Customer Reviews

Hear Then the Parable

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I strongly disagree with the previous reviewer. Brandon Scott provides a challenging reading of the parables by proposing ways of hearing them that are set apart from the later Christian interpretations of the parables that were edited into the Gospels of the New Testament. Scott's theory, which he successfully defends, is that Jesus' parables were much more revolutionary, much more critical of the social/political/religious culture of Jesus' lifetime than those versions that were more spiritualized, made more palatable for the widespread proclimation of the Christian faith in the late 1st Century. Do I agree with every theory of every parable in Scott's book? No. However, his reading is one of the most insightful and historically valid interpretations of the parables that I have read. Along with John D. Crossan's book, "In Parables," Scott's book brings Jesus' message to new light. As a United Methodist pastor, who preaches Jesus' parables with passion, Scott's challenging interpretation helps me broaden my understanding of Jesus' message.

Jesus' parables are perhaps his most endearing words, but they are also challenging. Over the centuries there have been vast and varied interpretations of these seemingly simple stories. All a reader needs to do is examine what the great writers of Christianity, beginning with the Patristics, had to say about the parables to see how these stories have been viewed and used over the centuries. It's easy to understand why the parables can have so many different interpretations. Most of the stories are drawn from daily life and since we all have different daily experiences, it is only natural things could be viewed differently. It's also a good thing. It demonstrates that Jesus' words are still both living and challenging.

Bernard Brandon Scott's HEAR THEN THE PARABLE has become a standard commentary on the parables and is used frequently in scripture study classes on the college and graduate level. The work is copious. He gives a thorough background to the literary form known as the parable. He also discusses a number of the parables in depth, examining how they are sued by the different evangelists, looking at them from a literary point of view, and trying to place them in the context of Jesus' ministry. Some of his interpretations can be somewhat far fetched and some readers may even consider them irreverent (as a few of the other Amazon reviewers have noted). Even if a reader does not agree with all of his conclusions, or may consider him somewhat flip, he can't be faulted for his research. He presents in a succinct manner all that is available which is itself a service.

As far as parables are concerned, Scott's book is not the first one I look to for ideas for homilies or Bible study lessons. Pheme Perkins' now out of print HEARING THE PARABLES OF JESUS is my first choice. I suppose it's ironic that I first read Scott's book when I took a course with Dr. Perkins at Boston College. Still, I do refer to it somewhat often when I need an idea clarified. While it may not be the most helpful pastoral commentary, it is great for study. He presents a variety of scholarship in each of his entries and has a large bibliography which can lead a reader to a variety of sources.

I just read this book and thought it was great. The author's insights into the parables of Jesus made them much more credible to me. Better grounding in history makes my faith stronger.

It is important that we hear, for hearing measures our response to all who speak to us. It is more important what we hear, for we are greatly influenced by the truths and falsehoods; also by the significant and trivial things to which we open our minds and hearts. Mainly, it is most important what we do with what we hear, and we should be mindful of the Biblical injunction to be doers and not merely hearers of God's word.

The most significant thing about hearing the word of God is what we do with ourselves in the light of what we have heard. Take heed to what and how you hear about human live, the church, the gospel and God. Jesus used parables in his messages as they are the ageless conveyers of truth. This is the Biblical version of Aesop's Fables. An old definition of a parable is "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning." Jesus preached to the multitudes about lives of ordinary people like a farmer sowing grain, a fisherman hauling in his catch, a shepherd searching for a lost sheep, a joyous marriage supper, and a loving father welcoming home his wayward son.

Many of his stories were simple, like the parable of the mustard seed while others were more involved like the marriage feast, the wedding garment, the good Samaritan, and the rich fool. Parables point out one central truth and goes from there to the extenuating circumstances. illustrating the love of God for a sinner. The Parable of the Sower is sometimes called the Parable of the Soils in the book of Mark. The one we all need to remember is the Parable of the Talents we are all born with and how we should use them to fulfill our destiny, the reason we are in the earth.

In Matthew, the disciples asked Christ why he speaks to them in parables. An old Indian fable tells of a man who had gone to Heaven where he encountered a huge pile of ears of those who had heard God's message but did not respond. The ears were saved, but the hearers who failed to respond accordingly were lost. Jesus asked, "What has a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul." The world is too much with us. The parables still sow the seeds of truth. Isaiiah prophesized "they will indeed see and hear but not understand, because they had refused to turn in repentance from their sins to experience God's forgiveness. Today's world is more sinful than that of Jesus' time. We are destined to suffer the consequences one way or the other. Children listen and observe all that is going on around them and will speak the truths we wouldn't necessarily divulge even to our friends. Last words are lasting words.

This book is a stellar example of misassimilated information. Scott comes close -- and yet remains so far -- from "hearing the parables" the way Jesus' fellow Galileans would have heard them. He interprets the parables against the backdrop of Jewish myths and peasant world-views, which at first promises to yield some good results. But he ends up abandoning much of what he develops in favor of postmodern philosophical table-talk. The result makes for some awkward and bizarre readings. Indeed, if we believe Scott, then Jesus pretty much preached disaster for the Jewish peasantry.

For instance, in the parable of the Talents (Mt.25:14-28/Lk.19:12-24), a master departs on a journey, leaving three servants with money in trust, expecting them to act like good retainers -- to secure his investment, then double it. The first two servants do exactly as expected of them, but the third does not. He buries the master's money to be sure it remains intact. He thus not only refuses to partake in the exploitive schemes of the master, but he acts honorably, in accordance with Jewish law. When the day of accounting arrives, and the master rewards the two who increased his wealth at the expense of others, the third servant acts stunningly. He blows the whistle on the master, while at the same time giving him back the money he had buried in trust. He denounces his elite overlord: "Master, I know that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter." From the peasant point of view, this servant acts not only honorable (with the money in trust), but courageously (by denouncing his oppressive master). He is the hero of the parable. But for Scott, he is the villain of the parable! And the servants who did the master's dirty work turn out to be the heroes! Time and time again -- especially with parables concerning masters and absentee landlords -- Scott turns the good guys into bad guys, bad guys into good guys. First-century Jewish peasants would hardly have heard the parables the way Scott has.

This book does do justice to a few parables (like The Mustard Seed and The Leaven), but it fails to do justice to the historical Jesus in general.

Yikes! Scott's aproach to the parables of Jesus is part commentary on IF there are His parables, and part deconstruction of said parables. How many people are comfortable with the idea of Jesus telling bawdy stories?
Scott, like so many of his colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature, are so interested in seeming "objective" in approaching Scripture, they treat it with less respect than they would any other peice of ancient literature. When was the last time you heard of a Q source for Homer? Or of multiple authors for The Republic? Or a discussion of which lines of The Frogs are original to the play's author? These guys want to look intellectual, but end up looking petty.