Summary

This chapter examines each parable in detail to answer the question: does this parable meet the criteria of historicity, in particular that of multiple attestation, or must we conclude that we know nothing about it, or that it is inauthentic. To this end, the parables are grouped according to their sources and the chronological order of these sources: Mark, Q (common to Luke and Matthew), M (Matthew's own material) and L (Luke's own material).

In Mark's group of four parables, only the parable of the Sower meets the criterion of multiple attestation (Mark || Q document). But the parable of the Evil Tenants of the Vineyard could meet the criterion of embarrassment due to its intriguing features. Of the seven parables in the Q document, only the parable of the Mustard Seed meets the criterion of multiple attestation (Mark || Q). We could add those of the wedding feast and the talents, if we consider the Matthew and Luke versions as independent, but at this point we're no longer talking about the Q document. None of the nine parables in source M meets the criterion of multiple attestation, and several even display a strongly Matthean tone, coloring and theology. Finally, source L offers us the most parables, thirteen, but at the same time these parables strongly reflect the redactional theology of the gospel in which they are found, and its theological themes are supported by a typically Lucan vocabulary, grammar, literary form and style.

An example of one of Luke's creations is the parable of the Good Samaritan. It's a case of a typical exemplary story, with behavior to be imitated or avoided, as the evangelist also did with the rich fool, the rich man and Lazarus, and the Pharisee and the tax collector. As he does with all the parables in the L tradition, he inserts them with a specific introduction and formulations either in an interrogative form (which one [among you]?), or in an indefinite form (a certain one), as in the parable of the rich fool ("a certain man..."). Most parables in the L tradition emphasize the reversal of situations, expectations or values, or, to put it another way, the crossing of borders.

When we examine the parable of the Good Samaritan in more detail, we notice that the introduction and the parable are inseparable, linked by a strong parallelism around the verb "to do". Luke has reworked the story in Mk 12:28-34 about a scribe who asks Jesus what the first commandment of the Law is, transforming it into a question about what one must do to have eternal life, and he has also transformed Jesus' answer, which no longer proposes two commandments as in Mark, but one that begins with love of God, and ends with love of neighbor, which gently leads to the question "Who is my neighbor?", and the parable ends with the word "do likewise", an inclusion with the beginning. Luke shows all his artistry. What's more, the style and vocabulary of the parable are totally Lucan, reflecting the evangelist's tendency to imitate the Greek of the Septuagint. Finally, reading the Acts of the Apostles reveals the key role played by the Samaritans in Luke's evangelical mission, which began in Jerusalem but was driven out by Jewish persecution to the Samaritans, where it was well received, before moving on to Rome, considered the end of the earth. Luke's inspiration for the parable of the Good Samaritan probably comes from 2 Ch 28:8-15, where Israelites from the north take pity on their compatriots from Judea taken captive in Samaria, and perform various actions of compassion, the same actions as in our parable.

What parables can we trace back to the historical Jesus? First, there's the parable of the mustard seed, attested by Mark and the Q tradition. The criterion of embarrassment could support the authenticity of the parable of the Evil Tenants of the Vineyard. Finally, the parables of the Wedding Feast and the Talents/mines could be supported by the multiple attestation argument, provided that instead of coming from the Q document, they come from the two independent sources of M and L.

---

1. Introduction by Way of Recapitulation

   In ch. 37 our seven theses challenged the consensus among biblical scholars by asserting that most parables fail to meet the criteria of historicity. Ch. 38 accentuated this position by demonstrating that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas does not provide an independent source of Jesus' words, and therefore cannot be used as a criterion for multiple attestation. From then on, the dilemma arises: should we uncritically accept all the parables as coming from Jesus, or should we on the contrary reject them all as inauthentic. First, let's remember that the question is not whether Jesus spoke in parables. This is confirmed by all the synoptic sources (Mark, Q, M and L) and by the writer of each of the Gospels. The question is whether a particular parable can be traced back to the historical Jesus. It is at this point that, in the absence of conclusive data, we must conclude: we don't know. This does not mean that the parable cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus, but simply that it cannot be demonstrated with a good degree of probability. Now it's time to move on from our general argument to a detailed study of the parables.

2. A Survey of the Synoptic Parables by Sources

   When conducting a study of the parables, the first question that arises is how to group them. Most biblical scholars group them according to theological themes. But everyone has their own definition of each theme. So we prefer to use a more objective and practical method, that of grouping them by source, and by chronology of those sources: Mark, Q (common to Luke and Matthew), M (Matthew's own material) and L (Luke's own material). Our aim is to answer this question for each parable: does this parable meet the criteria of historicity, in particular that of multiple attestation, or must we conclude that we know nothing about it, or that it is inauthentic. First, we'll take a quick look at the surface, to identify promising candidates. The next chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of these promising candidates.

   1. Marcan Narrative Parables
      1. Sower - Mark 4:3-9 || Matt 13:1-9 || Luke 8:4-8 || CGT 9
      2. Seed Growing by Itself - Mark 4:26-29 [|| fragment at the end of CGT21?]
      3. Mustard Seed - Mark 4:30-32 || Matt 13:31-32 || Luke 13:18-19 || CGT 20 [a Mark-Q overlap]
      4. Evil Tenants of the Vineyard - Mark 12:1-11 || Matt 21:33-44 || Luke 20:9-18 || CGT 65
      5. ? Doorkeeper - Mark 13:33-37 || Luke 12:35-38 [problem of (i) whether the Marcan version qualifies as a parable and (ii) whether this is a case of two different sources or even of two different parables]

      What do we see?

      1. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (CGT) only presents complete parables from Mark when they are also found in both Matthew and Luke. From then on, it always presents a combined text. In the case of the parable of the Sower, CGT does not offer an independent text, but depends on the Synoptics.

      2. Also, the only parable that seems to meet the criterion of multiple attestation is that of the mustard seed witnessed by Mark and Document Q (Mt 13:31-3|| Lk 13:18-19).

      3. The parable of the Evil Tenants of the Vineyard occupies a special place, for even if it does not meet the criterion of multiple attestation, it displays some intriguing features: 1) it is the only synoptic text where Jesus would make a clear allusion to himself and his violent rejection by the authorities, 2) and the original version would end either with the violent death of the son or with the massacre of the evil tenants, which could meet the criterion of discontinuity or embarrassment.

      4. The parable of the doorkeeper is a source of debate: in fact, the metaphor is limited only to v. 34, so no real narrative is developed, and therefore does not meet the criteria of a true parable.

   2. Narrative Parables in Q
      1. Wise and Foolish Builders - Matt 7:24-27 || Luke 6:47-49
      2. Servant Placed over a Household - Matt 24:45-51 || Luke 12:42-46
      3. Mustard Seed - Matt 13:31-32 || Luke 13:18-19; cf. Mark 4:30-32 || CGT 20 [a Mark-Q overlap]
      4. Leaven - Matt 13:33 || Luke 13:20-21 || CGT 96
      5. Great Supper - Matt 22:1-10 || Luke 14:16-24 || CGT 64 [or different M and L versions?]
      6. Lost Sheep - Matt 18:12-14 || Luke 15:4-7 || CGT 107
      7. Talents (Pounds) - Matt 25:14-30 || Luke 19:12-27 [or different M and L versions?]

      The Q document has a few surprises in store for us:

      1. Firstly, it contains only seven parables, far fewer than the M tradition (nine) or the L tradition (thirteen).

      2. As already mentioned, the parable of the Mustard Seed meets the criterion of multiple attestation (Mk | Q). We could add those of the wedding feast and the talents, if we consider the Matthew and Luke versions as independent, but at this point we're no longer talking about the Q source.

      3. Some biblical scholars have tried to apply other criteria of historicity, with little success. For example, attempts have been made to apply the criterion of embarrassment to the parable of the leaven, on the pretext that in antiquity leaven was associated with evil, and so by associating it with a positive dimension the gospel could be a source of embarrassment; but a close analysis shows that in antiquity leaven was also associated with a positive dimension.

   3. Narrative Parables in M
      1. Wheat and Weeds - 13:24-30 II CGT 57
      2. Treasure Hidden in the Field - 13:44 II CGT 109
      3. Pearl - 13:45-46 II CGT 76
      4. Fish Net - 13:47-48 [Is CGT 8 a parallel? Or is it possibly a separate parable, "The Wise Fisherman"?]
      5. Unmerciful Servant - 18:23-35
      6. Workers in the Vineyard - 20:1-16
      7. Two Sons - 21:28-32
      8. Guest without a Wedding Garment - 22:11-14
      9. Ten Virgins - 25:1-13
      10. [The Scene of the Last Judgment - 25:31-46 - is not properly a parable.]

      This source presents a number of differences.

      1. With nine parables (eleven if we consider that the parables of the wedding feast and the talents belong to M, not Q), the M source offers more parables than Mark and the Q document, and demonstrates that the Synoptics are not the greatest source of parables.

      2. The observation that some of M's parables have parallels in Thomas confirms that the latter was not simply interested in the oldest layers of tradition.

      3. There's no debate about the parabolic quality of these nine stories, which all contain a beginning, a middle and an end.

      4. None of these nine parables meets the multiple attestation criterion.

      5. To make matters worse, many of these parables display a strongly Matthean tone, coloring and theology.

      With regard to this last point, let's recall the major themes of Matthean theology: the definitive separation of good and evil at the Last Judgment, the severity of this Final Judgment as a motive for good conduct in the present life, the consequent emphasis on rigorous moral activity, total commitment and constant vigilance - an emphasis that focuses on fulfilling God's will rather than paying lip service to it (the danger of hypocrisy). These typically Matthean themes are prominent in many of the M parables (e.g. the tares, the net, the unforgiving debtor, the two sons, the guest without a wedding garment and the ten virgins), which makes the claim to authenticity even harder to demonstrate, sometimes to the point of ruling out that some parables can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

      A typical example is the way Matthew turns the parable of the wedding feast (source Q? source M?) into an allegory of salvation history: we are placed in the time of the Church (Mt 22, 1-10), which demands that the hall (= the Church) in which the son's (= the risen Jesus') wedding feast is celebrated be filled with "bad and good". At the same time, Matthew's theology cannot accept this state of disorder and confusion, and so he adds a separate mini-section of the unclothed wedding guest (Mt 22:11-14) where the final and definitive separation of bad and good takes place. This addition escapes all logic, for how can you reproach someone who has suddenly come off the street and finds himself at a wedding feast for not having the appropriate wedding garments? For Matthew, this problem of logic is minor, for his theology demands that the motley state of the Church in the present world be resolved by a severe final judgment. So the most likely conclusion is that this parable of the guest with questionable attire, a parable that makes no sense when detached from the scene of the wedding feast, is a creation of Matthew himself. And in the end, considering all the parables in Source M, and trying to eliminate Matthew's strong editorial interventions from each story, what are we left with? Not much.

   4. Narrative Parables in L
      1. ? Two Debtors - 7:41-43 [parable or similitude?]
      2. Good Samaritan - 10:29-37
      3. Friend at Midnight - 11:5-8
      4. Rich Fool - 12:16-21 II CGT 63
      5. Barren Fig Tree - 13:6-9
      6. Tower Builder and Warring King - 14:28-32 [to be counted separately?]
      7. Lost Coin - 15:8-10
      8. Prodigal Son - 15:11-32
      9. Dishonest Steward - 16:1-8
      10. Rich Man and Lazarus - 16:19-31
      11. Servant's Duty - 17:7-10
      12. Widow and Unjust Judge - 18:1-8
      13. Pharisee and Tax Collector - 18:9-14

      The parables in this tradition are full of surprises.

      1. This is the tradition that offers us the most parables: thirteen or fourteen (if the parable of the tower-builder and the warring king count as two), and even sixteen (if the parable of the wedding feast and the parable of the mines do not belong to the Q document, but are different parables from the L and M documents).

      2. When we consider the chronological order of the synoptic gospels, i.e. Mark, source Q, Matthew and Luke, we notice that the parables in the first generation of Christians are few in number (four for Mark and seven for source Q), but increase to nine for the second generation represented by Matthew, and finally to thirteen for the third generation represented by Luke. How can we explain this increase in parables over time?

      3. A particular feature of the parables in the L tradition is that they strongly reflect the redactional theology of the gospel in which they are found. Among the many theological themes and concerns that permeate the vast Luke-Acts project is the overarching and key theme of crossing borders, be they religious, ethnic, social or economic. This overarching theme finds individual expression in the more specific themes of
         1. concern for the poor, oppressed and marginalized (including women),
         2. the consequent excoriation of the rich and powerful who don't help the poor,
         3. the power of prayer/requests from the marginalized,
         4. the undeserved forgiveness offered to sinners,
         5. the danger of neglecting this offer by refusing to repent, and
         6. the encapsulation of most of these themes in the theme of the inclusion of pagans in the people of God

      4. These theological themes are supported by a typically Lucan vocabulary, grammar, literary form and style. One example among many is the inner monologue present in several of the stories. And all these parables, with the exception of 7:41-43 (the two debtors), which we don't know whether it's a parable or a simile, have been inserted into the artificial construction of the long ascent to Jerusalem (ch. 9 - 19). Given all these considerations, and the absence of multiple attestations, what argument can we rely on to trace one or other of these parables back to the historical Jesus?

      5. One final point handicaps the L tradition. Biblical scholars generally recognize that Luke's Gospel, compared to those of Mark and Matthew, has a notable Pauline consonance. In fact, this consonance sometimes becomes quite audible in the very wording of the Gospel (not to mention Acts). The most striking example is provided by the Eucharistic words of the Last Supper in Luke 22:19-20. The Lucan version of the text clearly reflects Paul's Eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:23-26 more than it does in Mark 14:22-24. We could add Pauline themes such as justification apart from the works of the Law, or the inclusion of non-Jews in the people of God. Think of the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the tax collector, and the Good Samaritan.

3. A Test Case from Luke: The Good Samaritan

   If we're looking for the perfect example of a parable from the L tradition, that of the Good Samaritan springs to mind: it demonstrates the impact that a well-crafted parable can have. Unfortunately, there are strong arguments to suggest that it was not written by Jesus, or the first bearers of the oral tradition, but rather by the evangelist known as Luke.

   1. General Observations on the Good Samaritan as an L Parable
      1. When we take an overall look at the parables in the L tradition, they exude a different atmosphere from those in Mark and Matthew. For example, these parables focus more on (i) realistic presentations of human individuals with an inner psychological life, as well as (ii) practical moral applications of the stories. What's more, unlike the parables of Mark and Q, which Luke adopts, L's parables encompass a wide range of social and religious relationships, classes and professions: for example, lender, householder, steward, vinedresser, priest, Levite, Samaritan, innkeeper, judge, constable, publican (= tax collector) and Pharisee. At the same time, they are less concerned with allegory than, for example, the parables M. Rather, they are what might be called exemplary narratives. In this category we might include: the Good Samaritan, the rich fool, the rich man and Lazarus, and the Pharisee and the tax collector. These stories suggest positive behaviors to imitate or negative behaviors to avoid, while involving a surprising reversal of normal expectations.

      2. Turning from the general atmosphere to stylistic features, we first note Luke's typical way of introducing a parable. You'd be hard-pressed to find expressions like "the kingdom of God is like", or even "like" or "similar to". The parables of the L tradition all begin with the Greek pronoun tis, either in its interrogative form (which one [among you]?), or in its indefinite form (a certain one), as in the word rich fool ("a certain man..."). The parable of the Good Samaritan is no exception: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho...".

      3. Luke links these parables from the L tradition with his Gospel as a whole, placing them within a larger structure or creating an introduction for them. This applies to all the parables in this tradition. In our earlier analysis of the introduction to the parable of the rich fool, we underlined all Luke's editorial work. The same can be said of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

      4. Most of the parables in the L tradition emphasize the reversal of situations, expectations or values, or to put it another way, the crossing of borders. This is also the case in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Jewish leaders of the cult failed to provide help to a fellow countryman, whereas a foreigner, a Samaritan, did.

   2. The Good Samaritan in Detail

      25 An expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?" 27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live." 29 But wanting to vindicate himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and took off, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him, and when I come back I will repay you whatever more you spend.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

      Here are the reasons why we see the parable of the Good Samaritan as a creation of the evangelist Luke.

      1. The overall structure

         Stage 1: Narrative Introduction	Stage 2: Parable
         v. 25: First question of lawyer to Jesus: what shall I do	v. 29: Second question of lawyer to Jesus: who is my neighbor?
         v. 26: First reply by Jesus in form of a counterquestion: what is in the Law?	v. 30-36: reply by Jesus in form of a parable, culminating in a counterquestion: who is the neighbor in the story?
         v. 27: Lawyer forced to answer his own question with an abbreviated form of the double command of love.	v. 37a: Lawyer forced to answer his own question: the one who did mercy
         v. 28: Approving reply of Jesus ending in a command: do this.	v. 37b: Jesus' approving reply in the form of a command: do likewise

         This parallel structure in which the word "do" is repeated is too perfect to be a coincidence; it's Luke's creation.

      2. A rewriting of Mk 12:28-34

         In his introduction to the parable, Luke takes up and transforms Mark's account (12:28-34), in which a scribe asks Jesus about the first commandment of the Law. In Mark's account, there is simply the scribe's question about the first commandment, followed by Jesus' answer in the form of two commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. Luke transforms the scribe's question into one about eternal life, then turns Jesus' answer into a counterquestion to which the scribe himself answers, where love of God and love of neighbor are combined under a single commandment, and ends with the command to do likewise, creating a beginning-final inclusion with the word "do". The effect of all this is to create a smooth transition to the lawyer's question: "But who is my neighbor". This v. 28 ("You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live") thus plays a pivotal role, concluding the introduction with the verbs "to do" and "to live", and announcing the parable which ends with: "do likewise (to live)". All this reflects Luke's art.

      3. Introduction and parable are inextricably linked

         The lawyer's question about the neighbor is justified, because in the legal world the rules have to be clearly defined. This is exactly what Luke's Jesus refuses to provide. As in many other parables in the L tradition, perspectives are reversed: the neighbor is not defined as the one who is there in front of me, but is defined in relation to me: I have to be the neighbor of anyone who needs help; for morality is not based on abstract concepts, but on concrete actions ("do"). Thus, the introduction and the parable are not separate entities, but constitute two stages carefully constructed by Luke to lead his listener to a transformation of his values: we begin with the traditional definition of neighbor (Lev 19:18b: a member of his Jewish religious community), and end with the transformed definition, which is in fact an open question. In short, the parable cannot have its full meaning as a transformation of values without the introduction. Likewise, the finale ("do likewise") would be incomprehensible without the lawyer's question about the neighbor.

      4. Lucan vocabulary and theology

         The style and vocabulary of the parable are totally Lucan, reflecting the evangelist's tendency to imitate the Greek of the Septuagint. And this vocabulary reflects his theological concerns. Indeed, he is the only one of the Synoptics to show an interest in the Samaritans. Why should this be? We have to turn to Acts for an answer, particularly in the words Luke puts into Jesus' mouth: "Then you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Acts will follow this plan of preaching the gospel, beginning in Jerusalem and ending in Rome, considered to be the end of the earth, with Samaria as an intermediate stage. This progression of the gospel is not only a historical fact, but also a theological program for Luke. So it's easy to understand why the Samaritans figure prominently in Jesus' ministry. During Jesus' long journey to Jerusalem, he refused to punish Samaritans as requested by his disciples when they were not allowed to pass through their territory (Lk 9:52-53), but later, when he healed ten lepers, only one, a Samaritan, recognized God's action and came to Jesus (Lk 17:11-19). It is no doubt the fact that the Samaritan does not belong to the Jewish nation, but at the same time is not a Gentile, that attracts Luke's attention. At the time of the Church, Christians would be persecuted by the Jews of Jerusalem, giving them the opportunity to evangelize Samaria, in particular Philip, to whose words the crowds were unanimously attracted (Acts 8:2-25).

         To interpret Luke's parable of the Good Samaritan, we must first understand the function of Samaria in the theology of salvation history. For the figure of the Samaritan, who acts with compassion, in contrast to the official representatives of the Jewish cultic community, is the perfect embodiment of the crossing of frontiers, begun with the Gospel and fully realized in Acts with the mission to the Gentiles. It's no coincidence that Luke places this parable after the Samaritans' refusal to allow him and his disciples to cross Samaria, but before the healing of the Samaritan leper, thus expressing the transition from a negative to a positive pole in this crossing of borders.

         Making the Samaritan the paradigm of compassion may have occurred to Luke when he read 2 Ch 28:8-15, an account of how the Israelites of the northern kingdom took pity on their Judean brothers taken captive to Samaria, clothed those who were naked, gave them drink, food and ointment, then led them on donkeys to Jericho to be cared for by their countrymen; after this action of compassion, the Israelites returned to Samaria.

      In short, whatever the level of analysis, general structure, vocabulary, style, grammar, theology, both the introduction and the parable itself, all reflect Luke's hand. Some biblical scholars, by eliminating all the Lucan traits from the parable, have tried to find a substratum that could go back to Jesus, only to end up with almost nothing. Moreover, historically speaking, Jesus seems to have had little contact with the Samaritans and said almost nothing about them, so a parable by him about a Samaritan would be unlikely.

      If we've spent so much time on the parable of the Good Samaritan, it's because it represents the paradigm, the archetype, the best-known and best-loved of the parables in the L tradition. But it's wrong to assume that it dates back to the historical Jesus. And so the question arises: in the rest of the corpus of parables in the L tradition, are there parables that could be traced back to the historical Jesus? In the absence of multiple attestation and the strong presence of Luke's vocabulary and theology, it's an almost impossible task to demonstrate this. This does not mean, however, that for certain parables, Luke would have taken over what certain traditions brought to him. This is perhaps the case with the parable of the Dishonest Steward (Lk 16:1-8), a parable so obscure that Luke, in an attempt to find a meaning for it, adds various homiletical applications that do not really follow from the parable (Lk 16:9-13). But even allowing for such cases, the question remains: how can we trace these hypothetical traditions received by Luke back to the historical Jesus? Our conclusion remains: there is no way to demonstrate that any of the parables in tradition L can be traced back to the historical Jesus. What we can do is either demonstrate that it is probable that it does not go back to the historical Jesus, like the parable of the Good Samaritan and even that of the prodigal son, or conclude: we don't know.

4. A Sober Conclusion to Our Survey

   Modern research on parables on the whole displays an unalterable optimism about parables, tracing them back to the historical Jesus, with the exception of a few offenders such as the parable of the Wheat and Weeds or Matthew's Ten Virgins. Volume V challenges this tendency. For if we set aside this presumption of historicity, we would be looking in vain for arguments on the authenticity of a large number of parables. We have to accept that, in addition to the parable of the Wheat and Weeds or the Ten Virgins, many parables are a creation of the early church or the evangelists, including most, if not all, of the parables in the L and M traditions. As for the other parables, we have to conclude: we don't know.

   What parables can we trace back to the historical Jesus? First, there's the parable of the Mustard Seed, attested by Mark and the Q tradition. The criterion of embarrassment could support the authenticity of the parable of the Evil Tenants of the Vineyeard. Finally, the parables of the Wedding Feast and the Talents/mines could be supported by the multiple attestation argument, provided that instead of coming from the Q document, they come from the two independent sources of M and L.