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

him a fool because he believed that he controls his own destiny: He is depending on his
possessions and sought to indulge in it. Such thinking has in the end prevented him from
preparing for his ultimate future. For the use of the third person plural in v. 20
there are several possibilities: the angel of death, the possessions, the man’s mistreated
neighbours, or a circumlocution for God. 19 It here is most likely a circumlocution for God.
The word is therefore commonly used to show that his soul was not his own, but in reality,
was on loan from God. In other words, his soul was on loan from God, and now the owner
wants the loan returned. At the very least what is clear is that his life was not his own. The
parable has quite an intriguing conclusion in that the rich man ends up with his goods in the
hands of others. In the end, things ended up beyond his control because of his death and the
goods remained in the hands of others. 20
The parable bears a likeness to the themes of wealth in Jewish writings and the writings
of Greco-Roman moralists, in that the parable shares attitudes toward wealth, the suddenness
of death and the moral view of possessions. In the light of this view, it is possible to
conjecture that Jesus, to some extent, was influenced by the wisdom tradition. There are
striking similarities especially between the parable and Sir 11:18-19:1 and En. 97:8-10. But
they differ at the key points: The wealth in Sirach is obtained through diligence and selfdenial,
and in 1 Enoch by unjust ways, whereas in the parable the land produced a good crop
not through self-labor and unjust ways. In spite of some similarities among them, there is no
direct dependence on Sir 11:18-19:1 and En. 97:8-10, because of the above essential
21
differences.
Despite the fact that there is the textual variant in v. 21 omitted by Codex Bezae (D), Old
Latin versions and the Gospel of Thomas, it is an undeniable fact that the parable includes
this verse, for external and internal evidence: P 45 , P 75 and the major uncials include the verse,
but also the verse is entirely fitting for Luke’s narrative and necessary for the explanation of
19. Marshall follows Grundmann which regards ‘they’ in v. 20 as the angel of death. Marshall, Luke, 524. The
rabbis equated the angel of death with Satan (b. B. Bat 16a). F. Stagg suggests that the third person plural
avpaitou/sin in 20 means the possessions of the rich fool. F. Stagg, “Luke’s Theological Use of Parables,”
RevExp 94 (1997), 215-29, here 224. Beavis views ‘they’ as the man’s mistreated neighbours, because of a
peasant uprising caused from the fact that the rich withheld grain and drove up market prices. M.A. Beavis,
“The Foolish Landowner (Luke 12:16b-20),” 65-66.
20. Ps. 49:10 and Sir. 11:20 share the same words: “when we look at the wise they die; fool and dolt perish
together and leave their wealth to others…,” (Ps. 49:10); “he does not know how long it will be before he must
die and leave his wealth others.” (Sir. 11:20).
21. W.E. Nickelsburg, “Riches, The Rich, and God’s Judgment in l Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel According to
Luke,” NTS 25 (1978), 324-44.
45