Summary

There are 15 conclusions to be drawn.

1. Biblical scholars do not agree on the definition of parables, for from its origin in the OT under the term māšāl, the term can designate many diverse realities: proverb, parable, riddle, taunt-song, and so on.
2. We've restricted the definition of a parable to a mini-story with at least an implied beginning, middle and end.
3. If we place Jesus' parables in the context of the OT, they must be linked to the prophetic tradition, not the wisdom tradition.
4. The parables evoke Jesus' typical prophetic desire to return to Israel's glorious past, while projecting himself into the future consummation of Israel's history, a consummation that both restores and transcends all that was best about that glorious past.
5. Parables can't be pigeonholed into a single category, whether they're based on real-life events or purely fictional accounts, while those of a more subversive nature often bear the evangelist's signature.
6. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas depends on the Synoptics, and therefore does not provide multiple attestation independent of a Synoptic parable, and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate the authenticity of a particular parable.
7. Even if we can demonstrate that Jesus preached in parables, the absence of multiple attestation for the vast majority of parables prevents us from tracing most of any particular parable back to Jesus.
8. Relying on the "aesthetic" criterion of the literary genius of the parables to trace them back to the historical Jesus is no criterion at all, since Jesus was able to pass on to his disciples the art of constructing parables.
9. Very few parables meet the criterion of multiple attestation, demonstrating the independence of their sources and supporting their authenticity.
10. The earliest traditions feature only a few parables: four in Mark, five in the Q document.
11. Matthew's own M document contains more and longer parables than the ancient documents.
12. Document L (Luke), chronologically situated after M, presents even more numerous and longer parables, and a parable like that of the Good Samaritan is a Lucan creation from beginning to end.
13. In the end, we are left with four parables that probably date back to the historical Jesus: the mustard seed, the evil tenants of the vineyard, the great feast, the talents/minas.
14. To the group of four "authentic" parables, no others could be added without betraying the criteria of historicity that have been set up; this does not mean, however, that these other parables are inauthentic (like the Good Samaritan), but that they must be classified in the "we don't know" group.
15. To understand Jesus' message in the authentic parables, we need to situate it within the framework of the portrait of him outlined in the previous four volumes: the parable of the mustard seed shows the modest and unimpressive beginnings of the kingdom in Jesus' preaching and healings, but the full glory and power of this kingdom will be visible to all only in the future; the parable of the Great Feast affirms that an individual's response to Jesus and his message is the determining factor in his admission to the eschatological banquet, which is imminent; the parable of the Talents/Minas illustrates that Jesus' offer of the kingdom, of belonging to the Israel of the end times, is a free gift, but one that contains within itself a challenge and a demand; in the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard, Jesus' ministry is rapidly coming to an end, and as the last prophet sent to a sinful Jerusalem, Jesus is resolutely confronted with the same prospect of rejection and even death, and it is perhaps by design that he alludes to the fate of his mentor, John the Baptist.

---

Having set out seven theses in ch. 37, we can now follow up these preliminary theses with 15 conclusions.

1. Confusion over what is meant by "Jesus' parables".

   As there is no agreement on its definition, it should come as no surprise that biblical scholars disagree on the number of parables. If we refer to its etymological root in Hebrew, which is māšāl, the term can refer to a proverb, a parable, a riddle, a mocking song and much more besides. Similarly, the Septuagint will use the word "parable" to translate different realities. One of the aims of this volume was to shed light on this verbal and conceptual muddle.

2. A restricted definition of parables

   As far as the words of the synoptic Jesus are concerned, a certain clarity can be achieved by distinguishing various types of metaphorical discourse according to their length and complexity. A single sentence containing a metaphor can be qualified as a māšāl in Hebrew and a parabolē in Greek, but hardly a parable for today's biblical scholar. Similitude differs from simple metaphor. It is a metaphor stretched to create a fuller, more detailed picture and comparison with some degree of complexity. For our part, we have placed the synoptic parable in a category distinct from the metaphorical sentence and similitude. Indeed, what distinguishes a Jesus parable from a similitude is that a parable is a true narrative, although in some cases it's no more than a mini-story or outline of a narrative, but always with at least an implied beginning, middle and end. So, for us, a "parable" means "narrative parable", a form of "mini-story".

3. Jesus' parables are part of the prophetic tradition

   Jesus' parables place him more in the prophetic tradition of Israel than in its wisdom tradition. The wisdom books of the OT do not contain narrative parables such as the evil tenants of the vineyard or the wheat and tares parable. In contrast, narrative parables are present in the historical and prophetic books. They range from Nathan's brief account rebuking an adulterous David to the prophet Ezekiel's elaborate historical allegory. So, as an eschatological prophet using narrative parables to challenge the people of Israel and their leaders, Jesus stands in the long line of Old Testament prophets and then urges his listeners to make decisions and take action, placing him alongside Nathan and Ezekiel rather than the master of wisdom Ben Sira.

4. The parables evoke the prophets' typical desire to return to Israel's glorious past.

   Jesus' use of narrative parables reflects the whole of his ministry, i.e. his itinerant preaching, his Elijah-like gestures of healing, his choice of a limited circle of Twelve disciples. For Jesus seems to have consciously revived Israel's classical past rather than simply aligned himself with the apocalyptic authors and visionaries of his day, as shown by the Enoch literature and other apocalyptic writings preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus' parables thus embody his typical dialectic of returning to Israel's origins and "glorious past" while projecting into the future consummation of Israel's history, a consummation that both restores and transcends all that was best about that glorious past. This is typical of the prophetic tradition.

5. Jesus' parables cannot be confined to a single category

   The synoptic parables are as much about everyday farming activity as they are about the larger-than-life dramas of Eastern royal courts. They describe real, recurring events in agriculture (the sower, the mustard seed, the seed that grows by itself), but they also create great fictions (the prodigal son, the Good Samaritan). So parables cannot be pigeonholed into a single category, either as events drawn from life or as purely fictional stories. Some biblical scholars have associated Jesus' parables with subversive discourse. While it's true that parables can provoke the mind to reflect and make a decision, these biblical scholars overlook the fact that the parables that most tend to subvert traditional expectations - the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Workers of the Eleventh Hour - belong to the special L and M traditions, and not to the older parables found in Mark or the Q document. This does not in itself mean that the subversive parables are Christian creations rather than products of the historical Jesus. However, the strong arguments that can be marshaled to demonstrate that the Good Samaritan is a Lucan composition from beginning to end - as well as the strong Lucan tone of parables such as the Prodigal Son and the Pharisee and Tax Collector - should at least give pause for thought. In short, let's repeat: there is no one size fits all for Jesus' parables, nor is there one literary description.

6. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas depends on the synoptics and cannot be used as an independent source.

   Over the past few decades, a number of North American scholars have argued two key propositions regarding the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (=CGT): (i) the CGT contains words of Jesus similar to those of the Synoptics, independent of, prior to and/or more authentic than the words of the Synoptic Gospels; (ii) therefore, the parables of CGT that parallel the Synoptic parables are valuable tools for reconstructing the earliest form of authentic parables of Jesus. Both these propositions have been repeatedly challenged by our detailed analysis of the individual sayings and parables. Our conclusion is that CGT probably reflects the tendencies towards amalgamation and harmonization that we observe in the use of synoptic material in other 2nd-century Christian writings. The relevance of this position to our study of Jesus' parables is simply this: it is more likely than not that the CGT does not provide independent multiple attestation of a synoptic parable, and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate the authenticity of a particular parable.

7. The absence of multiple attestations for many of the parables prevents us from concluding that they were created by Jesus.

   Only a few of the synoptic parables can be attributed to the historical Jesus with a good degree of probability. Contrary to the assertions of many biblical scholars, parables are not the safest or easiest way to access the teaching of the historical Jesus. This is not to deny that Jesus taught in parables; there is sufficient multiple attestation for this fundamental fact, supported also by the criterion of coherence. But the absence of multiple attestation for a particular parable prevents us from demonstrating that Jesus is the creator of that particular parable. So, for many parables, the answer to the question of their authenticity is: we don't know. We can even say, at least for some of the Synoptic parables, that they are very probably the creations of the first Christian bearers of the tradition, or even of the evangelists themselves. This is the case with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is purely Luke's creation. Similar arguments can be made for parables such as the Prodigal Son and the Wheat and Tares, both products of early Christian tradition, or even of the evangelists themselves.

8. Relying on the "aesthetic" criterion of the parables' literary genius to trace them back to the historical Jesus doesn't work.

   Some biblical scholars point to the unique voice, inimitable tone and art, supreme literary genius of this or that parable to argue that it can only have come from the historical Jesus. There are two possible answers to this "aesthetic" argument.

   1. This argument is hopelessly subjective, wildly romantic and, ultimately, unverifiable. While some hear the unique, artistic voice of Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan, others hear the unique, artistic voice of Luke.

   2. Many biblical scholars forget the process of oral and written transmission of the parables. The claim that the Synoptic Gospels contain parables that actually originated with the historical Jesus and faithfully preserve his teaching presupposes that, when Jesus originally uttered parable X, there were "auditory witnesses" who not only heard parable X, but also remembered it, both before and after Jesus' crucifixion. Through multiple "performances" these auditory witnesses would have repeated this parable to other early Christians who, in turn, became the bearers of this particular tradition of parables until it became a unit in a written gospel. How can we underestimate the creative genius of the early Christians and their ability to compose parables themselves based on Jesus' teaching? Was Jesus such a bad mentor and his disciples such bad apprentices that he could spend years teaching them memorable parables without, in the process, also teaching them how to construct memorable parables? In other words, if we admit that Jesus' disciples and, later, the disciples of those disciples learned, developed and passed on Jesus' parables, why don't we admit that those apprentices could also have created similar verbal works of art in imitation of their master?

   This explains why we find such parables in the synoptic tradition, but not, for example, in the Pauline letters. The historical Jesus had a great talent for constructing parables, and he quite naturally passed on not only his parables, but also his ability to formulate parables to his immediate disciples and, through them, to the bearers of the synoptic tradition. Consequently, we must be open in principle to the possibility that the synoptic parables come partly from the historical Jesus and partly from his disciples and even their followers.

9. Very few parables meet the criterion of multiple attestation, demonstrating the independence of their sources.

   With a few rare exceptions (such as the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard), we end up with very few parables that meet the multiple attestation criterion demonstrating the independence of their sources. This means that the vast majority of parables appear in only one independent source, either Mark or the Q document. It's useless to point out, for example, that a particular parable is reported by Mark, Matthew and Luke, because Matthew and Luke are simply editing Mark's version.

10. The oldest traditions contain few parables.

    Our analysis of the parables leads us to a surprising observation: the earliest traditions reflected by Mark and the Q document feature only a few parables: Mark's Gospel contains only four, the Q document only five (counting the parable of the mustard seed, an overlap between Mark and Q). It's only later that the number of parables increased significantly.

11. Matthew's own M document contains more and longer parables than the older documents.

    Indeed, the M document presents us with eleven parables, if we include the Great Feast and the Talents. Synoptic parables are therefore not limited to the "first generation" documents Mark and Q, nor are they the most abundant there. What's more, some of M's parables (e.g., the Merciless Servant, the Workers of the Eleventh Hour) evolved into narratives of considerable length, and a good number of M's parables (e.g., the Wheat and the Tares) bear witness to a specifically Matthaean vocabulary and theology.

12. Document L (Luke), which we place chronologically after M, presents even more numerous and longer parables.

    We can attribute sixteen parables to the Lucan document (L). Compare this with Mark's four or five parables, and Q's roughly the same number. What's more, it's in the special L tradition that we find the longest narrative parables in the synoptic corpus: the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the minas. As in the case of the M material, the specifically Lucan parables are marked by a typically Lucan vocabulary and theology. In short, we see a notable evolution as we move from Mark and Q (pre 70s or thereabouts), then to Matthew (c. 80s) to Luke (c. 85s or 90s). Over time, the number of parables increases, and some of them become significantly longer. What's more, in the L document, parables are often embellished with touches of human psychology, drama and interior monologue. Our detailed examination of The Good Samaritan has thus led us to the conclusion that it is probably a creation by Luke from beginning to end.

13. In the end, we are left with four parables that we can demonstrate probably date back to the historical Jesus.

    Despite all these findings, we were able to identify four parables which, after further testing, proved to be credible candidates for the critical judgment of "coming from the historical Jesus". In the case of the Mustard Seed (Mark-Q overlap), the Great Feast (Matthew and Luke) and the Talents/Minas (Matthew and Luke), the basic argument for historicity, as might be expected, was multiple attestation from independent sources. The strangest case is that of the Evil Tenant of the Vineyard, where a critical analysis of form and redaction provided us with an early version of the parable that met the criteria of embarrassment and/or discontinuity. In all cases, the conclusion was supported by the criterion of coherence.

14. To the group of four "authentic" parables, it would be impossible to add others without betraying the criteria of historicity that have been established.

    To the four parables we have classified as "authentic", could we add others? One might suspect that some of the other parables listed in the inventory do indeed come from Jesus. The problem is that there's no way of substantiating what is a mere suspicion, without betraying the criteria that have been in place since the beginning of the quest for the historical Jesus. So, either a parable can pass the test of criteria, or it must remain in the "limbo" of: we don't know. It's worth pointing out that this judgment is not the same as being judged inauthentic, like the Good Samaritan. But to renounce the requirement to meet the criteria in the name of warm feelings towards the synoptic parables is to open up the whole quest for the historical Jesus to rampant subjectivism and to accept one's desires as reality. In a way, the criteria perform the indispensable but thankless role of parents: saying no to certain requests made by their children.

15. To understand the message of Jesus in the authentic parables, it is necessary to situate it within the framework of the portrait of him drawn up in the previous four volumes.

    To understand the message conveyed by the four authentic parables of Jesus, it is first necessary to have gone all the way through the previous volumes of the quest for the historical Jesus. In this way, the isolated metaphorical stories of the parables, which in themselves could be open to an almost unlimited number of different and conflicting interpretations, can find greater determination and clarity within the ministry of a 1st-century Palestinian Jew whose intention had already been widely understood outside the parables.

    The portrait of Jesus that emerged in the previous volumes is that of an eschatological prophet in the mold of Elijah, sent to Israel at the height of its history to begin the gathering of all the people, a people prepared for the advent of God's definitive kingdom through the radical fulfillment of His will according to the Torah as interpreted by Jesus. Placed in such a context, the parables we have deemed authentic make perfect sense within the preaching and activity of this 1st-century eschatological prophet and healer from Jewish Palestine.

    The parable of the mustard seed shows the modest and unimpressive beginnings of the kingdom in Jesus' ministry, even though it is a kingdom already powerfully at work - for those with eyes to see - in his preaching and healings. But the full glory and power of this kingdom will only be visible to all in the future, when the twelve tribes of Israel are gathered together and God's dominion is no longer partial, hidden or seemingly absent. The contrast between the beginning and the end almost defies comprehension, but the culmination of the kingdom is already present and guaranteed in its small beginnings.

    However, not all members of God's chosen people respond positively to Jesus' eschatological call. In particular, the rich, the powerful and the pious professionals all too often prove deaf or hostile, while the socially and/or religiously marginalized flock to the preacher who promises the kingdom to the poor, the hungry, the rejected and the sinners. The reconstituted Israel of the last days will involve a great reversal, with the insiders becoming the outsiders and vice versa. This message, dramatized in the parable of the Great Feast, contains a surprising statement: Jesus dares to make an individual's response to him and his message the determining factor in his admission to the eschatological banquet, which is imminent. No excuse for ignoring or postponing Jesus' call will be valid on the last day. We already hear in this parable the element of struggle in Jesus' ministry, his confrontation with rejection in the present moment, and the grave consequences he foresees for those who thoughtlessly refuse his invitation to the kingdom.

    Indeed, as the parable of the Talents/Minas indicates, Jesus' offer of the kingdom, of belonging to the Israel of the end times, is a free gift, but one that contains within itself a challenge and a demand. Those who accept Jesus' message must act on the acceptance they express. They must change their lives by living according to the radical morality proposed by Jesus. In short, they must strive to do God's will as proclaimed by Jesus, even if, for the moment, the God of Israel may seem strangely distant or absent. Soon, he will usher in his kingdom in all its fullness, and when he does, he will call every Israelite to account. The outcome of this final reckoning, whether or not we are admitted to the Israel of the last days, depends on how we respond to Jesus' challenge and live it out in the present moment. Those who receive the gift of Jesus' good news and do nothing with it can expect to receive nothing in the end.

    The element of possible hostility and even violent opposition to Jesus' mission in Israel, already detectable in some of these parables, reaches its climax in the parable of the evil tenants of the vineyard. Most likely uttered as Jesus confronted the Jerusalem authorities on his final Passover pilgrimage, this parable is a prophetic indictment not unlike the indictments addressed to the temple authorities by the prophet Jeremiah, with similar results. Jesus' ministry is rapidly coming to an end. As the last prophet sent to a sinful Jerusalem, he is resolutely confronted with the same prospect of rejection and even death, and it is perhaps by design that he alludes to the fate of his mentor, John the Baptist. It's quite possible that this parable was Jesus' last, at least in our small collection of authentic parables. It serves as a final warning to the last initiates within the temple walls: they are in grave danger of playing the role of their ancestors who, in that holy city, murdered the prophets God had sent them. If disaster struck the former rulers of Jerusalem in retaliation for their bloody deeds, what will be the fate of the authorities Jesus faces if they choose the same course with regard to the eschatological prophet? What will happen to them when the kingdom comes in full - and it will come, despite or even through the violent end Jesus could face as the last of Israel's prophets, killed in Jerusalem?

    The dark and unsettling allusions in this parable, which suggest that Jesus senses the fate that awaits him on this particular journey to Jerusalem, also suggest that this personal fate is somehow linked to the fate of Israel, Jerusalem and its rulers, and suggest, strangely and metaphorically, that Jesus is the last prophet of Israel to be killed in Jerusalem, strangely and metaphorically, that he is not simply another prophet, but that as the last prophet, he is also the son sent by the owner of the vineyard that is Israel - all these indications, which leave so much hanging in the parable's shocking and violent ending, lead us to wonder: who or what, in the end, did Jesus take himself to be? What implicit or explicit statements about him emerge not only from this parable, but also from all the converging lines of his various words and actions that we have traced throughout these five volumes?

What can we conclude? The parables of Jesus, important as they are in the synoptic gospels taken as they are, are not important in a critical reconstruction of the historical Jesus. This is not to deny that the parables should feature in such a reconstruction. But compared with the prominent role of the eschatological prophet John the Baptist, compared with the central preaching of the present and future kingdom of God, compared with the activity of an Elijah-like healer, compared with the calling and training of the disciples and in particular the Twelve, compared with the surprising interpretations of the Torah for the end times, the authentic parables, few and far between, lose their importance. They have a role to play in our quest for the historical Jesus, of course. But this role is secondary and modest.