Luke 16, 19-31

« Older Newer »

Architeuthis

Posted on 26/9/2016, 15:54

New Entry

Group:: Moderatore globale

Posts:: 87

Reputation:: +8

Location:: Cremona

Status:

One of the most impressive stories of the Gospels is, in my opinion, the parable of the rich man in Luke 16: 19-31.
It gives a very vivid and terribly explicit account of the hereafter. It tells about hell, torments and such insurmountable "great chasm" that "has been fixed".
From a textual point of view can we consider it original or, as I hope, a later addition?

Thank you,
Archi.

Edited by Architeuthis - 27/9/2016, 07:43

Talità kum

Posted on 30/9/2016, 09:50

Celebrità

Group:: Administrator

Posts:: 2,341

Reputation:: +49

Status:

There's no clear consensus among scholars about parables' "authenticity". Their historicity (which doesn't mean "ipsissima verba", of course) has always been considered quite solid, however, this view has been challenged in more recent times.

A sheer example is the last volume of Meier (A Marginal Jew vol. 5 "Probing the Authenticity of the Parables"), where - applying his well-known criteria of authenticity - he's keen to attribute to historical Jesus "with fair certitude" only four parables: the Mustard Seed, the Evil Tenants, the Talents, and the Great Supper.

So I'm afraid that the parable of the rich man dropped off his golden list

However, even though I didn't read last Meier's book, let's not overlook these points:

1) The parable of rich man is Lucan special material (L), so it can hardly pass the criteria of multiple independent attestation. This is one of the potential drawbacks of adopting Meier's criteria, that are highly selective.

2) Those parables that can't pass the test of Meier's criteria are not necessaily unauthentic! Instead, Meier’s verdict regarding the historicity of many of the parables is *non liquet* (not clear one way or another).

3) Meier is a highly representative scholar, but he doesn't necessarily represent the only respectable scholars view. Most scholars are still keen to consider parables' historicity quite reliable

4) Whatever the case, Jesus did speak in parables and this represents one of the most remarkable features of this itinerant apocalyptic prophet.

Ciao,
Talità

Lorenzo M

Posted on 30/9/2016, 14:08

I personally don't remember I've ever read anything about the authenticity of this particular parable, thgouh once I got interested in its interpretation.
Together with that which has already been said by Talità - which I utterly endorse, please allow me to give you my consideration, although I'm sure they're not as important as Meier's or Talità's.
We ought to consider the following points about the content of the parable:
1) Singularity: the parable of Lk. 16:19-31 is never presented properly as a parable, whilst generally Jesus's parables are; furthermore, this is the only parable one of whose character is given a name (i. e., Lazarus). Some old tradition give even the rich man a name (Neve, or sometimes Dives, from latin divitiae), but most definitely they can't be traced back to the "original text" of Luke.
2) Anapocalipticity: while most of Jesus's parables about God's judgement are located in the Day of Judgement, and not in the hereafter, this parable depicts the judgement of God as occurring in the Underworld (Abraham's bosom and Hades), with no reference whatsoever to the Day of Resurrection. Hence, it seems quite unlikely that Jesus uttered this parable, as he generally mentions God's judgement as occurring in the Last Day. I'm not saying that there were not Jewish ideas about a future hereafter, where the dead would receive either a reward or a punishment; nor am I stating that Jesus surely did not believe (nor preach) in a hereafter: I'm just stating that generally it is not part of Jesus's ministry^[1].
On the other side, one could argue that two main concepts of the parable can be traced back to Jesus's ministry: the reversal of wealth and the judgement of God. It is a common Leitmotiv in Jesus's apocalyptic ministry, that the poor and the oppressed should receive a solace in the Day of Judgement; together with this, very often Jesus speaks about the coming judgement by God. However, these two themes are too "general", in my opinion, to be directly linked to Jesus.
So, maybe, if I were to express my opinion, I'd say that, being cautious, the parable is 33% probably true and 67% probably false.
This is my two cents.
Yes, we Kant.

--------------------
NOTES:
^[1] In fact, still nowadays evangelical Christians base their debates about the immortality of human souls mainly on this sole parable.

Edited by Lorenzo M - 30/9/2016, 18:58

2 replies since 26/9/2016, 15:54 103 views