The Gospel of Lk. contains at least four sections differing in character from any previously con- sidered. They have the narrative form, but the illustration is taken, not from a different realm, but from that to which the truth under discussion belongs. A specific instance wherein this is ex- emplified is recited to win the approval or call forth the disapprobation of the hearer. The ap- plication is made, not through analogy, not by some word expressing likeness or resemblance, but by simple affirmation : ' So is it ' or ' so should it not be.' The Good Samaritan (Lk W^^'), the Foolish Rich Man (12«'>--'U), the Rich Man and Lazarus (IGi^^i)^ and the Pharisee and the Pub- lican (18^1*) belong to this group. Possibly, as Heinrici suggests {PBE^, vi. 092), we ought also to add the accounts of the Importunate Friend (ll'^ff), and the Unjust Judge (181^), since the lesson is gained in these instances by reasoning a minori ad majus. It is often difficult, as here, to determine to which division a given section may be most properly assigned. Comparison enters into this class only thi-ough the demand made upon the listener to test his life and conduct by that depicted in the story. The abstract truth is commended to him in concrete form. We might call such illustrations, which stand apart from the groups previously enumerated, Xarrative Ex- amples, or perhaps it will be better to term them, with Julicher, Ilhistrative Instances.
On the basis of the reference in Mk 7^^ (Mt 15'^) it has been proposed (cf. Bugge, op. cit. i. pp. 59, 15, and 16) to regard the Paradox as a class of parable. That the name might be so applied may, in the light of Semitic usage, be assumed as probable, though there is wide difference of view regarding this particular passage in Mk. and Mt. Expositors have not, however, generally made paradoxes a distinct group in their treatment of the parables.
It now remains to ask whether there is another class of passages that should be brought together under the head of Allegory. This question has recently been much discussed, and opinion is still widely divided. It is variously affirmed that, even according to the Synoptists, Jesus never spoke in allegories (Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 30) ; or that He is mistakenly reported by them as so doing (Julicher, op, cit. i. 61 ff. etc.) ; or that He did make use of allegories, and is correctly re- ported in this respect (Bugge, op. cit. i. 40 ff. etc.). Allegory (aWTjyopia, dWriyopelv) comes from dXXo, 'other,' 'something else,' and dyopeveiv, 'to speak.' The word occurs as a substantive nowhere in the NT or in Biblical Greek, nor does the verb appear
except in Gal 4^*, where St. Paul makes use of the participle d\\Tjyopo}j/j.evos. It is a mode of speech whereby one thing is ostensibly described or nar- rated, while the primary reference is to something very different. It is thus closely akin to the meta- phor (wh. see), differing from it in consisting not of a single word or concept, but of a series of con- cepts belonging to the same realm, and so related as to form together a continuous and intelligible narrative. Since the several details are intro- ditced, not because they are the component parts of a vivid and artistic picture, but because of their suitability to portray the desired meaning, the best of allegories are marked by some degree of artificiality and incongruity. The attentive lis- tener is made aware that the story is being told to convey some deeper meaning and not for its own sake. Often it will be impossible for him to de- termine what this is until the allegory has been wholly or in part interpreted. In other instances the setting in wliich it occurs may afford the needed clue. To understand it fully, he must be able to translate the terms one by one and read their hidden meaning. Naturally no one but the framer of the allegory can be his infallible guide in this. In the similitude and parable we do not feel the need of seeking for any meaning beyond that which the words usually bear, whereas in the allegory the deeper, hidden significance is of first importance. Are there sections in the Gospels of which this is true ? It seems to be, to some degree, in at least five. Three are in the Synoptic Gospels, namelv, the accounts of the Sower (Mk 4^-9- ^^20^ Mt IS^-s- i«-23, Lk 8-5-8- 11-15), of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk 121-12, Mt 2133-^G, Lk 20«-i9), and of the Tares (Mt 1324-so. 16-43) J and two are from the Fourth Gospel, the Door of the Sheepfold (Jn lOi-'^), and the Vine and the Branches (15^-*). In each of these, except the Wicked Husbandmen, an allegorical interpre- tation is expressly added, while in this latter the setting, the comments, as well as the character of the narration, suggest an allegory. According to the definition given above, none of the five pas- sages can be regarded as a perfect and fully de- veloped allegory, because each has unimportant details that are not, and clearly were not intended to be, interpreted. They are introduced as natural parts of the picture, without reference to a hidden meaning. For instance, in the Sower no deeper meaning attaches to the way, the thirty, sixty, and hundredfold, as would be the case in a carefully developed allegory. The Wicked Husbandmen and the Tares are better examples of allegory ; but even in these there are several features without allegorical significance. The passages in the Fourth Gospel differ quite markedly from those in the Synoptics. The literal and the figurative are blended in such an unusual way that it has not been possible for commentators to agree in their classification. In ch. 10, following the first interpretation (vv.''-iO) comes a second (vv.n-i^), which seems to presuppose a closely related but really different allegory. Or we can regard these last verses as a new allegory with continuous in- terpretation. The discourse of ch. 15 is of exactly the same type ; parallel to ' I am the good shep- herd ' we there have ' I am the true vine.' Besides lacking the unity that usually marks the allegory, these Johannine sections contain many terms that have no significance beyond that belonging to them in ordinary speech. It seems, nevertheless, more correct to class them as allegories than to call them parables with an allegorical interpreta- tion, or collections of related metaphors.