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

circulate. 3) The context of the Gospels is simply the late first-century Christian movement,
not its authors’ specific community. 4) His argument is in congruence with the way in which
the Gospels have always been read. 5) His position does not force us to underestimate the
diversity of the Gospels. The diversity of the Gospels reveals that they were not written for
specific Christian communities, but rather it merely presents the Evangelists’ distinctive
theological and christological views to their audiences who come into contact with their texts.
6) The consensus view derives from a misplaced desire for historical specificity. We must
read them as ‘open texts’ which “leave their meaning more open to their real readers’
participation in producing meaning,” 89 rather than ‘closed texts’ which “have a determinate
meaning that depends on knowing what the implied reader is supposed to know.” 90
In the same vein, Martin Hengel argues that the four Gospels are written for all churches,
not for one particular community. In his view, it is doubtful whether they ever came into
existence in only one community, since the missionaries of the early church travelled a lot,
and furthermore there could be authoritative teachers in different places. Accordingly, we
should stop talking about the communities of the Gospels “as the one really responsible for
91
the composition of a Gospel writing and its theology.” In addition, he adds to the fact that
the four Gospels differ from letters which were occasioned by a community. Even he casts
doubt on the term ‘Q community,’ namely, the community of the Logia source. 92
93
However, Bauckham’s hypothesis has encountered serious criticism. At this stage, I
will summarize the criticism of David C. Sim against Bauckham’s thesis. 94 First of all, his
contention as to the nature of the early Christian movement is problematic. His claim that the
Gospels were intended for Christians and not for non-Christians suggests that the Evangelists
of the Gospels classified the world into Christians and non-Christians. He also mentions “that
the early Christian movement had as strong sense of itself as a worldwide movement.” 95
The
89. Ibid., 48. See also Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader (London: Hutchinson, 1981), 8-10.
90. Ibid., 48.
91. Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection
and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, 106-115, especially 107.
92. Ibid., 107.
93. See Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for
All Christians,” 235-48; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27;
New York: Doubleday, 2000) 25-28; Du Plessis, “The Lukan Audience-Rediscovered? Some Reactions to
Bauckham’s Theory,” 243-261; Sim, “The Gospels for all Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,” 3-27;
Kazen, “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-Canonical
Texts,” 561-78.
94. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,” 9-21.
95. Bauckham, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” 33.
283