Michele Schafer
Synoptic Gospels
February 15, 2000

Critical Review of Donahue, John R. The Gospel in Parable. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998.

Parables "are ever old and ever new and resist capture by any one movement or period" (ix). John R. Donahue exemplifies this understanding throughout his work, The Gospel in Parable. His goal is to "wed recent parable study to the results of redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels" (ix). He wants the reader to study and research in order to find the challenges that the parables offer people today. He explains this process by exploring the genre of parable, metaphor, and narrative. His study focuses on parables as "texts in the literary and theological context of a given Gospel" (x). He also intertwines into his research suggestions for proclaiming parables today.

This critique of Donahue's work will highlight his understanding of parable as it was influenced by the work of Adolf Julicher, C. H. Dodd & and other scholars. It will touch specifically on the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Mark in order to flush out some of the details in the Sower parable. It will give parable-preaching suggestions and finally a critique of the book will conclude the paper.

"Through its concreteness the language of Jesus captures our attention, through its rhythmic cadences it resonates in our memories, and through its puzzles and enigmas it engages our quest for understanding" (2). This is the feel of the parable genre in the Synoptic Gospels. Yet, what classifies the parabolic structure? What are the terms of that classification? In general Donahue's parable study combines the approaches of the rhetorical, literary and aesthetic criticism (20). In addition, parables are also polyvalence, they have the "ability to admit multiple interpretations" (17).

Donahue uses the concepts of Julicher, C. H. Dodd, Wilder, Funk, Ricoeur and Crossan to mold his understanding of a parable. First, as background information, Julicher revolutionized the study of parables when he broke the parable from the set allegory interpretation. He believed that the parables' "point or meaning must be sought in the historical context of the teaching of Jesus" (7). This concept was very influential on the study of the parable. Keeping this in mind, Donahue starts with Dodd's definition of parable as a "metaphor or simile drawn from nature . . . leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought" (5). Dodd's definition "involves literary observation that spawn a theological reflection" (6). Wilder stressed the need to look at the "aesthetics of biblical language" in the interpretation of the metaphor (9). Funk takes the metaphor concept and highlights the juxtaposed elements that stir up the imagination of that which cannot be expressed in word (9). Ricoeur combines the metaphoric process and the narrative for Julicher and other scholars are "not open enough to the power of allegory" (12). The important thing to do is to distinguish between proper and improper interpretation of allegories not automatically ruling them out (12).

Through Jesus the "ordinary has gone askew and thereby shocks us into realizing that the parables lead into another way of thinking about life" (10). As was briefly touched on above, Donahue's book gives many examples and scholarly insights to uncover the gift of the parabolic message. He challenges his readers to broaden themselves by studying many different scholars. One can tell he practices what he preaches from the breath of his citations.

Donahue uses the above information to help sort through the parables of the Synoptic Gospels. He labels the fourth chapter of Mark as a block of resources teaching about the kingdom of God (29). His structure analysis is close to that of Jan Lambrecht's ABCBA form. Donahue breaks it down further to an ABCDCBA structure. His focus is on the "concentric parallelism of the parable text" (31), 4:1-3 and 4:33-34 introduction and conclusion, 4:3-9 and 4: 26 -32 the Sower parable and the seed parable, 4:10-12 and 4:21-25 reason for speaking in parables and enigmatic sayings and D stands alone as the allegory of the seeds. These verses match very closely both in number of verses and words per verse. It is stressed that this parable is polyvalent. Dodd's interpretation is that Jesus is saying now is the time to reap the harvest. Jeremias emphasizes that what God has started will still succeed even though failure seems more prevalent. Crossan stresses the miracle of the harvest and the need to recognize the gift of the harvest (33).

A goal of all this research would be to make the parables come alive in the sermon as it was originally shared. This is very difficult because exegesis "cannot exhaust those possibilities of fruitful interpretation and appropriation which extend the original meaning of the text (212). However, several steps can be taken to help this process. First, when parables are proclaimed it is crucial that the audience use their imaginations and allow themselves to be captured up into the story. Second, it must be preached in the wholeness of its context (213). Finally, the proclamation must be parabolic: realistic, metaphorical, paradoxical or surprising and open-ended (215).

Donahue does a very through job of bringing scholarly experts into his research. He uses the ideas of Aristotle, C. H. Dodd, Adolf Julicher, John Crossan, Amos Wilder and Paul Ricoeur to only name a few. The scope of the scholars, which he refers to, gives the reader a wider understanding of the subject at hand. He also cites many different scriptural passages both from the New and the Old Testament. Chapters are set up clearly and accomplish what they set out to do. The footnotes were clear and informative.

One concept in the book was that "The criterion of proper interpretation is not the genre chosen but whether the interpretation is faithful to the original meaning and context(s) of the parable" (12). If we knew the original context and meaning, translating tile meaning to our lives would be a synch. Earlier in the book Donahue writes that once the parable was first spoken much was lost in the interpretation process because the tone inflection, the hearers and the context were all lost. Are we just going in circles hypothesizing right over the last person's interpretation? Not only do the interpretations change with the structure of criticism, but also with the very person doing the interpreting. Ideally, we would not be going in circles in our investigations, but rather in a spiral shape: going in circles, yes, but always making our way upward.