Copyright © 1984 by Westminster
Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WHEN IS A PARALLEL
REALLY A PARALLEL?
A TEST CASE: THE LUCAN PARABLES
CRAIG L.
BLOMBERG
ANYONE who has ever used a Gospel
synopsis knows the
difficulty of determining just which passages
should be
matched in compiling a table of parallels. As
most modern syn-
opses stand, at least certain
sets of parallels present fairly blatant
contradictions between Gospels which
call into question the trust-
worthiness of the Gospel tradition.1
Many apparent discrepancies
affect areas of seemingly little doctrinal or ethical
importance, but
when one examines the teaching ascribed to Jesus,
the problem
becomes more acute. Even those who would
restrict the accuracy
of Scripture to matters of faith and practice must
come to grips
with the problem of the divergent forms of the
various sayings
of Jesus; here if anywhere is the very core of the
biblical message.
Yet
even here Gospel parallels present striking similarities side-
by-side with marked divergences — consider the
details of Jesus'
great sermon (Matthew 5–7 vs. Luke 6:17–49), of his
commission-
ing of the twelve (Matthew
10 vs. Luke 9:1–6), and of pairs of
parables like the pounds and talents (Matt
25:14–30 vs. Luke
19:11–27), the wedding feast and great supper
(Matt 22:1–14 vs.
Luke
14:15–24), and the two versions of the lost sheep (Matt
18:12–14
vs. Luke 15:4–7).
This problem of parallels has
elicited a variety of responses.
Most
scholars accept the synopses as printed and harbor no reser-
vations as to the presence of
contradictions. In the wrong hands,
the methodological tool of redaction criticism,
which focuses on
the distinctive contributions of each Gospel
writer, is often abused
so that it seems to do little more than invent new
contradictions
1 E.g. K. Aland, Synopsis of
the Four Gospels (Stuttgart: UBS, 1976) ;
A.
Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien
(rev. R. Greeven;
Mohr,
1981); B. Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels (
University, 1982).
WHEN IS A PARALLEL
REALLY A PARALLEL? 79
between parallel texts at every turn.2
More conservative scholars
therefore sometimes overreact and call for the
disuse rather than
simply for the proper use of the tool. They may solve
the problem
by assuming that Jesus uttered virtually every
sentence attributed
to him at least two or three times in different
contexts, even when
the verbal parallelism between Gospels is so great
as to make such
a solution highly unlikely.3
The issue which remains almost
entirely unaddressed in all this
discussion forms the topic of this paper. When is a
parallel really
a parallel? Many writers simply state their
opinions without giving
any reasons for them. Those who elaborate usually
just argue
that the parallels seem too striking to have stemmed
from separate
events or that the differences seem too striking to
have stemmed
from the same event. But how striking is too
striking? D. A.
abuse of redaction criticism now available, notes
that no method-
ology exists "for
distinguishing between, on the one hand, similar
sayings in separate Gospels that do reflect a
trajectory of inter-
pretation and, on the other,
similar sayings in separate Gospels
that are actually both authentic."4
Of course, one short essay can
scarcely solve all the problems of Gospel
parallels, but it can at
least examine a test case. The test case offered here
is the corpus
of Lucan parables,
several of which were already mentioned in
2 It is unfortunate that
one of the most well-written and widely-circulated
introductions to this discipline (N.
Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?
[
tioners, thus perpetuating this
stereotype in certain circles.
3 E.g. J. D. Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981). Cf. also J. W. Montgomery, "Why Has God
Incarnate
Suddenly Become Mythical?" Perspectives
on Evangelical Theol-
ogy (ed.
K. S. Kantzer and S. N. Gundry;
65;
R. Thomas, "The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Redaction Criticism"
(paper read at the ETS national conference; Essex Fells, N.
J., Dec. 17,
1982).
4 D. A.
of a Literary Tool," Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and J. Wood-
bridge;
gelical critiques of redaction
criticism, see M. Silva, "Ned B. Stonehouse and
Redaction
Criticism," WTJ 40 (1977) 77-88,
281-303; G. R. Osborne, "The
Evangelical
and Redaction Criticism: Critique and Methodology," JETS 22
(1979)
305-22; R. E. Morosco, "Redaction Criticism and
the Evangelical:
Matthew
10 a Test Case," ibid., 323-31.
80
the above examples of problem passages. Hopefully,
the conclu-
sions arrived at will have
some wider applicability as well.
The Gospel of Luke contains more
than twice as many parables
as any other Gospel. Most of those peculiar to Luke
fall into his
central section (9:51-18:34)5 and
probably stem from a very
primitive Jewish-Christian source document to
which only Luke,
of the evangelists, had access.6 At the same time, Luke records
no less than fourteen parables for which most
scholars find parallels
in either Matthew or Mark or both.7 These vary from the short
parable of the householder and thief (Luke
12:39-40; Matt
24:43-44),
which displays almost exact verbal parallelism in
Matthew
and Luke, to the parables of the watchful servants (Luke
12:35-38)
and doorkeeper (Mark 13:33-37), which contain cer-
tain conceptual similarities
but virtually no words repeated ver-
batim.
A brief statistical analysis
reflects this variety in parallelism.
The
chart below presents the number of words common to each
of the fourteen pairs of parables. The first two
columns, labeled
(I)
and (II), list the total number of words contained in the
Greek
text of Luke's version of the parable,8
followed by the
total number of words in the most closely paralleled
passage
(either Matthew or Mark). Then come three columns which list
(a)
the total number of words in Luke's account which
appear
in identical form in the "parallel," (b)
the number of words which
are common to both texts but in different lexical
or grammatical
form, and (c) the number of words in Luke which are
clear
synonyms for corresponding words in the other
text. Finally, three
percentages are tabulated in columns (d), (e), and
(f) : (a)/x,
5 For a discussion of
which passages are to be considered parables, and
for a defense of these boundaries for Luke's
central section, see C. L. Blom-
berg, "The Tradition History of the Parables
Peculiar to Luke's Central
Section"
(Ph.D. Diss.: Aberdeen, 1982) 28-37, 50-58.
6 Cf. C. L. Blomberg, "Midrash,
Chiasmus, and the Outline of Luke's
Central
Section," Gospel Perspectives (ed.
R. T. France and D. Wenham;
7 Interestingly enough,
this accounts for all the potentially paralleled
parables in the Synoptics,
since Matthew and Mark do not have any parables
in common not also found in Luke.
8 Following Aland (Synopsis)
by including bracketed words, but only in-
cluding Jesus' direct speech
and not additional contextual material.
Parable Texts (I) (II) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(1) Housholder Luke 12:39-40 34 39 29 2 3 85.3 91.2 100.0
and thief Matt 24:43-44
(2) Faithful and Luke 12:42-46 102 111 83 5 4 81.4 86.3 90.2
unfaithful Matt 24:45-51
servants
(3) Leaven Luke
13:20-21 21 19 15 3 1 78.9 94.7 100.0
Matt 13:33
(4) Asking son Luke
11:11-13 48 50 34 2 2 70.8 75.0 79.2
Matt 7:9-11
(5) Children in Luke
7:31-35 76 65 45 14 2 69.2 90.8 93.8
marketplace Matt 11:16-19
(6) Sower Luke 8:5-8 76 105 44 11 7 57.9 72.4 81.5
Matt
4:3-9
(7) Wicked Luke
20:9b-16a 120 131 64 11 6 53.3 62.5 67.5
Husbandmen Matt 12:1-9
(8) Mustard seed Luke
13:18-19 38 45 19 5 4 50.0 63.2 73.7
Matt 13:31-32
(9) Two builders Luke
6:47-49 83 95 21 16 3 25.3 41.5 44.6
Matt 7:24-27
(10)
Lost sheep/ Luke 15:4-7 81 65 15 12 2 23.1 30.4 41.5
wandering Matt 18:12-14
sheep
(11) Pounds/ Luke
19:12-27 253 302 54 23 28 21.3 30.4 41.5
talents Matt 25:14-30
(12) Animals in Luke
14:5 17 22 2 6 1 11.7 47.1 52.9
well/sheep Matt 12:11
in pit
(13)
Great supper/ Luke 14:16-24 159 151 10 14 4 6.3 15.9 17.6
wedding Matt 22:2-10
banquet
(14)
Watchful Luke 12:35-38 67 66 2 4 3 3.0 9.1 13.6
servants/ Matt 13:33-37
doorkeeper
words words word words synonym (a)/x a+b/x a+b+c/x
in
Luke in paral. verbatim diff.
forms
82
[(a)
+ (b)]/x, and [(a) + (b) + (c)]/x, where x in each case stands
for the smaller figure in columns (I) and (II). In
other words,
the number of parallel words is compared in each
case with the
total number of words in the shorter of the two
parallel texts. It
is important to choose the shorter text, because
the longer text
could be dependent on the shorter but have so
expanded the
original that the number of words it would share
with the shorter
version would seem deceptively small.
The chart reveals three basic
categories of parables. The first
eight entries show great verbal similarity to their
parallels in all
three percentage columns: 50.0%—85.3% in (d),
62.5%—94.7%
in (e), and 73.7%—100.0% in (f). These parables
also distribute
themselves fairly evenly over these intervals. The
next four para-
bles form a second group,
with markedly lower percentages in
column (d), 11.7%—25.3%, though with somewhat higher
figures
in columns (e) and (f), 30.4%—47.1% and
41.5%—52.9% re-
spectively. The last two parables
form a third group, with very
low percentages in all three columns: 3.0%—6.3% in
(d), 9.1%—
15.9%
in (e), and 13.6%—17.6% in (f). The fairly clear-cut
categories into which these data subdivide
predispose one who has
studied basic statistical methods to suggest
that passages in one
category differ from those in another in some
significant way.9
Quite
naturally, one suspects that the pairs of parables in the
first category are (as is generally assumed)
dependent on one
another or on a common source, while passages in
the last cate-
gory are (as is not always assumed) independent of
each other
or any common source. The status of the parables
in the middle
group remains unclear.
It is remarkable how often writers
who wish to illustrate the
presence of irreconcilable contradictions between
the Gospels ap-
peal to the examples of the parables in these last
two categories.
Jeremias, for example, in what undoubtedly
remains the definitive
work on the tendencies of the parables'
transmission, bases his
discussion of embellishment, change of audience,
the effect of the
delay of the Parousia, and allegorization to a large extent on these
9 For further detail, see
any introductory statistics text. E.g. H. L. Alder
and E. B. Roessler, Introduction to Probability and Statistics
(San Fran-
cisco: Freeman, 1975).
WHEN IS A PARALLEL
REALLY A PARALLEL? 83
specific pairs of parables.10 If it were to turn out that they were
not genuine parallels after all, much Traditionsgeschichte
would
require rewriting. It is precisely this point
which shall be argued
below. Few would dispute that literary dependence of
some sort
is required to account for the degree of
similarity between parallel
versions of the first eight parables on our
chart.11 Five of the
remaining six sets of parallels, however, seem
rather to represent
parables which Jesus spoke in more than one form
on separate
occasions, so that differences between the various
accounts do not
retain their standard significance. Each of the pairs
of parables
numbered (9) through (14) on the chart will
therefore be ex-
amined, in turn, in order of
increasing parallelism.
I. The Watchful Servants/Doorkeeper
(Luke 12:35–38;
Mark
13:33–37)
The main argument for the
independence of these two passages
lies in their sheer lack of verbal agreement. The
only two words
which appear in identical form and location in both
parables are
"the master" (ho kyrios), and
the same expression appears fre-
quently in Jesus' parables
elsewhere (in Luke, cf. 13:8; 14:21–23;
16:8;
19:16–25). Four terms appear in different grammatical
forms — anthropos, doulos, erchomai, and gregoreo — but one
could hardly narrate a parable about a man leaving
servants to
watch over his household without employing these
terms. Virtually
all the remaining features differ wherever they can
— the reason
for the man's departure, the number of servants,
the tasks en-
trusted to them, the reaction of the master on
his return, and
10 J. Jeremias,
The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972)
27–28, 38–
41,
53–55, 58-70.
11 Some commentators view
Luke's shorter versions of the parables of
the sower and wicked
husbandmen as evidence for a pre-Marcan source,
because more primitive texts are often thought
to be shorter than secondary
ones. Cf. esp. T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei
Lukas (
1971)
114–23; M. Lowe, "From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Syn-
optic Source," NTS 28 (1982) 257–63. But this "law" has been disproven;
see E. P. Sanders (The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition [
CUP,
1969]) — and, in fact, Luke consistently abbreviates his Marcan
ma-
terial. Of the 92 pericopes in Aland (Synopsis) which Mark and Luke
share, Luke's version is shorter in 71 instances. Cf.
Blomberg, "Tradition
History,"
25–27.
84
the description of the divisions of time during his
absence.
Granted
that a specific teaching is in view and not just the nar-
ration of an event, and granted the Synoptists' propensity for
close verbal parallelism elsewhere (see the chart),
it seems un-
likely that these accounts reflect the same original
parable of
Jesus.
This intuition seems borne out by
the lack of consensus among
recent commentators on these two passages. At least
four con-
tradictory positions command
considerable acclaim. (1) Bultmann
views the watchful servants as a secondary
composition or "com-
munity formulation"12
which has inextricably intertwined pas-
sages like Mark 13:33-36 and Matt 24:42, 45-51.13
(2) Others
view the parable as strictly a reworking and
expansion of the
Marcan passage.14 (3) Still others see
primarily the influence
of Matthew (even of his parable of the ten virgins)
and assign
the parable to Q.15 (4) Finally, some
consider the parable lit-
erarily independent of Mark's
and Matthew's traditions, noting
(as the chart above indicates) how little verbal parallelism
with
either of these Gospels it actually demonstrates.16
While the first three positions
together account for the views
of a sizable majority of commentators, not one of
them stands
out as clearly dominant. This fact alone reveals
that the various
types of parallelism perceived are not that obvious.
Position (4),
12 R. Bultmann,
The History of the Synoptic Tradition (
well, 1963) 118, 205.
13 E. Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzogerung in den synoptischen
Evangelien and in der Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: Topelmann, 1960)
85.
14 E.g. Jeremias, Parables,
53; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom
(London:
Nisbet, 1935) 161; C. E. Carlston,
The Parables of the Triple
Tradition (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975) 84.
15 E.g. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949)
115;
G.
Schneider, Parusiegleichnisse im Lukasevangelium (
Bibelwerk, 1975) 32; W. Schmithals,
Das Evangelium nach Lukas (
Theologischer Verlag, 1980) 147.
16 C. W. F. Smith, The Jesus of the Parables (
Press,
1975) 177; H. Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu
als Metaphern
(
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1978) 163;
(Hamburg:
Furche Verlag, 1956) 86; A.
R. C. Leaney, The Gospel accord-
ing to St. Luke (London: Black, 1958) 201;
nach Lukas (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1966) 264; E. E. Ellis,
The Gospel of Luke (London: Oliphants, 1974) 179;
Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1981) 116.
WHEN IS A PARALLEL
REALLY A PARALLEL? 85
moreover, commands substantial assent as well,
although not all
who adopt it make the additional move from literary
to historical
independence. The case for the
position is not watertight, but
additional comments below will reinforce it
further.17 For now
it seems fair to conclude, with I. H. Marshall,
that the Lucan
parable
has a more
positive character of promise. The two parables may reflect
one
original parable, handed down in the two separate traditions, but this
presupposes
considerable freedom on the part of the tradition and it is
perhaps
more likely that the tradition reflects different forms in which
Jesus conveyed the same basic
teaching.18
If
this conclusion is wrong, the next most likely explanation is
none of the three alternatives noted above. Rather
it is possible
that Mark and Luke have both drawn selectively from
a pre-
Synoptic
version of the eschatological discourse, longer than any
of the current Gospel versions. A thorough
analysis of this view
awaits the publication of David Wenham's forthcoming
mono-
graph, The
Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse.19
II. The Great Supper/Wedding Banquet
(Luke 14:16-24,
Matt 22:1-14)
Most scholars assign Luke's parable
of the great supper to Q
without hesitation. Yet no small number of commentators have
challenged this consensus, preferring to view the
parable not as
the product of an immediate written source which
Luke and
Matthew
shared, but either as one story passed along in variant
but chiefly independent traditions,20 or
as two separate similar
stories in which Jesus employed a common theme.21
17 See section V, last
paragraph.
18
537.
19 D. Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological
Discourse (Shef-
field: JSOT, forthcoming). Dr. Wenham has kindly
shared preliminary drafts
of several sections of his work with me.
20 Dodd, Parables, 121; Grundmann,
Lukas, 296; J. A. Findlay, Jesus and
His Parables (London: Epworth, 1950)
54;
(London:
SPCK, 1966) 166 n. 20; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas
(Regensburg:
Pustet, 1977) 422; D. H. van Daalen,
The Kingdom of God
Is like This (London: Epworth, 1976)
44.
21 Smith, Parables, 120; Kistemaker,
Parables, 100, 198
; R. W. Funk,
86
Once again the statistics favor this
last view. Only ten of over
150
words are identical in both texts, and of these ten
words only
two (apesteilen and agron) are not conjunctions, articles, or pro-
nouns. Noteworthy terms occurring in different forms
include
anthropos, poieo, kaleo,
doulos, hoi keklemenoi, orgizomai, and
poreuomai, but these scarcely
stand out in view of the great dif-
ferences which otherwise
distinguish Luke from Matthew — the
man vs. the king, the supper vs. the wedding
banquet, the absence
of the son, the additional invitations, the
reduction of servants,
the difference in excuses, the absence of
retributive warfare, the
introduction of the "poor,
maimed, blind, and lame," the addition
of the climax pronouncing judgment on the original
guests, and
the absence of the incident of the man without a
wedding garment.
Most commentators have explained
these differences by as-
suming that Matthew has
expanded and allegorized a parable
much like Luke's, in view of the destruction of
70,
and juxtaposed an originally separate parable about the man
without festal clothing. Luke, on the other
hand, has added the
second invitation to the outcasts, in light of the
extension of the
proclamation of the gospel to the
Gentiles. K. H. Rengstorf, how-
ever, has demonstrated that the Matthean
parable is quite real-
istic in light of earlier
historical incidents with which Jesus'
audiences would have been familiar.22
Compared with unques-
tioned examples of vaticinium ex eventu concerning
the destruc-
tion of
Language, Hermeneutic
and the Word of God
(
1966) 163; H. Palmer. "Just Married,
Cannot Come (Mt 22, Lk 14, Thos
44,
Dt 20)," NovT 18 (1976) 255; A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark,
1896) 395 n. 4;
(NICNT;
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950) 395 n. 4; L. Morris,
The Gospel according to
St. Luke
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 233;
E.
Galbiati, "Gli invitati al convito (Luca 14,
16-24)," BeO
7 (1965) 130.
22 K. H. Rengstorf, "Die Stadt der Morder (Matt. 22:7)," Judentum,
Urchristentum, Kirche (ed. W. Eltester;
23 See the well-balanced
remarks of J. A. T. Robinson (Redating the New
Testament [
evidence exists for this custom in Jesus' day
proves little, since neither is
there evidence that it had fallen into disuse, while both
pre- and post-NT
sources attest to its practice. Cf. further, W. Hendriksen, The Gospel of
Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1973) 797-98.
WHEN IS A PARALLEL
REALLY A PARALLEL? 87
Kistemaker, moreover, points out that Matt 22:1–14
forms a
unity. The enigma of the man just pulled off the
street and ex-
pected to have proper
banqueting attire is solved by recognizing
that the king would have provided the necessary
clothing, so that
the man's behavior reflects deliberate rejection of
the king's in-
vitation.24 Kenneth Bailey,
finally, emphasizes the precedent for
the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles both in
the OT and
elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus, so that the Lucan parable need
not reflect later redaction at this point.25
It seems likely, however,
that Jesus intended no allegorical reference here at
all. If the
servant's initial mission did not fill all the
places at his master's
table, it would have been natural to press the search
farther afield.
"Highways"
and "hedges" (Luke 14:23) are not known symbols
for Gentile territory in other Jewish literature,
and in the context
of the parable they remain entirely within Israel.26
In addition to the traditional
arguments for Matthew's redac-
tion of this parable, commentators
must now come to grips with
Robert
Gundry's massive new work on the first Gospel.27 It is
virtually impossible either to endorse or to
reject his analysis of
any individual passage without first evaluating the
methodology
supporting his overall study. The scopes of this
paper prevents
such a detailed critique; fortunately a few have
begun to appear.28
In nuce, Gundry argues that
virtually every word with which
Matthew
differs from Mark or Luke represents Matthew's own
creation or revision of his sources, which are
limited to Mark and
Q.
Thus even two parables as divergent as Luke's prodigal son
(Luke
15:11–32) and Matthew's two sons (Matt 21:28–32) be-
come attributed to one original.29 The
equation of the six pairs
24 Kistemaker, Parables, 104.
25 K. E. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1980) 101-8.
26 Cf. Smith, Parables, 123; Funk, Language, 183-86; Schmithals,
Lukas,
160.
27 R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and
Theo-
logical Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
28 See esp. D. A.