THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
makes additions not found in the other, the setting is often quite different, and sometimes the turn given to the teaching is also variant. Differences which appear and are noteworthy result from a variant origin given to the teaching, a point illustrated by a comparison of Luke xii. 48 with Mark xiii. 34. In some of these, gnomic sayings are mingled with parables, and the question arises in a comparison of the different records which is the original, the parable or the gnome. A solution of some of these problems which seems to be indicated is that in some cases there appears a hint of parables which have not gained entrance into the Gospel narrative (cf. Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III., xxxix. 11). Nevertheless, the tradition of the parables, without detriment to the freedom and elasticity which belong to such a tradition, has not suffered deliberate perversion, fictitious interpolation, or material alienation of the original utterance of Jesus. The transmission of the literature of /Esop gives rich material for estimation of the valuation of the freedom and elasticity of form which are characteristic of such transmission. The essence is indestructible, the general working out and the chief points remain undisturbed; but the expression, the artistic setting, the intermingling of new material, are characteristic of the new narrator, though it must be admitted that the Evangelists sought to express so far as possible the utterances of Jesus in his own words.
The pictorial discourses of Jesus proclaim what
he brought and what he was, their purpose was to
instruct by illustrating. His material he found in
nature and in human life, which mir-
6. The Ob- rored for him the mysteries of the king-
ject of the dom. It was in this spirit that he said:
Parable. " Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear " (Matt, xiii. 16). He would have men learn from nature to read the signs of the times (Matt. xxiv. 32). While many of the comparisons of Jesus are so plain that they are self-explanatory, the question has been raised and variously answered whether the parables proper are in this category. According to Matt, xiii. 10 the purpose of the parables is said to be the leaving of those estranged from God in that estrangement. The parables would be then an esoteric form of teaching with a negative purpose, and would remain a secret with no key to their teaching. On the other hand, it is said in Mark iv. 33 that Jesus taught the people in parables as they were able to hear. The fact, moreover, that he taught not only the people, but his disciples by this same means shows in comparison with the passage from Matt. xiii. that he distinguished between an esoteric and an exoteric form. If these two views stand opposed, it is the problem of the critic to determine which was the purpose of Jesus. And there can be no doubt that the thought that the parables were stumbling-blocks arose from a misunderstanding of his words and that explanations which appear in the Gospels are not in all cases to be traced back to Jesus. It is in the essence of the parable that to the essentially ethical and religious they come as teachings, that the characteristic of the hearer determines their value to him.
The distinguishing characteristic for the definition of the parable is the juxtaposition of idea and story. The story is of importance since it pictures an event, a definite consequence ol facts. It deals therefore with a definite
7. Its Essen- subject, not with " a man," but with tial Char- the man, the woman, the king, the acteristics. son; it is in the past tense, not in the
present or the future. The artistic representation of parables illustrates this concreteness, pictures can take but an instance out of the whole parable. The relative independence of the parables shows also that the narrative is in itself full of meaning. It is their totality which is important, not the isolated particulars. They do not conceal at all that they put forth a fictitious event, which, however, has in itself an inner probability which carries conviction. The king who reckons with his servant or the woman who seeks her lost coin are everyday possibilities. But the display of mere creative ability is not the occasion of this narration; the discovery of the analogy, in which subsists the truth, gives the impulse to the narrative, which is uttered with purpose to instruct. In this respect the fable and the parable are akin. Where Socrates used the story of Hercules and his choice, iEsop would have employed the fable. Both spring from the living perception of the analogical relation, both employ fictitious narrative, the material of which is drawn from neutral ground. But the fable speaks for practical wisdom in ordinary life, while the parable has relation to religion and super-worldly ethics. The ironical strain of the fable is lacking in the parable.
From the foregoing outline, it appears that the parable is in itself clear and comprehensible, and that it speaks in and for itself as a model and in its relation to and meaning for the truth which it is to illustrate. But does the parable furnish a clue in order that its interpretation may be recognized and how must it accomplish this? Narratives like those of the treasure in the field, the costly pearl, the two
debtors, etc., are in themselves clear,
8. Principles but who would at once through them of Inter- think of the kingdom of God or of the pretation. duties of children of God? Were the
clue not given in some way, the interpretation of these would be like Nathan's parable to David — not till Nathan said " thou art the man " did the meaning flash upon David. So in itself the parable proves nothing, it has meaning only for him to whom ideal truth has meaning, and then indirectly and through analogy. A dictum of Flacius must here be quoted: Comparisons and parables are not to be explained with reference to their minutiae but with reference to their central points. Each parable has its individuality both in content and purpose. Yet since the parable is an invented narrative the impulse to which comes from an ideal factor, it follows that the idea which is to be illustrated works in and through the various particulars, especially if the parable be elaborated. The parables of the tares among the wheat, the ten virgins, the wedding guesV-and others exemplify this. In the Gospels there are four interpretations given by Jesus himself. Two of these are common