The early communities of believers in Christ remembered Jesus as a parable teller. Already in the oldest sources of the narrative tradition of Jesus, there is a large number of parables.1 One can therefore conclude that the genre of parable was one of the preferred media of the collective memory of Jesus.2 Social memory theory has shown that collective memory in typified forms fulfills a community-building and community-stabilising function. Therefore, the Jesus community constitutes and stabilizes itself in the joint telling of Jesus parables. Those assumptions lead to the guiding question for this article: Is it possible to make more concrete statements about this emerging community below the basic insights into the collective and medially influenced memory process? Here I will draw particular attention to the parables of growth, which address the idea of development already in their plots. Insights from Social Identity Theory will be used as a theoretical base. Thus, this article raises the following questions: What do we learn by approaching parables with social identity theory? Do the parables of growth, in particular, mirror or reflect a specific social situation and a group development? To which groups might the text refer (ingroup, outgroup, subgroup)? Could there be a group conflict? What might be the envisioned development, change, or movement of the groups?
1 Methodological Considerations
To answer the question of the role of parables in the constitution of social identity, I would like to propose a combination of three theoretical approaches: social identity theories (1.1), social memory theories (1.2), and narrative criticism (1.3).
1.1 Social Identity Theories
Social identity theories have been employed in New Testament scholarship for quite some time. One needs only to mention the work of Philip F. Esler (on Galatians, Romans), David Horrell (on 1 Corinthians), or Raimo Hakola (on John).3 Since there is already an established foundation of biblical scholarship on this subject, I will limit my remarks to a basic orientation into the insights of Henri Tajfel and John Turner, and some concepts that are particularly relevant to the subject at hand. In their early work of the 1970s, Henri Tajfel and John Turner undertook empirical studies to investigate group-specific behaviour of small groups (minimal group paradigms). Turner later established the so-called “self-categorization theory,” which describes group members, self-understanding. According to Tajfel, group identity can be defined as follows: “Social identity will be understood as that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.”4 Accordingly, the feeling of being a member of a group involves three elements: a cognitive component (knowledge of belonging), an evaluative component (belonging could have a positive or negative value connotation), and an emotional component (like—dislike, love—hatred).5
Tajfel and Turner pointed out that “belonging to a group is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination favoring the in-group.”6 From this we realise that social identity theory also deals with intergroup behaviour, and mostly with group conflicts between different groups in a hierarchical relationship, be it ingroup–outgroup relationships or subgroup–main group conflicts. According to Tajfel and Turner, there are three coping strategies for a group that perceives itself to be inferior to another group:
-
become more like the superior group (assimilation);
-
reinterpret its characteristics in new and more positively valued ways;
-
invent new characteristics that establish a positively valued group distinctiveness.
I would also like to draw attention to two more basic terms, “social change” and “social mobility,” which play an important role in social identity theory. Individual social mobility describes the possibility of moving out of a group to which you no longer want to belong. If it is not possible to move out, social change can take place through competition and creative processes of transformation. There are many further developments and differentiations of this model, but only two aspects are important for my later argument:
a) The prototype theory: the prototype theory seeks to clarify the self-categorization process in detail, i.e., why people identify with a group. According to Hogg, Hohman, and Rivera, prototypes “not only describe the group’s attributes but also, very importantly, prescribe how one should think, feel, and behave as a member of the group.”7 A group’s prototype can be a representation of a person that embodies the identity of a group. The prototype, however, is not necessarily a current member of the group but could also be a remembered person from the past, or an ideal image of the group’s character.8 Group prototypes can also be reinterpreted according to the contextual needs and challenges of a group.
b) The idealization or symbolic construction of community: the social identity is, to a certain extent, not based on reality but on social construction of the group’s image. It was Anthony B. Cohen, who pointed out already in the 1980s that the knowledge and appreciation of the group is first and foremost “symbolic construction of community.”9 Benedict Anderson, who worked along the same lines, introduced the term “imagined community,”10 the image or ideal of a group that plays a certain role in constituting the group’s identity. According to Anderson, “all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contacts … are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.”11
As interesting as these insights of social identity theories may be, a transfer of these findings to New Testament scholarship always involves two fundamental problems: on the one hand, the results of social identity theory have been obtained through empirical research in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Is it, therefore, possible to transfer them easily to other times and cultures, in particular to ancient society and its group behaviour? On the other hand, Social Identity Theory deals with statements about social reality, which is no longer directly accessible with regard to early Christianity. What we have at our disposal are only sources of the past, and primarily textual sources. Can social identity theories be combined with texts or, more precisely, with the study of the interpretation of texts? A way out of these dilemmas may be found in the combination of social identity theory with two other major fields:
1.2 Social Memory Theories and Social Identity
Social memory theories can be helpful for issues related to time. Memory theories reflect how the past can be present. This process of remembering also constitutes social groups or group identity. Thus, there is a genuine link between social identity and social memory.12 A group constitutes itself within a process of remembering the common past. After its beginnings with the work of Maurice Halbwachs,13 Aleida and Jan Assmann are to be credited with exploring the details of this remembering process and to establish the concepts of social, communicative, and cultural memory.14 According to Aleida Assmann and others,15 memory always needs media and form to be shaped and communicated. Individuals use different media, such as photos, diaries, or objects to remember their own biographies. Similarly, communicative and even cultural memory16 is shaped by means of special media, which, according to Assmann, can be distinguished in a more abstract way in metaphor, writing, images, bodies, and locations.17 There are many media that are used non-specifically by different people and groups in the process of memory. In addition, there are also specific media that shape the collective memory of certain groups. Those media help in particular to develop the identity of that group.
In the process of collective memory, certain forms are carried forward, refined, and solidified. It is therefore not only certain contents that are remembered, but over time the forms themselves are remembered and carried forward as media of memory. One can then speak of conventionalized forms by means of which the past can become an object of social and, finally, cultural memory. “The form is not reinvented over and over again. Instead, it exists within a tradition that requires and adopts it.”18 Based on Assmann, Astrid Erll and Klaudia Seibel have spoken of “forms of re-use” (Wiedergebrauchs-Formen) that prefigure cultural memory.19
A community talks about the same events of the past; however, the events are not communicated each time in a different but rather in a recognizable way. This does not require literal verbal continuity but it does require a structural or formal continuity. The memory of certain events that deviates and updates itself is recognizable due to the use of a defined form. Therefore, literary genres can be defined as such forms of re-use in which a genre can be described as the conventionalized form of a text or a story. The past is primarily communicated by narratives, and various subgenres of narratives. This brings me to my last point of my theoretical framing:
1.3 Narratology and Social Identity
Literary forms are media of collective memory, which leads to social identity. The form guarantees the permanence and the stabilization of the memory as well as of the community. This can be seen, for example, in a community’s myths of origin as well as, in extreme cases, in the canonization of certain memory literature. In this way, literature is a medium of the portrayal and reflection, the modeling and construction of social identity.20 But how does this process of literary identity formation take place?
It was in particular Paul Ricœur, who established the idea of “narrative identity.” Ricœur distinguished between “mêmité” (idem) and “ipséité” (ipse) as two basic experiences of a self, and reflected on the relationship of the two terms with regard to identity.21 Following Ricœur, it is the character in a narration that helps or even enables a person to bridge the gap between the two experiences of a self, and thereby links stability and change of the self over a period of time. In his trilogy “temps et recit”22 Ricœur described the act of reading as a threefold process of mimesis, by means of which the narrative identity of a reader is shaped. The meaning of a narrative (configuration = mimesis II) is based on pre-understanding (préfiguration = mimesis I). Meaningful Comprehension, however, occurs only in the refiguration (= mimesis III) of the reader. In doing so, the readers appropriates or distances themselves from the point of view of the literary character, and it is in this way that they gain a new understanding of themselves in the world. Therefore, the process of reading enables “narrative identity.” For Ricœur, this identity-creating act of reading is always defined temporally, which is a bridge to memory theory. Genre consciousness plays an important role in shaping such pre-existing concepts that prefigure the narrative process because both producers and recipients of literary works must refer to them. Though Ricœur’s focus is the individual reader it also works in constructing the narrative identity of a group. Ricœur states that the union of history and fiction is the assignment of a specific identity to an individual or a community that one can call its narrative identity.23 The telling, hearing, and retelling of stories within a community over a period of time thus creates social identity.
2 The Parable Genre as Medium of Social Memory
As mentioned above, every community possesses a basic inventory of conventionalized forms by means of which social identity can be formed. I have argued elsewhere that I consider parables as one of these specific forms, by means of which the memory and social identity of early Christian groups have been shaped.24 That does not exclude that Jesus and the Christian community adapted existing forms of brief narratives, i.e., Greek fables or Jewish meshalim.25 However, telling parables established itself as a fundamental pillar for the Christian community and thus played a crucial role in forming their identity. Let me briefly summarize this argument, which can best be done by referring to the six criteria of a parable according to the definition we set forth in the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, here quoted from the English version of my Puzzling the Parables:
A parable is a short narratival (1) and fictional (2) text that is related in the narrated world to known reality (3) but, by way of implicit or explicit transfer signals, make it understood that the meaning of the narration must be differentiated from the literal words of the text (4). In its appeal dimension (5) it challenges the reader to carry out a metaphoric transfer of meaning that is steered by contextual information (6).26
Parables are narratival, thus they include all of the aspects of narrations that are explored by narratological studies, such as giving a structured memory of the past, reflecting on the present, and performing a vision for the future. Narrations are, in a mostly oral ancient society, to be recounted and listened to in a community. Parables are short and employ powerful images, which allows them to be memorized easily. In their style of narration (simple and enigmatic; easy to grasp the plot and stimulate the search for deeper meaning), they integrate different members of a social group, for instance, children and adults, ordinary men and women and intellectuals, masters, and slaves.
Being realistic (not fantastic) and referring to daily life experience, they mirror social reality as it is. Being fictional, they can also be critical of existing conditions and tease out counterfactual visions of how it could be. Here we see the close link to social identity theory with regard to “social change.” Parables have the power to create visions for social change, for instance with regard to justice (Matt 20:1–26) or forgiveness (Matt 18:23–35).27 If we have the idea of an “imagined community” (Anderson) in mind, we see that the images that are fundamental for parables construct visions of a new and different order in social life.
The parables are metaphorical first and foremost with regard to the kingdom or realm of God, that is to say, they transfer daily life experience to the field of religious thoughts, in particular Jesus’s eschatological message. It is evident that there are many semantic areas that were obviously developed situationally from the life world of Galilee (e.g., a mustard seed). In addition, traditional motifs are taken up that are closely connected to the motif repertoire of the Jewish as well as the Greek tradition. Based on this “Bildfeldtradition” (stock metaphors) the parables also include the tradition of religious groups, in particular of Judaism, referring to well-known religious metaphors, such as shepherd, kingdom, or vineyards.
Parables are addressed to readers and listeners (appeal structure), and in their enigmatic character they serve as “discussion-starters.” “They were used to invite conversation and to lure their hearers into the process of decoding and problematizing their world.”28
The metaphorical and puzzling character of the parables does not allow them to be limited to one single meaning. This openness also allows flexible transfers to new and varied situations, as can be seen in the different contexts for the same parable, for instance, the parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15 (the chapter of the lost) and Matt 18 (community discourse). In this way, early Christians could reflect upon their own life in discussing parables. Thereby, the parables stimulate a creative process of reception and adaptation which again helped to form and confirm the social identity of the group.
Regarding social identity theory, the parables also fulfill the criteria of a prototype in a double dimension: there is a wide production of parables within the first century in early Christianity. This means that parables as a genre served as a prototype of storytelling within this community. By using the term “
The flexible telling and reading of the parables also allow an ongoing process of reinterpretation of the group’s prototype without losing a center. Thus, the parables created a parable tradition. Put more abstractly, parables manage to include centripetal power (by being linked to Jesus) and centrifugal power (by their openness to others). Though these aspects may very well be true for all of the parables, here I would like to address, in particular, the parables of growth. This group of texts is a good sample to demonstrate the influence of parables on the social processes of their tradents. Reading against the background of social identity theory, we may understand the idea of grow as a process of growing of the group, whether in quantity (as a small group gets bigger) or metaphorically with regards to group experiences of social development and change.
3 Analysis of the “Parables of Growth” through the Lens of Social Identity Theories
Which parables should be included in the group of “Parables of Growth”? According to an influential article by Nils Dahl from 1952, these would be the parables of the 1) Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30–32 parr.); 2) Leaven (Q/Luke 13:20–21 parr.); 3) Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26–29); 4) Dragnet (Matt 13:47–50); 5) Tares (Matt 13:24–30); 6) Sower (Mark 4:1–9 parr.); and 7) Grain of Wheat (John 12:24).29 Bernard Brandon Scott confirmed this selection in his article “Parables of Growth Revisited” (1981).30 Perhaps somewhat surprising is the inclusion of the parables of the Leaven and the Dragnet in this set, which are not about plant growth, the latter not even of growing, but chosen for purposes of parallelism.31 Therefore, there are good reasons to exclude these texts and instead focus on growing plants. Furthermore, one can ask whether one gains more secure ground by focusing on specific lexemes, such as
A different way of approach could be the focus on semantic fields or Bildfeldtraditionen (stock metaphors). Petra von Gemünden distinguished two fundamental semantic domains that can be identified in various fields of texts (Old Testament, apocryphal texts, New Testament, etc.): 1) the “tree-fruit-Bildfeld” or 2) the “seed-growth-harvest-Bildfeld.”32 If growth is integrated into a “sowing–growth–harvest” sequence, the question arises whether the harvest parables such as Q/Luke 10:2; John 4:35–38; or Luke 12:16–18 (The Rich Farmer) should not also be added.33 However, even if the process of growing can be presupposed (before the harvest), it is stricte dictu not part of the narrative itself. Furthermore, the parable of the Dying Grain (John 12:24) demonstrates that seed and fruit can also be combined. We see, therefore, that there is no fixed group of “Parables of Growth” within the sources. Nevertheless, as interpreters, we can group some texts together due to certain criteria and for the purpose of theological interpretation.
In this regard, we notice that the parables of Growth attracted remarkable attention in the research during the last century and beyond. They also serve as a sample to reflect the different leading theological ideas and methods in interpreting parables.34 Against this background, it may also be methodologically interesting to look at the growth parables now with a new paradigm, or at least with another specific methodology, namely social identity theory.
A basic assumption is made here, namely, growth is understood as a social metaphor, i.e., it refers to group processes and not to internal phenomena such as faith of the individual or self-development. When considering the individual parables through the lens of social identity theory, we can raise the following leading question: Do the parables of growth mirror or reflect a specific social situation? And as subordinated questions:
-
To which groups might the text refer (ingroup, outgroup, subgroup)?
-
Could there be a group conflict?
-
What might be the envisioned development, change, movement of the groups?
In the following, I will address these questions in dealing with three selected samples from different traditions, the parable of the Mustard Seed (synoptic tradition), the parable of the Weed among the Wheat (Matthew), and the parable of the Dying Grain of Wheat (John).
3.1 The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Synoptic Tradition)
The parable of the Mustard Seed can be found in different streams of tradition. In addition to the double tradition of Matthew and Luke, the parable is also found in Mark,35 and in Gos. Thom. 20. This multiple attestation is one of the reasons that John P. Meier in his fifth volume of A Marginal Jew counted it among the so-called “happy few,” the four parables to which authenticity with regard to the historical Jesus can be attributed with some confidence.36 Following the “memory approach,” I am not interested in vague reconstructions of the so-called historical Jesus.37 Instead, I will focus on the synoptic tradition as varying forms of the parable of the remembered Jesus.
I do believe that there was as sayings source Q, which includes this very parable due to the verbatim overlaps between Matthew and Luke. According to our Mainz Approach, which seeks to work with the Q-hypothesis without reconstructing the wording of Q,38 I will refrain from presenting a Q-version of the text. Instead, I will give attention to the different synoptic versions, dealing with strong overlaps next to remarkable variations.
Though there are some differences in the various sources,39 the basic plot demonstrates a solid coherency in all of them: the mustard seed is sown into the ground, it grows up, becomes an adult plant (tree/shrub), and the birds of heaven come and make nests. The texts follow a parallel structure that draws attention to the places where they diverge:40 the mustard seed is—following Mark—“the smallest of all the seeds on the earth” (
Anyone in first-century Palestine from a rural society is familiar with mustard. This applies equally to the postulated first hearers of the parable in Israel because black mustard (brassica nigra) occurs quite commonly in Galilee. Thus, even a child should know that a mustard seed is very small and that it grows into a very large bush. This experience from daily life is then used to teach a theological lesson. It is in this lesson that we find a surprising turn in a two-fold way:
Usually, the religious language of the tradition makes use of the logical consistency of seed, growth, and harvest in order to indicate the consequences of human behaviour or even to point to the eschatological judgement. Therefore, nature comparisons are often made in an ethical context.42 One will reap that which one sows (Gal 6:7; 2 Cor 9:6). Whoever sows a small amount, will reap a small amount. However, the message in Mark 4:30–33 is the complete opposite: even though the seed that is sown is small, the harvest will be great! Of course, there is no mention of a harvest in Mark 4:30–32. But it is no less surprising to discover the result of sowing this mustard seed: a tree (following the double tradition).43 The black mustard grows up to a huge shrub (2–3 metres),44 however, a large shrub is not a tree. The second surprise of the parable is that the final goal is not realized in the growth of the plant. Instead, the goal is that the mustard shrub/tree becomes a habitat for others. The mustard shrub or tree offers space to “live” in and shade in which to nest, in particular for the birds of heaven.
Let me turn to social identity aspects in particular: which groups are imaged with such a text? The smallness of the seed does not refer to a powerful group, which is dominant in society or religion. The small seed, transferred to a group, takes up the experience of an unimportant, marginalized group. We might also think about the plant itself, which serves as a donor field for the image. Mustard is an ordinary plant, without symbolic meaning in Jewish tradition (different from, for instance, an olive tree, vine, or cedar). Having the Q-community in mind, it is not only the small numbers, but the experience of being rejected in the context of their missionary work. Thus, the parable tells a story for a small and marginalized community that should be encouraged by the extraordinary and fast growth of the mustard.
In the second part of the parables, new characters have been introduced. “Birds” come and “live” in the large branches rather than simply perching on them. Matthew reads that “the birds of heaven come and make nests in its branches” (Matt 13:32). In Mark 4:32, the nests are built in (beneath) the shade (
A different interpretation occurs when taking a closer look at the Bildfeldtradition. This different community can, at the very least, break through traditional “borders.” This is because “birds” were used as a symbol for gentiles in the Jewish exegetical tradition,47 and the background of the tradition (see below) also explicitly links eschatological dimensions (animals experiencing peace; the motif of pilgrimage) to living in the shade. Does the parable also bring in a missionary concept?48 I think it might be important that in the Q-version of the parable, the Sower does not play an important role and in Mark, there is no sower mentioned at all. Furthermore, in Mark, this parable follows the parable of the Seed Growing Secretly. Thus, I think there might be a vision of a large, attractive community, but no appeal to realize this through one’s own activities, e.g., mission workers. Within the Markan context, however, the birds representing the gentiles began to nest in the shadow of this Galilean bush. Having the in-out separation set in Mark 4:11–12 in mind, the still weak ingroup should be encouraged by the image of this parable to settle in the new location and grow in faith and strength.
We may explore one more idea with regard to social identity that becomes most apparent in the Matthean version of the parable: the group imagined in this parable can also be interpreted as an ingroup that may face oppression from a powerful outgroup associated with imperial power. The expression “birds of the heavens” (
Thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of a cedar; I will set it out. … On the mountain height of Israel I will plant it, in order that it may produce boughs and bear fruit, and become a noble cedar. Under it every kind of bird will live; in the shade of its branches will nest winged creatures of every kind.24 All the trees of the field shall know that I am the LORD. I bring low the high tree, I make high the low tree.
Ezek 17:22–24 NRSV
The earlier Old Testament and stock metaphors can be found in a political setting.50 The tree represents kingdoms, but only after the felling of the old tree (reign, kingdom) will a new beginning be possible in that a new tree will grow in which all birds can live. Warren Carter used these political undertones in particular for his anti-imperial interpretation of Matt 13:31f.51 According to Carter, the trees mentioned in the Jewish traditions “symbolize the power and rule of nations and their kings, sometimes sanctioned by God and sometimes strongly opposed by God.” Along the line of this interpretation, the “kingship of God” envisioned by the parable of the Mustard Seed can be seen in sharp contrast to the “kingdom of the Romans.” Following the Jewish traditions, however, all the trees/empires are subjected to God’s sovereignty.
Thus, the parable of the Mustard Seed could also be read as a parable of political protest.52 It imagines an alternate world—a new kingdom that is opposite to the Romans, grown out of a little mustard seed. Does this vision also want to encourage the addresses to revolt against the dominant group? I do not find strong signals in that direction, but at least the imagined community is contrafactual to the existing dominant group.
3.2 On the Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30)
The parable of the Weeds among the Wheat has always been read with social groups in view, in particular the Matthean community. Matthew is the Evangelist who reflects a concept of community with the term
The basic questions on social identity about this parable can be linked easily to the tradition of interpretation of the parable. Here a “universalist interpretation” contrasts with an “ecclesiastical” one.53 Against the background of social identity theory we may also ask: Does the parable point to an ingroup–outgroup conflict (universalist) or an intragroup conflict (ecclesiastical)? Or more precisely: does the parable want the reader to imagine an intra-group conflict or an ingroup–outgroup conflict to stimulate the process of forming identity?
3.2.1 The Matthean Community as Corpus Permixtum: Is There an Intra-group Conflict?
The Matthean community is classified as a “corpus permixtum” and there are some texts that draw on evaluative distinctions being made within this community, e.g., the dragnet catch with good and bad fish (Matt 13:47–50), the guest without the proper garments at the wedding feast (Matt 22:1–14), and the foolish and the wise virgins (Matt 25:1–11).
A strong argument for this reading is the type of the weeds. The
3.2.2 The Matthean Community in a Political Setting: Is There an Ingroup–Outgroup Conflict?
In the subsequent teaching of the disciples, Jesus explains that “the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil” (Matt 13:38–39). So, the field is not identified with the congregation, but with the world, which points to the universalist interpretation. “Children of the kingdom” and “children of evil” make an ingroup–outgroup conflict visible to the eye of the recipient. The Son of Man faces the “diabolos” (devil).
Such an interpretation fits into the prophetic-apocalyptic tradition of the kingdom concept. It could also easily be connected with the mission strategy of Matthew, who seems to be oriented towards the gentile mission. One sees this, for example, in his inclusion of pagan women in the genealogy of Jesus at the outset of his Gospel (Matt 1) and concluding his Gospel with the Great Commission (Matt 28). While it is difficult to really discover a mission instruction for the gentiles in this parable, the universalistic interpretation can be combined with a different sociological interpretation:
As already mentioned in the interpretation of the Mustard Seed, Carter and others have placed the Gospel of Matthew in an anti-imperial conflict with the Roman Empire.59 The wheat and the children of the kingdom imagine themselves as an ingroup in a far superior outgroup. The question of the slaves seems ridiculous in this scenario. The feelings of inferiority cannot be solved here by their own activities, by competition, or by group transformation. Instead, this sense of inferiority becomes bearable in view of the last judgement of the Son of Man in which final salvation takes place. The defeated ingroup now has to endure the poisonous Lolium in order not to get lost in the end, even when rebelling.
In both interpretations, social identity construction can be combined with text observation. It turns out that the method alone does not lead to unambiguous results, but leads to divergent interpretations depending on weighting context reference and sociological framework models.
3.3 On the Parable of the Dying Grain of Wheat (John 12:24)
I turn finally to the parable of the Dying Grain in John 12:24. Interestingly, both Dahl and Scott included John 12:24 in their list of “Parables of Growth” without further explication, though it is widely disputed among scholars that there are parables in the Fourth Gospel. I myself have argued elsewhere that the Gospel of John should be included in parable research.60 In our Kompendium we listed eighteen texts that can be classified as parables according to the criteria mentioned above.61
The brief narration in John 12:24 does not recount specifically the process of growing. This narratival gap can and must be added by the reader, there will be no fruit without the process of growing. Instead, it is emphasized that the grain bears fruit only if it dies. Within ancient agricultural knowledge, this must not be read metaphorically, but rather literally. Thus, the grain does not just sleep in the earth in order to reawaken at some point to new life. In ancient times (according to Greek and Jewish sources)62 it was assumed that the grain rotted and died and then swelled again with new life.
Within the context of John 12, the dying of the grain points to the dying of Jesus, which is explained as glorification and being lifted up. Therefore, it can hardly be denied that John 12:24 can be interpreted Christologically in the context of John 12 with special focus on Jesus’s death.63 The dying of the grain, however, is also not the final point of the development. It serves the fruit. This opens up the horizon of interpretation toward social dimensions. Which groups might be imagined and/or addressed?
In the narrower context, the abundant fruit of the grain of wheat corresponds with Jesus’s statement, that he will draw “all people” to himself (John 12:32) when he is lifted up from the earth. Who are those “all people” connected with the fruit metaphor? Is this a universal statement that Jesus’s death is addressed to all people on earth, in other words: there will be no subgroups any more with regard to faith in Jesus? Or does the text address different groups that can be unified through Jesus’s death? Which subgroups in particular might be imagined to be integrated according to John 12?
To answer these questions, it will be helpful first to briefly reconsider the use of the fruit metaphor elsewhere in the Gospel. One finds that there is a close and even linguistic connection to the parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1–8, 16) in which the formulation
But to which group of people does the mission apply in particular? To whom is the message directed? Let us look at the extended contextual narrative framework of the parable of the Grain of Wheat. The narrative unit begins with John 12:20, referring to the “Greeks” (
For John, the explicit mention of the Greeks is certainly not a coincidence. On the level of the narrative world, Greeks are the “representatives of the
According to John 7:35—formulated with Johannine irony—it was, of all people, the uncomprehending people of Jerusalem who announced Jesus’s future impact in the gentile world.69 Even though the scene in John 12:20–36 does not involve a direct meeting, there is indeed an indirect one. And that might be precisely the intention of the pericope and more generally the social dimension of the missional strategy of the Fourth Gospel. There is not one single group responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel. The passing of the message from one disciple to the next, from one group to another, which strikes the reader as strange, corresponds closely to the Johannine narrative mode of appeal to the disciples from the beginning (see John 1:35–51).
Turning back to John 12:24, the parable of the Grain of Wheat points explicitly to the fruit as a final result of germination and growth. The parable works on a time-lapse principle as there is actually a considerable amount of time between the dying of the grain and the bearing of fruit. If one interprets the context accordingly, the present time is a time that should be filled with the disciples’ mission to win the people in the gentile world. On the level of gospel communication, the Christ image of the “dying grain of wheat” is thus part of the communicative strategy to envision a community in which the message is delivered from one group to another. Furthermore, the groups deemed Jewish and Greek by tradition can be unified when Jesus draws “all people” to him to be one single group of Christ-believers. With regard to social identity theory, this movement reflects social mobility. The former Jewish ingroup should learn that Greek people are also part of the Christ community and should be integrated. It is exactly Jesus’s death that enables this process of integration to be linked to the more recent group experiences of the Johannine community. There was some kind of expulsion from the synagogue (John 12:42; 16:2) that was certainly a painful experience and disturbing for the believers. The parable of the Dying Grain also reflects a painful and with regard to Jesus even deathly experience that, despite appearances, has a good outcome. Telling and retelling the parable, therefore, leads to the stabilization of the community in an unstable and changing social situation.
4 Conclusion
What is the yield of a social identity approach to the interpretation of growth parables? When growth processes are transferred to group processes, facets of the texts are undoubtedly brought to light that otherwise cannot be seen so clearly. The parable of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30–31 par.) encourages a marginalized group with the vision of a large, attractive community. The ingroup (identified with the seed and the bush/tree) is related to a different group (represented by the birds) that is attracted to nest in the shadow/on its branches. In the Matthean version, the stock metaphor of the tree also opens up the horizon toward the hostile outgroup of the Roman Empire. It, therefore, fulfills a stabilising function of the ingroup in an endangered world. The parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30) can also be read along these lines. In particular, the allegorical interpretation in Matt 13:36–43 draws attention to the hostile situation that can easily be linked to a conflict with the Roman Empire. The ingroup would not be able to resist this superior outgroup but finds within the parable a cognitive reinterpretation of its difficult situation by turning to the final judgment. Therefore, the parable helps to establish group distinctiveness instead of helplessness when faced with a superior power. However, the parable can also be interpreted as reflecting an intragroup conflict within the Matthean community. In the setting with other texts in Matthew’s Gospel, the community consists of different groups (corpus permixtum) that should be accepted, at least for the moment. The addressed group should not make hasty separation actions but is called to tolerance and patience towards those who are different.
Within the last sample, the parable of the Dying Grain (John 12:24), the fruit metaphor is linked to missionary activities within the frame of the Gospel. The narrow context of chapter 12 as well as the grain symbolism allows us to imagine a group of Greek believers who will be integrated through Jesus’s death. The remarkably close connection between death and fruit seems to be a cognitive offer also to reinterpret the current experience of the Johannine Community. The addressees of the Gospel are also experiencing a difficult time of repression. Thus, the parable helps to shape and stabilize group identity within the experience of painful changing circumstances. Despite appearances, the final outcome will be good, as demonstrated with the fruit of the grain.
At the same time, the interpretation of these parables through the lens of social identity theory demonstrates that the parable alone might not be sufficient to reach these conclusions. If one wants to locate a deeper historical grounding, e.g., concerning the Q-community or the Matthean and Johannine community, one has to employ hypotheses of the social situation of these communities. In most of the cases, such information cannot be derived from the parable texts themselves, but only from the macro-text and historical-sociological constructions about their contextual setting. Such interconnected hypotheses have their own persuasive power but they are always subject to the hermeneutical suspicion that certain ideas and theories gain the upper hand over the text itself.
The commitment to polyvalent interpretation70 makes it easy to use social identity theory as a beneficial method for understanding parables. It must not claim to be a meta-method. Parables are metaphorical texts that cannot be transformed into propositions. They already have manifold meanings due to their figurative way of speaking and, therefore, applying manifold methods will be most appropriate to their form. As diverse as the results of polyvalent methods are, so also are the results of social identity theories, as we have seen, for example, in the retelling of the Mustard Seed in different contexts. One need not protest against this openness. It is one of the powers of the parable genre. It is this openness that ultimately leads to surprising growth and manifold fruit in reading these texts.
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London: Verso, 2006.
Assmann, Aleida. Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses. Munich: Beck, 1999.
Assmann, Jan. “Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität.” Pages 9–19 in Kultur und Gedächtnis. Edited by Jan Assmann and Tonio Hölscher. Frankfurt am Mein: Suhrkamp, 1988.
Assmann, Aleida, ed. Medien des Gedächtnisses. DVjs 72. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1998.
Assmann, Jan. “Das kulturelle Gedächtnis.” EWE 13 (2002): 239–247.
Assmann, Jan. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. 8th ed. Munich: Beck, 2018.
Baker, Coleman A. “Early Christian Identity Formation: From Ethnicity and Theology to Socio-Narrative Criticism.” CurBR 9.2 (2011): 228–237.
Baker, Coleman A. “A Narrative-Identity Model for Biblical Interpretation: The Role of Memory and Narrative in Social Identity Formation.” Pages 105–118 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Source Q. BEThL 274. Leuven: Peeters, 2015.
Beutler, Johannes. “Greeks Come to See Jesus (John 20:20f.).” Bib 71 (1990): 333–347.
Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 10th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
Byrskog, Samuel, Raimo Hakola and Jutta Maria Jokiranta, eds. Social Memory and Social Identity in the Study of Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.
Carter, Warren. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001.
Carter, Warren. “Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31–32).” Pages 181–201 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 231. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Cohen, Anthony B. Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge, 1985.
Cotter, Wendy. “The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: Their Function in the Earliest Stratum of Q.” TJT 8 (1992): 38–51.
Culpepper, R. Alan. “John 4:35–38. Harvest Proverbs in the Context of John’s Mission Theology.” Pages 199–218 in Expressions of the Johannine Kerygma in John 2:23–5:18: Historical, Literary, and Theological Readings from the Colloquium Ioanneum 2017 in Jerusalem. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and Jörg Frey. WUNT 423. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Parables of Growth.” ST 5 (1952): 132–166.
Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Vol. 2. Der Ackerbau. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932.
Dannenmann, Tanja. Emotion, Narration und Ethik: Zur ethischen Relevanz antizipatorischer Emotionen in Parabeln des Matthäus-Evangeliums. WUNT 2/498. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
Dettwiler, Andreas. “Das Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat (Mk 4,26–29) im Licht neuerer exegetischer Ansätze.” Pages 67–96 in Gleichnisse verstehen—im Gespräch mit Hans Weder. Edited by Jörg Frey und Esther Marie Joas. BThSt 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.
Dodd, Charles H. The Parables of the Kingdom. Rev. ed. New York: Scribner, 1961.
Draper, Jonathan A. “Holy Seed and the Return of the Diaspora in John 12:24.” Neot 34 (2000): 347–359.
Ebner, Martin. “Überwindung eines „tödlichen“ Lebens: Paradoxien zu Leben und Tod in den Jesusüberlieferungen.” JBTh 19 (2004): 79–100.
Erll, Astrid. “Einleitung.” Pages iii–iix in Literatur, Erinnerung, Identität: Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien. Edited by Astrid Erll and Marion Gymnich. Trier: WVT, 2003.
Erll, Astrid, and Ansgar Nünning, eds. Medien des Kollektiven Gedächtnisses: Konstruktivität—Historizität—Kulturspezifität. MCM 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.
Erll, Astrid and Klaudia Seibel. “Gattungen, Formtraditionen und kulturelles Gedächtnis.” Pages 180–208 in Erzähltextanalyse und Gender Studies. Edited by Vera Nünning and Ansgar Nünning. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2004.
Esler, Philip F. Galatians. London: Routledge, 1998.
Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Esler, Philip F. “An Outline of Social Identity Theory.” Pages 13–39 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Esler, Philip F. 2 Corinthians: A Social Identity Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2021.
Frey, Jörg. “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder: Zu Gestalt und Funktion der Rede von den Heiden im 4. Evangelium.” Pages 228–268 in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden. Edited by Reinhard Feldmeier und Ulrich Heckel. WUNT 70. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994.
Funk, Robert W. “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds.” Int 27 (1973): 3–9.
Giebel, Marion. “Weizenkorn und Weinstock: Todesüberwindung in antiken Mysterienkulten.” JBTh 19 (2004): 245–257.
Hakola, Raimo. Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness. NovTSup 118. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Hakola, Raimo. Reconsidering Johannine Christianity: A Social Identity Approach. London: Taylor & Francis, 2021.
Halbwachs, Maurice. Das Gedächtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2006.
Herzog II, William R. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Hogg, Michael A., Zachary P. Hohman and Jason E. Rivera. “Why do People Join Groups? Three Motivational Accounts from Social Psychology.” SPPC 2 (2008): 1269–1280.
Horrell, David G. Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity. LNTS 394. London: T&T Clark, 2013.
Horrell, David G. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.
Huebenthal, Sandra. “Communicative Memory”; “Cultural Memory”; “Social Memory.” Pages 66, 69–70, 368–369 in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media. Edited by Tom Thatcher et al. London: Bloomsbury, 2017.
Huebenthal, Sandra. Reading the Gospel of Mark as a Text from Collective Memory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.
Jones, Ivor H. The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary. NovTSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Kogler, Franz. Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Urkirche. FB 59. Würzburg: Echter, 1988.
Lampe-Densky, Sigrid. “Die größere Hoffnung—Gleichnis vom Senfkorn—Markus 4,30–32.” Pages 202–210 in Gott ist anders: Gleichnisse neu gelesen auf der Basis der Auslegung von Luise Schottroff. Edited by Marlene Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen and Ulrike Metternich. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014.
Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB 54. Bonn: Hanstein, 1980.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
McArthur, Harvey K. “Parable of the Mustard Seed.” CBQ 33 (1971): 198–210.
McIver, Robert K. “The Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43) and the Relationship between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.” JBL 114 (1995): 643–659.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew. Vol. 5. Probing the Authenticity of the Parables. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.
Müller, Mogens. “Die Zeit der Kirche als die Zeit göttlicher Langmut. Der Taumellolch im Weizenfeld und seine Deutung (Mt 13,24–30.36–43).” ZNW 109 (2018): 284–294.
Ottenheijm, Eric. “Waiting for the Harvest: Trajectories of Rabbinic and ‘Christian’ Parables.” Pages 314–336 in Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Tamar Kadari, Marcel Poorthuis, and Vered Tohar. JCP 31. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Ottenheijm, Eric and Marcel Poorthuis, eds. Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays on the Study of the Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. JCP 35. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Ricœur, Paul. Das Selbst als ein anderer. Munich: Fink, 1996.
Ricœur, Paul. Zeit und Erzählung. 3 vols. Munich: Fink, 1988–1991.
Ricœur, Paul. “Narrative Identität.” Pages 209–225 in Vom Text zur Person. Hermeneutische Aufsätze (1970–1999). Edited and translated by Peter Welsen, Hamburg: Meiner, 2005.
Roth, Dieter T. The Parables in Q. London: T&T Clark, 2018.
Ruiz, Rodríguez M. Der Missionsgedanke im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie. FB 55. Würzburg: Echter, 1987.
Schenke, Ludger. Das Johannesevangelium: Vom Wohnen Gottes unter uns. Freiburg: Herder, 2018.
Scott, Bernard Brandon. “Parables of Growth Revisited: Notes on the Current State of Parable Research.” BTB 11 (1981): 3–9.
Smith, Eliot R., and Michael A. Zarate. “Exemplar and Prototype Use in Social Categorization.” SC 8 (1990): 243–262.
Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Strong, Justin D. The Fables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke: A New Paradigm for the Study of Parables. SCCB 5. Paderborn: Brill, 2021.
Tajfel, Henri, et al.“Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour.” EJSP 1 (1971): 149–178.
Tajfel, Henri. “Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison.” Pages 61–76 in Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Edited by Henri Tajfel. London: Academic Press, 1978.
Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. “Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour.” Pages 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Edited by Stephan Worchel and William G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986.
Theissen, Gerd. “Der Bauer und die von selbst Frucht bringende Erde. Naiver Synergismus in Mk 4,26–29?” ZNW 85 (1994): 167–182.
Tiwald, Markus. Kommentar zur Logienquelle. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019.
Tucker, Brian J., and Coleman A. Baker, eds. T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Van Eck, Ernest. “When Kingdoms Are Kingdoms No More: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Mustard Seed (Lk 13:18–19).” AcT 33 (2013): 226–254.
Van Eck, Ernest. The Parables of Jesus the Galilean: Stories of a Social Prophet. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016.
Von Gemünden, Petra. Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Eine Bildfelduntersuchung. NTOA 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Von Gemünden, Petra. “Ausreißen oder wachsen lassen? (Vom Unkraut unter dem Weizen) Mt 13,24–30.36–43 (EvThom 57).” Pages 405–419 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann et al. 2nd ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Memory and Form Criticism: The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge Between Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process.” Pages 130–143 in The Interface of Orality and Writing. Edited by Annette Weissenrieder and Bernhard Cootte. WUNT 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Are there Parables in John? It Is Time to Revisit the Question.” JSHJ 9 (2011): 243–276.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “The Parables of Jesus as Media of Collective Memory. Making Sense of the Shaping of New Genres in Early Christianity, with Special Focus on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1–12).” Pages 23–44 in Making Sense as Cultural Practice: Historical Perspectives. Edited by Jörg Rogge. MHCS 18. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2013.
Zimmermann, Ruben, et al. Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. 2nd ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015.
Zimmermann, Ruben. Puzzling the Parables. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Parables in Matthew: Tradition, Interpretation and Function in the Gospel.” Pages 159–185 in An Early Reader of Mark and Q. Edited by Gilbert van Belle and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Memory and Jesus’ Parables. J.P. Meier’s Explosion and the Restoration of the ‘Bedrock’ Of Jesus’ Speech.” JSHJ 16 (2018): 156–172.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Shared Labor—Twice the Joy! The Harvest Parable in John 4:35–38.” In Breaking New Ground in John. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming.
Zingg, Paul. Das Wachsen der Kirche: Beiträge zur Frage der lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie. OBO 3. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
Dieter Roth, for instance, counts twenty-four parables in the sayings source Q, see Dieter T. Roth, The Parables in Q (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 20–21.
See Ruben Zimmermann, “The Parables of Jesus as Media of Collective Memory: Making Sense of the Shaping of New Genres in Early Christianity, with Special Focus on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12),” in Making Sense as Cultural Practice: Historical Perspectives, ed. Jörg Rogge, MHCS 18 (Bielefeld: Transcript, 2013), 23–44.
Philip F. Esler, Galatians (London: Routledge, 1998); Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); Philip F. Esler, 2 Corinthians: A Social Identity Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2021); David G. Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity, LNTS 394 (London: T&T Clark, 2013); David G. Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020); Raimo Hakola, Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness, NovTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Hakola, Reconsidering Johannine Christianity: A Social Identity Approach (London: Taylor & Francis, 2021); see also the comprehensive volume J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker, eds., T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).
Henri Tajfel, “Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison,” in Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Henri Tajfel (London: Academic Press, 1978), 63.
See the overview in Philip F. Esler, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory,” in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 13–39.
Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner, “Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephan Worchel and William G. Austin (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986), 13.
Michael A. Hogg, Zachary P. Hohman and Jason E. Rivera, “Why do People Join Groups? Three Motivational Accounts from Social Psychology,” SPPC 2 (2008): 1273–1274.
See Coleman A. Baker, “A Narrative-Identity Model for Biblical Interpretation: The Role of Memory and Narrative in Social Identity Formation,” in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 109, who follows Eliot R. Smith and Michael A. Zarate, “Exemplar and Prototype Use in Social Categorization,” SC 8 (1990): 243–262.
See Anthony B. Cohen, Symbolic Construction of Community (London: Routledge, 1985).
See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006).
Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6.
See with regard to New Testament text the volume Samuel Byrskog, Raimo Hakola and Jutta Maria Jokiranta, eds. Social Memory and Social Identity in the Study of Early Judaism and Early Christianity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016); Sandra Huebenthal, Reading the Gospel of Mark as a Text from Collective Memory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020).
See Maurice Halbwachs, Das Gedächtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2006).
See the summary in Sandra Huebenthal, “Communicative Memory”; “Cultural Memory”; “Social Memory,” in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media, ed. Tom Thatcher et al. (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 66, 69–70, 368–369.
Aleida Assmann, ed., Medien des Gedächtnisses, DVjs 72 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1998); Astrid Erll, Ansgar Nünning, ed., Medien des kollektiven Gedächtnisses: Konstruktivität—Historizität—Kulturspezifität, MCM 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004).
Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen, 8th ed. (Munich: Beck, 2018).
See Aleida Assmann, Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses (Munich: Beck, 1999), 236–242; see Zimmermann, “Collective Memory,” 24.
Assmann, Erinnerungsräume, 239.
See Astrid Erll and Klaudia Seibel, “Gattungen, Formtraditionen und kulturelles Gedächtnis,” in Erzähltextanalyse und Gender Studies, ed. Vera Nünning and Ansgar Nünning (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2004), 189: “Wiedergebrauchs-Formen sind daher bedeutungsgeladene Träger von Ideologien des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, d.h. von Vergangenheitsversionen, Geschichtsbildern, Konzepten kollektiver Identität sowie von Wert- und Normvorstellungen.” Jan Assmann spoke of “Wiedergebrauchs-Texten, -Bildern und -Riten” (“re-use texts, images and rituals”), see Jan Assmann, “Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität,” in Kultur und Gedächtnis, ed. Jan Assmann and Tonio Hölscher (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988), 15.
Astrid Erll, “Einleitung,” in Literatur, Erinnerung, Identität: Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien, ed. Astrid Erll and Marion Gymnich (Trier: WVT, 2003), iii–ix, v.
The concept of “narrative identity” is expressed most precisely in the work Soi-même comme un autre, see Paul Ricœur, Das Selbst als ein anderer (Munich: Fink, 1996), 141–160 (“Personale und narrative Identität”) and 173–206 (“Das Selbst und die narrative Identität”); see also Paul Ricœur, “Narrative Identität,” in Vom Text zur Person. Hermeneutische Aufsätze (1970–1999), ed. and trans. Peter Welsen (Hamburg: Meiner, 2005), 209–225.
See the overview in Paul Ricœur, Zeit und Erzählung, vol. 1, Zeit und historische Erzählung (Munich: Fink, 1988), 87–135, as well as the entire structure of the three-volume work Paul Ricœur, Zeit und Erzählung, 3 vols. (Munich: Fink, 1988–1991).
Ricœur, Zeit und Erzählung, 2:395.
See Ruben Zimmermann, “Memory and Form Criticism: The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge Between Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process,” in The Interface of Orality and Writing, ed. Annette Weissenrieder and Bernhard Cootte, WUNT 260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 130–143; and Zimmermann, “Collective Memory,” 23–44.
See on the close relation to fables recently Justin D. Strong, The Fables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke: A New Paradigm for the Study of Parables, SCCB 5 (Paderborn: Brill, 2021); on the various overlaps between parables in different traditions see Eric Ottenheijm and Marcel Poorthuis, eds., Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays on the Study of the Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, JCP 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2020).
See Ruben Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 137.
See along these lines Ernest van Eck, The Parables of Jesus the Galilean: Stories of a Social Prophet (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 314: “The parables of Jesus the social prophet were about the kingdom, a ‘society’ that posed a real threat to Rome’s and the temple’s rule.”
William R. Herzog II, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 261.
See Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Parables of Growth,” ST 5 (1952): 132–166.
See Bernard Brandon Scott, “Parables of Growth Revisited: Notes on the Current State of Parable Research,” BTB 11 (1981): 3–9.
See Dahl, “Parables of Growth,” 150: “The parable of the drag-net … does not properly belong to the parables of growth, but its connection with the parable of tares makes it natural to treat it in this connection.”
See Petra von Gemünden, Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Eine Bildfelduntersuchung, NTOA 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 50–54.
See on harvest parables in the rabbinic tradition and their intertextual connection to New Testament texts Eric Ottenheijm, “Waiting for the Harvest: Trajectories of Rabbinic and ‘Christian’ Parables,” in Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Tamar Kadari, Marcel Poorthuis, and Vered Tohar, JCP 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 314–336.
Dodd, for instance, highlights the “realized eschatology” (Charles H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. [New York: Scribner, 1961], 176); Scott applied literary theories, in particular metaphorology (Scott, “Parables of Growth Revisited,” 3–9); Gerd Theissen prefers an ethical reading, see Gerd Theissen, “Der Bauer und die von selbst Frucht bringende Erde. Naiver Synergismus in Mk 4,26–29?” ZNW 85 (1994): 167–182. Van Eck points to the political dimension, see Van Eck, The Parables of Jesus, 79–83. Focussing on the self growing seed also Andreas Dettwiler, “Das Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat (Mk 4,26-29) im Licht neuerer exegetischer Ansätze,” in Gleichnisse verstehen—im Gespräch mit Hans Weder, ed. Jörg Frey und Esther Marie Joas, BThSt 175 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 67–96.
There are different explanations for the tradition history of this parable: Some argue for an oral tradition behind the different versions, see Harvey K. McArthur, “Parable of the Mustard Seed,” CBQ 33 (1971): 209 n201; others for different stages of a literal development, see, for instance, Ivor H. Jones, The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary, NovTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 322–328.
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 5, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 230–240. According to Meier “the parable also meets the criterion of coherence” (239).
See my argument addressing Meier in Ruben Zimmermann, “Memory and Jesus’ Parables. J.P. Meier’s Explosion and the Restoration of the ‘Bedrock’ Of Jesus’ Speech,” JSHJ 16 (2018): 156–172.
See for details Roth, Parables in Q, 39–44.
See for details to the following Ruben Zimmermann, “Parables in Matthew: Tradition, Interpretation and Function in the Gospel,” in Early Reader of Mark and Q, ed. Gilbert van Belle and Joseph Verheyden, BTS 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 169–171.
See on the following, Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 241.
See Roth, Parables in Q, 301.
See, for instance, Matt 6:34 (Tree and Fruits).
Markus Tiwald, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019), 141: “Auch wenn die Anfänge bescheiden sind (kleines Senfkorn, kleines Stück Sauerteig), so wird dennoch die Wirkung unaufhaltsam und groß sein.”
See Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 245–247.
See Giovanni Battista Bazzana, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Source Q, BEThL 274 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015).
In the Q parable, Cotter looks at the Q-group that must be strengthened in view of the hostilities during the mission. See Wendy Cotter, “The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven: Their Function in the Earliest Stratum of Q,” TJT 8 (1992): 45–48. That is also often the interpretation of Matt 13:31–32; e.g., Paul Zingg, Das Wachsen der Kirche: Beiträge zur Frage der lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie, OBO 3 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 106–107.
See 1 En. 90:30, 33, 37; Midr. Ps. 104:10, to that Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 324: “These intertextual linkages suggest that the birds in our parable may symbolize Gentiles” (331). For Snodgrass these readings are allegorical interpretations: “None of this has much basis.” (Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018], 223).
Thus, for example, an almost missionary-ecclesiastic interpretation in Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 2nd ed (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 395: “the tiny seed has grown into a remarkably large mustard bush, but to this day it is no majestic cedar tree … God is still planting seeds around the world” (395). Referring to Peter Jones, he warns of a “too numerous” or “powerful” church: “Respect the infinitude of the little. Obsession with size is obscene.”
There are later references to this motif in 2 Bar 36:39–40 (with reference to Ezek 17) and in 1 En. 90:30–33 (here particularly the eschatological collection of animals and birds but without the motif of the tree); 1QH 14:14–16; 16:4–9; the Qumran texts are fully quoted in Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 217.
Dan 4:7–9.11.18f.; Ezek 17:22–24 and Ezek 31:6 (see also 1QHa 16:4–9) all speak of the image of a tree and the birds living in its boughs. In each case, the interpretation is a king and his reign. In Dan 4:1–34, it is the Babylonian king, in Ezek 17:1–24, the king of Israel and in Ezek 31:1–18, the Pharaoh, see for details Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 247–251.
See Warren Carter, “Mustard Seed,” 198. Robert Funk also reads the parable against the OT kingdom symbolism, see Robert Funk, “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds,” Int 27 (1973): 3–9. Ernest van Eck, on the contrary, although arguing for a political reading, denies any allusion to these Old Testament traditions (Van Eck, “When Kingdoms Are Kingdoms No More: A Social-Scientific Reading of the Mustard Seed (Lk 13:18–19),” AcT 33 [2013]: 242; Van Eck, Parables, 80), in order to avoid any eschatological reading of the parable.
See along this line also the interpretation and sermon by Sigrid Lampe-Densky, “Die größere Hoffnung—Gleichnis vom Senfkorn—Markus 4,30–32,” in Gott ist anders: Gleichnisse neu gelesen auf der Basis der Auslegung von Luise Schottroff, ed. Marlene Crüsemann, Claudia Janssen, and Ulrike Metternich (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014), 202–210.
See these terms for the differentiation Robert K. McIver, “The Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43) and the Relationship between the Kingdom and the Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” JBL 114 (1995): 644–653.
See Petra von Gemünden, “Ausreißen oder wachsen lassen? (Vom Unkraut unter dem Weizen) Mt 13,24–30.36–43 (EvThom 57),” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al., 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), 408.
See on emotions and ethics in parables: Tanja Dannenmann, Emotion, Narration und Ethik. Zur ethischen Relevanz antizipatorischer Emotionen in Parabeln des Matthäus-Evangelium, WUNT 2/498 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019).
See Rudolf, Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 10th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 203.
Mogens Müller, “Die Zeit der Kirche als die Zeit göttlicher Langmut. Der Taumellolch im Weizenfeld und seine Deutung (Mt 13,24–30.36–43),” ZNW 109 (2018): 289.
Müller, “Zeit der Kirche,” 293: “Es geht in diesem Gleichnis schlichtweg nicht um Kirchenzucht, sondern darum, eine Erklärung zu geben für die augenscheinlich beängstigende Passivität des erhöhten Menschensohnes Jesus gegenüber bösen Elementen in seiner Gemeinde.”
See Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001).
See Ruben Zimmermann, “Are there Parables in John? It Is Time to Revisit the Question,” JSHJ 9 (2011): 243–276.
See Ruben Zimmermann et al., Kompendium der Gleichnisse, 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), 709.
Epictetus states that the seed “is buried” (
See Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 352–354.
See for details Ruben Zimmermann, “Shared Labor—Twice the Joy! The Harvest Parable in John 4:35–38” in Breaking New Ground in John, ed. Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming), see also R. Alan Culpepper, “John 4:35–38. Harvest Proverbs in the Context of John’s Mission Theology,” in Expressions of the Johannine Kerygma in John 2:23–5:18: Historical, Literary, and Theological Readings from the Colloquium Ioanneum 2017 in Jerusalem, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Jörg Frey, WUNT 423 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 199–218.
See Rodríguez M. Ruiz, Der Missionsgedanke im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie, FB 55 (Würzburg: Echter, 1987), 189–190; also Jörg Frey, “Heiden—Griechen—Gotteskinder: Zu Gestalt und Funktion der Rede von den Heiden im 4. Evangelium,” in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden, ed. Reinhard Feldmeier und Ulrich Heckel, WUNT 70 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 260.
Frey, “Heiden,” 255; differently Jonathan Draper, “Holy Seed and the Return of the Diaspora in John 12:24,” Neot 34 (2000): 347–359, who, with a targumic reading of Isa 6:13, has Diaspora Jews in view.
Marion Giebel, “Weizenkorn und Weinstock: Todesüberwindung in antiken Mysterienkulten,” JBTh 19 (2004): 250.
Martin Ebner, “Überwindung eines ‚tödlichen‘ Lebens: Paradoxien zu Leben und Tod in den Jesusüberlieferungen,” JBTh 19 (2004): 95.
Frey, “Heiden,” 251–253; Johannes Beutler, “Greeks Come to See Jesus (John 20:20f.),” Bib 71 (1990): 333–347.
See Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables, 163–174.