Failure and Prospect: Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19–31) in the Context of Luke–Acts

Abstract

This revised Ph.D. dissertation completed at St. Mary’s Twickenham under Steve Walton explores the parable of Lazarus and the rich man within the context of Luke–Acts by using a threefold methodology of narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and intertextuality. The thesis seeks to situate the multivalent messages of Lazarus and the rich man within the overall narrative themes of Luke–Acts and their possible rhetorical effect on Luke’s audience. The work succeeds in what it set out to accomplish, but the ambitious methodology yields repetitive results that echo familiar answers found in Lukan scholarship.Chapter 1 summarizes how Bredenhof’s ambitious approach seeks to contribute to scholarship surrounding Luke 16:19-31. Bredenhof summarizes the major themes of the parable—poverty and wealth, Moses and the Prophets—and explores the interactions between author, text, and audience. Bredenhof sets out how he will use narrative criticism to explore these chosen themes within the parable’s immediate narrative context, rhetorical criticism to examine Luke’s possible aims from the text’s rhetoric, and “dialogical intertextuality” to explore the possible intertexts of the parable. Chapter 2 employs narrative criticism to interpret the parable and summarizes various sides of the narrative positions taken by scholars. Bredenhof’s key findings consist in the audience’s reactions to the parable. Though most of this chapter has little new material, the excellent excurses exploring 12 different explanations for Lazarus’s name is thorough and helpful.Chapter 3 applies rhetorical criticism to Luke 16:19–31. Bredenhof argues that Luke probably had some training in rhetoric and expects his audience to be familiar with rhetorical devices. An intriguing conclusion in this section was that only prophets tell מְשָׁלִים to “[convey] a prophetic message from God to a particular audience” (p. 96). Therefore, Luke characterizes Jesus as a prophet-teller of this parable, which aligns with other prophetic characterizations in GLk (e.g., 4:24). The key conclusion here is Luke’s use of the parabolic form to persuade his audience to shift their wealth ethics toward Luke’s vision. Though not groundbreaking, Bredenhof provides a concise overview of rhetorical criticism applied to this parable.Chapter 4 explores the use of intertextuality in two key themes of the parable: using possessions for the impoverished and postmortem messengers. The former theme has been explored at length in Lukan scholarship, is somewhat reliant on older secondary sources, and would have benefited from nonelite primary evidence. On the latter theme, Bredenhof argues postmortem messengers are not needed because God has communicated through prophets and prohibited afterlife messengers in Deuteronomy. Thus, Abraham denies Dives’s request to send Lazarus to his brothers. While the postmortem visitations theme is well-researched and argued, I was not entirely convinced that the prohibition on afterlife messengers in Deuteronomy is an intertext. The chapter ends with a brief but helpful discussion of possible echoes of the two key themes in Acts.Chapter 5 is the most successful chapter of Bredenhof’s project. Bredenhof moves between the themes of Luke–Acts and the parable, showing how many of the themes found in Luke–Acts are encapsulated in the parable and demonstrating that Luke and Acts contain similar teachings on wealth and poverty. The open ending of the parable “affords a proleptic view” (p. 194) into Acts in which people respond positively or negatively to one risen from the dead. Bredenhof concludes that the teachings in Luke and the concrete examples in Acts align with the wealth ethics of generosity toward the poor found in the parable. Chapter 6 then summarizes and concludes the work with a few implications and suggestions for future research.Bredenhof’s use of three different literary methodologies to analyze one parable has benefits and drawbacks. The methodology presents a robust understanding of the parable but becomes repetitive by asking and answering similar questions in each chapter. A few sources would have improved sections this project, especially T. Morgan, Popular Morality, on how the rich and poor are viewed in Greco-Roman contexts, and M. Beth Dinkler, Silent Statements, and her additional works on narrative devices and rhetorical criticism. Material evidence such as papyri or inscriptions are entirely absent and would have provided context and evidence for possible reactions to the parable.This book will be useful for NT scholars interested in combining literary approaches, reading a narrative unit within the context of its corpus, or seeing clear examples of literary methodologies in action. Certainly, future researchers on Luke 16:19–31 will need to consult Bredenhof’s work.