^{page 339 note 1} I do not share the opinion that a text must be a written presentation.

^{page 340 note 1} See in Mark 4 the items between the summary statements in vv. 2 and 33–4 respectively. Note also how the word παραβολή is used in Mark, 3. 23;Google Scholar 7. 17 par.; and Luke, 4. 23;Google Scholar 5. 36.

^{page 340 note 2} See e.g. Ad Herennium, 4.xlv.58–xlix.63Google Scholar, Quintilianus, Inst. orat. 5.x.1 & 23, VI.iii. 59, and VIII.iii.72–78;Google Scholar cf. also Aristotle, , Rhet. 2.xx.4.Google Scholar In Ad Her. 4.xlv.59Google Scholar it is said of the similitudo(= παραβολή), Ea sumitur aut ornandi causa aut probandi aut apertius dicendi aut ante oculis ponendi. This would be a very good description of numerous narrative meshalim but it does not cover all of them, even less the aphoristic meshalim.

^{page 340 note 3} See Eissfeldt, O., Der Maschal im Alten Testament (BZAW 24; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1913) 21–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. also Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1910) 1. 33–40.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} In addition to the dictionaries, see Jeremias, Joachim, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 16–17Google Scholar, and the works mentioned below, note 1, page 343.

^{page 340 note 5} A mashal could also be a remarkable man, phenomenon, action or occurrence.

^{page 341 note 1} The Aramaic mathlā' cannot compete. Of course, Jewish teachers formulated meshalim even in Aramaic, but it is striking that practically all the extant narrative meshalim in the rabbinic literature are in Hebrew (especially the narrative frame), not in Aramaic. (Moreover, they stem almost always from Palestine, not from Babylonia.) Cf. on this, most recently, Flusser, D., Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Judaica et Christiana 4, Teil 1; Bern/Frankfurt am Main/Las Vegas: P. Lang, 1981) 18.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 2} Riesner, R. counts 247 such units in his book Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2.R,7; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984) 392–3.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 3} In the second edition of his book (n. 2) Riesner makes a distinction between ‘Lehrsummarien’ and ‘Besinnungstexte’, Ibid.. I have also considered other designations. One possibility could be a distinction between ‘brief meshalim’ and ‘long meshalim’, but this is not very meaningful. Then one keeps brief parables together with brief logia and long parables with compound logia. A narrative mashal may be, as we know, only one verse long, and an aphoristic one several verses long. Another possibility is the distinction between ‘simple meshalim’ and ‘developed meshalim’, but this alternative has the same weakness.

^{page 342 note 1} Cf. the instructive discussion in Crossan, J. D., In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983) 3–36Google Scholar, and also Robbins, V. K., ‘Picking up the Fragments’, Forum 1, 2 (1985, 31–64) 32–6.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} On the rabbinic meshalim, see, in addition to P. Fiebig's well known works, Ziegler, I., Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch (Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt, 1903)Google Scholar, Feldman, A., The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis (2nd ed.; Cambridge: University Press, 1927)Google Scholar, Pautrel, R., ‘Les canons du mashal rabbinique’, RSR 26 (1936) 5–45Google Scholar, Flusser, , Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse (n. 1, page 341)Google Scholar, and Thoma, C. and Lauer, S., Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen (Judaica et Christiana 10; Teil 1: Pesiqtā deRav Kahanā (Pesk); Bern/Frankfurt am Main/Las Vegas: P. Lang, 1986).Google Scholar On the meshalim in the so-called intertestamental literature, see Hammershaimb, E., ‘Om lignelser og billedtaler i de gammeltestament lige Pseudepigrafer’, SEA 40 (1975) 36–65.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} Only one of the five OT meshalim to be discussed here (e) is in its context actually called mashal. This has no importance; the broad use of the word mashal is well attested elsewhere. The fact that this text is also called a ‘riddle’ (hīdāh) in the same verse, illustrates the inclusive character of the term mashal. On the OT meshalim, see the book by Eissfeldt, , mentioned above n. 3, page 340Google Scholar, and Pirot, J., ‘Le “mâšâl” dans l'Ancien Testament’, RSR 37 (1950) 565–80Google Scholar, Herbert, A. S., ‘The “Parable” (Māšāl) in the Old Testament’, SJT 7 (1954) 180–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Hempel, J., ‘Jahwegleichnisse der israelitischen Propheten’, Apoxysmata (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1961) 1–29Google Scholar, Drury, J., ‘Origins of Mark's Parables’, Ways of Reading the Bible (ed. Wadsworth, M.; Brighton Sussex: Harvester, 1981, 171–89) 174–83Google Scholar, and Westermann, C., Vergleiche und Gleichnisse im Alten und Neuen Testament (CTM, R. A, Bd 14; Stuttgart: Calver, 1984).Google ScholarMacartney, C. E., The Parables of the Old Testament (2nd ed.; 1955) was not available to me.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} N.B. prov 1.1; 10.1; (22.17) 24.23; 25.1; 30.1; 31.1.

^{page 343 note 3} I am first of all thinking of 2 Sam, 14. 5–7;Google Scholar Prov 9. 1–6, 13–18; Isa 28. 23–9; Ezek 15. 1–18; 16. 1–58; 19.2–9, 10–14; 23.1–29; and 24.3–14.

^{page 343 note 4} Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) 47–69, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Mark: The Sower (4. 1–9, 10–20)Google Scholar, The Seed Growing Secretly (4. 26–9), The Mustard Seed (4. 30–2), The Wicked Husbandmen (12. 1–12), and The Watchful Servants (13. 32–7). Matthew: The Two Builders (7. 24–7)Google Scholar, The Playing Children (11. 16–19), The Sower (13. 1–9, 10–23), The Tares (13. 24–30, 36–43), The Mustard Seed (13. 31–2), The Leaven (13. 33), The Hidden Treasure (13. 44), The Pearl of Great Price (13. 45–6), The Dragnet (13. 47–50), The Lost Sheep (18. 10–14), The Unmerciful Servant (18. 21–35), The Labourers in the Vineyard (20. 1–16), The Two Sons (21. 28–32), The Wicked Husbandmen (21. 33–44), The Great Feast (22. 1–10), The Wedding Garment (22. 11–14), The Burglar (24. 42–4), The Servant in Authority (24. 45–51), The Ten Virgins (25. 1–13), The Talents (25. 14–30), and The Last Judgement (25. 31–46). The last-mentioned text is certainly not a parable, but it is a mashal! Luke: The Two Builders (6. 46–9)Google Scholar, The Playing Children (7. 31–5), The Two Debtors (7. 36–50), The Sower (8. 4–8, 9–15), The Good Samaritan (10. 25–37), The Friend at Midnight (11. 5–10), The Rich Fool (12. 13–21), The Watchful Servants (12. 35–8), The Burglar (12. 39–40), The Servant in Authority (12. 41–6), The Defendant (12. 58–9), The Barren Fig Tree (13. 6–9), The Mustard Seed (13. 18–19), The Leaven (13. 20–1), The Closed Door (13. 24–30), The Wedding Guests (14. 7–11), The Great Feast (14. 15–24), The Tower Builder (14. 25–30), The Warring King (14. 31–3), The Lost Sheep (15. 1–7), The Lost Coin (15. 8–10), The Prodigal Son (15. 11–32), The Unjust Steward (16. 1–13), The Rich Man and Lazarus (16. 19–31), The Servant's Reward (17. 7–10), The Unjust Judge (18. 1–8), The Pharisee and the Publican (18. 9–14), The Pounds (19. 11–27), and The Wicked Husbandmen (20. 9–19). The verse figures include even the accessories (see below).

^{page 344 note 2} All three synoptics have The Sower, The Mustard Seed, and The Wicked Husbandmen. In addition, Matthew and Luke both have The Two Builders, The Children, The Leaven, The Lost Sheep, The Great Feast, The Burglar, The Servant in Authority, and, possibly also The Talents/Pounds; for my part I consider the last-mentioned two too unlike each other for being counted identical. Mark and Luke have another in common, The Watchful Servants. Peculiar to Mark are The Seed Growing Secretly, to Matthew The Tares, The Treasure, The Pearl, The Dragnet, The Unmerciful Servant, The Labourers in the Vine-yard, The Two Sons, The Wedding Garment, The Ten Virgins, The Last Judgement, and, in my opinion, The Talents. Peculiar to Luke are The Two Debtors, The Good Samaritan, The Friend at Midnight, The Rich Fool, The Defendant (the Matthean, ‘parallel’, 5. 25–6Google Scholar, is not a narrative mashal), The Barren Fig Tree, The Closed Door, The Wedding Guests, The Tower Builder, The Warring King, The Lost Coin, The Prodigal Son, The Unjust Steward, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Servant's Reward, The Unjust Judge, The Pharisee and the Publican, and, in my opinion, The Pounds.

^{page 344 note 3} With my way of working this time I do not subtract synoptic parallels; my figures are gross-figures.

^{page 346 note 1} ‘Gods and men’ are mentioned in the first mashal (a) and ‘much people’ in the last (e) but only in phrases, not as actors in the narrative.

^{page 346 note 2} I do not count the exhortatory saying about The Budding Fig Tree (Mark, 13. 28–9 parr.) as a narrative mashal.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 3} See further my article ‘The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII’, NTS 19 (1972/1973, 16–37) 20–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 346 note 4} See ‘The Seven Parables’ (n. 3 above) 21–3.

^{page 347 note 1} See my article ‘The Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation’, NTS 14 (1967/1968) 165–93.Google Scholar Goulder sees a significant difference between the Marcan version of the mashal of the Mustard Seed and the two other versions; in Mark the one who sows the seed is not mentioned, Midrash (n. 4, page 343) 51–3.Google Scholar I do not think, however, that there is a real difference here; the sowing of the mustard seed is hardly meant as a simple process of nature in Mark. We may compare the fact that no human being is mentioned in the mashal of the Dragnet (Matt, 13. 47–50);Google Scholar this does not make fishing with a net into a process of nature.

^{page 347 note 2} Goulder, , Midrash (n. 4, page 343) 51–3Google Scholar, makes the difference between the OT ‘parables’ and those in Matthew and Luke too great. To me Goulder's theses are most suggestive but I cannot accept his absolutizing of the differences in the material; these are almost pervasively relative. Therefore neither can I subscribe to Goulder's main thesis, that Matthew and Luke simply created themselves the ‘parables’ peculiar to them. (See also Goulder's, article ‘Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels’, JTS NS 19, 1968, 51–69.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar In my opinion the material shows that the narrative meshalim have been re-worked, re-drafted and complemented in different ways in the three branches of the synoptic tradition, but they also very clearly reveal a common basic substratum. Cf., however, the conclusion of the present article.

^{page 347 note 3} It is said about Solomon in 1 Kings 5. 13–14 MT (RSV 4. 33–4) that he ‘uttered three thousand meshalim, and his songs numbered a thousand and five’, and further that ‘he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish’. The last statement could be interpreted as a teaching in the ‘natural science’ of the time, but that is presumably incorrect. In its context it only seems to characterize the pictorial material of his meshalim and songs (thus also Josephus, , Ant. 8.44Google Scholar, who, however, presents Solomon as a nature philosopher at the same time; the elaboration in Wis 7. 1–22 is hellenized). And the examples of narrative meshalim with motifs from nature we have examined here do not reveal any proper interest in nature. According to rabbinic tradition, R. Meir, who was a famous mōshēl, had at his disposal 300 fox fables (299 of them have been lost, however), b Sanh 38b.

^{page 348 note 1} The first mashal (a) is only preceded by a call to attention and the fourth one (d) by a title-like declaration. I disregard the narrative frames.

^{page 348 note 2} In two cases one might believe that the mashal is, in fact, the central message. Isaiah begins his mashal (d) with the declaration that he will now sing a love song concerning his friend's vineyard, and Ezekiel's mashal (e) is preceded by a notice to the effect that the prophet received God's command to speak a mashal to the house of Israel. But in neither case is the mashal treated as a basic text, to be interpreted and applied; it is not the focal point of the speech which follows. Even here the mashal could be dispensed with.

^{page 348 note 3} Such details as the express identification of the main object in the mashal (b and d), the use of a phrase from the mashal in the plain part of the speech (a; cf. vv. 15 and 20 in Judges 9) or the taking up again and bringing forward of the pictorial narrative a bit longer (e; vv. 22–4 in Ezek 17) do not turn the presentation into a proper exposition of the text of the mashal. Nor does the fact that the text en clair is very brief in the fourth case (d), Isa 5. 7–10.

^{page 349 note 1} I have tried to describe the relation between the mashal of the Sower and the six following ones in Matthew 13 in my article ‘The Seven Parables’ (n. 3, page 346).

^{page 349 note 2} Luke, 16. 1–7Google Scholar is a borderline case.

^{page 349 note 3} Mark, 4. 30–2; 13. 33–7;Google ScholarMatt, 7. 24–7 par.;Google Scholar 11. 16–19 par.; 13. 47–50;18.23–35; 20. 1–16; 21. 33–44; 22. 11–14; 25. 31–46; Luke, 6. 46–9;Google Scholar 7. 31–5; 12. 58–9; 13. 20–1; 14. 16–24; 16. 19–31; 17. 7–10, and 19. 11–27.

^{page 350 note 1} It seems reasonable to think that the synoptic vineyard-parables have been created with raw material from the song of the Vineyard in Isa 5; see Mark, 12. 1–12 parr.;Google ScholarMatt, 20. 1–16;Google Scholar 21. 28–32; cf. also Luke, 13. 6–9.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 2} Secondary connective words (e.g. ον in Luke, 13. 18)Google Scholar cannot obscure this fact.

^{page 350 note 3} See Luke 14.7; 15.1–3; 18.1, 9;19.11.

^{page 351 note 1} ‘The Seven Parables’ (n. 3, page 346) 33–4. Concerning Ezekiel cf. Drury, , ‘Origins’ (n. 1, page 343) 178–9.Google Scholar I thank L. Houlden for the reference to Drury's article and M. Goulder for making me consider Ezekiel's distinctiveness.

^{page 351 note 2} In my opinion these accessories are to be divided into 11 types; see my article ‘The Narrative Meshalim in the Old Testament and in the Synoptic Gospels’, in a forthcoming Festschrift. I disregard general associations with the context.

^{page 351 note 3} In cases where the mashal starts with an introductory formula (e.g. ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is like …’) I draw the dividing line just after this formula.

^{page 352 note 1} Additionally, the speaker in this case (e) returns to his picture at the end of his speech when he states what Yahweh is going to do now (Ezek 17. 22–4).

^{page 352 note 2} The phrase, ‘Then the word of the Lord came to me …’, after the fifth mashal (e) is not a transitional formula.

^{page 352 note 3} Mark: The Sower, and The Wicked Husbandmen; Matthew: The Sower, The Wicked Husbandmen, The Wedding Garment, and The Last Judgement; Luke: The Two Debtors, The Sower, The Good Samaritan, The Rich Fool, The Barren Fig Tree, The Great Feast, The Prodigal Son, The Unjust Steward, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Pharisee and the Publican, The Unjust Judge, The Pounds, and The Wicked Husbandmen.

^{page 352 note 4} Mark: The Sower, The Mustard Seed, and The Watchful Servants (only ώς); Matthew: The Two Builders, The Children, The Tares, The Mustard Seed, The Leaven, The Treasure, The Pearl, The Dragnet, The Unmerciful Servant, The Labourers in the Vine-yard, The Great Feast, The Ten Virgins, and The Talents (only ὥσπερ); Luke: The Two Builders, The Children, The Watchful Servants, The Mustard Seed, and The Leaven.

^{page 352 note 5} Matthew: The Lost Sheep, The Two Sons, The Burglar, and The Servant in Authority; Luke: The Friend at Midnight, The Burglar, The Servant in Authority, The Defendant, The Closed Door, The Wedding Guests, The Tower Builder, The Warring King, The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Servant's Reward.

^{page 353 note 1} Mark: The Wicked Husbandmen; Matthew: The Wicked Husbandmen, and The Servant in Authority; Luke: The Watchful Servants, The Servant in Authority, The Defendant, The Closed Door, The Pharisee and the Publican, and The Wicked Husbandmen.

^{page 353 note 2} A question at the end does not have the same effect upon the mashal itself, Matt, 21. 28–32Google Scholar (The Two Sons); 21. 33–44 (The Wicked Husbandmen); Luke, 7. 36–50Google Scholar (The Two Debtors); 10. 25–37 (The Good Samaritan); and 18. 1–8 (The Unjust Judge).

^{page 353 note 3} Goulder, , Midrash (n. 4, page 343) 48–51.Google Scholar In a letter (31.8.1987) Goulder clarifies his distinction: ‘No parable is worth telling if it is not expected to have some impact on the listener's attitudes … The distinction I am making is between indicative parables which describe the action of God or Christ, and expect this general kind of response (“repent”); and the imperative parable where the action of the story is a specific response of the human being.’ In that case we discuss somewhat different things.

^{page 353 note 4} Comparable material shows that a presentation can be illuminating to the right kind of listeners and at the same time obscure to others or even concealing from them. Therefore the idea expressed in Mark, 4. 10–12Google Scholar is not necessarily in conflict with the fact that the narrative meshalim are intended to illuminate. Cf. John, 10. 1–5, 6.Google Scholar See also John, 16. 25–30.Google Scholar The Johannine view of Jesus' παροιμίαι needs a special discussion.

^{page 354 note 1} The 13 exceptions are: Mark: The Watchful Servants; Matthew: The Burglar, The Servant in Authority, and The Ten Virgins; Luke: The Good Samaritan, The Friend at Midnight, The Watchful Servants, The Burglar, The Defendant, The Closed Door, The Wedding Guests, The Unjust Steward, and The Servant's Reward.

^{page 354 note 2} Matthew: The Burglar, and The Ten Virgins; Luke: The Good Samaritan, The Friend at Midnight, The Burglar, The Unjust Steward, and The Servant's Reward.

^{page 355 note 1} The current debate is, as we all know, lively and the literature vast. Let me just mention the collection of representative articles edited by Harnisch, W., Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung im Horizont der Hermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft (WF 275; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982)Google Scholar, and the American journals Semeia and Forum. A good introduction to the problems is Harnisch, , Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu (Uni-T 1343; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985).Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} For an acute analysis of current theories about metaphor and parable, see Kjärgaard, M. Stiller, Metaphor and Parable. A Systematic Analysis of the Specific Structure and Cognitive Function of the Synoptic Similes and Parables qua Metaphors (ATD 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986).Google Scholar I cannot, however, go the whole way with the author.

^{page 356 note 1} E.g. Matt, 18. 14,35;Google Scholar 20.16; 21. 31, 43;22. 14;24. 44;25. 13; Luke, 12.40, 59;Google Scholar 14. 11,24; 15.7; 18. 14b.

^{page 356 note 2} I do not think that ‘the Gnostic Library’ or other recent discoveries will give us much help in the questions of the historical Jesus or the earliest phases of the gospel tradition.

^{page 357 note 1} ‘Matthew gives us important glimpses into how at least some circles in early Christianity apprehended the mystery of ‘understanding’ (συνιέναι), 13. 10–23; 51–2; 16. 12; and 17. 13. Cf. Bornkamm, G., Barth, G., and Held, H. J., Ueberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (WMANT 1; 4th ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1965) 99–104 (Barth).Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 2} The idea of divine hardening in the form it takes in Mark, 4. 10–12Google Scholar is, of course, not pertinent in this connection, nor the Marcan informative notes that even the disciples of Jesus were slow to understand, e.g. 6. 62; 8. 17, 21. Nothing here points to any kind of a general application.

^{page 357 note 3} Cf. e.g. Jeremias, , Die Gleichnisse (n. 4, page 340) 19–114.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 1} Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) 161–79Google Scholar and Arens, E., Die НΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition (OBO 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 1} Of course, we must consider the question to what extent exactly the most direct and clear statements in our material reflect the interpretative activity of early Christianity.

^{page 359 note 2} According to Jeremias, , Die Gleichnisse (n. 4, page 340) 17–18 and 29–39Google Scholar, Jesus himself widely used his ‘parables’ as weapons for attack and defence against opponents; the early Church, on its side, reinterpreted them for use as texts for believers. For my part I cannot see that many narrative meshalim would have been constructed as weapons against opponents. Nor do I think that the audiences of Jesus were primarily hostile when they listened to his teaching. The need of reinterpretation within the Church was therefore hardly a need of radical re-drafting.

^{page 359 note 3} Solely the narrative meshalim in the parable chapter deal with mysteries of the Kingdom (Mark: τò μυστήριον; Matthew & Luke: τ μυστήρια). The other ones treat more general, public aspects. The distinctiveness of the seven great meshalim in Matthew 13 is apparent even in the Bildhälfte. The picture shows something which is hidden under a surface: down in the earth, under the surface of sea, in the dough, and behind the poker-face of an oriental merchant. See ‘The Seven Parables’ (n. 3, page 346) 19–25.

^{page 360 note 1} Naturally even the narrative tradition must be considered.

^{page 360 note 2} N.B., however, the remark below, n. 1, page 362.

^{page 360 note 3} If there were any exception, it would be the mashal of the Good Samaritan, but I do not think that this text is just a simple Beispielerzählung.

^{page 361 note 1} Mark: The Seed Growing Secretly, and The Mustard Seed; Luke: The Mustard Seed, and the Leaven; Matthew: The Tares, The Mustard Seed, The Leaven, The Treasure, The Pearl, The Dragnet, The Unmerciful Servant, The Labourers in the Vineyard, The Great Feast, The Ten Virgins, The Last Judgement (within the narrative body), The Sower (in the interpretation), and The Two Sons (in the application).

^{page 362 note 1} That the narrative meshalim in the gospels even have ethical implications in many cases and also consequences for social, economic, and political issues, is another matter.