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

need to explain the main differences between them in order to be sufficiently convinced.
Even though D. Hill claims that the divergences in the accounts show the freedom of oral
tradition transmitted, it is not as reasonable as we might expect. 4 On the other hand, in the
Gospel of Thomas, the invited guests are merchants, and the parable that has four excuses
ends with a warning to the rich. Unlike the parable in Luke, the parable not only has an
extension of excuses, but also a change of theme. It is therefore difficult to view the version
of the Gospel of Thomas as the earlier one. Rather it is better to see that the parable reflects
portions of Luke. 5
6
Jeremias suggests that the parable is based on the story of the tax collector Bar Ma’yan.
Although the story is similar to the parable in that the invited guests refuse to come to a
banquet and the poor are brought in so that the food might not be wasted, the story is quite
different from the parable in its intentions. The Jewish story tries to explain how such an
immoral person as a tax-collector could have been received such a good burial. That is why
Bar Ma’yan has good deeds that he invited the poor to his banquet so as not to waste the food.
We don’t find such an intention in the parable, nor is the host in the parable a tax collector.
In contrast to this, Braun proposes that ancient symposia and symposiastic writings
7
provide the background for the parable. Symposia are, however, very different from the
banquet in the parable in several ways. Symposia were generally festive meals with a place
for philosophical discussion. Writings on symposia have long narratives and most people
present at the meal contribute to its writings. The banquet stories in the Gospels, in contrast to
symposia are brief and only Jesus gives an opinion. In this respect, I do not think that ancient
335; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 299, 310.
3. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 111; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1052; Hendrickx, The
Parables of Jesus, 131; Donahue, The Gospel in Parable, 93, 141; Ivor H. Jones, The Matthean Parables: A
Literary and Historical Commentary (NovTSup 80, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995),401; D. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.
WBC. Dallas: Word, 1993), 627; Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 129-30; Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus, 53.
4. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London: Oliphants, 1972), 301; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: Commentary
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 60.
5. J.D. McCaughey, “Two Synoptic Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” AusBR 8 (1960), 24-28; Robert M.
Grant and David N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City: Doubleday, 1960), 170; C.L.
Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of Jesus,” in ed., David Wenham, The Jesus Tradition
outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 177-205, here 187-89.
6. Jeremias, Parables, 178-80.
7. W. Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14, 136-44; “Symposium or Anti-Symposium? Reflections
on Luke 14:1-24,” TJT 8 (1992), 70-84; C.L. Blomberg, Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners (NSBT
19; Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2005), 86-96; E. Springs Steele, “Luke 11:37-54-A Modified Hellenistic
Symposium?” JBL 103 (1984), 379-94. Steele concludes that “in all three periscopes (Luke 7:36-50, 14:1-24
and 11:37-54) the Lukan redactor has created an appropriate setting for them based on the model of Hellenistic
symposia.”
55