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

either pointing to the meaning of the parable through the sayings, or reinforcing the
significance of the sayings through the parable. In this setting, the story (13:1-5) also serves
not only to naturally introduce the parable with the theme of the need for repentance, but also
to understand the parable. Of course, the parable, as such, is enough to present the theme of
the need for repentance without its immediate context (13:1-5). However, the story (13:1-9)
as a unit makes the theme clear and strong. All that matters now is that the parable, as
commentators often have noted, fits its context very well. What is clear at the least is that
Luke wants the two passages to be read together.
Since Luke does not include the cursing incident (Mt 21:18-22 and Mk 11:12-14, 20-25)
in his Gospel, some theologians have suggested possibilities of a Lukan adaptation of Mt
11:12-14 that Luke turns the cursing incident into the parable. 6 There is, however, little
reason to see any direct link between the parable and both accounts for several reasons: While
the accounts of the cursing almost exclusively deals with the lack of fruit, the parable speaks
of the request for tolerance and additional time, as well as the lack of fruit. The reference to
the leaves of the fig tree is a vital factor in both accounts, but is not mentioned in the parable.
Furthermore, there is little verbal similarity other than the words in Luke 13:6. 7
Jeremias believes that Jesus used the story of Ahiqar, replacing the announcement of
8
judgment in Ahiqar with a call to repentance and adding the vinedresser to the parable.
Although the tree that represents a son of a father was planted ideally by a stream, the tree
bore no fruit. The tree requests a final opportunity to bear fruit, that is, to be transplanted to a
new location just as its owner is about to remove the tree. But the request is refused by its
owner in contrast to the parable. 9
The main difference between the parable and the story of
Ahiqar is that the request was not granted in the story of Ahiqar.
On the other hand, Hedrick judiciously compares the parable with Pistis Sophia, 621-23
and the Apocalypse of Peter, chapter 2, as ancient interpretations of the parable, in order to
search for which is the earliest version of the parable. He concludes that Pistis Sophia has
6. Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (2 vol.; JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 561-62;
Drury, Parables, 119. For further reading, see W.R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A
Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and its Relation to the
Cleansing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 1-38, 234-36.
7. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 89.
8. Jeremias, Parables, 170-71.
9. R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and
critical and explanatory notes to the several books (London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1963), 775; James
H. Charlesworthe (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepighrapha, vol. 2, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985),
480.
48