What is a parable?

We were reading from Matthew 13:3-23 week before last:

 http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/Mat/Mat013.html#top

Now, we generally treat "parables" as fables: simple stories illustrating a religious or moral lesson. Bible "studies" frequently limit their depth of engagement with a parable to simply restating the "moral" of the story, in this case "If you have no spiritual depth you can't bear fruit" or something like that.

Bhuddism also uses short, simple stories as a teaching tool. They are called "koans" (http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/KoanStudy.html#Definitions, and some examples: http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/Koans-PYL.html#01).

What if Jesus' parables are themselves not so much *fables*, as *koans*? Remember, the Holy Land cultures are essentially *eastern* cultures. The east is notably less anal than the Roman-influenced west about issues of control, authority, and right-wrong duality. Could there be to the parables something more -- and subtler -- than the simplistic reading-out of them that Matthew reduces them to in vv19-23? According to my Oxford Study bible, vv19-23 is probably a late addition to the text and the work of the evangelist, and not at all the actual quoted words of Jesus.

After all, the disciples would have had to be dolts not to come up with the simplistic reduction Matthew proposes for themselves. *They* seemed to be looking for something deeper. We've seen in the last several months how much more we learn from struggling with the hard questions of our faith than we learn from "finding" the "answers". Now, can we play with this a bit? If the simple (obtuse) explaination is veiling Jesus' subtler intent in this parable, what glimpses of other meaning here can we share?

I can easily see the disciples (who, as I say, seemed a pretty doltish group) trying to deconstruct Jesus' words to find some esoteric meaning that would make them the "ones in the know" and everyone else the unenlightened.

Hmmm. I frequently impune the disciples' intellect, but I hadn't considered their *motivations* for doltishness...

You may very well be right. A recurring theme of the Gospels *is* Jesus' being expected to be something different than he was. And the greater part of his discourses is clear, concrete, and straightforward. The parables seem less so, especially the "the Kingdom of Heaven is like..." ones.

A fundamental difference between gnosticism and mysticism is the exclusivity you speak of. Another difference is the nature of the secret "knowledge". Gnosis is just that -- knowledge, a head-awareness of some secret set of facts or codes. Mysticism is more about communicating a non-verbal knowledge. Gnosis is *given* from the insider to the inductee. Mystic knowledge is discovered by the seeker herself, and the teacher can only point the way. Gnosis is closely guarded and the insiders try *not* to communicate it; mystic knowledge is subtle and elusive even though the teacher *strives* to communicate it.

Jesus may well have had a mystic subtext, without ever intending the secret-society mentality that Matthew suggests. Certainly *Bhudda's* message of enlightenment was inclusive and egalitarian, being directly counter to his native caste-system; so "mystic" teaching isn't inherently exclusive.

But here's part II of my Bible-Study-eviction-risking speculation: What if Jesus *didn't* turn the water in to wine? The Gospel *doesn't* say that he did! It says Mary said, the servants said, Jesus said, the servants did, the steward said. http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/Jhn/Jhn002.html (This is one of the few passages that reads unequivocally as a true eye-witness account, since it requires no inside knowledge on the part of the narrator). There is a Zen-like message in the steward of a great feast tasting the pure taste of clear water and proclaiming it to be better than wine. There is a message of simplicity and right-focus in the Lord saying, de-facto, "if you're out of wine, make do with what you have; it's the company that matters not the material goods that you're showing off with." Interesting too, the evangelist *doesn't* call this a miracle (although the translaters do); he calls it a "sign" -- which could mean an indicator of the kind of gospel Jesus was proclaiming. I see a consistency between *this* interpretation, and Jesus' much later famous (infamous) "Martha, Martha, you are busy with so many things..." speach. Pure random speculation, of course, and the sort of thing you definately don't float in front of a relatively conservative Bible Study group.