What Are They Saying about the Parables?: The Parables in their Jewish Contexts (Chapter 5, Part 2): The Parable as Mashal: The Case of Rabbinic Literature

 

The Parable as Mashal: The Case of Rabbinic Literature 

Unfortunately, scholarship concerning the mashal has, over the years, been plagued by polemical discourse. Christian scholars tend to disparage the meshalim in rabbinic literature, for example, and Jewish scholars tend to react defensively to refute such charges. Israel Abrahams, in his work, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, spends a chapter disputing the “inferiority” of rabbinic parables. He argues that there probably was no systematic dependence in either direction and agrees with scholars who posited that Jesus’ parables fit comfortably within an already-established Jewish tradition. A few years later, Asher Feldman, in his book, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis, similarly has to “justify” the literary and artistic merits of the rabbinic meshalim. 

These books also have to be seen within the framework of (New Testament) parable scholarship’s massive “continental divide” before and after Adolf Jülicher. Christian scholars, such as Christian Bugge, used the mashal to refute Jülicher’s “Aristotelian” view of parables. Bugge argues, against Jülicher, that the Jewish mashal included allegorical elements and that Jesus’ parables arose in this Jewish context. Paul Fiebig’s works on the parables take Bugge’s work as their starting point but include a more extensive analysis. Fiebig’s first book incorporates an analysis of similes, parables, and allegorical sayings from the Mekilta, a commentary on part of Exodus, which he compares to the parables of Jesus. Fiebig discovers significant similarities, such as the presentation of the context, occasion, opening formulas, and explanations, as well as some slight resemblances in content. Yet Fiebig’s work is seriously flawed by its polemical tone and agenda—he stresses, for example, the “superiority” and “lack of trivialness” of the parables of Jesus in comparison to the parables of the Mekilta. Nonetheless, his emphasis on the importance of oral traditions, the necessity of understanding the Hebraic context of the mashal, and the similarities between the style, expression, and modes of thought in the Synoptic parables with the extant meshalim were significant contributions to our understanding of the parables of Jesus. 

Because of unresolved questions and deficiencies in previous research on rabbinic parables (such as the concentration on midrash—biblical interpretation or commentary on scripture, such as the Mekilta—or the shadow of Christian or Jewish presuppositions), scholars attempted more complete and less ideologically driven investigations of rabbinic parables. In a 1989 essay, for example, Clemens Thoma defines rabbinic parables as “simple, secular, mono-episodic, fictional narrative units that serve to explain the rabbinic understanding of the Torah.” The rabbis used these rhetorical and argumentative forms for preaching, to defend their identity, and to provide guidance in their audiences’ daily lives. All rabbinic parables have a twofold structure: the narrative proper (mashal) and normative instruction (nimshal). Although this structural analysis is limited to two parts, Thoma postulates five major elements involved in the communicative process of almost all rabbinic parables (27–31): 

1. Motivation—Motivation is the situation that is addressed, clarified, or answered. It could be a discussion among rabbinic scholars or the need for an apologetic clarification. This situation induced the creation of a metaphoric parable to provide insight into the Torah, as understood by the parable’s creator(s). 

2. Hiddush—The second part of the introduction is the Hiddush, the creative idea of the mashal teller, which makes clear the narrator-writer’s religious strategy for making the light of the Torah shine for a new audience. This “primary point of disclosure” includes a “hinge phrase” or aspect on which the primary comparison will be made with the mashal. 

 3. Mashal—The mashal proper is an ordinary narrative account with a simple plot. The dramatic episode, though referential, is not just a comparison, and it stems from the creative imagination of its creator. An important element is that the mashal is composed (or possibly modified from an existing story) “to fit into the normative preaching of the nimshal” (30). 

4. Nimshal—The nimshal is the explanation of the mashal, and the nimshal is always closely connected with the motivation of the parable. The nimshal can be introduced by the formulaic “so” or “in a similar way,” and it consists of biblical quotations and rabbinical expressions intended to give an authoritative explanation of the Torah.

5. The Addressees—The intention of the parable is to influence the community; therefore the addressees include the entire community, and they may even include future Jewish generations. 

Although Thoma does not compare his tentative conclusions with the parables of the Jesus tradition, a few of his conclusions have direct relevance: He argues that rabbinic parables appear to be the “best representatives of rabbinic theology” (37), which, if true, may give some credence to the assumption that the parables of Jesus portray major, essential elements of his teaching. Thoma also notes that the importance of the rabbinic parables is made clear by their simplicity, clarity, and the great conscientiousness of composition. This composition proclaims the presence of God with Israel, which, as always, has a clear ethical dimension—including the responsibility of the whole community to have an attitude of repentance (38–39). Finally, Thoma observes that many rabbinic parables deal with Israel’s salvation history and have eschatological aims. Thus these parables provide another important point of comparison with the parables of Jesus and his proclamation of the kingdom of God as found in the Synoptic Gospels.

The next post will examine the McArthur and Johnston book, They Also Taught in Parables.