Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:37:20.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parable and Example in the Teaching of Jesus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

John Dominic Crossan
John Dominic Crossan
Affiliation:
Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article has three main purposes: (i) to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25–37) in some detail to decide what form of discourse the historical Jesus, as distinct from the later tradition or the final redaction, intended it to be when originally given; (ii) to extrapolate from this one parable and investigate, but in lesser detail, the other major ‘exemplary stories’ in the parabolic teaching of Jesus and to ask whether there are any such authentically stemming from Jesus himself; (iii) on the basis of this analysis to raise certain problems and questions with regard to method in parable exegesis and to meaning in parable interpretation.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , April 1972 , pp. 285 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

page 285 note 1 The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J. Marsh (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 169–79.Google Scholar The German words are: Bildwörter, Gleichnisse, Parabeln, Beispielerzählungen.

page 286 note 1 Wilder, A. N., The Language of the Gospel (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 80,Google Scholar accepts the existence of such exemplary stories for Jesus: ‘Some of the parables are straight narratives about a given individual case, ending with an application: the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool; or sometimes about more than one person, as for example the Pharisee and the Publican. Here we have “example-stories”, not symbolic narrative. The point is in these cases that we should go and do likewise, or take warning by the given example.’

page 286 note 2 The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke (rev. ed.; New York: Scribner's, 1963), pp. 201–5.Google Scholar

page 286 note 3 Jesus of the Parables, trans. J. Sturdy (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 4–5Google Scholar: ‘Illustrations must be distinguished from similitudes and parables…the way they work is different: the parable adduces a correspondence (analogia) but the illustration produces an example (exemplum).’ The parable in question is analysed on pp. 51–8 and it is stated on p. 53: ‘It is not a similitude but an illustration: the correct attitude does not have to be established in some other area of life, and then transferred to the problem at issue, but the subject that is in question is “brought to language” directly by a particularly well-chosen instance as an example.’

page 286 note 4 The Art and Truth of the Parables (London: SPCK, 1964), pp. 80–109.Google Scholar

page 286 note 5 Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (‘The New Testament Library’; London: SCM Press, 1967), p. 87Google Scholar n. 1: ‘we are not going to pay attention to the German division of the parables into three groups: Gleichnisse (similes), Parabeln (parables) and Beispielerzählungen (exemplary stories)’. The parable of the Good Samaritan is discussed on pp. 122–4.

page 287 note 1 The Parables (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 11–13.Google Scholar

page 287 note 2 The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York, 1961), pp. 1–2, 100.Google Scholar

page 287 note 3 Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins London: Macmillan, 1924), pp. 186–91, 210–11.Google Scholar

page 288 note 1 Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Law in the New Testament: Fresh Light on the Parable of the Good Samaritan,’ N.T.S. XI (1964), 22–37Google Scholar: ‘A parable which shows that hesed is a natural emotion and that it is to that that God referred in demanding hesed might seem to be the perfect commentary on the two verses, and to fit our context as a hand fits its glove’ (p. 34). Cf. also Giavini, G., ‘Il “prossimo” nella parabola del buon samaritano,’ Riv. B. XII (1964), 419–21;Google ScholarDowney, G., ‘Who is My Neighbor? The Greek and Roman Answer,’ Angl.T.R. XLVII (1965), 3–15.Google Scholar

page 289 note 1 As argued by E. Linnemann, op. cit. pp. 56–8 and especially p. 138 n. 1, and pp. 141–3 nn. 16–17. The opposite view is defended by J. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 202. But Miss Linnemann holds that the question and answer in x. 29–37 as a unity may go back to Jesus himself and that there are two scribal discourses in x. 25–8 and x. 29–37 which are united by word-linkage (neighbour).

page 289 note 2 R. Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 182–3: ‘some parables end with a question directed to the hearer…it is questionable on occasions when the similitude is given in a framework by the answer being provided in the text, whether the framework is as original as the similitude itself. Here the editorial work of the evangelists has to be taken account of, as is perfectly clear from Luke x. 36 f.’.

page 290 note 1 R. Bultmann, op. cit. p. 41, in discussing the rabbinic and synoptic controversies, notes: ‘the reply to the attack follows more or less a set form, with special preference for the counter-question or the metaphor, or even both together’; and p. 42: ‘The typical form for an answer is the counter-question, and often it appears in such a form as to be a metaphor in form, too. Sometimes instead of the metaphor the counter-question is a detailed parable, sometimes ending with a question, or at any rate interrogatory in form.’.

page 290 note 2 This confirms the earlier statement that it was not Luke himself who united the units of tradition since he would hardly be so attuned to the formal stylistics involved. Binder, H., ‘Das Gleichnis vom barmherzigen Samariter,’ T.Z. XV (1959), 176–94Google Scholar argues that Luke combined x. 25–8 and x. 30–7a with his own x. 29 and 37b: ‘Luk. x. 30–7a ist ein selbständiges Überlieferungsstück, genau so wie die Frage nach dem größten Gebot’ (p. 176). Kahlefeld, H., ‘“Wer ist mein Nächster?” Das Lehrstück vom barmherzigen Samariter und die heutige Situation,’ Bi.Ki. XXIV (1969), 74–7,Google Scholar thinks that Luke added x. 29 and x. 36–7.

page 291 note 1 Cf., for example, the excellent summary of N. Perrin, op. cit. pp. 38–9: ‘the earliest form of a saying we can reach may be regarded as authentic if it can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of ancient Judaism and of the early Church’ (p. 39). For a complementary method to this cf. Walker, W. O., ‘The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of Methodology,’ Angl.T.R. LI (1969), 38–56.Google Scholar

page 292 note 1 This is here understood as: (i) a parable of the historical Jesus showing a wise decision in a critical situation; (ii) which has received a traditional interpretation in the seven allegorical indices of xiii. 38–40a; and (iii) has had another redactional interpretation added by Matthew himself in xiii. 40b-43: note how the field is the world in which good and evil are mixed together in xii. 36–40a, but becomes the church, the kingdom of the Son of Man, in which there are good and bad Christians, in xiii. 40b-43. For a similar view of the Matthaean church in redacted parables of Matthew cf. Dillon, R.J., ‘Towards a Traditional History of the Parables of the True Israel (Matthew xxi. 33–xxii. 14,’ Bib. XLVII (1966) 1–42.Google Scholar

page 292 note 2 Cf. pp. 303–6 below.

page 293 note 1 This is understood, like the wheat and the darnel parable, as: (i) Jesus' image of a wise decision in a critical situation; (ii) which received a traditional comment and interpretation in xvi. 8; (iii) and a collection of further interpretations, presumably already linked mnemonically together (μαμωνãς) in the pre-Lukan tradition, in xix. 9, 10–12, 13, which are appended as a further redactional attempt at explanation. Cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Story of the Dishonest Manager (Luke xvi. 1–13),’ T.S. XXV (1964), 23–42;Google ScholarMoore, F. J., ‘The Parable of the Unjust Steward,’ Angl.T.R. XLVII (1965), 103–5.Google Scholar Even if his actions were not historically so unjust as they might appear to us at first glance (cf. Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Fresh Light on St Luke xvi: 1. The Parable of the Unjust Steward,’ N.T.S. VII (1961), 198–219Google Scholar), it is clear that Christian tradition has always had trouble with this parable. In a bibliography of parable exegesis for the sixties twice as many articles were written on this parable as were done on the next competitor, the Good Samaritan. Possibly the backlash of moralizing?

page 293 note 2 The interpretation of the parable as an exemplary story for almsgiving is as ancient as it is unconvincing: cf. Caemmerer, R. R., ‘Investment for Eternity. A Study of Luke xvi. 1–13,’ Conc. T.M. XXXIV (1963), 69–76;Google ScholarWilliams, F. W., ‘Is Almsgiving the Point of the “Unjust Steward”?,’ J.B.L. LXXXIII (1964), 293–7;Google ScholarBigo, P., ‘La richesse comme intendance dans l'Évangile. A propos de Luc xvi. 1–9,’ N.R.T. LXXXVII (1965), 267–71.Google Scholar Nor is it rendered a more convincing example if taken as a model for the renunciation of wealth itself: cf. Krämer, M., ‘Ad parabolam de villico iniquo: Lc xvi. 8, 9,’ V.D. XXXVIII (1960), 278–91;Google Scholar‘Aenigma parabolae de villico iniquo Lc xvi. 1–13’, V.D. XLVI (1968), 370–5.Google Scholar

page 294 note 1 Daniel, C., ‘Les Esséniens et l'arrière-fond historique de la parabole du Bon Samaritain,’ N.T. XI (1969), 71–104Google Scholar suggests that the victim was an Essene attacked by Zealots. It is always possible that motifs from real life actuality or from OT events (cf. for example I Kings xiii. 11–32) can be taken up into the composition of a parable. But the point is always determined by their new situation in parable rather than by their pre-parabolic origins.

page 294 note 2 Castellino, G. R., ‘Il Sacerdote e il Levita nella parabola del buon samaritano,’ Divinitas IX (1965), 134–40.Google Scholar

page 294 note 3 Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 204: ‘According to the triadic form of popular stories, the audience would now have expected a third character, namely, after the priest and the Levite, an Israelite layman; they would hence have expected the parable to have an anti-clerical point. It would have been completely unexpected and disconcerting for them to hear that the third character, who fulfilled the duty of love, was a Samaritan.’

page 294 note 4 The OT presented examples of behaviour just as good, in fact even better since kindness and mercy is being shown to beaten attackers, and Jesus may even have had this incident in mind when constructing his own parable: cf. II Chron. xxviii. 9–15 as noted in Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Law in the New Testament: Fresh Light on the Parable of the Good Samaritan,’ N.T.S. XI (1964), 22–37,Google Scholar and Furness, J. M., ‘Fresh Light on Luke x. 25–37,’ Exp. Tim. LXXX (1969), 902.Google Scholar

page 295 note 1 Gerhardsson, B., The Good Samaritan – The Good Shepherd (Conj. Neot., XVI; Lund: Gleerup, 1958)Google Scholar understands Jesus as using the Hebrew root (r'h) whence comes neighbour and also shepherd and so referring cryptically to himself. For a criticism Funk, cf. R. W., ‘The Old Testament in Parable. A Study of Luke x. 25–37,’ Encounter XXVI (1965), 251–67,Google Scholar and also, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 199–222.Google Scholar

page 295 note 2 In other words: Jesus places the hearer in a position where the being which is striving to reveal itself in language demands that he voice his welcoming recognition and response to its arrival and revelation. This would seem a particularly clear example of the language-event of the new hermeneutic.

page 296 note 1 Hence less attention will be paid to the distinction between tradition and redaction and the emphasis will be on the separation of both these layers left somewhat united from the level of the historical Jesus.

page 296 note 2 Guillaumont, A. et al. , The Gospel according to Thomas (Leiden: Brill; New York/Evaston: Harper & Row 1959), P. 35 (xcii. 2–10)Google Scholar: ‘Jesus said: There was a rich man who had much money. He said: I will use my money that I may sow and reap and plant and fill my storehouses with fruit so that I lack nothing. This was what hre thought in his heart. And that night he died. Whoever has ears let him hear.’ Montefiore, Cf. H. and Turner, H. E. W., Thomas and the Evangelists (‘Studies in Blibical Theology’, no. 35; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1962), pp. 50, 55,77;Google Scholar and G. V. Jones, op. cit. pp. 230–40.

page 297 note 1 Cf. H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, op. cit. p. 57: ‘The point of Luke's parable is the futility of rich case…. In Thomas the point of the parable is the futility of attempting material self-sufficiency.’ This is hardly a correct view.

page 297 note 2 Ibid. p. 50: ‘The Lucan version is here to be preferred.’

page 297 note 3 Such parables which challenge to imediate right decision concerning the kingdom sometimes tell of a person who decides correctly in a crisis (unjust steward) or else of one who decides badly in such a situation (wedding garment: Matt. xxii. 11–14) or even of persons who go in both directions (talents, bridesmaids). The challenge and the point remain the same in all cases. Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 165: ‘ in Luke xii. 16–20 we have an eschatological parable. Jesus expected his hearers to apply its conclusion to their own situation: we are just as foolish as the rich fool under the treat of death if we heap up property and possessions when the Deluge is threatening’ But E. Linnemann, op.cit p. 22, states: ‘only in rare and exceptional cases do they (Jesus' parables) given an exhortatin’, and she footnotes (b): ‘e.g. the illustration of the rich fool, Luke xiii. 16–21, though it is questlionable whether this goes back to Jesus‘.

page 297 note 4 Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. 1. The Parable of the Unjust Steward. II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings,’ N.T.S. VII (1961, 198–219, 364–80.Google Scholar

page 298 note 1 The three logia in xvi. 10, 11, 12 are word-linked by πιστός, πιστοί, πιστοί respectively; the complex of logia in xvi. 9, 10–12, 13 are connected by μαμωνᾷ, μαμωνᾷ,μαμωνᾷ respectively in xvi. 11, 13; the theme of money links xvi. 9–13 with 4–15; God appears in xvi. 14–15 and xvi. 6, and law in xvi. 16and 17–18.

page 298 note 2 On this theme in Luke cf. Schubert, P., ‘The Sturcture and Significance of Luke xiv, Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), pp. 165–86.Google Scholar

page 298 note 3 Because J. Jeremias, op.cit pp. 182–3, notes that Luke rejects 89 out of the 90 historic presents in Mark, yet there are two here in xiv. 23, 29, so presuably Luke himself did not create xvi. 27–31; ad besides his own interest seems to be riches and alms rather than resurrection.

page 298 note 4 So J. Jeremias, op.cit. p. 183: ‘the Egyptian folk-tale of the journey of Si-Osiris, the son of Setme Chamois to the underworld, which concludes with the words: “He who has been good on earth, will be blessed in the kingdom of the dead, and he who has been evil on earth, will suffer in the kindom of the dead.” Alexandrian Jews brought this story to Palestine, where it become very popular as the story of the poor scholar and the rich publican Bar Ma'jan.’ And he concludes in his interpretation on p. 186: ‘Since the first part is drawn from well-known folk-material, the emphasis lies on the new “epilogue” which Jesus added to the first part, i.e. on vv. 27–31 rather than on vv. 19–26. So he sees it as a parable of crisis in which one brother has failed to act correctly and the five others are still living under the sword of decision. This certainly treats the story as a true parable and the main objection is the difficulty in taking xvi. 27–31from the historical Jesus even in a basic form: the mention of Moses and the prophets and of resurrection form the dead shifts the emphasis completely off the five brothers and towards the messengers who might save them. Dunkerley, R., ‘Lazarus,’ N.T.S. V (1959), 321–7Google Scholar suggested all of xvi. 9–31 as a forewarning to the disciples of the resuscitation of Lazarus (John xi).

page 299 note 1 As cited in J. Jeremias, op.cit. p. 183, and he notes the amoral tone of Jesus' story with: ‘The lack of emphasis on his guilt… is explanined by the fact that Jesus was drawing ο.Γ material which was well known to his hearers.’

page 299 note 2 R. Bultmann, op.cit. p. 204: ‘ the Egyptian and Jewish stories defend the divine justice and show that reward and punishment are meted out in proportin to piety and sin, whereas Luke xvi.19–26 simply teaches the reversal of earthly fortune in the world to come as a warning to the rich and a consolation to the poor’ On p. 197 he also mentions another possible Jewish background for all of xvi. 19–31 in the story of a ‘rich and godless couple’ where the dead wife sends back warning to her husband from Hell and he repents and is saved. But here the moral point is very clear.

page 300 note 1 Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 139–40. He also notes the intensely semitic tonality of xvi. 10–14.

page 300 note 2 Ibid. p. 142

page 300 note 3 de Meuss, X., ‘Composition de Lc xiv, et genre symposiaque,’ E.T.L. XXXVII (1961, 847–70.Google Scholar

page 301 note 1 This is very similar to the case of the man on his way to judgement in Matt. v. 25–6 = Luke xii. 58–9, but here Luke does not turn it into an example of rather banal human prudence as does Matthew, but leaves it as it originally was: a parable of crisis inviting the hearers to recognize their situation of ultimate urgency and act accordingly and immediately. Caird, Cf. G. B., ‘Expounding the Praables. I. The Defendant (Matthew v. 25 f.; Luke xii. 58 f.),’ Exp.Tim. LXXVII (1965), 36–9.Google Scholar

page 301 note 2 So J. Jeremias op. cit. p. 20: ‘rule’ and p. 192: ‘Jesus therefore is actually giving a direction for table-manners.’ But the parallel adduced to Prov. xxv. 7: ‘better to be invited, “Come up here” than be humiliated in the presence of the prince’, is hardly convincing. This latter proverb lacks completely the crassly immoral opportunism of the logion of Jesus (if it is ) on table-manners: note the īνα of xiv. 10.

page 302 note 1 A. Guillaumont, op.cit. pp. 35–6 ( = xcii. 2–35). The invited guests are now four in number because it is with these rather than with the uninvited that GT is concerned (cf. xcii. 34–5). The forced invitation is: ‘Go out to the roads, bring those whom you shall find, so that they may dine’ (xcii. 32–4).

page 302 note 2 Trilling, W., ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Gleichnisses vom Hochzeitsmahl Matt. xxii. 1–14,’ B.Z. IV (1960), 251–65;Google ScholarHasler, V. ‘Die königliche Hochzeit Matt. xxxii. 1–14,’ T.Z. VIII (1962), 25–35.Google Scholar

page 302 note 3 Swaels, R., ‘L'orientation ecclésiastique de la praabole du festin nuptial en Matt. xxii. 1–14,’ E.T.L. XXXVI (1960), 655–84;Google ScholarDillon, R. J., ‘Towards a Tradition-History of the Parables of the True Israel (Matthew xxi. 33– xxii. 14),’ Bib. XLVII (66). 1–42.Google Scholar The originally separate praable of Matt. xxii. 11–13 would have been an original one of crisis unwisely handled (cf. p. 297 n. 3 above): bauer, J. B., ‘De veste nuptiali: (Matt. xxii.11–13)’ V.D. XLIII (1965), 15–18.Google Scholar

page 302 note 4 Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 64, but O. Glombitza ‘Das große Abendmahl, Luk. xiv. 12–24’, thinks Luke's version is more basic and closer to Jesus's teaching which was not a parable at all originally.

page 302 note 5 The version of GT lxii is closest to the original since there is no internal alleogorization and the moralization is externally appended at the end. The only internal expansion is that the triadic invitation now involves four cases: Mittion, Cf. C. L., ‘Therefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus,’ Exp. Tim. LXXV (1964), 228–30.Google Scholar

page 302 note 6 If Jesus had wished simply to warn his audience parabolically of their critical situation (act now before it is too late!) it would have sufficed to have had some guests accept and some others refuse (e.g. with the excluded bridesmaids). But he intended a situation of reversal rather than merely one of exclusion, as against E. Linnemann, op. cit. pp. 88–97: ‘While the fate of the unwilling guests in the parable is already decided, it is left open for Jesus’ listeners. They still have the decision before them.’ Cf. also her article, ‘Überlegungen zur Parabel vom großen Abendmahl, Lc. X1V. 15–24, Matt.xxii. 1–14’, Z.N.W. LI (1960), 246–55.Google Scholar

page 303 note 1 J. Jeremias, op. cit., is the classic example of this methodology. But much less space (pp. 42–8 as against pp. 66–89) and a far kinder judgement is accorded the churchs moralizing (p. 48: ‘by the hortatory application the parable is not misinterpreted, but “actualized”) than on its allegorizing of Jesus' original parables (p. 19): ‘Julicher… rid the parables of the thick layer of dust with which the allegorical interpretation had covered them’ and p. 89: ‘most of the allegorical traits which figure so prominently in the present form of the parables are not original… discarding these secondary interpretations and features…’). The question arises whether there is still far too much moralizing left injeremias' own interpretations, and whether the idea of exemplary story, even if not the classification, has had too much influence on the exegesis on the level of the historical Jesus. On the other hand, E. Linnemann, op. cit., traces the parable of the bridesmaids (pp. 124–8) back only to the church and not to Jesus in any form. In general the earliest form of a parable discernible would have a strong presumption of authenticity because of the criterion of dissimilarity: Jesus' parables are different in function from those of the rabbis, and the early church was hardly at home with this usage in so far as we can see how they used Jesus' own parables.

page 304 note 1 Compare, for example, the work of C. H. Dodd, op. cit., on the parables with that of N. Perrin, op. cit., on the historical Jesus - not with regard to conclusions but exclusively with regard to methodology. Dodd spends the first half of his work dealing ‘with those sayings which are more or less explicit, even though making use of symbolism’. Then, having established therein his view of Jesus' teaching of realized eschatology, he uses this ‘as an hypothesis to be tested by applying it to the interpretation of the parables’ (p. 84) which takes up the second half of his book. This seems a better methodology than that of Perrin who studies logia and parables together. This is not to put parables ontologically below propositions but to put propositions methodologically before parables. Cf. also the investigation of parables and logia respectively in Robinson, J. M., ‘Jesus' Understanding of History,’ J.B.R. XXIII (1955), 17–24,Google Scholar and ‘The Forma Structure of Jesus' Message’, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, eds. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (‘Essays in honor of O. A. Piper’ New York: Harper & Bros. 1962), pp. 91–110.Google Scholar It will certainly be of great significance in interpreting the parables how one sees Jesus' view of time: cf. Funk, R. W., ‘Apocalyptic as an Historical and Theological Problem in New Testament Scholarship’, Apocalypticism, ed. Funk, R. W. (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969)Google Scholar = J. T.Ch. VI (1969), 175–91.

page 305 note 1 The major emphasis in bringing parable and allegory closer together has been the criticism of the dichotomy: parable has only one main lesson and all narrative details serve this while all the details in an allegory carry their own lessons. On this cf. Black, M., ‘The Parables as Allegory,’ B.J.Ryl.L. XLII (1960), 273–87;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., ‘Parable and Allegory Reconsidered,’ N. T. v (1962), 36–45;Google ScholarTinsley, E. J., ‘Parable, Allegory and Mysticism’, Vindications: Essays on the Historical Basis of Christianity, ed. Hanson, A. (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 153–92;Google ScholarGoulder, M. D., ‘Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels,’ J. T.S. xix (1968), 51–69.Google Scholar But when parable is seen as poetic metaphor the chasm between it and allegory becomes impassible: cf. the comment of Ricceur, P., The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Buchanan, E. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 163–4:Google Scholar ‘An allegory can always be translated into a text that can be understood by itself; once this better text has been made out, the allegory falls away like a useless garment; what the allegory showed, while concealing it, can be said in a direct discourse that replaces the allegory. By its triple function of concrete universality, temporal orientation, and finally ontological exploration, the myth has a way of revealing things that is not reducible to any translation from a language in cipher to a clear language.’ This is also true of allegory as against parable. Or again cf. Heidegger, M., An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. Mannheim, R. (New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 160Google Scholar: ‘the unconcealment of being is not simply given. Unconcealment occurs only when it is achieved by work: the work of the word in poetry, the work of the stone in temple and statue, the work of the word in thought’ This mention of poetry in first place is not accidental. In his ‘Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry’, Existence and Being, ed. W. Brock (Chicago: Regnery, 1949), p. 283Google Scholar: ‘poetry is the inaugural naming of being…’.

page 305 note 2 Funk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1966)Google Scholar has a brilliant chapter on ‘The Parable as Metaphor’ (pp. 133–62) in which this understanding of parable as poetic metaphor is strongly emphasized. Yet the succeeding chapters on the great supper (pp. 163–98) and the Good Samaritan (pp. 199–222) seem somewhat anti-climactic and the reason seems more than the necessary disappointment in any abstract statement of a poetic intuition. The more fundamental problem is: (i) the lack of a guiding idea of Jesus’ non-parabolic teaching, and (ii) the failure to distinguish the literal level with sufficient clarity before moving to the metaphorical: e.g. the ‘riff-raff’ (p. 188) may not belong to the literal point of the great supper parable. But he has noted the problem of parable versus example. On p. 211 n. 52: ‘It is strange that Julichers reading of the Good Samaritan as a Beispielerziihlung has gone virtually unchallenged. The Lucan tradition has given support, however, to a moralistic reading, terminating as it does with the exhortation, “Go and do likewise”.’ And later in note 47: ’The other parables identified as exemplary stories are… Naturally we are not considering here whether the designation is appropriate in these other cases…’ But the interpretation of the Good Samaritan given here is still moralistic even if rather existential. Cf. Perrin, N., ‘The Parables of Jesus as Parables, as Metaphors, and as Aesthetic Objects: A Review Article,’ J.Rel. XLVII (1967), 340–7.Google Scholar

page 305 note 3 Function and intention rather than form and content determine the distinction. The Samaritan was interpreted as pure parable in this article, yet Luke saw it as an example, and Augustine made it into a beautiful allegory: cf. C. H. Dodd, op. cit. pp. 1–2. What is meant by stating that example (or allegory) is reducible to abstract proposition may be seen clearly when the Samaritan is taken as example and so concludes with, σύ пοíει όμοíως in x. 37b. The story itself may be pedagogically more persuasive but it adds nothing to the abstract moral injunction in Luke vi. 31: ‘Treat others as you would like them to treat you пοιεīτε αὺτοīς όμοíως).’ Cf. Vincent, J. J., ‘The Parables of Jesus as Self-Revelation’, Studio Evangeiwa, eds. Aland, K. et al. (T.U. 73; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), pp. 79–99Google Scholar (esp. p. 90 n. 2).

page 306 note 1 Cf. especially the existential hermeneutic of E. Linnemann, op. cit., and the works of G. V. Jones and D. O. Via already noted. For critical reaction see Summers, R., ‘Setting the Parables Free,’ S.W.J.T. x (1968), 7–18;Google Scholar and Blackman, E. C., ‘New Methods of Parable Interpretation,’ Canad.J.T. XV (1969), 3–13.Google Scholar

page 306 note 2 Bornkamm, G., Jesus of Nazareth, trans. I. and McLuskey, F. with Robinson, J. M. (New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 69:Google Scholar ‘The rabbis also relate parables in abundance, to clarify a point in their teaching and explain the sense of a written passage, hut always as an aid to the teaching and an instrument in the exegesis of an authoritatively prescribed text. But that is just what they are not in the mouth of Jesus, although they often come very close to those of the Jewish teachers in their content, and thoughJesus makes free use of traditional and familiar topics. Here the parables are the preaching itself and are not merely serving the purpose of a lesson which is quite independent of them.’ This disagrees with G. V. Jones, op. cit. p. 79: ‘The main difference between the parables of Jesus and those of the rabbis is that the former are the work of one with a superbly creative imagination providing profound insights without parallel’, and he footnotes (i): ‘Perhaps the nearest approach in the parables of Jesus to rabbinic exposition of a text is the parable of the Samaritan, which may be regarded as an exposition of the meaning of love of one's neighbour.’ On the level of the historical Jesus the parables were never textual (biblical) commentary, and it is still doubtful if they were really used for this in the early church: cf. Cave, C. H., ‘The Parables and the Scriptures,’ N.T.S. XI (1965), 374–87;Google Scholar‘Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy’,. N.T.S. XV (1969), 319–25.Google Scholar

page 307 note 1 Rago, H., A Sky of Late Summer (New York: Macmillan, 1963)Google Scholar, from ‘The Promising’ (p. 54). Cf. also his comments in ‘The Vocation of Poetry’, Poetry cx (1967), 328–48:Google Scholar ‘To be a poet at all is to be present to the ontology that is hidden in words. And what shall we say of metaphor? We might begin with the definitions we were taught as children, seeing it as a mere figure of speech rather than as speech itself, as a depth of speech that is otherwise impossible’ (p. 340), and in ‘The Poet in His Poem’, Poetry CXIII (1969), 413–20:Google Scholar ‘There is the metaphor that is less a metaphor, because it is the metaphor I choose; there is the metaphor that is more deeply, irrevocably a metaphor, because it chooses me’ (p. 414), or, ’And what is the metaphor as we see it now? No mere figure of speech, but the transmutation that itself is poetry: a matter of content: the style that is the man” (p. 415). Later in the poem cited above appear these lines: ’If all has been for the poem / The poem has been / For the silence it comes from / For the silence / It must create.’ All of this recalls the words of M. Heidegger (1959) cited in Ott, H., ‘What is Systematic Theology?’ The Later Heidegger and Theology, ed. Robinson, J. M. and Cobb, J. B. (‘New Frontiers in Theology’ New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1963), I, 87:Google Scholar ‘Heidegger says: “Every great poet composed from only a single poem… The poem of a poet remains unspoken. None of the individual poems, not even the total of them, says it all. Nevertheless, each poem speaks from the whole of the one poem and each time speaks it. Out of the poem's realm flows forth the wave that in each case arouses speaking as a poetic utterance.”’.