CHAPTER lWO

WHAT IS A PARABLE ?

What then is a parable? The question is important for this study in several ways. The answer will designate the area to be studied and how it should be studied: what portion of Matthew's Gospel should be analysed and what methods of analysis are appropriate? It will indicate what a parable is in terms of its history: how is a parable to be understood within the developments which led from the work of Jesus of Nazareth to the writing of the Gospels? It will illustrate what a parable is in terms of its functions: how can a parable operate in different contexts, and particularly how might it operate within a large-scale Gospel like Luke or Matthew? It will illuminate how parabolic speech is related to theological understanding: how might the relationship between the Matthean parables and the theological concems of that Gospel be explored? In terms of establishing the methods for analysing parables in Chapter Three, the definition of a parable is of critical importance. The definition of a parable is by no means a simple matter: do we mean the parable as Jesus used it, or the parable as the Gospel writer wrote it, or is there some criterion independent of the Gospels by which we may define a parable? If scholars posit the first of these, the 'parable' as that which Jesus used, they often mean by 'parable' a form different from that which appears in the written Gospels. To obtain this they use weB-tried procedures, in particular the writing of a his tory of the Jesus tradition. This includes source-critical work: there are different appearances of the same parable within the synoptic tradition (as weIl as in material outside the Gospels); a comparison of these variant forms might lead to the designation of some of them as later and some as earlier, and thus perhaps point to the earliest form of all, the form which Jesus used. It also includes theories about the layers of interpretation within the text, and how to distinguish and date them. So a definition of the parable, perhaps understood as a means of communication used by Jesus in his teaching, is dependent on the writing of a parabolic tradition history and on the methods and theories involved in that technique. Such a parabolic tradition is however a complex entity, and it is not clear how far aB its interrelated elements can be identified. The relation of a Marcan form of a parable (e.g. The Sower) to its Matthean counterpart is not simply a matter of a tradition handled by an editor, but a historical WHAT IS A PARABLE? 57 process with many constituent parts. There is the history of the vegetation motif which influences how the narrative is rehearsed; there is the history of the persecution and finance themes; there is the association of Jesus with the proclarnation of the good news. Alongside the transmission of the parable there is the transmission of its interpretation, an independent transmission in the case of The Sower. This is apparent from the discrepancies which appear in the text, discrepancies for example between the Matthean form of the parable and the Matthean form of its interpretation. Such discrepancies, gaps and tensions are part of the history of the parabolic tradition and are hints of influences on the narration which need to be understood and if possible interpreted. Above all there is the question of how the basic tradition is being pressed into the service of an ongoing tradition, and of the many elements in that process: the parable of The Sower as a unit of meaning and not just an amalgam of constituent parts, as a transaction implying bonding and commitment, as an invitation to recognize a wider horizon to which the parable points. The theories surrounding these areas have transformed our understanding of the history of tradition from a unilinear construction to a multiform reality, but they also present a maze of theoretical possibilities which must constantly and ruthlessly be assessed: 'generative', 'actualization', 'performance' theories have all been applied to parable research and are part of the study of the parabolic tradition. Other theories too have a particular relevance to study of Matthew's Gospel. They concern, for example, the relationship of the parables to eschatology: it is generally accepted that parables could have been a proclamation of the Kingdom, although it is disputed whether that Kingdom was present, future, or both; Matthew has a larger number of narrative fictions than any of the other Gospels and a larger number which emphasize the future judgment; does this represent an intensification of one element in Jesus' parables? Or, were some of Jesus' parables a declaration of judgment on his contemporaries, later to be used in the Matthean tradition to expound the place of Gentiles within the early Christian church? Or, were Jesus' parables originally intended to raise fundamental issues concerning behaviour but later became expressions of a distinctively Matthean morality? Such theories about the history of tradition relate specifically to the history of the Matthean parabolic corpus, and source-critical study, by designating some ideas earlier and some later, may assist in their evaluation. Another approach to the historical question uses form-critical observations. Form criticism operates at a number of different levels. lt operates at a synchronic level, c1assifying similarities and connections between texts which belong to a limited cultural and temporal setting. Parables therefore can be c1assified as such without reference to a particular place in history or the history of tradition. Form-critical study also operates