the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

contends Derrect, is that it is an anachronism, being derived from other centuries and other
cultures, lacking evidence for the first century Judea. On the other hand, Fitzmyer contends
that the steward sacrifices his own commission. 40 Marshall also feels that the commission
theory is in line with v. 9, in as much as he is using his own money. 41 It seems absurd,
however, that the steward expects the debtors to welcome him into their homes, having taken
100 per cent commission from them. In addition, it is indeed odd that the steward’s large
commission would have appeared on the bill. 42 In view of the very large amounts of the
reductions as equivalent to about three years’ wages, it would be very strange for him to all of
a sudden experience a financial crisis. Taking all that into consideration, the most proper
reading is that the steward reduced the amounts of debts which were due to his master,
namely, he forged the actual amounts owed. 43
In what follows, I will deal with the cruces interpretum in the parable which include v.
44 45 46 47
7, v. 8a, v. 8b and v. 9. The suggestion that the parable ends with v. 7 is not
form of acknowledgement of debt, interest not being specified separately. Greek loans of money usually do state
the amount of interest. With regard to demotic and Greek loans in kind the debtor used, particularly in the time
of the Ptolemies, to pay a compensation of 50 per cent of the goods borrowed, as interest. This is a fixed amount
regardless of the duration of the loan. Derrett, “‘Take Thy Bond… and Write Fifty’ (Luke 16:6): The Nature of
the Bond,” JTS 23 (1972), 438-440, here 438, 440; Marshall, Luke, 614-16.
40. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1097-1101; Margaret D. Gibson, “On the Parable of the Unjust
Steward,” ExpTim 14 (1902-03), 334; Paul Gächter, “The Parable of the Dishonest Steward after Oriental
Conception,” CBQ 12 (1950), 121-31; Ellis, Luke, 200-201; Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom:
Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 140.
41. Marshall, Luke, 615.
42. Stein, Parables, 109.
43. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 86-100; Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension, 158-61;
Breech, Silence of Jesus, 108; Kloppenborg, “The Dishonoured Master,” 490; Porter, “Steward,” 131-32; Ireland,
Stewardship, 73-82; Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, 255; Scott, Hear Then the Parables, 263-65;
Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 158; Snodgrass,
Stories with Intent, 410-11.
44. Those who contend that the parable ends with v. 7 and all the rest is secondary addition are as follows: H.
Preisker, “Lukas 16:1-7,” TLZ 74 (1949), 85-92; Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 175-76; N.
Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London:SCM Press, 1967), 115; Crossan, In Parables, 109; Ellis,
Luke, 198-99; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Berlin, 1984), 318; Hunter, The
Parables Then and Now, 100-101; Jeremias, Parables, 45-46, 182; Leaney, The Gospel according to St. Luke,
223; D.E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day (Studies in the Bible and early Christianity 8;
Lewiston, N.Y. 1986), 150; Hans Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. Traditions-und
redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 262-64;
Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus, 160.
45. Those who argue that the parable ends with v. 8a and the rest is application include R.W. Funk, The Five
Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, ed., R. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and Jesus Seminar, (New
York: Macmillan, 1993), 358-59; Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 15:1-19:27), 67-68; W. Loader,
“Jesus and the Rogue in Luke 16:1-8a: The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” RB 96 (1989), 518-32; Combrink,
“A Social-Scientific Perspective on the parable of the ‘unjust’ steward (Lk 16:1-8a),” Neotestamentica 30 (1996),
102