Parables and Fables As Distinctive Jewish Literary Genres: The Origins and Structure of Indirect Speech About God 9780773425989, 9780773411432

Citation preview

PARABLES AND FABLES AS DISTINCTIVE JEW ISH L ITERARY GENRES

PARABLES AND FABLES AS DISTINCTIVE JEWISH LITERARY GENRES

The Origins and Structure of Indirect Speech About God

Mishael M. Caspi and

John T. Greene With a Foreword by

J. Harold Ellens

The Edwin Mellen Press LewistonoQueenstonoLampeter

Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Caspi, Mishael, 1932Parables and fables as distinctive Jewish literary genres : the origins and structure of indirect speech about God I Mishael M. Caspi and John T. Greene; with a foreword by J. Harold Ellens. p.em. Includes bibliographical references and Index. ISBN-13: 978-O-7734-2S98-9 (hardcover) ISBN-lO: 0-7734-2598-S (hardcover) 1. Bible-Parables. 2. Nmation in the Bible. 3. God in literature. 4. Jesus Christ-Parables. S. Parables in rabbinical literature. 6. Jewish parables. 7. Jewish legends. 8. Fables. 9. Bible-Criticism, interpretation, etc. 10. Rabbinical literature-History and criticism. I. Greene, John T. II. Title. BS680.P3C372012 296.1'9-dc23 20110448SS

horsserie. A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Front cover: [2010] Yutan. Shepherd: The shepherd rescues the lost sheep. Biblical parable. Image from Bigstock.com Co-author photo: John T. Greene, courtesy of Consumer Programs Incorporated, d/b/a PictureMel™ Portrait Studios ("CPl")

Copyright 0

2011 Mishael M. Caspi and John T. Greene

All rights reserved. For information contact The Edwin Mellen Press Box4S0 Lewiston, New York USA 14092-04S0

The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS lLO

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT

Printed in the United States of America

In Memory of My Brother Daniel and My Colleague-Mentor Professor Noel Q. King (M.M. Caspi)

In Memory of my Brothers Charles and Nolan, Jr., My Sister Janice and in Celebration of the Gift that is Little Ms. Kamryn Elise Weatherspoon (J. T. Greene)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS FOR PARABLES ........................................ .i FOREWORD by J. Harold Ellens ................................................. v PROLOGUE: Burning Incense With Meshalim: An Investigation of the Parable and Fable in Ancient Israel and Elsewhere ............................................. xiii A. Jewish Parables and Fables: The New Testament and the Classics of Judaism as Sources ......................... xiii 1. Recycling the Mashal: The Story and Its Transmitters .. xiv 2. Nature and Life: Influences on the Mashal ..................... xv 3. Authority: "And Not as the Scribes" ............................. xvii 4. Salt and Similarities ....................................................... xix 5. Redefining Reality ........................................................ xxii B. Parables and Fables Considered Through a Wider Lens ................................................................... xxiii 1. In Quest of the Parable and Fable in Late Classical Antiquity ...................................................................... xxiii

2. Father Augustine and the Manichean Controversy: Parables of the Competitor .......................................... xxvii 3. A Word About Jewish Fables and Fabulists ................. xxix 4. Yesterday's Classics: The Buddhist Jataka Tales ......... xxxi

PART ONE CHAPTER ONE: Draw Near the House of Learning ................... 3 A. The Reader and the Text .................................................. 3

1. Parables, Fables, Proverbs, and Stories ............................. 3 2. The 'Voices' and 'Music' of Literature ............................. 11 3. Sages and Poets ...................... '" ..................................... , 14 4. Allegorical Interpretation ................................................ 26 B. Strings of Literature ....................................................... 30

1. The Enduring Oral Tradition: Spoken and Sung ............. 30

2. Meshalim and Parables .................................................... 36 a. Legends and the Parable .................................................. 36 b. Parables in Two Traditions .............................................. .42 c. From Saying to Parable: The Role of Orality .................. 47 d. The Fable: Narrators and Transmitters ............................ 57 e. Midrashim and Talmudim: Repositories of Parables and Fables ......................................................... 63 f. Jesus, Parables, and Nature ............................................. 64 g. The Parable, the Fable, and Socio-Political Context ...... 67 h. Word With Power: Scribes and Scribes .......................... 72

i. Homiletic Literature: midrashim and The Midrashim ...... 78 Endnotes ............................................................................ '" 84 CHAPTER TWO: In Quest of the Divine Human Voice ............ 87 A. Which is the Great Commandment? ............................... 87 B. Non Halves Mancura-Don't Speak in Error .................. 100 C. Let Those Among You Come ........................................ 118 D. Open Up the Gates of Light.. ........................................ 129 E. There Shone Forth Wisdom .......................................... 138

F. Alahu l'alim hayy kha-lid-O sabio vive eternamente .... 150 Endnotes ............................................................................. 164 CHAPTER THREE: Fonn and Authorship: Oral and Written Stories: The Case of Rabbi Jose of Yokeret's Workers and the 'Parable ofthe Fig Tree' ...................................... 169 Endnotes .......................................................................... 188 CHAPTER FOUR: The Storyteller and the Story ..................... 189 Endnotes .......................................................................... 216 PART TWO INTRODUCTION TO PART TWO ........................................ 219 CHAPTER FIVE: Parables and Fables: Examples of Ancient and Modern Educational, Religious, and Political Communication Praxis ...................................................... 221 A. Introductory ................................................................... 221 1. Parable ........................................................................... 222 2. Fable .............................................................................. 223

B. Parable Use in the Ancient Near East and in Ancient Israel .............................................................................. 225 C. Fable Use in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East: The Serpent (Genesis 3: 1-15); Balaam's Ass (Numbers 22: 21-30); Jotham (Judges 9: 7-15); lehoash (2 Kings 14:9) .................................................. 228 D. Parables and the New Testament Era: Teaching that Culminates in an Unexpected End ................................ 232 1. Types of Parables in the New Testament ....................... 234 2. Similitudes .................................................................... 236

3. Similitudes of Enoch: An Excursus (Helyer 2002) ....... 236 E. "Jesus" as 'ParabolistlParabolizer' ................................ 241

F. (Jesus') Parables and Some Church Fathers .................. 244 The Alexandrian SchooL ............................................. 245 Allegorical Exegesis ..................................................... 246 G Parables and the Modem Writer/Activist.. .................... 265 Endnotes ............................................................................ 274 CHAPTER SIX: Some Visual Art Concerning Parables ........... 279 "The Good Samaritan" ...................................................... 280 •

Eugene Delacroix .......................................................... 280

•

Vmcent van Gogh ......................................................... 281

•

Dominico Fetti .............................................................. 281

•

Rembrandt van Rijn ...................................................... 281

"The Prodigal Son" ............................................................ 282 •

Albrecht Duerer ............................................................ 282

"The Parable of the Sower" ............................................... 283 •

Pieter Bruegel the Elder ................................................ 283

• Domenico Fetti ............................................................. 283 •

Johann Christoph Weigel .............................................. 283

"Six Blind Men and the Elephant" .................................... 284 •

Jason Hunt. .................................................................... 284

•

Khalil Gibran ................................................................ 284 (referenced with no illustrations)

• The Forerunner

• TheMadman CONCLUSION TO CHAPTERS FIVE AND SIX ................. 285 Endnotes ............................................................................. 288

EPILOGUE ................................................................................ 289 Endnotes ............................................................................. 301

SELECT BmLIOGRAPHY ..................................................... 303 INDEX ........................................................................................ 319

ABBREVIATIONS FOR PARABLES A

Arabic Language

AbothlAvot

Pirqe AvotlTractate The Fathers

ARN

Avot D'Rabbi Nathan

ARNB

Avot D'Rabbi Nathan (Version B)

Bab. Zar.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Avoda Zara

BBKam.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Baba Kamma

BBM

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Baba Mezia

BBat.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Baba Bathra

BBMez.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Baba Mezia

B.C.E.

Before the Common Era

BGitt.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Gittin

BHulin

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Hulin

Bi.Tod.

Bible Today

Bmeg.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Megillah

Br. Rab.

Midrash Breshit Rabbah

BSabblBShabb.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Shabbat

BSan.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin

BTa'

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Ta'anit

BYom.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma

C.E.

Common Era

Deut.R.

Deuteronomy Rabbah

Dt.

Book of Deuteronomy

Ecc.Rab.

Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah

Est.

Book (Scroll) of Esther

Ex.

Book of Exodus

Ez.

Book of Ezekiel

Ezek.

Book of Ezekiel

Gal.

Epistle to the Galatians

Gen.

Book of Genesis

Gosp.ofThom.

Gospel of Thomas

H

Hebrew Language

Hag.

Book of Haggai

HS

Hebrew Scriptures

Isa.

Book of Isaiah

Jer.

Book of Jeremiah

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

In.

Gospel of John

Jos.

Book of Joshua

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

Jud.

Book of Judges

KN

King James Version

Lam. Rab.

Midrash Lamentations Rabbah

Lam. Rab.

Lamentations Rabbah

Lev. Rabb.

Leviticus Rabbah

Lev.

Book of Leviticus

Lib.

LiberlBook ii

Lk.

Gospel of Luke

Log.

Logion

LoS

Lord of Spirits

LXX

The Septuagint

Matt.

Gospel of Matthew

MI

Martyrdom of Isaiah

Mk.

Gospel of Mark

MSota

Mishna Sota

Neh.

Book of Nehemiah

NT

New Testament

NTS

New Testament Studies

Nwn.

Book ofNwnbers

OT

Old Testament

OTIHS

Old TestamentlHebrew Scriptures

PBer.

Palestinian Talmud Tractate Berachot

Phil.

Epistle to Philemon

Provo

Book of Proverbs

Ps.

Book of Psalms

PTer.

Palestinian Talmud Tractate Terwnoth

Radak

Rabbi David Kimchi

Rom.

Epistle to the Romans

RSV

Revised Standard Version

SE

Studio Evangelica

Sir.

Ben Sira iii

SoM

Son of Man

Tanhuma

Midrash Tanhuma

Tan. Emor

Midrash Tanhuma, Emor

TIT

Toronto Journal of Theology

1Macc.

1 Maccabees

Tos. Edu.

Tosefta

Yalkut I

Yalkut Shimoni

Zeph.

Book of Zephaniah

1 Sam.

First Book of Samuel

2 Sam.

Second Book of Samuel

2 Chron.

Second Book of Chronicles

2R

Second Book of Kings

iv

FOREWORD

Language is likely the loveliest legacy the Lord God gives to us human beings, uniquely. Martin Buber thought so and spent a lot of time and spilled a lot of ink explaining how important communication is, how it works, and how much he loved it. That Jewish Sage once said, "I am not a philosopher, nor a teacher, but a person who leads you to the window and opens it wide, then points out to you what I see and begins a dialogue," as quoted by the authors of Parables and Fables. This is a book primarily about parables, and, as such, it works mainly in terms of, and in response to, the parables of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was one of the greatest story tellers of all time. That is confirmed for all of us by the fact that, if asked, every one of us could immediately name what is our most favorite of his stories. Whether you are a believer who has read the Bible often, or a secular person who has not read it any more than you have read Shakespeare, you will know, nonetheless, one of Jesus' stories that is your favorite. Think about it. Is it the parable of the 'Good Samaritan, ' the parable of the 'Prodigal Son, ' or the parable of 'Ten Virgins '? If none of these are familiar to you, you surely need to read further in this volume. If none of these are familiar to you, you surely need to read further in this volume. That is to say, the parables in every culture are the storehouse of the accumulated wisdom of that culture. The parables of the Hebrew Bible, of which there are a few, and of the New Testament. of which there are many. condense the essential wisdom of the men and the movements that have shaped Western Culture for the last 3000 years. To be ignorant of any part of that is to be one who does not even have the resources to deal with his or her own sources of reality. It is to have an empty intellectual and v

spiritual blood stream. If you do not know the parables of Jesus and the fables of the Hebrew Bible and of Rabbinic Judaism, you cannot read Shakespeare, Marlow, Milton, or even Chaucer, with any kind of understanding, to say nothing of real appreciation. You will miss all their metaphors, aphorisms, and allusions Jesus, as we know him, is a literary character in a dramatic story. We have no real access to that historical figure who walked around on the dusty roads of Palestine 2000 years ago. Nonetheless, that character in that story has a profound way of changing human lives to this day, and has done so down the ages since his inexplicable moment in history. Moreover, all those centuries he has affected that remarkable impact on ordinary people, everywhere his story is told, by means of one simple tool. It is always the stories he told. Although parables and fables have their roots in every society from ancient times to present, their most celebrated appearances are in Jewish literature. From this we do not argue that the Jewish people are the originators of these literary genres; they are. rather, the most successful brokers of them to the Western world. They have become subsequently the literary 'coin of the realm' for theologians, religious studies scholars, authors, educators, and politicians. The following pages help chronicle the historical rise and development. and show the great interest in both the parable and the fable. Jesus' stories were not hatched out of thin air. They had a long history, or as we say, tradition. That tradition is a Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jew, and the stories he told were consummately Jewish stories. The Jewish sages had told them in one form or other long before him. There are some hints of his stories already in the Hebrew Bible and a rich stream of his stories after him in what we now call Rabbinic Literature from 300 C.E. to the present day. Jesus' parables are the most interesting and the vi

best remembered stories in Western Culture, and perhaps today in World Culture, thanks to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All these Abrahamic religions preserve and celebrate Jesus' memorable stories. We are the unfortunate inheritors of that terrible old Jewish story from the Hehrew Bible about the threatening warrior God who is always looking for someone to kill, but we can thank ancient Israelite culture for this tradition of wonderful, grace-filled stories, from which come Jesus' unforgettable and life-changing parables. So, it is a very good thing that Mishael Caspi and John T. Greene have given us this lively book that studies Jesus' parables in detail. The book also explores the whole tradition of stories, fables, aphorisms, and parables that preceded Jesus, as well as the way in which Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism, and Islam followed after him in the celebration and application of those redemptive ancient stories to real life. The authors explain what they thought they were up to. "Our purpose was to examine the pedagogical, political, and religious praxes of the parable in selected epochs from ancient to modern times, and to appreciate the allied function of the fable and its modern outgrowths for modern-and even post-modern society." They continue with the following explication of what that means. "At the heart of any study concerning politics, religion, and pedagogy must be a concern for the parable and the fable. They proved to be effective teaching devices millennia ago; they are still being brought to bear in concerns that challenge and/or plague the (post-) modern world as well." So what do Greene and Caspi think a parable or a fable really is? How does it work with such great effect in human lives? Well, they distinguish carefully between a story. a fable, an aphorism, and a parable. I will leave those fine points for the book vii

itself to layout for you. This much I will let you in on in advance. The authors declare that, "When we encounter the parable initially, it is in the garb of a terse example drawn from familiar cultural surroundings, compared with an unknown, in order to render a teaching/information/learning point. It never relinquishes this basic characteristic." So now we know what it is with which we are dealing. Some scholars have said that a parable is a heavenly story with an earthly meaning. I think you could just as well turn that definition upside down. You could say that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. Jesus' stories all start with a situation in daily life in Galilee. They deal in the familiar objects of rural life and the processes of social interaction in the 151 Century C.E. They are stories about mustard seeds, vineyards, fig trees, thieves. widows, aliens who turn out to be best friends, and the like. They deal with the complicated relationships between masters and servants, judges and suppliants, honorable corporation and dishonest managers. Jesus would not have been surprised by the criminal inadvertencies of the Enron story, for example. He seemed to be right at home in this rather dysfunctional human world, as magnificent and malignant as it is, all at the same time. The story in the parable is one thing, and the storyteller of the parable is another. Every time a parable is told, or any other story for that matter. it is told by a unique storyteller in a unique setting for a unique purpose. Similar stories are told repeatedly, all over the world, but with different emphases. Anyone who has studied communication theory or process realizes how different the effect is of each different way of expressing any simple sentence. If I say to you, for example, "[love you!" the meaning and impact on you is quite different from my saying, "I love vou!" Moreover, the meaning and effect are different still if I say, "Il.e!£ you!" In viii

each case the implied alternative, that is the subtext of the statement, is entirely different. So with a parable! For example, from 1500 B.C.E. until 100 B.C.E., the story of the Trojan War, and its aftermath, was told and retold, from memory and by oral tradition, in every Greek village and city throughout the Mediterranean World. It was declaimed in theaters in every Greek dialect. and in every sort of cultural setting in that world. Consequently. the way it was expressed in each of those settings caused the declaimer to adapt the stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey, in some degree, to his own setting and his own proclivity for remembering the sub-plots and the way they fit together. As a result. when the famous scientific era of Hellenistic Culture arose at the great university-library of ancient Alexandria, a steady stream of grammarians and philologists studied the tradition of those stories of Troy's disaster for 200 years, trying to figure out what was the original text of those grand Greek epics. Stories are adapted to their setting, particularly as long as they are orally transmitted. Once they are written down, they tend to ossify somewhat, particularly since the invention of the printing press. However, the stories of the Hebrew Bible, the parables of Second Temple Judaism, especially those of Jesus, and the stories of Rabbinic Judaism remained very malleable until the time that they were recorded in published works. It is this wonderful odyssey of the biblical parables and fables that Greene and Caspi have traced out for us with consummate scholarly skill. We need that help. The authors' motives are spelled out clearly. "Parables are as popular today as they had been in antiquity. There was never a time when they were not part of the 'arsenal' employed by professional speakers, religious leaders, politicians, and educators. While sermons, political addresses, and lectures also have their place among these professions,

ix

respectively. it is the parable-and its backup and partner, the fable-that was and remains the most important tool in their 'tool boxes.' Still the most effective universal teaching method is the parable ... the parable is the most effective praxis of communication from the intellectual to the peasant ... and from the peasant to the intellectual. When speaking truth to power, power should listen for the parable/fable." Parables have the power to redefine reality. They have universal appeal and applicability. When expressed by long oral tradition, they accumulate meaning. When written, they entrench meaning in a fixed and lasting form for a society. Each time they are told or read, they incarnate themselves in the hearer or reader as his or her own truth, thus becoming part of the shape of that person and that life. In these incarnated fonns, they reshape society in general. The immense impact of Jesus' teaChing seems to have been a result of his use of the special kind of parable he used. Those who knew him said they were amazed to listen to him teach because he taught in a way that was unique in his society. The Scribes taught in a catechizing style which dealt with getting people to memorize a list of laws or normative regulations, supposedly designed to make people better characters, and so to improve society. However, Greene and Caspi point out that the Hebrew word used by Jesus' hearers to describe his unique style was a word that means that he taught by using analogies, comparisons. metaphors. and other figures of speech. You can imagine how boring they found the nomistic style of the Scribes, and how enticing and seductive they found Jesus' style. He told stories about their daily life and real experiences, using the enigmas of everyone's life to illustrate the complexities of the human quest for meaning and shalom.

x

All of us are hungry for a sense of meaning. That is, by definition, our inner spiritual quest. We long for a clearer sense of the meaning of life, and of life after life. We might as well settle with the fact that such an irrepressible quest is simply the inevitable core experience of our humanness. We can run away from it, suppress it, sublimate it, distract ourselves from it by superficial trivialities in life, but we cannot escape it or change it. Parables are capsules of meaning. Jesus' parables are encapsulated packages of meaning delivered with engaging attractiveness and memorable effect. Whether they are delivered by the Qur 'an, in which they are not treated as literary artifacts but as holy dictations, or by Rabbinic Judaism, in which they are treated as illustrations of ethical principles, or straight out of the New Testament narratives, where they are existential mortar rounds dropped into indolent human lives, their effect is captivating, explosive, and illuming without exception. That is the story of this book, and that is why its authors wrote it. It is a testimony to their great wisdom and their passion for our illumination that they have done so. We owe them a great deal for preparing this work for us, and for doing it so well. We shall all do well and wisely if we attend the grand tradition of parables to which we are heirs, and in attending, listen for the divine voice.

J. Harold Ellens

Xl

PROLOGUE

Burning Incense With Meshalim: An Investigation of the Parable and Fable in Ancient Israel and Elsewhere The parabolizer is the quintessential educator, for she brings out of the student a colleague who travels along truth:S path together. A fabulist allows himself to blend together mythic narrative not as the vehicle of the truth, but as being the truth.

A.

Jewish Parables and Fables: The New Testament and the Classics of Formative Judaism as Sources

The reader will become aware slowly that Part One of this book makes one point over and over again: that Jesus' parables were Jewish parables. A careful comparison and contrast, provided constantly between the New Testament Gospels, which contain parables attributed to Jesus (the Fourth Gospel, for instance, is a notable exception), and rabbinic parables and fables contained within the earliest classics of Judaism help bring this point home. As such, this study helps provide a corrected basis on which a development of both parable and fable in the western world, as well as in the world at large, may be possible. The latter we attempt in Part Two.

xiii

1. Recycling the Mashal: The Story and Its Transmitters It is quite obvious that a creative person produces creative works, and it is readily apparent who the creator of a written work is. The authorship of an oral story is not so easily identified. In oral traditions, every tale is altered by the storyteller's cultural heritage, as well as by creative imagination and unique creativity. Each storyteller, in effect, creates a new version of the original story. In presenting the tale, the storyteller is never the last to 'storytell.' The final storyteller is the one who writes it down.

Many generations of oral storytellers separate the creator of the story from the last storyteller. There are many different versions of stories, fables, and proverbs. Each new storyteller acts as a censor of the original story as his version reflects the aspirations and dreams, and the moral and social realities that are most important to his generation. If we accept these premises, then we can also conclude and suggest that the people listening to the stories are the major factor in the molding of the oral tradition, which is a term that better describes these stories than the term 'folklore.' The term 'oral tradition' emphasizes that there was an unknown, original creator of the story that then was altered creatively by generations of other storytellers from one generation to the next. The oral tradition is a creative process that links one generation with another and when the story is finally written down, that is simply the latest version of the transmitted tale. Therefore, when we examine the stories and fables found in the Midrashim and in the Talmudim. we are examining works which, in the realm of folk literature as the original tales, were passed by word of mouth. The written version does not have a date of its beginning; only a general date of its editing, as the original storyteller'S work was revised most often over and after hundreds of years. xiv

From an aesthetic point of view, each storyteller expands the original folk story, fable, or proverb to fit the listeners' taste(s) and to fit within the social milieu of that time. The storyteller needs to satisfy the curiosity of his listeners, either with the moral aspects that he presents to them or by the social ideals he introduces, such as the concepts of justice and equality that the storyteller has chosen to impart.

2. Nature and Life: Influences on the Mashal Jesus was a phenomenon. Two aspects were very influential in his mission. On'ewas "nature" and the other was "life." He lived in lower Galilee. Mountains and valleys surround(ed) his town of Nazareth. It is and was an agricultural environment where fruits and grains play(ed) a major role in the lives of the people. Living in the midst of this beautiful environment strongly impacted Jesus and his listeners. In his parables, he talked about fig trees, grain, and mustard seeds. These symbols best witness how nature influenced and enriched the soul of this great moralist. For example, in the Gospel ~f Luke we read of the time when Jesus, at the'age of twelve, visited Jerusalem:

Now his pare,nts went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old. they went up to Jerusalem qfter the custom of the ,feast, And when they hadfu(filled the days. as they returned, the child, Jesus, tarried, .. And when they found him not, they turned back to Jerusalem, seeking him ... they found him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions. ind all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers, (Lk. 2:41-52). xv

According to this Gospel, the teachers and wise people present at the Temple were amazed at Jesus' wisdom. The origin of this episode in Jesus' life is undetermined, especially as that origin does not appear in any of the Synoptic Gospels. It appears that stories about Jesus' childhood probably originated in the common people's oral tradition and that Luke used that oral tradition to record this story. It is important to note that in Jewish works, the childhood of a prophet is usually not covered. Even the story about Moses' early life, including the meeting of the Pharaoh's daughter and Moses' sister, are found in only nine verses which end as: And the child grew ... When Moses was grown ...

The early lives of the prophets, judges, and kings were not recorded. Instead, the focus is on what these leaders did as adults, as each stepped onto the stage of history. 'Mark' chose to begin his story about Jesus, as he stepped up onto the stage of history. with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus as an adult. His entries in the NT focus on the early chapters of Jesus' adult life, from his baptism to the crucifixion of the 'anointed one' by the Romans. 'Mark,' like the other Gospel writers, used examples of Jesus' daily life to draw his listeners closer to this divinely appointed representative of the heavenly kingdom. Jesus' public activities began in Capernaum. That record found in the NT also contains details of contemporary Jewish life and customs. In Acts we read: The Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. (15:20).

This verse confirms the Jewish custom of reading the Torah (Law) on the Sabbath day. Since the Gospels were created at the end of xvi

the ISl century or at the beginning of the 2nd century of this era, these works contain common elements of earlier Jewish customs.

3.

Authority: "And Not as the Scribes."

When Jesus preached in the synagogue of Capernaum, he used the words and well-known stories of the prophets, as well as stories found in the Torah. Could the Galileans have possibly viewed Jesus as one of the Pharisees? If so, then it was easily understood that he could have many disciples. And, indeed, there is evidence that it was so. So, what, then, does this statement mean?:

And they were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. (Mk. 1:22) (See also: Mall, 2:28-29 and Lk. 4:31-32). The wording used in Luke is slightly different:

'" for his word was with power. So, does this 'word' state that Jesus was appointed by the Jewish authorities to serve as a teacher/preacher? Is that what is meant when it is recorded that Jesus was considered more important than the scribes? What function did the scribes serve in the Jewish educational system in Jesus' time? Did they teach, but without authority? These three texts emphasize that Jesus had a connection to the synagogues, to teaching, and to preaching the words of the prophets. He was considered to be operating above the duties given to the scribes. So, what was the authority, then, of the Pharisees? Their authority came out of their Jewish institution, so it was an earthly authority, and Jesus' authority came from a heavenly authority, as we find it explained in the Gospel written by xvii

'Matthew':

Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as your Father, who is in heaven, is perfect. (5:48). There is a margin of doubt when any person speaks, unless the speaker has the authority of God, which is a heavenly authority with a special power. Although such authority has vigor and strength, it is not a true authority until the listeners decide whether this speaker has heavenly authority. The people listening are the judges of this. In this way, the listeners can bestow heavenly authority upon the speaker and deem him to be a genuine speakerteacher. The speaker, in tum, must present a perfect teaching for this to occur. It's possible that the reaction of Jesus' listeners in Capemaurn was recorded as "the one who had authority" because the Greek translator was unfamiliar with the stem, MSh.l., which in Hebrew is the stem of the noun 'parable' (ma-shal) and for a person who speaks or tells a story with authority, mo-she!. Perhaps the translator made the error for ideological reasons and stated that ows exousian ekhon as mo-she/, a person with authority. If we accept this theory, then Jesus' teaching methods more closely aligned with the methods of the early Tan-na-im, teachers, who used the parable, ma-shal, while the scribes used the midrash. The images found in Jesus' tales resemble the parables, mesha-lim, used by the Tan-na-im, whose 'songs' are full of similes and images closely related to nature and taken from everyday life. This is seen in:

And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery q{ the kingdom q{ God; but unto those who are outside, all these things are done in parables. That seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not xviii

understand ... (.Mk.4:11-12). Jesus seemed to understand that the public was not ready to accept his teaching, but in the future, Jesus felt, the public would be able to perceive the meaning. Since the common people were not yet ready to comprehend his teachings, it is thought that he shared parables with them. Not all of his parables, however, appear in all of Gospels, not even in all of the Synoptic Gospels, such as the parable focused on spiritual growth or that some seeds grow secretly, which only appear in the Gospel ofMark:

And he said, So in the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed unto the ground ... (Mk. 4:26-29). Similarly, the 'Parable of the Doorkeeper' only appears in Mark:

The Son of Man is like a man taking a far journey and gave the authority to his servants ... (.Mk. 13:34). These two parables consist of Jewish elements, and because of that, they can serve as examples of Jesus being in the role of teacher-preacher using parables to reach the common people listening to him. Sometimes, he shares the whole parable and other times, he uses his creative imagination and creates a new version. And sometimes, he does not share the parable at all because his listeners already know it. In that instance, Jesus only refers to the parable. This was exactly what R. Joshua b. Hananya did when he preached to the common people in Biq- 'at bet ha-mon, which is discussed in Chapter One of this book.

4.

Salt and Similarities

The great number of stories rooted in the oral lore that are found in the midrashim and in the NT strongly indicate that the teachers, fabulists, and the scribes of that day were attempting to xix

teach their listeners about the Law and its connection to the moral way of life. The applications that occur at the end of the shared tales change each story into a didactic one with multiple significances. Thus, the stories became eternal. Examining the three Synoptic Gospels, we discover the use of proverbs, as in:

Ye are the salt of the earth. This proverb is connected to a part of the parable of the salt and light. 1 Its use suggests that although this proverb was well known, its application was very hard to understand. Here Jesus' disciples are called 'the salt of the earth,' which implies they were a very necessary part of Jesus' life and mission. 2 In the MSof15:8 we find:

The world cannot exist without salt. The disciples, likewise, were as essential to the world as was salt. However, Jesus may also have been alluding to the disciples not only being important, but· to them also having authority. This could be understood as an analogy. Just as salt gives savor to food, the disciples will give meaning to Jesus' teachings. This extended meaning only applies if the Hebrew word ta 'am is used, as it means 'taste' and it also means 'raison d'etre.'3 Here is another example of similarity that is shared by two texts:

Take heed. Watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is. For the son of man is like a man taking afar journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye, therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh at evening or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning.

xx

(Mk. 13:33-35). R. Eliezer said: Repent one day before your death. His disciples asked him: Does then one know on what day he will die? Then all the more reason that he repent today. , He replied, 'Lest he die tomorrow, and thus his whole life spent in repentance. '(BSabb. 153a). As is found in Mark 13, the most important thing is one's readiness to be called by the Holy One, when one should have all the provisions for that last journey. Both texts above use an exclamatory tone. Mark exclaims, "Watch! " which may be understood to mean, "Watch your way and your readiness." Rabbi Eliezer says, in a similar way, "... thus his whole life spent in repentance. " The author of the Gospel of Mark was very familiar with his tradition and he inserted it into his work, as in 13:35:

Watch ye, therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning. The Markan text mentions four "watches": evening, midnight, cockcrow, and morning. Likewise, the rabbinic literature presents a debate over whether the night is divided into three or into four watches:

Arise, cry out in the night at the beginning of the watches. Rabbi (Judah Ha-nasi) said, 'There are four watches in the night and four in the day' ... R. Nathan said: 'There are three watches in the night' .. , ' How does the Rabbi explain the text of R. Nathan? ' R. Hana said: 'It indicates the end of the second watch and the beginning of the third which divide the night. R. Hana replied to him, 'If the text has used the phrase 'middle watches' that would have been correct, but it says simply 'the middle watch '. The first watch is not reckoned because the time had not yet arrived. >4

xxi

The use of parables could be a discourse to discuss poetical diction, or to illustrate a doctrine or any proverb. But its use can also extend beyond the proverb and use metaphor beyond the actual saying, Paranoimia, which was used to teach and serve as a vehicle to touch the people, the listeners, of the familiar stories, as a new teaching was being crafted. The truth is made intelligible to the listeners by the use of the parables. Thus, the common people began to understand a new way to use the old story. The possibility of being able to change one's life and to establish new growth within the listeners appears clearer. Through the use of the parables, the parabolizer can call upon the listeners, the people, to use the power of their own faculties to reveal the meaning of their individual lives in the highest sense.

5.

Redefining Reality

It is in a work such as his "The Bible and Imagination" (www) that Paul Ricoeur suggests that the parable has the power to "redefine reality." Teaching through the use of parables is an approach that invites the listeners to heed a 'new tiding' or message. However, Jesus could not present the 'new tiding,' in the full sense of the word, because of possible agitation within the audience, as some of the listeners were more closely associated with the religious institutions and they could object to this new 'lesson.' To prevent such a confrontation, Jesus offered his teachings to his listeners as parables. He revived an old teaching method, one to which no one in authority could object, as Jesus asked his listeners to hear the parable once more but now to interpret it the way each listener understood it. Since the parable is open in this approach to many possible interpretations, Jesus protected himself from persecution by the representatives of the religious institutions. The parable tells not one story but many.

xxii

Each reading or oral sharing of the story can reveal a new aspect, which requires the listeners to go back to the beginning of the story and to pay close attention to the story's structure. The listeners can, therefore, hear the old story and consider its new teaching as if the listeners were in the house of God.

B. Parables and Fables Considered Through a Wider Lens

Section A. considers the parable and, to a lesser extent, the fable against the backdrop of the ancient Israel of Jesus and the great, early rabbis. This investigation is invaluable. What adds even more gravitas to that study is to place it within a wider framework that demonstrates the utility of the parable and the fable for not only religious (i.e., moral) teaching, but also for civil educational and political use, as well. Accordingly, Chapter Five (the beginning of Part Two) herein approaches our subject viewed through a wider lens that reaches backward beyond the rabbis and Jesus in ancient Israel, on the one hand, and sends its tentacles, post Jesus and the earliest rabbis, through the period of the Church Fathers into the medieval, modern, and international worlds, on the other. Chapter Six extends this broad approach further through various forms of visual, literary, and entertainment arts. This we do to demonstrate the never ending importance and utility application of both parable and fable through time and place.

1.

In Quest of the Parable and Fable in Late Classical Antiquity It appears that modern German scholarship was some of the

xxiii

earliest in the western world to set itself to the task of clarifying the development and practice of educating as practiced in ancient Israel and among her neighbors, as well as among her conquerors. We may sandwich this concern between the research and conclusions of two works: Johannes Christes, et al., eds., Handbuch der Bildung und Erziehung in der Antike. (Handbook/Manual of Education and Training in Antiquity), (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006),' and Tor Vegge, Paulus und das antike Schulwesen: Schule und Bildung des Paulus, (Schooling and School System in (Late) Antiquity and Their Influence on Paul), Beihefte zur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 134, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006).6 The former, while focusing primarily on ancient Greek and Roman education, its Chapter 3 ("Erziehung und Bildung im antiken Israel und im fruehen Judentum," ["Rearing and Education in Ancient Israel and in Early Judaism"] pp. 183-222) is an invaluable contribution to the study of education in the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds. Ingrid Lohmann contributed this chapter. She maintains succinctly that for ancient Israel:

Ein ausgebreitetes Schulwesen (hat es) night geben (p. 186) A broad educational system did not exist. Die hebraeische Bibel kannte den Begriff "Schule" noch nicht (p. 209) The Hebrew Bible was not aware of the concept "school" prior to the Exile. Erst in nachexilischer Zeit kann man von einem Schulbetrieb im eigentlichen Sinne sprechen (pp. 217 jJ.) One speaks of an active school system in a true sense only during the post-exilic period xxiv

Die meisten Lebensbereiche des Judentums sind offenbar ohne die Faeigkeit zuschreiben und zu lesen ausgekommen (pp. J97 jJ.) Most of the areas ofJewish life were accomplished without the ability to write and to read Familiaere und gesellschaftliche Erziehung geshahen hauptsaechlich ueber muendliche Impulse. Familial and social education occurred chiefly by means of oral impulse. Belehrung, nicht Bildung, praegte die Palaestinas.

antike

Welt

Instruction rather than education was what impressed the ancient Palestinian world . (Klinkhardt www) Allied to the preceding in theme, is the work edited by Johannes Botterweck, et al. 7 It studies the important semitic root, L.MD., which has some sense of learning, instructing, practicing, being an apprentice, knowing, experiencing, acquiring. This is one of the logical places to begin, for this root reflects various shades of possible meaning(s) as it is studied in Arabic, Old South Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Hebrew. It is here that one learns that this verb--L.MD.-occurs most frequently, for instance, in prophetic writings, the Psalter, and Deuteronomy, but with important differences. When this article on L.MD. holds that "The relatively infrequent mention of learning in the historical writings is due to the fact that ancient Israel had no organized system of education of the kind familiar to us from ancient Sumer and Babylonia. Israel had nothing comparable to the "tablet

xxv

house" of the Mesopotamian cultures. " (p. 5), it tends to support Lohmann's claims above. And although the root Sh.N.N., teach/instruct diligently, does not appear in the dictionary article (but does in Deuteronomy 6:7), it nevertheless strengthens its argument that when L.MD. appears in the Psalter and in the prophetic material, it points more to knowledge of, and instruction concerning God: it is used religiously and not in the sense of general knowledge to be plied every day in the common marketplace of human existence. Tor Vegge's work, Paulus und das antike Schuiwesen, is associated with one of Judaism's greatest periods of interest in formal or institutional education following the Persian period of domination: that of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. One of the best-known Jews of the Hellenistic period is Paul the apostle. How this intellectual was educated goes a long way toward understanding how some people during the era of Jesus and the early rabbis were exposed to formal learning and training. Consisting of two volumes, the first provides an overview of the educational system during the Hellenistic period (pp. 3-340). Pages 343-520, comprising the second volume, study the education and culture of the Apostle Paul within context. Vegge succeeds in portraying Paul as a product of his times, but cannot elaborate on whether the apostle was exposed to parables and fables as a part of his excellent, contemporaneous education. Thus, it appears, as Part A. 's research has indicated, that parables did not cease as a teaching method in ancient Israel (Le., in the Israelite and Jewish homeland) as indicated by the Synoptic Gospels and the Classics of Formative Judaism. Outside of this homeland, however, the jury is still out concerning Jewish versus Hellenistic-Roman specific proverbs, and for that matter, fables also. In fact, James Breech8 maintains that studies of Hellenistic

xxvi

and Greco-Roman periods with respect to parables noted that Jesus' parables were totally different from those extant some 300 years before his time, as well as those some 300 years after his period of activity. This seems to suggest, however, that partisan activity on behalf of Jesus is afoot; that his parables were totally unique from all other parables for a 600 year period. Representative of such a stance is Simon 1. Kistemaker9 who maintains that the parables of Jesus were in a category all their own and were quit~ distinct from other parabolic teachings in their timelessness and universality. This could mean nothing more than method of delivery, for another Jesus, (ben Sira) the son of Sirach (2nd cent. B.C.E.), commented on the scribe/scholar that he preserved the sayings of the famous, and pondered the subtleties of parables; that "he sought out the hidden meaning ofproverbs, and was familiar with the obscurities of parables " (Sir. 39:2-3). It is possible that Jesus had his own style as did all other parabolists.

2.

Father Augustine and the Manichaean Controversy: Parables of the Competitor

A significant portion of Chapter Five will discuss the use and interpretation of "Jesus'" parables by significant Church Fathers. During the time of one of them, Augustine of Hippo (4 th cent. C.E.), many tracts were written disparaging the works of one of Christianity's competitors known as Manichaeism. 1o For our purposes here, Manicheans can be shown to have valued the parable just as did their competitors. Neither had a monopoly on this genre's use and usefulness. Five Manichaean parables II are included in a list of the literature it produced: .Parable of the Auditors .Parable about the Farmer xxvii

.Parable of the Pearl-Borer .The Parable of the Monk and the Girl .Parable about the Two Snakes Once the Western Roman Empire fell (5 th century C.E.), Western Europe went into survival mode and continued to develop. Lead primarily by the Church of Rome, it entered a phase wherein it became customary to expect the second coming of Christ victoriously on the clouds. Almost everyone became, therefore, a "watchman." This watchman mentality is evident when one considers the development of parable exegesis during this period known as the Middle Ages, ruled by Christendom. During this period, one of the most popular parables, purportedly uttered by Jesus, is titled the 'Parable of the (Ten) Virgins. ' The presence of this parable's theme in the artwork of the period, especially on and in cathedrals, is proof of this influence. During a period when public education was all but unknown, and learning was the special province of the clergy, cathedral art served the illiterate but faithful in telling essential stories designed to teach. In Chapter Five, the reader will be directed to some of this educational artwork. A second, very popular, non-Christian parable during this period was not attributed to Jesus. In fact, its "author" is unknown, and this has caused considerable unrest in the world of the ultimate parable scholar. It deals with the question of how many teeth a horse has, and how contemporaneous sages went about providing themselves with a dependable answer. It is a parable in search of an epistemology, as opposed, in some way, to a parable that contains an answer. Nevertheless, it does contain a teaching. That this controversy begins in the Middle Ages is quite by convenience, for no one really knows now from where it originated. Curious deteCtives have investigated both sides of this age to no satisfaction. On the earlier side, say, the classical side, xxviii

investigators ascribe this parable to no less a teacher than Aristotle. On the later side, it has been attributed to, if not Sir Francis Bacon, then to Sir Roger Bacon. It is the medieval date of 1432, therefore, that Francis Bacon holds was the year in which a grievous quarrel arose "among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse."(Mees 1934) Bacon wrote this in 1592. It reminds the reader of the theological controversy surrounding the debate of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. When the snickering is past, however, the reader becomes aware that a serious issue of how one knows and knows that what he knows is reliable underlies both questions. This question plagues, as well as stimulates, thoughtful humankind constantly.

3.

A Word About Jewish Fables and Fabulists

Thus far, we have focused more on parables, especially within the New Testament and early classics of Rabbinic Judaism. But our volume considers the fable, as well, and its relationship to the parable, for both sojourn for quite some distance along the same path to their destinations. Like the parable, the fable was an important "tool" of the prophet, the teacher, the sage, the rabbi, and the Christian priest, as well as having been used by the great educators of classical antiquity. While Chapter Five discusses the fable in a general way as a separate entity (cf. The section titled The Fable: Ancestor to the Modem Cartoon), allow us to discuss here the fable refracted through a solely, Jewish prism. Fables date in written form to the 15 th_14th Centuries B.C.E. No doubt, an oral precursing phase existed also. The subjects of fables-either animals, human body parts (e.g., teeth), shrubs and trees, or deities/spirits-remain in "fable world," a parallel world xxix

to the natural world. In this parallel world, however, there can be a magical content not present or expected in the natural world. For instance, deities/spirits can engage in reviving someone or something from the dead, depict metamorphoses, or depict ghosts. Fables are chiefly didactic in nature and function, and are classified as either metaphorical or generalizing in form. In the Hebrew texts, both the parable and the fable share a linguistic and functional "border," although they are morphologically different. The Hebrew root for parable is MShL; the Hebrew root for fable is also MSh.L. This word, because of these homonymic roots, means both "to liken" and "to rule." It is this quality of MShL. that, when rendered into Greek, could result in Jesus having been said to teach with "authority" rather than teaching by "comparison." Nevertheless, it may also be influenced by the practice of rulers using the meshalim as a form of communication to their subjects, as well as those in power instructing future rulers (cf. The Wisdom of Amen-em-ope of Egypt). When we turn to the fabulists mentioned in the Talmudim and Midrashim, there are a number of significant citations. Hillel the Elder and his student Johanan ben Zakkai, the "father" of the rabbinic movement, are mentioned as fabulists (Soj 16:7; Suk. 28A; BB 134a; Soj. 16:6). The rabbinic sources go on to mention that Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai had mastered the three sub-genres of the fable: so-called washerman tales, ''the talk of palm trees"=palm stories, and fox tales. This distinction nevertheless, a Tanna of the last generation of those enjoying this distinction, Rabbi Meir, is credited with having been the most prolific of the Jewish fabulists. While the number of fables he shared with his students is fantastic and changes with each apocryphal account (300), he at least was famous for having a large number of fables

xxx

in his fable "tool kit." Mishna Sota 49a honors him by holding that upon his death "the composers of fables ceased." But Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:3, another midrashic source, maintains that Bar Kappara, following the generation of Rabbi Meir, had known as many fables as had Rabbi Meir. At any rate, the fox figures centrally in many rabbinic fables; moreover, the fox is also depicted as a fabulist himself (Genesis Rabbah 78:7). This trajectory of rabbinic fabulists continues to present times. 12

4.

Yesterday's Classics: The Buddhist Jataka Tales

From India, by way of China, we will introduce the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, and provide an artist's conception of the "animal" the blind men construct. It has both a moral lesson, as well as .serves as an excellent example of the problem of perception and epistemology. That awaits the reader in Chapter Five. Here we acknowledge that India is also famous for its Jataka tales (Le., "birth stories"). These have been compared frequently with fables in general, and with Aesop's Fables in particular, because of their similarity of content. But there the similarity and purpose end. The Jataka tales are morality tales with a unique etiology: they are said to be tales concerning one of the Buddha's earlier lives (believed to have been 550 in number). They point, therefore, to the road toward Enlightenment, and serve to assist the Bodhisattva-the one enroute to becoming a Buddhabeing. While Aesop's fables were democratic, the Jataka tales, like the teachings of the Jewish sages, were aristocratic, in that they targeted a limited audience of specially cultivated students. Thus, Aesop is best characterized comparatively as a mediator and not an innovator. Typical of such tales and their similarity with Aesop's xxxi

Fables, are selections from the Table of Contents of Jataka Tales by Ellen C. Babbitt (Babbitt www). They include: -The Monkey and the Crocodile -How the Turtle Saved His Own Life .The Ox Who Won the Forfeit .The Quarrel of the Quails -The Foolish Timid Rabbit .The Fox Who Never Envied the Pig -The Crab and the Crane Chapter Six embraces modem authors, poets, novelists, playwrights, satirists, and visual artists. These professionals reveal a side of the study of parables and fables (or near fables) that is often overlooked. We consider these works, therefore, to round out our overall study. In so doing, we include literary examples from the modern Middle East, Africa, the United States, England, France, and India. We are painfully aware of the comers of the world and time eras, due to space constraints, we have not treated.

Mishael M. Caspi John T. Greene

ENDNOTES 1. Cf. Mk. 4:21-23; Lk. 8:16-18

2. A folk proverb. says: "A rich man is the one who has a sack of salt. It suffices him for life." 3. In rabbinic literature, we fmd a question presented by R. Joshua (b. Hananya) about salt saying: "When salt becomes unsavory, wherewith is it to be salted? He replied: With the afterbirth of a mule. And there the afterbirth of a mule? And

xxxii

can it be unsavory?" (BBera.8b) 4. Cf. Midrash Eichah Rabbah 11:22 on Lamentations 2:19. Additionally, consult the discussion on watches in y. Ber. I, 2d; b. Ber. 3a 5. Johannes Christes, et al., eds., Handbuch der Bi/dung und Erziehung in der Antike, (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006). 6. Tor Vegge, Paulus und das an/ike Schu/wesen: Schule und Bildung des Paulus, Beihefte zur das Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 134. (Berlin: WaIter de Gruyter, 2006). 7. Johannes Botterweck. et ai., eds., The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 8, (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006). 8. James Breech, Jesus and Postmodernism, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p. 25. 9. Simon J. Kistemaker, "Jesus as Storyteller: Literary Perspectives on the Parables," The Master's Seminary Journal, 1611 (Spring 2005): 49-55. 10. See Augustine's list in Chapter Five under the heading of Augustine Against the Manichaeans. 11. These parables are available to the reader at http://fam-faerch.dkf pseudi grapherlIndex.html. 12. Consult Galit Hasan-Rockem http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.orgljsourceljudaicalejud-0002-0006-0-06225.html.

xxxiii

PART ONE

CHAPTER ONE

Draw Near the House of Learning

A.

The Reader and the Text Since you must do this, I must go with you, so let us leave, let our hearts be fearless, I will go first, since I know the way. (Gilgamesh, Book III)

1.

Panbles, Fables, Proverbs, and Stories

The modern reader of the Gospels in the New Testament is often surprised to discover that approximately one-third of Jesus' teachings are presented in parable fonn. Today's reader is not accustomed to viewing the parable as a fonn of teaching praxis, as a part of a curriculum; moral evaluation of certain events stands as the cornerstone of a new type of teaching. The modem reader is not used to this more ancient approach to teaching because he or she is led by the perception that everything is written down and, thus, he or she can read, again and again, evaluate a given text, and later mark his or her own perceptions found in the written text. This

3

means that in modern times, we face a "new way" wherein the given text is written down, enabling us to turn to it, to understand it in many different ways, and to interpret a text in new ways. This method would have been incomprehensible in early times. A given text was transmitted orally; sometimes to a few people at the same time, sometimes to only one person. In some cases, the audiences were made up of those people who would gather around a preacher, for example, out of mere curiosity. If the audience consisted of his disciples, most likely his words were explained later on by him and thus were viewed in the way he intended. If the teaching was transmitted to one person, and then this person questioned the words of the prophet, the teacher, the rabbi, then the immediate reaction was an explanation of, say, a proverb, to explain the conveyed message or the 'hidden' words therein by using another proverb. Moreover, the audience could interpret the teachings in many ways. Each teaching, in fact, is a text in itself. Just as the modern reader can re-read the text and interpret it differently each time, in early times, the audiences could listen to a different text to illustrate the meaning of the first text and thus, different interpretations could be given by different preachers of a given proverb. These interpretations are probably the different versions that we now have for each parable, or perhaps that is the root of the related motifs that we see in other proverbs, those which are connected, but may suggest a turn to another teaching or way of thinking. The different versions we find could be, in fact, new ways of interpretation or approach. When working with a written text, the audience is able at any time to refer back to the original text. Within the oral tradition, however, the audience cannot pinpoint which version is the original, nor determine when it was composed. Indeed, the audience in the oral tradition can conjecture 4

as to when the story may have first been told by identifying the person or the historic character who transmitted it. It is important to point out, however, that the audience in earlier times could not be certain as to whether or not this historic character was the composer of the given text. It is very likely that that text was given the historic character by yet another, unknown, historic character. Thus, earlier audiences had to turn to the historic space occupied not only by this character, but of other characters, and to other spaces, to other cultures, and to other communities. In summation, there is no certainty, from a literary point of view, that a fable given by an historical character was his own invention, or if it was an adaptation of another fable that had been told to him. Thus, it is possible that each story teller would have been fitting the fable to meet his own needs and advantages for use in the moral instruction he then gave to his disciples and to his audiences. But, there is another aspect to be addressed, while presenting the oral traditions of the fables. The preachers, prophets, and rabbis did not write down their instructions or teachings; their disciples or scribes took care of doing this. Sometimes, this was done in the same generation; sometimes it was done in later generations. The impact of this occasional late transmission of teaching by a generation or more is that audiences today do not know whether the transmission of the particular teaching is directly related to a certain prophet, preacher, or rabbi, and were actually told by that individual or not. So, it is critical to note that there are some hidden complications inherent in the oral tradition as some literary passages exist which were transmitted from one generation to another that relate to a specific historical character, but which were actually written down in a later period. When these different genres of oral literature are written down and there is a general consensus on the texts and their contents, the canon seals the text. At this point, the canon prevents

5

a re-examination of the oral tradition. The main argument for such an act is that these are the words, and the way they were conveyed, and we have to accept this; it is a sacred act, to seal it off. The canon prevents a re-examination of the text because it is always possible to come and say that this is not the "original text. " The canon offers a text which was agreed upon as being the" original text". Thus, any other text is one that does 'not belong,' or is not considered to be a "genuine text." Today's readers must deal with a situation that offers a text which was accepted as "genuine and authentic" and any examination of that text ought to follow the premise that the text being read is genuine and authentic. We, however, do not accept this hypothesis that the text of the canon is the original text. It is possible that it was transmitted that way by the historical character in question, and that it was written down exactly by his disciples, but it does not suggest that these texts were the sole invention of the historical character's creativity. It is very likely that the historical character used his moral teaching, as well as his social instructions, and then adapted the text to fit his own needs, and in this manner he transmitted what was known to him from other sources, or from other fables. Second-hand, or re-adapted, fables, or even other versions of fables which were known in this character's realm, could thus be the text we have today. In this work, we hypothesize that there was a possible transmission of a fable, or a parable, while it was performed on location. This historical character will have creatively adapted the given text to his needs and transmitted it to his audiences so that they would either learn a certain behavior, or re-evaluate social and moral conditions present or needed in their society. These perceptions suggest that the performance 'on location' depends not only on the historical character himself, but also on his state of mind. Storytellers are sometimes optimistic, 6

sometimes pessimistic; sometimes full of humor, and some express profound riddles, and sometimes their stories are incomprehensible and difficult. They do not expect an immediate understanding from their audiences, but, rather, they hope that each listener, according to his or her own ability, will come to comprehend the message of their teaching that is often hidden in the parable or in the fable. Consider this: perhaps Jesus did not write down his words and did not ask his disciples to write them down, that he was a moralist, who held in his creative mind a treasure of fables, parables, and proverbs, which were well known in his society and in the agricultural area where he grew up and was educated. He conveyed these stories orally to his disciples and to those who followed him in different locations. He reacted to certain events by invoking proverb, riddle, or fable, albeit only those with deep implication, which was the teaching method used in his time and in the earlier times of the Pharisaic Movement. This idea is echoed in the following proverb: Train (educate) up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. (Prov.22:6)

In ancient Israel the fable was an educational instrument used by the Hebrews and the Jewish societies of the First and Second Commonwealths, as well as during the period after the destruction of the Second Temple. The fable was used in Jewish religious academies, 'Houses of Learning', and in the Synagogues where Jewish Law was taught. In addition, fables were used by other ancient societies in the Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds.

Bible scholars have often mentioned the striking similarities that exist between the maxims contained in the Book of Proverbs and those found in the wisdom literature of the Egyptians,

7

the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. Some scholars have suggested that Proverbs 22:17-24:34, in fact, represent the Hebrew rendering of the collection of Amenemope, the Egyptian minister, who was a contemporary to the prophet Jeremiah (6th century B.C.E.). Not surprisingly, some hold the opinion that Amenemope wrote his work under the influence of the Jewish sages and prophets. Another striking and interesting parallel is found in the story of Ahikar. The Book of Ahikar is an Aramaic work that dates back to the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E., and which some scholars suggest stemmed from Jewish sources. This means there is a long tradition of teaching through parables and fables not only as they are presented in Proverbs and in the collection of Amenemope and in The Book of Ahikar, but also as presented in the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and in many passages of the Apocrypha. The oral tradition is an educational system through which moral and social ideas were transmitted from one generation to another, allowing each generation to develop its own ideas until they eventually became part of the written tradition. Thus, the oral teaching method used by Jesus is not a special one; rather, it is a continuation of the Jewish method from whence it came. The proverbs he used came to him directly via early Jewish tradition: passed on by oral tradition until they were written down and canonized. This view contradicts the statement that much of what Jesus said was not passed along by this oral tradition. The parables told by Jesus are not merely the consequence of the time and place. The explanation given by some for the reason that Jesus spoke so often in parables: that it originated in, and can be can be gleaned from the situation in which he operated, needs to be re-examined. Although in his teaching, there is evidence of what we have referred to as performance on location, 8

this is not all. Jesus also conveyed his words in parable fonn because that was the best way for the moral and social teachings to be perceived by the members of his audience, each according to his own ability. The story, the riddle, the fable and the parable are all means of instruction, and have been replaced in modem times by texts, books, and by other written materials. But what was at the beginning? There is no doubt that everything began when the narrator searched for ways to convey his or her personal experiences to those members of their tribe. They searched for words that would convey their feelings and, when combined, would produce a genuine conveyance of personal feeling and experience. These words were, in fact, a fonn of dialogue between the audience and the narrator. Thus, the narrator would construct his story by engaging in a dialogue with two participants, while a third remained out of the scene. From time to time, the narrator involved the third participant, but during these times, one of the other two participants remained out of the scene. One participant was always outside of the scene. In the process of telling the story, the narrator passed along knowledge of customs, ways of life, and values. Even more than what he conveyed with his words, is what he conveyed with the muscles and expressions of his face, and the gestures made by his hands and fingers. These gestures, if done successfully, conveyed more than words ever could. In the realm of storytelling, then, there was, and is, not only a place for the tongue and words, but for gestures and body language as well. When narrators tell stories, they try to describe what has happened within their own environment. Some narrators tell about lions and monkeys, while others tell about rivers and emotions. A narrator's environment thus becomes a major factor in his descriptions, his vocabulary, and especially within the dialogues he has with his society as he conveys customs, social nonns, rituals, 9

and beliefs. When the language of the narrator was more developed, he turned to his close family and to his tribe. It was here that he developed the tendency to describe in more colorful language by speaking as mother, father, brother, or wife, the conveyance of emotions and sensations, such as love, hatred, and jealousy, for example. He also conveyed a new structure of social norms, which later on became social laws and accepted moral norms. The narrator evolved from simply using the language to explore his own actions and experiences to being the source for the placement of social norms within his society. It is critical to understand that a story presented by a narrator who was accepted as being important and imminent in his own society may not have been so accepted within the society of another narrator. This is an interesting notion: what was good and important in one society was not always the same in another. This was due, in part, to the fact that words and concepts in certain societies had special meanings and impact, effect, and pertinence, which were not the same elsewhere. Due to different emphases within each society, different norms and social changes emerged. What we see, in fact, is that all things were transmitted to future generations orally in a more or less crystallized form, but the elements that composed the story were so numerous that they can be viewed as stories unto themselves. This means that short stories were so numerous that the possibility for variance was great and, as a result, the emergence of different ideologies and norms attached to these stories was/is astounding. These stories have created a special mosaic in which the language continued to create many more aspects within literature. Northrop Frye writes: Civilization is not merely an imitation of nature, but the process of making a total human form out of 10

nature, and it is impelled by the forces that we have called desire. I

The general interpretation of Frye's words is that religion and literature have a point of contact. Both, in fact, concentrate around their own world: the biblical world. Frye sees the Bible as a prototype, an archetype of structure, a compendium of symbols, images, myths and literature. Thus, it can be viewed not simply as a book, but as a library. As I. Calvino says: ... (the Bible is) given particular significance as a whole, and around which we place all other possible books. 2

The main question is whether the Aristotelian perceptions and medieval system of classification that Calvino used to make comparisons are enough to suggest a new perception. Is it impossible to say that, indeed, such perceptions might prevent the reader from seeing the story on different levels? Is it worthwhile to see the perceptions of Frye as a hall lined with mirrors through which all humanity is perceived? We can only claim that with general perceptions such as these, we can see humanity and its creative forces.

2.

The 'Voices' and 'Music' of Literature

Modem society demands that an author, if he or she wishes to be heard, speak in one voice. Looking at American society, the novelist, for example, is more of an entertainer than a transmitter of new norms and values. His role is to write so that the reader will enjoy the story, and the woven fabric spread within the story. Sometimes a more intelligent reader wants more than enjoyment; he wants the novelist to place new ideas, or even old ideas, under

11

new cover, such that they have an impact on the reader. Few novelists actually do this. Only in a few literary works of our time can one find this socio-political sensation which, while still in the realm of good taste, includes an explosive idea that has the ability to shake the soul of the reader who is thus challenged to see and examine what is happening around him. Novelists of our time know the enormous power that literature possesses, but most do not use it because they are too busy searching for the social norms that most readers want to see. Most modem novelists want to become best sellers. The good novelist, the innovator, is the one who speaks in two voices; the one who hears two voices, and is excited and moved by them, so much so that they disturb his peace. With these novelists, one voice places him within society, while the other one shakes his essence, making him see the need for change. The demands enumerated by the second voice prompt new messages, eliciting societal change or, at least, deeper thought. This is the true socio-political message and the moral aspect of literature. Literature is multi functional. One of its functions is enjoyment: the creative development and aesthetic value, while still another is the ability to entice people to affect change in their Weltanschauung (outlook of the world). This aspect of literature offers the possibility of creating a new society, one which will accept the message of change by changing itself. Literature can be viewed as playing the role of society's self-awareness. The influence of literature on society is very decisive, but not the only one. If we accept the hypothesis that one voice in the literature of our time will hurl society into considering and/or affecting change, then we must be speaking of the ethical voice. The other, the aesthetic voice, rounds out the presentation of the two voices to the society and to the literature of the society. This issue of voice is a 12

crucial one, so, before we continue, let us discuss the issue of voice, of the ways of conceptualizing voice, and the possible impact it might have. One of the important aspects in literature is the voice. In fact, we can say that literature is the voice. By the voice, we mean, the 'voice that does not speak.' The voice that does not say specific things and yet, sometimes this voice directly, or indirectly, entices the audience to speak or take action. That voice encourages its audience to say something to the one who lets us hear the voice, to the one who speaks the truth. 'Literature' also contains the music that is connected by the voice to speech. From literature, the voice comes and the voice cannot be there at the same time, at the same moment, as the story's music. The audience cannot hear it, and at the same time hear the melody of the harps and the full everlasting sound within it. As much as the harps stop playing for the voice, so the voice stops its speech for the music to be absorbed. From this literature the voice came and said, 'I am not there,' or 'I am here but hidden.' On one side, the voice says, 'This is not me' and at this same time it also says, 'Listen to me, listen to me, I am here' and the voice is hidden so the reader or listener looks for itlhim/her. Literature speaks to us this way. Literature asks that we say something that it does not say. It requests from us to hear what it does not say. But sometimes the voice says, 'I have to say something, even if this could cause pain, even if it could hurt'. At this moment, the voice speaks as if from within, from its own soul, since from time to time it ought to make itself heard. But it is possible to say that here the speaking voice says no words, because it does not speak, so the listener would say to it "you are the speaking voice" because the voice ought to speak.

13

3.

Sages and Poets

There are two types of people, whom, according of their views, we can assume to know the world view of the story teller, 'the speaking voice', and why he was able to transmit his knowledge, to make it a part of his listeners' knowledge. Moreover, we can assume, also, how the information he transmits to the listener is truly absorbed and or received and how new information or new perceptions are gained. These two types of people can be seen as the sage and the poet. On the one hand, the sage is one who holds his knowledge and his teaching within himself. These four, (1) his knowledge, (2) his world view, (3) the world around him, together with (4) his own criticism of what is around him, all together are part of him and he is not ready or willing to share this knowledge with others or with the public. It is his own knowledge, which also singles him out. Sometimes, this wise person had a disciple or two who studied under his authority and to whom he imparted a part of this knowledge. These disciples then transmitted it to the public, credited to the sage by attaching his name to it, in his name. The formula used was: 'Said so and so in the name of so and so.' And thus, the audience was introduced to a short genealogy from which one can understand the teaching of the first sage. The transmission of such knowledge of a sage to his special disciple or disciples suggests that we have an 'aristocratic' teaching. Aristocratic is used here to state that this teaching belonged to very few people who were not primarily focused on, or interested in making their knowledge and wisdom part of the public domain. The fact that the sage transmitted his wisdom to only one or two of his followers, points out that he wanted to keep it for himself and within himself.

14

On the other hand, the poet holds his teaching, his internal knowledge, and his observations within himself, but from time to time, his knowledge erupts outside of his world and comes into the public domain. The poet is the one who observes his world, understands it, and presents it before his listeners using his own unique metaphors. In his every "volcanic" eruption, he requires that his audiences understand his unique metaphors. However, the presentation of his unique wisdom, the internal observation of the past of his world and the special use of his unique metaphors, demands that his listeners understand their interpretations. It is possible that the poet reaches or reflects on some phenomenon or phenomena in a certain way and the perception of his listeners will not be even close to the perception of the poet and his views. In spite of the fact that the poet requires his audience to use this knowledge and to know his metaphors' meanings, he does not dictate it to them and does not impose on them what they must understand or how to interpret his shared 'knowledge.' The sage's disciple, or his disciples, however, then transmit(s) the internal 'knowledge' of the sage as it was given to them. Sometimes the disciple makes a dramatic change where he applies this teaching to something familiar or to a similar knowledge. Then, at this stage, the audience can discern the turning point. But, in general, this internal 'knowledge' of the sage is transmitted as it was originally given to the new listeners, and they are expected to possess some understanding of this sage's world view. Yet, at this point, the sage's perception will have experienced some inescapable changes that come from the very process of transmission from one disciple to an audience of new listeners.

The storyteller, the poet, presents his world view, which is a reflection of his personal observation, as he contemplates within his own world. As a result, we are witnessing an eruption. He does

15

not need a mediwn or a mediator, as the sage does, to transmit these perceptions, but he himself, directly transmits them and the listeners search for interpretations of these contemplations. The search for these solutions by many is why there are so many interpretations focused on the different world views of the poet, the storyteller.

In early times, when the storyteller would address the aforementioned aspects of oral transmission, he would establish the structure of the story or parable such that there were two voices: the ethical and the aesthetic. In this manner, the story or parable mirrored the many different colors through which the storytellers spoke and depicted the social perceptions of their society, in an effort to cause certain ideological, social, political, or religious changes within society. At certain moments in history, however, they related the story or parable to a certain historical character who appeared to change their Weltanschauung. It is at that moment, when the story that was told before by an anonymous storyteller, that it becomes a story told by a storyteller with both a new approach and a new outlook and worth the goal of creating change. So we see that a story can change. But when does a story become a fable? Any story may become a fable, but not if we weave into it certain meaning, and if its contact and the characteristics of its characters can be compared to certain phenomena in the present. The story that takes place in a different world, its goals, its direction, is to entertain an audience, to explain certain phenomena in their time: as an ideological story. But throughout the ages, teachers and rhetors began to use these stories, which are not of our world, and they presented them to their audiences, asking them to understand what is found in the imaginary world and what could be

16

found in our world, too. Thus, they added the application, which is the moral of the story. These characteristics made the story a fable. Literature, such as the parable and the fable, is attributed oftentimes to anonymous storytellers, and they are the memories of the people, of the individual and of the whole culture. These memories are not exclusively for the past or for the future; they are, instead, the thread that ties all that we have mentioned above to the set of values they present. The fables and parables are like the "Siren Song" which Ulysses heard, a song without past and without future. There are traces of the past, whilst they also project hints of the future, never letting the audience forget or hear that which they might otherwise like to ignore. The parables or stories presented by the anonymous storyteller or by the historic character are the "return stories," meaning that these stories introduce us to a socio-political and religious problem, yet demand from us a return to the suggested method of new norms as presented in the stories. This means that the parable or story is a 'return journey' of sorts, to ourselves, with the question that we, the listeners, now ask: What kind of future do we wish to have? While visiting the past, we are facing the choice of change. Here we come across a new truth, which is, in fact, the realization of prophecy: that we are in search of ourselves. There may be some other way of understanding the events in the story itself. We know that the narrator of a certain society composes sentences, uses specific words, and presents certain images, which together often create a story of a prince and a princess, or of a king's sons, in which the smallest one becomes the most successful. It is in such composing that the narrator creates the paradigm of the prodigal son. Passing from one sentence to another, from one image to the next, he creates for himself, as well as for his audience, a hidden part, perhaps seen as

17

a mythos. This mythical part of the story is the unexplored part of it. The storyteller himself does not relate much, in the process of storytelling, to the mythos, since it is impossible to explain it by using mere words alone. To properly explain it, symbols and other elements, called rituals, are needed. These make up the silent part of the mythos. While silence is an important source of 'food' for the mythos; it is even stronger when it is supported with words. The mythos acts within the story or parable with great strength, sometimes giving the story its direction, and sometimes changing the story's direction. The narrator is somehow aware that the mythos creates its own patterns, and gradually develops special rituals to be observed by the culture which has developed the myth. But when these patterns become taboo, then the narrator ceases to be able to use them anymore, and offers the audience new aspects. This is where we can see the artistic creativity of the narrator who then develops around these sacred patterns in order to create new patterns, which elaborate and expand the folk literature and the creativity of the oral tradition. If we want to examine the flow of words and images used in the narrative of oral tradition, different stories from at least two different cultures should be examined to see in which way they change or take new courses in the presentation of the story. Such an examination is important to our time since film, as a modern medium, takes on the role more and more of the modern storyteller. If we want to understand the flow of the modern narrative and its images, the ways in which the cameraman creates the flow in his images, in a series of pictures he shoots, must be studied. Out of these pictures, he creates his story, first without words, but full of meaning and images. What is left for him to do after this, of course, is to compose the functions of the poet of the 18

oral tradition. It is similar to the poet who creates and recites his work on location, rich with images and words, until the story is complete. In this modem genre, we can perceive the cameraman as being a storyteller; he is, in fact, a modem creative person who uses different means, such as pictures instead of words, to convey to the audience/the viewer the same feeling of involvement that a traditional storyteller does. The ancient storyteller developed new significance and meanings for his audiences. He helped them to develop the ability to further distinguish not only the words and the emphases of those words, but also to understand his gestures. In contrast, the modem storyteller, the cameraman, develops the ability of his viewers a bit differently. He helps them develop the ability to distinguish different positions in the pictures and to create for themselves a consolidated picture and a complete story. In these two realms, and there is the possibility of adding the popular novel to the folktale and the film, each step has its unique approach and meaning, but all are focused on implementing justice in the world, to correcting the wicked, and to bringing an end to calamity and miserable situations in life. In many respects, each of these media has a definite role to play in bringing new order to the world, or at least to presenting the world with an idyllic and possible order. Since the storyteller views the past as something idyllic, he strives to return to his 'lost past' by offering his audiences, rooted in the present, the belief that in the course of his storytelling, that his audiences are capable of conquering the future by assuring that these memories of the past are never forgotten or lost.

In this respect, the narrator of the maidservant novels. (popular novels) is very similar to (1) the narrator of the folktale, who glorifies the past for the future, as well as to (2) the cameraman, who creates from the present, from the pictures he 19

himself takes, amity, for instance, and offers it as ideal. This relates to any picture, even those portraying war and destruction. The viewer sees the destruction, but for him the state before (the destruction) is an idyllic; in this respect, the visual effect is very strong. What does a storyteller do to attract his audience's attention? What does he do to make them understand that he is seeking social change? How does he convey to them that the story being told is not just another story but one seeking a new turn, a new order, and in many cases, ajourney to a new odyssey? Good storytellers use images known to their audience: motifs, metaphors, and tales from their world, or from their realms which are also his, so that they can understand him. An example of such awareness can be found in Mark 1. Jesus, who came from a rural area in the lower Galilee, was walking along the Sea of Galilee and observing the fishermen at work. By using an image familiar to the fisherman, and the metaphor of casting the net, he could be understood easily by his listeners:

Now as he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me and I will make you to become fishers ofmen. (Mk. 1: 16-17) The images used were familiar to the audiences. The narrator spoke to them as "laborers of the vineyard" (Matt. 20: I), as poor and rich, or, as in the fable:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter, the Kingdom of God (Matt. 9:24; Mk. 10:25. See also Matt. 7)

20

The genre of the fable or story is different from any other religious writing, or from any other religious interpretation, either written in an old book or included in the canon. The fable is a story that does not require the audience to be actively involved in either the story itself, or in the moral of the story, since generally, the questions that arise are rhetorical. This is in direct contrast to the writing of the canon which, in fact, demands that its audience act with only the given instructions: to observe the law religiously, and to go on 'the path'. In the genre of the fable, the audience listens solely to the conveyed instructions.

If we accept the premise that the story and fable are like dialogues between the storyteller and his audience, then it follows that the storyteller is looking for the audience's reaction and wants the audience's opinion. So, while it may appear that the fable is like a religious instruction that the storyteller wants to convey to the listener, in fact, he is also looking for his listener's reaction. We do not know whether he most wants an immediate reaction to his religious instruction or to influence the future behavior of his audience. As a result, it is imperative for the storyteller to use many ways to attract the attention of his listeners. For example, an interesting technique exists in prophetic Jewish literature; it is known as the 'oracle against the nations'. When the Prophet Amos wanted to attract the attention of his listeners, he began by sharing his prophecy against the nations around the kingdom of Israel. He began with the people of the North (Damascus), then he drew negative attention to the South (Gaza), then to the North West (Tyre), on to the South East (Edom), and closed his prophecy with reference to the East (Amon and Moab). The listeners followed him, participating in the historical events he mentioned. At that point, he went back to the South to mention yet another enemy, Judah, who was the present enemy. As a result, the festering animosity continued to grow between the two kingdoms. At that

21

point, his listeners were involved in the progression of the events and they were eager to listen for more 'good news'. Then the prophet changed the course of his prophecy and spoke to them about their kingdom also. Only when the prophet, the storyteller, saw that his audience was attentive and ready to follow him in his journey to fight the wicked people, the active enemies of the Israelites, did he begin his prophecy against them, which was, in fact, his principal purpose. In many ways, this is also the method of the narrator. He goes around with his presentation, or he offers rhetorical questions, with the main purpose of attracting the attention of his audience. It is in this manner that Jesus began his fable of the mustard seed:

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth. But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becomes greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches, so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. (Mk 4:31-31; See alsoLk. 12:39 and Matt. 24:43). The question appears rhetorically at the beginning of this fable and its purpose is to attract the attention of the listener and to prompt active participation of the audience in the dialogue Jesus seeks with his listeners. But it is important to note that this is only one narrative tool, or aspect of the narrator's role within any story. Many stories do not begin with such literary means, such as the 'interrogative forms', but instead use another means within the oral tradition referred to as both the 'affirmative style' and the 'tone of catechism. ' The 'affirmative style' is a commonly used one and it plays an important role in the transmission of oral literature. Looking, for

22

example, at the audience of a folk story, these different methods would attract a different audience. It is likely that the 'affinnative style' is directed more toward the common people living in rural areas. Thus, the 'affinnative style' found in Jesus' fable was directed to the common people when he met with them on the road, while the 'catechismal tone' found in some of his other fables, became the method of teaching Jesus also used later. Christian principles were directed toward a more sophisticated and cultured audience. There was not a specific story reserved only for the elite, but rather the same stories were told to both sophisticated and cultured audiences, though each rendition was conveyed by the storyteller in a different manner. This demonstrates the aesthetic nature and versatility of the narrator who could tell the same story yet alter its contents and the sociocultural or political message in order to suit his audience's interests and abilities. Through situations such as these, the transmissions within oral tradition were changed on location to better fit each audience, in sharp contrast to sharing a written text that cannot be changed but can be interpreted by many readers who, in turn, can then relate the many interpretations to very different audiences. Since Jesus turned his focus to audiences of farmers and fishennen in Galilee, there is no doubt that his method of conveying infonnation was different than the methods he used to address urban audiences. As Jesus transmitted his fables to different audiences, in the process, he purposely used means, images, and metaphors that were familiar to his audiences. He spoke to them about life itself, about aspects of life that were close and known to them. When any articulate prophet or storyteller in the oral tradition came to tell the people something important, he would use aspects which were familiar to them. Amos spoke about the 'plumb line' (7:7) and 'basket of summer fruit' (8;1). Micah 23

spoke about 'grape gleanings of the vintage' (7:1); Nahum spoke about 'the noise of rattling of the wheels and of the prancing horses '(3; 2); and Joel spoke about 'the locust and the caterpillar' (2:25). Jeremiah described the man who trusted God by saying: For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters and that spreadeth out her roots by the river... (17:8)

because he knew that the description would be understood by the farmer, as well as by the city dweller. The same can be said about the 'story of the figs' (24:1-10). This fable can be understood, by both rural and urban audiences, and there is no doubt that the farmers could understand it. It is the same with 'Jotham's fable' (Jud. 9: 7-21). However, when we examine the images used in these stories, we see that they are not explicit religious images or theological metaphors, but, instead, they are taken from the everyday life of the rural people living in Judah and in the Galilee. Hence, the images and metaphors found in the stories and the fables of Jesus were a reflection of everyday life in the 1st century C.E. It is through these images, in addition to discovering the instruction they were meant to convey and the implicit teaching he wished them to know, that we can understand the life in the rural areas of that time. Stories like the laborers in the vineyard, or about the fig tree, or concerning the sower, and about the mustard seed are much more than just the symbols and images needed by a gifted teacher to convey his lessons and ethical perceptions. They act as a window through which we can see life in these geographical areas and its impact on the common people. It is critical to note here that, from a literary viewpoint, the stor), or the fable is not always explicitly understood, as they are not simply descriptions of a certain phenomenon or instructions that use various images. The parable is, in fact, the biblical fable, 24

which appears many times without any interpretation and it includes something of the genre of the riddle within the parable. It is in this respect that the parable can be defined as a 'role model story', meaning that it is used as an example by the fabulist, teacher, preacher, or prophet in order to transmit new values. The connection between the parables and the biblical fables is that they are not only used as 'example stories' but they also include the solution the reader seeks, and thus they hold the same elements as do the fables. If, indeed, these are accepted as 'exemplary stories,' then they are lacking symbolic or indirect elements. Within the reality of the framework that the storyteller is trying to convey also lies something more, something that is obliging the listener to try to understand the hidden story being the explicit one. Some scholars argue that the behavior and the attitude sketches in the 'Good Samaritan' and 'Rich Fool' are not comparable to, or analogous with, what a man should or would do, but are exactly what he should avoid. If, for example, it is the general perception that a priest should not be allowed to touch a dead corpse, since he would be breaking the Law of Purity, then the acceptance of the purity laws of the priests is also being reviewed in this story. The priest does not help the uyured traveler because he is thought to be dead. However, Jesus teaches that helping a dying man is far more important than the Laws of Purity. In contrast to that, the story of 'The Prodigal Son' is not only analogous to Jesus' own situation, but it is a story that was known among the people according to Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. 3

25

4.

Allegorical Interpretation

It is hard to suggest that the teachings of 'exemplary stories' are less religious than those of the parables. The question is not whether the theological perception in the 'exemplary stories' is truly different or weak, or in what sense one can find these in the 'exemplary stories.' The parable, in general, has a focal point, which is either hidden or only partly revealed, and sometimes the allegorical genre that is included in the story might even suggest that there is more than one focal point. Since Jesus' audiences were made up of Jews who knew the biblical fables and saw the connections between it and Jesus' parables, and they were familiar with his method of teaching, they knew the hidden intentions in the parables presented before them.

If this hypothesis is correct, then the image given in the stories, especially the images of God as 'father' or 'judge, are Jewish images that have allegorical expressions and meaning. This does not mean, however, that every parable is an allegory, or that any parable is an allegory, since an allegory is an interpretation of something else. The same is true regarding rabbinic literature. Many allegorical elements can be found in rabbinic literature, and these elements can be found in many of Jesus' parables. Sometimes it seems as if scholars over emphasize the existence of allegorical elements. There are those who have argued that the elements in the parables of 'The Prodigal Son,' in 'The Workers in the Vineyard,' and in 'The Wicked Tenants' have a special significance. The characters of the 'king' in the parable 'The Unforgiving Servant' and of the 'father' in 'The Prodigal Son' carry allegorical elements, for example, which found their solutions in the fact that listeners to these stories understood them as being 'God the father and king'; thus, the significance becomes

26

expanded. But this does not prove the allegory in the fable. In fact, the most interesting point about any parable, fable, story, and even the folktale in the oral tradition, is that each one can be interpreted differently, as allegorical and as non-allegorical. Since we are dealing, in addition, with hypotheses to definitions, the folktale, and for that matter, all of oral tradition is a literature that was transmitted from one generation to the next. It is, in fact, an aspect of transmitting the tradition and values of the society from one generation to another and, thus, the society itself should participate in such an important process. The Jewish Sages emphasized such transmission of the oral tradition. This means that a great awareness of this process was presented to the people. Oral transmission was especially important, as well as the basis for the existence of an orderly society as a whole, because through it every new generation became well educated. This was a process in which all members of society participated and valued. It is obvious that such stories and such oral literature penetrate many genres. As such, it is no surprise for it to be possible to find allegorical elements within the 'example stories,' or to find 'figurative language' used in a number of ways. 'Oral literature,' then, transmits creative work and educational lessons. While a story may be interpreted according to its allegorical elements, or according to its symbols and figurative language, it is also possible to interpret the same story in a simpler way, to see it as an 'example story.' Keeping this in mind, consider this: Jesus used all the means known to him, that is, all those means which were being used in his society, the Jewish society, in the 1st century C.E. These were the means through which the sages taught and educated the people: by the legends, stories, parables, and fables, and these were not allegorical. It is readily apparent that Jesus did not teach using allegorical means, since this method was 27

not known to most of the public at that time, and it was not part of the 'educational system.' The 'allegorical interpretation' is a consequence of modem scholars who searched for a new perception in Jesus' teachings. And their perceptions grow out of the allegorical practices found chiefly in the writings of the Church Fathers on whom we focus in Chapter Five herein. They, in turn, had been students of the 'Alexandrian Allegorical School' as opposed to the 'Antiochan Historical School' of interpretation. So it happened with the story of the 'Fig Tree' interpreted by many scholars allegorically as being a parable that was used to point out the wickedness of the priests of the Temple, and causing the destruction of Jerusalem, and the establishment of the kingdom of God, all because the connection of the 'money changers' to the Temple is related to the story. Scholars have also interpreted another story, 'The Wicke~ Tenants,' as being an allegory. Here, the violent acts of the tenant are seen as representing the rebelliousness of Israel in its long history. The important question arises: Does the audience need to know the position and viewpoint of the narrator? Indeed, if we examine this story as an allegory, then there is no doubt that it is important to know the narrator's view point. It is according to his viewpoint that we are able to understand the significance of the hidden meanings in the story and, accordingly, to interpret correctly the allegory of the conveyed parable. The position of the narrator in an allegOrical story is especially important since the story is generally a reflection of the conflicts between the narrator and his audience. The narrator conveys his words to express his ideas, but the listeners are not always ready to hear his story or his ideas, so he must use an allegory. The allegories are usually taken from the nature that is known to the listeners. 'The Fox in the Vineyard,' 'The Vineyard,' 'Jotham's

28

Fable,' and 'Nathan's Parable' were all used to attract their audiences to the new teaching that is conveyed in the story. In this particular situation, it is apparent that the story presents us with a new historical outlook that is related to the original audience's time and period. This does not mean, however, that the story, or the allegory in the story, is history. Usually, in order to successfully convey allegories, the stories that are used, that are well known to the audience, these stories are interwoven with the ideas of the narrator that are conveyed in a new setting with significance. The special conveyance of the story, then, is different from the parable with which the audience is already familiar. In this way, the 'new' story is a double story, a 'two-for-the-price-of-one.' On the one hand, a known parable or fable is used that has a certain meaning. On the other hand, it is a story which has a 'new significance' and it conveys a new teaching, either through its own new structure or through the one interwoven with the old story. Obviously, in such situations, where one story is constructed on top of another, the listener understands the 'new edition' of a familiar story and accepts it. The listener may argue with the narrator, but the story, overall, is easily understood with the same significance with which it was conveyed. Through all of this, we can find a few historic elements, but these elements do not make the stories historical. When the narrator presents his audience with a certain story, the terms and significance he uses and means to point out may include historical elements, but the story itself is not necessarily history. More than historical elements, the allegory demands knowing and requires understanding and using the story telling effectively in order to have the power to change a way of life. This was, in fact, one of the educational means used in those days. In many respects, this was the curriculum of the 'old days.'

29

Close reading points out that this genre carries an important social significance. The 'happy ending' and the 'didactic significance' that the storyteller expects his audience to accept are what is at the center of the idea of a new and a more positive order. Thus, the story is a direct expression of the people's desire to change social perceptions and to somehow convert its social function, to create a new society or even hypothetical order. This is, in fact, the odyssey that every storyteller makes: addressing his audience in the hopes that they will participate in the same odyssey and partake in the long journey toward creating social change.

B.

Strings of Literature Before him the garden of the gods appeared; gemtrees ofall colors, dazzling to see. (Gilgamesh, Book IX)

**** The thread is so thin. Tell me if I have spoken out of place, Or am I truthful? If I am, then admit it.

1.

The Enduring Oral Tradition: Spoken and Sung

The most eloquent writings of Western Civilization are thought to be centered in the traditional writings because of the religious aspect of the canon. It is assumed that ancient Jewish traditions were written down, as were the Christian traditions. As interest in the oral tradition grew, scholars began to reevaluate their assumption that ancient traditions were written down. Thus, in recent years, their studies of canonical writings, Pseudepigrapha, 30

Targums and the homiletic literature, have pointed toward the traces of the aforementioned works in the canon and vice versa. The oral tradition, the one that is spoken and the one that is sung, existed even after the invention of writing. It is a creation of all people everywhere, and it is present in all religions. While time and location can change, so do the 'garments' of oral tradition. Yet, there are people who created their oral tradition and, at the same time, influenced others. These people and cultures were the recipients of these oral creative works. Hence, these people and cultures knew how to interpret these works and how to give them a new identity, thus making them their own.

In spite of the invention of writing, the oral tradition was transmitted from one generation to another by word of mouth. Narrators told the stories, singers sang the songs (Cf. Lord 1960), and moralists recited their parables and proverbs. In certain locations, they amused children, as well as other members of the community, and educated them. They did not only recite these works to amuse the audience, but also to convey a new teaching, a new interpretation. These storytellers developed certain ways to attract the attention of their listeners, and to open their hearts to new teachings or ideas. In this way, the prophet, the preacher, and the moralist met the audiences in the streets and in the places of worship to convey the new perceptions, or to give new interpretations to the old. There they told stories about holy men and women, about saints who served as the paradigms for the new teachings. Though these narrators, the oral tradition was transmitted and it remained an important part in the life of the people. Typical of such strong commonalities concerning oral composition and storytelling across numerous cultures and generations may be read in the works of Albert B. Lord (The

31

Singer of Tales 1960) and the edited work of his widow (The Singer Resumes the Tale 1995). However, a question remains: What was the level of innocence and simplicity in these stories? No doubt in some places, probably in public places, some stories were very simple and innocent. Though today we consider a 'bed time' story to be innocent, there are ways of interpreting even these simple stories to reveal deeper meaning, proving them to be not so simple, or as innocent, as they first appeared. It is possible that as much as humanity became structured, it lost, at the same time, its childhood and its youthful ability to enjoy innocence and the simplicity contained in such stories. This primordial relation to the world and humanity is gone. Now those stories that were once works of art are now the sole domain of children. Indeed, it has happened to many classical works, too, such as: The Travels of Gulliver, The Little Prince, and Robinson Crusoe, to name but a few. The reduction of these classics to the realm of children's stories is an example of humanity's 'lost childhood' in the name of modernity. With this loss, the world has lost its ability to be creative and to turn the child within each of us free. The search for modernity moved us away from the stories, legends, songs, and fables of the oral tradition, \\;'hich once had given us the ability to face the world, and its loss has deprived us of keeping the eternal childhood alive in each of us. The storyteller changes his hero. He does not need the plot as a whole, but he can take a part of the plot and, using parts of the original story, create another story. Many modem authors created stories, poems, or ballads that depict a certain character, but the character in their works is not the same one whom we find in another story. Friedrich Hebbel, a German playwright (1840, 2004) did this in his dramatic play, Judith, where he changes the national and the patriotic heroism of Judith to a psychological struggle of a 32

struggle ofa woman. It is his study of motivation in which altruism gives way ultimately to a self-centered desire for revenge which, in turn, leads to tragedy. The story is dated to the time of the war between Napoleon and Spain. At that time, a noble family was condemned to death, on which Balzac based his novel El Verdugo, and a Gennan poet wrote his ballads. The oral tradition, by its nature, has time and it is not limited to certain cultures. In each place, there are stories, legends, and songs that people tell, sing, and recite. Through these works, the people speak about their dreams and aspirations, their lore, and history. Thus, some historical elements are present. These 'historical legends' are contained within both dream and reality, within imagination and innocence, and there is no way to separate these elements. If we try to explain it through any theory, or to approach it with any study, then we lose the meaning and the spirit of the work. Our approach is to shine a light in order to follow the insightful interpretation of the platonic Socrates in the following passage in Pairos, in chapters 3-4. This includes the legends of Borias from Herodotus 7-185. Love stories are among the main genres found in the oral tradition. These stories form a special genre, yet love scenes are interwoven in other stories like Rudolph in Herodotus 1: 12; Gisela in Boccaccio 10:10; Penelope; and Romeo and Juliet, which are but a few. No matter whether this is a goddess or a woman, both, as Shakespeare noted in Sonnet 116, '... (they) are like 'water' and 'fire' at the same time when they are in love. In all cases of these love stories or love scenes, the human characteristic always takes over. This was noted, too, by Sophocles in Antigone 332-333. Yet, in all love cases, the human eye is not ever completely satisfied; it is always asking for more and more. In the main genres in oral tradition, there are four 33

identifications or types: (1) Factum, stories and anecdotes which include historical elements, as well as Novella and Roman. These two are taken from the word, Novella, which presents the reader with life's experience a very detailed way.

(2) Legends, here we find the Maerchen or Contes des fies, fairy tales, mythos and the legends which were used in the Church for moral teaching. (3) The fabula, the fable. This is a story taking from the animal world and relating it to human characteristics. (4) The parable, which means to compare (or, as later interpreted, to speak in allegory). The parable is: known as the one that has a philosophical teaching, divine moral, taken from reality, but at the same time surprises the reader with the new meaning which is conveyed. The fable, on the other hand, uses talking animals and relates using this device to the human reality. Yet, it does not have to have a moral. In fact, the complete and splendid fable is the one that does not need a moral, such as 'The Fox and the Vineyard' and The Lion and the Donkey. ' The parable contains a complete story. It takes place in the human realm, but the moral of the story is mainly focused on one principle, perhaps one which was forgotten, or there is an emphasis on it now as it is shown bathed in a new light:

A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together and took his

34

journey into a far country and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into the fields tofeed swine. And he wouldfain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat, and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, how many hired servants of my father have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger. I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee. And I am no more worthy to be called thy son, make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto his father, Father I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called your son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring hither the fatted calf and kill it, and let us be merry. For this is my son who was dead and is alive again, he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field, an as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him Thy brother is come, and thy father has killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him sqfe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in, therefore his father came out and entreated him. And he answering said to him Father, 'To these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at

35

anytime thy commandment, and yet thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this, thy son, was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed Jor him the Jatted calf And he said unto him, 'Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine '. 'It was meant that we should make merry, and be glad, Jor this thy brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost and isJound'. (Lk. 15:11-32). Thus, in Luke we find that in these stories, the audience needs to search for that hidden principle that is beyond wisdom, for that one principle which humans live for on this earth. A website containing two images of a scene from this parable are supplied the reader in Chapter Six herein.

2.

Meshalim and Parables

a.

Legends and the Parable

The beginning of the 'legenda ' in the New Testament is mostly taken from the stories of Jesus and the Gospels. The parables, as well as the miracles, were the source for the religious 'legenda.' Thus, the main themes of the legenda are: hidden, righteous people; awe of the Lord; and historical events. The stories in the New Testament could serve as defining the end of the line for Jewish Hellenistic literature. They, in fact, are the examples of the crystallization of Judea and Greece. Many of the stories are taken from early sources, and almost every story has its motif in the Old Testament. One can see that the story of the birth of Jesus is comparable to that of Isaac's and Samson's. The decree to kill all children in Bethlehem is also comparable to that of Pharaoh, in late

36

Jewish tradition, prior to this decree, there was the revelation that a savior would be born. This is introduced in the following story:

Jesus' miracles were like those of the prophet. And there arose a great storm of wind and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full .,. And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, peace, be still, and the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. (Mk. 4:35-41).

While he spoke these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshiped him saying, My daughter is even now dead but come lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live ... But when the people were put forth, he went in and took her by the hand and the maid arose. (Matt. 9:18-25). And it came these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick and his sickness was so sore that there was no breath left in him ... And he said unto her, give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom and carried him up to the loft where he awoke and laid him on his own bed ... And he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried unto the Lord ... and the soul of the child came to him again and he revived ... (lKings 17: 17-23). And they said unto him, we have here but five loaves and two fishes. He said: Bring them hither to me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and he took the five loaves, and the two fishes and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. (Matt. 14:17-19).

37

And there came a man from Baal Shalishah, and brought the man good bread of the first fruits. twenty loaves of barley. and fresh ears of corn in his sack And he said: Give unto the people. that they may eat. And his servants said: How should I set this before a hundred men? But he said: Give to the people that they may eat. (2Kings 4:42-43).

The fear that Jesus had while meditating in the Garden of Gethsemane corresponds with that found in Elijah (lKgs. 19:10, 14) And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith him unto them: my soul is exceedingly sorrowful even unto death. Tarry ye here and watch with me. And he went a little further andfell on his face, and prayed saying: 0 Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. . (Matt. 26:37-39). InActs 12:6-25 we find the story of Peter in prison: And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers. bound with two chains ... : and behold, an angel of the Lord came upon him, and light shone in the prison and he smote Peter on the side and raised him up saying, Arise quickly and his chains fell offfrom his hands. And the angel said unto him. Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did

38

And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out and followed him and knew not it was true which was done by the angel but thought he saw a vision ... A story about R. Akibah, who was imprisoned, and R. Yehoshua, his disciple, who served time in prison with him shares:

On the eve of the Holy Day (Day of Atonement), he left and went back to his home. Elijah appeared at the door of his (R. Yehoshua's) house. R. Yehoshua said to him: "Peace be upon you, Rabbi." He (Elijah) responded: "Peace be upon you my Rabbi and teacher." (R. Yehoshua asked): "Are you in need of anything?" He (Elijah) responded: "I am a priest, and I came to tell you that R. Akibah died in prison." Immediately both of them went to the prison. They found the gate opened and the chief warden asleep and ... the prisoners were sleeping. At that moment, Elijah took R. Akibah's body and carried it on his shoulder. Doing so R. Yeshoshua said, "Rabbi, you have told me 'I am a priest and a priest is forbidden to be uncleaned by the dead. " He answered: "Enough my son, Godforbid, there is no uncleanliness with righteous people nor with their disciples." They walked all night long until they arrived at Antipatres of Caesarea. When they arrived there, they climbed three (thirty?) steps and went down some and a cave was revealed to them, and they saw there a chair, a bench, a table, and a lamp. They laid R. Akibah on the bed and went out. At this moment the cave shut down and the candle in the lamp was lit up. When Elijah saw it he said: "Blessed be the righteous one, blessed be those who occupy themselves with their study of the Torah,

39

yours hidden, concealed and kept for the future to come to a place in the Garden of Eden. Blessed be R. Akibah that a resting place was found for you at the day ofyour death" (Midrash Mishle 9: 11-20).

Another version is found in Tan. Emor, 21:5: 4 ... they laid him on the bed and were on their way out. At that moment, R. Yehoshua lifted his eyes and saw another bed, nicer even than the one (of R. Akibah). They were to go out and R. Yehoshua did not want to go out. He said: "Rabbi 1 will not go out of here until you tell me to whom this (second) bed is for. " He said to him: "To the wife of Titus the Wicked, for all the favors she did with R. Akibah when he was imprisoned."

The story of the death of John the Baptist has its source in the New Testament and versions of it can be found in Mimoker Yisrael: For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodius's sake, his brother Philip's wife, for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod (that) it is not lawful (to marry) thy brother's wife '" And when a convenient day was come, .. , Herod, on his birthday, made a supper for his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee. And when the daughter of the said Herodius came in, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, "Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt and I will give it to thee. " .. , And she went forth and said to her mother: "What shall I ask?" and she said, "The head of John the Baptist. " And the king was exceedingly sorry yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, (but) he would

40

for their sakes which sat with him, (but) he would not reject her (request) and immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded that his (John the Baptist's) head be brought in a charger and (he) gave it to the damsel ... (Mk. 6: 17-28). In Mimoker Yisrael there are three variants of stories found in the Gospels: •

•

•

Antipas, the son of Herod, committed all evil, more than those who died before him. And he took his brother Philip's wife from him, and she already gave birth. R. Yohanan the High Priest admonished him for this act and Antipas struck him and killed him. Against him. Tiberius the Roman emperor fought, he chained him and took him to Spain where he died The King Antipas was very cruel and merciless. He killed his sons, removed the priesthood from its position and desecrated the Law. He who slaughtered John the Baptist, for he had admonished him for taking his brother Philip's wife. After this event, they (the Romans) took him (Antipas) to Rome and from there they sent him to a city in France, Lyon. He. his wife, and his daughter, also, died in the water (drowned) when the bridge broke down. 5 In the time of Jonathan the High Priest. King Herod reigned To this king the Pharisees ... (and) the Jews sent an offering, a beautiful and nice looking woman. And the king loved her with a great love. When she saw that the king loved her so much and (that) he would not deny her even one little thing. she asked him to give her the head of John (the Baptist). The king commanded and the head ofJohn was cut off, put in a charger (basket) and (it) was given to her. At that point, King Herod was in Samaria. After these things, King Herod died and King Tiberius came to the throne. He built the city of Tiberius, (which is) named ... after his name, Tiberius. 6

41

b.

Parables in Two Traditions

Jesus' parables are different from the parables found in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, they are connected to the parables of the sages rather to those found in the Bible. His parables consist of three types, which might be considered also as three types of philosophical and literary levels. The first one, the moralist, the preacher, tells his parable's meaning, while he observes directly the new event or the new deed, while the parable is the sacred interpretation of the event, which was also witnessed. (1) And Jesus sat opposite the treasury, and beheld how people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow hath cast more into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance, but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (M!. 12:41-44)

(2) King Agrippa (Agrippa I, 10 C.E.-44 C.E.) wished to offer up a thousand burnt offerings in one day. He sent to tell the High Priest: "Let no man other than myself offer sacrifice today!" There came a poor man, with two turtle doves in his hand, and he said to the High Priest: 'Sacrifice these. ' Said he: The King commanded me, saying: "Let no man other than myself offer sacrifices today." Said he: 'My lord the High Priest, I catch four (doves) every day: two I offer up, and with the other two I sustain myself. If you do not offer them up, you cut off my means of sustenance.' The Priest took them and offered

42

them up. In a dream it was revealed to Agrippa: ''The sacrifice of a poor man preceded thine. " So he sent to the High Priest, saying: 'Did not I command you thus: "Let no man but me offer sacrifices this day?" Said (the High Priest) to him 'Your majesty, a poor man came with two doves in hand, and he said to me: 'I catch four birds everyday. I sacrifice two, and from the other two I support myself. If you will not offer them up you will cut off my means of sustenance. ' Said (King Agrippa) to him, ' You were right in doing as you did "7 In other short versions of this story we find the following: (J)An ox was once being led to the sacrifice, but would not budge. A poor man came along with a bundle of endive in his hand He held it out towards the ox, which ate it, sneezed and expelled a needle, and then allowed itself to be led to sacrifice. In a dream it was revealed to the owner of the ox: ' The poor man's sacrifice preceded thee. >II (2) Once a woman brought a handfoll offlour, and the priest despised her, saying: 'See what she offers! What is there in this to eat? What is there to offer up? It was shown to him in a dream. Do not despise her! It is regarded as if she had sacrificed her own lifer The second type is the parable that appears as a story, and the story holds both realms, the divine and the earthy, simultaneously. This type is illustrated in the following parable: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which when a man hath found it he hideth, and for joy there of it goeth and selleth 43

all that he hath, and buyeth that field. A merchant man, seeking fine pearls, who when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it. A net that was cast into the sea, and gathered the good into the vessels and cast the bad away. (Matt. 13: 44-48). To what can a parable be compared? To a man to whom there has fallen as an inheritance, a bet-kor, of land which he sold for a trifle. The buyer, however, went and opened wells in it and planted gardens, trees, and orchards in it. The seller, seeing this, began to choke because he had sold his inheritance for a trifle. A parable, to what may this be compared is a man to whom there had fallen as inheritance residence in a far off country, which he sold for a trifle. The buyer, however, went and discovered in it a hidden treasure and stores of silver and gold, of precious stones and pearls. The seller, seeing this, began to choke ... 10 In Midrash ha-Gadol, these two parables are introduced in relation to Pharaoh changing his mind. But the parable told by R. Simeon b.Yohai illustrating his artistic imagination and ability as preacher, darshan, to convey the same literary connection with a different literary illustration produced the following:

(Like) a man who inherited a piece of ground used as a dunghill. Being an indolent man, he went and sold it for a trifling. The purchaser went right to work. He began digging it up, and found a treasure, there, out ofwhich he built for himselfa fine palace, and he began going about in public followed by a

44

retinue of servants-all out of the treasure hefound in it. When the seller saw it, he was ready to choke, and he exclaimed: 'Alas, what have I thrown away,?11 A parable that is found in Pesikta D'Rav Kahana (J 1: 17) contains three parables, one that speaks about an inheritance of a field of land; a second discussing the inheritance of a residence; and the third focused on inheritance of a dunghill. Each of these parables undergoes a significant literary development where sometime the same darshan (R. Simeon b. Yohai) allows himself to expand its parable, and he presents a new version. All three issues are related to each other by the theme of finding a treasure. In the New Testament, the parables of the 'treasure,' the 'pearl' and the 'net' are not related to inheritance, but are related, instead, to finding a treasure and to the search for this treasure. The concept of Kingdom of Heaven found in the New Testament relates these parables that are both earthly and divine, while those of the rabbinic sources remained in the earthly realm. So, who has borrowed from whom? Judaism from. Christianity? Or vice versa? Although scholars have examined this question, what is most important to note is that all these parables were not organized solely in either community, as can be discerned by examining the following parables:

(A parable to those who were bidden ...) When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the chief seat, lest a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him. And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, , Give this man place, , and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room But when thou are bidden, go and sit down in the lowest 45

room that, when he bade you cometh, he may say unto thee, 'Friend, go up higher, ' then shalt thou have honor in the presence of them that sit at meal with thee. For whosoever exalted himself shall be above and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted (LukeI4: 7-11). These instructions of Jesus' humility are dramatized by the

moral, the proverbial ending which can be found in Proverbs, as the following:

Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men. For better it is that it be said unto thee: Come up hither, than thou shouldest be put down lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen (25:6-7).

In ARNB, we find the following: Rabbi Yose says: 'Get down to come up and up to come down. Whoever exalts himself above the words ofthe Torah is in the end exalted. 12 Leviticus Rabbah introduces its interpretation of Provo 25:7 in the following way:

Akiba taught in the name of R Simeon b. Azzai: Go two or three seats lower and take your seat, until they say to you, 'come up,' rather than that you should go up and they should say to you, 'Go down. ' Better that people say to 'come up, come up, and not say to you 'go down, go down. '13

In Tanhuma, we find a version of this saying as in the following:

46

R. Tanhuma says: Go far from your place two or three seats, so until they tell you 'go up, ' and do not go up so they will not tell you 'go down. '14 Midrash Hallel introduces a parable about a king and two governors of his two provinces. However, the teaching presented there is a parallel to the verse in Psalms: Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth. 15 The development of this saying in the following story uses the genre of the novella, the short prose narrative.

This story is about Rueben the scribe who never in his life had sinned or even tasted it. One day, he went to the synagogue for the morning prayer, and he saw a man sitting on his place. Immediately, he rebuked him saying: "Stand not in the place of great men. " At that moment, he went out and sat by the entrance of the synagogue. Crying in his heart, one of his tears came by the Holy Throne. The Holy One, Blessed be he, sent (the angel of death) to take the soul of his (Reuben the scribe's) son, the only one was given him at the age of eighty (Literally: 'was given to him after eighty years '). 16

c.

From Saying to Parable: The Role of Orality

Now that we find in both traditions instructions concerning humility, the parallelism and the strong relationship between the two are admirable. But from a literary point of view, it points out the awareness of sages in both the Jewish and Christian camps that one can try to exalt himself over the other. There is a way to simplifY the discussion and to suggest that the Lukan parable argues the importance of the verse in Proverbs 25:6. This also suggests that 47

here we have an example of the development of a saying to a parable. Such possibilities concerning the translation of a saying to a parable in the Christian milieu also happened in the Jewish milieu. Thus, the question asked by Fitzmyer.17 Were these rabbinical traditions possibly influenced by early Christians? Upon examination, it becomes evident that this question is not a valid one since versions of the earlier rabbis' teachings on humility are found in abundance, and even one is related to a sage named Hillel, who lived ca. 20 B.C.E.IS However, it is possible that such teachings were part of the Jewish wisdom tradition and that Jesus inherited them from his Jewish tradition. The structure of a parable is fIrst marked by an introduction, which tries to indicate the content of the parable. Sometimes the parabolist conveys a passage that contrasts with the majority of the parable, thus, both demonstrating the nature of people to unconsciously alter an original story, while relaying it orally, and explaining the twists, dimensions, and versions that a parable or fable may incur over the years. The most basic way to identify an oral composition is to examine the fonnulaic language. Narrators of the oral traditionalize this 'special' language to enable a more accurate and rapid conveyance of the story, complete with its hidden instructions and meanings. Another aspect of ora). composition is the structure of the parable. One can see it as a technique of composition. Generally speaking, a story, or parable of oral tradition, has a conventional beginning. The fonnula 'once upon a time' often gives way to a fonn of dialogue between the narrator and his audience to begin the story. In either case, the objective of the narrator is to withhold the drama and controversial twist until the end wherein he can make the point of his teaching. To illustrate this, let us examine the following passages: 48

(1) Once Rabbi Jose of Yokereth had day laborers in the field Night set in and no food was brought to them, and they said to his son, "we are hungry. " Now they were resting under the fig tree and the son exclaimed, "Fig tree, fig tree! Bring forth thy fruit that my father's laborers may eat. " It brought forth fruit and they ate. Meanwhile, the father came and said to them, 'Do not bear grievances against me. The reason for my delay is because I have been occupied up till now on an errand of charity. ' The laborers replied, 'God satiSfy you even as your son satisfied us. ' Wherein he asked, 'Whence?' And they told him what had happened Thereupon, he said to his son, 'My son, you have troubled your creator to bring forth its fruits before its time; may you be taken hence before your time. '19 (2) Now in the morning, as he returned to the city, he hungered, and when he saw afig tree in the way, he came to it and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, 'Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever' and presently the fig tree withered away. (Matt. 21:18-20). (3)The next day, when they had come out from Bethany, he became hungry, andfrom a distance, he caught sight of a fig tree that had leaves, and he went to see whether he would perhaps find something on it. But, on coming to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. So in response he said to it: 'Let no one eat fruits from you anymore forever. ' And his disciples were listening. (Mark 11 :12-14).

The story in the Talmud begins with a conventional opening 'Once Rabbi Jose ... ' whereas the stories in the New Testament open with formulaic openings such as, 'Now in the 49

morning ... ' or 'The next day ... '. Stories in Mark 11 and in Matthew 21 each begin this way. In fact, these are often the beginnings of small episodes within a larger story. In Matthew 17:22 it is recorded: It was while they were gathered together ... The series of episodes begin in Mark, Chapter 18: It is obvious from the styles used in all these episodes of these two Gospels:

In those days when there was a big crowd... that the stories they contain came from the oral tradition. 20 The narrator of the story in the New Testament creates a calm beginning and then gradually creates the first dramatic story point in both of these Gospels that Jesus saw a fig tree with leaves which the audience understands indicates the tree should be bearing fruit. When no fruit is found on the tree that creates the second dramatic point and the story's tension grows as Jesus curses the tree. However, at the conclusion, each version of it is different. The storyteller in Mark says, "The disciples marveled, " which means that tension still exists. And it could be on its way to a calamity. At the end of the story's version in Mark, the narrator chooses to leave the audience in suspense by stating, "And his disciples were listening." Here, the disciples were waiting for something to happen. The narrator uses a literary device well known to the early Hebrews. It is exemplified in the story of the rape of Dinah where the narrator shares, "And Jacob held his peace. "(Gen. 34:5) Although it is a type of , by the way' statement, the tension is clearly evident in every letter in the statement. The same literary device was used in the Gospel with the words, "They were listening." The audience immediately wonders about what 50

the disciples were waiting to see happen next. Were they waiting for the curse? Were they waiting to see the tree withering after it was cursed? Were they waiting to see the curse implemented? As these events above occur in the midst of a story that centers on Jesus, it may seem that the story is incomplete. In the New Testament, the audience must jump from Gospel to Gospel to connect the episodes of the story. In the Talmudic literature, the story is one unit, and the audience feels it is complete. The Talmudic version, with its calm beginning, goes on to develop a tension filled story as the audience moves beyond the carefully described pastoral setting and ambiance of people "working in the field." Step by step, as one dramatic turn builds upon the next, the climax is reached with the curse:

May you, too, be taken before your time. It is important to note that in the Talmudic story the spoken word was the primary way people of that era communicated. It was just prior to Jesus' time, and foT some centuries following him, that the written word became an important communication tool as the texts became canonized and became treated as 'the word of God. ' But this does not mean that we must treat them as such. Modern readers may not want to question the holiness of the text they study, but they should be able to treat it as the actual means of communication that existed before the text was canonized. Recall the importance of our reference to the work of Alfred Lord above. As has already been mentioned, the parables in the Gospels contain descriptions of occurrences in the everyday lives of the peasants in the Galilee, such as seeds growing, grapes in the vineyard, the landlords, and servants on the threshing floor. Each parable depicts an aspect of ancient rural life in a very realistic manner. Realism is conveyed, as are life styles, as the parable is 51

used as a stage on which identification of successes and failures in the real world are depicted. The 'Parable of the Sower' demonstrates three times the sharp contrast between success and failure:

• Some seeds fall along the roadside and the birds consume them. • Other seeds fall upon rocky soil where they immediately spring up, but they quickly wither since they can't establish their roots. • Other seeds fall among thorns, which then choke the developing plants. The element of contrast is used in the 'Parable of the Mustard Seed.' When the tiniest of all seeds, the mustard seed, is sown it grows up to become greater than all the other vegetables and herbs as it produces large enough branches to support the birds of heaven that seek lodging within its shadows on its branches. The numeral three has great significance in the oral tradition. This number appears explicitly in the 'Parable of the Sower' and in the 'Parable of the Wicked Tenants,' where the 'threefold mission' of the owner of the vineyard with his workers is explored:

A man planted a vineyard ... and he let it out to cultivate and (he) traveled abroad. (A) Now in due season, he sent forth a slave ... that he might get some of the fruits ... But they (the wicked tenants) took him (the slave), beat him up, and sent him away. (B) And again. he sent forth another slave to them; and that one they struck on the head and dis honored him. 52

(C) And he sent forth another, and that one they killed. And many others, some of whom they beat up, some ofwhom they killed. (D) Once more, he had a beloved son; he sent forth the last to them. (Fhey said), "This is the heir. Come let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours. ' So they took him and killed him. (Mark 12-

1: 12). Similarly, in Matthew 21 it is written: There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard ... and let it out to cultivate and traveled abroad. (A) When the season of the fruits came around, he dispatched his slaves to the cultivators to get his fruits. However, the cultivators took his slaves ... and one they beat up, another they killed, another they stoned. (B) Again, he dispatched other slaves, more than the first, but they did the same to these. (C) Lately, he dispatched his son to them. On seeing the son, the cultivators said ... 'this is the heir, come, let us kill him and get his inheritance. So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

And in Luke 20: 9-19 we read: A man planted a vineyard and let it out to cultivate and traveled abroad for a considerable time.

53

(A) But in due season, he sent out a slave ... that they might give him some ofthe fruit of the vineyard ... they sent him away empty, after beating him up. (B) He responded and sent them a different slave. That one they also beat up and dishonored and sent away empty. (e) Yet again he sent a third; this one they also wounded and threw oul.

(D) ... What shall 1 do? 1 will send my son, the beloved... When the cultivators caught him ... This is the heir, let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours. They threw him outside the vineyard and killed him. In the Gospel of Thomas, this same story is recorded:

A good man had a vineyard He gave it to the husbandmen so that they would work it and that he would receive its fruit from them. (A) He sent his servant so that the husbandmen would give him the fruit of the vineyard They seized his servant, they beat him; a little longer and they killed him. (/'he servant came, he told it to his master.) (B) He sent another servant; the husbandmen beat him as well. (C) Then he sent his son ... since those husbandmen knew well that he was the heir to the vineyard. they seized him, they killed him. Whoever has his ears, let him hear. (65)

54

Examining these four versions of the story, Matthew and Thomas maintain the threefold pattern of two slaves and one beloved son, while the other two versions in Mark and Luke maintain slightly different patterns of three slaves'and one beloved son. Mark and Matthew have three slaves and one son. In Matthew three people are inserted into the story: one is beaten up, one is killed, and another is stoned. When he mentions the second mission to the vineyard, he does not say what was done to those messengers, but as the good storyteller would say, 'They did the same to these.' Examining all four versions above, it is challenging to determine which is closest to the oral tradition. All four uphold the pattern of threefold composition. Each most likely had its source for the shared parable. Since Luke is the only one to confirm that he edited his work, and his version is closely related to Mark's, then his parable rendition is more textualized. Yet, it is impossible to ascertain whether, or claim that Mark and Luke upset the 'perfect balance' of storytelling by adding another mission for the son of the vineyard owner. Their versions seem more dramatized by having the threefold mission of the servants, while Thomas and Matthew seem content to leave the general framework of the story and present it as they did. In this respect, these parables are narrated in a very standard and ordinary way, without the additional aspect of another storyteller. While both Thomas and Matthew are very close to the parabolic style of orally conveying stories, Thomas is even closer to this method. He is also closer to the oral text. In fact, he is the only one to add the sentence, "The servant came, he told it to his master. " This is a repetition technique that is commonly used by any storyteller. These four versions lead their audiences to search for the reason the father sent his beloved son, while he was vividly

55

aware of the husbandmen's wickedness and cruelty to his servants. The logical answer is that the father was very aware of the danger, but he sent his son to establish the father's authority. The father felt that while the husbandmen had disrespected his servants, they would not dare to do so with his heir. What the connection is between the mission of the son to the introduction of the storyteller at the beginning of each version remains. We read in Mark:

A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a vat for the wine press and erected a tower.

In Luke we discover: ... a man planted a vineyard ...

In Isaiah 5:1-2, which was written long before these Gospels, we fmd: My well beloved hath a vineyard in a very frUitful hill and he fenced it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with choicest vines, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press therein.

In Matthew's version: A man, a householder, who planted a vineyard and

put a fence around it and dug a wine press in it and erected a tower.

In Thomas' Gospel we read: A good man has a Vineyard.

56

The authors of Mark and Matthew use an extended version of the story as they develop actions taken by the owner of the vineyard, and their texts are closest to Isaiah's. While the beginnings in Matthew and Luke state only " ... a good man (has) a vineyard," their versions indicate they chose to keep their introductions simple, whereas it is possible that Mark and Matthew purposely developed their introductions to more closely resemble Isaiah's. In all of these versions of this story, the parabolists include a sense of realism in their stories. If we accept what Ricoeur (1980, 1981) suggests, that the parable contains the "extraordinary within the ordinary, "21 then what is "extraordinary" in this parable is the fact that the husbandmen kill the heir of the vineyard and it is seen as the father's badly thought out decision to send his beloved son to the vineyard. This raises another question: Was the son's death redemption of the father? If the audience considers the cruelty of the story to be "real," then the audience must wonder where justice exists. Why does the father send his son to deal with sadistic tenants? Why doesn't he send his son with protection?22

d.

The Fable: Narrators and Transmitters

Stories and tales in folklore, and those examined in scholarly works, are not usually referred to as 'fables,' since almost any story could potentially be defined that way. It would be simple for any narrator to intertwine a story with certain meanings that will correspond to the context or characters in such a way as to create a 'fable.' The 'original story', for example, most likely happened initially in nature, or in the world of beasts or fowls, and later became the substance of a 'fable.'

57

Thus, the original purpose of fables was for entertainment, or as an allegorical tale. Through the course of history, however, teachers, rhetorical speakers, and sages have employed these stories, often borrowed from far off lands, to suggest to their audiences that everything that can be found in an imaginary world can also be found in the 'real' world. By doing this, they hinted at the implications and applications their audiences could draw from these stories. The moral lessons implied and the specific genre employed makes the story into a fable or into a parable. Many sayings in the Talmud are presented and given 'in the name of a narrator, a teacher, or a sage, and this suggests that these collected sayings were once transmitted orally. For example: Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai: Thus the proverb runs, from the very forest itself comes the (handle of the) axe (that fells it). 23

This does not indicate that all traces of history cannot be pinpointed in a parable or in a folk story. These elements can be discovered in the following story: In the days of Yehoshua b. Hananiah the (Roman) state ordered the Temple to be rebuilt. Pappua and Lilianus set tables from Acco as far as Antioch and provided those who came from Exile with all their needs. Thereupon, Samaritans went and warned (the Emperor):' Be it known now unto the king, that if this rebellious city be builded and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute (mindah) poll tax (belo),or androtiga (halak). (Ezra iv, J3) 'Yet what can I do, ' said he, 'seeing that I have already given the order?' 'Send a

58

command to them that they must change its site, add five cubits thereto or lessen it by five cubits, and then they will withdraw from it of their own accord.' Now the Community (of Israel) was assembled in Beth Rimmon; when the royal dispatch arrived, they burst out weeping and wanted to revolt against the (Roman) power. Thereupon, they (the Sages) decided: Let a wise man go and pacify the congregation Then let R. Joshua b. Hanania go, as he is a master of the Scripture. So he went and harangued with them: 'A wild lion killed (an animal), and a bone stuck in his throat. Thereupon, he proclaimed, 'I will reward anyone who removes it. ' An Egyptian heron, which has a long beak, came and pulled it out and demanded his reward. 'Go,' he replied, 'you will be able to boast that you entered the lion's mouth in peace and came out in peace (unscathed). ' Even so, let us be satisfied that we entered into dealings with these people in peace and have emerged in peace. 24 The period mentioned in this story is the time between the Second Temple (70 C.E.) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 C.E.), which means this story contains historical background. The story suggests that the Roman rulers had been willing to rebuild the Temple and that despite making a promise to do this, they broke their promise by refusing to rebuild. This promise breaking was connected to the power wielded by the Samaritans who were great enemies of the Jews from the beginning of the Second Commonwealth. This is evident by the insertion into the story of the same rationale the Samaritans had used with Roman rulers: 'Let it be known unto the King, that, if this city be rebuilt and the walls completed, they will

59

give no tax, tribute, and toll, and the royal revenues will suffer damage. '(Ezra 4:13).25 After the sages choose R. Joshua b. Hanania to speak to the congregated Jews, the historical background ends and the fable begins. Paying attention to the structure of the story, the historical background, for example, is given in Aramaic, while the fable itself is given in Hebrew:

A wild lion killed (an animal) and a bone stuck in his throat. Thereupon he proclaimed: '1 will reward anyone who removes it. ' The Egyptian heron, which has a long beak, came down and pulled it out and demanded his reward. 'Go,' he replied, you will be able to boast that you entered the mouth of the lion in peace and you came out in peace. >26 The fact that this fable was repeated in Hebrew suggests many fables were known to the Jewish people who knew many fables in their language, and that they were transmitted orally from one generation to the next implies that the audiences knew the significance of the tale. This same fable is found in Aesop's Fables:

A wolf had gotten a bone stuck in his throat, and in the greatest agony (it) ran up and down, beseeching every animal he met to relieve him, while at the same time hinting at a very handsome reward to the successful operator. A crane, moved by his entreaties and promises, ventured her long neck down the wolf's throat, and drew out the bone. She then modestly asked for the promised reward, to which the wolf, grinning and shOWing his teeth, replied with seeming indignation, "Ungrateful creature! To askfor any reward other than that you 60

put your head into a wolf's jaws and brought it safe out again. "27 It is interesting to note that in the Jewish fable the animals featured are the lion and an Egyptian heron and in Aesop's fable the animals are a wolf and a crane. The Egyptian heron is not exactly defined in the Jewish version by the storyteller?8 So why do the two fables have different animal characters? R. Joshua used a story that was well known by his audiences and he made some changes to it, such as creating the symbolism of the lion representing Rome. Then when he added the moral of the story, "let us be satisfied that we entered into dealing with these people in peace, and have emerged in peace," his audiences understood the implication in the story and each applied it to their particular situation. These are the elements that make the story become a fable. The adaptability of the core story shows how various narrators could use these stories in different situations. It is critical to realize that the audiences of the Jewish fable had mastered two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, and that their community connection to the cultural region of the Near East stretched from the Fertile Crescent to Egypt. These stories are made up of many 'rings', each being stronger than the last. In a midrash, the following saying is found:

R. Judah said: There are fourteen things which are stronger than the other, and each one is dominated by the next. The ocean-deep is strong, but the earth dominates it because the deep is subservient to it. The earth is strong, but the mountains are stronger and dominate it. The mountain is strong, but iron dominates it and breaks it. Iron is strong, but fire makes it melt away. Fire is strong, but water dominates it and extinguishes it. Water is strong, but the clouds carry it. The clouds are strong, but 61

wind disperses them. The wind is strong, but a wall dominates it and withstands it. A wall is strong, but a man dominates it and demolishes it. Man is strong, but trouble creeps over (and weakens) him. Trouble is strong, but wine dominates it and causes it to be forgotten. Wine is strong, but sleep overtakes its effects. Sleep is strong, but illness dominates it and prevents it. Illness is strong, but the Angel of Death dominates it and takes it away. Stronger (i. e., worse) than them all, however, is a bad woman. 29 This saying means that these fourteen things are bountiful in their power and strength, that the depth of the ocean is great but the land's depth is greater, for example. In the Jewish sources the following is found in Esdras 3: 10-14:

The first wrote, wine is the strongest. The second wrote, the king is the strongest. But above all things, truth beareth away the victory. Similar proverbs exist in the Talmud. So who created the folk story? Each creative work has its own creator. But unlike the authors of creative written works, however, it is almost impossible to identifY the original creators in the oral tradition. If a creative person makes a few changes on any previously written piece of work, and then calls it his own, we view this as plagiarism. If the same creative person makes a few changes on an oral work, we call that person a narrator or a storyteller. In fact, each creative person is yet another narrator, since each one adds additional details from his own imagination, adding or subtracting aspects according to personal preference, and then transmits the story with new color. If we were to record the story according to the 'last transmitter,' we should not suggest that

62

the creative work was his, but rather that it is a 'work-in-progress', as told by the last narrator. Between the first narrator and the last, there are many versions spanning many generations' creative narrators. Each narrator along the way can also be seen as a type of quasi-societal sensor, in that a storyteller must reflect the feelings and thoughts of his audience in his work. Since the narrator is merely responsible for incorporating the society's aspirations and dreams together with the appropriate social and moral aspects, we could say, in fact, that the common people are the main molders of folktales and, on a larger scale, oral tradition. The term oral tradition is better than folklore, since the latter often is seen as the people narrating, while the term oral tradition recognizes that there was a first narrator, even though many narrators since (the first time) have adapted the story for their respective audiences. Thus, on the occasions when oral tradition is written down, the last narrator should not be credited as the author ofa given story, but the transmitter.

e.

Midrashim and Talmudim: Repositories of Parables and Fables

When we are dealing with the Midrashim and the Talmudim which are resources of a wealth of legends, folktales, fables, and parables, a large treasure of oral tradition, it should be noted when they were written down by the last narrator and when the works being studied were edited. What we see in the Midrashim and Talmudim are not the dates of the creation of the story or parable, not the original stories themselves, but the dates of, and the last edited versions at the time of their writing. We do not read the stories of the first narrator, but the versions of the last narrator and his adapted work. Thus, it is very likely that there is no correlation between the date and the content of the original story 63

and that the edited work may, in fact, show a lapse that may be in the range of a few centuries. The aesthetic aspect of the folk story lies in the nature of the narrator to expand his story beyond the story or short parable and adapt it to the literary conventions and aspects, in addition to the already discussed social aspects, of the cultural region, adding many details and closing unknown gaps. It is to say that the narrator satisfies the curiosity of the audience no matter whether he expands the moral aspects of the story, which aim to educate the people and through which he presents new ideas of social justice and morality, or just the literary aspects.

f.

Jesus, Parables, and Nature

We may suggest that two aspects influenced Jesus very much: nature and life. If we consider the town Jesus lived in, Nazareth, in the lower Galilee, surrounded by breathtakingly beautiful mountains and valleys with very rich, fruitful soil in which thousands of fruit trees and grains grew, we can recognize the influence of nature in his parables, for example, those about the figs, mustard grains, and seeds. These aspects reflect the influence of nature on Jesus' soul and work, not to mention the many historical events with which the Galilee was rich. In Luke 2: 40-51, we read the following story:

And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried 64

behind in Jerusalem: and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a days' journey: and they sought him among their kinfolk and acquaintances. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee, sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? Knew ye not that I must be about my father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spoke unto them. And he came down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. The story tells us about a discussion between the Pharisees and the lad Jesus, at the end of which they are astonished by his wisdom. We do not know where Luke heard this story, which has no other versions in any other Gospel, but we can assume that stories about Jesus' childhood and wisdom were told amongst the people, and that the author of Luke inserted a version in his book. But such a story does not follow the norm of Jewish life in those days. Storytellers and narrators were not concerned with the childhood of a great man; when they told of his birth, perhaps a short episode of his days as a youth, and then nothing more ,until much later in the great man's life. It was the same with Jesus' life. Most of the Gospels deal with Jesus from the moment he comes from meeting John the Baptist. There he begins his ascent to the 65

stage of history. This is exemplified by Mark, who begins his story of Jesus at the moment when Jesus was baptized. There are two parables that Mark gives in the name of Jesus, while no parallels are found in Matthew:

•

And he said, So is the kingdom of God as if a man should cast seed into the ground. And should sleep, and rue night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth immediately up putteth the sickle, because the harvest is come. " (Mk. 4:26-29).

•

For the son ofman is as a man taking afar journey, who left his house and gave authority to his servants and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrow, or in the morning. Lest coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what 1 say unto you, 1 say unto all. Watch. (Mk. 13:34-37).

There are many Jewish elements in these parables. On the one hand, it is possible that these two parables can serve as an example for the way the fabulist, moshel, uses his parables. Sometimes he approaches the parables and adds creativity from his own imagination, fashioning a variant to an existing parable in which he might advocate his new ideas and new social change. On the other hand, we can assume that the narrator uses other means. He does not tell the parable, nor create a new version, but he shortens the parable as if it is enough to mention in general terms the event, so his audiences will be able to draw their own conclusions to the new ideas and values put forth.

66

Within these parables, 'references of parables' suggests that the narrator wants to sharpen the involvement of the audiences and at the same time give them, as it were, freedom to search for different interpretations.

g.

The Parable, The Fable and Socio-PoliticaJ Context

To sum up, we may suggest that a fable is an expression of social protest, as a result of fear from the mighty and rigorous. The fear has its place in a monolingual society where the ruling class understands the suffering and the exploited, and thus the meanings of lion/lamb remain the same. We have a different situation, however, when there are two languages: the language of the ruling class and the language of the suppressed people. Also, the ruling class is not a social oppressor but a 'national oppressor,' and, again, cannot understand the language of the suppressed, then there looms the possibility of losing the intended symbolism within a story. Such stories are known as parables. A parable may be defined as an obscure saying. Within this format of the parable, when there is no fear of the king or ruler, it is acceptable to call such by their names or merely to say, "Once upon a time there was a king (or a prince or a ruler, etc.)". An example of such a parable is in Lamentation Rabbah:

A Jew passed in front of Hadrian and greeted him. The king asked, "Who are you?" He answered, ttl am a Jew. " He exclaimed, "Dare a Jew pass in front of Hadrian and greet him!" He ordered, "Take him and cut off his head." Another Jew passed, and seeing what had happened to the first man, did not greet him. The king asked, "Who are you?" He answered, "A Jew." He exclaimed, "Dare a Jew pass in front of Hadrian without

67

giving greeting!" He ordered, "Take him out and cut off his head!" His senators said to him, "We cannot understand your actions. He who greeted you was killed, and he who did not greet you was killed!" He replied to them, "Do you seek to advise me how I wish to kill those I hate? 130 This midrash is a treasure of folk literature due in part to its dual purpose: (1), to encourage the audience with its passages of wisdom and entertainment; (2), to depict the tragic situation in Palestine under the Roman's rule. In this particular story, we can justify, from a jurisdictional point of view, the severity of the punishment. According to Roman law, no common person or stranger was allowed to turn to the emperorlking, not even to greet him. Thus, we can suggest that Hadrian followed that ruling in regards to the first Jew. With the second Jew, however, it is hard to justify that punishment, unless we believe that Hadrian interpreted the Jew's non-action as a sign of animosity and hatred. In both cases, the suggestion is that the weak and suppressed victim has very limited possibilities. There is the suggestion that the narrator uses yet another means: he does not tell the parable, nor create a new variation of it, but rather, he shortens it, as if to say it is enough to merely mention the parable, so as to allow the audience to draw some new ideas or conclusions. Such a technique sharpens the attention of the listeners, awakens their involvement, and allows for different interpretations. Mordechai Lipson (1927) tells of a fable using this technique:

In a dispute that happened between the Hasidic Court and Sadigora, many people were involved and among them were the followers of R. Meir of Ogikov. R. Meir opposed the dispute and said: I will tell you a story that happened once. Once upon a 68

time, the lion, the king of the animals, was very hungry. For three days he could not find prey, and had, as a result, bad breath. When the lion saw that he was near death, he began to roar and call forth his servants, the animals. The horse came quickly, and the lion turned to him and said, "Turn your nose to me. What do you smell?" The horse turned his nose to him and said, "That is bad breath, my king." "You are rebellious and thus you shall be punished, " said the lion, who stomped on him and ate him. Three days passed and once again the lion was hungry and bad breath came forth from his mouth, and once again he roared and called his servants. This time the wolf came first. The. lion commanded him, 'Turn to me and tell me what you smell. " The wolf thought in his heart, I will be wiser than the horse. Aloud he said, "My king, there is no bad breath." "You are a liar, " replied the king, "and rebellious, and thus you shall die. " And the lion stomped on him and ate him. Three days passed and the lion once again was hungry, and again he roared and called his servants. This time the fox came first. "Turn your nose to me and tell me what you smell," commanded the lion. "My king," said the fox, "/ have a very bad catarrah and I can not smell." "So do you, " R. Meir ended his story, "have catarrah and do not smell. " The above story is an animal story describing a real situation, yet the parable (which contains a fable) and its framework remain intact. The function of the story lies not within its artistic value, but rather in its instructive lesson, that is, to be neutral in the dispute between the Hasidic courts. This fable is an excellent example of the narrator integrating an animal tale, 69

while the framework of his story remains very real. This suggests that the fable here can serve as an allegory to a given situation, but not to a 'real' situation. Reference to a fable can be used to describe different situations and can serve, either as a parable or as a fable. The narrator, in depicting real situations, as well as affording instructive lessons from which the audience is supposed to learn, fulfills his job as a politician, teacher and religious leader. However, to prevent a new perception, which might contradict the narrator's values or his moral teaching, he uses only the application of the parable, not the story itself. Thus, we sometimes find ourselves lacking or craving the whole parable or fable, when we only have the application of such, which gradually becomes proven. We can see such an example in the following passage which discusses the verse: But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay hand on Mordecai a/one. (Est. 3:6) R. Simeon b. Lacknia said: 'In this world, Israel is likened to rocks, as it says, for from the tops of rocks 1 see him ... ' (Num. 23 :9). 'Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn. ' (lsa. 51: 1). They are compared to stones, as it says: ' ... from the stones which the builders rejected. '(Ps. 118:22). But other nations are likened to potsherds, as it says: 'And he shall break it as a potter's vessel is broken '. (Isa. 30: 14). if a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! if a stone falls on a stone, woe to the pot. In either case, woe to the pot. 3 I

This suggests that the audience knows the story, and its application ends with a similar instructive lesson. They understand the message so the narrator refrains from re-telling the whole story, and instead, mentions only its application. However, the story's details are now lost and what remains is the part that serves as the instructive lessoI1. Throughout the years, the instructive part

70

becomes the proverb. The narrator was undoubtedly confident, through the last part of the story, that his audience would remember it all. The proverb which shares that: A man should always be gentle as a reed and let him never be yielding as a cedar. 32 also suggests that it was once part of a story or its original application. Indeed, Aesop talks about the oak and reeds as follows: A proud oak grew upon the bank of a stream. For a full hundred years it had withstood the buffeting of the winds, but one day there came a violent storm. The great oak fell with a mighty crash into the swollen river and was carried down toward the sea. Later, the oak tree came to rest on the shore where some reeds were growing. The tree was amazed to see the reeds standing upright. "However did you manage to weather the terrible storm?" he asked "/ have stood against many a storm, but this one was too strong for me. " "That's just it, " replied the reeds. "All these years you have just stubbornly pitted your great strength against the wind You were too proud to yield a little. I, on the other hand, knowing my weakness, just bent and let the wind blow over me without trying to resist it. The harder the wind blows, the more / humble myself, so here / am! "33

The Hebrew proverb mentions cedar instead of oak. It is a legitimate change, corresponding to the proverbs, as well as to the fables and the parables, with its connection to the natural surroundings of the people from which the culture originated.

71

h. Word with Power: Scribes and Scribes Life in Galilee in Jesus' time was very difficult. Wars and rebellions against the Romans added to these troubled times, creating a hope and expectation in the hearts and minds of the people for a messiah who would come and put an end to their suffering and misery. The life of Jesus, as it is presented in the New Testament, appears to be the life of the anointed one from the moment Jesus was baptized by John until his crucifixion by the Romans. Whether Jesus was active for one or for three years is not the issue. The important fact is that during his life in Galilee and in Judea, nature and life were the two most influential factors on his preaching and his actions that were designed to draw the people closer to the 'Kingdom of the Heavens.' From different sources, it appears that the Galileans viewed Jesus as a Pharisee, since he read from the prophets and he preached in the synagogues of Capemaum as the Pharisees did. Thus, among the common people, Jesus was considered a Pharisee and a Scribe. He could and did have many di.sciples. When examining the verse:

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority and not as the Scribes. (Mk.l :22) its meaning is questioned. This verse is mentioned three times in the New Testament. Another time it is found in Luke (4:32):

And they were astonished at his doctrine; for his word was with power. How can the phrase ''for he taught them as one that had authority" be understood? Is having authority an important factor? If it means Jesus had the authority to teach, then what is meant by

72

he taught but "not as the scribes"? How did the scribes teach? Did they not use their authority in teaching sessions? The verses above are connected to the synagogue or to the preachings of Jesus. His audiences understood the authority Jesus had, but the bigger issue his audiences faced was focused on discerning Jesus' authority compared to the authority of the Scribes. The authority granted to the Scribes was an earthly one given to them by the court and as an outcome of their interpretations on the Law. The Scribes held a human-decreed authority. The authority of Jesus, however, was understood to be a divine authority. This is reflected in Matthew 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. Matthew asserts that Jesus' ultimate perfection resembles that of his heavenly Father. In that respect, Jesus' teachings can be perceived as an extension of divine teaching.

On the one hand, when a human speaks, that authority is always suspect, but when God speaks through a human being, then that authority is divine. The authority of a person is often rooted in human strength and worldly power, which is often followed by acts of aggression, in an attempt to imitate God's more powerful authority. The listening public, which is ironically most often made up of the common people, determines the genuineness of the speaker's authority. If the audience understands that the teachings are the truth, then it confers authority upon the speaker. On the other hand, from the speaker's point of view, this authority ought to be perfect and divinely given. According to this perception, the moral aspects and new ideas that Jesus taught were the purest and the most sound, the most perfect that had never before been expressed or entered the human imagination. Since people believed that Jesus spoke in the name of God and that his teachings had an

73

air of superiority and authority that no one who came before Jesus had the courage or knowledge to express, his teachings were seen as being striking and impressive. They were defined as natural parables that contained a consummate knowledge of the human heart. However, examining the statement "as one that had authority," it can be argued that moshel in Hebrew was misunderstood. This word appears in the Book of Numbers and is translated as "they who speak in proverbs." Thus, the use of moshel found in Mark literally means "he who speaks in proverbs" This defines Jesus as a fabulist, a person who tells fables. However, the root MSh.L also means "to rule over, to govern." Using this meaning from the Greek translation, Jesus was defined as being different from the Scribes because he taught the people through his use of fables and parables. It is possible that Jesus used the early method of Tannaim who used parables in their teachings, while the Scribes used the method of homiletical exegesis in their teachings. Just as the early Tannaim saw their fables and parables as poetic prose, including images from nature and from everyday life to illustrate their lessons, so did Jesus with his own intentions, as is found in: Give not that which is holy unto the dog, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you to shreds. (Matt. 7:6) Jesus often tried to conceal the true meaning within his parables. He often determined that it was not exactly the right moment to bring forth his words and ideas to the people and that was when he only shared them with his disciples:

74

And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables. That seeing they may see, and not perceive: and hearing they may hear and not understand. (Mk. 4:11-12) Jesus understood that the common people were often not ready to accept his ideas and new religious teachings and he chose, instead, to speak to them in parables:

Neither do men much light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (Matt. 5:15) Just as no one places a candle under a bushel but places it, instead, on a candlestick, so it is the goal of Jesus' teachings to help his audiences to come into the light where the hidden meaning will become clear. Examining Jesus' position in Mark 1:22 helps us understand the significance of the proverbs to Jesus:

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one who had authority and not as the Scribes. It is important to note that the noun 'scribe' used here has another meaning. Ezra was a Scribe (note the capitalization) and it is important to discern the meaning of his profession. Was he, for example, the only one to copy the Torah? Was Ezra one of the interpreters or translators of the Torah to the people? Through such questions, additional deep meanings signifying the depth and width of the noun 'Scribe' become clearer. Ezra, or 'The Scribe' as he was called in the early stages of his professional life, was the highest authority regarding anything 75

that was related to the Torah and the Law. He was the designated one who understood and judged the principles of the Law, the one who sought and came to understand the significance of the Torah and prophecy. He knew many proverbs and fables and transmitted them to those who studied with him in the religious academy, BetMidrash, This was the function of a Scribe in the early stages and how authority was given to him. His authority also came to him from the Persian Court of King Artaxerxes. Throughout the ensuing centuries, however, the Scribe lost some of his authority and influence. He became known as one who knew how to write and who could teach others to read and write. His role became closer to that of a teacher, but the scribe (note the change of spelling) was still appreciated and respected as a learned man and for his point of view, and for his intellectual perceptiveness. The scribe of the late Second Commonwealth was defined differently than the Scribe at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth. That is not to say that none of the scribes had authority beyond the simpler role of scribe-teacher. R. Himnuna the scribe and his disciple R. Hanina b. Hama taught the ignoramuses and, most importantly, taught the children of the common people.34

It is important to note that this concept was considerably developed. In biblical times, 'common people' meant 'the nation as a whole>3S But around the end of the First Commonwealth, another meaning for the 'common people' emerged and it suggests a contrast between common people and noble ones.36 Yet, another meaning of this term appears in its plural form and it implies other nations in contrast to Israel. 37 For the Tannaim, this term signified 'ignorance. ,38 This demonstrates a very interesting perception of the New Testament tradition where Jesus is not defined as a scribeteacher responsible for teaching the common people, the 76

ignoramuses and their children. Rather, he is considered to be like the earlier Jewish Scribes about whom the people told stories of awe. Those Scribes' stories that had been passed on by word of mouth gained unique authority and praise with each sharing. It is difficult to describe with certainty the role of the scribe in Jesus' time. It's possible he was the one chosen by the elders, as was the custom then, to teach the correct reading of the Torah. The elders were in charge of the prayers and of the order of the prayers. These elders saw to it that the interpretations and passages of the midrash were passed on by word of mouth. The elders devoted and developed the teaching method of that day; it is the one from which the oral lore sprang up. They were the links in the chain through which the applications of parables, proverbs, and descriptions of everyday life of the common people emerged. The study of this oral tradition suggests that Jesus was at an early stage like the scribes of his time and that later on he became a scribe with power, one whom the people respected, and that was when he began to teach his listeners differently. There is no doubt that Jesus possessed extensive knowledge of the oral traditions of his time and that he was thus able to introduce a new type of teaching. In many ways, his approach was revolutionary compared to the old Jewish teaching method, or perhaps he used the familiar Jewish teaching method of his day but added new applications to it. It is important to note that the Law was not yet established. That occurred only after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.). Judaism of the Second Commonwealth is still subject to arguments anq debates. Jewish Law came late to this tradition and even today it is not crystallized. The frequent attempts made in modern times by some scholars to argue that 'Such and so is according to Jewish Law' is a very weak and unstable argument to make. 77

The House of Learning is where people interpret the Torah and where its oral teachings are developed. Ben Sira (51 :23) discusses it, but he is probably alluding to a very exclusive House of Learning for the Jewish aristocracy that excluded the common people. Thus, it became the scribe's duty to teach the common people, while the House of Learning was reserved for the use of outstanding students and the elite. Only after the destruction of the Second Temple did the House of Learning become open to everyone.

i.

Homiletic Literature: midrashim and The Midrashim

In order for the reader to fully understand time, space, ideas conveyed, and the significance of the details in Jesus' parables, the Jewish midrashic, or homiletic literature must be understood. Generally, the stories in the midrashic literature play an important role in interpreting unclear or ambiguous passages in biblical literature. As it is impossible to interpret biblical passages in clearcut or simplistic ways, legends and fables were used to shed light on complex matters. Sometimes this literary interpretation is useful in dealing with mere linguistic problems, but sometimes it aids in providing details of an event or of the story's plot that is not mentioned in the biblical narrative. In these instances, the narrator of the homiletic literature fills in the gaps and provides the missing details of a given story. From a literary point of view, the narrator's role is to act as a bridge between the story and the audience. Since the narrator gives a 'new and improved' version of the story with a more complete description, these stories were passed on from generation to generation solely by word of mouth. They were never written down. We may point to the obscure biblical verse found in Gen. 4:23: 78

For I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my heart. as one example~ but this is not a lone example of when it becomes difficult to draw conclusions in biblical passages. More specifically, it means that the organic connections between the passages of biblical literature, even if these connections were superficial and merely presentations of various interpretations are missing. The narrator's role, then, is focused on answering certain questions and suggesting possible solutions to the problematic texts. The majority of the homiletic narratives are focused on ethics. Since the sages viewed themselves as the educators of their generation and the next generation, their decisions influenced the ethical framework and values of their listeners and disciples. It is the application of any story that makes it eternal. The sages were in a position to create the applications that would influence and guide many generations. They could turn a simple story into a classic, didactic piece that had broad significance and influence. The moral perception of a story has its roots in the conflict between good and evil, love and hate, and the audience's reactions to the results. For example, any given ethical story shares an eternal problem, one to which all humanity can easily relate, rather than a story solely understood by the people of Israel. The emotions and the psychological perceptions within the story belong to the human realm. The solutions and applications belong to the Jewish realm. While having explained the homiletic literature and emphasizing some of its general perceptions, it is important to note that the biblical story, as it has been conveyed to us, suggests certain problems and certain solutions. It labels its characters as being wise or wicked, as innocent or cunning, and this, in turn, 79

encourages the audience to view these descriptions as being symbolic. A concept like 'the suffering of Job' is compared to the 'suffering of Prometheus' or to the 'sorrows of young Werther.' The audience has biblical and literary images that are realistic and not abstract. This differs greatly from Greek philosophy's approach to similar ethical issues, as that approach is more abstract. The homiletic narrative expands the often unclear and misunderstood biblical narrative by presenting its ethical teaching in a palatable way by using terms and settings familiar to its audience. Midrashic literature exemplifies three distinct elements: creativity, inspiration, and expansion. Expansion is found in many biblical verses, as is shown in the example below: Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. Awake, and sing, ye that dwell in dust. For thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall cast out the Repha'im, the dead (Isa. 26: 19) A midrashic expansion of this verse states: To you who resurrects the dead and awakens the bones of their bodies, they will rise and praise thee, because the dew of light is yours to those who follow your Law. Hence, the wicked whom you willed strength yet, they have transgressed your world, (and) you will deliver to Gehinnam. This verse is a portion of a poem that is very difficult to understand. The Targum adds to the verse's sparse frame. and facilitates the audience's level of interpretation. "The dew of light is yours to those who follow your Law" is a statement an audience wants to comprehend. It can mean, for example. that there are those who keep the Law and those who don't. The righteous are defined as being worthy of the "dew of light" and the "wicked" are not worthy of the divine light. The two opposite sides are in vivid 80

contrast. Just as the "dew of light" will be a reward for those who follow the Law, in contrast, those who do not follow the Law, "the earth shall cast out." The interpreter in the midrashic expansion understands and explains to the audience that the Repha'im are similar to the "wicked" in She '01,39 and a parallel is drawn that is easily understood by the audience. The conclusion becomes much clearer: the righteous who follow the Law will enjoy divine light, but the "wicked," the Repha'im, will remain in She '01. The interpreter's perception is that only the righteous are to be resurrected and that the wicked will not. Another example of an expansion found in midrashic literature demonstrates how the interpreter or translator not only added to the story but also to the religious and philosophical perceptions of his time: I myself have announced it, and I have saved, and I have it be proclaimed. (lsa. 43:12)

The Targum: The expansion of the original, almost paratactic Hebrew sentences, allows the meaning to be perceived. However, the expansion's author, who is also the editor and transmitter of the text, allows himself to connect this prophetic text with the other traditions known to the commoners, such as the promise of the patriarch, the deliverance from Egypt, the revelation on Mount Sinai. The religious perceptions of the interpreter are expressed, as well, in the expansion. The Bible contains the following five fables and parable: •

'Jotham's Fable' inJud. 9:8-15 In this fable the storyteller prepares the story's background and provides a setting where the curse of Abimelech and the people

81

of Shechem will be expressed in verse 20. The focal point of the fable is to show its audiences how an unworthy person can climb the social ladder arid become king. The storyteller then explains the interpretation to the audience by explaining to them the connection between the fable and the present situation, the scene the audience faces in the present. •

'The Ewe-Lamb Parable' in 2 Sam. 12:1-4 This parable lacks an ending because King David interfered with the process of transmitting it. This is shown in: Nathan the Prophet: "But took the poor man's lamb and dressed it for the man that was to come to him ... " King David: " ... And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, 'As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die. ' Since the king interfered with the story while it was still in progress, it is without an ending. But it's possible that a parable such as this needs no ending. The element of surprise in this parable is that the king interferes in the story of the prophet in a designated sentence. However, it is possible that the transmitter/editor might have deleted a certain sentence, such as, "... That was coming to him, what is your verdict?" The purpose of deleting such a sentence would be to make the parable more dramatic when it was shared with the audience.

•

'The Cedar and the Thistle Fable' in 2 Kings 14:9. The moral of the fable here is very clear: Yehoash does not want to have any ties with Amaziah; neither peace, nor hostility

82

or war. The fable demonstrates the contempt of Yehoash for Amaziah. This fable is repeated in 2 Chron. 25:18. ..

'The Vineyard Fable' in Isa. 5:1-6. The audience must give this fable special attention since the prophet addresses them with, And now. 0 inhabitants, and the men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard. (v. 3). The narrator of this passage, the prophet, demands that the audience become the judges. He does not wait for their judgment, and he interprets the fable's meaning to them: '" (the) Vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel and the men ofJudah are (the) plants of his delight. (v. 7).

..

'The Vine and Eagle Fable' in Ezek. 17:1-8. This fable opens with the instruction given to the prophet: ... put forth a riddle and propound a parable. In fact, this is more of a riddle than it is a parable. A riddle is meant to be understood by certain people and a parable is meant for the common people according to Radak's (13 th cent. C.E.) interpretation of Ezek. 17:2. The complication in this fable is focused on the "great eagle" which has large, long wings full of feathers that are rich in many colors. This eagle takes ''the highest branch of cedar," which symbolizes the royal family, he crops off most of its young twigs at the top, representing Jehoiachin, and he takes some seeds of the land. According to the riddle, Jehoiachin is a "trailing vine of low stature." The prophet/narrator does not interpret its riddle. Instead, he continues to explore the main theme: punishment of the king and his kingdom. Although no name is mentioned in the fable, the people in the audience are acutely aware of the

83

current political situation, and they immediately make the connection between the riddle and the royal family. The storyteller is like the sea. He has many voices, many munnurs, and many sighs. Through each one, he conveys his teaching, his ideas, and his ethics, and he uses each to either impose or to suggest that it is as he says it is. It is interesting to note that the audience is in the storyteller's realm, where it not only listens to what is being said but to the unheard music that lies hidden within each story, the unheard music that comes in between the voices of the sea. Watching a river flow, a stream can be followed. The stream has no limits and neither does the 'stream' of storytelling. Each story eventually reaches the 'sea of interpretations' and there is revealed an unlimited number of possibilities to explain the phenomena in the story. But audiences do not want to consider unlimited possibilities. One possibility is chosen and followed. A second possibility may be accepted as he fences it in and calls it 'a holy beam,' and this may become the 'correct interpretation' or the 'canon,' However, when the listener does that, it does not mean that this 'choice' made by the listener was exactly what the storyteller intended in his poetic conveyance. On the contrary, the soul of the storyteller actually trembles in response to such a limitation of interpretations.

ENDNOTES I Northrop Frye, The Anatomy of Criticism: Second Essay: Ethical Criticism: Theory ofSymbols.

http://northropfrye-theanatomyofcriticism.blogspot.coml2009/02/second-essayethical-criticism-theory. 2 !talo Calvino, The Uses of Literature, Patrick Creagh, trans. (New York: Helen and Kurt Wolff, 1986). 3. Judah Goldin, ed., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, (New York: Schocken Books, 1955).

84

Burber's ed. 1894. Lyons was also a province in Northwestern Spain. 6 Mimoker Yisrael, Tel Aviv: D'vir, 1961 edition, 129, p. 109. 7 Lev. Rab. 3:5. 8 Leviticus Rabbah 3:5. See also Midrash T'hilim, Burber, ed. 196. 9 Lev. Rab. 3:5. 10 Mekhilta DeRabbi Ishma'el, Exodus 14:6. II Song o/Songs Rab. 4:12. 12 ARNB, Ch. 11. See also, especially Notes 6-7. 13 Lev. Rab., 1:5. 14 Midrash Tanhuma. Lev. I, (Warsaw, 1849). ISpS. 113:6. See A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash 5, (Jerusalem, 1967) 91. 16 See Gester, Sefer ha-Ma'asim, 139. We translated only the part that is related to our discussion. 17 Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1985), VoI.2,1047. 18 Not to mention Ahikar. Also see James Charlesworth, The Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha , Vol. 2, 505. 19 BTa'24a. 20 See below the discussion of these two stories. 21 P. Ricoeur, Biblical Hermeneutics, 1981, p. 118. 22 From a theological viewpoint, Jesus may have seen himself as the suffering son as he hints to his disciples of his coming death, while on a different level, the beloved son is defined as the community itself. 23 BSan. 39b. 24 Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabbah, Gen. Rab. 64:10, pp. 579ff. 2S The Samaritans served as mercenaries in the Roman army and that made Rome more interested in appeasing them than in keeping their promise to the Jews. On the other hand, Rome used the ruling strategy of 'divide et impera', divide and rule, thus controlling the Samaritans in the center of the country and the Jews in the South. When the Samaritans asked for the decree to be abrogated, the emperor said, 'Yet what can I do ... I have already given the order.' On the surface it appeared there wasn't any way to abrogate the emperor's degree as such a thing could only occur in cases of death or other special events, such as the illness of the king followed by his recovery. Then the king could abrogate his previous decision as 'a new man'. Here the Samaritans cleverly suggested that the king need only modifY the master plan. When the Jews beard about it they gathered together in the valley of Beth Rimmon, a Jewish place that contained no strangers, and they made plans to rebel against the Romans. The Sages, who were rebellious, called for the advice of R. Joshua b. Hanania who was a 'master of the Scripture.' 26 Ibid. 27 Aesop's Fables, (Pennsylvania, 1982), p. 120. 4

S

85

The midrash suggests the Egyptian heron is the Qore Misri. This bird is mentioned in BHulin. 138b and 140a. In Arabic this bird is called Hagal. Its Latin name is perdix.

28

29

Ecc. Rab. 7:2.

30 Lam. Rab.

III, 58.

Esther Rabbah 7: 10. n BTa 'anit, 20b. 33 Aesop's Fables, (1947), p. 181. 34 See Rashi to BTa 'ani! 27b. 3S0en. 23:7; Lev. 4:27; 20:2; 2R 11:14; 15:5; 21:24. 36 2R 24:14; Jer. 34:18-20; Hag. 2:4. 37 Jos. 4:24; Zeph. 3:20; &. 10:2; Neh. 10:31. 38 Abot. 2:5; 5: 10; Berakhot 47; Lam. Rab. 37; Sanhedrin 4:5. See also Radak, Mikholo/72. 39 See Isa. 14:9; 26: 14; Provo 9: 18. 31

86

CHAPTER TWO

In Quest of the Divine Human Voice

And With the One Who Is Known

It is written: 'He setteth an end to darkness.' Whenever the Rabbi read these words he said: One little corner-God left one little corner in darkness so that we may hide in it. I

A.

Which is the Great Commandment?

Whoever causes the multitude to be righteous, through him no sin shall be brought about: but he who causes the multitude to sin shall not have the means to repent. 2 When a theologian interprets the parables of Jesus, he searches for the divine voice. Yet, this divine voice is far away from the human domain and it opens the door for speculation and even to bigotry. We hesitate to look for the divine voice. Instead, we are in 87

search of the human voice, the one that calls upon us in total silence. When we search for the divine voice, we indulge more in the mythical world and how to live in it. Our world at this point is a world of myths. The danger encountered is that, on the one hand, in this search humans could lose this voice, not because we can't distinguish and define it, but because it is so hard to find. The human voice, on the other hand, is with us, around us and it engulfs us. We do not need a symbol or a myth to defme it. Some believe that knowing this human voice is important because it contains a special power. But let us not forget that such knowledge can be very pragmatic, and it will force the searcher for it to live according to models. Stories were always the heart of the traditional societies of any culture. Telling stories was not restricted to a chosen time or the practice of a single culture. From the beginning of the earliest stages of human communication, people told their stories, shared their experiences and struggles with other cultures. For each culture, these stories became special and were embraced as a part of that culture's identity. Through subsequent time, these rich stories were interpreted and explained, and gradually they came to serve as a part of the educational system of those early times. So when we read the biblical stories, we should keep in mind that the telling of such stories did not begin, nor did it end, with the biblical time. Following the study of Professor David Flusser (1997), it is clear that Jesus' use of parables belongs to the old type of parables found in the early rabbinic literature that consists of stories, parables, and other oral literary forms that do not appear the same after they are presented later in time in their written form. F or this 88

reason, different variations of one story can share the moral of the story, and that way the lesson remains the same. For the sake of an intellectual exercise to demonstrate this point, let us examine closely the following two stories:

Matthew 25: 14-30 ... like a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants and delivered unto them his goods. And unto the one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to everyman according to his ability and straight way took his journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with the same and made another five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained another two. But he that had received one, went and dug up (ho-rik-sen) in the earth and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of these servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought another five talents ... 'Behold I have gained beside them five talents more '. His lord said unto him, 'Well done '" ' He also that received two talents came and said, 'Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents, behold, 1 have gained two other talents beside them '. His lord said unto him, 'Well done ... ' Then he that had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord I knew thee, that thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not spread (di-es-kor-pisas). And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: 10, there thou hast what is thine. ' His lord answered... 'Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knowest that 1 reap where I sowed not, and gathered where I have not spread? ... Take, therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him who hath ten talents. For unto everyone 89

that hath shall be given and he shall have abundances; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Luke 19:12-27 A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himselfa kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds and said unto them, 'Occupy till I come. ' But his citizens hated him and sent a message after him, saying, 'We will not have this man reign over us. ' And it came to pass that when he was returned, having received the kingdom then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first saying: Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him; well done ... And the second came, saying, Lord thy pound hath gained five pounds ... And another came saying, Lord, behold here is thy pound which I have kept laid up in a napkin. For I feared thee because thou art an austere man, thou takest up that thou layedest not down, and reapest that thou did of not sow. And he said unto him, out of thine own mouth ... Takefrom him the pound and give it to him that hath ten pounds ... Unto everyone who hath shall be given; and from him that hath not even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. Examining these two different versions, Matthew presents his audience with three servants. Each one gets some portion of talan-ta and on his master's return, the master awarded the fIrst two servants who had made some gain. Luke presents us with another story about mi-nas, mnas, that states that the master gave

90

safekeeping of his goods to his ten slaves, de-ka-mnas. But toward the end of Luke's story, we are told that there were just three slaves. One slave received ten pounds, a second one received five pounds, and the third slave received only one pound. The master's reward in Luke's tale was given to each slave according to how much each one had increased his master's treasure. But the moral of the story is not focused on reflecting on the initial and apparent injustice as the one slave who has gained the most for his master is also awarded that share of the servant who had gained nothing for his lord. Instead, each story contains a strong message to any listener, and to later readers, concerning the importance the master placed on awakening oneself to develop one's own strength and knowledge in order to realize that everything that was given to each of us by a master needs to be nurtured in order for it to produce more. (Flusser 1989) In Eliyahu Zuta, we read about an argument started by a man who asserted that only scripture, and not Mishnah and the other oral truth, the Torah, was given from Mt. Sinai. Then this man was asked: Does the fact that they are different from each other mean that both cannot have been given by him? Here we are introduced to the following parable: ... one of a mortal king who had two servants whom he loved with utter love. To one he gave a measure of wheat and to the other he gave a measure of wheat, to one a bundle of flax and to the other a bundle offlax. What did the clever one of the two do? He took the flax and wove it into a tablecloth. He took the wheat and made it into fine flour by sifting the grain first and grinding it. Then he kneaded the dough and baked it, set the loaf upon the table, spread the tablecloth over it, and kept it to await the coming of the king.

91

But the foolish one of the two did not do anything at all. After a while, the king came into the house and said to the two servants, My sons, bring me what I gave you. One brought out the table with the loaf baked offine flour in it and with the tablecloth spread over it. And the other brought out his wheat in a basket with a bundle offlax over the wheat grains. 3

Although the function of this story is to present the idea that Mt. Sinai is the place where The Laws were given, the hidden meaning here also is that one should use his ability to be productive and to use the special wisdom and gifts that are given to him. The point is made that the way in which the fine flour and the fine linen cloth of Mishnah are produced is set forth to define the norms for interpretation of scripture, and it suggests that out of the wheat (scripture) the fine flour was produced, as from the flax the fine linen cloth was generated. Now the question is: What was the right way? Should the one who was entrusted by the proprietor give back exactly what had been entrusted, or, instead, should he try to gain more out of what had been entrusted to him? If we approach the parables from a theological point of view, then the proprietor is God and the person who was entrusted should not be free from his responsibilities. It is the same perception we find in the teaching of Rabbi Akiba, who taught that everything is given to a person against a pledge. 4 The parable in a story carries a moral point. Mainly, it provokes the listener to think and to find an answer. However, the parable does not carry just one definite answer. Every time the parable is read or shared one can find a different meaning to it, yet it always makes a single point. The thesis of Joachim Jeremias, however, claims that the parables were a new invention of Jesus.s

92

But upon examination, it is easy to discern that making such a statement is contrary to the vast evidence of legendary material found in early Jewish literary works. As was pointed out in the previous chapter, every known oral tradition grew up around the people and their events and became the history of a culture. As it happened with other cultures, so it also happened with the Hebrew tradition. What we should ask instead is: Where were these stories created? Are they the product of a popular folklore which later penetrated the religious academy and that explains the religious dimension that was added to them? In fact, there is no difference concerning where these stories were told. They present the educational system plus the moral aspects, as well as the religious life, of the people, and at the same time, each possesses an entertainment function as well. Moreover, this literary genre introduces us to the creative imagination of the storytellers and the moralists. What we have to accept is that whatever story, legend, or parable the Jewish sages used in their teaching had its foundation in the folk belief and traditions. Following this notion, it is critical to emphasize that the relationship between the biblical sources on which the stories of the sages were based was not free from the influences of the literary works of the surrounding cultures. The legends, parables and folk stories found in the early Jewish literature include mythological elements. So do the cosmogenetic legends found in the midrashic literature. These mythological elements are not the pure invention of HebrewJewish literature. Similar elements are found in the literatures of the cultures in Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and beyond. For the penultimate one let us mention just one obvious literary motif: the Promethean motif which is also found in the story of Samson. Yet, as much as Hebrew-Jewish early literature is connected to the literatures of the cultures around it, so are the literatures of the Christian and Islamic traditions related to the 93

Hebrew-Jewish literature. For example, the Judaic tradition shares the following story: ... God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and soul. This man was called Adam, which in Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together, for of that kind is virgin and true earth. 6 • Compare this to the Christian view of the virgin birth stating: the same way the first Adam was created out of virgin earth, so the second Adam will be born (created) out of a human virgin. In the Islamic literary works, we find many stories relating to the main biblical characters of the OT. Indeed, the parables found in the Synoptic Gospels have parallels and similarities in the many meshalim and parables in the rabbinic literature.' The main function of this literary genre was teaching. It aimed to both transmit cultural values and open the gates to understanding the Law, Torah. The purpose of such teaching was to provide the listener with a much deeper meaning of both the written and the oral Law. So, reading the three parables, the two of Jesus and that one in Eliyahu Zuta, illustrates the teaching method which offered different interpretations as we find it in any literary work. In rabbinic literature, we find a sub-genre, Mishle Melakhim (Parables about a King), which are parables that begin with the formula: What is the matter like? To a king '" To what may the matter be compared? This sub-genre, the mashal, defines a short story containing a situation and its moral. But here we have to distinguish between two types of stories; a fable and a parabola. 94

Having mentioned the type known as the meshalim, it is very important to try to give each one its own general function. We can sum it up by saying that the fable teaches us everyday insight and experience. The parable teaches us more than philosophical wisdom. The fable is a literary genre, while the parable is (in addition) a literary device. The storyteller in the parable uses two levels, one imaginary and the other which is simultaneously obvious and hidden, both past and present. The actual is the interpretation of the imaginary. The fable includes within it a clear moral and without it there is no meaning to the story. Thus, there is a possibility to distinguish between a fable and a parable/story by discovering its didactic meaning, or by its function. However, investigating the stories of the sages, we find that most of them have a didactic tendency. The significance of the parable is dependent on the moral of the story. Without its moral, the story has no meaning. In spite of the devotion of many Talmud and Midrash scholars" there are still some areas which need not only the philological and the historical examination, but also the literary one. It is very important to note here that both the Talmud and the midrashim are not the only two forms of literary works created by the sages, but both of these forms point to the spiritual activity within them. While the midrash is related to ten persons, (cf. Luke 19:13 [and Matt. 25:14-15 where no specific number is mentioned]), the Talmud is connected to the teaching of the mishnaic law. Introducing this short passage is done to emphasize the fact that we are not interested in creating any ideological or apologetic comparison between the two bodies of this sub-genre, the rabbinic parables and those of Jesus. We do not doubt the religious evocation of the parables, both in rabbinic literature and those used by Jesus. Yet, while the storyteller, or the preacher, does send a 95

religious message, he also brings forth a new light to his teaching. This new light is not free from the literary works of the neighboring cultures, as was mentioned above. If we agree with the general view that Jesus' parables are of the same literary genre used by the sages, then we might say that Jesus did not create a new literary genre, but rather that he creatively used a genre which already existed and with which he was familiar not only in his cultural ambiance but in the larger Mediterranean basin as well. To his credit as an excellent moralist and a great teacher, Jesus presented very creative ideas while connecting a new meaning to an old story. It is possible to point out similarities of his teaching with rabbinic parables. 8 But within this literary work, we find parables that are exemplary stories which present a comparison between events, one real and the other imagined. Although this exemplary story is taken from real life, it contains a moral or religious teaching. Such stories are: The Rich Man and the Fool (Lk. 12:16-21),andtheTaxCollector(Lk. 18:9-14). However, the Story of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37 [and see the referenced artwork in Chapter Six herein)) is the bestknown story. There are many interpretations of this parable, this exemplary story. The patristic interpretation (discussed herein in Chapter Five) argues that this parable is a Grace, a discovering of God's nature and his kingdom. But such a meaning could be true only if God is Love and his kingdom is Grace. This is a religious and theological interpretation, one that views stories of charity and true sanctity. But this theological perception does not reveal to us who is defined as the 'good neighbor.' Moreover, in this story we have two levels. One is:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. (Deut.6:5) 96

And then Jesus adds:

With all thy mind. (lk. 10:27) Since this parable is only found in Luke, we doubt, not the parable itself, which is a beautiful one, the fact that only one text presents this story. It is possible that other disciples did not know of this parable, but it is also possible that it is the work of Dr. Luke himself.

Luke admitted: It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. (Lk.l:3) So, what do we find in Hebrew-Jewish literature? This verse, found in luke 10, is also found in the Book of Deuteronomy 6:5. The religious interpretation of it offers three levels of Love (1):

And thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thine heart. It is natural for a person to love what is good for him. Because God was good to the human being, had liberated him from slavery in Egypt, and had given him laws, we have here two good deeds, which are the principles of life for the human being. One principle is that each person is free and the second is that he is led by laws which help him to establish himself and help society (2):

With all thy soul. This is defmed as intellectual Love, but also one can also interpret it as meaning 'everything your soul desires'(and 3):

With all thy might. 97

This instructs humankind to use all the material God has provided. In the Jewish perception, there are three levels of Love of God: loving the good, intellectual love, and earthly love. It means that even if all the possible bad things fall upon a person, he would cleave to his God and would not hesitate or be afraid of loving him. However, such devotion and love in the Judaic tradition was not to be written in words. Love but do not write of it in a book, nor engrave it on a stone, as a poet says: I am afraid to put my love into words Wine loses its bouquet when poured out of its jug.

According to Luke, Jesus added this phrase: With all thine mind. 9

Here love is an abstract and it means a 'supreme love'. According to Luke, Jesus added another phrase here, which is: and [love] thy neighbor as thyself

This phrase, however, already existed in the Pentateuch at Leviticus 19:18, as in: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge '"

Now the question arises: What happens if your neighbor is an evil person? R. Akiba of the 2nd Century C.E. said: This is the most important principle in the law, one should love his neighbor as his own. Not only that he will not spread an evil report about his neighbor but also will not pay attention to what people report about him: He whoever elevates himself by shaming his neighbor, has no share in the world to come. R. Simeon bar Yohai, of R. Akiba's generation, added that this verse was told in an oath, since it ends: "I am the Lord. " There

98

is an oath here. God takes an oath stating, "If you love your neighbor and are not happy to listen to those who shame him, I shall reward you. If you do not do this, then I shall ask account 0/ your deeds." However, the most beautiful interpretation for this verse is:

You should remember that you were created in the imageo/God The question then arises: Who is the evil one in this parable of the Good Samaritan? From the literary point of view, the extension to this question is: Could you offer me an answer? The example given first is of a certain priest, who passed that way, and he faced a vel)' difficult problem. We should remember that at that time a priest was not pennitted to touch a corpse. This priest thought that the wounded man was dead. He, thus, preferred to pass "on the other side." The same was true with the Levite, who looked at the wounded man and also passed on the other side. Both preferred "not to see. " Is this the right presentation of the event? Jesus, as a moralist who used parables in his teachings, searched for the unusual phenomenon, for the voice in literature. This is a voice that does not say, does not actually speak, and, yet, at the same time, tells its audience--'Reader, Listener! You, too, must speak! You have to voice it yourself. From this literary work comes a voice and it says: 'You can hear me, even if I am hidden. ' At this point the reader will search for this voice. This is the voice that calls the reader and the reader who replies, then enters the text, since he wishes to find the voice, to tell the voice that indeed he, too, speaks.

99

Now the question is: Who out of the three passers by was a true friend to the wounded man? From a literary point of view, Jesus, or Luke, wished to set the Torah facing Hesed (Grace). The common perception is that the Torah required the law which prohibited the priest and the Levite to be kept separate and 'clean' or they would become polluted by a corpse. However, according to Jesus, Hesed, Grace, means that whether you are a priest or a Levite, 'Grace' is valued before anything else. This perception existed in the Jewish tradition. So, the answer is that you should even listen to 'evil reports' about your neighbor because he, like you, was created in the image of God, a fortiori. That being so, if you see a person caught between life and death, you should offer help to that human being. Then the question is: Why does Jesus, or Luke, present the parable of the Good Samaritan? For the chosen example, Jesus or Luke could have selected anyone from their own people, so why was a Samaritan chosen instead? It was done to emphasize that even among those who are considered to be outsiders, strangers, even from a religious point of view, often the best are discovered. The story is not about a priest or a Levite, nor even about a Samaritan. The story is about an ultimate comparison and it focuses on defining who is truly compassionate. The story is an expansion of the Jewish teaching: Remember that you were created in his image. As he acts with love and grace, so, you, too, should act this way.

B.

Non Havles Mancura-Do Not Speak in Error R. Eleazar said: Who is worse, the one who says to the king, 'Either you or I will dwell in this palace, , or the one who says: 'Neither you nor I 100

will dwell in the palace '? Surely, the one who says: 'Either you or 1 '10

This work is not interested in the teachings of Jesus as they are introduced in the Synoptic Gospels. Instead, the focus is on examining the meaning of his parables and their literary genre. Following examination of many other scholars, this work will demonstrate that Jesus' parables are related very closely to those found in earlier rabbinic literature. His parables greatly influenced Christian belief, as well as having played an important role in the world's religions. Reading the parables in the Synoptic Gospels, the phrase Kingdom of God is discovered This phrase is not in use in the Jewish tradition. What is found in the Jewish tradition is Malkhut Shamayim, the Kingdom ofHeaven. Yet, in Ex.lS: 18 we read: The Lord shall reign forever and ever.

The Aramaic Targum, U (0) nice/os, translates this verse:

YHWH mul- khu- te qa- 1m le-alam ul-al-me ai-maya The Lord's kingdom (shall) exist forever and ever. PTargum expands this verse and ends it with the statement that he: ... is the king of kings in this world and his kingdom for the world to come which will be forever and ever.

Christian scholars view the noun malkhut used in the OT as always being related to God. The phrase mal- khut sha- ma-yim is not to be found in the Gospels. The Greek presents this phrase as ba- st- leia (tu The-ou), which translates as Kingdom of God.

101

While we find parables dealing with the Kingdom of God, there is not one that deals with a king of flesh and blood. The only parable which is close to Kings' Parables is the one found in Luke 19:12-27 which begins with the following: A certain nobleman went into a far country to try to receive for himselfa kingdom and to return .. , While Luke mentions the fact that the purpose of the nobleman's travel was to receive a kingdom, La- bein he- au-to ba- si- lei- an, the parallel text in Matt. 25 does not mention it. There we find: ... a man traveling into a far country who called his own servants ... (25:14). What we can assume is that both parables in the Synoptic Gospels direct the attention of the audience to view the End of the Days. It is particularly emphasized in Matthew, who began this parable stating: For the kingdom of heaven is ... The Greek states: gre-go-rei-te o-in ho-ti oik oi-da-te ten he-me-ran oide ten ho-ran Be awake since you have not known the day nor the hour. This verse does not mention the 'Kingdom of Heaven' but implies it. What we can understand from these two parables is that in the moral teachings of Jesus he emphasizes that a person will be rewarded for his good deeds, while the wicked will be punished. It is hard to accept Jeremias' perception that this parable is directed against the Pharisees. II

102

It is, thus, possible to view Jesus' teaching as coming close to the fonn of the parables of the Jewish Sages. In both we have not only the description of life but also each promotes its moral teachings. But sometimes this teaching is not obvious. Indeed, parables without the moral teaching are not complete. Readers of the parables do need to use their creative minds to interpret the parable or to find the moral teaching. In The Fathers According to R. Nathan (ARN), we find a very beautiful short story, (perhaps a parable), in: A young girl was once taken captive along with her ten maid servants, ... a certain Greek bought her. And she was brought up as a part of his household One day as he gave her pitcher to her and said: 'Go out and bring me water '; one of her maid servants arose and took it from her. 'What is this?' he demanded '] was one offive hundred maid servants of this girl's mother!' When he heard these words, he set the girlfree with her ten maid servants: 2

This story is one of a chain of stories about a girl in trouble. It began with the story of R. Johannan b. Zakkai and the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gorion and continued with two other stories. The third story ends with the following statement made by the Greek owner to his wife: This people which thou seest, none but their Father in heaven is angry with them. 13

But the story above does not have any moral teaching and the reader is the one who needs to add, out of his creativity, an explanation. We wish to know (1) what was in the mind of the Greek when he gave the pitcher to the girl and asked her to bring him water. (2) Why did the maid servant interfere and (3) what was she thinking? 103

Another parable, which also does not offer us any moral teaching, is found in the same text in ARN. This parable was told by R. Simeon ben Y ohai, relating to the series of parables about Adam.

To whom may Adam be likened? To one who had a wife at home. What did the man do? He went and brought a jar and put into it figs and nuts ... Then he caught a scorpion and put it at the mouth of the jar. The jar he sealed with a tight fitting lid ... he said to her, everything I have in this house is in thy hand except this jar ... she arose and opened the jar and stuck her hand into it-and the scorpion stung her ... Everything I have in the house is in thy hand except this jar which thou mayest not touch at all? Forthwith, he grew angry with her and sent her away. 14 What is the moral teaching here? One can say that it is obvious. Another could reply that it could serve as a paradigm to an evil inclination within people. But, even as an example of the events that unfold in the Garden, this parable hardly fits. It could be a part of a mystery murder case, a story on how to kill your wife and to inherit all from her. The lack of a moral teaching does not lessen the beauty of this passage as a very short story. Thus, perhaps instead of searching for the theological teaching here, the reader should simply be aware of the literary aspects and examine the sources the author used. Similarly, the parables of Jesus lack overt moral teachings. That was added as part of the role of the later redactor- narrator. For this reason, most of the moral teachings of Jesus have theological points. Such a parable is the one told in the three

Synoptic Gospels:

104

Matthew 21: 33-46 Hear another parable. There was a certain householder who planted a vineyard and hedged it round about and dug a wine press in it and built a tower and leased it to tenant farmers and went to a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the farmers that they might receive the fruits of it. And the farmers took his servants, beat one and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same unto them. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, 'They will reverence my son ... ' And they caught him and cast him out of the vineyard and slew him. When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh what will unto thosefarmers? Mark 12:1-9 A certain man planted a vineyard and set a hedge about it and dug a place for the wine press and built a tower and leased it to tenants and went to a far country. And at the season, he sent to the tenants a servant that might receive from the tenants of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him and hit him and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant and of him they cast stones and wounded him in the head ... Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also lost unto them and they took him and killed him and cast him out ofthe vineyard Luke 20: 9-19 A certain man planted a vineyard and left it to tenants and went to a far country for a long time.

105

And at the season, he sent a servant to the tenants that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty. He sent another servant and they beat him also and treated him shamefully ... He sent the third and they wounded him also ... What shall I do? I will send my beloved son ... but when the tenants saw him ... so they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Here we have three versions of one parable, and there are many differences. Matthew tells us about servants. The first, probably, of the three servants, was beaten, then one was killed, and the third was stoned. The second group sent, probably, had the same number. The third time the master's son was sent because the master assumed, they will reverence him. But the farmers killed him and wished to seize his inheritance.

Mark tells us about three servants. The first one was beaten and sent away empty. The second servant was stoned and was wounded in the head and was sent away shamefully. The third who was sent was the well beloved son; because the master felt they will reverence my son and the inheritance shall be ours. The master was wrong. In Luke the first to go was a servant. He was beaten and sent away empty. The second who was sent was treated shamefully. The third one was wounded. The fourth was the beloved son, because the master felt maybe they will reverence him. But instead, the tenants decided, Let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours. These three parables each end with no overt moral teaching. However, the narrators go on to offer us, the readers, their teachings. Without the teachings, the parables are empty. Yet, it is important to note that each narrator offers a different interpretation:

106

Matthew 21: 42-44 Did you never read in the Scripture, "The Stone which the Builder Rejected, " the same is become the head of the corner ... Therefore, say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you ... And Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on Whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Mark 12: 10-11 And have ye not read this Scripture '" The stone which the builder rejected is become the head ofthe corner. This was the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes. Luke 20: 15-16 What is this, then, that it is written. The Stone which the builder rejected The same is become the head of the corner. Whosoever shall fall upon that Stone shall be broken, but on Whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. These parables are very close to the one of the Prophet Isaiah:

... my beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. And he dug it and gathered out the stones, and planted it with the choicest vine; and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press in it and he looked for justice, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry. (Is.5: 1-7). As in his prophecy above where Isaiah attacks the injustice he finds in Israel, Jesus sees the same. The 'vineyard' represents Israel and the tenants' (or the 'evil tenants') are the establishment, the Sadducees. In this respect, we should view this parable from its 107

theological point of view; as the owner of the vineyard, God, sends to his people, Israel, messengers who are prophets, but the 'establishment' opposes them and wishes to replace them. From the literary point of view, these parables are presenting events that were well-known, as prophets were often disliked by the 'establishment' and by high officials. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark emphasize the killing of messengers. The structure of the 'three' is a gradual literary development: first are sent the slaves and from this stage it comes to be the 'chosen' one, the 'beloved son' who is sent. The narrator of Luke is the only one who tells the story wherein the slaves are not killed. The 'well beloved son' is Jesus himself. The question to ask is: Does Jesus prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem? In Luke we read:

He shall come and destroy these tenants and shall give the vineyard to others. (And when they heard it, they said, Godforbid).15 Is this a prophecy of the destruction of the Temple and of an exile? In Leviticus 26:9, we read:

For I will have respect unto you (For I will turn unto you) and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. Targum Yonathan (Palestinian Targum) states the following: For I shall turn from the wages (a-gar) of the nations to fulfill to you the amends of your good work, I will strengthen you, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. The following midrash presents its attempt to interpret this verse. Thus, it introduces its readers to the following parable: 108

... and confirm my covenant with you. What is it to be compared? To a king who hired many workers. Among them was a worker who worked for the king many days. When the workers went in to receive their wages, this worker went with them. The king said to him, 'My son, I shall turn to you. These many workers, who did less work for me, I shall give a smaller reward, and I intend on counting up for you the larger reward. This story has no moral teaching but it interprets the first hemistich: "For I will turn unto you. " From the story, we can learn that it is related to the reward awaiting the people of Israel should they follow the commandments of God. The literary interpretation is very simple: there's a faithful worker whom the king respects. This is a hard-working person, thus he deserves the large reward. The only teaching that can be drawn from this story is that the one who does his work faithfully will get the greatest reward. This story deals with choice. God turns to his people and establishes his covenant with them. The idea of being chosen is discovered in rabbinic literature and it means to follow the law and the commandments. Thus, the verse discussed above echoes the revolution at Mmmt Sinai. The similar story in the Gospels shares: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head ofthe corner. It also speaks about the idea of choice. But the choice here is the act of accentuating Jesus, who was rejected by the establishment. Thus, the generally accepted interpretation is that Jesus is the 'corner stone.' Yet, already in the early Jewish interpretations, the 'corner stone' was perceived as being David or someone from the house of Jesse:

109

... ha-vah b 'ne ba-na-ya de-yi-shai ve-zak-ka-ah leit-man-na-ah lim-lilch ve-shul-tan. And the offspring of Jesse will have the merit to be appointed (nominated) for the kingdom and to reign}6 In the rabbinic literature, this motif of 'vineyard' or 'orchard' plays an important role in the interpretations of biblical verses. On the verse from Song ofSongs: My beloved has gone down into his garden to the beds of spices to feed in the garden and gather lilies (6:2). The sages were interested in interpreting the same aspects of the verse. The 'beloved' is seen as 'The Holy One, blessed be he.' The 'beds of spices' are interpreted as being Israel. The 'Garden' is the Universe. After offering their explanation of the symbols, the sages present a parable, again with no moral teaching:

To what is this compared? To a king who had a son who was well beloved to him. What did the king do? He planted a garden for him. Whenever the son did what his father favored, he traveled around the world to see the beautifol plants and to plant inside the garden. But whenever he (the son) misbehaved, he (God) cut down all the plants. 17 It is' important to pay attention to the methods used by Jesus. While telling the story, he often inserted a biblical verse to support his teaching. The same method had been used by the sages:

110

Matthew 22:1-14 The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage fOr his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding and they would not come. Again, he sent forth servants saying 'Tell them who are bidden, behold 1 have prepared my dinner ... come unto the marriage. But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise. But when the king heard of it he was angry and destroyed those murderers and burned their cities ... So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all, as many as they found And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment ... Then said the king to the servants, bind hand and foot and take him away and cast him into outer darkness ... For many are called but few are chosen. (Luke 14: 16-24) A certain man gave a great supper and bade many. gnd sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready. And they all ... began to make excuses. The first said unto him, 1 have bought a piece of ground ... And another said, 1 have bought five yokes ofoxen ... And another said, 1 have married a wife ... Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant '" bring here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind ... Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come ... For 1 sflY unto you that some ofthose men that were bidden shall taste ofmy supper. These two parables are similar to the one told in the name ofR. Yohanan b. Zakkai:

111

This can be compared to a king who invited his servants to a banquet, but did not fIX a time. The prudent ones among them adorned themselves and sat at the door of the palace ... the fools among them went to work, for they said: Can there be a banquet without preparation? ... The king rejoiced at the prudent, but was angry with the fools. He said: Let those who adorned themselves for the banquet stand and watch. 18 In these three stories, we fmd elements of similarities, such as the banquet, the invitations, the refusal of the bidden ones, the anger of the king. But what is the moral teaching? In both, the Matthean story and in the rabbinic one, the banquet is prepared by a king. It could be suggested that the moral teaching is to 'be prepared, to be ready'. But then, the conclusion of neither of the two stories, in Matthew and in the rabbinic source, speaks about readiness, but instead in Matthew's version we fmd:

Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness ... For many are called but few are chosen. And in the rabbi's story we find:

Let those who adorned themselves ... sit, eat, and drink but those who did not .. , stand and watch. The idea of choice here is stronger than the idea of readiness. The parables, the stories in the rabbinic literature and in the NT, were told as related to an event or as part of a certain teaching, either in public places or in the synagogue. But these stories did not always reach their fully developed plot, and its relation to the event was not always clear. As there are different versions to these stories, we may conclude that they were a part of the folk literature which was shared orally, and while they 112

transmitted it from one generation to another, some changes were made. Although some literary works of the Second Commonwealth period were already in written fonn, and, as such, they were transmitted to the sages, the folk literary style and the folk motifs remained and they were used to support the teaching of the sages and other teachers.

In the parable presented by Matthew, we offer our interpretation of the hemistich of the part in which the king said to the servants: Bind him hand and foot. se- san- tes aw-tu- po- das kai khei- ras.

To 'bind hand and foot' has a special stem, which is A.KD., meaning 'in the sacrifice on the altar', where the sacrificial animal's hind and fore legs are bound. In the case of the Binding of Isaac, he is tied hand to leg '9 to prevent him from any possible movement. Does the narrator present us the state of mind of the 'establishment', of leaders who refused to allow a new interpretation? The parable is directed toward two intentions. One is to preach for new ways: for tolerance, for staying away from zeal, bigotry and obstinacy. The second is to present an interpretation of biblical verses and of complicated passages. Thus, we have two directions: one is the ideological and other is the actual. When R. Samuel bar Nahman wished to interpret the following verse in the Book ofProverbs, When a man's ways pleaseth the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Prov.16:7),

he said:

113

This is the serpent as it is written,' ... and I will put enmity (between thee and the woman}.20

The center for cultural activities in the time of the Gospels can't be pinpointed. It is possible that it was in the synagogue, which was called Bet Am21 by the common people, and in other public places, like the market place. These stories and teachings were delivered by different preachers and each presented his own version of the story. To examine the changes in the structure of the story, we chose the following parables: Matthew 13:31-32 The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in the field Which, indeed, is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches of it. Mark 4:30-32 To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what comparison we compare it? It is like a grain ofmustard seed, which. when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that are in the earth. But, when it is sown, it groweth up and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches, so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. Luke 13:18-19 What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed

114

which a man took, and cast into his garden, and it grew and it became a great tree, and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. An examination of these three versions of the parable suggests that the Lucan parable is the closest one to the oral tradition. If we heed his statement:

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. (Lk. 1:3) Luke's story is very close to the Jewish parable. The props that are used in the three parables above present a special method that had long been in use in Jewish tradition. The best-known prop is: It is to compare to ... or This is like ... and this prop was often used by the sages. In Zeigler's book,22 he presents us with parables which use props such as, It is to compare to ... and then the readers or listeners are presented with a long list of parables, each dealing with all aspects of life. A comparative examination of the three parables above does not leave any doubt that Luke, more than the others, keeps the prop and the framework found in the parable just as the Jewish sages had done. The sophistication that exists within the parables shared by Matthew and Mark, which uses all means to develop their parables, is not found in the parable of Luke. The comparison with Matthew shows that the phrase which a man took, is a Judaic formula for presenting the events in a story. The structure of the parables is as follows:

Prop The kingdom of heaven is like ... To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? 115

What is the kingdom of God like and to what shall I compare it?

To a grain ofmustard seed ... It is like a grain of mustard seed. It is like a grain ofmustard seed.

Ending The birds ofthe air come and lodge. The fowls ofthe air may lodge. Thefowls ofthe air lodge.

Such structure can be found in the midrashic literature, but the rabbinic structure seems to be closer to the structure used in Luke: The kingdom of God is like ...

Yet, sometimes, the sages presented their parable and then they offered the implication of the story. The structure of the midrashic literature, in many cases, is that the biblical verse is given after the presentation of the parable. In both cases, the parable is not always a method of interpretation of the biblical verse. Sometimes, the story and the biblical verse seem to be superficial additions. Our analytical examination of these three parables suggests that the wording and structure used in Matthew's and Mark's versions are more sophisticated than what is used in Luke's.

In Matthew we find:

Prop The kingdom ofheaven is like

116

... to a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed into his field.

Conclusion ... so the birds of the air come and lodged in the branches ofi!·

By comparison, in Mark we read:

Prop

Body

Conclusion

To what shall we liken the Kingdom ofGod?

... it is like a grain ofmustard seed which when it is shown in the earth ...

so that the fowls of the earth may lodge under the shadow ofit.

The three Gospel writers present the implication(s) and the story as given. In the midrashic literature, we are introduced to two different teachings. In one, the biblical verse is presented first and then the story follows. Yet, in other midrashic teachings, the story is presented first and then the biblical verse follows the story. We suggest that this structure is an expanded interpretation of a biblical verse. More clearly, we say that the story, or parable, in such cases, presents another point of view and we suggest, sometimes, it also represents a change in the commonly accepted teaching. But then we must keep in mind that since the parable is told around one main point, the interpreter can view the activities of the plot. He does not have to collect all the story's details first, as the interpreter of the allegory must do, because the story in the parable is drawn from nature, or from common life, and it offers the reader a wide range of interpretations. 117

C.

Let Those Among You Come

The kingdom of the Lord is good, and we who know this are forgetful. Like the blind, we stumble along the road, confused, in flight from what we cherish, leaving that behind. We bubble up like fountains but then fall back to the lowest level and make a track ofrivulets in the mud in which we settle. 23 The relationship between Jesus, parables and the me-shalim has been discussed by scholars such as Professor David Flusser (1989), David Stern (1991), and Bradford Young (1986), to mention but a few. Our interest in this work is more focused on the social and the literary aspects of these parables. We accept the notion espoused by Flusser that Jesus continued the oral, Jewish tradition and used the genre of the mashal as well. And we reject the idea of Joachim Jeremias in his opus that Jesus is the sole inventor of the genre of the parable. To state such a notion is to.show little knowledge of the creative work done during the Second Commonwealth period. Moreover, one should pay attention to the watchword of Judaism, which begins with the word She-ma, I hearken! Stating that Jesus is the sole inventor of this genre is, at the same time, drawing him away from his own tradition. Such an attempt was made earlier in the 19th century in the work of HackeJ.24 In many ways, he followed the thesis of Chamberlain, his contemporary, that Jesus belonged to the Aryan race. That notion, in fact cannot be proven. Chamberlain (www) never wrote that Jesus was an Aryan or a German, but he developed a false thesis that King Solomon sold the Galilee to the king of Tyre. Thus, in this view, Jesus was not born in Judea, but in the "foreign" Galilee. This sterile perception contradicts the fact that Jesus' mother was a Jew. Both incorrect theses belong to the

118

European racism of the 19th century and serve nothing in our study. No serious scholar today would follow such false examinations. The statement of Jeremias has no support in any of the works known to us these days. It is a statement by an important scholar who, somehow, had stumbled. The late Professor Saul Lieberman already established the relationship between the rabbinic form of moral teaching and as it was being used in the time of Jesus.2S Moreover, he suggested that this genre was not confined to Jewish and early Christian communities, but that it was also found among the Greek community, as it was also used in Aesop's fables. 26 Surely, we should mention here that this genre is also found in the biblical literature and the most well known parables are the fable/parable of Jotham (Judges 9) and Nathan's parable (2 Sam.12:1-6). These examples refute the thesis of Jeremias and demonstrate the fact that Jesus came from a long oral tradition. He, like many preachers and teachers, used the literary genre of the parable to address his audience and his disciples in order to convey his moral teachings. The parable was a part of the curricula of those days: curricula which were more developed than those of the biblical period, as presented to us in the Book of Proverbs and in the Book of Ecclesiastes. As an individual growing up in his tradition, and the one who from his childhood absorbed Jewish values that were probably transmitted to him by teachers and moralists as a part of the era's dominant curricula, we can asswne that this genre made a strong impact on Jesus and served him in his later preaching. At the end of the Second Commonwealth, Judea and the Galilee were areas populated by Jews. But those communities were also very pluralistic societies, and where each group developed its own perception and interpretation of the laws, the rituals, and of 119

the Ha-la-khah. Some groups were moderate in their views of the law and the rituals, while others were more zealous and fanatical in their views. Some made an attempt to assimilate into the Hellenistic society and to be more like the people of all the other nations' cultures. But others fought vigorously, and sometimes violently, against such attempts. And yet, still others developed ascetic ideas that were not a part of the main stream of the dominant 'Judaisms' of the time. Jewish people lived in this world and they were influenced by the many co-existing social and political movements. The Jewish intellectuals, and the sages of the community, were aware of the foreign ideas. During the era of Roman control over Judea, there was a deep desire to lose the feeling of foreign oppression, and the sages found ways to abolish certain unnecessary Mosaic laws which they felt were out of tune/touch with the times. This happened to the law of Bitter Water (Nu.5:18) and to the slaughtering of a heifer (Dt. 21 :6).27 The sages of those days dared to abolish laws which were no longer adaptable. From Josephus' description of the Jewish law, it becomes apparent that it is not a constitution of a sovereign state, but it contains the laws for a small community under the authority, kratos, of Moses, who tried to maintain the cohesive socio-cultural unity and identity of this community.28 The Ha-la-khah was never perceived as a universal religion, but as a way to search for ways to regulate the socio-cultural and the political life of the people, either in its own land or, eventually, in exile. Thus, there was precedent established so the laws could be altered to accommodate the Ha-lakhah to the time(s). In this pluralistic Jewish society of the Second Commonwealth, there was a place for a new movement, such as

120

the one created by Jesus. He preached of a moralistic and messianic movement whose important role he viewed as being one that would bring about some changes in the Jewish laws, mainly in the laws and rules which no longer had a viable place in the changing times that came at the end of the Second Commonwealth. Many of these laws were by then almost five centuries old, having been presented by Ezra the Scribe some time between ca. 444-398 B.C.E. He was equipped, we are told, with the Law of Moses: For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances. (Ez.7:1O) Let us examine the attempts Jesus made to offer a new interpretation of certain laws, of sharing new approaches and moral teachings. In three sources presented in the Gospels, in Matt. 12: 18; Mk.2:23-28; Lk.6:1-5, Jesus' use of the Parable of the Grain Fields appears. The narrator begins the parable introducing Jesus responding to the Pharisees when his disciples plucked ears of grain: Have ye not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God and did eat the show bread which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them who were with him, but only for the priest? Or have ye not read in the law how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath and are blameless? Paying attention to the different Gospel versions, we find the following: •

In the Gospel of Mark there is no mention of the hunger of the disciples.

121

•

In the Gospel ofLuke we discover: .,. and his disciples plucked the ears of grain and Did eat rubbing them in their hands. (6:1).

•

And the Pharisees in Matthew stated:

.,. thy disciples do that which is not lawfol. The narrator in Luke states:

And a certain one of the Pharisees said unto them: Why do ye that which is not lawfol to do on the Sabbath day? The central question in these three synoptic Gospels is the same, with minor changes, but while in Matthew and Mark the Pharisees turned to Jesus, in Luke, they turned directly to the disciples.

•

Mark adds one more important detail describing David in the House of God by stating: How he went into the house of God In the days of Abiathar the High Priest and ate the show bread ...

•

Verses 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew are missing in both Mark and Luke.

•

Mark adds: The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. (2:27)

•

Both Matthew and Luke state:

... The son ofman is the Lord (also) ofthe Sabbath. The second attempt to offer an interpretation conceming the change of the laws in relationship to the Sabbath day is found in 122

the following passages in Matt. 12:9-14, MId: 1-6, and Lk.6: 6-11, where the question of healing on the Sabbath day is the issue:

... he went into their synagogue and behold there was a man who had his hand paralyzed And they asked him, saying, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? That they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep and it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much, then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawfol to do good on the Sabbath day ... Mark adds that from the beginning the Pharisees watched Jesus to see if he would heal anyone on the Sabbath day. The question that Jesus placed before the Pharisees is, however, different. The example of saving the sheep found in Matthew is missing in Mark. Instead, in Mark's Gospel, he raises philosophical and moral questions. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill? In Luke's work, the scribes and the Pharisees continued to watch Jesus, and the narrator states:

But he knew their thoughts. Also, in Luke's Gospel the example of the sheep is missing and the philosophical and moral questions that are encountered in Mark appear in Luke's work, too. The issue of healing on the Sabbath day appears in Luke l310-17; 14:1-6 and in John 5:1-18. The first one tells about a woman with a spirit of infirmity. Jesus makes a comparison with an ox or an ass led to the water on the Sabbath day. In the second 123

story, in Luke, an example is used that is close to the one used in Matthew 12: Which ofyou shall have an ass or an oxfallen into a pit and will not straight way pull him out on the Sabbath day? (14:5)29

The story in John presents many theological questions, but the issue of healing, working on the Sabbath day, is still the main point. These stories present diverse aspects of Jewish Ha-la-khah. The question of acting on the Sabbath day was a question that had long been debated among the Jewish Sages; and one can say it is still being debated. Examination of some rabbinic sources and an attempt to offer a good understanding of the noun, me-Ia-khah, 'work,' is found in Ex.20: 9-10 and in Dt.5: l3-14, where a strong statement is made related to it in the ten principals, or Commandments: You shall do no work on the Sabbath day.

The sages debated the term work, me-la-kha. In examining the Mishnah, Shabbat, there are attempts to list the kinds of work that are not permitted on the Sabbath day. In the Mishnah there are thirty-nine ('forty less one') kinds of work. 30 In their perception of work, the Sages viewed plucking the ears of corn ears as being a form of work known as reaping. For that reason, some view the event presented in the first three Gospel stories as desecrating the Sabbath day. But the question raised is focused on hunger. Here we are presented with a debated matter and the question should be asked: Were they hungry and were their lives in danger? In such a life threatening condition, there would not be any opposition to het-ter, permission, but yet it would still be debated. The story implies that they were hungry, but they were not starving to death. Do these stories present an argument to be discussed, or is there an 124

intellectual debate that could be part of the curricula in the religious academies of that time? Was it an attempt to argue the meaning of me-Ia-khah? Is there any attempt by the narrator to present a demand to ease certain laws to make them line up better with the spirit of the times? Saving an animal on the Sabbath day had been debated in the Talmudic literature. There, it was suggested that all efforts ought to be made so the animal would be saved. 3J In the midrashic literature we find many teachings relating to the Sabbath. In one of them, we fmd the teaching of R. Akiba that says:

If murder overrides the temple service, and the temple service overrides the Sabbath, how much more does the serving o/life override the Sabbath.32 In the same place, we find two more teachings. Here is one of them:

R. Yossi the Galilean says: When it says: But my Sabbath you shall keep, 'But' is a distinction. There are Sabbath days on which you should rest and Sabbath days on which you should not rest. 33 In the teaching of the Jewish Sages, the Sabbath was given to the man, not man is given to the Sabbath. Such a teaching is very close to the teachings of Jesus. It is important to recall that these earlier teachings were not invented by a sage on a specific day, but that they were passed down by word of mouth from one generation to another and it is very likely that both the teaching of Jesus and that of the sages came from the same source. As much as we are impressed by the logic presented by Jesus in Matt. 12:1-8 and in Mk. 2:23-28 and in Lt 6: 1-5, that David took the bread to break the hunger of his followers, this event has nothing to do with breaking the holiness of the Sabbath day. It can be argued that the

125

logic of the sages and of Jesus is, in a sense, taking responsibility to break. what is considered holy and is not permitted to be done by the common people. Then, as much as in the case of David's hunger that overrides worship in the temple, so the hunger of the disciples overrides the laws of the Sabbath day. It's important to note the phrase used in Luke 6:5: The son of man is the Lord also of/he Sabbath ...

simply suggests any Jewish human is the Lord of the Sabbath. The phrase Ben Adam, hi-os tu an-tro-pu, means 'man, human. 134 At this point, it is possible to suggest that Jesus was acting as a reformer, as one who requested a re-examination of Mosaic laws. In many ways, one can view Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa a reformer, too. He, as the rabbinic sources teach, also lived in the Galilee, in a place near Sepphoris. 35 So, what was the spiritual power of Jesus? What was the strength with which he approached the community? Was he a religious leader? It is, indeed, difficult to answer these questions since we do not have much information about the role of a religious leader. If we think of a rabbi as a religious leader, then there were/are many rabbis and they did/do not agree with one another on certain interpretations of the Law. Yet, Jesus was not a rabbi, even though some Gospels refer to him as such, as in

Matt.23:7. And greetings in the market places, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi ... lrai Ira-Ieis-tai hi-po- ton an-tro-pon Rabbei ...

which refers to the Pharisees and scribes calling Jesus a rabbi. In the same place, we find a few more teachings, such as: 126

R. fossi the Galilean says: When it says: But my Sabbath you shall keep, But, is a distinction. There are Sabbath days on which you should rest.

This noun rabbi, master, is repeated in 23:8and in 26:25. Here the Greek text uses this noun and it also uses it in 26:49 in its description of Judas' betrayal: khai-re Rabbei In Mark 9:5:

o Pet-rus le-gui ten lesu Rabbei, and Peter says to Jesus, Rabbi ... In 11:21, again Peter addresses Jesus as 'Rabbi.' In the betrayal of Judas, this noun is used again in 14:45. John uses the word 'Rabbi' in the following verses: 1:38,49; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11 :8. Yet, the English translation, KJV, is not consistent with the Greek text and translation of Master in what we find used in 9:2; 11 :8. It still remains unclear how this title was used in Jesus'time.

The title Rabbi is a problematic one in Jewish tradition. In fact, it does not mean a religious leader or a leader of a certain community, but instead it means 'a teacher.' In the Jewish tradition it is commonly understood that when someone has a student and that student then has students, then the first teacher is considered worthy of being referred to as a rabbi. 36 When examining the use of the title Rabbi used in Jewish tradition, there are some questions regarding its later use in the NT. Was Jesus a rabbi? Was he called Rabbi by his disciples? Was the title Rabbi in use at the time of Jesus?37 It is hard to consider Jesus as a rabbi for the main reason 127

that this title was not in common use among Jews in the 1stcentury of this era: the time of Jesus. Toward the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century C.E., when the practice of ordination took place, that is when the word rabbi is noted. Matthew stated that the Pharisees and the scribes loved /0 be called by men Rabbi, Rabbi (Mati. 23:7). We assume this statement was added by a redactor after Jesus' time. Our thesis is that this is a late addition and that it reflects the time of the canon, but it was not in use in Jesus' time. 38 During the period of the Second Commonwealth, the sages were called by their proper names, as it is found in the writings of Josephus, of Philo, and in the early Tannailic literature. Josephus called the sages teachers, and in Ben Sira we find the title Sofrim.

It was in Samuel Sandmel' s work39 that he tried to define the differences between rabbi ('my teacher') and ray (rab), 'teacher.' He wrote: In the Baby/onian Ta{mud, a tanna is called rabbi (my teacher); an amora is called rab (teacher). 40 It is important to note that in the Mishnah the word tanna is not found. The sages of the Mishnah used the word Tanna, to mean 'the one who teaches and repeats his studies.' It is found in the Talmud where many times it is written:

te-nu rab-ba-nan, Our sages teach/taught ...

Amora is a sage who interpreted the Ge-ma-ra, the Aramaic text in the Talmud. This word is derived from the stem A.MR., meaning 'to speak, to expound.'

128

D.

Open Up the Gates of Light Shalom is God's name. It is integrity, wholeness, steadfastness, community, solidarity and the total mobilization of human power to serve the reality which is above and beyond us. Therefore, the central word in Rabbinic literature is the word Shalom. Consequently, it is no accident that the whole of Talmudic literature ends with that word: The Holy One, blessed be He, could find no vessel that was so full of blessing for Israel and mankind as that ofShalom. 41

Jesus' activities share many similarities with the activities of R. Hanina ben Dosa, who also lived and was active in the 151 Century C.E. Galilee and probably before the destruction of the Temple (70c.E.). Some early sources contain the following story:

When Rabbi Hanina b. Dosa prayed, a poisonous reptile bit him, .but he did not interrupt his prayer. They (spectators) departed and found the same snake dead at the opening of its hole. 'Woe to the man', they exclaimed, 'bitten by a snake, but woe to the snake which has bitten Rabbi Hanina b. Dosa. >42 Many stories relating to him and to his healing power also refer to his influence on heaven. Both Hanina b. Dosa and Jesus had the power to cure people: a power of healing. It is recorded that when R. Hanina b. Dosa cured the son of the head of the Jerusalem Pharisees, he sent the Pharisees' messengers home saying that the child's fever was gone. He was then asked, "Are you a prophet?" His response was given in the language of the prophet Amos (7:14): "I am no prophet; neither am I a prophet 's son, but this is how I am favored "43

129

This particular motif of healing a person from a distance also appears in Matt.8:5-13, in Lk.7:1-10, and inJn. 4:46-53. These stories of R. Hanina b. Dosa and Jesus belong to the same genre where a charismatic persona is acknowledged. But the difference between these two healers is that the first one does it with a prayer, or as the narrator presents the response of Hanina b. Dosa:

If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is favored. 44 With Jesus, the act of healing from a distance takes place only when he was asked by the centurion,4s or by the nobleman, as the narrator in John suggests, to not enter the home. In these three stories in the Gospels, the aspect of faith is emphasized, whereas in R. ben Dosa's story, the power of the holy man is emphasized. He is viewed, and thus people like him, as a person who hates evil and has an absolute trust in God. 46 But it is important to note that R. Hanina b. Dosa is never quoted as defining himself as an authority on Jewish law. Yet, in tractate AVOT his ethical perception of the order of spiritual priorities is quoted: Any man whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom will endure; but if his wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom will not endure. 47

If wisdom is knowledge of the law, as it is used in the verse on which this belief is modeled: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. (Prov.9:10)

then the same fear ofthe Lord is found also in Jesus' statement: Take heed that ye do not alms before men to be seen by them, otherwtse you have no reward of your Father, who is in heaven ... (Matt. 6:1-4).

130

If the account of Josephus is accepted as being historically' accurate, then it is important to note that it is his testimony that Jesus was a wise man who perfonned marvelous deeds, so today we have come to view him as such. But this belief presents some difficulties. If we compare the same expression here to that of the prophet Elisha, it creates some doubt about the authenticity of the text. 48 In Luke we find the following verse related to Jesus' activities:

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear saying, we have seen strange things today. (Lk.5:26) It is probable that this type of 'marvelous deeds', as was pointed out by Josephus, was probably a well-known practice of healing and perfonning miracles. Examining the dispute between R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos and his contemporary colleagues supports this thesis as he presented his teachings by exclaiming:

Jfmy teaching is correct, let it be proved by heaven.

And a divine voice answered him: What have you against R.Eliezer, for his teaching is correct.

But the sages ruled out even this celestial intervention as being impossible because they stated that every decision has to be reached by majority rule. 49 It is important to know that when R. Hanina b. Dosa was asked: Are you a prophet? the concept of prophecy in those days, in the post-biblical period, had been replaced by a belief in a divine voice, a bat-qol. In the Tosefta, we find the following:

131

From the time of the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi on, the divine spirit ceased from Israel, but they received messages by the divine voice. so In many ways, the rabbis had come to assume responsibility for the lives of the people. Their authority came from the ha-lakhah (Jewish law), but their interpretations were allowed or given authenticity by the divine voice. In the Jewish milieu in Judea and in Galilee, prophecy began to be replaced by the teachings of the sages, and if something could not be explained or decided, it was left unresolved until the time when prophecy was predicted to rise again,sl as we find from the same source in the statement:

The Jews and their priests corifirmed Simon as their leader and high priest in perpetuity until a true prophet shall appear. S2 In this sense, Jesus could not be considered within the Jewish milieu as being a prophet. However, according to Luke, Jesus revealed himself to two Emmaus disciples:

And they said unto him (C/eophas) concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. (Lk. 24:19). Indeed, this view was already found in Matthew, when the narrator tells us:

When Jesus came into the borders of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples saying: Who do men say that 1, the son of man, am? And they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. (Matt. 16: l3-14).

132

At the same time, it is not at all clear that Jesus viewed himself a prophet. In fact, it is very doubtful that he viewed himself as such, since it would antagonize his own tradition. But it does not contradict his ability with his charismatic activities. On the contrary, on this point, he reaches a high degree of closeness and similarity with R. Hanina b. Dosa. The verses which foretell the end of the prophetic literature of the OT are presented in Malachi:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to the fathers ... (3:23-24)(4:5-6). Elijah is the one chosen to proclaim the beginning of the messianic em. He is the mediator between the people of Ismel and their God. In many ways, he is the one Jews are pmying will come, and they are expecting him to come to this world since with his appearance the promised messianic era will begin. In both the NT and in the mbbinic litemture, we find Elijah as the main figure who, together with Moses, will appear and talk to Jesus.

kai ofte aw-tois Ele-yas seen mou-sei kahe-san hesan sen-la-loon-tes to Iesu. (Mk.9:4). Also appeared to them Elijah and Moses and they were talking to Jesus. 53 Judaism canonized prophetic litemture with the idea that Elijah is the one who would declare the messianic em. With his appearance, prophecy would renew itself. Until then, the sages are seen as the replacements for the prophets. 54 Thus, it is very hard for any Jew to proclaim himself a messiah without any disputation and objection from the Jewish leaders. From this vantage point, then, it 133

is somehow difficult to accept the notion that Jesus viewed himself as a prophet or as a messiah. At this point in time, the Jews were still waiting for Elijah to come and that with him, the messianic era would begin." Judaism in Jesus' time could not let him proclaim himself as the Messiah and he himself could not take the liberty to break this tradition and to say, I am the Messiah. If so, then what was his secret? He was not a rabbi, although as some sources in this book have pointed out, he was addressed as Rabbi. Thus, he was a teacher who explained the law and some verses of the Book. Some disagreed with his interpretations and those who represented the establishment argued with him and objected to his points of view. It is possible that he was a teacher who walked from one place to another, out of his concern for the common people, to present before them his understanding. His oratory greatly impressed his audiences. Thus, both his responsibility to his contemporary people in the rural areas in the Galilee, and his skill as an orator suggest that he was a teacher. As such, he presented the common people with a better understanding of the laws. Yet, he also presented some arguments to help them understand that there was a need to make some changes and to ease the rigidity of the laws. In this respect, Jews objected to the teachings of those who represented the establishment. If he was not a messiah, nor a prophet, nor a rabbi, but was a teacher, what kind of teacher was he? Jews felt Jesus was a special kind of teacher. He is the most important personality Judaism endowed to the world. He was a moralist with love for humanity, and curing the wretched and unfortunates was his main task. Jesus became the paradigm for any dedicated and caring teacher. Rudolph Bultmann has examined the question of whether the Synoptic Gospel literary works were, at their start, an oral tradition. 56 He argues that all traditions concerning the person of Jesus originated in the Christian community Sitz-im-Leben (life 134

situation). He held that behind these traditions one could see the need of the Church to establish itself. Herbert Risenfeld," however, objected to his thesis. In Risenfeld's work, he examined how the Jewish Sages defined learning as everything having to be established in memory and by 'learning by heart.'sS Problems concerning the transmission of this literature, or the question of oral delivery, are very hard to solve. It is important to understand that a word is a very powerful means in any society that has oral delivery as its primary tradition. Considering that about fifty years separate Jesus' time from the time when the Synoptic Gospels were written down, it is also important to note that the oral tradition in that later society was still very strong. When the stories about the ministry of Jesus were written down, these works were circulated in the early Christian communities, but their foundations were from the Jewish tradition, and it was from this tradition that the Gospels sprang up. Thus, the story about the resurrection of Jesus has its roots in the Jewish tradition's earlier story about the resurrection of Isaac as it was a theme that was well-known and both told and woven in(to) both traditions. The proof that the Gospels evolved from an oral transmission becomes more significant and evident when examining the formula used which opens Jesus' parables. This is:

Sh '-ma', a-kou '-e Hearken! And it signaled that a story-telling session was about to begin. Since these stories were woven from the same source in Judaism, they related to the resurrection of Isaac, while in Christianity, they told of the resurrection of Jesus. The same can be seen in Kierkegaard S9 where he regards a close relationship between Mary and her faith and Abraham and his faith. The

135

connection between the two is that neither Mary nor Abraham could tell anyone about their sacrifice. God told Mary of the sacrifice he asked of her and so he said the same to Abraham. The connection between Isaac and Jesus is the outcome of the connection between Abraham and Mary. God told Mary he was about to offer the sacrifice and at this point she lived in a terrible loneliness. She was not able to share her destitute feelings with anyone. When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, no one knew of it, and Abraham could not tell anyone, so he was also placed in a terrible loneliness. The loneliness of a father and the similar loneliness of a mother serve as a connecting point between Isaac and Jesus. The faith that connected Abraham to Mary was the same one that connected Isaac to Jesus. Christian liturgy offers us this perception by stating: Abraham our father in faith ... It is important to note that in the first instance, Isaac did not cry nor challenge God with a spoken question. 60 Jesus, however, did cry out. Here are several different presentations of this cry.

In Matthew 27:46:

In Mark 15:34:

In Luke 23 :46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying. Eli; Eli; lama sa bakh-tha-ni. Eli, Eli Ie-ma sa-bakh-tha-ni ••• And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying; Eloi, Eloi la-ma sa-bakh-tha-ni••• And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice. he said: Father into thy hands I commend my spirit•.•

136

And in John 19:25-30:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene ... he saith to his mother, Woman behold your son (Gui-nai ide ho hios su) .. , he said it is finished (te-te-Ies-tai) ... and he gave up his spirit.

Both Matthew and Mark present the cry of Jesus in Aramaic. However, the word la-ma is a Hebrew word. The Aramaic text states: Eli, Eli me-tul ma she-bak-ta-ni The Hebrew-Aramaic text is missing in Luke who introduces a different version. If the story recorded in Luke 2:41-50 has any historical truth, then Jesus had a very good knowledge of the religious texts of his time. The quality of his knowledge is demonstrated by his audiences' positive and enthusiastic reactions to his interpretations. 61 Jesus was proven to be well versed in the Scripture and his interpretations amazed his listeners. Thus, wouldn't Jesus have been able to correctly quote the Hebrew text when he said: Eli, Eli la-mah 'a-zav-ta-ni? (Ps. 22:2) The Psalmist uses the stem 'A.z. v., which can be translated as 'forsaken' but also as 'to let loose' (Job 10: 1), and 'will not restrain, to foil (anyone).'62 The last redactor of the two texts either did not know Hebrew, and thus did not know the origin of the biblical verse, or it is possible that the story and the biblical verse were already being told in Aramaic. It is inconceivable that anyone like Jesus, who was well versed in the Jewish writings of his time, would incorrectly quote a biblical text. Another possibility suggested earlier in this work is that this apparent confusion or mystery can

137

be erased by discerning that Jesus deliberately addressed his disciples using a very specific formula,

a-kou-e ... Hearken ... because he wanted to make sure that they were listening to his teaching that he conveyed to them by orally re-telling the parables.

In the last parable of Jesus he states:

a-kou-ita ... Hearken, he cried in a loud voice, Eli, Eli, la-mah 'a-zav-ta- ni. With this last parable, Jesus' disciples had to struggle with its meaning. Was Jesus complaining about being forsaken by God? Was Jesus saying that God had not restrained him or had failed him? These questions remain open and they continue to be examined and debated today. We are still trying to understand what was meant by what is shared in very ambiguous texts, and we often feel envious of the religious faithful who accept these texts as being clear, truthful, and without difficulty.

E. There Shone Forth Wisdom

The trumpet sounds. I hear they are calling me up to the immortals. I will cast away ~ body upon the earth from which it was assembled 3 The relationship between Jesus' parables and those in the rabbinic literature has long been examined by scholars. The mesha-lim begin with the formulaic ma-shalle-me-lekh.• or 'it is to be compared to a king.' Many throughout the centuries claimed that Jesus' parables were rooted in his oral Jewish tradition and had 138

been adapted by him with some creative changes, as was discussed in Chapter One. But other scholars have claimed that Jesus' parables were originals and became a typical hallmark of his teaching style. 64

In the Midrash Mishle we find the following story: P. Ze 'ira says: The fifteen wicked people, what will the Holy One, blessed be He, do with them in the future? He will say to them you have toiledfor vain, since you have not accepted yourselves in the Law nor with good deeds. But you were in my world like an undesirable empty vessel, thus I have no desire in you. Is it possible that they will go on with no punishment? No! First they will see the righteous ones celebrating joyfully and then they will be sentenced to Gehinnam. It is to compare to a king 65

A very important phenomenon becomes clear. In the Book ofProverbs 16: 11 we find:

A just weight and balance are the Lord's; All the weights ofthe bag are his work. This verse contains one of the king's parables; it is to compare to a king who has an orchard, as can be seen in,

... the weights ofthe bag are his work. This verse contains one of the king's parables:

It is to compare to a king who has an orchard ... This parable comes close to matching the one included in Matthew 21, in Mark 19, and in Luke 20. In Matthew 19:27 Peter asks: 139

Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?

Jesus' answer in 19:38 states: Verily, I say unto you that ye who have followed. In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall not sit on the throne of his glory, Ye also shall not sit upon twelve thrones ...

The opening of this parable is very similar to the same fonnula that is used in the rabbinic literature. Another fonnula, similar to the one used in the rabbinic literature, is found in the Gospel of Thomas. Here we can examine the rabbinic literature and that life of Jesus which is available in the Gospel of Thomas. As the parable begins in Log. 52 and in Log. 97, and in Log. 98, we can read and compare: Log. 57 Jesus said, The kingdom of heaven is like a man who had seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull out the weeds. He said to them, 1 am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them. For on the day of harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned. Log. 97 Jesus said, The kingdom of the (father) is like a certain woman who is carrying a Oar) full of meal, while she was walking (on the) road, still some distance from home. The handle of the jar broke off and the meal emptied out before her (on) the road. She did not realize it, she noticed no accident. When she reached her house she set the jar down and found it empty.

140

Log. 98 Jesus said, The kingdom of the father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and struck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand should carry through. Then he slew the powerful man. Similar beginnings appear in Log. 107 and in Log. 109:

Log. 107 Jesus said, The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One ofthem, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, I care for you more than the ninetynine. Log. 109 Jesus said, The kingdom is like a man who had (hidden) treasure in his field without knowing it. And (after) he died, he left it to his (son). The son did (not) know. He inherited the field and sold (it). And the one who bought it went plowing and (found) the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished. These are the only five parables used in the Gospel of Thomas. The formulaic expression, 'The kingdom of ... ,' is used in all five Gospels. It was a sub-genre that was often used in rabbinic literature, as well. The editor of the Gospel ofMatthew states:

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable he spoke not unto them. (Matt. 13:34).

141

The author of the Gospel of Matthew apparently regarded Jesus as a master teacher and a moralist who used parables to convey his views to his audiences. His use of the wording, 'The kingdom of heaven is like ... ' suggests that Jesus knew the opening formula and that his parables are finely wrought. It is not clear that the intended moral of the parables was parallel to the events unfolding in Jesus' time. Professor Flusser states that the parables are incomprehensible. 66 In Matthew 22, two familiar formulas appear. The one used in the NT states, 'The kingdom of heaven is like ... ' and the other, used in the rabbinic literature, is in the genre of mish-Ie me-Iakhim; It is to compare to a king .,. The comparison between 'the kingdom of heaven' and of a king in flesh and blood substantiates the genre and the opening in the parable. Through the moral teaching, there is a resemblance between 'the heavenly kingdom' and the 'flesh and blood' king. Is it probable that this story began with the formula 'king of flesh and blood' as a protagonist of a parable as early as the 15t Century B.C.E. and then became very popular in rabbinic literature? The author's presentation can be read in different ways, however. Instead of, "And Jesus answered and spoke unto them again by parable, " it could mean, 'And Jesus continued speaking unto them in parables. ' Let us examine the following parable, which begins:

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who made a marriage for his son ... At first glance, it seems that 'the king' is God. And during the process of hearing or reading this parable, the audience is certain that 'the king' is God. However, the moralist sharing the parable states it is 'a certain king', meaning a flesh and blood king. 142

The real details in the story make it a vehicle ready to carry its symbolic meaning. Therefore, the story, the parable, is developed and its details, told in logical order, are easily understood and accepted until at one point the moralist points out another meaning in:

And sent forth his servants to call them that they were bidden to a wedding; and they would not come. The closing of this verse is very puzzling. We would expect those bidden to attend the wedding of the king's son to feel honored, and it's expected that they would eagerly accept the invitation. Yet, instead, they refuse the invitation of the king. The contradiction between what was logically expected but does not occur creates dramatic tension as the moral of the parable gets presented at the end. Here is the difference between a parable and an allegory. In the parable, the moral of the story is revealed to the listener or reader only after the logical facts are shown to have been turned upside down. When the protagonist in a parable is a king, or a landlord who has invited guests to a wedding or feast, the meaning of that parable is understood to be related to the end of days, the future to come. Thus, the audience already knows the moral of the story; it also understands that what is being presented and examined in the parable is the artistic aspect of the parable/story. If the audience was dealing solely with a parable, the assumed conclusion would be expected as the events unfold:

But when the king heard of it, he was angry and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burnt up their city. Or, the story could have concluded:

143

The king celebrated the marriage of his son without the guests. But since the moral of the story controls the details in the parable, then the moment the moral is presented, the story's details are no longer important. Thus we have:

Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them, who are bidden, behold, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come into the marriage. Either these servants were not well known or respected, or they were unable to persuade those invited to come to the wedding. What is really occurring in this story is a negotiation between a king and his subjects as he tries to persuade them by using the details and practical reasoning by having his messengers share:

... my oxen and my fatlings are killed. Respect and honor toward the king are not being discussed. The king's choice of using practical considerations can be interpreted as:

This is not just a marriage, for this event is worthwhile to come. The choice of the noun and the pronoun 'my' with 'dinner' emphasizes the importance of this event:

A king like me could not prepare just a dinner, but a great }east. As the story goes on, once again the invited guests pay no attention to the king's invitation and the king comes to see their reaction as an insult. The moralist makes sure the audience 144

understands how immense the insult is when the following description is added: But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise.

Here the logic of the structure of the parable corresponds to the moral of it. Some events in this story make the story incomprehensible, though, as the audience questions how the invited guests could choose to go on with their ordinary lives after they had been invited to a special occasion by their king. In the following verses, the story gets its new direction, presenting an aspect of unexpected violence: And the remnant took his servants, and treated them shamefully, and slew them.

And then the audience is made aware of the king's reaction: .. , and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burnt up their city.

The ideological message conveyed here is very clear. The 'king' is God. He invited humanity to enjoy the bliss and happiness which their faith and closeness to God alone would give them. This special delight God bestowed upon those who have faith. God sends his message several times, each time using different messengers, but those who refused to listen and accept God's message instead murdered God's messengers. Again, this story contains strong symbolism. If this is a religious parable, then the murdering of the servants means the invited guests denied their teaching and denounced their moral views. But, if instead, this story reflects everyday life, it serves to justly condemn the activities and choices made by those who had been repeatedly bidden to the feast. The moral, then, is that such overt refusal was 145

shameful, and it echoes the proverb, "Whoever shames his friend in public is as one who sheds blood " The reaction of the flesh and blood king is given in the verse above. In it, the king is depicted as one who is filled with anger, and the outcome of his anger is punishment. The conclusion is that those who had been invited to the feast and who had chosen not to attend were not worthy of their invitations. Now the king commands his servants to go to the 'highway' and to bring back guests, as many as they can find, to share this feast. The theological view of this parable is that the king is turning away from the special class in the community and turning toward the common people, to anyone who will listen. It's most likely that among these common people were both the good and the bad. The parable and its moral construct the plot in the story. In the parable, as in any story, its audience has to fill in the gaps. The gaps in this parable appear in the following verse: And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. If the king's messengers had, indeed, quickly gathered people from the highways, then some of the guests would arrive and not be properly attired for the wedding. Yet, the king turns to the improperly dressed guest and addresses him in a friendly way: Friend, how eamest thou here not having a wedding garment? The king's way of addressing his guest in such a friendly manner brings the guest and the king closer to one another, and it can be interpreted as being the spirit of forgiveness and Grace that the king possesses. Does this line up with the same kind of Grace and absolution contained in the teachings of the Nl? Since the 146

parable is a genre that can be interpreted in different ways, then this theological interpretation can be an acceptable one. The last verse, however, is a very puzzling one:

Then said the king to the servants, bind him hand and foot, and take him away and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 67 It is difficult to see the relationship between the text in verse 12, where the king addresses the guest in a very friendly way, and the text that follows describing the guest's coming punishment. It's possible to interpret this as meaning that the king knew that some of his guests had not come ready to celebrate with the king, so the king does not forgive all of them. Yet, the closing, ... there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth ... , can be interpreted as describing a place of darkness and evil that is in direct contrast to a place filled with light. Both the theological and literal interpretations can be accepted here. From the literary point of view, the wedding represents the light and the guest who came improperly attired is cast outside into the darkness and there the weeping and gnashing of teeth will take place. From the theological point of view, to be a part of the chosen ones who accepted the new law, which is symbolized by being properly dressed in the presence of God, these guests are the ones who will enjoy the inner light, while those not among the chosen will be doomed to darkness of God's anger where there will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. And indeed, the author concludes this parable with a moral teaching, For many are called but few are chosen. 68 A few parables appear in the rabbinic literature that focus on a king who prepared a feast for his guests: 147

R. Eleazar said: This may be compared to a banquet arranged by a king who invited the guests and showed them what they would eat and drink, whereby their souls were satisfied and they fell asleep.69 This may be compared to a king who arranged a banquet for the guests and showed them what they would eat and drink, and their souls were satisfied and they foil asleep.70 The following verse is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes:

Let thy garments be always white and let thy head lack no ointment (9:8). Using this verse, R. Judah the Prince presented the following parable, which is very similar to the one Jesus is reported to have shared according to what is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:

To what may this be likened? To a king who made a banquet to which he invited guests. He said to them go wash yourselves, brush your clothes, anoint yourselves with oil, wash your garments, and prepare yourselves for the banquet. But he fixed not the time when they were to come to it. The wise among them walked about by the entrance to the king's palace saying, 'Does the king's palace lack anything?' The foolish among them paid no regard or attention to the king's command. They said, 'We will, in due course, notice when the king's banquet is to take place because can there be a banquet without labor (to prepare it) and company? ' So the plasterer went to his plaster, the potter to his clay, the smith to his charcoal, the washer to his laundry. Suddenly, the king ordered: 'Let them all come to the banquet. ' They hurried the guests, so some came in their splendid attire and others came in their 148

dirty garments. The king was pleased with the wise ones who had obeyed his command, and also because they had shown honor to the king's palace. He was angry with the fools who had neglected his command and disgraced his palace. The king said: 'Let those who have prepared themselves for the banquet come and eat the king's meal, but those who have not prepared themselves shall not partake of it. You might suppose that the latter were simply to depart, but the king continued: 'No (they are not to depart) but the former shall recline and eat and drink while these shall remain standing, be punished, and look on and be grieved .7l The parable, presented by R. Judah the Prince, is interpreted using the following verse in Isaiah:

'" Behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry. Behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty '" (Isa.65:13). R. Meir offers an extended interpretation and it refers to the verse in Malachi:

Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked .,. (3: 18). These interpretations serve to remove the parable from its literary context and place it in the religious realm. The same occurs with another parable in the rabbinic literature, which begins:

It is to compare to a king who distributed clothes among his servants ... The moral of this parable is given as follows:

So the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the body of the righteous people: 'He shall enter into peace, 149

they shall rest in their beds ... ' (Is. 57:2.) And (oj) their soul He said: 'There is no place, ' saith the Lord, 'unto the wicked' (Is. 48:22; 57:21). And about their soul he said, 'And the soul of his enemies, them he shall sling out ... ' (I Sam.

25:29}.72 It's obvious that the immediate interpretation of the latter parable centers on its theological meaning and the parable is removed from its literary realm and has been placed wholly in the theological realm. 73

F.

Alahu l'alim hayy kha-lid-O sabio vive eternamente The whole world is replete with sound, but you have to open your inner ear. Then you will hear that never-ending melody, will cross the gate of death, And will go beyond the beginning and end of things. 74

The Qur'an is the foundation of Islam. Islamic scholars examine it and offer many interpretations of it, but they never examine it as a literary text. It is deemed a holy text, the pure word of Allah, as it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Some scholars claim that this text presents the divine intention to create religious pluralism in the world, but they simultaneously emphasize that Islam possesses the last and perfect revelation. Even though Jews and Christians do not accept the Qur 'an as the perfect religious text, in the minds of the Muslim scholars, Allah will bring all traditions together under the wings of Islam. Most MuSlim scholars maintain that the Qur'an declares that the Muslims are 'the best':

150

Kun-tum khay-ra um-mtin ukh-ri-jat liln-naas ta-a. 'I mu-ruu-na b1"1 rna 'a-ruu-.I'~ wa-tan-haw-na , am mun-ka-ri wa-tu- w-mi-nu-na bi-Allah ... You are the best people raised up for mankind. You enjoy the ma-ruf- what is right and forbidden, what is wrong (man-kur), and you believe in Allah. (3:110) Even when Muslims discuss the piety of Jesus, it is viewed as a model of true Islamic belief. He is defined as a 'friend of Allah,' but not as the one who submitted himself totally to Allah. Early Muslim scholars struggled with the following verse:

wa-mar-ya-ma ibna-ta im-ra-na l'laqi ah-tsa-nat far-ja-ha, fa-na{akh-na fi-hi min ru-hi-na wa-tsadda-qat bi-ka-li-ma-ti rab-bi-ha ... And Mary, the daughter ofImran, who guarded well Far-ja-ha, her vulva, and we breathed in our spirit, And she testified the word ofher Lord ... (66:12). Early interpreters of the Qur'an emphasized that the verb ah-tsa-nat, ih-san means 'to guard well' and as al-Tabari suggests, this Mary guarded her bosom from the angel Gabriel, which, through him, the breath of Allah was placed in her, as we find it shared in the following verse:

-ta-kha-dat min duu-ni-him hi-jaa-ban fa-ar-sul-na ilay-ha ruu-ha-na fa-ta-ma-tha-la fa fat-ha ba-sharan sa-wi-yan she put the hi-jab, veil, on her, then we sent to her our spirit, and he (Jibril) appeared to her like a person (19: 17).

151

The early Islamic commentators interpreted this to mean that Gabriel (Jibril) breathed the spirit of Allah into Mary's generative organ and this created Jesus in her womb. The purpose of this opening passage can be seen as the Islamic intention of demonstrating to the reader the special relationship Muslims have toward Jesus. The parables found in the Qur 'an show definite links to those found in the NT and those that were told among the people of the Arabian Peninsula and beyond. The early Muslim interpreters, unlike the early biblical interpreters, in particular the commentators of the NT, did not devote as much time interpreting the parables that are found in the Qur 'an. The Qur'anic parables are always studied from a theological point of view. This text is believed to be 'the guide' and the parables it contains are understood to be the hidden messages given to those faithful who have special knowledge, as is shown here: wa-la-qad dha-rab-na lil-naasi fi ha-dha I 'qur-a-ni min kul-li ma-tha-Ii 11- 'ai-la-hum ya-ta-dh-ka-ruuna. And we have set forth for the human in this Qur 'an every kind of parable in order that they may remember (39:27).

One well known parable in the Qur 'an, studied often by both early interpreters, as well as by modern Muslim scholars, is the Parable of the Lamp (S. 24:35-360). Some search for its hidden meaning, while others examine how physical light of the real world reflects on the meaning of the 'true light' of the celestial world. The following passage has been studied and discussed often: Allahu nu-ru I'sa-ma-wah-ti wal-ar-zhi ma-tha-Iu nuu-ri-hi ka-mish-kaw-tin fi-ha mits-baah I'mits-ba-

152

hu fi zu-jaa-ja-hi, I 'zu-jaa-ja-hu ka-an-na-haa kawka-bun ... Allah is the light of the heaven and the earth. His light is to compare to as ifthere were a niche within it a lamp. The lamp was enclosed in glass, the glass as it were a brilliant star ... (24:35).

For the Muslim commentators, the 'light' is the guide for the faithful. It is the light brought to the world with the birth of the prophet. This light is wisdom and the knowledge Allah revealed in the Scriptures as a lamp to humanity. This light surrounded Prophet Muhammad's mother when she was pregnant and carrying him in her womb. When he was born, it is believed by Muslims that a light filled the earth and it reached Damascus. This parable above mentions a niche, glass, tree, and oil. In al-Ghazali's Mish-kat ul An-war/5 as was mentioned earlier, 'light' is defined as an important symbol in the Qur 'an. In 4: 174 it is recorded: wa-an-zal-na ilay-kum nu-ran mu-bi-naan. We have sent you a light manifest.

While the physical eye can see the sun, it is the spiritual eye of mankind, according to this verse, that can perceive the revelation manifested in the holy Qur 'an. Muslim scholars accept as fact that the Qur'an's purpose is to spread its religious teachings around the world and to instruct humanity in the unity of Allah, to teach about life after death and about the resurrection, and to demonstrate that this will occur if the prophet's teachings are followed, by worshiping, and by acting justly. Parables, like the one that appears in 39:27, are used to give vivid examples to believers. These parables are short stories that do 153

not represent an actual event, but are understood to convey a moral lesson. Muslim scholars explain that parables help the faithful to understand abstract concepts. By using carefully selected parables, an abstract truth can become more comprehensible. Among the many unclear messages and teachings the Prophet Muhammad left, we find:

wa-law lam tam-sas-hu naa-ru nuur 'a-Ia nuur Though no fire touched it, Light upon Light. The endless Allah is represented by this special Light. Through this illumination:

yah-di Allah /i-nuu-ri man ya-sha-u wa-yazh-ri-bu Allah I 'am-thala liln-naa-si And Allah guides his light to whom he wills and Sets forth parables for humanity (24:35). The Parable of Light relates to three symbols: (1) the niche, which is an opening in the eastern wall where lights were placed; (2) to the lamp, which is the spiritual truth; and (3) to the glass, through which the light passes.

In al-Ghazali's Mish-kat ul An-war the 'ultimate light' is the final fountainhead, the light itself, which no other light kindles. It is not a light that is visible in the physical world. It is invisible and colorless because it is Allah's Light. According to al-Ghazali, there are five spirits in this verse about this special Light: • The Niche, which is the sensory spirit; • The Glass, which is the imagination; • The Lamp, which is the intellectual spirit; 154

•

The Tree, which is the ratiocinative spirit;

•

The Oil from the olive tree, which produces radiant illumination.

The ratiocinative spirit expands itself to two, then four, and so on. The Oil is of the transcendental spirit. 76 In the Book ofProverbs we fmd this verse:

The spirit ofman is a lamp of the Lord searching all the inward parts. (20:27). In the midrashic literature, there are a few commentaries on this, but the one that attracted us is:

The spirit ofman is a lamp ofthe Lord R. Aha said: The soul tells everything that a man does in secrecy, in the dark or overtly, and there are records written before the Lord about the deeds of man. In the foture to come, God shows and proves each one of his deeds, and they remain astounded It is to compare to a man who married the daughter of a king. Every morning he got up early and greeted the king and the king told him so and so you have done in your palace. So you were angry, you punished your slaves, and the man asked the people in his palace, how does the king know that so and so happened? They answered: You fool. You married his daughter and you still ask how he knows? His daughter tells him. So is the soul: 'And breathed in his nostrils the breath of life' and she tells him everything he does. 77 The Lamp as the metaphor for the Word of the Lord is found in the NT as well:

Matthew 5:15-15 155

You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a lamp-stand and it gives light unto all that are in the house.

Mark 4:21-22 ... is a lamp brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not to be put on a lamp-stand for there is nothing hidden which shall not be manifested, neither was anything kept secret but that it should come to light. Luke 8:16: (11 :33) No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed, but setteth it on a lamp-stand, that they who enter in may see it.

And in Thomas, Log. 33, we read: Jesus said: What thou shalt hear in thine ear (and) in the other ear, that preach from your housetops; For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but he sets it on the lamp-stand so that all who come in and go out may see its light.

The Markan parable differs from the one found in Matthew. He suggests that the truth is hidden within the parable and that it needs to be revealed. The Gospel of Thomas, much like what al-Ghazali states in Mish-kat ul An-war (Gairdner 1924), where 'the light' is defined as the intelligent spirit, emphasizes two points. The ftrst is that the Supreme Being, the Father, is perfect. The second is that from this perfect Father, divine beings of light are produced, the last being the Sophia. 156

Other parables focused on light are found in the Qur 'an. One is the parable of the ten virgins. Five of these ten virgins are foolish, as they do not take oil with them for their lamps. Their dry wicks burn quickly and their lamps produce no light. The five wise virgins who bring oil for their lamps are compared to the wisdom of God, a wisdom lacking in the five foolish virgins. Artwork concerning this parable is referenced in Chapter Five where the medieval period is discussed. A website where such artwork is available to us is there provided. In general, there are thirty-eight parables in the Qur 'an. Some of these parables contain just one verse, which indicates these parables, often only named by Prophet Muhammad, were very well known by the common people. Other Qur'anic parables are simple ones, such as: in-na-maa ma-thu-lu' lha-yatu-ti l'd-dun-ya ka-maa an-zal-na-hu mi-na l'ssa-maa ... (10:24) where Muhammad compares life in this world to 'rain falling' ('as we send it from the skies'). Although it begins with: in-na-maa ma-tha-lu I 'ha-yatu-ti ... the likeness o/this life (it is to compare this lift), the parable does not contain a moral teaching. It is possible that its last words: ka-dha-li-ka nu-fas-si-Iu I 'aya-ti li-qaw-mi ya-ta/ak-ka-ruu-na. (the ayat, proofs, in the details), are those upon which the audience is to reflect. This parable was used again in another recitation of the prophet. It begins: 157

wa-zhrib la-hum ma-tha-Ia I 'ha-yaw-ti I' dun-yaa ka-maa an-za!-na-hu min I'sa-ma-a ... J set before them a parable of life in this world (that) is like the rain which we send down from the skies.

As much as water is often a good thing, it does not last, and a strong foundation can't be built upon it. The hot winds can come and dry everything, as only Allah is over all things, as in: wa-kaa-na llahu 'a-la leu-Ii shi-y muq-qa-ta-di-ran And Allah is able to do everything. (18:45)

Another parable in the Qur 'an that lacks a moral teaching is found in 39:29, unless the moral is found in its theological point of view. The parable ends with: wa-ra-ju-laan sa-la-man li-ra-ju-lin hal yas-ta-wiyaani ma-tha-Ian al-ham-du /il-Iahi bal ak-tha-ruhum la y 'a-la-mu-na. And a man belongs to one master. Are those equal in comparison? All praise 10 Allah but most of them have no knowledge.

This ending is more of a proverb than a moral. Serving one master is good. The master can see the servant concentrates on his service and can pay the servant back for his good service. This interpretation contains the theological interpretation within it. It is a well-established fact that the Prophet Muhammad did not have affection for Jews. To prove that his new message was the last one and the only genuine one, he recited a few verses against the Jews. One example is the Parable of the Donkey:

158

ma-tha-Iu 1'1 di-na hu-mi-Iuu Ittaw-ra-ta thum-ma lam yah-mi-Iu-ha ka-ma-tha-li I' hi-ma-ri yah-mi-Iu as-faa-ra ... (62:5). It is to compare to those who entered with the Torah, but who failed, is like a donkey who carries a huge (burden of books).

This can be compared to a well-known verse of the prophet Isaiah: The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider (Is. 1:3).

According to this parable, the people of Israel had been chosen as a special people to spread the word of God, but they failed with that mission. The donkey knows 'his master's crib,' but according to this parable, the people of Israel lacked knowledge and did not understand: wa-Allahu la yah-di l'qaw-ma J'zha-li-mii-na. And Allah does not guide people who are zha-limun, disbelievers.

According to this parable, the Jews were chosen as a special vehicle to spread God's words but they had, instead, desecrated God's words and were now like the beasts. This parable portrays the Jews as being hypocrites who, in 62:5, act like an ass or donkey that carries books, which the Jews cannot understand, and who deny the revelations of Allah. Most Muslim scholars claim that the OT and the NT are corrupted texts. Moreover, these scholars claim the Jews have falsified the sign of Allah by destroying the text and by misunderstanding it. In this way, Muslims view Jews as those who reject the Word ofAllah and any communication with him. So, does this Parable of the Donkey 159

signify a new phase for Prophet Muhammad to attack the Jews? He continues, saying:

in za'- 'am-tum in-na-kum aw-li-ya-u lillahi min duu-ni 'In-na-si fa-ta-man-na-u 'Imaw-ta in kuntum tsa-di-qii-na.

If you pretend that you are a friend of Allah to the exclusion of mankind, then say that you long for death ifyou are truthful (62:6). The idea is that death brings people closer to Allah. Thus, here, if the Jews claim to be the 'chosen ones' as the 'friends of God', the prophet questions why the Jews do not long for death. The parable uses ma-shal (Hebrew), ma-thal (Aramaic), which means "comparison to." Some of the Qur'anic parables are presented as proverbs which contain more of a hidden exegetical context. While parables end with moral teachings, proverbs allow the reader or listener to draw his or her own interpretation or understanding. Such a proverb is found in 67:30. Scholars, however, view this proverb as a parable, since it deals with a fact in real life, which is water:

qui a-ra-ya-tum in-na a-tsa-ba-ha ma-a-wu-kum ghaw-ran fi-man ya-a-ti-kum bi-ma-ani mon- '/i-ni Say, tell me if your water (is) lost away in the morning, who can supply you with clear running water? This proverb, however, although it begins with a real life issue, draws the audience to the spiritual realm, as well. Unless the proverb is examined from a theological point of view, then Allah is understood to be the sole source of the 'clear water,' which is the

160

spiritual life that mankind must seek, as Allah's mercy is this clear stream of 'running water.' The proverbs in the Qur 'an resemble folktales, as they present everyday life. Folktales are clearly rooted in everyday life, but proverbs represent religious perceptions clothed as everyday life events. Comparing the parables of Jesus to those used by the Prophet Muhammad, only Jesus' parables emphasize God's love for sinners. Parables have been examined both in ancient times and today, and attempts have been made to understand the ambiguous messages they contain. In the longest and most complete parable presented in the Qur'an, 18: 32-44, we find:

wa-u-hi-ta bi-th-ma-ri-ha fa-ats-ba-ha yu-qa-li-bu kaf-fai-hi- 'ala maa an-fa-qa fi-ha wa-hi-ya khaawi-yat 'ala 'u-ru-shi-ha wa ya-quu-lu ya-lai-ta-ni lam ush-ri-kan bi-rab-bi a-ha-dan. Thus his fruits were encompassed and remain twisting and turning his hand over what he had spent on his Property which had tumbled to pieces to its very Foundations and he could only say: Woe to me, would I had never ascribed partner to my Lord and cherisher (18:42). Certain words, like 'fruits,' 'twisting hands,' and 'spent' could serve as metaphors in this parable, yet, they also contain literal meanings, as well. The ending of the verse above, lam ushri-kan bi-rab-bi a-ha-dan, has no meaning in the literal realm. The parable's meaning exists only in the theological realm. As the Gospel writers offer interpretations of the parables in their works, Prophet Muhammad does likewise in this parable:

161

'a lam ta-ra kai-/a zha-ra-ba 'Iahu ma-tha-Ian ka/i-ma-tan tai-yi-ba-tan ka-sha-ja-ra-tin tai-yi-ba-tin ats-lu-ha tha-hi-tun wa-/ar- 'u-ha fi 'Is-sa-ma-in (14:24).

See you not how Allah set forth a parable? A goodly word as a good tree whose roots are firmly fIXed and its branches in the sky. The ambiguity of the parable is very obvious here. The audience is not sure what constitutes the 'goodly words' which are then compared to firmly rooted trees. So, here he continued and compared 'evil words' to uprooted trees:

a-lam ta-ra ila'lldhii-na bad-da-Iuu ni'i--ma-ta llahi kui-ran wa-a-hal-Iu qaw-ma-hum daa-ra '/bawaa-ri (14:28). Have you not seen those who have changed the blessing of Allah into disbelief and caused their people to dwell in the house ofdestruction? While the rabbinic parables and the parables used by Jesus contain two very important parts, the story and its moral at the end, the parables used by Muhammad are missing the story part. That was very obvious in the one-verse parable examined earlier:

ma-tha-Iu 'llil-dii-na 'tta-kha-dhuu min duu-ni 'llahi aw-lii-ya-ah ka-ma-tha-li 'l-an-ka-buu-ti 'ttakha-dat bai-tan wa-inna aw-ha-na 'I bu-yuu-ti /abai-tu 'I 'an-ka-buu-ti ... (29:41). The likeness of those who take helpers other than Allah to the likeness ofa spider who builds a house, but frailest ofhouses is the spider's house. Although the spider's web is perceived to be a wonder created by Allah, it is the 'an-ka-buut, female spider, in this parable

162

who builds the 'frailest house.' The web and the spider's house are destroyed when man cleans his house. Those who build up their hopes with no faith in the words of the messenger, who lack spiritual strength, are likened to those who, like the spider, build the frailest of houses. Another one-verse parable in the Qur'an is from 7:176: ... fa-ma-tha-Iu-hu ka-ma-tha-/i 'I kal-bi in tah-mil 'a-lai-hi yal-hath aw tat-ruk-hu yal-hath dha-/i-ka ma-tha-Iu 'I kaw-mi 'la-di-na ka-dha-bu- bi ay-ti-na It is to compare to a dog, if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (also) lolls his tongue out. It is like those who reject our signs.

The ambiguous text may be speaking here in general about those who reject Allah, but it's most likely that this parable is directed toward the Jews who refused and continue to refuse to accept him as the messenger of God. According to the Muslims, those who reject the 'signs' will be deprived of Allah's guidance and his mercy. The dog depicted in the parable above is not a faithful guard dog that would bark at a thief. 78 This parable seems to echo Jesus' parabJe79 about 'One Master and Several Masters,' dha-ra-ba Allah ma-tha-Ian ... (39:29), which speaks about a man with many masters or with one master. Interpreters of the Qur 'an emphasize that Prophet Muhammad directed these words toward those, the polytheists, who still worshiped many deities versus those who worshiped one creator of all. The analogy he uses is of one man with many masters and one man with only one master. Although this parable begins with haughty language: Allah is the fabulist

163

here, the parable ends in pianissimo and the power of Prophet Muhammad's message is weakened. It most likely points out the difference between these two religious personae:

wa-ra-ju-lan sa-la-man li-ra- ju-lin hal yas-ta-wi-yaa-ni ma-tha-Ian Are those two equal in comparison? The message is not clear and the audience continues to look for interpreters. Muhammad knew how to tell stories; he lived in the times and with a society wherein orality was the core of education and of transmission of the story of the people. We do not doubt his knowledge and familiarity with the genre of the parables. Before him, there were literary works and there are many examples in the Qur 'an of which he knew and used them in his teaching. But he never reached the high level of the parables we encounter in the literary works of the midrashim, the Talmud and of those eloquent parables of Jesus. This hypothesis allows us to suggest that for that reason we find in the highly creative genre of the Arabs, The Stories of the Prophets, many stories taken from Jewish sources, as well as from other peoples' stories.

ENDNOTES: 1M. Buber, Tales ofthe Hasidim, (New York: Schocken Books, 1991). Aboth 5:21 3 Tanna deRebbe Eliyahu Zuta, Braude (te.) JPS (1981), Ch. 2, p. 368. 4 Aboth 3:17. 5 Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus. S.H. Houles (tr.), (London: SCM Press, 1972), p. 12. 6 Ant. 1.1.2. 7 Ignaz Ziegler collected 145 meshalim. See his work: Die Koenigsgleichnisse des Midrash. (Breslau, 1903). 8 See Mat. 7:24-27; Lk. 6:a47-49; and Aboth 3: 18. 9 See also Matt. 22:37-40. 10 Gen. Rab. 38:6. See also Yalkut 1:62; 11:520. 2

164

Jeremias, Op. Cit., p. 59. ARN. Ch. 17. 13 Ibid 14 Ibid., Ch 1. IS The Greek text states: "aku-san-tes de ei-pan me ge-noi-to." "Hearing (that) they said may it not occur (happen). " 16 See Aramaic Targum for PS. 118:22. 17 P.Ber. 2.8. 18 BShabb. 153a. 19 See Yalkut 1, 10 I; BGitt. 57b. 20 See Gen.R. 54:1; PTer. 8:3. 21 See the teachings ofR. Ishmael b. Eleazar in BShabb. 32a. 22·Ignaz Ziegler, Die Koenigsgieichnisse des Midrasch, beluechtet durch die roemische Kaiserzeil, (Breslau: S. Schottlaender, 1903). 23 Joan Pinto Delgado, The Poem of Queen Esther, David R. Slavitt (tr.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 24 Ernest Hackel, Die We/traethsel, (Bonn, Verlag von E. Strous, 1901). 25 Saul Liebermann, "The Publication of the Mishnah", In Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, (New York, 1962),83-99. 26 See David Flusser, "Aesop's Miser and the Parable of the Talents" In Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity, Clemens Thomas and Michael Wyschogrod, eds., (Paulist Press, 1989), 9-25. 27 See MSota 9. 28 See Against Apion 2: 19. 29 See also John 5:1-24. 30 MShabb. 7:2. 31 BShabb. 128b. 32 See Mekhilta on Er. 31: 12. 33 Ibid. 34 For a discussion of the meaning of this phrase, see Geza Vermes' work, Jesus the Jew, 102-128. 3S See G. Vermes, "Hanina ben Dasa" in JJS 23 (1972): 28-50; 24 (1973): 5164. 36 Tas.Edu. 3:4. In Bab. Zar. 17b, to the question, 'Why have they called me rabbi? I am just a chief of the weavers. ' this statement presents the word but it does not offer a clear interpretation of the meaning of the word rabbi in early times. 37 This question was raised by Solomon Zeitlin in JQR, 50 (1962): 345-349 and 59 (1968): 2. 38 Note that Jewish Sages were also called Avoth, as is seen in the Mishnah Avoth. Some titled it Pirqe Avoth. Was the title Avoth, suggesting 'Master of the ha-/a-kha " teacher of the Jewish law? This title still remains in the Christian Church. II

12

165

Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). 40 Ibid, 106. 41 Seymour Siege\. "Rabbinic Foundations of Modern Jewish Thought" In Jewish-Christian Relations in Today's World, James E. Wood. ed., (Baylor University Press, 1997),76. 42 BBer. 33a; YBer. 2:20. 43 The story has many parallels to those found in the NT. See BBer. 34b; PBer. 9d. 44 Ibid. 45 Matt. 8: 5-13 and LIc. 7: I-I O. 46 See Mekhilta lI, 183, Lauterbach edition. 47 Avoth, 3:9. 4S See Josephus, Ant. 9: 182; 18:63. 49 See BBM. 59b. Contrary to this ruling see also BBera. 52a. 50 TSot. 13:3. 51 See TMacc. 4:46. 52 Ibid., 14:41. 53 For the whole beautiful story see Matt. 17: 1-9; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-36. Compare to Deut.R. 3:10.) S4 See Avoth I: 1. S5 Modern scholarship points to the outcome of the messianic fervor present in the 2nd Century C.E. After R. Akiba persuaded the Jews that Bar Kokhba was the messiah, the resulting rebellion against the Romans resulted in a million Jews being killed by Roman soldiers, and in their land being devastated 56 Rudolph Bultman, The Synoptic Tradition. J. Marsh, tr., (1968). 57 Herbert Risenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginning, (1957) 58 See also Gertardson, Memory Manuscripts: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, (Uppsala, 1961). 59 Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, (penguin Books, 1985). 60. That is true if we do not read the biblical text and do not refer to the postbiblical literature, where Isaac not only challenges God but he also questions his father's action. In this post-biblical literature, Pseud-Jonathan, Gen. 22.6, we find: "Abraham's eyes looking at Isaac's eyes and Isaac's eyes are looking at the angels in heaven. Isaac saw them but Abraham did not. .. The post-biblical texts present the question: Is it possible that Isaac would not ask any questions as the biblical text suggests? 61 SeePs. 38:11;40:13. 62 SeePs. 38:11;40;13. 63 Manichean Psalm, Book 261,75. 64 For more information see David Flusser's work, Yah-Dut U-me-go-rot ha-nazrut, Sifriat Po'ahim, (Tel Aviv, 1979), 150-209 and Jacob Peluchouski's "The Theological Significance of the Parables in Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament," Christian News From Israel, 5, Vol. 33 No.2, 10, (1972): 76-86. 39

166

Midrash Mishle 16:14. R. Ze'ira, a second generation Babylonian, was the first of the Amoraim of Babylonia who came to Palestine. He transmitted many of R. Hanina's teachings. Rava said about him: 'A~ teaching which R. Ze'ira did not interpret is not interpreted ' 66 Fiusser, Op. Cit., 151. 67 See the interpretation above. 68 See Matt. 22:2-14; Lk. 14: 16-24. 65

Gen.R. 62:2. Ya/leut, I: 110. See also Ya/kut fl: 468. The same parable is given in the name of R. Abahu. See Yalkut lJ: 718 where it is given in the name of R. Eleazar

69

70

again.

Ecc/.R. 9:8, I. EShabb. 153b. 73 See also Midrash Mishle 16: 14; Yalleut 2 for £Cc. 9. 74 Barelvi Niyaz, Diwan, Massaviyat 3, p.90.Cf. Also the entry Dr. Anwar alHasan, complier, Diwan-eNiaz Eare/avi (d. 1834), (Lucknow, 1976), pp. 65, 71

72

68.This was excerpted from a work by Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Saheed (1831). 7S See al-Ghazali, Mish-kat u/ An-war, Vol. XIX W.H.T. Gairdner, tr., (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1924). 76 A good translation of al-Ghazali is offered by A. Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an, (Maryland: Amana Corporation, 1983),920-924. 77

Yalleut, fl,959.

See Stith Thempson (Thomson) Motif K 2062. In early literature, watch dogs were greatly admired. The proverb 'In a city without dogs, the fox is the overseer' is an example of that ancient praise and admiration of guard dogs. 79 See Matt. 13:47-52. 78

167

CHAPTER THREE

Form and Authorship: Oral and Written Stories: The Case of Rabbi Jose of Yokeret' s Workers and the Parable of the Fig Tree

Before him the garden of God appeared with gemstones ofall colors dazzling to see. I

We have already pointed out that our objective was not a quest for the original form, nor for the authorship of a story. We merely suggest that any form of a story, any parable, proverb, even in modern times, a joke, has its origin, but until it received its form in writing, it was told through many genemtions and sometimes in different cultures, as well. In Chapter Four we shall point to the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins as such an example. Here, we argue that parables with didactic themes and with moral instructions change their cause and were used in different situations. The moral instruction became inextricably connected to human life. The dramatic elements in the parables were directed 169

apart from the immediate factors, yet the parabolizer also used his own creativity to increase the drama in the drama in his performance. Using his immediate observation of his society, questioning the social norms and the ethics of his contemporaries, realizing that the social strata are damaging the scope that seems very abstract, the validity of his story has a concrete ground, and the hearer has to search for an answer or answers, and to actualize the message given by the narrator to his society. From a literary perspective, the fig tree stories in the Talmud,2 Matthew 21:19-22, and Mark 11: 12-14; 20-26 offer a dimension beyond the immediate interpretations. The question of whether the day laborers in the Talmudic story should have received food if they had already received their daily wages is significant to the interpretation, but it does not acknowledge the other meaning(s) uncovered through critical analysis. A teacher walking with his disciples 'from' or 'to' Jerusalem is interested in teaching more than the fruitlessness of Temple worship or that Jerusalem is wicked and should be destroyed, or that the fig tree is analogous to the unproductive Temple leaders and therefore should be cut down. This is not to say that the meaning of Jesus' teaching does not include such perceptions as those above or, for example, the one Kenneth Bailey (1976) poses in his synopsis of the fig tree parable: the present spiritual leadership of the nation is fruitless. Judgment threatens. God in his mercy will act to redeem. If there is no response, judgment will be the only affirmatiOn. His love for the community offaith is too deep for it to be otherwise. This perception is Significant to historical critique, but not relevant to literary examination. We follow Juelicher (1899), C.H. Dodd (1961), Jeremias (1963) and others, in writing off the 170

parables between Matthew and Mark as later interpretations added by the primitive Church, but consider whether the primitive Church is likely to have understood more or less than the 20th Century commentator of the actual content of parables. Sheehan (1986) suggests that Jesus' making the fig tree dry up is one of nature's miracles that he considers legends which arise among early Christians and which are projected backward, under the impact of faith, into the life of the historical criticism. But we suggest that the fig tree fables include a whole range of literary interpretations beyond the immediate, canonized, historic, oral representations. Although the Talmudic story and the two stories in the NT were written at different times, they belong to a complex of stories, have common elements, and confront some of the same issues. By interposing the Talmudic story with the two Gospels, paralleling R. Jose's son with Jesus, and following this interpretation with a correspondence to the 'Parable ofthe Sower, ' we discovered a new interpretation of the fig tree fables in Matthew and Mark. Our critical examination led us to two main elements from which the new interpretation was discovered. These two elements are: miscommunication and production. These elements accentuate the conflict between the written law and the law of the heart, the power to interfere in the course of nature, and the meaning of the fig tree behind the cursing of the fig tree. Initially, we shall present the three stories, followed by the interpretations; those immediately and commonly understood in juxtaposition with our own. Finally, a correspondence of our interpretation with the 'Parable of the Sower' will be presented. Since the narrator conveys his story indirectly and in very general ways, each generation can use it, and narrators of any generation can make use of it with minor changes, or by giving the 171

story a new instruction. Generally speaking, stories or parables of oral tradition have their conventional beginning, 'once,' 'once upon a time' or in other traditions, the narrator begins the story in the form of a dialogue with the audience. That is to say, the drama is not presented in the beginning of the story, but the narrator keeps it to a planned conventional twist at the end: where the point of the teaching is made clear. To illustrate this aspect, let us view the following passage at work. In BTa 'anil 24a, we read the following story:

Once R. Jose of Yokereth had day laborers in the fields. Night set in and no food was brought to them, and they said to his son 'We are hungry. ' Now they were resting under the fig tree and the son exclaimed: 'Fig tree, fig tree, bring forth fruit that my father'S laborers may eat. , It broughtforthfruit and they ate. Meanwhile, the father came and said to them: 'Do not bear grievance against me, the reason for my delay is because I have been occupied up till now on an errand of charity. ' The laborers replied: 'May God satisfy you even as your son satisfied us. ' Wherein he asked:' Whence?' And they told him what had happened. Thereupon he said to his son: "My son, you have troubled your creator to cause the fig tree to bring forth fruits before its time; may you too be taken hence before your time.' In the tradition of the NT, we read the following in Mark and Matthew:

Now in the morning, as he returned into the city (from Bethany), he hungered And when he saw a fig tree on the way, he came to it and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, 'Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever.' And 172

presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled saying,: How soon is the fig tree withered away. (Matt. 21: 18-20) And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might and find any thing thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the times for figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, 'No man eat of thee hereafter, ' And his disciples heard it. (Mk. 11: 12-14) The Talmudic story brings out the conventional opening 'once R. Jose,' while the two other stories of the NT begin with "Now in the morning," or "The next day." However, we can see this opening as a conventional one since the story in Mark 11, as well as the story in Matthew 21, in fact, are only episodes which are found among some stories which begin in 17:22 as follows "And while they abode in Galilee. " The series of episodes in Mark begin in Chapter 8:1 as follows "In those days the multitude, being very great, ... " It is obvious that the style of all of the episodes in these two Gospels suggests that the stories were conveyed orally. In more detail, let us explore the differences between these stories, and bring forth some of our suggestions, as well as arguments. In the stories of the NT, the narrator creates a very calm beginning, and then gradually creates the first dramatic point, which in both stories is the fact that Jesus saw the fig tree with leaves. The tension here is that a fig tree with leaves is a sign that the tree bears fruit. The second dramatic point in the stories is that when no fruit is found, he curses the tree. However, when the storyteller in Matthew says: "The disciples marveled" there is still tension, but it is on its way to calamity. In the second story, in Mark, the narrator leaves the audience in suspense. "And his 173

disciples were listening." This means that the listeners were waiting for something to happen. It is a literary device known to the early Hebrews. In the story of the rape of Dinah, the narrator says: "And Jacob held his peace. " (Gen. 34:5) Although it is a kind of 'by the way' statement, the tension is in every letter of the statement. This statement begs the question: To whom, or for what were they listening? The curse? The tree withering? Or perhaps they were waiting for the implementation of the curse. Since these episodes are in the midst of certain events which happened to Jesus, each episode does not form one unity, but rather the stories flow from one ,episode to another. The Talmudic story, on the other hand, is one unit, and thus is complete. The Talmudic story begins with the same literary device, and its prose is calm "Once R. Jose was working in the field, "but then the narrator develops drama in the story, going step by step from one dramatic aspect to another until he reaches the climax, the curse "may you too be taken before your time. " When we examine the dramatic atmosphere in the story, we find the following: The story begins with the presentation of the dramatic persons; first, R. Jose of Yokereth, then the laborers. The personae have no special role yet, but the narrator begins with him to suggest that he is the main character. Thus, in spite of the fact that the narrator presents R. Jose's importance, he does not continue to develop his character, nor does the narrator describe the events around him. The presentation itself has a dramatic tension since the audience asks to know what happened to him. The narrator says HR. Jose of Yokereth had laborers in the field, " but does not continue to develop the relationship between the two. The second characters of the dramatis personae are the laborers in the field. Now that the characters have been introduced, we expect the development of their roles. But at the end of the story, the narrator continues to examine only the character of the 174

"day laborers. " They come and say "we are hungry. " Here we are presented with a new character around which the story and its main character are woven: the son of R. Jose of Yokereth. The narrator does not only present the character, as he did initially, but he continues to develop the story around this dramatic character, and the drama interwoven around it presents a tragic character who might or might not know what happened. The tragedy of this character is that he expects the miracle to happen although it contradicts the course of nature. The miracle itself happened either for the merit of the father or for the merit of the son, but this is not the central issue. The point is that the miracle happened, and the day laborers satisfied themselves. Now, when the father came to the scene, the events described took place between the father and the day laborers. First, the apology of the father is presented. Then, the examination follows. At the moment that the father realized the action of his son, he turned to him. Here for the first time, the two dramatic characters of the story confront each other. In fact, we can say that the whole story is told to provide the background for this confrontation. For this reason, the confrontation occurs at the end of the story, and this is also why the presentation of the two dramatic characters had to occur in the beginning of the story. By narrating the story in this order, a dramatic tension was deliberately developed.

175

ACT ONE Scene 1. R. Jose of Yokereth Day Laborers Scene 2. Day laborers The son Intermezzo - The mimcle happened the day the laborers ate the fruits of the fig tree.

ACT TWO Scene 1. R. Jose's apology - Justification: being occupied 'on an ermnd of charity.' Day laborers' response: 'God satisfies you even as your son satisfied us. ' Scene 2. Confrontation between R. Jose ofYokereth and his son culminating in the curse. One should pay attention to the fact that when the father hears the story of the day laborers he wants also to know what has happened. The narrator himself does not present the story of the day laborers. It means that we are presented with one happening of the miracle as it was presented by the narrator, and as he himself saw it. But he does not tell us how the day laborers saw, or understood, the miracle. In this case, the only thing that he concludes is "they told him what had happened." It is possible that they told him the story as it was presented by the storyteller, but it is also possible that they added something of their own, but the narrator refrained from presenting it to his audience. Here, in

176

fact, begins Scene Two. The father abandoned his position of apology. The father was merciful towards his day laborers and others, as we see when he was occupied on an errand of charity, but he was not at all merciful towards his son. Yet, the son had mercy towards the day laborers who were hungry. (The hypothesis that the landlord, R. Jose, does not have to feed the day laborers is a judicial perception, while the action of the son emphasizes the significance of the mercy that the son wanted to exhibit to the day laborers.) Scene Two presents the two dramatis personae confronting each other. Here, for the first time, we understand that the confrontation is between the two perceptions of the father, who does not agree with his son's action. He views this action as an interference in the deeds of creation and the creator's world.

In contrast to the father, the son does not view his actions in such severe ways. It seems that the son views the miracle in astonishment (It is possible that is because of his astonishment at the miracle being realized; we do not have the reaction of the son in the two events). Could we suggest that the son's astonishment continued after the curse, the first time, after the miracle was realized, and the second time after he was cursed by his father? Thus, he does not understand his father's reaction. The calamity after the end, "may you too be taken hence before your time," is not the true calamity. In fact, this is the continuation of the drama itself. The son is the sacrifice of the great mercy and the act of charity of the father. R. Jose took a position to be beyond (or out of) the mercy of God, or that his anger was beyond that of God. Whether it was the mercy or the anger, the narrator does not interfere and does not reveal his relation either to the father's or the son's actions, but tries to be objective towards the events and conveys his story in such form. 177

Professor Frenkel (1991) argues that the legal aspect of R. Jose's irresponsibility is emphasized in two words present in the first line of the story, 'day laborers,' which means workers who are paid for their work. If we combine Frenkel's argument with R. Jose's statement upon his arrival, HI have been occupied up till now on an errand of charity, " the reader can understand as if he is saying: "Until now I was busy with an important matter, now, I think it is the right moment to deal with other matters." The general perception here is that R. Jose views his relationship to his workers as a legal one; he does not have to provide them with food, while charity, having no legal aspects, must come first. On his arrival, he said to his workers: "Do not bear grievance against me .. , on an errand of charity, " which in a sense he is saying to them, "Since I was doing an act of charity, you should not be angry. " Thus, he established priorities for his actions and asked his workers to accept his delay. The story does not reveal whether R. Jose's son knew of his father's charitable action, or viewed the miracle that happened as a reward for his father's action. Professor Frenkel emphasizes the aspect of the miracle, and suggests that the son knew of the father'S action, but both the workers and the son did not understand R. Jose's act of charity. The father was angry because the miracle happened against his will. In the NT stories, it is assumed that Jesus knew of his Father's actions. However, in both the Talmudic story and the NT stories, there is a curse. If the son and Jesus misunderstood their f (F) athers' actions, then the question arises: Did Jesus misunderstand his Father's actions concerning his humanness? To examine the Talmudic story, one should look at the way this story was introduced to the reader. The discussion preceding this story is about whether a person on the Sabbath day has 178

committed a breach of the Sabbath Laws by taking a fish from the sea. In the following dialogue between R. Jose b. Abin and R. Ashi, R. Jose b. Abin states: "How could the man who showed no mercy to his son and daughter show mercy to me?" It seems as if the story emphasizes the aspect of mercy and not the aspect of charity. Moreover, it suggested that R. Jose's harsh statement is a cruel one. Two aspects are confronting each other. One is the aspect of mercy, suggested by the statement ofR. Jose b. Abin, and the second is the curse that has the power to kill. R. Jose of Yokereth knows the power of the curse, yet he does not show any mercy. Does this story, and another story relating his lack of compassion for his daughter, serve as an objection by the sages to R. Jose's misuse of power? If so, then does this imply that the disciples also object to the misuse of Jesus' Father's power? In the Talmudic story, the son turns to the fig tree demanding the tree to bear fruit not in its time. The son's demand took place immediately after the workers complained, "We are hungry. " The demand by the son suggested that the son was a much more compassionate person than his father; yet, when he requested the tree to bear its fruit he said: "Fig tree, fig tree, bring forth thy fruit that my father'S laborers may eat. " He mentions the fact that these are his father's laborers, not his. He is incapable of demanding of the tree that it bear fruit for his own sake. Thus, he uses the authority of the father by mentioning the father's name. In the NT tradition, the commonly held interpretation is that Jesus always acted in his Father's name. That he was incapable of demanding of the tree for his own sake, or that he used the authority of the Father becomes questionable in the light of the parallel between R. Jose's son and Jesus. If we consider the possibility of Jesus' using his Father's authority in the same way that R. Jose's son did, then the conflict between the father and the son, and written laws of the heart come into play in the Gospels. 179

Upon the workers' recount of the events to the father, he responds: "You have troubled your Creator to cause thefig tree to bring forth the fruits." In the story, R. Jose uses the expression 'trouble', which appears once, hit-rah-ta, and the second time mesa-eret. No doubt that in this story of the fig tree, one can see the interference of a human being in the Creator's deeds. The son interferes in the process of creation, using his father's deeds, and with that power he interferes. The son cared for his father's day laborers, and since his father appeared irresponsible and uncaring, the son took the responsibility upon himself and asked for the fruit. Jesus interfered in the power of creation also by his demands to the fig tree. The question of time arises in all three stories. IfR. Jose's son acted with the intention of producing a miracle, then can this also be true of Jesus? Is Jesus' act of producing a miracle in haste too? If so, what does this mean in terms of the relationship between the son Jesus and the Father God? According to another interpretation, R. Jose's son understood the miracle as a merit of his father. His father, however, tells him something else: "My son you have troubled your Creator. " Is R. Jose saying to his son: 'the miracle is not because of you; it is because you forced a change in the course of nature without any justified cause and therefore you troubled your Creator'? Professor Frenkel suggests that the ascetic piety of R. Jose isolates the good deed from the reward, and anyone who achieves the reward is a sinner. In this respect, what the son considers to be a good deed, even if it is because of the pious father, is in fact a sin; thus, the father demands punishment. If Jesus considered his act a good deed, then should we consider Jesus also in trouble with the Creator? Is Jesus' Father punishing him too by causing him to wither away? ("May you be taken before your time. ") 180

R. Jose accuses his son of troubling the Creator by commanding the fig tree to produce not in its time. But he himself is not compassionate, as the verse says: "Like as afather pitieth his children" CPs. 103:13). The curse of the father appears not to be of the fig tree, but of the son. In this respect, we suggest that the story does not emphasize the piety of R. Jose, as much as it accentuates the severity of the action to the point that he did not have mercy upon his son, who, for the sake of the workers, troubled the Creator. The conflict between upholding the Torah and when to follow one's heart is explicit here. However, the sense of curse is found here also, according to the following statement:

R. Abbahu said: when a fig tree is gathered at proper time, it is good for itself and good for the tree; But if it is gathered prematurely, it is bad for itselfand bad for the tree. This concept of time is important to the three fig stories because it presents the aspect of interference in nature based on miscommunication, which in turn produces a teaching.

In Mark, the event of cursing the fig tree took place before Jesus cleansed the Temple of moneychangers: "And they came to Jerusalem and Jesus cleansed the Temple of the moneychangers. And Jesus went into the Temple of God and cast out all of them. " (21:12)

In S1. Augustine's Sermon 39, he said: Quid arbor focerat fructum non aferendo? Quae culpa arboris infecunditas? What tree will have made fruit not to yield it? Through what sin did the tree became unfruitful? The story of the fig tree is placed by both Mark and Matthew prior to Jesus' last Passover. This implies that it was 181

unreasonable for Jesus to expect figs on the tree, since the season for fig production had not begun. From this point of view, the story has little meaning. St. Augustine thought differently: Non enim dubium est inquisitionem non fuisse veram: Quivis enim Hominum sciret, si non divinitate, vel tempore, poma ilium arborem Non habere. Fictio igitur quae ad a/iquam veritatem refertur, figura Mendacium est. There is no doubt that (Jesus? seeking was not genuine: If not from Divine nature, at least from the reason, any man would know that This tree should not have fruit. Now if a fiction refers to some truth, it is allusive speech, if not, it is falsehood.

Still the question remains: How it is that Jesus could expect to find ripened figs out of season? There appears a reference in four prophetic passages to bak-lcu-rot, figs which are considered a delicacy, that are produced earlier than the abundant crop. Is it possible that Jesus' expectation refers to his fmding bak-ku-rot? If we concentrate on the story rather than the curse, then the verse prior to the mention of the fig tree becomes significant. In both Mark and Matthew, the verses are: "They were come from Bethany, he was hungry" (MIc.ll:12), and "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered" (Mt. 21:18). All three fig tree stories mention hunger. If we extend from this the related concept of groaning, if we examine the meaning of the verb to groan, we suggest this verb embodies the verbal utterances of pain. In a sense, it is the expression of mourning. And we see that the highest expression of hunger is groaning, "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Rom.8:22), then the fig tree becomes a symbol for the body which 182

groans for its fruit? If we consider the most important verses to be the ones prior to the mention of the fig tree in all stories, we can examine another possible significance to the relationship of the teaching with the words hunger/groan. The tree itself could be seen as breaking and groaning. We can listen to the voices of the fruit growing on the tree. R. Jose's son comes and commands the tree to produce. Jesus comes and commands the tree to stop growing. R. Jose's son's act is one of compassion, expressing the laws of the heart. Jesus' act is also of compassion as he expresses the laws of the heart. But in the eyes of the father and perhaps Jesus' Father, their action is one of violence toward the tree's natural process within time. However, if the tree is seen as growing in need of a change, then the son's and Jesus' actions are productive. Jesus was on his way to the Temple to cast out the moneychangers. The immediate interpretation is that he was going to be crucified; thus, he wanted to teach the apostles that one never knows when God is going to call. He sees the fig tree as a person who holds God within him, but in fact doubts it. It is like a man in a Church or Synagogue who practices the holy ritual daily, but when God calls to him, he does not hear. He is spiritually empty with his heart away from God. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, we have an oath in these verses from both stories: "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever" (Mk. 11: 14), and "Let no fruit grow on the tree henceforward forever" (Mt. 21: 19). This is not a wish, but an oath to the tree in its early growth to not produce in its time. The attempt by the tree to produce before its time requires action. The question is: How is it possible for Jesus to interfere in the process of nature and assume the power of the Creator to stop the growth? Thus, Jesus interferes out of compassion. Is the act for himself or for the sake of the disciples? 183

His interference in the form of an oath is not a direct consequence of his seeing the tree. To see is to understand that it is good as defined in the line: "And when the woman saw that the tree was goodfor food and that it was pleasant to the eyes ... " (Gen. 3:6) Is his interference a consequence of pain and deep sorrow he felt in his need to be united with his Father, or was it an act of sacrifice because he felt forsaken? The story in Mark ends with a statement made by Jesus to his disciples. u ••• no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever; And his disciples heard it. " The Greek renders it hekouon, (they) were hearing, which attracts the readers to verse 20: "They saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. " They heard his words, but they did not understand them until they saw what had happened to the fig tree. Only at this point was Jesus able to conclude his teaching and to say: "Have faith in God" This notion of faith through repentance also appears in the rabbinic tradition:

R. Eliezer said repent one day before your death. His disciples asked him; Does thus one know on the day he will die? Then all the more reason to repent today, he replied, lest he die tomorrow and thus his whole life is spent in repentance. In our conscience, repentance is the sacrifice that God accepts in the day dated for the repentance. Repentance is what God demands everyone to do, that is, to look into oneself and search for the right way. He does this through His compassion and grace. This idea is exemplified in Ecclesiastes 5:

Be not rush with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God ... Why should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work o/thine hands? 184

In addition, we can see the metaphor used in Ecclesiastes to denote this obligation:

Let thy garments be a/ways white and let thy head lack no ointment (9:8).

Development of the Symbol of the Fig Tree The fig tree exists in two gender/genetic types: the wild or the male, and the cultivated or the female. The male has many female flowers and fewer male flowers. The female has female flowers only. The minute flowers are enclosed in a pear shaped, fleshy container called a Syconium. The fig resembles a womb. The male form could be seen as a person or people who potentially could be productive, but have not become totally committed to the goal. The cultivated form could be seen as having made that commitment to be a whole. This latter form has an awareness of its purpose. The tree, much like a woman, bears with her body the womb, which. upon maturation, is capable of conceiving or authoring life. The body contains the womb and if a child is conceived it is dependent upon nourishment, or its growth is affected. The fertil~zation process can be seen metaphorically as the need for humanity to receive the divine energy to bring about transformation. Under the fig tree one can find solitude, and search for faith and the teaching of the Sublime. St. Augustine, prior to conversion, wrote the following: So I stood up and left him where he had been

sitting, utterly bewildered. Somehow I flung myself down beneath a fig tree and gave way to tears which now streamedfrom my eyes, the sacrifice that is acceptable to you. I had much to say to you my 185

God, not in these very words but in this strain: Lord, will you never be content? Must we always taste your vengeance? Forget the long record of our sins! For I felt that I was still the capture ofmy sins, and in my misery I kept crying; How long shall I go on saying tomorrow, tomorrow? Why not now? Why not make an example ofmy ugly sin this moment? After this meditation beneath the fig tree, he heard a child singing in the background, which he interpreted as a vision. The vision was a consequence of his faith and the cry to God. In this respect, we can suggest that the fig tree was a metaphor for a place where people declared their faith in God. Jewish sages suggest in one of their discussions that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree. R. Jose says:

R. Jose says: They were jigs. He learns the obscure from the explicit ... But because he had eaten the fruit, the jig tree opened the doors and received him, as it is written; and they sewed the leaves together.

In another passage the sages say: And they sewed the leaves of the jig together; R. Simeon bar bar Yohai said: That is the leafwhich brought the occasion, to-a-na, for death into the world This discussion brings forth the idea that the fruit of the fig tree contains the knowledge of good and evil. Through this fruit man comes to know this knOWledge. R. Eliezer said in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra: Three things are said about the inside of the jig; It is good to eat, it is fair to behold, and it increases wisdom. 186

The Bible views the fig as a fruit for which the land of Israel is famous. The Jotham fable presents the words of the fig:

Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit and go to be promoted over the other trees? This fable depicts the Bible's view of the fig. In the homiletic literature, the sages mention the two aspects of the fig tree. (These aspects correspond to the teaching that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the fig tree.) One aspect is it causes good by producing sweet fruit. The second aspect, although it is sweet, also introduces death to the world. In the Jotham fable, there is no presentation of evil. The fig tree preferred the good and accentuated the abundance of good that it may give to humanity. It seems that in this period, they did not relate any evil power or evil characteristic to the fig tree. When the change occurred and the interpretations by the sages became accepted or known, fables of the fig tree increased, and people were able to elaborate on their teaching. Thus, we can view R. Jose's curse to his son and to the fig tree, as well as Jesus' curse to the fig tree, not only as just another teaching and another fable, but also as an attempt to prevent the fig tree from causing another evil act. For that reason, both of them had to hold divine power to interfere in the course of nature.

Behold a sower went forth to sow. And when he sowed some of the seeds foil by the wayside, and the jowls came and devoured them. Some foil upon stony places where they had not much earth; and, forthwith, they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth ... but other seeds foil into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixty fold, some thirty fold Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 187

(Matt.13: 3-9, 'The Sower and the Soil') Now one should remember that the spoken word was the means of communication: orally, not yet written down. It was prior to Jesus' time and some centuries after him that the written text became an important means of communication.

ENDNOTES

I. Gilgamesh, Book ix. 2. BTa'anit24a.

188

CHAPTER FOUR

The Storyteller and the Story

No man when he hath lighted a lamp putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a lamp stand that they who come in may see the light. (Lk. 11:33)

The Bible consists of different literary genres. Among them, we find the parables. This literary genre is found in the Hebrew Bible, but the majority of the parabolic texts are found in the New Testament, all together about sixty in the Synoptic Gospels. Some call them parables, heavenly stories with earthly meaning. Indeed, the parables, as we mentioned above, are taken from the everyday life of the people. They' can relate to the objects mentioned, whether it is a mustard seed, a grain of wheat, the laborers in the vineyard, or even the thief in the night. Among many definitions, in the year 1925, C.H. Dodd (1961) defined parables as a metaphor or a simile drawn from nature or from real life. Such definition does not leave room for accentuating the 'divinity' of the parable, but makes it a literary device, challenging the audience to find an intelligible interpretation. This simile is already found in the OT in 189

the Book of Judges 9:8-15 (the parable of the trees that went forth to anoint a king over them), and in 2 Samuel 12:1-7 (the encounter between King David and Nathan the prophet). Here, we have a description of two men, one rich, the other poor, which is drawn from a social structure in early times. In 2 Kings 14:9, there is a short parable taken from nature describing a thistle and a cedar. This parable, because of its brevity, suggests that the audience probably knew it:

The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon saying: Give thy daughter to my son in marriage; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. In Mark, 4: 30-32 Or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all seeds that are in the earth. But when it is sown, it groweth up and becometh greater than all herbs. and shooteth out great branches, so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

In Ezekiell7: 22-25 Thus saith the Lord God: I will also take the lightest branch of the high cedar and will set it out, I will crop offfrom the top of its young twigs a tender one and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent. In the mountain of the height of Israel I will plant it, and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit and be a well favored cedar, and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing, in the shadow of its branches shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the Lord ...

A close reading of these two parables points out that the one of the OT or that of the NT refers to nature and both accentuate God's 190

kingdom and how, from a few people, they increased in spectacular growth. It is the role of the person who presents his teaching through parables to be aware of and tuned in to his audience. Thus, he takes examples from areas known to them, from the life with which they are familiar. This is clear when we read the parables of the 'King of Heaven,' or the 'Parable of Treasure Hidden in the Field, 'or of the 'Merchant Searchingfor the Beautiful Pearls. ' As an excellent teacher, Jesus used his parables as a teaching method not to impose his ideas and perceptions on his audience, but to make them think. For this reason, he became a master among those who used the parable as a form of instruction. As a unique storyteller, he led his audience by the hand and pointed out what he saw, not only in relations between humans and God, but also between humans and humans. It was not a story told by a revolutionist, but by a great humanist of his people and his tradition. As a good storyteller, Jesus did not offer any interpretation of the story, nor did he explain certain aspects of the parables. These explanations were offered (or added) by the editors of the NT much later in time. Thus, we may say that their explanations go too far, beyond the teaching of the storyteller. To understand the parables, one should abandon, or at least suspend, the allegorical approach. On the one hand, surely, when we read allegory into the parables, we cannot avoid a theological interpretation. This observation we shall demonstrate when we discuss the allegorical interpretations of certain Church Fathers in Chapter Five. But at the same time, we lose the human effect of it. On the other hand, it was argued that the parables show a relationship to folk stories of the neighboring cultures. After all, the land of Judea was not the only land in the region, nor the only culture. Jewish culture absorbed and accepted some of the literary 191

genres of other cultures. We should remember that as much as political borders do not allow people to cross from one land to another, stories, and cultural values do not have such political borders: they cross from one culture to another freely and easily. Some scholars accept the idea that like Jesus' great contemporary sages and those who were before him, he used metaphor and images. Like his contemporary teachers who used literary devices to make their audience understand their teaching, so did Jesus. But the interpreters of the parables in the NT suggest that the main function of the parable is to know God and his kingdom. Yet, the parables are presented in such a way that they create a dramatic scene to illustrate the hidden message within them. Stating this, we do eliminate both the opening statement like

To what shall we compare the kingdom o/God? and at the same time we also disregard the interpretation offered by the redactors and editors. Indeed, the main function of the parable is to compare between two objects, but it still remains a fictitious story. While theologians are searching for the true religious teaching of the story, literary critics are concerned more with the quality of the metaphors and the similes. The hidden teaching of the parable is determined by the perception of the hearer.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speaketh thou unto them in parables? (Matt. 13:10) The redactor of Matthew presents an interesting answer, given in the name of Jesus.

... because they seeing, see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand (v. 13). A teacher, a sage who speaks in parables, tells his fictitious story to challenge his audience to search for the true meaning, each 192

one according to hislher ability of understanding. Jesus does not hide the truth from his listeners, but challenges them to look for the true meaning; a good educator who draws from the real life of the people, his hearers, disciples, and sows the seeds of attention and knowledge, but not of entertainment. It is an accepted notion that Christianity proceeded out of Jewish tradition. There is no respected scholar in our time who would challenge this notion. Yet, during the first four or five centuries of early Christian tradition, Christianity had lost its Jewish values and at the same time denied the Jewishness of Jesus. Throughout the centuries, this tradition removed him as far as possible from his Jewish roots and identity, from his culture and his faith. We have no intention to argue against these perceptions, nor to challenge certain scholars who are still halting between two opinions. We accept the notion that Jesus was a Jew. We also accentuate the fact that like most of the common people in his land, Jesus grew up in a Pharisaic environment. He knew the Scriptures and quoted from them. The inaccurate quotation found in the NT of the verse in Psalms 22:1,

Eli Eli lama sabachthani (Matt. 27:46) Eloi Eloi lama sabach-thani (MJe. 15:34) Eli Eli lama a-zav-ta-ni (Ps. 22: 1) is not of Jesus, but of the redactor(s). As a Pharisee, he was familiar with the sages' oral educational system. Parables were a part of Jewish heritage, as well as a part of the surrounding cultures. Yet, the symbolism, the images and the metaphors were taken from his own tradition, passing to him through the Pharisaic sages who wandered from one place to another to teach the common people. If we pay attention to the demography of the Galilee, then Jews and non Jews lived there, and it is very likely

193

that they shared some of the same folk stories and parables. Nevertheless, certain expressions were very Jewish and were unique to this tradition: calling God ABBA. for instance. This noun is very common in Jewish prayer, and from this tradition it passed on into Christianity, the sister tradition. (Cf. the expression your father who is in heaven. (Matt. 7:11). As one who grew up in the Galilee, Jesus was aware of the land and the products of the land. The body of his images is taken from this land. Only a person who knew the land so well could use the following images:

A good tree can bringeth forth good fruit. but a corrupt tree bringethforth badfruit. These images were interpreted as synonymous with the kingdom of heaven, but again the redactor offers us a very limited and narrow view of their literary images. Matthew presents the reader with a parable of five wise virgins and five foolish virgins. For reasons of a medieval Christian Weltanschauung, this became one of the most popular parables of the Middle Ages. We illustrate this in images to which we call your attention in Chapter Five. Here we are introduced to a parable or a story which is not Jewish in its origin. It says at the end of the parable:

Watch. therefore. for ye know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man cometh. (Matt. 25:13) It is not the Jewish custom for a bridegroom to be alone with virgins, unless it is a local custom in the Galilee, which is not known to us. Moreover, the parable never mentions a bride. That, too, is not a Jewish custom. Examination of Jesus' parables had two major courses. The first one was the historical, and the second was the language

194

interpretation which leads scholars to address the theological point of views hidden, so they claim, within the content of the parables. The leading scholar who interpreted the parables following the course of the language was John Dominic Crossan (1973). However, to be able to examine the language of the parables, he used the literary critical methodology. Here, we may ask whether it was a distortion of the theological interpretation. It offers a new phase to the examination of the parables which is the literary examination. After all, as quoted above, the parable is a story which offers different points of views presented to the reader/hearer. While the theological interpretation requires the reader to accept the views presented to him, the literary view offers a different direction to the understanding of the story. This story is designed to convey a moral teaching, an objective/subjective truth. It is a form of communication praxis with people. Jesus, who was, so we think, a master of teaching through parables, was not the first one in his tradition to use the parable in his teaching. We pointed out above that the use of parables is already found in the OT, as well as a form of instruction in the curricula during the time of the sages. Scholars who follow the theological interpretation of the parable of 'The Prodigal Son' (' The Lost Son, ' Mk. 15: 11-32), interpret the verse: And he said to him, son Thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (v. 31)

as stating that, in general, this parable addresses the love of God and, at the same time, demonstrates the compassion and the grace of God. Such a view just narrows the many possibilities of interpretations. After all, the role of the story/parable is to impress the listeners. The redactors of the text, however, wished to impose their theological view on both the readers and on the general perception of the parable. An example of such imposition we find 195

in the parables of 'The Tares Among the Wheat,' 'The Mustard Seed,' and 'The Leaven.' The disciples were looking for an interpretation or an understanding of the meaning contained within the parables. The redactor introduced his views by stating:

.. , and his disciples came unto him saying: Explain unto us the Parable of the Tares of the Field. He answered and said unto them: He that soweth the good seeds is the Son of Man. The field, is the world, the good seeds are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one. (Matt. 13:36-38) This interpretation could be accepted as the moral of the story. Although in Jesus' tradition there are not many parables that offer the moral of the story. However, in this case, we may assume that living in the Galilee, an area populated with Greek-speaking people, as well as other ethnic groups, Jesus was aware of storytellers who offered the moral of their stories to the listeners. Thus, it is impossible to suggest that the parables in the NT are not presented or told to accentuate spiritual truths. In some, the central point is to emphasize the concepts of compassion and grace. Yet, from a literary point of view, the parables attract the attention of the listeners and challenge them to discover the wide range of interpretations. We stated above that one of the major courses to present the parable is the historical course. The terms historical or historical Jesus include within them another term, the historical parables. Jesus is between the known and the unknown, but it is impossible not to see him on the historical stage. Thus, let us make sure that when we use the term historical Jesus, it means that we also include the language we assume Jesus used. This aspect is as challenging as the first one, since we do not have a certain text of

196

the NT that remained in the language or languages a common Jewish person, a Pharisee, spoke in those days: these were Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Within this context, one can argue that Jesus spoke Greek too. This argument is very weak, however, since in Jesus' milieu it was not a widely-taught language. The Gospel of Mark offers us a strong point of view, that the languages of Jesus were, indeed, Hebrew and Aramaic. In Jesus' visit to Capernaum on the Sabbath day, he entered the Synagogue, and there he delivered a sermon. After his teaching, people approached him and said, so the redactor writes:

And they were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one who had authority and not as the scribes. (Mk. 1:22) Thus, we should not view the parables from the historical point of view, but establish a dialogue with the parable, or, better to say, with the master who uses parables in. his teaching; in our case his name is jesus. Indeed, the early Church in its creative theological interpretation of the parables and the activity of Jesus, as it is presented in the literature of the Synoptic Gospels, did not accept any interpretation except the theological one. It viewed very negatively any attempt to mention the religious or the cultural background of Jesus. This negative attitude invoked a separation of Jesus from his own tradition and from his Jewish milieu. Thus, at the same time, the early Church mystified his appearance and made him unhistorical. Contrary to this approach, there is a need to bring him back to his tradition and with no fear to accentuate his Jewish tradition. Such a stance will present him as a new radical interpreter of Jewish values, a person who called for a radical change in the religious life of the people; as a teacher, a sage who devoted himself to educating the common people. 197

The parables were most surely the original literary form in Jesus' tradition. The metaphors which sustain the parabolic forms are taken from the immediate landscape. This was his strongest method, and with the parables, he was able to approach and attract the attention of his hearers. It also was a method which contradicted the teaching of the scribes. They came to the people, imposing the interpretation of the court in Jerusalem; no explanation, but an imposition of the teaching from a far-off place. Jesus came from their midst, with a message that meant that is was better to be a human being. He gave the people back the words of the Law, Torah, and of the early prophets. This was his great pedagogy, much superior to that of the scribes who relayed a plethora of rules and official prescriptions. Now the question is: Do we need proof of his existence? We answer: There is no need to prove his authenticity. The early Church used much ink to prove his existence, but we burden. Some scholars, among them Bernard Brandon Scott, (2007) claim that the structure of the parables did not originate with Jesus. To support his view, Scott suggests that the parabolic form does not exist in the OT and in the Hellenistic literature. Moreover, he claims it is absent from the teaching of the Pharisees. There is no need to argue against his reasons, but to suggest a reexamination of his hypothesis. Hebrew literature in the Hellenistic period existed and the sages of the Second Commonwealth continued to develop it. Jewish-Hebrew literature, as well as judicial literature, point out that this period was the most creative time in Jewish life before the Common Era. Parables and parabolic teaching were a part of the educational curricula during this period. Michael Hilton, (1988) in his work with Fr. Gordian Marshall, suggests that the Gospels were written by Jesus. If we follow their suggestion, we find that there are remarkable 198

similarities in some passages in the Synoptic Gospels. These similarities are found in the 'Sermon on the Mount, ' the law of the Sabbath and divorce, to mention but a few. For these reasons, we should examine both, the theological halakha and the literary perspective in both the NT and the rabbinic literature. Although not all interpretations provided by them are accepted, pointing out of many sources of Jewish material in the Gospels sowing the background of Jesus is commendable. We do not doubt that throughout his life Jesus was, in some way, a wandering teacher, rabbi (an un-ordained one), and a preacher whose interest was teaching the common people, and their welfare and well-being. He lived in the Galilee, a land of different ethnic groups, but the land was also under Roman rule, and he had to be careful not to irritate the Roman, anellor the Jewish pro-Roman administration. We stated that he was an un-ordained rabbi. Indeed, we do not have any source that mentions his teachers, rabbis. Nor do we have a source which mentions the place where he studied. But people called him rabbi, and accepted his teaching in the Synagogue. He addressed people who were versed in the Scriptures and so was he. Yet, to empower the verse he quoted, he used to add various illustrations which were a part of the cultural ambiance of the common people in 1st century C.E. Palestine-Judea. It is nowadays understood that to have been a Jewish sage in the 15t century C.E., the days of Jesus, meant knowing the Hebrew Bible and a wealth of rabbinic interpretation. It is, possibly, that for this reason people called him rabbi and, as such, his words were, sometimes, deep in their meaning, but sometimes very simple so a lay person could relate to them easily. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26) 199

But not only that. We mentioned above the sennon in the synagogue where he spoke to the people and impressed them with his new perspectives and interpretations. Matthew offers us another point of view, suggesting that Jesus spoke to the people as a person with rabbinical authority, as in the following: What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fell into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much, then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do good on this Sabbath day. (Matt. 12:11-12)

A modern reader needs to know the background of Jesus, so he would be able to understand the meaning of his teaching. To be a scholar of the NT, it was/is important to acquire a wide knowledge of Jewish texts. Some Christians refuse to acknowledge the Jewishness of Jesus. They avoid the notions mentioned and thus relate to the NT, while exercising limitations to the textual interpretation. For these people, we offer the verse in which Paul remarked: Now 1 say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written: For the cause I will confess to thee among the nations, and sing unto thy name. (Rom. 15: 8-9)

This statement made by Paul is in full recognition of the relationship of Jesus with his Jewish tradition and with Jewish learning. It is, thus, that again we point out that parables were a genre in rabbinic literature. That this genre was unique in this literature is the fact that it is found in few OT texts, only once in the Dead Sea

200

Scrolls' or not at all in the Pseudepigrapha. Kyle Snodgrass points to the fact that some 1500 rabbinic parables have been collected. (Snodgrass 2000, 18) The language of the parables, throughout the centuries, from early rabbinic times to the early Middle Ages, was always Hebrew. One cannot find parables in the Aramaic language which was, so to speak, the lingua franca of the land of Judea. The language of the parables was, thus, a creation of the Jewish culture used, mainly, among the Pharisaic movement. As much as we presuppose, one cannot find parables outside the rabbinic literature. Does it mean that the parables of the NT are a part of the Jewish milieu? A presentation of the curricula of Jewish tradition? The parables of both, the NT and those of rabbinic literature, are rooted in Jewish culture, proving that the Hebrew language was alive, spoken not only among the elite, but among the common people too. As an example to this opinion, we find a parable taught by Rabbi Levi which begins: To what may the children of Israel be compared? It is like a man who has a son, whom he places on his shoulders and takes to the market.... Then the son sees a man and asks him; Have you seen my father? His father retorts saying: Foolish one, you are riding on my shoulders .... What did the father do? He tossed the child from his shoulders, and a dog came and snapped at him. This parable was told by Rabbi Levi of the 5th century C.E. explaining the war the people ofIsrael had with the Amalekites: Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim (Ex. 17:8) The importance of comparing rabbinic parables to those in the NT is not just pointing out the quality of rabbinic literature, but to show the origin from which Jesus drew his teaching. It is in the 201

1st century C.E. that Hanina ben Dosa stated: He who has more deeds than know/edge, his knowledge endures, but he who has more deeds, his knowledge does not endure. (Avoth 3: 10) In the same century, Elisha ben Avuyah offered the same teaching through a parable of a person who does good deeds; and studies the Torah extensively. In the Talmud, we find an interesting story about a sage, Shemuel ha-Katan, who also lived in the 1st century C.E. It was a year of drought and he decreed a day of fasting and praying. When people started their praying and fasting at sunset, rain fell before sunrise. At this point the sage delivered his teaching saying: What does this situation resemble? It is like a slave who requests his ration from his master. The master says: Give it to him so that I may not hear his voice. (BTa 'ani! 25b) In another parable related to the drought, Shemuel ha Katan offered another teaching which states: Wait until he languishes and suffers, afterwards give it to him. (Ibid) There is no need to point out that from a theological point of view, the slave represents the people and the master is God. But from a literary point of view, we are facing a social problem. On one hand, we are introduced to a master who does not wish to hear any complaint and on the other hand, a master who does not care if his slave suffers. Indeed, there is a social power to the parable. The hidden power is already given in the Song ofSongs Rabbah: Do not underestimate the value of the parables because by means of parable a person can master 202

the words of the Torah. (1:3) Whether the sages meant to teach the way of God or the way of the Torah, or whether they wished to teach the people to be good human beings, is just a question of interpretation. As much as we think, one can find in both parables these two realms of interpretations. As one who was created in God's image, and He being in their perception the ultimate good, humans should also aspire to be good.

So God created Adam in his own image; in the image of God created he him. (Gen. 1:27) The literary interpretation is important to the language(s) of the time, accentuating the literary works of those days. There is no doubt that one of the languages spoken during the 151 century C.E. in Judea was Hebrew. Thus, the literary works of those days were written in Hebrew as well. Spoken and written language is a sign of a language which develops its vocabularies and structures, a language which allows ambiguities and vernaculars to be a part of the everyday life, a language which borrows vocabularies from languages around to enrich its own. Beside the written literary works, there were numerous compositions delivered in oral form. These were the literary works of the Pharisees. Other Jewish sects, the Sadducees and the Judean Desert sects, wrote their literary works; that we assume from the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. To preserve their biblical interpretation and its commandments, their works, and rules, they put everything in a written form, unlike the Pharisees who did not. However, there are signs that even in this circle of the Pharisees, some works were done in written mode; we point to Megilat Ta 'anit, Baruch and 4 Ezra as examples. Oral tradition was the principal literary mode among the Pharisees, and in the circle of Jesus. The shift from oral literary 203

mode to written mode could have started with Rabbi Yehuda ha Nasi (R. Judah the Prince), who began the documentation of the oral mode with the editing of the Mishnah at the end of the 2nd century C.E. This important work was the beginning of the transition from orality to literacy in the teaching of the Pharisees. In this cultural ambiance, Jesus made his mission. It was in the evangelical triangle which included the three towns, Capernaum, Chorazim and Bethsaida. The last one is mentioned in the work of Eusebius (265-339 C.E.), the Church historian, in his Onomasticon (58:11). He located the town around the northern part of the Sea of Galilee. (Arav and Freund 3 Vols.) Eusebius remarked that: The city of Andrew and Peter and Philip is located in the Galilee next to the lake of Gennesaret.

But the town is mentioned in the Gospels: Woe unto thee Chorazim, woe to thee Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. (Lk. 10:13) (This verse is, with some minor changes, also found in Matt. 11 :20.)

This information is already found in John: Now Philip was of Bethsaida the city ofAndrew and Peter. (In. 1:44; 12:20-22)

In this location, Jesus was known as a teacher and as a master of the parabolic form. But was he a rabbi? This particular title is not important to earn a name as being a great teacher. After all, the sages themselves acknowledge that ga-dol me-rab-ban shemo; "greater than the title Rab-ban is the proper name. " But in some places in the NT, Jesus is called by the people Rabbi. The question to be asked is: Is this a religious title as we find it today,

204

or it is a title given to a wise person, learned, who comforts people with his advice? Is he a person who guides the people to search within their hearts for new ways? In this realm, we can begin to see the ministry of Jesus; whether he was ordained or not, a teacher with authority; whether he studied under the auspices of a great rabbi in the Galilee (and we do not have any information to this fact) or not, he certainly appeared to the people as a respected rabbi, as we read it in the following selected verses from the NT: And behold, one came and said unto him: Good master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? (Matt. 19:16) Then one ofthem. who was a lawyer, asked him a question testing him and saying: Master, which is the great Commandment in the Law? (Matt. 22:3536)

Let us be aware of the fact that members of the Pharisees used this title to address Jesus in their debates with him concerning the interpretation of the Commandments. Luke brings to light information that people from both the Pharisees and the Sadducees called him, Rabbi, Master, and so he was addressed by his disciples and the common people too. (Lk 12:13; 19: 39; 20:27-28, 39). It is important to note here that people approached him not only with questions about eternal life and of interpretation of verses from the Torah, but also asked him to offer his solution in a dispute, like the dispute between the two brothers: And one of the company said unto him. Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. (Lk 12:13)

205

This particular verse is a testimony to the respect he earned among the common people who acknowledged his teaching and his authority. Thus, we should indicate that people of his time recognized his learning, and acknowledged his ability to speak to them eloquently, and for that, they called him rabbi. Accepting this notion, we should also be reminded of the fact mentioned above that the Hebrew language was a spoken language in the 1sl century C.E. (in fact, the Hebrew language was always spoken, in prayers, in the Synagogues; always written, interpreting Jewish laws and biblical texts, or any religious document). Thus, we cannot agree with the notion that for some centuries Hebrew was a dead language, and its revival happened only towards the 19th century of this era. As such, there are many nuances in the language. Where one can interpret certain verses to his everyday life, another can relate them to a different realm, close to him or beyond. Reading early scholarly works like that of Juelicher, referenced above, it seems that modem scholars' research on the parables focused on the idea that there is no allegorical dimension to them. Juelicher himself rejected any such dimension in the parables. Yet, some other scholars criticized this notion. Such criticism is found in the work of Jeremias and his objection to Juelicher's interpretation. But in the middle of the last century, two scholars who have left their imprint on the interpretation of the parables are J.D. Crossan (1973) and P. Ricoeur (1981). For Crossan, he was interested in the examination of the purpose of the parables and why there are 1i>und so many interpretations. In his work, we can find many references to German philosophers and English poets. Yet, he was known as the one who shed some new light on the literary genre of the parables. In this exposition, he

206

argues that there is a revealed communication between the master of the parables and the hearer, or as he stated in his work:

Either simiosis is mimetic or it is ludic, it either reflects a reality without it or it creates a reality with it. (Crossan, 11 7) That particular statement is unclear, since he offers the reader an option between the external sign and those which are enclosed within. Thus, the question we ask is: Do Jesus' parables contain a moral message only? Modem interpreters, who opt solely for a moral message only, deal with the narrow aspects of the parable, since the parable is not a fixed story with one point of view or one message only. Crossan objects to this view. He evaluates the parable in its wide range of expositions, and views Jesus as a great satirist or, as he put it, "the master ofparadox. " His perception is that there is no timeless truth in the parables, but that they describe the experience of Jesus with God (Crossan, 32-33). But when he argues the historicity of Jesus, he accentuates the language. It seems that his view is more related to the metaphors and similes in the parables than to the narrative and its literary structure. When we search for metaphors, we pay no attention to other aspects which are contained within the parables, such as belief, relations between people, and, most of all, the social function of the parable. Matthew offers the following verse:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field which when a man hath found, he hideth, andfor joy of it, goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. (13:44) This verse is a part of the explanation Jesus offered his disciples. They asked him to explain the parable of the 'Tares of the Field' and he offered them three explanations. To establish the reverse 207

succession vis-a-vis the rabbinic parable, there is a need for reexamination. Ricoeur, on the other hand, views the explanation of Jesus as presented in Matt. 13:44 as a very short parable with a full meaning. He views in this parable three stages: •

Finding the treasure.

•

Selling all he has.

•

Buying the field.

We cannot find any attempt in Crossan's exposition to clarify the kingdom of heaven, nor do we fmd a comparison with rabbinic parables. The dramatic structure for him is that which produces the meaning. In this respect, he emphasizes the aspect of giving, vis-a-vis the one of acquiring. There is no intention to narrow the interpretation of the parable to just the language and the historicity of Jesus. If we examine the parables in their widest context, and allow ourselves to investigate their theological, literary and historical aspects, then all this hardly supports Crossan's hypothesis. Theologians and literary scholars who read the work of Ricoeur and his explanation of the kingdom of God as it is presented in the Gospel of Matthew 13:44 will agree with him. Then, it is impossible to say that from the theological point of view his explanation is incorrect. However, concentration on the theological aspect only is not sufficient. Jesus was not a theologian and not a person who appeared on the stage of history with a new religion, but was a teacher, a rabbi, who preached and presented his audience the way to becoming a true human being, an honest person, and a religious one. If some scholars wish to view these aspects from a theological view point, then there is a need to

208

acknowledge the fact that it is only one way and not the only way for interpretation. There is still a dispute among scholars as to whether the exposition of the parables presented in the NT texts is authentic, and whether Jesus is the one who offered it. They do not take into consideration the possibility of redaction and editorial work on the texts. The theory these scholars accepted is that Jesus explained his parables to teach his disciples the true meaning they conveyed. It is also the same way the redactors want the reader to accept these explanations. This theory could be a part of religious education, but it is not grounded in literary criticism. Six times the use of the Fig Tree as a metaphor is found in the Synoptic Gospe/s. Scholars have examined these stories, parables, to make sense of the appearance of this particular fruit tree in the teaching of Jesus. Among these parables, there is only one which has no parallel in the Synoptic Gospels: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit on it, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seekingfruit on the fig tree, and find none. Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he, answering, said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, andfertilize it. And if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. (Lk. 13: 6-9) Scholars who interpreted the parables relating to the fig tree, claim that the healthy fig tree produces fruit all year round. This hypothesis is not exactly correct. It produces fruit in the summer time, but in some fig trees, one can find, not in its season, 209

gleaning of figs, remnants of the year before. These interpreters concentrated on the unproductive fig tree and the fact that the dresser of the vineyard pleaded for one more year to be given to the fig tree. Thus, they suggest seeing this story as a metaphor for the grace of God. The religious view of the parable illustrates how narrow is the religious interpretation. Indeed, the fig tree is mentioned in the OT over sixty times; mainly it refers to the state of peace and tranquility. As we mentioned above, the fig tree produces its fruits in the summer. Though in the summer the fruits are edible, we should ask: Why does the dresser of the garden intercede on behalf of the fig tree? Attempts were made to figure out how old was the fig tree, six years or nine. From a literary point of view, these attempts are not pertinent to the interpretation of the parable. The religious perception that the dresser of the garden could serve as the defendant of the people, the prototype of Moses serving as an advocate of his people in the desert, is an interesting notion, but again, this view does not offer a wide range of viewpoints. One can see the dresser as an advocate; nevertheless, it teaches a person the quality of patience, consideration for others, not to be judgmental and, above all, to offer another solution. Let us be mindful that at the end of the parable, the storyteller does not tell us whether the owner of the vineyard accepted the postponement for one more year or not. The question-statement of the owner, why cumberethobstruct the ground? Is a question which a farmer, a tiller of the land would ask, but at the same time, would look for other reasons as to why the fig tree does not bear fruit. In fact, fig trees could be found growing in the wild and no special measures are given to them. Looking into one direction is uprooting the story from the farming milieu and giving it to a theological interpretation only.

210

Trees bearing fruit are the living source for the fanners, and one like this fig tree has no place in the vineyard. Ahikar, the old wise man, said to his adopted son:

o my boy, thou art like a tree which was fruitless beside the water, and its master was fain to cut it down, and it said to him: Remove me to another place, and ifI do not bear fruit cut me down, And its master said to it: Thou being beside the water hast not borne fruit, how shalt thou bear fruit when thou art in another place? (11) Now that we have considered the two texts, 'The Barren Fig Tree' and the Legend ofAhikar, we should ask the question: Is there any relation between these two literary works? There is a notion that the narratives in the Synoptic Gospels are connected to the Martyrdom of Isaiah (M!), where it is suggested that Tyre and Sidon were cities of refuge for the prophets. But what is found in Mark 7 :24 is: And from there, he arose and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it, but he could not be hidden. (See also Matt. 15: 21-23) The above verse from Mark does not support this notion of the connection to the MI. On the other hand, the parable of the 'Barren Fig Tree' echoes the story (parable) in the Legend of Ahikar, especially reading the following: How shalt thou bear fruit when thou art in another place? Yet, not only this text. Even the parable of the 'Wicked Servant' (Matt. 24:45-51; Mk. 13:32-37; Lk. 21: 34-36), has some 211

relationship with the wicked Nadan