Summary

Parables cannot be dissociated from the historical context in which Jesus told them, otherwise they could be misinterpreted. It was the task of the preceding volumes to determine the general framework within which they should be interpreted. In this way, we can see that the parables are a way for Jesus to take up an already proclaimed message with force, but this time with a provocative character, open to more than one meaning, enabling him to challenge his audience, initiate a dialogue and propose new horizons.

Before going any further into the parables, it's important to be aware of the following seven theses.

1. The fact that biblical scholars completely disagree on the number of Jesus' parables in the synoptic gospels reveals an even more embarrassing fact: scholars in general disagree on what constitutes a Jesus parable. The distinction between parable, simile, metaphor and image is very blurred. The problem is that the Greek word parabolē is a translation of the Hebrew māšāl, which can mean: comparison, metaphor, object of mockery, song of mockery, motto, axiom, maxim, aphorism, riddle.

2. The māšāl in the wisdom literature of the OT is not the primary source or analogy of the parables that are most characteristic and particular to the synoptic Jesus of the NT corpus. Rather, Jesus' parables are comparisons developed in the form of short stories containing at least implicitly a beginning, middle and end, so, in other words, a mini-story with at least implicitly some form of plot. And the parallels are not to be found in the wisdom writings, but in the prophets, either those who appear in books like Samuel - Kings, or in the prophetic books themselves.

3. It is among the prophets "who wrote" (i.e. the later prophets) that we note (1) a notable expansion of the "comparative short stories" genre, which is used as an argument on key events in Israel's history, and (2) the use of vocabulary around m-š-l to designate this type of discourse. A first example is the song about the vineyard in Isa 5:1-7.

4. The synoptic Jesus who tells us parabolic stories belongs not to the wisdom tradition, but to the prophetic tradition of the Jewish Scriptures. In other words, the parable-telling Jesus is not to be seen as a sage, but as a prophet, in the manner of Elijah, the itinerant prophet who performed healings in northern Israel. More precisely, he is an eschatological prophet who developed short, hard-hitting stories to prompt the mind to reflect and make a decision, and this in a prophetic context of conflict with the ruling class at a critical moment in Israel's history.

5. Contrary to our approach of a simple definition, any attempt to define Jesus' parables in minute detail with a laundry list of what would be essential characteristics risks introducing features that are true for some, but not for all parables in the Synoptics. Among the features that are not essential, because they are not found in all the parables: 1) the events of everyday peasant life or of the cycle of nature in Palestine; 2) or stories that would be fictitious; 3) or stories that would upset traditional beliefs or be so enigmatic as to escape interpretation.

6. The claim that the parables of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (CGT) represent an independent, even earlier and more reliable tradition of the parables of the historical Jesus is highly debatable. In our analysis, we have taken a sample of 15 logia from CGT and compared it with the various synoptic sources in different literary genres. This analysis will be presented in the next chapter. But the conclusion can be summed up as follows: each logion displays a dependence on one or more passages from the Synoptics. As a result, CGT cannot be used to assert that a particular passage from the Synoptics is authentic on the basis that CGT meets the criterion of multiple attestation.

7. There are relatively few synoptic parables that can be attributed with a good degree of probability to the historical Jesus. However, a clear distinction must be made between two different assertions: 1) the historical Jesus taught in parables; 2) the historical Jesus taught this and this specific parable. Indeed, that Jesus taught in parables meets the criterion of multiple attestation: Mark, Q document, M document, L document. On the other hand, very few individual parables meet the criterion of multiple attestation: the mustard seed (Mark and Q document), perhaps that of the talents/mines, if they are two distinct accounts, perhaps that of the strong man, if it is a parable, and not a similitude. In the absence of multiple written attestations, some biblical scholars have turned to oral tradition. Unfortunately, we know nothing about such oral transmission. And we have no success with the other criteria: embarrassment, discontinuity, rejection, coherence. Note, however, that we are not asserting the opposite, i.e. that this or that parable does not go back to the historical Jesus, but rather: we don't know.

What is allegory? It's a particular way of thinking, speaking, writing and creating art, one that involves the extensive and consistent use of symbols and metaphors to communicate a message through analogy. In allegory, each symbolic element corresponds to an element of reality. Usually, the fact that a story is an allegory corresponds to the explicit intention of the author, who structures his story according to this intention, and this intention is well understood by the reader. But a parable is not an allegory. However, we must not create a dichotomy between parable and allegory, because of the highly flexible nature of allegory. For example, in the Synoptics, the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower is organically rooted in the images of the parable itself, or the parable of the weeds and the wheat invites an allegorical interpretation, while the parable of the homicidal vinedressers has an allegorical flavor.

---

1. Introductory Observations on the Seven Thesis
   1. No biblical text exerts as much influence on the Christian life as the parables. Biblical scholars are also very interested in parables for a variety of reasons. Particularly among those who believe they give direct access to the historical Jesus, they have used them extensively in their quest for this historical Jesus. But they have arrived at different, even opposing, portraits. This should come as no surprise, as it is the very nature of parables.

   2. For unlike moral teachings that use direct, clear language, such as those on divorce and oaths, the language of parables creates an imaginative world into which the listener is invited to enter, experience and even be pushed around, challenging him or her to a way of seeing God and His world. This imaginative world makes use of strong, graphic metaphors and figures of speech. The language is indirect and allusive, designed to stimulate the mind and initiate reflection. Unlike moral teaching, where the listener is invited to accept what is asked or act on what is forbidden, the parable leads the listener to ask questions such as: Why is Jesus telling this parable, and what does he mean by it? Is this parable about human life in general, or about Jesus and his disciples in particular? What request, if any, is Jesus making of me by telling me this parable? What different ways of thinking, acting or seeing reality does this parable encourage me to adopt? Or is this parable a commentary and warning about Jesus' opponents? In short, the suggestive, metaphorical world of parables works differently and calls for a different kind of response than the clear-cut world of moral teaching. The openness of parables to multiple meanings for multiple audiences is therefore a fact that must be taken into account when entering the quest for the historical Jesus.

   3. Because of this open-ended dimension, if we remove the historical context in which the parables may have been spoken by Jesus, there are no limits to the interpretations they can take; they then become like a pottery vessel that we can each shape in our own way. On the contrary, our effort is aimed at clarifying Jesus' intention when he decided to use parables in general and to tell this or that parable in particular. This is why we first had to create a framework for interpreting the parables, and this framework is the work of the first four volumes of our quest for the historical Jesus. The contours of this historical Jesus, which have slowly become clearer, lead us to see the parables as comparisons based on short stories used by this eschatological prophet in the manner of Elijah in his effort to gather the Israelites for the coming of the kingdom of God. Like the Old Testament prophets from Nathan to Ezekiel, Jesus uses memorable stories to draw his people into his worldview, bringing them back to reality and forcing them to reconsider their lives and values in the face of some crisis. Thus, through his parables, Jesus addresses a specific people at a pivotal moment in their history. And these parables are consistent with his grand and symbolic actions, such as the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem and the "cleansing" of the temple. All these words and deeds come together to confront Israel with the definitive challenge of a Jew who sees himself as the eschatological prophet sent to the chosen people at the final hour of present-day history.

   4. In short, taking into account the historical framework we've established, parables can't say just anything. Jesus did not intend his parables to be a high-flying verbal exercise. For him, it's a way of forcefully conveying a message that has already been proclaimed outside the language of parables. Through his parables, by their provocative character, open to more than one meaning, Jesus challenges his audience, initiates a dialogue and proposes new horizons. And the very fact that the parables are flexible allows him to repeat them and adapt them to different situations and audiences, like variations of a melody on the same theme. We must therefore retain both aspects of the paradox: Jesus' parables were riddles, but riddles within a larger framework of meaning, not riddles proclaiming the nihilism of the absence of definite meaning.

2. Seven Unfashionable Theses on the Parables
   1. The Number of Narrative Parables in the Synoptic Gospels.

      Thesis One: The fact that biblical scholars completely disagree on the number of Jesus' parables in the synoptic gospels reveals an even more embarrassing fact: scholars in general disagree on what constitutes a Jesus parable. In other words, there seems to be no consensus on the precise definition of a synoptic parable, so that when we consider the various publications by biblical scholars on the subject, the number of parables varies from 29 to 104. To say the least, the distinction between parable, comparison, metaphor and image is very blurred. The source of disagreement lies in the very broad meaning of the Hebrew noun māšāl in the OT and the Greek noun parabolē in the NT, and in ancient Greek literature in general.

      The OT presents two semantic fields in its common form (qal) for the same verb māšal: it can mean "to rule" or "to reign" and comes from the root mšl; this is the meaning most used in the OT. But the same verb can also be associated with the noun māšāl (saying, proverb), and so, in the common (qal) and intensive (piel) forms, it means "to formulate a saying", "to issue a proverb", "to recite derisive verses". In its passive form (nifal), it means "to become similar", and in its causal form (hifil) "to compare". In this second semantic field, the verb comes from the root mṯl (to be similar to). It therefore conveys both the idea of "proverb" and that of "comparison".

      In the wisdom literature of the OT, this name regularly means "proverb" or "expression of wisdom". It is presented as a parallel formulation of words like "parable" (mĕlîṣâ), "words of wisdom", "riddle". The book of Proverbs in Hebrew is called: mišlê šĕlōmô (Proverbs of Solomon), and the word māšāl is used as a literary category summarizing the various words of wisdom contained in the book. Ben Sira summarizes his entire book with the noun mōšel (50: 27), the collective form of the noun māšāl.

      If you look through the OT, you'll see that the word has a multitude of other meanings: comparison, metaphor, object of mockery, song of mockery, motto, axiom, maxim, aphorism, riddle. All these meanings fall into the broad category of "words of wisdom" and belong to the wisdom literature. But the mistake many biblical scholars make is to jump from this wisdom matrix to Jesus' use of parables and their meaning in the Synoptics.

   2. OT Wisdom Not the Prime Analogue of the Narrative Parable

      Thesis Two: The māšāl in the wisdom literature of the OT is not the primary source or analogy of the parables that are most characteristic and particular to the synoptic Jesus of the NT corpus. In fact, Jesus' typical parables are not proverbs or one- or two-line aphorisms, as found, for example, in John's Gospel, the Pauline letters or other NT books. Rather, they are comparisons developed in the form of short stories containing at least implicitly a beginning, a middle and an end, so, in other words, a mini-story with at least implicitly some form of plot. To support this initial definition of the parable as a parabolic narrative, let us note that this is the most frequent genre that the Synoptics call "parable", and the most specific to the Synoptic Jesus within the NT writings. The word "parable" is absent from John's Gospel and does not appear outside the Synoptics, except twice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In short, we do not consider the following passages to be parabolic narratives, even though they are introduced by the word "parable":

      • Mk 3:23f ("If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand"): an analogy within a rhetorical question;
      • Mk 7:17 || Mt 24:32 || Lk 21:29 ("there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile..."): an aphorism playing the role of a moral rule);
      • Mk 13:28 || Mt 24:32 || Lk 21:29 ("Understand this comparison borrowed from the fig tree: as soon as its branches become tender..."); a similarity based on the fig tree;
      • Lk 4:23 ("Doctor, cure yourself"): a proverb
      • Lk 5:36 ("No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise..."): an analogy
      • Lk 6:39 ("Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a hole?"): an analogy in a rhetorical question
      • Lk 14:7 ("When you are invited to a wedding feast, don't go and sit in the first place..."): an analogy forming part of a practical advice.

      With this definition, we find no parallels in the wisdom literature of the OT. On the other hand, parallels can be found in the OT prophets, either those who appear in books such as Samuel - Kings, or in the prophetic books themselves. To be more precise, parables are found mainly in the mouths of the first and last prophets. In the early prophets, the general context is the history of Israel's development and conflicts, and the immediate context is one of argument, rebuke and even condemnation, usually of a king or other authority figure. All this reveals the background to Jesus' parabolic stories.

      Among the early prophets, the most famous example of a parabolic story comes from the prophet Nathan (2 Sam 12:1-12), who tells the story of a poor man whose only sheep is seized by a rich man; this story is used to veiledly accuse David of his adultery with Bathsheba and the indirect murder of her husband Uriah. Surprisingly, in all these parables we are also given the interpretation or application of the parable: the riddle is quickly solved. Thus, the parables originated in the context of conflict and condemnation in the Israel of the monarchical period and that which preceded it. However, it is surprising to note that none of these parables are called : māšāl.

   3. The Latter Prophets and Narrative Parables

      Thesis Three: It is among the prophets "who wrote" (i.e. the later prophets) that we note (1) a notable expansion of the "comparative short story" genre, which is used as an argument about key events in Israel's history, and (2) the use of vocabulary around m-š-l to designate this type of discourse. A first example is the song about the vineyard in Isa 5:1-7. Here we have a similitude that has been developed into a short story in which a man cultivates a vineyard, but the story ends dramatically when he gets nothing but wild grapes and decides to destroy his vineyard. This conclusion is followed by its application to Yahweh's relationship with his people. But the label Isaiah attaches to this story is not māšāl, but šîr (song).

      Ezekiel’s metaphorical narrative expands into a grand allegory. First there is Ezekiel 15:1-8 (the story of the vine linked to Israel and its condemnation), then all of ch. 16 (the metaphorical account of Yahweh’s marriage to Jerusalem and its infidelities), and then ch. 17, which is an allegory on Israel’s recent history with its explanation. Ezek 17:2 introduces the allegory thus: "Son of man, propound a riddle (Heb.: ḥîdâ; gr. diēgēma) and tell a parable (Heb.: māšāl; gr. parabolē), for the house of Israel". Thus, Ezekiel gives the name māšāl to an enigmatic allegorical tale about Israel in conflict with Yahweh, a tale that announces judgment, but is an implicit call to repentance, and will be followed by its detailed interpretation. As we can see, very early on the category of parabolic narrative is not opposed to that of allegory; rather, the parable may be the vehicle of allegorical thought and expression.

      The parabolic narrative can also be linked to the idea of a prophetic oracle aimed at a future event. This is the case of Ezek 24:1-14. This is also the case with Balam’s oracle (Num 23, 7,18; 24, 3,15,20-23), called: māšāl, which the author associates with nĕ’ûm (oracle).

      Later, in apocalyptic literature, the prophetic oracle element in the māšāl / parabolē undergoes a transformation and becomes eschatological instruction, often communicated within a vision or dream, which in turn must be interpreted, often by an angel (see 4 Esdr 4:13-21; 5:41-53; 1 Enoch 37-71; see also Hermas Shepherd in Christian literature). Unfortunately, the significance of the parable in the OT as a short narrative, which challenged listeners to unravel its meaning, has been lost.

   4. Jesus the Teller of Parables in the Prophetic Tradition

      Thesis Four: The synoptic Jesus who tells us parabolic stories belongs not to the wisdom tradition, but to the prophetic tradition of the Jewish Scriptures. In other words, the parable-telling Jesus is not to be seen as a sage, but as a prophet, in the manner of Elijah, the itinerant prophet who performed healings in northern Israel. This statement runs counter to the position of many biblical scholars, who see Jesus as a prime example of a wisdom teacher or sage. This is not to deny that Jesus debated certain rules of the Mosaic Law with his contemporaries. But the historical Jesus presented himself first and foremost as a healer, in the manner of a prophet Elijah of the end times.

      It is therefore the category of eschatological prophet that best integrates the whole of Jesus' activity, including its denouement, i.e. his death on the cross. For the cause of his death was not his stance on divorce or the Sabbath, which would have upset Pilate. In fact, why was Jesus put to death? Jesus was put to death because, as an eschatological prophet, he announced the advent (and at the same time the mysterious presence) of the kingdom of God, formed an inner group around himself to be a prophetic nucleus of this coming kingdom, attracted large crowds of disciples by his healings and teaching, and finally staged, through symbolic and prophetic actions, the dissolution of the old order and the advent of the kingdom of God expressed symbolically through the triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple, under the noses of Pilate and Caiaphas during a great pilgrimage feast, when Jerusalem was awash with fervent Jews. It was these prophetic and symbolic actions of an eschatological prophet, also hailed by his followers as the Son of David, all performed in David's ancient capital on the occasion of Passover, that precipitated the final crisis. In this line, developing parabolic stories from the tradition of the first and last prophets, Jesus the prophet developed short, hard-hitting narratives that used graphic and confusing language to prompt the mind to reflect and make a decision, and this in a prophetic context of conflict with the ruling class at a critical moment in Israel's history.

   5. False Blanket Description of Jesus' Parables

      Thesis Five: Contrary to our approach of a simple definition, any attempt to define Jesus' parables in minute detail with a laundry list of what would be essential features risks introducing traits that are true for some, but not all parables in the Synoptics. The problem is that many biblical scholars have decided in advance, at least implicitly, which parables come from the historical Jesus, and then use this assumption to define the essential features of Jesus' parables. These questionable features include the following:

      1. The parables are inspired by the events of everyday peasant life or the cycle of nature in Palestine. This is not always the case. Some parables feature kings or merchants entrusting large sums of money to servants or slaves, or kings killing people who refuse their invitation to a banquet; these cannot be considered everyday events of peasant life. Think of the story of the prodigal son: is this an everyday event in peasant life?

      2. Jesus' parables are always fictional stories. This is not always the case. For example, can we call fiction the parable of the sower whose seed falls into different kinds of ground? The occasional use of hyperbole doesn't necessarily make a story fictional. For example, the parable of the mustard seed or the leaven in the dough contrasts modest beginnings and astonishing endings, but all reflect an observable fact. When biblical scholars assert the fictitious nature of the parable of a strong man whose house is plundered by a stronger man, they have no means of really proving that it doesn't echo a recent event.

      3. Jesus' parables are always subversive of traditional religious beliefs, upsetting them with a surprising finale, or, alternatively, proposing enigmatic narratives that resist any specific interpretation. Sometimes, some biblical scholars tend to present Jesus in the guise of a postmodern critic seeking to baffle his classroom students in a theory class; we then project current academic life or pop culture trends onto antiquity. Take, for example, the parable of the foolish rich man (Lk 12:16-21), whose land yielded a lot and who therefore decided to enlarge his barns, only to meet a tragic end in the night. Here, Jesus is simply taking up a traditional truth from the sages and prophets of the OT, as well as from intertestamental literature and Greco-Roman philosophy. Variations on this theme can be found in Proverbs, Qoheleth and Ben Sira (Sir 11:18-19). The only change made by Jesus is that God speaks directly to the rich man, introducing an explicit theological and eschatological note that does not appear in the wisdom writings. In all this, there's nothing subversive about religious beliefs. Whether it's the parable of the sower, or the mustard seed, or the seed that sprouts of its own strenght, or the leaven in the dough, or the two sons in Matthew, or the barren fig tree in Luke, or the builder of a tower, or the warrior king, all these parables borrow wittily and captivatingly from traditional themes, but offer no surprising finale that would have upset the expectations of a pious Jew steeped in the Scriptures. Of course, there are a few parables (the workers of the eleventh hour, the good Samaritan, the prodigal son) that have a surprising ending. But they don't make up the majority. Even then, we need to distinguish between the use of hyperbole in a realistic narrative and a paradoxical, surprising finale that overturns all expectations.

   6. The Parable of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas

      These Six: The claim that the parables of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (CGT) represent a tradition independent of, or even earlier and more reliable than, the parables of the historical Jesus is highly debatable. The question of CGT's dependence on the Synoptics arose as soon as it was discovered at Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. Supporters of its independence are mainly to be found among North American biblical scholars. In Volume I of this quest for the historical Jesus, we presented our arguments in favor of CGT's dependence on the Synoptics. Since then, in this four-volume analysis, we have been able to compare the words of CGT with the Synoptics, and can again conclude of CGT's secondary character. But as we approach the question of the parables, it is desirable to return to the question of CGT's dependence or otherwise on the Synoptics. The framework of this fifth volume does not allow for a detailed study of CGT's 114 Coptic sayings. Instead, we will take a sample of these words and compare it with what is found in the Synoptics. To ensure the quality of the sample, we will include all Synoptic sources: i) the Marcan tradition; ii) Q Document; iii) sayings that appear independently in Mark and Q; iv) material specific to Matthew (M); v) material specific to Luke (L). To ensure that the various literary genres are covered, we will begin with examples that are not parables, and then tackle the CGT parables that have parallels in the Synoptics. The details of this analysis will be presented in ch. 38. Here, in ch. 37, we anticipate and summarize the conclusions of this analysis.

      We have tested 15 logia of CGT that have parallels in the Synoptics. Thus, after examining logia 5, 31, 39, 14, 54, 16, 55, 47 and 99 outside the framework of the parables, then logia 20, 65, 66, 57, 72 and 63 inside the framework of the parables. As we shall see in ch. 38, we have come to the conclusion that each logion displays a dependence on one or more passages of the Synoptics. In fact, many of the logia bear witness to an editorial hand with a clear tendency to combine or abbreviate certain passages from the Synoptics. This conclusion applies to both the Coptic version and the Greek fragments of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus. In theory, it is not impossible that the author of CGT could have introduced an independent logion in the midst of all the logia dependent on the Synoptics. But in this case, the burden of proof would rest on the person who wanted to assert this independence. So far, no one has been able to convincingly prove the independence of a single CGT logion. At most, for some logia, we have to conclude: it's not clear. The consequences of all this are obvious: one cannot use CGT to affirm that a particular passage of the Synoptics is authentic on the basis that CGT makes it possible to meet the criterion of multiple attestation.

   7. Few Authentic Parables

      Thesis Seven: There are relatively few synoptic parables that can be attributed to the historical Jesus with a good degree of probability. In other words, there are relatively few parables that meet the test of authenticity criteria that other words and deeds of Jesus must meet. This assertion obviously runs counter to the position of many biblical scholars, for whom parables represent the royal road to encountering the historical Jesus.

      However, a clear distinction must be made between two different assertions: 1) the historical Jesus taught in parables; 2) the historical Jesus taught this particular parable.

      1. The first assertion that Jesus taught in parables is confirmed above all by the multiple attestation criterion: Mark, Q Document, M Document, L Document. And each Synoptic presents a parable unknown to the other Synoptics. And all the Synoptics affirm that Jesus regularly taught using parables. And it's easy to imagine a popular Jewish prophet and teacher using parables, based on what we know of the OT prophets and rabbinic masters after him.

         But having said that, we must avoid seeing parables as Jesus' only way of teaching. For Jesus debated points of the Law with his contemporaries (divorce, oaths, what is permissible on the Sabbath, the priority of love of God and neighbor), requiring clear and precise language. We will never know, however, how much of his teaching was based on parables or points of the Law.

      2. Problems arise when we have to decide whether this or that parable comes from Jesus. It's the same problem we had to face in the question of Jesus' miracles. It's easy to affirm that Jesus performed astonishing deeds that his contemporaries called miracles, based on the criterion of multiple attestation. On the other hand, it's much more difficult to determine whether there was an event in Jesus' life that his contemporaries called a miracle, and we've often had to conclude: it's not clear.

         Very few parables meet the criterion of multiple attestation: there's the mustard seed (in Mark and the Q document), perhaps the talents/mines parable, provided you consider them as two distinct parables and not two variations of the same parable in the Q document, and perhaps the parable of the strong man (a single verse in M), provided we consider it as a parable and not as a similitude. As we can see, the list is very short.

      Studies of oral tradition, eyewitness testimony and collective memory are sometimes invoked to support the authenticity of the parables. It's no secret that the parables circulated in oral tradition, told and retold with various variations. Unfortunately, there was no tool to preserve this oral tradition; all we have is the carefully composed written tradition called Mark, Matthew and Luke. Source and redaction criticism tells us that Matthew and Luke depend on Mark and a hypothetical source called Q, as well as particular sources called M and L respectively. It's possible that an oral tradition or the influence of memory may have left a mark on the composition of the Gospels; but then we're talking about material that may have enriched the redactional work, without calling into question the fundamental model proposed. Moreover, just because a parable has circulated orally for some time does not mean that it can be traced back to Jesus; a disciple may have created a parable in the mid-30s, i.e. five years after Jesus' departure, which evolved in its oral transmission until it was written down around the 70s. We have two examples of parables that probably do not date back to the historical Jesus. The first is the parable of the weeds and the wheat, which is probably a creation of Matthew or of the missionaries behind the M tradition. A second example is the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is said to be a pure creation of Luke.

      To determine whether a parable can be traced back to the historical Jesus, the criterion of multiple attestation has been used up to now. But we get the same results when we use the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospels, we note that the audience is sometimes shocked or disturbed by what Jesus says or does. But surprisingly, this reaction never occurs in the face of a parable. At most, they are puzzled and ask for explanations. Some biblical scholars say it's shocking that some parables praise unsavory characters, as in the case of the parable of the Good Samaritan. But this parable was not written by Jesus, but by Luke, as we'll see in ch. 39. And Jesus is not the only figure capable of making shocking or troubling statements: think of some of Paul's letters or the Apocalypse.

      And what about the discontinuity criterion? Some biblical scholars have used it to argue that Jesus' parables are different from the OT parables in that they use the introduction "it is like". But many of the Synoptics' parables are not introduced by the expression "it is like", which is primarily an expression used by Matthew. What's more, just because a story is not introduced by the expression "it is like", or does not carry the label "parable", does not mean that it is not a parable. For example, in the OT, the parable of the poor man and his sheep told by Nathan to King David does not bear the label mašal, nor is it introduced by "it is like". Another argument put forward under the criterion of discontinuity lies in the subjective and artistic realm: Jesus' parables would display greater literary genius and more fresh perceptions; here, we fall back on questions of taste and preference. Still under the criterion of discontinuity, some point out that there are no parables similar to those of Jesus in the other NT writings or in other Christian works of the 1st and 2nd centuries. This is all true, but the problem is that we know nothing about the people who passed on the parabolic stories until they were written down by the evangelists or the authors of the documents they used. Let's imagine the scenario of an eyewitness who heard a parable of Jesus, memorized it, told it to others, and they took it up in this long chain of transmission until it was written down. Nothing prevents the parable from having undergone many variations, and even, imitating the structure used by Jesus, a creative mind created a new parable. Thus, our ignorance of those responsible for the chain of transmission of the parables prevents us from using the criterion of discontinuity.

      We can't use the criterion of rejection and Jesus' death: no parable could have served as a charge at his trial, and it would be hard to see a sign above the cross reading: Jesus of Nazareth, teller of parables.

      Finally, the criterion of coherence simply underlines the extent to which Jesus belongs to the great Israelite tradition, which goes back to the prophet Nathan and extends all the way to the Talmud. But this tells us nothing about each individual parable.

      So we're left with a disconcerting conclusion: apart from a few parables to which the criterion of multiple attestation can be applied, the historian finds it hard to demonstrate that any particular parable can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Many biblical scholars get round the problem by assuming that all the parables can be traced back to the historical Jesus, citing in particular their artistic quality and force. This shows very little methodological rigor: the conclusion looks just like the starting point. All this calls into question much of the work that has been done on parables to date. Note, however, that we are not asserting the opposite, i.e. that this or that parable does not go back to the historical Jesus. But when we rigorously apply the criteria of historicity to the parables, we have to accept that very often the conclusion is: we don't know.

3. Excursus: the Problem of Allegory

   Allegory continues to be much debated among biblical scholars, since, apart from its connection with parables, it resists clear-cut definition. For our part, we will confine ourselves to a general understanding of allegory, and not enter into technical discussions about a precise definition. In the broadest sense, allegory is a particular way of thinking, speaking, writing and creating art, one that involves the extensive and consistent use of symbols and metaphors to communicate a message through analogy. Allegory is not limited to literature. Rather, it is a rhetoric or technique of oral and written expression found in many literary genres (for example, narrative poetry, lyric poetry, parables, artistic and polemical accounts of history and entire novels). From a popular point of view, allegory is often seen as a symbolic story in which every significant actor, action, name, object or place in one sphere of reality corresponds to another actor, action, name, object or place in another sphere of reality. Understood in this restricted sense, allegory is not just an extended metaphor, but a whole series of metaphors.

   A typical example is George Orwell's Animal Farm (1945). The book can be seen as a grand allegory from start to finish, a satirical novel symbolizing and illuminating the betrayal of the ideals of the Russian Revolution by Stalin's establishment of a totalitarian system in the Soviet Union. The book is particularly instructive in that, technically speaking, its literary genre is that of the animal fable. This underlines the fact that allegory is something other than a single literary genre or a rhetorical technique limited to a single genre. In Orwell's overall allegory, there are indeed many individual correspondences: the Old Major pig is Marx and/or Lenin; Napoleon, the pig who seizes tyrannical power on the farm, is Stalin; Snowball, the sharper, more eloquent leader of the pigs, is Trotsky; the crow is the Russian Orthodox Church, and so on. But the allegory that constitutes the novel as a whole is much more than a series of clever equations between discrete metaphors and discrete realities. The master allegory is more than the sum of its parts. The result is a complex work of hermeneutic literary art, and an appreciation of how allegory can work on different levels for different readers in different times.

   Animal Farm is an allegory because 1) it expresses the author's intention, b) an intention skilfully embodied in the literary structure and content of the text, and c) an intention clearly communicated to the original audience. Perplexity or mystification are not part of an allegory's purpose, and the audience is capable of relating the story's metaphors to their reality. But because of its internal dynamism and flexibility, an allegory is able to transcend its original context and speak to a new audience in very different circumstances. For example, some will associate Orwell's work with the rise of fascism or totalitarian socialism in their country.

   Let's return to the question of parables. We must reject the extreme elaboration and artificial allegorization found in patristic and medieval exegesis. A famous example is Saint Augustine's reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37). In it, he summarizes the entire history of salvation, from the fall of Adam to salvation through Christ and eternal life. All this is foreign to the original author's intention. However, we must not create a dichotomy between parable and allegory, due to the highly flexible nature of allegory. Let's examine the fluctuating relationship between parable and allegory in Jesus' parables.

   1. For the vast majority of biblical scholars, the allegorical interpretation (Mk 4:14-20) of the parable of the sower (Mk 4:3-8) is a secondary addition by the Christian tradition, either a creation of Mark or of some pre-Marcan author. The vocabulary of this allegorical interpretation and the problems it highlights reflect the situation of preaching in the early church rather than that of the historical Jesus. Recognizing its secondary aspect, we must nevertheless acknowledge that its link with the parable is not so alien or artificial, as is the case with Augustine's interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The presence of the four types of soil that influence the fate of the seed, and symbols such as the roadside, the stony ground, the thorns and the abundant harvest, together create a certain metaphorical dynamism that calls for the kind of allegorical interpretation found in Mark; even if the allegory is secondary here, it is nevertheless organically linked to the parable.

   2. The case of Matthew's parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30) is more complex. Even without taking into account Matthew's allegorical interpretation (13:37-43), in the parable itself, the series of figures (the householder, his slaves, sowing and harvesting, good and bad seeds, destruction by fire as the final event as opposed to the harvest) constitute a series of metaphors that were well known in Jewish prophecy and apocalyptic. Thus, the fundamental allegorical orientation of the parable itself is already indicated, even if a precise catalog identifying the meaning of each metaphor has not yet been provided to the audience. Indeed, one is led to wonder whether Matthew's allegorical interpretation of the parable is really secondary, a later allegorization added to a text that suggests and invites a given allegorical interpretation, but does not specify it? Many biblical scholars would say yes. But it's also possible that both the parable and the allegorical interpretation are the work of Matthew, who shaped them at the same time. The fact that the allegorical interpretation somewhat modifies the emphasis of the parable is not in itself an argument against such a possibility, since such modifications are observed in certain allegories of the Old Testament and rabbinic times. If it turns out that Matthew created the parable and the allegorical interpretation at the same time, as part of a coherent composition, then not only would the parable be an allegory in its own right, but the allegorical interpretation would in no way be artificial, secondary or distorted.

   3. Even more intriguing is the parable of the murderous vinedressers (Mk 12:1-11). It is not followed by an explanatory allegory. But the allegory is embodied and communicated by the parable itself. Anyone familiar with the OT in general, and with Isaiah's Song of the Vine (Isa 5:1-7) in particular, will easily recognize Israel in the vineyard, God in the vineyard owner, the prophets in the owner's servants, and Israel's perverse authorities in the murderers. Moreover, Christian listeners of the parable will immediately recognize Jesus in the only son, his crucifixion in the son's violent death, the destruction of Jerusalem in the punishment inflicted on the vinedressers, and Jesus' resurrection in the reference to Ps 117:22-23 (LXX). Allegory is part of the heart of the parable, and to add a separate allegorical explanation would be totally superfluous. Yet despite the inextricable union between parable and allegory does not mean that allegory loses its dynamism and flexibility, for it always remains open to new interpretation and adaptation, as we see in the versions of Matthew, Luke and the Gospel of Thomas.

   In short, the synoptic parables must be approached with an open mind. The various possible relationships between parable and allegory need to be worked out and evaluated in the exegesis of each individual case.