Taking these facts together, we must regard the circumcision of Christ as of the highest signifi- cance ; for it was not only a fulfilling of the Law, but inasmuch as it was symbolic of a life laid down, it must also be regarded as a 'parable' of the Crucifi.xion (cf. Milton, Poetical Works, 'Upon the Circumcision'; Keble, Christian Year, 'The Circumcision of Christ').
LlTERATUlsE.— H. H. Ploss, Dns Kind in. Bmiieh vnd Sitle
rite in the Hchn , „,i
•: • .1. ■,"/ . ; sllif. is
also useful; liar].. ^, /
"i ' .... 1905,
140t., andthelii. lin 1. : i
- . . t i, , ! .. ,.i..i, ; " 1, |,|,. 189-
191; Bertherand, W
1 . ra'i>, 1855,
gives man.v ian,. ~h,, ■
among Arab.s u. ;i> ,
'''".':.'. J- '.'"nnb'with
Algeria. There. J ■- -
;..■... ■.. !-• L'.iili.Tcd here
and there in.). II. IM.,,,
nil- ;." '. ■..'.!', ' wils.,Leip-
zig, 1860. The .inu 1,, m
U,v...L^...un.'..^,....,,.J,,l,notogl
bv Nowack and I'.fnzin-. r
in Hamburger's RE. shoiil
' he co'nsullcd';''cf.'also'!irt.''circum-
cision ' in Hastings' DB an
1 in the Kiiaic. Bibl. and the Jewish
Emydopcdia.
W. 0. E. OE.STKRLEY.
CIRCUMSTANTIALITY IN THE PARABLES.—
A paralde consists of two meinl.ers, viz. an illus- tration and adidaclie pari, which, according to the view we hold, may be calleil either the interpreta- tion or the application. Both members are neces- sary to make the parable complete, though the didactic part need not be expressly stated, the circum.stanees in which the illustration is given making its purpose plain. Unfortunately the
* Singer, (tp. cit. p. 307.
t See Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, passim ; W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 314 f.. Kinship and Marriat/e in Early Arabia-, p. .Wff.
J (/c/('i.vA. Encftc. iv. 93K
i An official speciall.v qualified to perform the rile.
II Singer, op. cit. p. 305.
332
CIRCUMSTANTIALITY
CIRCUMSTANTIALITY
liaiubles of Christ are mostly preserved only in fragmentary form. We have the illustrations, but not the lessons they were designed to enforce ; and as we are uncertain as to the connexion in wliich those illustrations were given, it is sometimes diffi- cult to make sure what Christ intended to teach by them. But if the Evangelists give little, some- times even a misleading, light as to the context in which the parables were spoken, they record the illustrative portions of them with much fulness of detail. Particularly is this the case with those parables in which the illustration is in the form of a narrative. Tlie story is told with much cir- cumstantiality. Many little touches are intro- duced to heighten the ett'ect. We are almost inclined to forget, at times, that the story is told with a purpose, so fully and circumstantially are its details narrated. Among the Evangelists, St. Luke is the most pronounced in the circumstan- tiality with which lie reproduces the stories which Christ introduced in His parables. He likes to linger over them. He elaborates with a fulness of detail that brings the scene \-ividIy before the mind. But though St. Luke is pre-eminent in this respect, all the Synoptists present the illus- trative portion of the parables with more or less circumstantiality. And this feature of the parables suggests some questions which we may consider under the following heads: — (1) In how far is the circumstantiality of the narratives authentic ?
(2) If we accept the traditional principle of para- bolical 'interpretation,' can we fix a limit beyond which it is illegitimate to interpret the details?
(3) If we reject this principle of parabolical ' inter- pretation,' can we meet the objection that the circumstantiality of the illustrations is empty ornament?
1. The question of the authenticity of the cir- cumstantiality of the illustrations is in many cases forced upon us by the fact that details which are recorded by one Evangelist are omitted by another For instance, in the parable of the Sower, St. Matthew and St. Mark say of tlie seed that fell by the wayside, that the fowls came and devoured it up, but St. Luke adds that it was trodden down (8°). Again, in the parable of the Patch on the Old Garment, St. Matthew and St. Mark describe the patch as a piece of undressed cloth, while St. LuKe heightens the folly of the pro- ceeding by making the patch first be cut out of a new garment (d-rb i/iariov KawoO o-xiVos, 5'"). In many cases we find tlie explanation of such variations in the details of the parables in the desire of the Evangelists to emphasize the point and heighten the ell'ect of the illustration. Such is possibly tlie case with the examples just given, and many other instances of the same tendency might l>e cited. To give a few more, — in the parable of tlie Supper (Mt 22»-", Lk 14"-=^), St. Alatthew merely says that the guests made light of the invitation and went their ways, one to his farm, anotlier to his merchandise (v.*) ; while St. Luke puts various excuses into the mouth of the
guests (vv. '«-="). In the parable of the Lost Sheep (Mt 18'=", Lk 15*-'). St. Luke represents the owner as taking the lost slieej), when he has found it, upon his shoulders. In the parable of the Houses built upon the Rock and upon the Sand (Mt ""■'-', Lk G*'"), St. Matthew says merely that the wise man built upon the rock and the foolish upon the sand ; but St. Luke represents the one as having to dig and go deep to find a foumla- tion, while the other builds witliout a foundation, upon the earth. But in other cases we must assign a ditterent motive for the variation in the details of the parables. Many seem due to an allegorizing tendency on the part of the Evan- gelists. They regarded the characters and events