<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: excellent insights
Review: I just read this book and thought it was great. The author's insights into the parables of Jesus made them much more credible to me. Better grounding in history makes my faith stronger.
Rating:
Summary: Challenges The Traditional
Review: I strongly disagree with the previous reviewer. Brandon Scott provides a challenging reading of the parables by proposing ways of hearing them that are set apart from the later Christian interpretations of the parables that were edited into the Gospels of the New Testament. Scott's theory, which he successfully defends, is that Jesus' parables were much more revolutionary, much more critical of the social/political/religious culture of Jesus' lifetime than those versions that were more spiritualized, made more palatable for the widespread proclimation of the Christian faith in the late 1st Century. Do I agree with every theory of every parable in Scott's book? No. However, his reading is one of the most insightful and historically valid interpretations of the parables that I have read. Along with John D. Crossan's book, "In Parables," Scott's book brings Jesus' message to new light. As a United Methodist pastor, who preaches Jesus' parables with passion, Scott's challenging interpretation helps me broaden my understanding of Jesus' message.
Rating:
Summary: Challenges The Traditional
Review: I strongly disagree with the previous reviewer. Brandon Scott provides a challenging reading of the parables by proposing ways of hearing them that are set apart from the later Christian interpretations of the parables that were edited into the Gospels of the New Testament. Scott's theory, which he successfully defends, is that Jesus' parables were much more revolutionary, much more critical of the social/political/religious culture of Jesus' lifetime than those versions that were more spiritualized, made more palatable for the widespread proclimation of the Christian faith in the late 1st Century. Do I agree with every theory of every parable in Scott's book? No. However, his reading is one of the most insightful and historically valid interpretations of the parables that I have read. Along with John D. Crossan's book, "In Parables," Scott's book brings Jesus' message to new light. As a United Methodist pastor, who preaches Jesus' parables with passion, Scott's challenging interpretation helps me broaden my understanding of Jesus' message.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated book on the parables
Review: This book is a stellar example of misassimilated information. Scott comes close -- and yet remains so far -- from "hearing the parables" the way Jesus' fellow Galileans would have heard them. He interprets the parables against the backdrop of Jewish myths and peasant world-views, which at first promises to yield some good results. But he ends up abandoning much of what he develops in favor of postmodern philosophical table-talk. The result makes for some awkward and bizarre readings. Indeed, if we believe Scott, then Jesus pretty much preached disaster for the Jewish peasantry.For instance, in the parable of the Talents (Mt.25:14-28/Lk.19:12-24), a master departs on a journey, leaving three servants with money in trust, expecting them to act like good retainers -- to secure his investment, then double it. The first two servants do exactly as expected of them, but the third does not. He buries the master's money to be sure it remains intact. He thus not only refuses to partake in the exploitive schemes of the master, but he acts honorably, in accordance with Jewish law. When the day of accounting arrives, and the master rewards the two who increased his wealth at the expense of others, the third servant acts stunningly. He blows the whistle on the master, while at the same time giving him back the money he had buried in trust. He denounces his elite overlord: "Master, I know that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter." From the peasant point of view, this servant acts not only honorable (with the money in trust), but courageously (by denouncing his oppressive master). He is the hero of the parable. But for Scott, he is the villain of the parable! And the servants who did the master's dirty work turn out to be the heroes! Time and time again -- especially with parables concerning masters and absentee landlords -- Scott turns the good guys into bad guys, bad guys into good guys. First-century Jewish peasants would hardly have heard the parables the way Scott has. This book does do justice to a few parables (like The Mustard Seed and The Leaven), but it fails to do justice to the historical Jesus in general.
Rating:
Summary: excellent insights
Review: Yikes! Scott's aproach to the parables of Jesus is part commentary on IF there are His parables, and part deconstruction of said parables. How many people are comfortable with the idea of Jesus telling bawdy stories?
Scott, like so many of his colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature, are so interested in seeming "objective" in approaching Scripture, they treat it with less respect than they would any other peice of ancient literature. When was the last time you heard of a Q source for Homer? Or of multiple authors for The Republic? Or a discussion of which lines of The Frogs are original to the play's author? These guys want to look intellectual, but end up looking petty.
Rating: 
Summary: Jesus Seminar Gone Deconstructionally Amuck
Review: Yikes! Scott's aproach to the parables of Jesus is part commentary on IF there are His parables, and part deconstruction of said parables. How many people are comfortable with the idea of Jesus telling bawdy stories?
Scott, like so many of his colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature, are so interested in seeming "objective" in approaching Scripture, they treat it with less respect than they would any other peice of ancient literature. When was the last time you heard of a Q source for Homer? Or of multiple authors for The Republic? Or a discussion of which lines of The Frogs are original to the play's author? These guys want to look intellectual, but end up looking petty.
<< 1 >>
|
