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

originally involves questions of tradition history. 49 In relation to the authenticity, he presents
and contradicts the invalid criteria of the authenticity of the Lukan parables such as the use of
allegory, one main point and generalizing conclusions. 50 He instead offers valid criteria that
attest the authenticity of the Lukan parables, as well as demonstrating the authenticity of the
Lukan parables. 51 After analysing the parables in the central section of Luke by tradition-
historical exegesis, he begins to conduct exploration source and redaction criticism. With
respect to redaction criticism, he concludes that although Luke either adapts his imagery to fit
a new audience or highlights to fit in with his theological purposes, he in no way altered his
sources so as to distort the original meanings of the parables as well as any theologically
significant details in them. 52 In order to isolate Lukan and pre-Lukan vocabulary Blomberg
employs the method of Gaston 53 with minor modifications in the sources’ criticism. 54 He, in
conclusion, suggests that Luke may have drawn on one or more written sources for his
unparalleled gospel matter. 55 He also, as Talbert 56 and Bailey 57 observe and propose,
analyses Luke’s central section and presents the chiastic structure. Taking all that into
consideration, he comes to the conclusion that Luke did not first create that structure but
found it in a source document, and concludes that the use of chiasm provides further evidence
that the parables are pre-Lukan. 58
Even though he analyses the Lukan parables in some detail,
he makes no attempt at a synthesis of the Lukan parables. Nevertheless, his work serves to
open our eyes to the parabolic tradition and the authenticity of the Lukan parables.
49. Ibid., 5-7.
50. Ibid., 117-125.
51. Valid criteria which he offers are as follows: inconsistency within the words of Jesus themselves,
inconsistency with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere, inconsistency with allegedly parallel material, inconsistency
between the parable and its Lucan context, and environmental contradiction. Blomberg, ‘The Tradition History
of the Parables Peculiar to Luke’s Central Section,’ 133.
52. Blomberg, ‘The Tradition History of the Parables Peculiar to Luke’s Central Section,’ 239-299.
53. Lloyd Gaston, Horae Synopticas Electronicae (Missoula: SBL, 1973). Presupposing Marcan priority, he
divides Luke into five sections to underline the vocabulary characteristic of Luke, as follows: the list of
vocabulary characteristic of the triple-tradition, the double-tradition material, his unparalleled material, Luke’s
differences from his triple-tradition material and his differences from double-tradition material, that is, Mk, Q, L,
Luke add and QLk. It is, therefore, only a matter of its relative importance in research before we employ the
statistical study of vocabulary to identify the characteristic of each of the gospels.
54. Blomberg, ‘The Tradition History of the Parables Peculiar to Luke’s Central Section,’ 318.
55. Ibid., 377, 341.
56. C.H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20, Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1974), 51-56; idem, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
Gospel (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1982), 11-113.
57. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, 79-85.
58. Blomberg, ‘The Tradition History of the Parables Peculiar to Luke’s Central Section,’ 343-394.
13