Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:08:30.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

If We Do Not Cut the Parables out of Their Frames*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Birger Gerhardsson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The New Testament discipline is a rather odd bird within the university. The object of our research is small, a book we can have in our pocket. And the learned work with this book has been carried out for a long time: acute theologians have studied it for almost two millennia and critical scholars for two centuries; there is hardly any counterpart. The secondary literature is as the grains of sand on the sea-shore.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 1991 , pp. 321 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 34 (1988) 339–63, here 339–42.Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., the textbook Ad Herennium (cf. below) IV.xlix.62: Exemplum est alicuius facti aut dicti praeteriti cum certi auctoris nomine proposito.

3 On the problems of finding adequate categories, cf. Baasland, E., ‘Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen’, NT 28 (1986) 193–219.Google Scholar

4 In the synoptic gospels the narrative meshalim are more or less determined by their context but also by one or more accessories before, after or within them. These are of eleven different types: (1) a directly preparing editorial notice, (2) some didactic phrase in the mouth of Jesus before the narrative itself, (3) an introductory formula to the narrative body of the mashal, (4) a concluding question, (5) a generalizing concluding statement, (6) a proper interpretation or application, (7) a conclusion, (8) one or more complementary, kindred statements, (9) a subsequent frame notice. Furthermore, (10): ‘The factual half’ can penetrate ‘the figurative half’ at certain places so that some textual elements express both these ‘halves’ at one and the same time, and (11) sometimes didactic elements (questions, admonitions etc.) are integrated into the narrative text of the mashal. See my article ‘The Narrative Meshalim in the Old Testament Books and in the Synoptic Gospels’, To Touch the Text. Festschrift J. A. Fitzmyer (ed. by M. P. Horgan & P. J. Kobelski [ New York: Crossroad, 1989]) 289–304, here 296–8.Google Scholar

5 See previous note, points (10) and (11). The mashal of The Last Judgement in Matt 25. 31–46 seems to be a pure narrative but it includes non-narrative elements of an aphoristic character, the sayings about ‘the least of these my brethren’ in vv. 40 and 45.

6 ὀμοονν: Mark 4.30; Matt 7.24 (26), 11.16, 13.24, 18.23, 22.2, 25.10; Luke 7.31, 13.18, 20; ὅμοιος: Matt 11.16, 13.21, 33, 44, 45, 47, 20.1; Luke 6.47 (48, 49), 7.31 (32), 12.36, 13.18 (19), 21; ὡς: Mark 4.26, 31, 13.34; ὥσπἐρ: Matt 25.14.

7 Ea sumitur aut ornandi causa aut probandi aut apertius dicendi aut ante oculos ponendi, IV.xlv.59.

8 My questions were: does this narrative mashal serve the purpose of

(1) making the matter more clear, illuminating it,

(2) giving a concrete picture of something, illustrating it,

(3) embellishing the presentation,

(4) making known something new, informing about something,

(5) revealing something hidden or secret,

(6) provoking the listeners to a decision,

(7) proving something,

(8) arguing for something,

(9) making the listeners agree,

(10) developing a question,

(11) defending something, or

(12) attacking something?

The twelve possibilities are not always distinct from each other. Many of them can be combined in different ways.

9 In these meshalim something is hidden down in the earth, under the surface of sea, in the dough, and behind the poker-face of an oriental merchant. See my article, ‘The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII’, NTS 19 (1972/1973) 16–37, here 19–25.Google Scholar

10 Mark and Luke have ἵνα (4.12 and 8.10 respectively). The Matthean Jesus says something else: διὰ τοντο…ὅτι (13.13). As to the puzzling idea of divine hardening in Mark 4.10–12, see the commentaries ad loc.

11 The exceptions are the generalizing sayings which are often added after the narrative body of the mashal or in exceptional cases included in it, at its end. (There is also one at the end of the first part of The Last Judgement, Matt 25.40; cf. 45.)

12 The following narrative meshalim have the form of an elaborate question: The Lost Sheep in both Matthew and Luke, and The Friend at Midnight, The Tower Builder, The Warring King, The Lost Coin, and The Servant's Reward in Luke. - The following end with a question: The Two Sons, and The Wicked Husbandmen in Matthew, The Two Debtors, The Good Samaritan, and The Unjust Judge in Luke.

13 See my paper ‘The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels’ (above, n. 1) 345–7.

14 Nature is a vital part of the imagery in Mark 4 in The Sower, The Seed Growing Secretly, and The Mustard Seed; in Matt 13 in The Sower, The Tares, The Mustard Seed, The Leaven, The Hidden Treasure; in Luke 8 The Sower. In addition Luke has ‘ outside the parable chapter – The Mustard Seed, and The Leaven, and, in addition, The Barren Fig Tree.

15 The man who sows in The Mustard Seed in Mark and those who are fishing in The Dragnet in Matthew are not actually mentioned, however, – only presupposed.

16 For a more detailed analysis of the narrative meshalim in the synoptic gospels, see my article ‘Illuminating the Kingdom’, Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (ed. by H. Wansbrough; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991).Google Scholar

17 See Mark 7.6 (var.), 12.28–34; Matt 5.43–8, 6.24, 19.19, 22.34–40; Luke 6.27–36, 7.36–50, 10.25–37, 16.13. How inclusively Luke 7.5 is meant, is difficult to decide. Mark 10.21 and Luke 11.43 are exceptions.

18 On the programmatic character of this pericope, see my article ‘The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew 22:37–40’, Jews, Greeks and Christians. Festschrift W. D. Davies (ed. by R. Hamerton-Kelly & R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 129–50Google Scholar. On the άγάπη motif in Early Christianity, see further my article ‘Agape and Imitation of Christ’, Jesus, The Gospels, and the Church. Festschrift W. F. Farmer (ed. by E. P. Sanders; Macon: Mercer University, 1987, 163–76)Google Scholar, and my book The Ethos of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1982). On the role played by the Shema‘ with its love-commandment in the parable chapter, see my articles ‘The Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation’, NTS 14 (1967/1968) 165–93, and ‘The Seven Parables’ (above, n. 9).Google Scholar

19 Cf. above, p. 6.

20 I am grateful to my friend Donald A. Hagner who has polished my English.