For those who follow this blog, you might remember a fairly long series of posts (I think 8 or 9 posts worth) relating to Isaiah 5:1-7, the Song of the Vineyard. One particular post that I wrote suggests that Jesus’ use of Isaiah 5:1-7 in his Parable of the Tenants may have been a rhetorical trick. In the first footnote in that post, I suggest that the additions and changes that Jesus makes in his re-telling may have been good rhetoric. The purpose of this trick was to keep the material “fresh, thus allowing the parable to do what parables to best – reveal truth by concealing the intent until the last possible moment.” While this may be true, there may be a more natural reason for the transformation of imagery dating back to agricultural practices occurring before the Exile.
It is interesting to note that following the reign of Jeroboam II many sociologists suggest a shift in agricultural policy from patrimonial inheritance to an “advanced agrarian society.”[1] Essentially this shift means that families that worked the same plot of lands for generations were losing their fields, as officials in the king’s court gobbled up more and more land. A domino effect would then take place wherein the smaller landholders are competing with larger landholders. These larger landholders are then empowered to drive the smaller landholders out of business. A similar phenomenon can be seen today in our local economies in which the larger “box stores” are able to eliminate smaller retail businesses.
Edward Campbell suggests that another change related to the above shift would be “a system of rent capitalism.”[2] Essentially rent capitalism is when farmers sell off a portion of their property in a down year (often caused by drought, disease, or pests), to be able to purchase seed to plant in their remaining field in the following year.[3] This behavior would be cyclical, until only a few powerful individuals are left in control of all the land.
This model of landownership appears to be operative within the 1st Century C.E. So it is possible that Jesus’ was not trying to keep the material fresh, in the sense that I previously suggested (although, I suppose that is still a plausible option or bi-product of his re-telling). Jesus may have been trying to update the story so that it would resonate better with his modern audience. This updating would save the parable from appearing dated. As Isaiah 5:1-7, stands it wouldn’t reflect the realities of Jesus’ contemporary socio-agricultural context, thus providing a reason to re-cast its message.
What do you think?
[1] Edward F. Campbell Jr., “A Land Divided: Judah and Israel from the Death of Solomon to the Fall of Samaria,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. Michael D. Coogan; New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 1998), 310-311.
[2] Ibid., 311.
[3] Ibid.
