Abstract
Parables are apparently simple but deceptively enigmatic meshalim. A systematic analysis of a parable will thus not necessarily result in one “true” or “original” meaning, but a dialogic approach guided by the four “textures of texts” taxonomy enables interpreters to view texts more comprehensively and helps fill in some of the enthymematic gaps in Jesus' parables.
Not all questions can be answered through analyses of the four textures of a text, even in this apparently simple example story of the Rich Fool. The first-century social and cultural texture of this parable demands, though, that the rich man be seen as rapacious even before God condemns him. The rich man and others like him in Luke ignore Jesus' demand that life in the kingdom of God involves not only treasure in heaven but also vertical generalized reciprocity—a redistribution from the advantaged to the disadvantaged that expects nothing in return—in our lives on earth.
The essay concludes with reflections on a painting by Rembrandt, which may or may not represent the Rich Fool parable, a brief addendum that also sheds light on parables as dialogic, enthymematic works of art. In Rembrandt's paintings scholars wrestle with issues parallel to those explored by scholars of Jesus' parables, ranging from questions of provenance (e.g., did Rembrandt paint some of the paintings attributed to him?) to what these paintings are “intended” to represent.
Rembrandt's manipulation of light and shadow, in this instance, along with the man's seemingly introspective detachment, create a sense of mystery. The rays of light are reflected in various ways and sundry places, just as parables are reflected in different ways in different contexts and heard in numerous ways by various hearers. Both Jesus and Rembrandt illuminate some things clearly, while other aspects remain obscure, placed (deliberately) in the shadows.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.