RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Papyrus
Parables of Jesus Christ
But in classic rhetoric the word parable had a more definite meaning than in the Old Testament; it is there differentiated from the fable, the allegory, the emblem, and the symbol; while in the Old Testament the word mashal covers all these varied forms of illustration. In the New Testament it is not to be overlooked that the word parable is not applied to all of the illustrative sayings of Jesus, though on the other side no other com- 3. Synoptics' prehensive term is applied. So that
Use of the the term is not used in a sharply de- Term, fined technical sense in the Synoptics. Thus in Luke iv. 23 a proverb is called a parable, and in Matt. xv. 15 Peter speaks of a principle which carries a direct conclusion as a parable. Other examples of this inexact usage are found in Matt. xii. 24 sqq., cf . Mark iii. 23 and Luke v. 36-38, with all of which may be compared Jas. i. 6, 23, in which the phrase " is like " is used. From cases like these are to be distinguished those in which the idea to be illustrated is, through characteristic formulas which are found neither in the Old Testament nor in classic literature, placed alongside the illustrative narratives by which the com-, parison is fully worked out. This may be done by . means of a question (Matt. xxi. 28) which challenges a decision, or by a statement (Mark iv. 26), or by direct characterization as a parable (Matt. xiii. 3). Corresponding to this formula of introduction of idea and narrative is the application which by the word " so " binds together picture and idea (Matt, xviii. 35). This method of introduction, if one excepts Luke xvi. 19, serves to separate from the parables the gnomic sayings, proverbs, and examples in which the idea is closely connected with a concrete fact. These latter have a definite teaching purpose, but in a narrower range and a method other than those of the parables and allegories. They have their own individual existence alongside of their illustrative value, while the parable has only its illustrative value for the case in point. Allegory is rooted in metaphor, it is a carrying over of something into another sphere. The parable rests upon a comparison of two different quantities which are placed side by side but not bound together as subject and predicate. " I am a good shepherd " is allegorical: " The kingdom of God is like a good shepherd " is parabolic. When the question arises concerning the valuation of the parables of Jesus, rhetorically the answer is that they are in the same categories as the fable, the myth and the narrative of comparison; but from the point of view of their contents they have a specific character so that they differ from corresponding forms as Jesus differs from other teachers.
Joseppus in his Hypomnestikon biblion (MPG, cvi. 138-139) reckons in all 29 parables, in which, however, he counts cases of gnomic sayings (Matt. x. 16), judgments (Luke xiii. 32), metaphor (Luke xvi. 6), etc., but passes by numerous pieces like that of the unrighteous householder. Gregory of Nyssa similarly makes no distinction between cited examples, mere comparisons and parables, and ascribes to Matthew seventeen parables, to Mark four, and to Luke twenty-two. A better statement is that the Synoptics have four !n |
common (or five if Matt. ix. 15-16 be reckoned), nine are common to Matthew and Luke, peculiar to Matthew are ten, to Mark two, and to Luke thirteen. The parables common to the Synoptics treat of the kingdom of heaven,
4. Number its strength, its worth, its realization.
and Charac- Three of them draw their material
ter of the from nature or agriculture (Mark iv. Parables. 26-27), the fourth is based on the opposition between Israel's conduct and the promises of God. All are in essence prophetic. The parables common to Matthew and Luke deal with the relation of man to God, man's disposition, duties, and work, and not all are carried out to completion. Eschatological relations are treated, the material is drawn from social and family life. The parables peculiar to Matthew are in this class, while those of Luke are noted for their directness of teaching. An instance of this last class is the parable of the good Samaritan. The style and coloring of these narratives vary greatly. Most of them are simple, and the narrative is carried only so far as is necessary to convey the meaning. Others, especially those of Luke, are worked out more artistically and individually, though never to the point of mere elaboration. Matthew treats less than Luke the individual interest, is more epic in character, as illustrated by the respective treatment of the parable of the talents.
If the fidelity to the truth of the transmission of the parables be considered, the position must be taken that no criticism can destroy the fact that Jesus taught in parables, and that the recollection of them was influenced by his experience. Not only is the material out of which they are formed (drawn from current life) testimony of this, 5. The but the inherent content and consist- Trans- ent point of view and the character of mission the observation which utilized them
Essentially and its keen insight into the relations Faithful, of man bear witness to the same. They thus become a means of insight into the inner life of Jesus himself. But between the Sunday on the Sea of Galilee or the days of conflict in Jerusalem and the time when these parables were set down in literary form in the Gospels there intervened the period of preaching and of personal oral exchange of narrative. The record is dependent upon personal recollection into which personal experience has been interjected. It results that the words in which the parables are set forth are not those of Jesus. Indeed, he spoke to the people in their vernacular, of which many traces remain, and Lazarus, the only personal name in the parables, is of Hebrew origin. Further, even in those parables which are common to the Synoptics individualistic points of treatment are abundantly visible. But the derivation of these from a common source is equally unmistakable. The individuality of each of the narrations, the variation in terms, the use of synonyms, all indicate, however, that the source of the writers was in the memory and not before the eye. In the parables common to Matthew and Luke the agreement is less close than that in the parables common to all the Synoptics. One
Parables of Jesus Christ