Interpreting the Parables of Jesus: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here? CRAIG L. BLOMBERG Denver Seminary Denver, CO 80210
TWo RECENT PUBLICATIONS SUGGEST that a new consensus is emerging in
North American parable interpretation. The firstfruits of the Jesus Seminar have appeared, color-coding each portion of the parables of the canonical Gospels and Thomas red, pink, gray, or black in descending order of prob ability of authenticity.1 Second, Β. B. Scott has produced the most detailed commentary on the parables in over half a century, combining traditional form- and redaction-critical concerns with newer literary, hermeneutical, and social-scientific analyses.2 Both works build directly on the methods devel oped in the SBL parables study group which first became well known with the inaugural volumes of Semeia in 1974 and which has proved widely influ ential ever since. But this new consensus embraces perspectives which range from indispensable to implausible, so that the time seems ripe for an assess ment of the status quaestionis and for some fresh proposals for research. Many areas might be profitably surveyed; this essay chooses to focus on 3 those most immediately relevant for the interpretation of the parables. Spe1 Robert W. Funk, Bernard B. Scott, James R. Butts, The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988). 2 Bernard Β. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). 3 I have elsewhere compiled an overview of "New Horizons in Parable Research" (7WmO> Journal ns 3 [1982] 3-17), offered some suggestions for "Preaching the Parables: Preserving Three Main Points" (Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 [1984] 31-41), and provided a basic introduction to parable scholarship in "Parable," international Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
50
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES
51
cifically, it will propose two controversial theses: first, the canonical parables are both more allegorical and more authentic than is usually admitted; and second, a parable often makes more than one point, with each point aligning itself with a central character in the narrative. I. The State of the Art: Summary and Assessment A. Parable and Allegory A sizable number of introductory texts still propound as axiomatic the older critical views that parables and allegories must be sharply distinguished, that parables contain only one tertium comparationis and that they make only one main point. The SBL and Jesus seminars have raised important doubts about the latter two principles but still position parables and allegories at opposite ends of a spectrum. Much specialized scholarship on the parables, however, now affirms that this distinction has been overdrawn and that at least a few instances of Jesus9 ipsissima vox do contain allegorical elements. Nevertheless, the occasionally elaborate allegorical interpretations ascribed to Jesus (Mark 4:13-20 parr.; Matt 13:37-43) are still regularly assigned to redaction rather than tradition. Certainly little countenance is given to Mark's apparent notion that these interpretations are paradigmatic for all the rest of Jesus' parables (Mark 4:13).4 On the other hand, there is a growing minority of scholars who have persuasively argued that the pendulum has not yet swung far enough away from Jülicher. Some go so far as to say that, from the viewpoint of standard definitions of literary criticism, most of the parables are allegories.5 Several argue that the notions of stories in which every detail is susceptible of a double entendre and those which make only one main point are "straw men" Revised (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-88) 3. 655-59, as well as contributing more specialized studies referred to at various points below. 4 At the redactional level, this is now recognized by Joel Marcus (The Mystery of the Kingdom of God [SBLOS 90; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986] 213). See also Mary Ann Beavis (Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12 [JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989]) who shows that Mark 4:11-12 reflects Mark's understanding of the entire Gospel, and especially of Jesus' teaching, rather than representing an anomalous seam in the Traditionsgeschichte of the text. 5 In part, this is a terminological debate, since if an allegory is defined, with Madeleine Boucher, as "nothing more and nothing less than an extended metaphor in narratoryform" no multiple tenia comparationis need result and the overall interpretation of a given passage may be relatively unaffected (The Mysterious Parable [CBQMS 6; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1977] 20). For others, however, the distinction is more crucial. See esp. Hans-Josef Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (NTAbh ns 13; Münster: Aschendorff, 1978); John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1985); G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980) 160-67.
52 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 which correspond to few if any existing works of fiction.6 Rather one must speak of a spectrum, circle, or sliding scale of more and less allegorical narratives. Most of the major narrative parables of Jesus then fall roughly halfway in between the two poles of the spectrum.7 At least three factors suggest that this last approach is the most valid. To begin with, studies of the historical-cultural background of various narratives are increasingly leading to the conclusion that not all of the details even in the authentic cores of the parables are realistic or lifelike.8 In almost every passage something breaks the bounds of realism.9 Scott, Crossan, Funk, Borsch, and Schramm and Löwenstein speak for many when they helpfully point to these anomalies as keys to understanding how the parables subvert the world, undermine conventional religion, and redefine the kingdom of God in terms of everydayness, vulnerability, indeterminacy, and the picaresque.10 But most of this new consensus fails to point out that this lack of realism is one of the primary features of allegory as well. It is surprising how many literary theorists who do not specialize in biblical scholarship see a paradigmatic illustration of allegory in the parables9 unique combination of realism and extravagance, disclosure and hiddenness, and use of symbolism.11 Second, few interpreters who claim to abide by the nonallegorical, onemain-point approach ever succeed for long in following their own rules.12 Sooner or later it becomes clear (implicitly if not explicitly) that at least the main characters of a given parable "stand for" something other than them6 John W. Sider, "Proportional Analogy in the Gospel Parables," NTS 31 (1985) 22; Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 139-53, 199-203; Charles Hayes, "Symbol and Allegory: A Problem in Literary Theory," Germanic Review 44 (1969) 284. 7 So Graham Hough, "The Allegorical Circle," Critical Quarterly 3 (1961) 199-209. See Northrop Frye, The Anatomy of Criticism (London: Oxford, 1957) 90; E. J. Tinsley, "Parable and Allegory: Some Literary Criteria for the Interpretation of the Parables of Christ," CQ 3 (1970) 32-39. 8 See Norman Huffman, "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus," JBL 97 (1978) 208-15. 9 What Paul Ricoeur terms "limit language" and "extravagance" ("Biblical Hermeneutics," Semeia 4 [1975] 32-36, 107-45). 10 Scott, Parable; J. Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973); Robert W. Funk, Parables and Presence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Frederick H. Borsch, Many Things in Parables: Extravagant Stories of New Community (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Tim Schramm and Kathrin Löwenstein, Unmoralische Helden: Anstössige Gleichnisse Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 11 See, e.g., all six references in nn. 6 and 7 above. 12 Matthew Black's classic article ("The Parables as Allegory," BJRL 42 [1960] 273-87) pointed this out thirty years ago.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 53 selves. Scott tries as hard as any to avoid this inconsistency but cannot.13 And the Forschungsberichten of individual passages typically reveal two or three complementary candidates for the "sole point" of the parable. Third, the vast corpus of rabbinic parables, the closest religionsgeschichtlich parallel in form and content to the parables of Jesus, are rather uniformly allegorical in nature. From his detailed study of over 300 tannaitic parables, Robert Johnston convincingly concludes that the distinction between parable and allegory is "unusable."14 Curiously, the new consensus readily appeals to much later rabbinic materials in interpreting first-century Jewish beliefs, even though Jewish thought evolved greatly over the first several centuries CE. Yet most interpreters refuse to entertain the possibility that the forms of Jewish teaching, which were demonstrably more stable over a similar time period,13 have any significant bearing on interpreting the parables. Once the parables are correctly identified as allegories, then the difference between a modern allegorical interpretation of the parables and the pre-Jülicher form still rightly decried by most literary critics becomes twofold. First, interpreters must not attempt to find symbolism behind as many details in the narratives as did older exegetes. Second, the meanings which they find for them must not be anachronistic. Thus in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke IS: 11-32), for example, the improbable behavior of the father's lavish welcome for his younger boy points to an allegorical level of meaning.16 Few commentators can escape seeing the father as in some sense standing for God, the prodigal for "sinners and tax-collectors," and the older brother for Jesus9 critics in the religious establishment. Discussions of the point of the parable consistently suggest one of three lessons: the generosity or grace of the father's love, the opportunity for repentance for any prodigal, and the need to avoid the hard-hearted attitude of the older brother. Significantly each main point lines up behind one of the three main characters 13
E.g., Scott, Parable, 49, 278, 371. Moreover, u if the parables of Jesus are generically the same as those of the rabbis, which seems inescapable from the standpoint of morphology and inner structure, then the classical Jülicherian model must be discarded as inapplicable to the gospel parables" (Robert M. Johnston, "Parabolic Interpretations Attributed to Tannaim" {Hartford: Ph.D. thesis, 1978] 636-37). A substantially abbreviated form of Johnston's study, co-authored with Harvey K. McArthur, is They Also Taught in Parables (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). See also Grégoire Rouiller, "Parabole et mise en abysme," Mélanges Dominique Barthélémy (OBO 38; éd. Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker, Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 329. 15 See Rainer Riesner, Jesus ab Uhrer (WUNT 2/7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1981) 97-245. 16 See Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 181-87. 14
54 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 17
of the parable. Surely it is better to admit that all are present and were intended from the outset. But to treat the parable in this more conservative allegorical fashion in no way implies a return to approaches which gave special meaning to other details (the fatted calf, the ring, robe, and shoes, etc.) or which saw the characters in the parable as standing for something other than what would have been intelligible in a Sitz im Leben Jesu. Β. Form Criticism Form-critical analysis of the parables made perhaps its greatest impact in two areas: the standard threefold classification of similitudes, parables proper, and example-stories18 and the so-called "laws of transmission" of Traditionsgeschichtey> Yet recent studies have questioned the value of these two contributions as well.20 To begin with, it is not clear that the threefold classification is particular ly helpful. The distinction between similitude (a short comparison in present tense) and parable (a full-fledged narrative in past tense) seems to have been overplayed. The tense in which a story is narrated is largely independent of its meaning, and length alone is not a legitimate differentia of genre. To be sure, much modern literary theory has sharply distinguished between the "untranslatable" metaphor and the "translatable" simile.21 Yet the polyval ence, ambiguity, and "tensive" nature of the latter is sometimes as pronounced as that of the former,22 while the argument that metaphors are incapable of paraphrase usually turns back on its defender as she summarizes her inter pretation (however avant-garde) in propositional language.23 Propositional 17
Pierre Grelot helpfully suggests reading the parable three times, once from the per spective of each of the main characters, in order to derive these lessons ("Le père et ses deux fils: Luc XV, 11-32," RB 84 [1977] 321-48, 538-65). 18 Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 vols.; Freiburg: Mohr, 1899) 1. 112-17. 19 Joachim Jeremías, The Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 25-114. 20 See John W. Sider, "Rediscovering the Parables: The Logic of the Jeremías Tradition," JBL 102 (1983) 61-83. 21 The best survey appears in Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 89-193. 22 Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, reconstruction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981) 188-209; Wayne C. Booth, "Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 55. Georg Baudler (Jesus im Spiegel seiner Gleichnisse [Stuttgart: Calwer; Munich: Kösel, 1986] 58-79) thus prefers a more fluid distinction between Vorgangsgleichnisse and Handlungsgleichnisse. 23 See Mary A. Tolbert's exposé (Perspectives on the Parables [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 42) of the self-contradictions in Sallie McF. Te Selle, Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). See also Bernard B. Scott (Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom) [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981] 29), who is as adamant as any
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 55 paraphrase can never exhaust a metaphor's meaning but it can partially encapsulate it.24 As for example-stories, the criteria by which they werefirstidentified were never ones of form, but of perceived function,25 and studies of individual parables usually assigned to this category (Luke 10:29-37; 12:16-21; 16:19-31; 18:9-14) have increasingly questioned their exemplary nature.26 Jeremias's ten classic "laws" of the tendencies of transmission still offer many valid insights which few would dispute. Certainly the translation of Jesus' Aramaic words into Greek means that his ipsissima verba (but not the ipsissima vox) are largely irrecoverable.27 "Representational changes" help explain otherwise surprising differences between parallels (e.g., Matt 7:24-27 par.; Mark 4:30-32 parr.).28 Collections and conflations of parables developed (as in Mark 4:1-34 parr.; Matt 24:32-25:46 parr.). The use of OT or noncanonical parallels often accounts for part or all of the story-line of a particular passage.29 And the influence of the church's situation in the production of divergent parallels is undeniable.30 On the other hand, serious doubts surround the validity of several of Jeremias's other "laws." Though it is still widely affirmed, Bultmann's "law of increasing distinctness" should probably be abandoned altogether; the on the impropriety of parabolic paraphrase, yet who nevertheless summarizes the meaning of a parable like that of the Good Samaritan with this solidly propositional (if unconventional) statement: "to enter the Kingdom one must get in the ditch and be served by one's mortal enemy." 24 Ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneutics," 80; Edmund P. Clowney, "Interpreting the Biblical Models of the Church: A Hermeneutical Deepening of Ecclesiology," Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization (ed. D. A. Carson; Exeter: Paternoster, 1984; Nashville: T. Nelson, 1985) 96-97. 25 Ernst Baasland, "Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen," NovT 2S (1986) 193-219. 26 See the debate over the nature of the Good Samaritan in Semeia 2 (1974). 27 It also makes the identification of unhistorical accretions to the tradition that much more difficult, since the evangelists may well paraphrase authentic material in their own distinctive styles. See Philip B. Payne, "The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation," Gospel Perspectives (6 vols.; ed. R. T. France, David Wenham, and Craig Blomberg; Sheffield: JSOT, 1980-86) 1. 178. 28 At times the form of a message may have to change precisely in order to preserve its meaning in a new culture. See Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 173; Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979) 276-90. 29 A detailed survey appears in Jeffrey R. Sharp, "Comparative Midrash as a Technique for Parable Studies" (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY: Ph.D. thesis, 1979). Cf. also J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977-86). 30 For Jeremías this "law" was limited largely to the alleged alterations in the tradition caused by the delay in the Parousia, and alterations which more recent studies have demonstrated were probably not as substantial as once thought. See esp. Richard Bauckham, "The Delay of the Parousia," TynBul 31 (1980) 3-36.
56 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 comparative data are at best neutral and at worst decidedly against it.31 More commonly the demonstrably later forms of the gospel tradition produced abbreviated parables, so where expansion has occurred, one must at least consider the possibility that earlier sources were utilized. The Gospel of Thomas is often viewed as an important witness to early, shorter forms but the evidence is mounting that, at least, with a majority of the parables, Thomas'versions are later than and dependent on the Synoptics.32 One of the most notable omissions of most of the material originating from both the SBL and Jesus seminars is its lack of adequate interaction with this evidence. Scott, for example, dismisses the possibility of dependence by arguing that the order of Thomas cannot be explained with reference to the Synoptics and that Thomas never parallels Synoptic redaction.33 But thefirstof these claims is irrelevant and the second is misleading. That Thomas did not follow Synoptic order for his overall outline proves nothing about the sources of individual logia. And Thomas' versions are always most closely parallel to Lucan forms (usually admitted to be later than Mark or Matthew) for parables from the triple tradition (G. Thorn. 65, 9, 20). Similarly suspect is the idea that the evangelists regularly revised their ascriptions of the audiences to which the parables were addressed, often transforming polemics against Jesus' opponents into exhortation for his disciples.34 Close analysis of the data shows that the case for this "tendency" rests with only a handful of parallels (e.g., Luke 14:15-24/Matt 22:1-13; Luke 19:12-27/ Matt 25:14-30; Luke 15:4-7/ Matt 18:12-14) and that many of them are disputed.35 New insights into the practices of oral storytellers have shown 31
E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969); Leslie R. Keylock, "Bultmann's Law of Increasing Distinctness,** Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (M. C. Tenney Festschrift; ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 193-210. 32 Craig L. Blomberg, "Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,** Gospel Perspectives 5. 177-205. See also Wolfgang Schräge, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelien-Übersetzungen (BZNW 24; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964); B. Dehandschutter, "Les paraboles de Févangile selon Thomas," ETL 47 (1971) 199-219; Andreas Lindemann, "Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evangelium," ZNW 71 (1980) 214-43; C. M. Tuckett, "Thomas and the Synoptics,** ΝονΤ 30 (1988) 132-57. 33 Scott, Parable, 32-33. 34 J. A. Baird, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969); idem, "A Pragmatic Approach to Parable Exegesis: Some New Evidence on Mark 4:11, 33-34,** JBL 76 (1957) 201-7; Raymond E. Brown, "Parable and Allegory Reconsidered,** NovT 5 (1962) 36-45. 35 Philip B. Payne, "Metaphor as a Model for Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus with Special Reference to the Parable of the Sower" (Cambridge: Ph.D. thesis, 1975) 239; Craig L.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 57 that it may be impossible to speak about one original version of a parable and that each time a story was retold it was slightly altered as a fresh performance.36 Yet while recognizing that Jesus must therefore have told the same parables in numerous settings,37 commentators have yet to appropriate this information to suggest that some of the more radically distinct "parallels" in the Gospels could be separate teachings of Jesus on different occasions. The number of introductions and conclusions to parables which have been altered, finally, seems also to have been exaggerated. The Jesus Seminar, for example, uniformly excludes from Jesus' authentic logia the interpretive remarks surrounding the parables attributed to him. Often a problem is perceived because the framework of a parable does not adequately capture what is viewed as its central thrust. But once a parable is seen as potentially making two or three points, the brief statements with which a given passage begins or ends often nicely summarize at least one of those points (e.g., Luke 10:37). In other cases, the function of appended logia may be to add a related lesson or injunction rather than to epitomize the message of the parable (e.g., Luke 16:10-13).38 The idea that parables, as true rhetorical masterpieces, would have originally stood alone without any need of explanation is countered both by the requirements of rhetoric and by consistent OT and rabbinic practice.39 That far more parables in the Gospels have such framing material than stand alone strongly suggests that the practice is rooted in the authentic teaching of Jesus.40 C. Redaction Criticism Apart from Carlston's wide-ranging volume, nothing book-length has appeared devoted solely to the redaction criticism of the parables.41 Blomberg, "When is a Parallel Really a Parallel? A Test Case: The Lucan Parables,** WTJA6 (1984) 78-103. See also the incisive remarks of Roland M. Frye ("Literary Criticism and Gospel Criticism,** TTbday 36 [1979] 215-17). 36 See esp. A. B. Lord, "The Gospel as Oral Traditional Literature,** in The Relationships among the Gospels (ed. William O. Walker, Jr.; San Antonio: Trinity University, 1978) 33-91; Werner Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 37 E.g., Scott, Parable, 42. 38 A. C. Thiselton, "The Parables as Language-Event: Some Comments on Fuchs's Hermeneutics in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy,** SJT 23 (1970) 437-68. 39 See respectively Walter Magass, "Die magistrale Schlusssignale der Gleichnisse Jesu,** Linguistica Biblica 36 (1975) 1-20, and Claus Westermann, Vergleiche und Gleichnisse im Alten und Neuen Testament (Calwer Theologische Monographien A/14; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1984). 40 Olof Linton, "Coordinated Sayings and Parables in the Synoptic Gospels: Analysis versus Theories,** NTS 26 (1979-80) 159. 41 Charles E. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). Major sections of several other volumes, however, also provide good treatments. See esp. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic
58 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 Nevertheless, studies of individual passages prove that, regardless of the numerous new directions which innovative interpreters have recently taken, redaction criticism is still the staple of critical study of the Gospels. Nevertheless this discipline too has both strengths and weaknesses.42 On the positive side, redaction-critical study consistently highlights the distinctive theology of a given version of a parable. Matthew's account of the Wicked Tenants, for example, stresses the impending transfer of the kingdom from Israel to the Gentiles (cf. Matt 21:41b, 43 and Mark 12:9-12), while Luke underlines the importance of salvation in his account of the Sower (Luke 8:12, Mark 4:15). Such distinctives may at times actually stem from tradition (i.e., sources other than Mark or Q), but in light of consistent patterns throughout a particular Gospel, it is clear that they also reflect the evangelists' conscious thematic emphases. In other cases redactional analysis reveals a desire to clarify potentially ambiguous source material. Thus Luke inserts "perhaps" before the landlord's comment that the wicked tenants would respect his son (Luke 20:13; cf. Mark 12:6), since he believed that at the allegorical level God was not caught off guard when his son was rejected.43 A second major contribution of the redaction criticism of the parables is to set individual passages in their larger contexts in the evangelists' outlines. Matthew expands Mark 4:1-34, arranging seven parables into a chiastic pattern in 13:l-52.44 Luke abbreviates the Marcan collection and links the parable of the Sower with other passages which highlight the theme of the "word of God" (Luke 8:4-21).45 In his central section he too seems to employ a chiastic arrrangement of parables as the pegs for arranging Jesus' teachings in topical fashion (Luke 9:51-18:31).46 And Matthew often pairs singly attested parables with traditional sayings, possibly modeling the rabbinic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1981); Jack D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (Richmond: John Knox, 1969). 42 The hypothesis of Marcan priority is assumed throughout this survey. It remains by far the most probable of the competing hypotheses, though undoubtedly overly simplistic. For its most recent detailed defense, see Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987). 43 Carlston, Parables, 79; Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977) 537. 44 David Wenham, "The Structure of Matthew XIII," NTS 25 (1978-79) 517-18. 45 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 93-94; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols.; AB 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85) 1. 699-700. 46 Craig L. Blomberg, "Midrash, Chiasmus and the Outline of Luke's Central Section,'' Gospel Perspectives 3. 217-61.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 59 illustration of halakah with haggadah (Matt 18:12-14,23-35; 20:1-18; 21:2832; 22:1-14; 24:45-25:46).47 In other cases redaction criticism of the parables has seemed to overstep critically secure boundaries. As with form criticism, passages may be assumed to be genuine parallels which are not, hence invalidating their use for determining the nature of editorial alterations. The "redactional equals ^authentic99 equation continues to be perpetuated despite its vacuous logic. False generalizations are drawn from too little data so that tendencies are assigned to an evangelist which may not be legitimate.48 Sometimes changes which seem simply stylistic are invested with more theological significance than they can bear.49 £>. New Literary and Hermeneutical Methods The so-called "new hermeneutic" has bequeathed to interpreters of many different traditions the now standard principles of the "fusion of horizons" and the "hermeneutical spiral.**50 Recognition that propositions cannot exhaustively paraphrase the parables (though they can partially encapsulate them51) and that parables are perhaps more helpfully thought of as perfomative 47 Drury, Parables, 91. Drury's further conclusion that Matthew composed the parables does not necessarily follow. 48 M. D. Goulder's supposed characteristics of the various Synoptics ("Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels," JTS 19 [1968] 51-59) offer a classic example of tendencies for which more exceptions than supporting examples could be listed. See Craig L. Blomberg, "The Tradition History of the Parables Peculiar to Luke's Central Section" (Aberdeen: Ph.D. thesis, 1982) 240-48. 49 See Matthew's and Luke's inversion of Mark's "killed and cast out" in Mark 12:8 (Matt 21:39; Luke 20:15). So, e.g., Carlston (Parables, 42), who takes the inversion to reflect the sequence of events at Jesus' crucifixion—first led outside Jerusalem and then killed. A better, stylistic explanation appears in Michel Hubaut, La parabole des vignerons homicides (CahRB 16; Paris: Gabalda, 1976) 52. 30 See A. C. Thiselton, The TWo Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). 51 See A. C. Thiselton, T h e New Hermeneutic," New Testament Interpretation (ed. I. Howard Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 326; see also Ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneutics," 80: "To say that they [metaphors] are untranslatable does not mean that they cannot be paraphrased, but the paraphrase is infinite and does not exhaust the innovation in meaning." The most detailed analysis of metaphor with a view to interpreting Jesus' parables is Mögen S. Kjärgaard, Metaphor and Parable (Leiden: Brill, 1986). Kjärgaard distinguishes present, imperfect, and perfect metaphors, arguing that only the last are susceptible to propositional paraphrases, and that the original parables of Jesus do not fall into this category. But he fails to observe that, despite their fresh twists, Jesus' parables are filled with stock symbolism which would have yielded conventional interpretations of certain details and have given them some qualities of the perfect metaphor. For a full catalog of "standard metaphors" in Jesus' parables, see Johnston, "Interpretations," 582-96.
60 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 (or illocutionary) utterances has also helped interpreters to appreciate their purpose and function.52 No exegesis of a parable can ever replace a carefully crafted retelling of it in well-contextualized garb.53 But it is doubtful whether the new hermenéutica interpretation of parables as metaphors disqualifies them from consideration as allegories. The very power of parables to create "language-events" sets them off from more enigmatic texts. As Wayne Booth explains, whatever may be true of other types of metaphor, those used in rhetoric as weapons of persuasion are part of a "communication in a context that reveals a predetermined purpose that can be paraphrased, intended to be recognized and reconstructed with stable, local meanings that can be evaluated as contributing to that purpose."54 Like the new hermeneutic, structuralism too began its foray into NT studies almost exclusively in the field of parable interpretation, though later branching out into other areas. Its most common application was actantial analysis, now nicely illustrated and popularized in Pheme Perkins's eclectic study.55 Perhaps its most valuable contribution (combining observations from the levels of deep and surface structure) is its analysis of the different types of relationships among the main characters of a parable, coupled with the observation that a sizable majority of them are triadic in structure.56 Quite a few may be further classified as monarchic, in which a father/ master/ kingfigurejudges between two contrasting subordinates. The triadic patterns suggest that the parables may be aimed in three different directions at one time.57 The study of narrative more generally reinforces this suggestion, when one observes how the primary lessons of a piece of fiction are regularly communicated via identification with the central characters or ob52 The most comprehensive study of the parables from this perspective is Edmund Arens, Kommunikative Handlungen: die paradigmatische Bedeutung der Gleichnisse Jesu für eine Handlungstheorie (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1982). 53 See the excellent illustrations in Gordon D. Fee and Douglas M. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 133; David Wells, "Prayer: Rebelling Against the Status Quo," Christianity Today 23 (1979) 1465. 54 Wayne C. Booth, "Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 55. See also David Tracy, "Metaphor and Religion: The Test Case of Christian Texts," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978) 101-2; J. J. A. Mooij, A Study of Metaphor (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976) 129-31. 55 Pheme Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1981). 56 See esp. Funk, Parables, 35-54. Wolfgang Harnisch (Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu [Göttingen: Vandenhœck & Ruprecht, 1985]) regularly utilizes these insights into the parables' triadic nature in his exegesis. See also Gerhard Sellin, "Lukas als Gleichniserzähler: die Erzählung vom barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10, 25-37)," ZNW 65 (1974) 180-89. Sellin's conclusions about inauthenticity, however, do not follow. 57 Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 15.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 61 jects of the plot.38 Edmund Arens, for example, argues that Jesus' teaching in parables operates at three levels: expressing Jesus' solidarity with the outcasts of Israel, justifying his behavior vis-à-vis his critics, and claiming as his rationale the inbreaking of God's kingdom.59 Poststructuralist methods, including reader-response criticism and deconstruction, are the most recent and amorphous of the new literary and hermeneutical methods. However, at least one common thread runs through most poststructuralist studies, namely, that the locus of meaning rests either with the individual reader or with the interaction between the reader and the text rather than with some combination of authorial intention and textual signs. The metaphorical nature of the parables has made them prime candidates for novel, poststructuralist readings.60 But Michael La Fargue persuasively argues that a substantial measure of indeterminacy in the meaning of a text does not prevent it from having a "determinate substantive content" which ought to be the primary focus of interpretation.61 Nevertheless if firstand second-order systems of meaning are adequately distinguished,62 poststructuralism may offer a salutary reminder of how much exegesis is predetermined by established conventions and beliefs of interpretive communities. It may be unsettling for some to think of the Prodigal Son as a paradigm of Freudian psychology—the father as ego mediating between the two sons (id and superego)—but the fit is apt and the elaboration provocative.63 E. Preliminary Conclusions Viewing the parables as allegories permits many of them to make more than one main point but does not per se establish how many points to look 58
Robert C. Tannehill, T h e Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," JR 57 (1977) 386-405; Roland M. Frye, "The Jesus of the Gospels: Approaches through Narrative Structure," From Faith to Faith (D. G. Miller Festschrift; PTMS 31; ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979) 79; Borsch, Parables, 2 and passim. 59 Arens, Handlungen, 358-59. 60 See esp. J. Dominic Crossan, Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus (New York: Seabury, 1980). 61 Michael La Fargue, "Are Texts Determinate? Derrida, Barth, and the Role of the Biblical Scholar," HTR 81 (1988) 341-57. 62 E.g., Susan Wittig, "A Theory of Multiple Meanings,'' Semeia 9 (1977) 75-103; Tolbert, Parables, 68-72. 63 Mary A. Tolbert, T h e Prodigal Son: An Essay in Literary Criticism from a Psychoanalytic Perspective," Semeia 9 (1977) 1-20. On the meaning-significance distinction applied to parables more generally, see esp. Sandra W. Perpich, A Hermeneutic Critique of Structuralist Exegesis, with Specific Reference to Lk 10.29-37 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984) 184-94. For a paradigm of sober appropriation of reader-response criticism for the parables, see A. C. Thiselton, "Reader-Responsibility Hermeneutics, Action Models, and the Parables of Jesus," The Responsibility of Hermeneutics (with Roger Lundin and Clarence Walhout; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 79-113. For a holistic and balanced view of the locus of meaning in a text, see H. Frankemölle, "Kommunikatives Handeln in Gleichnissen Jesu," NTS 28 (1982) 61-90.
62
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991
for. Newer movements like poststructuralism often support allegorical interpretations but from the standpoint of an unlimited polyvalence. Form criticism and redaction criticism suggest ways in which the tradition and the evangelists have creatively handled their sources, but they do not successfully dislodge the parables en masse from their well-established position as among the most undeniably authentic teachings of Jesus.64 In fact, more of the material sometimes assigned to later tradition may be authentic than is usually recognized. Structuralism and the literary study of parables as narratives point to a consistent triadic design for many of the stories and suggest the possibility of identifying a central lesson with each of three main characters.65 Here lies an attractive middle ground between the Procrustean bed of Jülicher's one main point and the sea of relativism of some kinds of poststructuralist polyvalence. Perhaps the parables can be classified according to the number of main characters and the nature of the relationships among those characters. Perhaps each main character discloses an important lesson which a given parable wishes to communicate. Perhaps those lessons emerge as one treats the parables as allegories, at least to the extent that one assumes that the central actors represent spiritual counterparts. If so, further insight may be gained into the Christian message at the earliest stages of the tradition. Each of these hypotheses has been suggested individually, but no one has combined them into an integrated hermeneutical package or tested them against more than a few isolated passages. Part II presents some preliminary findings as to how these principles might be utilized quite widely in the analysis of Jesus' parables. Space does not permit more than a few programmatic comments under each heading, but a wide-ranging survey seems more valuable than an intensive analysis of one or two case studies when testing hypotheses which purport to be useful for an entire corpus of literature.66 II. Classification and Interpretation A. Simple Triadic Parables A number of the narrative parables of Jesus display what may be called a simple triadic structure. Three main characters appear in each, interacting 64 See Philip B. Payne, "The Authenticity of the Parables of Jesus," Gospel Perspectives 2. 329-44.1 have examined the occasionally disputed corpus of peculiarly Lucan parables with some comprehensiveness and find the principal arguments against authenticity wanting (Blomberg, "Tradition History," 113-237). 65 This observation is independent of any of the distinctive characteristics of structuralism as a dialectic ideology (which, in turn, is often determinisi and/or atheist in assumptions). See Robert Detweiler, "After the New Criticism: Contemporary Methods of Literary Interpretation," Orientation by Disorientation (W. A. Beardslee Festschrift; PTMS 35; ed. Richard A. Spencer; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980) 13. 66 I have developed these hypotheses at much greater length in Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1990).
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 63 with one another along the lines of the monarchic model described earlier (a master figure with two contrasting subordinates). Consistently they appear to stand in some sense for God, his faithful followers, and those who do not serve him. Though it has not usually been observed, three discrete lessons regularly align themselves with these characters which are often the very "points" which have vied with one another for recognition as the sole meaning of the text. Once it is recognized that the main characters of a narrative often convey the major thrust of its meaning, all three points may be admitted. The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) provides the paradigm for the simple triadic form, as already noted above. Closely related are the Lost Sheep and Coin (Luke 15:4-10), in which the nine coins and the ninetynine sheep function as collective unities, playing the role of one character. Despite important differences in imagery, all three parables of Luke 15 teach about God's initiative in saving the lost, the joy of discovery of that which was lost, and the need for those who are not lost not to begrudge God's concern for those who are.67 These points derive from focusing, in turn, on the father, the prodigal, and the older brother (and their counterparts in the two shorter parables). The Prodigal Son may also be divided into three episodes, one for each main character ( w 11-20a for the younger son, w 20b-24 for the father, and w 25-32 for the older son).68 Recent demonstrations of the unity of this narrative make it impossible to jettison one or more of the three episodes as the addition of a later stage of Traditionsgeschichte?* Similar emphases recur in the little parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:4143; the three points are virtually spelled out in w 44-50, as they comment on the behavior of Simon, the behavior of the woman, and Jesus' declaration of forgiveness). Here (as in Luke 15 and frequently elsewhere) the context of the parable has often been viewed as secondary, since it makes explicitly allegorical equations between the parables' characters and the members of Jesus' audience. Once the parables are interpreted in a limited allegorical fashion, this view becomes untenable, all the more so since commentators have regularly admitted that the context admirably fits the passage which has allegedly been inserted into it.70 67
Commentators needlessly debate which of these is the sole point of each parable. E.g., for the Prodigal Son, see, respectively, William F Arndt, The Gospel according to St. Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956) 350; Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 275; Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father (London: J. Clarke, 1959) 17-40. 68 Alex Stock, "Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn," Ethische Predigt und Alltagsverhältnis (ed. Franz Kamphaus and Rolf Zerfass; Munich: Kaiser, 1977) 82-86. 69 Tolbert, Parables, 98-100. 70 E.g., Ulrich Wilckens, "Vergebung für die Sünderin (Lk 7, 36-50),- Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker (Josef Schmid Festschrift; ed. Paul Hoffmann; Freiburg:
64 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 Matthew's parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21:28-32) resembles the Prodigal Son closely enough that Robert Gundry, for one, sees the former as a redaktionsgeschichtlich variant of the latter.71 In fact it is not quite as parallel as the parable of the Two Debtors and almost certainly, as most commentators recognize, a separate utterance of Jesus from a different occasion in his ministry. But its three lessons are not entirely dissimilar: (1) Like the father sending his sons to work, God commands all people to carry out his will. (2) Like the son who ultimately disobeyed, some promise but do not perform rightly and so are rejected by God. (3) Like the son who ultimately obeyed, some rebel but later submit and so are accepted.72 A rabbinic parable in Sipre Deut S3 offers a striking parallel in structure and contents and makes similar lessons explicit: The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before him were two paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. The other began in thorns but ended in clear ground.... So did Moses say to Israel, "You see how the wickedflourishin this world, for two or three days succeeding. But in the end they will have occasion for regret." So it is said, "For there shall be no reward for the evil man" (Prov. 24:20) "You see the righteous, who are distressed in this world? For two or three days they are distressed, but in the end they will have occasion for rejoicing." And so it is said, "That he may prove you, to do you good at the end" (Dt. 8:16).73 This kind of detail is clearly allegorical and tripartite—describing the conditions into which God places an individual and the contrasting reactions and fates of the righteous and the wicked. With certain variations, the parables of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (Luke 12:35-38 par. Mark 12:33-37?; Matt 24:45-51 par.) convey messages similar to these examples from Matthew and the midrashim (e.g., the three episodes in Matt 24:45, 46-47, and 48-51). An authority figure judges between two types of behavior among his subordinates. From the master figure one learns that God rewards and punishes people at the final judgment on the basis of their stewardship of the tasks assigned them. From Herder, 1973) 400; Hans Drexler, "Die grosse Sünderin Lucas 7, 36-50," ZNW 59 (1968) 165. 71 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 422. 72 Francis W. Beare (The Gospel according to Matthew [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981] 423-24) admits that the two sons represent two kinds of people, but he misses the point when he argues that the son who fails to obey could not stand for the Jewish leaders. Granted, they would have been astonished at such an equation, but that is precisely Jesus' very radical point—challenging conventional wisdom concerning God's will. 73 Jacob Neusner (tr.), Sifre to Deuteronomy ( Brown Judaic Studies 98; 2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 1. 175-76.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 65 the faithful servants, one discovers that good stewardship requires perseverance and consistency. From the wicked servants comes the lesson that those who postpone their responsibilities and do evil in the meantime may sadly discover that it is too late for them to make amends for their errors.74 The parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) is also structured along these lines, teaching a similar trio of lessons, this time with the two sets of five women each functioning as one collective character. The bridegroom is a common OT symbol for God (e.g., Isa 54:4-6; Ezek 16:7-34; Hos 2:19); the wise and foolish women then naturally represent those who are spiritually prepared or unprepared for judgment day. But independent significance should not be given to subordinate details, such as the bride, the oil, or the oil-sellers.75 In these various servant parables, the theme of the departure and return of the master is added; sometimes he comes earlier than expected, sometimes later. Thus no uniform tendency attributable to the delay of the Parousia emerges.76 Instead, Jesus enjoins faithfulness in stewardship to the tasks with which God entrusts one, regardless of the timing of the end of the age. At first glance, the parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matt 13:24-30) would seem a far cry from the simple triadic structures so far exemplified, especially in light of the detailed allegorical interpretation which Matthew attributes to Jesus (w 36-43). Closer attention, however, reveals a very similar monarchic pattern: a harvester gathers the wheat and burns the tares. All of the allegorical equations supplied rely on stock symbolism from the OT and intertestamental literature, or that which is natural once the primary referents have been identified,77 thus fitting a Sitz im Leben 74
The impure forms and partial parallels that occur among these servant parables may be due in part to a "deparabolizing" tendency of the tradition (see Richard Bauckham, "Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse," NTS 23 [1976-77] 165-69; idem, "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter," JRL 104 [1985] 269-87) and/or the evangelists' divergent redaction of an original account of the Eschatological Discourse fuller than any of the current Synoptic forms (see David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus* Eschatological Discourse [Gospel Perspectives 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984] 15-49, 67-76). 73 Even modern interpreters regularly seek an allegorical meaning for the oil (e.g., Karl P. Donfried, T h e Allegory of the Ten Virgins [Matt 25:1-13] as a Summary of Matthean Theology," JRL 93 [1974] 423), but little agreement has been reached. This suggests that it is simply an illustration of preparedness not intended to be limited to any single spiritual quality. 76 Even where the theme of delay does occur, it is by no means certain that Jesus originally intended (or that his audiences would have perceived) a direct reference to his return. Jews naturally would have taken such language to refer to the Day of the Lord, seemingly delayed for centuries since the prophets first warned repeatedly that it was "at hand." The plausibility of this motif in a Sitz im Leben Jesu renders theories of later redaction at this point unnecessary. See David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesu (2 vols.; Bern/ Frankfurt a.M./Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1981- ) 1. 89-93; Bauckham, "Delay." 77 Drury, Parables, 52 (though again he rejects authenticity).
66 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 Jesu.™ Yet the main thrusts of the passage still revolve around the farmer, the wheat, and the weeds. Each of these three "characters" takes a turn holding the upper hand. In w 24-28a the weeds seem to have triumphed; in w 28b-30a the wheat nevertheless survives; and in ν 30b the farmer shows that he is still in control. The three lessons appear fairly straightforward: God permits the righteous and wicked to coexist in the world, sometimes virtually indistinguishable one from another; the wicked will eventually be judged and destroyed; and the righteous will be gathered together and brought into 79 God's presence. The nearby parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50) illus trates these truths further, closely paralleling the Wheat and Tares but with out any emphasis on the period prior to judgment. A tripartite analysis of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) proves especially helpful in focusing on central themes and avoiding mis leading digressions which speculate about the virtue and vice of poverty and 80 riches per se, or about the nature of the afterlife or intermediate state. Luke 16:29 makes it clear that more than wealth plagued the rich man and his family; repentance was the key ingredient lacking in his life (though the clear implication is that true repentance would have transformed his attitude and actions toward Lazarus).81 The unique feature of a parabolic character hav ing a name suggests that Lazarus' appellation is significant ("God helps"); probably he is meant to stand for the pious cänäwim.*2 The only aspect of the imagery of the parable essential to the point associated with the God-figure (Abraham) is the irreversibility of judgment. Jesus quite likely adopted the rest from the Bar Ma'jan tale in one or more of its various forms so that the distinctive characteristics of his message might stand out that much more 78
Despite nearly unanimous agreement on the inauthenticity of w 36-43, there is evidence that Matthew's distinctive style and diction mask a briefer underlying Vorlage which was both allegorical and authentic. See esp. Michel de Goedt, "L'explication de la parabole de l'ivraie (Matt, xiii, 36-43): création matthéene, ou aboutissement d'une histoire littéraire?," RB 66 (1959) 32-54; also G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 135. 79 See David Hill (The Gospel of Matthew [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981] 235), who notes that 'the point of the interpretation, then, is exactly that of the parable itself: only God himself may distinguish the good from the evil; it is God's business alone to decide who belongs in the kingdom," even though, inconsistently, he does not find any of the interpretation authentic. Note also the three key referents: God, good, and evil. 80 Contra, e.g., Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus von Nazareth: Hoffnung der Armen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978) 38; and Murray J. Harris, "The New Testament View of Life after Death," Themelios 11 (1986) 47-48. 81 For a balanced view, see David P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (SNTSU B/6; Linz: A. Fuchs, 1982) 176-77. 82 Gerhard Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (2 vols.; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn; Würzburg: Echter V, 1977) 2. 341.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 67 clearly.83 The three main points follow naturally:84 (1) Like Lazarus, those whom God helps will be borne after their death into God's presence. (2) Like the rich man, the unrepentant will experience irreversible punishment. (3) Through his representatives (like Abraham, and also Moses and the prophets), God reveals himself and his will so that none who neglects it can legitimately protest his subsequent fate.85 B. Complex Triadic Parables Several of Jesus' parables disclose more than three characters or groups of characters but ultimately may be reduced to the same monarchic structure illustrated above. Others contain only three characters, but their relationships do not exhibit the monarchic pattern. Examples of thefirsttype include the parables of the Talents and Pounds (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27), the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16), the Sower (Mark 4:3-9,13-20 parr.) and the Great Supper and Wedding Banquet (Luke 14:15-24; Matt 22:1-14). Examples of the second type are the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35) and the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9). At least one parable, the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12 parr.), seems to fall into a different category altogether, though related to the triadic model. As with the simple triadic parables, structure proves more an indicator of meaning than is usually recognized. The two parables about a master entrusting his servants with money deviate from the simple triadic pattern in that they contrast more than one good example. Yet despite the variation in sums given or earned, the good servants function collectively to fill one role in the triadic structure. The three lessons communicated by Matthew's Talents closely resemble those of the servant parables already discussed. In Luke's parable of the Pounds, however, a more fundamental contrast appears between the nobleman's servants who generally side with him and the citizens who oppose him. The difference 83 For an alternate religionsgeschichtlich background, see Ronald F. Hock, "Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31," JRL 106 (1987) 447-63. On the unity of the text in its current form, see esp. F. Schiùder and W. Stenger, "Die offene Tür und die unüberschreitbare Kluft," NTS 25 (1978-79) 281-82. 84 Thorwald Lorenzen, "Biblical Meditation on Luke 16:19-31," ExpTim 87 (1975-76) 39-43. Contrast Jeremias's bland, reductionistic one main point: "in the face of this challenge of the hour, evasion is impossible" (Parables, 182). 85 An additional parable which probably falls into this simple triadic category is the Children in the Marketplace (Matt 11:16-19 par.) But a twist appears when one of the two groups of children plays the role of both subordinates, on the one hand rejecting the proposal of its playmates to play "wedding" and on the other hand rejecting the proposal to play "funeral." See Dieter Zeller, "Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 1 l:16f./Lk 7:31f.," ZNW6% (1977) 252-57.
68 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 between good and bad servants remains subordinate to the greater distinc tion between the ruler's household and his public. The point associated with the master remains much the same: God is sovereign and will judge everyone. But the other two points now focus on the punishment awaiting both those who explicitly reject his kingship (the citizens) as well as those who appear to be part of the household of faith but who forfeit their place through lack of stewardship (the wicked servant).86 The tradition history of both the Tal ents and the Pounds is often portrayed as a complex set of variations from Q along with the conflation of an originally independent throne-claimant parable.87 But the coherence of reconstructions of postulated earlier forms has been exaggerated and the infelicities of the final forms overestimated, so it is not impossible that both texts preserve independent, unified traditions.88 The Laborers in the Vineyard similarly contrasts a unified collection of workers who arrive at various times of the day with those who are hired at the eleventh hour and who startle the rest by receiving a full denarius' wage. From the earlier groups of workers, one learns that none of God's people will be treated unfairly (Matt 20:4—"whatever is right I will give you"); from the last group, that many seemingly undeserving people will be treated gener ously; and from the unifying role of the master, that all true disciples are equal in God's eyes ( w 13-14a, w 14b-15, and ν 16).89 The second of these points is certainly the most striking, but all three seem to be present. The master's concluding remarks, in fact, highlight each of these three points in succession ( w 13-14a, 14b-15, and 16). If a parable can make three points, there is no need to excise any of these segments as later appendixes. The parable of the Sower groups together the three unfruitful soils in contrast with the one abundantly fruitful portion of ground. No variation in length or emphasis distinguishes the description of the final, good soil from its three predecessors, but its distinctive produce clearly sets it apart.90 The 86 For very similar sets of three points, see Talbert, Luke, 177-78; Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 474. 87 See Wilhelm Resenhöfft, "Jesu Gleichnis von den Talenten, ergänzt durch die LukasFassung," NTS 26 (1979-80) 318-31; Luke T. Johnson, "The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27)," ΛΓονΓ 24 (1982) 139-59. 88 See Paul Joüon, "La parabole des mines (Luc, 19,13-27) et la parabole des talents (Matthieu, 25,14-30)," RSR 29 (1939) 489-94; also Henry C. Theissen, "The Parable of the Nobleman and the Earthly Kingdom," BSac 91 (1934) 180-90; and J. G. Simpson, "The Parable of the Pounds," ExpTim 37 (1925-26) 300-302. 89 R. T. France, The Gospel according to Matthew (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 289: "[God's] generosity transcends human ideas of fairness. No one receives less than they [sic] deserve, but some receive far more." 90 In a detailed form-critical study of this parable, Gerhard Lohfink ("Das Gleichnis vom Sämann [Mk 4, 3-9]," BZ 30 [1986] 36-39) clearly shows that climactic emphasis rests on the
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 69 imagery of God as sower and the people of the world as various kinds of soil 91 was standard in Jewish circles. The descriptions of fruit-bearing, stony ground, rootlessness, and choking by thorns so obviously apply to people as well as to plants that the interpretation ascribed to Jesus in Mark 4:13-20 is 92 entirely natural. Even the birds as Satan fit in with their role as harbingers of evil in OT and intertestamental literature (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:11; Jub. 11:5-24; Apoc. Abr. 13). At the same time, the call to careful listening which frames the parable ( w 3,9) suggests that not every detail was entirely self-evident. It is best to see the narrative, then, as one which demanded some kind of interpretation of the primary "characters," but which left the audience to speculate as to the significance of the rest of the details. Here Kistemaker concisely captures the main points associated with the sower, the good soil, and the bad soil (as well as relevant subpoints from the various kinds of bad soil): "the Word of God is proclaimed and causes a division among those who hear; God's people receive the Word, understand it, and obediently fulfill it; others fail to listen because of a hardened heart, a basic superficiality, or a vested interest in riches and possessions."93 Yet it is hard to see how Kiste maker can fairly call this compound-complex sentence "one particular truth"! Commentators who do successfully restrict the parable to one point never theless consistently debate which of the three possible emphases to preserve; the debate is now unnecessary. In the same vein, Robert Stein nicely summarizes the allegorical refer ents and lessons aligned with the three main characters or groups of char acters in the Great Supper: It is impossible in reading this parable not to interpret the guests and their replacements as representing the attitudes of the Pharisees/ scribes/ religious leaders and the outcasts of Israel.... The point is that the kingdom of God has come and that those who would have been expected to receive it (the religious
good soil. Note esp. the shift from the singulars δ μέν and και άλλο to the plural και δλλα, which leads H. Weder (Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern [FRLANT 120; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978] 108-9) to speak of the last soil as the MGrossteil.w 91 For references, see Klauck, Allegorie, 92-96. Drury (Parables, 26-27) highlights the especially close parallel in 2 Esdr 4:26-32, while Craig A. Evans ("On the Isaianic Background of the Sower Parable," CBQ 47 [1985] 464-68) thinks the passage is a midrash on Isa 55:10-11. A later rabbinic parable with striking affinities occurs in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 8:2. 92 Admitted even by some who reject its authenticity: Eta Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (London: SPCK, 1966) 118-19; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT 2/1, 2/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976-84) 1. 233. 93 Simon Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 29; C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986) 261.
70 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 elite) did not do so, whereas the ones least likely to receive it (the publicans, poor, harlots, etc.) have.94
But again it is unfair to claim that "the parable was not allegorical, because it posits only one main point of comparison."95 Stein's own summary contains three independent clauses, each of which adds new information not contained in the previous one(s). Matthew's parable of the Wedding Banquet is usually taken as a secondary, more extensively allegorized reworking of Luke's Great Supper, much as Luke's parable of the Pounds was alleged to have expanded Matthew's Talents. Once again, though, the structure of the alleged parallel is markedly different and the possibility of Jesus reusing similar themes on different occasions in his ministry must be taken more seriously.96 The Wedding Banquet is triadic but the contrasting subordinates are the guests who refuse to come and the man who comes without a wedding garment.97 The three main points which derive from this structure include: (1) God invites many people of different kinds into his kingdom. (2) Overt rejection of God's invitation leads to eventual retribution. (3) Failure to prepare adequately even when apparently accepted by God proves no less culpable or liable to eternal punishment.98 A striking parallel appears in the Talmud attributed to the first-century rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (b. Sabb. 153a), demonstrating the viability of these lines of interpretation. The Good Samaritan displays a triadic structure with the priest and Lévite functioning as one character and foil for the Samaritan in their respective responses to the wounded man. The parable is not monarchic, however, in that the unifying figure (the man in the ditch) is not a master figure but the epitome of helplessness. The history of interpretation reveals a lively debate concerning the point of the narrative: is it an example of mercy to be emulated, a critique of the religious establishment, or an answer to the ques94 Robert H. Stein, Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 89. 95 Ibid. 96 So, e.g., C.W. F. Smith, The Jesus of the Parables (Philadelphia: United Church, 1975) 120; Humphrey Palmer, "Just Married, Cannot Come," NovT 18 (1976) 255. 97 On the congruence of Matt 22:10-14 with w 1-9, contra the consensus, see Klaus Haacker, "Das hochzeitliche Kleid von Mt. 22,11-13 und ein palästinisches Märchen/ ZDPVZ1 (1971) 95-97. 98 Victor Hasler ("Die königliche Hochzeit, Matth. 22:1-14," TZ 18 [1962] 25-35) develops a similar set of three points as the main concerns of Matthew's redaction; while Alexander Sand (Das Evangelium nach Matthäus [RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1986] 439-40) derives three points from w 2-8 (on the invitation and rejection of the Jews), 9-10 (on the formation of the Gentile Christian community), and 11-13 (on the urgency of Christians continuing to obey God).
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 71 tion "who is my neighbor?"99 A tripartite interpretation would acknowledge that all three lessons are present, each associated with a different personage of the parable (Samaritan, priest/ Lévite, and wounded man, respectively). This is enough to make the parable an allegory, while at the same time providing a clear illustration of how greatly the type of allegorical interpretation for which we are arguing differs from the famous Augustinian exegesis so regularly (and rightly) rejected.100 The Unforgiving Servant and Unjust Steward are similarly non-monarchic even though they include master figures, since the two (sets of) subordinates neither parallel nor contrast with one another. Instead the one servant functions as the unifying figure, taking turns interacting with his master and his own servants or subordinates. In the case of the Unjust Steward, Luke 16:8a, 8b, and 9 have regularly been seen as three different lessons derivable from the narrative proper ( w 1-7); but, as long as a parable is viewed monolithically, at least two of these must be jettisoned as secondary. The close linkage between each lesson and one of the parable's characters—the master's praise, the steward's shrewdness, and the debtors' reception—suggests instead that all are integral to Jesus' original message.101 In both parables, the text naturally subdivides into three episodes: the servant and his master, the servant and his fellow servant (or debtors), the servant and the master again. From these episodes one learns of God's gracious forgiveness (Matt 18:24-27; Luke 16:1-2—even the unjust steward is given time to settle his accounts), of bad and good reactions to God's grace (Matt 18:28-31; Luke 16:3-7), and of the results of those responses (Matt 18:32-34; Luke 16:8—taking the κύριος to be the master of the parable, since Jesus' direct address seems only to begin in ν 9 with και έγώ ύμΐν λέγω).102 The parable of the Wicked Tenants defies simple categorization. It re sembles Matthew's Wedding Banquet by describing a master who punishes 99
G. Bexell ("Den barmhärtige samariem och den teologiska etiken," STK 59 [1983] 64-74) categorizes these approaches as the ethical, critical, and christological dimensions. 100 Quaest. Evang., II, 19. A modern, detailed allegorization by Birger Gerhardsson ( T h e Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation,** NTS 14 [1967-68] 176-77), which attempts to correlate each of the soils with a portion of the "Shema" (Deut 6:4-5), draws upon the vaguest of similarities and fails to convince. 101 Markus Barth, "The Dishonest Steward and His Lord: Reflections on Luke 16:1-13,** From Faith to Faith, 65-73; Jean Pirot, Jésus et ¡a richesse: Parabole de l'intendant astucieux (Luc XVI, 1-15) (Marseille: Imprimerie Marseillaise, 1944) 17-31. 102 Jeremías (Parables, 213) in fact follows this precise outline in his exposition of the Unforgiving Servant, without observing that he has made three distinct points: (1) "God has extended to you in the gospel, through the offer of forgiveness, a merciful gift beyond conceiving." (2) "God will revoke the forgiveness of sin if you do not wholeheartedly share the forgiveness you have experienced.** (3) "God w i l l . . . see that his sentence is executed rigorously.**
72 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 rebellious subordinates and replaces them with new ones who do his will. In both instances the master's son appears too, but in the Wedding Banquet he is simply the guest of honor at the festivities and plays no further part in the narrative. In the story of the Wicked Tenants, however, he plays a central role as the climactic intermediary between the landlord and his laborers. Few interpreters have avoided the impression that the son is meant to stand for Jesus as God's Son, rejected and killed by his contemporaries. The vineyard owner would then stand for God, the first tenants for Israel's leaders, and the second group for those who replace the original, corrupt lot (cf. Isa 5:1-7). Debate then centers over whether or not these undeniably allegorical features could be authentic to the original form of the parable. But despite the potentially implicit christology here, it is not clear that a pre-crucifixion Jewish audience would necessarily have taken the story in the same way which post-resurrection Christian readers invariably do.103 Hengel, for example, has shown that the development of the plot is in fact very true to first-century Palestinian life.104 Three points for the parable emerge from the actions of the landlord and the two groups of tenants, irrespective of the function of the landlord's servants (often said to stand for the prophets) and his son: (1) God is patient and longsuffering in waiting for his people to bear the fruit which he requires of them, even when they are repeatedly and overtly hostile in their rebellion against him. (2) A day will come when his patience is exhausted and those who have rejected him will be destroyed. (3) God's purposes will not thereby be thwarted, for he will raise up new leaders who will produce the fruit the original ones lacked.105 Perhaps Jesus did originally intend the imagery of the son to be a veiled self-reference and more central to the text's meaning, especially in light of the wordplay with the appended cornerstone quotation (bën/^eben),106 by no means a necessarily secondary juxtaposition. Ε. E. Ellis, for example, has shown that the parable plus cornerstone text closely correspond to the proem midrash form;107 they are thus entirely conceivable as authentic words of 103
So Klauck, Allegoric, 308-9; see also Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 474; Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (San Francisco: Harper A Row, 1983) 179. 104 Martin Hengel, "Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Me. 12, 1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse," ZNW 59 (1968) 1-39. 105 Attempts to collapse similar sets of statements into one main point again fail to avoid tortuously complex constructions of that "one" point. See, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium 2. 221; Hengel, "Weingärtnern," 38. 106 Matthew Black, "The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," NTS 18 (1971-72) 13. 107 E. E. Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old," New Testament Interpretation, 205.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES
73
Jesus in their original context. But the christology is at best implicit. Either way this passage does show that the parables of Jesus are not uniformly or inflexibly triadic in either structure or meaning. G Dyadic and Monadic Parables Many of the shorter parables and similitudes have only one or two main characters and seem to make fewer than three principal points. Some depict a contrast between good and bad characters but without any unifyingfigureto judge or mediate between them. Thus the parable of the Pharisee and Tax-collector (Luke 18:9-14) comes as close to the pure form-critical category of example-story as any of Jesus' teachings; the model of vain pride is to be avoided and the paradigm of humble pleading for mercy to be imitated. Here are two rather than three points.108 The structure of the narrative highlights the differences between the two characters by sharply alternating the focus from the one (vv 10a, 11-12,14b, 14c) to the other (w 10b,13,14a,14d). The Two Builders (Matt 7:24-27 par.) uses close verbal parallelism (cf. vv 24-25 with 26-27) to contrast the wise man who built on the rock with the foolish sand-dweller. Rabbinic parallels support the unity of the text in its bipartite form (DAbot 3:17; Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 24:l-3).109 G. B. Caird concisely captures the two points: "The man who hears and does is safe against every crisis, while the man who only hears is inviting disaster."110 The Unprofitable Servant (Luke 17:7-10) contains a master but only one underling. The passage, though brief, is still often dissected traditioncritically because of the switch from focusing on the behavior of the master to the behavior of the servant.111 But probably the passage makes two points rather than one, highlighting both God's sovereignty and humanity's unworthiness before him, so that all of the text may be seen as a unity. Commentary on the Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29) also regularly debates two possibleinterpretations which may well be complementary rather than mutually exclusive—the unpredictable present growth of the kingdom (focusing on the seed) and the promise of abun108 Thorwald Lorenzen ("The Radicality of Grace: 'The Pharisee and the Tax Collector' [Luke 18:9-14] as a Parable of Jesus," Faith and Mission 3 [1986] 73) summarizes the twopronged message of the passage as follows: "The parable reminds us that even the most religious person can miss the purpose and goal of life. The text therefore invites us to discover God as a living Father and 'that tax collector,' whoever he may be, as a brother." 109 Also Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (3 vols.; EKKNT; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener V; Zurich: Benziger, 1985- ) 1. 412. 110 G. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963) 107. 111 But see Jacques Dupont's convincing case for the unity of these verses on linguistic/ stylistic grounds alone ("Le maître et son serviteur [Luc 17, 7-10]," ETL 60 [1984] 233-51).
74 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 dant, future harvest (focusing on the farmer).112 The passage is, after all, a carefully constructed unity with the beginning and ending focusing on the sower, and the center underlining the role of the seed.113 The Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21) apparently contains only one character, until God enters into judgmental dialogue with him at the close of the story. Then it too discloses its bipartite nature, teaching not only about the incompatibility of true discipleship with the mere accumulation of riches but also about the inevitable judgment by God which all will eventually face. It is often argued that this second point appears only in the final verse, which should therefore be taken as an addition to the original narrative. Yet the parable itself contains hints that the man's problem goes beyond wealth to godlessness, most notably in the repeated use of the personal pronoun "I" and in the man's failure to think of anyone but himself.114 The two characters in the Barren Fig Tree are the vineyard owner and the vinedresser (who speaks on behalf of the mute tree). Again the inevitability of judgment emerges but it is balanced by the patience of the Godfigure who agrees to wait for fruit just a little longer.115 The Unjust Judge or Importunate Widow (Luke 18:1-8) affords a classic example of a zweigipfelig parable whose very title is debated (depending on which of the two characters is seen as the dominant one). Once again the dichotomy seems false, and meaning should be derived from each. Luke explains the purpose of the story as the need to pray without losing heart (18:1), surely the natural point to be gained from the model of the widow. But the behavior of the judge, by qal wahomer logic, also teaches about the character of God as one who will 112 Rainer Stuhlmann, "Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zu Markus iv. 26-29," NTS 19 (1972-73) 157; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977) 167-68. Neither apparently notices that his "one" point summary of the parable's meaning is bipartite. 113 See Jacques Dupont, "Encore la parabole de la semence qui pousse toute seule (Me 4, 26-29)," Jesus und Paulus (W. G. Kümmel Festschrift; ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grässer, Göttingen: Vandenhœck & Ruprecht, 1975) 96-108 (esp. p. 107); H. Baltensweiler, "Das Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat (Markus 4, 26-29) und die theologische Konzeption des Markusevangelisten," Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie (ed. E Christ; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich, 1967) 69-75. 114 A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use (London: J. Clarke, 1930) 205: The parable "is the reductio ad absurdum of selfishness by showing it at work systematically and unencumbered." Scott (Parable, 135) helpfully points out that the surplus was almost miraculous in abundance and that the man would have been expected to use it for the benefit of his community. 115 A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 82: "The clear implication of the parable is that Israel's time for repentance is short; yet there remains a last chance—a reminder that God is merciful as well as just." The clear implication of this summary is that the parable makes two points, not one as Hunter assumes.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 75 116
vindicate his elect despite preliminary delay. Attempts to divorce w 6-8 (or at least ν 8b) from w 2-5 as later additions introducing the second element of human responsibility to the original theme of God's sovereignty founder on 117 the fact that these motifs are regularly held in tension throughout Scripture. The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8) is a close twin to the Unjust Judge, though if "importunacy" is rendered "shamelessness" as several recent stud ies have plausibly suggested, then the point about prayer will in this case center more on boldness than persistence.118 But the parable teaches equally forthrightly about God's willingness to give good gifts to his children (cf. also w 9-13); neither emphasis needs to be subordinated to the other.119 It is almost impossible to tell a story without having at least one char acter interact with someone or something else. Conceivably all of Jesus' parables, therefore, may be at least partially two-pointed. Still, several of the shorter passages seem to stress only one theme. Most commentators agree that the Hidden Treasure and Pearl of Great Price (Matt 13:44-46) highlights the inestimable value of the kingdom, the Tower-Builder and Warring King (Luke 14:28-33) stress the seriousness of counting the cost of discipleship, and the Mustard Seed and Leaven (Luke 13:18-21 parr.) depict the impres sive consummation of the kingdom despite minuscule beginnings. Many other metaphors and similes which are not genuine narratives but are often in cluded in studies of parables, and occasionally so labeled by the Gospels themselves, would fall into this category as well (e.g., Matt 5:13-16; 13:52; Luke 5:32 par.; Mark 2:19-20 parr.). Ζλ The Christology of the Parables Viewing most of the parables as triadic or dyadic does not lead to any striking new interpretation about Jesus' message overall; it merely ascribes more of that message to most individual passages than is customary. About 116
See C. Spicq ("La parabole de la veuve obstinée et du juge inerte aux décisions impromptues," RB 68 [1961] 78) and Geldenhuys (Luke, 446-48), who, contra most, admit both emphases. 117 Weder (Gleichnisse, 273) explains that the certainty of the fulfillment of the request is at the same time the stipulation of the possibility of perseverance in prayer. Gerhard Delling ("Das Gleichnis vom gottlosen Richter," ZNW53 [1962] 24) notes the correspondences between w 2-5 and 7-8 which argue for the unity of the passage. And David Catchpole ("The Son of Man's Search for Faith [Lk xviii. 8b]," NovT 19 [1977] 102-4) refutes objections to the authenticity of ν 8b. 118 J. D. M. Derrett, "The Friend at Midnight: Asian Ideas in the Gospel of St. Luke," Donum Gentilicium (D. Daube Festschrift; ed. Ernst Bammel, C. K. Barrett, and W. D. Davies; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 83; Klaus Haacker, "Mut zum Bitten: Eine Auslegung von Lukas 11,5-8," TBei 17 (1986) 1-6. 119 So also Ernst, Lukas, 366.
76 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991 two-thirds of the narrative parables illustrate the nature of God, the lifestyle required of his people, and the opposing attitudes and actions which lead to destruction. Most of the remaining one-third introduce at least two of these themes. The widely held view that Jesus proclaimed God's kingdom or reign as both present and future, inaugurated by means of his ministry, remains sound.120 The parables depict life in that kingdom—God's present grace for sinners, his demands for discipleship, preparation for future judgment, and perhaps most significantly, widely pervasive and shocking reversals of conventional standards of religiosity. But what is one to make of the teacher himself, this Jesus of Nazareth who so boldly speaks on behalf of God and challenges the religious authorities of his day? The older allegorizers of the parables regularly saw not simply God, but Jesus as the Christ, behind such figures as the bridegroom, the sower, the good shepherd, the prodigal's father, and even the good Samaritan.121 Modern studies of NT christology or the person of Jesus seldom give the parables more than a passing glance, and most which do quickly stress that there is little if any christology to be derived from them. A minority, however, points out that at least there is implicit christology which dare not be neglected. Eduard Schweizer, for example, states it forcefully, while commenting on the Prodigal Son: Does Jesus then appear in this parable? Certainly not—and yet the joy that the parable seeks to have us share is found only where Jesus imparts the presence of God to men.... Those who nailed him to the cross because they found 120 See Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom; George E. Ladd, The Presence of the Pitture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Bruce D. Chilton, God in Strength: Jesus'Announcement of the Kingdom (Freistadt: F. Plöchl, 1979; repr. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987). For recent less conventional (or persuasive) understandings of the kingdom, see George W. Buchanan (Jesus: The King and His Kingdom [Macon: Mercer University, 1984]), who believes Jesus wanted to lead a nationalist revolt against Rome; James Breech (The Silence of Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983]), who views Jesus as advocating a radically individualistic form of existentialism; or Marcus J. Borg (Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus [New York: Edwin Mellen, 1984]), who rejects the traditional apocalyptic background for Jesus' teaching. 121 For the earliest (i.e., ante-Nicene) period of parable interpretation, see Maurice F. Wiles, "Early Exegesis of the Parables,*' SJT11 (1958) 287-301. For a defense of this ancient christologizing, cf. Leslie W Barnard, *To Allegorize or Not to Allegorize?," ST36 (1982) 1-10. Modern defenders of such approaches occasionally surface (e.g., Birger Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan—The Good Shepherd? [Lund: Gleerup, 1958]), sometimes with creative twists (e.g., Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.2 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958] 21-25, who sees the prodigal as a Christ-figure). And sometimes christological views without substantial ancient pedigree are proposed. See, e.g., J. D. M. Derrett, "Nisi Dominus Aedeficaverit Domum: Towers and Wars (Lk XIV, 28-32)," NovT 19 (1977) 249-58; Jeffrey A. Gibbs, "Parables of Atonement and Assurance: Matthew 13:44-46,*» CTQ 51 (1987) 19-43.
INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 77 blasphemy in his parables—which proclaimed such scandalous conduct on the part of God—understood his parables better than those who saw in them nothing but the obvious message which should be self-evident to all, of the fatherhood and kindness of God, meant to replace superstitious belief in a God of wrath.122 Philip Payne, in an important but little-known article, goes one step further and speaks of "Jesus'implicit claim to deity in his parables."123 Payne points out how the imagery of the parables consistently utilizes stock OT metaphors for God in ways which are meant to reflect the actions or qualities of Jesus. Some of Payne's examples seem to yield to a simpler explanation: Jesus was merely speaking on behalf of God with prophetic power. But not all the imagery is as easily dismissed. Pronunciation of the forgiveness of sins (Luke 7:41-50; 18:9-14), criteria of judgment or acceptance by God based on response to Jesus' person, not just his message (Matt 11:19 par.; Luke 14:2833), and hints of his departure and return in glory as bridegroom (Mark 2:19-20 parr.; Matt 25:1-13) or as judge (Luke 12:35-48 parr.; Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) all far outstrip the actions and attitudes of previous Israelite prophets. Of course one may dissect the parables and their contexts via Traditionsgeschichte so that all these potentially offensive elements are viewed as inauthentic, but there are no longer valid, independent reasons for doing this en masse. In a provocative study (which unfortunately sometimes just affirms what needs to be demonstrated) Royce Gruenler has argued that even accepting only the minimal core of authentic sayings and parables identified by Norman Perrin, one encounters sufficient language which is so phenomenologically and self-referentially extraordinary that it leaves merely human categories incapable of interpreting the identity of Jesus.124 On a more limited scale, H. Frankemölle utilizes a rigorous traditionsgeschichtlich investigation of pre-Marcan tradition to conclude that a christological inter122 Eduard Schweizer, Jesus (London: Collins, 1979) 157; Martin Petzoldt, Gleichnisse Jesu und christliche Dogmatik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 165; Α. M. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom (CBQMS 2; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972) 132; Jürgen Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 227; Baudler, Jesus, 259. 123 Philip B. Payne, "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables,- Trinity Journal ns 2 (1981) 3-23. See also J. Ramsey Michaels, Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), who then goes on to emphasize the equally important implications for Jesus' humanity which the parables disclose. 124 Royce G. Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982) 19-76, using Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).
78
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991
pretation of the parables of that trajectory of early Christianity goes back to the oldest level of the Aramaic-speaking church and probably to Jesus himself.125 III. Conclusion Probably not all of the analyses of various methodologies and individual parables suggested here prove equally persuasive. At the very least, the way forward in the current minefield of interpretive alternatives seems to depend on finding an intermediate route between the extremes of the more restrictive Jülicher-Jeremías tradition and the more uncontrolled allegorizing-christologizing of pre- and post-critical exegesis.126 Most interpreters today believe either that a parable must be rigidly confined to teaching one central truth or that it cannot be encapsulated in any number of truths. To be sure, no uniform approach is likely to fit every passage. But the notion of three main points per parable provides an apt fit about two-thirds of the time, and the idea of one main point per main character seems valid in almost every instance. When multiple lessons emerge from an individual narrative, they usually correspond to what many commentators have already discerned but misleadingly referred to as a single point, or else they match alternative interpretations which are consistently pitted against one another. If the parables can be accepted as limited allegories, neither of these culs-de-sac remains necessary. Though substantially dissenting from much recent scholarship, these suggestions at the very least merit further exploration.127 125 Hubert Frankemölle, "Hat Jesus sich selbst verkündet? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln," BibLeb 13 (1972) 184-207. 126 John Sider, professor of English literature with a long-standing interest in parable scholarship, offers a bold but persuasive critique: "The one-point theory is the most influential and the most pernicious part of Jülicher's legacy to a century of interpretation. What every seminary graduate remembers about the parables is that allegorizing is wrong and that every parable makes one main point. But any informed student of literature knows that these options are ill-framed—that an extended analogy of Spenser, Shakespeare, or Milton, or a metaphysical conceit of Donne's, is neither an allegory to be interpreted down to the last minute detail nor a comparison limited to a single point of resemblance" ("Nurturing Our Nurse: Literary Scholars and Biblical Exegesis," Christianity and Literature 32 [1982] 17-18). 127 I would like to express my appreciation to all who interacted with a previous draft of this paper during the Rocky Mountain Regional SBL meeting in April 1988 at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins, CO.
^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
