Veknon Baktlet.
**PARABLE.— 1. Definition and Classification.—
The word ' parable ' is an oft-recurring one in the Synoptic Gospels, appearing altogether 48 times. Otherwise it is found in the NT only in He 9^ llis (RV), where it has the meaning of 'type' or 'symbol' (AV 'figure'). The Evangelists" use of it suggests that for them it was a technical term designating a certain form of discourse or method of teaching, and they report Je.sus as employing it in like manner. It is always introduced as something well known, and nowhere defined. The readers are assumed to be as familiar with it as are the writers. This occasions no surprise, for we know that the term had long been current in the circle to which the Evangelists belonged, appearing, as it does, often in the LXX. The connexion between the NT usage and that of the LXX is expressly pointed out by St. Matthew (IS^-^), who sees in Jesus' use of parables the fulfilment of Ps. 78'^.
In the LXX irapa^oki) serves frequently, though not uniformly, to tr. the Heb. mdshdl ("^"f?). The practice is sufficiently constant to warrant the assumption that it had much the same range of meaning. But, accepting this as titie, we have made little progress in determining the exact sig- nificance of irapa^oXrj, for as yet agreement has not been attained with reference to the definition of the Semitic original C^-'::, Aram, a^r-z). By some scholars the root is thought to mean primarily to represent or stand for something (so Fleischer ; cf. Franz Delitzsch, Com. zu Prov., Leipzig, 187o, p. 48 f. ; Gesenius-Buhl, HWB ; Bugge, Die Hanpt- Parabeln, i. 20 f.) ; while others, following a differ- ent line of derivation, make the conception of likeness or resemblance to be fundamental (Konig in Hastings' DB iii. p. 661 ; cf. Jiilicher, Die Gleich- nisreden Jesu, i. p. 36 f.). An examination of the OT makes it evident that Hebrew writers employed the term in the broadest and most inclusive way. Allegory, similitude, parable, proverb, paradox, type, and even riddle could be so designated. Jiilicher concludes (op. cit. i. p. 37) that the most that can be done in the way of definition is to say that in the OT mdshdl is a discourse expressing or implying comparison. The limitations thus sug- ge.sted are, that it be a complete statement and not merely a word or phrase, and that it employ or rest on comparison.
The modern understanding of the word ' parable ' has not as yet become well defined. One naturally expects this to follow the Greek conception, but in many definitions one finds a considerable infusion of the Semitic point of view. wapa^oX-^ (from napd 'beside,' and ^dWecv 'to throw or ca.st') signifies literally a placing beside, and in ancient rhetoric designates an illustration or comparison. The fundamental idea is thus in agreement with that which is found by some in the Heb. mdshdl. Aristotle classes parable and fable together as
Char'es Scribncr's Sons
PARABLE
PARABLE
313
means of indirect proof, more convenient and easier to use tiian historical example for one who is able to detect resemblances, but less effective.
That the Syuoptists should entertain this nar- rower and more definite view of Greek and Roman writers is not to be anticipated. One expects to find in them rather the wider and more indefinite application of ^Semitic authors, and in this one is not disappointed. Proverb (Lk 4-3), paradox (.Mk 7"), similitude (43'), allegory (4^3), and example or illustrative instance (Lk I'i'") are so named. The word appears with sutiicient frequency to make evident its wide application. This does not prove, of course, that in the XT it has a meaning identi- cal with that which it bears in the OT. It is Jiilicher's view that a new element entered in during the period of the Jewish-Hellenistic litera- ture. Besides being a complete thought and ex- pressing or implying comparison, the parable is now understood to veil a hidden meaning. The real teaching is not in what the words seem to say, but in their deeper import. We shall have occa.sion to return to this topic after reviewing the range of the parabolic material.
It is not to be assumed that the Synoptists have prefixed a title to all the sections that they regarded as irapaBoXal. On the contrary, they have done so only incidentally as occasion required, since they had no particular interest in rhetorical categories. In Mk. the word irapa^oX-fi is found 13 times, with reference to 6 different .sections; 17 times in Mt., with reference to 12 sections; and 18 times in Lk., with reference to 13 sections. It is not used in Jn., but -rrapoifj-ia occurs with much the same meaning. Deducting parallels, there are 20 passages in the Synoptic Gospels that are spoken of as parables. How far short this comes of full enumeration is made evident by noting the number of parables recognized by modern expositors : e.g. van Koetsveld. 70 (including Jn.); Bugge, 71; Weinel, 59 ; Jiilicher, 53 ; Heinrici, 30 ; Lisco, 37 ; Bruce, 33, and 8 parable perms.
This divergence of opinion makes it evident that it is not easy to determine the precise extent of the parabolic material. Nor is it easy to discover a satisfactory principle for cla.ssifying it. This has been attempted from various points of view. Some have sought to make the truth taught a .standard for grouping. So Bruce distinguishes (1) Theoretic parables, or those embodying a general teaching regarding the Kingdom of God ; (2) the parables of Grace ; (3) the parables of Judgment. Others have made the realm from which the illustration was taken the criterion of division. More satis- factory results are obtained by paying heed to the form of the parable, that is, to the character of the illustration and the manner of its introduction. From this point of view a large portion of the material falls within one general division. To this belong all the sections in whicli a spiritual or moral truth is established or enforced by the use of an express or implicit compari-son. An appeal is made to common experience, to what is recognized and accepted by all, in support of less evident truths pertaining to a higher realm. The tacit assump- tion is that the same laws are valid for moral and religious as for daily practical life. If assent is yielded without hesitation in the one case, it can- not be withheld in the other.