Take the parable of the good Samaritan, for example. Was Jesus saying that actually happened the way he told it? Or was it a story he made up to illustrate a point?
Let’s avoid any responses that essentially boil down to “everything in the Bible is made up”.
Is there any way to know at this late date? For that matter, do we even know that he even actually told those parables in the first place?
And no, that isn’t “everything in the Bible is made up”; I’m just pointing out that while he was probably real, the people who wrote about him weren’t actually there.
Just accept it in the context of the Gospels. Assume Jesus did exist, he had followers, and he did tell them the stories that are recorded in the Gospels.
Now, within that context, are the stories he told supposed to be literally true or just something made up for a purpose?
To use my example, when Jesus said the robbery victim got rescued by a Samaritan, did he say it was a Samaritan because he was making a point (the Samaritans practiced a religion that most Judeans regarded as heretical) or did he say it was a Samaritan because that’s the way it really happened. If it had been an Egyptian instead, then Jesus would have just told us the Parable of the Good Egyptian.
At least one – Lazarus and Dives – was almost certainly meant to be figurative, not literal.
The parable of the budding fig tree is also an obvious metaphor. If it was meant to be literal, it would suggest a kind of fortune-telling or divination: we can tell the future by studying the leaves of trees! Pretty obviously not what was intended!
In Roman Catholic teaching, the parables are not thought to represent actual events.
…If we are assuming all those things, then isn’t the answer to your question just going to be a product of those assumptions?
By definition, a parable is not literal. It is a synonym for an analogy. We’d need to see when they were first called “parables” or some translation of that word.
Made up, I should think. Except that some might be veiled references to real-life events not safe to mention explicitly. E.g., Luke 19:12: “He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” Why would he go to a far country to receive a kingdom? Perhaps because he was Herod Archelaus and had to plead his case before Augustus Caesar.
Given that in the Gospels, most of them are introduced as “parables,” using a word that comes from a root word meaning “comparison” that, itself, had a meanng similar to “metaphor” and “analogy,” it is pretty clear that they were included in the Gospels as small tales of fictioon beairing a moral with no claim to being recitations of fact.
The story about Lazarus and Dives was a true story, not a parable. Parables never contain proper names.
Well, leaving aside the fact that “Dives” is not a name. (It it simply the Latin word for a rich man that was borrowed from the Vulgate when the bible was translated to English and is not a name that appears in the story in Luke.) What is the basis for making the odd claim that parables never contain proper names?
Where is that rule laid out? Are there other parables from the same time period in either Aramaic or Greek that follow that rule? It is not as though we have enough examples of parables to know all the rules that apply to them.
I actually read exactly that in one of Jack Chick’s comics once (based on, Jesus did not say it was a parable).
Given the regularity of error in Chick Tracts, I would not place much credence in that sort of assertion. (I am not surprised, of course.)
I wouldn’t cite Chick as a definitive authority but he does show that some Christians believe parables are literally true.
What if we just assume that Chick is right?
What colour tunic would the Samaritan be likely to wear?
If I recall rightly, Jesus said he talked in parables so there were some he didn’t want to understand and be saved! So it does sound like they may not have been actual storys, but could be based on some happenings.
I recall reading a quote some years ago from some priest complaining about that kind of literalism; how he’d use the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the lesson people would draw from it was “Samaritans were nice people”.
I’m been long amused by that take-away. The point was that this guy is a GOOD Samaritan. Not like all those other Samaritans who keep lowering property values, making the whole neighbourhood smell funny with their cooking, dress oddly, and mind you I know a lot of them are really fine folks but I get nervous when I have to pass a group of them on the street.
I think Asimov had an essay on Lost in Non-Translation, wher he pointed out that modern readers do not have the cultural prejudice against Samaritans that Yeshua’s audience shared.
Androcles and the Lion.