Chapter 163 of 404

Limited Adaptation, not Wholesale Creation

Authenticity, of course, does not preclude adaptation, which was common in retelling stories. Later tellers altered characters in earlier rabbinic parables and otherwise adapted them to speak to new situations.⁵⁵ Likewise, embellishment was natural to the folklorish context in which parables were transmitted.⁵⁶ But rabbinic literature preserved parables primarily because of the story lines and morals themselves, whereas the gospel tradition preserved parables because they were Jesus’ parables. Thus we should not expect the same measure of adaptation in Jesus’ recorded parables.

Moreover, rabbinic tradition preserved and recycled some parables over the course of many generations and even centuries, a period of transmission not comparable to the period informing our written Gospels. As noted in our discussion of the Gospels’ sources, the process of transmission behind our extant Gospels was much briefer than that in rabbinic literature, and the relatively controlled conditions do not lend themselves to a great deal of folklorish embellishment. In this early period we should probably usually think of more conservative adaptations⁵⁷ (compare Matthew’s and Luke’s conservative adaptations of Mk 4:3-20), while allowing for reapplication of parables in new contexts (e.g., Matt 5:15 with Mk 4:21//Lk 8:16). These observations do not suggest that the evangelists invented wholly new parables that they then attributed to Jesus.

↑ Back to top