PARABLES OF JESUS

The English word parable is from the Greek παραβολή, whose root connotation involves the placing of things side by side for the sake of comparison; it was a technical term for a figure of speech in ancient oratory. Before undertaking to describe the characteristics of Jesus' parables and their place in the Gospel context, this article, by way of background, outlines some relevant points about figures of speech as they pertain to parables and reviews the history of parable exegesis. At the end, as kind of postscript, it discusses the relation of the parables reported in the canonical Gospels to those found in the Gospel of Thomas.

Simile, Metaphor and Allegory. The most basic forms of illustration are the simile and the metaphor. In a simile one thing is likened or compared to another thing of a different kind for illustrative purposes (often with the words "like" or "as"); for example, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you are like whitewashed tombs" (Mt 23.27). This colorful method of description is common in ordinary speech. A metaphor is a compressed simile in which one thing is identified or equated with another, or the qualities of one thing are directly ascribed to another; for example, "You are the salt of the earth" (Mt 5.13); "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Mk 8.15). This figure is more literary than the simile and is frequent in poetry.

The more elaborate forms of illustration, the parable and the allegory, are really expansions of the basic figures. A parable is a developed simile in which the story, while fictitious, is true to life. The latter feature differentiates a parable from a fable. Parables are frequently used today in speeches and sermons in which the speaker tells a story whose moral or punch line illustrates his topic. An allegory is a developed metaphor prolonged into continuous narrative. Ideally, in the technical and classical usage, the parable is distinct from allegory. In the parable the details and characters have no hidden meaning; the important thing is the lesson of the story. Details serve only to bring out the principal point. Another mark of differentiation is that the parable, like the simile, is a popular and less literary figure of speech. But in practice the traits of allegory are often present in a parable. The story may have one principal point (parable), but some of the characters may have a significance of their own. Already Quintilian, the 1st-century Latin authority on oratory, recognized such intermingling.

History of Parable Exegesis. In the exegesis of the Church Fathers the parables of Jesus were treated as allegories, and the Fathers were greatly concerned with the significance of all the details of the parables. They indulged in an exegesis that at times seems rather fanciful, although beneath their allegorizing the Fathers often came to a valid basic interpretation of the parable involved.

In modern times there was a violent reaction to the long centuries of allegorizing the parables initiated by the German Protestant scholar A. Jülicher. In his work Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 v. Freiburg 1888–89) he rejected 18 centuries of allegorizing and insisted that the parables of Jesus were simple, moralizing stories. The parables

had one point, and no one should seek hidden meaning in the details or characters of the parables; allegory is a literary figure, and Jesus was a simple preacher.

The wide implications of this popular position were very serious. As they are reported in the Gospels, some of the parables of Jesus have obvious allegorical characteristics, e.g., the parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard (Mk 12.1–11), where the characters are identifiable. If one were to follow Jülicher's principle strictly, the allegorical features would indicate that the parable could not be attributed to Jesus but would have to be regarded as a literary creation of the early Church. Again, three other parables receive an explanation in the Gospels: the Sower (Mk 4.13–20), the Weeds (Mt 13.36–43), and the Fish Net (Mt 13.49–50). These explanations are somewhat allegorical, for they interpret the individual details and characters. Here too, according to Jülicher's principle, the explanation of these parables could not be attributed to Jesus.

In time scholars challenged Jülicher's principle as being too doctrinaire. It is clear that, while the parables have one principal point, many of them are not free from allegorical features. This is evident if one approaches the parables of Jesus from a Semitic viewpoint rather than from the technical distinctions of classical oratory. Hebrew has one word for these figures of speech, māšāl, which covers all the Greek divisions and more. Under māšāl are grouped, in the Old Testament and the rabbinical writings, proverbs, maxims, symbols, riddles, parables, allegories, and fables. The παραβολή of the Greek New Testament is the equivalent of māšāl. Subsumed under it are proverbs (Lk 4.23), maxims (Lk 14.7–11), riddles (Mk 7.15–17), examples (Lk 12.15–21), figurative speech (Mk 4.33), similes (Mt 13.33), metaphors (Mt5.14), and, finally, parables, and parables with simple allegorical

characteristics. Thus, "parable" can cover a range from a single-line metaphor or simile to a long narrative. The distinctions that underlie Jülicher's theory would have been strange to Jesus and cannot be used mechanically to interpret His parables. Finally, it should be noted that the word παραβολή does not occur in the Fourth Gospel; there, as a synonym, another Greek word, παροιμíα, is used, which also covers a range of figurative speech (16.25).

Literary Dimension. Subsequent to the seminal work of Joachim Jeremias, who traced the development of the parables from their earliest stages to their final redaction in the Gospels, and who reconstructed the main aspects of the teaching of Jesus from the parables, a major shift in parable study occurred in the mid-1960s. Amos Wilder and Robert Funk, in proposing that parables be treated as poetic language, broke with the tradition which had been predominant since Jülicher of viewing the parables primarily as rhetorical forms with a single meaning or focus. At the heart of both poetry and parable, they argued, is a metaphor which, by the surprising equation of dissimilar elements (e.g., "The eye is the lamp of the body," Mt 6.22), produces an impact on the imagination that cannot be conveyed by discursive speech. Metaphor leads beyond the expressive power of language so that logically, "interpretation of parables should take place in parables" (Funk, Language, p. 196).

The parables tell us in image and symbol what God and God's reign is "like," but their open-ended and often enigmatic quality prevent us from finding one-to-one correspondences between the nature or action of God and the situation in the parables. As metaphors, the parables use concrete and familiar images which touch people in their everyday lives, but which point to a reality which transcends definition or literal description. Metaphor has thus moved from the status of a literary trope or figure of speech to a theological and hermeneutical category which characterizes all religious speech. The parables of Jesus become themselves paradigms for language about God.

Paul ricoeur stressed that the parables of Jesus are more properly "metaphoric" than metaphors since they comprise extended narratives which combine the narrative form and metaphorical process ("Biblical Hermeneutics," p. 33). As narratives they continue the narrative legacy of the Biblical tradition, and those who read the stories told by Jesus realize that life itself is "a pilgrimage, a race, in short, a history" (Wilder, Rhetoric, 65). The narrative potential of the parables was pursued by Dan Otto Via who offered a "dramatic" reading of the longer parables. From study of their plot and interaction of characters Via divided the parables into "tragic" and "comic" parables, understood in the classic sense as a sudden reversal of fortune from good to evil or the reverse. He argued that the parables confront their readers with the same tragic or salvific possibilities as those confronted by their characters. Readers can, like the Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18.23–35), remain untouched by unmerited forgiveness and continue to live in a world of strict justice which ultimately destroys them. They can look at the "salvation" of a picaresque or roguish Unjust Steward (Lk 16.1–8) and realize that God summons us to live by our wits when faced with a crisis.

Parables are not only metaphoric, they contain novel twists or paradoxes (i.e., apparent incongruities which convey a deeper truth). Generous vineyard owners about to give equal pay for unequal work generally do not make those who worked all day stand around while they first pay those hired at the seventh hour (Mt 20.8). Fathers in a first-century Near Eastern culture generally do not "run" (Lk 15.20). A major key to the "meaning" of a given parable is where the realism begins to break down.

Ricoeur and later J. Dominic Crossan stress the paradoxical quality of parables. Their fundamental message is that things are not as they seem; you must have your tidy image of reality shattered. The Good Samaritan (Lk 10.29–37) is not primarily an illustration of compassion toward those suffering, but a challenge to see the enemy (i.e., the Samaritan) as "good." The paradox of the parables corresponds to the paradox of Jesus' action in associating with tax collectors and sinners. The parables operate, according to Ricoeur, by a pattern of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation. Their hyperbolic and paradoxical language embodies an extravagance which shocks our normal perceptions, so that we are drawn to the extraordinary within the ordinary. The parables dislocate our project of trying to fit our lives into a tight pattern, which Ricoeur feels is equivalent to Paul's criticism of "justification by works." The parables offer a poetics of faith by summoning us to openness and trust in the face of the unexpected ("Biblical Hermeneutics," p. 122–128).

Characteristics of Jesus' Parables. Jesus took illustrations from daily life that attracted the hearers' attention by vividness and narrative color. While these illustrations enabled the hearers to understand His message better, they often had a strange or novel twist that left enough doubt to challenge the hearers into active thought and inquiry. These characteristics are worthy of detailed study.

Illustrations from Daily Life. Jesus was familiar with a rural Galilean milieu: outdoor scenes of farming and shepherding, and domestic scenes in a simple one-room house (Lk 11.5–8). The homes of the rich were seen only through the kitchen door—the view of servants and slaves. The farming was hill-country farming, done in small patches with stone fences and briars (Mk 4.5–7), not in the broad lowland plains. There were donkeys, sheep, wolves, and birds; seeds, wheat, and harvest; lilies of the field and fruit trees; patches and wineskins and lamps; children in the market place, laborers and merchants. Now, even for those readers who know something of rural life the ancient techniques described in the Gospels are somewhat puzzling, and special knowledge is required. For instance, the careless broadcasting of seed in the parable of the Sower is explained by the fact that in Palestinian farming sowing sometimes took place before plowing.

Storytelling Techniques. Among the Gospel parables are found vivid narratives employing all the techniques of storytelling. One of these would be the rule of three, namely, that in popular stories it is customary to have three characters with the point of illustration lying in the third. Thus, in the parables, three servants are entrusted with the talents, and three men pass the man who fell among robbers. Another technique of storytelling is direct discourse: rarely is it told in the third person what a character is thinking. Rather, the characters talk aloud to themselves so that the hearer may find out what is in their minds, e.g., in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Lk 18.9–14) and in that of the Rich Fool (Lk 12.16–21). Only one conversation can hold the stage at a time; and consequently, when three characters are involved, as in the Talents, the direct confrontation is repeated three times (Mt 25.14–28). Thinking of the parables as stories will also help to make understandable the peculiarities and inconsistencies that appear in them. "That is for the sake of the story" is the answer to many a difficulty that arises if one is too logical, e.g., why a dishonest steward should be allowed to make an inventory (Lk 16.1), or why workers should be paid in inverse order (Mt 20).

Novel Twists and Challenging Points. In the stories told by Jesus there is often a novel twist that must have made his hearers take notice. Who would have expected the scapegrace prodigal son to emerge as a more sympathetic character than the elder son who stayed at home? At times, as one may suspect from the similarity of Jesus' parables to those of the rabbis, Jesus may have used wellknown stories or characters and have supplied new endings. The priest, the Levite, and the layman may have been stock characters in religious tales; but in Jesus' story, the third character was a hated Samaritan, and it was he who was the most sympathetic of the three.

Frequently there was a challenge in the parables of Jesus, the challenge of the kingdom of God. In evaluating the parables as moral lessons Jülicher made the mistake, so common in the liberal theology of the late 19th century, of reducing Jesus to a preacher of good morals. Some of the parables, such as that of the Good Samaritan, were a blistering attack on the established religious policy of the time. Others, such as the parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard and that of the Talents, were threats of imminent judgment on the leaders of Judaism. Still others, such as the Sower and the Mustard Seed, were an apologia for the slowness and insignificance of the results of His own ministry in Galilee. Jesus sought constantly to involve His hearers personally in the challenge of the parables. Many times He asked them, "What do you think?" (see Mt 21.31; Lk 7.42) and made them pass judgment on the outcome of the parabolic story. The Matthean version of the parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard has the audience itself pass judgment on the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus (Mt 21.41; but cf. Mk 12.9). Throughout the Gospel is heard the personal appeal of Jesus: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Purpose of the Parables. The fact that some of the parables had to be explained by Jesus to the disciples who had not understood them (Mk 4.10, 34; Mt 13.36; Jn 16.29) raises the question of the purpose of the parables. The overwhelming evidence of the Gospels is that the parables made Jesus' message intelligible. Yet in a passage that separates the parable of the Sower from its explanation (Mk 4.11–12) the disciples are told: "… to those outside, all things are treated in parables, that 'Seeing they may see but not perceive; and hearing they may hear but not understand."' Was the purpose of the parables, then, to confuse and obfuscate?

Today many authors recognize that this passage is really a summation, not of the purpose, but of the result of preaching the kingdom of God in parables. The challenge of the parables was rejected by the majority of hear-ers who saw and heard but refused to perceive and understand. The parables were a sword of judgment. The passage cited above as part of Mk 4 is an adaptation of Is 6.10, which is quoted several times in the New Testament and became the standard Christian explanation of why Jesus' ministry had not been received by Israel (Jn 12..7–41; Acts 28.26–27).

Therefore, if the parables blinded men's minds and hearts, it was more because men refused their piercing challenge than because men could not intellectually understand them. This does not mean that the parables were always clear to all. Jesus' picture of the kingdom of God was quite different from that of the political kingdom of David that was popularly expected, and so his parabolic exposition of the kingdom often had to be explained. Also, Jesus was chary of detailed descriptions of the future action of God in definitively establishing the kingdom (Mt 24.36; Acts 1.6–7). The parables could unfold the true nature and destiny of the kingdom without arousing vain speculation about the future. Thus, the vagueness, which is of the nature of symbolic language, served Jesus' purpose. Well does Mark say of the parable: "And in many such parables he spoke the word to them according as they were able to understand it" (Mk 4.33).

Parables in the Gospel Context. The evangelists not only transmit the parables, but each stamps them with his own theological perspective through editorial changes, by locating them in a definite context (e.g., the three parables of Lk 15; the eschatological parables of Mt 24 and 25), and by addition of material from their own sources. The parables simultaneously influence and reflect the different theologies of the Synoptic Gospels.

The world of Mark's parables is that of the village, farming, and the processes of nature, and he has only one long dramatic parable (Mk 12.1–11). His parables lead the readers into the mystery of the kingdom (Mk 4.11), and serve the two major motifs of his theology, christology and discipleship. In contrast to Mark, Matthew has a great number. He takes over all of Mark's except for the Seed Growing Secretly (Mk 4.26–29), and incorporates extensive parabolic sayings and longer parables from Q, e.g., the Lost Sheep (18.12–14), the Marriage Feast (22.1–14), the Wise and Faithful Servants (24.45–51), and the Talents (25.14–30). Matthew's theology assumes its distinctive shape from parables found only in his Gospel, such as the Wheat and the Tares (13.24–30), the Unmerciful Servant (18.23–35), the Laborers in the Vineyard (20.1–16), the Ten Bridesmaids (25.1–13), and the Sheep and the Goats (25.31–46).

Matthew's parables manifest common literary and theological traits. Matthew loves extravagance. Mark's shrub (4.32) becomes a tree (Mt 13.32) and the debt of the servant (Mt 18.24) exceeds the taxes of Syria, Phoenicia, Judaea, and Samaria. His parables contain many allegorical features and he is fond of apocalyptic imagery to underscore the crisis occasioned by the teaching of Jesus (eternal fire; outer darkness; weeping and gnashing of teeth; see 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30). Matthew changes the parable of the Lost Sheep (18.12–14) from a defense of Jesus' fellowship with tax collectors (cf. Lk 15.1–7), to concern for the "little ones" in the community—a major theme of chapter 18. In editing parables received from Mark and parables only in his Gospel, Matthew also reflects the conflict with the Judaism of his time (see 21.28–43; 22.1–14). The parables which conclude the eschatological discourse (24.45–25.31) all deal with responsible ethical action in the face of coming judgment, a theme which reverberates throughout the discourse and the Gospel.

The Gospel of Luke contains the most extensive collection of parables in the New Testament, including those which are seen as classic statements of the teaching of Jesus, such as the Good Samaritan (10.29–37) and the Prodigal Son (15.11–32). Luke's parables eschew allegory; they offer stories which are true to life and by the frequent use of soliloquy (12.17; 15.17–19; 16.3–4) they invite us into the world of the characters. They occur for the most part in the "travel narrative" (Lk 9.51–19.27) and reflect distinct Lukan themes such as the importance of compassion and mercy (1.78; 7.13; 10.33; 15.20), the dangers of wealth (12.13–21; 16.19–31) and the importance of prayer (11.5–10; 18.1–14). More than any evangelist Luke presents the demands of daily Christian life, so that the parables become paradigms of Christian existence.

Parables in the Fourth Gospel. John differs markedly from the Synoptics in the use of figurative language. However, if one recalls the scope of the term māšāl and that in the Biblical mentality there is no emphatic distinction between the various types of figurative language, then what is found in John can certainly come under the designation παραβολή (as the equivalent of māšāl ), even though John does not use that word.

Jesus is found citing proverbs in John 4.35, 37. More often Johannine figurative language is applied to Jesus Himself, e.g., metaphors wherein Jesus is the bread of life (6.35), the source of living water (7.38), the light of the world (8.12). In the Synoptics, figurative language is frequently used for the kingdom of God, a term which does not loom large in Johannine thought. Actually, the emphasis that the Synoptics put on the coming and acceptance of the kingdom of god, John puts on the sending of Jesus by the Father. The challenge to men presented in the Synoptic tradition by the kingdom of God is presented in John (e.g., 3.16–21) by the person of Jesus. The uses of figurative language in the two traditions are quite analogous, then, to their theological emphases. (see john, gospel according to st.)

There are more elaborate instances of figurative language in John that border on allegory. On the basis of Jülicher's theory, some use Johannine allegory as an indication of the lateness of the Gospel and its lack of authentic tradition. Jesus, however, was just as capable of speaking in simple allegories as were the rabbis of his time. Moreover, the proposed Johannine allegories must be analyzed. Taking the figure of the shepherd and the sheep in John 10.1–13 as an example, one may suggest that in 10.1–3a and 3b–5 there really are two short parables. Then, in 10.6 there is a failure to understand the parables, just as there is in Mark 4.10; and in 10.7–13 there is a somewhat allegorical explanation of the parables, just as in Mark 4.13–20. Again, an analysis of the simple allegory of the vine and branches in John 15.1–8 would show Old Testament and Synoptic parallels. Thus, the Johannine tradition in relation to parables is not as startlingly different as it might seem at first sight.

Gospel of Thomas and Synoptic Parables. The discovery in 1945 of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas ) among the 13 Coptic manuscripts at Nag Hammadi and its subsequent publication, as well as the realization that the texts found in the late 19th century at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt were also from the Gospel of Thomas, precipitated a lively discussion on the relation of its 114 sayings to similar sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. Roughly 25 percent are virtually identical with parallel sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. The others represent variants of Synoptic sayings, sayings of Jesus known from the Church Fathers and Apocryphal Gospels, as well as sayings found only in the Gospel of Thomas.

Especially important are those parables and parabolic sayings which are parallel to similar sayings in the Synoptic Gospels (principally, Gos. Thom. #8=Mt 13.47–50; #9=Mk 4.2–9, et par.; #20=Mk 30–32, et par.; #21=Mk 3.27; 4.26–29; #35=Mk 3.23–27, et par.; #57=Mt 13.24–30; #63=Lk 12.13–21; #64=Mt 22.1–14; Lk 14.15–24; #65=Mk 12.1–12, et par.; #76=Mt 13.45–46; #96=Mt 13.33, Lk 13.20–21; #107=Mt 18.12–14; Lk 15.3–7; #109=Mt 13.44). Two parables (#97–98) have no parallels in the Synoptics. The parables of the Gospel of Thomas show a strong affinity with those in Q and lack those which are often seen as distinctive of the teaching of Jesus, e.g., the Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18.23–35), the Sheep and the Goats (Mt 25.31–46), the Good Samaritan (Lk 10.29–37), and the Prodigal Son (Lk 15.11–32).

As in the Synoptic parables the introductory formula is "like"; unlike them the formula is often "The Kingdom of the Father is like." While the Synoptic parables are addressed often to the crowds or to Jesus' disciples, the parables of the Gospel of Thomas are directed exclusively to the disciples. The parables of the Gospel of Thomas lack references to the Old Testament found in the Synoptic parables and the work is negative toward the Old Testament (see #52).

Three principal theories have emerged on the relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the Synoptics: dependence on the Synoptic Gospels; essential independence of the Synoptics; and partial dependence and partial independence. Since the parables of the Gospel of Thomas appear in a different order than in the Synoptics and in a simpler form (i.e., without allegorical additions), and since they do not reflect the distinctive theology of the Gospels, the majority opinion rejects direct literary dependence on the Synoptics, and favors use of a common or similar primitive tradition. In specific cases the parables of the Gospel Of Thomas may be closer than the Synoptics to the original words of Jesus.

Earlier commentators on the Gospel of Thomas often described it as "Gnostic," but recent studies question this by arguing that, while stressing asceticism and wisdom, it is on the borderline between Gnosticism and orthodoxy (Crossan, Davies, and Quispel). While much remains unsettled about the Gospel of Thomas, such as its original language, its provenance and date (speculations range from mid-first century a.d. until late second), its literary structure, and the relation of tradition and redaction within the text, it remains an important resource for the study of the history and development of the sayings of the Gospels (especially the parables), as well as for the religious history of early Christianity.

Bibliography: General and Literary Dimension of Parables. r. e. brown, "Parable and Allegory Reconsidered," Novum Testamentum 5 (1962) 36–45. j. jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (rev. ed. New York 1963). m. boucher, The Parables (Wilmington, Delaware 1981), j. e. breech, The Silence of Jesus (Philadelphia 1983). j. d. crossan. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York 1973). j. drury, The Parables in the Gospels (New York 1985). r. funk, Language, Hermeneutic and the Word of God (New York 1966). w. s. kissinger, The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, New Jersey 1979). h.-j. klauck, Allegorie and Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (Münster 1978). j. lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York 1981). s. mcfague, Metaphorical Theology (Philadelphia 1982). p. perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus (New York 1981). n. perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia 1976). p. ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 4 (1975) 27–148. m. a. tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia 1979). d. o. via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia 1967). h. weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern (Göttingen 1978). a. wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel, (2d ed. New York 1971). Parables in Context of Gospels. k. e. bailey, Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, 2 v. in 1 (Grand Rapids 1984) [on Luke]. m. boucher, The Mysterious Parable (Washington 1977) [on Mark]. c. e. carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia 1975). j. r. donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia 1988). m. goulder, "Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels," Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968) 51–69. j. kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London and St. Louis 1977). Parables and the Gospel of Thomas. Text. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, 12 v. (Leiden 1972–), v. 3 (=Codex II) contains The Gospel of Thomas. a. guillaumont, et al., The Gospel According to Thomas, Coptic text and Eng. tr. (New York 1959). Translations, j. robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco 1977) 117–130; also in r. funk, ed., New Gospel Parallels, v. 2 (Philadelphia 1985) 93–187. Studies. s. davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York 1983). j. d. crossan, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis 1985). h. montefiore, "A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel according to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gosples," h. montefiore and h. e. w. turner, eds., Thomas and the Evangelists (Naperville 1962) 40–78. g. quispel, "The Gospel of Thomas Revisited," b. barc, ed., Colloque International sur Les Textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec; Louvain 1981) 218–266.

[r. e. brown/

j. r. donahue/eds.]