In LXX παραβολή very commonly represents the Heb. mashal, which also implies comparison (Νὰ 237-18 2.48. 15. 20. 21.23 ete.), But mdshdl is also rendered παροιμία (Pr 11, Sir 6* 88 etc.), and θρῆνος (Is 14%), and προοίμιον (Job 271 291). Like Bes- spiel in German, it sometimes indicates an ex- ample set up for edification or warning (Jer 24°, Mic 24, Wis 5%). When it means an utterance of deeper meaning than appears on the surface, it is sometimes joined with πρόβλημα (Ps 484 772, Hab 28), or αἴνιγμα (Dt 2857, Sir 398 47%), or διήγημα (2 Ch 7”, Ezk 172), or σκοτεινὸς λόγος (Pr 15). The meaning of such dark utterances becomes clear through the application or comparison which is indicated ; and those who miss the application lose the true meaning of the parable, which is often a short saying, such as we should rather call a proverb (1S 1013 2418, Ezk 1272-28 182-8] K 482),
In NT παραβολή is freq. in the Synoptic Gospels ; and, excepting He 99 1119, is found nowhere else. It is generally used of a longer utterance or narra
PARABLE (IN NT)
tive intended to set forth a spiritual lesson (Mt 133. 18. 24. 81. 86 ete.) ; but sometimes of a short say- ing or proverb (Mt 15, Mk 3% 77, Lk 4% 05). Of the other renderings of mashdal, neither θρῆνος nor προοίμιον is found in NT, while παροιμία (ropd, οἶμος) occurs only Jn 10° 16%”, 2 Ῥ 23, Originally παροιμία meant an out-of-the-way saying, or possibly a wayside saying, and hence was used of any didactic, bolic, or figurative utterance. Like παραβολή, it is used both of longer utterances or allegories (Jn 105) and shorter ones or proverbs (2 P 233) ; comp. κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, Kowa τὰ τῶν φίλων (Philo, de Vita Mos. i. 28; de Abr. 40). Most Lat. VSS distinguish παροιμία by rendering it pro- verbium, which is never meal for παραβολή. Eng. VSS render both words sometimes by ‘parable’ (Mt 218, Jn 10°), sometimes by ‘proverb’ (Lk 4%, Jn 16”), Tindale and the Genevan use ‘simili- tude’ for both (Mt 13%, Jn 10°), and are capricious in using both ‘ parable’ and ‘similitude’ for rapa- βολή; so also is Coverdale. As St. John never uses παραβολή, and as there are no parables in the strict sense in his Gospel, it is unfortunate that RV retains ‘ parable’ in Jn 10°.
Attempts at definitions of ‘parable,’ taken from Greek Fathers and others, are given in Suicer, 9.υ. παραβολή. Trench quotes several Lat. defini- tions from Jerome and later writers. However it may be expressed, the main elements in a parable are two: (1) a saying, commonly in the form of a narrative, respecting earthly things, with (2) & spiritual or Nand pee. A fable differs from a parable in both these elements. It often distorts the earthly things in using them as a vehicle of instruction, making brutes and trees talk, and the like. This a parable never does; for nature, as God’s wisdom made it, is far better adapted for teaching Divine truths than nature as man’s fancy can imagine it. And a fable never aims higher than human morality. At best it teaches prudence, industry, caution; and it often inculeates mere shrewdness, selfishness, and cun- ning. Hence the only fables found in Scripture are used by men for their own ends; by Jotham (Jg 95) and by Jehoash (2 Καὶ 145). They are never employed by God’s prophets in conveying His mes- sage, nor by Christ in explaining His kingdom. In the direct teaching of Scripture, nothing is attributed to animals or plants which is not found in nature. Moreover, it is their relation to man that is made instructive (the sheep to the shepherd or the owner, the fig-tree to the vine- dresser or the owner), not that of sheep or trees to one another. The mutual relations of brute to brute or of tree to tree are less fitted to illustrate the kingdom of God. Much the same holds good of a myth, when it is the natural product of primi- tive imagination, and not the artificial invention of an ingenious teacher. The latter are parables or fables rather than myths; ¢.g. the myths of Plato. But the myth, while resembling the fable in not being bound by the facts of nature and in not teaching spiritual lessons, differs from both fable and parable in that the myth mingles truth and fiction, whereas the parable and the fable keep them apart. Those who frame or hear parables and fables know that the narrative is nothing, and is not set forth as being historical, although accidentally it may be so. Itis the lesson indicated by the narrative which is of value. But the uncritical age which spontaneously generates and accepts myths makes no distinction between fable aad figure. The figurative narrative is re- es as actually true. In an allegory figure and
act, or rather figure and interpretation, are not mixed, but are parallel, and move simultaneously, as in the allegory of the True Vine or of the Good Shepherd.
PARABLE (IN NT) 663
As already indicated, the distinction which we draw between a Ὁ espace and a proverb is not found in the Gospels. The evangelists call the short figura- tive sayings of Christ, no less than the longer narratives, parables (Mt 15, Mk 3% 711 Lk 6%), as also does Christ Himself (Lk 43, Mt 24%); pony because mdshdl is used for both, but mainly