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

early Christians were divided, however, into two distinct and different groups in view of the
intense dispute of Christian identity, rather than into Christian and non-Christian. Secondly,
the mobility among the early Christians which he claims is not supported from the evidence
relevant to the period of the Evangelists during the first century and the early second century,
but it does rather show that there was constant contact between similar churches in restricted
areas. Thirdly, he argues that both Matthew and Luke might have written their own Gospels
only for their own local communities, since they knew that Mark had circulated broadly in
Christian communities. But his contention can equally lead to the opposite conclusion that
both Matthew and Luke might have thought that Mark was wrong at a number of significant
points. 96 For this reason, they may have changed, omitted from, expanded and added to
Mark’s text. Fourthly, Bauckham’s argument that the Gospel genre assumes a broad
readership on the basis of the evidence of the Greco-Roman biographers, encounters an
objection from the later Christian Gospel tradition: For example, the Christian Gnostic,
including Gospel of Thomas. 97 Many of them were made up for specific Christians as a very
limited readership. Fifthly, he holds that in the ancient world people communicated orally
with their neighbours and wrote texts for wider circulation. The evidence of ancient book
production does not provide such a clear distinction between written and oral
communication, 98 and certain groups in restricted areas were shown in the Christian Jewish
Gospels, such as the Qumran documents, Jewish Epistle of Aristeas and Joseph and Asenath,
and the Christian text the Teaching of Addai. 99 In addition, Bauckham’s argument continues
to be refuted by others, namely Adele Reinhartz and C.L. Blomberg, 100 although Bauckham
does have his supporters. 101
96. Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All
Christians,” 241-42.
97. Thomas Kazen argues that “extra-canonical gospels are also best understood as intended for a group of
churches with similar outlook,” in particular through Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Papyrus Egerton 2 and
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840. See Kazen, “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading
in the Light of Extra-Canonical Texts,” 561-78.
98. Loveday Alexander, “Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels,” in ed., Richard
Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audience (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1998), 71-105, here 100.
99. Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 27.
100. Adele Reinhartz, “Gospel Audiences: Variations on a Theme,” 134-52, and C.L. Blomberg, “The Gospels
for Specific Communities and All Christians,” 111-33, in ed., Edward W. Klink III, The Audience of the Gospels:
The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (New York: T & T Clark, 2010).
101. See Michael F. Bird, “Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Christians? The Non-Canonical Gospels and
Bauckham’s The Gospel for All Christians,” 27-48, and Justin Marc Smith, “About Friends, by Friends, for
Others: Author-Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-Roman Biographies,” 49-67, in ed., Edward W.
284