Parable

PARABLE (Parabolē from paraballō "to place near, compare, liken"). - A literary genre not unknown to Greek and Roman authors (cf. Aristotle, Rhetoricorum libri, II, 20; Cicero, De inventione, I, 30; Epist. ad Lucil., 59,6; Quintilian, Institutiones orat., VIII, 3), used by rabbinic writers and in an unsurpassable manner by Jesus Christ in his teaching. It consists of a comparison or simile, which extends throughout a short narrative, drawn from an ordinary event in order to inculcate a moral or spiritual truth. It is distinguished from a pure example by its literary form, hinged on the comparison, and often by its length.

The subject of the comparison or of the developed image, in itself very plausible, is usually drawn from human life; in the fable, on the other hand, preference is given to the fantastic representation of the animal or plant kingdom. The p. is distinguished from allegory in that the latter is based on a metaphor and in that it follows different principles in interpretation. In fact, whereas in a perfect allegory every metaphorical element has its counterpart in the moral or ideal world, in the pure p. only the formal object or central idea illuminated in the narrative constitutes the doctrinal element to be referred to a higher order. Often, however, in practice the distinction between the two genres is not simple, since the presence of allegorical elements in a p. and of purely supplementary or ornamental particulars in an allegory is frequent. In that case, in the interpretation of the p. one must take into account these special teachings inherent in the allegorical parts, while one must disregard whatever is merely a supplementary touch in the allegory.

The origin of the biblical p. is found in a simpler literary genre, used in the Old Testament, particularly in the sapiential books, namely in the mōšēl, generally rendered by παραβολή in Greek. Usually this term indicated a brief maxim, suited to expressing a general truth effectively. It presents itself as a popular proverb and not rarely in the form of a comparison. But true p. do not appear in the Old Testament, although allegories with parabolic elements are not lacking. Such a genre is likewise rare in profane literature. Comparing it with the use made of it by the rabbis, all acknowledge that the most beautiful p. are read in the Synoptic Gospels, often extolled as true "miracles," for literary refinement and instructive force. Already Roman rhetoricians (cf. Cicero, De oratore, III, 38; Quintilian, op. cit., VIII, 3, 15) recognize in the metaphorical language of a simile the characteristic of an effective means for conferring beauty and attractiveness on a literary composition, as well as for rendering moral teaching more accessible and perspicuous.

An important question is still debated concerning the purpose proposed by Jesus in his abundant use of the p. From the different interpretation of a famous text (Mt. 13, 10-15; cf. Mk. 4, 10-12; Lk. 8, 9 ff.) arises either the theory of a vindictive justice or that of mercy. Some affirm that Jesus resorted to such language in order to punish, with a moral and intellectual blindness caused by the obscurity or difficulty of the p., the guilty unbelief of the Jews: he would have had in view the hardening of their heart, foretold by Is. 6, 9 ff.; the light, offered under the veil of metaphorical language, would have produced an ever greater blinding in ill-disposed minds; thus express not a few Catholic exegetes (Maldonatus, Knabenbauer, Fonck, Durand, Skrinjar, etc.). This interpretation rests on the most probable exegesis of the text of Isaiah, but seems little consonant with the intrinsic character of the p., which aims at a simplification of an abstruse concept, and with the whole mission of Jesus: for this reason M.-J. Lagrange, F. Prat, J. Huby, J.-M. Vosté, U. Holzmeister, H. Höpfl, L. Pirot, etc., see in the p. a means dictated by goodness and pedagogical insight, to enlighten the minds of the listeners. The obscurity of the expression would be occasioned by the difficulty of the idea to be inculcated and by the desire to stimulate all the more the curiosity of those who were listening.

Jesus was always ready to explain his p. to docile spirits desirous of learning (cf. Mt. 13, 36 ff.; Mk. 4, 10 ff.). He would willingly have adopted the same method with everyone, but because of the indifference of the crowd the p., a most opportune means for illustrating a truth, produced in practice a culpable intellectual blinding through its inevitable obscurity. What was a manifestation of divine goodness and mercy, not of a punishing or vindictive will, only through the fault of the listeners is transformed into an occasion of spiritual darkness and of sin. It is a question of a divine grace rejected by a perverse will. This is the interpretation dictated by the whole historical context of the Gospels, even if it encounters no slight difficulties in the text cited above.

Angelo Penna