It is not improbable that oftenti oes the illustrative half of a parable alone was prese ved by tradition. In such cases we can speak of intt rpretation if we mean thereby the discovery of the original setting
PARABLE
PARACLETE
3i:
and application, whether this service is performed by the Evangelists or undertaken by their inter- preters. Such an understanding of the term is, however, misleading, as it obvioiLsly does not re- present the thought of ilk 4 and parallels. The demand of these passages is satisfied only when we assume that interpretation means an unfolding of details such as is provided for the story of the Sower. This would not be required foi^all para- bolic material, but only for those parables that were ctnisidered to be allegories. We have found above that it is not easy to decide how many were included by the Synoptists in such a point of view. A priori considerations or ingenious con- jecture cannot decide the question, but only the internal evidence discovered by detailed exegetical study.
i. Transmission and Value. — Have the Evan- gelists rightly imderstood and faithfully reported Jesus' parables ? Had the tradition, upon which they were dependent, preserved an exact recollec- tion of His words and their application ? The parables were quite certainly spoken originally in Aramaic, and many of them, after being preserved for a time by oral tradition, may have first been written down in this same language. But even if the bulk of them were first written in Greek, we should, of course, still possess them only in trans- lation. The possibility of modification accordingly exists, even if an earnest endeavour at historical accuracy, as we conceive of it, could be postulated. A comparison of the records of even the shortest, parable appearing in all the Gospels, or in two of them, reveals many variations. While the major part are trifling, others may affect materially the meaning and structure of the parable. In the description of patching the old garment, for in- stance (Mk 2-1, Mt 916. Lk 55«), the'casual reader of the English notes the striking variation in Luke. The defenders of the validity of the several ac- counts in all their details have been wont to ex- plain the divergences by advancing the hypothesis of the use of the same parable on different occa- sions. In some parables common to Mt. and Lk. such a view may be advocated with a show of reason, but when these two Gospels are following Mk. it has little support. There are parables, furthermore, like the one just noted and the Sower ami the Wicked Husbandmen, that are spoken under conditions and with applications so much alike and at the same time so peculiar as to ex- clude any thought of repetition. The differences in the accounts of the Evangelists are unquestion- able, and they leave the interpreter no choice. He must seek to ascertain the original form of the parable. If we say that these differences existed in the snurces, we simply carry the problem back to an earlier stage and contribute nothing to its solution ; and even then the personal equation of the Evangelist enters in. through the choice and arrangement of the details of his narrative. When we observe Mt."s tendency to group material, re- vealed in so many connexions, we can but conclude that this purpose, rather than special knowledge of the occasion, has often determined the setting of his parables. A comparative study shows that each of the Synoptists has peculiarities which re%eal themselves in his report. Lk.'s interest in the individual and his love of the beautiful are as noticeable as Mt.'s regaixl for the OT and discovery of allegorical meanings.
If the existing evidence proves that Jesus' words were not at first treated as unalterably holy, it does not, on the other hand, show that there was such freedom as to cast doubt on all His reported sayings, or justify giving them a value secondary' to that of the narrative portions of the Gospels. Notwithstanding differences, the Synoptists show
such essential agreement that we feel little doubt regarding most parables. The wonder is that there should be so little divei-gence, even though so short a periotl separated our recoixls and their Aramaic sources from the original utterances. It can be urged in explanation that Jesus' teaching was too well remembered to admit of the incorporation of new creations. What He had said became early a precious heritage for all believers, and, besides, the parables are of a character to make them e.specially well remembered. Their freshness, Ijeauty. and eame.stness attest their originality and faithful transmission, as does also, in a sjx^cial degree, their suitability to explain and enforce the teaching in who.se service they are employed. That they can be so varied and at the same time so simple, excites wonder. One turns from Rabbinical literature to the parables of Je.^us with an increased appreciation of their literary excellence, to say nothing of the marked contrast in dignity and grandeivr of theme. Nor is there any writer of early Christian literature worthy of a place in this field beside the Master. An obsei-vation of the details and relationships of common life and an appreciation of their signi- ficance is revealed that is unparalleled. We gain an insight into the inner life of Jesus Himself, as well as into His teaching, that is afforded by hardly any other portions of the Gospels. The parables are rightly regarded as a most valuable part of the Evangelical tradition, and they will so continue when their right to be heard in their simplicity is generall}* recognized.