HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION PARABLES HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

WHAT IS A PARABLE? The best way to understand parables is to start with what they are not. A parable is not an allegory. In an allegory every feature of the story must be interpreted. One good example of an allegory is the so-called parable of the sower (Mk 4). There are so many meanings. Up to 1888-89, parables were understood to be allegories.

ETYMOLOGICAL DEFINITION Etymologically, the word parable comes from the Greek word parabole which means putting two things at juxtaposition for the sake of comparison. The main aim will be to arrive at the unknown via the known.

1. ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (350-430 AD)  He interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk10) allegorically. The wounded man stands for Adam. Jerusalem stands for the heavenly city. The thieves stand for the devil.

The Levite and the priest stood for the Old Testament. The Good Samaritan stands for Christ. Oil and wine stand for hope and stimulus work. The animal stood for incarnation. The inn stands for the church. The innkeeper stands for the apostle Paul.

2. ADOLF JÜLICHER (1857–1938)  According to Adolf Julicher that was a dangerous way of interpreting parables. He categorically argued that parables were not allegories and were not supposed to be interpreted as such. A parable should have one point meaning. Any allegorization we find in the NT was added by the early church. A parable should not be difficult to understand.

3. CHARLES HAROLD DODD (1884 – 1973) He wrote the book, The Parables of the Kingdom (1961), and defines a parable as “a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought”.

According to him parables are not allegories According to him parables are not allegories. For one to be able to interpret parables accurately the following contexts should be taken seriously: (a) The context of Jesus. (b) The context of the early church.  Dodd stressed the one point meaning. However, he allowed for sub-meanings. He criticized Julicher for being so arithmetic. He argued that parables presented a realized eschatology.

Joachim Jeremias developed the one point meaning. He defined parables as weapons of warfare meant to tease the hearer’s mind into active thinking. Parables give the hearer an option either to choose to enter the kingdom of God or not.

He tried to do away with the one point meaning. 5. DAN OTTO VIA (1928-)  He tried to do away with the one point meaning. For him parables should be seen as works of art. One should use different approaches in order to interpret parables accurately.

One may use literary criticism, form criticism, existential interpretation etc. One should be ready to come out with a different meaning of the same parable whenever a different methodology is used. Meanings of parables should not be limited. However, Dan Via did not find a large following.

6. JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN (1934-)  He started by defining words such as myths and then went on to define parables. He defined a myth as a story that is told to build a world or framework of thinking. For him a parable is the opposite of a myth. A parable is a story which conquers a mythical world.

A parable is used to explode a myth. If one is to interpret a parable accurately a myth must be identified first. Sometimes we should use the honour/shame model. People act to protect their honour. In the parables of Jesus there are instance when people act to protect their honor, e.g. the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETING PARABLES  According to Fee and Stuart, in How to Read the Bible for all its Worthy, when interpreting parables one must take into consideration that they are historical events. One must know the historical situation in which they were told.

THE PROCESS 1. Identify the context of the hearers.   1. Identify the context of the hearers. 2 Identify the myths which Jesus wanted to get rid of. 3. Find the one point meaning. 4. Identify sub-meanings if any. 5. Connect the meaning to the kingdom of God. 6. Contextualize the meaning of the parable

1. They were told to provoke a response. 2. To address an audience. FUNCTIONS OF PARABLES   1. They were told to provoke a response. 2. To address an audience. 3. To capture the audience’s attention.

4. To force the audience to make a decision. 5. They were used to encourage the hearer to make a judgment about his or her own actions. 6. To make people see things in a new way. 7. To break the grounds of realism and conventional expectations.

LIMITATIONS 1. Mistaking their functions and contexts.   1. Mistaking their functions and contexts. 2. No agreement concerning the meaning of parables. 3. The historical, chronological, political, social and cultural distance is too long.