Interpreting Parables Blomberg CBQ.pdf

5/26/2018 Interpreting Parables Blomberg CBQ.pdf

1/30

Interpreting the Parables of Jesus:

Where Are We and

Where Do We Go from Here?

CRAIG L.BLOMBERGDenver Seminary

Denver,CO 80210

TWo RECENT PUBLICATIONSSUGGESTthata new consensusisemerging in

North American parable interpretation. The firstfruits of the Jesus Seminarhave appeared, colorcoding each portion of the parables of the canonical

Gospelsand Thomas red,pink,gray, or black in descending order of prob-

ability of authenticity.1 Second, . B.Scotthas produced the most detailed

commentary on the parables in over half a century, combining traditional

form and redactioncritical concerns with newer literary, hermeneutical, and

socialscientific analyses.2Both works build directly on the methods devel-

oped in the SBL parables study group which first became well known with

the inaugural volumes ofSemeiain 1974 and which has proved widely influ-ential eversince.But this new consensus embraces perspectives which range

from indispensable to implausible, so that the time seems ripe for anassess-

ment of the status quaestionis and for some fresh proposals for research.

Many areas might be profitably surveyed; this essay chooses to focus on

thosemost immediately relevant for the interpretation of the parables.3Spe

1 Robert W. Funk, Bernard B.Scott,James R. Butts,TheParablesof Jesus: Red Letter

Edition (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988).2 Bernard .Scott,HearThen the Parable(Minneapolis:Fortress,1989).

3I have elsewhere compiled an overview of "New Horizons in Parable Research" (7WmO>


2/30

I have elsewhere compiled an overview of New Horizons in Parable Research (7WmO>

INTERPRETING THE PARABLES 51

cifically, it will propose two controversial theses: first, the canonical parablesare both more allegorical and more authentic than is usually admitted; andsecond, a parable often makes more than one point, with each point aligningitself with a central character in the narrative.

I. The State of the Art: Summary and Assessment

A. Parable and AllegoryA 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 comparationisand that theymake only one main point. The SBL and Jesus seminars have raised impor

tant doubts about the latter two principles but still position parables andallegories at opposite ends of a spectrum. Much specialized scholarship onthe parables, however, now affirms that this distinction has been overdrawnand that at least a few instances of Jesus9ipsissima voxdo contain allegoricalelements. Nevertheless, the occasionally elaborate allegorical interpretationsascribed to Jesus (Mark 4:13-20 parr.; Matt 13:37-43) are still regularlyassigned to redaction rather than tradition. Certainly little countenance isgiven 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 havepersuasively argued that the pendulum has not yet swung far enough awayfrom Jlicher. Some go so far as to say that, from the viewpoint of standarddefinitions of literary criticism, most of the parables are allegories.5Severalargue that the notions of stories in which every detail is susceptible of a

double entendreand 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 morespecialized 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'sAudience: 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, andespecially of Jesus' teaching, rather than representing an anomalous seam in the Traditions

geschichte 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 thanan extended metaphor in narratoryform" nomultiple tenia comparationis need result and the overall interpretation of a given passage maybe relatively unaffected(The Mysterious Parable [CBQMS 6;Washington, DC: Catholic BiblicalAssociation of America, 1977] 20). For others, however, the distinction is more crucial. See esp.


3/30

, ) , , p

52 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I53, 1991

which correspond to few if any existing works of fiction.6Rather one mustspeak of a spectrum, circle, or sliding scale of more and less allegoricalnarratives. Most of the major narrative parables of Jesus then fall roughlyhalfway 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 detailseven in the authentic cores of the parables are realistic or lifelike.8In almostevery passage something breaks the bounds of realism.9 Scott, Crossan,Funk, Borsch, and Schramm and Lwenstein speak for many when theyhelpfully point to these anomalies as keys to understanding how the parablessubvert the world, undermine conventional religion, and redefine the kingdom of God in terms of everydayness, vulnerability, indeterminacy, and thepicaresque.10But most of this new consensus fails to point out that this lackof realism is one of the primary features of allegory as well. It is surprisinghow many literary theorists who do not specialize in biblical scholarship seea paradigmatic illustration of allegory in the parables9unique combination ofrealism and extravagance, disclosure and hiddenness, and use of symbolism.11

Second, few interpreters who claim to abide by the nonallegorical, one-main-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 themain characters of a given parable "stand for" something other than them-

6 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) 284.7So Graham Hough, "The Allegorical Circle,"Critical Quarterly3 (1961) 199-209. See

Northrop Frye, The Anatomy of Criticism(London: Oxford, 1957) 90; E. J. Tinsley, "Parableand 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.

9What Paul Ricoeur terms "limit language" and "extravagance" ("Biblical Hermeneu-tics,"Semeia 4 [1975] 32-36, 107-45).

10 Scott,Parable;J. Dominic Crossan,InParables: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 inParables:Extravagant Stories of New Com

munity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Tim Schramm and Kathrin Lwenstein, UnmoralischeHelden: Anstssige Gleichnisse Jesu (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).11See, e.g., all six references in nn. 6 and 7 above.


4/30

, g ,


selves. Scott tries as hard as any to avoid this inconsistency but cannot.13

And theForschungsberichtenof individual passages typically reveal two orthree complementary candidates for the "sole point" of the parable.

Third, the vast corpus of rabbinic parables, the closest religionsgeschichtlichparallel in form and content to the parables ofJesus,are ratheruniformly allegorical in nature. From his detailed study of over 300 tannaiticparables, Robert Johnston convincingly concludes that the distinction between parable and allegory is "unusable."14 Curiously, the new consensusreadily appeals to much later rabbinic materials in interpreting first-centuryJewish beliefs, even though Jewish thought evolved greatly over the firstseveral centuriesCE.Yet most interpreters refuse to entertain the possibilitythatthe formsof Jewish teaching, which were demonstrably more stable over asimilar time period,13have 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 thepre-Jlicher form still rightly decried by most literary critics becomes twofold. First, interpreters must not attempt to find symbolism behind as manydetails in the narratives as did older exegetes. Second, the meanings whichthey find for them must not be anachronistic. Thus in the parable of theProdigal 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 ofmeaning.16Few commentators can escape seeing the father as in some sensestanding for God, the prodigal for "sinners and tax-collectors," and the olderbrother for Jesus9 critics in the religious establishment. Discussions of thepoint of the parable consistently suggest one of three lessons: the generosityor grace ofthefather'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, 371.14 Moreover, uif 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 theclassical Jlicherian 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, isThey Also TaughtinParables(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). See also GrgoireRouiller, "Parabole et mise en abysme,"Mlanges Dominique Barthlmy (OBO 38; d. PierreCasetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker, Fribourg: ditions Universitaires; Gttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 329.

15 See Rainer Riesner,Jesus ab Uhrer (WUNT 2/7; Tbingen: Mohr, 1981) 97-245.


5/30

, ( ; g , )

54 THECATHOLIC BIBLICALQUARTERLY I53, 1991

of the parable.17

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

otherthan whatwould have been intelligible in aSitz im Leben Jesu.

. Form Criticism

Formcritical analysis of the parables made perhaps its greatest impact

in two areas: the standard threefold classification of similitudes, parables

proper, and examplestories18

and the socalled "laws of transmission" of

Traditionsgeschichtey>Yet recent studies have questioned the value ofthese

two contributions as well.20

Tobegin with, it is notclearthat the threefold classification is particular-

ly helpful. The distinction between similitude (a short comparison in present

tense)and parable (afullfledged narrative in past tense) seems to have been

overplayed. The tense in which a story is narrated is largely independent of

itsmeaning, and length alone is not a legitimatedifferentiaof 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 ofthe latter is sometimes as pronouncedas 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 (howeveravantgarde) in propositional language.23

Propositional

17

Pierre Grelothelpfully suggests reading the parable threetimes, once from the per-

spectiveofeachof the maincharacters, in order to derivethese lessons("Lepreet sesdeux

fils: Luc XV, 11-32,"RB84 [1977] 321-48, 538-65).18 Adolf Jlicher,DieGleichnisreden Jesu(2vols.; Freiburg: Mohr,1899) 1.112-17.19 Joachim Jeremas, TheParables of Jesus(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 25-114.20 See John W. Sider, "Rediscovering the Parables: The Logicofthe Jeremas Tradition,"

JBL102 (1983) 61-83.21 Thebest survey appearsinNorman Perrin,Jesusand theLanguageofthe Kingdom

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 89-193.22Jonathan 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 Inquiry5 (1978) 55. Georg Baudler(JesusimSpiegel seiner Gleichnisse

[Stuttgart: Calwer; Munich: Ksel, 1986] 58-79) thus prefersamore fluid distinction between

VorgangsgleichnisseandHandlungsgleichnisse.23 SeeMaryA.Tolbert's expos (Perspectives on theParables[Philadelphia: Fortress,

1979]42) of the self-contradictions inSallie McF.TeSelle,Speaking inParables:A Study in


6/30


paraphrase can never exhaust a metaphor's meaning but it can partially encapsulate it.24As for example-stories, the criteria by which they werefirstidentifiedwere never ones of form, but of perceived function,25and 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 offermany valid insights which few would dispute. Certainly the translation ofJesus'Aramaic words into Greek means that hisipsissima verba(but not theipsissima vox) are largely irrecoverable.27"Representational changes" helpexplain otherwise surprising differences between parallels (e.g., Matt 7:24-27par.; Mark 4:30-32 parr.).28 Collections and conflations of parables devel

oped (as in Mark 4:1-34 parr.; Matt 24:32-25:46 parr.). The use of OT ornoncanonical parallels often accounts for part or all of the story-line of aparticular passage.29And 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 ofJeremias's other "laws." Though it is still widely affirmed, Bultmann's "lawof increasing distinctness" should probably be abandoned altogether; the

on the impropriety of parabolic paraphrase, yet who nevertheless summarizes the meaning ofa 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."

24Ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneutics," 80; Edmund P. Clowney, "Interpreting the BiblicalModels of the Church: A Hermeneutical Deepening of Ecclesiology,"Biblical Interpretation andthe Church: The Problem of Contextualization (ed. D. A. Carson; Exeter: Paternoster, 1984;Nashville: T. Nelson, 1985) 96-97.

25Ernst Baasland, "Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzhlungen,"NovT2S (1986) 193-219.26 See the debate over the nature of the Good Samaritan inSemeia 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 ItsInterpretation," Gospel Perspectives (6 vols.; ed. R. T. France, David Wenham, and CraigBlomberg; Sheffield: JSOT, 1980-86) 1. 178.

28At times the form of a message may have to change precisely in order topreserve itsmeaning in a new culture. See Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber,The Theory and Practiceof Translation(Leiden: Brill, 1974) 173; Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture (Maryknoll,NY: Orbis, 1979) 276-90.

29A detailed survey appears in Jeffrey R. Sharp, "Comparative Midrash as a Techniquefor 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).30For Jeremas this "law" was limited largely to the alleged alterations in the traditions d b th d l i th P si d lt ti s hi h m t st di s h d m


7/30

caused by the delay in the Parousia and alterations which more recent studies have demon


comparative data are at best neutral and at worst decidedly againstit.31Morecommonly the demonstrably later forms of the gospel tradition producedabbreviated parables, so where expansion has occurred, one must at least

consider the possibility that earlier sources were utilized. The Gospel ofThomasis often viewed as an important witness to early, shorter forms butthe evidence is mounting that, at least, with a majority of the parables,Thomas'versions are later than and dependent on the Synoptics.32One of themost notable omissions of most of the material originating from both theSBL and Jesus seminars is its lack of adequate interaction with this evidence.Scott, for example, dismisses the possibility of dependence by arguing thatthe order of Thomas cannot be explained with reference to the Synoptics andthat Thomas never parallels Synoptic redaction.33But thefirstof these claimsis 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 toLucan 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 theirascriptions of the audiences to which the parables were addressed, oftentransforming polemics against Jesus' opponents into exhortation for his

disciples.34Close analysis ofthedata shows that the case for this "tendency"rests with only a handful of parallels (e.g., Luke 14:15-24/Matt22:1-13;Luke19:12-27/ Matt 25:14-30; Luke 15:4-7/ Matt 18:12-14) and that many of them aredisputed.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 ofThomas,** Gospel Perspectives 5. 177-205. See also Wolfgang Schrge, Das Verhltnis desThomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelien-ber

setzungen (BZNW 24; Berlin: Tpelmann, 1964); B. Dehandschutter, "Les paraboles de F-vangile selon Thomas,"ETL 47 (1971) 199-219; Andreas Lindemann, "Zur Gleichnisinterpretationim Thomas-Evangelium," ZNW 71 (1980) 214-43; C. M. Tuckett, "Thomas and the Synoptics,** 30 (1988) 13257.

3 3 Scott, Parable,3233.

3 4 J. A. Baird,Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus(Philadelphia:Westminster,

1969);idem,"A PragmaticApproach to Parable Exegesis: Some New Evidenceon Mark4:11,3334,**JBL 76 (1957) 2017;RaymondE.Brown,"Parableand AllegoryReconsidered,**NovT

5 (1962) 36 45


8/30

5 (1962) 3645


that it may be impossible to speak about one original version of a parableand that each time a story was retold it was slightly altered as a freshperformance.36Yet while recognizing that Jesus must therefore have told the

same parables in numerous settings,37

commentators have yet to appropriatethis 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 havebeen 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 problemis perceived because the framework of a parable does not adequately capturewhat 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 passagebegins or ends often nicely summarize at leastoneof those points (e.g., Luke10:37).In other cases, the function of appended logia may be to add a relatedlesson 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 rabbinicpractice.39That far more parables in the Gospels have such framing materialthan stand alone strongly suggests that the practice is rooted in the authentic

teaching of Jesus.40

C. Redaction CriticismApart 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,**TTbday36 [1979] 215-17).36 See esp. A. B. Lord, "The Gospel as Oral TraditionalLiterature,**inThe 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,42.38A. C. Thiselton, "The Parables as Language-Event: Some Comments on Fuchs's Her-

meneutics in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy,**SJT 23(1970) 437-68.39 See respectively Walter Magass, "Die magistrale Schlusssignale der Gleichnisse Jesu,**

Linguistica Biblica36 (1975) 1-20, and Claus Westermann, Vergleicheund Gleichnisse im Altenund Neuen Testament(Calwer Theologische Monographien A/14; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1984).

40 Olof Linton, "Coordinated Sayings and Parables in the Synoptic Gospels: Analysisversus Theories,**NTS 26 (1979-80) 159.

41 Ch l E C l t Th P bl f th T i l T diti (Phil d l hi F t 1975)


9/30

41 Charles E Carlston Th P bl f th T i l T diti (Philadelphia: Fortress 1975)


Nevertheless, studies of individual passages prove that, regardless of thenumerous new directions which innovative interpreters have recently taken,redaction criticism is still the staple of critical study of the Gospels. Never

theless this discipline too has both strengths and weaknesses.42

On the positive side, redaction-critical study consistently highlights thedistinctive theology of a given version ofaparable. Matthew's account of theWicked Tenants, for example, stresses the impending transfer of the kingdomfrom Israel to the Gentiles (cf. Matt 21:41b, 43 and Mark 12:9-12), whileLuke underlines the importance of salvation in his account of the Sower(Luke 8:12, Mark 4:15). Such distinctives may at times actually stem fromtradition (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 theevangelists' conscious thematic emphases. In other cases redactional analysisreveals a desire to clarify potentially ambiguous source material. Thus Lukeinserts "perhaps" before the landlord's comment that the wicked tenantswould respect his son (Luke 20:13; cf. Mark 12:6), since he believed that atthe allegorical level God was not caught offguardwhenhisson was rejected.43

A second major contribution of the redaction criticism of the parablesis to set individual passages in their larger contexts in the evangelists' outlines.Matthew expands Mark 4:1-34, arranging seven parables into a chias-tic pattern in 13:l-52.44Luke abbreviates the Marcan collection and links theparable of the Sower with other passages which highlight the theme of the"word ofGod"(Luke 8:4-21).45In his central section he too seems to employa chiastic arrrangement of parables as the pegs for arranging Jesus' teachingsin topical fashion (Luke 9:51-18:31).46 And Matthew often pairs singlyattested parables with traditional sayings, possibly modeling the rabbinic

Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parablesof Jesus(New York: Crossroad, 1981); Jack D. Kingsbury, TheParablesof Jesus in Matthew 13(Richmond: John Knox, 1969).

42 The hypothesis of Marcan priority is assumed throughout this survey. It remains by farthe most probable of the competing hypotheses, though undoubtedly overly simplistic. For itsmost 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(RNT3;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


10/30

Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke (2 vols ; AB 28 28A; Garden City NY: Doubleday


illustration ofhalakahwithhaggadah(Matt 18:12-14,23-35; 20:1-18; 21:28-32;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 fordetermining the nature of editorial alterations. The "redactional equals ^authentic99equation continues to be perpetuated despite its vacuous logic. Falsegeneralizations are drawn from too little data so that tendencies are assignedto an evangelist which may not be legitimate.48 Sometimes changes whichseem simply stylistic are invested with more theological significance thanthey can bear.49

>.New Literary and Hermeneutical MethodsThe 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.**50Recognition that propositions cannotexhaustively paraphrase the parables (though they can partially encapsulatethem51) and that parables are perhaps more helpfully thought ofasperfomative

47 Drury,Parables,91. Drury's further conclusion that Matthew composed the parablesdoes not necessarily follow.

48 M. D. Goulder's supposed characteristics of the various Synoptics ("Characteristics ofthe Parables in the Several Gospels,"JTS 19 [1968] 51-59) offer a classic example of tendenciesfor 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 castout"in Mark 12:8 (Matt21:39; Luke 20:15). So, e.g., Carlston (Parables, 42), who takes the inversion to reflect the

sequence of events at Jesus' crucifixionfirst led outside Jerusalem and then killed. A better,stylistic explanation appears in Michel Hubaut,La parabole des vignerons homicides (CahRB16;Paris: Gabalda, 1976) 52.

30 See A. C. Thiselton, The TWoHorizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).51 See A. C. Thiselton, The New Hermeneutic,"New Testament Interpretation (ed. I.

Howard Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 326; see also Ricoeur, "Biblical Hermeneu-tics," 80: "To say that they [metaphors] are untranslatable does not mean that they cannot beparaphrased, 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 Mgen S.Kjrgaard, Metaphor and Parable (Leiden: Brill, 1986). Kjrgaard distinguishes present, im

perfect, 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 toobserve that, despite their fresh twists, Jesus' parables are filled with stock symbolism which


11/30

observe that, despite their fresh twists, Jesus parables are filled with stock symbolism which


(or illocutionary) utterances has also helped interpreters to appreciate theirpurpose and function.52No exegesis of a parable can ever replace a carefullycrafted retelling ofitin well-contextualized garb.53But it is doubtful whether

the new hermenutica interpretation of parables as metaphors disqualifiesthem from consideration as allegories. The very power of parables to create"language-events" sets them off from more enigmatic texts. As Wayne Boothexplains, whatever may be true of other types of metaphor, those used inrhetoric as weapons of persuasion are part of a "communication in a contextthat reveals a predetermined purpose that can be paraphrased, intended tobe recognized and reconstructed with stable, local meanings that can beevaluated as contributing to that purpose."54

Like the new hermeneutic, structuralism too began its foray into NTstudies almost exclusively in the field of parable interpretation, though laterbranching out into other areas. Its most common application was actantialanalysis, now nicely illustrated and popularized in Pheme Perkins's eclecticstudy.55 Perhaps its most valuable contribution (combining observationsfrom the levels of deep and surface structure) is its analysis of the differenttypes of relationships among the main characters of a parable, coupled withthe 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 triadicpatterns suggest that the parables may be aimed in three different directionsat one time.57The study of narrative more generally reinforces this suggestion, when one observes how the primary lessons of a piece of fiction areregularly communicated via identification with the central characters or ob-

52 The most comprehensive study of the parables from this perspective is Edmund Arens,

Kommunikative Handlungen: die paradigmatische Bedeutung der Gleichnisse Jesu fr eineHandlungstheorie (Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1982).

53See the excellent illustrations in Gordon D. Fee and Douglas M. Stuart,How to Readthe Bible for All Its Worth(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 133; David Wells, "Prayer: Rebelling Against the Status Quo,"Christianity Today23 (1979) 1465.

54 Wayne C. Booth, "Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem ofEvaluation,"Critical Inquiry5 (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: NorthHolland, 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 Gleichniserzhlungen Jesu

[Gttingen: Vandenhck & Ruprecht, 1985]) regularly utilizes these insights into the parables't i di t i hi i S l G h d S lli "L k l Gl i h i hl di E


12/30

triadic nature in his exegesis See also Gerhard Sellin "Lukas als Gleichniserzhler: die Er


jects of the plot.38Edmund Arens, for example, argues that Jesus' teachingin parables operates at three levels: expressing Jesus' solidarity with theoutcasts of Israel, justifying his behaviorvis--vishis critics, and claiming ashis rationale the inbreaking of God's kingdom.59

Poststructuralist methods, including reader-response criticism and de-construction, are the most recent and amorphous of the new literary andhermeneutical methods. However, at least one common thread runs throughmost poststructuralist studies, namely, that the locus of meaning rests eitherwith the individual reader or with the interaction between the reader and thetext rather than with some combination of authorial intention and textualsigns.The metaphorical nature of the parables has made them prime candidates for novel, poststructuralist readings.60But Michael La Fargue per

suasively argues that a substantial measure of indeterminacy in the meaningof a text does not prevent it from having a "determinate substantive content"which ought to be the primary focus of interpretation.61Nevertheless if first-and second-order systems of meaning are adequately distinguished,62 post-structuralism 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 ofFreudian psychologythe father as ego mediating between the two sons (idand superego)but the fit is apt and the elaboration provocative.63

E. Preliminary ConclusionsViewing the parables as allegories permits many of them to make more

than one main point but doesnot per seestablish how many points to look

58 Robert C. Tannehill, Th e Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role,"JR57 (1977) 386-405; Roland M. Frye, "The Jesus of the Gospels: Approaches through NarrativeStructure,"From Faith to Faith(D. G. Miller Festschrift; PTMS 31; ed. Dikran Y. Hadidian;Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979) 79; Borsch,Parables, 2and passim.

59 Arens,Handlungen,358-59.60See esp. J. Dominic Crossan,Cliffs ofFall:Paradox and Polyvalence in theParablesof

Jesus (New York: Seabury, 1980).61 Michael La Fargue, "Are Texts Determinate? Derrida, Barth, and the Role of the

Biblical Scholar,"HTR81 (1988) 341-57.62E.g., Susan Wittig,"ATheory of Multiple Meanings,''Semeia9 (1977)75-103;Tolbert,

Parables,68-72.63 Mary A. Tolbert, T h e Prodigal Son: An Essay in Literary Criticism from a Psycho

analytic Perspective,"Semeia9 (1977) 1-20. On the meaning-significance distinction applied toparables 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, seeA C Thiselton "Reader Responsibilit Hermene tics Action Models and the Parables of


13/30

A C Thiselton "Reader Responsibility Hermeneutics Action Models and the Parables of

62 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTE RLY 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 theevangelists have creatively handled their sources, but they do not successfully

dislodge the parablesen massefrom their well-established position as amongthe most undeniably authentic teachings of Jesus.64 In fact, more of thematerial sometimes assigned to later tradition may be authentic than is usually recognized. Structuralism and the literary study of parables as narrativespoint to a consistent triadic design for many of the stories and suggest thepossibility of identifying a central lesson with each of three main characters.65Here lies an attractive middle ground between the Procrustean bedof Jlicher's one main point and the sea of relativism of some kinds ofpoststructuralist polyvalence. Perhaps the parables can be classified according to the number of main characters and the nature of the relationshipsamong those characters. Perhaps each main character discloses an importantlesson which a given parable wishes to communicate. Perhaps those lessonsemerge as one treats the parables as allegories, at least to the extent that oneassumes that the central actors represent spiritual counterparts. Ifso,furtherinsight may be gained into the Christian message at the earliest stages of thetradition. Each of these hypotheses has been suggested individually, but noone has combined them into an integrated hermeneutical package or testedthem against more than a few isolated passages. Part II presents some preliminary findings as to how these principles might be utilized quite widely inthe analysis ofJesus'parables. Space does not permit more than a few programmatic comments under each heading, but a wide-ranging survey seemsmore valuable than an intensive analysis ofoneor two case studies when testinghypotheses which purport to be useful for an entire corpus of literature.66

II. Classification and Interpretation

A. Simple Triadic ParablesA number of the narrative parables of Jesus display what may be called

a simple triadic structure. Three main characters appear in each, interacting

64See Philip B. Payne, "The Authenticity of the Parables of Jesus,"Gospel Perspectives2.329-44.1 have examined the occasionally disputed corpus of peculiarly Lucan parables withsome comprehensiveness and find the principal arguments against authenticity wanting (Blom-berg, "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). SeeRobert Detweiler, "After the New Criticism: Contemporary Methods of Literary Interpretation," Orientation by Disorientation (W. A. Beardslee Festschrift; PTMS 35; ed. Richard A.


14/30

tion, Orientation by Disorientation (W. A. Beardslee Festschrift; PTMS 35; ed. Richard A.


with one another along the lines of the monarchic model described earlier (amaster figure with two contrasting subordinates). Consistently they appearto stand in some sense for God, his faithful followers, and those who do notserve him. Though it has not usually been observed, three discrete lessonsregularly align themselves with these characters which are often the very"points"which have vied with one another for recognition as the sole meaningof the text. Once it is recognized that the main characters of a narrative oftenconvey the major thrust of its meaning, all three points may be admitted.

The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) provides the paradigmfor the simple triadic form, as already noted above. Closely related are theLost Sheep and Coin (Luke 15:4-10), in which the nine coins and the ninety-nine sheep function as collective unities, playing the role of one character.

Despite important differences in imagery, all three parables of Luke 15 teachabout God's initiative in saving the lost, the joy of discovery of that whichwas lost, and the need for those who are not lost not to begrudge God'sconcern for those who are.67These points derive from focusing, in turn, onthe father, the prodigal, and the older brother (and their counterparts in thetwo shorter parables). The Prodigal Son may also be divided into threeepisodes, one for each main character (w 11-20a for the younger son, w20b-24 for the father, and w 25-32 for the older son).68Recent demonstra

tions of the unity ofthisnarrative make it impossibletojettison one or moreofthethree episodes as the addition ofalater stage ofTraditionsgeschichte?*Similar emphases recur in the little parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-43;the three points are virtually spelled out in w 44-50, as they comment onthe behavior of Simon, the behavior of the woman, andJesus'declaration offorgiveness). Here (as in Luke 15 and frequently elsewhere) the context of theparable has often been viewed as secondary, since it makes explicitly allegorical equations between the parables' characters and the members ofJesus'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 allegedlybeen 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; FrederickW.Danker,Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary onSt. Luke's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 275; Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father

(London: J. Clarke, 1959) 17-40.68Alex Stock, "Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn,"Ethische Predigt und Alltagsverhltnis (ed. Franz Kamphaus and Rolf Zerfass; Munich: Kaiser, 1977) 82-86.


15/30

hltnis (ed. a a p aus a d o e ass; u c : a se , 9 ) 8 86.


Matthew's parable oftheTwo 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.71In fact it is not quite as parallelas the parable of the Two Debtors and almost certainly, as most commentators recognize, a separate utterance of Jesus from a different occasion in hisministry. But its three lessons are not entirely dissimilar: (1) Like the fathersending 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 performrightly 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 inSipreDeut S3 offers a striking parallel in structure and contents and makessimilar lessons explicit:

The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before himwere two paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. Theother beganinthorns but endedin clearground.... So did Mosessay toIsrael,"Youseehow thewickedflourishin thisworld, fortwo or three dayssucceedingBut in the end they will have occasion for regret." So it is said, "For there shallbe no reward for the evil man" (Prov. 24:20) "You see the righteous, whoaredistressed in thisworld? For two or three daystheyaredistressed, but in theend they will have occasion for rejoicing."Andso it is said, "That he may prove

you,to do you good at theend"(Dt. 8:16).73

This kind of detail is clearly allegorical and tripartitedescribing the conditions into which God places an individual and the contrasting reactionsand fates of the righteous and the wicked.

With certain variations, the parables of the Faithful and UnfaithfulServants (Luke 12:35-38 par. Mark 12:33-37?; Matt 24:45-51 par.) conveymessages 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 themaster 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 Snderin 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) 422.72Francis 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 pointwhen 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


16/30

y q , p y J y

INTERPRETINGTHEPARABLES 65

the faithful servants, one discovers that good stewardship requires perseverance and consistency. From the wicked servants comes the lesson that thosewho 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

Theparable of theTenVirgins (Matt 25:1-13) is also structured along these lines,teaching a similar trio of lessons, this time with the two sets of five womeneach functioning as one collective character. The bridegroom is a commonOT symbol for God (e.g., Isa 54:4-6; Ezek 16:7-34; Hos 2:19); the wise andfoolishwomen thennaturally represent thosewho arespiritually prepared orunprepared for judgment day. But independent significance should not begiven to subordinate details, such as the bride, the oil, or the oil-sellers.75Inthese various servant parables, the theme ofthedeparture and return of themaster is added; sometimes he comes earlier than expected, sometimes later.Thus no uniform tendency attributable to the delay oftheParousia emerges.76

Instead, Jesus enjoins faithfulness in stewardship to the tasks with whichGod 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 Matthewattributes to Jesus (w 36-43). Closer attention, however, reveals a very

similar monarchic pattern: a harvester gathers the wheat and burns thetares.All of the allegorical equations supplied rely on stock symbolismfrom theOTand intertestamental literature, or that which is natural oncethe primary referents have been identified,77 thus fitting aSitz im Leben

74The impure forms and partial parallels that occur among these servant parables maybe due in part to a "deparabolizing" tendency of the tradition (see Richard Bauckham, "Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,"NTS23 [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 ofanoriginal account of the Eschatological Discourse fuller than any of thecurrent Synoptic forms (see David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus*Eschatological Discourse [Gospel Perspectives 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984] 15-49, 67-76).

73Even modern interpreters regularly seek an allegorical meaning for the oil (e.g., KarlP. Donfried, T h e Allegory of the Ten Virgins [Matt 25:1-13] as a Summary of MattheanTheology,"JRL93 [1974] 423), but little agreement has been reached. This suggests that it issimply 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 originallyintended (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 delayedfor centuries since the prophets first warned repeatedly that it was "at hand." The plausibilityof this motif in a Sitz im Leben Jesu renders theories of later redaction at this point unnecessary


17/30

of this motif in a Sitz im Leben Jesu renders theories of later redaction at this point unnecessary

66 THECATHOLIC BIBLICALQUARTERLY I53, 1991

Jesu.Yet themainthrustsof thepassagestillrevolve aroundthefarmer,the

wheat, and the weeds.Eachof thesethree"characters" takesaturnholding

the upper hand. In w 2428a the weeds seem to have triumphed; in w

28b30a thewheatneverthelesssurvives; and in 30b the farmershows that

he is still in control. The three lessons appear fairly straightforward: God

permitstherighteousand wickedto coexist in theworld,sometimesvirtually

indistinguishableonefromanother;thewickedwilleventuallybejudged and

destroyed; and the righteous will be gathered together and brought into

God's presence.79

The nearbyparable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:4750) illus-

tratesthesetruthsfurther,closely parallelingtheWheat and Taresbut with-

out any emphasis on the periodprior tojudgment.

A tripartite analysis of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:1931)

proves especially helpful in focusing on central themes and avoiding mis-leadingdigressionswhichspeculateaboutthevirtueand viceofpoverty and

riches per se, oraboutthenatureof theafterlife orintermediatestate.80Luke

16:29 makes it clear that more than wealth plagued the rich man and his

family;repentancewas the key ingredientlackingin his life(thoughtheclear

implication isthattruerepentancewouldhave transformed his attitude and

actionstowardLazarus).81

The uniquefeature of aparaboliccharacterhav-

ing a name suggests thatLazarus' appellation is significant ("God helps");

probablyhe ismeanttostand for thepiousc

nwim.*2

The only aspect of theimagery of the parable essential to the point associated with the God-figure(Abraham) is the irreversibility of judgment. Jesus quite likely adopted therest from the Bar Ma'jan tale in one or more of its various forms so that thedistinctive 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 Vorlagewhich wasboth allegorical and authentic. See esp. Michel de Goedt, "L'explication de la parabole del'ivraie (Matt, xiii, 36-43): cration matthene, ou aboutissement d'une histoire littraire?,"RB66 (1959) 32-54; also G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1986) 135.

79See 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: onlyGod himself may distinguish the good from the evil; it is God's business alone to decide whobelongs in the kingdom," even though, inconsistently, he does not find any of the interpretationauthentic. Note also the three key referents: God, good, and evil.

80 Contra, e.g., Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann,Jesus von Nazareth: Hoffnungder Armen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978)38;and MurrayJ.Harris, "The New Testament Viewof Life after Death," Themelios 11 (1986) 47-48.

81For a balanced view, see David P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts


18/30


clearly.83The three main points follow naturally:84(1) Like Lazarus, thosewhom God helps will be borne after their death into God's presence. (2) Likethe 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 ParablesSeveral ofJesus'parables disclose more than three characters or groups

of characters but ultimately may be reduced to the same monarchic structureillustrated above. Others contain only three characters, but their relationships do not exhibit the monarchic pattern. Examples of thefirsttype includethe parables of the Talents and Pounds (Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27), theLaborers 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), theUnforgiving 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 fallinto a different category altogether, though related to the triadic model. Aswith the simple triadic parables, structure proves more an indicator of mean

ing 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 onegood example. Yet despite the variation in sums given or earned, the goodservants function collectively to fill one role in the triadic structure. The threelessons communicated by Matthew's Talents closely resemble those of theservant 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 alternatereligionsgeschichtlichbackground, see Ronald F. Hock, "Lazarus andMicyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke16:19-31,"JRL106 (1987) 447-63. On the unityof the text in its current form, see esp. F. Schider and W. Stenger, "Die offene Tr und dieunberschreitbare Kluft,"NTS25 (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 challengeof the hour, evasion is impossible"(Parables,182).

85 An additional parable which probably falls into this simple triadic category is theChildren in the Marketplace (Matt 11:16-19 par.) But a twist appears when one of the twog s f hild l s th l f b th s b di t s th h d j ti g th s l


19/30

groups of children plays the role of both subordinates on the one hand rejecting the proposal


between good and bad servants remains subordinate to the greater distinc-

tionbetween the ruler's household and his public. The point associated with

the master remains much thesame:God is sovereign andwilljudgeeveryone.

Butthe other two points now focus on the punishment awaiting both thosewho explicitly reject his kingship (the citizens) as well as those who appear

tobe part of the household of faith but who forfeit their place through lack

ofstewardship (the wicked servant).86

The tradition history of both the Tal-

entsand the Pounds is often portrayed as a complex set of variations from

Q along with the conflation of an originally independent throneclaimant

parable.87

But the coherence of reconstructions of postulated earlier forms

hasbeen exaggerated and the infelicities ofthefinal forms overestimated, so

it is not impossible that bothtextspreserve 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

theeleventh hour and who startle the rest by receiving afulldenarius' wage.

From the earlier groups of workers, one learns that none of God's peoplewill

be treated unfairly (Matt20:4"whatever is right Iwillgive you"); from the

last group, that many seemingly undeserving peoplewillbe treated gener-

ously; and from the unifying role of the master, that all true disciples are

equal in God's eyes ( w 1314a,w 14b15,and 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 ofthesethree points in

succession( w 1314a,14b15, and 16). If a parable can make three points,

there is no need toexciseany of these segments as later appendixes.

The parable of the Sower groups together the threeunfruitful soils in

contrastwith the one abundantly fruitfulportion of ground. No variation in

length or emphasis distinguishes the description of the final, good soil from

itsthree predecessors, but its distinctive produce clearlysets it apart.90

The

86

For very similar setsof three points, see Talbert,Luke, 17778;Norval Geldenhuys,

Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1951) 474.87

See Wilhelm Resenhfft, "Jesu Gleichnisvon denTalenten, ergnzt durchdieLukas-

Fassung,"NTS 26(1979-80) 318-31; Luke T.Johnson, "The Lukan Kingship Parable(Lk.

19:11-27),"24 (1982) 13959.88

See Paul Joon, "Laparabole desmines (Luc, 19,13-27) et la parabole destalents

(Matthieu, 25,14-30),"RSR 29(1939)489-94; also Henry C.Theissen, "TheParableof the

Nobleman andtheEarthlyKingdom,"BSac91 (1934)180-90;andJ. G.Simpson,"The Parable

of thePounds,"ExpTim37(1925-26)300-302.89 R.T. France,The Gospel accordingtoMatthew (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans 1988) 289: "[God's] generosity transcends human ideas of fairness No one receives


20/30

Eerdmans 1988) 289: "[God's] generosity transcends human ideas of fairness No one receives


imagery of God as sower and the people of theworldas various kinds of soil

was standard in Jewish circles.91

The descriptions of fruitbearing, stony

ground, rootlessness,and choking by thorns so obviously apply to people as

well as to plants that the interpretation ascribed to Jesus in Mark4:1320isentirely natural.

92Even thebirdsas Satan fit in with their role as harbingers

ofevil in OT and intertestamental literature(e.g.,1 Kgs 14:11;Jub. 11:524;

Apoc. Abr. 13). At the same time, the call to careful listening which frames

theparable ( w 3,9) suggests that not every detail was entirely selfevident.

It is best to see the narrative, then, as one which demanded somekind of

interpretation of theprimary "characters," but which left the audience to

speculate as to the significance of the rest of the details. Here Kistemaker

conciselycaptures the main points associated with the sower, the good soil,and the bad soil(aswell as relevant subpoints from the various kinds of bad

soil):"theWordof God is proclaimed andcausesa division amongthosewho

hear; God's people receive theWord,understand it, and obedientlyfulfill it;

others fail to listen because of a hardened heart, a basic superficiality, or a

vested interest in riches and possessions."93

Yet it ishardto see how Kiste-

maker can fairly call this compoundcomplex sentence "one particular truth"!

Commentators who do successfully restrict the parable to one point never-

thelessconsistently debate which of the three possible emphases to preserve;the debate is now unnecessary.

Inthe same vein, Robert Steinnicely summarizes the allegorical refer-

entsand 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 thePharisees/scribes/religious

leaders and theoutcastsofIsrael....The point is that the kingdom of God hascomeand that those whowouldhave been expected to receive it(thereligious

good soil.Noteesp. the shift from the singulars and to the plural ,

which leads H. Weder(Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern [FRLANT 120; Gttingen:Van-

denhoeck&Ruprecht, 1978]108-9)tospeakofthe last soilas theMGrossteil.w

91 Forreferences, seeKlauck, Allegorie, 92-96. Drury (Parables,26-27) highlightsthe

especially close parallelin 2Esdr4:26-32,while CraigA.Evans("OntheIsaianic Background

of the Sower Parable,"CBQ47 [1985] 464-68) thinksthepassageis amidrashon Isa55:10-11.

A later rabbinic parable with striking affinities occursinAboth de Rabbi Nathan8:2.92Admitted evenbysome who rejectitsauthenticity:EtaLinnemann,Parables ofJesus:

Introduction and Exposition (London: SPCK 1966) 118 19; Rudolf Pesch Das Markusevangelium


21/30

Introduction and Exposition (London: SPCK 1966) 118-19; Rudolf Pesch Das Markusevangelium

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."95Stein's own summary contains three independent clauses, each of which adds new information notcontained in the previous one(s). Matthew's parable of the Wedding Banquetis usually taken as a secondary, more extensively allegorized reworking ofLuke's Great Supper, much as Luke's parable of the Pounds was alleged tohave expanded Matthew's Talents. Once again, though, the structure of thealleged parallel is markedly different and the possibility of Jesus reusingsimilar themes on different occasions in his ministry must be taken more

seriously.96The Wedding Banquet is triadic but the contrasting subordinatesare the guests who refuse to come and the man who comes without a weddinggarment.97The three main points which derive from this structure include:(1) God invites many people of different kinds into his kingdom. (2) Overtrejection of God's invitation leads to eventual retribution. (3) Failure toprepare adequately even when apparently accepted by God proves no lessculpable or liable to eternal punishment.98A striking parallel appears in theTalmud 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

Lvite 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 figurebut the epitome of helplessness. The history of interpretation reveals a livelydebate concerning the point of the narrative: is it an example of mercy to beemulated, a critique of the religious establishment, or an answer to the ques-

94 Robert H. Stein,Introduction to theParables ofJesus (Philadelphia: Westminste1981) 89.

95Ibid.96So, e.g., C.W. F. Smith,The Jesusofthe Parables(Philadelphia: United Church, 197

120;Humphrey Palmer, "Just Married, Cannot Come,"NovT18(1976) 255.97 On the congruence of Matt 22:10-14 with w 1-9,contra the consensus, see Klaus

Haacker,"Dashochzeitliche KleidvonMt.22,11-13und einpalstinisches Mrchen/ZDPVZ1(1971) 95-97.

98

VictorHasler("Dieknigliche Hochzeit, Matth.22:1-14,"TZ18 [1962] 25-35)developsa similarsetof three pointsas the main concernsofMatthew'sredaction; while Alexander Sand(Das Evangelium nach Matthus [RNT; Regensburg:Pustet 1986] 439 40) derives three poin


22/30

(Das Evangelium nach Matthus [RNT; Regensburg:Pustet 1986] 439-40) derives three poin


tion "who is my neighbor?"99A tripartite interpretation would acknowledge

that all three lessons are present, each associated with a different personage

of the parable (Samaritan, priest/Lvite, 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 interpre

tation 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 func

tions as the unifying figure, taking turns interacting with his master and his

own servants or subordinates. In the case oftheUnjust Steward, Luke 16:8a,

8b,and 9 have regularly been seen as three different lessons derivable fromthe narrative proper ( w 1-7); but, as long as a parable is viewed monolithi-cally, at least two of these mustbejettisoned as secondary. The close linkage

between each lesson and one of the parable's charactersthe master's praise,

the steward's shrewdness, and the debtors' receptionsuggests instead that

all are integral to Jesus' original message.101In both parables, the text nat

urally 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

16:1-2even the unjust steward is given time to settle his accounts), of badand 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 16:8taking the to

be themasterof theparable,sinceJesus'direct addressseems onlytobegin

in 9with ).102

The parable of the WickedTenants defies simplecategorization. It re-

semblesMatthew'sWeddingBanquetby describingamasterwho punishes

99

G. Bexell ("Den barmhrtige 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 ( The

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,Jsus et a richesse: Parabole de l'intendant astucieux

(Luc XVI, 1-15) (Marseille: Imprimerie Marseillaise, 1944) 17-31.102 Jeremas(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 conceiv


23/30


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 fea

tures 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 waywhich post-resurrection Christian readers invariably do.103 Hengel, for ex

ample, has shown that the development of the plot is in fact very true to

first-century Palestinian life.104Three 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 hispatience 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 (bn/^eben),106 by no

means a necessarily secondary juxtaposition. . E. Ellis, for example, has

shownthattheparable pluscornerstonetext closelycorrespondto theproemmidrash form;107

they are thus entirely conceivable as authenticwords of

10 3

So Klauck, Allegoric, 3089; see also Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St.

Mark(London: Macmillan,1952)474;LarryW.Hurtado,Mark(SanFrancisco:HarperA Row,

1983) 179.10 4

Martin Hengel, "Das Gleichnis von den Weingrtnern 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, "Weingrtnern," 38.106

Matthew Black, "The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,"


24/30

, g ,


Jesus in their original context. But the christology is at best implicit. Eitherway this passage does show that the parables of Jesus are not uniformly orinflexibly triadic in either structure or meaning.

GDyadic andMonadic ParablesMany 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 anyunifyingfigureto judge or mediate between them. Thus the parable ofthePharisee and Tax-collector (Luke 18:9-14) comes as close to the pureform-critical category of example-story as any of Jesus' teachings; themodel ofvainpride is to be avoided and the paradigm ofhumblepleading

for mercy to be imitated. Here are two rather than three points.108

Thestructure ofthenarrative 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 7:24-27par.) uses close verbal parallelism (cf. vv 24-25 with 26-27) to contrast thewise man who built on the rock with the foolish sand-dweller. Rabbinicparallels support the unity of the text in its bipartite form(DAbot 3:17;

Aboth de RabbiNathan24:l-3).109G. B. Caird concisely captures the two

points: "The man who hears and does is safe against every crisis, while theman who only hears is inviting disaster."110

The Unprofitable Servant (Luke 17:7-10) contains a master but onlyone underling. The passage, thoughbrief,is still often dissected tradition-critically because of the switch from focusing on the behavior of themaster to the behavior of the servant.111But probably the passage makestwo points rather than one, highlighting both God's sovereignty and humanity's unworthiness before him, so that all of the text may be seen asa unity. Commentary on the Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29) also

regularly debates two possibleinterpretations which may well be complementary rather than mutually exclusivethe unpredictable presentgrowth of the kingdom (focusing on the seed) and the promise of abun-

108Thorwald 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 two-pronged message of the passage as follows: "The parable reminds us that even the most religiousperson 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 Matthus (3 vols.; EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener V; Zurich: Benziger, 1985- ) 1. 412.


25/30

Vluyn: Neukirchener V; Zurich: Benziger, 1985 ) 1. 412.


dant, future harvest (focusing on the farmer).112The passage is, after all, acarefully constructed unity with the beginning and ending focusing on thesower, and the center underlining the role of the seed.113 The Rich Fool(Luke 12:16-21) apparently contains only one character, until God entersinto judgmental dialogue with him at the close of the story. Then it toodiscloses its bipartite nature, teaching not only about the incompatibility oftrue discipleship with the mere accumulation of riches but also about theinevitable judgment by God which all will eventually face. It is often arguedthat this second point appears only in the final verse, which should thereforebe taken as an addition to the original narrative. Yet the parable itself contains hints that the man's problem goes beyond wealth to godlessness, mostnotably in the repeated use of the personal pronoun "I" and in the man's

failure to think of anyone but himself.114The 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 God-figure who agrees to wait for fruit just a little longer.115The Unjust Judge orImportunate Widow (Luke 18:1-8) affords a classic example of azweigipfeligparable whose very title is debated (depending on which of the two charactersis seen as the dominant one). Once again the dichotomy seems false, and

meaning should be derived from each. Luke explains the purpose of the storyas the need to pray without losing heart (18:1), surely the natural point to begained from the model of the widow. But the behavior of the judge, by qalwahomer logic, also teaches about the character of God as one who will

112 Rainer Stuhlmann, "Beobachtungen und berlegungen zu Markus iv.26-29,"NTS 19(1972-73) 157; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity, 1977) 167-68. Neither apparently notices that his "one" point summary of the par

able's meaning is bipartite.113See Jacques Dupont, "Encore la parabole de la semence qui pousse toute seule (Me4,26-29),"Jesus und Paulus(W. G. Kmmel Festschrift; ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grsser,Gttingen: Vandenhck & Ruprecht, 1975) 96-108 (esp. p. 107); H. Baltensweiler, "DasGleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat (Markus 4, 26-29) und die theologische Konzeptiondes Markusevangelisten,"Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie (ed. E Christ;Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich, 1967) 69-75.

114A. T. Cadoux,TheParablesof Jesus: Their Art and Use(London:J. Clarke, 1930) 205:The parable "is thereductio ad absurdumof selfishness by showing it at work systematically andunencumbered." Scott(Parable,135) helpfully points out that the surplus was almost miracu

lous in abundance and that the man would have been expected to use it for the benefit of hiscommunity.115 A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 82: "The


26/30

, p g ( p , )


vindicate hiselectdespite preliminary delay.116

Attempts to divorce w 68(or

atleast 8b) from w 25 as later additions introducing the second element

ofhuman responsibility to the original theme of God's sovereignty founder on

thefact thatthesemotifs are regularly held in tension throughout Scripture.117

The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:58) is aclose 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

centermore on boldness thanpersistence.118

But the parableteachesequally

forthrightly about God's willingness to give good gifts to his children(cf.also

w 913);neither emphasis needs to be subordinated to the other.119

Itis 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 twopointed.Still,several ofthe

shorterpassages seem to stress only one theme.Mostcommentators agree

thatthe Hidden Treasure and Pearl ofGreatPrice(Matt13:4446)highlights

theinestimable value of the kingdom, the TowerBuilder andWarringKing

(Luke 14:2833)stress the seriousness of counting thecost of discipleship,

and the MustardSeedand Leaven (Luke13:1821parr.) 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 Gospelsthemselves,would fall into this category as well (e.g.,Matt 5:1316; 13:52;

Luke 5:32 par.; Mark2:1920 parr.).

The Christology of theParables

Viewing most of the parables as triadic or dyadic does not lead to any

striking new interpretation aboutJesus'message overall; it merely ascribes

more of that message to mostindividualpassagesthan is customary.About

11 6

SeeC. Spicq ("La parabole de la veuveobstineetdu juge inerteauxdcisionsim

promptues,"RB68 [1961]78) andGeldenhuys(Luke,446-48), who,contramost, admit both

emphases.117 Weder(Gleichnisse,273) explains that the certaintyofthe fulfillmentofthe requestis

atthesame timethestipulationof thepossibilityofperseveranceinprayer. Gerhard Delling

("DasGleichnis vom gottlosen Richter,"ZNW53 [1962] 24) notes the correspondences between

w 2-5 and 7-8which arguefor theunityofthe passage.AndDavid Catchpole("The Son of

Man's SearchforFaith [Lk xviii.8b],"NovT19 [1977] 102-4) refutes objectionsto theauthenticityof 8b.

11 8

J. D. M.Derrett,"The Friend at Midnight: AsianIdeasin the Gospel of St.Luke,"

Donum Gentilicium(D.DaubeFestschrift;ed.ErnstBammel,C.K.Barrett,andW. D.Davies;


27/30


two-thirds of the narrative parables illustrate the nature of God, the lifestylerequired of his people, and the opposing attitudes and actions which lead todestruction. Most of the remaining one-third introduce at least two of thesethemes. The widely held view that Jesus proclaimed God's kingdom or reignas both present and future, inaugurated by means of his ministry, remainssound.120The parables depict life in that kingdomGod's present grace forsinners, his demands for discipleship, preparation for future judgment, andperhaps most significantly, widely pervasive and shocking reversals of conventional standards of religiosity. But what is one to make of the teacherhimself,this Jesus of Nazareth who so boldly speaks on behalf of God andchallenges 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, thegood shepherd, the prodigal's father, and even the good Samaritan.121Modern studies of NT christology or the person ofJesusseldom give the parablesmore than a passing glance, and most which do quickly stress that there islittle if any christology to be derived from them. A minority, however, pointsout that at least there is implicit christology which dare not be neglected.Eduard Schweizer, for example, states it forcefully, while commenting on theProdigal Son:

Does Jesus then appear in this parable? Certainly notand yetthe joythat theparable seeks to have us share is found only where Jesus imparts the presenceof 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 thePitture (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Bruce D. Chilton,God in Strength: Jesus'Announcement of the Kingdom (Freistadt: F. Plchl, 1979; repr. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987). For recent lessconventional (or persuasive) understandings of the kingdom, see George W. Buchanan (Jesus:The King and His Kingdom [Macon: Mercer University, 1984]), who believes Jesus wanted tolead 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 Teachingof Jesus[New York: EdwinMellen, 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 ancientchristologizing, 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 GoodSamaritanThe 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 pedigreeare proposed. See, e.g., J. D. M. Derrett, "Nisi Dominus Aedeficaverit Domum: Towers and


28/30


blasphemy in his parableswhich proclaimed such scandalous conduct on thepart of Godunderstood 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 stepfurther and speaks of "Jesus'implicit claim to deity in his parables."123Paynepoints out how the imagery of the parables consistently utilizes stock OTmetaphors for God in ways which are meant to reflect the actions or qualitiesof 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 notall 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 onresponse toJesus'person, not just his message (Matt 11:19 par.; Luke 14:28-33), and hints of his departure and return in glory as bridegroom (Mark2:19-20 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 Israeliteprophets. Of course one may dissect the parables and their contexts viaTraditionsgeschichte so that all these potentially offensive elements areviewed as inauthentic, but there are no longer valid, independent reasons fordoing thisen masse.In a provocative study (which unfortunately sometimes

just affirms what needs to be demonstrated) Royce Gruenler has argued thateven accepting only the minimal core of authentic sayings and parables identified by Norman Perrin, one encounters sufficient language which is sophenomenologically and self-referentially extraordinary that it leaves merelyhuman categories incapable of interpreting the identity of Jesus.124 On amore limited scale, H. Frankemlle utilizes a rigorous traditionsgeschichtlichinvestigation of pre-Marcan tradition to conclude that a christological inter-

122 Eduard Schweizer, Jesus (London: Collins, 1979) 157; Martin Petzoldt, GleichnisseJesu und christliche Dogmatik (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 165; . M. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom (CBQMS 2;Washington, DC: Catholic BiblicalAssociation of

America, 1972) 132;Jrgen Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesu (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 227; Baudler, Jesus, 259.

123 Philip B. Payne, "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables,- Trinity Journal ns2 (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,


29/30

1982) 19 6 i i di i h hi f ( &

78 TH E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991

pretation of the parables of that trajectory of early Christianity goes back tothe oldest level of the Aramaic-speaking church and probably to Jesushimself.125

III. Conclusion

Probably not all of the analyses of various methodologies and individualparables suggested here prove equally persuasive. At the very least, the wayforward in the current minefield of interpretive alternatives seems to dependon finding an intermediate route between the extremes ofthemore restrictiveJlicher-Jeremas tradition and the more uncontrolled allegorizing-chris-tologizing of pre- and post-critical exegesis.126Most interpreters today be

lieve either that a parable must be rigidly confined to teaching one centraltruth 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 threemain points per parable provides an apt fit about two-thirds of the time, andthe idea of one main point per main character seems valid in almost everyinstance. When multiple lessons emerge from an individual narrative, theyusually correspond to what many commentators have already discerned butmisleadingly referred to as a single point, or else they match alternativeinterpretations 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 Frankemlle, "Hat Jesus sich selbst verkndet? Christologische Implikationenin den vormarkinischen Parabeln,"BibLeb 13 (1972) 184-207.

126 John Sider, professor of English literature with a long-standing interest in parablescholarship, offers a bold but persuasive critique: "The one-point theory is the most influential

and the most pernicious part of Jlicher's legacy to a century of interpretation. What everyseminary graduate remembers about the parables is that allegorizing is wrong and that everyparable makes one main point. But any informed student of literature knows that these optionsare ill-framedthat an extended analogy of Spenser, Shakespeare, or Milton, or a metaphysicalconceit of Donne's, is neither an allegory to be interpreted down to the last minute detail nora comparison limited to a single point of resemblance" ("Nurturing Our Nurse: Literary Scholars and Biblical Exegesis,"Christianity and Literature 32 [1982] 17-18).

127I would like to express my appreciation to all who interacted with a previous draft ofthis paper during the Rocky Mountain Regional SBL meeting in April 1988 at Colorado StateUniversity in Ft. Collins, CO.


30/30

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download,

Date post:	16-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	igdelacruz84
View:	442 times
Download:	14 times

Interpreting Parables Blomberg CBQ.pdf

Documents