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

parables, the soliloquies function in the place of the third characters. With respect to Dan
Via’s Structuralist studies under eight headings, Sellin makes his own actantial analysis
which falls into three categories and analyzes the sequences of these three types. 15 Finally, he
evaluates each of the eight categories of binary oppositions 16 in Via’s chart. There is,
however, more variety in Lukan parables as well as in his four original pure examples 17
than
Sellin recognizes. His ‘dramatic triangle’ is found even in parables outside Lukan parables.
J. Drury picks out the features of Lukan parables under the following heading: ‘Their
pattern’, ‘their humanity’, and ‘the allegorical elements’. First of all, for him, the most
striking feature of Lukan parables is that the crisis occurs in the middle, not at the end. In the
case of the Good Samaritan and the Friend at night, the crisis happens when the traveler is
left half dead at the roadside and he is rousing the neighbour at night. The Tower builder and
the King at War serve as an example of failure to appreciate the mid-term crisis, and by
contrast, the Unjust steward has become an example of success. In the prodigal son, it occurs
when he faces penury. The rich man is unaware of the crisis, but the Unjust Judge responds
better to the clamorous widow. The publican realizes his present need better than the
18
Pharisee. For Luke, Jesus is the central crisis of sacred history which places Jesus between
the Old Testament and the Church. Drury contends that Jesus is not, therefore, history’s end,
but its turning point. 19 For him the second feature of Lukan parables is their setting in the
world of human beings. 20
Mark deals with nature and Matthew enhances the human element.
Lukan parables, by contrast, are all human, using many more soliloquies than Mark and
15. Including Luke 10:30-35, 18:10-14, 16:19-31, 15:11-32, 7:41-43 and Matt 21:28-31, type I parables all have
double subjects and the two characters who form the double subject play roles opposite to what one’s initial
expectations would be. Including Matt 25:2-13, 25:14-30par., 22:1-10par., 20:1ff., 18:23-25 and Mark 12:1ff.,
type II parables are similar to type I and they progress more smoothly towards a climax because there is no such
a reversal of roles. Including Luke 12:16-21, 16:1-9, 18:1-8 and 15:11-24, type III parables portray only two
persons, but imply a third actant by means of monologue. Of the above three type, Type I and III are concerned
with Lukan parables in particular. Sellin, “Gleichnisstrukturen,” 94-104.
16. The eight standard types of binary oppositions are as follows: tragic vs. comic plot, episode pattern-actioncrisis-denouement
vs. crisis-response-denouement, subject receives object vs. subject does not receive object,
subject desires to possess object vs. subject desires to communicate object, causal vs. chronological connection
between events, subject unifies action vs. subject is only part of action, subject distinguished from vs. identified
with ordainer and subject and ordainer are inferior/superior vs. equal. Dan Via, “Parables and Example Story: A
Literary-Structuralist Approach,” Semeia 1 (1974), 105-133.
17. His four original pure examples are as follows: (Luke 7:41-43), (Luke 10:30-35), (Luke15:11-32) and
(16:19-31).
18. Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory, 112.
19. This feature is familiar to Conzelmann’s work on The Theology of St Luke, the mid-point of time. See H.
Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
20. Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory, 114.
8