![\"Parable](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoHeader.png\")
A parable demonstrates the evolution of the Gospels and that \u201cInspiration\u201d cannot mean Divine Dictation.<\/h2>\n
A parable is messy business. Although at first glance it seems straightforward and simple, looks can be deceiving. The parables of Jesus come from a very different world than the post-Industrial Western Churches of which we are so familiar.<\/p>\n
In my previous post<\/a>, I shared about the messiness of simple words found in the Gospel stories\u2014spuriously familiar terms like \u201cearth,\u201d \u201cfire,\u201d and \u201csalt.\u201d These are things that at first blush appear deceptively simple and easy to grasp. When critically inspected, however, they open winding pathways into strange worlds.<\/p>\n The parables of Jesus are even messier to consider.<\/p>\n The daily Mass readings Wednesday<\/a> and Thursday<\/a> of this week have been on Matthean parables. Thursday\u2019s Gospel is the Matthean version of the Parable of the Great Banquet, Matthew 22:1-14.<\/a> It provides us with an excellent opportunity to see how the Gospels developed over time (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 126<\/a>).<\/p>\n We call Thursday\u2019s Gospel passage a parable. Except it isn\u2019t really a parable. It is now an allegory. Perhaps some definitions are in order (courtesy of Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh<\/a>):<\/p>\n Parables<\/span>\u2014<\/strong>metaphors or similes drawn from nature or common life, sometimes exaggerated to catch attention. Parables usually have one big point or punchline, the meaning of the story.<\/p>\n Allegories<\/span>\u2014<\/strong>a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. In allegories, every detail can mean something else.<\/p>\n Since the very beginning of the Body of Christ, followers of Jesus have been turning his parables into allegories. In fact, much of Church history has shown a predilection for allegory-gone-wild. <\/em>Even the most insignificant of details Jesus said or did has been thought to be loaded with a treasury of cryptic meaning.<\/p>\n A simple perusal of the Church Fathers (Syriac, Greek, and Latin) shows an addiction for allegory-gone-wild. Enter Constantine, 325 CE\u2014as life in Christ blended with all things imperial (and cruel), horrific allegories proliferated. Eventually this gave rise to pogroms and atrocities, all theologically justified in the name of Christ. More on that in a future blog.<\/p>\n But the messiness of allegorizing Jesus-stories was already at work well before the Patristics. When scholars examine the Parable of the Tenants in Mark 12:1-12<\/a>\u00a0(ca. 70 CE), they note allegorical changes had been made to an earlier version of this story. This earlier version of the story appears in the pre-Gnostic form of the Sayings Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, logion 65,<\/a> written twenty years prior to \u201cMark.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n In the early version of the story (likely reflecting the original by Jesus in the 20s?), the Parable of the Tenants was a critique of avarice and power of greedy elites gained unjustly over the starving peasants. It was a story from a Galilean peasant exposing social evils happening to peasant villagers.<\/p>\n But \u201cMark\u201d lived after Easter, decades after and somewhere far away from the Galilee. He saw Jesus as \u201cthe Beloved Son.\u201d Therefore he transformed the Landowner, originally a wicked and godless elite, into the Father, the Patron God of Israel!<\/p>\n \u201cMark\u201d also interpreted the tenants as those evildoers who murdered the prophets. He saw the slaves who came to them as persecuted Israelite prophets. So in \u201cMark\u201d this whole story changed into an allegory of the prophets of Israel martyred for the truth. It became ultimately an allegory of the Beloved Son Jesus crucified for giving the truth. \u201cMark\u201d turned Jesus\u2019 parable into an allegory about the storyteller!<\/p>\n We will return to this Parable of the Tenants in a future blog post. For now, let\u2019s look again at the Parable of the Great Banquet. \u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n Some form of this story likely existed well before \u201cMatthew\u201d<\/a> got hold of it (ca. 80s CE). He went to work editing it, tweaking it, recontextualizing it. Ultimately, he converted it into an allegory about God\u2019s judgement on the Judeans and the Temple-city Jerusalem in 70 CE. An original (and lost) form may have been spoken by Jesus who was crucified around 30 CE. Whatever the case, it wasn\u2019t originally an allegory.<\/p>\n Words only mean what they mean when and where they get used. What do you think necessarily will happen to the meaning of any language when you change its location?<\/p>\n Think of what happened when Jesus originally told his stories. Consider what would necessarily happen to these stories once they \u201chit the road.\u201d Do that, and you will fast realize that we have a huge context problem when we explore the parables of Jesus!<\/p>\n Imagine the prepaschal Jesus (the historical Jesus before his death and resurrection) in the time of his earthly ministry. Picture him in Galilean villages around 29 CE, healing fellow peasants and telling parables. The stories he told there would have a certain context, that of peasant villagers and their struggles.<\/p>\n Now imagine a later time. Following his death, Jesus appears risen to his closest followers, and he soon becomes understood as Cosmic Lord and Messiah, soon to return to bring about Theocracy in Israel. These people talk about the Risen Lord<\/em> Jesus in this way. When they remember his stories, they do so inescapably interpreting and recontextualizing them by this new context.<\/p>\n Say I was your buddy, and we spent lots of time together, and I told you some memorable jokes. You know me as your funny friend. But let\u2019s say I die rather tragically. Then imagine God empowers you to experience me risen and reveals me to you as \u201cCosmic Lord.\u201d Now when you remember that funny joke I told you, your experience of me transformed and exalted will necessarily impact how you understand my humor, right?<\/p>\n Before my mysterious transformation, I was your pal, the guy you laughed with, who told you funny stories. But now, illuminated by your life-changing experience, you have come to know me as the \u201cCosmic Lord.\u201dAll of my \u201cjokes\u201d are full of divine significance. It wasn\u2019t just a regular funny guy hanging out with you who told you gags! Rather, it was the Cosmic Lord who was disclosing the will of God to you!<\/p>\n Entering the latter half of the first century, the stories spread even further. Everyone of these new people recounted them, either from hearsay or from memory, in new and different contexts. As this expanded throughout wider geography and time, it diversified, with contexts growing exponentially. The result was Jesus\u2019 stories changed in form and meaning.<\/p>\n Scripture scholars are convinced that Jesus was a master of words. He was great at insults, one-liners, zingers, and certainly parables. But they also inform us that we do not know the original historical or geographical context of any parable of Jesus. How then can we come to understand these recontextualized stories? Our closest and best link to Jesus\u2019 original context, or the evolved contexts, is Mediterranean culture and its values.<\/p>\n According to Vatican II\u2019s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,<\/em> or Dei Verbum<\/em> (\u00a719),<\/a> the Pontifical Biblical Commission\u2019s, \u201cInstruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels<\/em>\u201d (\u00a76-9)<\/a>, and the Universal Catechism<\/em> (no. 126)<\/a>, the Gospels emerged through a three-stage process of development\u2014<\/p>\n Understanding the Gospels means understanding these stages. Quite often they all are on display in the same Gospel passage:<\/p>\n Returning to the Matthean \u201cparable\u201d of the Great Banquet<\/a>, how similar is this version of the story to the one that came directly from Jesus (assuming it did)?<\/p>\n There are three versions of the Parable of the Great Banquet. The one in Thursday\u2019s Gospel is a heavily edited, heavily allegorized version (Matthew 22:1-13<\/a>). The other two nearly parallel one another\u2014Luke 14:15-24<\/a> and the apocryphal\u00a0Sayings-Gospel of Thomas,<\/em> Logion 64<\/a>.<\/p>\n Scholars are divided on which of these versions best represents the most primitive form of the story. They are also at odds whether all three versions stem from an earlier and lost common source. Few scholars argue against F. W. Beare\u2019s opinion that this parable has become so \u201cmangled\u201d that it is impossible to recover its original form and context (See Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary<\/em>, p. 432. \u00a0Oxford: Blackwell, 1981).<\/p>\n Let\u2019s see some of those early recontextualizations\u2026<\/p>\n In the Matthean version of this story it is a \u201cking\u201d who hosts the banquet. In contrast, both Thomas<\/em> and \u201cLuke\u201d agree that it is simply a \u201ccertain man\u201d who hosts. However, given where \u201cLuke\u201d situates the parable, he probably has a wealthy leader of the Pharisees in mind as host.<\/p>\n Disagreements among all three versions show that there have been changes. Did a king throw the banquet? Or was it a non-royal who hosted? That\u2019s a huge difference! It changes the meaning. Who made these huge changes? We don\u2019t exactly know.<\/p>\n \u201cMatthew\u201d says it was a \u201cwedding feast.\u201d<\/a> Thomas<\/em> tells us it is a just \u201ca dinner.\u201d<\/a> But \u201cLuke\u201d says it was a \u201cfestive dinner<\/a>.\u201d The Lukan Jesus tells a story about a great dinner while he is attending a dinner himself<\/em> with Pharisees. All of these details color the story differently. All give different contexts to the different versions.<\/p>\n It is very sobering for 21st<\/sup> century Christians to realize that we lack all historical or geographical context of the prepaschal Jesus\u2019 stories. We don\u2019t have a clue where Jesus was when he originally told this story. Likewise we aren\u2019t sure the setting his original story had. Was it originally a wedding feast? Or was it a banquet thrown by a rich man? Or did the historical Jesus say that it was just a dinner?<\/p>\n We have three different authors pulling from the same Jesus story each with different contexts. Surely by the time each wrote they were all somewhere distant and removed from Jesus\u2019 Galilean setting.<\/p>\n \u201cMatthew\u201d and \u201cLuke\u201d both agree, contrary to Thomas<\/em>, that two invitations were given to the original guests. Evidence from papyrus texts exists of such ancient Mediterranean double invitations (See Kim, Chan-Hie, \u201cPapyrus Invitation.\u201d<\/em> JBL 94 (1975), pp. 391\u2013402).<\/p>\n Most scholars agree that \u201cMatthew\u201d never read \u201cLuke\u201d and \u201cLuke\u201d never read \u201cMatthew.\u201d Their versions of the story agree on the double invitations. Could it be they both used a more primitive version of the parable that had this detail?<\/p>\n Why does the Sayings-Gospel of Thomas<\/em>, in its pre-Gnostic form written sometime in the 50s (decades before the Synoptic Gospels), lack this detail?<\/p>\n Those initially invited give three excuses in both \u201cMatthew\u201d and \u201cLuke.\u201d Two of the excuses in \u201cMatthew\u201d appear quite similar to the first two given in \u201cLuke.\u201d But the third \u201cexcuse,\u201d murdering the servants found in \u201cMatthew\u201d is unique to that version.<\/p>\n Thomas <\/em>has\u00a0four excuses. They all deal with merchant business. Whoever has appended the saying at the end of the Thomas<\/em> version had major issues with businessmen!<\/p>\n In both Synoptic versions of this story, the host becomes furious. Both \u201cMatthew\u201d and \u201cLuke\u201d express this, although the Matthean king becomes murderously so<\/a>. Only the version in \u201cMatthew\u201d allegorizes the King\u2019s rage into rejection of Judeans. Allegory did indeed go wild with this afterwards. The long, sad history of anti-Semitic rants through Church history has mutated this Matthean version horrifically. \u00a0\u201cLuke\u201d shows the anger but without any allegorizing or razing cities.<\/p>\n Servants go to the city streets to get guests in all three versions. Therefore one scholar, Bernard Brandon Scott, argues that this detail must be part of the parable\u2019s original form (see Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus<\/em>, p. 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).<\/p>\n But who are these newly invited guests from the street? The highly allegorized \u201cMatthew\u201d says they are \u201cbad and good alike.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \u201dHowever Thomas<\/em> says different: they are anyone the servant meets.<\/p>\n Significantly and uniquely, \u201cLuke\u201d mentions two groups: first, the \u201cpoor and maimed and blind and lame\u201d from the city streets<\/a> (really should be read \u201cthe town squares\u201d), and second, those expendables and degraded persons from the \u201chighways and hedges\u201d beyond the city walls<\/a>.<\/p>\n We never really get to the actual feast in Thomas<\/em>. But both \u201cMatthew\u201d and \u201cLuke\u201d do. Both these documents explain that the banquet hall is filled. \u201cLuke\u201d stresses this more than \u201cMatthew,\u201d who merely notes it.<\/p>\n All versions disagree as to the parable\u2019s conclusion. Someone has added to the original logion in Thomas<\/em> a warning for merchants and those who trouble themselves with business (perhaps as distractions to the gnosis<\/em>?).<\/p>\n The unknown author we call \u201cLuke\u201d writes for an elite community in a Greco-Roman city. He is a rare elite who is deeply sensitive the plight of the poor and preserves the poverty of Jesus\u2019 origins as well as the Lord\u2019s concern for the poor. His version of the parable challenges his audience in this way.<\/p>\n As we read in yesterday\u2019s Gospel passage, the king in \u201cMatthew\u201d sees a guest lacking his wedding garment<\/a>. Readers should understand that such a king would provide the proper garments for nonelites coming to the banquet. This nonelite guest has refused to dress himself with the provided garment and therefore has shamed the king and host, whom he should honor.<\/p>\n The Matthean version (yesterday\u2019s Gospel) was directed against Jesus\u2019 opponents, the Jerusalem elite, so the result in \u201cMatthew\u201d is predictable<\/a>. Servants bind hand and foot the oddly dressed guest. On orders from the king, the servants toss helpless man to the dreaded \u201coutside.\u201d Scholars see this an allegorizing demanded by the Matthean way of looking at history, the destruction of Jerusalem which rejected messiah Jesus.<\/p>\n Whenever you read in the Gospels introductory<\/a> and concluding statements<\/a> on the parables of Jesus, rest assured that you are reading something added at a later stage. Jesus said none of these in his original stories (Stage One of Gospel Development<\/a>). Almost every New Testament scholar agrees that all introductions and conclusions are later inventions.<\/p>\n When you read the Parable of the Great Banquet in \u201cMatthew\u201d the introduction given is, \u201cJesus again in reply spoke to them in parables\u2026\u201d (Matthew 22:1<\/a>). Those words \u201cagain in reply\u201d give a Matthean context to the following story, one shaped by the Matthean narrative surrounding it.<\/p>\n Scholars have scrutinized the document called \u201cMatthew<\/a>.\u201d It became obvious that what the unknown author we call \u201cMatthew\u201d did was assemble a large collection of Jesus\u2019 parables he had acquired from a pre-exiting written source<\/a>. These probably existed in \u201cSayings Gospels\u201d such as \u201cQ<\/a>\u201d and the original form of \u201cThomas<\/a>.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Then, in order to plug them into his narrative skeleton, \u201cMatthew\u201d invents little \u201cintroductory statements\u201d for these (e.g., \u201cJesus said\u2026). Then he inserted these parables successively. This was the pattern \u201cMatthew\u201d followed. A dead-giveaway for this is that other Gospels showcase the same parables in ways very different from the Matthean arrangement.<\/p>\n Besides all this, \u201cMatthew\u201d also introduces Jesus\u2019 parables in a unique manner<\/a>. \u201cMatthew\u201d attaches the \u00a0phrase, \u201cThe Kingdom of sky vault may be compared to\u2026\u201d as an introduction to many of the parables, including the Matthean Parable of the Great Banquet (Matthew 22:2<\/a>). This curious intro is nowhere to be found in any other Gospel besides \u201cMatthew.\u201d<\/p>\n Notice that this introductory phrase is nowhere to be found in both the Lukan<\/a> and Thomas<\/em><\/a> versions of this parable? This phrase \u201cThe Kingdom of sky vault may be compared to\u2026\u201d is what scholars call a \u201cMatthewism\u201d\u2014an idea particular to the Matthean community and its Gospel, not to be found in any other Gospel, and not used by the prepaschal Jesus (Stage One of Gospel Development<\/a>).<\/p>\n Now watch what happens when you attach this phrase to the beginning of the Parable of the Great Banquet: \u201cThe Kingdom of sky vault may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son<\/a>\u2026\u201d See what happened there? Automatically \u201cking\u201d becomes an analogue for God. So in the Matthean version, God hosts the banquet!<\/p>\n But this Matthewism was definitely not on the lips of Jesus when he told the story in its original form<\/a>! So, was Jesus talking about God or about a wealthy man who throws a banquet? Jesus probably wasn\u2019t talking about God in the original story, at least not being the host. What if he was talking about a ruthless, greedy elite?<\/p>\n Try this simple exercise: examine some of Matthean parables where stuck onto \u201cThe Kingdom of sky vault may be compared to\u2026\u201dand then go find the same parable other Gospels. What should get clarified fast is that the character in the story (its earliest version) could not be a stand-in for the God of Israel. Removing the Matthean introduction results in dropping the idea that this host is an analogue for God.<\/p>\n In the Parable of the Great Banquet, different writers attached radically different concluding statements, This is another tell-tale sign that reveals to scholars that none of these originated on the mouth of Jesus. These statements \u201csum up\u201d in the minds of the later authors the point and meaning of the parable (to them!).<\/p>\n Reading \u201cLuke,\u201d his conclusion to this parable is the host declaring, \u201cI tell you none of those invited will taste my dinner<\/a>.\u201d The Matthean version is radically different\u2014\u201cFor many are called, but few are chosen.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n The author we call \u201cMatthew\u201d seems to be in love with this closer, \u201cFor many are called, but few are chosen.\u201d He uses it several times, attaching it to the end of different parables. While other Synoptic Gospels also employ this concluding statement, interestingly, they never do with this story<\/em>. According to Richard Rohrbaugh, \u201cMatthew\u201d used it repeatedly like an all-purpose punchline.<\/p>\n All the evidence demonstrates that the unknown writers of the Gospels (Stage Three) invented the intros and concluding punchlines. Critical study of the Gospels shows these were unknown to the prepaschal Jesus (Stage One). Only the psychological condition called fundamentalism seems impervious to this evidence. If we drop his punchline, the meaning of the story changes.<\/p>\n Again when these stories moved their meaning necessarily changed. Western interlinears, dictionaries of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, and concordances, cannot be of any help without also knowing the Mediterranean cultural world from which the Gospels and their parables come. Reading the Bible is an experience of cross-cultural communication, and Mediterranean culture is the first interpretation of Scripture.<\/p>\n But meaning was lost and gained a long time before post-Industrial Western Bible readers arrived. Galilean peasants were illiterate. Stage One of the Gospel Tradition and the First Wave of the Jesus Movement was illiterate. Only two percent of Jesus\u2019 society were able to read and write.<\/p>\n Once we reach the literate stage of the Jesus Tradition, we have crossed the immense social chasm from Galilean peasantry into those with elite social status<\/em>. Interpreting Jesus, the perspective of Mediterranean elites would differ from his earlier peasant contemporaries.<\/p>\n And different kinds of crises abounded at different times throughout the three stages of Gospel development. The social reality of those Galilean day laborers in the Jesus Movement was not the same as in the Jesus groups of Mediterranean Israelite emigres formed by Paul. And the circumstances and crises of the Markan Jesus group were not those of Paul\u2019s twenty years earlier.<\/p>\n Early Jesus Groups did not understand Jesus\u2019 parables adequately. Outside of Jesus\u2019 starving peasant context, the inspired and anonymous Evangelists\u2014elites all\u2014were often unfamiliar with peasant life in the Galilee of decades earlier. Despite the names tradition tags these writers with, none of them had known the earthly Jesus. But they labored to pass on the words of the Master and find relevance and meaning within them.<\/p>\n These authors were far-removed from the world of Jesus. They lived far later than the First Wave of the Jesus Movement. Clueless as to the original meaning of the stories, distant from their original context, they assigned every detail they could find symbolic value for something else. Consequently, they turned parables into allegories.<\/p>\n Catholic Christians believe that the canonical Gospels (not Thomas<\/em> in any form) are inspired. But if our faith truly is consonant with reason<\/a>, we cannot mean by \u201cinspiration\u201d that \u201cGod dictated the sacred texts.\u201d<\/p>\n It is true that we do not hold early texts like \u201cThomas<\/em>\u201d and hypothetical \u201cQ\u201d and \u201cM\u201d and \u201cL\u201d to be inspired. But we cannot pretend to be blind to the fossils of these lost writings seen buried in the Gospels we do reverence and acknowledge. We Catholics living today cannot afford to be like the fabled Aristotelian priests who refused to peer through Galileo\u2019s telescope.<\/p>\n We hold that the Gospels are true. But that does not mean we believe their every detail to be factual, 21st<\/sup> century historiographical truth.<\/a>\u00a0It also does not mean we must believe that every story and word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is something the Jesus of history actually said.<\/p>\n From the very beginning we see the messy struggle to keep the Master\u2019s words going. This should give us hope. Wary of the fundamentalistic idol of the false god certitude, we, like our ancestors in the Faith, must grapple.<\/p>\n Inspiration is a messy business. So is hope.<\/p>\nMaking Distinctions <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Allegory-Gone-Wild<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Parable](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoThomasMarkCompare.jpg\")
The Meaning Keeps Changing<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Parable:](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoGospelDates.jpg\")
![\"Parable](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoHOT.jpg\")
The Parable Moved, the Meaning Changed<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Jesus'](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoSocialJesus01.jpg.png\")
A Funny Comparisson<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Parable:](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoGospelDatesStages.jpg\")
Three Stages of Gospel Development<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
![Parable: Three Stages at work in \"Luke\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoStagesLuke.jpg\")
Origins of the Parable\u2014<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Who is the Host? <\/strong><\/h2>\n
What Was the Occasion of the Banquet?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Original Invitation\/s<\/strong><\/h2>\n
What are the Excuses?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Host Reacts!<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Final Invitations Go Out<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Place of the Feast<\/strong><\/h2>\n
How Does the Story End?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"Parable](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoHonor.jpg\")
Introductions & Conclusions<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u201cThe Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Something Eye-Opening to Try<\/h2>\n
Matthew\u2019s Favorite Punchlines<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\nWhy All the Recontextualizing?<\/strong><\/h2>\n![\"Parable:](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/1251\/2019\/08\/BlogTwoWaves.jpg\")
Uncrossable Social Barriers, Crossed <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Some Takeaways and Hope<\/strong><\/h2>\n