Rabbinic Parables
I recently read a fascinating book entitled They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era by Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston. The first part is a collection of selected parables of the תנאים (tannaim – the Rabbinic sages in the Mishnah from approximately 70-200 CE) and the second part comprised of essays on the nature of their parables and some comparisons with the parables of Jesus.
The rabbinic word for parable(s) is mashal/meshalim, and, to mark a literary item as a narrative mashal, the authors chose the following elements:
Explicit label. Often the introductory formulas to the items explicitly label them as meshalim. Some typical introductions are: “A parable”; “A parable: It is like unto . . .”; and “They parable a parable. Unto what is the matter like? It is like unto. . . .”
Abbreviated label. Frequently the introductory formulas are abbreviated in such a way that the word mashal itself is omitted: “It is like unto. . . .”
Structural characteristics. The immediate environment and internal structure of the typical narrative mashal in its fullest form include these five parts:
|
1. Illustrand, or the point to be illustrated.
2. Introductory formula, such as noted above. 3. The parable proper (the so-called picture half, or story part, of the whole unit). 4. Application, usually introduced by the Hebrew word kak (even so; likewise) or another linking word. 5. Scriptural quotation, often introduced by the formula “as it is said” or “as it is written.” (The quotation is often followed by a second application, which itself may become an illustrand, thus producing a chain of parables.) |
Here is an example:
The King’s Twin Who Was Executed
R. Meir says: What does the Scripture mean: “For that which is hanged is a curse of God” (Deut. 21:23)?
It is like two twin brothers, each resembling the other. One became king over the whole world, and the other went out into robbery. After a time the one who went out into robbery was captured and they crucified (hanged) him on a cross (gallows). And all the passers-by were saying: It is as though the king were crucified.
Therefore it is said: “For that which is hanged is a curse of God.”
(R. Meir; ca. 140; Tos. Sanhedrin 9:7 [cf. B. Sanhedrin 46b])
Note from the authors: “Curse of God” is understood here to mean that God is the object of the curse. The parable hinges on the fact that man was created in God’s image, and he is thus in a sense God’s “twin.” The parallel adds the details that the king commanded the robber to be hanged and commanded him to be taken down.
After reading a few dozen parables, you begin to get the gist of how they are functioning – they pretty much follow the format above. You will notice that there is an obvious concern with the history of Israel and the practices of Israel growing out of that history (roughly two-thirds of the parables fall easily into this broad area). Here is another example:
R. Simeon b. Yohai says: They parable a parable. Unto what is the matter like? It is like one who was walking along the road, and he encountered a wolf and was saved from him. And he was going along recounting the story of the wolf. Then he encountered a lion and was saved from him. He forgot the story of the wolf and went along recounting the story of the lion. Then he encountered a serpent and was saved from him. He forgot the story of both of them and went along recounting the story of the serpent.
Even so is Israel. Later troubles cause the former ones to be forgotten.
(R. Simeon b. Yohai; ca. 140; Mek. Pischa 16:67-74 [cf. Tos. Berakoth 1:11;B. Berakoth 13a; P. Berakoth 1:9])
Although they don’t sound much like Jesus’ parables, once in a while one will jump out at you with its cleverness and insight. This brings up the question of the relationship of these parables with the ones that Jesus told. In other words, can we say that some of these parables are part of a tradition upon which both Jesus and later rabbis depended? Or, could one be dependent on the other? Here what the authors have to say:
“One may thus speak with confidence of the existence of rabbinic parables by the end of the first century C.E., but not much earlier. It follows that Jesus could not have been directly dependent on the rabbinic parables now extant, since he preceded them in time (his ministry was about 30 C.E.). On the other hand, it would be reckless to argue that the Rabbis developed their use of parables in dependence on the practice of Jesus. However many followers he may have had during his lifetime, it is clear that he became persona non grata to his countrymen, and it is psychologically improbable that the religious leaders copied his style of storytelling” (165-6).
The authors also talk about the differences between Jesus’ parables and the rabbinic parables. Here is what they deem to be the main difference:
“It has already been stressed that the rabbinic parables were predominantly exegetical; that is, they focused on the received religious tradition and attempted to interpret, clarify, and apply that tradition. This focus was not characteristic of the parables of Jesus, as has been indicated in the discussion of the role of Scripture in them. The parables of Jesus, on the contrary, appear to have been heavily eschatological; that is, they were concerned with the anticipated future intervention of God in judgment and redemption. Obviously it would oversimplify to say that rabbinic parables were primarily exegetical while those of Jesus were primarily eschatological, but such a statement, while exaggerating the contrast, would be a helpful guide to the differences between the two bodies of literature” (172).
Another difference that people may notice is that the rabbinic parables seem to lack that element of surprise that we’ve come to except of Jesus’ parables. The authors are quick to point out “some have argued that this element of surprise is inherent in the parable and that a true parable is a device to startle listeners (or readers) so that they are moved out of one world of thought into a new and unexpected world” (173). They insist that this is a confusion of “form and content” and that
“A parable is a parable whether it opens up a brand new world for the listener or whether it simply illustrates, clarifies, or adorns a world long known. This understanding is important in the comparison of the parables of Jesus with those of the Rabbis. While the parables of the latter typically served to explicate well-known and long-established tradition, Jesus emerged, at least to a degree, as a dissenter and protester against aspects of the establishment. Inevitably, therefore, some of his parables had the function of opening up new vistas that he had seen, even though they were still in some sense related to the old tradition. Furthermore, as the proclaimer of the coming kingdom, he spoke of a new world and a new age, and this emphasis led inevitably to the introduction of novelty and a contrast between the old expected pattern and the promised new pattern” (173-4).
I think this was very helpful not only for me to understand why rabbinic parables are “parables,” but also why the parables of Jesus look different. The study of Jesus’ parables is something I’ve been wanting to get into, and one of my goals this year is to read Snodgrass’ Stories with Intent about which I’ve heard many good things.
I enjoyed reading this book because it made me rethink what a parable is and helped me look at things from a totally different perspective. It is a nice collection for those who would like to see how parables were told outside the Gospels.
One thing I wish this book had done is to include some of the Hebrew or Aramaic. I would specially love to see at least some of these parables in Hebrew and how it is used. Who knows someone like John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry could pick a rabbinic parable and dissect its Hebrew?
As I read the first part of the book, I picked some parables that I found particularly interesting, and I intend to post one each week. This will expose people to some of these parables and may spark some interesting discussions.
Well, nothing more appropriate than finishing this post with yet another parable:
R. Eliezer observed a fast but caused no rain to fall. R. Akiba observed a fast, and rain fell.
He (R. Akiba) went in and spoke before them, saying: I will parable to you a parable. Unto what is the matter like? It is like a king who had two daughters. One was brazen, and one was proper. Whenever the brazen one wanted something and went in before him, he said: Give her what she wants so she will get out of here. But whenever the proper one wanted something and went in before him, he prolonged the conversation with her because her speaking so pleased him.
But is it permissible to disparage oneself in public? Only to glorify the divine name, that it be not supposed that some lack in R. Eliezer may have prevented his success.
(R. Akiba; ca. 95; P. Taanith 3:4)
Related Posts:
