scholarship at its best: mature, thoughtful, wise, balanced, not uncritical but not crazy woolly trash, deeply academic, yet pastoral and spiritual. I can think of no higher honour for a book than to say such things. Stanton calls it a 'stunning achievement', Hengel a 'wonderful' and 'inspiring' book. Bock simply says 'Bravo!' I'm not really sure what 'Tilling' can add to that list of names, but I do. Nobody preaching on the parables or working on them as a student or as an academic should be without a copy of Stories with Intent.
14 comments:
Great review - thanks for posting it. Also, you are completely right regarding footnotes: endnotes are of the devil!
Hi Chris, I am siding with Snodgrass on Luke 15 (based on your review as I don't have the book nor have I read it) - the concept of it reflecting exile might be interesting... however, I prefer to stick with the rule that "context always rules in interpretation" - and in the case of Luke 15 the context is v1-2 where it notes the audience which were tax collectors and sinners along with the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law who were grumbling and whining that Jesus associated with sinners.
The grumbling of the Pharisees elicits Jesus three separate stories out the lost: lost sheep, lost coin, lost son. So really it highlights Jesus' primary mission: to seek and save that which was lost - iow: sinners. Jesus came to save sinners.
So, I think the lost son represents the sinner, the Father is God (of course) and the older brother is the grumbling Jewish leaders who can't stand to associate with sinners.
I think the punchline to the parable is indeed the older brother and his negative attitude toward the mission of Jesus to save the lost.
Review Fee's section on parables in How to Read the Bible for all its Worth - this is where I got most of this from.
I know you like N.T. Wright but it is these kinds of things that I have a problem with him about - he seems to often ignore the immediate context for some supposed larger more grander scheme in the mission of God, which is all fine and good but often ignores the immediate context (perhaps he misses the trees for the forest instead of missing the forest for the trees)?
What say you?
if you want to spend lots of money and send me a copy that'd be fine with me but I'll have to wait a while to get it - being a pastor of a small church and all! Ha Ha! Looks like a good resource though!
Thanks for the review - I'm looking forward to picking it up!
Forgot to add, nice review. {s!}
JRP
Agree with Brian about the context of Luke 15, btw. Also with Brian about NT Wright. Come to think of it, Wright's use of the prodigal son parable in JVG to describe history's relationship with theology is more than a little wrong, too! Insert irony as applicable... {g}
"Nobody preaching on the parables or working on them as a student or as an academic should be without a copy of Stories without Intent." -- Chris Tilling
Opps! Blurb attempt error! {lol!}
JRP
Hi Brian,
Great comment. Thanks for your thoughts.
"Jesus came to save sinners"
I agree, but what this means depends on the story in which one reads it.
"he seems to often ignore the immediate context for some supposed larger more grander scheme in the mission of God, which is all fine and good but often ignores the immediate context"
Yes, I know what you mean, but to use the example of A. McIntyre: a man went to another man at a bus stop and said "The name of the common duck is histrionicus, histrionicus, histrionicus". End scene.
What is said is not disputed, but what it means will depend on the story into which that scene fits. 1) Perhaps the man was a Russian spy?
2) Perhaps the man was MAD!
3) Perhaps the mans pyschiatrist had told her patient, this man, to talk to strangers. Upon asking what to say, she says "just say whatever comes into your mind!"
That scene will be understood in different ways depending on the story into which it fits. And Luke's story is framed by that of exile and restoration (as in the texts I noted in this post)
Sorry, that is a long winded response, but do you see what I'm getting at? Does it make any sense to you? Am I the one who is MAD?!
Hi Jason, that is a really hilarious typo!!!!! Oh MAN!
Chris,
I'm having some real trouble trying to parse out how Pharisees grumbling at sinners, and Jesus replying in terms of God saving the lost comprehensively, is supposed to be controlled by some omnipotent overarching theme of Israel's exile and restoration.
It makes a lot more sense to me (and is consonant with the other canonicals in their themes, not-incidentally) for Israel's punishment, suffering in exile, and restoration, to be positioned within the larger context of God's intentions. Much of the cultural problem being constantly addressed in all four Gospels is how the Jews were wrongly inclined to see themselves as the only (or at least as the prime) concern of YHWH. Their role as exemplar for better and for worse is important, but as a focused version of God's wider intentions regarding the whole 'kosmos'.
The exile-restoration material in the Lukan prologue is realistic to these expectations: Mary and Zechariah might tamp down the butt-kicking expected from God to those Gentile pagans for oppressing His beloved nation, but their focus ends up still being primarily on Israel. JohnBapt may remonstrate that God is capable of raising 'sons of Abraham' from stones (a rabbinic way of talking about the Gentiles), but at the end of the day he wants to know when the revolution is gonna kick in gear because he's tired of rotting unfairly in jail. The hometown crowd in Nazareth, annoyed that Jesus hasn't inaugurated his career as a Sheliach Tsibbur in their little synagogue (bringing them glory), becomes even more annoyed when Jesus voids the second unwritten rule of preaching at a synagogue--never under any circumstances criticize Israel! (The Isaianic passages are about hope of restoration of Israel, but are also a critique of Israel; moreover Jesus omits the whomping on the Gentiles. Jesus simultaneously widens the scope of traditionally understood promise while reminding them that Israel is being punished for a reason and it ain't gonna stop until they turn around and get their act together. Which getting-together involves fair-togetherness with those hated Gentiles including their military oppressors.)
The immediate context to that set of parables, then, is in fact directly consonant to the larger context of God's intentions to seek and to save the lost generally (one might say universally {g}). The topic of Israel's exile and restoration is positioned as relevant only within this context, and is contrasted (on the other hand) directly against those who position Israel's exile and restoration as a uniquely primal act of God.
JRP
Chris, I do understand what you are getting at, but one question I have is, what is the plain reading of the text? If one has not read Wright's JVG (which I have not - but only What Saint Paul Really Said) would a straight forward reading of the Luke 15 elicit the comment "Ahh, that is a reference to the exile!"? Yes or no?
As to the reference that Jesus came to save sinners, I think the theme of Luke is his perspective on salvation history - highlighting God's efforts to bring his salvation to the ends of the earth (Luke-Acts together) - so it is not just Israel he came to save though that was his mission - we are to carry on the rest of the mission to the ends of the earth through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. (okay, I so I went to a pentecostal seminary, I am going to through that last part in there, still I think it is true).
I admit there can be other possibilities but I just find a lot of Wright's stuff suspicious.
Hi Brian,
"what is the plain reading of the text?"
Yes, I hear you. But one man's plain reading may be another's heresy. Our plain readings are shaped by our own contexts, as well as the implic stories through which we read statements like "Jesus came to save sinners". I would suggest not an either/or, but a both and. We need the bigger story to influence our readings, yet not to become so controlling that it is all that is seen. But the bigger story must be kept in mind or we may simply end up with either anachronism or a few statements begging explanation. This is why I struggled with Piper'S critique of Wright (what I read of it). He took passages and phrases (like the "righteousness of God") and interpreteted it according to a certain story - we all must do so in the end. Yet I felt it was an imported one, slightly anachronistic. The Gospel's gladly offer us a glimpse into that wider story, as Matthew does in his opening 17 verses.
"so it is not just Israel he came to save though that was his mission"
I agree! BUT the Gentile mission is justified precisely in light of this bigger story. When the restoration of Israel is inaugurated, then the Gentiles came into salvation's scope. See how James justifies Gentile mission in Acts 15. See what passage of scripture Paul draws from in his "mission text" (2 Cor 5-6 - though especially 6:2) Check out the context of that Isaianic passage.
Hi Jason
"The immediate context to that set of parables, then, is in fact directly consonant to the larger context of God's intentions to seek and to save the lost generally"
I think we way be importing a different story in here, imposing a false either or. Yes it was a general statement, but written and said within a certain horizon - this does not exclude more general statements, but that wider context can never be forgotten. That is an abstract response, but I'm running out of time!
Hi Brian,
"what is the plain reading of the text?"
Yes, I hear you. But one man's plain reading may be another's heresy. Our plain readings are shaped by our own contexts, as well as the implic stories through which we read statements like "Jesus came to save sinners". I would suggest not an either/or, but a both and. We need the bigger story to influence our readings, yet not to become so controlling that it is all that is seen. But the bigger story must be kept in mind or we may simply end up with either anachronism or a few statements begging explanation. This is why I struggled with Piper'S critique of Wright (what I read of it). He took passages and phrases (like the "righteousness of God") and interpreteted it according to a certain story - we all must do so in the end. Yet I felt it was an imported one, slightly anachronistic. The Gospel's gladly offer us a glimpse into that wider story, as Matthew does in his opening 17 verses.
"so it is not just Israel he came to save though that was his mission"
I agree! BUT the Gentile mission is justified precisely in light of this bigger story. When the restoration of Israel is inaugurated, then the Gentiles came into salvation's scope. See how James justifies Gentile mission in Acts 15. See what passage of scripture Paul draws from in his "mission text" (2 Cor 5-6 - though especially 6:2) Check out the context of that Isaianic passage.
Hi Jason
"The immediate context to that set of parables, then, is in fact directly consonant to the larger context of God's intentions to seek and to save the lost generally"
I think we way be importing a different story in here, imposing a false either or. Yes it was a general statement, but written and said within a certain horizon - this does not exclude more general statements, but that wider context can never be forgotten. That is an abstract response, but I'm running out of time!
Chris,
{{BUT the Gentile mission is justified precisely in light of this bigger story.}}
The salvation of the kosmos is justified precisely in light of the bigger story of the salvation of Israel??
Uh... ... ... why exactly isn’t Israel’s salvation indicative or an exemplar of God’s salvation of the kosmos from rebellion?
{{Yes it was a general statement, but written and said within a certain horizon}}
That horizon being the salvation of the kosmos. I’m not trying to impart an either-or on the matter; far from it--except insofar that either Israel’s salvation is the larger context within with the salvation of all the kosmos from rebellion is happening (as an example of the larger context of Israel’s salvation??), or the salvation of all the kosmos from rebellion is the larger context within with the salvation of Israel is happening as an example of the larger context.
I mean granted there were rabbis who thought that the history of the kosmos begins and ends with the Jews; but I’m pretty sure the OT testimony (not even counting the NT) culminates with the salvation of the nations and begins with God yanking rebels into line before Israel (or even humanity) has begun existing yet. {s}
Also, your answer (perhaps from brevity) didn’t address how Jesus addressing the parables to the grumbling of Pharisees about the salvation of sinners, is supposed to be indicative of Israel’s exile and restoration per se (as a larger context than the restoration of sinners everywhere or otherwise!)
JRP
‘BUT the Gentile mission is justified precisely in light of this bigger story’. The salvation of the kosmos is justified precisely in light of the bigger story of the salvation of Israel??’
Put like that it sounds really silly, hey?!!
What I meant was that the the Gentile mission was part of a story that included the restoration of Israel. With the restoration of Israel (as promised in the prophets), then the Gentiles would come into the scope of God’s saving activity in a new way (cf. how James justifies Gentile mission in Acts 15 from Amos, the text Paul refers to in 2 Cor. 6:2, and both his wider context in 2 Cor 5-6 and that in the Isa. Passage to which he refers). The biblical narrative includes all of this, and of course new creation, the salvation of the whole cosmos. But Jesus is standing at the edge of the restoration of Israel, and that this happened in and around him is the basis for their being any Gentile mission later. And the parable under discussion fits into the bigger story in light of the ‘restoration of Israel’ chapter.
“why exactly isn’t Israel’s salvation indicative or an exemplar of God’s salvation of the kosmos from rebellion?”
I think it is, but understood within the terms of the narrative.
“{{Yes it was a general statement, but written and said within a certain horizon}} That horizon being the salvation of the kosmos.”
I would suggest the horizon is first the restoration of Israel, for reasons indicated above.
“I’m not trying to impart an either-or on the matter”
Perhaps I am. But only in the sense that a certain story governs the parable, that of the restoration of Israel. And because of that restoration, the Gentiles come into scope. But both are not present at this stage in equal measure, I don’t think.
“Also, your answer (perhaps from brevity) didn’t address how Jesus addressing the parables to the grumbling of Pharisees about the salvation of sinners, is supposed to be indicative of Israel’s exile and restoration per se (as a larger context than the restoration of sinners everywhere or otherwise!”
That’s a great point. I am not trying to say one is indicative of the other. But that one is a wider story and if the parable is to be understood it needs to be read in light of that story. Much like, in my example above, the man at the bus stop is not indicative of a bigger story, but the episode at the bus stop is understood in terms of a certain story.
Not sure I made sense in the above, or that I alwasy represented you well – it’s getting late. But I didn’t want to put off responding again!
Chris,
Found your most helpful review after posting on Snodgrass' introduction in my own blog. For the life of me, I can't discern what "evangelical" scholarship means. The term shows up on the dust jacket, not in the book itself. At any rate, I've tried to figure it out with respect to Snodgrass, and I'm far from satisfied.
Would appreciate your thoughts.
Post a Comment