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

exalted.” The shift of such an emphasis also occurs in section h), the call of the kingdom to
Israel and to outcasts. He comes to the conclusion that the so-called Jerusalem Document
plays a significant role in delineating blocks of material and determining their main themes,
which result in the considerable theological reflection of the author. 36
C.L. Blomberg first of all disagrees with Talbert’s contention that the chiastic structure in
the central section is the work of an editor, and he argues instead that Luke used not only a
chiastically structured parable source, independent of the other gospel strata, but also
preserved its sequence of material whilst embedding it into other sources. In other words,
Luke depends on a very early tradition that had a chiastic structure in order to preserve
accurate transmission. Along the same line, inspired by Bailey’s hypothesis, he makes up a
chiastic structure on the basis of ten paired parables: The Good Samaritan-The Pharisee and
The Tax-Collector (10:25-37 and 18:9-14); The Friend at Midnight-The Judge and The
Widow (11:5-8 and 18:1-8); The Rich Fool-The Rich Man and Lazarus (12:13-21 and 16:19-
31); The Barren Fig Tree-The Prodigal Son (13:6-9 and 15:11-32). Luke 14:7-24 then, forms
the core of a chiasmus of Jesus’ parables. His entire chiasmus in Luke’s central section is as
follows:
10:25-37 18:9-14 controversy (lawyer-10:25; self-righteous-18:9)
11:5-8 18:1-8 discipleship (disciples-11:1, 17:22; cf. 11:5, 18:1)
11:11-13 17:7-10 discipleship (disciples-11:1, 17:5; cf. 11:11, 17:7)
12:13-21 16:19-31 controversy (one of multitude-12:13; Pharisees-16:14)
12:25-38 16:1-13 discipleship (disciples-12:22, 16:1)
13:1-9 15:1-32 controversy (some present-13:1; Pharisees-15:2)
14:1-6 14:28-33 controversy (Pharisees-14:1; great multitudes-14:25)
14:7-24 controversy (Pharisees-14:1).
In the entire chiastic structure, it is very striking that each pair of parables has a particular
audience, such as disciples, opponents, and some of the crowd. His general view concerning
this chiasmus is that it serves as a mnemonic purpose rather than profound theological or
aesthetic purpose, since a parable document would not have been a narrative with
37
coherence.
Having considered the problem with a topical outline, F.Ó. Fegarghail views the travel
notices as a literary device providing a journey framework for the travel narrative, as starting
point for the Journey framework. He suggests the travel notices have a seven-part
36. Bailey, Poet and Peasant. A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, 79-85.
37. Blomberg, “Midrash, Chiasmus, and The Outline of Luke’s Central Section,” 240-48.
219