This final chapter expands on the conclusions of the previous chapters and examines their implications for the study of parables found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the Latter Prophets. The previous chapters built the case that the prose contexts of Hebrew Bible parables call into question scholarly assumptions about their rhetorical function. In short, we found that parables (1) intensify announcements of judgment and condemnation rather than call for a change of behavior or facilitate conflict resolution; and (2) perform this intensifying function by invoking specific genres to address the speaker's specific communicative needs. Moving beyond the prose portions of the Hebrew Bible, this chapter tests this thesis further by briefly examining selected parables from Ezekiel and First Isaiah. We will use Isa 5:1–7 and Ezek 17:1–24 as test cases.

ISAIAH 5:1–7

In v. 1a, Isaiah refers to the following verses as a “song” (shir) for his beloved. In the most general sense, we could refer to this passage as a song mashal since Isaiah bases his comparison (v. 7) on a song (vv. 1–2). The fact that Isaiah refers to this passage as a song does not mean it does not contain a narrative. Though unlike Ugaritic literature the Hebrew Bible does not contain long narrative poetry, it does contain brief poetic vignettes, as we find in Isaiah's song.

The ideas for this book began during a class discussion in an undergraduate introduction to the Bible course at Siena College in the fall of 2005. As I introduced my class to the notion of 2 Sam 12:1–4 as a juridical parable, one student asked about Joab's place in Nathan's parable. I responded by using the multivalent interpretation of the parable as I remembered it from a class I took with Larry L. Lyke at Yale Divinity School in the fall of 1997. Lyke's wonderful book on parabolic narrative, titled King David and the Wise Woman of Tekoa, has influenced my thinking on Hebrew Bible parables a great deal, as evidenced by the number of times I cite it in this book. Yet, when I consulted his book after that particular class, I realized that I had not remembered his interpretation correctly and that he did not actually address the place of Joab in Nathan's parable. My student's question and my misreading of Lyke got me thinking about how parables operate in the Hebrew Bible. Soon I saw the need for a serious re-evaluation of some influential scholarly notions and assumptions about genre and function in relation to Hebrew Bible parables.

My first attempt to articulate the need for re-evaluation came in a paper on 2 Sam 12:1–6 that I presented at the Society of Biblical Literature's 2006 Mid-Atlantic Regional Meeting. Further research along these lines found encouragement and support when Stephen L. Cook, F. W. “Chip” Dobbs-Allsopp, Tod Linafelt, and the rest of the region's executive board nominated the paper for the Society's 2007 Regional Scholar's Award. I would like to thank them all for their role in this project's development.

Of all the parables we have discussed so far, the one appearing in 2 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 25 has received the least amount of scholarly attention. Many commentators seem to agree implicitly with John Gray's assessment in this chapter's second epigraph, namely, they see the parable's interpretation as self-evident. As with Gray, they seem content to go no further than labeling it as a fable and noting that it shares arboreal imagery with Judges 9. Occasionally, they cite similar imagery in other ancient Near Eastern fables. This dearth of scholarly attention means that relatively few have considered how it addresses the conflict in the surrounding narrative in much detail.

As in 1 Kings 20, the parable in 2 Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 25 addresses an international conflict. In this case, the conflict involves the northern kingdom of Israel, the southern kingdom of Judah, and their neighbor Edom. The Judean king Amaziah trounces the Edomites, killing thousands (2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chr 25:5–16).

Nearly 40 years ago, if you asked a Hebrew Bible scholar to define the word “parable,” he or she would have most likely replied that it is a genre designation for a type of short story and that it comes from the biblical Hebrew word mashal (plural form: meshalim). He or she would have cited the story Nathan tells to David in 2 Sam 12:1–4 or Isaiah's song of the vineyard in Isa 5:1–7 as typical examples of this parable genre. For instance, in his influential 1967 article on the so-called juridical parable genre, Uriel Simon includes these texts among his examples (he also cites 2 Sam 14:5–7; 1 Kgs 20:39–42; Jer 3:1–5). Yet, in 1981, George W. Coats responds to Simon by correctly asking, “How can the story in II Samuel 12:1–4 and the song in Isaiah 5:1–7 belong to the same genre?” Coats’ question suggests that between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, a number of scholars had begun reconsidering how we should use the term parable (mashal).

In the last chapter, we examined how the wise woman of Tekoa creates a parable out of her fictitious petitionary narrative in 2 Samuel 14. We encounter this use of the petitionary narrative genre again when an unnamed prophet confronts the Israelite king Ahab in the closing verses of 1 Kings 20:

As the epigrams above suggest, scholars have puzzled over the encounter between the unnamed wise woman of Tekoa and David in 2 Samuel 14. According to v. 2, Joab sends her to the king with instructions regarding how to dress and what to say. During her encounter with David, she tells him a story that becomes a parable. This parable applies to David's son Absalom's current situation (see 2 Samuel 13).

Jotham's parable in Judges 9 provides an excellent point of entry into this book's study of Hebrew Bible parables. Jotham is the lone survivor of his brother Abimelech's massacre of 70 of his siblings (v. 5). As with the parables in 2 Samuel 12 and 14, Jotham's parable addresses a conflict, specifically a murder that nearly destroys a kinship network. Yet, clearly, Jotham does not intend his parable to prompt any change of behavior among his addressees, namely the lords of Shechem. Nor does he show any concern for conflict resolution through his parable. He shows no interest in hearing how the Shechemites understand his parable. In fact, after he speaks his parable, he leaves immediately, without even giving them an opportunity to respond (v. 21).

Instead, the parable helps strengthen the judgment that Jotham calls down upon Abimelech, the house of Millo, and the lords of Shechem. By comparing their situation to the curse portion of his story, Jotham reinforces the negative judgment that his addressees face.

The parable that Nathan tells David in 2 Sam 12:1b–4 is arguably the best known parable in the Hebrew Bible. It reads:

Many readers can connect the parable to the events of the previous chapter (2 Samuel 11) concerning David and Bathsheba even before Nathan makes these connections in vv. 7–12. Israel's war with Ammon provides the setting for the events in 2 Samuel 11.