use of parabolé synoptic gospels

7/28/2019 use of parabol synoptic gospels

1/9

T HE US E OF PARABOLE IN T HE SYNOPTICGOSPELS

THE English word Cl parable ", as used in modern FormCriticism, means Cl a short illustrative story intended to enforce

a spcific point" (A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 47). As anexact term it is som.etimes called (after Jlilicher) the Cl parableproper, ", to distinguish it from other forms in the teaching ofJesus. Useful as this definition is, the word does not nowrepresent the meaning of th e Greek word :rcaea{Jol.:1Jas it enteredthe vocabulary of th e New Testament. This article is a studyof :rcaea{Jo;'fJ as used in th e Synoptic Gospels, and whereverCl parable;' in the modern English sense is intended invertedcommas will be used. It is hoped to show that within theSynoptic Gospels there is a distinct development in the useof :rcaea{Jo;'fJ, frqm. the final phase only of which comes theEnglish Cl parable ", and that careful attention to the earlier usemay help to correct mistaken exegesis in some importantpassages.

In classical Greek :rcaea{Jo;'fJ generally means "juxtaposition" or " comp ariso n". As a figure of speech it means,according to Aristotle (Rh et. I 393b), a simple analogy as opposedto 'an illustration in th e form of a Myof: or story, of which thefable was an example. Th e Socratic :rcaea{Jo;'fJ is cited asimplying the formula 8f-tOLOVyae cfJa:rcee . . , which showshow close the meaning is to the idea of o f - t o { r o a ~ f : ," likeness ".In the LXX, however, :rcaea{Jo;'fJ is employed to translate theHebrew . , V ! ~ ,mashal, in all its various meanings of " oracle ",Cl proverb ", " gnomic saying ", " by-word" o r" enigma ", bu tit is never used of " parable proper".

In the New Testament :rcaea{Jo;'fJ occurs only in th e SynopticGospels and in Hebrews. It is used twice in the latter, more orless in line with the classical meaning : :rcaea{Jo;'-f]si!; in ix., 9 =.. a correspondence to", an d the more conventional adverbialexpression BV:rcaea{Jo;'fi in xi. 19 = " figuratively" or simply" asit were ".

We may now deal with th e evidence of the Synoptic Gospels,for which has been assumed the hypothesis of the priority of

93


2/9

T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY94 (Mark, and of the original i n d e ? ~ n d e n ~ ~ : ~ : ~ ~ ~ ; ~ k e a n ~ e ~ h :document comprising the materla pecu , ,material commonly referred to as Q).

I. MARK

, d Mark uses naea{Jo),-!j in a m i x t ~ r eAs might be expecte , Th e classical meanmg

of both the ~ l a s s ~ ~ ~ lan d : : ~: ; : s : : ~ i j e ;p,o/Je-re - r ~ vnaea{Jo),-!jv,may be seen 10 x111.'28, " {with which compare" learn the illustr ation, from t he f i g - ~ r e e_ B'Yjelwv n o t e i C 1 B a t - r ~ vthe phrase in Polybms '25'24,. e" - r ~ t ' l l h6Ilo[WC1tl"comes ou t

, d th 'rtual equatlOn WI r " , ,naea{Jo),'Yj'll), an e Vl "I ' , 30' no;" 6IlouhC1wp,ev -r'Yjv, h ' tant formu a 10 1V. , "rdearly 10 t e 1mpor , {J ),fj Bwp,ev' Luke renders,(JacttMlav -rov Beov ;j BV - r [ ~ tav:'Yj: n ~ e a~ ;['IIt 6 p , o t ~ C 1 Wav-r-!jv(Luke-r['I't 6p.o[a 'B(17:/'V " (JaC1t),eta -rov uBOV"at ,

xiii. IS). " , " Bn'YjecIJ7:WV a'Ii-ra'll - r ~ ' I ITh e LX X meanmgappears',m vu. 17, . (mashal)

R' l' wher e the referen, ce IS to th e o b s c u ~ esa!tng h'naea,..OA'Yj'll, " hich b gomg mto 1m can" there is nothmg, outslde a man w , y , h f .. ' ,.,3 BP., , 1 h d rb1al prase 0 111. .. ,defile him", etc. S l m t l a ~y? ,t e. a ve ence to the proverbnnna{Jo),aie; e),eYB'IIaV,'-roie;, 1S 10 'prImary Srefer, t ou t Satan ?," '

""'" , ' ' f 11 ," Ho w can atan cas(mashal) wh1ch o. ows, R ), v in xii I introduces the story ofTh e same phrase, ev naea,..o ate;, d t Mark's mind

, ' I ' d ub t sugg este 0 'the Vineyard. t. 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ono the w e l l - k n ~ w nO.T. allegory ofbecause th e story IS, U1 d ' I Th e conclusion of, th ethe U ~ r o f i ~ ~ b l e. l ~ e y a r; n - r ~ :a:' av-rove; - r ~ vn a e a { J o ) , ~ vsmev,in'cident 10 Xu.I, 2 , BY'wO'a'll'Y e sto e i11' question is consideredconfirms the ,v1ew that the

mash7tfrom which it is derived.an allegory, hke th e O . T. , '1' obtrudes' for th e force of ,, ' h 1 sical meanm g a so , ,However, t e ca s . . k' d of adjectivalrelationsh1p tothe neae; a v ~ o v ~standm

Jg

10 a a ~ :them (the priests) th e object,- r ~ vn a e a { J o ) , ' Y j ~1S ~ ~ a tP esu.s ~ this type of expression, ,Myewof "compar1son, ' r e c l s ~ t hthis force in Luke, as we shall:fr;noe; -rwa naea{Jo),'Yjv, appears h " n ,would be furth er" , t t e compar-1sosee. In thls p r ~ : t : t i : : s ' ; h i t hconcludes th e story, " the s ~ o n epressed by t h ~q . d " t ' . an d apparently the pr1estswhich the bUllders reJechte 'l e c"allegorically in th e wicked

t slow to see t emse ves, ' ,were no . in builders.husbandmenand ,the r e J e ~ ~ c a ~ i o nthat naea{Jo),-!j is held ~ omea,n

So f ~ rthere 1S no ~ n thou h the i n s t a n c ~just dlscussedany part1cul ar type of st?rr, g {J ), v " in figures", since

be described as bemg ev naea ate;,can '

T H E US E OF PARABOLE 95

it is an allegory, and as containing a naea{3o).-!j, " a comparison",with certain persons. It remains to examine the highly importantuse of naea(Jo).f] in chapter iv, bearing in mind Mark's usageso far, and unprejudiced by the other evangelists' treatment ofMark's account.

In iv. 2, BV naea(JoA:nie; anticipates in this' usual adverbialphrase the nature of the material to follow, an d does not byitself add to our knowledge of usage. It may best be translated,quite neutrally, "figuratively", or " by illustrations". Then,following the description of a sower an d the s,ix kinds of soilinto which his seed fel1,t together with the logion, " He whohas ears to hear, let him hear", there appears the interestingstatement ~ i n iv. 10, iJew-rwv av-rav . . -rae; naea{3o).ae;, "theyasked him the parables". Now BeW-r(iv properly means" to aska question ", and an accusative following it (apart from a personalobject) should be a cognate or its equivalent, as indeed elsewherein the N.T., e.g. Matt. xxi. 24 = Luke xx. 3 ; John xvi. 23(Luke xiv. is best omitted from discussion). Thus iJew-rwv -rae;naea(JoAae; should represent a direct question -r{vee; at naeafJoAa{;

'which is confirmed by Luke's rendering of this passage,en1}ew"Cwv"C{e;afJ"C'Yjer'Yj .q n a e a ( J o A ~ .What then are'the naea{3oAa{to which the disciples refer? Most naturally they are the sixtypes or similitudes of soils just enumerated. To supposethat aEnaea{3oAa[ here refer to "parables" in general wouldbe to go against Mark's understanding of the word, an d suchan interpretation might never have been sought if his accounthad not been read thrQugh the eyes, of the other Evangelists.Th e statement cannot consistently mean, as Rawlinson offers," t hey asked him for the parables" or " abo ut the parables " (St.Mark, p. 5 I), an d it is quite unnecessary to suppose that " theawkward wording of verse I o is no doubt designed to admit ofthe general theory about parables in verses 11-12 appearing tobe equally an -answer to, the disciples' question, with the explanation of the parable of the Sower in verses 13 sq q. " There isnothing awkward about Mark's wording sp long as we do notimport into his words a meaning that there is no evidence tosuggest he intended. Th e teaching is not ,a " parable" at all.Th e barest mention o f a sower is followed by a category of sixkinds of soil into which seed is sown, which the disciples imme-

1 See B. T, D, Smith, Parable! of he Synoptic Gospel;, p, I24,footnote 3: .. Threedegrees of fertility are named, corresponding,to three kinds of unfertile soil," etc,


3/9

T HE EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

diately recognise as a series of similitudes to something or other.So they ask Jesus" What are the similitudes?" They mighteven have included th e enigmatic logion, " He who has ears tohear, let hi m hear", among th e naeafJoAat, of their question,for in the LX X sense it could be counted one. At all events,Jesus replies to . their question by explaining this logion ~ r s t .H Those who have ears to hear are those to whom has been giventhe secret of the Kingdom"; the familiar adverbial phrase BVn a e a f J o A a i ~pow explains how a person can have ears but nothear, for" everything is in figures to those outside". It is reallya play o'n two meanings' of the same word, one ~ e i n gin th econventional phrase BV n a e a f J o A a i ~ ,whose use here IS promptedby the mention of naeafJoAalin the disciples' question. Fo r thismeaning of BV n a e a f J o A a i ~as = cc in figures" we may compareth e BV naea(JoAfi of Hebrews xi. 19 ; there is a parallel usageof naeoLpla in John xvi. 25, where BV n a e O L p { a t ~ ," in figures It,is contrasted with naee1Julq., "explicitly" . We are reminded,too, of the phrase in J Cor. xiii. 12 fJMnew Bvaivtypan, wherea reflection only (en" iuom:eov), and not the object itself, is seen;it is a caseof seeing, bu t not seeing.!

This intetpretation of EV n a e a f J o A a i ~in iv. I I was suggestedby Dr. J. W. Hunkin in the Journal of TheplogicalStudies forApril 1915, but it meets with the objection from Dr . B. T. D.Smith (Cambridge Bible, St. Matthew, p. 137): "One greatdifficulty in the way of any such interpretation is that it requiresnaea(JOArJ to be understood in two senses." No such difficultyexists. I t is a regular feature of language for- two senses of th esame word to appear in th e same context, . sometimes by aprocess of unconscious attraction, es,Pecially when one of theoccurrences is in th e form of a conventional phrase. Fo r example,in Rom. xii. 13, I 4, ~ t r o ~ ( ) )occurs twice, in one case meaningcc practise" an d in the other cc p e r s e c u t ~". Yet t h e r ~is poreason to suppose that St. Paul was dehberately punnmg. Awriter will often, by unconscious impulse, repeat a word he hasrecently used, and he may even be ,?naware of ~ e r e p ~ t i t i o n ,especially if he happens to be employmg th e word In a d l f f e . r e ~ tsense. J. M. Creed (St. Luke, p. 115) endorses Dr . Smith sobjection, and supports it by contrasting Mark iv. I I , E ~ e t V O t ~~ e' t ' o i ~l ~ ( ) )BV n a e a ( J o A a i ~'t'a nav't'a ytve't'at, with Mark iv. 33, ~ a l

1 Cf. Wisdom of Siraclz, xxxix. 3. -d:,roKpv,/,a. 7ra.POI/LU;JV fiKtl/T-qO"fI, Ka.i fV' a.ivl-Y/La.O",' 1 f ' a . p a . ~ D " " ' W J lO"VPEUTE'AE'VO"ETa.,_

TH E US E OF PARABOLE 97' t ' O t a v ' t ' a t ~naeafJoAair; n O A A a i ~EAaAet, ~ a ( J w r ;1 j ~ v v a v ' t ' od ~ o v e w .But thecontrast serves to illustrate this very difference in usage--ivnaeafJoAair; is a fixed adverbial phrase; ' t ' o t a v ' t ' a t ~ .n a e a f J o A a i ~n O A A a i ~with no i'll, and with two qualifying -words, is the normalsubstantive use in the instrumental dative. There is no impropriety in assigning them different shades of meaning.

. T o " those outside" everything was, in fact, EV naeafJoAair;" m figures". It is no question of the personal motive of J s u ~for teaching by similitudes. Th e attitude of the people .was thesame, whatever mediu m he chose to use. Th e agent of the~ t ( j ( ) ' t ' a t ," has been given", is no doubt God the Father notJ esus (cf. Matt. xvi. 17), an d there is no reason why ~ a v i a

, "1 1 h' " hyweiat, a t mgs are , s ould be read as if it were naViaAaAw, " I spe.ak. all t h i ~ g s" '. Of. course the difficulty is generally held to he m the wa which mtroduces the quotation fromIsa. vi. An attractive suggestion has been made by Prof. T. W.Manson (The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 77 ff.) that iva is a misunderstanding of an ambiguous Aramaic particle de, and shouldhave been translated oi, the relative pronoun" who". So also

C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, p. 10 . This would meanthat the quotation is simply descriptive of" those outside ", an ddoes not express purpose at all. Bu t even if the iva is correct- a n d it is certainly what Mark intended-it still does notexpress the purpose of Jesus' teaching, which as has been saidis not really in question here. It must be ~ e m e m b e r e dthat:w;hatever the syntactical connection, the significance of thequotation is that Jesus is drawing a parallel with the situationwhich confronted Isaiah-a people blind and deaf, a peoplewhose heart had been hardened lest they should convert andbe .heal:d. ~ o wwhatever problem of purpose there may be inb.alah, It arises out. of the given condition of the people. InMark the problem IS the same, and again it arises out of thegiven condition of the people, here expressed : " to those outsideall things are in figures It, and it is no more connected with thepers.onal moti;e ?f Jesus' ~ e a c h i n gthan it was with the personalmotl:e. of Isaiah s preac.hmg. A probl em of. purpose there is,bu t ?t. IS not one of ~ e h b e r a t eobscurity on the part of Jesus,and IUS not solved by the method of the blue pencil " (Manson,P75)

Th e conjunction iva, then, may express purpose either inregard to those who are already mentioned as being blind (to

7


4/9

T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

them all things' are in figures), as in Isa. vi. 9, 10 ; or in thesense of the fulfilment of prophecy, i.e. " the people see' infigures that (it m:ight be fulfilled which was spoken, namely,)seeing they might not perceive ", etc. Th e surface meaning ofthe similitudes they would no doubt understand well enough,but this would only be a figure of the real truth ; thus similitudeswere described as " such as they could hear ", in verse 33 . Sowe have seen that Jesus takes up the word 7&afla{loAa l from thedisciples' question, and, with a subtle turn of meaning, employsBV7&afla{loAair;to illustrate the two kinds of hearers implied' bythe logions in verse I I.

Coming to verse 13, it will be seen that the development ofthought continues with perfect naturalness, DV" oic)aTE .rIV7&afla{loA-YJV TaVT1JV,"a l 7&Wr; 7&auar; Tar; 7&aea{loAar; YVWUEU(}E; Thisis the first singular use of 7&a(!a{loAf] in the whole passage, andthe context leads us to refer it to thelogion which Jesus hasjust expounded (or; BlEt roTa d"OVEtV d"OV8TW), which, as hasbeen noted, is a 7&aea{loAf] in the mashal .sense. 1 " There isnothing in the Marcan version which r equires, o r even. suggests,

that n &a e a {loA-YJaifT1J refers to the whole account of he sowingand the soils. On the other.hand, this latter series of soil s i m i l i ~tudes will again be what is meant by 7I:Iluar; Tar; 7&aea{loAar;,asin verse 1 0. This is the more likely since, without further adoor explanation, Jesus goes on to interpret" all these similitudes"Again, therefo re, in verse 13, we have a play on t he sJightly different meanings of 7 & a e a { l o A ~ ,n 7&aea{loA-YJaifT1J being a mashal,

. and at 7&aea{loAal being simple "likenesses". The one points.to the explanation of the oth ers, an d t he whole. verse might beparaphrased" If you do not understand the key-saying, howcan you understand the similitudes which hang upon it ? " 2

Most c o m m e n t a t o r ~since Adolf Jillicher have assumed thatwe have in the Sower teaching a " parable" which has beenmisunderstood by Mark, and edited with a patchwprk ofsecondary explanations (in accordance with a doctrinal theory)the inconsistency of which reveals the ineptness of Mark'sinterpretation. 3 But if the view I have taken of Mark's use of

I Or perhaps to the 9uotation from Isa. vi. 9, which immediately precedes this questionof Jesus, and which is ID the form of a mashal: .. to se. e and not to see." But it wouldstill be closely related to the logion before i t . . .

2 This woul d' accord well with Jesus' custom of decisive appeal to the Scriptures.Cf. xii. 24 : .. Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures? ..

8 E.g., B. T. D. Smith, Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 1.24;-5. ;. C. H. Dodd,Parables of,the Kingdom, pp. I 3ft'. and 180ft'. For a"reply to the lingUistic eVIdence adduced

T H E US E OF PARABOLE 997 & a ( ! a { l o A ~is correct, this hypqthesis of Form Criticism isdeprived of its mainspring. For we are not dealing with a singleee parable", but with a series of similitudes of soils, each complete in itself e . g ~"some seed feU among thorns, and the thornscame up and choked it "). Th e mention of a sower is thebriefest possible introdu ctory note, and is, so to speak, incidentaLDr. Rawlinson remarks that in the exposition in . verses 14 If.ee the centre of interest is no longer in the Sower, but in thedifferent kinds of soil " (St. Mark, p. 52). This he takes asevidence that the exposition is secondary and inappropriate.But the centre of interest n ever was in the Sower, so far as Mark'saccount takes us, and Dr . Rawlinson's observation only servesto , confirm the view that at 7&aea{loAalof verses I o and 13 arethe similitudes of different kinds of soil.

Th e two remaining occurrences of 7 & a e a { l o A ~in Mark,. iv.33 and 34, conclude this same section, and depend for theirmeaning on the formula in verse 30 which has already beendiscussed. Th e meaning is again simple "similitude", theexample alluded. to being: "like a grain of mustard-seed ".

Such similitudes are in a form which can be grasped by all (" asthey were able to hear ") bu t their spiritual meaning is reservedfor those whose ears are opened.

We ma y conclude that nowhere in Mark does 7&aea{loAf]mean " a short illustrative story intended to enforce a specificpoint", i.e. a "parable". Moreover, to judge from theantecedent history of 7&aea{lOAf] both in classical and LX Xusage, it would probably be an innovation if it did mean" parable".

n. LUKE

It is probable that 7&aea{loAfJ did not stand in the original

Q discourse-material used as a source by both Matthew andL uke ; for where, in such material, it is introduced by oneEvangelist, it is as an edit6rial addition an d does not appear inthe other. Pr o o-Luke (L + Q), therefore, may be taken asproviding independent evidence of Luke's understanding ofthe word.

by P r o ~ e s s o ~D o ~ din favour of the secondary character of Mark iv. 1 1 - 2 0 , see ProfessorOtto Plper.S article ID T H ~E V A N G E ~ ~ C A LQUARTERLY for January I942 : .. Th eU n d e r s t a n d ~ n gof the Syn?PUC Parables '. p. 44. T. W. Manson, The Teachinlf of Jesus,pp. 75- 80, rIghtly sees the mt egral connectJOn of he Sower passage with parabolIC teachingbut regards it as a .. parable" as do most Form critics.


5/9

1 0 0 T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

(a) Proto-Luke..As might be expected, Luke leans towards the ordinary

classical meaning of :n;aeaPoJ.1], "likeness" or "comparison"with the idea of o p , o { w ( J t ~not far a w a y ~Twice, however, it isapplied to proverbs, " Physician, heal thyself If, iv. 23 (L), an d" Can the blind lead the blind? If, iv. 39 (Q), b ut in the othereight passages Luke's understanding of the term is made clear

by th e constructions. in which he places it. Four times it conveysa direct comparison with a person, when th e characteristic construction is Uyew : n ; e o ~Twa :n;aeaPoJ.1]v. Th e force of this willcome ou t in an examination of the actual passages. Four timesit conveys a comparison or illustration of a particular statementor situation.

Comparisons with persons.(I ) From L we have, in xiv. 7,lJ.eyev : n ; e o ~T O V ~x e x J . ' Y J P , e v o v ~

:n;aeaPoJ.-Y}vs:n;exwv : n ; w ~- i d ~ : n ; e W T O X J . t ( I { a ~s ~ e U y o v T oXTA. Th eteaching which follows is not a " parable" at all. It mighteasily, however, be pu t into " parable" form, an d it might beargued that Luke has sim ply given t he application of such a" parable" together with its concluding logion. I f this isso, it shows clearly that :n;aeaPoJ.1] means for Luke , not the" parable" itself, bu t th.e appliCation orcoinparison involved.In any case, he has observed the simple correspondence ofo vtpwv eaVTOV to oE xexJ.'YJp,evot, and the position of : n ; e o ~T O V ~x e x J . ' Y J P , e v o v ~immediately before naeapoJ.1]v has an adjectivalforce, so that it should be translated " He made a comparisonwith those who were bidden ", and not, as in the R.V., " Hespake a parable unto those who were bidden". An instance ofthis type of expression has already been noted in Mark xii. 12.1

. (2) A more striking instance of this adjectival constructionqualifying :n;aeaPoJ.1] is i n an othe r L passage, xviii. 9, ebtev de xal: n ; e o ~T t v a ~T O V ~: n ; e : n ; o d : J 6 T a ~sq/ e a v T o i ~OTt eiulv Muatot xal S ~ o v ( ) e v -o v v T a ~T O V ~J . o t : n ; o v ~Tf}V:n;aeapoJ.f}v TavT'YJv. Luke does not meanthat Jes us was actually speaking to such people, bu t the :n;aeaPoJ.iJis a comparison of "certain people" with the Pharisee ofthe story. In all these cases Luke himself has supplied theapplication, which suggests that it is the relationship whichconstitutes the naeaPoJ.1] and not th e story in itself or on its own.

. 1 There is a similar expression in Acts ii. 2.5, where M')IEt Eis a;DTov = " ' ~ p e a k sofhim", not " speaks to h im". -

TH E US E OF PARABOLE 10 1

(3) An interrogatory inversion of the usual order appears inth e Lucan addition to th e Q teaching about watchfulness, inxii. 4 I, : n ; e o ~i j p , a ~7:-Y}v:n;aeaPoJ.TJV TavT'YJvU y e t ~r} xal : n ; e o ~: n ; a v T a ~ ;If :n;aeaPoJ.iJ meant " parable" it would here refer simply to thestory of the U nready Householder in verses 39 and 40 . Bu t thereference is surely to the whole passage from verse 35 on, and inparticular to verse 36 p , e i ~Op,otot a v ( ) e c f m o t ~ : n ; e o u d e x o p , e v o t ~TOVXVetoVeavTwv. Again, as in :x;iv. 7, this sounds like the application of a" parable" (cf. the story of the Ten Virgins in Matt. xxv. I),an d it is this "likeness" which constitutes the :n;aeapoJ.fJ,notthe story of the Servants or of the Householder. Peter'squestion merely seeks to specify the general application alreadymade- le Does it apply to us- or to everybody?" Th e wholesection j s represented as teaching to the disciples only(verse 22 if.), so again Uyew n e o ~Twa:n;aeaPoJ.fJv means n o t " torecount a story to someone" bu t "t o express a comparison withsomeone ".

- (4) Another Lucan introduction to a Q passage is in xv. 3,xat dteyoyyvCov 01 Te tPaetuaiot xal y e a p , p , a T e i ~ . et:n;ev de : n ; e o ~

a V T o v ~Tavn'jv T1}v :n;aeaPoJ.fJp. It might be argued that hereat least is a clear case of :n;aeaPoJ.fJ being equated with a" parable ", but, though the process by which such a transference V(as ultimately made is beginning to be evident,there are reasons for thinking that Luke has not actually madethe change. Th e first story is o f the one lost sheep and theninety-nine safe sheep. Th e peculiar Luca n application-" thereis jo y in heaven over .one sinner r epenting rather than overninety-bine righteous who do not need repentance " - w i t h itsclear reference to the Pharisees. and scribes, indicates that the: n ; e o ~a V T o v ~is still comparative in force, an d dependent onT-Y}V:n;aeapoJ.iJv. Moreover, it is perhaps significant that, thoughthree" parables" are in fact rel ated -(not only" this parable ",v. 3), the application is the same in each, and is verbally expressedtwice. So we may still hold that it is Luke's understanding ofthe single basic illustration or comparison which leads hi m tospeak of afln'j ij :n;aeaPoJ.iJ.

Comparisons with Situations.There remain in Proto-Luke four instances of :n;aeaPoJ.fJ

meaning an illustration of a given statement .or of a situation,though the treatment varies.


6/9

10'2 T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

(I ) Th e comparative force is clearest in xviii. I, lAeyev: n : a e a f J o A ~ va i " , : o i ~ : n : e o ~ ''t'0 lJeiv :n:av't'o't's :n:eOC1SVXSl1()ciia ~ ' t ' m ) ~xal p , ~Byxaxsiv. (Cf. Heb. ix. 9 fi't'''' : n : a e a f J o A ~e l ~'t'ov xateov 't'ov tveC17:'T}X07:iJ..)Th e story is that of the Widow and the Unjust Judge, and it isthe expressed relationship to a spiritual situation in the storywhich constitutes the :n:aeafJoA1].

('2) Again, the story of the Rich Fool in xii. I6--el:n:svlJe:n:aeafJoAT}V: n : e o ~a ~ 7 : o v ~ - i l l u s t r a t e s"Beware of all covetousness, for a man's life does not consist in th e abundance of hispossessions", and the specific comparison is given, " So is hewho lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God ".Th e : n : e o ~a V 7 : o v ~here is not adjectival, as we might gatherfrom its position ; i t is simply equal to a ~ 7 : o i ~ .

(3) Again, th e story of the Unfruitful Fi g in the Vineyardin xiii. 6-lAeyev 158 't'av7:'T}v7:T}V:n:aeafJoA1]v-illustrates "Unlessyou repent, you will likewise perish".. No further applicationis pressed,l bu t there is clearly no doubt in Luke's mind aboutthe relationship of the story to the discussion evoked by thedisasters of Pilate's ou trage and Siloam. Hence n:aeafJoA1].

(4) Th e final instance in Proto-Lukeis xix. I I, and is inLuke's introduc tion to a Q passage, n : e o a O e l ~sl:n:ev :n:aeafJoAT}vlJta 7:0B Y y V ~elvat ' I e e o v C 1 a A ~ paV7:OVxallJoxsiv a ~ 7 : o i ~{I n :n:aeaxeiJP,ap,eAAe ~fJamAeta 7:00 ()sovavarpatvsl1()at. Once again the :n:aeafJOA1] isexpressed by means of a story, that of the Entrusted Pounds, andonce again Luke feels the need to indicate:n:aeafJoA1] as being anillustration 1)f something-' n this case, ()f the true situation" in theface of false expectations. Luke's style may be somewhat awkward, and not altogether successful, bu t at least it bears witnessto his instinct that the mention o f n:aeafJoA1] calls for some sortof expressed comparison or relationship.

Cb)' Luke's Use of Mark.This confirms the evidence of Proto-Luke. Once, in v. 36,

he employs the mashal sense in designating a proverb a s a:n:aea(JOA1]," No one tears a piece from a new garment and putsit on an old garment". In xx. 9, ife;at'o 1J8 : n : e o ~7:0P Aaop Uyet'/l7:T}v : n : a e a ( J o A ~ v7:av't''T}v, where Luke has avoided BP : n : a e a ( J o A a i ~in favour of a more definite expression, looks at first like a

1 Though Luke may have the Itp. . "wv in mind as being t h e" similitude n. It isan Q.T. figure of the Israelitish nation. Th e instance is a .. parable proper '.', tho ughfor Luke it is still a .. similitude " .

T H E .USE OF PARABOLE 10 3case of comparison with a person, bu t th e position of the verbmakes this unlikely, though Luke may be taking the familiarap,:n:eMJ'JIas a comparison to 0 A a o ~ .Mar k ' s" learn the illustration from the fig-tree" has become more specific in Luke xxi.'29, by a method already observed in Luke's writings. Heintroduces his xal ei:n:ev :n:aeafJoAT}Va V 7 : o i ~by a general statement,not found in Marl,t, "when these things begin to take place,look up and raise your heads, because your redemption isdrawing near ", a situation to which th e example of the fig-tree,an d indeed all trees, is a corresponding :n:aeafJoA1];

Finally, important changes appear in Luke's version of theSower passage. In viii. 4, lJuI : n : a e a f J o A f j ~replaces BV : n : a e a f J o A a i ~ ,and in viii. 9, fJeW7:WVa ~ 7 : o v 7 : a ~ .: n : a e a f J o A & . ~is expanded toB:n:'T}eW7:wvav7:ov' t ' l ~afJ-r'T}e'l'T} 1] :n:aeafJoAf}.Note the singular forplural in both cases. Luke understands ~ s Jesus' reply to this

"-last question, verse H : lG7:t'/I lJe afJ7:'T}1]:n:aea(JOArro C 1 : n : 6 e o ~eG7:lv 0M y o ~7:0V()eoV. That Luke regards 0 C 1 : n : O e O ~as one term of th ecomparison (:n:aea(JOA1]) is' supported by his addition of 7:0'11C1:n:OeOVaV7:0V to Mark's brief introduction. This version, an d the

singular:n:aeafJoA1] throughout, reveals a different emphasis fromMark. For Luke there is one basictr;aea(JoAT] 'or similitude,namely, " th e seed = the word of God" .

To conclude Luke's evidence we may say that, apart fromhis three mashal contexts, he does not depart from the basicclassical meaning of :n:aea(JOA1] . No more than Mark does heuse it to mean a " parable" as such, and in those frequent caseswhere a "parab le" is in fact involved, the :n:aea(JOA1]alwaysrefers to a-particular and expressed comparison, not to th e storyin or of itself.

I l l . MATTHEW

SO far as we can judge, Matthew used naeafJoAIj primarily

because he found it in Mark. All its occurrences in the nonMarcan sections seem to be editorial additions by the samehand as edited the Marcan sections. Matthew's usage is adevelopment from Mark 's ; it reveals an important semanticchange, and an independent and different attitude from Luke tothe same word. In Matthew, th e development f rom" likeness"or " comparison" to the story-form so often containing the" likeness" is complete. Th e tendency towards this involvedLuke in some odd-looking expressions, bu t he did not take thefinal step of eqp.ating :n:aeafJoAIj with a story containing a


7/9

1 0 4 T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

1la(!a{Jo).:Ij. Matthew did take this step, and it has ledpresent meaning of the English word "parable".semantic change is generally unconscious.

(a) Matthew's Use ofMark.

to theSuch

He makes some sligh t changes which' reveal his differentconception of l a e a { J o A ~ .Oddly 'enough, he only once takes upthe mashal sense, and that is where it occurs in an integral partof the narrative (xv. I S) which, for another reason (the appearanceof Peter), M atthew possibly held to be important. But evenhere he seems to find Mark's B1l1JewTWv TiJv 1 l a e a { J o A ~ v(Markvii. 17) too elliptical, for he transposes it into direct speech withf{J(!aaov'f}fliv TTjv1la(!a{JoA1}V(cf. t5laaa'P1JaOv in xiii. 36).

In the Vineyard story, xxi. 33 ff., Mark's reason for findingBV 1la(!a{JoAaie; appropriate (i.e. the allegorical character of thestory) disappears in Matthew. The' stor y' becomes' simply d A ~ 1 J1la(!a{JoA1},presumably being thus "classified with the .. parable 'of the Two Sons just related. Hence also the plural in verse 4S,d"ovaavTee; oE d(!Xleeeie;"al oE (/Ja(!lO'aiol Tae;1la(!a{JoAdc; aflTOVlyvwaav

on1le(!l aflTWV Aiyel. Th e change of emphasis from Mark is quiteclear. Tae; 1la(!a{JoAae; aflToV is now" his ' parables' ", and a new, subordinate clause is requi red to convey what Mark could dowith a simple 1leOe; aflToVe; qualifying 1la(!a{JoA1}. Matthew's 1lae a{JOAf]has become attached to a particular literary form.

Matt. xxiv. 32, ~ o Tije; O'V"ije; fla(JeTe TiJV ~ a ( ! a { J o A 1 } V ,repro-duces Mark xiii. 28 without change. '

Two very significant changes f ~ o m 'Mark appear inMatthew's treatment of the Sower passage in chapter xiii. Th eintroduction, verse 3, and conclusion, verse 34, are similar, butan entirely new turn is taken in verse 1 0 with the disciples'question, t5la Tt BV 1la(!a{JoAaie; AaAeie; aflToie;; Not only are t5la Tt(why?) and aflTOie; (to them, i.e. the people) not representedin Mark (or Luke , b u t there is, I hold, no suggestion ofsuch a question at all in Mark's account (or Luke's) . Surelywhat has happened is that Matthew, having a different con-ception of 1laea{JOA1} from Mark (i.e. "parable'" as against" compariso n" o r .. similitude "), and regardi ng the story ofthe Sower as being in itself a " parable ", finds justification forMark's plural use o f he word by taking Mark's concise indirect,question as a compressed express.ion for" Wh y do you speak tothe people in parables ?" Later exegesis has suffered by reading

T H E USE OF PARABOLE IO S

Mark through Matthew's eyes. In the words of Jesus which'follow, therefore, Matthew has made some conseque'ntialchangesof construction. A on is necessary in verse I I (or at least inverse 13), the Isaiah quotation is represented as the direct answerto the disciples' question (" this is the reason why I speak tothem in parables ''') an d is elaborately linked with other teachingin accord with this. Moreover, Jes us goes on to expound theformer " parable", not as having been asked to, but by way offurther illustration of his general teaching. Th e phrase usedin verse 18, d"ovo'a1:e TiJv 1laea{JOAiJv TOV (meteavToe;, is one, Isuggest, which would have been almost impossible for Ma rk,and it represents the final development of Matthean usage. I tmeans, as in the categories of Form Criticism, " the parable'

'o f the Sower", where 1 l a e a { J O A ~means little more than" story"(Myoe;), and' is a c o n v e n i e n t ~ o m e n c l a t u r efor this form ofteaching. Actually, the Sower plays no part at all in Matthew'sinterpretation, which proves that the title is only conventional.But by taking the line he does in verses I 0 fr., he naturally cannotadapt to his sense of parable" the Marcan question ofl"

olt5aTe TiJV 1la(!a{JoAr]VTaVT1Jv, " a ~1lIiJe; mlaae; Tae; 1la(!a{JoAae; yvwaea(Je;We may notice, in p a s s i n g ~that if Luke had used a phrase ofthe kind Matthew uses, it would have been d"ovaaTe TiJv 1laea{JOAi}vTOV a1lo(!ov and he would have meant it literally, " th e com-parison of the seed", not just as a conventional title.

(b) Non-Marcan Material.There are seven occurrences in such material, and it is here

that we ge t a clear hint o f how Matthew came to his peculiarnotion of 1la(!a{JoA1}'

On four occasions ~ h e nit is used to introduce a " parable",the "parable" in question begins either with 0flo{a BdTlv f}{JaalAe{a " d (xiii. 3 I ; xiii. 33) or with WflOlW(J'YjT/ {JaalAela " d (xxii.I , xiii. 24). These, and similar expressions involving the idea of0flO{WO'lC;, were frequent formulas in Matthew's discourse-material for presenting" parab les" . Now the ,crucial questionis, Wh y did Matthew use the word 1la(!a{JoA1} as a label forthis form of story? The answer, I believe, probably lies in asimilar formula which Matthew found in Mark, 1lWe; 0flolwawflBvTTjv {JaaiAelav TOV (Jeov f) BVT{Vl aflTiJv 1la(!a{JoAfj(Jwfl BV; (iv. 30).In Mark it meant simply "likeness", rather closely akin to0flO{wO'tC;, but it gave ,Mat thew what h e was looking for, namely


8/9


9/9

10 8 T H E EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY

(e) The Interpretation of the Sower Passage. ,Mark : Jesus indicates that failure to understand the basic

truth of the word regarding effectual' hearers naturally precludesan understanding of the similitudes of the soils, and Heproceeds to draw in detail the various comparisons involved.They are no doubt intended as a guide to those who really hear,and whose task it is, or will be, to continue sowing the Word.

Luke: Jesus returns after ,His parenthesis to reply to thedisciples' question, " This is the compar ison: the seed is theword of God .. a nd He proceeds to the detailed interpretation.

Matthew: Although He has not actually been questionedabout it at all, Jesus interprets the" parable of the Sower" byway of illustrating His answer to the disciples' previous questionabout the purpose of " parables ".

Th e respective viewpoints might be further studied in thevarious gospels, as well as the hearing of these studies on thequestion of the teaching of Jesus as a whole, but that is beyondthe scope of this article. I t s sufficient if we' have seen enough ofthe conception of naeafJo;'fJ in the minds ,of the three Evangelists

to enable us to understand it aright in their respective testimonies:Technically it might be looked on as a study in semantic change ;as such it is 'typical of the living idiom in:whichthe Evangelistswrote, and which we ought to grasp. More significant is it forus to observe 'how God the- Holy Spirit speaks through thethoughts and' words of men in such a way as to provide a richperspective of the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Theygive us a valid witness in a threefold cord which is not easilybroken.

Queens' College,Cambridge.

D." W. B. ROBINSON.

use of parabolé synoptic gospels

Documents