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

number of cycles of the Writings (the work of the Chronicler, the Wisdom of ben-Sira, a
series of shorter books to form a cycle beginning with Daniel and end with Proverbs). The
Lukan travel narrative, he contends, generally follows the Torah cycle of Deuteronomy.
His set of parallels is as follows: 51
1. Dt 1:1-3:22 Lk 9:51-10:24 Sending forerunners
2. Dt 3:23-7:11 Lk 10:25-11:13 Summary of Law, including prayer
3. Dt 7:12-11:25 Lk 11:14-54 Stiffneckedness of Israel
4. Dt 11:26-16:17 Lk 12:1-13:9 Apostasy vs. prosperity
5. Dt 16:18-21:9 Lk 13:10-14:24 Rejection of God’s message, banquet/battle excuses
6. Dt 21:10-25:19 Lk 14:25-16:13 Same sequence of parallels as Evans
7. Dt 26:1-29:9 Lk 16:14-17:4 (Parallels break down)
8. Dt 29:10-30:20 Lk 17:20-18:14 Repentance or else wrath
9. Dt 31:1-30 Lk 18:15-43 The new generation
10. Dt 32:1-52 Lk 19:1-20:18 Threats of destruction
Goulder feels that the travel narrative is designed to prepare the Feast of Easter and the
baptismal ceremony as a long catechetical instruction. Furthermore, the Lukan central section
intends to teach the converts as well as to remind other Christians of the nature of their
vocation. But his set of parallels introduces very general themes which reappear regularly
throughout many parts of Scripture. Besides, many scholars pointed out that Goulder’s use of
midrash as narrative creation is inadequate, since merely quotation and allusion of the OT in
the NT do not automatically make them midrashic. The midrash as an interpretation of the
52
OT has solely comments, embellishments and applications. Even C.A. Evans argues that
“Luke has neither rewritten nor incorporated Deuteronomy. At most he has alluded to
portions of it, followed the order of its content, and selected dominical tradition that touches
on larger theological issues with which Deuteronomy and its interpreters were concerned.” 53
Being sufficiently aware of the weaknesses of the former approaches, D.P. Moessner tries
to solve the dissonance of form from content, not in the book of Deuteronomy as such, but in
two important Deuteronomistic patterns or motifs. For him the analogy to Deuteronomy
appears to be the best, since there is a great block of teaching in the form of a journey to the
51. This summary form of Goulder’s parallels is provided by Blomberg, see Blomberg, “Midrash, Chiasmus,
and The Outline of Luke’s Central Section,” 230. Cf. Denaux, “Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel
Narrative,” 300-301.
52. Kimball, Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel, 22-23.
53. C.A. Evans, “Luke 16:1-18 and the Deuteronomy Hypothesis,” in ed., C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders, Luke
and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 121-139,
here 123.
226