History of Interpretation
• Pre-Jülicher: the primary manner of interpretation was allegorization Each detail of the story is given an allegorical interpretation. The most famous of these is Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan. The problem is that frequently the main point of the parable is lost in a sea of details.1
• Jülicher: each parable made only one main point and the details are not to be allegorized. Details are simply lifelike reflections of first-century Palestine used in service of the main point. The truth illustrated by the parable is frequently a general religious maxim.
• 20th Century Interpretation: had to interact with Jülicher, often criticizing his positions that parables had only one main point and that it was a general religious maxim.
o C. H. Dodd: argued that the historical and eschatalogical context was important in
interpretation, and that the focus of the parables was on the kingdom of God.
Particularly, they illustrated realized eschatology.
o Joachim Jeremias: sought to provide historical and cultural evidence for
understanding the parables, using form criticism to peel away allegorical and
additional elements provided by the early church to arrive at the original form of
the parable. The focus was on the kingdom of God, particularly the view of the
kingdom “in the process of realization.”
o Existentialist, Structuralist, and Literary Approaches: arose in reaction against the
historical emphasis of Dodd and Jeremias and the “one main point” position.
Detached of their historical, eschatological, and allegorical elements, parables
speak on many levels and with many meanings to individual readers. Very
subjective interpretive approach.
o Comparisons with Jewish Parables: David Flusser most influential here.
Acknowledges that some material is added by the Evangelists, but that the bulk of
the parables are authentic to Jesus and that their introductions and conclusions
usually derive from Jesus. Comparison to rabbinic parables shows that there are
allegorical features to the parables originating from a Hebrew ethos. The problem
is not that the parables are allegorical, but that later interpreters engage in
illegitimate allegorizing.
o Craig Blomberg: argues that parables are allegorical with a main point associated
with each character or group in the story The settings are generally lifelike, but
with one glaring feature that is very unrealistic that gives a clue to the
metaphorical or spiritual truth Jesus wished to convey.
Parables
From the Hebrew scriptures onwards, prophets and other teachers used various story-telling devices as vehicles for their challenge to Israel (e.g. 2 Samuel 12.1-7). Sometimes in the form of visions with interpretations (e.g. Daniel 7).
Meaning: one cannot simply reply on an apparent surface level meaning of the text. Why? Because the authors of these texts used ancient literary devices to convey a particular idea/meaning bound in the day of their writing.
This doesn’t imply that it means nothing for us today. Our hope of capturing its significance is dependent on our willingness and ability to first comprehend, as best as we can, the author’s intended aim and what exactly the audience (the receivers of the letter) may have heard.
Much of this info is common knowledge, widely known in academic circles but sadly, it doesn’t seem to be taught in local churches of various Christian traditions. Yes, there’s still a large gap between the two worlds.
Rabbis used similar techniques and parables. Jesus takes on a similar approach, in order to break open the world-view of his contemporaries and to invite them to share his vision of God’s kingdom. His stories portrayed this as something that was happening, not just a timeless truth, and enabled his hearers to step inside the story and make it their own.2
As with some visions found in the Hebrew scriptures, some of Jesus’ parables have their own interpretations (e.g. The sower, Mark 4); others are thinly disguised retellings of the story of Israel (e.g. The wicked tenants, Mark 12).
This is more than enough for now, next time I’ll share some basic principles of interpretation.
For the record, this is kind of a nuts and bolts approach and not to be taken as extensive. There’s always plenty more one could say on almost any topic in biblical studies. Trust me, the debates run deep and long.
Photo: nirak
- taken from lecture notes [↩]
- taken in parts from Mark for Everyone [↩]
