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

Matthew. Particularly in this section, Drury is indebted to the above views of M.D. Goulder.
This is largely the result of the development of the historical pattern into a more conscious
emphasis on Jesus’ ministry as the “crucial-mid-term crisis.” 21 Finally, the feature of Lukan
parables he highlights is that Luke uses allegory less than the other two synoptics because of
his emphasis on historical allegory. 22 Although Luke does not need allegory as strongly as
the other two synoptics did, he likes using it within his historical realism. In the Good
Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, the major symbols connect with the historical narrative
beyond it. Samaritans and Samaria, and heretical brothers of orthodox Jerusalem Judaism
take up the gospel in Acts 8, and in Luke 17:12-19, the Samaritan leper has a foretaste of the
gospel. In the Prodigal Son, “the father stands for God, the older son is orthodox
unreconstructed Judaism, and the prodigal son who has put himself beyond the orthodox
Jewish pale by his fornicating and swineherding is typical of the sinners and Gentiles who
were welcome to Luke’s Church.” 23 All these features show development of the historical
pattern and they naturally expose Luke’s free creations to us. Furthermore, Drury argues that
the Q hypothesis is no longer necessary on the basis of the similarity between Lukan parables
and Q parables in the journey section. 24
The main point of his work, the ‘contextual readings
of the parables’, is evaluated to be the most persuasive and logical among works for the
argument of reading the parables in their gospel context.
T.L. Noel points out that the parables largely have not been examined within their gospel
contexts, nor from the vantage point of narrative criticism. He does this through his
investigation on ‘Current Trends in Parable Research’ under five headings: ‘Parables as
Literary Objects’, ‘Parables and Hermeneutics’, ‘Parables as Poetic Metaphor’, ‘Parables as
25
Language’, and ‘Toward a Contextual Reading of the Parables’. In view of the failure of
current trends in parables research, he proposes narrative criticism as a viable alternative. In
the connection between parable and context, Noel attempts to prove that there are obvious
21. Ibid., 115.
22. Ibid., 116.
23. Ibid., 117.
24. Ibid., 117-125.
25. Noel, ‘Parables in Context: Developing a Narrative-Critical Approach to Parables in Luke,’ 1-69. In contrast,
the research of the gospels in narrative criticism have already been progressed very well by works of several
scholars: Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); David Rhoads and Donald
Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982);
Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1. The Gospel according
to Luke, vol. 2. The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the
Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).
9