Keith Watkins

Stories That Change the World

A Response to The Power of Parable:
How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction
about Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan

E arly in his academic career, John Dominic Crossan developed an interest in par-
ables, which resulted in a book, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus
(published in 1973). Four decades later, he continues these studies in The Power of
Parable ((New York: HarperOne, 2012) in which he uses parable as the primary
method for understanding the content and character of Jesuss message. He then
employs this literary form to develop master narratives for the four gospel accounts
and inspire his critique of the ways that the gospel writers reshaped Jesuss message
in response to theological and political challenges they were encountering.

Response to The Power of Parable
Most of this review consists of a prcis of Crossans book that I have prepared in
order to understand and remember his thesis and the way he develops it. Before
offering this personal summary, however, I want to indicate my general response to
the book. Crossan shows how fiction and fact often are woven together, sometimes
wittingly and often unwittingly, so that they can serve as metaphorical narratives.
Crossans analysis of one set of writings suggests a way to recognize a similar pro-
cess in many other writings in academic history, secular literature, and religious
literature. Although Crossan believes that the historicity of narratives is an im-
portant issue to be settled, he makes it possible for readers to suspend temporarily
the need for historical validation of narratives in order to recognize their parabolic
functions. Not only does this approach help Christians understand the character and
power of their religious tradition, but it also provides a way to understand literature
that is outside of their experience, such as the Quran and Book of Mormon.

_________________

Keith Watkins writes on history, theology, and bicycling.
He lives in Vancouver, Washington, just north of the Columbia
River from Portland, Oregon. hkwatkins@mac.com
Copyright 2012 Keith Watkins
Crossan on Parables 2

While reading the book, however, I kept wondering if Crossan proves too much.
His discussion of parabolic form and the various kinds of parable are convincing and
helpful. His claim that the four gospel accounts are also parables, however, shifts the
conversation into a more speculative mode. This, too, I find helpful, but interesting
rather than convincing. Despite this hesitation about The Power of Parable, Crossans
exposition will henceforth provide a framework for my personal and public use and
interpretation of parables in the Bible.

Prcis of the Book
Early in the book, Crossan states the generative questions that inspire its outline:
Where does factual history end and fictional parable begin? Does that interaction of
fact interpreted by fiction, of history interpreted by parable, of human event inter-
preted by divine vision extend to the full content of a gospel? Could that be why we
have only one gospel given in multiple versions? (p. 5)
Crossan draws upon a wide range of ancient literature as well as the Bible in order
to develop his definition of parable as a literary form and then develop a threefold
typology of parable. In his Epilogue, he summarizes the elements of the parabolic
form that he has previously identified in the literature. 1) It is a story, a tensive
sequence of beginning, middle, and end in a narrative that lures you into its plotted
microworld to participate as an outsider-insider. 2) Metaphor is seeing as and
metaphors extend from most trivial clichsto imagining worlds and proposing
reality itself. 3) A parable is a metaphoric story and, as such, it tends to generate a
special mode of participation by hearers or readers. 4) Metaphors can function in
three modesas riddle, as example, and as challenge.
Riddle Parables: These parables are lethal stories with profound consequences,
with Samsons parable (sweeter than honey, stronger than a lion) as an example.
Crossan uses the parable of the sower in Mark 4 as an example. As Mark presents it,
this parable is intended to be used as the model for all of the parables. It showsthe
dire consequence of rejecting Jesus. Crossan compares Marks presentation of this
parable with Lukes, noting that Luke gives it a better ending, and concluding that
Marks preference for riddle parables was his own understanding and that Jesus had
a different intention that was better shown in Luke.
Example Parables: These metaphorical stories are presented as moral models or
ethical stories that consciously and deliberately point metaphorically beyond them-
selvesfrom one clear context to far, far wider implications and applications (p.
30). Crossan uses the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin in Luke 15 as exam-
ples, and then connects them with the parable of the lost son (prodigal son) to drive
the point home. He also calls attention to the different presentation of the lost sheep
Crossan on Parables 3

in Matthew to support his claim that the tight fit of the story and the context as
Luke presents this material may have been Lukes contribution rather than an exact
description of how Jesus used this parable and the others that he also told.
Challenge Parables: A challenge parable challenges us to think, to discuss, to ar-
gue, and to decide about meaning as present application (p. 47). Crossan uses the
parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 to develop his ideas. He distinguishes the
story itself from the setting that Luke gives it and then shows post-biblical interpre-
tations in which it appears as riddle, example, and challenge. He then goes back to
the gospels and does some fancy reconstruction, first separating the story from the
social context that Luke gives it and then inserting it into the social context in which
Jesus lived. In that context, Samaritans were outsiders Crossan believes that this
story becomes an example story only in Lukes context and interpretation. Rather,
it is better understood as a challenge parable, a story that challenges listeners to
think long and hard about their social prejudices, their cultural presuppositions,
and, yes, even their most sacred religious traditions (62).
Although all three forms of the parable can be seen in Scripture and in the gospel
accounts of Jesus, Crossan is primarily interest in challenge parables, both the short
ones and the book-length parables such as Ruth, Jonah, and Job in the Old Testament
and the hour-long oral ones of Jesus in the New Testament. These case studies,
Crossan points out, emphasize the oblique and indirect, the delicate and gentle way
in which great sweeping absolutes of habit and custom, law and culture, presump-
tion, presupposition, and prejudice were subverted by simple parabolic narrative
that recorded a single, but different vision (p. 244).
This transformation of vision comes into focus in Crossans discussion of the rela-
tion of Jesus to John the Baptist and of their respective messages concerning the
kingdom of God. My interpretation, Crossan writes, is that Jesus watched, Jesus
learned, and Jesus changed, because of what happened to John. The Baptist had an-
nounced the imminent advent of God, but God did not come. John was executed, and
God did not intervene to prevent his martyrdom. In response, Jesus radically rein-
terpreted eschatonwhat was it to be?apocalypsewhen was it to be?and
messiahwho was it to be? He changed his understanding not only about the king-
dom of God, but about the God of the kingdom. When he finally spoke with is own
vision and his own voice, Jesus differed profoundly from John by proclaiming a par-
adigm shift within their contemporary Jewish apocalyptic eschatology (p. 125).
Crossan proposes that the primary pedagogical tool that Jesus used to present his
new message was the challenge parable. In summary, therefore, Jesuss challenge
parables are not only profoundly appropriate, but even rhetorically necessary as a
collaborative invitation for a collaborative eschaton and as a participatory invitation
for a participatory kingdom of God. They are equally necessary as a nonviolent me-
Crossan on Parables 4

dium for a nonviolent message. They are short stories that delicately subvert the
great story of the Bible. They do not deny it or even destroy it. But, as word against
the word, their quiet voices remind us that the Bible is still our story about God
rather than Gods story about us (p. 136).
It becomes clear that Crossan has a second purpose in mind, which is to provide a
new framework for understanding the four canonical versions of the one Gospel of
Jesus Christ. His transitional section uses seven accounts of Caesars crossing the
Rubicon as an illustration of how one set of historical facts can give rise to sharply
different accounts and interpretations. He describes three of the ancient accounts of
a momentous event in Roman history as factual and four as parabolic. In the latter
group the facts of the event are intertwined with meanings that have significant
moral and political import, so much so that the facts tend to blur in the mind while
the metaphorical meaning becomes the memorable aspect.
Crossan proposes that this same intermixture of fact and fictionparable is the
neutral wordis at work in the four gospels, each of which, he believes, is a chal-
lenge parable that aims in two directions. First, they challenge the existing empire,
the world of the caesars. Second, they challenge the inner life of the church, and this
challenge, Crossan believes, is the more important. He notes that the earliest of the
four gospels was written around the year 70, forty years after the events it de-
scribes. He is persuaded that each of the gospels is an example of parabolic history,
with challenge as the primary character of the story. Three of the gospel megapara-
bles, however, move progressively along the line, which Crossan finds distressing,
from challenge to attack.
Mark: Crossan focuses his exposition of Marks parabolic approach on 8:22-10:52. It
is framed, he points out, with twin stories about Jesuss healing blindness, and inside
of the frame there are three cases of unhealedor, better, unhealableblindness.
If Jesus successfully heals blind outsiders in 8:22-26 and 10:46-52, he fails disas-
trously to heal blind insidersthe Twelvein 8:31-10:45 (163). This is Crossans
summary of the message of the gospel according to Mark:
In all of thatfrom Mark 10 through Mark 16the named ones fail where the un-
named ones succeed. But gender is evenly balanced. The twelve named males and
the three named females fail. But the unnamed female and the unnamed male suc-
ceed. The issue is not gender, but name. Marks parabolic challenge to and within
Christianity is an exaltation of leaders who liberate over leaders who dominate, a
transcendence of charismatic over institutional leadership, and a hymn for the
nameless over the named (172).
Matthew: Crossan shows that Matthew begins with Jesus using the challenge form
of parable, with Matthew 5 as the primary example. Later in the gospel, however,
with Matthew 23 the primary example, this gospel writer shows Jesus using attack
Crossan on Parables 5

parables. Crossan believes that the shift in parabolic type has to be attributed to
Matthew rather than to Jesus, and he proposes an explanation. At the time this gos-
pel was written, an intra-familial clash in Judaism was taking place, between
Christian-Jewish scribes and Pharisaic-Jewish scribes. Following the Roman de-
struction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the centrality of priests and sacrifice in the Temple
was replacedforeverby that of rabbis and study of the Torah (p. 193). At this
point, Matthew probably considered himself as still part of the Jewish community;
thus the debate as to who were the faithful teachers of the Torah and guardians of
the tradition would have been an issue of critical importance.
Luke-Acts: On the basis of archaeological studies, Crossan believes that there were
three classes of people related to Judaism: Jews, Gentiles converted to Judaism
(which meant that the males were circumcised), and God-fearersGentiles who,
while remaining as suchthat is if males, uncircumcisedhad accepted Jewish mono-
theism and Jewish morality and regularly attended the synagogue (p. 198). In one
Roman city, evidence can be adduced to show that 43% of the contributing mem-
bers were in this third classification. There was, Crossan concludes, a very signifi-
cant middle way or third option between being Jew (both born and converted) and
Gentile. Crossan concludes that Luke had been one of these in the third or middle
way.
Crossan locates the writing of this two-part gospel at the time when serious ques-
tions were arising concerning the privileged status that Jews had enjoyed in the
Empire. Contrary to what had been required of adherents to other religions, Jews
had been allowed to continue practicing their religion in relative openness. As long
as Christians were considered to be Jews, they enjoyed these protections, too. As
they emerged from this Jewish umbrella, however, the issues arose as to who they
really were and should they be allowed to enjoy the Jewish protections. The fun-
damental response, Crossan writes, is that Christians were now the only true Jews,
because Jews rejected their own Messiah and therefore their destiny. Accordingly,
Christians should be full heirs to all those ancient privileges and religious exemp-
tions once given alone to Judaism. Christianity is, says Luke-Acts, the true Judaism,
the only valid continuity of that ancient and revered religion and not the arrival of
some upstart new religion (p. 213).
A key passage indicating the use of attack parables against the synagogue is Luke
4:16-30. The conclusion of the story appears in Acts 23:23 ff. when Paul is taken into
Roman custody in Jerusalem. The climax is that Paul openly preaches the gospel in
Rome without hindrance. In contrast to Jewish insider Matthew, Luke is a convert-
ed Gentile God-worshiper. For him, the present validity in Judaism comes only as
it is absorbed into and thereby replaced by Christianity (p. 216). Luke-Acts is an
attack on Judaism and a challenge to Rome.
Crossan on Parables 6

John: Crossan suggests that John was a Samaritan who converted to Christianity,
which would explain why he knew so much about Judaism but was clearly outside
it and against the Jews (p. 241). Crossan comes to this conclusion about Johns
gospel: Johns megaparable is, in conclusion, both an attack parable directed
against and from outside Judaismlike Luke-Actsbut also, and even more so, a
challenge parable directed against but from inside Christianitylike Mark. It is also,
as are all the gospels in their different ways, a challenge parable to the Roman Em-
pireIt does not simply request noninterference as Christianity replaces Judaism
with Roman approval. It is not about accommodation with Romes violence, but
about replacement or transformation of that imperial normalcy (p. 242).
Throughout this book, Crossan shows that both fictional stories and historical ac-
counts can serve as the carrier of parabolic metaphors. Does it make any difference,
he asks, if the narrative is true? The question arises because parables involve fic-
tional characters in fictional stories (challenge stories by Jesus) and factual charac-
ters in fictional stories (gospel stories about Jesus). A third possibility is fictional
characters in factual stories. Did Jesus really exist, and does it make any difference
to faith?
Crossan presents his reasons for believing that Jesus did exist and then shows how
historically reliable details have been intertwined with fictional elements that to-
gether serve as the narrative base for parables about Jesus. I conclude that Jesus
really existed, that we can know the significant sequence of his lifefrom John the
Baptist to Pilate the prefectbut that he comes to us trailing clouds of fiction, para-
bles by him and about him, particular incidents as miniparables and whole gospels
as megaparables (251).
Whether or not Jesus actually lived and embodied the central message of these par-
ables, the vision they provide for the kingdom of God would be compelling. In a simi-
lar way, the message of Martin Luther King, Jr., would be a compelling vision for
America even if King had never lived. If King had been fictional rather than real,
however, the message could be dismissed with the offhand comment that it was all
very lovely, but would not worknot now, not here, and maybe not anywhere.
Because King was a real person who really lived the way his vision anticipated, we
have no choice but to say that others can do it too.
The power of Jesuss parables challenged and enabled his followers to co-create
with God a world of justice and love, peace and nonviolence. The power of Jesuss
historical life challenged his followers by proving at least one human being could
cooperate fully with God. And if one, why not others? If some, why not all? (p. 252).