What Are They Saying about the Parables?: The Parables in their Jewish Contexts (Chapter 5, Part 3): The Parable as Mashal: The Case of Rabbinic Literature

This post is in memory of my brother, Gary Gowler, who passed away ten years ago today, April 8, 2013. Can't believe he's been gone ten years. In many ways, it seems like yesterday; in many ways, it seems like a hundred years. I miss you, Gary.

To continue from the last post:

Thoma’s five “descriptive elements” do not, however, convey all the explicit structural characteristics found in most rabbinic parables. This task, in a midrashic context, was more fully undertaken by Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston in their book They Also Taught in Parables. They assert that the immediate environment and internal structure of the narrative mashal in “its fullest narrative form” (i.e., frequently one or more elements is lacking) include five parts. I will define the various parts and then illustrate those parts with a rabbinic parable from Deuteronomy Rabbah (Deut R. 2:24): 

1. Illustrand—the matter to be illustrated, proved, or explained. It is not directly a part of the parable structurally, but it provides the immediate context and, in fact, the reason for its placement/existence. Most rabbinic parables have an explicit illustrand: 

Another explanation [of] “Thou wilt return to the Lord thy God” (Deut 4:30).  

2. Introductory Formula—the preparatory prefix to the story. There are many variations, but all serve the same purpose. A tripartite formula is common, such as: (a) “I will parable you a parable”; (b) “Unto what is the matter like?”; (c) “It is like a king who…”: 

R. [i.e., Rabbi] Samuel Pargrita said in the name of R. Meir: Unto what is the matter like? It is like the son of a king who took to evil ways.… 

3. Parable Proper—the illustrative story. Common examples are parables involving stories about kings, fables (with animals), or wisdom parables: 

It is like the son of a king who took to evil ways. The king sent a tutor to him who appealed to him, saying: Repent my son. But the son sent him back to his father [with a message], How can I have the effrontery to return? I am ashamed to come before you. Thereupon his father sent back word: My son, is a son ever ashamed to return to his father? And is it not to your father that you will be returning? 

4. Application—the great majority of rabbinic parables attach an explicit interpretation or application, which makes “the” point clear. The application is often introduced by the word kak (even so, or likewise):

Even so the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Jeremiah to Israel when they sinned, and said to him: Go, say to my children: Return. 

5. Scriptural Quotation—often introduced by the formula “as it is said” or “as it is written,” to which one or more scriptural quotations could be appended to “clinch the point.” The quotation is often followed by another application, which then could become an illustrand itself, thus producing another parable, and so forth (99–125). The following example intermingles scriptural quotations with additional applications: 

Whence this? For it is said: “Go, and proclaim these words” etc. (Jer 3:12). Israel asked Jeremiah: How can we have the effrontery to return to God? Whence do we know this? For it is said: “Let us lie down in our shame and let our confusion cover us” etc. (3:25). But God sent back word to them: My children, if you return, will you not be returning to your Father? Whence this? “For I am become a father to Israel” etc. (Jer 31:9) 

To this point, however, there appear to be striking dissimilarities between rabbinic parables and the parables of Jesus, both in form and content. The most common arguments for distancing the parables of Jesus from rabbinic parables are easily cited. First, among the extant evidence—even though dating of precise elements is problematic—the parables in the Synoptics predate the parables in rabbinic literature. Second, the form of all of these stories seems to have changed over time, with various usage, and in various contexts. The rabbinic parables, whatever their initial usage, primarily serve as a rhetorical device for exegesis. As such, rabbinic parables assume a much more standardized form and more stereotypical features, a change that tends to become more pronounced over time. In addition, rabbinic parables tend to exceed the Synoptic parables in the degree of their explicit interpretation. Finally, many (Christian) scholars argue that rabbinic parables—in contrast to many parables of Jesus—tend to reinforce conventional wisdom or societal norms of various rabbis and the community. That claim is problematic for at least two basic reasons. First, some rabbinic parables appear to critique society in a way comparable to many social critiques in Jesus’ parables. In fact, rabbinic parables can function as resistance literature in which the rabbis express opposition to the Roman Empire as an occupying power and articulate hopes for liberation. Second, in their present contexts, Synoptic parables are well on their way to being “domesticated.” By that I mean the parables of Jesus, as used in the gospels, begin to reinforce the “conventional wisdom” or the “societal norms” of early Christian communities.