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

twenty-one times, and Luke 18:8 in particular) of in Luke’s Gospel, substantiate the
fact that the master in v. 8a is Jesus. 54 However, the possibilities within the parabolic
material, as Bailey’s contention, vanish, for the usages where refers to the master in
the parables (12:37, 42b; 14:23) are superior in numbers to that of Jesus in the parables
(12:42; 18:6). 55 Furthermore, there is quite an adequate reason for praising the steward for
his prudence, and such cases frequently occur in the Greco-Roman literature as the typical
picaresque works, in which a master had no choice but to commend his slave overcoming his
crisis and outsmarting his master by using his wits. 56 In the case that there is no clear
indicator that the “master” refers to someone other than the prior two examples in v. 3 and 5,
one should generally assume that the reference to the “master” afterwards refers to the same
person, since where shifts occur, there are clear indicators, as in 12:41. 57 Fabian E. Udoh
recently claims that in v. 8a “the lord’s (master’s) praise has been overlaid with the Lord’s
(Jesus) praise,” 58 showing three instances (Luke 12:42abc; 19:25ab; 18:6ab) in which the
householder speaks with Jesus’ voice. Here there exists “positive and productive use of
ambiguity” 59 , where at the same time many things are specified, or where the reader need not
choose between them. In this respect there is only one (L)lord in the narrative, whereby the
parable is indeed more meaningful. In so doing, Jesus can also urge the children of light to be
prudent in their generation without a transitional phrase to reintroduce his comments. 60
Udoh’s suggestion makes the parable more meaningful, but also at a literary level offers a
clue for a resolution of the vexing problem in v. 8a.
Most importantly, in connection with v. 8a, there remains the question about why the
master praises his steward. It is at least clear that what is praised concerns his actions in vv. 5-
7, and not his initial behaviour. Derrett contends that the master was praising the steward for
revealing a pietous reputation in eliminating the usurious amounts on the bill, in keeping with
Mosaic usury law. According to his view, the master’s own illegal activity over against the
54. Jeremias, Parables, 45.
55. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 103.
56. Beavis, “Ancient Slavery as An Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special
Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8),” JBL 111 (1992), 37-54; Via, The Parables: Their Literary and
Existential Dimension, 158-61; Scott, “A Master’s Praise,” 173-188.
57. Stein, Luke, 414, idem, Parables, 107; Du Plessis, “Philanthropy or Sarcasm?” 8.
58. Udoh, “An Unrighteous Slave (Luke 16:1-8[13]),” 335.
59. Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian
University Press, 1976), 47.
60. Udoh, “An Unrighteous Slave (Luke 16:1-8[13]),” 325-327. Although on account of the ambiguity
established, a tension arises in the narrative, there is no latent narrative confusion.
105