Chapter 351 of 404

Notes to Chapter 13

1 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 20.

2 Many, like Witherington, Sage, 345-46, rank Jesus among the former.

3 See e.g., m. Ab. 1-3.

4 E.g., Freyne, Galilee, 249-50; Hengel, Leader, 42-50; Smith, Magician, 22-23; cf. Vermes, “Jesus the Jew,” 118.

5 E.g., Jeremias, Theology, 77; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 30-31; cf. Borg, Vision, 97-124.

6 Safrai, “Education,” 965; cf. idem, “Home,” 762; Sipre Deut. 43.3.7; 48.2.4, 6; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 89-133. Cf. the related Greek tradition of traveling philosophers (see Diog. Laert. 2.22; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 26-59). Liefeld uncovers little evidence for itinerant rabbis before 70 (p. 119), but this is hardly surprising given the scarcity of evidence for rabbis before 70 in general.

7 Cf. Meeks, Moral World, 117; Hengel, Leader, 55-56.

8 Vermes, Religion, 54. Jesus may have admittedly made little of traditional covenant boundaries (Holmén, “Covenant”; idem, Covenant Thinking). Even apocalyptists, who clearly were not composing midrash, include midrashic sections and elements (Aune, Prophecy, 113, noting the midrash on Is 24:17-23 in 1 En. 54:1-56:4 and 64:1-68:1).

9 Cf. Jos. Apion 2.178; Philo Legat. 115, 210, cited by Vermes himself (Religion, 186).

10 All of the above scholars would differ from Mack, Myth, 64, who (against our evidence concerning first-century Galilean Judaism) suggests that Jesus employed only wisdom thought and may have been as conversant in the Cynic thought of Meleager as in the Bible.

11 Chilton and Evans, “Scriptures”; on allusions, see Allison, “Allusive Jesus.” Jesus may have been eclectic in his approach; it often seems unclear which of various Jewish interpretive approaches he followed at given times (so Meier, “Historical Law”).

12 Although elders and synagogue “rulers” undoubtedly welcomed scribal exposition when available (cf. Acts 13:15), in Galilee these leaders were probably frequently simply the village equivalent of municipal aristocracies, the most respected community leaders.

13 Hill, Prophecy, 50.

14 See Davies, Setting, 422-25; Stein, Method and Message, 1-3; Carlston, “Maxims”; Meeks, Moral World, 117; Cohen, Maccabees, 122; Vermes, Religion, 50-70, 76-119. For Jesus’ Jewish teaching techniques, e.g., in the “sermon on the mount/plain,” see e.g., Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 126; Songer, “Sermon”; Stevens, “Sermon.”

15 E.g., Freyne, “Servant Community,” 111; Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 44; Eve, Miracles, 384-86; Ehrman, Prophet, 139; especially Holmén, Covenant Thinking, relevant to conflict narratives (treated in a subsequent chapter).

16 E.g., Tarfon’s “May I bury my sons,” tos. Hag. 3:33; Shab. 13:5; Sipra V. D. Deho. par. 4.7.3.2; b. Shab. 16b-17a, 116a; p. Yoma 1:1. Ancients also observed that artists, writers and thinkers each had their own style (Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 1.1.1-3); various schools also had “their own sectarian idiolect” (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 121).

17 See Jeremias, Theology, 22-37; Tannehill, Sword; Stein, Method and Message, 13-32.

18 Scholars often comment on the meaning of this distinctive trait; see Jeremias, Theology, 35- 36; cf. Hill, Prophecy, 64-66; Aune, Prophecy, 164-65; Witherington, Christology, 186-88; Marshall, Origins, 43-44. Oath formulas sometimes appear in solemn sayings, including among Gentiles (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.17; 3, p. 42.2, 11); but “Amen” is Aramaic (and Hebrew), limiting the range of available cultural parallels. The doubled “Amen” in John is presumably emphatic (cf. Pes. Rab Kah. 16:4), perhaps used by John for emphasis but potentially also recalling a rarer usage of Jesus.

19 Some elements of his style in the Gospels may reflect the usual patterning of oral tradition (Dunn, New Perspective, 115), or a teaching style designed to be recalled accordingly.

20 Cf. Gottlieb, “Abot.” For many of Jesus’ sayings as proverbial, see e.g., Damschen, “Proverbs,” 81. Riddles also appear in classical sources (Gärtner, “Riddles”).

21 E.g., m. Ab. 2:8; ARN 36 A; further examples elsewhere in this book. Greek and Roman audiences were also comfortable with these figures of speech (cf. Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b.16-19; Rhet. Her. 4.33.44; Cicero Orator 40.139; Quint. Inst. 8.6.73-76; Arist. Rhet. 3.11.15; Demetrius Style 2.124-27; 3.161; further Anderson, Glossary, 122-24), though this rhetoric may have been disseminated more commonly in the marketplace (cf. e.g., PGM 36.69, 134, 211-12, 320) than in deliberative speeches. For examples of hyperbole, see e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 18 with Isaeus 20; Philost. V.A. 8.7; Philost. Hrk. 48.11. Use of shock to gain hearers’ attention appeared in Cynics (Diog. Laert. 6.2.34) but could be useful rhetoric more generally (Dion. Hal. Lysias 24), and appears in Jewish circles (cf. tales in Young, Theologian, 171-80).

22 Cf. Stein, Method and Message, 8-12; Witherington, Sage, 3.

23 See further examples below; in the later Targumim, see Chilton, “Targum and Gospels,” 245- 47, esp. 246.

24 See m. Ab. 3:17; Suk. 2:10; tos. Ber. 1:11; 6:18; B.K. 7:2-4; Hag. 2:5; Sanh. 1:2; 8:9; Sipra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.5; Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; Sipre Num. 84.2.1; 93.1.3; Sipre Deut. 1.9.2; 1.10.1; 308.2.1; 308.3.1; 309.1.1; 309.2.1; ARN 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31A; 2, §10; 4, §14; 8, §24; 9, §24; 12, §29; 13, §§30, 32; 18, §§39-40; 30, §63; 32, §§69, 70B; 35, §77; b. Sanh. 107a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 3:8; 14:5; 27:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:11; 3:2; 7:3; Eccl. Rab. 9:8, §1; cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 179; Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 531, 630.

25 See tos. Suk. 2:6; Sipra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.2; Behuq. pq.3.263.1.5, 8; Sipre Num. 84.1.1; 86.1.1; 89.4.2; Sipre Deut. 3.1.1; 11.1.2; 26.3.1; 28.1.1; 29.4.1; 36.4.5; 40.6.1; 43.8.1; 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 48.1.3; 53.1.3; 306.4.1; 306.7.1; 309.5.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.1; 343.1.2; 343.5.2; p. Taan. 2:1, §11; Lev. Rab. 27:8; cf. Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 531; Vermes, Religion, 92; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 179; Jeremias, Parables, 101.

26 Fields do figure prominently as settings in rabbinic parables, though their meaning is ad hoc rather than standard (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 596). But whereas royal courts appear only in a few parables attributed to Jesus (Matt 18:23; 22:2 [some contrast here Lk 14:16]; cf. Matt 25:34; Lk 14:31; 19:12), they are common in rabbinic parables, where the king represents God: e.g., tos. Ber. 6:18; Suk. 2:6; Mek. Beshallah 6.8-9; Shirata 2.131ff; 3.30, 65; 4.54ff; Amalek 2.22-23; Bahodesh 5.2-3, 82- 83; 6.114ff; 8.72ff; Sipra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.2, 5; Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; pq. 3.263.1.5; Sipre Num. 84.2.1; 86.1.1; Sipre Deut. 3.1.1; 8.1.2; 11.1.2; 28.1.1; 29.4.1; 36.4.5; 43.8.1; 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 48.1.3; 312.1.1; 313.1.1; 343.5.2; ARN 2; 16; 19; 24; 25A; 2, §10; 8, §24B; 34, §77. Cf. Neusner, Beginning, 23.

27 Earlier biblical prophets had also depicted judgments, especially those of the end-time, in agricultural terms (Is 32:13-17; 35:1-2; 44:3-4; Jer 31:28; 51:33; Joel 3:13; Amos 8:1-2; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 150).

28 It appears also further to the east, but complaints about late traditions in the Gospels usually look for hellenistic, not other Middle Eastern, elements. Our published first-century Gospels are in Greek but reflect earlier traditions.

29 Boring et al., Commentary, 89, compares Aesop Fables 172, but while this example illustrates the widespread use of agricultural images in antiquity, it differs from Jesus’ and rabbinic parables. While it offers a moral lesson as any narrative would, it does not provide symbolic correspondences as frequently as in Jesus’ parables (e.g., the mustard seed represents the kingdom).

30 Johnston, “Patristic Parables,” 226. This in spite of the fact that Greek models and even story lines (e.g., in Aesop’s fables) did affect rabbinic parables (Stern, Parables, 7; cf. also Mack, Myth, 160 n. 18). Greeks borrowed the ancient near eastern form of story parables called fables (already attested in the Sumerian period; see Perry, “Introduction,” xxviii-xxxiv; Babrius 2.introduction 1-6). Hesiod used animal fables as riddles too obvious to require explanation (WD 202-11), and Aesop’s fables were known as early as Aristophanes in the late fifth century BCE (Birds 651-53). Yet Greeks typically called these stories “fables,” not parables (Theon Progymn. 3).

31 With many, e.g., Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 337-39. Although demurring from this consensus, Mack, Myth, 61, acknowledges it. I affirm the excellent work of Snodgrass, Stories; it appeared too late for my use here, but readers can find fuller interaction with secondary literature there than I provide in my brief treatment here.

32 Cf. also 1 En. 1:2-3.

33 1 Kgs 5:12 (4:32); Ezek 17:2; and Ps 78:2 (Stern, Parables, 290 n. 10).

34 Also Jos. Ant. 8.148-49; cf. Jesus’ questions (e.g., Mk 11:29). See further Stein, Method and Message, 35-36; Manson, Sayings, 29; Gerhardsson, “Meshalim”; Vermes, Religion, 90.

35 Stern, Parables, 9-10; cf. Scott, Parable, 7-11.

36 A variety of forms also appear in Jesus’ and rabbinic parables. Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 520-26 classifies Tannaitic parables into groups including example stories (pp. 520-22); short similes and metaphors (pp. 522-23; pace Dodd, these usually are called mashal and have standard parable formulas); and parabolized fables (pp. 523-24). The example stories in the Gospels all appear in Luke (Lk 10:30-37; 12:16-21; 16:19-31; 18:10-14; perhaps 14:7-11, 12-14; Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 636 n. 4) and example stories may be distinct from normal parables; but Bultmann’s distinction between similitudes and parables is untenable (“Parabolic Interpretations,” 636).

37 E.g., Quint. Inst. 5.11.1; Rhet. Her. 4.34.45-46; 4.49.62; Virg. Ecl. 3.104-7.

38 Pace Mack, Myth, 157-58, who merely summarizes Greco-Roman rhetoric’s use of the term parabol? and then applies it directly to Jesus’ parables. Aristotle used parabol? for brief comparisons rhetoricians used as proofs, generally similes; he called genuine stories (like most of Jesus’ parables) logoi instead, though later rhetoricians also applied the term to narrative illustrations (Stern, Parables, 10).

39 Young, Parables, 1.

40 Hill, Prophecy, 58-59.

41 E.g., 1 En. 1:2-3; 37-71; cf. Hermas Sim. 3.1-10; Hammershaimb, “Lignelser”; Witherington, Christology, 243.

42 E.g., 4Q302a (a wisdom parable); Test. Job 18:7-8.

43 Before the period of the Gospels, see e.g., Sir 1:24; 3:29; 20:20; 39:2; 47:17; cf. Sir 18:29.

44 E.g., m. Sot. 9:15; Mek. Pisha 1.82-84; b. Ber. 61b.

45 E.g., Stewart, “Parable Form”; Cave, “Parables,” 387; Johnston, “Observations,” 355; Sandmel, Judaism, 105; Barth, “Ethik”; Maisonneuve, “Parables”; Goulder, Midrash, 47-69; Scott, Parable, 14; Young, Parables, 317-18; D’Angelo, “Background”; Vermes, Religion, 97.

46 See Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 628-33. For comparisons between rabbinic and Jesus’ parables, see also briefly Newman, “Parables” (following Johnston); for comparisons and contrasts, see Porton, “Parable,” 207-9.

47 Vermes, Religion, 97; cf. Young, Parables, 3. Few parables are attributed to the earliest teachers noted in rabbinic texts, perhaps because these teachers appear so infrequently. Three items attributed to Hillel are not very developed; 11 come from ben Zakkai’s generation; 33 from the next generation (10 from R. Gamaliel II alone); 39 from the next; and 93 from the next (49 of which come from two rabbis); see Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 498-500; Vermes, Religion, 97 n. 21. Unlike Jesus and perhaps some other early wisdom sages, among the rabbis they occur in predominantly midrashic (exegetical) rather than narrative contexts (see Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 632; Scott, Parable, 15-16; Vermes, Religion, 114-15; for exceptions, see Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 503). Even in Aramaic contexts, rabbinic parables appear in Hebrew (excepting some vernacular conversation in them; Young, Parables, 40-42).

48 Pace the astonishing argument from silence in Jeremias, Parables, 12. A story about R. Eliezer in the early second century (see Herford, Christianity, 137-45, 388; Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, 36-37) indicates the rabbinic disdain for using Jesus’ teaching, and in the vast majority of rabbinic sources he is simply ignored.

49 With Abrahams, Studies 1:106; Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 43.

50 Taylor, Formation, 104; Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 635. Rabbinic parables were sometimes attributed to different authors (Young, Parables, 179), probably in part due to their reuse by other rabbis; recycling earlier story lines was a sign of respect for the story’s content (e.g., Terence Eunuch 30-43 argues that recycling characters is acceptable).

51 E.g., Mk 4:3-20, 26-32; 12:1-9; 13:28; Matt 20:1; Lk 12:16; 13:6; cf. Neusner, Beginning, 23.

52 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 633-34. As Scott, Parable, 39 observes, Jesus’ parables employ traditional mythemes but function counterculturally, hence as “antimyth.”

53 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 508 (but cf. 626).

54 E.g., Stein, Method and Message, 44-45; Dodd, Parables, 11; Vermes, Religion, 90-91; see more fully Payne, “Authenticity of Parables”; idem, “Sower.” Pace Mack, Myth, 146-47, who resorts to suggesting that most scholars accept authenticity from motives of convenience! Mack, Lost Gospel, 34 seems correct to observe that few parables (at least in the sense of story parables) appear in Q (unless Mark heavily mined Q’s parables, but the evidence for such a suggestion, such as Matthew and Luke omitting Mk 4:32’s “large” branches, is quite limited), but works from the assumption that only Q (and a hypothetical early layer at that) is largely authentic. Yet even his own portrait of Jesus as a wisdom teacher should have allowed parables. (Even the Jesus Seminar accepts many parables as authentic — Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 20.) Some story parables clearly do appear in Q (e.g., Matt 7:24-27//Lk 6:47-49), and it contains many briefer metaphors. For the sake of argument I am doing little with special Lukan parables, although they again fit Middle Eastern village life far better than they fit the milieu of the subsequent church (see Bailey, Poet; idem, Peasant Eyes).

55 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 621-24, 639.

56 Young, Parables, 179.

57 Such as those fitting standard rhetorical principles governing expanding or condensing narratives, noted earlier.

58 Bailey, Peasant Eyes, xiii.

59 Carson, “Matthew,” 409-10, following P. B. Payne’s Ph.D. dissertation.

60 Crisler, “Acoustics,” 134-37.

61 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 502. Perry, “Introduction,” xi shows that Greeks had also collected fables for rhetorical purposes by the first century.

62 Cf. our discussion in ch. 9 regarding freedom to rearrange materials.

63 Young, Parables, 179; cf. Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 621-24.

64 E.g., Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 507. On the presence of interpretations with the vast majority of ancient parables, see also Snodgrass, Stories, 59.

65 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:397-99 represent an exception to neglect of these sources. Although they tentatively deny authenticity, in the authoritative tradition of Jeremias, they rightly refute traditional reasons for rejecting authenticity, recognizing that Jewish parables could include interpretations. We believe it likely that Jesus explained the parables to his disciples and that the disciples who preserved the traditions of the parables themselves (it is doubtful that the crowds provide the tradition’s source) would have transmitted the interpretations as well.

66 E.g., Phaedrus 1.4.1; 1.5.1-2; 1.8.1-3; 1.9.1-2; 1.10.1-3; 1.11.1-2; 1.12.1-2; 1.13.1-2; 1.15.1-3; 1.16.1-2; 1.17.1; 1.18.1; 1.19.1-2; 1.20.1-2; 1.21.1-2; 1.23.1-2; 1.24.1; 1.25.1-2; 1.26.1-2; 1.27.1-2; 1.28.1-2; 1.29.1-3; 1.30.1; 1.31.1-2; 2.2.1-2; 2.5.1-6; 2.6.1-3; 3.1.7; 3.5.1; 3.7.1; 3.8.1; 3.9.1; 3.16.1-2; 4.1.1-3; 4.5.1-2; 4.8.1-2; 4.9.1-2; 4.12.1- 2; 4.20.1; 4.23.1; 5.5.1-3; 5.7.1-3.

67 E.g., Phaedrus 1.1.14-15; 1.7.4-5; 1.14.18-19; 1.22.10-13; 2.1.11-12; 2.3.7; 2.4.25-26; 2.6.14-15; 3.2.1; 3.3.1-3; 3.6.10-11; 3.11.7; 3.12.8; 3.14.12-13; 3.17.13; 4.3.5-6; 4.4.12-13; 4.6.11-13; 4.7.25-26; 4.10.4-5; 4.11.14-21; 4.17.7-8; 4.24.3-4; 4.25.23-25; 5.2.14-15; 5.3.11-13; 5.4.7-12; 5.6.7; 5.8.6-7; 5.9.5; 5.10.10.

68 Phaedrus 3.10.1-8, 51-60; 4.13. Some of these morals are clearly redactional, added by the authors to apply the oral traditions (e.g., Phaedrus 2.2.2; 2.3.4; 3.3.14-17; 3.6.10; 3.19.1). Phaedrus suggests that slaves like Aesop originally used fables because they dare not express their views openly (3.prologue 33-40; though Phaedrus’ emphasis may be influenced by his own experience with Sejanus — 3.prologue 41-44). Other attached lessons, however, may well be part of the original fables (cf. e.g., Babrius 4.6-8; 6.16-17; 11.10-12; 18.15-16). Most importantly, ancient auditors would have no reason to assume that the interpretations were added, hence tellers of stories could add morals as easily as their editors could.

69 E.g., perhaps Prov 30:4, 18-19, 21-31; cf. Test. Job 36-38:5.

70 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 561-62, 565-66, 638; Vermes, Religion, 92-99. On implications for authenticity, see also Blomberg, “Parables,” 234-35.

71 Stern, Parables, 24.

72 Explicit explanations appear in less than half the parables in the Mishnah, Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud, but in more in other sources, averaging about 76%, especially in later Tannaitic strata but not unknown in any sources (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 566-67, 637-38; cf. McArthur and Johnston, Parables, 139-46). Jones, Parables, 79, suggests that the form of the interpretation in Matt 13:18-23 may deliberately echo Zechariah’s vision interpretations.

73 Cf. scene explanations in apocalypses, e.g., Test. Ab. 12-13A. For this reason some scholars have wrongly thought that Jesus used parables only to reveal and that Mark, the first Gospel writer, misrepresented him (Wrede, Messianic Secret, 62; cf. Via, Parables, 9; Filson, History, 105).

74 Among Greeks, we may note that Plato wished to keep his teaching obscure to outsiders (Diog. Laert. 3.63); Pythagoras and others sometimes followed the same practice (Diog. Laert. 8.1.15; Boring et al., Commentary, 92, adds Iambl. Life of Pythag. 23.104). Even most itinerant Greek teachers spent more of their time instructing disciples indoors than lecturing publicly, although members of the general public were welcome to attend (Liefeld, “Preacher,” 205-6); unwritten teachings further provided “insiders” a superior status (cf. Botha, “Voice”); some of Epicurus’ teachings, while not secret, were penetrable only by his advanced students (Culpepper, School, 112); philosophers might also choose to communicate in metaphor obvious only to insiders (e.g., Aul. Gel. 13.5.5-12).

75 E.g., the laws of creation, concealed from most of humanity (cf. e.g., Deut 29:29; 1 En. 4:1-3; 41:1-8; 49:2; 52:2; 59:1-3; 103:2; 106:19; Wisd 7:21; 1QH 13:13-14; 1QM 14.14; 2 Bar. 48:3), or “hidden things”/“mysteries” in the righteous’ teachings, concealed from the wicked (Wisd 2:22; Ps.-Phoc. 229).

76 E.g., 1QpHab 7.4-5, 13-14; 1QH 2.13-14; 9.23-24; 11.9-10, 16-17; 12.11-13; 1QS 8.1-2, 12; 9.13, 17-19; 4Q418; cf. 1QS 5.11-12; 11.3-5; 1QM 3.9; 17.9; cf. 4 Ezra 14:45-47. Wright, People of God, 394 regards Mk 4 as essentially apocalyptic revelation in which Jesus replaces the angelic revealer; but this proposal is again too narrow in view of other forms of revelation mentioned above.

77 Jewish teaching considered too esoteric for popular consumption (in general, e.g., b. Pes. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2) includes especially accounts of the throne-chariot (tos. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a, bar; 14b, bar; Shab. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §63-4; cf. 4Qs140), and the creation (m. Hag. 2:1; tos. Hag. 2:1, 7; ARN 39A; b. Hag. 15a, bar.; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3).

78 I.e., 1 En. 37-71.

79 Cf. Vermes, Religion, 92.

80 Young, Parables, 21. Many have criticized his distinction; see e.g., Brown, Essays, 321-33; recently Snodgrass, “Prophets,” 62-64.

81 Following Arist. Rhet. 2.20; 3.4. As Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 578, after a massive analysis of Tannaitic parables, wryly observes against Jülicher, “the rabbis evidently felt no obligation to conform to Aristotelian canons defining parable or allegory. . . .” Witherington, Sage, 189 notes that even Aristotle does not truly support the distinction; “What Aristotle in fact says is that the difference between simile and metaphor is slight (mikron) — The Art of Rhetoric 3.4, 1406b)!”

82 See the history of responses to Jülicher and his critic Fiebig in Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 27-52.

83 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 119-20 (noting again Fiebig as the critic).

84 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 75.

85 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 77; cf. Young, Parables, 25. Funk’s structuralist schema for interpretation worked fairly well on the parables he chose but did not work well with Tannaitic parables (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 545); for a critique of Funk’s parable-as-metaphor view, see Stern, Parables, 11-12; cf. Scott, Parable, 46 (though Scott, Parable, 419 notes that the narrative is “primary and can never be replaced by its supposed meaning”). Against some contemporary writers, subversion is also not implicit in the parable genre itself; rabbinic parables more often reinforce conventional values (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 633-34). Witherington (among others) argues persuasively that Jesus’ parables should be examined in the context of other Jewish parables (Sages, 183-90) rather than as purely polyvalent literary entities (Sages, 147-83; cf. also Gerhardsson, “Frames”).

86 Bailey, Peasant Eyes, xxi. The danger of excessive allegorization may appear in some contemporary approaches as well (see the argument of Snodgrass, “Allegorizing”).

87 Stern, Parables, 11. Vermes, Religion, 96, for example, notes that R. Meir took four different men as examples and supplied an interpretation for each, just like Jesus in the Gospels (tos. Sot. 5:9).

88 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 601-2; also McArthur and Johnston, Parables, 140-43.

89 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 606.

90 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 636-37. Recent research on metaphor also tends to undermine Jülicher’s and Jeremias’s skepticism concerning allegory; allegorical language “is no more avoidable in the New Testament parables than it is in the Old Testament prophetic oracles” (Jones, Parables, 68).

91 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 608, 638-39; Witherington, Christology, 72; cf. Scott, Parable, 44; at greater length, see Blomberg, Interpreting Parables.

92 Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 69; Jeremias, Parables, 157-58; Safrai, “Home,” 733; Scott, Parable, 87.

93 2 Bar. 70:2.

94 Gen. Rab. 83:5.

95 E.g., 4 Ezra 4:30-32; this was essentially the end of the age (Test. Job 4:6; cf. Gr. Ezra 6:1). Cf. 1 En. 54:6; 98:3 MSS; 4 Ezra 7:36. For judgment as harvest, see also Jer 50:16; 51:33; Joel 3:13.

96 M. B.B. 4:8-9; Vermes, Religion, 107; for later rabbinic texts cf. Lachs, Commentary, 229.

97 Jeremias, Parables, 198; cf. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 139.

98 E.g., Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; cf. Jeremias, Parables, 199; Gen. Rab. 39:10. (Jewish teachers sometimes naturally used the pearl as a parable of Torah teaching; ARN 18A.)

99 The rhyming k?nâ meter suggests authenticity (see Jeremias, Theology, 27; cf. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 228); for a fuller defense of probable authenticity see Fortna, “Equal,” who also contrasts the realism of Matt 20:1-7 with the unthinkable, hence dramatic, conflict of 20:8-15.

100 Sipra Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9 (Neusner 3:354). Probably the story line is older than its occurence in this Tannaitic commentary. Some think that Matthew’s version deliberately contradicts this older parable (Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 50-51), flouting conventional values (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 633-35; cf. Young, Parables, 262-66). Jeremias cites a fourth-century parable he thinks dependent on Jesus here (Parables, 138-39); the parable speaks of laborers receiving equal wages for different tasks, but it was because some (representing a diligent rabbi who died young) had worked harder (Parables, 37; cf. Young, Parables, 261-62; Vermes, Religion, 105-6; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:70-71). Boring et al., Commentary, 120 cites Tanchuma Ki teze and Midr. Ps. 37:13.

101 Cf. m. Kil. 4:1-8:1.

102 Some argue that other Palestinian texts support the plausibility of various details of the text (e.g., the way idle workers are hired), reflecting an authentic Palestinian source (cf. Manns, “L’arrièreplan”).

103 Cf. m. Peah, passim.

104 M. Ab. 2:14. “Master of labor” in this saying probably serves a function analogous to “Master of the House” who oversees labor in 2:15, attributed to R. Tarfon in the early second century.

105 Goodman, State, 34, from Tannaitic evidence.

106 See Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 59; Horsley, Galilee, 207-9.

107 See Lewis, Life, 122-23.

108 Goodman, State, 38-39. Unemployed day laborers were common (see Jeremias, Parables, 139; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 58-59; Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 657; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 91-92). As in Matt 20:8, employers paid wages in the evening (Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14-15; Jeremias, Parables, 136; Goodman, State, 39).

109 By the second century, the demand for laborers during the harvest allowed day laborers to receive almost the wages of a skilled worker (Lewis, Life, 123; he finds three and a half drachmas in P. Oxy. 1049).

110 Lewis, Life, 208, addressing the situation in Egypt, for which we have the most documentation. Even with wages in Palestine likely being higher than in Egypt, the landowner has probably been generous to all the harvesters (cf. one farm where workers during normal season were paid only two loaves of bread per day — Lewis, Life, 69).

111 The unusual abundance of the leaven probably points to the kingdom exceeding normal human analogies (Jeremias, Parables, 147; cf. Meier, Matthew, 149; Gundry, Matthew, 268; Hagner, Matthew, 390; on the precise figures, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:423).

↑ Back to top